Category: Singapuraku

Reform Party Demands Full Accounting From Lee Hsien Loong On The Use Of State Resources In Connection With Ongoing Legal Proceedings In Personal Capacity
Reform Party is concerned that the Prime Minister in his personal capacity as Mr Lee Hsien Loong is currently engaged in a defamation suit against the blogger Roy Ngerng. When any Minister, let alone the Prime Minister, is involved in legal proceedings in a personal capacity there may be implications for them in their official position.

By his own admission, the PM’s lawsuit, where he is seeking a significant sum in excess of S$400,000 against the unemployed former health worker blogger is a private matter and has nothing to do with the official duties of the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO). Can the PM assure the citizens that he can carry out his duties as a public servant funded by the taxpayer and simultaneously be engaged in a legal wrangle which has now reached the high court, without significant impact on those official duties? If so, we ask for those assurances to be made public.

Because of the potential implications for conflict we believe the PM must give a clear and detailed accounting of all or any taxpayer funded state resources, official resources, official machinery and official personnel used in the period starting with the monitoring of bloggers, research and information gathering through to the issuing of legal letters, the follow-up, the subsequent legal action and the current hearings to assess damages and the media and PR management throughout. We believe we should also be informed as to how much time and what resources were expended by state legal officers and civil servants in advising the PM on the implications of legal proceedings in his personal capacity.

We respectfully request answers to the following questions:
1. How much time has your Official Press Secretary -a civil servant whose salary is also tax payer funded –spent in meeting journalists, researching, composing and writing letters on your behalf to foreign newspapers such as the Economist, defending your position over your personal lawsuit ? What economic value would you put on this or if it is not possible to assign a dollar value how many man-hours have been expended so far?
2. Did the PMO bill you personally for the total cost of using your Press Secretary on your private business?
3. Did you pay the cost of other resources used to assist you in your suit against Roy Ngerng?
4. State Media photos show you arriving at court in a chauffeured limousine. Did you use your own car or an official car to transport you to the hearing when you gave evidence at that hearing?
5. If it was an official car, did you pay for the use of the car, the driver, the petrol?
6. Who paid for the cost of your bodyguards or any police escort to accompany you to the hearing?
7. Was any extra security in place and who paid for that?
8. Did you take official or unpaid leave for the day you spent in court fighting your private matter or do you expect taxpayers to finance it?
9. You are paid at least $2.4 million p.a. out of state funds as PM to run the country and for your MP duties. How much of your working time has been spent on your private lawsuit against Roy Ngerng? Again can you assign a dollar value to this and will you be refunding the taxpayer?
10. We are further disturbed by your admission in court under cross-examination by Roy Ngerng that you had been watching him for some time “making more and more outrageous allegations about the CPF, stopping short of accusing me of doing bad things personally, but coming closer and closer to saying that.” Please clarify how much time, for some time is, in real terms. Mr Ngerng for example, started blogging in 2012. How much of your working time would you estimate has been spent in “watching” what bloggers are saying or might be about to say? Do you watch these bloggers on official machinery? Do you consider that you can monitor all these bloggers over a period of time and still run the country efficiently? Would you say this is the best use of taxpayers’ money?
11. Maybe you do not watch the bloggers personally. Do you in fact watch them personally or do you have private or state funded staff watch them for you? Have you set up a special unit within the PMO to monitor bloggers and social media including Mr Ngerng for comments that you do not like personally or that you consider defamatory of you in your personal capacity? Is this being paid for out of State funds?
12. You are presumably aware that Tan Tock Seng Hospital dismissed Mr Ngerng for among other things, misusing hospital resources. Similarly NUS sacked Chee Soon Juan in the early 1990s for using office stamps for a personal letter even though he had sought permission. Would you not agree that if you have used state resources for your own personal interest such as this lawsuit against Roy Ngerng, then you are guilty of the same misappropriation? At the very least would you not consider that you are giving the taxpayer poor value for the salary they provide?
Reputational Damage

We are further concerned that the Prime Minister’s responses in Court to questions set to him by the unemployed former health care worker and blogger Roy Ngerng show him in a poor light. Even though he is suing the blogger in his personal capacity he cannot escape the fact that he is Prime Minister of Singapore and as such his snide and sarcastic ripostes in a Court of Law may be deemed by many to be unseemly for a man in that position. Particularly given the huge disparity in income, status, power, influence and wealth between the Prime Minister and the blogger he is suing. Has the Prime Minister not considered that he risks bringing the office of Prime Minster into disrepute with such actions?

