Wednesday, March 17, 2010

The PAP politician I admired the most.

He is the former deputy prime minister; the former (and most well loved) president, the late Mr Ong Teng Cheong.

This great man is one, whom advocated the construction of the MRT, fought against the PAP against messed up accounts during his reign as the President. No other PAP politician had come closed to his greatness, perhaps with very few exceptions like Dr. Tony Tan.

I am reminded by him, of all places, from SDP's Chee Soon Quan article on his party's website -

(on the site note, for the first time, i have to endorse his views. its a fair article from him that i concur)

Chee mentioned a part of history which i'm never aware of:

But perhaps the clearest indication that the PAP Government works against the interest of Singapore and her workers came from the late Ong Teng Cheong. In January 1986 Mr Ong, then deputy prime minister and NTUC secretary-general, had sanctioned a strike by the shipping industry which he did not inform the cabinet.

This was Mr Cheong's account: "The minister for trade and industry was very angry, his officers were very upset. They had calls from America asking what happened to Singapore - we are non-strike."

Why do American bosses need to call the PAP Government about a strike carried out by Singaporean workers? Why does it have to account to American businesses for what it does in Singapore? Who does the Government listen to, American MNCs or Singaporean workers?

Mr Ong Teng Cheong, actually, as the head of the trade union, did what trade unions should be doing - to fight for the rights of the workers; and actually sanctioned a strike. I'm hearted to know that my fav. PAP politician had always been that righteous and "for-the-people".

Younger PAP politicians, i hope you guys know what you guys are doing. learn from the right ppl...

Thursday, March 11, 2010

New rulings for political chatters online.


Elections advertising: OB markers to shift
by Zul Othman and Zul Othman 05:55 AM Mar 12, 2010

SINGAPORE - There will be slightly more leeway for Singaporeans to discuss political issues and promote online any contesting candidate in future General and Presidential Elections. But the consequences will be more robust if anyone falls afoul of the law.

These changes to Internet elections advertising were among the details revealed yesterday as the amendments to the Constitution and the Parliamentary and Presidential Elections Acts were tabled in Parliament. While operators of non-political party websites will not be required to register with the Media Development Authority for propagating political issues during the polls, they would have to take note of where not to tread.

For instance, publishing false statements about the personal character or conduct of a candidate incurs a new penalty of a fine or jail time of up to 12 months, or both.

The Ministry of Information, Communication and the Arts also told MediaCorp: "They should be mindful that if what they do amounts to election activity which is done for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of a candidate, they need written authorisation of the candidate or his election agent to do so."

But just as political parties are not allowed campaign on Polling Day - and now also on the day before that, which Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong previously described as a new "Cooling Off Day" - this rule will also apply to any election advertising, online or offline.

Those who engage in such advertising can be fined up to $1,000 or jailed up to 12 months or both.

Election candidates will have a defence, though, if third parties still campaign on their behalf on these two days - if the circumstances were beyond the candidate's control, and he or she "took all reasonable steps, and exercised all due diligence" to prevent any advertising.


Where the election advertising is already lawfully published or displayed before the cooling off period, such as posters and banners and websites, the ban would not apply so long as they remain unaltered. Non-citizens, however, will not be allowed to advertise at all.

Also excluded from the election blackout: Emailing, SMSing or MMSing political views by one individual to another, "on a non-commercial basis".

What will not change are the traditional television broadcasts by political parties on the eve of polling day and election coverage by the media.

Political observer and Singapore Management University law lecturer Eugene Tan told MediaCorp it was "quite clear" the Government is tabling "a comprehensive set of rules as to what candidates can or cannot do".

However, he felt it "remained to be seen" if these rules can cover every scenario. "The big unknown is how these rules would be enforced. It's important that the electorate can see that these set of rules are applied to everyone without fear or favour," he added.

Dr Gillian Koh, senior research fellow at the Institute of Policy Studies, felt the written authorisation required from candidates to advertise on their behalf could work to the benefit of the bigger People's Action Party if it mobilises support online.

"But it is going to be challenging to get people to go to their sites when the public gets so much about it (election news) from the mainstream media," she added.


The new rules come at a time when there has been a gradual political liberalisation. In recent years, the Government has made Speakers' Corner an unrestricted area.

During the election period, though, anyone who wants to hold election meetings - defined as public assemblies organised by or on behalf of a candidate to aid his campaign - will have to get a permit from the Commissioner of Police even at Speakers' Corner from the time of Nomination Day to Polling Day.

Many election offences - including displaying "any badge, symbol, set of colours, flags, advertisement, handbill, placard or posters as political propaganda" - on Cooling Off Day and Polling Day have been made seizable offences. This means the police can make an arrest without a warrant.

The amendments yesterday also give powers to the President to postpone Nomination Day in the case of, say, natural calamities or the threat of violence. If it is a Presidential Election, that power is vested in the Prime Minister.

