Wear white campaign a protest against homosexuality

From ‘Religious leader launches Wear White online campaign’, 19 June 2014, article by Rachel Au Yong, Nur Asyiqin Mohamed Salleh, ST

AN ISLAMIC religious teacher has launched an online campaign asking Muslims to wear white next Saturday evening to protest against homosexuality and defend traditional family values. Ustaz Noor Deros, 28, is behind the Wear White Facebook page and website and is asking Muslims to “return to fitrah” – the Arabic word for “natural” – and support “what is good and pure”.

The Muslim month of Ramadan starts on Sunday next week and the first evening prayer to mark the fasting month will be held on Saturday evening. That Saturday is also when the Pink Dot picnic – an annual event promoting “the freedom to love” regardless of sexual orientation – will be held. It is organised by the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community.

Mr Noor, who teaches religious classes at Hajar Consultancy Services in Joo Chiat, writing on the campaign website, said: “The natural state of human relationships is now under sustained attack by LGBT activists.” He said that holding the Pink Dot event on the eve of Ramadan showed their “disdain for Islam and the family”.

…The campaign symbol is a white droplet against a black background, which some supporters are now using as their Facebook profile picture.

The objective of Wearwhite is to help Muslims return to their ‘natural disposition‘. From a biological perspective, the natural disposition of any man or woman, Muslim, Christian, Buddhist or Hindu, is not to preserve ‘traditional values’, but that of a savage ape, one all too capable of betrayal, deceit, adultery, rape, cruelty, greed and murder and reluctantly domesticated by the products of his own invention: society, religion, ethics, the rule of law.

At least another Muslim academic was honest enough to call a spade a spade, that the LGBT movement is a CANCER that needs to be excised without sugar coating it with images of babies. The wear white contingent is on a mission to vanquish, and Minister Tan Chuan Jin, despite his lack of patience for the Blood Stained Singapore racists, xenophobes and bigots, is predictably silent when it comes to people forming factions under the banner of heaven rallying against another group of human beings, some of whom even believe in the same God as the ‘fitrah’ fanclub. It’s fitting that the Wear White logo resembles a teardrop, because all this is, well, plain sad. Brother against brother with another brother for a lover.

White is also the theme at Chinese funerals, the colour of mourning. It is the pretentious dress you put on when you’re heading out for Diner en Blanc. For the Wear White brigade, it’s a holy pledge of incorruptibility and all things ‘good’ and ‘natural’. Not too far off from why white is the colour of choice for these jokers below too.

They wore white before #wearwhite

Or these dudes from a top-ranking school. Don’t you dare call these boys ‘elitist’.

RI’s natural disposition

White is also the standard garb for a bunch that look like they have an oversized dunce cap pulled over their faces, and go around spooking little children.

Stay Kluxy always

Curiously, Lawrence Khong and his church ilk have decided to join forces with the Muslim brethren to champion the cause of ‘virtue and purity’. As they say, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.  Oh how times have changed since the Crusades. Lay down your sword, Muslim warrior, and give your infidel Christian brother a hug. Let’s drop all this Allah-name-calling nonsense. All is forgiven as we sing ‘What a Wonderful World’ together.

The FCBC Christians have also adopted the white theme, though for their scrapped ‘Red Dot Family Event’, the original plan was to wear RED. Considering what you get when you blend red and white, it’s understandable why the Khong army changed their colour theme. This, fellow Singaporeans, is multi-racial, religious harmony in action, and all it took to bring two monotheistic faiths together is an all-pink gay party. Not since leaders of various religions and denominations got together to pray for Bedok Reservoir have you seen a collaboration like this.

Still, if you want to return to what’s truly ‘natural’, don’t wear black, red, white, pink or turquoise. Wear NOTHING AT ALL, instead of hiding the Lord’s/Allah’s fleshy creation behind the tyranny of clothes. Now that’s one protest parade that I’d be interested in watching.

AN ISLAMIC religious teacher has launched an online campaign asking Muslims to wear white next Saturday evening to protest against homosexuality and defend traditional family values.

Ustaz Noor Deros, 28, is behind the Wear White Facebook page and website and is asking Muslims to “return to fitrah” – the Arabic word for “natural” – and support “what is good and pure”.

The Muslim month of Ramadan starts on Sunday next week and the first evening prayer to mark the fasting month will be held on Saturday evening.

That Saturday is also when the Pink Dot picnic – an annual event promoting “the freedom to love” regardless of sexual orientation – will be held. It is organised by the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community.

