Sammyboy RSS Feed
20-06-2015, 11:40 AM
An honorable member of the Coffee Shop Has Just Posted the Following:
June 20, 2015 at 4:22am
This note is written as a response to the Singapore Democratic Party's plans to hold a promotional event to share its "contributions". It is an assessment of the Singapore Democratic Party as a political party from someone who has seen the party from the inside — from the "core group" that ran almost all party activities. It is critical and does not paint the SDP in a good light. If you come across this and think this is "mudslinging", I hope you keep that thought in mind and be open to knowing a little bit more about the SDP. This is a honest alternative perspective on the SDP that anyone considering voting for the SDP should consider.
I earnestly believe that the SDP being in Parliament would be a net negative for Singapore. Unfortunately, the SDP is actually gaining traction among some young Singaporeans who know what the SDP says it is, but little or nothing about what the party actually is. I would like to clear those misconceptions. The executive summary: The SDP is a party that puts up all manner of pretenses to misrepresent themselves as being "principled", "competent" and that they are "fighting for Singaporeans".
They position themselves to be about rights and equality, but tell their members not to (web-)publish arguments in favour of equal rights so as not to antagonize voters that might be against such rights. (For example, I was "talked to" about writing this notehttp://on.fb.me/1Lo6ajC and told I should not make such sentiments public. I was rather disgusted by the unprincipled vote grubbery that "talking to" was based in.)
The SDP positions themselves as competent, but can't even manage a simple "Danny Bear Cafe" project. (They wanted some cashflow like what PKMS has from its coffee shop.) Party leaders spoke enthusiastically about this project (to me on several occasions) since 2011, but basically nothing emerged. In fact, in 2013, I was told that someone had to pay a fine to ACRA on behalf of the proxy of the party. (They guy from whose pocket the money for the fine payment supposedly came was the one who told me about this.)
They position themselves as being "principled", but tell their members (ok, actually just me, as far as I know) not to (web-)publish principled arguments that their "party base" might not like. (This was regarding Roy Ngerng and the respective duties I felt the various parties had in the affair: http://on.fb.me/1I3fTgh and http://on.fb.me/1GaF8bK and maybe some others.)
The SDP positions themselves as "above petty personal attacks" and repeatedly play the victim card. But they themselves engage in rampant character assassination on members that leave on less than good terms. I've been told stories about others, and now stories are being told about me. My own experience, in particular, provides yet another example of how incompetent the SDP is. They have so much practice, but can't get things right, even the basics: "Evidence" must come BEFORE a supposed decision, not AFTER. (Have a look at an annotated copy of their poorly done character assassination attempt targeting me, which they submitted to TRS, herehttp://$$$$$$$/1IoVPke and use Acrobat Reader to see all the annotations. Or see http://$$$$$$$/1SwsHip for more information.)
Following on the above point, I do not see them as a party with integrity. I don't think they will embezzle and misappropriate funds, but I don't trust them to be completely honest with Singaporeans. Hints of the latter will emerge in the next paragraph.
The SDP makes implicit claims to have integrity, but they do lie to the public and sometimes do so for no good reason. Let me cite an example: In the "launch" of the SDP proposals on public housing that I played a big role in authoring, Chee Soon Juan told the media (see http://$$$$$$$/1NarV7B) that a certain David Goh ("an accountant and property consultant") was a co-author of the proposals. He is not one, was never at the meetings, and never submitted any content to be rolled into the document. I could only surmise that Chee Soon Juan wanted more "credentials" behind the document. I was annoyed, but I was too busy with the launch, clarifying its content on social media, and generating a lot of additional related content (e.g.:http://$$$$$$$/1BB4TWy and http://$$$$$$$/1FrTsLA and http://$$$$$$$/1J8IfHF andhttp://$$$$$$$/1L7fTN9 and http://$$$$$$$/1I38DkF and http://$$$$$$$/1FrTHGi andhttp://$$$$$$$/1Nav9Z0 and http://$$$$$$$/1K0ysDA and http://$$$$$$$/1d6o2Ue and possibly more) to bother about that unforced lie. (Yes, unforced lie.) I actually forgot about it until observing some recent statements (note: plural) from the party that I had strong reason to suspect to be more unforced lies. (In fact, my resignation from the SDP was due to mismanagement and a lack of integrity on the part of certain party leaders, and I cited one such unforced lie by Chee Soon Juan that most of the SDP's CEC knew about.)
