• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

The Workers' Party

melzp

Alfrescian
Loyal
Busy they are. Not like you nothing better to do. How i wish sammyboy admin close this section or close down this forum.

People like swissbank waste bandwidth and space. CRAP Talk daily ! LOL :biggrin:

(Lots of Lies) cannot handle the hard truths and ought to disappear itself.
Or go sell the Hammer.
It is through the great governance of PAP that I can retire gracefully.
 

LOL2015

Alfrescian
Loyal
(Lots of Lies) cannot handle the hard truths and ought to disappear itself.
Or go sell the Hammer.
It is through the great governance of PAP that I can retire gracefully.

Young punk like you so early retire ? LAZY PATHETIC BOY.

Don't say i selfish ! I gave you FREE LUNCH Now !

Enjoy :biggrin:

Hondenstront_005.jpg
 

sengkang

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset

Daniel PS Goh

Interesting lecture by the PM at SMU that helps us sharpen our national focus on 3 areas. These are where the debates will matter. Disagree on the time framework though: 25 years for population is appropriate, but isn't 10 years too short-term for the economy, and what ... 50 years for identity! It should be the reverse.


50 years for the economy and instead of harping on growth by growing the workforce and boosting workers' productivity, focus on promoting local SMEs and boosting process productivity and product innovation, for long-term sustainability.


10 years for Singapore identity because we already have one that is strong in its diversity and united by our shared experiences of place and heritage. Just stop undermining Singapore identity by denying we have one and hollowing out our beloved heartland places with more mega-malls and gated housing.





 

sengkang

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset

Chen Jiaxi Bernard

[h=2]Magnanimity and Singapore's political future[/h]
June 22, 2015 at 10:55am
This article was first published in the latest edition of the Hammer.
10730789_10152910482251625_6096391041915423265_n.jpg


At the outset, one has to recognise that there are many possibilities to Singapore’s future. We could probably begin the discussion by stating that as Singaporeans, we can love an imperfect Singapore perfectly and continue to make our little contributions towards the nation-building process. While we ponder over the many possibilities, I would like to share my perspectives on the political future of Singapore.

Over the next fifty years, magnanimity can serve as the core value that will underpin the political direction of this nation. Magnanimity will provide a clear signal to Singaporeans that the state is investing its confidence in them to make calibrated and constructive decisions in the name of the larger national interest.

In governance, there is a need to ensure that the state meet the needs of groups left out by present public policies, to exercise fairness in name and in deed. Magnanimity in governance takes it one step further. It is the awareness that nation-building is a broad canvas, large enough an endeavour to accommodate the various distinct interest groups and political parties. Magnanimity in governance also requires that the relationship between the community, grassroots organisations, the constituents and the government have to be seriously reconsidered. The grassroots has to be depoliticised. It has to be made accessible again to all, regardless of their political stripes.

Magnanimity in politics is about respecting each Singaporean regardless of their political stripes. It is an active agenda to enhance the state and build a more resilient nation for generations to come. The government, led by the political party with the most parliamentary seats is merely one of the many stakeholders, albeit an important one, with obligations and responsibilities to the electorate.

Fundamentally, magnanimity is a vision of tolerance within a diverse, demanding and democratic society. The party in power, wielding the resources of the state should continually bear in mind that their mission to serve also entails a commitment to not impose injustice and meanness upon their fellow citizens.

At the end of it all, embedded within magnanimous politics is the notion of trust. In fact, political parties need to build this crucial relationship with the electorate. Trust is a work-in-progress, continually evolving, but never to be taken for granted. A critical part of the trust quotient is not merely a name on the electoral ticket but the presence of an able and responsible organisation behind those names. Every vote is important, not because it is rhetorically pleasing to the ears, but because voting is the process through which responsibility and trust is transferred from the voters with all their uncertainties, hopes and aspirations onto the names on the ballot paper. It is about the electorate entrusting the election candidates with the future of their estate and the direction of the nation. It is a sacred process; one that I hope our members of parliament and national leaders would never take for granted as we embrace SG50 and embark on the next fifty years in our nation-building process.

