TR EMERITUS

The Lost Ones often whine that there is no alternative to their ideology of meritocracy. What they are saying is that there is no alternative to the ruling class’: disgraceful attitudes, words and behaviour, greed, cronyism, extreme self-interestedness, the desire to punish those who oppose them, viciousness, vindictiveness, cowardice, and the penchant to place scoundrels in high office. But surely decent folk know that there are not only alternative ideas, policies, and parties but the opposite of what the meritocrats religiously believe is possible, that is, we can evolve into a society that is just, fair, vibrant, and even compassionate. If there is any doubt that there are alternatives to what the Lost Party insists is an immutable truth, i.e. that their way is the only way, please ask how can any civilisation or society evolve without change? What the Lost Souls are insisting is that we cling onto the status quo and sink into damnation with them. They should be given the freedom to have their one-way ticket to perdition validated but there is no reason why any right-thinking person should join them in their downward spiral. Singapore has progressed somewhat (though some may disagree) despite being under the Dishonourables: whose cupidity, lack of transparency, and non-accountability have led to greater mistrust in government and those who have been hogging it for decades. If citizens were rebellious all the time and never cooperative there would have been trouble long ago. But the citizens have been a long-suffering bunch, and many have left (some forced to leave) the country; still those who remain carry on knowing that with the way things are going something has to give. The weakest link is the Lost Party and the Dishonourables; we need to replace them with new people who have fresh ideas: they exist but the mainstream media blocks them out. So forget the mainstream media, and listen to the alternative media which despite attempts to curtail it (and those who try to bring it down by playing into the hands of the elites willingly or otherwise)—still challenges the propaganda of the elites, and gives us something to think about. Continue to question the rhetoric of complacency, ineptitude, and shamelessness of the Lost Party each time they mouth their inanities in the mainstream media. When I started writing fiction ‘officially’ I was consistently warned not to say anything that would offend the powerful for they were not only thin-skinned (and so not only took offence easily but craved excuses to take offence): they were devoid of humour, full of themselves, and thought anyone other than their kind were inferior beings. My reply was: it is only fiction. The response was, ‘but still…you don’t know these people’. The sad fact is that many creative people have been shut down for years. So many have left, and are still leaving, and each time I connect with someone I knew via social media they usually say they now live overseas. But the ruling elites are only interested in the self-perpetuation of mediocrity and Incompetence: themselves. May more people express their creativity without fear and within the bounds of reason, and not allow bullies who only swagger not because of their abilities but due to their use of the punishing apparatus of the state to intimidate others. Without the ability to punish they are nothing, and the nihilism at their core will start to ring hollow clearly to those who listen. Their time is running out which is why they are using increasingly draconian tactics to stifle anyone who brings to light what shows them up for who and what they are. May genuine justice prevail one day. Sanjay Perera *Writer, and founding editor of Philosophers for Change. For a collection of related posts: Kafkaville. He is also the author of A Leap in the Dark; Trauma Inc. and Other Works: or, How to Read the World and End It; and the novels Golem & Traum, and Perfect iSland. [Picture: photosforclass.]    Read More →

