What has been touted as a bountiful budget is, strictly speaking, actually an election budget. Barring anything unforseen, this year will be an election year. What has prevented the PM from naming a date so far, according to observers, is the uncertainty of the ground situation where there is an undercurrent of dissatisfaction among a considerable section of the underclass. The election budget is therefore very timely as an attempt to assuage the unfavourable situation and to win over this disgruntled class. What one sees on TV are only the apparently happy faces of the population specially focussed by TV personnel for the benefit of the gullible audience. Can one imagine the counter effect any showing of unhappy faces on TV can have on the populace?
As the name implies, the election budget is aimed at vote-procuring (I would not use the obnoxious word vote-buying) in the general election by using the people's money. This gives the PAP wallahs a distinct advantage over the opposition in the general election because the opposition can never, in terms of financial resources, match the PAP in procuring votes in this manner. Besides the election budget, the PAP has introduced or will introduce other measures like HDB Estate upgrading and gerrymandering to ensure a clean sweep of the poll.
In view of such a great electoral disadvantage, can the opposition surmount such an obstacle in competing in the coming general election.? In spite of the PAP's apparent impregnable position vis-a-vis the general election, there is, however, considerable electoral support for the opposition partly as a result of their frequent walkabouts in the constituencies meeting the people and partly because of the animosity of some of the people towards the PAP. Therefore all is not lost provided there is unity among the opposition parties. Although the PAP seems to be a colossal force, with ingenuity a united opposition will be able to find a chink in its armour and capitalise on it.
It is not a given that the whole electorate has been bought over by the PAP's election budget. As has been said there is considerable sympathy among the electorate for the opposition and it can appeal to their good sense and fair play for their votes in the coming general election. With unity there is no reason why a united opposition will not be able to capture one or two GRCs which will really be splendid in bringing down the arrogance of the PAP leaders, especially that of the hubristic MM Lee Kuan Yew. After the recent booboo of MM Lee in disparaging the Malay/Muslim community, the opposition can perhaps count on considerable support from the Malay voters, despite the luke-warm effort of PM Lee Hsien Loong to resolve the Malay anger. As long as MM Lee does not show any humility in apologising for his aspersion, the Malays are not known to have short memories. Many of the public have predicted that the percentage of votes that the PAP will get in the coming general election will be reduced.
Finally, the Finance Minister can congratulate himself for a vote-winning election budget.
Friday, February 18, 2011
Friday, January 28, 2011
MM LEE INCURRING THE WRATH OF AMP
Once again the hubristic MM Lee Kuan Yew has incurred the wrath of the public, this time the Association of Malay Professionals (AMP). And it is on no less weighty a subject than his disparaging comments on the Singapore Malays in his much- hyped but of doubtful repute book Hard Truths To Keep Singapore Going. He commented that other communities have easier integration than the Muslims because they tend to be "distinct and separate".
The AMP is the latest Malay elite body to not mince words in its scathing attack on the so- called benign Minister Mentor which is published in The Online Citizen and Temasek Review websites. Surprisingly, the Straits Times published some relevant excerpts of the article today. Yesterday ST carried the statement of the Muslim Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS) on the subject which is in a pathetic conciliatory tone, in stark contrast to the vitriolic criticism of the AMP.
Some government and opposition leaders in Malaysia and Indonesia were highly critical of MM Lee's disparaging remarks of the Singapore Malays. But what should set the pace for Malay unhappiness over MM Lee's adverse remarks is the inimical stand of the AMP with its caustic criticism. As the name suggests AMP is a body of Malay elites, the Malay professionals. Needless to say, they are the cream of the Malay community and their views and opinions on matters affecting the Malays are naturally viewed by the community as sublime. Therefore, the PAP government must regard the AMP with the respect that is accorded to an organisation of such high professional repute.
