Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat suffered a stroke today and has been hospitalised at Tan Tock Seng Hospital (TTSH), where doctors are attending to him.
Heng, 55, collapsed during a Cabinet meeting at 5.34pm (0934 GMT) Three doctors who were present attended to him immediately and an ambulance was called, said Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong. “Hope Swee Keat will be alright ― he is a valuable member of my team,” said Lee.
Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen wrote on Facebook that Heng was resuscitated after he collapsed. “We managed to resuscitate him but he and his family will now need all our prayers and support as he undergoes critical procedures and treatment for the stroke,” said Dr Ng. “Let us together hope earnestly for his recovery.”
At the hospital, a CT scan showed that Heng had suffered a stroke. “Doctors are attending to him now,” said a statement from the Prime Minister’s Office, issued close to 7pm. Member of Parliament (Tampines) Baey Yam Keng tweeted that he had seen Heng, who is also MP for Tampines GRC, during lunch. “He was his usual self,” said Baey. Wishing Heng a speedy recovery, Baey said the Tampines Group Representation Constituency (GRC) team “will look after residents of Tampines Central”
National Solidarity Party (NSP) lead by their president Mr Sebastian Teo and Secretary-General Lim Tean contest him on General Election 2015 at Tampines, posted on NSP facebook sending their concern of he’s condition and he’s family, wishing him well and speedy recovery.
Press statement of National Solidarity Party (NSP):
The Bukit Batok By-Election yesterday was noteworthy for the following reasons; First, it makes total nonsense of the PAP’s continued claim that the Group Representation Constituency system (GRC) is required to ensure the election of minority candidates into Parliament. The election of the PAP minority candidate in Bukit Batok , and many others before him such as Michael Palmer in Punggol East in 2011 and JB Jeyeratnam in Anson in 1980 show that Singaporeans are not averse to electing minority candidates. The PAP’s continued insistence on the GRC system reeks of political deception at its crudest; nothing more than a mechanism to entrench its power by parachuting unworthy PAP candidates into Parliament. One of the most glaring and egregious example of the cynical use of the GRC system is to be found in Tampines GRC , where the minority member of the GRC is the Environment Minister himself . It is clear that his role in the GRC, together with that of the Finance Minister is to shepherd 3 other PAP candidates into Parliament to make up the PAP numbers. There is absolutely no basis to contend that the Environment Minister is unable to be elected without the GRC system. If indeed he is unable to get elected on his own accord in a Single Member Constituency (SMC) , then he should not be in Parliament . We call on Singaporeans to demand that the PAP put an end to the GRC system immediately, so that true democracy can take root in Singapore. Second, the Bukit Batok results demonstrate that the Singapore voter will punish the PAP for its brand of gutter politics, which has become the hallmark of its election strategy. The Singaporean voter has no appreciation for character assassins, who do nothing to elevate our political discourse. Finally, the Bukit Batok results confirm our belief that the results of GE2015 were an aberration, due to SG50 and the death of Lee Kuan Yew, which the PAP took maximum advantage of. It is clear that the policies of the PAP are rejected by at least 40 % of Singaporeans.
The NSP is greatly encouraged by the Bukit Batok by-election results, and we call on all our volunteers and supporters to step up their efforts to engage Singaporeans and to spread the message of our Party, so that we will make the breakthrough in the next election and be elected into Parliament to serve the people of Singapore.
By Lim Tean Secretary-General 16th Central Executive Committee, National Solidarity Party
Chee Soon Juan, Secretary General of Singapore Democratic Party (SDP)
Singapore’s Consul-General to Hong Kong Jacky Foo went on to the Wall Street Journal in 2014 to respond to Chee’s op-ed
In his op-ed last week (“A New Vision for Singapore,” Nov. 28), Chee Soon Juan rehashes old arguments without a sense of reality.