On Sunday (1st Sept), the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) issued a warning letter to the editor of The Online Citizen (TOC), Mr Terry Xu, demanding that the website apologise and remove an article and Facebook post repeating the allegations which PM Lee’s sister Dr Lee Wei Ling had made during the OxleyGate family feud in 2017. In the letter, PM Lee had demanded that TOC immediately remove the offending article and Facebook post and publish a “full and unconditional apology” along with an undertaking that it would not publish similar allegations in the future. The letter also warned that “PM Lee will have no choice but to hand the matter over to his lawyers to sue to enforce his full rights in law” if TOC does not comply by Wednesday (4th Sept). The letter was drafted by PM Lee's press secretary, Ms Chang Li Lin on his behalf: Dear Sir, DEFAMATION 1. I am writing on behalf of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in connection with false allegations in: (a) an article entitled “PM Lee’s wife, Ho Ching weirdly shares article on cutting ties with family members” on your website (at https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2019/08/15/pm-lees-wife-ho-ching-weirdl…) (the “Article”); and (b) a Facebook post on the “timeline” of your Facebook profile page containing a link to the Article (at https://www.facebook.com/ theonlinecitizen/posts/on-wednesday-14-aug-ho-ching-the-wife-of-prime-minister-lee-hsien-loong-lhl-took/10157577806071383/) (the “Post”). 2. The Article and the Post repeat several false allegations against PM Lee that were previously made by his sister, Dr Lee Wei Ling. In particular, they allege that PM Lee misled his father, the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew, into thinking that the 38 Oxley Road property had been gazetted by the Singapore Government, and that it was futile for Mr Lee Kuan Yew to keep his direction to demolish it. PM Lee thereby allegedly caused Mr Lee Kuan Yew, who had originally wanted to demolish the house, to consider other alternatives to demolition, and to change his will to bequeath the house to PM Lee. 3. These allegations are completely without foundation. In July 2017, after his siblings made similar allegations, and accused PM Lee and his Government of abuse of power, PM Lee gave a full explanation on these matters in Parliament. He reaffirmed that Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s personal wish was for the 38 Oxley Road property to be demolished after his passing. However, after hearing Cabinet’s unanimous views that the property should not be demolished, Mr Lee eventually came to accept that the Government was likely to preserve the property in the public interest. He was consequently prepared to be flexible and contemplate options short of demolition. With the rest of the family’s knowledge, he approved plans to redevelop/renovate 38 Oxley Road to remove the private spaces. 4. The Article and Post also make other false allegations. One such false allegation is that after it was revealed to Mr Lee in late 2013 that the 38 Oxley Road property had in fact not been gazetted, he removed PM Lee as an executor and trustee of his will. The truth is Mr Lee had not included PM Lee as an executor and trustee in any of his wills from 2011 onwards. Mr Lee had explained to PM Lee that he did not want to put PM Lee in a difficult position, if the Government were to acquire the property and his siblings took issue over the compensation. 5. These allegations in the Article and Post are libellous. PM Lee has chosen thus far not to sue his siblings. As he told Parliament, suing them would further besmirch his parents’ names, and was therefore not his preferred course of action. 6. PM Lee also made clear to Parliament that under any other circumstances, he would have sued immediately, and that his decision not to sue his siblings then did not mean that he would not ever take legal action, should this become necessary. 7. However, PM Lee’s restraint in suing his siblings should not be misinterpreted by others as free licence to repeat and spread false and defamatory allegations against him, as the Article and Post have done. He has to rebut and deal publicly with such scurrilous attacks on his integrity and character, if necessary through legal action. This is especially as such attacks are also directed at his fitness to hold office as Prime Minister and to lead the Government. 8. The Article and the Post continue to appear on your website and Facebook timeline. PM Lee asks that you remove both immediately, and publish within three days, i.e. by 4 September 2019, a full and unconditional apology, plus an undertaking not to publish any similar allegations, prominently on your website (at https://www.theonlinecitizen. com/) and on your Facebook timeline (at https://www.facebook.com/theonlinecitizen/). 9. Should you decide not to take the opportunity afforded to you by paragraph 8, PM Lee will have no choice but to hand the matter over to his lawyers to sue to enforce his full rights in law. As of 1400 hours on Wednesday (4th Sept), TOC has yet to respond to PM Lee's demands.      Read More →

I was asked - Mr. Tan, if someone published a statement that you were a thief and you did not sue the author and later, another person published another statement using the fact in the first statement, can you sue the second person for defamation? By not acting on the first statement, did you indirectly accept that the statement was true or that it was nonsensical and not worthy of legal action. If that is the case, do you forgo the right to take defamation action on the second statement? If you were a politician, can the defendant argue that your action was "politically motivated" and that the statement did not really damage your reputation? Here is my answer. I believe that my failure to act on the first statement will weigh strongly against my action on the second statement. I would probably be questioned on my lack on action on the first statement, and how my reputation has been damaged on the second statement. My possible arguments could be that the author of the first statement is of unsound mind, and that the general public would not give him the credibility. On the second statement, I could argue that the second statement was widely read by people who were not aware of the first statement, and led greater credibility to the statement. I would probably find it difficult to convince the judge on the strength of my arguments. I would probably not take legal action on the second statement, except perhaps to send my statement to correct any wrong facts. If I continued the legal action, it can be argued that my action was politically motivated. Even if I win the case in court, I would find it difficult to convince the general public otherwise.   Tan Kin Lian      Read More →