TR EMERITUS

OPINION (DISCLAMER: The below article is sent to us by a reader who chose to remain anonymous and does not represent the views of TR which do not endorse, support or condemn the hoax perpetuated by Gopalan Nair.) When Gopalan Nair posted the article last Saturday claiming that PAP octogenarian leader Lee Kuan had "suffered a massive heart attack", it sounded so real that it soon spread like wildfire in Singapore's blogosphere. 24 hours later, he updated the title to clarify that it is a "hoax" before penning another article to explain why he did so. Gopalan's "hoax" naturally did not go down too well with netizens especially those who have "popped the champagne" too early to celebrate the news, many of whom flamed him for spreading "malicious" lies. As expected, the Straits Times jumped into the fray by portraying Gopalan as a nutcase while casting doubts on the credibility of the New Media. Some bloggers even tried to make use of the saga to boost their own "credibility" by condemning Gopalan on their blogs and demanding an apology from him. Netizens should not fall into the trap set by the establishment and mainstream media and start to play according to the rules set by them using their own contorted version of "credibility" as a yardstick. In today's wired world, there is such thing as "absolute truths" or "absolute lies" - everything else exists somewhere in between in a gray area. Gopalan has the right to post whatever he wants on his blog. The onus is on netizens themselves to decipher for themselves the degree of truth in his article and to expose the fallacies if any. That is what the New Media is all about - a free-for-all world where nobody can control the flow of information or has the monopoly on the truth. And the most beautiful part is that everybody is interacting with one another on an equal footing - no one is more "credible" or "truthful" than the other. Gopalan Nair has been blogging for many years, far longer than the existence of this site. Though some of his views may be outlandish, he has never posted any "hoax" at least till last Saturday. Being a lawyer by training, he should know that he will be discrediting himself by posting such unverified reports on his blog. Even if it is really a hoax, it is unlike him not to post a disclaimer at the bottom of the article. Now consider the following anomalies: 1. There was no immediate response from the Prime Minister's Office to refute the statements made by Gopalan Nair. In this instance, there are sufficient grounds for suing him, even in the United States. 2. The best way to dispel the rumors is to get SGH to issue a public statement that Lee was never admitted to the hospital. The Straits Times mentioned that SGH received numerous phone calls from the public, but did not reveal if Lee was ever admitted. 3. Lee made a trip to the United Kingdom yesterday. He had not been seen in public for more than a week. Given the possible damage done by the rumors, shouldn't Lee made a public appearance in Singapore to allay lingering anxieties and concerns? If you realize, till now, amidst all the cacophony, it has yet to be proven beyond any reasonable doubt that Lee was never admitted to SGH last week for a heart attack or otherwise. Whether it is indeed a hoax as claimed by Gopalan is another matter altogether. The burden of proof is on the authorities to show us that Lee is indeed in the pink of health and since the matter had already been brought up by the mainstream media, why didn't it proceed to clarify it completely now and then? There are two ways to refute such rumors: either issue a public statement to demolish them once and for all or ignore them altogether. It is strange that the state media has gone on a merry-go-round to discredit Gopalan Nair without addressing the crux of the matter. Is Lee's health less important than Gopalan's online credibility? Let us recall a sensational murder case which rocked Malaysia last year. One of its key witnesses Balasubramaniam had made a statutory declaration implicating Malaysian Prime Minister Datuk Najib Razak in the murder of Mongolian model Altantuya Shaariibuu. He retracted the declaration a day later and made a new one removing all mention of Najib before disappearing. He finally surfaced 8 months later in India where he claimed that he was forced to retract the first statutory declaration and that its contents are true in an interview with Malaysia Today. Reading is not believing. There's more than meets the eye in this case.  Read More →

