Tag Archive | "YPAP"

Coma patient wakes up to turn off YPAP video playing on smartphone

Coma patient wakes up to turn off YPAP video playing on smartphone

Tags: , ,

Family thanks YPAP in rare show of gratitude by the public to youth wing.


A patient who was under constant watch for the past six months in Singapore General Hospital woke up from his coma and proceeded to walk across his hospital room.

His revival shocked his family members who were too stunned to react initially, as they watched him approach his sister, who was using her smartphone to play the five-minute YPAP video that has been panned for being robotic, and turning off its volume.

Cha See Lang, the man who awoke from his coma, was reportedly heard saying by his family members: “Diam lah.”

He then walked back and sat on his bed.

Doctors and nurses on duty were rushed to the ward where the man spent the past half year unconscious after he met with a serious accident.

One nurse, Mee See, said: “When I came in, the man was sitting on his bed looking very grouchy like he had heard some very irritating sounds that managed to wake him from his deep slumber.”

“But we’re glad he is okay.”

The man’s family are thankful that the video was played at the right moment to incite such a strong response from a coma patient.

Singapore is looking to put a patent on this technology to help other coma patients.


What happens when you are facing disappointment:
PAP needs to lower aspirations to avoid greater sense of failure in next GE

The Straits Times sabotages PAP
Straits Times causes ‘PAP’ to become a vulgar word

Tan Cheng Bock makes dubious claim about ministerial pension

Tan Cheng Bock makes dubious claim about ministerial pension

Tags: , , , , ,

Did he inevitably put his foot in his mouth?

Uh oh. Seems like we have another case of major foot-in-mouth moment for the PAP.

Ex-presidential candidate and former PAP all-white Tan Cheng Bock made a sensational but dubious claim in a Facebook post on Jan. 12.

The runner-up president essentially said that “all office holders (in parliament) were required to switch from pension to CPF in 1998″ and ” in 2008… the Pension component was re-introduced”.

But this, if snooping Facebook users are correct, is misleading, if not utterly and stupendously wrong.

Here is what the popularly regarded Super Moderate wrote on his Facebook:

“Annual Reporting of Ministerial Salaries. When I was in parliament (1980-2006) I was under the impression that Ministers did not get any Pension because all office holders were required to switch from pension to CPF in 1998. Imagine my surprise when I read in the newspaper (5 Jan 2012,ST) that in 2008, two years after l left parliament, the Pension component was re- introduced and this resulted in a further increase in salaries for Ministers. This Pension component, which caused a lot of anger, is now removed. I am glad that this is being done. However, such a trend of changing policies mid stream is not good. Singaporeans want more transparency. To be transparent, an annual report of ministerial salaries must be published.”

This post was later shared by TheOnlineCitizen’s FB page on Jan. 16 .

However, in a Facebook post reply on Jan. 16, YPAP wrote:

“Tan Cheng Bock is mistaken. There was never any requirement in 1998 for office holders to switch to CPF. The white paper on salaries was introduced In 1994 and it clearly stated the basis for ministerial and civil service salaries. The paper explicitly mentioned having pensions for office-holders. This policy has been maintained till now, with Gerard Ee’s committee recommending to do away with pensions. So there is no “midstream” change in policy as construed by TCB”.

So here’s the major beef:

1. What gave Cheng Bock The-Man-Who-Sought-And-Received-Free-Sunday-Parking-For-Mankind the idea that “all office holders were required to switch from pension to CPF in 1998″? Which Act was he referring to? Or more specifically, what is he smoking?

2. Since Cheng Bock The Kindhearted Doctor served from 1980 to 2006 – a total of 26 years – he is eligible for pension and should be receiving his pension now. So why is he under the impression that “all office holders were required to switch from pension to CPF in 1998″?

3. The Straits Times article on Jan. 5 that Cheng Bock cited is: “Ministerial salary (MR4) benchmark and actual salaries for past year“.

The footnote under the graph reads: “The percentages represent actual salaries as a percentage of benchmark. The Practice of taking into account the value of pension as part of a minister’s total pay when comparisons are made with the private sector benchmarks began only in 2008.”

Therefore, nowhere does it state what Cheng Bock said: “in 2008… the Pension component was re-introduced”.

4) Should Cheng Bock not clarify now if he was right in claiming that the pension component was re-introduced in 2008?

5) So, if he is eligible for pension and is receiving it, how can he not know? Too much ukulele?

6) Hey! Where the hell did that original Facebook post with Cheng Bock’s claim go to?

This matter was originally raised by Fabrications About The PAP. (Click on photo below for their penetrative questioning.)

Concrete ideas needed for public transport subsidies

Concrete ideas needed for public transport subsidies

Tags: , , , , ,

Or else, it might just come back to haunt the folks in parliament in the future.

