Chan Chun Sing : Dr Chee Soon Juan betrayed his own mentor, Mr Chiam See Tong.


Response to Huffington Post articles “Without Freedom There is No Free Trade” and and “Free the Singapore Media and Let the People Go” by Chan Chun Sing

Your website has given Dr Chee Soon Juan considerable but undeserved attention and space. You perhaps believe that he is a weighty political figure in Singapore. He is nothing of the kind.

Dr Chee has stood for elections thrice – and lost badly all three times, once receiving just 20% of the vote.

The party he now leads, the Singapore Democratic Party, was once the leading opposition party in the country. But that was when it was led by Mr Chiam See Tong, a man everyone in Singapore, political friend and foe alike, regards as an honourable man.

Indeed, it was Mr Chiam who brought Dr Chee into the SDP in 1992. He mentored the younger man and promoted him. Dr Chee then proceeded to betray Mr Chiam, isolate him and force him out of the SDP, a party that he had founded in 1980 and had nurtured over 14 years. Since then the SDP hasn’t won a single seat in Parliament, though Mr Chiam himself went on to win elections repeatedly.

In 1993, Dr Chee was dismissed from the National University of Singapore for misappropriating research funds and for other serious misconduct, including surreptitiously recording conversations with university staff.

He has been sued for defamation not only by ruling party politicians, a fact that he likes to trumpet in the foreign media, but also by the doyen of the opposition in Singapore, Mr Chiam, a fact that he doesn’t mention because it is embarrassing.

And in 1996, Dr Chee and three of his associates were convicted of perjury by Parliament tor submitting false statements to a Special Parliamentary Committee. This is the equivalent of Congress convicting someone of perjury, a most serious offence.

It is because of these and other failings that Dr Chee is a political failure — not because he was persecuted, as he likes to pretend. His party is now one of the weakest political parties in Singapore principally because voters do not regard its leader as an honourable man.

Dr Chee was disqualified from contesting the last two General Elections because he was declared a bankrupt in 2006 for failing to pay damages for libel to former Prime Ministers Lee Kuan Yew and Goh Chok Tong. He was discharged from bankruptcy in 2012 after the former Prime Ministers agreed to accept a reduced sum in damages. Since then Dr Chee has been campaigning to redeem himself in the public eye in preparation for the next General Election.

As he has done in the past, he has looked to the foreign media for redemption, chiefly because foreign journalists don’t know him as well as Singaporeans and he believes he can beguile them into believing he is the Aung San Suu Kyi of Singapore politics. Dr Chee, however, claims he is forced to publish in the foreign media because he has been silenced in the Singapore media.

But this is false. There are several socio-political websites in Singapore, some with as wide a reach among Singaporeans as the Huffington Post has among Americans. They have run several articles by Dr Chee. The local press also has carried several of Dr Chee’s letters.

Dr Chee’s problem is not that he has not been heard by Singaporeans. His problem is that they have.


Chan Chun Sing

Minister for Social and Family Development, Singapore
Source link  : CNA – >  Chan Chun Sing rebuffs Huffington Post for running articles by Chee Soon Juan



Mr K Shanmugam : The Protection from Harassment Act is now in force

Protecting harrassment victims and the vulnerable

The Protection from Harassment Act is now in force.

Avenues for self-help and civil remedies for victims of harassment are available under the Act.

Victims can also claim for damages separately. In very egregious cases, harassers may also face criminal prosecution. These two measures will complement the Protection Order, creating a ladder of remedies for victims.

However, harassment cannot be dealt with by laws alone. Each of us has a part to play in cultivating community norms, and educating each other on what constitutes socially acceptable behaviour.

Our children have a right to grow up in a safe environment, free from discrimination and bullying by peers. We should be free from intimidating, hostile and abusive environment, be it at home or at the workplace, online or offline.

The Act puts in place a framework for stopping behaviour which is socially unacceptable, and which better protects the vulnerable.

