atans1

Posts Tagged ‘Jovolan Wham’

PAP govt one up up on repressive central Asian republic?

In Political governance, Public Administration on 13/05/2019 at 10:55 am

In S’pore, a few years ago, a person was arrested for holding a mirror. So did someone from Kazakhstan study our laws and decide to imitate us?

The Kazakh police took a young activist into custody after he decided to test whether he could get away with standing in the street holding a placard with no writing on it.

Aslan Sagutdinov took the placard to the central Abay Square of his native city of Oral in the west of the country, and held it up opposite the central council offices.

The video blogger took the precaution of having a colleague capture the whole thing on film, which the local Uralskaya Nedelya news site embedded in its report.

“I’m not taking part in a protest, and I want to show that they’ll still take me down the police station, even though there’s nothing written on my placard and I’m not shouting any slogans,” the 24-year-old told reporters who’d turned up to see what happened.

https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-48187353

Here is what I wrote in 2017 about the guy carrying a mirror who was arrested.

Seelan Palay: Sylvia Lim was right

Here I made fun of Seelan Palay’s latest attempt to test the OB markers: he crossed a red line after the police tried very hard not to arrest him, but he persisted, “After several failed attempts by the Police to persuade Seelan to leave the area, he was arrested by the Police at 3.20pm.” (TOC report)

Two years ago I wrote about how one person can be arrested for an illegal assembly

Jogging alone can be illegal?

If wearing the wrong tee-shirt or singlet?

Try walkng or jogging alone* wearing a “Free our CPF” singlet: remember that any public assembly of more than one person** needs police permission.

And jogging in a group of two or more”Free our CPF” singlets will be like jogging in groups in Burundi: illegal.

Running is a national pastime in Burundi, with hundreds of people out jogging on weekend mornings. But in March [2014] the authorities banned jogging in groups – unless permission was sought from the authorities. It affects all group sports in the capital, which can now only be played in designated areas.

Jogging by Lake Tanganyika

The restrictions followed the arrest of some opposition members who were out jogging and chanting political slangs. Police officers tried to stop what they regarded as an illegal march and the situation deteriorated into clashes. More than 40 Movement for Solidarity and Democracy (MSD) party members received sentences ranging from five years to life.

Burundi: Where jogging is a crime

Wonder what about wearing a tee shirt with a Oppo party logo, drinking teh tarik as social media celebrities Ravi and Jeannette Chong used to do when they were NSP tua kees.

And what about the crowds assembling to pay their respects to LKY? What about the crowds at the National Museum LKY exhibition?

Seems anything the PAP administration or the SPF doesn’t like can be an illegal assembly.

Related post: PAP uses Lawfare against its opponents?

———‘

*Auntie Sylvia was absolutely right in 2007 and 2009 when she spoke out publicly:

The change in definition of “assembly” and “procession” is more disturbing. As the Explanatory Statement to the Bill says, these words are no longer restricted to gatherings of 5 persons or more. This means even ONE person alone can constitute illegal assembly, thus giving the State complete control over an individual citizen’s freedoms.

‘First, to say that 1 person constitutes an assembly is certainly an abuse of the word. Secondly, is the government making the change because there had been incidents involving less than 5 persons which had disrupted public life? Unless there is compelling evidence to prove to us that expanding the definition of assembly and procession is needed, this expansion does not deserve our support,”  Sylvia Lim in parly in 2009.

Earlier, in 2007, she had said:

“This refers to clauses 29 and 30 of the Bill. By clause 29 of the Bill, we are removing the heading “Offences Against Public Tranquility” and replacing it with “Offences relating to Unlawful Assembly”. By Clause 30, we will be deleting “mischief or trespass or other offence” and replacing it with “to commit any offence”.

S 141 has been amended to bring it in line with a recent Court of Appeal case: PP v Tan Meng Khin [1995] 2 SLR 505. Now, an assembly will be unlawful if people intend to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment of 6 mths or more, even if it is peaceful and does not disturb public tranquillity. Under our law, a person who organizes a procession or assembly after the police rejection of a permit can be punished with max 6 months jail under the Miscellaneous Offences Act. Hence 5 or more people who gather to do so will become members of an unlawful assembly.

