atans1

Posts Tagged ‘Roy Ngerng’

Roy’s got a point/ Good description of life in Animal Farm

In Uncategorized on 24/04/2019 at 11:23 am

No not this

“In defending the man who filmed a female student while she was showering, the Singapore police said: “A prosecution, with a possible jail sentence, will likely ruin his entire future.”

When the Prime Minister sued me, did the government think about how it would “ruin my entire future”?

Part of Roy Ngerng’s wallowing in self pity

Earlier this week in Uncle Leong’s journey to Calvary, I posted a rant from that windbag of a born loser. He went to Taiwan to get married after the Taiwan supreme court said gays could get married, but Taiwanese voters refuse to allow gay marriage legislation to pass: us ethnic Chinese are very conservative. But among all that verbal diarrhea, there’s this gain of truth

Do you remember the story of the bundle of sticks? When the father in Aesop’s Fables got his sons to break the sticks individually, the sticks broke easily, but when he got his sons to break the sticks when bundled together, they could not.

What Singaporeans do not realise that together you are the bundle of stick, and you will always be.

The PAP takes a stick out now and then from this bundle, break it, and the rest of you sticks shudder.

But what you do not realise is that when you shudder, you are shuddering with the other sticks next to you. You are in that bundle of sticks, and that makes you strong.

They cannot break all of you, so they break one stick now and then. And if you stop letting them break you one by one, you can stop them.

This is what Singaporeans do not realise. You are powerful and you are strong.

I wish you would remember that.

This is why Goh Meng Seng spends more time criticising the Oppo rather then the PAP? And promoted Tan Kin Lian as a presidential candidate? He wants a disorganised oppo that the voters despise?

Onto life in S’pore Animal Farm

“Your self-censorship, conniving with power . . . has created the situation we have today.” They went on to compare the situation to sheep shut in a slaughterhouse. When one nudges a brick from the wall in order to flee, “half the sheep complained the sunlight hurt their eyes, and the other half said, ‘If we run away, they’ll cut tomorrow’s rations in half.’”

Above is by Yuan Yang, the FT’s Beijing correspondent. This is from a story about what was discussed on GitHub’s discussion forum attached to the Fuck-XueXiQiangGuo project. Btw, person who US posted this is based in the US of A.

Vote wisely. Vote tactically. Never vote for Goh Meng Seng or his gang.

 

 

Advertisements

Uncle Leong’s journey to Calvary

In Uncategorized on 22/04/2019 at 11:03 am

Last Thursday, I had lunch with some friends near Arab Street. Looking out of the window, I tot I saw Uncle Leong walking on the street below. My friends said it was him.

He looked depressed and walked as though he was carrying a heavy burden: a cross perhaps? Last Thursday was after all Maundy Thursday, or Holy Thursday, the day before Good Friday.

I tot of him carrying a cross on his shoulders on the way to his crucifixion when I read this yesterday (Feel free to skip to my further tots after the bit about Leong: writer’s a windbag who also suffers from verbal diarrhea):

This is what Singaporeans do not realise

I was sued by the Singapore prime minister, fired from my job for political reasons and later the police ransacked my home for supporting the opposition.

I was made out to be a bad person.

Then in 2017, academic Donald Low was threatened with his job.

Then last year, the prime minister sued Leong Sze Hian.

Then, the police also ransacked Terry Xu’s home.

Are all these bad people too?

After I’ve been sued, sacked, charged, had my home ransacked and persecuted from 2014 to 2016, I have since then seen more and more Singaporeans go through what I did.

With each of them, I understand their pain and the injustice they had to go through.

Because it was what I had to go through too. From once being valued at work and school, I became disavowed.

But then, the people I mentioned above aren’t as bad as the person I am. They are people who continue to be respected in what they do. Yet they have had their lives hurt and slammed by the PAP.

They won’t be the last. I’ve seen people been hurt by the PAP every year since I was persecuted, and I know it will keep going on.

Then it reminded me, before I was persecuted, I had thought about the “troublemakers” before me. Why are they so stupid to get into trouble? Why can’t they do things in other ways?

Why did they have to get themselves sued by the prime minister? Why did they have to get themselves jailed? Opposition politicians like JBJ and Chee Soon Juan, lawyers like Soh Lung Teo, church workers like Vincent Cheng why must they find trouble with the government?

But then one day, after I was sued, someone asked the same question to me, someone very close.

Why must you go and find trouble with the government, she asked me.

And then I became the “troublemaker”.

It was funny listening to the “troublemaker” label used on me. I remembered that when I attended talks after I was sued, people saw me and thought I was going to start throwing chairs. The look in their eyes, it was funny.

But of course, I asked serious questions. You can ask Tharman at one of the CPF talks I attended. He answered back quite stably too. Well, he wasn’t threatened, was he?

But after going through all these, knowing how the government can come after you and make you a such a bad person, even beyond what you’ve ever known of yourself, and to even make me question myself, this made me finally understand what these other “troublemakers” were going through, and who they are.

When I first met Vincent Cheng, he was such a soft-spoken and sincere person, when I first met Soh Lung, such a passionate and helpful person! Chee Soon Juan also came across very smart and measured.

After going through what I have, I began to understand the lives of others who had gone through what I have before me.

And I also understand the pain of others who have gone after me. And I still see people being hurt by the PAP year after year. People who have to leave the country, people who have to try to fight to clear their name, people who had live their lives honestly.

You don’t really get it until you become one of the people where overnight, you are given a new label, where you become a criminal simply for standing up for what you believe in.

Does it make me angry? Maybe. Does it make me sad? Maybe. But much of this is all in the past now.

But it does make me wonder when Singaporeans will ever realise their power. It does make me angry that Singaporeans do not want to think about this.

If I do not think about society, nothing will happen to me. Exactly what they wanted.

To keep you quiet. If you keep quiet, I don’t have to change policies to make lives better.

Do you remember the story of the bundle of sticks? When the father in Aesop’s Fables got his sons to break the sticks individually, the sticks broke easily, but when he got his sons to break the sticks when bundled together, they could not.

What Singaporeans do not realise that together you are the bundle of stick, and you will always be.

The PAP takes a stick out now and then from this bundle, break it, and the rest of you sticks shudder.

But what you do not realise is that when you shudder, you are shuddering with the other sticks next to you. You are in that bundle of sticks, and that makes you strong.

They cannot break all of you, so they break one stick now and then. And if you stop letting them break you one by one, you can stop them.

This is what Singaporeans do not realise. You are powerful and you are strong.

I wish you would remember that.

Roy Ngerng

In addition to the burden of a defamation suit, Uncle Leong is also carrying the burden of the BS of Lim Tean, his lawyer. The legal basis of what Lim Tean is accusing PM of doing (that the libel suit is an abuse of court process) has been frowned upon in English courts. Yet Lim Tean thinks our court of appeal will agree with his line of reasoning.

Christ rose on Easter Sunday and is now sitting on a throne on the right side of god the father in heaven. Somehow I doubt Uncle Leong will escape as lightly as Christ did, even if he has a son of Ah Kong rooting for him: only the younger son leh. But then miracles do happen and if anyone deserves a miracle, it’s Uncle Leong for juz sharing an article (Albeit one that he should have known was fake and defamatory). Btw, why is Ah Kong’s daughter not publicly rooting for Uncle Leong?

 

Laments of a TRE cybernut

In Humour on 01/08/2018 at 10:49 am

Have a good laugh

Rabble-rouser:

Change what? 70% have spoken as a majority preferring to be under the horrible PAP rule.
1. JB Jeyaretnam already died on 30/9/2008, almost a decade ago. He died in vain
2. Chiam See Tong is already suffering from old age; out of Parliament & Potong Pasir SMC. He fought in vain
3. Dr Chee Soon Juan is impotent – can’t even get elected to Parliament because Bukit Baton residents preferred PAP stooge, Murali. He can’t even get out of the starting gate.
4. WP is a silent party – contented with collecting $16/Mth for each MP until the next GE. Isn’t they a PAP Lite party?
5. Vocal critics like Roy Ngerng, Amos Yee, Han Hui Hui have given up fighting & left our shores. Nobody supported them but criticised them instead.
6. Since the 1990s when SDP won 3 seats, the opposition had not made much headway because the S’poreans are too “chicken schit” & too selfish to vote for change.
7. Opposition parties is too fragmented & selfish only care for their own agenda.
8. Those who can had already exited to overseas including PM LHL’s own brother LHY, those remaining are dying by the day continually trampled on by the million $ ministers.
9. The only way for change is a tumultuous event. Otherwise S’pore is an event horizon – a point of no return (ie. drifting into a void). In short, S’pore still stuck in the mud.
10. ‘Live it or leave it’ is typical of S’porean (Sinkies) mentality – you need to think out of the box but too many (70%) are simply stuck inside the box! A case of learned helplessness!

Ah Ha:
Love it or leave it because you are too chicken schit to change it!

Tean Lim should contact Roy

In CPF on 08/11/2017 at 8:07 am

Remember that anytime now (we should be able to release it in the 1st half of November) Lim Tean’s defamation video will be out:

Many are excited about the Defamation 101 video which I am making and have supported generously . I would like to inform all that we are in the process of finalising the video . The process has taken a bit longer than expected because of novel features we are adding to the video in order that both young and old can understand the material easily !

This video will enable Singaporeans to know what can and cannot be said so as not to fall foul of the defamation laws . It will lead to a more Open Society which is urgently needed so that we can be a more Creative society . People cannot be Creative when their thoughts and speech are shackled by fear . The PAP wants fear to permeate society – this is their tool to hold on to power . For our children and our country’s future , we must cast off this yoke of fear !

Lim Tean on FB last month

This blog supports the idea behind the video agreeing that the video can “lead to a more Open Society which is urgently needed so that we can be a more Creative society . People cannot be Creative when their thoughts and speech are shackled by fear .”

Further to an earlier suggestion PR suggestion for launch of “defamation” video here’s another suggestion to make a greater impact for the video: Get Roy Ngerng to endorse the video.

He should say that if he had seen a video that guided him

to know what can and cannot be said so as not to fall foul of the defamation laws

he could have avoided being taken to the cleaners by PM and yet still speak the “truth” about the CPF system.

Yes, this blog has ridiculed the “truths” that Roy propogated pointing most of the facts he talked about had been written before by people like Uncle Leong, Chris K and, dare I say it, this blog. They were not discoveries made by Roy.

But this blog never made fun of the fact that he could attract crowds and $: Roy Ngerng and the “swing voters”

He raised serious money for his defence while my sources allege that Lim Tean’s and Phillip’s appeal for money (CPF class action: Phillip Ang’s “reply’ to fellow cybernut) has raised “peanuts”. It’s even alleged that Phillip Ang had to cancel his order of a Ferrari, forfeiting his deposit.

Why our Oppo so small and weak

In Uncategorized on 22/10/2017 at 1:39 pm

They are like our wild animals. They enrich the PAP-created environment without endangering the PAP or S’poreans. Think s/o JBJ, the two Ravis, the Chiams or the Wankers.

Big, dangerous Oppo figures are “sued” to extinction (JBJ, Roy etc) or detained (Teo Soh Lung, Amos Yee etc). But then Mad Dog Chee is still roaming the streets, so beware.

“THE WILD ANIMALS WE HAVE IN SINGAPORE ARE GENERALLY SMALL AND CAN THRIVE IN OUR WOODS AND GARDEN CITY. THEY ENRICH OUR ENVIRONMENT, MAKING SINGAPORE A NATURAL CITY AND NOT A BARREN ONE. THE PRESENCE OF SMALL, WILD ANIMALS IS A TRIBUTE TO OUR ABILITY TO BALANCE URBAN LIVING WITH NATURE.”

HE ADDED: “OCCASIONALLY WE MAY RUN INTO LARGER AND POTENTIALLY AGGRESSIVE ANIMALS SUCH AS WILD BOARS, SNAKES AND CROCODILES. THEY ARE BEST LEFT ALONE AND REPORTED TO THE AUTHORITIES WHO ARE TRAINED TO HANDLE THEM SAFELY. NOT WORTH PUTTING ONESELF AT RISK OR STRESSING THE WILD ANIMAL FOR THE SAKE OF A SELFIE OR VIDEO.”
(ESM GOH CHOK TONG)

Above posted by real life friend on FB.

If Roy Ngerng had defamed a real “natural aristocrat”

In Uncategorized on 21/08/2016 at 1:02 pm

Remember PM quoting Jefferson on “natural aristocrats”?

Well Jefferson, a real “natural aristocrat” (Daddy wasn’t anybody really important in Virginia. He was a planter and surveyor, albeit a rich man,  who died when Jefferson was fourteen) wouldn’t have sued Roy Ngerng and other defamers .

Thomas Jefferson bore the brunt of brutal attacks when he ran for president in 1800. But Jefferson never responded to criticism by threatening to shut down dissent. “The people are the only censors of their governors”, he wrote, and “even their errors will tend to keep these to the true principles of their institution”.

To punish these errors too severely would be to suppress the only safeguard of the public liberty. The way to prevent these irregular interpositions of the people is to give them full information of their affairs thro’ the channel of the public papers, & to contrive that those papers should penetrate the whole mass of the people. The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2016/08/bad-press

People power in S’pore

In CPF on 30/06/2016 at 7:37 am

Going by the metric that 28.000 here is the equivalent of 1.7m in the US, see below, Gilbert Goh is the champion crowd-puller. At very short notice, he got 6,000 people to protest about the growing presence of FTs (and the White Paper’s plan to let more in by the cattle-truck load). This would amount to 364,000 people in the US. A very good crowd.

