theonlinecitizen

a community of singaporeans

In Parliament: government’s reply poorly reasoned, insulting

Posted by theonlinecitizen on August 28, 2007

By Choo Zheng Xi

The Worker’s Party MPs asked why their party was not allowed to hold a cycling event at East Coast Park as part of their 50th anniversary celebrations.

If Minister of State for Law and Home Affairs Ho Peng Kee’s answer is any indication, the rationale for the police denial of the permit is completely bankrupt of all good sense.

The recent ban was justified by Associate Professor Ho using the following reasons:

“It is an open area where there is potential for breach of peace, public disorder, and unruly behaviour.”

Later:

“You may be well behaving, but there may be other people whom you come across when you cycle who may stop you, may want to debate with you and that may attract a crowd, therefore will result in problems the police want to avoid”.

The Slippery Slope
It is puzzling why the police is giving the WP such a hard time registering their event considering a quick perusal of the Young PAP website will reveal numerous outdoor events: kayaking, an amazing race and they even had their own cycling event! (Click screenshot from YPAP website, left).

Looking at his comments we can tell he’s worried about people who will want to confront happy WP members on their cycling activity. Who might these be? Possibly overzealous partisans of the PAP. I hope he has more faith in his fellow party members: after all, the WP has set a good example by not harassing YPAP members on any of their numerous outdoor events.

Prof Ho’s comments seem hauntingly familiar. As I warned in an earlier article: beware the slippery slope! (link)

I’d now like to put the public on notice that Prof Ho has employed this line of argumentation, expecting it to stand despite being totally divorced from context. As the above example of the numerous YPAP events have shown, there is absolutely no reason to believe that riots will occur from recreational public events sponsored by political parties.

This is reminiscent of the now infamous Vivian Balakrishnan’s warning of what might happen if the government allowed bartop dancing (albeit in favour of liberalization). It is worth repeating here for comic value:

“If you want to dance, some of us will fall off that bar-top. Some people will die as a result of liberalising bar-top dancing, not just because they have fallen off the bar-top. Because usually a young girl, with a short skirt, dancing on a bar-top, may attract some insults from some other men, and the boyfriend starts fighting. Some people will die. Blood will be shed for liberalising this policy.”

Circularity and sarcasm

Associate Professor should know that repeating nonsense twice or three times does not make it any less nonsensical. When pressed for a proper answer regarding the ban, he replied in an insultingly sarcastic fashion:

“If you listened very carefully Mr Low, I don’t know whether his hearing aid is with him because he wears one, I said there is a greater potential for law and order problems”

Was Associate Professor Ho really being unparliamentarily sarcastic? One inclined to a more charitable interpretation of his comments could perhaps say that the source of his frustration really wasn’t directed at Mr Low. It might have been directed at the inanity of the policy he had to defend, knowing full well that it was a completely intellectually bankrupt argument.

More likely though, he was resorting to a well known tactic of gutter politics: if you say something often enough, and demean your opponent while you’re at it, there’s a good chance the electorate might believe you.

My message to the government is this: defend your laws on their own merit, and if there is none to speak of, bite the bullet and amend them. When you’re in a hole, stop digging.

It reeks of arrogance when someone who should be well versed in the law gives poorly reasoned responses to a simple question.

 

Read also: “Police cannot ensure safety and order in opposition’s outdoor event, so application rejected” by Urbant Rant.

Stay tuned for TOC’s ongoing commentary on Parliamentary proceedings.

 

Advertisements

57 Responses to “In Parliament: government’s reply poorly reasoned, insulting”

  1. Pui yee said

    What else is new? One set of rules for the elite ruling party + a different set for the rest of Singaporeans = A nation on a slippery slope of declining morality.

    Hi there, Ephraim, let’s hear your learned views on this.

    Btw, beloved Singapore, think BLACK when you go shopping in Centrepoint on 8th September.

