Guitarists to lead Brainwashing songs

The SDP is seeking guitarists to perform for free for their event. They would be playing three songs (see lyrics below) - Imagine, You Raise Me Up, Auld Lang Syne - to brainwash party activists and the public.

I have skimmed through the lyrics and highlighted parts of it to illustrate my points.

John Lennon - Imagine

Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace ----> contradicts Protests in front of Parliament House by TBT18

You may say that I'm a dreamer ---> Yeah! Dreaming without concrete grassroots action
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions ---> Then why get so worked up over economic recession?
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

Josh Groban - You Raise Me Up ==> Read "You" as "SDP"

(This is the brainwashing part of the night, where SDP becomes a supreme body that raised people up)

When I am down and, oh my soul, so weary;
When troubles come and my heart burdened be;
Then, I am still and wait here in the silence,
Until you come and sit awhile with me.

You raise me up, so I can stand on mountains;
You raise me up, to walk on stormy seas;
I am strong, when I am on your shoulders;
You raise me up: To more than I can be.

You raise me up, so I can stand on mountains;
You raise me up, to walk on stormy seas;
I am strong, when I am on your shoulders;
You raise me up: To more than I can be.

There is no life - no life without its hunger;
Each restless heart beats so imperfectly;
But when you come and I am filled with wonder,
Sometimes, I think I glimpse eternity.

You raise me up, so I can stand on mountains;
You raise me up, to walk on stormy seas;
I am strong, when I am on your shoulders;
You raise me up: To more than I can be.

You raise me up, so I can stand on mountains;
You raise me up, to walk on stormy seas;
I am strong, when I am on your shoulders;
You raise me up: To more than I can be.

Auld Lang Syne

And for auld lang syne, my jo,
For auld lang syne,
We'll tak a cup o' kindness yet,
For auld lang syne,
1.
Should auld acquaintance be forgot,
And never brought to mind? --> "Yes they should," answers the SDP. Read how 3 of them betrayed the rest.
Should auld acquaintance be forgot,
And days o' auld lang syne.
2.
And surely ye'll be your pint-stowp!
And surely I'll be mine!
And we'll tak a cup o' kindness yet,
For auld lang syne.
3.
We twa hae run about the braes
And pu'd the gowans fine;
But we've wander'd mony a weary foot
Sin auld lang syne.
4.
We twa hae paidl'd i' the burn,
Frae mornin' sun till dine;
But seas between us braid hae roar'd
Sin auld lang syne.
5.
And there's a hand, my trusty fiere!
And gie's a hand o' thine!
And we'll tak a right guid willy waught,
For auld lang syne.

Say no to SDP propaganda.

SDP and Housing Policy

In a market economy, products and services are generated according to demand and supply. Likewise, houses should be built to tailor for demand - demand from citizens. However, SDP is attempting to create a hoo-ha over the recent government's decision to increase the number of smaller flats.

SDP's argument:

• "Singaporeans are getting poorer."
• "as we progress forward in time with the PAP, we progress backward in our fortunes."
• "if all this is took place during the "boom years" between 2003 and 2007, just imagine what's in store when we enter the economic maelstrom next year."

Logical Thinking:

• The rise in demand for smaller flats is due to many factors such as more elderly living by themselves and the trend towards nuclear families rather than big families living together.
  
  
• While there are poverty cases in Singapore, Singapore still boasts a low poverty level compared to other developed countries. Can SDP give an example of a country with zero poverty level? Can SDP cite a country with decreasing poverty level as the country gets more developed?
  
  
• Even as we "boom" in our economy, we are still facing various societal issues which are inherent in a globalised island. SDP just adds the gloom to Singapore's future. Can SDP show that all the progress made before the impending economic crisis is virtual?
  

In conclusion, SDP ended its article on housing with an advertisement of Dr Chee's book. How sincere...

Economic Crisis : SDP Celebrates

While the Singapore Government is acting to ensure that help is available to affected groups amidst the economic turbulence and Singaporeans are readying themselves for the storm, only one group of people is happy over the matter. They are the members of the SDP.

In its latest post, SDP featured many international news articles that painted a gloom picture over Singapore's economy. SDP seems to gloat over every mishap that happens to Singapore.

At a time when even the liberal Western states are trying hard to boost investors' confidence in their country's economy, SDP acts in the opposite manner, trying as hard as possible to paint a bad picture on its own country's economy.

When the economy is doing good, SDP espouses "Tak Boleh Tahan", a campaign to provide more for the poor. However when the country's economy is affected by global conditions, SDP silenced its "Tak Boleh Tahan" campaign (perhaps the poor isn't that important to the SDP anymore) and threatens to bring Singapore down with its all-out attack on Singapore's economy.

Seems like SDP will never enjoy singing "One People, One Nation, One Singapore".

SDP Website Viewership Drops

According to Alexa.com, SDP website viewership is dropping. Over a 3 months period, visits by internet users dropped by up to 9%. Page views per user dropped another 20% and only a slight majority of the internet users are Singaporeans.


SDP has slapped itself by allowing only registered users to post comments on its website. By doing so, it practises censorship and goes back on its words on freedom of speech. Also, a quick browse through the website shows only SDP-biased comments on articles.

Singaporeans are not foolish. They are smart enough to distinguish SDP propaganda from accurate facts. The drop in viewership proves that SDP cannot withstand the test of time.

Using the JBJ Card to draw crowd

While organisations tend to celebrate the dawn of the new year with their achievements of the past year and the vision of the new year, SDP decided to do it differently.

SDP is on the brink of dissolution and there is not much achievements it can celebrate, so it turned to .... the JBJ card.

After years of using the Chia Thye Poh card, SDP now leverages on JBJ to draw crowd to its new year's eve gathering. JBJ has no affiliation to SDP and has never partnered WP/RP with SDP. Yet, SDP is exploiting JBJ's prestige in garnering more supporters to SDP.

Participants to the event would be given the chance to give their tributes to this great opposition leader, JBJ. But ultimately, the SDP achieves the glory and fame.

Show your respect to JBJ. Stop the exploitation!

Dr Chee asking Singaporeans to learn from... Foreigners

Dr Chee Soon Juan wrote an article asking Singaporeans to learn from Foreigners. In its most dramatical twist of events, Dr Chee has chosen to be represented by a Canadian lawyer. And now, Dr Chee is asking you and me to learn from Americans who just voted in their first Black President.

Let me now show you how myopic Dr Chee is getting.

“And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn,” the new leader says, “I may not have won your vote tonight, but I hear your voices. I need your help. And I will be your president, too.” In Singapore, our government refuses to build lifts that stop on every floor for the elderly because one of its candidate is not voted in.

Can Dr Chee stand out and admit that he did not accept any performance package from the Government? GST rebates? Growth Package? When the PAP government was established in the 1960s, it ensured that every Singaporean would be given opportunities in this island. Meritocracy and multiracialism enabled Singaporeans to achieve their dreams. Ironically, the US had just begun to give voting rights to the Blacks then.

Mr Obama points out that the “true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals: democracy, liberty, opportunity and unyielding hope.” In Singapore, our leader measures his success by the number of billions he accumulates in the reserves.

I thought a doctorate graduate would know how to differentiate between talk and action. The sole superpower - the United States has always been using its weapons in the international arena. US action in Southeast Asia has resulted in massive deaths (Vietnam War, Pol Pot, etc). Let's not forget that the US had conducted espionage activities in Singapore.

In Singapore, our leaders have much success to boast about. For instance, we have the highest number of home ownership, we are clean and green, etc. All this occured even before Dr Chee entered politics.

In America, people come together to argue, to celebrate, and to change. In Singapore, the police arrest you and the judges imprison you.

Has Dr Chee heard of Guantanamo Bay?

While Americans take pride in their vote and protect that right jealously, we in Singapore look nervously over our shoulders and wonder whether our votes can be traced.

