By Tan Jee Say

Someone using the moniker of 'Tan Roar' has posted the following  'smear message' against my wife Patricia on my Facebook (2 October 2012) –

{  " Tan Roar  – There is also an erroneous reporting that Tjs’s wife was an investment banker. This is inaccurate. Pls verify for yourself which investment bank she was employed under. In fact, Mrs tjs abused her position when she was with their 4th child. NTUC Income would not grant her paid maternity leave so she took unpaid leave but traded on her information from the NTUC Income equity positions she managed to make money for herself. In whatever manner one looks at this, this is a conflict of interest. "  }

This seems like an extract from an earlier 'smear letter' by self-styled "TheRealTruth" who circulated it during last year's Presidential election campaign. I had then issued a rebuttal (reproduced below) which focused on the first 3 points simply to demolish his credibility without  bothering to answer his other points, but despite my rebuttal Tan Roar  has now decided to resurface his allegations against Patricia so as to hit at me indirectly. I had not rebutted these specific allegations earlier but will do so now to clear all doubts –

Point 1 – "There is also an erroneous reporting that Tjs’s wife was an investment banker. This is inaccurate. Pls verify for yourself which investment bank she was employed under."

Answer – Patricia worked for the Daiwa Securities Group and United Merchant Bank.

Point 2 – "Mrs tjs abused her position when she was with their 4th child. NTUC Income would not grant her paid maternity leave so she took unpaid leave but traded on her information from the NTUC Income equity positions she managed to make money for herself. In whatever manner one looks at this, this is a conflict of interest." 

Answer – Patricia was investment manager of the fixed income portfolio when she took unpaid maternity leave for our 4th child. The fixed income portfolio consisted of bonds, corporate loans, treasury and cash, and this portfolio was different and separate from equities portfolios which were managed by different persons. So "Tan Roar" was completely wrong to allege Patricia "traded on her information from the NTUC Income equity positions she managed to make money for herself." In any case, Patricia was on maternity leave and her portfolio was taken over by someone else to manage in her absence.

 

Why old smear restarts

I have decided to post this rebuttal because I sense a restart of a smear campaign against me as I rejoin the political arena to prepare for GE 2016. For this reason, I am reproducing below my earlier rebuttal of the original smear letter dated 15 August 2011. (This rebuttal also appeared in my book "A Nation Awakes".)

 

{   "  Tan Jee Say is GOD

By TheRealTruth     15 August 2011

Dear Fellow Singaporeans

In the interest of transparency and in the spirit of being the voice of conscience, this is to correct the false impression that is conveyed in the Sunday Times article about Tan Jee Say (tjs). Tjs has no moral righteousness, compass or anchor and blows where the winds of opportunity takes him. He quit the government when it became apparent that he would not become permanent secretary. After quitting the government, he first joined Morgan Grenfell, then Peregrine Bank, Standard Chartered Bank and finally AIB Govett.

When Morgan Grenfell came knocking, tjs jumped at the chance. He promised them to bring in much monies from the Malaysian conglomerates which he came into contact with during his tenure at the Ministry of Trade & Industry. His results at Morgan Grenfell speak for themselves, tjs did not deliver the monies and his peers soon found that he was a light weight load of hot air. His stay  at Peregrine Bank was just as short lived. In fact, he had a contributory role in Bank Peregrine’s eventual demise. His poor  judgement  resulted in his failure to dispense proper advice that the investment into an Indonesian concern was not viable. Tjs, the person responsible failed to do appropriate due diligence. Peregrine's subsequent bankruptcy saw him packing his bags again. At AIB Govett, it was reported that his strength was in policy making. This firm collapsed whilst others survived. Obviously tjs’s policies were wrong. This forebodes poorly on the potential for tjs to be EP as at every employment stop he has demonstrated poor judgement. Translate this into safeguarding our nation’s reserves and it will result in disastrous consequences………………"

Self-styled “TheRealTruth” continued with a long list of other untruths that I consider to be unworthy of reproduction here. Initially I brushed it off as inconsequential internet chatter, but when concerned friends told me that it had been widely circulated such that even the media queried me about it, I decided to issue a rebuttal:

1. "When Morgan Grenfell came knocking, tjs jumped at the chance. He promised them to bring in much monies from the Malaysian conglomerates which he came into contact with during his tenure at the Ministry of Trade & Industry. His results at Morgan Grenfell speak for themselves, tjs did not deliver the monies and his peers soon found that he was a light weight load of hot air."

My reply: Morgan Grenfell did not need TJS to bring in business from Malaysian conglomerates; it had an office in KL and great contacts with Malaysian government and conglomerates. Morgan Grenfell was more interested in TJS's Singapore contacts especially with major privatisations, and he did not disappoint them when he helped to win the SingTel privatisation, the first-ever telecom privatisation deal that Morgan Grenfell ever won worldwide and the Group was immensely proud of TJS. He went on to win other deals for Morgan Grenfell.

