The announcement of the replacement of Eric Tan, CPIB director for supervisory lapses in order to rebuild public trust in the bureau hit recently by a $1.7 million scandal did not take the public by surprise. That he had been completely in the dark as CPIB director when his enterprising assistant director at the bureau, Edwin Yeo Swee Hong, was siphoning off bureau funds to the tune of $1.7 million meant for the bureau operations from 2008 until his ruse was uncovered last year is mind-boggling. So his replacement as CPIB director is only a natural corollary of his supervisory lapses, otherwise the Government will find itself in an untenable position to try to rebuild public trust in the bureau. That Edwin Yeo had been able to embezzle bureau funds for four years without detection under the watchful eye of his director is more in the nature of a fiction.
From past observation of his highfalutin character, especially in his high-handed handling of the invited guest list of former CPIB directors in connection with the 60th anniversary celebration of the bureau, he stood out as a director of pomposity, totally bereft of humility and civility. In a fit of funkiness, he decided to exclude me,as a former CPIB director, from the anniversary celebration in order to ingratiate himself into the favour of the former prime minister Lee Kuan Yew who was a guest of honour at the celebration. Eric Tan had a morbid fear that my presence would cause great embarrassment to his honoured guest Lee Kuan Yew because of our mutual antagonism. I was however not sore that I was excluded but was livid that Eric Tan had not the civility inform me beforehand and I had to learn about it after the celebration from the press report. I wrote to him in the most civilised manner requesting an explanation but he persisted in his arrogance in not even replying to my letter, much less to offer any apology. To add to his impudence, he had the gall to get his man to leave an unsigned copy of the anniversary coffee table book at my doorstep. There were blog postings both by me and by TR Emeritus castigating Eric Tan for his arrogance and his lack of civility.
This is now so much water under the bridge and normally it would serve no useful purpose to harp on the incident except to show in this instance the uncivilised character of the man. His present downfall is a lessen which Eric Tan must imbibe seriously and carry out a soul-searching of his actions. Above all, he must carry out a transformation of his pompous character and show more humility and civility in his dealing with other people. At the present moment he does not know where he will go after he leaves CPIB at the end of September but if he is willing to change for the better this will no doubt stand him in good stead in his future career.
It is a bit uncanny, but I had the unerring feeling that some kind of retribution will befall Eric Tan for his unprincipled and uncivilised behaviour towards me and any other people. There is no hard feeling and certainly, as in the Chinese saying, no taking pleasure in the calamity of others, (幸災乐禍). On the contrary, we wish him every success in his future career.
Tuesday, August 6, 2013
Another Instance of Former Minister Mentor's Balderdash
From time to time the former Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew had amused Singaporeans with his gaffes or his balderdash. Quite often he prided himself with commanding the world audience with his so-called bombastic world view of politics but it is a different story with the Singaporean audience who view his so-called pearl of wisdom with cynicism except his die-hard supporters. He likes to believe that he is popular with and liked by Singaporeans but he has only to surf the internet to see the kind of "tributes" that netizens heaped on him. Perhaps it would be an eye-opener to his loving daughter to surf the internet to see for herself the kind of uncomplimentary remarks on his eminent father before she extols his so-called virtues in her writings. These praises cut no ice with the discerning Singaporeans who have ceased to be mesmerised by his so-called charm.
It has been his character to write books about himself, among other topics, in order to boost his standing locally and world-wide. In his latest book entitled One Man's View of the World, he had the impudence of commenting on the sensitive and much criticised subject of Singapore abysmal 1.2 fertility rate. He was the prime minister in the 1970s when he decreed the "Stop at Two" population policy and he now has the gall to say that the suggestion that his campaign of the 1970s played a part in bringing fertility rates down is "absurd". He attributed the falling fertility to global phenomenon due primarily to women's emancipation and participation in the work place. Does he honestly believe that discerning Singaporeans will believe and accept his incredulous and untenable explanations? It is in the man's character to disavow responsibility even in the face of glaring facts that the "Stop at Two" policy was the main cause of the current low fertility rate. Perhaps he is deaf to the curses of Singapore women who had suffered deeply by his "Stop at Two" policy. He is equally blind to the caustic criticisms going round, especially among the netizens, that he is responsible for the low-fertility rate because of his "Stop at Two" policy.
