Showing posts with label GE2015. Show all posts
Showing posts with label GE2015. Show all posts

Monday, January 18, 2016

WP - Such hypocrites


By Singapore Matters

Have the lawyers in Workers' Party failed Ms Lee Li Lian? Did lawyer Sylvia Lim not try to persuade Ms Lee Li Lian to take up the appointment as elected NCMP?

Whatever happened to having not enough good women - mothers, daughters, wives, equal citizens - in politics?

One of the reasons Ms Lee gave for not taking up the NCMP appointment is that she wanted more time with her family.

Now there is really nothing wrong in wanting to spend more time with one's family. But if that is the driving reason, then why did Ms Lee bother to stand for election in the first place?

After all, the commitment of an MP is much higher than that of a NCMP.

In addition to attending Parliament, an MP also has to conduct MPS and take care of her residents and estate.

As an NCMP, Ms Lee has no constituency to look after and no need to meet residents.

Does it mean that if she had been elected as MP, she would be willing to sacrifice family time for residents?

So what makes the difference between being an MP and a NCMP?

She also said that unlike an MP it is not possible to be a full-time NCMP.

Does it even make sense to speak of a full-time NCMP?

The duties of a NCMP is like that of a NMP. The only difference between them is that one enters parliament through being one of 3 biggest losers in the election while the other is nominated.

We don't speak of full-time NMPs, do we? So what is a full-time NCMP?

She also said, "It will not be fair to my future employer to take leave from work every month." If that is a valid reason, is she expecting Daniel Goh to be unfair to his employer by preferring him to be the NCMP?

Minister for Culture, Community and Youth Grace Fu said on Monday (18 Jan) that Ms Lee Li Lian’s decision not to take up a Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP) seat should not be taken lightly.

She was referring to Ms Lee's absence at the opening of Parliament.

Said Ms Fu: “Like many of her constituents, I learnt first from the media and later from her absence from the opening of Parliament that she is not intending to assume the NCMP seat, despite having campaigned hard to persuade voters to elect her to a seat in Parliament.”

About 15,800 voters in Punggol East had cast their ballots for her.

“Taking up the NCMP seat would have enabled her to participate fully in parliamentary debates, raise motions, and ask questions in Parliament,” said Ms Fu.

She added that in the event that Ms Lee is indeed declining the role and WP would like to propose an alternative candidate, they have to put it to Parliament for a decision by “moving a Motion at a sitting of this Parliament”.


TODAY - Li Lian’s rejection of NCMP seat ‘not to be taken lightly’
=============================================================================

Is it a case of personal pride for LLL that she NOT take up the NCMP seat since she had lost the election?

Perhaps LLL felt that the title of "Member of Parliament (MP)" is much more superior to "Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP)"

If LLL's intention was to speak up and represent the voters who support her, then does it really matter if she is a MP or NCMP?

After all, both roles entitle her to participate in parliamentary debates.

WP - Broken promises - broken party.

Tuesday, December 8, 2015

A Stupid and Irresponsible Post from a MP-wannabe


If a person was really genuine in their intentions to represent the people's interests in Parliament as an MP, would you expect them to post such statements on their public profiles (ie Facebook)? Is this reflective of the kind of MP that you would want to represent you in Parliament?





What is really the point of posting such a statement? Worse yet, Han Hui Hui's post takes the issue of terrorism totally out of context in a very irresponsible direction.

As this image from Hardware Zone shows, Han Hui Hui is really too full of crap to be taken seriously.


Any Foreign labourer would have easily contributed far more towards Singapore than HHH has done in her entire life.


HHH, born in 1991, has hardly any real work experience on her resume to speak of, apart from disrupting charity events and heckling special-needs children performing on stage, and her proudest "achievement" to date which she seems to take particular pride in, is that she has "been fighting the government since 2010". Weirdly enough, HHH only became a Singapore Citizen in 2012.



Apparently for HHH, it seems that everything is somehow deviously connected to the government's attempts at trying to silence her / bullying HHH into submission - including the amazingly shocking weight loss of 500 grams of body weight after being interviewed for public nuisance charges related to the #ReturnOurCPF protests in Sept 2014 which disrupted a YMCA charity event.

Despite all this nonsense and the fact that HHH only received her Singapore Citizenship in 2012, HHH put herself forward as an Independent candidate for the Radin Mas Single Member Constituency (SMC) in a three-cornered fight involving the People's Action Party's Sam Tan and the Reform Party's Kumar Appavoo for the General Elections 2015.

And even her participation in the elections was not without controversy. HHH had insinuated that Reform Party candidate Mr Appavoo would not have contested in Radin Mas SMC as he "lacked sufficient assentors and it was only "at the very last minute someone stood up and became the sixth person". (Each candidate must have a proposer, a seconder and at least four assentors.)

"If they didn't come, what will happen? There wouldn't be a three-cornered fight," said Ms Han. "If I don't stand for election here what will happen? There won't be any fight at all, Sam Tan will just walkover."

Reform Party Chief Mr Jeyaretnam described her statement as "wholly fabricated" and "a blatant attempt at character assassination", and said that he did not field her as a candidate for his party as she had a “creative approach to truth“.



Han Hui Hui, mocked and heckled at her own election rally as she did to the special-needs children.


Given what she has done to the YMCA charity event in 2014, it was poetic justice when HHH was herself heckled at her own election rally in 2015 where she stood as an independent candidate for Radin Mas SMC. The continued controversy with Reform Party didn't help HHH as she lost her election deposit.

GE 2015 Results for Radin Mas SMC
PAP - Sam Tan: 77.25% or 20,230, of votes.
Reform Party - Kumar Appavoo: 12.71% or 3,329 of votes.
Independent - Han Hui Hui: 10.04% or 2,629, of votes. (Election Deposit forfeited*)

*The threshold for keeping one’s election deposit of S$14,500 is to receive at least 12.5% of votes cast.


