Opinions

In a Facebook post, WP Chief, Pritam Singh, reflected on his participation in the ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Assembly held in Bangkok. 

The Singapore parliamentary delegation included members of both opposition and ruling parties.  It was led by Speaker of Parliament, Tan Chuan-Jin, from the PAP.

Singh shared that one of the more popular questions asked of the delegation is how it was possible for the opposition MPs to "operate in a bipartisan manner with the PAP MPs overseas, even as we sit on opposite sides of the house at home."

His response was that:

Everyone, including the opposition, wants Singapore to succeed and envisions a better future for our people. Disagreements, different approaches/philosophies is a reality of the human condition. It is no different in Singapore.

Our parliamentary democracy give us the platform to have different views represented in Parliament and to debate and criticise ideas and policies.

But once we leave our shores, a broadly united front amongst all parliamentary MPs is consistent with the better future we in the WP seek for Singapore.

Indeed, all Singaporeans want to see a Singapore that is safe, and progressing. Regardless of the party you are from or the party you supported or voted for, you want a Singapore that is prosperous. 

It is to everyone's benefit.

However, is it always necessary to present a united front when representing Singapore overseas?

There are different perspectives and views on civil and individual liberties in Singapore under the PAP. Does WP then defend the PAP when they are overseas? 

The idea is that opposing or contrarian views and rigorous debates can help to improve Singapore. This is the reason why people join opposition parties in the first place.

This difference shouldn't be diluted because of the location or occassion.

What are your views? Do you think local and opposition parties should present a united front overseas?

A note was published by one Shawn Lee, titled "The Underlying Message of the ‘19 National Day Rally Speech?" In the note, Lee managed to link Pinky's national day rally in Chinese in which he talked about the US-China tensions to how we need to be on guard against foreign influence.

In Lee's note, he claims that Pinky chose this time to talk about the tension due to 

"officials’ increasing fear of Chinese influence on the domestic population".

However, as I look over Pinky's talk, he mainly talked about how our economy might be affected down the road as well as our external relations with both China and US. In gist, Pinky wants to continue being friends with both countries so that we can continue to benefit from both countries.

Pinky only cares about his own safety and more importantly, MONEY. What underlying message is there???

Don't you feel that Lee is reading too much into it? It's like looking at a person walking into the toilet and thinking "HE MUST BE GOING TO THE TOILET TO TAKE A SHIT". But in actual fact, the person just wanted to wash his hands. Furthermore, does he really think that sinkies are so daft that they would not realise that they are being influenced? I mean come on, give us some credit here.

Now I do agree that we should be always on guard against foreign influence. I mean, who would want to be influenced to do something against their own will? But isn't it a little too far-fetched to raise alarms about foreign influence over a National Day Rally talking about our economy? As Mparader would say (hehe)

"He is like Don Quixote tilting at windmills"

While I get that Lee might want to wayang and get into the good books of the Men in White, but please stop stirring shit and scaring people for no reason.

So Fattybombom-sizzle (FBB) has apologised again to members of the public for an incident that happened to a customer yesterday.

In the first apology statement made early yesterday morning at about 9 plus, FBB informed everyone that their staff that made the racial remark (totally uncalled for) has been terminated almost immediately. 

FBB has also assured the public and their loyal fans that FBB management will not let such a mistake happen again. 

Honestly is this "mistake" easily forgettable? Not to mention, we were not the victim who suffered the cruel joke. We either are just reading or talking about it. Being a joke, laughing stock at the expense of others. Not easy at all to forget.

After the first apology, some people were delighted because the management took swift action to resolve the matter.

But what FBB did not see coming was that the public was still angry about the other staffs that participated in the joke. THOSE THAT LAUGHED.

They laughed instead of stopping the joke, instead of apologising and standing up for the customer.

Yes this is unacceptable. Laughing to the joke is akin to being the racist himself!

So that's when the second apology came minutes ago.  

And as expected, it was disappointing. FBB reviewed the security footage of the particular incident yesterday to see the other staffs that was involved.

They decided to give a final stern warning to them instead..

