Tuesday, May 31, 2016

Banana boy gets a taste of Reality


Well, as much as we loath posting any news on Amos, we can't help ourselves but to comment on this.

It's about time Amos realized that the real world is a very different and harsh place from the Internet. And from the social media comments, it seems that his latest antic scuffle with reality has gained him very little sympathy.

In this latest publicity stunt incident, Amos was apparently "confronted" by someone whom had accused Amos of "taking his picture."

If you still have no idea what we are going on about, you can have a look at the Mothership's coverage of the incident.

Mothership: Amos Yee allegedly assaulted at Jurong Point, uploads shaky video on own YouTube channel
http://mothership.sg/2016/05/amos-yee-allegedly-assaulted-at-jurong-point-uploads-shaky-video-on-own-youtube-channel/

Mothership: Video: Amos Yee really manhandled at Jurong Point
http://mothership.sg/2016/05/video-amos-yee-really-manhandled-at-jurong-point/




Monday, May 30, 2016

Stupid is as Stupid does - Lidda also want to be MP?

Pic: Shut Down TRS


By Shut Down TRS FB page:
"Wake Up Kenneth Jeyaretnam TeamRp, WAKE UP! 
A third charge for making comments about the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew that were likely to cause distress to people who saw it was dropped by the prosecution. The charge was earlier stood down. 
Source: http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/court-deliver-verdict-today-teenage-blogger-amos-yees-case"

We are refraining from posting any news on Amos mainly because we think he is just thriving on all the attention that he attracts with his childish antics. That fella really has a screw or two lose in his head.

But this sort of statements from a Opposition Party leader - Wah Lao eh.. How can he say such unfounded words? which planet is KJ living on leh?

With opposition wannabes like KJ, it's no wonder the opposition have little credibility with the average voter.




Tuesday, May 24, 2016

One View of the Death Penalty - This Is why the Death Sentence Should Stay

May 24, 2016
by Benjamin Chiang

This article first appear at Five Stars & a Moon. 
http://www.fivestarsandamoon.com/death-sentence-stay/

Of course the death sentence is evil. In fact all punishment is evil.

It is with this evil that the law commands your obedience. The law is an authority and its authority sits in its ability to oblige or put you under an obligation to perform or refrain from doing something.

There is no other way. If the law cannot do this, it fails to be a law.

Lady Justice holds in her right hand a sword, not a cane. Justice is not there to give you a smack on the wrist and trust that you would not be a bad boy again. No, once convicted of a crime she delivers you a pain and that is the end of the matter. Iudicium finitum.

If you commit an offence, the law will inflict an evil upon you. The greater the seriousness of your offence, the greater the magnitude of the evil. Death is the ultimate evil that justice can inflict on you.

One might even criticise that it is hypocritical to profess to uphold rights to freedom, life, liberty and property and then selectively chose to make a punishment of imprisonment and fines whilst doing away with the death sentence. Or to create facilities extra-terrestrially and then do all these things (including torture) whilst espousing human rights.

You may say that it is wrong to put someone to death because it is irrevocable. But it is equally wrong to deprive someone of freedom (for any period of time), to inflict pain or to seize money and property from another – all these cost permanent loss. Some of this physical and mental anguish can be so devastating, convicts have been known to prefer death instead.

Deterrence, retribution and incapcitation are just some of the functions of punishment – it can be, but at the same time it doesn’t have to be. It is not about “an eye for an eye”, the law could have no care about your eye or if anyone goes blind. It is not concerned with your opinion about fairness – the concept of fairness is empty and subjective.

Punishment, as far as justice is concerned, has to be proportionate to the criminal neck it seeks to grip. If it were not proportionate, it would do great injustice to the rest of the citizenry.

And the most unjust of all; punishment if not proportionate would do great insult to the victim.

Article source: Five Stars & a Moon




Kristen Han attempts to turn Black into White

If you don't already know, there was an uproar over what activist/freelance reporter/zo-bo Kristen Han posted over the execution of convicted murderer Kho Jabing.

Here's what she wrote on FB in full.



So, it would seem that the anti-death penalty proponent Kristen Han would rather focus on the perpetrator of the crime, and pay no heed nor attention to the crime's victims; in this case, a Chinese national Cao Ruying who came to Singapore to work as a construction worker.

As one netizen puts it, “If Kirsten wants to make the murderer the victim and martyr and the victim anonymous, I have very serious doubts about her own personal values."

I wonder if Kristen has lost all common sense and decency.


Anyway here are some reactions. (For even better reactions, go see her FB post or simply read the MalayMail online article on her.)


"I would like to know how Jabing died in my name. Did I ask him to bash a poor innocent defenceless man to death? How about some photos of the poor guy who died in no one's name so that we can see the photos and know his face? But perhaps because he died in no one's name, so we don't need to bother with him? Such is the value of the life of an innocent man to an activist."




"According to Kirsten Han, he died in all our names. If you agree with Kirsten Han, then it's time you show your gratitude to Kho Jabing. But would you? And how did Jabing die in our names? Did we play any part in his crime?"




