Thursday, May 28, 2009

SDP following others' lead

Just as Members of the Parliament brought up the point in Parliament that the Government should focus more on local SMEs and businesses, SDP is quick to say that it is the one that originated the idea in Dr Chee's books.

This is another myth put on by the SDP. In actual fact, various ELECTED Opposition MPs have spoken in Parliament in regards to this matter, way before the Dr Chee wrote his books, or even before he stepped into Parliament.

By falsely saying that SDP is the one pioneering the shift of focus to local SMEs and businesses, SDP is actually showing its myopic and selfish face.

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Another 2 Activists Tak Boleh Tahan and Surrender

TBT Traitor 4: Chia Ti Lik

I read the papers in disbelief. One of the staunchest of the SDP members, Chia Ti Lik surrendered in court and pleaded guilty to "illegal assembly and procession" in front of Parliament House last year.

The reason cited for pleading guilty was "work commitment", a similar reason also cited by Traitor 2: Jeffrey George. This shows that they rather defend their rice bowls than their ideology.

TBT Traitor 5: Suraya binte Akbar

For Traitor 1 - 3, please click here to view

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Not My SDP FaceBook Group

Welcome all patriotic Singaporeans to join the Not My SDP FaceBook Group at

Thursday, May 21, 2009

SDP says Anonymity in Cyber Space is Good

Italics are phrases/sentences copied from SDP's article...

"Challenge the accuser to produce the evidence to back up his or her claims, and even offer to reproduce them on your blog."

This just means NotMySdp is not accusing SDP in our blog and that all our articles give accurate information such that SDP is not countering our claims.

"By going to the police, however, we send the signal that we want the identity of the perpetrator revealed so that action can be taken. Get the police involved and we destroy the promise that the Internet offers."

Yes. It is such irresponsible actions taken that result in sexual predators stalking young girls online and getting away with it. The police should get involved and weed out all these bad crooks.

"there will always be attacks against our persons and reputations. Get used to it."

Talk about integrity. Can you allow others to smear our integrity. I say no. I don't know about our readers, but there is a limit to the accusations that others can do to you. Get too personal and that's it. Safeguarding your integrity is important. Only people who have no self-respect and no integrity would allow people to keep accusing oneself.

"But good leaders should not seek to take action, even though we can, against those who speak ill of us. However venomous and hurtful the words may be, we should rise above the attacks and seek dialogue and debate with our opponents."

SDP is being too idealistic. How do you seek dialogue and debate with your opponents when they are basically launching personal attacks on you. Just look at how SDP supporters create YouTube videos that directly attack Singapore leaders. Do not do unto others what you don't want them to do unto you!

"[SDP] use this website [] to expose these lies with reasoned confrontation and in so doing show up the silliness and emptiness of such people."

I guess SDP worded the article wrongly. Let me rephrase on its behalf: SDP uses to show up the silliness and emptiness of its people. With bias reporting and no practical solutions to every issues qualify SDP to be rated as a irrelevant party.

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

Why Siew Kum Hong is not a SDP Mole

Top 5 reasons why Mr Siew Kum Hong is not a SDP Mole?

  1. Siew Kum Hong is a Nominated MP. SDP is a critic of the NMP system
  2. Siew Kum Hong is representing the people by providing an alternative view in Parliament. SDP is representing itself outside Parliament.
  3. Siew Kum Hong is a lawyer, conforms to legal norms. SDP has many lawyer members but actively breach the law.
  4. Siew Kum Hong is seeking a second term as a NMP to be in parliament. SDP participates in elections because it has no choice.
  5. Siew Kum Hong offers practical ideas while SDP is bias and offers ideas that benefit itself.

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

Truth No.1: SDP not interested in elections

SDP finds it real difficult to participate in elections. In its articles, SDP states the many obstacles and challenges in participating in elections in Singapore. However, these challenges prevail even in the Western liberal states.

"Redrawn constituencies are not announced until the last minute."

This happens in many countries in the world. Singapore is a small island state and cannot afford to have political parties that are just keen to serve a small section of the population. Having the constituencies announced late will ensure that politicians derive popular support from the masses. A fixed boundary will give SDP an advantage since it can just concentrate on a group of constituents and neglect the rest.

"The GRC system makes it much harder for campaigning."

Till today, SDP still has no better alternatives to the GRC system in maintaining racial representation in parliament.

"Ballot papers are numbered."

When asked in Parliament by DPM Wong Kan Seng, WP chief Low Thia Kiang said he believed that voting is secret in Singapore. WP has an elected MP and a NCMP. SDP is merely using excuses to justify its poor electoral vote count. Ballot numbers help in ensuring that each piece of voting slip is genuine and that the ballot papers cannot be duplicated easily. Many non-profit organisation adopts the serialised ballot papers during their AGM voting processes.

"The campaign period lasts for only nine days."

SDP is vocal and is strong in rhetoric. A draggy campaign period will benefit itself because it can launch vocal attacks at other parties and hopefully gain sympathy votes. WP and SDA are able to win their seats even for a 9-day campaigning period because they have done their ground work regularly in their constituencies. Likewise for the PAP. SDP needs a long campaign period because it does not commit itself to grassroots work. Take for instance, the Tak Boleh Tahan campaign that it launched for the needy in Singapore. Money went into the pockets of SDP and the campaign now can no longer tahan anymore.

'threatening voters through HDB upgrading. The prime minister in a rare moment of honesty admitted that he needs to "fix" the opposition and "buy" votes.'