The fact is Singapore's election has been globally recognised as fair. As the only political party that did not even garner 25% of the votes in the 2006 elections, we can understand how Dr Chee feels.

Change. It's not just a word, it is the key to survival. Americans know it, the world knows it. But Singaporeans are still too frightened to embrace it and fight for it.

I wonder how Dr Chee defines change. Singapore has changed to become such a vibrant international hotspot.

Yet one thing that hasn't changed is Dr Chee's ignorance.

Another Enlightening SDP Video

Contributed by Reader

On day five of the TBT 16 trial, the SDP made another "enlightening" video to share with all of us. We thank the SDP for their "enlightenment".

Sylvester Lim, the first to be interviewed in the video, seems to have been bought into singing the same "freedom of speech" tune like the rest. He said "the government sees fit to charge me as a Singaporean to exercise my right to speak up". Tell us which of your charges involved speaking up, Mr Lim.

We can agree that the cost of living is high and the government can do more. But in a typical fashion of the SDP, he exaggerated the situation by saying that "Singaporeans can't make ends meet".

When you say "Singaporeans", people will take it that you mean most Singaporeans. True, some Singaporeans cannot make ends meet and that happens in every country, but what about the rest? If most people were really in a bad shape, the SDP is a failure to have only 18 people protesting.

Another exaggeration was this: he said the TBT 16 "can't afford to eat outside" due to the court trials, and their supporters had to provide lunch for them. We may remember the lavish Hawaiian celebration they had which will easily cost the SDP enough to provide meals for the entire trial.

Next up was Jufri Salim. He said "in other countries like Malaysia, Indonesia, Hongkong, we've seen some similar protests happen but in Singapore, it is otherwise..... we have been charged right now"

What does it mean by "otherwise"? Does it mean there are no protests in Singapore? Or the countries he mentioned could have protests without people getting charged?

He cannot have forgotten how the Hindraf in Malaysia was disbanded and their members arrested under ISA, or how Indonesian protestors clash with the police and arrests are seen nearly every day. In HK case, police arrested protestors in Disneyland last year. Guess what? Only 2 of them were involved.

SDP Activist John Tan gets suspended by James Cook University

John Tan, a lecturer at James Cook University (Singapore), has been suspended due to the ongoing charges of contempt of court against him. John Tan pointed to the picture of a kangaroo on his T-shirt and saying, "This is a kangaroo court" to Mr Lee Kuan Yew when the Minister Mentor walked past him outside the courtroom. John Tan is also Assistant Secretary General of SDP.

SDP is quick to jump in defence of John Tan in its website. However, the bulk of the defence is irrelevant and misleading. SDP cited these reasons as why the suspension is "completely out of order":

1. Mr Tan has not yet been convicted of the charge. The trial begins only tomorrow, 4 Nov 08. He was suspended on 21 Oct.
2. The action appears to have been triggered by an email complaint that cited Mr Tan's association with Dr Chee Soon Juan and which was copied to Dr Ng Eng Hen.
3. The suspension stayed despite an appeal by Mr Tan citing testimony from 28 of his students that he had gone about his work in a professional manner.

1) Usually, employers sack employees who are charged in court by the state. Even during job interviews, employers do have concern whether the person they are going to employ has ever been charged in court or broken any law. In this case, it is justifiable for JCU to suspend (note that it's different from sacking) John Tan.

Contempt of court is a serious matter and it is duly right that lecturer John Tan face suspension. Even a secondary school boy who gets into a fight or comes late to school can be suspended.

2) Who sent the email is not important in this case. The school's decision to suspend John Tan is due to the information received. And that information is that John Tan is charged for contempt of court. The fact that the email is copied to Dr Ng Eng Hen isn't important too.

SDP is trying hard to imply that the PAP government has a hand in this matter.

3) 28 students seem to be a very small minority for the whole campus. JCU has a reputation to uphold and keeping a lecturer who is charged in court for breaking the law seems to not give a good image.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SDP's article also mentioned that:

"even if Mr Tan is convicted, does the university not have the obligation to protect the free speech of its employees?"

SDP is asking the obvious. Employees should know that they are part of the organisation that they work in and their criminal actions would tarnish the organisation's image and reputation that has taken so long to build.

It is disgraceful that John Tan and the SDP chose to politicise this issue as an academic and as a party. By making use of education and the school, John Tan should be given the boot.

Soldier reaffirms SDP's ignorance to law

It seems like one of the TBT 18 is a soldier of the Singapore Armed Forces. This soldier is none other than Recruit Muhammad Shafi'ie. His comments in the SDP site reaffirmed SDP's ignorance to the law.

"Asked why he was not pleading guilty and what he thought of the trial, the NSman said: "I don't think what we did on 15 March can be called a crime. We hurt no one and neither did we create any disorder. What we did was to express our concerns as citizens on issues that affect us deeply."

I thought about Recruit Muhammad Shafi'ie's view on crime and could not make a sense out of it. He seems to imply that it is alright for Corporal Dave Teo to carry the rifle around Orchard Road, since he did not hurt anyone and he did not create any disorder.

This innocent or ignorant soldier should think about whether the TBT 18 did create any disorder. Of course, we do have to acknowledge that the small number of participants make it insignificant. However, the 18 people violated the law. And when the police approached them, they were reluctant to call their act off and continued to confront the police. This attracted public attention, people stopped to look, and that caused obstruction and disturbance, in other words, DISORDER.

SDP's Enlightening Video

Contributed by Reader

In this video below, the TBT 18 16 (2 down) protestors try to "enlighten" us with their good reasons for protesting and breaking "unjust" laws.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmcI9LPW4_A

One of them, Seelan Palay, said, "my position has always been that, as a human being, I feel that I am free as a social animal, to gather wherever I want, to speak wherever I want, as long as I do not harm someone else."

I guess all laws that do not harm other people should be abolished, such as jaywalking, chewing gum, buying contraband cigarettes, smuggling pirated VCDs. All these do not harm other people.

Another, John Tan, said he protested because "we don't have real democracy here in Singapore" and "no basic human rights". He gave examples like "right to speak", "right to respond to the government", "right to criticize".

It seems the TBT 16 still do not understand what has gone wrong and why they are charged. No wonder they did what they did. Maybe the only 2 who knew pleaded guilty.

The protestors were not charged for gathering. They were charged because they gathered at places where they are not allowed to gather. Not every place are you allowed to gather. For eg. a group of men are not allowed to gather in the ladies toilet.

What had it to do with freedom of speech when they were not charged for speaking at a public place, nor did they say a word during the protest.

People gather everywhere everyday. Why do the police not arrest all of them?

Because the SDP's was not a normal gathering as they claimed. One of their protestors tried to argue along this line, but do they really think it was normal for people to wear the same t-shirts and carry placards? If so, why did they publicize it? Do people who normally gather at bus stops publicize their presence at bus stops? Obviously it was not just a gathering. It was meant to be a law breaking activity.

No right to speak? No right to respond to the government? No right to criticize? Now we know they're living in a different planet from the rest of us, and the hundreds of letter writers to the press daily.

SDP Cock-up -- everytime

On the third day of the TBT trial, SDP entertained Singaporeans yet again when its lawyer couldn't find Parliament Lane on the Singapore map!

(Red circle added for emphasis)

Using the same map that SDP referred to on its website, it took me only a few seconds to locate Parliament Lane. Yes, it might be called Old Parliament Lane, but it's still a Parliament Lane and the oversight on the part of the defence really gives us a chance to munch some popcorns.

Dr Chee gets Legal Help from Foreign Talent

When it comes to day-by-day politics, SDP condemns the ruling party from engaging foreign labour and talents into Singapore, arguing that they compete with locals for jobs.

In a dramatic twist of events, Dr Chee is now accepting legal help from a foreign talent! The foreign talent happens to be Mr Robert Amsterdam, a Canadian lawyer.

As TBT trial proceeds, we are now looking at how SDP members went back on their words, one by one...

Highly Educated SDP Activists doesn't know Reasoning

It is surprising that a party led by a PhD graduate and with many highly educated individuals do not know simple reasoning. Below, those in quotes are words of the SDP:

"How does one ought to 'reasonably' know that having more than one person assemble outside Parliament is an offence?"

Even the average Joe in Orchard road can tell you that SDP activists did not simply assemble outside Parliament. They protested, donning cheaply printed T-shirts, and holding placards. Why is it that every time SDP claims it is campaigning and then later deny it when they go into the courtroom? Can anyone trust this party at all?

"Under cross-examination by one of the defendants, Mr Carl Lang, during the hearing yesterday, police witness Sergeant Nor Hidah said that she was "not sure" whether the area around Parliament House was a gazetted place within which a gathering of more than one person needs police permission. And get this -- she has been a police officer for eights years.

This begs the question, doesn't it? If an experienced police officer doesn't know the above requirement (and we'll wager our last dollar that Sgt Nor Hidah is not the only police officer who doesn't know) how does one expect the average guy to, reasonably or otherwise?"

Since SDP activists, including Dr Chee Soon Juan, feel that they are average, so be it. That explains why SDP is the party rated the worst in terms of credibility.

Stay tune to more entertainment brought to you by SDP in the courtroom for the days to come.

3 Activists Tak Boleh Tahan and Gives Up

Just less than 3 days into the TBT trial of the 18 SDP activists, 3 of them have already fallen from the group. No matter how the photos and videos of the SDP try to picture these activists as a united group standing for a good cause, all these had started to peel off in the eyes of the public. Singaporeans are now witnessing how these activists themselves are beginning to Tak Boleh Tahan and give up the fight.

The Myth of SDP's genuinity to the cause espoused by their TBT campaign

TBT Traitor 1: Ng E-jay

When the trial started in the morning, Ng E-jay can't wait to just plead guilty. See SDP activists belittle Civil Disobedience and Tak Boleh Tahan Campaign.

TBT Traitor 2: Jeffrey George

In order to be able to attend work on time, Jeffrey George thought of an ingenious idea. He decided to plead guilty since SDP donations could subsidise his penalties.

TBT Traitor 3: Yap Keng Ho

When cross-examining the police photographer, Yap Keng Ho repeatedly ask questions about the camera being used. He asked about the flash used to establish authenticity, thereby dropping hints that he didn't stand for TBT campaign and thus disassociating himself from the group. He's smart in not pleading guilty since he knows SDP donations are too little and can't help him much. The other 15 noticed that and lost patience with him. Chia Ti Lik even allied with the Prosecutor to get Yap Keng Ho to shut up! See the news report extract below:

Jeremy Au Yong, Political Correspondent
The Straits Times
25 October 2008

"THERE were disagreements in court on Friday as the first prosecution witness took the stand in the ongoing trial of 17 people charged with taking part in an illegal assembly outside Parliament House on Mar 15.

However, this came from among defendants themselves, as they could not see eye-to-eye on a number of matters.

Chief among these was the line of questioning of police photographer Nor Hidah Ali Jinnah, the witness.

At one point, lawyer Chia Ti Lik, a defendant, interrupted fellow defendant Yap Keng Ho's cross-examination to say: 'Your Honour, I do not see the relevance of this line of questioning. And I wonder why the DPP (Deputy Public Prosecutor) has not objected.'

Yap had been questioning the police photographer on the type of flash she used to take pictures of the scene. He said it was to establish the authenticity of the photos.

Staff Sergeant Nor Hidah had been tasked to take pictures of the area where the assembly and procession had allegedly taken place, to establish the setting.

Half an hour of questions from Yap delving into technical details of her camera equipment made his co-defendants lose patience..."

Stay tuned as we count down the days to the disbanding of SDP!

SDP Activists belittle Civil Disobedience and Tak Boleh Tahan Campaign

In its latest article "AGC cannot decide whether to use video or not", SDP reporting seems to become a laughable joke. Let's take a look at some excerpts in quotes:

"The morning started off with Mr Ng E-jay pleading guilty to the charge of taking part in an assembly outside Parliament House. The second charge of participating in a procession was taken into consideration. Mr Ng was subsequently fined $600."

Compare this to the article "Come and support the activists during the trial" which read, "We are proud of being able to come together to defend and push for the rights of our fellow citizens, for without these rights we are at the mercy of the PAP. We know that we are guided by the truth and righteousness."

If SDP knows it's righteous, why did its activist pleaded guilty in the morning?

"In the end, Mr George pleaded guilty as this was the only way for him to get back to his work. He was fined $1,200."

What's more, one of the SDP activists pleaded guilty just to go back to work! Seems like career is more important than political stand.

The Best Job Insurance: SDP calls out for supporters to donate to its legal defence fund, which will be used to keep Mr George's job.

With the guilty pleas, SDP has lost its legitimacy among its supporters. This is because SDP has gone back on its civil disobedience action. Remember how Dr Chee claimed to be on hunger strike but secretly drank glucose water?

Oscar Award for the most illogical statement of the YEAR:

"I understand what was read out to me," Mr Jufrie replied, "what I don't understand is why are we being charged. You see groups of tourists and other people everyday in front of Parliament. Why are they all not charged?"

This either shows the naivity of Mr Jufrie to law, or that he's trying to say the SDP did not campaign at all in front of Parliament. So wasn't there a demonstration?

In conclusion, SDP doesn't really care about the poor in Singapore as much as they say they are. It protested outside Parliament House but said they were just like tourists walking pass Parliament without intention of demanding more to be done to alleviate poverty in Singapore. All else said, after the bankruptcy of SDP, it could consider joining the Entertainment industry.

SDP Activist Gives up & Pleads Guilty

Jeremy Au Yong
The Straits Times

Headline: 19 on illegal assembly trial

IT WAS a lively start to the first day of court proceedings for 19 people accused of demonstrating in front of Parliament House in March.

The 19, who include Singapore Democratic Party chief Chee Soon Juan and his sister Chee Siok Chin, have been charged with taking part in an illegal assembly and a subsequent procession.

The group piled into Court 5 of the Subordinate Courts at 9.30am on Thursday, and extra chairs had to be put in place to accomodate all of them.

The public gallery was filled with about 20 people, including supporters of the SDP and those on trial.

Amid the noise and commotion as the defendants were taking their seats before proceedings started, one of them, blogger Yap Keng Ho, 45, remarked to the rest: 'This is the largest pasar malam in the history of Singapore'.

During the course of proceedings before District Judge Chia Wee Kiat, several of those who were charged rose to ask questions or make applications.

There were requests for copies video clips taken by the police of the March 15 event; one accused sought an adjournment as he wanted to get back to his job; and one asked for the Court to observe a minute's silence for the late opposition polition JB Jeyaretnam, who was to have represented several of the activists.

But the first order of formal business on Thursday morning for District Judge Chia was to deal with the decision by one of the accused, blogger Ng E-Jay, 31, who said that he was pleading guilty.

He told The Straits Times that he had decided to do so just on Wednesday.

Proceedings were then adjourned so that his case could be dealt with before the trial of the remaining 18 accused could continue.

Ng was fined $600, or six days in jail in default, after he admitted to the charge.

http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_293924.html

Right to criticise 'doesn't cover lies'

Straits Times
18 October 2008

Govt responds to call by US advocacy group to desist from 'using defamation suits to stifle political opposition'

THE Government yesterday gave its position on criticisms levelled against government leaders by opposition politicians, in response to a statement by a New York-based advocacy group, Human Rights Watch (HRW).

The group had called on Singapore's leaders to 'end the practice of using defamation suits to stifle political opposition'. In comments posted on its website yesterday, it highlighted a High Court ruling this week.

HRW noted that the court had awarded Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew six-figure sums against the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), its secretary-general Chee Soon Juan and his sister Chee Siok Chin for defamation.

In reply, the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts' spokesman noted that in Singapore, opposition politicians have the right to criticise the Government and government leaders.

