Hougang by Election – AGC acting as PAP’s lapdog

How about a maximum of two terms for PM?

Racism, not religion, has been the Number One threat to peace and security

Watch T-Rex Vikram Nair on TV tonight

Nicole Seah shows more maturity than Goh Meng Seng, Hazel Poa

Court review on Hougang by election will just be a wayang

So there’ll be a Supreme Court hearing to review the Hougang by-election. But things are so predictable, we can more or less imagine what’s gonna happen.

Probably, the Supreme Court will agree with PM and say that the Constitution does not stipulate any fixed period of time to have a by election. So it probably will be back to Square One, ie the timing of the by election will be at the whims and fancy of that one guy.

Supreme Court to review Hougang by-election application on March 30

The Supreme Court will review the application by a Hougang resident on the issue of a by-election in the ward on March 30. Hougang (above) is a single seat constituency. — ST PHOTO: DESMOND FOO

The application by Hougang resident Vellama Marie Muthu on the issue of a by-election in her constituency will be heard in High Court on March 30.

The hearing date was set on Tuesday morning, following a pre-trial conference attended by Madam Vellama’s lawyer, Mr M. Ravi, and Senior State Counsel Hema Subramanian before Senior Assistant Registrar Yeong Zee Kin.

Madam Vellama, a part-time cleaner, 42, had filed the application on March 2 to hold the Prime Minister accountable for calling a by-election in the Single Member Constituency within three months. She also asked the High Court to declare that the PM ‘does not have unfettered discretion’ in deciding whether and when to announce a by-election.

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said in Parliament last week that he intends to call a by-election in Hougang but will decide on the timing after taking into account all relevant factors. He also said that under the Constitution, he is not obliged to call a by-election within any fixed timeframe.

In the past, whenever there’s any case brought up against the ruling party, the party will come out smelling sweet. That’s the bias system here.

Those old enough will be able to recall the 1997 elections, where bigwigs Goh Chok Tong, Tony Tan and Lee Hsien Loong appeared to have violated a polling day rule. They were seen in the premise of a polling station. The WP brought this up to court and the court came up with the ridiculous interpretation that PAP bigwigs did not violate any rule.

The court ruled that those bigwigs were IN the building and not around it and hence, broke no rule. The rule was worded such that you cannot be around the premise, but silent on being in the premise!

But that’s worming their way out, isn’t it? The rule is for party candidates not to be around such that they influence voters, no? But then again, like I said, the courts won’t dare rule against the PAPpies. Here’s a post I made pertaining to the above ridiculous court ruling – PAP is above the law

PS – Note that “simisai case also represent” M Ravi has taken up the case. This guy seems to be everywhere.

Pussycat Vikram shows his fist, TOC calls his bluff, Pussycat hides

With a slew of defamation suits from some heavyweights linked to a certain political party and/or family, which saw the likes of heavweight blog sites caving in, newbie Vikram thinks he could do what the big boys could do.

Here’s Vikram’s big clenched right fist shaking in the air, while his left fist thumps against his chest, like an alpha male signalling to all others that he’s boss.
PAP MP is not ruling out taking legal action against The Online Citizen

I am Vikram, hear me roar! Meow!

Sembawang GRC MP Vikram Nair says he hasn’t ruled out taking legal action against socio-political website, The Online Citizen (TOC), regarding a potentially libellous article about him.

Referring to the article, written by Ng Ee-Jay and titled “Vikram Nair compares Chen Show Mao’s proposals to a Nigerian scam,” the MP said, “It is extremely deceptive of TOC to attribute lies to me.”

He said the article suggested that he considered investing in the elderly, the disabled, the poor and other needy Singaporeans as being “akin to a Nigerian scam.

Here’s TOC calling Vikram’s bluff.
TOC invites Mr Nair to write to us

TOC does not intend to respond to comments in the media. TOC invites Mr Nair to write to us and state his point of view, which we will be more than happy to carry in full on our website. We will then respond if necessary.

Here’s Vikram hiding his hands pretending he didn’t signal any alpha male dominance.
MP Vikram Nair does not intend to engage in debate on TOC website

According to the TOC posting, Mr Nair has said he does not have any legal plans now.

And he hopes not to take legal action but if there is lingering damage he might have to consider it.

Mr Nair had said he wants to clear his name.

Responding to queries from Channel NewsAsia, Mr Nair reiterated his position that he does not have any legal plans.

Mr Nair also said he does not intend to engage in a debate with the TOC on its website.

He said this in response to TOC’s invitation to him to write to them and state his point of view, which TOC said will be more than happy to carry in full on its website and it will then respond, if necessary.

