-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Ex-NMP Calvin Cheng protest against the Hong Lim protests
- Thread starter Extremist
- Start date
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2011
- Messages
- 709
- Points
- 0
i told u all b4 tat calvin cheng is a f**ing PAP doggie. 
http://www.sammyboy.com/showthread....P-Dog-with-white-collar!!-He-said-dun-vote-WP!
http://www.sammyboy.com/showthread....P-Dog-with-white-collar!!-He-said-dun-vote-WP!
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2008
- Messages
- 38,222
- Points
- 113
He ought to join LKY in hospital to keep him company
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2008
- Messages
- 38,222
- Points
- 113
Just hope he grow a mushroom on his dick head will do
No dick even better
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2008
- Messages
- 4,315
- Points
- 0
Calvin Cheng
Follow · 5 hours ago via Mobile
With nice foreigners on Sentosa My own protest against the Hong Lim protests
nice girls, but dunno he can stand or big enough or not.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2011
- Messages
- 1,424
- Points
- 48
So prod for what ?Russian whores are cheap !
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2008
- Messages
- 26,238
- Points
- 113
After kenna jialat jialat by netizens, he changes his stance to placate the masses 
6.9 million people and an emotional hump
By Calvin Cheng
Singapolitics
Wednesday, Feb 20, 2013
The protests against the White Paper on Population at Hong Lim Park have been making headlines around the world. In the meantime, in between exhortations by Ministers and pro-Establishment commentators to get above the emotional angst and emotive rhetoric, one is witnessing an anger startling not in its intensity, but by the way it cuts across all demographics of society.
The truth is that even at the apex of its political strength, there was always a 25% anti-PAP core that would not vote PAP even if they fielded Mahatma Gandhi.
Even during the discontent that caused the PAP to lose Aljunied GRC in 2011, there was also a different 25% who would vote PAP even if they fielded Mickey Mouse. This time it is different – the anger is widespread, even amongst some staunch PAP grassroots leaders. The question is: Is this really just an emotive issue that the PAP can ride out? Or are there genuine reasons for people to be angry?
The truth is that there is plenty to be upset about.
Firstly, on so many levels, one has to question the need to rush the White Paper through Parliament. To begin with, the timing was incomprehensible – what kind of political acumen leads a party to think that it is good idea to further piss off a population after it has suffered a stunning defeat at a by-election? Even if the White Paper was slated to be debated during that period prior to the resignation of Michael Palmer, it is not good reason, nor good political timing to continue according to schedule as if Punggol had not happened. Any political party has to know that pushing through an unpopular policy requires huge political capital, and the PAP’s political capital is arguably at an all-time low, even if it still retains a vast majority in Parliament.
In addition, it is extremely odd that in the midst of a National Conversation, a policy that will impact the lives of generations of Singaporeans is off the agenda. Surely a more prolonged public discussion of scenarios and alternatives would have had a chance of creating more buy-in? Surely after years of falling TFR, another few months would not have made a difference to any disaster scenario? It seems that after years of political hegemony, the PAP has forgotten that policies have to be sold when people have power at the ballot box. Technocratic fait-accomplis are the luxury of genuine one-party states and contrary to skeptics, as recent elections have shown, Singapore is still a democracy.
Secondly, the fear of overcrowding cannot be dismissed as an emotional hump.
Nobody likes to live like sardines packed in a can. The fear of being squeezed into ever smaller spaces is a real one.
What is irrational is the fear of the figure 6.9 million. This figure by itself is completely meaningless, as are the alternative figures thrown out by other people opposing the White Paper. Whether the population is 3 million, or 5 million, or 6.9 million, the question of whether Singapore will be overcrowded will depend on whether enough infrastructure is built. Will 6.9 million be overcrowded? The honest answer, if we think about it, is that it depends. 6.9 million living in today’s infrastructure will of course mean overcrowding. But IF the Government is able to execute its land use plan THEN perhaps it does not have to be overcrowded.
