TR EMERITUS

I have no quarrels with MP Denise Phua's bold and unprecedented call to abolish the Elected Presidency. For such a speech to be delivered in Parliament reflects the stirring of the return of democracy and freedom of speech to our land. That the new Whip did not interrupt her speech or call her to order is also another good sign. I am not convinced by the rationale of the ex MM, that Singapore needs things like EP. GRC or NNP to make us a more robust country. It is irrelevant that he took 15 years to hatch this gimmick called a EP just so to frustrate a new so-called "rogue government" from squandering our reserves. I also do not buy his logic that his younger colleagues bought his formula because they cannot field a better team. They were probably too afraid to disagree with him for fear of losing their jobs. The EP is an undemocratic institution whose purpose is to frustrate the will of the people and undermine the supremacy of parliament. No new government rogue, dummy, clown, or stupid would succumb to the dictates of a rump President left behind by a government that has lost the mandate of the people. Imagine a minority President Tony Tan left behind by a party that has lost power to say the WP. Why should the new government have any regard for the so-called second key held by the rump President. It would just make a new key and throw away the old one and the rump President cannot do anything at all. Not unless he has the guts to call on the Chief of Army to conduct a coup on behalf of the party that has lost the mandate. It is good to return to our founding days when things were simpler and not so convoluted. It may take a long and exhaustive search to unearth a few good men or women who can perform the role of a ceremonial presidency not for the love of money, ego or power but because they harken to the call of duty, patriotism and love for the people and the nation. Thank you Patrick Low * Submitted by TRE reader.  Read More →

Blogger Roy Ngerng Hello everyone, The past one month has been a hectic period. Many things have happened. I have had some time to slow down and think about things over the past one week. You would have seen the defence that my lawyer, Ravi, had file this morning. Perhaps, let me share more on my thoughts on this. You know, when I wrote the article, it was never my intention to say that the prime minister had misappropriated the money. And I have never said this. What I really wanted to bring out was this - Singaporeans know that our CPF is being invested in the GIC and Temasek Holdings, but we didn't know how it was being invested. Also, the GIC and Temasek Holdings were earning 6.5% to 16%, but Singaporeans were only earning 2.5% to 4% on our CPF. Thus I wanted to question - why is it that Singaporeans now have the one of the least adequate retirement funds in the world, while GIC and Temasek Holdings are the 8th and 9th largest sovereign wealth funds in the world? In short, I wanted to ask why the GIC and Temasek Holdings are so rich but Singaporeans are so poor. I was worried. I was worried because will I be able to save enough in the CPF to be able to retire? In fact, this is a common question that I have heard from people who have spoken to me. If our elderly Singaporeans have to keep working as cleaners and laborers today, was it because they didn't receive the returns that they should on their CPF? And this is what I've always wanted to ask - can the government be transparent and accountable with what they are doing with our CPF and let Singaporeans know? I have never said that the prime minister misappropriated our CPF monies. In my articles, I have always used facts, statistics and research to base my articles on. Some might not agree with the analysis but as a writer, but it is an integrity that I hold on to, that I should only formulate my analysis on sound knowledge. As such, I have never intended not stated that the prime minister had misappropriated our CPF monies. In fact, I had instead hoped that the prime minister would be open to have an open dialogue on our CPF. I think if we are able to do so, we would be able to clear the air, once and for all, about our CPF. The prime minister hasn't responded but I continue to believe that this is the best way forward. As Catherine Lim had said, there is a "need for a robust, trusting relationship between the government and the people, which, (she) strongly believe(s), is the only guarantee for a small country to survive in an increasingly perilous world." Since the episode started, I have had some time to think about things and I would like to clarify myself. Perhaps if there are misunderstandings about my intentions, I would like to have the opportunity to clarify and have a constructive dialogue on this. All along, I have advocated for the transparency and accountability of the management of our CPF and I've advocated for higher returns on our CPF, so that Singaporeans are able to be protected and taken care of by our government. This is what I've always believed in and advocated for. I hope that we will be able to have a chance to discuss about this in an amicable way, and find a way forward for Singaporeans, and for the betterment of our country and our lives. Roy Ngerng Source: www.facebook.com/sexiespider  Read More →