All said and done, there is only one thing left to be said about HHH....




Tuesday, November 24, 2015

Squeaky Hammer caught squeaking

Source: Shut Down TRS Facebook
In the age where social media spreads news, both good and bad, like wild-fire; and the ease at which the facts of a situation could be just as easily verified or debunked by third parties, it does seem like common sense NOT to make up things, especially so if you are aspiring to be a politician.

It would seem that Bernard Chen, WP's candidate for MacPherson SMC in GE2015, has been caught out trying to give the impression that he visited a charity organization when he actually didn't.

Source: Talking Singapore
"Mr Chen, thank you for tagging us in your Facebook. Your presence at the walkway in front of our Senior Activity Centre at Blk 98 Aljunied Crescent before the General Elections 2015 via the sharing of your archived photo is noted.
Geylang East Home for the Aged

Here's what Talking Singapore had to say.
WP's Bernard Chen's misleading FB post out-ed by charity organization. Apparently the charity is unhappy with Bernard for posting an old photo implying that he had visited them on Sunday when he didn't.

Mr Chen must really be feeling that burn.. because the post and the pictures don't seem to be on his facebook account anymore.



Oh and in other squeaky news... WP has a "GE2015 candidates' lunch get-together at JJ's place" without some of their former MPs.
Source: Fabrications About The PAP

==========================
Notes
In GE 2015, MacPherson SMC saw a three-cornered fight between
(1) NSP’s Mr Cheo “new Mothers are a Weakness” Chai Chen
(2) PAP’s Tin “Kate spade” Pei Ling

(3) WP's Bernard “Thanks for tagging us” Chen

Tin Pei Ling won handsdown.


Lee Li Lian stood as a WP candidate for Punggol East SMC where it was widely expected that WP would hold on to that seat. However, Lee lost the seat to PAP's Charles Chong. The Punggol East seat is the PAP's closest win for SMCs.

The Elections Department had declared Lee Li Lian as one of the elected as Non-Constituency MPs (NCMPs) but she has publicly said that she will not take up NCMP post. WP released a statement of its own shortly after, saying the party's leadership backed Ms Lee's decision not to take up the seat.








Thursday, November 19, 2015

'All lose, lose all' risk if political provocateurs win

The Straits Times Online
Published Jun 12, 2014, 6:15 am SGT

By Devadas Krishnadas

The People's Action Party (PAP) has made a sustained effort since the 2011 general election to engage with the ground, update its policies and increase its investments in social issues. It has also appointed new political leaders and publicly introduced potential election candidates.

Such moves are implicit signals of a "New PAP" - one that is concerned about social and not just economic issues, one unembarrassed to provide Singaporeans with social spending and one which wants not to be seen as elitist.

Yet, there is considerable cognitive dissonance between what the PAP views as the "New PAP" and the public perception of the same.

First, with public sentiment shifting towards emotive nationalism, political leaders still come across as objective technocrats rather than patriots. Singaporeans want to hear, see and feel that political leaders recognise that leading Singapore means taking care of the interests of Singaporeans.

Second, the moves to govern the social media and artistic spaces through rule changes by the Media Development Authority give the public the impression that the PAP rule is still characterised by information control and censorship. Political leaders may have to choose their battles more wisely.

In such issues, it is impossible to separate policy from politics and the latter will define any discourse. Interventions therefore become the issue rather than the subject they address.

Third, the use of the defamation law, however justified, is politically outdated as a mechanism for political leaders to safeguard their reputations. They should perhaps let their record be their reputation and trust that reasonable Singaporeans will be able to judge fact from any malignity.

Taken together, the public perception is that while the PAP has done new things, this is but new wine in an old bottle.

To prove the case that the PAP has transformed from within, it will have to show more empathy, display less of a need to control and have greater faith in the good sense of the people.

As Singapore enters the second half of the current term of government, there is a sense that we are also entering the final lap of the political race to the next election. Policy adjustments have now spanned all the main areas. In parliament, the Prime Minister has started the countdown to the next general election with a combative stance towards the opposition on constructive politics.

While many real policy changes have resulted since the last election, it is an uncomfortable truth that many real political changes remain to be realised.

The upshot of complicated policies and the muddied perception of the "New PAP" is that public discourse is in danger of being captured by critics at the margin who fall into three categories.

One category is the utterly ignorant who have not bothered to educate themselves on the facts or who are poorly equipped to understand the policy system and hence resort to erroneous simplifications or totally false analysis.

Another category is those with a political axe to grind. These individuals cast every policy into an alleged wide web of conspiracy of government against the interest of the people.

What we are now beginning to see is the conflation of the two categories into a new collection of political provocateurs bound together solely to attack the PAP by creating as much doubt, distrust, cynicism and anxiety as possible in the citizenry. They offer many criticisms, few facts and no solutions. It would appear that baiting the Government to take counter-action is the best way to get public sympathy, if not legitimacy; and shrill suggestions that Singapore is facing a "doomsday" scenario the best way to play up fear in our future. This is neither helpful nor healthy for the public discourse on important issues which concern every citizen.

Citizens need and deserve facts, intelligent analysis and rational arguments, not vitriol and demagogy disguised as patriotism and martyrdom. The noise created by these critics at the margin sucks the oxygen away from more rational and balanced critiques of policy and national direction.

The real struggle is not between the opposition or this new collection of political provocateurs and the PAP.

The real struggle is about whether Singaporeans will allow themselves to go down a seductive and slippery slope of anxiety, despair, fear and anger about our future or whether Singaporeans will choose to have faith in themselves and what they already have and can achieve by working together, staying rational and committing to being invested in the Singapore project. The former road needs only the suspension of objectivity, giving in to emotional and irrational, even if human, fears and conspiracies and a relinquishing of personal responsibility to play an individual role in making our collective future.

The latter road is a harder road which requires hard work to be informed, staying positive and a willingness to participate and endure a process of public debate of policies based on facts, good ideas and an ability to make tough trade-offs. In short, we need good politics to get the good policies.

