http://www2.tnp.sg/content/chen-show...ommunity-event
Chen Show Mao ‘uninvited’ from community event
Opposition MP Chen Show Mao uploaded a photo of a note informing him that he had been ‘uninvited’ from a ghost month dinner on his Facebook page.
CONTROVERSY has broken afresh online after Members of Parliament (MPs) from the opposition ward of Aljunied were “disinvited” to at least one ghost month dinner events.
Workers’ Party (WP) MP for Aljunied GRC Chen Show Mao explained on his Facebook page yesterday that he had been scheduled to attend such a dinner last week, but the organisers had called to let him know that they could not have him show up as originally hoped.
Grassroots leaders are often invited to such dinners, held as part of the Chinese Hungry Ghost Month celebrations.
In this case, organisers had – according to Mr Chen’s post – been told by the Paya Lebar CCC (Citizens’ Consultative Committee under the People’s Association) that, as a condition for receiving CCC approval to use a planned venue in the HDB estate, they “may no longer” invite the Aljunied opposition MPs.
Tags:
chen show mao citizens consultative committee
https://everythingalsocomplain.com/2...ted-to-dinner/
Chen Show Mao disinvited to dinner
Posted on August 21, 2011 by gdy2shoez
From ‘Chen Show Mao ‘uninvited’ from communal event”, 21 Aug 2011, article by Benson Ang in tnp.sg and Chen Show Mao’s Facebook page.
CONTROVERSY has broken afresh online after Members of Parliament (MPs) from the opposition ward of Aljunied were “disinvited” to at least one ghost month dinner events.
Workers’ Party (WP) MP for Aljunied GRC Chen Show Mao explained on his Facebook page yesterday that he had been scheduled to attend such a dinner last week, but the organisers had called to let him know that they could not have him show up as originally hoped.
Grassroots leaders are often invited to such dinners, held as part of the Chinese Hungry Ghost Month celebrations.
In this case, organisers had – according to Mr Chen’s post – been told by the Paya Lebar CCC (Citizens’ Consultative Committee under the People’s Association) that, as a condition for receiving CCC approval to use a planned venue in the HDB estate, they “may no longer” invite the Aljunied opposition MPs.
(Chen Show Mao): …It pains me that they felt so embarrassed to pass me the news. Regrettably, this is not the first time it has happened since I was elected….Many residents talk to me about the events they are organizing in the neighborhood: some of them wish to invite me to join them, others don’t see the need to. That is all fine by me … there is really no call to force our residents into a quandary over whom they may invite as guests to their own events.
According to the PA website, under the PA Act (Yes there are actually legal frameworks governing PA’s activities):
4 (1) The Association shall consist of –
(a) the Prime Minister as Chairman;
(b) a Minister to be appointed by the Chairman as Deputy
Chairman;
(c) 8 members to be appointed by the Chairman; and
(d) one member to be appointed by the Chairman in consultation
with each of the organisations mentioned in the First Schedule.
Other than our PM as Chairman, the current board of management also includes fellow PAP ministers like Lim Swee Say as Deputy Chairman, MG Chan Chun Sing and Grace Fu. It’s obvious that the PA is really a Recreation Club spin-off of the PAP, and should really be called PAPPA instead.
If this ‘PAP who’s who’ line-up is not reason enough to see why Chen Show Mao of the WP was forced into a ‘No-Show’, a similar snub befell Chiam See Tong back in 1988. Chiam, then SDP leader, was not invited to the Potong Pasir National Day dinner, also organised by the Citizen’s Consultative Commitee of the constituency (I wasn’t invited to Potong Pasir dinner: Chiam, 17 Aug 1988, ST), which pretty much confirms that this PA party-pooper business is exclusive to Opposition MPs.
Is the reluctance of the PA to have Opposition MPs at such functions a form of preferential treatment, a wily tactic to prevent any sort of ‘recruitment’ of grassroot leaders into the Opposition camp, or for ‘security’ reasons?
