atans1

Posts Tagged ‘PJ Thum’

Do PJ, Kirsten and friends still want Tun to bring democracy to S’pore?

In Uncategorized on 21/06/2019 at 3:31 pm

I refer to

According to Kirsten Han, PJ Thum “urged (Mahathir) to take leadership in Southeast Asia for the promotion of democracy, human rights, freedom of expression and freedom of information”.

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

and am wondering if they still think he’s the Messiah to liberate S’pore from the PAP?

A day after the MH17 plane crash inquiry team announced murder charges against four men, Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad has condemned the decision as “ridiculous”.

However, Malaysia is itself part of the Dutch-led joint investigation team (JIT), which has been working on the criminal inquiry for years. A foreign ministry statement said it remained committed to the inquiry process.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-48702115

Related posts:

Still urging Tun to take leadership in SE Asia; PJ, Kirsten?

Tun’s greatest achievement and real Kiling unhappy

 

Still urging Tun to take leadership in SE Asia; PJ, Kirsten?

In Malaysia on 20/12/2018 at 10:31 am

According to Kirsten Han, PJ Thum “urged (Mahathir) to take leadership in Southeast Asia for the promotion of democracy, human rights, freedom of expression and freedom of information”.

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

Do they still believe that he’s the messiah SE Asia needs?

NHS rubber gloves made in Malaysian factories accused of forced labour

Exclusive: firms supplying health service allegedly exploit thousands of migrants

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/business

(Their favourite ang moh newspaper)

Champion for human rights ? What champion  for human rights?

And does a champion for human rights do this?

in September, Dr Mahathir told the United Nations General Assembly that Malaysia would ratify all the human rights conventions it had yet to adopt, a total of six, including the measure against racial discrimination.

Then, Dr Mahathir had promised that Malaysia will espouse the principles promoted by the UN in its international engagements, saying: “It is within this context that the new government of Malaysia has pledged to ratify all remaining core UN instruments related to the protection of human rights.”

But he had added: “It will not be easy for us because Malaysia is multi-ethnic, multi-religious, multicultural and multilingual.”

Later in November, the Malaysian government backpedaled on its decision and chose not to ratify ICERD because it would require a two-thirds majority in parliament to amend the Federal Constitution.

“ICERD promotes freedom and less discrimination. Article 153 (of the Constitution) gives some privileges to the indigenous people, which means some may interpret it as being discriminatory,” Dr Mahathir had told the media. “If we tried to abolish these privileges, it will go against Article 153.”

The Pakatan Harapan government does not have a two-thirds majority in Parliament. Furthermore, several Pakatan Harapan MPs stated that they were not in favour of the ratification.

The proposed ratification of ICERD had also drawn criticism and protests from government and opposition representatives as well as NGOs.

Many feared that its implementation may undermine some of the privileges enshrined in the Federal Constitution and dilute privileges for ethnic Malays, who form the majority in the country.

Read more at https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asia/anti-icerd-rally-umno-pas-kl-white-shirts-11013422

Are these the reasons why the diabolical duo are so quiet about Tun’s behaviour towards S’pore recently? They don’t know where to hide their asses?

I doubt they are ashamed of their actions because they are the kind of people who believe in “Licking the ass of the enemy of my enemy”.

Whatever two cheers for Tan Kin Lian: he has

the balls to speak out in support of Tun unlike Tun brown nosers Tan Wah Piow, PJ Thum and Kirsten Han* ( “Antics Of Civil Society Activists Endanger Opposition Cause”); and Jolovan Wham: Nothing wrong in asking Tun M to intervene in S’porean affairs. Their silence is deafening shameful and in character. Sad.

Tan Kin Lian thinks Tun is more sinned against than sinning

“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

PJ Thum cares about S’pore?

In Uncategorized on 03/09/2018 at 11:25 am

From his ang moh tua kee PR agent

I’ve worked closely with PJ for two years now. I know him to be someone who thinks and cares deeply about Singapore and its people. I know him as someone who piles both work and risk on himself, for very little reward, because he is committed to this country. He was told that he would never work in Singapore as an academic again, but he’s still trying to come home permanently, because he wants to contribute to Singapore. I’d like to reassure Mr Seah here: in all the time that I’ve spent with PJ, I’ve never seen any indication or evidence that he wishes Singapore ill.

https://www.kirstenhan.com/blog/2018/9/1/a-response-to-mr-seah-kian-pengs-allegations

So why does PJ Thum help the PAP change the conversation? See WTF! With PAP on the ropes why this self-inflicted distraction?

