Some time back I had a digital altercation with a young commenter on Facebook who recently called himself a 'Village Idiot', a self-desecration to insinuate that I was dumbing down on him. Since he has professed himself a VI, I shall do him the honours of referring him as such. I was reluctant to waste time on making a mountain out of a molehill, but in the end, I feel there is some important issue worth sharing whilst hopefully, educating VI.
Most folks are familiar with the Polish blogger called Critical Spectator. He is an unabashed fan of the Singapore Government and a prolific writer of all things good with Singapore Inc. I do not agree with some of his points, but I appreciate he writes well and he supports his opinions with data and respectable arguments. I observe CS responds fast to issues of the day and the fact his articles often come with some researched data in such short time betrays someone writing with the support of a team. In other words, he is most likely a paid partisan propagandist. I have told him so, to which he has denied. CS is disliked by many for his opposition party-hating vernacular and his PAP fawning inclination. I note his many detractors seldom take him on which I suspect is due to apprehension of parrying with him. The result is CS Facebook page is a huge echo chamber of PAP die-hard supporters. I often drop some comments of alternative narratives, which without fail, would attract much criticisms from the echo chamber. To those that present a fair argument, I would respond in kind. But some commenters are best left for their parents to talk to them.
There was an argument I had with VI when I commented on a Facebook post by Critical Spectator. It started off rather arrogantly on his part, but civility thankfully prevailed. A statement I made required of me to show proof to him and led me to making a joke of a S$1,000 challenge. I reneged on that challenge due to pressing matters of putting food on the table, and not discounting the fact that I had already shown him the legislation in question but from which he could not, or was too lazy to read through, to find the answer himself. I put the matter off my mind, but it seems VI began trolling me. Each time I made a comment in another post of CS, there he was reminding me of the S$1k challenge. He is there at all times to render in disrepute all my other comments. I have a feeling VI is a paid IBs troll whose job it is to track people identified as anti-PAP (I am not anti-PAP, I am against some issues) and clobber our alternative narratives. I believe this army is not out to clobber everyone, but only sticky to those who presents alternative narratives intelligently.
Our dispute was in respect of the AIM saga. To recap, the $2 paid up company AIM landed the IT consultancy project of the PAP constituencies. In his media statement 2 Jan 2013, MP Teo Ho Pin, as Chairman of the PAP-run Town Councils, said of AIM "... we were confident that AIM, backed by the PAP, would honour its commitments." Later on 15 May 2013, Minister Khaw reiterated in parliament that AIM was owned by the PAP. In the Critical Spectator FB post I made a comment the PAP broke laws if indeed they owned AIM. The Village Idiot challenged me to provide the proof to which I directed him to the Societies Act. I think he expected me to show him a legislation that explicitly says "PAP cannot operate a commercial enterprise". Of course there is no such legislation. It required a somewhat lengthy explainer to demonstrate my claims. I didn't have time for IBs.
I blogged on the AIM saga here : PAPsmear - The Big Lie About The AIM Saga
In exasperation of the persistent trolling, I felt I needed a full blog to hopefully educate the Village Idiot and at the same time, share a learning moment with everyone else.
The Societies Act Section 24 states the Minister may order dissolution of any society
(1) Whenever it appears to the Minister that —
(c) any registered society is being used for purposes incompatible with the objects and rules of the society.
This ruling is thus predicated on the constitution of the People's Action Party. Article II of the PAP Constitution on Party Objectives:
"The Party shall be a national movement dedicated to serving our nation and advancing the well-being of our people. Towards this end, the Party’s objectives are: –
(a) To preserve, protect and defend the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Singapore.
(b) To safeguard the freedom, and advance the well-being, of Singaporeans through representative and democratic government.