For example, his admission that he monitors bloggers watching for them to step over a line and be clearly defamatory. Does he not consider that this will appear unseemly for a man in his position? Additionally his response to Mr Ngerng’s analogy about a knife and a cut finger “knowing you it may be” reveals a personal animosity unbecoming of the leader of a developed nation.

We do not challenge the judgement that has already been made in his favour but we would like to know whether with all the legal and media handling advice at his disposal, the Prime Minister was not warned of the dangers of the Streisand Effect.

We trust that the Prime Minister is not too busy monitoring the worldwide web to respond and look forward to a clarification that no official resources have in fact been expended or if that is not the case to a full and frank accounting.

Kenneth Jeyaretnam

Secretary-General

Source: Reform Party
July 4, 2015
Tharman Shanmugaratnam: I Won’t Be PM Unless They Forced Me To

In a public forum about what lies ahead of Singapore at the SG50+ Conference held by the Institute of Policy Studies, Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Tharman Shamugaratnam unreservedly said that he will not be the next Prime Minister unless the ruling PAP Government forced him to. DPM Tharman said that he is neither interested in the PM role nor believe he is suitable for it:

“Let me put it this way, we all have our preferences. And I was always, in sports, a centre half rather than centre forward. I enjoy playing half back and making the long passes, but I am not the striker.

Unless I am forced to be, and I don’t think I will be forced to it, because I think we have got choices. It is not bad that we think so hard about succession, and we don’t always get it the way we expect it to be, but we think very hard about succession in Singapore.”

The forum host, CNN journalist Dr Fareed Zakaria, also asked DPM Tharman if Singapore will get to see a non-Chinese Prime Minister one day, of which DPM Tharman became politically-correct and ambiguously said “it is just a matter of time”.

The issue on a non-Chinese Prime Minister has previously surfaced to the Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong where he said it will not happen any time soon and that Singaporeans are not yet “totally race-blind and religion-blind”:

“Will it happen soon? I don’t think so, because you have to win votes. And these sentiments – who votes for whom,and what makes him identify with that person – these are sentiments which will not disappear completely for a long time, even if people do not talk about it, even if people wish they did not feel it.

…attitudes towards race had shifted in the last two to three decades as English provided more of a common ground, but said to get to “a position where everyone is totally race-blind and religion-blind, I think that is very difficult. You will not find it in any country in the world.”

The Singapore Government has sparked heavy criticisms over the positions of the family and friends of the first PM Lee Kuan Yew. His eldest son, Lee Hsien Loong, became Singapore’s PM in 2004 and even until today, most people remains unconvinced Lee Hsien Loong attained his PM role without the help of his father. Lee Hsien Loong’s leadership has faced much criticisms as the PM leadership inherited the controversial aspect of his father’s (i.e. restriction of free speech), but none of the economic and social progress Singaporeans enjoyed during his father’s days. Lee Hsien Loong has been PM for the past 11 years, but unlike a real democracy, there is no legislated limit on the number of years he can be Prime Minister.

Source:http://statestimesreview.com

July 4, 2015
Davinder Singh: Roy Ngerng Used Foreign Organisations To Pressure The Courts

Blogger Roy Ngerng used foreign organisations to put pressure on the Courts, Senior Counsel Davinder Singh – acting on behalf of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong – asserted on Friday (Jul 3), the final day of a hearing to assess the amount of damages has to pay Mr Lee for defaming him by alleging the misappropriation of CPF funds.

He cited two letters that Roy Ngerng had submitted to the Supreme Court. One is from the International Commission of Jurists, a human rights non-governmental organization based in Switzerland. The other is from the Centre for International Law, a human rights group based in the Philippines.

“You used these foreign organisations to suggest to this court that if it were to award high damages it would run afoul of international human rights law, it would be generating an atmosphere of intimidation and would be a form of judicial harassment,” Mr Singh said. Mr Singh added that Mr Ngerng was also suggesting that if the court were to award damages, it would be “denying” the right of freedom to expression or “impairing” it.

In response, Justice Lee Sieu Kin, who is presiding over the proceedings, stressed that he does not feel any pressure from external parties.

Mr Singh also said the 34-year-old blogger was not being truthful to the court. For example, the blogger had sent emails regarding the takedown of his blogpost to 82 journalists’ email addresses, instead of the claimed 52, said Mr Singh.