Pic: FLOP
"Just wondering. Since these “human rights activists” are so against death penalty, what do they suggest then? Mercy for Sarawakian Kho Jabing who killed a Chinese construction worker with a tree branch during a robbery attempt? Why only fight for him? Singaporeans who faced death penalty have no value because no international coverage?"



And what was Kristen's reactions to all the posts that slammed her?


Pic: Singapore Matters FB    Just how much is the value of victim Cao Ruying's life to human rights activist Kirsten Han? Not every much if her responses to comments are an indication: no obligation to write a more 'balanced' tribute   /     I don't apologize (for an unbalanced tribute) for it    /    I am just one person and not omniscient.   /     ...if you feel that not enough attention or support is given to victims and their families, please take action and help them however you can. http://bit.ly/1Tnp9mR



Background Information:

SingaporeLaw.Sg (Court Judgements)

[2016] SGCA 21 - Kho Jabing v Public Prosecutor (Decision Date: 05 April 2016)
http://www.singaporelaw.sg/sglaw/laws-of-singapore/case-law/free-law/court-of-appeal-judgments/18409-kho-jabing-v-public-prosecutor


[2015] SGCA 1 - Public Prosecutor v Kho Jabing (Decision Date: 14 January 2015)
http://www.singaporelaw.sg/sglaw/laws-of-singapore/case-law/free-law/court-of-appeal-judgments/15869-public-prosecutor-v-kho-jabing-2015-sgca-1


[2013] SGHC 251 - Public Prosecutor v Kho Jabing (Decision Date: 18 November 2013)
http://www.singaporelaw.sg/sglaw/laws-of-singapore/case-law/free-law/high-court-judgments/15426-public-prosecutor-v-kho-jabing-2013-sghc-251


[2011] SGCA 24 - Kho Jabing and another v Public Prosecutor (Decision Date: 24 May 2011)
http://www.singaporelaw.sg/sglaw/laws-of-singapore/case-law/free-law/court-of-appeal-judgments/14573-kho-jabing-and-another-v-public-prosecutor-2011-sgca-24


MalayMail Online - Activist roasted on Facebook for slamming Kho Jabing’s execution
http://m.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/activist-roasted-on-facebook-for-slamming-kho-jabings-execution#sthash.AvxE9r4B.dpuf


Singapore Law Watch - Convicted murderer Jabing Kho executed after bids to escape gallows fail
http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/slw/headlinesnews/82375-convicted-murderer-jabing-kho-executed-after-bids-to-escape-gallows-fail.html#sthash.i0ga7iGu.dpuf


TODAY - Kho Jabing hanged after bid to defer execution fails, lawyers receive ticking-off from court
http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/kho-jabing-hanged-after-bid-defer-execution-fails-lawyers-receive-ticking-court


The Middle Ground - Why Jabing Kho must rightly die
http://themiddleground.sg/2016/05/22/jabing-kho-must-rightly-die/


happieb.com - Ms Han, please don’t romanticize or glorify Kho Jabing’s life
http://happiebb.com/blog/2016/05/22/ms-han-dont-romanticize-or-glorify-kho-jabings-life/

AsiaOne - Malaysian killer given 11th-hour stay of execution
http://news.asiaone.com/news/crime/malaysian-killer-given-11th-hour-stay-execution





Monday, May 16, 2016

SDP & Chee Soon Juan attempts to reshape reality






By Singapore Matters FB page

Another reason why you cannot trust SDP.

Misuse of data from Blackbox on the Bukit Batok by-election and giving a whole new interpretation to the data.

Purpose? Just to make CSJ look better than Murali.

Blackbox data:

Telephone Poll: 64.4% PAP voters/leaned towards PAP 35.6% SDP voters/leaned towards SDP

Murali had a 74% positive rating (yoursdp.org doesn't mention this) while Dr Chee had a 53% rating.

Of the 64.4% of PAP voters/leaners:
29% cited 'better candidate' as reason.
This translates to 18.6% of all people polled.

Of the 35.6% of SDP voters/leaners:
33% cited 'better candidate' as reason.
This translates to 11.7% of all people polled.

It is quite obvious from the Blackbox data that Murali was overall the better candidate. 


Blackbox Research Report 

Read the original Report and judge for yourself. (Backup PDF download)




See more dubious shit things that Chee Soon Juan and SDP doesn't want voters to know



Chee Soon Juan thinks that By-Election still ongoing and holds last minute Press-Conference



Hmm... I'm not sure what's going on in Chee Soon Juan's head. The pic above is simply my speculation.

But if he hasn't realised, the Bukit Batok By-Elections has already finished, and he lost despite having the most favourable conditions for an opposition party to win the BE.

Perhaps he's in self-denial.

In any case, SDP / Chee called for a Press-Conference at 4pm on 14 May. And apparently they only sent the e-invite out at around 1.24am on the same day.

Damn weird right? I mean.. By-Elections are over for almost a week plus already. Chee 'conceded' defeat. So what other big news could SDP have to announce? Chee Soon Juan's resignation as Gen-Sec of SDP? hahahaha...

Anyway, it turns out to be that Chee Soon Juan wants to re-write history  shoot down  deny what Lina Chiam had previously posted during the BE period.




