Category: Komentar

Send in your opinion to [email protected].
Kirimkan pandangan anda kepada [email protected].

Postings By Han Hui Hui Shows That Roy Ngerng Wanted To Aggravate Libel (For Asylum)

So the 3 day drama in the High Court ended today with Roy Ngerng doing what he does best, misleading and being insincere in offering his apology. Senior Counsel Davinder Singh underlined this, as this Channel News Asia report shows:

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/roy-ngerng-has-not-been/1958428.html

To quote SC Singh:

“As you were incurring these expenses and filing fees, you were aware that if you continued to aggravate the injury, there was a risk that the damages could be increased,” the Drew & Napier lawyer said. “The sensible thing to do was to stop aggravating.”

“He is continuing to attack the plaintiff (Mr Lee) for improper motives,” he told the court.

Roy had no qualms in misleading the public to donate to his ‘legal fund, yet in the end he blew all of that, not only gallivanting around the world’ but even taking funds from foreign sources. Only to come to court to again say ‘he’s sorry and had no intent to defame.’ In the end what did that $110,000 from 1200 donors achieve when he discharged his latest lawyer, George Hwang last week and defended himself with Ms Han Hui Hui appointed as his ‘co-counsel?’ Under misleading remarks of fighting for people’s CPF return, he took $110,000 which could have helped many of those very CPF members with debts or in dire need of them. He could have settled the matter very early on by agreeing to the demands in the letter and apologising unreservedly. He would have walked away with a ‘moral victory,’ made the PM to look like a big bully and then continued to fight for the people without a need to waste $110,000. In doing so, he now has made crowd-funding for those who really need it more difficult. Take a look at his advice to Amos Yee, who also crowd-funded $20,000, which also wasn’t required as his lawyers were doing his case pro-bono.

Senior Counsel Davinder methodically and systematically ripped Roy’s arguments to shreds proving time and again his deceit – saying 1 thing and doing another.

Simply put, Roy has no qualms in blowing away money and teaching others likewise on how to obtain it with misleading remarks and not coming clean. Some people ask me why I continue to attack him and the rest of the Looney Fringe – well this is why – lying and being untruthful. Until then, I was a fellow supporter – I was encouraging him and Ms Han, thinking they were doing it for selfless reasons – fighting for a cause, being true activists. It all changed when I found the ulterior motives and I first raised the alarm in this blog post on him seeking asylum.

Until today Han Hui Hui and Roy Ngerng are asking money from the public, if not from their personal pages then via their Empowering Singaporeans FB page. Both are working in tandem and in concert to deceive the public that they are ‘fighting for them,’ yet both have no qualms in going abroad and telling lies to their selected audiences. They want fame at all costs, yet do not work, do not go out to help the needy, rather chose to play ‘victim’ at every stage. Heaven forbid if they are elected – they’ll squander all the public funds they get their hands on and blame somebody else for it.

I was a bit lazy then to upload the Facebook messages between me and Ms Han, but now that the case is over in court, let me share them. Since then I’ve been proven right each and every time, the words and actions by them have shown them to be what they truly are – opportunists with misguided notions of self importance. Note these are not words by a casual observer – it’s by Ms Han, Roy’s very own right hand ‘woman.’ Her actions are done with his blessings and in concert with him. And so here they are in sequence:

1) Me chiding HHH for upping the ante with postings on her FB page.

2) HHH claiming it was Roy who asked to up the ante.

3) Buttressing the PM’s case of making the slander worse by aggravating it.

4) She claims that this is what Roy, Leong and Ravi wants.

5) At that point of time, I was under the impression that his lawyer M Ravi was behind this too. I later found out (and confirmed by SC Singh) that Ravi was in the dark about all of this.

6) She voluntarily mentions asylum the 1st time. I wasn’t taking it seriously then and made a joke about it.

7) All this transpired before the Monday deadline, the earlier conversation took place on Saturday May 24th 2014. Thinking Roy was being badly advised, even by M Ravi, I volunteered to go meet him at Ravi’s office on Monday.

