-
The 59-year old resident is visually handicapped.
-
He has kidney failure and gets dialysis treatment three times a week.
-
He has been declared as medically unfit to work.
-
He gets a payout of $620 from his own CPF Retirement Account.
-
He looks after two other blind gentlemen who are also unable to work.
-
He applied for social assistance and was rejected, and in its response to his application the MSF states that he doesn’t meet the criteria because he earns an income from his CPF Retirement Account.
-
He gets support from other VWOs, well-wishers to help pay for rental, some food, transport to and from dialysis treatments.
-
Why is one’s CPF Retirement Account being considered income? What is the policy rationale behind this especially when dealing with cases like the one above?
-
Why is this resident allowed to dip into his CPF Retirement Account before he is of retirement age? Shouldn’t he be accorded long-term social assistance first and then have him dip into his Retirement Account later?
-
How much does someone need to live in dignity in Singapore, and especially so if he isn’t able bodied.
-
Is the Government’s policy and decision making in such matters morally and ethically acceptable?
-
The 59-year old resident is visually handicapped.
-
He has kidney failure and gets dialysis treatment three times a week.
-
He has been declared as medically unfit to work.
-
He gets a payout of $620 from his own CPF Retirement Account.
-
He looks after two other blind gentlemen who are also unable to work.
-
He applied for social assistance and was rejected, and in its response to his application the MSF states that he doesn’t meet the criteria because he earns an income from his CPF Retirement Account.
-
He gets support from other VWOs, well-wishers to help pay for rental, some food, transport to and from dialysis treatments.
-
Why is one’s CPF Retirement Account being considered income? What is the policy rationale behind this especially when dealing with cases like the one above?
-
Why is this resident allowed to dip into his CPF Retirement Account before he is of retirement age? Shouldn’t he be accorded long-term social assistance first and then have him dip into his Retirement Account later?
-
How much does someone need to live in dignity in Singapore, and especially so if he isn’t able bodied.
-
Is the Government’s policy and decision making in such matters morally and ethically acceptable?
http://theindependent.sg/ownself-pra...ommunity-work/
Ownself praise ownself? Netizens mock PAP Aljunied GRC candidate for “wayang” about how he’s not paid to do community work
By Jewel Stolarchuk - June 20, 2018
Ruling party member Victor Lye Thiam Fatt’s recent Facebook post does not appear to have gone over very well with some netizens. Writing on his social media page today, Victor – who contested Aljunied GRC at the last election and directly faced Workers’ Party veteran Low Thia Khiang only to lose – recounted an exchange he had with a young resident at the opposition ward.
Revealing that the resident had asked him how much he was paid for doing community service as he made his rounds in Aljunied GRC, Victor wrote:
“The answer is “not a cent”. I told him we as volunteers even spend our own money doing community work. He was surprised, but appreciated the truth. Seems he was told something different by others. He then asked me when I started volunteering. The answer is “since 1999″ when I wanted to help those who lost jobs in the Asian Financial Crisis.”
Victor then shared that another resident asked him why the PAP Aljunied GRC team did not receive Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP) seats, even though they “lost by the smallest margin”:
“Later, another resident asked if the best losers in the elections are paid for their unelected seats in Parliament. [For background, Singapore has a Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP) scheme that ensures up to 9 seats for unelected opposition voices alongside the 89-seat Parliament. This will be increased to 12 at the next election. Plus, NCMPs will be given the same voting rights as elected MPs.]
“I answered, “yes”. Then, he laughed, “but actually, you guys in Aljunied GRC lost by the smallest margin (of less than one percent). Yet, opposition losers gets paid and sit in Parliament while you still walk the ground with no pay and no Parliament seat? Better you join opposition! Le siow ah!” (translated as “are you crazy?”)
