'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Third, the use of the defamation law, however justified, is politically outdated as a mechanism for political leaders to safeguard their reputations.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)

https://www.facebook.com/fabflop/photos/a.430234870347156.85473.430232843680692/734298793274094/?type=3&theater

Opposition Media A.S.S makes claim that LKY is not fit to be a Founding Father of modern day Singapore

Reprint of The Battle For Merger will provide 'reality check for revisionist views': DPM Teo
POSTED: 09 Oct 2014 13:35 UPDATED: 10 Oct 2014 18:25 

SINGAPORE: The re-publication of a book of former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew’s radio talks from 1961, The Battle For Merger, will provide a “reality check” for revisionist views, said Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean at the launch event on Thursday (Oct 9).

“I hope it will awaken interest among younger Singaporeans in the events of this crucial period in our history, educate them into what actually happened, what the battle was about, and why it was so crucial that the right side won,” he said in his speech at the launch.

Originally published in 1962, The Battle For Merger is a book that contains a series of 12 radio talks delivered by Mr Lee between Sep 13 and Oct 9, 1961, giving a vivid account of the ongoing political struggle over merger.

Below is the speech in full:

    I am pleased to be here today to launch the reprint of the Battle for Merger publication, which comprises a series of radio broadcasts by Mr Lee Kuan Yew in 1961. I am lucky to own a copy of the original Battle for Merger printed in 1962. It belonged to my father. I remember hearing these radio broadcasts as a child. Although I was too young then to understand them, I could sense the magnitude and gravity of the events that were swirling around us. But Singaporeans of my father’s generation, and those just a little older than me, will certainly remember those tumultuous days, and Mr Lee’s radio broadcasts.

    It was a time when momentous decisions had to be made for Singapore. A wrong decision then would have been calamitous and Singapore might still be trying to shake off the dire effects today. Mr Lee’s broadcasts electrified the population, and were crucial in making Singaporeans understand what the battle was about, and persuading them to support Merger with Malaysia.

    THE BATTLE FOR MERGER

    Some may wonder: Why should the Battle for Merger be reprinted now? In 2015, we celebrate Singapore’s 50th anniversary. This is a significant milestone, especially when we consider our precarious and tumultuous beginnings. While we only became an independent nation in 1965, our road to independence began earlier, with our attempt to forge a shared destiny with the then Federation of Malaya. Our hard-fought attempt to gain independence by merging with Malaya was in fact a battle for the future of Singapore. On the surface, it was a battle for merger. But this was only on the surface. Below the surface was another deeper, more momentous, more dangerous battle – that between the communists and noncommunists in Singapore.

    At the heart of this battle were two contrasting visions of how society should be ordered and how we should govern ourselves. It was not simply a fight to get rid of British colonial rule; rather, the communists and their allies had a larger agenda. Their objective was to impose a communist regime in Malaya and Singapore through all means, including subversion, and ultimately, armed revolution. They never gave up on this larger agenda. That is why the communists continued to pose a security threat to us long after both Malaya and Singapore had gained independence in 1957 and 1965, respectively; and even after all British forces had left in 1971. In one incident in June 1974, the Inspector-General of Police in Malaysia was gunned down in broad daylight by a Communist hit squad.

    The events vividly described in the Battle for Merger bear testament to the resourcefulness, will and spirit of pioneer Singaporeans, led by Mr Lee Kuan Yew and his colleagues in the government and the PAP. Our pioneers were confronted with difficult challenges and dilemmas, and had to make critical choices not just for themselves, but for future generations of Singaporeans. This is why, despite the vast changes that have taken place in the world and in Singapore over the past 50 years, this crucial turning point in our history continues to be relevant to us today.

    SINGAPORE IN 1961

    What was Singapore like in 1961, when Mr Lee Kuan Yew made these radio broadcasts? What was the broader strategic environment? The Cold War between communism and the free world was at its height. The Berlin Wall, which for decades signified the divide between the two contending sides, had just been built. In fact, construction started on 13 Aug 1961, exactly a month before the first of Mr Lee’s broadcasts on 13 Sep 1961. Proxy wars and ideological battles were being fought in many countries. Southeast Asia was a hot spot. Malaya and Singapore were not spared. There were grave security concerns over the growing communist influence in Malaya and Singapore.