  2. Andrew Loh said

    I think Prof Ho is being facetious here – and it is unbecoming of a Minister of State. Yet, it is not surprising since he is also a member of the ruling People’s Action Party.

    There are a few contradictions to Prof Ho’s answers.

    1. If indeed political events by political parties pose a “greater potential for breach of the peace, public disorder and unruly behaviour”, as claimed by Prof Ho, it is puzzling why the police (and the govt) has not banned The Workers’ Party – and all opposition parties – from going out there every weekend to sell their party organs/newspapers.

    Wouldn’t selling party newspapers be even more “incite-ful” than a cycling event?

    2. Prof Ho also claims that the requirement to hold political events indoors is so that “problems could be contained” by the police.

    Does this mean that our police would be unable to contain any outdoor “problems”?

    This cannot be true because everyone saw that during the General Elections last year, where tens of thousands of Singaporeans attended opposition parties’ rallies, every night for 9 days – the police had no problem containing problems.

    They also saw that Singaporeans, despite fiery speeches and politically-charged words being amplified over speakers for hours, Singaporeans did not “riot”.

    So, Prof Ho’s argument is proven to be flawed by real-life experiences.

    3. Prof Ho claims that this rule “applies to all political parties”. Does it?

    One look at the YoungPAP website’s “Events Calendar” page shows that the YoungPAP held a “Night Cycling Event” on the 28th of July this year!

    Did the YoungPAP event meet with “riots” or members of the public going up to the YPAP members to cause trouble?

    Why did the police not ban that event since, in Prof Ho’s words, the law is a “longstanding” one because the police wants to contain problems indoors?

    I think Prof Ho, being the Law and Home Affairs MOS, should come up with a more convincing argument.

    Otherwise, he looks pathetic.

    Regards,
    Andrew Loh

  3. Andrew Loh said

    Oh, by the way, Prof Ho’s below-the-belt, appalling sarcastic remark about Mr Low’s hearing aid is just nauseating.

    It reminds me of what the Press Secretary to the Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts, Ms K Bhavani, said about Mr Brown’s autistic daughter.

    From someone who is a Minister Of State, it is quite simply unacceptable.

    He should be a man and apologise.

  4. Clarence said

    I think the PAP is becoming more and more lame at giving excuses. If they want to, at least come up with a better reason. After all, they weren’t all sent overseas to study for nothing right?

    Come on smart-asses, you can do better than that!

  5. at82 said

    Do we need more evidences that 1 country, 2 systems is also practised in S’pore?

  6. scb said

    Me says Minister Ho Peng Kee should answer all the questions posed by Andrew Loh here and apologise to MP Loh Thia Kiang. He was not only ‘unbecoming’ as a minister, he lacks basic manners quite typical of our MIWs. Resorting to personal attacks and name callings when unprovoked show immaturity and lack of decorum. Btw the questions raised by Andrew Loh here are not only legitimate but have to be clearly explained for their legal standings and Minister Ho should fulfill the Duty as a Minister of State.

  7. Yew TEE said

    Did Low TK wear a hearing aid or earpiece for listening to translation broadcast?

  8. scb said

    Btw, I too look forward to Ephraim for his view and opinion on the Issue, can You kindly oblige us!

  9. kkj said

    The PAP will continue to give lame and lamer excuses, they will continue to deny and take away whatever dignity and rights you guys have and make your lives difficult. So what can you do about it? The Ho guy say no license, no cycling. Do you dare to defy him?

  10. spursian said

    Gosh, how did he ever become an Assoc Prof when he comes up with such lame arguments? Thank goodness he’s not teaching such poor analytical thinking skills to our impressionable minds in school….

  11. sarek_home said

    The funny thing is:

    Anyone can do the following to any MP, PAP or not:

    “You may be well behaving, but there may be other people whom you come across when you cycle who may stop you, may want to debate with you and that may attract a crowd, therefore will result in problems the police want to avoid”.

    Does it mean we have to house-arrest all the ministers and MPs?

