TR EMERITUS

Despite the feeble attempts of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong to allay the concerns of Singaporeans over the relentless influx of foreigners into Singapore by reducing the intake of foreigners this year from 100,000 to 80,000, the majority of Singaporeans remain anxious about their future in Singapore which is increasingly dominated by the newcomers. According to a telephone survey conducted by the PAP regime's feedback unit, "0nly 58 per cent, or close to six out of 10 respondents, agreed that Singapore should supplement the local pool by staying open and recruiting talent from the world." The actual figure is probably much higher as Singaporeans tend to be shy, polite and diplomatic when interviewed by PAP-related agencies out of fear of being "marked" by the regime which is infamous for its pettiness and vindictiveness. Furthermore the questions asked are pretty vague - Singaporeans should be asked point-blank if they agree on the current rate of inflow of foreigners which is fast reducing native Singaporeans to becoming a minority in their own country. Singaporeans should not be deceived by the latest PAP's "wayang" to seek their views on its policies for it will never bulge on major issues such as its pro-foreigner and ultra-liberal immigration policies (for uneducated peasants from China and India) which is a cornerstone to its continued political survival, relevance and dominance in Singapore. With the support from locals fast declining, the PAP has to shore up its flagging support base with new (grateful) citizens to ensure that it retains more than 95 percent of the seats in Parliament so that it can continue to pass policies, bills and legislation at its wimps and fancies without any opposition to hold it accountable to its words and actions. The next general election may be the last window of opportunity for Singaporeans to reclaim ownership of their country after which they will surely be relegated to being second class minorities in their own land of birth being overwhelmed by the hordes of foreigners the PAP is mass-importing to replace them.   Please join our Facebook page here and invite your friends to do so to create awareness of the current affairs affecting Singaporeans. Please use our online web form to contact us.  Read More →