The SDP is all about positioning themselves as better than they actually are. In fact, Chee Soon Juan's 1993 "hunger strike" that "lasted over a week" is a great analogy for what the SDP is. On the face of it, CSJ's "hunger strike" seemed to be a mode of protesting what he claimed to be injustice (his firing from NUS; see http://$$$$$$$/1GWFjeQ noting that facts stated are true but some details "may have been omitted" from this possibly adverse account). However, apparently his "hunger strike" was fueled by a big breakfast in the morning and by glucose water throughout the day, making it a hunger strike in name only — a hollow gesture devoid of substance (ok, given that he was filling himself with substance against the spirit of a hunger strike, "substance" is probably not the best word to use). And when asked about the glucose, he cited "doctor's orders" — a lame excuse that some have tried to explain away by citing "international standards for hunger strikes".
Even as the SDP tries to burnish its reputation about it's contributions to Singapore, I would like to warn the public that the SDP puts up a public front that does not match reality.
If you think what I have written is reasonable, and you know people who are considering voting for the SDP, please do share this with them. It is my honest belief that the SDP being in Parliament would be a net negative for Singapore, which does not gel with the unfortunate fact that the SDP is gaining traction among some young Singaporeans. So if you know such people, do share this with them.
Declaration: I'm not and have never been a recipient of #molemoney. (That said, if someone from a rival political party or an agent thereof would like to offer me a substantial amount of money no strings attached, please feel free to contact me. HDB BTO flats are expensive, and financial assistance would be really appreciated.)
Click here to view the whole thread at www.sammyboy.com (http://sammyboy.com/showthread.php?209018-The-Singapore-Democratic-Party-A-View-from-the-Insider&goto=newpost).
June 20, 2015 at 4:22am
This note is written as a response to the Singapore Democratic Party's plans to hold a promotional event to share its "contributions". It is an assessment of the Singapore Democratic Party as a political party from someone who has seen the party from the inside — from the "core group" that ran almost all party activities. It is critical and does not paint the SDP in a good light. If you come across this and think this is "mudslinging", I hope you keep that thought in mind and be open to knowing a little bit more about the SDP. This is a honest alternative perspective on the SDP that anyone considering voting for the SDP should consider.
I earnestly believe that the SDP being in Parliament would be a net negative for Singapore. Unfortunately, the SDP is actually gaining traction among some young Singaporeans who know what the SDP says it is, but little or nothing about what the party actually is. I would like to clear those misconceptions. The executive summary: The SDP is a party that puts up all manner of pretenses to misrepresent themselves as being "principled", "competent" and that they are "fighting for Singaporeans".
They position themselves to be about rights and equality, but tell their members not to (web-)publish arguments in favour of equal rights so as not to antagonize voters that might be against such rights. (For example, I was "talked to" about writing this notehttp://on.fb.me/1Lo6ajC and told I should not make such sentiments public. I was rather disgusted by the unprincipled vote grubbery that "talking to" was based in.)
The SDP positions themselves as competent, but can't even manage a simple "Danny Bear Cafe" project. (They wanted some cashflow like what PKMS has from its coffee shop.) Party leaders spoke enthusiastically about this project (to me on several occasions) since 2011, but basically nothing emerged. In fact, in 2013, I was told that someone had to pay a fine to ACRA on behalf of the proxy of the party. (They guy from whose pocket the money for the fine payment supposedly came was the one who told me about this.)
They position themselves as being "principled", but tell their members (ok, actually just me, as far as I know) not to (web-)publish principled arguments that their "party base" might not like. (This was regarding Roy Ngerng and the respective duties I felt the various parties had in the affair: http://on.fb.me/1I3fTgh and http://on.fb.me/1GaF8bK and maybe some others.)
