RC Airbus A380
Ξ May 24th, 2006 | → 0 Comments | ∇ Uncategorized |
now… I would like to have one of this…
man, this is HUGE for a RC plane… I LIKE!!
lets watch its video…
A tale of 3 students
Ξ May 17th, 2006 | → 0 Comments | ∇ Uncategorized |
So I was on the train this morning, going to work.
3 students were sitting a couple of seats away from me, one from a JC (judging at the uniform), one is from NUS (judging by the notes he was carrying), and one is from ITE (judging from his uniform).
The JC kid looks like some rich yaya-papaya spoilt brat. Fair skin, and slightly “wider” side-wise… later alighted at Buena Vista, so I guess you know which school he is from lah…
The NUS student, wearing sporty outwear, looks like some sportsman… all strong and tanned.
The ITE student, on the other hand, looks like some young punk, with long highlighted hair, and with rings all over the ears.
Reaching Jurong East, an old man boarded the train from the entrance next to the JC kid.
The old man stood there, looking at the kid.
all the 3 looked at the old man…
ITE student stood up and gave his seat to the old man…
and people can say ITE students are hopeless….
Tokyo Train fare/schedule
Ξ May 15th, 2006 | → 0 Comments | ∇ Uncategorized |
Now, I have always wanted to know how long does it take to get from Toride to Akihabara, and how much is the fare and how the hell should I get there by train…
fret not…
coz here comes the answer…
http://grace.hyperdia.com/cgi-english/hyperd01.cgi
Poem by Ong Ah Bee
Ξ May 11th, 2006 | → 0 Comments | ∇ Uncategorized |
I just found this poem amusing, and would like to share with all…
==============
Poem by Ong Ah Bee
Recently, my white MP,
Kok on my door, and very kek ki..
Say ‘I’ve worked so hard, so vote for me’, ‘Or rubbish won’t be
cleared, in your vicinty’..
I said ‘Dear MP of my GRC’,
‘Dun remember u, so please pardon me’..
‘I only saw you on TV’,
‘Dozing off and jiak liao bee’..
Last GE I voted for thee,
2% up in GST..
Cut CPF and up utility,
Are still very clear in my memory..
5 years later, then you come to me,
Fresh from your slumber of ivory..
Say that only, you can help me,
Escape from a life of poverty..
Just take a drive on CTE,
Count the number, of all the gantries..
Or squeeze a ride on the MRT,
That has not been cleared for ye..
My life since the last GE,
Has been downhill though I voted PAP..
If I vote the same for your sleeping spree, I can expect the same
misery..
So this time round, I vote for somebody, Who will kachiao you, to productivity..
Forms fill wrong, no big deal to me, If there’s someone to speak up for ah bee..
So dear MP of GRC,
If life no improve, vote u cho simi?
new car show off
Ξ May 10th, 2006 | → 0 Comments | ∇ Uncategorized |
after showing off the old car a few days back, let me show you the new car photo…
sorry that it looks ugly…
kancheong spider shot when collecting car on 29th April 2006.
Elections are over…
Ξ May 9th, 2006 | → 0 Comments | ∇ Uncategorized |
So the “strong mandate” has gone to PAP (I am still wondering what strong mandate is that at 66.6% overall support…)
And as said, 66.6% of the voters has taken a bite at the carrot…
lets see how hard the stick will now swing back and hit you on your kar chng…
WP Rally’s turn out
Ξ May 5th, 2006 | → 0 Comments | ∇ Uncategorized |
Holy sh*t, did you see the turn out at the WP’s Rally, which was smacked right in Ang Mo Kio, on 4th May 2006?
Yes, I know that the turn out will not signify the vote counts on polling day.
But if I am the PAP, looking at the turn out, I will be sh*tting in my pants now…
Wow…. PAP can do all these?!?