He takes issue with income inequality in Singapore. Indeed it has increased, as it has in many other countries. But in Singapore, the low-income have access to high-quality education, health care and public housing, like other citizens. Families earning just 1,000 Singapore dollars ($800) a month can afford to own a two-room apartment. Indeed, 80% of households in the bottom income quintile own their homes, with an average of more than S$200,000 net housing equity. Their wages have also grown by 10% (in real terms) in the past decade, unlike the stagnation often seen elsewhere. There is no parallel in other countries. Our model is not perfect, but it is dishonest of Mr. Chee to claim that it has failed, or that we have done nothing.
Mr. Chee criticizes government-linked companies. His charges are absurd. GLCs include highly successful, internationally renowned companies, such as Keppel, SembCorp and Singapore Airlines. They provide good jobs and opportunities for Singaporeans, but they make up just 10% of the economy. Privately owned small and medium-sized enterprises employ seven in 10 Singaporeans and enjoy the bulk of government support.
But Mr. Chee is not interested in facts. He is out to make a political case and trim his sails to the wind. When he writes in The Wall Street Journal, he attacks GLCs, but when he writes for the Huffington Post, he attacks free-trade agreements, in particular the U.S.-Singapore FTA.
Mr. Chee claims Singapore lacks a democracy. The reality is that elections in Singapore are free and fair. Every time Mr. Chee and his party have contested, Singaporeans have rejected them. He might do better to take the interest of Singaporeans to heart, rather than pander to the editorial tastes of the Western media.
President Tony Tan Keng Yam has issued the writ of election for the Bukit Batok by-election, which has been called after Member of Parliament David Ong resigned.
The Bukit Batok by-election will be held on May 7, after President Tony Tan Keng Yam issued the writ of election onWednesday (Apr 20).
Nomination day will be on Apr 27 and the nomination centre will be Keming Primary School.
The Bukit Batok single seat was vacated when People’s Action Party (PAP) representative David Ong resigned last month, citing a “personal indiscretion”. He later sent residents a letter of apology.
President issue Writ of Election: 20 Apr 2016 Nomination Day: 27 Apr 2016 Cooling-off Day: 06 May 2016 Polling Day: 07 May 2016 (Polling centres operate from 8am to 8pm)
Mr Ong won the seat in the September 2015 general election with 73.02 per cent of the valid vote, while Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) candidate Sadasivam Veriyah and independent candidate Samir Salim Neji had 26.38 per cent and 0.6 per cent, respectively. There were 27,077 electors in the constituency at the time, according to the Elections Department (ELD).
Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) chief Dr Chee Soon Juan has said he will contest the by-election, while the ruling party has put forward lawyer Murali Pillai as its candidate.
In preparation for the by-election, ELD announced that it would update the names of electors in its registers on Apr 14.
Polling Day for the by-election is not a public holiday. Under the law, every employer has to allow every elector in his employ a reasonable period of time for voting.
Press Statement from National Solidarity Party Secretary General, Mr Lim Tean:
In the lead-up to GE2015 , the PAP milked SG50 and the death of Lee Kuan Yew to the hilt for maximum political advantage. Today, 7 months after the General Elections ,Singaporeans are waking up to the spectre of a long harsh economic winter that is already upon us .
Negligible growth in the last quarter and the move last week by the MAS to ease monetary policy, stopping the Singapore dollar from rising, exports crashing to a 3 year low, are all testament to the fact that Singapore is already in recession . Only the government is in denial . But the factual evidence cannot lie .
The large number of shops closing down in our malls because of declining business and high rentals, nearly 15,600 Singaporeans retrenched last year and zero number of jobs created for Singaporeans in 2015 and negative productivity growth for the last 4 years with no sign of any impending upturn.
3 weeks ago, the Finance Minister Mr Heng Swee Kiat attempted to give an optimistic outlook for the Singapore economy in the coming years. The truth of the matter is that the budget he delivered shows a man and a Party that has no idea of what is needed for the Singapore economy to thrive in the new Knowledge Economy. In 2010, Mr Heng was part of the Economics Strategies Committee which included 10 other PAP Ministers namely , Tharman Shanmugaratnam , Lim Swee Say , Ng Eng Hen , S Iswaran , Gan Kim Yong , Josephine Teo , Lim Hwee Hua , Liu Tuck Yiu , Grace Fu , Raymond Lim . The Committee claimed in its report that in this decade, Singapore could achieve annual productivity growth of 2-3 %. Today, more than half-way through the decade , we have negative growth and have had it for the last 4 years . I will let the fact speak for itself !