The lawyer also said that at the time of the incident, the blog homepage – where posts could be read in full – had ten times the pageviews of the blog article itself. But when Mr Singh and his team asked for information on homepage views, they were not provided by Mr Ngerng.

The blogger argued that the popularity of a post should be measured by the article’s pageviews, and not the homepage, which contains other articles.

The Senior Counsel also put forth that in Mr Ngerng’s ambitions to publish factual information, he did not publish the Prime Minister’s rejection to his out-of-court offer for S$5,000. In defence, Mr Ngerng said that Mr Lee’s response to the offer being “derisory” was already reported by the media.

LEGAL COSTS

Mr Ngerng said he was seeking financial help as his savings and the donations have dwindled since the case went to court. About S$110,000 was donated by the public.

Mr Ngerng, who said he now lives off his parents, told the court that S$70,000 had been paid to lawyer M Ravi, while S$36,000 was used to pay Mr Lee’s lawyers in costs for the summary judgment as well as the Queen’s Counsel application.

The remaining money was used to pay Mr Ngerng’s third lawyer George Hwang, but the blogger received an additional £5,000 (S$10,500) from London-based human rights organisation Media Legal Defence Initiative (MLDI) to fund the case. Mr Ngerng said MLDI and another London-based organisation, Article 19, assisted in legal advice.

But when the blogger told the court that all the donations had been spent, the Senior Counsel said that knowing his means were limited, Mr Ngerng should not have aggravated the offence with follow-up blogposts.

“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.”

Mr Singh noted that after receiving the letter of demand from Mr Lee’s lawyers, Mr Ngerng immediately offered damages “to get away on the cheap”, yet continued aggravating the offence with his subsequent actions.

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

Mr Singh also highlighted a blogpost that Mr Ngerng had written the day before the assessment of damages hearing, saying that he was going to court and that “we have to fight back and take a stand”.

Mr Ngerng said, despite the blogpost’s headline mentioning the damages hearing, the post was also about teenage blogger Amos Yee who was involved in another court case, and could thus not be seen as aggravating the defamation case.

“Over the past few days, you have heaped accusations about me of far from being sincere, despite how sincere I’m trying to show (I am),” he said to Mr Singh.

The case was adjourned at 3pm, with written submissions due Aug 31. As Mr Ngerng will be away for the next two weeks for reservist, Justice Lee gave him an additional six weeks after that to make his written submissions.

Source: www.channelnewsasia.com

July 4, 2015
Jeanette Chong-Aruldoss Sets Eyes Again On Mountbatten

Mrs Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss, 51, a lawyer, sets her eyes again on the Mountbatten Single Member Constituency (SMC) for the upcoming General Election with the blessing of her new political party.

A former secretary general of the National Solidarity Party (NSP), Mrs Chong-Aruldoss lost a bid to become NSP president in party polls held in January this year.

She subsequently left the party along with a several other members and applied to join the Singapore People’s Party (SPP) in March, helmed by veteran politician Chiam See Tong.

Mrs Chong-Aruldoss confirms that she will be contesting in the SMC in the upcoming polls which must be held by January 2017.

She said, “Yes, I am keen to make another bid to be elected as MP for Mountbatten. In the course of campaigning during the last GE, I established friendships with residents and got to know some local issues of concern to the residents there. I believe that I will be of more help to residents – and be a better candidate – if I were to have a deeper understanding of issues and closer ties with residents.

“For this reason, even after GE 2011, I have continued to and have been regularly walking the ground at Mountbatten. It has been my aim to build on the relationships which I have already established and to deepen my understanding of the issues of concern.”

Her personal campaign team has also been formed for the purpose of the upcoming election, which does not tax on the limited manpower and resources of SPP. It is said that the team has been visiting the SMC every Wednesday.

In General Elections 2011, Mrs Chong-Aruldoss contested against People’s Action Party candidate, Mr Lim Biow Chuan, under the NSP’s banner for the first time in the newly formed Mountbatten ward.

She received 41.38 per cent of the vote, which is slightly above the national average for opposition candidates.

However, Mrs Chong-Aruldoss is uncertain if the efforts of her campaigning team would bear fruit in the coming election due to Singapore’s constant changing electoral boundaries.

“Of course, all potential opposition candidates including myself, are under the heel of boundary changes. History has seen boundaries change significantly from one general election to another. What if Mountbatten is no longer a single member constituency? I don’t know.”

