TRS shutdown reflects a PAP clinging to straws to maintain its grip on power. It’s also making Yaacob Ibrahim look more foolish than ever.
22-year-old Ai Takagi, an Australian law student, is one of the TRS editors. Although she must have known the risk of being arrested in Singapore was high, she accompanied her boyfriend here to visit his hospitalised grandmother. Takagi-san had a choice and she displayed tremendous courage by coming to Singapore. For that, I take my hat off to her.
It doesn’t matter Takagi-san is a foreigner, or even a Martian, so long as the TRS platform serves to air the grievances of Singaporeans. If the mainstream media continue to be PAP’s mouthpiece, another platform will spring up in no time or TRS may be even resurrected. There are 2 ways which will lead to a natural death for TRS:
– the PAP starts listening to citizens and not continue to implement systemic tweaks instead of reforms.
– allow full independence of the media.
PAP should blame itself for creating all the issues which has enabled foreigners to profit from our issues by setting up sites like TRS. By pushing the blame to foreigners, PAP has indicated it will continue to ignore citizens.
Amos Yee has my full support and like most right-minded Singaporeans, I feel disgusted with PAP for continuing to intimidate citizens. How could a short video rant land a 16-year old citizen behind bars for more than 2 weeks?
Amos has put many adult Singaporeans to shame by turning down another bail with onerous conditions. It is rare to find a youth sticking to his principles when most adults would caved in to PAP’s demands to avoid jail time.
PAP has mishandled Amos’s video rant by unnecessarily causing him tremendous emotional and psychological trauma. Only a bully government in a pseudo-democracy would do such a thing to its citizens.
Is there an LKY cult whose followers are easily offended by every negative comment? Whether LKY is a horrible person is subjective and EVERYONE is entitled to his/her opinion.
I have two sons aged 19 and 16 and I fully understand how difficult it is for Amos’s parents. Adults who are critical of Amos and wish for the worst to befall him have probably not been parents to teenagers. What you can do is take a step back and recall how you were like as teenagers. You may then better understand the punishment meted out to Amos is totally disproportionate to his ‘crime’ against a dead person.
The savage attack on Amos is akin to PAP sending its heaviest artillery to kill a lone soldier on the battlefield. Is PAP so insecure without LKY?
If PAP is taking issue with Amos for being disrespectful, what about the thousands of profanity-laced online comments? Shouldn’t Singaporeans who are against Amos also take issue with every individual who dislike LKY? Why are there no police reports made for worse comments on LKY? Why are self-righteous PAP grassroots member ex policeman Lionel de Souza and lawyer Chia Boon Teck quieter than a mouse when Amos was slapped outside our courts? Come on, an ex policeman and a lawyer should know the law right? Or perhaps Amos is 16 and easy to bully?
LKY’s methods of intimidation had worked for him during HIS time. PAP does not seem to be aware that decades have passed and LKY’s archaic methods will no longer work.
On the legal aspects of this issue, I fully agree with Kenneth Jeyaretnam that “The case against Amos Yee proves we have no Rule of Law”.
As for Roy, most of his critics have not grasped the significance of his contributions. Roy has singlehandedly moved the CPF mountain by 20%. Without Roy, PAP would not have allowed a 20% lump sum withdrawal at 65 which means hundreds of millions of dollars will be returned to retirees. This is no mean feat and it is doubtful ANY PAP MP could have achieved.
Since CPF has proven to be an issue, Roy’s critics should have instead question the silence from our highest-paid parliamentarians – why have CPF members been shortchanged for decades? But most can’t because they have not understood how PAP has been failing CPF members** for decades and covering up their blunders through propaganda and perpetual tweaks. Or perhaps it is again easier to align with the powers that be and attack individuals?
In view of PAP’s track record of bankrupting opposition members, it takes a lot of courage to openly criticise PAP’s policies. It says a lot about our scholar civil servant when they have remained silent – PAP knows the CPF scheme is flawed and our scholars would have been embarrassed had they try to engage Roy.
Instead of merely criticising Roy, critics should suggest ways to engage PAP to provide meaningful solutions.
The final issue for this post is the removal of PAP from power because it has continued to prioritise running our country as a corporation over looking after the well being of citizens. To better understand, let’s revisit some of the issues.
It is a fact the PAP controls both the housing demand and supply but it has somehow underestimated construction by tens of thousands of housing units. This has caused housing to become unaffordable and is no ordinary screw up. Can anyone trust PAP when it doesn’t know simple addition?
When citizens complain of overcrowding on public transport, PAP says it will continue to grow the foreigner populationat a slower rate! It’s like saying one cannot become fat by less or it is financially sound to reduce overspending. Policymakers and politicians do not commute by trains and buses and are simply not bothered. Those of us who commute by public transport would have realised there are now peak hours of sorts during weekends and a commuter may mistake Singapore for a third world country. Singaporeans have never argued for zero foreigners but are it total disagreement with PAP’s liberal immigration policy. It is still not listening.
PAP is not interested in the issue of ageing population. If it were, $MRT would not have continue to remove an increasing number of seats. Perhaps we will soon have the first SeatlessMRT?
PAP’s focus on corporatisation (profits) has led to improper planning for infrastructure construction eg hospitals. With healthy competition in the private sector, any company employing ‘PAP type’ planning would have closed shop years ago.
If we could just step back and look at issues objectively, their origins are traceable to none other than PAP.
Instead of fixing PAP’s broken systems, PAP continues to devote public resources to fixing an opposition party, TRS, ordinary citizens, bloggers and even a teenager. Right-minded Singaporeans are naturally disgusted with such a government.
PAP is elitist through and through and it has been paying lip service to citizens’ concerns. This is because the problems affecting ordinary Singaporeans do not affect the highest-paid politicians and multimillionaire, part-time PAP MPs.
PAP has remained oblivious to concerned voices and without listening to them, PAP will not be able to resolve our issues. That being the case, such a government would be useless to the people and should to be removed from power.
CPF scheme is a failure and this can be confirmed by CPF statistics. Although the PAP has been concealing tons of information, one could still deduce the abject failure of CPF. A simple illustration:
The table below shows the regrossed balances (inclusive of usage for housing, investment, etc) of CPF members. PAP does not want to disclose the embarrassingly low number of CPF members who meet the Minimum Sum balance but we are still able to deduce the percentage from the table below.
Let’s look at the 50 to 55 age bracket.
1 Out of a total of 201,000 active members, 59,000 have less than $150,000 ie 59,000 CPF members do not have the MS amount.
2 Although there are 142,000 members with balances above $150,000, a large percentage from this group do not have MS. This is because we need to subtract Medisave contribution which is about 20% of total CPF contributions as well asa certain amount for housing. Eg, a member with $200,000 CPF balance, $40,000 would be deducted for Medisave and $50,000 to $100,000 would have been used for housing. (assuming members have fully paid for their housing bought 30 years ago)
To meet the MS of $161,000 in July, a member needs to have an estimated regrossed balance of at least $250,000. The estimated percentage of active CPF members who meet the MS requirement is less than 50%.
If we take into account inactive members such as housewives, the percentage of CPF members who meet the MS of $161,000 is probably less than 30%!
This is caused by the mandated low rates and the use of retirement funds to create, and subsequently support, high housing prices. Only after we have understood how PAP has been failing us will we then be able to question the government and insist on reforms, not tweaks.
If the CPF scheme is not flawed, PAP should not conceal all relevant statistics. It should disclose the exact number and percentage of retirees who are not able to meet the MS requirement in cash.