DPM Wong Kan Seng was quick to denounce any political link between PA and the PAP in 2006, though any outstanding grassroots work under the PA is a surefire way to get noticed by its predominantly PAP board members. In a heated debate with LKY in 1983, Anson MP JBJ described being ‘treated like a leper’ by RC members, and cited, in contrast, the entourage of 25 HDB and PA associates accompanying a PAP MP on his walkabout. In the same article, LKY had this to say about the birth of the PA in 1960, of which he was the Chairman (naturally)
…Therefore we came out with this association (the PA) which enabled people not to identify with a political party but with the government of the day. There is a clear distinction.
In today’s PA, the ‘government of the day’ resides in its Board of Management, which explains the behaviour of its staff, even if they’re under no obligation to support the PAP in any way.
But dig deeper into the history of the PA and you’ll uncover a darker, deep-seated reason behind this aversion to the Opposition. In 1961, 17 PA members were dismissed for allegedly supporting former PAP members (who left to join Barisan Socialis) by distributing anti-government propaganda in CCs, resulting in a strike involving 200 PA members.
One of the PAP ‘defectors’ was none other than Dr Lim Hock Siew, later detained for almost 20 years under the ISA. So you can probably understand why PA members aren’t exactly touchy-feely with Opposition MPs, because you never know when inviting one to dinner would be misinterpreted as an act of aiding ‘subversion’.
Of course if today’s PA members, supposedly a non-political body (despite its PAP bosses) decide to hold demonstrations at CCs to kick out WP MPs from their GRCs, they would probably be let off with nothing more than a warning. On the other hand, if they bootlick PAP MPs by helping put up campaign posters or ferry people to rallies FOC during the general elections, that would be judged as actions of their own free will.
Therein lies the contradiction of a statutory board disclaiming any political links, and unless there is complete severance of PA from the PAP, or when MPs start wearing the same attire to NDP, this organisation will continue to fail in living up to its motto: Bringing People Together, because from what I understand about the word ‘People’, it means all Singaporeans, whichever political camp you belong to.
Postscript: Former PAP MP Cynthia Chua responded by criticising Chen Show Mao for ‘politicising’ the case.
According to the rules in using open spaces, those managed by the PA are leased for its grassroots organisations, but their activities must not be ‘political in nature’. This means MPs are not allowed to attend, but PAP losing candidates in opposition-held wards get to attend such events as government-appointed ‘grassroots advisers’ e.g Cynthia Chua.
Which means ousted PAP members, by retaining their ‘adviser’ status, get to mingle more with constituency residents while their very own MPs, the ones who can actually get things done, are banned. Surely, at the back of the minds of such ‘runner-up’ politicians would be getting re-elected, so how is having these ‘advisors’ grooming grassroots leaders at these events and making their presence felt as if to say ‘I’m still here in the running!’ NOT considered a political activity?
If PA is serious about its non-party-political affiliations, it should not have any PAP backing at all, and ban all past, present or future MPs from all its grassroots events.
How well is well-paid?
By Tan Hui Leng and Jasmie Yen, TODAY | Posted: 10 April 2007 1028
They expressed support for the need to pay top dollar for top talent in the public sector.
But Members of Parliament (MPs) who took part in yesterday’s parliamentary debate on the pay hike also spoke passionately about what many Singaporeans believe to be the heart of the issue: The benchmarking formula used to determine ministerial pay.
Ang Mo Kio MP Inderjit Singh noted that Singaporeans could not expect their leaders to serve based on altruism alone. “Are we willing to leave the future of the country to chance, that we will get good people who will give up their competence without caring about their salary?” he asked.
Some MPs, however, saw problems in benchmarking ministers’ pay to the private sector, pointing out to disparities in the risks taken by company chief executives and ministers and top civil servants.
Marine Parade MP Lim Biow Chuan said:
“I struggle to understand what a top Admin Officer aged 32 at grade SR9 has to worry about that will justify him receiving $363,000 a year … From many people’s perspectives, they take no personal risk and are at best, paid employees.”
Opposition MPs Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir) and Hougang’s Low Thia Khiang took issue with the fact that Singapore’s ministers are paid more than their counterparts in developed countries.
MPs like Bishan-Toa Payoh’s Mrs Josephine Teo, however, pointed out that ministers in other countries may make more money after their term in office ends, such as through public speaking.
Some MPs voiced concerns about the timing of announcing the pay revisions, especially with the Goods and Services Tax (GST) due to rise to 7 per cent in July.
