Why Wayang Party is a Piece of Shit

BREAKING: Group claiming to represent “Singaporean citizens and permanent residents concerned with the continuing existence of a secular civil society in Singapore” launched a petition to remove the new Aware exco (or: Why Wayang Party is a Piece of Shit)

From The Informant Network Team

The Aware AGM which saw a new guards gaining control of the organization did not end, precipitating an aggressive counter-strike by the self-proclaimed “concerned with the continuing existence of a secular civil society in Singapore” group to exert pressure on the exco to accede to their demands.

An online petition started by Singaporeans overseas garnered 2,700 signatures in less than two weeks, forcing Aware to stop all activities and hold an EGM.

A smear campaign was launched against the new exco in retaliation for their successful and democratic bid for power to derail their plans for Aware.

The rampant character assassination reached a boiling point when netizens wrote in to DBS to put pressure on Ms Josie Lau's job and made death threats against the new exco, culminating in their filing a police report (read article here)

Undaunted, the group has started a petition - to exert pressure on the new Aware exco quit Aware as soon as possible:





The identity of the petition starter is unknown. However, he/she claims that they are “Singaporeans overseas and at home [who] are very concerned about the take-over of the Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE) on 28 March 2009 by a group of people, whose values are opposed to what AWARE stands for.”

This is the usual astroturfing at play again to create a “fake grassroot” support under the cloak of “progressive contingent” to impose their own liberal values onto mainstream society.

In spite of earlier warnings given by the Government to keep religion and politics separate, and that our laws do not derive from religious authority, but reflect the judgments and decisions of the secular government, these groups continue to sow discord and promote division within our society by pressing on with their agenda.

In spite, too, of earlier warnings given by the Government that we are a Conservative Society which Frowns Upon Homosexuality, these groups are trying to push their Gay and Liberal Agenda on society, and impose their Western Values upon us, which will ultimately lead to the Legalization of Gay Marriage.

Aware should simply ignore the petitions started by anonymous individuals. They are probably circulated amongst the same group of people who are responsible for the earlier petition to repeal 377A.

As we have observed previously, these zealots are extremely tenacious, unreasonable and aggressive. Once a precedent is set, they will take it as a sign of weakness to push the boundaries further.

What next after they are done with Aware? Will they seek to impose their views on other policies such as gay marriage, euthanasia, drugs and men with long hair?

Never before had our peaceful, harmonious and stable society been wrecked by so much tension and discord within a short span of time.

The authorities should nip the problem quickly in the bud before it festers like an ugly sore in our fragile social fabric. These people are not amenable to reasoning and they will not stop until they achieve their aims.

The astroturfing is probably masterminded by a few people in positions of authority. Identify them and their links with one another and the truth will be out.

What are their intentions? Why are they bent to create havoc and unrest in the midst of an economic turmoil? Don’t they have other things to worry about other than homosexual and anal sex?

Aware’s reputation has suffered irreparable damage with the malicious, vile and baseless accusations that it will now pursue an anti-feminist, anti-gay agenda through promoting homosexuality to our school children through its CSE and other activities. It is unbelievable that a NGO which traces its roots to the PAP and has no real power anyway can do much to hurt women or gays.

The new guards should seriously consider suing certain people for criminal defamation to salvage Aware’s battered reputation. It is pointless to reason with people who is only interested in imposing their world views on those who disagree with them.

The government cannot sit idly by allowing these groups to run amok in our country. They are highly motivated, organized and efficient which make them a powerful lobby group in future elections. Will the PAP allow its policies to be held ransom constantly by these liberal zealots?

It is time to break them up before they become uncontrollable. A line has clearly been crossed. Procrastination will only embolden them to go further. A strong message need to be send across that liberalism should be kept solely within the confines of their own respective institutions and our social arena must always be a conservative one.


Original piece of shit:

BREAKING: Group claiming to repKresent “conservative majority” of Singaporeans launched another petition to MOE to remove Aware as sex education provider : The Wayang Party (大戏党)

Commentary:

I may not agree with practically everything the "conservatives" are for, but even a serial killer deserves a fair trial.