    In the 1950s and early 1960s, communism was in the ascendant in Singapore. The Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) had waged a violent armed insurgency since 1948 and fomented urban strife in its attempt to establish a communist Malaya (which included Singapore). The CPM targeted those who opposed them, including civilians, and security and police personnel. In Singapore, between 1950 and 1955, CPM hit squads carried out at least 19 known murders, as well as numerous acid attacks, arson and other acts of violence. When the CPM’s violent, armed guerrilla war and their intimidation of the civilian population failed to turn Singapore and Malaya ‘red’, the communists switched strategy to place more emphasis on subversive Communist United Front (CUF) tactics instead. Through the CUF, the CPM intended first to drive out the British from Singapore, and then to topple the Malayan Government. From 1954 to 1963, the CPM penetrated student bodies, labour unions, political parties, and cultural and rural organisations in Singapore to spread their ideology and influence, attract supporters, and mobilise activists to mount a campaign to destabilise and take over Singapore.

    The CUF organisations instigated unrest and dissatisfaction among the population by exploiting unhappiness over socio-economic issues and particular government policies. Singapore went through a period of great upheaval and civil unrest. Protests, sit-ins, strikes and demonstrations were frequent. The trade unions and student bodies were the front organisations for these confrontations. But they were controlled and manipulated from behind-the-scenes by communist hands. Some of these events resulted in the deaths of innocent Singaporeans and security personnel. The result, which was intended, was tension, anxiety and instability in Singapore.

    Why did the CPM and their pro-communist allies operating in the CUF organisations decide to oppose Merger? When Mr Lee Kuan Yew and his colleagues in the People’s Action Party (PAP) were elected to form the government in June 1959, it was on a pro-merger platform. Merger was also supported by the communists and pro-communists who at that time were in the PAP.i Other political parties also had similar pro-merger agendas. Merger was deemed essential for Singapore’s economic survival. People travelled across the Causeway frequently and co-mingled freely. Even the CPM considered Singapore a part of Malaya – there was no “Communist Party of Singapore”, because in their eyes, Singapore was an integral part of Malaya. There was only the Singapore Town Committee of the CPM.

    Yet, when the PAP announced its support for merger and the concept of Malaysia to attain full independence from the British, the communists and procommunists opposed it and tried to capture the PAP and the Singapore Government in July 1961 . Merger was against the communists’ interest, for two reasons. First, it would result in the quick end of British rule in Singapore and make it harder for the CUF to disguise its agenda to establish a communist regime as an anti-colonial struggle. Second, the CPM expected the anti-communist Federation Government to clamp down on them as internal security would come under the Central Government in Kuala Lumpur once merger was achieved.

    The CPM never believed that Singapore should be independent of Malaya. Indeed, much later, when Singapore separated from Malaysia in August 1965, the CPM denounced Singapore’s independence as “phoney”. The Barisan Sosialis took the same line, when it decided to boycott and later withdraw from Parliament and take to the streets instead. But in 1961, the communists wanted to capture power in a self-governing Singapore and use that as a base to subvert the Federation and in due course establish communist rule over the entire Malayan peninsula.

    As Mr Lee said in his preface, the Battle for Merger broadcasts were pivotal in lifting the curtain on the communists and exposing their hidden manoeuvrings. It was necessary for Mr Lee to make public the communist threat and reveal key CPM personalities, as well as how the communists operated, including their objectives and methods. Singaporeans, whether they were for or against merger, needed to know the real communist agenda in order to make their choice.

    This was why Mr Lee decided to speak to Singaporeans directly on the matter. He gave three talks a week, each one delivered in English, Mandarin and Malay, totalling 36 broadcasts in less than a month. This gruelling effort left him thoroughly exhausted. But he got his message across. The talks played a vital part in defeating the anti-merger campaign of the communists and pro-communists. In the referendum on merger held in September 1962, 71% supported the PAP’s position while 25% cast blank votes as advocated by the anti-merger group.

    Although public support for merger was unequivocal in 1962, and Singapore joined the Federation of Malaysia on 16 Sep 1963, the differences in views between the Singaporean and Malaysian governments as to how a multi-racial, multi-religious nation should govern itself caused merger to fail. In 1965 when independence was thrust upon Singapore, we were struggling with poor economic prospects, fraught communal relations, and a continuing communist threat. The Cold War raged on, and the Vietnam War was intensifying. The Gulf of Tonkin incident, which led the US to engage in Vietnam, had occurred in 1964. The Cultural Revolution which brought turmoil to China for a decade started the next year, in 1966.

    Even after independence, the communists persisted in their violent attempts to destabilise Singapore. The CPM revived their armed struggle in the 1960s and 1970s. In 1970, a seven-year-old girl was killed by a booby-trapped bomb in Changi planted by a CPM unit. In 1974, three communists were on their way to plant homemade bombs in Telok Kurau when one bomb exploded prematurely in Katong, killing two of the bombers. The third bomber was injured, but escaped, and eventually fled to Johor with the help of CPM supporters. The following year, in 1975, the security authorities recovered two caches of 298 hand grenades in Loyang and Tampines accumulated by another CPM unit which had carried out vicious attacks in Singapore in the 1950s. Indeed, the Voice of Malayan Revolution, the CPM radio station, was broadcasting up till 1981, preaching revolution and communism. Several Singaporeans worked at this radio station.

    The spectre of communism receded only after the People’s Republic of China abandoned its support for the CPM in the 1980s. The CPM finally ceased hostilities and signed the Peace Agreements in Haadyai with the Malaysian government and the Thai authorities. The date, 2 December 1989, when the CPM finally laid down its arms, was barely a month after the Berlin Wall was breached on 9 November 1989 – that same Berlin Wall, the symbol of the Cold War, whose construction began in 1961, just a month before the first Battle for Merger broadcast.

    SIGNIFICANCE OF THE BATTLE FOR MERGER TODAY

    Today, the events surrounding Merger are no longer at the forefront of the minds of Singaporeans. For the older ones, the tumultuous years described in the Battle for Merger are a receding, distant memory. The younger ones, especially those born after 1965, would have no personal memory of these events. They would only know of these years through history books, or from their parents and grandparents.

    The Battle for Merger provides a powerful contemporaneous account of the events at that time. It captures the flavour and the intensity of the exchanges, the battle for the hearts and minds of Singaporeans over merger; and more fundamentally, the fierce struggle between the communists and the non-communists over the future of Singapore.

    As we approach our 50th year of independence, some revisionist writers have attempted to recast the role played by the communists and their supporters on the merger issue. They portray the fight as merely a peaceful and democratic disagreement over the type of merger. They ignore the more fundamental agenda of the communists to seize power by subversion and armed revolution.v The CPM’s armed struggle and the CUF’s efforts to destabilise Singapore before, during and after the Battle for Merger, have been well-documented by various academics and writers, including top leaders of the CPM such as Chin Peng and Fong Chong Pik.

    These multiple sources support the argument that Mr Lee Kuan Yew made in the Battle for Merger more than five decades ago: Namely, that there was a communist conspiracy to take power being played out over the merger issue, which he felt compelled to expose in his broadcasts. The re-publication of the book will provide a reality check to the revisionist views. I hope it will awaken interest among younger Singaporeans in the events of this crucial period in our history, educate them into what actually happened, what the battle was about, and why it was so crucial that the right side won.

    Indeed, one might ask: what if the communists and their pro-communist CUF allies had won, and Singapore had fallen under communist rule in the 1960s? We would have gone on a completely different path. Where would we be today? Singapore would probably not have survived, as a small communist outcast in South East Asia, as the Cold War raged in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. Even if Singapore had survived, life would have been harsh and miserable. We need only look at the communist world since the Russian Revolution of 1917, and countries that continue to subscribe to communism today. The more successful ones have made major adaptations in recent decades, and adopted drastic reforms and policies to make themselves more competitive and to enable the standard of living of their citizens to catch up with the free market economies.

    The 1960s were tumultuous times. We should respect the personal conviction and determination of those who held different views then and fought on the side of the communists. As Mr Lee said in his broadcast, “they are not crooks or opportunists. These are men with great resolve, dedicated to the Communist revolution and to the establishment of the Communist state believing that it is the best thing in the world for mankind”.

    But we should, even more, acknowledge and give our respect and appreciation to the Singaporeans who had the courage and wisdom to reject the CPM’s ideology and tactics, including its violent methods, and those of its procommunist supporters. Singaporeans who rallied to support the non-Communist cause under the leadership of Mr Lee Kuan Yew, who fortunately mustered a majority to defeat the Communist side in a democratic contest.

    Among those who have contributed to our nation building are some who initially joined or supported the communists. It took special courage for them to turn away from the communist cause after recognising its serious flaws and inadequacies. They made a brave choice in the face of intimidation and threats to their lives and their families. They had the courage to acknowledge that the path advocated by the CPM was the wrong one, and to join the majority of Singaporeans who had made that critical choice for a non-communist, democratic, peaceful and constructive path forward.

