Tag: parliament

  • Local Author Tells Lee Wei And Lee Hsien Yang What To Do To To Gain Upper Hand In OxLee Drama

    Local Author Tells Lee Wei And Lee Hsien Yang What To Do To To Gain Upper Hand In OxLee Drama

    What LWL and LHY should’ve done:

    1. Leak a huge cache of documents to WikiLeaks. It must contain stuff relating to 38 Oxley Road but also rubbish like birth certs.

    2. Anonymously inform The Guardian about the leak. Add that there is enough evidence to bring down PM Lee.

    3. Let The Guardian’s investigative journalists do the work for you. If they own the story and it’s a scoop, they will chase it harder. Plus, of course, the paper has more credibility internationally than ST.

    4. When the story breaks, issue a press statement that your computers have been hacked.

    5. Watch quietly as your sibling tries to wriggle out of the trap.

    Facebook – social media in general – is not the proper platform for expose. It might excite people for a few days, set tongues and tales wagging, but it is an ephemeral medium. Like invisible ink, it is read once and disappears.

    Your strategy was all wrong from the outset.

    BONUS:

    The logical thing for LHY and LWL to do now is work with the Workers Party MPs. Feed them inside information, documents etc. Let them do the hatchet job for you in Parliament on July 3.

     

    Source: Felix Cheong

  • In History Of Presidencies, Colour Blind Reality Of The Ordinary Singaporean Is The One Factual Highlight

    In History Of Presidencies, Colour Blind Reality Of The Ordinary Singaporean Is The One Factual Highlight

    A letter from Patrick Low on the Elected President.

    Dear Fellow Singaporeans

    Comes September 2017 we may be going to the polls to elect our 8th President reserved for the Malay race only. Notwithstanding the constitutionaI amendments passed in Parliament I am not convinced of the wisdom and logic of changing our Presidential system to ensure that a member of the minority must always have a chance to become President via rotation.

    As a Singaporean who lived through the time of our first President or the Yang di- Pertuan Negara appointed in 1959 in self governing Singapore to the 7th President elected in 2011 race was never an issue in my mind and in the minds of countless Singaporeans.
    He can be Chinese Malay Indian or Eurasian elected or appointed it did not make any difference. What matters most is the President must serve the people. If he is honest sincere and capable he will be able to unify all Singaporeans regardless of race language class and religion.

    As a 72 year old Singaporean it is my privilege to grow up colour blind even through the worst racial riots in 1951 1964 and 1965. I was a child of 6 when I first witnessed the horrors of the Maria Hertog riot from a cubicle window in Jalan Besar. Then came the 2nd and 3rd racial riot in 1964/65 when we were part of Malaysia. We were at the Cathay Cinema when racial riots broke out and we were told to go home.

    But none of these riots change our generation’s perception that in multiracial Singapore race should not matter and should never be allowed to matter certainly not in the choice of a President whether he is black white brown or yellow.

    It never occur to me that a Malay should not be the head of state in Chinese majority self governing Singapore in 1959. Neither did I have any reservation to a Eurasian President Dr. Benjamin Sheares a distinguished gynaecologist who served us well from 1971 to 1981.
    Then came our third President Mr. Devan Nair an Indian MP who came from the ranks of the PAP. He unfortunately had to leave office after 4.5 years as a result of personal health problem.

    Next came President Wee Kim Wee another appointive President who hailed from the Straits Time Press. He was a “baba” Chinese Singaporean who performed his role so well that he became known as the People’s President.

    Another well loved President was Mr. Ong Teng Cheong the first elected President in Singapore history. He was our Deputy Prime Minister before he took office but completed only one term owing to differences in perception of the President’s role as a guardian of our reserve.

    After him came the 2 term President S R Nathan a civil servant who was moderately popular with the people attending President’s Charity galas to raise funds for the people. Again race was not an issue even though the previous Indian President did not fare too well and had to leave office under a cloud.

    Now we are nearing the end of the term of Mr Tony Tan an endorsed elected Chinese PresIdent who was a former DPM in the PAP government.