Mr Singh said:
“How do we answer the man-in-the-street when we’re told that about one-quarter to one-third of the expected revenue increase this year from the GST is going to be for the proposed ministerial and civil service salary increases, about $240 million, I was told?”
Mr Low also referred to the recent debate on increasing the amounts for public assistance. “It’s also ironic that we are consuming taxpayers’ money and … discussing how much more of a fraction of a million to pay civil servants and ministers while we haggle over additional tens of dollars to hand out to our needy and disadvantaged citizens,” he said.
Some MPs who supported the pay hike also suggested that the salary benchmarking could be finetuned, such as pegging ministers’ salaries to more realistic markers such as top men in private equity firms and top companies based on market capitalisation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
sadfa
Cb!!!
Are u here to incite n instigate violence against garbagement. Last time the guy who did it was jailed cos according to cb garbagement, ppl will take what someone says on Internet at face value n be violent. Haha
Sporeans are too stupid to realise that if they rise up, garbagement will definitely send in the tanks. Cos garbagement already made it clear that sporeans are the enemy
______
Exchange points incite ma
How well is well-paid?
By Tan Hui Leng and Jasmie Yen, TODAY | Posted: 10 April 2007 1028
They expressed support for the need to pay top dollar for top talent in the public sector.
But Members of Parliament (MPs) who took part in yesterday’s parliamentary debate on the pay hike also spoke passionately about what many Singaporeans believe to be the heart of the issue: The benchmarking formula used to determine ministerial pay.
Ang Mo Kio MP Inderjit Singh noted that Singaporeans could not expect their leaders to serve based on altruism alone. “Are we willing to leave the future of the country to chance, that we will get good people who will give up their competence without caring about their salary?” he asked.
Some MPs, however, saw problems in benchmarking ministers’ pay to the private sector, pointing out to disparities in the risks taken by company chief executives and ministers and top civil servants.
Marine Parade MP Lim Biow Chuan said:
“I struggle to understand what a top Admin Officer aged 32 at grade SR9 has to worry about that will justify him receiving $363,000 a year … From many people’s perspectives, they take no personal risk and are at best, paid employees.”
Opposition MPs Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir) and Hougang’s Low Thia Khiang took issue with the fact that Singapore’s ministers are paid more than their counterparts in developed countries.
MPs like Bishan-Toa Payoh’s Mrs Josephine Teo, however, pointed out that ministers in other countries may make more money after their term in office ends, such as through public speaking.
Some MPs voiced concerns about the timing of announcing the pay revisions, especially with the Goods and Services Tax (GST) due to rise to 7 per cent in July.
Mr Singh said:
“How do we answer the man-in-the-street when we’re told that about one-quarter to one-third of the expected revenue increase this year from the GST is going to be for the proposed ministerial and civil service salary increases, about $240 million, I was told?”
Mr Low also referred to the recent debate on increasing the amounts for public assistance. “It’s also ironic that we are consuming taxpayers’ money and … discussing how much more of a fraction of a million to pay civil servants and ministers while we haggle over additional tens of dollars to hand out to our needy and disadvantaged citizens,” he said.
Some MPs who supported the pay hike also suggested that the salary benchmarking could be finetuned, such as pegging ministers’ salaries to more realistic markers such as top men in private equity firms and top companies based on market capitalisation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
sadfa
Cb!!!
Are u here to incite n instigate violence against garbagement. Last time the guy who did it was jailed cos according to cb garbagement, ppl will take what someone says on Internet at face value n be violent. Haha
Sporeans are too stupid to realise that if they rise up, garbagement will definitely send in the tanks. Cos garbagement already made it clear that sporeans are the enemy
______
Exchange points incite ma
Go and read your history and stop fearmongering. This is the general behaviour and general outcome all over the world for 5000 years when inequality becomes too wide for any reason.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
sadfa
Knn. What fear mongering.
Who is spore’s enemy. Is it Malaysia or indo or even China. Who.
And is it true a guy was jailed cos he say there should b violence against police. As if ppl so stupid , read Liao will b violent.
I can tell u don’t read n don’t understand.
