TR EMERITUS

"Why don't you just give up and move on with your life?" The above question and/or advise was posted to a fellow Singaporean lady Ms Ten Leu Jiun Jeanne-Marie, who is embroiled in a 12-year legal battle with the National University of Singapore (NUS). According to Ms Ten, NUS had allegedly tried to silence her when she exposed that her then MA programme supervisor, a Dr Wong Yunn Chii had stolen her thesis, passing it off as his own and had managed to secure a research grant of about $80,000 from the Ministry of Education. (Details) Instead of handling the complaint in a fair and transparent manner, NUS had allegedly tried to silence her and even threatened to deny her MA if she does not 'shut up' (for the lack of a better word). Ms Ten refused to be cowed, which resulted in her not being able to receive her MA. Ms Ten then sued NUS in 2012, kicking off a legal battle that spans over a decade. During the course of the battle, many have advised Ms Ten to "forget it" and "carry on with your life", but she has persisted, vowing to exhaust all avenues possible. Why so stubborn knowing that she is going against an entity that has unlimited resources at its disposal? The question was posted to Ms Ten and the following is her reply, in her own words. I hear this as a question and as advice often enough. There are several reasons why I have not given up. The bottom line is that I hate bullying and will speak up even if I am not the victim. Bullies are emboldened to more bullying when they are successful in bullying their way through. We must collectively put a stop to bullying behaviour by not cowering before bullies and not giving in to them. Specifically, pertaining to this legal battle, I cannot give up and “move on with my life,” because NUS is now in the process of bankrupting me. The Court has temporarily put the bankruptcy proceedings “on hold” pending the outcome of my current legal battle with NUS. However, even if the threat of bankruptcy was not hanging over my head like the proverbial “Sword of Damocles,” I believe that I must never give up, because this is a matter of principle, and a matter of justice, not only for me, but for all Singaporeans, both the Singaporeans who are alive today, and generations of Singaporeans yet unborn. What is at stake in my case, is nothing less than the question of what type of country Singapore is going to become in the future. Will Singapore give up on the rule of law? Will Singapore become the type of country were “elites” such as the perjurer Lily Kong, are apparently “above the law” and can get away with committing crimes with total impunity? Will Singapore become the type of country where any ordinary Singaporean (like me) who dares to stand up against abuse of power, will face retaliation at the hands of dishonest “elites” such as the perjurer Lily Kong and her accomplices at NUS? If Singaporeans fail to stand up to this injustice and abuse of power now, then we should not be surprised if Singapore soon declines into a corrupt, Third World “banana republic”! Indeed, this is consistent with what Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong warned the nation about, in his big speech about perjury that Mr Lee delivered in Parliament on 15 February 2022 (LINK). If the “elite” Lily Kong can retaliate against a whistleblower and get away scot-free, then every “#MeToo” survivor in Singapore today, and whistleblower of any kind, who stands up to any “elite” in Singapore, can expect to be subjected to intimidation and retaliation, while the “elite” will expect to get away scot-free, just like Lily Kong is now getting away scot-free, as though she is “above the law” in Singapore. Moreover, justice itself is the victim of Lily Kong’s perjury. The late Singapore Chief Justice Yong Pung How stated, in His Honour’s written judgment in the case of Rahman Pachan Pillai Prasana v PP [2003] SGHC 52 at paragraph [19]: “In a sense, the true victim of the offence of perjury is not an individual, but the course of justice itself. Judicial proceedings require all evidence to be as truthful as possible: the proper administration of justice is thwarted by false evidence whether or not such evidence leads to unfair gains or losses to an individual.” (Emphasis added.) (With all due respect to the late Chief Justice Yong Pung How, I am as much the victim of Lily Kong’s perjury as “the course of justice.”) In the same paragraph, Chief Justice Yong Pung How went on to quote Russell L.J.: “sometimes the perjurer lies to save his own skin … Sometimes in civil proceedings … the effect of perjury is to cause financial loss to others … it must [however] always be remembered in cases of this kind one victim of perjury. That victim is the course of justice and its proper administration. Justice inevitably suffers whatever the motive for the perjury and in what circumstances it is committed … it is because of that inevitable feature of the offence that a conviction for perjury must always be visited, save in the most exceptional circumstances that do not prevail here, with an immediate custodial sentence” (emphasis added). (A “custodial sentence” is a sentence of imprisonment.) These statements by the late Singapore Chief Justice Yong Pung How and Russell L.J. (quoted above) certainly apply to the perjury committed by Lily Kong when she repeatedly lied to the Supreme Court under oath in 2017. For all of these reasons discussed above, all honest Singapore citizens have an interest in bringing the perjurer Lily Kong to justice, and stopping her from continuing to get away scot-free, as though