Blog

  • Saudi Prince To Donate Entire $32 Billion Fortune To Charity

    Saudi Prince To Donate Entire $32 Billion Fortune To Charity

    A Saudi Prince will donate his entire $32 billion (£20bn) fortune to charity as part of a pledge modelled on the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

    Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal announced his intention to donate the majority of his wealth to philanthropic causes in a press conference on Wednesday.

    Speaking in the Saudi capital of Riyadh, Prince Alwaleed said his vast wealth would go towards promoting health, eradicating diseases, providing electric to villages, building orphanages, providing disaster relief and empowering women through his foundation, Alwaleed Philanthropies.

    “The philanthropic pledge will help build bridges to foster cultural understanding, develop communities, empower women, enable youth, provide vital disaster relief and create a more tolerant and accepting world,” his statement said.

    “Philanthropy is a personal responsibility, which I embarked upon more than three decades ago and is an intrinsic part of my Islamic faith. With this pledge, I am honoring my life-long commitment to what matters most – helping to build a more peaceful, equitable and sustainable world for generations to come.”

    The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation works to improve health care, education and reduce extreme poverty around the world. It asks the wealthy to pledge the majority of their wealth to philanthropy and counts Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and Apple CEO Tim Cook as pledgers.

    The Prince will continue to retain his publicly-listed investment business, Kingdom Holding. He stressed that there was no deadline for donating all of the funds.

     

    Source: www.independent.co.uk

  • Day 1 – Roy Ngerng Vs Lee Hsien Loong

    Day 1 – Roy Ngerng Vs Lee Hsien Loong

     

    Thinking it over, I think yesterday’s six hours in court can be summarised like this:

    Mr Ngerng:
    “I am sorry if what I said hurt you, I never intended to hurt you. I’m sorry that you took it badly. You really shouldn’t have. You’re the PM, you’re a big man and I’m just a poor blogger trying to get answers on questions of immense public interest. Anyway, please point out which line hurt you? This one? That one? How do you know I was talking about you anyway? I never named you. How do you know people read my posts anyway? And what’s wrong with you? Couldn’t you just have told me nicely that you were hurt? Now, you sue me and want to bankrupt me, an unemployed man and who had offered a princely sum of $10,000 to you, more than what most people earn… Why are you so afraid of me that you want me to shut up? I am not shutting up. Never. In any case, since you now know that I never intended to hurt you – that is, you got me all wrong – can I have a second chance and we settle everything out of court can?’’

    And the PM:
    “You said sorry so many times but I’m quite sure you’re not. Because you keep repeating what I thought the court had already settled: That you defamed me. Do you seriously think that $5,000 or $10,000 will make up for what you did to me, the Prime Minister of Singapore? I would have been okay with a sorry but you’re too much…I’ve been watching you and now you’ve stepped out of line. Don’t wriggle out of it by asking me about this line or that line. The whole thing was offensive. As for whether people read you or not, there’s this thing called Google. Clearly you hate me and you want to make some political capital from putting me on the stand. This is so people will think you’re a champion. But it’s really back down to this: You defamed me and the question is: How much should you pay me?”

     

    Source: Bertha Henson

  • MND: AHPETC’s Accounts Exacerbate Concerns

    MND: AHPETC’s Accounts Exacerbate Concerns

    A day after the Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC) submitted its overdue financial statements and report for FY2013, the Ministry of National Development (MND) issued a response, saying that the documents reinforced its concerns about the town council’s state of financial affairs.

    The MND, noting that the statement and report — submitted on Tuesday (June 30) — were 10 months late and that AHPETC required repeated reminders, said it will study the report. But it pointed out the auditors engaged by AHPETC had disclaimers of opinion in their report — the third consecutive year the town council has received qualified statements from its independent auditors.

    Audit Alliance, the auditors appointed by AHPETC, had flagged eight areas of concern, some of them similar to issues raised by the Auditor-General’s Office (AGO) in its report on AHPETC accounts for FY12/13.

    The auditors found that there was no segregation of duty between the person certifying invoices from FM Solution and Services (FMSS) for Managing Agent services, and the person approving related payment vouchers. AHPETC’s deputy general manager, who is a shareholder and director of FMSS, certified 12 invoices received from FMSS for Managing Agent services totalling S$2.1 million, and approved the related payment vouchers. The total value of related party transactions increased to S$8.5 million in FY13, from S$6.8 million in FY12.

