I am glad you came public with your affliations with the PAP unlike some of the other bloggers and writers on this p65 blog.

I am sure there are a lot of Singaporeans out there who know the party affliations of these individuals.I am giving your colleagues the opportunity here to be honest with themselves and to the Singaporean public.

Are you still helping out in Chong Pang MPS?

We do not want another NMP Calvin Cheng situation.

I heard about this blog through the traditional media in Singapore probably like millions of other Singaporeans.

It was stated in the traditional national media that this is a non-partisan blog totally unrelated to the PAP. It was printed in all Singaporean media that “none of the [the writers] are affiliated to the Young PAP”.

Mr Teo Ser Luck said in August 12 2009 that ‘We have our own Young PAP website for the politically inclined… The p65 blog is to allow other young people to share their views, which are non-partisan, neutral and can be constructive criticism of policies.’

Why aren’t the Young PAP members of this blog contributing articles to the Young PAP website?

Why aren’t you,a Young PAP member, posting on the Young PAP website instead of the perceived ‘non-partisan’ blog like the ‘the p65.sg site’?

You guys were not honest in the first place.So why should we be interested in what you have to say?

Vikram.Let’s be honest.Does the PAP play a fair game?

And not forgetting my dear fellow discerning Singaporeans.

I am still waiting for your replies. This was an e-mail sent to me today of an article which appeared on the Temasek review on August 24, 2009.

It reads : P65 bloggers fail to address the issue of site ownership

In a letter published in the Straits Times forum on 24 August, the p65 bloggers claimed that they are expressing their views on the p65 website in order to engage young Singaporeans. (read letter here)

The p65 blog was launched amid much fanfare in 2006 as a platform for the new PAP MPs to engage netizens.

Plagued by 3 years of low readership, the PAP MPs “abandoned” the blog and now leave it in the hands of a dozen “p65ers” after a major “revamp.”

The “change over” was conducted in silence till it was exposed by this site leading to the mainstream media to report on the matter.

ex-TOC Chief Editor Choo Zheng Xi wrote a scathing criticism of the p65’s failure to attract young readers to the Straits Times Forum last week in which he expressed disappointment with the MPs’ departure and the questioned the political affiliations of the new p65 bloggers.

Initially proclaiming themselves as non-partisan “ordinary” bloggers reaching out to the p65 generation, it later turns out that one of the bloggers is a PAP member while another is as grassroots leader.

The dubious backgrounds of the p65 bloggers has cast doubts on the legitimacy and credibility of the site.

Despite their lame attempts to win detractors over, the p65 bloggers have failed to address the issue of the site ownership: who is paying for the domain p65.sg and the server space? Are they forking out their own money or is it sponsored by the PAP?

We have stated categorically here under “About us” that we are not sponsored by any political or commercial entities. In other words, this site is entirely self-funded.

The p65 bloggers’ reticence to reveal more on how they came to be involved with the revamped site and their alleged ties with the PAP will inevitably lead paranoid netizens to question their motives.

According to YPAP Chairman Teo Ser Luck, the p65 bloggers were “invited” by PAP MP Zaqy Mohamad to take over the blog. How did they know Mr Zaqy in the first place? How are they selected? Is there some kind of vetting process to select only the politically correct bloggers?

The p65 bloggers claimed they hope to contribute their thoughts to cyberspace in a “rational and responsible manner” and engage in robust debate on issues that matter.

Is this another insidious attempt to impose some sort of community moderation in cyberspace and to spread the PAP’s warped concept of “responsible criticism”? Are the p65 bloggers really wolves in sheep’s clothing?

And not forgetting my dear fellow discerning Singaporeans.

I think you guys (Miss Khartini Khalid, Vikram, Mr Teo Ser Luck, P65 bloggers and writers and young PAP members ) are missing the ‘context and purpose’ of my reasoning of the perceived non-partisanship of this new blogging platform similar to its’ previous incarnation as a P65 blog by Members of Parliament.

This response is in reference to Miss Khartini Khalid’s letter ‘P65 bloggers keen to engage in meaningful debate – no party line to toe’ which was published in new media in the ST Forum Online.

1. Dear Miss Khartini Khalid, you wrote ‘Some of us, like Mr Vikram Nair, are members of Young PAP, as he has written in a post on the blog. Others are not.’

Who are the writers and contributors of this blog other than Vikram who are the ‘some of us’ members of the Young PAP?

Who are the writers and contributors of this blog who are the ‘others are not’ members of the Young PAP?

2. Dear Miss Khartini Khalid , more than 5 million Singaporeans read in the traditional national media that this is a non-partisan blog totally unrelated to the PAP. It was printed in all Singaporean media that “none of the [the writers] are affiliated to the Young PAP”.

Mr Teo Ser Luck said in August 12 2009 that ‘We have our own Young PAP website for the politically inclined… The p65 blog is to allow other young people to share their views, which are non-partisan, neutral and can be constructive criticism of policies.’

Why aren’t the Young PAP members of this blog contributing articles to the Young PAP website?

Why isn’t Vikram who is a Young PAP member posting on the Young PAP website instead of the perceived ‘non-partisan’ blog like the ‘the p65.sg site’?

3. Dear Miss Khartini Khalid, you wrote ‘There are websites where people support the Government and websites where people condemn the Government. Some express their views with reason and facts, while others use cyberspace as a vehicle to vent their frustration.’

Are you implying that those that condemn the government use cyberspace as a vehicle to vent their frustration?

Have you read the hundreds if not thousands of blogs and websites since the 1990’s that have been advocating constructive criticism of Singapore.

These people love Singapore just as much as you and have every right under the constitution to air their feelings. There have been a lot of solutions out there in cyberspace by ordinary Singaporeans to tackle our current social and economic woes.

Unfortunately, it is traditional national media and the PAP which dismisses these ‘views with reason and facts’ as ‘condemnations’.

My warmest wishes.

http://www.facebook.com/youngpap?ref=search&sid=748087966.3428713848..1#/youngpap?v=app_2373072738&viewas=748087966&ref=search

I agree with you that being affiliated to political parties should not prevent one from expressing his views. Indeed, TOC has had writers who are members of political parties, including from the PAP at one point.

Our only condition is that such writers are not in the editorial team.

I am also glad to see Ser Luck replying to posts here.

Regards,
Andrew

I actually lived in the UK for some years as a student and still have many friends from there, so the experiences are not entirely second hand. I also use examples from the UK and the US because they are both developed countries, that like us, have grappled with the question of the role of state in the lives of people, the right balance between tax/ welfare etc. I always believe it is helpful to learn from the experiences of others who have walked down your road before

However, I will not pretend to be an expert on all aspects of policy in the UK. In particular, I am not aware of the details of childcare/ child minder regulation there. If you are suggesting that what we need in Singapore is a group of well-trained and regulated child-minders to provide parents with the option of high quality care for their children, I don’t think it is a bad idea and would be happy to hear details about the same!

Warm regards,

Vikram

Thanks so much for visting our blog and answering Mr SM Tan’s questions!

Dear Mr SM Tan,

This is the letter written by the bloggers to the Straits Times that Mr Teo was referring to: http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Online%2BStory/STIStory_420407.html

Essentially, the message is simple – everything we state in this blog is our view and our view alone. I may be a member of the YP, but I am certainly not here representing the YP in any way. In fact, part of the reason I joined the YP is because I found it to be a meaningful platform to share my views and engage in discussions too

If you wish to comment on the substance of any of my posts, I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards,

Vikram