(c) To uphold a multi-racial and multi-religious society, where people of diverse backgrounds and beliefs live harmoniously together as fellow citizens, and deepen our national identity and commitment to Singapore;
(d) To sustain a vibrant economy which creates good jobs and better lives for all, and enables every Singaporean to achieve their full potential;
(e) To build a fair and just society, which encourages individual effort and family responsibility, while ensuring community and government support for the vulnerable and less fortunate;
(f) To strengthen an open and compassionate meritocracy, with opportunities for Singaporeans to develop skills in diverse fields, active support for those who start off with less, and ladders to success at every stage of life;
(g) To develop a democracy of deeds, where citizenship embodies both rights and duties, and nurtures a sense of collective responsibility and community action;
(h) To represent and serve all Singaporeans responsively and responsibly, attentive to immediate concerns, focussed on long-term challenges and opportunities, and governing with integrity and honesty. "
These are 8 noble objectives. Nowhere is mentioned about investments and doing business. As clear as day, Section 24 (1) (c) applies if PAP actually owns AIM. It is ultra vires the party constitution. In my exchanges with Village Idiot, I said 'you break laws, you go to jail". The legal consequence here is actually worse. The PAP is liable to dissolution under the Societies Act.
The 2 founder shareholders of AIM were PAP members Lau Ping Shum and Chandra Das. I am assuming PAP, being a party of smart scholars with impeccable integrity, will not violate Section 24 (1) (c) of the Societies Act. Thus Lau and Das almost certainly held equity in AIM in their personal capacity and in pursuit of entrepreneurial dreams. The party had nothing to do with AIM. That being the case, the whole AIM mess can be summed up with 3 breaches by the men-in-white:
(1) Terrible conflict of interest by Lau and Das, collaborated by 17 PAP MPs running those constituencies.
(2) Mis-information by Dr Teo Ho Pin in his media statement 2 Jan 2013
(3) Outright lie by Minister Khaw in parliament on 15 May 2013.
I was terribly disappointed that Khaw's Big Lie went unchallenged. What should have been a huge public outcry went without so much as a whimper. The press didn't pick that up. Opposition members remained silent. Should Worker's Party remain silently indignant in light of the recent Committee of Privileges report against them regarding the lies in parliament of opposition MP Raeesah Khan?
Back to my main story about the Village Idiot. He is adamant no laws were broken, that the party can do business. Unfortunately for his ego, but good for Singaporeans, the government has done well to establish very stringent rules regarding how political parties can raise funds from members, receive donations for election campaigns, accept political contributions, etc. I shall not digress into the details, but suffice to say, there is nothing that permits political parties to own commercial enterprises.
The lesson to share here, and hopefully the Village Idiot has enough humility and critical capacity to think through the error of his comments. What he was referring to is something political science lingo calls "Parbus" which stands for political "Parties in Business". It does seem he is in favour of parbus, which runs counter to his patron party the PAP, which has most wisely chosen a practice never to allow in Singapore. Parbus is the fusion of politics and business, and the most assured pathway to corruption on a massive scale. Village Idiot is probably too young to remember the days when our neighbour up North practiced parbus, with UMNO, Indian Congress and Malaysian Chinese Association all having their own businesses. I wonder if he knows about the MCA, its president Tan Sri Tan Koon Swan and their powerful conglomerate Multi-Purpose Holdings and the financial mess they had back in the good old days.
Do note I meant no disrespect using the name Village Idiot. That's what he called himself. I rather not doxx on him. Unfortunately, VI is symtomatic of the young liberal-educated prevalent today. They pray to the altar of Relativism, and like John Keats, believe "Knowledge enormous makes a God of me". And so they often err to work through ethical and moral issues.
Most folks are familiar with the Polish blogger called Critical Spectator. He is an unabashed fan of the Singapore Government and a prolific writer of all things good with Singapore Inc. I do not agree with some of his points, but I appreciate he writes well and he supports his opinions with data and respectable arguments. I observe CS responds fast to issues of the day and the fact his articles often come with some researched data in such short time betrays someone writing with the support of a team. In other words, he is most likely a paid partisan propagandist. I have told him so, to which he has denied. CS is disliked by many for his opposition party-hating vernacular and his PAP fawning inclination. I note his many detractors seldom take him on which I suspect is due to apprehension of parrying with him. The result is CS Facebook page is a huge echo chamber of PAP die-hard supporters. I often drop some comments of alternative narratives, which without fail, would attract much criticisms from the echo chamber. To those that present a fair argument, I would respond in kind. But some commenters are best left for their parents to talk to them.
