We are more interested in the half a billion dollars at least that has been paid to LKY, LHL and Ho Ching by taxpayers.
-
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.
The Pink Trojan Horse (sorry, someone has to be the wet blanket)
- Thread starter PTADER
- Start date
We are more interested in the half a billion dollars at least that has been paid to LKY, LHL and Ho Ching by taxpayers.
That's a huge waste of money for doing absolutely nothing. The PAP is being paid top dollar but they do a topnotch job of running the country efficiently and skillfully.
On the other hand the useless WP don't even talk cock. They just sit there silently and pocket their monthly allowances. They should be utterly ashamed of themselves.
well at least they do it full time... unlke many of the shameless jiak liao bee who hold so many directorships and yet moonlight as a MP only to do 1 night shift a week
If thats the case, its time you stop cohabiting together with Tonychat..
Because there's no such thing as a free lunch. At some stage, there will be a call for a payback.
We already have a very well paid and courageous opposition presence in Parliament. There's really no need for me or anyone else to say anything else. These 6 + 2 WP MPs and NCMPs have been and will continue to be fearless in voicing the concerns of the electorate. So I really don't know what all these fuss and protests are about unless they are being used as a Pink Trojan Horse.
I have no doubts that your concerns and interests will be raised in Parliament by the WP if you talk to one of the WP MPs/NCMPs about it.
this is the kind of thread that needs to be in the headlines. finally, not one but two and more are calling out the hidden agenda behind the repetitive and annoying bs that is filling up this graveyard, oops i mean courtyard. yesterday the bs was mrt and hdb. today the bs is cpf. tomorrow it will be another 3-letter acronym sacred cow of pap policy. the attack is incessant and jumps on any feeding frenzy or where ever there's blood in the water. such is the culture of aggressiveness and bloodlust in bath houses where gays congregate. these vampires are cumming out of hiding and the dark and infesting every sinkie forum with their high brow "holier than thou" so called intelligent dialogue online. they quickly dismiss forummers not among their ilk as "blurfucks" and deers in the headlights, and arrogantly assume pole position of every pap policy subject to ridicule and criticism. the pap is just their bogeyman and scapegoat, easy targets for rousing sympathy and garnering support from the angry and disenfranchised. but the true intention is far more sinister than the bogeymen and their alleged failures they attempt to crucify. thinking they have higher intellect than majority of sinkies, they are taking over every public controversy discourse by very visible attention-seeking and by full frontal assault. if sinkies think they are reamed daily in the arse now by pappies, wait till these vampires show their true colors when they seize power. your arse will not only get reamed every minute but it will literally becum pua kar chng. :p
In one thread, CPF, pink culture, ministerial salaries, xenophobia, opposition parliamentary paralysis and tonychat have been covered in depth. A truly amazing forum.
i find great entertainment value in this forum. it's better than burning a grand a minute at the bellagio in vegas. the blokes at the roulette wheel or crap table don't know what they miss. :p :*:
Sammy 又忘记吃药了？
This is old fart's view on homosexuality.
Excerpt from sgWiki
During a weekend meeting with the youth wing of the People's Action Party in April 2007, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew was quoted by The Straits Times as saying:
"If in fact it is true, and I have asked doctors this, that you are genetically born a homosexual - because that's the nature of the genetic random transmission of genes - you can't help it. So why should we criminalise it?"[2],[3]
(See YouTube video: [4])
He was replying to a question from Young PAP activist Loretta Chen, who felt that current censorship guidelines were ambiguous and had asked where censorship was headed in the next two decades. The theatre director referenced her recent controversial play 251 about Singaporean porn actress Annabel Chong which dealt with pornography, performance art and alternative sexualities.
Young PAP member Loretta Chen"
Referring to homosexuality, Minister Mentor Lee said that it was an issue that "raises tempers all over the world, and even in America," further noting that there is a "strong inhibition" in all societies - be they Christian, Islamic, Hindu or Chinese.
"And we are now confronted "with a persisting aberration."
"But is it an aberration?" he asked.
"It's a genetic variation.
"So what do we do? I think we pragmatically adjust, carry our people...don't upset them and suddenly upset their sense of propriety and right and wrong.
"But at the same time let's not go around like this moral police...barging into people's rooms. That's not our business.
"So you have to take a practical, pragmatic approach to what I see is an inevitable force of time and circumstance."
This book, the last in an autobiographical trilogy, was launched on 22 Jan 11.
