Finally let's touch on his reference to my article. He said he wished I could have spoken to him to find about his life and actions. Aha, again he's playing to the gallery. I am not saying anything against his actions in life or the stand he takes, or even the right to blog, as he infers. I am just flabbergasted at his repeated flip-flops and refusal to make a genuine and proper apology, and his concerted efforts to play the victim card to the hilt.
The fact is I was genuinely concerned at the course of action he was taking since the matter came up. That's why I had been asking Ms Han why the 'crazy stuff' was going on? I could see at the outset these actions would be met exactly by the response of SC Singh. This was a legal suicide mission. And let's not say I am writing to pummel a fellow blogger who's just trying his best. It's easy to write and talk, how about helping? The fact is I did. On Sunday I had spoken to Ms Han offering to help Mr Ng. I felt that he was taking in very poor advise and acting rashly. She directed me to approach Mr Ng directly. On Monday evening when SC Davinder came out with the rejection, I messaged Mr Ng on his FB. I questioned him on his actions and was genuinely worried that he was digging himself into a bigger hole.
I proposed to help him explore options and to write on his behalf (or him to write as a private person), as I have experience in helping others on certain legal issues. I felt if he temporarily removed Mr Ravi and wrote a personal appeal to the PM (or SC Singh), apologising fully, promising to withdraw his offending posts, not to comment further or incite others and to accept responsibility, it would reflect positively for him. If damages were sought, then offer what he could afford (to be donated to a charity of the PM's choice). I felt going the legal route was not wise at that stage. The case has not been to court, only a demand was made. Writing personally showed genuineness as opposed to getting a high profile civil rights lawyer like M Ravi, who already had a reputation of going loggerheads with the PAP. Mr Ng would say, he was being badly advised or had not fully grasped the seriousness of what he had done until he read SC Singh's requirements. He fully understood now and would do all he could to mitigate and scale down the issue instead of 'upping the ante'.
Lawyer M Ravi is acting for Roy Ng. Which is correct? Is he giving Mr Ng bad advise or Mr Ng is giving him bad instructions?
Mr Ng did not respond, so he can't say I didn't reach out to him to find out why he was doing stuff. Later I read more about the rejection and realised that Mr Ng was playing a very sneaky game. But okay, there was still a possibility to come out of this 'hole.' It was only thereafter when I spoke to Ms Han and she came out with the bombshell of martyrdom and asylum. I was shocked and deeply disappointed to learn this. I then again messaged Mr Ng informing that Ms Han has revealed this to me and as such I would be withdrawing my offer of assistance. I then published the matter in my blog. Did Mr Ng reply to explain and clarify? If Ms Han was lying as he now suggests, wouldn't any normal person respond and say, "Hold on, you're mistaken, I never said/did any of those things. Let me explain my side of the story. Or could you withdraw/withhold the article until I explain it to you?'
No he didn't. He didn't write 1 word back to me. Instead he embarked on what has now become a routine feature in this saga. He went to make a public statement that sought to elicit sympathy and understanding from ordinary Singaporeans especially opposition supporters.
It's easy to dismiss what I've been writing on this saga (this being the 4th article), as having taken a stand in support of the PM and the PAP. It's also easy to question why I am doing so against a fellow blogger, who's been actively raising issues, awareness and 'fighting for our rights.' But that's not the case, I am no supporter of the PM or wanting to demean a fellow blogger's cause. Instead I am writing about being responsible and mature, and about what's not alright to do – making a false allegation. Wrong is wrong, even if the wrong is against the PAP. All Roy needed to do from Day 1, is admit he made a mistake, apologise, try to resolve the issue on the quiet and act rationally from thereon.
The UK has the Monster Raving Loony Party. It seems Singapore will soon be having one too.
What I am also writing about is the emergence of a 'looney fringe' in Singapore politics. There is of course a rising discontent with the PAP and its policies, and I am extremely concerned that certain individuals and groups are using this discontent and the goodwill of opposition supporters, to promote themselves, to act rashly, to use gimmicks and publicity stunts, to further their own selfish ends. This could be politically (to become an MP or form a party) and for personal gain – to earn personal fame, and if that fails to elicit sympathy and support, or even more deviously, to paint themselves in the foreign media, as hapless victims deserving of support in whatever form, especially asylum.
