TR EMERITUS

The video clip posted by Lee Hsien Loong on his Facebook page of the Indranee Rajah response comes on right after Low Thia Khiang's speech. For a guy whose delivery in dialect is more powerful than in Queen's English, this is one command performance that resonates. The keystone of his message, and probably why it was clipped, is this reminder: "If the people continue to support a government party that uses high-handed tactics against its political opponents, we are endorsing a bullying political culture. If the people support a governing party that uses governmental resources, including civil servants, to serve its partisan goals, we are condoning the abuse of political power as an acceptable culture." The mainstream media refers to it as a "heated debate", but if you watch the lacklustre retort of Rajah, it comes across as a tired response, with the speaker looking, and articulating, a decade older than her actual years. You would be tired too, repeating the unchanging rote of a programmed automaton. If her demeanour spells her party's enthusiasm for "putting Singapore at the heart of what we do", it explains the lethargic efforts at addressing the housing, transport and foreign invasion issues. Anyone playing the devil's advocate could easily twist Low's words, and shame him for blaming the electorate for the current state of affairs. Not unlike blaming the people of Germany for the undulating support of a little corporal from Bavaria during WWII. Maybe not that easy, since criticism is now seeping in from unlikely circles. Inderjit Singh (Ang Mo Kio GRC) is best remembered for taking a leak in the little boys' room to avoid voting for the Population White Paper. This time round he decided to be conveniently overseas, when he posted "hard-hitting" comments on the President's Address: "I encounter a fair number of residents who question the rationale of government policies. They feel the Government does not understand their needs and concerns but instead craft policy while seated in, what effectively seems like a different world, an ideal clean and sterile policy lab or ivory tower perched high up." We wish he would give us more leaks, the types provided by a Edward Snowden or Julian Assange. That's the only way for folks to stop swallowing the blue pill, and start opting for the red one. Tattler * The writer blogs at singaporedesk.blogspot.com.  Read More →

Blogger Roy Ngerng In response to the letter from blogger Roy Ngerng's lawyer M Ravi ('M Ravi: Don’t curtail Roy’s right to speak on CPF issue') yesterday (28 May), PM Lee's lawyer Davinder Singh replied today (29 May) saying that Roy's conduct is malicious. Yesterday in his letter, Mr Ravi clarified that for the avoidance of doubt, other posts about CPF should not be construed as a curtailment of Roy’s right to his “freedom of expression to write or engage the public on the CPF issue” and raise any matters relating to CPF that “require transparency and accountability to the public”. Mr Ravi said that the other articles relating to CPF do not refer to the PM. He said, “Any attempt to curtail this would be frowned upon by Article 14 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, especially since these other posts do not refer directly to your client (PM Lee).” However, Mr Singh countered in his letter to Mr Ravi today, "Your client (Roy) knows that our client (PM Lee) has never once said that your client is to remove his posts, including those on the Central Provident Fund (CPF), other than those specially identified by us in our letters." Mr Singh said that despite this, Roy in the letter dated 28 May, sought to give the impression that PM Lee is seeking to prevent Roy from expressing his views on the CPF or from exercising his constitutional rights. "That disingenuous suggestion was made in a letter which your client intended to make public, to bolster his standing and in aid of his continuing public campaign against our client," Mr Singh noted. As such, Mr Singh said his client, PM Lee, will "invite the Court to have regard to this malicious conduct when assessing aggravated damages". After Mr Singh has responded, his law firm Drew and Napier later served the Writ of Summons on Roy in the afternoon. Mr Ravi received the Writ on behalf of Roy. In an oblique reference to Roy's case, former Presidential candidate Dr Tan Cheng Bock wrote on his Facebook page ('Dr Tan Cheng Bock: The CPF and beyond') yesterday (28 May): "Younger Singaporeans, better educated, and with a more enquiring mind zoomed in on how the CPF money was invested. They raised some pertinent questions like interest rates and want to know where, how and quantum of return from investments but they got same standard answers (e.g. CPF are invested in Singapore government bonds). This did not satisfy their young minds. They want to know whether GIC and Temasek holdings are also managing the funds. But apparently these questions were not well clarified. This created a suspicion of the government not being transparent and that the government was not revealing the true status of our money in the CPF. As the answers were not forth coming, more pressure was exerted through the new media and some got carried away too far with allegation of wrong doings by the authorities. So the big stick was used." Dr Tan also opined that there will be more such "standoffs" in future. He said: "The CPF issue is but one of many such encounters that the government will have to face. It is very challenging and difficult. There will be more such standoffs. But for now, how is the government going to manage this? Will the tough action taken, strengthen the resolve of the young or a more engaging approach be a better way for such encounters in future? How hard the big stick is used will be carefully watched both by Singaporeans and Singapore watchers abroad." Dr Tan concluded that the current heated discussion on CPF essentially boils down to a question of a lack of public trust.    Read More →

The old man at 71 is a living proof, that our Government has the foresight to increase the CPF minimum sum withdrawal. A 71-year-old elderly man was arrested on 28 May 2014 for vandalizing bus stop panels. I am very sure that amount of CPF money withdrawn by this old man had already overspent on something not necessary like on china woman, drinking and gambling habits so much so he has no money left and is desperate for government to release the balance money in CPF. If he can walked for such a long distance only proved that he is healthy. Imagine, if PAP as promised allows full withdrawal at 55, Singaporeans will not only see one such old man but probably hundreds on the streets. So how unsightly Singapore streets can be. Singaporeans please be contended, this CPF withdrawal at a later age is good for all of us, at least when we die, we still have money left rather than enjoy first and when we die, we die by the road side. Singaporeans need to wake up, here is a government who is best in helping us to preserve our mileage in our money management and we take it for granted. So have you honestly asked yourself, surely when the time comes to withdraw, our government promptly credit the money on your 55 years old birthday right! Did the PAP ever delay payment for a week or pay you in part payment? No right, so how can Singaporeans say PAP had taken away your money. I am sure many will thumb down my comments that is because, they are living in denial. They think they can self manage but actually they can’t. They think they are in control but they do not. They just only want to see money early but when problems come, they blame the government for not looking after them, so sad of them. Good thing that there are 60% that know how to think right else Singapore will see more beggars and old man like these destroying Singapore infrastructure. PAP Loves Its Singaporeans * Comment appeared in: 71-year-old elderly man arrested for bus stop vandalism  Read More →