A reader sent us a copy of this post to the Singapore Police Force. Readers, please beware and report any attempts by this company to threaten you or your family to the police!

Dear SPF

HELP!

I have just received email again from Data Register Pte Ltd (fka Company Register Pte Ltd) which is still under CAD investigation, that they will be sending credit management company to my house to "follow up" with the so-called services provided (with misrepresentation to the general public that they are government agency).

I have previously lodged a police report but they still continue to force innocent party to pay up.

General public who does not know the background of this Company will pay up out of fear that they will get sued or pestered (The notices are really professionally written) .

Something needs to be done to protect us. Please.

Shermaine Tan

The Singapore Police Force says they have forwarded Shermaine's case to the relevant units.

Elderly Mr Lim Kim Seng has been going around warning his neighbors about a critical flaw in the metal gates installed in his Block 76, Marine Drive, for residents under the Home Improvement Programme.

68 year-old Mr Lim says that the fasteners used to secure the metal gates to the concrete walls are easily removed with a few simple tools and would easily grant access to would-be criminals.

Mr Lim was so concerned by this discovery, he went door to door to each of his neighbors and warned them about the flaw in HDB's metal gates. To their horror, some of Mr Lim's neighbors have confirmed his discovery.

According to Mr Lim's wife, Mr Lim constantly worries about the safety of his family and the security of his flat, having experienced a house break-in once years ago.

Hi,

It seems that most taxi companies here doesnt care about the well fare of their taxi drivers.

My husband kept informing his company,SMRT that the smell of carbon monoxide kept leaking into the cab. It is very often that a feedback is given to the technical team but no actions are being taken. They responces would be,"Oh its like that one..".

Carbon monoxide is caused when operating a vehicle with a defective emission system or poorly tunes engine. Internal combustion gasoline engines produce extremely high carbon monoxide concentrations.

How can that be? How can an employee be working day and night in a hazardous enviroment? This is very irresponsible of SMRT. And you all should know that taxi drivers drive for very long hours. Are they going to pay for any health coverage if anything happens to the health of taxi drivers?

I mean taxi companies like SMRT should take care of the welfare of their taxi drivers by ensuring that the vehicles are safe to drive. This is endangering the lives of taxi drivers who are working very hard to make ends meet. Not only the lives of the taxi drivers but also the lives of the passengers. There are babies, old people and the sickly who also used these taxi as a form of transportation.

SMRT technical team also refused to change my husband's tyres even when it has already worn out. Tyres are very important in driving. Are they going to be held accountable for if there is an accident?!

I do know that companies wants to save cost but do not go to the extent of risking someone else life. That someone can be someone's father. Can be somone's son. Can be someone's loved ones.

I think a monthly detail checks on the vehicles. There has been campaigns about safe working enviroment. Isnt this part of safe too? Someone should wake SMRT up and investigate further. Else everyone even the passengers would suffer poor health after riding in their cabs.

Worried Wife
A.S.S. Contributor

Dear Editors,

Please let all Singapore horny males BEWARE of this scam extortion.

The many web sites advertising services shows photos of "model-like" females mainly from PRC. They are young looking, with curvaceous bodies, pretty and sexy. BEWARE this is where the trap begins.

They are mostly housed right in the mist of our public housing and categorized as North, South, East, West and Central. It so convenient for the working men.

But the photos of these "model-like" females are taken maybe 5 to 10 years ago and worst of all some of these ladies are someone altogether from the
photos advertised.

As Singapore males are deem to be "soft", "kind-hearted", "afraid of trouble" and worst of all "plain stupid" , they are then trapped in a situation where after meeting the girl in person, they have no choice but to either go ahead and pay the "aunties" for sexual services and or compensate these aunties' time waiting for the appointment.

I was caught in a situation where the "aunty" was suppose to be a sweet looking 20 year old and when shown the photo on my handphone, the aunty insist that she was with make-up then and the photo was taken in a studio and photo shop!!!!! Then she admitted that she cannot have her photo published as it will be shameful for her if her friends find out!!!! LOL!!!

I immediately told her I am sorry and wanted to leave but she stood at the bedroom door and demand that I compensate her $20.00 for her time waiting for me. I was surprised as I was punctual for my appointment but she said that she has turn down "a few" customers because of me and refuse to let me leave the room. What about my time taken and traveling and parking fees incurred??? Who compensate me??? I threatened to call the police and she told me to go ahead which I did.

These girls are just so brazen and are not afraid of our law. I was unable to provide the police with the apartment unit number and when ask to go out to see the unit number the aunty got so aggressive spouting all vulgarity at me. I am not a woman beater and I told her so but I just refuse to give in to her coercement not that I mind spending $20.00 but it is just not right!!!!

After much shuffling and without laying a finger on her, I finally got out of that hell hole without paying her a single cent.

Check the arithmetic, if the aunty con say 20 Singapore males per day and demand compensation of $20.00 per male that will be translated into $400.00 per day which is approximately $12,000.00 per month. On a social visit visa that's a gold mine.

What is our SPF doing about all these web sites????? So all Singapore males BEWARE!!!!!