He then repeated it again sometime later.

He got the equivalent of 700,000 people to protest.

———————–

FT columnist does the sums:

Singapore’s annual Pink Dot gay pride gathering attracts big crowds. There were 28,000 people there last year.

That is a large turnout in a country with a population of 5.5m. An equivalent gathering in the UK would be 330,000. In the US, it would be 1.7m.

Note that he had to use last year’s numbers because the organiser’s refused to provide a number for this year, claiming that it wasn’t about numbers any more. Didn’t cut any ice with the govt this show of modesty.

And remember the Pink Dot do has been going on since 2010, there is plenty of planning and that it’s the best opportunity available in the region to find a sexual partner.


I wrote this about GG in 2013

Gilbert Goh only has A levels from a non-elite school (St Andrew’s or CJC I assume?) and a diploma in counseling. He doesn’t have a salary of millions, he depends on donations to fund his work of helping the unemployed and underemployed.

Yet three times in the last seven months, this fifty-something S’porean has been able to bring out the crowds onto Hong Lim Park, the latest on National Day. GG got 700 S’poreans out onto Hong Lim to celebrate National Day in a way that is not “right”. True, it was much smaller than the last two occasions (about 5,000 each time) when he called for a gathering, but 700 with only about a week’s notice is pretty decent by any S’porean standard.

700 peole would work out to 42,50o in the US, still a decent figure.

Roy’s first “Return My CPF” do attracted 2,000 people. This amounted to 121,000 people in the US. A good crowd. But subsequent crowd numbers were nothing to write home about.

—————————–

As a side note, his then side-kick, New Citizen Han Hui Hui said the crowd at his first gig was 6,000 when it was obviously not, denting the credibility of the “Free My CPF” movement and Roy. Subsequent comments over other issues showed what a liar she is. Poor Roy’s credibility was affected. No wonder he cut his losses and pleaded guilty on charges brought in relation another event the dynamic duo organised. She too was charged and has just been fined after a lengthy trial.


But I’ll end by reminding S’poreans that Tan Kin Lian was the first S’porean to get about 1,000 S’poreans to protest at Hong Lim Green. They were protesting about “mini-bonds” and related products that were sold as alternatives to S$ fixed deposits. I helped out at this movement until the likes of Goh Meng Seng influenced TKL’s behaviour.

 

 

 

h

 

 

ELD owes us tax-payers a clear explanation

In Political governance, Public Administration on 26/06/2016 at 2:03 pm

Not my words but that of a TRE reader who wrote the following

Where does ELD draw the line?

I have read the news of the arrest of Teo Soh Lung, Roy Ngerng and Jason Chua by the police for breaking the Cooling Off or Polling Day rules. How did the election department know who break the Cooling-Off day rules? I thought it only applied to candidates and their parties? If they are investigating individuals who had posted political things on Cooling off day, they should also be investigating so many others. Why draw the line at Teo Soh Lung, Roy Ngerng and Jason?

Augustin Lee said he complain to election department on 30 May about fabrication about the pap but the department did not take any action. Why didn’t the election department take any action against FAP after the complaint? The election department should explain to commoners like us why they did not do anything to Fabrication Against the pap. They can lodge report against Roy and Teo Soh Lung but show double standard when comes to a pro-government page.

Next election or by election we complain to election department about postings by people who are anti-government then we will see police report made against them. If complain about pro government then confirm sweep under carpet.

I think ELD owes us tax-payers a clear explanation.

Angry Singaporean

 

Inconvenient facts about the Indian, Teo and Roy

In Uncategorized on 06/06/2016 at 4:39 pm

(Or “Authorities helping Teo prove her point on freedom of speech and she’s upset?”)

New media has given a really one-sided version of what is happening to the dynamic trio of the Indian (Hey everyone at TISG, as it likes to be called, is Indian.), Teo and Roy. While I’m not defending what seems like the tearing the wings of a live insect to bits by the authorities, I’d like to point out some inconvenient facts that new media netizens don,t know or wilfully ignore or suppress.

Did you know that the Indian Independent TISG posted even after receiving a reminder? Sounds like it wanted to play rough. It’s not the “honest mistake” defence that it has been saying, isit? Surely this garang attitude warrants a more robust push-back from the authorities*? And note that the Indian has just appointed as editor a member of the SPP. Even if Lina Chiam now sounds like a PAPPy, appointing an oppo party member seems to indicate that TISG is looking for a fight. But maybe P (Philemon not Politician) Ravi will resign from the SPP? Or has resigned? Transparency pls TISG.

Or that Teo Soh Lung, a SDP member, put up four posts which are the subject of police investigations. Not one or two but four posts. Sounds like she wanted to say a lot of things on cooling-off day. Waz so important? To be fair to her, she said “that it was my constitutional right to free speech and expression.” Sounds like she was trying to prove a point by her postings? So investigating her is fair, while charging her for breaking the “cooling-off” law will really be doing her a favour. She can go to court to argue her point.

Govmin so kind meh? Ms Teo and Ms Chong even complain about govmin being helpful isit? Why the ladies liddat? Oh forgot they anti-PAP.

And here’s something I didn’t know until I read it.

In the same period, Ngerng posted a “photo campaign” for Chee on his blog, which he claims has more than 6.5 million hits, and 30 Facebook posts. The police can very well view these as deliberate and repeated transgressions, and investigate more thoroughly than before. 

https://itahanyouverylongalready.wordpress.com/2016/06/02/cooling-off-day-breaches-since-2011-and-what-happened-to-them/

The blogger went on They were not minor slips. They were major election campaigns!That’s his opinion but I think the comment is a fair one, if the allegations are true.

I don’t know if the above allegations about Roy’s postings are true but even if Roy posted half the alleged quantity, surely police got good grounds to investigate?

I’ve been trying to find out what Roy and Teo posted that got the authorities upset but am having no luck. All I get is the “noise” that “They are being persecuted.”.

Well if the dynamic trio think that their grandfathers drafted the “cooling-off” law or that they are above the law, they deserve everything they kanna so far, especially the Indian. It said it wants to make money, lots of it. Contrast that commercial motive with Roy simply wanting to remain a public celebrity (like his hero Amos Yee), And Ms Teo wanting to exercise his constitutional right of free speech.

Finally, I find some actions of Ms Teo and friends puzzling and problematic. Ms Teo wrote on FB, After the law enforcement officers left my flat, my friends and I did our best to protect the privacy of my friends. We changed passwords to email accounts, deleted contacts and finally removed my entire Gmail and Yahoo accounts. I lost several thousands of emails and archival materials. I also deleted other applications.

So one delete emails that can be the subject of police investigations? But then she and her buddy Jeannette Chong** (who was with her in the flat) are experienced lawyers, who also happen to be oppo party members.

Related post: The garang ang moh tua kees

=========================

*Finally the two TISG interns (both Indians I’ve been told) have met some adults. People linked with TISG, were called up on Monday (31 May), Tuesday (1 June) and Wednesday (2 June), to assist the police with their investigations into the alleged breaches of Cooling Off / Polling Day restrictions.

Readers will know that I’ve grumbled that the Indian’s interns needed adult supervision. Well TISG may soon face the consequences of its interns’ persistent juvenile delinquency. Actually they are adults from NTU School of Journalism. They will benefit from P Ravi’s supervision. if he decides to risk retaining them.

**Here’s a really bitchy, wicked but funny take on her.

[W]hat is the matter with this Jeanette Chong-Aruldoss woman?

Why is she entering the fray everywhere, from trying to abuse the court procedure last week to police investigations this week? Now they are saying the policemen are not carrying cards. As long as the lead officer in charge of the team is carrying the warrant card, it is enough.

Obviously, some of these people are trying to put the police in the bad light and trying to throw people off the real offence. Remember Jeanette is the same person who recently abused the court process to defend a brutal murderer.

https://itahanyouverylongalready.wordpress.com/2016/06/02/cooling-off-day-breaches-since-2011-and-what-happened-to-them/

Impotent fury and arrogance/ Roy and Teo: the chosen

In Political governance on 05/06/2016 at 1:18 pm

The ang moh tua kees are KPKBng* that the persecution of Roy and Teo Soh Lung (two of the “usual suspects”) should stop. And if the persecution doesn’t stop, what will they do? Bugger all. Juz sit down and shut up and wait for a new “event” to come along to KPKB about and denounce the govt that 70% of voters noted for. As much as they might disagree with the PAP’s position on human rights and media freedom, the voters don’t. Ok to be fair,  only 70% agree with the PAP’s position. But that doesn’t mean the 30% must prevail, does it? I mean the ang moh tua kees believe in democracy, don’t they?

Meanwhile, the swing voters think, “We  aren’t concerned with the right to talk cock once in a blue moon.” Let’s face it, is it really necessary to talk cock, sing song on cooling-off day? How often does that day come along? Exactly, once every 4-5 years and once in a blue moon in between grneral elections. Cannot close mouth for one day isit? Why liddat?

The voters who vote PAP just want to know if our streets are safe, will the trash be collected, can we drink the public water, will our children be educated, can we afford to live in our houses?

(Letter to FT on what voters in the UK want)

Returning to the “persecution” of Teo and Roy, juz think of it like this: killing two monkeys to frighten the sheep. Note that monkeys are chosen, not respectable and intelligent people who disagree with the policies of the PAP administration. PAP not that stupid lor. Neither are the respectable, intelligent people. They don’t get themselves “persecuted”. Only the likes of Roy and Teo do.

——-

*We, the undersigned are gravely concerned by the ongoing police investigations into alleged breaches by Roy Ngerng and Teo Soh Lung of the Cooling Off Day rules.

We are disquieted by the seizure of their property from their homes, in particular without warrant, and the wholesale and indiscriminate archiving of broad swathes of their personal data.  These excessive and intimidating measures are completely disproportionate to any harm alleged to have been caused by the actions of Ngerng and Teo.

To openly express a political view – including and especially views on party politics – is the fundamental right of every member of society.  If we are to achieve a democratic society where legislators and the government are truly representative of the values and wishes of citizens, every individual must be free to fearlessly express their views of politicians, parties and electoral processes.

For an individual seeking to understand the Cooling Off Day regulations, the application of the prohibitions on individual conduct is not clear.  Someone relying on the wording on the Elections Department website, which indicates an exemption for “the transmission of personal political views by individuals to other individuals, on a non-commercial basis, using the Internet, telephone or electronic means”, might reasonably conclude that their posts were exempt.

Given this ambiguity and the great importance of freedom of expression for individual citizens, it is wholly inappropriate for police investigations of such an intimidating and intrusive nature to take place.  The main effect of this police action is to intensify a climate of fear that deters the frank discussion of political issues by all individuals – a discussion that our society both needs and deserves.

We note that there have been previous allegations of breaches of the Cooling Off Day rules by electoral candidates.  Such conduct is far more likely to cause the harm to the electoral process which Cooling Off Day is designed to avert.  Yet we are not aware of such draconian investigations made in those circumstances.  A society which values the free exchange of political ideas must not apply more restrictive standards to ordinary citizens than to electoral candidates.

We call upon the state to ensure the immediate return of all confiscated property to Ngerng and Teo, the removal of any data obtained from them from state and police possession, and an immediate and total cessation of the investigative process.

Signed by:

  1. Abdul Salim Harun
  2. Adrian Heok
  3. Alex Sng
  4. Alexander Luciano Roberto
  5. Alfian Sa’at
  6. Alvina Khoo
  7. Ana Abdullah
  8. Ananth Tambyah
  9. Andre Goh
  10. Ang Chong Leong
  11. Annie Jael Kwan
  12. Ariffin Sha
  13. Ashukumar Veerapan
  14. Ashura Chia
  15. Azmi Monday
  16. Benjamin Matchap
  17. Benjamin Seet
  18. Bhavan Jaipragas
  19. Brendan Goh
  20. Brenton Wong
  21. Brian Yang
  22. Bryan Choong
  23. Cecilia Joven Ong
  24. Celine Lim
  25. Chang May Lian
  26. Chan Wai Han
  27. Chew Keng Chuan
  28. Chng Nai Rui
  29. Christine Sng Mechtler
  30. Chui Yong Jian
  31. Dan Koh
  32. Dana Lam
  33. Darius Zee
  34. Daryl Yang
  35. David Lee
  36. Dinah Sim
  37. Dolly Peh
  38. Edmund Wee
  39. Edward Eng
  40. Edwina Shaddick
  41. Elisa Kang
  42. Emily Lim
  43. Erica Chung
  44. Esther Kong
  45. Fadli Bin Fawzi
  46. Fadly Razali
  47. Farhan C. Idris
  48. Fenwick Melville
  49. Fong Hoe Fang
  50. Gina Lim
  51. Godwin Koay
  52. Goh Chok Chai Ricky
  53. Ho Choon Hiong
  54. Hong Weizhong
  55. Irene Oh
  56. Ivan Heng
  57. Jackie Heng Lim
  58. Jamal Ismail
  59. James Weng Hong Lam
  60. Jason Soo
  61. Jeremy Tiang
  62. Jocelyn Teo
  63. Johannes Hadi
  64. Jolene Tan
  65. Jolovan Wham
  66. Jony Ling
  67. Joo Hymn Tan
  68. Joshua Chiang
  69. Keith Tan
  70. Kenneth Lin
  71. Kokila Annamalai
  72. Kuan Wee
  73. Lee Yi Ting
  74. Li Xie
  75. Lim Jialiang
  76. Lim Kay Siu
  77. Lim Xiuhui
  78. Linda Ong
  79. Lionel Deng
  80. Lisa Li
  81. Lita Patricio
  82. Loo Zihan
  83. Low Yit Leng
  84. Lucas Ho
  85. Lynn Lee
  86. Mansura Sajahan
  87. Mark Wong De Yi
  88. Matilda Gabrielpillai
  89. Megan Boey Sean Ching
  90. Melvin Wong
  91. Merv Tan
  92. Miak Siew
  93. Morgan Awyong
  94. M Ravi
  95. Muhammad Faliqh Rahman
  96. Muhd Firdaus
  97. Nathanael Tan
  98. Neo Swee Lin
  99. Ng Guohui Nigel
  100. Ng Yi-Sheng
  101. Niki Ng
  102. Nina Chabra
  103. Ong Sooi Eng
  104. Pak Geok Choo
  105. Robyn Yzelman
  106. Roy Tan
  107. Sam Lim
  108. Sam Ong
  109. Sathiya Moorthy
  110. Sean Francis Han
  111. Semangeline Teo
  112. Sha Jumani Basari
  113. Shelley Thio
  114. Shimin Wong
  115. Shirleen Chong
  116. Siauw Chong
  117. Siew Kum Hong
  118. Smith Adrian Jude
  119. Sonny Liew
  120. Stephanie Chok
  121. Stephen Baldy Ho
  122. Tan Elice
  123. Tan Tee Seng
  124. Tan Zong Xuan
  125. Tay Kheng Soon
  126. Teng Yong Ping Daryl
  127. Terry Xu
  128. Thum Ping Tjin
  129. Timothy Todd
  130. Trevor Chan
  131. Valence Sim
  132. Vanessa Ho
  133. Vivian Wang
  134. Wendy Chan
  135. Wong Souk Yee
  136. Yap Ching Wi
  137. Yap Hon Ngian
  138. Yee Kai
  139. Zee Wong
  140. Zulkarnain Hassan

