Not quite true.
For example, I do not know Scroobal in real life, and probably never will. I tried to send a private email him in the old sammyboy forum, but he said he was a public figure, and wanted to be totally anonymous.
-
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.
Yap Keng Ho - Please provide your background
- Thread starter scroobal
- Start date
Not quite true.
For example, I do not know Scroobal in real life, and probably never will. I tried to send a private email him in the old sammyboy forum, but he said he was a public figure, and wanted to be totally anonymous.
Dear Goh Meng Seng,
It is painfully and excruciatingly obvious you do not even come close to grasping what TiLik was trying to say.
Don't worry, neither did I. But my Empress explained, and my mind was wholesomely enriched with its meaning.
As for you, tomorrow I'll give you another 2 bonus reputation points out of sympathy. Be well, my friend, and may peace and joy be with you.
E-Jay
Again, at the risk of being repetitious, I agree fully.
LOL! Ejay,
You must learn not to jump too fast!
Well, what is there so difficult to understand what Tilik is talking about? Is he talking in Latin? LOL! Obviously, my words are very simple enough but yet too difficult for you to understand: you have your entertainment, so do I, cannot meh?
I don't need sympathy from someone like you who is already so pathetic. Save it for yourself, will you?
Goh Meng Seng
P.S. Oh, btw, I am having another hearty laugh right now! LOL!
Yes, I have found this to be curious.
Yeah, why keep repeating in the 154th PAP propaganda that Yap is an SDP supporter when he is clearly not??
Also, in this thread a couple of known PAP apologists, while defending Yap without offering answers to numerous questions abt Yap, are trying to turn the discussion into attacks on other activists.
The activists, together with SDP members and supporters, stood together with common t-shirts and clear messages while they were protesting/demonstrating, unlike this chap Yap who is a gatecrasher.
Yap appears from nowhere, uninvited and insists on diverting and confusing the whole campaign.
Why should Yap go into a house uninvited and demand the occupants follow his methods or ways??
If he has any decency or credibility. Yap should organize his own protests and campaigns to draw supporters to his cause.
Yap's activities have all the hallmark of an agent provocateur. Period.
You have not guts to reply to me directly?
Now you are saying that anyone from the public that goes to any of the protests organized by SDP, MUST BUY AND WEAR THEIR T -SHIRTS else they will be seen as GATECRASHER and AGENT PROVOCATEUR? LOL!
Once again, I ask you again, are you speaking on behalf of SDP? Are you a SDP member in the very first place?
Well, I say even if this is just your own opinion, its a very myopic in nature. Maybe you should participate in Hong Kong annual July 1st protest march to widen your perspective.
The organizers of the protest can have their general theme and agenda, but this does not mean that anybody that goes to the protest must succumb to their theme else risk being labeled as "agent provocateur"! There are groups like Foreign Maids demonstrating for their own rights, group of people protesting against government land acquisition of their houses... etc.
So you are saying that SDP does not welcome anyone to join a protest organized by them if they do not succumb to their rules and regulations? Are you trying to paint SDP as a dictatorship or authoritarian? It seems that you are possibly an "agent provocateur" trying to paint SDP so badly!
Now again, back to the basic question, on what basis are you talking on behalf of SDP?
Goh Meng Seng
highlighted "political ambitions".
most use the "political ambition" as a forefront tool to camouflage their "personal ambition". the former "political" is always highlighted and bragged about while the latter "personal" is always hidden. if u were to try to leak a bit more on their hidden ambition, u will be surprised what they would do to u.
just observe their action after this post to understand what i meant :p
Bro, its just his opinion. He could not even point to SDP websites which he claimed had indications that Yap was not associated with them.You have not guts to reply to me directly?
Now you are saying that anyone from the public that goes to any of the protests organized by SDP, MUST BUY AND WEAR THEIR T -SHIRTS else they will be seen as GATECRASHER and AGENT PROVOCATEUR? LOL!
Once again, I ask you again, are you speaking on behalf of SDP? Are you a SDP member in the very first place?