The SDP positions themselves as "above petty personal attacks" and repeatedly play the victim card. But they themselves engage in rampant character assassination on members that leave on less than good terms. I've been told stories about others, and now stories are being told about me. My own experience, in particular, provides yet another example of how incompetent the SDP is. They have so much practice, but can't get things right, even the basics: "Evidence" must come BEFORE a supposed decision, not AFTER. (Have a look at an annotated copy of their poorly done character assassination attempt targeting me, which they submitted to TRS, herehttp://$$$$$$$/1IoVPke and use Acrobat Reader to see all the annotations. Or see http://$$$$$$$/1SwsHip for more information.)
Following on the above point, I do not see them as a party with integrity. I don't think they will embezzle and misappropriate funds, but I don't trust them to be completely honest with Singaporeans. Hints of the latter will emerge in the next paragraph.
The SDP makes implicit claims to have integrity, but they do lie to the public and sometimes do so for no good reason. Let me cite an example: In the "launch" of the SDP proposals on public housing that I played a big role in authoring, Chee Soon Juan told the media (see http://$$$$$$$/1NarV7B) that a certain David Goh ("an accountant and property consultant") was a co-author of the proposals. He is not one, was never at the meetings, and never submitted any content to be rolled into the document. I could only surmise that Chee Soon Juan wanted more "credentials" behind the document. I was annoyed, but I was too busy with the launch, clarifying its content on social media, and generating a lot of additional related content (e.g.:http://$$$$$$$/1BB4TWy and http://$$$$$$$/1FrTsLA and http://$$$$$$$/1J8IfHF andhttp://$$$$$$$/1L7fTN9 and http://$$$$$$$/1I38DkF and http://$$$$$$$/1FrTHGi andhttp://$$$$$$$/1Nav9Z0 and http://$$$$$$$/1K0ysDA and http://$$$$$$$/1d6o2Ue and possibly more) to bother about that unforced lie. (Yes, unforced lie.) I actually forgot about it until observing some recent statements (note: plural) from the party that I had strong reason to suspect to be more unforced lies. (In fact, my resignation from the SDP was due to mismanagement and a lack of integrity on the part of certain party leaders, and I cited one such unforced lie by Chee Soon Juan that most of the SDP's CEC knew about.)
The SDP is all about positioning themselves as better than they actually are. In fact, Chee Soon Juan's 1993 "hunger strike" that "lasted over a week" is a great analogy for what the SDP is. On the face of it, CSJ's "hunger strike" seemed to be a mode of protesting what he claimed to be injustice (his firing from NUS; see http://$$$$$$$/1GWFjeQ noting that facts stated are true but some details "may have been omitted" from this possibly adverse account). However, apparently his "hunger strike" was fueled by a big breakfast in the morning and by glucose water throughout the day, making it a hunger strike in name only — a hollow gesture devoid of substance (ok, given that he was filling himself with substance against the spirit of a hunger strike, "substance" is probably not the best word to use). And when asked about the glucose, he cited "doctor's orders" — a lame excuse that some have tried to explain away by citing "international standards for hunger strikes".
Even as the SDP tries to burnish its reputation about it's contributions to Singapore, I would like to warn the public that the SDP puts up a public front that does not match reality.
If you think what I have written is reasonable, and you know people who are considering voting for the SDP, please do share this with them. It is my honest belief that the SDP being in Parliament would be a net negative for Singapore, which does not gel with the unfortunate fact that the SDP is gaining traction among some young Singaporeans. So if you know such people, do share this with them.
Declaration: I'm not and have never been a recipient of #molemoney. (That said, if someone from a rival political party or an agent thereof would like to offer me a substantial amount of money no strings attached, please feel free to contact me. HDB BTO flats are expensive, and financial assistance would be really appreciated.)
Click here to view the whole thread at www.sammyboy.com (http://sammyboy.com/showthread.php?209018-The-Singapore-Democratic-Party-A-View-from-the-Insider&goto=newpost).