By Belmont Lay

It was Bernard Chen from the Worker's Party who first brought up this issue of unfair pricing for polytechnic students years ago! We, the YPAP, are just stealing it now for political capital after suffering a bruising encounter with WP during May's General Election! Photo borrowed from YPAP Facebook.

To prove that they possess some semblance of street cred, the YPAP were at Hong Lim Park on Saturday banging on about how unfair it is for polytechnic students to be paying more fares to take public transport.

Here’s the current deal: Students from junior colleges and the Institute of Technical Education are post-secondary students. So, therefore, they get to enjoy subsidised rates.

On the other hand, polytechnic students are considered tertiary-level students. They, therefore, picked the shorter stick. Sorry.

So poly students have to pay about twice as much. For being the same age and getting packed into the same overcrowded trains and buses to get to school to acquire an education as their brethren in school uniforms.

And why the double standards? Er… as far as I can tell, even with a brain, I can’t really work out the rationale going backwards.

Well, but what I am aware of is that unfair fare subsidies have been going on for the longest time. It has been the case since my junior college days 10 years ago.

And strangely, it doesn’t take anyone with an IQ above that of a snail to notice this: The entire bloody problem with public transport fare pricing for students stems from the moment some idiot savant of a policy-maker decreed that JC and ITE students pay less simply because they are wearing school uniforms.

Yes, it’s true. Poly students have to bear the brunt only because they are not in Communism-inspired garb.

The distinction is as simple and as arbitrary as that.

There is no other more succinct way to put this.

Look, if you took just 5 minutes to browse through the rationalisation (documented here by the honourable Bernard Chen of the Workers’ Party) as to why public transport fares differed between the two groups, you will shake your head in disbelief at all the after-the-fact rationalisation used to defend this current pricing scheme.

You would note that the reasons are nothing but bunk. Crap. BS.

Worse, the onus to explain the rationale behind how fares are subsidised is always passed back and forth. The public transport operator and the good old folks in parliament sure enjoy volleying.

It’s all typical civil servant mentality.

And what about the Public Transport Council?

As the third shareholder with a stake in this debate, the council could effectively be made up of eunuchs and zombies.

They are there, but somewhat lacking or absent, if you happen to know what I mean.

Which also translates, in other words, to the notion that they are useless.

Nonetheless, the oft-repeated argument has been that the government cannot step in to intervene any time they like. Pricing mechanisms work as the market dictates. The government only steps in when there is a need to help the needy. (And even then…)

As public transport operators are businesses, they know their own financial situation best.

Public transport operators have argued that concessionary rates are currently based on cross-subsidies. This means that the adults and upright public transport users who pay full fares are subsidising the rides of those receiving concessions.

With only so much cross-subsidies to go around, any more and the system will go tits up and we all die in agony.

But let me just ask one simple question: Whose bright idea was it in the first place that students in junior colleges and ITE require Mao-approved uniforms?

Whose eureka moment was it to come up with labels like “post-secondary” and “tertiary-level”?

The Ministry of Education, right?

So the issue, if you look at it, needs to be brought back to the starting point. Right back to the heart of the ministry.

If I was a Minister sitting inside a Cabinet, and I know full well I make something like $2 million a year, and I need not owe anyone a living except my people and constituents, I will issue a diktat stating plainly that anyone under the age of 21 will enjoy subsidised rates when they use our First-World public transport system.

They can be in JC, or poly, or home-schooled, or out of school, or out of work, or out of their minds, I don’t care.

And uniforms be damned.

Once anyone becomes old enough to vote, which means you’ve lived long enough to not be dependent, your public transport subsidies get revoked.

And how in the blue hell are we going to finance this seemingly two-bit idea?

A fraction, say 5 percent, of the money collected from ERP gantries every month will go towards the public transport subsidy fund.

Any time parking fines amassed throughout the month exceeds, say, $1 million, the excess shall go towards the pot too.

HDB season parking revenue? We’ll round it off to the nearest million at the month’s end, and take the rest, thank you very much.

Road tax? COE? Carpark coupon sales? Fuel taxes? Revenue from Traffic Police speeding tickets?

Mmm… I’ll just take 1 percent from each of these components and add it to the tally.

And if Orchard Road floods? We shall dock Vivian’s pay, say 10 percent each time, and give it back to the young ones in the form of cheaper fares.

Hey, I mean what good is a road if you can’t use it because it is choked full of water? Someone’s got to be penalised for the equivalent of a modern, cosmopolitan faux pas.

Come to think of it, imagine if it floods in Orchard Road three times a year, and if you took just 1 percent from all the road-related revenue above, there might even be enough to provide free transportation for the disabled and those aged above 55.