“I decided to let him have the last laugh while I focused on resolving problems faced by a resident. Another day in Aljunied GRC…”
Several netizens poked fun at Victor’s post, opining that he is simply praising himself. Asserting that this is just a “wayang” or an act, netizens opined that Victor appears “proud and arrogant” and that he may just be gunning for the high salaries elected politicians are paid here:
Victor was last in the news two years ago when he released this Chinese New Year music video – a project by the People’s Action Party’s Bedok Reservoir-Punggol Branch that he chairs:
Victor distributed limited edition DVD copies of the music video over the Chinese New Year weekend in 2016, during his usual rounds at Aljunied GRC as part of his preparation for the next General Election.
https://www.facebook.com/victorlye.s...71003689750636
https://www.facebook.com/JoseRaymond...type=3&theater
https://www.gov.sg/~/sgpcmedia/media...e%20Report.pdf
Jose Raymond 乔立盟
Like This Page · 18 June ·
Various pro-PAP Facebook pages, and PAP MPs have taken issue with my Facebook post about the visually handicapped 59-year old Toa Payoh resident who was denied long-term social assistance. I’m glad.
One pro-PAP Facebook page has even gone to the extent of trying to justify the Government’s proposed increase in GST because of such cases so the Government can do more. How classy.
Along with MSF Singapore’s response, their framing is that the resident already receives a plethora of assistance from various parties, a fact which my post had already indicated.
I am happy the revelation of ground realities has irritated the PAP because they need to be made aware of what’s hurting people. Writing the post was a last resort, as I had taken the resident to meet his MP Saktiandi Supaat in January this year.
The government and the PAP can frame the issue one way, but I can reframe it another way so the public can see the issue from a different perspective. That’s how policies can be tightened, as ultimately we must do what’s best for our citizens.
The Government also needs to ask itself if its policy and decision making in such matters is morally and ethically acceptable.
As I had stated previously, here are the facts and key questions so the public can decide if MSF can and should be doing better.
Here are the questions we must ponder over:
Policies should always be reviewed and discussed based on ground realities. It’s through extensive debate and looking at issues through various lenses and perspectives that we can make our policies better for the benefit of Singaporeans.
This is something the PAP and its supporters need to get used to, for the benefit of Singaporeans, the people it claims to represent.
Loving Singapore means loving its people. ����
#SGLivesMatter
http://www.unscrambled.sg/2017/04/25...ruly-hopeless/
Now we know Singapore football is truly hopeless
L;DR – What a sordid mess!
In 1998, then-Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong set Goal 2010. The aim was for the Singapore national football team to reach the 2010 FIFA World Cup Finals in South Africa. 2010 came and went. We didn’t get anywhere near to qualifying for the World Cup Finals. Then 2014 came. And went. We didn’t get anywhere near qualifying for the World Cup Finals.
It’s 2017. And we are already out of the running for a spot in the 2018 World Cup. Not only that, the FIFA ranking of our national team has fallen drastically since 1998. We used to be ranked 81 in 1998. Today, we are ranked 159.
There are a total of 211 national associations in FIFA. So while we aren’t exactly at rock bottom, we are pretty close. How did Singapore football get to such an abysmal state? The root causes are fairly complex. But recent events can give us some ideas of why Singapore football is so hopeless.
The $500,000 donation
For the first time in donkey years, the leadership for the Football Association of Singapore (FAS), the governing body of football in Singapore, is to be elected, not appointed. Any illusion that this would improve the state of football in Singapore is quickly dispelled by the farce of the campaigning.
It all started when Mr Lim Kia Tong, the current interim President of FAS, alleged that his opponent Mr Bill Ng, chairman of football clubs Hougang United FC and Tiong Bahru FC, as wanting to be the President of FAS he is “only interested to gain some mileage”.
That prompted Mr Ng to hit back. He alleged that the FAS had asked him to donate $850,000 to it through his clubs Tiong Bahru FC and Hougang. Mr Ng intimated that Winston Lee, the FAS general secretary, arranged the donations without the knowledge of other FAS council members. That led to a whole long sordid exchange of “he said, she said”.