Written by Our Correspondent Embattled Jack Neo who made the headlines lately when news about his 2 year old affair with a 22 year old model Wendy Chong was leaked to the media, had earlier begged his lover to "let him off". This was revealed by Wendy Chong in an interview with Lianhe Wanbao. Wendy claimed that Jack always said "he is already 50 years of age and unable to start afresh again" to beg her to end the affair, but she was unable to let him go. When Jack was told that the affair had been leaked to the media during the journey to Crowne Plaza yesterday to "negotiate" with Wendy's family, he was reported to let out a sigh: "That's the end of my career." Jack Neo is arguably Singapore's most successful movie director with internationally acclaimed films such as "Run away children". He was awarded a PBM during the 2004 National Day celebrations and a Cultural Medallion Award in 2005. Insiders from the entertainment industry revealed that the scandal may affect the sales of his latest film "Being Human" which began showing in Singapore cinemas a few days ago. Jack has assiduously cultivated the image of a family man over the years. He once told the media in 1996 that he is so busy that he has "no time" for extramarital affairs. He had wanted to end the affair many times, but was stopped by Wendy who threatened to commit suicide if he left him. The affair came to light after Wendy went to Jack's place yesterday to confront him. Jack and his wife Irene Kng subsequently went to Crowne Plaza with their pastor and family friend to meet up with Wendy's family to resolve the matter. After the meeting, Jack told the media that he is "determined" to put the end to the affair and be a good man. Irene said it will not affect the family as she has already forgiven him. While some Singapore men may sympathize with Jack Neo's predicament, he is likely to incur the wrath of his female fans who used to be mesmerized by the lively female roles he played such as "Liang Po Po" and "Liang Xi Mei". Perhaps Jack Neo should take some lessons from his latest film "Being Human" - you reap what you sow. Though women are never more than enough, having more than one woman at the same time is a potential disaster in the making. Just ask Tiger Woods.  Read More →

Written by Our Correspondent PAP MPs are so used to saying "yes" in Parliament that they almost screwed up the budget of the Home Affairs Ministry by agreeing to reduce it. PAP MP Alvin Yeo from Hong Kah GRC tabled a motion on Thursday to reduce the budget of the Home Affairs Ministry. As he was not present during the debate on the next day, Speaker of the House Abdullah Tarmugi asked MPs to decide to approve the motion. As the PAP MPs are used to saying "Yes" in Parliament for many years, when the Speaker asked for a decision to be made on the motion, all of them shouted "AYE" in unison instinctively which prompted him to raise his head to hint to the MPs to listen carefully before voting again. The PAP MPs realized their boo-boo and shouted "NO" amidst a chorous of laughter to reject the motion which allowed the budget for the Home Affairs Ministry to be passed through. Below is an excerpt on the embarrassing incident reported by Lianhe Zaobao on 6 March 2010: "内政部的开支预算辩论昨天结束，但是前天对它提出削减动议的议员杨康海（丰加集选区）当时偏偏不在席上，使得拨款委员会主席、议长阿都拉必须要求议员们表 决是否同意削减动议。换言之，如果议员要完整地通过内政部的预算，就必须喊“NO”来反对削减动议，可是执政党议员多年来似乎已习惯了喊“AYE”，所以 当议长提出表决时，他们都自然地喊出“AYE”，促使他猛抬起头来，示意议员们听清楚表决。结果，内政部预算才“有惊无险”地在议员掺杂着笑声和更大声喊 出的“NO”声中，获得通过。" (read rest of article here ) Parliament is supposedly an important place where major decisions concerning the nation are deliberated upon, debated vigorously and decided on by lawmakers voted by the people to represent their interests. In Singapore, it is relegated to no more but a "wayang kulit" as epitomized by the above incident as the PAP has held an overwhelming majority for 50 continuous years. Though one third of the population voted for the opposition during the 2006 general elections, they are represented by only 2 out of 84 seats in Parliament. As such, the ruling PAP is able to bull-doze past unpopular policies and force them down the throats of hapless Singaporeans without consulting them. This has led to glaring policy mistakes being made such as the liberal immigration and pro-foreigner policies which have caused considerable hardships and sufferings to ordinary Singaporeans. The PAP MPs are only allowed to "debate" on issues, but the ultimate say in the drafting up of policies lie in a small group of senior leaders within the party. Once a decision is made, they are expected to toe the party line and vote accordingly to serve its interests. For example, the recent Parliamentary "debate" on the Budget is nothing more but a routine "mutual back-scratching" exercise for PAP leaders to sing praises of their "achievements" and for their subordinates to lick their boots for it has already been announced beforehand by the Finance Minister. In other countries, the issues are first discussed and debated on involving lawmakers from all opposition parties before the Finance Minister draft up the Budget to be put to a vote. This unique phenomenon is engineered by PAP's founder and octogenarian leader Lee Kuan Yew who said in 2008: “To be the prime minister, you don’t have to know every instrument, but you got to recognise, ah, he’s a good violinist, he’ll be the first violinist, he’ll be the double bass. He will play the viola, he will have the trumpet, he will do the drums. Then you coordinate them and then you have great music. And if you already have a great orchestra, you can put a dummy there and you still got great music.” [Source: Channel News Asia, 5 March 2008] He is proven wrong this time. Even with 82 dummies in Parliament, they can sometimes still sing the "wrong tune" if they are not "vigilant" enough.  Read More →