For the PAP, this means not only better communication but also greater transparency and willingness to tolerate - better still, engage - in meaningful debate.

For the opposition, this means stepping up their game to offer effective alternative ideas, not to just be an alternative. It also means not free riding on the antics of extremist political provocateurs. They should also take a stand.

For Singaporeans, it means focusing on the issues and engaging with their Members of Parliament regardless of political stripe, to push forward their concerns and ideas. Most importantly, there must be, and Singaporeans should insist upon, the recognition by the PAP and the opposition that both have a responsibility to ensure that Singaporeans take the harder road regardless of who gets, or loses, political points.

Because if they do not, and we slip down the murkier and more sinister path laid out by the provocateurs, then we all lose and we could lose all. That is the real doomsday scenario.

stopinion@sph.com.sg

This is an edited version of a longer post on the writer's Facebook page. He is the chief executive officer of Future-Moves Group, a strategic risk consultancy and executive education provider based in Singapore.

Sources:

The Straits Times Online - 'All lose, lose all' risk if political provocateurs win
http://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/all-lose-lose-all-risk-if-political-provocateurs-win

Fabrications Led by Opposition Parties (FLOP)

Wednesday, November 11, 2015

How the Taiwanese Media interprets Singapore's GE 2015 Results


How the Taiwanese media interprets Singapore's GE2015 results. (Published on Sep 14, 2015)
(Video in Mandarin)

Original Mandarin description on YouTube

新加坡反对党气候衰竭,4年选失人心!
47曾高分贝十二村落,每个都盖空中花园!
贫民窟到绿化大楼,新加坡公共住宅大翻身!
横扫千军!国父之子领军,席次、得票率飙高!
稳定VS快乐!新加坡的抉择!李家坡再创奇迹?
一党专政VS一党独大,中国与新加坡殊途不同归?
反省、回应、改善,李显龙甩阴影,赢回新加坡民心?
新加坡模式?危机感建国,生于忧患死于安乐?
失去李光耀后的大选!怀念国父的新加坡式选择?
深怕所托非人?新加坡人认为在野还没准备好?
一党完胜新加坡启示!大陆政改借镜?
从严治党最高指导原则!中国与新加坡,同?异?
苍蝇老虎一起打!大陆从严治党加强版!


Google Translate - English translation

Opposition climate Singapore failure, lost the election four years, people!
47 had high decibel twelve villages, each of which cover the Hanging Gardens!
Slum to green building, Singapore's public housing big change!
Total Annihilation! Leader Sun Yat-sen's son, seats, votes soar!
VS stable happy! Singapore's choice! Lee Poe another miracle?
One-party dictatorship VS one-party dominance, China and Singapore passers different go?
Reflect, respond and improve, Lee thrown shadows, to win back the people of Singapore?
Singapore model? The founding of a sense of crisis, Hardships for the worst?
Lee lost the election after! Miss the founding father of Singapore-style choice?
Fearing the trust inhuman? Singaporeans believe that the opposition was not ready?
A party victory Singapore revelation! Learn from the mainland political reform?
Governed Strictly highest guiding principle! China and Singapore, the same? Different?
Tiger flies to play together! RULE mainland version!


Source:  24h News Update



Saturday, October 24, 2015

The Lie called "Minimum Wage"


"Since [the HK government] was supposedly dealing with the poverty issue in the past few years, the number should be on the decrease. To have a double-digit rise is quite a lot, and means that what we've done so far is not enough," said Oxfam programme manager Wong Shek-hung.

Minimum Wage? Politicians riding on populist measures. Paying lip service to a real problem.

In Singapore, we have the progressive wage to help workers progressively upgrade skills, increase productivity to move up the career ladders to a higher wage.

"The number of working poor families - households living under the poverty line with at least one member holding down a job - increased by 10 per cent in five years...An Oxfam Hong Kong report pointed out that another 18,100 families have fallen into poverty, taking the total number of people in working poor households to 647,500 - accounting for half of Hongkongers living below the poverty line." - SCMP


- Fabrications About The PAP Facebook (FAP)

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

Background: During the GE2015, the Workers Party and Reform Party propose to implement Minimum wage.

Source:
Channel News Asia - PAP, opposition candidates trade words over cost of living and immigration issues
 http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/pap-opposition-candidates/2093176.html

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

The Freeman - The Truth About the Minimum Wage
Monday, November 19, 2012

People don’t like to think that anyone's labor is worth less than the minimum wage. Someone might end up flipping burgers for $5.00 an hour. You might think the minimum wage is a way of paying some sort of dignity premium--hence language like "living wage." People with such good intentions look at the direct beneficiaries of these policies, say, burger flippers now making $7.50 an hour. They pat themselves on the back. But they rarely count the invisible costs: willing human beings who never get hired in the first place.

"But $5.00 an hour is not enough to live on!," they'll say. For whom? A teenager living at home with his parents? An elderly person who wants simply to stay active? A single mom with three kids? A single woman sharing an apartment with 2 roommates? Of course, not all of these people could live off of $5.00 an hour. But some of them could given the opportunity. Concerns about those who couldn't don't justify minimum wages even if we ignored the invisible costs of the policy, which include reduced margins to businesses that might otherwise grow (and hire more people).

In other words, if you take off the bottom two rungs of the income ladder, many will never climb it. That’s the effect of the minimum wage. The more cynical side of me says that’s how many politicians and the overpaid teamsters want it.

Enjoy this great video and some timeless pieces on the minimum wage by some of FEE's excellent scholars.

