Wah lan eh! This North Korean music like pang tua pau like that. The first minute already buay tahan.
-
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.
LWL:: Suppression of my views started soon after Lee Kuan Yew died .....
- Thread starter yahoo55
- Start date
Wah lan eh! This North Korean music like pang tua pau like that. The first minute already buay tahan.
communist music is the best,especially the original russian music.
[video=youtube;OjINuMEuSKA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjINuMEuSKA[/video]
[video=youtube;oQEjwKs_hpg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQEjwKs_hpg[/video]
[video=youtube;KxcP7TRY178]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxcP7TRY178[/video]
http://theindependent.sg/st-never-b...rism-lee-wei-ling-responds-to-sts-accusation/
ST never brought up issue of plagiarism, Lee Wei Ling responds to ST’s accusation
By The Independent - April 9, 2016
In responding to letters by the editors (both past and present) of The Straits Times (ST) that they had not censored Dr Lee Wei Ling’s views, but were only editing her commentary, Dr Lee pointed out exactly which parts of her article the newspaper wanted out.
Dr Lee the daughter of Singapore’s first Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, had compared the leaders of two countries – Mao Zedong of China and Winston Churchill of the United Kingdom – with her father. While China hurriedly built a monument to its leader (who it considered semi-divine) Britain only commemorated her prominent leader 50 years later, Dr Lee said.
She said Mr Lee Kuan Yew was dead set against a personality cult and any hint of cronyism, and would have preferred a commemoration like that accorded to Mr Churchill 50 years later, over the one sanctioned by the government which started on 23rd March with a remembrance ceremony held at the former Parliament House, and lasted for an entire week.
This part of Dr Lee’s commentary was what ST wanted edited out.
Today, ST revived a long abandoned section in its newspaper to respond to Dr Lee. Its editor accused Dr Lee of plagiarism.
In its Readers’ Post section, the newspaper’s associate editor Ivan Fernandez identified himself as the one responsible for editing Dr Lee’s commentary and said that he decided to cut out the parts referring to Mao Zedong and Winston Churchill because they were plagiarised (see the associate editor of ST’s post here: http://bit.Iy/1UPBgca).
Dr Lee responded in her Facebook to Mr Fernandez’s accusation of plagiarism. She said that the newspaper’s article which carried a photo of an outline of Mr Lee’s face made with 4,877 erasers, prompted her to write her first note.
“I know Papa would be very upset by this sort of hero worship,” she said.
She also said that she felt a sense of urgency to stop all acts of hagiography as she knew how unhappy her father would be by them.
“To put things in context I wanted to recount how other countries honoured their leaders after death,” Dr Lee clarified.
“China’s Chairman Mao and Britain’s Winston Churchill were the best examples to compare the founding prime minister of Singapore to,” she added.
Dr Lee claimed that in the several email exchanges between her and Mr Fernandez on the topic, “never (once) did Ivan bring up the issue of plagiarism”.
“Given that my article was posted on Facebook on 1st April, and this is 9th April, I wonder whether the powers that be had instructed SPH to criticize me and accuse me of plagiarism,” Dr Lee asked.
Dr Lee’s first article on the topic was published in her Facebook not on 1 April, but on 26 March (see this: http://bit.Iy/1qD10MC).
“I am a doctor, and writing articles like these do not advance my curriculum vitae which depends on publication on medical issues,” Dr Lee said.
She added, “so I leave my readers to judge me fairly, whether I intentionally plagiarized or as a filial daughter I wanted to stop any attempts at hagiography at the first anniversary of my father’s death.”
ST never brought up issue of plagiarism, Lee Wei Ling responds to ST’s accusation
By The Independent - April 9, 2016
In responding to letters by the editors (both past and present) of The Straits Times (ST) that they had not censored Dr Lee Wei Ling’s views, but were only editing her commentary, Dr Lee pointed out exactly which parts of her article the newspaper wanted out.
Dr Lee the daughter of Singapore’s first Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, had compared the leaders of two countries – Mao Zedong of China and Winston Churchill of the United Kingdom – with her father. While China hurriedly built a monument to its leader (who it considered semi-divine) Britain only commemorated her prominent leader 50 years later, Dr Lee said.
She said Mr Lee Kuan Yew was dead set against a personality cult and any hint of cronyism, and would have preferred a commemoration like that accorded to Mr Churchill 50 years later, over the one sanctioned by the government which started on 23rd March with a remembrance ceremony held at the former Parliament House, and lasted for an entire week.
This part of Dr Lee’s commentary was what ST wanted edited out.
Today, ST revived a long abandoned section in its newspaper to respond to Dr Lee. Its editor accused Dr Lee of plagiarism.
In its Readers’ Post section, the newspaper’s associate editor Ivan Fernandez identified himself as the one responsible for editing Dr Lee’s commentary and said that he decided to cut out the parts referring to Mao Zedong and Winston Churchill because they were plagiarised (see the associate editor of ST’s post here: http://bit.Iy/1UPBgca).
