Rilek1Corner

Tag: Goh Meng Seng

  • Opposition Heavyweights Lend Support To Dr Tan Cheng Bock’s Constitutional Challenge

    Opposition Heavyweights Lend Support To Dr Tan Cheng Bock’s Constitutional Challenge

    Lim Tean, Tan Kin Lian, Syafarin Sarif and I had started the initiative to publish a Non-Partisan Joint Statement in support of Dr Tan Cheng Bock’s challenge of the Constitutional change to enforce Reserved Elected Presidency based on dubious grounds.

    We wanted a Non-Partisan Joint Statement basically because we feel that this is an important matter which should include private individuals, other than politicians.

    You can add your name to this Joint Statement by sharing it in your Facebook. Let the Force be with us.

    Please join us to stop the emasculation of our Constitution! To support please like, share & comment. Also message me if you want your name added to the bottom of the statement and I will do so.

    JOINT STATEMENT MAY 11TH 2017….
    The written Constitution of Singapore should be a repository of the most cherished values we hold as a people and also a bulwark of our venerable institutions.

    Sadly, our Constitution has been subject to numerous attacks over the years .The recent episode over changes to the Elected Presidency Scheme is the latest demonstration of such an attack.

    There was never a call by any Singaporean of any ethnic group for our next President to be a Malay. If race is an important element in the choosing of an elected President, it beggars belief that it did not surface as an issue during the period when the time scheme was first conceived and the interlude of almost 7 years until it was passed into law. The scheme was not cobbled together hurriedly as has been suggested, thereby necessitating substantial changes at this time. The scheme was first mooted by Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew as far back as 15 April 1984 during a walkabout in his Tanjong Pagar Constituency, and again brought up by him during his National Day Rally speech on 19 August that year. There was intense media and public interest in the issue. On 29 July 1988, then First Deputy Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong introduced the first White Paper on the proposed scheme in Parliament. There were changes and amendments made and a second White Paper was introduced on 27 August 1990. Following a lengthy debate during the second reading of the resultant Bill on 4 October 1990, a 12-member select committee, which included key cabinet ministers was appointed to look into issues and make recommendations. The committee’s report was presented to Parliament on 18 December 1990 and, on 3 January 1991 the Bill was passed into law .

    Moreover, by 1988, the PAP had introduced the Group Representation Constituencies ( GRCs ) into the Parliamentary electoral system in Singapore. Race is the very foundation of the GRC system, as all Singaporeans are aware of.

    In the years following the last Presidential election of 2011, no PAP member ever expressed any concern that too many years had passed without Singapore having a Malay President until the issue surfaced in the President’s speech, opening Parliament in January 2016. If this issue is of such grave national importance as the PAP and the Prime Minister have made it out to be, why was this issue not put before the Singapore people in the last General Elections held in September 2015? And why has this issue not been put before the Singapore people in a referendum?

    The PAP euphemistically termed the changes made as a “refreshment “of the Scheme in the President’s speech. In reality, they amount to an over-arching arrangement to kill off competition so that the favoured candidate of the PAP will triumph at the next Presidential election. It tarnishes the institution of the Elected President which is supposed to be part of the “two-key “mechanism designed to safeguard Singapore’s financial reserves and the integrity of our civil service. It is a betrayal of their proclaimed ideal of meritocracy which calls for the best person to be elected to the position of President, and it is a desecration of the Singapore pledge penned by one of their founders S. Rajaratnam – in which Singaporeans pledge themselves as one united people regardless of race, language and religion to build a democratic society.

    We have come together as a group of concerned Singaporeans, from diverse walks in life and from a wide political spectrum, to ask Singaporeans to stand up and to protect our Constitution from constant manipulation by the PAP government to suit their selfish political needs.

