The SDP will be contesting in the Bt Batok by-election which we expect will be called soon.
Our campaign team has been activated and we will work very hard to be the people’s voice in Parliament and continue to be the Competent, Constructive and Compassionate party that Singaporeans want to see.
Source: Singapore Democratic Party (SDP)
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 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:
Source: www.channelnewsasia.com
The peak hour train at Jurong East was crowded as usual. I stood in front of a well-dressed lady in her 40s sitting at the priority seat. Upon seeing me, she promptly crossed her legs and kicked her shoes against my legs. On a normal day, I would speak up and educate such an individual on the virtues of courtesy. Lucky for her, I had just made a vow before bed yesterday to become a more tolerant person. I just smiled and thought to myself, maybe it was an accident.
The lady began talking on her mobile phone and I let my mind wander. Before long, my thoughts were interrupted by the lady’s rant.
“A lot of Chinese girls so stupid marry Malay men.”
It was strangely refreshing to hear a racist rant in person in Singapore. In the past I had only seen them in the comments section on Facebook. As a final year Sociology undergraduate, I was keen on hearing her perspective on the issues of race and inter-racial marriages. Also, being the child of a Malay-Chinese mother and an Arab father, miscegenation was of personal relevance.
In between rants of how her Chinese friends were the CEO of Singapore Airlines and secretary to the Prime Minister’s office, she complained about how poor Malay men were trying to prey on her and other Chinese girls.
At that moment it occurred to me: she was the infamous Catherine Tan known on social media for her videos where she aggressively expressed her dissatisfaction with Malays and Muslims. It also occured to me that there was probably no one on the other end of the line. She was believed to be mentally unsound. As soon as she began directing her racist rants at me, I realized that I was no longer a mere observer.
“Look at this Muslim girl in front of me, trying to get in my face. Trying to harass me. Ya look at her she’s wearing blue jeans, black shirt, red scarf and black shoes,” she said, glaring angrily at me.
As she was giving her Outfit-Of-The-Day commentary, I almost corrected her: Oh I’m not wearing jeans! These are trousers I bought on sale. I wear them when I feel fatter than usual because being able to fit in them is assuring. Do you like them?`
I stopped myself when I realized that she was obviously not trying to be friendly. She was trying to direct her hatred for Malays and Muslims at me. As she continued to passive-aggressively taunt me, I half expected her to say something more vicious. However, she did nothing of the sort. I have to say that for a racist person, she was quite nice. As the train reached Clementi, I prepared to alight.
“She’s alighting now,” she said as if to make sure I knew she was talking about me.
I smiled and walked on. I continued to wonder if her views were a reflection of common sentiments buried deep within the Singaporean psyche. We do not normally hear racist views in Singapore where racial and religious harmony is celebrated as a state policy. Violent racial riots in the 1960s have made us more careful about what we say about people from other races and religions, at least in public. However, laws such as Section 298 of the Penal Code which criminalises the “wounding of religious feelings” and other limits on the freedom of speech do not actually eliminate racial tensions. Instead, they drive these racist sentiments further underground. Once in a while, a mentally unsound person would express the racial tensions in our society that we do not feel free to speak about openly.
Within my racially diverse circle of friends, race is not a sensitive topic. It is discussed openly and respectfully in our casual conversations and also at university. We share the same belief that creating platforms for open dialogue about race and religion would facilitate tolerance and better understanding. Indeed, as Singaporeans, our relationship with one another should not be so fragile that it could be threatened by the words of some people. For us, what one wears on one’s head or the colour of one’s skin should not be of any concern. (Unless the colour of your skin is gangrene. In such a case we would be very concerned and would urge you to seek medical attention).
Source: http://kentridgecommon.com
An NSF died while in service through the negligence of SAF officers. In any democratic country, the government would have punished those responsible, issued an apology and paid fair compensation to the victim’s family. This would have permitted closure for the victim’s family and all parties to move on.
But under PAP’s pseudo democracy, all the government does is engage in half-truths to sweep its mistakes under the carpet. Perhaps only MINDEF is able to move on because a loophole in the law has allowed the government to save hundreds of thousands in compensation. Perhaps this is KPI related or maybe it’s about face saving.
In SAF’s clarification, it stated that “the two officers were summarily tried in 2013 for negligent performance of lawful order or duty, found guilty, and punished according to military law”.
Cpt Chia was one of the officers “punished” in 2013 for his negligent act in 2012. Within a year of the “punishment”, he was promoted to Major. No wonder Chia said he hoped Dominique’s family would find closure and “move on with their lives”. We can see that Chia did not only move on, he has moved up in his career, thanks to all his supportive superiors who somehow turned a blind eye to his conviction by the military court. The moral decay under the PAP should be of concern to Singaporeans: punishment = promotion when you happen to be on PAP’s side.
Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen has now weighed in on the issue by announcing that his ministry should waive the $22,000 legal costs to be paid by Dominque’s family. Ng is still avoiding the issue of apology and just compensation. Ng made many motherhood statements but since he did not address the issue, we should not expect any closure for Dominique’s family.
Mindef is trying to save face and money but this is penny wise, pound foolish: it will take a very long time to regain Singaporeans’ trust after its reputation has been self damaged.
I have a son serving in the SCDF and a younger one enlisting next year. How am I to tell them to give their all after having witnessed SAF covering its own ass? Aren’t there many parents having the same thought?
Those who have gone through grief should be able to fully empathise with Dominique’s parents: any million dollar compensation wouldn’t have made a difference to their immeasurable loss. The closure which his mum has been seeking is something she deserves and is not unreasonable.
The PAP government must do the “right thing” and not apologise only at 2359 when its loss of power seems imminent.
If a white horse had died, wouldn’t Minister Ng have demanded accountability by having not only both officers hentak kaki for life but their superiors as well? Wouldn’t the servile press highlight SAF’s negligence day and night as well as the immense loss to the family of the dead white horse? Wouldn’t Minister Ng seek justice if his loved one had died due to others’ negligence?
For those who are still unable to empathise with Dominique’s family, you should touch your heart and ask yourself: Would you have made the same callous comments if a white horse had died? Would you even dare to utter your hope that the family of the dead white horse will move on with their lives knowing full well the issue of negligence has yet to be resolved?