Rilek1Corner

Tag: Roy Ngerng

  • Are SPF And ELD The Lapdogs Of PAP?

    Are SPF And ELD The Lapdogs Of PAP?

    I have a very poor opinion of Roy Ngerng. I think most of the things he writes are senseless drivel and some of the things he writes are dangerously incendiary. I thought that it is not entirely without reason that he got his ass handed to him in court for writing stupid things about PM Lee.

    All that said, I am abhorred by the way he was treated by the police recently. A police report was made against Roy Ngerng and Teo Soh Lung by the Elections Department Department (ELD). I had earlier written that I, as well as many others, were baffled by that action.

    For their alleged offence, Roy and Ms Teo were interrogated by the police for hours. Worse, the police went to search their homes. You can see the brave men-in-blue (though they are in plainclothes here) in action:

    So the two of them posted things that could possibly be in contravention of ELD’s cooling off day regulations. And we can’t even be certain if they did. They are individuals writing about their personal political views. Something which isn’t prohibited by the cooling off day restrictions.

    But let’s say that there is a prima facie case against them. The police therefore need to investigate to see if there is sufficient reasons to charge them. Fine. But is there a need to search their homes? Is there a need to take their laptops, computers and mobile phones? And to mobilize so many people to do it? A tad excessive no? And an utter waste of state resources isn’t it?

    Here’s Roy’s account of the abhorrent ordeal that he had to go through:

    What is more abhorrent and disgusting is the inconsistency. Let’s say that Roy and Ms Teo were both guilty of contravening ELD’s regulations. Let’s say that the police really had to do what they did to establish guilt. Then why the hell weren’t they as rigorous in investigating  other alleged breaches of ELD’s regulations?

    What other breaches you ask? These other breaches:

    Here you see Minister Shanmugam’s face plastered all over a hawker centre. That was during the GE2015. If you scrutinize those posters, you will realise that none of those posters “bear the bear the official stamp issued by the Returning Officer.” Worse, they are in a hawker centre! That is a clear violation of ELD’s regulations!

    So what has the police done to investigate the report made by Mr Daryl Teng? Don’t know. Were they as rigorous? Did they search the home of Minister Shanmugam? Highly unlikely. Why this inconsistency? God (if you are the God-fearing type) knows! It is no wonder that many people are of the opinion that the SPF and ELD are lapdogs of the PAP.

    Now SPF and the ELD has one chance to redeem themselves. A fresh complaint to ELD was made on 30 May. It was made against the site Fabrications against PAP. It alleges that the page shared a post on cooling off day that made specific reference to DPM Tharman’s speech at PAP’s rally that called people to vote for Murali.

    The nature of that post and those that landed Roy and Ms Teo in trouble appear identical. If Roy and Ms Teo were subjected to such treatment as a result of what they posted on cooling off day, then the people behind Fabrications about PAP ought to be subjected to the same treatment. Otherwise it would confirm the opinion of many people – SPF and ELD are lapdogs of the PAP. Lapdogs that would snap and bite people when they speak against the PAP, but would loyally and doggedly defend those who speak in favour of the PAP.

    And that would be really sad. And ironic. Ironic because just this Monday,DPM Tharman said that there is now more freedom of speech today compared to a decade ago. He said:

    “We have evolved into a society that has more freedoms, but it has some restrictions and they serve a purpose.”

    It seems that our evolution is proceeding at a glacial pace. And sometimes seem to be a Sisyphean evolution. Or perhaps he meant to say that there is freedom, up until you dare to threaten PAP’s stranglehold on power?

     

    Source: https://crazyrandomchatter.com

  • Roy Ngerng: Please Donate And Help Me Pay Damages

    Roy Ngerng: Please Donate And Help Me Pay Damages

    Hello everyone, this is an update to the defamation suit with the prime minister.

    I have to pay a total of S$180,000. (I have to pay him S$150,000 in damages and S$30,000 for the costs of the hearing.)

