• 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.

Calvin Cheng: Kirsten Han is a treacherous traitor who critiqued LKY!!!!

Gotze

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Calvin Cheng
18 hrs · Singapore · Edited ·

https://www.facebook.com/calvinchengnmp/posts/1012620358788040


Over the last 48 hours, I have been the victim of a hate-campaign by the usual Opposition-supporting socio-political websites like TRE, WUS, ASS, TOC, as well as opposition-linked activists.


This hate campaign was glavanised by Kirsten Han, a treacherous 'journalist', who DURING Mr. Lee Kuan Yew's wake wrote to UK Newspaper The Guardian to criticise Singapore and Mr. Lee.


She wrote, "It’s hard to say where Singapore would be if it hadn’t been for Lee Kuan Yew. I’m not convinced that we would definitely have been worse off. I’m not even persuaded that the arrests and detentions were wise, much less vital to our survival. Knowing what I know now, I feel uncomfortable calling him the “founding father of Singapore”. I believe Singaporeans would have been capable of finding ourselves even without him."


When the whole nation save a few ingrates were mourning the loss of our founding father, this person wrote to the Western Press to denigrate his achievements and our respect and love for him as our founding father.


These activists have been bombarding my employees with emails, by sending templates out to their friends and encouraging them to mass-email them.


This is a tactic also used by 377a activists to harass our Members of Parliament. Human rights activists did the same to Professor Thio Li Ann, by email spamming the organisers, to prevent her from speaking at a human rights forum.


They learnt this from the West, where liberal activists are notoriously known to campaign for tolerance and free-speech, except when they disagree. Then they call it hate speech.


In the US, similar tactics were used to bombard Mozilla with email, who was then forced to sack their CEO for donating US$1,000 to a campaign that sought to make same-sex marriage illegal.


They are now doing the same to my poor employees who are being harassed every hour by emails sent repeatedly by these people.


Fortunately, as I own these companies, I am not about to sack myself


However, the moral majority must stand up to these extremists, many who are SDP supporters and activists, who are trying to make me a victim of a hate campaign for saying something about an issue that has nothing to do with Singapore, Singaporeans or hopefully anybody remotely connected to Singapore.


These tactics must also be fully condemned, and especially traitorous Singaporeans like Kirsten Han and the editors of TOC who would gang up with Western forces to do Singapore in. Kirsten Han especially needs to be stopped as she regularly writes for anti-Singapore publications to run us down, and to suck up to the Western liberals.


I stand with most Singaporeans when I say that the security and stability of Singapore is the most precious thing we have, and must be protected.


Please share.
 

Gotze

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Kirsten Han
3 hrs ·


It has been suggested that I have been "treacherous" and am a "traitor" for having critiqued Lee Kuan Yew's legacy shortly after his death.


Calvin Cheng has the right to have this opinion. He also has the right to express them.


He also has the right to say, "So you kill them [terrorists] before they kill you. And their children too in case they grow up to take revenge." (This is what he said in a thread on Devadas Krishnadas' page in the wake of the Paris attacks.)


I do not think Calvin should be arrested or taken to court for expressing these views. The principles of freedom of speech means that he has the right to say them.


However, I do think that the continued presence of an individual who holds such views in the government-backed Media Literacy Council (MLC) is highly questionable. The MLC is meant to promote civil and responsible behaviour online, and someone who believes that children should be killed "IN CASE they grow up to take revenge" (emphasis mine) does not adhere to the values of the MLC. When called out, Calvin has responded with ad hominem attacks, which are also not in line with MLC values.


My concern now does not lie with what Calvin Cheng says, but with the fact that when approached, the MLC has not only failed to respond to a clear breach of its own values and goals by its own member, but has tried to excuse it by saying it was made in his personal capacity. As a state-endorsed body, there should be more accountability than that.