Dr Lee responded in her Facebook to Mr Fernandez’s accusation of plagiarism. She said that the newspaper’s article which carried a photo of an outline of Mr Lee’s face made with 4,877 erasers, prompted her to write her first note.
“I know Papa would be very upset by this sort of hero worship,” she said.
She also said that she felt a sense of urgency to stop all acts of hagiography as she knew how unhappy her father would be by them.
“To put things in context I wanted to recount how other countries honoured their leaders after death,” Dr Lee clarified.
“China’s Chairman Mao and Britain’s Winston Churchill were the best examples to compare the founding prime minister of Singapore to,” she added.
Dr Lee claimed that in the several email exchanges between her and Mr Fernandez on the topic, “never (once) did Ivan bring up the issue of plagiarism”.
“Given that my article was posted on Facebook on 1st April, and this is 9th April, I wonder whether the powers that be had instructed SPH to criticize me and accuse me of plagiarism,” Dr Lee asked.
Dr Lee’s first article on the topic was published in her Facebook not on 1 April, but on 26 March (see this: http://bit.Iy/1qD10MC).
“I am a doctor, and writing articles like these do not advance my curriculum vitae which depends on publication on medical issues,” Dr Lee said.
She added, “so I leave my readers to judge me fairly, whether I intentionally plagiarized or as a filial daughter I wanted to stop any attempts at hagiography at the first anniversary of my father’s death.”
Some noteworthy points :
1. Lee W L is behaving like a natural aristocrat like elder bro deems his family to be. The family seems to have been brought up on a common diet DESPITE all that crap in LKY memoirs about Lee H L asking the Butler to pick his ball (read: carry his ball) and Old Man getting upset and moving them out of istana grounds.
2. Jana and Brothel dared to stand up to Princess only when Old Man is dead - this despite Old Man being near invalid and non coherent for a good couple of years before the grand departure.
3. Brothel did not even have the guts to stop Princess from talking about Dad washing his undies. More than one person has been sailing through the fog all this while. Perhaps they should have taken up cycling instead.
4. Princess must definitely feel that Bro has been using Dad's memory to pull votes and doesn't feel good about how far that has gone.
5. Princess has same standard of journalistic professionalism as TRE and TRS
1. Lee W L is behaving like a natural aristocrat like elder bro deems his family to be. The family seems to have been brought up on a common diet DESPITE all that crap in LKY memoirs about Lee H L asking the Butler to pick his ball (read: carry his ball) and Old Man getting upset and moving them out of istana grounds.
2. Jana and Brothel dared to stand up to Princess only when Old Man is dead - this despite Old Man being near invalid and non coherent for a good couple of years before the grand departure.
3. Brothel did not even have the guts to stop Princess from talking about Dad washing his undies. More than one person has been sailing through the fog all this while. Perhaps they should have taken up cycling instead.
4. Princess must definitely feel that Bro has been using Dad's memory to pull votes and doesn't feel good about how far that has gone.
5. Princess has same standard of journalistic professionalism as TRE and TRS
Couple Of Points:
1. You forgot to mention how ironic it is that she claims to be against the porlumpars hero worshipping and idolising her papa if their intentions are not noble and altruistic, but yet she continues to praise him incessantly by making him out to be noble and altruistic.
2. According to Leongsam the above is ok.
This afternoon, wanting to prove that plagiarism was never mentioned by Ivan Fernandez during the editing of the article, LWL had posted on her facebook all the emails between Ivan Fernandez and herself.
I was out with my wife and kids at a shopping mall, but I did managed to read her facebook post on my phone. But when I returned home, she has made her facebook private so I can no longer copy and post her facebook post here. Haizz....
One of the emails contained the LHL is a "dishonourable son". Wow, things getting even more interesting ....
LWL don't want Sinkies to worship LKY as per her father's dying wish, PAP please respect LKY's wish and stop all your brainwashing nonsense on Sinkie kids and the public for your political agenda.
I was out with my wife and kids at a shopping mall, but I did managed to read her facebook post on my phone. But when I returned home, she has made her facebook private so I can no longer copy and post her facebook post here. Haizz....
One of the emails contained the LHL is a "dishonourable son". Wow, things getting even more interesting ....
LWL don't want Sinkies to worship LKY as per her father's dying wish, PAP please respect LKY's wish and stop all your brainwashing nonsense on Sinkie kids and the public for your political agenda.
http://news.asiaone.com/news/singap...ource=Twitter&link_time=1460285477#xtor=CS1-2
PM Lee refutes sister's claims of 'establishing dynasty' after Lee Kuan Yew's death
A family feud between Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong (L) and Dr Lee Wei Ling (R) has been thrown in the public spotlight after a series of Facebook posts by the latter.
