TR EMERITUS

Dear PM Lee,   I refer to your interview by Charlie Rose as reported by Straits Times on 16 Apr 2010.   You said our entire system is founded on meritocracy where you get the job because you are the best man and not because of connections. But according to a Straits Times report on 20 Oct 2009, your father said that China's princelings like Li Peng's son and daughter may never be recognised if they weren't well connected because China is such a big place. Considering that the chance of you becoming the prime minister out of about 2.5 million Singaporean adults is a mere 0.00004%, we don't need to be as big as China to appreciate your father's belief that meritocracy aside, you need the right connections to stand out amongst so many Singaporeans. So if you share your father's beliefs, you shouldn't rule out the importance of connections and you or at least your father has no moral basis to sue IHT for allegedly saying something that your father essentially believes in.   You said you lose credibility and moral authority if people do not think you are the best man for the job. On what basis do you assert that? Just as you require IHT to prove their assertions, so too must you prove your assertions failing which you have no right to assert them. You have no right to say that you lose credibility when people do not think you're the best person unless you can prove it. You have no right to say that it is a fundamental issue of fitness to govern unless you can prove it. You said it is a basic Confucian precept that you are allowed to make the right decisions only if you have the moral right. But Confucian moral right comes from being virtuous, not being the best.   You said being put in the same list as Kim Jong II is as good as an attack on the moral fibre of your trust with the people. But the list included so many Asian nations, are you saying it is an attack on all those nations as well? Yet none of the leaders in those nations are even half as bothered as yourself. Why are you so especially sensitive? You give the impression that you are very insecure as though your very authority can be easily undermined by people saying you are not the best. What if we conducted a survey and found that 33% of Singaporeans find that you are not the best, would that undermine your moral right to govern? If we concede that there may be 33% who think that you are not the best, then why is it such a big deal that one journalist thinks so too? If your worry is that the other 66% may lose confidence in you when they come across the article saying you are not the best, then wouldn't that make their confidence in you shaky and weak to begin with?   You said the same journalist and newspaper has done it again. But what the journalist has done this time is to merely state facts and the facts speak for themselves. Unless the facts are erroneous, which they are not, you have no basis to make an issue out of it.   You said the IHT can bring their lawyers to prove what they say is true. That shows your basic ignorance of the basic law concept of presumption of innocence. As Mr Shanmugam would always emphasize, it is never up to the accused to prove that he is innocent. The onus is always on the plaintiff to prove the accused's guilt instead. As such, the onus is on you the plaintiff to prove what the IHT said is false. The onus is not on IHT to prove what they said is true. If you don't even understand this basic law concept, how can you even say you are the best?   You said your father made a state where there was none. But the state of Singapore was already in the making for 140 years before your father took over. The system that could run without him was not made by him but was bequeathed to him by the British.     Thank you     Ng Kok Lim  Read More →

