TR EMERITUS

Written by Our Correspondent Alex Tan will be giving a speech to Singaporeans at Hong Lim Park next Monday on 15 February 2010 at 5pm. A Project Engineer by profession, 22 year old Alex made the headlines last year December when he embarrassed two PAP MPs at a YPAP Forum with his sharp and pointed questions. Alex has repeatedly challenged YPAP members to an open debate at Hong Lim Park, but to this day, none of them have replied to him. He also started a "Vote PAP out" Facebook two months ago which has garnered more than 3,300 members so far, many of whom are young Singaporeans in their 20s and 30s. Alex is currently a member of the Singapore People's Party led by Mr Chiam See Tong and he has indicated his desire to serve fellow Singaporeans by standing in the next general election. The topic of Alex's maiden speech will be on Singaporeans in which he will talk about some unfair PAP policies that are causing inconvenience and suffering to ordinary Singaporeans. We need more courageous young Singaporeans like Alex who are willing to step forward and challenge the status quo. Young voters are the driving force behind the recent elections in the U.S, Malaysia and Japan. A small group of highly dedicated, motivated and passionate young people can influence the larger apathetic citizenry to generate a real impact at the polls. It is time for young Singaporeans to stand up and be counted - they have to reclaim the leadership and ownership of their own country before it is too late.  Read More →

Dear Rachel, I refer to your article published in the Straits Times on 12 February 2010 titled "Netizens: the new vigilante citizenry and would like to rebuke some of the points brought up by you.   Quote:  "It effectively put Pastor Tan in the dock – and assumed the role of prosecutor, judge and jury."   You got it wrong.   The public is angry because of the DOUBLE STANDARDS applied to this Christian leader on several counts:   ·         Netizens prefer the courts to pass judgment as they believe Pastor Rony Tan was let off lightly. ·         Netizens believe that ISA should not have been used. ·         What basis was the ISA’s decision to let him off with a warning?   ·         DPM Wong Kan Seng was wrong to interfere. ·         The law should take its course.   What now if another religious leader does the same thing?  Does ISD to call him up to have coffee and a natter?  Is this what ISD is set up to do?   This is a religious infraction with social connotations.  This is not about an immediate security issue or violence or terrorisms at this stage.  Mistakes had been committed by the authorities.    Quote:  "It is clear Pastor Tan did not realise the inappropriateness of his remarks. He also certainly did not realise that in uploading the videos on his website, his church was casting his comments into the World Wide (public) Web that is the Internet."   Rachel, are you mitigating for Pastor Rony Tan?   If so, it is an abominable mess.  Play the video again and critically examine the presentation.  Observe the smirk on Pastor Tan’s face when he was industriously driving home his points and the utter satisfaction when his audience applauded or laugh in amusement at his stabs and barbs.   Make no bones about it - Pastor Rony Tan is a clever chap.  He knows how to work the grounds and so your attempt in the mitigation is really rather insipid and denigrates the man.   If the Pastor truly does not realized "the inappropriateness of his remarks" he should step down from his ministry.      And you sincerely believe he did not know that uploading the video will it not get into the WWW?  Why do you think he uploaded there it in the first place?  Surely you must be naïve. Another quote: “The Government’s message from Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng was that Pastor Tan had apologised; that the leaders of the religions he disparaged had accepted his apology; and that he should be allowed to put the incident behind him, with the knowledge that he cannot trespass again.”   DPM Wong is wrong.  He should not interfere or comment.  This is for the Police to take actions and justify their actions.    The public, other religious leaders, Pastor Rony Tan’s friends and congregation, etc. can all forgive him but the LAW MUST TAKE ITS COURSE.  "Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done."   DPM Wong should also not deceive the public into believing that a call for an interview by the ISA equates to being arrested and charged in court under the Sedition Act.  This is wrong - not sad or unfortunate.   The market is abuzz with talk that the mega-church’s Pastor got away while three youths were charged by the Police for essentially the same “thing”.  The Government appears silly. Finally again quoting: "There is one bright spot in the entire sorry incident: For all the anti-Government views expressed online, netizens seem to agree with the authorities on one fundamental issue: that no one should be allowed to mess with Singapore’s secularism and get away with it."   Rachel, you are very wrong again on another two counts:   ·         There are no bright spots here only sorry stains. ·         Neitizens are upset because of the double standards and not about messing with secularism.          Rachel, you are a government apologist.  The Straits Times is like the government's pet dog - the PAP master says "bark" or “bite” it does so.  You obviously know the hands that feed you.  Your piece concurs with my firm belief that journalism is dead in Singapore.   Yours sincerely,   Richard Lu  Read More →