Till kingdom come.

But here’s the point of today’s missive: Just because we here at New Nation incorporate humour into our articles doesn’t necessarily mean we pull arguments out of our ass.

That is my personal chopped, signed and guaranteed quality assurance to you, my dear reader.

Fairness is like a cherry pie. You got to explain why a slice isn't too big or too small. And how it is just nice.

Three weeks ago, we published a truncated article about “fairness” and its role in policy-making by a professor of psychology at the Singapore Management University.

Basically, what the don was trying to say is that there is fairness in outcome. And then there is fairness in process.

An accompanying picture showing a cherry pie being cut up was put up (pictured right). The manner in which a pie is cut alludes perfectly to fair outcomes and processes.

In this instance of transport fares, poly students have been receiving a smaller share of the pie. Because they have been paying more fares for using the same transport system. That is an unfair outcome.

Worse, they don’t even know why that is the case for a long, long time. No one gave a compelling answer. Therefore, there isn’t any fairness in process.

Ipso facto, in five years’ time, come 2016 General Election, the youngest of today’s batch of polytechnic students shall at least be 22 years old.

Just saying.

A former Young PAP volunteer speaks

A former Young PAP volunteer speaks

Tags: , , ,

After observing the 2008 presidental elections in the US during a study trip, Bernard Leong quit the Young PAP.

ON 7th May, I will be voting for the first time. People around me murmur that this will be a watershed election, with the opposition making a breakthrough in one or two GRCs and the majority of SMCs.

Yet others say election results will favour the ruling party, with them taking the majority and conquering one of the two opposition forts. As for me, I’m an undecided voter who is following the debate closely.

For a time, I was ignorant about politics. That changed when I went to university. I started learning more about socio-political and economic issues in my General education modules. GE 2006 was around the corner then, and that piqued my interest in current affairs.

After GE 2006, I decided to get my feet wet by connecting myself with people on the ground. So I volunteered with the Young PAP.

Why them? Since the PAP had been a consistent winner, I want to see how they work. Furthermore, the government under the PAP has a relatively high annual defence budget, and this gelled with my pro-military stance. I also liked the fact that many of the military top brass are roped in to join the PAP as Ministers.

Joining Meet the People’s sessions allowed me to understand Singaporeans’ feeling and contribute back to society. I was also asked to be a tertiary students’ feedback coordinator to collate the opinion of young Singaporeans under 25.

In total, I was in the YPAP General Branch from Sept 2006 to August 2007. I must say that I’ve learned a lot from this experience under Tampines Changkat (MP Ms Irene Ng’s ward), which has many seasoned grassroots leaders whom I still respect.

My pro-PAP stance soon changed again. I went over to the States for further studies from 2007 to 2008, and there I witnessed the American Presidential elections where Obama won as the dark horse.

As a foreigner, I was an independent observer in the midst of the crossfire between my American friends of both Democratic and Republican camps. From then on, I’ve learnt to examine both sides of the debate. There is an old native Indian saying which goes something like this, “Never criticize a man until you’ve walked a mile in his moccasins.”

I came back home more discerning about politics. In 2009, I finally decided to become a independent research observer to give a fair and objective appraisal of public affairs in Singapore.

So I decided to leave the YPAP. At first, it was an unnerving decision because I always associated PAP as being synonymous with Singapore.

So I decided to leave the YPAP. At first, it was an unnerving decision because I always associated PAP as being synonymous with Singapore. One incident which enlightened me about the separation of government and politics, was my conversation with a US Army officer around the time of the American Presidential Elections in 2008.

To my surprise, he supported Obama instead of McCain. He said, “The government of the day is my boss but politics is separate. I will only accept constitutionally lawful orders from the President.” So this is the reason why America is the longest running democracy in the world. Despite its flaws, it can self-correct in the long run and it has the size to do so.

So I wrote an email to my friends at YPAP and grassroots leaders of Tampines Changkat to bid farewell, explaining my decision to start my own independent study to examine Singapore and its system. They were rather cool about it.

For this General Election, Singaporeans have to ask themselves: What kind of country do they want? I was struck by former Permanent Secretary Mr Ngiam Tong Dow’s remarks in a Straits Times interview in October 2003.

He asked aloud what kind of legacy does MM Lee wants to leave behind for Singapore, and concluded that our leaders have to accept that Singapore is larger than the PAP. He used the historical cities of Sparta and Athens. Sparta was a militaristic city where the leadership was largely self-selected from the best and the fittest through meritocracy.

Athens was a civic-minded city where there was diversity of views from the various Philosophers. In the end, Athens survived far longer and better than Sparta. Sparta ended up with dictatorship and elitism.

When I go to the polls, I will be asking myself the following questions.