Mr Noor, who teaches religious classes at Hajar Consultancy Services in Joo Chiat, writing on the campaign website, said: “The natural state of human relationships is now under sustained attack by LGBT activists.” He said that holding the Pink Dot event on the eve of Ramadan showed their “disdain for Islam and the family”.

He urged Muslims to “stand up and defend the sanctity of family” and wear white to the first terawih prayers that day.

His is not the first group to attempt a protest against the Pink Dot event this year. Christian group Touch Family Services wanted to hold a family picnic on the same day but cancelled the event after the Urban Redevelopment Authority rejected its application to hold it at the Padang.

According to the Facebook pages of the Wear White community and Mr Noor, the campaign was launched two weeks ago and discussions took place at the Hasanah Mosque in Jurong East.

The campaign symbol is a white droplet against a black background, which some supporters are now using as their Facebook profile picture.

- See more at: http://www.straitstimes.com/news/singapore/more-singapore-stories/story/religious-teacher-launches-wear-white-online-campaign-20#sthash.ySfZTRpO.dpuf

About these ads

Catherine Lim bemoaning a collapse of trust in the Government

From ‘Consul-General rebuts HK report on open letter by Catherine Lim’, 14 June 2014, article by Joy Fang, Today

A South China Morning Post (SCMP) report on Monday about novelist Catherine Lim’s comments in an open letter to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has drawn a sharp rebuttal from Mr Jacky Foo, Consul-General of Singapore in Hong Kong. SCMP’s report titled “Writer Catherine Lim’s open letter to Singaporean PM fuels social media debate” had quoted Dr Lim’s open letter to Mr Lee, in which she said Singaporeans “no longer trust their government”.

In a forum letter to the newspaper published yesterday, Mr Foo said Dr Lim had first asserted this claim in 1994, when the People’s Action Party (PAP) had won the 1991 General Election with 61 per cent of the vote. Since then, the ruling party has taken Singapore through a number of serious crises relatively unscathed and has won four further general elections by healthy margins, he pointed out. “But still, (Dr) Lim continues to regularly bemoan a collapse of trust and respect for the government,” he said.

…In a follow-up post on her blog published yesterday, Dr Lim clarified that Mr Ngerng’s defamation suit was not the direct cause of her writing the letter. She had been observing with increasing dismay at a series of happenings in the political scene, culminating with the defamation suit, she said.

Addressing criticism that she was being too much of an alarmist, Dr Lim stressed that “it is a crisis, or at least a crisis-in-the-making”.

It was 20 years ago when Catherine Lim coined the term ‘The Great Affective Divide’ to describe the estrangement of the PAP from the people, when she used ‘alarmist’ terms like ‘a serious bifurcation at the emotive level’ and ‘subterranean hostility is all the more insidious’. Her commentaries don’t make easy reading, where she uses words like ‘modus vivendi’, ‘loyality’ and ‘meretricious’, and I’m not sure if the Consul-General really understood what she was trying to convey in her open letter, not to mention ordinary Singaporeans. 1994 was a time before social media, of course. Today almost every minister and MP has a Facebook account and then there’s this thing called a National Conversation. And Catherine Lim still believes today that this distrust in our leaders has ‘widened the original disconnect between the PAP and the people into an almost UNBRIDGEABLE CHASM’. Phwroar!

PM Goh would have none of this ‘armchair critic’ eroding his authority back then. In response to charges in another 1994 article ‘One Government, Two Styles’ that he wasn’t his own man and deferred to the elder Lee , he challenged Catherine Lim to enter the political arena, accusing her of ‘going beyond the pale’. To which the author replied that she hadn’t the slight interest, and continues to disdain the offer till this day. Yesterday’s armchair critic is today’s keyboard warrior, and the Government has more than its hands full with this army of discontents, and if you issue such a playground challenge today, you MIGHT just get it. Luckily for Lim, Goh didn’t deploy the famed ‘instrument of control’ then, the defamation suit. It would have vindicated Lim’s opinion that the ‘open and consultative’ style was just a cover for the true LKY-era ‘top-down’ approach that’s been looming there all this while, a ghost beast waiting to unleashed when the PM decides to summon it. Like Satan’s Pokemon.

After the ‘Great Affective Divide’ fallout, Lim cut the Government some slack in 2000 by acknowledging that Singapore was ‘more open’ then compared to 1995. In a 2001 interview, she said that ‘it’s good that the Government is reaching out…in Singapore if you speak honestly and authentically and respectfully, they accept it’. It seemed like she had changed her mind about the Government’s attitude. That is until she penned a ‘open letter to the PM’ in 2007, another tedious read which spoke about PM Lee’s ‘strategy of fear’ and ‘paterfamilias’ (sounds like a Mexican curry puff to me) style of governance. The defamation suit is a recurring example used throughout her observations about ministerial style, and the Roy Ngerng debacle seems to be the same trigger sparking off this latest war of words.

