Anyhow Hantam

If you've been reading my blog over the last 15 months, I've been singing a familiar refrain - Police Commissioner (CP) Ng Joo Hee should either be resign or be replaced. You can read some of them here,here and even here, which also has a 2nd part. Therefore it's with pleasure that I greeted the following news:

http://news.asiaone.com/news/crime/current-police-commissioner-ng-joo-hee-head-pub-jan-2015

Finally after 5 mistake ridden years, we will see the back of CP Ng as head of the Singapore Police Force (SPF) in January. He's gonna take over as CEO of PUB - the national water agency as well as a position in the ministry. His current boss - Home Minister and DPM Teo Chean Hean issued a statement today thanking CP Ng for his service and listed his achievements over the past 5 years. CP Ng also issued a statement expressing his pride for his '29' years of service. Of course it would be fairer to list his failures which I mentioned in previous articles as well, but okay, let's not kick a man too much when he's down.

CP Ng with his boss, DPM Teo at a news conference. Both listed '29' years as the length of his service, which in reality was much lesser.

In some ways it might even be a promotion, CP Ng might draw a higher pay as CEO, but generally many would view it as a demotion - from commanding the principal law enforcement agency of 12,000 men and having extensive powers prescribed by law, to head a water agency where he's not top dog, just a CEO who answers to a Chairman.

But before we close this sorry chapter, there seems to be an oversight in describing his service and that of his replacement, DC Hoong Wee Teck. CP Ng, 48, is listed as having '29' years of service in the SPF while the 51 year old DC Hoong only has 27. Let's examine this more thoroughly.

Let's begin by ignoring this 5 (or 6) year tenure as CP. Let's go back to when he was appointed at age 43. He was described then as being a 24 year veteran. DC Hoong will be a 27 year veteran. Okay so we say someone with over 20 years service is a good choice for CP. But did CP Ng really serve the full 24 years when he took command? If we subtract the years - he would be only 19 when he joined! Wow did he actually grow from teenager to top dog? No. He was awarded a scholarship at Oxford. He also did further studies during the intervening period. So if we subtract all the years spent studying and pursuing his honours and post-graduate studies - we end up somewhere from 14-17 years in actual service. Then he served 2 years in Cambodia as part of a UN Peacekeeping Mission and around 2-3 years as Director Prisons. In real life terms of service, he probably only served in Singapore as a Senior Police Officer for around 10 years before becoming CP. Is this sufficient for promotion to the top job? Perhaps, we can argue it depends on the quality not the quantity of service.

CP Ng is a Man Utd fan. In a funny way, we can compare him to a recent manager of his favourite club - David Moyes. The wrong man for the wrong job.

If so then we must look at the number of appointments he had - all short term stints and when we look at the performance these past 5 years, it's a glaring fact that he was unprepared and learning on the job. The end result? We had a lack of supervision of a number of key police officers - SAC Ng Boon Gay, SAC Soh Wai Wah and Eric Tan (who were promoted to head CPIB). All 3 of them performed poorly in their posts and brought a degree of disrepute to the organisations they headed. Then we had serving police officers charged and convicted in court culminating with the blackest day last year when a serving officer is alleged to have committed double murder (The Kovan Murders). If that was the worst, barely a few months later another equally shameful incident happened - the Little India Riots. Again the fault lay squarely with the senior management.

Stern looking and unfriendly unlike CP Ng? No, those who served with or under DC Hoong Wee Teck (l) describe him as an open and understanding officer as well as efficient, hard-working and an eye for detail.

Now let's look at DC Hoong. He's 51, not 43. He has 27 years of nearly full uninterrupted service - maybe he took some post-graduate studies, but even then we'd still have around 25 years. Those 25 years involved many years as an investigator on the ground, key positions including commanding a division and of course sterling work as Director CID - the principal investigation bureau. Unlike CP Ng, he's served in every senior rank starting from Inspector and wasn't so easily given accelerated promotions every other year. He earned his promotions on merit, not because he was a scholar. Is this the right candidate for the job? Of course.

With the introduction of the Elected Presidency, the President has final say on the appointment of the Head of the Police Force, CPIB and key positions in the military. It's important therefore, that the President not simply take the recommendation of the PM or Minister when appointing a Commissioner at face value. He should study the background of the candidate, look at his service, his experience and his ability to lead all aspects of the SPF. CP Ng was too inexperienced, he was too junior and did not have the necessary clout needed to supervise the other key officers in the SPF. President Nathan simply took the recommendation at face value and rubber stamped it. Maybe President Tony Tan is doing the same, but at least we know that DC Hoong or even the other deputy - DC Rajakumar, both have enormous experience and leadership ability and either would be fitting for the job.

Perhaps unfairly, he's been compared to his predecessor, Ong Teng Cheong. I don't share that sentiment, I think he did okay on a job with limited powers. But 1 criticism that's fair, he was way too quick to agree with every recommendation of the PM. He should have drawn the line when Ng Joo Hee's name was recommended for CP.

Maybe the next time when such key appointments become open, the President should not just accept 1 nominee but ask for 2 or 3 names and while studying the recommended choice, is able to look at other potential candidates and decide which one he thinks is most suitable, if he disagrees with the recommendation. If you are going to give him the ability to reject a nominee, then you should also provide alternatives. We simply cannot afford another situation when someone like CP Ng is appointed because 'on paper' his record looks sterling and he has the necessary 'experience.'

Let me end though by wishing CP Ng well. While I disagreed with his appointment as CP at age 43, if he had been considered now after serving 5 years as DC like Messrs Hoong or Rajakumar, I might say perhaps it's alright. He was just the wrong man at the wrong time. But this does not mean we should rubbish his overall service. In the other positions he served, he served his country sometimes with great distinction - especially in Cambodia and as head of the STAR Unit which he founded and formed. That we have today a more operationally ready and professional SWAT team is in no small way down to him. And even though he failed to take responsibility and apologise for some of the missteps during his tenure, I can salute his vociferous defense of his men. A good leader defends his men, although sometimes one must accept responsibility when things go wrong.

I wish him well in his new endeavours and thank him for his '29' years of public service. I hope the 5 years as head of the SPF has given him sufficient pause, experience and ability to lead the PUB. So goodbye and good-luck.

Ex ISD detainee Teo Soh Lung issued a note on what to do when hauled up for investigations by the police:

http://mothership.sg/2014/10/8-pieces-of-real-advice-to-remember-by-an-ex-isa-detainee-the-next-time-the-spore-police-come-a-knocking/

I do not want to get into a debate with Ms Teo regarding this, but one must note that few investigations are the same and the role of each witness or potential suspect, even the ingredients of an offence are very rarely the same. Ms Teo was of course detained under the Internal Security Act by the ISD which provides for detention without trial. That's quite a different cup of tea from a normal police investigation into a criminal matter, which Ms Teo issued the note for, - in this case the investigation of 'an unlawful assembly' by Ms Han Hui Hui, Roy Ngerng and others, under Sec 143 of the Penal Code. Therefore I thought it prudent to write a post about police powers of arrest and investigations in relation to their actions. Clearly the actions of Ms Han and others showed a lack of understanding of the laws and powers of the police. But I must add a caveat, this is only my opinion, you are advised to seek legal advise if you're subject to a criminal investigation. But even in that you must be careful - a lawyer's opinion or advise is normally just that - it's not a judgment or a definitive legal interpretation. Only a judge sitting in a court can make that interpretation. But obviously some things are so obvious that it can be taken as facts.

Retired lawyer Teo Soh Lung issued a note for activists on what to do when being called up by the Police.

1) The Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) Chapter 68

This is by far the most important Law in so far as investigation and powers go. It provides the procedure and enabling power that the Police must use in investigations and prescribes their powers of arrest. Basically the power of arrest boils down to 2 scenarios:

1) a seizable or arrestable offence

2) a non seizable offence.

As it suggests, a seizable offence means the police can arrest without a warrant from a court. The vast majority of offences are seizable. Non seizable offences means the police must get permission from a magistrate (or higher) to begin investigations or to compel the attendance of a suspect. However please note that the Police can arrest you for a non-seizable offence if you refuse to furnish your particulars or give those they believe to be false. The best way is to produce your NRIC or passport. Since this post relates to the alleged offences by Ms Han and others, I'll touch on seizable cases.

The CPC states that when a police officer receives information that a seizable offence is committed in any place, he (or another officer) shall:

17 (1) investigate the circumstances of the case.

17 (2) find or arrest the offender.

But it also allows him not to proceed further if the case is not of a serious nature. That's why sometimes when you make a complaint, the investigation doesn't proceed or proceeds at a snail's pace. Eg: Someone shouting at the top of his voice under you block. That could be disorderly behaviour - a seizable offence, but the police on arrival may decide not to arrest him or investigate further after issuing a warning.

Section 19 details that an investigator must record every aspect of his investigation, including the places he visited. So when Ms Han stated the police visited her at midnight, the officer issuing the notice would have recorded the time.

Looney Fringe Han Hui Hui's ignorance and refusal to follow the Law has brought a whole lot of trouble to a number of persons and herself.

Next we go to Section 21 - the notice issued to Ms Han and others. They were asked to attend Central Division as 'witnesses.' Let's look at the timeline again and the options open to the Police.

1) The NParks issues a permit with conditions to Ms Han and the Looney Fringe.

2) The permit comes with clear conditions:

http://www.nparks.gov.sg/cms/docs/speakers_terms_n_conditions.pdf

Clearly the permit states there are conditions and a requirement to comply with the respective sections and regulations under the Parks and Trees Act (Chap 216) and any such terms as the Commissioner of Parks (CoP) may impose. It also states that Hong Lim Park is NOT exclusive to just 1 permit holder and that the CoP may cancel or revoke any permit at ANY time without giving prior notice for any breach or non-compliance, or if in his opinion the activities of the permit holder or person(s) cause discomfort or inconvenience to other park users. Now tell me in any normal layman's terms did the actions of the Looney Fringe cause inconvenience or discomfort to the organisers and persons attending the YMCA event? Ms Han wanted 'exclusive' use of the whole park and was disallowed by Mr Chia and he did tell her she was in breach of the conditions and he would revoke the permit if she persisted. So to carry on:

3) The permit was revoked or cancelled and Ms Han warned accordingly

4) She ignores and causes discomfort to the YMCA attendees.

5) NParks investigates and notifies the Police.

6) It's open to the Police under what sections they want to investigate/classify this report. They chose Section 141 of the Penal Code - Unlawful Assembly and punishable under Section 143. This is a seizable offence.

7) Under the CPC, the Police could arrest Ms Han and others, but instead chose to request their attendance as 'witnesses' to the incident and to provide their statements.

8) Section 22 of the CPC states the person is obliged to answer questions whether or not he/she will be charged for it

9) After taking statements and reviewing the evidence, the Police will refer the case to the DPP

10) Either on their own or in most cases with the approval of the DPP, decide to either proceed on the original classification or on a different charge or drop the matter.

11) Enforce the decision by arresting the accused and charging him with the offence. Or issue a warning and not charge him in court.

Powers of Arrest

Let's say Ms Han foolishly decided to play hardball and refused to attend the station as a witness. Based on the statements of others and the evidence gathered - the police who also have their own videos, may decide to invoke Section 17 and arrest her and others. Section 64 provides the police to arrest without a warrant a list of offences, in her case the following subsections apply:

a) has been concerned, reasonably suspected or credible information given of being involved in an arrestable offence.

j) commits a breach of peace in the presence of a police officer.

Courts can issue arrest warrants, but usually such warrants are issued when an accused person fails to attend court (absconds). That warrant is for the failure to attend court, that is separate to charge you are facing. You can be 'wanted by the police' for a seizable case, they don't need an arrest warrant by court to arrest you for that. Your name will be entered into the Police Gazette and listed in the 'stop and detain list' of police computers.

Power of Search to Arrest Persons and Powers of Search generally

Alex Tan Zhixiang is an associate member of the Looney Fringe. He 'flips' his positions more than a prata-man. 1 moment he wanted to be fielded by the SPP, then he joined the Reform Party. He said he'll quit politics and go to New Zealand. Well that failed and now he's back and claims he wants to be an MP and PM. He claims to know the solution to every problem in Singapore, but cannot speak properly, cannot accept differing views and has illusions of self-grandeur. He thinks he's above the law and can ignore a lawful request by a police officer investigating a seizable offence. Well let him try some Looney Fringe antics and see if he can get away with it.

I came across a Facebook post by another member of the Looney Fringe - Alex Tan Zhixiang (who stood as a Reform Party (RP) candidate) who has illusions of grandeur of his own self-importance (he thinks he knows everything and wants to become Prime Minister). He claimed he had installed video cameras outside his flat and would not allow a police officer entry to arrest him without a warrant or search warrant. Well I got news for Alex - he needs to look up Section 77 of the CPC which states:

1) If a Police Officer has authority to arrest (sec 17 provides this) and/or if a person (other law enforcement officers) has a warrant, and believes the wanted person is inside any premises, they can demand entry to the premises.

4) After stating his authority and purpose, the police officer with authority is not given entry, he can break any door, window or use any reasonable means to gain entry to effect the arrest.

CNB officers making an arrest for drugs. Under the Misuse of Drugs Act (Chap 185), they have 'carte blanche powers' to enter any premises to search and effect an arrest.

There are several overlapping Laws and other Acts that provide the police and other officers this power. For example all CNB Officers are 'walking warrants.' They can enter any premises they believe drug activity is taking place or if an offender is therein. In most Acts, the Law provides this 'walking warrant' authority to a 'gazetted or authorised Police Officer' - an Assistant Superintendent (ASP) or higher. The most common ones are the Arms Offences Act, Immigration, Gambling and Kidnapping Acts. Some Laws empower the ASP or Director (of other enforcement agencies) to issue a 'warrant' and designate a junior officer to proceed to make the arrest.

A Police Asst Superintendent (a) or higher are gazetted officers. Meaning their appointments are gazetted in the Govt Gazette. In several laws they possess the powers to enter premises without a warrant both for search and arrest.

Section 78 also provides the Police the power to search the premises of a person detained and to seize evidence. If a search is to be made on a premises not resided by an accused person, there are relevant laws in place that grant police officers this power. A search warrant can be issued by a court or by the Commissioner of Police as the case may be, or by an investigator in arrestable offence - Section 34. Other Laws also empower police officers usually an ASP to lead such a search, based on information received.

What Should You Do?

Ms Teo gives some advise on what to do when faced with the kind of circumstances that befell Ms Han. Well you are free to take her advise, some of which is sound, but others you must tread more carefully. For example she says:

1) Letters need not be physically delivered.

Indeed. Many will receive it via snail mail. However you must ask yourself why will the police come and deliver? They will not do so if you're only a witness. They might just give you a call. The more serious the case or the more serious your involvement in a seizable offence, the more serious they will take it. I mean if you're a witness to a shoplifting, a witness to an armed robbery, a stabbing or if you're the shoplifting suspect, you can expect different degrees of police interaction with you.

2) If you are only a witness with no real involvement in the offence you can expect different degrees of treatment. As Ms Teo says, you can postpone the date, ask for a more convenient time or at a place of your choosing. And of course you can make noise if they come at midnight and refuse to open the door.

3) However if you're the potential accused or prime suspect, that's something altogether different. Let's face it, only you will know the degree of your involvement. If you're a suspect in a seizable offence, don't expect the 'royal treatment.' They can come at any time usually in the middle of the night when you are at your most vulnerable mentally. And you can close your doors all you want, but if it's a serious case, they will invoke the Law and can demand entry as I referred to above. Don't expect the 'softly softly' approach if this is a case of murder, armed robbery, drug trafficking, arm offences or rioting. They'll be coming to break down the door and use force if need be.

4) As for interviews during investigations, you of course have certain rights as Ms Teo suggests. You can ask for a warmer room, refreshments and breaks.

5) You can bring a friend or keep them updated. However do note that the Law allows the Police to examine evidence they think is connected to the case, including your handphone, computer or in Ms Han's case - notebook.

6) Almost always you will not be allowed copies of your statement. Even your lawyer cannot access it unless the prosecution intends to tender it as part of their case. However there's a section (23) which deals with cautioned statements - this is when the police intend to formally charge you with the offence. You will be cautioned and have the charge read to you (or you can read it). You will be told to state your defense in relation to the charge. Here you must ordinarily state what defense you intend to offer, or it will be less likely to be believed in court. A copy will be given to you and anything you say here can and will be used against you in court.

7) Ms Teo suggests you don't sign if no copies will be provided. This is immaterial, Section 22 of the CPC states you must sign. If you don't, it will be still taken as given by you. However do note this your statement, you are entitled to make any amendments or change portions of it by cancelling and signing over it. You can refuse to answer questions, but it will be noted down.

Police Sergeants have the power under law to record caution statements and other powers in investigations. Any admission to a Sgt or above, be it oral or written are usually admissible as evidence in Court, unless you can prove he's lying or acting with malice. Easier said than done.

8) I'll touch a bit on evidence - oral admission can be used against you in court. Of course there's a degree of weight that a judge will apply to it. Any admission to a criminal offence given to a police officer of the rank of sergeant and above is admissible in court. For traffic offences - all admissions to any police officer is admissible. Eg: You are drunk and run a road block - a Police Corporal stops you later outside the vehicle and asks you if you are the driver - you say - Yes. That's admissible. If you are stopped for shoplifting by the shop detective and a Police Sergeant comes to attend the case and asks you if you did it? You say -'Sorry sir' in a symbolic act of admission. In these 2 cases if the officer reduces in writing your actions and words and goes to court and testifies, that is admissible evidence, unless you can prove he's lying or acting in bad faith.

9) False evidence. There's a mistaken belief that you can be charged for giving a false statement as an accused person. Section 22 allows you not to incriminate yourself. You can refuse to give a statement incriminating yourself - that duty is for the police and prosecutor to prove in court. You are not obliged to admit your actions. However if you're not the accused, only a witness and you give a false statement incriminating someone else wrongly and they are subject to arrest and investigation, you can be charged.

Conclusion

Of course you can refuse to cooperate with the police, but it depends on your involvement in the offence they are investigating. Be sensible, you will know more or less your degree of involvement, whether it's you they are after or someone else. You must think carefully and wisely here. If you are a witness, you have no real worries. Normally the police will not go all out after your statement if it's not such a serious case. But if it's a serious matter they'll use the law to compel your attendance.

But if your involvement is on the borderline between witness and suspect, ask yourself whether it's beneficial to play hardball? You may choose to do so, but the police have the right to arrest you based on information and evidence gathered. If you are evasive and unhelpful and it's later established that you were involved in some way, don't expect them to play nice. They may decide they don't need you as a witness and instead decide to charge you.

Samantha Lo who affixed stickers and sprayed graffiti on a sidewalk, escaped with a mild sentence because she cooperated with investigations and took responsibility early on.

Finally if you're the one they are after and it's a seizable case, they have every right to arrest you. Ms Han may complain about the 8 hours, but if they arrested her they can hold her for 48 hours. In such cases where you're the prime suspect, you must consider you options carefully. If you just clam up as you have a right to, they may already have a solid case and throw the book at you preferring the highest charge. But like Samantha Lo (the sidewalk graffiti case), you cooperate and show regret and remorse, they may prefer a lighter charge or give you a warning.

A Notice under Sec 21 (1) of the CPC issued to Roy Ngerng to attend Central Division today. Will follow Ms Han's suit and lead us with a song and dance about the 'horrors' of his interview? Or will he man up, take responsibility and cooperate fully, exonerating others and hope for some leniency with his cooperation?

So in essence it boils down to which scenario you fit. There are around 8 persons called up for investigations in the 'Hecklegate Affair' I believe. Whether the Police or DPP intends to proceed with 'Unlawful Assembly' it remains to be seen. They might lower the charge, however for this offence they would prosecute at least 5 persons. 5 persons acting illegally would constitute an unlawful assembly. So of the 8 or more called up, some played a minor role or did not take an active part. It would be wise for these persons to cooperate and be witnesses, especially those on the borderline between witness and accused.

For the rest who might end up charged, it's better to think wisely now and decide if following the Looney Fringe is beneficial or right. Playing hardball all the way might see you with a criminal conviction. If that can't be avoided then you have to choose between a long drawn legal case which will cost a lot of money, which could possibly result in imprisonment and a plea bargain on a lighter charge or sentence.The time for serious thinking is now. For others who are enthralled by the Looney Fringe's antics but avoided this fate, please bear in mind the law and the extensive powers given to the police before you join them in their antics. Remember ignorance of the Law is not a defense and you cannot complain if you end up on the wrong side of it.

Of course I must also add, if you are innocent of the charge (you obviously will know this), then by all means contest it. Admit nothing. The onus is always on the police and prosecution to prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If there's insufficient evidence you'll be acquitted or might not be charged. But then again if you're truly innocent, surely it would be logical that you would cooperate with the investigations and show evidence of your innocence? I mean who wouldn't want to cooperate in order to exonerate themselves rather than play hardball, face a court case where you'd have to spend thousands on legal fees to prove your innocence? Unless of course you're part of the Looney Fringe. However in this case revolving around the incident at Hong Lim Park, I believe they have broken the Law, whether the law broken is 'unlawful assembly' or something lesser remains to be seen. But I also believe the Police are on solid ground with their investigations thus far and have operated within the confines of the relevant Laws.

Today Roy Ngerng, Han Hui and 4 others will be charged in court for their antics in causing annoyance and disruption to the YMCA event. All 6 face a charge of "Public Nuisance' under Section 290 of the Penal Code, while Roy and Ms Han face the following additional charge:

Both are relatively minor charges. For public nuisance it's a maximum fine of $1000 and the offence of organising a demonstration without a permit at Hong Lim Park it's a maximum fine of $5,000. It's very unlikely that for 1st offenders both of them will get the maximum fine of $5,000 if they plead guilty and avoid a long trial that ultimately ends with their guilt. For public nuisance, a fine of $1,000 in the grand scheme of things is relatively minor. Don't forget they were investigated for unlawful assembly, which carries far heavier penalties and a possible jail term.

They should breath a collective sigh of relief that the Police in consultation with the Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) did not proceed with that charge or something similar and chose these rather minor charges. However it seems that he's not prepared to admit his guilt and again claims this whole thing is a 'stitch up job' to silence him.

Let's do a recap and recall what he said then (after the fiasco):

1. He issues a long whiney post and video and says he's sorry and wants to apologise to the YMCA and the disadvantaged kids.

2. He says he's reflected and will quit.

3. After his Police interview, he said the Police were polite and were just doing their duty

Now let's see what he says now in this Facebook post:

https://www.facebook.com/sexiespider/posts/10152509242729141:1

He now says this:

I have been charged with two crimes. The Police gave me the charges yesterday. If I am found guilty, I will become a criminal.

Imagine, becoming a criminal in your own country simply for speaking up.

Please read my previous posts on the 'Hecklegate Affair' to acquaint yourselves with the scope of what he did. The 1 question to ask in relation this post is:

Is he being charged for speaking up?

The answer has to be No. He and the rest are being charged for disrupting the YMCA event and causing a nuisance. Was he denied from speaking? Again no, they had been allocated a specific lawn to have their protests, demonstrations and talk. Further to this, they have been given permission to organise protests every month. No one else does this but them. Yet they were allowed at all times even on a day when another event was given earlier permission, they were still allowed. They know that a permit is required, they have applied before. The permit clearly states that there's no exclusive use and the Commissioner of Parks has the right to cancel or revoke such a permit if it causes nuisance to others.

There can be no doubt unless you want to be blind to the facts, that video footage clearly shows them disrupting the event, not once but thrice, while 3 separate acts were going on. There is also irrefutable evidence that Ms Han in the days leading up the event, had clearly expressed a view to bring whistles and placards, to confront and disrupt the event, by approaching the elderly, the disadvantaged children and of course, the presence of Minister Teo Ser Luck. So can Roy still have the cheek to say, he's being charged for 'speaking up?'

Of course not. And as usual he refuses to take responsibility. But even let's say he wants to speak up, which of course he's entitled to, the question people should ask is, who's asking him to? Is he being forced to? How many opposition parties do we have? At least 6, 2 within Parliament. Did any of them ask him to do so? Are we in the midst of an election campaign? Aren't they the ones whom we will choose besides the ruling PAP, to represent us? So why should Roy and Ms Han assume they represent Singaporeans at large and have a right to demand unconditional support for their actions?

The answer is pretty obvious, this has been a lucrative endeavour. They get fame and most of all are able to solicit donations from hard-core opposition supporters or those they can hoodwink into believing they are victims or fighting for a just cause. So when he says he will stop, it's just to gain sympathy. The fact is he won't stop until the donations or monies dry up. And in this post he's asking for an astronomical $46,000 to pay for legal fees and fines. And this is just for the case as it stands. I understand they plan to launch a constitutional challenge or judicial review of the Law. And of course if convicted it's likely they will appeal. Both instances will go to the High Court, and that's easily another $50,000 minimum. To quote him:

If we are to fight the charges against us, the legal fees, we have been told, come up to $30,000 for the six of us. The penalties will come up to another up to $16,000.