Written by Our Correspondent Stung by fast rising public fury over the apparent double standards in its handling of the Rony Tan fiasco and the arrest of the three Singapore polytechnic students under the Sedition Act for posting racist comments on Facebook earlier, the PAP has capitulated to public pressure and let the them off the hook. In a brief statement, the Singapore police said that the unnamed teen who started the racist group has been placed on the Ministry of Community, Youth and Sports' (MCYS) Guidance Programme. He will undergo a 'voluntary six-month programme that focuses on counselling and rehabilitation with the active involvement of parents. If the juvenile completes the Guidance Programme successfully, he will not be charged by the Police but issued with a caution instead. The two youths who acted as administrators for the group, 17-year-old Sam Soo Siu Weng and 18-year-old Goh Jun Yi, have also been let off with a caution which begs the question whether they posted any racist comments or not or were implicated because they were administrators of the Facebook. The unusually prompt response from the police seemed to contradict earlier statements made by Commander of Bedok Police Division and Deputy Assistant Commissioner of Police Teo Chun Ching: “Police take a very stern view of acts that could threaten the social harmony in Singapore. The Internet may be a convenient medium to express one’s views but members of the public should bear in mind that they are no less accountable for their actions online.” [Source: Straits Times, 4 February 2010] The police had earlier said it would be investigating the matter before submitting the case to the Attorney-General Chambers for further deliberation. It took them only less than three weeks to "resolve" it which is quite unlike their typical "efficiency". If the police felt the threat posed by the three youths is so serious to warrant an arrest in the first place, why are they now closing the case so soon? Does that mean that the initial arrests were not necessary at all? Pastor Rony Tan was hauled up by the ISD for questioning on Monday over the disparaging remarks he made about Buddhism and Taoism during a church session. Though police reports were lodged against him, the Singapore police did not bother to take any action against him which they are empowered to do so under the Sedition Act. Many Singaporeans are outraged that being a religious leader in a position of authority, Rony Tan was let off only with a warning while the three teenagers were arrested for a similar offence. The differential treatments dished out to both parties appear to suggest that there is double standards in the application of the law. Under "normal" circumstances, the three youths would probably be charged for Sedition. In 2005, two young Singaporeans were jailed for posting inflammatory remarks about Malay Muslims on their blogs. Benjamin Koh, 28, was given two concurrent one-month jail terms while Nicholas Lim, 25, was jailed for one day and fined S$5000 (US$2960) after they pleaded guilty to making strong anti-Muslim remarks. “The doing of an act which has a seditious tendency to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between races or classes of the population in Singapore is serious,” judge Richard Magnus said in handing down his ruling on the two. [Source: AFP, 26 October 2005] Under the Sedition Act, anyone found guilty of promoting feelings of ill will and hostility between different races or classes of the Singapore population shall be liable, on conviction for a first offence, to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or both. The recent uncharacteristic U-turns, flip-flops and PR blunders made by the PAP revealed an insecure party under siege which is fast losing the confidence, support and patience of the people. The "release" of the three youths is nothing more than a political move to appease angry Singaporeans and doesn't change the fact that Pastor Rony Tan was spared the punishment he deserved under the law because: "A well-established Christian leader being charged under the Sedition Act would send shockwaves through the Christian community and put the community under siege." [Source: Straits Times, 12 February 2010]  Read More →