Tag: Singapore

Red Lions Land Safely After Parachute Snag

A Red Lions skydiver was involved in a midair drama yesterday when he had to cut off his parachute while descending to the Padang during the rehearsal for the National Day Parade.

The jumper, who has not been named, was the first of five.

He managed to deploy his back-up parachute before landing safely on the parade grounds to cheers from the invited crowd.

Some onlookers managed to photograph the detached parachute falling through the air. There were moments of fear that the freefaller was in danger.

The NDP executive committee insisted that yesterday’s 10-minute long freefall display “was executed as planned”.

TENSE MOMENT

At deployment height, one of the jumpers’ first parachute went into a twist, a common occurrence while parachuting.

SPOKESMAN, NDP executive committee

“At deployment height, one of the jumpers’ first parachute went into a twist, a common occurrence while parachuting,” a spokesman said. “The jumper assessed that he could not clear the twist in time, and cut away the first parachute to deploy his reserve parachute, landing safely within the designated area in the Padang.

“There were no injuries sustained,” the spokesman added.

Aviation enthusiast Ow Eng Tiong, 41, who regularly attends the Red Lions display which is held annually, witnessed the incident from a nearby street.

“I could see that his parachute had not opened completely,” he told The Sunday Times.

“I saw him spiralling down like a corkscrew and falling faster than usual. I knew that something was wrong. But I presume he is fine since the second parachute worked,” he added.

The last known parachute accident at the parade was in 2005, when a Red Lion fractured his pelvis as a result of a bad landing at a rehearsal. The Red Lions display, a perennial crowd favourite, takes place before the ceremonial military parade.

This year, the military parade will feature more than 2,000 people in 37 contingents, among them representatives of 16 public- and private-sector bodies.

Colonel Simon Lee, who oversees the parade and ceremony segment, said 42 companies and organisations had applied to march on Aug 9.

Col Lee said: “There is only so much we can pack in. We want a good mix to show the various facets of total defence… we select those that best represent the Singapore identity.”

Among the marchers will be Sembcorp Design and Construction managing director and former People’s Association chief, Mr Yam Ah Mee, 58.

The former air force brigadier- general, who will lead the Sembcorp contingent, said: “The chance to march in a Jubilee parade does not come by often. I can also catch up with old friends and bond with all the youth.”

Source: www.straitstimes.com

July 5, 2015
Youth Radicalisation: Where Does It Stem From?

Youth radicalisation. The subject is once against in the news, especially after the arrest of two Singaporean teenagers.

It is worrying, to say the least. And what’s more distressing are the comments that accompany some of these reports. As a young Muslim, it is unsettling to read comments that condemned the religion as a whole. Even though they were few and far between, there were comments that hinted at Islamic education being one of the catalysts for the radicalisation of youths.

As someone who has spent most of her formative years studying at an Islamic Institute in Pakistan, this hit a nerve.
Let me elaborate. I gained admission to an Islamic Institute when I was just thirteen. I left for Pakistan after a year as a secondary school student in Singapore. The main reason why I decided to pursue my education in that particular institute was because I wanted to learn more about my culture and embrace a sense of spirituality. And this was with my parents’ blessing and support.

The next four years were a whirlwind of adventure.

Everything seemed so new and unique compared to what I was accustomed to in urban Singapore. The sights, sounds and smells were a positive assault on my senses. Well, mostly positive. (I found out quite quickly that I couldn’t get my fix of fast food as often as I would have liked.)
Adapting to a totally different culture and environment was definitely challenging but I was relieved to discover that one aspect of life remained the same. Here I mean the people and their company.

I had a preconceived notion that the biggest difficulty for me would be making friends with my classmates, as they would come from different walks of life. What a misconception that turned out to be. We mostly got along like a house on fire. The fact that we came from various backgrounds and cultures did not make a difference at all.

Throughout the four years that I spent there, I forged many friendships that last till this day. My friends have all moved on after graduating and some of them have even started families of their own. I guess the point I am trying to make here is that from my experience, studying at an Islamic institution or having an Islamic education does not automatically or invariably lead to radicalisation.

However, it would be an act of denial to say that youth radicalisation is not becoming a pressing issue. The recent case of two Singaporean youths who were radicalised by ISIS and arrested, with one detained for planning terrorist attacks and only recently released, proves that this is indeed a case for national security concern. The primary question on people’s minds is this: How do young people get radicalised?

The first avenue is through the Internet. Youths are increasingly exposed to various forms of online platforms such as social media, blogs, forums, YouTube videos and websites in general. Terrorist groups reach out to impressionable minds by seducing them into believing that their brand of ideology is right, and violence for the cause is therefore justified. Moreover, cyberspace also exposes young people to like-minded communities, as was the case with one of the teenagers who was arrested. Also, the promise of salvation may strike a chord with certain youths who are not familiar with the actual teachings of Islam.

So how do we combat youth radicalisation?

The Ministry of Home Affairs has articulated the following: “Religious institutions and teachers have an important role to play in engaging young Singaporeans when they have questions on religious matters, and steering them in the right direction.”

I agree with this wholeheartedly as young people should be taught to tell the difference between the actual teachings of Islam and the false promises that terrorist groups make.

Religious Rehabilitation Group (RRG), formed in April 2013, is an example of such a group whose primary aim is “countering the ideological misunderstanding of the Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) members through counselling.

Their centre has five zones. Each zone elaborates on a different point like how extremists have distorted the meaning of Islam to advocate violence and the ways the RRG counters that. It also talks about how Singapore has been affected and the importance of promoting a vigilant society and expressing our commitment to peace.

Support and supervision from family and close friends make a huge difference as well in protecting these youths from the dangers of radicalisation.

Finally, I would like to say that when harrowing issues such as youth radicalisation are brought to the fore, the first course of action should be to protect the youths from further entrapment and provide them with all the assistance they need to free themselves from the web of radicalisation — instead of making assumptions about the religion itself.

Source: http://inconvenientquestions.sg

July 5, 2015
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

July 5, 2015
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