TR EMERITUS

I am a Singaporean whistleblower who has refused to be silenced about misconduct and abuse of power at the National University of Singapore (“NUS”). I refused to be silenced, even after NUS threatened to retaliate against me. NUS then managed to win a case against me in the High Court of Singapore, in which NUS’s main witness against me repeatedly lied to the Court and thereby committed the crime of perjury. NUS’s court victory against me, in a judgment that is tainted with perjury, has provided NUS with the legal basis to bankrupt me. Now, NUS is in the process of retaliating against me by trying to bankrupt me, which will force my employer to fire me, and which will make me legally ineligible to continue working in my current profession. All of this is because I dared to refuse to be silenced and stop whistleblowing about misconduct and abuse of power at NUS. This is a major national scandal, in which the current President of Singapore Management University (“SMU”), Lily Kong, is getting away scot-free with the serious crime of perjury, as though she is “above the law” in Singapore. Perjury is serious crime in Singapore, pursuant to Sections 191 and 193 of the Penal Code, yet the Singapore Police Force and the Attorney-General’s Chambers or Public Prosecutor have failed to take the appropriate action against the perjurer Lily Kong, even after I filed a police report. The lawyers for NUS have admitted to the High Court that they have spent $698,940.11 on this case. In my application to Court in case number OS 226, I asked the High Court to confirm that this perjury occurred, and then to “set aside” the Court’s judgment against me – a “tainted” judgment which has allowed NUS to take steps to bankrupt me. However, the High Court has refused to consider the evidence of perjury and make a decision or determination as to whether or not Lily Kong committed perjury, despite the fact that I pointed the Court to the documentary evidence of Lily Kong’s own written words that clearly prove that she committed perjury. I am now attempting to appeal. I need your help! NUS Covered Up Misconduct of a Faculty Member My ordeal began when I complained about misconduct by an NUS professor when I was a postgraduate candidate for a master’s degree at NUS. NUS responded to my complaints by convening a “Committee of Inquiry” (or “COI”), which purported to investigate my complaints, and the COI issued a secret report, which found the professor to be guilty of so-called “serious infractions” that were serious enough that the NUS COI secretly recommended that the professor be “censured” because of his conduct towards me. However, NUS did not let me see this secret report, and NUS did not tell me that the NUS COI had secretly recommended that the professor be “censured” because of his conduct towards me, even though the only reason why the COI had been convened, was to look into my complaints. Instead of properly informing me of the findings of the COI, NUS Vice-Provost Lily Kong (who is now the President of Singapore Management University) sent me a letter that said that the COI had “resolved that there is insufficient evidence” against the professor. Since the letter did not mention the “censure” recommendation or any findings against the professor, I naturally understood the letter to mean that the NUS COI had cleared and exonerated the professor. Any reasonable person in my situation would have reasonably understood Lily Kong’s letter to mean that the COI had exonerated the professor. I only learned the truth (that the COI had secretly recommended that the professor be “censured” for his conduct towards me), when the litigation process forced NUS to finally disclose the secret report to me several years later. Naturally, at the time when I received Lily Kong’s misleading letter that led me to believe that the COI had exonerated the professor, I was dissatisfied with NUS’s purported exoneration of the professor, and I did not accept this unacceptable outcome of the investigation, and this unacceptable response to my complaints about the professor’s misconduct. When I continued to complain to NUS, Lily Kong sent me another letter – this time, an ultimatum letter – that demanded that I agree to stop complaining and “accept” the purported exoneration of the professor, and, if I refused to cooperate, Lily Kong threatened to have NUS retaliate against me, by expelling me and denying me the award of my master’s degree that I had already earned after several years of study and research work. When I refused to comply with her improper demands, Lily Kong followed through on her threats in her ultimatum letter, and she arranged for NUS to retaliate against me, by expelling me and denying me the award of my master’s degree, after I had already completed the entire course of study for my master’s degree, and I had already submitted the final, book-length version of my master’s thesis to NUS, based on several years of original research work that I had conducted as a candidate for the master’s degree. Four days before NUS expelled me, I had submitted my master’s thesis to NUS in the PDF softcopy format that NUS had stipulated, and I had submitted it on the deadline that NUS had stipulated, and NUS had sent me an email that acknowledged that NUS had received my master’s thesis. NUS does not dispute these facts. This retaliation and brazen abuse of power by Lily Kong and NUS effectively ended my hopes for an academic career that I had