As our society continues to evolve, the time is surely ripe for us to allow peaceful outdoor protests as a form of expression. By all means, we can have rules about how, where and when such processions may be held, but wider law reform is needed. S 141 should be restricted to offences which threaten the public peace, and other laws such as the Miscellaneous Offences Act which require permits for peaceful assemblies should be modified.”

**Two men between the ages of 24 and 25 were arrested by police outside the Istana on Saturday afternoon (Apr 4).

Police said the duo had turned up in front of the Istana with placards at about 4pm. Channel NewsAsia understands that the men were holding signs that read “You can’t silence the people” and “Injustice” for about half an hour. They were clad in identical red hoodies and dark blue jeans.

Police also said both of them had refused to stop the activity despite requests from officers. As such, they were arrested for organising a public assembly without a permit, under Section 16(1)(a) of the Public Order Act, Chapter 257A.

Seelan Palay: Sylvia Lim was right

And there’s this more recent event: Jolovan’s latest problem shows Sylvia Lim’s and my prescience

“Antics Of Civil Society Activists Endanger Opposition Cause”

In Malaysia on 11/09/2018 at 10:04 am

Not me but Ajay a writer to TRE. The relevant extracts reproduced below as is the full piecebelow. Needless to say, the reaction to it and the earlier reaction to my WTF! With PAP on the ropes why this self-inflicted distraction? showed that like PJ Thum, Kirsten Han, Jovolan Wham, the TRE cybernuts do not wish S’pore well: because Tun (like them) hates the PAP, they (the TRE cybernuts) are happy to team up with him overlooking the fact that he also hates S’poreans.

(Aside I was planning to stop posting on this topic but Tan Wah Piow, cybernuts and their ang moh tua kee allies want to keep the conversation going, helping the PAP distract attention from bread and butter issues. With enemies like these, PAP is very lucky.)

As Chris K posted on FB

The philosopher and sometime novelist G.K Chesterton once noted,

“Evil always wins through the strength of its splendid dupes; and there has in all ages been a disastrous alliance between abnormal innocence and abnormal sin.”

The PAP is always lucky to have its “splendid dupes” among its critics and opponents. If you think “splendid dupes” is too cheem, then use the more common “useful fools”. The fools should give their brains a chance and not fall in love with the sound of their own voices.


PAP govt a point

“The three individuals [I assume this means Crazy Rich Asian PJ Thum, his side-kick Kirsten Han and Jovolan Wham] claim that they are patriots. It is not patriotic to invite any foreign leader to intervene in Singapore politics, especially the leader of a country who has declared his desire to increase the price of water to Singapore by more than 10 times, and with whom we seek to maintain close and friendly relations.

——————————————————————————————-

Back to Ajay, here are the most impt bits of what he has to say:

The problem with civil society activists and far left Singaporeans is that they are living in a bubble, unwilling and unable to see how their radical beliefs are unpalatable to the conservative Singaporean electorate. Are they so accustomed to their echo chambers that they do not go out and interact with everyday people living in HDB flats? The average Singaporean is not bothered about greater freedom of speech, freedom of expression or harsh defamation laws. He does not support sodomy and does not want gay marriage to be legalized in Singapore. He also does not want drug traffickers to be spared from the death penalty. Nor does he care about the incessant whining of ISA detainees about their supposedly wrong detention in 1987 or about some old folks detained under Operation Coldstore for allegedly being communists. Yes, yes, these are all issues that a bleeding heart liberal would care about. But they are not bread and butter issues and are thus of no concern to ordinary people.

The civil society activists’ approach suggests that they think that making the loudest noise will help their cause. They are out of touch with Singaporeans. Instead of spouting rhetoric about the kind of Singapore that they want to see, they should be working with the Singapore that exists before their eyes. What they are doing is akin to pounding one’s head against the unmoving wall. They can talk about their pet issues, but if they want to achieve any more than that, they should go door to door and have conversations with Singaporeans and try to win them over. That would be the more effective approach. The more they are in the public eye for controversial antics such as the Mahathir meeting, the more they hurt the opposition cause as swing voters do not view their actions in a positive light and unfortunately lump them together with the credible opposition figures.

