Thursday, 30 April 2015

Amos Yee Slapped on Way to Court ... STAGED!

Amos Yee struck on way to court ... Staged!

Amos Yee slapped SDP trick

In the latest twist to the Amos Yee saga, it now appears that Amos was "assaulted" on his way to his pre-trial conference on 30 April 2015. Unconfirmed sources tell us that the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) had hired a "hit-man" to slap Amos to malign the Government and to win sympathy votes for Amos.

In a video spreading on social media, Amos Yee was seen walking to court alone when an unknown man, in a red t-shirt walked up to him and slapped him. For dramatic effect, Amos Yee is seen clutching his face for the camera.

From the video, it is clear that the slapping incident was staged. Firstly, it happened in an area where reporters were congregating to ensure that it was captured. If it was a real assault, it would realistically have happened in a more secluded area away from the cameras. Secondly, the video was perfectly positioned to capture the entire scene. The way it zoomed in and followed the path of the perpetrator was uncanny and could only have been achieved with pre-planning. Thirdly, the speed at which the alternate media uploaded the video and opposition members condemning it was unreal. Without forewarning, this would not have been possible.

In short, Singaporeans need to know the lengths at which opposition activists will act to mislead the public and malign the government.


Breaking News! Amos Yee has been remanded as his bailor, Vincent Law, has discharged himself. He told Straits Times that he was forced to do this as Amos is determined to challenge the court and government ala Roy Ngerng style.

Saturday, 25 April 2015

Jeyaretnam has no faith in his own Reform Party

In a recent blog post dated 13 April 2015, leader of The Reform Party, Kenneth Jeyaretnam, was arguing why a by-election had to be called for the parliamentary seat vacated by the death of Singapore's founding Prime Minister - Mr Lee Kuan Yew.

kenneth jeyaretnam reform party epicfail

It is enlightening to note that Kenneth Jeyaretnam ended his article by calling for "Opposition parties to come together and agree to field a joint 'A' team against the PAP."  It is enlightening because this is a clear indication that Kenneth Jeyaretnam knows that he is unable to win and needs to ride on the popularity of other opposition figures like Low Thia Khiang.

While the other opposition parties have not responded, we can certain that established parties like the Worker's Party will not agree. After all, why should they allow someone like Kenneth Jeyaretnam to ride on their success to a seat in Parliament.
We have never given much credibility to The Reform Party. However, after this appeal but its leader, which is a personal admission that The Reform Party lacks a pool of credible candidates, we are certain that The Reform Party is dead in the water.

P.S. Why would someone mock his own father by naming his site "Son of a Dud"? In fact, if it were not for his father JBJ, no one would know who Kenneth Jeyaretnam is. A man who cannot respect his own father, deserves no respect.

Tuesday, 21 April 2015

Singapore GE 2016 Prediction: The Battle for Aljunied GRC

Singapore General Elections 2016: Our Prediction ... Tan Chuan-Jin to take on Low Thia Khiang

Singapore GE Prediction Aljunied GRC
In an interesting development, SG Bumiputera believes that Minister Tan Chuan-Jin maybe set to take-on Low Thia Khiang in the latter's strong-hold of Aljunied-Hougang. Fresh from his Ministerial Community Visit over the weekend, PAP activists have obtained a good sense of the ground and they feel that the Worker's Party hold on Aljunied-Hougang is shaky.
While Minister Tan Chuan-Jin was diplomatic in his comments that the municipal issues faced by the Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Councils (AHPETC) was nothing peculiar, this is far from the truth. Many resident Chuan-Jin met during his walk-about expressed their unhappiness over the cleanliness of the estate, deteriorating infrastructure that was affecting their safety and the anger that Low Thia Khiang and his cronies were profiteering at the expense of residents.

