Response to Grace Fu and Halimah

Yours Truly Singapore

​

Response to Grace Fu and Halimah

April 30, 2016I refer to the 30 Apr 2016 Straits Times report “Grace Fu and Halimah point to Murali’s track record and character”.
Ms Fu and Madam Halimah reportedly laid out three criteria for Bukit Batok voters to judge their candidates:

First, what kind of person is the candidate?
Second, what promises has be made?
And third, can he deliver on them?

​

1) Kind of person
Dr Chee lives in a three room flat. He is the kind of person who well understands through first hand experience, the daily grind of the common folk.
Mr Murali is a successful lawyer. He is the kind of person who better understands what it is like to be successful and to be an elite in this country.
Who will better understand the concerns of the Bukit Batok common folk? Dr Chee who lives their lives or Mr Murali who does not?


2) Promises and delivery
Dr Chee promises to be a full time MP. He is expected to easily fulfill his promise given he doesn’t have a full time job.
Mr Murali who most certainly would be a part time MP promises to deliver as good if not better care to the residents than Dr Chee. Mr Murali is expected to under-deliver as his full time job as a lawyer will always take precedence over his MP duties. He can be expected to tuang many of the parliament sessions as video footages have shown many PAP MPs tuang parliament sessions. But Singaporeans love to pay PAP MPs $16,000 every month to tuang parliament sessions.


Work experience
Grace Fu lambasts Dr Chee for not holding a full time job for a long time and then questions his relevant work experience.


However, between Dr Chee and Mr Murali, Dr Chee’s variety of work experiences is actually richer and more relevant to an MP’s duties as compared to Mr Murali’s. Unlike Mr Murali who can only claim expertise in matters of law in parliament, Dr Chee has given talks to international audiences and written books and papers published by leading newspapers and magazines in a variety of topics including economics, politics, law, democracy and so on.


Moreover, Dr Chee is the leader of the SDP whereas Murali is just an ordinary PAP member. In this respect, Dr Chee is more qualified than Mr Murali.


Referral
Grace Fu criticises Dr Chee’s lack of referral from his mentor Mr Chiam See Tong. But Mr Chiam isn’t Dr Chee’s only mentor. Back when Mr Chiam resigned as secretary general of SDP, all the other mentors of SDP backed Dr Chee, not Mr Chiam. So it is not that Dr Chee doesn’t have endorsement from his mentors, he only doesn’t have endorsement from Mr Chiam just as Goh Chok Tong didn’t get Lee Kuan Yew’s endorsement but became the prime minister just the same from the endorsements of most of his other colleagues.


Paddy stalk
Madam Halimah describes Mr Murali as a bowing paddy stalk. Madam Halimah, we don’t need paddy stalk, we can import rice. But we have persistent pigeon problems in many hawker centres. Perhaps Mr Murali can make a good scarecrow instead.


Madam Halimah claims that Mr Murali’s nomination by a Chinese activist shows that his hard work has transcended racial differences. But it can also mean that all the other Chinese PAP activists in Bukit Batok are so hopelessly ji hong that he has no choice but to nominate Mr Murali.


Shout at Goh Chok Tong
Both ladies remind Bukit Batok voters that Dr Chee shouted at Goh Chok Tong 15 years ago. That episode shows a few things. It shows that Dr Chee is totally honest. He bares his all, he doesn’t pretend. It also shows that Dr Chee is passionately concerned with Singapore and will fight and shout for our money if he finds out it had been squandered away.


Town council
Both ladies remind Bukit Batok voters of how long it took (presumably WP) to get the town council in order. But KPMG has recently cleared the air and clearly explained that the key to town council issues were the obstacles placed by the PAP itself. In other words, Grace Fu and Madam Halimah are reminding Singaporeans that PAP will continue to engage in unethical ways to sabotage the new town council team with total disregard to the welfare of Bukit Batok residents. Will Bukit Batok residents be held ransom by PAP?

Leepotism said:

Shout at Goh Chok Tong
Both ladies remind Bukit Batok voters that Dr Chee shouted at Goh Chok Tong 15 years ago. That episode shows a few things. It shows that Dr Chee is totally honest. He bares his all, he doesn’t pretend. It also shows that Dr Chee is passionately concerned with Singapore and will fight and shout for our money if he finds out it had been squandered away.

Click to expand...

