154th WRITER, DEVADAS KRISHNANDAS, TELLS HIS CRITICS TO “SHUT UP”

[makapaaa]

[h=1]STRAITS TIMES WRITER, DEVADAS KRISHNANDAS, TELLS HIS CRITICS TO “SHUT UP”[/h]
<!-- /.block --> <style>.node-article .field-name-link-line-above-tags{float: right;}.node-article .field-name-ad-box-in-article {float: left;margin: 15px 15px 10px 0;}.node-article .field-tags{clear: both;}</style> Post date:
22 Oct 2014 - 5:37pm





<ins id="aswift_0_expand" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: currentColor; width: 336px; height: 280px; display: inline-table; visibility: visible; position: relative; background-color: transparent; border-image: none;"><ins id="aswift_0_anchor" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: currentColor; width: 336px; height: 280px; display: block; visibility: visible; position: relative; background-color: transparent; border-image: none;"><iframe name="aswift_0" width="336" height="280" id="aswift_0" frameBorder="0" marginWidth="0" marginHeight="0" scrolling="no" vspace="0" hspace="0" allowfullscreen="true" style="left: 0px; top: 0px; position: absolute;" allowTransparency="true"></iframe></ins></ins>


Opinion writer Devadas Krishnandas, who writes regular opinion pieces for Straits times responded to a critic of his article by telling him to “Shut Up”.
Krishnandas had written an article titled “Protests that Matter” which was published on Straits Times today about the protests in Hong Lim Park.
In it, he had suggested that there is no place for “disruptive protests” in Singapore current socio-political climate.
He argued that there are plenty of other, non-disruptive and legitimate ways to bring change including raising it with MPs are Meet-the-people session and engaging in government run dialogues and “proper feedback channels”.
He had criticised the protesters and suggested that what they were doing was “madness”.
His article was shared on Facebook by a ST Editor, Chua Mui Hoong, who had commented that “Protests may be legal but illegitimate”.
On this comment thread, a netizen, Tan Kok Tim had criticised the article suggesting that there was already nowhere else for protesters to go in Singapore.
In response, Mr Krishnandas commented and told Tan to “Shut Up”.
When he was later corrected, he again reiterated that Tan should shut up:

Later, after some more negative comments, Krishnandas deleted his own comments:

<ins id="aswift_1_expand" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: currentColor; width: 336px; height: 280px; display: inline-table; visibility: visible; position: relative; background-color: transparent; border-image: none;"><ins id="aswift_1_anchor" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: currentColor; width: 336px; height: 280px; display: block; visibility: visible; position: relative; background-color: transparent; border-image: none;"><iframe name="aswift_1" width="336" height="280" id="aswift_1" frameBorder="0" marginWidth="0" marginHeight="0" scrolling="no" vspace="0" hspace="0" allowfullscreen="true" style="left: 0px; top: 0px; position: absolute;" allowTransparency="true"></iframe></ins></ins>


Krishnandas has been regularly writing for ST and his recent articles have been writing a lot of criticisms about Roy and Han Hui Hui.
See: DEVADAS KRISHNADAS: ROY NGERNG AND HAN HUI HUI ARE JUST TROUBLEMAKERS
He also wrote a book praising Lee Kuan Yew.
However, it seems that when his own work is criticised, he can’t take it and has no response but to tell netizens to “shut up”.
What do you think?

 

[makapaaa]

[h=1]DEVADAS KRISHNADAS: ROY NGERNG AND HAN HUI HUI ARE JUST TROUBLEMAKERS[/h]


<!-- /.block -->
<style>.node-article .field-name-link-line-above-tags{float: right;}.node-article .field-name-ad-box-in-article {float: left;margin: 15px 15px 10px 0;}.node-article .field-tags{clear: both;}</style>
Post date:
28 Sep 2014 - 3:28pm









<ins id="aswift_0_expand" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: currentColor; width: 336px; height: 280px; display: inline-table; visibility: visible; position: relative; background-color: transparent; border-image: none;"><ins id="aswift_0_anchor" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: currentColor; width: 336px; height: 280px; display: block; visibility: visible; position: relative; background-color: transparent; border-image: none;"><iframe name="aswift_0" width="336" height="280" id="aswift_0" frameBorder="0" marginWidth="0" marginHeight="0" scrolling="no" vspace="0" hspace="0" allowfullscreen="true" style="left: 0px; top: 0px; position: absolute;" allowTransparency="true"></iframe></ins></ins>


The actions of the 'activists' at Hong Lim Park on Saturday betray the anarchic nature of their cause and the demagogic character of the individual actors.

The anger with which Roy Ngerng and Han Hui Hui spoke was visceral and vicious. What cause have they to speak so incensed? What gross injury is being done to them? One can hold different views on important issues but there are mature and peaceful ways to communicate and debate them.

Instead these self-styled "champions of the people" choose confrontational methods which play on the emotions surrounding hot button issues. They blow things out of proportion and seek to provide legitimacy for themselves and their cause through "victim-seeking" tactics.

Their actions to disrupt the YMCA event speak to self-indulgence, social carelessness, immaturity and this is ironical, a disregard for the rights and concerns of other Singaporeans especially those in genuine need.

But that is not what is fundamentally egregious about these political provocateurs. This is that they are possessed of a mind-set framed by two self-reinforcing features.

First, the view that Singapore and specifically, its governance, is a grand conspiracy. Everything about the government and all events are construed as being part of a system of control. All and any action but anyone who differs from their extreme views is treated as a co-conspirator. It is this mind-set that explains how they could perceive an event to raise awareness and support for children with special needs as a power-play to stymie their protest.

Second, they seem to believe, and waive dubious charts and circular arguments to the effect, that they possess some special insight into the truth about public policies. The simplistic and even silly interpretations of complex policy issues makes the propositions of these provocateurs superficially attractive. Instead that they reveal is that the output of being uninformed and uneducated is the conviction that simple straw man arguments have credence because they are asymmetrical to matters which have innate complexity.

These two mental qualities play into each other into a simple set of motives. First that the government is out to cheat the people. Second, that foreigners are a source of evil. Third, that our social challenges are easy to solve. Fourth, confrontation is the best mode of advocacy.

Each and everyone of these motives are a nonsense and the twinned frames which make up their mind-set are shoddy construct made up of intellectual drift-wood held together by the creeper vine of ignorance.








<ins id="aswift_1_expand" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: currentColor; width: 336px; height: 280px; display: inline-table; visibility: visible; position: relative; background-color: transparent; border-image: none;"><ins id="aswift_1_anchor" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: currentColor; width: 336px; height: 280px; display: block; visibility: visible; position: relative; background-color: transparent; border-image: none;"><iframe name="aswift_1" width="336" height="280" id="aswift_1" frameBorder="0" marginWidth="0" marginHeight="0" scrolling="no" vspace="0" hspace="0" allowfullscreen="true" style="left: 0px; top: 0px; position: absolute;" allowTransparency="true"></iframe></ins></ins>


The failure of the official opposition to take a stand on the behaviour of these provocateurs is reprehensible. But this failure would be a shared one by all reasonable Singaporeans if we do not now take a stand to condemn these provocateurs, see them for what they are - anarchists, and insist on ejecting them from the space for legitimate debate on issues of national importance. This is their McCarthy - Murrow moment.

Let us stand up for Singapore by demonstrating to ourselves foremost but to all others too, both what we, as a people, are not - we are not stupid, we are not anarchic, we are not gullible, we are not xenophobic and we are not socially careless and what we are - active, informed, mature, considerate, welcoming and respectful.

Devadas Krishnadas
The author is the chief executive of Future-Moves Group, an international strategic consultancy and executive education provider based in Singapore.

*Comment first appeared on https://www.facebook.com/devadas.krishnadas

 

[makapaaa]

http://mothership.sg/2014/03/mothership-qa-a-glimpse-of-author-consultant-devadas-krishnadas/

[h=1]Mothership Q&A: A glimpse of author-consultant Devadas Krishnadas[/h]March 7, 2014
Author-consultant Devadas Krishnadas sheds light on why he did not write about Goh Chok Tong at all.
<figure class="fl"></figure>


A former civil servant, Devadas Krishnadas was with the Singapore Police Force before joining the Ministry of Home Affairs and then moving on to the Ministry of Finance, among other ministries.

This means he has seen the inner workings of Singapore — the dark and dank recesses the wonks and what-have-yous congregate — that the rest of you are never going to be privy to.

But that doesn’t mean he discloses everything in his latest book, Sensing Singapore, a collection of commentaries on Singapore that were previously published in various media platforms.
Now a consultant and managing director in Future-Moves, Mothership.sg prods him with a barge pole to see what else we can get out of him.

1. In your book, you said that your writing was prompted by the desire to “investigate a more constructive path forward” for Singapore? Do you think things have changed since the last elections in 2011?
Certainly things have changed since the general and presidential elections in 2011. Both elections demonstrated the power of electoral politics to shift political direction and shape political behaviour.
The ruling party has become much more communicative and its members noticeably more humble and involved in their community work.

Major policy blocks –- from healthcare, education and population management — have been subject to review and change. Previously, ideological positions, such as on high ministerial pay have also been revisited. I hope that my public writing helps to support and promote this constructive and positive advancement of political and policy change.

2. You are considered by many to be a public intellectual. Will you join politics and run for office?
I think all Singaporeans should have a political consciousness but not everyone need be politically active. In my case, my ego is not big enough to think people would vote for me! I think my small contribution to the public discourse through my public writing marks the limit of participation.

3. In your essay, “Doing the Right Thing”, you mentioned that today’s elderly deserve to be singled out for special attention as they were part of the pionneer generation that laid the foundation of today’s success. How has your commentary contributed to the government’s Pioneer Generation Package in Budget 2014?
My advocacy for a pioneer generation package came in March 2013, some five months before the Prime Minister made the announcement at the 2013 National Day Rally. I have no idea though if it had any role in initiating or promoting the idea in policy or political circles. I have realised that to be successful in public advocacy one has to take one’s ego out of the equation.
If the commentary did help push the idea along in policy circles, great, if it did not, so be it. I think it was still useful in helping Singaporeans think about this important initiative of collective conscience.

4. You asked Nicole Seah, a young, promising female politician to write the foreword for your book. Why didn’t you ask Tin Pei Ling to write one then?
Now that would have been something! But more seriously, I felt that Nicole’s contribution, when placed alongside the foreword by Minister Shanmugam, would help position the book as balanced and not politically aligned to any one margin. Both she and Minister were gracious enough to say nice things about the book and the author for which I am deeply grateful to both.

5. As an author, do you have a target audience in mind when you wrote your book?
Yes, my primary target audience are Singaporeans and the secondary audience are people interested in the present and future course of Singapore. I noticed that there was a wide gap between the jargon filled and lengthy government releases and speeches and the brief and short-hand social media information pathways such as Twitter, Facebook and Instagram.
I wanted to bring back the art of the essay to give clarity to contrasting ideas, make sense of complex policy issues and to put forward clearly worded proposals. In doing so, I hoped at a minimum to play a public education role and at best, to have prompted readers to develop their own positions on the important issues of our time.

6. In your book, you mentioned Lee Kuan Yew seven times, Lee Hsien Loong five times and zero times for Goh Chok Tong. Why?
It certainly was not something planned! To redress this imbalance is motive for me to write a few more commentaries. Mr Goh’s fourteen years as Prime Minister definitely deserves more attention.
Thanks!




Mothership.sg is giving away three copies of Sensing Singapore, autographed by Devadas. First three readers to share this article on Facebook wins. Email us at [email protected] or send us a FB private message with your personal particulars (name and mailing address). Winners will receive the book by post.

 

[laksaboy]

Little man and presstitute dog is getting really touchy.

Let us stand up for Singapore by demonstrating to ourselves foremost but to all others too, both what we, as a people, are not - we are not stupid, we are not anarchic, we are not gullible, we are not xenophobic and we are not socially careless and what we are - active, informed, mature, considerate, welcoming and respectful.

With all due respect, go fuck yourself.

 

[makapaaa]

https://www.linkedin.com/in/devadaskrishnadas

[h=5]Ministry of Home Affairs[/h]<time>1998</time> – <time>2008</time> (10 years)Devadas held several command, operational and special appointments during this part of his career. These included being a Commanding Officer of a Police Precinct and the Head Operations of a Police Division. He also held policy positions at both agency and Ministry levels. He remains a senior officer in the reserves.

 

[zeddy]

Full of arrogance to the point of asking his critics to shut up.... Behaving just like political masters..

 

[hofmann]

another ivory tower elite trying to preach to the "uneducated masses"

he's trying to drum up attention to increase his pathetic book sales.

 

[LEGEND]

Kan Ni Na Bu Chao Pundek! :oIo:

 

[bigboss]

A typical papee por lan par who worships the ground the papees walk on and in his eyes, the papees can do no wrong. Therefore, the protests at HLP are irrelevant to the socio-political context of the country.

He refuses to see MPS and Govt dialogues are papees' managed events where freedom to criticize the MP and the papees does not exist. At the MPS and Govt dialogues, no sinkie in his right mind would dare to open his mouth and tell the MP or the Govt to go to hell.

At the HLP, it is a designated "Speakers' Corner" where every sinkie and even the SPR, a foreigner, is allowed to criticise the papees to his heart's content.

To stifle the right to protest is similar to telling sinkies that the HLP protest is irrelevant.

 

[krafty]

as a pap supporter, i have to say this, you give power to indians, they try to lord over you. fuck up kind of ah neh behave in this way.:oIo:

some more from home affairs, argh ptui...!:oIo:

 

[bigboss]

His article was shared on Facebook by a ST Editor, Chua Mui Hoong, who had commented that “Protests may be legal but illegitimate”....On this comment thread, a netizen, Tan Kok Tim had criticised the article suggesting that there was already nowhere else for protesters to go in Singapore.

These papees por lan pars wanted to split hair. If the papees allowed the protest to take place at HLP, it is legal by law as well as legitimate by right.

The twisted mind of these por lan pars makes them see the world only with their cocked eyes.

 

[blissquek]

Little man and presstitute dog is getting really touchy.



With all due respect, go fuck yourself.

I second that......Devadas krishnandas arrogant manner makes him a obnoxious guy...

 

[Ambulance]

Lee & Lee & Bengalee

 

[Wanderer]

Its a common trait share among all the Lee Kuan Yew fan. And this guy is another Lee's fan.

Its understanable. Why? Lee Kuan Yew love to shut people up.

 

[winnipegjets]

He is sucking up ...hoping to be rewarded with a ticket to stand for election. And if he wins, he can join the Ah Neh trio in cabinet.

 

[blackmondy]

Little man and presstitute dog is getting really touchy.

With all due respect, go fuck yourself.

I'd recommend he go fuck and sodomize his parents too.

 

[krafty]

some malay also behave this way,i wonder if they feel inferior cos' they are over-runned by chinese. if this is the case, they can go back to their matland.

 

[hofmann]

He is sucking up ...hoping to be rewarded with a ticket to stand for election. And if he wins, he can join the Ah Neh trio in cabinet.

he's sucking up to promote his book and his consultancy. some crap from his website, which i shan't even bother to link to.

"We are committed to thought leadership and in the person of our CEO, Mr Devadas K, we have a high public signature amongst the reading public in Singapore and the region..."

typical talk a lot but say nothing kind of crap. "high public signature".... no one in the reading public has heard of this unknown consultant wannabe.

 

[laksaboy]

he's sucking up to promote his book and his consultancy. some crap from his website, which i shan't even bother to link to.

"We are committed to thought leadership and in the person of our CEO, Mr Devadas K, we have a high public signature amongst the reading public in Singapore and the region..."

typical talk a lot but say nothing kind of crap. "high public signature".... no one in the reading public has heard of this unknown consultant wannabe.

He must have sucked influential dicks to obtain a gig to regularly write lengthy opinion pieces to the Shitty Times.

Here's a gem not too long ago about the MH17 crash in Ukraine, and he asked what would be the response had a SIA plane got shot down instead.

http://www.straitstimes.com/news/op...al-crisis-can-we-count-you-singapore-20140725