I do not know where to get this money.

It is time you step up, my friends.

I need you to step up. I need you to fight for yourselves now.

My friends, we need to stand up and join hands now.

My friends, help us help yourself.

It is time. Help us.

What he does not reveal is that he already has around $110,000 from his crowd-funding efforts for his lawsuit which he insisted proceed. He quoted legal fees of $70,000 there, meaning he has in excess of $40,000 already. And he can at his own choosing, still settle the matter out of court with the PM and save a considerable sum of that $70,000. Instead he has now used 'Uncle' Leong Sze Hian's FB page - Empowering Singaporeans and The Real Singapore and posts on his FB wall to 'advertise' for donations. After 1 day he's raised $460 (see below)

Obviously this will not do, so get ready for a full barrage of whiney posts and videos aggressively soliciting donations for his 'legal fees.' I am sure he will be able hoodwink some people into donating, but for others who are contemplating donating, please consider the following points:

1) Let's just take his argument at face value - he's being silenced. Why then should he and Ms Han and the rest, openly defy the NParks and Police?

He can twist and turn, but didn't he say the Police were just doing their job? Ms Han said before the event she wanted to disrupt the event when the Minister arrived. Now ask yourselves if you're a Police and NParks officer, if this is brought to your attention, can you simply not do anything? The Police have a duty to uphold the Law and ensure public safety, doesn't the words from Ms Han constitute some kind of threat?

When warned by the Police not to burn this effigy of Lui Tuck Yew, Gilbert Goh did the wise thing and complied.

2) Even using their weak arguments that it's a 'stitch up job,' now you have the Police and NParks warning you not to proceed, what would any normal person do? Even Gilbert Goh when advised by the Police not to burn an effigy of Minister Lui Tuck Yew, complied with the warning. Does Roy and Ms Han think the Police and NParks turned up for a 'game of dare?' Say you want to enter a premises, the Police stop you and tell you not to go further, do you ignore? If you're sitting under your block and making noise, the Police come and tell you to stop and disperse, do you ignore? And what will happen if you do ignore? Do you think the Police will simply drop the matter?

When told to use their own lawn and not disrupt the YMCA event by NParks Director Chia and the Police, Roy and Ms Han refused to comply and insisted on doing whatever they wanted. Were these actions responsible? Do they think these officials came there for fun? Is Hong Lim Park an 'Anyhow Hantam Park?'

Isn't it the height of recklessness by him and Ms Han to have ignored the warnings? Isn't it their fault that they chose to proceed and disrupt the event? So now they have been charged, is it fair to ask people to donate for their legal fees, when any normal person would have stopped and taken the presence of Police as a matter of serious concern?

And I'm not even using an argument based on logic that what they did was premeditated and wrong. I'm using their own weak arguments. Surely any normal person would have said, never mind, let them win today, we go back and complain and let everyone know we have been bullied. We don't go and defy the Police and invite being arrested and charged in court.

Finally even after being charged, these are very minor offences, rather than fight all the way, surely the logical thing is to look at costs and say whether it's worth it to fight all the way? Do we need to spend tens of thousands or should we try and settle for a lower sum? Simply pay the Section 290 fine and get a lawyer to mitigate and for the pair, make representations that they will plead guilty if the 'illegal demonstration' charged could be dropped or an agreement that the prosecution will ask for a lesser fine. Instead of $46,000, you can be looking at a total sum of say $15,000 or less for all of them. And Roy can certainly pay this amount from what he already has collected.

Get ready for the sequel as Roy embarks on another whiney campaign to prise monies from you.

Most people when charged in court will look at their actions, the charge and the fines. Will any normal person want to pay hefty legal fees when a case can be settled at far less? There is no question of unfairness here, if you look at the charge. No one is charging them for speaking up, and whichever way you look at it, conditions of the permit were broken and a clear disruption and nuisance to the YMCA event occurred. The case also revolves on whether Mr Chia is empowered by law to revoke the permit. I believe Sections 4(5), 5, 6 (1) and 42 (1) of the Park and Trees Act (Chapter 216) make this clear. And under the Regulations and conditions of the permit, he can cancel or revoke the protest and there's no exclusive use of Hong Lim Park. The only question is under Section 6 (2) whether he properly identified himself. I think he did and the presence of Police Officers underscores this. Furthermore, the Police are similarly entitled to enforce the conditions under the said Act.

This is not like the Worker's Party's on-going case over permits for trade fairs. They are a political body and also a Town Council, there are questions of Law that can be answered and serve as a precedent for the future. This is a criminal case, albeit a very minor one (which they should be relieved, it could have been unlawful assembly) and revolves directly at their actions and refusal to comply. Ms Han stupidly refused to accept any other version other than that her flawed understanding of the Law was correct. It's her fault and the fault of the others including Roy for stupidly following her.

For the moment, the smokescreen is to use The Real Singapore and others to advertise his POSBank savings account number for donations. Maybe he realises people will start to ask about that excess money from his earlier donation drive.

You cannot always go crying to the public claiming it's a fix up and the PAP is all out to get you, when you always had a chance to walk away and live to fight another day. You cannot say you wrong one day and then the next, deny it. You cannot openly defy the Police and cry foul when you are charged. And most of all, you cannot refuse to work and then go round asking the public to donate to fund your activities and pay your bills, fees, fines and penalties, every time you purposely invite trouble. Unless of course, you always want to be the Looney Fringe, then this will go on and on, until people finally wise up to your antics and stop donating.

(You can read my previous write up on this matter below, which I believe show a clear picture of their actions since 'Hecklegate.')

1. http://anyhowhantam.blogspot.com/2014/09/proven-roy-ngerng-and-han-hui-hui-are.html

2. http://anyhowhantam.blogspot.com/2014/09/national-parks-v-looney-fringe-han-hui.html

3. http://anyhowhantam.blogspot.com/2014/10/roy-ngerngs-non-apology-to-ymca.html

4. http://anyhowhantam.blogspot.com/2014/10/looney-fringe-han-hui-hui-claims-she.html

5. http://anyhowhantam.blogspot.com/2014/10/police-powers-of-arrest-and.html

When I penned this previous article about Gough Whitlam at the beginning of the month, I promised to write an obituary on him when his time came. Little did I anticipate, that 4 weeks later, I would be doing just that. Edward Gough Whitlam died in Sydney on Oct 21st, he was 98. He was privately cremated the next day, however a full state public memorial service will be held in his honour on November 5th, 2014.

A frail Gough Whitlam at the memorial service for his wifeMargaret in 2012. She died 1 month short of their 70th anniversary.

You can read a bit about Gough's life in Wikipedia, but really there's so much he did and achieved that any article will not sufficiently express it. He's of course remembered as a martyr following his unjustified dismissal by the Governor-General (GG), Sir John Kerr on Remembrance Day 1975. But Gough himself said he would rather not want to be remembered as one, rather for what he did. And boy did he do a lot.

Background

Edward Gough Whitlam was born July 11th, 1916 in Melbourne. A tall strapping lad (he would grow to 1.94m), he studied at Knox Grammar, a top Sydney Christian school. He would go on to read Law in university, just like his father, who rose to become Crown Solicitor. A distinguished lawyer, Gough was also made a Queen's Counsel (QC).

Soldier boy. Although 1 of the 1st things he did in office was to end conscription, he immediately signed up for military service when WWII broke out.

In between his education and legal career, WWII broke out and he voluntarily joined the RAAF as a flight navigator, rising to the rank of Flight Lieutenant (equivalent of a Captain's rank). He resumed his legal practise thereafter and would have risen to the very top, with possibly a Judgeship in the highest court - The Supreme Court of Australia. Instead he was moved by the socialist aspects of life or the lack thereof in Australian society, in particular the deprivation of rights to the Aborigines - the native people of Australia. He thus joined the Australian Labour Party (ALP) and tried unsuccessfully to win a seat in first, a state Parliament and later, the Federal Parliament. But defeat did not deter him, and he finally was elected to the House of Representatives in the 1952 Werriwa by-election. He would hold on to this seat for 26 years.

Margaret and Gough Whitlam on their wedding day in 1942. He labelled her as his 'greatest ever appointment', a pun on his worst appointment - that of John Kerr as GG.

He married Margaret Dovey in 1942 and their union lasted 70 years. He remarked that she was his 'best ever appointment.' Indeed she would be his pillar of support, although she was fiercely independent and recognised as a champion for woman's rights in her own right.

Leadership of the Labour Party

Gough wasn't so easily loved initially by his party. Many scoffed at his upper middle-class upbringing, wondering if he really understood the lives and needs of the lower echelons of society that the ALP traditionally represented and that of workers and trade unions. But he won them over and rose to become Deputy Leader in 1960.

Sir Robert Menzies, Australia's longest serving PM. Although Menzies kept Gough and Labour out of power for years, he admired him. Menzies himself foretold on watching and listening to Gough in Parliament, that he would be Labour Leader and PM one day.

Try as they may, the ALP just could not seem to outwit the Liberal/Country (later National) Coalition led by Sir Robert Menzies, who would become Australia's longest serving Prime Minsiter (PM). Defeat after defeat followed, and when his leader, Arthur Calwell retired in 1967, Whitlam was elected Leader. He took over a party in disarray and demoralised after 18 years in the wilderness. Worse, the party was riveted by factionalism, led by the trade unions and the extreme left - the DLP. Gough had to work hard to unite all these factions and at the same time formulate policies of his own, while always attacking the Govt, now led by Gorton and McMahon, following Menzies' retirement.

He came within a whisker of winning power in the 1969 elections, falling just 7 seats short. Had the voting been counted with 'the 2 vote preferential system', now currently employed, he would have won. In Australia, you cast your vote for your first choice and then a second choice. A percentage of the latter is calculated in the final results.

A simple but effective slogan - It's Time, coupled with Gough's speaking abilities and policies, proved effective enough to propel Labour back into power after 23 years.

Despite the defeat, the tide had turned, and Gough would only grow in stature and be viewed as a 'PM in waiting.' When the elections of 1972 came, the ALP was well and truly prepared and united under Gough. He chose a simple but effective slogan - 'It's time.' It was time for Australia to wake up, time for it to focus on youth, time to give women greater say, to make Australia more involved in Asia, in particular South East Asia and China and to recognise ethnic minorities especially the Aborigines as equals.

Prime Minister (1972-1975)

A formidable couple - the Whitlams. Margaret was a strong feminist who was never shy to air her views in public. But she was his pillar, here she gives him a peck following his 1972 election victory.

The ALP duly won, after 23 long years of Liberal rule and Gough wasted little time in getting down to work together with his deputy, Lance Barnard. He and Barnard shared 23 Ministries between them and together they dismantled policies that did not require Parliamentary approval. Known as the 'duumvirate', they implemented changes until the full Cabinet was sworn in. These included:

1) Ending involvement in the Vietnam War

2) Recognising China

3) Recognising the right of women to equal pay

4) Ended conscription

5) Decried apartheid and opposed it.

After the full ministry was sworn in, the ALP wasted little time in enacting legislation. I believe they introduced at total of 253 Bills in their 3 years in office, although the Liberal Coalition managed to block around 98, through its hold on the Senate. Australia has a bicarmel Parliament. Real power lies in the House, although the Senate can act as a supervisory body and block legislation. Nonetheless the following are further examples of what the ALP did do during Gough's tenure as PM:

In addition to the above 5:

6) Lowered the voting age to 18 (Gough said if you are old enough to die for your country, you should be old enough to vote).

7) Recognised that Australia's future lay in Asia, loosening the bonds between Australia and the UK and the rest of the Western world. He provided humanitarian aid to Indonesia, Thailand, Indo-China and worked hard to improve trade and relations with Singapore and Malaysia.

8) Ended the 'White Australia' policy on immigration. Until then only White migrants were granted citizenship status in Australia.

9) Provided sewerage facilities to all major cities. (Can you imagine that right up to then, cities like Melbourne and Sydney did not have full sewerage facilities!)

10) Ended discrimination of minorities. Shockingly the Aborigines and others were not even allowed to hold an international passport.

11) Introduced the 'preferential voting system.'

12) Gave the Aborigines their land rights back and recognised their role in Australian society.

13) Introduced Medivac - (now known as Medicare) giving health insurance across the board.

14) Increased welfare for the disabled and needy.

15) Allowed abortion

16) Provided free tertiary education to all Australian youths. (This allowed many to be able to attend university for the first time, this legislation was later changed to provide it only through 'means testing' by future Govts)

17) Substantially increased women's rights - the right to a 'no contest divorce', the right to work and paid maternity leave.

18) Scrapped the UK Honours system, creating Australia's own Awards and Honours system. This literally ended all knighthoods and similar royal titles, until the current Abbot Govt recently reintroduced it. Gough had done this to create a unique 'own identity' for Australia, not as an 'outpost for Britain.'

19) Changed the National Anthem from 'God Save the Queen' to 'Advance Australia Fair.' (The former is still in use as the Royal Anthem for the Queen, when she or the Royal Family visit and for the GG, as her representative). The Queen's role in Australia was changed to reflect her new title as Queen of Australia.

20) Granted Papua New Guinea independence. Gough believed that Australia could not be expected to be supported in promoting freedom and human rights as they did on apartheid, if they remained an imperialist power with a colony.

21) Boosted the Arts and Culture. Created the National Council for the Arts and encouraged the production of the movie, television and music industries.

22) Environmental protection. Without Gough we may not have today 1 of the most iconic natural Australian Heritage sites - The Great Barrier Reef. The state govt wanted to drill it, but Gough overruled it and introduced legislation to protect the environment.

Gough was the 1st Western leader to recognise China. He made a visit to China soon after. Today China is Australia's largest trading partner.

These are just some of the things Gough did during his tenure as PM. There's a lot more. Gough was a firm believer that when you said or campaigned on something, you must keep your promise. It's the duty of Govt to introduce reform, to look at old policies and change it to suit the modern times.

The Dismissal

We come to the most iconic moment of his time - The Dismissal on 11/11/1975. Despite their fantastic and breath-taking moves in Govt, Gough made 1 fatal error, or rather an unforced error - the economic malaise that befell the world following the worldwide oil crisis of 1973. When the OPEC countries raised the price of oil in 1973, it raised inflation worldwide. Many Govts had to grapple with it and many struggled. But it affected Gough's Govt badly. They took a long time to come to grips with it, resulting in industries like wool, mining and farming taking a beating. Worse he had raised wages and this made inflation much worse.

In 1974, the Liberals tried to block the Budget in the Senate, a break with convention. Gough responded by calling for a snap election which the ALP won and but left with an equally divided Senate. In 1975, 2 of his Ministers - Jim Cairns and Rex Connor were caught lying in Parliament and this drove Gough's sagging popularity down further. In the latter's case, Connor ignored Gough's directive to cease all contact with one Tirath Khemlani, a shady Pakistani money broker, who had been trying to borrow A$4 billion to fund the mining industry. That policy was a good idea, Australia has tremendous natural resources, but until then did not have the means to mine it for themselves, leaving them at the mercy of big international firms.

Tirath Khemlani met journalist Peter Game in Singapore and spilled the beans on the 'Loans Affair.'

With inflation rising and the economy tanking, news of the borrowing attempts was greeted with a wave of anger. As such in May/June 1975, Gough announced in Parliament that the policy was scrapped and explicitly said in Parliament that Connor had ceased contact. However in September, it emerged that Connor still had contact with Themlani after the instruction to stop was given. Themlani first met an Australian reporter in a Singapore hotel and provided documentary proof, and later flew to Australia to confirm it in public.

Rex Connor the Minerals Minister caused Gough to lie in Parliament, leading to his sacking. The fall-out gave Malcolm Fraser the 'reprehensible circumstances' to block Supply and force an election.

This led to an outcry and Gough was forced to sack Connor. However, the shenanigans of Connor, gave the Opposition Leader, Malcolm Fraser, the ace card he needed to force Gough's hand into an early election. After a long period of indecisiveness, the new Treasurer Bill Hayden came up with a workable Budget that could boost Australia's economy. But although Fraser and the Liberals did not object to the Budget, he refused to allow the Senate to pass it - another break with convention that the Senate does not block Supply. This followed 2 other breaks in convention by Liberal state premiers - that any casual vacancy in the Senate would be replaced by members of the outgoing party, in this case obviously Labour. Instead 1 Liberal and another Liberal (Pat Fields) masquerading as Labour were appointed. This shifted the balance of power in the Senate, giving the Liberals a majority of 1.

Gough refused to be held to ransom. His belief after 1974, never again would he allow the Senate to dictate the timing of an election or trample the House's power to pass Supply. Moreover he needed Hayden's Budget to take effect to have any chance of retaining power, an early election would almost certainly spell defeat. Fraser on the other hand knew he was playing a high risk game - he still was a new Leader and did not have full support of the party. If this ploy - to only block not defeat the Budget failed, the repercussions would fall squarely on him. Every country needs a Budget to operate, and as seen in recent years in the USA, the public usually will punish the party that blocks the Budget which causes public services to stop and workers unpaid. Fraser knew he could not block Supply forever especially with Christmas looming, so he had to find a way to get that election.

The failure to check Sir John Kerr's (a) views on constitutional matters before recommending his appointment as Governor-General, proved fatal to Gough.

Gough made 2 bad errors in appointments - Jim Cairns and Rex Connor, but it was his 3rd that proved fatalistic - the appointment of Sir John Kerr as GG. Kerr was originally a Labour member and had high aspirations of becoming Prime Minister. But he was hardly charismatic and was looked over for selection as an MP. He turned to Law and rose to become Chief Justice of New South Wales. By this time however, he had lost all love for the ALP, but Whitlam did not know this. Anyway it was irrelevant, the GG was to be above politics and by convention and Law had to take advice from his Ministers, except on the rare occasions where he could use the Reserve Powers. This included the refusal to accept advise to dissolve Parliament or the power to dismiss a Govt. While such actions are undoubtedly legal, the guiding principle of convention in a Whitehall democracy is that, you should only do so when the PM no longer commands the confidence of the House. Such a situation never arose with Gough because he had a comfortable majority in the House.

But Kerr unbeknownst to Gough had illusions of grandeur. 1 of the first things he did (later revealed) was to study in depth the powers of the GG. He automatically felt that he was 'the most important man in the country' because he had the power dismiss a PM. He always felt he had to so something so as to make his mark on history, unlike his predecessors or successors since. They knew that the GG was more like a 'safe-keeper,' whose powers would only need to be called upon in the most dire circumstances like a constitutional crisis, war or dire economic collapse. The events leading up to The Dismissal was never a constitutional crisis, but a political one - a game of poker between 2 politicians - Gough and Fraser.

Malcolm Fraser leaving Parliament on Remembrance Day 1975 after becoming PM. He skilfully played his cards close to his chest and forced Kerr's hand.

Fraser knew he needed the election and used Kerr's own insecurities and misguided sense of self importance against him. He told Kerr, that he would be also be blamed if Supply was denied. What he didn't tell Kerr was that his own Senators were feeling the heat from their electorate, and 2, possibly up to 5 were already deciding to vote in favour of passage. Instead he put up a brave front to Kerr saying he wouldn't back down.

Gough on the other hand sensed he had public support on the matter and very early on in the crisis advised Kerr not to speak anyone else except himself and Fraser, and stated if need be he would call a half-Senate election to break the deadlock. Rather than express his reservations and disagreement with such advise which he ought to, as the principal roles of any Head of States in a constitutional democracy are to be advised, to advise and to warn, Kerr acted deceitfully and never once warned Gough of his intentions. He was afraid that he would be sacked if he did so. (The PM can both recommend an appointment and dismissal of a GG to the Queen, and the Queen following convention would almost certainly accept such advise).

Rather than put the national interests first, Kerr was more concerned with self-preservation, to make his mark on history and to show the country (and world) that he was the most powerful man in the land. So against explicit advice, he consulted Shadow SG Ellicott, Justice Mason and CJ Sir Garfield Barwick. In the case of the latter 2, this was most inappropriate, since if there was to be a constitutional challenge, the case would be decided in the Supreme Court where both judges sat. Moreover all 3 had been senior members of the Liberal Party. It was no surprise then, that their advise to Kerr on his request on what to do, was to sack Gough, since he could not procure Supply. It's also been revealed that Kerr in regards to the Judges, did not seek advise on what other avenues to pursue to break the deadlock, rather to find support from them, whether it would be proper to dismiss Gough.

Such advise besides being improper was also invalid. A Judge's opinion outside Court or the case before him, carries no significant legal weight. It's just a an opinion equal to ones given by any lawyer. And Kerr also failed to realise if he intervened, he had no power whatsoever over Fraser. The Constitution only gave the GG the power to sack a Govt, not the power to dismiss an Opposition Leader. Doing so, would give Fraser an enormous advantage and place Gough in a weak position, although under the Law, Kerr was duty bound to take in the views of his PM, his principal advisor, first and foremost, and not those of the Opposition Leader, or anyone else for the matter. Justices Mason and Barwick moreover besides their previous ties to the Liberals, had in the past year heard 2 constitutional cases involving the Labour Govt. In both cases, they ruled against the Govt but were defeated each time, because the majority of the other judges sitting on the Bench ruled in favour. As such neither could be considered as credible neutral persons to give advice on such a grave matter.

After being the victim of an ambush, an angry Gough lets fly outside the steps of Parliament.

And so to November 11th, Gough had sought an audience with Kerr at 1pm to advise a half-Senate election, after consulting with the party caucus and with Fraser who refused to lift the blockage unless elections were called no later than May the following year. Kerr had deceitfully already prepared the Dismissal Letter and agreed to meet Gough. While the House was in session, he sent a note to Fraser requesting his attendance at 1.15pm. As Fraser had finished speaking earlier, he drove to Govt House to meet Kerr. But Whitlam had yet to arrive, so Fraser was spirited away to an ante room out of sight and his car was moved from the front porch to the back in similar fashion. Gough arrived at 1pm, unaware of Fraser's presence, and tendered his advise, but Kerr stopped him and asked whether he would call an election. When Gough taken aback at the remarks, said no, Kerr handed him his marching orders. Kerr said, "Well, we both just have to live with this." Gough simply replied - 'You certainly will, ' and left. That would be the last time he ever spoke to Kerr.

Kerr then commissioned Fraser, who promised to pass the Budget and would tender advise to dissolve Parliament. The Dismissal sent shockwaves across Australia and protests took place across the country, even one outside Parliament's steps. When the Senate reconvened at 2pm, they duly passed the Budget. Meanwhile in House, 2 motions were raised following Fraser's announcement that he was PM. The first - a no confidence vote against his Govt and the 2nd - a motion of confidence in favour of Gough. The Speaker then called the GG requesting an audience to reflect these votes and was told to come at around 4pm. He arrived and but was kept waiting. In the meantime, the paperwork for the dissolution was finally ready and Kerr duly signed it and sent his official secretary to Parliament to submit and proclaim it. Kerr did not meet Speaker Scholes at all.

And so the dramatic events on Parliament's steps took place - the secretary reading out the Proclamation and Gough uttering his iconic words:

'Well may we say "God save the Queen", because nothing will save the Governor-General! The Proclamation which you have just heard read by the Governor-General's Official Secretary was countersigned Malcolm Fraser, who will undoubtedly go down in Australian history from Remembrance Day 1975 as Kerr's cur.'

The Aftermath

Although the initial reaction to his dismissal was one of anger, the month long election campaign saw Fraser swiftly turning the topic on the economy. Gough had no answer to that, the Hayden Budget hadn't taken effect and he was duly thumped in the elections. He returned as Opposition Leader and continued to champion the causes he felt strongly about. But in the next elections in 1977, he was unable to stop another Liberal landslide and promptly quit as Labour leader. He retired from Parliament the following year.

Gough went on to serve as UNESCO Ambassador after leaving politics. Thereafter he wrote a number of books on his dismissal and time in office and was always a respected figure in Australia.

He was later appointed as Australian Ambassador to UNESCO and thereafter retired from public service altogether. But he was always in the public eye and a much sought after speaker. Although he never reconciled with Kerr, he bore Fraser no animosity and they became firm friends, Both campaigned unsuccessfully for the Yes! campaign in the 1997 referendum to make Australia a republic.

Conclusion

Upon his death, the House of Representatives heard a motion of confidence in his honour on October 21st. You can watch the full debate in the video below:

It's a bit long, so you can just watch the bits you want. But a common refrain emerges - his enormous contributions to Australia and the lasting effects of his legacy, even now some 40 years since he left office. As former PM, Paul Keating said. in Australian history, there's a specific timeframe - pre-1972 and post-1972. It's amazing that Australia up to 1972 was so backward in its outlook. Gough took them by 'the scruff the neck, kicking and screaming' into the 21st century. Indeed many of the things he introduced were very controversial and unpopular, yet today it's taken as a given that these are parts of the greater Australian fabric. He was so far ahead of his time.

Martyr for a moment, Hero for a lifetime. Well May we say God the Queen, because nothing will diminish the legacy of Edward Gough Whitlam.

