Workers’ Party to Hougang residents – Let Down 1,2…..(3) ??

## much of the resources were moved to Aljunied GRC from Hougang

In an exclusiveinterview -“Yaw Shin Leong-Leading by Example” on 18 September 2011 with online
Publichouse,Yaw Shin Leong then said

After winning Aljunied, much of the Workers’ Party resources needed to be channeled to the building of grassroots functions and grassroots mechanisms from scratch,” Mr Yaw explains. “So interestingly, the entire HGCC is made up of very very new and inexperienced activists “

Categories: Workers' Party

Mr Chen Show Mao and his “me”, “I” & “mine”

.

To be fair to Mr Chen Show Mao, especially considering he is the STAR of Workers’ Party. how can I not accord Mr Chen the attention that he too, very much deserves, just like the one I had given to his honourable colleague, Mr Pritam Singh.

After reading comments and news re Mr Chen’s alleged plagiarism, I gather that not many have read Mr Donald Low’s original article, especially now that he has closed his FB account.

So for the sake of comparison, I have posted here, Mr Donald’s original paper. After putting the two side by side, I have marked out the differences (in red) and what were the changes before the article finds its way to Mr Chen’s FB note.( Luckily there are not many differences else this page will be very messy.)

The above article with the few changes, was posted in Mr Chen’s FB, about one hour after Mr Donald posted his on 3 March 2012.

Mr Chen wrote in his header before he proceed to produce the above article with changes.

Take special note that there is no ‘quote’  from the start of the essay.

Now, let’s see the reactions to Mr Chen’s post:

 

Waaah!!  So many were impressed by “Mr Chen’s” writing.

Mr Chen knows jolly well that he kinda plucked the whole article from Donald. Yet, he did not for once, make any attempt to clarify that he is not the original writer, that any compliment should be accorded to the original writer.

Even after this netizen notice the similarity of the two notes and sounded the alarm.

and this……

Did Mr Chen come out to reply and gave due credit to the writer after above comments? NO. He proceeded to remain silent.  Meantime, more praises came pouring in. Finally, Mr Chen broke his silence and wrote:

Four days after Mr Chen’s Economics 101 note, and with talks continue to fly round the cyberworld as to whether Mr Chen did plagiarise, Mr Chen in defending himself, wrote on his wall:

quote from above

” The sender told recipients of his note to feel free to share its contents without individual attribution.  He told me that he preferred not to be cited by politicians

Alright, fair enough. It is  true that some may not like to be named. They do not mind others using their article as long as it is in line with their own stance.  BUT that does not excuse one from not giving due credit to the original source. It is not uncommon to see on my friends’ walls whenever they make quotes from others …..

“from a fb friend..” “from who & who…” or “quote…unquote’….

This is basic courtesy.

Also, the essay, on Mr Chen’s wall was presented as a ‘First Person” view point, eg

This brings me to the second point…..”

I find this hard to believe

and the last line

“…are no better than mine or anybody’s for that matter

Did we not learn that in school? That when an essay is written in first person, the ‘I’, “me” refers to the author?  So, in this case, without any ‘quote / unquote’ from Mr Chen, it is natural for one to assume that the author is Mr Chen. But is he?

One may say that he could have missed that out during editing.  Well, he managed to change “Mr Nair” to “the goverment” , and “some of us”, so I seriously do not think he could have missed the “i” “me” “mine”. That then leaves the question as to did he intentionally leave them as they are, so to create a wrong impression, an impression that he desires?

Mr Chen has always presented himself as a gentleman. Sadly, this ‘mischief’ that he has commited is going to put a dent on that image. At least to me.

So dearest Mr Chen and the rest of your Workers’ Party’s comrades, the next time before you guys want to speak of accountability and transparency and criticise any policy, please bear this in mind

        HONESTY is still the BEST POLICY 

Finally, for those who are interested, this is Mr Chen’s Economics 101 note.
(note: all those highlighted in yellow are Mr Donald’s words and look out for the RED STARS for those are where Mr Chen’s  “me”, “I” & “mine” are)

Categories: Workers' Party

Easiest Way to Prepare Parliamentary Speech – (coach MP Pritam Singh)

Do you aspire to be an MP but worry about having to prepare all those bombastic parliamentary speech?

Look no further.  Mr Pritam Singh, (Workers’ Party), MP for Aljunied GRC, will show you the easiest, fastest way to prepare a speech that will surely make you look like an expert.

All you need is a computer with internet connection. (tip:- visit wi-fi hot spots for free broadband connection) and NO, you do not need to be a lawyer like Mr Pritam Singh to wow your audience.

Watch this video and change your life today! Call 1800-WPCOPYCAT Now!

From the groundnotes:dated 23 September 2008, “Time for an Ombudsman in Singapore

Categories: Workers' Party

Budget 2012 – the $1.1 billion question (Bus Services Enhancement Fund)

“the package is a subsidy for commuters and not a subsidy for operators”

Boosting Bus Capacity – 800 new buses

The Government will set aside $1.1 billion for a Bus Services Enhancement Fund – funding for 550 buses and running costs over 10 years. The public bus operators will add another 250 buses.  This move will increase bus capacity by 20 per cent by 2016.

Why the need?

– To provide reliability and ease congestion on public transport.   It will reduce crowding and waiting times. For example, it will enable almost all feeder buses to run every 10 minutes or less — for two hours during morning and evening peak periods, instead of a one-hour peak currently

– It will take time for rail capacity improvements to be completed. The planned Downtown Line, Tuas West Extension, Thomson Line and Eastern Regional Line will be take about a decade.

Why not let PTOs (public transport operators) buy the buses?

– It took the PTOs close to 20 years to grow the public bus fleet by 800 buses in the past.

– their fare revenues would have had to go up, by about 12 to 13 percent. And this translates into an increase in passenger fares, of about 15 cents per journey.

How will the $1.1 billion be spent?

–  $280 million is budgeted for the purchase of 550 buses over the next five years,

– $820 million is to cover the net operating costs of the buses for 10 years.

What about profits from the 550 buses?

– based on existing parameters, losses are expected.

– in the event that losses are less than expected, or most unlikely if they turn a profit, $1.1 billion will be reduced, as their losses    are reduced, and if they make a profit from the 550 buses, it all goes back to the government.

none of the $1.1 billion will go towards profits of the public transport operators.

– PTOs’ accounts will be scrutinised and the government will pay according to what the costs actually are.

– there will be a review in five years to check the parameters of the agreement

——————————

source:

http://app.singaporebudget.gov.sg/budget_2012/default.aspx

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1186296/1/.html

Any profit from $1.1b bus package will go back to government, says DPM Tharman By Hetty Musfirah | Posted: 01 March 2012 1641 hrs

SINGAPORE: Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam said that any profit made from the $1.1 billion package for public transport operators (PTO) to grow their bus fleet will go back to the government.

Mr Tharman said $280 million is budgeted for the purchase of 550 buses over the next five years, while the remaining $820 million is to cover the net operating costs of the buses for 10 years.

He said the 550 additional buses is projected to be a loss-making operation, and so the $1.1 billion package is expected to cover the losses.

Mr Tharman said the government will scrutinise operators’ accounts. And should operators ever turn a profit or make lower losses, the government funding will be reduced correspondingly.

A review will also be conducted in five years to check parameters of the agreement.

Mr Tharman said: “The $1.1 billion package is expected to cover the losses of the 550 buses, in other words, the additional costs, net of revenue of the $1.1 billion package. $280 million is budgeted for the purchase of the 550 buses over the next five years and $820 to cover the net operating costs for 10 years.

“This is based on the best estimates currently. However, we will be monitoring and scrutinising the PTOs’ actual costs, for both the purchase and the running of the buses. Should their losses turn out to be lower than expected, the government funding will be reduced correspondingly. So one way or another, there are no profits to be made from the 550 buses.”

“We expect them to make losses based on their all existing parameters. If we are lucky and somehow the system is re-engineered, so that the losses are less than expected, or most unlikely if they turn a profit, that will not come from the government, the $1.1 billion will be reduced, as their losses are reduced, and if they make a profit, it all comes back to us.

“So none of the $1.1 billion will go towards profits of the public transport operators. It will be ring-fenced, their accounts will be scrutinised, we will be paying according to what the costs actually are. There is a review in five years to check the parameters of the agreement.”

Mr Tharman said the package is a subsidy for commuters and not a subsidy for operators.

He said without the government stepping in to help boost bus capacity, the significant service levels improvements would only be achievable if fares are raised sharply.

