Applying for Protection Order under Protection from Harassment Act

Published on Jan 14, 2015

The Protection from Harassment Act 2014 was introduced to strengthen harassment laws in Singapore. Details are available on For more information on applying for Protection Order under the Act, please visit


Chee Soon Juan claimed to be speaking for fellow Singaporeans but who gave him the mandate to do so?


Overheard :

“I don’t normally post political stuffs on my page (I am not into it and don’t fancy it), but this is one thing I feel the need to speak up as a citizen of this country…. not really about politics but behaviour.

Dr Chee Soon Juan had been writing to foreign medias and giving speeches in overseas about the political scenes in Singapore all these whiles since he entered politics. He had been telling foreigners how the Singapore government failed to take care of it’s people properly, how Singaporeans had suffered under the Government run by the ruling party PAP, and how the Government try to silence opposition political parties and people who try to speak up for fellow Singaporeans against the Government. He said that there is no freedom of speech in Singapore and mainstream medias are controlled by the Government and his letters, views and speeches will never get published here.

I am not going to debate with Dr Chee about those bad Government policies he mentioned as I am not in the position but just want to air my views on his action.

Firstly, are Singaporeans really treated that badly or exploit by the Government here, that perhaps the majority of us do not have a roof over our heads, we are all roaming and sleeping on the streets? Majority of Singaporeans do not have a job and can’t even afford our basic meals? People who voiced out for fellow Singaporeans against the Government are all silenced by sending them to jail or perhaps kill them?

I seriously think that we did not fare that badly as a country with majority of the people having a roof over their heads, a job and basic necessities.

Secondly, he claimed to be speaking for fellow Singaporeans but who gave him the mandate to do so?
With the low votes he received during those three General Elections that he contested, it surely did not look like majority of Singaporeans were supporting him, his action and views. He went on a hunger strike to protest against the dismissal, after he lost his job in the NUS due to his serious misconduct and for misappropriating research fund, but he was drinking glucose drink, hunger strike, really? He was introduced into politics and mentored by Mr Chiam See Tong but he later forced Mr Chiam out of the political party the senior founded and fought for, he also misbehaved and challenged former Prime Minister Mr Goh Chok Tong in public with verbal abuse when both of them met at a walkabout during an election tour.

With all these, Dr Chee’s integrity is questionable, I surely would not approve of somebody like him to speak up for me.

Lastly, if he truly wants to fight for the rights of fellow Singaporeans, for the good of the people in this country, he should refrain from speaking to foreign medias in overseas. What does he really want to achieve? For his personal gains and glory or he is seriously naive to think that foreign Governments will intervene with our local Government policies here? Even if they do, is it for the good or bad of the people in this country?

Imagine if foreign Governments intervene by cutting all ties with us, stop doing business and investing in this country, MNC pull out of Singapore, Singaporeans will start losing their jobs, companies here and even the Government will start losing foreign investments and the people will seriously be starving and sleeping on the streets because don’t forget that we have literately nothing, everything we need (even basic necessities like rice, poultry, vegetables, seafood..etc) we need to import them.

I always feel that this is our own country, we run it the way we deem fit, we should never allow foreigners to dictate how our country should be run, no matter what the issues are, big or small. So if he really wants to make a change for the better for fellow Singaporeans, he should speak to our Government, talk to people who can really make the changes, go to Speaker Corner to speak to Singaporeans and garner supports, contest the General Election again and make those changes himself and not try to use foreign political forces to achieve this.

He once said “We are Singaporeans, we have our rights, our rights to vote, so do not sell your votes, sell your votes is selling your country” …. Seriously, whether his view points are right or wrong, he is selling the country by going round telling the whole world that Singapore is bad, we have a bad Government, people in this country has no rights, no freedom of speech, trying to get foreign political forces to intervene on how our country should be run.

