Tan Kin Lian in dangerous confrontation with govt

[myfoot123]

Please rename the topic "dangerous" to the word "courageous".
It is so misleading and image damaging.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Ironically both also endorsed by NTUC

The first 2 presidential candidates were both asked to run by the Govt.That has never changed.

.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Yes. The new YPAP team appears to support what you say. With Lazarus strutting about and headed by a flake like Teo Ser Luck, who apart from those with self-interest and the rare odd idealist who believes that change can from within would want to join YPAP?

The emergence of TOC and new campaign to rope the Indians tells me that their precint monitoring of the Gen Y is not showing the outcome that they want. Thats where our future lies. The new lot will not buy into the crap that you have be a scholar.


We got to work on backlash, on alterantive views and voices of the people.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Yes. That is why Walter Woon is slowly turning out to be a great disappointment.

The greatest threat to the PAP politically has not been any opposition party but rather the split from the PAP into the Barisan. In present day terms I would extend that into a split in the PAP and the conservative establishment which traditionally has supported the PAP by its silence, muted criticism and or active support




Locke

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

What took you so long?

Check out this parody of TOC here:

www.theonlineshitizen.wordpress.com

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

I have a feeling both Tan and Leong of TOC were by passed by PAPs (maybe be wrong though).

Hi Locke,

For once, I would have to agree with you.

But if PAP wanted to co-opt Tan K L, they would have done so a long time ago. Perhaps he attended one of their tea parties and failed the test.

 

[scroobal]

I have a feeling both Tan and Leong of TOC were by passed by PAPs (maybe be wrong though).

The previous quid pro quo was that, a clear line was drawn between PAP proper and PAP front. Devan, Kin Lian etc were part of the old arrangement. They looked after NTUC with guaranteed funding from a superb endowment/slush fund via Singapore Labour Foundation. Devan was never in cabinet but protocol wise ranked second in term of SPH headlines appearence to the PM. Kin Lian was very much part of the movement with the likes of KT Samuel.

NTUC Income like the Supermarket arm could not go wrong as it had a captive market including the largest taxi fleet.

Then the line became grey when those from politics side went over the NTUC like Lim Chee Yong, Boon Heng, Chandra Das,.

I know that many like Leong, Tan were disappointed. My sense is that, there is some parallel to a roundtable approach for them but for the govrnment, they have become pseudo independent critics which they have played all along but now more prominently.

Notice that it took Larry Haverkemp of New Paper to disclose that unlike other countries, singapore insurers had kept their asset gains to themselves and both these leading "authorities" in Insurance never raised a peep.

Now they are all over the place except where their own backyard counts.

From the Tan Kin Lian's minibond episode, it does show that there is a huge gap where consumer interest is concerned. The failure of CASE to act and the lack of industry ombudsman is clearly showing.

With Tan getting GMS help, I think an independent streak is clearly there and kudos to him. Maybe its time to repent. Leong on the other hand must realise that too much words and statistics to the nth degree with mutilple correleations and too many extrapolation is lost to everyone except the undereducated where volume and quantity counts.

Looks like GMS is launching his own united front le old man.

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Porifirio

If I remember correctly both TLH and F Seow roots of disaffection with the gov also stemmed in large part from being passed over for one thing or the other. I believe that we should cease ideological puritanical I am holier than thou witch hunts of those who seek alternative views or put forth alternative views.



Locke

I have a feeling both Tan and Leong of TOC were by passed by PAPs (maybe be wrong though).

 

[Avantas]

How do you know that Goh Meng Seng isn't a mole sent by the PAP to infiltrate into the opposition judging from the negative publicity he had helped to generate for the opposition so far ?

The previous quid pro quo was that, a clear line was drawn between PAP proper and PAP front. Devan, Kin Lian etc were part of the old arrangement. They looked after NTUC with guaranteed funding from a superb endowment/slush fund via Singapore Labour Foundation. Devan was never in cabinet but protocol wise ranked second in term of SPH headlines appearence to the PM. Kin Lian was very much part of the movement with the likes of KT Samuel.