The AMP has all along been very accommodating politically with the PAP government and has never been known to be highly critical of the government until now on the subject of Malays being "distinct and separate", remarks blithely imposed on the Malays by a cavalier MM Lee. This is going to put the Malay minister and his equally docile fellow-MPs in a dilemma. These gallant Malay minister and MPs have never uttered a single dissenting word against MM Lee's remarks and they will find themselves totally untenable in defending their position.They are all well- heeled, maybe not as well-off as their Chinese counterparts, but to come out in support of the AMP attack will be suicidal. Because of the AMPs standing in the Malay community, it may be similarly suicidal for the Malay minister and MPs to castigate them.
This is one time MM Lee has opened his big mouth and made a big booboo. How he is going to resolve it is going to tax his deviousness and to see if he is really sincere in his humility, a rare trait if ever he has it.
There is an appropriate Chinese saying: He who ties the bell round the tiger's neck is the one to untie it (解铃还是系铃人）。
The AMP is the latest Malay elite body to not mince words in its scathing attack on the so- called benign Minister Mentor which is published in The Online Citizen and Temasek Review websites. Surprisingly, the Straits Times published some relevant excerpts of the article today. Yesterday ST carried the statement of the Muslim Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS) on the subject which is in a pathetic conciliatory tone, in stark contrast to the vitriolic criticism of the AMP.
Some government and opposition leaders in Malaysia and Indonesia were highly critical of MM Lee's disparaging remarks of the Singapore Malays. But what should set the pace for Malay unhappiness over MM Lee's adverse remarks is the inimical stand of the AMP with its caustic criticism. As the name suggests AMP is a body of Malay elites, the Malay professionals. Needless to say, they are the cream of the Malay community and their views and opinions on matters affecting the Malays are naturally viewed by the community as sublime. Therefore, the PAP government must regard the AMP with the respect that is accorded to an organisation of such high professional repute.
The AMP has all along been very accommodating politically with the PAP government and has never been known to be highly critical of the government until now on the subject of Malays being "distinct and separate", remarks blithely imposed on the Malays by a cavalier MM Lee. This is going to put the Malay minister and his equally docile fellow-MPs in a dilemma. These gallant Malay minister and MPs have never uttered a single dissenting word against MM Lee's remarks and they will find themselves totally untenable in defending their position.They are all well- heeled, maybe not as well-off as their Chinese counterparts, but to come out in support of the AMP attack will be suicidal. Because of the AMPs standing in the Malay community, it may be similarly suicidal for the Malay minister and MPs to castigate them.
This is one time MM Lee has opened his big mouth and made a big booboo. How he is going to resolve it is going to tax his deviousness and to see if he is really sincere in his humility, a rare trait if ever he has it.
There is an appropriate Chinese saying: He who ties the bell round the tiger's neck is the one to untie it (解铃还是系铃人）。
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Farewell to a Matriarch
MM Lee Kuan Yew's wife, Madam Kwa Geok Choo, had been bedridden for the past two years in a vegetative state and her passing last Saturday came as no surprise. Perhaps God is benevolent in releasing her from her suffering. It must be a very painful experience to MM Lee who is known to be a very loving and caring husband. But then parting is an inevitable life journey. We extend our deepest condolences to MM Lee and his family and to PM Lee Hsien Loong for the loss of his beloved mother.
As a respect of Mrs Lee's sublime character, her humility and her flawless reputation as a dutiful wife and mother, the tributes for her that keep pouring in from local and foreign dignitaries reflect her popularity and dignity. But on such a solemn bereavement of an august figure, there is always the danger of some newspapers going overboard in their adulatory expressions of extolment of the late Mrs Lee which could probably cause her to turn in her grave.
