Saturday, August 29, 2015

No Personal Animosity Intended

Law and Foreign Affairs Minister K Shanmugam claims that his key points made at a Singapore Press Club forum on Thursday (Aug 27) were:
1) The Chinese leadership in various local areas in Malaysia want to maintain control over the Chinese population;
2) At the same time, many mainstream schools in Malaysia are becoming more Malay and Islamic which discourages the Chinese from going into those schools.;
3) So you end up with having more Malays going to mainstream schools, and more Chinese going to Chinese schools.

That's the kind of racist commentary that upset sensitive types and got Singapore tufted out of Malaysia.

When Sangeetha Thanapal ("independent scholar and social media activist engaged in anti-racism work in Singapore") took offence at the interference of a neighbouring country's domestic politics, the Indian law minister's initial approach was civil and statesman-like, the type of classy response that makes you wonder why one racist said Singapore is not ready for an Indian prime minister:
"Dear Madam, I hold no personal animosity towards you. Will be happy to speak with you."

The meeting of the minds - Sangeetha thanked him for offering to speak to her and provided her telephone  number so he can call her on Saturday for an appointment - will never take place. We are disregarding spousal objection to the out-of-office rendezvous here. Higher powers must have intervened, and now we have an oddity of a law minister intending to file a police report over the Facebook post which has been deleted:
"Who are you, an Indian, to be deciding what is that acceptable enough way to be Malay-Muslim?"

Whoa! What happened? Can the spirit of a dead horrible person reach out from Hades to possess the living (鬼上生)? Somebody or someone has to be putting words into the peace-loving animal-lover type politician:
“(The late Mr Lee Kuan Yew) foresaw these things, which is why he kept talking about such issues. And, each time he talked about those issues, every generation which was not his generation tended to be dismissive. ‘Here goes old man again trying to scare us.’”

The scary part is that this could be a cockamany election tactic to move the populace to rally around the flag when missiles (figurative! figurative!) from Malaysia start flying across the Causeway. If that's the game plan, someone will be sorely disappointed. The more likely outcome is that risk adverse fence sitters will finally realize the rabble rousers are from within, and that the time for alternate leadership is long overdue.
30 Aug update: Shanmugam has decided not to file a police report after all

22 comments:

  1. Suharto used to do that at every election. He pkayed the military against the ROP.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Shanmugan is upset the Kota Tinggi District Council is seeking to double the rate of land assessment tax for the PUB’s waterworks. What connection has that to do with how Malaysia handles its own racial integration issues? Will the water taste any different?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why is he interfering into MY domestic issues? What does the statements he gave have any bearings to us here?

      Delete
  3. When an Indian Minister accused another fella candidate with a " gay" agenda in GE 2011, how is it wrong when someone else now accused Shanmugam has a hostile "animalistic" agenda?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Just like the new manifesto from PAP , it is now

    (Good times, I am) With You
    (Bad times is) For You
    (Foreigners) For Singapore

    Empower ourselves, empower opposition and you will see the animosity unleashed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. With Yew
      For Yew
      For Singapore (i.e. PAP)

      Delete
    2. LHL said PAP has the obligation to provide the leadership to singapore!! That arrogance is beyond belief.

      It is the citizens that have the obligation and responsibility to choose the leadership to guide singapore forward. PAP has no aristocratic right to it just because Yew hogged the monopoly for the last 50 years.

      This is NOT about PAP leadership. This electionis about Citizenships.

      Your party voted 77 yes votes for 6.9m PWP AFTER and despite GE2011. There is no need for strong signals and message for PAP anymore. There is a strong need for legitimate power to oppose your wilful and arrogant "tweaking and fixes".

      Assuming the 2.4m voters are largely working adults, your 2m of foreign residents /PRs living here in Singapore is already waaaay exceeded the 2/3 of working population. It is already 83%!!!! People just need to look around you and see out of 10 people, how many Singaporeans can you find? Singspore has already sunk to this low under LHL.

