World Cup Public Holiday hoax reported to Police

From ‘President Tony Tan did not declare July 14 a public holiday: Istana’, 14 July 2014, article in Today

The authorities have clarified that the President’s Office did not issue any letter declaring today (July 14) a public holiday. According to a statement issued by the President’s Office, a “letter circulating on mobile and online platforms in the name of President Tony Tan Keng Yam” had declared July 14 a public holiday.

The President’s Office reiterated that it had issued no such letter, adding that public holidays are announced by the Ministry of Manpower. According to the hoax letter, the holiday was meant to allow all Singaporeans to have a chance to watch the 2014 FIFA World Cup Final between Germany and Argentina, and had the approval of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong. Government offices would be closed today, the letter claimed.

A police report has been lodged and  investigations are ongoing, police said.

Last year, MP Irene Ng was impersonated by someone posting a fake haze article on The Real Singapore website using a bogus email account. A police report was lodged but I’m not sure if the culprit was ever caught. In the President’s case, not only do you have a potential impersonation charge, but another on ‘false transmission of information’.

The letter is unlikely to cause a premature rapture followed by mass absenteeism in offices since we would typically trust the mainstream media to feed us such vital info. Also if this were genuine, the President wouldn’t have announced the good news only during the FINALS. I doubt the prankster had any malicious intentions, and no one would be dumb enough to take the letter seriously. After all, this ‘Tony Tan’ isn’t declaring war on a neighbouring country, or freaking us out by saying there is a giant asteroid on a collision-course with the planet like what more illustrious presidents do in cosmic disaster movies, so the Police shouldn’t worry about widespread panic or looting on the streets.

There was never a time when a World Cup holiday, or even half-day, was granted in Singapore, not least because we were never in the tournament and therefore have no reason to celebrate as a nation. But that didn’t stop people from urging the government to declare public holidays for other less spectacular occasions, to no avail of course.

1. Former President S R Nathan’s Inauguration Day

2. Hindu and Sikh New Year’s Day (April 13)

3. Lao Zi’s Birthday (Taoist Day)

4. Raffles/Founder’s Day, Lim Bo Seng’s Day, Multi-Racial Day

5. An additional day off for our 25th National Day. We can try asking for this again next year for our 50th.

6. Confucius’ birthday

And here are some facts you never knew about our public holidays.

1. Thaipusam used to be a public holiday.

2. We used to have BANK holidays. THREE in 1960 alone. These were subsequently abolished in 1966.

3. Vesak Day used to be called WESAK Day.

4. Dr Sun Yat-Sen’s birthday, Nov 12,  used to be a public holiday.

5. Before 1968 we had 16 PHs. Today we have 10.

If there’s one thing this hoax taught us though, it’s that there’s actually one LESS thing that our president can do. Now, MOM, how about bringing back a bank holiday or two, then?

About these ads

Malaysia building a Forest City below Second Link

From ‘Mega reclamation project off Johor raises concerns’, 22 June 2014, article in ST

Singapore has expressed concern to Malaysia over a proposal for a massive reclamation project to create an island in the Strait of Johor below the Second Link. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) confirmed yesterday that Singapore has asked for more information so it can study the possible impact on the Republic and the strait. “They have agreed to do so and we hope to receive the information soon,” a spokesman said in response to media queries.

A report in the Malaysian daily The Star yesterday said that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has written to his Malaysian counterpart, Datuk Seri Najib Razak, about the project.

…The Star reported last Monday that China property developer Country Garden Holdings and a Johor government company, Kumpulan Prasarana Rakyat Johor, were planning the reclamation project called Forest City for luxury homes.

The idea to create a 2,000ha island – nearly three times the size of Ang Mo Kio estate – will take 30 years to complete, Mr Kayson Yuen, Country Garden’s regional president for the project, told the paper. A project map showed part of the man-made island under the Second Link, which connects Tuas in Singapore to Johor.

The Edge Review online magazine reported last month that Johor’s Sultan Ibrahim Ismail Sultan Iskandar was behind the project, which was being promoted actively by powerful Johor politicians.

Island in the stream

Nobody ever creates an artifical island, calls it ‘Forest City’ and expects it to be a miniature replica of the planet Pandora in Avatar, where the mode of transport is swinging vine and residents live in tree-huts. The name ‘Country Garden’ is also scathingly ironic given that these guys from China don’t build barns and landscaped lawns for a living, but high-rise luxury housing, with existing projects in Danga Bay. In 2012, the company acquired 22 ha of prime waterfront land in the Iskandar region, to the approval of Malaysia PM Najib. Even our own Temasek Holdings has got a stake in the region. CG’s logo is ‘To create a better SOCIETY with our existence’, which sounds eerily like Red Army propaganda. It doesn’t say ‘to create better neighbours with our existence’. In any case, our very Earth itself is better off if such globetrotting property developers never existed at all. Unlike how it’s named, there’s nothing remotely ‘green’ about building an entire artificial island from scratch in the middle of the sea.

Land use has always been a prickly issue between us and the Malaysians. In 2002, Malaysia’s Trade and Industry Minister called for his countrymen to SUE the Singapore government for our reclamation works along Tebrau Strait, even though these were within our borders. Fishermen staged protests about dredging affecting their livelihoods, while others complained about the narrowing of shipping lanes and damage to marine life. The Foreign Minister bashed us for our ‘selfishness’ and not being a ‘good neighbour’. It also wasn’t the first time that Singapore has embarked on land reclamation, leading some to speculate this was a case of the Malaysian politicians seizing the chance to ‘put Singapore in its place’ out of sheer jealousy. A year later, our neighbour decided to bring the matter up to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, arguing for our project to be ceased because it could ‘permanently scar’ the environment. We eventually won the case, but some refused to let the issue go even up till 2007, blaming a spate of floods in JB on our reclamation works on Pulau Tekong. Incidentally, Tekong means ‘obstacle’ in Malay.

Could this ambitious undertaking right under the Second Link be a major case of tit for tat? The Forest City project has powerful backing in the Sultan as well as a China conglomerate, and if even Najib endorses this like how he welcomed the Danga Bay development and our pleas go ignored, it appears that going back to international courts may be the only recourse. It is important, however, that both nations don’t lose sight of the bigger picture (or miss the ‘FOREST’ for the trees for that matter) in the pursuit of happy bilateral relations and economic growth. Not much is known of the long term environmental impact of any form of land reclamation, be in within or outside our borders, and the consequences of any human interference on a complex, interweaving ecosystem are often beyond our understanding, beyond the artificial boundaries we create between ourselves.