Ξ May 5th, 2006 | → 0 Comments | ∇ Uncategorized |
Title : Wayang party with no solution: Dr Ng
By : Loh Chee Kong, TODAY
Date : 04 May 2006 0740 hrs (GMT + 8hrs)Manpower Minister Ng Eng Hen has called the Workers’ Party (WP) a “wayang” (theatre) party. Speaking at a People’s Action Party (PAP) lunchtime rally yesterday, Dr Ng termed the WP a party of criticisms, offering no solutions.
Dr Ng said that the PAP, on the other hand, had built a trust with Singaporeans over the last 40 years, and was not about to take that trust for granted.
“If the PAP Government had not listened to your views, cared for your welfare, improved your lives, you would have kicked us out long ago. Isn’t that right? But your vote is the most powerful check for any government, PAP or Opposition.
“Your vote is the most powerful check to make sure that only good, capable, honest people with integrity become your Member of Parliament.”
Which is why Dr Ng called the WP a wayang party. “Do they have solutions? Can they bring the price of oil down? Can they stop factories from pulling out of Singapore and find you jobs? Can they bring down the price of rice, a loaf of bread, a cup of coffee?
Seriously… you mean PAP can do it?? if so, then why are they not doing it? if not, what courage they have to question if the opposition can do it, when they are not even able to do it…
“What does the Workers’ Party want? You look at their ideas when they came up with their manifesto. We say these are dangerous ideas, we expose them. But they say akan datang (coming soon), wait, we talk about it in the General Election. Have they talked about it?”
Speaking later in the night at a PAP rally in Tampines, Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng said that Singaporeans should scrutinise all candidates under a microscope.
“You are voting for your children’s future. The elections are not a game, entertainment, but the search to find people to entrust your future.”
Referring to the battle for the Tampines GRC, Mr Wong then said that voters should go for a tried-and-tested formula.
“Mah Bow Tan has been here for 18 years … Ong Kian Min and Sin Boon Ann have been here for more than 10 years. Irene Ng has been here for five years and now we have Masagos Zulkifli.
just to let those who are unawre knows that MPT lost his seat in Parliament to Mr Chiam See Tong in 1984. *source http://www.elections.gov.sg/past_parliamentary1984.htm#P
“PM Lee said in a rally that Masagos will not only be an MP but he can contribute more. PM has said he will appoint him to be a office-holder. So, you will have two people in the Cabinet serving you.”
Referring to the challenge from the Singapore Democratic Alliance (SDA), Mr Wong said that the Opposition did not have a coherent platform.
It was a point later elaborated by Ms Ng, who criticised the SDA’s plan to reduce unemployment in Tampines.
“You ask them how they are going to (do) it. We have many recruitment services in Singapore. In Tampines, we go further – we organise job fairs. On the Government level, we are going even further.”
Ms Ng also dismissed the claim made by the SDA’s Edmund Ng that he had come from the Young PAP. Said the former journalist: “The truth is he was never a member of Young PAP. He was never a member of PAP, nor a member of Young PAP. So, what kind of person are we talking about? I would urge residents to be very careful in choosing the candidates. This is not a game.” – TODAY /ls
This is what I call steady analysis…. <h3 class=”post-title”> PAP Character Assassination 101</
Ξ May 4th, 2006 | → 0 Comments | ∇ Uncategorized |
From the YoungRepublic mailing list, Sammyboymod regular donoghue comments on this subject:
Background
To anyone who actually believes that James Gomez is dishonest and a liar etc.. I suggest that you attend the WP rallies and listen to what they have to say, instead of relying on the media for information. Please do remember that this is the media ranked 140th out of 167 in the world.
I have followed every election keely since 1997 and I have also read extensively about the incidents in 1988 with regards to Francis Seow. While I am not so foolish as to take what the opposition says at face value, I urge everyone here not to do the same for the PAP. Read factual accounts, based on past trends and make your own judgement.
