Penny Low, Tin Pei Ling and PAP – they’ll all get away with it

It looks to be so, doesn’t it? The latest is Penny Low’s disrespect for the National Anthem. Looks it is just an “honest mistake” and “let’s move on”.

MP Penny Low apologises for NDP phone incident

Member of Parliament (MP) for Pasir Ris-Punggol Group Representation Constituency Penny Low has offered her apologies after being spotted using her mobile phone during the singing of the National Anthem at the National Day Parade (NDP) on Tuesday.

The incident, which was captured on television cameras, showed Ms Low glancing down at the phone in her hand.

The video was posted as a 30-second clip on websites such as YouTube, which sparked an online debate among netizens.

Posting on her Facebook page on Wednesday, Ms Low, 44, said: “I was so caught up in the wonderful NDP 2011 and felt so proud of being a Singaporean, that I wanted to capture that moment of pride, at the very tail end of the anthem, to share on FB with my residents. If in my enthusiasm I offended anyone, please accept my apologies. NDP is a time to unite not divide. Majulah Singapura.”

Technically, I don’t think Penny Low broke any law. Here’s the statute.

SINGAPORE ARMS AND FLAG AND NATIONAL ANTHEM ACT (CHAPTER 296)

Respect for National Anthem

12. When the National Anthem is performed or sung, every person

present shall stand up as a mark of respect.

Musical arrangements of National Anthem

13.—(1) Any person performing or singing the National Anthem

shall perform or sing the National Anthem according to the official

arrangement in the Third Schedule or any other arrangement

permitted under paragraph (2).

(2) The National Anthem may be rearranged in any manner that

is in keeping with the dignity due to the National Anthem, subject to

the following conditions:

(a) the National Anthem shall not be incorporated into any

other composition or medley; and

(b) every arrangement of the National Anthem shall accurately

reflect the complete tune and the complete official lyrics of

the National Anthem.

(3) Any person who sings the National Anthem —

(a) shall follow the official lyrics in the Third Schedule; and

(b) shall not sing any translation of those lyrics.

Well, she did stand up as what’s required in Section 12. Section 13 is about how the National Anthem is sung. She didn’t appear to be singing the anthem.

So what’s the big deal? It just shows her indiscretion.

A bigger issue is Tin Pei Ling’s Police Report on what was posted on her Facebook on Cooling Off Day, one day before GE. The police have confirmed that it was not posted by her and hence, no action would be taken against her. Ironically, by letting her off the hook, the police have unwittingly opened up another case against her. As explained in Blinky Mummy’s blog…

Confirmed: Tin Pei Ling made False Declaration in her Election Form

In essence, Police has investigated and concluded that it was indeed Tin Pei Ling’s friend who had accessed Tin Pei Ling’s Facebook account and posted that comment. Tin Pei Ling’s friend has since been given a warning by Police.

With that, it is now crystal clear that Tin Pei Ling made a FALSE DECLARTION in the Declaration of Election Advertising by Candidate form, where she stated that ‘Tin Pei Ling’ as the only moderator of her Facebook page. No mention of ‘her friend’ in the form.

Police has already done its part. It is now up to Elections Department to do its job. A job which Elections Department said it would do only after a police report had been filed.

So would the Elections Dept follow this up? Don’t bet on it. The Elections Dept won’t find her guilty of any wrongdoing for sure. After all, it has shown that it would NEVER “do it” to the PAP.

Here’s prove of that.

I made a post about how bigwigs PM Lee Hsien Loong, and then DPMs Goh Chok Tong and Tony Tan were seen in the polling centre of Cheng San during Polling Day (GE 1997). This appears to contravene the law which clearly states in the Parliamentary Elections Act -

Section 82 (1)(d) provides that – “No person shall wait outside any polling station on polling day, except for the purpose of gaining entry to the polling station to cast his vote”.

When an official complaint was made against them, the Attorney General decided that there was no breach because those bigwigs were INSIDE and NOT OUTSIDE of the polling station!

Read my post about the ridiculous interpretation of the AG here.

PAP is above the law

Obviously the above law is to prevent individuals or parties trying to influence voters. Their presence or their activities within or around the polling station can affect the way voters vote.

