TR EMERITUS

It is no secret that many citizens want to see Roy contest in GE 2016, but they are afraid what’s going on now might lead to his disqualification from contesting in the GE 2016. I’ve done some research and I wish to shed light on this matter. To qualify to be a member of Parliament, Roy has to fulfill the criteria listed in Article 44 of our Constitution and not be disqualified from being a Member of Parliament under Article 45 of our Constitution. Let’s take a closer look at these two articles. I got this information from Sinagpore’s Constitution which can be accessed here. Qualifications for membership of Parliament 44. —(1)  Members of Parliament shall be persons qualified for election or for appointment in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution and elected in the manner provided by or under any law for the time being in force in Singapore or appointed in accordance with the provisions of the Fourth Schedule. (2)  A person shall be qualified to be elected or appointed as a Member of Parliament if — (a) he is a citizen of Singapore; Yes (b) he is of the age of 21 years or above on the day of nomination; Yes (c) his name appears in a current register of electors; Yes (d) he is resident in Singapore at the date of his nomination for election and has been so resident for periods amounting in the aggregate to not less than 10 years prior to that date; Yes (e) he is able, with a degree of proficiency sufficient to enable him to take an active part in the proceedings of Parliament, to speak and, unless incapacitated by blindness or other physical cause, to read and write at least one of the following languages, that is to say, English, Malay, Mandarin and Tamil; and Yes (f) he is not disqualified from being a Member of Parliament under Article 45. (3)  Any question whether any person possesses the qualifications mentioned in clause (2)(e) shall be determined in such manner as may be prescribed by or under any law for the time being in force in Singapore or, in so far as not so prescribed, as may be provided by order made by the President and published in the Gazette.   Disqualifications for membership of Parliament 45. —(1)  Subject to this Article, a person shall not be qualified to be a Member of Parliament who — (a) is and has been found or declared to be of unsound mind; (b) is an undischarged bankrupt; (c) holds an office of profit; (d) having been nominated for election to Parliament or the office of President or having acted as election agent to a person so nominated, has failed to lodge any return of election expenses required by law within the time and in the manner so required; (e) has been convicted of an offence by a court of law in Singapore or Malaysia and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of not less than one year or to a fine of not less than $2,000 and has not received a free pardon: Provided that where the conviction is by a court of law in Malaysia, the person shall not be so disqualified unless the offence is also one which, had it been committed in Singapore, would have been punishable by a court of law in Singapore; (f) has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of, or exercised rights of citizenship in, a foreign country or has made a declaration of allegiance to a foreign country; or (g) is disqualified under any law relating to offences in connection with elections to Parliament or the office of President by reason of having been convicted of such an offence or having in proceedings relating to such an election been proved guilty of an act constituting such an offence. (2)  The disqualification of a person under clause (1)(d) or (e) may be removed by the Presidentand shall, if not so removed, cease at the end of 5 years beginning from the date on which the return mentioned in clause (1)(d) was required to be lodged or, as the case may be, the date on which the person convicted as mentioned in clause (1)(e) was released from custody or the date on which the fine mentioned in clause (1)(e) was imposed on such person; and a person shall not be disqualified under clause (1)(f) by reason only of anything done by him before he became a citizen of Singapore. (3)  In clause (1)(f), “foreign country” does not include any part of the Commonwealth or the Republic of Ireland.   As of 8.10pm today, we can confirm that the lawyers representing Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong say blogger Roy Ngerng’s offer of S$5,000 in damages for false allegations are derisory and completely disregarding the gravity of Mr Ngerng’s conduct. Full report can be read here.     I did a quick search on the meaning of derisory, and that was what I found. It is safe to say that the amount that Lee Hsien Loong is expecting is nowhere near a four digit sum. Roy is just a healthcare worker, earning a modest living and he might not be able to afford the costs.   In which case, he might be made bankrupt and he may even be convicted of an offence. If he is still an undischarged bankrupt on nomination day for GE 2016, he would be disqualified from being a Member of Parliament according to Article 45(1b) of our Constitution. Chee Soon Juan was also unable to contest in the 2006 and 2011 elections because of the same reason. If he is convicted of an offence, he may also be disqualified under Article 45 (1e) and/or (1g).   The supporters of Roy definitely need to support him monetarily if they would like to see him Run in GE 2016. Roy will pay a hefty sum, we will help him but we will also learn some important lessons too. We at Wake Up, Singapore will be raising funds for Roy by printing T-Shirts and selling them real soon too.   Stay strong, Roy. Ariffin Sha * I'm Ariffin Sha, 17. I enjoy being outdoors and engaging in debates. I'm an avid reader of Law, Politics and Philosophy. I started this blog to encourage people to think critically.  Read More →