I am not going to allow someone who is always ready to sell the country to speak up for me or run this country….. Never!!! “

Lee Kuan Yew (LKY) became an easy target

Source – > Zaid Ibrahim On Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew

Zaid Ibrahim On Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew

August 16, 2013

COMMENT: I have read many books and articles on Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew including his memoirs and his latest, One Man’s View of the World. He is no doubt a brilliant man and a formidable force in our part of the world. His take on politics, economics,. international affairs, and history is read, debated and respected by all who are in interested in public policy and management, and statecraft . Like him or not, let us give him due credit for his stellar achievements.

Lee-Kuan-Yew-book-singapore-060813_360_524_100We in Malaysia–not all of course–cannot accept that Mr. Lee has been able to transform a colonial backwater into a modern and dynamic Singapore.  More so, because he is seen as a living remainder that we have failed in nation building. For Mr. Lee, nation building was a challenge thrown at when we decided that Singapore should leave Malaysia in 1965. He took that challenge and made Singapore a model of good governance. That is an achievement not to be scoffed off.

I admire Mr. Lee for his vision, integrity, capacity to choose his leadership team, and  tenacity in overcoming adversity. He was tough on his political adversaries. But then so was Mahathir. But unlike our former Prime Minister, Mr. Lee was able to resist the temptation to lecture and badger his successors. In stead, he became a statesmen for his country. I am of course glad that Zaid Ibrahim has written this article and I congratulate him for it.

I for one strongly advocate the idea of learning from others. It takes humility, not arrogance to acknowledge someone’s achievements. Learning starts with humility and  an open mind.  –Din Merican


Zaid Ibrahim On Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew

“There is no need to suffer from some complex about Singapore and always belittle the old man (Lee Kuan Yew) and other leaders for that matter when they say something about us that is less than flattering”.–Zaid Ibrahim

Lee Kuan Yew (LKY) became an easy target for our national and Pakatan Rakyat leaders when he recently commented on how Malaysia was suffering from the effects of its race-based politics.

Their response was typical of Malaysian politicians from both sides of the divide: they hurled personal insults at the ageing Singaporean leader that offered little insight into the real issues. The Opposition’s Karpal Singh and Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim put it as (A) mind your own business and (B) your ideas are no longer useful.

As for the Barisan Nasional, they pointed out that Singapore is also racially biased and therefore unqualified to speak on the subject.UMNO leaders then loudly proclaimed that the “Malays first” policy is here to stay and that the Malays are not ready for any change. End of story.

I am reluctant to defend LKY as I think he was heartless when he was in power and he punished his opponents too harshly for my liking. However, I do admire his pragmatic approach to public policy. His strength of conviction and willingness to be unpopular is well known, and it was firmly rooted in his belief that his policies were good for the people.

Like China’s Deng Xiaoping, he favoured policies that were practical and useful to the general public.Deng’s famous saying, “It doesn’t matter whether a cat is white or black, as long as it catches mice” cleverly encapsulated this practicality.

Deng understood that a market economy was crucial for his country’s survival and competitiveness and gradually guided China away from the ideals of Mao Tse Tung.

LKY took a similarly pragmatic approach when he said that Mandarin and local dialects had to take a back seat as mastering English had to be a top priority for Singapore.

I am not an ideologue myself because ideology seldom solves anything; in fact, I think it brings misery to its believers.I am inclined to support anything that works and leads to a tangible improvement in people’s lives.

Policies that work have measurable results and are mindful of the resources that are needed (policies that use enormous resources and achieve few results are simply no good).

It’s obvious to me that we need to give up the present culture of race-based policies, not because LKY said so, but because they simply don’t work.

We need to stop doing a disservice to those who are excluded as well as to the Malays who are supposedly the beneficiaries of these policies.Surely 40 years is enough time for us to see that, collectively, these policies are the mother of all that ails the country.

The simple fact is that Singapore is a first world country today and we are third, in whichever way we define it.

In 1965 Singapore was a small island state that drew its revenue from small ships anchoring at its ports and from several thousand British Navy personnel in Woodlands spending their money there.

