|
|
#211
01-07-2020, 04:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Who is this cibai kia??!!
https://sg.news.yahoo.com/blogs/sing...020245855.html
NTUC youth wing leader drops out from GE race SingaporeScene•27 April 2011  Rumours are making its rounds as to why a People's Action Party candidate withdrew last minute from running in Tampines Group Representation Constituency (GRC). Mr Tan said he had been discussing with his wife and cited "personal reasons". Speculations were posted on an online forum, saying that two woman working at the National Trade Union Congress (NTUC) umbrella union were sexually harassed by Steve Tan. The poster is an ex-colleague and mentioned that there were others who had similar experiences and they were all unreported and undisclosed. It is also speculated that letters were sent to the Prime Minister's Office to complain about the sexual harassment cases. Mr Tan said that he "has not heard about the speculations and think that people are starting it because of the short notice of the withdrawal." When asked if he will continue to conduct activities under the PAP banner, Mr Tan has said that he has no comments for that. He will continue his work and daily life. The vacancy was filled up last minute by Baey Yam Keng, previously running for Tanjong Pagar GRC that was announced to be a walkover on Wednesday. "I was informed just yesterday, on Tuesday evening. I did a quick drive through last night and looked around the town. The profile of the residents here are different from Queenstown and Tanjong Pagar," said Mr Baey. He also added that he hopes to be given a chance to serve the Tampines community. Young NTUC executive secretary Steve Tan said on Wednesday morning that he has dropped plans to run for a seat in Parliament. "It's a personal decision, and a hard one," said the 37-year-old unionist, who was one of the new candidates presented by the People's Action Party, according to The Straits Times. Tan was supposed to be fielded in the Tampines group representation constituency (GRC), taking over from outgoing MP Ong Kian Min. PAP Member of Parliament Baey Yam Keng, who was supposed to run for the party's Tanjong Pagar GRC slate, has replaced Tan as the party's candidate for Tampines GRC. Replacing Baey, in turn, is Singapore General Hospital doctor Chia Shi Lu, who has worked on the grassroots level in Aljunied and Hougang. Tan is a grassroots volunteer at Tampines East and helps out at Meet-the-People Sessions, among other activities. A business graduate of the Nanyang Technological University, he also helps to manage the community website, My Tampines. When he was introduced as a PAP candidate last month, he said that he sees being an "ordinary guy" as a strength. "When I'm doing my union work, this is one aspect I love: I hang out at the same places and do the same things as my workers... we eat roti prata at Jalan Kayu together," he said. "It will make it easier for me to relate to voters." Meanwhile, on Thursday, independent candidate Andrew Kuan said he would not be contesting for the General Election, leaving the Joo Chiat single member constituency as a straight fight between the PAP and the Workers' Party. He made his decision after realising that the WP was adamant about contesting the ward, and that a three-cornered fight would benefit the PAP. Follow Yahoo! News on Twitter and become a fan on Facebook. This article is published by Yahoo! Southeast Asia Pte. Ltd., 60 Anson Road #13-01 Mapletree Anson, Singapore, 079914. 
|
|
#216
08-07-2020, 01:52 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Who is this cibai kia??!!
Quote:
!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
#217
10-07-2020, 02:07 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Who is this cibai kia??!!
https://www.facebook.com/10001157271...7829510279463/
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10157579320785036&id=50073503 5 https://sudhirtv.com/videos/
|
|
#219
10-07-2020, 02:18 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Who is this cibai kia??!!
|
|
#220
10-07-2020, 02:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Who is this cibai kia??!!
|
|
#222
10-07-2020, 02:35 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Who is this cibai kia??!!
