Vivian waives privilege but WP can't sue because Pinky says government is behind it

[steffychun]

Re: Vivian waives privilege but WP can't sue because Pinky says government is behind

Who zapped me?! Own up!!!

 

[winnipegjets]

Re: Vivian waives privilege but WP can't sue because Pinky says government is behind

It is naive for PAP to even think the votes are dumb n stupid........ unable to see thru what is being orchestrated. It will backfire.

Even if WP did goofed, voters will see it from the "honest mistake" angle invented by PAP.. Voters will never let PAP bring down WP becos it is the only hope they got left after being repeated cheated by gahmen such as CPF withdrawal age of 55 yrs

The PAP is writing the narrative that WP is incompetent and dishonest and their governance of TC has led to corrupt practices (housing management contract given to supporter of WP) and higher cost (wanting to charge hawkers for cleaning of high areas). Thanks to the PAP, esp the Honourably Ms Vivian, the hawkers were protected. When sinkees see their chicken rice price is unchanged, it is the PAP that made it possible.

 

[steffychun]

Re: Vivian waives privilege but WP can't sue because Pinky says government is behind

The PAP is writing the narrative that WP is incompetent and dishonest and their governance of TC has led to corrupt practices (housing management contract given to supporter of WP) and higher cost (wanting to charge hawkers for cleaning of high areas). Thanks to the PAP, esp the Honourably Ms Vivian, the hawkers were protected. When sinkees see their chicken rice price is unchanged, it is the PAP that made it possible.

Come 2016, how many hawkers will remember the case at all? And despite the dossier released, they probably wont be able to read or understand it. So by election time, all it matters is how well the WP Team did for the entire welfare of their constituents.

 

[Orion]

Re: Vivian waives privilege but WP can't sue because Pinky says government is behind

Come 2016, how many hawkers will remember the case at all? And despite the dossier released, they probably wont be able to read or understand it. So by election time, all it matters is how well the WP Team did for the entire welfare of their constituents.

Some1 will say sorry again and say we will help the poor.

Then a few months later say, we cannot help everyone, is a meritocracy, we r not a welfare state etc

 

[Orion]

Re: Vivian waives privilege but WP can't sue because Pinky says government is behind

And we thought Ms Vivian had integrity, thus he waived parliamentary immunity on his statements. Now, we know that he did it knowing that he was being protected by the government.

When the WP sues, it will have to sue the government as well. So, public money will be wasted to defend the government. More of our tax dollars wasted if the WP sues.

SL and PS can and should make hay from this revelation. The WP will not sue because it does not want taxpayer's money to be wasted on unnecessary civil lawsuit.

If LHL and VB will dare to call SL and PS dishonest on a personal basis, then it will be a different ball game. Will LHL and VB do so?

So it is cabinet decision to explain flooding as ponding, once very 50 years, it is an honest mistake.

LHL is extremely crafty.

But why fire MBT and other ministers when he is head of the cabinet? Isn't that his decision as head of cabinet?

 

[cass888]

Re: Vivian waives privilege but WP can't sue because Pinky says government is behind

What rubbish. If LTK sues Vivian, the government cannot spend government money to defend Vivian.

So, if Vivian confirms he is using his own money, LTK promises to sue?

When the WP sues, it will have to sue the government as well. So, public money will be wasted to defend the government. More of our tax dollars wasted if the WP sues.

SL and PS can and should make hay from this revelation. The WP will not sue because it does not want taxpayer's money to be wasted on unnecessary civil lawsuit.

 

[Thick Face Black Heart]

Re: Vivian waives privilege but WP can't sue because Pinky says government is behind

And we thought Ms Vivian had integrity, thus he waived parliamentary immunity on his statements. Now, we know that he did it knowing that he was being protected by the government.

When the WP sues, it will have to sue the government as well. So, public money will be wasted to defend the government. More of our tax dollars wasted if the WP sues.

SL and PS can and should make hay from this revelation. The WP will not sue because it does not want taxpayer's money to be wasted on unnecessary civil lawsuit.

If LHL and VB will dare to call SL and PS dishonest on a personal basis, then it will be a different ball game. Will LHL and VB do so?

Vivian B. is a moron. Who cares about Parliamentary privilege. WP will not sue even if there is no concept of P.P. because it does not believe lawsuits should be the means to decide the truth.