AsiaOne
Sunday, Apr 10, 2016
SINGAPORE - A family feud between Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Dr Lee Wei Ling has been thrown in the public spotlight after a series of Facebook posts by the latter.
In two posts published on her Facebook account on Sunday (April 10) at around 1pm, Dr Lee alleged that "HL has no qualms abusing his power to hv a commemoration just one year after LKY died". It is understood that HL refers to her elder brother, PM Lee.
She also described PM Lee as a "dishonourable son".
"I and HL (sic) are at odds on a matter of principle. HL has no qualms abusing his power to hv a commemoration just one year after LKY died, 'least we forget'," Dr Lee, 61, wrote.
"Let's be real, last year's event was so vivid, no one will forget it in one yr. But if the power that be wants to establish a dynasty, LKY's daughter will not allow LKY's name to be sullied by a dishonorable (sic) son. "
PM Lee refutes sister's claims of 'establishing dynasty' after Lee Kuan Yew's death
A family feud between Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong (L) and Dr Lee Wei Ling (R) has been thrown in the public spotlight after a series of Facebook posts by the latter.
AsiaOne
Sunday, Apr 10, 2016
SINGAPORE - A family feud between Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Dr Lee Wei Ling has been thrown in the public spotlight after a series of Facebook posts by the latter.
In two posts published on her Facebook account on Sunday (April 10) at around 1pm, Dr Lee alleged that "HL has no qualms abusing his power to hv a commemoration just one year after LKY died". It is understood that HL refers to her elder brother, PM Lee.
She also described PM Lee as a "dishonourable son".
"I and HL (sic) are at odds on a matter of principle. HL has no qualms abusing his power to hv a commemoration just one year after LKY died, 'least we forget'," Dr Lee, 61, wrote.
"Let's be real, last year's event was so vivid, no one will forget it in one yr. But if the power that be wants to establish a dynasty, LKY's daughter will not allow LKY's name to be sullied by a dishonorable (sic) son. "
Why she never start this during last years General Election? Could have stopped 70% for PAP.
Lesson learnt from all this, Sinkies please don't buy ST or advertise in ST, please don't give your money to ST's revenue.
http://theindependent.sg/tisg-edito...not-publishing-lee-wei-ling-are-unbelievable/
TISG EDITORIAL: ST’s reasons for not publishing Lee Wei Ling are unbelievable
By The Independent - April 11, 2016
The Straits Times in a post titled ‘Why Dr Lee’s column was not published’, published on 9 Apr 2016, explained why they refused to publish Dr Lee Wei Ling’s column on hagiography.
ST’s main reasons for not publishing one of their more prominent columnist’s work were because:
1.Dr Lee was adamant that her column be published unedited.
2.ST does not run columns which has been published online.
3.Her work contained plagiarism.
It is rather hard to believe that a well-known columnist who has worked with the newspaper for several years will suddenly go rogue. The newspaper’s editor himself had said that there were over 40 email exchanges between himself and Dr Lee centered on edits to her piece, suggesting that Dr Lee was amenable to edits to her work. Dr Lee in one of her posts further said that she decided to publish her work in her Facebook because of the ST editor’s insistence on “sticking with the original edited version”.
Newspapers invite writers to contribute columns to their publications because they value such writers’ strong opinions on various topics. A good editor should master the art of negotiating with their columnist and not resort to blaming writers, that they were not amenable to edits.
The second assertion for refusing to publish Dr Lee’s commentary is even more incredulous. In 2009, ST published playwright Alfian Sa’at’s commentary titled, ‘Is Hokkien my “mother tongue”?’. The article was first published by an online publication, The Online Citizen. (http://news.asiaone.com/News/Education/Story/A1Story20090924-169657.html)
Why, even in the ongoing tit-for-tat allegations between Dr Lee and ST, ST chose to publish its former associate editor (current Chief of Government Communications) Janadas Devan’s rebuttal of Dr Lee, when Mr Devan’s rebuttal was first made online and in Dr Lee’s Facebook.
The accusation of plagiarism is the most ridiculous of ST’s reasons for not choosing to publish Dr Lee’s column. In a Facebook post yesterday, Dr Lee had asserted that she did not plagiarise but had simply forgotten to acknowledge the source for information regarding Mao and Churchill.
Considering that Dr Lee’s dyslexia may affect her writing skills, and that as a medical doctor she would be more used to writing for medical journals where sources are indicated as a footnote, Dr Lee’s claim that she had ‘simply forgotten’ is indeed believable.
Any good editor would have asked his writer if he (she) had forgotten to include a footnote or to acknowledge the source for information, rather than publicly accuse the writer of plagiarism.
Dr Lee’s various Facebook posts are consistent with one fact and she has not deviated from it – she is uncomfortable about the hero-worship of her father, which she thinks ST is fanning.
