by PAPtalk
When is a casual conversation with your MP actually a casual conversation? Will he ever use it against you?
Judging from Mr Inderjit Singh's "expose" of his casual conversation with Mr James Gomez, Singaporeans must be warned: What you say can always be used against you.
Mr Singh released a statement documenting everything he and Mr Gomez allegedly talked about on Nomination Day. Remember that both of them have been friends for a very long time, as Mr Singh himself said, and it was a casual conversation!
WHAT A DISHONOURABLE MAN MR SINGH IS! WILL HE BETRAY YOUR TRUST AT MEET-THE-PEOPLE'S SESSIONS?
After this episode, I have come to the conclusion that Mr Singh is a man absolutely without morals, untrustworthy and certainly a person I would not trust. This is the man that the Prime Minister has chosen to run with him as a candidate in the Ang Mo Kio GRC. He is the man who is likely to meet residents of Ang Mo Kio at meet-the-people's sessions. Will you be able to trust him with confidential matters if he treats casual conversations so casually?
Besides that, Mr Singh's statement tells me a lot about the character evaluation that the PM and the PAP are so proud of. Surely there must be a character flaw in a man who can throw away trust between friends just like that. With friends like this, you don't really need enemies. And yet the PAP keeps trumpeting about how wonderful their candidates are!
Thirdly, and more importantly, the episode raises the vital question: when can you talk to a PAP MP and be 100 per cent sure that he is not going to use that against you some day?
Let's say you attend a meet-the-people's session with your MP. You give him all the information he needs, including many confidential ones. Then one day you land into some kind of trouble. That MP decides to release all the conversation between you and him. The court of law finds you guilty as charged.
Sorry, chum, your MP said so.
A PLEA TO THE PRIME MINISTER
Here is clear-cut evidence that you have one bad egg in your basket. You have called on the Workers' Party to disassociate itself from Mr Gomez. We now ask you to do the same: Drop Inderjit Singh from Ang Mo Kio GRC. He has tainted ALL PAP MPs by his actions. You said the PAP's integrity is of utmost importance. You said you will not tolerate a display of lack of integrity. You said Singapore's reputation is at stake. We agree with you. How can we trust Inderjit Singh, especially at meet-the-people's sessions. Now, please do the honourable thing, Mr Prime Minister. Drop him! You still have one minority candidate in Dr Balaji Sadasivan.
WARNING TO ALL SINGAPOREANS
Is this the first time something like that has happened? Not in my memory. I can only conclude that PAP MPs have no qualms whatsoever in betraying you when it suits the party and their purposes. Just like communist China!
So when you go to the polling booth this Saturday, do remember this: Is this the man or woman that I can trust 100 per cent? Is he going to play me out one fine day?
amk 4 may 2006 rally
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tL9cPxQ89kc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhbWfrvW3XY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hr4C287cZ4c
Remember Mr Andrew Kuan and Mr Inderjit Singh?
ReplyDeleteBe very very careful what you speak and do with this man!
http://stardomdreams.blogspot.com/2005/10/words-more-powerful-than-writing.html
Words more powerful than writing?
I find it very interesting that while the people from JTC, Hyflux and UTAC were unanimously verbally condemning Andrew Kuan's credential, Andrew seems to have all the written evidence to prove them otherwise. Written evidence that doesn't get much press space in newspapers.
MP defends what he said about Kuan
In court papers, he says views about ex-presidential hopeful were true
By Aaron Low
Oct 15, 2005
The Straits Times
BUSINESSMAN and MP Inderjit Singh says statements he made about former presidential hopeful Andrew Kuan's employment record and work performance were both true and amounted to fair comment.
Mr Singh made this point in his response to a defamation suit launched by Mr Kuan against him.
In his documents filed at the High Court last Friday, the People's Action Party MP also said that he had made his views about Mr Kuan known as there was public interest in the matter.
Mr Kuan, who is not represented by a lawyer, filed his defamation lawsuit on Sept 13, alleging Mr Singh defamed him in a statement to the press on his employment record and work performance when he worked at United Test & Assembly Centre. The company, founded by Mr Singh, hired Mr Kuan as a consultant for several months in 1998. Mr Singh was then its president.
Mr Kuan claimed Mr Singh's comments, which were published in newspapers on Aug 13 and 14, were meant to be understood that he was not competent and therefore fired from his position.
He also alleged that the remarks by the MP for Ang Mo Kio GRC implied that he was not reliable. Mr Singh responded to the suit and his lawyers filed his defence at the High Court last Friday.
The Straits Times applied to the High Court legal registry to view the document. In it, Mr Singh said his remarks provided a 'balanced account' of his experience with Mr Kuan.
Mr Singh, who is represented by Senior Counsel Davinder Singh and Mr Adrian Tan of Drew & Napier, added that he made his views known because they were a matter of public interest at the time.
Mr Kuan was applying for an eligibility certificate to contest the presidential election.
The remarks were meant to mean that Mr Kuan did not have the requisite qualities to become the president of Singapore, stated Mr Singh.
