TR EMERITUS

PM Lee I refer to PM Lee’s lawyer Mr Davinder Singh’s first letter of demand to Roy Ngerng. Point No. 8 of the letter claims that Roy’s article was clearly malicious. It is not clear why Mr Singh characterized the article as such as he made no explanations. Is a false claim automatically and clearly a malicious one? Mr Singh’s claim for damage is based on Roy’s article being widely read and widely circulated through the internet. However, an article’s wide readership and circulation doesn’t necessarily imply damage done to PM Lee’s reputation. If readers do not believe Roy’s supposed assertion on the PM, then no damage has been done. Examples abound from the internet and from the press of people who do not believe Roy’s supposed assertion: • Most of the points he raised were without merit and probably reflected a lack of understanding of how complex financial systems work. - ST Forum, CPF cannot behave like hedge fund, Jason Soon Hun Khim, 27 May 2014 • Unfortunately he said the wrong thing and got sued by a government minister. - TR Emeritus, I’d debate the person openly if he accuses me of something, Ben, 26 May 2014 • For a start, I do think this blogger Mr. Roy Ngerng has probably gone a little too far by saying you misappropriated funds. It is indeed not well substantiated. I think you can rest assured Sir that most Singaporeans are well conceived enough to know that this is not well served on you. - TR Emeritus, An open letter to PM Lee Hsien Loong, Y. C. Ho, 26 May 2014 • He could be overzealous this time to say something unfair to you. Even many of us think it was a bit overboard. - TR Emeritus, What is PM Lee trying to prove?, Albert, 25 May 2014 • If you look closely at Roy Ngerng’s defamatory infographic, it defamed not only PM Lee but also other individuals like Tharman and Ho Ching. - TR Emeritus, 5 myths about Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, Tan Hong Kit, 23 May 2014 Thus far, of so many posts on the Internet about the law suit, I have not come across one that expresses agreement with Roy’s supposed assertion that the PM misappropriated CPF money. In that case, where is the supposed damage to PM Lee’s reputation? Some people assume that the damage, based on past cases, should be around $200,000 to $300,000. But that is the price of the PM’s reputation, not the cost of the damage to the PM’s reputation. The damage to a $1 million Ferrari cannot automatically be $1 million. Suppose the Ferrari’s car plate was damaged, the cost of damage is just the cost of the car plate, not the price of the entire Ferrari. PM Lee’s reputation may be worth $200,000 to $300,000. But the damage to his reputation is not automatically $200,000 to $300,000. The damage has to be quantified. One way of quantifying damage is through interviews. If we do that, we may find that 60% of Singaporeans do not believe Roy but believes PM Lee instead strongly, passionately, unreservedly and eternally. No amount of Roy can tarnish their good faith and belief in PM Lee. Hence PM Lee’s reputation remains intact and is in no way damaged in so far as his 60% supporters are concerned. Similarly, as much as 40% of Singaporeans are already against the PM to begin with, with or without Roy. Roy’s article did nothing more to tarnish the PM’s already tarnished reputation in this group. So if we exclude the 60% on whom PM Lee’s reputation remains untarnished and the 40% on whom PM Lee’s reputation was already tarnished before Roy wrote his article, there will be no new damage to PM Lee’s reputation arising from Roy’s article. We can also look at PM Lee’s vote percentage in the next election. If the percentage remains more or less the same, wouldn’t that suggest that the PM’s reputation remains largely intact and does not suffer any material damage? Mr Singh’s second letter I refer too to Mr Singh’s second letter of demand to Roy. Mr Singh claims that Roy has opportunistically used the lawsuit to raise his profile and to garner support. But didn’t Mr Singh acknowledge in his earlier letter that Roy has the most popular blog in Singapore and that it was foreseeable that Roy’s article will be widely republished across the internet? Why then would Roy need to use the lawsuit to raise his profile when his profile was already so good? Conversely, if Roy has to resort to using the lawsuit to raise his profile, doesn't that suggest that the initial damage was somewhat limited? Isn’t Mr Singh contradicting himself somewhat? Thank you Ng Kok Lim * This article is for consumption on TRE only and shall not be reproduced without the express permission of the author.  Read More →