Regardless of who said what, the whole $500,000 donation incident says a lot about the administration of football in Singapore.
Did the donation help Singapore football?
One question that the $500,000 donation raises is this. What was it used for? Ostensibly, the donation went to the ASEAN Football Federation’s (AFF) Football Management System, a “system” that almost no one had heard of until last week.
Given that football in Singapore isn’t exactly flushed with cash, every cent counts. $500,000 is a huge sum of money compared to what’s available to develop football in Singapore. Why did that much money go to some regional system rather than on developing football in Singapore? How does that help develop football in Singapore? Could the money not have been better spent?
For instance, only $70,000 was spent on organising grassroots competitions. Clubs involved in these grassroots competitions provide a base and platform for players to train and develop and serves as a channel for budding players to turn professional. It is estimated that FAS need to spend about S$400,000 annually to ensure that these clubs were sufficiently funded and that the leagues were properly run.
Show me the money!
Speaking of how FAS spends its money, FAS paid its key management personnel $1.8 million in the financial year ending March 2016. The key management personnel include the general secretary, and CEO of S.League. Of the key management personnel, the highest paid personnel earns between $400,001 to $500,000. In contrast, national players in the S.League are paid between $4,000 and $10,000 a month.
But at least FAS spends the majority of its money on football related activities. That isn’t the case for Tiong Bahru FC.
Tiong Bahru FC had an annual revenue of $36.7 million in the last financial year from its fruit machines (a fancy name for jackpot machines). It paid out around S$23 million in winnings in 2016.
From the balance of $14 million, it paid its 15 employees $2.073 million in salaries in 2016, and also forked out an additional S$528,000 for staff training, uniforms and staff welfare. It paid around S$960,000 in total rent in 2016 to the unit’s landlord, Polygon Venture. That’s about $80,000 per month and works out to be $31 per square foot.
What’s strange about the rent is that it’s quite exorbitant compared to other units in the area. The club house is in the basement. Other units on the same floor are charging between S$2.92 and S$11.23 per square feet in rent. The only unit charging S$31.50 per square feet in rent is located at street level.
Things get fishier when you consider that Polygon Venture, the landlord, is owned by Bonnie Wong Yuk Ying, who shares the same same residential address as Mr Ng, the club’s chairman. Also, consider that the total rent paid for the clubhouse is substantially more than what’s the paltry $169,000 that is actually spent on the football team.
And it’s not as if Tiong Bahru FC couldn’t afford to spend more on the football team. After accounting for all its expenses, the club made a profit of about $604,000 in 2016. So it seems that the primary business of a football club in Singapore isn’t about football, but about operating jackpot machines instead
.
Bad impression
While it’s not fair to say that all the football clubs in Singapore are like Tiong Bahru FC, but this latest revelation really creates a terrible impression. But the management of Tiong Bahru FC, the spending priorities of FAS, and the curious case of the $500,000 donation really don’t inspire confidence in the management of football in Singapore.
To make matters worse, police have raided the headquarters of the Football Association of Singapore (FAS) and three football clubs. The raids were triggered by a police report filed by SportsSG. This is SportsSG’s statement:
“SportSG also made further checks, which raised other serious questions about the use of Club funds. Based on legal advice, SportSG decided to file a police report on 19 April 2017 at about 7:50pm, in respect of suspected misuse of Tiong Bahru Football Club’s funds and a purported attempt by a senior officer of the Club to delay and/or obstruct the completion of audits into the S.League sit-out clubs.”
After the raid, four people have been arrested. They are Hougang United chairman Bill Ng and his wife Bonnie Wong, FAS general secretary Winston Lee, and ex-FAS president Zainudin Nordin. They are now assisting the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD) with the probe into the suspected misuse of funds, and an attempt by a senior club official to obstruct the completion of audits of the S.League’s sit-out clubs.
https://www.todayonline.com/4-arrest...ainudin-nordin
All hope lost
Neil Humphreys, long-time observer of Singapore football, sum up this situation best:
“To the casual observer, Singapore’s only professional sport looks like a dispiriting basket case of back-handers, back-slappers and ladder-climbers, all focused on personal ambition rather than the game itself.
