NTU to remove Chinese words in foodcourt signages

Below is a post in All Singapore Stuff on the removal of Chinese signages in NTU.
‘Food stall vendors in the Nanyang Technological University (NTU) are complaining about a new management regulation that is trying to force them to remove Chinese wordings on their signboards.
According to Chinese newspapers, the food court, North Spine Food Court, is managed by Select Group.

Vendors told reporters that they had received instructions from the management to remove Chinese wordings from their signboards by end August. Many stall vendors were unhappy with the change as the university has strong cultural ties with Chinese students.

However, many vendors said that they would comply with the instructions as they did not want to strain relations wit the management.’

What? NTU does not allow Chinese words in its premises? What is NTU? Nanyang Technological University!  What was it before? Nantah or Nanyang University, a Chinese university built by the Chinese community to provide Chinese education to their children. To think that Chinese words cannot be put up in the foodcourt except English is outrageous. What is happening? Who decided on this ruling? Does the person know the history of Nantah? Who is this person? A Singaporean or a foreigner?

The same matter has been reported in the Straits Times and a Professor Kwok Kian Woon, the Associate Provost has come out to explain that this was a misunderstanding. A misunderstanding or not wanting to understand? He said, ‘NTU would like to assure everyone that Chinese can be used in the signage in its foodcourts, as long as the same information is also displayed in English for the benefit of non Chinese.’ What is this nonsense? Is there anywhere in Singapore where one has to put up a Chinese signage, the condition is that it must also be accompanied by English or else not allowed? When is this ruling implemented in Singapore, in NTU? Who set this ruling?

Chinese is an official language in Singapore. Why should there be restriction or condition for its use? ‘The issue was not limited to the foodcourt. Chinese daily Lianhe Zaobao reported yesterday that Prime supermarket, at North Spine Plaza, was told by NTU it could not have Chinese promotional signs displayed inside the supermarket. The foodcourt is located in the plaza.’ Is this also another misunderstanding? How can such a serious and unacceptable ruling be made without anyone in NTU objecting to it? How can this be a misunderstanding?

What is happening to NTU? What is happening to Singapore? Tan Siah Kwee, President of the Chinese Calligraphy Society of Singapore said, also reported in the Straits Times, ‘that removing signs that had Chinese words on them “would not be acceptable at all”.’ Now, what would the Chinese Chamber of Commerce got to say about this? What would the Chinese Clans say about this? What have the Ministers of Education got to say about this? What has the Prime Minister got to say about this? Is having Chinese signage unconstitutional?

I suggest a Ministerial Committee be set up to find out why was this thing happening in NTU. Is it a misunderstanding? If not, the culprit must be made to answer for it. What is wrong with having Chinese signages in a university which has its roots in Chinese education? What is wrong with having Chinese signages in Singapore? Too many foreigners in charge?

Are we back to the Suharto era in Indonesia? My God, I almost faint reading this news. I feel so violated! This is Singapore isn't it, where Chinese is an official language and the language of the majority of its citizens. What has become of my country?

What would be next?

London - White man drove car into Muslims after prayer

For several years, the Islamic extremists aka terrorists, have found a formula to hit back at the Americans and Europeans for attacking and invading their countries, destroying their economies, homes and lives. Of course the Americans and Europeans would deny such terrorist acts against the Islamic world. Where got, the Americans and European soldiers and bombers in the air were there for regime change, to rid them of their dictators, to save them from the horrors of their dictators. The Americans and Europeans were the angels of God to save the Arabs and Muslims in the Middle East states. The Americans and Europeans may still think it is their right, white men’s burden, to civilize the uncivilized hordes of Asia and Africa, particularly the Middle East. They took all the problems in the Middle East as white men’s problems and blasting them to the Stone Age is ok, killing and destroying their countries are ok, to help and civilize these people.
 
But these people are not going to accept this fate anymore. They are hitting back and found the best way is to drive cars into crowds in western cities, creating fear and destruction along the way to make these cities and countries inhospitable, just like the American and European terrorists did to their countries and people. No?
 
