*Originally published by The Temasek Review on 3rd March, 2010

I was passing by a notice board at a HDB estate when I saw the MoneySENSE cartoon (To buy or not to buy?) created and put up by the PAP. The advice given was sound, I thought. After all, being thrifty is a virtue, especially in these difficult times.

And I would applaud such sensible advice, but for the fact that it was dished out by a ruling party that pays its executives obscenely bloated salaries, many times in excess of the market rate paid out to other world leaders, and in defiance of their own advice. I thought it hypocritical for them to advise citizens to scrimp and save while they themselves use taxpayers’ money to pay themselves obscene amounts of money. It is all very well for them to talk about ‘Needs’ vs. ‘Wants’ when they are not the ones having to give up their ‘Wants’.

Thus, a parody cartoon strip was created and pasted next to the original to highlight the hypocrisy of PAP propaganda. And to give them a taste of their own medicine. After all, what is good for the goose has got to be good for the gander.

I would also like to take this opportunity to point out that a high profile charity event that took place last year, the ‘We Are One’ community service project which was jointly organized by CapitaLand, LEGO Singapore and MediaCorp only managed to raise a paltry S$300,000. That was a fiasco considering the amount of time, money and human resource spent by three corporate giants in Singapore for the project. Now, if our overpaid public servants took their own advice and subscribed to ‘Needs’ instead of ‘Wants’, they could easily save the Treasury a hefty US$22 million EVERY year! And without any need for expensive publicity stunts! Just like that, a generous US$22 million could go to charity or whatever needs fixing around the country EVERY year. IF the PAP took their own advice.

Singa Crew

Link to orginal article: http://www.temasekreview.com/2010/03/03/between-the-lines-exposing-pap-hypocrisy/

Author’s note: I was unable to upload the full-sized version of the picture, so if you find yourself unable to read the words, please view a clearer version here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/48032749@N05/4402963553/sizes/l/

Advertisements

I was interviewed by Worldwidehippies.com!

You may find the interview at: http://www.worldwidehippies.com/?p=748

Worldwidehippies.com is pleased to interview Singa Crew, an internet activist based in Singapore. Singa Crew is also the administrator of the Facebook group: Bring free speech/press to Singapore.

Can you tell our readers what your Facebook group, Bring free speech/press to Singapore, is about?

The group was founded by an American high school girl (now in college), Amelia Fedo. As a child, she was aware of Singapore as ‘a strange place that was very clean but not very free.’ And in 2006, she founded the group on Facebook to serve as a forum for activists to inform the public at large about human rights abuses in Singapore.

Given the name of our group, Bring free speech/press to Singapore, our cause is really self-explanatory. We aim to bring freedom of speech, among other civil and political rights enjoyed by citizens of enlightened first world countries, to Singapore.

Since the early days of its founding with a mere hundred odd members, we have since grown in strength to having a membership of over 900 members. There is still plenty of room however, and it would be good for us if more people around the world pay attention to our plight.

For the benefit of our readers outside of Asia, can you tell us a little about your country?

Singapore is a small island in Southeast Asia with a land area of about 710.2 km2 (274.2 sq mi). Singapore is a city-state by itself and not part of China.

We understand that Human Rights Watch recently did a report on Singapore. Is that right? Can you tell us more about this?

Yes they did. According to Human Rights Watch, “Singapore remains the textbook example of a politically repressive state.” And “the government fails to meet human rights standards in a number of critical areas, including freedom of expression, association, and assembly.” (1)

How can our readers help?

They can help by joining us on Facebook. The group is constantly being updated with links to articles penned by Singaporean actvists and politicians, so it is a rich source of information for those who wish to know more about my country.

More importantly, as an administrator, I will occasionally use the ‘Message All Members’ function to broadcast important news to members around the world. At this point in time, with our limited resources, this particular function remains one of the most effective tools of ’self-defence’ for internet activists like myself.

Singapore is a microstate with no natural resources, and thus its existence is defined thoroughly by its relationship to other nations and the PAP (our ruling party) leaders know this. While they are arrogant enough to disregard their own subjects, they understand that they remain accountable to the international community.

Hence, the ability to reach a large audience around the world sends a powerful message to the Singapore government: the world is watching.

Is there anything else you would like to say to our readers?

I have explained the ‘What’ and ‘How’, but left out the ‘Why’. So I will expound on that now.

Anna Sewell, author of Black Beauty, once said that with cruelty and oppression it is everybody’s business to interfere when they see it. And now that you know of our plight, please help us. As a citizen of the free world, you wield powers that Singaporeans do not have. For starters, you are immune to the ruinous defamation law suits PAP leaders like to file against their critics. Since for such law suits to be successful, they would have to be filed in a PAP-controlled court of law; something that does not exist outside the borders of Singapore.

May I also call your attention to the unique position of Singapore on the world stage. The Singapore government practices and espouses a dangerous form of corporate authoritarianism by combining Communist-style totalitarianism with capitalism. And thus, human rights abuses are neatly hidden under a facade of modern skyscrapers and shopping malls.

This marriage of capitalism and totalitarianism must look appetizing to dictators around the world, and that explains why Singapore is being used as a model by China and other growing, once-Communist powers.

Former Russian president Vladimir Putin, for example, side-stepped into the role of prime minister when he cannot legally continue to be president. This is chillingly similar to Singapore’s autocrat, Lee Kuan Yew’s creation of the offices of Senior Minister and later Minister Mentor, in order to retain his grip on power. (2)

Members of the international community will do well to sit up and take heed before their own countries are corrupted by this insidious form of ’soft tyranny’.

References

1. http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/01/20/singapore-textbook-example-repressive-state

2. http://www.robertamsterdam.com/2007/12/the_last_time_we_heard.htm

A reply to State propagandists

Posted: November 13, 2009 in Uncategorized

Dr Chee’s recent interviews on America’s talk shows have sparked a wave of criticisms from PAP propagandists and supporters. These propagandists have repeatedly claimed that by granting interviews to the foreign press, Dr Chee is trying to ‘do us in’. So really, they are merely parroting our own MM Lee when they said that by alerting the world to our plight (lack of human rights), our economy will suffer and we will get done in.

The nonsense spouted by these propagandists is nothing more than unwarranted extrapolation and a desperate attempt to mislead Singaporeans.

First of all, let us take a look at Dr Chee’s intention and statement, and see how that was mangled by the PAP propagandists to mislead the public.

“He will call on the US to deal with Singapore on the basis of equality where America’s political and business leaders don’t collaborate with the Singapore Government on trade at the expense of democracy and human rights.

Such an approach only allows and even encourages the PAP to continue its exploitation of Singaporeans where wages are depressed while the cost of living continues to rise.”

From: http://yoursdp.org/index.php/news/singapore/3041-chee-soon-juan-to-do-a-series-of-radion-shows-in-us

No rational person can possibly misunderstand Dr Chee’s call on the US to deal with Singapore on the basis of equality to mean ‘severing business ties’ or ‘don’t invest in Singapore’. It is clear that these PAP propagandists simply highlighted the ‘don’t collaborate with the Singapore Government’ bit, and purposely misunderstood it to mean ‘severing business ties’. They are simply taking advantage of the fact that many Singaporeans do not understand the subtle nuances of the English language, and that many skim through web articles and focus on highlighted portions.

Surely, foreign businesses that respect workers’ rights can only be a good thing! Surely foreign businesses that do not wantonly retrench Singaporeans in favour of cheaper Third World labour can only benefit Singaporeans!

But of course, it doesn’t bother officers working in ISD offices whether Singaporean workers are paid lesser and lesser despite growing living costs.

While they are in the throes of their ‘righteous’ rant, these propagandists also cleverly omitted the fact that the PAP are the ones collaborating with foreign powers!

“The PAP even consults these foreign companies on how much Sinaporeans’ should be paid. The National Wages Council has on its 2007/2008 board representatives from the US (Douglas Miller), Japanese (Shigeru Kobayashi), and German (Alexander Melchers) chambers of commerce.”

From: http://yoursdp.org/index.php/news/singapore/3063-chee-stop-the-exploitation-of-workers

Dr Chee’s interviews have given him greater access to the American public and helped spread the message of Singapore’s struggle for democracy and freedom. The PAP are getting worried. With increased international scrutiny, they will have to learn to curb their excesses. And with the typical PAP paranoia of losing even a small fraction of their power and wealth, we see an increase in propaganda messages both online and in the print media. I wonder who is paying for all that overtime our hardworking State propagandists are putting in?

Crew

Written by: Singa Crew
*First published by http://www.yoursdp.org on the 2nd of May, 2009.

I remember an editor with the Straits Times once complained that reading some internet postings made her blood boil. Good. So she will understand how I felt when I read a New Paper article written by Ms Elysa Chen and published on 28 Apr 09 (below).