However, because the PAP is the almighty, the machinery (in this case the judiciary) decided that it was perfectly alright for those bigwigs to be in the polling station, never mind that very action was able to influence voters.

Note that Cheng San in 1997 then was a very hotly contested GRC, like it was for Aljunied in 2011 and Eunos in 1988. The PAPpies knew that – and that’s the very reason why those bigwigs were IN the polling station in the first place – ie trying to influence voters!

So what is all this darn horse manure there was no offence committed, when it is crystal clear for all to see, that one has been committed in broad daylight?

If this incident can be quashed by the yes-men of the PAPpies, don’t you for a moment think that Tin Pei Ling would be harshly dealt with.

So if bigwigs like LHL, GCT and TT can be let off the hook, don’t expect much out Tin Pei Ling’s case, folks.

The PAP is above the law.

>GCT’s buddy system betrays his lack of confidence in Tin Pei Ling

>Woody Kayu Goh Chok Tong thinks he is sending the right signal to Marine Paraders, that they will have value for money, by telling them that they will have two MPs for the price of one.

What he doesn’t know is that, implicitly, he is telling he ain’t got no confidence Tin Pei Ling is up to par as an MP, if PAP wins the GRC in Marine Parade

GE: PAP’s Marine Parade GRC team proposes buddy system among its MPs

SINGAPORE: The People’s Action Party’s (PAP) Marine Parade Group Representation Constituency (GRC) team will run a buddy system amongst its Members of Parliament to ensure that its residents are well served, once elected.

Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong who is the anchor minister for the team said Dr Fatimah Lateef will partner Ms Tin Pei Ling in both the MacPherson and Geylang Serai divisions in the GRC.

This would mean the two candidates will be at the meet-the-people sessions at one another’s wards once a month.

Brigadier General Tan Chuan-Jin and Mr Seah Kian Peng will do likewise.

All four candidates will also help Senior Minister Goh in his Marine Parade division.

Mr Goh was also asked to comment about the possibility of the Marine Parade GRC battle turning into one between the PAP’s Tin Pei Ling and the National Solidarity Party’s (NSP) youngest candidate, Nicole Seah, who is one of the five members in the opposition’s Marine Parade GRC team.

Mr Goh said he would look at the battle in Marine Parade GRC as one between the team led by him as the anchor and that led by Mr Cheo Chai Chen of the NSP, who has been a one term Member of Parliament before.

- CNA/fa

Of course Pei Ling and Dr Fatimah are a good pair. They are in a doctor and patient relationship, aren’t they?

Unwittingly, Kayu Goh is also giving stressed up Tin Pei Ling twice the pressure by forcing her to meet the people twice as many times as other MPs, increasing her chances of falling into depression and/or getting traumatized twice as much.

Kayu Goh’s management style is what is called a “knee-jerk response”. He will jerk his knee at the tap of his knee, without thinking or analyzing the situation.

Doesn’t he know he is sending the wrong signal?

“Lelong, lelong! PAP MPs for sale at attractive discount! If you vote for the PAP, you will get two MPs for the price of one! Very cheap!” – Kayu Goh doing his sales pitch, obviously oblivious to the fact he is implicitly telling everyone he has no confidence in Tin Pei Ling.

>SM Goh’s gaffe on Pei Ling an indication PAP is losing it

>The Pei Ling saga not only seems not to go away, it is getting worse. Never in all my years of witnessing pre-election campaigns have I witnessed PAP making blunder after blunder after blunder. It is now more like watching a circus show than a political party campaigning.

It is also the very first time as far as I can recall where the PAP is put on the defensive. In all other past campaigns, PAP had always been on the offensive attacking its opponents ruthlessly. But the Pei Ling saga has changed the playing field.

We now not only have her fellow mates, including heaving weights like Lim Boon Heng, Ng Eng Hen and Khaw Boon Wan having to defend her, we also have SM Goh supporting her.

The problem is that SM Goh goofed big time. Real big time.

SM Goh’s ‘tongue-in-cheek’ post on Tin causes a stir

A FACEBOOK post by Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong caused a stir among netizens and the media on Saturday, when he announced that People’s Action Party new candidate Tin Pei Ling had been checked for trauma.