    Or no one really care to debate with any PAP MP any more after seeing their funny “logic”?

  12. Ace said

    Bravo to our superior leadership,

    They have prevented another potential riot which will insult the sensitivities of the majority of Singaporeans…. I think we should extend this train of thought to arresting all male citizens as they could all potentially be rapists, closing down all fishball noodles stores as people could potentially choke and die while eating fishball, putting down all dogs as they could potentially bite people walking next to them….. the list can go on and on…

    That is what multi million dollar salaries buy you. Unparallel wisdom and reasoning.

    Forcing people to buy annuities which most will probably not live long enough to receive, while the ministers get paid pensions. That is superior thinking and rationality at its best. Even better if you are a minister at age 55, cause you get salary and pensions….yeah!!!!!

    The fact is no point talking about all this anymore, wait for the next election then vote with your eyes open for once, for your life and your childrens’ future and not some dumb fountain/covered walkway.

    However, I suspect the sad reality is that after 5 or more elections later, we will all still be contributing to this website over similar issues, while LHY sits in the PMO thinking of new schemes and programmes to “better” the life of all citizens…..

    We are truly blessed…..

  13. sarek_home said

    I don’t know whether the minister’s thinking aid is with him because he needs one.

  14. Mandy said

    Andrew Loh, let’s face it. Whatever laws only applies to others, not to PAP partisan. PAP is above all law, and can break their own law.

    We know Singaporean has suffered injustice under the regime of PAP. As a result, the cause of moral degradation in our society is because those ruling party breed them as they set an example of poor leadership and governance.

    But instead of government acknowledging mistake, they rather blame on the citizen of Singapore.

  15. RaymondChua said

    “My message to the government is this: defend your laws on their own merit, and if there is none to speak of, bite the bullet and amend them. When you’re in a hole, stop digging.”

    How true it is ! If even a PM can break his own law, and get away with it during the election (Remember fix opp party and buy supporter’s vote ?), how is it possible for other PAP leadership to follow ? It’s all start from the top and we know how morally corrupted the top leadership is !

  16. James Chia said

    Debate not insult! I remember they called the oppositions terrorists as well. Can’t they portray a better image to show graciousness?

  17. sevenleleven said

    Yes, you even need to apply to the police to check on the Ministers.

  18. sevenleleven said

    the arrogance of a politician who garbra when first who was first contested in Yishun East that “father lee” had to take the centre stage

  19. Andrew Loh said

    Just wanted to add this. In June this year, The Workers’ Party Youth Wing held an outreach programme in Orchard Road. They met with the public, spoke to them and handed out gifts as well.

    If according to Prof Ho, such public contact is a potential for “unruly behaviour”, why didn’t the police stop the WP’s Youth Wing?

    In fact, the WP had also held public outreach programmes for National Day this year, and another Youth Day public outreach last year in Orchard Road as well, which was reported in the press.

    The party was always in its blue t-shirt uniform.

    MOS Ho’s arguments make no sense whatsoever.

  20. scb said

    Andrew Loh, now that the Issue(of Opposition Party applying for permit) is in the open and publicly discussed, how reasonable or unreasonable of the Authority will be fully witness by the people. It is now up to the people to decide whether the Authority has been reasonable and execute the Laws fairly and legitimately or otherwise. How MOS Ho Peng Kee interpret the matter will not change the perception of the people. The Chinese Saying that Justice lies deep in the hearts of everyman certainly stands.

  21. Traveller said

    I can understand Ho’s action (and frustration) – here is a man who knows that his political fortune stops at MOS and no further. He has already been promoted to his level of political imcompetence.

    So what do you expect him to say!

