TR EMERITUS

From our Correspondent The former director of Singapore's Internal Security Department (1971 - 1974) Mr Yoong Siew Wah had written on his personal blog expressing outrage at factual inaccuracies in the SPH propagandist book about the PAP - "Men in White". Mr Yoong alleged that the writers made an unverified disparaging statement about him under the sub heading "Another Foreign Hand" in page 441 of the book. The whole sub-chapter was devoted to portray the ex-Solicitor General of Singapore Mr Francis Seow as a foreign stooge out to subvert the Singapore government. Mr Seow was detained for two months under the Internal Security Act during "Operation Spectrum" launched in 1988 against suspected "marxists". Mr Seow now lives in exile in the United States where he is the Visiting Professor for Law at Harvard University. The misleading paragraph is as follows: "Before he was made solicitor-general in 1967, Seow was a star public prosecutor, taking on high-profile cases that packed the courtrooms and got maximum exposure in the press. But in 1971, after a police raid on his woman friend's apartment, he used his influence and friendship with the then-director of the Corrupt Practices Investigations Bureau, Yoong Siew Wah, to have the four officers who had conducted the raid sacked. The attorney-general Tan Book Teik intervened to reinstate the four officers. Seow was allowed to resign rather than to have his actions investigated because of his track record in the Legal Service. Yoong was also asked to quit. As we can see from the words highlighted in red, they seem to insinuate there was impropriety on the part of Mr Yoong and he was asked to quit CPIB as a result which casts aspersions on his character and moral standing. According to Mr Yoong's version of events, this is not what happened exactly: 1. CPIB was duty-bound to investigate all formal complaints. Mr. Francis Seow made a formal complaint and CPIB carried out investigations of the four detectives. 2. The investigation papers were sent to the Deputy Commissioner of Police who made the decision to dismiss the detectives. There was a prima facie case against the detectives. 3. Mr Yoong was never asked to quit. He was appointed Director of Internal Security Department following his CPIB stint. After he left ISD in 1974, he was posted to Hong Kong as a Deputy Commissioner. He retired in 1975. On 28 September 2009, Mr Yoong wrote to the Chief Executive Officer of the Singapore Press Holdings drawing his attention to this disparaging statement about him and requesting that a correction be made in his newspaper. His letter was passed to Mr. Richard Lim, one of the three authors of the book who replied on 1 October that the material for the disparaging statement was taken from a speech made by the then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew at the Select Committee Hearing of the Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill which was published in the Straits Times on 10 October 1986 of which a copy was attached. Mr Yoong was absolutely aghast at what Mr Lee said, claiming that the disparaging statement about him was probably made "in the heat of the moment" without regard to its accuracy in Mr Lee's heated exchange with a "cool-headed and eloquent Francis Seow" at the Select Committee hearing. "He (Lee) is not unknown to have behaved erratically with venom in his speech when highly agitated. He was obviously so infuriated by Mr. Francis Seow's biting taunts that it escaped his normally lucid mind that I was not boarded out but appointed Director ISD after my CPIB stint," he wrote. The mistake was subsequently pointed out to Mr Lee, but Mr Yoong was skeptical if he would apologize for it. He added cryptically that "humility is not his forte and he has not been known as one to apologise for his mistakes." Mr. Richard Lim, one of the authors, has assured Mr Yoong that he would add a line after the sentence that he was also asked to quit to indicate that he was actually appointed Director ISD after his CPIB stint in future editions of the book in order to be fair to him. SPH has not announced its horrendous error to the public and neither had it issued an official apology to Mr Yoong. Mr Yoong felt that he was being "punished" for his close ties with Mr Francis Seow: "That I should have had a cordial relation with Mr. Francis Seow was natural in human relationship development. For the then PM Lee Kuan Yew or for that matter the attorney-general Mr. Tan Booin Teik to give a sinister connotation to such a relationship seemed to raise doubt as to the soundness of the detractors' mind. Why should the affinity between Mr. Francis Seow and me be seen as something unwholesome?" An aggrieved Mr Yoong ended his article by asking Mr Lee to undo the "harm" he had caused him: "The most decent thing for the Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew to do now is to undo the harm he has caused me and to restore my reputation. But will he?" If history is any guide to go by, it is highly unlikely that Mr Yoong will ever get the apology he deserves from both the Minister Mentor and SPH. Read the entire article on Mr Yoong's blog: Singapore Recalcitrant   Related article: >> Publicity drive for PAP book at Kinokuniya >> ''Men in White" author got slammed on his blog >> "Men in White" author cried foul at criticisms from netizens  Read More →

