MP versus CCC Chairman – Who is bigger?

In the AHPETC vs NEA case in court, it seems that an MP holding a mini fair or event must get the approval of the Chairman of the CCC. I quote from an article in TRE,
 
‘AHPETC: Holding “mini-fair” or “event” does not require permit
AHPETC, whose chairman is Aljunied GRC MP Sylvia Lim, is disputing NEA’s argument. Its lawyer Peter Low pointed out that it was a “mini-fair” or an “event”, and hence did not require a permit.
 
He also said he would seek clarification from the NEA on why it was necessary to get the Bedok Reservoir-Punggol Citizens Consultative Committee’s (CCC) approval when applying for such a permit especially when it is chaired by a PAP grassroots leader….’
 
The question here is that an MP/Town Council needs to get permission from a grassroot leader to hold an event in his constituency? Who is bigger, I don’t mean bigger in physical size, but who should have the authority over such an issue. An MP is the people’s elected representative, a member of Parliament, a law maker, elected by the people for the people. What is a Chairman of a CCC? A civil servant working for the NEA or a political appointee appointed by the ruling govt to look after grassroot activities on a volunteer basis?
 
What power should be vested on a volunteer worker, an unelected grassroot leader in order that an elected MP must seek his approval to hold an event in the constituency the MP is elected, by the people?
Anything wrong with such a reporting or controlling procedure? In a democracy, the people is the master, and the MP is a representative of the people. Who is the Chairman of a CCC or the CCC representating? Do they have executive power over the people and events in the constituency? Are they govt employees vested with the power of a civil servant?
 
Any legal experts can help to explain the intricacies of these relationships? I look look and see see and still catch no balls. What is the right procedure or what is the proper legal procedure or what is the correct administrative procedure? I really blur like sotong now.
 
MP must go seek approval from a CCC Chairman? Tiok boh? If ask approval from NEA officers can understand because that one is govt mah. And NEA officers are employed by the govt to manage and regulate such matters mah. NEA officers can say ‘I chenghu mah’. Can CCC Chairman say he chenghu or not?
 
Sorry ah, I layman only asking question for clarification to know what is going on.

Kopi Level - Yellow

SGX Ranking Number 1

If I were to conduct a survey on the SGX ranking among the international bourses like the way our universities were ranked internationally, I would rank SGX as Number 1 also, the best of the best. And I can say that with very good justifications.
 
1. SGX is managed by the best foreign talents money can buy.
2. SGX has acquired one of the most expensive and sophisticated computers to ensure that it has the ample capacity to continue operating even if the volume goes up by ten or twenty folds, with no hitches or glitches.
3. It has the best regulatory policies to prevent fraud and cheating or malpractices.
4. It has provided the most level playing field for all players big and small. Fair play is the second name of the SGX.
5. SGX is linked to nearly all the big international bourses around the world and fund managers can trade the world’s stock markets through SGX. So convenient. The Ah Peks and Ah Mahs and the HDB aunties also can do the same.
6. Big funds are allowed to plug their super computers to the SGX computers to ensure that they can trade smoothly and efficiently and at super fast speed. The small traders can also plug their super computers into the system if they have one.
7. SGX even ensures that the exchange will trade non stop, no lunch break, so that trading activities can be high and continuous, longer trading hours, etc to facilitate the traders and investors the maximum hours to make profits.
8. Transparency is first class and retailers shorting the market must key into the system so that every player will know that there is a short position.
9. Bid size and board lot size were reduced to a minimum to facilitate even very small retail players to trade, to increase liquidity and market penetration.
10. And if any big funds or computer traders ended in a short position, have no fear as they could easily borrow scrips to settle their trades. There is a scrip lending facility to help traders in case they have over sold positions.
 
I could have added more of the great features of the SGX that other bourses would be envious off. It is truly the best, most sophisticated, transparent and efficient stock exchange, and with good regulations and world class management.
 
There is a slight problem though. There is a dearth of traders in the market. The trading houses are as quiet as a church in recess. Otherwise I would give it a perfect score of 100. The SGX is like a very well decorated Christmas tree, shining brightly, with its full décor, after Christmas, and lying in a corner of the room, waiting for the lights to be switched off.
 
What a pity for such a fine stock exchange with everything going for it.

Kopi Level - Yellow

Hong Lim Affair – Got illegal assembly or not?

 This has been quoted in TRE by a commentator using the nick VTO VTO.
 
PARKS AND TREES ACT (CHAPTER 216)
 
Identification card to be produced
6.—(1) The Commissioner or any authorised officer or park ranger, when exercising any of the powers conferred upon him by this Act shall, if not in uniform, declare his office and, on demand, produce such identification card as may be issued to him for the purposes of this Act or any other written law.
 
(2) It shall not be an offence for any person to refuse to comply with any request, demand or order made by the Commissioner or any authorised officer or park ranger not in uniform, who fails to declare his office and refuses to produce his identification card on demand being made by that person.
 
I think anyone reading the above will be very clear as to what a park officer must do if he is to cancel a permit given by the Park. Many people have viewed the video clip of the encounter between the NPark Director and Han Hui Hui and how or what he produced to identify himself when demanded by Han Hui Hui. Did he comply with the Park’s regulation? If not, can he cancel a permit without doing so?
 
There would only be an illegal assembly if the permit was cancelled. Some view that no permit is even needed as provided by the Public Order Act, POA, sanctioned by Parliament and the Constitution.
 
What do you think?

Kopi Level - Yellow

SAF Volunteer Corps – SAFVC

The SAFVC was inaugurated yesterday to allow volunteers from new citizens, first generation PRs and women to serve in the SAF. The concept is right. The more people serving the SAF the more hands we have to use. It also provides an option for those eager beavers who want to serve but complaining that they are not given a chance. It also puts to test those hypocrites who have been crying out loud to serve and not the opportunity is offered to them to make good what they were claiming to do. Anyone wanting to serve this country in uniform now has a chance to do so. The real McCoy will step forward and the fakes and pretenders will step backward.
 