Not just the WP, but I believe any true opposition will believe that the truth should be settled by debate and fair play. Not by silly lawsuits that will only favour those who can afford Queen Counsels, state of the art lawyers, etc.

Please lah Vivian B. Drop P.P. and you think you are on the high ground? The truth will be for the PEOPLE to decide.

 

[cass888]

Re: Vivian waives privilege but WP can't sue because Pinky says government is behind

Why are you accusing Chiam See Tong of not being a true opposition?

He sued Goh Chok Tong and won $10,000.00.
He sued Chee Soon Juan and won $150,000.00.
He sued some karaoke joint and won $50,000.00.

Not just the WP, but I believe any true opposition will believe that the truth should be settled by debate and fair play. Not by silly lawsuits that will only favour those who can afford Queen Counsels, state of the art lawyers, etc.

 

[Thick Face Black Heart]

Re: Vivian waives privilege but WP can't sue because Pinky says government is behind

Why are you accusing Chiam See Tong of not being a true opposition?

He sued Goh Chok Tong and won $10,000.00.
He sued Chee Soon Juan and won $150,000.00.
He sued some karaoke joint and won $50,000.00.

Wah the way you extrapolate my words damn tok kong.

 

[Thick Face Black Heart]

Re: Vivian waives privilege but WP can't sue because Pinky says government is behind

Why are you accusing Chiam See Tong of not being a true opposition?

He sued Goh Chok Tong and won $10,000.00.
He sued Chee Soon Juan and won $150,000.00.
He sued some karaoke joint and won $50,000.00.

By the way, suing SDP to prevent wrongful dismissal is not the same as sueing for defamation. I'm sure you can see the distinction. Chiam also never sued GCT for defamation. It was two other ministers he sued for defamation. Compensation was very little/

 

[steffychun]

Re: Vivian waives privilege but WP can't sue because Pinky says government is behind

Why are you accusing Chiam See Tong of not being a true opposition?

He sued Goh Chok Tong and won $10,000.00.
He sued Chee Soon Juan and won $150,000.00.
He sued some karaoke joint and won $50,000.00.

when did Chiam sue Goh and Karaoke?

 

[makapaaa]

Re: Vivian waives privilege but WP can't sue because Pinky says government is behind

	72377.1

<tbody>
</tbody>

 

[steffychun]

Re: Vivian waives privilege but WP can't sue because Pinky says government is behind

	72377.1

<tbody>
</tbody>

Oh he does come "clean' in that pic

 

[makapaaa]

Re: Vivian waives privilege but WP can't sue because Pinky says government is behind

[h=2]The Truth About The Parliamentary Debate On The Cleaning of Hawker
Centres[/h]

July 13th, 2013 |

Author: Contributions



This was what really happened at the parliamentary debate between Environment
and Water Resources Minister Vivian Balakrishnan, Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol-East
Town Council (AHPETC) Chairperson Sylvia Lim and Worker’s Party chief Low Thia
Khiang.

Vivian started off trying to shorten the given names of others.

He said that he didn’t want to impose on the public but
this debate would go on for the next 35 minutes, with him giving some of the
longest speeches and reading out long emails.

He said that this is a matter of integrity.

He said that Sylvia and Pritam were untruthful.

Sylvia reaffirmed that AHPETC had not asked the hawkers
to pay extra for the cleaning of the high areas of hawker centres.

She reminded Vivian not to confuse the issue of area
cleaning with the cleaning of high areas.

Vivian looked uneasy and nervous.

Sylvia reminded Vivian that the issue started with
Vivian’s own ministry.

Vivian said that this is about integrity (for the
second time), and tried to pin the blame on Mr Tai, the property manager
of FM Solutions and Services Pte Ltd, the contractor for the cleaning services.
Vivian read out some emails in which he claimed Mr Tai had asked the hawkers to
pay extra.

Sylvia said that Vivian had distorted the facts of the
emails and that Mr Tai had not asked the hawkers to pay extra.

Vivian went back to his point again
– and asked if Mr Tai had asked for extra money to clean the high areas.

Sylvia said no.

Vivian brought out a stack of information which he
claimed as evidence. Sylvia asked him to point out where in the stack it had
said that Mr Tai had asked the hawkers to pay extra.

This was what Vivian then said. Nothing about the
hawkers needing to pay extra.

And again, he asked if Mr Tai had asked the hawkers to
pay extra.

Sylvia said no again.

Sylvia then went on and asked why Vivian had evaded
answering the questions that she had posed.

