The Singapore Prime Minister Takes Issue with 9 More of My Blog Articles to Pay His Lawyers $50,000

Hello everyone,

As some of you might know, my next hearing for the defamation suit is tomorrow, 12 January 2015 at 10am at Chamber 4D at the Supreme Court.

The hearing tomorrow will be to decide on how much I have to pay to the lawyers of the prime minister for their legal fees. (Note that this is not the hearing to determine how much I would need to pay to the prime minister – the hearing for this has not been set yet.)

The prime minister wants me to pay his lawyers $49,027.61 – for the lawyers’ representation for the summary judgment.

But not only that, the prime minister is also taking issue with another 9 more articles that I have written (one of which includes a video), so as to ask me to pay more costs.

I was previously asked to take down 5 articles and a video in May last year. In total, the prime minister has taken issue with 14 of my articles and 2 videos.

Why does the prime minister want to keep stopping me from talking? Am I such a threat or have what I said truly posed so much threat to him?

Or is it because of what I have said about the CPF?

In the latest round of censorship, the prime has taken issue with 9 more of the articles that I had published on my blog, The Heart Truths, from July to December last year.

(1) The first article was published on 17 July last year, where I published the prime minister’s first affidavit on my blog, in which he said that I have “defamed” him.

(2) On 17 July 2014 as well, I also posted an update on my blog on the first pre-trial conference for the case and the prime minister is taking issue with it as well.

“By May this year, the government deleted all evidence that I’ve traced of how our CPF is invested in the GIC and Temasek Holdings from the government websites. But by June this year, the government suddenly did an about turn and finally admitted the truth – that our CPF is indeed invested in the GIC,” I said.

“Why did they suddenly admit to the truth in June this year?” I had asked.

(3) Then, when I submitted my affidavit and none of the state-controlled media wanted to report about it, I talked about the unfair and biased reporting on my blog on 5 August 2014 but the prime minister did not like it as well.

I stated that “it is inconceivable that GIC does not know whether or not it manages CPF funds (as both the GIC and the government claims) when the (prime minister), the two deputy prime ministers and the ministers for Trade & Industry and Education sit on the board of directors of GIC.

“The Government and the GIC has made numerous changes and flip-flops in their stance, which has been shown to conceal important facts about how the Government and the GIC manages Singaporeans’ CPF. This is disingenuous and remains a threat to the security of how Singaporeans’ CPF are being managed. The Government’s and the GIC’s inconsistencies in their statements pose real risk to the lives of Singaporeans.”

(4) But the prime minister said that what I had said was “irrelevant” and an “abuse of the process of the Court” in his second affidavit which I posted on my blog on 29 August 2014. But he took issue with this.

He further added that I “continued to assiduously court publicity to raise (my) public profile, politicise matters, garner support and sympathy and continue (my) attacks against the (prime minister).”

But has it not always been political, right from my very being sued to being sacked from my job, and then charged with holding protests just so to demand for the transparency and accountability of our CPF?

(5) He then took issue with an article that I had published on 17 September 2014 where I said that I had hoped for a new beginning for Singapore, but he said that I was trying to “garner support and sympathy”.

“I believe that to be in this life, to live, is to learn to be human, or perhaps to learn humanity, to learn to be kind, compassionate and caring to another,” I had said.

“No matter what I do, I do it because it feels right, because it feels like my purpose to do, sometimes because it is a duty, as it is now.

“I am not angry with the PAP and the ministers or the rich affiliated to them, who have enriched themselves with our money. But I do ask, with the wealth they have hoarded, are they still in a position to ask for self-reliance, when in their positions, self-reliance becomes a frivolous thought.

“To which then, has the PAP shown empathy?”

Is the prime minister not happy that I had questioned the PAP’s sincerity in taking care of the Singaporeans? I had thought that this was a suit that he is taking on his own personal capacity?

What has what I got to say about the PAP got anything to do with his case?

Or was it intended all along?

(6) He also said that I “did not stop even after the summary judgment hearing” when I made a video and wrote an article that was published on 28 September 2014.

“I issue a challenge to the PAP ministers,” I had said.

“Let’s have a one-on-one debate about the CPF. Time to stop playing games and using distractions. How did you take Singaporeans’ CPF to use, to earn money for yourselves? Let’s talk openly and honestly, live, in front of Singaporeans. If you dare. It is hypocritical to use others as shields for you, and pretend to care for them.

“If you truly care for Singaporeans, then actually help Singaporeans.”

(7) Yet, he felt that I “did not stop” with another article that I had published on 29 September 2014 as well.

But what does he want me to “stop”?

To stop talking? To stop talking about the CPF?

Did I talk about him in these articles? Why does he want to stop me from talking?

Or is it because I questioned the PAP’s policies?

“As I learnt to analyse the PAP’s policies and to read between the lines, I realise that the PAP has come out with a systematic way of devising policies which would allow them to increase subsidies on one hand, but further increase the revenue they take from Singaporeans, so that whatever subsidies and payouts they give to Singaporeans would not come out from their own coffers but would be extracted from Singaporeans,” I had said.

“My question to Singaporeans now is this – what will you do?

“When will Singaporeans decide to stand up and fight for ourselves?

“At the end of the day, it is up to you to decide, whether there is too much at stake now or if there will be too much at stake if we don’t fight now.”

But the prime minister continued to insist that “even after the Judgment was issued, (I) continued (my) unreasonable conduct”.

He also said that my conduct “during the proceedings also compelled” the his lawyers to “expend additional time and labour” – and that is why he wants me to pay $50,000 to them.

And that my “false and baseless allegation constituted a very serious libel on (him), disparaged him and impugned his character, credit and integrity.”

(8) When I wrote an article on 26 November about my worries about how Singapore has become too divided, the prime minister said that I “continued to court publicity to raise (my) public profile, garner support and sympathy, and renew (my attack) against (him)”.

But how was what I had said about the PAP relevant to him, if this suit was taken in his personal capacity?

“Because the PAP wants to stay in power so that it can continue to protect its own wealth, it will attack the opposition and innocent Singaporeans just so it will get its way,” I had said.

“The PAP then uses the other estates of government, such as the civil service, and then turn it into their personal tools to attack Singaporeans.

“Today, our country is divided because the PAP would protect the rich over the poor and the middle-class, foreigners over Singaporeans (because of the agreements they have signed with the other countries) and their own cronies over Singaporeans.

“It saddens me to see how our country has become so divided, where the large majority of Singaporeans who are poor and the middle class, and where those who cannot help the PAP make the money they want, are cast aside as leeches.

“But before we see change come to Singapore, it requires the people to take a hard look at ourselves, to ask ourselves if we are ready, and whether we are willing to be honest to the reality of things and face up to things.”

Again, is the prime minister not happy that I spoke about the PAP? Then why did he take out a personal defamation suit against me? Why did he not take out the suit as a prime minister instead?

(9) Finally, when I wrote my last article on 1 December 2014 after receiving unverified threats to my family if I continued writing, the prime minister also said that this article was a renewed attack against him.

For goodness sake, Mr Lee Hsien Loong, it was my last article. It was an article of how I reflected on my life and where I had ended after being sued.

In what way does it look like it was an attack on you?

“And even among those you seek to help, even they among themselves are used to feeling so enslaved that they are not ready to see the possibilities of a better life as well,” I had said.

“And my wish is for a better place that we can live in, as soon as it gets, simply because treating people right is the right thing to do, and we shouldn’t have to waste time to get there.”

I do not understand why the prime minister took issue with these articles when most of them do not even mention him. In fact, the articles that he took issue with were the ones where I had questioned the PAP’s integrity and the state-controlled’s media unfair and biased reporting against me.

If anything, it is the government which is being used to launch a coordinated attack against me. How is what I say as an individual an “attack” against him when it was never even my intention to do so?

Has the prime minister Lee Hsien Loong become so consumed with his own power that he believes that he has a right to throw his weight around and dislike my articles at his own whims and fancies, with no rhyme and reason?

Ironically, the prime minister’s lawyer pointed out that I have said before that the prime minister “was seeking to prevent (me) from expressing (my) views on the CPF and to impose an unwarranted and unnecessary restriction upon (my) constitutional right, as a citizen of Singapore, to freedom of speech and expression.”

The judge who oversaw my case also said that “the court must bear in mind that the injunction should be carefully worded and sufficiently circumscribed such that it would not overreach and thereby infringe upon the right to freedom of speech or have a chilling effect”.

He also wants to “make it clear that (I) remain free to exercise (my) rights to freedom of speech under Art 14 of the Constitution, save for the repetition of the allegation that has been found to be defamatory in these proceedings”.

Yet, the prime minister has now taken issue with 9 more of my articles.

He also said that I kept “shifting” the “meaning” of my article.

He quoted me as having said that, “there is no transparency in the manner which CPF monies were invested by the Government, MAS, Temasek Holdings and/or GIC” and that “the Government (through GIC and Temasek Holdings) retains and enriches itself with a large proportion of the investment gains made by GIC and Temasek Holdings when they invest CPF monies”.