Ms Chen’s article is the second write-up on the Facebook group “Singapore Sucks”. As a member of the group and occasional contributor, I feel compelled to refute the usual mudslinging against those who refuse to succumb to PAP propaganda.

Leading this latest skirmish against free speech in Singapore is Mr Anthony Fulwood, a 30-year-old teacher from the UK who has lived here for 5 years.

Mr Fulwood, who likened online commentaries on the lack of freedom in Singapore to attacks on his home, felt the need to “stand up and defend” his home and the PAP regime.

Citing the people’s right to choose in elections and our Speakers’ Corner, Mr Fulwood felt that there was enough political freedom in Singapore.

I hate to contradict Mr Fulwood, with all of his 5-year experience here in Singapore. However, I would like to respectfully point out to Mr Fulwood that as a citizen who has lived here for several decades, I never had the chance to vote in any of the General Elections. Mr Fulwood is an Englishman, so perhaps he has heard of the term ‘gerrymandering’?

Mr Fulwood went on to criticise those Singaporeans who do not want to go to the park (Speakers’ Corner), but instead complain in pubs and Facebook groups.

May I remind Mr Fulwood that the right to free speech is an inalienable right; one that should not be restricted within a mere patch of greenery? How dare he, someone who has only lived here for 5 years, think he has the right to tell us citizens of Singapore where we can or cannot exercise our right to free speech! Besides, what with the PAP’s long-standing tradition of using financially runious defamation lawsuits against their critics, is it any wonder that many Singaporeans choose the safety of anonymity?

When he referred to “complainers” as “teenagers” and “immature”, Mr Fulwood betrayed his ignorance of the local socio-political scene. Some of the loudest “complainers” against the PAP regime are Dr Chee Soon Juan and the late J B Jeyaretnam. Would Mr Fulwood call them “immature teenagers”?

Go to your MP instead of complaining

As for Mr Fulwood’s advice to resolve issues through the MPs (most of them are from the PAP), I can only balk in disbelief.

Ms Jaslyn Go, a local activist and mother of two, points out to Mr Fulwood that like him, she used to naively think issues may be resolved via MPs. She changed her mind after eight emails to her MP and two to her Tanjong Pagar GRC which includes MM Lee Kuan Yew. No one replied to her emails or was willing to address her concerns.

Of course, Jaslyn only has her 36 years of experience as a Singaporean to speak from unlike Mr Fulwood’s five years as a PR.

Mr Seelan Palay, a local artist and activist, does not think PAP MPs are connected to the people according to his blog entry: PAP MP in ivory tower, can’t see the ground. Despite staying only two blocks away from the office of a Residents’ Committee for seven years, he only saw his MP for the first time when she came around to hand out promotional items of caps and t-shirts.

Seelan lambasted the gifts as useless and thoughtless in this time of severe recession. And I agree with him that such gifts do nothing to help households who cannot even get three square meals a day.

As a supporter of free speech, I defend Mr Fulwood’s right to say what he wants, but I hope next time he will think twice before he passes judgment on us “lesser mortals”, in the words of PAP MP Mr Charles Chong, who have been living here all our lives.

It is instructive that Ms Elysa Chen would highlight the praises of foreigners while condemning the criticisms of Singaporeans over our own country especially when it is to support the autocratic system here. It is a sad sign of political immaturity.

Mr Fulwood might be interested to know that if his letter were critical of the PAP system, he would not be around in this country for long. How’s that for political freedom, Mr Fulwood?

After inserting glowing praises from two other expatriates working here, Elysa concluded her article with a question about the reasons behind the creation of “Singapore Sucks”.

She obviously missed the disclaimer displayed prominently on the front page of our group: “This group exists to critique the policies of Singapore’s government, especially the PAP, and to spread awareness of the plight of Singaporeans. It does not intend to attack the citizens of Singapore, and any aspects of the group that could be construed as threatening, such as the group picture, are strictly tongue-in-cheek.”

Link to original article (which includes hyperlinks and original New Paper article): http://www.yoursdp.org/index.php/component/content/article/2319-what-if-pr-criticised-instead-of-praised-singapore

Written by Singa Crew
02 July 2008

Many of us are blessed with responsible parents who provided for us (both materially and spiritually), and taught us to tell right from wrong. Children from such a nurturing environment usually grow up to be well-adjusted and productive members of society.

Not too long ago, children were spotted at a protest march and that was brought up for discussion on internet forums. This revelation that forward thinking parents were taking responsibility to educate and empower their children may have dredged up bitter childhood memories for some.

