-
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.
Lions icons shocked to learn they're featured as SDP 'poster boys'
- Thread starter TwitSeng
- Start date
SDP did not use footballers to endorse policies
http://yoursdp.org/news/sdp_did_not_use_footballers_to_endorse_policies/2013-04-05-5599
The New Paper has published a report where it said the SDP had used Mr Fandi Ahmad and Mr Terry Pathmanathan as "poster boys” to promote our policies.
The newspaper also cited the comments of Nominated Member of Parliament and law lecturer Eugene Tan: "It's not very ethical [of the SDP] to use [Fandi and Pathmanathan] to endorse the party's views without them agreeing to it.”
These statements are untrue.
Our article quoted Mr Fandi's and Mr Pathmanathan's statements in interviews they gave to Today and The New Paper where they talked about some of the problems they faced.
As these are problems that Singaporeans in general face with regards to foreign talent, healthcare costs and HDB prices (and because Fandi's and Pathmanathan's statements were already in the public domain), we cited them to demonstrate how the PAP's policies can hurt our people.
We also stated that these problems can be remedied by our alternative policies.
Nowhere in the article, which can be read here, did we say – or give the impression – that Mr Fandi and Mr Pathmanathan had endorsed our policies.
We often highlight the circumstances or views of prominent and not-so-prominent Singaporeans on our website to describe how SDP's policies can help our people (see here, here and here for example).
We do this because we feel that an opposition party must not only be constructive in making alternative proposals but also explain how these proposals can make life better for our people. Only then can Singaporeans have a real choice in elections.
This, of course, does not mean that the people whom we cite in our articles endorse our policies or that we are using them as poster boys and girls. We highlight their cases because they are speaking on, or are Singaporeans affected by, PAP policies.
In fact, we refrained from contacting Messrs Fandi and Pathmanathan prior to the publication of our article because doing so could be interpreted as seeking endorsement from them which we had no intention of doing.
It is regrettable that The New Paper has chosen to publish such a distorted report. It is not responsible journalism.
http://yoursdp.org/news/sdp_did_not_use_footballers_to_endorse_policies/2013-04-05-5599
The New Paper has published a report where it said the SDP had used Mr Fandi Ahmad and Mr Terry Pathmanathan as "poster boys” to promote our policies.
The newspaper also cited the comments of Nominated Member of Parliament and law lecturer Eugene Tan: "It's not very ethical [of the SDP] to use [Fandi and Pathmanathan] to endorse the party's views without them agreeing to it.”
These statements are untrue.
Our article quoted Mr Fandi's and Mr Pathmanathan's statements in interviews they gave to Today and The New Paper where they talked about some of the problems they faced.
As these are problems that Singaporeans in general face with regards to foreign talent, healthcare costs and HDB prices (and because Fandi's and Pathmanathan's statements were already in the public domain), we cited them to demonstrate how the PAP's policies can hurt our people.
We also stated that these problems can be remedied by our alternative policies.
Nowhere in the article, which can be read here, did we say – or give the impression – that Mr Fandi and Mr Pathmanathan had endorsed our policies.
We often highlight the circumstances or views of prominent and not-so-prominent Singaporeans on our website to describe how SDP's policies can help our people (see here, here and here for example).
We do this because we feel that an opposition party must not only be constructive in making alternative proposals but also explain how these proposals can make life better for our people. Only then can Singaporeans have a real choice in elections.
This, of course, does not mean that the people whom we cite in our articles endorse our policies or that we are using them as poster boys and girls. We highlight their cases because they are speaking on, or are Singaporeans affected by, PAP policies.
In fact, we refrained from contacting Messrs Fandi and Pathmanathan prior to the publication of our article because doing so could be interpreted as seeking endorsement from them which we had no intention of doing.
It is regrettable that The New Paper has chosen to publish such a distorted report. It is not responsible journalism.
The original article is posted as follows:
How SDP's policies can help: The case of Fandi Ahmad
Monday 01 April 2013
http://yoursdp.ucoz.org/news/how_sdp_s_policies_can_help_the_case_of_fandi_ahmad/2013-04-01-5593
In January 2012, Mr Fandi Ahmad, who was much loved for his prowess in the local footballing scene, gave an interview to the Today newspaper in which he recounted some of the hard times that have befallen him and his family.
