Tag: Singaporeans

  • Stupid Youngsters These Days Really Naive And Lack Trust

    Stupid Youngsters These Days Really Naive And Lack Trust

    I spoke with some students today and really blood boil. What is wrong with youngsters these days, don’t know how to think?

    They really believe all of the government’s bullsh*t! This is what I managed to pick out from my conversations with them:

    Me: “absolute power corrupts absolutely”
    A: “don’t worry PAPs track record is flawless, they won’t do anything wrong one.I put my trust in them”

    Me: “why are the opposition bad?”
    B: ” look at their track record? Look at ahptc? If they cannot prove themselves how to win?”

    Me : ” what do you think of the 2 sides?”
    Students ” PAP= very good. Opposition will ruin the country made up of useless people destroy the stability ”

    Really is naive and myopic. Wait until they grow up and see people go through bread and butter issues as a result of gov policy then they will know the pain.

    xing221
    A.S.S. Reader

     

    Source: www.allsingaporestuf.com

  • Sentosa Rape: Prosecutors – Accused Poured Liquor Into Victim’s Mouth

    Sentosa Rape: Prosecutors – Accused Poured Liquor Into Victim’s Mouth

    A former lifeguard at Sentosa allegedly poured liquor into a partygoer’s mouth and then raped her at the beach when she was unconscious, said a witness at the High Court on Tuesday (Sep 15).

    A friend of the victim who had accompanied her to a beach party at Wave House, both of whom cannot be named to protect the victim’s identity, took the witness stand on Tuesday.

    According to the witness, she had drinks with the victim and the accused, Pram Nair, 26, on the night of May 5, 2012. Nair was a lifeguard at Sentosa then.

    The witness claimed that Nair poured liquor from a Cointreau bottle directly into the victim’s mouth for 20 seconds, and that he suggested doing so because the victim was 20 years old.

    In the opening of the prosecution’s case last month, Deputy Public Prosecutor Bhajanvir Singh said the victim was introduced to Nair at the party.

    At one point, Nair, who is represented by lawyer Peter Ong, allegedly took the intoxicated victim to the beach and raped her, he said.

    Prior to the alleged incident, the witness said she had tried looking for the victim to leave the party and found Nair supporting her as she looked “really drunk”. Nair then told her to grab the victim’s bag but the witness could not find them when she returned.

    WITNESS FOUND VICTIM “PASSED OUT” ON BEACH

    The witness called the victim on her mobile phone multiple times but no one answered. When someone did pick up one time, no one said anything on the other end, she said. She called again, and this time Nair picked up and told her they were at the beach and she need not go look for them.

    But the witness still headed to the beach and found the victim “passed out” there. She was wearing only a tank top and could not respond to anything the witness was saying. She also claimed that Nair was rummaging through his bag near where the victim was found and threw her a pair of shorts to put on the victim.

    The witness said the victim was not very coherent by then and claimed that the victim had asked her to call her boyfriend or another man called Jeremy.

    When the victim started foaming at her mouth, the witness said she called for an ambulance.

    WITNESS “UPSET” THAT ACCUSED SHOWED NO INTEREST IN HER: DEFENCE

    During the defence’s cross examination of the witness, Mr Ong challenged her statement and claimed that the witness had been the one who suggested that the liquor be poured directly into the victim’s mouth for 20 seconds.

    He then disputed the duration of that particular incident, saying that the liquor was only poured for one to two seconds.

    Mr Ong also questioned the witness’s conclusion that the victim was raped by Nair when the witness did not see him doing anything. He also suggested that the witness was upset that Nair had not shown interest in her and hence accused him of raping the victim.

    The witness on Tuesday disagreed to the above challenges made by the lawyer.

    The trial continues on Wednesday and if convicted, Nair ccould be jailed up to 20 years and fined or caned.

     

    Source: www.channelnewsasia.com

  • Beware Of This Rich Conman Who Refused To Return Small $200 Loan

    Beware Of This Rich Conman Who Refused To Return Small $200 Loan

    <Facebook complaint by Jumie Choong>

    Since you want your name spread around social media, let me help you out. You are really the black sheep of Singaporeans, bringing down the good name of Singaporeans worldwide.

    So what if you are a boss of a company, is that supposed to be impressive? Considering you shout and rant when i ask you to return a paltry $200.

    You mean you speak a little more english than me allows you to avoid returning money?( pretends not to understand my Chinese text messages) I gave you 2 months to return $200, i think that’s more than sufficient time given.

    Plus you gave an excuse that you have invested money in new business investment, that is completely none of my concern and the investment is definitely much more than a few hundred dollars!

    Since you have no intention of returning the money i feel it’s better to just post this out and let others be wary of this conman.

