“Always here for you” – the right campaign slogan for a PAP candidate?
May 25, 2012, 2:24 am
Filed under: By Rachel Zeng, Hougang By-Election 2012, Singapore

“Always here for you” – this slogan has been uttered ad nauseum in the Hougang by-election campaigns of both the People’s Action Party (PAP) and the Workers’ Party (WP), although for different purposes, as well as in the mainstream media and online media. This is actually the campaign slogan of PAP’s candidate, Desmond Choo.

Ironically, PAP has not always been there for Hougang SMC or any of the opposition wards in the past. In April 2011, Prime Minister Mr Lee Hsien Loong openly mentioned that constituencies under PAP are favoured for estate upgrading programmes in his reply to a fourth year NUS student’s query on why residents in Hougang SMC are penalised for supporting the opposition. Mr Lee said “The answer is that there has to be a distinction. Because the PAP wards supported the Government and the policies which delivered these good things.”

Residents in Hougang SMC and other opposition wards are Singaporeans who, like any others living in PAP wards, pay taxes. By not supporting the PAP, residents in opposition wards like Hougang SMC have been punished through such favouritism which in my view, is terribly wrong and narrow-minded of a political party that claims to take care of the needs of Singaporeans. As a result, Low Thia Khiang and his team has to dig into their own funds to make estate upgrading and other improvements within the constituency happen. Did any of the grassroots advisers appointed by PAP to work the ground in opposition wards ever voice out such an unfair party policy? Not that I know of, not including Desmond Choo, who has been the grassroots adviser of Hougang SMC since the last GE.

So does this effectively reflect PAP candidate Desmond Choo’s campaign slogan “Always here for you”?

Perhaps it should read “Always here for you, as long as you vote for me” instead.

(By the way, I feel sorry for Desmond Choo. The goody-two-shoes-and-a-wee-bit-naïve candidate surrounded by critical veteran politicians who have been too loud for him to control image has contradicted his repeated utterance of “I am my own man”. It is so not working.)


4 Comments so far
Leave a comment

PRESS RELEASE:

WP WIN IN HG BY-ELECTION IS VITAL TO GET MORE FIREPOWER TO SHOOT DOWN THE IMPENDING CRAZY BILL OF MOL TO ONCE AGAIN ENACT LAWS TO GIVE MORE PROTECTION TO OUR ALREADY WELL-PROTECTED AND POWERFUL JUDGES

According to Dr Reuben Wong of NUS, the incident of WP’s candidate Png Eng Huat’s comment on NCMP was merely a “big distraction away from who’s the best placed to serve the Hougang voters.” (ST 24/5/2012, A6). In his view, this will not hurt the chances of WP winning the by-election this Saturday as the PAP is viewed as splitting hairs on the NCMP issue.

Even Mr Desmond Choo himself knows very well that it will backfire on him and he is not taking the bait, and so is giving it a wide berth and withholding his salvos on the issue as he knows it just couldn’t get traction with intelligent Hougang (HG) voters.

The focus should rightly be on which candidate can best address the concerns of HG voters on municipal issues, and on national issues—-like the rising costs of living, inflation, frequent MRT breakdowns, as well as on the impending Bill that MOL Mr Shanmugam intends to present to Parliament soon to enact more stringent laws on contempt of court (to give more protection to an already well-protected and powerful judges from criticisms of malfeasance and bias).

This is a crazy law as ordinary and innocent citizens should be the ones who need more legal protection from our compliant and conniving judiciary, not the already well-protected and powerful judges (though not all judges are that bad). It will be a case of deja vu for me as I had in the past castigated some conniving judges in their fabricated criminal charges against me, like in MAC 11290/86, PS 529/96, etc.

In those failed attempts to prosecute me in open courts for their baseless criminal charges against me, I had been yelled at and coerced into pleading guilty by feckless and conniving judges in our Subcourts to offences I was never guilty of committing. And when I refused to admit my guilt without an open trial, the malfeasant and extremely brazen trial judges, who were blatantly and shamelessly in cahoots with self-serving rogue police officers, manipulated the actual trials to try to get my conviction.

The situation was made worst by our self-censoring local media who shied away from covering the cases I wanted them to cover, and/or walked out after walking into the court, as somehow they knew that I would be winning in the extremely lopsided legal contest. Indeed, I did win spectacularly and single-handedly, in spite of their denial of my constitutional rights of equal protection, such as my right to engage a defence lawyer.

And when their nefarious schemes to destroy me backfired, because their psychiatrists in IMH refused to cooperate with them during my court-mandated incarceration in IMH, in response to my application for an adjournment to engage counsel (when the matter had absolutely nothing to do with psychiatry in the first place), I was able to put to flight those malfeasant and incestuous Subordinate Court judges.