Bloomberg agreed with Roy in 2014

In CPF, GIC on 26/03/2016 at 1:00 pm

[Update on 27 March at 6.20am: A reader has given the new link http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-12-08/singapore-sovereign-fund-bets-big-on-trophy-real-estate so I’ve amended the article accordingly. ]

We know that Roy Ngerng talks cock about GIC managing CPF monies. Govt says so and so do independent experts like Chris K (once a TRE:and super hero and financial gguru, now demoted to PAP IB member).

But this is what Bloomberg wrote in 2014 when Roy was KPKBing about PM stealing our CPF monies

Like investors of all stripes, GIC is fighting against the tide of slowing global growth and low interest rates.

The city-state’s citizen population of 3.3 million is aging fast; the median age will rise to 47 years by 2030 from 39 in 2011, according to the government’s National Population and Talent Division

What’s more, GIC is under demographic pressure as manager of part of the Central Provident Fund, the savings plan that is meant to provide retirement income for Singaporeans.

Now this is the strange thing. The link to the article http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-12-08/singapore-sovereign-fund-bets-big-on-trophy-real-estate#p1  goes somewhere else, not to the article. Wonder why?

 

Roy’s case Four questions

In CPF, Financial competency on 23/03/2016 at 2:17 pm

And possible answers

Since Roy had further bouts of verbal diarrhea, after a long spell of good health the noise from cyberspace was supportive of his verbal diarrhea.

Here are four questions that I’ve not heard any anti-PAP warrior, nut or rational ask.

— Why has PM given Roy until 2033 to pay up?

— If PM had not sued, what would have happened in GE?

— If PM had not asked for damages, what would happen in future?

— Why are S’poreans only aroused  when there are allegations of wrong-doing?

Why has PM given Roy until 2033 to pay up?Why has PM given Roy until 2033 to pay up?

In other words, why is PM making payments affordable?

To pay the S$150,000 in damages owed to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong for defamation, blogger Roy Ngerng will start with payments of S$100 a month for five years, his lawyer said on Monday (Mar 14).

These instalments will start from Apr 1, 2016. After five years – from Apr 1, 2021 – Ngerng will have to pay S$1,000 a month until the full sum is paid, lawyer Eugene Thuraisingam said.

In addition, Ngerng will have to pay S$30,000 by Wednesday, Mar 16 for the costs of the Assessment of Damages hearing.

If he pays all the instalments on time, Ngerng will complete paying by 2033.

Why is PM liddat? Answers please given that the “noise” is not giving him any credit for putting Roy on a “never-never: payment scheme, because to give him credit for making defamation ‘affordable” would imply that Ah Loong’s a really nice guy.

If PM had not sued, what would have happened in GE?

If PM had not sued, Roy and M Ravi, as Oppo candidates in AMK GRC would have been entitled to claim that PM did not sue because Roy’s allegations that he stole our CPF money were true.  And this was a good reason as any other not to vote for PM.

And the other Oppo candidates in other wards could also claim that the allegations “must be true” otherwise PM would sue. And this would be a good reason to vote Oppo, even if that Oppo were members of the NSP, a party led by someone who never told us about his criminal conviction and bankrupty.

As it is, almost as soon as PM sued, Roy apologised to PM, claiming that the allegations were untrue giving the lie that he had done research in the issue. Research? What research?

Related post: In 1959, the PAP alleged wrongdoing by a minister. He sat down and kept quiet. He lost his seat and the PAP thrashed his party.

If PM had not asked for damages, what would happen in future?

“… The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) reiterates that we deplore this practice by the Singapore government of using exorbitant and punitive civil defamation suits to silence its critics”

The problem with not pressing for damages is that it than makes defaming the PM a cheap, effective way of becoming a political “celebrity”. Today, Roy, tom Goh Meng Seng, then New Citizen Han Hui Hui, then s/o JBJ. There’ll be no end of those lining up to defame PM or other ministers because there’s no cost to defaming them. And we know how S’poreans love free things, don’t we?

Why are S’poreans only aroused  when there are allegations of wrong-doing?

Seriously, I think that there’s a more important issue than whether PM should have sued or the quantum of damages.

We all know that people* like Uncle Leong etc (self included) have been posting on the relationship of CPF funds and the monies managed by GIC etc for a long time. But the public never took an interest on a matter that should concern them :their retirement and mortgage payment money.

It took Roy’s allegations that PM stole the CPF monies that made the public aware that they could and should better returns than the average of about 3.3% on their balances**.

Surely shumething is wrong, very wrong with the way S’poreans behave? Only when there is an allegation of wrong-doing, do people get aroused and interested.

When my Facebook avatar posted something like the above, he received this totful response from a leading economist and critic of many a govt policy:

What this indicates is that first there is widespread public confusion and mistrust about the CPF, second the CPF system needs careful examination and reform and third until Roy made crazy allegations the government has not seen fit to respond adequately to these issues

I think it’s not just something wrong with Singaporeans but that it shows poor management of policy and public opinion by the government.

More importantly it indicates that in our polity, there are insufficient real channels of feedback on key areas of policy concern that government is genuinely responsive to.

————————————–

*Even one Harry Lee talked about it in the early noughties when he explained that the govt issued a special bond to CPF and the proceeds of the bond went into the govt’s Consolidated Fund.

*You know when an issue is safe to talk about when an NUS academic is reported in the constructive, nation building ST talking about a topic. Such a topic is the link between our CPF monies and the monies managed by GIC.

As the report on 12 January 2016 is pretty short, here’s almost the full monty from BT:

The government can consider partially pegging returns on the Central Provident Fund (CPF) Ordinary Account (OA) to returns generated by sovereign wealth fund GIC, suggested an academic.

National University of Singapore (NUS) economics professor Chia Ngee Choon acknowledged that GIC returns are already distributed to Singaporeans indirectly through, for example, Budget top-ups to CPF accounts.

But linking GIC to the CPF OA interest rate allows for a more direct channel for Singaporeans to enjoy GIC returns should it do well, she noted. “We don’t want to miss the opportunity of having a higher rate.”

Assoc Prof Chia made the suggestion at an academic symposium on social security at NUS on Tuesday.

——————————

Reminders

OA monies earn either the legislated minimum interest of 2.%  per annum, or the three-month average of major local banks’ interest rates, whichever is higher. 2.5% is currently paid out as bank interest rates have been “peanuts”, with the relevant three-month average at 0.21% from August to October 2015.

An extra 1% is payable on the first S$60,000 of a member’s combined balances, with up to S$20,000 from the OA able to attract the extra interest.
GIC achieved a 20-year annualised real rate of return of 4.9 per cent for the financial year ended March 31, 2015. In US dollar terms, including the effect of inflation, GIC’s portfolio generated an annualised return of 6.1 per cent over the 20 years ended March 31, 2015.

——————————————-

To get higher returns on CPF, Assoc Prof Chia also suggested that Singaporeans can transfer excess money from the OA, which is used for housing, to the Special Account (SA), which is used for retirement and which generally pays a higher interest rate of 4-5 per cent a year. The CPF Board can encourage Singaporeans to monitor their OA and SA account balances more actively through sending text message or e-mail reminders, she pointed out.

However, people mightbe wary of transferring OA monies to SA, because the transfer is irreversible. Those who transferred might want to use the money to purchase a more expensive house, she added. She suggested an option to transfer money from the SA back to the OA, perhaps with a penalty or administrative fee.

 

 

Treatment of Roy and MoH, SGH staff

In Public Administration on 20/03/2016 at 7:05 am

 

The above has been making the rounds in cyberspace. And even some usual rational people say that it has a point.

A super troll points out that it’s comparing rambutans to durians: Big difference. The latter made “honest mistakes” in the cause of their duties that sadly resulted in deaths. Roy was skivving while at work.

Update at 7.10am

Lest one forgets, being given a”warning” letter are usually career-damaging in the public sector. The anti-PAP waeeiors don’t point out/.

Update at 10,15am: PAPpy pointed out in a FB post: Prior to his dismissal, two warnings were served and all these were in black and white and communicated professionally in the best relationship between an employer and employee.

And

He was caught red handed because the PC n mailbox are the property of the company. He was caught red handed. Prior to this, the whole company knows that he was not using the working hours constructively liao. Not only that, he was consulted by his superior many times until TTSH had to serve him warning letters to communicate the process leading to his termination officially. So in which way u don’t understand, please feel free to check with TTSH.

CPF: Roy and H3 would concur

In Financial competency, Humour on 01/11/2015 at 6:16 pm

Other people’s money: A financier’s plaything. “The goose that lays golden eggs has been considered a most valuable possession. But even more profitable is the privilege of taking the golden eggs laid by somebody else’s goose. The investment bankers and their associates now enjoy that privilege. They control the people through the people’s own money.” (Louis Brandeis, U.S. Supreme Court justice.)

[Err Substitute the words “PAP administration” for A financier’s plaything and The investment bankers and their associates and you see that the young hooligans of “Free Our CPF” are onto something.

Pension plan: A collection of unpayable corporate promises backed by inadequate funds and managed on the assumption of unrealistic returns.

http://blogs.reuters.com/breakingviews/2015/10/16/the-devils-dictionary-of-post-crisis-finance-2/

Roy: Cannot be relied on

In Uncategorized on 12/10/2015 at 6:14 am

Roy Ngerng pleaded guilty to charges of public nuisance and organising a demonstration without approval, on Oct 7. He was fined $1,900.

Both offences were committed at Hong Lim Park on Sep 27, 2014, where the YMCA was holding a charity carnival, YMCA Proms @ The Park 2014*.

By pleading guilty Roy has “fixed” New Citizen Han Hui Hui (hear they no longer on talking terms and Roy crosses his heart whenever her name is mentioned) and the other young hooligans who want to stand trial.

By pleading guilty, he’s making it more difficult for the others to defend themselves given that the leader has said he is guilty as charged. District Judge Liew Thaim Leng said Roy was the “leader of the group”.

His co-accused are expected to go on trial on Oct 12. H3 is facing charges of public nuisance and organising a demonstration without approval, while   Low Wai Choo (Goh Meng Seng’s choice of fellow S’porean to stand with him at Choa Chu Kang GRC in last GE: what does Meng Seng have against autistic children?), Goh Aik Huat, and Koh Yew Beng each face a charge of public nuisance.Another co-accused, Chua Siew Leng, had pleaded guilty in March this year. She was fined $300 for causing a public nuisance.

Roy the drama queen is now a sabo king (queen?). But he has form. He tot of standing bail for Amos Yee, mummy’s pet and boy fantastic, but didn’t. Result: Amos got locked up over a week-end. And he didn’t stand by H3 when s/o JBJ didn’t want her as a RP candidate for Ang Moh Kio. She is really angry with him for not standing by her: after all she did for him.

Roy according to his lawyer “is “deeply remorseful” at jeering at autistic kids**. Why he always like this? He was sorry he defamed PM And then went to defame PM a few more times. Will he ? “He will not reoffend”, Mr Thuraisingam added, in seeking a fine.

Let’s wait and see.

Will he break the law again?

Whatever it is, the voters in AMK have showed him and the cybernuts that they are not impressed by his antics done in the name of S’poreans. Time for him to sit down and shut up.

———————————————

*Ngerng, together with fellow blogger Han Hui Hui, 24, and four others, held their #ReturnOurCPF protest rally at the same time and place as the YMCA event.

When then-Minister of State for Trade and Industry Teo Ser Luck – the guest-of-honour for the YMCA event – arrived at the Park, the attendees of Ngerg’s protest became “more emotive”.

The group demonstrated by shouting loudly, chanting slogans, waving flags, holding placards, blowing whistles loudly and beating drums, the court heard.