The Defamation Suit Trap
To me, it is clear what the PAP is trying to do. They are trying to round on Gomez and assassinate his character. He is in a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don’t situation. Watch what happens. It is perfectly conceivable now that he says “I am not the liar, Wong Kan Seng in the liar” and I assure you that defamation suits galore will immediately start pouring in. This is based on the “doctrine of innuendo” that the Singapore courts have evolved, to which there is completely no objective test. I have provided 3 examples of precedents for this:
1. Tang Liang Hong
In 1997, they labelled Tang Liang Hong “a dangerous man”, a “racist”, “Chinese chauvinist” etc, allegations which were all untrue. The fact is that Teo Chee Hean had heard Tang speak at a dinner function in 1994, where the latter urged more members from the Chinese community to step forward, as the number of English educated in the Cabinet was disproportionate to their actual number in society. Strange then that they waited 3 years to bring this up. Just like Inderjit Singh in this case, Teo was the ‘whistle blower’ whose intention was to warn Singaporeans of this so-called dangerous man.
Tang refuted their claims by calling them ‘lies’, and this invited 13 defamation suits, with damages totalling some $6+ million, because this implied ‘by innuendo’ that the Ministers were morally bereft, dishonest and therefore unfit for office. Tang’s assets were frozen BEFORE the court had reached a verdict, and his wife (who had nothing to do with it at all) was made a co-defendant in the case.
2. J.B. Jeyaretnam
At a rally during the same election, J.B. Jeyaretnam held up a police report which Tang had made against the PAP leaders for slandering him and tarnishing his reputation. Police reports are supposed to be confidential. However, Wong Kan Seng retrieved the police report (so much for the separation of powers) and passed it on to Lee Kuan Yew, who released it to the press. Then 13 PAP leaders sued both Tang and Jeyaretnam for defaming them, by insinuating that the leaders were guilty of a criminal offence and therefore unfit for office.
Jeyaretnam was also sued for saying “I have a police report which Mr Tang has made against Mr Goh Chok Tong..” because this was implying that Goh was a criminal and therefore unfit for office. In the first instance, the court awarded “derisory damages” to Goh because it held that the lawsuit had been brought frivolously. “Derisory damages” amounted to $20,000 – hardly “derisory”. This was largely due to Goh admitting, under cross examination from Charles Gray QC (now Mr Justice Gray) that he had had “an excellent year”, in contrast to his claims in his affidavit that his reputation, both locally and internationally, had been severely impugned by Jeyaretnam’s words. Interesting then that the trial judge, Rajendran J, was subsequently removed, and Mr Justice Gray is now barred from appearing as counsel in Singapore courts because he is a person of ‘questionable moral character’. Goh appealed against the judgement of Rajendran J on the basis that the damages awarded were “manifestly inadequate”, and the Court of Appeal duly increased the sum ten-fold, to $200,000. Jeyaretnam, who had already paid off millions in damages, still remains an undischarged bankrupt to this day.
3. Chee Soon Juan
During the 2001 elections, Chee Soon Juan asked Goh Chok Tong during a community walkabout, using a loudhailer, “Prime Minister, where is the money?” This was held to be an insinuation that Goh was corrupt, dishonest and unfit for office. Duly, Chee was made to pay $500,000 in damages, and, as the court held in a ’summary judgement’ earlier this year, was subsequently made a bankrupt. How convenient that the elections were to be held this year, eh?
Can you not notice the trend here?
I am not anti-PAP in my personal political outlook, but I believe that their politics of slander and character assassination are most unbecoming of a Government who has accomplished so much. There is no doubt in my mind that Wong Kan Seng, Lee Kuan Yew and George Yeo et al are trying to bait Gomez into making one of those “implicitly” defamatory remarks so that they can destroy him once and for all, because thus far, all of the Workers’ Party leaders have been very astute in terms of making their public comments. What good is Lee’s “dare” to Gomez to sue him, when it is unequivocally clear that Lee effectively owns the courts? The incident involving the Cheng San polling centres in 1997 and then-AG Chan Sek Keong has been given sufficient consideration in another thread, and shall not be discussed further. Wong Kan Seng noted that Gomez’s apology “had been drafted by a lawyer” and was therefore “insincere”. He means that Gomez’s apology is overly tactful, and as a result, the PAP has little room with which to rub further salt in his wounds. I believe Gomez has, given the cirumstances, acted very prudently in doing so.