Mr Fandi rose to fame in the 1980s when he helped Singapore to win the Malaysia Cup in 1980 and then took his skills to Europe, playing with some of the big names in the football world.
Passed over for foreigners
When his playing career ended, he returned to Singapore to try his hand in coaching and business.
Unfortunately, the path was less straightforward. He was passed over for national coach by the Football Association of Singapore (FAS) and a couple of business ventures he entered failed.
Mr Fandi was unhappy with FAS' attitude as he felt that the Association was not respectful of his talent. Calling the organisation "incompetent", he said: "To tell you the truth, I was ready to continue then. But they (the FAS) never got back to me. They only did so in March, three months later, and offered excuses like they could not contact me earlier."
He is not alone. Another local footballing great, Mr Terry 'Captain Marvel' Pathmanathan (photo on right), feels the same way.
Also ignored for the national coaching position, Mr Pathmanathan said: "Maybe it's the thinking the FAS has - believing local coaches are inferior to foreigners. I'm tired of saying that local coaches should be given a chance."
He added: "I don't think we're short on local options...FAS has no respect for local coaches. After all I have done for my country as a player and as a coach, this is what I get?”
Fandi's and Pathmanathan's treatment reflects a bigger problem where foreign workers are often unjustifiably hired over locals under the PAP's foreign talent policy.
Such discrimination will not be allowed under the SDP's alternative immigration policy where the FAS would have to demonstrate why Messrs Fandi or Pathmanathan do not have the requisite skills before it is allowed to hire a foreign coach.
Read also SDP unveils six-point plan to control population
This does not mean that the Association is bound to employ a local. It does, however, mean that FAS would have to justify its stance. At the very minimum, our homegrown talent would not be treated so shabbily.
A family tragedy
In 2008, Mr Fandi's wife, Ms Wendy Jacobs, slipped and fell in her home. She suffered head injuries and had to undergo extensive medical treatment and care. This took a toll on the family's finances.
Mr Fandi admitted: "The medical bills are mounting for me and made worse by the fact that her condition is not covered by insurance."
If the SDP's healthcare policy had been in place, Mrs Fandi would have paid an annual premium based on their income at the prevailing time (which would have worked out to a fraction that they pay to their Medisave) into one national fund which would then pay the bulk of the bills.
In return, she would pay only 10 percent of her hospital bill and would be afforded complete treatment, with the patient and her family given peace of mind.
Read also The SDP healthcare plan made simple
Such a policy would certainly not burden the Fandi household (they have five children). No family should be financially ruined just because one of its members meet with an major illness.
Buying an affordable home
Under financial strain, Mr Fandi had to sell his terrace house and buy an HDB flat. But even that was not easy. He said: "I am in the process of applying to buy a HDB flat. But I don't have enough in my CPF savings. So things are a bit complicated."
The SDP's housing policy would allow Mr Fandi to buy a 5-room flat for about $200,000 under the Non-Open Market (NOM) scheme. Such a price is much more realistic and affordable for the Fandi family, or for that matter, thousands of families across Singapore.
Under the NOM scheme, Mr Fandi would then not be able to re-sell his flat on the open market but only back to the HDB. The trade-off would be that he would not have to sink his life's savings into finding a home for his family.
Read also SDP proposes non-open market flats in housing policy
Policies have the ability to help or hurt people. This is why the SDP has drawn up workable solutions that focus on helping our people and raising their quality of life as opposed to policies that are oriented towards profit-generating for the Government.
If a national soccer hero like Mr Fandi Ahmad can be hurt by current policies, what more the average Singaporean?
How SDP's policies can help: The case of Fandi Ahmad
Monday 01 April 2013
http://yoursdp.ucoz.org/news/how_sdp_s_policies_can_help_the_case_of_fandi_ahmad/2013-04-01-5593
In January 2012, Mr Fandi Ahmad, who was much loved for his prowess in the local footballing scene, gave an interview to the Today newspaper in which he recounted some of the hard times that have befallen him and his family.
Mr Fandi rose to fame in the 1980s when he helped Singapore to win the Malaysia Cup in 1980 and then took his skills to Europe, playing with some of the big names in the football world.
Passed over for foreigners
When his playing career ended, he returned to Singapore to try his hand in coaching and business.
Unfortunately, the path was less straightforward. He was passed over for national coach by the Football Association of Singapore (FAS) and a couple of business ventures he entered failed.