But he claimed that this is different from what I said, when I said “that the Government of Singapore enriches itself and its reserves by only returning a portion of the profits made by GIC and Temasek to CPF account holders and retaining the rest of the profits to grow its portfolio of investments into two of the largest sovereign wealth funds in the world”, and that, “The legal retention of profits derived from the investing of CPF monies by GIC and Temasek, by the Government is simply not fair to Singaporeans”.

How are they different? Is it not the case that the PAP has taken Singaporeans’ CPF to invest in GIC and Temasek Holdings to profit from Singaporeans and has been unfair to Singaporeans?

Is the PAP government earning from the CPF of Singaporeans or not?

And even so, if the prime minister is indeed suing me in his own personal capacity, then why does he keep alluding to the PAP in his legal documents? Is the prime minister not himself “shifting” and flip-flopping in his stance, when he claims the defamation suit to be a personal one but would drag the PAP in when it is to his own convenience?

Or was it because the PAP knew that as a government body, they cannot sue me so they sued me on the pretext of using a personal suit from the prime minister?

Because I was exposing too much dirt that the PAP was trying very hard to cover up?

Lee Hsien Loong Roy Ngerng

Yet, just 3 days ago, the prime minister said on his Facebook page that he “Was shocked to learn of the brutal attack at the offices of the weekly magazine, Charlie Hebdo, in Paris that has claimed many lives.

“It is yet another reminder of the threat posed by terrorism to all civilised societies, and that it is totally wrong to invoke religion to justify such savagery.”

Mr Lee would know that the attack on Charlie Hebdo has been seen by many as an attack on the freedom of speech.

Then, Mr Lee would also be familiar with this: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Yet, where faced with the very issue of the freedom of speech in his own country, my dear Mr Lee, has he chastised his own actions and call himself “wrong” or has he only “justified” his own actions of suing me.

I cannot hide behind walls of pretense when I speak of you anymore, Mr Lee Hsien Loong.

Your hypocrisy is deafening and and shameful.

I am sick of your pompous, willful and childish actions to protect your throne when what you should be doing is to get out and help the people, for goodness sake.

Stop being an arrogant brat who is so insecure that you would keep suing other people so that you can keep your “face”.

And stop claiming that you are being attacked when the whole of your government is being used to attack me. If I am not even complaining to you, then why do you keep whining at me?

For once, stop hiding behind your dad’s cloak and start to stand like your own man, will you?

Get out, actually spend money to help the people and stop pretending that if you were to even spend one more cent to help the people, that the whole of Singapore will sink like Atlantis did.

I am honestly sick and tired of your actions. If your government can do nothing better than to spend time suing its critics and covering up, rather than actually take action to help the people, then get out so that we can put in people who are cheaper than you and better than you at their job.

You inherited a system that allowed you to control everything, sure. But I regret that the system was passed into your hands when the very integrity of Singapore’s system is now crumbling in your hands.

All I have done was to seek for the government to redress the issue on the CPF and you didn’t like it.

It was very easy for you and the PAP to fix the issue. Go speak to Singaporeans – real Singaporeans, not just your grassroots activists – speak to them, increase their wages, increase the CPF interest rates, return them the CPF that you took from them to earn and their retirement funds will increase; Singaporeans will be able have a dignified retirement in their own country.

These are very simple things that you can do.

But instead you chose to sue me.

I asked if we could have an open dialogue on the CPF but you ignored me.

Quite honestly, please just stop playing petty politics and then blame me for doing what you do a thousand times worse.

After I write this article, you are most definitely going to take issue with it and you are going to stamp your feet and cry like a baby.

Who cares? I am tired of your overbearing antics, thinking that you can keep throwing your toys out of your pram and hoping that you can get everyone to bow down to you.

It is not my concern what you do anymore. You are the prime minister of the country, for goodness sake.

Your job is to take care of Singaporeans and protect the people.

As many have said, “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.”

I worry that my country will go downhill, simply because it has a prime minister and a party in government – the PAP – which continues to live like an ostrich and bury your head in the sand.

I suppose you don’t find the $50,000 that you are asking me to pay your lawyers “derisory”. Even the average Singaporean doesn’t earn this hefty sum in one year.

But I suppose that is all I have left in donations and you might just as well use it up, why don’t you?

And yet, the hearing to decide how much I should pay you hasn’t even yet been set. You have filed the suit in the high court which oversees cases of more than $250,000 – so that’s at least what I am expected to lose.

I do not know what dignity you have or if you know no shame that after having taxpayers pay you for your $2.2 million salary every year (and this is not yet including your other bonuses) that you would still have the audacity to demand hundreds and thousands from an ordinary Singaporean who is asking you to do your job.

