Goh Meng Seng attacks SDP in Zaobao interview

[Avantas]

In a recent Zaobao interview, Mr Goh Meng Seng, NSP CEC member, defended The Online CONS (TOC) staunchly and launches an unwarranted attack on SDP:

"National Solidarity Party leader Mr Goh Meng Seng said “Extremist viewpoints may draw the attention of people and garner the support of other extremists, but most web users will still want to hear balanced, moderate, mature arguments. This is also the reason why the SDP website is rapidly losing its readers"

Read full article here:

http://wayangparty.wordpress.com/20...onspiracy-theories-in-singapores-blogosphere/

Meng Seng, I am quite disappointed with you. I can understand why you defend your buddy Andrew Loh, but why did you drag SDP into the m&d as well ?? What has SDP got to do with the topic of the interview ?? You are definitely not doing the opposition any favors by frequently "scoring" such own goals.

 

[Wobble]

actually..he is trying to score points.....points to show that there r no united opposition in SG...only opportunist Opposition....

 

[leetahbar]

so THINKNOTHING AKA AVIATION LIM is really linked to ngejay!!

The above article was an English translation of a Zaobao article published on 20 September 2008. The translator wishes to remain annonymous and is a friend of Mr Ng E Jay (sgpolitics.net)

that really tells alot about credibility here

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

In a recent Zaobao interview, Mr Goh Meng Seng, NSP CEC member, defended The Online CONS (TOC) staunchly and launches an unwarranted attack on SDP:

"National Solidarity Party leader Mr Goh Meng Seng said “Extremist viewpoints may draw the attention of people and garner the support of other extremists, but most web users will still want to hear balanced, moderate, mature arguments. This is also the reason why the SDP website is rapidly losing its readers"

Read full article here:

http://wayangparty.wordpress.com/20...onspiracy-theories-in-singapores-blogosphere/

Meng Seng, I am quite disappointed with you. I can understand why you defend your buddy Andrew Loh, but why did you drag SDP into the m&d as well ?? What has SDP got to do with the topic of the interview ?? You are definitely not doing the opposition any favors by frequently "scoring" such own goals.

Dear Avantas,

You have chosen to read Zaobao article as it is. The following is my clarifications made in another forum:

“偏激的言论也许能哗众取宠，博得一些立场本来就偏激的人拍手叫好，但大多数网民要看的还是客观、成熟的评论” 这一段的确是我说， 后一段是被歪曲的。

“久而久之，这一些偏激言论的网站就会流失大量读者” 这是我的原意。

我相信是她的主编改的。她问我会不会觉得民主党在网上的支持者很多而其他的反对党如工人党和团结党就不见得多，我说一个政党最终还是得面对全部选民的选票。民主党现今大选的选票还是大不如前，这是不争的事实。可能就这样联想到以上的说话了。我是不可能知道民主党网站是否流失大量读者的。

吴明盛

 

[zack123]

In a recent Zaobao interview, Mr Goh Meng Seng, NSP CEC member, defended The Online CONS (TOC) staunchly and launches an unwarranted attack on SDP:

"National Solidarity Party leader Mr Goh Meng Seng said “Extremist viewpoints may draw the attention of people and garner the support of other extremists, but most web users will still want to hear balanced, moderate, mature arguments. This is also the reason why the SDP website is rapidly losing its readers"

Read full article here:

http://wayangparty.wordpress.com/20...onspiracy-theories-in-singapores-blogosphere/

Meng Seng, I am quite disappointed with you. I can understand why you defend your buddy Andrew Loh, but why did you drag SDP into the m&d as well ?? What has SDP got to do with the topic of the interview ?? You are definitely not doing the opposition any favors by frequently "scoring" such own goals.

NSP does not equate to the solidarity of opposition. In fact I would have to agree with him that SDP is dragging down the rest of the opposition parties with them. It is better to disassociate from SDP to garner more support from the public

 

[leetahbar]

it's accelerated by the inclusion of certain dubious and hypocritical characters. the drag down is definitely hastened.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Meng Seng, I am quite disappointed with you. I can understand why you defend your buddy Andrew Loh, but why did you drag SDP into the m&d as well ?? What has SDP got to do with the topic of the interview ?? You are definitely not doing the opposition any favors by frequently "scoring" such own goals.

BTW, no where in this article suggests that I "supported" TOC in any ways. I am merely providing an observation made on the internet sphere; people will be attracted to websites that put up views that resonate with their own views. Thus, for those websites that have extreme views, it will naturally attract those people who have extreme views as well. However, it would also mean that these websites will lose viewership from the bigger crowd of centrist middle ground people. It is to me, a very fair comment.