On paper it is a good thing to have a SAFVC. But given the nature and composition of our population, there are high risks involved. We are not a homogenous nation of people, we are a very young country and did not have the benefits of a long history and a strong glue to hold the people together as one united people. People can change sides like chameleon changing colours at will.
 
The most dangerous enemies of an army come from within. It is almost impossible to protect and defend against someone from the inside, living and sleeping together, singing the same national anthem, taking the same pledge and professed to be willing to defend and die for the same country and people. As for our very own citizens, we see them grow up, we know them and their background. Still we do not know them fully. Now we are taking new citizens into our armed forces as volunteer soldiers. How much do we know them and their family background?
 
The other problem is that we should not end up like the Americans, training and equipping people who eventually turned against them and fighting against them, armed by the Americans. Would we be doing the same, training and arming people, potential terrorists, who would turn against us one fine day?
 
Of course the SAF must have all these thought out and all the precautions and safeguards are in place. Hope it would not be as safe as the safeguards for the LPA when an absolute stranger, a foreigner, could end up holding an LPA for a very senior and lonely citizen at the verge of dementia, very vulnerable and very rich.
We cannot afford any slips in matters of national security and defence. The lives of our soldiers are at stake. Did we make a slip and lost two scholars in Sydney? Let’s hope and pray that this SAFVC thing will be well conceived and all potential loopholes for mischief are plugged. It can be turned against us, the people and nation if not carefully managed.
 
Are the benefits of the SAFVC more than enough to justify the risks involved?

Kopi Level - Yellow

When Hong Kong turns political

The students continue to protest for more democracy. They are back in the streets with their tents. They are demanding for the stepping down of the Chief Executive Leong Chunying. The residents of Hong Kong have historically placed economic freedom and well being as top priority. Political freedom has never been an issue. They never have much political freedom or much say about how Hong Kong was run for 150 years.
Now there are thousands of students on the streets. How many of the Hongkongers are with them? How many Hongkongers today think democracy and political freedom are more important than economic freedom, the freedom to work, economic enterprise and to live a good life of plenty? Has there been a change in the mindset of the residents of Hong Kong?
 
Assuming that the Hongkongers today are with the students and want to push for more political freedom, how far are they going to go? What price are they prepared to pay? As the matters stand, the issue of political freedom is small against the issue of national unity. Tibet, Xinjiang and Taiwan are watching the development very carefully. They cannot succeed as echoed by Leung Chunying. He knew Beijing’s stand. At one extreme, Beijing would come down really hard on the students and there will be bloodshed and loss of lives, and no progress in political freedom. China cannot afford the save path as the Soviet Union.
 
With the Americans pulling the strings from behind, this is becoming a bigger geostrategic struggle with the students becoming pawns of the West and may go down in history as traitors to the nation. For the students to pursue this path unyieldingly, it would be a lose-lose for all.
 
The other assumption is that the conservative Hongkongers whose top priority is to be left alone, at least for the next 50 years to grow rich, would not go along with the students and their patience will snap with time. They would not want the students to decide the future of Hong Kong for them. They would not want their economic freedom to continue to get rich be disrupted. They are as practical a people as the past Hongkongers. They came to Hong Kong to make money, to grow rich, to have a good life, not to fight for democracy. And Hong Kong is giving them that, for at least another 30 years. Why jeopardize this beautiful dream and turn it into a nightmare by the students?
 
Would the pragmatic Hongkongers choose to take matters into their own hands to disperse the students? Should it happen, Hong Kong will return to its vibrant and free wheeling days, minus many hurt feelings and casualties among the students. If the students are only a small force with few supporters from the majority Hongkongers, they would be scattered quite quickly. If their support is significant, it will be a Hong Kong divided and there will be carnage on the streets.
 
The rise of a political Hongkong is a new force and will change the landscape of the island. The chances of a political Hong Kong are unlikely to be tolerated by Beijing and a heavy price will have to be paid for so little a change that the students are demanding. Is it worth it?
 
The Hongkongers will have to decide if they want to go for breaks with the students with very slim chance of success. Or would they choose the status quo and make hay while the sun shines and hoping that when the 50 years are up, there will be a freer new China that is more like Hong Kong or a Hong Kong more like a new China, rich and prosperous, with more democracy and freedom for the people of Hong Kong and China?

Kopi Level - Blue

No permit required for assembly and procession at Hong Lim

Below is copied from an article appearing in TOC discussing about the need for a permit to hold an assembly or a procession at Hong Lim Park. According to the Public Order Act(POA), no permit is required. Please read on.

‘The Public Order Act (POA), which was introduced in 2009, regulates public assemblies and processions and gives new powers to the authorities to preserve public order.
Among other things, it states that a permit is required for the conduct of any public assemblies or processions.

However, the POA also granted exemptions to certain areas and circumstances, namely:

- an assembly or a procession exempted from this section under section 46
- an assembly or a procession within any part of an unrestricted area not falling within a special event area.
Section 46 refers to the areas and people whom the minister, through the gazette, have granted exemptions from the POA.

It is the second provision which directly refers to Hong Lim Park as an exempted area.
Under the Public Order (Unrestricted Area) Order 2013, Hong Lim Park is declared as an “unrestricted area” and is thus exempt from certain provisions in the POA.
This includes the stipulation that Hong Lim Park is exempt from the permit requirement for assemblies and processions, as stated in the POA:

“The area in Hong Lim Park and delineated in the Schedule is designated as an unrestricted area whereby no notice under section 6, and no permit under section 7, of the Act shall be required for the holding of all assemblies or processions or both therein.”
The law, thus, seems to be quite clear that Ms Han did not need to obtain a permit for her march at Hong Lim Park on 27 September.’