-The Editors

 The Truth about the Minimum Wage

Further Reading:

Minimum Wage, Maximum Folly by Walter Williams
"While there is a debate over the magnitude of the effects, the weight of research by academic scholars points to the conclusion that unemployment for some population groups is directly related to legal minimum wages. The unemployment effects of the minimum-wage law are felt disproportionately by nonwhites. A 1976 survey by the American Economic Association found that 90 percent of its members agreed that increasing the minimum wage raises unemployment among young and unskilled workers. It was followed by another survey, in 1990, which found that 80 percent of econo­mists agreed with the statement that increases in the minimum wage cause unemployment among the youth and low-skilled. Furthermore,­­ whenever one wants to find a broad consensus in almost any science, one should investigate what is said in its introductory and intermediate college textbooks.­ By this standard, in economics there is broad agreement that the minimum wage causes unemployment among low-skilled workers."

Raising the Minimum Wage Will Do No Harm? It Just Ain't So! by Richard McKenzie
"With the money-wage hike and the reduced benefits, workers can be left worse off since the fringes and slack work demands taken away were provided in the first place because workers valued them more highly than the wages forgone for those benefits. Given the findings of his own as well as other researchers’ studies, Wessels deduces that every 10 percent increase in the hourly minimum wage will make workers 2 percent worse off."

The Minimum Wage: An Unfair Advantage for Employers by Donald Boudreaux
"Minimum-wage legislation prohibits wages from falling low enough to equate the number of people seeking jobs with the number of jobs being offered. As a result, the supply of unskilled labor permanently exceeds the demand for unskilled labor at the government-mandated minimum wage.
Minimum-wage legislation thus creates a buyers’ market for unskilled labor. And as in all buyers’ markets, buyers (employers) have an unequal bargaining advantage over sellers (unskilled workers)."

"There are three principal effects of this general increase in wage compensation:
1. Employers will tend to reduce non-wage compensation in an effort to minimize their overall production costs. That is, employer-provided benefits are a casualty of increases in the minimum wage.
2. As labor costs (generally) rise, producers will hire less labor and more capital. There is no worse time for labor generally (and unskilled labor specifically) to contemplate an increase in the minimum wage than when technological advances are reducing the cost of capital. The high cost of middle-management labor combined with rapid reductions in the cost of computer-processed information was the driving force behind the corporate restructuring of the late 1980s and early 1990s that put hundreds of thousands of white-collar workers in the unemployment lines.
3. Although it may appear that ratcheted-up wages benefit lower-wage employees, the appearance is deceptive. In the long run, less-skilled workers are disproportionately harmed by artificially induced increases in wages."

Even Warren Buffett is unsure about the effectiveness about using Minimum Wage.



But hey, if you don't believe what the smart people above say about minimum wage, then let's take a look at a real-life case.

The Seattle City Council passed a US$15 minimum wage ordinance that is currently being phased in.. And see what happened to their job market.

Data shows that the Seattle Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) lost 700 restaurant jobs from January to September of this year, and a report from the American Enterprise Institute suggests that this could be the product of adverse effects of minimum wage hikes on restaurant jobs."
"What is also noteworthy about the loss of Seattle restaurant jobs this year is the fact that restaurant employment in the rest of Washington state is booming this year,” writes Mark Perry, an AEI scholar and professor of economics and finance at the University of Michigan’s Flint campus.  
“One likely cause of the stagnation and decline of Seattle area restaurant jobs this year is the increase in the city’s minimum wage,” Perry wrote.

Read more of the article here:
Seattle Voted to Hike the Minimum Wage to $15 an Hour. Here’s What Happened to Seattle’s Job Market.http://dailysignal.com/2015/10/22/seattle-hiked-the-minimum-wage-to-15-an-hour-heres-what-happened-to-seattles-job-market/

Minimum wage effect? From Jan. to Sept. Seattle MSA restaurant jobs fell -700 vs. +5,800 food jobs in rest of state


Sources - 

Fabrications About The PAP Facebook (FAP)
https://www.facebook.com/FabricationsAboutThePAP/photos/a.245735922149090.70599.213440582045291/906620402727302/?type=3&theater

The Freeman - The Truth about the Minimum Wage

Chicks on the Right - Seattle Got Their Precious $15 Minimum Wage. But Look At What Happened To The Job Market. 22 Oct 2015
http://www.chicksonright.com/seattle-got-their-precious-15-minimum-wage-but-look-at-what-happened-to-the-job-market/




Tuesday, October 20, 2015

Opposition Media tries to nonsensically link irrevelant news and events to the Singapore Elections

This is really dumb.

How is the Haze (which is caused by Indonesia) linked to the Singapore election results or the fact that 69.9% of Singaporeans voted for PAP?




Image Source: Fabrications Led by Opposition Parties (FLOP)
https://www.facebook.com/fabflop/photos/a.430234870347156.85473.430232843680692/890243544346284/?type=3&theater


This one is even more absurd.

How does a case of criminal intimidation / lovers-dispute related to the election results?



Image Source: Fabrications Led by Opposition Parties (FLOP)
https://www.facebook.com/fabflop/photos/a.430234870347156.85473.430232843680692/890247564345882/?type=3&theater

If you don't already know, the origins of the opposition's latest catch-phrase used to label any negative event or news, regardless of whether it has anything to do with the GE2015 results or the PAP government, was started by the Singapore's worst sore loser of GE2015 - Reform Party Chief Kenneth "Don't complain" Jeyaretnam.


Kenneth Jeyaretnam, one of The Reform Party West Coast GRC candidates, was interviewed “live” on Channel News Asia after the sample count for voting results was released. The PAP team was leading 78 percent to RP’s 22 percent in the sample count.


GE2015 Election Results for West Coast GRC: 
PAP 71,091 (78.57%) vs RF 19323 (21.43%) of valid votes 
Voters: 99,300 | Rejected votes: 2,415 | Did not vote: 6,402
Overall, Reform Party performed worst than their GE2011 results, showing a decrease of 11.18% of votes received.


This was what Jeyaretnam said when asked to comment by CNA’s reporter:



Here’s the interview transcribed: (See video here)

Reporter:
Now the sample counts have been out for quite a few of the constituencies, your thoughts on the sample counts?