SiBeiTuLan
A.S.S. Contributor

A tense cross-examination of CPF blogger Roy Ngerng unfolded in the Supreme Court building on Thursday, during day two of the hearing to determine damages the blogger has to pay Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong for defamatory remarks.

The public gallery was nearly full, as Senior Counsel Davinder Singh led the cross-examination by building a case against the blogger regarding his intent to defame the prime minister.

At one point, Singh asked Ngerng if he was aware that sensationalising his blog post was one way to generate greater interest on the Central Provident Fund issue.

“I am aware that people can do that in general,” Ngerng said, adding that it was not something that he did regarding the offending article.

Ngerng had previously said that his CPF articles were not engaging readers, but he had considered matters pertaining to the CPF to be of public interest.

Singh later asked Ngerng if he had been “so consumed” by his desire to champion issues pertaining to CPF and to promote himself that “he was prepared” to make what he knew was an “untrue allegation”.

Ngerng denied this, and said, as he repeated often throughout the hearing, that he had no intent to defame the PM. “I did not believe that (PM Lee) was misappropriating the money,” Ngerng said.

Ngerng appeared agitated by the questions Singh asked him about whether he believed that what he wrote was defamatory.

“Do you accept that these words in the context of the article meant that the plaintiff was guilty of criminal misappropriation?” Singh asked.

Ngerng replied that at the time when he wrote the offending blog post, he believed that it was interesting that someone was able to draw something that described what they wanted to say.

He added that he fully understood what he wrote — that the CPF monies were being misappropriated by the government — but he lacked understanding of the word “misappropriation”.

The blogger stated previously that he had no awareness of the definition of the word and was not aware of the “gravity of the situation” until the letter of demand sent by PM Lee.

He also said he was aware that misappropriation was a criminal offence, but did not understand what the legal definition of criminal misappropriation was, he said.

When Singh questioned his intent to defame. Singh said that Ngerng — despite claims that he did not intend to defame the prime minister — had carefully crafted his article to claim that PM Lee and the government had misappropriated CPF monies.

In response, the blogger had asked the government to sue him if it felt a need to, and told Singh in his face that he was not there to represent the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC).

At one point towards the end of questioning, Singh said Ngerng was playing for time by repeatedly evading difficult questions. This tactic, the senior counsel reminded Ngerng, would have a bearing on the damages that would eventually be awarded to PM Lee.

The National University of Singapore (NUS) has sacked a 43 year-old assistant law professor Sundram Peter Soosay after he was sentenced to 4 months jail last Friday for causing hurt to a taxi driver.

On Christmas Day in 2013, a drunk Soosay had boarded 69 year-old Sun Chuan Hua's taxi, vomited in the cab and tried to leave without paying his fare. When confronted, Soosay handed a $50 note to Sun after the latter threatened to call the police. As Sun headed back to the car to get change, Soosay assaulted Sun from the back and caused grievous injuries to Mr Sun, which required 17 days of medical leave.

NUS said Soosay, who had been teaching at the law faculty since 2008, was at first suspended without pay following his conviction on 29th May.

“The university expects all members of its community to conduct themselves in accordance with the law. Dr Soosay has been convicted of a serious offence,” said an NUS spokesperson.

Soosay's academic profile – which has been removed from NUS website – stated that he had graduated from Strathclyde University in Glasgow before going on to spend an extended period at Edinburgh University where he obtained his master’s degree and PHD.

For his offence, the 43-year-old was also ordered to pay Mr Sun S$1,500 as compensation.

Soosay, who is appealing against his sentence, is currently out on S$25,000 bail.

This is not the first time that NUS has sacked one of its professors over brushes with the law. In 2013, the university dismissed former law don Tey Tsun Hang after he was found guilty of corruption. He was later cleared on appeal.

A reader has requested we share this story to remind others about being true to your partners, especially during the holy month.

I woke up this morning, thinking how does it feel to be dating someone's husband?

Don't you feel cheap? To think that he'll be loyal to you? If he could do it to his wife so many times, what you makes you think he can't do it to you?

To see that whatever he did for you is the same as what he did for me was funny. At that age, anything that he says or do seems wonderful. A flower, cakes, food, etc. He seems like the perfect guy. He's not the roses type of guy. I could give you a book on his likes and dislikes if you want. I thought that he was perfect when I first met him. So charming I wld say. The reason he could do all that is because he feels powerful and secured because you got nothing (no looks,no career) and he has that power over you.

Do I feel hurt? Hurt is an understatement. Betrayed? Manipulated? Yes. Who wont? I thought I knew him. I don't think you will ever understand that because only women will get it. Girls don't. Given 8 years, we've been through shit that tested us as a couple and we always end up loving each other. I knew him inside out and you wouldn't even be close to that.

Being the other woman dnt give you the upper hand. Let me tell you this, a man like that is not worth having at all. He could do it to his wife to have you but what makes you think he wouldnt do it to you when he's bored of you.

I'm so grateful that Allah has opened my eyes to the truth. I deserve better. You can have him. No I'm not bitter because you took the love of my life. Im just glad that you did. You saved me from a twisted liar.

Just remember this, you did this to someone's wife without giving a fuck about her feelings but Allah is watching and it's Ramadhan. Allah Maha Besar and Maha Adil. You will get your kifarah. I can't believe you have the cheek to go to our wedding with your family and took photo with us.

