But who was closest? LWL or LHL?
-
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.
Old Man's Daughter vs Devan Nair's son
- Thread starter scroobal
- Start date
But who was closest? LWL or LHL?
dklcsdkcsdklcnsdklcnsdklcnsd
When janadas has to reference the SDP website in order to drive home an argument, you know he must be desperate.
So, he pays US taxes. Willing to give up so much money to Uncle Sam.
Scrooballs amazing that you not only know the lee family so well you even know the instructors that were present when pinkie went for his pre NS physical and what actually transpired between them, their thoughts on LWL and pinkie. I am sure they must have written out about it or who knows maybe they met you for coffee despite such a huge age gap between you and them, in fact there is quite an age gap between you, pinky and LWL. Let's see she's 61 this year and he's 64, you mark andrew yeo is around early 50s so the age gap would be around 10 years so you would be like around 8 years old when he went for his check up.
Does he and his wife vote in the local elections in austin, texas? If so, that is really fucked up.
The war of words rages on ......
Janadas Devan chides Lee Kuan Yew’s daughter for not fact checking – claims ST editor was not scolded by PM
By The Independent - April 4, 2016 6 18265
Share on Facebook Tweet on Twitter
UPDATE: Dr Lee responded to Mr Devan’s snide remark in her Facebook. We republish her remark in full:
“Janadas, read my post carefully. I stated that Cheong Yip Seng told me, “not scolded, just to point out a few issues.” As for what you said to me, it was some years ago, you were expressing anger that Cheong was not straight with father. I could not remember your precise words, but I clearly remembered your emotion. Why else would I bring it up with Pa what you said.
Would Cheong Yip Seng email to PM without someone telling him to do so? I was told that Cheong was scolded by (Lee Hsien) Loong, but I stated in my facebook post, that Cheong Yip Seng told me, “not scolded, just to point out a few issues.”
Do read carefully before you make a fuss. Cheong himself tried to trivialize what transpired between him and PM. But the PAP cadre told me, “Cheong was scolded and didn’t understand why he was being scolded.” I cannot release the identity of the PAP cadre in case punitive action is taken against him.”
—
Janadas Devan, Chief of Government Communications, has responded to Dr Lee Wei Ling’s post that he did not accuse the ex-editor of The Straits Times, Mr Cheong Yip Seng, as being sly. He further claimed that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong did not call the editor to scold him.
In his comments posted on Dr Lee’s Facebook post, Mr Devan said:
“One, PM Lee did not call Mr Cheong Yip Seng, much less “scold him”. Mr Cheong emailed PM about his book and PM replied. This tallies with Mr Cheong’s own account, as he has conveyed to you, confirming he wasn’t “scolded”.
Two, Mr Lee Kuan Yew did not write a foreword to Mr Cheong’s book, as you claim. He had provided a blurb – a few words for the back cover of the book.
Three, I did not “complain” to you that Mr Cheong was “sly” to have asked Mr Lee for a “foreword” and then “criticised” him in the book. These are your characterisations of what happened, not mine.
What I told you after the book appeared was that Mr Lee had written a blurb for it without being informed clearly what the book was about, let alone that a good chunk of it was about him. And that was why many people, including reviewers online, were surprised that Mr Lee appeared to have endorsed the book.
To get an idea of the reaction, you can see, from different perspectives, https://berthahenson.wordpress.com/…/20/finally-the-facts/ and http://yoursdp.org/publ/perspectives/2-1-0-1179.
Should fact check before reporting what others are supposed to have said. Wish you well in your new FB venture. Trust it will result in a Hakka Daughter II one day.”
Janadas Devan chides Lee Kuan Yew’s daughter for not fact checking – claims ST editor was not scolded by PM
By The Independent - April 4, 2016 6 18265
Share on Facebook Tweet on Twitter
UPDATE: Dr Lee responded to Mr Devan’s snide remark in her Facebook. We republish her remark in full:
“Janadas, read my post carefully. I stated that Cheong Yip Seng told me, “not scolded, just to point out a few issues.” As for what you said to me, it was some years ago, you were expressing anger that Cheong was not straight with father. I could not remember your precise words, but I clearly remembered your emotion. Why else would I bring it up with Pa what you said.
