The Online Citizen

The blogger vs the PM – the writing is on the wall

The blogger vs the PM – the writing is on the wall
June 02
14:07 2014

By Howard Lee

$50,000. That is a lot of money by Singaporean standards, especially if you consider it was raised in a few days.

For sure, blogger Roy Ngerng raised this amount by crowd-sourcing to fund for his legal battle against Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, and a few dollars from a lot of people is technically not that much to each.

But it is precisely this “few dollars from a lot of people” that deserves our attention. Looking at Ngerng’s chart of the donations pouring in, the money came in little bits and pieces. There was no one major sponsor, in what can only be described as a true grassroot effort. $10, $20, $50 – these are the kind of denominations that most would donate weekly to church when the hat gets passed around (and no, I’m not talking about the mega churches with credit card charging for tithe).

We may never know exactly what went through the minds of donors when they chipped in to this cause, but it is clear that a lot of people have rallied behind Ngerng and are doing what they can to support him for what happened. What do they think happened? The comments left by his donors are telling, because they represent the voices of people who are willing to put good money where their mouths are.

“My Hero Roy”, “KeepTheFaith”, “Support Roy”, “Dragon Slayer”, “4ROY”, “Stupid but Selfless Good Luck” and so on were some of the comments left by donors who wish to support Ngerng as a person. Even if he had openly and unreservedly apologised for the specific post that the PM had found offensive and defamatory, Ngerng has grown larger than life. David versus Goliath, the dragon slayer, the man who took on the Prime Minister – Ngerng has become a Singapore legend. Whether such a status is healthy for either Ngerng or the public remains debatable, but we can no longer deny that such are the honest views of some.

In that sense, Ngerng has embodied what many see as the struggle by the man on the street against the powers that be, never mind that Ngerng is by now fully aware of the dreadful consequences of this tussle. Such a struggle is not uncommon in society and the public is wont to search for heroes. Against who or what do his donors think Ngerng is struggling against?

The answer to this lies in another variant of comments. “BigBullyLHL”, “F**KLHL”, “shame on Leepengsun”, “Greedy Lee”, “Slap2 Pinky”, “2016papsuck”, “Support ROY against unrepentant PAP” and more point to one sentiment: That there is a segment of our population that feel indignant about the legal action that PM Lee has taken against Ngerng, and by extension what they perceive to be the collective will of those in power to silence their critics.

Whether or not they see Ngerng as a martyr is beside the point. What we can see, and take heart in, is that a certain segment of Singaporeans have developed an immense sense of social justice, such that they are able to see when someone has no need or want for money or reputation, that the relentless and unyielding quest for damages has evidently gone overboard.

Indeed, the PM and the ruling People’s Action Party have grown to symbolise everything that is wrong with the way power relations have developed in Singapore. People have grown weary of the power elite constantly using, as a matter of fact, completely legal means of defeating their detractors. Many politicians not from the ruling party or foreign journalists have paid the price, but when the axe falls on someone who has barely stepped into the political arena, a line has clearly been crossed.

Whether it is fair for the public to put hard-earned money into championing social justice is a point of contention – some are rightfully indignant that everyday citizens should never have to be subject to such pressures, much less pay the price for what is fundamentally the constitutional obligation of the state to protect. What is clear, however, is that in today’s climate, Singaporeans no longer fear contributing to what they believe to be just.

What is more important to note is that many have associated the PM with the PAP in this case. The case itself clearly states that it is the PM, in his personal capacity, that is claiming damages. The association is not merely a convenient link between the head of government with his party, but the automatic attribution of such unfairness with the PAP. It remains to be seen if the PM’s legal bout has further damaged the PAP’s reputation, or if the PAP’s reputation has made any action by its leader to be bullying-by-default. What is clear is that both party and person have suffered reputation loss just by the PM persisting to seek damages.

And yet, there is a third and final line of comments that cannot be ignored. “Right to know”, “81YrGranny”, “For Democracy”, “Need truths”, “uncover the truth”, “Singaporean”, “For the People” and other such comments seem to point to what a segment of the population believe to be the root cause of the entire fracas, and which is still lacking today – government and accountability.

For whatever reason the PM has to embark on this course of destroying his own reputation, it has not detracted some from clearly seeing Ngerng’s legitimate claim that the ways Singapore’s Central Provident Fund has been used and mobilised lie mostly opaque to citizens, the CPF’s most important and only financiers.

It is indeed strange that donors have amalgamated the legal tussle, which again Ngerng has openly admitted to be at fault, with the broader issue of government transparency and accountability. Rightly or wrongly, the association does demonstrate that the people have identified what is right and wrong in the court room, as much as what is right and wrong in our government, and have no qualms about chipping in to pursue what is right in both.

Heroism, social justice, government accountability – am I reading too much into a few comment? Perhaps. But the social movement is upon us, and this is yet another milestone in how politics and online media in Singapore have collided.