To you My Love - I wish you all the best in finding the life that you wanted. The life that you've trying to find since 2007. I hope Allah will still love you and guide you to the right path. Thank you for the memories.

Her name is Ernie. She works for Royce Suntec and studies at ITE College Central. She probably deleted all her social media.

In an interview with reporters, the now-infamous LightArt Studio, which was accused of discriminating against a female Muslim job seeker, has denied sending out the racist messages and even denies trying to hire anyone at all!

Bosco Cheng, the boss of LightArt Studio, told reporters from Five Stars and a Moon that he had questioned his staff about the messages, but was told that none of them had sent the messages.

Cheng is furious at the accusations, and blamed the internet for making "blind assumptions that the person in the text was from my company".

Cheng says he has filed a police report, but he did not elaborate on whether the charges were directed against the Muslim job seeker, or the threats that Cheng and his company have received from angry netizens.

He added that customers have called to cancel orders with him and some have called to express their concern and anger.

“I’m running a clean business” he said with teeth clenched, “So whatever it is, if I didn’t do it…I don’t want to make any wild guess (sic)”.

When asked why he did not clarify the matter online, he says felt no need to defend himself because he did not send the messages in the first place.

According to Cheng, he had attempted to contact the Muslim job seeker and received a reply at about 6PM today. The situation is now at a standstill because the job seeker insists that the person who interviewed her claims to be from Cheng's company.

When asked whether he wanted to pursue civil charges against the job seeker, Cheng said he just wants the matter to rest and does not want to pursue the matter any further.

Meanwhile, the Muslim job seeker has made a police report of her own regarding the matter. However, there are currently no laws against discriminatory or racist private communications.

Housing Unit (HU)
HU are a entire complex of 2 levels which house up to 40 individual cells

Prisoners sleeps on the hard floor using the straw mattresses as bed and blankets as pillows. Lights off is at 2200hrs every night and the lights are switched on again at 0600hrs.

Prisoners who have special needs or are sucidals are kept in single cell and most of the time with no other prisoners. Lights are left on 24/7

Nowadays, its better than previously in Queenstown Remand Prison. Then you are allowed to bathe once a day, in Changi, you can bathe as much as and when you want.

Last time in Queenstown, prisoners had to use water from the toilet bowl for cleaning or wetting their bodies to keep them cool. It was used as bathing water too.

All Prisoners are expected to sit in rows with their legs crossed inside their cells when there are muster checks. Muster checks are when the wardens do a headcount on all the prisoner housed inside the HU. There can be as much as 5 musters a day.

Inside these cells, a prisoner can hardly see the World outside. You will be lucky if you can see the skyline or the sky.

Yard Time
Prisoners spend most of their time in their cells unless they are cookies (Cookies are prisoners who assist the Wardens to run errands like delivery of food, cleaninless, and even some basic adminstration duties, etc - they are selected only after serving 9-1yr of their sentence, they are usually LT prisoners). They are only allowed out for 1 hr yards on weekdays and 1.5 hrs on saturdays. There will be no yard time on PH and on Sundays.

Food
Prisoners are provided 3 meals a day. Breakfast is at around 0730hrs and consists of 4 pieces of bread with jam or plain butter on alternate days with a cup of coffee of tea.

Lunch is served at about 1100-1200hrs, dinner is at 1600-1700hrs.

The meals consists of 1 meat and 1 veggie and can be either sardine with veggie, hardboiled egg with veggie, BBQ chicken with veggie, sauage with veggie, tofu with veggie.

On 2 days of the week, noodles or beenhoon are served for 1 meal each.

Although the dialogue was meant to be about SG50 and Singapore's future, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong found himself receiving a barrage of questions relating to freedom of speech and the pending cases of bloggers teenager Amos Yee and activist Roy Ngerng.

Aside from questions asked about Singapore's relationship with China and the United states, racial and religious harmony, terrorism, and ASEAN issues, questions from the floor went mostly to Lee's ongoing defamation suit against Ngerng and the criminal case against Yee.

Mr Lee was taking questions from CNN host and The Washington Post columnist Fareed Zakaria at a one-hour session. The session was part of the “Singapore at 50: What Lies Ahead?” conference organised by the Institute of Policy Studies and which continues today.

The reference to Amos first came when Mr Lee spoke about freedom of speech. Although the freedom exists in Singapore, restraints are necessary in instances such as when faiths are derided or proselytising is involved. And in some cases, taking a person to court is needed, “as happened with this young man Amos Yee recently”, said Mr Lee.

“There has to be a lot of give and take because you need strict rules. But at the same time, this is an area where if you insist on going by the rules, everybody is going to be a loser. It is not possible for us to codify in a set of statutes exactly what is permissible (and) what is not permissible conduct,” he added.

Mr Lee said that with social media, “it becomes a harder problem because the restraints are less, the possibility of giving offence and the ease of taking umbrage is so much greater”.

He added: “Overnight you wake up, you can find that somebody has been unwise and everybody has become upset, and we have to run around putting out fires. It has happened more than once and I’m sure it will happen again.”

On the dominance of countries such as the US, Sweden and Israel in innovation, science and technology, Dr Zakaria said these communities are common in that there is a culture of a lack of respect for or challenging authority.