From the above quote, it is quite clear to me that no permit is needed to hold an assembly or procession at Hong Lim. Then what is this permit that the NPark and Police are talking about? I would like to be enlightened.

I think the NPark Commission has the power to cancel an assembly or procession at Hong Lim provided he has good reasons to do so, eg if the event is going to turn into something dangerous or a security or safety issues. Or as provided by the regulations on the use of Hong Lim that the assembly should not be about race or religion.

Kopi Level - Blue

ReVisiting Singapore’s 1962 Battle for Merger:

“A Longer Victory would have been Very Bad for my Future”

By MIKOspace

The 1962 Battle for Merger was also The Battle for my Future.

A young boy heard on the radio a man’s voice urging Singaporeans to join Malaya “or else, we will not survive” or words to that effect. His “language of survival” in a calm, authoritative voice exuding the confidence of leadership was sufficient to elicit trust and faith, and I also somehow felt the need of that defining moment. In 1962, more than 70% Singaporeans voted for Merger. And I became a “Malaysian” in the newly formed country, Malaysia, on 30 August 1963.

I can recall no particular affective feelings toward Malaysia, really. On 9 August 1965, Singapore was booted out of Malaysia at the stroke of midnight like a pariah and bastard child. 

The failure of Merger was a heavy blow to Prime Minister Lee, who believed that it was crucial for Singapore’s survival.  I saw on black&white TV how then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew cried as he announced Singapore’s eviction by Malaysia. He was in deep anguish, clearly disappointed and with extreme emotional pain permeating every part of his body. It was a language of despair, of utter disappointment, of hopelessness, of helplessness that seemed to signal the beginning of our inevitable journey into oblivion.  

It was better this way, Really. The early joy of Merger Victory had been followed by two years of love-hate, bittersweet honeymoon disputing the conflicting visions of a meritocratic, multicultural “Malaysian Malaysia” vs a Malay-dominant, racist, ethnic supremacist “Malay Malaysia”. With no ethnic group then exceeding 50% in the population, a Malaysian Malaysia would have made the most sensible choice, but not to the powerful Malay political elites and their interest groups.  A saline mixture of fresh and sea water would still taste salty, even if we had remained in Malaysia.

The Promised Land of Malaysia two years earlier had turned into a Desert of Acrimony. The Mirage of Mutual Prosperity clouded the Reality of sandy Political Interests.  We could not be forced into drinking the sand of political racism to quench our thirst for justice and equality.  And We refused to mistake it for the precious water needed to nurture our dream of Nationhood.

A longer Merger victory would see Singapore today becoming like resource-rich but poor Sabah and Sarawak. Both had entered Merger with Malaysia in 1963 on more or less similar terms as Singapore. Both had to surrender tremendous earnings to the Central Government in Kuala Lumpur without receiving any reciprocating and proportionate benefits of supposedly mutual prosperity. For both Sabah and Sarawak, their Merger victories were pyrrhic.

Malaysia today is understood in term of a class structure of social inequality created by her mostly Malay power elites. Political Racism in Malaysia nurtures a large number of politically connected Bumiputra (Native and Muslim) rent seekers promoting a business system riddled with kickbacks and corruption. Malaysia as a Promised Land exists only as an illusion. Our Victorious Merger with Malaysia would have been as pyrrhic as Sabah’s and Sarawak’s.

SINGAPORE IS NOT EASY. It took Hard Work, Long Patience, Deep Endurance, Plenty of Diligence, Many Lessons from Mistakes and Lots of Good Fortune to get to where we are Today.  FIFTY YEARS ON, I am glad that we Won briefly But LOST the Merger Battle. A Longer Victory would have been Very Bad for mine and Our Future.

From the Ashes of a Failed Vision, We had emerged More Prosperous, Stronger, More Rugged, More Resilient, More Robust and More Independent.  Our RIGHT to Survive with Independent Sovereignty CANNOT and MUST NEVER be compromised or sacrificed. Our Authenticity as a Nation providing Exceptional Value to the World MUST Always be visibly Demonstrated without Any Equivocation.

Our Greatest Moment as “One People, One Nation” was in picking up the Pieces of our young Nation when so Many had written us Off.  We had Believed in One Another when we Failed in our Merger Victory, and we Prevailed.  It is always easier to keep our faith and believing when we are succeeding. And TODAY as we reach our Jubilee 50 years old, and grappled with New Issues of Survival, let it not be forgotten that We Once Had a Difficult Birth, a Risky Delivery, a Vulnerable Existence and a Daunting Struggle to Continually Assert Our Right to Live among the Nations as a Sovereign Nation Deserving of Their Respect, Friendship and Admiration.  Let’s continue to Believe in Each Other and Ourselves as We March into the next 50 Years and beyond.

Kopi Level - Blue

Read Full Story:

Singapore's 1962 Battle For Merger ReVisited

The silence of the sheep

The barrage of attacks against Roy Ngerng and Han Hui Hui for heckling Special Needs Children is followed by a police investigation for unlawful assembly at Hong Lim Park. Several protesters had been called up by the Police to assist in the investigation. Han Hui Hui had been called up too and so was Roy, but he was overseas.

Social media is on fire with what they see as victimisation against the two youngsters. Many netizens have stood up in their defence, to dismiss the accusations against them as senseless and baseless. Many have been working overtime digging out facts and even the constitution to prove their innocence. Other than the social media and netizens, who could the two youngsters and the protesters depend on to speak out for them? The Police are investigating a complaint against them and are unlikely to be on their side.