Front cover of the book "Hard truths to keep Singapore going"
The following text is excerpted from page 377 :
Page title: "Homosexuality - It's in the genes"
Preamble from the editors: "As in many societies, the issue of homosexuality is controversial in Singapore. From the heated parliamentary debates in 2007 over whether to retain or repeal Section 377A of the Penal Code, which prohibits sex between men (it was eventually retained), to the unease over homosexual content in student sex education manuals, the subject polarises the public. It was no surprise then that we received questions on this topic from both sides of the conservative-liberal divide, including one that asked how Lee would feel if one of his grandchildren were gay."
Q: What is your personal view on being gay? Do you think it's a lifestyle or is it genetic?
A: No, it's not a lifestyle. You can read the books all you want, all the articles. There's a genetic difference, so it's not a matter of choice. They are born that way and that's that. So if two men or two women are that way, just leave them alone. Whether they should be given rights of adoption is another matter because who's going to look after the child? Those are complications that arise once you recognise that you could actually legally marry, then you say I want to adopt. Vivian Balakrishnan says it's not decisively proven. Well, I believe it is. There's enough evidence that some people are that way and just leave them be.
Q: This is more of a personal question, but how would you feel if one of your grandchildren were to say to you that he or she is gay?
A: That's life. They're born with that genetic code, that's that. Dick Cheney didn't like gays but his daughter was born like that. He says, "I still love her, full stop." It's happened to his family. So on principle he's against it, but it's his daughter. Do you throw the daughter out? That's life. I mean none of my children is gay, but if they were, well that's that.
Q: So what do you see is an obstacle to gay couples adopting children? You said, who's going to look after the child?
A: Who is going to bring them up? Two men looking after a child? Two women looking after a child, maybe. But I'm not so sure because it's not their own child. Unless you have artificial insemination and it's their own child, then you have a certain maternal instinct immediately aroused by the process of pregnancy. But two men adopting a boy or a girl, what's the point of it? These are consequential problems, we cross the bridge when we come to it. We haven't come to that bridge yet. The people are not ready for it. In fact, some ministers are not ready for it. I take a practical view. I said this is happening and there's nothing we can do about it. Life's like that. People are born like that. It's not new, it goes back to ancient times. So I think there's something in the genetic makeup.
Q: It took time for Singaporeans to be able to accept single women MPs. Do you see Singaporeans being able to accept a gay MP? It's already happening in a fairly widespread fashion in Europe.
A: As far as I'm concerned, if she does her work as an MP, she looks after her constituents, she makes sensible speeches, she's making a contribution, her private life is her life, that's that. There was a British minister, I shouldn't name him, a Conservative. He was out of office but he was hoping to become the leader of the party and we had dinner with a few friends. He thought he had to come out upfront that when he was at university at Oxford, he did get involved in same-sex activities. But he's married now with children, he's quite happy. So he came out with it. He didn't become leader of the party and that's Britain. He thought he had come out upfront and it'd protect him from investigative reporting. It did not help him. But had he kept quiet they would have dug it out, then it's worse for him. So there you are. You know, there are two standards. It's one thing the people at large, it's another thing, your minister or your prime minister being such a person. I mean Ted Heath was not married. I shouldn't say who the ministers were who said he's a suppressed homosexual. So the opposition party leaders were telling me because it's very strange. Here's a man in the prime of his life and getting on, 40, 50 still not married, and he was that way at Oxford. So they said, suppressed homosexual. That's the opposition talk by very reputable leaders who tell me that seriously. So? And with it of course is disapprobation, that he's unworthy to be a leader. But that was in the early 1970s.
Q: Did you come to this view on homosexuality just through scientific reasoning alone?
A: No, by my observation and historical data. I mean, in the Ottoman empire, they had a lot of it. And there was one story that D. H. Lawrence was captured in Arabia and they sodomised him. The Ottomans had their share of homosexuals and I'm sure there were also women in the harems. So? So be it.
Q: What about your acquaintances or your friends rowing up throughout life, were any of them gay as well?
A: I'm not sure about acquaintances, but not my friends. I mean, they were all married. But I'm sure there must have been. This is not something which is recent, it goes back into historic times. And you have animals sometimes acting that way. So it's not just human beings, there's something in the genetic code.
Q: So this is one aspect where the conservative views of society are diametrically opposed to your own practical views?
A: I'm not the prime minister, I told you that before I started. If I were the prime minister I would hesitate to push it through against the prevailing sentiment, against the prevailing values of society. You're going against the current of the people, the underlying feeling. What's the point of that, you know, breaking new ground and taking unnecessary risk? It will evolve over time, as so many things have, because after a while my own sort of maturing process will take place with other people. You don't just live and then you cut off your ideas after a certain time. You keep on living and you watch people and you say, 'Oh that's the way life is.'
Q: But are you, personally speaking, frustrated by this conservatism?
A: No, I take a purely practical view.
