Blog

Gilbert Goh: PAP’s Main Motive For Suing WP’s Three MPs Probably To Stop Them From Standing For Next General Election

Let’s support the Workers’ Party as the PAP seeks to destroy and bring down the opposition party here. They can’t unfortunately ownself clear ownself like our PM did three weeks ago in Parliament.

The PM’s own ward Ang Mo Kio Town Council also faced similar alleged corruption but the case was easily settled out of the public scrutiny when the town council general manager was relieved of his duties last year and dismissed without implicating the MPs.

Its also a important distraction tactic as the government faces a host of its own problems involving the PM’s own abuse of power allegation by his two siblings which he has cleared himself in Parliament and the Malay-only Presidential Election.

The PE which will take place in September has hurt the feelings of alot of our Singaporean Malays and put the government on a back-foot for the past few weeks as it struggles to properly address the racial legality of their preferred Indian-Muslim candidate Halimah.

As for the lawsuit against the three WP main figures, if it involves corruption, the goverment should bring in the CPIB to investigate WP but it has instead threw the legal law book at the opposition party which will give the issue wider smear publicity.

By appointing Philip Jeyeretnam son of WP’s founder father JB Jeyeretnam to preside over the case, it has also stir up much sentiments against the former founder’s son who now works for the government.

Its vintage PAP’s distraction technique at its best to sue the WP now when the government has also faced many Accounting-General Office’s official complaints for the past 3 years into financial irregularities for many of its own statutory boards and civil services.

Nothing is believed to have being done to properly investigate and clear the irregularities as the same financial problem is being re-flagged the next year. Should we not also sue the government for improper handling of our millions of taxpayer money?

If the WP’s three MPs are found guilty by our court system, they are likely to be heavily fined and may not be able to stand for the next general election – probably the PAP’s main motive for suing them now.

Let us support WP for the sake of our opposition cause!

Source: Gilbert Goh

July 26, 2017
(Press Release) WP Town Councillors Acted In Good Faith And Best Interests Of Residents, Will Contest Lawsuit

WP TOWN COUNCILLORS ACTED IN GOOD FAITH AND BEST INTERESTS OF RESIDENTS, WILL CONTEST LAWSUIT

1. We confirm that we have received the Statement of Claim filed by the Aljunied-Hougang Town Council against us individually.

1. We confirm that we have received the Statement of Claim filed by the Aljunied-Hougang Town Council against us individually.

2. We have engaged M/s Tan Rajah and Cheah to defend the claim for the 1st to 5th Defendants.

3. In the suit against us, amongst other things, it is alleged that:

(a) We have acted in breach of our fiduciary duties and duties of care and skill owed to AHTC.

(b) We set up a faulty system which allowed the appointment of FMSS and made it possible for FMSS and/or their officers to benefit themselves.

(c) We entered into contracts with architects in breach of duties owed to AHTC.

4. Our reply to all these allegations is NO.

5. We are taking legal advice and will contest the lawsuit and lay out our case vigorously in court.

6. We wish to make the following points:

(a) Low Thia Khiang and Sylvia Lim have been asked to give an account of profits made from the appointment of FMSS or pay damages not less than $1.25 million. We have not benefitted a single cent.

(b) Sylvia Lim and Pritam Singh have been asked to pay damages of $2.8 million for the wrongful appointment of architects.

(c) The WP MPs have acted in good faith and in the best interests of the Town Council and our residents.

(d) In the course of these proceedings, we will be furnishing more information so that all concerned will be clearer on the issues and why we made the decisions and acted as we did.

Low Thia Khiang
Sylvia Lim
Pritam Singh

26 July 2017

Source: http://www.wp.sg/

July 26, 2017
Hijabs Turning Heads As Advertisers Realise Potential In Muslim Market

The hijab – one of the most visible signs of Islamic culture – is going mainstream, with advertisers, media giants and fashion firms promoting images of the traditional headscarf in ever more ways.

Last week, Apple previewed 12 new emoji characters to be launched later this year, one of a woman wearing a hijab.

Major fashion brands from American Eagle to Nike are creating hijabs, while hijab-wearing models have started gracing Western catwalks and the covers of top fashion magazines.

Many Muslim women cover their heads with the hijab in public as a sign of modesty, although some critics see it as a sign of female oppression.

But there is one thing most can agree on: When it comes to the hijab, there is money to be made.

“In terms of the bottom line, absolutely they’re good for business… it’s a huge market and they are incredibly brand-savvy, so they want to spend their money,” said Ms Shelina Janmohamed, vice-president of Ogilvy Noor, a consultancy offering advice on how to build brands that appeal to Muslim audiences.

Nike announced that it is using its prowess in the sports and leisure market to launch a breathable mesh hijab in spring next year, becoming the first major sports apparel maker to offer a traditional Islamic headscarf designed for competition.

Last month, Vogue Arabia featured on its cover the first hijabi model to walk the international runway, Somali-American Halima Aden, who gained international attention last year when she wore a hijab and burkini during the Miss Minnesota USA pageant.

“Every little girl deserves to see a role model that’s dressed like her, resembles her, or even has the same characteristics as her,” she said in a video on her Instagram account.

Hijabs have also become more visible in Western advertising campaigns for popular retailers such as H&M and Gap.

Ms Amani al-Khatahtbeh, founder of online publication Muslim- Girl.com, said from New York: “Brands, especially, are in a very strategic and potent position to propel that social good, to change the attitudes of society and really push us forward and take us to that next step.”