Could Roy and Hui Hui fall back on the politicians? Funny, this island got politicians or not? Why not a sound heard from any politician on this case? Maybe this is not a political issue and no politicians want to get involved. Politicians only want to serve the people but don’t like this kind of things. No wonder there is an eerie silence from the politicians of all stripes and colours. Hey, would the new Singaporean First Party seize the moment?

It looks like there in only one man, other than Leong Sze Hian, that the two can rely on to defend their innocence, and in the courts of law. Yes, this is a rule of law country and the only redress is in the courts of law.

Another crowd funding coming up? This is probably the last avenue for citizens like Roy and Hui Hui that are on the wrong side of things. They have no one else to seek redress and support except the people. Isn’t it pathetic?

The politicians are so quiet. It is none of their business. See nothing, hear nothing, say nothing is the best. We are a first world country with first world politicians that are always ready to help and serve the people, but not one stepping forward to help Roy and Hui Hui.

Kopi Level - Yellow

Two controversial books/films eyeing for attention

The main media is showering praises to the book ‘Battle for Merger’ daily and everywhere. Another book or film, ‘To Singapore With Love’, on the same period of our history has been banned for factual errors. One can safely conclude that the first book, more like a compulsory reading for all Singaporeans and locals, is free from factual errors. And it will be turned into a film too. It may become our official history book in schools in time to come.

Now take a look at the title of the banned film that sounds more like a romantic fiction. Were the errors that made the govt saw red errors of history or errors of personal CVs that have little or insignificant impact on the course of our history? Or would such errors change the course or perception of our official history? No, not that serious. But they would have serious implications on our national security. My God, this must be very powerful material that could be of the same realm as religious scriptures or terrorist literature on DIY bomb making or how to bring down a govt! Otherwise how could this book/film be so dangerous to our national security?

Assuming that the film contains hypnotic doctrines that could inspire or hallucinate readers to bring down our govt, it would still take a certain kind of readers to believe in it and to be converted. Would the film be powerful enough to convert readers like those marching to Syria to join ISIS? Do we have any faith in the intelligence of our people to discriminate truth from falsehood, good from evil, what is good for the nation and people? Or is the assumption that Sinkies are really daft and could become dangerous after viewing the film be real?

According to Han Fook Kwang, it is not like that. To him this book is anything but dangerous. For in his Sunday Times article he advocated that the people be allowed to view both and make sense out of our history. It is good for the people to know both sides of the story to form an educated and informed opinion and to learn from our past. A good example is the recent fiasco at Hong Lim Park. Without the social media, what kind of impression would readers have by just reading the main media? They could even stone or lynch Roy and Hui Hui for heckling the Special Needs Children, for being irresponsible, inconsiderate and even behaving like hooligans.

In today’s electronic world of social media, no govt can stop the people from reading what they want to read. No one can shut their minds, blindfold them and hold their hands like little children to the ice cream stall. The people will read what they want to read/see and will want to form their own opinions of things. They would not be gagged, be blinded and be told what they can read or what they cannot read. Only those living in the Stone Age will think they can do that to a city of modern and well educated population.

If the film ‘To Singapore With Love’ is dangerous and untouchable, then Han Fook Kwang is advocating something very dangerous. Cannot be lah. He cannot be so stupid to do such a thing. He does not have an Imperial Medal that would spare his life from persecution. He is simply telling a simple truth, that it is better for the people to find out their own truth normally than to keep them from a different truth and getting irritated by the process of banning them from seeing the other truth.

The citizens are not daft, not little unthinking children anymore. The children have grown up.

Kopi Level - Yellow

Hong Lim Affair – What is the truth?

Han Hui Hui has told her story of the midnight visit by the Police to serve her the notice to assist in an investigation on the Hong Lim Protest. In her article that was circulating in the social media she mentioned that the interview was from 2pm to 10pm though it started at 2.30pm. During the interview she was not given any food or refreshment. Her note book was seized by the Police and they even attempted to take her handphone away

In the Sunday Times today, the Police replied that they had tried to contact her many times by phone. When this failed, they went to her home at 9.30pm to serve the notice to appear at the Police station. They also said that it was Hui Hui who asked for the interview timing to be changed but later she turned up at 2.30pm. The interview lasted until 9.30pm. During the interview the Police provided her with refreshments and she took several breaks except for dinner. No dinner?

The Police are conducting the investigation as someone had made a police report. The Police did not disclose the identity of the person making the report or the nature of the complaint. It must be important, whether the person reporting/complainant or the nature of the offence. If not, how could the Police justify spending so many resources, manpower and time to investigate this incident?  And they took 7 solid hours to interview Han Hui Hui alone. The matter must be real serious.

Would the Police also interview Teo Ser Luck, the NPark Director, the YMCA officials and Police Officers at the scene to get the hole picture? Oops, typing error, I meant the whole picture.

Whatever, now that the two sides have given their stories, and obviously the facts from both parties are miles apart, someone is going to be charged for lying or making false statements. The facts can be easily proven in this case, I think.

I am not going to ask what do you think. Facts are facts and shouldn’t require thinking when the facts are still hot on top of the stove.

Kopi Level - Yellow

Hong Lim Affair – Who entraps who?

There is this theory going around that Roy Ngerng and Han Hui Hui walked into a trap set up for them. I have another theory, that unwittingly Roy and Hui Hui had allowed a counter trap to fall in place and many fell in without know that the hunter is now the hunted.

The first theory was quite obvious to those who saw it that way. There was this huge party for Special Needs Children and senior citizens. These were vulnerable people and everyone should take special care not to encroach into their area of activities to upset or disturb them. And there were all the good reasons to let this party to be held side by side with Roy and Hui Hui’s protest. And it was very tempting, whether in the heat of the moment, intentionally or unintentionally, or being provoked, to wander into the forbidden zone and to be seen to be disturbing the peace, violating the space of the vulnerable. And finally, to irritate and agitate them, the authority appeared at the last moment asking them to move to another corner of the Park when this could be done well in advance.