The next fifty years can only be better than the last. There's much work to be done. There are more lives to improve. There are more policies to better. At the end of it, there is one Singapore that we all love. So, let's get going! Majulah Singapura!
 

sengkang

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset

[h=2]Yee Jenn Jong, JJ (余振忠)[/h]
He was sentenced to 10 years and 12 strokes. While in prison this time, he picked up painting and it changed his life.
Mr Yeow won competitions organised by the Yellow Ribbon Project, the outfit dedicated to rehabilitating offenders and helping them reintegrate into society upon release. Soon he started getting commissions to paint for corporations and collectors.


Because of his good behaviour, he was released in April this year. Since then, he has been painting his heart out and, in the process, making a decent living.


"It's given me a lot of hope and connected me with a lot of people. That's why I am sitting here today, talking to you," he says with a quiet smile.
======================
A great turnaround for someone who had spend a total more than 2 decades in jail. Keep on going at it, Barry!
Recently, I worked on a project that got youths with very challenging backgrounds to create art pieces for their family members to show their appreciation. It was an eye-opening experience interacting with them and seeing their thoughts and feelings through art. Some of the youths displayed great talent in art. I hope one day they will have a story like Barry's to share too.






Ex-convict's true colours
On the night of Aug 15, 2008, Barry Yeow found himself in the lock-up of Bedok Police Station.
straitstimes.com|By WONG KIM HOH SENIOR WRITER
 

swissbank

Alfrescian
Loyal
Dear supporters of Amos Yee and all the mothers concerned,
WP is a dumb and wayang party and is PAP 'B' Team.
Must kick out WP in next GE.
Have WP ever bring hard issues inside parliament ???????
All WP MPs are hopeless and they just want their 16k to stay silent.
WP won Aljunied GRC simply because of late JBJ trademark and TR Emeritius support.
LTK is a useless MP whom just visit night funeral wake to rapport family members.
WP capability is to conduct durian tour and free hair cut for their residents.
 

swissbank

Alfrescian
Loyal
WP specializing in providing free hair cut and organizing durian tour.
WP is PAP 'B' Team
 

Attachments

  • silent party.jpg
    silent party.jpg
    111.1 KB · Views: 277

swissbank

Alfrescian
Loyal
Reform Party Raises Questions to LHL on Roy’s Defamation Case

Protected July 5th, 2015 | Author: Online Press
Reform Party Press Release – 3 July 2015

Reform Party is concerned that the Prime Minister in his personal capacity as Mr Lee Hsien Loong is currently engaged in a defamation suit against the blogger Roy Ngerng. When any Minister, let alone the Prime Minister, is involved in legal proceedings in a personal capacity there may be implications for them in their official position.
By his own admission, the PM’s lawsuit, where he is seeking a significant sum in excess of S$400,000 against the unemployed former health worker blogger is a private matter and has nothing to do with the official duties of the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO). Can the PM assure the citizens that he can carry out his duties as a public servant funded by the taxpayer and simultaneously be engaged in a legal wrangle which has now reached the high court, without significant impact on those official duties? If so, we ask for those assurances to be made public.
Because of the potential implications for conflict we believe the PM must give a clear and detailed accounting of all or any taxpayer funded state resources, official resources, official machinery and official personnel used in the period starting with the monitoring of bloggers, research and information gathering through to the issuing of legal letters, the follow-up, the subsequent legal action and the current hearings to assess damages and the media and PR management throughout. We believe we should also be informed as to how much time and what resources were expended by state legal officers and civil servants in advising the PM on the implications of legal proceedings in his personal capacity.
We respectfully request answers to the following questions:

1. How much time has your Official Press Secretary -a civil servant whose salary is also tax payer funded –spent in meeting journalists, researching, composing and writing letters on your behalf to foreign newspapers such as the Economist, defending your position over your personal lawsuit ? What economic value would you put on this or if it is not possible to assign a dollar value how many man-hours have been expended so far?

2. Did the PMO bill you personally for the total cost of using your Press Secretary on your private business?

3. Did you pay the cost of other resources used to assist you in your suit against Roy Ngerng?

4. State Media photos show you arriving at court in a chauffeured limousine. Did you use your own car or an official car to transport you to the hearing when you gave evidence at that hearing?