But the joke was on them, when SM Goh clarified later that he had meant it as a ‘tongue-in-cheek’ post.

On a status update posted around 5.30 pm on the MParader Facebook page, SM Goh said: ‘Young Pei Ling has been traumatised. Saw her yesterday with trauma specialist, Fatimah.

‘While doc examined her, I observed. Her initial hurt n pain have subsided. Gave her clean (bill) of health. In the process, discovered steel in her. She will grow in strength.’

‘Fatimah’ is Dr Fatimah Lateef, who is in SM Goh’s Marine Parade GRC team of MPs.

Ms Tin, 27, is slated to contest with the team in the coming election, taking over from retiring MP Matthias Yao.

SM Goh’s post triggered comments from Facebook users, expressing concern and support for Ms Tin.

An hour after his first post, SM Goh posted another update on the MParader page clarifying his initial remarks.

Some points that can be noted.

1. You don’t joke about such things. As it is, Pei Ling is already under pressure and duress and the last thing she needs is for SM Goh to pressure her further putting up such remarks, causing the media to hound her even further. Not to mention anti-Pei Ling and anti-PAP parties will capitalize on that.

2. Humoring a situation where the person is already under duress that she is seeking treatment is akin to poking fun at a suicidal person seeking ways out of suicidal thinking. If pushed too far, the suicidal person may just “give up” and “do it”. The fact that SM Goh could make joke out of the whole thing, shows his incompetence handling stressed individuals.

3. In all probability SM Goh was not joking when he made the post. He probably was making a desperate cry “don’t touch our baby girl!”, seeking sympathy for her. It backfired. His claim it was “tongue-in-cheek” is just damage control. It was probably “foot in mouth” more than tongue in cheek.

4. SM Goh’s mishandling is an indication that PAP is losing it. Finally, they are showing cracks within their machinery. They are unable to control the situation, and each individual PAP member is acting on an ad-hoc basis without proper cohesion.

The Real Big Picture -

To me, the Pei Ling issue is just an incident within a bigger picture. A picture that shows the PAP is slowly losing its touch and finesse in the world of politicking.

In the past, when LKY was in full control, the campaigning always had a firm direction. It was always attack from Day One. Attack the opposition members. Bring up hot issues that if the wrong party gets voted in, there will be riots and blood on the streets. Portray the opposition as incapable of taking over. Blah, blah, blah.

This is the first time in a pre-election where LKY is very silent. Probably because of his deteriorating health. So who’s now in control? Most likely, junior boy, Lee Hsien Loong.

It has always been said that LKY has been the guy behind Hsien Loong. Now that the Old Man is not as fit and sharp to be the rudder that guides the ship, Hsien Loong, the pseudo leader is left directionless.

This does not bode for the PAP well. They may pull through and get a convincing win this elections. But I strongly feel that if they do, it will probably be the last one they do it convincingly.

This is not SM Goh’s first gaffe. He blundered in the Seet Ai Mee case too. But Old Man was fit and strong then. His influence was strong enough such that PAP still came out looking good. The only casualty was Ai Mee herself.

As for the Pei Ling case, it just highlights that it had to take many of her fellow PAP members, who included heavyweights like Lim BH, Ng EH, Khaw BW and even Goh CT to come to the rescue. This indicates an unprecedented defensive and unorganised mindset within the PAP during a pre-election, never witnessed during the heydeys of Old Man Lee.

The PAP is losing it. They are losing the skills of politicking of the Old Man. For too long PAP has been controlled by just that one Old Man. They now are paying the price.

The ironical twist to this episode is that it takes a clueless young 27 year old lady to expose the cracks of the once mighty PAP.

>PAP should leave Pei Ling alone too

>There have been calls to end the mud slinging on Pei Ling, albeit some of them in a hypocritical fashion. But again, although I do not approve such underhand tactics against Pei Ling, I admit this this is the standard play of politics. So those who call for ending such underhand methods are at best naive, and at worst, some are downright hypocritical because they have engaged in such gutter stuff too.

