TR EMERITUS

As Singaporeans faced yet another unjustificable slew of price increases in essential utilities this month – electricity tariffs and water – many are left wondering if both the companies are caught in the red resulting in the price increase. On the contrary, for example, SP group has made an average net profit of almost $1 billion each year for the past 13 years but it has raised electricity tariff again – the third time this year of a hefty 16.8% in total raising doubts about its rationale. There is also no tenable reason given on why it raises the price of both the essential services as electricity and water are household daily usages that no one can do without. In short, there is no need to explain why it has to raise prices as there is no one to account to except its loss-making major shareholders Temasek Holdings. The government also tries to pacify the population by giving back an average of $300 in GST voucher to 1.6 million needy Singaporeans earning $28,000/ year and below but this is small change compared to the increase in monthly utilities bills they have to pay. With the increase, each household is expected to pay an average of 6-8% more in utilities on a permanent monthly basis compared to the one-off GST voucher to be handed out early next month. So why does a intelligent-sounding government like ours kept increasing the cost of essential services that will naturally infuriate the average population though it has being making profits all along? Moreover, there is actually nothing much to gain from the percentage increase other than another tens of millions added to the two utilities’ giant coffers but to the average Joe earning less than $2000/month, it will definitely eat into the household’s consumable income. They will have less to spend on the kids’ Macdonald outing, no more movies during the weekend or trips to the zoo. More significantly, its ability to be financially independent is crippled due to the tightening grip of the government on household expenditure. One feasible reason we can think of the government’s move is in the politics of control. The more the country is in the firm grip of a totalitarian government, the more it will feel that it has no power to free itself of resulting in less personal empowerment to change things individually. Alice LoCicero, a Cambridge-based clinical psychologist and researcher on leadership and terrorism says:  “It’s easier to understand why it’s adaptive and common for people to bond to powerful leaders. In Darwinian evolution, the people who bonded with the leader survived. That instinct got passed along.” We saw that here when many young professionals join the RC or CCC in the overt attempt to associate themselves with the ruling party so as to gain some flavour from that close association. Thus, according to LoCicero, the more power a government holds over it’s people, the more they will feel powerless  without the elements in control. They have effectively surrender whatever individual rights they have to the rulers sometimes voluntarily and often blindly without knowing the devastating result it has on totalitarianism. Dictators like Hitler, Stalin and Gaddafi all enjoyed tremendous popularity with their subjects despite their autocratic ways and merciless purging of dissent. Millions died at their hands but yet people still adore them sometimes blindly. We also witnessed how the country went into a nationalistic mourning when Lee Kuan Yew passed away and though he is not in the tyrannical mould of Hitler or Stalin he is certainly no true democratic ruler. Nevertheless, our government has so far control everything in our lives and has made a living hell out of many people. For example, there is no minimum wage so people could not earn a decent living – another stripping-off of personal empowerment as the population struggles to survive in the world’s costliest city without any reprieve in sight. So, the safer way to survive is to conform and play along and left the dangerous role of implementing changes to the few heroic ones. If everybody is to earn sufficient wages and live decently, the need to depend on the government’s periodical welfare hand-out will be lessened as there is no need to depend on them anymore effectively loosening the grip of the rulers on its subjects. Giving out cash vouchers regularly is a cheap but effective vote-buying strategy and for the poor it is something that they will think of before casting their votes during election. More than 15% of our population (estimated 300,000)  live below the poverty line i.e $1500/month income and below and giving out money prior to a general election is a tried-and-tested way of getting in the votes and it is no wonder why the PAP is not keen on really trying to improve the livelihood of our working poor. Thus, in a cruel attempt at total control, PAP has no desire to really improve the livelihood of the population and the poor struggles to get out of poverty often pushing them to the feeble welfare arms of social services