CPF money is always returned – IN FULL, but those who donate their money to Roy Ngerng will never again see their money. And woh ! M Ravi earns more than a senior counsel ?!

image -> Actually, I’m a technician


Overheard from QY:

So Roy’s lawyer earns more than a senior counsel?
He gave the figure of $70k himself when he asked for donations. Hahaha

He can inflate his lawyer’s legal fee to any amount he wants since he isn’t paying for it. It’s public donations and he is well able to manipulate people’s emotions to get them to donate. No one has any idea how much of the donations has been spent or how they were spent. There is no transparency or accountability.

The government raised the draw down age so that they can keep your CPF forever?
That’s a big lie.

What is true is that those who donate their money to Roy will never again see that money.

Since when was anyone unable to take back his CPF?
The older generation had already withdrawn all their CPF. The younger old are receiving their monthly payouts. People are using their CPF to buy their property, to pay medical bills and insurance and more. If a person lives to a ripe old age, the monthly payouts he receives in total exceeds what he has in his retirement account. If unfortunately he dies early, whatever money he has left in his CPF will be distributed to his family members according to his nomination. If he had not made any nomination, then the money will still be distributed to his family members – according to intestacy laws.

Either way, the CPF money is always returned – IN FULL.

Comment :
At my age of 74 years, I totally agree with the writer’s comment regarding the CPF.

Thru CPF I own my HDB Flat ( now rented ) n CPF has never fail to pay me.

Current income gives me much more than I need n yet to see the need of my personal saving, all thanks to our country’s good system …


Overheard :

  • These 2 person, Roy & HHH are deem clever. If you are not successful in life due to deficiency of capability, the least is they know that a bunch of anti-PAP supporters would like to listen, cheers and support regardless. The more they spoke against the Ruling party, (any bullshit also can) the better and more money they get. I wonder if they might even get a long term salary to continue their act.
  • If it is not 70K , who in the right mind ( not even Ravi) will represent him for blalantly defamation of a country Prime Minister.
    It is suicide , R&R ( Roy and Ravi ) are both in it for the money ,only very naive people can’t see that.
  • The only suckers here were the people who donated the amount…
    I wonder how they are feeling now..
  • PM Lee’s legal fee is assessed to be $29,000, but Ravi’s legal fee to represent Roy Ngerng is $70,000 (based on this, Roy managed to crowd-source $110K).
    Superb business model. Were you conned?

*****************************************************************************Reference :

CPF is more transparent than Roy Ngerng. M Ravi is wrong, and Roy Ngerng has made yet another baseless allegation

Allegations by Roy Ngerng’s legal team ‘baseless’, says PM’s Press Secretary

Source : CNA -> Allegations by Ngerng’s legal team ‘baseless’, says PM’s Press Secretary

POSTED: 13 Jan 2015

SINGAPORE: Ms Chang Li-Lin, the Press Secretary to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, on Tuesday (Jan 13) cited legal notes to rebut a statement from Roy Ngerng’s lawyers, which said Ms Chang had issued an “inaccurate statement” and was “misinformed” over the blogger’s willingness to be cross-examined.

Said Ms Chang in a statement issued to the media on Tuesday: “(Mr Ngerng’s lawyer) M Ravi is wrong, and Mr Ngerng, who was not present during this part of the hearing, has made yet another baseless allegation.” Her statement was based on notes taken by Drew & Napier, who are representing Mr Lee in the defamation lawsuit.

“My statement that the Prime Minister stood ready to be cross-examined right from the beginning and had previously informed the Court of that position is also correct,” she added, citing a letter dated Dec 22, 2014, and court submissions on Jan 9 this year as occasions on which Drew & Napier had indicated to the court that Mr Lee was ready to be cross-examined.

In their letter on Tuesday morning, the office of Mr Ravi had also asked whether it was appropriate for Ms Chang, “a civil servant”, to be “issuing press releases on behalf of a private litigant”. In response, Ms Chang said in her press statement: “He appears to have forgotten that, as the Court has found, Mr Ngerng falsely alleged that ‘the plaintiff, the Prime Minister of Singapore… is guilty of criminal misappropriation of the monies paid by Singaporeans to the CPF’.