Q: But are you frustrated by how this conservatism is perhaps opposed to the practical view?
A: No, that is life. I cannot change them overnight. I think society, their own experiences, their own reading, their own observations, will bring about the change despite their innate biases.
Excerpt from sgWiki
During a weekend meeting with the youth wing of the People's Action Party in April 2007, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew was quoted by The Straits Times as saying:
"If in fact it is true, and I have asked doctors this, that you are genetically born a homosexual - because that's the nature of the genetic random transmission of genes - you can't help it. So why should we criminalise it?"[2],[3]
(See YouTube video: [4])
He was replying to a question from Young PAP activist Loretta Chen, who felt that current censorship guidelines were ambiguous and had asked where censorship was headed in the next two decades. The theatre director referenced her recent controversial play 251 about Singaporean porn actress Annabel Chong which dealt with pornography, performance art and alternative sexualities.
Young PAP member Loretta Chen"
Referring to homosexuality, Minister Mentor Lee said that it was an issue that "raises tempers all over the world, and even in America," further noting that there is a "strong inhibition" in all societies - be they Christian, Islamic, Hindu or Chinese.
"And we are now confronted "with a persisting aberration."
"But is it an aberration?" he asked.
"It's a genetic variation.
"So what do we do? I think we pragmatically adjust, carry our people...don't upset them and suddenly upset their sense of propriety and right and wrong.
"But at the same time let's not go around like this moral police...barging into people's rooms. That's not our business.
"So you have to take a practical, pragmatic approach to what I see is an inevitable force of time and circumstance."
This book, the last in an autobiographical trilogy, was launched on 22 Jan 11.
Front cover of the book "Hard truths to keep Singapore going"
The following text is excerpted from page 377 :
Page title: "Homosexuality - It's in the genes"
Preamble from the editors: "As in many societies, the issue of homosexuality is controversial in Singapore. From the heated parliamentary debates in 2007 over whether to retain or repeal Section 377A of the Penal Code, which prohibits sex between men (it was eventually retained), to the unease over homosexual content in student sex education manuals, the subject polarises the public. It was no surprise then that we received questions on this topic from both sides of the conservative-liberal divide, including one that asked how Lee would feel if one of his grandchildren were gay."
Q: What is your personal view on being gay? Do you think it's a lifestyle or is it genetic?
A: No, it's not a lifestyle. You can read the books all you want, all the articles. There's a genetic difference, so it's not a matter of choice. They are born that way and that's that. So if two men or two women are that way, just leave them alone. Whether they should be given rights of adoption is another matter because who's going to look after the child? Those are complications that arise once you recognise that you could actually legally marry, then you say I want to adopt. Vivian Balakrishnan says it's not decisively proven. Well, I believe it is. There's enough evidence that some people are that way and just leave them be.
Q: This is more of a personal question, but how would you feel if one of your grandchildren were to say to you that he or she is gay?
A: That's life. They're born with that genetic code, that's that. Dick Cheney didn't like gays but his daughter was born like that. He says, "I still love her, full stop." It's happened to his family. So on principle he's against it, but it's his daughter. Do you throw the daughter out? That's life. I mean none of my children is gay, but if they were, well that's that.
Q: So what do you see is an obstacle to gay couples adopting children? You said, who's going to look after the child?
A: Who is going to bring them up? Two men looking after a child? Two women looking after a child, maybe. But I'm not so sure because it's not their own child. Unless you have artificial insemination and it's their own child, then you have a certain maternal instinct immediately aroused by the process of pregnancy. But two men adopting a boy or a girl, what's the point of it? These are consequential problems, we cross the bridge when we come to it. We haven't come to that bridge yet. The people are not ready for it. In fact, some ministers are not ready for it. I take a practical view. I said this is happening and there's nothing we can do about it. Life's like that. People are born like that. It's not new, it goes back to ancient times. So I think there's something in the genetic makeup.
Q: It took time for Singaporeans to be able to accept single women MPs. Do you see Singaporeans being able to accept a gay MP? It's already happening in a fairly widespread fashion in Europe.
A: As far as I'm concerned, if she does her work as an MP, she looks after her constituents, she makes sensible speeches, she's making a contribution, her private life is her life, that's that. There was a British minister, I shouldn't name him, a Conservative. He was out of office but he was hoping to become the leader of the party and we had dinner with a few friends. He thought he had to come out upfront that when he was at university at Oxford, he did get involved in same-sex activities. But he's married now with children, he's quite happy. So he came out with it. He didn't become leader of the party and that's Britain. He thought he had come out upfront and it'd protect him from investigative reporting. It did not help him. But had he kept quiet they would have dug it out, then it's worse for him. So there you are. You know, there are two standards. It's one thing the people at large, it's another thing, your minister or your prime minister being such a person. I mean Ted Heath was not married. I shouldn't say who the ministers were who said he's a suppressed homosexual. So the opposition party leaders were telling me because it's very strange. Here's a man in the prime of his life and getting on, 40, 50 still not married, and he was that way at Oxford. So they said, suppressed homosexual. That's the opposition talk by very reputable leaders who tell me that seriously. So? And with it of course is disapprobation, that he's unworthy to be a leader. But that was in the early 1970s.
