Kuik Shiao-Yin’s questionable stance

Snip20170312_17.png

Footage of Kuik’s speech that recently made its rounds on social media.

Kuik Shiao-Yin, the PAP-appointed Nominated MP (NMP) who recently shot to fame with her ‘inspiring speech’ about income inequality in Singapore – but not before basing her position first on addressing the ‘global trust crisis’ where we see citizens of many democratic countries having more and more distrust over their government and their media.

In a later-teary speech, she dived lyrical – while reading from a script – on how many citizens – the working poor – do not have the ‘mental bandwidth’ to ‘deal with anything beyond everyday demands.’

But the CEO of “The Thought Collective”, or more accurately, the owner of the “School of Thought Learning Centre” tuition centre, far from being a dissident to the PAP regime – as what some might by now be led to think – told Asiaone earlier about what disturbs her: “the “groundswell of hate and deliberate blindness” online from those who show no interest in rational debate. “It’s an emotional thing now which comes down to I don’t care what you say, I don’t feel like I trust you.””

We cannot forget the way in which NMPs serve the PAP. Not to repeat word-for-word of what the PAP says, they are there to phrase the same rhetoric in a different way, using different words and proses, either to justify the PAP’s stance, or to ‘provide an acceptable, alternative view’ to give people the impression their voice is represented in Parliament, only to find that all is just air that does not even deal a blow to the regime but instead sing praises to it at the end.

Ultimately, it still builds up as LHL’s definition of ‘I don’t like yes-men’ and of ‘good criticism’ (refer below for full ‘definition’) no different from those also hollered by the hooligan likes of Lee Bee Wah and Louis Ng.

After all, Kuik herself, together with the other NMPs, are but shows of the regime, whose numbers have increased over the years to ‘deter Singaporeans from voting in more Opposition MPs into Parliament’, telling Singaporeans “You don’t need to vote Opposition, we have NMPs to voice opposing opinions.”

And as if ‘far-right’ NMPs like ‘kill the children of terrorists’ Calvin Cheng are not good-enough manifestations of PAP’s philosophies, now we have pseudo-liberal ones to wayang and hoodwink the population more effectively.

Now, let’s take a look at just one example in their track record.

kuik, contempt of court bill.png

Kuik, together with 2 other NMPs, had, as reported on Asiaone on Aug 13, 2016, submitted a petition on the proposed amendments to the Contempt of Court Bill, another piece of legislation to entrench the PAP’s power and further silence dissenting voices.

Lo and behold, 3 days later when Parliament was voting for the Bill, all 3 defected to the PAP side and voted ‘Yes’.

Would you trust these people to speak up for you?

PAP a fake-liberal, fake-conservative party

Snip20170312_13.png

Tharman claimed PAP is now ‘more left-of-centre’.

PAP really knows how to act liberal. If we are not careful, we would think the PAP is a liberal party while the Opposition are conservatives.

Be confused not. Just because NMP Kuik Shiao-Yin gave a ‘seemingly’ liberal speech in Parliament does not mean the PAP is liberal. In fact, it is far from it. Even Kuik’s speech is far from being liberal. It is just pseudo-liberal and actually PAP-supporting. And PAP is the most far right party the world has ever known.

The fact that we get confused could be due to one of two reasons: 1. The American ‘liberal’ movement itself is very confusing and flawed, take Hillary and the Democratic Party’s inability to associate with the middle class, its traditional stronghold for an eg. 2. Singaporeans have been so used to conservative PAP that even the slightest criticism sounds like liberalism to them.

I am not at all fascinated with Kuik’s ‘good speech’. And I am fascinated even some in the 30% camp are alluding to her. It is no wonder PAP managed to trick 70% of votes over to their side in GE2015. By pretending to be liberal, no less.

Just because Kuik said something liberal, does not make the PAP liberal. (Wayang does not count) Just because PAP is bringing in foreigners in droves, does not mean PAP is liberal. (We block ALL refugees) Just because Tharman says PAP is ‘centre-left’ or has ‘moved to the left’, does not mean it really is or really has.

I tell you what is liberal in Singapore – the WP and the SDP. But maybe they are also more conservative as they care more about our own people and our interests. PAP is a fake-liberal, fake-conservative, fake-centrist party that is actually, really, just a fascist party.

Albert Tay

Govt rejects WP’s suggestion to educate on vote secrecy – again!

leon, josephine.jpg

WP MP Leon Perera had asked before in Parliament for ballot secrecy – a critical subject especially in our political environment – to be taught in schools. His idea was rejected. Today, his idea got rejected again.

Our votes in elections are secret and can never be traced – no ifs, no buts.

So why does the government not want to expose new citizens to ballot secrecy education, as I suggested today in Parliament?

I have met many Singaporeans (old and new) who fear that their ballots can be traced and hence cast their votes out of fear.

As I shared in Parliament today, one new citizen I met told me that he would like to vote for the Workers’ Party but feared that he would lose his citizenship if he did.

There are around 20,000 new citizens joining the electorate every year. That’s the rough equivalent of one new Single Member Constituency each year and one new GRC every term of Parliament.

If many of them cast their votes out of fear, this will corrode our democratic society bit by bit. In time, our children and grand-children will grow up in what is effectively a non-democracy, where they cannot remove a failed government at the ballot box and would have to emigrate instead.

Last year, I asked in Parliament if the process behind ballot secrecy could be taught in schools. The answer was another no, on the grounds of “limited curriculum time” (how long does it take to teach this?).

Educating all Singaporeans (old and new) about ballot secrecy is critical. If the government does not act, I hope all of us who care about this issue can talk to our fellow citizens to ensure that no one buys into the urban legend about ballot tracing and casts their vote out of an irrational fear. What is at stake is the very survival of democracy in Singapore.

-as Leon posted on facebook

He Ting Ru, who shared Leon’s post, further added:

“While we do have limited time in schools, I believe we should make time to ensure that our children are taught the fundamentals about our country’s governance, which include our electoral process.”