Indeed if there's any lessons to be learnt by politicians today, even here in Singapore, from his time in power, is that you must stay true to your beliefs. You must have courage of convictions and believe in true and genuine reform. That policies must be inclusive and special care taken in regards to the minorities, the sick, the elderly and needy. Govts must not be afraid to reform and not rest on their laurels. And of course, not seek to do too many things too fast at the expense of overburdening the economy. Asked once how he would like to be remembered, he accepted the version of one of his allies - Neville Wran (a former State Premier):

Caesar Augustus found Rome built of bricks and left it in marble; Gough Whitlam found the outer suburbs of Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane unsewered and left them fully flushed.

Indeed even in many senses of the phrase, Gough found many areas of Australian life 'unsewered' and left them 'fully flushed.' He lived a long and fulfilling life and did his bit in the service of his nation. He will never be forgotten.

Vale Gough Whitlam.

As expected following their court date last week, Looney Fringe Han Hui Hui and Roy Ngerng have resorted to their favourite tactic of soliciting donations to pay for their legal fees and fines. They are seeking $46,000 at the moment but this figure is expected to rise if they instruct their lawyer M Ravi to mount a judicial review of the charges and to appeal (if convicted). Both scenarios will see the matter go before the High Court. In all the legal costs could easily reach $100,000 or higher.

Han Hui Hui calls Leong Sze Hian - 'Uncle' and he treats her as his own 'daughter,' or so he says. Surprisingly "Uncle" and "Father" Leong doesn't volunteer to pay a cent for his 'daughter's fees, rather expects you to do so.

But don't expect them to be prepared to fork out a single dollar. They are playing the victim's card to the hilt and urging the public to pay the fees for them. Their so called 'guru' - Leong Sze Hian, who encouraged them every step of the way, to mount these protests has been using his Facebook (FB) page ' Empowering Singaporeans' to get people to donate. He even had the idea to get tens of thousands of people to donate a single dollar, so as to meet this target. And he repeatedly uses the refrain - they are charged for speaking up and both Ms Han and Roy will be disqualified from contesting elections if their fines exceed $2000. What he does not do, neither has any of them - is to actually use his or their own monies to pay the fees!

Amongst those charged are Chua Siew Leng 42, and Koh Yew Beng, 59:

http://www.straitstimes.com/news/singapore/courts-crime/story/bloggers-han-hui-hui-roy-ngerng-court-face-two-charges-over-hong-l

Ms Chua uses the moniker Maniyo Kalyani on FB, while Koh is known as Ivan Koh. Maniyo has been spamming every single FB page that refers to their case, urging people to donate, but she doesn't reveal that the donation is actually for herself too. For those who are still thinking of donating, I urge them to look a bit more at the 6 Looney Fringe and what they have been doing, in particular, Ivan Koh. He's a businessman apparently. Surely a businessman can afford to pay the fees himself and not force the public to pay?

He's the oldest and you would expect him to be the most responsible. Unfortunately no. In the videos of the disruption, you can notice him in all white screaming PAP murderer at the participants. He's also Roy's collector in chief, as he's holding on to the donation bag. If that was bad enough, here's a sample of some his posts on FB:

1) https://www.facebook.com/FabricationsAboutThePAP/photos/a.476692482386765.1073741825.213440582045291/740059219383422/?type=1&comment_id=740192816036729&offset=0&total_comments=50

This is what he said to a user named Daniel Ng (I'm sorry this is very vulgar):

Keep Replying Me, Has Double Confirm U R PaP=Pimps And Prostitute. Heeee. Heee. I Also Know Where Your Parent Live, The Back Lane Of Jalan Besar, Desker Road. Where your Parent Working Place. Your Father I Knew Him. Selling L-KY Delux Cunt Grease, Where Your Mother Need Very Much, Each Time She Got A Customer. She Apply One Tube.. My Friend Told Me He Has Try Her Lau Cheepie. Look Like Soft Sponge . Very Comfortable. After A Long Screw She Feel Shiok n Repeat Nggg Nggg Nggg. Sooooooooooooo Cheap. One Shot $1.50 Only. Cheaper Than A plate of Mee Rebus. Heeee. Heee.

2) In another post he said this:

3) This is what he says about the judges that will hear his case:

4) This is what he said to 2 users, Crystal Goh and Ivan Zhuang:

5) Many were shocked when Ms Han said Lee Kuan Yew was 'worse than a dog and deserved to die,' well this is what her good friend Ivan has to add:

6) This is what he says about Lee Kuan Yew's daughter (she's not in politics):

7) For those who think Roy and Ms Han are fighting for the opposition, well wake up, this is what he says about the Worker's Party:

Do you still wanna donate to these people?

Let's just briefly examine what he said.

1) He insulted Daniel's mother. Is it ever proper to insult someone's mother in such a manner? What did his parents ever do to Ivan Koh or the Looney Fringe?

2) He insults the genes of people. Is this level of racism or racial stereo-typing acceptable?

3) A judge who rules against him, is a prostitute! Why bother then to contest the charges? If you are not prepared to accept the verdict of the court, that means the judge is biased?

4) Telling people to 'go and die,' insulting their parentage spewed with vulgarities.

5) Like Ms Han, he curses and swears at Lee Kuan Yew.

6) Not content with that, he insults his daughter. Is it proper to target someone's family when they are not in any way involved in politics?

7) Just because the Workers Party doesn't support the Looney Fringe, he calls them womanizers!

All these are very serious allegations, utterly devoid of any decency, completely tasteless and reprehensible. But these are not uttered by some pimply nosed teenager, these are written and uttered by a 59 year old. He's the oldest of the 6 charged. He's old enough to be Roy's father and Han's grandfather. And it's people like him that Roy and Ms Han associate with. He's not some random person of the street, he's not an IMH patient (he even wore a tie to court, so he knows what's proper) and he runs a business. He should know better than either of them.

They were just 'speaking up,' says the Looney Fringe. I didn't realise people speak with whistles and placards and go around marching and heckling. And remember they never marched in any previous protest only this one, why? Because they could target a Minister and the crowd at the YMCA event.

And he wants to you to donate to him and the rest. Are you gonna donate to such a vile person? Oh yes, those who are donating are not donating just to Roy and Ms Han, it's for everybody - one for all, all for one! If you still think Roy and Ms Han are 'angels,' you need to wake up and 'smell the coffee.'

This is the kind of 'speaking' they are doing - spewing vulgarities, shouting, disrupting and showing a total disregard for the law and any manner of decency.

Pose this question to yourself: Suppose you want to be popular and want support, even financial support, what's the easiest way? Yes, either pretend or become a hardcore opposition supporter and act as the Looney Fringe. Let's say you support a more normal opposition party like the SPP, NSP or WP, they will not let you do or post anything silly or inflammatory (if you're a member) and certainly won't endorse such activities like disrupting an event for needy children or even do something dumb like protest on National Day, of all days. Your FB page will have some likes and but very few will join in or take part in your activities, unless sanctioned by the party.

If you support the PAP, forget it - you create a FB page, you'll be lucky if you get 100 likes and regular posting by voters. Even those who voted PAP won't bother to come to your page, let alone your rallies.

Looking at the way they pose and their attire - it certainly confirms their image as the Looney Fringe.

But if you start a hardcore anti-PAP page, post whatever dirt, allegation or hate filled rant you can think of, you'll soon find you have a core group of fans. You'll be invited to join in their pages as well, get regularly tagged and the more sensational your FB page, the more fans you'll get. 200 or so, is very achievable. Next you do something dramatic, start organising protests, you established a base and created a pattern. And then for the final flourish - explode the matter - just go and throw dirt at the PAP, make whatever allegation you can think of and openly start defying the Law. Once the inevitable reaction comes - play the victim card and hey ho - you're a hero and martyr, and you can mount as much sob stories as you want and some people will donate money to you. Your FB page and blogs will receive a few thousand FB likes.This is in a nutshell, precisely what the Looney Fringe is doing.

'Cry me a river,' Roy adopting his 'usual strategy' of being an 'unfortunate victim.' Kong Hee will be very proud.

So those who still wanna donate to a person like Ivan Koh, Han Hui Hui, Roy Ngerng and the rest, well you're endorsing the things, they are doing. It includes heckling, cursing others including their parents and children, using vulgarities and other tasteless words. And also you're not helping the opposition, the Looney Fringe doesn't like the Workers Party. They don't like anyone who doesn't like or approve of their antics. Remember how all this started? It started when Roy accused the PM of being like Kong Hee and gang. Well fast forward now, 6 months later, exactly who's more like Kong Hee and gang? Same number of accused, and for the Crossover project, just substitute with the donation drive.

(In the event the photos/screenshots can't be seen, you can retrieve it with the following links)

1. Insulting Daniel Goh's parents: https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/v/t34.0-12/10752015_742564579132886_143300537_n.jpg?oh=fc97699a93edd61fb03e1e85d4a1a9ef&oe=545A52D7&__gda__=1415204298_3e998f78062abefa9eaee9c1a8a8697e

2. On others having poor and inferior genes: https://www.facebook.com/thecartoonpress/photos/a.210819812284347.59745.202852383081090/849622091737446/?type=1&reply_comment_id=850063345026654&total_comments=2

3. Calling the Judge a prostitute: https://www.facebook.com/goh.aikhuat/posts/935073063188948?pnref=story

4. Insulting Crystal Goh and Ivan Zhuang:

https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/v/t34.0-12/974426_741853825870628_94459137_n.jpg?oh=7480da99bb5d35af35ae45b7f7b3b4ca&oe=545A1A7E&__gda__=1415216439_5aa12572280cef81ec86d63198fb700f

5. Insulting Lee Kuan Yew: https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/v/t34.0-12/10735938_741854289203915_1012006241_n.jpg?oh=2acd936c2c3fae47b3e53daec91f43f9&oe=545B60DC&__gda__=1415210636_70c3d719f032ec40a9371e8d08245197

6. Insulting his daughter: https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfa1/v/t34.0-12/10744534_741853589203985_823082602_n.jpg?oh=3ad38def21883df5eea5a47632bdef05&oe=545A19A9&__gda__=1415213973_0c479368f6465a93cf28de80d004c9aa

7. Anti WP rant: https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/v/t34.0-12/10743536_741854132537264_1472505051_n.jpg?oh=d53c3633383fbf4b668d9c6542c3921e&oe=545B5F9F&__gda__=1415211343_99afec66af9c8d3672589c981f5e8b2d

In the previous article, I highlighted what a vile and disgusting person 1 of the 6 accused persons charged for public nuisance at the YMCA event was. - Ivan Koh. These persons who are good buddies with Roy Ngerng and Han Hui Hui, are all part of the Looney Fringe. Not to be outdone, I came across the antics of another of the co-accused - Ms Chua Siew Leng, 42, who uses the moniker - 'Maniyo Kalyani' on Facebook.

The Looney Fringe don't believe in paying for their mad-cap antics, they expect the public to pay for it. As such they have been engaging in a desperate attempt to procure funds. And Ms Chua is obviously happy that it's working as she laughs in delight that people have donated. (see photo below)

The message from this is clear - Ms Chua is so happy that people have donated and she might not have to.

However since reaching the figure of $8,888 shown in the above post, the donation drive has hit a severe bump. Only another $1,500 or thereabouts have been raised. It appears my article on it, has had some effect. It received almost 3,000 shares on FB alone and sources close to the Looney Fringe are blaming me for their lack of fund-raising. Well, I'll take that as an honour that I've done my duty in a small way, to prevent the unsuspecting public from being hoodwinked.

All smiles, Ms Chua and Ivan Koh looked pleased, posing for pictures outside the Court building. It's high time to make them wipe the smirk off their faces and make them pay their own fees.

Anyway back to Ms Chua aka Maniyo Kalyani. Any doubt that she isn't a Looney Fringe can be swiftly dismissed. She's been spamming FB pages writing in CAPS always requesting for donations. She even posted a video on her lawyer M Ravi's FB page. I couldn't resist the temptation to reply and remarked that I hoped they would fight the case all the way - not just in the State Courts, but launch a judicial review and constitutional challenge, plus appeal not just to the High Court but the Court of Appeal. In doing so, they'll have to spend tens of thousands possibly more than $100k even. If they are busy spending their own money and being stressed, at least that'll spare ordinary Singaporeans, especially under-privileged children and the elderly from their antics. In typical fashion she replied angrily in CAPS and then realised she was losing the argument and embarrassing herself. So she promptly deleted the post altogether!

They talk so much of freedom of speech or the lack thereof, but they themselves don't want to let those that disagree or oppose their views, an avenue to respond. Even Roy Ngerng has blocked all forms of negative comments and opposing users from his FB page. Free speech indeed. Crazy Ms Chua went further - after deleting the post and my comments, she sent me a message on FB and then promptly blocked me! I laughed at her stupidity. Here's what she wrote btw (again in CAPS):

SCREAM YOUR IDIOT HEAD!!!!ARE YOU SAW I AM SCREAMING?MY VOICE IS VERY SOFT ONLY..THERE ARE OTHERS SCREAMING MORE LOUELY THAN ME!!!SO DONT ANYHOW SAY I AM SCREAMING!!!!SHUT UP!!!!THESE IS OF COURSE FOR THEM TO APPEAL!!YOU THINK I DIDN'T KNOW IT!!!I ALSO KNOW SHOULD APPEAL BEFORE YOU TALKING NONSENCE HERE!!!!NO NEED USED SO MUCH MONEY AS YOU THINK!!!IT WILL NOT SPEND ALL MONEY!!!YOU THINK THEY DONT KNOW TO JUDGEMENT?THEY ARE ALL NO WRONG!!!!COS SPEAK OUT LOUELY TO LET MORE PEOPLE HEARD THEIR TALKING ONLY!!!OK!!!WHY DONT YOU THINK LIKE THESE!!!YOU ARE NOT SMART ENOUGH!!!OK?!!BUSY BODY YOU!!!

Yeah right, tell the whole world that someone who spams FB pages and writes rubbish in CAPS, will not do any screaming and shouting in public, disrupting events and causing a nuisance! Very compelling argument, Ms Chua. I'm sure you've convinced the whole world, together with foul mouth Ivan Koh. Both of you are as innocent and noble like Mahatma Gandhi!

And since I'm on the topic of laughing at her stupidity, here's another 1 for posterity:

2 'young girls' same height, proclaims Ms Chua as she compares herself to Han Hui Hui.

I nearly fell off my chair laughing at that post by her. She's 42 years old and proclaims she's a young girl! Hahahaha, I didn't realise it was April Fools so soon. Anyway good news for women in their 40s, you can now proclaim yourselves as teenagers! The only thing 'same' between Ms Chua and Ms Han are that both are the Looney Fringe and scream like chimpanzees in public.

So I hope that more people will open their eyes and see the Looney Fringe for what they are. How happy they are that people will donate to them, so that they can avoid forking out a single dollar when they behave abominably. Hopefully the donations trickle out and they finally have to pay the price for their outrageous behaviour.

SEA Games gold medallist Sonny Tan needs greater help and assistance than the Looney Fringe. You can find out how to donate in the link provided.

But if there are those who want to donate or want to assist those in need, please instead consider the plight of Sonny Tan, a former national pool player who won gold in the SEA Games for Singapore. He's suffering from Stage 4 cancer and needs all the help and support he can get:

https://sg.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/fit-to-post-sports/singapore-pool-players-compete-to-raise-funds-for-cancer-stricken-ex-national-athlete-054310310.html

This is a much more worthy cause, rather than supporting a bunch of Loonies, who are laughing all the way to bank, because they managed to con people into paying for their antics.

(Due to settings on blogger, you may not be able to view the 2 photos, so here's the link)

I was taken aback by a speech made by Ms Han Hui Hui at last Saturday's CPF protest at Hong Lim Park. (HLP)

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=691739600882051&set=vb.213440582045291&type=2&theater

What was extremely troubling was her allegation that former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew (LKY) was a traitor who helped the Japanese during WWII and she went further to call him 'worse than a dog and hoped he would die soon', so as not to waste tax-payer's money. No opposition politician has ever peddled these lines before and I doubt anyone will. But Ms Han Hui Hui is clearly part of a 'Looney Fringe' who hope to hijack national issues and the work done on the ground by 'proper' opposition parties and members, in order to raise their profile and in doing so, take a short cut into Parliament by pretending to be 'champions of the people.' They have their own agendas and resort to wild and baseless allegations in order to gain fame and use it win sympathy when they are challenged. They play to the gallery albeit the hardcore opposition one but fail to realise that their antics, rather than winning new converts to the opposition cause, has the opposite effect - it scares away swing voters and make them doubt, thinking that all opposition are cut from the same Looney Fringe ilk.

a) Who does Han Hui Hui think she is? And why she's part of the Looney Fringe.

Han Hui Hui (I'll use HHH for brevity), is a Malaysian born 23 year old who just became a citizen here barely 2 years ago. She only came to live and study here at the turn of the century. After her JC studies she tried to pursue a private education but got embroiled in some sort of dispute which caused her to sue the Council of Private Education. In a long drawn out case, and with advise it was going to be a futile effort, she stubbornly decided to pursue it. In the end, she lost and had to fork out extensive legal fees for which she actively sought donations from the public. (A Looney Fringe speciality)

Lesson 1 on being a Looney Fringe - wear a shirt that says 'Wanna Sue Me', then proceed to make allegations worthy of slander.

Unlike normal persons that age, she refused to seek gainful employment or explore alternative options to further her studies. Instead she decided to become a political activist teaming up in particular with Roy Ngerng (Roy Ng for brevity) and Leong Sze Hian. Well there's nothing wrong about activism, and they started out making the right noises and organising protests on certain national issues like employment, population explosion, worker's rights and recently the CPF.

These protests failed to capture the imagination of the general public with average crowds of 200-300 attending their monthly events at HLP. In the meantime, HHH and gang tried to attract the participation of the major opposition parties like the National Solidarity Party (NSP), Singapore People's Party (SPP) and Workers Party (WP), but were swiftly re-buffed. Even the SDP and SDA didn't want to join in the fun. It left them in a quandary, they had hoped perhaps that they could be co-opted by 1 of these parties and maybe even allowed to run for elections under them. So they came up with the idea of going it alone and have long entertained the idea of forming a party of their own.

Unfortunately this path led them to become what they now have become - the Looney Fringe of Singapore politics.

Lesson 2 - How to get the crowds? Provoke and make yourself the victim and then ask for support.

They knew they had to do something and chose a path of controversy, all out allegations, misguided beliefs and over-confidence in their abilities to become MPs and last and certainly not least - self-martyrdom. Although Roy Ng has denied it, HHH has never come out to corroborate it. The whole idea to inflame the lawsuit by the PM against Roy Ng, and make him and herself as martyrs. They had a misguided notion that should things turn south (as it has), asylum in another country was a viable option. No doubt the CPF is a very relevant issue and they have played some part in bringing it to the fore, but it was always secondary to what is now becoming increasingly clear - HHH and Roy Ng wanted themselves to be issue. They wanted the fame (or notoriety), they wanted to increase the size of their protests, they wanted the sympathy and of course, financial support.

Just look at her latest protest, she still maintains that she is the 'sole organiser' in order to show she's the one sacrificing her time and effort, whilst repeatedly mentioning this so people will see her as being capable. Did she set up the stage, sound system and do everything without 1 bit of help from Roy, Leong and others? Did all the monies come from her? The answer is as obvious as night follows day.

Does HHH think ferocious lawyer David Marshall didn't know about LKY's wartime past? Would he have kept quiet if he knew that LKY was a traitor as she claims?

Now lets look at her allegations. Who is she to pass judgment on LKY? Where did she get her info? She wasn't even born or a citizen here when LKY stepped down from the Premiership in 1990. She didn't live under LKY's rule or tenure as PM, what does she know about it? Was LKY a traitor because he took some job during WWII under the Japanese? Even JB Jeyaretnam did the same, is JBJ a traitor as well? Has there been any evidence to suggest LKY colluded with the Japanese to the detriment of fellow Singaporeans? If there were, you can be sure it would have come out a long time ago, no need for some jumped up ex-Malaysian turnip to bring it up 70 years later. LKY's rivals in the 1950s, David Marshall, Lim Yew Hock, Lim Chin Siong et al, not to mention JBJ and others later on, all would have seized the opportunity to inflict fatal damage on LKY's political career. Even the British or post-war Japanese Govt would have revealed his treachery or use it as a leverage in dealings with his Govt. They didn't because no evidence exists, and LKY deserves no blemish on his record for doing what many others tried to do during that time - survive. My parents lived through the war, you did what you had to survive but of course not at somebody's expense. Did HHH or her parents live through the war? So who's she to claim LKY's a traitor?

Orchard Road in the late 70s, so much progress was made in just over a decade during LKY's tenure. Did HHH live through this?

She calls him worse than a dog and hopes he dies soon. Did she live through the 1960s,70s and 80s in Singapore when LKY was PM? Does she know what life was like back then? Hundreds of thousands lived in kampongs, had no drinking water, no sewage facilities, no proper education, limited employment and many were poor. No doubt the PAP exaggerates it by claiming everything was down to him, or some even call him the 'Founding Father' who took us from fishing village to 1st world. We weren't a fishing village in 1959 or 1965, but we were small, vulnerable and the chances for failure were far greater than the chances for success. LKY didn't do it alone, he did it with the support of the people who decided to put their faith in his leadership. It was this leadership and determination that played a crucial part in our success. You can say many things about his leadership and point out the flaws, but cannot by any stretch of the imagination say he was a failure. At a crucial time in our history we required a particular leader - LKY was that leader.

LKY, Mrs Lee and Prof Al Winsemius. LKY was wise enough to tap the Professor to be his principal economic advisor.

Unlike many other leaders of newly independent nations in the 1950s and 60s, LKY did not 'go after the money.' He did not pilfer the state coffers, he did not have Swiss banks accounts. He picked good men like Prof Albert Winsemius, Lim Kim San, JY Pillay etc, to advise him and lead national agencies. World leaders have paid tribute to him, even from the West like Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan and George Shultz (who even disagreed with him). He's one of the few men to be given the honour of addressing a joint sitting of the US Congress (1985 I think). Is this man worse than a dog?

And wishing him death. Despite our modernity and progress, we still believe in Asian values today. We never wish death on our elders. LKY is old enough to be HHH's great-grandfather, and she cannot show some respect for his age? No doubt many (including me) believe he should step down as an MP as his health has deteriorated, but we won't say he's wasting taxpayer's money. He's never craved extreme luxury or has little need of a large salary (even the $13.8k MP's allowance), but few would accuse him of wasting tax-payers money. HHH's comments are reprehensible and disgusting.

b) LKY as a political issue is a sure lose strategy for the Opposition

Whatever one's beliefs or support whichever side of the fence they sit, LKY should never be a political issue either now or in the next elections, especially for the opposition. Many Singaporeans especially those who lived through the first 30 years of our independence see LKY as a good leader who brought tremendous success and progress to Singapore. Even those who regularly vote opposition or are minded to, will not feel comfortable with the idea of lambasting LKY as a way to entice opposition support.

A frail LKY in Parliament House to attend his birthday celebration. It's alright to suggest he steps down due to age, but it's not alright to call him a leech as HHH infers.

Of course there will be some die-hard opposition supporters who hate his guts, well fair enough, everyone has a right to support or oppose a politician. Yet no opposition leader has ever decided to campaign on a premise of LKY as a traitor, worse than a dog, a poor leader and hopes he dies. Some probably you could excuse like JBJ or Dr Chee, they who suffered tremendous hardship under him, even unfairly at times. Yet even they stopped short of uttering the kind of words that HHH said. Why?

LKY in his hey-day. He's no longer in charge, he cannot be the issue anymore. It's up to the historians years from now to look back at his legacy and judge whether he was a success.

Because they know it's a sure vote-loser to begin with and in very poor taste. It'll not only make PAP die-hards aghast, but will make swing voters think twice about voting for them. Some older Singaporeans may not like LKY, but they respect him and some who don't like the current PAP Govt, also feel that saying bad things about LKY is just not on. You wanna criticise his policies fair enough, but don't get personal. Even so, what's the point of making LKY an issue now? He's not in power and clearly doesn't seem in any shape of form to be able to do much. You have an issue - raise it with the present Govt, not one from 20 years ago.

KJ at the CPF rally. By sharing the same stage, he has to accept collective responsibility for what others say. (Btw Anyhow Hantam tip for KJ - Wear a bigger and looser shirt!)

This is the reason the WP, SPP and NSP do not want to touch these protests by HHH and Roy Ng with a barge pole. They know the Looney Fringe is desperate for any single attention and support they can procure. Sure they'll raise the issue to begin with, but eventually will do or say something to make themselves the issue. Kenneth Jeyaretnam (KJ), the Reform Party leader also spoke at the event. Perhaps Mr 1% is desperate to win allies and support for his party which is losing good members and potential candidates faster than a leaky faucet, as such he's been trying his best to get into the news or limelight by attending and speaking at protests. But he must know if he shares the same stage with HHH, who then calls LKY a traitor and a dog, he's also directly or indirectly saying he supports her remarks. And the same goes for all the other speakers like Tan Kim Lian, SDP's new girl, and Ariffin Sha.