Dear Learned Mongerel
Let's put a little time context to your accusations of U Yap being a PAP agent provecatuer. For convenience sake lets term it U Yap BC ( Before Chia Ti Lik and associates ).
1. U Yap BC or (before chia ti lik and associates ) had gone to jail alongside the senior leadership of the SDP who I am sure have the milk of human kindness not to accuse someone like him of being a PAP agent. Going to jail with the SDP BC I believe allows one to be called an SDP supporter.
2. U Yap AC or after Chia Ti Lik has been accused by close associates well namely a Kim Jong Ill look alike of Sabotaging activists and voila your magical appearance. Such Such Unfortunate coincidences which bear so much resemblance to previous "swiftboat" coincidences in the old sammy and the boys.
3. U named one event after Chia Ti Lik how about the numerous events BEFORE chia ti lik and associates? Does his work count for nothing ?
4. For that matter if ever you chose to accuse CTL and associates of gate crashing and or being a PAP mole I would disagree with you and defend him. Though come to think of it him being ex PAP probably makes him better qualified in some ways to being a PAP mole then U Yap
5. Gate Crashing thus he should organized his own events. Come to think of it your accusations should apply to CTL and associates as well since he and his gang tried organizing but could not sustain and are in the process of creating something sorely lacking in imagination. But likewise I would say CTL and associates are not gatecrashers but as people are free to help whichever organisation they support in whatever way they can.
Cheers
Locke
Let's put a little time context to your accusations of U Yap being a PAP agent provecatuer. For convenience sake lets term it U Yap BC ( Before Chia Ti Lik and associates ).
1. U Yap BC or (before chia ti lik and associates ) had gone to jail alongside the senior leadership of the SDP who I am sure have the milk of human kindness not to accuse someone like him of being a PAP agent. Going to jail with the SDP BC I believe allows one to be called an SDP supporter.
2. U Yap AC or after Chia Ti Lik has been accused by close associates well namely a Kim Jong Ill look alike of Sabotaging activists and voila your magical appearance. Such Such Unfortunate coincidences which bear so much resemblance to previous "swiftboat" coincidences in the old sammy and the boys.
3. U named one event after Chia Ti Lik how about the numerous events BEFORE chia ti lik and associates? Does his work count for nothing ?
4. For that matter if ever you chose to accuse CTL and associates of gate crashing and or being a PAP mole I would disagree with you and defend him. Though come to think of it him being ex PAP probably makes him better qualified in some ways to being a PAP mole then U Yap
5. Gate Crashing thus he should organized his own events. Come to think of it your accusations should apply to CTL and associates as well since he and his gang tried organizing but could not sustain and are in the process of creating something sorely lacking in imagination. But likewise I would say CTL and associates are not gatecrashers but as people are free to help whichever organisation they support in whatever way they can.
Cheers
Locke
Last edited:
You have not guts to reply to me directly?
Now you are saying that anyone from the public that goes to any of the protests organized by SDP, MUST BUY AND WEAR THEIR T -SHIRTS else they will be seen as GATECRASHER and AGENT PROVOCATEUR? LOL!
Once again, I ask you again, are you speaking on behalf of SDP? Are you a SDP member in the very first place?
Well, I say even if this is just your own opinion, its a very myopic in nature. Maybe you should participate in Hong Kong annual July 1st protest march to widen your perspective.
The organizers of the protest can have their general theme and agenda, but this does not mean that anybody that goes to the protest must succumb to their theme else risk being labeled as "agent provocateur"! There are groups like Foreign Maids demonstrating for their own rights, group of people protesting against government land acquisition of their houses... etc.
So you are saying that SDP does not welcome anyone to join a protest organized by them if they do not succumb to their rules and regulations? Are you trying to paint SDP as a dictatorship or authoritarian? It seems that you are possibly an "agent provocateur" trying to paint SDP so badly!
Now again, back to the basic question, on what basis are you talking on behalf of SDP?