Roy Ngerng: I am not trying to seek asylum Hello, I've been asked to clarify about an article on Anyhow Hantam: [ LINK ] You can read it if you haven't. In it, the following was said: "Roy wants to be a martyr and seek asylum. Is he who ask me to help him one." I would like to clarify that this incident has never happened. Please let me explain what I've been going through. The past week or so has been a roller coaster ride. Today is especially distressful. I believe that if one would not need to go through such an experience, most would choose not to. I would be glad if I could go on in my daily life, advocating for fairer and kinder policies. When I started writing 2 years ago, it was because I got to a stage in life where I felt at ease and at peace with myself. I saw the stresses that others felt and hoped that if I could advocate for a change of policies, more people could live happier lives. That was why I started writing. As more people read my articles, I realised that I have a further responsibility to raise more awareness, so that we could continue to improve the lives of one another. My closest family and friends have asked many times why I choose to do this. I told them that it is only because I am able to. I am able to research, put things together and write about them. That's why I do what I do. Some people are better at other things. I just happen to be good at writing. I wish that Anyhow Hantam could have spoken to me, for if he/she/they did, they could find out more about my life and my reasons for doing things. My friends laugh at me when I say this but I tell them, "I write because I just want to be happy, so that everyone can be happy." And this is the simple truth. The past week has been a very unexpected journey and something that I would never imagine that I would go through. I knew that with my writings, at some point, I will face threats. But even then, when it actually happens, going through such an experience is still one that one can never prepare for. I thank everyone for your well-wishes, support and encouragement. It means a lot and has helped me to go through every step of the way. I have remained strong and will continue to remain strong. I've always lived my life with the belief that if I do what is right and I stay true to myself, things will be alright. And I hope they will be. Thank you for being here with me on every step of the journey, in each and every capacity you can. I thank you. And I hope for the best. Roy Ngerng  Read More →

PM Lee in April 2011 I am extremely disappointed that PM Lee has lost the opportunity to regain some respect from citizens by showing magnanimity. It does not matter if the money he will receive from Roy through his lawsuit is donated. The end result is PM Lee will be seen as a bully. To ordinary citizens, Roy is a hero. I have written twice to PM Lee (link link) explaining the consequences and bad PR. It is strange for the PM’s adviser to shoot PM Lee in the foot. Recall PM Lee famously declaring “We are servants of the people: Lee”, “always maintain a sense of humility and service” and “never lord it over the people we are looking after and serving”. If PM Lee and PAP politicians are our servants, the relationship between us is one of servant and master. PM Lee was trying to reverse a master/servant mentality of PAP members and inspire them during the Young PAP 25th anniversary rally. Maybe the YPAP was so inspired to produce a comedy of sorts and, not being a political film, was rightly approved by the MDA. It doesn’t seem to be a coincidence because “SERVANT leadership” was clearly mentioned at the start of the video. The speech was given about 3 weeks before the 2011 election. When in power after the election, all the talk about humility and service was thrown out the window. It appears our servant, PAP, has been taking legal action against their masters! Besides Roy, cartoonistLeslie Chew, blogger Alex Au and TRE editor Richard Wan have also received letters of demand from various lawyers. Even the Council of Private Education, a statutory board,  deemed it fit to throw tax dollars on a letter of demand to fix a then 21 year old student Han Hui Hui. Why does the PAP continue with an old school approach of using brute force instead of reasoning? Citizens are not so stupid and undiscerning, you know? Before every election, PAP MPs will visit their constituents with their entourage of useless grassroots members. The PAP has to be mindful that most of them have too much vested interests** and have been sucking up to their political paymasters at the expense of constituents. This appears to be one of the reasons for the huge disconnect between the PAP and citizens. In “PM Lee on how he stays positive online: I’m flameproof”, he says: “If you want to do something for Singapore, for the population, you should not be deterred because there are some nasty postings. When you are in the public eye, you flame me, I’m flameproof.” So if it’s true, why the need to take legal action against Roy’s ‘nasty’ posting? PAP political affiliates have made billions from the country. It is not right for the leader or his subordinates to pay citizens back with threats of lawsuits. The political and economic landscape have changed beyond recognition and what we find is most of our servants continue to be in dreamland. MP Inderjit Singh hit the nail on the head when he recently highlighted “the disconnect between the country’s wealth and Singaporeans’ well being” in Parliament. An increasing number of citizens have become more distrustful of a disconnected government. The government has to work harder and listen to our REAL concerns to regain our trust. PM Lee must remember his words and take them seriously. We want to continue believing that the PAP exists to serve and not threaten the people with lawsuits. The people will hold PM Lee to his words and the ball is now in his court. It’s not too late to do the right thing. ** I recently read an article on TRE where business connections between government bodies and grassroots members were also highlighted. According to the TRE article, one such member, Calvin Teo, the owner of Top Advertising Pte Ltd, has this list (below) of “prestige clients”. The conflict of interests cannot be more obvious. Phillip Ang * The author blogs at likedatosocanmeh.wordpress.com.  Read More →