to make ends meet. Besides weakening the poor’s personal empowerment at looking for a permanent change, it also drove them to the ones that could temporarily improve their condition abeit momentarily by way of cash freebies. Nevertheless, totalitarianism also has its own personal appeal to the population as it leaves everything in control to the ruler – decades of absolute power means the people know nothing about exercising its personal right and often they witnessed how opponents are mercilessly crushed resulting in a climate of fear. You will always find a voter who has cursed at the ruling party vehemently because of certain policies but yet they will cast their vote for the incumbent come polling day! Repression is a multi-feared tool aims at repressing dissent so invaluable for regime change as it takes massive ground reaction to trigger change. Many non-Singaporeans marvelled at the high percentage votes the ruling party receives for the last election even though hundreds of thousands of foreigners were allowed in to snatch away jobs from Singaporeans and the high cost of living has affected many people resulting in a mini exodus to JB. In fact, many of the poor who are left suffering from the many erroneous policies of the government voted them back in for another five more years of pain and turmoil as they could not see how they can find another better alternative than the current totalitarian regime they are so used to. Thus, total control is psychological and sometimes it is so ingrained that to escape from its grip is unthinkable. Propaganda has also driven a country to believe that without the PAP, our country will be in shambles and left to perish. We see them day in and out on our TV channels and gradually people start to believe that without the PAP our country will suffer. Nevertheless, the recent regime change in Malaysia provided us with a glimmer of hope that if the people unite and rise up together, change is still possible! Right now, we just have to suffer along with the majority who is still swayed by a totalitarian government and let’s hope that it won’t be for too long…   Gilbert Goh        Read More →

This has been shared widely in cyberspace especially by anti-PAP alt media publications and the social media feeds of cybernuts and the usual ang moh tua kees. They are KPKBing against a now well-known ad for a NETS E-Pay campaign tot by them to use “brownface”, and voicing support for subsequent self promotion “retaliation” video by two persons who claim to be offended by the ad. And  it didn’t help matters when an ethnic Indian super heavyweight minister weighed in with comments that the video crossed various red lines because it attacked ethnic Chinese: Brownfacegate: Did you know Shanmugam also said this? It all seemed so unfair to the cybernuts and many others that censoring the video and investigating Preetipls and Subhas (they made and appeared on the video), while those who came up with the “brownface” advertisement got off lightly. Well this pix has four things wrong going by the criticism of the offending ad and the defence of the video. Firstly, why is the offended person portrayed as an ethnic Chinese lady? Going by the reasoning against the ad, and in favour of the video, the picture is saying that ethnic Chinese, and wimmin, in particular, are prone to being easily upset and offended on racial matters. Not racism and sexism meh? Also going by the reasoning against the ad, and in favour of the video, the picture says that Indians, and males in particular, are prone to allege racism. Not racism and sexism meh? Next, going by the reasoning against the ad, and in favour of the video showing the Indian as light-skinned is taking sides in an ethnic Indian row. Many of our ethnic Indians have darker-skin tones than this guy: because many S’poean Indians are Tamil. Since the PAP introduced “Let the Indians flood in”, the proportion of Northern Indians here are increasing. Some of them even try to practice the caste system here in S’pore saying the fair-skinned Indians (Hindi speakers) of a higher caste than our local Tamil-speakers. It’s a fact that in Northern India, that lighter-skinned Indians are preferred to darker-skinned Indians. The marriage ads often specify the need for a partner to be “wheat coloured” or other such euphemisms denoting light-coloured skin. Not colourism meh? Finally, why must the Indian be a male? Does it reflect the stereotype that Indians prefer male children? And that Indians abort female fetuses? Sexism at work. Fyi, I have no problems with the ad or the video or this picture. I take issue with the subsequent action by MediaCorp against one of the persons in the video (taking him out of a video it’s making). FYi II, I know the person who did the above photo. He is “woke” and anti-PAP, but no racist, and he’s Chinese. My  point is that there’ll always be something in any picture or ad that will offend somebody.   Cynical Investor Cynical Investor blogs at Thoughts of a Cynical Investor      Read More →