Since many of my points will admittedly be hard to grasp, here're most of them:

- Wayang Party has bad grammar
- Wayang Party promiscuously demonises those with opposing views
- Wayang Party flippantly dismisses those with “pro-family” views (yes, these people do exist, and they are non-negligible), raising a cry of astro-turfing which could justifiably be applied to stands they themselves are sympathetic to
- When people accuse and condemn PAP MPs, this is transparency and democracy in action and they shouldn't complain. When people accuse and condemn non-PAP MPs, it's character assassination (I can't point to specific instances, but this is my overall assessment)
- They condemn the government repeatedly, unreservedly and sometimes contradictorily and incoherently. See, for example: Amazing speed at which Rojak seller is charged diverts attention away from role of authorities vs More serious questions to be asked about Mas Selamat’s stunning escape from Singapore; as with Creationism, all is made clear when you understand that they are working backwards from a conclusion (the government sucks/is evil) to come up with a semblance of an argument. This is one reason why I eschew identifying either as "pro-government/PAP" or "anti-government/PAP", since the former are mindlessly pro-government and the latter mindlessly anti-. (See also: the time I got called a "smart ass NUS rubbish pro-PAP scholar")
- The above notwithstanding, they call on it to take action when it suits them to have other people hit with a big stick; "sow discord and promote division within our society by pressing on with their agenda" - that's a great excuse to shut Wayang Party itself down. What's sauce for the Goose is sauce for the Gander (see also: advocating the use of defamation suits)
- They feverishly fling nonsensical accusations in the hope that at least some of them will stick. For example, what does saying we're a Conservative Society have to do with mixing religion and politics?! See also: the other hysterical hyperbole.

So, in conclusion, Wayang Party is even more shitty than The Online Citizen and you should read it for the same reason you slow down to look at a car crash.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28024.420

NHG employee's Petition Fake Majority of Singaporeans for Apology

Petition Fake Majority of Singaporeans for Apology

The petition

Brothers and Sisters! Sign this petition by 31 MAY 2009 if you agree that those KNN conservative people (1) owes us Ah Bengs and Ah Lians the real majority of Singaporeans a public apology for any how call themselves majority; and
(2) KNN don't be smart alex and better take full responsibility for misleading other people in the world that they are the majority of Singaporeans;
(3) don't talk cock and if so smart go fully disclose all relevant materials to prove they really majority of Singaporeans

*************************************************

To: The Minister for Home Affairs
Dear Sir

OPEN LETTER TO REQUEST THE MINISTRY TO TELL THOSE PEOPLE DON'T ANY HOW SAY THEY MAJORITY HOR

We saw this petition these siao kias put on the internet har, KNN say they simi conservative majority of Singaporeans! KNNBCCB! If they majority of Singaporeans then what are we? What are my brothers and sisters? Majority my LJ! We are all over Singapore, with brothers and sisters in every HDB flat, every factory, every kopitiam, every bus and every MRT train! If they got balls, come down to Geylang, Chinatown, Toa Payoh, Jurong and Sin Ming and see how many people we have lah!

Calling themselves majority we already damn du lan liao, somemore conservative majority! Wah lao eh! They think now Qing dynasty ah? KNN! They think they still got pigtails ah? Anyhow use the words conservative majority, scali other people thought all Singaporans ku ku one how? They bird brain is it? KNN their English so powderful, cannot find better words, must use conservative! Even my LJ knows conservative means going backwards, not catching up with time, old-fashion, unrealistic and stupid thinking! Singapore is democratic ok, not KNN conservative!

They want to fight with homos go one side and fight lah! Don't any how say they represent the majority of Singaporeans! KNN! We got give them LJ permission to represent us meh? If they so reasonable, people will follow them and sign their CB petition one. No need to talk cock and claim they represent the majority then make people believe they also must join the majority and sign that CB petition blindly!

