Tuesday, September 30, 2008

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)!


Sunday, September 28, 2008

Light Bulb Jokes

What does it take to replace a fused light bulb?


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.


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.


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.


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.

Saturday, September 27, 2008

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?

Friday, September 26, 2008

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.

Thursday, September 25, 2008

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


    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.

^ SGNIC - http://www.sgnic.sg/sub_about/sg_domains.html

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

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?

Lawyers demand repeal of ISA
^ Worker's Party History

Saturday, September 20, 2008

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.

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

Thursday, September 18, 2008

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.

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. "


Tuesday, September 16, 2008

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

Temasek May Reap $1.5 Billion Gain From Merrill Lynch Takeover

By Chen Shiyin

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.


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.

Monday, September 15, 2008

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


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.


Friday, September 12, 2008

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.


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!

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

Wednesday, September 10, 2008

SDP exaggerates the Success of its Propaganda

This is in response to One Nation Under Lee seizure to be raised at UN meeting.

Take a first reading of the article by SDP and one would be impressed by the SDP's success in bringing the matter of Human Rights in Singapore to the United Nations. Don't be too impressed yet.
"The seizure of the video One Nation Under Lee by the Government will be raised in Geneva this Friday, 12 Sep 08, during the 9th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council."
The article's introduction paragraph was impressive. Immediately, Singaporeans would feel shocked/surprised/caught in awe/WOWed. However, let's analyse the situation a little.

An Human Rights regional-based organisation, Forum-Asia, would be citing the case of the seizure when presenting to the UN Council. Many Singaporeans might not have heard about this Forum-Asia. It actually consists of 42 member-organisations (largely NGOs) from 16 Asian countries. Think Centre represents Singapore in the organisation.

This is Forum-ASIA. But its head office is situated in Switzerland, with a branch in Thailand.

Readers should not be play to the sensationalised contents of the article by the SDP. It's important to note that Forum-Asia's views does not represent those of any countries in the region.

Next, the video would be showcased at the Freedom Film Fest 2008. The event is organised by Komas. According to its website, its vision is:
"Empowerment with the poor and marginalized community towards the attainment of human rights in Malaysia, through popular communication approaches."
So what's that got to do with a propaganda film by the SDP?

One way we can look at it is that SDP is resorting to all means possible to undermine the PAP government from outside Singapore. However, by doing so, it risks damaging the reputation of the country and its people.

Anwar did it by garnering support from his believers. Thai PAD did it by gathering enough protesters to put pressure on the government.

SDP did it by assistance from outside Singapore

SDP Lacks MasterplanS

It's hilarious to see how SDP got so caught up with a statement by Foreign Minister BG(NS) George Yeo.
"Mr Yeo, who is an MP for Aljunied GRC which includes Serangoon Gardens, said a masterplan was needed to give “some idea of how many foreigners we can accommodate in a sustainable, organic way”, he said."
What the SDP immediately pointed out is:
"You mean that all this time the Government didn't have a plan or "some idea" of how many foreign workers this island can hold?"
As usual, from here we can see how SDP always twist facts. Mr Yeo said that a masterplan was needed to find out how many foreigners can accomodate in a sustainable, organic way. This meant that there could be a masterplan to find out how many of them can enter the island, but no masterplan yet for them to accomodate in a sustainable and organic fashion.

Yet, the SDP was quick to say:
"Shouldn't someone tell the PAP that masterplans come before actions?"
The government already had masterplans... if not how did they bring in foreigners (action)?

Furthermore, from this incident, we can see how SDP loves to gloat over matters.
"Well, thank you very much. Haven't we been pointing out this problem for years? In Aug 06, the SDP warned that "the social impact of the foreign recruitment policy may yet prove disastrous for Singaporeans." (see here) Now it seems that the chickens are coming home to roost."
Even an Aunty from the wet market can tell you that "the social impact of the foreign recruitment policy may bring inconvenience to Singaporeans. We don't need a politician to do that.

Here is where SDP falls short. Given the current situation, what actions would SDP take to accomodate the foreign labour workforce? What policy would SDP formulate if it were the government of the day? That is what Singaporeans need!

Monday, September 8, 2008

Law Faculty Made Good Decision in rejecting SDP visit

SDP wrote a letter to Law Faculty requesting for permission to visit the school and distribute flyers. However, the Law Faculty rejected its request. So, SDP wrote a letter to the Law Faculty. The segments of the letters would be in quote below, as we discuss about this issue.

"I am sure you are able to appreciate the fact that we are not a company or group promoting a product or service for private gain."
It's rightful that a school shouldn't just allow a group to come in to the campus to freely promote books and shirts (like below) together with "democracy" ideals. Only charitable organisations should be given free booths to promote their causes.