    We are pleased to note that Dr Tan Cheng Bock has mounted a judicial challenge to the constitutionality of the next Presidential Election being a reserved election. Even if it is now the law that there must be a reserved election for a particular racial group if no one from that group has been President after 5 continuous terms, it is clear to everyone of us that only the Presidential election of 2023 need be a reserved election. The next Presidential election in September this year should be an open election as there have been only 4 elected Presidents since the Elected Presidency scheme came into effect, with Mr Ong Teng Cheong being our first elected President. We do not know of any ordinary Singaporean who has taken an opposing view.

    Since the PAP Government insists that the upcoming Presidential election is a reserved election under the Presidential Elections (Amendment) Act 2017, the burden was on them to explain to the Singapore people the basis of their decision. It was incumbent upon them to produce the advice which they said they had obtained from the Attorney-General, which formed the basis of their decision. This is no different to a judge having to give his reasons for a decision made by him. It was important for the Government to have made known the reasoning behind the Attorney-General’s advice because the Attorney-General’s advice does not constitute the law of the land and is open to challenge by way of Judicial Review.
    Finally, we note from Dr Tan Cheng Bock’s statement issued after he had filed the proceedings in Court that Lord Pannick QC, the most renown British Constitutional lawyer of his generation, whom Dr Tan consulted, is of the opinion that section 22 of the Presidential Elections (Amendment) Act 2017, which makes the upcoming Presidential election a reserved one, is unconstitutional . That means that in Lord Pannick QC’s opinion, the advice of the Attorney-General was wrong. We must now await the determination of this issue by the Supreme Court.

    11th May 2017
    Lim Tean, Goh Meng Seng, Syafarin Sarif, Tan Kin Lian. Dolly Peh, Firros Rajah, Steven Goh, Brad Bowyer, William Wallace, Robert Teh, Jafri Basron, Sukhdev Singh Gill, Michael Dorai, Singaram Padmanathan, Mohammad Saqib, Hong Ht, Sohibo Netads, Kelvin Law Chee Ming, Leslie Terh, C Sing Ow, Kenneth Chan, Simon Lim, Abdul Salim Harun, Soonkin Chew, Roy Boey, Ng Fark Yew, Kelvin Ong, Bernard Riio, Derek Tan, Danny Ng, Raymond CH Chan, Keith Ong, Lee Anthony, Anne Lim, Andrew Wong, David Koh, Niki Ng, Yeu Yong Teo, Stanley Goh, Ricky Lim, Richard Sim, Michael Wong K E, Sarah Lim, RockinAngels Patrick, Gloria Siew, Tan Seng Hoo, Mani Maran, Robert Teo, Simon Chong, Sue Ryan, Goh Chok Chai Ricky, Low SK, Ravi Velu, Kelvin Cheong, Wong Sunny, Alvina Khoo, Liao Bo Tan, Wong YY, AK Tan, Sandra Goh, David Wee, Ashura Chia, Alan Anthony, Issaro Poh, Hmy Shaharudin, Gillian Chan, Cheyenne Cherokee Sioux, Raymond Tham, Sajeev Kamalasanan, Johan Teh, Abdul Kadir Md Noor, Henry Tan, Christopher Chin, Andre l,Chia, Ronald Koh, Gilbert Louis, Robert Guo, Oh Bock Thin, Simon Loke, still updating….

     

    Source: Goh Meng Seng

  • Goh Meng Seng: Supporters Of Israeli Nationhood Must Not Blindly Support Its Oppressive Anti-Palestine, Apartheid Policy

    Goh Meng Seng: Supporters Of Israeli Nationhood Must Not Blindly Support Its Oppressive Anti-Palestine, Apartheid Policy

    I had sent my response to TRE with regards to an article written by Philip Ong but they actually didn’t publish it! Well, cannot expect anything else when the mind is bias.

    People who “support Israel” really has an emotionally charged mind fill with religious rhetoric . No wonder Karl Marx said “Religion is the Opium of people”! It numbs the minds of people, giving them fantasies and weird logic. They can justify anything under the Sun, regardless whether it is logical to the human mind, just or unjust or otherwise.