And that is the crux of the issue. The people should be worried about 6.9 million people not because that number is the sign of the Devil, but when a Government has not been able to adequately handle a population increase from 3 million to 5 million, what faith do the people have that it can do so from 5 to 6.9?
It is thus imperative for the Government to first solve the current issues that have arisen from the previous population increase – overcrowding, high prices, competition for jobs – and regain the people’s trust. This is because when one is selling a vision for the future, you are asking people to take a leap of faith.
Nobody can realistically imagine 6.9 million people living in a futuristic city made possible with advanced city planning techniques. The people have to trust the Government can deliver and in order to gain this trust, it has to show it can solve the current issues.
There is however one emotive issue that I feel Singaporeans have to get over – the fear of being a minority and the preservation of a Singaporean Core.
I have no idea what that means.
Singaporean is by definition a nationality, not an ethnicity nor a race.
It makes some sense for the Japanese to fear immigration as they want to preserve their ethnic homogeneity. Recently, when Hong Kong’s leaders made similar remarks that Hong Kong’s ethnic homogeneity of Cantonese people will be threatened by more Mainland Chinese immigration, it made sense too, even if one argues they are all ethnic Chinese.
But Singaporean? What is that?
It is neither race nor ethnicity, neither a language group nor even a religious community. Singapore is Singapore precisely because of its diversity, not because of homogeneity.
We seem to have forgotten the Singapore Story. It is a story of an island of immigrants forged from many races, many religions, many cultures. It is a story of a nation that welcomed different people who wanted to make a better life to find a new home. It is a story of a country whose descendants of these original people still celebrate various festivals, where Mosque meets Temple, where Christians live alongside Hindus, and even if most of us speak English or Singlish, we still preserve our ‘native’ tongues.
Therefore when politicians and commentators lament that we are surrounded by foreign faces and unfamiliar tongues, they strike at the heart of our own identity. We are a nation built by foreign faces – the faces of our forefathers.
When modern Singaporeans look in the mirror, it is still the faces of their forefathers that stare back at them, and this is certainly not a homogeneous face. What is Singlish if not a pidgin language that evolved from many unfamiliar tongues? What is the Singaporean accent if not English overlayed with Chinese, Malay and Indian intonations? What is Singaporean if not a ‘rojak’ nationality forged from various people from foreign shores?
If we deny this we deny ourselves.
In preserving the Singaporean Core, we first have to define it. Like its critics, the White Paper failed to do so, which rendered the amendment itself emotive and ultimately meaningless.
So then - what is a Singaporean? What is this Singaporean Core we want to preserve?
In the end, like others, I feel nobody defined it more eloquently than one of our founding fathers and the author of the Singapore Pledge, S. Rajaratnam.
He said, "Being a Singaporean is not a matter of ancestry. It is conviction and choice."
That is the Singapore Story. If we want to preserve something, let it be that.
6.9 million people and an emotional hump
By Calvin Cheng
Singapolitics
Wednesday, Feb 20, 2013
The protests against the White Paper on Population at Hong Lim Park have been making headlines around the world. In the meantime, in between exhortations by Ministers and pro-Establishment commentators to get above the emotional angst and emotive rhetoric, one is witnessing an anger startling not in its intensity, but by the way it cuts across all demographics of society.
The truth is that even at the apex of its political strength, there was always a 25% anti-PAP core that would not vote PAP even if they fielded Mahatma Gandhi.
Even during the discontent that caused the PAP to lose Aljunied GRC in 2011, there was also a different 25% who would vote PAP even if they fielded Mickey Mouse. This time it is different – the anger is widespread, even amongst some staunch PAP grassroots leaders. The question is: Is this really just an emotive issue that the PAP can ride out? Or are there genuine reasons for people to be angry?
The truth is that there is plenty to be upset about.