If only more people had shouted at the woody woodpecker who called the family "exceptional", we wouldn't have a husband and wife team running SG today. This is a lesson for all sinkies. If you see something that is not right, shout a little.

jw5 said:

If only more people had shouted at the woody woodpecker who called the family "exceptional", we wouldn't have a husband and wife team running SG today. This is a lesson for all sinkies. If you see something that is not right, shout a little.

Click to expand...

Daft sinkies thought that Silence is Golden which is not always true. There goes our CPF.............

Leepotism said:

Daft sinkies thought that Silence is Golden which is not always true. There goes our CPF.............

Click to expand...

All those "medisave, medishield, eldershield, edusave, medifund" nonsense also came from the same wooden fool. If you noticed, all he did was switch and rotated the first and second words to form many words, which impressionable sinkies accepted hook, line and sinker.

jw5 said:

If only more people had shouted at the woody woodpecker who called the family "exceptional", we wouldn't have a husband and wife team running SG today. This is a lesson for all sinkies. If you see something that is not right, shout a little.

Click to expand...

In Australia GCT would be called a dickhead and no one would bat an eyelid.

Honestly guys, if you support Chee and want to teach the PAP a lesson, please do not publish rubbish like this. Talk about his good points. The PAP brought this out because they know there will be idiots that will defend the indefensible and let negativity hang longer in the air.

I saw this below and nearly flipped - economics, politics, law, ??????
"""Dr Chee has given talks to international audiences and written books and papers published by leading newspapers and magazines in a variety of topics including economics, politics, law, democracy and so on.""""

... and there are lots more such as - Chee is leader of a political party while Murali is an ordinary member. Both Desmond of SDA and Kenneth Jeyaretnam of RP are leaders of their respective parties. They stood against Lee LiLian of the WP who is practically a nobody and both the idiots and clowns lost their deposit in the 2013 ByElections. There are more rubbish than one can bare.

Does this person even know what is going on in Chee's world.

Leepotism said:

Yours Truly Singapore

​

Response to Grace Fu and Halimah

April 30, 2016I refer to the 30 Apr 2016 Straits Times report “Grace Fu and Halimah point to Murali’s track record and character”.
Ms Fu and Madam Halimah reportedly laid out three criteria for Bukit Batok voters to judge their candidates:

First, what kind of person is the candidate?
Second, what promises has be made?
And third, can he deliver on them?

​

1) Kind of person
Dr Chee lives in a three room flat. He is the kind of person who well understands through first hand experience, the daily grind of the common folk.
Mr Murali is a successful lawyer. He is the kind of person who better understands what it is like to be successful and to be an elite in this country.
Who will better understand the concerns of the Bukit Batok common folk? Dr Chee who lives their lives or Mr Murali who does not?


2) Promises and delivery
Dr Chee promises to be a full time MP. He is expected to easily fulfill his promise given he doesn’t have a full time job.
Mr Murali who most certainly would be a part time MP promises to deliver as good if not better care to the residents than Dr Chee. Mr Murali is expected to under-deliver as his full time job as a lawyer will always take precedence over his MP duties. He can be expected to tuang many of the parliament sessions as video footages have shown many PAP MPs tuang parliament sessions. But Singaporeans love to pay PAP MPs $16,000 every month to tuang parliament sessions.


Work experience
Grace Fu lambasts Dr Chee for not holding a full time job for a long time and then questions his relevant work experience.


However, between Dr Chee and Mr Murali, Dr Chee’s variety of work experiences is actually richer and more relevant to an MP’s duties as compared to Mr Murali’s. Unlike Mr Murali who can only claim expertise in matters of law in parliament, Dr Chee has given talks to international audiences and written books and papers published by leading newspapers and magazines in a variety of topics including economics, politics, law, democracy and so on.


Moreover, Dr Chee is the leader of the SDP whereas Murali is just an ordinary PAP member. In this respect, Dr Chee is more qualified than Mr Murali.


Referral
Grace Fu criticises Dr Chee’s lack of referral from his mentor Mr Chiam See Tong. But Mr Chiam isn’t Dr Chee’s only mentor. Back when Mr Chiam resigned as secretary general of SDP, all the other mentors of SDP backed Dr Chee, not Mr Chiam. So it is not that Dr Chee doesn’t have endorsement from his mentors, he only doesn’t have endorsement from Mr Chiam just as Goh Chok Tong didn’t get Lee Kuan Yew’s endorsement but became the prime minister just the same from the endorsements of most of his other colleagues.