NTUC Income like the Supermarket arm could not go wrong as it had a captive market including the largest taxi fleet.

Then the line became grey when those from politics side went over the NTUC like Lim Chee Yong, Boon Heng, Chandra Das,.

I know that many like Leong, Tan were disappointed. My sense is that, there is some parallel to a roundtable approach for them but for the govrnment, they have become pseudo independent critics which they have played all along but now more prominently.

Notice that it took Larry Haverkemp of New Paper to disclose that unlike other countries, singapore insurers had kept their asset gains to themselves and both these leading "authorities" in Insurance never raised a peep.

Now they are all over the place except where their own backyard counts.

From the Tan Kin Lian's minibond episode, it does show that there is a huge gap where consumer interest is concerned. The failure of CASE to act and the lack of industry ombudsman is clearly showing.

With Tan getting GMS help, I think an independent streak is clearly there and kudos to him. Maybe its time to repent. Leong on the other hand must realise that too much words and statistics to the nth degree with mutilple correleations and too many extrapolation is lost to everyone except the undereducated where volume and quantity counts.

Looks like GMS is launching his own united front le old man.

 

[Avantas]

I got a feeling that Leong is desperate to become a PAP MP, but was passed over by them and hence he kept writing to the media and through TOC to attract attention. His articles are mildly critical of PAP policies but does nothing to highlight the underlying flaws in the system.

As for Tan K L, being the ex-NTUC INCOME Chief, he obviously has rubbed shoulders with the MIWs before.

Now, let us look at the background of TOC writers:

1. Choo Zheng Xi: ex-grassroots leader at age of 17 and PAP MP Ho Geok Choo's speech writer. Do you know that only YPAP members are allowed to write speeches for their MPs and further more they must be vetted by thoroughly by their inner circles.

2. Andrew Loh: ex-PAP supporter turned WP member.

3. Gerald Giam: ex-MFA official now a committee member of MDA.

4. Koh Kai Jie: YPAP member and law undergrad studying in Oxford now, I think.

5. Yeo Toon Joo: previous Straits Times journalist.

6. Ephraim Loy: YPAP member and George Yeo's fellow blogger, a co-founder of TOC, now left, I think.

In case you don't know, TOC is the brilliant idea of a young PAP MP who heads the PAP "internet subcommittee". This MP is the mentor of Choo and he is recently elected to the YPAP CEC.

Go and check it out yourself if you have any YPAP friends. Everybody within knows that TOC is funded by YPAP, otherwise who is sponsoring their website when Choo is a undergrad and Andrew Loh is still unemployed.

I have a feeling both Tan and Leong of TOC were by passed by PAPs (maybe be wrong though).

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Porifirio

Hmmm and yet we have here people criticizing the ideological purity of individuals who seek a moderate anti PAP view :_)) just because they come from within the establishment :_)))




Locke

 

[scroobal]

Dear Porifirio

If I remember correctly both TLH and F Seow roots of disaffection with the gov also stemmed in large part from being passed over for one thing or the other. I believe that we should cease ideological puritanical I am holier than thou witch hunts of those who seek alternative views or put forth alternative views.
Locke

If they break free, and their views have changed, no issues.

If you think that TOC is non partisan and its so happens that all ex-and current card carrying members have broken free and have come together than your faith in mankind is certainly better than mine.

I think you do a great disservice to both TLH and Seow using them to comparison. Were they ever part of a questionable outfit when they began to dissent. I am sure WP was clearly on the other side of the fence.

Sorry if I got your interpretation wrong.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Personally I don't give a shit either way as I am a cynical person at heart. Look at substance of the specific arguments and then make up my own mind also keeping in view wayang ala singapore politics.

Dear Porifirio

Hmmm and yet we have here people criticizing the ideological purity of individuals who seek a moderate anti PAP view :_)) just because they come from within the establishment :_)))




Locke

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Scroobal

I believe that the answer to Porifirio was with regards to the "motivations" in whatever form in leaving the establishment fold and challenging the status quo from the outside. I believe well in not questioning individuals abt their motivations as long as you have said they have seen the light and taken the red pill.