If you really want to know what I have told the reporter with regards to TOC? Well, my point is this, so what if TOC is managed under PAP members? PAP as a big party, would naturally have many different factions and it is only NORMAL for them to have many different voices within. If one of the factions decide to use the New Media to make their voice heard, so be it. It is a good sign overall to have citizens, be it partisan, PAP, opposition or otherwise, to make their voice heard. This just show that there are still Singaporeans out there who cares enough to make that effort to voice out.

Most probably the editor did not want this part to be published because it involves the sensitivity of mentioning of "factions" in PAP. LOL! I mean, even small opposition parties will tend to have different factions and voices within, I would not be surprised that PAP will have factions as well. This is just natural; even communist parties around the world have factions!

There is a distinctive difference between you and me. You are too engrossed in bringing PAP down, while for me, I am more interested in seeing a healthy system of checks and balances being in place. Our goals are not mutually exclusive, neither are they mutually inclusive. There are overlaps.

In this case, you will attack TOC based on your speculations that it is being controlled by PAP members, while I see it very differently. So what? As long as it is a platform for another alternative views, so be it. Democracy is about diversity of views and expressions. It is not merely about being ruling party against opposition parties.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[guavatree]

that really tells alot about credibility here

Gay indecent acts:

Penal Code Section 377A states, “Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years.”

Cheating:

Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he or she would not do or omit if he or she were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat". For example, A cheats if he intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A means to repay any money that Z may lend to him when A does not intend to repay it, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to lend him money. Cheating is punished with imprisonment of up to one year, or a fine, or both.

Father bashing:

Voluntarily causing hurt – A person causes hurt when he or she causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person. Whoever does any act with the intention of causing hurt to any person, or with the knowledge that he is likely to cause hurt to any person, and does cause hurt to any person, voluntarily causes hurt. The penalty for voluntarily causing hurt is imprisonment of up to one year, or a fine of up to S$1,000, or both.

Theft of Temple Funds:

Theft is committed when a person, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person’s consent, moves that property in order to effect the taking. The penalty for theft is imprisonment of up to three years, or a fine, or both. It is more common, however, for offenders to be charged with committing theft in a building, tent or vessel, which is used as a human dwelling, or for the custody of property. The penalty for this more serious offense is imprisonment of up to seven years, and also a fine.

 

[leetarsah]

actually..he is trying to score points.....points to show that there r no united opposition in SG...only opportunist Opposition....

 

[leetahbar]

funny they never do one for homewrecking troll or perverted nerd or gaylord (ruler of gayboys) or pagan preacher or....

it always have to be gohmengseng and others who are skeptical about their views. funny indeed!

 

[BobKHSim]

it always have to be gohmengseng and others who are skeptical about their views. funny indeed!

 

[leetahbar]

by the way....ONLY NGEJAY KNOWS THE CHRISTIAN NAME OF GOHMENGSENG!!

bad boy, ejay!! another of your clone exposed!! just how many more do u have in ur stained undies??

 

[leetahbar]

yes, ejay. another of ur clones. EVERYONE KNOWS THAT except maybe yoursefl

 

[leetahbar]

gosh!! what a field day for snake hunting!!

 

[leetahbar]

Gay indecent acts:

Penal Code Section 377A states, “Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years.”

Cheating:

Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he or she would not do or omit if he or she were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat". For example, A cheats if he intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A means to repay any money that Z may lend to him when A does not intend to repay it, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to lend him money. Cheating is punished with imprisonment of up to one year, or a fine, or both.

Father bashing:

Voluntarily causing hurt – A person causes hurt when he or she causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person. Whoever does any act with the intention of causing hurt to any person, or with the knowledge that he is likely to cause hurt to any person, and does cause hurt to any person, voluntarily causes hurt. The penalty for voluntarily causing hurt is imprisonment of up to one year, or a fine of up to S$1,000, or both.

Theft of Temple Funds:

Theft is committed when a person, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person’s consent, moves that property in order to effect the taking. The penalty for theft is imprisonment of up to three years, or a fine, or both. It is more common, however, for offenders to be charged with committing theft in a building, tent or vessel, which is used as a human dwelling, or for the custody of property. The penalty for this more serious offense is imprisonment of up to seven years, and also a fine.

lawyer runs away with client's wife is also major offence

 

[Avantas]

Dear Meng Seng,

Thanks for your clarification. It appears that you have been quoted out of context. I take your word for it.

I have no objections over PAP members running TOC as long they are open and upfront about it and reveal their vested interests. What peeves me off is the sneaky behavior of Andrew Loh and Choo Zheng Xi. Don't you agree that TOC readers have the right to know about their PAP backgrounds ? At least reveal the truth and let readers judge for themselves.

When the allegations first arise about Choo being a "writer" for a PAP MP, Choo and Andrew denies it vehemently and even threaten to sue the whistle-blower, Jasper. However, when they are exposed, they quickly back down without even an apology. This incident alone is enough to show up their characters.