    There were others, including several senior CPM figures, who had fled Singapore in the 1950s and 1960s, but returned home with their families after the CPM laid down its arms in 1989. They made no pretence about their past activities and beliefs, and were reconciled to the fact that theirs was not a cause shared by the majority of Singaporeans. They had seen the road that communism had travelled and admitted that it had failed. After providing an account of their communist activities to the security authorities, they and their families settled back into Singapore as loyal citizens, and contributed to our country’s progress.

    But it was a close call. Then as now, Singapore has little room to manoeuvre. The wrong decision, and it would have gone the other way, and Singapore would have turned out very differently.

    Our pioneers’ spirit and their determination to rise above the hardships of the moment, including the dire threat of communism, and to focus on making Singapore a better country for the next generation is an inspiration for all Singaporeans. This spirit, epitomised in the Battle for Merger, is a precious heritage which we all as Singaporeans should honour, recognise and emulate.

    Thank you.


Source: Channel News Asia - Reprint of The Battle For Merger will provide 'reality check for revisionist views': DPM Teo
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/specialreports/battleformerger/news/reprint-of-the-battle-for/1405604.html


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

Those who champion revisionist account of Singapore's fight against communists are distorting history: Sam Tan

Published Jan 14, 2015, 11:25 pm SGT
By Zakir Hussain Deputy Political Editor, ST

"Historical discourse and debate requires academic rigor, intellectual honesty, and respect for evidence.

"These qualities have been sadly lacking among those championing a revisionist account of a key fight on our road to independence."

He said that in distorting history, "they disrespect the memory of those who made sacrifices and lost lives to defeat the communist threat and build the Singapore that we have today".

His remarks come a month after Singapore's High Commissioner to Australia Burhan Gafoor wrote to Australian website New Mandala to rebut claims in an article by former Coldstore detainee Poh Soo Kai that the arrests were a "set-up" against political opponents of then prime minister Lee Kuan Yew, including Barisan Sosialis chief Lim Chin Siong.

Mr Burhan said the Barisan was the principal open united front tool of the banned Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) in Singapore. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong also included a link to Mr Burhan's letter in a Facebook post on Dec 20.

But Ms Teo Soh Lung - detained in 1987 after being accused of being part of a Marxist conspiracy - and revisionist historians rejected these statements.

"I don't care if Lim Chin Siong was a communist or a CPM member...What we need to know is whether Lim Chin Siong and his colleagues committed any acts of violence and acted against the interest of Singapore," Ms Teo said in a recent online commentary.

Mr Tan said Ms Teo and the revisionists "continue to maintain the hollow claim that the Communist United Front was an 'invention'. They have not refuted the evidence presented, drawn from both the British archives as well as published accounts by key CPM leaders."

He also cited the British archives and ex-CPM leader Chin Peng who said the Barisan was the CPM's principal political tool, and that Coldstore shattered the CPM's underground network throughout Singapore.

He added that Ms Teo's remarks showed she "has conceded that her previous assertion that Lim Chin Siong was not a communist was untenable, in the face of the evidence cited by Mr Burhan".

"It does matter that Lim Chin Siong was the CPM's key Communist united front leader in Singapore, because the CPM advocated armed struggle, and through the united front was fomenting unrest and disorder in Singapore in order to establish a communist regime throughout Malaya."

Source:
Straits Times Online - Those who champion revisionist account of Singapore's fight against communists are distorting history: Sam Tan
http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/those-who-champion-revisionist-account-of-singapores-fight-against-communists-are


===================
Source:

Image: Fabrications Led by Opposition Parties (FLOP)
https://www.facebook.com/fabflop/photos/pb.430232843680692.-2207520000.1445843992./892356294135009/?type=3&theater

Workers' Party - Shortcomings in TC mangt are starting to show

Online version of Zaobao forum letter (Singapore General Election 2020)

Print version (Fabricatons About the PAP)

In Mr Chen's complaint - "No 3, rubbish chute has not been wash for a few years, there is a stench when it is opened."

AHTC did not deny the chutes has not been washed for a FEW YEARS, it replied: "Our officer has instructed the conservancy cleaners to ensure proper clearing, washing and cleaning of the bin chute, and will continue to monitor this closely. "

Updates

According to the blog - Singapore General Election 2020, the letter is from a Hougang resident Chen Fuming, who said that the Aljunied-Hougang Town Council’s management of the estate was not up to standard.