  22. Thomas Koshy said

    I was quite surprised to read your quote of Vivian Balakrishnan as I wouldn’t have expected him to say something so ludicrous. So I checked. The bad news is that your quote was out of context. The good news is that in it’s context Vivian’s comment was not quite as ludicrous as it sounds as quoted in your piece, and it definitely was not “Vivian Balakrishnan’s call to arms to prevent bar top dancing”. More fully, this is what Vivian said :

    “There is no guarantee for success. The role of the Government is to give you as many opportunities as possible to maximise your interest and potential, and then you take your chances in the game of life, and we wish you all the best. There will be a safety net. Nobody in Singapore is going to starve, to be without a roof, to be denied healthcare, or to be deprived of any educational opportunities for his children. But beyond that basic, everything else, you have to make a go for it yourself. If you want to dance on a bar-top, some of us will fall off that bar-top. Some people will die as a result of liberalising bar-top dancing, not just because they have fallen off the bar-top. Because usually a young girl, with a short skirt, dancing on a bar-top, may attract some insults from some other men, and the boyfriend starts fighting. Some people will die. Blood will be shed for liberalising this policy. While I support the liberalisation of the policy, I also want all of us to be aware that there is a price to be paid for liberty. If we are convinced that our society is ready to pay that price, or that price is a necessity, then let us go in, but go in with our eyes wide open.”

    So Vivian quite explicitly did “support the liberalisation of the policy”. He was just saying more freedom means more risk for people and so they should be prepared to accept that – a reasonable enough statement even if expressed in comical dramatics.

    Having said that, I do agree that Prof Ho’s answers fall far short of what would be expected in a Parliamentary debate. Only when more Singaporeans demonstrate concern about the poor quality of the arguments made in Parliament will things improve.

  23. Zheng Xi said

    Hi Thomas,

    Yes my bad for not including the full context of the quote in this article, I actually did provide the full quote in a previous article. (Check out my previous entries for one entitled “Beware the slippery slope”). Should have re read it closely to capture context. Will amend accordingly to reflect mistake.

    Still I thought his comments were silly whatever context they were in (in this case, as a warning of what could possibly happen on liberalization of the bartop dancing law).

    Thanks for the comment.

    Zheng Xi

  24. Tan Ah Kow said

    Mr Choo Zheng Xi:

    In your conclusion you stated:

    A way forward:

    The law should be reformed to take into account political realities of the day.

    Amend the law to catch up with reality.

    It reeks of arrogance when someone who should be well versed in the law gives noncommittal response to a simple question.

    Question: What would compel the incumbent party to change “THE LAW”, when “THE LAW” works to its advantage?

    Do you expect Pigs to vote for Ter Kwa soup as the nation’s favourite dish?

    Maybe the conclusion should be directed to Singaporean voters in general to do something about either:

    (a) throwing PAP out of power

    (b) or reform the PAP internally.

    Only that way can there be any realistic hope for, in you words, “the law to catch up with reality”.

    In any case it is NOT THE LAW that is the problem is it the INTERPRETATION and ENFORCEMENT part that is the problem.

  25. SGFRAG.NET said

    […] Full Story […]

  26. Zheng Xi said

    Editor’s note:

    Inaccurate statement:

    “Vivian Balakrishnan’s call to arms to prevent bar top dancing”

    Amended to:
    “Vivian Balakrishnan’s warning of what might happen if the government allowed bartop dancing (albeit in favour of liberalization).”

    Choo Zheng Xi

  27. The above incident as reported finally confirms a total lack of talent of the present elected leadership and its ability to govern the country with reason, objectivity, fairness, justice or equity.

    It demonstrates its total failure to understand the larger perspectives of running of a country – needs to grow the intellectual and political maturity of the people in order to bring about greater diversity of views and solutions and greater vibrancy of social and cultural sphere to promote such growth to take the country higher on the road of progress to bring about the greatest benefit of the greatest number.

    It is a confirmation that the leadership of the country has no more higher ideals or qualities to govern the country for if it has it could easily have come up with a better than “in open public view so there is a danger to incite disobedience to law and order” garbage in denying police permit to allow political party to celebrate their anniversaries or some special ceremonial occasions of which the ruling party itself has been given plenty of occasion to do so by the same Home Affair police authority.