In Nigeria, a medical student has become an Instagram sensation for posting images of a hijab-wearing Barbie, describing hers as a “modest doll” – unlike the traditional version. And mothers in Pittsburgh have started making and selling hijabs for Barbies in a bid to make play more inclusive.

However, Ms al-Khatahtbeh warned of the potential for the young Muslim market to be exploited just for profit without any effort to promote acceptance and integration. “It can easily become exploitative by profiting off of communities that are being targeted right now, or it could be a moment that we turn into a very, very empowering one,” she said.

Frustrated when she could not find an image to represent her and her friends on her iPhone keypad, Saudi teenager Rayouf Alhumedhi started an online campaign, the Hijab Emoji Project.

She proposed the idea of the emoji last year to coding consortium Unicode that manages the development of new emojis, she said on her campaign’s website, helping to prompt Apple to create its hijab-wearing emoji.

Ms Janmohamed of Ogilvy Noor said: “It’s only really in the last 18 to 24 months – perhaps three years – that bigger, mainstream brands have started to realise that young Muslim consumers are really an exciting opportunity.”

A global Islamic economy report conducted by Thomson Reuters showed that in 2015, revenues from “modest fashion” bought by Muslim women were estimated at US$44 billion, with designers Dolce & Gabbana, Uniqlo and Burberry entering the industry.

Ms Janmohamed, author of the memoir Love In A Headscarf, sees young hijabi representation in the digital communications and fashion space a step forward for tolerance.

“It feels particularly empowering for young people to see themselves represented. So today, I think it is the least that consumers expect and anyone who doesn’t do it is actually falling behind.”

Source: www.straitstimes.com

July 26, 2017
Good NS Performance Will No Longer Be Taken As Mitigating Factor For Sentencing Defaulters

How well a national service (NS) defaulter performs in his duty when he eventually serves should have no bearing when deciding his punishment.

This was made clear yesterday by the High Court as it laid down fresh sentencing benchmarks for NS dodgers.

The benchmarks also “amplified” punishments for those who default for longer periods since it affects their fitness for service and the time they can serve as reservists.

The three-judge panel, led by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, set out four sentencing bands based on the length of default.

For those who evade NS for two to six years, the starting point is two to four months’ jail; for seven to 10 years, it is five to eight months’ jail; and for 11 to 16 years, it is 14 to 22 months’ jail. For cases involving those who evade for 17 to 23 years or more, the default jail term kicks off from two to the maximum of three years.

The grounds of decision were related to the cases of three defaulters, who were given heavier sentences in April after the prosecution appealed.

Explaining its decisions yesterday, the panel rejected key parts of the sentencing benchmarks laid out by Justice Chan Seng Onn in February last year, when he sentenced a 25-year-old to three months in jail for defaulting for more than six years, and then gave a 1½ month discount for his good performance in NS.

The panel agreed with Justice Chan that the main factor in determining an NS dodger’s culpability is the length of time he defaulted, and that anything over two years should mean a jail term. This, the court said, is because he would start serving only after his peers had completed their duty.

But, among other things, the court disagreed that the sentence should be calibrated based on whether the defaulter has a substantial connection to Singapore, that a discount should be given on the accused pleading guilty instead of claiming trial, and that exceptional NS performance should be a mitigating factor.

Source: www.tnp.sg

July 26, 2017
SDP Urges President Tony Tan To Revoke Lucien Wong’s Appointment As AG

The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) has refused to look into Dr Lee Wei Ling’s and Lee Hsien Yang’s allegations that PM Lee Hsien Loong had abused his powers and made false statements in Parliament.

In its reply to the SDP on 21 July 2017, the AGC said that it “does not undertake investigations into the matters alleged in the letter. The persons who are the subjects of any criminal offence alleged to have been committed may lodge a police report.”

This is a curious, if not altogether hypocritical, stance. The AGC recently indicated that it would “look into” Mr Li Shengwu’s private Facebook posting which criticised the judicial system even though there was no mention that anyone had made a police report against Mr Li.

Surely, if the AGC could “look into” private Facebook messages, it can look into the serious accusations of the abuse of power by the Prime Minister.

Also, in 1997, then AG Chan Sek Keong had investigated the matter of Mr Goh Chok Tong and other ministers entering polling stations on voting day even though they were clearly not authorised to do so.

As in the 1997 incident, the “persons who are the subjects” of the alleged offence are the people of Singapore. If AG Chan – despite his inane answer that Mr Goh and company had not committed an offence as they were inside the polling station and not waiting outside it – could investigate the incident, surely AG Lucien Wong can investigate the present matter.

The added problem, of course, is that AG Wong was the PM’s personal lawyer prior to his appointment. This crucial fact was not disclosed to the public at the time the appointment was made.

Given the situation, the SDP has written to President Tony Tan to revoke Mr Lucien Wong’s appointment. Under Section 22(1) of the Constitution, the President is empowered to do so.

Mr Lucien Wong was sworn in as AG on 16 January 2017. However, the fact that Mr Wong was the PM’s personal lawyer was revealed to the public only in June 2017. The President may not have been aware of this fact or its full implications.

The association of Mr Wong with PM Lee prior to his becoming the AG has created an acute conflict of interest which cannot be ignored. It is important that President Tan does the right thing in the interest of the people of Singapore and revoke Mr Lucien Wong’s appointment as AG.

Any further delay or refusal to act will cause even greater erosion of confidence in our public institutions.

Source: http://yoursdp.org

July 26, 2017