Vivian brushed all her questions aside.

Sylvia looked on flabbergasted.

Yet, Vivian asked again if Mr Tai had asked for
more money.
This man just doesn’t know how to take no for an answer.

​

And again. He simply cannot handle rejection.

Now, this is getting really painful.

Vivian said that Sylvia is untruthful, yet again. And
wants her to answer his questions, but doesn’t want to answer her questions.

Sylvia said no again – Mr Tai did not ask for extra
money.

Mr Low brings the question back and said that the issue
arose from a difference in understanding between annual cleaning and spring
cleaning.

He has a full
audience.

Mr Low reiterated that AHPETC had never asked for extra
money.

Finally, Mr Low came out with a solution.

Vivian jumps onto the bandwagon.

He said something out of the blue.

Mr Low gives up trying to make sense to him.

Sylvia wonders why logic doesn’t work on him.

​

Vivian asked whether Mr Tai asked for extra money again. This man has major
problems understanding, “No”.

Vivian gives a lesson on clean politics.

Mr Low is unamused. He doesn’t hide
it.

TheHeartTruths

*
This article first appeared on thehearttruths.com

 

[makapaaa]

Re: Vivian waives privilege but WP can't sue because Pinky says government is behind

[h=2]Vivian, politics is not power – it’s about improvement of people’s
lives[/h]

July 13th, 2013 |

Author: Joli

Minister Vivian: "Politics is a contest
for power."


The late Paul David Wellstone, a two-term U.S. Senator, once said, “Politics
is not about big money or power games; it’s about the improvement of people’s
lives.”

Now, it seems that I have to change my understanding of what Politics is. As
our Minister, Mr Vivian Balakrishnan, put it: “Politics is a contest for
power.”

I wonder whether the Minister would stand corrected and come out to clarify
that what he meant was that the PAP style of politics is a contest for power.
IMHO, politics in its principled form, unsullied by the dirt in the bags of
many opportunistic and unworthy politicians who hunger after power, is all about
serving the people and not power over people.

Watching the video of his parliamentary show on Mediacorp news, I hardly saw
a hint of the exceptional brightness of a President scholar or the brilliance of
an outstanding debater. Instead of scoring points for his side, he seemed to be
dealing a body blow to the reputation of his party by the appearance of
vindictiveness. He also jogged listeners’ minds to contemplate “the integrity
and clean politics” that we have had in this little red dot.
The following
was a MSM news report on 6th June:

“This latest compromise in the three-month-old spat over hawker centre
cleaning was announced after a meeting on Thursday afternoon between the
National Environment Agency (NEA), AHPETC and hawker representatives. Hawkers
coming out of the meeting told reporters they were happy with the outcome.” (www.asiaone.com)
​

I think the Minister would agree with me that we can trust the MSM report. A
compromise had been reached and the hawkers are happy. Did he go down to inspect
the hawker centres and find anything unsatisfactory with the cleanliness? From
the parliamentary discourse, there was nothing to suggest that the minister was
unhappy with regards to the cleaning work per se. Why didn’t he just forge
cordiality by keeping his earlier promise “to invite Mr Low Thia Khiang for a
cup of coffee” as he had made to reporters?

Yes, the people covet integrity and clean politics from all politicians,
opposition and PAP. The issue of the hawker-centre cleaning was already settled
with a compromise with the hawkers and the hawkers are happy. I thought it was
already a non-issue, and the hawkers were moving on with their lives. It is
indeed supremely puzzling why the Minister saw fit to waste Parliament’s time to
stir up the dying embers in the quarrels between AHPETC, NEA and his ministry.
There are so many major issues for the august chamber to deal
with, affecting people’s lives, and the good Minister tried to raise a debate
with the opposition over such a small matter that could be settled with a
handshake over a cup of coffee.

Since the hawkers are happy that the hawker centres have been cleaned and
they are able to continue with their business operations to make
money, would the Chairman of the hawkers’ association share how the hawkers
would feel if the WP MPs take up the “invitation” to sue if the MPs feel wronged
by the accusation against them? Any of such legal action would only drag the
matter and may tangle the peaceful lives of the hawkers with troubles to be
witnesses in court? If this comes to pass, does anybody think that the Minister
would endear himself to his erstwhile supporters?