Whatever happens to Ngerng in the aftermath of this clash is no longer avoidable. What remains to be seen is whether the government can, quite literally, read the writing on Ngerng’s blog, do the right thing and salvage what little moral authority it has left.

 
  • Arnold_Chong
    • Arnold_Chong

      Excellent article by Mr Howard Lee.

      TOC readers should also read the view of a new citizens who has written to TRE.
      It probably reflects the views of most citizens.

      In the past, such bullying and intimidation mostly remained a dirty little secret among citizens.

      But with foreign talents accounting for more than half the present population, we can expect these foreign talents to be very apprehensive when they see Singaporeans being terrorized into silence.

      As this new citizens has articulated, are having second thoughts about their children growing up in a fearful environment under the regime where expressing your rights as a citizen could get you in deep trouble.

      Many Singaporeans warned the regime not to take legal action against Mr Ngerng as the move would backfire disastrously on them.

      The didn’t heed our warnings and now many new citizens will either pack up and leave or vote against the regime, for the sake of their children.

      • Ng Chun Yi

        Freedom of speech means freedom of responsible speech. It does not give one the right to slander, libel, or even promote hate speech.

        Well I guess some people will never get it. This is when human rights advocates such as Howard Lee take human rights too far.

        No one is against criticism of government policies, but Roy did it the wrong way.

        LTK and Chiam See Tong have criticized government policies without being sued for defamation. So don’t bring in JBJ’s and Chee Soon Juan’s case.

        Look at the opposition MPs in Parliament now, none of them has been sued for defamation either! So stop giving excuses for RN.

        • Jaws

          Awesome response.

          • nelsonmandala

            and JAWs..YOU didnt even clicked a LIKE for jawie?

        • saveus

          Yes one should promote responsible speech. I agree with you there if everyone started cussing and swearing at each other at the MRT and streets and online there would be only be hell. But where do you draw the line between responsible and irresponsible? If Roy indeed had the balls to put up a defamatory political post about the PM to highlight the discrepancy and mismatch in what Singaporeans are getting and should be getting, don’t you think he has a good reason for doing so in the spirit of fighting for Singaporeans? Also as part of the electorate in Singapore don’t you think he deserves to have his opinions on CPF heard in online space? What legal action did was very petty and shows a great disconnect with the people in the failure to manage criticism of retirement policy. I believe Roy has his rationalizations and sincerity and many people share his view of ‘money no enough’ just that he articulated it strongly

          • Ng Chun Yi

            I disagree that he has a good reason for doing so in the spirit of fighting for Singaporeans. He has his own political and personal agenda.

            While I do not disagree that he the right to criticize the CPF, it doesn’t mean everyone should agree with him or listen to him. In fact I do not agree with his posts on CPF.

            By the way, the PM initially issued a letter of demand. If PM was really petty, he would not have given so many extensions. The final straw was when Roy disseminated the “deleted” posts to others and made the video private instead of deleting.

          • jessie

            If you cannot see the wrong of the PM in issuing the demand notice instead of coming clean with the accounts on the CPF, you have been
            brainwashed completely. CPF funds are sacred because they belong to
            the Public!
            -Jessie

          • Ng Chun Yi

            Jessie, I disagree that PM is wrong in issuing the demand notice. Roy, being the one who slandered the PM should provide proof of misappropriating funds first. Otherwise he is just bullshitting.

            Let me make it clear that I am not against people criticizing government policies. Looks you are the one being brainwashed by shit from alternative media.

          • Samson

            Roy is a contributor of the fund himself therefore there is no need for him to proof anything if he feels that he has been mis-sold. He would not have gone so far if the PM had given some answers. Enough time had passed for the PM to respond but he did not, therefore the outcome is justified.

          • jessie

            To be able to provide proof, Roy has to have access to the audited accounts of the CPF which is in the PM’s hands. The PM is fully aware of this and his refusal to open the books means Roy does not get a fair trial. I hope the court will exercise its jurisdiction fairly .
            -Jessie

          • saveus

            of course everyone has their own agenda… especially so for PAP politicians. Funny thing is how media in SG always like to emphasize the delicate bits of personal life like sex partners…. and so on. Now, how is that linked to the criticism of retirement policy for the general population? Roy serves good doubts and criticisms but they were not answered, and instead they clapped a writ of summon on him.

            The letter of demand was intended to extract an apology publicly, a retraction, and an offer that he called ‘derisory’ although it was a substantial amount to an average Singaporean (SGD $5000). Now, Roy has to raise amount from friends, relatives, supporters, etc.

            Roy responds in typical free, idealistic styles. Why is government so afraid to address the concerns of a common citizen, who is part of the electorate? If the CPF was transparent and gave enough for average citizen to retire, they would not need to accuse anyone of the mismatch and gap in the retirement policy. I do not think it is mangnanimous to sue a common citizen for some comments that are made in a blog. In a contest of ideas and free speech, that is what internet is about. Freedom and creativity.