Aw, come on! If that guy wants to clear his name, he should tell everyone in what context he meant “Nigerian Scam”, when he was referring to Chen Show Mao’s idea. By being loopy, isn’t he tying himself in a knot?

You see, if Vikram says that TOC and/or Ng E Jay libeled him because it was implied he said Chen’s proposal is like a Nigeria scam, then he has shot self in foot. That’s because Chen now has a case against Vikram when implied that Chen’s proposal was like a Nigerian Scam!

But if that is not what he meant, just explain what he meant. What’s this bravado talk about suing a party for something he said, which he now claims that he has been misrepresented?

I see this episode as a young punk, trying to mimic his elder leaders, but doesn’t know how to do it, and worse, doesn’t know how finish it. Makes him look very childish, amateurish, comical and inept.

Threatens to sue, but can’t finish the job. What a pussy cat.

Here’s the ST report that started it all. Oh yes, shouldn’t Vikram Nair sue the Straits Times instead of TOC and/or E Jay? (You need to subscribe to ST Online to read full article at ST’s website.)
Vikram Nair: Show me the money, Chen Show Mao

Published on Mar 1, 2012

PAP MP Vikram Nair (Sembawang GRC) was almost unrelenting on Wednesday in his attack of Workers’ Party MP Chen Show Mao (Aljunied GRC).

He accused Mr Chen – as well as other WP MPs – of scoring political points by repeatedly asking the Government to do more for vulnerable groups without acknowledging what had already been done.

Mr Chen also did not have a plan on how to pay for the extra spending he desired, Mr Nair said.

Let’s do more, let’s spend more,’ (they say), and, of course, they never talk of where this money is going to come from,’ he added.

Pointing out that spending must be funded either through a budget deficit or by raising taxes, he said ‘the people have to pay the price at some point’.

The previous day, Mr Chen had urged the Government not to look at social spending as a one-way outflow of resources, but an investment in human capital which will yield returns in ‘unlocking’ economic, social and cultural value among Singaporeans.

On Wednesday, Mr Nair said Mr Chen implied that the PAP Government had not done enough for vulnerable groups, or that it cared less about them. He found this ‘hurtful’.

‘I think many of us here have been working year in, year out, helping the vulnerable groups, and it is pretty hurtful coming from Mr Chen because he might have held this belief for a long time, but he came back only quite recently to help in this,’ he said.

He decried the vagueness in Mr Chen’s assertion that investing in human capital would yield returns, adding that he is ‘not as smart as Mr Chen, so I must press him for a few more details to understand how this self-funding investment works’.

Likening it to a Nigerian scam e-mail where recipients are urged to transfer funds in return for a pay-off later, he said Mr Chen had promised something ‘even better, because you don’t have to put in any money at all, and you get more than money in return’.

Mr Nair also took aim at Mr Chen’s suggestion for a refinement of the quotas on foreign workers. He retorted that it was ironic for ‘a man who spent more than half his life abroad and came back to Singapore shortly before the elections’ to say there are too many foreign workers here.

Currently, quotas are differentiated broadly by industries. Mr Chen suggested tighter quotas for high-end sectors such as finance and aerospace, where Singaporeans desire jobs, while clusters like public health care, where foreign manpower is urgently needed, be treated more liberally.

The idea was also criticised by PAP MP Indranee Rajah (Tanjong Pagar GRC), who said that this was contrary to the WP’s assertion during last May’s General Election that there are too many foreign workers.

‘It also runs counter to what we are trying to achieve for low-income workers,’ she said. ‘We want them to be fully employed. If you have less stringent manpower policies for those sectors, then what happens to Singaporeans there?’

After Mr Nair’s speech, Mr Chen rose to thank him ‘for such a close reading of my speech’.

He pointed out that Government revenue is not earmarked for specific programmes or areas of spending. So, any discussion of how the WP’s suggestions should be funded ‘would of necessity entail a discussion of total Government revenue and spending’.

When discussing such spending, the possible benefits – not just economic, but social and cultural too – should be taken into account, he added.

Separately, Minister of State Amy Khor (Hong Kah North) refuted the assertion WP chairman Sylvia Lim (Aljunied GRC) made the day before that the Government is ‘course-correcting’ in this Budget.

Ms Lim said the PAP Government had, for a long time, drove growth without paying enough attention to the effects of increasing income inequality.

Ms Khor denied that was the case, arguing that social spending had always been emphasised: ‘This is not a course correction. It is the reinforcement of an existing policy.’