The PAP and the government controlled media have in the past indoctrinated Singaporeans with the idea that the PAP are economic grand masters and are indispensable to the survival of Singapore. This harsh economic winter which has descended upon Singapore will debunk that myth and will in fact show how the PAP have misguided the economic destiny of Singapore for the last 2 decades, since the Knowledge Economy arrived .
The NSP newsletter will go on sale this week . In it is a substantial article by me highlighting the PAP’s dismal failure to create an innovative society and how that has impacted negatively on our productivity growth and long term economic future . Please look out for it . I will also in the coming weeks discuss the content of my article on this FB page . I look forward to your comments and feedback on how we should move forward towards creating a truly innovative society. Together we can make a difference and not allow propaganda noises to fog the truth. This will be our demonstration of “ Democracy Anyway “. This much I know . The role of Government is to create a conducive social and business infrastructure to foster innovation and entrepreneurship . In this the PAP have failed spectacularly !
Lim Tean
Secretary General
The National Solidarity Party
On Monday, the start of the work week, which could be why there were fewer than 30 members of the public present at the Supreme Court auditorium, when the Constitutional Commission looking at the elected presidency parameters started its work at 9.30am.
It was quite a pity given that it was a wonderful display of intellectual interaction between the commission members and those who were invited to give their views. The commission, headed by Chief Justice (CJ) Sundaresh Menon, saw seven people in all. There was plenty of grilling and drilling which reflected the scrutiny paid to even minute proposed changes to a unique Singapore institution.
To re-cap: the nine-member commission was asked to study the changes that needed to be made to the qualifying criteria of presidential aspirants, the powers of the Council of Presidential Advisors and a way to ensure that minorities get a shot at the office.
So there was former Nominated MP Eugene Tan, a constitutional law expert, who thinks that the qualifying criteria should be “updated” – since it was last set in 1991 over a much smaller economy and much smaller national reserves. The criteria now: Head honchos from the private sector must have handled companies with at least $100m in paid-up capital, which is small beer today. From 158 companies in 1993 when the first Presidential Election (PE) was held, there are now more than 2,000 which fit the bill.
Prof Tan wants the criteria “updated” (he didn’t say how) but not so much as to shrink the pool of minority candidates with the aptitude and inclination for the job. You would have thought that a pool of 2,000 companies in the private sector would be able to throw up many more minority candidates compared to the initial 158. Commission member Mr Peter Seah, chairman of DBS bank, referred to the figures but stopped short of making the point.
On the other hand, there was the team from Aware which wanted the criteria made less stringent, suggesting that instead of $100m in paid-up capital, it should be $50m in net assets. This would open the door wider for women, said executive director Corinna Lim and programme and communications senior manager Jolene Tan.
If the women, who showed a slide with portraits of the past presidents, entitled All the President’s Men, thought they would get support from the only woman member of the commission, Prof Chan Heng Chee, they thought wrong. The academic and former envoy didn’t think the criteria needed narrowing. Pointing out that six permanent secretaries and 25 per cent of current Members of Parliament were women, she added: “I’m quite optimistic, increasingly there are women who are well qualified and who will meet criteria… I do not agree that we should lower barriers to let women in.”
Much of the day was spent canvassing views on how the presidency should be tweaked to allow for minority representatives. All seven said it was a good thing to have but differed on ways to reach the goal. They range from having a two-person ticket, much like the US presidency, to having closed elections for minorities if too much time had elapsed since a non-Chinese took office.
So private sector, women and minorities… what of the public sector people who are now eligible? Here’s the list of who qualifies: Minister, Chief Justice, Speaker of Parliament, Attorney-General, Chairman of the Public Service Commission, Auditor-General, Accountant-General, Permanent Secretary, chairman or chief executive officer of the Central Provident Fund Board, the Housing and Development Board, the Jurong Town Corporation or the Monetary Authority of Singapore.