Why did PM Lee Hsien Loong’s much publicized Post GE 2011 New “Singaporeans-First” Policies Fail? During the National Day Rally in August Year 2011 , PM Lee Hsien Loong went on national television and media to state that he would, with the PAP government, come up with new “Singaporeans-First” policies. This was to appease and calm the much angry and dissatisfied Singaporeans who had been affected by the uncontrolled foreign talents and immigration policies of the PAP government for years and it’s negative impact on them. This was clearly evident by PAP’s worst electoral performance since independence, in GE2011 with the lowest percentage win with major losses in the first GRC - Aljunied to opposition Worker’s Party. PM Lee knew the ground was angry and came up with a glittering awe-inspiring speech about addressing the uncontrolled foreign talents and immigration policies. Putting Singaporeans First and policies to help them in education, housing, transportation and more which had taken a toll and also grown out of control in terms of cost while service suffered with many problems. Media played to the galleries for the next few months on this new-found words, “Singaporeans first” which was mimicked by all serving PAP Ministers in tow in all their speeches and media interviews. Ok, but for how long? U-Turns Start: “Singaporeans First Policies Slowly Die Off” - Back To Foreigners Important For Singapore Again Mantra. Before end of Year 2011 and in 2012, PAP and PM Lee went on overdrive to spin stories and media releases about how it was important again for more foreign talents in Singapore. Year 2013, PM Lee initiated PAP 6.9M Population White Paper Plan with Foreign Immigration hurriedly passed by majority PAP MPs and Ministers despite strong Singaporean objections. [Link 1]; [Link 2] "The population white paper: It need not be this way" (February 8, 2013 by Ng E-Jay) PAP and PM Lee forgetting about Singaporeans First policies and focus, now starts battling all criticisms on the passed 6.9M Population Policy Plan with foreign immigration. PAP Ministers and PM Lee go on overdrive to paint importance of 'Foreign Talents and Foreigners creating jobs for Singaporeans' delusions via MSM. But they keep quiet on vital facts raised by Singaporeans actually losing jobs esp PMET jobs as companies prefer to replace Singaporeans with cheaper foreign PMETs. NS serving Singaporeans are also axed by unscrupulous companies while government ignores pleas of Singaporeans from many raised issues. Former PM Lee Kuan Yew talks of Singapore punching it’s way out only with Foreign Talents which Singaporeans have no choice but to accept. PAP Ministers shamelessly suggest Singaporeans look outside the country for jobs and indirectly suggest they should leave. Singaporeans should send their aged parents to nearby Johor, Malaysia for their care or even medical care if they find Singapore’s costs too high or if there are no vacancies here. A PAP Minister states Singaporeans should not aim to graduate from universities as this was not the only goal for Singaporeans and that they should instead take up jobs, discouraging Singaporeans from their university goals. Really! Asking again Singaporeans to re-adjust and accept foreign talents through constant publicity via grassroots, PA and PAP MPs/Ministers. Year 2014, at the peak of PAP and PM Lee’s pro-foreign talent and business focus, they openly state that foreigners are here to stay. PM Lee chides Singaporeans for being vocally opposed to the PID Celebrations in Orchard and brands them “bigots” and “Disgrace To Singapore” – his own Singaporeans without even finding out the reasons for the public outcry. Summary: To cut the timeline story short, what ever happened to the so-called , “Singaporeans First Policies” PAP and PM Lee told Singaporeans about in Year 2011? Failed? Or actually non-existent as there was never a “Singaporeans First” direction by PAP and PM Lee to begin with. PM Lee recently stated Singapore belongs to all those living here including work permit holders, work pass holders, foreigners and all. That sums up PAP’s actual “Singaporeans First Direction”. Imagine the anger and insult most of the nation's serving and sacrificing Singaporean NSmen felt on hearing their PM say that and we to serve and defend this leader and his country which belongs to all foreigners. PM Lee Hsien Loong’s public apology and tears during GE2011 rally - Do you remember this? Will any self-respecting leader of any country or land do such a thing? 'Singaporeans First' failed with PM Lee like his quick dry tears which he publicly shed with a public apology to all Singaporeans for failing to serve them as public servants in GE2011 rally. Remember that and now you know what became of this 'Singaporeans First' policies or thinking from YR 2011 from PM Lee Hsien Loong. None To begin with, so nothing. Empty ! MarkySim * This article is for consumption on TRE only and shall not be reproduced without the express permission of the author.  Read More →

