Death Threats against Singaporeans Embolden

One Month after Edz Ello, Death Threats against PM Lee

By MIKOspace

The curtain of silence over the earlier death threats against Singapore and Singaporeans appears to have emboldened others to do the same. This time, death threats are directed at Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.  It was reported that the Singapore Police have started investigating after Facebook posts showing photographs of bullets were addressed to PM Lee.  No further details were provided by the Police.

It has been just over 1 month after a Tan Tock Seng Hospital (TTSH) nurse posted inflammatory threats to “kick out Singaporeans” and “prayed for Singaporean deaths” on his Facebook on 3 Jan 2015. Also discovered was the pattern of derogatory anti-Singapore and anti-Singaporean remarks on the TTSH nurse’s Facebook [ID: Edz Ello] after the expose of his inflammatory death threats against Singaporeans.

After the hospital had wrongly placed the nurse on administrative duties, pending purported police investigations of the death threats instead of the standard HRM practice of suspending the Staff during the police investigations as well as an Internal Inquiry, TTSH changed its mind and decided to dismiss the nurse on 9 Jan 2015. 

The current status of the nurse, who is a foreigner, whether he is remanded in Police custody for his own safety (and Singaporeans’), or still at large in Singapore, is unknown. The Singapore Police has not reported the outcome of its purported investigations into Edz Ello’s death threats against Singaporeans.  

No information is available at this point as to whether the latest death threats against PM Lee are related or associated directly or indirectly with the earlier ones on Singaporeans by Edz Ello, and whether his friends or accomplices or co-conspirators are involved.

No death threats should be trivialized or given cursory dismissal.  Neither should they be “laugh away” as a Singapore politician had suggested. The politician scolded the more than 2,000 Singaporeans who reacted angrily to Edz Ello’s post and chided them as “petty”, “insecure”, “thin-skin”, too sensitive and “easily offended”.   

Would Mr Calvin Cheng, who was a Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) from 2009-2011, now also accuse PM Lee of being “petty”, “insecure”, “thin-skin”, too sensitive and “easily offended” and advise PM Lee to “just laugh it off” the latest death threats instead of wasting Police resources to investigate them?

A month ago, a bartender was indicted on a charge of threatening to kill United States House Speaker John Boehner, possibly by poisoning his drink.  The bartender formerly worked in the same country club as the Speaker.

Investigations into the 2 Tsarneav brothers who set off two bombs that killed 3 and injured 260 more people at the Boston Marathon on 15 April 2013 found notes threatening the deaths of Americans.

Our collective national response to any national death threats to our leaders or any Singaporeans must be resolute, unambiguous, decisive and categorical.  In these times of social media, it may seem stupid that our “enemies” would want to announce its threats so openly and ubiquitously; but it takes a clever and extremely intelligent adversary to proclaim its intention loudly in the hope that we would not take him (them) seriously, especially on a social media as petty and inessential as Facebook.  

Choose wisely, people.  Our earlier silent and dismissive response to Edz Ello may have sent the wrong message of weakness, indifference and indolence.  Our new message in response to fresh death threats against PM Lee must not make the same mistakes. 

 

Read more:

More Death Threats against Singaporeans

Defending Singapore

CPF – I want to defer my withdrawal to age 90

One of the major recommendations by the CPF Review Committee is to encourage withdrawal of CPF savings to age 70. The assumption is that people live longer and many will live past 85. This is a fair recommendation, not sure about the assumption. If one has 15 more years to live, it is logical and reasonable to hold back CPF withdrawals till age 70 or even more. There is also the assumption that one would be hopping around like a young man/woman and needing all the more to fool around, to enjoy life to the fullest. Those senior seniors would be swinging around instead of sitting in a wheelchair and eating only porridge and nothing else.
 
To cut the matter short, I would like to delay my withdrawal to age 90, if only someone with the authority and ability to tell me that I will still be living at 100. Anyone out there can to this, can tell with 100% or 99% certainty that I can live that long?
 
I am quite certain that 30% would probably die at 60, another 30% by 70 and by 80 probably 90% would have gone to the maker. So, what is the point of delaying your withdrawal to 70 or 90 when many would have kicked the bucket by 70?
Yes, tell me that I can live to 100 and I will have to consider keeping my CPF money till 90 before withdrawing. Fair?
 
As for the statistical truth of more people living to 85 and older, this is a general statement. Maybe the govt can help to fine tune the probabilities. There is no point having a few hundred thousand in your CPF savings when you are dead at 60, 65 or 70. There is no point even if you live for another 5 years with a few hundred thousand in your CPF. There is no point to have a few hundred thousand when you are 80 or 90 when all you can do is to sit in a wheelchair and stare at the walls, and unable to do anything.
 