There didn’t seem to be much for the island to build on but LKY did it.  The world has recognised his contribution to transforming this third world island into a first world metropolis. Only Malaysian leaders do not. I call it envy.

On the other hand, Malaya and later Malaysia started on much happier ground: endowed with among the richest natural resources in Asia, it had public institutions that were respected by many outside the country.

We were the success story of the Commonwealth. Today we are a lot less successful, whichever way we look at it. Some say we are sliding down a slope and picking up speed.

I am not endorsing everything that LKY and other leaders in Singapore have done, and neither am I ignoring the differences—cultural and otherwise—between our two countries.

There are huge differences of course, but we need to admit that in the last 50 years we have done something wrong and they have done something right.

There is no need to suffer from some complex about Singapore and always belittle the old man and other leaders for that matter when they say something about us that is less than flattering.

Shouldn’t we learn from how LKY curbed corruption and how he transformed the communist-infested Singaporean universities into what many consider to be among the world’s best institutions of higher learning?

If we are honest then we cannot possibly deny LKY’s many achievements, and we should be humble enough to listen to him.

I believe our Prime Minister is also a pragmatic leader and so I hope he will not be discouraged from meeting his Singaporean counterpart and LKY to exchange views.

If our PM depends too much on Utusan Malaysia and the old guards, then our prospects will remain dim for the next 50 years. Then who will we blame for our failures? The Chinese I guess, if they are still around. – The Malaysian Insider, August 14, 2013.

to a fellow Singaporean, who hates PAP with a passion

Overheard  from Daniel Tan Boon Huat :

My thoughts and responses to a fellow Singaporean, who hates PAP with a passion,

For the record though, I know this govt is no super angel, anyone who thinks our govt is purist must have his or her head checked. In fact no govt in the world is.

I will never know whether this govt is truly the best until I see competition, and there are lots of talents out there who would not be seen near the alternative parties side with a 10feet pole, why?

Because it’s not credible, it’s monopolized with people mostly who sprout rubbish and make angry remarks all day long, they spit and twist on every single damn thing. This monopoly of hatred and anger attracts the fellow angry section of society but nothing more.

The majority of folks wish to make their mark in life, carve out careers, date in peace, get married, have kids, perhaps retire when old. If they have a credible alternative to support, maybe so.

Ask them to stand amongst people who curse and swear at everything under the sun related to PAP, it’s not going to be comfortable.

To the rest of would be topplers of the “PAP dynasty”, I suggest we take the credible path instead of trying to foster a all out revolution or spread by anger, it’s going to be messy.

I love my nation more than loyalty to ANY party, don’t tear it apart while fostering change, do so in a responsible manner, don’t cry and whine about playing field, life is never fair.

Play to win and if you lose, lose respectably. Be a good sport. Be passionate, dare to dream


image source : People’s Action Party


How oppressive hor?

Overheard :


Huh? So this is one of the “heroes” purportedly voicing out the grievances of the people against an oppressive PAP? 

Just thinking out loud. Don’t look quite the underdog to me. Wonder what’s the PAP done to him or his family and what qualified him to be a mouthpiece for the “people”?

Or is this a restless youth trying to do a “popular” thing? I hear it is now quite popular to slam PAP. If you slam, you must be right. You must be a hero.

Irony is that “the Courts controlled by the oppressive PAP” (i.e. what dudes who love to slam the PAP often say… which, for the avoidance of doubt, I disagree completely) is considering probation to rehabilitate this “hero”. 

How oppressive hor?


One of five Toa Payoh vandalism suspects pleads guilty


SINGAPORE – One of five youths allegedly involved in a rooftop graffiti case in Toa Payoh in May pleaded guilty yesterday (Dec 24) to theft and criminal trespass.

David William Graaskov, 18, pleaded guilty to three of the six charges he was facing.

He admitted to stealing four cans of spray paint from a lorry on May 6 along with four others – Goh Rong Liang, Boaz Koh Wen Jie, Reagan Tan Chang Zhi and Chay Nam Shen.