He added that if operators had to do it on their own, their fare revenues would have had to go up, by about 12 to 13 percent. And this translates into an increase in passenger fares, of about 15 cents per journey.

Mr Tharman said: “How much is 12-13 percent? In the last five years, since 2006, fares went by 0.3 percent, so 12-13 percent is quite a significant leap compared to what we have seen in the last five years. That would have been the only way for us to achieve the service levels improvements if the government has not stepped in.

He said the $1.1 billion government package, or $110 million each year, is to step up bus service levels well beyond the current service levels required of the operators.

He said it will increase bus capacity on existing heavily-utilised routes, making them less crowded and giving commuters more pleasant journey.

The number of new bus services will be added to improve connectivity.

He said the PTOs will have to improve service levels as a condition for the government’s investment.

Mr Tharman said: “We cannot simply mandate the PTOs to add the 550 buses. First, because it goes significantly beyond the current service levels of the current regulatory framework. Second, the PTOs bus operations are already running operating losses and the additional 550 buses in particular are projected to be a loss-making operation.

He said despite the government package, and independent of the government package, regular and incremental fare increases will continue to be necessary as wages and operating costs rise.

He said this is so that bus industry can stay financially viable.

Mr Tharman said the government will also continue to make sure that needy commuters get adequate assistance for their transport expenses.
– CNA/de <!– Zone Tag : Channel News Asia In Text

innity_pub = “66368270ffd51418ec58bd793f2d9b1b”;
innity_zone = “12251”;
innity_width = “**”;
innity_height = “**”;
innity_country = “SG”;

–>

Categories: The Ruling Party - PAP

Dear Ms Sylvia Lim, by election ≠ by-election

In response to MP Sylvia Lim’s letter

http://www.todayonline.com/Voices/EDC120301-0000060/By-election-is-not-optional

Sometimes, I  find it rather amusing how people can be so forgetful, or that they are not able to comprehend simple English.  Or perhaps they intentionally ”misunderstand”?

Ms Sylvial Lim, in her letter regarding by-election of Hougang said :-

1. quote Ms Lim [‘Besides calling for the abolition of GRCs, our amended motion would have preserved that part of the original motion which provided a three-month timeline for calling a by-election in an SMC.’]

 

This is the part of the original motion that is regarding the timeframe of a by-election:

(b) all by-elections shall be called within three months from the date of vacancy unless the parliamentary term is due to expire within six months from the date of vacancy.

This is the proposed amendment by WP regarding the by-election

       (b) introduce amendments to the Parliamentary Elections Act such that a writ for by-election
               shall be issued in the event a  Member vacates his or her seat for any reason

 

Now, may I know which part of the proposed amendment by WP  “”preserved that part of the original motion which provided a three-month timeline for calling a by-election in an SMC.”??

2. quote Ms Lim [Article 49 of the Constitution mandates that a vacant seat “shall”, not “may”, be filled by a by-election. It is not optional.]

This is what Article 49 is:

[49. —(1) Whenever the seat of a Member, not being a non-constituency Member, has become vacant for any reason other than a dissolution of Parliament, the vacancy shall be filled by election in the manner provided by or under any law relating to Parliamentary elections for the time being in force.]

Did Ms Lim not notice that there is NO hyphen in ”by election” as stated in the constitution? Yes, the difference is in the humble little “-“.
I can understand if Mr Low Thia Khiang misunderstand that for his English is really not that fantastic. But whatever happens to the three lawyers – Mr Chen Show Mao, Mr Pritam Singh and Ms Sylvia Lim?? Don’t tell me they do not know the difference between ”by-election” and ”by election”” Or did Workers’ Party choose to ignore the little fellow ”-“? 

Oh wait, let’s go back to Ms Lim’s letter again, she said article 49 states ” by a by-election”.  Notice the additional words here? I read article 49 again and again, strange I cannot find  “a by-“”……Are they only visible to Workers” Party’s First World Parliament ??     

3. quote Ms Lim [I made it clear that WP was unable to support the motion for the simple reason that an attempt to refine the GRC system would be tantamount to accepting GRCs in our system, which WP does not.]