Roy and Hui Hui apparently fell into this entrapment, marched into the forbidden zone to be seen as ‘heckling’ the Special Needs Children. Now they must face the music.

The other entrapment theory is that both Roy and Hui Hui would go as planned and let the authority mess up themselves in the eyes of the public by appearing as overbearing and intimidating two young persons. The authority would have to handle themselves very well and proper, with decency but without looking like thugs and gangsters bullying two youngsters. It would be a matter of how the law were used and interpreted and how the process of the law was being applied.

Now let’s recap this unfortunate incident to see if the authority has fallen into an entrapment by chance. The verdict would be in the eyes of the beholder. There would be those who would want to look for all the reasons to entrap Roy and Hui Hui. There would also be those who want to see how fair is the authority towards the citizens and whether there is an abuse of power, and to judge how the authority is behaving.

The granting of the two events with incompatible agenda and dynamics has already raised many eyebrows with many yelling entrapment. It was an event that could easily be avoided but allowed to happen for whatever reasons.

With Hui Hui and her party fully prepared with their video cameras to protect themselves, there came marching, a group of men that required serious make ups to look nice and friendly people, all caught in camera, towards a scrawny little girl that was less than 5 ft tall. It was like a scene from a gangland movie. And while some ruled that the little girl was in defiance, some would not look too kindly on the group of men muscling over the little girl.

The flurry of news splashed on the main media, followed with all the condemnations of ‘heckling’ of Special Needs Children, even from ministers and MPs appeared the next day. It made a very strong first impact on the readers. As days passed and more evidence was produced in the social media, this overload of news in a media that has low credibility rankings by international agencies started to turn rancid. No one believes that there was any heckling in the first place and the accusation was overdone and hardly could hold any water. It backfired and supported the conspiracy theory.

Everyone thinks that it would be blown over when sanity returns. But no. The social media is now filled with coverage of the knocking of doors in the quiet of the night by the police to serve notice to some participants at the protest rally, this time for suspicion of being members of an unlawful assembly. Many eyeballs are rolling. This is going to rattle nerves, and if the authority knows, would not go down well with the public. In the past it was easy as there was no social media. Today, everything comes under the glare of a spotlight.

I shouldn’t use any strong or emotional words on how this is being received by the public, especially the netizens. Comments in the social media have been one way, furious, totally negative, uncalled for, puzzling and exasperating. The authority got to be very careful in what it is doing and how it carries out its law enforcing duty. The people are watching and questioning, very cynical and unforgiving, if not very angry over the latest development.

Maybe the feedbacks in Reach are cheering and clapping at how successful was the first entrapment and failing to see the second entrapment.

Looking at the whole picture, has the authority fallen into an entrapment that puts a spotlight on them in a very negative way? If this is what the public/netizens are perceiving, this unwitting entrapment is going to be more serious and more costly to the govt. The govt must not be seen to be harassing the people or turning against the people. The govt is for the people, to protect the people, the guardian of the people. The authority is everything about the rule of law, fairness and justice to the people. The govt has to be extremely careful not to be seen to be bullying the people, or it will fall right into the entrapment.

Now we have this double entrapment theory, or entrapment within an entrapment. How would they turn out and who would end up the loser? Who is the heckler? Who is entrapping who?

Kopi Level - Yellow

Protesters at Hong Lim on 27 Sep called up by Police for investigation

Below is part of an article posted in TOC on the investigation by the Police for ‘Unlawful Assembly’ at Hong Lim during the ‘Return My CPF’ protest rally on 27 Sep.

‘Several participants of the Return Our CPF protest at Hong Lim Park on 27 September have been called up by the police for questioning with regards to the event….

In its letter to the participants to present themselves at the Police Cantonment Complex to assist in the probe, the police said it was investigating “an offence of unlawful assembly” committed on 27 September at Hong Lim Park.

The Online Citizen (TOC) understands that at least 5 of the participants were called up for the investigation on Thursday. Plainclothes officers from the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) had visited them at each of their homes to serve them the “notice to appear” at the police station.

Two of them told TOC that they were served the notice at midnight on Thursday, just hours before they were required to appear for questioning.

“They knocked on my door at 12.20am in plainclothes,” one of the participants told TOC. “My parents panicked and thought I had committed a crime. They are still kind of panicky now too.”…’

A few points in question. 1. Is Hong Lim Park legislated for such protest and demonstration? 2. How did the gathering of protesters at Hong Lim become an illegal assembly of people? 3. Was the permit withdrawn for the protest rally that made the protest illegal? 4. If the Park is legislated for such purposes, does it require a permit or just a confirmation to use the Park would suffice?

Those being called up must have quite a frightening experience to have people knocking at their door in the middle of the night be they strangers or the police. No one welcomes knockings at their doors in the wee hours of the morning. It is so eerie and scary, like being visited by an owl.

Kopi Level - Green

Insecure politicians

The ruling party has made it clear many times by telling the opposition parties that they are not there to help them get into Parliament. The opposition parties must work for it to win the votes of the people. Why should the PAP make it easy for them?  This is politics. You expect the PAP or any ruling party to make things easy for the opposition? Grow up. And it is a fair statement and position to take for the ruling party or any ruling party.

Similarly, it is not the job of the opposition parties to make it easy for the ruling party. Their job is to oppose any policy and expose their flaws. Of course no need to anyhow shoot when a policy is good lah. That would only make the opposition unreasonable.  But can always keep quite or say that it was expected, good policies are expected. And after being paid obscenely still expects to be kissed and patted on the head? What if bad policies?