“It is therefore entirely proper for me to deal with this matter as the Prime Minister’s Press Secretary.”

Ms Chang’s statement, in full, is as follows:

Yesterday evening, Mr Roy Ngerng said in a blog post that I and the media lied in saying that “Mr Ngerng’s lawyer indicated at the hearing that Mr Ngerng did not want to be cross-examined”.

This morning, Mr M Ravi issued a statement to the media saying that the following statement by me is inaccurate, and that I have been misinformed: “…Mr Ngerng’s lawyer indicated at the hearing that Mr Ngerng did not want to be cross-examined. The judge directed his lawyer to confirm this by 30 January 2015. PM Lee stands ready to be cross-examined, a position he has maintained right from the beginning.”

Mr Ravi is wrong, and Mr Ngerng, who was not present during this part of the hearing, has made yet another baseless allegation.

Mr Ravi said his statement was based on his “recollection”. But my statement was based on contemporaneous notes of the hearing taken by Drew & Napier.

Drew & Napier’s notes show that the following exchange took place in Court yesterday:

Footnote: According to Drew & Napier, the following shorthand was used in the notes: “P” (Plaintiff) is Mr Davinder Singh SC, “MR” is Mr M Ravi, “D” (Defendant) is Mr Roy Ngerng, “J” refers to the Judge, “AEIC” is affidavit of evidence in chief, “aff” is affidavit, “xxing” is cross-examining, “YH” is Your Honour, “wks” is weeks, “app” is application and “PTC” is pre-trial conference. The relevant extracts are attached.

P: Will D be filing aff?
MR: No
P: Is D calling any other witness?
MR: I will be seeking to rely on docs filed by my client in lower
J: Unless they ordered to stand as AEICs, not in evidence
MR: I ask that RN’s affidavit stand as AEIC
J: How many?
MR: 1.
J: Aff he filed in O 14 below to stand as AEIC?
P: I will be xxing if standing as AEIC.
MR: Therefore, I won’t be filing.
Enough YH I won’t be filing
J: I suggest you go through his docs and see if all docs you want to
rely on are there
MR: 2 wks from now?
J: liberty to D to apply within 2 wks, by 31 Jan 2015, leave to submit
J: Might make sense for you to give new aff if only 1-2 docs
P: If D chooses to give AEIC in whatever form, I will be xxing.
J: Until 31 Jan if you have anything you can apply for leave.
MR: If my client decides to file AEIC, does he have to file app?
J: Will be a further PTC.
Write to inform the Registry that D wishes to tender evidence
Write in before 31 Jan. Will schedule PTC for you in Feb to give
necessary leave.
J: Liberty to D to apply to give evidence on or before 31 Jan
Ms Yap tells me 31 Jan is Sat
30 Jan?
MR: Ok

From the notes, it is clear that Mr Ravi had informed the Court that Mr Ngerng would rely on the affidavit filed by him in the earlier summary judgment application as his evidence for the purposes of the assessment of damages. Mr Davinder Singh then gave Mr Ravi notice that if Mr Ngerng was going to give evidence for the purposes of the assessment of damages, Mr Singh would be cross-examining Mr Ngerng. Whereupon Mr Ravi promptly changed his position, and informed the Court that Mr Ngerng would “Therefore” not be filing any evidence.

This was the clearest indication that Mr Ngerng did not want to be crossexamined.

After saying that Mr Ngerng intended to rely on an earlier affidavit as his evidence, Mr Ravi did a hasty U-turn after Mr Singh said that he will cross-examine Mr Ngerng if he gives evidence. Mr Ravi was so determined that Mr Ngerng not be cross-examined that he even said to the Court “Enough Y[our] H[onour] I won’t be filing”.

In his statement, Mr Ravi said that if “the client choses [sic] to give evidence… he will be liable to cross examination. If he does not, he will not”. That explains why Mr Ravi changed his position at the hearing.