Mahjongking, erratic poster on http://www.yoursdp.org, apparently broke into hysterics and demanded to know why the other kids are allowed to attend protests with their mommies and daddies.

“… I don’t know… come on! Speak to me! Answer my question!” – Mahjongking

While I strongly discourage petulant behaviour, I will make an exception just this once (in the spirit of education) and answer Mahjongking’s question.

Education

The family unit is the place where primary socialization takes place. Parents are responsible for teaching their children the correct moral values. Getting children involved in civil activism, whether it is lighting candles at a vigil or marching with responsible adults at a protest, is an excellent way to educate the little ones about relevant issues that affect their lives and future.

In Singapore, where the all-powerful PAP (People’s Action Party) exercises near absolute control over all aspects of our lives (including education), it is inconceivable that social issues critical of their policies will be brought up for discussion in the classrooms. So what better way to educate the children than to involve them in extra-curricular activities? Take the first Tak Boleh Tahan event for example. The Singapore Democrats and their supporters (with children in tow) raised awareness about social ills such as the rising costs of living (without a corresponding increase in workers’ wages), how the government uses cheap foreign labour to suppress the wages of local workers and the obscene salaries of our political leaders. These issues have a direct impact on the quality of life, and affect all citizens, not just the working adults. Children should not be left helplessly ignorant and burdened with unanswered questions simply because the PAP decided that bringing up such issues will smear their “perfect” record of governance.

There are also critics and over-protective parents who will argue that children are too young to be exposed to “adult problems”. Such a flimsy excuse to keep children from learning simply cannot stand up in the real world. Especially since (many) young children are also encouraged to attend Sunday school where moral values and spiritual doctrines are imparted to them. If finding out about rising costs of living and social injustice is considered to be too “heavy” for children, perhaps we should also stop all children from learning about life and death (in the story of Christ) at Sunday school.

The lies and hypocrisy

After the first Tak Boleh Tahan event, PAP propagandists tried to undermine the positive benefits of the exercise by voicing concerns over “safety issues”. If they had said the sky was bright orange, it couldn’t have been a more blatant attempt at disinformation.

Let us examine the recent history of activism in Singapore. We can talk about the 4 person silent protest outside the CPF building on 11 August 2005, the Freedom Walk on 10 December 2006, the vigil outside the Burmese embassy on 30 September 2007 and the SDP 4 person protest outside the Istana on 8 October 2007. The events I listed are merely a few of the series of protests that have slowly gained momentum on our small island. I couldn’t help but notice that these events are marked by an absence of violence. And let us not forget that large scale election rallies over the past few decades have not been marred by riotous behaviour.

In the face of such overwhelming evidence, PAP propagandists continue to shamelessly invoke the spectre of ancient history, namely the Hock Lee bus riots of 1955 and the race riots during the 1960s, to undermine any progress made by the Singapore Democrats. What makes the “Protests Are Dangerous” propaganda even more galling is that the PAP themselves practise blatant double standards. While the PAP propagandists attack the Singapore Democrats for allowing children to participate in peaceful protests, these propagandists shamelessly neglected to mention that the PAP themselves allow children to participate in THEIR protests which are held on a much larger scale!

Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, kindly examine exhibit A:

Walk with CASE public march led by PAP MP Dr Teo Ho Pin (2007)
Source of photo: http://www.yoursdp.org
Author’s note: Children are clearly visible in the foreground.

On 16 March 2008, the day after the Singapore Democrats and their supporters were arrested for their “illegal” gathering of 20 or so, CASE went ahead with their massive campaign against the marketing of junk food to children. In their words, that event was one that “will bring together over 5,000 consumers”. Apparently, the government saw no potential for rowdy behaviour in that gathering because the Minister for Health himself, Mr Khaw Boon Wan, was guest-of-honour.

Now let us examine the facts. On the one hand, a small gathering of activists campaigning against the rising costs of living and various forms of social injustice was cause for concern. They were arrested because supposedly any gathering of more than 5 in Singapore could lead to public disorder. And the activists’ actions came under fire by PAP propagandists for putting children in potentially dangerous situations.

On the other hand, a much larger gathering of consumers (supposedly numbering 5,000) could campaign freely against “marketing of junk food to children”. Suddenly the numbers don’t matter anymore. And of course, the parents at that event did not come under fire for endangering their children. Maybe 5,000 was a safer number than 20? Never mind the frivolous reasons for having children in a crowd of thousands. Frivolous because, as the Minister for Health of a ruling party that exercises absolute control over all policies, why couldn’t Mr Khaw simply implement health guidelines to limit the irresponsible marketing of junk food to children? The PAP have never shied away from implementing draconic measures for “the good of society”. Why pretend otherwise for World Consumer Rights day?

Don’t blame the victim

The date was 15 March 2008 and the place was Singapore’s shopping district by the Singapore River (a tourist attraction). The atmosphere was one of amenity as children carrying balloons strolled leisurely alongside their parents. It wasn’t just all fun and laughter though. This family day out was also a chance for children to learn about the various forms of social injustice inflicted upon them and their parents; something they will never learn at any school in Singapore. As I gazed upon this heartwarming scene, the last thing that crossed my mind (and that of any rational observer) was potential for riotous behaviour.

However, just mere minutes into the event, the merry little band were waylaid in the middle of a street filled with weekend shoppers, and the adults were snatched away from the children in a clinical manner. The crowd (including the children) could only look on helplessly as the waylayers efficiently bundled the activists one by one into waiting vans. In case any readers were wondering how a mass kidnapping could occur in broad daylight in the middle of a shopping district in Singapore without hindrance, let me answer your question. The waylayers were the police.

If a man gets robbed and he seeks recourse through the justice system, does the judge pass sentence on him for causing criminal behaviour? No. In all civilized countries, the perpetrators of criminal behaviour are punished, not the victims of crime. Thus, it came as a shock to me when activists involved in the Tak Boleh Tahan event came under fire for “endangering” children.

Weeks before the event, details of the event were already sent to the police and published on the SDP website. Their intentions were clear as day for all to see. And the presence of children was akin to bearing olive branches; a show of good faith and assurance to the authorities that they come in peace. It is clear to any rational person that the Singapore Democrats and their supporters have gone out of their way to assure the authorities of their peaceful intentions. Only to have that thrown right back at them. If those PAP propagandists were truly concerned that children were traumatized during the Tak Boleh Tahan event, they should blame the perpetrators of rowdy behaviour. They should blame the police, and not the victims of PAP high-handedness.

Safeguard our future

Jean Piaget’s theory of cognitive development proposes that 5-9 year olds exhibit what is known as heteronomous morality. Children at that age regard morality as obeying other people’s rules and laws. And acts are judged by their observable consequences rather than intentions. In other words, children exhibiting heteronomous morality are concerned with superficiality, unable to think independently and consider a situation from different perspectives (taking into account intentional and environmental factors).

Now, please indulge me for a moment and take a wild leap of imagination. Let us imagine 5 year olds filling the roles of judges, law enforcement officers and lawmakers. If you think that’s scary, then let me tell you this: it is already happening in Singapore! Currently, we have law enforcement officers who think “PAP = Government” and whatever the PAP decree is right, never mind if the Constitution says otherwise. We have journalists who will tell you the Constitution doesn’t grant you “freedom of speech and assembly”, in the face of hard evidence (clearly they took their cue from some fatherly authority figure rather than the Constitution itself). We have a minister who said that liberalizing bar-top dancing will lead to “blood shed”. In conclusion, the ranks of professionals are staffed by individuals of child-like moral intelligence.

The future of Singapore looks grim, but for the few shining examples of responsible parenthood. Names like Chee Soon Juan, Jaslyn Go and Muhammad Jufri comes to mind. These parents are taking on the responsibility to educate the next generation; imparting to them the correct moral values and critical thinking skills. With parents like these around, one can still hope that a new generation of citizens in possession of mature cognitive faculties; who can debate ideas based on the basis of rights and wrongs, will rise up to helm the country in the right direction.

Singa Crew

Below is a selection of quotes from activists and parents:

“I came along with my kids to participate in a peaceful protest against the rising cost of living in Singapore which affect my kids directly. Childcare, transportation and health care cost are on the rise. As a mother, I am proud to be teaching them to stand up against an unfair system.” – Jaslyn Go Hui Leng

“Our children are involved in some of their father’s activities and they are familiar and comfortable with the people who participate in these activities, too. Apparently, they come to know that these are decent and interesting people to be around and there’s nothing sinister or needed to be fearful about. Our youngest boy always enjoys “going to the democracy place to light candles”. In Singapore, these are certainly rare occasions that not every child gets to experience.” – Dr Huang Chih Mei (wife of Dr Chee Soon Juan), posted on http://www.yoursdp.org

“Protests and other forms of activism can be immensely rewarding, and it is wonderful for children to know they can make a difference in the world.” – Kelly Palmatier, CompassionateKids.com