Kenneth Jeyaretnam:
Well, obviously, you know, we were aware from the beginning that we saw this coming. Because we didn’t get the big influx of volunteers and helpers coming forward like we got in 2011, in fact, it was very quiet.
And eh…eh… we saw… Basically, we put this down to the novelty wearing off of a new party, but now I see it is absolutely nation-wide there’s been a huge swing to the PAP.
We weren’t helped by the fact that we lost Clementi, a ward in which we scored particularly highly in the last election.
What I can say is that this is not, as far as I’m concerned, this is not a mandate for the PAP’s economic policies. We had a better manifesto, a better economic plan. 

All this is a mandate for authoritarianism and brainwashing, it shows what you do when you control everybody’s housing, you control their savings, you control their jobs because you’re the major employer, you control all the media, and there’s no independent elections department.
What I see are similar margins in North Korea and China, it’s just like the Chinese Communist Party. 

And I guess Singaporeans get the government they deserve, so I don’t want to hear any more complaints.


Sources:

The Mothership
http://mothership.sg/2015/09/reform-party-kenneth-jeyaretnam-what-i-see-are-similar-margins-in-north-korea-china/

Video of CNA Interview: Channel News Asia
GE 2015 Election Results
http://graphics.straitstimes.com/STI/STIMEDIA/Interactives/singapore-general-election/2015-live-election-results/index.html


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

How can any self-respecting, decent politician make such a ridiculous statement on national tv?

As a person who is trying to get themselves elected as a Member of Parliament to represent their constituents, isn't it logical that you would want to know about the people's life and problems so that you, as an MP, can advocate and influence policy and laws on their behalf to improve things?

How are you going to do that if you do not want to "hear any complaints" simply because you believe that the Singaporeans have no choice but to suffer the consequences of their choice (of voting for PAP rather than you) at the ballot box?



Tuesday, October 13, 2015

One possible reason why opposition parties lost so badly


The opposition parties and their supporters have been inventing all sorts of reasons and theories on why they all lost so badly at the polls.

I wonder why none of them have actually thought to reflect on the character, caliber and quality of their respective candidates.




"Thumbs up man"  "Boo to PAP!"

Choong Hon Heng, National Solidarity Party (NSP) Candidate, Tampines GRC
(0:10 - 0:24)
See more here: http://mothership.sg/2015/09/tampines-grc-nsp-candidate-choong-hon-heng-just-upped-the-ante-in-terms-of-tipsiness-with-this-rally-speech/



"I stand for happiness" "Happiness First"

Samir Salim Neji, Independent Candidate, Bukit Batok SMC
(0:25 - 0:40)



"...the son very bad, go and cremate him..."

Han Hui Hui, Independent Candidate, Radin Mas SMC
(0:44 - 1:05)
Yes, she really did. (0:44 - 1:05)



"... I'm older ... I have experience ... I can speak hokkien ..."

Cheo Chai Chen, National Solidarity Party (NSP) Candidate, MacPherson SMC
(1:08 - 2:52)

He is also famous for his remarks about new mothers (targeted at rival Tin Pei Ling, PAP) being a "weakness". The irony is that his fellow NSP candidate Kevryn Lim is a single mom. See more here: http://mothership.sg/2015/09/tin-pei-ling-delivered-the-best-smackdown-possible-to-nsps-cheo-chai-chens-sexist-and-ageist-remarks/



"..Vote for PA, ...I mean Reform Party!"

M.Ravi, Reform Party (RP) Candidate, Ang Mo Kio GRC
(1:39 - 1:53)



SingFirst rally at Queenstown Stadium on 6 Sept 2015
(1:54 - 2:07)
See more here: http://mothership.sg/2015/09/5-observations-from-singfirst-ge2015-rally-the-first-opposition-rally-at-tanjong-pagar-in-24-years/



More funny moments from GE2015










Rules of Prudence for PAP MPs


29 Sept 2015

In a letter to PAP Members of Parliament (MPs), Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong outlined the Rules of Prudence for MPs to adhere to.

PM Lee emphasised the importance of honesty and incorruptibility. He also reminded MPs to be humble in victory, serve and improve people's lives.
You can read the full letter here:http://www.pmo.gov.sg/mediacentre/letter-prime-minister-lee-hsien-loong-pap-mps-rules-prudence

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

Letter from Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong to PAP MPs on Rules of Prudence