Conclusion

Interestingly when once asked why she didn't speak in dialect like NSP's Nicole Seah, HHH said it would be faking it as she prefers to be herself. Well that was a sure fast change of mind. When asked why organise protests every single month, she replied she wanted to boost her profile, speaking ability in order to become recognisable, however now she says, she's doing it to 'help people and raise awareness.'

So judge for yourselves, what's the true agenda for doing all this? Why did she not work for so long, I gather only in May this year she finally decided to work albeit part-time? Will it look good for a future candidate to refuse to work and just doing a part-time job? Don't forget in the meantime, she and gang went to Norway, India and even Switzerland (with others). Is there a need to go to these countries to do 'research'? Whatever happened to email, Skype, handphones and the internet? And why allow others to harp on her weight? Not forgetting accepting donations for all these protests, until at present they are all paid for.

Looney Fringe Lesson 3 - How to be an activist like a Boss?! Forget about working, go abroad, do 'research' and then comment about how bad Singapore is.

Why don a shirt that says 'wanna sue me' and then make wild allegations? Well if you're part of the Looney Fringe, all this is par for the course. It remains to be seen whether KJ and others will condemn her remarks publicly or continue to endorse it by speaking at future events. Perhaps it doesn't really matter, because if you can go places like Norway, India and elsewhere, get support from the public, receive donations for organising events and of course, play the victim if sued or challenged and solicit funds for legal fees, I guess it's pretty worth it.

The Looney Fringe is getting bolder and hell-bent on being famous by portraying themselves as victims. It's time to ensure they do not hijack the whole opposition cause and scare away neutrals and swing voters. We need good and responsible opposition not 'fly-by nights with agendas and axes to grind.' They want to become the issue, we must ensure that they don't and the opposition parties that are responsible, work the ground and want to serve the people, are the only ones when speaking and raising issues that deserve our support at the ballot box. I hope HHH has the decorum and decency to apologise for what she said, although I very much doubt it.

The Commission of Inquiry into the Little India Riot last December delivered their report. You can read the text of the Ministerial Responses by DPM Teo Chee Hean and Manpower Minister Tan Chuan Jin, as well as the committee's recommendations in these 2 CNA articles.

This blog entry might be a little late (blame the WC for it), but I think 1 factor needs to be reviewed that hasn't. I am happy to note that some of the pointers I raised and explored in my previous blog posts regarding the matter were looked into by the Committee and recommended. Of course I'm not saying that I provided the inspiration or substance, it's unlikely that a minor blogger's views would be considered unless of course he said something defamatory, but that's another issue. No my blog posts were just looking at it in a layperson's perspective and came out with the most obvious points that somehow or rather were completely missed by the police management.

The image of overturned police cars, rioting foreign workers is one that cannot be so easily erased from memory. This is something the SPF must never forget.

It's good that the SPF are now learning the lessons from the riot and are being better prepared. But the important point that hasn't been addressed and has papered over is the issue of accountability. Until today there has been no proper apology from Police Commissioner Ng Joo Hee or DAC Lu, the Tanglin Commander. Even worse, is that neither has been sanctioned for what can only be described as the worst crisis of confidence in the SPF's nearly 170 year history.

DAC Lu Yeow Lim should be disciplined and demoted not comforted for his inept performance and leadership at Tanglin, not just for the riot itself but the events leading up to it. (ST photo)

The issue is not what DPM Teo says, 'the police did their best.' Well Mr DPM their best wasn't good enough not by any stretch of imagination. Yes lapses were made by the attending officers in failing to appreciate the sentiments and mood on the ground. The failure to cordon and show some sort of action was seen taken against the bus driver or coordinator. But their failures cannot mask the huge mistakes made at the top by DAC Lu for his poor management of the scene and failing to take 1 iota of action, other than as he put it 'look the enemy in the face.' The SPF is quick to highlight the 'achievements of commanders' when promoting them and these almost always deals with the good work done by men on the ground. But what happens when things go awry, when men make mistakes and leaders fail to lead? The same goes for CP Ng for allowing an attitude of complacency to set in. Worse is his failure to supervise his Commanders and to ensure proper equipment and training for men on the ground.

The file on CP Ng Joo Hee's missteps as Police Chief is getting thicker with each passing year. He still refuses to take responsibility as the top man. It's high time he's replaced before another worse incident befalls us. (CNA photo)

This debacle cannot be swept under the carpet with a 'catch-all' statement 'that SPF did its best.' If its best means that public order breaks down, the public put in fear and the systematic damage of public property under the very eyes of watching police, then there is something terribly wrong in the way he as the Minister allows such a culture to pervade the SPF. Changes have been made yes, protocols changed good but what ever happened to taking responsibility? There has been a systematic failure from the top down in the SPF for a number of years and Commissioner must be man enough to say, 'It's my fault, I take full responsibility.'

DC Hoong Wee Teck (c) chairs as news conference in his role as CID Director. He has the experience and ability, he not CP Ng, should be the one leading the SPF.

DAC Lu should be demoted and never allowed to take charge of a division until he proves himself. In the aftermath of the 'Mas Selamat escape' and the 'death of a trainee at the Commando Camp', supervisory officers were taken to task and disciplined. Why not here, in what can be termed as a huge disaster not seen in almost 40 years? As for the CP, if you don't want to fire him, since it was you or your predecessor who recommended him, unqualified as he was in the first place, then at least spare the country from another mishap by sending him elsewhere. Make him an Ambassador or something but take away his leadership role. Why not give it to DC Hoong Wee Teck? Just look at DC Hoong's record - he joined as an Inspector in the late 80s, rose through the ranks and has enormous experience especially in investigation. Just look at the sterling work he's done as CID Director. Wasn't he always the more qualified officer to lead the SPF?

Lee Kuan Yew would have never stood for the kind of leadership failure that the SPF is displaying. The question is why is the present crop of leaders doing so?

Unless of course the message being sent to Singaporeans is - sorry, the elite are part of us. We appoint them because they will be loyal to us, we will protect them no matter what. Whatever is said of Lee Kuan Yew, I don't think for a moment he would have stood for the kind of rubbish performance delivered on December 8th last by DAC Lu and CP Ng's leadership and excuses galore. LKY would have been seething in anger, so the question to ask is why are you happy to continue to reward and excuse failure?

A friend brought to my attention the following article which made troubling reading:

http://news.asiaone.com/news/sports/sleague-sevki-stranded

This concerns former Lions XII and national defender, Sevki Sha'ban, who represented Home United FC since last year. He was unceremoniously dismissed over week ago without any compensation. What's troubling is the dismissal coincides with the Ramadan period and the upcoming Hari Raya Puasa. As a Malay-Muslim, this is the biggest festival of the year. What's even worse is that he was dismissed without any form of compensation.

Player background

Sevki started playing in the S-league 12 years ago, when he represented Sembawang Rangers. He then moved to the Young Lions during his NS days, where he was a bit part player. Thereafter he moved to Gombak United for 3 seasons where he enjoyed his best spell to date. He was even made club captain. He also earned his first national cap during the period. He then moved to Geylang United in 2010 but picked up a serious injury that curtailed his career. Eventually he moved on the Lions XII team, that took part in the Malaysia Cup after an 18 year absence.

An unpleasant Ramadan/Hari Raya surprise for former national player Sevki Sha'ban.

Just when things were looking up for him, he suffered an anterior cruciate injury in October 2012. This also curtailed his national team career and he missed out on the team's triumphant Suzuki Cup triumph in December that year. However he managed to recover and signed a 2 year contract with Home United at the beginning of the season last year. He forced his way back into the team and played in the Singapore Cup Final last year, which Home won.

His current predicament

His problems began this year when Home appointed South Korean Lee Lim Saeng as head coach. Sevki fell down the pecking order and has not played a single game this season. His relationship with the coach soured so badly that he wasn't even allowed to train to with the team. He was eventually dismissed on grounds of 'unsatisfactory work and under-performance', as stated in a cryptic club statement.

Former South Korean international Lee Lim Saeng is Home United's head coach.

He was told he was free to leave last month during the transfer window but rejected a lower paying offer by Hougang United. The window has since closed and he's unable to sign for any other club until the new season. He cannot also represent Lions XII in the Malaysia Cup because that competition's window has also closed.

As such he's left in limbo now, and with Hari Raya beckoning, the father of 3 has little or no means to provide for his family other than depend on his wife and family members. He's now seeking the FAS help to grant him a reprieve and allow him to sign for another club.

The troubling issue

The troubling issue here is the rather callous and heartless manner in which Home United went about in dismissing him. Some may say, 'Why didn't he take up the offer by Hougang United?' or 'surely he must have known the writing was on the wall ever since he was dropped from training even?' Perhaps he was a bit naïve but that's beside the point. The point is - when you sign a contract, you expect it to be honoured, even if you're surplus to requirements. Or if really there's a desire to remove you, then compensation must be given, if not in full, at least a portion of it. Home United did neither. Even blogger Roy Ngerng received a month's salary after being dismissed by TTSH.

If Home found his performance unsatisfactory, then they should have told him as such much earlier, encouraged him to find another club and warned him of the possibility of getting sacked. No such warnings were given. And surely they would have realised that as a Malay Muslim, Hari Raya would soon beckon and just dismissing him like that, is rather heartless. How would Lee or any official in the club feel if they were dismissed suddenly, just as their biggest cultural and religious event was about to begin? Couldn't they see that as a father he would be called upon to bear the costs of the celebrations especially for his 3 young children? Couldn't they wait until after Hari Raya to dismiss him?

An ironic description of the S-league. The FAS is living in a fantasy world if they expect the league to grow and improve when basic things like contracts are not honoured.

Sevki's case is not the first, this is just the latest in a long line of dismissals by local clubs, where players who get injured or dropped, are unceremoniously dismissed without any form of compensation. With such short notice, that leaves them with little or no options. Some people without understanding on how professional football operates may take the view, 'Hey, what's he complaining so much about, he should be lucky that he can earn a salary by playing a sport or a hobby!'

That's not correct, a fulltime sportsman has to sacrifice a lot. Just go try running and kicking the ball for 30 minutes and see how 'pancit' (out of breath) you are. What more players playing at a much higher level for 90 minutes. Sevki like others had to train super hard to maintain his fitness and he had to sacrifice the best part of his youth in order to play football. He had to forgo any future education or work experience the past 12 years, not to mention face the prospect of a career ending injury.

Analysis/Conclusion

We often read of the FAS saying how it wants to promote football here and build a strong team in the future, not to mention make the S-League one of Asia's best. But the first step in doing that must be to ensure that football is a viable and somewhat secure career. They cannot allow clubs to tear up contracts as when they please, especially when players get injured. They must ensure that contracts are honoured, and adequate compensation is offered when it isn't.

It's just a matter of time before another 'kelong' case erupts if nothing is done to make the S-league efficient and more professional.

The FAS makes a lot of noise about wiping out match-fixing which was prevalent here in the recent past. But if you don't ensure players are paid properly, it only gives match-fixers a great opening to entice these players in a large money-making scheme. They cite can Sevki and others before him, who were unceremoniously sacked with little or nothing to fall back on. Although I have no evidence, former match fixers I spoke to believe that some degree of fixing is still going on. These they allege is done by players themselves, who realise they need to have some back-up plan or finance should their career end suddenly. Not all of them can go into coaching or some other sports related job. Most are not highly educated and have no relevant job experience to fall back on, other than football, which counts for squat in the working world. As said this is just hearsay, but poorly or unpaid players are a fertile ground for match-fixers. If the FAS doesn't do something to address this, then they shouldn't be surprised if another major match-fixing scandal engulfs the S-league sooner or later.

Home United's logo. Well they certainly didn't offer Sevki Sha'ban any protection. Other players in the club better be prepared for another round of dismissals if coach Lee doesn't fancy them.

Finally, we must take Home United to task as well. As a club representing the Home Team, the dismissal of player without compensation, indirectly portrays the organisation as uncaring. And the failure to be emphatic to a player or person about to celebrate his primary festival of the year, make Home United look like a heartless and callous employer. The manner and timing of Sevki's dismissal is deplorable and Home United deserve to be roundly criticised and taken to task for their actions in this unfortunate affair for Sevki.

It has been really fun watching the Commonwealth Games (CG) in Glasgow. It has shown that it's still relevant and gives a lot of promising athletes a real chance to take part in a multi-game event under a degree of competitiveness. The Olympics or World Championships are really tough to win or even qualify for a final event. Athletes from minor countries like Scotland and others have shown that once they don their national colours, they are prepared to give it a real go. I really hope one day Singapore will host these Games. For sure it will go over Budget, even Scotland (Glasgow) has exceeded its initial cost, but the feel good factor and the improvements to infrastructure makes it beneficial (as stated by the Scottish Chamber of Commerce President). Most importantly, it gives a real shot in the arm to local sportsmen.

With the 2014 Commonwealth Games yet to finish, it's already been hailed as a roaring success by the media in the UK and more importantly, by the Scots.

If Singapore truly wants to be thereabouts in the medals at the Olympics and improve the standard of sports across the board, participating and even hosting either a CG or Asian Games is a good way to go about it. Anyway let's turn now to the men and women who have represented Singapore at Glasgow 2014 and pay them the homage they deserve. It seems strange to start with Joseph Schooling, because he didn't win a gold medal, but he is our most high profile athlete at the Games and the one most expected of.

A silver lining - Joseph Schooling is all smiles with his well deserved silver medal.

He began with qualification for the 200m butterfly and made the final only to finish last. But it was good lesson for him. He had a chance to swim with some of the world's best. He also made the 50m butterfly final, improving his national mark in the semis. Pardon the pun, but maybe 'butterflies in his stomach' saw him finish with a slower time in the final in 7th place. Just when question marks were beginning to be raised, he responded in a manner befitting of a champion, reaching the 100m butterfly final. He then became the 1st Singaporean swimmer to win a medal in swimming at the Games by finishing 2nd behind the awesome Chad le Clos. His time of 51.69 would have been enough to win gold at the last Games and if my memory serves me, even the last Olympic Gold.

Fractions! That's how close it was in the men's 100m butterfly final in Beijing 2008. Serbia's Cavic seemed certain to win gold leading the great Michael Phelps as they headed for home. The Serb opted to glide to the wall, but the trailing Phelps decided to employ another stroke. It paid off, and he, not Cavic, was the winner by 100th of a second.

The podium finish is just the tonic he needs to build himself up and get ready for the Rio Games in 2016. While overjoyed and pleased, he promised to not let it get to his head as he embarks on what has been a bridge too far for past Singapore swimmers - to win an Olympic medal. His coach believes he can, the nation believes he can. However I would also like to raise a note of caution and not to think it's a must that he must deliver a medal in Rio. The Olympics is the pinnacle of swimming, even greater than the World Championships (WC), and everyone gives their best. Only great champions swimming at their peak have gone on to win Olympic Gold and that too with a bit of luck. The great Michael Phelps needed a last ditch stroke to retain his gold at Beijing in the same event as Schooling, when it seemed certain that the Serbian swimmer had wrecked his 9 gold assault. He won in 100th of a second. That's the fine margin between medallists and finalists in an Olympic Final.

The man to beat - South Africa's Chad le Clos. Guess where he got his international break? None other than the much maligned YOG in Singapore. It goes to show that a major international competition has the potential to unearth and build stars for the future.

While Le Clos, the Australians and the British were here for the CG and Schooling's effort is definitely a highlight, it will be even harder for the same final in Rio. There you'll have the Americans, the Chinese, the Japanese, the French, the Germans and whichever top swimmer from all the participating countries in the world. It's more likely than not that he will fail than succeed. But he has proven that he can improve and has a chance. If he can qualify for a final event, like he did at the WC in Barcelona, that's already a huge achievement. That should be his target and our expectation followed by as high a finish as possible. A bronze would be a huge cause for celebration but even a 5th or 6th place is something worthy of merit. Let's wish Schooling every success and for a start let's hope he can win some medals (preferably Gold) at the next Asiad (which I think is next year).

The golden girl - Jasmine Ser poses with her gold medal after winning the 50m rifles position 3 event.

Moving on, it has been a great Games for Singapore, with shooter Teo Shun Xie shooting her way to gold in the Women's 10m air pistol event. She won in a Games record of 198.6 points, a marked improvement from her 14th place finish in the Delhi Games in 2010 and her 2nd place in last year's SEA Games. This is not an easy event even in the CG, the Indians are very good at it and at the Olympics, the Chinese are the dominant force. Shun Xie has shown she can compete with the best and hopefully with form and some luck, she can repeat the trick at Rio. She was followed to the top of the podium by Jasmine Ser who the Women's 50m Rifle Positions 3 event. Our gals have done us proud and I'm sure 1 of them will be crowned Sportswoman of the Year.

The Women's Table Tennis Team made this happen (a). They deserve our thanks and congratulations.

Finally on to Table Tennis, this is a sport that attracted a lot of controversy because of the 'foreign talents' imported to make us a medal winning country. Like many, I wasn't really beaming from 'ear to ear', when we finally broke our medal duck in the last few Olympics and other Games. Question marks were raised about the level of loyalty that these Chinese born players had for their new country. But to be fair, this time around, I saw a greater effort by the players to show their 'Singaporeaness.' We struck gold in the Women's team event and there was a concerted effort by the girls to sing the National Anthem - 'Majulah Singapura.' Overall it really looked throughout table tennis and even badminton, that these players understood and were thankful for being able to represent Singapore. That's all we ask and they delivered, good on them, I say. Moreover even if the debate rages on about the status of 'importing glory', no real blame should be attached to any of the athletes. They were given a job to do, they were paid well to do it and they delivered. Winning is not as easy at it seems, we aren't the only ones 'importing Chinese players', even the Australians and British are doing it. The same goes for the world stage, you get Chinese born players representing Holland, Denmark, the USA etc. It requires a lot of hard work, training and dedication to succeed at the highest level, and there's no guarantee of success given the playing field. These men and women who represent us deserve the congratulations, praise and support of all Singaporeans. (The men's team also won gold in Glasgow).

Flagbearer Lim Heem Wei (Gymnastics) leads the Singapore team out during the opening ceremony. The 105 strong team has done Singapore proud and we salute them.

As it stands we've won 4 golds, 1 silver and 1 bronze (men's badminton) and lie in 13th place in the medals table at the time of writing today (Friday), with more to come in the final 2 days of competition. This is an enormous achievement for a country of our size. Of the other Asian countries participating in Glasgow, only India and Malaysia (same number of gold, but more silver and bronze) are ahead of us. It's a statistic we all can be proud of. That said, even to those who represented us in the various sports and didn't win, it's alright, we are still proud of you. We know you trained hard, prepared yourself and made a lot of sacrifices at a personal level. We hope that the experience you gained in Glasgow and the level of competition will benefit you and spur you on to greater heights at the next major event. Majulah Singapura!

In the course of the past few months, I've been warning of the emergence of a 'Looney Fringe' that has appeared on the political landscape. Under the guise of 'speaking up and raising issues', a group of people have hijacked national issues and turned peaceful and legitimate protests into a no holds barred campaign of hate and smears. By upping the ante, they hope to portray themselves as 'saviours' and if that fails, as some kind of political martyr. Nothing is beneath them and it's thus no surprise that they have chosen the 1 day when the whole of Singapore comes together to celebrate our independence and nationhood - National Day, as a day to engage in petty political squabbles.

https://www.facebook.com/events/271583499702725/

As always the 'face' of these events is ex-Malaysian new citizen, Ms Han Hui Hui. Hiding in the background will be her political mentor, Leong Sze Hian, with political 'victim', Roy Ngerng, delivering a rousing speech on martyrdom and accountability. In fact Ms Han had planned for a full day event beginning 12 noon and scheduled to end around the same time the National Day Parade is well underway, but now has delayed it until 4pm because there's no drinks supplier ostensibly. Perhaps it's because more and more people can see through the charade? Ms Han has already planned another protest on August 23rd, so why have one on of all days, National Day?

Why bother working, when you can protest and go for holidays? Han Hui Hui in a photo taken in Norway this year, under the guise of 'research' for the CPF protests.

Well this is what the Looney Fringe will do, anything to score a few points, something of a gimmick and to make themselves look good is always an opportunity to be seized. In last month's protest, she made wild allegations against former PM Lee Kuan Yew, calling him a traitor and worse than a dog, but she's not content with that. In fact the National Day protest carries the stupid slogan - 'To sin by silence when one can protest, makes us cowards of men!' Since when is silence a sin? The millions of voters who do not protest are sinners? The hundreds of thousands who will vote against the PAP in an election are sinners because they do not want to join in a stupid protest that achieves little or nothing? Well that's the Looney Fringe's take on us.

And what has the Looney Fringe achieved for us by these protests? Has the Govt softened their stance? Is the Minimum Sum going to go down because of the protests? No, instead the Govt has closed ranks and said they will stick to their guns. The only way the PAP Govt will change policies is if the voters express disapproval of policies at the ballot box or through points raised by opposition MPs in Parliament which garner widespread support. Not by some Looney Fringe shouting and screaming like a mad dog and making wild and unsubstantiated claims. But don't worry if per chance there are changes or softening of policies, the Looney Fringe will jump on the bandwagon and take the credit.

Has the protests achieved its' aim of lowering or returning CPF monies? No, instead we see a hardening of the Govt's stance. Do you think this PAP Govt will ever back down to a Looney Fringe? Nope, they will back down only if the WP, SPP, NSP or SDP win seats in Parliament.

That's the whole point of these exercises and protests. To make themselves look good, to try and boost their image so they can stand for elections. Despite no evidence no suggest it, Ms Han seems to think that an election will be held this year and that's why they have desperately been organising protest after protest - to build their image up in the hope they will get a chance to be elected. The millions of Singaporeans who have to work and survive is immaterial, they are sinners because they remain silent! Why? Because Looney Fringes like Ms Han don't work or hardly have worked. They make wild claims, play the victim, so people will support them and pay for their escapades. The more protests the better.

The NDP - Is this a day to celebrate being Singaporean or to make a political protest? The Looney Fringe thinks it's the latter.

Finally onto this National Day protest. It's in total poor taste. National Day is not a celebration of PAP rule, I have never met anyone who equates National Day with PAP Day. It's Singapore Day, it's day Singaporeans can feel a bit of pride to be Singaporeans. Uniformed groups doing drills, skydiving, flyovers, sing-alongs and cultural items, not to mention reciting the pledge and singing the National Anthem. Is this a political event? If it was, do you think J B Jeyeretnam and Chiam See Ting would have attended previous parades? The answer is no. Is this a day to protest, to have a minute's silence for Lim Bo Seng, Lt Adnan, Lim Yew Hock, David Marshall or Ong Teng Cheong? Do you celebrate your grandmother's birthday by having a minute's silence for your dead grandfather? There's a time and place for everything, you don't celebrate a birthday at a funeral and you don't turn birthdays into funerals. But this is par for the course for the Looney Fringe, nothing is sacred, nothing matters except to make themselves into some kind of heroes or to score some political gimmick.

Kenneth Jeyaretnam should build on his father's legacy, and speak for the common man, not join the Looney Fringe bandwagon. JBJ was a lone wolf for much of his political life, and this solitary unshakeable cause won many admirers.

It remains to be seen who will speak at the event. Reform Party chief Kenneth Jeyaretnam (KJ) shared the same stage last time around when Ms Han made the distasteful remarks about Lee Kuan Yew. If he and other minor politicians want to share the same stage as the Looney Fringe, then he must also be prepared to be tarred with the same brush, when they do or say something stupid. The Looney Fringe doesn't care, they are happy to revel in their new found fame, people like KJ will lose votes and have their parties message drowned out by the ruckus created by the Looney Fringe. Finally to those who cheer the Looney Fringe like Ms Han, ask yourself this question, if she can be disloyal to her country of birth, what makes you so sure, she won't be disloyal to Singapore in future? Looking at some her comparisons with other countries, I won't be at all surprised if she and gang one day come forward and say, 'Oh Singapore is very useless, the people are stupid, they don't want to change, better I go to Norway or wherever where there is more democracy.'

By all means celebrate National Day in your own way, but steer clear of the Looney Fringe. Nothing good will come out by supporting a lost cause. I gather Ms Han has now even trained her disapproval against the Workers Party, if remarks on her FB wall are anything to go by, further confirming my beliefs about the agenda of the Looney Fringe.

I came across a forum letter in Monday's The New Paper (TNP) regarding the impending closure of Sungei Road's ad hoc roadside stalls- also known as 'Thieves Market, because it's a place where thieves sometimes sell their ill gotten gains. It was written by one Lionel Jerome de Souza. Now Mr de Souza is a familiar name in the forum sections of both TNP and the Straits Times, invariably all his letters take a familiar theme - exploits of his days as a policeman and how he himself made a great arrest and fought crime all on his own, back in the 1960s and 1970s.

'Thieves Market' in Sungei Road. Lionel de Souza claims to have curbed its gangster activities!

1 would come to the conclusion that de Souza was some kind of yesteryear 'Robocop' by the way he describes his crime fighting activities and Monday's letter reiterates the point. He says this of his time as a 'detective in the old Beach Road Police Station'- 'I dare say I played a pivotal role in suppressing the activities of gangsters in the area.' He goes on to relate an incident of how he (with little reference to his partner) arrested an old thief for theft of hub-caps at Thieves Market. I admit being a little confused here, he talked earlier of gangsters, but then relates a story of an old thief, hardly the kind of person which would make people quiver in fear. Anyway let's give him the benefit of doubt, he made an arrest, albeit an old opium smoker, if he wants some credit for it, hey that's fine.

Gangsters from the past in a line-up. If you think a mere constable like Lionel de Souza could have curbed them, there's some snake oil I'd like to interest you in buying! (Omy.sg photo)

But as I said, this a familiar pattern of Mr de Souza's, everything is 'I, I, I, or me, me, me.' If you trawl through some of his letters past, he takes credit for combatting rioters, arresting gamblers, robbers and even the most minor offences like the above. Surely this man most have been a legendary cop that the Singapore Police Force is very proud to have had in its' ranks and surely his exploits are shared with every new recruit. You'd expect at least a few chapters if not a book, has been printed and made available for every police officer in Singapore, to study and take notes.

With that in mind, I approached a retired detective and investigator, who served with and during Mr de Souza's time and asked him to clarify some of the 'legends' that Mr de Souza has been sharing with the public. For easy reading, I've made it into a 'Q and A' format. I'm AH and he's ex-cop.

AH: Firstly let me thank you for service to Singapore in one of the most trying law and order periods.

Ex-Cop: Thanks, but not much thanks is needed. It was our duty and privilege to serve the nation.

AH: You know or heard of Mr de Souza?

Ex-Cop: Obviously, I served with him in CID and was like him, a constable, a detective, a sergeant and an investigator.

AH: Mr de Souza has made no secret of his numerous commendations, high commendations and other awards. He must have been a fantastic cop?

Ex-Cop: I myself have numerous such awards and I know of many others who have similar ones, in fact they are several others who have the highest award ever - the Conspicuous Gallantry Medal, which Mr de Souza doesn't possess.

AH: So we must take his word with a large pinch of salt

Ex-Cop: I'm sure among his awards there must have been a few which he played the pivotal role in making an arrest, but I'd like to caution people into thinking each award is based on a singular event, a singular arrest or solely the work of 1 man.

AH: Explain please.

Ex-Cop: Police work above all else is team work. There was no place then and I'm sure, no place now for 'Robocops' or 'Dirty Harrys.' You work as a team, you can have your own contacts as a detective or make a breakthrough as an IO (investigation officer) in a case, but you have to share this info with your team-mates and superior officers.

AH: Go on

Ex-Cop: In fact more often than not, the info is shared by a number of officers and the team i/c or department head collates this and then briefs the team on what each officer must do. Even in arrests, you are never encouraged to go on your own, you go with a team, prepared for any contingencies.

AH: What about the awards?

Ex-Cop: Usually when a good arrest is made, several members of the team or the whole team is given the award. It's not just given to the officer making the arrest or placing the cuffs on the accused. Some awards are given for a series of arrests made, not just one, and some awards are given for your performance for a period of time. Eg: You can make 'ikan bilis' arrests of bicycle thieves for a number of years and get an award for that. It's in recognition for performance over a period of time.

AH: So can de Souza say he played a pivotal role in suppressing activities of 1 area?

Ex-Cop: Rubbish. Is he a Robocop? Is he there 24 hours a day? Is he alone? I say again police work is team work. It's not about 1 man, it never was, and never is. It's about a group of men, from the beat constable who observes illegal activity and reports it, his Sgt who monitors it and forwards it, the intelligence branch who collates it, the detective branch who goes and detects it and makes the arrest and the IO who investigates it. I don't think ever that Lionel de Souza was the 1 and only detective in Secret Societies Branch, so how can he say he was pivotal in suppressing an area. Moreover in the article it says in 1963, in 1963 he was a mere constable, albeit a detective. Constables take orders from their Sgts and Inspectors, so how can a mere constable decide what to do in 1 area or any area?

AH: Aha, that's a more reasonable explanation.

AH: Ignoring all this, surely de Souza must have still been a superb officer and the SPF been very proud of him?

Ex-Cop: So proud that they didn't confirm him as an Inspector and later tried to sack him.

AH: Huh?

Ex-Cop: In those days, there was no Cpl ranks, the next promotion was Sgt. Like myself Lionel de Souza was promoted to Sgt after some years and went on to CID, where he became an SIO. My opinion is that de Souza was very good at trumpeting or blowing his own horn and he was given a chance to become a Senior Officer - that is an Inspector of Police (Insp).

AH: So he was promoted to Insp?

Ex-Cop: No. He was given an acting rank - he would act like an Insp but remain on a Sgt's pay.

AH: Then what happened.

Ex-Cop: Normally this acting rank is a formality. You serve for about a year, go to the interview and you're then promoted to the rank permanently.

AH: Obviously he didn't get it.

Ex-Cop: He was not, he was found unsuitable for it. In fact he was also found unsuitable for the next rank above Sgt - Station Inspector. He actually only received 1 promotion in his whole career - Constable to Sgt. Hardly the thing you would expect for the super cop he claimed to be.

AH: You mentioned him getting nearly sacked?

Ex-Cop: He was sacked in fact. In the 1980s, he was attached to Queenstown Police Station as an IO. He apparently had a penchant for abusing accused persons with violence. He went too far and assaulted an accused person who later reported it.

AH: Then what happened?

Ex-Cop: He was brought before a disciplinary board and found guilty of assault. he was promptly judged by the Commissioner to be unfit to be a police officer, reduced back to constable and dismissed.

AH: I guess there's more.

Ex-Cop: Yes, it seems the board and the powers be were in too much of a hurry to get rid of him, that they didn't give him a fair trial. He appealed the dismissal in the High Court and the JC agreed he didn't get a fair trial. He promptly threw the dismissal out and reinstated him. However since by that time he had passed retirement age for Sgts, he was considered to have retired at his last rank of Sgt.

AH: Not a very grand exit for someone who continuously tells the public what a grand and super cop he was.

Ex-Cop: If I was him, I would have just kept quiet and enjoyed my retirement and thanked my lucky stars. The High Court judgment while re-instating him, didn't really touch much on the allegations of assault. In fact I gather he got lucky because his fellow IO who was present when the allegation of assault was made, refused to cooperate with the inquiry. He too was dismissed for abetment (but also reinstated). I met this officer too. Let's just say, he had a rather different take to the story to that de Souza has been saying.

AH: Oh wow, that put's quite a different spin on things.

Ex-Cop: There's plenty more of his exploits, but I think I just want to comment on what's on the record.

AH: Oh ok, do you have anything else to say?

Ex-Cop: Like myself, de Souza is well into his 70s. He should just enjoy his retirement and may I advise him to consider some of the 'not so good things' he's done over the years and repent for them.

AH: Ok thanks.

Besides commenting on police matters and talking of his 'wonderful arrests', Mr de Souza is somewhat of a 'PAP apologist.' You'll find him on FB, criticising every opposition politician and supporting the PAP to the hilt. He's also a branch leader at PAP Hougang. Unfortunately for him, his work in Hougang has seen the PAP lose the contests there each and every time. He disagrees with everyone who has a different opinion calling them 'clowns.' He clearly doesn't respect the democratic will of the people and is stuck in some kind of 1960s mindset. He's clearly from the dinosaur age.

Mr de Souza lecturing us on why he thinks Ministers should get million dollar salaries.

That said, we are democrats and we allow people like him to express his undying love for the PAP. But I wonder if they love him just as much, given his somewhat troubling background. More importantly, given his penchant for commenting on police matters and talking up his role to the effect that he alone was responsible for crime-fighting, I seriously wonder if the Singapore Police Force (SPF) shares the same views? I hope they do not condone such shameless self-praise and should disassociate themselves from a character like him, by replying to some of his forum letters and distancing themselves from his revelations and personal opinions. My advice to Lionel Jerome de Souza is this - Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak (or write) and remove all doubt!

Lionel "The Dinosaur" de Souza. I am thankful that police officers like him are extinct.

I would like to end by reiterating what the retired cop said - police work is team work. Whether a policeman or woman, sits behind a desk answering 999 calls, whether they do lock-up duties, sit at the counter taking reports, attend to cases, do crowd control duties, airport screenings, investigate cases or make arrests, each of them has an important duty to fill. The SPF cannot successfully operate if 1 of these roles is missing. Every police officer, irrespective of rank is important. No police officer can be a Robocop and do everything and no police officer should think he's one like Lionel Jerome de Souza. We are extremely fortunate that dinosaurs like him are extinct in the SPF today.

I have been writing and alerting the public to the Looney Fringe of Singapore politics, in particular 'The 3 Stooges' - Roy Ngerng, Han Hui Hui and their mentor Leong Sze Hian. Some people have written to commend me for exposing their 'tricks' while others have condemned and questioned my posts regarding their exploits. Amongst the criticism are 2 very common labels aimed at me - a) I'm a PAP IB (Internet Brigade - yes there's actually a group of PAP members going round social media to attack those who criticise the PAP), or b) I am in reality a PAP supporter. If you've been reading my posts over the past 1 1/2 years, it's really quite tenuous to link me with either moniker. Yet still some question why am I being so vociferous against the afore-said 3 persons? After all they say, these people are just speaking up and raising issues. They should be encouraged and supported, not condemned and dismissed as the Looney Fringe.

Looney Fringe Ms Han Hui Hui (l) with her mentor Leong Sze Hian (c) and 18 year old Ariffin Sha. Leong's T-Shirt's slogan is - Cash Poor Forever (CPF). Yes Mr Leong, the ordinary Singaporean may be cash poor, but your Looney Fringe Stooges are doing rather well for themselves in the cash department.

In short, some question as to why I am attacking people who are speaking against the PAP, unless of course, I am a PAP supporter or IB? Shouldn't I throw my weight behind these people? I am afraid I can't agree with these lines of argument. I am aware that there are those who are hardcore anti-PAP and those who are pro-opposition. Anything and everything bad about the PAP must be supported. To oppose such things are anathema to them. Well that's of course their right and just like them, they are those who are hardcore PAP supporters, who will oppose anything and everything anti-PAP. However I am alarmed by the methods the 3 Stooges of the Looney Fringe are taking. I don't think Singapore politics has reached partisan status - 1 group pro- PAP and the other pro-opposition, there's a considerable number of swing voters - the silent majority who'll decide elections. Just because the Looney Fringe are creating a ruckus and you see a lot of comments from hardcore opposition supporters on social media and online sites, doesn't equate to a groundswell of support for the opposition as a whole.

In fact I believe the reverse is true, the antics and actions of the Looney Fringe, instead of solidifying the opposition cause, will instead harm it and cause many a swing voter to decide to remain a PAP voter. Even worse, I believe the reasoning behind the Looney Fringe while appearing altruistic and helpful, is far more sinister. They are in my view, making full use of the anti-PAP support especially amongst hardcore opposition supporters for their own selfish interests. They want sympathy, they want support, they want the easy route to Parliament and the $13.8k salaries, and most alarmingly, they want YOU to pay them for their antics. I have slammed Ms Han in a few posts and openly questioned Roy Ng (for brevity) in an earlier post. I found his behaviour and antics in the on-going lawsuit with the PM, very troubling.

Suffice to say, everything that I warned, exposed and wrote about, has been proven correct with their continuing actions since the beginning of May. If any further proof was needed about their sinister motives, it was confirmed with the following Facebook (FB) post on Ms Han's wall:

https://www.facebook.com/huihui247/posts/10204805527604848

This is what I've been saying all along - The Looney Fringe are not interested in working, they are only interested in getting people to pay them for their 'efforts' in 'speaking up and raising issues.' I had also questioned the stupidity in Roy Ng wanting to be an NMP (Nominated MP), since he was never able to meet the requirements or criteria, which the Select Committee (also comprising 2 Workers Party MPs) will look into. I don't necessarily agree with the NMP scheme, but since it's in place, we have to live with it and use it in the best way possible. But perhaps I was wrong in pointing out his stupidity or that it was always just a gimmick or political stunt, Ms Han's FB post has now made clear the whole reason for his pointless nomination - they were going to use the failed effort to win sympathy and cry unfairness, but at the same time, use that to ask the public to pay them directly instead.

Power to the People proclaims Roy Ngerng, but please don't forget the money for me. $5300 a month is just about enough for me to survive and be your 'Nominated MP'

This was a pretty cunning trick they had up their sleeves. Ms Han had the temerity even to give a POSBank savings account number for people to donate $1 every month, so the figure of $5300 can be reached. Yes you read that right - Roy Ng wants $5300 a month in salary for 'acting like an NMP by 'speaking up and writing his blog.' Never mind that NMPs only get around $2800 a month. Roy Ng wants nearly double that! Never mind that there are thousands of jobless people, never mind that only a small percentage of people can earn over $5k a month, never mind that this salary is way beyond the earnings of the 'average worker' they've been supposedly speaking up for at their protest rallies. Never mind that $5k is the pay of a senior or upper management in the private or public sector. Never mind all this, just give us your money - hey it's only $1 after all right?

Jobless, but why Roy Ngerng cannot work for his father in his stall (a) or find another job? People who donate to him should ask themselves this question.

Ms Han says that Roy Ng is jobless and needs support. What has he been doing since losing his last job? Don't forget he admitted that he wasn't focussed on his job properly and was using company time and computers for his 'research' into the CPF. Surely you'd expect him to get down to finding another job pretty fast, after all he was given 1 month's extra pay to tide him over while he job hunted. Did he bother to find a job? How many interviews he went to? Why not help out/take over his father's hawker business in the mean time? Surely this is what all of us ordinary people will do, when we lose our jobs. We won't go around eating at fancy cafes, writing stuff and organising protests. We'd be 100% focussed on getting a job in the interim, until perhaps we can find the 1 job we hope to procure. No, this is not what the Looney Fringe does. They are too 'atas' (elitist) for all these low-class or low paying jobs. They want the good things in life - write stuff, organise protests, invoke sympathy and go abroad - in short: minimal effort for maximum pay.

But don't be surprised if there's a new 'statement' made by Roy Ng, clarifying matters. This is the usual 'song and dance' that the Looney Fringe employs. 1 member says or admits something, hoping it will succeed, but if it fails, the other will come out and deny requesting or saying it. This was the tactic used by Roy Ng to deny he was thinking of seeking asylum in Denmark, after Ms Han admitted it to me, not once but twice. This was the same tactic used to declare why he sought the 'NMPship', and the same tactic was again used in flaring up the 'lawsuit with the PM.' An admission, an apology next a denial and then a total claim of innocence, followed by playing the sympathy card to the maximum. And hey presto, at the end of it all - an all out effort to solicit donations from the public to pay a ludicrous legal fee of $80,000, when the matter could and should have been resolved far earlier at a much lower cost. He also failed to declare that M Ravi his lawyer, was also his personal friend. I am not saying Mr Ravi inflated his fees or got Roy Ng to help him draw a large legal fee for him from the public. However, people have the right to be cynical at Roy Ng's antics before, during and after this affair came to light. He claims to be open and transparent, but has refused to divulge his reasons for going the 'full monty 'with the lawsuit or answered the hard questions which I had written about. Moreover he has received well over $100,000 from his all out donation drive. He used the anger and anti-PAP feelings of an unsuspecting public to his benefit to the very maximum. And he's doing the same thing now, in order to get paid for doing practically nothing - other than write questionable articles that only state the obvious in some cases, quote unreliable sources and give his own inflated arguments in others.

I am aghast at these antics and that's the reason I have been continuously drumming the point home about the dangerous paths the Looney Fringe are taking. They're using the goodwill and sympathy of the public for their benefit. Even for their protests now, they solicit funds from the public and attendees. And not content with unnecessary protests every single month, they even had the cheek to do 2 this month - and on National Day itself. In order to continue being able to ensure they remain in the public eye, they will say and do anything to win sympathy and financial support. They will start off with some popular theme which many Singaporeans are concerned or unhappy about - immigration and the CPF for example, and then try to hijack the issue to say they are the only ones who are speaking about it. Never mind that the SDP, NSP, SPP and WP have also been speaking on this in proper forums and in Parliament (for the latter 2 parties). Never mind that these parties have raised more reasonable and properly researched views and positions on the matter, the Looney Fringe will attempt to claim credit for it - just because they held a protest, wrote some blog posts with their own versions (but no solutions) and the fact Roy Ng got sued (or rather insisted on getting sued if you had followed the timeline properly). Wanna make a bet? This coming Saturday, the Looney Fringe is organising another CPF protest at Hong Lim Park. The PM in his National Day Rally speech on Sunday announced that changes will be made to the CPF Minimum Sum Scheme, members will now be able to withdraw up to 20% of their funds, when they turn 65 and are still unable to meet the ever-growing Minimum Sum ($161,000 next year). I can bet you my bottom dollar, the 3 Stooges of the Looney Fringe, will claim it was changed because of their protests and that Roy Ng had spoken out and gotten sued for it!

A very frail LKY at this year's NDP. Not content with calling him a traitor and worse than a dog, Han Hui Hui now accuses him of being a murderer. To those that support the Looney Fringe, maybe even vote for them at the next elections, do you think statements like these will benefit the opposition cause and win swing voters over?

This is the ploy they have used and will continue to use. Claim credit and demand support. It doesn't matter if they have no solutions or that their ideas are a mishmash of unworkable policies that only sound good on paper. For good measure they will up the ante, in order to a) show they are courageous for speaking up and b) cry foul should they get sued for pushing the envelope too far. Take July's protest for example, I wrote in this post, where Ms Han called Lee Kuan Yew (LKY) worse than a dog, a traitor and wished him death, and how unhelpful or damaging it was to the opposition cause, since many older Singaporeans and neutral voters still have a high regard for LKY. Instead of apologising, what did Ms Han do? Well, no surprises here - she upped the ante with the following FB post on her wall:

https://www.facebook.com/huihui247/posts/10204810332604970

She accuses LKY of causing death to people because of political motives and his son, the current PM of causing debt to people for his own personal monetary benefit! Never mind, she has no shred of evidence, never mind that no opposition politician has ever made a similar allegation, not even JBJ, David Marshall, Chiam See Tong, Low Thia Khiang or even Dr Chee Soon Juan. Never mind that she's a new citizen who didn't live in Singapore until this century, never mind she's just a 23 year old with no political experience and never mind that she herself hasn't been working and is herself doing all these things for the same monetary benefits that she's accusing the PM of.

I suspect this approach is 2 pronged - 1) by making herself as popular as Roy, they can form their own party and stand for elections (or get a smaller party like the Reform Party to field them) and have a chance to win the $13,800 a month lottery that is an MP's allowance. Or 2) by making these outlandish allegations, she too might get sued like Roy and also then be able to solicit legal fees in the tens or hundreds of thousands. Thereafter with both having successfully played the victims' card to the fullest, they will be paid handsomely by hoodwinked sympathisers, be known as martyrs and get a chance to seek political asylum elsewhere.

Kenneth Jeyaretnam, the Reform Party chief has been speaking at the Looney Fringe's rallies. Does he not realise that when Ms Han says inflammatory things about LKY, his presence at such rallies implies that he supports such Looney stuff? Continue to do so, and he'll pay a very heavy price at elections because voters will assume he either endorses the Looney Fringe or is part of it.

I do realise that perhaps this analysis of mine might seem improbable, even outlandish or crazy. Who in the right mind, wants to up the ante and get sued, by the PAP of all persons or parties? It may appear I am wrong, but then how do you explain the illogical behaviour, the antics, the crazy shouting, wild allegations, the all-out effort to gain sympathy and most of all, the methods employed to gain donations from the public, especially the hardcore opposition supporters? It might appear crazy to swing voters and to every normal person, but all this are the patterns of the Looney Fringe, and as more time goes by, it's becoming painfully clear to those like me who worry about the damage it's doing to the opposition cause as the whole.

I don't care if I'm labelled as pro-PAP, an IB or whatever, by the Looney Fringe and those that they have thus far conned into supporting their methods. I'll take it as a badge of honour even, because in doing so, I am able to show more and more people, the Looney Fringe for what they truly are - a group of selfish individuals who are jumping on the anti-PAP bandwagon with ulterior motives, chief of which is to pry the hard earned cash of people who really have a problem because of certain PAP policies that have put them in a quandary. I am powerless to stop hardcore opposition supporters if they want to continue throwing good money after bad, whenever some Looney Fringe shouts anti-PAP rhetoric. But I want to continue to warn the former group - ordinary people who have some difficulties and have not benefitted or have suffered because of certain PAP policies, that this Looney Fringe have nothing to offer. They have no substance, they are all just talk, they don't work or have little work experience, they are young and immature, they don't know how to run a business or even a family, they spend money like no tomorrow eating in cafes or going abroad for holidays disguised as research. Instead of helping people like you, they are using monies received for donations on needless stuff like engaging in a losing lawsuit and organising monthly protests, and now they even want you to pay them in far excess to what you yourself will ever earn in a month.

Scraping the barrel - The Looney Fringe basically has no substance in its arguments except just blurt out the obvious. Take idiotic Ben Matchap (a) for instance. He speaks in a stupid accent, mutters silly lines and phrases and takes cartoonish videos of himself speaking on events in his bedroom. Yet he's the kind of speaker that the Looney Fringe fielded in the recent National Day protest. Opposition supporters who think the Looney Fringe are 'courageous' for speaking up, should ask themselves, are they and Ben Matchap the kind of people you want to represent you? No substance, no work experience, can't run a family and they will be your voice? Do you think it helps more people to vote opposition with people like Ben, Han, Roy or an 18 year old (Ariffin Sha) giving speeches on life and policies? Please think wisely.

I realise the PAP's policies have affected you and you're eager to hear voices that talk against these policies, but you must careful to distinguish between proper opposition voices and those who are just saying things that you want to hear and whose motives are suspect. To those that want to continue supporting and donating to the Looney Fringe, notably the 3 Stooges, have you ever stopped to think about their motives or actions thus far? Have you ever questioned them at length and demanded answers? By donating to them, you are 'spoiling the market' because these people's antics will not achieve anything tangible for you, but will fatten their wallets. And with 'cat coming out of the bag' eventually, the next time someone genuinely needs financial support through crowd funding or donations, they will find it very hard because people might think those requesting funds are not genuine or have other ulterior motives. It's time to use your brains and stop allowing the Looney Fringe to get away with their antics and in doing so, bring down the whole opposition cause.

As expected Kong Hee's turn on the witness stand in the City Harvest Church trial, has been top of the news. As usual I couldn't resist offering my take on the current case as it stands based on newspaper/online reports, but I decided to pen this article differently. Instead of going straight into the case itself, I thought it better to deviate and point readers to this article first. It's from popular blogger LIFT. He has written extensively about Kong Hee and Sun Ho going back 2 years. In fact it was because of 1 of his earlier articles on them, that captivated me so much, that I too decided to become a blogger. So now you know who to blame, if you found a distaste to my ramblings!

London based blogger Alex, who blogs at limpehft.blogspot.com, has written several articles about Kong Hee/Sun Ho on a commercial viewpoint, given his extensive knowledge in these fields.

LIFT raised 2 interesting points in his recent articles - 1) why the case was taking so long and 2) how could Kong Hee justify the spending/marketing on Sun Ho's music career because it was in his analysis, a disaster from the get go. I'll try to answer them beginning with the length of the trial. This I believe is the 5th tranche of testimonies/evidence and rest assured it's likely to go to a 6th, 7th and possibly even longer duration. The reason is simple enough, there are 6 defendants, there's a huge paper trail going back nearly a decade, there's numerous testimonies from witnesses, experts (in the fields of auditing/accounting) and from the defendants themselves, and all of it has to be heard methodically and systematically. The court process itself has many stages - beginning with the mention stage, where they are first charged and need time to engage counsel, then comes the pre-trial, where the prosecution has to notify the court and defense of the evidence they intend to produce and the witnesses. This whole process can easily take 6 months for a normal case, what more for a case of this magnitude involving millions? Then comes the trial, where the prosecution gets first bite, they have to produce the evidence and witnesses to back the charges they have laid on the 6. The defense will then cross-examine them. After this, both parties must present arguments for the case to proceed. The prosecution must show it has made a prima facie case - that is to say, based on the evidence produced there's enough to convict the accused. The defense will try to rebut this. The Judge, JC See Kee Onn has to decide if the prosecution have a case, and if it does, he will call on the accused to enter their defense. This is exactly what he did, and that's the point at where we are now, where 1 by 1, each defendant will attempt to rebut the prosecution's case by explaining, producing evidence and witnesses.

As the title suggests, many are repulsed by Kong Hee and Ms Ho's lifestyle, for a church leader. He's sure guilty in the court of public opinion but it has no relevance in a court of law.