“You spent six hours yesterday in a court trying to do this, to instil a culture of respect. And isn’t it exactly the opposite of what you need for your economic future?” the US journalist asked.

In response, Mr Lee said: “You want people to stand up, not scrape and bow. But if you don’t have a certain natural aristocracy in the system, people who are respected because they have earned that and we level everything down to the lowest common denominator, then I think society will lose out ... If you end up with anarchy, it doesn’t mean that you’ll be delivered with brilliance.”

Dr Zakaria parried, questioning whether the Government is overly paranoid about anarchy. He added that he feels Mr Lee should have ignored Ngerng, saying: “Look at what people call Barack Obama on the Internet. It would have made your blood curdle.”

When questions were open to the floor, the focus was again moved back on Ngerng’s and Amos’ cases by medical professor Paul Tambyah, who is a volunteer with the opposition Singapore Democratic Party. With the Government’s focus seemingly “shifted to minor players, such as a rude and insensitive teenager ... (and) the son of a chai tow kway seller who wrote 400 blog articles”, will there be more space for diverse views in the future, asked Dr Tambyah.

Mr Lee replied that one can discuss anything, but “you can’t defame anybody you like”. He added: “If you can’t redress defamation, how can I clear my name when somebody defames me?”

According to the TR Emeritus article “Singtel defends its big remuneration to senior staff” (Jun 24) – “It is important that our stakeholders and the public have a balanced and complete view of how we remunerate our CEO and senior management.

We have a pay-for-performance philosophy that measures and rewards short-term, mid-term and long-term performance. Short-term performance is measured through a balanced scorecard approach which rates individuals against financial and non-financial KPIs. Mid-term performance is rewarded by a value-sharing bonus which is dependent on the overall economic profit of the group i.e. excess return over risk-adjusted cost of capital.

This is a true measure of value creation for our shareholders and is not linked in any way to the vagaries of the stock market. It is important to note that this bonus can be clawed back if Singtel does not continue to deliver sustainable value.

Lastly, there is a long-term incentive scheme in the form of performance shares to reinforce the delivery of long-term growth measured by total shareholder returns in relative and absolute terms.

Mr Israel said that Singtel’s total shareholder return for this year was 25% compared to 11% for the Straits Times Index and 12% for the MSCI Asia Pacific Telco Index.”

According to www.investopedia.com – “total shareholder returns” is “the total return of a stock to an investor (capital gain plus dividends).

The internal rate of return of all cash flows to an investor during the holding period of an investment”

Total shareholder return 25% for 1 year justifies 50% increase in remuneration?

Don’t you find it somewhat amusing that whilst talking about “long-term growth” – we cite only one year’s  ”total shareholder return for this year was 25% compared to 11% for the Straits Times Index” to justify the as much as 50 per cent increase in officers’ remuneration?

Singtel’s poor shareholder return is legendary?

Let’s look at Singtel’s“shareholder return” in history.

In the annals of stock market history – Singtel’s“shareholder return” is argubly legendary for its poor performance.

14 years to recover back to IPO price?

Shortly after its IPO in 1993 at the price of $3.61 – it plunged to a low of about $1.19 in 2002, and took almost 14 years to recover to above $3.61 in 2007. Even in 2013, after about 20 years – its price was as low as below $3.61.

At its current price of $4.24 – it translates to an annualised return on its share price (without dividends) of only about 0.7 per cent per annum.

Shareholder value ranked bottom 8 out of 5,069 companies?

As to “mid-term performance is rewarded by a value-sharing bonus which is dependent on the overall economic profit of the group i.e. excess return over risk-adjusted cost of capita” – according to the book “Southeast Asian Affairs 2002″ (page 296) – “a Wealth Added Index compiled by consulting firm Stern Steward ranked 5,069 largest quoted companies by shareholder value created (or destroyed) between June 1996 and June 2001. Singtel was ranked number eighth among the bottom 25.

It suffered from both lessons drawn from the ranking: one, costly acquisitions can destroy value and two, it is a volatile market where the quest for shareholder value can create as many spectacular failures as successes.

Shareholder value US$29.9b destroyed?

Singtel’s cost of equity at 8 per cent exceeded total shareholder return at -10 per cent with US$29.9 billion destroyed for the period under study.”

Ever claw back remuneration? 

As to “It is important to note that this bonus can be clawed back if Singtel does not continue to deliver sustainable value” and “there is a long-term incentive scheme in the form of performance shares to reinforce the delivery of long-term growth measured by total shareholder returns in relative and absolute terms” – has any officers’ remuneration ever been clawed back in its history, given the dismal historical performance?

Analogy – ncrease remuneration after every market or stock crash?

Also, as to “total shareholder return for this year was 25% compared to 11% for the Straits Times Index” – to justify the as much as 50 per cent increase in officers’ remuneration – as an analogy – can you imagine companies whose stock price or the stock market has dropped a lot – giving a very high increase in remuneration to officers because the recovery in price and dividends was very high for the year following the steep drop or a drop for a prolonged period of time?

The Singtel fiasco?