The Returning Officer appointed for an election can also make postponements to polling at a polling station or the counting of votes in such cases. What was not set out in the amendments: The number of Group Representation Constituencies and Single-Member Constituencies. This will be done by the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee.

But the proposed changes did specify the maximum number of Non-Constituency MPs from any single GRC: Two.

Everything sounds alright in my opinion except for ONE PART:

"What will not change are the traditional television broadcasts by political parties on the eve of polling day and election coverage by the media."

This "election coverage by the media" MIGHT be the grey area... although its nothing new.

It would be interesting how things will pan out during the election period.


Also interesting to note is how the internet plane will be subjected to monitoring and moderation because of the new law. Its another potential grey zone, as how one defines "ppl writing or speaking on behalf of candidates". If i'm a supporter of Party A, of course i gonna be commenting or speaking in favour of Party A; does that consider me writing on behalf of Party A?

And the ambiguous ruling of candidates needing to do their due diligence to make sure they did everything to make sure that they arent "spoke on behalf by" others. This could become a "weapon" to smear the "opponent" or a backhanded approach if things "gets out of hand".

Another pitfall is the also new ruling of the strong deterrence against ppl from speaking falsely abt the personality, action and character of the candidates. This could be a tripping line for many of those activists online (Majulah! is not a activist organisation nor do we support any particular party; we are neutral) as from observations, tend to be pretty firebrand in their criticism on the ruling party.

So all political activists, observers, commentators should take note of the new ruling and not get themselves into unnecessary trouble.


A Prostitute Story (quoted from HWZ)

This is an interesting story I read in the HWZ forum.

BuiBui wrote:
Once, there lived a south-east asian girl. She was beautiful and petite, much more attractive than many of her neighbours, who were ugly, lazy or even violent.

Many men loved her deeply, most even offering years of their lives to work as her bodyguard, protecting her from her neighbours.

One day, her grandfather called her into his room. “Ah girl, for the sake of our familee, you have to do this. There is no other choice.”

From then on, she became a changed person. She opened the gates to her house wide, allowing all kinds of people to cum inside her. These people come from the north/south, white, yellow, black, all nationality, large numbers (thousands) of them.

She worked hard to serve these customers, doing everything to appease them, to make them feel good, so they can tip her better. All this time ignoring the pleadings of the men who loyally protected her.

It was useless. In the house the grandfather makes all decisions. Who else can be more qualified? Not even the father can do anything, much less the lowly, lesser bodyguards.

Soon, her house became overcrowded with customers. There was no choice but to chase some of her bodyguards out. The remaining ones suffered a pay cut, with the hope that they will leave by themselves.

Overnight, her familee became very rich. Easily the richest familee in the whole region. Some people despise this method of making money, but it doesnt matter to the grandfather. Money is money.

It slowly dawned on the girl that all the people who cum inside her dun actually love her. For them, once they benefited from the short-term encounter, they leave. No obligations, no responsibilities need be answered.

After several months, the bodyguards who used to love her, who protected her, became really turned off by her love of money and promiscuity. She was no longer pure, no more beautiful, just a cheap tool of her grandfather.

Right now, they are reading this thread and wondering, should they continue to protect the girl and her grandfather, or should they give up?

Pretty extreme but it made the point.

disclaimer: i have no part in the writing of this story nor i endorse anything suggested from this article. Copyrights and credits remains with the original writer. DO NOT SUE ME. =X

Monday, March 1, 2010

Response to "Young PAP on Budget 2010"

The "Young PAP on Budget 2010" is available at Young PAP's website or at this link -

The reproduction of the article:
Young PAP on Budget 2010
Written by YP Activists from the North (Singapore)
Tuesday, 02 March 2010 08:45

A lot has been said about Budget 2010. We'd like to share our personal thoughts on some of the hot debate topics to date:

1) "Minimum Wage - why isn't this in Budget 2010?"
Some have asked for Singapore to have a Minimum Wage -- a mantra thickly repeated but thin on substance. Any Minimum Wage proposal needs to be clear on at least 2 questions. If the proposal hasn't answered them, you should ask why this information has been left out.
- Will a Minimum Wage be restricted to Singaporeans only?
- What is the level of Minimum Wage being proposed?

But even without these important details, one can see how a Minimum Wage policy would hurt ordinary Singaporeans.

If Minimum Wage is only for Singaporeans, it will encourage employers to fire Singaporeans and hire foreign workers -- because foreign workers will become even cheaper compared to Singaporeans.

If Minimum Wage is applied to both Singaporeans and foreign workers, mobile businesses will move their operations abroad, to places where the cost of labour is cheaper -- again losing Singaporean jobs.

It's clear: Minimum Wage would harm Singaporean workers - especially low skill workers whose jobs can easily be replaced when the employer relocates overseas.