Only after all 6 have finished testifying, been cross-examined by the prosecution and re-examined by their lawyers, then will case enter its final stage. This is where the prosecution and defense will sum up their cases. The key issue will be reasonable doubt - has the prosecution proved its case or has the defense raised a reasonable doubt? It's not a case of beyond a shadow of doubt, or a case of 1 or 2 errors (as LIFT perhaps suggest on a professional level). There's always bound to be some mistakes made by the defense/accused or some allusions/evidence made the prosecution that look shaky. But all this need not be fatal to the case for or against, it has to be taken as a whole, and whether it's a reasonable explanation (defense) or justification (prosecution). Many people I'm sure think Kong Hee and gang are guilty as hell, and for sure in the court of public opinion, this is a disaster (as LIFT implies), whichever way Kong Hee tries to spin it. But he's not facing the court of public opinion, he's facing a court of law, and only if the facts line up against him, will he lose his freedom. At the moment, he's still very much innocent before the law.

Kong Hee has claimed that 'God said sorry to him for having put him on trial.' He might want to ask God, the next time they have a conversation, to have a word with JC See Kee Onn., his trial judge!

After this, the Judge will then retire and pour through the evidence adduced and choose a date to announce his verdict. At the going rate, it's touch and go whether the case will conclude before Christmas, and almost certainly looks like a verdict will be delivered in the new year. That's why it's taking so long. No short cuts, and everyone must be given a chance to prove their innocence.

Onto LIFT's 2nd point - Kong Hee's justification for spending money and the way it was marketed. This I'll bow down to his superior knowledge on such matters, he's actually been involved in such things and like Sun Ho, also had a recording played in the dance charts. It was wrongly approached, wrongly spent and wrongly marketed. But these aren't necessarily illegal or wrong. Hey if Kong Hee even today, wants to build a life size gold plated statue of Ms Ho costing millions outside their church, that's not illegal. Distasteful, ugly, a waste money, even un-Christian like, it's not illegal if the funds were properly obtained and it involved no cheating, forgery or cover-up on his part. And that's his line of defense during his testimony last week. He was completely open about it, he briefed his flock and subordinates, assigned the proper people to raise funds for this purpose in the correct way and left it to them to manage. He genuinely believed at the time, his wife's singing career in the US, would be in line with the church's objectives and he hid nothing.

Sun Ho in a magazine article. If only her music career in the US could be as easy making her look 'American' by dying her hair blond!

And he justified it by saying, that based on sales, the number of youtube hits and the fact it hit the No 1 spot on the dance charts, it was heading in the right direction, within the budget (properly and officially) obtained and would have succeeded if not for this case. Ms Ho would have become the next 'Beyoncé or Shakira' and brought many 'souls' over to Christendom. It seemed a very reasonable argument and he also sought to explain away some of the gaps in the paper trail which the prosecution had raised during the early phases. Whether it's was enough or not to explain the discrepancies, only the Judge will decide based on the evidence submitted. But in essence, his testimony suggested a plausible explanation that could give him a reasonable chance of escaping the charges if the rest of the trial proceeded in the same direction. His only mistakes were a misguided hope things would work out, the wrong advice/strategy given by Wyclef Jean and other 'experts' and the unfortunate circumstances that led to his arrest.

Chew Eng Han, the former church treasurer/ investment manager is the first to break ranks.

Unfortunately for him, these points were challenged by fellow accused Chew Eng Han, his church's former investment manager. Chew is the 1st of his co-accused who's broken ranks with him, and he's the only 1 who's actually defending himself without some high powered lawyer. This was always going to be the danger for Kong Hee which I alluded in a previous post. If all his fellow accused, 1 by 1 come up and testify that he acted properly, honestly and above-board, his case would be very much stronger. It'll will just depend on how well he explained the paper trail and other evidence, and whether he followed the legal procedures in relation to charities and the running of a business (which the church technically is), but if 1 by 1, they came forward to deny or debunk his version, his case could be very seriously imperilled.

Chew already testified earlier and sought to pin down some of the other accused in relation to the business transactions of the $24 and $26 millions respectively. He sought to distance himself from their actions and even suggested some of the paper trail showed actions done after the fact - ie: memos, minutes and other evidence were produced/altered to show it was done/audited properly, when in fact, something completely different, improper, even illegal was done earlier.

Liar, Liar, pants on fire! Which one, is the key question? Kong Hee's 'house will be on fire' if the Judge accepts Chew's testimony.

And this week, he seized the chance to question Kong Hee directly and openly called him a liar, 'who came out with many sham reasons to justify what he does.' He said in contradiction to Kong Hee's testimony, that the perceived successes of Ms Ho's career was created by using church funds to buy thousands of her records, to give a fake impression that it was successful. He said Kong Hee lied to his flock, when he knew it was false that Ms Ho didn't sing the theme song for the Special Olympics in 2007 and her so-called personalised stamps, were self-produced. Despite Kong Hee claiming he was mindful of costs, he had actually said to Jean, that 'the sky was the limit' in regards to funding her US music career.

Church members unfurl a banner in support of Kong Hee and gang. But sources suggests their numbers are falling fast.

He even alluded that Kong Hee lied about membership in the church, when the real figures were only around 11-12,000, not the 30,000 that was proclaimed. Instructions and directions were made by Kong Hee and others to Chew, to draw supporting documents that the transactions were done properly, when in fact, church funds were solely used to boost Ms Ho's career including building funds. There was no church 'Crossover', Chew said, it was a personal Crossover for Ms Ho's benefit. And all this time, Kong Hee was telling his flock how successful the Crossover project was, and sought through lies and deceit to convince them and board members to finance her, when in reality he was massaging the figures to give this impression. Perhaps the most telling accusation made was Chew claiming Kong Hee didn't contribute to Ms Ho's Crossover, instead spending money to buy a new house in Sentosa. In essence Kong Hee was using church money as he pleased, and directing others to produce the paperwork to justify it, whilst telling church members their donations were being utilised for the Church's objectives.

The only 1 that matters - the Billboard Hot 100, and Ms Ho was never even close to breaking into it, let alone reach No 1, as some of the City Harvest flock were led to believe.

In fact there's already some clear discrepancies in what Kong Hee said last week, that LIFT and myself had pointed out in earlier articles. He said youtube hits were enormous, Ms Ho's songs had it the No 1 spot in the dance charts and hundreds of thousands converts were won over by her Taiwan and China gigs, that justified the decision to take her career to the USA. LIFT had already pointed out 2 years ago, that youtube hits were unreliable. Just because there's a million or more hits, doesn't mean a song is good. It can be a complete joke, and millions are watching it for a laugh or supporters could simply be urging people to view it. Most tellingly, he explained the difference between Dance Hits, Disco Hits etc, and the only one that truly matters - the Billboard Hot 100. For the former, you can pay your way to have the song played in discos and on the airwaves, and the more times it's played the sooner it'll hit number 1. But to be No 1 or even say No 40 on the Billboard Hot 100, no amount of money will get you there. It's rank on merit alone and because millions around the USA and the world like it. Given Mr Chew's testimony, it's clear a significant amount was paid to buy Ms Ho's songs into the Dance Hits top ranks, not to mention getting her on the boardwalk at major award ceremonies in the USA. Finally as to high figures of 'converts', I mentioned in an earlier article, this is entirely subject as to how City Harvest choose to read the figures. They could simply count every attendee as a new convert, when the fact of the matter is that most of them are already converts or just plain concert goers.

Artist impression of the 6 accused. 1 has broken ranks, will the others follow suit? They may be on trial together, but will go to jail apart, something for the rest to chew on.

And so back to Mr Chew. Basically now it boils down as to who's telling truth, given the discrepancies in both of their testimonies. For sure it seems that 1 of them is a liar. The question is whom? Given Mr Chew's revelations, questions posed to Kong Hee and some of his testimony about the actions of the others, it's put up time for the other 4. There's a lot for them and their lawyers to 'chew on' ( I couldn't resist the pun). Don't forget some of them are facing 6 charges, Kong Hee is only facing 3. Even if they corroborate Kong Hee's version, it may only clear them of the similar charges they share with him, it might not exonerate them from their own. 1 or more them could decide like Chew, it's better to go against or rebut Kong Hee's version, than to risk following him and in the end, be found guilty. And don't forget it's not just what Chew or Kong Hee said, there's still the evidence and paper trail that need explaining. Maybe even if all 4 of them join Kong Hee and leave Mr Chew on the opposite side, it doesn't mean they'll all be found innocent and Mr Chew, the only 1 guilty. The truth lies in the evidence above all else and there's loads of it, can they raise a reasonable defense to them?

Want some juicy gossip about City Harvest? Well someone has started a FB page - CHC Confessions, with lurid tales of shenanigans by some of the church leaders.

The fact of the matter is 1, 2 or all of them face the very real possibility of doing some serious jail time, and it doesn't mean if Kong Hee escapes, all of them will similarly escape. It's really crunch time, how will they proceed? Kong Hee must be a very worried man, despite all his bravado. He really needs to pray that none of the others 'Chew him up.' And they must decide who is telling the truth between Chew and Kong Hee, and do the best to exonerate themselves. This is where things are going to get very interesting, so stay tuned!

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has come out to say on Facebook, that MacPherson MP Tin Pei Ling has worked hard and 'won over the hearts and minds' of her residents.

http://news.asiaone.com/news/singapore/tin-pei-ling-has-won-over-hearts-and-minds-pm-lee

In lavishing praise on her, he said he was always confident that despite her age, she could build rapport with the older residents there. He added:

"The last three years have proved this so. Pei Ling and her team of activists and volunteers have worked hard. Some were sceptical at first, but she and her team have won over many hearts and minds."

This remains in a nutshell the impression that many Singaporeans have of Ms Tin Pei Ling.

He cited the reopened Macpherson Community Club (which he presided over) as an example of the work done by her and her team, and thanked them for 'building on the work done by the pioneer activists in the ward and its former MPs - Chua Sian Chin and Mathias Yao. The Asiaone report stated that the FB post was shared 21 times and had 741 likes, the vast majority in agreement with the PM and proceeded to share 3 examples of this effusive praise.

And this is the impression the PM (a) says that MacPherson residents have of her. (ST photo)

All this is well good but let's consider a few things in the proper perspective. No one is saying that Ms Tin has NOT done anything good in MacPherson or failed to assist some of the residents. This is 1 criticism we cannot use to describe all PAP MPs, whether it's Ms Tin or other not so popular MPs like Foo Mee Har, Vikram Nair, Lee Bee Wah and Janil Puthucheary. Of course every MP, be they PAP or WP, have done some form of good or helped some, maybe even a large number of residents, that's besides the point isn't it? Why do we elect MPs and pay them an allowance of nearly $14k? To do nothing? To just walk around and smile, open community projects and celebrate community and national events? Of course not, they were elected to do a duty, to serve the residents and take note of their concerns besides being a lawmaker. These are the basics and I'm sure you'll find residents in every ward, who'll testify to some of the good work their respective MP has done. Even some opposition supporters will concede this.

Expanded and refurbished - MacPherson's new community club - cost borne by public funds obviously.

Next is his point of the new MacPherson CC. I happened to pass by this venue a few nights ago and was indeed impressed by its design and look. But the same can said of all the CCs that are undergoing refurbishment. I noticed that former PM Goh Chok Tong's Marine Parade CC is also undergoing refurbishment. It was already one of the grandest CCs and I'm sure it'll be even grander. Can we give all the credit for this to Mr Goh? Of course not, this is a public place paid by state funds. It's not as if Mr Goh will part with a large sum of his own money to upgrade the CC. So if we cannot lavish effusive praise on Mr Goh for Marine Parade CC, how can we lavish such praise on Ms Tin for MacPherson CC?

A sight to behold - Marine Parade CC. Are we supposed to praise former PM Goh Chok Tong for this as well? Might as well praise every CC on its incumbent PAP MP.

Did she design the new CC? No. Did she finance the CC? No. Did she have control over the budget, the architecture and all the work done to upgrade it? Of course not. Maybe she might have received some feedback from residents or gave some of her input, I say maybe, perhaps she can clarify this point. But the fact of the matter is that its upgrading and the costs lie with the People's Association which manages CCs and the respective ministries that provide the budget, approval and are responsible to ensure it comes into being as stipulated. At the end of the day, all of them are responsible to the public, since it's a public project designed for public use. Perhaps instead of praise, some might even criticise the need to utilise public funds for this purpose, eg: Marine Parade CC didn't look in a state of disrepair, it was already very large and grand, did it require an upgrade at this juncture? But let's give MacPherson CC the benefit of doubt, it was upgraded in order to provide better facilities for residents and other Singaporeans. Ok good job, well done, but don't push it to the extent that the whole thing was the work of 1 woman - Ms Tin Pei Ling.

And finally to this FB thingy. so there have been a vast majority of praise and agreement. But is this the whole picture? Isn't the PM's FB page managed by 1 of his assistants? Try posting some nasty remarks (not slanderous of course) about the PM or PAP policy and see how long it'll remain there or whether the user will be allowed to make similar posts in future? Obviously the page is managed and non-supportive or disagreeable comments will be deleted. So at the end of the day, all but a few of the replies to the PM's post will be positive. And by the way, didn't the PM say that 'people who go online to post stuff' are all frustrated or something similar? It cuts both ways Mr PM, you can't on the 1 hand say, 'Hey we don't really bother with online comments, they are just a small minority of frustrated people' and the on the other choose to accept the comments of those who are in agreement. Either both are to be dismissed or both given the same amount of weight and credence.

And so it brings me to the $150,000 (the approximate yearly MP allowance) question:

Since you are confident and convinced that Tin Pei Ling has won over the hearts and minds of MacPherson residents, there's only 1 actual way to confirm this - Why not carve MacPherson out of Marine Parade GRC and let Ms Tin run alone in a single member constituency?

No amount of FB praises and comments, no amount of 'interviews' with residents (some might not even be residents), no amount of op-eds and articles in the Straits Times, TNP, Wanbao (oh yes, we've already been told by these 'eminent, unbiased' news sites a number of times about Ms Tin's sterling work), no amount of remarks by Goh Chok Tong and the other MPs and no amount of opinion polls can give us clarity and confirmation of your assessment except by way of the ballot box.

SDP chief Chee Soon Juan ran in MacPherson in 1997 and was soundly beaten.

If she's really doing such a good job, I'm sure she'll win re-election on her own merit and go on to become of the PAP's best ever MPs. She won't need to slip in via a GRC helmed by a former PM or Minister, or to be mollycoddled by other senior MPs. And don't forget this is MacPherson we're talking about - a ward with a high number of older voters, normally a reliable bastion of support for the PAP. This is also a ward that even SDP chief Chee Soon Juan couldn't win in the 1997 GE and last but certainly not least, you have all the instruments of state and party at your disposal to ensure Ms Tin's re-election. It's up to your discretion as to how to carve out this ward, you will know which were the precincts that had a higher vote percentage for the PAP and those of the neighbouring precincts in another ward. It's really up to you to have a ward in place comprising a solid block of PAP supporting precincts.

Riding on their coattails - Tin Pei Ling won her seat purely because she was in a GRC in 2011. If she's so good now, then she'll have no worries defending her seat on her own.

With all these and your assessment of Ms Tin, she should have no worries of winning re-election. Maybe there might be a 3 or 4 cornered fight even, splitting the opposition votes further. So what's there stopping you from doing this, Mr PM? There's a saying - 'put up or shut up.' If Ms Tin has really succeeded and done a marvellous job, put her up in a MacPherson SMC, and if she retains her seat, a lot of people who questioned the wisdom of fielding her in 2011 or her credentials, will have no choice but shut up and respect the wishes of the majority of residents there.

John Major challenged those against his leadership to 'put or shut up' by resigning as party leader and offering himself for re-election in a party ballot in 1995. He handily won re-election. This is the only 1 way the PM can answer Ms Tin's critics, by letting her defend her seat alone.

Until and unless this is done, it's very much up for debate about her qualities and suitability to be an MP. No amount of lavish praise from whatever or whoever, can paper over these doubts. For the moment, us sceptics will read your FB post and the propaganda that surrounds it with a large pinch of salt.

I've been taking a short break from blogging recently as I stumbled across the US version of a political drama - House of Cards. This is the American version of BBC trilogy which aired in 3 parts from 1990 to 1995. Since I blog about political stuff, I thought it wise to direct readers to some excellent political dramas that are definitely worth watching. If there are more or I stumble across others, I'll advise in future blog entries.

Here's what I recommend, no I'm not going to recommend West Wing or some other type of soap opera. I don't want too much of that mushy love stories, it has to feature some cold hard politics, some comedy and some documentaries.

1. Yes Minister and Yes Prime Minister.

This is probably the best place to start. Yes Minister is a 38 part series that aired in 1980s, covering the exploits of Jim Hacker, MP and his long running battle with the Civil Service led by Sir Humphrey Appleby. Coming into office with high ideals, he's stifled at each turn by Sir Humphrey, who doesn't welcome change by meddling politicians. Despite this, Sir Humphrey on promotion as Cabinet Secretary (The Head of the Civil Service) devises a plan to ensure Hacker becomes Prime Minister, since he can be 'house-trained' and the series then becomes - Yes Prime Minister. Although a comedy, it does offer an insight into politics and things that politicians can do- eg: influencing policy to make themselves electable, conducting surveys to show support for policy (The Grand Design), tackling difficult questions - you don't answer the question, but attack it, by ask another until the original question is minimised or forgotten and 'playing the man, not the ball', in order to remove a potential threat.

Here's a clip from about 'leading questions' and below one from 'The Grand Design"

You'll have to scour Youtube to find a user who's uploaded the complete series, but it's best to start with Yes Minister and work your way up to the final episode. Margaret Thatcher herself was a fan of the series. I also recommend reading the book, as it gives a better understanding.

2. House of Cards (UK),To Play the King and The Final Cut.

This trilogy is a dark political thriller about the exploits of the Chief Whip, Francis Urquhart (pronounced err-kurt) and his evil plot to become Prime Minister and how he deals with challengers and threats to his rule. It begins in 1990, with the fall from power of Mrs Thatcher, and the Conservative Party's election of a replacement. After securing another election victory, Urquhart expects promotion but is rebuffed. He is furious and plots the PM's downfall and decides to seek the office himself, although it seems unlikely as his position as Chief Whip is merely a party enforcer with no real executive power. However the Chief Whip is responsible for party discipline and he knows the 'misdeeds' of his colleagues, which he uses to good effect with the help of a young female reporter. It comes in 4 parts, so I'll leave you to it, as it's much better to watch it and see whether he succeeds. It's easy enough to find on Youtube:

This is part 1/4 of House of Cards (UK) and the series next moves on 'To Play the King' (below)

Urquhart is forced on the defensive, when a new King comes on the throne and ignores convention by actively involving himself in politics and in doing so, openly supports the Opposition in order to remove Urquhart and his party from power. Also in 4 parts, this 1993 production culminates in the 1995 edition - 'The Final Cut"

This is a clip from the Final Cut, it's easy enough to find all 4 episodes, just follow on from To Play the King or look up a user - 'Thatcherite Scot". He has all 12 episodes under the title - A Nasty Prime Minister. This series marks Urquhart's final years as PM, as he tries to surpass Margaret Thatcher's record of 'longest serving PM' and features the 'funeral' of Mrs Thatcher. It gained quite some controversy because Mrs Thatcher was very much alive in 1995. (btw she isn't the longest serving PM - just the 7th, but the longest post-war PM and the longest since Lord Liverpool).

3.House of Cards (2013-2014)

This is the American version, which follows the British lines. Set in present day Washington, DC, it follows the exploits of Francis Underwood, the Majority Whip of the Democrat Party. The Majority Whip is the 3rd highest position in the House of Representatives (the lower Chamber of Congress) when the party has a majority in House. Majority Whip -Majority Leader-Speaker. When the party doesn't have a majority it's obviously number 2 (known as Minority Whip-Minority Leader), but it's ahead of the other important offices in the House - such as Chairman of the Ways and Means, Appropriations, Foreign Relations, Defense etc. It's an influential position no less, as the Whip controls members of his own party and can influence them in which way to vote. Unlike the UK, American Congressman are not bound by party discipline and may vote for or against any Bill, but generally they tow their party's line. (You'll need a bit of understanding of the political structure in the US to follow all this)

Kevin Spacey as Congressman Francis Underwood (FU), the Democrat Majority Whip.

Anyway FU (that's the initials of both Urquhart and Underwood, and it was chosen appropriately), has helped the US President win an election and was promised to be nominated as the next Secretary of State. As usual, this does not occur and he's asked to remain in the House as he's 'needed there.' FU considers it a betrayal and vows revenge on the President by first working to skew the new nominee for the position. Again a pretty reporter in an attempt to move up the ladder enters the picture and Underwood uses her to further his political ambitions. Will he succeed? Well there's a marathon 26 episode on Netflix and you can watch it on www.watch-tvseries.net beginning with Episode 1. Kevin Spacey plays Underwood and you know it should be good. They are planning a 3rd series in 2015.

4.The Dismissal of Gough Whitlam

Edward Gough Whitlam (now 98), was Australia's 21st Prime Minister from 1972 to his surprise dismissal on 11th November 1975 (Remembrance Day). He led the Labour Party to victory in the 1972 General Elections after an absence of 23 years. In his short time in office, he enacted I think 27 major policy changes that has shaped Australian politics since. Now why do I find it relevant to talk about Whitlam? Well if Singapore ever has a change of government, it will do the Opposition a lot of good to study the Whitlam Years, about how a new Government can and should take office after replacing a long seated one, and what mistakes it must avoid and also what dangers that lurk and can come to bite it and unseat it. Whitlam's 3 1/2 year 'reign' has it all. He abolished conscription, got Australia out of the Vietnam War, introduced policies for higher education, gave the Aborigines their land rights back and a slew of polices that have not been discarded even until today. He also was the 1st Aussie PM to realise that Australia's future lies with Asia and not the West. He was a close personal friend of Malaysia's 2nd PM, Tun Abdul Razak.

A historic moment, as Gough Whitlam drops sand into an Aboriginal leader's hands, signifying Australia's Govt recognition of their land rights as natives.

However and this is the lesson for a future Workers Party or other Opposition Govt, he made 1 fatal flaw - he wanted to do and undo too many things too fast. Labour Govts like a policy of tax and spend, and he failed to reel in spending and the country faced an economic crisis. He managed to win re-election in 1974 (Australian Govts serve on a 3 year maximum term), but the defeated Liberal Govt found a new and tough leader in Malcolm Fraser, who would use every opportunity to bring down Whitlam's Govt. In mid to late 1975, Whitlam's Govt got embroiled in a 'Loans Scandal' that left it weak politically since spending was left unchecked. Australia has 2 Houses - The House of Representatives which has elected Members of Parliament and the real seat of power and the Senate, which technically can block Bills, but never has blocked a 'Supply, Budgetary or Money' Bill. Ignoring convention, a State Premier appointed a Liberal Senator in 1975 after the Labour one died. Convention dictated that a deceased member is replaced by one of the same party. This measure meant that the Opposition Liberal Party had a wafer thin majority in the Senate, although being well outnumbered in House.

A wily political operator - Malcolm Fraser, who led the defeated Liberals back to power despite starting from a losing position.

Given Labour's growing unpopularity, Fraser engineered to block 'Supply' by refusing to pass the Budget in October 1975 in the Senate despite the House confirming it. An impasse arose with Fraser wanting the country to go to the polls in December, but Whitlam refused and condemned the measure as an attempt to bypass the will of Parliament. It became a 'case of who'll blink first' as time was running out, if the Budget wasn't passed by mid-November, public sector workers won't get paid with Christmas just round the corner. Fraser applied improper pressure on the Governor General (GG), Sir John Kerr and Kerr improperly consulted Fraser. By convention, the GG as the Queen's Representative and de-facto head of state, must only take the advise of his Ministers and the counsel of his Prime Minister, his principal advisor, except in extra-ordinary circumstances, usually when the Govt did not possess a majority in the House. This clearly wasn't the case. Instead he consulted Fraser and other leading figures, including the Chief Justice and the former Solicitor General (of the Liberal Party). The Chief Justice advised Kerr to dismiss Whitlam if he couldn't procure Supply. This advise was improper, despite being the top judge, the CJ cannot advise the GG, he can only rule in a court of law comprising other members of the Supreme Court. In fact, in 2 earlier cases against the Govt, the CJ ruled against the Govt but was defeated by a majority of the other members of court.

Sir John Kerr, Australia's most controversial Governor-General, whose exercise of vice-regal power has been judged as hasty and wrong.

Kerr kept Whitlam in the dark, and gave no warning of his intentions. Instead he arranged for a meeting with Fraser on the morning of 11th November 1975, and asked him whether he would agree to pass Supply and thereafter advise for a dissolution, so that the country could go to the polls. Fraser agreed, knowing full well that the Senate in fear of being blamed for the impasse, was on the verge of passing the Supply Bill anyway. Unbeknownst to Whitlam (about Fraser's meeting), he arranged an audience with Kerr that morning, advising him to dissolve half the Senate seats. Kerr brushed him aside and dismissed his Govt, thereafter commissioning Fraser as caretaker PM.