Some newspapers described her as the First Lady. The title is reserved for the wife of a President and Mrs Lee is the wife of a former Prime Minister. The Lianhe Wanbao described her as the "Mother of a Country"(母仪天下). In Chinese the title c ould only be used by an Empress of ancient China. Is the Lianhe Wanbao trying to say that Mrs. Lee is an Empress and by extension MM Lee an Emperor? The competency of the newspaper writer is questionable and for a newspaper of its reputation, making such a crass mistake is unacceptable. The Lianhe Zaobao is on the other hand more rational is describing Mrs Lee as the "Eternalised Mother Model" (母仪足式，懿范长存）。
The Chinese press described Mrs Lee, who was always dressed in cheongsam with short hairdo, as an epitome of Chinese femininism. But the only flaw is that she is a peranakan and was almost non-literate in Chinese. The consensus is that the late First Lady Mrs Ong Teng Cheong more fitted the bill. Mrs Ong's Chinese educational background and her upbringing in a poor Chinese family made her a more unanimous choice as a Cheongsam First Lady. Her cheongsams were usually decorated with orchid motifs and replicas of her cheongsams were sold in renowned boutiques. However this should not detract from Mrs Lee's intrinsic display of the Chineseness in her and the enthusiasm of the Chinese press in portraying her distinct Chineseness should not be faulted.
The late President Ong Teng Cheong was in every respect a People's President but unfortunately his forthrightness in insisting to look into Singapore's reserves brought him into dissension with the PAP Government of the day. By right the late President Ong deserved and should have been given a state funeral upon his death when even lesser dignitaries were given such honours. Even today PAP leaders may still be fuming over the late President Ong's so-called brazenness. Does it show the magnanimity of the PAP leaders? The late President Ong was at one time a PAP leader himself.
As a respect of Mrs Lee's sublime character, her humility and her flawless reputation as a dutiful wife and mother, the tributes for her that keep pouring in from local and foreign dignitaries reflect her popularity and dignity. But on such a solemn bereavement of an august figure, there is always the danger of some newspapers going overboard in their adulatory expressions of extolment of the late Mrs Lee which could probably cause her to turn in her grave.
Some newspapers described her as the First Lady. The title is reserved for the wife of a President and Mrs Lee is the wife of a former Prime Minister. The Lianhe Wanbao described her as the "Mother of a Country"(母仪天下). In Chinese the title c ould only be used by an Empress of ancient China. Is the Lianhe Wanbao trying to say that Mrs. Lee is an Empress and by extension MM Lee an Emperor? The competency of the newspaper writer is questionable and for a newspaper of its reputation, making such a crass mistake is unacceptable. The Lianhe Zaobao is on the other hand more rational is describing Mrs Lee as the "Eternalised Mother Model" (母仪足式，懿范长存）。
The Chinese press described Mrs Lee, who was always dressed in cheongsam with short hairdo, as an epitome of Chinese femininism. But the only flaw is that she is a peranakan and was almost non-literate in Chinese. The consensus is that the late First Lady Mrs Ong Teng Cheong more fitted the bill. Mrs Ong's Chinese educational background and her upbringing in a poor Chinese family made her a more unanimous choice as a Cheongsam First Lady. Her cheongsams were usually decorated with orchid motifs and replicas of her cheongsams were sold in renowned boutiques. However this should not detract from Mrs Lee's intrinsic display of the Chineseness in her and the enthusiasm of the Chinese press in portraying her distinct Chineseness should not be faulted.
The late President Ong Teng Cheong was in every respect a People's President but unfortunately his forthrightness in insisting to look into Singapore's reserves brought him into dissension with the PAP Government of the day. By right the late President Ong deserved and should have been given a state funeral upon his death when even lesser dignitaries were given such honours. Even today PAP leaders may still be fuming over the late President Ong's so-called brazenness. Does it show the magnanimity of the PAP leaders? The late President Ong was at one time a PAP leader himself.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
A critique of MM Lee Kuan Yew's interview
There is a Chinese saying:When a person is about to die, his/her words are kind (人之将死，其言也善）。
What does one make of the MM Lee Kuan Yew's interview with The New York Times' Seth Mydans coming just before his 87th birthday? Was it the ramble of a man on whom the above Chinese saying is a prophetic indicator? There was an absence of his usual pompous and bombastic style as he narrated his life experiences and philosophy to his astute interviewer.
As expected the public reactions are mixed. There are some who are nostalgic of the so-called progress and prosperity Lee Kuan Yew was supposed to have brought to Singapore. These are the ones who see only the angel in him and are prepared to overlook his iniquities. The number could be quite considerable but not the netizens.
