Tag: Reform Party

  • Remembering Benjamin Lim And Dominique Sarron Lee At Hong Lim Park

    Remembering Benjamin Lim And Dominique Sarron Lee At Hong Lim Park

    A video we did for the two boys in yesterday’s memorial tribute.

    Thanks to Dolly Peh and Gilbert Louis who helped out tremendously at the event in heavy downpour.

    The three speakers Leong Sze Hian Zixu Augustin Lee and Timothy Toddall spoke beautifully for the boys.

    Special mention must be made to Jagjit Singh who set up the sound and light system in the rain. Some of his equipment is now defective due to the rain which has seeped in.

    Big thanks to the 100 brave souls who came and stayed on despite the rain. You guys rock!

    Many of you are emotional and some choked on your words as you said your personal tribute at the event.

    Let’s hope the family will find some comfort and closure with the memorial and that their death will not be in vain.

    Injustice must be opposed at all cost or else we are saying we accept it.

    RIP Benjamin and Dominique – you will be remembered.

     

    Source: Gilbert Goh

  • Kenneth Jeyaretnam: How Not To Get Charged With Sedition

    Kenneth Jeyaretnam: How Not To Get Charged With Sedition

    The  editors of the The Real Singapore, Ai Takagi and Yang Kaiheng, have been charged with sedition for stirring up ill will between Singaporeans and foreigners. Takagi has already pleaded guilty to four counts whilst her husband is claiming trial.

    Many  of us Singaporeans are still unsure what sedition actually is even when we know it’s a law left over on the statute books from the British colonial oppression. The common law understanding of sedition is of a political crime or speech threatening to overthrow the State by unlawful means. Singapore’s Sedition Act departs from common law understanding in several distinct ways one of which includes “the promotion of  feelings of ill will or hostility between races or classes…”   Whilst the alleged editors of TRS mostly upset the feelings of PRC Chinese and Filipinos, this expansion of the Sedition Act is more often used to protect the sensibilities of Malays who are largely Muslim. This stems from Article 152 of the Constitution which protects our Malay Singaporeans as the indigenous people of Singapore and Islam as their religion.

    It is important to remember that the Right to Free Speech  which is  guaranteed to us by Article 14  of the Constitution does not exist as a stand alone right in Singapore. Free Speech is not in fact free but is restricted by eight grounds one of which is Sedition. For bloggers  and netizens in our beloved Republic not knowing the definitions can be rather risky. When you cross the  blurry line you can end up facing criminal and/or civil charges. Sedition carries a maximum fine of S$5,000 and up to 3 years in jail.

    Luckily I  can now shed some light on the mystery of Sedition Singapore style. Hopefully  this will keep you all safe whilst you post rabid thoughts on Facebook, Twitter  or WordPress at one 0′ clock in the morning.  Here is my foolproof guide to staying out of jail. You are welcome!

    KJ’s guide to staying out of prison for offences including but not limited to Sedition

    1. Post a disclaimer.  It can be a lie or insincere such as “Everything I say is untrue and I’m just making fun of races and ethnic minorities or Singaporeans with darker skin so I’m not an actual racist ok ah?”   Choose your own words. Try to reference satire. That’s a fail safe  ‘get out of jail even for racists’ card.

    2. Tell the truth.  (Best used to prevent charges of defamation) This is a method that seems to work for me as I’ve never been sued no matter how unpalatable the questions I ask. I’m not a racist or Foreigner-hater either  which helps, although I continue to question our open door immigration policies or suggest fairer deals for Singaporean citizens.

    3. Join a Political Party and not necessarily the PAP. Obviously being a high up in the PAP or grassroots or a founding father of the Nation brings its own ‘get out of jail card’. Yet, most Singaporeans think they are safe staying under the radar by blogging as individuals or not actually joining a Party. This was the big mistake of the so-called Marxist conspirators in 1987. By failing to join the Workers Party they lost the protection of legitimate political expression and left themselves open to claims that they were in fact secret Communists. (Note this does not keep you safe in Malaysia)

    4.

