TR EMERITUS

According to a study conducted by the Lee Kuan Yew School of Institute of Policy Studies (IPS), more Singaporeans want the PAP regime to consult them in the policy making process. Even if the PAP needs to make quick decisions, "97 per cent of the respondents said there should be consultation," the Straits Times reports. The results should be worrying for the autocratic PAP regime which has the propensity to make major decisions affecting the livelihoods of millions of Singaporeans on its own arbitrarily without consulting them, e.g. the building of the two Integrated Resorts, the influx of foreigners and changes to the electoral laws to suit its own partisan interests. Political analyst Associate Professor Eugene Tan from the Singapore Management University felt that the results point to a more active citizenry who wants to be more involved in the political process "It means that the 'we know more than thou' approach in policymaking is out of sync with (their) aspirations. Singaporeans want to be 'talked with' not 'talked to' by the Government," he was quoted as saying in the Straits Times. Ominously from the PAP, the awakening of the electorate couldn't come at a worse time with many questions raised about its governance so far - from the rampant flooding, sky-rocketing HDB flat prices to the exceeding of the YOG budget by more than two times. Having ruled Singapore at its wimps and fancies continuously without any effective opposition for the last 50 years, it is highly unlikely that the PAP will pay any attention to the study. As the saying goes, "a leopard never changes its spot". The PAP must be taught a lesson it will never forget in the next general election for taking Singaporeans for granted.     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 →

Following several reports by Temasek Review on Jack Lin's classification of Singaporeans as 3rd Class Citizens, spoilt-brats and a tip-off that he might be Gay, Jack Lin has deleted all networking accounts and photos from the Joo Chiat YEC blog. Fortunately for readers and unfortunately for him (Jack Lin), I managed to trace him back to Joo Chiat YEC and grabed these photos before he can delete them through a contact I had back in the system donkey years ago. photos from the Joo Chiat YEC blog photos from the Joo Chiat YEC blog photos from the Joo Chiat YEC blog Mr Jack Lin Xinli is a YPAP leader of Joo Chiat branch and General Secretary of Joo Chiat Community Club Youth Executive Committee He infuriated Singaporeans lately by calling them "3rd class citizens" on the YPAP Facebook: [Source: YPAP Facebook] Though he initially did issue a public apology on TR, he was quick to retract it later the next day by claiming that he was "misinterpreted" because of his Singlish in an interview with Shin Min Daily. His PAP MP Mr Chan Soo Sen has refused to condemn Mr Lin for his callous remarks and chose to dissociate them from the PAP on the flimsy ground that Mr Lin is making them in his own personal capacity. Please do take note that I have nothing personal against him nor do I know him but I wholesomely condemn his online personal attacks of others. It is in my opinion only fair that Singaporeans should at least know WHO called them "3rd Class Citizens" and "Spoilt-Brats".   Forecaster Extraordinarie II Related articles: >> Joo Chiat YPAP leader Jack Lin is a gay, claims netizen >> Joo Chiat YPAP leader Jack Lin Xinli: Singaporeans are "spoilt brats" >> YPAP leader Jack Lin Xinli: My Singlish was “misinterpreted” >> PAP MPs refuse to condemn YPAP leader Jack Lin Xinli >> YPAP leader Jack Lin Xinli apologizes to opposition MP Chiam See Tong >> PAP MP Chan Soo Sen refused to condemn Jack Lin’s callous remarks on Singaporeans >> Jack Lin Xinli became the 1st YPAP leader to apologise to Singaporeans for making offensive remarks about them >> YPAP leader Jack Lin Xinli clarified his “3rd class citizen” remarks on CNA >> Massive outcry at YPAP leader Jack Lin’s remarks >> YPAP leader Jack Lin: We are free to fix the opposition >> Complaint letter on YPAP leader Jack Lin 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 →

