Category: Singapuraku

Second Day Of Hearing To Assess Damages Roy Ngerng To Pay Lee Hsien Loong

A second day of a Supreme Court hearing to assess the damages that Roy Ngerng has to pay to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong for defamation saw the blogger being grilled by Mr Lee’s lawyer.

Taking the witness stand on Thursday (Jul 2), Mr Ngerng, who was unrepresented after discharging his lawyer last week, maintained that he had no intent to defame the Prime Minister. However, Mr Lee’s lawyer Davinder Singh said that replicating a Channel NewsAsia chart on the City Harvest Church trial, and replacing founder Kong Hee’s photo with that of PM Lee, was evidence of his intent.

“You were so consumed by your desire to promote yourself that you were prepared to make an untrue accusation,” Mr Singh said, after putting it to Mr Ngerng that his lack of understanding of the term ‘misappropriation’ used in the offending blogpost meant he did not understand the implication of using the term.

Mr Singh also questioned the sincerity of the blogger’s repeated apologies over the defamation. “You never believed that the Prime Minister had the basis to sue. You made (the apologies) only so that you could get away with not paying damages,” said Singh.

The blogger countered by saying Mr Singh had made a “whole host of accusations” against him. The “mismanagement of CPF funds” was the Government’s fault and not solely PM Lee’s, he said, adding that the onus was on the Government to find out who had mismanaged the funds.

At one point, Mr Ngerng said the Government – not just Prime Minister Lee – should sue him.

Mr Ngerng also said that his blog’s reach was too low to hurt the Prime Minister’s reputation. “People didn’t care about the article I was sued for. People cared about the demand letter your client sent me,” he told Mr Singh. He added that he was “scared and angry” after receiving a letter of demand from Mr Lee’s lawyers, threatening to sue.

He also felt aggrieved by PM Lee’s actions to sue an “ordinary citizen”. “He’s the Prime Minister and I’m just a blogger. Why did he have to go to that extent?” asked Mr Ngerng.

The 34-year-old said he did not know that reposting the letter meant that he was republishing the offending blogpost as the letter had cited statements in the post that PM Lee felt were defamatory. “If you had asked me, I would have taken it down,” said Mr Ngerng to Mr Singh.

According to him, his blog had two million views since its inception, but the offending post had a low view count.

Thus, PM Lee did not suffer a lower standing in the eyes of the public as a result of the defamation, Mr Ngerng said. As proof, he tendered documents showing instances where users showered compliments on Mr Lee on the Prime Minister’s Facebook page.

Mr Singh said that two emails that Ngerng sent out to local and international journalists with information on the location of two blogposts he had been asked to take down, were seen as aggravating. “Far from feeling oppressed, you were taking the fight not only to Singaporeans but internationally,” he said.

The blogger also broke a promise to remove a YouTube video related to the defamatory allegations, Mr Singh said, although Mr Ngerng claimed that making the video setting private meant it was “as good as gone”.

Mr Singh questioned his move to grant four other people access to the YouTube video in question, including bloggers Leong Sze Hian and Han Hui Hui who were assisting Mr Ngerng on the case. Mr Ngerng said that he allowed people access before the video was uploaded to help him check that the video was not defamatory.

He also insisted that his subsequent actions to remove material after demands were sent by PM Lee’s lawyers were to be seen as a mitigating factor in the assessment for damages. “I did it beyond what was required,” he stated.

Mr Ngerng said on the stand that his character was assassinated due to the suit because others had called him a “liar” and said that he published false information, although he maintained that he had posted factual information.

When Mr Singh asked the blogger if he did not regret what he had done, Mr Ngerng retorted, “I do not regret talking about the CPF”.

DETERMINING DAMAGES

During Wednesday’s hearing, which saw the Prime Minister take the stand for about six hours for cross-examination by Mr Ngerng, Mr Lee’s lawyers called for “a very high award of damages” on account of Mr Ngerng’s “malice and continuing attacks”.

“The court has consistently awarded substantial damages in cases where false allegations of criminal conduct were made in the office of Prime Minister,” said the lawyers said in their opening statement. “The plaintiff respectfully asks that the court expresses, in the strongest terms, its indignation at the defendant’s conduct. The case for a very high award of damages, including aggravated damages, is compelling.”