(CNA)

**Ngerng’s lawyer Eugene Thuraisingam said his client had contributed to society by volunteering his time to teach special needs and autistic children***. He is also a “well-known advocate for matters of public interest”, Mr Thuraisingam said.

“His offence is ignorance”, said the lawyer, as Ngerng did not know that separate approval was required for a demonstration, after he had already obtained approval to hold an event at the Park.

Ngerng holds a “genuine belief” that he was speaking on matters of public interest, and is “deeply remorseful he did not do this in accordance with the law”, the lawyer said.

“He will not reoffend”, Mr Thuraisingam added, in seeking a fine.

***Pls leh, the parents rightly refused to let him anywhere near the kids. So how can his volunteering be contributing to society?

 

 

 

 

 

AMK: RP’s dream team?

In Uncategorized on 12/08/2015 at 4:30 am
 Updated on 13 August at 6.00pm: On 12 August Ravi issued a statement that said he wasn’t standing
Nathan:

@ Webex, my dream GRC team for Reform Party contesting in AMK GRC.

1 Gen-Sec Kenneth Jeyaretnam
2 M.Ravi*
3 Roy Ngerng
4 Leong Sze Hian
5 Han Hui Hui**
6 Gilbert Goh

This is just a makeshift RP GRC team subject to last minute changes by the Reform Party. Their primary objective is to provide choices for the residents of AMK in the upcoming GE. In this all round team, you have An economists and financial business management professional, a lawyer, a statistician and social activists all with proven track records. It’s for the AMK’s residents to decide whether it’s going to be the RP or PAP in a month or two from now.

Footnote: the issue of losing election deposits can happen to PAP candidates, just as well as the opposition. Don’t forget this.

Rating: +18 (from 18 votes)
The above appeared on TRE.
Watch and wait. With Roy, Ravi, Hui Hui and Ravi’s $1m AMK election fund (see below), Kervyn Lim will have to try harder. Game on.
————————–
My notes:
*M Ravi has been seen in the area with Roy and s/o JBJ. Looks like he and Roy have kissed and made up. If he stands TeamRP will have access to his $1m AMK fund. m-ravi-reform-party
In February this year M Ravi, publicly said ” he has set aside $1 million, saved over the years, for his campaign” – See more at:http://news.asiaone.com/news/singapore/opposition-veteran-lawyer-take-polls-position#sthash.ox58eIpv.dpuf. He planned to take on the PM in AMK GRC in the next GE, if the s/o JBJ’s party didn’t contest AMK.

Let’s put this $1m fighting fund into perspective:

— The 170 candidates who took part in the General Election 2011 spent some $5.5 million on the polls: so Ravi is planning to spend 18% of that amount in just one GRC;

— PM’s AMK team team spent $340,905 in that yr (second highest*), so Ravi is planning to spend 3 times more than PM’s team; and

–. surely his relatives will vote for him? “He said he picked the six-MP constituency because 25 per cent of its residents are his relatives, saying he has Chinese and Indian roots. The GRC had about 179,000 voters in the last polls. – See more at:http://news.asiaone.com/news/singapore/opposition-veteran-lawyer-take-polls-position#sthash.ox58eIpv.dpuf  It seems Ravi has a low opinion of his many AMK relatives seeing that he plans to spend so much money. Surely, they’ll vote for “kaki lang”, “countryman” for free?

**This is what TOC reported about New Citizen Hui Hui.#ReturnOurCPF protester Han Hui Hui turned up a little later in the evening. Although not a member of RP or a resident of Ang Mo Kio GRC, Han said that she had been volunteering with various opposition parties since 2011, and since October last year had specifically focused her energies on Ang Mo Kio as a constituency anchored by the prime minister.When asked if she would be joining Ngerng’s campaign team should he be fielded as a candidate, Han remained vague, saying, “At the end of the day I just want to help Singaporeans.”

S/o JBI is another drama queen?/ SingFirst is first class

In Political governance, Uncategorized on 11/08/2015 at 6:22 am

Looks like RP will have two drama queens. Roy is a well known drama queen and is expected to stand in AMK for the RP. “We also hope that RP would consider fielding Roy Ngerng to contest in Ang Mo Kio. He is energetic and is passionate about the CPF issue. No doubt, the CPF issue is a major concern for all Singaporeans today,” said SingFirst’s TSJ.

But s/o JBJ is proving himself to be just as good a drama queen as Roy.

S/o JBJ walked out in a huff last Thursday night when SingFirst said it wanted to contest AMK. In the last GE, RP put its “tissue paper” marker there. Three reasons why SingFirst has every moral right to contest AMK and needn’t have pulled out*.

S/o JBJ declared before GE 2011 that he didn’t believe in the “chop” system (Tot that he like WP, can remove the tissue paper used as a marker?). He put his words into action when he contested the by-election Punggol East and lost his deposit. There were more spoiled votes than votes for him (third best candidate).

He did not want to contest in AMK in 2011. He was dragged screaming into the fight by foul mouth Alex Tan (Remember him? His language makes Amos look like a choir boy.) who had left SPP (Mrs Chiam had said he was “like a son”) to join RP, having been assured that RP would contest AMK.

S/o JBJ then told him that RP had no money for AMK fight. But Alex Tan found backers to fund the deposits . S/o JBJ had to agree to an AMK fight.

Finally, RP doesn’t have anyone from the Alex Tan team as a member anymore.

All in all, AMK doesn’t belongs to RP.

Btw, I quite like SingFirst having once been concerned that they might split Oppo votes.

https://atans1.wordpress.com/2015/07/31/the-state-of-the-oppo-parties/

https://atans1.wordpress.com/2015/06/19/spending-more-on-poor-middle-class-not-juz-cause-ge-coming/

Even if I have doubts about its leader TSJ, I have a lot of respect for Dr Ang Yong Guan.

Relate post: https://atans1.wordpress.com/2011/07/19/some-background-info-on-tan-jee-say/

—-

*On 10 August SingFirst announced that it will not be contesting in Ang Mo Kio GRC for the upcoming GE It said that it would withdraw its interest to contest in Ang Mo Kio GRC and focus its resources on Tanjong Pagar and Jurong GRCs, leaving the 6 member GRC to RP.

Where Roy will stand/ No more $1m fight PAP fund

In Uncategorized on 06/08/2015 at 5:03 am

I was planning to post that Roy was going to join RP. But ST pipped me to it.

It’s no big surprise as s/o JBJ has been courting Roy for some time. They met in London (where s/o JBJ has a house) earlier this year.

But I can report that he’ll be leading a team in AMK GRC. He’ll take on PM and his campaign theme will be “Return our CPF”. Taz Roy the cybernuts’ hero.

Ah well, the $1m fighting fund of M Ravi will not materialise.

In February this year M Ravi, publicly said ” he has set aside $1 million, saved over the years, for his campaign” – See more at: http://news.asiaone.com/news/singapore/opposition-veteran-lawyer-take-polls-position#sthash.ox58eIpv.dpuf. He planned to take on the PM in AMK GRC in the next GE, if the s/o JBJ’s party didn’t contest AMK.

Let’s put this $1m fighting fund into perspective:

— The 170 candidates who took part in the General Election 2011 spent some $5.5 million on the polls: so Ravi is planning to spend 18% of that amount in just one GRC;

— PM’s AMK team team spent $340,905 in that yr (second highest*), so Ravi is planning to spend 3 times more than PM’s team; and

–. surely his relatives will vote for him? “He said he picked the six-MP constituency because 25 per cent of its residents are his relatives, saying he has Chinese and Indian roots. The GRC had about 179,000 voters in the last polls. – See more at:http://news.asiaone.com/news/singapore/opposition-veteran-lawyer-take-polls-position#sthash.ox58eIpv.dpuf  It seems Ravi has a low opinion of his many AMK relatives seeing that he plans to spend so much money. Surely, they’ll vote for “kaki lang”, “countryman” for free?

Anyway given that s/o JBJ  wants to contest AMK, it’s understandable that M Ravi is stepping back. Pity about the money though. No point asking M Ravi to fund Roy given that he has problems with Roy which he voiced in a video earlier this year (Do google, pls). They also rowed publicly

Ngerng said he had given Mr Ravi the S$29,000 on Jan 22 and had received a receipt for it. But Mr Ravi had not processed the payment to Drew and Napier by Feb 2, and Ngerng said he was handed back the money to pay Mr Lee’s lawyers directly. He said he was unaware of the letters sent by Drew and Napier to Mr Ravi on Jan 30 and Feb 3. 

But in an email to the media today, Mr Ravi claimed that the blogger had “not been at all timely” in paying Drew and Napier even after the S$29,000 had been refunded to him. Mr Ravi claimed the money was refunded to Ngerng at the latter’s request, “in the presence of many other persons”. (CNA 6th February)

Interestingly, M Ravi dismissed Roy as being too impetuous for his AMK slate.

Related post:

https://atans1.wordpress.com/2015/02/09/analysing-ravis-1m-amk-election-fund/

NSP has Kervyn Lim to attract attention, now RP has Roy. But you won’t hear the cybernuts sliming RP or Roy. They have been in full cry against NSP and Kervyn. Double standards again.

Too bad for s/o JBJ that Roy and Amos yee have fallen out. Imagine a Amos Yee video in support of Roy and s/o JBJ. But I’m sure New Citizen Han Hui Hui will be voicing her support for Roy and s/o JBJ. Remember she danced on the graves of dead children: http://anyhowhantam.blogspot.sg/2015/06/the-looney-fringe-han-hui-hui-mocks-mt.html.

—-

*Highest was in Sembawang, Yishun. Looks like the PAP was concerned about Northern bit of S’pore in 2011, throwing money there. The funny thing is that in both GRCs, the PAP faced really weak opponents. Shouldn’t the money be better deployed in Aljunied? Oh I forgot, the PAP wanted to fix BG Yeo, while helping PAP Lite.

Where property prices will cheong after GE

In Humour, Property on 03/08/2015 at 5:06 am

As you know, I think Roy Ngerng talks rubbish: but he’s got an interesting insight into three GRCs, Jurong, Tampines and West Coast GRCs – the PAP has consolidated these areas and largely left them intact, which means they will likely field who they consider to be their strong candidates in these areas. Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam currently helms the Jurong GRC.

… the PAP already has development plans in mind and have redrawn the boundaries to allow it (it hopes) to hold on to certain constituencies so that it can fully develop these areas according to its wants. In that sense, the PAP has parcelled out Singapore into areas it considers important to keep for its growth-at-all-cost model, and those which it considers less important.

And if you understand what it means when the PAP wants to develop these areas, it means that the PAP wants to build more shopping malls, increase rents, increase prices, increase revenue for themselves and allow themselves to get rich. So, you want to let them?

Well looking at these three areas, not as a cybernut hero but as a rational investor, residents in these areas would be daft to vote Oppo. They should vote for the PAP in overwhelming numbers to make sure the candidates of s/o JBJ (West coast), and No Substance Party (Jurong and Tampines lose their deposits.

The MIW should be so grateful and make living in these places even better.

Whatever it is, the PAP will not lose these three areas: even Goh Meng Seng, cybernut personified, realises this. Hence he is not contesting in Tampines despite the fact that in 2011 Meng Seng’s brother gave his life in the fight for Tampines. The brother had a heart attack while campaigning for Meng Seng.

So go check out properties in these three GRCs.

 

 

How did Roy make Ravi go bananas? Two versions

In Uncategorized on 16/06/2015 at 5:17 am

I’ve alluded that I’ve been told by a usual reliable source that Roy Ngerng’s behaviour contributed to M Ravi’s bi-polar relapse. (Reminder during the time M Ravi went “nuts”, he had made unprofessional remarks about Roy, his clent. He had also wanted to make Tamil compulsory when he became PM, after defeating PM in AMK GRC using his many relations in AMK to vote for him and his $1m fighting fund. Roy would not be part of the GRC ream because he was “too impulsive”All this Ravi had videoed.)

Recently, I came across a post on Facebook, that came close to one version that I heard.

Roy had agreed to M Ravi’s strategy of apologising and fighting the issue of damages. But somewhere along the line Roy, while not withdraeing the apology, again repeated the libel.

Ravi had to go to court and argue that “the apology” (never withdrawn) wasn’t an “admission” of defamation.

If it’s me who was sued, the 1st thing I would do is try to minimise damages. Ok the PM wants an apology – give it to him. Then say hey look I’m earning peanuts – I’m prepared to forgo a month’s salary maybe 2 but please can I pay instalments? The moment he got the money, he heck care everything. He still wont disclose what his instructions from Ravi were at the outset. My information is that Ravi never advised him to take such a path. The whole point was to deflect the damage. And he could walk away with a moral victory. If the PM pursued in asking for an exhorbitant amount, Roy can turn back and say – look, he knows I’m not rich and yet wants so much money. He could have still come away from this far better off and without the need to get people to donate their hard earned money. The CPF issue was never raised in court – his whole premise that he was taking it to court was to fight for the CPF issue. An issue his lawyer would have told him was not relevant and the Court would not be interested. So who’s fooling who. Public money must be spent wisely. And he’s even taught Amos to do it, money he didn’t at all need. Come let’s clap for Roy.

The other version which I heard (and sounds more likely) is that Ravi wanted to fight on constitutional” grounds: “Derbyshire principle” and UK defamation law doesn’t apply here. The apology appeared to M Ravi’s surprise. Roy had cut Ravi’s balls even before he went to court, it’s a;;eged Ravi told friends.

He could never answer satisfactorily the question posed by the court and the PM’s lawyer, “Err what about the apology, M Ravi?”.