OPINION What constitutes "inciting violence and public disorder"? This is the question on the mind of many Singaporeans who are baffled at the inaction of the Singapore police against the PRC players from Beijing Guoan who were seen on camera enacting various acts of violence such as head-butting and stamping on the heads of an opponent cringing in pain on the ground. A big brawl broke out between the Young Lions and Beiing Guoan players from China during a S-League match at Jalan Besar stadium last Tuesday. When a Singaporean Mr Tony Tan Keng Hong went to lodge a police report at Toa Payoh Neighborhood Police Post on 9 September 2010, he was told by the police that a police report is not warranted as he is not a victim. Since neither the Singapore players nor the Football Association of Singapore (FAS) file a police report proper, does it mean that the police will not investigate the matter which has sparked a massive outcry among Singaporeans? It appears so as technically speaking, the police will not take any action unless the victims suffered "grievous hurt" from the assault which under the Penal Code, is defined as: (a) emasculation; (aa) death; (b) permanent privation of the sight of either eye; (c) permanent privation of the hearing of either ear; (d) privation of any member or joint; (e) destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint; (f) permanent disfiguration of the head or face; (g) fracture or dislocation of a bone; (h) any hurt which endangers life, or which causes the sufferer to be, during the space of 20 days, in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits; (i) penetration of the vagina or anus, as the case may be, of a person without that person’s consent, which causes severe bodily pain.  Now if it is the standard protocol that the police can only act upon receiving an official complaint from the victim, then why did Bedok Police Division arrest YOG critic Mr Abdul Malik for criticizing PAP minister Dr Vivian Balakrishnan on Facebook when the latter claimed that he did not lodge any police report? Mr Malik had posted a comment on his Facebook taking Dr Vivian to task for the YOG mass food poisoning scandal on 15 August which caused 21 YOG volunteers to suffer from diarrhoea after taking food provided by the YOG caterer. According to the New Paper, Mr Malik posted a comment written in capital letters saying that the incident showed it was time to “burn” the minister. In the same posting, he also called on the public to “rally together”. He was arrested at his workplace last month by three plain-clothes police officers from Bedok Police Division whose Commander is DAC Teo Chun Ching and Head Investigator is DSP Goh Tat Boon. Below is a snapshot of the original comment posted by Mr Malik who got him into trouble with the police: As we can see Mr Malik’s original post above, he did not mean it literally to “burn” the minister. Taken into context, he is using the word “burn” as a metaphor to mean "destroying" the political career of Dr Vivian. In this case, the Singapore police can act "automatically" without a police report being lodged. Isn't everybody equal under the law whether one is an ordinary citizen or a PAP minister? Why is the police giving preferential treatment to Dr Vivian? Going by its usual modus operandi, Mr Malik should not be arrested at all even if he is indeed guilty of "inciting violence and public disorder" because the "victim" Dr Vivian did not lodge an official police report. Being paid for by taxpayers' monies, DAC Teo Chun Ching should come forward and clarify to the public - was he ordered "from above" to arrest Mr Malik or did he order the arrest on his own accord and if indeed so, what are his reasons for taking the matter into his own hands? What is the primary responsibility of the Singapore police? Is it to protect all Singaporeans or PAP ministers and MPs? Why is the police spending so much time, energy and precious public resources on seemingly trivial cases involving PAP leaders? In March this year, a 52 year old relief cabby was arrested the next day after he reminded PAP MP Lee Yi-Shyan of the Seng Han Thong incident at his Meet-the-People session. He was subsequently fined $2,000 for "criminal intimidation" though he never had the intention to do so. Last year, a 17 year old mentally challenged boy was arrested on the same day for slamming the door on his PAP MP Cynthia Phua during a Meet-the-People session. It is not reported if he was charged in court eventually, but another MP from the same GRC Lim Hwee Hua warned that such "violent" behavior cannot be condoned. (even if it comes from a mentally challenged boy) Another 47 year old man Ng Kim Ngweng was jailed six months for calling the REACH hotline and threatening to beat up an unknown PAP MP (later revealed to be Denise Phua) If these reports were made by ordinary Singaporeans, will the police bother to take any action? Two years ago, a Singapore doctor was having supper at Geylang when he was beaten up by a group of hooligans. The police arrived only 45 minutes later after the culprits had long fled and the victim was asked to lodge a complaint at the Magistrate's court himself so that the police can investigate the case. For the benefit of all, the Singapore police should explain its operating guidelines clearly to the public. Does there exist a separate set of guidelines for PAP ministers and MPs? Do they receive more attention from the police? Why is there a discrepancy in the way the police operates? The Singapore police is not above the law. Every single action it undertakes must be intensely scrutinized by the public. Till Singapore has an independent public complaint bureau against police misconduct to check on the Singapore police, we will have little choice but to live under a cloud of uncertainty with these erratic police inspectors and head investigators.     Related articles: >> British English teacher on Abdul Malik case: “Burn” is used as a metaphor >> MHA: Abdul Malik’s comments will incite violence >> Transcript of Abdul Malik’s interview with Straits Times >> Abdul Malik apologizes to Vivian Balakrishnan >> Bedok Police Division should explain arrest of YOG critic >> Dissenting is our right >> Former RI boy Abdul Malik turned into “celebrity” overnight >> Abdul Malik: My thoughts on the YOG games >> Dr Vivian: I don’t care about arrest of YOG critic >> Arrest of YOG critic to squash dissent failed miserably >> Character assassination by Straits Times against YOG critic >> Netizens voice support for arrested YOG critic Abdul Malik >> Outcry among Singaporeans at arrest of YOG critic >> Singapore police put YOG on world map >> Did Dr Vivian lodge police report against YOG critic? >> YOG critic arrested by Singapore police >> Participant of “I hate YOG” Facebook arrested by police Please join our Facebook page here and invite your friends to do so to create awareness of the current affairs affecting Singaporeans. Please use our online web form to contact us  Read More →

With the increasingly unpopular PAP regime fast losing support among young Singaporeans, PAP strongman Lee Kuan Yew has played the race card again to defend the PAP's system of governance in another desperate attempt to frighten the electorate. In an interview with New York Times, the octagenarian leader chided younger Singaporeans for taking things for granted and "believe that this is a natural state of affairs, and they can take liberties with it." 'They think you can put it on auto-pilot. I know that is never so," he said, without substantiating his statements with concrete evidence (as usual). Lee added that he was fine with "opening up to discuss policies and issues such as disparities", but not race, language and religion which few Singaporeans are interested in anyway. He issued a veiled threat that "this society would be finished" if racial politics came into play. "The easiest way to get majority vote is: 'Vote for me, we're Chinese, they're Indians, they're Malays'. Our society will be ripped apart. If you do not have a cohesive society, you cannot make progress," he claimed. His warped logic formed the basis of the introduction of the GRC system in 1988 to enable minority candidates to be represented in Parliament. However, what was not mentioned was the fact that there are many ethnic minority candidates who triumphed against Chinese candidates, the most notable being the late opposition leader J.B. Jeyaretnam who won in the Chinese-majority ward of Anson in 1981 and 1984 against two different PAP Chinese candidates. When asked about his "tough positions" against the "communist threat" and his political opponents, Lee replied: "In a multiracial situation like this, it is." There are many multi-racial countries in the world like Singapore such as the United States, Australia and United Kingdom and all are prospering and functioning democracies.     Please join our Facebook page here and invite your friends to do so to create awareness of the current affairs affecting Singaporeans. Please use our online web form to contact us.  Read More →