But, Ms K. Bhavani added, 'that does not entitle them to tell lies or defame'.

'If they do, the leaders must either sue to clear their names and be prepared to be cross-examined in open court, or allow the lies to stand unchallenged and the public to believe that the defamations are true.

'This is the way to establish the truth, and to keep Singapore's public discourse honest and responsible.''

In reference to the court ruling, Ms Bhavani noted that the Chees and their political party, the SDP, had accused PM Lee and MM Lee of dishonesty, nepotism and corruption, among other things.

They had done it just before a General Election in 2006, she noted in a statement to the media. 'When the two ministers sued, the other members of the SDP central executive committee apologised, but Chee and his sister refused to do so.

'The Chees had every opportunity to justify and prove their allegations in court, but totally failed to do so. Therefore, they have to pay damages commensurate with the seriousness of the defamation and in accordance with the judgment of the court.'

The defamation was committed in articles published in SDP's newsletter, The New Democrat. Nine of its leaders settled earlier with the Lees, apologising and paying them $170,000 each.

That leaves the SDP and the Chee siblings owing the Lees $610,000 in all. The siblings are bankrupt. If the SDP is unable to pay, the 28-year-old party faces the prospect of being wound up.

The possibility was highlighted as well in HRW's statement. It reported its deputy Asia director Elaine Pearsonas saying: 'Using defamation laws to silence peaceful political speech makes a mockery of Singapore's claim to be a model democracy. Opposition criticism of the Government is an essential ingredient of a democratic political system.'

The group urged the Government to 'lift legal restrictions on freedom of expression to bring the country in line with international law'.

In concluding remarks, the HRW said 'the assault on free speech by Singapore's leaders extends to critical foreign publications circulating in Singapore'.

It mentioned several cases, involving among others, the Far Eastern Economic Review and The Wall Street Journal Asia.

Ms Pearson said: 'The history of defamation in Singapore shows a pattern of making people pay dearly for exercising the basic right of peaceful expression.

'Singapore has nothing to fear from a vocal opposition and its people have everything to gain.'

It's True Protests do not lead to anarchy, but ...

I refer to the SDP's article "Protests do not lead to anarchy". As per normal, SDP had tried to subtly mislead readers. We shall examine each of the untruths and then argue against them. The sentences in quotes are extracts from the SDP's article.

"Why must closed minds conjure images of pandemonium and anarchy when we talk about protests? Why can't protests be civil, disciplined, and peaceful as demonstrated by peoples all over the democratic world? Why must people who call for protests and challenge unjust laws be always demonised?"

By inference, SDP feels that Singapore is already a true democracy. Protests have never been always been civil, disciplined and peaceful ALL OVER the democratic world.

"Laws against protests in Singapore were not handed down through some heavenly edict. They were introduced by white men to subjugate brown, yellow, and black ones during their colonial rule."

Did Democracy come from the East?

"Have protests suddenly become morally acceptable? The truth is that freedom of assembly has never been morally undesirable. It is dictators that, for obvious reasons, outlaw them and give the convenient excuse that protests are bad for society."

I don't remember any PAP leaders comparing the act of protest to morality.

SDP to pay S$610,000

There's a price to pay for disrespecting the judicial court and irresponsible accusations. Even before SDP gets itself into lawsuits, the precedent cases of defamation suits were abundant. The Opposition knows it, and we have seen how Workers' Party and Singapore Democratic Alliance could win elections without slandering others.

SDP leaders have to be responsible for slander. The only chance they had in court to bring in their valid arguments was wasted away by the drama they created within the court. At the end of the day, after SDP leaders had fun in the courtroom, they started to blame it on others (PAP) instead of reflecting on themselves.

PM Lee, MM Lee awarded 6-figure sums in libel case against SDP & party leaders

Margaret Perry, Channel NewsAsia

The High Court has awarded six-figure sums to both Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew in their libel case against the Singapore Democratic Party and its leaders.

Justice Belinda Ang said she came to the conclusion that a fair and reasonable figure for damages was S$500,000 for Mr Lee Hsien Loong and S$450,000 to Mr Lee Kuan Yew for defamatory remarks which appeared in an SDP publication during the 2006 General Election.

After taking into account the S$170,000 which each plaintiff had earlier received in settlement from six other defendants, she awarded damages of S$330,000 to be paid to Prime Minister Lee and S$280,000 to Minister Mentor Lee.

Justice Ang said the amount was commensurate with and proportionate to the gravity of the libel and the "egregious behaviour" of the defendants Chee Soon Juan and Chee Siok Chin.

Justice Ang said defendants Chee Soon Juan and Chee Siok Chin had played to the gallery.

She ordered them to pay aggravated damages, saying they had attempted to establish the truth of the libel under the pretext of cross-examining the plaintiffs.

She added the plaintiffs had been "subjected to insulting behaviour and more than unpleasant cross-examination, which increased their sense of having been ridiculed and humiliated".

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/382524/1/.html

SDP Treats the Court as a Circus

Referring to the SDP article "Lighter moments in court", we can now be convinced that the championing of rules of law by the SDP is insincere.

In previous trials in court where Dr Chee and Ms Chee were debating with the MM and PM Lee, the Chees had already shouted in court and failed to respect the judiciary in doing so. However, some Singaporeans then felt that they had done a good job in bringing out some of the common grievances of the population.

This time round, it finally confirmed the lack of respect of the Courts by SDP.

"The DPP interjected saying that the defendants were jumping to conclusion that they would be found guilty. The defendants chuckled to themselves, one of whom was Mr John Tan, SDP's assistant secretary-general.

Mr Tan then remarked: That's really funny."

How are Singaporeans going to believe that SDP wants to champion on the platform of rule of law when it has no basic respect for the institution of law?

Our Students Grow

I refer to the SDP article "Let our students grow". In it SDP portrayed a skewed image of education opportunities in local University. I would like to use National University of Singapore (NUS) as an example to debate some of the points mentioned by SDP.

"A check with the NUS Students' Union website showed little discussion of national affairs. The section on “Events” is blank and “Current Issues” highlights the unhappiness of the fee hike – in 2006! “NUSSU News” carries a news flash that dates back to February this year."

Discussion of national affairs should never be seen to be restricted to whatever appears on websites. There are various student organisations and initiatives found on the NUS Student Organisations page.

"What about party politics? Why are our universities so consistent in their aversion to opposition parties visiting their campuses?"

It's faulty to state that universities are averse to opposition parties visiting their campuses because the NUS Democratic Socialist Club has on many counts, invited opposition leaders to address students.

"Although DSC is a non-partisan student political organization, the club's leadership saw the
political necessity to push forward the agenda of raising undergraduates' awareness to strive
for a politics of balance in Singapore. Hence our administration was remembered for an

unprecedented back-to-back Kent Ridge Forums , featuring only oppositional personalities.

Speakers in the 2 forums included Chaim See Tong, Low Thia Khiang, JBJ & Chee Soon
Juan." (Yaw Shin Leong, 2007)

To conclude, SDP should not tout itself to the students and appear desperate in its attempt to find a platform to outreach to the public. Looking at the opposition websites, it turns out that SDP seemed to be the only one that did not bother to wish our Muslim brothers Hari Raya Aidilfitri. Lacking grassroots support has always been the detriment of opposition parties.

SDP advocates Civil Disobedience at Home

SDP reported that "Even Al Gore advocates civil disobedience".

This is what Al Gore said:

"If you're a young person looking at the future of this planet and looking at what is being done right now, and not done, I believe we have reached the stage where it is time for civil disobedience to prevent the construction of new coal plants that do not have carbon capture and sequestration."

By interpreting the "civil disobedience" used by Al Gore in a political slant would be to miss out the whole picture of what he actually means. By just extracting the words and not the essence of his speech, SDP again attempts to justify itself.

Well, if we were to do the same to SDP, then we can safely say that SDP advocates Civil Disobedience at Home (and anywhere else)!