    “TRS made $500k from ads in 17 months”. 

    Be careful not to make any money. I can reveal that the best  way not to cross the sedition line is to avoid making any money or attracting a large number of views. So do not monetise your blog. Whatever you do, do not advertise on your blog or ask for donations because it’s clear from the reports that what is really eating the Government is the amount of money the alleged editors of TRS  made. The State Times headline today on page 8 is that,  TRS made $500k from ads in 17 months“.  The report also adds “But, in fact, it was a big cash cow that raked in almost half a million dollars in advertising revenue for its owners in just 17 months.”   

    One wonders whether their actual crime was in running a profitable business? While I find TRS’s stoking of xenophobia distasteful, it is unfortunately one of the things that comes with a free media. In the US and the UK several newspapers make a living by stirring up xenophobia, such as the Daily Mail. They may not uphold the highest standards of journalistic ethics but as long as they do not cross the line into advocating violence they have a right to report. UK readers have a right to complain to an independent Press Complaints Commission which can order that the newspaper publish a retraction or make redress. But no one disputes their right to make money from journalism or their right to appeal to the prejudices of their readers in an effort to make money.

    In Singapore’s case of course double standards apply. What really exercises the PAP Government is seeing that an independent media not be allowed to develop in Singapore. The best way to stop that happening  is to cut off a publication’s source of funding, particularly advertising. TRS’s huge numbers of views (134 million page views in its last year) make the State online media look bad by comparison despite the monopoly that they enjoy. Ultimately if TRS was not shut down and made and example of they would threaten the financial viability of the Government media. I suspect TRS’s popularity in terms of views was stealing readers directly from STOMP.

    The campaign to shut down TRS has direct analogies to the way LKY waged war against the foreign media in the 1980s. He said that if they carried reports critical of him or his Government that he would ensure that they earned no advertising revenue in Singapore. Newspapers like the Wall Street Journal, the Far Eastern Economic Review and the Economist were sold in Singapore without adverts when they fell foul of LKY.  Western Governments spinelessly failed to defend their newspapers against what amounted to an illegal  trade restriction  in breach of World Trade Organisation rules. In time the newspapers kowtowed and self censored eventually not carrying anything too critical of the PAP or the Lee dynasty. LKY was absolutely right of course. The perfect way to control overseas media or any critical voice is to hit them in their pockets.

    The PAP in essence run Singapore like  a Communist state although this is heavily disguised and often misunderstood.  Most of the economy  including the Media is controlled by the Government. Even private businesses are often dependent on contracts to supply Government-owned companies or on subsidies paid for by the taxpayer. Almost all land is ultimately owned by the Government making the Government  the Landlord of most businesses.  If you tow the line or better still support the PAP enthusiastically then you will be allowed to make money. If you fail to play the game you will soon find yourself in trouble for breaching vague and ill-defined regulations or sued into bankruptcy using oppressive defamation laws.

    Those laws that may be breached are  vaguely defined in the first place and interpreted by judges  who in turn are appointed by the people suing, the very definition of conflict of interest.  The PAP has extracted money by milking the  citizen cash cow, hobbling her, failing to provide adequate health care and then housing the Cash Cow in a very basic yet severely overcrowded barn. By these means the PAP has built up our supposedly huge reserves which are a very useful tool indeed when it comes to buying friends and influencing people abroad.

    cash-cow

    The DPP has accused the TRS duo of fabricating stories yet the State media do this all the time.  Stomp, owned by the State Times, frequently runs similar stories to TRS yet they are allowed to get away with appalling standards of journalism. The Finance Minister and the Government fabricate figures in the Budget where vast sums of money are unaccounted for. Money is allocated to funds which then disappear with no accountability.

    Takagi and Yang  who presumably ran a business for profit are accused of “pocketing” money yet the Government, not supposed to be a for profit business, does that. If this case was really about stopping the stirring up of ill will between different races then LKY would have been convicted long ago for his comments about Malays, Indians, Muslims, Africans and whites. What it is really  happening here is that no one who criticises the Government or the Lee family can be allowed to make a living in Singapore. There is a direct line running from  the suing of  foreign newspapers in the 1970’s to the bankruptcy of my late father JBJ , the persecution of Doctor Simon Shorvon and the recent action against Roy Ngerng and  Amos Yee and all others who dare to offer an alternative to the PAP/Lee family hegemony.