Minimum Wage would hurt small businesses and SMEs with thin margins. Because these businesses have difficulty moving abroad -- so they may have to close shop instead.

Minimum Wage would disadvantage charities and social enterprises that hire Singaporeans and are trying to help fellow Singaporeans.

Yet despite all these bad effects, Minimum Wage would do nothing to help workers up-skill, retrain and find a new job.

2) "Shouldn't we reduce taxes and fees on the less well-off?"
Yes, that's precisely what Singapore has done through a progressive income tax system -- where high earners pay more income tax.

Furthermore, Singapore has a progressive system for redistributing the fruits of economic growth. Tax revenue comes from all taxpayers in Singapore regardless of their nationality. But Singapore's Budget transfers are aimed at Singaporeans. This gives more subsidy and transfers to less well-off Singaporeans.

3) "We should privatise Temasek and GIC and give the equity to Singapore citizens."
This is, in essence, a proposal to deplete Singapore's Reserves and give them away as a handout. It is good to help Singaporeans but wrong to squander Singaporeans' future away!

In recent times, some First World countries have seen financial difficulty, e.g. Greece and Iceland. Even the British Pound Sterling was attacked by currency speculators in the Black Wednesday incident of 1992 -- speculators later described as those who "broke the Bank of England".

Any proposal to drain Singapore's Reserves dry, no matter how carefully disguised, must be seen for what it is -- lowering Singapore's economic defences.

4) "Can't we get the private sector to do low cost housing? We can just give away the land for low-cost housing."

Low cost housing, without responsible stakeholders, can cause a race to the bottom in quality and safety.

There is also the problem of causing property prices throughout Singapore to fall. This will undermine the major investment of most Singaporeans who are homeowners.

Any "cheap deal" to create low cost housing out of nowhere in Singapore must be studied carefully. Will it compromise housing quality for less well-off Singaporeans? Will it destroy the value of Singaporeans' homes?

Last Updated on Tuesday, 02 March 2010 08:52


The article is written by a group of PAP activist, whom call themselves "YP Activists from the North", whom shared their personal thought on certain "hot debate topics". Unfortunately, after reading what they got to say,they seemed to turn out to be a very shallow group of activists - single faceted and totally lack of the sensing of the ground temperament. At best, they are simply trying very hard to "back" the governing party's party lines. In summary, its simply a poor attempt to dismiss what the Oppositions got to say and encouraging ppl to resist "change for the better".

And I'm extremely unimpressed by their lack of "pride" to show their names and identity. And for their article to be published on the official youth wing of the PAP is, what i deem, a big SNAFU and a pathetic reflection what the Youth Wing of the biggest and more powerful political party can offer.

In a immediate response thru the facebook, this is the comment i made (in case they "censor" it):


all i can say is its a matter of perspective and how you gonna commit to our beliefs.

1) Just as a minimum wage you guys claim will hurt ordinary Singaporeans, the lack of minimum wage is already hurting "ordinary" Singaporeans. Aren't the foreigners already taking up a lot of jobs that Singaporeans were used to be doing. Just check out your neighbourhood Kopitiam. Minimum wage is not a single economic instrument that works on its own. It should be coupled together with immigration policies as well as other economic and social policies.

Just as i'm on immigration policy, why is the immigration so slack to the point where "unqualified" immigrants are taking up jobs that originally belonged to our less educated population?

To become PR or Citizen, one must be at least very rich, or they have to be skilled workers in order to be able to stay in Singapore. Now all these unskilled workers are taking up the jobs of our unskilled population (because they can accept even lesser pay as opposed to what is already very low pay)

2) I have no complains abt the taxation as the less well off already do not pay income tax.

3) Privatising of the SWFs does not mean it would deplete the Singapore's reserves. At the same length, you might as well close down the stock exchange as it would "bankrupt" all the floated companies. Your "fuller explanation" is in fact more dilute than the "summary".

4) I'm sure there is a much more "complete" plan towards whatever solutions or suggestion there is. I personally do not see a benefit of leaving building of low cost housing to private sector.

I'm sorry, i have to dismiss with your "analysis". I'm disappointed if this "article" is what Young PAP (Official Youth Wing of the ruling party) can come out with. Its extremely shallow; either its irrelevant or its single faceted.


Additional comment towards their article:

They do not provide solutions and suggestions, but just pure dismissal of what the public is concerned abt. Their dismissal of these debatable topic is also done is an extremely one sided and bias approach - tanishing what "respect" one might held for the YP before reading the article.

If this is the quality of the "young leaders" within the Youth Wing of the PAP, there is no wonder why the PAP kept looking for talents beyond their own party hierachy, from the private sector. And it also re-assured my decisions not to be associated with them nor joining their youth wing, is correct.

With the election looming, this article is a pure political snapshot at the Opposition, which missed by a million mile unless the reader is really really shallow and have a total lack of sensing of the ground.

Childish; Disappointed; Disgusted.