So what is this ‘Edelman barometer’ that Jackie Foo speaks of, that tells us that a whopping 75% of people trust the PAP? Isn’t it really a subjective, selective survey with a fancy name that makes it sound like a validated scientific instrument? In 2012, the Barometer told us that 65% of the ‘informed public’ trust the media. According to an Edelman results slideshow. Singapore has been among the rank of ‘trustees’ since 2011, joining the likes of China and Indonesia, of all nations. Yes, the same China that bans Facebook and Google. There’s also a gap in overall trust between the ‘Informed Public’ and ‘General Population’ (73% vs 64%). So it really depends on who you’re asking then. What Jackie Foo didn’t mention was the level of Singaporean trust in fact DROPPED from 82% to 75% from 2013 to 2014, though still higher than the distrusting Americans and their paltry 37%. Still, it’s the usual ‘blast them with statistics’ method which may appeal to the head, but sadly not the hearts of average Singaporeans.

Trust in the limelight

I ‘trust’ that PM Lee won’t apply the same formula like his predecessor did 20 years back. That would mean that in spite of all their efforts to connect, to bridge that unbridgeable chasm, even if it means queuing up for chicken wings….nothing much has changed.

Wikipedia ‘vandal’ calling the PAP a fascist regime

From ‘Vicious edits to PAP’s Wikipedia page’, 13 June 2013, article by Hoe Pei Shan, ST

A People’s Action Party MP called on his organisation to consider legal action yesterday after “vicious” edits were made to its Wikipedia page. Tampines GRC MP Baey Yam Keng spoke out after a user of the website changed the name of the party to “Party Against People” and added lines such as “down with the fascists” and “vote for Opposition” into the text.

According to the page’s publicly available editing history, the user who first made the changes appeared to have done so on Wednesday afternoon under the name “AlikVesilev”.

The user claimed that “proof of (the PAP’s) suppression of freedom of speech” was demonstrated by the sacking of blogger Roy Ngerng by Tan Tock Seng Hospital this week, a move later backed by the Ministry of Health.

Human rights group Maruah thought that Roy’s dismissal and the subsequent endorsement by MOH was handled poorly, symptomatic of the high-handed, remorseless manner in which the PAP and its underlings deal with dissenters. ‘AlikVesilev’ also praised socialism and went ‘URA!’ in his rant, which I’m guessing refers to a Soviet battle cry for ‘Hooray’ (Most definitely not the ‘Urban Redevelopment Authority’).

If nothing happens to this wiki ‘vandal’ after his ‘vicious’ attack, Roy would be hitting himself on the head for not having exploited the CPF Wikipedia page instead to get his message across, now that he’s facing an insurmountable defamation suit and currently jobless. But this isn’t the first time that the PAP’s hardcore style of punishment and intolerance for ‘free speech’ have been compared to ‘fascism’.

1963: The Barisan Socialis invoked ‘fascist repression’ when the PAP revoked citizenship for political detainees, accusing the party of ‘abusing power’ to unjustly punish anyone opposed to the regime. A familiar routine that anyone that has been cast away in political exile, or fired from a job because he impugned the integrity and character of our great leader, can relate to.

1964: V David from the Socialist Front, KL, referred to the PAP governance as a ‘reign of terror’ and ‘a fascist dictatorship’.

1971: A bunch of Malaysian and Singaporean students staged a demonstration against ‘fascist Lee Kuan Yew’ in London’s Hyde Park, burning an effigy of the PM. The ST referred to them as ‘radicals’.

1976: The United People’s Front leader Harbans Singh blamed the inequality between the rich and the poor on the ‘parasitic’ fascist regime that is the PAP. He was later hauled up to court for making scurrilous remarks about LKY being a ‘scoundrel’ and ‘gangster’ from the way the blunt tool that is the ISA was being implemented.

1977: Detainee Ho Kwon Ping was accused of portraying the PAP as an ‘elitist, racialist, fascist, oppressive and dictatorial’ government in an article for the Far Eastern Economic Review, which he allegedly used as a platform to channel his ‘pro-Red’ sentiments. He later became the founder of Banyan Tree and now a successful millionaire. Some jailtime may be good for you after all.

2006: John Burton of the Financial Times wrote about the uncanny similarity between the PAP’s lightning logo and that of the British Union of Facists (BUF). According to the writer, LKY admitted a ‘design influence’ from the fascist symbol. Apart from the logo, the other stark difference between the BUF’s Blackshirts and our current PAP mould would be the colour of their uniforms.