     

    Source: www.allsingaporestuff.com

  • Rohaishah Hamid: Dirt Poor And Struggling With Family Problems, I Persevered To Finally Become A Teacher

    Rohaishah Hamid: Dirt Poor And Struggling With Family Problems, I Persevered To Finally Become A Teacher

    6 years ago on this date, I remembered having to vacate the HDB flat I lived in at Sengkang with my mum. I was 18, still schooling and was given monthly allowance by MOE, and she was ill and unemployed for the longest time. The the both of us had no place to go. We resorted to this mutual agreement to separate; we had to find different respective friends who could give us shelter separately, whether it was for a day, a week, a month, a year, whichever would suffice.

    She found a friend she could live with for a few months so I was relieved. On my end, I had friends here and there who offered shelter, offered sleepovers, and on some unlucky days when they couldn’t, I would spend most nights staying up at beaches or void decks with my bags of unwashed and unused clothes and cheapskate art materials plus my crumpled assignments, looking for a plan, in hope of another saviour to take me home. I seeked help from MPs, from different Family Service Centres, different Homeless Shelters, they could only help so much.

    Prior to the days when I had no where to go, I couldn’t do my assignments, I had no money to get materials, didn’t even eat or sleep proper, I ended up skipping school very often, I even skipped exams. I was already bonded with MOE’s 9-year teaching contract at that point, my absenteeism and grades were horrendous. I couldn’t graduate after my 3rd year of NAFA. So I had to retake hell lot of modules. My allowance from MOE was being taken away. I had to pay for the modules I had to retake, and having no allowance led me to work 2 jobs while schooling.

    Working 2 jobs allowed me to earn just enough for a decent rental of a room, open market, which was ridiculously costly. But I was devastated and separated from my mum too long, eventually I managed to afford renting a room with my mum, at a few different strangers houses and the owner was present in their homes while we stayed. Unpleasant experience it was, living in someone’s house you don’t even know, they had rules like you can’t cook, can’t use the living room, you can only do your laundry once a week and all. They assume and accuse you of every minor or major thing that could possibly go wrong in that premise. It was like living in a prison cell with no privacy yet numerous obligations. But I couldn’t complain. It was better that at least me and my mum were sheltered together.

    Spent a year to clear all my modules but I still failed and couldn’t graduate after my 4th year. NAFA was going to expel me, MOE was going to terminate my bond, which simply meant I had to pay all the liquidated damages back. I appealed, begged, pleaded for them to give me one more year. So again I had to pay for the modules I retook, rental cost got more expensive when we moved from one place to another each time our contract ended, mum’s health worsensed, so I worked 3 jobs instead.

    At that breaking point, I kept reminding myself one thing, that I already spent my teenage secondary school years in an abusive and dysfunctional household while I was still staying in my own home at Sengkang. Already spent years of my teenage life working in KFC every night after school even during O’Levels, no electricity at home so I studied with a candle and spent the remainders of my sleepless nights taking care of my sick mum. I had an elder sister who used to provide for us but she passed away. I was reminded of when people from the Subordinate Court crashed my place to seize all our furniture because of debts so my house became bare and empty. Or when people splashed paint out my door because of debts again. Or when policemen had to keep coming to make or break a scene. And I thought THAT was bad. Until I lost my home eventually. Felt like I lost everything.

    Finally graduated from NAFA after my 5th year and moved on to NIE. Life got better when I stepped into NIE because I finally started receiving monthly allowance all over again. I could finally quit my 3 jobs, and in that same year HDB finally granted me a home to stay in. Eventually graduated from NIE and started my teaching career till today. I never had to look back since then.

    Throughout that journey, I owe my life to my friends and teachers from secondary school, my colleagues from KFC, a few close classmates from NAFA and some other friends and roommates I met along the way, for seeing me through and providing for me when no one else could. I wouldn’t have stayed sane without you guys. Sure, like every other typical kid I’ve been depressed as hell, suicidal attempts were endless, and now when I think about it, I laugh at myself. Thank you God, for watching over me and my mum, and for blessing me with amazing friends. They were the family I never had.

     

    Source: Rohaishah Hamid

  • Respect The Voters

    Respect The Voters

    MS LEE Li Lian said something interesting yesterday about respecting the voters. Punggol East voters had rejected her, and it didn’t make sense for her to stay in Parliament as a Non-constituency MP (NCMP), she said. Some people applaud her for her principled decision, others wonder if this was just an excuse for her disenchantment with the election results.

    She doesn’t want to be a voice in Parliament, never mind that she only lost by a whisker. If she takes up the seat, she would be the first rejected incumbent in Parliament, unless you count Mrs Lina Chiam as a proxy for her husband Mr Chiam See Tong in the last Parliament.