He added that he had a 'moral and social duty to publish the statement' to the public and that Singaporeans 'had a corresponding interest in receiving the information'.
On Aug 11, JTC Corporation commented on Mr Kuan's employment record. The statutory board said he was asked to leave as it was not satisfied with his performance. His application for a certificate of eligibility was eventually rejected by the Presidential Elections Committee on the grounds that he 'could not have the experience and ability in administering and managing financial affairs as to effectively discharge' the duties of president.
Mr Kuan is seeking damages and legal costs from Mr Singh.
But Mr Kuan is also facing a defamation suit himself. Lawyer Chia Boon Teck, a former management council member of the condominium where they both live, is suing him for remarks he made to newspapers soon after he announced his presidential bid.
When contacted yesterday, Mr Kuan said he did not wish to comment, as the case was already before the courts. Mr Singh and his lawyers likewise also declined comment.
Why would they want to extend him for another 2 months if he's really that bad? So that they fire him then and not earlier???:
RESPONSE TO UTAC (MR INDERJIT SINGH’S) PRESS STATEMENT IN ST 13 AUGUST 2005
(By Andrew Kuan Yoke Loon on 13 August 2005)
The details of my contributions are set out in my 5-page Employment Highlights already released to the press previously. A copy of the Employment Highlights are available on my personal website www.andrewkuan.com.
I was invited by Mr Inderjit Singh, President of United Test Center Singapore Pte Ltd (UTAC) to join as Consultant in July 1998.
I never intended or sought to be a CFO in his organization. I was merely a Consultant through my company Blue Arrow International Pte Ltd, to set up his finance department and to advise on financial management matters.
My letter of appointment dated 6 Augus t 1998, issued by Mr Inderjit Singh makes this clear:
“We are pleased to appoint you as consultant with effect from 1st July 1998. This appointment is for a period of six months from the effective date. Both parties may terminate this appointment with a one month notice in writing.â€
“Your appointment is on a part time basis and you are expected to work on United Test Center Singapore Pte Ltd (“the Companyâ€) business for a period of 2.5 days a week. You will report directly to the President and be responsible for the task assigned by the Company.â€
I was never terminated by Mr Inderjit Singh “after some five monthsâ€.
On the contrary, after I completed my initial six months, Mr Inderjit Singh extended my appointment as Consultant for another two months.
By a letter dated 28 December 1998, Mr Inderjit wrote:
“We are pleased to ext end your appointment as consultant for another two months from 1 January 1999 to 28 February 1999.â€
My working style at UTAC had been open and inclusive, even though I reported directly to the President, Mr Inderjit Singh.
Typically, I would conduct an open briefing at management meetings. Copies of agenda, including attachments for discussion are given to the President, Mr Inderjit Singh, and all senior management as well as the two financial managers. One example would be the Financial Meeting on 1 September 1998.
I hope the above clarifies and corrects the factual errors in Mr Inderjit Singh’s press statement.
I ask the members of the press to please publicize this response in full for the benefit of transparency and complete information to all Singaporeans for their informed choice.
Thank you.
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/197557/1/.html
Each man for himself. That's the pap hallmark. It's the ugly side of meritocracy. If memory serves me well, Dr Chee was also similarly reported by Dr Vasoo, his boss in Nus and pap mp. Of course there was a history professor who did something similar to someone else. Forget politics. Get on with your job and lead your life. Sad but true. At the end of the day, pap always wins.
ReplyDeleteGiven the gravity of the situation and the severe consequences had the truth of the matter not been discovered, I feel that Inderjit Singh did the right thing in squealing. I would do the same even if it involved my best friend. This fiasco concerns the integrity of our system. If it were compromised, Singapore would lose have a lot to lose. And remember that Inderjit Singh only spoke out after the cc tapes were revealed.
ReplyDeleteBullshit! He spoke because he felt threatened by Gomez. C'mon, read up on Gomez's background and you will know why P*P don't want him to be in parliament. He is too smart for their own good. He will provide the voice Singaporeans need in parliament.
ReplyDeleteAnd also, so what if opposition parties lose this time. We are aiming to become a First World country. So what if we fail this time round. We shouldn't just give up and be concern with our own well-being. I'm speaking for those who don't have access to internets, who are suffering in silence, and don't have the power to change anything.
We have a chance this year. Vote wisely. Make an informed decisions. Will our economy crumble because of opposition parties?? I seriously wonder what kind of education system we have to make people believe everything the government tells you. Think critically.
Vote wisely. Even if opposition parties fail this year, there will always be a next election. (Until the GRC are drawn differently again...)
tink u guys noe who i'm refering to...he's one pathetic loser, just like bush.
ReplyDeleteI agree, vote wisely!
ReplyDeleteThe best way is to hear the story from both sides of the camp. No point being blind to one camp and keep following the other.
When you've listened to both camps, you'll truly realise something: PAP rallies are always broadcasted. Opposition rallies are always cut short.
