How the Ruling Party twists the courts to their favour

Health MInister Khaw Boon Wan said quite a good number of times that he “welcomed debate with the opposition on this issue” and that they “can have a thorough discussion of this”. By this of course we mean the NKF and this gross mismanagement of public funds for self-gain.

Prime MInister Lee Hsien Loong says that he is “disappointed with the opposition parties’ position so far” and that “their unwillingness to spar on issues is a letdown”.

Choice comments from 2 select elite from the upper echelon. Might I ask, what exactly does PM Lee mean when he, on one hand instigates the courts to initiate proceedings against TT Durai and gang and thus evoking sub judice, while on the other hand lament the lack of discussion on the issues?

Isn’t the mismanagement of NKF an issue? Didn’t Mr Khaw say that he wanted discussion on the issue? Now that PM Lee has spoken and sub judice is in effect, Mr Khaw is strangely quiet and PM Lee is firing with all guns, seemingly in an attempt to provoke the opposition to slip up and get sued.

As MSM has vividly shown, SDP has already taken the bait but is soldiering on. WP, SDA, NSP and SPP have wisely decided to sidestep the issue, by not commenting on the issue just yet. Suffice it to say, most of them are currently in the huddle to decide what can or cannot be discussed, or at all.

Read www.todayonline.com/articles/113678.asp, TODAYOnline’s take on the NKF sub judice issue for a clearer picture on the matter. According to Mr Shashi Nathan, head of criminal department at Harry Elias Partnership, “general comments on the NKF saga can still be made during the run-up to the elections, although specific references to allegations or to people involved in the case should be avoided at all times”.

It appears that the letter of the law is so vague it leaves everything to chance, tantamount to literally a blank cheque if sub judice is violated. Yet another masterstroke by the ruling party. It’s quite doubtful if any opposition party will mention NKF by its most glaring aspects without running afoul of the law. SDP, MM Lee and PM Lee have already shown the way, charting the path of ash and cinder for those who dare tread the NKF path.

http://www.newsintercom.org/index.php?itemid=430

ST propaganda at its best

On 12 Jan 2006, the Straits Times published a seemingly heartfelt letter to the ST Forum, citing PM Lee’s visit to Tekong base to see off his 2nd born son to NS. In the letter (linked within), the writer extols PM’s Lee’s humility by being the everyman amongst the throngs of Average Joe parents.

Dig a little deeper though and you uncover a few issues with this ST Forum letter. The immediate issue is that the writer is Lionel De Souza. I don’t know about you, but I only know one Lionel De Souza in Singapore. The De Souza I know is an ex-Secret Societies Branch boss, an ex-cop with 26 years’ experience, a frequent ST commentator on legality and police action and currently private investigator.

Is it any coincidence that GE is approaching and the issue of Lee Hsien Loong’s hard demeanor still lingers, such that an attempt at subtle social engineering enmasse is needed? It’s particularly hilarious that De Souza saw the need to preface his letter with an apolitical disclaimer.

To wit, was PM Lee wearing spectacles during the visit?

ST Forum letter follows, link valid for a short while unless you possess an ST account:

http://www.straitstimes.com.sg/forum/story/0,5562,364454-1137103140,00.html?

Day I witnessed PM and wife’s humility

I AM apolitical and I have no ulterior motive in writing this letter. Nevertheless, I am certain that my letter will set many a tongue wagging.

Last Friday, my wife and I were in for a surprise when we accompanied our son to the Basic Military Training Centre on Pulau Tekong for his enlistment into full-time national service: Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his wife, Madam Ho Ching, were also there to send their son off.

The humility displayed by PM Lee and Madam Ho was indeed exemplary. They did not claim any privilege, which rightly they could as Mr Lee is no ordinary citizen.

During a tour of School 2, they were treated in the same way as the other enlistees’ parents. By this, I concluded that PM Lee must have given instructions that he was not to be given any red-carpet treatment.

What was most gratifying was to see PM Lee and his wife sitting with the other enlistees’ parents in the auditorium for a briefing by the school commander, eating the same food, riding in the same bus to and from the jetty on Pulau Tekong to School 2 and taking the same launch to and from Pulau Tekong.

As protocol dictates that PM Lee and his wife be protected adequately from harm and danger, they were escorted by a team from the Police Security Command. Nevertheless, their bodyguards were unobtrusive and carried out their duties in an even-handed way.

I left Pulau Tekong feeling proud to be a Singaporean for two reasons: I heard my son and the other enlistees taking the oath of allegiance to defend Singapore and, if necessary, to lay down their lives, and I witnessed the humility of PM Lee and his wife as they rubbed shoulders with the people for more than four hours.

Lionel De Souza

http://www.newsintercom.org/index.php?itemid=395

Singapore’s stand on One China policy

Anyone know who Lien Chan is? He’s Taiwan’s Kuomintang (KMT) party chairman, opposition to Chen Shui Bian’s Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). Well, it wasn’t reported in the local news, but Lien Chan entered Singapore on 18th April 2005 (Monday this week) on the invite of MM Lee (http://www.chinapost.com.tw/detail.asp?ID=61219&GRP=A).