She feels that her father would not have wanted such things done in his memory as well.
Sadly, this appears to be totally lost in all of this.
In her posts, Dr Lee had further asked if “the powers that be”, had instructed SPH to publicly criticise her. Considering the fact that SPH’s publications are closely supervised by the leadership of the ruling political party, it is important for the publisher to address this important question of Dr Lee’s.
http://theindependent.sg/tisg-edito...not-publishing-lee-wei-ling-are-unbelievable/
TISG EDITORIAL: ST’s reasons for not publishing Lee Wei Ling are unbelievable
By The Independent - April 11, 2016
The Straits Times in a post titled ‘Why Dr Lee’s column was not published’, published on 9 Apr 2016, explained why they refused to publish Dr Lee Wei Ling’s column on hagiography.
ST’s main reasons for not publishing one of their more prominent columnist’s work were because:
1.Dr Lee was adamant that her column be published unedited.
2.ST does not run columns which has been published online.
3.Her work contained plagiarism.
It is rather hard to believe that a well-known columnist who has worked with the newspaper for several years will suddenly go rogue. The newspaper’s editor himself had said that there were over 40 email exchanges between himself and Dr Lee centered on edits to her piece, suggesting that Dr Lee was amenable to edits to her work. Dr Lee in one of her posts further said that she decided to publish her work in her Facebook because of the ST editor’s insistence on “sticking with the original edited version”.
Newspapers invite writers to contribute columns to their publications because they value such writers’ strong opinions on various topics. A good editor should master the art of negotiating with their columnist and not resort to blaming writers, that they were not amenable to edits.
The second assertion for refusing to publish Dr Lee’s commentary is even more incredulous. In 2009, ST published playwright Alfian Sa’at’s commentary titled, ‘Is Hokkien my “mother tongue”?’. The article was first published by an online publication, The Online Citizen. (http://news.asiaone.com/News/Education/Story/A1Story20090924-169657.html)
Why, even in the ongoing tit-for-tat allegations between Dr Lee and ST, ST chose to publish its former associate editor (current Chief of Government Communications) Janadas Devan’s rebuttal of Dr Lee, when Mr Devan’s rebuttal was first made online and in Dr Lee’s Facebook.
The accusation of plagiarism is the most ridiculous of ST’s reasons for not choosing to publish Dr Lee’s column. In a Facebook post yesterday, Dr Lee had asserted that she did not plagiarise but had simply forgotten to acknowledge the source for information regarding Mao and Churchill.
Considering that Dr Lee’s dyslexia may affect her writing skills, and that as a medical doctor she would be more used to writing for medical journals where sources are indicated as a footnote, Dr Lee’s claim that she had ‘simply forgotten’ is indeed believable.
Any good editor would have asked his writer if he (she) had forgotten to include a footnote or to acknowledge the source for information, rather than publicly accuse the writer of plagiarism.
Dr Lee’s various Facebook posts are consistent with one fact and she has not deviated from it – she is uncomfortable about the hero-worship of her father, which she thinks ST is fanning.
She feels that her father would not have wanted such things done in his memory as well.
Sadly, this appears to be totally lost in all of this.
In her posts, Dr Lee had further asked if “the powers that be”, had instructed SPH to publicly criticise her. Considering the fact that SPH’s publications are closely supervised by the leadership of the ruling political party, it is important for the publisher to address this important question of Dr Lee’s.
http://theindependent.sg/pm-lee-are-you-sure-lky-commemoration-was-ground-up-effort/
PM Lee, are you sure LKY commemoration was ‘ground-up’ effort?
By The Independent - April 11, 2016
By: Michael Tan
Yesterday, PM Lee posted a Facebook comment rebutting his sister Lee Wei Ling claiming that he was “abusing his power” by commemorating yet again Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s passing after 1 year of his death.
Ms Lee said that his PM brother had “no qualms abusing his power to (have) a commemoration just one year after Lee Kuan Yew died”.
Calling her brother a ‘dishonorable son’, she said, “Let’s be real, last year’s event was so vivid, no one will forget it in one (year). But if the power that be wants to establish a dynasty, LKY’s daughter will not allow LKY’s name to be sullied by a dishonorable son.”
She also noted that their father, Lee Kuan Yew, “would not want to be hero-worshipped”.
PM Lee dismissed Ms Lee’s accusations as “completely untrue” and added that the commemoration was a ‘ground-up’ effort.
He wrote, “The first anniversary of a person’s passing is a significant moment to remember him and reflect on what he meant to us. The more so with Mr Lee Kuan Yew. The Cabinet had discussed how we should mark the occasion. My advice was that we should leave it to ground-up efforts. Groups should keep their observances in proportion, and focused on the future.”
‘ground-up’ effort or PA’s effort?