Paddy stalk
Madam Halimah describes Mr Murali as a bowing paddy stalk. Madam Halimah, we don’t need paddy stalk, we can import rice. But we have persistent pigeon problems in many hawker centres. Perhaps Mr Murali can make a good scarecrow instead.


Madam Halimah claims that Mr Murali’s nomination by a Chinese activist shows that his hard work has transcended racial differences. But it can also mean that all the other Chinese PAP activists in Bukit Batok are so hopelessly ji hong that he has no choice but to nominate Mr Murali.


Shout at Goh Chok Tong
Both ladies remind Bukit Batok voters that Dr Chee shouted at Goh Chok Tong 15 years ago. That episode shows a few things. It shows that Dr Chee is totally honest. He bares his all, he doesn’t pretend. It also shows that Dr Chee is passionately concerned with Singapore and will fight and shout for our money if he finds out it had been squandered away.


Town council
Both ladies remind Bukit Batok voters of how long it took (presumably WP) to get the town council in order. But KPMG has recently cleared the air and clearly explained that the key to town council issues were the obstacles placed by the PAP itself. In other words, Grace Fu and Madam Halimah are reminding Singaporeans that PAP will continue to engage in unethical ways to sabotage the new town council team with total disregard to the welfare of Bukit Batok residents. Will Bukit Batok residents be held ransom by PAP?

Click to expand...

If both r so absorbed by the past perhaps it helps to know that these people r non progressive n laden with emotional past. R they able to recall how jippun kia, the master of their ex boss, misteated n tortured sinkies? What were their stance? Did halimah recalled her booboo how she tot ministars were no longer on pension?

scroobal said:

Honestly guys, if you support Chee and want to teach the PAP a lesson, please do not publish rubbish like this. Talk about his good points. The PAP brought this out because they know there will be idiots that will defend the indefensible and let negativity hang longer in the air.

Click to expand...

Rubbish, my foot. This is the kind of lingo that average sinkees can understand. It is good juxtaposition.

I saw this below and nearly flipped - economics, politics, law, ??????
"""Dr Chee has given talks to international audiences and written books and papers published by leading newspapers and magazines in a variety of topics including economics, politics, law, democracy and so on.""""

Click to expand...

Chee is a full-time politician fighting to free sinkees from the dictatorship. And that is NOT relevant?

... and there are lots more such as - Chee is leader of a political party while Murali is an ordinary member. Both Desmond of SDA and Kenneth Jeyaretnam of RP are leaders of their respective parties. They stood against Lee LiLian of the WP who is practically a nobody and both the idiots and clowns lost their deposit in the 2013 ByElections. There are more rubbish than one can bare.

Click to expand...

You think sinkees analyze like you?

Does this person even know what is going on in Chee's world.

Click to expand...

He knows alot more than you based on your post.

Fu, a minister manning a call centre. She earns $2 million doing the work that is already done by Town Councils, ministries and mayors.

Halimnah ...a brainless Speaker who doesn't even understand parliamentary rules. Got this well-paid post because of her ability to suck up to Pinky.

If not because Palmer is so horny, Halimah would not HV been made the Speaker. A most mediocre Speaker at that! Good grief! Totally inept and partial!

Impartiality of the Chair

Notwithstanding the fact that the Speakership in Australia has long been regarded as a political appointment, successive Speakers have striven to discharge their duties with impartiality. As a rule, Speakers have been sufficiently detached from government activity to ensure what can be justly claimed to be a high degree of impartiality in the Chair.

Members are entitled to expect that, even though the Speaker belongs to and is nominated to the position by a political party, his or her functions will be carried out impartially. At the same time, a Speaker is entitled to expect support from all Members regardless of their party.

winnipegjets said:

Impartiality of the Chair

Notwithstanding the fact that the Speakership in Australia has long been regarded as a political appointment, successive Speakers have striven to discharge their duties with impartiality. As a rule, Speakers have been sufficiently detached from government activity to ensure what can be justly claimed to be a high degree of impartiality in the Chair.

Members are entitled to expect that, even though the Speaker belongs to and is nominated to the position by a political party, his or her functions will be carried out impartially. At the same time, a Speaker is entitled to expect support from all Members regardless of their party.

Click to expand...