Fascist logo, or insignia of the Flash?

2013: DJ X’Ho calls us a ‘hushed’ fascist state, that we may well be the ‘unproclaimed fascist capital of the world’ but wouldn’t admit it.

High-handed brutality aside, most of us don’t have sexual fantasies about our glorious leaders, nor do we worship them as war heroes, man-gods or sing songs of total party devotion and then weep in ecstasy like how they do in a megachurch or a pure fascist state. According to a list of ‘defining characteristics‘ by a certain Dr Lawrence Britt, there are examples of ‘fascist’ elements in almost every modern government you can think of, not just Singapore, among which include:

1. Disdain for Recognition of Human Rights: Anti-gay laws, the ISD’s detention without trial.

2. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause: ‘Self-radicalised’ individuals, ‘CPF bloggers’, disgraced Opposition leaders.

3. Supremacy of the Military: Last year’s defence spending was $12 BILLION.

4. Rampant Sexism: Our cabinet ministers are all male. Not many female boardroom members in corporations.

5. Controlled Mass Media: ST, hello? Crackdown on ‘seditious’ Facebook posts, defamatory blogs. Censorship of political films, movies about gay sex, threesomes or zany plots about the assassination of Malaysian Prime Ministers.

6. Obsession with Crime and Punishment: Death penalties, caning, and ‘enhanced’ powers of the Police in Little India.

One may think of fascist governance as a continuous spectrum, just like how we all lie in the emotional range from ‘super nice’ to ‘psychopath’.  The PAP, as our PM once admitted himself, is in fact a ‘Paranoid’ government, one that ‘worries’ all the time. In other words, one that is constantly in FEAR of things not going their way. I would put that nearer to the psychopath end of the spectrum.

 

PM Lee rejecting Roy Ngerng’s derisory $5000 offer

From ‘PM Lee rejects blogger’s offer of $5000 as damages’, 27 May 2014, article by Nur Asiyiqin Mohammed Salleh, ST Singpolitics

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has rejected blogger Roy Ngerng’s offer of $5,000 as damages, his lawyer Davinder Singh said in a letter to Mr Ngerng’s lawyer on Tuesday. This offer is “derisory” and “completely disregards” the gravity of Mr Ngerng’s conduct, the undisputed fact that the libel – that PM Lee misapproriated CPF funds – is false and malicious, and Mr Ngerng’s “calculated and systematic aggravation of the injury and distress” to Mr Lee, Mr Singh wrote.

…Mr Lee had on Monday offered to waive aggravated damages if Mr Ngerng removed four blog posts and a Youtube video and undertook not to publish similar posts or videos. Mr Ngerng agreed. But instead of removing the video, Mr Ngerng made it private. He also sent two e-mails out republishing the video and offending posts.

“He therefore has only himself to blame for losing the opportunity of not having to pay aggravated damages,” said Mr Singh.

Channel 8 news tweeted an image of Davinder Singh’s retort to the measly $5ooo offer, and surprisingly, I was able to understand most of the ‘legalese’ in the letter. Judging by Roy’s behaviour it looks like it won’t be the last we see of such letters and requests for ‘service of process’. The saga has dragged on for far longer than necessary, with ‘lost opportunities’ on both sides to settle their differences in a more palatable manner other than one dominant party simply asking for more money from the other.

Here’s some choice selections from the latest salvo, a masterclass in defamation suit demands written with the panache of an executioner sharpening his blade before chopping someone’s head clean off.  You can even use this as a template when a restaurant owner offers you free dessert after a waiter spills hot coffee all over you, that it’s a ‘derisory’ compensation for the ‘injury and distress’ that you’ve suffered, completely ‘disregarding the gravity’ of your situation.

1. ‘Derisory and completely disregards the gravity of your client’s conduct’.

Meaning the 5K is an insult and I spit on your ridiculous offer. The next logical question to Davinder would be, so how much do you want then. Is there a market rate for ‘damages’? How much higher do I need to bid before ‘derisory’ becomes ‘acceptable’? I expected Roy to come up with less in fact, and maybe top up the remainder of damages with a thousand kowtows.

2. ‘The undisputed fact that the libel is false and malicious’.

Legalese 101: Libel is any defamation that can be seen, such as writing, printing, effigy or statue. Slander is any defamation that is spoken and heard. If Roy had reserved his misappropriation accusations for his Return my CPF protest, it would have been slander, though I’m not sure which of the two is more serious. The word ‘undisputed’ is used twice in the letter by the way, a word one would usually hear in the context of a boxing championship match, though it’s obvious who’s the one getting bruised up the most here.