For every few men that rammed their cars into the civilians, the whole police force, including the military, would be jolted into action and the city locked down. But nothing really much could be done as the damage had been done and the terrorists were prepared to die for their acts. The western govts were hapless and did not know how to end this rage of aimless destruction of lives and properties.
 
Now one white man came out with the answer, tackle violence with violence of the same kind, applying the same formula. The white man just drove his car into a muslim crowd after midnight prayer in a London mosque and delivered the same destruction and hurt to the innocent crowd of Muslims. And he got the gumption to shout, ‘I want to kill all Muslims’.
 
This act alone has changed the picture of the war against Islamic terrorism and the Islamic terror war against the Americans and Europeans. The Islamic terrorists would not believe that white men could use the same method of terror to get even, to get at them, at their Muslim community, the innocent ones. The cries of hate, fear and anger were just as loud as the cries when the Islamic terrorists hit the innocent crowd of non Muslims.
 
What could happen is that there are just as many extremists in the white community as they are in the Muslim community that would think this is the way to deal with the problem. The Islamic terrorists think they could get away with their acts of terror but no more. The more they attacked the innocent whites, the likelihood of copycat attacks by some white extremists on the innocent Muslim community would be greater. It could and would become a game of tit for tat. You hit us we hit you where it hurts you badly. Both are acts of terror that should not be allowed to go berserk, uncontrolled and beyond control. Would sanity rule the day and bring an end to such terrorist acts from both sides? Or would the Islamic terrorists continue to do what they think is best and provoke more white extremists to return the favour, an eye for an eye? Would there be more white men driving their cars into Muslim crowds? When would this end? How would this end? Let’s pray for peace on earth. Let’s pray to God and Allah to do something right for the sake of human beans.
 
Shit, why have I this feeling that both are sleeping or on vacation.

The world’s number one terrorist wants China to step up effort against terrorists

Who is the world’s number one terrorist? Judge not by what the media said but what the terrorists are doing. Judge them by how many wars of terror they are engaged in, how many cities, countries they have destroyed, how many lives they have taken, how many have been maimed, people, young and old became homeless. No matter what they called their terror acts, wars, legitimate wars, fabricated wars, wars against terrorism, wars against mad leaders, regime change, they are all acts of terror when many people were killed.

Incidentally, who have been training, breeding, feeding and arming the terrorists around the world, the number one terrorist of course. And after creating so many terrorist groups, training and arming them with the latest weapons from the Americans, the number one terrorist is asking China to help fight these terrorists. And if China says no, then China is irresponsible and not doing its part as a responsible nation.

Should not the whole world get together to stop the number one terrorist from engaging in wars of terror and wars of destruction all over the world first? This is like creating all the shit and demanding China to clean up the shit.

The number one terrorist should stop shitting and there would be no shit for anyone to clean. They are still stirring shit in the South China Sea, in the Korean Peninsula and tell China it is China’s problem to solve. They repeatedly provoke and threatened North Korea and tell China it is China’s problem. They want China to do their bidding, to undermine its relationship with its allies. How convenient, how clever?

In Today’s paper, Christopher Hill also chipped in with the American fabricated narrative that North Korea is planning to invade South Korea despite the American war machine and nuclear weapons hanging over his head.  The only country that has been invading other countries since WW2 is none other than the number one terrorist nation. They invaded Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Syria and latest the Philippines by sending in their soldiers without the consent of the Philippine’s President.

The terrorist problem in the world is everyone’s problem, not the American problem?

Ministerial Committee versus Hague Tribunal

Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss, another member of the SPP, described the Ministerial Committee as a “tragic joke”.

“It is like the Boss of a company has a quarrel with Mr Someone. Then the Boss gathers a number of his employees and empowers them to decide who is right: he (the Boss) or Mr Someone. Boss submits a long testimony to this group of his employees giving them his account of the events and his opinion about Mr Someone’s motives.

How on earth can such a group of subordinates, who are otherwise answerable to the Boss, be expected to act independently and to able to make an objective decision? Does such a dubious committee really have the option to decide against their Boss?