One such example is how projects under the Neighbourhood Renewal Programme (NRP) at Blocks 121 to 127, 135 to 148 & 151 to 154 Serangoon North Ave 1 & 2, which includes the upgrading of the basketball court at Block 135, Serangoon North Avenue 2 was unilaterally cut by AHPETC after they received the funds from the Government. Despite several reminds by HDB to AHPETC, AHPETC has not updated residents on the revised scope and progress of the NRP works. In short, The Worker's Party and AHPETC are deliberately creating a perception of persecution by denying residents what the Government has provided and then claiming that the Government is treating the residents of Aljunied-Hougang as 2nd class citizens.
Fortunately, or unfortunately, for Mr Low Thia Khiang, the PAP team at Aljunied-Hougang are fighters and they are willing to do what it takes to win the GRC back for the 45% that voted for the PAP. While opposition members have claimed that the distribution of flyers by Mr Victor Lye is illegal, many residents have told Mr Tan Chuan-Jin that they are happy that it was done. It was only because of the flyers that they now know what is going on. In fact, what is helping turn the tide in Aljunied-Hougang is the Worker's Party's own continued refusal to answer questions posed to them about AHPETC by residents - despite them stating in Parliament that they will answer to their residents.
At SG Bumipetra, we believe that the end of the Worker's Party control of Aljunied-Hougang is near. We predict that given Mr Tan Chuan-Jin's sincerity, if he is fielded in Aljunied GRC, it will be a close fight. But our money is on Mr Tan Chuan-Jin to win.

Sunday, 19 April 2015

Worker’s Party Election Strategy for GE2016: The Victim Persecution Card

Worker’s Party Election Strategy for 2016: The Victim Persecution Card
Workers Party Election Strategy for 2015 2016

In their efforts to paint the residents of Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East as victims of Government persecution, the Worker’s Party (WP) have continued to withhold Government projects meant for their residents only to blame it on the People’s Action Party (PAP).
Lie - Community Improvement Projects Committee
One such issue is about the Community Improvement Projects Committee (CIPC) raised by MP Pritam Singh at MND’s Committee of Supply 2015. MP Pritam Singh insinuated that the PAP Grassroots Organization (Citizens’ Consultative Committee) were slow to push for upgrading programmes in opposition wards, and that MND had given CIPC funding to the former Aljunied Town Council but withdrew it from AHPETC since 2012.
Dr Maliki replied that MND has been fair and has treated AHPETC no differently from other Town Councils:
- CCCs have to raise funds for the proposals and need time to implement the projects. The CCCs had taken the time and trouble to go through AHPETC’s proposals and were prepared to support many of them (12 out of the 17 upgrading projects were proposed by AHPETC). Yet, Mr Singh blamed them for tardiness and unfairly painted them in a negative light in the eyes of the public.
- MND had given AHPETC 6 HIP (Home Improvement Programmes) and 3 NRP projects (Neighbourhood Renewal Programme) over a 3 year period (FY12-14). This is comparable to the number of projects received by other Town Councils.
- AHPETC chose to prioritise a big share of the HIP and NRP projects to Hougang SMC, although Aljunied GRC had more eligible projects. [Pritam Singh’s response: The reason why Hougang was nominated was because Hougang was not given any main upgrading or interim upgrading projects prior to 2011]
- After various NRP projects were handed over to AHPETC to be implemented, AHPETC in fact unilaterally cut the works at Serangoon North Ave 1 & 2 because AHPETC’s cost overran and exceeded the approved budget. Residents’ impression that the items were cut by HDB because AHPETC was run by the opposition is simply not true. [Sylvia’s response: The consultants for the Serangoon project were appointed under the previous Town Council management, before WP took over the constituency. The project’s management fee was 3.5%, within market norm]
The Worker's Party lies to residents.