Since Singtel’s shareholder return and remuneration is in the limelight now – perhaps we should revisit the issue of the appropriateness of the process which led to such a high IPO price and poor historical performance of the largest stock by capitalisation in Singapore and the stock which is owned by the most Singaporeans.

Win battles lose war

MARUAH, a Human Rights Non-Governmental Organisation, objects to government leaders using the Defamation Law to institute defamation lawsuits against its critics, regardless of whether the offending statement is defamatory or not.

We make these remarks as the court assesses the damages that Mr Roy Ngerng has to pay for the remarks made against Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong. In May 2014 Mr Ngerng, a blogger, was sued by Mr Lee Hsien Loong, whom we assume is acting in his private capacity and not as the Prime Minister. Mr Lee’s lawyers demanded that Mr Ngerng remove the article in question, issue an apology on his blog, and offer compensation to Mr Lee. Mr Ngerng acceded to all the demands, including removing four other articles, and made an offer of S$5,000 as compensation to Mr Lee. Mr Lee’s lawyers, however, dismissed the amount as ‘derisory’, and commenced legal action on 30 May 2014. In January 2015, Mr Ngerng was ordered by the court to pay $29,000 to Mr Lee. Today (1 July 2015) the courts will decide on the damages that Mr Ngerng has to pay to Mr Lee Hsien Loong.

This was one of the few cases in Singapore where a defendant was found liable for defamation over an online article. Given the proliferation of the use of the Internet as an open platform to discuss and debate various issues, the use of defamation lawsuits against members of the public is likely to have a chilling effect on the freedom of speech and expression. While freedom of speech and expression is not absolute and has to be exercised responsibly, in our view, there are more constructive ways of responding to online dissent (both valid and invalid) than resorting to a defamation lawsuit.

Defamation proceedings are costly, often resulting in hefty damages awarded to the plaintiff, and the threat of financial ruin is likely to deter the average person from criticising the government. While it can be argued, to some extent, that such deterrence would foster responsible criticism as the speaker would take care not to make careless or baseless allegations, we believe that there are more constructive ways to foster responsibility in exercising freedom of speech. For instance, instead of taking an offending critic to court, the public official could publish a statement in the press or on the relevant website, refuting the critic.

Thus MARUAH calls for a review of the Defamation Law to ensure that allegations of defamation and defamation lawsuits do not suppress the provision of constructive and debatable opinions. As public officials (including government officials) owe a duty of accountability to the public, defamation lawsuits brought by public officials should be subjected to a higher standard of review than those brought by purely private parties. Namely, in addition to proving the test for defamation under Singapore law, the public official plaintiff should bear the burden of proving that the alleged defamatory statement is false.

This would ensure that public officials bring only the most serious cases to court, and by proving his critic wrong, it would also boost public confidence in the public official’s conduct. This would simultaneously minimise the impression that the defamation lawsuit is a tool used by the government to silence (justly or unjustly) its critics. If the evidence to be proffered by the public official plaintiff is of a sensitive nature, in camera court proceedings should be allowed, but only if it is absolutely necessary.

This is a statement that MARUAH has also issued under a A Collective of Singapore NGOs (COSINGO) to the UN Human Rights Council as part of the Universal Periodic Review system. We ask that our Defamation Law be reviewed, the actions of public officials initiating defamation suits become a last resort after other ways of resolving the matter have been pursued and that we need to realise that different approaches are needed when social media is becoming a public communication tool.

Well my fellow viewers, I think until I am released from Prison, this is all I can manage to say.

In lieu of all of my news, and me being in remand, is centrally, the discourse on our rights to freedom of speech. And those rights, I still manage to uphold, as you can see, even when I am placed in jail. And the reason why is because maybe as of now, perhaps comparatively to most people, I know that my views can influence people, I know that my voice is powerful, and I should never be afraid of using it, especially when the primary aversion to my voice is formed by an unjust and corrupt Government.

But really my fellow viewers, you have a voice too, you always had a voice, and I urge everyone to never doubt the power of what a voice of just a single individual can hold, because a voice can convey ideas.

An idea is controversial, an idea is something we must stand behind, must answer for. An idea, a good idea, is more powerful that any Government or Cathedral. Will survive eras, will survive social and economic turmoil.

And if we allow the government, the police and the law, to continue to censor us, to use archaic laws to dictate our ideas and our views, to use fear to threaten us into not expressing our views, then though I am a prisoner, when freedom cannot be granted to me, you are a prisoner although freedom is granted to you. And that’s more saddening than any number of months or years in jail that I have to endure.

And if I am locked up in Prison and unable to continue posting pictures of Lee Kuan Yew buttfucking Margaret Thatcher, then I hope that there is a person out there, whoever you are, who will continue doing so. And believe me, there will be.

But don’t ever never aim to be the next Einstein, the next Gandhi or the next Amos Yee (Haha). But instead, focus on you, and become the best possible version of yourself. Because everyone, including you, are exceptionally unique, and it is the ones that embrace their uniqueness, that they become someone truly special and great.

So now alas I am done, I take my leave

Adieu my friends adieu… parting is such sweet sorrow…

A sensational report by a Malaysian news media outlet, Sarawak Report, has accused Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak of suspiciously transferring funds from the Malaysian state investment company, 1 Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB), into his own personal banking accounts. Even more shockingly, some of these suspicious transactions may have been facilitated by banking institutions based in Singapore!