The last I know, WP contested in a GRC – Aljunied and won. So whatever happens to the upholding of principle which they so strongly harped on when they expelled their very own blood?
——————–

Ms Sylvia Lim’s letter

By-election is not optional

Letter from Sylvia Lim Member of Parliament for Aljunied, Chairman, Workers’ Party
04:46 AM Mar 01, 2012

MR HRI Kumar Nair’s letter “We should let PM do his job” (Feb 29) referred to the Workers’ Party’s (WP) vote in Parliament against the motion filed by two Nominated Members on when by-elections are triggered and when they should be called.

His letter may give readers the wrong impression that WP was against setting a time-limit for by-elections in constituencies where the Member of Parliament’s seat is vacant.

The motion in 2008 was precipitated by the demise of Jurong Group Representation Constituency (GRC) MP Ong Chit Chung and was a call to refine the system to provide for when a by-election should be called in a GRC.

It proposed that a by-election in a GRC be called upon the departure of either the minority MP or more than half of the MPs in the team.

It also proposed that a by-election be called in the event of vacancy in a Single Member Constituency (SMC) and for all by-elections to be held within three months of the vacancy.

When speaking then on the motion, I made it clear that WP was unable to support the motion for the simple reason that an attempt to refine the GRC system would be tantamount to accepting GRCs in our system, which WP does not.

Mr Hri Kumar noted correctly that WP had proposed in that debate an amendment to the motion, which did not succeed.

Besides calling for the abolition of GRCs, our amended motion would have preserved that part of the original motion which provided a three-month timeline for calling a by-election in an SMC.

Article 49 of the Constitution mandates that a vacant seat “shall”, not “may”, be filled by a by-election. It is not optional.

Though the timing is not provided in our laws, thus giving the Prime Minister some discretion, it has been pointed out that Section 52 of the Interpretation Act provides that where an act is to be done with no time limit prescribed, it should be done “with all convenient speed”.

The Government should thus call the by-election in Hougang as soon as practicable.

 
Categories: Workers' Party

Letter of Apology to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong

Following is in response to PM Lee’s lawyer letter to TR Emeritus

———————————

 

On 19th Feb 2012, TR Emeritus (TRE) through our Singapore-based editor, was served with a Letter of Demand from law firm Drew & Napier, acting for Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.

The letter said that on or about 16th Feb 2012, TRE published or caused to be published on TR Emeritus website, an opinion piece entitled “PAP-government is full of ironies” by a contributor. The article, as well as a number of associated comments, contained words that are defamatory:

“… you always publicise yourself as a clean government with no visible cronyism. There are 10,001 examples that this is absolute crap, but let me just bring up the most obvious one. ts there no person better than Ho Ching in Singapore? Has she brought in extraordinary level of profits every year for Temasek Holdings? Who else in the world has a woman as a chief of sovereign fund or head of investment company? I am not sexist. When HP appointed Carly Fiorina as HP’s CEO, I was cheering for her! Though she did not manage to turn the company around, but I think she made a lot of women proud. My question is, how come someone like Mr Koh Boon Hwee has not been given this position? You mean to tell me Ho Ching is better than Mr Koh? I know of only ONE thing that she does better than Mr Koh.”

It also said that the allegations (above) in the opinion piece by the contributor are false and baseless, ”Mdm Ho Ching was appointed on merit and through proper process.”

Additionally, Messer Drew & Napier was kind enough to provide TRE with information pertaining to the appointment of Mdm Ho Ching, which showed that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong was not involved in the decision making process. As a matter of fact, Mr Lee was against the idea from the onset.

In light of the information made available to TRE, we would like to offer our sincere apology to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.

APOLOGY

1. On or about 16 February 2012, we published on this website, TR Emeritus, an article entitled “PAP-government is full of ironies“ (the “Article”). The Article, and the comments in response to the Article, was available at http://www.tremeritus.com/2012/02/16/pap-government-is-full-­of-ironies/.

2. We recognise that the Article meant or was understood to mean that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had secured, or was instrumental in securing, the appointment of his wife, Mdm Ho Ching, as the Chief Executive Officer of Temasek Holdings (Private) Limited for nepotistic motives.

3. We admit and acknowledge that this allegation is false and completely without foundation. We unreservedly apologise to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong for the distress and embarrassment caused to him by this allegation.

4. We have removed the Article and the comments in response to the Article and undertake not to make any further allegation to the same or similar effect.

.

Richard Wan

for TR Emeritus

.