Source:
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/09/25/gore.carbon/index.html

Light Bulb Jokes

What does it take to replace a fused light bulb?

PAP:

Engage foreign talents to check out the best method to replace the bulb. They will be paid according to what other experts are being paid. For manpower, foreign workers would be employed to cut down the operating cost.

To make it cost-effective, people using the bulb would pay a fee. The fee calculation is intrinsically very complexed. If you use it for a long period of time without turning it off, you pay more. But if you periodically switch on and off, you have rebates for using it but everytime you switch on, you pay an additional fee.

In the end, there is surplus and it's redistributed back to those who use the bulb.

WP:

Insist on using local talents to do the job. Their remunerations are benchmarked upon the multiplication of a factor by the lowest paid worker. The workers contracted are all locals.

To make it affordable for workers, there will be minimum fees imposed. Unions will be consulted if operating costs rise and if workers strike, then lights would not be turned on and cost is saved in the end.

SDA:

Who does the job doesn't really matter BUT it all depends on budget. With such a tight budget, it's hard to accomplish things. Representative will express anger on the tight budget allocation.

In the end, the bulb is still left unfixed. However, the supporters still rally with pride because they know they are unfairly treated.

Reform Party:

Newly established, this does not mean they lack the experience given the veteran level of the leader. The bulbs will not be replaced because the whole system is faulty!

The entire building will be demolished and rebuilt from scratch. That is how a bulb should be fixed.

SDP:

Gather a group of supporters and get them to wear Tak Boleh Tahan Shirts to protest against the spoilt bulb. At the same time, books, apparels, accessories will be retailed to gather enough money to sustain the group and if there are excess, then fix the bulb.

When enough money is gathered, fixing the bulb will be via Democratic means. That is, everyone gets to vote on the bulb wattage, the company to engage, the time for them to fix, and the list goes on. During the voting period, all are welcome to express their concern and anger since they have freedom of speech and the right to assemble.

When the votes support an unrealistic way to replace the bulb, the bulb will not be replaced! All the supporters will quietly sit down and perform a hunger strike (with glucose water sponsored). This is called "Civilised Naughtiness". The process will be recorded and downloadable via youtube so that no one misses out on the fun.

Where was SDP reading about AVA?

Extracted from Channel NewsAsia website: http://www.cnachinese.com/stories/singapore/view/64824/1/gb/.html

"Q10. Why didn’t AVA detect the presence of melamine in the affected products earlier?

Melamine is not allowed to be used in food. The unusual use of the melamine chemical, which was deliberately added to adulterate milk to give a false impression of its protein content, led to the recent melamine contamination incidents of milk in China. Under normal circumstances, melamine would not be a hazard associated with milk and not routinely tested in food safety screening by authorities worldwide."

SDP needs to complain objectively, not obscure the facts when they are already present. SDP website stated the following:

Are we to understand that these contaminated products were earlier allowed in despite testing at AVA? Was someone asleep at the switch? If not, how did these items reach the supermarket shelves?

Given such unfair remarks, would anyone in AVA even vote for SDP?

SDP can't differentiate a state from a government

It is disappointing to read that members of a political party (SDP, for this instance) do not know the difference between a state and a government.

For your info,

State refers to the set of governing and supportive institutions that have sovereignty over a definite territory and population.

A government is the organization, that is the governing authority of a political unit.

Could we now trust SDP to champion on Democracy (Gee, they might not know what that means).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SDP attempts to mislead Singaporeans into believing that the government is corrupted, unlike the findings of Transparency International, that ranks Singapore 4th least corrupt in the world.

SDP's article read "Singapore a clean state?". SDP is referring to a country as a whole, while CPI measured the degree of corruption in the public sector and politicians. See below:

"What is the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI)?

The Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index ranks countries in terms of the degree to which corruption is perceived to exist among public officials and politicians. It is a composite index, a poll of polls, drawing on corruption-related data from expert and business surveys carried out by a variety of independent and reputable institutions. The CPI reflects views from around the world, including those of experts who are living in the countries evaluated. Transparency International commissions the CPI from Johann Graf Lambsdorff, Chair Economic Theory, University of Passau and Senior Research Advisor to TI."^

Perhaps why Singapore was placed fourth and not better is because of some politicians. For example, there is one politician from SDP that misappropriated research funds.

Challenge to the SDP

Show Singaporeans the amount of online donations that SDP has accumulated. The "donate" button had been on the website for a very long period of time. How can Singaporeans be assured that SDP had not engaged in money laundering with the donations?

Even Barack Obama announces the campaign donation amount. See: http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/02/04/obama-sets-record-with-january-donations-online-donations-88-of-total/

Failing to disclose the SDP donation amount just places a tight slap onto the faces of SDP members.

Source:
^ http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2008/faq#general1

SDP claims it provides balanced, moderate, mature arguments

Upon reading the letter from SDP Assistant Secretary-General to the Editor of Chinese newspaper Lianhe ZaoBao, I couldn't control myself but to laugh out loudly. In the letter, SDP claims that it provides "balanced, moderate, mature arguments".

NOT MY SDP shall now debunk all the untruths enclosed in the letter.

"There is certainly an effort to try to paint the Singapore Democrats as extremists. The SDP makes no apology for challenging the present political system and, more importantly, working to reform it.

Our objective is to ensure that the PAP Government respects democratic principles as enshrined in our Constitution. These principles include the freedoms of speech, association and assembly."

Liberal Democracy includes the notion of the Rule of Law, the principle that no one is above the law. SDP seems to appreciate Democracy at face value by going against the law of Singapore. One good example will be the protest conducted outside Parliament House.

"The actions of the SDP and other pro-democracy activists, which included the use of civil disobedience, have led to the opening up of Speakers' Corner for demonstrations, albeit in a very limited way. The Government has, belatedly, acknowledged the necessity of protests."

How could SDP be said to provide mature argument when SDP assumes that the liberalisation of the Speakers' Corner was due to the people who used civil disobedience? It puts SDP to shame for claiming credit for every forms of liberalisation of the politics in the country.

Another assumption was made that the "Government acknowledged the necessity of protests". Mature?

"On the point about the SDP website losing readers, we'll let the statistics speak for themselves:

... We don't think these figures point to the SDP 'rapidly losing its readers,' do you?

If anything, they support the view that "most web users will still want to hear balanced, moderate, mature arguments." And that's what the SDP intends to continue doing on our website."

First of all, the statistics provided show only one face of the truth. According to Alexa, only 45.6% of the visitors to the SDP website are Singaporeans, with 41.8% from China. PAP, on the other hand, has 77% of its visitors who are Singaporeans.

The underlying assumption, or the path that SDP wants to mislead us into, is that the greater the number of readers of a website, the better is the quality of that website. Anyone who has Internet access would know this is not true! Pornographic sites are equally populated with readers, for instance.

The heavy traffic to the SDP site is predominantly due to the sensationalised reporting of issues.

Since SDP is telling us Internet Statistics...

• Among PAP, WP, SPP, NSP and SDP, SDP is the only website that lacks a Singapore domain. Instead of a ".org.sg", SDP has a ".org". Even before yoursdp.org is bought as a domain by SDP, the original singaporedemocrat.org also lacks a Singapore domain. ".org.sg" domain "is for organisations which are either registered or are about to be registered with the Registry of Societies (ROS) including other miscellaneous organisation."^ What does this tell of the SDP?
  
  
• Since SDP wants to base their statistics from Alexa, we'll do the same. According to Alexa, only 45.6% of the visitors to the SDP website (yoursdp.org) are Singaporeans, with 41.8% from China. Another SDP domain "singaporedemocrat.org" is even worse, with only 33.7% Singaporean readers. PAP, on the other hand, has 77% of its visitors who are Singaporeans.
  
  Verify it yourself! View the Alexa ranking for SDP website at http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/yoursdp.org
  
  OR
  
  Go to www.alexa.com, enter "yoursdp.org" into the search field and select Site Ranking. Then click on Go. At the search results page, scroll to the bottom of the page to find out the truth.