So come on Pussy Vikram, how about suing the Straits Times instead of picking on small fries? Afraid to end up like TT Durai who got kicked in the butt by taking on the ST?

Hougang by election a necessity, Marine Parade 1992 by election a circus

If you thought ministers gave you crazy replies, their subordinates are even worse. It is clear as daylight that WP hit the nail on the head, turning the tables on the PAP claiming that WP was irresponsible by “forcing” a by election on Hougang. Low Thia Khiang reminded how the PAP frivolously called for a by election at Marine Parade in 1992.

But lo and behold, we have the Press Secretary to Senior Minister Emtitus who of course, disagrees. Just take a look at how lame his argument could be.

WP’s Low Thia Khiang wrong to cite 1992 by-election

TUESDAY’S report (‘WP ‘had absolutely no idea of Yaw’s alleged affairs”) described the letter by Mr Low Thia Khiang, secretary-general of the Workers’ Party (WP), published in Lianhe Zaobao on Monday.

Mr Low had cited the 1992 by-election in Marine Parade GRC called by then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong, to rebut an allegation that the WP had ‘abused the democratic system’ by causing a by-election in Hougang when the WP expelled Mr Yaw Shin Leong.

The reference to the 1992 by-election is inappropriate.

When Mr Goh announced on Aug 17, 1991 that he would call for an early general election to secure a strong mandate to govern, he said at the same time that he would call for by-elections within 18 months to field more good candidates for self-renewal and to give (the late) Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam a chance to contest for election into Parliament.

Mr Jeyaretnam had complained that Mr Goh had called for an early general election to keep him out of Parliament, as he was still disqualified from standing for elections at that time.

Mr Goh had been transparent about the reasons for the 1992 Marine Parade GRC by-election from the beginning.

The by-election was also expected.

Mr Low therefore cannot compare the reasons for his causing a by-election in Hougang with Mr Goh’s purpose in having one in Marine Parade GRC in 1992.

Foo Kok Jwee

Press Secretary to

Emeritus Senior Minister

What’s this crap about calling an early election in 1991, only to have a by election 18 months later for “renewal”? The 1991 GE was a snap election. A GE was not due till 1993. Everyone knew that if the GE had been held in 1993, JBJ would have been eligible.

To say that the 1991 snap GE was to call for a strong mandate, only to call for a by election 18 months later is like the PAP slapping its own face. That’s because:

1. It implies that the previous GE in 1988 was not a strong mandate for PAP to govern, never mind the fact that it recaptured and won back one seat from the opposition. In 1984, the opposition captured two seats – Anson and Potong Pasir. In 1988, the opposition captured only one – Potong Pasir. And to that fact, PAP admits it did not have strong mandate! What Kok talking Foo Kok Jwee?

2. It means that even with the snap 1991 GE, PAP still will have no strong mandate and hence, need a by election later to get that strong mandate! An even Kokier talk!

The fact was that on the ground in 1991, everyone was talking about the comeback of JBJ and PAP was shivering in their pants. The snap elections in 1991 was to prevent JBJ from returning to politics because if the GE had been in 1993, JBJ would have qualified – and won in an SMC.

PAP came up with a master plan to stop JBJ. Hold a snap 1991 GE to prevent JBJ from contesting any single seat against a weak MP. Then when a by election is held later, get a strong heavyweight GRC (in this case Marine Parade headed by PM Goh himself) to take on JBJ.

The Hougang by election is a necessity. It has been vacated due to unforseen circumstances. The 1992 Marine Parade by election was nothing short of a circus. It was a wayang show to everyone that PAP gave JBJ a chance to contest.

Heck, if PAP really was serious in allowing JBJ to contest, there was no need to have a snap GE in 1991, followed by a by election. They could have waited till 1993. Period.

Some civil servants should stop talking Kok.

=======

PS – Incidentally, that by election in Marine Parade did not see WP (and JBJ) contesting. No thanks to no cow sense pair Chiam See Tong and Chee Soon Juan (then SDP) who hijacked that by elections.

Now PM sends Hatchet Man to TRE

And so for the second time in less than a week, the Hatchet Man knocks on your door. First, it was Shanmugam. Shanmugam’s veiled threat against Alex Au?

Now, it is non other than the PM himself. PM Lee sends lawyer’s letter to editors of TR Emeritus

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong on Sunday sent a lawyer’s letter to the editors of the TR Emeritus (TRE) sociopolitical website, asking for a post alleging cronyism in the appointment of Madam Ho Ching as head of Temasek Holdings to be taken down. — ST PHOTO: LIM SIN THAI

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong on Sunday sent a lawyer’s letter to the editors of the TR Emeritus (TRE) sociopolitical website, asking for a post alleging cronyism in the appointment of Madam Ho Ching as head of Temasek Holdings to be taken down.