    The auditor also found that in the case of three tenders called, the Managing Agent failed to declare whether the specifications gave preference to any particular tenderer.

    There was also no documentation on whether the tender specifications were approved by the Tenders and Contracts Committee of the town council.

    AHPETC also breached the Town Council Financial Rules by failing to make transfers into the bank account of the sinking funds as required. Its transfers were up to 15 months late and errors were discovered in the computation only after the AGO audit.

    And it paid for town improvement expenses out of its sinking fund, which is not allowed under the Town Councils Act.

    The auditor also said it could not verify whether certain items in the accounts were accurate, such as the FY13 opening balance, and the completeness of the town council’s liabilities as at March 31 2014.

    All town councils must submit their audited financial statements, auditors’ reports and annual reports to the MND by August 31 each year. These are then tabled to Parliament and a copy of the audited financial statements and any report made by the town council’s auditor is also forwarded to the Auditor-General.

    The MND noted that AHPETC went from an annual operating surplus of S$1.1 million in FY11 to a deficit of S$1.53 million in FY12 and a deficit of S$2.01 million in FY13. The town council also previously understated the annual operating deficit in FY12 by half.

    “AHPETC’s financial position has consistently deteriorated between FY11 and FY13, even though the (town council) received full government grants from MND during these three years,” the MND said. “AHPETC’s latest financial statements and reports reinforce MND’s existing concern about the (town council’s) state of financial affairs.”

     

    Source: www.todayonline.com

  • Davinder Singh: Case To Seek ‘Strong Damages’ From Roy Ngerng

    Davinder Singh: Case To Seek ‘Strong Damages’ From Roy Ngerng

    Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s lawyer made the case for substantial damages to be awarded today (July 1), asking the court to express “in the strongest terms” its indignation at blogger Roy Ngerng’s conduct in defaming their client.

    The case stands out for the “depth and intensity” of Mr Ngerng’s malice towards Mr Lee and his resolve to damage Mr Lee’s reputation,
    said Mr Davinder Singh in his opening statement tendered to court today at the start of a three-day hearing on how much the blogger has to pay in damages. “The case for a very high award of damages, including aggravated damages, is compelling.”

    A High Court ruled in November last year that Mr Ngerng had defamed Mr Lee in a May 2014 blog posting alleging misappropriation of money paid by Singaporeans to the Central Provident Fund. Today, citing a previous defamation case where the Singapore Democratic Party was ordered to pay Mr Lee Kuan Yew S$280,000 in general and aggravated damages — he was then Minister Mentor in the Prime Minister’s Office and also the chairman of the GIC — Mr Singh said: “In this instance, the Plaintiff was defamed in his capacity as the Prime Minister of the Republic of Singapore and the Chairman of GIC, and this should therefore warrant a higher award of damages.

    “The maintenance of the standing of the Plaintiff as the Prime Minister of Singapore and as Chairman of GIC is critical, and the public perception of his integrity will affect his effectiveness to govern and oversee GIC.”

    Mr Singh also said: “From the very first, the Defendant set out to wound. He knowingly and maliciously published a false and vicious libel towards the Plaintiff to inflict maximum injury. He then cynically capitalised on, and continues to exploit, that libel and the ensuing lawsuit to promote himself as a champion of free speech.”

    For instance, the 34-year-old blogger would have pulled the offending article from his blog if he was contrite,
    he said. Instead, he posted the letter of demand sent to him on his blog to draw more attention to the article, and wrote an accompanying article to “style himself as a martyr”.

    In his affidavit to the court,
    Mr Lee said Mr Ngerng made a “very serious and grave allegation”, which has “caused me distress and embarrassment”. He added that Mr Ngerng has “opportunistically used the libel in a calculated and cynical manner” to promote himself and cause further distress and injury to him.

    But Mr Ngerng is seeking the court to either award no damages, or award minimal or nominal general damages and/or not award any aggravated damages. In his court statement, Mr Ngerng, who paid S$29,000 in total costs to Mr Lee for the legal proceedings up to the summary judgment issued against him, said his case can be analysed in two other ways beyond the legal or technical factors affecting the assessment of damages he has to pay.