Unlike normal opposition parties or candidates, who've sacrificed time and effort, some even personal freedom, this 'looney fringe' want to take the short cut to the pinnacle of opposition politics. Opposition parties and even the newest one led by Tan Jee Say, operate openly. They declare their intent, offer their policies for scrutiny (even attack by the PAP), abide by party rules, work the ground and most importantly don't demand you support or vote them as a right. They propose, they caution you, but they let you make the final choice at the ballot box, and they accept it. The 'looney fringe' doesn't operate in this way. They do everything to polarise the voter into a 'them (PAP) or us' scenario and expect you to rally behind them. They pull off stunts to win sympathy for themselves or to raise their profiles, without actually wanting to work the ground and assist to change in a productive way.
Kenneth Jeyaretnam's Reform Party is small and in need of volunteers. Moreover Mr Jeyaretnam has also been speaking about the CPF. Why hasn't Roy volunteered his expertise to him?
Mr Ng may say he wants to raise awareness and wanted to take the next step up, with all these protests and NMP application. But 1 question he must be asked, "Okay so you've raised a pertinent point about the CPF and a host of other issues, why haven't you approached one of the opposition parties to broach these issues on your behalf, joined them to work on it or volunteer your services to them in respect of research and data collection and comparison?' 'You first try to approach the WP or NSP, maybe they already have their own and say no (I believe SDP also has its own), but surely you could approach the SDA, DPP, SPP and the Reform Party (RP). Most of these parties lack enough volunteers to do such things and like you, Kenneth Jeyaretnam (RP leader), has also been talking about CPF issues for some time. Why haven't you approached them?' 'Why are you and your cohorts going solo?' Maybe you could have even written to individual Ministers, the CPF Board, MOM and also the main-stream media. You should have at least tried, and see whether or how they respond, and publish the results on your blog. Surely any 1 of the above routes are the most logical ways to approach your desire to raise awareness.
Roy Ng should pay close attention to this quote by Abraham Lincoln.
Why haven't you done any of these? Why instead are you using every opportunity to raise your profile in order to win sympathy and support? Surely you can't expect a Govt (any Govt for that matter) to actually have to respond to your blog, when there is an opposition that is ready to question them? Why are you flip-flopping and trying to score points by playing to the gallery? Mr Ng, you can fool some people all the time, some people some of the time, but never think you can fool all the people, all the time. Just because you blog, just because you talk about the CPF (yes there's an issue there) and just because you're organising events, doesn't qualify you to be the voice of all Singaporeans. Most of all, don't use the anger and discontent amongst opposition and some neutral voters, as an opportunity for you to milk the issue to your benefit. The PM may be using hardball tactics and some clearly don't like it. But it's you not him, who started this saga and only you can stop, reflect and end it. When are you going to be the bigger man, who stands up and says, 'Ok, I made a mistake, I got carried away, I am no victim, I was wrong, the fault was mine and always mine. I thank Singaporeans who've supported me but please refrain from using it to attack the PM, since it's me not him, that made a false and wholly improper allegation. I am truly sorry and I promise not to repeat such things?' Unless of course it was always your intention to take sympathetic Singaporeans for a ride and to reap some personal benefit, be it now or in future.
Will a donation bucket be passed around at the June 7th protest rally? Is it fair to raise funds for someone who had ample opportunity to settle a lawsuit but refused? Will you donate your hard earned cash to someone who purposely wrote a damaging article and whose motives are subject to speculation?
And finally why are going round organising fund raising activities for your court case? As reflected in this FB post on your wall:
You and your fellow organiser have been screaming blue murder at the Govt – 'for not returning our hard-earned CPF monies' (being the phrase used by you). Yet you have no qualms asking Singaporeans to part with their hard earned monies to help fund your legal battle? And not forgetting you had every opportunity to avoid taking it to court. Instead it's you who instructed your lawyers to accept the 'serving process' – the formal presentation of the lawsuit. Is it fair to ask people to help fund your case, over something you wrote, which you did out of your volition or own interests? Bloggers are not requested to write articles by the public for the public, why should bloggers demand the public to fund them when they write false allegations and refuse apologise and settle? Isn't it fair then to assume that you've done all this to milk sympathy, to hoodwink the unsuspecting public that you acted properly and was being bullied? The inference from your actions clearly lend credence to the remarks made by Ms Han that you want to be a martyr and thereafter use it to seek residence elsewhere. You cannot cherry pick which remarks your confidant says that appears to bolster your image and blatantly ignore those that reflect an ulterior motive or a negative image of yourself. It's high time you stand up, acknowledge your faults and stop playing this attention seeking charade.