Tag Archives: Calvin Cheng

POST-LKY ERA: THREE REASONS WHY SINGAPOREANS MAY WANT MORE DEMOCRACY

Since quite a few of my friends on Facebook circulated Calvin Cheng’s article on The Independent and Huffington Post, I thought it deserves a response. Cheng’s essential point is that Singapore didn’t trade away political freedoms for social order, or democratic accountability for economic growth. There are at least three elementary mistakes that Cheng makes in his piece that allow for it to be a very useful case study in classes on logic and politics.

Read More »

CALVIN CHENG: WESTERN LIBERAL STOOGES SHOULD STOP SPREADING MYTHS ABOUT LKY

An opinion I am seeing making the rounds is that Mr. Lee Kuan Yew gave Singapore economic prosperity at the expense of liberty. This is the common myth propounded by Western liberals and their local stooges. I ask you : what freedoms did Lee Kuan Yew take from us? You want the freedom to riot, to spit, to urinate in lifts, to have ugly dried-up chewing gum plastering our pavements? The freedom to spray graffiti on public property, to vandalise, to protest outside other people's homes and businesses and disrupt their lives and livelihoods ? The freedom to litter, throw rubbish from our apartments?

Read More »

S’PORE LAW ONLY PROTECT THE GOVT AND BUSINESSES

If you look at our laws, they have always veered toward the government and businesses. God forbid, if you let customers have a greater weight in the scale of justice or even a balanced weight, you may get citizens actually clamoring for more rights against the government. After all, customers are also citizens. You may have Competition Commission Singapore (CCS) to ensure a fair playing field, Calvin Cheng was fined for a scheme of “price-fixing when he was the President of the Association of Modelling Industry Professionals (AMIP).”

Read More »

FORMER PAP MEMBER: NO ONE IS NEUTRAL. NON-PARTISANSHIP IS BULLSHIT?

Few individuals are non-partisan or neutral. Even in a mature democracy such as the United States, polls have shown that although up to a third of respondents say they are swing voters, only about 3 per cent of people truly are. I believe even if non-membership of a political party needs to be written into the Constitution as a criterion, Parliament should consider expunging the description of non-partisanship. NMPs are independent, not being under any party whip, but an objective state of mind cannot be a qualifying criterion. One need not have joined a party in order to be partisan.

Read More »