include("cmp.php");

Why don’t you just give up and move on with your life?

“Why don’t you just give up and move on with your life?”

The above question and/or advise was posted to a fellow Singaporean lady Ms Ten Leu Jiun Jeanne-Marie, who is embroiled in a 12-year legal battle with the National University of Singapore (NUS).

According to Ms Ten, NUS had allegedly tried to silence her when she exposed that her then MA programme supervisor, a Dr Wong Yunn Chii had stolen her thesis, passing it off as his own and had managed to secure a research grant of about $80,000 from the Ministry of Education. (Details)

Instead of handling the complaint in a fair and transparent manner, NUS had allegedly tried to silence her and even threatened to deny her MA if she does not ‘shut up’ (for the lack of a better word). Ms Ten refused to be cowed, which resulted in her not being able to receive her MA. Ms Ten then sued NUS in 2012, kicking off a legal battle that spans over a decade.

During the course of the battle, many have advised Ms Ten to “forget it” and “carry on with your life”, but she has persisted, vowing to exhaust all avenues possible.

Why so stubborn knowing that she is going against an entity that has unlimited resources at its disposal? The question was posted to Ms Ten and the following is her reply, in her own words.

I hear this as a question and as advice often enough. There are several reasons why I have not given up. The bottom line is that I hate bullying and will speak up even if I am not the victim. Bullies are emboldened to more bullying when they are successful in bullying their way through. We must collectively put a stop to bullying behaviour by not cowering before bullies and not giving in to them. Specifically, pertaining to this legal battle, I cannot give up and “move on with my life,” because NUS is now in the process of bankrupting me.

The Court has temporarily put the bankruptcy proceedings “on hold” pending the outcome of my current legal battle with NUS. However, even if the threat of bankruptcy was not hanging over my head like the proverbial “Sword of Damocles,” I believe that I must never give up, because this is a matter of principle, and a matter of justice, not only for me, but for all Singaporeans, both the Singaporeans who are alive today, and generations of Singaporeans yet unborn.

What is at stake in my case, is nothing less than the question of what type of country Singapore is going to become in the future. Will Singapore give up on the rule of law? Will Singapore become the type of country were “elites” such as the perjurer Lily Kong, are apparently “above the law” and can get away with committing crimes with total impunity? Will Singapore become the type of country where any ordinary Singaporean (like me) who dares to stand up against abuse of power, will face retaliation at the hands of dishonest “elites” such as the perjurer Lily Kong and her accomplices at NUS?

If Singaporeans fail to stand up to this injustice and abuse of power now, then we should not be surprised if Singapore soon declines into a corrupt, Third World “banana republic”! Indeed, this is consistent with what Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong warned the nation about, in his big speech about perjury that Mr Lee delivered in Parliament on 15 February 2022 (LINK).

If the “elite” Lily Kong can retaliate against a whistleblower and get away scot-free, then every “#MeToo” survivor in Singapore today, and whistleblower of any kind, who stands up to any “elite” in Singapore, can expect to be subjected to intimidation and retaliation, while the “elite” will expect to get away scot-free, just like Lily Kong is now getting away scot-free, as though she is “above the law” in Singapore.

Moreover, justice itself is the victim of Lily Kong’s perjury. The late Singapore Chief Justice Yong Pung How stated, in His Honour’s written judgment in the case of Rahman Pachan Pillai Prasana v PP [2003] SGHC 52 at paragraph [19]: “In a sense, the true victim of the offence of perjury is not an individual, but the course of justice itself. Judicial proceedings require all evidence to be as truthful as possible: the proper administration of justice is thwarted by false evidence whether or not such evidence leads to unfair gains or losses to an individual.” (Emphasis added.) (With all due respect to the late Chief Justice Yong Pung How, I am as much the victim of Lily Kong’s perjury as “the course of justice.”)

In the same paragraph, Chief Justice Yong Pung How went on to quote Russell L.J.: “sometimes the perjurer lies to save his own skin … Sometimes in civil proceedings … the effect of perjury is to cause financial loss to others … it must [however] always be remembered in cases of this kind one victim of perjury. That victim is the course of justice and its proper administration. Justice inevitably suffers whatever the motive for the perjury and in what circumstances it is committed … it is because of that inevitable feature of the offence that a conviction for perjury must always be visited, save in the most exceptional circumstances that do not prevail here, with an immediate custodial sentence” (emphasis added). (A “custodial sentence” is a sentence of imprisonment.) These statements by the late Singapore Chief Justice Yong Pung How and Russell L.J. (quoted above) certainly apply to the perjury committed by Lily Kong when she repeatedly lied to the Supreme Court under oath in 2017.

For all of these reasons discussed above, all honest Singapore citizens have an interest in bringing the perjurer Lily Kong to justice, and stopping her from continuing to get away scot-free, as though she is “above the law” in Singapore. One way that anyone can help to bring Lily Kong to justice, is simply to “spread the word” about this case on as many social media platforms as possible, by posting and sharing.

Those supporters who are a bit more courageous could post messages to Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong on his Facebook page, as I have done. These messages could ask the Prime Minister why the deeply dishonest perjurer Lily Kong is still holding high public office as the President of Singapore Management University (or “SMU”) and as a Member of Singapore’s Public Service Commission (or “PSC”) and as a Justice of the Peace (or “JP”).

Ms Ten’s legal battle with NUS is now at the final stage, pending an appeal to the Court of Appeal. However, the lawyers for NUS are trying to stop her from doing that by demanding that she furnish a security deposit of $20,000 (which NUS has refused to waive).

As Ms Ten has already spent over $100,000 of her own money in legal fees, she is no longer in a position to make good on the security deposit demanded by NUS, thus she is appealing for public assistance.

