PAP moves to counter criticism of party, govt in cyberspace
-
The fact that they used that term is very, very disturbing indeed.Originally posted by laurence82:and whats with the term 'counter insurgency'?
this is getting worrisome, anti PAP = anti nation = coup?
So opposition to the PAP = rebellion against Singapore?
And countering the opposition = struggle against rebellion?
Goes to show how sad things have become here in Singapore.
Singapore will be screwed in the long run. Period. -
Originally posted by fudgester:The fact that they used that term is very, very disturbing indeed.
So opposition to the PAP = rebellion against Singapore?
And countering the opposition = struggle against rebellion?
Goes to show how sad things have become here in Singapore.
Singapore will be screwed in the long run. Period.
u r alien if u stand the other side -
Well, perhaps that was the reporter's own choice of words, and not the gahmen's. Certainly reflects her own bias though. Either that or she has no idea what the words mean.Originally posted by laurence82:and whats with the term 'counter insurgency'?
this is getting worrisome, anti PAP = anti nation = coup?
Definition of insurgency from wiki
"An insurgency, or insurrection, is an armed uprising, or revolt against an established civil or political authority. Persons engaging in insurgency are called insurgents, and typically engage in regular or guerrilla combat against the armed forces of the established regime, or conduct sabotage and harassment in the land in order to undermine the government's position as leader.
An insurgency differs from a resistance both in its political overtones and in the nature of the conflict: an insurgency connotes an internal struggle against a standing, established government, whereas a resistance connotes a struggle against invading or occupying foreign forces and their collaborators."
One has to wonder why they decided to talk about this to the press. They're hoping to scare internet users into self censorship?
...............................
*starts to worry about all the mandate jokes he has been making*
But wait, since nobody has ever rebutted me it means they all agree?
-
''Durai would not be wrong in thinking that he should be paid likewise. In a way, he was not totally wrong in pushing for his own rewards to keep up with what is happening in GLCs and the public sector's method of self-rewards.''Originally posted by robertteh:How much were the salaries of civil servants working in Singapore Post, Mediacorp, Singapore Power, PSA etc before these services were corporatized into Pte Ltd GLCs.
I remember that at the earlier times, in the early 1970s Singapore Post, Mediacorp and Singapore Power and PSA etc were providing efficient services without the constant need to keep raising fees because their managers at that time were paid between S$3,000.00 pm and S$6,000.00 pm.
After corporatisation into Pte Ltd GLCs many of these government departments were upgraded with managers (without change with public advertisement) becoming CEOs and salaries jumping to S$10,000.00-S$20,000.00 pm while the services remain the same.
No wonder GLCs have to keep raising fees every two to three years to pay for their highly inflated bill collector positions.
No wonder Mediacorp/Mediawork sustained heavy losses by the hundreds of millions because these sinicure positions which do not need any entrepreneurial skills except to service the ministers are now eating into the company profits.
Similarly SBS and PSA which previously did not have GM/CEO have had to upgrade managers into high-flyer names each paid the inflated million-dollar salaries - perhaps so as to justify ministers' own increments and salary inflation.
Durai would not be wrong in thinking that he should be paid likewise. In a way, he was not totally wrong in pushing for his own rewards to keep up with what is happening in GLCs and the public sector's method of self-rewards.
SBS therefore has to keep raising their fares at the expense of the public commuters and tax payers because of such self-reward schemes instituted through corporatization under the Goh Keng Swee doctrine - push up salaries to upgrade the economy to value-adding model.
Major mistakes have been made by our political leaders in assuming that Singapore public sector was underpaid not knowing that by the 1980s, public sector sinecure managers who do not worry about profits or where the funds are coming from were paid three times that of equivalent positions in the private sector.
A Car Park division director was paid more than S$10,000.00 pm when private car park operator could only pay their equivalent manager only S$5,000.00 pm at the most.
So if you want proof, we do have plenty. Look at teacher's pay of S$8,000 pm as compared with adjunct teacher (relief) of S$100 per day.
The whole salary scheme for public sector has been screwed up on some wrong assumptions of the past and yet our leaders do not want to admit such fundamental errors of government.
Dear Robertteh,
Well said!!!
One thing I have to add.........with comparison of TT durian and what is happening in GLCs and the public sector's method of self-rewards.
I find that this self-rewardings method had turned many people become greedier and less compassionate. Worst......in no time a guy will become corrupted. -
I got a few salient points from this article:-Originally posted by laurence82:Prime News
PAP moves to counter criticism of party, Govt in cyberspace
Li Xueying
565 words
3 February 2007
Straits Times
English
(c) 2007 Singapore Press Holdings Limited
THE People's Action Party (PAP) is mounting a quiet counter-insurgency against its online critics.
