Gerald Giam attempts to stir with mischievous post on the former president of Sri Lanka, Gotabaya Rajapaksa

WP Gerald Giam asked on 1 August whether the former Sri Lankan President was accorded any privileges, immunities and hospitality in Singapore following his resignation.

MFA responded that former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa was not accorded any privileges, immunity or hospitality.

More than 2 weeks later, he posted MFA's reply along with a detailed account of Rajapaksa's convoy upon his arrival in Singapore. Yet he also noted that Gotabaya Rajapaksa was STILL president at the time when he arrived in Singapore, not a FORMER president.

Which makes you wonder at his intention.

Is there anything strange about the president of a country using the VIP complex or terminal? Rajapaksa was still president. He hadn't resigned yet.

Is it unthinkable that the Sri Lanka High Commission here would have made security arrangement for their president including engaging Certis Cisco riders?

So what was Gerald's intention when he posted the details irrelevant to his question on a FORMER president? To cast doubt on the answer given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs to his question?

If he has any further questions, the right thing for him to do is to follow up with another, very specific question to the minister.

To do a Facebook post instead, such as he did (where details irrelevant to his question are placed side by side with his question) shows a lack of integrity and an intention.

Doesn't Gerald Giam know that Singapore does not intend to go completely cashless?

Not so long ago, in fact rather recently, Minister Ong Ye Kung said in Parliament that Singapore will NOT go completely cashless.

WP Gerald Giam proved that an opposition MP will not carry out the role of a grassroots adviser to explain to residents government policies such as not going completely cashless.

Am sorry that the auntie was almost in tears instead of being assured that Singapore will not go completely cashless.

TraceTogether: why oppose something good?

Granted, some were taken aback by the revelation that the Police can access TT data.

After the initial surprise, many realise that the data was accessed towards a good end - to help solve crimes.

We were told in Parliament that Police accessed the data once - in a murder case.

If an additional tool will increase the efficiency in solving serious crime, why not?

Why are WP and PSP defending the privacy of potential criminals?

If a person is detained for planning an act of terrorism, would Gerald Giam and Tan Cheng Bock oppose accessing his TT data to find out fast who his close contacts are?

Gerald Giam of WP wants the government to specifically rule out data from TraceTogether from being accessed by Police

Hypothetical: A person was murdered in a back alley. His Trace Together token was found on him. Should the police be prohibited from getting information on the token to establish who killed or possibly witnessed his death?

Key words: Criminal investigation

Riding on the uproar, Gerald Giam of WP wants the government to specifically rule out data from TraceTogether from being accessed by Police.

Here's what you need to understand about TraceTogether:

Your location is not recorded. Only who you have come into contact with is recorded. The data is encrypted. The data is purged after 25 days.

Whatever data collected stays with you until:
1. you are infected with COVID-19, OR
2. you are being investigated or assisting the investigation of a serious crime (a possibility).

So who are we protecting in this uproar over Police being able to access it to investigate serious crimes?

Who pays?

You've got to love Gerald Giam for caring. But who doesn't care? It is always easy to stand up and ask for support measures here, there, more support for everyone, local and foreigners.

But the other part of the equation, the unpleasant and unpopular part is: Who pays?

The Government? Where does the Government get their revenue for spending? Taxes of course.

So Workers' Party should do the math and tell how they proposed for these measures to be funded.

It's not enough to sound good. It's equally important to sound real.

For Workers' Party to be a credible party, they have to address the matter of funding.

On the one hand, they resist even a small GST hike to support an ageing population and spending on the young.

On the other hand, they call for increase assistances in many areas.

There is no money-printing machine.