Security for Costs: $20,000
Filing of Notice of Appeal: $1,000
Filing of Appellant’s Case: $3,000
Filing of Core Bundle (estimated): $2,000

Ms Ten has until 29th Nov 2022 to file her appeal and furnish the security deposit or she will be officially ‘shut up’ for good.

Please assist and help out a fellow Singaporean if you are able:

POSB account: 120-792642-3
PayNow or PayLah!: 93884036
PayPal: [email protected]

* TRE understand that Lily Kong is now the president of SMU and Dr Wong Yunn Chii has been promoted several times and is now an Honorary Fellow at NUS.

** Ms Ten has been representing herself in courts during the latter half of the trial as she is no longer able to afford the high legal fees sought by lawyers she has approached. No lawyer has offered to take her case on a pro bono basis. NUS is represented by Drew and Napier.

 

 

 

yyy
READER COMMENTS BELOW

59 Responses to “Why don’t you just give up and move on with your life?”

  • One more time:

    One more time. This time, Saudi Arabia. I will make back all the losses, and make a big profit.

    All of you who follow me and make money, please contribute.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • 别低头:

    We must admire Ms Ten unwavering courage in fighting injustice & bullies. Such bullying should never take place from a so called prestigious uni to an ex-undergrad. Shame to them.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • unvax:

    Did PM reply to you? I also emailed PM and ministers regarding VDS, no reply.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • unvax:

    PRIME MINISTER’S OFFICE
    JUSTICES OF THE PEACE, SINGAPORE
    Prof Lily Kong, BBM, PPA(P)
    [email protected]

    Tech: No wonder, back mountain so super strong, quick dial to many many many millisters one.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • unvax:

    “High Court rejects bid to challenge vaccination-differentiated measures”
    7-Day Moving Average of Number of Active Cases in ICU, per 100k Population, by Vaccination Status
    No Minimum Protection 0.01
    Minimum Protection 0.18 (18 times)
    Up-to-Date Vaccination 0.16 (16 times)

    7-Day Moving Average of Number of Deaths, per 100k Population, by Vaccination Status
    No Minimum Protection 0
    Minimum Protection 0.01
    Up-to-Date Vaccination 0.01

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Singaporeans R Free Riders:

    If Miss Ten case is really the truth, she can write a book like Dennis Peng and send it to all world class university legal course library …

    惡官 (Traditional Chinese Edition)
    https://amzn.to/3U5LHsN

    惡形惡狀全公開!
    https://bit.ly/3idoyHq

    But make sure your own backside is squeaky clean.

    Let those without sin cast the first stone.

    Tech: You take a queue number hor, TRE is in talks with Jeanne to write a memoir or book on her 12-year legal battle with NUS and give it exclusively to TRE, like what former ISD director has done. So please dun anyhow cheong hor.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Singaporeans R Free Riders:

    I must say Ten courage in exposing people who cheat to pass exam is commendable

    Calling all Singaporeans, we must expose Singaporeans who cheat.

    https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/man-jailed-fined-for-using-fake-qualifications-to-get-jobs-at-38-companies

    Only by exposing cheating Singaporeans then we have a higher moral ground of saying FT cheat.

    Agreed ?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Singaporeans R Free Riders:

    Well done, ST. More cheating case exposed.

    O-level cheating case: Apex court rejects arguments that acts did not amount to an offence
    https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/o-level-cheating-case-apex-court-rejects-arguments-that-acts-did-not-amount-to-cheating?dicbo=v2-749829cce2b474c66f4b33fd1d0c3d81

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • tax is 40% in singapore:

    forget and move on? not eveyrone has short term memory loss like the 60%.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Singaporeans R Free Riders:

    tax is 40% in singapore:
    forget and move on? not eveyrone has short term memory loss like the 60%.

    Hahaha.. Oppie like to talk cawk.. have you donate to Ten or TRE ?

    Every time Oppie like to go chest-thumping and shout loud loud.

    But when you tell them to donate money, they go silence..diam..diam..diam

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Singaporeans R Free Riders:

    unvax:
    PRIME MINISTER’S OFFICE
    JUSTICES OF THE PEACE, SINGAPORE
    Prof Lily Kong, BBM, PPA(P)
    [email protected]

    Tech: No wonder, back mountain so super strong, quick dial to many many many millisters one.

    Dear Tech,
    I have a question.
    Are you alleging that our great PM Lee and mini$ter$ are backing Lily Kong in bullying Singaporeans ?

    Tech: Neh, I merely noted a fact that she is well-connected. Whether backing or not, why not you go ask them yourself?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • We need Anwar and justice:

    With one party, we did not get justice like economic justice, social justice and other justices. We need to fight for justices to prevent case like this happened. Anwar will investigate 1mdb scandal and make sure there is no bribery and corruption and Anwar become Anti-corruption Tsar in Malaysia.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • unvax:

    Updated: As of 24 November 2022, 12pm
    Over the past 7 days, all the Active Cases in ICU and Deaths were Fully Vaccinated with Booster.
    (7-Day Moving Average of Number of Active Cases in ICU and Deaths, per 100k Population, No Minimum Protection 0)

    Tech: You have a very good tally and update on the C19 cases, but this is not the correct thread to be posting it in. May I suggest we create an independent dedicated thread to hold your updates, please?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Singaporeans R Free Riders:

    We need Anwar and justice:
    With one party, we did not get justice like economic justice, social justice and other justices. We need to fight for justices to prevent case like this happened. Anwar will investigate 1mdb scandal and make sure there is no bribery and corruption and Anwar become Anti-corruption Tsar in Malaysia.

    You support backside poking Anwar ?

    During Dr M, he said to remove GST but he actually meant rename GST to SST..