3. ‘He therefore only has himself to blame of losing the opportunity of not having to pay aggravated damages’.

In short, Roy asked for it. Instead of restraining himself and keeping a low profile, he allegedly circulated the ‘deleted’ posts to ‘local and international’ media. Obviously, the phrase ‘live to fight another day’ doesn’t mean anything to Roy. What was he trying to achieve with the leaking? Get support from the Queen’s Counsel?

4. ‘Your client’s explanation..that it was a momentary lapse of judgement is disingenuous and incredible’

Disingenuous is a bombastic word that only became popular when Spellcheck spared us all the burden of having to spell ‘-nuous’ correctly. It’s best used when you want to accuse someone of dishonesty but want to lord over him while at it, like ‘Take that! I just used a big word on you’. It’s also an accusation that is unlikely to get a comeback because the recipient will be wondering what you meant, and will have trouble finding a response that has more letters in it.

5. ‘He has also not come clean with you…did not disclose to you that he intended to renege on that undertaking’

i.e Roy lied to you M. Ravi. Renege is another word people don’t usually say in real life. It sounds too French for something that’s not actually food.

So the stakes have been raised. Place your bets for what PM Lee will finally accept as a decent offer for his suffering. I’m thinking somewhere in the region of $25K, which can probably cover half our Government’s standard donation to our Indonesian neighbours after a massive earthquake.

UPDATE: Roy has been fired from TTSH for misusing hospital resources for his personal stuff, namely fighting a losing battle against PM Lee. The other reason was that he did not conduct himself ‘honorably’ and with ‘integrity’ in his legal dealings with his accuser. He’s not helping matters by alleging that the sacking was ‘politically motivated’. Roy, is one defamation suit not enough?

Clarke Quay bus stops vandalised by CPF blogger fans

From ‘Clarke Quay bus stop vandalism under probe’, 25 May 2014, article by Hoe Pei Shan, Sunday Times

The police are investigating a string of vandalism acts by apparent supporters of blogger Roy Ngerng, who was last week served a letter of demand for a post on May 15 alleging that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had misappropriated Central Provident Fund (CPF) savings. Mr Ngerng apologised to PM Lee last Friday, and admitted that the allegation in his May 15 post is false and “completely without foundation”.

He added: “I unreservedly apologise to Mr Lee Hsien Loong for the distress and embarrassment caused to him by this allegation.” On the same day, information and advertising boards at several bus stops around Clarke Quay were found defaced with text such as “We support CPF blogger” and “Return CPF money” in black block letters, according to a report in The New Paper yesterday.

Yesterday, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) confirmed that graffiti was found at six bus stops, one of which was right outside the Old Hill Street Police Station. The police confirmed that a report was lodged early last Friday. It is understood that LTA contractors were dispatched by mid-afternoon to clean up the affected areas.

…Moulmein-Kallang GRC Member of Parliament Denise Phua condemned the acts which occurred in her ward and called for common sense to prevail. “Such forms of negative expression are not useful in helping Roy Ngerng’s current situation or addressing the deeper issues concerning CPF withdrawal,” she said.

“The issue calls for a rational, deeper and more constructive dialogue.”

The writing's on the wall

The writing’s on the wall

This is what’s going to happen before any ‘constructive dialogue’ takes place. The vandals will be caught, named and shamed. Roy Ngerng will be forced into paying PM Lee a certain sum of money, probably to the tune of the minimum CPF withdrawal sum. The Old Hill Street Police staff will be chastised for this embarrassment happening right under their nose (I wonder if the ‘Old Hill Street’ Division still wears shorts). And if there’s anyone who’s going to start the ball of ‘CPF conversation’ rolling, it will NOT be Denise Phua, PM Lee, the Minister of Finance, M Ravi, or even the CPF itself. Workers’ Party MPs, yes we’re looking at you.

In 2011, Gerald Giam wrote in his blog that the ‘real reason’ for raising the draw-down age for your CPF to 65 years was that the PAP does not want to have the burden of looking after our old folks if they run out of retirement savings, that this was, in Giam’s opinion, typical of the Government’s ‘calculating and heartless’ style. In a ST poll on the raised limit, more than FOUR IN FIVE Singaporeans opposed the move, believing that we should have the right to enjoy our money without the Government telling us exactly when the time is ‘ripe’.  Lim Boon Heng recently suggested that the retirement go up to 70 years of age, which follows that you should only get to smell your money when you’re in a wheelchair with a tube sticking out of your nose, and instead of spending your CPF payout on a well deserved holiday it’d be on adult diapers  and bedpans.  Lim Swee Say also attempted to dispel the notion that the CPF is something we ‘can see, but cannot touch’. With such unfounded confidence in our employability, longevity and that the world will not end in 50 years, CPF will not just be known as a ‘Cardio Pulmonary Failure’ fund anymore, but a ‘Coffin Purchase Fund’, or Cash Prior to Funeral.