2.  " His stay at Peregrine Bank was just as short lived. In fact, he had a contributory role in Bank Peregrine’s eventual demise. His poor judgement resulted in his failure to dispense proper advice that the investment into an Indonesian concern was not viable. Tjs, the person responsible failed to do appropriate due diligence. Peregrine’s bankruptcy saw him packing his bags again."

My reply: TJS was not involved with Peregrine's "investment" in the Indonesian concern that triggered Peregrine's collapse. It was a fixed income deal, not an equity one and so was outside his purview, and was handled directly by the Fixed Income Desk in Head Office together with the Jakarta office. He left Peregrine well before, not after, its collapse as wrongly claimed.

3.  " At AIB Govett, it was reported that his strength was in policy making. This firm collapsed whilst others survived. Obviously tjs’s policies were wrong." 

My reply: AIB Govett was bought over by another fund management group in the UK during a time when there was consolidation in the industry which saw many fund management companies being acquired by other firms. The new owner decided to close down the Singapore office. This occurred a few years after TJS had left AIB Govett.  

There was no need for me to go further and rebut the other falsehoods. The facts I provided  threw  TheRealTruth’s credibility into doubt. Earlier at the press conference when this was raised, I invited the person behind ‘TheRealTruth’ moniker to reveal himself and repeat his allegations rather than hide behind the anonymity of the internet. He did not take up the challenge and nothing was heard from him thereafter. But it did reveal the amount of fear I had struck into my opponent(s). I had established myself as a formidable candidate. But the path had not been smooth.   }

You May Also Like

淡马锡称06年前撤离投资 惟子公司董事仍在凯发董事会

在上周六(3月30日),超过300名凯发散户投资者,齐聚芳林公园,表达他们对凯发重组计划和赔偿安排的不满。 其中,《海峡时报》采访其中一名62岁的投资者蔡女士,后者指在凯发的优先股和永久债券投资损失了六千元,丈夫损失10万元。 她声称,之所以投资凯发, 是因为相信该公司获得政府支持,理应很稳健。“我们投资,是因为看到淡马锡也投资了。相信淡马锡是有做好功课的。” 她说,银行当初卖凯发证券时,打包票告诉他们“淡马锡有投资,不用担心。如果你们不买,别人会”,因为认为这是国家资产,投资者才肯下手。 不过,在这篇报导后,淡马锡随即在本周一(4月1日)在《海时》论坛作出澄清,指出淡马锡虽在2000年代初期投资凯发,但那是淡马锡扶持本地中小企业的其中一项计划,支持那些有潜力的领域成长,例如水资源科技。 淡马锡澄清06年后不再投资凯发 “在达成投资目的后,淡马锡就退出凯发,”淡马锡国际公关主管弗尔绍( Stephen Forshaw)这么指出。“淡马锡退出也是在2006年之前,远远早于凯发2011年发出优先股以及2016年发出永久债券。” 弗尔绍解释,淡马锡透过全资子公司海丽凯资本(Heliconia Capital Management),投资本地中小企业。…

Committee of inquiry into the cyber attack on SingHealth invites written public submissions for recommendation on better cybersecurity measures

The Committee of Inquiry (COI) invites members of the public to submit written…

对韩咏梅公开信 事主柯政杰提数点反驳

日前,《联合早报》一篇报导《阻断措施期间足不出户 南大生不解为何染疫》,引起事主公开在脸书非议,并没有授权记者使用他的个人资料和照片,也未同意受访。 对此,《联合早报》总编辑韩咏梅也在今日(13日)发表致读者公开信,提及记者违反工作原则,也向事主致歉。 柯政杰在最新的贴文,先是感谢《联合早报》总编辑韩咏梅透过公开信回应。但他也对韩咏梅在信中的一些说法作出反驳。 信中,韩咏梅分享政杰分享的一帧社交媒体贴文,声称该报报导并非虚构,而是而是根据柯先生的社交媒体贴文所写。 这则帖文中柯政杰提及“自己即时“在家”还是确诊了”。但政杰指出,不论是有关记者还是报业控股,都没人向他求证这句话的意思,而他澄清自己所指“在家”,是指遵循阻断措施,停止一些非必要的外部接触。 但《联合早报》却指当事人“足不出户”,且不解为何还确诊。 柯政杰也列出列表,对比记者的报导和事实: 记者的报导 事实 记者称政杰只前往小贩中心打包就回家 以及去过学校…

Malaysian female gets assistance from fellow passengers to arrest alleged molester on coach

A Malaysian girl, Xin Yan, posted a story on her Facebook account…