      Change is needed, but to instigate it we need to wake up and vote change.

      Delete
    3. With you the residents
      For you the residents.
      For singapore lah.

      Who is the "you" inside the you?
      Residents is also you what...residents contain Singaporeans, PRs and Foreigners as long as YOU who are living here lah...

      If it's for Singaporeans, why not jus just say Singaporeans?! So used to them playing semantics and technicality..can't even tell us how many jobs created for locals vs foreigners, how to trust them?

      Delete
  5. //The scary part is that this could be a cockamany election tactic to move the populace to rally around the flag//

    You are right. Why else would the rabble rousers suddenly use a national platform like NDR to retell the haze story about how a certain Indo politicians try to lecture us, and also try the scaremongering of an unstable Malaysian politics and now, The FM himself trying to some minor controversy so to rally the sympathy and support from the electorates? If this is not a stupid and dangerous stunts to create fear and chicken little mentality in Singaporeans, what else could it be?

    Boo hoo! Only the daft ones who read MSM will believe all they cracked up to be just to stay in power.

    ReplyDelete
  6. They have 50 years of ruling and the last 10 years under LHL and still can't form who the next PM is going to be! So why jeered opposition and say they can't even form a government!?! Who is more incompetent when there is NOTHING in your way to do so earlier?

    If LHL can say his 4.0 cabinet leaders are among this and last batch. Then likewise, the next government can also be formed by last and this batch of new opposition leaders!! So people should hedge their votes equally to ensure enough quantity are entrenched to allow a healthy alternative parties to form government instead. That is the only way to ensure singapore survive.. rather than PAP as a party survive.

    Citizenships matter. Foreign ownerships doesn't.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No vote of confidence8/30/2015 12:15 PM

      He only needs 1 PM-to-be out of his lot of 80 excessive and redundant MPs. If everyone is equally good, he only need to choose from 20 quality ones. Is not quantity.

      The rest could have been voted in by people for opposition candidates. Who is to tell that our next PM will not come from an opposition party? Who is to know that our next stronger shadow government cannot be formed this election ? To start doing that, we need the numbers for 1/3 or we will continue to see the blatant persecution and fixes thrown at Oppo.

      Supposed your company has 87 employees. And only 7 of you are local Singaporeans hired. What do you think will happen in the office dynamics? Will Your views be fairly presented even if you are right or have the best idea forward? Or will they be dumbing you down and say they know better?

      Election is never about "paying back" or "loyalty". Is about assessing what works and what didn't for us on the national level, then policies that cut across our lives. The best way forward is through strong contestation of candidates and ideas across parties. Not just the usual "trust us" blank cheque. We have seen this happens at corporate level. They say this is not how they used to do things here. And they kill all the innovation and stunted the newcomers. They became too proud to adopt and collaborate other parties ideas and think the other group is beneath them. They say the world didn't start in 2011 but pray tell, what the hell did LHL apologise for fun? Still in denial, LSS says their past policies were the correct ones, but now they will change? Why change, if they were correct all these times? How do you trust a minister without any portfolio who went from cheaper better faster with zero productivity to show to someone who is supposed to be now a champion for the skilled PME? what credibility does he have?

      Delete
  7. JOKE:
    ============
    PAP (2015) will be renamed LKYSS Party.
    The "LKY Say So Party".
    - Party insiders call it the MFSS Party
    "My Father Say So Party".

    The name changed was deemed necessary because PAP(2015) does not foresee that it has anything new to offer beyond what LKY has already said in his last 50 books.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Another day, another police report filed, another law suit threatened by another PAP MP.

    Wrong interpretation isn't irresponsible.... twisted.... meaning interpret from another angle....

    Let's wait And see how many more citizens will be sued after the election. If the timid citizens don't know how to exercise their civic right and civic duty to say NO to PAP, we can expect them to continue their blatant disregard to our changing needs.