Then there are those who hold contrary views, some very vitriolic. There was an acrimonious critic who sent a very caustic open letter via his email from overseas which is believed to be widely distributed and pulled no punches in his ferocious assailment of Lee Kuan Yew arising out of his New York Times interview. Quite co-incidentally, he also predicted that Lee Kuan Yew was nearing his death judging by the interview he gave. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong was not spared the critic's venom who described his appointment as Prime Minister as a design by his father to perpetuate a dynasty. He predicted that PM Lee would find himself rudderless once his father, who acts as his eminence grise, was gone.
What is MM Lee's motive in telling the public about his so-called attentive care of his wife when she is already in a vegetative state? Is he trying to gain public sympathy for his so-called spousal plight? Madam Kwa Geok Choo, to all intents and purposes, is no longer in a position to respond to any human stimulation in any form and his so-called affectionate consolatory whispers to her every night stretch the imagination. MM Lee probably wants people to remember him as a deeply affectionate husband and gentleman. Does he realise that there are people who wonder why he is prolonging the sufferings of a wife in her present vegetative state with no hope of resuscitation? Would not that be more cruel than to allow her soul to be released? Somehow it does not seem compos mentis for MM Lee to leave his wife in her vegetative state and go jetting around to places, like Paris for example, ostensibly to conduct business of the State, including mesmerising gullible world audienses with his pearls of wisdom.
There was a momentary display of compunction when MM Lee admitted that he was not saying that everything he did was right but then he qualified it by saying that everything he did was for an honourable purpose without elaborating. The word honourable here is very subjective. He dismissed criticisms by Western reporters as rubbish and added that they were not the ones who may write the obituaries offering the final verdict on his actions. He concluded by quoting a Chinese proverb:Do not judge a man until his coffin is closed (盖棺定论).
It is appropriate here to reproduce a quote by a Lee Kuan Yew aficionado: Will his name be etched in the hallowed halls of pantheons or a fallen sufferer of hubristic iconoclasm.
What does one make of the MM Lee Kuan Yew's interview with The New York Times' Seth Mydans coming just before his 87th birthday? Was it the ramble of a man on whom the above Chinese saying is a prophetic indicator? There was an absence of his usual pompous and bombastic style as he narrated his life experiences and philosophy to his astute interviewer.
As expected the public reactions are mixed. There are some who are nostalgic of the so-called progress and prosperity Lee Kuan Yew was supposed to have brought to Singapore. These are the ones who see only the angel in him and are prepared to overlook his iniquities. The number could be quite considerable but not the netizens.
Then there are those who hold contrary views, some very vitriolic. There was an acrimonious critic who sent a very caustic open letter via his email from overseas which is believed to be widely distributed and pulled no punches in his ferocious assailment of Lee Kuan Yew arising out of his New York Times interview. Quite co-incidentally, he also predicted that Lee Kuan Yew was nearing his death judging by the interview he gave. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong was not spared the critic's venom who described his appointment as Prime Minister as a design by his father to perpetuate a dynasty. He predicted that PM Lee would find himself rudderless once his father, who acts as his eminence grise, was gone.
What is MM Lee's motive in telling the public about his so-called attentive care of his wife when she is already in a vegetative state? Is he trying to gain public sympathy for his so-called spousal plight? Madam Kwa Geok Choo, to all intents and purposes, is no longer in a position to respond to any human stimulation in any form and his so-called affectionate consolatory whispers to her every night stretch the imagination. MM Lee probably wants people to remember him as a deeply affectionate husband and gentleman. Does he realise that there are people who wonder why he is prolonging the sufferings of a wife in her present vegetative state with no hope of resuscitation? Would not that be more cruel than to allow her soul to be released? Somehow it does not seem compos mentis for MM Lee to leave his wife in her vegetative state and go jetting around to places, like Paris for example, ostensibly to conduct business of the State, including mesmerising gullible world audienses with his pearls of wisdom.
There was a momentary display of compunction when MM Lee admitted that he was not saying that everything he did was right but then he qualified it by saying that everything he did was for an honourable purpose without elaborating. The word honourable here is very subjective. He dismissed criticisms by Western reporters as rubbish and added that they were not the ones who may write the obituaries offering the final verdict on his actions. He concluded by quoting a Chinese proverb:Do not judge a man until his coffin is closed (盖棺定论).