Excerpts of the Sarawak Report article here:

SRC paid RM42 million to Najib Razak’s private accounts

The money taken from SRC International is a particularly shocking revelation, because this was money lent by the public pension fund KWAP and never accounted for.

SRC International Sdn Bhd was set up under the auspices of 1MDB in July 2011 and it is headed by none other than Nik Faisal Ariff Kamil, a close friend of Jho Low, who was brought over to 1MDB from Sarawak’s UBG as the fund’s chief investment officer.

In 2010 Nik Kamil was the ‘link man’ between UBG, 1MDB and PetroSaudi for channelling US$260 million of 1MDB money into the purchase of UBG from Jho Low and the then Sarawak Chief Minister Taib Mahmud.

He was then transferred to become CEO of 1MDB’s new subsidiary SRC International Sdn Bhd.

SRC International courted immediate controversy in 2011 by borrowing RM4 billion from Malaysia’s public retirement fund Kumpulan Wang Persaraan (KWAP).

Over subsequent years 1MDB’s political critics have pressed the government to understand where that money went and have repeatedly complained at the lack of information provided by the company’s statements and accounts.

Most recently the Prime Minister, who had eventually taken SRC under the direct control of his own Ministry of Finance, announced in March that much of the money had been invested in a Mongolian company Gobi Coal & Energy.

However, documents now in the hands of Malaysian prosecutors, show that just the previous month (February 10th 2015) SRC International had transferred RM10 million into the account number 2112022011880 of “Dato’Sri Mohd Najib Bin Hj Abd Razak” at AmPrivate Bank in Kuala Lumpur.

Likewise, on December 26th 2014, two earlier transactions had seen the transfer of another RM27 million and RM5 million from SRC International Sdn Bhd into AmPrivate Banking account number 2112022011906, which also belongs to “Dato’Sri Mohd Najib Bin Hj Abd Razak”.

The money trail from SRC International to Najib has been clearly detailed by investigators and is also in the possession of the international financial newspaper The Wall Street Journal.

Sarawak Report has acquired copies of the documentation relating to the case, which corroborate that out of a total of RM50 million transferred from of SRC in these transactions RM42 million went straight into the Prime Minister’s own accounts.

The findings present a clear flow of money from SRC International’s AmBank Islamic account number 2112022010650 through two separate Malaysian companies into two of Najib’s own personal accounts at the AmBank Group’s private arm.

During the intervening period was the GE13 election campaign, where the issue of vote buying featured heavily. It therefore seems inevitable that questions will now be asked whether the Prime Minister was using this transfer of money as a personal ‘election fund’?

Indeed UMNO candidates have confided that Najib handed them multi million personal cheques, signed by the Prime Minister himself, in order to cover election expenses.

Also at issue is whether the banks involved ever alerted regulators to the possibility of a suspicious transaction, according to money laundering regulations?

The wire transfer documents show that these multi-million dollar transfers were handled through New York by the American Wells Fargo Bank, International Branch.

The revelations will inevitably prompt calls for the regulators in Singapore, Switzerland and now the United States to examine the activities of a Swiss private bank based in Singapore through the US in paying such a sum into the private account of a politically connected individual.

This new information, related to the on-going scandal of 1MDB and already being reported internationally, is likely to send shock waves through Malaysia’s banking and political circles.

Whatever the excuses (an of course there will be attempts at plenty) such vast transfers of money into a sitting Prime Minister’s private account cannot be ignored.

Neither can the unorthodox and irregular handling of public borrowings from an old age pension fund entrusted once again to the same Prime Minister cum Finance Minister, who allowed money from SRC to also pass into his personal accounts.

To view the full article, see source below.

Malaysian girls only want to get SG citizenship. Stop falling for their scams.

The first time you went back to her home in Msia? One of her brothers/cousins could actually turn out to be her real BF in disguise. This is to give you a false sense of security, thinking that the close guy she is with is just her relative, not her real bf.

subsequently, as you get lazy to travel back with her, she spends her weekends with her real bf. which explains why she is so tired everytime she returns on Monday, but still makes the trip back every weekend.

Malaysian girls are not submissive. They merely pretend to be. After marriage, you will see a whole new side to them.

Upset Singaporean Man

A dramatic scene unfolded yesterday afternoon at Toa Payoh Central as 3 middle-aged men pinned down a pervert who was caught taking upskirt photographs of women on an escalator.

The perverted photogrpher, who was pinned down in the picture above, was spotted behaving suspiciously around the escalator in front of the entrance of an NTUC Fairprice super market.

When one of the photographer's victims realized what he was doing, she confronted the man and made a scene, causing a large crowd to form around them. Outnumbered and shamed, the man tried to escape but was quickly pinned down by 3 uncles from among the growing crowd.

Police arrived shortly after and arrested the man. Investigations are ongoing.

Lee Hsien Loong and his lawyers were in court today at the beginning of the hearing to determine what damages Roy Ngerng had to pay him (see the report from the State media here).

The lawyers said that:

“It is therefore an extremely serious matter for the defendant to accuse the plaintiff of criminally misappropriating the monies paid by Singaporeans to the CPF.”