P.S. Alexa data provided is dated on 25 September 2008.

Source:
http://yoursdp.org/news/singapore/1138-this-website-losing-readers-look-again
^ SGNIC - http://www.sgnic.sg/sub_about/sg_domains.html

SDP wants Singaporeans to seek inspiration from Malaysia regarding ISA

Quotes below are extracts from Lawyers demand repeal of ISA.

But what is even more tragic is that while the Malaysian lawyers are honouring their duty to be the guardians of justice, the Law Society of Singapore (LSS) is dead silent on this matter even though its stated mission is to "protect and assist the public in all matters relating to law."

This was not always the case. Mr Francis Seow, former president of the Society, was a strong advocate for the people's rights. In 1987, he had objected to a proposed bill that allowed the Government to control foreign newspapers.

"Seow had, before the elections, been arrested and detained under the Internal Security Act for allegedly acting as a stooge of the Americans in their attempt to promote democracy in Singapore."^

When one of its members Mr Chia Ti Lik wrote to the Society on behalf of himself and 17 other activists who were charged with taking part in the Tak Boleh Tahan protest outside Parliament House earlier this year, its president, Mr Michael Hwang, said that the organisation had "no views" on the matter.

... We can only look forward to the day our Singaporean lawyers would be courageous enough to do what they swore to uphold, that is, to defend the cause of justice without fear or favor.

There's no wrong in "no views" by the Law Society President. Protesting is against the law. Protesting outside a heavily guarded premise makes it even worse. The activists were charged accordingly, so how could the Law Society have alternate views to the matter?

Source:
Lawyers demand repeal of ISA
^ Worker's Party History

SDP toying with sensitive racial issues

Maintaining racial harmony is of paramount importance in a multiracial society like Singapore's. It is therefore dangerous and irresponsible for SDP to toy with such sensitive racial issues to further its objectives.

A talk on getting Tamil language in public signs had been rejected by the Police, as it related to racial issues. The regulations of usage of Hong Lim Park includes:

the person does not deal with any matter-
(i) which relates, directly or indirectly, to any religious belief or to religion generally; or
(ii) which may cause feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will or hostility between different racial or religious groups in Singapore

Majority of Indians in Singapore speak the Tamil language. By threading on the line of language, it could provoke racial tensions.

SDP has quoted oral interviews of some disappointed participants in their online article. Whether the interviews are genuine is worth a thought since none of the names of interviewees were recorded.

The main point is that SDP is playing a dangerous game by toying with sensitive racial issues. A political party should act responsibly and refrain from stoking or fanning racial tensions. Its report on the matter is uncalled for and is sensationalised with strong emotions. Such a report should not be dismissed as a possible spark to racial conflicts.

We hereby hope that SDP remove the article "Spectators cornered at Speakers' Corner" immediately.

Reference:
NParks Speakers' Corner Registration Guidelines

SDP exploiting student unions to spread SDP propaganda

In light of the removal of reports of SDP's visit to the NTU campus,

In light of the controversy over the banning of the news reports of the SDP in the Nanyang Chronicle and Nanyang Spectrum, I would like to ask the NTUSU if it would organise a forum where we can address the students of NTU.

There is obvious interest among your fellow students in our message and I am sure that the NTUSU is also interested in ensuring that the student body is exposed to a diversity of views and opinions. A forum where we can speak would go a long way towards this end.

(Note that SDP used the term "banning" of the news reports, when it was only a removal from the newspapers)

SDP seems to be very interested in microcosm. Being a small party and securing few votes in elections, SDP feels that a crowd of less than 50 students meant the majority of NTU students. Now we know why SDP fails to win elections, cuz' it has a small box and it thinks within it.

Jokes aside, the SDP has from time to time acted in an irresponsible way. SDP choice of contacting the student union instead of the school shows how it seeks to undermine authority. Without respect for authority, how then could SDP command respect?

Furthermore, it was NTU President Su Guaning who requested for the removal of the reports. SDP should have sent a letter to him instead and reason it out.

The likely outcome of a forum would most likely instill resentment of the school authority into students. With biased views and rude comments from SDP, students might fall into the myths that it attempts to create.

Challenge to the SDP!

SDP proclaimed that many NUS, NTU students are keen to know more about SDP and its views. We hereby challenge the SDP to organise a seminar and invite the varsity students to attend it. Then we will certainly know how many students are actually interested about SDP's views.

Not living up to the challenge would mean:

• SDP is not sincere in spreading its message to students
• SDP merely wants to tap on student bodies to achieve its aims - spread SDP propaganda
• SDP does not garner much support from students after all
• SDP prefers to have Hawaiian Parties than spreading its message
  

Alert NTU prevents SDP exploitation

NTU students were going to report the visit of Dr Chee Soon Juan and members of the SDP in their campus newspaper, The Nanyang Chronicles. However, NTU President Su Guaning removed the report just one day before publication.

According to Associate Professor Benjamin Detenber, Chair of NTU’s Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information (WKWSCI), which runs both campus media, the university’s position is that the story was killed because “there was a feeling of concern over the use of student media to publicise and promote the unsolicited views of an uninvited person to the campus.”

Fortunate for NTU's alertness, the free advertisement of SDP was prevented. Here are some reasons that NTU is justified for their actions:

• SDP did not seek approval of NTU for its visit. Technically, SDP trespassed NTU campus.
• Student media should not be exploited as publicity for political parties, SDP in this case.
• The approval of publicising the SDP article would mean that the student media can report on any agents or company representatives that came uninvited to NTU campus and grant them free publicity as well.
• Student media should be objective in nature.
• The Nanyang Chronicles aims to provide "timely campus news and information as well as being the voice of the campus population." Therefore, it was right of NTU to publish the visit of former President of India, Dr APJ Abdul Kalam instead. He attended a conferment ceremony in NTU, which is drew more crowd and is of more significance to the campus population than the handful of students who stayed around the SDP.
  

Source:
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2008/09/ntu-censors-campus-news-coverage-of-chee-soon-juan-visit/#comment-21748

AIA Policy Holders need not Worry

Thanks to the strict MAS policies on insurers, AIA policy holders in Singapore need not worry.

As always, SDP chooses to only report on the worries of the policy holders without I) offering solutions, II) mentioning that they need not worry due to the MAS policy.

MAS' Response to Queries on AIA:

"MAS has received queries from the public on the regulatory requirements which insurance companies have to meet, in particular, AIA Singapore.

As with all insurance companies in Singapore, AIA is required under the Insurance Act to maintain statutory insurance funds, including an investment-linked fund. These funds are segregated from its head office and other shareholders’ funds. Within these insurance funds, AIA must maintain sufficient assets to meet all its liabilities to policyholders, which include participating policies and investment-linked policies. The value of these assets is not linked to AIA's or AIG’s financial condition, but like all investments, their value may be affected by general market conditions. MAS requires all insurance companies in Singapore to manage their investment risks carefully and we are monitoring the situation closely.

There are also queries on whether the financial condition of AIG would have an impact on AIA. AIA currently has sufficient assets in its insurance funds to meet its liabilities to policyholders. Policyholders should, therefore, not act hastily to terminate their insurance policies with AIA as they may suffer losses from the premature termination and lose the insurance protection they may need. "

Source:
http://www.mas.gov.sg/news_room/letters_to_editors/2008/Comments_by_MAS_Spokesperson_on_AIA.html

Student Online Newspaper recalls the nasty past of SDP

The Campus Observer reported SDP's nasty past. Here's some excerpts:

In 1993, Chee had his position at NUS terminated for misappropriating research funds. In protest against the termination of his contract, he went on a hunger strike claiming the charges were fabricated.

“The crowd was quite small. I do not know whether they have reached enough people.”