"Singaporeans, new arrivals, people who are on permanent residence here, people who are on employment pass here, all participating in one big Singapore family... So that we feel that this is a place which is special, which belongs to all of us and where we all celebrate one another's festivals and happy events together." The prime minister of a democratic society is usually the decision maker for the country. He / She leads direction and purpose that is broadly consistent with “how they feel about the future they would like for their families and their communities” (Retrieved on 28/06/14 from LINK.) As decision-maker and leader of Singapore, what is Lee Hsien Loong communicating to the people? Transparency in government is not important For someone who accepts that an obscenely large salary in higher office will prevent corruption, he is not very keen to have any sort of transparency in government. From ISD to CPF, Singaporeans do not have full and transparent knowledge of how various systems that impact their lives function. You never know when you might be arrested and detained under ISD and for what reason. That should be enough to scare any Singaporean who has even the slightest interest in politics or even social justice. Just read Teo Ser Lung’s accounts on Operation Spectrum. On a more everyday-note, you wouldn’t even be guaranteed automatic access to a lawyer should you be suspected of having run foul of the law (remember the rooftop graffiti and the Messiah cases where the defendants’ lawyers had to battle the law to access their clients)? Let’s move onto the current hot topic of CPF and GIC. The GIC website says: GIC and the Reserves of Singapore 1. Does GIC invest CPF monies? The short answer is that GIC manages the Government’s reserves, but as to how the funds from CPF monies flow into reserves which could then be managed by either MAS, GIC or Temasek, this is not made explicit to us. What we do know from public sources: Singaporeans’ CPF funds are invested in bonds called Special Singapore Government Securities (SSGS) which are fully guaranteed by the Government. These are non-marketable floating rate bonds issued specifically to the CPF Board. These bonds earn for the CPF Board a coupon rate that is pegged to CPF interest rates that members receive. Under the Protection of Reserves Framework in the Singapore Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the Singapore Government cannot spend any monies raised from Government borrowings. All the proceeds from the Government’s borrowing are therefore invested. http://www.gic.com.sg/en/faqs/search/201-gic-and-the-reserves-of-singapore#47 Two things I note from the above: A. The government claims it is hands-off when it comes to how GIC and Temasek Holdings invest the country’s monies. Then GIC claims it doesn’t know where the government gets the money from to channel to GIC to invest. Sitting in the quagmire of the “hands-off, don’t-know approach” are the same people who make up the government and the board of directors of GIC. If you haven’t seen the discrepancies here, you really need to read this again. The same people who make up the government are the same people who sit on GIC’s board of directors [LINK] yet they claim they don’t know what their right hand is doing nor who operates their left hand. Worse, GIC’s Senior Advisor is the Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew. Can this very senior person who was there from the start of CPF till now also not know? B. “All proceeds from the Government’s borrowing are therefore invested” supports the open knowledge that CPF funds are also invested. So if GIC and Temasek Holdings lose money big time, surely that would impact our CPF funds whether it be having contributions or minimum sums raised or other ways of holding onto people's CPF money instead of paying it out. Any brave Singaporean who tries to question Lee Hsien Loong and his government’s policies are quickly criticised or sued by government officials. What the leader of the government is saying is “Don’t question me or call me into doubt, I am not interested to be transparent with you so don’t force me”. “I am flame-proof” – NOT From Canada to New Zealand and every democratic nation in between, prime ministers and ministers have been criticised, accused, bludgeoned (by shoes, mud, stinging words and more). No where have you seen a prime minister sue its citizens for such unfriendly or hostile acts (at least not to my knowledge except for the Turkey-Twitter fiasco where the prime minister sued his own country after failed attempts to ban twitter). In fact, more often than not, you would find citizens suing the government rather than the other way around. How can one who is so thin-skinned and easily distressed by hostile remarks take on such a public office as the prime minister’s? Public office means you have to expect public scrutiny, public criticism and public accusations. Sure, stand and defend but don’t try to hide behind the cloak of the courts. Let’s debate openly and with transparency so Singaporeans can trust its government. I guess not under this government. I can say more about this sorry sod of a prime minister including how he makes insensitive jokes about our neighbours or how he offends his countrymen through his thoughtless and stupid remarks about our country belonging to every Tom, Dick and Harry never mind whether they have an interest to “belong” here but I shall stop here. I can only conclude that either his vision of the future doesn’t include ordinary Singaporeans, or he is just not fit to lead (it could well be both but it takes brave Singaporeans to tell him that in the next General Elections). Cass * This article is for consumption on TRE only and shall not be reproduced without the express permission of the author.  Read More →