Would Cheong Yip Seng email to PM without someone telling him to do so? I was told that Cheong was scolded by (Lee Hsien) Loong, but I stated in my facebook post, that Cheong Yip Seng told me, “not scolded, just to point out a few issues.”
Do read carefully before you make a fuss. Cheong himself tried to trivialize what transpired between him and PM. But the PAP cadre told me, “Cheong was scolded and didn’t understand why he was being scolded.” I cannot release the identity of the PAP cadre in case punitive action is taken against him.”
—
Janadas Devan, Chief of Government Communications, has responded to Dr Lee Wei Ling’s post that he did not accuse the ex-editor of The Straits Times, Mr Cheong Yip Seng, as being sly. He further claimed that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong did not call the editor to scold him.
In his comments posted on Dr Lee’s Facebook post, Mr Devan said:
“One, PM Lee did not call Mr Cheong Yip Seng, much less “scold him”. Mr Cheong emailed PM about his book and PM replied. This tallies with Mr Cheong’s own account, as he has conveyed to you, confirming he wasn’t “scolded”.
Two, Mr Lee Kuan Yew did not write a foreword to Mr Cheong’s book, as you claim. He had provided a blurb – a few words for the back cover of the book.
Three, I did not “complain” to you that Mr Cheong was “sly” to have asked Mr Lee for a “foreword” and then “criticised” him in the book. These are your characterisations of what happened, not mine.
What I told you after the book appeared was that Mr Lee had written a blurb for it without being informed clearly what the book was about, let alone that a good chunk of it was about him. And that was why many people, including reviewers online, were surprised that Mr Lee appeared to have endorsed the book.
To get an idea of the reaction, you can see, from different perspectives, https://berthahenson.wordpress.com/…/20/finally-the-facts/ and http://yoursdp.org/publ/perspectives/2-1-0-1179.
Should fact check before reporting what others are supposed to have said. Wish you well in your new FB venture. Trust it will result in a Hakka Daughter II one day.”
Scrooballs amazing that you not only know the lee family so well you even know the instructors that were present when pinkie went for his pre NS physical and what actually transpired between them, their thoughts on LWL and pinkie. I am sure they must have written out about it or who knows maybe they met you for coffee despite such a huge age gap between you and them, in fact there is quite an age gap between you, pinky and LWL. Let's see she's 61 this year and he's 64, you mark andrew yeo is around early 50s so the age gap would be around 10 years so you would be like around 8 years old when he went for his check up.
ching chong nigger, you are a bloody fool! you still think scroo is Mark? moron.
BY
VALERIE KOH
[email protected]ISHED: 9:49 PM, APRIL 4, 2016UPDATED: 12:38 AM, APRIL 5, 2016
SINGAPORE — The trigger for an online exchange between Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Janadas Devan was a “serious allegation” she made about his conduct while he was an editor with The Straits Times (ST), Mr Devan said on Monday (April 4).
Responding to TODAY’s queries via text messages, the 61-year-old senior government official, who is currently travelling, stressed that he posted responses to Dr Lee’s comments in his private capacity. What was said by Dr Lee — who is the daughter of founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew — amounted to “a serious allegation about my conduct in my previous occupation”.
Mr Devan worked for ST before he was appointed Chief of Government Communications in 2012. The exchange between Dr Lee and Mr Devan was a major talking point on social media in recent days, which began with Dr Lee’s Facebook post on March 25 stating that her father would have cringed at the hero worship just one year after his death.
Subsequently, Dr Lee, 61, who was a contributor to ST, said she put up the article on Facebook because “the editors there do not allow me freedom of speech” and she also announced that she would stop writing for the newspaper.
Mr Devan, who is the son of former President Devan Nair, told TODAY: “Dr Lee alleged that she had three editors (over the years) and all three editors acted improperly with regard to her articles. I was one of the editors, as many people know.”