    The first relates to “the consequences of damages to free speech and democracy”, he said. The second is at the “socio-legal level”, where “we consider whether Singapore should move towards a more graceful society when its citizens share the same concerns with the Government in the welfare of Singaporeans and betterment of Singapore”.

     

    Source: www.todayonline.com

  • Lee Hsien Loong: Roy Ngerng Not Remorseful

    Lee Hsien Loong: Roy Ngerng Not Remorseful

    The hearing on the assessment of damages that blogger Roy Ngerng has to pay to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong — after he was found guilty of defaming the Prime Minister — began today (July 1), in front of a packed courtroom with queues forming outside the courtroom hours before the session started.

    However, there were few fireworks during the six-hour hearing, with the judge repeatedly interjecting Mr Ngerng’s cross-examination of Mr Lee as a witness and bringing him back on track, despite giving the blogger — who was representing himself in court — more leeway in his questioning.

    On several occasions, Mr Ngerng tried to argue that his blog posts have no malicious intent, despite the fact that he was already found guilty of defamation. This prompted Mr Lee to remark that “we are not here to play games”, while his lawyer Davinder Singh objected to Ngerng’s comments and questions as being irrelevant.

    Both sides also crossed swords on whether there was malice in Mr Ngerng’s conduct, whether he was sincere in his apologies and whether his subsequent actions aggravated the injury to Mr Lee’s reputation.

    While Mr Ngerng started his cross-examination by apologising to Mr Lee at least three times, and pointing out that he had posted an apology on his blog for 405 days as of yesterday, his other actions suggested there was no remorse, Mr Lee pointed out. For instance, he posted a YouTube video repeating defamatory allegations against Mr Lee after he was served a letter of demand to remove the offending blog posting, and later set the access to the clip to private instead of removing it.

    That was not the end of it, added Mr Lee, who noted that Ngerng also went on to email the media on how to access offending posts on another website, among other things.

    “The issue is your motive and your purpose, having committed to take down the video, having committed not to repeat the libel, you have gone instead to make maximum effort to distribute as widely as you can to all editors in Singapore and overseas, and tell them where they can find it after you have taken it down,” said Mr Lee, who had offered not to claim aggravated damages if Ngerng removed the clip.

    Mr Ngerng argued that he meant no malice, adding that since Mr Lee had not met him before yesterday’s hearing, he had no basis to come to that conclusion. “If need be, you can put me on a lie detector and I can prove to you that there is no malice on my part,” he told Justice Lee Seiu Kin.

    He also questioned why Mr Lee had decided on suing instead of trying other means of recourse. To which, Mr Lee said he consulted his lawyers and saw the need to defend himself in this instance, after having observed Mr Ngerng’s blog for some time, which had previous postings on the Central Provident Fund (CPF) system.

    “You have been skirting closer and closer to defaming me for a long period, I have been watching this. I have not responded … eventually it was unambiguous (and) I decided that I have no choice but to act,” added Mr Lee.

    When Mr Ngerng sought to show that parts of his article contained factual statements, even pressing Mr Lee on issues pertaining to the workings of the CPF, Mr Singh objected, calling it a “thinly-disguised attempt to try to introduce issues not relevant to this hearing”.

    Both Mr Lee and his lawyer also pointed out that Mr Ngerng was straying into challenging the issue of defamation that had already been settled by the court. Mr Lee added: “We are not here to play games, the meaning of these offending words have already been settled … there is no point going through again other than to aggravate damages”.

    On Mr Ngerng’s question of why his initial offer of S$5,000 in damages was rejected even though it was an amount higher than his monthly salary then as a healthcare worker at Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Mr Lee responded that it was “not a sincere offer” because Mr Ngerng had aggravated the matter through his conduct.

    “He was not serious or worried of how much he was earning … He wanted to make as big a dent in my reputation as he could,” added Mr Lee.

    The hearing continues tomorrow (July 2), with Mr Singh expected to cross-examine Mr Ngerng.

     

    Source: www.todayonline.com

deneme bonusu