            CPF is clearly not serving its full purpose. No doubt, it is petty.

          • Ng Chun Yi

            While I disagree with bringing in Roy’s sexual orientation as it is irrelevant to the CPF debate, this does not mean the Roy is cleared of wrongdoing.

            When I criticized Roy and pointed out his mistakes in some of his past articles on his hearttruths blog, he tried to turn and twist away without admitting his mistakes.

            So before you criticize the government in your posts, how is Roy any better for evading criticism?

          • Hearus

            You missed a key point to free speech. To be able to express without fear of prosecution. That expression can be right or wrong, and is subjective. That is also a choice of the audience to receive or listen. Nobody guards over each other, and put in his/her perception and interpretation of righteousness.

            You are defining and limiting free speech. What is free, when an artificial boundary is being defined by someone else in their own moral standards?

            A public servant who sue on the slightest is installing fear to others, that he is beyond reproach. How many world leaders have not experienced been criticized, condemned, protested?

          • nelsonmandala

            Ng Chun Yi saveus
            He has his own political and personal agenda.

            ………..
            ok ROY did admit he is seekin a NMP positions
            YOU ley? waitin for the primister to automatically grant YOU one perhaps?
            lets be honest ere..shall we?
            on a 1-to-1 erections contest…
            ROY wud defitenitely WON even if its contested in a single tanjong pagar electorate

    • Jaws

      You spend the majority of your online life trawling anti PAP websites, participating in online mob lynching, and at every opportunity post all things hateful about PAP how you resent them with your guts?

      Do you even have energy for sex after like a whole day of this online PAP trolling? It’s like your raison d’être to see to PAP being overthrown man.

      Scary. We’ve got a Gilbert Goh in real life and a Arnold Chong in reel life.

      • nelsonmandala

        Jaws Arnold_Chong
        Do you even have energy for sex after like a whole day of this online PAP trolling?

        …………….
        and YOU do perhaps? i hav seen YOUR model gaefren in the arms of muthusamy the aney foreign worker yesterday in desker road

  • Jaws

    It’s sad to see people championing what essentially is a flawed agenda of social justice.

    People do not consider that for two years Roy kia has been free to do whatever he wants and was only cuffed when he mentioned about PM Lee misappropriating funds.

    It’s sad to see how society has degenerated.

    • freespeech

      it is sad to see people who have been silenced into submission, a product of political miseducation. People who actually think politicians are imperial rulers, instead of servants of the electorate. That is the true degeneration.

  • saveus

    PAP’s authority is ending. They can’t cope with criticism. Suing is so 1960s, can.

    • Ng Chun Yi

      It is one thing to criticize government policies, and it’s a different issue when it comes to slander!

      • saveus

        politicians all over the world are accused of fraud by their opponents and their citizens, yet they take it calmly and respond as they know they are the custodian of public trust and they need to serve the people. If the PM treated Roy as one of the many good taxpaying people, and part of the electorate he would not resort to this highly escalated, exaggerated, 1960-ish political fashion show.

        • Ng Chun Yi

          Please look at Thailand and how the military responded to their opponents and the Thai citizens.

          The thing is, Roy slandered the PM period. Get this into your brain.

          • saveus

            Yes and so what? If a politician who is paid millions cannot take this and manage it and demands a pound of flesh for this ‘insult’ its like a major PR disaster for himself.

            Oh you compare to thailand? Thailand what? So you are saying we should be thankful that we dont have a coup? You are so illogical. I think you have the clouded brain.

          • disqus_68Zawwd9yI

            Please go read up on outcry recently in Australia over Abbott’s daughter receiving scholarship which is raising alot of questions… you dont see Tony abbott going around suing people

          • Carpediem

            one is a first world country, the other is a first world pretender..If Obama sues everyone who insults him, he’ll sue someone every 30 seconds

          • PikuChoo

            The question you need to ask is HOW did the situation develop to a point where the ground became fertile enough for a Roy to slander the PM?

          • nelsonmandala

            so in YOUR frickin mind maybe the primister shud mobilised the arm forces and brin ROY to national stadium hav ROY shot and his carcass thrown over the marina barge perhaps?

          • Samson

            Ya, to these ancients, TREASON is a crime punishable by death.

          • reuel

            But to these ancients, the people would have overthrown the government by now.

          • Susu

            Then Roy = hero !

          • anasazi

            i had to read 2 times what you wrote omg. Thailand’s situation is SO different from Singapore. are you saying just because of ONE blogger can send the state into emergency and command military to curb the blogger and then we go into coup d’etat Singapore ? LOL!!! thanks for making me laugh!

          • Susu

            PM period ?? Brain cancer !

          • Weng Keong

            Forget Thailand. Think for Singapore. When you pay Minister $$$$ we expect transparency.

