Rilek1Corner

Tag: Roy Ngerng

  • Roy Ngerng Joining Reform Party, Considering Running For Elections

    Roy Ngerng Joining Reform Party, Considering Running For Elections

    Blogger Roy Ngerng, who is being sued by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong for defamation, is considering standing in the upcoming General Election.

    In a blogpost on Tuesday (Aug 4) titled Should I Run for Election, the 34-year-old mulled over reasons he would contest the GE and asked readers to help him decide in a poll.

    The activist said that if he were to run for election, it would not be for “fame, power or money”.

    “I want nothing of that,” he said. “I want to be able to enter government, to debate about these issues and allow policies to be passed to protect Singaporeans. This is all I want.”

    As of Wednesday afternoon 1pm, he had garnered 592 votes, with 79.56 per cent (471 votes) agreeing that he should run.

    Mr Ngerng has previously met with Reform Party secretary-general Kenneth Jeyaretnam. He also announced on Facebook and Twitter that he will be joining the Opposition party on a walkabout at Telok Blangah on Wednesday evening.

     

    Source: www.channelnewsasia.com

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

    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

  • Unnecessary To Sue Roy Ngerng – Just Answer Our Questions On CPF

    Unnecessary To Sue Roy Ngerng – Just Answer Our Questions On CPF

    By his own admission, Lee has been following Roy’s blog and decided to SUE when he thought the latter had ‘crossed’ a line.

    If Lee had been taking his responsibility and duty as the prime minister seriously, why did he allow bloggers and other citizens to continue if he sincerely felt that they had got their facts wrong in their quest (for transparency among others) that Roy and others have doubts, questions and queries regarding their CPF which is no less than their nest egg and savings for their retirement and twilight years.

    I find it incomprehensible and insincere that he should find it condescending to provide proper replies and responses to such doubts which he is duty bound to do. He could have EASILY instructed his subordinates in charge of the CPF to lay out the details being legitimately sought after by the citizens of Singapore who have a very fundamental right to knowledge and facts about what is happening to their CPF money.

    It is pertinent to repeat that the queries about our CPF are a DIRECT RESULT of the aftermath of the hundreds of billions of losses incurred by the GIC and Temasek, Singapore’s sovereign funds, that are managed by Lee, his father and their gang.

    IMHO, this entire sorry episode and expensive law suit that Lee has chosen to drag Roy into could have been completely avoided had Lee has felt it duty-bound enough to provide proper responses. It is evident and appalling that it is entirely of Lee’s making when he is in the best position to allay the fears of Singaporeans with concrete facts and figures about how our CPF is being managed and invested.

    The fact that up till TODAY, many doubts remain and many questions about the CPF remain unclarified and unanswered underscores this inexcusable reticence and reluctance to inform Singaporeans. Citizens could hardly be faulted if they harbour mistrust and suspicions about the handling by the govt of our CPF.

    It changes NOTHING of this mistrust and suspicion even if Lee were to sue a hundred Roy Ngerngs successfully. He may win all the legal battles but surely he is going to lose the war for the hearts and minds of Singaporeans.

    george

    * Comment appeared in TRE article: Roy: Mr Lee didn’t suffer lower standing due to my articles

     

    Source: www.tremeritus.com

  • 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 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

  • Davinder Singh: Roy Ngerng Used Foreign Organisations To Pressure The Courts

    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