“Such an allegation undermines the plaintiff’s ability to lead the country, sustain the confidence of the electorate and to discharge his functions as Prime Minister and chairman of GIC.”

They concluded:

“The case for a very high award of damages, including aggravated damages, is compelling”

However, is it?

It is a well-established principle in English defamation law that in order to win substantial damages you have to show that you suffered financial loss from the defamation. Thus if you were a politician and you lost an election or had to resign as a minister because of defamatory statements made about you then you would be entitled to the loss of earnings from losing your seat or your position in the Cabinet. If you lost your job then you would be entitled to damages representing your lost earnings and your reduced earning capacity as a result of the libel.

After the 1997 election Goh Chok Tong sued my father, JBJ, for holding up a police report at an election rally and saying that Tang Liang Hong had just handed it to him. The police report was made against Goh Chok Tong and several other PAP ministers including Lee Kuan Yew and his son, Lee Hsien Loong.

However at the hearing, George Carman, my father’s QC, cross-examined Goh Chok Tong and got him to admit that his earnings had not suffered as a result of the election rally statement. To quote from a report that appeared in the Hong Kong Standard at the time,

Mr Goh testified 1997 had been a good year saying his standing in the world had not been injured. Yet in an affidavit Mr Goh had said his “reputation, moral authority and leadership standing had been gravely damaged both locally and internationally”.

Because Goh Chok Tong could not prove that he had suffered any damage and also because Carman showed that the plaintiffs (Goh Chok Tong and the other ten ministers) had authorised the release of the police reports to the press themselves, the district judge Rajendran only awarded Goh $20,000 in damages initially. Later, as always happens in Singapore, Prime Minister Goh was able to find a more sympathetic ear from the judges in the Court of Appeal, and the damages were raised to $100,000 plus costs.

Similarly in Lee Hsien Loong’s case what damage can he prove he has suffered as a result of Roy’s admitted defamation?

He is still Prime Minister of Singapore praised by international leaders, including President Obama, and likely to continue in office after the next general election. Has his salary of $2.2 million been cut either by reducing his monthly salary or his Individual Performance Bonus of three months pay been cut?

Lee Hsien Loong continues to be an MP so in addition to his Ministerial salary he continues to draw his MP’s salary of $192,500 per annum.

The PM also remains Chairman of GIC which is a serious conflict of interest, and which I have criticised frequently ( most recently in “The Problem with Husbands and Wives in the WP, in the Ruling Family, in Our Reserves”).

Although GIC’s annual report is silent on the subject of remuneration, it seems likely that Lee Hsien Loong would be paid, just as the other directors presumably receive directors’ fees and expenses. The Ministerial Salaries Committee said in its 2011 report that Ministers would continue to only receive one salary per Ministerial appointment held but was silent on the subject of Ministers who serve on the boards of Schedule 5 companies like GIC and Temasek.

Lee Hsien Loong’s wife, Ho Ching, continues as CEO of Temasek, despite the conflict of interest when her husband is the Prime Minister and has the ultimate authority over her appointment. Roy’s comments did not lead to her being sacked and she undoubtedly continues to be paid a multi-million dollar compensation package. Since her subordinates, most notably Ms Chua at SingTel who is earning over $12 million a year (see “Singaporeans Would Be Much Angrier If They Knew How Much SingTel’s CEO Was Really Getting” ), are earning total compensation packages running into many millions of dollars, Ho Ching can hardly be getting less. It is likely her total pay dwarfs that of her husband’s.

Lee Hsien Loong appears not to have suffered any financial loss. Neither has he become a pariah or outcast on the international stage. Despite his lawyers arguing that Roy’s allegations had undermined his ability to lead the country, sustain the confidence of the electorate and to discharge his functions as Prime Minister and Chairman of GIC, there is no evidence of that.

In fact, if there is any damage to the PM’s reputation, that damage is self-inflicted by his absurd decision to sue Roy, an unemployed health service worker from a lower income background, and to press for a ridiculous level of damages that he knows will force Roy into bankruptcy.

At the same time Roy has been dismissed from his job with a Government hospital, suffered a public attack on his integrity by the Ministry of Health which has to all intents and purposes made him unemployable and also been charged with illegal assembly for exercising his rights to free speech in the only area allotted to Singaporeans for this purpose. If this is not a vendetta by the Prime Minister it certainly appears as such.

It is also difficult to argue that Lee Hsien Loong has shown “an unflinching fidelity to integrity” as his lawyers said. If he did would he have permitted a system of governance with such an egregious conflict of interest where he is Chairman of GIC and his wife is CEO of Temasek? Between them they control over $800 billion of the nation’s assets including all the monies invested by the CPF Board in Government securities.

It is a pity that Roy admitted defamation in the crude sense that the PM was directly misappropriating CPF monies, which is how the Prime Minister’s lawyer, Davinder Singh, insisted on interpreting what Roy said.

While there is no evidence of such gross impropriety, if the Prime Minister receives any remuneration as Chairman of GIC that is related to its performance then he indirectly benefits from GIC being able to borrow from the Government as cheaply as possible, which is again dependent on the interest rates paid to CPF holders. The lower those interest rates, the lower GIC’s cost of funds and, presumably, the higher its returns.