Strange right? BE was concluded on 7 May.

If you felt that Lina Chiam's remarks were unfair or incorrect, should this have been best addressed BEFORE the BE was over?  Why did SDP / Chee wait until 14 May to have a Press-conference to clarify this matter?

In any case, Lina Chiam responded to SDP's press-conference.



You can read these two blogs which have excellent writeups of the molehill what happened over the weekend.


It's clear that this won't be the last we hear of the matter. More fireworks will be seen when Mr Chiam See Tong's latest biography is released.



Background reading:

Chiam spoke to the press at length about the reasons for his resignation. 
He revealed that some of the party leaders were not credible, whilst others were motivated by self-interest. 
In particular, he commented on one of the members, Mr. Wong Hong Toy’s criminal record and Dr. Chee’s dismissal from NUS for misappropriation of research funds. 
He spoke of how Mr. Ling and Mr. Cheo Chai Chen (who were then party Members of Parliament for Bukit Gombak and Nee Soon Central), were running town councils like their own “little kingdoms”.




In making the SDP’s case for more health subsidies to a Parliamentary Select Committee in 1996, he had relied on figures about healthcare spending which showed that it had come down from 40 per cent in 1970 to just 5 per cent in 1990. He had to concede that there was an error. Somehow a ‘2’ had been dropped from 25 per cent. He said it was a “typo”. The question then was whether it was a genuine mistake or done maliciously to make the G look bad. The committee, rightly or wrongly, decided that he made up the figure and he was fined $25,000 for Contempt of Parliament.


Nonetheless, I cannot say the same for Dr Chee who became the lone voice of the 4 SDP representatives there. My observation of Dr Chee was that he twisted his answers. He often deviated from the matters discussed, blamed others. He was dishonest in his answers and he did not observe the Select Committee proceedings. He often condemned the panel members. In short, he appeared to be playing politics through his answers. His conduct made it necessary for the Chairman of the Select Committee, Mr Tan Soo Khoon, to warn him on several occasions.' 







See more dubious shit things that Chee Soon Juan and SDP doesn't want voters to know



Fight against corruption: Singapore's experience


In an essay for an anthology compiled for the inaugural Anti-Corruption Summit held in London this week, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong identifies four factors key to the Republic's share of success on this score.

Lee Hsien Loong
Published May 14, 2016, 5:00 am SGT

Corruption is a scourge that can never be tolerated. Countries have tried all ways to combat it. They create anti-corruption agencies. They pass strong laws. They promulgate codes of conduct for public officials. Companies pledge to conduct business cleanly. Yet often corruption remains endemic, a cancer in the society. How then has Singapore achieved some measure of success in eradicating corruption? I put it down to four factors.

First, we inherited a clean and working system from the British colonial government. We had many compelling reasons to want to end colonial rule and to be masters of our own destiny. But to their credit, the British left Singapore with a working system and sound institutions - English laws, a working civil service, and an efficient and honest judiciary. Importantly, the Colonial Service officers upheld high standards. People like Sir William Goode, our last governor and first head of state, had a sense of duty and stewardship. After Singapore, Goode served as Governor of North Borneo, now the state of Sabah in Malaysia. He left an impression in North Borneo, as in Singapore. Even a generation later, the people of Sabah still remembered him fondly.

Second, when the British left, our pioneer leaders were determined to keep the system clean. The People's Action Party (PAP) first came to power in 1959, when Singapore attained self-government. However, it was by no means a no-brainer for the PAP to fight to win the 1959 General Election.

The country faced a myriad of problems: poverty, poor public health, an acute housing shortage, a stagnant economy and an exploding population. Did the PAP want to inherit these overwhelming problems? Why not become a strong opposition party and let another party govern and fail?

In the end, what decided the issue for Mr Lee Kuan Yew, our founding Prime Minister, and his team was the overriding need to prevent the public service from going corrupt. One term of an incompetent, corrupt government and Humpty Dumpty could never be put together again. So the PAP fought to win and formed the Government. When they took their oath of office, Mr Lee and his PAP colleagues wore white shirts and white trousers. It symbolised their determination to keep the Government clean and incorruptible. That has set the tone for Singapore ever since.

Third, with strong political will, we institutionalised a robust, comprehensive anti-corruption framework that spans laws, enforcement, the public service and public outreach. We enacted the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA), which puts the burden of proof on the accused to show that he acquired his wealth legally. Any unexplained wealth disproportionate to known sources of income is presumed to be from graft and can be confiscated.

The PCA provides for extra-territorial jurisdiction, so that the actions of Singaporean citizens overseas are treated the same as actions committed in Singapore, regardless of whether such corrupt acts have consequences for Singapore.

Our anti-corruption agency, the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB), is well resourced and independent. It is empowered to investigate any person, even police officers and ministers, and conducts public outreach to raise public awareness and shape social norms. We pay public servants fair and realistic wages benchmarked to private sector earnings and, in return, demand the highest standards of integrity and performance.