So, a fine tuning agency to help the people to determine how long more they will live past 70 would be useful. At least it can narrow down the odds medically. And the oldies can seek a second opinion with the spiritual source or fortune tellers to confirm their life expectancies. With these two data, the probabilities would be higher and more meaningful to leave the money in the CPF and to be able to enjoy the lifetime savings.
 
Pity would be those who struggled and saved for a lifetime but not able to spend a single cent of their savings. Who is a better god to bet whether a person would live past 70 or would die before that? Perhaps another insurance scheme would come in handy for people to withdraw their money at 55 and place a bet that they would live longer and covered by this over 70 years insurance. At least the seniors could spend their money in their 60s, and if things turn out so bad that they would have another 20 years to go, the insurance could provide for the remaining years in bed or in wheelchair. The sum need not be too high, no need a few hundred thousand except for those who refuse to die and want to live forever.
 
Good suggestion or not? Can tell me how long would I live?

Who is more merciful? To let you spend your money while you are still alive or to help you save your money and make you dead rich?

Savages and animals not wanted to patrol Asian waters

ISIS cut the throat of two Japanese that had no reasons to be In Syria. And the Japanese, especially Abe and his Imperialist ministers went berserk, stomping their feet and vouching revenge. Cutting the heads of two innocent civilians is just unacceptable. It is barbaric, inhuman, vicious, cruelty of the worst kind. Only savages and animals would commit such monstrous acts. Abe and the Japanese are swearing that they would rearm to be able to go to Syria to attack the ISIS and save the two Japanese.
 
In 1937, the Chinese did not go to Japan to have their heads severed. Several millions were killed, including pregnant women and babies, with their heads cut off by the Japanese who went to China. And many more heads were cut off in Southeast Asia, in the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaya and Indonesia. I don’t think any heads were cut off in Singapore as some Sinkies are very happy to forget this part of their history. They are also in praise of the Japanese as very nice people, the Americans said told them. Yes the Americans said so, despite the stealth attack on Pearl Harbour that killed several thousand American boys and girls that were sleeping after a night of parties.
 
Did the Americans remember the atrocities of the Japanese against them and Asians? Or they did remember and would like to unleash these brutal savages, in business suits, to roam and rule Asia and Southeast Asia? The Americans are giving all their blessings and support to the Beast of Asia to rule again, to serve American interests in containing China, a country that has not invaded Southeast Asia, did not commit genocide on the Southeast Asians, but branded as a dangerous and aggressive country. And the descendants of savages in Japan are now painted as the nice and peaceful people, dependable and trustworthy to keep peace in the region.
 
Are the Japanese honest, reliable and trustworthy? Abe and his gang are whitewashing all their dastard and barbaric deeds in World War 2. They refused to acknowledge, refused to remember the evil things they done to the people of Asia and Southeast Asia. They cannot remember the Rape of Nanjing, Unit 731, the colonization of Korea, the comfort women and all the hundreds of thousands of beheading. And they are fuming mad when two Japanese were beheaded in Syria when they should not be there.
 
Can the descendants of these savage invaders be invited to guard the waters of East Asia? Can they be trusted to rule the waters of East Asia? Only fools will believe that the Japanese can be trusted to rule over them. I would be more comfortable if the Japanese are invited to rule the Indian Ocean as they have not committed the barbarity they did in East and Southeast Asia. The Americans could also invite the Japanese to rule the seas of eastern Pacific Ocean and the Atlantic Ocean. The Japanese did not have any bad records there except for Pearl Harbour.
 
The Asians and Southeast Asians must say no to the savages and invaders that cut off their citizens’ heads to impose fear in them when they invaded. Would the Japanese remember the hundreds of thousands of people’s heads their invading armies had cut off? Their heads were cut off like the Kenji and Yukawa. Where are the revulsion, the anger, the contempt, and the remorse?

Using facts and figures to discredit yourself and your case

Our govt and elite pride themselves as no nonsense organisations and people, and they often used facts and figures and statistics to prove their case. This is obviously good and it was obvious in the past that facts and statistics were convincing. I said that was in the past when people were simpler and easy to persuade due to ignorance, low level of education, and unsophistication. Can people still use facts and statistics to prove their case? Sure, when the faith and trust of the people are there, the audience would believe in genuine data, not distorted data, selective data or fabricated data. They trust the person providing and using the data.