PM Lee is suing blogger Roy Ngerng for defamation. Mr Lee Hsien Loong cannot make a claim of defamation against Mr Roy Ngerng since Mr Ngerng has already admitted that the allegations he made on his blog are false and unfounded. That is the argument which the lawyer for Mr Ngerng, a blogger being sued by Mr Lee, is asking the court to determine. Mr Lee is the Prime Minister of Singapore, but is suing Mr Ngerng in his personal capacity. The lawsuit stems from a blog article which Mr Ngerng had published on 15 May 2014, titled: “Where your CPF money is going: learning from the City Harvest trial”. In that article, says Mr Lee’s lawyers from law firm Drew and Napier, Mr Ngerng had allegedly accused Mr Lee, who is also the chairman of the Government Investment Corporation of Singapore (GIC), of “criminal misappropriation” of monies from Singapore’s state-run pension fund, the Central Provident Fund (CPF), by comparing the criminal trial of the leaders of City Harvest Church (CHC) with the management of the CPF monies. The CHC leaders are facing corruption charges in how they managed church funds. In its letter of demand to Mr Ngerng on 19 May, Mr Lee’s lawyers demanded that Mr Ngerng removed the article in question, issued an apology on his blog site, and to make an offer of compensation to Mr Lee. Mr Ngerng subsequently acceded to all the demands, including removing four other articles which Mr Lee’s lawyers had also asked to be removed from his blog. Mr Ngerng also made an offer of S$5,000 as compensation to Mr Lee. Mr Lee’s lawyers, however, dismissed the amount as “derisory”, and were instructed by Mr Lee to commence legal action on 30 May. In his defence papers filed on Tuesday, 17 June, lawyer M Ravi, representing Mr Ngerng, argued that there was no case of defamation and no grounds for the aggravated damages Mr Lee is seeking. The first reason is that the criminal case of the CHC leaders have not been found guilty by the court of corruption charges. Thus, there was no case of defamation when Mr Ngerng compared the CHC trial to the management of the CPF scheme. “Readers of the article on the blog would have known that the City Harvest Church case was ongoing,” Mr Ngerng’s defence said, “that the criminal charges were denied by the defendants and, while the judge had ruled that there was evidence sufficient for the case to continue (contrary to the submissions made to him), he had not determined that they were ‘guilty’.” The second reason offered by Mr Ngerng’s defence submission is that the blog article had to be read in context. “The article referred in some detail to the CPF and the concerns which arose in relation to its management,” it said. “The defendant will refer to the whole of what is said in that part of the article.” It argued that it “would have been clear to readers” that “principal concerns included the lack of transparency in relation to the manner in which the Singapore Government, MAS, GIC and/or Temasek managed the funds from CPF monies; the question of interest on the money [sic] in the CPF (including how much interest was being accrued and to whose benefit it was being paid or held); the growth of GIC and Temasek as wealth fund managers; and the retirement pension position for the citizens of Singapore. Readers would have read the whole of the article and, accordingly, would have considered the words and images complained of in the context of the whole.” The third reason, Mr Ngerng lawyer explains, why Mr Lee’s lawsuit is baseless, is because Mr Ngerng had already acceded to the various demands made by Mr Lee, before the legal suit was commenced. “On 23 May 2014, the defendant published the ‘apology and undertaking’ which the Plaintiff had demanded in the 18 May 2014 letter, on the homepage of his blog,” the defence said. “The defendant published the wording required by the plaintiff. It is to be inferred that the plaintiff required that form of words as constituting appropriate and sufficient vindication for the publication of the allegation of which he complained. The public apology by the defendant to the plaintiff was unreserved.” In other words, it was Mr Lee who had sought vindication through the demands, including the removal of the four articles from Mr Ngerng’s blog on 26 May – a week after Mr Lee’s original letter of demand – all of which Mr Ngerng acceded to. How then could there still be a case of defamation, Mr Ngerng’s defence asked. Further, Mr Ngerng had also made an offer of compensation which, the defence said, was not “derisory”, contrary to what Mr Lee had claimed. “[The] amount was based on the defendant’s modest living and income that he derives from working as a health care worker,” the defence said. Mr Ngerng’s lawyer said that it is Mr Lee who must prove that the offer was “derisory”. “If he alleges that he is entitled to any greater sum in damages, the Plaintiff is put to proof of the basis upon which such damages are claimed.” Mr Ngerng’s lawyers also reiterated that Mr Ngerng had accepted that the allegation of “criminal misappropriation” on the part of Mr Lee “was false and without foundation.” “The Defendant’s public statement to that effect had been published widely,” the defence added. Mr Ngerng has also “undertaken not to publish such an allegation in the future.” Mr Ngerng’s court submission said: “The defendant is a person of modest means, who had publicly apologised to the Plaintiff and acknowledged that the allegation about which the Plaintiff complained was false (in wording, and in a manner, required by the Plaintiff), who had given undertakings not to publish such an allegation, and who had agreed to remove material to which the Plaintiff had objected. Yet the Plaintiff rejected the damages offered by the Defendant as ‘derisory’ and has brought this claim against him. It appeared to the Defendant that the Plaintiff was seeking (through pursuing this action against him and seeking damages, including aggravated damages, and costs) to prevent him from expressing his views on the CPF and to impose an unwarranted and unnecessary restriction upon his constitutional right, as a citizen of Singapore, to freedom of speech and expression. The Defendant, in publishing the Article, was seeking to exercise that right on a matter of considerable public interest to the citizens of Singapore.  “In all the circumstances of this case, to pursue a claim against the defendant for damages (including aggravated damages) and legal costs, is unnecessary and unwarranted.” In summary, the defence is arguing that since Mr Ngerng has already admitted that the allegations are false and unfounded, there is therefore no longer defamation. And since Mr Ngerng has also already apologised, there is no value in the defamation case anymore, because there is no real and substantive case for the plaintiff. Andrew Loh * Andrew is an Editor of TOC. His writings have been reproduced in other publications, including the Australian Housing Journal in 2010. He was nominated by Yahoo! Singapore as one of Singapore’s most influential media persons in 2011. The article was first published on www.theonlinecitizen.com. Editor's note: Roy's affidavit is found here: thehearttruths.com/2014/06/17/my-defence-allegation-is-false-and-without-foundation-claim-for-damages-unnecessary-and-unwarranted.  Read More →