Mr Ngerng, a former healthcare programme coordinator at Tan Tock Seng Hospital, had written a blogpost last May comparing the Prime Minister’s usage of CPF monies to the City Harvest Church leaders’ alleged misuse of church funds. In his blog, he charged that Mr Lee did so via the Government’s investment arms, Temasek Holdings and GIC.

He was ordered by the court to no longer publish any assertions that Mr Lee was misappropriating CPF monies. He was also ordered to pay Mr Lee S$29,000 for legal fees and related expenses that were borne leading up to the application for the summary judgment.

The blogger later wrote in a blogpost that although the injunction was in place, he would continue to speak up for CPF and other issues.

His application for a Queen’s Counsel to take on his case was also rejected by the High Court on Jun 11, after Justice Steven Chong said that the appointed QC had no expertise in Singapore-specific defamation issues. Mr Ngerng was ordered to pay costs of S$6,000 for the dismissed application.

Source: www.channelnewsasia.com

July 3, 2015
Abuse Of Future Hawkers While Keeping Prices Low

By Foo CL

This article by Straits Times, “First of 20 new hawker centres will open in Hougang in August 2015: NEA” wrote about how new hawker centres bring about more hawker and affordable food to Singaporean.

For one of such hawker centres, NEA mentioned that Fei Siong Food Management will manage the new hawker centre on a not-for-profit basis, by channelling operating surplus “to improve vibrancy and create social benefits”.”

I saw this as a step in the right direction but at the end, I cannot describe how disappointed after I was directed to “FEI SIONG FOOD MANAGEMENT PTE LTD”, knowing more about the tendering of the hawker stall.

In the article, it states that the rental is S$1500-S$1800 which is comparable to others hawker at the same area, but failed to mention all the hidden cost charge by Fei Siong food management.

Cleaning and washing fee up to S$2000 per month excludes GST.

In most hawker centers, their highest rate to clean tables ranges between S$450-600 and S$600-1000 to wash the bowl inclusive of GST. Even taking the highest rate of the of the busiest hawker center, most would never exceed S$1600 in total cleaning fee (GST INCLUDED).

The rates offered is very much higher than the prevailing market rate.

Compulsory rental of point of sale (POS)

The POS system cost S$50 a month and the Fei Siong food management can also access your sales figure through this system.

Fixed uniform and utensil

Uniform and utensils will be provided by Fei Siong food management at an undisclosed amount.

Unfair tendering system.

There is a total of 40 stores but only 20 will be open tender, and the other 20 will be under the “entrepreneurship” program which will be operated by Fei Siong food management.

Under this program, applicants will write in the food they can cook and Fei Siong food management will select them to operate the stall on their behalf. The operator and the helper will be paid 25% of the stall sales. If u cannot meet the sales target, you will be removed from the program.

The rest of the 20 stall will be selected by Fei Siong food management instead of an open tender, which I will cover in the next point.

Conflict of interest?

Since Fei Siong food management will be managing 20 of the stalls and select the other tender. Wouldn’t Fei Siong food management give priority to food stores that are more popular, better profit margin and easier to operate to themselves and left over choices to those that decided to tender the stall remaining 20 stalls?

This 20 stalls will also have an unfair advantage due to higher overheads and operation cost stated above.

Strict Terms and conditions.

Fei Siong food management will require the hawkers to operate their stalls for 12 hrs a day. Wear their uniform, and control their off days so there will be a minimum numbers of stall opened every day.

This will not be easy for small family operated businesses that wish to keep their overhead low since they will definitely need to hire helpers to operate such long hours.

Business entity or government entity.

Is this hawker center that is built by taxpayer money been tender to Fei Siong food management for revenue or is it build for the benefit of residents to keep the food pricing low?

Price control

Despite having a higher operation cost, the hawker center management still wish to disguise it as a low-cost food center by restricting at least 2 product to be below $2.80

Been in F&B business myself, all the condition seem awfully similar to those in commercially operated food courts. But this is a NEA hawker center that is built by taxpayer money and released by the government as a form to assist citizen keeping food cost low. Why is it being abused as such?

Source: www.theonlinecitizen.com

July 2, 2015
Heartless Lorry Driver Swipes Motorcyclist, Then Says “He Die His Problem Lar”

Hi everyone,

Spread awareness of this heartless lorry driver of vehicle no. YL3271E.