    All citizens should be able now to see the bankruptcy of mental capacity to deal with political process or accommodation of alternative views and solutions to problems resulting in a situation where the police could only talk garbage in not granting any permit as long as there is a fear of civil dissent of their state of high-handed governance in its many latest policies like denying CPF withdrawal at 55 or self-rewarding of ministers by writing their own pay cheques.

    It has become a government which after failing to meet the needs of the people like accountability for its policies and actions it has resorted to unreason and acting beyond reason and beyond the pale systematically suppressing through political and police power people’s views and solutions to better evolve the people as a nation.

    It is confirmed that there is no more a government by truth, reason or common sense of decency.

    There is no comprehension or regard for truths, arguments and rationalizing of governing decisions and policies.

    Dr. Catherine Lim was right in pointing out the increasing divide between the government and the governed in her comment on state of governance.

    Like the Myanmar government it could only govern with sheer political power of its police by suppressing all basic civil freedom to any form of political participation.

    It is a government by legalistic lawlessness by legalistic terrorism.

  28. RaymondChua said

    Thomas, well said,
    Vivian say:
    “I support the liberalisation of the policy, I also want all of us to be aware that there is a price to be paid for liberty. If we are convinced that our society is ready to pay that price, or that price is a necessity, then let us go in, but go in with our eyes wide open.”

    Now Thomas, I ask you, who the ‘We’ Vivian are talking about ? PAP or Singaporean ? Currently, we have PAP talking on behalf of Singaporean only in what benefit the PAP, not benefit to Singaporean ? Who need convincing ? PAP or Singaporean ?

    Who exactly are the ‘We’ ?

    It is so easy to give answer/speech who are good and neutral on ears. It is just diplomatic because there simply no answer.

    It is so easy to pass the responsibility back to the public where real responsibility actually reside in the ruling party.

    A case in point, it just like saying:
    I will support PAP if it manage well. So what is the definition of “manage well” ? Don’t keep telling us ‘if this, or if that’. We want answer not ‘if’ !

  29. RaymondChua said

    It’s not surprising that WP cycling event is not allowed, but PAP event is allowed if you already treat PAP = Singapore and this two terms cannot be separated. For those who run Microsoft Windows, it is just similar to GUI = Windows.

    Which also means CPF = GLC Asset = PAP’s wealth != Singaporean’s property .

  30. Gerald said

    I find it SHOCKING that an innocuous cycling event would be banned by the PAP. Are they really so fearful of the WP, a small party which couldn’t even win more than 1 full parliamentary seat in the last two elections? Can you imagine how scared they will be if more seats were won by the WP?

    I think we should go easy on the old professor. He is only the front man doing the Government’s bidding. I have no doubt that this was a decision taken by some higher ups in the party. Unfortunately he got arrowed to defend it in Parliament. His weak and laughable arguments only serve to explain why he has never made it to be a full minister.

  31. Numb Already said

    How much of the ruling party’s arrogance in this episode and others will be known to the general voting public? These things are not “highlighted” or debated in the mainstream news! So at the end of the day, despite such “arrogance”, “insults”, “bullying”, or watever negatives that the ruling party continues to chalk up, will there be sufficient voting pple who will vote against the ruling party at the next election to voice their displeasure to make sure that the MIW knows that they can’t get away with all these? How much of all these will still be remembered? The MIW is clever…. carry out all these unpopular policies within the first few years after election. Then the year or so before the next election, carry out the “popular” policies. Then they are going to get their Band II election results, an “overwhelming” support for the ruling party’s past policies, including raising their own pay!

  32. Lilian said

    Prof Ho had forgotten to bring along his common sense and brains to parliament…. his wife had forgotten to pack it into his briefcase for him and his maid had forgotten to remind his wife about it.