    Hahahaha… you tru$t lowly paid minister words ?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • unvax:

    @Tech
    I think it’s not necessary. COVID is almost over for No Minimum Protection. People will be bored to see it every day, especially vaccinated.

    Tech: Yup, Sinkies are 95% vaccinated (be it 1,2,3 or even 5 shots). Meaningless to keep track anymore since it is “living with the virus” and people will get injured anyway either from the vaccine or C19. lol

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Singaporeans R Free Riders:

    Singaporeans R Free Riders: Dear Tech,
    I have a question.
    Are you alleging that our great PM Lee and mini$ter$ are backing Lily Kong in bullying Singaporeans ?

    Tech: Neh, I merely noted a fact that she is well-connected. Whether backing or not, why not you go ask them yourself?

    Thank you. I will ask my great PAP PM Lee and ministers to immediately cut connection with Lily Kong as she is embarrassment to our great PAP…

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Let me just chip in on what I think of this fiasco:

    1. Oppos claim during every GE that they are for the people and in this case, Jeanne is a “people”, why then are all so quiet? If we add the supporters of WP, SDP and PSP, everyone donate $1 Jeanne would be able to take it to Apex thru and fro, dio bo? And opposition members and supporters got no lawyer meh?

    2. The late Lee kuan Yew said that if one kenna accused of something, then that person die die must sue to clear his/her name else adverse inferrence can be and will be drawn. NUS has denied any wrong doing from the onset, but the person at the center of the fiasco has been keeping mum, why isn’t she suing Jeanne to clear her own name? Hm… “perjury” hor, crimminal case, no play play one.

    3. Whistleblowing is not encouraged in Sinkieland, so don’t KPoh and anyhow picha lobang, no see no hear is the way to survive in Sinkieland, dio bo?

    4. NUS is a national institution, why top honchos of NUS and education no sight no sound? Jeanne is alleging very serious foul play in NUS, not sufficient gravity to warrant an independent look into meh?

    5. Since NUS has been denying the fiasco, then surely Jeanne must be lying, then why no POFMA for 12 years when she has been posting all these “lies”?

    Anyway, without being privy to details, the fact that NUS has gone all out to prevent Jeanne from taking this matter to the Apex Court is very telling.

    Does anyone disagree?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Singaporeans R Free Riders:

    TRE Tech:
    Let me just chip in on what I think of this fiasco:

    1. Oppos claim during every GE that they are for the people and in this case, Jeanne is a “people”, why then are all so quiet? If we add the supporters of WP, SDP and PSP, everyone donate $1 Jeanne would be able to take it to Apex thru and fro, dio bo? And opposition members and supporters got no lawyer meh?

    2. The late Lee kuan Yew said that if one kenna accused of something, then that person die die must sue to clear his/her name else adverse inferrence can be and will be drawn. NUS has denied any wrong doing from the onset, but the person at the center of the fiasco has been keeping mum, why isn’t she suing Jeanne to clear her own name? Hm… “perjury” hor, crimminal case, no play play one.

    3. Whistleblowing is not encouraged in Sinkieland, so don’t KPoh and anyhow picha lobang, no see no hear is the way to survive in Sinkieland, dio bo?

    4. NUS is a national institution, why top honchos of NUS and education no sight no sound? Jeanne is alleging very serious foul play in NUS, not sufficient gravity to warrant an independent look into meh?

    5. Since NUS has been denying the fiasco, then surely Jeanne must be lying, then why no POFMA for 12 years when she has been posting all these “lies”?

    Anyway, without being privy to details, the fact that NUS has gone all out to prevent Jeanne from taking this matter to the Apex Court is very telling.

    Does anyone disagree?

    Dear Tech,
    To answer your first point, our great PAP leader PM Lee already said, Oppie supporters are free rider…

    Every time Oppie like to go chest-thumping and shout loud loud.

    But when you tell them to donate money, they go silence..diam..diam..diam

    拍照站前面,捐錢躲廁所..hahahahahahaha

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Avoid:

    The judgements (many) are online.

    There’s no political points to gain from this long case. Any party should be smart enough not to be dragged along for a decade over nothing. It’s a great deal for the person doing it. From an outsider perspective, it a big storm over a cup of coffee. This “perjury” claim had already been through court twice or more. If you want more balanced opinions, go read the judgements. Google will lead you there.

    TRE Tech:
    Let me just chip in on what I think of this fiasco:

    1. Oppos claim during every GE that they are for the people and in this case, Jeanne is a “people”, why then are all so quiet? If we add the supporters of WP, SDP and PSP, everyone donate $1 Jeanne would be able to take it to Apex thru and fro, dio bo? And opposition members and supporters got no lawyer meh?

    2. The late Lee kuan Yew said that if one kenna accused of something, then that person die die must sue to clear his/her name else adverse inferrence can be and will be drawn. NUS has denied any wrong doing from the onset, but the person at the center of the fiasco has been keeping mum, why isn’t she suing Jeanne to clear her own name? Hm… “perjury” hor, crimminal case, no play play one.

    3. Whistleblowing is not encouraged in Sinkieland, so don’t KPoh and anyhow picha lobang, no see no hear is the way to survive in Sinkieland, dio bo?

    4. NUS is a national institution, why top honchos of NUS and education no sight no sound? Jeanne is alleging very serious foul play in NUS, not sufficient gravity to warrant an independent look into meh?

    5. Since NUS has been denying the fiasco, then surely Jeanne must be lying, then why no POFMA for 12 years when she has been posting all these “lies”?

    Anyway, without being privy to details, the fact that NUS has gone all out to prevent Jeanne from taking this matter to the Apex Court is very telling.

    Does anyone disagree?