Firstly, on so many levels, one has to question the need to rush the White Paper through Parliament. To begin with, the timing was incomprehensible – what kind of political acumen leads a party to think that it is good idea to further piss off a population after it has suffered a stunning defeat at a by-election? Even if the White Paper was slated to be debated during that period prior to the resignation of Michael Palmer, it is not good reason, nor good political timing to continue according to schedule as if Punggol had not happened. Any political party has to know that pushing through an unpopular policy requires huge political capital, and the PAP’s political capital is arguably at an all-time low, even if it still retains a vast majority in Parliament.
In addition, it is extremely odd that in the midst of a National Conversation, a policy that will impact the lives of generations of Singaporeans is off the agenda. Surely a more prolonged public discussion of scenarios and alternatives would have had a chance of creating more buy-in? Surely after years of falling TFR, another few months would not have made a difference to any disaster scenario? It seems that after years of political hegemony, the PAP has forgotten that policies have to be sold when people have power at the ballot box. Technocratic fait-accomplis are the luxury of genuine one-party states and contrary to skeptics, as recent elections have shown, Singapore is still a democracy.
Secondly, the fear of overcrowding cannot be dismissed as an emotional hump.
Nobody likes to live like sardines packed in a can. The fear of being squeezed into ever smaller spaces is a real one.
What is irrational is the fear of the figure 6.9 million. This figure by itself is completely meaningless, as are the alternative figures thrown out by other people opposing the White Paper. Whether the population is 3 million, or 5 million, or 6.9 million, the question of whether Singapore will be overcrowded will depend on whether enough infrastructure is built. Will 6.9 million be overcrowded? The honest answer, if we think about it, is that it depends. 6.9 million living in today’s infrastructure will of course mean overcrowding. But IF the Government is able to execute its land use plan THEN perhaps it does not have to be overcrowded.
And that is the crux of the issue. The people should be worried about 6.9 million people not because that number is the sign of the Devil, but when a Government has not been able to adequately handle a population increase from 3 million to 5 million, what faith do the people have that it can do so from 5 to 6.9?
It is thus imperative for the Government to first solve the current issues that have arisen from the previous population increase – overcrowding, high prices, competition for jobs – and regain the people’s trust. This is because when one is selling a vision for the future, you are asking people to take a leap of faith.
Nobody can realistically imagine 6.9 million people living in a futuristic city made possible with advanced city planning techniques. The people have to trust the Government can deliver and in order to gain this trust, it has to show it can solve the current issues.
There is however one emotive issue that I feel Singaporeans have to get over – the fear of being a minority and the preservation of a Singaporean Core.
I have no idea what that means.
Singaporean is by definition a nationality, not an ethnicity nor a race.
It makes some sense for the Japanese to fear immigration as they want to preserve their ethnic homogeneity. Recently, when Hong Kong’s leaders made similar remarks that Hong Kong’s ethnic homogeneity of Cantonese people will be threatened by more Mainland Chinese immigration, it made sense too, even if one argues they are all ethnic Chinese.
But Singaporean? What is that?
It is neither race nor ethnicity, neither a language group nor even a religious community. Singapore is Singapore precisely because of its diversity, not because of homogeneity.
We seem to have forgotten the Singapore Story. It is a story of an island of immigrants forged from many races, many religions, many cultures. It is a story of a nation that welcomed different people who wanted to make a better life to find a new home. It is a story of a country whose descendants of these original people still celebrate various festivals, where Mosque meets Temple, where Christians live alongside Hindus, and even if most of us speak English or Singlish, we still preserve our ‘native’ tongues.
Therefore when politicians and commentators lament that we are surrounded by foreign faces and unfamiliar tongues, they strike at the heart of our own identity. We are a nation built by foreign faces – the faces of our forefathers.
When modern Singaporeans look in the mirror, it is still the faces of their forefathers that stare back at them, and this is certainly not a homogeneous face. What is Singlish if not a pidgin language that evolved from many unfamiliar tongues? What is the Singaporean accent if not English overlayed with Chinese, Malay and Indian intonations? What is Singaporean if not a ‘rojak’ nationality forged from various people from foreign shores?