A most historical document - Kerr's Letter of Dismissal to Whitlam, an elected Prime Minister with a majority in House. Something for the Opposition here to consider if they have a former PAP man as President to work under.

The Bills were passed and Fraser recommended the dissolution of Parliament and advised for writs of election to be dropped. While the paperwork was being drawn, the House angered by this 'coup de etat' passed 2 motion motions - a no-confidence vote against Fraser and a confidence vote in Whitlam. The Speaker arranged a meeting with the GG, to advise him of this, but was told to report at 4.30pm. He was kept delayed until the paperwork was done and signed by Fraser and the GG, leaving the GG's secretary to announce the dissolution on the steps of Parliament. A fuming Whitlam took over the microphone and gave the memorable quote: 'Well may we say God save the Queen, because nothing will save the Governor General.' Read the 1975 Australian Constitutional Crisis here.

A visibly drunk Kerr, slurred speech and all, presents the Melbourne Cup in 1977. This fulfilled Whitlam's prophecy that 'nothing can save the Governor General.' Kerr resigned in disgrace and kept a low profile. Even his death and burial later on was announced after the fact.

Despite the blatant act in removing an elected Govt, Fraser managed to win the December elections on the back of Labour's failed economic polices. Whitlam tried once more 3 years later but was defeated again and Fraser would only be 'dethroned' in 1982 by Bob Hawke. But he was right about the prophecy on Kerr, who became a vilified figure and regularly had his car pelted with eggs and stones and kept his public appearances to a minimum. He took to the bottle and when he appeared drunk during a Melbourne Cup (Australia's top horse race) presentation and made a fool of himself, he was forced to resign from office.

President Tony Tan. Will he readily agree to every request from a non-PAP Prime Minister? Will he allow the use of the reserves as frequently as he does now? The lessons from Australia should be a warning to the WP and others, if they ever break the PAP stranglehold on power.

Although changes have been made to the Australian Constitution, the powers of the Senate to block Bills and the Governor-General to dismiss an elected Govt with a majority in the House remain. However the general thinking remains that Kerr was wrong to exercise his powers in the manner he did and it's unlikely that any GG would act in a similar way. Even when Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard were embroiled in a power struggle during Labour's latest stint in power, the GG, Quentin Bryce resisted the temptation to intervene despite them not having a majority in the House. Still the manner in which Labour under Whitlam campaigned and won power - he became Leader in 1967, lost 2 elections but gained in strength before finally winning in 1972 with the slogan 'It's Time,' is something the Workers Party and others should look at. Moreso the changes he introduced have some relevance to Singapore, and of course his mistakes, which they must avoid. Finally, for the GG, they might have to rule under a President with close ties to the PAP and who under our Constitution, can deny them funds from the reserves or refuse to sign Supply Bills and retains the power to dismiss them, even if they have a working majority in the House.

Gough Whitlam's moment with destiny, delivering his famous lines, outside Parliament.

You can watch a number of videos about the Dismissal on youtube. There's one 5 part series, called 'The Dismissal' and another entitled the "Whitlam Years', as he explains his policies and take on his unfair dismissal.

Anyway, these are a number of videos on political drama, from comedy, to dark thrillers and real life drama. I hope you will watch some if not all of them and see how much of it is relevant to our own political scene here in Singapore, or just for entertainment.

Cycling as a hobby or with a more competitive/recreational nature has been gaining a lot of interest in Singapore. While there are some established cycling clubs here, the bulk of those cycling recreationally form ad-hoc groups or clubs. Some may be 5-10 strong, while others have 'members' in their 10s or 20s. All this is well and good. Cycling is a good sport or hobby to take up. I used to cycle a lot and really enjoyed the exercise.

OCBC Singapore's Pro Cycling Team posing for a group photo. The number of cycling groups here has increased tremendously over the past decade.

Unfortunately this upward trend has given way to an ever increasing number of errant cyclists, a large proportion being recreational cyclists. The cycling community had campaigned for the '1.5m' space on most roads, to demand that motor vehicles give them a buffer zone to ride safely. This has been granted, although there are always some who don't comply. But generally many motorists recognise a cyclist's right to be on the roads, and their entitlements and right of way are respected.

However the disturbing trend from this is that many recreational cyclists and cycling groups, are not satisfied with this. Instead of the '1.5m', they want to occupy the whole left lane, sometimes even the 2nd lane. There are certain roads where they are allowed greater space, like Changi Coastal Road, Lornie and Upper Thomson Roads amongst others. However there are certain rules to it, they are allowed to do so during off-peak hours and whilst public buses are not operating.

'1.5metres matters' is the name of the campaign for vehicles to give cyclists space.

Among the rules cyclists must comply - they must behave like any other motorist, keep left, ride single file, observe traffic rules, such as stopping at red lights, no overtaking from the left, no weaving in and out of heavy, stalled or slow moving traffic. If they want to cross a traffic junction as a cyclist, they must wait for the green light before cycling across. If they want to use the pedestrian crossing they must dismount and push the bicycle. They cannot cycle on pedestrian pathways, although its long been acceptable, if the pathways aren't heavily used.

I have noticed that people who use the bicycle as a means of transport to work or non-recreational use, try to avoid making a fuss. They just want to use the roads or pedestrian paths to complete their journey in the shortest time possible. They are more likely to comply with the '1.5m' rule and ride single file and usually try to avoid causing inconvenience to other roads users. Their main faults are dashing across pedestrian crossings when they are a distance from it and behind turning motorists. A motorist turning left or right, sees the road is clear and executes the turn, only for the cyclist to appear from nowhere. The other is their use of traffic junctions, again executing a turn or going straight when the lights are not in their favour. Because of their slower speed, they do not appear on the horizon of a turning vehicle until the very last. Motorists usually tend to speed up to make the turn when the indicator arrow is green, a cyclist disobeying the red light by going straight will not see the oncoming turning vehicle.

A classic example of a cyclist ignoring the red light and attempting to cross an intersection with vehicles on the other side making a legitimate turn.

The way around this is education. Educate motorists to slow down, not speed up and these kind of cyclists to be patient and not make sudden dashes across pedestrian crossings or junctions, even though the coast looks clear. A more public campaign with short clips on television can drum this message home. Posters and signboards should be erected at busy intersections and crossings.

There are sufficient parks and low traffic roads during off peak hours for cyclists, but even these it seems isn't enough for them.

But they aren't the problem, the problem is recreational cyclists or those using the latest, expensive, top of the range racing bicycles. They seem to think just because they spent a few thousands on their bicycles, their bicycles are speed demons that can match any motor-vehicle. Below is a list of offences that they prone to committing:

1) Riding abreast sometimes 3-4 cyclists occupy a lane.

2) Encroaching into a second lane.

3) Riding for leisure during the busiest part of the day or night beyond the 1.5m.

4) Riding during bus lane operations, causing buses to have veer to the right to avoid them.

5) Failing to give way to buses, stopping at bus-stops with no berth. They attempt to overtake a stopped bus, either on the left or right, without realising that they are in the driver's blindside. Very often they are half-way in the process of overtaking when the bus begins to move off, without realising a cyclist is alongside.

Some even use hand-phones while cycling oblivious to the danger to themselves.

6) Riding at very fast speeds on bumpy and uneven roads without realising that there's a high chance of gravel of the road.

7) Continuing to ride at fast speeds on the left most lane, after being overtaken by a motorist who intends to make a left turn shortly. The vehicle overtakes the slower cyclist and proceeds to slow down in order to turn left. Instead of slowing down themselves, these cyclists continue to ride at the same speed and adamantly wants to proceed straight on while the vehicle is executing the turn. Having already overtaken the cyclist, the last thing the driver or rider expects is for the cyclist to appear alongside on the left and going straight on.

8) Like the non-recreational cyclist, these cyclists also do not stop at red lights and wait for the green signal. The moment the traffic on the other side with right of way trickles down, they attempt to cross the intersection even though the light is still red. This puts them in danger of being knocked down by vehicle going across, with the lights being green in their favour. Motorists will stop and wait, these cyclists do not.

9) At intersections while turning right, they do not keep to the outer turning lane. Some take the inner turning lane which will put them in the faster right most lanes after making their turn. They will then attempt to filter left dangerously with faster motorists on lanes 1 and 2. Some don't even keep left or right, like motor-cycles they wait in between lanes and when turning, they're right smack in the middle of turning vehicles left and right. The safest way would be to stop on the left, dismount, wait for the pedestrian light and push their bicycle across, thereafter once they have crossed safely and are on the left most lane, mount and ride on. But this they will not do.

10) Failing to give way to pedestrians at crossings. They just cycle in between crossing pedestrians.

1.5metres? No, this cyclist wants to ride in the whole lane and expect cars to follow slowly behind.

11) Failing to ride safely and properly within the 1.5m. Some of them think they are in the 'Tour de France.' Instead of riding steadily and straight, their bicycles bobble left and right beyond 1.5m putting them at risk of being hit by a vehicle travelling alongside.

12) Like buses, they also fail to give way to vehicles such as taxis or passenger vans, stopping ahead of them to let passengers alight. When riding in groups, you have a large number of cyclists overtaking the vehicle and encroaching into the 2nd lane.

13) During heavy or slow moving traffic, these cyclists become 'motorcyclists,' by weaving in and out of traffic, sometimes ending up in the middle and faster lanes. And if the traffic starts moving they are in the middle of moving traffic, endangering themselves.

14) Failing to consider the conditions when riding around construction sites with a lot of heavy vehicles. Upper Bukit Timah is 1 prime example. A winding bumpy road, these cyclists ride with gay abandon, without realising that these lorries and trucks may not be able to see them.

15) Finally - getting hostile, when they are honked by vehicles to alert them to the danger. Instead of being grateful of the warning, they get angry, show the middle finger and some even want to confront the motorist.

This Caucasian cyclist refused to let a woman driver who overtook him to enter the condominium first. He sped up and insisted on going through despite being behind her. And then confronted her, leaving her shaken.

And in the unfortunate event, a cyclist is knocked down, injured or killed in an accident, the cycling groups are up in arms. Candlelight vigils and 'white ghost bicycles' are erected, followed by a barrage of criticism of motorists being reckless in forum pages and social media. I am not saying motorists are all angels. Singaporeans already have a reputation as 'kiasu drivers,' a culture of giving way is still somewhat lacking. There are bad drivers, and there definitely are good recreational cyclists who observe the rules. Unfortunately their numbers in recent years are declining, whereas the kind of cyclists mentioned in points 1-15 are rising and I dare say, reflects the majority of cyclists today.

And here's another who blocked the road long Thomson Road. The Caucasians are the most flagrant abusers of the rules here.

The chief reason I suspect is because cyclists are not registered. For sure there are rules in place but because there's no regulating or registration, they can get away with this boorish anti-social and even dangerous road behaviour. Motorists are, and there are ample cameras in place to spot and catch errant motorists in the act. Cyclists have no IU (In-vehicle Unit) or registration plates to identify them. And among the biggest culprits without raising the 'xenophobic card' just happens to be Caucasian expatriates. Just because their home countries have designated cycling lanes and rules for them, they take it that Singapore too must accommodate their whims. Hand on heart, ask yourself if you're a driver, which ethnic group is the one that flagrantly ignores rules and expects motorists to slow down to 'crawl speed' to accommodate cyclists? The answer in most cases is the Caucasian cyclist. Even in the busy Shenton Way/Marina business district or Orchard cordon, you will spot them cycling with a 'couldn't care less attitude' when traffic is at its heaviest and busiest. And they are the most confrontational.

A 'ghost bike' erected in memory of Ben Mok who was killed while cycling at Clementi.

And who do we have to blame for it? It has to be Traffic Police and its partner enforcement agencies - LTA, Cisco and Aetos Police. They simply refuse to do anything. No campaigns (at best the occasional half hearted poster plastered at a few places), no media clip and most of all, no enforcement. You can see cyclists flouting rules and a police car driving by, but doing nothing. No stopping to direct, warn and book the errant cyclists. And forget about an operation to catch errant cyclists. They are only interested to catch illegal parking or other traffic offences by motorists with hefty fines, leaving the cyclists a free hand to do as they please.

.Traffic Officers posing in front of their new 'bikes.' New vehicles, new headquarters, new gadgets, state of the art cameras, delegation of duties, faster promotions and bonuses this century, how about putting some effort and making our roads safer for a change?

PAP MP Lee Bee Wah came out with a suggestion that bicycles should be registered. It was laughed off as being silly, but given the spate of rule breaking and the dangers posed to themselves and other road users, the suggestion might not be so funny now. I however think that that step is a bit too drastic. The logical step is for a more visible enforcement action by the Police and its partner agencies and a concerted campaign to promote good and safe riding practices.

So when is the Police going to step up and crack down on errant cyclists? The number of causalities on the road involving them is increasing. And it's not always the motorist's fault. Of course no one wants to knock down a cyclist, and no cyclist wants to be knocked down. However until there's leadership, education, commitment and enforcement by the Traffic Police, this menace and danger on the roads will continue to escalate.

There has been a lot said and written about the foreign influx in Singapore over the past few years, the majority of which have been negative. In fact some including political leaders here have labelled such remarks as xenophobic, racist or disgusting. So the question begets - Are Singaporeans Really Racist or Xenophobic?

A typical Singapore 'kampong' or village in the 1950s and 60s. Educated foreigners were looked upon as 'superior.'

I think I can answer the question having lived in a Singapore that was a newly independent country, kinda poor to start off with, to a developing nation, a regional growing economy, an improving Asian metropolis, a modern Asian city and finally to one of the richest cities or countries in the world. Much change has occurred in our land, the mindset of the people have also changed from rural or village based with limited education to a well educated, modern population connected to almost every part of the world. So have we turned racist or xenophobic in this era of globalisation? I am sure the answer remains No. We are proud of our roots, culture, of what we were and what we are now, we are proud of our achievements and we jealously want to guard what we have achieved, even if these traits are unique to us alone.

Modern day Singapore, where even the brightest and richest foreigner is no big deal as we have Singaporeans equal to them.

The foreign influx has hit Singapore hard. In fact it has hit many countries hard, even in the 1st world countries of the West. The issue there is the same here, we welcome foreigners, we appreciate the expertise they bring, we realise the importance of being globally connected and the need to understand how other countries work and what are the peculiarities of individual national cultures when we do business with them. We accept that as a more prosperous country, others want to seek their fame and fortune here, as we have done and some still try to do or did in other 1st world economies. We understand that we need foreign labour here in order to support certain industries or to replenish those where we cannot cope. But like in the West or other 1st world economies, we do not want the foreigners to compete with us, but work alongside us to each other's benefit.

Last year alone the UK has seen a 27% increase of foreigners arriving to work especially from poor EU nations like Romania. This has cast a pall on job creation and retention for UK citizens.

If one recalls when we were growing and taking the steps to modernity, Singaporeans too had to venture abroad to work and when we grew, we began to have the ability to travel abroad more frequently. As a consequence, being new in foreign lands, some of our own peculiarities and behaviour that we found so routine here, was not in agreement with the nature and way of life of our hosts. The label - 'Ugly Singaporean' was born. Our 'kiasu' (scared to lose) mentality is perhaps the most notorious feature of us abroad. Being boastful, demanding and expecting the same kind of efficiency we were used to in foreign lands are amongst others. It took some time before we learnt and realised that 'when in Rome, do as Romans do.' Although some of these negative traits still exist, I think the 'Ugly Singaporean' abroad is slowly becoming a dying breed.

A Uniquely Singaporean trait - 'Kiasuism.' Which wasn't well received in the places we visited abroad.

Now that we have achieved 1st world status and have become a major port of call for foreigners to work and do business here, it's only natural that we also have a right to call out the ugly behaviour of foreigners here. Like us, they too must learn to assimilate and to do things the way we do, and to remember that they, as our guests or even as future residents, must blend in and work with us. Below is a list of sorts of some of the ugly behaviour of foreigners here that Singaporeans hate. I realise it may sound as if I am stereotyping or blaming the behaviour of every nationality on a few, but I think it reflects the general feeling. Of course there are good people of every nationality and of course there are bad. This list is to point out the bad and hope it may serve to highlight the things that should change, not a finger pointing racist or xenophobic exercise to belittle the 2.5 million foreigners that currently live and work here.

The Caucasians

I will start first with the Caucasians and begin with the group I believe are the best behaved - The Germans. German influence in Singapore has grown over the past 20 years. Take the upcoming 'Oktoberfest' for instance. It's a funfair to mark a period of hard drinking and merry making originating in Bavaria. We use to have just a Sunday in October to mark this, but now events are held throughout the whole month. German influence and investment in Singapore has risen and ties are warm and we have a healthy expatriate German community. But it's quite rare to find a German misbehaving. They have a reputation as a disciplined and hard-working people and such a conduct is repeated here. Because Germany is an industrial and economic powerhouse, it's rare for Germans to want to settle down here. They come, they work, do business and when the time is ripe, they want to go back home. They appreciate Singapore as a safe and modern country like Germany, and more or less conduct themselves as they would back home. They are the model for Caucasians living here.

Germans in Singapore formed a dragon boat team for last year's Dragon Boat Festival. They are usually very well behaved and set the standards in good behaviour for all other Caucasian nationalities.

We also have a large Australian and New Zealand presence here owing to the historical defense agreements. Because Australia and to a lesser extent New Zealand is at 1 corner of the world, it's natural for them to make Singapore their Asian regional HQ. Successive Australian Govts have realised that their future lies with Asia more than the West, and we are seeing a change in attitudes of Australians here. Previously they had the opinion of being far superior to Asians in general. But I sense a gradual shift to a more pragmatic approach - Asia must be their partners and sometimes even the dominant partner. The behaviour of Australians here have also generally reflected this. They are more down to earth and willing to engage with the locals. Of course some remain distant and standoffish, but the shift to a change of mindset has already begun and Singaporeans in general like the 'Ozzies,' although coming from a culture of hard drinkers, some of them take their drunken behaviour too far and become aggressive when told to simmer down.

The French have been in Singapore for a long time and are generally well accepted but they do prefer to mix among themselves owing to their pride in French language and culture. But as this chart suggests, they know how to laugh at themselves too.

The French have also been here for over a century. Generally the Frenchman is viewed as arrogant, mainly because they are quite proud of their language and culture. Try speaking in English to a Parisian in Paris and see how far you get. The French here tend to keep to themselves but it's mainly because of their language and culture, but they are not seen as trouble-makers or 'job stealers.' Their engagement here with locals might seem a bit distant but it's always polite and courteous. And we are quite happy with it.

The Dutch routinely open the doors of their 'Hollandse Club' to everyone during major football tournaments. But obviously it'll be poor sport to go there and not support Team Orange.

We also have smaller communities of Caucasians from the rest of Europe like Ireland, Spain, Dutch, Canadians etc. By and large they are alright, they do realise it's a different culture and do not try and bring a superior mindset here. They keep to themselves mainly and small steps are taken to assimilate with the locals. Take the Dutch Club for example, they have opened their doors to everyone, Dutch and non-Dutch.

The Vietnam War had a lasting negative image in the United States, but here in South East Asia, it helped to stop Communism in its tracks when it was at its most dangerous in the region.

Finally to the 2 other main groups, beginning with the Americans. Like it or not, it's a fact that Singaporeans are very 'Americanised.' This has a lot to do with television from 70s to 80s through to the present day. Singaporeans have embraced the American revolution of fashion, music and way of life. Any latest fad in the USA will catch on here especially with the young. For a long time Americans, were looked upon here with respect and appreciation for their part in WWII. Growing up in the 50,60s, 70s and 80s, we looked to America as a protector of our freedom and sovereignty. It also helped that American movies tended to show them as the good guys. As much as the Vietnam War was looked upon as a failure in the USA, we in Singapore and the rest of South East Asia were grateful for their intervention. It put the brakes on a full Communist expansion in the region. Yes the Communist threat was a very real thing in the 50s, 60s and 70s. Perhaps not all and only a few of the people detained by the PAP Govt were diehard Communists and they used the label to deal with many a political enemy unfairly, but the fact remains that the Malayan Communist Party, the Vietcong and even the Chinese all had grand designs on Southeast Asia. Had the Americans not halted them, there was a distinct possibility that our growth and way of life today might have been different or taken much longer to achieve, and in much dire circumstances.

Despite the outpouring of widespread sympathy after 9-11, the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, made it very unpopular in many parts of the world.

So the Americans enjoyed a long honeymoon here. Americans were tolerated, even the bad behaviour of visiting US Navy sailors was excused. But all this began to change over the past 20 years. It has not been helped by the fall-out after the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. There began and remains a feeling here especially amongst Muslims, that the USA has a secret agenda to curb the rise of Islam throughout the world by labelling anyone who disputes their version as a fanatic or radical. Their unbending support of Israel even when they are seen as the aggressor has not helped either. There's also a growing sense among many Singaporeans here that the USA today feels that they are superior politically to Asians. Once when American influence was seen as protection, today a feeling exists that they want to dominate and get us to support their every position. And that is seen by the attitude of some of the Americans living here. They think that they know best. A Singaporean partner is accepted on the proviso he agrees with his American partner's point of view. It's not helped that the American community here lives in a cocoon. Singaporeans attending American functions are screened and only limited persons are allowed in.

The havoc routinely caused by Michael Fay and other American teenagers, made a lot of goodwill we had for them disappear.

The general loud and uncouth behaviour of American youth here has not helped. It was no surprise that American Michael Fay was caught for vandalism, it was a surprise it took so long before someone was caught. Americans in general also mock our laws and way of life. They say we are too 'mollycoddled' and live in a 'nanny state.' We don't understand democracy and freedom of speech. We have poor 'gay rights' and always need to be told by the Govt on what to do. Perhaps there's some truth in it, but the fact remains they are the 'guests' not hosts. If we went to the USA, they would expect each of us to adopt their culture, laws and way of life without exception. Despite requiring no visa to travel to the USA, we are almost certainly to be stopped by US Immigration and Customs and questioned at length for our reasons for going there. Yet the American, expects no such inconvenience here. There still remains a 'sense of superiority' among the many Americans here. It may not be in the class of 'racial' superiority, most Americans consider racism a taboo, but Americans still think they know best and their system is better than ours. But generally they are not rude and are probably the best 'tippers' amongst the Westerners, and they can reciprocate graciousness in kind. It's only a question of their attitude that must change and they must look at Singaporeans as the hosts, whom they, and not us, must occasionally bend and accommodate.

And so to the final group, the first Caucasians to arrive here - the British and in particular the English. There are generally 3 types of Britons here - 1) The tourists 2) The ordinary Englishman working here and 3) The richer, more aristocratic or 'old school' upper class Englishman.

The older or semi-retired British tourist is always welcomed here because they know how to conduct themselves unlike some of their younger peers.

The first are the most well behaved and liked. These are normally older Britons who come here to visit their children working here or those who stop by enroute to their holidays to and from Australia, New Zealand and the rest of Asia. They are amazed to see first hand how a former colony has progressed, how safe and clean it is. In most cases they are shocked to learn that contrary to what they had been told, Singapore as a city is actually a much better place than their own major cities like London, Glasgow, Manchester and Birmingham. They truly enjoy their visit here and are appreciated by the locals for their economic contributions. As far as Singaporeans go, they can come and go as many times as they like, the more the better.

An increasingly common sight - drunken Englishmen misbehaving in public.

The 2nd group is probably the most difficult and least well liked. These are usually young to middle aged Englishmen working here for some European or British based firm. The fact that many of them 'do not bring anything special to the table,' is not lost on the locals. They do not possess any superior degrees or special expertise, they are only here for the mere fact they are English or European. That is to say, their European firm here headed by one their own, hires their own, when a local could perform the job just as well, maybe even at lower salaries. But this is not the major bug bear. This group is what would be termed back home as 'yobs' (a slightly educated chap but with poor social manners) or 'chavs' (the socially uneducated with very poor social manners). Somehow or rather, we had the misfortune of hiring them or having them live here.

Another example of how much respect they have for the locals here. Who cares right? So long as they are having a good time at our expense!

It normally starts well enough, they come here being new, keep a low profile until they meet up with people of the same ilk who have been here longer. Then all hell breaks loose. They drink themselves to the maximum and behave like uncaged chimpanzees. They will shout and drink loudly and expect the local wait staff or other local patrons to put up with their antics. They couldn't give damn about local customs and expect us to feel happy and glad that they are enjoying themselves by being rude and obnoxious at our expense. Almost invariably they are the ones that get into brawls or are a menace, like a number of Caucasian cyclists who simply ignore our rules and become very aggressive when challenged on their anti-social behaviour.

The 'poster boy' of the so called 'upper class Englishman with a colonial hangover' - Anton Casey.