What do you guys think? Can accept?

Was what the management did enough?

Should we all just move on?

Activist, Roy Ngerng, criticised the an article published in local mainstream news outlets, that touched on how low-income Singaporeans try to make ends meet. That report was based on statistics compiled by SingStat that showed that the bottom 20% of Singaporean households are, on average, spending more than their monthly income of $2,2235. 

Ngerng was of the view that the article has done a disservice to the group. He asserts that they can't make ends meet because their wages are too low.

Instead of addressing this issue of wages being too low, the article quoted several PAP MPs on what the government can or cannot do, and how the situation has improved.

So, you have PAP MP Rahayu Mahzam who says "there is no immediate solution, but the Government will look into these problems to see how they can be better addressed". So, no solution.

Then, you have PAP MP Louis Ng who says it has become "more affordable" to raise children today, and PAP GRC MP Seah Kian Peng who says milk powder is also "more affordable". By "more affordable", he means a can of milk powder below S$30. This is affordable? But it's OK, the more they tell you, the more you will believe it, they think.

Then, you have PAP MP Lily Neo who says Singapore's 3M system does not deprive anyone of healthcare due to a lack of means.

Ngerng disagreed with those assertions.

A $30 milk bottle can't be considered as "affordable". He also pointed out anecdotal evidence of people who can't afford to pay for their cancer treatments, or who can't use their Medisave for healthcare.

Ngerng didn't beat about the bush. He was very clear that Singaporeans can't make ends meet simply because they aren't earning enough.

Hence, it was perplexing to Ngerng why Singaporeans continue to vote for the PAP.

Again, he pulled no punches. He left us with something to ponder on:

If we are too scared to change things, might as well wait for handouts from the very people who oppress us and take away our wages.

Or maybe we can vote for change? It's up to you, whether you feel it's painful enough yet. If not, it's OK to suffer a bit more. It's only been 60 years under the PAP. What's another 100 years?

So how about it? Are you ready to make change?

A netizen, Robert Teh, voiced his unhappines at the alleged poor customer service practices of Keppel Electric.

Teh shared that while had already paid the first bill of $28.51 by cheque, and also submitted his GIRO application form, he has continued to receive numerous payment reminders.

He also alleged that Keppel Electric threatened to terminate his account.

Attempts to speak to the customer service department at 68033000 has proved futile. Teh alleged that his calls were repeatedly cut off when he was asked to wait.

For Teh, he needs confirmation that Keppel Electric has rceived his payment as well as his GIRO application.

Teh may be right to feel aggrieved.

He claims to have made payment.

So, instead of sending more letters demanding payment, even if these were automatically sent out, they should ascertain whether the payment was successul.

If it wasn't, they need to be clear that the payment wasn't successful and nothing was paid. They should offer a solution instead of merely sending a lawyer's letter to him.

In a competitive environment, consumers weigh every factor, including the standards of customer service, to determine which company they should purchase from.

Customers are kings. They can just switch to other service providers.

On its Facebook page, Singapore Post (SingPost), strongly refuted claims of religious discrimination by an ex-employee.

In a now-removed Facebook post, the ex-employee, among others, alleged that her husband had been unfairly dismissed on religious grounds. This was purportedly due to him having to go to the mosque for evening prayers.

SingPost disputed the allegations, saying that it does not practice religious discrimination and that in fact, it has in place numerous policies to allow its employees to practice their faith.and workplace safety-related breaches.

Attempting to set the record straight, SingPost shared that the husband was dismissed due to "several serious work lapses made over the past months, including compromising mail security and safety-related breaches". 

The worker in question was given a final-warning in July, after several rounds of counselllings and verbal warnings.

So who is in the right?

This is something that the Manpower Ministry (MOM) must look into.

Although, SingPost has gone on public record with the reasons behind the dismissal, the public, regardless of their religious backgrounds, deserve to know that no such religious discrimination took place.

Racial and religious harmony is precious. 

All of us need to play our part to preserve it. If the allegations were indeed baseless, ex-employees need to be held responsible for their actions.