    ReplyDelete
  9. After RULING SINKIES FOR 50 YEARS, THE CURRENT PAP RULERS ARE
    STILL TRYING
    TO EARN THE TRUST OF THE PEOPLE!

    LAUGHABLE

    LOTS OF IT......

    ARE THE PAPPIES ADMITTING THAT
    THEY ARE
    NOT
    BEING WELL TRUSTED
    BY THE PEOPLE?

    patriot

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why are you always using big caps? It amounts to screaming and is rude and uneasy to read.

      Delete
  10. // The more likely outcome is that risk adverse fence sitters will finally realize the rabble rousers are from within, and that the time for alternate leadership is long overdue. //


    Life is about balance.

    Life is about fairness.

    Life is about walking the talk.

    Life is about practising what one preached.

    Life is about not been disadvantaged or discriminated in the country one has served two years of national service and donkey years of ICT etc.

    There is no necessity for any rabble rouser to wake up sinkies.

    The pain everyday seeing the family suffers.

    The nausea everyday smelling the armpits of FTs.

    One do not need to think to breathe. It is second nature.

    One do not need to think to walk. It is second nature.

    One need not be awakened by any rabble rouser that our future and our children's future are precariously hanging by a thin thread.

    It is second nature.

    Any thinking sinkies would feel worried for their future.

    Any thinking sinkies would feel worried for their children's future.

    All these are second nature.

    The Chinese have a saying:

    "人不为己, 天诛地灭!"

    What does it mean?

    In simple translation, it implies " if one doesn't care for his own interests, even heaven and earth will forsake him and finish him off."

    If sinkies fail to think for themselves, even heaven and earth might not be on their side. The ending is perishment.

    ReplyDelete
  11. With You - constantly whining...
    For You - here's some meat and bone - go chew in one corner...
    For Singapore - to be home of foreigners...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This slogan will be more appropriate for them:
      With Me
      For Me
      For PAP

      Delete
  12. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  13. My open letter to K Shanmugam, on the 30th August 2015 which until today he has not responded.

    Mr K Shanmugam
    Minister for Foreign Afairs
    Republic of Singapore

    Dear Honourable Minister

    You took offense at an article written by Miss Sangetha Thanapal who you have claimed twisted your words from what you really said you said, and now you intend to seek redress by filing a police report.
    However, may I bring to your attention a few points.
    The article clearly wrote that you also said -
    "Closely tied to the increasing salience of race is Malaysia's rising Islamisation, Mr Shanmugam said. Broad sections of the Malay population support the adoption of Islamic laws and assess their political leaders in terms of how Muslim they are.
    "An honest politician, an upright politician, will find it very difficult to talk about a united Malaysia that is more integrated. The political dynamics are such that he will have to play to the Malay ground," he said. The Islamisation "has gone past the tipping point now", he added."
    You said this just after arguing that -
    "........ Malaysia is grappling with rising racial, religious and political polarisation, as well as a weakening economy. These trends may have serious implications for Singapore's own economy and social cohesion...."
    Clearly you blamed Islamisation as adding fuel to the fire to race polarisation in Malaysia.
    Islamisation is the key word here.
    What is the meaning of Islamisation ?
    Islamisation means a process of shifting towards Islam. To bring a society for example to conform to Islam.
    According to this definition therefore, a Muslim family which is not practicing Islam today can be said to have undergone Islamisation if they decide to practice Islam tomorrow.
    In other words, you clearly blamed Islam for the race polarization in Malaysia.
    The question is - can you prove that Islam is to be blamed ?
    I dare say that you cannot. In other words, I'm saying that you Sir were making claims about Islam which are categorically false. These claims are dangerous to our national cohesion because they act to promote fear for Islam and its practices.
    The facts simply cannot support these claims.
    Lets take a look.

    continue reading here -

    https://www.facebook.com/faris.abdat.9/posts/10153112692783603

    ReplyDelete
  14. My open letter to K Shanmugam, on the 30th August 2015 which until today he has not responded.