Do your freaking job.

Your actions disgust me.

Maybe go to the corner and reflect on your actions.

Advertisements

43 comments

  1. nyvrem

    Maybe you need more donation $$ Roy? Or a few more candle light vigils where you sit in the middle of candles spelling out your name?

  2. bryant3000

    There is a Malay saying, “get an inch; take a foot”. The more you accede to him, the more demands he will make on you. If I were you, I would stand by and defend what I wrote instead of apologizing. Grow some spurs.

  3. Ivan Ho

    Hi Roy,
    Stick to your guns! Don’t despair! Never weaken your position by your own admission of mistakes! Your enemies will pounce at you.
    Like you said, “Truths will prevail!” and let me add, “It is better to win the WAR!”

    LIVE TO FIGHT ANOTHER DAY!

    IN DUE TIME, YOU WILL BE VINDICATED!

    GOD BLESS YOU!

  4. Nick Lim

    Roy,
    Keep it up. History will reveal the truth. One day, you will be remembered for the one who helps to bring the PAP edifice down. Never mind if the day is beyond your or my lifetime. History has taught us that tyrants and dictators do not last long.

  5. thtanxx

    Roy, You are actually the brat who is whining, or more appropriately, “worming away” without significant substance.
    “Freedom of speech and expression” is respected here. However,it should not encompass freedom to lie, to spin falsehood in order to misrepresent, and to slander.
    In fact as an ordinary Singaporean, I would be very disappointed and angry if no stern action is taken against you for outrageous and sinister behaviour thus far.

    • khairima al zawahiri

      stupid idiot
      so you are saying roy is lying when the pap admitted that they invested the ppl monies? blind as a bat brainwashed pap supporter.

      • Clement

        Well yes. Roy is not telling the truth. PAP didn’t admit they invested the peoples’ money – Temasek & GIC did, and that’s what they are supposed to do, together with the rest of our sovereign wealth funds. I am not a “blind as a bat brainwashed pap supporter”. I just read facts. (Hey look, I stated facts and didn’t hurl insults at anyone, so let’s continue our conversations this way.)

      • jerry

        look whose calling stupid.

        its a known fact that GIC invests CPF monies. you dont need anybody to admit it to know.

      • thtanxx

        @khairima, your labeling is self-reflective. Its ok as its your right, but suggest we should minimize it.
        On the subject of lying and slandering on this case, Its was Roy who self-admitted and apologized for his false and baseless lies, so pls dont spin this onto another deflective.
        Generally, on Roy’s demeanor during his so-called societal issues, he had claimed to the effect that he is an ordinary Singaporean and is non-political in his quests. However, if one were to reconcile his constant ranting of “PAP” either in rally or in articles, his “non-political” claim must surely be falsehood of the high order.
        As an ordinary Singaporean, I certainly reject any attempt by Roy to be speaking for me on most societal issues.
        This is because I see him as disingenuous and utterly dishonest in his demeanor.
        Btw, you dont have to agree with my views.

  6. Ong Cheong Teng

    yeah if wanna sue why no guts to go on trial?…..if no fair trail how can you say who is right or wrong?……therefore he doesn’t deserve a SINGLE CENT…….

    • Lim Wei Teck

      There isn’t even a need to go trial. Do you know what a summary judgement is? IT MEANS HE IS ALREADY GUILTY. GOING TO TRAIL WILL ONLY MAKE ROY PAY MORE. USE YOUR BRAINS

  7. friend

    ROY, peace be with you.

    Don’t think u r alone in this. You have many unseen supporters

    Use this sure win strategy:
    1. Ask and set up a separate fund to hire independent experts to demonstrate the pathetic performance of our cpf relative to other pension funds over the many years. Show what is world average and show what leftovers we get.

    2. Once the results shows that the government taking ‘profit’ at our expense, then shout it out to the world about it as many don’t know we got shit deal.

    3. Further more and in addition, .Exposes pap for designing a sure lose cpf system for us and keeping quiet the whole time.this will destroy any remaining credibility left. At this stage public opinion will snowball in your favour.

    I will contribute. Don’t fear

  8. CRIMOND G

    Profound thoughts of an investigative & plain speaking Singaporean. What a pity Roy is being targeted for speaking up and bringing up important matters into the public arena. Maybe he’ll be martyred by the Powers that be. Grow up Singapore……almost ” Gaw-chap nee & still Gong kah beh si. Tolong LA qui bak chiu ! Kia si mi ?