     

    Source: https://sonofadud.com

  • Former PMET Unemployed FOr A Year, Now Drives Taxi And Shares One Room With Family

    Former PMET Unemployed FOr A Year, Now Drives Taxi And Shares One Room With Family

    Dear Gilbert,

    My name is Terence.

    I am a 48-year-old Singaporean who is currently driving a taxi. I am a father of 2 very young children, age 5 and 7.

    I was formerly a training manager for XXX.  I was dismissed for not meeting targets.

    However,  at this time,  no other manager was meeting targets as we were going through challenges brought about by the introduction of the DNC (Do Not Call) regulations in Singapore under the new PDPA (Personal Data Protection Act).

    My dismissal was also coincidentally timed with a complain I made to my direct report about racist remarks made against me which I had overhead in a telephone recording between 2 managers who were reporting to me at one time.

    To cut a long story short, I was unemployed for almost 1 year. Eventually,  I have to settle for a taxi driver position.

    I do not have a flat of my own and my family of 4 are sharing one bedroom in a 3-room HDB flat.

    I have applied for over a hundred jobs through various job portals including WDA and have been unsuccessful.  I was willing to take a pay cut of 30% of my last drawn salary but still I was unsuccessful.

    Within 3 months of driving a taxi, I have been nominated for service excellence as a couple of satisfied passengers wrote in to SMRT commending me.

    I need your advice oh what to do.  My highest education level is A levels and I made my way up the corporate ladder through much hard work

    I was for 2 years the Regional Asst. Vice President for XXX. I have been in the call center industry for over 20 years and have trained over a thousand people from agents to team leaders to team managers and trainers in 6 regional countries including Singapore.

    My wife who is an Indonesian PR got employment within 1 week of getting her PR status. WDA seems to be helping her more than me.

    Awaiting your advice and recommendations.

    Thank you and warm regards

    Terence

     

    Source: www.transitioning.org

  • Osman Sulaiman: Daiso Singapore Must Clarify Its Hiring Policy

    Osman Sulaiman: Daiso Singapore Must Clarify Its Hiring Policy

    With regards to the recent discriminatory hiring policy by Daiso Singapore, I sent them an email today, enquiring further on their employment practices. Hope to get a satisfactory reply from them.

    Such organizations that implement discriminatory hiring policies often times went unpunished as we have weak labour laws to protect job seekers from such incidents. We hope this will change soon so that businesses understand the kinds of social harm it creates when it discriminates.

    ——————————————————————
    To the Officer-in-charge

    RE: DISCRIMINATORY HIRING POLICIES

    I would like to bring your attention to a recruitment exercise that was conducted by Daiso Industries Co Ltd Singapore Branch. The interview was conducted at IMM Building. I was informed by an applicant, Ms Normalis Bte Jais that she had responded to a job advertisement posted on JobsCentral requiring applicants to go for a walk-in-interview. I attached photos of the advertisement in this email for your reference.

    The applicant went down on 25th September 2015 @2pm for the interview and she was received by your HR personnel who proceeded to interview her.

    During the interview, the applicant was told by your HR personnel that Daiso employees are not allowed to wear the headgear on the sales-floor. The applicant was then asked whether she would still proceed with the interview. Ms Normalis then declined and left the interview room feeling extremely upset and disappointed for not being given equal opportunity for employment because of what she wears.

    I would therefore like to seek clarifications from your goodself on a few matters;
    1) Can you confirm your organization’s policy regarding the recruitment of women wearing the headgear in Singapore particularly at the sales-floor area?

    2) I understand that you also have several Daiso chains across Asia including Malaysia and Indonesia. I assume that the Malaysian and Indonesian employees are allowed to wear their headgears at sales-floor. Why is Singapore the chosen destination for your organization to apply discriminatory policies such as denying Singaporeans wearing the headgear, employment opportunities at your organization?