It is appropriate here to reproduce a quote by a Lee Kuan Yew aficionado: Will his name be etched in the hallowed halls of pantheons or a fallen sufferer of hubristic iconoclasm.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Is this an impetuous or knee-jerk reaction?
Resorts World Sentosa (RWS) had already decided to stop its shuttle bus services to the heartland areas at 11 pm on Sunday 12-9-10 and the directive from the Casino Regulatory Authority (CRA) for both the RWS and Marina Bay Sands (MBS) to stop their services abruptly in the early Friday afternoon is mind-boggling. The decision appeared to have been made impetuously by the CRA as it gives the public the impression of fluster at the top (including the MCYS Minister) over what adverse effect this problem could have on the PAP's election prospects if left doing nothing about it. There was apparently no thinking through on what consequences such abrupt stoppage of the shuttle services could have on the heartlanders, the bus operators and the fate of the hundreds of staff (including drivers) who will become jobless. Almost all the buses were newly bought with banking loans and the owners are now in a fix as to what to do with their buses and how they are going to service their loans.
Long before RWS was opened, the company had already planned to include shuttle bus services to the IR. This was with a view to encouraging car owners to use the shuttle services to the IR, thus not contributing to traffic congestion. The other objective is to provide free transport services to heartlander families to visit the IR as a form of requittal to society. There are amenities like the Universal Studios theme park, numerous shops and food outlets in RWS for the enjoyment of the families. They make it a family outing taking advantage of the convenience of the shuttle bus services. Now a so-called benevolent government has with a stroke of the pen deprived these deserving families of the enjoyment of the attractive amenities in RWS. Does the PAP government believe that such impetuous action will endear it to these families?
Is it logical to contend that prospective gamblers would take advantage of the free shuttle bus services to visit the casinos which would save them only a few dollars when a hefty $100 entry fee does not present any deterrence? They would still be visiting the casinos even without the free shuttle bus services. So just because of some misplaced notion on the part of the relevant authorities, heartlanders are deprived of the means of bringing their families on enjoyable outings to RWS.
Perhaps it may occur to our enterprising functionaries that depriving would-be gamblers of the free means of trnasport would not deter them from visiting casinos. There are already measures in place such as education to rehabilitate Singaporean gamblers to get them to eschew their gambling habits. Maybe the answer is to re-inforce these measures with more innovative ideas and not to look for fall guys to justify some bizarre action. Anyway, inveterate gamblers are a lost cause.
Long before RWS was opened, the company had already planned to include shuttle bus services to the IR. This was with a view to encouraging car owners to use the shuttle services to the IR, thus not contributing to traffic congestion. The other objective is to provide free transport services to heartlander families to visit the IR as a form of requittal to society. There are amenities like the Universal Studios theme park, numerous shops and food outlets in RWS for the enjoyment of the families. They make it a family outing taking advantage of the convenience of the shuttle bus services. Now a so-called benevolent government has with a stroke of the pen deprived these deserving families of the enjoyment of the attractive amenities in RWS. Does the PAP government believe that such impetuous action will endear it to these families?
Is it logical to contend that prospective gamblers would take advantage of the free shuttle bus services to visit the casinos which would save them only a few dollars when a hefty $100 entry fee does not present any deterrence? They would still be visiting the casinos even without the free shuttle bus services. So just because of some misplaced notion on the part of the relevant authorities, heartlanders are deprived of the means of bringing their families on enjoyable outings to RWS.
Perhaps it may occur to our enterprising functionaries that depriving would-be gamblers of the free means of trnasport would not deter them from visiting casinos. There are already measures in place such as education to rehabilitate Singaporean gamblers to get them to eschew their gambling habits. Maybe the answer is to re-inforce these measures with more innovative ideas and not to look for fall guys to justify some bizarre action. Anyway, inveterate gamblers are a lost cause.