she is “above the law” in Singapore. One way that anyone can help to bring Lily Kong to justice, is simply to “spread the word” about this case on as many social media platforms as possible, by posting and sharing. Those supporters who are a bit more courageous could post messages to Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong on his Facebook page, as I have done. These messages could ask the Prime Minister why the deeply dishonest perjurer Lily Kong is still holding high public office as the President of Singapore Management University (or “SMU”) and as a Member of Singapore’s Public Service Commission (or “PSC”) and as a Justice of the Peace (or “JP”). Ms Ten's legal battle with NUS is now at the final stage, pending an appeal to the Court of Appeal. However, the lawyers for NUS are trying to stop her from doing that by demanding that she furnish a security deposit of $20,000 (which NUS has refused to waive). As Ms Ten has already spent over $100,000 of her own money in legal fees, she is no longer in a position to make good on the security deposit demanded by NUS, thus she is appealing for public assistance. Security for Costs: $20,000 Filing of Notice of Appeal: $1,000 Filing of Appellant’s Case: $3,000 Filing of Core Bundle (estimated): $2,000 Ms Ten has until 29th Nov 2022 to file her appeal and furnish the security deposit or she will be officially 'shut up' for good. Please assist and help out a fellow Singaporean if you are able: POSB account: 120-792642-3 PayNow or PayLah!: 93884036 PayPal: [email protected] * TRE understand that Lily Kong is now the president of SMU and Dr Wong Yunn Chii has been promoted several times and is now an Honorary Fellow at NUS. ** Ms Ten has been representing herself in courts during the latter half of the trial as she is no longer able to afford the high legal fees sought by lawyers she has approached. No lawyer has offered to take her case on a pro bono basis. NUS is represented by Drew and Napier.        Read More →

To keep a BTO flat (new public housing flat) “affordable”, the government takes the resale price of public housing flats in its vicinity as a benchmark, and then apply a subsidy. In so doing, BTO prices are pegged to “fair market price”, albeit at a discount. However, in addition to market forces, property prices in Singapore, including that of public housing, is significantly affected by government policies, rather than the usual factors like economic growth and interest rate - a peculiarly Singapore trait. In 1981, the government announced that mandatory personal retirement savings called Central Provident Fund (CPF), which till then, could only be used for purchasing HDB flats (public housing), could be used for purchasing private property. Almost immediately, private property prices shot up, and that policy continue to support prices, to the delight of property developers and their associates. In 1989, a slew of new policies were announced: the income ceiling for the purchase of HDB resale flats would be removed, Permanent Residents (PRs) would be allowed to use their CPF savings to purchase HDB resale flats, private property owners would be allowed to use their CPF savings to purchase HDB resale flats for owner-occupancy and people who had bought HDB resale flats would be allowed to use their CPF savings to purchase private property for investment purposes. Almost immediately, prices of HDB resale flats shot up, and within 7 to 8 years, more than doubled. While the liberalization of the purchase of HDB resale flats did not lead to a substantial increase in private property prices initially, it nonetheless, had a significant positive effect on prices in subsequent years, and indeed formed a solid support for private property prices. According to the Straits Times of 8 October 1998, the 13 major developers made a combined net profit of $6.2B in the eight years following the liberalization, despite paying $7.6B for land. The Singapore government has also long used foreign liquidity to regulate property prices by loosening or tightening rules on foreign investment. Even though foreigners are not allowed to purchase HDB flats, private property prices have a ripple effect on the public housing market. So, while the government takes the price of resale HDB flats as the benchmark when pricing BTO flats, since it is “fair market price”, it is not entirely set by market forces - rather, government policies have a significant impact on it. For example, if the government were to suddenly announce restrictions on PRs buying HDB resale flats with their CPF, the price may well crash. But having implemented the rule, the price is supported at a higher level and seemingly a “fair market price”, but in fact, is created by the government. Thus, taking the high price of resale HDB flats as the benchmark, which to a large extent is manipulated, the government sets a high price for BTO flats, which comes back to affect the resale price in a self-sustaining loop that keep prices at a lofty level, supporting the prices of not only private property but also state land. The property game is closely watched by property developers, banks and big investors as it affects their profits. If the “virtuous” cycle of high prices becomes unfavorable, there are many policies that they can influence the government, which oftentimes, is on the same boat, to apply. It would be naive to assume otherwise. Thus the so-called “asset enhancement” of public housing is a sick joke. It is predicated on the government inflating prices on ever more inflationary policies that benefits the corporate sector but oppresses the people, especially the younger generation. As it is, many of them will have to spend the rest of their most productive working lives paying off their housing loans. Even worse, the policy, while it was good for securing votes as many owners saw their wealth increasing as prices started from a low base, is nonetheless, reckless because the wealth is but paper wealth and the upward momentum can’t go on perpetually. What will happen when the government has run out of levers to boost prices? Or if they won’t work anymore? For example, if the people is fed up because their salaries have not kept pace with inflation and rising HDB prices and punishes the PAP at the polls, which then placates them by lowering BTO prices to try to stay in power, and investors, both local and foreign, sensing that the government is succumbing to the wishes of the people and thus a downward property cycle is likely and exit the market, first in drips, then in droves, and later, despite the government loosening the rules for property purchase, can’t stop the downward spiral, will the bubble then collapse? If it does, many people will be sitting on negative property and the economy will be deflationary for years, even decades, not unlike the lost decade of Japan, only that it will be worse since Singapore is a “property state” and a disproportionate chunk of the economy is based on real estate. This is thus the fundamental contradiction of “asset enhancement” that we have blindly walked into - we have to keep inflating prices to support “enhancement” but at the same time, the high price and rental of property is the Achilles heel of many sectors of the economy as well as a burden for the younger generation, yet if we attempt to deflate it, we may unwittingly crash the economy - damned if we do, and damned if we don’t. The government should focus it’s energy on how to walk us out of this conundrum instead of turning a blind eye to it and squeezing as much profit as possible out of it, in the meanwhile. Furthermore, unlike big countries where folks can sell their house in the more expensive city area and shift to quality yet affordable housing in the less-expensive suburb area to enjoy retirement with the profits, there’s no suburbs in Singapore. To cash out, owners will have to downgrade to smaller HDB flats, which is not popular, or emigrate. Last but not least, most of us have only one house and it does not matter if “asset enhancement” inflate prices to stratospheric levels - we still need a roof over our heads, and as Lawrence Wong has pointed out, prices will come back down, and eventually to zero. Thus if we do not cash out around the peak, but continue to stay on as we only have one house, the paper wealth will disappear. It is wrong to say that Singaporeans are “asset rich but cash poor” as if they are actually quite rich because they are not, as the asset cannot be cashed out unless they have at least two properties. “Asset enhancement” is thus a sick joke for the working class, but it is the ladder upon which real estate corporations, banks, and their associates make their profits, and many of these entities are linked to state-owned Temasek Holdings. It is the right of every Singaporean to have a roof over their head at an affordable price. As such, public housing must be for ordinary Singaporeans to live in, period. It should never be made into an investment commodity and manipulated to lofty heights which are then traded for profits. And certainly, public housing should never be used as a base to boost private property for corporate profits.   Foong Swee Fong      Read More →

Matters of national concerns arising from new or amendments to legislation draw no comments from the Law Society. The general medical community stays absolutely silent on serious concerns over mRNA vaccines. Zero input from the Society of Accountants to the conundrum of our reserves is no surprise. The apathy of people in leadership roles in relevant professions in Singapore is a crying shame. It is testament to the veracity of my old blog on kiassu, kiassi, bo-chup. Indomitable opposition MP Leong Mun Wai had spoken recently in parliament on the high cost of public housing in which land cost is the underlying factor. Leong's argument was the government sells land at market value thus making significant gains in reserves, and since the state already has a reputedly high reserve, public housing cost can be lowered with land sales at below market prices. The 2nd Minister of National Development M/s Indranee Rajah responded thus: “When we sell State Land, we convert the physical asset into a financial asset. For example, if we sell a parcel of State Land at its fair market value of, say, S$1 million, we no longer have the land for the term of the lease sold, but we have S$1 million. There is no net increase in the reserves. We have merely changed the physical land in our reserves into a distributed amount of financial reserves. There is no new value created and hence no addition to the reserves.” This legal-economic obfuscatory statement to an accounting issue is now template explanation in various government websites. Never mind that it goes against the grain of every ordinary person's understanding of changes in asset values. Obviously, the intricacy of government accounting has a lot to do with this. Should we walk quietly into the financial hell of astronomical HDB prices in accepting this anguished verbiage, or do we try to understand what it is all about? Let's look at simple accounting 101 Supposing a plot of land is bought for $1m. It was sold 5 years later for $2.5m, netting a profit of $1.5m. Government accounting is on a cash basis, thus recognition of the net profit is upon sales of the land. Reserves is the net unencumbered assets. Thus in year 1 where assets-liabilities = 0, there was no reserves. Upon sales, it is irrefutable wealth has increased by $1.5m. This is so fundamentally simple I am insulting readers' intelligence with the above chart. In magic tricks, the performer uses what is known as the Art of Misdirection. It is a deception to get the audience to focus on something else so they miss out on the mechanism of the actual trick. In reference to the chart above, Minister Indranee attracts your attention to the left, the Assets. Like all good magicians, she fills your mind with irrelevant details to retain your attention on the deception. She tells you it is purely a monetisation of land, changing one form of asset to another. And so she talks of land as non-earning assets and cash as financial earning assets. For good measure, she screws your brain with term of leases. By then, brain fog would have gotten hold as you go thinking of 99 year HDB leases which she did not even have to bring up. Meanwhile, you are missing out on the right hand side and see the increase in wealth of $1.5m. Indranee's explanation in parliament was either a verbal magic trick or mis-information. Land acquisition and land reclamation by the government is funded by past reserves. To this extent, Indranee's explanation about changing reserves from one form to another without increase in reserves is absolutely correct, but only in respect of year 1, the year of acquisition, not sales. A financial asset ($1m of cash from past reserves) is changed to land (investment). There was no change in reserves, thus I assume presidential consent was not necessary in year 1. The more discerned readers would surely be asking where is the cash coming from when past reserves fund some payments, such as land acquisition, land reclamation and pandemic aid packages? To explain this, I refer to my old chart on government cash inflows and outflows. Regular readers should be familiar with this chart by now. The operating revenue cash inflow (from taxes, duties, fees, fines, rental, NIRC from SWF. part of earnings from MAS) all goes into the Consolidated Fund to meet the government's fiscal obligations. Using past reserves to pay non-fiscal disbursements, the transactions are not routed through the Consolidated Fund. The government simply pays out from the cash account at MAS. So for the land acquisition in year 1, there is no change in the net value of assets. In the government Statement of Assets and Liabilities, there are only 2 asset types -- Cash and Investments. So cash goes down by $1m and Investments increase by $1m. A change from a financial asset to land. No net change in reserves. On disposal of the land in year 5, Cash goes up $2.5m, investments down $1m as the land has been sold, making a net asset increase of $1.5m. This should be matched by $1.5m on the liabilities side in one of the fund accounts, representing the profit on the land sales, in other words, the increase in reserves. I am not certain which funds account it ended up with. My guess is The Development Fund. I am not quite sure if Indranee said this, but a Petir (PAP newsletter) article in relation to this subject matter, stated : "The land will not do much for Singaporeans when it’s just left unsold. But converted into liquid cash at fair market value, it helps appreciate Singapore’s reserves indirectly and eventually for the next generation." This could be referring to the fact that proceeds of the sales are invested by GIC which provides investment returns in the form of NIRC to help fund the national budget. It could also mean when converting to liquid cash, or sales, at market value, it appreciates the reserves, meaning, it increases the reserves. Take it which way you want. This here is a bit off track, but I cannot help resist a little tale to add spice in connection with the Petir quote "... "land will not do much for Singaporeans when it’s just left unsold". SLA is the agency that manages some of the government properties as well as the sales of state land, amongst other functions. Some state land is left for temporary use, managed by SLA. Readers may remember a large plot of fantastic land in the Dempsey Road area. In deference to ONE very important gentleman who likes to jog in the area, the plot has been left undeveloped for decades. So a small community of quaint little shops prospered there and were left undisturbed by officialdom as there was no development plan. By and by, SOMEONE UNKNOWN came along with new ideas for the land. Not a full land development, but just to spruce up the area. Whose idea, we don't know. The agency concerned started talking to existing shop owners who were all sub-tenants. As compensation is an issue, a brouhaha ensued as it became clear no one knew who was the MASTER TENANT, and the government had no master tenancy agreement with anyone. Those in the know knew the master-tenant is the brother of another VIP. Eventually the area was tendered out which was not won by the highest bidder, but by someone with a lower bid. The reason was the winner had a better proposal, ahem. And the winner is a well-know VIP who is the wife of another VIP, someone who likes vroom-vroom, hint, hint. So unsold land can and do help earn some returns for the benefit of Singaporeans. Sometimes, we wonder which Singaporean.     * Article first appeared on Down The Rabbit Hole.      Read More →