Halimah is NOT impartial. The opposition in parliament should have raised this as an issue everytime she shows her bias. The WP is PAP-lite. What a waste!

grace n halimah have not been screwed by their hubbies for years. so pardon them ok?

once deprived of sex, people go bonkers.

don't know about you, but all i see in grace fool is this. big flat nose that needs a nose job and grinning bunny teeth that say...."shiok! million dollar minisinister material liao."

jw5 said:

If only more people had shouted at the woody woodpecker who called the family "exceptional", we wouldn't have a husband and wife team running SG today. This is a lesson for all sinkies. If you see something that is not right, shout a little.

Click to expand...

Shout just a little? I would scream with all my might.

eatshitndie said:

don't know about you, but all i see in grace fool is this. big flat nose that needs a nose job and grinning bunny teeth that say...."shiok! million dollar minisinister material liao."

View attachment 26456

Click to expand...

And she thought she made it when appointed as full minister. Boy, she didn't realize that Pinky thinks she is a FOOL; that's why he made her in charge of a call centre. The $2 million minister in charge of a call centre!

April 30, 2016I refer to the 30 Apr 2016 Straits Times report “Grace Fu and Halimah point to Murali’s track record and character”.
Ms Fu and Madam Halimah reportedly laid out three criteria for Bukit Batok voters to judge their candidates:
First, what kind of person is the candidate?
Second, what promises has be made?
And third, can he deliver on them?

Click to expand...

how about taking land from sillypootians under the pretext redevelopment
and few years later sells it to make a huge profit
people who do this kind of unscrupulous act is considered to be honest izzit ?

winnipegjets said:

Impartiality of the Chair

Notwithstanding the fact that the Speakership in Australia has long been regarded as a political appointment, successive Speakers have striven to discharge their duties with impartiality. As a rule, Speakers have been sufficiently detached from government activity to ensure what can be justly claimed to be a high degree of impartiality in the Chair.

Members are entitled to expect that, even though the Speaker belongs to and is nominated to the position by a political party, his or her functions will be carried out impartially. At the same time, a Speaker is entitled to expect support from all Members regardless of their party.

Click to expand...

Wow....the grass is greener on the other side....
PHOTO There undoubtedly is a problem with speaker bias, but that is as much a product of our parliamentary system as it is due to the tribalism of any individual.
ALAN PORRITT, FILE PHOTO: AAP
Bronwyn Bishop's offence is not so much that she is tribal or biased - for most speakers are. Her crime is that she is just not up to the job. And for this reason she must go, writes Paula Matthewson.

It's easy to get caught up in the chase when a political villain stumbles and their opponents close in for the kill. In the case of the Speaker, Bronwyn Bishop, it's important, however, to stay focused on her actual misdeeds to ensure political accountability doesn't degenerate into an opportunistic blood sport.

Bishop's offence is not so much that she is tribal or biased - for most speakers are. Her crime is that she is just not up to the job.

Australian politics doesn't enjoy the benefit of an independent speaker, such as in the UK, although our speaker is expected to show "impartiality in the Chamber above all else". The British speaker resigns from his or her party and is generally unopposed at election time. For only once they are out of the reach of their former party can a speaker be truly independent.

The tradition is not followed in Australia's smaller Parliament because governments can't afford to give up their speaker's vote. However, this exposes the speaker to the whim of the government. When speakers have taken their impartial role too seriously, such as in the case of former Liberal speaker Bob Halverson, they've sometimes been forced to step down from the role.

Nevertheless, in recent times, the Rudd-Gillard government speakers Harry Jenkins and Anna Burke decided to distance themselves from their party in order to protect the dignity of the speaker's office. Compared with the determination of Jenkins and Burke to make the speaker's role as impartial as possible, the incumbent's flagrant tribalism is particularly shocking to political observers.

Yet having always been a political warrior, Bishop is more like the Labor speakers of old than Jenkins or Burke.

Labor would be in less of a position to criticise Bishop's lack of impartiality if she had directly followed on from the Hawke-Keating government speaker Leo McLeay. Like Bishop, McLeay held party fund-raising events in the speaker's suite, and also had a number of no confidence motions brought against him.

It is often forgotten, or perhaps not even known, that every speaker has a tendency to throw out more MPs from the other side. A paper prepared by the parliamentary library shows that from 1994, when the new 94(a) rule was introduced giving speakers the power to "sin bin" an MP for an hour, until August 2013, 91.3 per cent of MPs ejected under the new rule were non-government. Bishop's score so far is 98.25 per cent.