The former MM admitted that he could not solve the low-fertility problem and had given up. He had pushed the job of solving the problem created by him to another generation of leaders and hoped they will eventually find a way out. If he were in charge of Singapore today, he would introduce a baby bonus equal to two years of the average Singaporean's salary. The PAP Government has tried all kinds of incentives, including monetary and paternity leave, to try to restore the low fertility rate to its normal replacement level of 2.2. However, all these efforts appear to have fallen on deaf ears as the fertility rate shows little improvement. And the Government is left with no alternative but to fill this gap by immigration with all its attendant shortcomings. Whether the present PAP Government will be able to solve this intractable fertility problem is taxing the mind of the PAP leaders. No one has come forward with a rational solution to this problem so far.
Meanwhile the former MM Lee Kuan Yew's book was launched at the Istana today to great fanfare.
It has been his character to write books about himself, among other topics, in order to boost his standing locally and world-wide. In his latest book entitled One Man's View of the World, he had the impudence of commenting on the sensitive and much criticised subject of Singapore abysmal 1.2 fertility rate. He was the prime minister in the 1970s when he decreed the "Stop at Two" population policy and he now has the gall to say that the suggestion that his campaign of the 1970s played a part in bringing fertility rates down is "absurd". He attributed the falling fertility to global phenomenon due primarily to women's emancipation and participation in the work place. Does he honestly believe that discerning Singaporeans will believe and accept his incredulous and untenable explanations? It is in the man's character to disavow responsibility even in the face of glaring facts that the "Stop at Two" policy was the main cause of the current low fertility rate. Perhaps he is deaf to the curses of Singapore women who had suffered deeply by his "Stop at Two" policy. He is equally blind to the caustic criticisms going round, especially among the netizens, that he is responsible for the low-fertility rate because of his "Stop at Two" policy.
The former MM admitted that he could not solve the low-fertility problem and had given up. He had pushed the job of solving the problem created by him to another generation of leaders and hoped they will eventually find a way out. If he were in charge of Singapore today, he would introduce a baby bonus equal to two years of the average Singaporean's salary. The PAP Government has tried all kinds of incentives, including monetary and paternity leave, to try to restore the low fertility rate to its normal replacement level of 2.2. However, all these efforts appear to have fallen on deaf ears as the fertility rate shows little improvement. And the Government is left with no alternative but to fill this gap by immigration with all its attendant shortcomings. Whether the present PAP Government will be able to solve this intractable fertility problem is taxing the mind of the PAP leaders. No one has come forward with a rational solution to this problem so far.
Meanwhile the former MM Lee Kuan Yew's book was launched at the Istana today to great fanfare.
Saturday, July 20, 2013
Nationalisation of the Transport Industry
The priority of a privatised transport industry, as in a commercial enterprise, is profits for the shareholders and service to the commuters is by necessity of secondary importance. So maintenance of the service becomes circumscribed by the profit bottom line and is it surprising that we get frequent breakdowns of train services much to the inconvenience of the hapless commuters who had to scramble by other means to get to their work? And many of the commuters are from the lower-income group and the regularity of the breakdowns has caused a numbness in their mental feelings to the extent that any miraculous remedy from the Government is a pipe-dream under the present privatised system. Of course, those who are affluent enough to own cars are not concerned with the frequent train breakdowns but they are a small number of the privileged class compared with the massive commuters.
A typical example of the ineptitude of the Government in this connection was the questionable appointment of Ms Saw Phaik Hwa as the chief executive officer of SMRT in December 2002. She had neither the expertise nor the experience of managing a transport system of such magnitude and it needed little intelligence to discover that she had made a great mess out of it. Her working experience was mainly in the retail business and indeed, despite her lack of expertise, she had surprisingly managed to deliver impressive profits to the company, but would appear not from managing the train and bus services. She was awarded hundreds of thousand of performance shares which were rightly forfeited after her resignation in January 2012 following two major rail breakdowns in December 2011. Her eminent successor, ex Lt-general Desmond Kuek, who took the helm on October 1 last year, is not seen to have fared better in the management of SMRT, apart from packing its management with his army cronies making it appear as an offshoot of the Ministry of Defence. Like his infamous predecessor, Desmond Kuek, with solely a military background, lacks the expertise and experience for the running of a rail and bus system and may finally end up with a mediocre performance.