      • Jaws

        And dissenters here generally can’t tell the difference in their clouded brains.

        • jessie

          You are talking about yourself !
          -Jessie

          • Ng Chun Yi

            Jaws is talking about people like you.

          • jessie

            Ask yourself why LHL doesn’t come out with the CPF accounts?
            -Jessie

          • nelsonmandala

            maybe you are torkin bout your ada 1/2 jawie perhaps?

          • Susu

            Yes, he is saying that political gangster will be dead of cancer very soon. I just reply Jaws. Glad to hear that good news

        • Susu

          Not clouded brains, it is the cancer brain of that political gangster, he is dying very soon and go to hell.

      • Dragon Slainer

        Ng Chun Yi, if you cannot stand the heat, then get out of the kitchen! Did you see Obama sue anyone who scolded him, slandered him etc?? Amazing Singapore government indeed! Amazing Pinky rat indeed!

        • Jaws

          In America you can buy drugs at your “void deck” too.

          • Susu

            But buy drug in singapore is illegal. Buy drug to stop the pain caused by brain. cancer is allowable. So, that political gangster can keep this drug for his cancer.

      • Samson

        The PM is suing for damage to his reputation. Slandering itself is not a crime unless damage has been done. The courts will be very busy otherwise. Let me assure you, I am against the PM not because of Roy’s writing or slander, it is the PM’s subsequent action that causes the ill repute. If anything the PM has defamed himself.

        Just so we are clear, are you saying just because he is the PM, he should be protected against some words?

        • Jaws

          Don’t act lawyer lah. Just follow the law lah. Don’t understand get a lawyer to explain to you.

          You another siao kah like Arnold Chong that type, living in your own country with your own common law.

        • Dominic Phua

          the irony is that slandering him, damaged his reputation so much more

      • Susu

        Political gangster ended by brain cancer !

      • Weng Keong

        Many believe that if Roy had the resources he may be able to prove his stand on the issue and hence the support he has been getting. The government must come clean on the CPF. There so many secrets and lack of transparency. By suing him only amounts to wanting silence him.

    • Jaws

      You have an alternative for people NOT to maliciously speak irresponsibly?

      • nelsonmandala

        yeah XSPECIALLY YOU..remembered this?

        ———————————–
        Jaws Arnold_Chong • 2 days ago

        He’ll fall well short of his projected $70k. He won’t even be able to reach half prize.

        Wait for it. You read it here first from Jaws.

        ……….
        so ow? are YOU responsibled enuff to RETRACT and APOLOGISED for belittled ROY on his campaign?

  • Jaws

    There is a possibility that people who donated to that Roy kia are actually pro PAP policies.

    Someone may disagree with the gahmen’s strong arm tactics of sueing, and hence donate to Roy kia’s cause. But end of the day he will still rather NOT have opposition as the government and vote for PAP.

    Perfectly reasonable thought.

    • jessie

      No sane citizen will vote for the PAP. It is too elitist and cannot serve the common man
      on the street !
      -Jessie

      • Jaws

        You have become exceedingly tiresome in your mundane, routine, monotone and funneled responses that no longer you command my attention for an engagement or explanation.

        To engage me, you need to hold my attention by actually stimulation of a thought process. Anything else you don’t even qualify as a bother.

        (anticipating another response of a particular political gangster with an extremely potent cancer strain in his)

        • jessie

          I don’t need to engage you. In another post to you, I told you I can smell
          wood burning every time you think !
          -Jessie

    • nelsonmandala

      Jaws • JAWs 5 hours ago
      There is a possibility that people who donated to that Roy kia are actually pro PAP policies
      ……………….
      now YOU wanna claimed that $50,000 donations com from pap sapporter pockets?

  • saveus

    I think the reason why opposition is too weak lies in us. Like Singaporeans? We are not self-aware of how politically stifled we are in our education, that we think what we have is actually a democracy? No, if we cannot live up to the motto of “agree to disagree”, in the words of the PM, then how can we ever develop as a society? Yes, we may advance as an economy under the large umbrella of PAP, but is it enough to have patronizing ‘low-hanging fruit’ (like GST packages) for the people out there? Clearly, it is not enough to have a society full of sycophantic yes-puppies as that breeds inefficiency, lack of creativity, etc.. Money still no enough? To import foreign talent to make up for it is not a solution either. We as Singaporeans now have to “be the change we want to see” and if you want a true democracy as in other free nations, you should compare PM to other world leaders and see how overpaid he is, yet how petty he acts. Is he and PAP fit to rule? that largely depends on us, the electorate.

  • PikuChoo

    The reason why PM Lee decided to go beyond the usual retract, apologize and move on practice was that such actions in the past has not yielded “results”, ie: reduced or stopped further such incidents.

    So, Roy was just unlucky to be the one chosen to be made an example of, to warn off any others who might not have gotten the “message”.

