Sinha Affair: ST Rachel Chang replied to my email...

[kojakbt]

<table class="cf gJ" cellpadding="0"><tbody><tr><td class="gF gK"><table class="cf gJ" cellpadding="0"><tbody><tr class="UszGxc"><td class="gG">from</td><td colspan="2" class="gL">

BT Kojak <[email protected]></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="gG">to</td><td colspan="2" class="gL">

Rachel Chang WQ <[email protected]>
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="gG">date</td><td colspan="2" class="gL">

Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 11:31 AM</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="gG">subject</td><td colspan="2" class="gL">

Calling netizens anti-establishment</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="gG">mailed-by</td><td colspan="2" class="gL">

gmail.com</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">
</td></tr></tbody></table></td><td class="gH">hide details 11:31 AM (1 hour ago)
</td><td class="gH cY8xve">
</td></tr></tbody></table>Hello Rachel,

In your article "Netizens bay for blood but HDB clears PAP activist" dated 26th Jun, you wrote:

"He is the latest in a line of PAP activists who have clashed with anti-establishment netizens online."

I just want to say that many of these so called "anti-establishment" netizens that Sinha Shekhar clashed with are descent and patriotic Singaporeans. They may not necessary agree with the current Govt's pro-FT policy but this does not make them anti-Singapore. Many are just frustrated that the so-called new citizens are not committed to Singapore for the long term and are merely here to exploit our system.

Singaporeans these days, want to see a "Singapore for Singaporean"!


Best regards

Kojakbt

 

[kojakbt]

<table class="cf gJ" cellpadding="0"><tbody><tr><td class="gF gK"><table class="cf gJ" cellpadding="0"><tbody><tr class="UszGxc"><td class="gG">from</td><td colspan="2" class="gL">

Rachel Chang <[email protected]></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="gG">reply-to</td><td colspan="2" class="gL">

[email protected]
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="gG">to</td><td colspan="2" class="gL">

BT Kojak <[email protected]>
</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="gG">date</td><td colspan="2" class="gL">

Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 12:07 PM</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="gG">subject</td><td colspan="2" class="gL">

Re: Calling netizens anti-establishment</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="gG">mailed-by</td><td colspan="2" class="gL">

gmail.com</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="gG">signed-by</td><td colspan="2" class="gL">

gmail.com</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">
</td></tr></tbody></table></td><td class="gH">hide details 12:07 PM (26 minutes ago)
</td><td class="gH cY8xve">
</td></tr></tbody></table> Hi Kojak,

Thanks for your email. I didn't write 'anti-singapore' but 'anti-establishment' - if u read some of my past commentaries I think you'll see that I fully agree with you that there is a difference. In the case of Mr Sinha, he has been a citizen since 1994, so perhaps not a good example of the phenomenon you point to.

Best,
Rachel
via BlackBerry

 

[garlic]

They are careful with choice of words, they wont tell you an apple is an apple.. but will say it is a fruit that dropped beside/under an apple tree...

In her case of "anti-establishment", just because these ESTABLISHMENTS pay her salary does not give her the right to think, say and broadcast that the current establishment is THE "mainstream" (in the sense of the word) and force it down others' throats and anything that opposes it is "anti"? In other words, she is insinuating that those who voice out against FTs buying HDBs and subletting are Anti-Establishment? Then those who are agreeable with such are PRO-Establishment? That is demeaning, negative and debauchery at its ugliest.

NO, there is no such thing. Rather than say people are "anti establishment", i would like to think that people who voice out displeasures at the way singaporeans are treated are the real "Freedom"(probably there will be a better word, but will suffice for now) fighters ; freedom to voice out, freedom to condemn, freedom to simply disagree. That will be the true way forward.

 

[makapaaa]

<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD class=msgleft rowSpan=4 width="1%"></TD><TD class=wintiny noWrap align=right>35241.9 in reply to 35241.2 </TD></TR><TR><TD height=8></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgtxt>Ask that Rachel bitch to dig deeper into that Sinha FTrash fucktard by asking him the following questions:
1. Did he serve NS?
2. How could he afford a condo and PHole at the same time?
3. What is he doing on the sideline? E.g. is it true that he's making middleman fees by importing more Indian FTrash into Peesai, perhaps using fake degrees?
4. Have his wife and children taken up the pink tampons? If not, why?
5. What is it that he could do that Sporns could not and needed him to be imported to begin with?
6. Who are his tenants? Indian FTrash themselves?