The case for the nationalisation of the transport system is a cogent one. First and foremost, it is not run solely for the profits of shareholders to the disadvantage of commuters, especially the middle and lower income earners for whom public transport is a crucial means of their livelihood, As a government-run enterprise, it should be more efficient in its management and maintenance, which could cut down on frequent rail breakdowns and the less frequent unexpected industrial action by bus workers. Because it is non-profit orientated, the nationalised system will present less demand for the increase of transport fares from time to time, a welcome relief to the impoverished commuters. Just look at the countries with nationalised transport systems like Germany and France to see how efficient and trouble-free the way it is run with a contented commuting public, is it not time the cocooned PAP Government should seriously consider the much-awaited nationalisation of the transport system to alleviate the anguish of the long-suffering Singapore commuters? If the PAP wallahs are thinking of redeeming themselves by service to the public, this will offer them a golden opportunity for them to show their worth.
A typical example of the ineptitude of the Government in this connection was the questionable appointment of Ms Saw Phaik Hwa as the chief executive officer of SMRT in December 2002. She had neither the expertise nor the experience of managing a transport system of such magnitude and it needed little intelligence to discover that she had made a great mess out of it. Her working experience was mainly in the retail business and indeed, despite her lack of expertise, she had surprisingly managed to deliver impressive profits to the company, but would appear not from managing the train and bus services. She was awarded hundreds of thousand of performance shares which were rightly forfeited after her resignation in January 2012 following two major rail breakdowns in December 2011. Her eminent successor, ex Lt-general Desmond Kuek, who took the helm on October 1 last year, is not seen to have fared better in the management of SMRT, apart from packing its management with his army cronies making it appear as an offshoot of the Ministry of Defence. Like his infamous predecessor, Desmond Kuek, with solely a military background, lacks the expertise and experience for the running of a rail and bus system and may finally end up with a mediocre performance.
The case for the nationalisation of the transport system is a cogent one. First and foremost, it is not run solely for the profits of shareholders to the disadvantage of commuters, especially the middle and lower income earners for whom public transport is a crucial means of their livelihood, As a government-run enterprise, it should be more efficient in its management and maintenance, which could cut down on frequent rail breakdowns and the less frequent unexpected industrial action by bus workers. Because it is non-profit orientated, the nationalised system will present less demand for the increase of transport fares from time to time, a welcome relief to the impoverished commuters. Just look at the countries with nationalised transport systems like Germany and France to see how efficient and trouble-free the way it is run with a contented commuting public, is it not time the cocooned PAP Government should seriously consider the much-awaited nationalisation of the transport system to alleviate the anguish of the long-suffering Singapore commuters? If the PAP wallahs are thinking of redeeming themselves by service to the public, this will offer them a golden opportunity for them to show their worth.
Sunday, July 14, 2013
The Antics of PM Lee and Dr. Vivian Balakrishnan
PM Lee Hsien Loong must have calculated that his broadside on 12 July against the Workers' Party (WP) and its secretary-general Low Thia Khiang following the pompous blustering speech by Dr. Vivian Balakrishnan in Parliament on 9 July would be certain to bring public wrath against the WP with consequent loss of public confidence. In the present political climate, little does PM Lee realise that his words no longer command the public respect and his bluster of lack of integrity and honesty against WP MPs Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr. Pritam Singh cuts no ice with the public. People were wondering why the prime minister and his million-dollar cabinet members should be concerned with a mundane hawker centre cleaning dispute which to all intents and purposes had been settled when they should quite rightly be looking into national issues in order to justify their colossal salaries.
This is not unlike a disguised form of witch hunting. First Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr. Pritam Singh were accused of making false and untruthful statements which could not be verified conclusively even with so-called iron clad documentary evidence. Then out of nowhere Mr. Pritam Singh was accused of plagiarism by PM Lee for passing off an Internet article "word for word" as his own in a parliamentary speech. Mr. Pritam had the permission of the author to use the Internet article and how on earth could PM Lee in his right mind have made such a terrible blunder? Is it not fair that Mr. Pritam Singh should expect an apology for having been put to such unnecessary distress?