From our Correspondent Even before the general election was announced, SDP has fired its first salvo against Bukit Panjang MP Teo Ho Pin! Its Chairman Mr Gandhi Ambalam has earlier written to ask the MP to oppose plans to convert the wet market at Fajar Road to a supermarket. Yesterday, more than 10 members of SDP, including its Secretary-General Dr Chee Soon Juan visited Fajar wet market where they distributed flyers to the residents and sellers entitled "Keep the wet market, reject the supermarket". The flyers claimed: "We know you are unhappy with the government for selling Fajar wet market to Sheng Siong to convert it to a supermarket. We should not sacrifice the livelihoods of the stallholders for the benefits of a private company......Dr Teo Ho Pin does not seem to be keen to intervene on your behalf." When told about this, Dr Teo Ho Pin remarked sarcastically that SDP should "do its homework" first before pin-pointing at others. Dr Teo said that it was he who lobbied HDB to build the wet market in 1996 and he had been meeting the residents, stallholders and grassroots leaders recently to resolve the issue. SDP appears to have jumped the gun again in its eagerness to capitalize on the unhappiness of Bukit Panjang residents. HDB announced 2 days ago that the Sheng Siong's plan to acquire the wet markets has been shelved as they do not fulfill the criteria of being converted into supermarkets. Now that the takeover is stopped, most stallholders are happy that they are able to continue working at the wet market and obviously Dr Teo is going to claim the credit for it. During the last general elections, Dr Teo Ho Pin defeated SDP's Ling How Doong by winning 77 per cent of the valid votes. News source: Lianhe Wanbao page 4 (12 October 2009)  Read More →

I refer to the Straits Times editorial "Watching HDB price behaviour, sensibly" dated 23 Sept 2009.   The writer wonders why buyers don't exercise their democratic right to avoid paying a premium by looking at towns less "prime".  Because towns less "prime" aren't exactly cheap either.  The writer doesn't understand that the rise in property prices is across the board, prime and not-so-prime.  So whether one is looking at prime or not-so-prime, one cannot avoid paying a "premium" for nothing.   The writer denigrades the people's concerns as being "grouses" while applauding Mr Mah's address of those concerns as being timely.  As has always been the case, the wretched people's concerns are always grouses in the eyes and ears of our elites who have long taken for granted their million dollar salaries and can never understand let alone appreciate the citizens' fear and panic of watching the cost of buying a flat increase by $100,000 overnight.   The statement "affordability influences supply" tells us that the writer knows absolutely nothing about what he is saying for there is one and only one pre-eminent supplier, the HDB, who monopolises and hence determines the overall price and affordability of flats.   The writer has chosen to parrot Mr Mah's 30% rule for housing loan payment but fails to justify the use of such a rule.  We are left to wonder why the government chooses to follow international benchmarks when it comes to extracting money from its citizens but when it comes to paying themselves, they choose not to follow international norms, but to pay themselves obscene and astronomical millions instead?  Under what circumstances are international benchmarks adhered to becomes arbitrary at best.   The writer has little doubt that state housing is affordable.  Nevertheless, many old folks have to sell their houses now for retirement funds despite having poured all their hard earned money into their homes all their lives.  And that's what "affordable" means in Singapore, you can "afford" to pay all your life and still end up with nothing in the end.   The writer is sure that HDB has every conceivable flat type and location for every budget.  If only the writer can explain what that means in light of the expected 20,000 applications for the 2,000 flats released recently.   The writer puts the blame squarely back on us wretched citizens for creating problems for ourselves by buying biggers places than we can afford.  But would banks or the HDB have lent us money if there had been serious doubts about loan repayment in the first place?  Sounds just like the US sub-prime crisis isn't it?  Whereas in the US, banks are being blamed for lending money to folks who can't afford housing, here in Singapore, we the wretched citizens are being blamed instead.   The writer blames us wretched citizens for selfishly wanting to stay near parents for child minding convenience.  But as far as child minding convenience is concerned, nothing beats having a maid.  With maids, what need is there to stay near parents?  So surely there must be something altogether different for wanting to stay near parents?  But the writer probably wouldn't understand.  He probably doesn't care if his children stays in Siberia or Zimbabwe as long as there is Internet connection for him to see them via facebook.   The writer reasons that the farthest points on this island are reachable inside an hour by public transport.  I wonder if the writer has ever used public transport in his entire life.  I take more than an hour to travel to my workplace via public transportation and that's not even half the distance from Changi to Tuas South.  This must be the loudest bullshit the writer has managed so far.  Or he could be thinking that every spot in Singapore is within 2 min of walking to the nearest MRT.   But the writer would go even further, by chastising us wretched citizens to stop hectoring the HDB for impossible concessions due to our own obstinance.  Of course concessions are impossible, since when has it been possible for the government to give concessions?  Bus concession for children and old folks perhaps but little else.  Notice that the writer uses the word "hectoring" which means "bullying"?  Wow, we wretched citizens of Singapore have started bullying the authorities.  Now that is something new, like lambs bullying the big, bad wolf.  But lambs will never be smart enough to come together to bully the wolf.  Lambs can only scream for help when being pushed into a tight corner.     Thank you     Ng Kok Lim  Read More →