Roy Ngerng Admits He's a Looney Fringe!

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:

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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.   

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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.'

 

 

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.

 

 

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?

 

(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?

 

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

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:

 

 

 

 

 

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.