Mr Fandi was unhappy with FAS' attitude as he felt that the Association was not respectful of his talent. Calling the organisation "incompetent", he said: "To tell you the truth, I was ready to continue then. But they (the FAS) never got back to me. They only did so in March, three months later, and offered excuses like they could not contact me earlier."
He is not alone. Another local footballing great, Mr Terry 'Captain Marvel' Pathmanathan (photo on right), feels the same way.
Also ignored for the national coaching position, Mr Pathmanathan said: "Maybe it's the thinking the FAS has - believing local coaches are inferior to foreigners. I'm tired of saying that local coaches should be given a chance."
He added: "I don't think we're short on local options...FAS has no respect for local coaches. After all I have done for my country as a player and as a coach, this is what I get?”
Fandi's and Pathmanathan's treatment reflects a bigger problem where foreign workers are often unjustifiably hired over locals under the PAP's foreign talent policy.
Such discrimination will not be allowed under the SDP's alternative immigration policy where the FAS would have to demonstrate why Messrs Fandi or Pathmanathan do not have the requisite skills before it is allowed to hire a foreign coach.
Read also SDP unveils six-point plan to control population
This does not mean that the Association is bound to employ a local. It does, however, mean that FAS would have to justify its stance. At the very minimum, our homegrown talent would not be treated so shabbily.
A family tragedy
In 2008, Mr Fandi's wife, Ms Wendy Jacobs, slipped and fell in her home. She suffered head injuries and had to undergo extensive medical treatment and care. This took a toll on the family's finances.
Mr Fandi admitted: "The medical bills are mounting for me and made worse by the fact that her condition is not covered by insurance."
If the SDP's healthcare policy had been in place, Mrs Fandi would have paid an annual premium based on their income at the prevailing time (which would have worked out to a fraction that they pay to their Medisave) into one national fund which would then pay the bulk of the bills.
In return, she would pay only 10 percent of her hospital bill and would be afforded complete treatment, with the patient and her family given peace of mind.
Read also The SDP healthcare plan made simple
Such a policy would certainly not burden the Fandi household (they have five children). No family should be financially ruined just because one of its members meet with an major illness.
Buying an affordable home
Under financial strain, Mr Fandi had to sell his terrace house and buy an HDB flat. But even that was not easy. He said: "I am in the process of applying to buy a HDB flat. But I don't have enough in my CPF savings. So things are a bit complicated."
The SDP's housing policy would allow Mr Fandi to buy a 5-room flat for about $200,000 under the Non-Open Market (NOM) scheme. Such a price is much more realistic and affordable for the Fandi family, or for that matter, thousands of families across Singapore.
Under the NOM scheme, Mr Fandi would then not be able to re-sell his flat on the open market but only back to the HDB. The trade-off would be that he would not have to sink his life's savings into finding a home for his family.
Read also SDP proposes non-open market flats in housing policy
Policies have the ability to help or hurt people. This is why the SDP has drawn up workable solutions that focus on helping our people and raising their quality of life as opposed to policies that are oriented towards profit-generating for the Government.
If a national soccer hero like Mr Fandi Ahmad can be hurt by current policies, what more the average Singaporean?
What has happened is that SDP's article has conveyed the wrong impression because of the prominent way the footballers were featured. It does not help that the SCM is on the govt's side and chooses to blow it up in exactly the way that would be deterimental to SDP. I'm surprised SDP did not anticipate such a reaction beforehand.
The PAP machinery regularly uses such tactics to endorse its own policies publicly but they don't single people out in the same way Fandi was singled out, and also the SCM is on their side which means it will naturally be spun as a positive.
And meanwhile the SCM has used this opportunity to distract us from the real issues at hand. Now you know why internet is a double-edged sword for parties who are not careful enough to avoid the SCM's traps.
The PAP machinery regularly uses such tactics to endorse its own policies publicly but they don't single people out in the same way Fandi was singled out, and also the SCM is on their side which means it will naturally be spun as a positive.
And meanwhile the SCM has used this opportunity to distract us from the real issues at hand. Now you know why internet is a double-edged sword for parties who are not careful enough to avoid the SCM's traps.