    Mr K Shanmugam
    Minister for Foreign Afairs
    Republic of Singapore

    Dear Honourable Minister

    You took offense at an article written by Miss Sangetha Thanapal who you have claimed twisted your words from what you really said you said, and now you intend to seek redress by filing a police report.
    However, may I bring to your attention a few points.
    The article clearly wrote that you also said -
    "Closely tied to the increasing salience of race is Malaysia's rising Islamisation, Mr Shanmugam said. Broad sections of the Malay population support the adoption of Islamic laws and assess their political leaders in terms of how Muslim they are.
    "An honest politician, an upright politician, will find it very difficult to talk about a united Malaysia that is more integrated. The political dynamics are such that he will have to play to the Malay ground," he said. The Islamisation "has gone past the tipping point now", he added."
    You said this just after arguing that -
    "........ Malaysia is grappling with rising racial, religious and political polarisation, as well as a weakening economy. These trends may have serious implications for Singapore's own economy and social cohesion...."
    Clearly you blamed Islamisation as adding fuel to the fire to race polarisation in Malaysia.
    Islamisation is the key word here.
    What is the meaning of Islamisation ?
    Islamisation means a process of shifting towards Islam. To bring a society for example to conform to Islam.
    According to this definition therefore, a Muslim family which is not practicing Islam today can be said to have undergone Islamisation if they decide to practice Islam tomorrow.
    In other words, you clearly blamed Islam for the race polarization in Malaysia.
    The question is - can you prove that Islam is to be blamed ?
    I dare say that you cannot. In other words, I'm saying that you Sir were making claims about Islam which are categorically false. These claims are dangerous to our national cohesion because they act to promote fear for Islam and its practices.
    The facts simply cannot support these claims.
    Lets take a look.

    continue reading here -

    https://www.facebook.com/faris.abdat.9/posts/10153112692783603

    ReplyDelete
  15. My open letter to K Shanmugam, on the 30th August 2015 which until today he has not responded.

    Mr K Shanmugam
    Minister for Foreign Afairs
    Republic of Singapore

    Dear Honourable Minister

    You took offense at an article written by Miss Sangetha Thanapal who you have claimed twisted your words from what you really said you said, and now you intend to seek redress by filing a police report.
    However, may I bring to your attention a few points.
    The article clearly wrote that you also said -
    "Closely tied to the increasing salience of race is Malaysia's rising Islamisation, Mr Shanmugam said. Broad sections of the Malay population support the adoption of Islamic laws and assess their political leaders in terms of how Muslim they are.
    "An honest politician, an upright politician, will find it very difficult to talk about a united Malaysia that is more integrated. The political dynamics are such that he will have to play to the Malay ground," he said. The Islamisation "has gone past the tipping point now", he added."
    You said this just after arguing that -
    "........ Malaysia is grappling with rising racial, religious and political polarisation, as well as a weakening economy. These trends may have serious implications for Singapore's own economy and social cohesion...."
    Clearly you blamed Islamisation as adding fuel to the fire to race polarisation in Malaysia.
    Islamisation is the key word here.
    What is the meaning of Islamisation ?
    Islamisation means a process of shifting towards Islam. To bring a society for example to conform to Islam.
    According to this definition therefore, a Muslim family which is not practicing Islam today can be said to have undergone Islamisation if they decide to practice Islam tomorrow.
    In other words, you clearly blamed Islam for the race polarization in Malaysia.
    The question is - can you prove that Islam is to be blamed ?
    I dare say that you cannot. In other words, I'm saying that you Sir were making claims about Islam which are categorically false. These claims are dangerous to our national cohesion because they act to promote fear for Islam and its practices.
    The facts simply cannot support these claims.
    Lets take a look.

    continue reading here -

    https://www.facebook.com/faris.abdat.9/posts/10153112692783603
    P.S Why was my comment earlier about this matter removed from your facebook comment section ?

    ReplyDelete