While I can accept cybernetters to launch unwarranted personal slimes on Pei Ling, what I fail to understand is why the heck do PAP members keep talking about it. It is not that she has been alleged to have committed criminal and/or immoral activities that she needs to be defended. All the slimes are just childish, juvenile stuff. So while the attackers have shown to be shallow and immature, PAP members who defend her are showing that:

1. They are just as childish, entertaining childish talk.

2. They are affected by childish talk, implying that they think childishly too.

Yesterday, I highlighted that Lim Boon Heng in trying to assure the electorate that she could hold on her own, actually did the opposite by speaking on her behalf instead of allowing her to do it herself – Why can’t Tin Pei Ling speak for herself?

Today, it is reported that Dr Ng Eng Hen throws his weight behind her, proving that she is what Boon Heng proved her to be – ie she can’t hold her own! Good work (un)done by the PAPpies!

GE: Young candidates bring new perspectives

SINGAPORE: Minister for Education Ng Eng Hen has said young candidates are necessary to bring in new perspectives to the government.

Dr Ng was responding to questions on recent online criticisms against Ms Tin Pei Ling, who was introduced on Monday by the PAP.

Yeah? Is there a need to respond to all those criticism on her behalf? Trying to tell the electorate that she can’t speak up for herself?

Fellow PAP candidate Vikram Nair said: “I’ve known Peiling reasonably well and I’ve worked with her on a couple of things, including the YP, and I think she is quite mature for her age.

“I’m not sure what the full extent of the attacks are but I’ve heard some of it has been fairly crass and pretty much dug up personal information and chucked whatever spin on it.

“But knowing her personally, I think she should be able to carry out the job; she’s worked extremely hard, she’s very organised, she gets people together, she gets things done”.

-CNA/wk

Another PAPpy bozo trying to defend Pei Ling, reinforcing the claim she can’t speak for herself.

I am quite surprised that PAP members can be so affected by this episode. I am sure they are much bigger than that.

From this issue, there is a point everyone seems to miss. While the cybernetters and PAP members are slugging it out, the opposition parties are very silent on it. Wisely so. Now it looks like the opposition candidates are much more mature than the cybernetters and even some PAP candidates.

The Pei Ling episode has certainly thrown a few surprises. After her photos were lifted from her personal Facebook account, the cybernetters and some PAP members slugged it out, trying to kill each other.

IMO, PAP members should just leave Pei Ling alone instead of showing everyone how badly affected the PAP camp has been with this episode.

In the meantime, the biggest gainer is the opposition camp, showing a composed calm image and unwilling to be dragged into this childish matter. This is nothing more than a petty matter that is killing some PAP candidates’ image of the mature, capable adult.

Pei Ling, giving a whole new meaning to the phrase “looks can kill”, when her photos were lifted from her Facebook account and were published on the Internet.

>Kum Hong no moral torch for Pei Ling’s case – he was no angel either

>Introduction -

I do not condone the bitching that’s being going on round the internet. Yes, I am talking about how cybernetters have used underhand tactics to strip Tin Pei Ling bare.

However, much as I do not agree that’s the way, I accept that is part and parcel of politics. After all, has not the PAP done that too?

It is because of this dirty background stuff that I have witnessed when I was involved in grassroots politics, that I have decided to leave the scene more than ten years ago.

Some people have asked me why didn’t I then join the opposition. My answer is simple – what makes you think it is any different?

The High Moral Ground Stance -

There are people who claim the high moral ground. They will condemn the tactics used on this young lady, citing ethics. But by the same breath, they too have engaged in politicking and were not any where near the high moral ground they seek to stand.

If you look around the internet, you will find many such people. I am going to name only one specific person. Readers can search who the others are themselves. That person I am naming is Siew Kum Hong. Here is his article on the “let’s (not) bitch about Pei Ling” fiasco -

This is not what I want Singapore politics to be like

And that is precisely my point. I would like politics in Singapore to be about the candidates and their views and their competency/suitability as MPs and office holders. I would not like politics in Singapore to become an exercise in gutter journalism. If and to the extent that a politician makes morality and virtue part of his/her platform or public persona, then that becomes fair game as well — but only then, and not before.