Even as we attempt to increase our own size by up to 9 ‘AMK towns’, there are valid concerns about the impact on tidal flows, even on the coastal waters of neighbouring countries. There are also concerns of the impact of our land expansion on native coral reefs. We should be careful not to be come across as having double standards if we’re plowing ahead at the expense of our own environment, not to mention other countries’. It’s like accusing a neighbour next door of having an all-day BBQ when we’re burning incense in our garden.  Before criticising the move, it would have been prudent to study what we’re doing to ourselves. It is likely however, knowing the temperament of Malaysian politicians, that if we make noise this time round, they’ll bring up the 2002 case again, saying that if Singapore can do it, why not us? At the rate of the sea being filled around us, it’s only a matter of time before what separates the two countries is nothing more than a couple of shipping lanes and a token bridge over troubled waters.

We already have a ‘transboundary’ problem with the Indonesians from the haze, now we have another one bugging us from the north. PM Lee, PM Najib, perhaps this would be a good time to remind you guys about this:

That’s what friends are for

Zouk an institution that needs saving

From ‘Zouk may shut by year end’ 18 June 2014, article by Joyce Lim, ST

The founder of Zouk, Mr Lincoln Cheng, says he is tired of getting short lease extensions for the popular dance club’s Jiak Kim Street site. If he does not get a three-year extension he is now requesting, he will close the 23-year-old iconic nightspot for good by the end of this year.

…When the club first opened in 1991, the land around it was largely vacant. But today, the club – which is situated within three recently conserved riverside warehouses – is dwarfed by neighbouring condominiums and hotels. It was no surprise, therefore, when questions about the fate of Zouk started making the rounds in 2012.

…When told of the news, celebrity presenter and Zouk regular Najip Ali said he was shocked. “When Zouk opened, it was ahead of its time. In the 1990s, Zouk put a stamp on the kind of nightlife that didn’t exist.” It was where he learnt about music and deejays. “Zouk has been and is still an institution,” he said.

Development plans aside, it was MP Indranee Rajah (“If Zouk was not there, then it is unlikely the youth would congregate there.”) who indirectly blamed the rise in drunken rowdiness in the Robertson Quay area on the dance ‘institution’. Since complaints by residents, the Government has been mooting the idea of a ‘no-alcohol’ zone so that babies from nearby condos can sleep at night. If Zouk were an ‘institution’, then its graduates are Masters in Inebriation. No riot has broken out on Jiak Kim Street so far, though there may soon be a protest or two. Like the SaveZouk campaign for example. I wonder what colour these guys will be wearing. Maybe neon rainbow.

I’ve been to the club myself a few times, and back in those days it was a hedonistic eye-opener seeing people gyrating on raised platforms, revellers decked out in the wildest accessories, meeting gays, transgenders and Najip Ali, sweating and grinding to guest DJs spinning revolutionary dance tracks that no other disco at the time were keen to play. In the 90′s, Zouk WAS Clubbing, a place that has become synonymous with a street with the unlikeliest of names in ‘Jiak Kim’. You didn’t need to give taxi drivers directions or addresses. You just had to say ‘Zouk’, and he’d give you that knowing wink and a nod, sometimes breaking out into small talk about how ‘happening’ you are. Then again, it’s also the same place that revived Rick Astley’s popularity, thanks to Mambo Jumbo Nights, a phenomenon that has even been exported out for the 2012 Singapore Day in New York.

For 23 years, Singaporean merrymakers have stayed faithful to the icon of glam, the ‘queen’ of clubs, despite intrusions by global players like Ministry of Sound and Supperclub, which all bowed out of the scene entirely while Zouk continued to attract 24 hour party people, even till now, except to the wrath of condo owners, who obviously didn’t have a clue about what Zouk was about when they decided to move in right next to it. In the spirit of MP Indranee’s argument: If the condos were not there, there would be no one to complain about noise, piss and vomit. And we probably would have let the kids drink themselves to death or fall off the bridge and drown or something.

Here are some facts every Singaporean should know about our homegrown premier club:

1. Zouk means ‘village party’ in French Caribbean, and was refurnished out of 3 abandoned riverside godowns. The logo was inspired by Arabic script and is a mixture of the ‘sun, all-seeing eye and the sea’. Zouk’s address is 17 Jiak Kim Street, though no one knows what happened to the other 16 numbers.

2. Founder Lincoln Cheng is an architect by training. In 1995 he was charged for bringing in 376 diazepam tablets and having possession of 125 Upjohn tablets, 4 Playboy magazines and some porno tapes, all part of a high profile drug bust which forced the club to close temporarily.

3. Tan Jiak Kim was a fifth generation Baba merchant who formed the Straits Steamship Company in 1890 with a few other rich businessmen, in addition to sterling work among the Chinese community and setting up a medical college. He would have qualified for the Pioneer package. Most of us would have never heard of him if not for Zouk. Thankfully, there’s also a nearby bridge named after the man, a bridge that the very same drunk kids are puking and dumping trash on.

4. In 1993, a brewery bar named ORANG UTAN opened in the Zouk complex. No it wasn’t a place where you could pet Ah Meng for free over beer and grub like what you do in a cat cafe. Though that just MIGHT work elsewhere.

5. A ‘Healthy Lifestyle Party‘ without cigarettes and booze was held for 1000 SAF personnel in 1992. As fun as your Grandaunt’s birthday bash, I reckon. The words ‘healthy’ and ‘party’ belong together like ‘innocent’ and ‘sex’. I hope there was at least Hokkien techno.

6. ‘Zoukette’ is what you call a fashionable female club regular. It was also the name of one of the more popular IRC channels in Singapore. Yes, Zouk has outlived even IRC, ICQ and Windows Messenger.

7. The PAP celebrated its 50th anniversary there in 2004, an event that most true-blue Zoukers and Zoukettes would rather forget. Amongst those boogieing the night away then was PM Lee himself, Lim Swee Say, and a certain Indranee Rajah, the same MP who thinks Zouk turns our kids into raving alcoholics. Look, here’s proof!

Party people in the house, y'all.

Party people in the house, y’all.

Wait, that means 2014 is the 60th year of PAP’s reign. How about a farewell All-White Zouk party again this year, for the club to go out with an unforgettable BANG?. After all, who WOULDN’T want to see our ministers dancing?Not sure if invitations will be extended to Ms Indranee though.