Other opposition parties can win seats despite such disincentives to vote them in. Stop finding excuses, SDP! Giving incentives for constituents is part and parcel of political campaigning and it takes place in every single country in the world!

"All this does not even include the fact that the entire media is in the hands of the PAP making it near impossible for voters to read and hear the alternative views."

Voters are able to use the internet to choose what they want to read. Another excuse given by the SDP because SDP readership is now lower and that's because Singaporeans have lost faith in SDP.

"So what should the opposition do? We have a choice: (a) boycott the elections or (b) take part in it. Option (a) is not feasible unless all the opposition parties agree to the boycott and then strategically work to force a reform of the electoral system.

Given the present state of affairs, we are left with only option (b). But even as we participate in the elections, we will not stop there. We will use the opportunity during elections to educate Singaporeans and raise awareness of the need for reform."

Boycotting the elections happen to be a choice for SDP. Boycotting elections is not a democratic action and surprisingly, the party that calls its members Democrats believe that boycotting elections is a choice! SDP is reluctantly participating in elections presently. That explains why it is not serious in fighting for what citizens really need -- healthy economy, high living standards.

This brings us to the conclusion that SDP is not interested in elections. It is participating in elections because it has no choice to do so!

Tak Boleh Tahan cannot tahan anymore

The Tak Boleh Tahan campaign organised by the SDP began with a good start. By a good start, I refer to the creative naming of the campaign.

Under the banner of "Tak Boleh Tahan", SDP began setting up Pasar Pagi (Morning market) to sell their collaterals and their plainly designed and cheaply printed tshirts, not forgetting also the books that few bookstalls find it saleable.

The last TBT campaign took place on 18 January 2009. (You kidding me?) Talk about a campaign to help needy Singaporeans. Not a single cent out of the sales generated went to the public. It's been more than 4 months and nothing has been heard.

The very fact is that the Tak Boleh Tahan campaign has already Tak Boleh Tahan in itself. Why? Because Singaporeans have lost interest in this campaign that selfishly seeks to absorb public donations for the party interest.

Other than the casual chat and providing a listening ear to complaints, there is no other form of engagement with the people on the ground.

Do SDP a favour the next time you see them hawking on the streets. Try not to treat them like beggars.

SDP hopes other Countries don't look to Singapore

The fact that a U.S. journalist praised Singapore's strategy on containing terrorism within the island state had riled the nerves of the anti-nation SDP. After failing to provide constructive ideas on how to handle Mas Selamat's escape and first to doubt the Singapore Police Force effort in providing intelligence to the Malaysians, SDP has become an anti-nation political party in Singapore.

The Internal Security Act (ISA) has enabled Singapore to survive through the threat of Communism and ensured the peace that we enjoy with the swift detaining of suspected terrorists. Without the ISA, could we have prevented the bombing of Yishun MRT or Changi Airport? Does the SDP have any suggestion at all?

SDP: "The fact that not a single shred of evidence has been presented against these detainees doesn't seem to bother Mr Dobson who incredibly lives in a country that prides itself on the rule of law."

Hey, the country that prides itself on the rule of law has already act without the law in Guantanamo Bay.

SDP: "The writer cites the president of the state-sanctioned Islamic Religious Council of Singapore, Mr Alami Musa, as saying that 'Singapore is the one place in the world I know where relations between the government and the Muslim community are better after 9/11.' How Mr Alami arrives at his conclusion is unquestioned and Mr Dobson passes the remark off as fact."

Is SDP trying to stir up some tension in multiracial and multireligious Singapore? This paragraph is totally challenging the fabric of the nation. SDP is insinuating that there is tension among the Muslim community. If the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore cannot represent the voice of the Muslims in Singapore, who else? How SDP arrives at its sentiment is fascinating.

What other strategies are there other than torture (U.S.) and
rehabilitating terrorists (Singapore)?

This is something SDP never says, or better worded, doesn't know. As always, they make mythical and biased criticisms but never leave behind a useful idea. This marks the uniqueness of SDP as compared to PAP, WP, SDA, etc.

Monday, May 18, 2009

SDP twisting facts of "Singapore's involvement in capturing Mas Selamat"

I refer to SDP's article "Wong gets worse". I hope this is the lowest that SDP can stoop because the facts were horribly twisted.

In the article, SDP claimed that:
He was reported in the Straits Times as saying that it was the "strong co-operation" between the police intelligence agencies on both sides of the Causeway that led to the apprehension of Mr Mas Selamat in Johor last week.

But the Malaysian side refuted such a claim, saying that "the operation to trace and capture Mas Selamat was carried out fully by the Malaysian police."
Usually, SDP copies news articles and posts it on their articles to allow readers to go through them. This time round, SDP did not do it. And there's a reason behind it. SDP is attempting to generate readership and controversy by making a false allegation.

Let's take a look at what The Straits Times and Bernama really reported:

Straits Times: "He (Wong) added that the arrest is the result of the strong co-operation between security agencies on both sides."

Bernama: "Although we did exchange intelligence, the operation to trace and capture Mas Selamat was carried out fully by the Malaysian police."

Both newspapers concurred that there was indeed cooperation and nothing else. So is SDP trying to cook up a story by dropping the phrase in Bernama that says "although we did exchange intelligence"?

What has SDP done throughout the whole Mas Selamat saga? Nothing!

And now that SDP chose once and again to side with foreigners, this time round Malaysians, it is yet another display of betrayal to the Singapore people.

SDP, why don't you be renamed as MDP and start blogging in Malaysia. You will most probably be able to win a seat there instead!