All Singapore Stuff – Real Singapore News From Tuas to Changi, All Singapore Stuff brings you Real Singapore News!
Following my previous blog post questioning if asylum was an ulterior motive for Roy Ng's actions over the past week, he has issued a clarification on Facebook (FB):
In the mean time, Senior Counsel (SC) Davinder Singh (acting for the PM) has also responded to lawyer M Ravi's (acting for Roy) offer of damages:
All 3 events are connected, so I'll begin with my entry. It can be best summed up with a post on All Singapore Stuff's FB page. They posed this question: Either Anyhow Hantam, Han Hui Hui or Roy Ng is lying. So let's look at it:
a) I am Lying
In 1 of the comments in the previous article, a reader questioned if I was just making this whole thing up. As he put it, Ms Han could have simply said 'I love you Roy', but I mischievously altered it to damage Roy. Now I wouldn't be so silly to quote Ms Han and repeat a conversation on FB without some form of evidence. I have a record of that conversation. I'll admit I'm a bit lazy to upload it, but more importantly Ms Han has not denied it took place. If she did, then obviously I would be obliged to upload to show it's true.
The current profile photo of All Singapore Stuff – a platform that accepts letters from the public.
Next you must look at the context at which she made the admission. I did not pressurise her to say that. Moreover she mentioned the asylum word not once but twice without any prompting. Firstly on Saturday night, which I ignored, thinking Mr Ng was so overwhelmed by events that he wanted to leave the country. Then again on Monday, after SC Singh's rejection of damages, which I slammed her actions, counsel and egging on. Without prompting she said Mr Ng wants to be a martyr and she was simply acting as requested by him. She also mentioned a 3rd person, Leslie (who I had no idea was in reference to Leslie Chew), who urged Roy to seek asylum in Denmark. She also added because of this, they went on to provoke the legal action against Roy.
Well I have no reason to lie, but I have reason to raise this issue because I feel strongly that this whole saga is a publicity seeking gimmick designed to win sympathy and play to the gallery, without taking responsibility for a grave allegation. I am no fan of the PAP, if you've been reading past articles, it's quite tenuous to suggest that I am one. However just because I disagree with some PAP policies and have not voted for them, does not mean that every policy of theirs is bad and it certainly doesn't mean I believe they are crooks or corrupted.
Supporting someone like Chiam See Tong is not a problem, but surely we cannot be expected to express support for everyone who's only contribution is to curse and condemn the PAP.
And it cannot mean that every time somebody jumps up and condemns the PAP or makes allegations against them, I must equally get excited and rally behind them. I will continue to support the WP, NSP, SDP, SPP and others who have raised issues and points, who speak from the heart, who are doing their best to serve Singaporeans. But I cannot support people or groups who for their own self-serving means, make use of the dissatisfaction amongst opposition and neutral voters. Or by using their own data and ideals to ram it down the throats of those of an anti-PAP flavour, and are unwilling to accept it when others disagree with their methods.
b) Han Hui Hui is lying
Roy Ng has denied in his FB post that he instructed Ms Han to act in this way or mentioned the asylum intent to her. This is of course the best route out of the issue, a bare denial and a retraction by Ms Han. However Ms Han has not denied saying it and she will be best advised to keep it that way to avoid further embarrassment.
However we cannot simply dismiss this as Ms Han acting on her own and displaying immaturity. She is after all Mr Ng's closest confidant. It is she, not someone else who was his proposer for the NMP position. It's she, not someone else who's co-organising the June 7th protest with Mr Ng. And it's she who's been waging a war online in support of Mr Ng. It's she who asked how much does the PM want? It's she who said Mr Ng received 1 million hits on Monday last. And it's she who has been making statements on Mr Ng's FB wall.
Who goes around wearing a T-shirt with the words, 'Wanna Sue Me?' And then cry foul when it happens? That's a question only Ms Han and Roy Ng can best answer. Or perhaps it's true then they are instigating a lawsuit against themselves to further whatever warped theories they possess.
And since Mr Ng's denial, it's she who has removed every single post she made on this matter from her FB wall, Yes the 1 million hits, the call for a global campaign of support and all the war-like and Gandhi-esque remarks. The question is why? And the next is to ask whether she was really acting on her own, at the behest of Mr Ng or in tandem with him? Don't forget I did not force her to mention the asylum or martyr matter. I was merely angry at her actions for 'upping the ante' and damaging the case legally. It's she who said a number of times that Roy had asked her to do it, and she mentioned the martyrdom and asylum as a consequence of explaining the strange course of action taken by Roy since Monday last.
Roy Ng was quick to share this FB poster by Ms Han on his wall, and her remarks on it. So how come he denies Ms Han's admission of him provoking the lawsuit to seek martyrdom and asylum?
And today following latest developments, it's she who mentions that Roy will be going to court against Singapore's Prime Minister who earns 4 millions dollars (she even wrote it in Caps!). Mr Ng even shared this post of hers on his wall. It's fair to infer by this that Ms Han is operating with his consent, in tandem with him or privy to actions undertaken by him.
c) Roy Ng is lying
In his FB post, he denied 'the incident' took place – in reference to seeking asylum. He goes to list a series of reasons for his blogging and expresses his distress. He feels it's his duty to raise awareness and issues since he's good at writing. This is not the issue, by all means write, by all means raise issues and awareness, by all means oppose the PAP. But he cannot say that the journey he's been through is unexpected. For the simple reason, if it was unexpected and he genuinely did not mean to defame the PM, he should have simply retracted the offending article, explained it was a genuine error and not his intention to defame and issued an immediate apology.
Yahoo News! is a platform you cannot accuse of being 'guided' or controlled. Their reaction to this saga was this headline – 'Blogger withdraws offending article, dithers on apology.' Yes, dithering or delaying. Okay we can say he needed time, he needed to seek M Ravi's legal expertise before making the apology. Fair enough. But what did he do in the mean time? I listed 10 things he did that had no sound legal grounds, in my previous post.
Roy Ng's blog entitled 'The Heart Truths' – to keep Singaporeans thinking. Yes to keep thinking what next publicity stunt will come our way.
In the supposed time he spent dithering, what did he do or perhaps as Ms Han mentioned, got others to do? He went full blast to play the victim's card. Instead of spending time to prepare a full and contrite apology with a pledge of no repeat, he had time to make a video, he had time to write further articles. He had time to apply for an NMP and as SC Singh says, had time to email foreign and local media, not to mention friends and supporters, telling them where and how to find the articles he had agreed publicly to remove.
Let's not beat around the bush, does he believes the PM is a crook or he accepts he was wrong to say that? Or as I have suggested, this whole thing whether planned beforehand or as an after-thought, was tailored to maximise his own self appeal and if that failed, to use the victim's card, maybe as a martyr or to use it as a reason to go abroad. This is not as he put it in his blog and video, 'a disappointment that the Govt instead of protecting its citizens, was silencing them in a lawsuit.' Let's put this in layman's terms, Roy is a health care worker, if a colleague alleges that he is a crook who has misused company funds, how would he respond? I am sure he'll vociferously proclaim his innocence. I am sure he'll make a police report and seek legal advise. So why shouldn't the PM do likewise? If Roy thinks there's something criminal going on with the GIC and CPF, why didn't he make a police report?
Blogger Roy Ngerng (for brevity most simply to him as Roy Ng). As for the intent behind this photo, I'll leave people to decide.
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.
Conclusion
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.