"I (Dr Chee) would like to ask if you had consulted the Law Faculty students before you turned down our request to distribute flyers to them. Did the students have a say in your decision?"
If every decision needs to be consulted with the students, maybe the school management would be out of work and students would be conducting referendums everyday. Then... how could we be rank top in the World.

"I ask this because when we were at the campus, students took and read our flyers with great interest. It seems that they want to know more but are prevented from doing so by the university's administration."
I'm sure if a friendly flyer distributor gives out flyers promoting products with Promotional discounts, all the students would take it and read it "with great interest".

"Since our request has been turned down, we would like to make an alternative proposal, that is, to come down to campus and conduct talks and seminars with your students."
Why is it that after the Hong Lim Park is more liberalised, SDP is not utilising it. Anyway, the talks should serve academic purpose. And I thought such talks are usually invited by the schools and not the other way round?

Should SDP publish ALL letters openly? Doing so without permission is a rude behaviour. Is this a message telling us that SDP does not respect privacy?

Image Source:

A Question Unanswered : Dr Chee's misuse of research funds

If we could term a political party as a hero, then SDP would certainly want to claim the title. It seeks to expose all the dirty laundry of the ruling party and other institutions.


There is one question that is not unanswered. That is, what actually happen when Dr Chee was charged for misusing of research funds?

In his books, he is quick to distract readers' thoughts by pointing that the amount was a mere sum of money. It seems that the quietness over this issue meant a silent admission to committing the act/crime.

With Taiwan's ex-President Chen Shui Bian embroiled in corruption scandals, it is hard to imagine the day when Dr Chee becomes PM (if ever).

Dr Chee should be open in this issue and honestly expose what actually happen. This would be to the betterment of the party.

Sunday, September 7, 2008

Undeniable Information from witnesses about M Ravi

SDP reported that there are "conflicting information from IMH about M Ravi". Well, I would argue that there are UNDENIABLE information from WITNESSES about M Ravi.

It was reported in Channel NewsAsia that:

"The lawyer, who has represented the Singapore Democratic Party in previous civil cases, was allegedly disrupting evening prayers at the Jamae Chulia mosque on August 3 at about 7.30pm.

The police said the lawyer is known to have behaved violently and abusively at places of worship, the Subordinate Courts, and other public areas."

Who should we believe this time round? Members of the public who witnessed the action of the lawyer in the mosque and other places? Or the SDP?


Saturday, September 6, 2008

Pressure Builds on SDP

SDP just loves to read articles by foreigners, probably due to the local media biasness towards the government in Singapore.

Referring to the article "Pressure builds on Singapore's system",

... The opening of a protest area is a token gesture, which no doubt will be raised to deflect international criticism the next time police arrest dissident politician Chee Soon Juan for illegal assembly. In that sense, the move suggested that Mr. Chee’s campaign of civil disobedience is causing some heartburn within the regime.

But the real problem is not Mr. Chee—the stressors on Singapore’s political machine lie elsewhere...
I'm glad that even foreign media don't think highly of SDP.

Friday, September 5, 2008

Now is the time to pull ourselves together

This blog entry is to refute some of the myths and legends of Dr. Chee's speech at the SDP's Annual Dinner 2008:

Dr. Chee : The Government insists that we Singaporeans exist only to make money.

Not True! Sports and healthy lifestyle also important:

Dr Chee : Here is this island paradise that works and here is this green-eyed monster wanting to tear everything down.

Well said. A humble acknowledgment of jealousy (green-eyed)?

Dr Chee : But shortly thereafter Speakers' Corner at Hong Lim Park was established... That gave me the first glimpse of how civil disobedience could work. I knew that with the right strategy, we could win or, at the very least, extract concessions from the Government.

So the very act of civil disobedience ain't an inspiration from Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela? Contradicts the usual introduction of the party.

Yes, SDP succeeded in getting more "concessions"... Congrats! You can now demonstrate at Hong Lim Park!

Dr Chee : But I knew deep down in my heart, I was right and they were wrong.

Sounds autocratic.

Dr Chee : Now years later and after several arrests and prison terms, the Government has finally acknowledged the moral imperative of the freedoms of speech and assembly.

Here's the usual psychology playing of the mind, by subtly claiming credit. It's just the change of times, Bro.

Dr Chee : The truth of the matter is that the Government can be made to back down. You have seen with your own eyes that civil disobedience, if carried out in an astute and disciplined manner, works.

See Does SDP really practise Civil Disobedience?

Dr. Chee : The time is right and the conditions favour the reformers. We have the New Media, we have an educated population, and we have the fading away of an old era. These factors are coming together and they spell change.

How would Old era be defined? Older generation? Senior citizens? Fade AWAY???

