-
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.
Ex-TOC editor Andrew Loh sucking up to the sinful PAP recently?
- Thread starter HorGauGan
- Start date
Andrew Loh was a PAP supporter before he switched over the opposition side somewhere in 2005 (I am basing this on exchanges in the old delphi SBF).
He and Choo Zheng Xi co-founded TOC, and his stand was always that it is a non-partisan outfit that is neither pro-estab nor anti-estab. In reality of course writers steered TOC more towards the anti-estab angle, as the MSM was doing a very horrific job and there was a large credibility vacuum that urgently needed to be filled.
He has always been more on the social issues such as the homeless, abuse of foreign workers, etc. He can write strident articles against PAP behaviour (not the policies per se -- he was never much of a policy man), but there was never much depth apart from pointing out what obviously went wrong in a strong tone. He never talked about PA, grassroots, or infiltration of establishment elites into all facets of society. TOC as a whole never tackled the sensitive subject of race-based policies.
He had numerous brushes with TOC people before becoming a paid writer of yahoo, which was a position he was aiming for anyway. He was also paid by TOC for his work, but part of it was to reimburse his own outlay in terms of server costs. Serves as a role model for upcoming writers like Kirsten han who also want to be remunerated for their writings.
He cannot be hard hitting as Yahoo despite being much more liberal than our MSM still has to cater for the masses. So strident writing is definitely out. But he can still be critical, and even more so on publichouse.sg
He and Choo Zheng Xi co-founded TOC, and his stand was always that it is a non-partisan outfit that is neither pro-estab nor anti-estab. In reality of course writers steered TOC more towards the anti-estab angle, as the MSM was doing a very horrific job and there was a large credibility vacuum that urgently needed to be filled.
He has always been more on the social issues such as the homeless, abuse of foreign workers, etc. He can write strident articles against PAP behaviour (not the policies per se -- he was never much of a policy man), but there was never much depth apart from pointing out what obviously went wrong in a strong tone. He never talked about PA, grassroots, or infiltration of establishment elites into all facets of society. TOC as a whole never tackled the sensitive subject of race-based policies.
He had numerous brushes with TOC people before becoming a paid writer of yahoo, which was a position he was aiming for anyway. He was also paid by TOC for his work, but part of it was to reimburse his own outlay in terms of server costs. Serves as a role model for upcoming writers like Kirsten han who also want to be remunerated for their writings.
He cannot be hard hitting as Yahoo despite being much more liberal than our MSM still has to cater for the masses. So strident writing is definitely out. But he can still be critical, and even more so on publichouse.sg
Andrew's very first post in SBF Delphi was paying homage to PAP and how lucky we were in Singapore and cited what he saw in Chennai in a recent trip. He was also involved in grassroots activities. You are right that he was more inclined to social issues rather than politics. Then he began to rally support for WP and encouraging attendence to WP open house. He struck me as someone who is genuinely ready to do things but politics was not his cup of tea. He also seemed confused and has little sense of ideology. I was not surprised that he linked with PAP and SPH associated individuals to start TOC.
he and current toc split up uglily over what not sure maybe money or editorial content, and he just wants to be different in tone as much from toc as possible to set publichouse apart. competition among these toc breakaway blogs like public house and new asia republic, and toc.
Last edited:
I have read some Yahoo News written by Andrew Loh. His articles has a tone of emotional baggage which appeal to the masses. Interesting backdrop of a man who perhaps has realised the fundamentals need of money because he seems like an emotional and idealistic gentleman. Like what bro captainxerox said, sounds like Andrew tries hard to be different from the countless websites these days trying to air their views, which is a result of the suppression of the mainstream print newspapers and years of political restrictions. Indirectly PAP has shaped him.
Looks like he realised that ideals & following the masses doesn't feed him and is willing to change his political stance for the sake of monetary gains. To put it nicely, it is for the sake of survival, for himself and his family, even if it means accepting PAP's payment to paint them in better light. They have to learn to embrace each other and scratch each other's back. If you take people's money, you have to solve their problems.