Friday, 17 April 2015

Amos Yee Spends Night in Remand After Parents Decide Not to Bail Him Out

Teen blogger Amos Yee Spends Night in Remand
Amos Yee Remand Jail Parents

In a surprising move, welcomed by netizens, teenage wannabe dissident Amos Yee spent last night in remand (jail) after his own parents refused to bail him out.
Amos Yee is the Singapore 16 year old who was charged in court for posting a video with the intention of hurting the religious feelings of Christians and another video containing remarks about the late Mr lee Kuan Yew which offended people. Amos was previously granted police bail pending his court case on the explicit condition (which he accepted) not to post, upload or distribute anything related to the case.
On April 14, Amos Yee deliberately breached his bail conditions when he blogged and posted on Facebook, asking for public donations. While this cannot be confirmed, many netizens believe that Roy Ngerng and Leong Sze Hian are behind Amos Yee's last actions to challenge the Singapore judiciary. Undated pictures of Amos Yee and his mother meeting with Roy and Sze Hian have been circulating online and this comes in addition to news that Amos Yee had met with senior members of the Singapore Democratic Party days before his seditious video was posted. There are also pictures of Roy Ngerng standing in the shadows at Amos' pre-trial conferences.
In a move seen to demonstrate the severity of his offence and that he should not treat court orders lightly, the court has also ordered Amos Yee to report to his investigation officer at the Bedok Police Station at 9 am every day as part of his new bail conditions.
While Yee had agreed to the new conditions, his parents refused to bail him out. The prosecution then asked the Judge to vary the bail condition to allow a Singaporean other than Yee’s parents to post bail. But the Bail Office closed at 4:30 pm, the same time Yee’s closed-door meeting ended.
Is Amos Yee the new pawn of opposition activists? You be the judge ...

Wednesday, 15 April 2015

TRS Editor: Who is Robin Yang?

SG Leaks has some disturbing news about Robin Yang, one of the TRS editors charged with sedition.

Click SG Leaks for full story.

TRS Editor Robin Yang a Pervert

Tuesday, 14 April 2015

Singapore Sedition Act

Before you get fooled by the lies of people like Chee Soon Juan, here is an extract of Singapore's Sedition ActIn fact, it specifically states that speaking up against the Government or the Constitution is not sedition if it advocates doing it by lawful means ....

Sedition Act

Under the Sedition Act, section 3(1)(e), it is an offence to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore:

Seditious tendency

3.—(1) A seditious tendency is a tendency —
(a) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the Government;
(b) to excite the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore to attempt to procure in Singapore, the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of any matter as by law established;
(c) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Singapore;
(d) to raise discontent or disaffection amongst the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore;
(e) to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore.

The guilty person is liable, for a first offence, to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or to both. For a subsequent offence, he or she will be imprisoned for a term not exceeding 5 years.

However, according to section 3(2) of the Act, any act, speech, words, publication or other thing shall not be deemed to be seditious if it is:

- to show that the Government has been misled or mistaken in any of its measures;
- to point out errors or defects in the Government or the Constitution as by law established or in legislation or in the administration of justice with a view to the remedying of such errors or defects;
- to persuade the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore to attempt to procure by lawful means the alteration of any matter in Singapore; or
- to point out, with a view to their removal, any matters producing or having a tendency to produce feelings of ill-will and enmity between different races or classes of the population of Singapore,
- if such act, speech, words, publication or other thing has not otherwise in fact a seditious tendency.

TRS Editors Ai Takagi and Robin Yang Charged with Sedition Act

On 4 February 2015, (TRS) published an article they claimed was from a contributor that reported that during the Thaipusam festivities, an incident was sparked off by a Filipino complaining to police about noise.

Ai Takagi Robin Yang Sedition Charged

Subsequently, the named contributor clarified on another site that the allegations that a Filipino family was involved were untrue. A police report was made and investigations were carried out.

Ai Takagi and Robin Yang Kai Heng were then identified to be the people jointly responsible for the creation, development and maintenance of content on TRS. As a result of their deliberate attempt to create animosity between Singaporeans and Filipinos and Indians, the two have been charged under the Sedition Act.

Further investigations by the Police revealed that TRS had also routinely published various other articles that have the tendency to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different classes of the population of Singapore.

In the course of investigations, Police identified that the motive for Takagi and Robin's actions was purely monetary. As TRS works on a traffic revenue advertising model, the higher the traffic, the higher their earnings. Takagi and Robin thus deliberately added xenophobic falsehoods, to sensationalize their articles, to make money. In this instance, they added the reference to Pinoy family to the contributor's article. Takagi and Yang Kai Heng do this regularly (i.e. fanning xenophobia), for the sole purpose of making money at the expense of Singaporeans.

As Takagi and Robin Yang's seditious remarks were made at the expense of Singapore’s collective social harmony, the Police had no choice but to take action. In fact, investigations showed that they were both overseas when they committed some of the offences and had taken steps to settle down in Australia. They thus had no stake in Singapore and were not concerned about the implications of their greed to Singaporeans.