It has members going into Internet forums and blogs to rebut anti-establishment views and putting up postings anonymously.
Sources told The Straits Times the initiative is driven by two sub-committees of the PAP's 'new media' committee chaired by Manpower Minister Ng Eng Hen.
One sub-committee, co-headed by Minister of State (Education) Lui Tuck Yew and Hong Kah GRC MP Zaqy Mohamad, strategises the campaign.
The other is led by Tanjong Pagar GRC MP Baey Yam Keng and Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC MP Josephine Teo. Called the 'new media capabilities group', it executes the strategies.
Both were set up after last year's General Election. Aside from politicians, some 20 IT-savvy party activists are also involved.
When contacted, Mr Baey declined to give details of the group's activities, but he outlined the broad principles of the initiative.
It was necessary for the PAP to have a voice in cyberspace as there were few in the online community who were pro-establishment, he said.
As such, the committees aim to 'observe how new media is developing and see how we can use the new media as part of the overall media landscape', he added.
'How do we facilitate views that are pro-party and propagate them through the Internet?'
The approach reflects comments by Rear-Admiral (NS) Lui at the PAP's party conference in December. He called on younger activists to put up views 'to moderate the vitriol and balance the skewed comments' on the Internet.
But this can only work if activists are not 'too obvious' about it, Mr Baey said yesterday. Otherwise it comes across as 'propaganda'.
'The identity is not important. It is the message that is important,' he added.
One activist who is involved said that when posting comments on online forums and the feedback boxes of blogs, he does not identify himself as a PAP member.
He tracks popular blogs and forums to 'see if there is anything we can clarify' on hot-button topics such as the impending hike in the Goods and Services Tax.
But he added: 'We don't rebut everything. Sometimes, what is said is fair enough, and we send the feedback on to the committee.'
This latest initiative comes on top of a blog site with posts by 12 MPs born after Singapore's Independence in 1965.
It recognises that more younger Singaporeans are relying on the new media as a main source of information.
An Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) study conducted last year found that younger and better-educated Singaporeans relied on information from the Internet when shaping their voting choices at the last GE.
Among the opposition parties, members and supporters of the Workers' Party, in particular, post regularly on forums online.
But IPS senior research fellow Tan Tarn How wonders about the effectiveness of the PAP's campaign.
He said Internet users who post on forums such as Sammyboy tend not to be interested in 'intellectual debate' and so will not be persuaded by PAP activists anyway.
As for more serious-minded bloggers, he said the views that the activists may put out are already available in the mainstream media.
[email protected]
1) PAP hates anti-PAP people who post anonymously, but yet is more than willing to let its own people post anonymously. Isn't that hypocritical? Perhaps they are afraid that they might get sued for defamation?
2) "When you can't beat them, join them". A brilliant new slogan indeed. So the govt now realizes that no amount of Amendments to the Constitution or to the ISA or the Computer Misuse Act and no degree of (mal)application of the Sedition Act or the Defamation Act will calm down the online dissent. Good for them to know that! At last they are waking up... a little. But it's kind of sad that they are trying to reform cyberspace, rather than take the road less travelled (for them that is) of sincere self-examination. Shame to teh P-65 MPs too, who are merely giving freshness in terms of hardware, not software. This demonstrates how truely cut off from their other generation-mates they are.
3) I do wonder what they consider to be "fair'. But the more important question is: Does the committee listen, or is it just a dud?
4) I never thought of it this way before, but in this context cheers to the resolve of Sammyboy!!
5) IPS studying voting patterns ... now what does that suggest? PAP trying to copycat WP??
the (far more objective than any P65 MP) pikamaster -
I was right after all... it's quite obvious who they are... however some of them seem to be losing their patience and resorting to cyber yelling... -
PAP MPs, ministers and members please relay this message to the following personnel:
President Nathan; MM Lee Kuan Yew; SM Goh Chok Tong; PM Lee & his important family members; all the other ministers & MPs; Chief of Army; Chief of Air Force; Chief of Navy, Chief of Defence Force; Division commanders; Brigade commanders; Battalion commanders; every single officers in the SAF; all the important appointment holders in the Singapore Police Force & the Singapore Civil Defence Force; since they're all leaders, they should lead by example, be the ones to take actions 1st & take the 1st step & start the ball rolling by giving 5% of their salary to the needy.
Thank you. -
i pity the sammyboy online rep...
sigh
-
It is man that makes truth great, not truth that makes man great.