As for the vandals, given the insane risk taken in light of recent events i.e the Toa Payoh vandalism, it would have been smarter to just spray paint a succinct CPF O$P$, than what appears to be an essay in graffiti terms, the handwriting giving the Police a convenient lead in their pursuit.  The mainstream media will also make every attempt to squeeze the villain out of the culprits to distract from people making an underdog hero-victim out of Roy Ngerng. We will be embroiled in discussions over whether Roy or the vandals are considered troublemakers or martyrs. So, no there will not be a ‘dialogue’ anytime soon. The CPF minimum sum will still rise, ‘adjusted for inflation’, and our Government will continue to believe that they’re the best people to manage our retirement money, or what most of us call the ‘fruits of our labour’. Forbidden fruits rather, whose sweetness most of us can only savour in bits and pieces. If our sense of taste is still intact by the time we even get it, that is.

Roy himself has created a video to raise awareness about his plight and the tragi-comedy that is the CPF issue. Other than the fact that he speaks better than most MPs, especially Lim Swee Say, here are some takeaway highlights from ‘Roy’s Message’.

1. His surname is pronounced ‘NERNG’, the first G is silent.

2. Yes we all know he’s an ‘ordinary Singaporean’. He mentions it at least 3 times. Not if he’s made a bankrupt, in which case he joins the ranks of ‘not so ordinary’ Singaporeans like JBJ and Chee Soon Juan.

3. Near the end we see Roy fighting back tears and calling his fight a sacrifice for the people of Singapore, that it doesn’t matter if his character is ‘assassinated’, as long as people continue to demand the right to know what’s being done to their money. It would have made a rousing campaign oratory.

4. If this guy had a film biography made about him, I can only picture Pierre Png playing the lead role. Director Martyn See may be interested.

5. No, there was no hidden ‘gay agenda’ that certain ministers may use against him.

When it comes to money, it’s easy to dispense to the common man what the Government would call ‘populist’-speak, and Roy is convincing in his recurrent ‘David vs Goliath’ theme, appealing to the same lower reptilian brain that irrationally views a discounted price of $1.99 as a must-buy bargain even if the product totally useless. Good luck, ‘Rob’ Roy. And I hope your dreams, our dreams, for a better CPF system come true when I’m 64.

UPDATE: Roy has been asked to remove another 4 articles, including the Youtube video, which he uploaded between May 20-24, his apology deemed to be ‘insincere’ according to PM Lee and his lawyer, when Roy had already explained that he did not apologise for stuff he’d written other than the CHC analogy. No explanations were given as to whether these posts were also defamatory or Roy had inevitably incurred further charges for ‘renewing his attack’ on the PM and aggravating ‘injury and distress’.

So distressed was our PM that he posted this emo pic on Twitter.

Lesson learnt for all bloggers: You can’t win. Apologise, pay up and stay off the Internet for a month. Give the impression that you’ve left the blogosphere to repent for your sins, even if you still think you did nothing wrong.

UPDATE 2: A 71 year old man was arrested on suspicion of being Roy Ngerng’s No. 1 fan. Wonder if he managed to make full use of his CPF monies. Meanwhile the whereabouts of the hooligans who recently vandalised a MRT train remain unknown.

 

The police are investigating a string of vandalism acts by apparent supporters of blogger Roy Ngerng, who was last week served a letter of demand for a post on May 15 alleging that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had misappropriated Central Provident Fund (CPF) savings.

Mr Ngerng apologised to PM Lee last Friday, and admitted that the allegation in his May 15 post is false and “completely without foundation”.

He added: “I unreservedly apologise to Mr Lee Hsien Loong for the distress and embarrassment caused to him by this allegation.”

On the same day, information and advertising boards at several bus stops around Clarke Quay were found defaced with text such as “We support CPF blogger” and “Return CPF money” in black block letters, according to a report in The New Paper yesterday.

Yesterday, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) confirmed that graffiti was found at six bus stops, one of which was right outside the Old Hill Street Police Station.

The police confirmed that a report was lodged early last Friday. It is understood that LTA contractors were dispatched by mid-afternoon to clean up the affected areas.