Minister, I tell you, they bloody talk cock about being the majority of Singaporeans one! If not, ask them to prove lah! Prove that these LJs and CCBs are really majority of Singaporeans! I can bet with you har, scali most of them cannot even speak Singlish! They only know how to kiss ang moh asses and act and slang like them! Majority of Singaporeans their heads! Only people like us who speak Singlish are the majority of Singaporeans! Go stand one side lah!

Thank you for your kind attention to this matter.
Yours faithfully

cc. The Prime Minister’s Office

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/conservative_to_apologise/index.html

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28839.26

Degrees for poly grads

May 20, 2009

Degrees for poly grads

A new institute will manage foreign tie-ups to offer courses locally

By Sandra Davie, Senior Writer
		Polytechnic graduates who cannot get into the three universities here usually go abroad to pursue a degree - at great expense - or join the job market. -- ST PHOTO: ALBERT SIM

POLYTECHNIC graduates who cannot get into the three universities here usually go abroad to pursue a degree - at great expense - or join the job market.

But from 2011, more of them will be able to obtain degrees here, through tie-ups with reputable foreign universities, as well as by enrolling in Singapore's fourth university.

Leading the charge will be a new Singapore Institute of Applied Technology, set up to plan, manage and implement these joint degree programmes.

Six such programmes here have been running since 2007, with 300 poly graduates pursuing two-year degrees in disciplines ranging from optometry to naval architecture.

The Education Ministry wants this expanded so that by 2015, some 2,000 students yearly will enrol as full-time students and another 1,500 will take up the courses on a part-time basis.

With this, the proportion of poly graduates who will move up the education ladder will rise from the current 15 per cent to 20 per cent of the cohort.

Taking into account those who enrol in university via the A-level route, it means 30 per cent of a Primary One cohort will emerge from the education system with a degree.

The new plans were referred to in President SR Nathan's opening address to Parliament on Monday. Yesterday, Education Minister Ng Eng Hen put the meat on the proposals.

He made it clear that the foreign universities will not be run-of-the-mill schools.

For a start, he announced that the new university, which will start taking in students in 2011, has partnered with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology from the United States. MIT is consistently ranked as one of the top 10 universities in the world and No. 1 for engineering.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=29295.1

Singapore's Lesson: Buy High, Sell Low

Singapore's Lesson: Buy High, Sell Low

Written by Our Correspondent
Wednesday, 20 May 2009

Aristocratic lineage isn't a qualification for financial management

Ho Ching's flawed management of the billions of public savings entrusted to her as chief executive of Temasek Holdings has continued until the last. Her successor, Chip Goodyear, formerly with BHP, moved in as CEO-designate in March and formerly takes over in October. But presumably it was Ho Ching, the wife of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, who took the decision to sell out of its huge Bank of America holding, an investment originally made in Merrill Lynch which was taken over last year to save it from bankruptcy.

Now she has managed to sell out at what, at least on a six month view, looks close to the bottom of the US financial sector. The sale was completed by the end of March so presumably took place in the preceding few weeks. Since then the BoA share price has risen 66 percent.

Temasek's loss on BoA alone is estimated around US$4.6 billion, or roughly US$1,000 for every single Singaporean citizen. Big losses too were sustained on most of the rest of the financial portfolio such as Barclays of the UK and UBS of Switzerland.

Other huge losses were sustained by the even less transparent Government Investment Corporation, which invested Swiss francs 11 billion in UBS in 2007 and added to it in a rights issue in 2008. From US$60 in New York in 2007, UBS shares have slumped to US$13, having been down to US$7. Did GIC also sell UBS when Temasek was selling BoA? Or is its presence in Singapore, where it occupies the former residence of the president, too useful for bringing in business from Myanmar generals and other friends of Singapore?