https://www.onlinecitizenasia.com/20...the-elections/
Leaked Audio: Chan Chun Sing said crisis will save PAP in the election "Lee Kuan Yew’s death saved us. Before Lee Kuan Yew's death, 9/11 saved us." Lia Cai by Lia Cai 8 July 2020in Current Affairs, Government, Politics 6 min read  In a roundabout way, Chan Chun Sing has confirmed that the People’s Action Party (PAP) is using the COVID-19 crisis as a means to have them re-elected given that their votes have been falling over the last 50 years. “Every election the PAP-vote problems, you check back the 50 years and see. Then suddenly a crisis will save us. Then we’ll start dropping again. Until the next crisis save us, and it’ll drop again. You look at the last 40 years pattern,” said Mr Chan. “Lee Kuan Yew’s death saved us. Before Lee Kuan Yew’s death, 9/11 saved us,” he added. Mr Chan, formerly the Minister of Trade and Industry, was speaking at a PAP’s closed-door meeting to 60 attendees in the northwest division in Bukit Panjang on 9 January 2019. The PAP won by close to 70% votes share in the General Elections (GE) 2015, a jump of almost 10 per cent from GE2011. PAP only won that election with 60.1 per cent of votes – its lowest since Singapore’s independence in 1965. PAP’s Votes Share for the past 10 GEs: GE 2015: 69.7% (Lee Kuan Yew’s death) GE 2011: 60.1% GE 2006: 66.6% GE 2001: 75.3% (9/11 incident) GE 1997: 65% GE 1991: 61% GE 1988: 63.1% GE 1984: 62.9% GE 1980: 75.6% GE 1976: 72.4% Mr Chan also mentioned another “crisis” in the previous year that would have been opportunistic for the PAP. “The party could have called for an early election over the conflict with Malaysia if it escalated,” he revealed. “The most important thing for PAP in tonight’s conversation must be the house majority. We will never know; our neighbour might do us a favour and we might call for election tomorrow. Are you ready?” said Mr Chan, indicating that the PAP would have capitalised on the crisis by calling for an election in 2019 instead. He explained that “winning the election has nothing to do with the nine days of campaigning”. According to Mr Chan, the PAP has four to five years to get themselves ready by “doing the right” in order to justify to the people that they have been cared for. “If people feel itchy enough, and say that ‘I have nothing to lose’ or ‘I can afford to take a risk’, then PAP will be in trouble,” he added. “No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems – of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind,” said Thomas Sowell, an American economist and author. What Mr Chan said was not surprising. What was surprising was his candid affirmation of what most Singaporeans have already thought. There is a perverse line between being strategic and Machiavellian. A crisis is extremely opportunistic in politics. But what if that crisis concerns your citizens’ lives? Mr Lee’s death and 9/11 did not directly put our lives in any danger. But the COVID-19 pandemic is a whole different story and ball game altogether. To solve a government’s problem, of being elected and re-elected again, will the PAP go so far as to jeopardise our lives? Mr Chan seemed to have confirmed that, just that we never knew – or even expected – the Government would go to this extent to win an election one and a half years later. The dispute with Malaysia over airspace really “spiralled” Mr Chan then switched to a part of an on-going foreign political climate under which Singapore lives under. He talked about how tensions were so dense in early January 2019 over the airspace dispute with their neighbour Malaysia, so much so there was a real possibility of an armed conflict being anticipated. Malaysia’s Transport Minister Anthony Loke said in parliament on 4 Dec 2018 that Malaysia will be reclaiming its sovereign and delegated airspace in southern Johor. This was in response to Singapore’s publication on Instrument Landing System (ILS) procedures for Seletar Airport released on 1 Dec 2018. The ILS procedure is a supported navigational aviation facility at the airport which provides vertical and horizontal guidance to pilots while the flight is descending and approaching the runway. The Minister was concerned that aircrafts would have to fly lowly over Pasir Gudang airspace when it descends and lands. “We can’t even build tall buildings in Pasir Gudang since Seletar Airport is very near the area,” Mr Loke explained. “There are currently some tall buildings above the limit over Pasir Gudang. So it is technically not viable right now for that flight path to be allowed.” “(Therefore) developments in Pasir Gudang areas may be stalled as buildings and structures must comply with the impedance and height control limits set by international standards,” he stated. As far as the descending of flight path is concerned, it cannot be over Pasir Gudang, Mr Loke asserted. Singapore’s Transport Minister Khaw Boon Wan responded on 4 Dec 2018 saying that Seletar Airport was not a new facility, saying: “The ILS procedures are in line with the current flight profile, so we are not introducing new flight paths, new flight patterns with this Seletar Airport.” He stated that it was Malaysia’s decision to “take back the airspace”, before going on to