Fourth, we have over time developed a society and culture that eschews corruption. Singaporeans expect and demand a clean system. They do not condone giving or accepting "social lubricants" to get things done. They readily report corrupt practices when they encounter them. Singaporeans trust that the law applies to all and that the Government will enforce the laws without fear or favour, even when it may be awkward or embarrassing. Businesses have confidence that, in Singapore, rules are transparent and fairly applied. The story is told of a businessman who visited Singapore from an Asian country used to different operating norms. He left puzzled and disturbed that he could not discover the going rate for bribes to officers at different levels of government. He concluded wrongly that the prices must be very high.

Singapore has achieved some success eradicating corruption, but we are under no illusions that we have permanently and completely solved the problem. Corruption is driven by human nature and greed. However strict the rules and tight the system, some individuals will sometimes still be tempted to transgress. When they do, we make sure they are caught and severely dealt with. Two years ago, we charged an assistant director from the CPIB itself with misappropriating $1.7 million.

We keep our system clean not just for ourselves, but also to uphold our international reputation. Thus we deal strictly also with those who use financial institutions in Singapore to launder money or transact ill-gotten gains from corruption. We are zealous in protecting the integrity of our financial centre and business hub.

There is a Chinese proverb: "If the top beam is askew, the bottom beams will be crooked." Keeping a system clean must start at the very top. A Singapore Armed Forces officer, on a course overseas, was once asked by his classmate how Singapore kept its system clean. He explained our arrangements and the central role of the CPIB. His classmate asked a follow-up question: But to whom does the CPIB report? The Singaporean ingenuously replied that the CPIB reported directly to the prime minister. This elicited further puzzlement. Much later, the Singaporean understood why. The real question he was being asked was, who guards the guardian?

There is no formula to solve this ancient riddle, but we are determined to uphold the highest standards of integrity from the top level of the Government down. In 1996, rumours spread that Mr Lee and I had received improper discounts on property purchases. The then Prime Minister, Mr Goh Chok Tong, ordered a full investigation, which found that there had been nothing improper. He brought the issue to Parliament, which held a full debate lasting three days.

Both Mr Lee and I spoke. In his statement, Mr Lee said, "I take pride and satisfaction that the question of my two purchases and those of the Deputy Prime Minister, my son, has been subjected to, and not exempted from, scrutiny... It is most important that Singapore remains a place where no one is above scrutiny, that any question of integrity of a minister, however senior, that he has gained benefits either through influence or corrupt practices, be investigated."

Trust is slow to build, but fast to lose. We have spent more than 50 years building up confidence in Singapore. The integrity of the Government, the system and the men and women in charge has been key to Singapore's success. We are determined that that integrity and reputation must never be undermined and will long remain a competitive edge and a source of pride for Singapore.



Wednesday, May 11, 2016

Face it, it is another Crushing Defeat (for Chee Soon Juan)


Some extracts from the RoTSN article:

"... I am using GE and PE’s figures as comparison as the two events were roughly 9 months apart. Chee did manage to get another 12%, and close to 10,000 residents voted for him. 
General Election 2015: 26.4% for Sadasivan Veriyah
By-Election 2015: 38.79% for Chee Soon Juan 
To me, this is considered a defeat; and a major one. Why? ..."


"... Can SDP win as long as Chee Soon Juan is party leader? 
If you have not realised it, SDP has not won any elections since Chee became the leader. 
The point on machine politics (mentioned in the previous post), their egomaniac leader is the issue. ..."


"... Personally, it is sad to see Chee making excuses for his defeat. 
The tides are in his favor and with a fantastic social media team supporting him; you blame it on the state controlling the media? 
How about being gracious in defeat and admit that politics is not your cup of tea. You have performed poorly : (      ..."




=========================

Bukit Batok Single-Member Constituency (SMC) By-Elections 2016 Results (7 May 2016)
A total of 24,192 votes were cast, which made up 94.03 per cent of the voter pool.
  • Murali Pillai (PAP) - 61.2%
  • Chee Soon Juan (SDP) - 38.8%
=========================

See more dubious shit things that Chee Soon Juan and SDP doesn't want voters to know


SDP Supporter ASS - makes an ass of themselves

Via Singapore Matters

It's hard to know how much of what you read from SDP is true and how much of it is fake.

Like this one.

Mothership reported in September 2015 during GE2015 that a voter gave CSJ $100 for ice-cream and a vote of confidence.

That same note made its re-appearance in the by-election this year as an expression of suppport for CSJ in Bukit Batok.

Old news recycled as new. Makes you wonder if the note and the $100 donation is also a fabrication of SDP.



By FAP
Singapore Democratic Party (SDP)'s supporters are good with online publicity stunt, I give you that. But paper cannot cover up fire. What's faked will remain fake. A Cheapskate publicity stunt of trickery.

But $100 is too little. Chee Soon Juan 徐顺全 wanted Ji Pak Ban. $1 Million. To think that Chee would take this $100 to buy haagen dazs ice cream while this "supporter's baby" would go without milk is just disgusting.

very re-LIAR-able gutter politics.

Monday, May 9, 2016

Why Chee Soon Juan better Balek Kampung and retire lah!




Bukit Batok Single-Member Constituency (SMC) By-Elections 2016 Results (7 May 2016)

A total of 24,192 votes were cast, which made up 94.03 per cent of the voter pool.