The issue of WP AHPETC hawker centre cleaning row has been transformed into a mountain from a molehill and it should be clear to PM Lee and his cabinet colleagues that it would not be to their advantage to continue to harass the WP on it. Public opinion on this matter is evenly distributed on both sides. So it will be wise, albeit painful, for PM Lee to let the matter rest for the time being.
It shows the mediocre calibre of a politician when he says: politics is a contest for power. So Dr. Balakrishnan is in politics for the sole purpose of contesting for power and not for the purpose of serving the people. If his political doctrine is representative of all PAP ministers and MPs, do you not think that Singaporeans who have all along been asserting that PAP ministers are self-serving who are in politics for the money are correct in their assessment? The PAP ministers are paying themselves astronomical (many call it obscene) salaries from taxpayers' money and have the impudence to call this as service to the people. Where in other parts of the world can one find a prime minister drawing a salary four or five times that of the American President? And is Singapore bigger than America with its prime minister being more important and holding greater responsibility than the American President? When GE 2016 comes along, Singaporeans should know what to do and opposition parties should, besides other bigger issues, capitalise on these two issues of politics is not for serving the people but contest for power and ministerial salaries in the election campaign.
This is not unlike a disguised form of witch hunting. First Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr. Pritam Singh were accused of making false and untruthful statements which could not be verified conclusively even with so-called iron clad documentary evidence. Then out of nowhere Mr. Pritam Singh was accused of plagiarism by PM Lee for passing off an Internet article "word for word" as his own in a parliamentary speech. Mr. Pritam had the permission of the author to use the Internet article and how on earth could PM Lee in his right mind have made such a terrible blunder? Is it not fair that Mr. Pritam Singh should expect an apology for having been put to such unnecessary distress?
The issue of WP AHPETC hawker centre cleaning row has been transformed into a mountain from a molehill and it should be clear to PM Lee and his cabinet colleagues that it would not be to their advantage to continue to harass the WP on it. Public opinion on this matter is evenly distributed on both sides. So it will be wise, albeit painful, for PM Lee to let the matter rest for the time being.
It shows the mediocre calibre of a politician when he says: politics is a contest for power. So Dr. Balakrishnan is in politics for the sole purpose of contesting for power and not for the purpose of serving the people. If his political doctrine is representative of all PAP ministers and MPs, do you not think that Singaporeans who have all along been asserting that PAP ministers are self-serving who are in politics for the money are correct in their assessment? The PAP ministers are paying themselves astronomical (many call it obscene) salaries from taxpayers' money and have the impudence to call this as service to the people. Where in other parts of the world can one find a prime minister drawing a salary four or five times that of the American President? And is Singapore bigger than America with its prime minister being more important and holding greater responsibility than the American President? When GE 2016 comes along, Singaporeans should know what to do and opposition parties should, besides other bigger issues, capitalise on these two issues of politics is not for serving the people but contest for power and ministerial salaries in the election campaign.
Thursday, July 11, 2013
A Comical Display Of Pomposity
His reputation has been on the wane because of his lacklustre performance as a minister and the Workers' Party AHPETC hawker-centre cleaning row had presented the pompous Dr. Vivian Balakrishnan with the rare opportunity of giving a comical display of pomposity with a so-called eloquent castigation of the Workers' Party (WP) in Parliament. The WP MPs Ms Sylvia Lim and Pritam Singh were apparently caught unprepared for Dr. Balakrishnan's onslaught and did not make a creditable effort in demolishing his accusations. So one can see the smugness on the conceited Dr. Balakrishnan's face as he finished off his pompous speech with what he believed to be a coup de grace.