With regards to claims that TRS is a news website and should thus be allowed to report "the news", Singaporeans must be clear that TRS is not a news website. TRS is a social website that re-angles mainstream media news with its own slant for the authors’ self-interest, ie. money. Legitimate news websites adhere to a code of conduct to be objective and factual, which was clearly lacking in TRS' case.

Singaporeans need to stand firm in our efforts to stop foreigners (with no stake or interest in Singapore) from destroying our future.

Monday, 13 April 2015

Amos Yee - More Trouble-maker Than Innocent Youth

As the spot-light begins to shine on Amos Yee, more evidence is emerging to support the theory that he is not a misguided youth, but a political activists out to discredit the Government.

In the attached picture, taken from Amos' own Facebook page, his disdain for his parents is obvious. What sort of son would publicly call his own mother "an absolute bitch?" Most definitely someone who is ungrateful and without the proper values to appreciate, or at least show respect, to someone who has raised you. 

Amos Yee Facebook page

Perhaps one cannot fully blame Amos Yee. After all, the following picture shows the type of people he mixes with. People like Roy Ngerng himself who is a public failure who goes around the world denouncing Singapore and Singaporeans. Someone who (in my opinion) embezzled money from trusting Singaporeans while pretending to champion transparency and accountability.

Amos Yee Roy Ngerng SDP pawn

If there was ever any doubt that Amos Yee should get his just desserts, I think all that is gone.

Sunday, 12 April 2015

‘Alternate’ Historians Post-LKY: The “Four Tactics of Mass Distraction” By Kumar Ramakrishna

No. 086/2015 dated 9 April 2015
‘Alternate’ Historians Post-LKY: The “Four Tactics of Mass Distraction” by Kumar Ramakrishna


As we enter the post-Lee Kuan Yew era, some “Alternate” historians and activists will seek to revise history in line with ideological and political concerns.


THE 50th anniversary of Singapore’s independence from Malaysia, coupled with the passing of its first Prime Minister Mr Lee Kuan Yew, appears to have ushered in a period of national reflection.  This introspection is apparent on two related fronts. First, some netizens, academics, civil society activists, former detainees as well as foreign observers have intensified scrutiny of the “Singapore Story”, the master narrative purporting to chronicle the country’s historical trajectory down the decades.  

Second, some of these voices have questioned yet again if Singapore’s political system should be brought more in line with the Western liberal democratic model. On the one hand, what I have called “Alternate” historians and their sympathisers allege that the incumbent PAP government’s consolidation of power in the early 1960s was done through unethical means.

Alternates’ weak case

In particular, they argue that Operation Coldstore, the internal security dragnet mounted by the Internal Security Council comprising Singaporean, British and Malayan senior government representatives on 2 February 1963, and which the Singapore Story portrays as having decimated the Communist United Front (CUF) in Singapore at the time, was unjustified.

This is because the action allegedly destroyed not an underground Communist movement that had infiltrated leftwing political parties such as the Barisan Sosialis Singapura (BSS), affiliated unions and other civil association, but a legitimate progressive leftist movement that could have challenged the PAP in general elections later that year. 

The Alternates hint therefore that Singaporeans unjustly suffered a “path not taken”: a BSS-led Singapore under the potential premiership of the Barisan leader Mr Lim Chin Siong.  

As I have argued however in my new book Original Sin? the Alternates have a very weak case.  They display among other faults a generally poor grasp of the Communist mindset and tactics, and more egregiously, basically ignore the published admissions by leading Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) figures themselves of the existence of the CUF and how Coldstore decimated it. 

In addition, some elements within the Alternate constituency employ what I term four tactics of “mass distraction” in order to conceal their argument’s weaknesses.

The online debates

First, as the ongoing online debate clearly evinces, they employ disparaging comments against those mainstream historians who attempt to engage with their arguments. So blatantly obvious have been the personal attacks that fair-minded netizens have criticized this ploy, as I show in my book. Second, some Alternate historians distract readers from the substance of the mainstream historians’ counter-arguments by focusing attention instead on the latter’s institutional position. 

This is really a postmodernist tactic in which the idea is to suggest that the mainstream historians, deliberately portrayed as “government stooges” or “bureaucratic scholars”, possess an inescapably pro-establishment ideological or political agenda. As I show in my book however, this is a simplistic view. Despite protestations to the contrary, moreover, some Alternate historians possess an unarticulated but deeply ideological and political agenda of their own.