作者:德仁 都说吴博士是‘due to personal reasons'而辞去职务并退出政坛，但是什麽‘个人原因’却是秘而不宣。 吴老到了73岁又新婚，他说是被人‘电到’(‘He has been shocked! ’应该是human shocked吧!) 吴老的唯一儿子是和前妻Alice 所生。吴老当时闹了绯闻已经是60好几，已是爷爷级的人。新人是在教育部当了他的小秘的现任太太。当时大房把家事告到老李面前，无可奈何吴老只好‘不爱江山爱美人’。办了离婚手续之后，他把离休后所得的退休金，房产全部归于大房（估计有整百万吧，现在也许不只这个数目）。一人空手和新人再筑新巢。所以，到今为止，他们家里人都‘顾左右而言他’，为出一本写真集都要大费周章，口沫不少。(见下文注脚) 【续评者一:费言】 传闻说：老李和老吴，为了一个女人翻脸。。。。看来果然不假！ 老李和老吴，关系和地位功能，就如中共建国初期的老毛和老周。 有人认为，老李只不过是在借题发挥，要把功高盖主的老吴早早冷藏，别老是挡在他前面。怎么讲，都是同志加兄弟，实在是兔死狗烹，冷酷无情。 PAP党史里的深层黑雾谜团，比中共的还要让外人费疑猜，在新加坡，估计没有人有兴趣，或者敢去追问。 如果老吴在26年前成就如日中天的时候，不莫名其妙地“被”退出政坛，搞到自己需要被下放去中国另谋出路，（美其名曰：特区顾问）如果让聪明的老吴再干多10年，20年或到今天26年，新加坡的江山也许不姓李，而是姓吴。 新加坡的今天，应该也不一定是这个样，应该还会开放许多，至少那条337A的同性恋古董法，会早被老吴一手废掉。 老李对情色之事有天生的厌恶洁癖，另一个闹绯闻给他无情干掉的PAP同志是，我们尊敬而英俊潇洒，多才多艺的前南大校长，李昭铭博士。 这几天，我们国营电视台的宣传架势，简直和北朝鲜死了金日成有得比。 把一条已经冷藏了26年的咸鱼，突然间再掏出来炒热然后呼呼上桌，足见我党之苦心和慌心也！！！ 40岁以下的新加坡人，估计没几个知道吴XX是谁！26年来，提都没提过的一个怪物或伟人，突然戴满光环从天而降，就连我们这种当年在老吴部下当兵的老公民，都要大吃一惊。 这年代，谁还有兴趣去看哪种共产党洗脑式的歌功颂德？这样出面歌颂丰功伟绩手法，你肯定效果是正面的？而不是让人对这样的处心积虑、机关算尽，巧诈利用的实际无情愈感厌恶？ 被冷藏寒宫26载，临终之际，还能为我党打免费广告？老吴在地下有知，不知是哭还是笑？吴夫人如果知道什么是广告知识产权，估计向PAP索讨个500万竞选广告费，一点也不算贵。 如此出面厚此薄彼的葬礼，不知道会不会让前王公鼎昌总统和老吴在地下，为争风吃醋而打起来呢？ 【续评者二:冬冬】 前总统王鼎昌其夫人贵为岛国第一夫人身故后没有囯葬，王前总统也没有，为何吴博士家人谢辞，但政府却又硬要给予囯葬呢？除了为竞选加分外，咖啡店传言是。。某人可能也不久矣，为吴博士举囯葬不过是为后来人的风光殓葬铺路。真耶假耶大家就轼目以待吧！ 来源：大马论坛 注脚: 《光华日报》:妻反对出传记 http://www.kwongwah.com.my 吴庆瑞的媳妇陈淑珊花了8年撰写《吴庆瑞传记》，相信是第一本也是至今唯一一本讲述他生平事迹的传记。 《Goh Keng Swee—A Portrait》3年前出版，除了讲述吴庆瑞童年和少年时的成长过程，还包括他从政的经过、对我国的贡献以及他丰富的人生经历。 不过，吴庆瑞的妻子潘瑞良得知出版消息后，提出反对，还向报界发表声明，表示吴博士不知有人要为他出书，也没人征求过他的意见，因此出版此书未经他许可，已违背他的意愿。 对此，陈淑珊回应：“我曾就为他写传记这事征询他的意见，他报以一贯的狂笑，说哪会有人要看。我答应他，确保访问简短，他似乎认可了。我曾一度表示也许应该改由他写自传，我可以当他的抄写员，他感叹道‘已经很晚了，我太老了‘。”  Read More →

Tan Lai Kiat, a contractor who found himself at the receiving end of an arrest warrant because of a clerical error, should not be made to pay for the mistake made by the court, ruled a High Court judge. The comments came in the grounds of decision released yesterday by Justice V.K. Rajah, who quashed the warrant following his appeal last month. Mr Tan, now 59, was originally fined for a gambling offence he committed 10 years ago. His family paid his fine half way through his jail term and he was eventually released. But it later turned out that the court clerk (who left the court in 2005) had miscalculated the amount he had to pay and an arrest warrant was issued against him which resulted in his arrest in October 2008, 10 years later. In allowing Mr Tan's appeal, Justice Rajah said neither Mr Tan nor anyone acting on his behalf had contributed to the error which was made by the Subordinate Courts in the first place. While he did not go so far as to pin the blame on anyone in particular, he noted a 'misguided attempt' to correct the mistake, apparently on the quiet. 'If the error had been acknowledged promptly and openly from the beginning, (Mr Tan) would not have to wait for more than 10 years before the error was remedied.' Had there been a more robust system of checks and balances at that time, the case would not have even gone so far, he said. Mr Tan's experience was more than just the 'narrow considerations of an individual's travails with legal processes run awry'. It also threw the spotlight on an 'important facet' on the way that criminal justice is administered here. 'If serious administrative lapses by the courts are left unacknowledged or unchecked or even worse, concealed, confidence in the administration of justice will be corroded and eventually eroded,' said Justice Rajah. But the judge made clear that this was not the case here. 'A culture of openness has long since taken firm root in our courts, with mistakes being acknowledged openly rather than papered over,' he said. The judge noted Mr Tan had been 'literally driven from pillar to post' to seek redress. He could see no reason why the prosecution, which had argued that Mr Tan was avoiding arrest, would have wanted to contest the appeal at first. Justice Rajah said there was no record of letters sent to Mr Tan. Neither was there a court order demanding payment. He was arrested only when he showed up at a police station for an unrelated matter, which meant he was not on the run. 'The unfortunate events which occurred in this case highlighted the importance of having in place a systemised and transparent process for calculating the period of remission an offender is entitled to,' he said. A Subordinate Courts spokesman said yesterday additional layers of checks have been put in place. New software to calculate the outstanding fines had been rolled out. Fine records now are subjected to more checks by different court officials.  Read More →