Goh Meng Seng
if paps are the overall bigger tyrant, sdp should be the smaller tyrant while those non-member F4 should be classified as the biggest instigators.
just like a share, there is winner, there's loser but the broker wins all. F4 is playing this part and that's why they remain as non-SDP members but claim to be just "supporters".
too kiam siap to pay the membership maybe?:p
Bapok care to tell the audience what's your "political" and "personal" ambition?
Yes I've observed your action and concluded you're a fucking PAP dog licking MP Baey's arse regularly.
To be fair, from an outsider's perspective like mine, it does not appear to 100% clear whether the SDP and/or RP acknowledge Yap Keng Ho as a "supporter".
For eg. looking at the Youtube clip on the initial TBT demonstration, at one point when Yap was doing his standard wayang provocation of the police, I noticed Dr Chee telling Yap to pipe down and stop acting aggressive. Does this mean Dr Chee/SDP implicitly or otherwise acknowledge Yap as a "supporter"? Another eg. at the first court hearing of the TBT demonstrators outside the Subordinate Courts holding the 'Love Singapore' placard, was Yap amongst them? If so, does this imply that SDP acknowledge him as a "suppoprter" implicitly or otherwise? Another eg. was Yap at the SDP private screening of the film on LKY (paid or free?)? If so, does this imply that SDP acknowledge him as a "suppoprter" implicitly or otherwise? Oh and will Yap be attending the SDP Hawaiian shindig on 31/8?
Now as for RP, I recall Yap Keng Ho claiming all sorts of things about helping JBJ. Is this true? Does this mean JBJ and RP implicitly or otherwsie acknowledge Yap as a "supporter"? Did Yap help organise the RP dinner in any way? If so, does this mean anything? Did Yap attend the RP dinner (paid or free?)? If so what does this mean?
I don't have the answers, only the questions
As for those forumers trying to hijack this thread for whatever reasons, I guess other forumers can draw their own conclusions as to their intentions and credibility
For eg. looking at the Youtube clip on the initial TBT demonstration, at one point when Yap was doing his standard wayang provocation of the police, I noticed Dr Chee telling Yap to pipe down and stop acting aggressive. Does this mean Dr Chee/SDP implicitly or otherwise acknowledge Yap as a "supporter"? Another eg. at the first court hearing of the TBT demonstrators outside the Subordinate Courts holding the 'Love Singapore' placard, was Yap amongst them? If so, does this imply that SDP acknowledge him as a "suppoprter" implicitly or otherwise? Another eg. was Yap at the SDP private screening of the film on LKY (paid or free?)? If so, does this imply that SDP acknowledge him as a "suppoprter" implicitly or otherwise? Oh and will Yap be attending the SDP Hawaiian shindig on 31/8?
Now as for RP, I recall Yap Keng Ho claiming all sorts of things about helping JBJ. Is this true? Does this mean JBJ and RP implicitly or otherwsie acknowledge Yap as a "supporter"? Did Yap help organise the RP dinner in any way? If so, does this mean anything? Did Yap attend the RP dinner (paid or free?)? If so what does this mean?
I don't have the answers, only the questions
As for those forumers trying to hijack this thread for whatever reasons, I guess other forumers can draw their own conclusions as to their intentions and credibility
Locke,
Quite apart from Chia Ti Lik and his group, there appear others who have raised questions with regards to Yap Keng Ho's character, integrity and credibility, for sometime now, may be even before Chia and his group forged their apparent relationship with Dr Chee and SDP (I stand corrected). In particular I refer to Jufrie and his group. So with respect, I don't think it is fair to just draw an arrow in Chia and his group's direction without further concrete substantiation especially since it was Scroobal who started this particular thread.
Furthermore, regardless of Chia and his group, the questions floating around Yap Keng Ho still appear legitimate and valid. Since it appears that Yap seeks to influence public views in one way or another, I see no reason why Yap should persist in shying away from clearing the air on his character. Especially since he has no qualms in airing other people's apparent dirty linen in public for reasons best known to him. If Yap Keng Ho is truly genuine and sincere, then what has he got to hide?