There was an argument I had with VI when I commented on a Facebook post by Critical Spectator. It started off rather arrogantly on his part, but civility thankfully prevailed. A statement I made required of me to show proof to him and led me to making a joke of a S$1,000 challenge. I reneged on that challenge due to pressing matters of putting food on the table, and not discounting the fact that I had already shown him the legislation in question but from which he could not, or was too lazy to read through, to find the answer himself. I put the matter off my mind, but it seems VI began trolling me. Each time I made a comment in another post of CS, there he was reminding me of the S$1k challenge. He is there at all times to render in disrepute all my other comments. I have a feeling VI is a paid IBs troll whose job it is to track people identified as anti-PAP (I am not anti-PAP, I am against some issues) and clobber our alternative narratives. I believe this army is not out to clobber everyone, but only sticky to those who presents alternative narratives intelligently.
Our dispute was in respect of the AIM saga. To recap, the $2 paid up company AIM landed the IT consultancy project of the PAP constituencies. In his media statement 2 Jan 2013, MP Teo Ho Pin, as Chairman of the PAP-run Town Councils, said of AIM "... we were confident that AIM, backed by the PAP, would honour its commitments." Later on 15 May 2013, Minister Khaw reiterated in parliament that AIM was owned by the PAP. In the Critical Spectator FB post I made a comment the PAP broke laws if indeed they owned AIM. The Village Idiot challenged me to provide the proof to which I directed him to the Societies Act. I think he expected me to show him a legislation that explicitly says "PAP cannot operate a commercial enterprise". Of course there is no such legislation. It required a somewhat lengthy explainer to demonstrate my claims. I didn't have time for IBs.
I blogged on the AIM saga here : PAPsmear - The Big Lie About The AIM Saga
In exasperation of the persistent trolling, I felt I needed a full blog to hopefully educate the Village Idiot and at the same time, share a learning moment with everyone else.
The Societies Act Section 24 states the Minister may order dissolution of any society
(1) Whenever it appears to the Minister that —
(c) any registered society is being used for purposes incompatible with the objects and rules of the society.
This ruling is thus predicated on the constitution of the People's Action Party. Article II of the PAP Constitution on Party Objectives:
"The Party shall be a national movement dedicated to serving our nation and advancing the well-being of our people. Towards this end, the Party’s objectives are: –
(a) To preserve, protect and defend the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Singapore.
(b) To safeguard the freedom, and advance the well-being, of Singaporeans through representative and democratic government.
(c) To uphold a multi-racial and multi-religious society, where people of diverse backgrounds and beliefs live harmoniously together as fellow citizens, and deepen our national identity and commitment to Singapore;
(d) To sustain a vibrant economy which creates good jobs and better lives for all, and enables every Singaporean to achieve their full potential;
(e) To build a fair and just society, which encourages individual effort and family responsibility, while ensuring community and government support for the vulnerable and less fortunate;
(f) To strengthen an open and compassionate meritocracy, with opportunities for Singaporeans to develop skills in diverse fields, active support for those who start off with less, and ladders to success at every stage of life;
(g) To develop a democracy of deeds, where citizenship embodies both rights and duties, and nurtures a sense of collective responsibility and community action;
(h) To represent and serve all Singaporeans responsively and responsibly, attentive to immediate concerns, focussed on long-term challenges and opportunities, and governing with integrity and honesty. "
These are 8 noble objectives. Nowhere is mentioned about investments and doing business. As clear as day, Section 24 (1) (c) applies if PAP actually owns AIM. It is ultra vires the party constitution. In my exchanges with Village Idiot, I said 'you break laws, you go to jail". The legal consequence here is actually worse. The PAP is liable to dissolution under the Societies Act.