8) Then on Monday May 26th, SC Davinder sent a fresh notice rejecting Roy’s supposed ‘apology’ after it was revealed he not only made a new video but disseminated it (and the blog post he was to take down) to lots of people at home and abroad (as stated in the CNA article above). I was angry at those actions and told Ms Han off. She responded by stating again voluntarily – he was doing this for asylum.

9) This time I took it more seriously and probed further and she explained:

So there you have it – from the mouth of Roy’s best pal and confidant – his true intentions. Now before you say she’s making this up, do consider that at that point of time, we were friends – I genuinely believed that Roy and her were fighting for justice, they were passionate about the CPF issue, a bit misguided but their hearts were in the right place. Then this bombshell – all this was just a mere gimmick, telling the public and supporters 1 thing but doing another.

Of course since then Ms Han has either blocked me or closed this account in the hope it won’t come to light. Furthermore it shows here as Facebook user – so was it really her or me making this up? Fortunately I did a screenshot of this conversation where her name is shown. Here’s 2 examples:

Proof from Points 6 & 7 above that it was Ms Han Hui Hui and no one else who volunteered this information on the motives of Roy Ngerng to aggravate the libel.

Conclusion.

So Roy can go and deny in court and especially to his foreign supporters that he is being bullied and tormented. He can lie to hard-core opposition supporters that he’s being up front and truthful, but he cannot run away from the fact that his very own ‘co-counsel’ and best friend ‘let the cat out of the bag,’ that all he did was with an ulterior motive. He never had the interests at the people at heart as he claims even suggesting that he writes nothing but the truth in his blog – The Heart Truths. Rather his actions and flip flopping show a different side. He tells a different thing to each of his preferred audiences and conveniently blocks or ignores hard questions about his motives and actions.

In fact we needn’t go so far, at that point in time he had 1 of the best human rights lawyers around, M Ravi, to defend him. Why didn’t he just leave it to Ravi to handle Davinder Singh and the PM? Surely that’s the most logical thing to do when you face a letter of demand and potential lawsuit – leave it to your lawyers. Why do things without consulting him first? Why do things behind his back? Ravi would have complied with the terms laid out by Davinder and worded an apology to the PM’s liking and the matter would have been resolved there and then! He would walk away with a moral victory and could have continued to fight for the people he claims he wants to fight for. But that was never the case was it? No it was all about him and his self interests. It was to gain monies from unsuspecting followers. He’s no hero, he’s just a liar trying to trick unsuspecting people into believing he fights for them and wants to be rewarded with fame and money for his exploits, and possibly asylum. Of course he was too dumb to realise that no country would offer him asylum, so he tries to make himself the consummate victim, in the hope it’ll pay off eventually. And that’s why I termed him ‘The Looney Fringe.’ Anyway let me end with this warning I gave Ms Han then – again I was proven right.

Source: http://anyhowhantam.blogspot.sg

July 5, 2015
I’m Gay And I Oppose Same-Sex Marriage

Gay marriage has gone from unthinkable to reality in the blink of an eye. A recent Washington Post/ABC News poll shows that support for gay marriage is now at 61 percent—the highest it’s ever been. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case that many court-watchers believe will deliver the final blow to those seeking to prevent the redefinition of marriage. By all measures, this fight is over. Gay marriage won.

As a 30-year-old gay man, one would expect me to be ecstatic. After all, I’m at that age where people tend to settle down and get married. And there is nothing in this world I want more than to be a father and raise a family. Yet I can’t seem to bring myself to celebrate the triumph of same-sex marriage. Deep down, I know that every American, gay or straight, has suffered a great loss because of this.

I’m not alone in thinking this. The big secret in the LGBT community is that there are a significant number of gays and lesbians who oppose same-sex marriage, and an even larger number who are ambivalent. You don’t hear us speak out because gay rights activists (most of whom are straight) have a history of viciously stamping out any trace of individualism within the gay community. I asked to publish this article under a pseudonym, not because I fear harassment from Christian conservatives, but because I know this article will make me a target of the Gaystapo.