As is also clear from the notes, Mr Ravi’s statement that “If my instructions had been that my client did not wish to give evidence and I had indeed conveyed that fact to the Court, it would have been illogical for the learned Judge to have asked me to confirm this by 30 January 2015” is also incorrect. The fact is that after Mr Ravi said that Mr Ngerng would not be giving evidence, and even after he tried to end the discussion, the Court asked Mr Ravi to consider the matter and let the Court and Drew & Napier know by 30 January 2015 if Mr Ngerng would be giving evidence.

My statement that the Prime Minister stood ready to be cross-examined right from the beginning and had previously informed the Court of that position is also correct.

There are two parts to this case.

The first was the application for summary judgment. That application was decided on the basis of affidavit evidence, and the issue of cross-examination did not arise. Judgment was given in favour of the Prime Minister on 7 November 2014.

The second is the assessment of damages where evidence is given on the stand and the witnesses are subject to cross-examination. That process began with the Prime Minister’s application for directions that was filed on 18 November 2014.

At the very first hearing of that application, which took place on 19 December 2014, Mr Singh informed the Court in Mr Ravi’s presence that the Prime Minister will give evidence and that any suggestion that the Prime Minister is not to be cross-examined should be dispelled.

Drew & Napier indicated to the Court and to Mr Ravi on at least two more occasions before yesterday’s hearing that the Prime Minister stands ready to be cross-examined. The first was by a letter dated 22 December 2014 and the second was in submissions which were filed in Court and served on Mr Ravi on 9 January 2015.

Finally, Mr Ravi has asked whether it is appropriate for the Prime Minister’s Press Secretary to issue statements in connection with this case. He appears to have forgotten that, as the Court has found, Mr Ngerng falsely alleged that “the plaintiff, the Prime Minister of Singapore… is guilty of criminal misappropriation of the monies paid by Singaporeans to the CPF”. It is therefore entirely proper for me to deal with this matter as the Prime Minister’s Press Secretary.

The CPF Advisory Panel : more flexibility to come while maintaining CPF’ role of providing for retirement.

do you know_cpf


CPF system needs to be flexible but still provide for retirement: CPF Advisory Panel

source : CNA -> CPF system needs to be flexible but still provide for retirement: CPF Advisory Panel  By POSTED: 10 Jan 2015 SINGAPORE: Singapore’s national savings scheme, the Central Provident Fund (CPF) system, should provide flexibility in areas such as lump sum withdrawals while maintaining its role of providing for retirement.

The CPF Advisory Panel chair, Professor Tan Chorh Chuan, shared this with the media on Saturday (Jan 10) after the end of the first round of focus group discussions, which sought views on topics related to enhancing the CPF system.

One of the questions posed during the discussion was how much should CPF members be able to withdraw at age 65. One of the participants of the focus group was Ms Triena Noeline Ong, who is 69 years old and director of etymology at International Book Publishing & Editorial Services. She said: “When I turned 55, which was some time ago, I could withdraw all the CPF that was permissible, which I did. Then it was the economic crisis, so I lost a lot of it. I feel that the lump sum withdrawal is not a good idea but if you have excess of the minimum sum, perhaps you could withdraw that.”

Another praticipant, social worker Benjamin Ho, was supportive of more flexible lump sum withdrawals. He said: “For legitimate reasons such as unemployment and other medical issues that are not covered at the moment… Would they be allowed to withdraw a certain amount of money? So that at least they are able to foot their debt and are able to start off on a more stable footing and plan towards retirement.”

About 40 people attended the focus group discussion, with participants from different age groups and diverse backgrounds. This is the tenth focus group discussion by the CPF Advisory Panel. Around 400 people have given their views thus far. During the discussions, participants were consulted on topics such as CPF payouts and lump sum withdrawals at 65 years old. The panel has also received about 150 written submissions.

“What we have heard is that many people would like the flexibility of a lump sum withdrawal, but yet they also recognise that there has to be some conditions set so that it does not erode into the long-term payouts, which are also very important,” said Prof Tan.