    (1) I have to pay S$30,000 by this Wednesday.
    (2) From April 1, I have to pay $100 every month for 5 years.
    (3) After 5 years, from 2021, I have to pay $1,000 every month until I finish paying.

    I would like to thank lawyer Eugene Thuraisingam and his colleagues for helping me reach this settlement. I am very grateful to them.

    These 2 years since I was sued hasn’t been easy. There have been ups and downs.

    I am just glad that it started a conversation on the CPF and some enhancements were made to the CPF.

    But I have learnt some lessons as well. I should have been careful with how I say things. I am thankful to have reached the settlement with the prime minister.

    I hope to have a fresh start. I have been looking for a job and doing freelance photography. I hope to be able to find a job and make use of my work experience and skills in an area that I could make good use of. I miss contributing effectively to make positive change.

    After the last election, a choice was made. I hope that this will be one that will put the country in the right direction. People choose what they are ready for.

    Finally, I would like to thank everyone who have supported me over these years. Thank you for believing in me. I did what I could. And I am glad that somehow, we were able to make a difference.

    Also, I would like to thank my parents and my family. I wouldn’t have been able to get through this without them. At a time where I had even lost friends, they have been an unwavering pillar of support.

    I hope this marks an end to a chapter and hope that we can move on from here.

    If you would like to help to defray the costs, you can also fund raise to the bank account at POSB Savings Bank Account 130-23068-7 (Ngerng Yi Ling).

    Thank you once again. 

     

    Source: Roy Ngerng Yi Ling

  • Roy Ngerng To Pay Lee Hsien Loong Damages In Installments Over 17 Years

    Roy Ngerng To Pay Lee Hsien Loong Damages In Installments Over 17 Years

    Blogger Roy Ngerng will pay S$100 a month for five years, and S$1,000 a month subsequently in damages awarded to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong for defamation until the full sum of S$150,000 is paid.

    In a hearing on Monday morning (March 14) to assess the damages, the lawyers of Mr Ngerng and Mr Lee reached a settlement in relation to the terms of payment of the judgement sum, Mr Ngerng’s lawyer Eugene Thuraisingam told TODAY.

    Mr Thuraisingam said both sides had agreed late last week on terms to settle the costs payable (S$30,000) for the assessment of damages hearing, which Mr Ngerng has to pay by Wednesday.

    No interest would need to be paid if Mr Ngerng makes each payment on time, said Mr Thuraisingam, who is acting on a pro bono basis. “In the event that he breaches the terms of the agreement (i.e fails to make any one of the payments), the full amount outstanding plus Court Judgment interest will be immediately payable,” the lawyer added in an email reply.

    It would take 17 years for Mr Ngerng to pay the damages in full.

    In December last year, a High Court judge ordered Mr Ngerng to pay Mr Lee S$150,000 for alleging that the latter had criminally misappropriated Central Provident Fund monies. While past defamation cases involving Prime Ministers have attracted damages in excess of S$300,000, Justice Lee Seiu Kin said a “substantial reduction” in this case was warranted, given the blogger’s “comparatively low standing”.

    Mr Ngerng had earlier been found guilty of defaming Mr Lee, and in a three-day hearing in July to assess damages, Mr Lee’s lawyer Davinder Singh made the case for “substantial damages” to be awarded. 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, thus warranting a “very high award of damages”, Mr Singh had said.

    In response to media queries, Mr Lee’s press secretary Chang Li Lin confirmed that Mr Ngerng “had asked to be let off by paying only S$36,000 out of the costs plus S$150,000 in damages”. “The PM had responded to say that (Mr Ngerng) had to discharge his entire debt, but that he was prepared to give (him) time to pay the S$150,000 by instalments, provided (he) paid the costs immediately,” Ms Chang said. Mr Ngerng agreed and this was recorded by the Court, she added.