Everyone seemed to have a view on paid-up capital in private sector but not much on whether the public sector list should be trimmed, extended or have more criteria grafted on it. It seems that no one quarrels with their skill sets, even though some may not have had to handle large sums of money.
The only instances they were referred to was when CJ Menon asked Prof Tan about his suggestion that three-year minimum criteria should vary for different types of office holders? Perhaps five years, suggested CJ Menon, to show “consistency’’ of work and depth of experience. You wonder what this would do the Prime Minister’s authority to shuffle key officers…
The duo from Aware also suggested that more top-ranking public servants, such as senior ambassadors and superscale civil servants be added to the pool of potential candidates and that their proposal of dropping the qualifying criteria to $50m net asset be applied to them too.
A topic that was not quite within the Commission’s ambit was raised: the timing of proposed changes. Prof Tan suggested that they be applied not to the next PE due in 2017 and not the one in 2023. The Prime Minister had said that the changes should be in place by the end of the year, which makes it likely that they will kick in for the coming PE.
But is this really a decision for the commission to make, asked CJ Menon. Or a political decision for the PM? In the end, the compromise was that the final report should reflect feedback, rather than make a recommendation.
There was plenty of back-and-forth on the non-political, non-partisan nature of the office. Prof Tan said he was hoping to take out the “political edges” from the job by asking for more transparent processes. He thought that having the Presidential Elections Committee decide whether candidates had “integrity, good character and reputation…’’ before approving them was too “subjective”. The question of character should be left to the electorate. If not, then the committee should make its objections public.
CJ Menon’s counter: What if the candidates had to sign a “self-disclosure’’ form? Or what if the committee tells the candidate privately of its objections and leaves it to the candidates to decide on making it public? Prof Tan thought it was worth considering but Aware’s representatives had a different take when it was raised with them. Those who put their names up were forfeiting their privacy as they were already “taking steps to be in public domain”, Ms Lim said, adding that though she like the idea of the form, it should be made public rather than kept to the committee. To that, CJ Menon said that this might open candidates to inflammatory attacks and make the elections more reactionary and divisive.
Everything is getting a little tangled. The fact is, the presidency is a non-political office filled via a political process known as the election. Even Prof Tan found himself conflating issues when he noted that the criteria for presidency is more stringent than for prime ministership. But the presidency is about unifying symbol with custodial powers, CJ Menon pointed out, while the PM has a political party with an agenda for the people. They cannot be compared.
That well might be the case, but as far as the people are concerned, both involved voting. Non political office notwithstanding, people simply see the presidency as a separate power centre that is within the G. People forget that it was the G itself which put in place this ownself-check-ownself mechanism, which could constrain its actions should an “unfriendly” president take power.
Of course, the opposing view is that the G now wants changes to make sure that there is a higher chance that a “friendly” president will be elected, since he or she would have like-minded views with the Establishment.
There in the front row was Mr Tan Jee Say, former presidential candidate and head of the Singaporeans First Party. He told TMG he hasn’t ruled out standing for the presidency but this would need to depend on the new criteria and what his party members thought. He was definitely against raising the $100m threshold.
The sum is not small, he said, and the principle of being able to manage money is the same whether it was $100m or more. Mr Tan himself was a managing director at AIB Govett, an organisation which, though it did not have a paid-up capital of $100m, was said to be of “equivalent complexity” to such companies.
Sembawang GRC Opposition candidate Kevryn Lim of National Solidarity Party (NSP) is a single mother and champions their rights. (Photo: Kevryn Lim Facebook)
In examining the policies on benefits for parents, should we not ensure that children of differing family backgrounds have equal opportunities, even if our society still values the traditional nuclear family structure?
Singapore’s pro-family policies offer an extensive range of benefits – from housing to baby bonuses, parental leave to child savings accounts. These schemes, however, are limited to Singaporean children with legally married parents.
This raises the question of how the government recognises and supports families that do not fall within the traditional family structure, such as families with single parents.