A third tactic of some Alternates to distract attention from the weakness of their position is very serious actually: they appear to ignore facts that directly contradict their arguments. For example, on 18 July 1961, when Lord Selkirk, the UK Commissioner in Singapore, pointedly challenged Lim Chin Siong and his colleague Fong Swee Suan to say if they were Communists, the record of the meeting indicates that both men appeared embarrassed and failed to give a clear reply. 

The reason is obvious: if they had said yes, they would have been arrested, as being a CPM member was illegal. The point is, some Alternate historians in writing about this famous meeting, completely ignore this extraordinary exchange. Readers should ask: is the omission because including it may have undercut the stock Alternate narrative that Lim and Fong were actually progressive leftists rather than Communists?  

A final tactic of mass distraction of some activists associated with the Alternate historians is: when the argument is lost, shift the goalposts. It was reported in the media in January 2015, for instance, that one leading activist, perhaps facing up to the reality that Lim Chin Siong in particular was indeed a Communist – now declared that it did not matter whether he was one or not!

Mainstream historians’ arguments

My book delves into this specific issue, drawing upon both declassified and still-classified sources. It reveals that by the 1980s Lim freely if privately admitted to his CPM affiliation. Some within the Alternate constituency contend that security statements by Lim may have been coerced. 

However the book counters this, showing that the Singapore Special Branch and the successor Internal Security Department had to carry out their work based in part on such information, and could not take risks with the false testimony likely to have been induced by clumsy, coercive interrogation of Lim. The book even shows that Lim himself had apparently developed a cordial relationship with the authorities by the 1980s and even sought their help on occasion.

Hence what really drives some Alternate historians and their supporters is what is called presentism – an orientation to the past coloured by current ideological and political biases and concerns.Some Alternate historians appear to sift through the historical record purposefully to find facts that mesh with what they want to say. This, lest it be forgotten, is not history but propaganda.  

Moreover, is it a surprise that some Alternate historians – despite assurances that they do not allow their “political intent” to overwhelm their “scholarship” – do precisely that, by so publicly championing the causes of former detainees and working closely with them on projects like the one that produced the Alternate history of Operation Coldstore in November 2013?  

It is obvious that in the hands of some Alternate historians, as Foucault once suggested, history has become irredeemably partisan. Readers should thus be aware of this whenever they encounter the works of such Alternate historians in print or online.

Finally, mainstream historians like myself openly declare their “inherent subjectivity”. While “mainstreamers” are a loose coalition of scholars without a precisely formulated agenda, some would agree that the successful governance model that the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew and his first generation colleagues bequeathed us remains relevant. Tweaks are clearly necessary as a different, more cosmopolitan generation of Singaporeans mature politically and gradually wield influence in government, business and civil society.

Blind, uncritical imitation of the Western model however – as some Alternate historians and activists appear to crave - would be unwise. Evolutionary change, with one eye fixed firmly on Singapore’s unique geopolitical, demographic and sociocultural realities, remains the way forward in the post-Lee Kuan Yew era.


Kumar Ramakrishna is an Associate Professor and Head of Policy Studies in the Office of the Executive Deputy Chairman, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. His book, Original Sin? Revising the Revisionist Critique of the 1963 Operation Coldstore, has just been published by the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

Friday, 10 April 2015

Roy Ngerng Denounces Singapore and Singaporeans

Roy Ngerng Denounces Singaporeans
Continuing in his deranged quest for attention, Roy Ngerng recently gave an interview to the Hong Kong tabloid Apple Daily where he denounced the reputation of Singapore and Singaporeans.