     

    Source: www.todayonline.com

  • Han Hui Hui Trial: Heckling Of Children Was Like Someone Bringing A Coffin To A Wedding

    Han Hui Hui Trial: Heckling Of Children Was Like Someone Bringing A Coffin To A Wedding

    The trial for blogger Han Hui Hui and three others — who allegedly caused public nuisance during a protest that clashed with a YMCA event — started yesterday (Oct 13) in bizarre fashion, with Han questioning the mothers of the special needs performers on their views on the freedom of speech and if they understood the Constitution, among other things.

    Taking the witness stand, the parents repeatedly objected to Han’s questioning and asked the judge to intervene. One of them likened the protesters’ actions at Hong Lim Park in September last year as bringing a coffin to a wedding.

    During the #ReturnOurCPF protest, Han, 24, and fellow blogger Roy Ngerng, 34, had led a few hundred people in a march around the park and allegedly disrupted YMCA’s annual carnival Proms @ the Park when some performers who have Down’s syndrome were on stage.

    Six people — including Han and Ngerng — were charged for causing public nuisance. The two bloggers had an additional charge of organising a demonstration without approval. Ngerng and another co-accused Chua Siew Leng, 43, have pleaded guilty and were fined S$1,900 and S$300 respectively.

    Han, Goh Aik Huat, 42, Koh Yew Beng, 60 and Low Wai Choo, 55, are contesting the charges against them in a trial scheduled for four days. They are conducting their own defence without any lawyers.

    Yesterday, Han cross-examined three witnesses — two mothers of the performers and a member of the public who had filmed the protest.

    Among other things, she asked them whether they felt the protesters were a nuisance, whether they took steps to stop the demonstration, what they saw that day, and what they felt constitute freedom of speech.

    The two mothers, whose children were part of a group called Y-Stars that was invited to dance for the YMCA event, declined to respond to several of her questions, with District Judge (DJ) Chay Yuen Fatt having to intervene on several occasions.

    Referring to the Central Provident Fund protest, one of the mothers, Ms Karen Lee, said the YMCA carnival was “spoilt by people in the other event”. “It’s just like a wedding function, and someone brings a coffin around, do you think you will be happy?” she asked.

    Deputy Public Prosecutor Amanda Chong asked the mothers how the performers — comprising children and adults — responded to the commotion caused by the protestors. In response, they said the dance routine went awry because the protestors made “loud and high-pitched noises” which distracted the performers.

    Ms Regina Ang said: “People with Down’s syndrome are more sensitive to noise … Every segment of our dance is synchronised, but now everyone is doing their own dance, some stuck in their first pose, because they cannot hear the music.”

    Referring to a video recording of the YMCA event which was shown in court yesterday, Ms Ang pointed out that her son, 27, had his lips pursed — an expression that he usually makes when he is anxious or uncomfortable, she said.

    She added that the performers were unusually quiet after the event, whereas in the past they would “cheer and give each other high-fives” after a performance. “We kept trying to distract them, praise them, trying our best not to let them dwell too much on what happened,” Ms Ang said.

    She added: “I didn’t understand the cause (of the protest) … You may want to speak up on your cause but it is not right to interrupt … Maybe I had too much faith in human nature to think they could stop for three-and-a-half minutes to let (the participants of the YMCA carnival) perform.”

    She said that, until now, some of the performers are still emotionally affected by what happened. She alluded to how one performer cried when being interviewed about the carnival earlier this year.

    The trial continues today with Han — who had contested unsuccessfully in the General Election last month — cross-examining the prosecution’s fourth witness, who is also a caregiver of a Y-Stars performer.

    At the end of yesterday’s hearing, DJ Chay told Han to shorten her questions during cross-examination, and advised her not to question, among other things, “undisputed facts” such as whether witnesses attempted to stop the protest. “You ask questions to establish a fact … (It is already agreed) that no one tried to stop the protest,” the judge said. He also told her to refrain from asking questions about the Constitution, for example.

    Fourteen prosecution witnesses, most of whom were members of the public present at the event, are scheduled to take the stand.

    For causing public nuisance, a person can be fined up to S$1,000. The maximum penalty for organising a demonstration without approval is a S$5,000 fine.

