Tag: PAP

  • David Ong Resigned After Affair With Married Grassroots Activist Exposed

    David Ong Resigned After Affair With Married Grassroots Activist Exposed

    Bukit Batok MP David Ong resigned suddenly on March 12 afternoon citing “a personal  indiscretion” as the reason.

    It is now believed that the indiscretion was an extramarital affair with a married grassroots activist.

    The woman is believed to be Ms Wendy Lim, 41, who works in a logistics firm.

    According to her company website, Ms Lim was previously a leading crew member with Singapore Airlines .

    Chinese daily Lianhe Zaobao that reported that Ms Lim is an active member of the Bukit Batok People’s Action Party Women’s Wing.

    The group’s Facebook page shows Ms Lim in a number of photographs, taking part in various grassroots activities as well as the General Election last year.

    Mr Ong, 54, is married with three children.

    Ms Lim is also married with three children of her own.

    Ms Lim could not be contacted yesterday. Her Facebook page was made private shortly after Mr Ong’s resignation.

    It is believed that the affair lasted six months and that it was Ms Lim’s husband who lodged a complaint.

    The PAP spokesman refused further comment on this information last night.

    Mr Ong also did not respond to our further queries.

     

    Source: www.tnp.sg

  • Bukit Batok MP David Ong Resigns

    Bukit Batok MP David Ong Resigns

    Bukit Batok MP David Ong has announced his resignation citing “personal reasons”, according to a press statement from the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) on Saturday (Mar 12).

    In the meantime, Mr Desmond Lee, Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs and National Development and MP for Jurong GRC, will take care of Bukit Batok residents, said PM Lee Hsien Loong.

    A by-election will be held in Bukit Batok SMC in due course, he added.
    Below are the statements reproduced in full:

    David Ong To LHL

    PMO Letter

    Source: www.channelnewsasia.com

  • Inderjit Singh: Singapore’s National Identity Issues Need To Be Addressed

    Inderjit Singh: Singapore’s National Identity Issues Need To Be Addressed

    Former Member of Parliament Inderjit Singh does not mince his words when talking about several issues the government needs to look into in order to show that it is in touch with the people on the ground.

    In an interview with Inconvenient Questions (IQ), he shared his thoughts on what on what makes a Parliament that has better checks and balances, and how the government can avoid falling into the elitism trap.

    He also said that his wish for Singapore society was a stronger national identity. In relation to that, Singh, who has previously pointed out the issues around integration in the Indian community, noted that integration remains an important issue that needs to be addressed in Singapore.

    “Today, we have a situation where integration is not happening as well as we want to. People don’t identify together as Singaporean as much as we want to,” he told IQ.

    He stressed that it is crucial that Singapore focuses on developing a national identity. “In times of difficulty, this commonness is what will help us pull through a difficult period.”

    Watch the full interview below:

     

    Source: https://sg.news.yahoo.com

  • PAP Dreaming: When Empathy Was Not Needed

    PAP Dreaming: When Empathy Was Not Needed

    Two of the PAP’s characteristic behaviour is a lack of empathy and total loyalty to their party even when they are clearly in the wrong.

    We can see such behaviour especially, when PAP Ministers and members try to defend themselves or their party’s policies.

    From comments that the elderly collect boxes to exercise, that if they had waited to meet with Benjamin Lim at home rather than at school, he could have molested someone else, that the hijab can be problematic, these politicians show how they are insensitive and lack the common touch.

    And when their party’s policies are questioned, they take the apathetic approach in their responses.

    Shanmugam’s speech in parliament when he addressed Benjamin Lim’s death shows how disconnected he is.

    Rather than acknowledge the flaws in interrogation procedures for minors, he insinuated that Benjamin could have molested someone else if they waited just a couple of hours.

    The insinuation was uncalled for.

    Shanmugam’s attempt to defend police procedures resulted in such a terrible reference on a child who should still be assumed to be innocent.

    In the hijab case, Yaacob Ibrahim said Muslimah wearing the hijab in certain professions will be problematic. Masagos argued that we should sacrifice hijab for multiracialism.

    Again, the PAP’s defence of the policy led to callous remarks. Both Malay ministers not only support their party’s policy, they made statements that showed how much they lack empathy for Muslim ladies who wear the hijab.

    This insensitivity is reflective of a party that is intellectually and emotionally bankrupt.

    Rather than acknowledge their mistakes or seek ways to accommodate differences, the PAP chose a legalistic, uncaring approach.

    But the problem is not with Shanmugam or Yaacob Ibrahim or Tan Chuan Jin.

    The PAP’s culture is based on how it behaved from its founding.

    Lee Kuan Yew was known for verbally and politically attacking anyone who disagreed with him.

    He would use the full force of the law against those who challenged him.

    The socio-political system today is not the same as it was during Lee Kuan Yew’s leadership of the PAP.

    But the party’s culture has remained.

    While most in Singapura used to keep quiet out of fear, today many have stood up to question the PAP.

    I am sure that for some PAP members, they dream of the good old days when we used to keep quiet and accept everything the PAP says and do.
    But instead, they now have to respond.

    They do not seem to like it.

    And the lack of empathy bears evidence to how much they dislike having to respond and to how disconnected they really are.

     

    Source: Almakhazin SG

  • Fanaticism in supporting your political idols. They can do no wrong!

    Fanaticism in supporting your political idols. They can do no wrong!

    It is always highly amusing to witness fanaticism in action. When a person is uncritically loyal to something/someone – and it is invariably funniest when that entity is a political party – you will hear him/her suspend all forms of rationality when trying to justify a leader’s statements or actions.

    I rarely get surprised when such people express statements in support of their ‘unerring’ idols. Even if those statements/actions are contradictory, or go against their own beliefs and principles that they have been articulating all these while, cognitive dissonance kicks in and they will attempt all sorts of weird ways to justify those statements/actions.

    —–

    ‘Oh we don’t know what (s)he says behind closed doors.’

    (But that politician from the other party, yeah we don’t know what (s)he says behind closed doors, but it can’t be anything positive.)

    ‘Oh (s)he is a good person; time will show this.’

    (That person from the other party, is not a good person, and we don’t need evidence for that.)

    ‘Islam teaches us to think well of others.’

    (But go ahead, think badly of those from the other party)

    ‘Oh (s)he is not politicizing the issue; (s)he is just bringing up an important matter.’

    (But when a person from the other party brings up the same issue, (s)he must be politicizing the matter!)

    ‘Oh it’s not that they contradict each other, we must look at the context in which they said whatever they said.’

    (When the other party’s members contradict themselves, to hell with context!)

    ‘The opponents prayed in public??? Gosh, trying to score political points!’

    (Wow, look at our leaders, always pictured being in mosques and around religious scholars. God bless them!)

    ‘Have you asked what (s)he meant when (s)he said that? We cannot assume things.’

    (But i don’t need to ask the other party for explanations of what they say; after all, i can only judge by what i see! It doesn’t make sense for me to not take him/her at his/her word!)

    —–

    Even if their ‘idols’ said the earth was flat, these people will say: ‘oh (s)he wasn’t wrong, it’s just that his/her words were taken out of context’; ‘there were some religious scholars who used to believe the earth was flat, so we must respect differences in opinions’; ‘let us ask what (s)he really means by that statement, and let us not jump to conclusions.’

    Source: Walid J. Abdullah

deneme bonusu