All PAP MPs
RULES OF PRUDENCE
BEYOND SG50
            It is a tradition for the Prime Minister to send a letter on “Rules of Prudence” to all the PAP MPs after an election.  The context each time may be different but the subject remains constant, because integrity, honesty and incorruptibility are fundamental to our Party.  We must never tire of reminding ourselves of their importance.
2.        Our Party has won 83 out of 89 seats in the just concluded General Election, with all seats contested. Overall, the PAP won 69.9% of the votes. 
3.        The people have endorsed what we have done in the previous term, and given us a clear mandate to take Singapore forward beyond SG50.  Now we must fulfil what we have promised to do in our manifesto. We must never break faith with the people, but must always carry out our duties to them responsibly, address their worries and advance their interests. 
4.        Be humble in victory. As MPs, always remember we are servants of the people, not masters. Do not mistake the strong election result to mean that our efforts have succeeded, and that we can afford to slacken. Much work remains to be done tackling issues which concern Singaporeans, and finding new ways to improve people’s lives. Listen hard to voter concerns, help them to tackle pressing needs, and convey their worries and aspirations to the Government. Persuade them to support policies which are in their own long term benefit, while helping the Government to formulate good policies and stay in close touch with the people.
UPHOLDING OUR REPUTATION AND INTEGRITY
5.        One vital factor that has enabled the PAP to retain the trust of Singaporeans all these years is honesty and integrity. The PAP’s reputation for clean, incorruptible government is one of our most precious assets. As PAP MPs, your personal standing reflects this high standing of the Party as a whole. I cannot stress strongly enough that every MP must uphold the rigorous standards that we have set for ourselves, and do nothing to compromise them. Never give cause for allegations that you are misusing your position, especially your access to Ministers.  That would discredit both you and the Party.
6.        As MPs, you will come across many different sorts of people. Many altruistic, public spirited individuals will help you without wanting anything in return, spending time and money to get community projects going and to serve residents. But a few will cultivate you to obtain benefits for themselves or their companies, to gain respectability by association with you, or to get you to influence ministries and statutory boards to make decisions in their favour. Gift hampers on festive occasions, entertainment, and personal favours big and small are just a few of countless social lubricants which such people use to ingratiate themselves to MPs and make you obligated to them. 
7.        You must distinguish between these two groups of people, and be shrewd in assessing the motives of those who seek to get close to you. At all times be seen to be beyond the influence of gifts or favours.
8.        Be scrupulously proper in your contacts with government departments or public officers.  Do not lobby any ministry or statutory board on behalf of anyone who is not your constituent or grassroots activist.  Do not raise matters with public officers on behalf of friends, clients, contractors, employers, or financiers to advance their business interests.  Conduct business with government agencies in writing and avoid making telephone requests.  If you have to speak, follow up in writing to put your requests on record.
9.        MPs are often approached by friends, grassroots leaders or proprietors and businessmen to officiate at the openings of their new shops or other business events. They usually offer a gesture, such as a donation to a charity or constituency welfare fund. Though it may be awkward to refuse such requests, once you accept one, you will be hard-pressed to draw a line. As a rule, you should decline invitations to such business events. If you feel you should attend, please obtain prior approval from the Whip.
SEPARATING BUSINESS AND POLITICS
10.      Separate your public political position from your private, professional or business interests.  MPs who are in business, who occupy senior management positions in companies, or who sit on company boards should be especially vigilant.  You must not exploit your public position as Government MPs, your close contacts with the Ministers, or your access to government departments and civil servants, for your personal interest or the benefit of your employers.  Your conduct must always be above board.
11.      MPs who are employed by companies or industry associations may at times have to make public statements on behalf of their company or industry association.  If you have to do so, make it clear that you are not speaking as an MP, but in your private, professional or business capacity.
12.      Do not use Parliamentary questions as a means to lobby the Government on behalf of your businesses or clients. When you raise questions in Parliament related to your own businesses or your clients, be careful to first declare your pecuniary interest in the issue. 
13.      You may, however, speak freely to Cabinet Ministers, who are your Parliamentary colleagues.  Ministers will listen carefully to arguments on principles, especially when they relate to the general policy of their Ministries.  But Ministers will not exercise their discretion to change individual decisions without very good reasons which they can justify publicly.  Parliamentary Secretaries and Ministers of State who intervene in their Ministries to reverse or alter decisions should promptly report the matter to their Ministers to protect themselves against possible accusations of misconduct.  The Government must always base decisions on the merits of the issues, and cannot yield to pressure from interested parties.
DIRECTORSHIPS
14.      MPs are often invited to serve on the Boards of private and publicly listed companies.  This is a sign that the private sector values PAP MPs’ integrity and experience, and reflects the high standing of the Party and of PAP MPs in general.  The Party permits MPs to serve as directors, provided you keep your private and public responsibilities rigorously separate, and your private appointments do not compromise your duties and performance as an MP.
15.      The public will closely scrutinise your involvement in companies, because you are a PAP MP.  Conduct your business activities so as to bring credit to yourself and to the Party.  Adverse publicity on your performance as a director, or lapses in the companies you are associated with, will tarnish your reputation as an MP and lower the public’s regard for the Party.
16.      You should not solicit for Directorships in any companies, lest you appear to be exploiting your political position to benefit yourself. 
17.      You should not accept directorships where your role is just to dress up the board with a PAP MP or two, in order to make the company look more respectable. 
18.      Some grassroots leaders are businessmen who own or manage companies.  You should not sit on any boards of companies owned or chaired by grassroots leaders appointed by you, so as to avoid the perception that you are obligated to them or advancing their business interests.
19.      If you are offered a Directorship, you have to decide for yourself whether to accept.  The Party is not in a position to vet or approve such decisions.
20.      Before accepting, consider the possible impact of the Directorship on your political life.  Ensure that the company understands that you are doing so strictly in your private capacity, and will not use your public position to champion the interests of the company, or lobby the government on its behalf. 
21.      Make every effort to familiarise yourself with the business, track record and background of the key promoters of the company.  Satisfy yourself that the company is reputable, and that you are able to make a meaningful contribution.  Specifically, just like anyone else contemplating a Directorship, you should ask yourself:
a.         How well do you know the company, its business strategy, financial status, shareholding structure and the underlying industry?
b.        Do you know your fellow directors, the way the Board and its committees fulfil their responsibilities, the reporting structure between Board and Management and the relationship between shareholders and the company?
c.         Do you have sufficient industry, financial or professional expertise to fulfil your expected role and responsibilities as a Director?  Do you understand your obligations under the law and the Code of Corporate Governance?  Will you be able to discharge your fiduciary duties properly and without fear or favour?
d.        Will you face any conflicts of interest, and if so can you manage them? If in any doubt, you should decline.
22.      Once you have decided to take up a Directorship, please inform the Whip. Detailed reporting requirements are listed in the Annex.
PARLIAMENT
23.      MPs are expected to attend all sittings of Parliament.  If you have to be absent from any sitting, seek permission from the Government Whip.  Please inform the Whip if you have to leave the Parliament premises while a sitting is on.
24.      If you travel abroad, or need to be absent from Parliament for any reason, you must apply to the Speaker for leave, with copies to the Leader of the House and the Government Whip.  You should also inform the Whip where you can be reached while abroad.
25.      I have asked the Speaker to give all MPs, particularly new MPs, ample opportunity and latitude to speak in Parliament.  Your first opportunity will be during the debate on the President’s Address at the opening of Parliament in January 2016.  Following that, at the Budget Debate, all MPs should speak up.  Script your speeches or put your key points in note form to structure your presentation and help the media.
26.      The public expects PAP MPs to express their views frankly, whether for or against Government policies. During debates, speak freely and with conviction.  Press your points vigorously, and do not shy away from robust debate.  However, please exercise judgement when putting your points across, and do not get carried away playing to the gallery. 
27.      Bring out questions and issues that Singaporeans and your constituents have concerns about, and grapevine talk for the Government to rebut, but avoid unwittingly lending credence to baseless gossip. This will show that you and the Party are in touch with the ground, and speaking up for Singaporeans. Bringing up pertinent issues and questions in a timely manner helps ministers to put across the facts, explain the reasons for policies and decisions, and maintain public confidence in the openness and integrity of our actions.
28.      Your honest, informed views are an important political input to Ministers when they formulate and review policies. Ministers will accept valid, constructive suggestions, but they have to challenge inaccurate or mistaken views. Over time, the public will see that PAP backbenchers are as effective as opposition MPs, if not better, at holding ministers to account, getting issues fully debated, and influencing policies for the better. 
IMPORTANT PUBLIC OCCASIONS
29.      On certain occasions, like the National Day Parade and the Investiture Ceremony for National Day Awards, the whole Establishment, i.e. the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary, will be there.  Those who cannot attend must have very good reasons.  Those who have accepted the invitation must attend, otherwise they leave empty seats, which does no credit to them or to the Party.
30.      At all public functions and constituency events, punctuality is of paramount importance.
GIFTS
31.      You should not accept gifts which might place you under obligations which conflict with your public duties. If you receive any gifts other than from close personal friends or relatives, you must declare them to the Clerk of Parliament who will have the gifts valued.  If you wish to keep the gifts, you must pay the Government for them at the valuation price. 
FUND-RAISING
32.      Party Branches should not raise funds on their own without permission, for example by soliciting advertisements for a souvenir magazine or a carnival.  If you intend to raise funds, please clear it beforehand with the Organising Secretary.  When your branch embarks on a collective fund-raising activity, e.g. a Family Day or Walk-A-Jog, you must follow the rules strictly.
FINANCIAL PRUDENCE
33.      As MPs, you should manage your personal financial affairs prudently. Do not over-extend yourself or become financially embarrassed. This would be not only a potential source of personal embarrassment, but also a weakness which may expose you to pressure or blackmail.
34.      In particular, be careful about making major financial commitments assuming that you will continue to receive your MP’s allowance.  While MPs typically serve several terms, you cannot assume that you will automatically be fielded in future General Elections, or that if fielded you will definitely be re-elected.  There is neither tenure nor job security in politics.
DECLARATION OF INCOME
35.      For your own protection, every MP should disclose to me, in confidence, your business and professional interests, your present employment and monthly pay, all retainers and fees that you are receiving, and whether your job requires you to get in touch with officers of Government Ministries or statutory boards on behalf of employers or clients.  Office holders need not do so because you will be subject to the reporting requirements of the Code of Conduct for ministers. This should be done by 31 October 2015.
GENERAL BEHAVIOUR
36.      The PAP has held our position in successive elections because our integrity has never been in doubt, and because we are sensitive to the views and attitudes of the people we represent.  MPs must always uphold the high standards of the Party and not have lifestyles or personal conduct which will embarrass themselves and the Party.  Any slackening of standards, or show of arrogance or indifference by any MP, will erode confidence in him, and ultimately in the Party and Government.  New MPs can pick up the dos and don’ts from older MPs.  You should conduct yourselves always with modesty, decorum and dignity, particularly in the media. You must win respect, not popularity, to stay the course.
MEDIA PUBLICITY
37.      I am releasing a copy of this letter to the media so that the public knows the high standards we demand of our MPs.
LEE HSIEN LOONG
cc: Government Whip