It is not the job of opposition parties to praise the ruling party. If they chose to, it is ok, but it is not their duty to do so. Just because the ruling party asked them to praise them does it mean that they must obey, and dutifully praise the ruling party? Are they that easy to train?

And it is not their duty to jump the gun to prove that they are reasonable, to attack anyone from the opposition or critics of the govt for any missteps or mistakes.  Reasonable they must be but no need to be compliance. Why is it the duty of the opposition politicians to appease the ruling party to prove that they are good boys? And to jump to attack anyone that they think have crossed the line and must be whacked, and to whacked first to look reasonable, to justify themselves to be in the good books of the ruling party? Idiots.

There is no need to put yourself in the good books of the ruling party if you are on the other side of divide. Unless you want the ruling party to give you a pat and say  ‘good boy’, or you want to cross over.  In the eyes of any ruling party, the opposition parties are opposition parties, waiting to replace them, not friends in politics and the struggle for power, and could even be regarded as ‘enemies’ to some with very strong views.  That is why they will be attacked and attacked ruthlessly when they crossed the line or make a mistake. Apologies not enough, must also explain.

In realpolitiks it is a competition of opposition camps for the right to rule. Though it is good to be on friendly terms on a personal basis, there is no need to score brownie points to be on the good side of the opposing parties. It would be silly to attack fellow opposition members or critics just to prove you are reasonable. You really think the ruling party will appreciate that? Or would they be laughing themselves silly at your stupidity, so quick to draw the sword to kill your comrades in arms for your enemies.

Do I make any sense? Should opposition politicians prove that they are whiter than white to be dictated by the whites, to please the whites?

Kopi Level - Green

Kopitiam Talk – The fish rots from its head first

Heard this Ah Long boasting in the Kopitiam about his riches. In his fineries, diamond studded Rolex and his gleaming brand new Mercedes 300 parking in the No Parking lot, he was in a world of his own, an emperor of the Kopitiams.
 
Recently his tone was very different. He sounded so much of himself, so confident. Someone asked him why he was openly telling everyone that he was an Ah Long. He quipped, ‘Today the law is different. Now I only have to tell them that I don’t know, 不知道, what my runners were doing, then I am innocent. Those money lending activities and door painting jobs were done by my runners and nothing to do with me. I didn’t know, 我不知道. ’
 
See, by pleading ignorant, I am innocent. At most they will slap me on the wrist. Really ‘hosay leow’. Not knowing is a valid and acceptable excuse for charging people a lot of money with high interest rate!

Kopi Level - Green

Singaporeans Sacrificed for Top Universities Rankings

By MIKOspace

Were Singaporean Students and Professors Sacrificed for NTU Top Rankings? Singaporeans are Collateral Damage for Top Universities Rankings.  Was it Worth it?

“NTU heads QS' list of top 50 universities …”, according to London-based Quacquarelli Symonds (QS), one of three international universities ranking systems.

For the sake of meeting the Criteria of a Bogus Ranking Standard of Dubious Excellence, it appears that NOTHING was spared so as to Obtain a Brand of Questionable Authenticity.

Let’s examine 3 of the QS’ 5 Criteria here.

International Students Ratio (5%)

In 2013, 28% of NTU’s 23,484 undergraduates or 6,575 were foreigners. Why 28% foreign students? Canadian universities, for example, averaged only 8.9% foreign students in 2009. 

Some NTU “rejects” even went on to Ivy League Universities overseas. Many understandably could not afford the costly overseas education. A mere tweaking of the arbitrary cut-off points for NTU Admissions would easily have absorbed 6,500 more Singapore students. The cutoff point appeared deliberate in order to have less local students, in favour of foreign studnets in order for NTU to excel in the foreign students criteria of the QS Ranking criteria.

Were more than 6,500 Singaporean students, or between 1,700-1,900 annually, denied NTU admission into various 3-year and 4-year Undergraduate Programs, over 2009-2013, so that NTU could excel in the International Students Ratio criteria of the QS Ranking?

Totally Unacceptable is also the Fact that at least 40% of the “rejected” students would have completed National Service in their citizenship duty to serve and defend this Country, and only to find upon NS completion that a Public Institution in our Beloved Country had “sold them out” for a Foreign bogus ranking standard of dubious excellence!

What is Baffling is the fact that millions of Singapore funds are used to pay for the thousands of “free” scholarships for most foreign students to study in NTU and other local Universities. 

WHY THEN IS THE NEED FOR A BOGUS RANKING AUTHENTICATION to attract Foreign Students to study “free” here?

International Staff Ratio (5%)

Singaporean Professors in NTU were similarly discriminated for a better QS Ranking.  In a purge of Professors under the pretext of Tenure Evaluation from 2007-2010, mostly Singaporean Professors, including many already qualified for Tenure previously, were dismissed.  And when the dusts settled in 2010 after the Purge, Singapore citizens including new citizens formed only 44% of the faculty; 56% of NTU faculty are foreigners from 56 countries worldwide including Singapore PRs.

Professors who are Singaporeans were clearly discriminated and sacrificed so that NTU could excel in the International Staff Ratio criteria of the QS Ranking.

Faculty/Student Ratio (20%)

Following the Purge of Singaporean Professors, many more foreigners were engaged as NTU Professors. These are mostly freshly-graduated PhDs, and others lacking the acclaims, experience and research citations of those Singaporean Professors who were “terminated” by NTU. Their increased numbers were however necessary in order to meet the QS’ Faculty/Student Ratio.

While the first 3 Criteria may account for just 30% of the QS Criteria, the sacrifice of Singaporeans as students and Professors appeared necessary as the tipping points for NTU to excel and top the bogus standard of dubious excellence.

United Nation Education agency UNESCO had also challenged the validity and reliability of University Rankings like QS, viewing them “of dubious value” that “use shallow proxies as correlates of quality.” Really Sad, ALL THE SACRIFICES BY SINGAPOREANS ACTUALLY FOR NOTHING AUTHENTIC OR OF SUBSTANCE, REALLY. 