Monday, September 6, 2010
Rambling Thought
From time to time we get to see retired prime ministers making pompous pronouncements to justify the sinecures they presently occupy. So it should not come as a surprise when Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong made what he called his momentous pronouncement that "we're victims of our own success". He said Singaporeans were constantly belly-aching about carpark. housing, crowded public transport and so on. He urged Singaporeans (probably with tongue-in-cheek) to put their woes in perspective and think of the poor.
Indeed, are we the victims of our own success? We ask SM Goh to so some soul-searching and say candidly if we are not instead the victims of so-called PAP success. Any right-thinking Singaporean will know that our housing, unemployment and public transport woes are the result of mismanagement of its immigration policy by the PAP government. The unrestrained influx of immigrants from China and India is accepted as the cause of the rising prices of HDB housing, the overcrowding in the MRT and buses and the deprivation of jobs to Singaporeans. There are still extensive caustic criticisms of the Prime Minister's National Day Rally speech although he tried very hard to appease Singaporeans on the government's indiscriminate immigration policy. So what logic is SM Goh using in trying to attribute these woes as "victim of our success"? Singaporeans are not as naive or daft as he tries to make them out to be.
Recently SM Goh coined a new 5 C's namely career, comfort, children, considerateness and charity and urged Singaporeans to adopt them in place of the original 5 C's which included condominium, cars and credit-cards. There have been comments that SM Goh was not far-sighted enough and had overlooked an equally important but detractive 5-Cs namely conceit, covetousness, cunning, cowardice and contemptibility which he should consider urging Singaporeans to avoid.
There is reason for these commentators to coin this 5 C's for avoidance. It would not be wrong to say that Singaporeans were sometimes referred to as "Ugly Singaporeans" by foreigners abroad, and probably here.This could not have nothing to do with the obnoxious behaviour of some pompous Singaporeans who were pushy and brazen when overseas. They were more confined to the elite or well-heeled class who would unabashedly flaunt either their expertise or their opulence to an unreceptive audience. Of course we have not descended to the level of the "Ugly Americans" but this should not be taken as a source of pride considering the connotation of the disparaging term. Does not SM Goh consider this novel 5 C's proposed by the commentators as something worthy of adoption by Singaporeans? If nothing else, it will have the effect in the long run of retrieving the reputation of Singaporeans.
Indeed, are we the victims of our own success? We ask SM Goh to so some soul-searching and say candidly if we are not instead the victims of so-called PAP success. Any right-thinking Singaporean will know that our housing, unemployment and public transport woes are the result of mismanagement of its immigration policy by the PAP government. The unrestrained influx of immigrants from China and India is accepted as the cause of the rising prices of HDB housing, the overcrowding in the MRT and buses and the deprivation of jobs to Singaporeans. There are still extensive caustic criticisms of the Prime Minister's National Day Rally speech although he tried very hard to appease Singaporeans on the government's indiscriminate immigration policy. So what logic is SM Goh using in trying to attribute these woes as "victim of our success"? Singaporeans are not as naive or daft as he tries to make them out to be.
Recently SM Goh coined a new 5 C's namely career, comfort, children, considerateness and charity and urged Singaporeans to adopt them in place of the original 5 C's which included condominium, cars and credit-cards. There have been comments that SM Goh was not far-sighted enough and had overlooked an equally important but detractive 5-Cs namely conceit, covetousness, cunning, cowardice and contemptibility which he should consider urging Singaporeans to avoid.
There is reason for these commentators to coin this 5 C's for avoidance. It would not be wrong to say that Singaporeans were sometimes referred to as "Ugly Singaporeans" by foreigners abroad, and probably here.This could not have nothing to do with the obnoxious behaviour of some pompous Singaporeans who were pushy and brazen when overseas. They were more confined to the elite or well-heeled class who would unabashedly flaunt either their expertise or their opulence to an unreceptive audience. Of course we have not descended to the level of the "Ugly Americans" but this should not be taken as a source of pride considering the connotation of the disparaging term. Does not SM Goh consider this novel 5 C's proposed by the commentators as something worthy of adoption by Singaporeans? If nothing else, it will have the effect in the long run of retrieving the reputation of Singaporeans.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Is the MCYS Minister showing his fangs?