However, reading the news posted on the government website (http://www.gov.sg/news/content/the-...an-activities-to-mark-mr-lee-kuan-yews-legacy), it seems that the 100 or so events organized to commemorate the first anniversary of Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s death were being co-ordinated by the People’s Association (PA), a government statutory board.
In the news report, 4 remembrance events were quoted. Three was organized by PA and one by the Silent No More network. Even so, Silent No More, was said to be founded by a Facebook group made up of PAP people. The founder of the group is Mr Jaromel Gee, who is a known PAP member himself. Mr Gee said his effort is “neither endorsed nor supported by the party”.
The news report also mentioned that PA would erect panels of photographs and short write-ups on Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s contributions for people to “reflect on his legacy” at the various sites in Singapore.
Chan Chun Sing, Deputy Chairman of PA, even tried to justify PA’s involvement in the commemoration by saying that “several people” had requested for it. He did not say who these people were. He told the news media, “We don’t see it as a session for us to grieve or be sad, but a celebration of Mr Lee’s life work and values, and what he had given us to build the future.”
Clearly, Mr Chan’s statement showed that it was PA or the government who had initiated the commemoration in the first place.
Close to $1 billion budget for PA
It may be interesting to note that the recent budget (FY2016) allocated for PA is close to $1 billion even though SG50 celebration had already been over last year.
According to the government budget posted online (http://www.singaporebudget.gov.sg/data/budget_2016/download/54 MCCY Annex 2016.pdf), PA’s expenditures are as follows:
FY2014 – $665,222,779 (Actual)
FY2015 – $943,719,900 (Estimated) – 30% increase but probably due to SG50 celebration
FY2016 – $898,186,100 (Budgeted) – remain high even after SG50
It’s not known in the recent one year anniversary of the commemoration of Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s death, how much PA’s budget had been utilized for it. If the commemoration was truly a ground-up effort, then the government should not be spending any money on it. Let Singaporeans come up with their own money to commemorate the one year anniversary of Mr Lee’s death.
In any case, it is interesting to note that when Mr Lee was alive, he once made a comment about the close relationship between PAP and PA.
He was commenting on what the PRC officials had observed when they were visiting Singapore. He said, “They (PRCs) discover that the People’s Action Party (PAP) has only a small office in Bedok. But everywhere they go, they see the PAP – in the RCs (residents’ committees), CCCs (citizens’ consultative committees), and the CCs (community clubs).”
And in Singapore, all RCs, CCCs, CCs and grassroots organizations fall under the purview of PA.
PM Lee, are you sure LKY commemoration was ‘ground-up’ effort?
By The Independent - April 11, 2016
By: Michael Tan
Yesterday, PM Lee posted a Facebook comment rebutting his sister Lee Wei Ling claiming that he was “abusing his power” by commemorating yet again Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s passing after 1 year of his death.
Ms Lee said that his PM brother had “no qualms abusing his power to (have) a commemoration just one year after Lee Kuan Yew died”.
Calling her brother a ‘dishonorable son’, she said, “Let’s be real, last year’s event was so vivid, no one will forget it in one (year). But if the power that be wants to establish a dynasty, LKY’s daughter will not allow LKY’s name to be sullied by a dishonorable son.”
She also noted that their father, Lee Kuan Yew, “would not want to be hero-worshipped”.
PM Lee dismissed Ms Lee’s accusations as “completely untrue” and added that the commemoration was a ‘ground-up’ effort.
He wrote, “The first anniversary of a person’s passing is a significant moment to remember him and reflect on what he meant to us. The more so with Mr Lee Kuan Yew. The Cabinet had discussed how we should mark the occasion. My advice was that we should leave it to ground-up efforts. Groups should keep their observances in proportion, and focused on the future.”
‘ground-up’ effort or PA’s effort?
However, reading the news posted on the government website (http://www.gov.sg/news/content/the-...an-activities-to-mark-mr-lee-kuan-yews-legacy), it seems that the 100 or so events organized to commemorate the first anniversary of Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s death were being co-ordinated by the People’s Association (PA), a government statutory board.
In the news report, 4 remembrance events were quoted. Three was organized by PA and one by the Silent No More network. Even so, Silent No More, was said to be founded by a Facebook group made up of PAP people. The founder of the group is Mr Jaromel Gee, who is a known PAP member himself. Mr Gee said his effort is “neither endorsed nor supported by the party”.
The news report also mentioned that PA would erect panels of photographs and short write-ups on Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s contributions for people to “reflect on his legacy” at the various sites in Singapore.
Chan Chun Sing, Deputy Chairman of PA, even tried to justify PA’s involvement in the commemoration by saying that “several people” had requested for it. He did not say who these people were. He told the news media, “We don’t see it as a session for us to grieve or be sad, but a celebration of Mr Lee’s life work and values, and what he had given us to build the future.”
Clearly, Mr Chan’s statement showed that it was PA or the government who had initiated the commemoration in the first place.