Read the full article at http://campus-observer.org/content/view/184/33/

Pilot your own Destiny

Dear students,

In the past few weeks members from the SDP had visited you in your schools. They had generated for themselves some publicity for their visits. They had not sought approval before they distributed their flyers and challenged your school authorities when confronted.

Failing to get approval for flyer distribution, SDP had proposed that students organise activities which could bring the party in to speak with students.

Why are they doing this and what are their objectives?

This is what they claim:

"For years, if not decades, the PAP Government has taken from you a valuable component of your tertiary education.

While students from top universities in the UK, US and Australia are providing quality education where students have the opportunity to develop their leadership skills, here in Singapore the Government is more interested in churning out graduates for the economy. It discourages students from engaging in social and political issues so much so that your educational experience is decidedly stunted."

The actual fact is that "NUS was ranked 33rd in the world and 4th in Asia in the Times Higher Education Supplement-Quacquarelli Symonds (THES-QS) University Rankings 2007. NUS continued to fare well in the major disciplines. It is top in Asia for Life Sciences & Biomedicine and Social Sciences, taking the 12th and 20th spots respectively in the world ranking for these disciplines. NUS also emerged second among Asian universities for Technology and Arts & Humanities while ranked 10th and 21st in the world respectively. The University remained within the world’s top 25 for Natural Sciences."^

"... the Government has bred this I-me-mine culture where few care beyond what affects them personally."

The fact is that "a survey five years ago by the National Volunteer and Philanthropy Centre put the national volunteering percentage at 14.9% - up from 9.3% two years earlier."^^

SDP asked of you to be the "stewards of your own destiny", being guided by the inaccuracies of SDP propaganda. We asked of you to Pilot your own destiny. Apply your critical reasoning skills to sift out the untruths within the SDP propaganda. Do not be led by the nose with sensationalised, one-faced reporting.

For instance, while SDP posted the article "Temasek's Merrill investment bleeds as economic outlook worsens" and cause readers to be skeptical of the PAP government, SDP hid the actual results of the investment "Temasek may reap $15billion Gain from Merrill Lynch Takeover".

Bear in mind that Dr Chee Soon Juan was a Pyschology Lecturer in NUS, before he was booted out due to misuse of research funds. He craftly manages the SDP propaganda in way to lead Singaporeans by the nose.

Ultimately the decision lies within your hands. Be the Pilot? Or the Steward?

Be a Responsible Citizen.

Join the NOT MY SDP movement!

Sources & References:
^ NUS Ranking : http://newshub.nus.edu.sg/headlines/0711/ranking_21nov07.htm
^^ Student Volunteerism on the rise in Singapore : http://www.worldvolunteerweb.org/browse/countries/singapore/doc/student-volunteerism-on-the.html
http://yoursdp.org/index.php/news/singapore/1063-be-the-stewards-of-your-own-destiny

Temasek May Reap $1.5 Billion Gain From Merrill Lynch Takeover

By Chen Shiyin
Bloomberg

Sept. 15 (Bloomberg) -- Temasek Holdings Pte., the biggest shareholder of Merrill Lynch & Co., may reap gains of $1.5 billion from the sale of the third-biggest U.S. securities firm to Bank of America Corp.

The biggest U.S. consumer bank said today it agreed to buy Merrill for $50 billion in stock, or $29 a share. The Singapore sovereign wealth fund paid $5.9 billion since December for about 14 percent of Merrill at an average price of $23.11 a share, based on Bloomberg calculations from exchange filings.

Bank of America's purchase price is 70 percent more than Merrill's closing price of $17.05 in New York trading on Sept. 12. The shares fell 68 percent this year, after the company reported writedowns and credit losses of more than $52 billion, the second-most among the world's largest banks and securities firms, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

``It's a huge premium and I expect that there's been some discussion behind closed doors to come up with a price that is justifiable and that everyone is happy with, including Temasek,'' said Daphne Roth, Singapore-based head of equity research in Asia at ABN Amro Private Bank, which manages about $30 billion of regional assets.

Bank of America's purchase will help ensure that 94-year- old Merrill, which employs the largest U.S. brokerage force and owns about half of New York-based BlackRock Inc., won't become the next casualty of the global credit crisis. So far, Merrill has suffered $19 billion in net losses tied to mortgages.

`Premature'

Temasek, which manages more than $130 billion, first paid $5 billion between December and February for about 10 percent of Merrill at $48 a share.

The Singapore company said on July 29 it will invest a further $900 million in the securities firm, after receiving a $2.5 billion so-called reset payment for losses from its earlier purchase. The sum was used to pay for $3.4 billion of Merrill stock at $22.50 a share, according to filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

``It is premature for Temasek to comment,'' the Singapore company said in an e-mailed statement today.

Other key investors who took stakes in the New York-based brokerage may also join Temasek in reporting gains from their investments.

Korea Investment Corp., one of at least six investment funds that bought a combined $6.6 billion of convertible preferred shares from Merrill in January, said in a statement on July 29 that it converted 72 million Merrill shares at $27.50 apiece.

Korea Investment's Gains

The sale of Merrill to Bank of America will net the Seoul- based fund profits of about $108 million, according to Bloomberg calculations. An official at the sovereign wealth fund declined to comment today.

Kuwait Investment Authority, a fund that manages the Middle Eastern emirate's wealth, held a 6 percent stake, or about 73.9 million shares, in Merrill after converting $2 billion of convertible preferred stock, according to an Aug. 6 regulatory filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. An official couldn't immediately be reached in his office and didn't respond to a e-mailed query.

Davis Selected Advisors LP, a closely held money manager, and Mizuho Financial Group Inc., Japan's third-largest publicly traded bank by market value, were among other investors who bought stakes in Merrill.

To contact the reporter on this story: Chen Shiyin in Singapore at schen37@bloomberg.net.

Last Updated: September 15, 2008 04:27 EDT

Source:http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601080&sid=aydBphNeL.Cw&refer=asia#

HK, Singapore voted having best judicial systems in Asia

Channel NewsAsia

Regional financial centres Hong Kong and Singapore have the best judicial systems in Asia, with Indonesia and Vietnam the worst, a survey of expatriate business executives showed.

The judiciary "is one of Indonesia's weakest and most controversial institutions, and many consider the poor enforcement of laws to be the country's number one problem," said the Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC).

Some court rulings in Indonesia have been "so controversial that they have seriously hurt confidence of foreign companies," said PERC, without giving specific examples.

In the PERC survey, Hong Kong's judicial system topped the vote with a score of 1.45 on a scale that has zero representing the best performance and 10 the worst.

Regional rival Singapore was in second place with a grade of 1.92, followed by Japan (3.50), South Korea (4.62), Taiwan (4.93) and the Philippines (6.10).

Malaysia was in seventh place with a grade of 6.47, followed by India (6.50), Thailand (7.00) and China (7.25). Indonesia got the worst score of 8.26 after Vietnam's 8.10.

The Hong Kong-based consultancy said 1,537 corporate executives working in Asia were asked to rate the judicial systems in the countries where they reside, using such variables as the protection of intellectual property rights (IPR) and corruption.

Transparency, enforcement of laws, freedom from political interference and the experience and educational standards of lawyers and judges were also considered.

"Year after year our perception surveys show a close correlation between how expatriates rate judicial systems and how they rate the openness of a particular economy," PERC said.

"Better judicial systems are associated with better IPR protection, lower corruption and wealthier economies."

The less favourable perception of China's and Vietnam's judicial systems are rooted in political interference, PERC said, adding that the Communist Party "is above the law in both countries."

Despite India and the Philippines being democracies, expatriates did not look favourably on their judicial systems because of corruption, PERC added.

Malaysia's judicial system has suffered a "serious reputation damage due to political interference," while expatriates in Thailand "have serious doubts" that moves to expand the judiciary's powers will be good for the country, it said.

PERC noted the survey involved expatriate business executives, not political activists, so criteria like contracts and IPR protection were given more weight. - AFP/de

Source:
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/375900/1/.html

SDP's Deja vu Hawaiian Music Video

I thought I saw this somewhere before...