In the lead up to GE2015, attention was taken away from the rising cost of living, the influx of foreigners and the difficult job market resulting from the stagnating economy. Part of this was due to the antics of diehard anti-PAP fanatics like Roy Ngerng, Han Hui Hui and Amos Yee. The political narrative shifted away from the PAP government’s shortcomings. Instead we heard disorganized chants of “Return my CPF” as a small bunch of protesters heckled special needs kids, and credible anti-PAP voices were drowned out by the noise about donating to self-styled freedom fighter Roy Ngerng who was being sued by the prime minister for posting defamatory comments on his blog.

[ ]

The reason I write this is not because I want to pour cold water on the enthusiasm of hardcore opposition supporters itching to blame the PAP but because I want readers to learn from history. How does it help the opposition cause when activists create controversy, get in trouble and then play the victim card, claiming political persecution? These activists should think of the optics. Swing voters are not moved the slightest. Contrary to what they think, the PAP does not fear a confrontational opposition. A confrontational opposition is actually easier for the PAP to defeat because of their tendency to go off the rails at times while being passionate about a cause. Like Roy Ngerng, these civil society activists will find themselves alone if they end up sued or arrested, should any of their hare-brained antics go wrong. Keep the narrative focused on bread and butter issues such as the affordability of HDB flats, the retirement age, the rising cost of living and the scarcity of jobs, and people will take note of the opposition. That is the only way to win seats in a politically and socially conservative nation.

I remind that Secret Squirrel and Morocco Mole tell me that think PJ, think the Youngs of Crazy Rich Asians. And his side kick Kirsten Han, although poor, doesn’t know S’pore is in SE ASia, and    says nothing wrong in asking Tun

Ajay’s piece in full. Btw, Terry Xu says that the first para contains false allegations. As far as I’m concerned they are fair (albeit unfair) comments on what PJ and gang did.

Antics Of Civil Society Activists Endanger Opposition Cause

I was aghast at the antics of the Singaporean activists last week. It was categorically wrong for them to meet Malaysian Prime Minister Dr Mahathir and request for him to promote democracy in Southeast Asia. This was potentially damaging to Singapore’s international reputation as these activists may have portrayed Singapore negatively in front of a foreign politician. I also strongly disagree with Dr Thum Ping Tjin’s facebook comments (LINK) that suggest Singapore should merge with Malaysia. The last thing most Singaporeans want right now is merger with a country that practices bumiputera policy which discriminates against capable and competent Chinese and Indians, and forces them to live with the fear that they could be ruled by sharia law someday.

On 30 August, former SDP member Teo Soh Lung posted on her Facebook page (LINK) that “PAP government should take note that today’s young citizens will not bow to unreasonable pressure and they have access to leaders in the region”. This was followed by another facebook post on August 31, in which she stated her view that “Association with foreign leaders, whether in government or in opposition should be the norm” and justified the meeting because everyone has “the right of association”.

From the first post, the implication is that Singaporeans can seek help from foreign leaders in the region if they do not like the PAP government. The view Ms Teo has expressed in the second post is erroneous because the nation’s carefully cultivated international reputation could be in tatters in days if every political dissident runs to a foreign leader and badmouths Singapore in front of the media whenever he or she feels like it. After all, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Ultimately, Singaporeans will suffer, not just the PAP. This sort of scorched earth approach is not one a loyal opposition would take. A loyal opposition would not resort to mudslinging whenever the opportunity arises nor would it resort to destabilizing an elected government in order to seize power. A loyal, constructive and responsible opposition would disagree with the PAP within Singapore’s boundaries, contest elections, argue passionately before the electorate and offer alternative ideas to drive the country forward. A loyal opposition would understand that despite differences in political beliefs with the PAP, they should align themselves with the government of the day when it comes to foreign policy and issues of Singapore’s sovereignty. Why? Because criticizing Singapore in front of foreigners is not patriotic, nor is it helpful to the average Singaporean who is struggling to make ends meet.
This brings back memories. In 1995, Dr Chee along with two SDP members attended a dialogue at Williams College where a Singaporean political dissident and fugitive, Francis Seow criticized Singapore’s judiciary in front of a foreign audience
(LINK).