"Chewing gum is banned in Singapore?" a curious friend in Bangkok asks. Encouraged by my nod, she cautiously probes:"What happens when you get caught, death sentence?" You laugh. Perhaps the question was almost child-like in its naivety. But it highlights the far-reaching reputation of a government that freely dishes out harsh penalties on every imaginable crime". The result is no laughing matter: a climate of fear that looms over citizens and foreigners like a hangman’s noose. And it is this fear of political and social repercussion that makes the life of a journalist in Singapore, well, challenging. Few Singaporeans are willing to be interviewed, and even fewer for stories on issues such as human rights, politics, and civil society. They call this the Lion City. But the quickest way to shut a Singaporean up and turn his roar into a feeble squeak is to shove a microphone to his face and tell him you are a reporter. For example, in a story on the social impact of the casinos unveiled this year, the simple task of gathering a couple of voices from visitors took longer than expected. Two hours longer than expected, to be exact. And I understand the sentiments of the 37 people yes, I keep count who declined to be interviewed. The casinos, or integrated resorts, are far from being socially acceptable here, and not many people want to be associated as, or mistaken to be, one of the problem gamblers? At the sidelines of a press conference on Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz’s visit to Burma, I thought I had hit the journalists jackpot when a feisty old man went on a juicy 20-minute tirade on Burma’s  political and economic situation. Quote me and I’ll sue you, he added, just as he walked away. It was cruel, having to put on my what-you-are-saying-is-most-interesting face and sit through all that ranting, only to find it rendered completely useless. In an article on the issues surrounding Singapore’s mandatory death penalty, it was close to impossible to find anyone with an opinion, and was willing to be quoted on it. Indeed, Singaporeans have been silenced, whipped into believing that apathy is the key to our economic well-being, and that we will be punished if we stick our necks out with views contrary to those prescribed by the government. It is more than individuals who face the gallows; it is freedom of expression itself that has been put to death. While the silence makes a journalist’s job difficult, it lessens the workload of the government in dealing with dissent. And Singapore has been hard at work in reinforcing its no-nonsense image. In July alone, at least four transgressions against freedom of expression have been recorded. Alan Shadrake, a 75-year-old British journalist, was arrested and charged with alleged criminal defamation after the launch of his book, Once a Jolly Hangman? a critical review of Singapore’s capital punishment laws which includes exclusive interviews with the state抯 former chief executioner. "Free speech is an endangered species in Singapore," said Phil Robertson, deputy Asia director at Human Rights Watch. "It's sadly predictable that the government did not hesitate to threaten prosecution, fines, and imprisonment against an author whose views run contrary to its own." Shafie Goh, a veteran photojournalist with Chinese-language daily Lianhe Wanbao was handcuffed and briefly detained by police, for snapping photographs of partially submerged cars trapped in a flood. In response to media queries, authorities had claimed Goh was handcuffed for his personal safety? A video of a speech by former political detainee Dr Lim Hock Siew, who had been imprisoned for 19 years without trial under the Internal Security Act, was banned and ordered to be removed from Internet websites. And perhaps no longer news because of the regularity of government action against him, opposition leader Dr Chee Soon Juan was slapped with a 5,000 Singapore dollar (3,670 U.S. dollar) fine for speaking publicly without a licence during the lead-up to the 2006 elections. Meanwhile, Chee’s Singapore Democratic Party has urged the Ministry for Communication, Information and the Arts to expedite the renewal of the licence for the political party’s newspaper, which is more than three months overdue. The Singapore government treats dissent with the same tactic it does drug trafficking: with an iron fist, to make an example of a few in the hope that it will deter others from even the thought of trying. On the flipside of the coin, the fact that there are even a few voices that dare speak out provides a beacon of hope to illuminate the darkness. In writing my news articles, I have found it a daunting task to find even a few sources. But while it is near impossible, it is not yet impossible. It just takes more effort, a lot more time, and a whole lot more arm-twisting. And as long as there are the few who have things to say and are willing to talk, my job as a journalist here is not quite over. It is a running joke, among my Singaporean friends, that I will eventually end up behind bars for voicing my opinions. Such is the power of an oppressive regime, where reporting the truth could well be one of the most dangerous jobs in the country. While the invitation to write under a pseudonym is tempting, it is one I must humbly decline. I could never face myself in the mirror, if I choose to hide behind a pen name, especially in a commentary on the gagging of Singaporeans. But, hang on now, while I cast furtive looks over my shoulder, and please, don’t quote me on this.   By Stanislaus Jude Chan - Asia Media Forum  Read More →