Didn't know bankrupts could enjoy themselves so lavishly.

SDP - the next NKF in the making?

Hopefully SDP donors wouldn't be saying "Where are our money?"

Our Nation Under Lee or Malaysia's Nation?

SDP had succeeded in screening the film One Nation Under Lee in different parts of Malaysia. The film is critical of MM Lee Kuan Yew and the PAP. One wonders the intention behind SDP's action.

Is it our Nation Under Lee or Malaysia's Nation?

"Mr Michael Fernandez, a former trade unionist imprisoned without trial by the PAP government, ... also pointed out it was wrong to compare tiny Singapore with Malaysia which is so much bigger and where there is much more room for dissent and alternative views to flourish."

Then why screen the film in Malaysia? And do you mean we should have a bigger political chaotic situation in Singapore?

Malaysian reviewer, Mr Andrew Sia, had this to say about the film: "Even though part of it seems like a Powerpoint presentation, it manages to engage – a lesson here for shoestring budget film makers."

Even powerpoint presentations can make it to be screened?

Also, at the end of the second day of the three-day film festival, filmmakers from Singapore and Johor held a brainstorming session to coordinate their work to achieve greater synergy.

Perhaps one day, SDP would succeed PAP by overthrowing them with the help from the GREATER SYNERGY with the Malaysians.

Good Luck to all.

Source:
http://yoursdp.org/index.php/news/singapore/1058-one-nation-under-lee-receives-warm-reception-in-johor-baru

Wall St Journal Asia sued

Sue-Ann Chi
The Straits Times

THE Singapore Government is taking the Wall Street Journal Asia (WSJA) newspapers and its editors to court, accusing them of contempt of court.

It alleges that three articles the WSJA had published in June and July 'impugn the impartiality, integrity and independence of the Singapore Judiciary'.

This statement was posted on the website of the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) yesterday when it got approval from the High Court to start legal proceedings.

Two of the articles are the newspaper's editorials, while the third is a letter by Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) chief Chee Soon Juan.

Those who will face the charge of contempt of court are: Dow Jones Publishing (Asia), which owns and publishes WSJA; Mr Daniel Hertzberg, editor, international of WSJA; and WSJA managing editor Christine Glancey.

When contacted last night, a Dow Jones spokesman, speaking for all of them, declined to comment.

All three articles allege the Singapore Judiciary is not independent, the AGC said in its online statement.

'It is further insinuated that the Singapore Judiciary is biased and lacks integrity. These allegations and insinuations in these items are unwarranted,' it added.

One of the editorials examined the lack of democracy in Singapore and included an account of the exchange in court between Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew and SDP chief Chee Soon Juan.

The hearing in May was to assess defamation damages Dr Chee, his sister and the SDP had to pay Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and MM Lee.

The other editorial was on the Singapore Judiciary, following a report by the International Bar Association's Human Rights Institute in July. The 72-page report alleges executive interference in the Judiciary.

In its online statement, the AGC also said: 'This case is not about freedom of expression. It is about the rule of law.'

The courts, it added, play a vital role in good governance. Hence, an 'unwarranted attack' against the Judiciary is an 'assault on the rule of law in Singapore'.

'It is a fundamental principle of the administration of justice and rule of law that disappointed litigants or persons with a particular philosophy or agenda should not undermine the authority of the courts.

'This is completely against the public interest. Words or actions that undermine the authority of the court or judges amount to contempt of court,' it said.

The AGC also pointed out that the articles were published at a time when the Far Eastern Economic Review, a sister publication of the WSJA, is being sued for defamation by PM Lee and MM Lee.

It could not be confirmed yesterday whether Dow Jones had received notice of the legal suit.

Getting the High Court's approval to start contempt proceedings is the first of a two-stage process.

Once the nod is given, as it was yesterday at a closed-door session, the Attorney-General will take the next step.

The other parties will be officially notified of the lawsuit and a hearing date will be set for both sides to present their arguments in open court.

Source:
http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Courts%2Band%2BCrime/Story/STIStory_277753.html

SDP trespasses NUS to distribute flyers

Would you be worried if unauthorised personnels trespassed into your school?

I sure would, and I believe you would too. Singapore Democratic Party members did just that. Without informing NUS about its visit, SDP members trespassed the school compound and started distributing flyers to students.

Recently, there had been cases of outrage of modesty of NUS Students within the school compound. NUS students should call Campus Security at 6874 1616 when they spot such unauthorised personnels.

Today, we shall analyse and desensationalise the SDP's article "NUS officials stop Democrats from distributing flyers".

"We have to protect the interests of our students," the official said.

"From what?" Dr Chee asked. "Are you running a university or a kindergarten?"

It is typical of Dr Chee to intimidate authorities. It is perhaps due to the fact that PAP Ministers frequently intimidate him politically. OR that he's trying to show what he's got.

A staff member walking by could not resist taking a dig at the officers: "Great job, guys. Thanks so much from keeping us safe!" Messrs Ng and Peck could only smile sheepishly.

It seems strange that a NUS staff would actually pass such sarcastic remarks to his/her own colleagues (both Directors). It is more likely that the "staff member" is some SDP member cloaking as a NUS staff, since it's easy to purchase a NUS windbreaker from the NUS Coop Bookshop.

Just then several students wanted to take a picture with Dr Chee. A few asked for autographs.

Turning to Mr Ng, Dr Chee said: "The students don't look like they want your protection."

Firstly, it's quite a rare occasion to see someone who frequents the courtroom and the prison in campus. Secondly, by supporting the students to go against school authorities, Dr Chee is sending out an incorrect message. Besides, publicly embarrassing people does not make good PR. You just lost some votes. Trust me, one day the students will turn against you too.

"I have been to Japan many times," one first-year Engineering student said, "and I've never seen seventy- and eighty-year-olds sweeping the floor and cleaning tables like in Singapore. It's so sad." He added that the University seems to be mass producing graduate robots.

The National University of Singapore (NUS) has been ranked amongst the World's Top 20 and Top 3 universities in Asia in the QS World University Rankings 2006 conducted by the Times Higher Education Supplement (THES). In this annual ranking of the top 200 universities worldwide, NUS shared 2nd place in Asia and 19th spot overall with University of Tokyo.^

A journalism major indicated that she "will never join the Straits Times" after she graduated. She probably learned a thing or two in school that didn't quite square with the nonsense that was practiced in the state newspaper.

While it's true that the media might be a bit bias towards the government, it's not easy to become a ST journalists as well. It's for SPH to choose anyway. SDP conveniently proclaimed that this student PROBABLY ... Sensationalisation spotted.

"That's not hard to figure out," Dr Chee explained. "From years of authoritarian rule where students have been cowed into silence, we have bred a very unhealthy university culture. The sad part is that you are being deprived of the type of cutting edge educational experience that your counterparts in the top universities elsewhere are getting."

Again, NUS is ranked top 20. Dr Chee needs to re-enter the classrooms again to find out how Singaporean students are getting more vocal. Oops, NUS kicked him out.

Turning back to officialdom, Dr Chee said that all the SDP wanted to do was to raise political awareness among the students.

I beg to differ. The SDP is more interested in getting into the spotlight and gaining attention. By trespassing the campus compound, and challenging the school authorities, SDP tried to seize the opportunity to show that political freedom is restricted in Singapore. However, the school authorities had the students' interests in mind and the whole issue is not about political censorship.

"It's also about developing one's intellectual and moral character... "

I wouldn't dare to say moral character if I misused official funds, like what Taiwan ex-President Chen Shui Bian (and someone in Singapore) did.

Dr Chee then asked some of the students to take the lead and organise themselves to raise political and social awareness on campus.

It is a ploy to raise awareness of SDP instead.

No More Untruths from SDP!

Source:
^ http://newshub.nus.edu.sg/headlines/0610/ranking_07oct06.htm