It’s clear from the FB postings I’m seeing that those PAP voters who can be flipped are angry with the antics of PJ Thum, Kirsten Han Jolovan Lam, Tan Wah Piow and Sonny Liew in meeting Tun. The potential flippers 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 .

If PJ really cares about S’pore why sabo and help the PAP tar those who oppose PAP hegemony.

Give me a break.

As to this about PJ

he’s still trying to come home permanently, because he wants to contribute to Singapore

Secret Squirrel and Morocco Mole tell me that their ISD cousins say that that his specialisation on S’pore’s history (he doesn’t have wider SE Asian credentials) and his Marxist leanings make it very difficult for him to get a decent paying acadamic post in the UK. In S’pore, at least got bungalow (think the Youngs in Crazy Rich Asians) to live in.

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?

 

What Oxford really says about PJ Thum and Project Southeast Asia

In Uncategorized on 07/05/2018 at 10:44 am

(Or Best not to gild the lily/ Why liddat PJ?“)

In How PAP can tame cyberspace while making money (cont’d) I pointed out that the KPKBing about PJ Thum being roughed up by the PAP adminstration came from some (not many) Oxford academics and not the colleges that comprise Oxford University.

Here’s what Project Southeast Asia says about him:

Thum Ping Tjin (“PJ”) is co-ordinator of Project Southeast Asia, and a Research Fellow at the University of Oxford.

http://projectsoutheastasia.com/people/academics/pingtjin-thum

Here’s what Green Temple, an Oxford college, says about PJ Thum (the only reference on the University’s website about PJ)

Dr Pingtjin Thum, BA, MSc, DPhil
Senior Research Fellow, Sunway University, Malaysia / Research Fellow, Jeffrey Cheah Institute on South East Asia

He’s only visiting leh.

—————————————

Here’s the various types of the Green Temple’s Fellows

Interesting Visiting Fellows roles are not described. Compare that with the descriptions of the others.

—————————————-

Anyway his “real” posts are

Senior Research Fellow, Sunway University, Malaysia / Research Fellow, Jeffrey Cheah Institute on South East Asia

Anyone heard of these? yuenchungkwong?

Not Oxford university entities are they?

And no mention of his role as “Co-ordinator Project Southeast Asia”.

This leads conveniently to Project Southeast Asia. I had tot that Project Southeast Asia is a centre in Oxford like the Centre for Islamic Studies etc i.e. that it’s a corporate entity of the university like the colleges. It ain’t

Southeast Asia is a major player on the global stage, and growing ever more so. Recognising this, the University of Oxford has created Project Southeast Asia, with the ultimate aim of establishing a Centre for Southeast Asian Studies – a home for Southeast Asia in the heart of one of the world’s premier universities. The Project acts as a focal point for academic and research activity, bringing together many of the most distinguished scholars in the field of Southeast Asian studies, together with the best and brightest new academic talent, for the acquisition and dissemination of knowledge about countries in the Southeast Asian region.

While emphasising core disciplines of history, politics/international relations, anthropology, human sciences, medicine, and development studies, it also addresses and offers input into important contemporary issues facing Southeast Asia, such as regional security, infectious diseases, environmental change, ageing and sustainable development. It supports research, student degree programmes, library and archival resources, institutional exchanges and academic events, and ensures that the most talented students, regardless of need, will be able to study Southeast Asia at Oxford.

https://www.ox.ac.uk/about/international-oxford/oxfords-global-links/asia-south-east/asia-south-east-region?wssl=1

Coming back to PJ, here’s a long extract from the constructive, nation-building ST: it spoke to the university’s spokesman. To summarise he is no Research Fellow, only a research associate, who is not an employee of the university.

Historian Thum Ping Tjin is a research associate with Oxford University’s School of Anthropology and Museum Ethnography, said a university spokesman yesterday.

Responding to queries from The Straits Times, Oxford University’s head of communications Stephen Rouse said Dr Thum was awarded a doctorate in history by Oxford in 2011. He added that Dr Thum is a Visiting Fellow of the Fertility and Reproduction Studies Group within the school, and therefore an affiliate of the school.

Mr Rouse also said there are three categories of research associates with the school – anthropologists based in Oxford, recent doctorate graduates of the department, or social scientists based outside the university working with members of the department.

Dr Thum falls into the third category, he said, adding that research associates are not employees of the school or university. “But they are valued colleagues with whom we have shared research interests.”

Oxford’s response came after the Parliament Secretariat yesterday wrote to Dr Thum asking him to “clarify his academic credentials”.

In a press statement yesterday, the Office of the Clerk of Parliament said Dr Thum’s written representation to the Select Committee on deliberate online falsehoods had stated that he was a research fellow in history at Oxford. It noted that there have been varying accounts, citing how Dr Thum informed the committee during the hearing that he held a “visiting professorship in anthropology”, among other things.