SDP ‘Poster Boys’ kicking up a big fuss?
http://www.tremeritus.com/2013/04/05/sdp-‘poster-boys’-kicking-up-a-big-fuss/
If Fandi Ahmad and Terry Pathmanathan were nervous about the PAP and the public might see them as supporters of SDP or endorsing SDP’s policies, all they needed to do was to say that no one from SDP approached them and the article was published without them knowing it.
In the first place, they were the ones who related to the media about their sad stories – and they have my sympathy. The SDP then used their stories to justify its proposals that were designed to help unfortunate Singaporeans such as them. What SDP did was just like what any politician or marketing man would have done – I don’t see anything wrong with that. Lee Kuan Yew did that many times. The PAP ministers did that many times. Just the other day, his son related a joke about ‘free smoking’ and ‘free pig soup’ he heard from PRC people to a group of American businessmen – to justify his political points.
When I first saw the title of that SDP’s article online, I did not bother to read it. I am not a fan of any sportsmen and I don’t watch soccer; I know there is a man called “Fandi Ahmad” but “Terry Pathmanathan” is a new name to me. When I saw, at the news stand, TNP’s headline about the two protesting over SDP using them to carry political message, I returned home to search and read that SDP article in full. Personally, I think it was a clever way to communicate one’s message. Old generation Singaporeans, I believed, like the two soccer stars and feel for them.
(Incidentally, I have noted that in recent years, the SDP has been trying various innovative and creative ways to reach out to the voters – while some of its ideas might seem amusing, but I thought it was a good try at least).
The only trouble was that SDP is not a lover of the ruling government and the PAP controlled media. The latter would do anything to cut off the former’s attempt to reach out to the voters. And they are doing it again this time.
It would be foolish if readers and viewers of the government’s controlled media allowed themselves to be distracted again. It would be more foolish and sad if the two ‘retired’ sportsmen allowed themselves to be used as a weapon to attack a party that showed sympathy to their personal situations and criticized the system for discriminating them and not recognizing their earlier contributions.
Do not be a daft. Know who has harmed you and your loved ones.
Celia Lim
http://www.tremeritus.com/2013/04/05/sdp-‘poster-boys’-kicking-up-a-big-fuss/
If Fandi Ahmad and Terry Pathmanathan were nervous about the PAP and the public might see them as supporters of SDP or endorsing SDP’s policies, all they needed to do was to say that no one from SDP approached them and the article was published without them knowing it.
In the first place, they were the ones who related to the media about their sad stories – and they have my sympathy. The SDP then used their stories to justify its proposals that were designed to help unfortunate Singaporeans such as them. What SDP did was just like what any politician or marketing man would have done – I don’t see anything wrong with that. Lee Kuan Yew did that many times. The PAP ministers did that many times. Just the other day, his son related a joke about ‘free smoking’ and ‘free pig soup’ he heard from PRC people to a group of American businessmen – to justify his political points.
When I first saw the title of that SDP’s article online, I did not bother to read it. I am not a fan of any sportsmen and I don’t watch soccer; I know there is a man called “Fandi Ahmad” but “Terry Pathmanathan” is a new name to me. When I saw, at the news stand, TNP’s headline about the two protesting over SDP using them to carry political message, I returned home to search and read that SDP article in full. Personally, I think it was a clever way to communicate one’s message. Old generation Singaporeans, I believed, like the two soccer stars and feel for them.
(Incidentally, I have noted that in recent years, the SDP has been trying various innovative and creative ways to reach out to the voters – while some of its ideas might seem amusing, but I thought it was a good try at least).
The only trouble was that SDP is not a lover of the ruling government and the PAP controlled media. The latter would do anything to cut off the former’s attempt to reach out to the voters. And they are doing it again this time.
It would be foolish if readers and viewers of the government’s controlled media allowed themselves to be distracted again. It would be more foolish and sad if the two ‘retired’ sportsmen allowed themselves to be used as a weapon to attack a party that showed sympathy to their personal situations and criticized the system for discriminating them and not recognizing their earlier contributions.
Do not be a daft. Know who has harmed you and your loved ones.
Celia Lim
What’s so bad about being mentioned?
http://www.breakfastnetwork.sg/?p=3...m_campaign=whats-so-bad-about-being-mentioned
TNP’s cover story on how the Singapore Democratic Party used footballing icons Fandi Ahmad and Terry Pathmanathan to make a political point is interesting. In fact, it’s weird.