MP? They're absolute crap! I've seen my MP 5 times and he still can't solve a simple problem! What's the point of us taxpayers paying our wages and not getting our problems solved? Mind you, the problem is not a selfish individual problem, it's a problem spanning 3 generations.
It's time for a change...
An excerpt from the article:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.pathfinder.com/asiaweek/97/0228/nat9.html
(During the campaign the ruling party pointed to incidents that it says reveals Tang's chauvinism. Teo Chee Hean, who holds the education and defense portfolios, said Tang suggested at a 1994 dinner that there were too many Christians in Cabinet. Premier Goh recounted two more incidents: In 1995, Tang reportedly said political power in Singapore was concentrated among the English-educated, Christian elite, marginalizing the Chinese-educated. And at a seminar in Mandarin in July, Tang reportedly noted that 80% of Chinese Singaporeans speak Mandarin. "Why then are we the ones carrying the sedan chair for others?" he asked. "We should be sitting on the sedan chair.")
...and make a mountain out of a molehill???
ReplyDeletePAP's evil tactic is to create opportunities so it can throw defamation suits at whoever stands in it's way.
ReplyDeleteI do not want an insincere and dishonest MP in my constituency.
ReplyDeleteThe people's votes speak words.
Yes, let the people decide.
ReplyDeleteIf you have seen the "Singapore Rebel", you would have heard CSJ's account of what happened in the incident regarding tax payers' money during the previous election. According to CSJ, this is what happened...
ReplyDeleteCSJ was in the hawker centre with the SDP canvassing for the election when they bumped into GCT and his PAP lackeys. The PAP started chanting slogans loudly, drowning out CSJ and his party. CSJ being outnumbered and wanting to be heard shouted to GCT, "Where is the money!", refering the tax payers' money sent to the then President Suharto of Indonesia. GCT then pointed to his own pocket!
This was something the local media never dared to report. The PAP government then went on to ban the movie from being screened in Singapore on the basis of political content. This begs the question, if CSJ was lying, wouldn't this have resulted in the usual defamation suit?
I used to view CSJ as a rabid dog, my views shaped in part by the media potrayal and labelling of him by the PAP MPs as a "political gangster". I am not so sure now.
well the media is very obvious on the PAP side. I think was almost brain wash having hear in the news what the PAP have been saying over and over again. I think to a point I switch off the TV
ReplyDeleteI think Indians are ok , I have a good friend who's an Indian, but when it comes to BAR-YEEs , now that's a different story, they all screw your back side all the time -so Inderjit Singh is and must be the top BAR-YEE screwer of all !
ReplyDeletei just like to add this:
ReplyDeletemedia, by the very meaning, is an agent to transfer or propagate a certain message
since the local media is under govt. control, it is not surprising that the local media have more or less become a tool PAP uses to indoctrinate the masses
i do not deny that my views are not biased in any sense, i say: "... try to take things with a pinch of salt when it comes to local media... "
thank goodness i'm still sane enough to decide what i want in life, for now and the future
and i say:
"...
i want more voices to heard, in true spirit of democracy, so that the best can be reserved for singaporeans!
i want wealth to be distributed more evenly in singapore: and for the un-initiated, please read up Karl Marx regarding what income disparity ultimately leads to!
gone were the days of the 60s, we live in the 21st century and we have new challenges to meet...
a message to Mr. LKY, 'singaporeans truly can claim that you are modern singapore's founding father, we appreciate what you have done for us, but your son has to prove to us what he is capable of... in light of what he said of fixing the opposition and buying people's vote, i lost my faith in LHL in bringing us forward into the future.'
a message to LHL, 'rule by virtues, if your policies are truly sound and good, even the oppositions will support them.
But when you rule by means of buying votes from your voters and fixing your oppositions, singapore's future will have no light at the end of the tunnel'
... "
just my 1 cent worth
PAP said WP is wayang party. The greatest wayang feat happened yesterday when some PAP candidates were cleaning the void deck with the cleaners. From what was shown, it was obvious that some did not even know how to use the spray. Do you have to put such a wayang at this stage!
ReplyDeletehmmmm, now i really wonder whether Andrew Kuan has been framed and victimised by the bad press?
ReplyDeleteif pxp can b trusted, pig can fly wor. n guess what? they doesnt even bother try to fly. -_-||
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
ReplyDeletequote: And the young pap forum was shutdown since yesterday.... lamer... their forum also full of hatred of pap... how to win....
----------
In view of the YP PAP forum shutdown, a new forum is set up to keep up the momentum in support of An ALTERNATIVE VOICE IN SINGAPORE other than from the PAP controlled media.
It is located at:
http://deluxecoffeeclub.com
kindly support our efforts. Thank you.
this blog is cool, wish i had discovered it before polling day.
ReplyDeletebut this blogpost is just ridiculous, and you're just making a mountain out of a molehill as well.
so im assuming that if your best friend murders someone and accidentally tells you, you're being dishonourable by telling the truth in court? when the safety/welfare of the public is at stake?