That’s the long-standing perception and after a week of petty claims and counter-claims, the perception now presents itself as reality. It’s all about greasing palms and making friends in higher places.”
Given how sordid it has become, you would be forgiven if you have lost all hope in Singapore’s football. The only silver lining is that we are probably at rock bottom. The only way from now on, surely, must be up. Or so we hope.
http://theindependent.sg/fas-spends-...key-personnel/
FAS spends $70K on community football but $1.6M on salaries of key personnel
By The Independent - September 27, 2016
By: 永久浪客/Forever Vagabond
It was reported by TODAYOnline yesterday (‘FAS spending on grassroots competitions sparks outrage‘) that members of the local football community were angry that only $70,000 was spent by FAS on community competitions in the local scene last FY (April 2015 to March 2016). This includes spending on the National Football League (NFL) and Island Wide League (IWL).
According to the FAS, the total organising expenses for community competitions like the NFL, IWL, FA Cup and Singapore 9s, amounted to just over $112,000.. This amount was offset by club participation fees of $41,000, resulting in about $70,000 of net spending from the FAS (each NFL and IWL club pays $1,700 to take part in the competitions).
The $70,000 spending to help develop football in the community scene was minuscule compared to FAS’ total revenue of $35.8 million, of which the majority came from Tote board’s donations.
Volunteers forking out own money to help community football
Darwin Jalil, president of Eunos Crescent FC told the media that the $70,000 spending reflects FAS’ lack of regard for the local amateur leagues. He said that FAS is wrong to disregard the local amateur leagues because they “provide a base and platform for players to train and develop and serves as a channel for budding players to turn professional and play in the S.League”.
Yakob Hashim, coach of Yishun Sentek Mariners, also expressed his unhappiness. He revealed that many local community clubs struggle to stay afloat because of a lack of money.
“If you’re serious about making the NFL and IWL become proper leagues and improve the standard of players at a grassroots level, then you need to provide some seed money to the clubs,” explained Yakob. “A lot of the club owners are volunteers, but have to fork out their own money to run the club because they’re passionate about local football.”
Even a professional S.League club chairman commented, “I am somewhat disturbed at how the NFL and IWL have been effectively marginalised. No meaningful football ecosystem can be developed if the grassroots football leagues are not encouraged to flourish.”
“This gross imbalance in budget allocation to the elite (S.League) and non-elite (community) football is worrisome. It belies a lack of understanding of the football ecosystem,” he added.
$1.6 million salaries for key management personnel
Meanwhile, according to its last year’s annual report, FAS paid $1,640,056 to its “key management personnel”.
The key management personnel are listed as:
• General Secretary
• CEO of S.League
• National Coach
• Technical Director
• Director S.League
• Deputy General Secretary
The FAS annual report also revealed the salary ranges of 3 of its top key executives:
• $200,001 to $300,000 – 1 person
• $400,001 to $500,000 – 2 persons
Presumably, FAS’ top key operating management personnel, the General Secretary, must be receiving a remuneration of between $400,001 to $500,000.
http://theindependent.sg/ceo-of-s-le...salary-in-fas/
CEO of S.League is Ex-SAF Chief of Artillery earning big salary in FAS
By: 永久浪客/Forever Vagabond
It was earlier reported that while FAS was only willing to spend $70,000 on local football tournaments and community development, it was more than happy to spend $1.6 million on the salaries of its key management personnel (
http://theindependent.sg/fas-spends-...-key-personnel
).
In its annual report, it has listed its key management personnel as:
• General Secretary
• CEO of S.League
• National Coach
• Technical Director
• Director S.League
• Deputy General Secretary
The $70,000 spending to help develop football in the community scene was minuscule compared to FAS’ total revenue of $35.8 million, of which the majority came from Tote board’s donations.
