TR EMERITUS

PM Lee Hsien Loong When Catherine Lim wrote an open letter to PM Lee (‘An open letter to PM Lee from Catherine Lim‘) expressing her views that Singapore is in the midst of a crisis where the people no longer trust the government, she received a quick succession of rebuttals from members of the establishment. The first rebuttal came from civil servant, Jacky Foo, who is the Singapore Consul-General in Hong Kong. He insisted that Ms Lim was wrong and that Singaporeans do trust and respect the government (‘SGs trust their leaders – PAP Govt has won many GEs‘). He even cited a study, the Edelman Trust Barometer, to show that trust in the Singapore government was high. He also mentioned that the PAP has won successive general elections, reflecting the people's trust and respect for the PAP government. Then, on 13 Jun, The Economist published an opinion piece (‘A butterfly on a wheel‘) on the recent legal actions taken by PM Lee against blogger Roy Ngerng. It observed that PM Lee, Goh Chok Tong, and Mr Lee’s father, Lee Kuan Yew, have all taken legal action in the past to defend their reputations and that of the government as honest. “They have always been successful,” it said. However, the article also noted that Roy’s case may be different from past cases. It observed that in Roy’s case, the CPF issue which he has been discussing on his blog, “is one of burning concern to many Singaporeans”: Nobody seriously thinks Mr Lee is stealing CPF money. But Mr Ngerng’s argument that the fund pays an inadequate rate of interest and needs reform resonates with many people. Another observation is that unlike previous cases, Roy is not a politician. The Economist is also of the view that Singaporeans these days are much less scared than they used to be in the past, in opposing the Government: Even many Singaporeans who think Mr Ngerng is wrong have some sympathy for him and feel the prime minister is bullying him. He managed to raise 80,000 Singapore dollars to cover his legal costs, mainly from small online donations, in less than a week. Since most people would suspect that the source of these donations could be traced by the government, this suggests that many Singaporeans are much less scared than they used to be of the consequences of opposing it. The article agreed with the views of Catherine Lim in her recent open letter to PM Lee, suggesting that the PAP Government was “hardening its position and going back to the old PAP reliance on a climate of fear maintained by the deployment of the famous PAP instruments of control, notably the defamation suit.” The Economist concluded: Even if she (Ms Lim) is right, of course, the government may well see short-term benefits in the effect of the suit, if its critics think twice before committing their thoughts to the internet. In other words, The Economist thinks that the lawsuit may make critics think twice when writing on the internet in future and this itself is a “short-term” gain for the PAP Government. Last Friday (20 Jun), ST published a formal reply from PM Lee’s Press secretary, Chang Li Lin, refuting the Economist’s article. It said that the libel is not an allegation and that Roy has already publicly admitted to accusing PM Lee of criminal misappropriation ('PM’s aide rebuts Economist article on defamation suit'). Mr Chang rebutted: This was a grave and deliberate defamation, whether it occurred online or in the traditional media being immaterial. What is at stake is not any short-term positive or negative impact on the government, but the sort of public debate Singapore should have. When someone makes false and malicious personal allegations that impugn a person’s character or integrity, the victim has the right to vindicate his reputation, whether he is an ordinary citizen or the prime minister. The internet should not be exempt from the laws of defamation. It is perfectly possible to have a free and vigorous debate without defaming anyone, as occurs often in Singapore. After civil servants Jacky Foo and Chang Li Lin issued those public statements, many netizens began to ask if it's appropriate to get civil servants to essentially write to the public in defence of PM Lee on what seems to be a PM's private matter - his own defamation lawsuit against Roy. The Reform Party even issued a press statement ('RP: Call to investigate breach of Ministerial Code of Conduct'), demanding to conduct a presidential investigation of concerns that PM Lee may have breached the Ministerial Code of Conduct by getting the press secretary to write in defence of his private defamation suit. Today (25 Jun), with mounting criticisms against PM Lee, the Prime Minister's Office issued a public statement arguing that it's entirely appropriate for civil servants, Jacky Foo and Chang Li Lin, to write those recent letters [Link]: This is in response to media queries over the propriety of recent letters by the Prime Minister’s press secretary to the Economist magazine, and the Singapore Consul-General in Hong Kong to the South China Morning Post. The Economist article was on the Government’s Central Provident Fund policies. It referred to PM’s defamation suit over an allegation that the PM had misappropriated public moneys. When aspersions are cast on the integrity of the Prime Minister and his Government’s policies, an official reply from the PM’s press secretary is completely in order. This is no different from what press secretaries in most other Governments do. Likewise, when a foreign newspaper carries an article with misrepresentations about Singapore, it is important that our diplomatic representative defend Singapore’s interests by correcting misrepresentations and providing a balanced view. Our Consul-General in Hong Kong did just that when he responded to the South China Morning Post article.  Read More →

Reform Demands a Presidential Investigation of Concerns that Lee Hsien Loong Breached the Ministerial Code of Conduct. We also Call for the CPIB to be Made Independent of the PMO 23rd June 2014 Reform Party is seriously concerned that Lee Hsien Loong may have breached the Ministerial Code of Conduct (the Code) by using his Official Press Secretary to write a letter to the Economist newspaper defending the PM’s private defamation suit against the blogger Roy Ngerng. The Press Secretary is a civil servant paid by the taxpayer. There is also the question of possible misuse of state resources, which would, if true, be a further breach of the Code dealing with conflicts between the powers of the office and private financial interests. It could also potentially be an offence under Article 409 of the Penal Code dealing with Criminal Breach of Trust by a Public Servant. The Code does not have the force of law though it would appear the President has the ultimate authority to investigate whether there has been a breach and to make his findings public.  The Code says that “Breach of any of these “rules of obligation” may expose the Minister to removal from office”. The question of whether Lee Hsien Loong misused state resources should properly be investigated and dealt with separately by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB). The President appoints the Director of CPIB and is not bound to follow the recommendations of the Cabinet. Under the Constitution, the President can also concur with the decision by the Director to open an investigation even if the Prime Minister refuses to give his consent. However, as the CPIB is merely a department under the control of the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), there is the potential for improper pressure to be exerted. Reform Party therefore calls for the CPIB to be removed from the PMO and either placed directly under the President. An even better solution would be to have a fully independent Commission with a directly elected Commissioner. We also call on the President to clarify his jurisdiction in this matter. If he does have jurisdiction we expect him to conduct an impartial investigation and to make his findings public. A failure to do so risks eroding public confidence in the impartiality and integrity of our public institutions.   Kenneth Jeyaretnam Secretary General  Read More →

A blogger b said that the CPF fund is for retirement and not meant for a rainy day. This is a very simple way of saying what the CPF money is all about. It is for retirement. It is not to be kept forever like the nation’s reserves, waiting for that rainy day that may not come. Oops, our CPF is also classified as the nation’s reserve, so how? If it is the nation’s reserves then it is right to keep it forever for that rainy day right? Can I say wrong? Everyone who contributes to the CPF never think of their savings becoming the nation’s reserves to be kept for a day when the country needs it, not you need it, it could be both. The people putting money into the CPF are very clear that it is for their retirement. A retirement fund is simple to be returned to them when they retired. When did they retire? It used to be 55. Then change to 60, then to 62, then to 65. What happens if retirement age is raised to 80? Possible, can? 100? At this moment, retirement age is 65, I think. So rightfully the money must be returned to the people to use for their retirement. Tiok boh? Is the Medisave Account, with a huge minimum sum, a retirement fund? How did this animal come about? Why shouldn’t this be returned to the people when they retire? Or is this another fund to wait for a rainy day? If wait for rainy day, then cannot take out until the rainy day comes. If it comes, be grateful of this rainy day fund. But it may never come. How many people put their savings in the CPF for a rainy day? Who changed the CPF from a retirement fund into a rainy day fund? There is no point putting money into a retirement fund when you cannot take it out when you retire. It defeats the meaning of a retirement fund. Can anyone see the difference that I am making, or what b said? Is it so confusing? Who is still unable to make out the difference between a retirement fund and a fund for rainy day? A fund that you cannot take out when you retire is not a retirement fund.   Chua Chin Leng aka redbean * The writer blogs at http://mysingaporenew.blogspot.com    Read More →