    So all in all we have had 7 Presidents over 58 years. 1 Malay, 2 Indians, 1 Eurasian and 3 Chinese. Out of the seven 4 were appointed and 3 were elected. As far as the people are concerned it does not matter as long as they are men of integrity and perform the jobs well to serve the people.

    Without going into the merits and demerits of the government’s rationale for amending the Constitution to allow for a reserved Presidential Election for only members from the Malay race my main objection is that such a change violates the Singapore Constitution and undermines the daily National Pledge recited by all school children every morning that:

    “We the citizens of Singapore, pledge ourselves as one united people, regardless of race, language or religion to build a democratic society based on justice and equality so as to achieve happiness prosperity and progress for our nation”.

    If we have any regards at all to the history of our Presidencies one fact that stands out is the colour blind reality of the ordinary Singaporean. There was never any perceived notion that the Presidency must be rotated by race to ensure fairness to the minority. All the friends acquaintances and strangers I meet on the streets and in the parks in the last one year invariably dismiss race as a factor in their reckoning of what makes a good President.

    The issue of the President holding the second key to the national reserve should also not be an issue for he is surrounded by the Council of Presidential Advisors whom he has to take advice from. So whether he is Malay Chinese Indian or others the key that he holds is a collective key held by a panel of advisors nominated by the government.

    As for the financial qualifications required of a Presidential candidate it is most unlikely that the government would be able to headhunt for one who would meet all the stringent requirements.
    In fact all our past Presidents never had the experience of running a $500 million company. Where then do they get the forte to disagree with the government on opening our national coffers.
    However in raising the bars so high the government turns what should be a level playing field into a pole vault pitch ruling out the possibility of sourcing for a few good men who can genuinely understand the plight of the ordinary people and work for their welfare.

    The office sadly is in danger of becoming the precinct of the rich and powerful.

    In this day and age when governments all over the world are beginning to lose the trust of the people it is incumbent on the PAP leadership not to erode that trust further by imposing a albatross around the people’s neck.

    Given the challenge from a former Presidential candidate Dr Tan Cheng Bok that the reckoning of the first elective President does not reside in Mr Wee Kim Wee’s term but rathet in Mr. Ong Teng Cheong’s it would be prudent for the government to pause before rushing to implement it’s Reserve Presidency – an area where angels may fear to tread.

    It would also be doing itself a huge favour to hold a referendum to ascertain the wishes of Singaporeans whether race is indeed a factor in the choice of our Head of State. Afterall what is the hurry when more haste produces less speed and further undermines the trust of the people in the midst of a economic recession and a very uncertain world.

    Patrick Low
    4th April 2017

     

    Source: Soh Lung Teo from Patrick Low

  • Netizens Ask Where To Hold Discussion On Tudung If Not The Parliament

    Netizens Ask Where To Hold Discussion On Tudung If Not The Parliament

    In his Facebook post, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong commented on championing divisive issues publicly, and on Minister for Environment and Water Resources Masagos Zulkifli’s “courage and conviction” in explaining to MP for Aljunied GRC Faisal Manap on why it was unwise to bring up the issue of the Muslim women headscarf.

    PM Lee said that some sensitive issues of race and religion have no easy or immediate solutions and that the best way to make progress on them is quietly, and outside the glare of publicity.

    This was his response to a debate in Parliament on Tuesday (4 April) on the issue of Muslim women not being allowed to wear headscarves in uniformed services between MP for Aljunied GRC Faisal Manap and Minister for Environment and Water Resources Masagos Zulkifli.

    The exchange took place during the debate in parliament on the proposal to express support for women in Singapore.

    PM Lee stated on his Facebook page that Parliament is the forum for serious discussion on important issues.

    “This Parliament has not shied away from discussing difficult or contentious matters – last November we had a vigorous debate on changes to the Elected Presidency,” he wrote.

    “Championing divisive issues publicly, to pressure the government and win communal votes, will only stir up emotions and damage our multi-racial harmony,” the Prime Minister added.

    However, PM Lee’s statement raised eyebrows from netizens. Many of them said that the function of the Parliament is to discuss issues that have been stirred up among citizens.