5. If it was an official car, did you pay for the use of the car, the driver, the petrol?

6. Who paid for the cost of your bodyguards or any police escort to accompany you to the hearing?

7. Was any extra security in place and who paid for that?

8. Did you take official or unpaid leave for the day you spent in court fighting your private matter or do you expect taxpayers to finance it?

9. You are paid at least $2.4 million p.a. out of state funds as PM to run the country and for your MP duties. How much of your working time has been spent on your private lawsuit against Roy Ngerng? Again can you assign a dollar value to this and will you be refunding the taxpayer?

10. We are further disturbed by your admission in court under cross-examination by Roy Ngerng that you had been watching him for some time “making more and more outrageous allegations about the CPF, stopping short of accusing me of doing bad things personally, but coming closer and closer to saying that.” Please clarify how much time, for some time is, in real terms. Mr Ngerng for example, started blogging in 2012. How much of your working time would you estimate has been spent in “watching” what bloggers are saying or might be about to say? Do you watch these bloggers on official machinery? Do you consider that you can monitor all these bloggers over a period of time and still run the country efficiently? Would you say this is the best use of taxpayers’ money?

11. Maybe you do not watch the bloggers personally. Do you in fact watch them personally or do you have private or state funded staff watch them for you? Have you set up a special unit within the PMO to monitor bloggers and social media including Mr Ngerng for comments that you do not like personally or that you consider defamatory of you in your personal capacity? Is this being paid for out of State funds?

12. You are presumably aware that Tan Tock Seng Hospital dismissed Mr Ngerng for among other things, misusing hospital resources. Similarly NUS sacked Chee Soon Juan in the early 1990s for using office stamps for a personal letter even though he had sought permission. Would you not agree that if you have used state resources for your own personal interest such as this lawsuit against Roy Ngerng, then you are guilty of the same misappropriation? At the very least would you not consider that you are giving the taxpayer poor value for the salary they provide?

Reputational Damage
We are further concerned that the Prime Minister’s responses in Court to questions set to him by the unemployed former health care worker and blogger Roy Ngerng show him in a poor light. Even though he is suing the blogger in his personal capacity he cannot escape the fact that he is Prime Minister of Singapore and as such his snide and sarcastic ripostes in a Court of Law may be deemed by many to be unseemly for a man in that position. Particularly given the huge disparity in income, status, power, influence and wealth between the Prime Minister and the blogger he is suing. Has the Prime Minister not considered that he risks bringing the office of Prime Minster into disrepute with such actions?

For example, his admission that he monitors bloggers watching for them to step over a line and be clearly defamatory. Does he not consider that this will appear unseemly for a man in his position? Additionally his response to Mr Ngerng’s analogy about a knife and a cut finger “knowing you it may be” reveals a personal animosity unbecoming of the leader of a developed nation.

We do not challenge the judgement that has already been made in his favour but we would like to know whether with all the legal and media handling advice at his disposal, the Prime Minister was not warned of the dangers of the Streisand Effect.

We trust that the Prime Minister is not too busy monitoring the worldwide web to respond and look forward to a clarification that no official resources have in fact been expended or if that is not the case to a full and frank accounting.
 

swissbank

Alfrescian
Loyal
Come GE16, if there is a 3-corners fight, Workers' Party ask for it.
Workers' Party deserved to be kicked out as WP is a hopeless opposition party.
WP always diam diam inside parliament just to protect their 16K.
Hope Joo Chiat have 3 or 4 corners fight to give WP fat hope.
WP under LTK will not progress further as he has no balls to confront PAP.
 

swissbank

Alfrescian
Loyal
Workers' Party is a hopeless, silent and fake opposition party.
WP under LTK is very arrogant and they taught that better than the other opposition party.
What had WP done these 4 years inside parliament????
WP no eye to see Amos Yee and RN been bullied by their PAP as WP is PAP 'B' Team.
Supporters of Amos Yee and all mothers living in Aljunied GRC, Hougang and Pungool East, please vote wisely for a real opposition whom really raise hard issues against PAP.
I dare to say WP votes will drop at least 5% in GE16.
Kick WP out and vote for SDP, SFP, RP, SPP.

 
Top