The desire to get out of Wall Street's black holes was understandable but the exodus seems to have been part of the group's follow-the-crowd mentality. And one wonders if it is not going to repeat itself. Goodyear's claim to fame was increasing BHP's market capitalization from US$12 billion to US$200 billion and a quadrupling its share price in his eight years at the helm. However, most of this was luck – the biggest mineral price boom for 40 years -- plus acquisitions made at increasingly high prices. Goodyear's reputation would be very different if Rio Tinto had accepted BHP's top of the market bid made just after he left office but with his support. Instead Rio's ego maniac chief executive rejected the offer so, having saddled itself with massive debt of its own, now going cap in hand to China.

Will Goodyear push Temasek into resources because he knows about them and Singapore itself has caught the China-growth bug? For sure prices of commodities are down a lot from a year ago. But they also have long cycles.

The latest investment focus of Temasek now, according to an executive quoted by Bloomberg, is "going to be driven more and more by China's economy and consumers so might as well load up more on Chinese banks."

So Temasek is again following fashion, re-focusing on Asia at a time when Asian markets have already recovered a long way while its former western favorites are still languishing. Temasek still seems to think that Chinese banks made a good proxy for its economy and consumers. Just like Southeast Asia in the 1990s, China's economy can grow rapidly, but still leave banks with piles of bad debts flowing from government-directed lending.

For sure, developing Asia looks a better long-term bet than the west, but discovering that today is not exactly evidence of being ahead of the curve.

Quite how badly Temasek has done is hard to figure out because the data presented is scanty and unconsolidated. For example, in 2007-08 the value of its portfolio increased by 13 percent to S$185 billion but it is unsure how much of that was simply a capital injection from the government. There are also black holes like its subsidiary Astrea, which borrowed US$810 million in earlier in the decade to invest in a portfolio of private equity and buyout funds. Another fall for Wall Street fashion which will likely be reflected in pensions for Singaporeans.

Meanwhile Temasek's local portfolio has been persistently trimmed and now represents only 33 percent of assets. Of course it may make more sense to invest in faster growing countries rather than in low growth Singapore where there are few new opportunities for a company which already controls so much. Nevertheless it hard not to conclude that some of these sales, such as the December 2008 sale of PowerSeraya to Malaysia's YTL for S$3.8 billion are not partly designed to generate capital profits readily available from long-held local assets.

Ho appears to have made a career of assuming that smart people with the right degrees and loaded up with mathematical models in one hand and high sounding jargon in the other knew more than anyone else about investment. Thus during the boom years for financial services, Temasek followed the crowd, pushing the financial sector component of its portfolio up to 40 percent, most of it invested in just the high profile western outfits favored by Ho's Wharton-bred advisors..

Like the archetypal senior Singapore bureaucrat, paper qualifications seem to have counted for far more than actual experience running a business. Such businesses as these people run are mostly Singapore public sector ones shielded from the force of free competition. Even Singapore Airlines is beginning to look jaded in an era of low cost carriers pioneered by a Malaysian, Tony Fernandes and AirAsia, and the gradual breakdown of fare cartel.

If nothing else, the record of Temasek gives the lie to notion spread by Singapore's ruling clique that they are the best guardians of the people's savings. Paternalism morphed into an arrogance whose full cost to Singaporeans is for now hidden by the opaque nature of the government's accounts, and the very partial revelations provided by Temasek. Singaporeans, gather your purse-strings and, together, pull.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=29352.1

Useful programme except for condom excerpt

Useful programme except for condom excerpt

I RECENTLY came to know that upper secondary and junior college students go through an educational programme on Sexually Transmitted Infections (STIs) and acquired immune deficiency syndrome (Aids), called Breaking Down Barriers, by the Health Promotion Board (HPB).

Besides providing accurate facts about STIs, the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and Aids, the programme also imparts useful skills to students, such as decision-making and the right places to obtain reliable information, as well as assertiveness and strategies on how not to succumb to persuasion.

I was truly heartened to learn that the students were taught that the best way to avoid STIs and Aids is to avoid casual sex, sex with multiple partners and unprotected sex, and to stay faithful to a partner within the context of marriage.