For the Sake of Authenticity and Integrity, Singapore universities should no longer participate in any “Global Universities Ranking” scams.  Singapore’s presence in the Global Universities Rankings invariable lends our hard-earned Reputation for Authenticity and Honesty to mask their lack of credibility, validity and reliability.  We owe it to our Founding Generations never to cheapen our Reputation, painstakingly built over the past 50 years, in any manner.  

Kopi Level - Green 

Read Full Article here:

Were Singaporean Students and Professors Sacrificed for Top NTU Rankings?

Changing Singapore’s DNA 换汤换药

The true blue Singaporeans built this place from Independence to a prosperous first world country. Now they are deemed as redundant, obsolete, lazy and don’t have the skills to fit in. So they are now systematically being replaced by hungry 3rd world talents and rogues from the West.
 
The question, what would Singapore be like in the future if the true blue Singaporeans become insignificant? Would Singapore still be a safe, rich and attractive place for the foreigners to come here to live and work?
 
Would the island still be a good and safe place to bring up children, low drug problems, women and children can go home safely in the early hours of the night without being raped, mugged and robbed?
 
Would the streets be clean and safe? Would the housing estate be rundown and turned into slums? Would there be law and order, rule of the law? Or would the streets be full of litters and shit? Would there be rioting, fighting and rapes every day?
 
Would the businesses and industries continue to thrive and to have the same vitality and productivity?
 
Would the foreigners turn this island into a better place or into hell? Would Singapore return to the 3rd World like where the foreigners came from?

Kopi Level - Green

WHO Ranked NTU?

By MIKOspace

The DARK SIDES of QS World Universities Ranker

Singapore Universities have recently been ranked at the Top by what most Academics and the United Nations Education agency, UNESCO, generally considered to be Bogus Ranking Standards of Dubious Excellence. 

Singapore University NTU has secured top placing as the world's best young university, according to Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) World Universities Ranking, one of three major international university ranking systems.  The London-based QS World Universities Ranking has been called “a Fraud on the public.” Another Eminent Professor said: “QS simply doesn’t do as good a job as the other rankers that are using multiple indicators”. 

Eminent Professor Simon Marginson of then Melbourne University remarked of QS that: “I do think social science-wise it’s so weak that you can’t take the results seriously”. 

A Reporter also claimed that QS has used the threat of legal action to try to silence critics. “QS has twice threatened publications with legal action when publishing my bona fide criticisms of QS. One was The Australian: in that case QS prevented my criticisms from being aired. The other case was University World News, which refused to pull my remarks from its website when threatened by QS with legal action”.

The QS World Universities Ranking, like other Universities Rankings, is in essence deficient in terms of social science, but QS has been criticized for more than just its unsound, questionable and unscientific Methodology:

1)     THES DID drop QS for Methodological Reasons. QS’ use of peer and industry surveys is highly questionable with very low response rate returns from huge number of unspecified respondents of unknown expertise.  Read the best explanation by QS’s former partner …  

2)     The Most Stinging Criticism is the Sale of Dubious QS-Star Ratings. One wonders which self-respecting University would “buy” QS-Stars and actually use them for Marketing.  Singapore NTU (39) and MIT (1) both have 5+QS-Stars. As did the Universities of Waterloo (169), Monash (70) and Queensland (43). However, the Universities of of Cambridge (2), Harvard (3), Stanford University (4), Caltech (5) … have only 5 QS-Stars.  Brackets contain QS 2014 Rankings.  Note the UNRELIBILITY of QS Rankings vs QS-Stars, and therefore their absurd claims to VALIDITY and Credibility.

3)     And the Highly Lucrative "Consultancy" to help Universities Rise Up the QS Rankings.  Need to say more regarding QS’ commercial rather than Academic or Quality motivation?

4)     QS offers "Opportunities" for Branding from just $80,000 with QS Showcase. Another QS’ innovative commercial “Value” Service if Academic Reputation of Excellence is not enough to attract students.

5)     QS Reputation Survey has Weak Protocols, as demonstrated by this case of blatant manipulation. An Irish University President has, AGAINST QS’ Expressed Rules, asked all faculty members and other academic employees at his institution to each recruit three people from other universities to register to vote in the survey of university reputations.  QS allows Universities to encouraging people to sign up for the QS peer review survey, as long as they don't suggest favoring any one institution. Now, how does this actually work, seriously? 

6)     Finally, QS's business practices (fined GBP 80,000 or US$ 128,648 for using unlicensed software) leave an awful lot to be desired. Maybe, it’s just bad planning, inadequate IT policies or simply a lack of awareness.  Clearly, an Integrity issue for any Company desiring its Products to be viewed with Respect and Credibility.  

Kopi Level - Green

Read Full Article with References:

Dark Sides of A Global Universities Ranker

To Singapore With Love – A communist hangover?

The story untold of the communists in the founding years of Singapore and their fight against colonialism and struggle for political power is still very skimpy today. The film by Tan Pin Pin has received the highest disregard censorship category, not allowed to be screened commercially under any category except for private viewing. She is still fighting very hard to get the rating reviewed.
 
From the look of things, from what Yaacob commented in Parliament and the reasons for his objections, ‘one sided portrayals, whitewashing the past, and self serving accounts, conveniently inaccuracies’, it is unlikely that this film will see the light of the day unless there is a new govt in power.
 
I am wondering if Bill Clinton were to sell his bibliography here and conveniently left out his relationship with the intern, would his book be allowed for sale here, or would his film version also received a NAR rating. On the other hand, would To Singapore With Love be allowed for screening if Tan Pin Pin were to call it fiction instead of a historical account of what happened? There is no room for alternative views as far as history is concerned. There is only one correct version.
 