Btw I again think you give too much credit to Yap Keng Ho's own self inflicted 'prison breaks'. I myself wonder why Jufrie who has been detained under the ISA has serious doubts over Yap Keng Ho's character? Now I am not saying that Jufrie is necessarily right, however it does make me pause to think, especially when you look at all of Yap's actions in totality.
Cheers
Quite apart from Chia Ti Lik and his group, there appear others who have raised questions with regards to Yap Keng Ho's character, integrity and credibility, for sometime now, may be even before Chia and his group forged their apparent relationship with Dr Chee and SDP (I stand corrected). In particular I refer to Jufrie and his group. So with respect, I don't think it is fair to just draw an arrow in Chia and his group's direction without further concrete substantiation especially since it was Scroobal who started this particular thread.
Furthermore, regardless of Chia and his group, the questions floating around Yap Keng Ho still appear legitimate and valid. Since it appears that Yap seeks to influence public views in one way or another, I see no reason why Yap should persist in shying away from clearing the air on his character. Especially since he has no qualms in airing other people's apparent dirty linen in public for reasons best known to him. If Yap Keng Ho is truly genuine and sincere, then what has he got to hide?
Btw I again think you give too much credit to Yap Keng Ho's own self inflicted 'prison breaks'. I myself wonder why Jufrie who has been detained under the ISA has serious doubts over Yap Keng Ho's character? Now I am not saying that Jufrie is necessarily right, however it does make me pause to think, especially when you look at all of Yap's actions in totality.
Cheers
Dear Porifrio
I have disagree with Jufrie about the by election strategy and a three cornered fight in the old sammy and the boys but not abt Uncle Yap. I for one can't recall anything said by Jufrie about U Yap but again I might have missed it.
The questions about U Yap are valid and in jest I am not defending him because we share the same surname. However it is quite a large stretch of the imagination from legitimate questions to what I c as One2unites. attempts at character assassination which have some historical precedence from past posts in the old forums.
My own view is that the SDP in the form of its senior leadership has accepted him somewhat as an ardent supporter and helper in a time frame from long long ago. His methods might not agree with them now but I do not see them as asking ohh who who will rid me of this troublesome priests.
Locke
I have disagree with Jufrie about the by election strategy and a three cornered fight in the old sammy and the boys but not abt Uncle Yap. I for one can't recall anything said by Jufrie about U Yap but again I might have missed it.
The questions about U Yap are valid and in jest I am not defending him because we share the same surname. However it is quite a large stretch of the imagination from legitimate questions to what I c as One2unites. attempts at character assassination which have some historical precedence from past posts in the old forums.
My own view is that the SDP in the form of its senior leadership has accepted him somewhat as an ardent supporter and helper in a time frame from long long ago. His methods might not agree with them now but I do not see them as asking ohh who who will rid me of this troublesome priests.
Locke
Locke,
Not sure if Sam's old Delphi site can still be accessed, but if you can get in and locate Jufrie's thread under the Political sub forum, you shall find not only Jufrie raising questions about Yap Keng Ho's character but other forumers doing likewise. However there are 100s of posts to sift through though.
As for One2Unites, you may note that I am trying to be objective and balanced here from my latest post to him.
Perhaps you may also wish to consider this: just because you "accept" someone before as genuine and sincere does not mean you cannot have a re-think. Nothing is written in stone. Never judge a book by its cover. Oh and you can fool people some of the time but you cannot fool people all of the time.
To me the jury is still out on Yap Keng Ho's character.
Cheers
Not sure if Sam's old Delphi site can still be accessed, but if you can get in and locate Jufrie's thread under the Political sub forum, you shall find not only Jufrie raising questions about Yap Keng Ho's character but other forumers doing likewise. However there are 100s of posts to sift through though.
As for One2Unites, you may note that I am trying to be objective and balanced here from my latest post to him.