“Again, we will take this on board to make sure that we can provide some flexibility, but yet at the same time, ensure that we maintain the very important role that CPF has – to ensure some level of adequate support over the much longer lifetime that most Singaporeans now enjoy.”

Currently, a Minimum Sum of S$155,000 is set aside for CPF members who turn 55 from July 2014 to June 2015. When the member reaches 65, there is a monthly payout of about S$1,200 for life. In July 2015, the Minimum Sum amount will be adjusted to S$161,000.

Prof Tan said the discussions threw up a “wide diversity of needs” but the panel recognised that if it tried to encompass all concerns, it would make the system complicated. He added: “The CPF is one very important element of retirement adequacy provision, but it cannot also cater for all types of circumstances – otherwise the scheme would just become too difficult to understand and administer. So fundamentally, it requires us to stay very focused on what are the most important roles of CPF and how best can we provide that flexibility so that it can serve Singaporeans better.”

The panel will submit its first findings to the Government by early February 2015. These will touch on issues such as the Minimum Sum, lump sum withdrawal and payouts.

There will be further focus group discussions on how to provide more flexibility for members seeking higher returns, be it through private investment plans or annuities. These recommendations should be out by the middle of 2015.

how to defeat terrorism ? Not over reacting and Stay Clam !

Chan Chun Sing -> Chan Chun Sing

10 Jan 2015

We discussed terrorism at last night’s informal policy discussion. The ongoing situation in France is a stark reminder to our challenges.

Hope participants have gotten fresh perspectives on how we need to counter terrorism – from detection, deterrence, crisis management to ultimately building the resilience of our society.

It is not easy. We cannot be complacent. Terrorists will seek to disrupt our way of life through violence, killing innocents etc to create fear and panic. Our challenge is to deny them from doing just that.

Early detection requires not just the vigilance of the security agencies but the whole society.

Deterrence is not just about securing our facilities or punishing the perpetrators. But it must encompass going after the real masterminds who manipulate their foot soldiers to do what fulfills their agendas.

Resilience, not over reacting, staying clam, and responding logically will all be important to send the message that we will not be defeated by the terrorist acts. Nor will we succumb to their goals to disrupt our peace and normalcy. We must not allow their acts to attract even more attention and support.

Vigilance and resilience will determine our victory or defeat…


Overheard : 

  • The how do we defeat them was very interesting. We must know the perpetrator’s motive. One of which is to cause fear and disruption to our way of life. If we are resilient during an attack and not cause undue panic and fear, the perpetrator’s goal will be defeated.
  • Yes agreed. To recover fast and live life as per normal.

Lee Kuan Yew (LKY) became an easy target

Source – > Zaid Ibrahim On Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew

Zaid Ibrahim On Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew

August 16, 2013

COMMENT: I have read many books and articles on Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew including his memoirs and his latest, One Man’s View of the World. He is no doubt a brilliant man and a formidable force in our part of the world. His take on politics, economics,. international affairs, and history is read, debated and respected by all who are in interested in public policy and management, and statecraft . Like him or not, let us give him due credit for his stellar achievements.

Lee-Kuan-Yew-book-singapore-060813_360_524_100We in Malaysia–not all of course–cannot accept that Mr. Lee has been able to transform a colonial backwater into a modern and dynamic Singapore.  More so, because he is seen as a living remainder that we have failed in nation building. For Mr. Lee, nation building was a challenge thrown at when we decided that Singapore should leave Malaysia in 1965. He took that challenge and made Singapore a model of good governance. That is an achievement not to be scoffed off.

I admire Mr. Lee for his vision, integrity, capacity to choose his leadership team, and  tenacity in overcoming adversity. He was tough on his political adversaries. But then so was Mahathir. But unlike our former Prime Minister, Mr. Lee was able to resist the temptation to lecture and badger his successors. In stead, he became a statesmen for his country. I am of course glad that Zaid Ibrahim has written this article and I congratulate him for it.