He added: “Not to have replied to deny such insinuations means I accept them… Dr Lee must know you can’t make such allegations about people and expect them to keep quiet.”
Over the weekend, Dr Lee put up several Facebook posts on the matter. On Saturday, she alleged that Mr Devan had portrayed former Singapore Press Holdings’ English and Malay Newspapers Division Editor-in-Chief Cheong Yip Seng as “sly”, for asking the late Mr Lee to write a blurb in his book, OB Markers, and criticising him in the same book. Among other things, she also wrote that a People’s Action Party cadre told her that her brother, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, “had called up Cheong to scold him”.
On Sunday, Dr Lee wrote about the “love-hate relationship” between her and the editors. She also said that Mr Devan had texted her from Texas, United States, to say that he “never called Cheong sly”. Dr Lee said she could not recall Mr Devan’s exact words during the conversation in 2013. “But he expressed his displeasure with Cheong with great emotion and this was directed to the fact that Cheong made use of my father. ‘Sly’ seemed appropriate word to convey what he said to me,” she said.
At around midnight on Monday, Mr Devan left a comment on Dr Lee’s Facebook to clarify, among other things, that the Prime Minister did not call Mr Cheong, “much less ‘scold him’”. He also said that Dr Lee’s descriptions of the incident involving Mr Cheong were inaccurate and were her “characterisations of what happened”.
(click to enlarge)
On Monday afternoon, Mr Devan left another comment.
“Much as I dislike publicly contradicting a friend, there is no alternative,” he said. “We are expected to believe she suffered so much oppression, writing for ST, that she willingly persisted with the experience over almost ten miserable years… How credible can that be?”
Reading Dr Lee’s unedited stories was “like sailing through a fog” but Mr Devan denied censoring her articles. “Of course, like with any writer, she was fact-checked to make sure she did not inadvertently make inaccurate or misleading statements. That’s not ‘censorship’; that’s called editing.”
(click to enlarge)
In response, Dr Lee said she could not remember his precise words over the Cheong incident but she “clearly remembered” his emotion. Giving her account of what she was told by Mr Cheong and the PAP cadre — whom she could not name “in case punitive action is taken against him” — she also asked Mr Devan to “read carefully before you make a fuss”
VALERIE KOH
[email protected]ISHED: 9:49 PM, APRIL 4, 2016UPDATED: 12:38 AM, APRIL 5, 2016
SINGAPORE — The trigger for an online exchange between Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Janadas Devan was a “serious allegation” she made about his conduct while he was an editor with The Straits Times (ST), Mr Devan said on Monday (April 4).
Responding to TODAY’s queries via text messages, the 61-year-old senior government official, who is currently travelling, stressed that he posted responses to Dr Lee’s comments in his private capacity. What was said by Dr Lee — who is the daughter of founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew — amounted to “a serious allegation about my conduct in my previous occupation”.
Mr Devan worked for ST before he was appointed Chief of Government Communications in 2012. The exchange between Dr Lee and Mr Devan was a major talking point on social media in recent days, which began with Dr Lee’s Facebook post on March 25 stating that her father would have cringed at the hero worship just one year after his death.
Subsequently, Dr Lee, 61, who was a contributor to ST, said she put up the article on Facebook because “the editors there do not allow me freedom of speech” and she also announced that she would stop writing for the newspaper.
Mr Devan, who is the son of former President Devan Nair, told TODAY: “Dr Lee alleged that she had three editors (over the years) and all three editors acted improperly with regard to her articles. I was one of the editors, as many people know.”
He added: “Not to have replied to deny such insinuations means I accept them… Dr Lee must know you can’t make such allegations about people and expect them to keep quiet.”
Over the weekend, Dr Lee put up several Facebook posts on the matter. On Saturday, she alleged that Mr Devan had portrayed former Singapore Press Holdings’ English and Malay Newspapers Division Editor-in-Chief Cheong Yip Seng as “sly”, for asking the late Mr Lee to write a blurb in his book, OB Markers, and criticising him in the same book. Among other things, she also wrote that a People’s Action Party cadre told her that her brother, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, “had called up Cheong to scold him”.