When The Sunday Times visited the vicinity of the Old Hill Street Police Station, there were no traces of the graffiti.

The culprit or culprits could face up to three years in jail or a fine of up to $2,000, and could also receive between three and eight strokes of the cane.

Moulmein-Kallang GRC Member of Parliament Denise Phua condemned the acts which occurred in her ward and called for common sense to prevail.

“Such forms of negative expression are not useful in helping Roy Ngerng’s current situation or addressing the deeper issues concerning CPF withdrawal,” she said.

“The issue calls for a rational, deeper and more constructive dialogue.”

- See more at: http://www.straitstimes.com/premium/news/story/clarke-quay-bus-stop-vandalism-under-probe-20140525#sthash.cs8S5wio.dpuf

Roy Ngerng defaming PM Lee in Heart Truths blog

From ‘Singapore blogger issued letter of demand by PM Lee’s lawyers’, 19 May 2014, article in CNA

Mr Roy Ngerng, author of a blog titled The Heart Truths, was today (May 19) issued a legal request by Drew & Napier, on behalf of Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, to remove an article that had been “published maliciously”, according to the lawyer’s letter.

According to the letter issued by Senior Counsel Davinder Singh, the blogpost, titled “Where your CPF Money Is Going: Learning From The City Harvest Trial”, is understood to mean that Mr Lee “is guilty of criminal misappropriation of the monies paid in the Central Provident Fund (CPF).

“This is a false and baseless allegation and constitutes a very serious libel against our client, disparages him and impugns his character, credit and integrity,” the letter, dated May 18, stated.

Mr Lee has requested that Mr Ngerng:

  • Immediately remove the blogpost;
  • Publish an apology on the homepage of his blog for as long as the offending blog post was left online; and
  • Pay compensation for damages and legal costs.

The blogger has three days to comply, failing which legal proceedings will be taken against him, the lawyer wrote.

Another year, another lawyer’s ‘letter of demand’, a euphemism for a written threat to sue. Calling the PM’s weapon of choice a ‘legal request’ is like calling a police warrant for your arrest a Hallmark greeting card. Other bloggers like Alex Au and TRS’s Richard Wan have complied quietly and helplessly to our PM’s demands after allegedly defaming the Government, and Roy Ngerng looks set to follow suit. Roy had planned a protest called ‘Return my CPF’, jointly run with another financial expert Leong Sze Hian, with the same fetish for bar graphs.

Law Minister K Shanmugam had this to say about the ‘right’ way of criticising ministers:

If you make a personal allegation of fact, if you say I took money, I am corrupt, I will then sue you and ask you to prove it. But if you say I am a stupid fool who doesn’t know what I’m talking about, and the Government comprises ministers who don’t know what they’re talking about and you criticise every policy of the Government, no one can sue you.

PM Lee probably took Roy’s post to implicitly mean that ‘he took money and he is corrupt’, but made no challenge for the blogger to ‘prove it’. Instead, the standard demands are raised just like it applies to anyone who had the audacity to go beyond calling the PM a ‘stupid fool': Remove, apologise or be damned. Roy seems to be have put much painstaking effort into charts and statistics, which I have no patience for, and it would be a shame if he’s not even given the chance to back himself up with his ‘research findings’. Meanwhile, you can hurl ‘baseless’ obscenities at the PM and his mother and the worst thing that could happen to you is losing your job. You could even create a bar chart of how much the PM sucks compared to other countries’ PMs and you wouldn’t be harrassed by Drew and Napier with a pitilessly self-deprecating apology written on your behalf.

Roy’s comparison of CPF handling with the City Harvest scamsters is scanty at best. First of all, churchgoers give their money WILLINGLY to Kong Hee and gang. We have no such liberties with CPF. Secondly, we will never ever see Ho Ching do a Sun Ho. Or maybe some of us are dying to actually see that happen, at the risk of our eyes bleeding. (By the way, Kong Hee has 95K Followers and counting on Twitter. Lee Hsien Loong, 71.5 K). Also, no matter how hard you pray to Jesus Christ, you will never see your hard-earned money until you hit 55.

Whatever the outcome of this, it has raised a valid concern about what exactly happens to our money. Is our CPF monies being used by GIC for investment or not? This is what the GIC website says in one of its FAQs:

The short answer is that GIC manages the Government’s reserves, but as to how the funds from CPF monies flow into reserves which could then be managed by either MAS, GIC or Temasek, this is not made explicit to us.

The ‘short answer’ should be ‘WE DON’T REALLY KNOW’. Well then, who does?