  • Murali Pillai (PAP) - 61.2%
  • Chee Soon Juan (SDP) - 38.8%


And SDP supporters are now boasting online that despite the loss, it was Chee Soon Juan's best ever election result.

Yeah.. but bear in mind - that may be CHEE's own PERSONAL best result.

But are we forgetting that Linda Chiam had 49.64% of the votes in GE 2011 for Potong Pasir SMC?

And how about the 2012 By-Election for Hougang East? Png Eng Huat (WP) managed to retain the seat for WP with a 62.08% share of the votes against PAP.

Or how about how PAP lost Punggol East SMC to Lee Li Lian (WP) in the 2013 By-Election?
(WP - 54.5%, PAP - 43.7%, RF - 1.2%, SDA - 0.6%)

So when we compare Chee's results with other By-Election results - his peformance of 38.8% actually doesn't sound so hot now huh.



Lina Chiam (Lina Loh), who is better known in Singapore as the wife of Chiam See Tong, filled in the SPP slot in Potong Pasir SMC and contested against the People's Action Party's Sitoh Yih Pin for the Potong Pasir Member of Parliament (MP) position. 

Lina Chiam campaigned hard to win the vote of Potong Pasir residents. It was the closest fight of the 2011 election with Lina Chiam losing only by mere 114 votes getting 49.64% of the votes.

However, by virtue of being the best loser in an election whereby less than 9 non-ruling party MPs were elected, she qualified to make it to the 12th Parliament of Singapore as an NCMP. Lina Chiam took up the NCMP appointment on 12 May 2011.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lina_Loh


The Bukit Batok By-Election had all of the favourable conditions possible for an opposition party to win.

(1) By-Election Effect favors the Opposition
There is no fear to "changing the govt". PAP remains the ruling party regardless of the outcome. So voters actually can elect an Opposition candidate without much reservations.

(2) Fade-out of the SG50 Celebrations and LKY's passing
The often-used excuse by the opposition for their heavy losses in GE 2015.  Now almost 1 year later. Is it realistic to say that these are still a factor?

(3) Unfettered Use of Social Media and the Internet
SDP supporters and Chee often complain that the main-steam media does not cover him enough. Or that the reports are biased against him.

But is that fair?  How is the media biased? Were there any false assertions about Chee printed? If so, why doesn't Chee sue them for defamation?

Besides, take a look at SDP's online presence. Has he been prevented from making himself hear online?

(4) "Not a Fresh" face to voters
Chee is not some unknown face to Singaporeans. In some quarters, Chee has an almost rock-star like status. In GE 2015, SDP/ Chee's rallies pulled in one of the largest crowds. And most importantly, Chee spoke at these rallies without any hinderance or restrictions.

On the other hand, PAP's Murali is relatively less well-known, and he had to spend time and effort to get voters familiar with him.

Yet, even with all these inherent advantages - Chee lost.

And what is Chee Soon Juan's main explanation for the loss?



From the Mothership report:
Chee took aim at Shin Min Daily News for “asking the same questions about 20 years ago about ex NCMP Lina Chiam” because “I give these interviews on good faith that you’ll come up with a fair report.”
Chee added, “What is the motivation of wanting to dredge up things up 20 years ago?” In other words, a “fair report” here means not digging into somebody’s past.
In his Chinese remarks, Chee upped the ante by blaming the media for creating an unfair field for the SDP to fight in.
“If the media didn’t use such methods to attack us, I think we would have a very good chance…If it is a fair and democratic society, we would have a very good chance in entering parliament.” (Translated from Chinese)

Chee claimed, “The problem is that we have to fight not only our opposition, but also the media. I find this very disappointing.”
Read the full Mothership report on Chee's  reactions to the election loss here.


Notice that Chee Soon Juan DID NOT DENY or dispute what was reported about his past in the media.

Chee was simply very unhappy that the media brought it up and reminded the people of what had happened before. Chee blames the mass media for his election loss. 

In other words - Chee is in effect saying "If only the media didn't bring up all these about my past, I could have won."

Is there anything wrong about judging a person based on his past actions?

This is a fact of life.

Whether you are applying for a job or a scholarship. Whether you are considering to enter into a business partnership. Or perhaps you are looking for a lifelong companion.

Don't you try to get to know the person and their history so that you can make an evaluation about the person's character?

So what can we infer from Chee Soon Juan blaming the mass media for his election loss?

Chee Soon Juan doesn't believe that he was rejected by voters because:

  • of his questionable past, and therefore his questionable lack of integrity.
  • the majority of people saw through the many lies that he spews forth.
  • the "entire govt machinery" and "mass media" is against him. (And yet WP managed to win 6 seats in GE 2015.)
  • there are no free and fair elections in Singapore (And yet somehow, Chiam See Tong, the founder of SDP, could participate and win in Elections; become the longest serving Opposition MP (1984-2011) and led SDP to hold 3 seats in Parliament after GE 1991).




In the end, the Election results speak for themselves.

Even under the most favourable of election conditions for an opposition party to win, Chee had failed to convince voters.

Singaporeans have clearly rejected Chee Soon Juan and his brand of "politics" and "democracy".