On Sunday, Dr Lee wrote about the “love-hate relationship” between her and the editors. She also said that Mr Devan had texted her from Texas, United States, to say that he “never called Cheong sly”. Dr Lee said she could not recall Mr Devan’s exact words during the conversation in 2013. “But he expressed his displeasure with Cheong with great emotion and this was directed to the fact that Cheong made use of my father. ‘Sly’ seemed appropriate word to convey what he said to me,” she said.
At around midnight on Monday, Mr Devan left a comment on Dr Lee’s Facebook to clarify, among other things, that the Prime Minister did not call Mr Cheong, “much less ‘scold him’”. He also said that Dr Lee’s descriptions of the incident involving Mr Cheong were inaccurate and were her “characterisations of what happened”.
(click to enlarge)
On Monday afternoon, Mr Devan left another comment.
“Much as I dislike publicly contradicting a friend, there is no alternative,” he said. “We are expected to believe she suffered so much oppression, writing for ST, that she willingly persisted with the experience over almost ten miserable years… How credible can that be?”
Reading Dr Lee’s unedited stories was “like sailing through a fog” but Mr Devan denied censoring her articles. “Of course, like with any writer, she was fact-checked to make sure she did not inadvertently make inaccurate or misleading statements. That’s not ‘censorship’; that’s called editing.”
(click to enlarge)
In response, Dr Lee said she could not remember his precise words over the Cheong incident but she “clearly remembered” his emotion. Giving her account of what she was told by Mr Cheong and the PAP cadre — whom she could not name “in case punitive action is taken against him” — she also asked Mr Devan to “read carefully before you make a fuss”
The irony is that both of them had similar issues with SPH. When Janadas Devan was in the US and submitting his weekly articles to ST one day they stopped publishing it and he was never told why. Have no idea who he cried to but he was subsequently brought in back to ST. The daughter clearly has lost her marbles. She crying out against censorship and curtailing freedom of speech is mind boggling. Its like Gaddafi's son asking for his rights to be protected.
How dare the Minon bite back at Princess ? When a Princess say that you are unreasonable and you are a tyrant. You are one.
Now PAPA has gone, no one to back the freaky Princess up. Guess she might as well retire away from limelight.
PAP candidate for BB is also a disloyal son. His father was fucked by the PAP during Op Coldstore.
http://theindependent.sg/lee-wei-li...he-newspaper-to-be-unbiased-in-its-reporting/
Lee Wei Ling’s stance against The Straits Times reminds the newspaper to be unbiased in its reporting
By The Independent - April 3, 2016
Many have previously observed that The Straits Times often works against free speech by refusing to publish letters, articles and comments which go against the opinion they wish to present. In many incidences of such alleged censorship, reports on public interest issues have been arguably slanted and unobjective.
The danger to that is that the public’s right to information is compromised because of The Straits Times apparent agenda. To compound things, The Straits Times is the only major English publication in Singapore which the government openly recognises and quite possibly the only English print media outlet that the government grants interviews and directly engages with. Given their privilege of access, it is concerning that it then seemingly uses this privilege to influence the public to a certain view which many have deemed as biased.
Dr Lee Wei Ling, daughter of the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew has just announced that she will no longer write for The Straits Times because of the “editorial curbs” that have been imposed by the publication (http://theindependent.sg/lee-kuan-yews-daughter-says-she-will-no-longer-write-for-sph/) I can only speculate that this decision has something to do with the paper’s refusal to publish her views over the “hero worship” of her father after her Face Book posts.
Given that she is the late Mr Lee’s daughter, I would have imagined that her views on the commemoration events would have been very relevant. The fact that her opinion was not carried by the paper is curious and lends evidence to accusations levelled at the paper for allowing the promotion of a certain agenda to trump the public’s right to objective and unfettered information.
The Straits Times has oft been labelled as the mouthpiece of the PAP government. Given Dr Lee’s past affiliation with the paper and her close affinity to the political powerbase in Singapore, the fact that she has chosen to publicly criticise The Straits Times for editorial curbs is revealing and can be viewed as a strong indictment against the editorial practices of the paper.