I for one strongly advocate the idea of learning from others. It takes humility, not arrogance to acknowledge someone’s achievements. Learning starts with humility and  an open mind.  –Din Merican


Zaid Ibrahim On Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew

“There is no need to suffer from some complex about Singapore and always belittle the old man (Lee Kuan Yew) and other leaders for that matter when they say something about us that is less than flattering”.–Zaid Ibrahim

Lee Kuan Yew (LKY) became an easy target for our national and Pakatan Rakyat leaders when he recently commented on how Malaysia was suffering from the effects of its race-based politics.

Their response was typical of Malaysian politicians from both sides of the divide: they hurled personal insults at the ageing Singaporean leader that offered little insight into the real issues. The Opposition’s Karpal Singh and Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim put it as (A) mind your own business and (B) your ideas are no longer useful.

As for the Barisan Nasional, they pointed out that Singapore is also racially biased and therefore unqualified to speak on the subject.UMNO leaders then loudly proclaimed that the “Malays first” policy is here to stay and that the Malays are not ready for any change. End of story.

I am reluctant to defend LKY as I think he was heartless when he was in power and he punished his opponents too harshly for my liking. However, I do admire his pragmatic approach to public policy. His strength of conviction and willingness to be unpopular is well known, and it was firmly rooted in his belief that his policies were good for the people.

Like China’s Deng Xiaoping, he favoured policies that were practical and useful to the general public.Deng’s famous saying, “It doesn’t matter whether a cat is white or black, as long as it catches mice” cleverly encapsulated this practicality.

Deng understood that a market economy was crucial for his country’s survival and competitiveness and gradually guided China away from the ideals of Mao Tse Tung.

LKY took a similarly pragmatic approach when he said that Mandarin and local dialects had to take a back seat as mastering English had to be a top priority for Singapore.

I am not an ideologue myself because ideology seldom solves anything; in fact, I think it brings misery to its believers.I am inclined to support anything that works and leads to a tangible improvement in people’s lives.

Policies that work have measurable results and are mindful of the resources that are needed (policies that use enormous resources and achieve few results are simply no good).

It’s obvious to me that we need to give up the present culture of race-based policies, not because LKY said so, but because they simply don’t work.

We need to stop doing a disservice to those who are excluded as well as to the Malays who are supposedly the beneficiaries of these policies.Surely 40 years is enough time for us to see that, collectively, these policies are the mother of all that ails the country.

The simple fact is that Singapore is a first world country today and we are third, in whichever way we define it.

In 1965 Singapore was a small island state that drew its revenue from small ships anchoring at its ports and from several thousand British Navy personnel in Woodlands spending their money there.

There didn’t seem to be much for the island to build on but LKY did it.  The world has recognised his contribution to transforming this third world island into a first world metropolis. Only Malaysian leaders do not. I call it envy.

On the other hand, Malaya and later Malaysia started on much happier ground: endowed with among the richest natural resources in Asia, it had public institutions that were respected by many outside the country.

We were the success story of the Commonwealth. Today we are a lot less successful, whichever way we look at it. Some say we are sliding down a slope and picking up speed.

I am not endorsing everything that LKY and other leaders in Singapore have done, and neither am I ignoring the differences—cultural and otherwise—between our two countries.

There are huge differences of course, but we need to admit that in the last 50 years we have done something wrong and they have done something right.

There is no need to suffer from some complex about Singapore and always belittle the old man and other leaders for that matter when they say something about us that is less than flattering.

Shouldn’t we learn from how LKY curbed corruption and how he transformed the communist-infested Singaporean universities into what many consider to be among the world’s best institutions of higher learning?

If we are honest then we cannot possibly deny LKY’s many achievements, and we should be humble enough to listen to him.

I believe our Prime Minister is also a pragmatic leader and so I hope he will not be discouraged from meeting his Singaporean counterpart and LKY to exchange views.

If our PM depends too much on Utusan Malaysia and the old guards, then our prospects will remain dim for the next 50 years. Then who will we blame for our failures? The Chinese I guess, if they are still around. – The Malaysian Insider, August 14, 2013.