8. Zouk is likely to have played host to a more diverse range of international stars than any other stadium or concert hall in Singapore. From 80′s synth-pop band Erasure to techno/trance maestros, Kylie Minogue to K-pop girl groups, even a crooning Tony Leung.

9. In 2007, Zouk was where you could watch girls in skimpy attire wrestle one another in spaghetti sauce. 3 years later, the club organised an event called ‘Baby Loves Disco’, where hip parents could bring their babies for an afternoon party, some as young as 2 MONTHS. It looked like the beginning of a slow demise, less an ‘institution’ than a free-for-all venue for any event under the sun.

10. In 2008, it was reported that Zouk hired 70 security officers and had 100 surveillance cameras installed. What would become of these bouncers once Zouk is gone? Maybe protecting our ministers when they queue for chicken wings, perhaps?

So those were the days, my friend, we’d thought they’d never end. Thanks for the memories, Zouk. The puke on the sidewalk, the awesome live DJ gigs, the vodka-Ribena, the silly dancing, for being the only place in town where you could impress the girl of your dreams with cheesy 80′s moves. Unlike high-end exclusive clubs like Ku De Ta, Zouk welcomed mopey teens, the fuddy-duddies, the geeks and the wannabes with open arms. You did well to put us on the map of ‘cool’ and convince the world that Singapore was not THAT boring after all, but like all good parties, this 23-year-long one must come to an end. Good night, and Zouk Out.

Woman peeing in Pinnacle@Duxton lift

From ‘Caught in the act of urinating in Pinnacle@Duxton lift’, 18 June 2014, article by Hoe Pei Shan, ST

The first photo shows the back of a woman in neat attire squatting down in a lift; the second shows the same woman, her hair tied up in a ponytail, in the same spot, but this time with a puddle near her feet in the lift. The photos were featured in posters put up this week by the Tanjong Pagar Town Council in the void deck of Block 1E at Pinnacle@Duxton, following complaints about urine in one of the lifts back in May.

The youthful-looking woman, whose face is not seen, was caught in the act by surveillance cameras in the lift at 8.22pm on May 23.

“The Town Council has received feedback regarding the stench of urine in the Fireman Lift in Blk 1E… This has caused much inconvenience to residents,” read the message in the poster. The posters and photos are part of what MP Lily Neo (Tanjong Pagar GRC) describes as the town council’s “very effective” method of addressing such incidents, and have been employed several times at the Pinnacle@Duxton estate as well as elsewhere in the constituency.

…”We would never show people’s faces in the photos used, so only the person committing the act would know it is him or her,” she said. “We’re not trying to shame anybody, we put the posters up only in the affected blocks. Our job is not to make trouble, we just want to stop the urination problem.”

No one has stepped forward so far regarding the latest incident, and little is known about the woman pictured. “Urination in public places still happens from time to time in different areas around Tanjong Pagar, but thankfully it’s not that prevalent,” said Dr Neo.

This iconic housing project was indeed once the PINNACLE of international design, the first in the world with 2 skybridges linking the 7 blocks, creating what could be the LONGEST continuous skygardens in the world. A winner of the 2010 President’s Design Award, the Pinnacle’s skydecks have been described as ‘social dynamos’ encouraging communal activities, initiating an ‘innovative typology of public communal spaces that are metaphorically reclaimed from the air.’ A bit TOO communal perhaps. This, like how we deal with most social nuisances, calls for a CAMPAIGN, before someone brands the building The ‘Pee-nacle’ (Wait, that has already happened). The mascot could be a singing, dancing giant incontinence pad, one who goes around smothering people before they even unzip their trousers.

Peeing in lifts is a scourge that won’t go away soon, with exploding bladders, loose sphincters, alcohol and lack of public toilets often used as mitigation pleas when culprits do get caught. Most of these, to no one’s surprise, are men. In 1988, the ST ran a survey which revealed that of 112 pissers caught, ONLY ONE was a woman, and they were mostly adults within the age range of 36 to 54. These days, people seem to get away with urinating in lifts without having the media shout their name, age and occupations like they used to. An anonymous offender smearing a public amenity gets away with nothing more than embarrassment, while a blogger who smears the name of someone very illustrious gets hunted down and sued his pants off for defamation. Even getting caught EATING a damn sweet on the train is a worse situation than this.

You must be truly desperate if you’re a woman and need to resort to 1)pulling down/aside your underwear 2) squatting 3) answering the call of nature 4) risk soaking your damn feet while at it. No one seems to ever get remanded in IMH for such behaviour, especially one that has been fetishised by the authorities since Singaporeans began living in HDBs, with some MPs in the 80′s even suggesting a JAIL TERM for offenders. Peeing in a lift is an entirely different breed of public disgrace compared to say dumping litter or throwing cigarette butts out of cars. A grown adult urinating in a closed, moving compartment, especially one in which you have to eventually use yourself, seems to me more of a bizarre psychological disorder rather than a case of uncontrollable nerves, mischief, or even ‘vandalism’. It’s like vomiting on the side of your plate, and then continuing to eat the rest of your food like nothing happened.

The Pinnacle may boast one of the most panoramic, expensive residential skygardens in the world, but all the lifestyle frills and pledges of ‘sustainability’ aside, one thing that the building appears to be sorely lacking is a basic lift URINE DETECTOR, a gadget that stops the lift dead when someone takes a leak on the floor, sounds an alarm, and traps you inside until the cops come and whisk you and your vile bladder to court. A brilliant invention because it forces you to be confined with your own putrid stench for at least a good half an hour, and more importantly, catches you red-handed, with or without CCTV. Have we gone all soft on lift pissers lately? Will the Pinnacle management take more serious measures only when MP Lily Neo steps on a golden puddle during her walkbouts like what happened to former Speaker Tan Soo Khoon in 1991?

Urine detectors can’t do anything to prevent one from DEFECATING in the lift, though. Yes, it happens, I shit you not.

UDDs will give residents a piss of mind

Catherine Lim bemoaning a collapse of trust in the Government

From ‘Consul-General rebuts HK report on open letter by Catherine Lim’, 14 June 2014, article by Joy Fang, Today

A South China Morning Post (SCMP) report on Monday about novelist Catherine Lim’s comments in an open letter to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has drawn a sharp rebuttal from Mr Jacky Foo, Consul-General of Singapore in Hong Kong. SCMP’s report titled “Writer Catherine Lim’s open letter to Singaporean PM fuels social media debate” had quoted Dr Lim’s open letter to Mr Lee, in which she said Singaporeans “no longer trust their government”.

