- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Messages
- 33,627
- Points
- 0
<TABLE id=msgUN border=0 cellSpacing=3 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD id=msgUNsubj vAlign=top>
Coffeeshop Chit Chat - New PAP snake protege: Rachel Chang</TD><TD id=msgunetc noWrap align=right>
Subscribe </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=msgtable cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="96%"><TBODY><TR><TD class=msg vAlign=top><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgbfr1 width="1%"> </TD><TD><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR class=msghead vAlign=top><TD class=msgF width="1%" noWrap align=right>From: </TD><TD class=msgFname width="68%" noWrap>AAAAAA50 <NOBR></NOBR> </TD><TD class=msgDate width="30%" noWrap align=right>Feb-4 3:32 am </TD></TR><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgT height=20 width="1%" noWrap align=right>To: </TD><TD class=msgTname width="68%" noWrap>ALL <NOBR></NOBR></TD><TD class=msgNum noWrap align=right> (1 of 30) </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgleft rowSpan=4 width="1%"> </TD><TD class=wintiny noWrap align=right>28175.1 </TD></TR><TR><TD height=8></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgtxt>No idea where does this "Rachel Chang" of the shitty times come from, but in today's article she rubbished the online media of spreading untruths and accusing "innocent" folks such as Mr Sear Hock Rong over his business dealings with Eunos constituency.
a) She cleverly brushed over the event by dismissing their dealings as "nothing more than a few jobs as master at ceremonies at grassroots events". She did not mention if any commercial interest passed between Mr Sear and Eunos constituency. Did money changed hands? How much was involved? Did Mr Sear volunteered his services for free?
b) She stated that Mr Sear runs a "event management company".
Isn't that supposed to be an educational services company? She did not even get her basic facts right and can get her article published on a "credible" media. So much for their credibility.
c) Mr Sear clearly stated on his website his clients include Eunos constituency, among others. So if what Rachel claimed is true, and their interactions are not commercial in nature and unrelated to the core business Mr Sear's company engages in, then it is apparent that Mr Sear is LYING. That means serious integrity problems with a senior grassroots chairman. Regrettably Rachel Chang chose not to delve into this serious issue in a "credible media" and we readers really have to wonder WHY.
d) Neither did she explain the history of the case, when Mr Sear, in a personal attack totally unrelated to his argument with Alex, exposed his NS DB record. That means professional and integrity issues as well, which would normally render such a person unfit for any positions of responsibility, let alone the chairman of a grassroots club.
She cleverly glosses over the case and make Mr Sear out to be the victim of irrational online media while at the same time claiming moral high ground.
Sad to say, she is only engaging in hypocrisy, selective reporting, and attempting to deceive the public in the name of "credible media".
But it's all well.
With folks like Rachel Chang continuing to pull off this kind of half-past six tricks on the public, it will only drive more people to alternative sources for real news and reporting.
So please, Rachel Chang, continue to pump out more reports. We are only too glad to give you all the rope to hang yourself.
</TD></TR><TR><TD> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD class=msgleft width="1%"> </TD><TD class=msgopt width="24%" noWrap>
Options</TD><TD class=msgrde width="50%" noWrap align=middle> 
Reply</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
a) She cleverly brushed over the event by dismissing their dealings as "nothing more than a few jobs as master at ceremonies at grassroots events". She did not mention if any commercial interest passed between Mr Sear and Eunos constituency. Did money changed hands? How much was involved? Did Mr Sear volunteered his services for free?
b) She stated that Mr Sear runs a "event management company".
Isn't that supposed to be an educational services company? She did not even get her basic facts right and can get her article published on a "credible" media. So much for their credibility.
c) Mr Sear clearly stated on his website his clients include Eunos constituency, among others. So if what Rachel claimed is true, and their interactions are not commercial in nature and unrelated to the core business Mr Sear's company engages in, then it is apparent that Mr Sear is LYING. That means serious integrity problems with a senior grassroots chairman. Regrettably Rachel Chang chose not to delve into this serious issue in a "credible media" and we readers really have to wonder WHY.
d) Neither did she explain the history of the case, when Mr Sear, in a personal attack totally unrelated to his argument with Alex, exposed his NS DB record. That means professional and integrity issues as well, which would normally render such a person unfit for any positions of responsibility, let alone the chairman of a grassroots club.
She cleverly glosses over the case and make Mr Sear out to be the victim of irrational online media while at the same time claiming moral high ground.
Sad to say, she is only engaging in hypocrisy, selective reporting, and attempting to deceive the public in the name of "credible media".
But it's all well.
With folks like Rachel Chang continuing to pull off this kind of half-past six tricks on the public, it will only drive more people to alternative sources for real news and reporting.
So please, Rachel Chang, continue to pump out more reports. We are only too glad to give you all the rope to hang yourself.
</TD></TR><TR><TD> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD class=msgleft width="1%"> </TD><TD class=msgopt width="24%" noWrap>