Lien Chan was to give a speech as the guest of honour at an unofficial dinner at the invitation of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy. However, at the same time, Lien Chan met Beijing officials to “discuss matters”, just prior to his own visit to China, although Lien Chan denies it.

The KMT and China are having a series of talks with regards to Taiwan President Chen Shui Bian’s move towards democracy. It’s pretty clear that China is wisely using old enemies to fight new enemies. Afterall the enemy of your enemy is your friend. The KMT has also made comments to that effect.

LHL made the maiden speech on Singapore’s stand last year, partly to explain his visit to Taiwan. He stated that Singapore’s stand was One-China. He claimed that Singapore strongly opposed an independent Taiwan.

If this is really so, why the coverup? Was Singapore playing a neutral party in the China-Taiwan debate, offering as a neutral ground for discussions? Singapore played a decisive role here, hosting the KMT and hosting KMT-China discussions. However, all this was done secretly. Was this to deceive the current Taiwanese government? To what aim? Possibly in the hopes of retaining its training rights on Taiwanese soil and other investments?

One wonders if LHL’s speech on Singapore’s stand was double-talk or a faux-stand just to “show face” to China while appeasing Taiwan in the background. Playing two sides might be a profitable venture but onemust be careful lest it backfires.

Originally posted at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sg_Review/message/1634

http://www.newsintercom.org/index.php?itemid=304

The cow that ought to live on

LHL’s rally speech was 2 hours too long, with lots of politico pats on the back and group hugging, which in my personal opinion, were clever political devices to draw emotional support from an otherwise apathetic and bored audience.

Needless to say, the cameras tried their best not to focus on sleepy heads but on cheering crowds and nodding heads. Alas we still managed to catch some snoozers, especially a really good one where a lady slept peacefully on the aisle wall.

But snoozers aside, it seemed to me that LHL’s maiden speech was out to score lots of brownie points. One particularly interesting brownie point was the slaughtering of the Holy Grail of Sacred Cows, the civil service 5.5 day week. When LHL announced that it will be 5 days, that segment was met with thunderous applause, almost matching the half-squatting-not-sure-if-I-should-be-standing ovation to SM Goh. Practically everyone opened their eyes when they heard that, thinking that LHL is their new saviour. But I beseech people to think carefully.

LHL said that there had been numerous and repeated calls for a 5 day week inline with private sectors and market forces and he relented. Question is, who are these people asking for 5 day weeks. I suspect the vocal ones (duh) and the vocal ones are usually the younger ones. These are the same people who lament their uni pals going for friday night beer sessions while they had to woefully consider the saturday morning’s work.

The caveat was that the total number of hours remains the same ie 44. What does this mean? I have a friend in the civil service, a rank and file (codenamed V). Same hours for fewer days means more hours per day for V, likely 8:30am to 6:30pm. V is worried that a new childcare centre is needed as the current one closes shop by 6pm and pickup is from 5:30pm onwards. V is also worried that alternative arrangements would be difficult to find. Other rumours include reducing alloted leave, but V needs them to take care of family matters that families with kids usually have. V feels shafted while V’s younger colleagues rejoice the friday night partying.

Other examples include army camps that obviously will still have duty staff, school teachers who still return on saturdays for CCAs, people who already work later, etc. In other words people will be pulling in more hours for the same pay. Having same working hours for fewer days does not square with the private sector, which is already working fewer hours per week (9 to 5). I pray for V that the policy change would be flexible (eg allowing status quo to be a valid alternative).

Sacred cows might not serve a purpose, but some cows are not meant to be slaughtered. LHL said if it ain’t broke, upgrade it. Sounds good but in this case it’s not.

http://www.newsintercom.org/index.php?itemid=111

Unanimous vote

The Straits Times (1st June 2004) reported that 10 ministers endorsed DPM Lee as the new PM. Please, what a joke and a farce. When asked for alternative nominations, who in their right mind will voice out their opinions, with our Mr ISA Wong Kan Seng and Dragon Prince sitting right in front of them?? Throw away a lucrative PAP career because of a few ill-chosen words?

Then a “caucus” was opened to the PAP MPs. Erm, first off, what about the other PMs? NMPs? NCMPs? Why only PAP MPs? Also, these white-laced yes-men will react similarly to the closed meeting above rite? Again, which joker with lucrative PAP careers will want to wreck it this way? Also, if they are already in PAP, why would they talk against the ruling decision so openly?

DPM Lee as PM is fait accompli and moot. Mr Goh, whom IMO was a great leader, was merely a seat-warmer, sad to say.

And while I’m at it, Straits Times shows once again that it’s a mere political device of the PAP. Sensible readers need only read between the lines to see how one-sided the reporting was.

The concept of MP nominations for PM is silly, perfunctory and serves zero purpose. It merely serves as yet another political device to assuage the stupid masses that there is a veneer of transparency and democracy.

http://www.newsintercom.org/index.php?itemid=73