In any case, I am sharing the link of my opinion piece that was published by the Guardian after Lee Kuan Yew's passing; the one that Calvin felt was "treacherous" and an example of an attempt to undermine Singapore. Feel free to read it in its entirety and form your own conclusions.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/23/lee-kuan-yew-is-gone-where-does-singapore-go-now

[h=1]Lee Kuan Yew is gone. Where does Singapore go now?[/h]


In death, his reputation, choices and contributions are amplified, making it harder to see the man behind the icon, says a Singaporean









Every Singaporean alive today has a relationship with Lee Kuan Yew. Love him or hate him, none of us had a choice; the force of his personality made itself felt in almost every aspect of Singaporean life.


I remember a day in high school, in our social studies class, when the teacher asked us who the senior minister was. “Lee Kuan Yew,” we replied with confidence.


“Well, who’s the health minister?”


Silence. Not many of us kept up with national or current affairs in those days – we were 15, convinced that politics had little to do with us.


“Lee Kuan Yew?” one girl said. It wasn’t totally clear if she was joking.


“The education minister, then,” the teacher asked despairingly.

“Lee Kuan Yew!”


We were just cheeky girls messing with a longsuffering teacher, but the truth was we didn’t really know who the ministers or members of parliament were. Lee Kuan Yew was the only name we knew with certainty; the only politician, it seemed, who mattered.


While current ministers seem more approachable – almost sweet, with their Facebook posts and Instagram selfies – Lee Kuan Yew loomed over Singaporean politics; stern, fierce and ruthless. “Between being loved and being feared, I have always believed Machiavelli was right. If nobody is afraid of me, I’m meaningless,” he said in 1997.


It feels odd now that he’s gone. For better or worse, his actions have shaped Singapore like no one else’s. It will take a long time to truly be able to disentangle the man from the country, and to see the impact one had on the other.


As expected, the outpouring of grief has been intense. Many people are, truly and sincerely, upset. The plaudits have also been pouring in. With every effusive tribute to the man, the lionisation of Lee Kuan Yew grows. In death, his reputation, choices and contributions are amplified even more than they already were, making it harder to see the man behind the icon.


I spent my childhood years learning about how much he had done for the country. “Founding father of Singapore” was a phrase drilled into my head, as if our nation would have been cut adrift, lost and helpless, without him. “He did what needed to be done for us to succeed,” I was told. Gratefulness was an emotion we felt obliged to show – many, rightly or wrongly, still feel it today.


It wasn’t until I was in my 20s that I began to learn what those vague things that “needed to be done” were – arrests and detentions without trials. Defamation suits, expensive court cases and bankruptcy (for his opponents). Opposition politicians such as Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam and Chee Soon Juan, brought low for daring to disagree.


My teenage years were spent getting to know our champion; I am now learning more and more about the man with the hatchet.


It’s hard to say where Singapore would be if it hadn’t been for Lee Kuan Yew. I’m not convinced that we would definitely have been worse off. I’m not even persuaded that the arrests and detentions were wise, much less vital to our survival. Knowing what I know now, I feel uncomfortable calling him the “founding father of Singapore”. I believe Singaporeans would have been capable of finding ourselves even without him.


The idea of Lee Kuan Yew is intertwined with so many of my thoughts about my country that I often find myself getting mixed up between the two.


The whole “father of Singapore” image has often been taken far too literally, but Lee Kuan Yew’s governing style was nothing if not paternalistic. And through that paternalism Singaporeans were tamed – the early vibrancy of activism in the 1950s through to the 1980s curbed and domesticated till Singaporeans saw politics as a danger best left to the clever elite. We are only now, 50 years after independence, beginning to emerge from the political passivity a “father knows best” government urged us into.


Was that what Singapore needed at the time? Would we have been worse off if Lee Kuan Yew had not done what he did? There is no way to know for sure.


I never knew Lee Kuan Yew intimately enough to be able to say that he was a good man, but I think I can say that he was a great politician – the likes of which Singapore is unlikely to see for a long time. One cannot dismiss his contribution to Singapore: there were many, and we have seen progress that has been the envy of our neighbours in the region.


What’s left for us now is to find the answer to this question: where should we go now?
 

Asterix

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Population of a democratic state does not need to be grateful to anyone, only the daft 70% doesn't understand this, so they die not my business :oIo:

[video=youtube;RlX_A_Im4yc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlX_A_Im4yc[/video]
 
Top