* We wish to remind our readers and contributors again to please refrain from intentionally using language that are libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive and/or discriminatory on the basis of race, religion, gender, age, disability, etc.

** Also, in view of the fact that the allegations as mentioned in the opinion piece by the contributor are false and baseless, we would like to advise TRE readers to refrain from making such comments about Mdm Ho Ching with regard to her appointment in Temasek Holdings (Private) Limited. Any such allegations put up by anyone on TRE will be deleted.

.

Categories: The Ruling Party - PAP

PM Lee sends lawyer’s letter to editors of TR Emeritus

source: The Straits Times – 20 February 2012
By Tessa Wong


PRIME Minister Lee Hsien Loong yesterday sent a lawyer’s letter to the editors of the TR Emeritus (TRE) sociopolitical website, asking for a post alleging cronyism in the appointment of Madam Ho Ching as head of Temasek Holdings to be taken down.

Madam Ho is PM Lee’s wife.

He also asked for an apology to be posted on the website by Feb 24, and which must remain on the website for the same number of days as the offending post had been.

In addition, he also wanted the TRE editors to give a written confirmation by Feb 23 that they would comply, failing which he would start legal proceedings against them.

By 10pm last night, the post in question had been taken down.

Mr Richard Wan, the TRE editor to whom the letter was addressed, told The Straits Times last night that he was discussing the matter with other TRE editors, and they would issue a statement by ‘around lunch time’ today.

One of the editors, he added, is a lawyer who could provide advice on the next steps to take.

Mr Wan himself is a 49-year-old IT consultant who appeared at a public forum on Wednesday last week declaring himself as one of five editors of the website, which is known for views critical of the Government and the ruling party.

Mr Davinder Singh, the Drew & Napier lawyer acting for PM Lee, told The Straits Times yesterday that the letter had been served on Mr Wan in person at his house in Hillview estate.

In his letter, a copy of which he released to The Straits Times, he said that ‘as is publicly known’, the appointment of Madam Ho as head of Temasek in May 2002 was ‘on merit and through proper process’.

He detailed how it was Mr S. Dhanabalan, the chairman of the investment company’s board of directors, who first decided that Madam Ho was the right person for the job, and approached Mr Lee in August 2001 to broach the subject.

Mr Lee, who was then Deputy Prime Minister, was uncomfortable with the idea, as was then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong.

Mr Dhanabalan, however, still felt that Madam Ho was the most suitable person, and in November 2001, raised the subject again with Mr Lee, who again turned it down.

Mr Dhanabalan then came up with a modified proposal: He would reconstitute Temasek’s executive committee and chair it himself.

This way, Madam Ho would report to him directly, and not to the prime minister. She would be appointed as executive director instead of chief executive officer.

In his letter, Mr Singh also noted that Madam Ho’s appointment to the board of Temasek, which is a company listed in the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution, had to be approved by the President.

He also pointed to an interview that Mr Dhanabalan gave to the Agence France-Presse news agency in June 2002, in which he said that Madam Ho’s appointment had nothing to do with her family connections.

Likewise, Mr Goh told Business Week news magazine later that month that Madam Ho was appointed because of her record and performance.

Mr Singh’s letter also requested the TRE editors to provide the identity and contact particulars of ‘Matthew Chua’, the person who contributed the post in question.

Mr Wan told The Straits Times that Mr Chua was an occasional contributor to TRE whose articles had been published on the website before, but he did not know him personally.

The TRE editors would, however, be able to reach him by e-mail.

This is the second time in five days that legal action is being threatened for comments posted on websites.

On Tuesday last week, Law and Foreign Minister K. Shanmugam got lawyers from Allen & Gledhill to send such a letter to blogger Alex Au, asking him to remove from his blog allegedly defamatory comments about him.

Mr Au did so the same evening. E

Categories: The Ruling Party - PAP

WHO are they to Low Thia Khiang ??

                                  “I feel betrayed” – ERIC TAN (ex WP)

right after GE11, when he, as the East Coast GRC team leader was being side stepped by Low Thia Khiang when his team was entitled to a NCMP position.  That post was instead handed to Gerald Giam who joined WP only in 2009 comparing to Eric Tan, who had helped WP to build the East Coast GRC since 2005.

“I am disappointed that Low (Thia Khiang) and part of the CEC have decided to go against the people’s wishes, citing party renewal as their reason.

