TR EMERITUS

There is an interesting discussion going on in the thread "Do you have the capital to take the gamble?", between our techie and a regular reader. Our techie, Andrew have opined that since the experts at MTF are so dead sure that there are "no evidence" to suggest that the vaccines can cause serious injuries and even death to the children aged 5-12 years and the "benefits outweigh the risks" in having these children vaccinated. The expert committee on Covid-19 vaccination has said the benefits of the vaccine outweigh the risks posed to young children. - Straits Times Then it is only right for the various ministers to lead by example and volunteer their children and grandchildren aged 5 to 12 years to take the vaccination in front of live TV to allay any concerns which parents might have and to prove that they have absolute trust in the vaccines offered by the government. Agreeing, a regular reader who goes by the moniker "Clowns Of Parleeament" proposes the following candidates, for starters: CottonSheep’s youngest should be 9 now? Sim Ann’s youngest should be 10 ba. Sun Xueling has 2 daughters who are between 5-8 and not forgetting Tin Peiling’s oldest who should be 6 by now? I believe there’re a few more. Why did we not hear them volunteering their children for the vaccination since their party keeps telling us it’s for the good of the children, the reader asked. I agree fully that if these PAPies were to show us their children taking with the mRNA vaccine, many parents would be convinced that the jabs are safe. But no leh. All of them diam diam. Hiding their children now ah? The reader then directed the following question to the Health Minister: Hello, health minister! Since you say the vaccine is meant to protect these children, so are you gonna get your colleagues to send their kids for the vaccination first? The team would also like to add all the eligible children and grandchildren of those in the "expert committee on Covid-19" to the list, especially Kenneth who has been especially zealous in hoodwinking the masses. Logically, if these ministers and the members of the expert committee on Covid-19 cannot even back up their own claims that the Covid-19 vaccines are safe and can be administered to one of their own, then why should anyone of us even trust anything they say? If and until they start vaccinating those on the proposed lists, maybe we should all hold back on the decision to vaccinate our beloved child. What do you think?   P/S: The take up rate for vaccinating the 5-12 children in Israel (the most vaccinated country in the world) is only about 10%.      Read More →

When there are 5 deaths due to adverse reactions to a vaccine, the mass vaccination must stop. The autopsies are done on the corpses to ascertain the causes of the fatalities. Unfortunately, the mass vaccination continues as if nobody died! Please read the Straits Times report entitled 'Covid-19 vaccination bookings for P3 to 5 pupils to open next week if doses arrive as scheduled.' [LINK] Indeed, the so-called mRNA 'vaccines' for children have arrived in Singapore. The article in the Straits Times states the following. The expert committee on Covid-19 vaccination has said the benefits of the vaccine outweigh the risks posed to young children. These are some relevant questions. A) What are the benefits of these so-called 'vaccines'? Do the manufacturers of these vaccine products guarantee that the people who are jabbed with their products will not suffer any short-term and long-term adverse reactions to the human body? C) Do the manufacturers of these products guarantee that nobody will die as a result of their products? D) Is it correct to say that there are healthy children, adults and even athletes who have died after being jabbed with the mRNA so-called 'vaccines'? E) It it true that the patients and the families of those who suffered COVID-19 adverse reactions or death cannot claim any monetary compensation from the vaccine manufacturers? F) Why is the mass vaccination for children proceeding when the trials have just started in the KK Women's and Children's Hospital? G) If a child in Singapore suffered adverse reactions or even death, will the mass vaccination for children be halted? H) Can the parents or guardians decide not to jab their children? Hopefully, the MOE and MOH can reply quickly.   * Facebook post by Francis Thia.      Read More →

It is a pain to watch the examinations of Ms Loh Pei Ying and Ms Raeesah Khan by Minister Edwin Tong and his team. While they try to appear fair, polite, understanding, patient and even sympathetic to the witnesses, it is not difficult to see that all of them were not trying to ascertain facts but were looking for slip ups and words that would make the leaders of the Workers’ Party look bad and set the witnesses on a war path with the leaders of the party. It is evident that their line of questioning and suggestions are intended to inflict maximum damage on its leadership. The committee’s hypocrisy is shown from the speed at which their first Special Report was published - on 3 December 2021 or soon after the evidence of the first batch of three witnesses (Ms Loh Pei Ying, Ms Raeesah Khan and Mr Yudhishthra Nathan were taken. In paragraph 6 of the report, the committee arrived at this decision: “After hearing the above witnesses, the Committee resolved to make the entire video recording of their evidence available to Parliament and thereby to the public through the Parliament website.” If the committee have an iota of consideration for the witnesses, especially Ms Raeesah Khan, they would not have made the video recordings public for audiences not only in Singapore but all over the world. Further, what and where is the urgency for such an interim report to be made public when other witnesses who they intend to call have not testified? I am exceedingly disappointed by the action of the so called “fact finding” objective of the Committee of Privileges. Totally devoid of understanding and empathy (though Minister Edwin Tong kept repeating “I understand” during the proceedings), they have savaged Ms Raeesah Khan, a victim of a sexual assault. It is hypocritical to continuously use this phrase "victim of sexual assault" and pretend that it would alleviate the trauma of the victim when by their actions, they have aggravated the trauma of the victim. What they should have done was to keep the proceedings within the chambers and publish in written form at the appropriate time as they have done in past proceedings. PAP ministers are not known for being compassionate to opposition political parties. If they have an opportunity to score political points, they would do their utmost. This means employing means that may not be fair or even contrary to the rules of the game, in this case, parliament. And this is what they have done. On 4 October 2021, Ms Raeesah Khan was subjected to threats by Minister Shanmugam after she refused to disclose information he requested. He threatened that the police would contact her for “an interview”. The police naturally obeyed the Minister and followed up by email requests. All these appear in the police statement annexed to the Special Report. The minister knew full well when he made the threat that a lie uttered in parliament should be rectified in parliament as it is privileged. Why did he make the threat and instruct the police to investigate Ms Raeesah Khan? Is he taking advantage of Ms Raeesah Khan’s lack of experience and ignorance? As a minister for law and home affairs, I do not expect such conduct from him. Finally, I am not amused at the speaker, Tan Chuan Jin’s repeated assurance at the end of the taking of evidence of each witness. Why did he tell each of them “… Do note that the transcript and any evidence given to the committee are not to be disclosed to anyone, not to be published and kept strictly confidential until the committee has presented it report to parliament which means that you are not to discuss this with anyone else and would include your family as well.” Are committee members robots? Do they know what they themselves have done by making the proceedings public even before its conclusion?   Teo Soh Lung      Read More →