He cited several examples: a fallen tree was covered up with clutter turning it into a potential mosquitoe-breeding ground; choked drainage pipes on the ground floors of HDB flats were realigned instead of being cleared; rubbish chutes in HDB flats were not properly cleaned; and only three HDB blocks had been repainted under a maintenance and repainting project launched in October 2013. 

Chen also highlighted a particular multi-storey carpark which he claimed was poorly maintained, and said that residents should be refunded a year’s worth of S&CC if it was proven so.


Sources:
Fabricatons About the PAP https://www.facebook.com/FabricationsAboutThePAP/photos/a.245735922149090.70599.213440582045291/926421164080559/?type=3&theater

Singapore General Election 2020
http://singaporege2020.blogspot.sg/2015/11/post-ge2015-ahpetc-saga-continues.html

Wind to blame for haze problem, says Indonesian VP Jusuf Kalla

MANILA - Indonesian Vice-President Jusuf Kalla on Wednesday (Nov 18) blamed the wind for spreading the haze to neighbouring countries, saying it was something beyond Indonesia's control.


{PP: Really? It's the Wind's fault? That's the best you can do you dumb shit?}


Speaking at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (Apec) CEO summit, Mr Kalla said: "I'm so sorry to Malaysia and Singapore to say that we cannot control the wind. We don't want the haze to go everywhere. (It happened) not because we want it to (affect) our neighbours, but because of the wind."


{PP: No, you retard. The haze didn't happen because of the wind. It happened because irresponsible people started fires to clear land.}


Mr Kalla was asked during a question-and-answer session what challenges the Indonesian government faces in stamping out the yearly haze brought on by farmers slashing and burning farmland in Sumatra and Kalimantan.

This year, the plumes of smoke and dust spread as far as the Philippines, shrouding large parts of South-east Asia for a few months and causing health problems, school closures and flight cancellations.

Mr Kalla acknowledged that it was a "big problem" that had affected the region.

To tackle it, his government had worked to restore the forests in Indonesia that had disappeared rapidly due to logging, he said.

He pointed out that Indonesia had about 150 million hectares of forests in the 1950s. But one third of it had been destroyed by the 1970s due to "many foreign companies teaching our people how to log for timber".


{PP: Did any of these "foreigners" force your citizens at gun-point to burn down the forests?}


This had caused the land to become drier and helped the fires spread, he said, adding that the unusually long dry spell caused by the El Nino weather phenomenon also made things worse this year.

While he thanked countries that sent planes to help put out the fires, he called on more "international cooperation" to solve the problem, saying Indonesia would not be able to do it alone.

Several countries including Singapore and Russia had sent aircraft to help douse the fires this year.

Mr Kalla said the problem would likely persist next year, but was hopeful that it would not be as serious.

He also reiterated his previous remarks about the "10 months" of good weather enjoyed by Indonesia's neighbours, quipping: "Ten months every year, the good weather goes to our neighbours. You enjoyed it, we did not ask you to pay for it. But if there's some bad problem, it is our problem to the region too."

Source: Straits Times - http://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/apec-wind-to-blame-for-haze-problem-says-indonesian-vp-jusuf-kalla

There are always idiots

Idiotic FB pages like SG Vishal are spreading false information to alarm the public.

Here's what the S'pore Police had to say.

"The Police are aware of a Whatsapp message that is circulating. The message, which claims that "Singapore national security lockdown will be conducted (sic) city wide borders...", is completely false and totally irresponsible.

Members of public are advised not to spread unsubstantiated information which may generate unnecessary public alarm. 

Play a part to keep our home safe and secure by staying vigilant and reporting any suspicious persons or activities." 

Source: https://www.facebook.com/singaporepoliceforce/posts/10154435125984408

It's one thing to be asking people to be more alert for anything suspicious. Its a totally different and very irresponsible thing to be spreading fear through unsubstantiated rumours.

And here's yet another idiot who actually thinks that his/her grouses with daily life here in Singapore are comparable to the Paris attacks.

Perhaps he/she thinks it's a clever play of words but just imagine if your loved ones were among the victims of the Paris attacks. Would you take so kindly so such a insensitive comment? How retarded do you want to be, Tan Mokhtar?