Today, everyone with a little education knows that statistics lied, facts also lied as they can be fabricated or twisted to give a false or distorted truth. Maybe some in govt and authority are wondering why people no longer believed in what they said, even with facts and statistics. They could be wondering why they were so clever to come out with their sets of statistics, but still could not convince the audience. The only thing I could think of is that they thought, yes, people nowadays can think, or started to think, that they are the only smart asses around but still think the people are daft.

Take the case of SGX presenting its slew of statistics after 1,200 remisiers signed a petition to Tharman. The SGX must have thought their data were flawless and convincing, and telling the truth. I am not going to question that, and I swear I did not read or hear the data being presented. I don’t even know who presented what. All I heard was a session of disbelief and head shaking of course.

The best answer to what the SGX statistics presented meant to the public is in Narayana Narayana’s letter to the Straits Times. And I produced the gist of the letter here.

The Forum Editor,
The Straits Times,
Singapore.

6th February 2015.

SGX's kneejerk response 'SGX cites rise in retail activity to rebut petition' (ST Money February 6 2015) is on a par with its
earlier equally defensive support of its change in the tradeable market-lot from 1000 previously to 100 units wef January
19 2015 ('Retail demand for 100-share lot encouraging' - ST Money - January 20 2015).

The assumption that 'the opening of '71,043. new CDP accounts in the past year, a 12 per cent rise' would somehow translate
into corresponding increase in trading activity defies logic. A friend who was offered preferential allotment in an IPO opened a
CDP account simply because he needed one to park/hold the shares. He has no intention, nor inclination, to trade at all.

It is telling that 'more than half of 1.7million CDP accounts have share investments' with the inevitable corollary that the rest 'less than half' do not. It would be educative to learn how many among the former have an investment other than SingTel shares allotted two decades back.



SGX asserts with a slew of statistics that 'the number of daily retail investors/transactions has skyrocketed (sic)...since 100-unit board lots were introduced...'). Sad to say, this optimism appears to be at odds with the 'Market Summary' published daily in the Straits Times. Admittedly, '2 billion shares worth $1.1 billion were traded' on January 21 (ST Jenuary 22 pg B11) but much of that gilt disappears when taking into consideration that 'Top Activitist' hogged the limelight with 616.4 million turnover - trading at '0.1 cent - On other days, trading has at best been desultory, and just yesterday (February 5) volume dipped below one billion, a benchmark of sorts….

What do you think? Should SGX be thinking that it has presented its case well and the matter shall be closed? Should Tharman or the MAS be satisfied that there is really no issue and there is nothing else to pursue? The Stock Market is in the pink of health!

What do you think the public, the investors, and the remisiers were thinking? Does the SGX believe that these people believe in the statistics presented? Should SGX, MAS and Tharman all agree that we should move on, the SGX has explained and that’s it?

The issue, if there is a problem, is the problem real? If the problem is real, you cannot just walk away after saying your piece. The problem will come back hounding you. And if one is presenting something that no one believes in, instead of convincing the audience, one is as good as discrediting oneself. There will be a lost of faith and trust.

Now I am wondering what would Tharman and the MAS be thinking? Would they be saying what Boon Wan said, that he thought the tender of the columbarium were in order and that he had to put the matter right? The number of people affected, and the votes going to be lost, would be more than the number of aggrieved potential buyers of Sengkang West in this case. 1,200 signed up and there are a few thousands more in support of the letter but chose not to sign for whatever reasons.

Where to go from here? Everything is fine?

Hsien Loong received death threats

This must be the most important piece of news today. It has never happened in our history, to my recollection, for a death threat against a Prime Minister or President or even a minister. I even cherished the thought that our political leaders are the safest, they could walk around in public places unescorted, with people only asking for their autographs. This death threat changes everything.
 
The threat is direct and serious. The threat against me by Raymond was to see me at my funeral and asking me to prepare a mugshot for the lorry head. In this case it is about bullets into Hsien Loong’s head. The police are investigating.
 
The threat is reported in The Real Singapore and I quote:
 
‘Police have confirmed that they have received a report about threats made on facebook against Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.
 
They explained that investigations are ongoing in to the threats which included a death threat to PM Lee.
 
The online postings on a Facebook page challenged PM Lee and the Poloice to find them before PM Lee was shot in the head.
 
Another post by the same page also suggested that a bomb has been planted at Changi Airport.
 
More details about the specific threats here: ONLINE HACKERS THREATEN TO SHOOT PM LEE HSIEN LOONG IN THE HEAD’
 
This is no joking matter.