-
I think they are most welcome to lurk and read what people thinks of PAP and their policies. But if they are lurking and waiting for opportunities to penalize forummers for airing their views and opinions, then our gov should do well to shut down the Internet to commoners and declare this a communist state and go the way of old China!
It's high time our almighty gov come down to people's level and see what the true needs of the people are, and their tribulations under their set rules and policies that were shoved down our throats.
If they are here to rebut forummers, then welcome too! All we wanted are explanations and reasons (the truths) behind policies instead of lame philosophical one-liner statements!
Let the games, begin! -
Oh he's very likely one of them....Originally posted by dragg:OM,
are you one of them?
the above article appeared in today's straits times.
and Tiggerific sounds like one too... -
It would seem that the ruling party's decision to 'address' head-on the rising malcontent from blogs and forum pages, stems from their apparent inability to control the masses.
Instead of throwing around lawsuits, they have rightly decided that the best method to quell the noise is to rebut them with clear coherent facts.
Let's see how convincing their 'army' of drones will be, when squared off against the likes of robust bloggers and forumers. -
Their usual response if they can't hit you head-on is to side track, like OM, rebutt him on his points, he sidetracks to something else which is not relevant.Originally posted by BillyBong:It would seem that the ruling party's decision to 'address' head-on the rising malcontent from blogs and forum pages, stems from their apparent inability to control the masses.
Instead of throwing around lawsuits, they have rightly decided that the best method to quell the noise is to rebut them with clear coherent facts.
Let's see how convincing their 'army' of drones will be, when squared off against the likes of robust bloggers and forumers. -
Or, if you can't make singapore look good, make Australia look bad.Originally posted by maurizio13:Their usual response if they can't hit you head-on is to side track, like OM, rebutt him on his points, he sidetracks to something else which is not relevant.
-
Originally posted by ditzy:Got another one, but with anti Oz agenda put in, primarily used for stark contrasting issues.
-
From the above-stated objective as spelt out by Minister Lui Tuck Yew, it will be clear to all that nothing good will ever come out of such cyber counter offensive.Originally posted by fudgester:The fact that they used that term is very, very disturbing indeed.
So opposition to the PAP = rebellion against Singapore?
And countering the opposition = struggle against rebellion?
Goes to show how sad things have become here in Singapore.
Singapore will be screwed in the long run. Period.
It is quite obvious - ministers have concluded that the citizens are insurgents or enemies of state to be combated or dealt with.
We as citizens will have to be mature, knowledgeable and vigilant and not commit any errors so that we could continue to question them on their NKF and their continuing taxing and recovering of costs to build their own surpluses as NKF has been doing.
We want our ministers to serve us and our needs and not to pay them to think of ways and means to fix the people or oppositions who are working for the people. We must continue to catch them for shirking their duties doing less and less and expecting to be paid more and more.
The least we would expect is not to be talked down to as if we are the kids who are always misbehaving.
We want to check them for passing all the bucks to management corporations or resident committees for any fire or work site safety problems or crimes due to their own slackening.
There has been a tendency to pass all sorts of laws to do less and push all their duties back to the people - like duty to apprehend illegal immigrants to our old grannies or HDB duty to install windows that will not crash down easily to hurt passers-by or getting citizens to carry out anti-mosquito measures in the neighbourhood.
We will have to tell ministers and mps to stop being too provocative, arrogant, confrontational and condesending in addressing issues and solving problems and to stop always blaming the people for their own mistakes.
It is we the citizens who owe ourselves the duty to support one another and take up the challenge to check on any nkf so that all the hidden problems and wrong doings will be exposed as necessary for our own future. -
Another creation of paranoia. Oh wow .
Jeez . Why are they so worried ? -
Zap wrote:
With the government heavily involved in business, it is becoming a different government from one which is supposedly elected to serve the people.
Insurance companies out to cheat people.
So please don't buy so many policies.
Lets say a certain illness like cancer is caused by genes.
You are born with it in your genes.
Your dad go buy a policy when you are born.
You get cancer at 50 years old.
After paying 50 years of premium, suddenly
the insurance company said your condition had existed since birth
So under the "pre-existing condition" clause, they won't pay.
SO HOW?
In the first place why they never find out if the condition exist or not.
WHY simply don't pay by using the UNFAIR clause.
All these insurance companies are out to take advantage and cheat money for good natured people.
So please beware.
In fact, why buy insurance at all with all those conditions and clause.
Many of us will remember that many insurance companies together with government linked insurance companies were at one time protected by the government being allowed to form cartel to prevent people from inviting competitive quotations. As a consequence from such cartel, many people were made to pay exceptionally high and punitive premium especially after a claim has been made.
Owing to recessions, opening up of the market, finally the government was pressured to give up such self-protectionism.