Roy Ngerng CPF Protest

In his interview, Roy continued to martyr himself by saying that he hoped that his sacrifice will embolden Singaporeans to vote for the opposition. Roy also criticized Singaporeans for not having the courage to stand-up to the PAP and for abandoning him in his quest to get the Government to return our CPF. Roy's anger about being abandoned stems from the fact that he received over $100,000 in donations to fight a defamation suit against Mr Lee Hsien Loong, but this had stopped after it was revealed that Roy had not been as open and transparent about how the money was being spent. To date, no proper accounting has been provided by Roy Ngerng or his stooge Han Hui Hui about how the money was spent.
In response to Roy's claims that Singaporeans are afraid to vote for the opposition, Roy cannot be more wrong. If the so called fear exists, how then do you account for the fact that the Worker's Party won seats at the last election and how do you explain that the government only got 60% of the popular vote.
The truth of the matter is that Singaporeans are not afraid to vote for the opposition. The truth is that Singaporeans know credible candidates from the failures. So Roy, stop denouncing Singaporeans and wake-up to the truth that Singaporeans just won't vote for failures like you and Han Hui Hui. Like Minister Chan Chun Sing once said, the crux of the matter is not that Singaporeans have not heard Roy Ngerng. The crux of the matter is that they have heard Roy Ngerng and they have chosen to ignore him.

Wednesday, 8 April 2015

Amos Yee - SDP's Sacrificial Pawn

Amos Yee - Singapore Democratic Party's Sacrificial Pawn?

Much has been reported about Amos Yee's now famous YouTube rant about Singapore's Founding Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew. In Amos' YouTube, he not only uploaded content online which contained remarks against Christianity with the deliberate intention of wounding the religious feelings of Christians, he transmitted electronically an image showing obscene figures, and he made a video containing remarks about Mr Lee that offended people who viewed it.

Amos Yee Youtube Rant Lee Kuan Yew

SG Bumiputera has learnt from credible sources that Amos Yee may in fact be as innocent as he makes himself out to be. What SG Bumiptura has learnt is that Amos Yee had met with senior members of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) 2 days before his YouTube video was published. Could this be a coincidence? Or could Amos Yee be a pawn in the SDP's overall plan to discredit the government.

While we can only speculate what they discussed, what we do know is that anti-government activists are beginning to use children as "human shields" for their activities. By instigating children below the age of consent to do their dirty work, authorities either cannot take action or, if they do, they will look bad for taking actions against a child.

You decide. Is Amos Yee a misguided youth? Or a sacrificial pawn in Singapore's political game?

Monday, 6 April 2015

Singaporeans Slam Portraits of Chee Soon Juan

On 4 April 2015, the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) announced the launch of Mr Chee Soon Juan's book "Teacher, Thinker, Rebel, Why? Portraits of Chee Soon Juan" on their Facebook page. Almost immediately, Singaporean netizens slammed Mr Chee Soon Juan with the following comments ...

SDP book portrait of Chee Soon Juan

"Get yourself elected first then get your residents to support your ideas, then present your proposals to parliament. Not sure how to do it? Learn from one of Lee Kuan Yews books on how he got self-govt from the British, got himself elected by winning the hearts and minds of the people, learnt Mandarin, Hokkien , Malay to connect with the people of all races. And behave in a civilized manner. Next election coming soon; good luck (you gonna need lots of it)"

"$ better donate to charity rather than buy d nonsenc bk"

"CSJ not interested in building the country or bring In foreign investment or create jobs. So it is a waste of time"

"Sorry, Not interested"

"Give me free also I lazy to read!"

"A journey to hell start with a first step in the wrong direction..,"

"With you all about Hope not about the reality and perfection, with you all about riots, protests & promotion of anarchy for Singapore not the peace, prosperity & happiness. With you all about bring political tsunamis, cyclones & typhoons for Singapore"

"Hey keep it for yourself , we wan to be a less courupt country pls do u hv a history about this pls lahhhhhhh"

This prompted the proponents of free speech to issue the following reminder on their Facebook page.

"Reminder: Users are invited to share their views with others and to comment on the SDP’s views and policies. We welcome debate and discussion. However, we ask that you do not troll our FB and repeatedly make statements that are unrelated to the subject at hand. We reserve the right to remove such comments."

In our opinion, an #epicfail on the part of the SDP.

Saturday, 4 April 2015

More TRS Lies ... The Peak

Statement from RC to residents at The Peak @ Toa Payoh

TRS Lies about The Peak at Toa Payoh

The Real Singapore earlier reported that the Residents’ Committee (RC) at The Peak@Toa Payoh wanted to build an RC centre at the void deck despite a majority of the residents had objected to this. Here is a statement from The Peak RC countering those lies.

What many seem to forget is that ...
"Democracy is about accepting and doing what the MAJORITY want. It is not about pandering to the whims and fancies of the individual."

Dear Residents,
Please allow us to correct some of the prevailing misconceptions on the RC centre.
1. It is not true that 87% of the residents are against the RC Centre. Based on a door to door survey conducted by RC members in May/June of 2014, more than 80% of responding residents were in favour and gave feedback on the type of activities they would like at the RC centre. We note that the person(s) claiming that 87% of residents were against did not give details of their survey.
2. There will only be one RC centre. However to accommodate some residents’ concerns on safety and security, as well as to ensure sufficient lighting at the void deck of block 139B, the Centre was split into two smaller areas – one at Block 139B and the other at the Key Collection Centre.
3. RC centres are typically up to a floor size of 160sqm. In light of concerns by residents on lighting and security, the RC Centre was reduced to a total size of 77sqm + 72sqm (total of 149sqm).
4. A single location at the Key Collection Centre would not be sufficiently meaningful for the community. It is not big enough to accommodate community activities. This small site was only selected to allow the reduction of the space at Block 139b to accommodate some residents’ feedback.
5. Safety and security concerns have been addressed (which have resulted in a smaller centre at the primary location under 139B). The residents will continue to have their loading bays. All the relevant agencies, including the Fire and Safety Department, have approved the plans.
6. The only objection which has not been addressed is that made by some residents that the RC Centre will devalue their property. However, we note that RC Centres in all HDB precincts are located at void decks. This is no different.
7. The proposed uses for the RC centre include having a playgroup for young children as well as enrichment courses/tuition services for older children in the estate. There are also some ideas to open up one of the locations as a function room for residents to book for private events as an option aside from the Pavilion. The RC is confident that there is an appetite for activities and events for the RC centre by residents.
8. To help residents better visualise the RC Centre at 139b, we attach a 3D model of the revised centre. We have also put up a video that will take you through the lobby of 139b to the centre.
9. We thank residents for their feedback, which has resulted in significant changes to the original plans.
Please direct any further queries on the RC centre or suggestions you may have on types of activities you would like to see at the RC centre to
Thank you for your kind attention.

Friday, 3 April 2015

How Mr Lee Kuan Yew Lived - 38 Oxley Road

Proof that Mr Lee Kuan Yew Did not Covet Money ...
With the passing of Mr Lee Kuan Yew, little known facts are starting to emerge about the man. Fiercely private, Mr Lee had kept much of his personal life private. 
How Lee Kuan Yew lived House

Lee Kuan Yew spartan life 38 Oxley Road

One of the biggest shock for many Singaporeans is to learn how spartan a life Singapore’s founding Prime Minister lived. Despite earning a decent salary, Mr Lee did not live lavishly.
Mr Lee’s bedroom was simple with a single bed as the main piece of furniture. On it was a thin towel blanket and a small bolster. Even the computer which he used was old and the screen flickered as e-mails arrived. The rest of the old two-storey house was equally spartan. The downstairs bathroom, for instance, still held a hamdankong (Cantonese for barrel or tub used for making salted eggs), a large clay urn filled with water for bathing, old-school style, complete with a plastic scoop.
Its mosaic tiles, some a little chipped, had been popular in the 1970s. The chairs in the house were mismatched, giving off an eclectic feel.
An ancient exercise bike stood in one corner, gathering dust. It was nothing to look at - a bicycle mounted on a stand, but I learnt that Mr Lee had exercised on it for decades, well into his 70s, until he fell off one day. Although the model had been replaced by a more modern one, the trusty old bike still retained its place in the 100-year-old home.
Between 1960 and 2011, Singapore's per capita gross domestic product surged more than 100-fold. But the Lees' modest home remained largely unchanged in that time and had become dwarfed by the multi-million dollar, multi-storey bungalows that sprang up around it.
When one looks at the life Mr Lee Kuan Yew lived, one cannot but help wonder about the many wild and unfounded accusations his detractors had leveled at him. One of which was that the Lee family was filled with greed and that every policy they and the ruling government made was designed to milk Singaporeans of their hard-earned money. If Mr Lee indeed focused on enriching himself, where then did the alleged theft of money go? As far as I (and rational Singaporeans) can see, Mr Lee did not covet money. His simple life is testimony to that.