Ms Ten Leu Jiun Jeanne-Marie Dear friends, Legal Battle with NUS – For the past 14 years, I have fought a tough battle against the National University of Singapore for the wrongful denial of my Master’s Degree. In 2012, I sued the university as a last resort. I am now trying to raise $20,000 for Security for Costs so that my lawsuit can be heard in the Court of Appeal. Two years ago, donations from the public enabled me to pay a portion of the $11,000 of court hearing fee and send my case to trial instead of being thrown out by Court. I am now trying to raise $20,000 for Security for Costs so that my lawsuit can be heard in the Court of Appeal. To recap, here below is a brief summary of the past 14 years in which I had fought a tough battle against the National University of Singapore for wrongfully denying my MA degree, the sabotage of my PhD programme that I was then enrolled in in 2006, which cost me loss of career opportunities and loss of income. NUS destroyed my career. In September 2006, NUS (National University of Singapore) expelled me from the university after refusing to confer me my Master of Arts Degree in retaliation for my whistle-blowing about misconduct by a professor at NUS, and my whistle-blowing about the subsequent cover-up. As a result of this expulsion by NUS, I had to leave a PhD course that I had already started in the United States. This destroyed my chances of pursuing a career in my field of expertise. In August 2012, I was left with no other option except to turn to the courts to sue NUS, after two different NUS university presidents and the Ministry of Education all failed to help me despite my desperate appeals for help. If I didn't start the lawsuit against NUS by August 2012, my case would have been “time-barred” which means that I would have passed the deadline to take legal action. NUS should have properly admitted its guilt, offered to make amends to me, and punished the wrongdoers. Instead, NUS spent more than $700,000 of public funds to hire lawyers to fight me every step of the way and protect the wrongdoers from the punishment they deserved. NUS fiercely resisted discovery of relevant documents, thereby dragging out the lawsuit and making it very costly for me. NUS could afford to use these attrition tactics against me, because NUS can use public funds (taxpayers’ dollars) to fight me in court. I ran out of money half-way through this lawsuit and had to resort to borrowing. NUS even tried to apply to Court to bankrupt me in 2015. In July 2017, I went public to raise funds for my legal fees after NUS successfully got the Court to issue me two ultimatums (Unless Orders) – to pay $11,000 within three days, failing which my legal case would be thrown out of court. By borrowing money and crowdfunding, I was able to raise the funds to send the case to trial. In August 2017, the public trial of my case began in the High Court. The trial spanned a total of nine days from August 2017 to November 2017. I blogged about my 9-day trial and legal updates here. In July 2018, the Court delivered its decision – I lost all my legal claims against NUS. This was despite the High Court finding that NUS was guilty of wrongdoing against me (see the quotations from the High Court’s written judgment below). On 26 July 2019, the Court delivered its decision on costs – the High Court ordered me to pay $169,748.77 to NUS for the lawsuit (excluding “interlocutory” matters). NUS originally claimed $698,940.11 in legal costs and disbursements for the lawsuit (excluding “interlocutory” matters). This means that NUS claims that it spent at least $698,940.11 paying its lawyers from Drew & Napier to fight me in Court. Since NUS is a “public body” this money must have come from the taxpayers’ dollars. I don’t know whether if NUS will appeal the cost award, given that the Court has awarded NUS less than a quarter of what NUS has claimed that it had spent in legal costs. Both sides have until 26 August 2019 to file a “Notice of Appeal.” NUS may also choose to bankrupt me as NUS has tried once in 2015 to enforce the cost orders made by Court. This is what NUS does to a student who has refused to allow NUS to cover up misconduct of one of its faculty members against the student. Having considered the matter thoroughly, I have decided to appeal the High Court’s decision on costs, as well as the High Court's substantive judgment, to the Court of Appeal; but the problem is that, in Singapore, if you want to appeal to the Court of Appeal, you have to pay $20,000 for “Security for Costs.” If you can’t afford to pay the $20,000, then the Court will not allow you to appeal. The Security for Costs is for the opposing party, which is NUS in my case, and the Security for Costs is separate from the thousands of dollars of court filing fees to be paid to the Court. As far as I know, the Malaysian Court and the British Courts do not require (or require only minimal amounts for) this sort of security deposit. However, this is, sadly, the current position in Singapore. Now, in