  33. When I read the article, the first thought about the rejection for a CYCLING EVENT was “Ridiculous”…

    If it wasn’t ridiculous enough for rejecting a permit for a cycling event, I think the comments made by our Minister was a tat overboard.

    Personally, whether PAP, WP, SDP or whatever P. Basic genuine respect should be shown within the ranks of fellow politicians/ministers since they share a common goal in nation building and are co-labourers in serving Singaporeans.

  34. RaymondChua said

    Lilian, Prof Ho has common sense but he is made stupid by the PAP just like all the intelligent citizen of Singapore. PM Lee , MM Lee need to make us stupid to make him look intelligent. But we know the story of emperor with no cloth better.

  35. Andrew Loh said

    Hi Thomas,

    Are you the Thomas Koshy who writes for TODAY?

    I don’t think actually, that Zheng Xi quoted VB out of context. Yes, VB supported the liberalisation of bar top dancing. No one questions that. However, it is in his “slippery slope” argument that “blood will be shed” if the law was liberalised to allow bar top dancing, that Zheng Xi is quoting to illustrate the similarities with MOS Ho’s arguments.

    Taken to its logical conclusion, such extreme generalisations can result in logical – but ridiculous extremist – scenarios.

    Fortunately, no blood has been shed so far in our clubs due to bar top dancing.

    And also, no riots have broken out despite the opposition parties going out there every weekend selling their party organs and conducting public outreach programmes.

    These real life events have well, called both VB and MOS Ho’s bluffs. Thus, what Zheng Xi said is true – the law should be updated to reflect what is real.

    And not what is imaginery in someone’s head.

    Regards,
    Andrew

  36. Thomas Koshy said

    Hi Andrew,

    Yes, the same Thomas.

    As edited the VB quote is fine.

  37. Andrew Loh said

    Hi Thomas,

    Cool… Great to see you here. Thanks for taking time to visit our humble site. 🙂

    Regards,
    Andrew

  38. Jason said

    the sarcasm and insult by Ho to another member of parliament in a parliament was ill-mannered, ungracious and to allow this to happen in a parliament is a disgrace to singapore.

    the denial of a permit for a cycling event is stupid and the reason given for the denial is all the more sickening.

  39. Haha!
    When i first heard the broadcast of the Highlights of Parliament on Channel 5, I couldnt believe my ears.
    The argument made by Prof. Ho Peng Kee is really something that is not substantiated by logic and reasoning.
    Is the PAP really so afraid of the WP gaining clout?

    Seeing that they can continue their tactics of intimidation and using the electoral boundaries to their advantage when the next election comes, I dont see why they should be afraid of the WP.

    However, we should all view this as a back-handed compliment by the PAP, because it is clear that Prof. Ho’s reply is orchestrated by someone higher in the power hierarchy.

    This is a quote from Gerald : # Gerald Says:
    August 29th, 2007 at 9:49 am

    “I find it SHOCKING that an innocuous cycling event would be banned by the PAP. Are they really so fearful of the WP, a small party which couldn’t even win more than 1 full parliamentary seat in the last two elections? Can you imagine how scared they will be if more seats were won by the WP?

    I think we should go easy on the old professor. He is only the front man doing the Government’s bidding. I have no doubt that this was a decision taken by some higher ups in the party. Unfortunately he got arrowed to defend it in Parliament. His weak and laughable arguments only serve to explain why he has never made it to be a full minister.”

    The ‘someone’ higher in the power structure perhaps views the WP now as a credible threat to their 42 years of rule.
    Not allowing the WP to hold such an event shows the fear of the PAP . They are pulling all stops to contain the WP, but my guess is that the more they try to contain the WP, the greater the backlash would be against the PAP.

  40. RaymondChua said

    Vivian Balakrishnan’s warning of:

    “If you want to dance, some of us will fall off that bar-top. Some people will die as a result of liberalising bar-top dancing, not just because they have fallen off the bar-top. Because usually a young girl, with a short skirt, dancing on a bar-top, may attract some insults from some other men, and the boyfriend starts fighting. Some people will die. Blood will be shed for liberalising this policy.”