And don't forget, Chee has been turned down by voters not once, not twice but FIVE times since 1992 - right after he chased Chiam See Tong out from SDP.

If SDP wants to remain relevant in Singapore politics, then its members must think hard about who should be their leader.




References:
Straits Times: Chee Soon Juan responds to Chan Chun Sing; says he's proud of 'different path' he chose

See more more dubious shit things that Chee Soon Juan and SDP doesn't want voters to know


Thursday, May 5, 2016

No ideas, No Originality. Simply Copy and stick on a new name.


When it comes to the plans that Chee Soon Juan has for Bukit Batok residents, he has no ideas of his own for BB's Neighbourhood Renewal Programs.

So he will simply copy what others have done.



Quote source: SDP Media Doorstop outside BB MRT Station, 28 April 2016


In fact, Chee Soon Juan and his party have very little originality in their ideas and proposals.

Just look at the substance of what they have proposed in this By-Election and compare their proposals to what the Government has already implemented in a much better manner.






By Singapore Matters
Chee Soon Juan has promised to make Bukit Batok the envy of Singapore. 
But other than demanding to see other people's plans (URA and HDB blueprints) and for Jurong-Clementi TC to continue implementing NRP for Bukit Batok even if PAP loses, he hasn't got a single specific plan to tell the residents of Bukit Batok what he would do to transform Bukit Batok into the envy of Singapore. 
And since he believes that residents of Bukit Batok should ask questions, and rightly so, 
..............here's the $15k question for Chee: 
Where are your blueprints to transform Bukit Batok into the envy of Singapore? Show us your blueprints!






SDP-supporting Rumor Mills - BUSTED


Apparently someone has committed identity- theft pretended to be Dr Lee Wei Ling and signed on a online Petition.



Not long after, Dr Lee came up with this clarification AND burned Chee Soon Juan at the same time.





TODAY: Dr Lee Wei Ling denies signing petition supporting Chee, says he is not fit to be in Parliament
Published: 12:43 PM, May 5, 2016
Updated: 3:16 PM, May 5, 2016

SINGAPORE — Dr Lee Wei Ling, the sister of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, has denied signing a petition asking for an end to attacks on the character of Dr Chee Soon Juan, the Singapore Democratic Party chief contesting this Saturday's (May 7) Bukit Batok by-election.

In a Facebook post on Thursday morning, Dr Lee wrote: "It has been said that I have signed a petition asking to stop attacking Chee Soon Juan's character. This is false, I have a very poor opinion of Dr Chee, and do not think he is fit to be in Parliament....I will never support such a person."

She did not specify which petition she had been falsely linked with.

Local actress Neo Swee Lin, who spoke at an SDP rally on Tuesday, had started a online petition on the website Change.org that same day calling for a stop to what they deemed "personal attacks and character assassination" against Dr Chee. The initial petition letter had 34 signatories, and has since gained over 4,000 online supporters.

Among those who left comments on Ms Neo's online petition was one supporter who signed off as "Dr Lee Wei Ling" and wrote: "(US) First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt said this: Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." 

In a separate post about two hours later, Dr Lee explained why she spoke out. “My Facebook has not been hacked. My name has been misused, so I needed to publicly announce my view of (Dr Chee),” she wrote. 

Dr Lee's denial marks at least the third time in the Bukit Batok by-election where an online allegation has been posted, only to be exposed as untruths.

On Wednesday, the PAP issued a statement debunking an article posted by local website All Singapore Stuff with the headline “PAP entourage say ‘Indians should support Indians’”. "We have checked and confirmed that the incident is fictitious. Playing the race card is irresponsible," the PAP statement added.

On Tuesday, the PAP debunked a Facebook post by a user Ridhuan Abdullah, who claimed that a party volunteer had made disparaging remarks about Dr Chee to him. The PAP said the alleged incident was "fictitious" after checks were conducted with its volunteers.

Aside from setting the record straight, Dr Lee also criticised Dr Chee for "pretend(ing) to be magnanimous" by saying he would not attack former Bukit Batok Member of Parliament David Ong despite the fact that his own party members had taken to the stage at a rally last week to do just that.

"What do you say about such a man? And having made character attacks, when this is pointed out, he then played the martyr, saying his character is being attacked," wrote Dr Lee. "Why does he not deal with facts? Why did he in the first place agree to his speakers attacking David Ong's character, while pretending to be above it all?"

Dr Chee has said he would put a stop to any attacks by his party members on Mr Ong, who resigned abruptly due to an alleged extramarital affair. The SDP chief added that he would not get into any "mudslinging" with the PAP and his rival candidate Murali Pillai, and would instead focus on the issues that concern Bukit Batok residents.

At a rally on Sunday, Dr Chee said he had “ample opportunity” to use recent comments by Dr Lee for political gains, but chose not to do so. In a series of Facebook posts recently, Dr Lee had sharply criticised the recent commemoration of late founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew’s death, as well as the handling of the event by her brother, PM Lee.

Dr Chee said he did not want to attack PM Lee “on such a personal level”, adding: “That’s not the kind of politics I want to engage in, and even though I did not attack Mr Lee, he has no hesitation in continuing to disparage me. Imagine if it had been my sister saying these things about me, what do you think would have happened?”