    Actually, her position isn’t so different from how the Opposition viewed the NCMP scheme when it was first introduced in 1984. NCMPs can talk in the House but they don’t have the critical powers of voting over money Bills or constitutional amendments. The several loud objections to the scheme was considered a sop to the losers, and the resistance waned until it looked like a prize to be fought over within political parties. Remember how there was some talk that Mr Eric Tan wanted to be an NCMP but the Workers’ Party decided that the seat be given to Mr Gerald Giam? That seems to have resulted in some kind of rupture in the party.

    In fact, the scheme appeared to have honed the political instincts of past NCMPs and given them a taste for the cut-and-thrust of debate. It is worth noting that the three NCMPs of the last Parliament have been extremely active in engaging the front bench. They took their jobs seriously, although it might be said that without a constituency to attend to, they have more time to bone up.

    Never mind Ms Lee’s motive for rejecting the seat, the key phrase she used is: “respecting the voters”.

    In this case, she behaved far better than Reform Party’s Kenneth Jeyaretnam who acted like a petulant child when he realised which way the wind was blowing on Polling Night.

    “All this is, is a mandate for authoritarianism and brainwashing. It shows what you do when you control everybody’s housing, you control their savings, you control their jobs because you’re the major employer, you control all the media and there’s no independent elections department.

    “So all I see is similar margins in North Korea and China, it’s just like the Chinese Communist Party and I guess Singaporeans get the government they deserve so I don’t want to hear any more complaints.”

    That was highly disrespectful of the voter. Whether a person likes or dislikes the results, the fact that cannot change is that close to 70 per cent of voters voted for the PAP. This was not a split electorate. That’s the way the cookie crumbles in a democracy with a first-past-the-post electoral system. Live with it.

    Most opposition politicians were, in fact, stinting in their remarks about bowing to the will of the people, preferring to attribute that collective will to the worry of a freak election result, the Electoral Boundary changes, the AHPETC and the propensity of the population for bribes. No one said that perhaps, their policies and programmes didn’t resonate with the people, that they had read them wrong, that they would have to recalibrate their positions to win them over. If they did, they didn’t say so in the fulsome way the PAP did after GE2011 – an expression of abject humility.

    The WP’s Daniel Goh, however, was one person who took the humble route: “The people has spoken and the collective wisdom is always right. Analysts will fall over one another in the coming weeks to discern the hearts of voters. For me, the meaning of the results is clear. It is a ringing endorsement of the PAP’s programme of going back to its centre-left roots and PM Lee’s leadership”.

    “It is also a nod to WP’s brand of rational and responsible politics, since the seats won in GE2011 were returned. But with caveats: work harder, and buck up, in both town management and Parliament; less egoism and opportunism, more depth, humility and courage, more listening and walking.” (PS. He got the bit about seats returned technically right; the one lost SMC was from a by-election).

    Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam was very polite when he said that “it was important that the opposition reflect on what happened – not just in terms of whether the electorate didn’t know better or the electorate made a mistake – but how they could have done better in their strategies”.

    You wouldn’t expect the PAP to advise the Opposition on how they could have better strategised, but one sure thing is this: Don’t always believe social media. This GE2015, social media distorted the extent of Opposition support. TNP quoted an academic based in Australia who said: “Imagine if you read the Facebook comments whacking PAP. Many PAP supporters would think it better to keep their mouths shut before they are (verbally) abused.”

    In other words, the silent majority kept silent.

    Singapore Democratic Party’s (SDP) Chee Soon Juan was quick to think of the future. He suggested a closer working relationship with the WP in preparation for the next GE. This will probably depend on, among other things, whether the WP will forget his earlier proposal that they collaborate in contesting the Punggol East by-election two years ago by having the SDP in Parliament and the WP run the town council should their candidate win.

    Let bygones be bygones?

    This seems to be the rallying cry of the PAP leaders post GE2015. DPM Tharman noted that shorn of the rhetoric, the Opposition proposals aren’t too different from what the PAP is doing. (Maybe this is a backhanded compliment: that the Opposition can’t come up with anything too different). The PAP seems keen to embrace the diversity of viewpoints and the need for alternative voices, which it probably realises it shouldn’t dismiss despite its huge mandate. You can view this cynically: it wants to co-opt opposition voices into its fold. Or you can keep an open mind and see whether it holds to its promise to engage the people more fully and, more importantly, early.

    You have the younger leaders such as Mr Heng Swee Keat and Mr Tan Chuan-Jin calling on all sides, including Opposition supporters, to find common ground.

    Given the way the (not metaphorical) wind is blowing, there’s plenty. There’s the haze above ground, for starters. We can at least close ranks against that!

     

    Source: http://themiddleground.sg

deneme bonusu