Oh and I learnt something interesting afre reading M Ravi’s book (Yup i bot a copy unlike his cybernut fans: if they had bot the book, it would be a best seller which it isn’t). Although he admits he’s bi-polar (Uncle RedBean doesn’t think Ravi”s mentally ill despite Ravi’s admission), he claims that he doesn’t take the medicine* prescribed. He says meditation works in controlling his bi-polar condition. Like in 2012 and this year?

So maybe, Roy isn’t to blame?

——-

*I’ve been told that sufferers hate taking the medicine because the side-effects of taking the medicine are sickening.. They often feel that taking the medicine is worse than being bi-polar.

S’poreans hanna do NS for China: Ho Ho Ho

In Banks, China, Temasek on 18/05/2015 at 2:05 pm

We (or rather Temask but then even Ho Ching has said Temasek’s money is our money, something Roy and his fellow cybernuts pretend she never said) have a big bet on Chinese banks.

And recently I reported some bad news: https://atans1.wordpress.com/2015/05/03/temaseks-china-banks-strong-headwinds-2/

More bad news:

Chinese policymakers have ordered banks to keep lending to local government projects under construction, in a sign of concern that a crackdown on shadow financing has reduced municipalities’ spending and is hurting the economy.

Financial institutions which signed legally binding contracts before the end of 2014 to loan to money to construction projects backed by local government financing vehicles (LGFVs) must not stop lending or reduce the loan size, a document posted on the State Council website Friday said.

“It is necessary to support the financing needs of LGFV projects under construction and ensure an orderly continuation,” the regulators said in the document.

“This will help meet reasonable funding demand of the real economy, as well as effectively prevent and resolve fiscal and financial risk.”

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/15/us-china-debt-lgfv-idUSKBN0O00JM20150515

2.5%, 4% not enough for retirees?

In Financial competency on 18/01/2015 at 9:53 am

Roy Ngerng (the anti-PAP mob’s Xiaxue) had alleged that the govt criminally misappropriated our CPF monies, and denounced the rates paid. Well, UK over-65s rush for 2.8%; 4% retirement bonds.

More than £1 billion of government pensioner bonds have been sold in the first two days after they went on sale.

The one-year bond pays an annual interest rate of 2.8% before tax, and the three-year bonds pays 4% before tax. Interest will be added on each anniversary after investment.

… the best one-year bond on the open market was currently paying 1.85% interest and the best three-year bond was paying 2.5%.

Investment is limited to £10,000 in each bond, making a maximum of £20,000 per individual.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-30862028

The Xiaxue of the anti-PAP cyber masses/ Uncle Leong is well

In Political governance, Uncategorized on 14/01/2015 at 6:06 am

Roy, celebrity and irrationality

So Roy and his lawyer M Ravi are back in the headlines KPKBing their rotine lines: Roy (“Juz want a debate on CPF but persecution contines”), M Ravi (“I’m always right because it’s my grandfather’s law”)

Why is Roy such a celebrity while Uncle Leong (Leong Sze Hian) his si fu* is a relative unknown. After all all the best bits of Roy’s CPF “research” are things Uncle Leong (and, to be fair, others) has been talking about and highlighting over the years.

The only thing that was new was the accusation that the PAP administration criminally misappropriated the CPF moneys. Even then he quickly said this allegation is false and completely without foundation. when PM threatened legal action*.

Despite this recantation, Roy remains a hero to the anti-PAP cyber masses.

This, from an Economist blog, explains his appeal: As Drew Westen argued a few years ago in his book “The Political Mind”, political persuasion is all about moving people emotionally, not appealing to their rational faculties.

Roy dared, at no small cost to himself, in public to say what anti-PAP coffee shop and cyber warriors are whispering. .For that act of courage, they are to willing to suspend their critical faculties, if they had any. He is right because he is saying publicly what they don’t dare say. They support him unthinkingly because he validates their view of the way CPF works.

And for that very reason, the PM felt it necessary to sue him even if it annoys many people who think Roy is talking rubbish, and even though suing goes against the kinder, gentler, more liberal view of the PAP administration that he is trying to project. Btw, one of these days, I’ll go into the steel trap that the PAP have set for themselves in the litigation game: they are damned whether they sue or don’t sue.

Uncle Leong is alive and well, and is still rocking

The last piece Uncle Leong wrote was at the end of November. Since then he has been silent causing me and others to wonder or worry what has happened to him. Not like him to remain quiet for even three days.

But read these two pieces that appeared in TRE on Jan 10 and 11

Recently, one of our public hospitals became famous for the action which they took (compared to the immediate sacking of Roy Ngerng citing his defamation of the prime minister as one of the reasons, despite the court hearing had not even commenced yet) in regard to their foreign employee’s Facebook posting against Singaporeans.

There have also been reports claiming that the hospital employs about 70 to 80 per cent of its staff from one foreign country. Actually, some people say that about 80 per cent of their staff are non-Singaporeans (work permits, S-pass, employment pass, PRs, foreign spouses on letter of consent, foreign interns, trainees, etc).

According to the MOH’s web site – this public hospital had the highest total hospitalisation billing for citizens (among all public hospitals excluding the National Heart Centre) for all ward classes (Class C, B2, B1 and A) at the 90th and 95th percentile in 2013.

For example, it was $8,071 at the 95th percentile, against just $4,758 at the lowest public hospital in Class C.

At the 90th percentile – it was $5,220 against $2,901.

Why?

Why is it that this particular public hospital has the highest billing sizes across all ward classes?

Could it be that they employ more non-Singaporeans than other public hospitals?

Win battles lose war

* Submitted by TRE reader.

“Uphold values of respect, professionalism, integrity and social responsibility”

According to the Straits Times report “Health-care workers must ‘uphold values of respect’: Health Ministry” (Jan 10) – “Public health-care professionals, both local and foreign, are expected to uphold values of respect, professionalism, integrity and social responsibility, said the Health Ministry (MOH).”

Got “respect” for Roy Ngerng?

Where was “respect” in the sacking of Roy Ngerng when one of the reasons cited for his sacking was his defamation suit when the hearing had not even commenced yet?

Got “professionalism” in the way Roy Ngerng was sacked?

Where was the “professionalism” in giving Roy Ngerng just hours to leave his job, without any prior notice?

Got “integrity” – no fairness and natural justice?

Where was the “integrity” in not giving Roy Ngerng any opportunity to defend himself against the allegations made against him? Where was the principle of fairness and natural justice in the case of Roy Ngerng?

“Social responsibility” in employing 80% foreigners?

Where is “social responsibility” if it is true that about 80 per cent of the employees are non-Singaporeans (work permits, S-pass, employment pass, PRs, foreign spouses on letter of consent, foreign interns, trainees, etc)?

Hypocrisy and double standards?

Don’t you feel that MOH’s statement reeks of hypocrisy and double standards?

Win battles lose war

* Submitted by TRE reader.

Sounds familiar?

For the record, I’m no Sherlock Holmes. A prominent civic activists drew my retention to one of these pieces.

—————–

*Roy helped co-write Uncle Leong’s pieces for several yrs.

** I recognise that the Article means and is understood to mean that Mr Lee Hsien Loong, the Prime Minister of Singapore and Chairman of GIC, is guilty of criminal misappropriation of the monies paid by Singaporeans to the Central Provident Fund.

3.I admit and acknowledge that this allegation is false and completely without foundation.

4.I unreservedly apologise to Mr Lee Hsien Loong for the distress and embarrassment caused to him by this allegation.

https://atans1.wordpress.com/2014/08/06/roys-defence-has-me-confused/

 

Roy’s latest research finding?

In Uncategorized on 26/11/2014 at 5:26 am

On Saturday, I walked past the offices of the Elections Department near Middle Road, and seeing the nameplate reminded me of Roy Ngerng and something he wrote in early November.

In a really extremely case of verbal diarrhea where he poured out all his feelings yet again, he wrote: “You really think 60% of Singaporeans voted for the PAP? I reckon it is much lesser. Or would have been.”

At the time, I emailed a few social activists some of whom are close to Roy and highlighted the defamatory nature of these words. I then forgot all about the passage until Saturday.

Yesterday, I saw that Roy had another disvharge of verbal  diarrhea and this morning got round to checking whether the early November post still contained, “You really think 60% of Singaporeans voted for the PAP? I reckon it is much lesser. Or would have been.”

Is this allegation, that in reality less than 60% of voters voted for the PAP and that this fact was kept from S’poreans the result of through research and analysis? As thorough as his research and analysis about our CPF? Remember:

1.On or around 15 May 2014, I, Roy Ngerng Yi Ling, published on my blog (at http://thehearttruths.com/), an article entitled “Where your CPF Money Is Going: Learning From The City Harvest Trial” (the “Article”). I also published links to the Article on my Facebook page (at https://www.facebook.com/sexiespider) and on The Heart Truths’ Facebook page (at https://www.facebook.com/pages/I-want-the-government-and-people-to-work-together-for-Singapores-future/185331834935656).

2.I recognise that the Article means and is understood to mean that Mr Lee Hsien Loong, the Prime Minister of Singapore and Chairman of GIC, is guilty of criminal misappropriation of the monies paid by Singaporeans to the Central Provident Fund.

3.I admit and acknowledge that this allegation is false and completely without foundation.

4.I unreservedly apologise to Mr Lee Hsien Loong for the distress and embarrassment caused to him by this allegation.

5.I have removed the Article and the links to the Article and undertake not to make any further allegations to the same or similar effect.

Or is Roy emulating JBJ and Dr Chee? They were serial defamers of the leaders of the PAP administration. and suffered the consequences, and benefits (not all benefits are monetary). Is Roy trying to follow in their foot-steps?

Well even JBJ and Dr Chee, never ever questioned the integrity of the vote-counting in elections. But here is Roy Ngerng making a statement that any reasonable person can conclude as calling into question the process of vote counting, implying that the the results of elections were fixed* and that this fixing was kept from S’poreans.. Surely this is defaming the PM to whom the Elections Department reports?

What do you think?

Was the defamation “an honest mistake” resulting from said diarrhea discharge? Or the result of solid research, as solid as his CPF findings? Or an attempt to goad the PM into suing him again?

What do you think?

Whatever the case may be, unlike Dr Chee and JBJ, he can use new media to raise funds and gauge his support. Maybe taz why he’s so garang and quai lan. He’s using Other People’s Money.

One Tan Kin Lian tried to do the same by asking S’poreans 100% fund his presidential campaign (including his deposit). But most S’poreans refused to help out someone who was animism for S$1m a yr (he promised to keep only half of the then presidential salary, donating $1m to charity), but didn’t want to put up his own money. Unfortunately for him, S’poreans refused to give him a free ride. He lost his deposit, incidentally.

Details of PE2011 expenses: https://atans1.wordpress.com/2011/11/05/the-financially-savviest-pe-candidate-of-them-all/

Well let’s see how much longer S’poreans are willing to let Roy get a free lunch. Btw, tomorrow, I’ll post on how SingTel is helping itself to a free lunch.

*I think George Yeo and his ladies from Hell wished it were so.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Roy and New Citizen H3 do something classy: only SunT reports it

In Internet on 30/10/2014 at 2:15 pm

Last Sunday, SunT carried a story in its inside pages on what Roy and H# did on Saturday when they could not protest at hong Lim. They and two friends held a picnic at Hong Lim and received well-wishers.

I tot this was a classy, quai lan way of reacting to the authorities’ cancellation of their planned protest. So I was really surprised that their usual cheer-leaders, and anti-PAP activists did not report or highlight the story.

Seems they only want to sensationalise the hooliganish behaviour of these two, not the subtleties they are capable of.

Btw, wonder if  Roy and H3 have these genes?

A genetic analysis of almost 900 offenders in Finland has revealed two genes associated with violent crime.

Those with the genes were 13 times more likely to have a history of repeated violent behaviour.

The authors of the study, published in the journal Molecular Psychiatry, said at least 5-10% of all violent crime in Finland could be attributed to individuals with these genotypes.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29760212

No need to change Hong Lim Park rules

In Political governance on 09/10/2014 at 5:04 am

(Update on 10 September at 6pm: Police investigating protest participants for “unlawful assembly, ””Police did not approve your permit regarding the march,” the police officer told Han Hui Hui on 27 September. As I said earlier, see below, sure can something to charge Roy, H3 etc.)

 

The govt is opportunistically using the hooliganish behaviour (as evidenced by Yahoo, and ToC’s videos) of Roy, H3 and gang (even Dr Chee, once Mad Dog Chee until he underwent treatment, and TOC say they were wrong to disrupt the YMCA’s event) to suggest that changes to the rules are in order and are being planned. It would say this wouldn’t it? Anything to make it more difficult for S’poreans to voice their dissent and unhappiness with govt policies.

There is really no need to make changes.Roy, New Citizen H3 and friends are exceptions to the rule that S’poreans are respectful of others in public. In fact, we are too respectful of others in public. But as overnight litter on the beaches show, when no one is watching things are different.

Juz throw Roy and New Citizen H3 into jail for a few weeks (sure can find a suitable charge). Maybe even put them into isolation. As this article shows people even confess to crimes they never committed when isloated .http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/2014/newsspec_7617/index.html. Happened in a country not known for rough interrogation methods, and which respects human dignity and rights.

(Related post: How ISD gets its confessions)

Other wannabe Roys and H3 will take heed.

But doesn’t this sound like tearing off the wings of two noisy, aggressive young crows to frighten the sheep, chickens and monkeys? Maybe, maybe not. But it’s better than making new rules to make protesting more difficult.