There is a Chinese saying that a great man changes with the times. Contrast with Mr Goh Meng Seng, I do not know who deserves more respect, Andrew who changes with the times, or Goh Meng Seng who stand firm & stubbornly with his constricted views.
Looks like he realised that ideals & following the masses doesn't feed him and is willing to change his political stance for the sake of monetary gains. To put it nicely, it is for the sake of survival, for himself and his family, even if it means accepting PAP's payment to paint them in better light. They have to learn to embrace each other and scratch each other's back. If you take people's money, you have to solve their problems.
There is a Chinese saying that a great man changes with the times. Contrast with Mr Goh Meng Seng, I do not know who deserves more respect, Andrew who changes with the times, or Goh Meng Seng who stand firm & stubbornly with his constricted views.
pmonkey had a huge stash of porn material and posted many of the animated and big boob gifs and pics during delphi days. i always have the impression that he is sexually starved and working as a mole for the pap.
Andrew Loh had his blog post on ministerial pay, "Going Beyond The Emotive", featured on YPAP's Facebook account.
Even the YPAP feels he writes well, he is a truly accomplished blogger. :P
Even the YPAP feels he writes well, he is a truly accomplished blogger. :P
Anything that praises the PAP, is considered a good article by the PAP sycophants. Similarly, any articles which bashes the PAP are considered good articles by the morbid anti-PAP mob.
The good old radio Gold 95 FM advert put it aptly - hear only the good things
The good old radio Gold 95 FM advert put it aptly - hear only the good things
Last edited:
lol ..or hear only the bad things!
wait wait.. u been hiding in the caves?
GMS is now the TOC chinese chief! he has moved on with the times too!
Last edited:
u 4got TOC has...our Sammyboy's Goh Meng Seng! anti-pap..is self explainatory
but read liao also damn shiok!!!!
Threadstarter, I have difficulty trying to find this discussion because I cannot remember how to spell your forum name.
I have also read Andrew Loh's website Publichouse. It is tiresome to read. I find most of its articles do not strike a chord around us and the writings tend to be draggy, naggy, emotional and the website lack focus - it tries to imbue compassion but this makes the whole website emotionally weary to read, and now the website has sympathetic articles towards the PAP?
So what is Andrew Loh trying to achieve? That website is going no where.
I have also read Andrew Loh's website Publichouse. It is tiresome to read. I find most of its articles do not strike a chord around us and the writings tend to be draggy, naggy, emotional and the website lack focus - it tries to imbue compassion but this makes the whole website emotionally weary to read, and now the website has sympathetic articles towards the PAP?
So what is Andrew Loh trying to achieve? That website is going no where.
U see lah. This pu bor kia..bash WP to suck up to PAP liao. CCB.
$$$$$ "I am paid by the PAP dogs" $$$$$
http://www.publichouse.sg/categories/politics/item/410-wp-should-explain-change-in-position
WP should explain change in position
“Ministers should be rewarded fairly and equitably for their contribution to the country. Ministers’ remuneration should be benchmarked internationally against the political office of developed countries.”
The above is from the Workers’ Party election manifesto 2011 titled, “Towards A First World Parliament”. The party had campaigned on the set of beliefs contained in the document during the General Election of May 2011.
The WP, led by secretary general Mr Low Thia Khiang, went on to secure victories in one Single-Member Constituency (Hougang) and one Group Representation Constituency (Aljunied). Two of its candidates became Non-constituency Members of Parliament, bringing its total to eight members in the House.
In the recent debate over the salaries of ministers in Parliament, the WP seems to have changed its position on the matter from that declared in its election manifesto.