Close to $1 billion budget for PA
It may be interesting to note that the recent budget (FY2016) allocated for PA is close to $1 billion even though SG50 celebration had already been over last year.
According to the government budget posted online (http://www.singaporebudget.gov.sg/data/budget_2016/download/54 MCCY Annex 2016.pdf), PA’s expenditures are as follows:
FY2014 – $665,222,779 (Actual)
FY2015 – $943,719,900 (Estimated) – 30% increase but probably due to SG50 celebration
FY2016 – $898,186,100 (Budgeted) – remain high even after SG50
It’s not known in the recent one year anniversary of the commemoration of Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s death, how much PA’s budget had been utilized for it. If the commemoration was truly a ground-up effort, then the government should not be spending any money on it. Let Singaporeans come up with their own money to commemorate the one year anniversary of Mr Lee’s death.
In any case, it is interesting to note that when Mr Lee was alive, he once made a comment about the close relationship between PAP and PA.
He was commenting on what the PRC officials had observed when they were visiting Singapore. He said, “They (PRCs) discover that the People’s Action Party (PAP) has only a small office in Bedok. But everywhere they go, they see the PAP – in the RCs (residents’ committees), CCCs (citizens’ consultative committees), and the CCs (community clubs).”
And in Singapore, all RCs, CCCs, CCs and grassroots organizations fall under the purview of PA.
Ground-up my arse. PA porlumpars will do anything asked of them. They joined PA with their eyes wide open and PA has only been doing one thing since 1982 - using taxpayers money to campaign for and maintain PAP in power. He is blatantly telling a bold face lie. For god-sake, he is the PM and these are porlumpars and not your average citizen most of whom are not clear what the future holds for them and their children.
http://theindependent.sg/pm-lee-are-you-sure-lky-commemoration-was-ground-up-effort/
PM Lee, are you sure LKY commemoration was ‘ground-up’ effort?
By The Independent - April 11, 2016
By: Michael Tan
Yesterday, PM Lee posted a Facebook comment rebutting his sister Lee Wei Ling claiming that he was “abusing his power” by commemorating yet again Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s passing after 1 year of his death.
Ms Lee said that his PM brother had “no qualms abusing his power to (have) a commemoration just one year after Lee Kuan Yew died”.
Calling her brother a ‘dishonorable son’, she said, “Let’s be real, last year’s event was so vivid, no one will forget it in one (year). But if the power that be wants to establish a dynasty, LKY’s daughter will not allow LKY’s name to be sullied by a dishonorable son.”
She also noted that their father, Lee Kuan Yew, “would not want to be hero-worshipped”.
PM Lee dismissed Ms Lee’s accusations as “completely untrue” and added that the commemoration was a ‘ground-up’ effort.
He wrote, “The first anniversary of a person’s passing is a significant moment to remember him and reflect on what he meant to us. The more so with Mr Lee Kuan Yew. The Cabinet had discussed how we should mark the occasion. My advice was that we should leave it to ground-up efforts. Groups should keep their observances in proportion, and focused on the future.”
‘ground-up’ effort or PA’s effort?
However, reading the news posted on the government website (http://www.gov.sg/news/content/the-...an-activities-to-mark-mr-lee-kuan-yews-legacy), it seems that the 100 or so events organized to commemorate the first anniversary of Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s death were being co-ordinated by the People’s Association (PA), a government statutory board.
In the news report, 4 remembrance events were quoted. Three was organized by PA and one by the Silent No More network. Even so, Silent No More, was said to be founded by a Facebook group made up of PAP people. The founder of the group is Mr Jaromel Gee, who is a known PAP member himself. Mr Gee said his effort is “neither endorsed nor supported by the party”.
The news report also mentioned that PA would erect panels of photographs and short write-ups on Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s contributions for people to “reflect on his legacy” at the various sites in Singapore.
Chan Chun Sing, Deputy Chairman of PA, even tried to justify PA’s involvement in the commemoration by saying that “several people” had requested for it. He did not say who these people were. He told the news media, “We don’t see it as a session for us to grieve or be sad, but a celebration of Mr Lee’s life work and values, and what he had given us to build the future.”
Clearly, Mr Chan’s statement showed that it was PA or the government who had initiated the commemoration in the first place.
Close to $1 billion budget for PA
It may be interesting to note that the recent budget (FY2016) allocated for PA is close to $1 billion even though SG50 celebration had already been over last year.
According to the government budget posted online (http://www.singaporebudget.gov.sg/data/budget_2016/download/54 MCCY Annex 2016.pdf), PA’s expenditures are as follows:
FY2014 – $665,222,779 (Actual)
FY2015 – $943,719,900 (Estimated) – 30% increase but probably due to SG50 celebration
FY2016 – $898,186,100 (Budgeted) – remain high even after SG50
It’s not known in the recent one year anniversary of the commemoration of Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s death, how much PA’s budget had been utilized for it. If the commemoration was truly a ground-up effort, then the government should not be spending any money on it. Let Singaporeans come up with their own money to commemorate the one year anniversary of Mr Lee’s death.