    It just electrifies them when something just touches on Israel, never mind what you say, you don’t support Israel, you are my enemy!

    All sound and logical reasoning just fallen on deaf ears. Even when we are just asking for a reasonable stance from Israel, stop the atrocities in Palestine, stop the illegal settlements, establish the Two-States structure… not even wanting Israel to be wiped off or destroyed!

    I am personally considered a “religious man” in any sense but never will I subject myself to totally illogical religious fanaticism. Anything I believe, must make HUMAN logical sense, though it is about Buddha, Gods and Goddess, it must still make HUMAN sense to me. And it must be just, fair and peaceful to all.

    In all honesty, I feel strange for anyone to support a group of people who basically rob land and declare nationhood. Yes, they bought the land initially, but no, buying the land is not equal to buying sovereignty. Else, Singapore will be in great trouble because lots of foreigners on our land bought land and properties! Will we agree to them declaring Nationhood just because they paid for the land?

    Israel, to me, is built upon less than honorable and legitimate way. But that could be excused because I empathize with their plight from WWII Holocaust and they will need a permanent land and country of their own. In all pragmatic terms, the situation is set. Israel is set to be here on Earth.

    But instead of being grateful and empathetic to the Palestinians’ emotional backlash, they became aggressive, greedy and inhumane. As the Chinese saying goes, giving them an inch, they want the whole foot. That’s the Zionist style. It is totally unacceptable and immoral to me.

    The emotional backlash by the Palestinians may or may not be invoked by religious differences because any human being, would be disgusted and felt repulsive if foreign migrants just came in and declare the land belongs to them and they will become the ruler of the land! That’s totally human nature and you do not need any religious spikes to ignite that knee jerk reactions.

    The sad part is, many religiously zealous people, failed to see the human side of things but overly engrossed in their religious belief.

    I guess most residents of this World, just want peace and sick of all silly atrocities and politics of hatred. There are 140 countries which supported the Two-States resolution and UN has passed the resolution in condemning Israel’s continual oppression and land grab in Palestine. This is not some “fake news” or anything, but pure facts of the day. Wake up, my friends. Wake up. Supporting Israel’s Nationhood should not be translated into the support of its continual oppression of the Palestinians, apartheid rule and illegal land grab!

     

    Source: Goh Meng Seng

  • Goh Meng Seng: Politicians Beware – Politics Is Dirty

    Goh Meng Seng: Politicians Beware – Politics Is Dirty

    Thought of the Day – Dirty Politics

    Politics are dirty, many people say. I always reply that it is only as dirty as the politicians.

    There are numerous political assassinations in history along with persecution by means of false accusations made against political opponents in all era.

    The most recent assassination of the half-brother of North Korean paramount leader is another prime example that such ruthless dirty politics still exists.

    Some of the most common tricks in the “more civilized” way of “fixing” the political opponents involve planting incriminating “evidences” that could be used against them.

    In the 20th century, we have also witnessed outright assassination of politicians and this include the supposedly most liberal place with full democracy installed, i.e. the assassination of JFK.

    Ironically, USA’s CIA and British MI6 which come from supposedly “democratic” countries, were and still are involved in covert operations which include political assassinations as well.

    Thus, dirty politics of political assassinations aren’t exclusive to communist regimes or dictatorship.

    Although in Singapore, there is no record of bloody political assassinations, but framing political opponents and potential threats had happened and will happen still. Right from 1960s throughout 1980s, the use of detention without trial under ISA was rampant. The Power that be did not need to justify their brutal abuse of ISA in detaining their political opponents and such detention had lasted not only years but decades for some.

    Apart from that, there were also records of falsifying of evidences by the ruling party to falsely accuse potential political threats. The most prominent one is none other than Tan Wah Piow’s case which he was falsely accused of rioting with false evidences planted by the shamed Phey Yew Kok.

    Personally, I have told my dear wife, right from the very first day I stepped into Singapore’s opposition politics, I am prepared for the worse to happen to me. Whatever happens to me, I told her to stay away from Singapore and never come back.