Wednesday, September 23, 2015

GE 2015 fear mongering: Opposition (SDP) claims GST increase to 10% coming soon.



So now we know who is behind those stickers spreading lies / fear mongering about GST. 

Chee Soon Juan can put up an act to fool some of us, but leopard does not change its spot, because according to Chee himself, "CHARACTER IS PERMANENT". Thanks Dr Chee for reminding us.



MOF dismisses online claims that GST will be raised after GE (2015)
TODAY, Published: 4:25 PM, August 8, 2015

SINGAPORE — The Ministry of Finance (MOF) says there is “no basis” to claims made by some online websites that the Government will raise the Goods and Services Tax (GST) after the upcoming General Election (GE).

In a post on the gov.sg website on Thursday (Aug 6), the MOF said that online chatter, which claimed that GST would be increased to 10 per cent, were “inconsistent with what the Government has recently stated”.

“In the 2015 Budget Statement in February, DPM Tharman Shanmugaratnam stated that the revenue measures the Government had already undertaken will provide sufficiently for the increased spending planned for the rest of this decade,” the MOF noted.

Among the measures is the inclusion of Temasek Holdings in the Government’s Net Investment Returns (NIR) framework from 2016, and the increase in the top marginal rates for personal income tax from Year of Assessment 2017. The statement added: “These measures came after moves in recent years to make Singapore’s property tax rates more progressive, with significantly increased tax rates for high value residential properties, offsetting reduced tax rates for lower value homes.”

GST was first introduced 21 years ago in 1994 at 3 per cent. It has remained at 7 per cent since July 2007.