In a forum letter to the newspaper published yesterday, Mr Foo said Dr Lim had first asserted this claim in 1994, when the People’s Action Party (PAP) had won the 1991 General Election with 61 per cent of the vote. Since then, the ruling party has taken Singapore through a number of serious crises relatively unscathed and has won four further general elections by healthy margins, he pointed out. “But still, (Dr) Lim continues to regularly bemoan a collapse of trust and respect for the government,” he said.

…In a follow-up post on her blog published yesterday, Dr Lim clarified that Mr Ngerng’s defamation suit was not the direct cause of her writing the letter. She had been observing with increasing dismay at a series of happenings in the political scene, culminating with the defamation suit, she said.

Addressing criticism that she was being too much of an alarmist, Dr Lim stressed that “it is a crisis, or at least a crisis-in-the-making”.

It was 20 years ago when Catherine Lim coined the term ‘The Great Affective Divide’ to describe the estrangement of the PAP from the people, when she used ‘alarmist’ terms like ‘a serious bifurcation at the emotive level’ and ‘subterranean hostility is all the more insidious’. Her commentaries don’t make easy reading, where she uses words like ‘modus vivendi’, ‘loyality’ and ‘meretricious’, and I’m not sure if the Consul-General really understood what she was trying to convey in her open letter, not to mention ordinary Singaporeans. 1994 was a time before social media, of course. Today almost every minister and MP has a Facebook account and then there’s this thing called a National Conversation. And Catherine Lim still believes today that this distrust in our leaders has ‘widened the original disconnect between the PAP and the people into an almost UNBRIDGEABLE CHASM’. Phwroar!

PM Goh would have none of this ‘armchair critic’ eroding his authority back then. In response to charges in another 1994 article ‘One Government, Two Styles’ that he wasn’t his own man and deferred to the elder Lee , he challenged Catherine Lim to enter the political arena, accusing her of ‘going beyond the pale’. To which the author replied that she hadn’t the slight interest, and continues to disdain the offer till this day. Yesterday’s armchair critic is today’s keyboard warrior, and the Government has more than its hands full with this army of discontents, and if you issue such a playground challenge today, you MIGHT just get it. Luckily for Lim, Goh didn’t deploy the famed ‘instrument of control’ then, the defamation suit. It would have vindicated Lim’s opinion that the ‘open and consultative’ style was just a cover for the true LKY-era ‘top-down’ approach that’s been looming there all this while, a ghost beast waiting to unleashed when the PM decides to summon it. Like Satan’s Pokemon.

After the ‘Great Affective Divide’ fallout, Lim cut the Government some slack in 2000 by acknowledging that Singapore was ‘more open’ then compared to 1995. In a 2001 interview, she said that ‘it’s good that the Government is reaching out…in Singapore if you speak honestly and authentically and respectfully, they accept it’. It seemed like she had changed her mind about the Government’s attitude. That is until she penned a ‘open letter to the PM’ in 2007, another tedious read which spoke about PM Lee’s ‘strategy of fear’ and ‘paterfamilias’ (sounds like a Mexican curry puff to me) style of governance. The defamation suit is a recurring example used throughout her observations about ministerial style, and the Roy Ngerng debacle seems to be the same trigger sparking off this latest war of words.

So what is this ‘Edelman barometer’ that Jackie Foo speaks of, that tells us that a whopping 75% of people trust the PAP? Isn’t it really a subjective, selective survey with a fancy name that makes it sound like a validated scientific instrument? In 2012, the Barometer told us that 65% of the ‘informed public’ trust the media. According to an Edelman results slideshow. Singapore has been among the rank of ‘trustees’ since 2011, joining the likes of China and Indonesia, of all nations. Yes, the same China that bans Facebook and Google. There’s also a gap in overall trust between the ‘Informed Public’ and ‘General Population’ (73% vs 64%). So it really depends on who you’re asking then. What Jackie Foo didn’t mention was the level of Singaporean trust in fact DROPPED from 82% to 75% from 2013 to 2014, though still higher than the distrusting Americans and their paltry 37%. Still, it’s the usual ‘blast them with statistics’ method which may appeal to the head, but sadly not the hearts of average Singaporeans.

Trust in the limelight

I ‘trust’ that PM Lee won’t apply the same formula like his predecessor did 20 years back. That would mean that in spite of all their efforts to connect, to bridge that unbridgeable chasm, even if it means queuing up for chicken wings….nothing much has changed.

Wikipedia ‘vandal’ calling the PAP a fascist regime

From ‘Vicious edits to PAP’s Wikipedia page’, 13 June 2013, article by Hoe Pei Shan, ST

A People’s Action Party MP called on his organisation to consider legal action yesterday after “vicious” edits were made to its Wikipedia page. Tampines GRC MP Baey Yam Keng spoke out after a user of the website changed the name of the party to “Party Against People” and added lines such as “down with the fascists” and “vote for Opposition” into the text.

According to the page’s publicly available editing history, the user who first made the changes appeared to have done so on Wednesday afternoon under the name “AlikVesilev”.

The user claimed that “proof of (the PAP’s) suppression of freedom of speech” was demonstrated by the sacking of blogger Roy Ngerng by Tan Tock Seng Hospital this week, a move later backed by the Ministry of Health.

Human rights group Maruah thought that Roy’s dismissal and the subsequent endorsement by MOH was handled poorly, symptomatic of the high-handed, remorseless manner in which the PAP and its underlings deal with dissenters. ‘AlikVesilev’ also praised socialism and went ‘URA!’ in his rant, which I’m guessing refers to a Soviet battle cry for ‘Hooray’ (Most definitely not the ‘Urban Redevelopment Authority’).

If nothing happens to this wiki ‘vandal’ after his ‘vicious’ attack, Roy would be hitting himself on the head for not having exploited the CPF Wikipedia page instead to get his message across, now that he’s facing an insurmountable defamation suit and currently jobless. But this isn’t the first time that the PAP’s hardcore style of punishment and intolerance for ‘free speech’ have been compared to ‘fascism’.

1963: The Barisan Socialis invoked ‘fascist repression’ when the PAP revoked citizenship for political detainees, accusing the party of ‘abusing power’ to unjustly punish anyone opposed to the regime. A familiar routine that anyone that has been cast away in political exile, or fired from a job because he impugned the integrity and character of our great leader, can relate to.

1964: V David from the Socialist Front, KL, referred to the PAP governance as a ‘reign of terror’ and ‘a fascist dictatorship’.

1971: A bunch of Malaysian and Singaporean students staged a demonstration against ‘fascist Lee Kuan Yew’ in London’s Hyde Park, burning an effigy of the PM. The ST referred to them as ‘radicals’.

1976: The United People’s Front leader Harbans Singh blamed the inequality between the rich and the poor on the ‘parasitic’ fascist regime that is the PAP. He was later hauled up to court for making scurrilous remarks about LKY being a ‘scoundrel’ and ‘gangster’ from the way the blunt tool that is the ISA was being implemented.

1977: Detainee Ho Kwon Ping was accused of portraying the PAP as an ‘elitist, racialist, fascist, oppressive and dictatorial’ government in an article for the Far Eastern Economic Review, which he allegedly used as a platform to channel his ‘pro-Red’ sentiments. He later became the founder of Banyan Tree and now a successful millionaire. Some jailtime may be good for you after all.

2006: John Burton of the Financial Times wrote about the uncanny similarity between the PAP’s lightning logo and that of the British Union of Facists (BUF). According to the writer, LKY admitted a ‘design influence’ from the fascist symbol. Apart from the logo, the other stark difference between the BUF’s Blackshirts and our current PAP mould would be the colour of their uniforms.

Fascist logo, or insignia of the Flash?

2013: DJ X’Ho calls us a ‘hushed’ fascist state, that we may well be the ‘unproclaimed fascist capital of the world’ but wouldn’t admit it.

High-handed brutality aside, most of us don’t have sexual fantasies about our glorious leaders, nor do we worship them as war heroes, man-gods or sing songs of total party devotion and then weep in ecstasy like how they do in a megachurch or a pure fascist state. According to a list of ‘defining characteristics‘ by a certain Dr Lawrence Britt, there are examples of ‘fascist’ elements in almost every modern government you can think of, not just Singapore, among which include:

1. Disdain for Recognition of Human Rights: Anti-gay laws, the ISD’s detention without trial.

2. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause: ‘Self-radicalised’ individuals, ‘CPF bloggers’, disgraced Opposition leaders.

3. Supremacy of the Military: Last year’s defence spending was $12 BILLION.

4. Rampant Sexism: Our cabinet ministers are all male. Not many female boardroom members in corporations.

5. Controlled Mass Media: ST, hello? Crackdown on ‘seditious’ Facebook posts, defamatory blogs. Censorship of political films, movies about gay sex, threesomes or zany plots about the assassination of Malaysian Prime Ministers.

6. Obsession with Crime and Punishment: Death penalties, caning, and ‘enhanced’ powers of the Police in Little India.

One may think of fascist governance as a continuous spectrum, just like how we all lie in the emotional range from ‘super nice’ to ‘psychopath’.  The PAP, as our PM once admitted himself, is in fact a ‘Paranoid’ government, one that ‘worries’ all the time. In other words, one that is constantly in FEAR of things not going their way. I would put that nearer to the psychopath end of the spectrum.

 

Workers’ Party needs to grow up

By ‘Time for the Workers’ Party to grow up’, 1 June 2014, article by Chua Mui Hoong, Sunday Times

…The Workers’ Party has seven elected MPs and two Non-Constituency MPs in Parliament. It’s the leading opposition party, since no other has even one elected MP. It has said it can’t form the government yet – but can be its “co-driver”. But its position on policy issues is sometimes hard to fathom. This explains the PAP’s increasing frustration as ministers and MPs try to corner WP leaders into declaring their stand on a host of issues, as a look at Hansard records of Parliamentary proceedings will reveal.

Hence the exchange over whether the WP did “flip-flop” on immigrant growth, calling for zero growth in foreign workforce one year, and lamenting tightening curbs on foreign labour in another. On ministerial pay, too, observers will recall that it has suggested at various times to peg ministers’ salaries to the bottom 20 per cent earners, and then to the pay grade of a senior civil servant.

Ducking tough questions on policies was a good political move in the past, when all you needed to get into Parliament was the ability to connect with voters and promise to speak up for the people. In today’s political climate, however, that is patently inadequate.

…The WP’s value proposition has to evolve from one of checking the PAP government, to one where it offers a credible alternative to the Government. Realistic Singaporeans will cut the WP some slack as it’s a small minority party in Parliament, with six of its seven elected MPs serving only their first terms. But as a political party, it has been around since 1957. Leader Low Thia Khiang has been in Parliament since 1991.

It’s time the WP grew up.

In short, ST Political editor Chua Mui Hoong thinks the WP has done nothing worthwhile since the last election in 2011. We’ll leave it to Low Thia Khiang and gang to challenge that assertion, but one thing for certain is the level of ‘hammering’ that the WP MPs have been receiving, not just in Parliament but in the mainstream media. PM Lee in his recent parliamentary debate with Low called them out for being ‘tigers and heroes’ just before the elections. Trust a political commentator from a notoriously pro-government paper, who incidentally also co-edited a book by Lee Kuan Yew, to join in the fun, spouting a raging one-sided polemic that would give our PAP MPs instant orgasms just reading it.

Here’s a rundown of how the WP have been the PAP’s (and ST’s) favourite whipping boys (and girls) over the years, and why they’ll always be at loggerheads more often than being ‘co-drivers’.

1) ‘Dangerous’ policy proposals.

When the WP proposed to scrap ethnic integration policies, the elected presidency and grassroots organisations in their manifesto in 2006, Ng Eng Hen derided their ‘alternative policies’ as a time bomb that would tear Singapore apart. Khaw Boon Wan used ‘poisons’, when our PM called these ‘dangerous’. A younger Sylvia Lim was ticked off by Goh Chok Tong for having the ‘crazy’ idea of abolishing the tripartite relationship between the Government, employers and workers.

I can’t recall a time when the PAP decided to take up some ‘radical’ proposals for genuine consideration instead of snubbing them right away, something like ‘Hey guys, it sounds crazy but MAYBE it just might work!’. When PAP man Janil Puthucheary suggested the totally bonkers FREE MRT RIDES last year, nobody called him a whack job and it was implemented with some success. It would have been a different story if the WP had raised it. Denise Phua recently proposed for the elected presidency to be junked, something which the WP has previously advocated. Not a squeak from anyone so far.

2)A substandard opposition.

Chua expressed in a commentary that Singaporeans ‘have lower standards for opposition candidates than for PAP ones’, though she praised Sylvia Lim as ‘sharp and witty’ and ‘eminently electable’ as an Opposition MP. DPM Teo would question in 2012 if Png Eng Huat in Hougang was the WP’s best man since he wasn’t selected for the NCMP post. PM Lee said WP’s ‘flip-flopping’ and admitting their mistakes was the mark of a ‘substandard’ opposition, though the PAP themselves are guilty of ‘policy shifts’ too.

3) Wayang party.

Ng Eng Hen termed the WP a party of ‘criticisms’, offering no solutions, hence the tag ‘Wayang party’. In 1985, veterans like Chiam See Tong and JBJ were known as ‘one-legged heroes‘ for their ‘posturing and preening’. Well, both sides are guilty of this of course, the PAP’s ‘wayanging’ more of the ‘empty promises’ sort. They are in fact the architect of the greatest wayang show on earth: The National Conversation.

4) A distraction to the PAP that needs ‘fixing’.

PM Lee said the Opposition party would be a distraction to the PAP and make it harder to implement policies, prompting the infamous ‘fix the Opposition’ quip. Well he’s not going to achieve that by calling them names like ‘tigers and heroes’. If it ain’t fixed, break it.

5) A bunch of bicycle thieves and liars

In 1982, S Rajaratnam brought up the criminal records of 2 WP candidates, including one bicycle thief. James Gomez was called a liar by LKY and was challenged to ‘sue him’. DPM Teo wondered if Png Eng Huat was being ‘honest’ during his Hougang campaigning. Chen Show Mao and Pritam Singh were both hit with charges of plagiarism. All this banditry and deceit going on and all PAP had to answer for was a philandering Speaker of Parliament, and oh, some terrorist running out of prison.

6) A silent party

When Low Thia Khiang refrained from commenting on whether Wong Kan Seng ought to be given the chop after Mas Selamat escaped, it was seen by some commentators as a sign of weakness. Hri Kumar thinks they run away from difficult issues and like to sit on the fence like Humpty Dumpty, a similar analogy used by Indranee Rajah when they didn’t say much about the hijab saga.

So yes maybe the WP is still on a ‘learning curve’ despite being around for almost half a century, but the same immaturity label should be slapped on some instances of PAP behaviour as well, who have been traditionally hostile to Opposition suggestions, to the extent of name-calling, launching personal attacks, frantic denials, dirt-digging, all this amidst calls for ‘constructive politics’. If nothing is done to improve relations, the WP will be forever seen as opposing for the sake of opposing, the PAP forever defensive, and the rest of us who pay their salaries suffer because our MPs spend more time pouncing on each other’s flaws than working together for the higher cause. You know what, all of you deserve to be slapped and woken up before someone ‘drives’ this country into a grotty ditch.

http___makeagif.com__media_6-01-2014_Rk3y4b

the Workers’ Party has seven elected MPs and two Non-Constituency MPs in Parliament. It’s the leading opposition party, since no other has even one elected MP. It has said it can’t form the government yet – but can be its “co-driver”.

But its position on policy issues is sometimes hard to fathom. This explains the PAP’s increasing frustration as ministers and MPs try to corner WP leaders into declaring their stand on a host of issues, as a look at Hansard records of Parliamentary proceedings will reveal.

Hence the exchange over whether the WP did “flip-flop” on immigrant growth, calling for zero growth in foreign workforce one year, and lamenting tightening curbs on foreign labour in another.

On ministerial pay, too, observers will recall that it has suggested at various times to peg ministers’ salaries to the bottom 20 per cent earners, and then to the pay grade of a senior civil servant.

Ducking tough questions on policies was a good political move in the past, when all you needed to get into Parliament was the ability to connect with voters and promise to speak up for the people.

In today’s political climate, however, that is patently inadequate.

- See more at: http://www.straitstimes.com/premium/think/story/time-the-workers-party-grow-20140601#sthash.uPEF5DUL.dpuf

Low Thia Khiang’s breathtakingly cynical view on politics

From ‘Constructive politics will help Singapore scale new height: PM’, 28 May 2014, article by Charissa Yang, ST Singpolitics

It is very important for Singapore to get its politics right because constructive politics will help it scale new heights, but wrong politics will doom it, said Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong on Wednesday.

He joined the ongoing debate in Parliament over constructive politics, first mentioned in the President’s Address on May 16. Mr Lee criticised Workers’ Party chief Low Thia Khiang’s speech delivered on Monday and responded to Mr Low’s point “that whatever way ‘politics’ is described and coloured, it is still politics”.

Calling this a “breathtakingly cynical view of politics”, Mr Lee said: “Politics cannot just be about politics alone. Singaporeans’ lives and Singapore’s future are at stake.”

‘Constructive politics’ has been bandied about since Low Thia Khiang ‘cynically’ said that this rhetorical hokum doesn’t happen ‘by order of the Government’. But most of the ‘constructive politics’ supporters in Parliament seem intent on providing their own whimsy definitions rather than citing concrete examples of its existence. Positive adjectives to describe a party’s political style like ‘constructive’ are rare, perhaps because it’s redundant. After all, we pay good money for our million dollar ministers,  and it’s a given that they better bloody hell deliver the goods. Constructively. It’s like saying your kid studies in a ‘good’ school, something which our Minister of Education would say applies to EVERY damn school anyway.

Here’s a sampling of other ‘brands’ of politics that have been used to describe our PAP and Opposition parties, proof that there are more bad things to say about politics in general than sincere compliments.

1. Compliant politics.

Low’s example was the MDA imposing licensing on news sites. Another example I can think of was the voting results for the passing of the White Paper, with 77 PAP MPs all voting yes vs 13 non-PAP saying nay. One Inderjit Singh abstained. Also known as ‘Yes-men’ politics.

2. Pork-barrel politics

A term to describe inducing the electorate with sweeteners prior to an election, like GST vouchers, Progress packages, upgrading, MRT etc. George Yeo once denied that it existed in Singapore, that there was very little ‘pork in the barrel’. You could say the PAP does ‘halal’ politics, then. Also politics of property.

3.Package politics.