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
And lastly, ask her to define 'anti-establishment'

 

[groinroot]

I wonder if this woman knows the difference between anti-establishment and anti-Singapore. She should be asked to define the terms.

 

[kojakbt]

They are careful with choice of words, they wont tell you an apple is an apple.. but will say it is a fruit that dropped beside/under an apple tree...

In her case of "anti-establishment", just because these ESTABLISHMENTS pay her salary does not give her the right to think, say and broadcast that the current establishment is THE "mainstream" (in the sense of the word) and force it down others' throats and anything that opposes it is "anti"? In other words, she is insinuating that those who voice out against FTs buying HDBs and subletting are Anti-Establishment? Then those who are agreeable with such are PRO-Establishment? That is demeaning, negative and debauchery at its ugliest.

NO, there is no such thing. Rather than say people are "anti establishment", i would like to think that people who voice out displeasures at the way singaporeans are treated are the real "Freedom"(probably there will be a better word, but will suffice for now) fighters ; freedom to voice out, freedom to condemn, freedom to simply disagree. That will be the true way forward.

I think she meant anti-establishment means, anti-PAP, anti-Govt...

 

[manokie]

Be glad that she didn't call you a:

Nihilist
noun
1.
total rejection of established laws and institutions.
2.
anarchy, terrorism, or other revolutionary activity.
3.
total and absolute destructiveness, esp. toward the world at large and including oneself: the power-mad nihilism that marked Hitler's last years.
4.
Philosophy .
a.
an extreme form of skepticism: the denial of all real existence or the possibility of an objective basis for truth.
b.
nothingness or nonexistence.
5.
( sometimes initial capital letter ) the principles of a Russian revolutionary group, active in the latter half of the 19th century, holding that existing social and political institutions must be destroyed in order to clear the way for a new state of society and employing extreme measures, including terrorism and assassination.
6.
annihilation of the self, or the individual consciousness, esp. as an aspect of mystical experience.

 

[scroobal]

Read her reply again. She agrees with the sentiment and I am actually surrpised by it. Actually most Singaporeans would be pissed with this guy.

They are careful with choice of words, they wont tell you an apple is an apple.. but will say it is a fruit that dropped beside/under an apple tree...

 

[yellow_people]

In your article "Netizens bay for blood but HDB clears PAP activist" dated 26th Jun, you wrote:

"He is the latest in a line of PAP activists who have clashed with anti-establishment netizens online."

I just want to say that many of these so called "anti-establishment" netizens that Sinha Shekhar clashed with are descent and patriotic Singaporeans. They may not necessary agree with the current Govt's pro-FT policy but this does not make them anti-Singapore. Many are just frustrated that the so-called new citizens are not committed to Singapore for the long term and are merely here to exploit our system.

Singaporeans these days, want to see a "Singapore for Singaporean"!

Dear Rachel, (in case you are reading this)

I must say you are spot on when you wrote, "anti-establishment netizens online".The plain and simple truth is, Ah Beng is nothing but "an anti-establishment netizen". The call for a "Singapore for Singaporean" sounds hollow as Sinha Shekhar is a Singapore citizen to begin with. This is nothing but "politics of envy".

The real reason why Ah Beng bays for Sinha Shekhar's blood is: #1 he is an Ah Neh, #2 has the gall to be vocal and challenge anti-establishment Ah Beng's views which Ah Beng of course resents and most of all #3 Sinha owns not only just a HDB property (earning passive income) but a condo as well. This has Ah Beng all but green with envy as he measures himself against perceived material wealth.

That’s the Confucian state for you. Local Ah Beng is a self-absorbed breed. He, along with ‘oppositional’ bodies, tend to behave like Chinese triads and just bother about their own interests. The call for a Singaporean's Singapore is pure humbug. Minority citizens had better watch their backs.

It must be pointed out that these xenophobic, anti-establishment Ah Beng peasants are "Today's Slaves But Tomorrow's Tyrants" should they have the chance to rule SG in the future.

Have you ever heard the dictum, ‘every people deserve the government they get’? Well, in Singapore, Ah Beng is far from deserving a true alternative for want of the collective and mutual empathy required to produce and support such alternatives. A pathetic situation indeed but entirely self-inflicted.