Marriage Is More than a Contract

The wheels of my Pride Parade float came off the moment I realized that the argument in support of gay marriage is predicated on one audaciously bald-faced lie: the lie that same-sex relationships are inherently equal to heterosexual relationships. It only takes a moment of objective thought to realize that the union of two men or two women is a drastically different arrangement than the union of a man and a woman. It’s about time we realize this very basic truth and stop pretending that all relationships are created equal.

This inherent inequality is often overlooked by same-sex marriage advocates because they lack a fundamental understanding of what marriage actually is. It seems as though most people view marriage as little more than a love contract. Two people fall in love, agree to stick together (for a while, at least), then sign on the dotted line. If marriage is just a love contract, then surely same-sex couples should be allowed to participate in this institution. After all, two men or two women are capable of loving each other just as well as a man and a woman.

But this vapid understanding of marriage leaves many questions unanswered. If marriage is little more than a love contract, why do we need government to get involved? Why was government invited to regulate marriages but not other interpersonal relationships, like friendships? Why does every religion hold marriage to be a sacred and divine institution? Surely marriage must be more than just a love contract.

Government Is Involved in Marriage Because It Creates Babies

People have forgotten that the defining feature of marriage, the thing that makes marriage marriage, is the sexual complementarity of the people involved. Marriage is often correctly viewed as an institution deeply rooted in religious tradition. But people sometimes forget that marriage is also based in science. When a heterosexual couple has sex, a biological reaction can occur that results in a new human life.

Government got into the marriage business to ensure that these new lives are created in a responsible manner. This capacity for creating new life is what makes marriage special. No matter how much we try, same-sex couples will never be able to create a new life. If you find that level of inequality offensive, take it up with Mother Nature. Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples relegates this once noble institution to nothing more than a lousy love contract. This harms all of society by turning marriage, the bedrock of society, into a meaningless anachronism.

A Good Dad Puts Kids First

Same-sex relationships not only lack the ability to create children, but I believe they are also suboptimal environments for raising children. On a personal level, this was an agonizing realization for me to come to. I have always wanted to be a father. I would give just about anything for the chance to have kids. But the first rule of fatherhood is that a good dad will put the needs of his children before his own—and every child needs a mom and a dad. Period. I could never forgive myself for ripping a child away from his mother so I could selfishly live out my dreams.

Same-sex relationships, by design, require children to be removed from one or more of their biological parents and raised absent a father or mother. This hardly seems fair. So much of what we do as a society prioritizes the needs of adults over the needs of children. Social Security and Medicare rob the young to pay the old. The Affordable Care Act requires young and healthy people to buy insurance to subsidize the cost for the old and sick. Our schools seem more concerned with keeping the teachers unions happy than they are educating our children. Haven’t children suffered enough to make adults’ lives more convenient? For once, it would be nice to see our society put the needs of children first. Let’s raise them in homes where they can enjoy having both a mom and a dad. We owe them that.

At its core, the institution of marriage is all about creating and sustaining families. Over thousands of years of human civilization, the brightest minds have been unable to come up with a successful alternative. Yet in our hubris we assume we know better. Americans need to realize that same-sex relationships will never be equal to traditional marriages. You know what? I’m okay with that.

Source: www.malaysiandigest.com

July 5, 2015
Denied Entry Over Dressing

KUALA lUMPUR: I went to the Defence Ministry (Mindef) in Ampang to cover a presentation of Hari Raya goodies to the armed forces by the Prime Minister’s wife, an event that was also attended by the Defence Minister and his deputy.

I was dressed in a simple black-and-white piece with short sleeves and a hemline that ended just above my knees.

Despite what I thought to be decent attire, I was denied entry at the guardhouse.

At the counter to register my vehicle, an official told me to step back several times.

I took a few small steps back until he told me: “Please step back further, I need to see what you are wearing.”

He then said I would not be allowed in because my knees were showing.

I protested by saying that I had covered Mindef events before, wearing both casual clothes such as T-shirts as well as in similar dresses, but the protest was to no avail.

I also told him that I was a reporter and needed to get in to cover the event. He and a female staff member said they would check with the officials inside the building.