And deport Han Hui Hui: she is “trash” not “talent”, and anyway she hates the S’porean traits of hard work, telling the truth, and civility (Go read her blog). How she became a New Citizen is beyond me. But then how did Yang Yin and ang moh awaiting trial  become  PRs, andtwo-timing Raj become a New Citizen? And how SGX’s CEO and president get the posts?

 

 

Hong Lim Park the private property of the granndfathers of Roy & Hui Hui

In Uncategorized on 07/10/2014 at 4:31 am

And Hui Hui’s grandfathers are not even S’poreans, what with she being a New Citizen*

Taz what I tot when I read

When Hui Hui … had wanted to set up the tentage on Thursday, she found that YMCA had set up their tentages all over the main field at Hong Lim Park. Where we would usually set up a tentage, we could not. And so, we had to forgo the tentage.

It was only when we got to the park on the day of the protest itself that someone who identified himself as a director of NParks … insisted that we use only a portion of the park in a more secluded area. It was not a choice given to us, there was no discussion or compromise. …

Also, why did YMCA not come and negotiate the use of the space? Why was it NParks which had to dictate to us to move.

(Roy’s account)

And New Citizen H3’s rant,

“Why must YMCA hold their event at Hong Lim Park when they have other alternatives?”

Their sense of entitlement is astounding, even more than ministers’ view that they are entitled to megabucks.

In the first place, YMCA had booked the place earlier contrary to 3H’s assertions that she was first to chop (But then she always lidatt: lying or making misrepresentations of facts**).

In the second place, YMCA’s people were at Hong Lim a lot earlier to set up their tents. If 3H had set up her tent and stage first, I wouldn’t be attacking Roy’s and her sense of entitlement: First in, best dressed.

Next, given her reputation for aggressive behaviour (Watching TOC’s video, I felt sorry for the Parks office and policemen, even though she was within her rights to ask for their credentials. Ever heard of being polite? Or H3 blaming her behaviour on her parents and teachers? She never at fault for anything.), I don’t blame YMCA for not wanting to talk to her.

My next point is that Roy and 3H did march to the stage area to KPKB. As one of the many organisers at several mini-bond events, I know it’s a gd five minutes walk to the PA stage from the mound. If Roy and 3H had remained at the mound, I wouldn’t be writing this post.

As to their denials of not heckling, based on the TOC video which they say shows they didn’t heckle, they were shouting slogans in the interval between performances and didn’t stop when the Special needs kids came out. Took them some some time to realise the implications of their disrupting the kids’ gig.

Until they moved on, they were heckling the kids. If they had stopped shouting when the kids emerged, I would agree that there was no heckling. But they didn’t stop did they? Taz heckling the kids. Was there ill-intent towards the kids. I doubt it. But going by what Roy said, they would have cont’d disrupting any other performance. .

Finally, if Pinoys can use Hong Lim, why can’t YMCA? Looks like these two activists are FT lovers who hate a local NGO?

————————-

*Someone at Home Team made an honest mistake allowing her to be a citizen. Same guy as allowed two-timing Raj in and approved PR staus for ang moh awaiting trial?

**She claimed that the kids were “pushed” out to fix her gang. Well I saw the clip which she claims proves her right. IMHO doesn’t. The kids came out taz all. No “push”. Hui Hui also accused the police of wanting to arrest her. The TOC video shows no such thing. Let’s face it. She likes to say things that are not true. Other examples:

— crowd of size at her rallies 3,000 can become 6,000 and 500 become 1000;

— change of timing of YMCA event meant to sabo her event. There is evidence that the YMCA event was not changed at the last minute as she alleges.

Would you buy a used car or life insurance policy from her. I wouldn’t. Yet this New Citizen and her BF claims to speak for me. What arrogance. If they hadn’t I’d cut them a lot of slack. But they claim to speak for me.

Roy’s & New Citizen H3 should go to HK

In China, Hong Kong, Political governance on 03/10/2014 at 4:35 am

And observe, research and analyse how the students and other protesters are doing things in such a way that caused a Mainland Chinese official visiting Hong Kong to say, “It’s so amazing they can organise such an orderly, peaceful and self-disciplined protest.” (FT).

As at the time of writing, these protestors have behaved in such a way no-one can reasonably fault their behaviour even though what they are doing is technically, illegal: they don’t have permission to protest.

A walk among the tens of thousands clustered around the Admiralty district in Hong Kong feels more like attending a music festival than a protest. The demographic of those calling for representative elections in 2017 is mostly twentysomething or younger – some are in school uniforms. Volunteers hand out snacks, drinks, and goggles to defend against pepper spray, though there has been no sign of any since the first day’s ruckus. Volunteers shepherd new arrivals away from overcrowded areas; others hand out home-made flyers on how to remain calm if provoked.

Anyone can be violent, but keeping protest this calm requires strategy. According to many non-violence theorists, the only way to confront a muscular government like China’s is to train, plan, stay calm and kill the enemy with kindness.

http://blogs.reuters.com/breakingviews/2014/10/01/hong-kong-harmony-hits-beijings-worst-fears/

But somehow going by TOC’s video* showing at the very least showing Roy, H3 and friends shouting their slogans in front of special needs kids, I suspect that the lessons the HK protesters can teach S’poreans will be lost on them and their very vocal defender of their actions Goh Meng Seng (who is in HK). Too bad because

What’s most impressive is that the orderliness is basically self-generated. While some training had taken place beforehand, much of the co-ordination among the protesters has been ad hoc, with more experienced protesters conducting on-the-spot education, according to one organizer. Supplies are requested via social networks and Google Docs. Meanwhile, the crowds have the element of surprise on their side. Protests were still spreading to previously untouched areas today, including the high-end shopping district Tsim Sha Tsui, a magnet for mainland tourists.

Thankfully we have Cherian George there. He can perhaps observe, research and analyse, and then teach teach S’poreans how to ensure that social movements can be emotionally charged but peaceful, disruptive but harmonious.

If that happens, the govt and the administrators will rue the decisions that forced him to move on to HK. Cometh the our, cometh the man.

———-

*Recommended viewing by H3 and Roy to support their view that they didn’t “heckle” the special needs kids. My view is that they are trying to be pedants. The usage of the word “heckle” has evolved to encompass their actions.

This is a neutral report of the scene: When Yahoo Singapore visited Hong Lim Park just before 5pm on Saturday, Ngerng and Han were leading about 100 protesters in circles around a large tented area where people attending the YMCA event were seated, waving large and small Singapore flags and chanting “Return our CPF!” and “PAP, vote them out!” through microphones connected to speakers placed on the outskirts of the YMCA event area.

At at least one point, Ngerng and Han led the group of protesters near the front of the permanent stage at Hong Lim Park, where performances by various youth groups, including one by special needs children, were taking place.

The performance of the special needs group appeared to be disrupted by the sound of the protesters’ chants, and the song the children were dancing to was stopped and restarted after the protesting group moved to a mound at the back of the lawn.

-https://sg.news.yahoo.com/police-investigate-cpf-protest-march-at-hong-lim-park-004904810.html

Roy Ngerng and the “swing voters”

In Uncategorized on 12/09/2014 at 5:02 am

Without agreeing that I’m a despicable worm (I readily admit I’m smug), this TRE’s poster goes on to explain why Roy is a dangerous distraction: swing voters will be turned off by his antics.

Market operator:
August 2, 2014 at 8:05 pm (Quote)
@trust et al @ rotten papayas
I agree with you guys – CI is a smug, despicable worm. But don’t let your emotions abt Roy get the better of you. We need to differentiate Roy the catalyst or beacon for rousing public sentiments over the CPF issue from Roy the loose cannon. He has done very well in the former, all kudos and deservedly so. But it is the latter that is undoing the former. Pat him on the shoulder for the “revelations” from the govt past few weeks but think carefully what has the govt really revealed. They r just throwing crumbs to assuage public emotions but has said nothing really important. They have been throwing smoke – we can see that but isn’t this what you would do if someone ask you a question lacking in substance. You just brush it off with a brief, nonsensical answer right?

Call me a PAP IB if you wish – that’s your right but I am not. However ask a lousy question, get a lousy answer. Bring foolish assertions like Roy’s 55k median CPF balance as evidence most members are so far from meeting the ms, you get no answer or worst show yourself to be lacking substance. Now think about those swing voters, I won’t be so arrogant to think them ignorant but they r not swayed by this kind of rhetoric. The last thing u want is to close your minds to alternative opinions even if they don’t fit into your existing beliefs.

Much gd it did him calling me a worm. Guy got cursed and reviled too.

Btw, TRE ranters who accuse me of character assassination of Roy point out that a lot more people read him that me. I happily concede that he has a lot more readers but they never stood up to be counted when he asked or $, unlike the members of CHC who happily funds the defence of those the state accuses of  stealing from them. On the issue of character assassination, all I did was to point things that Roy said that they didn’t want to hear or others said about him

Happily for the PAP and sadly for those of us who want an end to a de facto one-party state, ,Jeremiah 5:21 says it all, ‘Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not’

With people like Roy’s ultra supporters as opponents, the PAP’s hegemony is safe.  They only rant anonymously, not even bothering to turn up at his gigs, or even supporting TRE with funds (It has raised $17,000 out of the $50,000 it claims to need for 12 months; and $10,000 came from one donor). Let’s see how many turn up at his wake, memorial service candlelight vigil. on 17th September

“It is not through through fantasy, dreaming, imagining or studying that you learn but through observing, working and struggling” Luis de Camoens. Something that WP Low and his team are doing. And the SDP does fitfully.

 

Putting Roy’s fund raising efforts into a global perspective

In Uncategorized on 27/08/2014 at 4:57 am

Anti-PAP cybernauts were quick to draw the conclusion that the PAP was doomed and publicise this ‘fact’. when Roy raised his $70,000 (and then a further $30,000) pretty quickly. So were S’poreans whose views I respect. Even I was impressed with the response. Until I read this:

Ohio man Zach Brown turned to crowdfunding to help fund a modest goal. He set up a Kickstarter page to help him make potato salad….just wanted to make a tasty side, but lacked the cash for basic ingredients.

He set a goal of $10 (£5.84). That’s low considering that the majority of successful Kickstarter projects raise between $1,000 and $9,999, but steep for homemade potato salad. But the humble and slightly ridiculous request – Brown promised to say the name of each backer aloud as he made the salad – took off. Five days into his challenge, Brown has raised almost $60,000 (£35,000), with most donors giving $4 or less.

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-28216299

US$60,000 is more than S$70,000. Both were raised within about the same time frame.

What the reaction to the fund raising shows is the low expectations that we S’poreans have of our fellow S’poreans’ civic consciousness: $70,000 in a few days is a big deal. Roy has a huge following on the internet and social media. Yet what gd has that done him? He faces a law suit that will bankrupt him and all he has as a result of his popularity is S$100,000++ fighting fund and the acclaim of netizens. “Noise” doesn’t pay the legal bills does it?.

And while on the topic of “Loud Thunder, Little Rain” from anti-PAP voices and netizens, both TRE and TOC have appealed for donations to keep their shoe-string operations going. No wonder the PAP considers the views from cyberspace ‘noise’. The talk of support doesn’t get translated into action i.e financial support for the idols of the anti-PAP cyber warriors, or in attendance at gigs. (Btw, here’s Han Hui Hui reporting that 1000 people attended her gig. Read the comments as it shows the length hoe divorced from reality some cybernuts are: example: PAP will lose next GE.)

Contrast that with the financial support that members of Kong Hee’s church are giving to the defence funds of most of those charged for criminally misappropriating their money to fund auntie Ho’s Hollywood life-style.  Those funded have engaged expensive lawyers.

 

 

 

99.9% of voters telling PM, “Don’t Return Our CPF” – HDB?

In CPF, Humour, Malaysia on 25/08/2014 at 5:38 am

Taz what a hyper rational alien like Mr Spock can reasonably conclude from the attendance at Saturday’s “ReturnOurCPF – HDB” rally. Though I suspect he would point out that a fairer %age is 0.04% of the number of Oppo voters in GE 2011. Whatever, “peanuts”.

Roy’s and Hui Hui’s latest gig on Saturday attracted around 300 people (based on photos at their site and me being generous). So only 300 support Roy’s and Hui Hui’s proposition? Btw, TOC, TRE hasn’t yet covered the event, and based on the attendance, I expect them not to: “not newsworthy enough”. (Related article)

Remember her NatDay protest rally? It was not reported in the new media. According to Roy* 300-400 people turned up. Hui Hui had claimed 6,000 people had turned up for her previous, “Free My CPF” rally in July. Even TRE tot that only 3,000 people attended. Even earlier, around 200 people it seems turned up at the first rally she and Roy organised. Again new media didn’t report this gig. Lousy attendance not newsworthy enough? Or don’t want to double confirm that only a handful of S’poreans (0.1- 0.01%. If Oppo voters only:0.4-0,04%) are unhappy enough to exert themselves physically to show their unhappiness?

Or that at least 60% S’poreans are actually happy with the govt?**

Whatever, one can rationally conclude that the majority of S’poreans are not persuaded or impressed or taken in by Hui Hui’s or Roy’s antics, despite their vocal online support**.

What should really worry these wannabe celebrities is that not even these adoring anti-PAP cyber warriors are willing to turn up in person for their events.

Their adoring fans are: Loud Thunder, Little Rain?

If Stephanie Sun had such fans, she’d starve to death, let alone afford a Happy Meal.