COL (NS) Lim is former SAF Chief of Artillery
One of its key management personnel is COL (NS) Lim Chin. He is currently the CEO of S.League:
According to FAS, COL (NS) Lim was appointed as CEO of its S.League in 2012. It was disclosed that COL (NS) Lim is formerly the Chief of Artillery in the SAF.
FAS President Zainudin Nordin then said COL (NS) Lim would bring with him “strong leadership skills and strategic management capabilities”.
At his appointment, COL (NS) Lim told the media, “I am honoured to join an organisation that has gained recognition and stature both regionally and internationally, and I hope to continue the good work done by outgoing CEO Winston Lee and his team.”
Winston Lee did not leave the FAS but was promoted to become its current General Secretary.
COL (NS) Lim added, “Going forward, I will be working closely with my team to devise the S.League Strategic Plan which will bring us to the next level.”
“I look forward to meeting and working closely with our stakeholders including FAS, club chairmen, sponsors, advertisers, media, volunteers and fans as we aspire to raise the standard of our professional league,” he promised.
COL (NS) Lim gave S.League players a tongue-lashing
Two years later in 2014, COL (NS) Lim found himself in the news when a leaked dialogue which was put online, exposed a tongue-lashing incident between him and S.League players from Tanjong Pagar United.
In the meeting, when the players challenged the contribution of the chairman of their club as well as questioned COL (NS) Lim, Lim then exploded:
“The chairman of the club and the management committee (are) above all of you. You are players, nobody is bigger than the club. The chairman heads the club. The management committee is not for you to judge… So I think you all need to know where you stand as a player, as a staff, as a coach. Do not ever question the chairman on his role and responsibility.”
Later, the media approached Lim for comments over the incident and he explained, “It just hurt me to find that the players, in such a big forum and in front of everyone, were questioning Edward’s (chairman) role and what he has done for the club.”
“So, at that moment, I felt that I couldn’t sit down and let this continue,” he added. “My tone was a bit loud but, certainly, I think we empathised with the players who were affected.”
Netizens were criticising him for his tone and choice of words in the exchange. Many think that he has too much SAF baggage with him. One netizen commented, “He talks to people like he got the power to send them to DB (detention barrack).”
Another said, “In other leagues, the millionaire footballers will tell him to go f**k himself and know his place.”
CEO of S.League earns $500K?
In any case, the FAS annual report revealed that the salary ranges of 3 of its top key executives were:
• $200,001 to $300,000 – 1 person
• $400,001 to $500,000 – 2 persons
Presumably, FAS’ top key operating management personnel, the General Secretary, must be receiving a remuneration of between $400,001 to $500,000.
It’s not known if COL (NS) Lim, as CEO of S.League and part of FAS key management team, is also one of the 3 earning big salary in FAS. Most of the FAS revenue, of course, comes from the generous donations of Tote Board – money from Singaporean punters of 4D, TOTO, Singapore Sweep, sports betting and horse racing.
http://theindependent.sg/fas-gate-co...ersonnel-1-6m/
FAS’ gate collections $2M while salaries for 6 key personnel $1.6M
By The Independent - September 28, 2016
By: 永久浪客/Forever Vagabond
It was earlier reported that while FAS was only willing to spend $70,000 on local football tournaments and community development, it was more than happy to spend $1,640,056 on the salaries of its key management personnel (
http://theindependent.sg/fas-spends-...-key-personnel
).
In its annual report, it has listed its key management personnel as:
• General Secretary
• CEO of S.League
• National Coach
• Technical Director
• Director S.League
• Deputy General Secretary
Of the six, 3 was revealed to have received annual salaries of:
• $200,001 to $300,000 – 1 person
• $400,001 to $500,000 – 2 persons
That is, these 3 received a total salary of between $1,000,003 to $1,300,000 out of the $1,640,056 in the last FY 2015.