His four accomplices allegedly used the cans to spray profanities against the People’s Action Party and the police along the rooftop of Block 85A at Toa Payoh Lorong 4.

Deputy Public Prosecutor Tang Shangjun told the court that while Graaskov had agreed to take part in defacing the rooftop, he “realised it was getting late” and took the bus home at about 11.50pm that night and was not there when the spray painting took place.

The unemployed man also pleaded guilty to trespassing at the rooftop area of Marina Bay Suites in March and into a construction site at Jalan Rajah between October and December of 2013.

Three other charges – including trespassing onto the same Toa Payoh rooftop and stealing a $5 reflective vest from there – were taken into consideration.

If found guilty of theft, Graaskov could be jailed for up to three years’ jail and fined. For trespassing, he faces up to three months’ jail and a fine of up to S$1,500, or both.

The other four youths are due to appear in court next month. CHANNEL NEWSASIA

Source link – > One of five Toa Payoh vandalism suspects pleads guilty






Divorcing Malaysia Set Singapore Free (71) – Businessweek’ 85 Most Disruptive Ideas in Our History

Source: Businessweek -> Divorcing Malaysia Set Singapore Free

And Businessweek -> The 85 Most Disruptive Ideas in Our History  -> check out number 71

December 04, 2014

1965 Expelled from federation with Malaysia, Singapore becomes an independent state.

“Every time we look back on this moment … it will be a moment of anguish.” So declared Lee Kuan Yew in a tearful press conference on Aug. 7, 1965, when Singapore announced its divorce from neighboring Malaysia.

The split marked the birth of the global economy’s most successful startup. Singapore was poorer than Jordan in 1965; now it’s 10 times as rich.

The World Bank ranks Singapore ninth in gross domestic product per capita, a place ahead of the U.S. By another measure—gross national income per capita on a purchasing-power basis—the country is second only to Qatar.

Singapore’s probusiness economic policies, high education standards, and rigorous social strictures have made it a model for developing nations across Asia and beyond.

Applegate is a contributing graphics editor for Bloomberg Businessweek. Follow him on Twitter@evanapplegate.
Ratnesar is deputy editor of Bloomberg Businessweek.


Check Mate is not scare-mongering

Overheard from Calvin Cheng :

Anti Government brigade has been vexed by PM Lee’s comment that if there are too many checks in parliament, it could lead to a ‘check mate’. They have used this to accuse the PM of scare-mongering again, and being out-of-touch with voters desires.

This is not scare-mongering. We have seen in many places this happening. The US has not been able to pass any substantial legislation since Obamacare when the Democrats both held the House and the White House; they have even steered the Government onto the verge of bankruptcy as a result of being deadlocked about the budget. The remaining 2 years of Obama’s Presidency will be more of the same, now that the Republicans control Congress. Recently, Belgium was without a Government for 535 days. Sweden’s current minority-government collapsed 3 days ago after just 2 months in power, when they were unable to pass their Budget.

Nobody has said that we shouldn’t have an opposition, if it is a good, strong opposition.

DPM Tharman has said as much. What hurts the country – any country – is when political parties put politics above a nation’s interest. 

What we want are alternative ideas, not empty rhetoric about ‘checks-and-balances’. We want parties to present alternative visions for Singapore, as well as their ability to execute them. 

‘First World Parliament’, ‘Co-Driver’ – these are just empty words.

That is what is meant by a Democracy of Deeds..

We want action. Not words.


more overheard :

  • Scaremongering is telling people to vote for anyone but PAP to prevent Singapore from being ‘sold to foreigners’, ‘systematically bred out’ or the funniest of all – from being bankrupted. And showing no credible evidence to back such talk.

    Yeah, looking at AHPETC I’m full of confidence towards the alternative.


  • We should choose to be as just forgiving to the Ruling Party we are to the Opposition. The PAP has rectified so many problems. The past is the past. No point living in the past and keep on harping on it. Isn’t this a mantra of life as well about living in the present, planning for the future and moving on from the past?