Neither Dr Chee nor the SDP members present rebutted Francis Seow or even voiced a mild opinion that Singapore was not like that. This behaviour was strongly condemned by the Singapore parliament, including then opposition MP Chiam See Tong. I urge TOC readers to look up Mr Chiam’s speech. His words are still true and they are apt for this recent incident involving the activists meeting Dr Mahathir. The Dr Chee of the past made several similar missteps, including this cringe-inducing video (LINK) in which he asked US president Barack Obama to take note of the human rights abuses in Singapore and take actions to get Singapore to join the ‘community of democracy’. The Dr Chee of today is more restrained, politically mature, willing to work within the Singapore political system and has focussed on bread and butter issues, but his past mistakes still weigh heavy on the SDP, especially during elections.
Both the activists of today and the Dr Chee of the past believed that foreign interference in Singapore politics is necessary to bring democracy to Singapore. But they do not consider the wishes of the overwhelming majority of Singaporeans who do not want liberal democracy in Singapore. If you ask the general public in Singapore, most of them will agree that there is already enough democracy in Singapore. You may call them brainwashed or ‘the 70%’ but that changes nothing. Singapore’s politics is for Singaporeans to decide. Any attempt by a foreign power to impose a liberal agenda on Singapore will only result in a conservative backlash against the opposition. That was what happened at GE1997. The SDP lost all its seats and has failed to attain 40% of the votes in any constituency ever since. As the impatient far left seized the political narrative and focussed on abstract and irrelevant civil rights issues, the opposition as a whole suffered. Moderate opposition parties were also affected by the taint and became unable to win more than 2 seats for 14 years until the Workers’ Party won Aljunied GRC in 2011.

The problem with civil society activists and far left Singaporeans is that they are living in a bubble, unwilling and unable to see how their radical beliefs are unpalatable to the conservative Singaporean electorate. Are they so accustomed to their echo chambers that they do not go out and interact with everyday people living in HDB flats? The average Singaporean is not bothered about greater freedom of speech, freedom of expression or harsh defamation laws. He does not support sodomy and does not want gay marriage to be legalized in Singapore. He also does not want drug traffickers to be spared from the death penalty. Nor does he care about the incessant whining of ISA detainees about their supposedly wrong detention in 1987 or about some old folks detained under Operation Coldstore for allegedly being communists. Yes, yes, these are all issues that a bleeding heart liberal would care about. But they are not bread and butter issues and are thus of no concern to ordinary people.

The civil society activists’ approach suggests that they think that making the loudest noise will help their cause. They are out of touch with Singaporeans. Instead of spouting rhetoric about the kind of Singapore that they want to see, they should be working with the Singapore that exists before their eyes. What they are doing is akin to pounding one’s head against the unmoving wall. They can talk about their pet issues, but if they want to achieve any more than that, they should go door to door and have conversations with Singaporeans and try to win them over. That would be the more effective approach. The more they are in the public eye for controversial antics such as the Mahathir meeting, the more they hurt the opposition cause as swing voters do not view their actions in a positive light and unfortunately lump them together with the credible opposition figures.

In the lead up to GE2015, attention was taken away from the rising cost of living, the influx of foreigners and the difficult job market resulting from the stagnating economy. Part of this was due to the antics of diehard anti-PAP fanatics like Roy Ngerng, Han Hui Hui and Amos Yee. The political narrative shifted away from the PAP government’s shortcomings. Instead we heard disorganized chants of “Return my CPF” as a small bunch of protesters heckled special needs kids, and credible anti-PAP voices were drowned out by the noise about donating to self-styled freedom fighter Roy Ngerng who was being sued by the prime minister for posting defamatory comments on his blog. Ngerng posted videos and wrote blog posts, expressing that he had “believed that within a few months, Singaporeans would have thronged the streets and the PAP would be unseated” (Source). He compared himself to a ‘hero’ and apologized for being unable to be a MP for Singaporeans. In the general election, he lost miserably, barely managing to get 21% of the votes. Clearly he was no ‘hero’ in the eyes of most Singaporeans and it had all been for nothing.

Another loud and distracting political saga was the “Free Amos Yee” movement in which the rude kid Amos insulted religion and denigrated the memory of Singapore’s founding Prime Minister at a time when emotions were still raw about his passing. In the controversial video, Amos even claimed that he had talked with a SDP member. In the wake of his arrest, he was warmly supported by activists and some opposition politicians but they performed a flip flop and turned against him after he slandered Vincent Law. Nevertheless, the opposition suffered because of these events, especially since the election was held at a time when Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s legacy was at the forefront of everyone’s minds.

I am a proud opposition supporter. The reason I write this is not because I want to pour cold water on the enthusiasm of hardcore opposition supporters itching to blame the PAP but because I want readers to learn from history. How does it help the opposition cause when activists create controversy, get in trouble and then play the victim card, claiming political persecution? These activists should think of the optics. Swing voters are not moved the slightest. Contrary to what they think, the PAP does not fear a confrontational opposition. A confrontational opposition is actually easier for the PAP to defeat because of their tendency to go off the rails at times while being passionate about a cause. Like Roy Ngerng, these civil society activists will find themselves alone if they end up sued or arrested, should any of their hare-brained antics go wrong. Keep the narrative focused on bread and butter issues such as the affordability of HDB flats, the retirement age, the rising cost of living and the scarcity of jobs, and people will take note of the opposition. That is the only way to win seats in a politically and socially conservative nation.

Ajay

Kirsten Han trying to defecate herself and PJ out of self-made crater

In Uncategorized on 05/09/2018 at 10:06 am

And if as Secret Squirrel and Morocco Mole tell me, that he’s as rich as the Youngs of Crazy Rich Asians fame, PJ should employ a better defender and PR woman. With helper like this, he doesn’t need enemies.

In defending him, her spins and rebuttals are full of holes.

First

Contrary to Mr Seah’s assertion, Dr Thum had not asked Dr Mahathir to bring democracy to Singapore, Ms Han said … he had “urged (Mahathir) to take leadership in Southeast Asia for the promotion of democracy, human rights, freedom of expression and freedom of information”, she reiterated.

(Yes I’m using extracts from the constructive, nation-building media)

Excuse isn’t S’pore part of SE Asia. She’s live here and she doesn’t know this? Think S’pore off the coast of Europe isit? Or off Califonia?

So not wrong to argue that PJ really wants the M’sian PM Tun M ” to take leadership for the promotion of democracy, human rights, freedom of expression and freedom of information” in S’pore. We part of SE Asia loh.

And ain’t this asking him “to bring democracy to Singapore”? Given that people like her call S’pore repressive (and getting worse) and PJ had “urged (Mahathir) to take leadership in Southeast Asia for the promotion of democracy, human rights, freedom of expression and freedom of information”.


The potential flippers [people who may vote for Oppo] dislike and mistrust Tun. And here are five ant-PAPpies telling him to free S’pore from the PAP. This may not be the truth but it’s plausible and the PAP is spinning like hell that they want him to free S’pore from the PAP.

.PJ Thum cares about S’pore?


(Aside: M’sian Finance Minister’s escape from a court case had me thinking “Great to know that some things never change in M’sia since Tun became PM all those years ago.” Wondering why PJ Thum didn’t ask Tun to bring his core competencies and skills to the rest of SE Asia?)

Next

Ms Han also noted that Dr Thum’s Facebook post was not about “declaring Singapore a part of Malaysia, but merely a reference to our own history”.

Adding that Singapore’s first Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew had declared independence from the British on Aug 31, 1963, Ms Han said: “So Aug 31 is an ‘unofficial independence day’ for the people of Singapore. As Lee Kuan Yew said, it signified the end of colonial British rule in Singapore.”

KInda tenious the link between what LKY said in 1963 and did (review a parade) and “So Aug 31 is an ‘unofficial independence day’ for the people of Singapore”.

We were about to join M’sia, so fair to join in the celebrations on 31 August and link it to our becoming free of the ang mohs.

We soon realised that joining M’sia was a bad idea and “an honest mistake” of the PAP. We were then glad that we got kicked of M’sia with so little trouble and no suffering.

And she (cunningly?) ignored PJ Thum’s post on 31 August 2016,which sneered at what LKY did on 31August 1963

50 years ago today: Lee Kuan Yew, frustrated with the delay in the creation of Malaysia, unilaterally announced the independence of Singapore. In a rare show of unity, the international community rolled their eyes and ignored him. Happy 50th Illegal Independence Day, Singapore!

Finally

She also said that the Singaporeans did not attend the meeting with Dr Mahathir “as a collective, but as a group of individuals”.

Sorry I find this impossible to believe given the personal links between four of them, and the personal link between PJ and Tan Wah Piow.

I think it’s time for her and PJ (If they want to show that it’s wrong to surmise that they do “not wish Singapore well”) to do what the last para in SDP’s statement says S’poreans should do

The SDP acknowledges that Mr Seah Kian Peng has apologised for his erroneous statement on his FB where he had involved our party in a controversy over a meeting some Singaporean activists had with Dr Mahathir.

The SDP accepts Mr Seah’s apology.

While we may differ in our views on how to take Singapore forward, politicians should not resort to questioning their opponents’ loyalty to our nation. No matter what our political persuasion, we all remain faithful and committed to this country.

Let us move on and focus our attention on tackling the issues that affect the lives of our fellow citizens.

But when was the last time you heard them KPKBing about the cost of living, HDB leases and other issues that affect ordinary S’poreans? A Crazy Richb Asian and his Girl Friday don’t know squat among ordinary S’poreans.

For what it’s worth, going by their words and actions over the last few yrs, I think they do “not wish Singapore well”. But they are not traitors, juz a variant form of useful idiots that help the PAP retain power: like Tan Kin Lian and Tan Jee Say.

In political jargon, a useful idiot is a derogatory term for a person perceived as a propagandist for a cause of whose goals they are not fully aware and who is used cynically by the leaders of the cause.[1][2] The term was originally used to describe non-Communists regarded as susceptible to Communist propaganda and manipulation.[1] The term has often been attributed to Vladimir Lenin, but this attribution is controversial.[3][4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

As for Jovolan Wham, my respect for him as a social activist working to help migrant workers and maids combat injustice made me keep quiet about his views on other things. But no more since Jolovan Wham: Nothing wrong in asking Tun M to intervene in S’porean affairs

I view him like I view PJ Thum and Kirsten Han.

 

 

 

Jolovan Wham: Nothing wrong in asking Tun M to intervene in S’porean affairs

In Malaysia on 04/09/2018 at 5:21 pm

Even if PJ had asked Mahathir to ‘bring democracy to Singapore’, instead of South East Asia, what’s wrong with that? One may question his choice of person to lobby but that is a purely strategic question, and has nothing to do with ‘foreign interference’ or subversion.

The PAP must be thankful that he’s really helping them change the conversation from the things that matter CoL, HDB leases etc to “Who do you trust? PAP? Or Tun lovers, quislings, fifth columnists or their allies, fellow travellers or useful idiots?: WTF! With PAP on the ropes why this self-inflicted distraction?

His full post

WTF! With PAP on the ropes why this self-inflicted distraction?

In Malaysia on 01/09/2018 at 10:41 am

Own goal? Ownself sabo ownself?

PM and the PAP have been pummelled in recent weeks about ministers pay (When being a minister turns from a calling into a job for life),PM’s call to eat below S$3 meals and other frugality tips which show how out touch he is with the lives of those not “Crazy Rich Asians” (Shumething PM left out in NDR speech/ Reason why?) and on HDB flat “is not my HDB flat” (Exposed: Flaws in PM’s HDB spin)

So what do Tan Wah Piow, PJ Thum, Kirsten Han, Sonny Liew and Jolovan Wham, all prominent PAP haters and anti-PAP activists do?

They met Tun M and invited him (he’s accepted) to talk about democracy. WTF!

What were Tan Wah Piow, PJ Thum, Kirsten Han, Sonny Liew and Jolovan Wham thinking of when they made the decision to meet (And ask him to talk about democracy: he knows more about locking up and beat up people LOL. Ask Anwar.) someone who hates the very existence of S’pore as an independent state? Remember, he criticised Tunku for kicking us out of M’sia. He wanted Tunku to send in the army and arrest the leaders we elected.


Do read this: damned good article by the gal I love to make fun of: https://www.kirstenhan.com/blog/2018/8/30/80-minutes-with-dr-m

She should stick to reporting, not trying to a pseudo-intellectual justifying all ang moh progressive ideas.

————————————————————————–

They are giving the PAP the opportunity to change the topic to “Who do you trust? PAP? Or Tun lovers, quislings, fifth columnists or their allies, fellow travellers or useful idiots?

The S’poreans that can be flipped (Why many PAP voters are ready to be flipped) may not be happy with the PAP, but they sure don’t like Tun: forever KPKBing about the supply of water to S’pore and who once threatened to cut off our water supply. And they know he has a problem with S’poreans, not juz the PAP. In his writings, he’s called us a few unfriendly names. It seems that when he was a medical student here, he was treated as an arrogant, obnoxious country bumpkin even by the local Malay elite. The memory must still rankle.

The PAP will use the meeting to tar all those opposed to PAP hegemony with the brush of “quisling” or “fifth columnist” or their allies, fellow travellers or useful idiots: some tar will stick.

PAP must be very happy that they can use this incident to discredit all anti-PAP and civil society activists, and critics of the way the PAP does things and thinks: “They are Tun lovers, quislings, fifth columnists, or their allies, fellow travellers or useful idiots.”

With enemies like the now Infamous 5 the PAP has nothing to worry about.

I’m not the only one concerned. Even anti-PAP Terry’s Online Channel is concerned:

As for Singaporeans, what are to make of all this?

We have to remember that Dr Mahathir has never been a fan of Singapore. Some would say he has had an axe to grind with the Singapore government, not the people of Singapore.

That may well be the case. But it not easy to separate one from the other.

In a nutshell, the well-being of Singaporeans cannot be uppermost in the mind of Dr Mahathir.”

https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2018/08/31/what-does-it-say-when-singaporeans-look-to-mahathir-to-bring-change-to-singapore/

Even regular TOC readers are KPKBing about the Infamous 5’s antics. Example

Singaporeans and the opposition parties should be warned not to get cozy with Dr M and the Malaysian politicians. It’s prudent to keep them at one arm’s length. We know we must be brave and decisive in the next GE, but pls leave msia out of our country’s politics. Never forget the bitter lessons we learnt from history. We are a tiny vulnerable nation in relative terms to our closest big neighbours. I will shun the opposition IF our they cowered to the malaysian politicians. In the battle against the mighty ruling party, bringing in a ‘big brother’ as a backing (?) is PLAYING WITH FIRE. This is not a strategy, it is suicide for the opposition and will open the floodgates to foreign intervention in our country.

Did Tan Wah Piow, PJ Thum, Kirsten Han, Sonny Liew and Jolovan Wham think of the implications of anti-PAP activists meeting someone who hates the very existence of S’pore as an independent state?  Someone forever KPKBing about the supply of water to S’pore and who once threatened to cut off our water supply.

Tan Wah Piow, PJ Thum, Kirsten Han, Sonny Liew and Jolovan Wham are the useful idiots (of the PAP), quislings or fifth columnists that all those of us who oppose PAP hegemony should be wary of.

What do you think?

FYI, more on Tun M

Tun slyer than Najib

One reason Tun wants to cause trouble with us on HSR

Two-face Tun/ Why vote PAP

HSR: I was right wasn’t I?