Tongue-lashing incident of S.League CEO COL (NS) Lim
It was further revealed that FAS General Secretary who was promoted from his previous S.League CEO position is Winston Lee. The current S.League CEO is COL (NS) Lim Chin, the former SAF Chief of Artillery (
http://theindependent.sg/ceo-of-s-le...-salary-in-fas
).
COL (NS) Lim was in the news 2 years ago when his tongue-lashing incident with some S.League players occurred in closed-door, was recorded by someone and put online for the public to view. In that incident, when the players questioned the club management and himself, he exploded:
“The chairman of the club and the management committee (are) above all of you. You are players, nobody is bigger than the club. The chairman heads the club. The management committee is not for you to judge… So I think you all need to know where you stand as a player, as a staff, as a coach. Do not ever question the chairman on his role and responsibility.”
Dismal gate collections
According to its annual report for the last FY, FAS was only able to get $1,969,705 for its gate collections.
This means the gate collections alone are just able to cover the $1,640,056 of FAS’ 6 key management personnel.
In fact, most of the FAS revenue has to come from the generous donations of Tote Board – money from Singaporean punters of 4D, TOTO, Singapore Sweep, sports betting and horse racing.
In the last FY, donations amounted to $23,657,179 or close to 70% of FAS total revenue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Chewbakhwa
Why are you always using old articles ???
This is because the issues remained relevant today and remained unresolved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kuasimi
https://www.facebook.com/JoseRaymond...type=3&theater
https://www.gov.sg/~/sgpcmedia/media...e%20Report.pdf
Jose Raymond 乔立盟
Like This Page · 18 June ·
Various pro-PAP Facebook pages, and PAP MPs have taken issue with my Facebook post about the visually handicapped 59-year old Toa Payoh resident who was denied long-term social assistance. I’m glad.
One pro-PAP Facebook page has even gone to the extent of trying to justify the Government’s proposed increase in GST because of such cases so the Government can do more. How classy.
Along with MSF Singapore’s response, their framing is that the resident already receives a plethora of assistance from various parties, a fact which my post had already indicated.
I am happy the revelation of ground realities has irritated the PAP because they need to be made aware of what’s hurting people. Writing the post was a last resort, as I had taken the resident to meet his MP Saktiandi Supaat in January this year.
The government and the PAP can frame the issue one way, but I can reframe it another way so the public can see the issue from a different perspective. That’s how policies can be tightened, as ultimately we must do what’s best for our citizens.
The Government also needs to ask itself if its policy and decision making in such matters is morally and ethically acceptable.
As I had stated previously, here are the facts and key questions so the public can decide if MSF can and should be doing better.
Here are the questions we must ponder over:
Policies should always be reviewed and discussed based on ground realities. It’s through extensive debate and looking at issues through various lenses and perspectives that we can make our policies better for the benefit of Singaporeans.
This is something the PAP and its supporters need to get used to, for the benefit of Singaporeans, the people it claims to represent.
Loving Singapore means loving its people. ����
#SGLivesMatter
https://www.facebook.com/andrewlohhp
There were calls recently that our public/civil service must not be politically partisan. Unfortunately, the calls are apparently falling on deaf ears.
The deputy chairman of the People’s Association, Chan Chun Sing, pledged 2 years ago that he would not allow the PA to be politicised.
See here:
https://www.tnp.sg/news/singapore/ch...be-politicised
Words are one thing, action is another. Mr Chan should take some action against grassroots leaders who use their positions to play politics.
It does not do our country any good to behave like this.
https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/201...th-his-banner/
PAP Aljunied grassroot advisor apologised for covering Workers’ Party’s event banner with his banner
Published on 2018-06-23 by Terry Xu
Victor Lye Thiam Fatt, People’s Action Party (PAP) Candidate candidate for the Aljunied GRC in the General Election 2015 and grassroots leader for Aljunied GRC, has acknowledged that his volunteers put up a banner to cover up another banner from the Workers’ Party and apologised for the action.
Mr Lye had earlier published a Facebook post about him not being paid to do community work in the constituency and quoted a resident saying that the opposition politicians have it better for them as their best losers are given a seat in Parliament with salary while Mr Lye and his team who were the best losers in GE2015, did not.
Mr Lye is one of the appointed grassroots advisors to the Bedok Reservor-Punggol Grassroots Organisation despite not being the elected Member of Parliament of the constituency.
https://www.facebook.com/victorlye.s...71003689750636
The post spurred a member of public, Ong Yu Shan to ask Mr Lye, “Didn’t you tell resident you love to use underhand tactics?!? Passed by and saw your lovely face banner covered Aljunied banner @ WP constituency.” and posted a photo of Mr Lye’s banner blocking another banner which was purportedly taken recently at the Aljunied GRC.
Mr Lye promptly responded to Ong’s post by acknowledging that the banner should not have been placed in the said manner and asked his volunteers to rectify.
The banner which was from Mr Lye’s team is meant to inform the residents of the activities organised by the Bedok Reservor-Punggol Grassroots Organisation; activities such as porridge distribution, prayers, a community fair and groceries distribution during the Hari Raya period.
As for the banner being blocked, it can be seen from the color and viewable details that it is a banner put up by the Aljunied Town Council managed by Workers’ Party, promoting a festive event organised by the Aljunied constituency which is scheduled to be held on this coming 30 June.
https://www.facebook.com/aljuniedcom...500927/?type=3
https://www.facebook.com/aljuniedcom...500927/?type=3
This is not the first time that Mr Lye’s volunteers are guilty of such uncalled for behaviour. Shortly before the elections, the PAP Aljunied team distributed political flyers in the middle of the night to residents, warning them about the alleged mismanagement by the Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council. And from Mr Lye’s Facebook posting, he would have been part of the team that went around distributing the flyers.
https://www.facebook.com/victorlye.s...71969069654103
Regarding the distribution of leaflets, the Singapore Police Force (SPF) issued to the media on 19 March 2015:
“In consultation with the Attorney-General’s Chambers on the police report made on the distribution of flyers at Aljunied Group Representation Constituency, it has been determined that there is no offence disclosed. The distribution of flyers in itself is not an offence in Singapore.”
Note that at the point of the flyers being distributed in March 2015, the parliament has yet been dissolved and the Prime Minister has yet to call for the General Election, therefore it cannot be said to be political campaigning during the election period.
Now compare that with the case in 2006, where members of the Singapore Democratic Party were charged for illegal assembly while distributing flyers “in the vicinity of Raffles City Shopping Centre, North Bridge Road”. They were accused of participating in “an assembly intended to demonstrate opposition to the actions of the Government" without a police permit.
The police licensing officer during the trial, testified that distributing flyers for a commercial cause did not require a permit whereas one was needed if the cause was political.
Given the SPF’s reply, it can be safely assumed that the PAP activists did not apply for a permit for their political activity but yet not charged for illegal assembly as in SDP’s case.
With such double standards in place, no wonder such uncouth behaviours by the PAP grassroots continue till today.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10155618399508977&set=p.10155618399 508977&type=3
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1981277375230535&set=a.247269498631 340.68016.100000448763402&type=3
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f… 508977&type=3
Andrew Loh
Yesterday at 9:05 AM ·
Let me just say this because this post by Mr Lye is so utterly shameful, self-serving and highly misleading.
Mr Lye laments that volunteers like him have to fork out their own money when doing volunteer work in the community, unlike the paid NCMPs from the opposition, and despite Mr Lye being the “best losers” in the election, he is not in Parliament (as NCMP).
First, WP NCMPs are in Parliament legally. They are there legally under laws which Mr Lye’s party created and instituted. So, Mr Lye should have corrected his resident’s mistaken views (and why he - Mr Lye - though having garnered more losing votes is not an NCMP). (Imagine a Parliament of elected PAP MPs and non-elected PAP NCMPs. What would be the point of the NCMP scheme then?)