ST 14 April 2018

It’s very clear that he was exaggerating his credentials. Funny because a doctorate from Oxford is a many-splendour thing, showing that the S’porean holder is no half-past six, balls licking, broen-nosing academic from a local university, but a patrician in high academic standing. He was gilding the lily and was caught with his pants down.

When I read about him a long time ago, I was suspicious about him calling himself “Research Fellow, University of Oxford” because my understanding has always been that Oxford-based Fellows are attached to a specific college or centre or school. No such thing as University of Oxford Fellow.

Whatever, with enemies like him, the PAP has no problem getting 60-70% of the popular vote.

Sad.

As my mongrel dogs said when I asked them their views on PJ, “To call himself a ‘Research Fellow’ or ‘visting professor’ when he’s only a ‘research associate'”  is like us calling ourselves purebreds: misrepresenting at the very least.”

 

 

 

Coldstore: Why Harry’s narrative or the highway

In Political governance on 03/04/2018 at 10:44 am

(Or “Why Harry’s Coldstore narrative must be the truth”)

The roughing up of someone who dares to publicly talk about a Coldstore narrative that is different from that of one Harry Lee has cyberspace talking cock and upset*.

Amidst the noise and fury, one important issue in both what constitutes “fake news”, generally,and, in particular, in the ongoing dialogue of the deaf about different Coldstore narratives has been forgotten.

The son of one of the Coldstore detainees recently said:

For some of the matters around national security, race, religion, economic and financial issues, public health issues, by definition that source of truth must be government-backed or state-backed. The most egregious issues, the issues with significant impact, significant impact on our social fabric, on our national security, on our public health, the issues of peace, stability, the facts behind those, if you’re going to have a source of truth, it needs to be state-backed.

Dr. Janil Puthucheary, a Jnr Minister, at the Select Committee hearings on Deliberate Online Falsehoods, 23 March 2018

As S’pore is a de facto one-party state (because the voters regularly agree to it), Harry’s version of ColdStore (Bunch of commie subversives who had to be locked up because they wanted to make S’pore Great for Communism) is the official version. 

And because it is “government-backed or state-backed” it must be the truth going by what the jnr minister said. (And don’t forget that the greatest of the Hard Truths is that “Harry is always right. Harry is never wrong”.)

Related post: Were the Coldstore detainees communists, progressives or leftists?

Coming back to the jnr minister’s comments, looks like he agrees with what a M’sian minister said is “fake news”:

“Any information related to 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB) that has not been verified by the Government is considered fake news.

Datuk Jailani Johari (pic), the Deputy Communications and Multimedia Minister, explained that fake news is information that is confirmed to be untrue, especially by the authorities or parties related to the news.”

What “fake” news will be allowed

What else does the jnr minister says about “fake news”? Fake news traffickers will be hanged.

But does the jnr minister disagree with the allegations made against his Pa and uncle who were Coldstore detainees, thereby contradicting the official narrative of “Bunch of commie subversives who had to be locked up because they wanted to make S’pore Great for Communism”?


*The grand inquisitor explains why he did what he did

I have been asked why I spent some time asking PJ Thum questions.

PJ’s main point, in his written submission to the Select Committee, was that Mr Lee Kuan Yew was the biggest creator of fake news in Singapore, a liar, and Operation Coldstore was based on falsehoods.

These are serious allegations made in Parliament about our founding PM.

Either they have to be accepted, or shown to be untrue. Keeping quiet about them was not an option.

Thus I told PJ I will ask him questions, on what he had said.

PJ refused to answer many of the questions directly – if a person believes in what he says, and has gone through the documents carefully, then what is the difficulty in answering questions?

It took 5 hours plus to go through the documents and records carefully.

In the end, PJ said that he had not read some of the material published by ex-Communists on what happened in Singapore; that he disregarded the statements made by Chin Peng, the CPM leader; that the way he set out the most important documents (of December 1962) was not accurate; the key meetings of Barisan Socialis showed that they were prepared to use armed struggle to overthrow a Government of Singapore, if necessary; and the British had a honest view, in December 1962, that security action (which was Operation Coldstore), was necessary.

People know me – I am direct, I deal with the facts, and say it as I think it is.

I can see that Sonny Liew is not happy with what happened with PJ. It is quite understandable. Based on what he says, he and PJ are quite close; they work together in a venture. His award winning cartoon, The Art of Charlie Chan Hock Chye, is also based on PJ’s version of history.

I have not met Sonny, but I have to say he is a good cartoonist. He is a talent.

K Shanmugam Sc‘s post

Btw, I agree with the points he makes about Sonny Liew being a good cartoonist and about why he asked the questions he asked. He had every right to beat up PJ Thum. I make no comment on

PJ refused to answer many of the questions directly – if a person believes in what he says, and has gone through the documents carefully, then what is the difficulty in answering questions?

Btw, seems PJ gave as good as he got, so his whining seems strange. But that’s grist for yet another post soon.

“Bullshit is the glue that binds us as a nation” 

In Political governance on 24/07/2017 at 5:01 am

“Bullshit is the glue that binds us as a nation” was said by George Carlin. He was an American stand-up black comedy comedian, actor, author, and social critic.

When Sonny Liew became the first S’porean to win an Eisner Award (In fact he won three*: the Eisner Awards are the comic industry’s Oscars.), I realised that “Bullshit is the glue that binds us as a nation” applies here too because of the hostility to alternative narratives to the “The S’pore Story: The PAP Version”.

“The S’pore Story: The PAP Version”

goes something like this: Newly independent from its bigger neighbor Malaysia, small and vulnerable in the middle of the Cold War, beset by Communist infiltrators and surrounded by domino nations, Singapore finally found stability and a road to prosperity when its founding father, Lee Kuan Yew, defeated dangerous left-wing opponents, regrettably by having many tossed in jail.

“The S’pore Story: The PAP Version”

has been hammered home in textbooks, the mass media and television shows. To oppose it meant risking detention without trial, costly libel suits or extreme marginalization in a country where the state controls most purse strings and levers of power.

The above extracts are from

After the above book was published, Singapore’s National Arts Council (NAC) withdrew a publishing grant, and an official wrote in a letter to the constructive, nation-building ST that the book “potentially undermines the authority and legitimacy of the Government and its public institutions.”

(The author talks about his present relationship with the NAC: http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-asia-40606324/singapore-artist-tops-comic-book-oscars-nominations)

Then there’s “State of Emergency”, another novel. The author sent the first draft of book to NAC and his subsidy was stopped.

Synopsis:
Siew Li leaves her husband and children in Tiong Bahru to fight for freedom in the jungles of Malaya. Decades later, a Malaysian journalist returns to her homeland to uncover the truth of a massacre committed during the Emergency. And in Singapore, Siew Li’s niece Stella finds herself accused of being a Marxist conspirator.

Jeremy Tiang’s debut novel dives into the tumultuous days of leftist movements and political detentions in Singapore and Malaysia. It follows an extended family from the 1940s to the present day as they navigate the choppy political currents of the region. What happens when the things that divide us also bind us together?

Praise:
“A well-written novel, and it has a wide historical perspective.”—Philip Holden, author of Heaven Has Eyes and NUS Professor of English

“A superbly structured piece of work. The sweep of the dramatic narrative is impressive, with just the right dose of intrigue and mystery.”—Haresh Sharma, Resident Playwright, The Necessary Stage

https://shop.epigrambooks.sg/products/state-of-emergency

(Btw, both books are published by Epigram Books, owned by Edmund Wee. He wants to make S’pore Literature Great.)

Then there’s Mr. Thum Ping Tjin, better known as PJ Thum, a Research Associate at the Centre for Global History and co-ordinator of Project Southeast Asia, University of Oxford. He’s got local academics foaming with rage over his analysis of Operation Coldstore. He used declassified British archives to challenge the PAP narrative that S’pore faced a credible Communist threat. Really there’s nothing really very new about his analysis. Some Western historians had been disagreeing with the PAP’s narrative even before the British declassified their records, basing their analysis on information available from US and Australian archives.

(Here’s his analysis of the 1964 “racial riots”: https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2016/07/26/why-history-matters-to-singapore/. It’s not the official narrative.)

Btw, he has his own alternative history podcast on S’pore. Again this often goes against the PAP narrative but in the main it follows what Western historians have talked about. S’poreans are generally not aware of what Western historians write about S’pore because their books and articles are about the region, and the S’pore material is just a “little red dot”.

I’m no fan of his because I think in his analysis of S’pore in the 50s and 60s, he leaves out the bigger picture of Western fears and concerns, not unreasonable, about the danger of Communism to their regional and global interests. For example, in any analysis of S’pore in the late 50s and early 60s, account must be taken of  the PKI,  the Indonesian Communist Party. By 1965, the PKI was the strongest communist party outside the USSR and China. It had influence over Sukarno.

———————————–

*Nominated in six categories for graphic novel “The Art of Charlie Chan Hock Chye”, Liew won three:

Best Writer/Artist,

Best US Edition of International Material – Asia, and

Best Publication Design and categories