A term coined by Goh Chok Tong to ‘defend the link’ between upgrading and winning votes (See pork barrel politics). Today you have Pioneer packages and Jubilee Baby packages, all little rewards given out to Singaporeans for being good, law-abiding boys and girls (or old men and women).

4. Politics of make-believe

Chee Soon Juan is credited with this term, using it to describe how the PAP is out of touch with reality and insist on painting a rosy picture of the state of affairs on the ground. Or ‘Potemkin’ politics. Like denying that we’re the most expensive city in the world, for example. Nothing like a healthy dose of cynicism in the land of milk and honey, eh?

5. Politics of envy

Matthias Yao used this to describe Chee Soon Juan’s tactics of ‘exaggerating class divisions in Singapore to attract votes’. Today, the PAP makes childless couples envious with their Baby bonuses and special Jubilee gold medallions, and local gamblers envious of foreigners who don’t have to pay $100 casino levies. They also are very accommodating to billionaires settling down here, making us salivate over their Sentosa Cove homes while we languish in our 3 room HDB flats (which they promise they’ll upgrade before the next election).

6. Third World gutter politics/politics of discreditation/politics of distraction.

All coined by James Gomez after his ‘misplaced application form’ incident and being called a ‘liar’. LKY himself accused his opponents of ‘gutter/snake-pit politics’ when they tried to discredit PAP candidates. A political ‘low-blow’, so to speak. Both sides are equally guilty of this of course, though one is more likely to get away with mudslinging than the other. Also ‘character-assassination politics’.

7. Hardball politics

A legacy of LKY’s style of balls-clenching governance. Hardball finger-pointing is what the PAP excel in, with an army of lawyers at their disposal, not concerned if what they do is unpopular, as long as it’s ‘right’. PM Lee just used ‘weasel away’ on Low Thia Khiang, by the way. I don’t think you should use any animal references on our PM without getting a letter of demand, and make him, well, barking mad.

8.Communal politics.

A euphemism for ‘racial politics’, this was tossed at a WP candidate in 1991 by Goh Chok Tong for ‘agitating the Malay ground’. The PAP themselves once accused Tang Liang Hong of being a ‘Chinese chauvinist’. Needless to say, Davinder Singh was involved then. He’s like Alfred to Lee Hsien Loong’s Bruce Wayne. I can imagine him tucking the younger Lee to sleep, whispering ‘So sire, who shall we sue tomorrow?’ before planting a warm avuncular kiss on his forehead.

9. Sound-bite politics

PM Lee’s retort to Low’s speech refers to how politicians use catchphrases to get attention but don’t back them up. All bark but no bite, essentially. Wayanging is a natural course in any form of politics, from the idealistic (WP’s ‘First World Parliament’) to the ferocious (LKY’s Repent) and the downright silly (Citizen-centric, Actionable, Recalibrate, Future-ready).

Mention ‘dirty politics’ or ‘money politics’, however, and you may be accused of ‘impugning the PM’s integrity and character’, and end up being best pals with Roy Ngerng. The PAP is a mixed bag really, and to proclaim that it practices ‘constructive politics’ exclusively is omitting the uglier aspects of its indomitable governance, that sometimes you need to be a hardball bastard, offer some ham and sausages, knee the opponent in the balls, or just follow the crowd and stick to the status quo to stay in power. It’s also ironic that a ‘heated debate’ about what constructive politics means is anything but constructive. A case of ‘popcorn politics’, perhaps?

PM Lee rejecting Roy Ngerng’s derisory $5000 offer

From ‘PM Lee rejects blogger’s offer of $5000 as damages’, 27 May 2014, article by Nur Asiyiqin Mohammed Salleh, ST Singpolitics

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has rejected blogger Roy Ngerng’s offer of $5,000 as damages, his lawyer Davinder Singh said in a letter to Mr Ngerng’s lawyer on Tuesday. This offer is “derisory” and “completely disregards” the gravity of Mr Ngerng’s conduct, the undisputed fact that the libel – that PM Lee misapproriated CPF funds – is false and malicious, and Mr Ngerng’s “calculated and systematic aggravation of the injury and distress” to Mr Lee, Mr Singh wrote.

…Mr Lee had on Monday offered to waive aggravated damages if Mr Ngerng removed four blog posts and a Youtube video and undertook not to publish similar posts or videos. Mr Ngerng agreed. But instead of removing the video, Mr Ngerng made it private. He also sent two e-mails out republishing the video and offending posts.

“He therefore has only himself to blame for losing the opportunity of not having to pay aggravated damages,” said Mr Singh.

Channel 8 news tweeted an image of Davinder Singh’s retort to the measly $5ooo offer, and surprisingly, I was able to understand most of the ‘legalese’ in the letter. Judging by Roy’s behaviour it looks like it won’t be the last we see of such letters and requests for ‘service of process’. The saga has dragged on for far longer than necessary, with ‘lost opportunities’ on both sides to settle their differences in a more palatable manner other than one dominant party simply asking for more money from the other.

Here’s some choice selections from the latest salvo, a masterclass in defamation suit demands written with the panache of an executioner sharpening his blade before chopping someone’s head clean off.  You can even use this as a template when a restaurant owner offers you free dessert after a waiter spills hot coffee all over you, that it’s a ‘derisory’ compensation for the ‘injury and distress’ that you’ve suffered, completely ‘disregarding the gravity’ of your situation.

1. ‘Derisory and completely disregards the gravity of your client’s conduct’.

Meaning the 5K is an insult and I spit on your ridiculous offer. The next logical question to Davinder would be, so how much do you want then. Is there a market rate for ‘damages’? How much higher do I need to bid before ‘derisory’ becomes ‘acceptable’? I expected Roy to come up with less in fact, and maybe top up the remainder of damages with a thousand kowtows.

2. ‘The undisputed fact that the libel is false and malicious’.

Legalese 101: Libel is any defamation that can be seen, such as writing, printing, effigy or statue. Slander is any defamation that is spoken and heard. If Roy had reserved his misappropriation accusations for his Return my CPF protest, it would have been slander, though I’m not sure which of the two is more serious. The word ‘undisputed’ is used twice in the letter by the way, a word one would usually hear in the context of a boxing championship match, though it’s obvious who’s the one getting bruised up the most here.

3. ‘He therefore only has himself to blame of losing the opportunity of not having to pay aggravated damages’.