    Many also wrote that they do not have any problems to have women in headscarves in uniformed services.

    Here are what they wrote:

    • Zhou Hongjie wrote, “Is parliament not the place for MPs to represent the needs or views of their constituency members in rational discussion? The female headscarf may be a religious issue but the proscription against adorning it in the uniformed services is governmental, is it not? It is contemptible for the PAP to brush it aside by claiming it is ‘divisive’ when if I am not mistaken, the majority of Singaporeans have no problems with Muslim women’s wearing the tudung in the workplace because sheikh men have been allowed to wear their turbans for donkey’s years.”
    • Khalis Benzaima wrote, “So, i guess what he is saying is that in Parliament, the only topics that should be discussed is what the next basic necessities they can increase? Correct me if I’m wrong.”
    • Phillip Lim wrote, “I am a Chinese but I do not find in any way my fellow Malay compatriots wearing headscarves offensive or divisive. C’mon, it’s just a traditional headdress. Singaporeans have progressed and matured enough to respect each others’ cultural dress. Don’t see the need to sensationalise the issue into something that is “divisive” or “damage harmony”.”
    • Keith Low wrote, “A lot of issues brought up in Parliament are not publicised, or rather not broadcasted. If PM Lee asked what is the motives of WP by bringing this up again. Then I ask what is PM Lee motives by making this news out of so many issues debated in Parliament. Who is trying to be divisive?”
    • Yt Lam wrote, “If don’t bring out in public, he said there is no one protesting in front of Parliament – so no issue. Now bring up for parliament debate, he wants to discuss in a hush hush manner. Be a leader, tackle the issue head-on. I know this is the year of the chicken, but…”
    • Moe Zaldjian wrote, “So many years and so many Muslim PAP MPs with some appointed as Ministers cannot resolve this issue. What’s the point, even with a Malay President? Shame.”
    • Wong Chin Nam wrote, “If this remark is divisive, what about EP reserved only for certain race.”
    • Aku Freddy wrote, “I would appreciate a REAL LEADER to come forward with a decision Yes or No…The truth will hurt just like in the past done by late Premier.But at least he is very direct and that is wat a leader should do.To make matter worse why link hijab issues to votes?? Have some respect for minorities and we will not disappoint you. After all it’s headdress covering the hair only, it does not cover or hinder the brain from functioning…..I’m wondering if Muslim could exchange the President for a hijab, what would other races think of it?”
    • Sakinah Hakim wrote, “Dear PM Lee Hsien Loong most Muslim nurses I’ve known loved their job.They are very committed to help ppl and wish to stay longer in their jobs till they retire.All they requested is to wear their hijab according to Islamic ruling. That’s all.I hope that positive decision will come anytime soon.”
    • Choy Weng Leong wrote, “If sheikh can wear a turban in uniform service, why one can and other want to wear tudung cannot leh… Singapore = regardless of race, language or religion mah…I thought the whole idea of having GRC is minority representation in parliament and to raise community concerns mah… If some also behind closed door = then parliament just for rubber stamping whatever agreed and decided behind closed door huh?? Reserved EP also sensitive mah, don’t see them having any problem raising it in parliament leh… only A can, B cannot meh”
    • QizhongChang wrote, “And what kind of ‘quiet progress’ have these private discussions brought about on the tudung issue so far? The answer is apparently no progress at all. Which is exactly why Faisal had to bring it up in Parliament.”
    • Nizam Ismail wrote, “Here are my thoughts:1) How is raising this “divisive”? The tudung issue is to promote acceptance of hijab-wearing Muslimahs. It’s about *inclusivity*, not *divisiveness. 2) Why are still wanting to hide behind quiet engagements? There is no public accountability. The reason of having Parliament and open parliamentary debates is to ensure transparency and accountability. In any case, the matter has been debated openly for many years. 3) The solution is a simple one but made to be a complex problem. If you are willing to have a tudung-wearing reserved president, why not allow other Singaporean Muslims to have the right to put on the tudung without discrimination. And so solve the problem. That would make sure that Faisal Manap will not was raise this in Parliament again.Until then, he has every right to.”
    • Radenah Abdullah wrote, “MP Muhamad Faisal good point. What about Muslim women that wanted to work as nurses do they have to open their hijab for that. You say about respect each other religion but when it come to hijab on Muslim women you try to put it as not relevant. It’s not fair for our children who wanted to pursue this industry. Why does the Sikh have no problem wearing their turbans in these industries, but for Muslim women are issues. It’s kind of bias if you asked me.”
    • Syed Hafeez Chishty wrote, “I see no harm. We are multi-racial. It’s with its own culture and religion. So if religious harmony to be practice than it would be done harmoniously. Get the Muslim authorities to explain to the govt the right wat of putting a hijab. I tink pm is right should be done in closed door to avoid unnecessary sensitivity.”
    • Darren Tan wrote, “”Not by suppressing or pretending that race differences, language differences and cultural differences do not exist. … but that there are Fundamental Primeval differences.” – LEE KUAN YEW The government has always talked about the need to deal with issues openly. But now Minister Masagos comes out to say it has to be done quietly. This is contradictory! Ask WP MPs to keep quiet, and later during the election campaign come out to criticise WP MPs for being a “mouse” in Parliament by not raising issues. Another irony!”