How, Tan Pin Pin, why not try to tell Yaacob that your film is fiction and should be viewed as fiction? At least there is a higher chance of getting a PG rating. Then let the people judge if it is fiction or truth or otherwise.
 
Today, Communism has been defeated and rejected. Communism is history and so is the CPM. Even if the govt allows political parties to contest for election, European countries have allowed it, would it draw any meaning support and followers from the people? And would the personal histories of some of these old veterans of a bygone era, of a defeated ideology, be a threat to our national security? The current threat, as rightly pointed out be Chee Hean, is IS. This one got to handle with absolute care and sensitivity.
 
At the height of the anti communist struggle and policies, the Govt even banned contacts and travelling to China and other communist countries. Today we are allowed to travel freely to these countries and China is even our biggest trading partner. The communists from these countries too can come here quite freely as well. Has anything changed? Should we come to terms with our historical past and move on? Are we suffering from some obsessions or phobia of the communist past or hang ups? Is the Singapore polity so fragile, the people so daft that a film of the irrelevant past could post a national security threat and lead to the break up of social order?
 
Communism and communist ideologies for anyone?

Kopi Level - Green

Indian, Indonesian, Thai bourses top performers

This is the headline of a ST report today. India was top with its index gaining 27% for the first nine months of the year. Thailand was second with a 24.5% gain while Indonesia came in third with a 21.5% gain. Singapore and Japan were joint fifth with a 3.5% gain.
 
What are the common factors of the three top Asian bourses? They did not allow external super computers to be plugged into their bourses computers to gain special advantage for the big boys. And I think their derivative markets are very small or non existent. Thirdly, I don’t think they spent millions to hire foreign talents to run their bourses. And fourthly, they did not turn their bourses into mini replicas of the NYSE in norms and substance.
 
Is that the way to go or is the Singapore way, aka American system the way to go? Or shall I rephrase that, what is the way to go up or to go down the gutters?

Kopi Level - Green

Saving Roy

The tag of heckling Special Needs Children has been hung on the necks of Roy and Hui Hui. And it is not only some jokers saying it. The main media are saying it, the MPs and Ministers are saying it. So far no one from the establishment is saying other wise. So, would this tag be burnt on the skins of Roy and Hui Hui?

The social media have risen in protest to tell another story. Ok, I must say that the only person who was directly involved in this ‘heckling’ thing did not say it. There were many eyewitnesses from the social media, the uncles and aunties. There were photos and video clips to show exactly what had happened. And the police are investigating the incident like a crime had taken place. Would it be enough or would a Commission of Inquiry be conducted on this ‘heckling’ incident? Heckling Special Needs Children is now a very, very serious thing in this island, more serious than gum chewing and graffiti I think.

Why is this so? Compare to the Little India Riot, this is definitely a more dangerous incident. Firstly, the rioters in Little India were very nice people, and very happy. In this case, the uncles and aunties were very angry people for they were fighting for their CPF money, their life time savings that they believed must be returned to them. They have a grudge, a grouse to settle. So there was a valid reason to he angry. And Roy and Hui Hui were very, very fierce. Roy was seen shouting until his veins were protruding from his neck and his facial expression was that of an angry young man. Hui Hui was worse. She was challenging and bullying the NPark Director and the policemen not in uniform. How not to fear her? And their voices were deafening, very much louder than those rioters in Little India, with the help of loudspeakers of course. The only thing they did not do was burning police vehicles.

But that is nothing compares to heckling children, and not only ordinary children but Special Needs Children. If this fact is proven, it is going to be ugly. No one is accusing them of heckling the minister. Either this is not true or not important enough.

So, why Saving Roy but not Saving Hui Hui as well? You see, all the uncles and aunties were above 55. So they would be spared the cane even if the crime is ‘caneable’. As for Hui Hui, she is lucky that as a female she is not ‘caneable’. As for Roy, ‘chiat lat’ man. He is a man, and if this serious crime warrants caning, his ‘pantat’ sure ‘pitcha’, open flower.

Now you see why my title is Saving Roy? And if a COI is convened, we have two freshly cooked and very experienced ex judge and ex Police Commissioner with just the right skill sets for this job. Perhaps they may think the Police could have acted earlier, and more decisive to prevent this heckling incident from happening. Perhaps they could tell the NPark that they should have foreseen this possibility and should not have approved the two events to be held at the same place and same time. Perhaps they could tell the parents that they should not have brought their children to a protest site. There are a lot of perhaps that a COI could talk about.

What are the facts so far? The most authoritative person in the centre of this fracas said the protesters were there for him. Would this be enough to say that they were not after the children, to disrupt or heckle the children? The protesters were at least 20m or 30m from the children, shouting ‘Return Our CPF’ and ‘Vote them Out’. The distance was reasonably far away from the children though the sound could reach them because of the loudspeakers. But the two slogans shouted had nothing to do with the children. And from all their actions, were they clear enough that they were not there to heckle the children?

Special Needs Children are extra sensitive. Some have disputed this claim. Autistic children are highly sensitive and intimidated by the presence of crowds. Are those children up on stage autistic children or Special Needs Children that are highly sensitive to the crowd and noise?

One of the childen performing on stage missed a bit. So it must be due to the ‘heckling’ and nothing else? Did they stumble on the beat for some other reasons? Remember, they are Special Needs Children. And another Special Needs Children needed comforting by the Minister. Did the child say he/she was frightened or heckled by the protesters?

Would the evidence from video clips and eye witnesses be enough to save Roy and Hui Hui for this extraordinary and exceptionally hideous crime against the Special Needs Children, called heckling? Would this tag be branded on them for life, as Special Needs Children Hecklers?

Kopi Level - Green