A brilliant President scholar should know his words. The statements (for
example) “The police have power” and “The government has power” are entirely
different from “The police are power” and “The government is power.” To declare
what politics is when it isn’t when raising a debate (or rather, a storm in a
teacup) over what the public reckon as a petty issue does amaze observers on who
is good at playing politics. I as anybody else can judge from the “video show”
in the news (thanks to the MSM for making it widely available) and not simply
from what others say.

I do not entirely agree with the point made by Mr Yoong Siew Wah in another
post about Mr Vivian Balakrishnan, “He did not disappoint his political master
and can be certain of his candidature in GE 2016 …”

I feel that the Minister has dealt a body blow to the reputation of PAP for
clean politics by the needless churning of a political storm in a teacup. As
listeners were prompted to think of what WP is like, they would surely also
think of what PAP is like. Does PAP come off like a bully? Is it a party with
100% pure-whiteness? If he pleases his political master for the kind of
performance as seen in the video, and the PM who was watching his parliamentary
debating skill at play in a facetious manner does not shudder at his (Mr
Balakrishnan) spoilt political fortune, then I don’t know what to say.

My thought is that come 2016, if Mr Balakrishnan stands in a single-seat
contest, his debating skill will not help him much. If he stands in a GRC, he
will need good advice on what not to do that would do in the chances of his
teammates.

On second thought, maybe the Minister has been misunderstood. Maybe in
Parliament, his mind flashed back to his varsity time and he just decided to
polish up his debating skill on whom he opined to be a weak and unprepared
opponent. We all know that in a varsity debate outing, the primary concern is to
score points for your team and win. The points you propound to support your
pre-decided focus do not necessarily represent your personal conviction in the
depth of your heart. So my parting questions to the Minister are: Did you really
have the conviction that Politics is a contest for power? If you had made any
mistake, would you just admit and come clean to damp down the tide of
disillusionment so evident in social media? (You still have the chance from now
until 2016 to win back support by showing outstanding performance in dealing
with all the major issues for the improvement of people’s lives, sans petty
politics!)

Joli



VN:F [1.9.22_1171]















Rating:
+24 (from 24 votes)

 

[Satyr]

Re: Vivian waives privilege but WP can't sue because Pinky says government is behind

By the way, suing SDP to prevent wrongful dismissal is not the same as sueing for defamation. I'm sure you can see the distinction. Chiam also never sued GCT for defamation. It was two other ministers he sued for defamation. Compensation was very little/

Also, CST was truly aggrieved and the ministers who were sued did not openly invite him to take a suit against them. They made careless mistakes. CST had the good sense not to rub their noses in it after winning.
CSJ was sued for legal fees incurred when CST was defending him.

 

[steffychun]

Re: Vivian waives privilege but WP can't sue because Pinky says government is behind

[h=2]Vivian, politics is not power – it’s about improvement of people’s
lives[/h]

July 13th, 2013 |

Author: Joli

Minister Vivian: "Politics is a contest
for power."


The late Paul David Wellstone, a two-term U.S. Senator, once said, “Politics
is not about big money or power games; it’s about the improvement of people’s
lives.”

Now, it seems that I have to change my understanding of what Politics is. As
our Minister, Mr Vivian Balakrishnan, put it: “Politics is a contest for
power.”

I wonder whether the Minister would stand corrected and come out to clarify
that what he meant was that the PAP style of politics is a contest for power.
IMHO, politics in its principled form, unsullied by the dirt in the bags of
many opportunistic and unworthy politicians who hunger after power, is all about
serving the people and not power over people.

Watching the video of his parliamentary show on Mediacorp news, I hardly saw
a hint of the exceptional brightness of a President scholar or the brilliance of
an outstanding debater. Instead of scoring points for his side, he seemed to be
dealing a body blow to the reputation of his party by the appearance of
vindictiveness. He also jogged listeners’ minds to contemplate “the integrity
and clean politics” that we have had in this little red dot.
The following
was a MSM news report on 6th June:

“This latest compromise in the three-month-old spat over hawker centre
cleaning was announced after a meeting on Thursday afternoon between the
National Environment Agency (NEA), AHPETC and hawker representatives. Hawkers
coming out of the meeting told reporters they were happy with the outcome.” (www.asiaone.com)
​

I think the Minister would agree with me that we can trust the MSM report. A
compromise had been reached and the hawkers are happy. Did he go down to inspect
the hawker centres and find anything unsatisfactory with the cleanliness? From
the parliamentary discourse, there was nothing to suggest that the minister was
unhappy with regards to the cleaning work per se. Why didn’t he just forge
cordiality by keeping his earlier promise “to invite Mr Low Thia Khiang for a
cup of coffee” as he had made to reporters?