    Tech: If I am not wrong, the issue of perjury was not addressed by the court and it is my understanding that if a judgement is influenced by perjured facts, then that judgement has to be sert aside, no?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Avoid:

    No. It has been considered, with a long explanation by the judge.

    The long list of court judgements can be found here:
    https://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/Results/PID/426/mcat/499/acat/1/evl/0/nsw/a/EDNSearch/Jeanne-Marie

    The Oct 2022 judgement addressed the perjury stuff.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • xoxo:

    Its about a little lamb (or sheep) fighting against THE E$TABLISHMENT.And,Lily CON(KONG) represents or is part of the establishment.
    Like people said Big Fish eats small anchovy.

    Ms Ten is just an anchovy,not a pirhana?
    So,its hard for her to bite back.
    A decade is a long time.
    To fight in such fashion will be fruitless.
    Either let KARMA TAKES ITS COURSE ,which KARMA will for sure,or GO JOIN THE OPPOSITION AND BECOME AN MP AND GRADUALLY PART OF A MAJORITY.
    Then SEEK JUSTICE ,not just for your case but for the SILENT MAJORITY of sinkingpoor.

    Meanwhile,go to church or temple to seek PEACE of mind.
    Dont waste precious time or money,either your own or from the *poor* of society?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • @avoid

    Based on your link, I read all of the available files and I maintain that the issue of perjury was NOT addressed nor determined explicitly at the initial trial (dishonest, fraud and perjury is not the same hor), except in a fleeting mention at the COA. At the COA, the complaint of perjury was brushed off as “unsubstantiated” even though the initial trial judge had noted in her judgement that Lily Kong had indeed contradicted herself but it was dismissed as without malice, so it was an honest and innocent perjury? What happened to the statement under oath where all testimonies must be the tooth the whole tooth and nothing but the tooth? By that logic, if I in future say so and so millister is corrupt, can claim no malice, it was an honest and innocent defamation or not? How come Terry and Leong didn’t think of that? lol

    Then in the latest failed OS, the judge went to great length to paint legalise to show why she cannot appeal because of time bar, this law and that law (damned, Drew & Napier is sibei good, application to strike out uses the IF… THEN… OR… technique, no wonder their fees cost an arm and leg). Then say she cannot complain again because she already complain at teh initial trial even though there was no explicit determination. Then he went on to say perjury or not is not important because it did not/will not affect the eventual judgement because the trial judge did not take that into consideration, that’s how a layman like me understands it.

    But then hor, me being curious me and maybe having watched Boston law too much (watched every season until they discontinued it), I curious hor if had the initial trial judge determined that Lily did commit perjury, then the plaintiff could have/would have asked that Lily’s testimonies be excluded and/or given less weight, right? In the absence of such testimonies (star witness wor), would the judge have been able to arrive at the same verdict since he would have less evidence to consider? Just picture all the testimonies of Lily are no longer available to the judge and should not be considered, can still judge or not? Anyway, since the court did not determine explicitly whether perjury was committed or not and the AGC not willing to touch that also, Jeanne lan lan lor. lol

    Anyway, me no lawyer, me heart say Jeanne has no chance even if she appeals to COA unless she has fresh evidence and new witnesses. Based on the latest judgement, regardless of whether perjury was committed or not, there’s too many legal roadblocks (time bar) to her advancing the case, I would not waste my time and energy if I were her. If teh BK proceeds, one month pay $100 lor.

    Anyway, I felt that she should have sued Dr Wong instead of NUS in the 1st instance, maybe her chances would be higher, but now too late liao. Time bar says she cannot liao.

    Be that as it may, 12 years is a long time and her fighting spirit and refusal to be cowed are really admirable and I respect that. She may have lost in the legal courts, but there is still the court of public opinion, and I don’t believe no one can see that NUS and Lily have been less than professional and truthful in their dealing with Jeanne. I would be an idiot to believe that Jeanne has so much time and money on her that she sued NUS just for the fun of it.

    Regardless, if there is still anyone in NUS with a conscious, then maybe they should make amends by issuing her the MA which she wasted over a decade fighting for, the MA which she rightly earned and deserved.

    Is there still anyone in NUS with a beating heart nowadays or all kenna myocarditis liao? lol

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Sad:

    Sad case.
    Hope some day the truth will come out and justice prevail.
    Anwar has waited for 24 years…his time has come.

    Tech: Agreed. Justice can be denied due to legal roadblocks and tons of legalise, but the truth will eventually have to surface sooner or later. No theif or con will just commit the offence once, sooner or later, they will have to do it again and this time round, they may not be so lucky.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Avoid:

    I agree with your overall reading.

    About the degree, it seems NUS is very willing to give it.

    https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/former-nus-student-fails-to-get-masters-degree-through-court-order
    Published Jul 30, 2018, 11:20 p.m. SGT
    Expressing some sympathy for Ms Ten, the judge said he hoped the parties will compromise “somehow” for her to get the degree.

    An NUS spokesman said yesterday NUS has always sought to confer the degree on Ms Ten but was unable to do so as she did not fulfil the necessary requirements.
    “NUS remains willing to award the degree to Ms Ten as long as she complies with the applicable requirements as set out in the court judgment.”

    (Requirements: Upload PDF and sign a standard form “RO.85″ routinely signed by all graduating thesis students.)

    TRE Tech: Regardless, if there is still anyone in NUS with a conscious, then maybe they should make amends by issuing her the MA which she wasted over a decade fighting for, the MA which she rightly earned and deserved.

    Is there still anyone in NUS with a beating heart nowadays or all kenna myocarditis liao? lol

    Tech: I cannot confirm or deny this independently, but according to my chat with Jeanne, NUS had also added additional conditions on her, something along the line that she retract all her allegations, and pay NUS’s costs (which she cannot afford) and STFU.