    PM Lee in deciding to play hardball as in past times may also be unlucky. He appears to have badly misread ground sentiment. The pebbles are shifting underfoot… and once they get going, the avalanche (of negative sentiment/publicity) will be unstoppable.

    The FACTS are or will soon NO LONGER matter when the mob gets riled up… The Arab Spring was sparked off by Mohamed Buoazizi who was technically and legally wrong (as an illegal hawker). But the firestorm he set off was more the result of the perception of the unfairness in daily life and the high and heavy handedness of the authorities.

    Sounds familiar? I don’t think this case will spark off a riot… but it WILL be remembered.

    • Jaws

      Good response. Both sides will have collateral.

    • AngCherLing

      Biggest winner is Davinder Singh…

      • Tan Peng Leng

        Hi Ms Ang. Monetarily the biggest winner is SC Singh. But politically, the biggest winner is all the opposition parties! In terms of societial development, the biggest winner will be the people of Singapore. My 1/4 cents worth of opinion!

    • Tan Peng Leng

      Hi my favourite pokemon’s cousin! If you remember what PM Lee “said” about the speed in which we, the Singaporeans, withdrew the “shares” that were given to us, you should not be surprised that he was not able to “read” the ground sentiment! If he was able to “read” the ground sentiment, he would not need George Yeo to “tell” him that something was wrong and decided to say “SORRY” in one of the rallies during the last GE!

  • Samson

    If just because LHL is the PM, Roy’s action is termed as defamation, then we are saying that LHL is entitled to protection even if he has done wrong. His full protection is given because of his title and nothing else. This is dangerous for the citizenry and does nothing for the good of society but invites trouble.

    If anyone thinks that going to court means LHL has to open the books, how wrong can you be. In the case of Lees vs Dr Chee S J, there was no details or account of the issue that caused the defamation, in other words, no book was opened.

    The PM has set a precedent for businesses for bad practice. Take the money, don’t fulfil responsibility and if the customers make noise, just sue the hell of them and make them pay.

    If no one lost anything, the case is purely ‘domestic’ otherwise the courts will be busy with lawsuits (he says this and that). One also should not be awarded compensation for nothing lost. Eg if you tell the judge you lost your car, you first need to prove that you own it. Laws exist for the good of society – to protect the weak. If laws are for protecting the powerful, then it just creates more trouble for society (as this case shows) and we might as well not have any law.

    • Jaws

      No.

      If I as an employee wrongfully accuse my Business Development unit of misappropriating R&D funds I can get sued big time, especially if I wrote to newspaper media about it.

      You just don’t get it. You think you live in Somali where I guess people are really free to run around saying whatever they want (because they got AK47s as well).

      • jessie

        It is not Roy who has caused this . It is the PM for not disclosing our CPF accounts !
        -Jessie

        • Samson

          Roy, like you and me, is concerned about the ever changing minimum sum and withdrawal terms that affect him. Given few articles have been written about this and probably letters by the public and still ignored by the PM with no public explanation, a sincere complainant will take the next step of action to provoke some reaction.

          • Jaws

            Finally, a tacit admission!

            To provoke a response. Yup this joker finally said it.

            Except that I don’t think getting sued big time was Roy kia’s intention and objective when writing the defamatory post HAHAHA!

            These online dissenters are hilarious omg. So quick to give praise to Roy kia for provoking a response by doing something criminal when neither Gilbert Goh or Arnold Chong or Samson would even do something remotely similar.

            Because they know it’s criminal.

            HAHAHAHA my day is complete…

          • OneFor You

            A complete day huh.. Dude. You sound really, really sad.

          • Ng Chun Yi

            Fair comment, considering that Roy has written a number of articles without getting sued. The key thing here is the trigger.

          • Samson

            So like you said, look at the background or circumstance and doing so would justify the action that Roy had taken.

          • Jaws

            Hey I’ve patented the usage of Zombie©®™ and it’s associated terminology in TOC.

            DONT ANYHOW PLAGIARIZE

    • Jaws

      Face it.

      At this point in time I have exposed you as an obnoxious, low reasoning, utterly biased, and severely deficient individual through your weak and foible attempts at justifying Roy kia’s actions.

      There’s this thing about you that amazes me – with your current aptitude and cognizant ability, how do your employers actually react to your actions? Or are you a separate altogether different person in real life?

      That’ll be really scary because it brings to mind the mythical and hallowed internet warrior.

  • DP

    This case will never go to trial, they will seek and obtain summary judgement. As KJ pointed out in his article, putting the PM on the stand and asking questions on the accountability of the CPF system would be critical, something which they will not welcome. They have learned their lesson after Singh had to jumb to the rescue of LKY when he was grilled by Chee. LSL is nowhere as capable in rebuttal like LKY and Singh would have a difficult time if it goes to court.

