Amos Yee Slapped on Way to Court ... STAGED!

Amos Yee struck on way to court ... Staged!

In the latest twist to the Amos Yee saga, it now appears that Amos was "assaulted" on his way to his pre-trial conference on 30 April 2015. Unconfirmed sources tell us that the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) had hired a "hit-man" to slap Amos to malign the Government and to win sympathy votes for Amos.

In a video spreading on social media, Amos Yee was seen walking to court alone when an unknown man, in a red t-shirt walked up to him and slapped him. For dramatic effect, Amos Yee is seen clutching his face for the camera.

From the video, it is clear that the slapping incident was staged. Firstly, it happened in an area where reporters were congregating to ensure that it was captured. If it was a real assault, it would realistically have happened in a more secluded area away from the cameras. Secondly, the video was perfectly positioned to capture the entire scene. The way it zoomed in and followed the path of the perpetrator was uncanny and could only have been achieved with pre-planning. Thirdly, the speed at which the alternate media uploaded the video and opposition members condemning it was unreal. Without forewarning, this would not have been possible.

In short, Singaporeans need to know the lengths at which opposition activists will act to mislead the public and malign the government.

---

Breaking News! Amos Yee has been remanded as his bailor, Vincent Law, has discharged himself. He told Straits Times that he was forced to do this as Amos is determined to challenge the court and government ala Roy Ngerng style.

Amos Yee Spends Night in Remand After Parents Decide Not to Bail Him Out

Teen blogger Amos Yee Spends Night in Remand

In a surprising move, welcomed by netizens, teenage wannabe dissident Amos Yee spent last night in remand (jail) after his own parents refused to bail him out.

Amos Yee is the Singapore 16 year old who was charged in court for posting a video with the intention of hurting the religious feelings of Christians and another video containing remarks about the late Mr lee Kuan Yew which offended people. Amos was previously granted police bail pending his court case on the explicit condition (which he accepted) not to post, upload or distribute anything related to the case.

On April 14, Amos Yee deliberately breached his bail conditions when he blogged and posted on Facebook, asking for public donations. While this cannot be confirmed, many netizens believe that Roy Ngerng and Leong Sze Hian are behind Amos Yee's last actions to challenge the Singapore judiciary. Undated pictures of Amos Yee and his mother meeting with Roy and Sze Hian have been circulating online and this comes in addition to news that Amos Yee had met with senior members of the Singapore Democratic Party days before his seditious video was posted. There are also pictures of Roy Ngerng standing in the shadows at Amos' pre-trial conferences.

In a move seen to demonstrate the severity of his offence and that he should not treat court orders lightly, the court has also ordered Amos Yee to report to his investigation officer at the Bedok Police Station at 9 am every day as part of his new bail conditions.

While Yee had agreed to the new conditions, his parents refused to bail him out. The prosecution then asked the Judge to vary the bail condition to allow a Singaporean other than Yee’s parents to post bail. But the Bail Office closed at 4:30 pm, the same time Yee’s closed-door meeting ended.

Is Amos Yee the new pawn of opposition activists? You be the judge ...

TRS Editor: Who is Robin Yang?

SG Leaks has some disturbing news about Robin Yang, one of the TRS editors charged with sedition.

Click SG Leaks for full story.

Singapore Sedition Act

Before you get fooled by the lies of people like Chee Soon Juan, here is an extract of Singapore's Sedition Act. In fact, it specifically states that speaking up against the Government or the Constitution is not sedition if it advocates doing it by lawful means ....

Sedition Act

Under the Sedition Act, section 3(1)(e), it is an offence to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore:

Seditious tendency

3.—(1) A seditious tendency is a tendency —

(a) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the Government;

(b) to excite the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore to attempt to procure in Singapore, the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of any matter as by law established;

(c) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Singapore;

(d) to raise discontent or disaffection amongst the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore;

(e) to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore.

The guilty person is liable, for a first offence, to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or to both. For a subsequent offence, he or she will be imprisoned for a term not exceeding 5 years.

However, according to section 3(2) of the Act, any act, speech, words, publication or other thing shall not be deemed to be seditious if it is:

- to show that the Government has been misled or mistaken in any of its measures;

- to point out errors or defects in the Government or the Constitution as by law established or in legislation or in the administration of justice with a view to the remedying of such errors or defects;

- to persuade the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore to attempt to procure by lawful means the alteration of any matter in Singapore; or

- to point out, with a view to their removal, any matters producing or having a tendency to produce feelings of ill-will and enmity between different races or classes of the population of Singapore,

- if such act, speech, words, publication or other thing has not otherwise in fact a seditious tendency.

TRS Editors Ai Takagi and Robin Yang Charged with Sedition Act

On 4 February 2015, www.therealsingapore.com (TRS) published an article they claimed was from a contributor that reported that during the Thaipusam festivities, an incident was sparked off by a Filipino complaining to police about noise.

Subsequently, the named contributor clarified on another site that the allegations that a Filipino family was involved were untrue. A police report was made and investigations were carried out.

Ai Takagi and Robin Yang Kai Heng were then identified to be the people jointly responsible for the creation, development and maintenance of content on TRS. As a result of their deliberate attempt to create animosity between Singaporeans and Filipinos and Indians, the two have been charged under the Sedition Act.

Further investigations by the Police revealed that TRS had also routinely published various other articles that have the tendency to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different classes of the population of Singapore.

In the course of investigations, Police identified that the motive for Takagi and Robin's actions was purely monetary. As TRS works on a traffic revenue advertising model, the higher the traffic, the higher their earnings. Takagi and Robin thus deliberately added xenophobic falsehoods, to sensationalize their articles, to make money. In this instance, they added the reference to Pinoy family to the contributor's article. Takagi and Yang Kai Heng do this regularly (i.e. fanning xenophobia), for the sole purpose of making money at the expense of Singaporeans.

As Takagi and Robin Yang's seditious remarks were made at the expense of Singapore’s collective social harmony, the Police had no choice but to take action. In fact, investigations showed that they were both overseas when they committed some of the offences and had taken steps to settle down in Australia. They thus had no stake in Singapore and were not concerned about the implications of their greed to Singaporeans.

With regards to claims that TRS is a news website and should thus be allowed to report "the news", Singaporeans must be clear that TRS is not a news website. TRS is a social website that re-angles mainstream media news with its own slant for the authors’ self-interest, ie. money. Legitimate news websites adhere to a code of conduct to be objective and factual, which was clearly lacking in TRS' case.

Singaporeans need to stand firm in our efforts to stop foreigners (with no stake or interest in Singapore) from destroying our future.

Roy Ngerng to Flee Singapore Reveals M Ravi

SINGAPORE. In a video published on 6 February 2015 on M Ravi's Facebook page, M Ravi tells Singaporeans that that Roy Ngerng Yi Ling has "siphoned money" from the public donations he has collected and "intents to leave Singapore" to seek asylum in Norway.

While SG General Elections 2016 has long suspected that Roy Ngerng has no intentions to abide by the court's judgement, this is the first time that we have proof of Roy's true intention. We place high credibility on M Ravi's statement that Roy Ngerng indeed plans to flee Singapore with the donations simply because M Ravi is a lawyer and he is well aware of the dangers of defamation. In addition, M Ravi has been a close support of Roy Ngerng and he is very likely to be in a position to know of Roy's game plan.

Singapore GE 2016, sincerely hopes that this credible revelation by M Ravi about Roy Ngerng will convince Roy's remaining supporters to abandon their support of Ngerng. SG General Election 2016 (and many other former supporters) have been asking Roy Ngerng to account for the money he has collected, but to date we have not received any replies.

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me." It is time for Singaporeans to stop being fooled by Roy Ngerng.

Demon-cratic Singapore Crosses the Line into Distasteful

In a recent post on the socio-political Facebook page of Demon-cratic Singapore, author Leslie Chew has crossed the line. In his post, Leslie Chew asks for the quick death of Singapore's founding father Mr Lee Kuan Yew and alluded to the fact that Singaporeans would celebrate it endlessly.

While I can understand Leslie Chew's hatred for Mr Lee, I think there is a limit. Beyond which, I think Leslie Chew himself is no better. I would like to ask Leslie Chew, if the tables were turned and people made similar remarks about his own father, how would he feel. In short, Leslie Chew has allowed his hatred, to be so all consuming that he has himself become an ugly and bitter person.

While Leslie's comics were entertaining when they first began, I believe that the comics have becoming nothing but vengeful rants. It is no wonder that Leslie Chew's comics no longer have the following they once had and that viewership is fast dwindling. In our opinion, Leslie's attack on Mr Lee Kuan Yew is nothing more than a desperate attempt to drive up readership for his inevitable appeal for donations.

Our advice to Leslie Chew is to go get a proper job. Perhaps by actually working, you will earn an income and not be so bitter about not having anything at all.

TOC Censors Negative Comments

In typical opposition fashion, where facts are distorted for the purpose of stirring anti-government sentiments, The Online Citizen has accused Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong for hiding negative comments on his Facebook page.

SG Bumiputera is once again curious why there is a double standard. When we were threatened with arrest and legal actions by NSP' Ravi Philemon, we tried to tell our story on The Online Citizen. We were however disappointed that we were blocked from posting anything on TOC's wall. The above screen shots (on the right) will prove our point.

In short, unless you are abiding by the same standards as you demand of others, you have no right to say anything.

SG Bumiputra Responds to Ravi Philemon's Threat to Sue Singapore Blogger

Dear Mr Ravi Philemon,

I refer to your Message of Demand on 18 Jan 2015, telling me to take down my blog post and Facebook entry as (in your opinion) it is defamatory. I also note that you have already made a police report and that you will take legal actions against me if I do not submit to your demands by 21 Jan 2015.

I thank you for your kind offer, but I have given the matter serious thought. I have come to the conclusion that any reasonable person will take you blog posting on 9 Jan 2015 titled "I am still Charlie" to mean that you support the absolute right to free speech even if it means insulting Islam and Muslims. In view that your blog posting was advocating the absolute right to free speech, I find it ironic that you are demanding that I not exercise the same right that you champion.

Therefore, after careful consideration, I have decided that I will not submit to your demands and will continue to leave my post online for all to see your hypocrisy and the double-standards of opposition members like yourself. Opposition members have long argued that the People's Action Party (PAP) use defamation suits to silence their critics. It is now obvious that Opposition Members like yourself also do the same.

Having said that, this is my counter proposal. If you can satisfactorily explain to me the difference between your actions and that of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's defamation suit against Roy Ngerng, I will take down my post. If you do not respond or, in my opinion, cannot satisfactorily explain the difference, the post will remain online.

For your information, I have also sent email and Facebook messages to the Secretary-General of the National Solidarity Party (NSP) Ms Jeanette Chong-Aruldoss seeking her views on the use of legal actions against perceived inaccuracies.

SG Bumiputera

Ravi Philemon Threatens Blogger with Arrest and Legal Actions

Ravi Philemon Threatens Singapore Blogger with Arrest and Legal Actions

 

In an interesting turn of events, free speech proponent Ravi Philemon has threatened SG Bumiputra with arrest and legal actions if we do not take down our blog post and Facebook entry, and publish an apology for making false allegations about him. It is indeed ironic that the post in question is about Ravi Philemon’s support for Charlie Hebdo which champions absolute free speech to the extent of insulting another’s faith and belief.

 

 

The #IamCharlie movement is not about freedom of expression. It is about whether this freedom is absolute or whether the exercise of this freedom comes with responsibility. By declaring your support for the #IamCharlie movement, one is saying that freedom of speech is absolute and does not come with responsibility. As the #IamCharlie movement was started in response to the attack on Charlie Hebdo as a result of a comic insulting the prophet  Mohammed, supporting the #IamCharlie movement is saying you agree with the rights to insult Islam and Muslims as it is free speech.

 

As we consider our decision with regards to Ravi Philemon’s threat of arrest and legal actions, we would like to ask Ravi Philemon (and opposition supporters in general) the following questions:

 

a.   how they reconcile their belief for absolute free speech when it affects others, and why the right to absolute free speech does not apply when it concerns them

 

b.   what are their thoughts on Mr Lee Hsien Loong’s defamation suit against Roy Ngerng in view that their own people also now take similar actions to correct perceived inaccuracies

SG Bumiputra

Ravi Philemon of the NSP - An Irresponsible and Dangerous Man

Ravi Philemon of Singapore's National Solidarity Party (NSP) is an irresponsible and dangerous Man. Ravi gained notoriety in July 2013, at the height of the Haze crisis, when he was called-out for rumor-mongering which caused unnecessary public anxiety.

 

 

Recently, in response to the attack on Charlie Hebdo, Ravi Philemon (a potential NSP GE candidate for 2016) posted his reflection (#IamStillCharlie) on the concept of freedom of speech. In his reflection, Ravi concluded that complete free speech is to be desired even if it offends others as having restrictions of any kind means that we do “go down the slope of censorship”.

Ravi Philemon is therefore saying that racism, bigotry and even malicious lying are to be condoned and encouraged. In Ravi’s opinion, the right to free speech is not conditionally on the need for the speaker to exercise responsibility.

According to Ravi Philemon, it is okay for Singaporean to insult Islam or Muslims simply because they are exercising their rights to free speech. In a multi-racial and religious country like Singapore, such an attitude is extremely dangerous.

 

What is therefore ironic is that Ravi Philemon was “outraged” by Anton Casey’s Facebook remarks over the stench of poor Singaporeans, and went so far as to post screen shots of Anton’s comments and a YouTube video.
 

So Mr Ravi Philemon, what exactly is your position on Free Speech? Does it only apply to you when you make false accusations about the Government? Or does free speech stop when it affects you? In a multi-racial and religious country like Singapore, are there no limits to free speech? At Singapore GE 2016, we believe you are an irresponsible and dangerous man.

The Real Singapore (TRS) Says that Neutral Singaporeans are Getting Tired of Anti-PAP Opinions

TRS reported on 4 Jan 2015 that NEUTRAL SINGAPOREANS ARE GETTING TIRED OF ANTI-PAP ARTICLES ...

Compared to a year ago, opinion pieces slamming the PAP government would easily garner hundreds of likes and Facebook shares. It would also be widely commented. While I do not have the luxury of creating a comparative spreadsheet, a simple bit of investigative work by any curious reader will prove my point. Why is this happening and what does it mean?

It appears that after some time, TRS readers have grown tired of reading the same sort of anti-PAP articles, and while popular opinion pieces by the likes of Leong Sze Hian and Roy Ngerng continue to garner relatively more attention, anti-PAP article viewership has fallen evenly across all segments. This is not to say that the pieces written today are worse off than before, in fact I would say that they might even be better, more informed, more articulate. It is only a case of human nature to slowly turn off to the same things day by day. However, it's noticeable that scandalous articles such as those about Jover Chew or corruption cases or city harvest will still continue to receive very high readership. This is something we all know and can understand why. Additionally to clarify, if readers think I'm a PAP supporter or have some agenda writing this, please understand I'm only making an observation. Back to the topic, what does this all mean?

First understand that voting is emotional. Prior to elections, political parties fight hard to win the hearts of the people. If Singaporeans are at this stage seemingly apathetic to anti-PAP articles compared to a year ago, this would mean a harder time for the opposition to gain support. Note that I'm not saying they won't get support, but it will be decreased to a certain degree. I also want readers to note something equally important. TRS articles are read and shared by many more, possibly even 100 times more, than the people who comment on those articles. People who comment on anti-PAP articles are largely supportive of the writer. What these two things mean is that while TRS viewership continues to command the support of die hard opposition fans/anti pap fans, the significantly larger number of swing voters are becoming increasingly indifferent.

At the end of the day, these swing voters, which could easily make up 30% of the voting population, are going to vote based on their heart. They may be aware of the good and the bad of the PAP, but few of them possess the analytical and technical know-how to really decide which party has better and viable policies and services to offer, not just the nice-sounding ones. What this means is that they will vote based on whatever captures their heart in the last 3-5 months leading to the elections, with stronger emphasis being on the last 2 weeks. If TRS readers are, in general, growing apathetic to anti-PAP articles, the influence that these articles have on swing voters hearts will be diminished. To bring up a simple example, if Election Day was held during the Roy Ngerng saga, I'm quite sure that the PAP would have lost more votes compared to if it was held today. Hype plays a large role. Add to that the fact that the PAP are coming up with all sort of nice things to appease voters. While we cannot say what the election outcome will be, all these factors will play a part, even if in a small way, to diminishing the number of opposition votes.

Make no mistake that it can be very easy to believe that anti-PAP sentiments are high, higher than before, by reading TRS and the hateful comments being posted. The fact is that most of these anti-PAP commenters are usually the same people. To name a few, Ken Lau, William Lee, Allan Tan, Haziq, Vto PAP, etc. I doubt there's more than 50 regular PAP flamers, perhaps not even more than 30. That's a very insignificant number in the voting population. Of course it's also true that there are anti-PAP readers who don't comment, and perhaps don't even visit this site regularly. But compared to the number of swing voters which could easily number 1-2 million, I don't think we should hastily conclude the PAP is losing support by what we read on TRS. Take the xiaxua vs gushcloud saga for example, those articles were blasted left right and centre and liked/shared tens of thousands of times, many times more what anti-PAP articles usually get, and I'm saying to simply to show you that there's a very huge reading population out there that our anti-PAP articles do not seem to have gotten in touch with or captured yet.

Many TRS articles, in my opinion, have lost credibility because they come across as one-sided ranting. A large number of people usually skip these articles, not because they are bad articles, but because they've already seen these kinds of articles before. They know its just going to be another article that badgers the PAP. Such articles used to be popular because of the notoriety and empathy it had. People who hated the PAP needed such articles to feel understood and validated. Not anymore. For TRS anti-PAP readership and support to improve, writings must begin to take on a non-biased value-adding format. This means articles can be written by people who argue that the PAP is a lousy government, but must show that they are impartial and even-handed in their reasoning. They cannot carry on to give all-con-no-pro type of writings.

Additionally, such articles must value-add to readers by telling them something they didn't know before. It cannot be purely opinionated. These two things will serve to bolster the credibility and meaningfulness of the articles and keep viewership and support strong. Lastly, the community here needs to be more respectful to one another. A large number of commenters here seems to be enemies with everyone. PAP supporter they shoot, anti-PAP supporter they also shoot(but not as often), people writing about their hardship they shoot, people writing neutral articles also they shoot. When a person complains about losing a job, instead of showing encouragement, they say he deserves it for voting the PAP. Even commenters shoot themselves. And by the word 'shoot', I mean ad hominem attacks like calling the person stupid, no guts, insulting his father/mother, vulgarities, calling them Paul Lampards, without actually respecting his views and opinions and disagreeing in a polite way. And also calling the writer a coward for not revealing his identity when he posts something(There are of course, a few exceptions where it is justified). All in all, the culture and atmosphere here needs to change to one that is positive, intellectual, understanding, and mature.

We all know that elections are coming soon. I encourage anyone, whether a PAP support or opposition supporter, to take things to the next level by doing what you can to make sure that your party wins. And also please share your thoughts about what I have written in a friendly way. Good luck.

A Concerned Citizen

The Real Singapore Facebook Misleads Singaporeans - Josephine Teo

The Real Singapore (TRS) Facebook misleads Singaporeans with their deliberately false and inflammatory headlines. In their battle to turn Singaporeans against the People's Action Party (PAP), the anti-Government Facebook page and website of TRS deliberately misquotes government officials in an obvious attempt to discredit them.

The Real Singapore Misquotes Ms Josephine Teo

This form of headline misinformation campaign is common in cyberspace as the huge deluge of information results in netizens only skimming the titles of each article. By only reading the headlines, a false perception of the Government is thus created in the minds of innocent Singaporeans.

While the TRS claims to be the Voices of Average Singaporeans, their constant and consistent misrepresentation of the truth alludes to their sinister motive. The team at Singapore General Election (GE) 2016 is concerned that innocent Singaporeans are being misled and will dedicate a series of posts (titled "How The Real Singapore Misleads Singaporeans") to counter the misinformation of TRS.

We hope that you will join us in fighting this misinformation campaign by sharing our links with your friends and relatives. Singapore GE 2016 will be a social media election and it is important that Singaporeans go to the polls armed with the truth. Our future and the future of our families will be determined at the polls and we cannot afford to allow the misguided (and malicious) actions of the minority jeopardize our lives.

Shutdown TRS: TRS threatened our defense repeatedly, now its readers follow

If the Singapore General Election (GE) 2011 was not a social media election, the upcoming GE 2016 will definitely be one. Sociopolitical blogs and anti-government websites have mushroomed and many are trying to influence Singaporeans with misinformation about the Government and its policies.

 

Singapore General Elections 2016 was alerted by one of readers to the following post ...

 

~~~~~~

 

A frequent reader of TRS, whose Facebook account is dedicated to commenting on TRS articles (this can be seen from his profile, which has no posts except for comments on TRS), blamed the unfortunate missing plane incident on the PAP, to set it as the pretext for his next statement.

 

He asked for ISIS to “bomb Parliament House”, all on the pretext of being anti-PAP.

TRS had been posting many articles threatening our defense, such as fabricating lies, even calling our fighter jets “junk”, and also drumming up support against the defense of Singapore.

Click here to read more of them threatening Singapore’s defense.

 

If this is not enough, here is another long list of their articles defaming Singapore. This list is backed up by evidence.

 

Despite these, something Singaporeans need to be aware of is that TRS earns USD$299.64 per day from their articles. (Link)

 

As if these are still not enough, TRS had tried to disrupt the peaceful and multi-religious Singapore, even resorting to create a fake account dedicated for this task. (Link)

 

To make things worse, 153k of their fans are not in Singapore (this figure is outdated and has now increased).

 

As if these are still not enough, here are even more reasons why Singaporeans should stand united against TRS, which include:

 

The fact that TRS buys fake likes, censor the truth, use handpicked sexual images, luring fake Singaporeans to condemn Singapore, stirring hatred, twisting news, deceive that their articles are submitted in, and many more.

 

(Click the image below for evidence)

Their agenda is unknown, but there is an urgent need to stop this page who has been deceiving more and more Singaporeans each day (and making more money).

 

~~~~~~

 

This article first appeared at Shutdown TRS.

PAP IB - Keeping the Opposition Honest

People's Action Party Internet Brigade (PAP IB)

 

~~~~

Today I was accused of being a PAP IB. I am not!!! Why is it that whenever someone speaks up for the Government, he or she must be paid for it? Just like how opposition supporters speak up for the opposition because they think they are right, I speak up for the PAP because I think the PAP is right. I have news for those that support the opposition, there are many like me who support the Government. I respect your right to express your view, so please respect my right to have my own.

Reader's Contribution

~~~~

 

For those that do not know, "PAP IB" is an acronym for People's Action Party Internet Brigade. According to opposition supporters, the IB was created by the ruling party to drown out online criticism of Government policies. While unconfirmed, it is widely believed that members of the IB are paid between $0.50 to $1.00 for every pro-government post they make online.

 

Opposition supporters criticize the existence of the IB as they claim that it prevents freedom of speech and that the IB spreads misinformation. What opposition supporters fail to realize is that it is them who are preventing freedom of speech and it is them who are spreading misinformation.

 

As we have said on this platform before, freedom of speech works both ways. You want your right to speak, but you must also respect the rights of other to speak too. The accusation and labeling that our reader received is one such tactic that anti-government supporters use. The first step is to label you an IB. The next step is to "out" you by posting your personal details online and the final step is to encourage other anti-government supporters to troll you online. Hence, anti-government supporters who claim that the IB suppresses freedom of speech just need to look at their own behavior.

 

 

As for spreading of misinformation, pro-opposition sites like The Real Singapore (TRS) and The Online Citizen (TOC) are champions at this. To drive traffic and undermine the Government, TRS and TOC routinely craft misleading headlines to inflame the public.  One only needs to look at past TRS post where they have had to made public retractions by affected parties angry enough to take legal actions against the site. Ironically, TRS claims that there is no freedom of speech in Singapore, and yet the Government allows them to operate in Singapore. 

 

While we have no proof that the PAP IB exist. But if they do, we believe that they are playing an important role in countering the malicious lies and misinformation that the opposition and opposition supporters spread.

A Campaign of Half-Truths by Andrew Loh, WP Lackey and Spinmeister

The town council issue is getting serious, with millions unaccounted for, and no clear answers for two years. The AHPETC’s own accountant, the Ministry of National Development (MND), and many residents have asked for answers.

 

The Aljunied Town Council has stayed silent.

 

Instead, they rely on lackeys and henchmen as PR agents and spin doctors. Through these proxies, the WP is conducting a campaign of half-truths, using what appears to be a rigorous research with graphs, figures and accounting analysis.  This is nothing but a systematic attempt to obscure the facts.

 

Their proxy-in-chief - Andrew Loh.

 

Look at his latest offering in The Online Citizen. He quotes Desmond Lee MOS of MND.

 

“Mr Lee, who had made the accusations twice in a week, also claimed that instead of responding to the questions, the WP had launched a “coordinated online campaign to distract the public, using falsehoods, half-truths, and speculations, by friends, sympathisers and proxies. However, Mr Lee did not name who these “friends, sympathisers and proxies” who were supposed to be behind this “online campaign.””.

 

Well, Mr Loh don’t know who Mr Lee thinks of as WP’s friends and sympathisers? But he must certainly figure as among its proxies, its chief lackeys.

 

Let’s see what he does.

 

First, he brings up false accusations that have already been answered by MND.

 

The intent is clear – to say that the difficulties that WP has in replying is due to “handover issues. This is plainly false – and has been shown to be false.

 

He writes:

 

‘Ms Sylvia Lim, the chairman of AHPETC, had said then that the party welcomed the Auditor’s inspection of its records.

 

In its Annual report of 2012/2013, the AHPETC noted several financial irregularities involving the Citizens’ Consultative Committee of the area, the former managing agent of the town council and the PAP-run Aljunied Town Council itself.

 

Its Annual Report said:

 

“Preparing the Financial Statements for FY2012/2013 continues to be a challenge. As stated in our previous Annual Report FY 2011/2012, there were several handover issues which required more time to resolve.

 

“There were receivables from the Citizens’ Consultative Committee which could not be verified. Even though the Town Council received $520,926 from the Citizens’ Consultative Committee in the current financial year, these receipts could not be identified and matched to the receivables.

 

“An amount of $110,735 due from the IRAS was in the accounts handed over from the previous managing agent but without supporting documents.

 

“An amount of $338,379 pertaining to “Accrual without work orders” was brought forward from Aljunied Town Council in August 2011 without details.

 

“Accordingly, the Auditors were unable to ascertain the validity of these amounts.”

 

The WP said it had had difficulty trying to obtain information from the various parties about this. In a statement in February, the WP said:

 

“Repeated attempts by the Town Council (TC) to obtain information from the former Managing Agent (MA) and government authorities, such as asking MND / the Housing and Development Board regarding $1.12 million which the PAP-run Aljunied TC had recorded as receivables from the Citizens Consultative Committees (CCCs) for Town Improvement Projects, did not yield answers. Further attempts in FY 2012 to get the information were also unsuccessful.”

 

The truth is that the MND had already replied AHPETC’S QUERIES, as it explained in a media statement:

 

AHPETC sought MND/HDB’s assistance for information on two occasions (2 Nov 12 and 20 Dec 12), on the payment status for some outstanding items in their records. This included the receivables from the Citizens Consultative Committees (CCCs) for Town Improvement Projects, as well as from HDB.

In both instances, MND/HDB provided the information available, on 27 Nov 12 and 21 Dec 12 respectively.

 

In turn, MND/HDB asked the TC to provide further details and/or copy of invoices, to enable MND/HDB to help check on the payment status. However, the TC did not respond to this.

 

Actually, MND/HDB had paid the TC some $2.9m for CIPC projects, $2.4m in FY11 and $520,000 in FY12.  As at end FY12, there was no more outstanding amount due to AHPETC from the CIPC.

 

Hence, we are puzzled by an outstanding receivable of $1.12m reflected in the TC’s FY12 financial statements.

 

SEE ST report on 20 Feb 14. Ministry refutes AHPETC's claim

 

THE Ministry of National Development (MND) yesterday refuted the Aljunied-Hougang–Punggol East Town Council's (AHPETC's) claim that it was unable to get data from government bodies for a particular item in its accounts.

 

At issue is a sum of $1.12 million, which the former Aljunied Town Council run by the People's Action Party had recorded as receivable from the Citizens' Consultative Committees (CCCs) for town improvement projects.

 

AHPETC's auditor said the town council had received about $521,000 from the CCC in the last financial year, but this could not be identified and matched to the $1.12 million receivable. AHPETCchairman Sylvia Lim referred to this last Friday as an example of a "information gap" arising from the handover of the town council to the Workers' Party in 2011.

 

But in response to queries, MND said AHPETC had twice in 2012 sought assistance for data on outstanding items in their records, including the amount receivable from the CCC. MND and HDB had provided the data available within 25 days in one case and a day in the other.

 

"In turn, MND/HDB asked the town council to provide further details and/or copy of invoices, to enableMND/HDB to help check on the payment status. However, (they) did not respond to this."

 

Yesterday, MND also disputed the $1.12 million figure. MND and HDB had paid AHPETC some $2.9 million for projects under the Community Improvement Projects Committee (CIPC) in the 2011 and 2012 financial years, it said. "As at end-FY12, there was no more outstanding amount due to AHPETC from the CIPC. Hence, we are puzzled by an outstanding receivable of $1.12m... in the FY12 financial statements."

 

It cannot be that TOC didn't know these accusations had in fact been answered. He must know that MND never stonewalled legitimate queries from AHPETC – MND had in fact, answered AHPETC’S queries promptly. It was AHPETC – because of its general incompetence – that persisted in clutching at straws to explain holes in its accounts. Although Mr Loh must know all this, he nevertheless SURFACES OLD DISCREDITED ALLEGATIONS in order to confuse and distract people. 

 

Second, this is his pattern of deceit. He dishonestly raises issues, mixes them up and ends off with the accusation that the Government is “fixing” the opposition.

 

Here is a record of Spinmeister Andrew Loh on the Campaign trail

 

Spinmeister	Source	Accusation	Truth	Source	Date
Andrew Loh	WP rebuts Desmond Lee’s accusations, says accounts open to AGO	Current problems is because of handover issue with ‘difficulties in handover’ back from 2012/2013	MND had provided the data to AHPETC back in 2012	Ministry refutes AHPETC's claim	22 Nov
Andrew Loh	Who decides on govt grants?	The power to approve and disburse grants to TCs lie in the hands of PAP CCCs and the PAP-dominated CIPC	This has nothing to do with CIPC grants. The S&CC operating grant is allocated to all Town Councils (TCs) based on the number of HDB flat units and the flat types. Smaller flat types get higher grants	Funding for town councils based on flat types, number of units: MND	18 Nov
Andrew Loh	Did Desmond Lee tell the whole story?	Did the previous PAP Aljunied Town Council leave $3.3m in surplus for AHPETC or transferred all of it into the sinking fund?   Other town councils also ran operating deficits, and received government grants to overcome the deficit	All town councils transfer ACCUMULATED SURPLUSES to the sinking funds AFTER GEs – OPPOSITION TCs & PAP TCs. BUT Aljunied is the only one who IS in OPERATING deficit now, despite receiving the same amount of grants it has always received.   Aljunied receives the same grants now as in the past. It has roughly the same number of residents. The only thing that has changed IS its expenditure and the way it manages its money	‘No Error’ in transfer of surpluses to AHPETC Sinking Fund: MND	18 Nov

 

Third, let’s have a look at what he doesn’t want you to see. The truth is:

 

1. WP is running its town council so badly that its figures have plummeted by $4 million in three years. Surplus $3.3 million in 2011, to minus $700,000 in 2013.

 

2. Two thirds of the residents there are involuntarily subsidizing those who won’t pay – arrears are now 29%.

 

3. WP has not submitted its accounts for 18 months – since May 2013.

 

Why is this happened? What is going on? Questions have been asked for two years, but instead of facing these questions head on, the WP has deployed an online brigade of shadow press secretaries.

 

So the facts are clear, but looking up all these facts need time. And Andrew Loh knows that people are short of time. So he tricks them with sleight of hand, telling half-truths with tables and figures. Rather than falling for these tricks, we should just do one thing – ask for answers from the WP straight. It’s time they stop hiding behind the skirts of their lackeys.