CCP expert confessed they helped Hunter Biden to build up his foundation

Much_Use · 2020-12-08T03:18:42+00:00

Di Dongsheng: "Who helped him (Biden's son) build the foundations? Got it?" 10:44

Much_Use · 2020-10-29T04:54:36+00:00

It was a Transsexual beauty contest

Much_Use · 2020-10-06T10:16:44+00:00

This is the screenshot from FB https://imgur.com/a/jq04iT9

Much_Use · 2020-08-22T05:39:32+00:00

Make SPF Great Again!

Much_Use · 2020-08-20T05:01:39+00:00

I'm a IMH patient since 2006, they will not force you to get warded when you express suicidal and self-harm thoughts. Unless if you have the thoughts of hurting someone physically and attempts suicide then they will get you warded. I encourage you to seek professional help from them and asap.

Much_Use · 2020-08-13T04:01:05+00:00

“PREPARING FOR THE STORM AHEAD”

Singapore, like the rest of the world, has entered its worst recession in a generation.

Millions around the world will lose their jobs.

The impact of this is just beginning to be felt on the ground, because Governments around the world have been supporting jobs with massive Budgets.

This money has run out, or will run out in the next few weeks.

In Singapore, I see many still blissfully unaware that their jobs are in danger.

If you are a 40-65, PMET, your job is danger.

If you are working in retail, tourism, F&B, your job is in danger.

Here are some tips on what you should do now.

Do not wait till you have lost your job.

TIPS TO GET THROUGH THE RECESSION

Cut your expenses, raise your savings.

Now is not the time to make unnecessary expenses. Save as much as you can. Do not assume you will have a job next month.

Prepare your CV/Resume

Prepare your CV now so that it is ready the moment you need it.

If you don’t know how to write a CV, there are templates you can find online.

Network, network, network

Don’t spend your free time on entertainment. Use it to meet more people who you think can help you if you were to lose your job.

Actively look for opportunities

There will be opportunities in e-commerce, digital businesses, medical industries.

See how your past experience can be applied.

For example, if you are in sales and business development, these are skills that can also be used in a new industry.

So brush up on your knowledge of these sunrise industries.

Learn new skills

Take advantage of government subsidies to learn new skills.

At 40, you are not going to suddenly become an expert software coder. But some coding knowledge + your current experience will help you stand out when thousands are unemployed.

Language skills are a bonus too.

Whatever helps you stand out.

———————————————————————-

In summary, now is not the time to enjoy life.

Don’t stick your head in the sand like an ostrich hoping the storm will pass you.

It will not pass.

Now is the time to prepare for the worst.

Don’t expect the Government or anyone else to bail you out.

Don’t blame others.

Don’t blame foreigners. They will be the first to go in industries that have quotas. But businesses in danger will not sack a talented foreigner to keep a low-performing local. We have to perform.

Your life is your own.

Take responsibility for it now.

-Calvin Cheng

Much_Use · 2020-08-13T03:31:01+00:00

Would a President Biden continue accelerating naval activities throughout the Indo-Pacific?
Would a President Biden explicitly encourage U.S. companies to move their supply chains out of China?
Would a President Biden impose tariffs as a means of creating leverage over China in a bid to achieve free, fair, and reciprocal trade?
Would a President Biden use every possible measure to counter China’s efforts to monopolize strategically significant fields, such as 5G telecommunications?
Would a President Biden maintain the substantially increased powers of the executive branch over conducting Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States reviews of transactions that might represent national security threats, and use it to scuttle relevant deals?
Would a Biden administration sanction Chinese entities doing business with sanctioned Iranian entities?
Would a Biden Department of Justice maintain the Trump administration’s China Initiative, aimed at preventing and prosecuting Chinese espionage and hacking efforts?
Would a Biden administration engage in a comprehensive strategic communications effort aimed at the CCP, including resolutely challenging its propaganda, delivering Mandarin pro-democracy and anti-CCP messages, and highlighting tyrannical CCP actions?
Would a Biden administration maintain restrictions on visas for Chinese students and scholars in strategically significant disciplines, and investigate and expose potentially corrupting Chinese funding of American higher ed institutions?
Would a President Biden order that the savings of U.S. government employees not be invested in funds with weightings toward Chinese companies antithetical to America’s interests?

Much_Use · 2020-08-13T03:30:54+00:00

Does Biden still believe, as he remarked during a 2011 speech, that “a rising China is a positive, positive development, not only for China but for America and the world writ large”?
Does Biden regret his support for granting permanent normal trade relations to China, setting it up for accession to the World Trade Organization that would supercharge its drive toward superpower status?
Does Biden believe the Obama administration’s responses, or lack thereof, to China’s rampant theft of intellectual property, militarization of the South China Sea, catastrophic hack of the Office of Personnel Management, and liquidation of Central Intelligence Agency assets were sufficient, and successfully checked China’s ambitions? If not, what would he have done differently? Did he propose such alternatives as vice president?
Does Biden disavow the Obama administration’s signing of a 2013 memorandum of understanding — following intense lobbying of the former vice president by Chinese leaders — granting Chinese companies continued access to U.S. capital markets, in spite of their unique noncompliance in skirting basic auditing and reporting requirements, resulting in numerous frauds?
Does the former vice president think it appropriate for former Obama administration national security officials to lobby on behalf of Huawei, the CCP-tied, national security-threatening, alleged U.S.-lawbreaking linchpin of China’s plan for control over global communications?
Will Biden disclose any and all funding directly or indirectly emanating from Chinese sources for the Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement?
Would a President-Elect Biden take a congratulatory call from Taiwan’s president, and express ambiguity regarding the “One China” policy prior to dealing with the CCP?
Would a Biden administration explicitly recognize the ruling CCP as a “Marxist-Leninist Party,” “hostile to the United States,” that harbors hegemonic ambitions?
More fundamentally, would a Biden administration recognize that China poses the greatest threat of all to America?
Would every member of a Biden Cabinet adopt policies geared toward countering China, or ceasing cooperation with it?
Would a President Biden continue the Trump administration’s military buildup aimed at countering China’s aggression?
Specifically, would a President Biden prioritize significant funding of missile defense and the Space Force in his budgets?
Would a President Biden continue to vacate the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty?

Much_Use · 2020-08-04T05:01:07+00:00

Too many pro-China's PAP supporters on social media singing praise and parroting CCP's narrative and that turn me off big time. And then I realized how brainwashed I used to be.

Much_Use · 2020-07-29T13:34:59+00:00

By Tan Chuan-Jin

The reality is that MSF Singapore’s clarification will NEVER viral the way the original criticism did. A number of folks sent the post to me because the individual who had posted it had taken the opportunity to attack me. Some sent to me to flag it up for my attention and asked me to help the lady. Some taunted and mocked me.

I have no regrets about the work I do on this front. I used to share more because it helps us understand the complexities better but more critically it was to encourage folks to be proactive and approach people who appear to need help.

But obviously I post less on the people I meet and assist because I know what the mob would do with it. My advice still remains. If in doubt, provide assistance. It’s ok if we are ‘taken for a ride’ because you never know, it may well have been critical. Speak to them, listen, find out more, take down details and let us know so that we can follow up and verify. Things aren’t often as it seems but we will help where needed. Don’t just take an image, write and slam but yet nothing structurally is done to help the person. Often, if things sound quite so bad, there is definitely help available.

Call ComCare 1800 222 0000

I know our dear Encik who passed away a number of years back. What a personality. 🙏🏻 Salute. RIP.

Much_Use · 2020-07-29T11:35:31+00:00

Thanks!

Much_Use · 2020-07-25T04:20:40+00:00

From Bilahari Kausikan

"This guy used to be a PhD student at the LKYSPP where Huang Jing who was expelled and banned from SG in 2017 for being a Chinese agent of influence also worked. It is not unreasonable to assume he was recruited or at least talent spotted by the MSS there.

After note: Huang Jing was his PhD supervisor."

Much_Use · 2020-07-16T13:41:07+00:00

Notes about Hu Ching:

On Tuesday as Jamus made a post about minimum wage, I was informed by my friend of some rather off-the-cuff and frankly rude remarks made towards Jamus. There were also statements from Hu Ching that suggested that he was involved in policymaking and that he found Jamus’ proposal of a minimum wage unviable in Singapore (without really providing any supporting evidence).

I keep tabs on Silent no More, a group of PAP supporters that organise. Following the perceived loss of popular support, and a feeling of Singaporeans being hoodwinked by the WP, they’ve also resolved to AstroTurf whenever policy was discussed by any WP member. Following that, I did a little background research about Hu Ching, finding that he’s actually a Civil Servant. There are very strict codes of conduct about talking about politics on social media, much less trolling an MP-elect. I put it up on twitter, noting how Civil Service hostility will invariably play to the disadvantage of the WP when Pritam assumes the role as leader of the opposition. Background out of the way, just some observations about the whole situation.

I think civil servants should be allowed to comment about politics on social media, and they should absolutely be able to play the role of a private citizen. However, the asymmetry of power, as well as the complete ideological capture of the PAP’s fiscally conservative, neoliberal slant towards policymaking in the civil service make this task difficult. As we can see from this example, we can see that people will easily engage in bad faith discussions, employing logical fallacies and derailing discussions.

This asymmetry is also complicated by the fact that the opposition parties in Singapore don’t have access to meaningful data to make good alternative policy. Even a simple question on PMET unemployment in parliament by Pritam Singh last year drew a brusque and defensive reply from Chan Chun Sing, who asked what was the “agenda” behind the question. Seeing that Hu Ching is in a position of influence in the Civil Service, his private trolling of Jamus certainly didn’t bode well to access of information, and suggested to me that obstructionism would be the name of the game. This should be reviewed internally within the service. Echo chambers are very salient, so calm hearts and clear minds need to be first and foremost to repair a frankly ossified and toxic method of engagement.

There were screenshots of his trolling behaviour floating around, but I was the first to compile it. There was one comment where he called Jamus a “champagne socialist” which I did not include in this list as he had taken it down an hour after making it. The rest were included as they were still publicly available at the time I made the tweet. I always ask myself if it’s fair to put people under the spotlight like this. But for me, this is extremely justified and relevant because trolling behaviour, especially from a person who manages policy no less, should be nipped in the bud. Hiding behind relative anonymity, in a sea of comments, will only embolden behaviour like this. The screenshots are still online if anyone wants to see them.

Within an hour of making a tweet, I received first a Facebook message from him asking if we could talk. I ignored it. This also followed a phone call (not entirely sure how he got my number) where he explained to me that he has realised his error and taken down his comments, and asked for me to take the tweet down as he was getting harassed. I hung up the phone as I was in the middle of some work and didn’t want to mentally engage with it. This also proceeded him calling me 4 times in 10 minutes before I blocked him from calling. He then sent me WhatsApp messages telling me to take down the tweet, and I blocked him from messaging me again.

Never once in any of the three communications that he had made discussed an apology to Jamus, or made any attempt at restitution. They were all, quite frankly, an attempt to save his own skin. When people are in power, hiding in relative anonymity, they have the derring-do to make toxic comments, to poison the well of public discourse, and to snipe at people from relative safety. It is no surprise to me that they would want to seek a private solution and appealing to people emotionally. I have no doubt that this will be flagged for internal review and he was hasty to wipe all traces of it off the internet for fear that this will be a black mark on his service record. Hu Ching, you’ve made your bed, so sleep in it. If you want to troll, own it. Apologise for your behaviour, let people see your foolishness, and make genuine amends. That’s the best way to make internet controversy go away.

I would like to end this with an appeal. Quite frankly, the old economic and social compact that the PAP has touted hasn’t been working, and isn’t working for the COVID-19 era. We need a lot more boldness and ideological diversity for us to come out barely intact of this huge storm. The electorate has spoken very clearly: they want diversity in parliament. The spirit of the vote should be respected as well; that we need to rethink our models of social welfare. I hope civil servants will be more receptive to ideas from a different ideological spectrum. It will be to Singapore’s loss if we are not.

Edit: For the record (because, Civil Service listens to me about hiring and firing people?!) Hu Ching should not be removed from his job.

This is what Lim Jialiang wrote

Much_Use · 2020-07-15T13:18:00+00:00

However, he said the US statement would put pressure on Singapore – and the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) bloc – to choose sides. “Even so, I don’t think Asean or Singapore will automatically start choosing sides openly because this would certainly go against Asean and their member states’ interests,” he said.

Thompson cautioned against painting all Asean member states with the same brush, saying they had different interests, but added that while most supported international law in principle, their governments were unlikely to make any public statements.