While Dr Lee is not and has never been involved in politics, her position as Mr Lee’s only daughter has certainly made her privy to the workings of the Singapore government and how the government relates to the media. Given this relationship, I am certain that she would not have taken the decision to break with the paper lightly. The fact that she has speaks volumes on the seriousness of the so called “editorial curbs”.
Dr Lee sets an example in speaking out against undue editorial curbs and censorship which seem to serve no purpose apart from promoting certain self serving stances. It is however important to note that she is in a good position to constructively criticise given her standing with the powers be. The Straits Times will not be in a rush to take her to task in the way they would with average Joe.
Given the publicity that this incident has garnered, I would sincerely hope that The Straits Times takes its
responsibilities to the people of Singapore seriously and respects the public’s right to information. If Dr Lee with her political connections and close relationship to the paper can publicly take it to task at risk of embarrassing certain associates, the problem of undue censorship must be even larger than perceived.
Perhaps this is a gentle reminder to the paper that its main business is the report of unbiased news. It is not a PR firm who should be protecting any agenda apart from the truth.
Lee Wei Ling’s stance against The Straits Times reminds the newspaper to be unbiased in its reporting
By The Independent - April 3, 2016
Many have previously observed that The Straits Times often works against free speech by refusing to publish letters, articles and comments which go against the opinion they wish to present. In many incidences of such alleged censorship, reports on public interest issues have been arguably slanted and unobjective.
The danger to that is that the public’s right to information is compromised because of The Straits Times apparent agenda. To compound things, The Straits Times is the only major English publication in Singapore which the government openly recognises and quite possibly the only English print media outlet that the government grants interviews and directly engages with. Given their privilege of access, it is concerning that it then seemingly uses this privilege to influence the public to a certain view which many have deemed as biased.
Dr Lee Wei Ling, daughter of the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew has just announced that she will no longer write for The Straits Times because of the “editorial curbs” that have been imposed by the publication (http://theindependent.sg/lee-kuan-yews-daughter-says-she-will-no-longer-write-for-sph/) I can only speculate that this decision has something to do with the paper’s refusal to publish her views over the “hero worship” of her father after her Face Book posts.
Given that she is the late Mr Lee’s daughter, I would have imagined that her views on the commemoration events would have been very relevant. The fact that her opinion was not carried by the paper is curious and lends evidence to accusations levelled at the paper for allowing the promotion of a certain agenda to trump the public’s right to objective and unfettered information.
The Straits Times has oft been labelled as the mouthpiece of the PAP government. Given Dr Lee’s past affiliation with the paper and her close affinity to the political powerbase in Singapore, the fact that she has chosen to publicly criticise The Straits Times for editorial curbs is revealing and can be viewed as a strong indictment against the editorial practices of the paper.
While Dr Lee is not and has never been involved in politics, her position as Mr Lee’s only daughter has certainly made her privy to the workings of the Singapore government and how the government relates to the media. Given this relationship, I am certain that she would not have taken the decision to break with the paper lightly. The fact that she has speaks volumes on the seriousness of the so called “editorial curbs”.
Dr Lee sets an example in speaking out against undue editorial curbs and censorship which seem to serve no purpose apart from promoting certain self serving stances. It is however important to note that she is in a good position to constructively criticise given her standing with the powers be. The Straits Times will not be in a rush to take her to task in the way they would with average Joe.
Given the publicity that this incident has garnered, I would sincerely hope that The Straits Times takes its
responsibilities to the people of Singapore seriously and respects the public’s right to information. If Dr Lee with her political connections and close relationship to the paper can publicly take it to task at risk of embarrassing certain associates, the problem of undue censorship must be even larger than perceived.
Perhaps this is a gentle reminder to the paper that its main business is the report of unbiased news. It is not a PR firm who should be protecting any agenda apart from the truth.