  • DP

    Besides the key arguments about minimum sum and retirement age, the Ministers and the Shit Times is trying to put up the arguments that the CPF has been paying good returns. Recently another one of the idiot boys claimed that the CPF return is as better than any other saving product available in the market. This is nothing but a hogwash. the CPF returns should be compared with other pension funds managed by governments, not banks. These idiots have claimed to be division one players demanding the highest pay in the world and yet they cannot even manage the returns like the Mats are doing in Malaysia.

    • Jaws

      That’s quite an outburst. Now calm down.

      Can you name a pension fund managed by other governments that is zero volatility, enjoys a risk free rate of up to 4%, and has principal guaranteed over MORE THAN 50 years?

      It’s one thing to make loud statements. It’s another thing to actually know your stuff and make loud statements without looking as stupid as a gazelle who just ate a mouthful of marijuana.

      • saveus

        the key word here is “up to 4%”, and the ordinary rate is 2.5%. A ponzi scheme with a principal guarantee would give better returns. The CPF also shifts retirement age goalposts and handout dates, at its whim and fancy.. and what does it do to the extra money that is locked in at the CPF? It is NOT a TAX… so it can’t be used to serve public interest (which includes foreigners). It should help exclusively with the retirement, healthcare and living costs of SIngaporeans. and Roy has pointed out this mismatch.

  • Samson

    LHL runs Singapore like a business corporation so it is only right that we treat it as one and with any other business, when we feel we are not getting our money worth, we can say anything about the business and call it anything. Don’t we commonly say XYZ company cheated my money when we feel ripped off?

    Some Singaporeans prefer to keep LHL’s business immune from ‘slander’ just because the business is LHL’s (just because of his title, PM). Some educated fools we have. How to progress the country when we still have people operating on myths and zombielike Asian values?

    • Jaws

      I actually am in the fullest of agreement with you.

      “Fuck the CPF! Fuck the interest rate! Fuck the returns! Fuck the depreciating value of my my funds.”

      That’s criticising the company for doing a damn poor job. No problem. SHanmungan has mentioned that criticise the CPF and its policies all you want. I’ve just done that above. And it’s what you said – to criticize the CPF with all the toilet paper you stored in your home.

      BUT

      To say that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Long “misappropriated” the funds as mentioned by Roy kia, you are in some serious trouble.

      But of course, you cannot tell the difference at all. And that is why you are stuck on the internet typing all these instead of actually making a difference elsewhere in the world…

      I am lost for words when it comes to describing you. You break all Guiness records known to man. You are so cloistered and caught up in your own hatred that you leave everything behind. You make it sound as if if your wife votes for PAP you will actually divorce her.

      There is something wrong with you, do you realize? You’re no longer an opposition supporter. You’re sick, with some form of emotional and mental blockage that prevents you from critical reasoning, leading to self indulged and biased opinions.

      You represent the saddest form that a human being can become – someone with a normal intellect, but becomes so caught up in hatred and emotional confusion that you spend your life believing what you tell yourself instead of seeing things in clarity.

      Such as not being able to tell the difference in criticising the CPF policy VS alleging PM Lee misappropriated the funds.

      I feel sorry for you.

      • Alan

        Actually by replacing Samson name in your post with many other around here like Arnald, Nelson, Jessie…fit all! Lol!

        • Jaws

          Ya these dissenters all cock one lah…never know they have multiple accounts themselves, then end up accusing pro PAP policy people of having multiple accounts just because they can’t accept others actually support pap.

    • Ng Chun Yi

      We can criticize the CPF policy, as it may not be perfect. It is a completely different issue when PM is accused of misappropriating CPF funds.

      I can only say PM is not wrong is sue, but it does not mean I agree this is the best resolution to this Roy saga!

      • Samson

        After 4 articles criticising the CPF over many months, the PM remains mum???? Any CEO of a maligned business would have released some statements. I have read of personal letters to the PM never replied, national con-versations not including the very people who have issues with the system and internet ‘noise’ being assumed as ‘lunatic fringe’, pray tell how will Roy get PM LHL’s attention in ta nice way. Do you agree that we should just keep criticising the CPF with no useful outcome for the next 50 yrs???

      • GUSSIE91

        Since 8 decades ago………….I only know only one person, THE ONE who makes the final ultimate decision.

        • Samson

          Are you sure it is a ‘person’, not God?

          • GUSSIE91

            he acts and thinks he is.

    • saveus

      I disagree that SIngaporeans should treat SIngapore like a business since its leaders run it like one. After all, we are the ones who determine who gets elected to drive this country forward. A country has many aspects: society, economy, legal, parliament etc…. You know it’s concepts like this that make Singapore so transactional, and closes our hearts and minds. The relentless pursuit for fame, profit, wealth should not be embraced wholeheartedly even though our country leadership does so… is that why our country never created much in invention and art/music i daresay?