Dr. Chee : Carpe diem! Seize the day!

Seize power you mean?

Dr. Chee : Many of us are prepared to go to prison. We can't wait to go to court and face the judge and prosecution and to tell the world how politically ridiculous and morally offensive this Government is.

Irresponsible parents... You made little girls cry, don't blame it on MM Lee.

Dr Chee : We all know that it is the Government that has done wrong, not us. We are proud of what we have done. In fact we pledge to do it again.

SDP should be recruited to promote the Yellow Ribbon Project. If it takes over the government, would Singaporeans be encouraged to commit crimes too and then blame it on the government?

Dr. Chee : It has been said that it is far better to light a candle than to curse the darkness.

Well said. Join the light side! Stop cursing the Government.

Reference: http://yoursdp.org/index.php/news/singapore/998-now-is-the-time-to-press-ahead

Thursday, September 4, 2008

Does SDP really practise Civil Disobedience

The SDP propounds:
The Singapore Democrats will encourage the teaching and training of non-violent action for Singaporeans because we see this as the best—and only—way to reform the elections system in Singapore. It may take a long time but as long as we don’t embark on this path, we will forever be letting the PAP run circles round us during elections...

... Nonviolent action describes the act of refusing to obey unjust laws and the demands of a government without resorting to physical violence. A coordinated and concerted withdrawal of that compliance will render the State impotent with its repression. Refusing to cooperate with unjust laws, carried out in a systematic manner, can bring about change. Nonviolent action has been repeatedly used to overcome dictatorships all over the world, most notably in India during Gandhi’s movement for independence, South Africa during the years of apartheid rule, and Taiwan during the Kuomintang’s dictatorship.
According to Wikipedia, Mahatma Gandhi outlined the following rules, in the time when he was leading India in the struggle for Independence from the British Empire:
  1. A civil resister (or satyagrahi) will harbour no anger. [See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aY1ilenkPaM Speakers Cornered]

  2. He will suffer the anger of the opponent.

  3. In so doing he will put up with assaults from the opponent, never retaliate; but he will not submit, out of fear of punishment or the like, to any order given in anger. [See how heat up Dr. Chee gets during the cross-examination http://yoursdp.org/index.php/news/singapore/494-mm-lee-lost-for-words-during-cross-examination-by-chee]

  4. When any person in authority seeks to arrest a civil resister, he will voluntarily submit to the arrest, and he will not resist the attachment or removal of his own property, if any, when it is sought to be confiscated by authorities. [Is that why SDP always challenge the police to arrest them?]

  5. If a civil resister has any property in his possession as a trustee, he will refuse to surrender it, even though in defending it he might lose his life. He will, however, never retaliate. [Okay, I admit Ms. Chee did tried her best to fight against the MDA authorities over "The Nation Under Lee" VCD]

  6. Retaliation includes swearing and cursing. [Take a look at just any posts on the SDP site and you'll see violation of this code in the comments. Also, in background noises in videos of protests, you can hear people cursing]

  7. Therefore a civil resister will never insult his opponent, and therefore also not take part in many of the newly coined cries which are contrary to the spirit of ahimsa.

  8. A civil resister will not salute the Union Flag, nor will he insult it or officials, English or Indian.

  9. In the course of the struggle if anyone insults an official or commits an assault upon him, a civil resister will protect such official or officials from the insult or attack even at the risk of his life.
Has the SDP failed to deliver what it aimed to do?

Or is it that civil disobedience failed to work in Singapore?


What does Hawaii have to do with Singapore's Poverty?

On 31 August 2008, SDP had its annual dinner with a Hawaiian theme.

Hey! Wait a minute!

What about the Tak Boleh Tahan campaign that SDP had been canvassing on for months?

SDP always criticises PAP for bringing Swiss cost of living to Singapore (but not the quality) but SDP can be the second best political party, bringing Hawaii to Singapore!

Back then when PAP MPs were enjoying themselves in parties, SDP criticised them by labelling them "Endangered Party Animals" [See picture below]

Seems like we need to thank PAP for bringing the endangered species back since SDP has also began to party.

SDP, have you forgotten "to stop the Singapore Shame^"?

^ Quoted from http://yoursdp.org/index.php/component/content/article/1-singapore/420-the-singapore-shame

Image Source:

Introduction to Not My SDP - Debunking SDP myths and legends

This is a blog created to counter the myths and legends of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) of Singapore.

The SDP currently has a website with url = www.yoursdp.org .

Well, we created a blog with url = www.notmysdp.blogspot.com

This is not a hate blog or some anti-SDP space. We just feel that not all that SDP do is in line with what they preach. And these are the myths that need to be debunked.

If you agree with what we do and want to join in as an author, just leave a comment and we shall get back to you. Thank you.