The associations they make in that process , the people they associate with, I would say that benefit of the doubt should be given




Locke

 

[cleareyes]

I have a feeling both Tan and Leong of TOC were by passed by PAPs (maybe be wrong though).

i can tell you that you are wrong.

just because we have the likes of avantas aka dun know what other nicks he has had been putting TOC down and making TOC look so doesnt mean it is so.

TOC has no relations with PAP, just because it has writers who could have PAP background doesnt meant any relations and in fact such a view is very discriminating and even petty.

in this political infamy that singapore is gong through, in order for progress to happen, in order to create awareness and change, anyone and everyone who could assist and help and does so in a moderate line should be welcome and not put down with suspcision out of personal agendas.

I m sure scrobal had put up a brief on who is behind wayangparty.com and who avantas is. as TOC was started by group of mixed-partisan activitist with non-partisan intention, he is uncomfortable and jealous and hence now, had mislead others into questioning the intent and orginal of TOC.

Till date, avantas and clones had been trying to claim that andrew lok was a PAP member before he joined WP, yet the clones could come out with no evidence.

go think about this, u will realised all these petty questioning will amount to nothing when the intention is far from what it was questioned upon.

 

[cleareyes]

I got a feeling that Leong is desperate to become a PAP MP, but was passed over by them and hence he kept writing to the media and through TOC to attract attention. His articles are mildly critical of PAP policies but does nothing to highlight the underlying flaws in the system.

In case you don't know, TOC is the brilliant idea of a young PAP MP who heads the PAP "internet subcommittee". This MP is the mentor of Choo and he is recently elected to the YPAP CEC.

Go and check it out yourself if you have any YPAP friends. Everybody within knows that TOC is funded by YPAP, otherwise who is sponsoring their website when Choo is a undergrad and Andrew Loh is still unemployed.

Go and check out?

why dont u just try to bring out proof since u have made such claiims?

ptoof it and people would back u up, cant proof it and u have bene speading falsehood and hence is gulity for libel and defamation.

can you handle this?

 

[scroobal]

Dear Scroobal

I believe that the answer to Porifirio was with regards to the "motivations" in whatever form in leaving the establishment fold and challenging the status quo from the outside. I believe well in not questioning individuals abt their motivations as long as you have said they have seen the light and taken the red pill.

The associations they make in that process , the people they associate with, I would say that benefit of the doubt should be given
Locke

What is your position about NTUC fighting for worker's rights. What is your position about CASE fighting for consumer rights. What is your position about Fairprice providing affordable food and pharmaceutical essentials to the heartland. To wrap it up, what is your position about TOC looking after our political rights?

My sense is Kin Lian is going to break away as TOC is not going to remove the OB markers as their genesis does not allow it and I think he knows that he is not going to have a second run. Until then .........

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Scroobal

Point of clarification. I meant associations after taking the RED PILL. And as to NTUC and CASE , I see them as Quangos nothing more or less. The "generous" NTUC discount of 5% of NTUC branded essentials stands as the greatest rip off and profiteering masquerading as consumer protection this side of retail history. CASE and the cases it takes up stands as another. As an illustration the a retail supermarket's own brands are consistently the most profitable of all the brands they hold even over that of P n G. They can afford to be cheaper than P n G and still give discounts better than five percent.

Wrap the TOC is not a protector or advocate of rights. I see it as a voice of alternative viewpoints. The mantle of protector of rights is in the hands of politicians in SG and to a lesser extent the civil activists.




Locke

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

I still find it likely and probable that both Tan and Leong had put themselves out for PAP selection to become MPs. Background and present activism reinforces this pov.

As for TOC, well it is possible and even probable that PAP is playing a role behind the curtains in some form or manner. If you study PAP's strategies it is all the more likely.

But does it really matter if TOC has PAP links? I think not so long as one makes up his/her own mind after reading TOC's articles. Same goes for reading ST.

i can tell you that you are wrong.

 

[scroobal]

Wrap the TOC is not a protector or advocate of rights. I see it as a voice of alternative viewpoints.
Locke

Alternate to who?