This lorry driver was driving very recklessly on the roads when he turned and hit on a rider. The rider lost his balance, hit onto our car and flew.

When we stop, we confront the lorry driver but he deny it is his fault. After arguing for a while he just say “If he die his problem la!”

Now the rider still unconscious in hospital.

Please do share the lorry driver photo and let everyone be careful of him!

Jez
A.S.S. Contributor

Source: www.allsingaporestuff.com

July 2, 2015
Pink Dot Supporters Should Look In The Mirror

Pink Dot supporters cite the event as one emphasising tolerance, respect and love.

Ironically, there was an intolerant, disrespectful call for governmental action against religious communities who disagree with it, in the letter “End the slurs on LGBT people and their allies” (June 22, online).

Conservatives who disagree with Pink Dot are labelled as hatemongers. Religious leaders are accused of using the pulpit to attack persons attracted to the same sex. People with religious convictions are to be barred from discourse in “secular” public spaces.

Of greatest concern, however, is the assumption that all persons attracted to the same sex support Pink Dot. There are many of them who disagree with its agenda, which is to “change society’s attitude”, whereby regulations “will naturally also change”.

When an agenda seeks to alter a country’s laws and moral norms, it is only natural that society examines the merit of the movement. To suggest then that religious communities be silenced, when the movement imposes on everyone, is incredulous.

Such uncivil attitudes and double standards have resulted in discrimination against conservative communities. For example, Focus on the Family was unfairly branded a sexist organisation (“Ministries studying feedback on relationship workshop”; Oct 9).

Ms Agatha Tan’s accusations against it were taken wholesale and spread by news platforms and the public, with little critical thinking applied to her arguments.

It did not take rocket science to reach the logical question one should have asked: Would the Education Ministry have approved a sexist programme promoting rape to be run for 17-year-olds?

Even when her schoolmates who had sat in the same lecture wrote to address her allegations, little effort was made by the media, the school or the ministry to redress the issue publicly.

The organisation and its staff have suffered real loss to their reputation and livelihood. Has integrity been compromised in a world that prizes tolerance over truth?

Bullying of persons attracted to the same sex must be addressed. But remarks by Pink Dot supporters, such as those of the letter writer, divide the society and attack Singapore’s conservative religious communities.

This article, written by Leo Hee Khian, was published on Voices, Today, on 1 Jul.

Source: www.todayonline.com

July 2, 2015
Take Studied Approach To LGBT Endorsement

I refer to the commentary, “Why we need more light, less heat on sexuality issues” (June 30). I agree that on contentious issues such as this, we need more resources from all possible disciplines of knowledge to achieve mutual understanding.

For that to happen, however, we must identify the heart of the dispute and why arguments of religion versus rights have dominated the debate.

When the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) community cries for equality and against discrimination, especially with the Pink Dot slogan Freedom to Love, their ultimate interest is the inclusion of homosexual relationships in the institution of marriage.

Only then would the LGBT community be equal before the law and thus be protected from discrimination. But this would be deemed a threat to the religious community, wherein marriage is defined strictly as between a man and woman.

The United States Supreme Court legalised same-sex marriage based on the argument that it is a constitutional right. This has implications for religious communities across the US because granting such marital rights redefines marriage itself for Americans.

So, the foremost task of various knowledge disciplines would be to provide perspective and research on the LGBT issue, contributing towards answering the question in dispute between the religious and LGBT communities: What makes a marriage?

Is it an emotional bond in which fidelity is a choice and commitment, or can it happen only between a man and a woman? Does same-sex marriage benefit a democratic society?

Our Government is wise to uphold public opinion. The majority are conservative, and the research on same-sex marriage and its societal effect has just begun, as the Netherlands was the first country to endorse it, in 2001.

The debate on its benefits and harm to children and society are ongoing. More time is needed before one can make a correct judgement. Thus, to uphold our current policies is to safeguard our society’s common good.

The West’s experiment in same-sex marriage is irreversible. As a young nation, it is best that we take a cautious approach, to allow knowledge of different disciplines to inform us of the consequences of endorsing this movement, and we can decide from there.

This article, written by Jervin Lim Teng Lai, was published on Voices, Today on 2 Jul 2015.

Source: www.todayonline.com

July 2, 2015