However, the students were subsequently taught how to use a condom.

While I understand HPB's good intention to curb the rising incidence of STIs among the young, I wish to express my concerns as a parent that students are being taught how to use condoms in school.

- It gives a mixed and confusing message. Is it not better to encourage students to avoid pre-marital sex altogether, since the programme also teaches that the use of condom is not 100 per cent safe?

- Students are not likely to heed or remember to practise safe sex just because they have attended a lesson on condom use.

- Even if they do use a condom, they are not likely - in the heat of the moment - to remember or follow the steps to use a condom correctly.

I truly appreciate the HPB's efforts for creating such a programme and hope that it will review and consider whether it is really necessary or useful to teach students how to use a condom.

This confuses, contradicts and compromises the good advice to avoid pre-marital sex as the only foolproof protection against STIs and Aids.

Steven Tan

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28486.173

Temasek's BoA divestment

Temasek's BoA divestment
Bewildering move needs to be clarified

TEMASEK'S exit from Bank of America ('Temasek sells BoA stake', last Saturday) is bewildering although some probable reasons for it were suggested by money editor Ignatius Low in a commentary on the same day, 'Temasek should clear the air'.

One reason was that Temasek did not end up with what it paid for. Its investment in Merrill Lynch ended up with BoA after the two entities merged.

It is difficult to understand why a long-term investor like Temasek was willing to stick with a dud like Australia's ABC Learning centres to the end, but did not try to exercise a little bit more patience with a US government-backed entity like BoA.

Has the board of Temasek been given an objective assessment of the financial situation in the United States?

Was it that difficult to conclude from the various news sources that BoA would not be nationalised?

Was nationalisation a push factor for the board to dump BoA?

The US government has stated clearly that it will not nationalise BoA even though it is technically the largest shareholder of the bank.

What more assurance does the board need?

I agree with Mr Low when he wrote that 'these are, after all, extraordinary times, and so extraordinary outcomes - and losses - will be expected'.

But, the untimely foray into Merrill Lynch and the ill-timed exit from BoA were not that extraordinary in nature.

The performance benchmark for Temasek and the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation has been raised to the highest level by the Government because, we were told, it had put in place extraordinary men to safeguard our reserves.

Thus far, the investment decisions regarding Merrill Lynch and BoA have been ordinary and incomprehensible.

Png Eng Huat

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=29004.32

Temasek's BoA divestment: Let's not fall into a tell-all disadvantage

May 20, 2009
Temasek's BoA divestment
Let's not fall into a tell-all disadvantage

IT IS refreshing that Mr Ignatius Low, in his commentary last Saturday ('Temasek should clear the air'), and Mr Denis Distant, in his letter on Monday ('Temasek must set example on transparency'), have urged for public clarity by Temasek over its sizeable divestment of Bank of America (BoA) shares.

But their call for transparency should be reasonable - rather than a tell-all stand. The transparency should be restricted to performance reports, broad asset allocation for the prior financial year, a report on performance attribution and perhaps comments on future strategies.

Granted that Mr Low's estimate of the loss realised for the BoA investment - a consequence of Temasek's investment in Merrill Lynch which was taken over by BoA - is not a trivial amount, one has to accept that it is part of a portfolio transaction.

We cannot go around pressuring our sovereign wealth funds (SWFs) to explain every single trade.

Our SWFs should be judged on their overall investment targets within the given guidelines.

Succeeding in getting our SWFs to clear the air on single transactions may offer only a false sense of comfort that public accountability and transparency have been satiated.

The undesirable consequence is to turn investment management into a spectator sport, which may have the deleterious effect of turning our SWF managers into playing it ultra safe.

Funds around the world, be they hedge funds or otherwise, are the competition for our SWFs. The competitors do not explain every single transaction to their investors and shareholders.

Let us not force our SWFs into competing with one hand tied behind their backs against equally hefty or even larger entities.

Johnny Heng

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=29004.31