    On hindsight, if I may say so, the initial judge should have determined the perjury accusation since it was according to Jeanne, repeatedly reminded by her then lawyer. Had the judge done so, Jeanne would not have needed to waste a decade of her money and time going down the slippery slope till today because applicable courts rules would have barred her from even mentioning the word “perjury” in any of her appeals. Which begs the questions why didn’t the trial judge determine and rule on that when it was repeatedly brought up by Jeanne’s lawyer?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Singaporeans R Free Riders:

    the initial judge should have determined the perjury accusation since it was according to Jeanne, repeatedly reminded by her then lawyer. Had the judge done so, Jeanne would not have needed to waste a decade of her money and time going down…
    =========================================================================
    If this is true, really true then Jeanne could sue the judge for compensation.

    This is so like Professor Dennis Peng case where the Democratic Tsai make use of state instrument to stop him from telling the truth.

    Perhaps Jeanne supporters could email, yes email (no violence please) them to ask.

    https://cde.nus.edu.sg/arch/staffs/wong-yunn-chii/

    https://www.smu.edu.sg/about/smu-leadership/president-profile

    Tech: You don’t anyhow teach hor, presiding judges I understand cannot be sued for their judgements unless malice is proven lor, some more veyr high bar, mai waste time lar. And also hor, don’t ask people anyhow email hor, else you end up like Cult Woman Iris like that, kenna police drink coffee because she asks her cult members to call MOH hotline. You continue your BSing on TRE can liao, I promise not to ban you, just don’t do anything stupid. lol

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Singaporeans R Free Riders:

    I had always support our great PAP that Opposition are racists.

    Ministers slam PSP for ‘race-baiting’ with Ceca debate
    https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/ministers-slam-psp-race-baiting-ceca-debate-opposition-party-rejects-racist-label-defends

    Opposition only target CECA but silence, diam, diam, diam when it involves Singaporean.

    Opposition, my great PAP is right to label you racist.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • SINGAROAR:

    Why did this even have to go to court? There should be a committee that is separate from NUS to test the claim of theft of a thesis . This committee should have experts who are not related to any of the claimants. There will be similar situations going forward.The authorities must create avenues to seek justice instead of the expensive court run. The poor can never win as we are caught in a system that works for the rich. Wish Miss. Ten the best.NUS as a educational institute has failed in the way it handled this case.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Singaporeans R Free Riders:

    Singaporeans R Free Riders:
    the initial judge should have determined the perjury accusation since it was according to Jeanne, repeatedly reminded by her then lawyer. Had the judge done so, Jeanne would not have needed to waste a decade of her money and time going down…
    =========================================================================
    If this is true, really true then Jeanne could sue the judge for compensation.

    This is so like Professor Dennis Peng case where the Democratic Tsai make use of state instrument to stop him from telling the truth.

    Perhaps Jeanne supporters could email, yes email (no violence please) them to ask.

    https://cde.nus.edu.sg/arch/staffs/wong-yunn-chii/

    https://www.smu.edu.sg/about/smu-leadership/president-profile

    Tech: You don’t anyhow teach hor, presiding judges I understand cannot be sued for their judgements unless malice is proven lor, some more veyr high bar, mai waste time lar. And also hor, don’t ask people anyhow email hor, else you end up like Cult Woman Iris like that, kenna police drink coffee because she asks her cult members to call MOH hotline. You continue your BSing on TRE can liao, I promise not to ban you, just don’t do anything stupid. lol

    Dear Tech,
    We PAP supporters don’t go around BSing one ok. PAP supporters are honest people with high integrity like our great PAP.

    Even your Americunt Human Rights Champion Jack Healey also stood up for Dennis Peng who got persecuted for pursuing the truth.

    Here is the hard truth. Read it youselves. No BSing…
    https://www.facebook.com/jackghealey/posts/pfbid02FVs1zQhKZSZXjhBt5oWshMG25FNqY8gDSCDfwwmE7nRkQQ4RLZhvxFvXZ58eyh1Vl

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Joker:

    You love to scream when you don’t know anything, don’t you? This case is not about the “claim of theft of a thesis.”

    SINGAROAR:
    Why did this even have to go to court? There should be a committee that is separate from NUS to test the claim of theft of a thesis . This committee should have experts who are not related to any of the claimants. There will be similar situations going forward.The authorities must create avenues to seek justice instead of the expensive court run. The poor can never win as we are caught in a system that works for the rich. Wish Miss. Ten the best.NUS as a educational institute has failed in the way it handled this case.

    Tech: Actually both are not wrong. It was the doing of Dr Wong who stole the thesis, NUS tried to protect and cover his a$$e which resulted in the lawsuit. Had there been such a committee in the 1st instance, the lawsuit would probably not been necessary. That having said, Jeanne told me that an official complaint was lodged with MOE but MOE no hue and continued to award teh $80,000 research grant to Dr Wong, interesting why MOE did that. Furthermore, Jeanne’s MP also wrote to NUS and there was no response. If what Jeanne said is true, then this entire fiasco smells like a huge coverup, the lead actor of course being Lily Kong (with a very very very strong back mountain).

    P/S: After collecting the $80,000 and spending some, Dr Wong had to discontinue his project because since the thesis was not written by him, he clueless as on how to continue (NUS own admission). So you say lor, this Dr Wong still can get promoted to Honorary Fellow, NUS doing simi?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • xoxo:

    Fxxks,so many top-notch people cannot offer simple due diligence.
    Me suggest a *copyright* section be set up at the Dean’s Office or Varsity Registrar’s office,something like that.
    Before submitting the *FINISHED WORK*(THESIS),the *research student* sends a *copy*(original) to the *copyright* office.
    The administering professor then cannot claim the student’s work as his.