The imbalance in the ejectees is partly a function of the expectation placed on the speaker to protect the government of the day. It's also a reflection of the opposition's behaviour during Question Time, when ministers have to contend with a wall of noise as the other side tries to intimidate, distract or wrong-foot the government with cat-calls, insinuations and abuse.

A weak speaker, who can't manage the chamber well enough to minimise the cacophony, is likely to resort to throwing out the troublemakers. The fact that Bishop has ejected more MPs in her time than any other speaker is one of several indicators that she is unable to effectively perform the role.

Another indicator is that Bishop regularly struggles to call MPs by their correct titles, as even a casual observer of Question Time would notice. The Manager of Opposition Business, Tony Burke, is often called the Member for Burke and some MPs have been called by the names of electorates they'd held in previous parliaments. Even ministers assist the Speaker with their correct titles when she calls them to the despatch box.

Tony Burke has begun to exploit Bishop's failing acuity, and has at times managed to fluster the Speaker - who once had an encyclopaedic recall of "the Practice" - on parliamentary procedural matters. In response Bishop has taken to lashing out at the Opposition, ejecting one Labor MP for laughing and another for saying "Madam Speaker".

The third indicator that Bishop is unfit for office is her lack of judgement. It is not so much that she, like Labor's McLeay, thought it acceptable to use her entitlement as Speaker to participate in a party fundraiser. It is more that Bishop did not see the trip in the luxury helicopter as politically unwise until it hit the tabloids.

The Prime Minister has been open about his choice of Bishop for the speakership, even performing the traditional backbencher role of escorting her to the chair when she was appointed to the role. So it is smart politics for Labor to try to pin responsibility for Bishop on Abbott.

But Labor will only get so far complaining about Bishop's partisan behaviour. Before Jenkins and Burke, Labor speakers were similarly tribal. Even the most impartial speakers we've had - Jenkins, Burke and Slipper - between them threw out non-government MPs 89.5 per cent of the time.

And considering it was a personal decision by Jenkins and Burke to place themselves at arms length from Labor, there's no guarantee the next Labor speaker will be any less partisan than Bishop.

The Opposition is also treading on thin ice if it pursues the notion that being a guest speaker at a party fundraising event is not "official business" for a speaker. Inconveniently for Labor, there is no legal definition of the term. The criticism does raise the question, however, of whether it is official business when a minister or shadow minister attends a similar event as guest speaker, and travels to the event in a taxpayer-funded car. This is a fairly common practice.

There undoubtedly is a problem with speaker bias, but that is as much a product of our parliamentary system as it is due to the tribalism of any individual. Making the role truly independent, along the lines adopted in the UK, would ensure we would no longer have to depend on the good graces of civic-minded parliamentarians like Jenkins and Burke for the speaker to be impartial.

There is also undoubtedly a problem of some holders of high office thinking it is acceptable to charge the taxpayer for a luxury helicopter flight to a party fundraiser, use taxpayer-funded vouchers to clock up $900 worth of taxi fares while visiting wineries, or hit taxpayers with a questionable insurance claim. The privileged culture that mostly turns a blind eye to such behaviour must be exposed and changed so that the entitlements system can be made more transparent and MPs more accountable for how they spend public money.

However, neither problem will be addressed with the removal of Bishop from her role as Speaker. The problem of Bishop's unfitness for office is an entirely different matter, and it is for this she must be removed from the role or resign.

As Abbott said in 2012 when referring to the need for Slipper to stand aside, it is "very important that the prime minister act to ensure the integrity of the Parliament". Indeed. And on this basis, PM Abbott knows exactly what he needs to do.

Paula Matthewson is a freelance communications adviser and corporate writer. She was media advisor to John Howard in the early 1990s. She tweets and blogs as @Drag0nista.

POSTED MON 20 JUL 2015, 9:01 AM AEST

eatshitndie said:

don't know about you, but all i see in grace fool is this. big flat nose that needs a nose job and grinning bunny teeth that say...."shiok! million dollar minisinister material liao."

View attachment 26456

Click to expand...

try seeing again




good to see her again playing fetch with her bag. nice doggy. good doggy.

Here's how Grace Fu envisages her scope of responsibility: "So, if one knows who to call, of course he can just call the number. But if he doesn't know who to call, I'm hoping to see if I can make it easier for them." Think of it as a high class call center girl, with a compensation package to drool for.

http://singaporedesk.blogspot.sg/2014/08/not-my-job.html