August 2019, I am resorting to crowdfunding again to raise $20,000 Security for Costs which is for the benefit of NUS, before the Court of Appeal would accept my application to hear my appeal. At the present moment, I have about 2 weeks to raise the $20,000 to appeal the Court’s decisions. I believe I have an arguable case, in fact a strong case, but I don’t have the sum of $20,000. I need to reach the target sum by 22 August 2019 (and file the Notice of Appeal latest by 26 August 2019). Appealing to the Court of Appeal is probably the only way that I can avoid bankruptcy – or, at the very least, it is certainly the only way that I can possibly avoid a crushing financial burden in the form of the unfair costs order. Why do I want to appeal? Some people have asked me to give up taking NUS to the courts because they feel that I can never win a lawsuit against a Singapore public/government institution in Singapore. However, I will still go ahead with the appeal because I believe I have a strong case before the Court of Appeal. The High Court judgment has already exposed and confirmed wrongdoing by NUS officers. In the July 2018 written judgment, the High Court actually found NUS to be guilty of wrongdoing in the main facts of my case. (See the elaboration on this point in the next section below.) But the High Court did not find NUS to be guilty of “malice” or “deliberate” acts and, hence, the High Court did not hold NUS liable to me for expelling me from the university and destroying my career, despite the overwhelming documentary evidence that proves that the wrongful actions that NUS took against me were intentional, deliberate, premediated and carefully planned and executed by numerous high-ranking NUS officers. In my case against NUS, NUS has consistently taken the legal position that I did not complete the requirements that were necessary for NUS to award me my Master’s degree. This is a lame excuse and a red herring. The fact is that I had successfully completed all of the requirements for my graduation and for the award of my Master’s Degree, including researching and writing a book-length Master’s thesis, and I had submitted the final version of my thesis to NUS on the deadline stipulated by NUS. The documentary evidence of letters and internal emails written by NUS officers, clearly prove that the real reason why NUS expelled me and denied me the award of my Master's degree, was that I refused to comply with demands that I drop my complaints about a professor’s misconduct (my thesis Supervisor), even after NUS sent me a letter that threatened me with expulsion if I refused to comply with the improper demands. On 13 May 2019, during the court hearing on Costs, the lawyer for NUS, in trying to convince the High Court judge to order me to pay NUS even more costs, told the judge that NUS had made an offer to me to award me my Master’s degree in 2017. (Refer to an extract of the Court Transcript recorded on 13 May 2019 below.) In other words, NUS has finally (in effect) admitted in Court in 2019 that it had withheld my MA degree despite the fact that I had already earned the degree in 2006! An extract of the Court Transcript recorded on 13 May 2019 The High Court judgment appears to be that what NUS did to me is wrongful but NUS is not legally liable to me in the eyes of the law. With all due respect to the High Court, this is absolutely absurd. I will try to ask the Court of Appeal to reverse the costs order. The actions of NUS are “disgraceful” and deserving of “moral condemnation.” I filed my Notice of Appeal to appeal the High Court’s judgment to the Court of Appeal on 8 August 2018, which was before the deadline; but, the Court has unjustly denied me my legal right to appeal, despite the fact that the right to appeal is supposedly a legal right that belongs to every Singaporean. The Court denied me my legal right to appeal on the grounds that I was unable to pay the $20,000 for “Security for Costs” for the appeal. Now that the High Court has issued a decision on costs, I have another opportunity to be heard by the Court of Appeal, but first I have to raise the $20,000 for “Security for Costs” before the deadline. Your donation will help me to ask the Court of Appeal to hear my appeal of the High Court's judgment, amongst other issues including the issue on costs. Please donate generously to my crowdfunding appeal, so that my case can be heard in the Court of Appeal. Thank you. For those of you who are still interested in the details of my case after reading this far, you can continue reading on my blog. Please donate to my crowdfunding appeal. Paypal [email protected] PayLah! 93884036 Bank POSB Everyday Savings Account 193-69702-0 Ten Leu Jiun Jeanne-Marie DBS Bank Pte Ltd 12 Marina Boulevard, DBS Asia Central, Marina Bay Financial Centre Tower 3, Singapore 018982 Singapore Bank swift code: DBSSSGSG Branch code: 081 Credit Card: https://gogetfunding.com/final-push-to-obtain-justice-urgent-appeal-for-funds-to-get-to-the-court-of-appeal-2/   .    Read More →