And then there is the last group - the so called 'posh, stiff upper lipped Briton.' They still think perhaps that Singapore is a British colony and they remain our Lords and Masters. Ordinary locals are 'beneath their station' and are expected to serve and pander to their every whims. We must only speak when spoken to and do as they instruct. Only 'selected' Singaporeans should be allowed their company in the posh clubs they are members of like the British and Tanglin Clubs. They refuse to accept colonialism as an act of enslavery and domination by a minority elite. We should instead be thankful that the British gave us so many things - a port, a system of Govt, education, built up infrastructure like airports, rail, the postal system and gave us our laws and democracy. This is exactly what I overheard 2 English gentlemen talking about at the British Club, when I had the misfortune of attending an event some months back. It's as if the British did all these things for free and for our economic benefit and they in no part, benefitted greatly from it!

Artist impression of the British enjoying the social life during the Colonial era at Raffles Hotel.

Perhaps they need to refreshen their history of colonial rule. Where Asians were kept at arms length, democratic freedoms were kept to a minimum and a country's wealth was plundered under the guise of 'trade.' True we did not have any natural resources, but they sure made use of the local populace to serve them at beck and call. And who can forget the mess the left behind in many of their colonies? The 'so called policy of conquer and divide.' They split many communities along ethnic lines by playing 1 side against the other, so they would never unite to oust them. And they only left because of a decline of British dominance following WWII. They knew they had to let go before being kicked out and in many cases hastily drew up borders without considering the implications. Just look at the troubles facing many former British colonies - Palestine for example. Giving Israel a state without consideration for the Palestinians, a problem that remains unsolved today. And the scenario is repeated in places like Iraq, Iran, India and Pakistan. Even in Singapore, they got it wrong. Playing 1 side against the other, by enacting draconian laws like the Internal Security Act and then urging Lim Yew Hock to use it to avoid blame. They also forced us into Malaysia, the only way they were prepared to let go. It's a miracle we somehow managed to survive after the mess they left behind and made it so far on our own.

Rule Britannia - a stirring nationalistic song made popular when the British were the dominant world power. Yes Britons never never shall be slaves, but it was alright for others to be theirs. And some of their descendants now, seem to think it still exists.

But these upper class Britons don't want to consider all this. They think we should be thankful to them for colonial rule and now in modern Singapore, for the 'expertise' and economic investments they bring. It's not a case that they instead should be thankful to Singapore for allowing them opportunity to come here, to do business and enrich themselves. It's we not them, who should be grateful. To them, it will always be like one of their anthem songs suggests - Rule Britannia, Britannia rules the waves!'

And so on that note, I will end the first part of the 'Ugly Foreigners' or the kind of behaviour they exude that we hate. It's hoped as we move on in the 2nd decade of the millennium, this kind of boorish behaviour or 'superior than thou' mindset will slowly but surely end. In the next part, I'll focus on the behaviour of the other main group of foreigners here - our neighbours from Asia, both near and far.

Following his legal defeat in his flawed attempt to challenge the PM in a lawsuit, and as he awaits the decision on costs and damages, Drama Queen of the Year and Looney Fringe - Roy Ngerng, has once again done what he does best. Yes sir - a long winding post in his blog - The Heart Truths(nearly 4000 words), where he remains evasive, refuses to accept responsibility, insists he's right and for the 'coup de grâce' - he's the most unfortunate victim.

If you don't get bored reading through basically the same things mentioned over and over again, well here it is:

http://thehearttruths.com/2014/11/10/i-am-tired-i-do-not-know-if-i-can-still-carry-on-the-flight-if-its-just-me/

Now this has to be taken in perspective to the judgment in the lawsuit - Lee Hsien Loong v Roy Ngerng Yi Ling SGHC 230/2014. You can find the judgment at this page. I've read the judgment and see little to disagree with. His whole defense was mounted on 2 premises:

1) Right to free speech under the Constitution

2) He admitted the article in question was defamatory or could be seen as such, however it was not his intention to defame the PM, and taken as a whole, an ordinary person would not think it defamatory.

Roy and lawyer M Ravi outside the High Court. Even Hercules, couldn't perform the task that he was attempting - winning this futile lawsuit.

As you can tell straightaway, it was always going to be a 'Herculean task.' as this was in my view a very weak defense at the outset. And despite him misleading donors who forked out almost $110,000 for his legal fees ($70,000), that he would challenge the PM in court and get answers to the CPF issues, as I mentioned in my very first articles on his actions then, there was little or even zero chance that would ever happen. The lawsuit had nothing to do with the CPF, but whether he defamed the PM, by suggesting the actions taken by the PM and his senior colleagues, resembled very much those taken by Kong Hee and Gang, in their criminal case for fraud. And Roy had very early on admitted to them, issued an apology of sorts but would later back down, and in a roundabout way, said he was telling the truth.

He did not reveal to donors that a summary judgment could be issued against him as is the case with many civil suits. However there's no way that his lawyer, M Ravi, would not have briefed him on such a possibility or on other possibilities, that he could lose, could not cross examine the PM, face a hefty bill for costs and damages and be bankrupted. I even entertained the idea that perhaps, Mr Ravi, was not giving him sound advice and misled him to believe that he stood a good chance, just to secure a huge fee, or even worse, encouraged him to crowd-fund. I have since been able to dispel that idea. Mr Ravi had acted professionally throughout, and having drafted the initial apology, did not expect Roy, to behave as he did, by making videos, sending emails and not fully taking down the offending article. And it was Roy, not him, who insisted to proceed with the lawsuit after SC Davinder Singh rejected their initial offer of $5,000. He had no money to fight, he admitted he defamed the PM and he did not heed his lawyer's advise, yet he still stubbornly wanted to pursue this case all the way, perhaps even to seek asylum, as his BFF, Han Hui Hui, confessed twice to.

A rather straight forward case for Justice Lee Sieu Kin, applying the Law and precedents set down by the Court of Appeal.

This is surely the height of irresponsibility. He talks about fighting to get CPF monies back for the people, but has no qualms in demanding that these very same people part with a substantial sum to fund this futile escapade. 1200 people parted with their hard earned cash, just so Roy, could gain the attention he sought. He refused to settle out of court through mediation and stubbornly pursued this losing matter. And so it proceeded to trial before Justice Lee Seiu Kin, who first had to hear an application by SC Singh for a summary judgment, based on the defense filed by Roy.

The 2 areas listed were examined by the Judge and not surprisingly he threw out the first rather straightforwardly. Free speech never allows anyone to defame another person. Pursuing defamation was a law entrenched in the system, and there was nothing unconstitutional about the lawsuit. The PM had a right, as do others, to protect themselves from slander and libel.

And so to the second, if Roy could prove a layman won't think it defamatory taken as a whole, although he admitted it did give the impression at first glance of being so. After examining the background, relevant case laws and other cases, as well as the actions undertaken by Roy, during and after the article was published, Justice Lee accepted SC Davinder's claim that they were indeed defamatory to any ordinary person. Plus as I mentioned then, there was the admission and apology by Roy. He admitted it as much and then after flip-flopping, denied it and now the latest stance is - he did not intend to defame.

A complete waste of money to pursue this lawsuit, which achieved nothing in way of the CPF issues at hand. But hey, it's not his money but 1200 others.

I think most ordinary people or neutrals will find it hard to believe Roy's version of events and the article whether taken in part or as a whole, clearly indicates some 'fishy business' on the PM's part. And there's also the fact, that no one else bar Roy has raised this allegation. Not 1 of the 6 opposition parties towed or peddled this line. If there was something 'fishy' going on, don't you think they wouldn't have latched on it and told Roy - 'Ok, good job bringing this up, we'll take it to the next level on your behalf?' None did, because they knew it was an unsubstantiated allegation without foundation. Inevitably, the Judge ruled the case had been made out and there was nothing further to defend in a full trial, based on the arguments raised by Roy and will access damages and costs later. Unlike criminal trials, the onus is always on the one making the allegation if the plaintiff can show it was libellous. Unless the defense can show some facts or evidence to support their allegations, there is no requirement to go for a full trial, a summary judgment based on the evidence presented can be reached. This was clearly the case here, and Roy knew that from Day 1. If he wanted to go 'the full monty,' he knew he had to present evidence or proof to support the allegations of the PM being involved in fraud. But he stubbornly refused to yield, he wanted to play the victim to the fullest and knew he didn't need to fork out a cent. Do you think if he had $70,000 in his own savings, that he would have adopted the same tactics? There's nothing like spending other people's money is there?

And so to this song and dance routine. 'I am tired.''I don't know if I can carry on the fight, I'm fighting for Singaporeans.'"You must help me fight for you, I'm just an ordinary man.' Now where have we heard that before? Ah yes, when the matter first blew up, when he got sacked for malingering and after he repeatedly disrupted the YMCA event.' Each time we'll hear this same refrain, each time we'll hear - he can no longer do it on his own, he's exhausted etc. And guess what he'll say next? Sorry no points for the correct answer - "I will be brave and carry on the fight!' And inevitably, he'll bask in the 'hero status' some will bestow for 'fighting for them.' followed by the usual plea for funds, if not directly by him, then through BFF Han or mentor, 'Uncle Leong Sze Hian.' I don't think 'Les Miserables', 'The Phantom of the Opera' or 'Star Wars has had this many sequels or encores!

In his long rambling article going back and forth over the same things, he repeats this same tired lines. He blames everybody but himself. However this time, he also lays the blame on the Opposition and other activists who have refused to support his antics, and this is where I must take issue. He refuses to look at his faults and blames others. Let me just examine some of his wild theories and why no one wants to associate with him bar his fellow Looney Fringe.

1) The CPF Protests and Issues

There's no denying that this is a pertinent topic. If this was the West, and a Govt tried to renege on a promise to return state pension funds beyond the agreed date, there would have been protests, riots and probably the Govt would be thrown out mid-way through its' 1st term.

However here, either people accept it or are resigned to it. Still the anger is not so much about the CPF return date, it's because of housing primarily. CPF funds have always been tied to buy a HDB flat, people willingly accept the benefits of CPF because they know they can use it to buy a flat and have some balance left over for old age. However HDB prices have shot through the roof, and most people struggle to pay this even through their CPF. Many unlike those in the past cannot complete payment before 55 (the agreed age). But with all sorts of rules, their CPF monies are tied up into the Retirement Fund, that's a double whammy. Forgoing the right to take 1 lump sum, but unable now to use it to pay for the flat.

I won't go into this much as it's fit for another topic, but Roy's whole approach and calculations were wrong. Meaningless protests would hardly be the pivot to change the policy, he should have approached an opposition party to volunteer his services, not go on his own. But I can understand their apprehension, he refuses to see further than his own arguments. By some convoluted formula, he claims that each of us should be millionaires, if the Govt didn't take our CPF monies. I've heard CPF debates by opposition parties since the 1980s, never once has any suggested that we would be millionaires if not for CPF funds been locked away by the Govt!

Therefore it's no surprise that the 2 main opposition parties - WP and NSP want nothing to do with his protests. It's all big on talk and shouting, but little in the way of concrete or sound proposals. Ok so, no opposition wants to take up the issue for him, but he's still persistent - 'fighting and being brave for us after all,' as he declares. What could he have done? I think the most logical thing is to organise a campaign or poll on behalf of citizens, to let the Govt know they are very sore about the CPF issues and want to see a return as stated or some concrete changes that makes things easier for them, with a view of seeing and enjoying the fruits of their labour.

Perhaps protests 1 and 2 had some relevant topics, but by the time of 'Hecklegate' what exactly was Roy or Ms Han, speaking about? Zilch, only screaming into the microphone - 'Teo Ser Luck, Return our CPF!' Yes, that's gonna change Govt policy for us, thanks a bunch, Roy!

He could have urged everyone to write in to their MPs or to the respective Ministries, maybe even the PM, stating these terms and demands bluntly. He could have provided the sample form on his blog, urged people to download it and post it. Of course he must urge them to be brave and use their real identities. Nothing scares any elected Govt more than when tens of thousands or maybe hundreds of thousands indicate openly that they are against a particular policy, or the promise that a vote for them is dependant on reforming the system. This is what they do in the USA and Australia, people write to their elected representatives and express their anger. These politicians know they are at risk of losing their seats and inevitably, the due changes occur. Roy needn't have done this island wide, he could have just targeted 1 GRC or a few SMCs and asked the voters there to send in their complaints officially. If he could garner mass support, he'll know people accept his views and he can go further, but if it fizzles out, then he must accept, that he's just not the person or vehicle for it.

Hard work never killed anyone. Perhaps Roy should look at his father's (a) example before venturing out to 'speak for us.'

But he doesn't see it this way. He's adamant that he's correct and people are obliged to support him because he's 'speaking up for them,' whether they want him to or not. His theories are right, his cause is the only just cause. He talks so much about a lack of freedom, yet he himself is unwilling to accept that people have a right to reject him. Does he even think that he perhaps might not be what the people want? What's his qualifications? What's his experience? So what if he's written 400 articles and done some research, how does that make him 'The Chosen One?'

Did he look at himself in the mirror and say, 'Am I really the one that must be in the forefront? "I'm just 33, very inexperienced, just a contract worker, being gay as well (not being discriminatory, but there's a huge debate raging over gay rights, a gay person taking up cudgels makes himself the topic as well) and who am I associating with - Leong (refuses to do it openly) and Ms Han (an even lesser qualified 23 year old)."

Or shouldn't he have said, 'Wait a minute, I'm not the perfect candidate, but let me look around at what the Opposition is doing or saying and even if they don't want to work directly with me, I'll take up their positions on my own and try to assist them by spreading the message. I don't need the limelight, they can have it, I just want to do my part helping them.'

2) His Unreliability and Misplaced Thinking/Actions

Besides shouting like crazy at CPF protests culminating with 'Hecklegate' and even ignoring the saga over the lawsuit, there's other things he did, does, says or said that makes it impossible for reasonable persons and parties to associate with him.

Birds of a feather, flock together. Does Roy expect people to take him seriously with a supporting cast like this?

1) People he associates with - Han Hui Hui is immature and has the propensity to inflame things - insulting Lee Kuan Yew, a sure-fire vote loser. Love him or hate him, LKY is no longer the topic of the day and he's held in very high regard by certain quarters. Nothing to gain by insulting him but everything to lose. Leong is cleverly refusing to do anything dramatic but doesn't stop Roy, instead encourages him.

Then you have the crowd that attends his rallies. Opposition parties like NSP and WP welcome all to their events but are very careful in choosing from those present, to represent them or act for them. Is 'Mad Dog Ivan Koh', a 59 year old who insults a person's mother with vulgarities, the kind of person, he should associate closely with and entrust him the role of 'Treasurer?' What about fellow accused, Ms Chua Siew Leng aka Maniyo Kalyani, who behaves crazily on the Net? She even posted anti-Muslim comments - she wanted all Muslims to get out of Sri Lanka! Are these the kind of people you associate with in order to drum your message or fight your cause with?

Maniyo Kalyania year ago

All muslim get out from sri lanka!!!Is buddhism history in sri lanka longer than muslim!!!!Dont be so arrogant!!!Your muslim already so much desiples!!!!STILL NOT ENOUGH!!!!WANT TO HIT BUDDHIST IN SRI LANKA!!!WE ALL THE WORLD OF BUDDHISM WILL ASSIST SRI LANKA!!!ALL MUSLIM IF DONT LIKE THE MAJOR BUDDHISM IN SRI LANKA..LEAVE OUT SRI LANKA AND GO TO MUSLIM COUNTRIES!!!DONT STAY SRI LANKA!!!

(This was posted by Ms Chua Siew Leng aka Maniyo Kalayani at this page. And Roy is supporting her and vice-versa)

2) All these overseas trips - For someone who claims to be an ordinary person, is going to India, Norway, Australia and Malaysia, the correct image to highlight your cause? How many of the CPF holders you claim to fight for, can go to these places? Why is there a need to go there for research? Why can't the fax, email, telephone or Skype be used? This shows a tendency to spend money foolishly and you expect people to accept your message that you know best how to invest their CPF?

How does attending a seminar in Kula Lumpur last month, achieve anything for those he claims to fight for? Yes, he's being brave and strong by going abroad, while those left behind have to fight to bring food home daily.

3) Wild illogical claims - Let me just highlight 2. Firstly he says Singapore has the worst freedom of speech in SEA. I accept our freedom of speech isn't the best but the worst? You go try launch an anti-Govt campaign in Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam, Philippines, Myanmar, Laos even Malaysia and Indonesia, and see how far you'll get. If you can come out of some of those alive or not jailed, that's a huge feat in itself.

Another is the ridiculous claim that 30% of Singaporeans are living in poverty! How to take you seriously? 30% in poverty? You know what's poverty or not, Mr Ngerng? Poverty is having no TV, no hand-phone, not sure where your next meal is coming from or eating plain rice and 'kichap manis' (a very common thing in the 70s and 80s). Poverty is having no place to sleep, no proper clothes, no basic luxuries, no money to travel, no job. That's poverty. You go and argue this point in Parliament or during an election, the PAP will tear you to shreds, and any opposition party fielding you will look like complete morons.

Let me be 'brave and strong for you' by having a picnic! See, I made the Police and NParks fret with worry, by turning up on the cancellation date, I'm so brave for defying the ban sneakily. I win, they lose, and you can watch me have a picnic!

4) Attention seeking gimmicks - is there a need for protests every month? Is there a need to protest on National Day? Is there a need to mock the Police and NParks by purposely 'showing up' at Hong Lim Park after your October event was cancelled? What you think they'll be thinking? Yes, they'll think this guy is a trouble-maker, we have to keep a close eye on him, because if we don't he's likely to break the Law. Is there a need to gate-crash events hosted by PAP MPs or Ministers? Do you see responsible opposition parties doing it? No they have they own, let the PAP have theirs. Was there a need to apply for NMPship, when you know very well you don't meet the selection criteria?

And you complain, no opposition or civil society wants to join or support you? Of course they won't. You're the epitome of irresponsible behaviour. If they let you join them, you'll hijack the agenda or sabotage them and make yourself the topic, and them look very foolish and unprofessional in the process.

Conclusion

In that whole long rambling article, full of self-praise or self-pity and in complete denial of reality, there was 1 line that was correct:

Now and then, you see people from the looney fringe – yes, you can feel free to call me that.

Perhaps it's finally clicked and entered his brain, even for a short spell. You admit you're a Looney Fringe and so how can you expect people to rally around you, when you go around doing stupid things? You still refuse to get a job, using the excuse that nobody wants to hire you, yet you have time to eat at cafes and go on trips. How many opposition candidates do you see unable to find work? There's tons of people out there who will employ a person irrespective of political association. They are not interested in politics, they are interested in having full time staff committed and hard-working, not malingerers or those who'll tell all about them in their blogs and speeches. You don't want to work and you want people to support you to get their CPF back? The very same CPF they earn from working!

'I am the centre of attention - I am your hero, my light shines so brightly.' Very soon 'like a candle in the wind,' your flame will flicker out and you'll be a broken man, if you don't wake up.

Whatever position you've landed yourself in, you've basically brought it upon yourself. You're stubborn, egoistic, unrepentant, somewhat lazy and irresponsible. Perhaps I can use an illustration that you can relate to - 'You're like a gay man who knows that having unprotected sex, runs the serious risk of contracting STDs or AIDS, yet all the same goes on and does it.' And then later, when he actually contracts it, feels very bitter and blames society for life being unfair to him.

So unless you sit up and look yourself in the mirror, acknowledge your faults and try to rectify it in the proper way, by working hard, by being responsible, by working for the opposition or society, then you only have yourself to blame. Unless of course, this is just another one of your Looney Fringe antics, cry and whine, lament the lack of support but shortly thereafter, issue another statement, that states -'you'll be brave for us and soldier on' and hope we'll contribute and support your cause. If that's the case, then be prepared for more 'aching hearts' as you are slowly but surely discarded as just another crafty attention seeker.

Singapore began its defense of the ASEAN Football Championship or Suzuki Cup with a 1-2 loss to Thailand at the National Stadium yesterday. While I'll leave others to comment on the performance, I'll instead comment on the facility itself. You can read the match report here:

http://www.affsuzukicup.com/news/singapore-1-thailand-2#.VHIwy0Cwrcs

To begin with, the pitch is hardly in ideal condition for what is the region's biggest tournament and probably the only one where Singapore can take part in and hope to win silverware. While it's not uncommon for new stadiums to have a 'not so perfect pitch' - even Wembley Stadium faced the problem initially, the fact remains that few international stadiums would have a brand new stadium with patches of sand and general unevenness.

The new National Stadium is fast becoming an arena for foreign teams, other sports and concerts, and not for local athletes and football.

And with 2 other group games and 2 more final fixtures, the pitch is not going to get any better. It's a travesty that so much has been spent only for it to be wasted. This pitch is a goner, the only way will be to tear it up after the competition is over and re-lay a new set of grass, which would have to grown elsewhere. I do hope that this is already in the pipeline.

Baihaikki Khazan lamented the effects of a soulless new National Stadium, a view shared by many.

But this is not the biggest issue. A few weeks after its opening, national player Baihaikki Khaizan remarked in this Instagram post, that while the new stadium is fantastic with 'its bells and whistles', it lacks the soul of its predecessor. There's no Kallang Roar to be had and this was turning out to be a stadium for 'concerts.'

Singapore played Thailand yesterday in a stadium marked with a large swathe of empty seats.

And judging from yesterday's crowd, the stadium was barely half-full, there appears a ring of truth in his assessment. So yes Juventus played here, and so did a Neymar led Brazil against a Honda led Japan, but in both games it was priced out of the reach of most ordinary Singaporeans. Yes, there were some cheaper tickets, but still expensive compared to prices in the past and elsewhere. The majority of tickets and the better seats in the middle, were not cheap.

Snaking queues for tickets outside the old National Stadium. You won't see this sight in a hurry at the new stadium, if prices are gonna remain exorbitant.

Is this a stadium for the rich and upper middle-class? What is the Singapore Sports Council, the FAS and the stadium's operator trying to do? Get their money back as soon as possible or make a handsome profit? The Suzuki Cup is the region's premier tournament and Singapore are the defending champions. In past tournaments, the stadium would be filled to the brim, even with live telecast of games. Just take a look at yesterday's game, tickets were going at $48, $38, $28 and $18. You expect ordinary Singaporeans to fork out a minimum of $18 to watch a football game? Is money growing on trees or readily available on our pavements?

We grudgingly accept that F1 and major tournaments like the WTA Finals featuring the world's best will have expensive price tags and ticket prices, but not for football featuring Singapore. It should not always be about profit and recovering costs. Some events can and should cost the state money. Are we living in Singapore or Bangladesh? Can't the Govt underwrite part of the costs, or the respective bodies not price tickets too highly and get a rebate from the Govt?

Most Singaporeans can only dream of watching F1 races, even though its held in Singapore. But okay we can excuse that, F1 has always been expensive and is a sport usually associated with the rich. But football? Our national sport? Even the friendlies before the tournament at Yishun Stadium cost $12. An ordinary uninspiring stadium like Yishun and you charge $12? A former national player I spoke to was shocked at the price. This is a rip-off, just as yesterday's prices were.

Borussia Dortmund's iconic Westfalen Stadion is always full for Bundesliga, Champions League and Germany internationals. And their cheapest tickets cost less than the $18 for the Suzuki Cup. And Germany like Singapore is a rich country.

Even the Bundesliga charges lower for their games. You can watch Bayern Munchen and Borussia Dortmund at around 5 Euros (standing). For the equivalent of S$18, you can be assured of a seat, and that's top class football. What's the SSC and FAS trying to prove?

Unless the operator is sacked and replaced by a local who understands the passion and means of ordinary Singaporeans, then the National Stadium will continue to be a rip-off and a soulless stadium for the rich, for concerts and for foreign teams to come play for a fee. It cannot be considered a National Stadium for Singaporeans.

Police Commissioner Ng Joo Hee is sent to 'a New Watering Hole!'

Police Powers of Arrest and Investigation

Roy Ngerng Now Wants YOU to Donate Another $46,000 to HIM!

Goodbye Gough Whitlam

Will You Donate to Roy Ngerng/Han Hui Hui's Friend Ivan Koh?

Chua Siew Leng LAUGHS HAPPILY because Donors Contributed to Her Legal Fees

Looney Fringe Han Hui Hui Calls Lee Kuan Yew a Traitor, Dog and wishes him Dead!

Little India Riot Report: Heads Must Roll

Heartless Home United Sack Malay Player Just Before Hari Raya.

Joseph Schooling Singapore to Commonwealth Games Glory.

In Poor Taste - Looney Fringe Han Hui Hui Plans National Day Protest

Is the Singapore Police Force Proud of Lionel de Souza?

Roy Ngerng Wants to Earn $5k + a Month, and Wants YOU to Pay for it!

City Harvest Trial: Lots for the Defense to Chew on.

Only 1 Way to Prove that Tin Pei Ling has 'won over hearts and minds,' Mr PM.

Some Political Thrillers to Watch

When is Traffic Police Gonna Crack Down on Errant Cyclists?

Ugly Behaviour of Foreigners that Singaporeans Hate Part 1 - Caucasians.

Roy Ngerng Admits He's a Looney Fringe!

Suzuki Cup National Stadium Rip-off