      Yes, money no enough for retirement, and everyone wants something. But that does not mean we are nothing. We still have our hearts, minds, souls and I think Roy has wrote a few good articles on how we should take care and be aware of each other’s social, emotional and psychological needs.

      I agree with the fact that Confucian ideals may have stifled the criticism bit. “Respect the elder” has been misconstrued to mean “do not criticize”. I think there is a need to really listen on both sides, digest and accomodate views. As Alfian said, in a contest of ideas, the best one for people naturally wins.

    • https://about.me/jeff_dickey Jeff Dickey

      But should a country be run like a business? Especially when that “company” (PAP Pte Ltd) exerts questionably-justifiable force at ensuring their perpetual monopoly?

      I’m all for Government being run like a business — that puts customers first. Listen to your customers. Deliver the products and services that they want and need, better than your current or potential competitors can. If you can do that on a level playing field, in a fair market, your customer-satisfaction ratings (as expressed in the results of free, fair and open elections) will continue to rise dramatically.

      Talk down to your customers… ignore them, belittle them, make it unavoidably plain that your interest lies more in looting their pocketbooks than actually doing anything worthwhile… and they will replace you, by whatever means are necessary to do so. As a politician known for his knowledge of history once said, “those who make peaceful evolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable”, simply because that is the only means left to the people.

      One would think that an authentic political party born in Opposition itself before gaining power would understand this to the core of their being. Instead, they seem bent on the old Soviet trick of pretending that there can be no loyal opposition. Loyalty to one’s nation is a birthright; its government, and particularly the party leading that Government, must earn the citizens’ loyalty every day. Not just in the run-up to staged “elections”.

      • SAMSON

        Of course a country should NOT be run like a business as far as making profits is concerned.

  • donator

    I urge everyone to speak up and fight for our rights to know.

    But I believe the PM should spend more time to address citizens’ concerns. And this case is really about citizens’ concerns over our hard earned money in the CPF. And Roy is one of us. He is a citizen of this country.

    Make no mistake, our money in the CPF is our hard earned money. It is not free gift from the PAP. We have the right to know the details.

    We must not let the PAP distract us from the real issue with all these lawsuits.

    Using lawsuits to silence the voices of citizens is a waste of the country’s time and resources.

    The PM is paid multimillion dollars a year to spend all his time to address citizens’ concerns

  • Kyleced

    The results for the 2016 General Election will be (are) be as follows: – PAP 40%, WP 30%, SDP 15% and SFP 15%. Then the PM will say this same words after each election result – “Let’s move forward and work together as one people one nation and let us close rank to secure our future.”

    • GUSSIE91

      dude…………..PM will sue you, please edit your posting.

      • Kyleced

        Let him I will do one up than Roy, I prepare to go to jail because I got no money. No house no nothing!

        • liangjwc1

          Your CPF overflowing with money?

        • Samson

          You look after Roy’s parents and any dependant siblings if he takes that route ok?

          • Tommy Tang

            Hi buddy, did I say anything about him taking my route if sued. Each his own okay. Thanks to supporter like you so why should he follow my route.

    • tc

      Good one!

      Then, we will have a coalition government made up of WP+SDP+SFP.

      And whatever the current PM says will be irrelevant.

  • Samson

    It has turned out that you can write articles criticising the issue until the cow comes home, he’ll ignore it. You can shout till you turn blue, he’ll call you lunatic fringe. You can write personal letters, he’ll just bin it. Anyone has any suggestion how to get the PM’s attention in things that matter to us (not him) in a nice way that does not offend him so we can tell Roy?

    • liangjwc1

      To get attention, need to practise what a Shanghai lady did in a hotel while attending seminar or something and before anyone knew it, she became a new citizen.

  • Samson

    The PM is a role model to all monopoly businesses. Make everyone pay, deliver crap, don’t explain, don’t entertain, if slandered, sue the hell of the customer and make him or her pay. Some customers actually praise such business leader!!! and says the customer deserves severe punishment.

    If law is for protecting the powerful, it is saying the powerful got no power to protect themselves. Does it make sense? If the powerful have not lost anything and can claim compensation, then our courts will be full of DOMESTICS for claiming compensation!!!

    • saveus

      I dont think all businesses worship him. I am sure there are social businesses out there too. There are also people like Nelson Mandela, Angela Merkel, Obama which can be good role models.

      With great power comes great responsibility. Roy has the power of public free speech, which they say he used to slander PM. PM has the custody of public trust.

      Businesses should be compared to politics at all… Yes they are linked, but I mean, do we want a nation of shopkeepers as politicians? Is this why in a survey we are the 5th most likely country to have success if we are politically connected? Politicians are public servants… crudely, if you want to compare a business to a country, politicians are the star employees of the electorate. I think it’s this conflation and constant comparison to business and “GuanXi” that makes Singapore so clouded with business-oriented laws and ignoring sociopolitical well-being. Citizens of Singapore are not subjects under CEO or imperial rule. We are part of the electorate, the people who decide who the next public servants will be!