say that one cannot “just change the status quo” as ICAO procedures are “quite clear” that any such changes must improve on the status quo. Malaysia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs was supposed to get back to Mr Khaw, but it never came. “It’s not conducive for a good bilateral relationship to carry on with this current situation. It is not favourable for both countries,” the Minister stressed. To resolve this diplomatically, both Mr Khaw and Mr Loke met for a formal discussion. In a joint press statement on 8 Jan 2019, it announced that Malaysia will immediately suspend its permanent restricted area in the airspace over Pasir Gudang, while Singapore will similarly suspend its implementation of Instrument Landing System procedures for Seletar Airport. Mr Chan delved into this issue at the meeting on 9 Jan. He began by stating how serious the incident that happened on Christmas was, adding that the subsequent actions Singapore had to take at Seletar Airport were dangerous. “On Christmas Day, [Malaysia] instituted a restricted area – north of Seletar – along the platform. So that means whether it is instrumental landing or visual landing, you cannot go through the platform [and fly over Pasir Gudang airspace],” he said. Mr Chan went on to elaborate on what this would be on the ground: “Since 2 Jan, (any) plane coming into Seletar has to do the following removal: Right above 5000 feet, spiral down and land. When was the last time in world history that the country’s plane is forced to spiral down? The last time this happened was in 1948, (it was) called the Berlin Blockade.” He added that “[spiralling] was a different skill set altogether”, stressing on the problems Malaysia has caused for them. Malaysia’s uncertainty might do Singapore a favour by having call for an election, said Chan Chun Sing Besides the airspace dispute between Malaysia and Singapore, Mr Chan also spoke about taking advantage of the situation in the neighbouring country. On the certainty of Malaysia’s action, he said to the grassroots, “We never know, our neighbour might do us a favour and we may have to call for an election tomorrow.” [Update: Wednesday, 8 July – 3:30pm] Chan Chun Sing offers clarifications on the leaked audio tape, says it is “taken out of context” and being “circulated with ill-intent” Not long after this article – along with the leaked audio tape – was published, Mr Chan took to his Facebook to clarify on its content. According to him, what he uttered in the audio clip has been “taken out of context” and being “circulated with ill-intent”. Mr Chan went on to clarify what he actually meant. Chan Chun Sing on Tuesday It has come to my attention that truncated audio clips of one of my conversations, taken out of context, are being circulated with ill-intent. The timing of the release today is surely not coincidental. This conversation occurred in early 2019, in the wake of Malaysia imposing a restricted flying zone north of Seletar Airport. There were various parts to the conversation. I am aware of three parts being circulated. Part 1. I explained the implications of Malaysia restricting airspace access north of Seletar Airport. There were grave implications to the safety of our flights in and out of Seletar. There were also grave implications to our lifelines when the approaches to our airports or seaports were restricted. Part 2. I explained the deeper forces behind the various issues and that it was not personality-dependent, even though many thought it was so. If it was so, the issue would blow away when personalities changed. But we should not be under any illusion that it was such. And we must be prepared to deal with such bilateral issues beyond specific personalities. Part 3. I warned our people to never be complacent, thinking that a crisis will help PAP secure the votes at an election. It may be true that historically during crises, there may be a flight to quality and stability. But we must never take it for granted. In fact, we must work hard to serve our people, take care of them and not depend on a crisis to secure the votes. I trust Singaporeans will understand what was shared in context. The points in the conversation are poignant reminders of our vulnerabilities as a small country, and the need for our people to keep serving with the right motivations and to put Singapore and Singaporeans at the forefront of everything we do. As I said in one of the clips, winning an election has nothing to do with the 9-day campaigning. It has to do with the hard work over the previous many years. CCS Also read: Leaked Audio 3: Chan Chun Sing said PAP couldn’t blatantly say they’re going to let micro companies die as it was not politically prudent https://www.onlinecitizenasia.com/20...cally-prudent/ Leaked Audio: Since Jan 2019, PAP has been worried about PSP’s Dr Tan Cheng Bock and Lee Hsien Yang, SDP’s Tan Jee Say, Workers’ Party https://www.onlinecitizenasia.com/20...workers-party/ Leaked Audio: Chan Chun Sing says allowing Muslims to withdraw CPF fund for Hajj is “reasonable” but cannot be done https://www.onlinecitizenasia.com/20...annot-be-done/
|
|
#223
10-07-2020, 02:46 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Who is this cibai kia??!!