    If we are talking about the past, didn’t the WP fare worse? Look at the stuff that they brought up in Parliament. Hardly any substance . Look at the way they run the Town Councils. Red flags year after year. Look at the way they go about flouting rules. Yet, we choose to have double standards when we talk about the past. And, yes, some of us still choose to believe that the Opposition can play a checking role on the PAP. Come on, the PAP members are the ones who provide the robust debates and checks on the policies. Even, the NMPs are doing better than the elected Opposition and Mr Giam. So, I urge Singaporeans to stat thinking of what’s best for our nation in the long run.


  • All liberal democracies — and there are several different types and degrees of liberal democracies as distinct from fascist democracies or communist democracies, all of which share common intellectual roots — are meant by design to be slightly dysfunctional as check and balances on the absolute exercise of power. But the empirical fact is that in almost every western liberal democracy and in the contemporary Japanese, South Korean, Taiwanese and post-Suharto Indonesian variants, the dysfunctionality has been taken to such extremes that the quality of governance has been seriously compromised and in extreme cases only idiots voluntarily enter politics leading to serious leadership deficits. This is what our PM is, overly gently in my opinion, pointing out.

    Alas too many of our compatriots, particularly the self styled critical thinkers, the attention seeking misfits, the rejected politicians, unsuccessful former civil servants, mediocre academics and failed novelists, see, or profess to see, the dysfunctional as desirable in itself and seek to ape failed systems. I suppose it gets them invited to the soirees of the less discriminating of western diplomats and journalists. I do not begrudge them the opportunity to guzzle at the trough but I am concerned if the majority of our compatriots take them more seriously than warranted.


  • Political parties with different viewpoints, vision and manifesto would not reach a consensus please. It is how they will garner votes. The politicians of different parties will only bicker hence they will not work with each other. The voters play a big part as in how to charter the future direction of a country is believing in the political party manifesto that would deliver.

    If you want Singapore a welfare state please vote in the oppositions they will use that to garner votes, if you prefer Singapore do not becomes a welfare state pls vote the ruling party. If ever Singapore become a welfare state, majority do not welcome higher taxes and they will follow herd instinct to enjoy welfare benefits including me why pay higher income tax? If taxes are not raise where would the govt find money to fund the budget spending not risking the sound and positive fiscal situation .


  •  I’m afraid we may end up in a dead heat parliament not by choice. There are folks who don’t give a toss about how ineffective WP’s is or how outlandish and outright impractical the likes of csj’s politics mean. They just don’t like the PAP and believe that the way to change every ill at one fell swoop is to change the government in charge. 
    I don’t know whether to laugh or to cry when folks think like that. Progressive change seems to be out the window these days. Instant tree syndrome prevails.


Photo: Keep replacing “doer, thinker and leader” with jiak liao bee "checker", eventually it will be checkmate for Singapore! 

Mr Lee Hsien Loong: "Only the PAP is bringiing different groups together. Only the PAP is solving problems and planning for the future. Only the PAP is putting forth a vision for Singapore. In short, only the PAP truly cares for our people and the future of our children and grandchildren 

The Opposition does not see any duty to bring people together, solve problems and plan for the future. Every time we put out a popular policy, they say "Do More"  But they do not say How. They do not say whom they will "Take from", in order to "Give more." They do not articulate any vision for Singapore, because they say they cannot form the government.

In the meantime, the opposition tells people: Vote for me so that I can check on the PAP, and make the Prime Minister and his team work harder.

If everyone accepts what they say, we will only have politicians checking each other – and gridlock like in other countries. 

There is no running away from the truth: for every one more “checker” we have in the Parliament, there will be one less “doer, thinker and leader” in the Government, to serve the nation, to serve the people.

Eventually, there will be no PAP to check, no able team of ministers working and solving problems for Singaporeans, no progress for Singapore. That will be the last check, because it will be checkmate for Singapore!"

image : Fabrications About The PAP