     

    Source: www.theonlinecitizen.com

  • Khan Osman Sulaiman: Is Masagos Zulkifli Encouraging Coffeeshop Talk Instead Of Serious Debate In Parliament?

    Khan Osman Sulaiman: Is Masagos Zulkifli Encouraging Coffeeshop Talk Instead Of Serious Debate In Parliament?

    Hope to meet Minister Masagos outside of parliament so that I can ask him point blank about what he thinks about the gov who discriminate against people who wear the tudung.

    Apparently, if someone raises the issue in parliament, it is sowing discord and divisiveness.

    Parliament is the place you raise issues brought up by the citizen. If raising sensitive issues in parliament is trying to sow discord, then where else? Coffeeshop?

    I don’t blame Masagos. He is the mouthpiece of the PAP and the gov. He isn’t the representative of the community. On that role, he has done wonderfully well to serve his employers and collecting a hefty paycheck.

    He has conveniently forgotten that his ticket to parliament was through minority representation in a GRC. He joins Minister Ng Eng Hen who tried to insinuate in parliament that Faisal Manap only brought up minority issues.

    Indoctrinated much.

     

    Source: Khan Osman Sulaiman

  • Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Open Election First, If No Minority Malay President Wins In 2017 Then Reserved Election For 2023

    Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Open Election First, If No Minority Malay President Wins In 2017 Then Reserved Election For 2023

    The Government brushes off my press conference.
    MCI has missed my point totally.

    I do not dispute the Constitutional Commission’s report or the White Paper. However, I disagree with the way the Government has triggered the reserved election.

    I am simply asking if the government’s counting from President Wee Kim Wee FOLLOWED the SPIRIT AND PURPOSE that was proposed by the Constitutional Commission. The Constitutional Commission has said that a reserved election will be triggered if 5 open elections produce no minority President. So far we have 4 open elections with no minority Malay President. So 2017 must remain an open election and if no minority Malay President wins in 2017, than a reserved election will be triggered in 2023.

    The Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) used a different format .
    AGC advised the Government to count the 5 year hiatus using “ 5 consecutive terms of Presidents who exercised elected powers” to include 1 nominated President and 4 openly elected Presidents. This is not in line with the spirit and purpose of the Constitutional Commission’s Report of 5 open elections.

    I’ve given my reasons why we should rightly count from our 1st openly elected President Ong Teng Cheong. It’s the government’s turn to give their reasons why they choose to count differently, having accepted the report. Why change the format?

    When asked in Parliament by an MP as recently as February 2017, it was brushed off with challenges to go to court and no debate.
    Singaporeans need to know the truth on such an important Constitutional matter.
    This is a chance for the Government to explain.
    They should not brushed it off again.

     

    Source: Dr Tan Cheng Bock

deneme bonusu