Last July, the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) announced a policy review to evaluate the benefits given to single parents, in an effort to “harmonise the differentiation that exists” among married and single mothers, according to Mr Tan Chuan-Jin, Minister for Social and Family Development.
In addition, former Minister for Social and Family Development, Mr Chan Chun Sing, established that all Singaporean children get the same set of benefits, regardless of their parents’ marital status. These benefits include child care, development, education and healthcare.
While these efforts are laudable, it remains the case that unwed and single mothers get eight fewer weeks of leave than married mothers. They also do not benefit from the baby bonus scheme, housing policies, or various tax reliefs, including the parenthood tax rebate, child relief, handicapped child relief, grandparent caregiver relief and the foreign maid levy relief.
The fact that these discrepancies in family benefits are due solely to marital status is curious, especially since children of single parents would have one fewer parent and hence considerably less familial support. A ‘harmonisation’ effort should therefore involve providing single parents with the support their children need in order to gain a fair footing with their counterparts with two parents.
Mr Chan stated that “benefits intended to support marriages and births within the contexts of families are only given to married mothers”. The Government’s stance is that the traditional nuclear family is the most pragmatic family structure for raising Singapore’s low fertility rates. Given Singapore’s interventionist approach to population policies, it is no surprise that incentives are provided to encourage such families to have children. However, this should not be at the expense of children with single parents.
The Government also explains that it upholds the traditional nuclear family as the building block of our society, a concept that is part of our Asian values and that should not be challenged. As Mr Tan mentioned when reviewing the differentiated benefits, while society is sympathetic to single parents, the Government believes that it is important not to appear to encourage the single parent family structure.
Most single parents, however, may not have had a choice in having to raise their children alone. As such, considering the difficulties involved, even equal benefits would not serve as a carrot for people to become single parents. Being fair in terms of policy benefits does not necessarily imply encouragement and material support for propagating single parent families.
In any case, the number of traditional nuclear families is already falling. Mr Tan recognises this, pointing out the need to eventually explore and redefine the meaning of family, which could in turn result to changes in other policies. He also mentioned that we are not yet at that stage, but that it is inevitable.
A total of 122,500 professionals were employed as engineers as of June 2015, of whom 6 in 10 were locals, Minister of State for Manpower Teo Ser Luck of the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) told Parliament on Tuesday (5 April).
He was replying to a question from PAP Member of Parliament (MP) Lee Bee Wah, who had asked for the number of engineers currently working in Singapore and the breakdown by locals, permanent residents, and foreigners.
In the government sector, the “majority” of engineers employed were locals, Teo said, responding to Lee’s follow-up question about the number of engineer jobs in government agencies and statutory boards that were filled by Singaporeans.
“Employing of the engineers will be based on skill set,” Teo said, adding that some software and specialised skill sets were not “readily available here”.
“We will always do our best to try to make sure our local engineers are given a fair chance and opportunity to take on positions,” Teo said.
He also said engineers had functional skills that were applicable across different sectors.
Teo had earlier said engineers played a crucial role in Singapore and were needed to grow key sectors such as manufacturing and telecommunications. Engineers were also key to improving infrastructure and driving the Smart Nation initiative, a national effort to harness technology for innovation.
“We respect and we feel that engineering skills and engineers themselves need to be recognised and rewarded,” the MOS said.
In a second follow-up question, Lee asked how many engineering positions in government agencies were filled by foreigners and whether the government would lead by example by employing just Singaporeans.
“We have many positions with engineering grads filling up the positions, both engineering jobs and non-engineering jobs. Majority of them are filled by locals,” Teo replied.
“So we will do our best wherever we could, based on merits, to give our local engineers, our local graduates… to be employed in the civil service.”
Responding to a supplementary question from MP Desmond Choo, Teo said his ministry was encouraging former engineers to return to the industry. Based on feedback, there was a lack of engineers, Teo added.
“We encourage them (to return to the profession) through different programmes of support. There are already current programmes in career support to bring them back, especially the mature engineers,” Teo said.