    3) The advertisement on JobsCentral did not indicate that applicant wearing the headgear is not welcomed to apply. If your organization has such policy, why is it not indicated on the job advertisement so that applicants need not waste their time, effort and money attending the interview only to get discriminated on?

    4) What is the rationale behind the policy of not allowing employees wearing the headgear to work on sales-floor but having no qualms accepting sales from your customers wearing the headgears and also allowing them entry to your sales-floor?

    I would like to highlight that Singapore has in place guidelines for fair employment practices. One of the recommendations is that employers who advertise a position requiring a specific attribute which may be viewed as discriminatory should ensure it is indeed a requirement of the job and state the reason for the requirement in the advertisement.

    This can be found on page 8 of the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices.
    https://www.tafep.sg/…/Publications%20-%20Tripartite%20Guid…

    As a global organization that seeks to provide a unique experience and enjoyment for millions of people, surely this kind of archaic hiring policies should not have existed if any.

    To make an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of people is unacceptable. Discrimination has no place in any society. It creates an ill will between people and has a negative effect on the victim. It makes them feel isolated, humiliated and angry. They may also develop low self-esteem and depression in the long run. Most importantly, it denies someone their human rights to be able to participate fully in the society.

    It is in the interest of the community that Daiso Singapore makes known of its employment policies with regards to employees wearing the headgear. This will indicate its corporate social responsibility towards creating an inclusive workforce, in-line with global standards.

    I look forward to your reply on the above enquires.

    Thank you.

    Regards,
    Osman Sulaiman

     

    Source: Osman Sulaiman

  • Gilbert Goh: Official Complaint To UN – Unfair General Election Ethics In Singapore 2015

    Gilbert Goh: Official Complaint To UN – Unfair General Election Ethics In Singapore 2015

    To:

    United Nations Bangkok

    12th Floor, United Nations Building,
    Rajdamnern Nok Avenue, Pranakorn
    Bangkok 10200, Thailand

    Dear Sir/Mdm,

    I want to formally lodge a complaint to the United Nations for our country’s recently-held general election.

    For the record, I also stood for general election twice – Tampines GRC in 2011 and Ang Mo Kio GRC this year.

    For the recent election, the ruling party PAP won by a landslide majority percentage of 70% – a huge increase of 10% over the previous GE 2011 result of 60%.

    Many opposition parties suffered from bad losses – right down to the unprecedented 20s percentile mark.

    My fear is that if the following unfair unethical practices are to go unchecked, it will be the accepted norm and we may see a one-party rule for a very long time – something which many Singaporeans are uncomfortable with.

    Many are willing to accept the mandate of the majority but if the ruling party won it unfairly then the international community such as the United nations needs to step in so that future elections can be conducted ethically and above board.

    We hope that independent assessors be sent in by the UN so that the population is ensured of a fair and ethical election from now on.

    Moreover, Singapore is a  internationally-renowned economic powerhouse with a huge multi-national presence but it is seriously lacking in democratic rights and freedom of speech.

    Those who spoke out against the authorities were frequently questioned by the police with some facing lawsuits and jail sentence.

    I have listed down the following unfair unethical ways in which our government has won the recent election:-

    1. Injection of new citizen voters

    New citizens were injected yearly so that they can usher in to vote for the ruling party out of loyalty.

    They were mostly hailed from third world countries such as Philippines, Malaysia, China, India and Indonesia and know no other party besides PAP.

    An average of 25,000 new voters are added in annually since 2006 and by this election, more than 200,000 new citizens are eligible to vote – mostly for the first-time.

    Though we acknowledged that voters are swayed by the SG 50 jubilee celebration and the death of patriach Lee Kuan Yew to vote for the ruling party, new voters from third world countries will be the new force to be reckoned with.

    New-citizen voters is the main reason why our government allows in so many foreigners on the pretext of economic expansion but behind there lies a more sinister motive to stay in power forever as they are loyal to the ruling party.