Unfortunately, my voluminous complaints on the matters, such as to then PM Goh Chok Tong, incited MOL-cum-MHA Prof Jayakumar to present a Bill to our Parliament for empowering our crooked judges with new powers to lock up a person they believed was in contempt of court, without the need for a criminal trial. Sadly, Prof Jayakumar succeeded to inveigle our Parliament to pass such law on 5 December 1995, which took form in Order 52, rule 4, etc, of the Rules of the Supreme Court.

So I had the dubious distinction of being the first person to be cited for committal for criminal contempt of court, and locked away in IMH for two weeks in their criminal charge against me in PS 529/96 by a feckless DJ Tan Jen Tse—-that I had scandalised and defamed one Subordinate Court judge DJ Christopher Goh Eng Chiang in my Petition of Appeal to the High Court on a traffic matter in MA 191/95/01.

It was this and earlier cases developing out of my traffic cases that incited MOL Jayakumar to successfully inveigle Parliament for more stringent laws to protect our already well-protected and powerful judges by empowering them the authority to deny an accused the right to an open trial, and thereby giving the trial judges the power to lock up a person they fancy to be “scandalising the court,” without the need for an open trial to ascertain whether I (or any of the accused) was really guilty of contempt of court. It was something equivalent to our dreaded ISA laws, but this time for non-politicians and innocent citizens like me.

Now, such laws are in blatant contravention of Art 12(1) of the Singapore Constitution wherein is enshrined the rights of a citizen to equal protection of our otherwise just laws, such as the right to engage counsel to defend their innocence (re Art 9(3) of the SC), and when it is also established laws that citizens have the rights to criticise malfeasant judges who acted contrary to law or the public good (such as in “The Queen v Gray [1900] 2 QBD 36”).

So it is my hope that WP’s Png Eng Huat will be elected MP in this by-election to provide more firepower to shoot down MOL’s nefarious proposal to give more powers and protection for our already well-protected and powerful judges in their forthcoming Bill for Contempt of Court.

As for Mr Desmond Choo, I have nothing against him. But he being a former senior police officer, despite his promises, it is reasonable to suppose he will still harbour a misplaced sense of loyalty to the Singapore Police Force, whose rogue members were the ones who pre-emptively framed me for those criminal offences to cover-up for their incompetence and my expected complaints against them, and got the conniving judges in the Subordinate Courts to try fixing me (such as in MAC 11290/86, PS 529/96, etc), using trumped-up allegations of my psychiatric disorders; otherwise they knew that they would never be able to prove their trumped-charges against me.

Yet it was their consultant psychiatrists in IMH that got me out of troubles with their powerful psychiatric reports, to clear me of any mental or psychiatric disorders. Thus I was able to put to flight those powerful, feckless, conniving and incestuous judges in our Subordinate Courts. Moreover, I have never once consulted any psychiatrist or any doctor for psychiatric or mental illness or disorders; nor did I ever seek or needed psychiatric medication in my life. So how can I be psychiatric when I never needed any psychotropic medication in my life, except medication for flu and other common bodily ailments?

And yet to this day, they are withholding document(s) I would need to commence my legal action for redress for the gross injustice and criminal violation of my innocence. Unfortunately, the first time I tried to get Mr Peter Cuthbert Low to institute legal action for their slanders, their failed criminal prosecution and hence their wrongful imprisonment of me, Mr Peter Low advised me against taking action as he said they (meaning those rogue judges) were “protected”; and even if I won, he cautioned me that it would cause me financial ruins.

So I will need more firepower from Opposition MPs, like Mr Png Eng Huat (and current PAP MPs), to help shoot down the forthcoming Bill on Contempt of Court, as their way to champion the cause of innocent citizens for more protection from the harm inflicted on them by our incestuous legal system, and in particular from the incestuous judges in our incestuous Subordinate Courts.

But to be fair to them, I wish to reiterate that we have many good judges, police officers and prosecutors too, and they had also won my good words and commendation from time to time.

Comment by Oh Tham Eng

Bullseye!🙂

Comment by Win

desmond choo looks phoney to me.

i cringe when he tries to be sympathetic to the hougang people when it was his party’s own doings that caused their suffering.

hypocrite.

Comment by disillusioned

When I was working overseas, during a conversation with (western) European friends, they were shocked – not merely surprised, but shocked – that things like upgrading govt (or state)-subsidised public housing could be and are linked to votes and which party’s constituency a particular housing estate was located in.

In their countries, there is a clear distinction between a public good provided by the ‘state’ to all citizens, and the policies of a ruling government (whether made up of a single party, ‘dominant party’, or coalition). There is thus also clarity in terms of a citizen’s (or even non-citizen’s) rights.

In Sg there is no such distinction nor such rights, and that’s why the PAP has been able to get away with it for so long.

And some people wonder why we’re not really a democracy.

If GE 2011 and the Hougang be-election have not shown them, then we should show them again come 2015/16, and continually in between..

Comment by rodsjournal




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s



%d bloggers like this: