———————————

http://www.tremeritus.com/2012/02/22/letter-of-apology-to-pm-lee-hsien-loong/

 

February 22nd, 2012 | Author: Editorial

PRIME Minister Lee Hsien Loong yesterday sent a lawyer’s letter to the editors of the TR Emeritus (TRE) sociopolitical website, asking for a post alleging cronyism in the appointment of Madam Ho Ching as head of Temasek Holdings to be taken down.

Madam Ho is PM Lee’s wife.

He also asked for an apology to be posted on the website by Feb 24, and which must remain on the website for the same number of days as the offending post had been.

In addition, he also wanted the TRE editors to give a written confirmation by Feb 23 that they would comply, failing which he would start legal proceedings against them.

By 10pm last night, the post in question had been taken down.

Mr Richard Wan, the TRE editor to whom the letter was addressed, told The Straits Times last night that he was discussing the matter with other TRE editors, and they would issue a statement by ‘around lunch time’ today.

One of the editors, he added, is a lawyer who could provide advice on the next steps to take.

Mr Wan himself is a 49-year-old IT consultant who appeared at a public forum on Wednesday last week declaring himself as one of five editors of the website, which is known for views critical of the Government and the ruling party.

Mr Davinder Singh, the Drew & Napier lawyer acting for PM Lee, told The Straits Times yesterday that the letter had been served on Mr Wan in person at his house in Hillview estate.

In his letter, a copy of which he released to The Straits Times, he said that ‘as is publicly known’, the appointment of Madam Ho as head of Temasek in May 2002 was ‘on merit and through proper process’.

He detailed how it was Mr S. Dhanabalan, the chairman of the investment company’s board of directors, who first decided that Madam Ho was the right person for the job, and approached Mr Lee in August 2001 to broach the subject.

Mr Lee, who was then Deputy Prime Minister, was uncomfortable with the idea, as was then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong.

Mr Dhanabalan, however, still felt that Madam Ho was the most suitable person, and in November 2001, raised the subject again with Mr Lee, who again turned it down.

Mr Dhanabalan then came up with a modified proposal: He would reconstitute Temasek’s executive committee and chair it himself.

This way, Madam Ho would report to him directly, and not to the prime minister. She would be appointed as executive director instead of chief executive officer.

In his letter, Mr Singh also noted that Madam Ho’s appointment to the board of Temasek, which is a company listed in the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution, had to be approved by the President.

He also pointed to an interview that Mr Dhanabalan gave to the Agence France-Presse news agency in June 2002, in which he said that Madam Ho’s appointment had nothing to do with her family connections.

Likewise, Mr Goh told Business Week news magazine later that month that Madam Ho was appointed because of her record and performance.

Mr Singh’s letter also requested the TRE editors to provide the identity and contact particulars of ‘Matthew Chua’, the person who contributed the post in question.

Mr Wan told The Straits Times that Mr Chua was an occasional contributor to TRE whose articles had been published on the website before, but he did not know him personally.

The TRE editors would, however, be able to reach him by e-mail.

This is the second time in five days that legal action is being threatened for comments posted on websites.

On Tuesday last week, Law and Foreign Minister K. Shanmugam got lawyers from Allen & Gledhill to send such a letter to blogger Alex Au, asking him to remove from his blog allegedly defamatory comments about him.

Mr Au did so the same evening. E

right after GE11, when he, as the East Coast GRC team leader was being side stepped by Low Thia Khiang when his team was entitled to a NCMP position.  That post was instead handed to Gerald Giam who joined WP only in 2009 comparing to Eric Tan, who had helped WP to build the East Coast GRC since 2005.

“I am disappointed that Low (Thia Khiang) and part of the CEC have decided to go against the people’s wishes, citing party renewal as their reason.

“I too, also believe in the renewal of the party but in an orderly manner, with succession plans.

“But not like this, dropped like a bomb.”

YAW SHIN LEONG

Fast forward nine months, Yaw Shin Leong, Low Thia Khiang’s  protégé, was being EXPELLED.   (Expel – “kick out”, “throw out” )

Reason? YSL  failed to answer to allegations. Allegations which even LTK himself has considered as just rumours.

For the past three weeks since the allegations against YSL having extramarital affair surfaced, LTK and WP  have been seen all the way behind YSL, all singing the same tune –  ’no comments’ .

26 Jan 2012 – YSL – I do not wish to comment on rumour.
28 Jan 2012 – LTK – “You said yourself these are rumours, why are you still asking me?”
28 Jan 2012 – Five other WP parliamentarians contacted either did not respond or said “no comment”

             7 Feb 2012 – YSL resigned as treasurer of the CEC.  No reason  was given.

            When asked about the surprised move:-

            9 Feb 2012 – YSL – “I have nothing to add”
            9 Feb 2012 – LTK – “I have nothing else to add”
            9 Feb 2012 – Sylvia Lim – “We do not have anything to add”

            12 Feb 2012 – WP team – including YSL & LTK,  appeared happily at a CNY celebration. 

Just when it seemed that WP was indeed one for all and all for one, on 15 Feb 2012,  a bombshell was dropped (yes, just like Eric Tan said “dropped like a bomb”) – Yaw Shin Leong was expelled !

Being expelled is a serious case. Just like what LTK said, this is probably the first in WP. So, should not then a matter of such magnitude be granted at least a proper investigation?   Base on the press conference, YSL has not attended their internal meetings.  He was not advised as to how to handle the matter because “he is an adult”.  That’s it?

What puzzles me most is, for a pair whom everyone knows are of such close relationship liken to mentor-disciple or even father and son, LTK could just brushed it off during the press conference that theirs was solely a business relationship?? There was not even a tinge of knowledge to each other’s personal lives??  I had previously worked with a boss for a decade and ours was also a professional relationship, yet, we knew what was going on in each other’s life, no need for details, but yes, we know simply because we care.

Did YSL have no respect at all for his mentor of 10 years to at least fill him in on the truth?  Did LTK have no concerns at all for his protégé , to do all he can to find out the truth and to help him at least professionally?

And how it must have hurt to hear your mentor trying his best to alienate himself from you just because you are now considered a liability.

YSL joined WP June 2001  and has been holding various CEC positions since then.   He has helped LTK through all his past elections since he joined WP.  In GE11, he even surpassed LTK’s  GE06 percentage vote in Hougang, which he credited his victory to his mentor LTK.

The least, as a mentor, probably LTK / WP could have just announced that YSL has  resigned?

But they chose to expel. Why?  Does it not matter that someone  who has contributed so much to the party, to at least  ‘save him some face’ and perhaps his future career ?  Or is it more important to save the name of the party?

I agree that that YSL is indeed very irresponsibile on his part especially now that he just ‘vanish’ to another country. But if the leader could have helped to handle the matter in a more appropriate manner, could this have been avoided?

HOUGANG RESIDENTS

1)    GE2011, LTK, abandoned Hougang supporters after 20 years, to contest in Aljunied GRC. And when WP won Aljunied, almost all resources have to be channelled to Aljunied and  ”the entire HGCC is made up of very very new and inexperienced activitists”

2)    Hougang’s MP YSL went missing for a week after the allegations flew, yet LTK made no effort to address the residents.

3)    Then their MP was sacked without any warning. The one whom LTK had highly recommended and they have voted for.

In the past three weeks, at no point in time did LTK, the chief, even gave any slight indication that they will conduct an investigation into the allegation, leaving residents hanging to make wild guesses.

LTK is the party leader.  He is responsible for all in his party. If he thinks that his member has not been responsible, then he, as the leader, has to be out there assuring the residents.

Instead, he continued to give residents the impression that everything is okay.

When YSL resigned from the party leadership on 7 Feb, WP’s statement then was

            “The Workers’ Party assures residents of Hougang of the Party’s commitment to the constituency and to supporting the work of their Member of Parliament”

12 Feb 2012 - CNY celebration

The CNY celebration on 12 Feb went a step further to show that everything has been taken care of. Who would have thought that LTK / WP pulled a sudden U-turn three days later?

Now, Hougang is left without a MP and Low Thia Khiang has pushed the blame not only on YSL but is also pushing the responsibility back to our PM Lee

“Perhaps the PM should look at the sentiment (on the ground) and not drag too long for the by-election if he has a national agenda and wants to move on.”

So who are the above to Low Thia Khiang?

Nothing more than pawns for his personal political advancement?

It was the result of an analogy that MG Chan had used which had unfortunately earned him labels such as ”arrogant”, “elitist”.

Chan Chun Sing - by ST Alphonsus Chern

On 15 Jan 2012, during a dialogue session at Jurong Spring Community Club, MG Chan was asked about his views on the ministerial pay cut.

reported channel news asia :-

“ He said: “I don’t think anyone of them comes here for the money. They come here to provide a better life for the next generation… One of the reasons why I stepped forward was because I know I’m joining a team of people that are not here for the money.”
 He added that the key is to find the right balance.

He said: “Money should not be the one (factor) to attract them in. On the other hand, money should also not be the bugbear to deter them.

“(For example,) you go to Peach Garden, you eat the S$10 XO Sauce chye tow kuay (fried carrot cake), you can be quite happy right? Because you are satisfied with the service and so on. On the other hand, you can go to a hawker centre, even if they charge you S$1.50, you might not want to eat it if the quality is not good.”

Perhaps the above may not be the most apt of analogies and it may have given people the impression that MG Chan is arrogant.

But how is MG Chan really like?  At ‘The Young Guns Forum’ on 26 Jan 2012, MP Vikram Nair’s had pretty summed it up.

“...it was actually at the Sembawang GRC rally……it was pouring heavily and there were all these chairs set out on the podium and we saw this one chap stacking up all the chairs, at that point we didn’t know who it was……..later when we saw him coming in from the rain, that’s when we realised it was MG Chan…”

To understand MG Chan a tad better,  below is a little peep into his background.

MG Chan’s display of gratitude towards his mother for his success is admirable.  And the fact that he could be so forthcoming in letting it be made known of his humble family background,  kinda provide an insight into the kind of person MG Chan is. – one that is down to earth and far from being arrogant.

Last Friday, 20 Jan 2012, Temasek Review reported the rumour on its site.  Of course, TR for what it is, should never be taken seriously, not even a teeny weeny bit.

But two days ago, 26 Jan, The New Paper, carried an article about the said rumour.  It seems that TNP had in fact got wind of the rumour even before the story surfaced online.  TNP reporters had gone to a greater length to seek clarifications from Yaw at his MPS last Wednesday.   His Mrs, the alleged mistress as well as WP chief Low Thia Khiang were also approached but  “No Comment” was the best all could do.

The politician’s morals are now being questioned and naturally, there are unhappiness among some people especially those who had voted him in to represent them.  Women voters may be particularly upset for after all, they probably hold you as a role model for their husbands or boyfriends.

What seemed to be a private affair is now no longer just private for apparently, it has affected Yaw’s job as a MP, well at least till now.

Yaw cancelled his last MPS with just a notice taped on the wall of the void deck where the MPS is held, with no reason given.

The Straits Times has been unable to reach Yaw by phone or email since Wednesday.  ST paid a visit to his home on Thursday but no one answered the door.  Neighbours interviewed did not see the couple that day too.

Yesterday, ST ‘s visit to the Hougang office of the Hougang-Aljunied Town Council was to no avail.  Staff at the office said that Yaw had been absent since Wednesday.

Now, it is probably debatable whether it is a big deal or not a politician has extramarital affair. However, the MP is responsible for his/her residents and by going absent with no word at all is plain irresponsible. That, to me, is completely unacceptable.

21 January 2012 – Gerald Giam(WP NCMP)

clarified his understanding of MX9. In an email reply to the Straits Times dated 21 Jan 2012, Gerald wrote:

1) quote ST: – ‘We were also aware that MX9 grade salaries are linked to market conditions in the private sector“

This is really funny. Because it seems that less than a week ago during parliamentary sitting, they were totally ignorant of that fact.

16 January 2012 – Parliamentary Sitting:

Chen Show Mao (WP MP-Aljunied GRC):

“Because political service is in the genre of public service, we propose a whole-of-government, people-up approach that benchmarks Ministerial salary to MP allowance, which is in turn pegged to the pay of the civil service bench-marked to general wage levels“

The Cabinet is the constitutional extension of Parliament and the institutional expression of the legislature’s control over the executive. It is not an extension of the private sector“

18 January 2012 – Parliamentary Sitting

Gerald Giam -

“ Thank you for explaining the formula for MX9 formula. That is not something that we have privy to, the exact formula for MX9. But..so I’ve no choice but to accept that DPM has proposed, that DPM has revealed in this House regarding what the MX9 is pegged to... we are under the understanding that it was more in line with general wage level..”

So, you see, during the two sittings, WP had shown that they were NOT AWARE that MX9 is being pegged to the private sector even though this piece of information is publicly available (www.careers.gov.sg).

Yet, when being caught with  their pants down for basing their proposal on something that they had faint idea about, presenting it in Parliament, Gerald ’clarified’  that they actually are aware that MX9 is being pegged to private sector.

Is that the kind of respect that WP has for Parliament – “the highest authority in our system of government” as stated by Mr Chen himself?  Is that what voters have voted them in for their so call “First World Parliament”?    What does WP treat Singaporeans as? Blockheads?

2) quote ST “He (Gerald Giam) said the salary of an MX9 officer, estimated to be $11,000 a month, is about the same as the income of a household at the 80th percentile.“

C’mon Gerald, which part of the word ‘household’ do you not undersstand? Income per household is DIFFERENT from income per person.

As Lawrence Wong (MP West Coast GRC, MOS Defence & Education) pointed out in his FB page:-

‘The median income of Singaporeans in full-time employment, at $2,588 (in 2010), is an easily-available published figure.  The Report on Labour Force in Singapore, 2010 also includes data that showed that around 94% of the resident labour force (including both Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents), earned less than $10,000 a month

In his clarification, Mr Giam also says that the individual “salary of an MX9 officer, is about the same as the income of a household at the 80th percentile”. This is not a like-for-like comparison.  Mr Giam is comparing the income of a single working individual with the combined income of all working members in a household.  But a household can have more than one person working. Mr Giam does not need any unpublished information to know that he was comparing apples with oranges. “

So, there, we have it. WP – the Wriggling Party that does not hesitate to twist and turn facts just so to suit their personal interest.   

Can we rely on them to ensure that our consitutency is being run well with complete sincerity and integrity, let alone entrusting our nation to them?

——————————-

reference:
- http://www.facebook.com/LawrenceWongST?ref=ts#!/LawrenceWongST
- Ministry of Manpower and Department of Statistics, ”Occasional Paper: Singaporeans in the Workforce”, October 2011. (http://www.mom.gov.sg/Publications/mrsd_singaporeans_in_the_workforce.pdf)
-  Ministry of Manpower, “Report on Labour Force in Singapore, 2010”, January 2011. http://www.mom.gov.sg/Documents/statistics-publications/manpower-supply/report-labour-2010/mrsd_2010LabourForce.pdf

Now, after watching the above, I am now wondering if it was a  ”Wriggling Party” that had been voted in.

Oh,  just in case you are wondering… ”hand on my heart“ was first used by Mr Gerald Giam’s colleague – Mr Pritam Singh on the Parliamentary Sitting on 20 October 2011.

1)  WP said that political service is a public service and thus salary should be pegged to the public service NOT the private sector.

—- They are right. MX9 is a civil service grade. BUT all civil service’s pay ARE being pegged to the private sector which simply means that ultimately, minister’s pay IS pegged to the private sector. 

Did this piece of information only surface in the House, as per Gerald Giam?

NO.

A bit of googling is all we need:

www.careers.gov.sg

Is Workers’ Party really ignorant of the above fact?  Did Mr Low Thia Khiang. a political veteran or even Ms Sylvia Lim, an ex lecturer in a  Polytechnic, not aware of that?

2) Basing on WP’s proposal, MP’s allowance pegged to MX9 will be about $11,000/month, which as they claim, “more representative of the Majority of Singaporeans, more in line with the general wage levels”

Hmmm…I do not know about you, but in my entire working life, I have yet to see that kind of income, not even half close.

And if $11,000 is “general wage level”, how does  $13,750/month as proposed by Gerard Ee’s committee’s  be considered as ‘elite’ then?  

In short, Workers’ Party’s proposal is as smilar to that of

Cheetah? Leopard?

Mr Ee’s Committee’s proposal, as a cheetah is to a leopard.  The major difference ? The name itself.

“This conversation is very telling,……the honourable member has based an entire system on Mx9, make a big song and dance about….without understanding what it is, making assumptions…..

 

It reveals the thoroughness in which certain members are approaching, making policies which would have an impact on Singapore.”

This posting consist of 2 incorrect points.

1) The pension component for office holders has NEVER been changed to CPF.    It was only in the Ministerial Salary Review 2011/12, that it was proposed to be removed.

Did Dr Tan not know that?   A search through Hansard, found debates on the topic of pension.

One such sitting – 15 June 2004 (when Dr Tan was still in Parliament)

[Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance what is the justification for keeping Ministers on the pension scheme when all other public and civil servants have been converted to the Central Provident Fund scheme]

Having been a MP for 26 years, it really ‘surprises’ me that Dr Tan can be

“under the impression that Ministers did not get any Pension because all office holders were required to switch from pension to CPF in 1998″

2) Referring to the ST article dated 5 Jan 2012 (below) ,  Dr Tan mentioned

“Imagine my surprise when I read in the newspaper (5 Jan 2012) that in 2008, 2 years after I left parliament, the Pension component was re-introduced...”

quote from the article :

“Revisions in January 2008 to bring salaries (including pensions) to 77% of 2007 benchmark.”

Above simply means that pensions were included in the benchmark in 2008 which previously was not.  It did not say that “pension was re-introduced’

One would wonder how could Dr Tan, with his long political standing , can made such mistakes regarding pension ?

The last two sentences of his post may shed some light:

“Singaporeans want more transparency.  To be transparent, an annual report of ministerial salaries must be published“

Sounds familiar? That’s because it was similar to what he said during the PE11 campaign. Then Dr Tan said:

“I will have to give you an annual report, I will give you an annual statement…”

True enough, 16 Jan 2012, four days after he made above posting, Dr Tan, indicated at a function that he may contest in the next PE.

He literally sang it out loud

“If you ever change your mind, come back to me in 2016, I will be back to fight again, please understand “

So, there, we have it. Dr Tan has plans to try his luck again in the next PE.

You see, in order to be seen as fighting for transparency for the people, there must first be an impression that there is none to begin with.  Was that what Dr Tan was trying to achieve?  To create that ‘opaqueness’ about our Government?

And he could then step in and be the ‘Hero’ ?

From the various comments on his wall, it does seem to have achieve its results.

Of course, one might say that perhaps it was a genuine mistake on Dr Tan’s posting.

Well, It has been six days since his posting was up and Dr Tan has yet to answer or made any clarification to the questions posted by netizens, as to why he posted what he posted when he should have known fully well about the pension scheme.

After all, Dr Tan is probably still enjoying his own pension for being an elected MP before 1995. Or did he collect it in one lump sum and conveniently forget about it?

Lastly I would like to leave you with this wise quote from Dr Tan Cheng Bock himself

“. So my past will be my reference.   What I did will give you a gauge of what sort of person I am“

Yes, I now have a gauge of what sort of person you are, Dr Tan.

That sort of person who, in my humble opinion,  is not fit to be the President of Singapore.

Low Thia Khiang - WP

YES – 2007, November -  Low Thia Khiang @ WP’s 50th anniversary function

[THE Workers’ Party (WP) aims to achieve a breakthrough in Singapore politics by winning a GRC in the next General Election, said its leader Low Thia Khiang last night.

The task is ‘a must’, said the Hougang MP, if Singaporeans want its parliamentary democracy to function properly.

‘In my view, as long as the opposition is unable to secure a breakthrough in a GRC, the opposition remains a marginal player and at risk of extinction one day,’ he told about 700 people at a dinner to celebrate the WP’s 50th anniversary.

‘Any talk of checks and balances and alternative government would be just talk, let alone the dream of seeing an opposition party winning an election and taking over the government like in mature Western democracies.’

Come WP’s 70th anniversary, he reckons it will be ready finally to match the quality of the People’s Action Party (PAP) and have a good go at forming Singapore’s government]

** hmmm..that will mean 2007 + 20 years = 2027 (about 3 more GEs from now)

Sylvia Lim - WP

YES –  2011, March 23 – at a NUS political forum, Sylvia Lim

[Ms Sylvia Lim, chairman of the Workers' Party, said: "If you want us to take over the government now, this is not the time. But it doesn't mean we are not building up towards that day."

"We've got some momentum going so hopefully (the process is) not too long from now," she added.

NO - 2011, APRIL 24, Sylvia Lim
(note:  this was JUST BEFORE GE11 on May 7 2011)

[We are pro-Singapore and are not trying to take over the Government.  That was the Workers’ Party’s (WP) latest reply to the People’s Action Party’s (PAP) claim that the WP was trying to take over the Government.]

Pritam Singh - WP

YES – 2011, July 8, Pritam Singh @ IPS FORUM
(note: this was 2 months AFTER GE11, AFTER winning 6 seats)

Mr Singh said during the forum (see CNA)

["The Workers' Party (WP) is working towards forming the government,"]

NO – 2011, July 10, “Pritam Singh retracts coalition suggestion”.

[ Asked by The Sunday Times if the WP aims to be a member of a coalition government one day, Mr Pritam Singh, one of the five MPs in Aljunied GRC and a member of the party's central executive committee since last month, replied :

"No, that's not our aims....The party has never discussed the idea of coalition at all."]

So, does WP plan to take over Government or not? Are they contented with just being the ‘co-driver’? or is it in their plan to hijack the car and take over the driver’s seat?

Why the flip flop?   Perhaps they are trying to appeal to both sides of the electorates – those who would like a new Government AND those who still prefer the incumbent BUT just want an ‘alternative voice’.  The true reason? Only they will know.

In any case, with their twist and turn, it shows that their sincerity towards the electorates are seriously in doubt.  

Mr Low always says “Let the voters decide.” Well, in that case, please come clean and display your true agenda so that voters will know what they are truly voting for.

Oh, by the way, when asked why he decided to contest a GRC in GE11, Mr Low replied 

“…. because in the last election, after the party has won 44 per cent of votes in Aljunied, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew challenged him to move out of Hougang SMC. “

Yes, it is all about personal political ambitions.    Are they doing all for the good of the nation, for the people as they always claim?

Well, Pritam Singh did say recently – ” The duty of looking after the poor and needy belongs to the Government, not the responsibility of the MPs.” In other words, please do not expect your WP MPs to help when in need. It is not their job.

Now, I shall leave you with their victory celebration cake for GE11.  As they say, a picture tells a thousand words.

Wow! Hammers all over Singapore !

And some wise words from Mr Lee Kuan Yew : -

 “There is nothing to forbid anybody from nailing his colours to the mast, and indeed it is the safest way to do it. Nail your colours to the mast, defend it and say,”This is my flag, this is what I believe in. I believe in open debate, arguments, persuasion, I hope to win by votes.” But start manipulating innocent professional groups, cultural groups and make them support political causes, whether its freedom of the foreign press or whatever, then I say you are looking for unpleasant linkages with what has happened in the past.” – Lee Kuan Yew, 1990 National Day Rally

reference:

- http://www.asiaviews.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=23174:reportalias4349&catid=2:regional-news-a-special-reports&Itemid=9