1) What kind of legacy do I want to leave behind for the next generation?

2) Which party’s ideals and manifesto relate to me best?

Whatever our decision, we must be prepared to live with it for at least the next 5 years.

Follow us on Facebook, Twitter, or the S.alt app for Android.

Is the Lee Kuan Yew = Nelson Mandela quote sinister or stupid?

Is the Lee Kuan Yew = Nelson Mandela quote sinister or stupid?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Maybe both, because there is something really sinister and stupid about Nelson Mandela that I bet you didn’t know about.

By Belmont Lay

So if Lee Kuan Yew = Nelson Mandela, then Lee Kuan Yew should get a Nobel Peace Prize too. Picture: Belmont Lay

ALL IT takes these days is a quote blistering with fawning adoration for Lee Kuan Yew and everyone inside the Internet is riled – again.

“Lee Kuan Yew is the equivalent of Nelson Mandela to Singaporeans”, said Cheo Ming Shen, a 27-year-old co-founder of Internet start-up Netccentric, who was later exposed as YPAP Chairman of Toa Payoh East by netizens.

Cheo’s comment appeared in The Sunday Times (Jan. 16) and was about his admiration for Minister Mentor Lee who has a new book coming out that is in need of some flogging.

And netizens are miffed because some felt Cheo should have revealed his political affiliations. Others felt that Mandela was not in the same league as Lee.

While others are blaming the reporter, Elgin Toh, for not making Cheo’s YPAP affiliation clearer.

And I think all of these is a fuss over nothing, because obviously everyone is mistaken about who Mandela really is.

Especially so, when you find out about the kind of lunacy he actually got up to in his heyday and any form of comparison that is supposed to evoke admiration turns to crap.

Because if you thought Mandela is a saint who also happened to have been awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, you just bought one of the best stories the media ever sold.

So, besides acknowledging that Mandela is the world’s second-longest imprisoned person in the universe after Chia Thye Poh, what else do you know about him?

He ended apartheid? Ok, fair enough. I’ll give that to him.

Ok, yes, Mandela has become a bastion of democracy and symbol of hope for oppressed people everywhere.

And then what else?

Ask yourself this and be brutally honest: Do you even remotely know why Mandela went to jail in the first place?

Hint: In the early 1960s, as a communist, Mandela pushed the African National Congress (ANC) into armed conflict.

More hints: He and his co-conspirators from ANC and the South African Communist Party were caught with a stash of 48,000 Soviet-made mines and 210,000 hand grenades.

Mandela advocated terrorism and he has a jaundiced view of the world that is coloured by nothing but pronounced racial politics.

So, no, he wasn’t incarcerated for his political views. Mandela was imprisoned for 23 acts of sabotage and for conspiring to overthrow the government through armed conflict.

And you know what was his pet name? He was known as the Black Pimpernel.

Why? Because Mandela advocated terrorism and he has a jaundiced view of the world that is coloured by nothing but pronounced racial politics.

In as late as 2002, when giving his views about his opposition to the Iraq invasion, his far-out radical views about race were nothing but loud and clear when he explained why the US and Britain defied the United Nations and went ahead with the war.

Mandela said: “When there were white (UN) secretary generals you didn’t find this question of the United States and Britain going out of the United Nations. But now that you’ve had black secretary generals like Boutros Boutros Ghali, like Kofi Annan, they do not respect the United Nations. They have contempt for it…”

What Mandela essentially said was: White leaders are a threat to peace. More so, when the UN had a black leader.

Does that sound racist or what?

And guess what? He was deeply concerned for the plight of one of the Lockerbie bombers and has expressed support for Libyan’s Gadaffi and Cuba’s Castro

Saddam Hussein was also his friend.

He even singled out Cuba for its human rights and liberty. (What? Cuba? Human rights? Liberty?)

Not to mention, he shared a stage with three Puerto Rican terrorists who had shot and wounded five US congressmen in 1954. Mandela said he supported anyone who was fighting for self-determination.

And when did he make these views? In the 1970s? No… He made them during the 1990s.

Plus, his second wife, Winnie Mandela, was a self-confessed advocate of terrorism and violence and was even accused of murder.

In 1986, she told a Soviet Union communist party newspaper that anyone who opposed her would be “necklaced”.

You know what that is? It means being burned alive with hands and feet tied with a burning rubber tire sauced in petrol thrown around the neck of anyone who opposed her.

On top of all that, Winnie was a convicted fraudster and thief with a penchant for Pirelli necklaces.

So what does all these tell me?

Here’s the point of this missive: Cheo knows nothing about Mandela. Toh is just as clueless. The rest of the people inside the Internet getting riled should just stop it because they only know half the story most of the time.

The end.