The 2 founder shareholders of AIM were PAP members Lau Ping Shum and Chandra Das. I am assuming PAP, being a party of smart scholars with impeccable integrity, will not violate Section 24 (1) (c) of the Societies Act. Thus Lau and Das almost certainly held equity in AIM in their personal capacity and in pursuit of entrepreneurial dreams. The party had nothing to do with AIM. That being the case, the whole AIM mess can be summed up with 3 breaches by the men-in-white:
(1) Terrible conflict of interest by Lau and Das, collaborated by 17 PAP MPs running those constituencies.
(2) Mis-information by Dr Teo Ho Pin in his media statement 2 Jan 2013
(3) Outright lie by Minister Khaw in parliament on 15 May 2013.
I was terribly disappointed that Khaw's Big Lie went unchallenged. What should have been a huge public outcry went without so much as a whimper. The press didn't pick that up. Opposition members remained silent. Should Worker's Party remain silently indignant in light of the recent Committee of Privileges report against them regarding the lies in parliament of opposition MP Raeesah Khan?
Back to my main story about the Village Idiot. He is adamant no laws were broken, that the party can do business. Unfortunately for his ego, but good for Singaporeans, the government has done well to establish very stringent rules regarding how political parties can raise funds from members, receive donations for election campaigns, accept political contributions, etc. I shall not digress into the details, but suffice to say, there is nothing that permits political parties to own commercial enterprises.
The lesson to share here, and hopefully the Village Idiot has enough humility and critical capacity to think through the error of his comments. What he was referring to is something political science lingo calls "Parbus" which stands for political "Parties in Business". It does seem he is in favour of parbus, which runs counter to his patron party the PAP, which has most wisely chosen a practice never to allow in Singapore. Parbus is the fusion of politics and business, and the most assured pathway to corruption on a massive scale. Village Idiot is probably too young to remember the days when our neighbour up North practiced parbus, with UMNO, Indian Congress and Malaysian Chinese Association all having their own businesses. I wonder if he knows about the MCA, its president Tan Sri Tan Koon Swan and their powerful conglomerate Multi-Purpose Holdings and the financial mess they had back in the good old days.
Do note I meant no disrespect using the name Village Idiot. That's what he called himself. I rather not doxx on him. Unfortunately, VI is symtomatic of the young liberal-educated prevalent today. They pray to the altar of Relativism, and like John Keats, believe "Knowledge enormous makes a God of me". And so they often err to work through ethical and moral issues.
2 comments:
Everyone know there are different law in singapore (PAP law & the rest). AIM is just small fly..ever wonder how come the PCF kindergarten can have a political party logo on it..& most of the hdb voideck is readily make available for PCF to do business.
Am sure you read about the $40million skillfuture fund cheating case..something is "very fishy" about this case. as reported in ST, 5/6 people are involved..however the reported $$ amount stolen doesn't addup..
worst of all, none of the politicians(even opp), seem to be interested & ask question? we are talking about $40,000,000.00
@ Anonymous
Thank you visiting.
Of course AIM is a small fry. But the ramifications are enormous. My question that PAP needs to address is :
Did PAP own AIM. Khaw said YES> If so, the party is in breach of Societies Act Sec 24(1)(c), the penalty of which is dissolution of association. A disaster.
If PAP does not own AIM (which I believe to be the case) then the Party lied big time, via Khaw's claims that they own AIM. They only way out is for the party to throw Khaw under the bus.
As to your point on the Skills Devt Fund, it's dangerous to talk about such a serious issue that insinuates wrong doing without facts. But in my opinion, it is perfectly OK to raise the issues as questions. And we all have the right to raise questions. It is in fact a duty, to raise questions where we are uncomfortable with some things we see. As to this specific issue, I have no useful info to share.
Post a Comment