https://yawningbread.wordpress.com/2...ting-agent-me/
Counting agent me “At the last election, we had only thirty-something polling agents and counting agents,” said Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) chief Chee Soon Juan at a briefing on Polling Day. He was smiling. The party office was full to overflowing. I hadn’t planned to be a counting agent. Besides having an Australian visitor in town, for weeks my friends were hatching plans to hold election-watch parties. Eventually, nothing much came of those plans and so when at around 4 p.m., a text message came to me from Vincent Wijeysingha appealing for help to round up more counting agents, I was able to volunteer. “How many do you need?” I texted him back. “We need about 100. So send as many as u can,” came the reply. I later learned they were about 40 short as at mid-afternoon. With a flurry of text messages, I rustled up a significant number from among my friends, and via the gay and lesbian network. It was amazing how many people said Yes without hesitation, jumping into taxis to make their way to a part of Singapore few have ever been to (the party headquarters is really out of the way). At least one friend cancelled dinner plans to come in. This lot may not be representative of Singaporeans generally, but at least among this section of Singaporeans the climate of fear is becoming a thing of the past. The SDP was not the only party with a surfeit of volunteers, albeit a surfeit that poured in only when they realised ridiculously late in the day that they were short. I know for a fact from Sylvia Lim, chair of the Workers’ Party, that they too had more than enough polling and counting agents well before Nomination Day. * * * * * I shall take this opportunity to describe what happens at a counting centre, based on my first-hand experience. After the briefing and the oath-taking (secrecy under the law) at the party HQ, three of us arrived at our assigned counting centre just before 8 p.m, to find three more volunteers for SDP already there. That made a total of six, the maximum quota for this counting centre. Shortly after passing through a security check to enter the hall, volunteers #7 and #8 came but were not allowed in because the quota had been filled. Wow, from being short of volunteers four hours earlier, the party had more than they could use! The People’s Action Party’s six counting agents arrived after us, all dressed in party white, almost marching in like an infantry platoon — not like us, some in workclothes, one in shorts, complete with satchel bags and cups of sugar-cane juice. Ah, but beneath the ragtag appearance, we were armed with pens, notebooks and calculators. I wonder if the the PAP guys were surprised to see a full contingent for the SDP unlike previous years. At around 8:30 p.m. the ballot boxes arrived from the six polling stations this counting centre would serve. The boxes (about three or four) from each polling station were brought to one of six assigned tables. Thus, each table would count the votes of one polling station, with an average of 3,000 – 4,000 ballots. The tables were about 2 metres square — larger than a king-sized bed — around which was seated a table chief and four counting staff. Upon instruction by the officer presiding over the entire centre, the ballot boxes were shown to us, so we could verify that the seals which had been affixed at the polling stations at the close of the voting day were not broken.  The boxes were then opened and the contents poured out onto the centre of the table. Counting agents were free to move around to look over the shoulders of the counting staff. However, we could not speak to the staff, nor touch any ballot paper. If we wished to dispute the sorting of any ballot, we had to take it up with the table chief. Generally, the counting process was very efficient, with all tables following a standardised procedure. There were several rounds of counting, with each block of sorted ballots rechecked and re-counted by another member of the staff. Most of the time, the voter’s choice was obvious. Where the ballot paper had unusual markings, the counter would pass it to the table chief who would show it to a counting agent from each party and announce his decision as to how to treat that ballot. As counting agents, we could offer our views but his decision would be final. Here are some of the things I remember coming across:  The vast majority of voters marked their ballot paper with a cross as in example 1. A few marked their ballot paper with a tick, but so long as the rest of the ballot paper was clean, the tick would be accepted as sufficiently indicative of the voter’s intention. Other than such clean markings, counting staff would pass the ballot paper to the table chief for adjudication.  Table chiefs routinely rejected ballots where any part of the cross or tick crossed the boundary line, such as example 3. Where the voter made more than one marking, as in example 4, it was always rejected by the table chiefs at the counting centre where I attended. However, I later exchanged notes with my friend who was assigned to a different counting centre, and she told me that at that place, there was at least one incident when a ballot paper marked like example 4 was awarded as a vote for the “triangle and star” party. The table chief’s reasoning was that by law, the voter should mark his intention with a cross and since the cross was placed against the “triangle and star” party, the vote was given to it.  Occasionally I saw ballot papers with all sorts of strange markings, but so long as there was only one marking that did not cross the boundary (e.g. examples 5 and 6 above) the table chief would treat it as a valid vote.  More strange markings I came across, routinely accepted by table chiefs as valid votes.  I saw one ballot that looked like example 9, with two ticks. It was accepted as valid. There was one ballot that looked like example 10. It too was treated as a valid vote for the ” triangle and star” party despite my protest, the reasoning being that the voter only marked one half of the ballot paper and left the other half clean.  While watching another table, I came across another ballot rather similar to example 10, shown here as example 11. It too was accepted as a vote in favour of the “triangle and star party”. However, the counting staff and table chiefs were scrupulously fair. For every “go to hell” ballot there were at least fifty more with the faintest of scratches, as in example 12. Again, they would use the same rule — so long as the single marking stayed within one box, they accepted it as a valid vote. The layman might think however that the marking was accidental, the result of a pen falling onto the paper or slipping out of the voter’s hand. Then again, there might well be some people who, liking neither candidate, deliberately let a dropping pen from a height of 40 cm make the choice for them. Who is to say that is not a valid decision matrix? * * * * * Democracy is a seductive concept in the abstract. Look too closely and you might see the whole thingamajig flying by the seat of its pants.