Ranting yr point, oblivious to yr counter point will lead u nowhere
_____
Exchange points lead to where
Whatever. I don’t know your point and what you are trying to get at.
I only know Singapore has a platform call Elections to change Government, no need violence.
This was why Western Democracies enjoyed peace and prosperity for few hundred years with no upheavals.
The last autocratic country with no elections system and to experience Civil War was China. Today China still does not have election systems. If China Government turns bad again, history will repeat itself.
https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/201...grassroots-mp/
“The grassroots leaders… a lot of them are doing very good work but they don’t get time in the media,” Ang Mo Kio GRC MP, Intan Azura Mokhtar, said on Monday. “But because of one incident, (they) get highlighted.”
Dr Intan was giving her views about public reaction to Chinese national and Singapore permanent resident, Yang Yin, who is embroiled in a legal battle with the niece of an 87-year old woman with whom he had had “a close relationship”.
The niece of the elderly woman, Madam Hedy Mok, is applying to the court to suspend the Lasting Power of Attorney which has given Mr Yang control over her 87-year-old aunt’s assets.
Mdm Mok is accusing 40-year old Yang of having taken advantage of a vulnerable woman who was was diagnosed with dementia earlier this year.
Mr Yang, a tour guide, moved into Madam Chung Khin Chun’s $30 million Gerald Crescent bungalow after the two met while Mdm Chung was on a trip to Beijing in 2008.
Mr Yang moved into Mdm Chung’s home a year later.
He is now alleged to have taken over her assets worth $40 million in total and brought his family to live with him in Mdm Chung’s bungalow.
He is also accused of cutting off contacts between Mdm Chung and her close friends, and of selling her jewellery and art, emptied her bank accounts and sacking her long-time maid and driver.
60-year-old Mdm Mok, who owns a travel agency, took legal action earlier this year to revoke Mr Yang’s guardianship of her aunt’s $40 million assets.
The case has sparked online debate with many accusing Mr Yang of being a gold digger and of manipulating the elderly woman just so he could get his hands on her substantial assets.
“He would frequently make physical advances towards (Madam Chung), shamelessly hugging and kissing her in front of myself and the maids and driver,” said Madam Chang Phie Chin, 84, a friend of Mdm Chung of 50 years.
“He would have his meals with (Madam Chung), uttering sweet nothings to her,” she said.
“The defendant now has sole authority and control over my aunt’s assets and personal welfare, leaving my aunt in a vulnerable situation,” Mdm Mok said in her affidavit. “I deeply fear for my aunt’s safety and well-being as the defendant has shown that he has neglected her welfare and is merely manipulating her for his own benefit.”
However, when contacted by the media, Mr Yang said he is “leaving everything to the court to decide.”
“My family and I are fine and we believe that the law is fair and just,” the Straits Times on Monday quoted him as having said.
He added, “I have prepared my court affidavit, which I will make public in the next few days.”
It soon emerged online that Mr Yang, besides being a Singapore PR, was also active in the grassroots, a fact which MP Intan has now confirmed.
intanDr Intan says Mr Yang “is one of several [grassroots]leaders in Ang Mo Kio GRC helping foreigners integrate into society.”
“He came to help out during grassroots events,” said Dr Intan, who is a member of prime minister Lee Hsien Loong’s GRC team.
She added, however, that Mr Yang “doesn’t hold a position” in the grassroots.
Mr Yang has apparently been quite active in the grassroots, nonetheless, and has been photographed together with several MPs and Prime Minister Lee.
*Read “The talented Mr Yang” for more on the case and Mr Yang’s background.
http://www.singaporeuncensored.com/i...rker-revealed/
Identity Of Woman That Bully Handicapped Worker Revealed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
sadfa
Nothing wrong with yang la.
He like many hongkies really dare go all out to make their fortunes.
It’s only xenophobia stupid sporeans hate him n cb media stoke the flames.
And the stupid niece kaopeh for wat.
If she’s really so close to the widow, all this won’t happened
But you paid for Yang Yin’s Grassroots Activities. PA Grassroots Budget is from taxpayers money but benefit only a circle of exclusive Pro-PAP Singaporeans and PRs.
https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/201...-by-nearly-40/
Price of formula milk in Singapore has gone up by nearly 40%
It was recently reported that a man had been arrested for suspected involvement in a series of milk powder theft cases islandwide. It was also understood that he had intentions to resell the stolen milk powder. As would seem to be the observation of that man, is milk powder such an expensive commodity that selling it on the black market would be lucrative?