    In this instance,beside seeking justice n truth,nothing much can be done.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Singaporeans R Free Riders:

    Joker:
    You love to scream when you don’t know anything, don’t you? This case is not about the “claim of theft of a thesis.”

    Tech: Actually both are not wrong. It was the doing of Dr Wong who stole the thesis, NUS tried to protect and cover his a$$e which resulted in the lawsuit. Had there been such a committee in the 1st instance, the lawsuit would probably not been necessary. That having said, Jeanne told me that an official complaint was lodged with MOE but MOE no hue and continued to award teh $80,000 research grant to Dr Wong, interesting why MOE did that. Furthermore, Jeanne’s MP also wrote to NUS and there was no response. If what Jeanne said is true, then this entire fiasco smells like a huge coverup, the lead actor of course being Lily Kong (with a very very very strong back mountain).

    P/S: After collecting the $80,000 and spending some, Dr Wong had to discontinue his project because since the thesis was not written by him, he clueless as on how to continue (NUS own admission). So you say lor, this Dr Wong still can get promoted to Honorary Fellow, NUS doing simi?

    Wow Dr Wong steal the thesis… this is serious allegation..

    Tech, you make sure you had hard evidence else your a$$ will be tear apart.

    Don’t anyhow believe hearsay…

    Tech: Thank you for your concern, the events are well documented. Didn’t you read the part where I said “NUS own admission”? BTW, “steal” is inappropriate, “plagarize” is more suitable a word.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Singaporeans R Free Riders:

    Dear PSP and Oppie supporters,
    Come, prove that you are not racist…that you don’t just focus on CECA fake degree…you also pursue Singaporeans who stole thesis.

    Come, come, PSP and Oppie supporters…. don’t go into silence..diam..diam leh

    Day in day out you cry father cry mother on CECA fake degree.. how come silence..diam..diam on Singaporean steal thesis.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • SINGAROAR:

    @Tech

    Thank you for your clear explanation to Joker who seems to have problems with his or her reading skills.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Avoid:

    Are you sure? I have a hard time searching through the court files and I couldn’t find anything like that.

    Singaporeans R Free Riders: Tech: Thank you for your concern, the events are well documented. Didn’t you read the part where I said “NUS own admission”? BTW, “steal” is inappropriate, “plagarize” is more suitable a word.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • @Avoid

    Did I say court files or not? I said documented, must be judgement meh?

    Common Sense question:

    1. Jeanne EXPLICITLY accused Dr Wong of “stealing” her thesis.
    2. Jeanne EXPLICITLY accused Lily Kong of “perjury”

    The accusations were fast and furious for a period of 12 long years. Why neither of the 2 being accused took any action to sue her?

    Furthermore, NUS could have used the POFMA office to shut Jeanne up for good, why didn’t they?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Avoid:

    54 The COI continued with its inquiry and issued its report on 20 July 2005. [note: 27] The COI concluded that:
    (a) there was no evidence that Dr Wong had plagiarised the Plaintiff’s work. Dr Wong’s application for a grant had made sufficient reference to the Plaintiff’s expected contributions (even though the application did not expressly mention the Plaintiff’s name);

    I note that the Abstract section of the Grant Application Form contained a statement that the Principal Investigator (meaning Dr Wong) was “presently supervising a Masters’ candidate in the historical study of this area; the work is close to a first draft. In Annex A of the Grant Application
    Form, under Manpower Costs, there was a similar statement, “It is most opportune that one of [Dr Wong’s] supervisees is close to completing her master’s study of the development of this site”. Therefore, even though the Plaintiff’s name was not specifically mentioned in the Grant Application
    Form, it was clear that Dr Wong was referring to her. As far as that form was concerned, Dr Wong was not trying to claim credit for her work.

    It is also useful to stress here that as the COI had concluded that there was no evidence that Dr Wong had plagiarised the Plaintiff’s work, the COI’s conclusion that Dr Wong had failed to fully comply with his duties as the Plaintiff’s supervisor was based on reasons other than any alleged plagiarism of the Plaintiff’s work. It is not necessary for me to elaborate on those other reasons

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Avoid:

    What was her allegation of plagiarism? The court records as follow. Read the last para a few times please.

    The Plaintiff replied to VP Kong on 11 April 2005. [note: 9] She agreed with the issues listed by VP Kong but added other key issues. Essentially, she reiterated what she had said in her email of 3 April 2005. In particular, she repeatedly referred to the incident on 4 February 2005 when Dr Wong had said to her that he had the right to use the primary sources from her work. To her, Dr Wong was saying in essence that he was going to plagiarise the contents of her thesis.

    As for VP Kong’s assurance that she would remind the faculty and all relevant individuals to properly acknowledge any substantial reproduction of the Plaintiff’s thesis, the Plaintiff stressed that Dr Wong had “already used [her] work” in his proposal for a grant for the Visualisation
    Project. She also said that Dr Wong “may have already plagiarised” her thesis in his proposal.

    In an email from the Plaintiff to VP Kong dated 17 June 2005 [note: 14] , she said she did not understand what NUS was planning to investigate. She said that she had never said that Dr Wong had plagiarised her thesis. She emphasized that her complaint was what Dr Wong had said to her on
    4 February 2005. Apparently, this was a reference to Dr Wong’s statement that he could use the primary sources which she had researched and assembled in her thesis.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • @Avoid

    Would it be fair to say that the court merely regurgitated what the COI had reported on without doing its own investigation? And I disagree with the inference that the court has drawn that Jeanne was properly credited even though her name wasn’t mentioned in ALL the applications. Picture in the movie superman, the credits list a “male” or an “actor” being the lead in Superman without mentioning any specific name like “Christopher Reeve”?