Dr. Balakrishnan is decidedly aiming to score a political point on the unsuspecting Workers' Party in order to redeem his flagging political fortune in time for GE 2016. He belaboured ad nauseam on the so-called mistake of the WP Property Manager to require hawkers to pay for the cleaning of the hawker centre which in the end remained unproven because documents he produced in Parliament to prove his case remained inconclusive. Ms Sylvia Lim, Chairman of AHPETC, was able to make a robust denial of the allegation. But Dr. Balakrishnan was bent to make a capital out of the saga and summoned up his Dutch courage to make a pompous display of his oratorical skills to support his case which indeed captured the imagination and interest of both those inside and outside of Parliament. He had indeed prided himself of having performed magnificently to dent the reputation of the Workers' Party and score a political point for the PAP. But little does Dr. Balakrishnan realise that his political ranting against the Workers' Party could have the opposite effect of drawing public sympathy for WP. Some would view his so-called oratory as bluster, especially when he ended his speech by calling on the WP secretary-general to investigate further into the hawker-centre cleaning row and branding WP officials as false and untruthful.
Dr. Balakrishnan asserted that the issue was about integrity and clean politics. The WP secretary-general countered quite rightly that it was not a problem of integrity but pure and simple market cleaning. Mr. Low Thia Khiang also brushed off Dr. Balakrishnan's call for him to further investigate the issue. Whether this episode will enhance the political standing of Dr. Balakrishnan in the eyes of the public is open to interpretation. As mentioned earlier, he has not been very impressive in his ministerial performance and is in need of an opportunity to show his talent. He saw the WP AHPETC hawker-centre cleaning row as the opportunity he had been waiting for and he promptly jumped on it. He did not disappoint his political master and can be certain of his candidature in GE 2016 but whether he can convince his electorate to return his GRC team is another matter considering the fluidity of the political situation in GE 2016.
Dr. Balakrishnan is decidedly aiming to score a political point on the unsuspecting Workers' Party in order to redeem his flagging political fortune in time for GE 2016. He belaboured ad nauseam on the so-called mistake of the WP Property Manager to require hawkers to pay for the cleaning of the hawker centre which in the end remained unproven because documents he produced in Parliament to prove his case remained inconclusive. Ms Sylvia Lim, Chairman of AHPETC, was able to make a robust denial of the allegation. But Dr. Balakrishnan was bent to make a capital out of the saga and summoned up his Dutch courage to make a pompous display of his oratorical skills to support his case which indeed captured the imagination and interest of both those inside and outside of Parliament. He had indeed prided himself of having performed magnificently to dent the reputation of the Workers' Party and score a political point for the PAP. But little does Dr. Balakrishnan realise that his political ranting against the Workers' Party could have the opposite effect of drawing public sympathy for WP. Some would view his so-called oratory as bluster, especially when he ended his speech by calling on the WP secretary-general to investigate further into the hawker-centre cleaning row and branding WP officials as false and untruthful.
Dr. Balakrishnan asserted that the issue was about integrity and clean politics. The WP secretary-general countered quite rightly that it was not a problem of integrity but pure and simple market cleaning. Mr. Low Thia Khiang also brushed off Dr. Balakrishnan's call for him to further investigate the issue. Whether this episode will enhance the political standing of Dr. Balakrishnan in the eyes of the public is open to interpretation. As mentioned earlier, he has not been very impressive in his ministerial performance and is in need of an opportunity to show his talent. He saw the WP AHPETC hawker-centre cleaning row as the opportunity he had been waiting for and he promptly jumped on it. He did not disappoint his political master and can be certain of his candidature in GE 2016 but whether he can convince his electorate to return his GRC team is another matter considering the fluidity of the political situation in GE 2016.
Wednesday, July 10, 2013
Continuing Spectre of Dr. Yaacob's Licensing Rules Saga
The fact that the draconian new licensing scheme for online news sites was foisted on the Internet public with hardly any notice, much less any consultation with the concerned public or debate in Parliament does not bear the hallmark of a government that is confident of clinching GE 2016 or people-oriented. Very craftily, Dr.Yaacob Ibrahim presented ten news websites which included seven Singapore Press Holdings sites, two Mediacorp sites and Yahoo Singapore which required licensing from 1st June and pledged that other Internet users or bloggers would be free to continue to criticise the government without fear of governmental restrictions, unless racial and religious issues were involved. The PAP Government hopes that in this way it will be able to pull a wool over the public's eyes and deflect any agitation from the Internet public against the licensing scheme.