Without even basic honesty and integrity, does TOC even have a shred of credibility left ?

BTW, no where in this article suggests that I "supported" TOC in any ways. I am merely providing an observation made on the internet sphere; people will be attracted to websites that put up views that resonate with their own views. Thus, for those websites that have extreme views, it will naturally attract those people who have extreme views as well. However, it would also mean that these websites will lose viewership from the bigger crowd of centrist middle ground people. It is to me, a very fair comment.

If you really want to know what I have told the reporter with regards to TOC? Well, my point is this, so what if TOC is managed under PAP members? PAP as a big party, would naturally have many different factions and it is only NORMAL for them to have many different voices within. If one of the factions decide to use the New Media to make their voice heard, so be it. It is a good sign overall to have citizens, be it partisan, PAP, opposition or otherwise, to make their voice heard. This just show that there are still Singaporeans out there who cares enough to make that effort to voice out.

Most probably the editor did not want this part to be published because it involves the sensitivity of mentioning of "factions" in PAP. LOL! I mean, even small opposition parties will tend to have different factions and voices within, I would not be surprised that PAP will have factions as well. This is just natural; even communist parties around the world have factions!

There is a distinctive difference between you and me. You are too engrossed in bringing PAP down, while for me, I am more interested in seeing a healthy system of checks and balances being in place. Our goals are not mutually exclusive, neither are they mutually inclusive. There are overlaps.

In this case, you will attack TOC based on your speculations that it is being controlled by PAP members, while I see it very differently. So what? As long as it is a platform for another alternative views, so be it. Democracy is about diversity of views and expressions. It is not merely about being ruling party against opposition parties.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[kakowi]

BTW, no where in this article suggests that I "supported" TOC in any ways. I am merely providing an observation made on the internet sphere; people will be attracted to websites that put up views that resonate with their own views. Thus, for those websites that have extreme views, it will naturally attract those people who have extreme views as well. However, it would also mean that these websites will lose viewership from the bigger crowd of centrist middle ground people. It is to me, a very fair comment.

If you really want to know what I have told the reporter with regards to TOC? Well, my point is this, so what if TOC is managed under PAP members? PAP as a big party, would naturally have many different factions and it is only NORMAL for them to have many different voices within. If one of the factions decide to use the New Media to make their voice heard, so be it. It is a good sign overall to have citizens, be it partisan, PAP, opposition or otherwise, to make their voice heard. This just show that there are still Singaporeans out there who cares enough to make that effort to voice out.

Most probably the editor did not want this part to be published because it involves the sensitivity of mentioning of "factions" in PAP. LOL! I mean, even small opposition parties will tend to have different factions and voices within, I would not be surprised that PAP will have factions as well. This is just natural; even communist parties around the world have factions!

There is a distinctive difference between you and me. You are too engrossed in bringing PAP down, while for me, I am more interested in seeing a healthy system of checks and balances being in place. Our goals are not mutually exclusive, neither are they mutually inclusive. There are overlaps.

In this case, you will attack TOC based on your speculations that it is being controlled by PAP members, while I see it very differently. So what? As long as it is a platform for another alternative views, so be it. Democracy is about diversity of views and expressions. It is not merely about being ruling party against opposition parties.

Goh Meng Seng

GMS, it appears that you are saying:

(a) TOC represents the voice of one faction of the PAP?

(b) that one faction of the PAP can provide a check and balance on another faction of the PAP?

(c) it does not matter if the TOC is controlled by the PAP so long as there is an avenue for representing moderate voices?

​

Would you like to clarify? Thanks.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

GMS, it appears that you are saying:

(a) TOC represents the voice of one faction of the PAP?

(b) that one faction of the PAP can provide a check and balance on another faction of the PAP?

(c) it does not matter if the TOC is controlled by the PAP so long as there is an avenue for representing moderate voices?

​

Would you like to clarify? Thanks.

Kakowi,

The truth is, I really don't know whether TOC is just like what others are suggesting, controlled by PAP members. But I am not bothered by it any ways. Checks and balances can come in many ways and yes, even within a party, be it ruling party or opposition parties, we need internal checks and balances.

More importantly, we need to have voices heard for the public, so that the general political awareness and education could be achieved. Heck, I don't really care who provides such political discourses that could become part of the political education process as long as it serves the Nation in the long run.

This is what I am saying. The other more important part of checks and balances must come from multi-party political system. This would require the parliament to be filled with a balance of forces.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[mockingbird]

it's accelerated by the inclusion of certain dubious and hypocritical characters. the drag down is definitely hastened.

SDP's loss is WP's & NSP's gain. So other opposition parties should rejoice since they are all vying for the dominant position in opposition politics.

 

[leetahbar]

there is no evidence. it's all spread by rumour mongers.
when u read TOC and then u read SDP...which one appears to be more prejudiced?