They returned to say there was no response and instructed me to sit down and wait.

At this point, another military policeman politely “assessed” my outfit, saying that I had violated the dress code.

I said there should be consistency when enforcing the dress code, not as and when they like.

As I didn’t want to miss my assignment, I went to retrieve a long skirt that was kept in my car for precisely this reason – overzealous dress code enforcers.

Then another officer remarked: “See, Miss, you look nice like this as well.”

I found the comment unprofessional.

I later raised the issue with the deputy minister, who laughed it off.

I couldn’t help thinking: if people meant to defend the nation can become so distracted by a pair of kneecaps, then our country is in trouble.

Source: www.thestar.com.my

July 3, 2015
It’s ‘Cover Up Your Arms’ At Ipoh City Council

IPOH: While the debates had centred on dresses that should cover the legs, a woman was not allowed to enter the City Council building here unless she cover her arms.

Eunice Chai, 32, a logistician, was stopped by security guards for wearing a sleeveless high-collar blouse and jeans.

She said she went to the council to apply for a business licence when one of the guards on duty commented on the “lack of sleeves” of her blouse.

“I was with a friend at the time, and thankfully he had a jacket in his car so he passed it to me at the entrance.

“I thought what I was wearing is considered decent since my legs are all covered up, but I didn’t expect this treatment here as well,” she said.

A poster showing the dress code at the council’s entrance

Chai said it did not make sense to turn people away for not covering up if they were appropriately dressed.

“The local authorities should also respect other cultures,” she added.

Chai said based on the dress code poster placed at the door, the appropriate dressing for non-Muslims is a long dress with elbow-length sleeves.

“The weather is very hot right now, and I don’t think many Chinese would wear like that when they go out,” she said.

The poster for dress code of both sexes at the entrance of the council’s building showed men in a formal shirt with sleeves, or blazer and tie, while the women in a long formal dress.

Those with sleeveless tank tops, shorts, short skirts, and slippers will not be allowed in.

Source: www.thestar.com.my

July 3, 2015
Jilted Wife Shames Husband And Young Mistress For Cheating

A reader has requested we share this story to remind others about being true to your partners, especially during the holy month.

I woke up this morning, thinking how does it feel to be dating someone’s husband?

Don’t you feel cheap? To think that he’ll be loyal to you? If he could do it to his wife so many times, what you makes you think he can’t do it to you?

To see that whatever he did for you is the same as what he did for me was funny. At that age, anything that he says or do seems wonderful. A flower, cakes, food, etc. He seems like the perfect guy. He’s not the roses type of guy. I could give you a book on his likes and dislikes if you want. I thought that he was perfect when I first met him. So charming I wld say. The reason he could do all that is because he feels powerful and secured because you got nothing (no looks,no career) and he has that power over you.

Do I feel hurt? Hurt is an understatement. Betrayed? Manipulated? Yes. Who wont? I thought I knew him. I don’t think you will ever understand that because only women will get it. Girls don’t. Given 8 years, we’ve been through shit that tested us as a couple and we always end up loving each other. I knew him inside out and you wouldn’t even be close to that.

Being the other woman dnt give you the upper hand. Let me tell you this, a man like that is not worth having at all. He could do it to his wife to have you but what makes you think he wouldnt do it to you when he’s bored of you.

I’m so grateful that Allah has opened my eyes to the truth. I deserve better. You can have him. No I’m not bitter because you took the love of my life. Im just glad that you did. You saved me from a twisted liar.

Just remember this, you did this to someone’s wife without giving a fuck about her feelings but Allah is watching and it’s Ramadhan. Allah Maha Besar and Maha Adil. You will get your kifarah. I can’t believe you have the cheek to go to our wedding with your family and took photo with us.

To you My Love – I wish you all the best in finding the life that you wanted. The life that you’ve trying to find since 2007. I hope Allah will still love you and guide you to the right path. Thank you for the memories.

Her name is Ernie. She works for Royce Suntec and studies at ITE College Central. She probably deleted all her social media.

Source: www.allsingaporestuff.com

July 3, 2015