Its latest position was espoused by Mr Chen Show Mao, who said in Parliament:
“Because political service is in the genre of public service, we propose a whole-of-government, people-up approach that benchmarks Ministerial salary to MP allowance, which is in turn pegged to the pay of the civil service bench-marked to general wage levels. Because political service starts with our election as parliamentary representatives of the people, MP allowance should be the starting point.”
This is an apparent departure from its manifesto position of benchmarking salaries “internationally against the political office of developed countries.” Instead, it now says the "starting point" should be MP allowance which is in turn pegged to the civil service.
People’s Action Party (PAP) MPs have noted this change and have raised questions about it.
Mr Lawrence Chong, writing on his party’s website, said:
“In 2006, it proposed making ministerial salaries 100 times the salary of the bottom 20%. In its GE2011 manifesto, the WP declared that ministers’ pay should be ‘benchmarked internationally against the political office of developed countries’. At election rallies, WP candidates used the ‘million-dollar salaries’ of ministers to whip up emotions against the government.
“After the election in Parliament, the WP proposed paying ministers around $1 million per annum. This is exactly what the WP had attacked so fiercely in the general election.”
Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean also noted the change. “For the first time, the Workers’ Party has stated that it accepted benchmarking salaries competitively, similar to the approach taken by the committee, and a fundamental departure from their past proposals,” he said.
“The Workers’ Party has clearly made a fundamental change, and taken a new position, which I hope they will hold to in the next GE (general election),” the DPM added.
The WP, however, has kept silent on why it has apparently changed its position. Mr Low and its party chairman, Ms Sylvia Lim, both did not speak during the debate on the issue in Parliament.
Singaporeans will expect the party to be forthcoming and explain why, in just over seven months since the elections, its stand on how ministers should be paid has shifted. It is not unreasonable to suggest that Singaporeans may have voted for the party because of its position on ministers’ salaries as contained in its manifesto. After all, it was one of the issues which were raised by the WP itself during the hustings.
"So what happened to the high quality people from the private sector that the high salaries were supposed to attract? If high quality people from the private sector are turning to the Workers' Party and other opposition parties, it is a sign that good government does not necessarily require high salary," Mr Low was reported to have said during the elections.
The Workers’ Party had urged Singaporeans to vote for it so that Singapore could have a “first world parliament”. At the launch of its manifesto last year, the party explained how a “first world parliament” would benefit Singaporeans. Among other things, it said:
“There will be more thorough public examination of policies, subject to public scrutiny. This will promote greater accountability and transparency, and empower Singaporeans to make informed choices.”
The WP’s shift in policy on the issue of ministerial salaries – of benchmarking it to MP allowance and not “internationally against the political office of developed countries” – is one which is under scrutiny and the party should explain its new position, in the name of accountability and transparency befitting, as the party itself says, a first world parliament.
The public, and its supporters, deserve to know.
$$$$$ "I am paid by the PAP dogs" $$$$$
http://www.publichouse.sg/categories/politics/item/410-wp-should-explain-change-in-position
WP should explain change in position
“Ministers should be rewarded fairly and equitably for their contribution to the country. Ministers’ remuneration should be benchmarked internationally against the political office of developed countries.”
The above is from the Workers’ Party election manifesto 2011 titled, “Towards A First World Parliament”. The party had campaigned on the set of beliefs contained in the document during the General Election of May 2011.
The WP, led by secretary general Mr Low Thia Khiang, went on to secure victories in one Single-Member Constituency (Hougang) and one Group Representation Constituency (Aljunied). Two of its candidates became Non-constituency Members of Parliament, bringing its total to eight members in the House.
In the recent debate over the salaries of ministers in Parliament, the WP seems to have changed its position on the matter from that declared in its election manifesto.
Its latest position was espoused by Mr Chen Show Mao, who said in Parliament:
“Because political service is in the genre of public service, we propose a whole-of-government, people-up approach that benchmarks Ministerial salary to MP allowance, which is in turn pegged to the pay of the civil service bench-marked to general wage levels. Because political service starts with our election as parliamentary representatives of the people, MP allowance should be the starting point.”