Now, they are trying to bait Sylvia Lim and Low Thia Khiang. If you read their latest response, again they have been very careful. Low merely says that he never planned to field Gomez in Ang Mo Kio. He never expressly accused anyone of lying, nor did he even go so far as to say that “what the PAP says is untrue”. What else do you expect him to do, with the threat of the cripping defamation suits loomimg over his head?
Refusal to Engage Policy Points
It is also telling that the PAP has steadfastly refused to debate the WP’s policy points. They refuted the WP’s manifesto saying it was “dangerous” but without giving any specific details of why this would be so, save the same old rhetorical arguments as to why GRCs are important, why government-led unions are important. In fact, in response to WP’s suggestion that the PAP gets out of the unions, Lee Hsien Loong merely gave examples of other parties in other countries that are linked to the unions, and took a humourous jibe at the fact that the WP was not befitting of its name “Workers’ Party”. They also did not respond to Perry Tong’s points about healthcare, I have had the privilege of listening to sound clips of his speech, and I think they are very sound policy suggestions.
They said that the policy of free healthcare has been proven to be disastrous overseas due to long queues (I presume they are referring to the NHS, and they are right) but that was never Perry Tong’s point. They failed to respond to his suggestions to lower GST on medical supplies and to set up a medicine manufacturing hub in Singapore to both lower the costs of medicine and to create more jobs. And they repeatedly accuse the WP of failing to suggest ways to create more jobs. Their response to other points in relation to public transport have also been dealt with only in passing, in a dismissive manner rather than substantively. Unsurprisingly, the proposals made by Perry Tong (who is a Berkeley grad and a management consultant) and Tan Wui-Hua (who is CFO of a billion dollar company) have been given almost no airtime, with the media instead choosing to focus on the Gomez “scandal”.
Question of Intention
As to those who believe that Gomez is truly dishonest, an electioneering rat, and a person of dubious moral character, I have this question to ask. Where is the evidence that this is so? Because Inderjit Singh and Wong Kan Seng say so? If you were to watch the video recordings, what do they actually show? Nothing, other than the fact that Gomez indeed placed the forms in his bag, and questioned the Elections Department about the submission of his forms.
Now, why do you think the PAP has come out and ‘exposed’ Gomez? In order to warn Singaporeans of this dangerous man who is out to harm them at his own expense?
Has it never occurred to you that the PAP is a politicial party trying to win an election, and that there is a realistic chance that they may lose Aljunied GRC?
Has it never occurred to you that this outcome would be unfavourable to them?
I cannot believe, for the life of me, how some people actually believe that the PAP is ‘exposing’ Gomez out of altruism and goodwill. So, when Gomez does something, it is serving his own selfish ends, but no PAP member would ever do such a thing? Please stop believing the 140th ranked Singapore media, and have a look at the rallies, the independent political blogs, and internet forums to get the true ‘feel of the ground’. The media has lionised the PAP leaders and made them appear to be larger than life, but at the end of the day, we musn’t forget that Wong Kan Seng and George Yeo are as much politicians as James Gomez is . At this point, it is their word against his, and I am choosing to believe his account, not because I am biased against the PAP, nor because I am outraged at the sheer disgracefulness of what they are doing, but because I have seen this happen many times before, and based on track record, past evidence and trends, I am inclined to believe that they are assassinating Gomez’s character in order to gain political mileage, or rather, to destroy the WP’s political mileage (which has become rather significant in recent months).