    For many of the politician wannabe out there, be warned of the dire consequences of dirty politics. If you cannot afford the heavy price of dirty politics, please keep away from it. It would be naive to believe that there is such thing called “benevolent politicians or dictatorship”.

    One of my comrade announced to my group, “Congrats all. We are now officially on Mossad’s hit list..” after our People’s Power Party has issued our Press Statement in protest of Israel PM’s visit to Singapore. Well, this may be made in jest but there is always possibility of dirty politics everywhere, especially from those who don’t respect Human Rights. Especially so for the Zionists.

    We shall constantly remind ourselves that we must be ready to face the ultimate persecution of dirty politics, death.

    Goh Meng Seng

     

    Source: Goh Meng Seng

  • Goh Meng Seng: Don’t Glorify Japanese Invasion And Occupation

    Goh Meng Seng: Don’t Glorify Japanese Invasion And Occupation

    Yaccoob said the name Syonan wasn’t used to glorify Japanese Invasion and Occupation. Does he really understand what Syonan means in the full context in the first place?

    There is a slight mis-translation in lingo context. Most English translation puts it as “Light of the South” but this is not the wholesome context. In Chinese and Japanese context, “Light” means “Pride”… for example, if a person had won the Olympic Medal and he comes from a school, then the school will say “我校之光”, simple English translation means “the light of my school” but in essence, in this context, it basically means he is “the pride of my school”! Look at it in the wholesome context, he has brought SHINE to our school.

    Thus, Syonan is basically a term used by the Japan to mean This the the Glorious Pride of Japanese Empire! So how can Yaccoob comes to the conclusion that by using this name for the Memorial, he is not GLORIFYING the Japanese Invasion and Occupation?

    Secondly, I get even more FUMED by the photo below:
    It says “Syonan Gallery : War and its LEGACIES”

    Now, WHOSE LEGACIES are we talking about here? Syonan, the Japanese Glorious Legacies? Atrocities like raping, torture, sufferings, massacred and killings… all these are “LEGACIES”? Isn’t this glorifying the Japanese Glorious Victorious Invasion and Occupation?

     

    Source: Goh Meng Seng

  • Goh Meng Seng: Singaporeans Are Politically Illiterate Because Of PAP

    Goh Meng Seng: Singaporeans Are Politically Illiterate Because Of PAP

    Thought of the Day – Political illiteracy

    I had a nice chat with an alumni of my Alma Mater today over lunch.

    He told me that many of the Singaporeans he came into contact with are basically politically ignorant. He gave me an example that two of his close associates did not think that it is wrong that PA or Town Council under PAP’s control refusal to let opposition party use the facilities is wrong. The reasoning given was that these “belong” to PAP and it is purely politics that PAP should not allow opposition parties to use these facilities.

    But when they were corrected that these facilities were built using taxpayers’ money and do not belong to PAP, they raised doubts about it!

    Such political ignorance is really deep rooted all thanks to PAP’s deliberate effort in blurring the lines between itself and PA. Opposition controlled TC is expected to allow PAP to use whatever premises in their town via “grassroot organization” like PA or RC or CCC. But PA has all rights to allow PAP to use its facilities for whatever activities disguised as “grassroot events” while opposition parties were banned from using its facilities by using the excuse of “PA’s premises should not be politicized”!

    And you may wonder how could well educated Singaporeans who are graduates or diploma holders, actually agree and even support such blatant abuse of tax payers’ money for partisan interests!

    The conclusion my friend has made, most Singaporeans are not “Politically Educated” and PAP is very happy to maintain such Political illiteracy for Singaporeans. This I will have to agree. Do our schools teach our students on what is Democracy? Rule of Law? Separation of Powers? Judiciary Independence? Freedom of Speech and Expression? Well, only on some “abstract Highfalutin” National Pledge which PAP didn’t even believe in nor respect!

     

    Source: Goh Meng Seng