The groundswell of resistance against the scheme was something which the PAP Government may or may not have expected and Dr. Yaacob became the PAP hatchet man to try to manage damage control. The bloggers formed a "Free the Internet" movement to spearhead and co-ordinate action to pressurise the Government to rescind the licensing scheme which is regarded as a sinister move by the Government to clamp down on dissent. On this Dr. Yaacob and the Media Development Authority (MDA) are seen to be strenously working to try to assure the Internet public that the Government has no such intention but the bloggers remained adamant and would accept nothing short of rescinding the sinister scheme.
The resistance to the licensing scheme does not confine to local bloggers and has attracted world-wide concern which should give the Internet public a well-deserved fillip to their movement. The Asia Internet Coalition (AIC) -comprising Internet giants Facebook, Google, eBay, Yahoo and Salesforce - has entered the fray and has written to the Singapore Government questioning, among other things, in particular the clause which empowers the Singapore authorities to ask a licensed news website to take down an article within 24 hours.
The United States government has also weighed in on the issue with the State Department saying that it was "deeply concerned" by the "restrictive policy requiring the licensing of news websites. The State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki said: we urge Singapore to ensure freedom of expression is protected in accordance with its international obligations and commitments. Later when asked for response to Ms Psaki's general comments, the Straits Times was referred to what Dr. Yaacob had said in Parliament in response to concerns on the rules raised by MPs. As expected, Dr. Yaacob had nothing new to offer but simply repeated with a deadpan face like a parrot the hackneyed statement that the licensing of online news sites is meant to ensure responsibility among news providers and bring greater regulatory parity across various media platforms. He also repeatedly assured that the new rules will not stifle creativity or freedom of speech on the Internet.
It is doubtful if such monotonous and meaningless utterances will go down well with the Internet public. The bloggers are a determined lot and the fight for justice will go on relentlessly until one party yields to the other. The PAP Government is, as the Chinese saying goes, "Riding a tiger and difficult to get off" (騎虎難下）
The groundswell of resistance against the scheme was something which the PAP Government may or may not have expected and Dr. Yaacob became the PAP hatchet man to try to manage damage control. The bloggers formed a "Free the Internet" movement to spearhead and co-ordinate action to pressurise the Government to rescind the licensing scheme which is regarded as a sinister move by the Government to clamp down on dissent. On this Dr. Yaacob and the Media Development Authority (MDA) are seen to be strenously working to try to assure the Internet public that the Government has no such intention but the bloggers remained adamant and would accept nothing short of rescinding the sinister scheme.
The resistance to the licensing scheme does not confine to local bloggers and has attracted world-wide concern which should give the Internet public a well-deserved fillip to their movement. The Asia Internet Coalition (AIC) -comprising Internet giants Facebook, Google, eBay, Yahoo and Salesforce - has entered the fray and has written to the Singapore Government questioning, among other things, in particular the clause which empowers the Singapore authorities to ask a licensed news website to take down an article within 24 hours.
The United States government has also weighed in on the issue with the State Department saying that it was "deeply concerned" by the "restrictive policy requiring the licensing of news websites. The State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki said: we urge Singapore to ensure freedom of expression is protected in accordance with its international obligations and commitments. Later when asked for response to Ms Psaki's general comments, the Straits Times was referred to what Dr. Yaacob had said in Parliament in response to concerns on the rules raised by MPs. As expected, Dr. Yaacob had nothing new to offer but simply repeated with a deadpan face like a parrot the hackneyed statement that the licensing of online news sites is meant to ensure responsibility among news providers and bring greater regulatory parity across various media platforms. He also repeatedly assured that the new rules will not stifle creativity or freedom of speech on the Internet.
It is doubtful if such monotonous and meaningless utterances will go down well with the Internet public. The bloggers are a determined lot and the fight for justice will go on relentlessly until one party yields to the other. The PAP Government is, as the Chinese saying goes, "Riding a tiger and difficult to get off" (騎虎難下）
Wednesday, May 29, 2013
Is this a prelude to a more sinister move to clamp down on dissent?