Sources: 

Today Online 
http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/mof-dismisses-online-claims-gst-will-be-raised-after-ge


The Statement for Budget 2015, delivered by DPM Tharman Shanmugaratnam, said,
“Based on current projections, the revenue measures we have undertaken will provide sufficiently for the increased spending needs we have planned for till the end of this decade.” 
( Refer to paragraph G38 of the Budget Speech http://www.singaporebudget.gov.sg/budget_2015/pg.aspx ) 


The Hansard record of DPM Tharman’s Round-Up Speech for Budget 2015.
http://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/topic.jsp?currentTopicID=00007428-WA&currentPubID=00007404-WA&topicKey=00007404-WA.00007428-WA_3%2Bbudget%2B


Dollars And Sense - Will GST In Singapore Be Raised To 10%?
http://dollarsandsense.sg/will-gst-in-singapore-be-raised-to-10/


Fabrications About The PAP
https://www.facebook.com/FabricationsAboutThePAP/photos/a.245735922149090.70599.213440582045291/898898473499495/?type=3&theater


Shut down TRS
https://www.facebook.com/shutdowntrs/photos/a.1438069629738857.1073741828.1437466759799144/1665924606953357/?type=3&theater



Monday, September 21, 2015

The Loony Fringe of Singapore politics - Han Hui Hui



The 23-year-old Blogger, activist and Hong Lim Park devotee Han Hui Hui declared in a blog post on Aug. 26, 2015 that she will be contesting in Radin Mas SMC as an independent candidate.

She faces Minister of State Sam Tan, 56, and the Reform Party's Kumar Appavoo, 46, in a three-cornered fight.

Han Hui Hui will forfeit her S$14,500 election deposit, after she received 10.04 percent, or 2,629, of votes. The threshold for keeping one’s election deposit is to receive at least 12.5 percent of votes cast.

Han Hui Hui shot to prominence due to the antics of the "Return My CPF" protest group. She is closely associated with Roy Ngerng and Gilbert Goh.

At one such protest on 27 Sept 2014, Hui Hui, Roy and several others disrupted a charity event - YMCA’s Proms @ the Park carnival on the same day, because the guest of honor for the event was Minister of State and PAP MP Teo Ser Luck.

Partners in crime and Loony fringe protesters Roy Ngerng and Han Hui Hui

Protesters marching into the YMCA event area


What made this protest particularly vile was the fact that the protest group disrupted the performances by autistic children. Subsequently, several members of the protest group were charged with public nuisance offences.

Return My CPF Protesters - represented by Lawyer M. Ravi

However, instead of gaining online support for their actions, the group was lambasted by many. As a result, Han Hui Hui and Roy had to resort to taking down several of their Facebook posts which exposed their original, pre-mediated intention to disrupt the Charity event. They have gone as far as claiming to be victims of a "trap" set by the Govt.

Alternative media also helped to spread several lies to cover-up the truth and defuse the online backlash to their antics.


Mr Brown had these words for the protesters.

I am going to come right out and say this. If my daughter, Faith, who has autism, or any of my kids, had been on stage performing that day at the YMCA event, and Roy Ngerng, Han Hui Hui and gang came over to disrupt the proceedings, I would have taken their signs and placards and shoved the lot up their collective arses.

I don't care what your cause is. You can protest in your own time and your own space. In fact, NParks gave you your own space, the other lawn, at another part of the park. But noooooo, you wanted to target the minister who was attending the event as a guest of honour.

Was Minister of State Teo Ser Luck speaking at a CPF symposium at Hong Lim Park? No, it was a charity carnival for special needs kids by an organization that has absolutely nothing to do with the Gahmen.

Well, you mess with a bunch of special needs kids performing at a charity event, and it will get personal. I am making it personal.

You are not crusaders. You are not freedom fighters. You are not defenders of the downtrodden, Roy and Hui Hui.

As of now, you are a bunch of insensitive wankers who will do anything to get attention, even if it means scaring special needs kids with your antics.



I will leave you with a comment made by a YMCA volunteer about the debacle. I hope you are proud of yourselves, Roy & Co. 

{YMCA Volunteer comment not shown. Refer to MrBrown's post here.}

Roy Ngerng, on your blog, you even called your farcical event "The Most Groundbreaking Protest in Singapore since 1965".


Buddy, you flatter yourself. People in Hong Kong are getting tear-gassed fighting for democracy. You merely went to a charity carnival and upset some special needs kids.


Given her unsavory behavior at the YMCA charity event, its no wonder that Han Hui Hui got a taste of her own medicine at her election rally.

hahahaha... Han Hui Hui gets heckled at her own election rally (in Radin Mas SMC).


The uncut video of the disruption by the Return My CPF protestors (17mins)




Sources

Hong Lim Park devotee Han Hui Hui to contest Radin Mas SMC as independent candidate
http://mothership.sg/2015/08/hong-lim-park-devotee-han-hui-hui-to-contest-radin-mas-smc-as-independent-candidate/

GE2015: 5 things about independent candidate Han Hui Hui
http://www.straitstimes.com/politics/ge2015-5-things-about-independent-candidate-han-hui-hui

Han Hui Hui loses S$14,500 election deposit, Reform Party Kumar Appavoo barely kept his
http://mothership.sg/2015/09/han-hui-hui-loses-s14500-election-deposit-reform-party-kumar-appavoo-barely-kept-his/

Ugly scenes break out at Hong Lim Park
http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/ugly-scenes-break-out-hong-lim-park

Mr Brown On the #ReturnMyCPF Protesters disrupting the YMCA event
http://www.mrbrown.com/blog/2014/09/on-the-returnmycpf-protestors-ymca-incident.html

Uncut 17-minute video indeed shows CPF blogger Roy Ngerng encroaching on YMCA’s venue
http://mothership.sg/2014/10/uncut-17-minute-video-indeed-shows-cpf-blogger-roy-ngerng-encroaching-on-ymcas-venue/

Lawyer M. Ravi
Bloggers to claim trial over roles in Hong Lim Park protest
http://news.asiaone.com/news/singapore/bloggers-claim-trial-over-roles-hong-lim-park-protest#sthash.yYDBIQSS.dpuf

Hong Lim Park protest: First of six people charged pleads guilty in court
http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/hong-lim-park-protest-first-of-six-people-charged-pleads-guilty-in-court