  • SimonP

    When the PM’s father sued or arrest his political opponents EVERYTHING or NOTHING is done through the Press,Radio or TV.
    Today, there is an ALTERNATIVE and the People are far more educated too

  • kampong boy

    Just some thoughts:
    Funding for Roy ‘s is coming from citizens.
    Funding for the PM’s, if he had lost, would also have come from citizens as citizens are paying his income.

    Either way, the ultimate winners are the law firms and hopefully some charity organisations. I think people who have donated to the fund are also winners as they will indirectly donate to charity.

    The ultimate losers I think are the PM and PAP as his lawsuit had pissed off many citizens.

  • Sad Sad Singapore

    I think one problem is that there’s no objective media in Singapore. I could highlight probably 10 lines that are fallacious in this article and I could do the same with any ST article on Singapore politics. We end up with an opposition that is fueled by unsubstantiated, un-researched claims (Like Roy) and Ministers that falsely believe their own policies are working because Straits Times tells them so. Singapore isn’t as bad as websites like this make it out to be, neither is it as good as the government tells us. I for one am tired of having to guess from the two extremes.

    • Samson

      When you write something, you are making a stand otherwise why report a story at all. Therefore there is no such thing as objectivity in the media. This is precisely why it is vital to have balance media but PM LHL does not allow it, he only allows one side of the story! That, my friend, is the problem.

      Pls note the mainstream media like ST are supposed to be reported by professional or fulltime properly remunerated journalists but not alternative media which depend on volunteer writers and enthusiasts. Sg media scene is like this (lopsided) is because PM does not allow balance media. This my friend, makes Singapore very, very bad!

      • Sad Sad Singapore

        All the more reason volunteer writers need to start writing objectively. Volunteer writers have the ability to be objective and can say what can’t be said. Everyone knows ST’s information is one-sided and that it has no choice but to be. That’s why people go seeking out information on alternative sites and that is why slander like Roy’s is all the more destructive. It is destructive because people want truth and find only extremes. The result is an ineffective opposition in a time when the lack of credible opposition is all the more alarming.

        I applaud the efforts made by sites like this to offer alternative perspectives, but no good comes of extremes in any form of media. If The Online Citizen really has the interest of Singaporeans at heart, then it should offer truth and not unsubstantiated opinion. Nothing is to be gained by lowering your standards of journalism to that of ST’s.

        • Samson

          Oh my gosh, you make it like objectivity is a colour. Even colour can appear differently to someone who is colour blind! Truth is up to you to be convinced.

        • Tommy Tang

          When you use the term “opposition”, do you mean as in “opposition party” or “people that don’t agree with or oppose the government” ? It’s kind of confusing when the term “OPPOSITION” is used here.

  • Samson

    Didn’t know our courts admit ‘domestic’ affairs. I consider it domestic if no life, limb or money is lost. If our courts admit slander cases for nothing lost, they will be bogged down if everyone follows PM’s eg of suing. Not only that, the rich and powerful can slander the poor and weak but not the other way round as the latter have no financial resource to sue. What a Singapore, what a Government, what a PM!!!!

    • Jaws

      Don’t be an ignorant dumbo.

      There is a pro bono legal service center. You sound like a tortoise shooting off its mouth everything you decide to come out of your shell to peek around.

  • Alan Lau

    from the comments, i guess there are 2 sides, there are one very prominent PAP IB and the Citizens who wants to accountability

  • Tan Peng Leng

    ‘Whatever happens to Ngerng in the aftermath of this clash is no longer avoidable” – I think the issue is not whether it is unavoidable. I believe that whatever happens is inconsequential. By not exercising the ancient Chinese wisdom of “得饶人处且饶人”, literally translated as “to forgive others where there is an opportunity/opening”, Mr Lee is speeding up the demise of the Pappies. Remember the “Sorry” that was “said” prior to the GE 2011! If some people in SG can forgive the Pappies (it could have easily swung a 2% votes), why can the Pappies not likewise forgive Mr Ng?

    • Jaws

      Is that a reality or is that a desire?

      • Tan Peng Leng

        What do you think? I don’t know what to say!

        • Jaws

          Just just go buy a Kate Spade.

          Shopping is easy.

          • Tan Peng Leng

            You mean the words are trademark? Anything wrong with asking you the question? Btw, you forgot to mention the DPM! Kate Spade? Sorry, I did not know until Ms TPL’s infamy! I don’t buy Kate Spade. I bought a Cartier (Marcello De Cartier) for my missus. That is all I can afford!

  • Dennis

    Come on REAL SINGAPOREANS ‘ GET ROY A JOB’ Make sure his sacrifice is honoured by you. Do not only be KIASU and pay lip service.

  • a

    This fella had to be Jaws!

  • Samson

    2% cheap right? Govt quick, borrow more and put into Temasek.

TOC TV

Archives