Since the loss of Aljunied GRC in GE2011 and the subsequent by elections in Hougang SMC and Punggol East SMC, there has been panicky reaction among the discredited PAP leadership to the role of the social media in contributing to their election fiasco. Especially since the victory of the Workers' Party in the Punggol East by-election in January this year, there is very persistent public opinion, especially among the netizens, that the PAP Government may fall in a freak election or, if not, will lose more GRCs in GE2016. There has been strong indication that a perturbed PM Lee Hsien Loong and his equally distraught ministers are considering the foisting of a code-of-conduct on the social websites, aiming in particular at the anti-establishment websites. The comical Minister for Communications and Information Yaacob Ibrahim by virtue of his position became the public face of the Government to push this desperate move for a code-of-conduct for acceptance by the social media. But the politically-conscious bloggers saw through the Government's sinister motive in introducing this code and Minister Yaacob, unless he was dumb, could see that he was not able to get his idea accepted.
The PAP wallahs could not have abandoned their plan of circumscribing the social media because of the looming GE2016 for which they need time to counter the deleterious effect of the wide-spread anti-PAP propaganda on the internet. So it came as no surprise that they have now come up with this draconian Licence Scheme for New Websites which takes effect on 1at June. To pull a wool over the public's eyes, they presented ten news websites that will need the new licence. They include seven Singapore Press Holdings (SPH) sites, such as straitstimes.com and Stomp and two by MediaCorp. Yahoo Singapore is the only site not run by either SPH or MediaCorp.
The most oppressive condition is the $50,000 performance bond for the licence. It is not oppressive to SPH, MediaCorp or Yahoo but will be oppressive if it is applied to ordinary websites like TR Emeritus and The Online Citizen. To say that the PAP leaders are "Old Crafty and Very Cunning" (老奸巨滑） is no exaggeration. They first introduced the Licensing Scheme ostensibly to deal with news websites like SPH and MediaCorp as a red herring to divert attention later on their real heinous intention to clamp down on the anti-establishment websites. PM Lee and his run-of-the mill ministers think that they can hoodwink discerning Singaporeans in this way and is an insult to their intelligence. They are taking a serious lesson from the prowess of the so-called Chinese tsunami (coined by Malaysian PM Najib Razak) in the Malaysian GE on 5th May and cannot afford to be caught with their pants down in facing a united Singapore Opposition in GE2016. The writing is already on the wall and whether the funky PAP leadership takes oppressive action against the pro-opposition websites, they should remember that the wheel of history only moves forward. Singaporean voters are a discernible lot and when the time arrives will cast their epoch-making votes in fulfilment of history.
The PAP wallahs could not have abandoned their plan of circumscribing the social media because of the looming GE2016 for which they need time to counter the deleterious effect of the wide-spread anti-PAP propaganda on the internet. So it came as no surprise that they have now come up with this draconian Licence Scheme for New Websites which takes effect on 1at June. To pull a wool over the public's eyes, they presented ten news websites that will need the new licence. They include seven Singapore Press Holdings (SPH) sites, such as straitstimes.com and Stomp and two by MediaCorp. Yahoo Singapore is the only site not run by either SPH or MediaCorp.
The most oppressive condition is the $50,000 performance bond for the licence. It is not oppressive to SPH, MediaCorp or Yahoo but will be oppressive if it is applied to ordinary websites like TR Emeritus and The Online Citizen. To say that the PAP leaders are "Old Crafty and Very Cunning" (老奸巨滑） is no exaggeration. They first introduced the Licensing Scheme ostensibly to deal with news websites like SPH and MediaCorp as a red herring to divert attention later on their real heinous intention to clamp down on the anti-establishment websites. PM Lee and his run-of-the mill ministers think that they can hoodwink discerning Singaporeans in this way and is an insult to their intelligence. They are taking a serious lesson from the prowess of the so-called Chinese tsunami (coined by Malaysian PM Najib Razak) in the Malaysian GE on 5th May and cannot afford to be caught with their pants down in facing a united Singapore Opposition in GE2016. The writing is already on the wall and whether the funky PAP leadership takes oppressive action against the pro-opposition websites, they should remember that the wheel of history only moves forward. Singaporean voters are a discernible lot and when the time arrives will cast their epoch-making votes in fulfilment of history.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)