It is a rule of natural justice that a man cannot be a judge in his own cause: “Nemo judex in causa sua”. Asking your underlings to determine the outcome of a case in which you have a personal interest in, is to me a breach of that rule.

Tragically, the joke is on us, the citizenry. For it does not bode well for us when we cannot detect, turn a blind eye to or condone conflict of interests and use of state powers for personal benefits.”

After reading Jeannette Chong’s comment about the Ministerial Committee it straight away reminded me of the ‘UN supported’ Hague Tribunal that ruled against China on the SCS Islands case. In this tribunal, supposedly a private court that willing parties went for an arbitration but the western media trying to con the world that it was a ‘UN backed’ organization as if it was an UN body, it was set up unilaterally by the Philippines and its backers ie the USA and Japan, without China participating, chose its own judges, paid the judges to decide in their favour against China. And the Americans and some western countries including little USAs went about trumpeting that it was a fair and ‘UN backed’ court and that its decision must be complied with. Today all these silly buggers are like what the Hokien phrase said, ‘chui tat lan’, all voiceless, become dumb, after their scheme was exposed as hollow, silly and mischievous.

 

Now, would this kind of court be a tragic joke, ridiculous?  Setting up your own court, choosing and buying your own judges to judge against another party that did not agree and did not want to be a part of it? Compares the Ministerial Committee to this kangaroo court, which is the bigger joke? Was there any natural justice, did supporting this kangaroo court bode well for Singapore as a country that has been touting the rule of law?

The Lee Family Feud – petty or grave

Singapore will not be dragged down by Lee family's 'petty disputes': ESM Goh

'Grave concerns' about how Lee Kuan Yew's last will was prepared: PM Lee

 

Above are two headlines in Channel News Asia online appearing one above the other on 17 June as if the editor intentionally placed them there to let the readers see the contradiction. Whether this is petty or grave is a matter of opinion, and depends on whether one is a party to the feud or just a bystander watching with disinterest on the sideline.

 

Many have been saying that this is a petty family matter and should not be out in the public as it concerns the inheritance of LKY. Is it that simple, about whether his family home should be demolished or to be gazetted as a national monument? Or perhaps it is like what Lee Sheng Wu said, if one’s million dollar salary depends on not understanding an issue, then it is petty to them. The second issue would be of public interest for sure. The squabbles between the siblings could be private and personal that the public need not know.

 

The open joint letter added a few other factors to make it a public concern, ie the abuse of power charges, using state organs and threats or fear of personal safety. What would these allegations mean to the public?  Petty or grave? The PAP likes to talk about the intent and purpose of an issue. The allegation of abuse of power is no petty matter, or is it? The abuse of state organs too is no small matter. What about the fear or threat of personal safety? This last part is more a digression from the main issue.

 

Hsien Loong is going to Parliament to defend these allegations. So, do you think it is petty or grave? Hsien Loong even lifts the whip and encourages all the MPs from both camps to question him vigorously. Not sure if the format of questioning is still the same, that MPs must submit questions one week in advance or something like that, or would they be allowed to throw questions at him off the cuff, on the spot?  Whichever, this is the first time that a PM has volunteered to be challenged and questioned vigorously, ie giving permission for the MPs to ‘tarok him jialat jialat’ in Parliament. He must have believed in the saying ‘genuine gold not afraid of fire’ or 真金不怕火. The MPs can light all the fire in Parliament but he would stand out unaffected.

 

See how grave is this matter? Hsien Loong even apologized to the people. Now who is saying that this is petty and the people are tired of it?

 

The next big question, would Hsien Loong dare to sue his brother and sister, the children of Lee Kuan Yew, or put them behind bars for whatever charges? The loyalists and the old guards would not allow it, the cabinet ministers would not allow it, the people of Singapore would not accept it. Doing so would be the downfall of Hsien Loong and the PAP, I think.

There is a stronger message in the joint statement that was made public. What did Wei Ling and Hsien Yang want the public to know that is more important than the status of the family home and the family squabble? What is the message?  I would not venture further than where the angels fear to tread. Obviously Hsien Loong and those that could see that this is not a petty family dispute can see the picture very clearly.