Steve Chia Withdraws from Singapore GE2015

Steve Chia from the National Solidarity Party (NSP) announced his decision to withdraw from the Singapore General Election 2015 citing the work of online Trolls. Goh Meng Seng has also weighed-in on the effect online trolls have on candidates and asked for a good clean fight.

What I find extremely disturbing about the comments by Steve Chia and Goh Meng Seng is that they seemed comfortable and even happy when online trolls attack the Government and members of the People's Action Party (PAP). Even when Minister for Transport Liu Tuck Yew decided to step-down from politics, both Steve and Meng Seng remained silent. I would even suspect that they were happy.

I for one have no sympathy for Steve Chia. It would not take a genius to figure out that his past nude scandal would come to the fore again. If you cannot even figure that out, I seriously doubt that Steve is bright enough to be a MP and to represent his residents needs.

As for Goh Meng Seng, he is the typical opportunist who has no principles or values. If you do not stand for something, you will fall for anything. We need credible opposition in parliament. We do not need the likes of Goh Meng Seng who will merely oppose for the sake of opposing. Goh Meng Seng is a man of poor character and this episode reinforces that view of him.

So while Steve Chia's announcement tries so pull at your heartstrings, we should be grateful that this has helped to weed out the bad. Thank you Worker's Party for showing us the light.

SG General Election 2015: Opposition Manifesto and False Prophets

Opposition Meet to Divide Up Singapore

It was reported that Singapore opposition parties will be meeting this Friday (31 July 2015) to discuss how to divide up Singapore at the General Election 2015.

I don’t know about you, but I find this meeting extremely discomforting.

From what I understand, a political party’s manifesto is its published declaration of their intentions, motives, or views and their own prescriptive notion for carrying out changes. So if there are multiple political parties, it is logical to assume that they should all have different manifestos.

If multiple manifestos exist, then a political party that does not believe enough in its own manifesto, and is willing to bargain with other political parties on where they can run, it can only mean that their manifesto is merely a false front to deceive voters. To these political parties, the prize is not the betterment of Singapore or the lives of Singaporeans, but a game of getting into Parliament to disrupt the Government.

Yes, Singaporeans want an opposition voice in Parliament. However, since not all political parties are genuine, Singaporeans should not vote blindly for the opposition. For Singapore to continue to prosper under any Government, the correct opposition must be voted into Parliament. The opposition voted into Parliament must be one that is credible and who has the interest of Singaporeans at heart.

The litmus test is to see which political party agrees to divide-up Singapore …

SG Bumiputra Responds to Ravi Philemon's Threat to Sue Singapore Blogger

Dear Mr Ravi Philemon,

I refer to your Message of Demand on 18 Jan 2015, telling me to take down my blog post and Facebook entry as (in your opinion) it is defamatory. I also note that you have already made a police report and that you will take legal actions against me if I do not submit to your demands by 21 Jan 2015.

I thank you for your kind offer, but I have given the matter serious thought. I have come to the conclusion that any reasonable person will take you blog posting on 9 Jan 2015 titled "I am still Charlie" to mean that you support the absolute right to free speech even if it means insulting Islam and Muslims. In view that your blog posting was advocating the absolute right to free speech, I find it ironic that you are demanding that I not exercise the same right that you champion.

Therefore, after careful consideration, I have decided that I will not submit to your demands and will continue to leave my post online for all to see your hypocrisy and the double-standards of opposition members like yourself. Opposition members have long argued that the People's Action Party (PAP) use defamation suits to silence their critics. It is now obvious that Opposition Members like yourself also do the same.

Having said that, this is my counter proposal. If you can satisfactorily explain to me the difference between your actions and that of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's defamation suit against Roy Ngerng, I will take down my post. If you do not respond or, in my opinion, cannot satisfactorily explain the difference, the post will remain online.

For your information, I have also sent email and Facebook messages to the Secretary-General of the National Solidarity Party (NSP) Ms Jeanette Chong-Aruldoss seeking her views on the use of legal actions against perceived inaccuracies.

SG Bumiputera

Ravi Philemon of the NSP - An Irresponsible and Dangerous Man

Ravi Philemon of Singapore's National Solidarity Party (NSP) is an irresponsible and dangerous Man. Ravi gained notoriety in July 2013, at the height of the Haze crisis, when he was called-out for rumor-mongering which caused unnecessary public anxiety.

 

 

Recently, in response to the attack on Charlie Hebdo, Ravi Philemon (a potential NSP GE candidate for 2016) posted his reflection (#IamStillCharlie) on the concept of freedom of speech. In his reflection, Ravi concluded that complete free speech is to be desired even if it offends others as having restrictions of any kind means that we do “go down the slope of censorship”.

Ravi Philemon is therefore saying that racism, bigotry and even malicious lying are to be condoned and encouraged. In Ravi’s opinion, the right to free speech is not conditionally on the need for the speaker to exercise responsibility.

According to Ravi Philemon, it is okay for Singaporean to insult Islam or Muslims simply because they are exercising their rights to free speech. In a multi-racial and religious country like Singapore, such an attitude is extremely dangerous.

 

What is therefore ironic is that Ravi Philemon was “outraged” by Anton Casey’s Facebook remarks over the stench of poor Singaporeans, and went so far as to post screen shots of Anton’s comments and a YouTube video.
 

So Mr Ravi Philemon, what exactly is your position on Free Speech? Does it only apply to you when you make false accusations about the Government? Or does free speech stop when it affects you? In a multi-racial and religious country like Singapore, are there no limits to free speech? At Singapore GE 2016, we believe you are an irresponsible and dangerous man.