Perhaps you may also wish to consider this: just because you "accept" someone before as genuine and sincere does not mean you cannot have a re-think. Nothing is written in stone. Never judge a book by its cover. Oh and you can fool people some of the time but you cannot fool people all of the time.
To me the jury is still out on Yap Keng Ho's character.
Cheers
I reply to you and not to the couple of PAP running dogs who are busy trying to hijack this thread which is abt Yap Keng Ho who seems to have gone silent on the numerous questions posed to him.
The following is a statement that I've retrieved from the SDP website:
Yap Keng Ho not part of protest
Singapore Democrats
17 Mar 08
Mr Yap Keng Ho was not a participant in the Tak Boleh Tahan! Protest on 15 Mar 08.
The police are being mischievous as photographs and videotapes show that Mr Yap did not appear with the group. He was one of the many people who were documenting the event with cameras and video-recorders. It is clear that he was not wearing the protest T-shirt.
If Mr Yap is charged for participating in an illegal assembly and procession, then those who were photographing and videotaping the event must also be similarly charged.
Mr Kushwant Singh's report makes two errors. First, he reports that Mr Yap is a member of the SDP. Mr Yap is not an SDP member. Two, Mr Yap refused to post bail. It was not that he could not afford to post bail as reported.
SDP member charged with illegal demo outside Parliament
Khushwant Singh
The Straits Times
17 Mar 08
He was among the 12 opposition party members and supporters rounded up by police
The first of 12 Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) members and supporters arrested on Saturday for illegally demonstrating outside Parliament, was charged in a district court on Monday.
Yap Keng Ho, 46, claimed trial to two counts of participating in an assembly without a permit from 2.30pm till 2.40pm.
He is alleged to have committed the offences together with SDP chief Chee Soon Juan, Chee's sister Chee Siok Chin, chairman Gandhi Ambalam and leader of advocacy group SG Human Rights Chia Ti Lik.
Others named in the charges include former opposition candidate Muhammad Jufri Mohd Salim and social activist Seelan Palay.
While the others were released on police bail of $1,000 each pending investigations, Yap was remanded as he was unable to put up the bail.
District Judge Carol Ling did not grant his request for a lower bail but allowed him to post a personal bond for the $1,000 bail.
Yap also said that he was currently involved in another trial for speaking in public without a permit.
He and Chee allegedly committed the offence in the run-up to last year's General Election.
Judge Ling said that the cases would proceed separately.
Yap said that he would engage a lawyer and if none was available, he would represent himself.
He was ordered to attend a conference on Wednesday morning to discuss his on-coming trial.
SDP held the rally to protest rising consumer prices to mark World Consumer Rights Day on Saturday, even after its application had been rejected by the police, who cited security concerns.
Those arrested were among a group of 30 SDP members and supporters who gathered in front of Parliament House with placards.
They also placed food items such as rice, sugar and biscuits on the ground.
(the above is from SDP website that also carried a ST article to clarify matters)
So, from the SDP report is it not clear that Yap is neither a member nor a supporter of SDP?? And yet the 154th PAP propaganda filth keeps referring to agent provocateur Yap as part of SDP.
Also, by a simple search of the SDP website, the photograph published on Friday, 11 July 2008 shows the protesters and supporters at the steps of the Sub Courts. Yap is not part of the group.
On the Youtube clip you mentioned, it is not only Dr Chee but also the other leaders of SDP who had ticked off Yap for his 'standard wayang provocation of the police'.
Yap the coward seems to show his bravado only in a group but alone he becomes not only a mouse but also an obedient dog wagging his tail at his masters.
It has been reliably learned that Yap had a hand in alerting the MDA and the police abt the private screening of One Nation Under Lee.
JBJ has rejected Yap the scoundrel. He is not wanted in RP as either a member or supporter.
From the postings in this thread it is understandable that the couple of known running dogs of the PAP in this forum are ganging up to defend their fellow fake and charlatan Yap.