Q: Did you come to this view on homosexuality just through scientific reasoning alone?
A: No, by my observation and historical data. I mean, in the Ottoman empire, they had a lot of it. And there was one story that D. H. Lawrence was captured in Arabia and they sodomised him. The Ottomans had their share of homosexuals and I'm sure there were also women in the harems. So? So be it.
Q: What about your acquaintances or your friends rowing up throughout life, were any of them gay as well?
A: I'm not sure about acquaintances, but not my friends. I mean, they were all married. But I'm sure there must have been. This is not something which is recent, it goes back into historic times. And you have animals sometimes acting that way. So it's not just human beings, there's something in the genetic code.
Q: So this is one aspect where the conservative views of society are diametrically opposed to your own practical views?
A: I'm not the prime minister, I told you that before I started. If I were the prime minister I would hesitate to push it through against the prevailing sentiment, against the prevailing values of society. You're going against the current of the people, the underlying feeling. What's the point of that, you know, breaking new ground and taking unnecessary risk? It will evolve over time, as so many things have, because after a while my own sort of maturing process will take place with other people. You don't just live and then you cut off your ideas after a certain time. You keep on living and you watch people and you say, 'Oh that's the way life is.'
Q: But are you, personally speaking, frustrated by this conservatism?
A: No, I take a purely practical view.
Q: But are you frustrated by how this conservatism is perhaps opposed to the practical view?
A: No, that is life. I cannot change them overnight. I think society, their own experiences, their own reading, their own observations, will bring about the change despite their innate biases.
I made a glaring error by referring to 6 WP MPs + 2 WP NCMPs when it should have been 7 WP MPs + 2 WP NCMPS after one other fearless WP heroine entered Parliament on 26 January 2013. She and her courageous fellow WP parliamentary colleagues' fearless debates, questions and attacks on erroneous PAP policies and their impressive presentations of numerous alternative national policies, befitting that of a First World Opposition, led to my egregious mistake.
The glaring error also led to my miscalculation of the combined allowances of these 9 fearless WP men and women who I claimed earned $1,212, 696 of taxpayers' money per year when it should have been been $192, 492 more, thus bringing the total of their 7 MP's and 2 NCMP's allowance to $1, 405, 188*.
My sincere apologies to all 7 WP MPs and 2 NCMPs for underestimating their monetary worth in MP/NCMP allowances. I fully appreciate that in underestimating their monetary worth that they fully deserve by being an incredible and credible First World Opposition, I am insinuating that they are fucking hopeless and useless.
*($16,041 x 7 WP MPs per month) + ($2,406 x 2 WP NCMPs per month) 15% of $16,041 }x 12 months
$1,347,444 + $57,444 = $1, 405, 188
For the blurfucks and the newbies who are not aware, Ptader is a veteran of this forum and sits in the anti-PAP camp. His credentials were long established. Life is not black and white.
If you can't read straight and still want to read between the lines, there is an agenda and there is a desire to seek some sort of quid pro quo arrangements with the government by some quarters. And it goes down to one particular piece of long standing legislation.
If you can't read straight and still want to read between the lines, there is an agenda and there is a desire to seek some sort of quid pro quo arrangements with the government by some quarters. And it goes down to one particular piece of long standing legislation.
Interestingly the theatre craft has been the favourite vehicle of dissident groups to push their agenda.
The communists did it in the 60 to even the 80s. The gays have used this for their own needs. In most cases it was nothing insidious but as an outlet. Loretta is the new Eleanor Wong.
The communists did it in the 60 to even the 80s. The gays have used this for their own needs. In most cases it was nothing insidious but as an outlet. Loretta is the new Eleanor Wong.
Ya lor, no CPF withdrawal, no HIV and no Aids. How about executing all these gays to prevent HIV and Aids?
Yesterday at Hong Lim, I heard one of the best speeches ever made by an individual in the last few decades against the PAP and its abuse of power. It was by Vincent Wijeysingha, it was 16 minutes long and every second was meaningful and powerful. It covered the issues well and it had only one agenda. That agenda covered the people of Singapore.
Here is the link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvF7Yo_Mx1g
Here is the link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvF7Yo_Mx1g
Similar threads