    We urge the government to consider that new citizens can only vote after staying with us for 5 years and beyond so their votes can never be manipulated at the onset to help the ruling party.

    2. Boundary changes

    Boundary changes is the norm of every election but for this recent election it is more pressing as the ruling party faces some unresolvable national issues such as transportation and over-crowding.

    It’s share of the crucial majority votes have been slipping since two elections ago.

    For this election, boundary changes is also more critical as it allows the government to flood certain opposition-held wards with new citizen voters. It is almost a sure-win way to ensure that they can hold on to their own constituencies and yet able to possibly remove a opposition-held ward or reduce its winning margin.

    WP’s Aljunied GRC is one such ward as it saw the winning margin reduced from a five-figure majority victory in 2011 to a narrow 1900 votes (50.95). There is a 3.7% swing against the opposition giant.

    In 2011, Aljunied had 143,000 voters whereas for the recent election it has 148,000 voters – an increase of almost 5000 voters.

    In 2015, it polled 70,000 votes against the 2011 election’s 72,000 causing it to slip 3.7% to 50.9% of majority votes or 12,000 winning votes in 2011 to the current 1900 votes after counting in the PAP’s share of the votes.

    The PAP’s share of the votes, on the other hand, jumped from 59,000 to 67,000 – probably a combination of new citizen voters (5000)  and swing voters (3000).

    There is thus this fear that WP may not be able to hold on to Aljunied GRC in 2020 when the ruling party pours in more loyal new citizen votes with all things remaining equal.

    The government roughly knows whether certain precinct is pro-government or pro-opposition according to the polling station and this is public knowledge by now.

    By removing or adding certain precinct from a constituency, it can ensure that the area has a majority of government voters with the awful unfair boundary change that comes with every election.

    We urge that any boundary changes in future be effected in consultation with the opposition to ensure that the playing field is levelled.

    3. Demarcation of PA from PAP

    The heavily-funded People’s Association (PA) is the arm and leg of the ruling party and its reach into the masses is one main reason why it won so handsomely.

    It is also unfair as PA is a statutory board which is supposed to be non-partisan but its activities is all along very pro-PAP.

    It has a yearly funding of $500 million and its budget is going to be ballooned to $1 billion soon. Its accounting practice is also suspect and is one of the many statutory board that is flagged by our Auditor-General’s office for malpractices.

    This is unfair to the opposition as the government is using our tax payer money to fuel it’s own campaign by using unethical means.

    Moreover, the chairman of PA is none other than the Prime Minister himself.

    We urge that the PA be disbanded or distance itself from the ruling party in everything that it does to ensure that the playing field is levelled.

    4. Election Department falls under the Prime Minister Office (PMO)

    The Election Department now falls under the jurisdiction of the Prime Minister Office (PMO).

    This is most unfair as it gives the ruling party a huge advantage especially when the ED can influence significant boundary changes and when it can call for a election after consulting the PM giving little time for the opposition to prepare it’s ground.

    We urge that the ED will be independent of the PMO so that it is impartial and just.

    5. Control of mainsteam media during election

    Our press rankings have been slipping down yearly with the latest rating at a historic low of 153 out of 180, according to Paris-based watchdog Reporters Without Borders.

    The government has controlled our press and TV so that it can influence the masses especially during the crucial general election. Information is mostly slanted to benefit the ruling party and this press behaviour is not unlike that of communist bloc countries like China or Russia.

    Propaganda messages were played and re-played again during the recent election so that the large middle ground is influenced to vote for the ruling party.

    We urge that the government frees up our mainstream media so that the population has a balanced access to information on a impartial basis.

    Let the public decide what kind of government they want without improper propaganda through unfair means.

    Conclusion

    I am willing to speak with the United Nations personally on all the above mentioned matters so that our country can have a fair and ethical election in GE 2020.

    We also welcome independent assessors into our country for the next general election to ensure that the best political party wins – on its own merits!

    Thanks & Warmest Regards,

    Gilbert Goh

     

    Source: www.transitioning.org