Note Kum Hong’s self acclaimed high moral tone in his title. As if he is the moral torch bearer overseeing how politics should be played. Come on, Kum Hong, you have been involved in politics to KNOW that’s the standard play. But that is not the main issue. The issue is that you have been playing gutter politics yourself. Can’t recall? Let me help you.

Kum Hong and the Aware Fiasco -

The main issue I have is that Kum Hong is not an ethical player himself. In fact, he has also played gutter politics, not in the elections campaign in a pre-GE situation, but during the Aware Saga. That’s not hardcore politics, but politics still.

I am talking about the AWARE EGM in 2009, where Kum Hong played a pivotal role in creating a tense situation at an EGM, such that it was no longer conducive for members to vote fairly and squarely. Here is that incident, which I was a witness to – Sectarian Christians replaced by Sectarian Gays – So what’s the difference?

For the uninitiated, the issue was AWARE’s EGM called by the Gay community, after a Christian group was returned as members of the council in the previous Annual General Meeting (AGM). I was not present the AGM, but I was present at that marathon EGM.

At the EGM, chaired by Josie (from the Christian group), Kum Hong introduced himself as the “advisor” to the old guard who was then trying to reclaim their place in the council. Kum Hong is a lawyer and he KNOWS how meetings should be conducted. There is an agenda and it is the duty of the chair to see that agenda is adhered to.

What I witnessed Kum Hong did was very unprofessional (and unethical) on his part…..

1. He INSISTED that the floor mike be on at ALL TIMES, allowing the floor to interrupt the chair at will. This made it very difficult for the chair to control the rowdy crowd.

2. Kum Hong also insisted to be seated with the ordinary members, when he was just an associate member. Associate and ordinary members were seated separately. This was because associate members have no voting rights. So when the voting takes place, there won’t be allegation of “ghost” votes.

3. Kum Hong by INSISTING to be seated with ordinary members, created a tense situation which again triggered the already very rowdy crowd.

4. Kum Hong, in spite of being “advisor” to the old guard, failed to advise the EGM that there was a $90k bill that had to be addressed. Under Aware’s Constitution, the council has no authority to pay that bill. But the General Meeting has. The rowdy and tense crowd, triggered by Kum Hong’s combative approach towards the chair, failed to address the $90k bill. Why didn’t Kum Hong advise the EGM to approve the bill on the spot?

Had he not as self-appointed “advisor” to the Old guard who sought to reclaim the council, (negligently) failed to perform his duty to remind them of this bill? As it turned out, when the EGM closed, the $90k bill was still hanging. And the “new council” that reclaimed from Josie’s group did not know what to do with that $90k bill! – The 90 000 kg monster everyone pretends not to be AWARE of

As can be seen, Kum Hong was playing gutter politics himself. Not the backstabbing type where Pei Ling faces, but gutter politics nevertheless.

Who is he to take the high moral stance now?

He was there not to “advise” but to create tension and friction at the EGM. He was an NMP. He was a public figure and the rowdy crowd was behind him. He was using the influence of the rowdy crowd to intimidate the chair and was controlling the atmosphere of the General Meeting. It was designed to wear down the chair and meeting, so that the old guard could reclaim the council easily.

After Kum Hong plays gutter politics, he decries others doing the same -

Kum Hong’s post (on Pei Ling) continues….

I would like Ms Tin to be given a chance to show what she would be like as an MP, instead of digging up all this personal stuff — things which, frankly, to my mind have been overblown and do not say anything about her suitability as an MP, or even her as a person. She is a 27-year-old professional, not a nun.

I find what has happened to be quite offensive and reprehensible (which is why I am deliberately not including details of or links to the comments). It is almost as if people, in their antagonism towards the PAP, are willing to overlook and ignore what is right and what is dignified.

The consequence of all this, is that people will be deterred from joining politics, even more so than before. I for one will openly admit that I have thought about it and decided against taking the plunge, in part because of these things. I have been a victim of these whispers. It is not fun. It is not right. It is not what I would want Singapore politics to be like.

Love it or hate it, that is what politics is about. If you want to be in it, you have to face it. If you can’t face it, leave. Simple as that.