Madam Ho is PM Lee’s wife.

He also asked for an apology to be posted on the website by Feb 24, and which must remain on the website for the same number of days as the offending post had been.

In addition, he also wanted the TRE editors to give a written confirmation by Feb 23 that they would comply, failing which he would start legal proceedings against them.

This talk about Ho Ching being favoured has been around for years. Not that with this lawyer’s letter the public is going to start believing the PM’s words. It is only going to fuel the belief that PAP is reverting back to its old ways, ie the use of the Hatchet Man to intimidate political commentators and dissenters.

Sigh.

=====

PS – as a point of interest, the term “Hatchet Man” was used in the 1980s, when LKY sued JBJ. There was much disquiet and the public was more than convinced the suit was nothing but a political move.

LKY, in an attempt to quell the “rumours”, strongly objected that he used the Hatchet Man to silence JBJ. But in his haste, he said, “I don’t need a hatchet man. I am my own Hatchet Man!”

Duh. So he confirmed that it was a political move after all!

That’s one of LKY’s rare self-pwned instances for the record.

(For those who still don’t know what he self-pwned, here it is. In an attempt to argue that it was not a political move, using the Hatchet Man, he confirmed that it was a political move – the Hatchet Man was none other than himself!)

=========

News update – TRE editor apologises to PM Lee

It’s PM who’s unable to handle the fallout from Yaw Shin Leong’s case

With one move from the CEC of WP, the most hardcore critics were dealt with a killer blow. Suddenly, all the criticism that WP was unable to handle the Yaw Shin Leong case has been put to rest.

WP’s sacking of Yaw sends out a strong signal to everyone that WP does what it believes in and practises what it preaches. Personally, I feel that Yaw should not have been sacked. But I admire the strong belief the WP have in them, even if it meant they had to dunk Yaw, with the chance of losing Hougang in a by election.

So guess who are the ones who are unable to handle the Yaw fallout instead? Here’s an article reported in the ST.

WP has let Hougang voters down: PM Lee Hsien Loong

PAP chairman Khaw questions WP’s ‘sudden U-turn’ in Yaw saga

THE Workers’ Party (WP) has let down the voters of Hougang in its handling of Mr Yaw Shin Leong’s alleged extramarital affair, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said yesterday.

Mr Yaw was the WP’s MP for Hougang constituency until his expulsion from the party yesterday left the seat vacant.

Under the law, the Prime Minister decides whether to call a by-election. Mr Lee said he would consider the issue carefully.

‘Now, the Hougang SMC (single-member constituency) seat is vacant, as a result of what Mr Yaw Shin Leong has done, and the way the WP has handled the matter,’ he said in a statement to the media.

PM says WP has let voters down? But look at who’s trying to find excuses to bide his time to have a by election? What consideration is he thinking about? How to “fix” the opposition?

Those who expect an early by election may well be disappointed. There have been cases where no by election had taken place. So what makes this any different?

PM and PAP in a political bind -

Whatever happens now, WP has won political leverage at the expense of the PAP. Here’s a list of scenarios.

1. WP wins by election – This would confirm that the electorate is firmly behind WP and all the talk by PAP that WP has “let voters of Hougang down” would be immediately dustbinned.

2. PAP wins by election – While this may add one more PAP MP at the expense of a WP MP, it does not erase the fact that WP is principled, and even willing to sacrifice one MP for the sake of its belief in transparency and accountability. That is something the PAP has never matched!

3. Three or more cornered fight – If WP wins this seat, it will go down even more that Hougang supports WP. If PAP wins, see #2.

4. No by election – that about sums up PAP’s lack of confidence, wont’ it? Need more be said?

My Conclusion -

For all the crappy talk from Khaw and PM Lee, it looks nothing but rhetoric. Putting it in a nutshell, the WP has already scored political points even before any by election, if there’s to be any.

The fact that PM Lee and Khaw were quick with their words is just testimony to how rattled they are now, upon seeing the firm and decisive action of the WP. This is something very notably missing in the PAP ranks, when it comes to choosing between the principles it purports to hold, and the seats it risks losing.

Talk is cheap. WP did more than talk. Unlike PAP.

If at all, it shows that it is PM who is unable to handle the fallout from the Yaw Shin Leong case. He now doesn’t know how to “fix” the WP to make it look bad. That’s why he is rattling his mouth off that Hougang voters have been let down.

Hougang voters let down? Really? How about testing it out with a by election in Hougang then?