Yes, Mr Ong will be remembered and there's no need for him to publish any self-high autobiography.
That is a large sum of money. If we think far ahead, it is meaningless to fight like this. In the end, who is the one who gets the money?
An ideal case I feel would be for both parties, PM Lee and Roy, to just come to a peace-seeking conclusion where they both don't have to be in court.
But the agreement is that PM Lee holds a public open forum (not the kind where the audience or speakers have been pre-selected) to answer all questions and comments (positive or negative) regarding the CPF issues. There is no 100% solution on what to do. CPF is not all bad. The PM has to explain to the general public why the government is doing what it is now. On the other hand, the public has the right to express their concerns and perhaps come up with some solutions to let the government decide if they are workable.
Right now, all we hear is the PM is suing Roy on what the latter has said. But really, so what? That's between the 2 of them. I think what the people want to hear and know also is how the CPF is actually a good thing as the government has claimed.
If the PM is so confident about the way he is building this nation, I don't think there is anything he should be afraid to hide from. But so far, I've not seen any such frank open sessions being held yet.
On Roy's part, after such a session is held and deemed successful, he is to take down all his negative posts regarding CPF on his blog.
The money collected so far can then go to charitable organizations to help the poor. The end result? People who understand better where the government is heading and why CPF works as it is right now. And the poor will benefit from this episode.
*poof* Unfortunately, I think I am only dreaming. The real ending is likely to be: The PM will continue to sue Roy. The rich (PM and lawyers) will become even richer, questions are left unanswered and many more will still shoot negative opinions about CPF. And *** might just lose more votes. It's a lose-lose situation.
John Lennon's Imagine comes to my mind now: Imagine all the people, living life in peace....
But it's not to be.
The writings are all over the wall: the authority will come down hard on certain cyber writings. Be careful what you write - in ANY place real or virtual.
I read through The Hearts Truth again, to see if I missed anything. I really don't know whether to laugh, cry, fume or pity, or all together And I am surprised many people have jumped on the bandwagon, for people living in the 21st century! Driven by the heart but minus the brains perhaps?
Last edited by s1221ljc; 5th June 2014 at 07:53 PM.
If your mind has decided that the articles were wrong and decided to ridicule them, it doesn't matter how many times you read them. If you think that this is still about the articles, then you are about 2 weeks behind. This is no longer about the articles. This is about underlying emotions finding its way to the surface. Imagine a few articles online, never mind if they were right or wrong, can stir up that much negative vibe against those in power. It says something. A leader in touch with the ground would be concerned. Good luck trying to convince the people to go with their brains when there are so many unanswered questions and issues with trust.
To me this is but politics at play lah, what articles, who involved, who support..... If articles have no truths, made no sense its about trust, with whom? Is this really a search by an innocent for the truth? Can we demand the truths by spouting falsities? Those who are convinced & choose to oppose already done so & will continue to do so, the articles are just the vehicles or excuse for it. Believed you yourself called it a "freak show"?
Last edited by s1221ljc; 5th June 2014 at 09:31 PM.
It is important to recognise that many concerned citizens are not donating in support of the cause as championed by an attention seeker that no one barely knows about weeks before but as a symbol of "disgruntled rebelliance" against the institution of state.
If a crazed dog has bitten Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in the buttocks, I'm pretty sure that particular crazed dog would have received far more donations in kind for medical treatment resulting from posttruamatic psychological trauma aftermath, than Roy Ngerng Yi Ling ever did
CPF is flawed is one thing, accusing someone for pocketing money is another thing.
If i send an email to my whole company and make suggestion that my director is pocketing company's money u think i will "pok gai" or not.
Last edited by s1221ljc; 6th June 2014 at 10:03 PM.
I'm sure many of us have read her text before. An open letter by Katherine Lim.
however, some of her thoughts are outdated/poorly thought as well.
who cares if she's a noted author or someone who can write pretty gosh darn well.
also, her target audience aren't literary geniuses. i don't think they'll understand what she's trying to say. simple English, not The Queen's English please
once again, it's the fact of the matter, that those hard-core opposition supporters (and even hard-core ruling party supporters) who are twisting it out of context and using it for their own agenda.
i do agree with sue the heck out of that idiot. because he brought it upon himself. Katherine should know very damn well what this means, for all that education she has.
The difference between a lawyer and a leader is to know when to use all legal tools and forces that one has at hand - and when not to.
We will see what the PM decides to be.
"There are times when a very good, firm karate chop is necessary. And deliver it cleanly. Don't have two chops where one would do." - LKY
Problem is, after first chop, hand pain pain. Now thinking what to do next.
D800 | N 50/1.8G | N 24-70/2.8G | T 150-600VC | S 35/1.4DG
weather is hot, please drink more water.