Objective Test
If we were to apply the ‘Objective Test’ to this incident, that is, what would a reasonable-thinking, objective third party think -
1. Is Gomez trying to orchestrate an elaborate and deceitful plot in order to discredit the entire elections department in order to gain political mileage?
OR
2. Did he genuinely forget to submit his forms?
I believe most reasonable thinking people would go with the latter. The former is hard to believe because so far in this election, the WP’s main issues have been policy ones, unlike the SDP who have been focusing their efforts on disparaging the PAP’s underhand tactics. The WP has taken jibes at these underhand tactics, primarily the use of upgrading to entice voters, but they have not made it their main election platform. I don’t think Gomez would ‘break ranks’ with the party’s stand, I think it appears that the WP is actually taking a very united stand this time round, and they seem determined to focus on ‘bread and butter issues’ as opposed to liberal ideals etc.
Of course, Wong Kan Seng would tell you that the ENTIRE WP created this impression so as to deceive Singaporeans, and lull them into believing that they were genuinely concerned about their well-being, when in fact they are actually opportunists who are trying to get into Parliament by any means necessary. Even though Low has already said that ALL the WP candidates are prepared to lose.
Now, to consider the second possibility. Is this even remotely as far-fetched as the scenario above?
Have you never seen anyone insist to a teacher that “I am sure I have handed my assignment in” only to realise that the assignment was actually in his bag?
I think that comparison is much more apt than George Yeo’s far-fetched and tenuous ’shoplifting’ analogy, where the subject-matter is concerning theft, i.e. removing something, as opposed to failing to submit something.
Burden of Proof
Lastly, why has the burden of proof now shifted on Low, Gomez and the WP to disprove the PAP’s allegations? Whatever happened to the rule that a person was innocent until found guilty? So far, what conclusive evidence do we have that Gomez is guilty? A video which suggests nothing by way of wrongdoing, and a bunch of opinions from Wong Kan Seng, Lee Kuan Yew and Inderjit Singh, who are all PAP members, and who can all be presumed to have a conflict of interests with the subject-matter here.
Just because a bunch of PAP politicians say so, does it mean Gomez is guilty?
Look at Wong Kan Seng’s “statement”, upon more careful scrutiny I think you will find that he draws very tenuous links and fails to substantiate most of them. It is laced with self-righteous rhetoric, and fails to convince me that Gomez was indeed trying to orchestrate a plot to discredit the Elections Department and the PAP. One must realise that this is a very serious allegation to be making, so it needs to be well substantiated. I do not think the standard of proof has been at all satisfied here.
So why has the burden of proof shifted to Gomez? Are you telling me that in Singapore law, there is a doctrine of “presumed” immorality/dishonesty just because someone is from a party other than the PAP?
Conclusion
For voters who are in Aljunied and any other WP-contested constituencies, I must urge you to consider your vote very carefully. Do not be taken in by what the PAP and the sycophantic 140th ranked media says, research the facts and the precedents yourself, and if you arrive at the conclusion that you should indeed be voting for George Yeo, then so be it.
But please do not distract yourselves from the main issues here. Please also familiarise yourself with what George Yeo et al stand for, and compare this with what Sylvia Lim and the WP stand for.
“If you are not of a certain economic class, then you shouldn’t even be thinking about going to [the casino].. you should stick to 4D, Toto and Horseracing”
This is what George Yeo said about whether Singaporeans would be allowed to visit the casino. In my honest opinion, it smacks of arrogance, haughtiness and elitism.
As I’ve said, I am not a WP supporter nor am I anti-PAP, I personally take a more holistic view, that whatever benefits Singapore as a whole, ought to be done. I think Ngiam Tong Dow’s interview posted in the other thread was spot-on. Singapore needs to be bigger than the PAP, and people need to accept that. I just think that it’s dangerous for us media consumers to accept, at face value, whatever we are told.
The PAP talks about making an informed choice, debating the bigger issues, “clean and fair elections”, etc. Well, suffice to say that whoever has made those promises, has gone down more than a notch in my estimation.