Press statement from NSP Secretary General Mr Lim Tean:
These days the speeches of the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) ministers are peppered with the words “ innovation” and “ entrepreneurship “ but in reality the PAP have not fostered a creative, innovative society. Nor do they appear to have any ideas on how to bring it about.
The PAP’s dismal failure in this regard is particularly egregious as the internet age has been upon us for the last 20 years heralding the new era of the knowledge economy, where a… premium is placed on innovation.
In the latest Global Innovation Index 2015, Singapore came in a dismal 100 out of a total of 141 countries in terms of innovation efficiency. The innovation efficiency is the ratio of innovation output over input.
In soccer parlance, Singapore is hovering near the relegation zone for innovation efficiency! We score much lower than Malaysia, our neighbour, in this regard.
The truth of the matter is that Singapore is just not a very innovative country contrary to all the proclamations made by the PAP and the Prime Minister on how they have created an innovative economy and a culture where innovation can thrive.
I shall highlight in future posts how to rectify this dreadful situation which Singapore finds itself. In the meantime please Google Global Innovation Index 2015 and learn about the true situation regarding Innovation in Singapore so that you will not be misled by what the PAP and the Singapore MSM tell you.
Lim Tean
Secretary General
National Solidarity Party
I saw THIS POST that shared one very well-received speech by Mr Chiam See Tong in Parliament back in the days. In that one, he spoke of what he thought would make a good and patriotic opposition and he also spoke of how he’s saddened about who ran (and still runs) SDP. Chiam said,
To me, above all, in the Opposition, we must be good and patriotic Singaporeans. We must not go around the world denouncing Singapore…. (omitted)… Singapore has a viable system and I do not think that any Opposition should try to sing to the tune of people outside Singapore, whose intentions are in fact questionable in regard to the prosperity and success of Singapore.
I have three main beef with Chee Soon Juan. One is that I seriously doubt his patriotism. Two, I doubt his definition of loyalty. Three, he appears to be overly obsessed with the notion of freedom of expression and pursuit of human rights. Yea, THE WHOLE DEMOCRACY, FAIRIES AND TINKLEBELL BUSINESS.
Hehe, I can almost imagine Mr Lee Kuan Yew saying, ‘IS IT BANKABLE? CAN IT GIVE YOU FOOD?’
First things first, on patriotism. I’m totally with Chiam in that we don’t go overseas, take to the stage and give a speech badmouthing our own country and our own political leadership (which has been voted in via the usual democratic elections.) This is the guy who’s spent years and years badmouthing our nation and leaders to any foreigner who cares to listen.
And even when he could not travel, he would make recorded speeches and upload onto Youtube. I don’t want to drive traffic to him anymore than necessary, so you can go google yourself if you’re interested.
Not so long ago, he even made a recorded speech and appeal to Obama, the President of the United States of America. Ya, I know right *roll eyes*
So what exactly did he wanna fight for? Human rights, ya? Human rights as defined by whom? The Western ideologies and all, yea, yea, I get it, Chee was educated in the States. The whole notion of human rights and absolute freedom must be such a romantic thing. He’d spent a large part of his life fighting for ‘freedom and democracy’. Yes, the resilience is admirable. But take note, this man is fighting for something he personally believes in, which are essentially the Western ideals of a very open and very free society. I’m not convinced that’s the right model to import into our society in its full ‘glory’.
Anyway, my point is all these years, he’s fighting for his personal dream of democracy which is based off the Western ideology of freedom and civil liberties. He is NOT exactly fighting to serve the people or better your lives in the everyday Singaporean sense, you know, the more realistic and less romantic bread-and-butter issues.
So, yes, he had appealed to Obama to step in and interfere in OUR nation’s affairs, despite knowing that our two countries share rather close ties. And hey, what about this thing called soverignity? I personally see that as an important thing, even if we’re like a sneeze of an island in the big blue sea.
And what was he fighting for, again?
Oh, here. Let’s see, the right to speak our minds, to choose our leaders, and to be treated with respect and dignity.