This is an apparent departure from its manifesto position of benchmarking salaries “internationally against the political office of developed countries.” Instead, it now says the "starting point" should be MP allowance which is in turn pegged to the civil service.
People’s Action Party (PAP) MPs have noted this change and have raised questions about it.
Mr Lawrence Chong, writing on his party’s website, said:
“In 2006, it proposed making ministerial salaries 100 times the salary of the bottom 20%. In its GE2011 manifesto, the WP declared that ministers’ pay should be ‘benchmarked internationally against the political office of developed countries’. At election rallies, WP candidates used the ‘million-dollar salaries’ of ministers to whip up emotions against the government.
“After the election in Parliament, the WP proposed paying ministers around $1 million per annum. This is exactly what the WP had attacked so fiercely in the general election.”
Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean also noted the change. “For the first time, the Workers’ Party has stated that it accepted benchmarking salaries competitively, similar to the approach taken by the committee, and a fundamental departure from their past proposals,” he said.
“The Workers’ Party has clearly made a fundamental change, and taken a new position, which I hope they will hold to in the next GE (general election),” the DPM added.
The WP, however, has kept silent on why it has apparently changed its position. Mr Low and its party chairman, Ms Sylvia Lim, both did not speak during the debate on the issue in Parliament.
Singaporeans will expect the party to be forthcoming and explain why, in just over seven months since the elections, its stand on how ministers should be paid has shifted. It is not unreasonable to suggest that Singaporeans may have voted for the party because of its position on ministers’ salaries as contained in its manifesto. After all, it was one of the issues which were raised by the WP itself during the hustings.
"So what happened to the high quality people from the private sector that the high salaries were supposed to attract? If high quality people from the private sector are turning to the Workers' Party and other opposition parties, it is a sign that good government does not necessarily require high salary," Mr Low was reported to have said during the elections.
The Workers’ Party had urged Singaporeans to vote for it so that Singapore could have a “first world parliament”. At the launch of its manifesto last year, the party explained how a “first world parliament” would benefit Singaporeans. Among other things, it said:
“There will be more thorough public examination of policies, subject to public scrutiny. This will promote greater accountability and transparency, and empower Singaporeans to make informed choices.”
The WP’s shift in policy on the issue of ministerial salaries – of benchmarking it to MP allowance and not “internationally against the political office of developed countries” – is one which is under scrutiny and the party should explain its new position, in the name of accountability and transparency befitting, as the party itself says, a first world parliament.
The public, and its supporters, deserve to know.
there is a very wrong mentality here in this forum. we forget that everyone is entitled to their own personal views. so do not enforce your personal opinion into other. some find paps is good, that's their own preference. some find opps are good, again that's their own.
it would be detrimental that when pap could be good at certain things, many choose to discredit it and falsify it. similarly if the opps are good, we praise them. if they are bad, then we would do the reverse. whether paps or opps, to each his/her own views. we must respect that. if everyone would to follow your own view, then what's the forum for?
only when we open our mind and read without prejudice, then we can truly learn and share and improve.
it would be detrimental that when pap could be good at certain things, many choose to discredit it and falsify it. similarly if the opps are good, we praise them. if they are bad, then we would do the reverse. whether paps or opps, to each his/her own views. we must respect that. if everyone would to follow your own view, then what's the forum for?
only when we open our mind and read without prejudice, then we can truly learn and share and improve.
Last edited:
so u r supportive of spineless guys who bent themselves over and betray their conscience for money? 
:(
r u a man? :*:
:( r u a man? :*:
I will give you my personal view. The party that need to explain their shift of position is PAP. Why do they ask for a review of ministerial salaries averaging a reduction of around 37 % but up to 50+% and have it passed in parliament with the whip being held. What were wrong with the past salaries that required this big position shift? This should be clearly explained in all the major local media and also for international media to pick up.
Last edited:
Similar threads