  9. PG

    Proves that the ministers in Singapore do not have enough work and waste their time looking at blogs . Or they have farmed all their real work to others and just go from publicity stunt to publicity stunt .
    Politicians in other countries would be ashamed if they reacted like that , especially as Singapore is only one small city , which does not need town councils and all the other agencies to look after it , only a hard working government

  10. teoenming

    Singapore Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew and Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong Want Teo En Ming Dead

    Singapore Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew and Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong want Teo En Ming dead. Lee Kuan Yew and Lee Hsien Loong want Teo En Ming to die young. I am only 36 years old. I do not want to die young. I want to live to a hundred years old and beyond!!!

    Teo En Ming has filed an official complaint against the Singapore Government at the United Nations Human Rights Council Branch and the International Criminal Court. Read the letter here:

    ***********************************************************************************
    ***********************************************************************************
    ***********************************************************************************
    ***********************************************************************************
    ***********************************************************************************
    ***********************************************************************************

    Teo En Ming’s Open Letter (Plea for Medical Help/Assistance) to World Leaders dated 27 Aug 2010. Read the letter here:

    http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/mpich-discuss/2010-August/007811.html

    Mr. Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming)
    Singapore Citizen
    Republic of Singapore

  11. Pingback: Roy Ngerng may have lost your money | Zhun Bo, Singapore?!
  12. Xmen

    I am sorry that this is happening to you. However, you are in a much better position because of the Internet and social media. J. B. Jeyaretnam and Chee Soon Juan did not have the luxury of getting their messages across when they were unjustly persecuted.

    So what if LHL manages to make you a bankrupt? He can’t stop you from using your platform to criticize him and his party’s policies. He has much more to lose than you if you keep on writing. You can see it in the flock of his IB presence on your comment page. Of course he will try to find excuses to lock you up. But with 2016 looming, he won’t be able to impose his unjust demand much longer.

    IMHO, PAP will face its biggest political defeat in 50 years under his watch. He won’t survive his own party’s challenge once his father passes away. Mark my words.

    • zxyl

      Everyone loves to talk about 2016 don’t they. Are you already too dumb and stupid to know that in 2016, the opposition might lose tragicly? Have you seen how the WP manages their current GRC? I live in Aljunied and its a mess now. A total, absolute, bloody mess. We don’t need to talk about where all the sinking funds went, lets just talk about keeping Singapore clean. I will never ever make the mistake to vote the opposition in power. If they can’t even upkeep a Singapore GRC, what about a country? Please don’t let Singapore be a bloody joke.

      • sighs

        Does anyone else see the difference between those who speak with rationale and objective, compared to those who jump straight to name calling, abusing, anyone who goes against them. Calling people blind, dog, pet. This is consistent throughout all thought or political blogs. If the supporters are people like these what kind of leaders can you expect? The exact same kind. one can only hope these people are just the minority while those with reason so happen decide to maintain low online presence.

  13. Ong Cheong Teng

    Just wondering whether these greedy swine know that they are so hated these days? maybe they are so obsessed with monies that they do not care about anything else….

  14. Pingback: Daily SG: 12 Jan 2015 | The Singapore Daily
  15. Irene Foo

    A true David and Goliath scenario, the $2.2m salaried PM of Singapore and the might of the govt behind him fighting and suing one courageous man who says what others are thinking but have not the guts to speak out. Roy, go for broke, declare yourself a bankrupt, what can the govt do? How do I donate to your cause.
    Aotea

  16. Pingback: Judge Ruled that I Have to Pay Prime Minister’s Lawyers $20,000; Hearing on Damages Not Yet Fixed | The Heart Truths
  17. Pingback: Roy: Court Rules I Must Pay PM Lee’s Lawyer $20k; Hearing on Damages Not Yet Fixed | The Global Point
  18. David Goh Yong Siah

    How bad or serious is the defamation, I’ve yet to read it. If anyone were to message me, by all means and thank you.
    On the other hand, these politicians will know a single penny from you eg.you have accumulated one hundred over thousand of donations from the public.
    You can’t escape their ‘super calculation’. Just ask yourself have you ever been calculative on any people’s pocket or livelihood or maybe life. If not, GOD will be on your side.
    But if yes, GOD bless you. Don’t worry, what I’ve promised to voice out for the common good, I will do it with my extraordinary vision and values in life.My biggest ‘defending’ and ‘headache’ right now is my HOME and the World knows what I mean.
    On CPF issue,I’ve already called and feedback to them and I will call them tomorrow again after watching the news.
    GOD WIN A BATTLE OR CONQUER HEARTS NOT BY MONEY AND POWER BUT BY HIS SUFFERINGS,VISION AND VALUES IN LIFE.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s