    Question: Say if someone else plagarised Jeanne’s thesis and Jeanne were to want to sue and prove her work, can she use Dr Wong’s application citing and claiming that the “a Masters’ candidate” is actually her, in a court fo law?

    OR if Lily kong wants to sue Jeanne for defamation, can she sue “a Masters’ candidate” without mentioning Jeanne’s full name? Does Dr Wong only have only ONE “Masters’ candidate”?

    AND can PM Davinder “the chief editor of TOC” without citing Terry’s name in a defamation suit? I would then ask which editor and which MA student, would you?

    Anyway, that COI report was what Jeanne did not agree on and also one of the disputed supposed facts.

    Generally, it is my take that if there was indeed no ground for the accusation against Dr Wong, Jeanna (a MA student, certainly not an idiot) still cry father cry mother for what?

    Then in the same sense, why should/did NUS withhold the MA from Jeanne since there is no issue discovered in the COI? Jeanne complained, no evidence, case closed. Isn’t that supposed to be the SOP?

    But then someone decided NUS had to withhold her MA, is NUS eat too full nothing better to do or someone simply don’t like Jeanne because she refused to be shut up and so had to be taught a hard lesson?

    Honestly, even if I were to believe that Jeanne lied about her entire encounter, there was still no reason for NUS to withhold her MA for the very very simple reason that the COI had found no issue with the allegations at all, make sense?

    Since COI found no issue, then NUS can simply close the complaint, just like the police when no offense is disclosed, so NFA. The complainant cry father cry mother, complain to AGC also no use, rite? Just ignore, dio bo?

    Again, simple fact, Jeanne lied about the plagiarism and COI found no evidence, case closed. Thus plagiarism is no longer an issue, BUT Jeanne did pass her MA thesis (a fact), what then is the ground for holding her thesis and demanding that she STFU?

    NUS went through a proper COI and found in Dr Wong’s favor, why should they (NUS) give a shit about whether Jeanne complains to whoever and need to shut her up?

    So the fact that they had demanded that Jeanne had to STFU before giving her the MA is very very very very telling, that’s what I believe even if the court were to rule 10,000 times against Jeanne.

    I maintain that both Lily and NUS were not forthcoming and professional in the handling of this fiasco, even IF Jeanne had been lying through her teeth from the onset. Even if Jeanne had lied in her complaint or gone bonkers, does not negate the FACT that she had passed her MA and NUS should not have withheld her MA, unless of course there are some other reasons not known to the public.

    What do you think?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Avoid:

    I drafted a long reply, agreeing with you here and disagreeing with you there. In the end, I didn’t think the reply would do anybody any good. So I threw it into the dustbin. lol.

    TRE Tech: What do you think?

    Tech: Good decision anyway, after all the case is over and cast in stone.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • unvax:

    @Avoid
    “High Court rejects bid to challenge vaccination-differentiated measures”
    I tracked the data all the way and I don’t agree with what they said. And the situation right now does not support what they said. “Never too late for justice.”

    I also read through some of the judgements you mentioned. What impressed me was
    “Finally, we cannot emphasise enough how extremely serious
    allegations of judicial bias are. Indeed, such allegations can be
    utilised not only as a weapon of abuse by disgruntled litigants
    but also waste valuable court time and resources in the
    process. We would imagine that, by their very nature, such
    allegations would be rare in the extreme. Should such
    proceedings arise before the court in the future and be found to
    be unmeritorious, there may be serious consequences.”

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Birds Of Same Feathers:

    Thought that this only happens in China and CCP, stealing and lying.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • SINGAROAR:

    As a matter of public interest, shouldn’t MOE make a police report to ensure that the grant to Dr.Wong was not wrongly given.The police can seize all the computers and check timelines etc and put an end to this. It is taxpayers’ monies once again at stake so MOE should take the necessary actions.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • @SINGAROAR

    MOE probably did ‘look’ into the matter, in that they took the so-called independent COI by NUS’s report as the gospel truth and closed the case.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Avoid:

    2014 court record

    I (the judge) come back to the substance of the MOE Emails. The material part of the MOE email dated 26 August 2011 to the plaintiff stated that:
    “To recap, your email of 30 June 2011 stated two issues:-
    (a) Confirmation of acceptance (in writing) of the University’s decisions regarding [your] complaints; and
    (b) The RO.85/2003 form duly completed and signed.
    2. To address these, NUS has proposed that you will not be required to accept in writing the University’s decision on your complaints (a); or be required to sign Form RO.85/2003 (b), provided that you accept that:-
    (a) NUS will look to you to indemnify the University against all claims or losses arising from any
    infringement in your thesis of any third party intellectual property rights; and
    (b) NUS owns the copyright to your thesis (as provided for in your Offer of Admission dated
    15 Nov 2001, and accepted 22 Nov 2001) and has the right to reproduce or publish your thesis.
    3 . If these conditions are acceptable to you, you should write in to the Registrar’s Office (Attn: Ms Jennifer Yee, [email protected]) requesting to re-instate your candidature. Upon reinstatement, you should then upload the electronic version of your thesis to the NUS Digital
    Thesis repository. This will activate the process for the conferment of the MA degree.

    [original emphasis omitted; emphasis added in bold]
    46 The plaintiff’s email reply dated 31 August 2011 rejected these conditions with her comments.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • @Avoid

    I am not aware of these emails, so I am not in a position to comment. It is best that Jeanne respond to these as the emails seem to suggest that NUS had given a lot of leeway, the way I see it.