I think Warren Fernandez is a PAP member as well as Straits Times Editor.
http://theindependent.sg/wei-ling-vs-straits-times-the-one-unanswered-question/
Wei Ling vs Straits Times – the one unanswered question
By The Independent - April 5, 2016
Just a quick note.
In the ongoing saga triggered by a Facebook post from Lee Kuan Yew’s daughter, Lee Wei Ling, the Straits Times editor has responded to charges by Ms Lee that “three successive editors who had worked with her on her past columns were all ‘commanded to edit certain issues out’.”
“This is altogether unfounded,” the Straits Times’ editor, Warren Fernandez, wrote in a note in the paper on Tuesday, 5 April.
As one noted online, it is strange for the editor to write such a note when the paper itself had avoided reporting on the spat, triggered by Ms Lee’s post, between her and the Chief of Government Communications, Janadas Devan.
Ms Lee had accused the paper of wanting to edit out her articles in her column, which she had been writing for for some years.
Specifically, the particular article in question is one in which she decried the “hero worship” of her father on his death anniversary last month. She said the adulation made her “wince”, and that her father himself would “cringe” at the “level” of knee-bending and prostration from the Lee faithful.
Apparently, she has submitted the article to the Straits Times for her column, but the newspaper refused to publish it.
In his note, Mr Fernandez did not elaborate on what the paper found problematic with her article, or why it had chosen not to publish it.
Mr Fernandez would only say:
“Her recent demand that her latest column be published unedited, after a week of editing and e-mail exchanges, was simply not acceptable.”
Her demand may be “simply not acceptable”, but what about her article was so unpublishable, or not worthy of publication?
In fact, going by the reaction to her article when Ms Lee posted it on her Facebook page, it was quite well received.
To date, there are some 7, 573 shares on it.
Considering that Ms Lee has only 403 friends on the page, the post can be said to have been disseminated quite a bit.
So, actually, if you side-step all the drama, there is only one very simple question for the Straits Times to answer:
Why did it not want to publish Lee Wei Ling’s post about how the “hero worship” of her father made her “wince”, and that her father would himself “cringe” at the “level” of worship?
What was it about the article that the newspaper found so objectionable?
Warren Fernandez’s note does not answer this question.
Now that Ms Lee has published the original, unedited copy of her article, perhaps she should publish the ST-edited version, so that the public can judge for themselves if the edits were justified.
http://theindependent.sg/wei-ling-vs-straits-times-the-one-unanswered-question/
Wei Ling vs Straits Times – the one unanswered question
By The Independent - April 5, 2016
Just a quick note.
In the ongoing saga triggered by a Facebook post from Lee Kuan Yew’s daughter, Lee Wei Ling, the Straits Times editor has responded to charges by Ms Lee that “three successive editors who had worked with her on her past columns were all ‘commanded to edit certain issues out’.”
“This is altogether unfounded,” the Straits Times’ editor, Warren Fernandez, wrote in a note in the paper on Tuesday, 5 April.
As one noted online, it is strange for the editor to write such a note when the paper itself had avoided reporting on the spat, triggered by Ms Lee’s post, between her and the Chief of Government Communications, Janadas Devan.
Ms Lee had accused the paper of wanting to edit out her articles in her column, which she had been writing for for some years.
Specifically, the particular article in question is one in which she decried the “hero worship” of her father on his death anniversary last month. She said the adulation made her “wince”, and that her father himself would “cringe” at the “level” of knee-bending and prostration from the Lee faithful.
Apparently, she has submitted the article to the Straits Times for her column, but the newspaper refused to publish it.
In his note, Mr Fernandez did not elaborate on what the paper found problematic with her article, or why it had chosen not to publish it.
Mr Fernandez would only say:
“Her recent demand that her latest column be published unedited, after a week of editing and e-mail exchanges, was simply not acceptable.”
Her demand may be “simply not acceptable”, but what about her article was so unpublishable, or not worthy of publication?
In fact, going by the reaction to her article when Ms Lee posted it on her Facebook page, it was quite well received.
To date, there are some 7, 573 shares on it.