|
|
#224
10-07-2020, 03:09 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Who is this cibai kia??!!
https://www.facebook.com/RiceMedia.c...9720995141570/
https://www.facebook.com/RiceMedia.c...7347564450700/ https://www.facebook.com/RiceMedia.co/
|
|
#225
10-07-2020, 03:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Who is this cibai kia??!!
Factually or half truths to sidestep actual salaries by PM and ministers? Why the lack of transparency?
Terry Xu by Terry Xu 17 September 2018in Government, Opinion3 min read https://www.onlinecitizenasia.com/20...and-ministers/  In a post published on the Factually website, the Singapore government seeks to address two “falsehoods”, one being the Prime Minister gets $4.5 million in annual salary and it is not upfront about how ministerial salaries are calculated. The post on Factually is correct on both counts to say that the government is upfront with how the ministerial salaries are calculated and that the Prime Minister is not paid $2.2 million as base salary.  In the two review reports (2012 and 2017) on ministerial salaries, the Singapore Government clearly states the amount of salary the Prime Minister and the political appointment holders get annually and how the figures are derived. As for the PM’s pay, the $2.2 million is a total of 12+7 months of bonuses, (12 months salary, 13th-months bonus, AVC and a six-month national bonus instead of three months as the PM does not get a performance bonus), which works out to be $110,000 per month or $1.43 million a year for his basic annual salary. So it is also right to say that PM Lee doesn’t get $4.5 million a year. But what the post does not address or trying to sidestep with its half-truths, is the reluctance by the Government or the Prime Minister to reveal the total amount of bonuses received by the ministers. Non-constituency Member of Parliament, Leon Perera had asked Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in a written question in September’s Parliamentary sitting: To ask the Prime Minister in each of the past five years, what has been the bonus paid to Cabinet Ministers in terms of (i) the average total number of bonus months (ii) the highest total number of bonus months paid to an individual Minister and (iii) the lowest total number of bonus months paid to an individual Minister. In PM Lee’s reply to the NCMP, he merely revealed the average performance bonus received by the political appointment holders over the past five years. Noting that the bonuses are computed with the four components, PM Lee failed to reveal the amount of National Bonuses received by the political appointment holders which then can be used to calculate the total number of bonuses for the past five years. So to find out the total annual bonuses that the PM and other political appointment holders get, TOC calculated the national bonus based on the KPIs set to determine the bonus months to be paid out.  Based on the calculated figures, we see that the political holders get at least 10 months of bonus on top of their annual salary for the past five years. And note that the Performance bonus is an average so some may get more. As for the Prime Minister, as he is not paid performance bonus but instead given a maximum of 12 months instead of 6 months of National bonus, this means he would get 13 months of bonus in 2017 instead of 11.85 months like the other ministers and political appointment holders. Which translate to PM Lee getting about 2.75 million in 2017 (25 months) and 2.83 million in 2013 (25.75). (Note that the basic pay has increased due to adjustment with the top 1000 earners) But as much as the PM may be reluctant to share who is being paid the highest amount of bonus, we ought to have complete transparency in the matter and full disclosure, as salaries of the Cabinet are being borne out of public monies.
|
| Advert Space Available |
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