Dr Lee did not respond directly to Dr Chee's comments on this issue. She wrote that Dr Chee's "true nature should be fully exposed- cheating NUS, telling untruths all his life, slippery" - a reference to his dismissal from the National University of Singapore in 1993 for misusing research funds.

"Singaporeans should decide whether such a person should be in Parliament. Is it possible that he has truly reformed?!" wrote Dr Lee.

Source: TODAY - Dr Lee Wei Ling denies signing petition supporting Chee, says he is not fit to be in Parliament


Chee Soon Juan's carefully manufactured cover story for ousting Chiam See Tong - Busted

Chee Soon Juan & SDP have tried desperately over the years to limit the fallout from Chee Soon Juan’s confrontation with Chiam See Tong.

They have tried to present an alternative interpretation of what really happened.





And when that did not work, they have tried to imply that all is well between Chiam See Tong and Chee Soon Juan now and have attempted to reconcile for the sake of "opposition unity".



In an interview with Lianhe Zaobao on 28 Mar 2010 (English translation in Straits Times 29 Mar 2010), Mrs Chiam disputed SDP’s interpretation of the events.

"If he (Dr Chee) really wanted to keep Mr Chiam, he could have politely declined the position of secretary-general. 
Or when the central executive was taking a vote on whether to take disciplinary action against Chiam, he could have opposed the dismissal."
She noted that Dr Chee wrote to the Speaker of Parliament to tell him of Mr Chiam's ouster, and asked for any further necessary action to be taken.*

* The Constitution says that an MP who loses membership of the party he represented in a general election automatically loses his seat in Parliament. In other words, Chee Soon Juan decided then that it was better for Singapore to lose an Opposition member in Parliament than for Chiam See Tong to remain in SDP.


  
In a recent interview, Mrs Chiam came forward to break SDP’s claims of Chee Soon Juan’s “selflessness” in seeking reconciliation with Chiam.



Read the full interview with Mrs Chiam here - The Chiams Set The Record Straight

So has Chee Soon Juan really changed? Or is it simply that he has a much better Public-Relations campaign to change the public's perception of him?










Sources:

TODAY - Chee Soon Juan was willing to let Chiam See Tong helm SDP in 2011   

The Chiams Set The Record Straight


6 things SDP's Chee Soon Juan wished you'd forget about him
http://sgdirtypolitics.blogspot.sg/2016/04/6-things-sdps-chee-soon-juan-wished.html







Wednesday, May 4, 2016

How about also improving SDP's vetting process for their Party members?








This is ridiculous.

How does Chee Soon Juan expect the vetting process to be 100% guaranteed that there will not be any terrorist-wannabes coming into Singapore?

Even America does not claim to be able to vet out terrorists from legitimate immigrants and workers. In fact, which country can claim to be able to do so?

According to a TODAY news report (4 May 2016),

Speaking to reporters after a walkabout in Bukit Batok, where he is vying to become the ward’s Member of Parliament, Dr Chee called on the Government to deal with the problem at its “root cause” by preventing more of such radical elements, which endanger Singapore society, from entering the Republic’s shores. 
He was responding to questions about the workers’ detentions last month under the ISA, which he has spoken against previously.

Maybe Chee has some magical formula or method that can guarantee a 100% success rate in weeding out the undesirable people who come into Singapore.

More likely he doesn't have, and is only spouting rhetoric to divert attention from his own character failures.

Let's see what's inside SDP's own history.

In August 2015, SDP had an member, Muhammad Shamin Mohamed Sidek, 29, who was detained under the Internal Security Act for involvement in terrorism-related activities.

He was an active youth member assigned to the SDP's Economic Committee, and he planned to travel to Syria to join ISIS.


SDP has confirmed that one of the two self-radicalized Singaporeans (Muhammad Shamin Mohamed Sidek) detained under the Internal Security Act for involvement in terrorism-related activities was an active youth member assigned to the party's Economic Committee.




In Nov 2015, SDP's Chairman then, Mr Jeffrey George, was been arrested for a drug offence.






Perhaps Chee Soon Juan should also address and account for SDP's vetting process for their Party members?

Afterall, according to an ex-SDP member, Chee was warned of Sharmin's extremist views but Chee had not taken any action.






And if Chee is expecting a 100% fool-proof vetting process from our immigration authorities, then he should at the very least, demonstrate how this is possible.

The fact is that there is no one and no way that can predict with 100% accuracy what a person will/can do.



4 May 2016 Update
Here is Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam's reaction on Facebook to Chee's claims.





Channel News Asia - SDP's Chee shows 'lack of understanding' on security issues: Shanmugam
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/sdp-s-chee-shows-lack-of/2755732.html

Channel News Asia - 2 self-radicalised Singaporeans detained under ISA

Straits Times - SDP chairman Jeffrey George arrested for drug offence

See here for more dubious things that Chee Soon Juan and SDP doesn't want voters to know



Chee Soon Juan's plan to make Singaporeans pay and pay



One of Chee's election proposals is that he will "push very hard" to implement an "Retrenchment Insurance Scheme" if he is elected.