    Ultimately, we can only opine based on information available to us, whatever Jeanne knows and the reason for her decisions, is entirely her own. If she thinks he has grounds, then go for it, we can only wish her all the best.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Avoid:

    When someone insists that his case must be heard by Justice Bao, the judge not happy. What? Only Justice Bao is a capable judge. Me not a good judge, izit. Lucky that someone not given 40 big strokes and thrown out of court. Then he would have to struggle to make a trip to Kaifeng.

    unvax:
    @Avoid
    “High Court rejects bid to challenge vaccination-differentiated measures”
    I tracked the data all the way and I don’t agree with what they said. And the situation right now does not support what they said. “Never too late for justice.”

    I also read through some of the judgements you mentioned. What impressed me was
    “Finally, we cannot emphasise enough how extremely serious
    allegations of judicial bias are. Indeed, such allegations can be
    utilised not only as a weapon of abuse by disgruntled litigants
    but also waste valuable court time and resources in the
    process. We would imagine that, by their very nature, such
    allegations would be rare in the extreme. Should such
    proceedings arise before the court in the future and be found to
    be unmeritorious, there may be serious consequences.”

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • unvax:

    @Avoid
    Actually, I was the same batch (2006) of her. Too many years have passed, I can’t remember clearly, but I don’t remember I uploaded my thesis to NUS website. I think somebody uploaded for me in 2010, because it was accessioned and available from 2010.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • unvax:

    @Avoid
    If she was not required to upload her thesis to NUS website in 2006 (no website to upload yet?), of course she rejected, because it’s not her fault. Which judge are you? “Lucky that someone not given 40 big strokes and thrown out of court.” All judges speak like this?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • @Avoid

    Something just crop up in my mind and I wonder if you can help shed some light.

    I believe NUS is insured, so it is possible that the insurance co is paying for their legal fees, not NUS itself.

    So me being curious as usual, any idea which Insurance Co is insuring NUS> Anyone?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • unvax:

    @Avoid
    Tan Siong Thye?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Avoid:

    I was talking Justice Bao stories. Those judges always give 40 big strokes when they are angry.

    unvax:
    @Avoid
    If she was not required to upload her thesis to NUS website in 2006 (no website to upload yet?), of course she rejected, because it’s not her fault. Which judge are you? “Lucky that someone not given 40 big strokes and thrown out of court.” All judges speak like this?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Avoid:

    I have no idea that there is such an insurance. Otherwise, NUS would have wasted $700k over this case (a long series of sub-cases, main case, appeal cases, etc.)

    TRE Tech:
    @Avoid

    Something just crop up in my mind and I wonder if you can help shed some light.

    I believe NUS is insured, so it is possible that the insurance co is paying for their legal fees, not NUS itself.

    So me being curious as usual, any idea which Insurance Co is insuring NUS> Anyone?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • unvax:

    @Avoid
    Woo Bih Li, right?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • unvax:

    @Avoid
    Emoji couldn’t be sent. Sorry, I misunderstood.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Avoid:

    Did you sign the form RO.85? Is it a very scary form? Ten refused to sign.

    unvax:
    @Avoid
    Actually, I was the same batch (2006) of her. Too many years have passed, I can’t remember clearly, but I don’t remember I uploaded my thesis to NUS website. I think somebody uploaded for me in 2010, because it was accessioned and available from 2010.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • unvax:

    @Avoid
    I really don’t remember that.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Trust only myself:

    Very simple, if the case can drag on for decade then something is wrong with the court or legal systems…..supported by liars.

    Don’t assume kangaroos can only be found in Australia………..everywhere you can find these animals.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • What I see:

    1. Accusation of future crime.
    He told me he hates a person so much he could kill. It seems he is going to commit murder. I therefore accuse him of murder. He must be guilty.

    Real law does not work like that. When the American undercover police want to catch someone, they have to get that one to commit some real events, e.g., pay money to hired killer. Talking is almost never sufficient evidence to arrest anyone.

    If anyone interrogates the accused, it’s actually wrong. Someone says I hear this young girl says she wants to take upskirt videos. Then that girl gets thoroughly investigated, computer confiscated, kopi session for 100 days, etc. Can do like this?

    2. Accuser behaves as the prosecution and judge.
    I say he is guilty. Look, got evidence. He’s guilty.

    Real law is not like that. Otherwise, why do we need defendant position in the court? Even the judge also no need. The prosecutor is enough. When the rich man says the maid is guilty, with loads of stolen items. That is enough? No need trial?

    Someone is doing (1) and (2). Better stop. Cannot get anywhere in real life. Only lose more money and time.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • I_am_Xi:

    Trust only myself:
    Very simple, if the case can drag on for decade then something is wrong with the court or legal systems…..supported by liars.

    Don’t assume kangaroos can only be found in Australia………..everywhere you can find these animals.

    To the disappointment of yellow skins who denounce China or stupidly being uneducated in calling the CPC wrongly. Such showing, for example, not even knowing the CPC is spelled C-P-C, shows yellow skins are fried outside of CPC China by * courts even in sinkie land.

    It is no wonder that the current prediction of pundits that 54% of Taiwanese wants to be reunited with its motherland, as shown by the recent voting results. So much so the current number one clamoring for independence in Taiwan has to resign from the chairmanship of her political party.

    To the 46% of Taiwanese who think that * courts only happens in sinkie land, the stealing and lying as correctly mentioned by some yellow skin pretending to be white skin who even denounced own yellow skin by lying that it is not yellow skin, they now realize through the recent voting results of its kin in Taiwan that ALL angmos steal and lie. Indeed * court is the invention of white skin folks beginning with Australia and especially in USA UK etc.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...

Leave a Reply

 characters available


Scroll Down For More Interesting Stuff


Member Services
Self-SupportMembers LoginSelf-Support
Sponsored Advertisement
Search On TR Emeritus
Sponsored Advertisement
Announcement
Advertisements
Visitors Statistic
Latest Statistic

UA-67043412-1