Kum Hong the target of gutter politics-

Yes, Kum Hong has had his fair share of being targeted. But then again, he is being naive. At least I can excuse Pei Ling for being green and wet behind the ears. But Kum Hong? Here is what he wrote about being the target of gutter politics after the Aware Saga. He was asking for it, wasn’t he? -

The line has been crossed

The attacks have continued since my last posting on this blog. In particular, the latest attacks have alleged and/or insinuated that (a) I asked for and am receiving foreign funding from a Swedish politician, who allegedly funds the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) as well, and (b) I am involved or associated with the SDP and may be their representative or “mole” in Parliament.

Both of these allegations are untrue and false. They are vile, vicious and malicious attacks on me, and nothing short of character assassination. I consider them extremely defamatory and criminal in nature.

Here is my piece on Kum Hong being the target of gutter politics.
So what now, Kum Hong?

A final point worth noting. There are MANY allegations against Kum Hong, but he finds that he needs to clear these two:

“(a) I asked for and am receiving foreign funding from a Swedish politician, who allegedly funds the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) as well, and
(b) I am involved or associated with the SDP and may be their representative or “mole” in Parliament.”

By denying the above two and keeping silent on the other allegations, does this mean that implicitly he admits that the other allegations are true? Here are the other allegations that he has been silent on.

1. That he deliberately flamed the tension at the AWARE EGM on 2 May 09.

2. That he acted unethically, being the advisor of AWARE on 2 May 09.

3. That he acted incompetently or negligently, as advisor for AWARE, when he did not highlight newly EXCO had to seek general members’ approval to clear $90k bill.

Please note that he has decided to remain silent on the above three issues. See link here.
http://siewkumhong.blogspot.com/2009/05/what-i-took-away-from-2-may.html

The fact that he STILL REMAINS SILENT on the above issues, yet denies two other issues, itself has implication.

I find Kum Hong terribly naive not to see these things coming his way. This really shows his incompetence as an NMP.

Kum Hong is now stuck – damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

He shouldn’t have been involved in the AWARE saga in the first place.

(PS – the allegation about Kum Hong receiving foreign funds and a mole of PAP was not from me, but from unknown characters)

Conclusion -

I have to repeat that I do not condone how Pei Ling was stripped bare publicly. But at the same time, I admit that is how politics is played.

There are only three ways to deal with such gutter politics.
1) Bear with it.
2) Do unto them what they do unto you.
3) Leave.

I have nothing to comment if your choice is #3.

If you choose #1, you will be seen as a nice but weak guy. Sooner or later, you will be thrown out. Remember Abdullah Badawi?

If you choose #2, you are a true politician.

Finally, those who have committed sins before, shouldn’t be throwing stones today. After all, your (political) life has been opened once you choose politics. Being an NMP is no different.

==========

Final Point

I pre-empt that some critics would say that in Pei Ling’s case, it is character sliming, while in Kum Hong’s case, it is not.

My counter to those critics is – who are you to decide what is acceptable politicking and what is not?

It is either you play the game of politics, which the rules are actually you can do about anything under the sun as long it is is not illegal, or you don’t play it (ie leave).

There is NO middle ground in the game of politicking. Kum Hong found that out when he tried to politicise the Aware Saga, didn’t he?

Claiming that there are “acceptable” and “not acceptable” ways in the game of politics (other than you should not break the law), is like saying if an animal wants to hunt a prey, it must do it in an “acceptable way”. What crap!

>Why can’t Tin Pei Ling speak for herself?

>Looks like not only the opposition has new candidates that can’t speak for themselves.

PAP chairman Lim Boon Heng on:

WHETHER new PAP candidate Tin Pei Ling, 27, will be able to connect with older residents:

‘I think it depends on whether one is able to communicate, able to understand how the older person feels.

So, I think it all depends on Pei Ling, how she conducts herself, whether she is one of those young people who are purely on the Internet and displaying the behaviour and values that people tend to associate with her generation or whether she is a person who is outgoing, able to talk to the senior citizens in the constituency in which she serves.

Good job, Boon Heng. By speaking on her behalf, trying to inject an air of confidence about her, you have shown that she is not confident to speak for herself.

What a bummer.

No more need be said.