    Since VB is so paranoid, why not also warn foreigner not to come to Singapore because they might be overstress in Singapore that they will jump the MRT track. And ask us not to go overseas because US, Israel, Taiwan, Japan etc are dangerous countries because of terrorism or natural disaster like earthquake.
    Why not also tell ppl not to go NS because in NS you playing with dangerous weapon that might misfire, kill you, blow you to pieces !

    It unbelieveable, the ministers can blah reckless excuses to justify their millions dollars salary and support.

  41. […] no need to worry, he won’t question you like that in the parliament. […]

  42. DK said

    OK, seriously….. Who voted that fellow into parliament?

  43. RaymondChua said

    DK , it clearly show our gov like Yes-man of very good qualification, and especially professor of bootlicking characteristics !

  44. LifesLikeThat said

    Prof Ho’s answer can be applied to any situation.
    That is both the genius of it – and the plain stupidity of it.

  45. Lilian said

    DK,

    He is MP for Nee Soon East…

  46. Will we do better to have elected a full house of 84 MPs who are highly educated talented either in possession of highly educated scholastic achievements or those with CEO status to impress the world or investors who follow instructions for benchmarking of ministers’ salaries to lucky CEOs in the private sector or for refusing to issue permits to political parties for holding of anniversaries on the ground of preventing disorderly behavior or is it better to have a house which may be full of nitwit MPs standing for election as individual candidates selected outside GRC grouping chosen by the people at random to speak up for them in bahasa or hokien.

  47. Seeking Salvation said

    It disgraceful that a simple question raise by a credible opposition results in a personal attack (i wouldn’t even call it a feeble reply) on a hearing impaired. There is simply no graciousness in the reply whatever has been said lauds well that
    well paid leaders might not carry themselves well. This instance
    speaks well that it is worrisome on the personal charisma and interpersonal attitude of a supposedly leader. I am as well
    vote for Ling How Doong at least he go straight to the point
    Don’t TALK COCK WHICH IS MEANT FOR THAT INCREDIBLE PERSON WHO GAVE A STUPID TWIT REPLY

  48. RaymondChua said

    What do we need so many clowns in the parliament ? Especially very expensive clowns. We better outsource these clowns because other clowns from other countries can tell better jokes than these over qualifiedjokers. We can save millions dollars every year by outsourcing and use these millions to build welfare instead.

  49. 包容性社会?优雅社会?

  50. Andrew Loh said

    Hi Choong Yong,

    Got any english translation? Might be good for those not so good in mandarin… 🙂

    Andrew

  51. James Chew said

    <>

    translated:
    “Inclusive society? Gracious society?”

  52. […] Peng Kee has been imprinted in the minds of the netizens. Indeed many bloggers have already said their piece. Personally I found Prof Ho’s comments on Mr Low insulting; much akin to a low blow and […]

  53. well…since we have so many clowns in our government…why don’t they start the world first MPs circus…at least i have being proven wrong..i thought they were morons…

  54. why don’t the opposition stage a kite flying event at the Marina…should be safe rite if we go by the logic of our stupid MP!

  55. RaymondChua said

    “why don’t the opposition stage a kite flying event at the Marina…should be safe rite if we go by the logic of our stupid MP!”

    Well then again, Vivian B might say it is dangerous because the string of the kite might just broken by strong wind in Marina, and possibly (Recall that Singapore is a city of possibilities !) hit the head of a valuable million dollars ministers, making him lose his moral authority !

  56. […] “If you listened very carefully Mr Low, I don’t know whether his hearing aid is with him because he wears one, I said there is a greater potential for law and order problems.” (link) (link) […]

  57. […] “You may be well behaving, but there may be other people whom you come across when you cycle who may stop you, may want to debate with you and that may attract a crowd, therefore will result in problems the police want to avoid”. (TOC) […]

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: