Breaking News: Burmese pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi is to face trial for breaching the conditions of her detention under house arrest, her lawyer has said… (BBC News)
Excerpt from Alex Au’s website, Yawning Bread:
Over the last few days, I asked a few friends what they thought Siew’s chances were. Almost everyone thought his chances of re-appointment were poor. In their view, the government would see Siew as too controversial a figure -– which is almost a debasement of the word “controversial”.
Siew is outstanding as an NMP if you go by a simple measure of how often he participates in parliamentary debates. In the 26 months that he has been in the House, he spoke or asked questions on 134 occasions. The annexure What did NMPs speak on 2006 – 2008? lists the topics that he and other NMPs spoke on or asked questions about. What will strike you is that Siew ranged over different fields, while some other NMPs restricted themselves to extremely narrow topics. From a taxpayer’s perspective, Siew is value for money.
Read the rest of the article here.
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
Please no more Pro LGBT NMPs… I, am in an opinion, that instead of looking into more serious/ pending issues and be an advocate for everyday Singaporeans (e.g. unemployment, economy, CPF withdrawal issues.. etc.), they will look into opportunity to further homosexual causes, as one of their top priorities.
First of all, I’m not against LGBT, but i believe that a MP (or NMP for that matter) should exercise caution and sensitivity on issues that affect our mainstream conservative society. Since the AWARE saga and its CSE, i’m taking a stance to be more observant and interested in Singapore politic. These, if taken for granted, can affect the outcome of my life, my families, and Singapore’s future. As a parent, i need to protect my children, their upbringing and our religious belief. I want to make my vote counts!!
I will support Siew for another term as NMP.
This whole affair might just be a conspiracy by the MIW, ti drum up Siew’s “pro-gay” view. Just look at the way the ST anti-Siew forum letters to be publish.
Where is the proof that he is pro-gay? Just because he acted for the Aware’s old guards? Come-on people, lawyers have duty to their client. His comment after the Aware’s saga were pin-pointing the way the JL team trys to take over the organisation, and not a pro-gay statement.
What about the other NMP hopeful- the union ‘veteran’. Why no one comment on the necessity of having another Gahmen union yes-man in parliament.
4) empty vessels make the most noise on May 14th, 2009 11.49 am
Hi there,
i suppose you walk your talk?
SKH has voiced up what none dared to voice up.
Most if not all of his speech I truely enjoying hearing.
I appreciate his efforts made so far and wish him all the best .
So, tell us, what has been your contribution in this aspect.
peace.
if mr siew did not become nmp again,
he will surely run for mp.
if he become nmp,
after this second term he will still run for mp.
no matter how it will be just a matter of time he will be a mp.
the above is just my wishes hope they will come true.
i support him to be nmp and mp.
and maybe minister next time.
heaven knows.
good luck and all the best mr siew.
Should a parliament be represented by like-minded people or it should be represented by people with diverse viewpoints?
Let’s look at other things besides the ‘pro-glbt’ stance-
he spoke out against the Public Orders Act
he questioned the jobs credit scheme
he supported the by election in Jurong GRC when Dr Ong Chit Chung passed away
he wanted to make things fairer for foreign workers in S’pore
He fought for more benefits for single mothers
In essence, he put his ‘money’ where his mouth is by being a voice for the marginalized and overlooked, even if some of the views rankles. Would you have preferred some other NMPs who practiced a more selective kind of voicing out for minorities – seeking to speak up for human rights for some groups of people and yet insist on the deprivation of the same rights for others?
I am afraid some fundamentalist might have inflitrated into TOC, whenever SKH name was brought up, these group of revenge will go all out to tarnish him. It seems to me that they “have a hatchet and a very sharp one” against SKH. Sorry, I am worried because I thought AWARE saga was over, but it doesn’t seem to be so. Anyway, the truth is SKH has done a great job for many Singaporeans, nobody can deny it other than an insignificant number of attackers here. I rest my case.
major Religious teachings are good overall and that is one reason for their continued existence and not extinction.
While teachings may be good, followers may at times not know they have not practised correctly the teachings.
For example, if the teachings include Respecting Others Religion and their rights to practise other good religions, then things become much more clearer and simpler. Also think about Diversity and Inclusivity.
Humans can be unique and many should be or could be. I tell you people in the face, I do not prefer Gays. At the same time, I am not against them. Why should they not have the right to exist? There are many species of life . Why must some people Demand uniformity in sexual preference – like either you are with us or against us kinda mentality?
SKH has the right to defend Gays who are Part of Our society, like it or not. Truth is sometimes Unhandle-able to some. Despite this , the Reality is that Gays are among us – male and female forms.
SKH has done enough for me to support him. Consider the FACT that there is a shortage of talents who dare to voice up the way he is doing. While there may be 84 in there, to me, its not enough at all.
So, I definitely say I support SKH just like I support Sylvia and LTK and our late JBJ and Kenneth our new ray of hope. I also support TOC contributors and wayang party.com (hope this is not censored)
peace
42) Netizen on May 14th, 2009 5.43 pm
Measure should be how well he represented the people’s views and offer proposals to alleviate their situations. To that, obviously Mr Siew has failed miserably. He campaigned for something which the people have already indicated their views.
People change views when they see things differently after open debate. It will be very sad if the society does not have people with diverse views to stimulate the public conservation and help the society to self-evaluate and update its position.
How is the society going to evolve and think-out-of-the-box if we just conform to existing majority views.
SKH is the kind of people we need and he has spoken on many diverse issues. So he has done a very good job in represented the people’s views.
It is very funny that some people say we need NMP that are supportive of Asian values.
What is Asian values?
Why need more NMP to support and speak up for Asian values? They think the ministers and MPs are not able to do that? They think the minsters and MPs are not able to make good arguments to support the so-called Asian values?
Are they afraid that their so-called Asian values argument will fall apart simply because someone question it?
What is Asian values indeed…
a) Confucian values from china?
b) Hindi values from India? (oh and including all that very permissive yoga and tantric stuff)
c) Buddhist values from India? (which include neutrality on the GLBT issue)
d) islam?
e) Judaism?
f) Christianity (from Asia as well?)
g) Animalism (still practiced in many parts of Asia)
h) Shinto-ism?
I) Taoism?
j) Zen?
Which Asia value are we talking about?
He says that he should not be judged on ‘his activities carried out in his personal capacity.’ Pleassssseee this is exactly what they did to Josie and Co, find out what they do on sundays, search out their church, record what their pastor said in church, stir up anti-christian sentiments, keep harping on the fact that Christianity is not pro-homosexuality.
Look at your own dirty fingers. You say there is no middle ground for existence. There was till you razed it to the ground. Look at how you treated other people at the AGM. The new guards felt threatened but so did their supporters. Giving hostile stares to people who don’t support your cause. Oh no i don’t dare not want him for my NMP, I might get death threats. What a step foward for civil society indeed. I quote the New Paper, ‘no right to reduce his re-nomination to just one issue (homosexuality)’. Well, you dig your grave and so you must lie in it. He pinpointed the new guards and so did the media, that it was all about homosexuality when the new guards kept saying they wanted to help women and mentor women into corporate positions. Oh but no, they didn’t take in that balanced view at all. Well now that he has drawn attention to his cause for homosexuality, he should be proud of it.
You want sensible and rational minds. Well i didn’t see any sensibility to how he rouse the swearing and jeering crowd at women whose only crime was to serve other women and ensure their children not receive an education that was contradictory to their beliefs. He judged other people by their personal preferences, so let’s see if his personal actions and behavior stand up to the test.
So what now? Everyone who doesn’t support Mr Siew’s re-nomination is anti-gay?
Hi Jagesh Nathan,
While the Old Guards have NMP Siew Kum Hong, Josie’s Committee has Feminist Mentor Thio Su Mien, the mother of NMP Thio Li-Ann. Plus a good number of the Old Guards themselves are former NMPs. There was no way the Old Guards could have mobilised so many people until Pastor Derek Hong gave many people the reason – he abused the Pulpit to support Josie’s political agenda for AWARE.
On another note, our dear Minister WKS warned that the Government would intervene if religious activism threatens Singapore’s social fabric. He said: ‘If religious group start to campaign to change certain government policies, or use the pulpit to mobilise their followers to pressure the government, or push aggressively to gain ground at the expense of other groups, this must lead to trouble…… [The Government] will not stand by and watch when intemperate activism threatens our social fabric.”
Mr Siew completely DON’T deserves another term as NMP. He turns a blind eye to so obvious lousy unruly behaviours that he shows himself to be gutless in the face of vocal majority. He therefore don’t deserve any right to speak on the behalf of the people and his chasing of limelight on such a diverse variety of issues shows that his heart is not in the right place in Singapore’s political scene but clearly shows his own selfish agenda and self-centered ego boosting recognition. Please screen NMP thoroughly, be careful of selfish people trying to stick their foot in every topic so that they can be in limelight and gain recognition.
The very asian value of “if can make money, nothing else matters”, lah….
This discussion on whether Siew Kum Hong is suitable for Parliament (or anyone else) needs to remain civil and based on commonsense.
- Is he good for our Parliament?
- Can he contribute to the quality of debate in Parliament?
- Is he truly single issue (as many have made him out to be) or has he spoken up for other issues? A search at http://www.parliament.gov.sg/parlweb/hansard_search_latest.jsp should help you know better.
The suitability of our NMPs or even elected MPs should not be based on the shrill noises of a few vocal netizens; it should be based on simple fact and commonsense.
I really hope that commonsense prevails in the Parliamentary Select Committee’s decision making process and that it not be thwarted by unwarranted doubts.
benedict
/// 58) sarek_home on May 15th, 2009 12.19 am
It is very funny that some people say we need NMP that are supportive of Asian values.
What is Asian values? ///
sarek – I suppose Kama Sutra and the Dream of the Red Chamber are also Asian values…
Poor Mr Siew, looks like his attacks all over the internet are people with legal background and knows what they are doing. Perhaps he should be wary of such people in his future interactions as he may be talking to an enemy. Be careful, Mr Siew, three cheers.
Got Karma Police?
And he also spoke out on the Odex issue. =)
Impressed ? Loud mouth and always attention seeking.
Now when the chips are down, denying sets in – “not legal adviser to old aware ? not supporting homosexuals ? ”
Amazing how ground can shifts when the threat of losing an NMP’s allowance is in sight! Easy money before !
“Poor Mr Siew, looks like his attacks all over the internet are people with legal background and knows what they are doing. ”
what legal background lah ? common sense normal day fight lah ? if they are so much superior in their legal background, I still have not seen Mr. Siew getting into legal hot soup. legal background people are only good in court lah, outside you talk common sense which may not have to comply to their strict legal parameters lah. we are not talking about murder and serious crime lah.
I think during his term, Siew spoke out even more than our PM. Siew actually is quite a good MP, who dares to make his opinion knowns and who are also more connected to the ground. Its a blessing that MP like him exists in parliment. In fact, we need more MP like Siew who are not “ball carrier”, or “yes sir”, who actually can speak up for our behalf.
There are some truly strange posts here that seem to begrudge SKH for not going against his own side because it was being “unruly”. Well, why would you expect him to go against his own supporters? That doesn’t seem like a very smart thing to do.
Also, what do you have against noisy, vocal, uncivil conflict? That’s what democracy sometimes is, after all. We should be glad that some Singaporeans are bothering to speak up in real life.
“Mr Siew completely DON’T deserves another term as NMP. He turns a blind eye to so obvious lousy unruly behaviours that he shows himself to be gutless in the face of vocal majority.”
blind eye ? did your own dear friends also turn a blind eye ? what did they do (or possibly could have done also) ? weren’t they also being humbled by such atmoshere (unruly behaviours). some guy (gal) here mentioned about the legal background of some ‘dream team. so what ? and at the end of the day, perhaps they did it with open eyes (not blind) and resigned humbly.
“There was no way the Old Guards could have mobilised so many people until Pastor Derek Hong gave many people the reason – he abused the Pulpit to support Josie’s political agenda for AWARE.”
now go back to elementary maths. 3000 members. 1414 vs 761 in favour of old guards (total voted : 2175). remaining not voting (unable to vote) = 3000 less 2175 = 825.
that Hong guy only came out publicly (in the newspaper on 2nd May), the day of the EGM itself, now you tell me the possible margin of so-called POPULAR support if all the remaining votes of 825 shifted to the new guards – not a lot I guess (1414 vs 1586) but enough to win.
“He therefore don’t deserve any right to speak on the behalf of the people and his chasing of limelight on such a diverse variety of issues shows that his heart is not in the right place in Singapore’s political scene but clearly shows his own selfish agenda and self-centered ego boosting recognition. ”
1. Diversity: We need precisely MPs who Can debate on diverse issues. We do not want Yes men although I cannot prove there is one.
2. Ego : Do you not have an Ego? Positive Ego can be good for confidence. A leader Without confidence or Ego cannot fight well for the people he represents.
3. Recognition : People’s representative’s job is very much Public relations in many ways. He relates to his people. Without Recognition, he would be an Unknown. Pathetically Apathetic Singaporeans would not know he exist. Yes, I believe strongly, he needs to get Even More Recognition and ‘Advertisement’ so that people could spare 10 minutes to read what he has achieved or contributed to the People. In his line of work, being in the limelight is a side effect which is inevitable yet increases his ability to reach out to the electorate who can then write to him to get help to voice up for them on issues like employment etc.
I regret to say you give me an impression of someone who is very narrow minded.
regrads
Pork and Pork
NMP Siew use his NMP to practise his speeches only. Talk, talk, talk.. but nothing comes out of anything he talks
enough of botak. Got someone else with hair and possibly brains to go with it lah…
#64
“The very asian value of “if can make money, nothing else matters”, lah….”
oh wait. But didn’t we learn that from the capitalistic decadent WEST? All that corporate greed and stuff… (read minibomb, read some banks, read some marketing depts in some banks..)
oh well. I suppose it doesn’t really matter where these values come from as long as it’s good for the pocket…
Mr Siew,
if u are reading this thread, pls join a political party and if u happen to be in my GRC, I will definitely vote for u!
A quick check on the Parliament.gov website shows that, aside from the 377A debate, SKH has not spoken in Parliament on GLBT-related issues except on 2 other occasions. First, a PQ relating to the reasons for the charging of one Chan Mun Chiong under 377A in 2008. Second, a PQ relating to the cancellation of a licence for Prof Douglas Sanders’ lecture.
Instead, he has spoken on a slew of other topics which are pertinent to the majority of Singaporeans. In just the last 6 months, topics he has spoken on include freedom of speech (the Public Order Bill and the Films (Amendment) Bill), the misselling of structured investment products (and the MAS investigations), the Jobs Credit scheme and retrenchment benefits (during the Budget Debate), regulations governing the employment of foreign workers and foreign domestic workers, the remuneration of politicians and civil servants, liability claims against the government, performance gaps between students of different socio-economic backgrounds in the PSLE and ‘O’ Levels exams, the ASEAN human rights body, and the administering of the CPF LIFE scheme.
One thus wonders why some people are accusing him of being ‘single-issue’ or a ‘pro-gay’ advocate. For an example of a person who really is parochial, they ought to look in the mirror.
And then there is the ludicrous allegation that because an NMP speaks on a variety of issues, he is “attention-seeking”. If speaking up on a range of issues which concerns people’s daily lives makes one ‘attention-seeking’, then so be it. We badly need people who are willing to articulate the interests and concerns of the oppressed and disenfranchised: the foreign workers, the students from disadvantaged backgrounds, the investors duped by banks and financial companies, the retrenched and jobless (and those at risk).
I give up defending Mr Siew, there are some many not nice postings all over place. I cannot say with a fact that there is a campaign against him as I don’t know and no evidence. Perhaps we can try to divert attention to look at Straits Times coverage instead. Three Cheers too.
Wake up Singapore – let not the ostrich syndrome weigh you down. Homosexuals are all around us – they are part of our society and make invaluable contributions. Homophobia has no place in Singapore. Wake up and move on!
And just because SKH dares to voice his views, he should not be admonished so harshly. He is the voice in parliament that dares asks, he is fearless and is the man we need to make true representations. After all, we don’t want people who are voiceless, faceless or gutless.
KUDOS KUM HONG. YOU HAVE MY SUPPORT
1 If SKH’s raison d’etre in Parliament is to promote the gay cause, my answer is No.
2 If he is Parliament to engage the govt in important issues affecting Singapore, my answer is Yes.
Mr Siew: please do not let the negative and/or ignorant posts on this site get you down – there are many people like myself who admire the work you do in making parliamentary procedures more transparent and accessible to the public and look up to you a the voice of reason among the madness. Keep it up, and I hope you are nominated again and not scapegoated as a result of your speaking out for your principles. I think you are very courageous!
78) Zefly (aka Joshua Chiang) on May 15th, 2009 12.49 pm
“oh wait. But didn’t we learn that from the capitalistic decadent WEST?”
No, today the West is a bankrupt, not only financially but morally as well.
We learned it from Deng Xiaoping who said that “The color of the cat is no longer important. What is important is whether it can catch mice.”
And I think he added a corollary too : “To be rich is glorious.”
Today, China has the world’s largest foreign reserves of US$2 trillion.
What distrubs me about Mr Siew is that he denies his role in the AWARE EOGM as a legal adviser to the old guards.
He was clearly presented by the old guards as their legal adviser.
For those of us there , that was certainly the perception.
With his public standing and easily recognized head features as a NMP and a NMP candidate with some legal background , one would think he would have clarified that he was not to remove that perception- IF indeed he was not acting in a legal adviser role.
With his renewed denial that he was , the public begins to doubt his credibility?
86) Average Joe on May 15th, 2009 1.59 pm
“What distrubs me about Mr Siew is that he denies his role in the AWARE EOGM as a legal adviser to the old guards.”
ya lo. could you please the any link (official one like that in his own blog or msm lagi best) to indicate his denial.
Poor Kum Hong. Because he is an NMP, he is put there by the government and therefore must be a stooge. So no need for him. Then because he speaks up on many issues (including the gay issue) and nothing comes to pass, he is useless, so remove him.
Either way, Kum Hong needs to be removed, so say some of our netizens, who seem to be a disgruntled, rancorous lot. Nothing works for this negative bunch.
The fact is, Kum Hong is not afraid to speak his mind. The trouble is, sometimes, his intellectualism flies way above the heads of many of the disgruntled souls in our society, who only appear to care for food, drink and I suppose, cheaper transport fares. Nothing wrong there, I assure you. We could always live better lives if the cost of living could be brought down. But we must allow for the likes of Kum Hong to also provide us food for thought.
Who knows, he might one day be a valuable voice in the opposition.You have my vote, Kum Hong. But speak simply, friend, so that more of the common folk can appreciate your point of view, and that includes me.
Now, ON the topic of his GLBT stance…
Has it crossed anyone’s mind that if you were to be a voice of the marginalized – which includes among others, the poor, the underprivledged, the single parents, the FWs, etc etc… you can’t really exercise the option of picking and choosing?
Taking a leaf out of the inerrant approach to religion that some of you have – if you believe that one can’t pick and choose what is in the doctrines, then why fault a person who is essentially doing the exact same thing when it comes to his principles of being non-exclusive?
So what is it really that he should do that would please everyone? Speak for the poor, and the weak, and the under-represented.. BUT leave GLBT out? Wouldn’t that then be double-standards.. and is double-standards what we want out of any MPs, nominated or not?