Even some of the PAP MPs themselves were confused when this issue was raised in Parliament in 2007. An article by Chua Mui Hoong quoted MP Sim Boon Ann as saying that CPF funds are ‘indirectly’ invested by Government through the GIC and other channels in external and real assets, and asked if its time to ‘wean the Government off CHEAP funds’. Ng Eng Hen was reported to remark that ‘the link between GIC and CPF was not so SIMPLE’, which doesn’t sound the least assuring.

Maybe instead of laying down the gauntlet so soon on Roy and hiring D and N (ideal names for a pair of twin attack rottweilers) to wallop his ass dry, the Government should ‘invest’ some time in cutting through this fog of jargon and tell the common man where exactly our money is. In the meantime, here is a picture of our PM hamming it up with some bloggers at an Istana party, a reminder that there are times when he does engage by showing up in person with arms wide open and not in the form of an aggressive, hissing letterhead.

The Hurt Truths

The Hurt Truths

UPDATE: Roy has taken down the offending post, apologised ‘unreservedly’ to the PM, and requested to waive the ‘damages’ and legal costs. Our PM is having none of it. While Richard Wan of TRE was spared from having to dig deep into his pockets, Roy, a healthcare worker, looks set to be the first non-politician citizen to have to compensate the PM for what’s deemed a ‘malicious’ article. Chee Soon Juan’s defamation suit in 2006 makes an interesting parallel to Roy’s CHC analogy , where he compared both Lees’ running of Singapore to that of the NKF scandal.The penalty? A whopping $330K to PM Lee. I think I would rather take the rotan than cough up anywhere near that sum. Maybe Roy should change the theme of his protest on the CPF to a fundraiser instead.

Man sacked for insulting PM Lee on Mother’s Day

From ‘Man fired after posting vulgar reply to PM’s Facebook post’, 15 May 2014, article by KC Vijayan, ST

A FACEBOOK user who posted vulgar abuse in response to Mother’s Day wishes by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has been sacked from his job. Mr Ridhuan Abdullah, 30, had identified himself as a security officer at “Keith Morton” on the post, which triggered the move.

The security firm’s owner, Mr William Morton Jr, said yesterday that such conduct cannot be condoned, particularly from security officers who are expected to uphold basic standards of decorum.

“He clearly breached our company’s code of conduct and we cannot tolerate this,” he said.

Keith Morton Security, a private security firm that does mostly security work for private buildings, is based in Upper Changi Road and employs about 90 staff. Mr Ridhuan, who was last deployed at a condominium complex in the Holland Road area, was given his marching orders on Monday, the day after he wrote the post.

From the 'Fabrications About the PAP' FB

From the ‘Fabrications About the PAP’ FB

Everything is wrong with Ridhuan’s approach to social media. He has his FACE on his profile, actual name, place of work, location and uses the cliche ‘School of Life’ to imply that every living, breathing moment holds valuable lessons to be inspired from. And then he cusses at the Prime Minister. Welcome to the Principal’s Office of Life, you silly man.

You don’t have to insult the PM’s mother, or swear at any specific person to lose your job. Amy Cheong called Malay weddings cheap on Facebook and got sacked from NTUC. Anton Casey mocked the poor unwashed masses and got kicked out of CrossInvest Asia. So maybe it’s time this ex-security officer start looking for openings in Perth. Or just go for plastic surgery and start life anew without Facebook forever.

I doubt our PM will file charges for disrespectful behaviour, him being thick-skinned and flame-proof and all. Insulting a JUDGE on the other hand, may not just get you fired, but JAILED for contempt. Former Singaporean and now US citizen Gopalan Nair accused judge Belinda Ang in his blog of ‘prostituting herself’ to PM Lee and his father during court proceedings whereby they were testifying in a defamation suit against the SDP. He got slapped with a 3 month jail sentence. Leslie Chew, cartoonist, was charged with scandalising the judiciary after mocking the system in his comic strip Demon-cratic Singapore.  Both cases suggest that you can get away with dropping F-bombs on WORLD LEADERS, but not High Court judges. Or maybe not quite. DPM Teo Chee Hean once invited JC student Reuben Wang over for a chat after the latter blogged ‘Fuck you, sir’ in response to the Minister’s handling of questions at a seminar. The kid apologised overnight.

So this knee-jerk dismissal of Ridhuan may be a ‘missed opportunity’ for our PM to show some grace under fire, to invite Ridhuan over for some kueh lapis and tea, show him the YPAP recruitment video, and turn his angry soul into one with a passion for servant leadership. School of Life indeed.

 

 

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 296 other followers