I too, also believe in the renewal of the party but in an orderly manner, with succession plans.

“But not like this, dropped like a bomb.”

YAW SHIN LEONG

Fast forward nine months, Yaw Shin Leong, Low Thia Khiang’s  protégé, was being EXPELLED.   (Expel – “kick out”, “throw out” )

Reason? YSL  failed to answer to allegations. Allegations which even LTK himself has considered as just rumours.

For the past three weeks since the allegations against YSL having extramarital affair surfaced, LTK and WP  have been seen all the way behind YSL, all singing the same tune –  ‘no comments’ .

26 Jan 2012 – YSL – I do not wish to comment on rumour.
28 Jan 2012 – LTK – “You said yourself these are rumours, why are you still asking me?”
28 Jan 2012 – Five other WP parliamentarians contacted either did not respond or said “no comment”

             7 Feb 2012 – YSL resigned as treasurer of the CEC.  No reason  was given.

            When asked about the surprised move:-

            9 Feb 2012 – YSL – “I have nothing to add”
            9 Feb 2012 – LTK – “I have nothing else to add”
            9 Feb 2012 – Sylvia Lim – “We do not have anything to add”

            12 Feb 2012 – WP team – including YSL & LTK,  appeared happily at a CNY celebration. 

 

Just when it seemed that WP was indeed one for all and all for one, on 15 Feb 2012,  a bombshell was dropped (yes, just like Eric Tan said “dropped like a bomb”) – Yaw Shin Leong was expelled !

Being expelled is a serious case. Just like what LTK said, this is probably the first in WP. So, should not then a matter of such magnitude be granted at least a proper investigation?   Base on the press conference, YSL has not attended their internal meetings.  He was not advised as to how to handle the matter because “he is an adult”.  That’s it?

What puzzles me most is, for a pair whom everyone knows are of such close relationship liken to mentor-disciple or even father and son, LTK could just brushed it off during the press conference that theirs was solely a business relationship?? There was not even a tinge of knowledge to each other’s personal lives??  I had previously worked with a boss for a decade and ours was also a professional relationship, yet, we knew what was going on in each other’s life, no need for details, but yes, we know simply because we care.

Did YSL have no respect at all for his mentor of 10 years to at least fill him in on the truth?  Did LTK have no concerns at all for his protégé , to do all he can to find out the truth and to help him at least professionally?

And how it must have hurt to hear your mentor trying his best to alienate himself from you just because you are now considered a liability.

YSL joined WP June 2001  and has been holding various CEC positions since then.   He has helped LTK through all his past elections since he joined WP.  In GE11, he even surpassed LTK’s  GE06 percentage vote in Hougang, which he credited his victory to his mentor LTK.

The least, as a mentor, probably LTK / WP could have just announced that YSL has  resigned?

But they chose to expel. Why?  Does it not matter that someone  who has contributed so much to the party, to at least  ‘save him some face’ and perhaps his future career ?  Or is it more important to save the name of the party?

I agree that that YSL is indeed very irresponsibile on his part especially now that he just ‘vanish’ to another country. But if the leader could have helped to handle the matter in a more appropriate manner, could this have been avoided?

HOUGANG RESIDENTS

1)    GE2011, LTK, abandoned Hougang supporters after 20 years, to contest in Aljunied GRC. And when WP won Aljunied, almost all resources have to be channelled to Aljunied and  “the entire HGCC is made up of very very new and inexperienced activitists”

2)    Hougang’s MP YSL went missing for a week after the allegations flew, yet LTK made no effort to address the residents.

3)    Then their MP was sacked without any warning. The one whom LTK had highly recommended and they have voted for.

In the past three weeks, at no point in time did LTK, the chief, even gave any slight indication that they will conduct an investigation into the allegation, leaving residents hanging to make wild guesses.

LTK is the party leader.  He is responsible for all in his party. If he thinks that his member has not been responsible, then he, as the leader, has to be out there assuring the residents.

Instead, he continued to give residents the impression that everything is okay.

When YSL resigned from the party leadership on 7 Feb, WP’s statement then was

            “The Workers’ Party assures residents of Hougang of the Party’s commitment to the constituency and to supporting the work of their Member of Parliament”

12 Feb 2012 - CNY celebration

The CNY celebration on 12 Feb went a step further to show that everything has been taken care of. Who would have thought that LTK / WP pulled a sudden U-turn three days later?