Strange. We both live in the small little red dot, and yet in two separate bubbles. I say we have the right to speak our minds RESPONSIBLY. In my mind, we don’t necessarily have to adopt the Western idea and ideal of what freedom of speech entails. We’re an Asian country with different value systems, different cultural nuances, different everything.
‘I agree with Minister Yaacob Ibrahim that freedom of speech does not come free from the need to be responsible for what one says, either online or offline. This is a tough problem to solve, but we need to develop our own ways to keep online conduct civil and constructive.’
Oh, read these interesting opinion pieces on freedom of speech too, one by learned and renowned academic and writer CHERIAN GEORGE and one by a younger person writing from OFFBEAT PERSPECTIVES.)
What else? Chee wanted President Obama to come fight for us for our right to choose our leaders??!! *incredulous* Is Chee saying that our elections are not clean? Or that we’ve been deprived of the choice to vote? I think we have a clean, honest polling system, yo.
Or perhaps he’s talking about the high(?) barriers to entry? And really, what can the President of the United States of America do huh? Like apply trade sanctions or something on us so that our government will yield to pressure? Is he trying to work with a foreign country to undermine Singapore’s sovereignty? Like I said, I have a big hairy issue with that. Anyway, the barriers are there for a reason, to deter unqualified or unsuitable candidates, and also to ensure that people take it seriously and not ‘anyhowly’ sign up to run for election.
Or is he trying to say that opposition parties don’t get the same platforms to reach out to the public? Maybe in the past, definitely less so these days. Not in this day and age of Internet and social media. There’re plenty of alternative media sites and other online publication that would be more than willing to carry Chee’s stories, I’m sure. And please, of course, the incumbent has more RESOURCES, but the opportunities are open for all parties to sell their snake-oil to the residents and voters. Yes, including OPPOSITION PARTIES.
And what’s the next one, that we’re human beings and oughta be treated with respect and dignity? Really? Chee, you really think this is such a big problem here in Singapore that you have to complain all the way to the US? Like really really?
I’m very sure you don’t speak for ALL of us, so don’t you go play hero and run to Uncle Sam.
A ‘freedom fighter’ point?
I get a little worried whenever I read stuff about people warming up to Chee, ‘HUMANISING’ CHEE, claiming Chee is a changed man, or worse, Chee is THE man.
The number of people buying CHEE’s BOOKS (Is it true? I heard that someone had offered $10,000 to buy his book??), the LONG SNAKING LINES for his autograph, the fan-articles, the fan-vids… Scary. At the risk of being described as scare-mongering, I am of the opinion that the man’s the same, just that he’s learnt to package and repackage. With his formal training and some gift of the gab, Chee is potentially a ‘dangerous’ man. Don’t play with the voters’ minds, please.
Perhaps the younger generation doesn’t remember his antics. Antics spanning some or over two decades. But the older ones amongst us probably remember. I know I do. He is the comeback kid alright, and with better showmanship too.
I understand if Loyalty is not a virtue treasured today as much as it was two decades ago.
I understand if one’s showmanship is valued more in today’s world of Kardashians.
But if you are a grown man, and you betrayed the same mentor who groomed you, and stabbed him in the back so hard, it says a lot about the darkness of your heart.
Call me old fashioned but guess what? I prefer one who wears Loyalty on his sleeves, then Charisma as a jacket, and Excuses for cufflinks.
You forced your mentor out of the party he founded. Let’s not forget that.
You want to talk about compassion and forgiveness? Dude, you were 30 years of age when you stabbed your mentor. What did you suffer from? Massive growth deficiency?
I wish the younger generation witnessed the evilness of this man then. Maybe they would see the bullshit I see now.
Hee, wanna know how the blogger’s friend replied to the blogger about whether Chee Soon Juan has a real chance at the Holland Bukit Timah GRC? Check HERE.
To me, betraying someone is a biggie, tells a lot about the person’s character. And to betray the very hand that fed you, and to drive someone out from his own ‘home’, that’s on a totally different dimension. Way too serious to just wave off. Call me a conservative prude or whatever, I don’t really care and I probably am, but I think this is too big a deal to just forget.