Despite the uncertainity she faces in the upcoming election, Mrs Chong-Aruldoss said, “For now, I will continue to walk the grounds of Mountbatten to see how best I may be able to serve its constituents, if elected.”

Apart from Singapore People’s Party which is set to contest the SMC if it is not subsumed into other constituencies or removed altogether at the next boundary changes, the NSP itself seems to have also set its eyes on contesting the ward.

This would set up a possible three-corner fight in the SMC.

Source: www.theonlinecitizen.com

July 3, 2015
Writ Of Possession Of HDB Flat Issued Against Dying Man

Lim Teck Choon (59 years old, unemployed), sold his 3-room flat at Blk 18 Bedok South Rd for $310,000 in December 2010.

The buyer, Ms Hani, was unable to meet the deadline and the sales and purchase transaction was cancelled at one point in time. Subsequently, she managed to get a loan, and was allowed an extension to complete the transaction.

After the delay, Mr Lim was unwilling to proceed with the sale on the original terms and wanted compensation or an increase in the sales price.

However, the sales transaction was completed and since then Mr Lim and his wife have refused to move out of the flat. They have been fined $2,500 for failing to comply with a court order to do so.

Last Friday (26 Jun), Mr Lim told the Chinese media that he has received a letter asking him to move out of the flat on the same day by 2.30pm. But he was firm about staying put and said, “They will take my flat over my dead body.”

When a reporter from the Chinese press arrived at the flat, he found that the items inside were not packed and there was no indication of Mr and Mrs Lim moving out.

Later, at about 3 pm, a group of 5 persons consisting of the bailiff, lawyers and locksmiths, armed with a Writ of Possession, arrived at the flat to take possession of it. A commotion ensued and the police had to intervene.

Seeing the group of people coming to take possession of his flat, Mr Lim opened the iron grille gate and started shouting at them.

He told them that he was suffering from cancer in its final stage. He had sold his flat to get some cash to buy Chinese herbs for his illness. But after selling the flat, all the proceeds were locked up in his CPF account and he couldn’t touch a single cent. As a result, he refused to move out of his flat.

He shouted, “You want me to let you have the flat, but I didn’t get the money! I have appealed to the minister.”

When the police arrived, Mr Lim didn’t calm down but continued scolding. In the course of the commotion, Mr Lim dashed towards lawyer Mohd Ibrahim and tried to push him. As the lawyer dodged Mr Lim, Mr Lim lost his balance and fell. The policemen then quickly stepped in to block Mr Lim.

A minute or two later, after making sure that Mr Lim posed no harm to the lawyer, the policemen helped him to his feet.

As Mr Lim refused to budge, the group went away leaving the court documents behind.

Mr Lim said that he is suffering from end stage cancer and is not afraid to go to jail. He repeatedly said that he has nose cancer and the cancerous cells have spread to the lymph nodes. He is a person waiting to die, he said. The doctor told him that it is a miracle he is still alive.

He said that the last time the lawyer came to his flat, his wife was so agitated that she had an epilepsy attack. Subsequently, the lady buyer got a court order for Singapore Power to cut off his electricity and water supply. Also, the police have entered his flat to remove his belongings. All these things made him angrier.

One may not “see the money” after selling one’s HDB flat

An HDB flat has been touted as an asset which can help one’s retirement. Many Singaporeans like Mr Lim think so too. Many people think that selling their HDB flat will help them get out of financial trouble.

On the contrary, Mr Lim’s case proves that selling one’s HDB flat does not necessarily give one cash.

Mr Lim, a man with a terminal illness, needs cash to seek treatment for a chance to live the last chapter of his life with dignity. He thinks he can do so by cashing in on his sole asset: his HDB flat. Imagine his horror when he finds out that the proceeds of sale which he so desperately needs, are locked away out of his reach because of the CPF Minimum Sum requirement.

Presently, those who are 55 years old on or after 1 July 2015 must set aside a Full Retirement Sum (i.e. Minimum Sum for those with no property pledges) in one’s CPF account of $161,000.

It’s sad that Mr Lim who is suffering from terminal illness isn’t allowed to use his own CPF money for medical treatment. What is the reason for this?

It’s no wonder he is prepared to go to jail because in jail, he would at least enjoy free medical treatment as an inmate.

Will the Minister of National Development Khaw Boon Wan make an exception for Mr Lim?

What do you think?

Source: www.tremeritus.com

July 3, 2015