The following is a statement that I've retrieved from the SDP website:
Yap Keng Ho not part of protest
Singapore Democrats
17 Mar 08
Mr Yap Keng Ho was not a participant in the Tak Boleh Tahan! Protest on 15 Mar 08.
The police are being mischievous as photographs and videotapes show that Mr Yap did not appear with the group. He was one of the many people who were documenting the event with cameras and video-recorders. It is clear that he was not wearing the protest T-shirt.
If Mr Yap is charged for participating in an illegal assembly and procession, then those who were photographing and videotaping the event must also be similarly charged.
Mr Kushwant Singh's report makes two errors. First, he reports that Mr Yap is a member of the SDP. Mr Yap is not an SDP member. Two, Mr Yap refused to post bail. It was not that he could not afford to post bail as reported.
SDP member charged with illegal demo outside Parliament
Khushwant Singh
The Straits Times
17 Mar 08
He was among the 12 opposition party members and supporters rounded up by police
The first of 12 Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) members and supporters arrested on Saturday for illegally demonstrating outside Parliament, was charged in a district court on Monday.
Yap Keng Ho, 46, claimed trial to two counts of participating in an assembly without a permit from 2.30pm till 2.40pm.
He is alleged to have committed the offences together with SDP chief Chee Soon Juan, Chee's sister Chee Siok Chin, chairman Gandhi Ambalam and leader of advocacy group SG Human Rights Chia Ti Lik.
Others named in the charges include former opposition candidate Muhammad Jufri Mohd Salim and social activist Seelan Palay.
While the others were released on police bail of $1,000 each pending investigations, Yap was remanded as he was unable to put up the bail.
District Judge Carol Ling did not grant his request for a lower bail but allowed him to post a personal bond for the $1,000 bail.
Yap also said that he was currently involved in another trial for speaking in public without a permit.
He and Chee allegedly committed the offence in the run-up to last year's General Election.
Judge Ling said that the cases would proceed separately.
Yap said that he would engage a lawyer and if none was available, he would represent himself.
He was ordered to attend a conference on Wednesday morning to discuss his on-coming trial.
SDP held the rally to protest rising consumer prices to mark World Consumer Rights Day on Saturday, even after its application had been rejected by the police, who cited security concerns.
Those arrested were among a group of 30 SDP members and supporters who gathered in front of Parliament House with placards.
They also placed food items such as rice, sugar and biscuits on the ground.
(the above is from SDP website that also carried a ST article to clarify matters)
So, from the SDP report is it not clear that Yap is neither a member nor a supporter of SDP?? And yet the 154th PAP propaganda filth keeps referring to agent provocateur Yap as part of SDP.
Also, by a simple search of the SDP website, the photograph published on Friday, 11 July 2008 shows the protesters and supporters at the steps of the Sub Courts. Yap is not part of the group.
On the Youtube clip you mentioned, it is not only Dr Chee but also the other leaders of SDP who had ticked off Yap for his 'standard wayang provocation of the police'.
Yap the coward seems to show his bravado only in a group but alone he becomes not only a mouse but also an obedient dog wagging his tail at his masters.
It has been reliably learned that Yap had a hand in alerting the MDA and the police abt the private screening of One Nation Under Lee.
JBJ has rejected Yap the scoundrel. He is not wanted in RP as either a member or supporter.
From the postings in this thread it is understandable that the couple of known running dogs of the PAP in this forum are ganging up to defend their fellow fake and charlatan Yap.
Hate to tell you bro, the statement actually means that he should not have been arrested as he was not taking part in the protest. Its more of a statement to fight the authorities on a technicality. Its seems to support Yap who posted the same things after his release - that he should not have been arrested.
If SDP wanted to make it crystal clear, they would have done a statement like so
" My Yap Keng Hor is not a member of the SDP, not considered to be supporter that follows in the main the SDP approach to politics and SDP do not want to be associated with this individual."
In fact the statement tells me that iinteresting tactics are being used. I suspect the difference surfaced only recently. The comment on Chee/SDP being soft as mentioned by Yap in his post in this forum
Similar threads