Basically, Chee's Retrenchment Insurance Scheme will pay you a sum of money if you have lost your job.



Sounds good right? Especially if you are one of the unfortunate ones who have been hit badly by the current economic downturn.

But is a "Retrenchment Insurance Scheme" really such a good and hot idea?

Yes, such a scheme could potentially help those solo breadwinners to tide through the rough period where they have no income and meet their living expenses while they search for another job. But there are several countries who have done this and have only limited success with it.

In any case, one critical question must be answered:

Who is going to pay for such a scheme? Employee? Employer? Govt? Taxpayers?

Here's one Singaporean's analysis of Chee's Retrenchment Insurance Scheme.


Chee's Unemployment Insurance (UI)
A DUD PROPOSAL

By John Jiayong Low
https://www.facebook.com/jiayong.low.9/posts/10153657696996247

*********************************************

Last GE2015, I wrote on how unfeasible Chee's education policies were. I thought that was bad. This year, his UI seems to have trumped it.

Chee's proposals can be found here.

http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/…/may-day-dr-chee-proposes…/

His objective is to want to help the retrenched "tide" through the tough times.

In summary

1. Similar policies in other Asian Countries like Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea and Japan.
2. 1st 6 months of unemployment: 75% last drawn salary. Next 6 months, 50% last drawn. 3rd 6 months: 25% last drawn.
3. Assistance in re-employment. (Cannot reject more than 3 job offers)
4. Capped at median wage (UPDATED: Household median $8,700. Individual median, $4,000.)
5. Funded 80% by the state.



******************************************

I was curious. If this was a private business, which insurance company would pick this up? Those who are familiar with insurance will know that it is a matter of profitable statistics in order for the company to be sustainable.

Hence it doesn't come as a surprise that in all the countries listed above, they are all state programs. Which means, it is not profitable, nor is it sustainable as a business. Only the government is capable of running such a program which in fact, is a handout safety net for the unemployed.

*******************************************

Wow! 75% income for 6 months! And at a cap of $8,700 per household. That is freaking a lot. Sure there are conditions such as proof of trying to get a job, but most of them are just maintaining a list of companies you sent resumes to.

Can anyone tell me honestly, that if you are currently earning $4,000 a month, lost your job, and knowing that you will receive a handout of $3,000 for the next 6 months, that you will wake up early tomorrow to start tidying up your resume and search through JobStreet? I would mostly likely be planning my next holiday and don't intend to get a job for the next 6 months. (I mean have you seen the travel deals on Groupon?)

See where this is going? Humans are lazy by nature. With such a comfy safety net, I will be resting there, and not trying to get a job.

I know because I was not earning an income for 2 years and was surviving on my savings, my wife's salary, while providing for two kids. The urgency is just not the same if you know you have ZERO income coming in, versus if you have a 75% payout coming in.

Oh but wait! We cannot reject more than 3 job offers? Whatever happened to the freedom that you preached?

What if the 3 job offers are not suitable and I just need a little more time to land a suitable job? In retrospect, it seems like Chee feels he is not confident in securing 3 suitable job offers for individuals efficiently and hence want to have up to 18 months to "find" job offers for them.

*******************************************

But the other countries are successful!

I am not quite sure how Chee measures success. Below I am going to list out the unemployment rate of some countries with UI as well as their tenure of payout.

Japan:         3.3% Payout max 80% 1.5 - 6 months.
South Korea: 3.8% Payout max 50% 3 - 8 months
Canada:                 7.1% Payout 55% 3 - 10 months
Singapore          1.9% No Payouts.


I am really curious what kind of Math did Chee do, to come up with a plan that lasts 18 months (that is 80% more than Canada!), and starts with 75%?
Are these figures designed to help the individual get back to work ASAP or to let them be unemployed comfortably?

Even without a mustache, Chee looks more like Santa Claus than Mr Murali. At least Mr Murali's figures are more realistic. He didn't say things like I'm going to spend $10 billion dollars to change Bukit Batok into the next Disney land of Singapore.

***************************************

All these said, I can see why Chee's proposal is popular. It delves into the reserves which is Ah Kong's money to ensure we go into unemployment comfortably.

But we need to think what kind of culture do we want for ourselves and for our future generations. We are digging into reserves meant for them. Our children is going to see us unemployed, and not be anxious about it because the state will give us handouts. They will grow up to think the same.

For a country where our human resource and reserves are our only resources, do we really want to "Live it up Now" and break this culture of hardworking-ness that our forefathers have fostered over the years?

I know Chee's supporters will argue that this is only at the ideation stage, naturally it won't be worked out. But for a MP Candidate, you have to come up with numbers that are more viable! I barely spent an hour to dig up all these stats. Surely your team can do better.

Source: John Jiayong Low Facebook

====================================================

See here for more dubious shit things that Chee Soon Juan and SDP doesn't want voters to know

Channel News Asia - Chee to 'push very hard' for retrenchment insurance scheme if elected

Hey Dr Chee, your UI Proposal got lobang (The Gif edition of John Jiayong Low's post)

The Ultimate Guide to Unemployment Insurance Proposals for Singapore (from the various Parties)