To end on a constructive note, I hope someone warns Hui Hui that as a new citizen she can be deprived of her citizenship. Happened to Tan Kah Kee (millionaire and founder of Nanyang University), can happen to her.

Maybe taz why Hui Hui is attempt to portray herself as not being anti-PAP. 

Juz go read it. Everything is blamed on the PAP govt. and she not ant-PAP?***

Was Home Team sleeping when they made her a citizen? But this may show the lie to the theory that the PAP creates new citizens to dilute the local anti-PAP vote. But then it could juz show Home Team is juz incompetent: it can’t select hard-working sheep, only lazy, anti-PAP loafers****, when creating new citizens. Or maybe it cunningly allows someone like Hui Hui to become a citizen to give credibility to the PAP’s denial that it encourages immigration ’cause it wants to dilute the anti-PAP vote.

Actually given her hatred of working here (going by one of herone of her posts), wonder why she opted out of her M’sian citizenship? M’sia is worse? “I’m only anti-cronyism, anti-nepotism, anti-dictatorship, anti-tyranny, anti-irresponsibility…” Hmm, she sounds like Anwar Ibrahim, that two-face (bi-sexual?) M’sian politician.

———-

*He was telling a new media website.

** We’ll know one way or the other in the next GE, as even the PAP, and the constructive, nation-building media and Institute of Policy Studies admit that these two issues, along with immigration and public transport are the issues of most concern to S’poreans.

***I’m not anti-PAP.

I’m only anti-cronyism, anti-nepotism, anti-dictatorship, anti-tyranny, anti-irresponsibility…

Is she egging the PM to sue her? So that she can assert the Derbyshire principle that she chickened out of asserting earlier? And then repented of chickening out?

****Her rants against having to go to work daily (check out her site) remind me of the joke, “I’m lazy – my childhood ambition was to be an injured footballer.”.

Roy’s & Hui Hui’s gig today? Keeping TRE & TOC honest

In CPF on 23/08/2014 at 8:11 am
I hope TRE and TOC don’t do an ST, or a MediaCorp today if the crowd for above gig is tiny. So far this year, this “everything complain” duo have held three gigs, the last on NatDay. Yet TOC and TRE only reported the second one where TRE estimated the crowd to be about 3,000.
They did not report the first and the last gig. Hui Hui has said 200 or so turned up for their first party, and Roy told a blogger 300-400 attended the NatDay protest.
Why is the new media silent when the online support is shown to be “Loud Thunder, No Rain” when it comes to physical attendance where some effort is needed?  

Roy’s defence has me confused

In Political governance on 06/08/2014 at 4:43 am

TOC has an article on Roy’s defenceMr Ngerng said while his apology to Mr Lee for an article he wrote on 15 May remains, he nonetheless is disputing Mr Lee’s claims that the article had in fact defamed Mr Lee as claimed in Mr Lee’s lawsuit …

In his affidavit filed on Monday, Mr Ngerng disputes the meanings of the allegedly defamatory article ascribed to it by Mr Lee’s lawyers, and argues that the content of the article “does not convey the twisted meaning” which Mr Lee’s lawyers claim it does.

So why apologise, if there is no defamation?

Doesn’t make sense to this ex-lawyer, the way the defence is unfolding.

When Roy was threatened with a defamation suit, activist lawyers were suggesting that a plausible line of defence was that as Kong Hee’s and gang’s case was still in progress, Roy’s comparison did not amount to defamation because Kong Hee and friends were not criminals: they were on trial and the presumption of innocence applied. They had not “criminally misappropriated” anything. I tot that this defence had merit.

So Roy’s apology was puzzling, though not surprising (he S’porean and $ talks):

I recognise that the Article means and is understood to mean that Mr Lee Hsien Loong, the Prime Minister of Singapore and Chairman of GIC, is guilty of criminal misappropriation of the monies paid by Singaporeans to the Central Provident Fund.

3.I admit and acknowledge that this allegation is false and completely without foundation.

4.I unreservedly apologise to Mr Lee Hsien Loong for the distress and embarrassment caused to him by this allegation.

So did this later on:

“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.

Then came his “defence” that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has “no cause of action” against his client based on Article 14 of the Constitution which gives Singaporeans the right to freedom of speech and expression

My take then on all these.

Now the position is that despite saying the apology still stands: “There is absolutely no basis whatsoever to say that I have accused the Plaintiff of criminal misappropriation of Singaporeans’ CPF monies. I have never accused him of taking a cent of Singaporeans CPF monies and I have no intention to do so as well. It is only persons who are avid for scandal who would say I meant this in the article.”

Err what about the apology, Roy? And yes, I’ve read his affidavit and nowhere does it try to explain why the wording of the apology (which explicitly says that Roy accused the PM of of criminal misappropriation of Singaporeans’ CPF monies still stands when the defence is now :”There is absolutely no basis whatsoever to say that I have accused the Plaintiff of criminal misappropriation of Singaporeans’ CPF monies. I have never accused him of taking a cent of Singaporeans CPF monies and I have no intention to do so as well. It is only persons who are avid for scandal who would say I meant this in the article.”

Curiouser and curiouser.

For the sake of Roy and the administration of justice and its reputation, the Law Society should ask M Ravi’s psychiatrist if he is competent to practice law. If not, the AG should ask the Law Society to ask his psychiatrist if he is competent to practice law.

Let’s not wait until M Ravi screams obscenities in a mosque, or causes a row in a Hindu temple or prances half-naked in Hong Lim Green before his mental state is examined and found to be “impaired”. If it then turns out that M Ravi’s bi-polar disorder is affecting him again or he is not taking his pills, the Law Society could be in serious trouble for allowing him to practice law.

How PM & Roy can resolve matters satisfactorily/ Roy’s defence: Work-in-progress

In Humour on 11/07/2014 at 5:24 am

(Update at 6pm: My legal Morocco Mole got it almost right: http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2014/07/lee-applies-for-summary-judgement-against-ngerng/. By going for summary judgment, PM is saying Roy’s defence in BS. MM told me that PM’s lawyer was going to strike out defence. Going for summary judgment is more aggressive.)

Here’s a constructive suggestion to PM that will make him appear magnanimous and yet deter future libelers  and slanderes.

Below is my suggestion on what PM should ask Roy to do in return for accepting Roy’s published apology

I recognise that the Article means and is understood to mean that Mr Lee Hsien Loong, the Prime Minister of Singapore and Chairman of GIC, is guilty of criminal misappropriation of the monies paid by Singaporeans to the Central Provident Fund.

3.I admit and acknowledge that this allegation is false and completely without foundation.

4.I unreservedly apologise to Mr Lee Hsien Loong for the distress and embarrassment caused to him by this allegation.

and waiving damages.

PM should make Roy listen to Tharman’s CPF speech in parly on Tueday 10,000 times, continuously (with breaks for toilet and meals) in an unairconditioned room . At the end of the session, he must be able recite the speech word for word without any mistakes. If he can’t, he has to listen to the speech until he can recite it word for word.

And then he must write out the speech in longhand 100,000 times. That should be sufficient deterrent to others who want to defame PM. They might have to undergo similar treatment.

But then Maruah would object that this would amount to torture or cruel, unusual punishment. but then Maruah is the kind of organisation to object if the govt placed a middle-class activist in a cell with aircon, tv and internet access: guy must have personal toilet with a bidet.

But let’s be serious: what does a macho, man-biting talented footballer have to do with a gentle, unemployed gay S’porean star blogger with itchy fingers.

Both are celebrities. Both are braggadocios, despite their undoubted abilities (one with his footie wizardry, the other with word spinning). Both are full of self-confidence. And they enjoy changing their stories to fit their ends.

Suraez

“The truth is that my colleague Giorgio Chiellini suffered the physical result of a bite in the collision he suffered with me,” said Suarez in a statement.

Suarez has previously said he lost his balance and did not bite Chiellini.

The media reports that he changed his story after being told that Barcelona would not to buy a unrepentant Suarez.

Roy

After PM sued him for defamation, he was pretty quick to say on 23 May

I recognise that the Article means and is understood to mean that Mr Lee Hsien Loong, the Prime Minister of Singapore and Chairman of GIC, is guilty of criminal misappropriation of the monies paid by Singaporeans to the Central Provident Fund.

3.I admit and acknowledge that this allegation is false and completely without foundation.

4.I unreservedly apologise to Mr Lee Hsien Loong for the distress and embarrassment caused to him by this allegation.

Now (OK 17th June) he wrote:

“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 about the apology Roy?

And his defence is now that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has “no cause of action” against his client based on Article 14 of the Constitution which gives Singaporeans the right to freedom of speech and expression*.

Err so why did he apologise in the first place? He now says he had no intention to libel and didn’t and anyway PM can’t sue him.

(Furthermore, his lawyer Ravi also denied allegations of malice on Ngerng’s part and also denied that the prime minister is entitled to aggravated damages.)

And given that the apology was not accepted, an apology that he could have continued using in his defence, and he has changed his defence, why hasn’t he come out to say the following is “inoperative” or “tak pakah”?

As it is

I recognise that the Article means and is understood to mean that Mr Lee Hsien Loong, the Prime Minister of Singapore and Chairman of GIC, is guilty of criminal misappropriation of the monies paid by Singaporeans to the Central Provident Fund.

3.I admit and acknowledge that this allegation is false and completely without foundation.

4.I unreservedly apologise to Mr Lee Hsien Loong for the distress and embarrassment caused to him by this allegation.

still stands and it is why PM’s press secretary is legally correct to say

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 …

, despite a “Marxist Conspirator” saying AG should take action against her. Although a lawyer, she is talking rot.

Saying that the apology is no longer applicable, given that PM has refused to accept it  will  make sense of Ravi’s comments that the case is sub judice. As it stands, M** Ravi’s comment does not make sense because, it seems that so long as Roy doesn’t withdraw his posting of 23 May, the legal position is that he has admitted that he has defamed PM and that the only issue before the courts is that of damages.

My Morocco Mole in legal circles says that the PM’s lawyer will be making an application to strike out Roy’s defence that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has “no cause of action” based on Article 14 of the Constitution which gives Singaporeans the right to freedom of speech and expression.

One gr0und is that Roy has apologised.

On the issue of whether the suit prevents S’poreans from discussing the CPF issue, a claim Maruah makes, Roy’s sifu, Uncle Leong, has written extensively on the issue, making most of the points that Roy claims he has discovered and exposed. Actually Uncle Leong has been telling us about these “discovered” dfacts fir yrs.

Yet Uncle Leong has not been sued or lauded like Roy because he has avoided making allegations of theft. His articles are factual.

Why is Uncle Leong is sifu? Roy came into prominence in 2012 (I think) when he co-authored with Uncle Leong a series of articles on the CPF system. Before that series, Roy was a no-body.

Related posts:

https://atans1.wordpress.com/2014/05/05/who-is-right-pm-heart-truths-consumer-survey/

https://atans1.wordpress.com/2014/03/12/constructive-suggestions-for-anti-pap-paper-warriors/

*”Derbyshire principle” that his myopic (or inability to count?) gf and sidekick chickened out of trying?

 When TRE relaunched, PM’s brother sued and Ravi wanted to defend TRE on the basis of Article 14. Richard Wan (elite school boy and scholar) found another lawyer to kai seow. TRE lived to fight another day.

**No jokes pls like that the “P” in “P Ravi” stands for “Politican”. It stands for Philemon.

Roy Ngereg and the silence of the FT lovers

In Uncategorized on 22/06/2014 at 4:48 am

Remember Kirsten Han, wimmin of AWARE (diss MSmen also: all their male partners FTs is it?), William Wan and lots of FT lovers were quick to support the PAP govt in accusing S’poreans of the “X” word? Where’s the evidence of increased xenophobia? Yes a bit of hot, filthy, vulgar, smelly air, but I don’t see S’poreans beating up Pinoy Pride provocateurs for example, let alone gunning them down. If S’poreans in Manila or Cebu had behaved like these Pinoys here, thed’d be gunned down and our flag burnt. Reflect on that the Pinoy embassy and stop playing the victim game to justify yr cushy jobs.

Take the recent “hate” posting that has generated lots of noise. It was puerile, offensive in parts but hateful? Nope it wasn’t  In fact I tot that the suggestion that asking Pinoy cashier (not many nowadays: not gd use of their great skills in selling and customer service) if insecticide killed Pinoys, then saying one meant cockroaches not Pinoys, was wicked.

As to the one about not wanting to be served by Pinoys, it showed how dumb the writer was:

— I love being served by Pinoys, they know how to do “service with a smile” unlike people like Roy’s M’sian Cina gf; and

— the eatery can ask the requester to leave, publicise the fact, scoring points with MoM and the FT lovers.

But there is mostly silence from these FT lovers.when it comes to supporting Roy, as this TRE poster pointed out,

Why no civic staement ?:

Only MARUAH issued press statement ? What about the rest from the civil society group who are so quick to scold S’poreans for being xenophobic & racist ?? Where are:
1. Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE),
2. Beyond the Border,
3. Behind the Men,
4. Function 8,
5. Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics (HOME),
6. LeftWrite Center,
7. Project X,
8. Sayoni,
9. Singapore Anti-Death Penalty Campaign,
10. Think Centre,
11. Transient Workers Count Too (TWC2)
12. Workfair.

and the individaul:
Fikri Alkhatib, Damien Chng, Ian Chong, Jean Chong, Chong Si Min, Kirstan Han, Farhan M Idris, Godwin Koay, Lynn Lee, Siew Kum Hong*, Constance Singam, Alvin Tan Cheong Kheng, Jolene Tan, Teng Qian Xi, Shelley Thio, Teo Soh Lung, Vincent Wijeysingha**, Mark Wong De Yi, Wong Pei Chi, June Yang Yajun, Yap Ching Wi and Rachel Zeng.