Readers can be forgiven for thinking that the SDP had used the two figures to endorse its political platform on Singapore’s Singaporeans-versus-foreigners policy. And that they never gave permission. Turns out that the two were simply used as an example of how they would be treated “better’ if the SDP policy was in place.
Now, what is so wrong with that? The funny thing is that TNP appears to be raising the question with the two footballers and are in turn annoyed. Fandi is even considering legal action and one academic thinks it was not fair that the footballers’ permission weren’t used in the article.
This is so odd. Clearly, the SDP isn’t saying that the two men endorsed or approved of its policies. They were just used as examples and in the business of gaining attention, that’s what anyone would do. The media do it all the time, making reference to people, especially well-known people, when it wants to comment on something that is of relevance.
Hey, this is not even like the usual publicity stunts that hawkers and restaurants get up to: using pictures of celebrities and, yes, politicians who patronise their stall. (Maybe they got permission to put them out. Maybe they didn’t. Maybe the people photographed didn’t think anything about having their pictures up as an endorsement of the stall/restaurant).
Now, there might be a case if the SDP got its facts about the two footballers wrong or somehow twisted the material for its own gain. But apparently, this is not the case. So the problem the footballer have is that it is a political party which is making the reference. And they do not want to be seen as “aligned’’ with an opposition party or even have their names on its lips? What if it was another group who referred to Fandi and Terry’s problems with the local football authorities – and suggested a way around them? Say, a PAP MP or a sports group?
Would it be illegal for these people to use them as examples? Under what law? Would permission have to be sought? Surely, not. Does TNP realise that if it is, then for any story it writes about anyone, it would have to ask the person for permission simply to mention his/her name?
Crazy.
Bertha Henson
http://www.breakfastnetwork.sg/?p=3...m_campaign=whats-so-bad-about-being-mentioned
TNP’s cover story on how the Singapore Democratic Party used footballing icons Fandi Ahmad and Terry Pathmanathan to make a political point is interesting. In fact, it’s weird.
Readers can be forgiven for thinking that the SDP had used the two figures to endorse its political platform on Singapore’s Singaporeans-versus-foreigners policy. And that they never gave permission. Turns out that the two were simply used as an example of how they would be treated “better’ if the SDP policy was in place.
Now, what is so wrong with that? The funny thing is that TNP appears to be raising the question with the two footballers and are in turn annoyed. Fandi is even considering legal action and one academic thinks it was not fair that the footballers’ permission weren’t used in the article.
This is so odd. Clearly, the SDP isn’t saying that the two men endorsed or approved of its policies. They were just used as examples and in the business of gaining attention, that’s what anyone would do. The media do it all the time, making reference to people, especially well-known people, when it wants to comment on something that is of relevance.
Hey, this is not even like the usual publicity stunts that hawkers and restaurants get up to: using pictures of celebrities and, yes, politicians who patronise their stall. (Maybe they got permission to put them out. Maybe they didn’t. Maybe the people photographed didn’t think anything about having their pictures up as an endorsement of the stall/restaurant).
Now, there might be a case if the SDP got its facts about the two footballers wrong or somehow twisted the material for its own gain. But apparently, this is not the case. So the problem the footballer have is that it is a political party which is making the reference. And they do not want to be seen as “aligned’’ with an opposition party or even have their names on its lips? What if it was another group who referred to Fandi and Terry’s problems with the local football authorities – and suggested a way around them? Say, a PAP MP or a sports group?
Would it be illegal for these people to use them as examples? Under what law? Would permission have to be sought? Surely, not. Does TNP realise that if it is, then for any story it writes about anyone, it would have to ask the person for permission simply to mention his/her name?
Crazy.
Bertha Henson
I sympathise with both Terry and Fandi and I agree with Prof Eugene Tan. It would be interesting to see what legal options Fandi has.
Eugene Tan is merely playing his appointed role as puppet.
Fandi's legal threat is just hot air. However it IS clear that SDP has once again fallen into a hole because of political immaturity. The PAP regularly uses ordinary citizens to play up its policies but the SCM is behind it, so no worries. The PAP also does not put a person on the front page without making sure he knows what's about to happen.
SDP should know that by singling someone out out like that is only inviting attacks. They have themselves to blame.
Imagine Yun Nam Hair Care or Beijing 101 taking a photograph of Tharman and saying this chap can be helped by their products.
Tharman will also feel like sueing.