Yes, the people covet integrity and clean politics from all politicians,
opposition and PAP. The issue of the hawker-centre cleaning was already settled
with a compromise with the hawkers and the hawkers are happy. I thought it was
already a non-issue, and the hawkers were moving on with their lives. It is
indeed supremely puzzling why the Minister saw fit to waste Parliament’s time to
stir up the dying embers in the quarrels between AHPETC, NEA and his ministry.
There are so many major issues for the august chamber to deal
with, affecting people’s lives, and the good Minister tried to raise a debate
with the opposition over such a small matter that could be settled with a
handshake over a cup of coffee.

Since the hawkers are happy that the hawker centres have been cleaned and
they are able to continue with their business operations to make
money, would the Chairman of the hawkers’ association share how the hawkers
would feel if the WP MPs take up the “invitation” to sue if the MPs feel wronged
by the accusation against them? Any of such legal action would only drag the
matter and may tangle the peaceful lives of the hawkers with troubles to be
witnesses in court? If this comes to pass, does anybody think that the Minister
would endear himself to his erstwhile supporters?

A brilliant President scholar should know his words. The statements (for
example) “The police have power” and “The government has power” are entirely
different from “The police are power” and “The government is power.” To declare
what politics is when it isn’t when raising a debate (or rather, a storm in a
teacup) over what the public reckon as a petty issue does amaze observers on who
is good at playing politics. I as anybody else can judge from the “video show”
in the news (thanks to the MSM for making it widely available) and not simply
from what others say.

I do not entirely agree with the point made by Mr Yoong Siew Wah in another
post about Mr Vivian Balakrishnan, “He did not disappoint his political master
and can be certain of his candidature in GE 2016 …”

I feel that the Minister has dealt a body blow to the reputation of PAP for
clean politics by the needless churning of a political storm in a teacup. As
listeners were prompted to think of what WP is like, they would surely also
think of what PAP is like. Does PAP come off like a bully? Is it a party with
100% pure-whiteness? If he pleases his political master for the kind of
performance as seen in the video, and the PM who was watching his parliamentary
debating skill at play in a facetious manner does not shudder at his (Mr
Balakrishnan) spoilt political fortune, then I don’t know what to say.

My thought is that come 2016, if Mr Balakrishnan stands in a single-seat
contest, his debating skill will not help him much. If he stands in a GRC, he
will need good advice on what not to do that would do in the chances of his
teammates.

On second thought, maybe the Minister has been misunderstood. Maybe in
Parliament, his mind flashed back to his varsity time and he just decided to
polish up his debating skill on whom he opined to be a weak and unprepared
opponent. We all know that in a varsity debate outing, the primary concern is to
score points for your team and win. The points you propound to support your
pre-decided focus do not necessarily represent your personal conviction in the
depth of your heart. So my parting questions to the Minister are: Did you really
have the conviction that Politics is a contest for power? If you had made any
mistake, would you just admit and come clean to damp down the tide of
disillusionment so evident in social media? (You still have the chance from now
until 2016 to win back support by showing outstanding performance in dealing
with all the major issues for the improvement of people’s lives, sans petty
politics!)

Joli



VN:F [1.9.22_1171]















Rating:
+24 (from 24 votes)

I know he's a medical doctor but even a PSLE student can tell him that his definition of politics is wrong.

 

[winnipegjets]

Re: Vivian waives privilege but WP can't sue because Pinky says government is behind

What rubbish. If LTK sues Vivian, the government cannot spend government money to defend Vivian.

So, if Vivian confirms he is using his own money, LTK promises to sue?

You can't sue Vivian without suing the government. The government is making the accusation. Vivian is merely the spokesman.

 

[wendychan]

Re: Vivian waives privilege but WP can't sue because Pinky says government is behind

You can't sue Vivian without suing the government. The government is making the accusation. Vivian is merely the spokesman.

and who would dare should the government?not unless one had money and cancer and knew one was going to die soonish anyway..........

 

[steffychun]

Re: Vivian waives privilege but WP can't sue because Pinky says government is behind

Some1 will say sorry again and say we will help the poor.

Then a few months later say, we cannot help everyone, is a meritocracy, we r not a welfare state etc

they never helped at all