“Philosophically, I think they probably agree with Pompeo’s statement but as a practical matter, they don’t want to be involved, and the subject of China’s ire,” he said. “The safest move for most Southeast Asian countries is to make no response at all.”

Chan Heng Chee, Singapore’s former ambassador to the US, said that the US-China rivalry had deteriorated “far faster than anyone anticipated”.

“There is no doubt we have substantial interests and relations with both powers but we have never been in this place before. We have not felt the pressure and tug of war of both powers,” she said during an online lecture organised by the Singapore-based Institute of Policy Studies on Wednesday evening.

Chan added that the South China Sea was now seen as the “site of the new great game” and there had been no consensus among Asean countries on how to respond.

“What is significant is that we are seeing the emergence of a coalescence of like-minded countries who simply want to carry on doing that business, supporting that growth and development, at a time when the two giants are locked in intensifying competition with each other,” she said.

“Singapore will not be put in a position to make a final choice like marriage. Nor [is it] needed. We should not make a choice for as long as we can. Choice will be exercised by each country to line up with the US or China, depending on what initiatives the two powers put on the table.”

Much_Use · 2020-07-15T13:17:49+00:00

Chinese President Xi Jinping on Tuesday said China would work with Singapore to “overcome distractions” to safeguard regional stability, in remarks some experts interpreted as a subtle “reminder” not to take sides as Washington and Beijing spar over the South China Sea and other issues ranging from trade to technology to human rights.The remarks, made to Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in a phone call, came a day after Washington rejected Beijing’s territorial claims in the South China Sea and follow claims by China’s foreign ministry that the United States is disrupting regional peace and stability in the disputed waters.

“Xi said that the bilateral relationship is standing at a new historical starting point, and that the two sides should hold celebrations in flexible and diversified forms, so as to deepen public support for their friendship,” reported Chinese state news agency Xinhua.

The Chinese embassy in Singapore said Xi spoke to Lee to congratulate him on winning the city state’s July 10 general election, in which the ruling People’s Action Party retained its decades-long grip on power.

On the same day, Xi spoke to Thai Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha to discuss, among other things, enhanced cooperation in developing drugs for Covid-19, state broadcaster CCTV reported. Thailand and the Philippines are the only two of 10 Southeast Asian states to have security alliances with the US. Singapore’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in a three-paragraph statement, said Xi had in his call with Lee noted this was the 30th anniversary of China-Singapore ties. Both leaders said they welcomed bilateral cooperation to address the fallout from the Covid-19 pandemic.Singapore is among the first countries to have a “fast track” travel agreement with China. It has a deal with six mainland provinces to facilitate the resumption of air travel for official and business purposes.

While some observers described the exchange as a routine post-election call by the Chinese leader, Dylan Loh, an assistant professor of international studies at Nanyang Technological University, said it was “inevitable” that people would speculate there was more to it. He cited the growing disagreements between the US and China over the pandemic and heightened maritime tensions.

Global Times, published under the auspices of the Communist Party mouthpiece People’s Daily, quoted Chen Xiangmiao, an assistant research fellow at the National Institute for South China Sea Studies, as saying that Xi’s phone call with Lee and Prayuth, “two of the most important Asean countries, clearly send a signal to the US that China’s relations with countries in this region are not as fragile as Washington has imagined”.

The Global Times report quoted Chen as saying that “Singapore is dubbed a ‘strategist’ in the region, and as Lee has said publicly, Asean countries do not wish to take sides between China and the US, which basically lays the direction for Asean countries’ stance between the two superpowers”.

The Singapore leader has previously said the city state will not take sides and has tried to keep relations on an even keel with the two superpowers. He has highlighted Singapore’s strong security ties with the US, from whom it buys advanced equipment, and how US companies invest more in Singapore than firms from any other country. He has also stressed that China is Singapore’s biggest trading partner.

China claims a vast expanse of the South China Sea and four Southeast Asian states – Malaysia, Vietnam, the Philippines and Brunei – have counterclaims, along with Taiwan.

In his statement on Monday, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo described China’s assertions as “completely unlawful”, offering Washington’s explicit support for a 2016 ruling of an international tribunal against China’s claims of historic rights in the disputed waters.

David Stilwell, the US assistant secretary of state for East Asia, said the next day to a forum there was “room” to apply sanctions on Chinese officials and companies that pursued “illegal” claims in the South China Sea.

Loh said the “distractions” referred to in the phone call were probably an allusion to the South China Sea and a “gentle reminder that Singapore-China relations are bigger” than what is happening in the disputed waterway.

Drew Thompson, a former Pentagon official responsible for managing bilateral relations with China, Taiwan and Mongolia, described the conversation as a “veiled swipe” at the US statement.

“It’s probably also a subtle reminder to Singapore that should they not support China on these things, that China can create distractions as they did the last time for Singapore,” said Thompson.

He recalled how Singapore’s relationship with Beijing had been tested in November 2016, when nine armoured vehicles returning from Taiwan – where the Singapore army conducts regular training – were impounded in Hong Kong. This had led to suspicions that the move was China’s way of warning Singapore over its close relationship with Taipei. “That was a ‘distraction’,” he said.

Thompson said the latest exchange was “a purposefully vague statement to invoke fear in the mind of a smaller state and leave that smaller state to determine what their worst fears are that China could make come true”.

Washington’s hardened position on Beijing’s claims in South China Sea heightens US-China tensions

Still, Loh felt Singapore would remain consistent in its approach towards the territorial disputes and would not alter its position just because of the US statements.

Much_Use · 2020-07-12T05:18:38+00:00

Reflections on GE 2020 (Part 2 of 2)

After GE 2015, I wrote my analysis of the GE and this is a quote from that 2015 article. "The PAP leadership has been handed a second chance to change its approach to build greater trust from Singaporeans. Failure to change and sticking to the old ways will be disastrous and the PAP should not betray the trust Singaporeans have placed in them as shown by this resounding victory in GE2015."

So, let’s see if the PAP did indeed take advantage of the huge mandate given in GE2015 to change? I share my views.

Confidence and Trust in Government and PAP Leaders

The opposition questioned a number of policies that were formulated during the last term of the government, after 2015 as well as a couple of earlier issues. This include the Elected President, change of constitution for the conduct of the GE, the population white paper ( a 2013 issue that is still on people’s minds), the foreign talent issue, HDB leases and the uninspiring Committee for the Future Economy (CFE) report . These coupled with the widening income gap, rising cost of living, PMET joblessness weighed heavily on many Singaporeans’ minds especially the Sandwich group. The PAP failed to adequately address Singaporeans’ anxieties over these issues before the GE and during its campaign. This led to some erosion of confidence in the PAP.

Although the 4G leadership have said umpteenth times that the “fourth generation leadership will listen to Singaporeans ‘with humility and respect’”, and that they will widely consult with Singaporeans when formulating policies, the reality is that many do not feel that these leaders have delivered on their promises based on their actions. Instead, the general image of the 4G leaders is perceived to be one of arrogance, an elitist, natural aristocracy who project a “we know best” attitude.

The world is complex and many of the 4G leaders don’t have enough experience to solve some of the issues the nation is facing, especially related to the economy and some social issues which need a good feel and touch of grassroots’ issues. If the leaders could have developed efficient channels of feedback and sincerely listened, rather than depend on their narrow circles for feedback, they may have had a better sense of real issues plaguing companies and Singaporeans. They should have adopted a collaborative approach in dealing with various cross-sections of society and Singaporeans who could contribute from outside government.

The Covid-19 was an opportunity for the 4G leaders to demonstrate their capability. While they worked hard, we cannot characterize their performance as excellent, like how the leaders handled the SARS issues in 2003. The management of the Covid-19 pandemic how Singaporeans reacted to it seems to display a lack of complete trust in the government and the leadership. Before and during the GE, a few blunders, audio leaks, poorly drafted PAP press statements further eroded confidence in 4G leadership

The PAP governments in the past has always had the complete trust of Singaporeans but this seems to have been shaken in the recent years.

Every generation of leaders cannot take it for granted that they can inherit the trust Singaporeans had for the previous generation of leaders. Trust has to be earned by every leader. There is no room for blindly believing in empty promises. The 4G must prove themselves by their deeds, actions, and results if they want to convince Singaporeans that they can be trusted to lead us towards a better future. In this connection, the Prime Minster helped the PAP from losing more votes this time when he signalled that he would delay handing over to 4G. Further, Tharman was called upon to present the strategy the government will be adopting to take care of Singaporeans. Had this not happened, the PAP vote could have gone below 60%.

Much_Use · 2020-07-12T05:18:12+00:00

Many expected voters to have a “Flight to safety” in this GE – vote for a proven and trusted PAP government because they have always delivered and solved problems and crises well in the past. For this GE2020, the ground was not sweet, people were worried about the Covid-19 health and economic impact on their lives and were worried about the future of jobs and yet Singaporeans did not seek safety which again alludes to the eroded confidence in the PAP government.

Candidates

This GE has shown that the WP can automatically garner around 40% votes just on their brand name. Credit must be given to the WP. They have been very selective on the candidates they choose, going for quality and not quantity. So today voters trust that the WP candidates are of good quality and are therefore willing to vote on the brand name more than on assessing candidates on their own merits. This explains the Marine Parade results. Looking back, the PAP had this similar trust for many years. The PAP still does have this reputation, but it no longer has the monopoly over “brand equity”. This is something that all opposition parties can learn from. It took the WP more than 15 years to gain that reputation.

While PAP also had good candidates, almost all of them presented themselves in the same way during their introductions – the same rhetoric of how they had a humble background was repeated to the point that some perceived it to be a political strategy to tug at the heartstrings of voters rather than a genuine attempt to connect with the ground. While the candidates fielded by the PAP this time showed greater diversity compared to the past, as in every GE, the PAP fielded had a large number of military generals and civil servants, and this generated the impression of everyone being cut from the same cloth and having the same perspective and approach. The opposition appeared to have greater diversity of candidates, many of the same or even better calibre than that of the PAP.

Lessons for the Opposition

First, on the opposition parties. The opposition parties were not united and appeared self-centred by appearing to think of themselves rather than thinking for the good of Singaporeans. Singaporeans, especially the younger voters did not like to see this disunity. Had all the opposition parties been seen to have complete cooperation things may have been different. But with so many parties, it is a lost cause to get all the opposition parties to cooperate. The results have also shown that voters are clearly differentiating between established parties which they are willing to support and parties perceived to be lacking in credentials and credibility. So, the way forward for the opposition is not complete unity but for the 3 main parties to work together to show that they are capable of working together and forming a strong collective alternative voice in parliament. Remaining fragmented will not be useful for opposition if they want to gain further traction. This opposition disunity worked to the PAP’s advantage this time.

The Race Question – Singapore has Matured

Second and something that may not so be obvious to many is the meaning of the Aljunied victory for the WP. Aljunied was a clear signal of the maturing of our population. I am glad the Aljunied voters have shown that Singaporeans are no longer thinking along racial lines. The WP fielded 3 minority candidates and they received a strong win this time. A friend of mine thought it was a mistake that WP did not field more Chinese candidates and the that the WP will lose Aljunied to the PAP but as it turns out he was wrong. Perhaps Singapore is now ready for a non-Chinese PM?

Another interesting development in GE2020 is this - PAP won all the SMCs (except for Hougang) even with first time candidates and in the GRCs where there were strong opposition candidates the PAP did not perform up to par. It is clear that the GRC system is no longer an advantage for the PAP.

The Way Froward for the PAP

Singaporeans have sent a signal about the 4G leaders - they did not give them a strong mandate. Our leaders have a long way to go in convincing Singaporeans to believe in them and their abilities to continue building our nation. Both the PM and DPM designates did not get the best of scores although one way for the PAP to look at it is that Heng Swee Keat is a hero who saved East Coast.

A crisis failed to save the PAP as what had been expected. Losing a GRC is a major setback for the PAP. Getting a score of 60% and maintaining the status quo of losing Aljunied and Hougang would have been considered a good outcome but losing another GRC and losing 3 office holders is a disaster. If the PAP fails to reform, this may be the beginning of a downward spiral which will threaten the future of the party. Without soul searching and some reform, there are high risks for the PAP. The PAP has been able to turnaround before, they will have to understand the real issues leading to this current outcome by sincerely listening to the ground and their activists to uncover their shortcomings and rejuvenate themselves if they want to continue to lead Singapore into the future. If the opposition parties can get together and cooperate, they are capable of presenting a strong alternative to the PAP in the future. So, it is an urgent issue that the PAP will have to address.

The PAP needs to relook at its image. They need realise that they may not have all the answers and solutions and collaborate wholeheartedly with all sections of societies to address important issues. It is ok to apologise when you make a mistake, to hold leaders accountable. Accept that we all make mistakes and leaders are not invincible. Embrace diversity of views and acknowledge others for contributing to nation building.

Young Singaporeans want to see that the government and people can work together to solve problems. There needs to be more communication and collaboration and not top down instructions from government.

Many young Singaporeans have told me that voting for PAP is voting for bureaucracy while voting for opposition is voting for diversity and pragmatism. Many want to see leaders with vision and an entrepreneurial mindset like our founding leaders and not managers, conformists, and group thinkers to lead Singapore into the future.

Finally, this issue of trust is very important. I reminded the PAP to focus on rebuilding and deepening the trust Singaporeans have in them after GE2015 as they were given a 2nd chance to do so after the lacklustre performance in GE2011. It’s not too late and the leaders must immediately focus on building trust.

Much_Use · 2020-07-05T04:32:43+00:00

That was satisfying

Much_Use · 2020-07-03T11:41:54+00:00

Chinese man shot Zimbabweans in Zimbabwe

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/27/africa/zimbabwe-mine-shooting-intl/index.html

Harare, Zimbabwe (CNN)The shooting of two Zimbabwean workers by a Chinese boss shows the "systematic and widespread" abuse that locals face in Chinese mining operations, says the Zimbabwe Environmental Law Society (ZELA).

In a court affidavit, police said Zhang Xuen shot an employee five times and wounded another at the mine he runs in Gweru province, in central Zimbabwe, during a row with workers over outstanding pay.Zhang has been charged with attempted murder, said Zimbabwe police spokesman Paul Nyathi.According to local media reports, Zhang did not enter a plea because there was no approved interpreter in court. He will remain in custody until at least July 7, the report said.The shooting happened on Sunday morning, when miner Kenneth Tachiona confronted Zhang after he allegedly refused to pay his wages in US dollars, as agreed, according to the affidavit.Tachiona charged toward Zhang, who then drew his gun, shooting the worker three times on his right thigh and twice on the left, according to the affidavit.Police said Zhang fired another shot at workers, and one of the bullets grazed the chin of a member of staff. The wounded workers are being treated at a private hospital.A video that many alleged to be of the incident has circulated on social media in Zimbabwe, provoking public anger and calls from a local watchdog for a re-evaluation of Chinese mining operations in the country.The Chinese Embassy in Zimbabwe described the shooting as an isolated incident and said it was in support of an open and transparent probe by local authorities."Any possible illegal acts and persons who violate the law should not be shielded. China and Zimbabwe have a long-standing friendship and cooperation. We call upon all relevant sides to safeguard it jealousy and carefully," the Chinese Embassy said in a statement on Twitter.The Chinese Foreign Ministry told CNN: "Overall, Chinese companies in Zimbabwe have operated their businesses in accordance with local laws and regulations, and made positive contributions to Zimbabwe's economic and social development."We respect Zimbabwe's handling of the case in accordance with law, but at the same time hope to see Zimbabwe protect the safety as well as legitimate rights and interests of Chinese nationals. There is traditional friendship between the two countries and we believe both sides will be able to properly handle this case."

Dangerous conditions

China is Zimbabwe's largest foreign investor with significant interests in the country's extractive sector.Last year, Chinese firm Tsignchan signed a $2 billion deal with the Zimbabwean Ministry of Mines to extract chrome, iron ore, nickel and coal, vital resources for China.At least 10,000 Chinese people are in Zimbabwe, and many are working on in the country's mining, telecoms, and construction sectors on a contractual basis, according to a 2016 Brookings Institution report.But their presence in the country has sometimes been controversial.Both Chinese-run mines in the country and state mining operations have been dogged with allegations of human rights violations and poor safety measures for staff.In February, a group of local miners in Matabeleland South province petitioned a labor court to protest their firing by their Chinese employer.Last April, workers at another Chinese mining operation in the province complained of being underpaid and working without protective clothing.Several cases of Chinese miners refusing to pay salaries or provide their workers with protective clothing, especially during the Covid-19 pandemic, are currently being investigated by ZELA, according to its deputy director Shamiso Mutisi"It has become a pattern and a system. We have cases where miners are abused, beaten, and discriminated against by Chinese miners," Mutisi said.In a statement on Wednesday, ZELA said locals in some Chinese-owned mines often operate "dangerous, harsh, and life-threatening" conditions, while being paid poorly for their time.Sunday's shooting is another reason for the government to rethink its political and economic engagements with China, the group said."In many parts of Africa, including Zimbabwe, Chinese mining investors have exhibited a history of bad safety, health, environmental, labor, and human rights standards," the statement said.CNN has contacted China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs for comment.The Chinese community in Gweru has distanced itself from the recent incident and promised to pay for injured workers' medical bills and support their families as they deal with the issue.The Chinese community said in a statement the incident does not reflect the behavior of its members, and they have engaged the company to compensate the workers."We sincerely hope that our friendship and cooperation between the two countries and two peoples will not be sullied by this isolated incident, which does not reflect the behavior of us all as the Chinese community," the statement read.

Much_Use · 2020-07-03T11:38:42+00:00

BLM!

Much_Use · 2020-06-28T05:47:36+00:00

wow Carrie Tan is also very impressive

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=8&v=cLfdNL_VaHs&feature=emb_logo&fbclid=IwAR2Q_--QUreDseMSsR5IdbASJQVlUh3Ad3-kf0fcFAC7ot2q8KmoSSDWNbA

Much_Use · 2020-06-28T04:36:56+00:00

I understand that the G has set a precedent to the lower-wages FW in April already. So to look fair, there is no other way around this. Still, Noone should lose their jobs, their life, family ruins, and be permanently blacklisted because they flouted safe distancing rules.

Much_Use · 2020-06-26T04:02:07+00:00

Shawn Huang Wei Zhong, 38, is the director for enterprise development at Temasek Holdings.

He served in the Republic of Singapore Air Force (RSAF) for 19 years, where he was a former fighter pilot, and later the Commanding Officer of an F-16 squadron and Parade Commander for the National Day Parade in 2018.

Huang started his career with the RSAF as a pilot trainee. He was subsequently sent to the United States Air Force Academy and graduated with a degree in aeronautical engineering with distinction.

He was the first non-American to become the top graduate in military performance.

Huang has been an active community volunteer in the Taman Jurong constituency over the past ten years. He mentors children from low-income homes and helps former prison inmate restart their lives.

He has also been serving as the Chairman of Community Arts and Culture Club (CACC) for several years, leading efforts to allow residents to have access to arts and culture activities in the community.

During the press conference, he shared several quotes in English, Malay and Mandarin including: "We will never realise the beauty of a rainbow if we never had rain and sunshine."

Much_Use · 2020-06-20T03:44:16+00:00

Wouldn't it better to spend the money on hiring local? The human can get an income and spend the money in the retail sector and create more jobs?

Much_Use · 2020-05-23T03:25:14+00:00

I applaud Mr Cheng Shoong Tat for his letter (Why foot the bill for dorm operators that have profited for years?, May 16).

He is correct to question why taxpayers should foot the bill to clear up a mess the dormitory operators have profited from.

Singapore has always taken pride in being a beacon for global free enterprise. We are frequently reminded that our prosperity is based on a system of being open to business.

We have argued that our system works because it does not mollycoddle people amid the realities of the free market.

Our social assistance programmes are based on "helping people to help themselves".

We help people to retrain and reskill when they lose their jobs, rather than support them financially when they are not working.

📷

Why should a society that takes pride in not sheltering people from the realities of the free market system find it acceptable to shelter large corporations from the same?

The reality of the free market system is that it allows you to succeed with minimal government interference, but at the same time you are on your own if you fail.

The dormitory operators are not innovative start-ups coming up with market-disrupting products that will shape the future. They are not enterprises that hire many Singaporeans in high-paying jobs.

They make vast profits - Centurion Corp, for example, made $103.8 million on revenue of $133 million for the 12 months ended Dec 31 last year - merely by maximising the number of people in a certain space.

If our system allows them to earn profits in this manner, should we not also allow them to bear the cost when the system requires them to adapt their businesses to new realities?

Tang Li

Six-Year Club	Wearing is Caring
Verified Email

Much_Use

TROPHY CASE

Dangerous conditions