Second, Mr Lye should have explained to his resident the purpose of the NCMP scheme - to allow diverse views in Parliament.
Third, Mr Lye should have informed his resident that there are already 82 elected PAP MPs, out of 89, in Parliament.
There are only 3 NCMPs.
Fourth, to give the impression that WP NCMPs benefit from the NCMP seats in Parliament more than Mr Lye is misleading. This is because:
a. While Mr Lye may be using his own money for his own community work, no one forced him to do so. He can decline doing so right now.
b. While he claims to fork out his own money, he is also chairman of his area’s CCC and thus has access to government funds via the People’s Association when it comes to organising and holding activities in his area, which raises his profile with residents which in turn gives him a huge advantage over the opposition when Mr Lye - despite being in a supposedly non-partisan GRO - runs for election under the PAP banner (which he did in 2015).
In short, Mr Lye benefits politically from the activities funded by public money even though he is not an elected member.
See this link below, where the PA states that “CCCs plan and lead major grassroots activities within the constituency, oversee local assistance programmes, and organise major fund-raising projects and national campaigns.”
https://www.pa.gov.sg/our-network/gr...ive-committees
Some of his (political) activities are also questionable, including this one where he, a chairman of a non-political grassroots organisation by day, goes out to distribute political leaflets to residents by night:
Read here:
https://andrewlohhp.wordpress.com/20...of-sneakiness/
c. If Mr Lye feels it is unfair for him (and his volunteers) to have to fork out their own money when doing community work, he should take it up with the People’s Association whose chairman is the Prime Minister.
It is truly unfortunate that Mr Lye, instead of correcting the mistaken views of his resident, chose to use such misguided views to show off, that he is selfless and use his own money to serve reaidents, despite the fact that the PA’s budget has doubled the last 4 years, from $500m to $1b in each of the last 2 years.
To give the impression that the grassroots is so poor that he has to fork out his own money is highly misleading, at best.
The grassroots organisations are in fact generously funded by the govt, and headed by pro-PAP members who later run in elections:
See here:
https://www.todayonline.com/singapor...rifted-mandate
One would expect a would-be MP to be fair and correct wrong views, and not propagate them as truths.
By the way, the other non-MP WP candidates who, like Mr Lye, lost in the last elections, are all still continuing doing their volunteer work on the ground, in the community, at their own expense even. I do not see them boasting about it, or lamenting about it. They go on doing their work diligently, quietly, as it is right to do so, for people who have their hearts in the right place - and not making a mountain out of it.
Lastly, do note how Mr Lye has conflated his role as a CCC chairman (in the Bedok Reservoir area) with that of his political membership of the PAP. NCMPs are political roles, being the best-losers in a general election.
Mr Lye is also Branch Chairman of the PAP in the Bedok Reservoir area.
Mr Lye’s post conflates his role in Bedok Reservoir as a PA volunteer, and that of him not being an NCMP, a political position involving the political party, the PAP.
It saddens me to see a grassroots leader seemingly unable to distinguish his two roles. (Which is why there should be a ban on grassroots leaders being members - and candidates - of a political party.)
*NCMPs get a $2,000 honorarium to primarily allow them to have legislative help when crafting their parliamentary speeches, for example. It barely covers the costs which an NCMP would have to assume (from his own pocket) when he attends to parliamentary work, including having to take time off their full-time jobs.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1981277375230535&set=a.247269498631 340.68016.100000448763402&type=3
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Halogen8
Loong and Jinx will find ways to recover the losses .
Yep but Singaporeans like you and me will foot the bill for them, not them.
Look at the complicated chain of payments for Malaysia’s 1MDB case.
In the end, the New Malaysian Government discovered that it was the Malaysian taxpayers that foot the bill for 1MDB’s debts via a complicated chain of network designed by previous Malaysian Government.