Considering that Ms Lee has only 403 friends on the page, the post can be said to have been disseminated quite a bit.
So, actually, if you side-step all the drama, there is only one very simple question for the Straits Times to answer:
Why did it not want to publish Lee Wei Ling’s post about how the “hero worship” of her father made her “wince”, and that her father would himself “cringe” at the “level” of worship?
What was it about the article that the newspaper found so objectionable?
Warren Fernandez’s note does not answer this question.
Now that Ms Lee has published the original, unedited copy of her article, perhaps she should publish the ST-edited version, so that the public can judge for themselves if the edits were justified.
To be honest there is nothing in her article that should be edited. Anyone with a brain would know that it is her view. She citing the conduct of China in the way they treat their leaders including the one who murdered 40 million of them is good to know,
Warren Fernandez was looked after very well by the establishment but I do know that he does not want to be caught out in a lie. They did not want to publish it because they did not want to throw cold water on sycophants in this country that were busy doing what polumpars do best to celebrate the anniversary of their idol. Because he did not want to reveal one can only surmise that he was given direct instruction not to.
Warren Fernandez was looked after very well by the establishment but I do know that he does not want to be caught out in a lie. They did not want to publish it because they did not want to throw cold water on sycophants in this country that were busy doing what polumpars do best to celebrate the anniversary of their idol. Because he did not want to reveal one can only surmise that he was given direct instruction not to.
ST published PAP MP Christopher de Souza's forum letter rebutting and questioning SDP's Dr Paul Tambyah, but ST however refused to publish Dr Paul Tambyah's letter replying to De Souza's letter.
Dear Warren Fernandez and Straits Times, is this call "editing" or "censorship" by refusing to publish Dr Paul Tambyah's forum letter reply ?? Don't people have a right of reply ??
Dear Warren Fernandez and Straits Times, is this call "editing" or "censorship" by refusing to publish Dr Paul Tambyah's forum letter reply ?? Don't people have a right of reply ??
so pinkie and her husband cannot control her youngest "brother" huh. now pap become dog bite dog and wash dirty linen in public.
seriously cannot care less as shittime only good for dog to poo on and whatever the butch wrote were nothing but self praise.:oIo:
seriously cannot care less as shittime only good for dog to poo on and whatever the butch wrote were nothing but self praise.:oIo:
fuck off Paul. SDP is a one man show governed by CSJ not you
Founding Daughter is a liar
Janadas Devan, ex-associate editor of the Straits Times, accuses the Founding Daughter of being a liar. The latter is a member of the "highly esteemed and revered" Familee, whose eldest son is the current Chief Natural Aristocrat.
For those who didn't already know, the Founding Daughter and her two older brothers are President's Scholars and their achievements have earned them the title of "exceptional family", a title given by Emeritus porlumpar and seat-warmer Woody Goh.
To be awarded a President's scholarship, the candidate is expected to perform exceptionally well at exams, including a distinction in General Paper at A-levels.
It comes as a shock that the Founding Daughter's writing has been judged as "foggy" by the Straits Times. In addition, according to the same ex-editor, her writings had to be extensively reworked to be made presentable to the public.
Source: "Editing is not the same as censorship", Forum page, page A25, The Straits Times, April 5, 2016
Janadas Devan, ex-associate editor of the Straits Times, accuses the Founding Daughter of being a liar. The latter is a member of the "highly esteemed and revered" Familee, whose eldest son is the current Chief Natural Aristocrat.
For those who didn't already know, the Founding Daughter and her two older brothers are President's Scholars and their achievements have earned them the title of "exceptional family", a title given by Emeritus porlumpar and seat-warmer Woody Goh.
To be awarded a President's scholarship, the candidate is expected to perform exceptionally well at exams, including a distinction in General Paper at A-levels.
It comes as a shock that the Founding Daughter's writing has been judged as "foggy" by the Straits Times. In addition, according to the same ex-editor, her writings had to be extensively reworked to be made presentable to the public.
Source: "Editing is not the same as censorship", Forum page, page A25, The Straits Times, April 5, 2016
Similar threads