The Straits Times, the government propaganda mouthpiece, as expected, has been giving glowing news coverage to the Youth Olympic Games(YOG). But true to its colour, it chose to withhold incidents of inferior food supply to the thousands of volunteers and consequent food poisoning among some of them from its reporting. The netizen world is full of caustic criticisms of these incidents and has accused the MCYS Minister of "callous" treatment of the volunteers. There were even pictures showing what the netizens called "dog food" consisting of a small piece of unpalatable looking bland meat with six small pieces of long bean with some rice. These criticisms could not have escaped the delayed attention of the MCYS Minister who, no doubt apart from rectifying the inferior food, showed a hypocritical performance by heaping praises on the hapless volunteers in an attempt to make amends for his "callous" treatment.
The netizen world is full of reports of poor spectator attendances and of school children being coerced to attend the games to make up for the poor spectator crowd. 80,000 tickets have been allotted to schools, but apparently these were not gratis and students were made to fork out money for the tickets. Very cunningly, the Straits Times chose not to highlight these glaring imperfections in its reporting, no doubt done with an ulterior motive.
Just imagine with the plethora of caustic criticisms by netizens, with none pulling their punches, on the YOG is added the vitriolic comment by a fiery netizen in the person of Abdul Malik Mohammed Ghazali who posted on a Facebook group on August l8 that it was time to "burn Vivian Balakrishnan and the PAP". It appeared to be more violent than other netizen postings on the subject but there is no reason to believe that it was not said by Abdul Malik in a metaphorical sense.
There is no doubt that Minister Vivian Balakrishnan took umbrage to this personal attack on him and as a result the police swooped on Abdul Malik, arresting him for "incitement of
violence". As soon as news of Abdul Malik's arrest got out, the netizen world responded with extensive vitriolic criticisms against the arrest and blamed Dr Balakrishnan for the police action. The MCYS Minister has not spoken and if it is true that he is responsible for the police action, then it would be wise for him to remedy the situation, unless he disregards netizen criticisms and considers netizens not part of the polity. After all the offence is, to all intents and purposes, technical and why picked on Abdul Malik to put him through the rigmarole of a court prosecution when other similar-minded inimical netizens abound. Or could it not be the MCYS Minister's unwholesome intention of making an example of Abdul Malik, hoping thereby to put a stop to the belligerent action of the netizens?
The netizen world is full of reports of poor spectator attendances and of school children being coerced to attend the games to make up for the poor spectator crowd. 80,000 tickets have been allotted to schools, but apparently these were not gratis and students were made to fork out money for the tickets. Very cunningly, the Straits Times chose not to highlight these glaring imperfections in its reporting, no doubt done with an ulterior motive.
Just imagine with the plethora of caustic criticisms by netizens, with none pulling their punches, on the YOG is added the vitriolic comment by a fiery netizen in the person of Abdul Malik Mohammed Ghazali who posted on a Facebook group on August l8 that it was time to "burn Vivian Balakrishnan and the PAP". It appeared to be more violent than other netizen postings on the subject but there is no reason to believe that it was not said by Abdul Malik in a metaphorical sense.
There is no doubt that Minister Vivian Balakrishnan took umbrage to this personal attack on him and as a result the police swooped on Abdul Malik, arresting him for "incitement of
violence". As soon as news of Abdul Malik's arrest got out, the netizen world responded with extensive vitriolic criticisms against the arrest and blamed Dr Balakrishnan for the police action. The MCYS Minister has not spoken and if it is true that he is responsible for the police action, then it would be wise for him to remedy the situation, unless he disregards netizen criticisms and considers netizens not part of the polity. After all the offence is, to all intents and purposes, technical and why picked on Abdul Malik to put him through the rigmarole of a court prosecution when other similar-minded inimical netizens abound. Or could it not be the MCYS Minister's unwholesome intention of making an example of Abdul Malik, hoping thereby to put a stop to the belligerent action of the netizens?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)