Somehow I believe that Mr Siew was the factor of pushing the old guard back to power, He was the organiser, the one pulling the strings. Otherwise what has AWARE got to do with him and why were the old guard that protective of him.
Might as well admit Mr Siew.
Siew K H comes along as a package deal, like it or not. From what I observe those opposing his renomination are not happy with his involvement in the AWARE saga. This govt has already made its stand very clear to the public, especially to both camps in the AWARE saga and mainstream folks should not feel threatened by the gay community.
I believe it is better for Siew to go a step further by taking part in the next GE and get voted in. Nothing like having the people’s mandate.
Nevertheless, Siew should do some introspection, understand that at the end of the day he still needs the support of mainstream folks, no matter how well
or how frequent he had spoken. Frankly, can anyone recommend a replacement who is on par or better than Siew ?
The most important is not whether if he get his 2nd term. The question should be will he get the support from the masses.
I dont know the answers.
I give my full support to mr siew running for a second term.
He has done exactly what an NMP is suposed to do, provide an alternative voice in parliment. He has dared to ask difficult questions, and vote NO (to the films act ammendment). Without him, the PAP would have had a much easier time.
Thank you Mr Siew!
I feel that 40 per cent of our population say they are anti-gay, with at least a good number of them being ambivalent about the issue but still feel it is politically correct to say they are anti-gay. Another 40 per cent are tolerant of gays and the remaining 20 per cent have no views on the subject. (Mind you, this just a feeling and not data from an indepth survey)
It is up to the 40 per cent of Singaporeans who are tolerant, and I feel they are tolerant of most things, to persuade the others to take a similar view of things. This will make for a more inclusive society — and a happier society. But they should bring around the others through gentle persuasion and good example, not strident advocacy like Josie Lau and others of her lik.
Well, i guess if he wants to take this opportunity to masquerade as a politically neutral person to gather as much support as he can before he eventually joins the WP in the next or next next GE, then ya, I guess he cld run for a 2nd term….
in response to an earlier request for those interested in his alleged denial of legal adviser role in AWARE EOGM just do a goggle search ” siew kum hong role as AWARE ‘s legal adviser”, he is quoted all over the place in the news .
In his blog, siewkumhong.blogspot.com, he says he did not breach the provisions of the LPA ( Legal Profession Act )
interestingly on his blog on sunday 3 may 2009 he posts at 01.:35 21 :
we won
“…….I have been advising the original members of AWARE in their ( successful ) battle to remove teh exco headed by…..
it has been a real honour and privelge…etc etc ”
Interesting person.
To CNA Mr SiewKH said: Reiterating that he was “at all time, cognisant of the fact that I do not hold a practising certificate”, Mr Siew said: “It was the members of the Old Guard of AWARE who described me as their legal adviser. I did not hold myself up as such.”
I thought he sat in the front row with Constance during the EOGM. He should be sitting at the back with the other men who are Associate Members. By this action alone he has held himself as legal adviser as described by the Old Guards. Also did conduct himself as if he is the lgal adviser??No?Yes?
I was not there but I saw a picture of him on the front page of today’s TODAY.
Amongst the NMP’s I am most impressed with Mr. Siew. His active participation and high quality of parliament debates are second to none. I hope he would continue to be actively involved in the Singapore politics. I believe he would bring value for the betterment of Singapore. It doesn’t matter to me if he joins as an NMP; an opposition or as a member of PAP. I trust his integrity and that he would contribute constructively regardless of where he stands.
p.s. for those who had assumed that he support gay course, I think you had been miss-led. If you would take a moment to listen through his debates related to this subject. I know you will be impressed too.
“98) methink on May 15th, 2009 4.18 pm
Also did conduct himself as if he is the lgal adviser??No?Yes?”
did you engage his service ? yes ? no ? so why the concerns ? did he give you and any of your friends any advice resulting in loss. yes ? no ?
in fact, he was there and your dear friends lost in the presence of more certified lawyers of their own. right. now, go back and think over and have a good rest. trying to split hair when there is not much to split anymore.