Where are your statements, why so quiet ?

And then there was the wannabe NMP for FTs, defender of Anton Casey and FT drinks-supplier (not unemployed S’poreans as has been suggested to him):

Chris K:

Oi, William Wan where is your “kindness”?

Why they silent about true blue S’poreans that many S’poreans think kanna bullied? He not FT is it?

It would be nice if these people and organisations think of how easy and unfair it is to accuse fellow S’poreans of xenophobia’ when they try to curry favour with an otherwise hostile govt. But why should they? FTs are no threat to their own jobs. pay, or standard of living. They are to many S’poreans.

For me as a retiree, the more FTs the better (wage repression keeps a lid on price increases) but I see the ill effects on working S’poreans (Yup not so cynical like “abc”). I hope the FT lovers too look beyond their narrow economic and financial interests, and “ang mohs know best” attitude.

———

*Note that Siow is an active member of Maruah. So not fair to include him among FT lovers only. He has also spoken out on FB against the defamation action.

**He too has supported Roy. Likewise unfair to include him.

 

Tot S’poreans are honest, honour honesty? Think again

In Corporate governance, Financial competency on 18/06/2014 at 4:29 am

I was shocked as a user of financial statements to read this in BT last week:

More than one-fourth of senior executives in Singapore feel it is justifiable to misstate financial performance in order to survive an economic downturn. The staggering statistic was one of many in EY’s 13th and latest Global Fraud Survey.

The exercise, which involved 2,719 interviews with senior decision-makers in the largest companies in 59 countries – conducted between November 2013 and February 2014 – looked at the perceived levels of fraud, bribery and corruption across the world in current times.

It found that financial statement fraud risk is still prevalent. Aside from Singapore’s response, EY’s survey found that – across the globe – 6 per cent of respondents said that misstating financial performance is justifiable in order to survive an economic downturn. This is an increase from 5 per cent two years ago.

EY noted that this is driven by responses from emerging markets where, in some jurisdictions, a significantly higher proportion of respondents stated that they could justify such actions. Compared with Singapore (28 per cent), 24 per cent in India and 10 per cent in South Africa felt misstating financial performance was justifiable.

(BT 12 June: Emphasis is mine)

We are miles away from the global benchmark (6%) and worse than India (where few yrs ago there was a major accounting scandal at a giant Indian IT co), a country where corruption is so common.

How to trust any co’s financial statements? Blame education system, PAP govt or S’pore society?

Wrong to blame our society?

Juz think about it. Roy Ngerng who claimed his research into the CPF system showed that the govt had stolen the monies, and who when sued by the PM for defamation, readily and cheerfully admits that the govt didn’t steal the monies but like a true blue S’poreans wants to avoid coughing up money (BS is cheap, money is another thing) is a heloo among the chattering classes.(think Maruah) and the born losers.

This is what his lawyer released yesterday: “The defendant …  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. 

My take has been that the the only original thing about his CPF articles is the accusation that the govt steals our CPF monies. https://atans1.wordpress.com/2014/06/11/roy-missed-his-calling-in-life/

As long ago as 2007, the intricacies of CPF were spelled out by an NMP in parly http://siewkumhong.blogspot.sg/2007/09/speech-on-ministerial-statement-on-cpf.html. Check out the references in speech. And Uncle Leong, Roy’s sifu has been active too.

So what has Roy added to the debate? Juz the accusation (now retracted) that govt stole the monies: an accusation he now readily admits is BS.

And he is a heloo to Maruah etc?

And nothing is wrong with the moral and ethical value of at least some highly paid, professional S’poreans?

Something is very wrong with us when a significant number of S’porean professionals are prepared to lie for their employers, paymasters, or when a self-declared liar is a hero to many S’poreans (number unknown).

BTW, I make no comment on whether PM is right morally, ethically, PRwise to sue because the issues are not as clear cut as the PAPpies, anti-PAP activists and ordinary, decent-minded S’poreans who dislike bullying think. It’s a complex problem that even game theory cannot help find an answer. I don’t know whether PM was right or wrong to sue.

Coming back to the issue of the willingness to lying, the PAP govt must take a lot of the blame for this. It has been in power, micro-managing and social engineering S’poreans since 1959, and has put collective responsibility and duty (calls it constructive nation-building) above all else, especially the conscience of the individual. Surely, some could have taken this to mean that it’s OK to lie for employer, paymaster?

Roy missed his calling in life

In Humour on 11/06/2014 at 5:06 am

He should have become a pre owned car salesman. Still not too late.

Sorry lah. Roy keeps changing his story. At first he admitted on Facebook that he’s been misusing working hours and underperforming at work. Now he says the firing is politically motivated. He can’t even get his story straight. Whatever little sympathy I had for him has now evaporated.” was posted on Facebook a few hrs after Roy first announced his “firing”.

I agree with the tots expressed.

Here’s another paper warrior (wannabe SPH jornalist at NTU propoganda school) practicing selling his soul. http://wisemental-king.sg/post/88260228060/the-many-expressions-of-blogger-roy-ngerng-i

He condemns Roy for being a demagogue: There are no plans to help people in need; people that have money in CPF but who have no means to take it out. There are no plans to do anything from the ground up. Roy’s not an activist; he’s (very sadly) a demagogue.

Readers will know that that I think Roy is full of rubbish. His only originality is in publicly accusing the govt of theft of our CPF.

But in a place where being a demagogue can carry a high price, juz ask JBJ, something that Roy is learning at first hand  labeling someone a demagogue amounts to honouring him.  Besides, other than words, how can one actively show dissent here? In S’pore demagoguery is feared by the state.

Here’s a piece from a friend of the previous blogger that is more objective: http://guanyinmiao.wordpress.com/2014/06/09/the-man-of-the-protest-moment/

And another: http://guanyinmiao.wordpress.com/2014/05/19/heart-truths/

I hope the sotong blogger can learn from his friend.

 

 

Take on TRE’s readers vitriol on a sneer on Roy & his supporters

In CPF on 08/06/2014 at 4:31 am

But first Han claimed at the close of the protest at about 6:30pm that the crowd size had grown to 6,000 — a figure that pits attendance at this protest as higher than the 4,000 turnout at last year’s Population White Paper protest. Observers who spoke to Yahoo Singapore, however, peg the attendance at closer to 3,000 people.

(https://sg.news.yahoo.com/over-1-000-people-at–returnourcpf-protest-at-hong-lim-park-093133980.html)

Han is Han Hui Hu, new citizen, blogger and activist.

[Update at 9.30am: WSJ reported attendence at 2,000. It, too like Yahoo, has no reason to misrepresnt the numbers attending, unlike TOC, TRE (3-4,000), our constructive nation-building MSM, and Ms Han. Oh and a TRE article said yesterday: The next possible scenario is a turnout of 500 to 5,000 people. Given the extent that this CPF issue affects the people universally, it is highly unusual if it happens that people would not even bother to turn up and show face. http://www.tremeritus.com/2014/06/07/cpf-protest-4-pm-today-4-possible-turnout-scenarios/)

Well not very many people are worked up with Roy’s allegations of the theft of our CPF monies by the govt, are they?

This nicely leads to the title of this post. The u/m attracted a lot of vitriolic comments

Dear TRE,

I really laugh when I read how your readers are so excited when Roy raised the $72K.

Hello, it’s only about 1000 Singaporeans donating, not 1,000,000 ok?

There is nothing so fantastic to shout about.

Most Singaporeans are wise enough not to donate any money to Roy.

Roy is wrong. So, why the need to encourage him?

If I anyhow accuse you of stealing money, would you be happy?

PM has every right to sue him for such a malicious accusation.

I read that some of your readers is calling the incident – “Singapore Spring”?

With a pathetic 1,000 people giving money and you call this a “Singapore Spring”?

Don’t joke lah.

I urge the rational Singaporeans to ignore these bunch of losers.

Yes, I call the 1,000 people who gave money to Roy, losers. They think that by supporting Roy, they can get their CPF money back.

Keep on dreaming, losers!

I see the guy who is laughing to the bank is Roy’s lawyer Ravi, stupid Singaporeans.

Can’t stand stupid Singaporeans

* Submitted by TRE reader.

http://www.tremeritus.com/2014/06/04/nothing-fantastic-about-1000-sgs-donating-to-roy/

Whatever or wherever the truth lies, bear in mind that even if 2,000 people have by now contributed, 2,000 amounts to only 0.3% of the 600,000 voters who voted for TJS and TKL in PE 2011: the “any anti-PAP buffoon baboon, so long as he’s not not a PAP ape”. (BTW, on the PAP apes, one is a King Kong, the other is like one of  apes that adopted Tarzan.)

The latest on TRE is that $86,000 has been raised. This amount, while looking impressive, amounts to 14 cents for each 600,000 anti-PAP voters.

At this rate, don’t be surprised if PAP retains its hegemony indefinitely and our CPF keeps getting doled out at the PAP govt’s pleasure and whim. The anti-PAP voters don’t care when it comes to walking the walk (and contributing money), they juz love to talk the talk and BS all the way. They only act once every few yrs. And that ’cause they are forced to.

And how many of the vitriolic TRE writers contributed and how much? Based on the amount raised, “peanuts”.is the answer to both questions.

And remember 2m S’poreans voted for one or other of the PAP’s Great Apes at PE 2011.

Anti-PAP paper warrors, ponder on this as you take public tpt to and fro work. Or when you sit unemployed at home.

Strong words and emotions don’t butter parsnips. Only deeds matter.

Oh and think about the attendance at Roy’s and Han’s do: Maybe most S’poreans trust the govt when it comes to their CPF monies? But I’m sure these cyber warriors will agree with u/m (courtesy of Yahoo S’pore). Actually the comment could have been one said by one LKY: so nannyish.

 

 

No NMP for 600,000 S’poreans?

In Humour, Political governance on 26/05/2014 at 5:11 am

(Or “Roy Ngerng for NMP”)

Based on the last presidential election 30% of the voters, 600,000 citizens, will never ever vote for anyone who does not denounce the PAP. Surely, they deserve an NMP of their very own? If the artistic and sports communities (size unknown but surely less than 6000,000 each) can have their very own NMPs, why not these 600,000? They too are a community. But another community of pariahs, like us, heterosexual singletons? But then us, heterosexual singletons, are loners? So not having a NMP doesn’t matter.

That these 600,000 S’poreans have no NMP they can call their own shows the absurdity of appointing NMPs to represent communities. I mean even the LGBTs want an NMP to represent their interests, and I suspect are likely to get one before us singletons and the rabid, anti-PAP voters. Meanwhile NTUC will have its PAP MPs and an NMP, though one a few yrs ago went AWOL or MIA.

If as expected William Wan becomes an NMP, then the FTs will have a vocal, powerful champion. But then there are 2.1m FTs (including PRs), 39% of the total population, and since S’pore is supposed to be “FT paradise”, they surely should get more NMPs?

So all things considered, even though this blog is no friend of Roy Ngerng (even before he got sued, I blogged that he was accusing accused the govt of stealing our CPF money, despite acknowledging him as as a tua kee blogger), the PAP should be gracious to vote him in as NMP to show that the 30% of votersw who vote for any donkey except a PAP ass have a right to representation**. The light blue clones of the MIW are the closest they can get to a real representative.

Related post: https://atans1.wordpress.com/2014/05/22/roys-a-real-sporean/

——————-

*Once upon a time, there was an NMP, Siow Kum Hong, who although no anti-PAPpist, spoke out on things that resonated with this 30%, and other S’poreans. 

**I’m assuming PM wouldn’t make him a bankrupt. Better not say more than that. LOL

Roy’s a real S’porean

In Political governance on 22/05/2014 at 10:22 am

Update on 24 May at 9.15am: PM is not happy with Roy’s apology because Roy has not offered to pay costs and damages. If I were PM’s lawyer, I’d be offended by Roy’s lawyer’s comments on my professional integrity and competency on the issue of costs.  I’d complain to to Law Society. M Ravi forgot to take his pills?

Let’s see if Roy continues to be garang. He’s made his bed, he has to lie in it.

—————–

I’ve heard from several usually reliable sources that Roy Ngerng is holding out on the issue of paying damages. He is willing to apologise to PM but not willing to be saddled with a huge debt (based on the precedents set by the cases lost by Dr Chee and JBJ) the amount can run to millions of $).

Well so Roy is a true-blue S’porean. Words are cheap, but money is a serious matter.

Well at least, we wouldn’t have to bear him pontificating on sacrifice. His willingness to apologise shows his mettle. JBJ or Chee would not apologise.

Actually PM’s been a patient man. I blogged this weeks ago saying Roy must be an alien for blogging

On govt stealing interest from CPF http://sonofadud.com/2014/04/04/cpf-and-hdb-10-real-dirty-tricks/

And on CPF contributions being a tax and CPF being theft despite this study ranking S’pore’s CPF system as the  7th best out of 20 pension systems analysed http://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/042914/top-pension-systems-world.asp?utm_source=newstouse&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=NTU-4/30/2014

(https://atans1.wordpress.com/2014/05/01/pm-police-chief-kirsten-hanheart-truths-are-aliens/)

PM needn’t have waited until Roy decided to compare the CPF system to criminal misappropriation. Roy had been making that point for a long time. Maybe PM was kooning and juz woke up? Or was working so hard trying to find answers to govt policy failures that have upset S’poreans? Think the tpt revamp.

What do you think?