If we deny this we deny ourselves.
In preserving the Singaporean Core, we first have to define it. Like its critics, the White Paper failed to do so, which rendered the amendment itself emotive and ultimately meaningless.
So then - what is a Singaporean? What is this Singaporean Core we want to preserve?
In the end, like others, I feel nobody defined it more eloquently than one of our founding fathers and the author of the Singapore Pledge, S. Rajaratnam.
He said, "Being a Singaporean is not a matter of ancestry. It is conviction and choice."
That is the Singapore Story. If we want to preserve something, let it be that.
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2008
- Messages
- 26,238
- Points
- 113
Nice try Calvin Cheng, once again you have proved yourself to be a sad waste of seat in our parliament.
After you grow a spine, a pair of gonads and a (real) brain, say something useful for once instead of just courting controversy like Steven Lim. You are not Sinkieland's Paris Hilton ok?
After you grow a spine, a pair of gonads and a (real) brain, say something useful for once instead of just courting controversy like Steven Lim. You are not Sinkieland's Paris Hilton ok?
Simi committee? They are all jiak liow bee, por lum par and cho boh lan.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2008
- Messages
- 2,299
- Points
- 48
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2008
- Messages
- 26,238
- Points
- 113
This is classic!
NMP argues against NCMP scheme
by Leong Wee Keat
06:10 AM Apr 28, 2010
Nominated Member of Parliament Calvin Cheng's passionate opposition against more Non-Constituency MPs - a day after the Constitution was amended to allow more into Parliament - was greeted with some surprise yesterday.
Mr Cheng said the move to allow losing Opposition candidates into Parliament, at best "flies in the face of the logic of democratic elections". "At worst, it's a slap in the face to the people who had voted," he added.
Mr Cheng, a former People's Action Party youth wing member, applauded "the ruling party for allowing their vanquished opponents through the backdoor of Parliament".
While he acknowledged Mr Cheng's point, Law Minister K Shanmugam pointed out that some would say that NMPs, who do not contest elections, should also not enter Parliament.
NCMP Sylvia Lim also quipped: "I find it quite ironic that someone who came into this august chamber through an interview could attack the NCMP scheme in such strong terms."
Mr Shanmugam reiterated that the Government is increasing the number of NCMPs "because we believe strongly in doing what is right for Singapore".
"Singaporeans will know that alternative views are not shut out ... The changes are not being made based on cynical, tactical, short-term calculations - which won't work anyway," he added.
NMP argues against NCMP scheme
by Leong Wee Keat
06:10 AM Apr 28, 2010
Nominated Member of Parliament Calvin Cheng's passionate opposition against more Non-Constituency MPs - a day after the Constitution was amended to allow more into Parliament - was greeted with some surprise yesterday.
Mr Cheng said the move to allow losing Opposition candidates into Parliament, at best "flies in the face of the logic of democratic elections". "At worst, it's a slap in the face to the people who had voted," he added.
Mr Cheng, a former People's Action Party youth wing member, applauded "the ruling party for allowing their vanquished opponents through the backdoor of Parliament".
While he acknowledged Mr Cheng's point, Law Minister K Shanmugam pointed out that some would say that NMPs, who do not contest elections, should also not enter Parliament.
NCMP Sylvia Lim also quipped: "I find it quite ironic that someone who came into this august chamber through an interview could attack the NCMP scheme in such strong terms."
Mr Shanmugam reiterated that the Government is increasing the number of NCMPs "because we believe strongly in doing what is right for Singapore".
"Singaporeans will know that alternative views are not shut out ... The changes are not being made based on cynical, tactical, short-term calculations - which won't work anyway," he added.
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2008
- Messages
- 26,238
- Points
- 113
Sinkapolitics owned by the Bordell Road press just like Stomp ...
Similar threads