Staying Safe - Knowing and Doing What It Takes

By Devadas Krishnadas

Posted: 16 Nov 2015
https://www.facebook.com/1DevadasKrishnadas/posts/472258449602210

There has been a noticeable silence from liberals in the wake of the Paris massacre. We do not hear the usual cry to abolish the Internal Security Act and the concomitant State power to detain without trial, to abandon capital punishment and to champion freedom of expression.

Where have all the liberals gone? Gone to try quiet places with heads turned away from the nasty reality that there are bad people willing and capable of doing bad things. Really bad. And no amount of high flown rhetoric or rational debate will stay their hand.

It is no secret that Singapore opposes violent extremism - of whatever typology or origin. Nor is it unknown that we have supported operations in Afghanistan, Iraq and in the Gulf of Aden. So it is not improbable that we are on the hit lists of some groups. In 2001 we dealt effectively with the Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) cell but it would be naive to think that our troubles ended then and with them.

We should be prepared to confront evil, whatever its name and origin. We should note that while ISIS claims for itself a religious premise, violent extremism is not its exclusive domain.

In the 1950s and 60s the Chinese community in Malaya was susceptible to the attractions of terrorism motivated by a volatile mix of communist ideology and a ethnic chauvinism. It required a multi-year, multi-front and costly campaign to strangle the snake of communism.

In the 1980s some in the local Sikh community were outraged by the actions of the Indira Ghandhi government to suppress the militant Sikh sect at Amritsar. Thankfully early intervention by the authorities backed by the power of the law kept matters of spilling over.

We cannot pick and choose our positions with regards to violent extremism, racial or religious hatred depending on our personal affiliations. We must be universal and consistent in our stance against these mortal threats.

Our strong laws, capable intelligence and security forces and hard headed leadership with backbone are required but inadequate to confront violent extremist forces in today's' interconnected world. The people have to play their part too.

First, we need to deny extremist forces any presence in our country or claim to legitimacy. We should police each other in the cyber world and report to the authorities any indication of violent tendencies or sympathy for those who practice terrorism, racial or religious hatred. We must be prepared to constrain the speech of those who espouse or sympathise with violent extremism whatever the claims to legitimacy.

Second, we need to deter violent extremists. We must make clear that we are prepared to act swiftly and decisively, as we did to deal with the Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) cell in 2001. There should be no signalling that we have since become a softer touch.

Third, we must be prepared and able to disrupt violent extremism. This means close coordination between our security agencies and with agencies in other countries similarly challenged. It also means that we invest in the capabilities and training required to have the sort of intelligence and security forces necessary to meet the threats of today and tomorrow.

Fourth, should it become necessary we must be willing to destroy violent extremists and violent extremism.

The former means having the specialists units capable of tackling forcibly any recalcitrant violent actors.

From mrBrown's Facebook post: Ramses shield used by the first French Spec Ops officer entering the Bataclan Theatre in Paris during the ‪#‎ParisAttacks‬. That's balls of steel to go in like that. One commenter counted 18 bullet hits, and estimated 2 enemy shooters with a 30-round mag each. [via Reddit http://mrbrwn.co/1S0j5eY]

The latter means we have to wage a relentless campaign of education and psychological warfare to stamp out the poison of extremist ideology and thinking.

To deny, deter, disrupt and destroy violent extremism successfully in the 21st century requires the support and participation of the population to complement the capabilities and powers of the State. We cannot have the attitude that this is the sole responsibility of the Government.

The dead cannot enjoy their rights. Innocents cut down cannot be substituted with memorials. Families destroyed can never be made whole with speeches and internet memes.

The garden of liberalism to flourish it must be guarded by the walls of illiberalism. We must have constraints on certain freedoms, accept that the State needs to have the powers to act and understand that there will always be certain forces which understand no other language than a greater force.

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

Notes:
During the GE2015 campaign period, opposition parties such as the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) headed by Chee Soon Juan, called for the Govt to abolish the Internal Security Act (ISA) as well as to reduce spending on Defence by 40%.

Ironically in August 2015 , a SDP Youth Wing member was detained under the ISA for intending to make their way to Syria to join the terrorist group Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and engage in violence there

Attacks on Peace

No matter what your grievances, there is simply no reason to justify the attacks on unarmed civilians.

Your attacks have done nothing to further your perverted cause and will only serve to strengthen the world's resolve against extremist elements who would not hesitate to use violence to achieve their goals.