Now, Hougang is left without a MP and Low Thia Khiang has pushed the blame not only on YSL but is also pushing the responsibility back to our PM Lee

“Perhaps the PM should look at the sentiment (on the ground) and not drag too long for the by-election if he has a national agenda and wants to move on.”

So who are the above to Low Thia Khiang?

Nothing more than pawns for his personal political advancement?

Categories: Workers' Party

MG Chan Chun Sing – PAP – Elitist? Arrogant?

Recently, MG Chan’s name has been synoymous with our local delicacy “Chai Tau Kway” or Fried Carrot Cake.

It was the result of an analogy that MG Chan had used which had unfortunately earned him labels such as “arrogant”, “elitist”.

Chan Chun Sing - by ST Alphonsus Chern

On 15 Jan 2012, during a dialogue session at Jurong Spring Community Club, MG Chan was asked about his views on the ministerial pay cut.

reported channel news asia :-

” He said: “I don’t think anyone of them comes here for the money. They come here to provide a better life for the next generation… One of the reasons why I stepped forward was because I know I’m joining a team of people that are not here for the money.”
 He added that the key is to find the right balance.

He said: “Money should not be the one (factor) to attract them in. On the other hand, money should also not be the bugbear to deter them.

“(For example,) you go to Peach Garden, you eat the S$10 XO Sauce chye tow kuay (fried carrot cake), you can be quite happy right? Because you are satisfied with the service and so on. On the other hand, you can go to a hawker centre, even if they charge you S$1.50, you might not want to eat it if the quality is not good.”

Perhaps the above may not be the most apt of analogies and it may have given people the impression that MG Chan is arrogant.

But how is MG Chan really like?  At ‘The Young Guns Forum’ on 26 Jan 2012, MP Vikram Nair’s had pretty summed it up.

“...it was actually at the Sembawang GRC rally……it was pouring heavily and there were all these chairs set out on the podium and we saw this one chap stacking up all the chairs, at that point we didn’t know who it was……..later when we saw him coming in from the rain, that’s when we realised it was MG Chan…”

To understand MG Chan a tad better,  below is a little peep into his background.

MG Chan’s display of gratitude towards his mother for his success is admirable.  And the fact that he could be so forthcoming in letting it be made known of his humble family background,  kinda provide an insight into the kind of person MG Chan is. – one that is down to earth and far from being arrogant.

Categories: The Ruling Party - PAP

Yaw Shin Leong – WP – Missing In Action

WP MP for Hougang SMC, Yaw Shin Leong,has gone missing in action for the past four days since talk that he was having an extramarital affair with a fellow WP married colleague.

Last Friday, 20 Jan 2012, Temasek Review reported the rumour on its site.  Of course, TR for what it is, should never be taken seriously, not even a teeny weeny bit.

But two days ago, 26 Jan, The New Paper, carried an article about the said rumour.  It seems that TNP had in fact got wind of the rumour even before the story surfaced online.  TNP reporters had gone to a greater length to seek clarifications from Yaw at his MPS last Wednesday.   His Mrs, the alleged mistress as well as WP chief Low Thia Khiang were also approached but  “No Comment” was the best all could do.

The politician’s morals are now being questioned and naturally, there are unhappiness among some people especially those who had voted him in to represent them.  Women voters may be particularly upset for after all, they probably hold you as a role model for their husbands or boyfriends.

What seemed to be a private affair is now no longer just private for apparently, it has affected Yaw’s job as a MP, well at least till now.

Yaw cancelled his last MPS with just a notice taped on the wall of the void deck where the MPS is held, with no reason given.

The Straits Times has been unable to reach Yaw by phone or email since Wednesday.  ST paid a visit to his home on Thursday but no one answered the door.  Neighbours interviewed did not see the couple that day too.

Yesterday, ST ‘s visit to the Hougang office of the Hougang-Aljunied Town Council was to no avail.  Staff at the office said that Yaw had been absent since Wednesday.

Now, it is probably debatable whether it is a big deal or not a politician has extramarital affair. However, the MP is responsible for his/her residents and by going absent with no word at all is plain irresponsible. That, to me, is completely unacceptable.

Categories: Workers' Party

Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.