While Temasek may not be directly dependent on CPF for funding, it receives subventions from the surpluses the Government generates. If cheap CPF funding enables GIC to make a higher rate of return and thus higher contributions to the Budget, the higher surplus may enable the Government to provide more money to Temasek for investment. According to Temasek’s annual report the bonuses of senior management are linked to the excess returns over a hurdle rate. If the hurdle rate is tied to the rates paid to CPF holders then Ho Ching’s compensation would be higher the lower the rates paid to CPF holders.

Roy would have been on safer ground if he had been clear that that is all he meant and that the PM should clarify whether he received any compensation from GIC and how Ho Ching’s compensation was determined.

Going back further into the past, there is the HPL saga in the 1990s to remind us that Lee Hsien Loong has not always shown an unflinching fidelity to integrity. He, together with his father and siblings, received large discounts for the purchase of properties from a developer over whom his government held the power to withhold planning permission or to compulsorily acquire its land. That is the only instance that we know about but the fact that Lee father and son paid back the discounts they received is an acknowledgement that they had done wrong.

In the UK ministers initiating defamation actions are normally required to resign from their posts for the duration of the case to avoid any conflict of interest that could arise. This is doubly the case with the all-powerful Prime Minister’s ridiculous action against a humble blogger who has admitted defamation. Instead of resigning for the duration of the case, LHL has gone the other way and even used the services of his Press Secretary in his private action, in a flagrant misuse of taxpayer resources that breaches the Ministerial Code of Conduct.

Combined with the cruel and inhumane treatment meted out to sixteen-year old Amos Yee for criticising LHL’s dead father, it appears that the Lee family want to silence any criticism of their godlike status. What will be next, I wonder, a six-year old expelled from kindergarten for saying bad things about Lee senior?

It is clear that any reasonable judge or jury would either dismiss LHL’s suit, on the grounds that he had suffered no damage, or else award him derisory damages of, say, $1,000-$5,000. It used to be the case in the UK that juries would award damages of just a penny if they decided that the plaintiff had been technically defamed, but had not suffered any financial loss or else was guilty of similar transgressions just not the exact one of which he was accused by the offending publication. If we had a jury in Singapore that would be likely to be the outcome here.

Kenneth Jeyaretnam

These is what the PAP used to say about the boomer generation aka the pioneer generation work ethics in the 1980s

27 September 1980
Of late, there has also been considerable debate over the diminishing work ethics of our workers. Employers have complained of the poor attitudes among some of our workers like job hopping, reluctance to do overtime or shift work, individualistic outlook, lack of initiative and lack of 2 a sense of responsibility. These bad work attitudes were listed in the EDB and Ministry of Labour reports published in the papers. The VITB's letter on what should be done to improve work attitudes has also been published
Source: http://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/data/pdfdoc/skh19800927s.pdf

Now lets fast forward to 2015

Its very clear that the PAP considers everyone to be lazy from 1980 to 2015 except ofcourse themselves.

This goes to show that the PAP is now giving out pioneer generation packages saying that the pioneers had built the nation, but on the other hand in 1980 they said this same generation had bad work ethics? So how can this be?

Is this then not clear to anyone that the pioneer generation packages are a way to get oldies to vote for them

Even then in 1980s the employers said Singaporeans were lazy, so all Singaporeans are lazy except the PAP and their cronies and FTs?

Ashton
A.S.S. Contributor

Hi,

I would like to raise an awareness. I was using Woodlands Checkpoint few days back. When I was the Car’s queue at the Immigration counter, I saw the Immigration Officers PC serving the opposite of my counter.

In their PC Monitor, Left Side states HOT LIST and all wanted person picture will be moving upwards. Then I saw Amos Yee(in Yellow T-shirt) picture in it. It was a shock of my life.

A young teenage boy picture in the Hot List while he is IMH. How can pass thru Immigration while under custody. And lastly just for speaking the truth and what a normal born Singaporean feel in his heart got him in to Politically Intimidated/Bullied. I am now really terrified of the Ruling Party/Government/PAP/LHL. I am shocked that nobody reported it.

From a very concern, Born Singaporean.

MdYas

A 34 year old Dutch Dino Petrus Johannes van Deijzen who assaulted a taxi driver had his 3 weeks jail sentence upped to 3 months after a successful appeal from the Prosecution. The DPP appealed against the 3 week sentence because the preceding Judge Imran had portrayed the Dutchman as a victim in this assault case.

Justice Imran “noted that the victim had also engaged in a scuffle with van Deijzen and traded blows, which would have explained the blunt force trauma suffered by the accused.” However, Appeals Judge Tay did not agree with Judge Imran judgement saying the claims made by the accused were “convenient excuses to downplay his use of inexcusable violence”.

A lack of remorse and no offer of compensation to the victim has been cited by aggravating factors to the increase in sentencing.

Background:

On 19 June 2015, Dutchman Dino Petrus Jhannes van Deijzen was sentenced to a 3 weeks jail for viciously punching and kicking a 42 year old taxi driver after the former refuse to pay his taxi fare. The victim suffered multiple abrasions all over his body and could not drive for five days, severely affecting his livelihood – losing income and having to pay rental while he recovers.