Sure, we all make mistakes and everyone deserves a second chance. But in this case, I’m purporting that we don’t forget even if we forgive. When assessing someone for office or when voting someone into Parliament, the candidate’s character is important, isn’t it? All I’m suggesting is that we take the bad with the all the new-good that you see. Take the betrayal incident into consideration when the residents of the Holland-Bukit-Timah GRC weight in for Polling Day tomorrow.
If you’re unsure of what Chee has done in the past, you can read up on the earlier part of his political/activist career HERE, and you can click HERE for some of the more recent happenings.
He often goes around saying he’s been jailed and all, but remember to ask, Why?
If it’s been proven beyond reasonable doubt that Chee had broken the law, then why should he not be charged? If he’s been warned against not doing something or if he knows jolly well a certain deed is illegal but chooses to do it anyway, why should he not be charged?
Yes, he had called LKY and PM Lee murderers, robbers, child molesters and rapists. And he had called them those names in court. You don’t think it’s serious enough? I do. And surely the Court would take him to task, no?
So when he talks about being jailed, you should find out ‘Why‘.
He might play the gentleman onstage now, but I guess I just cannot forget the gangsterly way he had heckled ESM Goh Chok Tong back in 2001.
Don’t think I’m just saying it. The facts show it all.
Even Jeremy Chen, someone who had worked very closely with the SDP leadership and even on some of the POLICY PAPERS SDP has presented to the public (but he didn’t get no credit, sobsss), had come out and said this of Chee,
Lots more dirt where this came from, click HERE for more.
In a more recent blogpost in July, Jeremy Chen said SDP lacks integrity, called Chee a liar and even urged voters not to vote for SDP. He gave a couple of examples, read HERE.
Apparently someone has asked Jeremy Chen why he had such a big axe to grind against SDP and he has replied HERE. Of course, I’ve no way of knowing whether Jeremy Chen’s accounts were true, but hey, they’re all online and publicly available. If he ain’t telling the truth, then I say this guy has guts and ain’t afraid of Dr Chee or the party going after him.
Now Jeremy Chen ain’t the only ex-SDP member who doesn’t have nice things to say about Chee. There’s another Jarrod Luo, also ex-SDP, who is also quite open about his disdain towards Chee. Here’s one.
Say or think what you will. But there are just too many anecdotes and too many ill feels from people who actually know. Of course some people would be more forgiving and magnanimous than me and think Chee deserves a chance to be sent into Parliament. Especially since he’s been fighting for our ‘freedom’ for so long. But harlow, lots of us work and fight very hard for what we believe in too. We don’t always get what we want. Such is life.
Don’t get me wrong, like I’d said, I really am also all for second chances. I think Chee should be given all the fair chances in the world and even on planet Mars too to find a job and contribute to the society and buy some ice-cream for the family, even when it’s not on offer. But to have him represent the people in Parliament is quite another matter. Then candidates from all sides will have to be assessed. If PAP gives you a good candidate who is likely to do well, should you then deprive this candidate of a chance to serve the people because you think Chee has waited long enough? I say be fair, and be fair to the PAP candidates too. They are people too, you know.
So now, let’s consider things from a more objective view. Someone (John Low, an ex-educator) has studied SDP’s policy papers on education. And here’s what he said (post has gone quite far, over 2000 shares),
HERE’s another blogpost from a young Singaporean girl (Econs student to boot) sharing her thoughts on SDP’s proposed policies as a Holland-Bukit Timah GRC resident.
I’ve blogged here about how I have issues with his (lack of) patriotism and loyalty. The third one’s about how I don’t think he is a realistic and practical man at all. We’re a super duper teeny weeny island of a country with no natural resources. We have to STAY PRACTICAL, STAY ‘PROFITABLE’ and keep that iron in us. I’ve blogged more about the third part HERE
Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat suffered a stroke today and has been hospitalised at Tan Tock Seng Hospital (TTSH), where doctors are attending to him.
I saw 
The Chosen Media News 