However, government today is getting into banking and finance businesses.
Now after the Asian Financial crisis government was given the excuse to restructure the financial system. It took advantage of the situation to protect its own banking privileges by similar cartel-like protectionism allowing banks to charge loan-shark interest rates against the working people so that its own government banks like DBS could charge penalty fees and loan-shark interest rates.
Because of government own self-interests are at stake, citibanks and american express continue to be sheltered in protectionism being allowed together with DBS to charge penalty interest for late payment and card interest rates at 16-20%.
This is the sort of self-interests which are now affecting all our people. Like the insurance cartel being forced to give up their premium protection, eventually people must again rise up to the occasion and be vigilant against such protectionism of self-interests and ask government to stop all its own malpractices to protect their own business and other related interest which is basically wrong doings which must be changed by opening up to market practice.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website -
JoeCitizen wrote:
It took 5 years for NKF worms to be uncanned. It will take longer for other cans like the yeos and shin corp to be opened because of the total lack of accountability in our uniquely singapore system.
Well done. Great work guys, its carpet time. Looks like we are a world class NATO -
countdown2007 wrote:
There is actually no need to increase the GST as there are many other hidden resources available which ex-president ong teng cheong has tried to uncover to help the people from being over-taxed in time of recessions.
So after PAP pocket the money. Will give slowly to the poor OK !
don't say I no good OK !
Must turn the bitter medician to become sweet OK !
Ya ya ya. Don't bully us lah. I know election over. you win liao. OK !
Now election money must take back from us lah.
PM Lee should be entrepreneurial enough to realise that after so much taxing and recovering of expenses to build up surpluses for the government, people need a respite such such system which is extremely exploitative and unfair to the people.
Such a system is basically flawed but has been fallaciously presented with the help or acquiescence of the subservient media and it also causes the local economy to lose its vibrancy and competitiveness.
What a cheek to talk about challenge of globalisation without such basic understanding of role of government.
Today with all the corporatisation and creative accounting government has many alternative sources of finance and there is no need at all to increase any more taxes hdb flat prices or recovering of costs on basic necessitie.
If URA/SLA make S$4,000,000,000.00 in 2006 from the land sale, shouldn't this land sale profits be used to lower the high costs imposed by HDB and Singapore Power due to double-charging on lands and infrastructure arising from corporatisation and creative accounting so that the average family necessity expenses can be lowered to below S$1,000.00 to allow people to survive. -
want to counter criticism, should reply the post under the real name and not under an unknown.
-
Let it be clear once and for all.
PAP is not Singapore. A party is a party, Singapore is a nation far greater than any single political party or non-ideology that it practises.
If the PAP falls from power one day, SO BE IT. That would be a natural result of some exercise in participatory democracy and a consequence of public opinion.
I believe that our institutions are not so cheap and useless as to be unable to withstand a change in a ruling party. Any such eventuality will only prove the amenable stupidity of trying to tweak and zhng a more-or-less working Westminster system that was inherited from the British. We claim to be First World, but we are told that our little city-state cannot survive a change in political administration.
Right.
Capitalism tells us one thing, that human beings will not act to destroy their rice bowl, therefore any alternative party would find it in their best interests to keep Singapore running smooth too. Reject the fear-mongering and think rationally for once.
If the people can and will be decided that more of the PAP's policies are irrelevant to Singapore and Singaporeans in the future, then just too bad. Too fcuking bad. This is a nation, and the people have to realise that it is their own future they are messing with.
Choose wisely and let not prior track records nor promises from anyone single-handedly guide your way. Like they say in a football final, the form book goes out of the window.
This latest move by the PAP shows that they have belatedly realised that they are seriously disconnected from the ground, and that if nothing is done to meet what we want, they will be irrelevant one day, and there will be a prospective future where more new "leaders" are full of misplaced optimism and faith in their ability through being untested because there will still be a sizeable electorate number who will vote without thinking, and merely do so on autopilot.
That will spell doom for Singapore because there will be less of reality in our politics, much less a semblance of actual representation of the people's interests as opposed to constructvistic opinions on what the people's opinions should be, or inferred from. -
Oh please, "counter-insurgency" is one of those branded words in fashion today..
GWoT..etc.. all the militaristic terms. What ingenuity.. -
First, they wanted to "fix" the opposition. Now, citizens with alternate views online are insurgents.
-
I find it hard to believe that OM might be one of them...
Or else I would be rather surprised that they are using agents of dubious quality for this.
Then again, I'm basing this on the assumption that they are bothering to properly rebutt any anti-establishment points, as opposed to going the OM road of a rather pitiful and laughable display of pseudointellectualism.