In short, Roy asked for it. Instead of restraining himself and keeping a low profile, he allegedly circulated the ‘deleted’ posts to ‘local and international’ media. Obviously, the phrase ‘live to fight another day’ doesn’t mean anything to Roy. What was he trying to achieve with the leaking? Get support from the Queen’s Counsel?

4. ‘Your client’s explanation..that it was a momentary lapse of judgement is disingenuous and incredible’

Disingenuous is a bombastic word that only became popular when Spellcheck spared us all the burden of having to spell ‘-nuous’ correctly. It’s best used when you want to accuse someone of dishonesty but want to lord over him while at it, like ‘Take that! I just used a big word on you’. It’s also an accusation that is unlikely to get a comeback because the recipient will be wondering what you meant, and will have trouble finding a response that has more letters in it.

5. ‘He has also not come clean with you…did not disclose to you that he intended to renege on that undertaking’

i.e Roy lied to you M. Ravi. Renege is another word people don’t usually say in real life. It sounds too French for something that’s not actually food.

So the stakes have been raised. Place your bets for what PM Lee will finally accept as a decent offer for his suffering. I’m thinking somewhere in the region of $25K, which can probably cover half our Government’s standard donation to our Indonesian neighbours after a massive earthquake.

UPDATE: Roy has been fired from TTSH for misusing hospital resources for his personal stuff, namely fighting a losing battle against PM Lee. The other reason was that he did not conduct himself ‘honorably’ and with ‘integrity’ in his legal dealings with his accuser. He’s not helping matters by alleging that the sacking was ‘politically motivated’. Roy, is one defamation suit not enough?

Tan Jee Say forming the ‘Singaporeans First’ party

From ‘Tan Jee Say announces Singaporeans First party’, 25 May 2014, article in Today

Mr Tan Jee Say, former presidential candidate, has announced the formation of a new political party, Singaporeans First, which pledges to put “Singaporeans at the heart of the nation“. At a press conference today (May 25), Mr Tan announced the formation of the party and unveiled his founding man team, which include ex-grassroot leaders, architects and former members of the Young PAP.

Of his team, eight have formerly worked in government agencies, seven are scholarship holders, and three are former PAP activists, Mr Tan said.

…Mr Tan said that Singaporeans First aims to be different from other political parties by focusing on specifics, such as the economy. “We also have the advantage of someone like me who knows a lot more about the economy,” he said.

screen_shot_2014-05-25_at_am_10.56.06

This is Heartcore

The Singaporeans First logo looks familiar. Tan Jee Say himself used a heart logo during his 2011 presidential election campaign. He also wanted to be the ‘heart of the nation’. It’s obvious who in the party is the brainchild behind the logo.

Some have called it a ripoff of the Walls Ice cream logo. Maybe because like ice cream, the universal symbol of the heart is soft and mushy, and the party wants to swaddle you with hugs and kisses, unlike the ruling party’s harsh lightning bolt of Zeus. I think it’s more likely that it was inspired by the Care Bears. So much love. Incidentally, ‘Heart’ is also a key word of a blog that specialises in debunking the CPF, which should go right up Jee Say’s alley. That website is Heart Truths by none other than Roy Ngerng. Potential candidate, maybe?

Tan Jee Say ‘bears all’ with his new party

Or perhaps it’s a smart choice designed with ingenuity and foresight. If this party ever runs for the next elections, you could even pull this off in your promotional material. Hey Jee Say, how about hiring me as campaign manager?

screen_shot_2014-05-25_at_am_10

Here are some interesting facts about some of the more prolific members of Jee Say’s starting 11.

1. Retired colonel Tan Peng Ann wrote a book called ‘Create Your Rainbow’, and runs cafes with names like ‘WILD POT’.

2. Dr Ang Yong Guan is also a founding member of the ABC Runners, an interest group about, erm, running.

3. Fahmi Rais wrote a motivational book called ‘A Thousand Pearls’. He lives in a 4000 sq ft mansion in Taman Daya, Johor.

4. Architect and former URA scholar Winston Lim used to be from the DPP (Democratic Progressive Party).

5. Tan Jee Say was once trained by former DJ and now Public Speaking Coach Petrina Kow.

But what caught my attention was the party’s unusual name. A history of Singaporean party names will reveal that most convey a sense of commitment to action, unity or a political ideology, with words like ‘Labour’, ‘Solidarity’, ‘Democratic’, ‘Socialist’, ‘People’ and ‘Front’ making up the brand. ‘Singaporeans First’ sounds more a cute campaign tagline than a party . PM Lee himself launched a series of ‘Singaporeans First’ policies in 2011. The SDA (Singapore Democratic Alliance) used ‘Singaporeans First’ as a title for their 2011 Manifesto, while rival presidential elect Tan Cheng Bock used ‘Think Singaporeans First’ for his slogan.

There’s also an unrelated ‘Singaporeans First’ Facebook page that already exists, which means there will be some complications with setting up a party page. Unless you call it the ‘Singaporeans-First Party’ on FB, or SFP (Not to be confused with the Singapore Police Force). You also can’t abbreviate it as ‘SF’ and expect to be among the first search results in Google (because of ‘San Francisco”, or ‘Sci-Fi’). ‘Singaporeans First’ is like the ‘Happy’ song of political branding. Twee and overused, and something suspiciously ‘Gilbert Goh’ about it (who had a stint with NSP, by the way).

Anyway, here’s a rundown of the strangest party logos to ever grace our political landscape. Rather a Walls Ice Cream copycat than any of these, I suppose.

1)Singapore Congress’s LADDER. Not much is known about this party other than it was established in 1960 and dissolved 2 years later. It probably focused on career advancements, or building homes.

Step up Singaporeans

2) People’s Liberal Democratic Party’s SPACE SHUTTLE. If you view this clip of founder Ooi Boon Ewe singing a song about voting, you’ll realise that the far reaches of outer space is exactly where this party belongs.

To space and beyond

3) Citizens’ Party. A goddamn STICKMAN. With them in charge, that is exactly what you’ll look like. Hungry and emaciated, with your head detached from what’s left of your body. Even the traffic light green man has a better life than this skeleton.

Stick it to the Man

4) United Democratic Party’s brainteaser. How many triangles do you see in this figure? Also a bit too esoteric for its own good, like the symbol before a portal into a parallel ancient Egyptian universe, where you have to chant in an alien language in order to pass.

Mmm..Toblerone

 

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 291 other followers