A one-stop pregnancy and parenting portal in Singapore, Babyment, collected data earlier this month about the price hike of formula milk in Singapore, and noticed the increase in price when compared with data collected in December 2012.
The portal, which advocates and promotes breastfeeding, also observed that the price of formula milk sold in Singapore was much higher than similar brands sold in Malaysia and China, with two products selling at a price that is more than double that of similar brands in Malaysia.
To protect and promote breastfeeding in Singapore, the Ministry of Health (MOH) established the Sale of Infant Foods Ethics Committee, Singapore (SIFECS) in 1979. This committee formulated and implemented the Code of Ethics on the Sale of Infant Foods in Singapore, noting that the World Health Organisation (WHO) recommends exclusive breastfeeding (that is the infant only receives breast milk without any additional food or drink, not even water) for the first six months of life.
Under the Code of Ethics, companies that sell or market formula milk are subjected to fairly stringent terms and conditions to ensure that mothers are not persuaded to rely on these products to provide nutrients for their infants.
Price of formula milk in December 2012 and March 2017*
Tables below show the price per 100 grams of baby milk powder by stage:
On average, the price of baby milk powder sold in Singapore has increased by 26.8%. The smallest increase is seen in Enfa products by Mead Johnson (21.3% for stage 1, 20.7% for stage 2 and 22.3% for stage 3) while Nestlé’s Nan H.A. products show the greatest increase (39.3% for stage 1, 37.1% for stage 2 and 34.7% for stage 3).
Manufacturers claim they have made improvements to the formula milk sold in Singapore in the last 4 years. These include the Similac and Enfa series of products by Abbott and Mead Johnson respectively.
Price comparison with China and Malaysia *
Tables below show the cost per 100 grams of baby milk powder in Singapore, China and Malaysia by stage.
According to the data collected, baby milk powder sold in Singapore is more expensive than those sold in Malaysia, with two brands (Similac stage 3 and Friso stage 3) selling at a price that is 2.2 times of similar ones in Malaysia.
Baby milk powder in Singapore is in general more expensive than similar brands in China except for the Nestlé Nan H.A. series.
Products sold in different countries may differ in terms of nutrition level due to different food regulatory requirement by the country’s governing authority.
*All data is computed based on selling price of a can of formula milk that has a net weight of milk powder of 800g to 900g.
Data collection and verification
All data on baby milk powder sold in Singapore was collected through personal visits to NTUC Fairprice and Cold Storage supermarkets. In general, there is no price difference for all baby milk powder in Singapore among major supermarkets like Fairprice, Cold Storage, Sheng Siong and Giant.
The majority of data on prices of formula milk in December 2012 (except stage 1 formula) can be verified through another independent database owned by Babyment. Through this database, Babyment shares with its visitors the latest promotions in baby milk powder.
Wyeth (S26), Nestlé (Nan H.A.), Abbott (Similac), Dumex (Mamil), Mead Johnson (Enfa) and Friso have official stores in e-commerce platform
in China and the original selling price of products sold in those official stores was used in the comparison.
Wyeth, Dumex and Nestle Nan have official stores in e-commerce platform
and the original selling price of products sold in those official stores was used for these brands. For other brands sold in Malaysia, the average prices from two supermarkets Tesco and Jaya Grocer were used.
Exchange rate used in computation: SGD : RMB = 1 : 4.94 and SGD : RM = 1 : 3.17. The company in its calculation followed the rate quoted on 20 March 2017 at google.com.sg
Notes and explanation on the data
Not all formula milk products sold in Singapore are included in Babyment’s data collection. In 2012, stage 1 formula sold by Mead Johnson was called Enfalac, stage 2 Enfapro, and stage 3 Enfagro.
China and Malaysia have been chosen for comparison due to similar products sold in those two countries. Names of the products may be slightly different. For example, in Malaysia, the stage 1 formula by Mead Johnson company is called Enfalac, instead of Enfamil.