Tharman will also feel like sueing.
Did SDP ever though of asking for both man's permission before quoting them?
Please read all the posts before asking questions. The answer to your question is already stated there in the second last paragraph of post #2 above. Thanks
"When we lose the right to be different, we lose the privilege to be free" - Charles Evan Hughes
Last edited:
By the way, this thread was not started by me. I believe in presenting all the FACTS so that intelligent brothers here can make a well-informed conclusion. Thanks
"When we lose the right to be different, we lose the privilege to be free" - Charles Evan Hughes
"When we lose the right to be different, we lose the privilege to be free" - Charles Evan Hughes
Last edited:
By the way, this thread was not started by me. I believe in presenting all the FACTS so that intelligent brothers here can make a well-informed conclusion. Thanks
Your SDP puts up a big picture of Tao Li scoring straight A's after drinking SDP Bird Nest, and then claims that they never used Tao Li as poster girl to endorse their product. That's a bit rich.
Last edited:
There was actually a case, years ago of Chiam See Tong suing a restaurant for using his picture in their window without his permission. The case was settled out of Court for $50k.
There may not be a direct comparison with the Terry/Fandi issue but a lawyer would be able to advise.
What sue SDP? Even lau goh & lau lee also settle their differences with discount...
Gut feel is that Fandi has no case because it's not commercial product. Anyway the political point has been made and Fandi would not be wise to sue. Why create ill will unnecessarily, regardless of what he may privately think of SDP?
SDP did nothing wrong. They used information from interviews that was already public, not that they revealed something said in private.
Opposition have also highlighted the case of Melvyn Tan as an example of how NS policies failed or Stephanie Sun having more success overseas. They didn't fuss.
I am more worried that our local icons are behaving like typical voters 30 years ago when the rest of Singapore have politically matured.
Opposition have also highlighted the case of Melvyn Tan as an example of how NS policies failed or Stephanie Sun having more success overseas. They didn't fuss.
I am more worried that our local icons are behaving like typical voters 30 years ago when the rest of Singapore have politically matured.
there is nothing legally wrong with what sdp did as it was not commercial in nature.
however in politics it is not enough just to be legally in the clear. you have to do things in a way to avoid being attacked unnecessarily. what sdp did was politically immature.
Melvyn tan case was different as he was not being used to promote the virtues of national service. in any case national service is a non partisan institution so the entire comparison is invalid
however in politics it is not enough just to be legally in the clear. you have to do things in a way to avoid being attacked unnecessarily. what sdp did was politically immature.
Melvyn tan case was different as he was not being used to promote the virtues of national service. in any case national service is a non partisan institution so the entire comparison is invalid
Last edited:
Seriously what do expect from TNP and Eugene. Both have unenviable track record of prostitution and servitude to the PAP. Despite all the cries over the white paper Eugene abstained clearly showing that he wanted to be all things to everyone and still have his cake.
SDP chose 2 examples that most Singaporeans can identify with. And seriously Fandi and Terry despite their service had to give way to foreigners and the results have been dismal. Remember GCT's aspiration for Singapore soccer and the World Cup. It is not only football but the amount of trouble that we had with PRC sports mercenaries has been never ending. The mother and son lawsuit is just the latest.
And honestly did SDP quote Fandi and Terry out of context. Did they expect SDP to write an article with no cases to cite or examples to provide context.
The entire SPH entity is rotten to the core. And suddenly Bertha Henson who was close to old man's family and famed for convincing the old man to have his extended family photo splashed across its whore press after being given retrenchment is suddenly a freedom fighter.
Eugene and TNP has to apologise for this attack.
SDP chose 2 examples that most Singaporeans can identify with. And seriously Fandi and Terry despite their service had to give way to foreigners and the results have been dismal. Remember GCT's aspiration for Singapore soccer and the World Cup. It is not only football but the amount of trouble that we had with PRC sports mercenaries has been never ending. The mother and son lawsuit is just the latest.
And honestly did SDP quote Fandi and Terry out of context. Did they expect SDP to write an article with no cases to cite or examples to provide context.
The entire SPH entity is rotten to the core. And suddenly Bertha Henson who was close to old man's family and famed for convincing the old man to have his extended family photo splashed across its whore press after being given retrenchment is suddenly a freedom fighter.
Eugene and TNP has to apologise for this attack.
Similar threads
- Poll