     

    Source: www.todayonline.com

  • Roy Ngerng: Opposition Must Not Lose Touch With “Middle Ground”

    Roy Ngerng: Opposition Must Not Lose Touch With “Middle Ground”

    A college student wrote this letter and handed it to me at the last rally that I spoke at during the election. I did not have time to post it up before cooling-off day.

    Thank you for your kind words, as well as trust and confidence in me. I am grateful and honoured.

    You and your friends are the future leaders of Singapore. I spoke up because I felt that as a member of our society, it is a responsibility and duty to do so, to not only help ourselves but the people around us.

    I believe that we have to be honest and true to ourselves, and therefore I spoke up.

    This election has taught me many things. As much as I have a vision and a belief for our country’s future, it might not be something the people in our country are ready for. It might not be the vision that our countrymen want now.

    Of course, the unequal playing field played a part. But as individuals who are part of the system, how we can bring about a shared vision for our society is also a challenge that we have to look at, for the opposition as well as for Singaporeans.

    I will be honest with you. Did I make mistakes? Yes, I did. As much as I told myself that I was not angry, perhaps I was. I spent 3 years frantically pushing out writings after writings, not realising that I myself had lost touch with the “middle-ground”.

    In spite of the kind advice that was offered to me to reach out to a wider audience, I was stubborn and did not want to evolve in my writings.

    But this is the beauty of hindsight, where only after the election did I realise where I could have done better.

    You see, my awakening came about 3 years ago when I started researching on the Singapore system and my writings reflect the shock that I feel about the Singapore system. As such, my eagerness to convey my thoughts ran ahead of me.

    Was it wrong? It wasn’t. But it meant that my writings got lost among the large populace. It meant I became like any ranter. It meant that for the “middle-ground”, I became destabilising.

    From how things have panned out over the election, I have learnt that speaking up is a virtue we must hold on to. But how we listen, and adjust ourselves, so that we do not only listen to our own voices but that of others, so that all our voices are communicated across to one another, is an important learning I have made.

    For if we were to criticise the PAP for not having listened to the people, what folly we have made if we ourselves were to do the very same as the people we criticise?

    What then makes us better? It does not. And this is why the voters have spoken.

    In our anger and shock, many of us blame the new citizens, the 70%, etc. But I have decided to look at myself instead. Everyone makes mistakes. Perhaps we would first need to reflect on ourselves before we put the finger on someone else.

    Perhaps if we are to understand how it is we can improve, will we see to it another day will come.

    I thank you for your letter. It is letters like yours and many others that lets me know that at least what I have done have helped and mattered to some of you.

    It does not matter that I have lost, or even if I could have won. At the end of the day, I have tried and made a difference in the lives of some, as others have made theirs in mine.

    It is now your time to shine, as well as that of you and your friends. I am only one person and what I do can only inspire a few. Imagine the might of you and the many who let their voices be heard, the many people whose lives the many of you will touch. And how many you will inspire.

    This is not about the PAP or the opposition. This is about what matters as people and what we can do for one another.

    Sometimes, people don’t realise they have a voice, or fear to use their voice. It is up to some of us to guide the rest. I am glad that my voice has opened up yours. Thank you for your letter.

    But let us continue to open up more. Let you be the voice that others will learn from.

    I wish the PAP well, as well as the opposition. It is a learning process for all of us. The PAP played their game well and we have to respect them. Those in the opposition stood for their beliefs and we have to respect them. Singaporeans voted with their reason and we have to respect that.

    Yesterday, I inspired you. Today, you will inspire others. Tomorrow, more will inspire.

    Your journey is just beginning. I look forward to the day when you are on stage as you speak and light up the crowd, and as I stand below and tear to your words.

    There is no one hero. Because if only all of us would know, we are all heroes. If only all of us would realise.

    Be your own hero. Be my voice, as I was yours.

    Let us stand united, let us hope for a better future with the power of our voice.

    I await the day where I stand among heroes, where all of us will inspire our own future.

    I await the day when you will be my hero.

     

    Source: http://theheartruths.com