“And children are supposedly our hope for the future. Thus it seems essential to include them in our political struggles, if we want the issues to live longer than us.” – Kirsten Anderberg, http://www.kirstenanderberg.com

“Kids are not encouraged to question wrongs. That is why bringing children to protests shows them that they can express themselves and question anything they believe wrong. It develops their analytical and critical thinking.” – Alfred Kuba, Coordinator of Silicon Valley In Defense of Animals (cited by Caity McCardell on http://www.vegfamily.com)

Written by Singa Crew

First published on http://www.sgpolitics.net on May 29, 2008

Recent events at the private screening of One Nation Under Lee have sparked fierce debate in cyber-space. I refer to the intrusion of MDA officials and the subsequent confiscation of the DVD copy used at the screening.

Activists present at the event, concerned with what they saw as an invasion of their privacy and civil rights, recorded the actions of the MDA officials and their police backup with camcorders. Video clips of the proceedings were later uploaded for public viewing online.

That move sparked outrage amongst some online forumners. Some felt that the civil servants involved were merely ‘arrowed’ to perform an unpleasant task and it was unnecessary to ‘humiliate’ them.

“You guys cannot differentiate between ordinary singaporeans asked to do a job and the oppressive PAP regime,” commented Scroobal2 from the Sammyboy Coffeeshop forum.

I am forced to disagree with Scroobal2 and those who unfortunately confused citizen activism with pranking.

I understand that those civil servants were probably decent (just like you and me!) folks ‘arrowed’ to perform an unpleasant task. But very often, the causes of negative behaviour are situational rather than dispositional.

Zimbardo et al’s prison simulation experiment* proves my point. Male college students were chosen based on their stability and lack of anti-social behaviour. They were then divided into groups of ‘guards’ and ‘prisoners’. The experiment had to be terminated early because the ‘guards’ started showing abusive behaviour that went beyond the call of duty. Even though the ‘guards’ were given a prohibition against the use of physical violence.

The ‘guards’ exhibited what was termed the ‘Pathology of Power’ – huge enjoyment of the power at their disposal. Some ‘guards’ even worked more hours than necessary and were disappointed when the experiment was terminated. These negative reactions, the experimenters proposed, were caused by a sense of empowerment legitimised by the role of ‘guard’ in the prison system. Power corrupts.

Now we have all seen reasonable behaviour exhibited by the civil servants in this case. The police officers did not employ force and the MDA officials did not raise their voice or use threatening language. But has anyone considered why the agents behaved themselves? Perhaps the presence of the camcorders served to restrain them! If there were no control factors (camcorders and witnesses), the agents might just go beyond the call of duty like the ‘guards’ in Zimbardo’s experiment. The period between the 60s and 80s (pre-internet era) are testaments to such gangster-like behaviour.

My diagnosis for a happier nation (for both civil servants and activists) is: the camcorders stay and the activists continue doing what they have been doing all along. It really is a win-win situation.

Civil servants while performing unpleasant tasks for their political masters, are restrained from going overboard and doing something they might regret later in life. Activists can pat themselves on their back for a job well done: saving the conscience of their fellow citizens.

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment

A Political Joke

Posted: February 8, 2009 in Uncategorized

Edited version – First published on http://www.sgpolitics.net on 10/01/2009

Being an ardent supporter, Jake went to all rallies held by his party during the General Election.

One such day, he was walking past a park when he saw a little boy being menaced by a large stray dog. Thinking fast, Jake promptly picked up a tree branch and used it to chase the mean dog away.

The whole incident was spotted by a roving reporter who decided to write a small human interest piece for The Paper (because there is really only just the one newspaper if you know what I mean). So the reporter approached Jake who informed the reporter that he was on his way to a party rally when he witnessed the attack.

As this was during the General Election, the reporter saw the opportunity to add a political spin to his little article. He started scribbling the title across his notepad: “Heroic PAP supporter saves boy!”

When he saw this, Jake hurriedly corrected the reporter. “No, no. I am not a PAP supporter. I support the Opposition.”

And the reporter crossed out his original title and promptly switched to a more neutral “WP supporter saves boy!”

“No, no. I am not a WP supporter either. I support the SDP,” Jake corrected the reporter again.

Hearing this, the reporter looked thoughtfully at Jake, said a brief “thank you for your time” and left.

The next day, this headline appeared in The Paper: “Armed SDP supporter attacks dog!”

By Singa Crew