In any case, it is interesting to note that when Mr Lee was alive, he once made a comment about the close relationship between PAP and PA.
He was commenting on what the PRC officials had observed when they were visiting Singapore. He said, “They (PRCs) discover that the People’s Action Party (PAP) has only a small office in Bedok. But everywhere they go, they see the PAP – in the RCs (residents’ committees), CCCs (citizens’ consultative committees), and the CCs (community clubs).”
And in Singapore, all RCs, CCCs, CCs and grassroots organizations fall under the purview of PA.
U mean up till u don't get it!! PA is PAP without the last P!
http://theindependent.sg/saving-papa-lees-legacy/
Saving Papa Lee’s legacy
The Independent - April 12, 2016
By: Kumaran Pillai
Lee Wei Ling is no stranger to politics in Singapore and in the past she has written so fondly about her papa, Lee Kuan Yew in numerous articles in the Straits Times that she gained a following here. But her political fortunes and influence changed with the death of her beloved father on the 23rd of March 2015.
Unknown to most of us in Singapore, trouble was looming in the first family in Singapore and to Wei Ling’s astonishment she was denied from expressing her views in the national newspaper, Straits Times when she wanted to say how the excessive hero-worshiping of LKY’s first death anniversary was abundantly over the top.
To her utter disgust and through the unfolding of the recent family feud in the wide spectre of public eye, she found out that she was no longer in the inner circle of the most powerful family in Singapore. Having lost her say and political clout, she resorted to social media to make her point.
She is strong willed like her father and she said in one of her past articles in ST, that she is the closest to papa in temperament – probably in intellect too considering her achievements in her career.
All she wanted was to protect the honour and legacy of her papa, she says. For what she saw as a blatant misuse of her papa’s political goodwill, which was being squandered by a bunch of political elite led by her brother Loong for his own “dynastic” ambitions.
Lee Kuan Yew once famously said that he’ll rise from the grave to protect Singapore from peril. What we saw in the last two weeks is no LKY. But, it is his daughter that has stepped forward to protect Singapore, and protecting her papa’s legacy.
In her numerous Facebook posts, she writes passionately about how her father wanted to selflessly build a better Singapore, how her father had the welfare of his people in mind and about how her father championed democracy and freedom of speech in Singapore. The irony, as she puts it, the powers that be, used the very power that her father build, on her, on LKY’s own flesh and blood.
Yes, Singapore has done this to our first daughter – the editors of ST have repeatedly shamed her, for her ‘bad writing’ and ‘incoherence’, according to Janadas Devan, former editor of ST.
An assistant sports editor also called her an “unfunny sourpuss,” for saying that the excessive hero-worshiping would have made her late father cringe. Like as though saying all that about our first daughter was not enough, they said she resorted to plagiarism. A low blow to someone her stature.
Despite the raining down of insults from ST Editors, past and present, under the charge of Janadas Devan, Wei Ling, went to social media once again on Sunday to reveal the full exchange of emails between the ST editors and her. This time sending a sharp message to her brother, Hsien Loong, drawing him out in the open.
Other opinion leaders have joined the fray, with PN Balji, a veteran journalist calling her a dissident for her snide remarks on Facebook. How does standing up for one’s right and protecting the very institutions that the founding fathers have painfully built, make her a dissident? Have we lost our ability to see the wood from the trees? Perhaps, it is the years of conditioning under LKY that has made him, this particular journalist, lose the plot.
Joining in the chorus of insults, Bertha Henson, another veteran journalist cut from the same ST cloth, chided Wei Ling for standing up against those who abuse their position of power. Hansen reckons Wei Ling needs help and Alfred Dodwell, a prominent lawyer in Singapore thinks Hansen’s remarks are defamatory.
Does ST think that they know Lee Kuan Yew better than his daughter? Has ST lost its journalistic integrity? Whatever happened to the factual reporting standards that LKY wrote about in his book Hard Truths? Lee Wei Ling has a point that her father would have cringed with all that hero-worshiping – what’s wrong in publishing her opinion openly in ST?
And while all this was happening, Ho Ching, the wife of Lee Hsien Loong posted a picture of a monkey giving the middle finger on Twitter, which appeared on her Facebook page. She has apologised for her demeanour.
Some political observers say that this is more than just a family feud or about an article in ST. We do not know how deep the rift is and its impact in the political spheres here. Hsien Loong is the anointed successor of LKY, and some say that the iron lady is grooming her own son, LKY’s grandson, to carry the mantle.
All we know is that Wei Ling is hot on the heels to put an end to this passing of baton and it is going to take more than a picture of a monkey showing its middle finger to stop her in her tracks. Only time will tell if she’ll be able to surmount her political adversaries and fill in the shoes left vacant by her father or whether she has a permanent place marked for her beyond the blue gates.
Saving Papa Lee’s legacy
The Independent - April 12, 2016
By: Kumaran Pillai
Lee Wei Ling is no stranger to politics in Singapore and in the past she has written so fondly about her papa, Lee Kuan Yew in numerous articles in the Straits Times that she gained a following here. But her political fortunes and influence changed with the death of her beloved father on the 23rd of March 2015.
Unknown to most of us in Singapore, trouble was looming in the first family in Singapore and to Wei Ling’s astonishment she was denied from expressing her views in the national newspaper, Straits Times when she wanted to say how the excessive hero-worshiping of LKY’s first death anniversary was abundantly over the top.
To her utter disgust and through the unfolding of the recent family feud in the wide spectre of public eye, she found out that she was no longer in the inner circle of the most powerful family in Singapore. Having lost her say and political clout, she resorted to social media to make her point.
She is strong willed like her father and she said in one of her past articles in ST, that she is the closest to papa in temperament – probably in intellect too considering her achievements in her career.
All she wanted was to protect the honour and legacy of her papa, she says. For what she saw as a blatant misuse of her papa’s political goodwill, which was being squandered by a bunch of political elite led by her brother Loong for his own “dynastic” ambitions.
Lee Kuan Yew once famously said that he’ll rise from the grave to protect Singapore from peril. What we saw in the last two weeks is no LKY. But, it is his daughter that has stepped forward to protect Singapore, and protecting her papa’s legacy.
In her numerous Facebook posts, she writes passionately about how her father wanted to selflessly build a better Singapore, how her father had the welfare of his people in mind and about how her father championed democracy and freedom of speech in Singapore. The irony, as she puts it, the powers that be, used the very power that her father build, on her, on LKY’s own flesh and blood.
Yes, Singapore has done this to our first daughter – the editors of ST have repeatedly shamed her, for her ‘bad writing’ and ‘incoherence’, according to Janadas Devan, former editor of ST.
An assistant sports editor also called her an “unfunny sourpuss,” for saying that the excessive hero-worshiping would have made her late father cringe. Like as though saying all that about our first daughter was not enough, they said she resorted to plagiarism. A low blow to someone her stature.
Despite the raining down of insults from ST Editors, past and present, under the charge of Janadas Devan, Wei Ling, went to social media once again on Sunday to reveal the full exchange of emails between the ST editors and her. This time sending a sharp message to her brother, Hsien Loong, drawing him out in the open.
Other opinion leaders have joined the fray, with PN Balji, a veteran journalist calling her a dissident for her snide remarks on Facebook. How does standing up for one’s right and protecting the very institutions that the founding fathers have painfully built, make her a dissident? Have we lost our ability to see the wood from the trees? Perhaps, it is the years of conditioning under LKY that has made him, this particular journalist, lose the plot.
Joining in the chorus of insults, Bertha Henson, another veteran journalist cut from the same ST cloth, chided Wei Ling for standing up against those who abuse their position of power. Hansen reckons Wei Ling needs help and Alfred Dodwell, a prominent lawyer in Singapore thinks Hansen’s remarks are defamatory.
Does ST think that they know Lee Kuan Yew better than his daughter? Has ST lost its journalistic integrity? Whatever happened to the factual reporting standards that LKY wrote about in his book Hard Truths? Lee Wei Ling has a point that her father would have cringed with all that hero-worshiping – what’s wrong in publishing her opinion openly in ST?
And while all this was happening, Ho Ching, the wife of Lee Hsien Loong posted a picture of a monkey giving the middle finger on Twitter, which appeared on her Facebook page. She has apologised for her demeanour.
Some political observers say that this is more than just a family feud or about an article in ST. We do not know how deep the rift is and its impact in the political spheres here. Hsien Loong is the anointed successor of LKY, and some say that the iron lady is grooming her own son, LKY’s grandson, to carry the mantle.
All we know is that Wei Ling is hot on the heels to put an end to this passing of baton and it is going to take more than a picture of a monkey showing its middle finger to stop her in her tracks. Only time will tell if she’ll be able to surmount her political adversaries and fill in the shoes left vacant by her father or whether she has a permanent place marked for her beyond the blue gates.
LWL says this is a Singaporean matter (not family matter), and she's telling the truth.
Could it be that all that LKY worshipping by PAP and PA to brainwash gullible Sinkie kids and the public, was a scheme by LHL and Ho Ching to create a dynasty for their kids?
http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/dispute-pm-singaporean-matter-lee-wei-ling
Could it be that all that LKY worshipping by PAP and PA to brainwash gullible Sinkie kids and the public, was a scheme by LHL and Ho Ching to create a dynasty for their kids?
http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/dispute-pm-singaporean-matter-lee-wei-ling
