TR EMERITUS

PM Lee Last Friday (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. The article started by describing Roy as affable, earnest, rather wonkish. "Roy Ngerng Yi Ling does not look like a dangerous radical," it said. "Mr Ngerng, however, is now a celebrity in Singapore, at the centre of a lawsuit that says much about the ways the place has changed in recent years; and the ways it has not," it added. The article then went on to describe what happened: He (Roy) is being sued for defamation by Singapore’s prime minister, Lee Hsien Loong. He might face financial ruin. The alleged “serious libel” was made on Mr Ngerng’s blog on May 15th. Mr Lee’s lawyer argued that an article he posted about the Central Provident Fund (CPF), a compulsory-savings scheme to provide for Singaporeans’ retirement, accused the prime minister of “criminal misappropriation of the monies paid by Singaporeans to the CPF”. The Economist 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. In Roy's case, it is unusual for damages to be demanded for an article published solely online. It continued: Singapore’s traditional media are insipidly sycophantic to the government.  But, in a wired society that lives much of its life on social media, the internet has been an arena for much more robust and uninhibited debate. Mr Ngerng’s fate may make it less so. It also 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". It said: 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 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. While the PAP Government may have recast itself as a more caring and generous government, the article said that the grumbling about the Government has not abated, however. 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.” Ms Lim had argued that suing Roy is counterproductive for the PAP, since “Singaporeans see the defamation suit itself, and not the act that has entailed it, as the very cause of the erosion of trust.” 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. Today (20 Jun), ST published a formal reply from PM Lee's Press secretary 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: SIR – I refer to the article “A butterfly on a wheel” (June 13th). You referred to an “alleged ‘serious libel’” by Roy Ngerng. This is not an allegation. Mr Ngerng has publicly admitted accusing Lee Hsien Loong, the prime minister, of criminal misappropriation of pension funds, falsely and completely without foundation. After promising to apologise and to remove the post, Mr Ngerng did the opposite; he actively disseminated the libel further. 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. Chang Li Lin Press secretary to the Prime Minister    Read More →

Manpower Minister Tan Chuan-Jin (Photo: ST) There are many things that are posted on the internet. We may not always like it or agree with things said, but that's the nature of the medium. But what we should not accept is when it crosses a line. Let us be clear. This is not about freedom of speech or a debate about immigration or foreign workforce policy. This is about racism and xenophobia and there is no place for racists and xenophobes in our society. We have always been an open society where people come to our shores for a range of reasons. Many have settled down over the years, others may move on, as do some of our own Singaporeans. Many leave as friends with Singapore always in their hearts. That is what will make us big despite being a little red dot. Vile and vicious blogs like this do not reflect who we are as a people and we should make a stand and call it out when we see it. I am glad that the blog has been taken down. The Police is investigating. http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/google-removes-blog-hate-speech-against-filipinos-spore#inside Tan Chuan-Jin Manpower Minister 20 June 2014 Source: www.facebook.com/TanChuanJin1/posts/738060959570015  Read More →

Joke of the Year - CPF Money doesn't belong to you! (Courtesy of PAP Fanboy) I'll try to keep this post short and let people reflect on the following photo from The Alternative View: (Click image to enlarge) The commentator, Mr Ng Chun Yi is a PAP Fanboy, who's doing his level best to educate us on Govt CPF policies. I have 1 question for Mr Ng: Were you born stupid or did you have to work on it? You can visit his FB page, and perhaps befriend him and give some basic education on worker's rights and protection. He's clearly suffering from some form of cerebral disorder, perhaps the location of his brain matter has descended to his nether regions. Just to recap, CPF money is and always remains as the holder's monies. If you draw a $1,000 salary and get a deduction of $200 plus and employer contribution of $200 (40%), it does not mean that your employer is 'donating' that $200 to you. It's the law, in order words he's supposed to be paying you $1,200 in total, but the sum deducted is for you to save for your retirement. Employers MUST make a contribution in lieu of whatever taxation waivers and the legal condition to operate a business. The Govt holds on to this monies and invests it and as such MUST pay interest, because if we didn't entrust it to them, we could have taken it and invested or saved it elsewhere. The issue of managing or using it for housing, education or whatever is secondary. We are not obliged to use it, unfortunately because of runaway costs, we have no alternative but to do so. I worry for Singaporeans if the majority shares Mr Ng's mindset or are convincing themselves in the same way he has convinced himself. It's said a fool and his money are soon parted. In Mr Ng's case, a fool and his folly are seldom parted. Sir Nelspruit * The author blogs at Anyhow Hantam.    Read More →