spent many years of my life preparing for, and it also deprived me of the opportunity of working on a PhD degree at the University of Illinois at Chicago, which had already accepted me into its PhD programme, based on my expected graduation from NUS with a master’s degree. That was my chance for an academic career, and NUS and Lily Kong took that opportunity away from me. NUS Retaliated Against Me For My Whistleblowing The ultimatum letter which Lily Kong sent me, in which she threatened to have NUS expel me unless I would agree to “accept” the purported exoneration of the professor, reads in part as follows: “This will be a final opportunity for you to confirm whether you accept the University’s decisions and will therefore … cease your correspondence … If you do accept the University’s decisions, then please confirm this in writing via registered post … by 31 August. If you do not accept the University’s decisions by this date, your candidature will be deemed to have ceased.” The “correspondence” that Lily Kong referred to in her ultimatum letter (quoted above), referred to my continued complaints via email, about the purported exoneration of the professor by NUS (when, in fact, NUS had secretly decided to “censure” the professor for his conduct towards me). Lily Kong’s use of the words “your candidature will be deemed to have ceased” in her ultimatum letter, was her way of threatening to expel me in retaliation for my refusal to be silenced and stop whistleblowing. At the time when NUS was preparing to retaliate against me for my whistleblowing and my refusal to be silenced, and two days before NUS expelled me, Lily Kong sent an email to her boss, Dr Tan Chorh Chuan, who was then the Provost of NUS (he later became the President of NUS). In that email, Lily Kong admitted that the real reason why she arranged for NUS to expel me, was because I had refused to comply with her demands that I accept the “clearance” of the professor’s “name” and stop complaining. (Several years later, the litigation process forced NUS to disclose a copy of this email to me.) Lily Kong’s Perjury In Court However, when my case went to the High Court of Singapore, Lily Kong “changed her story,” and she filed a “sworn” affidavit, called an “AEIC,” in which she repeatedly lied to the Court under oath, and she claimed that my expulsion by NUS had nothing to do with my refusal to agree to “accept” the findings of the COI that had investigated my complaints against an NUS professor. (It must be kept in mind that Lily Kong had herself written the letter that led me to believe that the COI had cleared and purportedly exonerated the NUS professor.) By lying repeatedly in her dishonest affidavit, and by “swearing” and filing this dishonest affidavit under oath, Lily Kong lied to the Court and committed the serious crime of perjury, pursuant to Sections 191 and 193 of the Penal Code. Lily Kong also lied again, under oath, while testifying in the courtroom during the trial, and she stood by her lies that she had already told the Court in writing in her affidavit. When Lily Kong lied in her oral testimony in the courtroom, my former lawyer accused Lily Kong (in open court) of lying in her sworn testimony (in other words, committing perjury). Lily Kong’s lies in her oral testimony are recorded in the official trial transcript, which also records the fact that my former lawyer accused Lily Kong of lying in her sworn testimony. The trial received very little attention in the local “news” media. Although the trial was a public trial that took place in open court in the Supreme Court Building over a period of nine days, and although one of the witnesses who testified was the “elite” Lily Kong, a former Vice-Provost and Vice President of NUS who was a Member of the Public Service Commission (or PSC) and the Provost of Singapore Management University at the time of the trial (and who is now the President of SMU), and although Lily Kong was publicly accused of perjury in open court during the trial, the Straits Times did not publish a single article about the trial during the entire year when the nine-day public trial took place in open court in the Supreme Court Building. Instead, the Straits Times published an article about the trial, in the year after the trial. The Straits Times did not report the fact that Lily Kong had been accused of perjury in open Court, and the Straits Times also did not report the fact that the trial judge had found that Lily Kong was “wrong” to impose certain demands upon me, in her ultimatum letter. The Straits Times article “reported” that I had “submitted only a copy of the thesis but failed to upload it electronically” but this statement inaccurately implies that there was something wrong with the fact that I had submitted “only a copy” of my master’s to NUS. In fact, it was NUS itself that had stipulated that I submit my master’s thesis to NUS in the form of a PDF softcopy, and that was exactly what I submitted to NUS, on the deadline that NUS had stipulated, and the NUS Registrar’s Office sent me an email on the same day which confirmed that NUS had received my master’s thesis. There was no requirement for me to submit more than one copy of my master’s thesis, as the Straits Times article inaccurately implies; and, since the format that NUS had stipulated was a PDF softcopy, it really does not make sense to refer to “only one copy,” which implies that I was required to submit hardcopies, which were not required by NUS. As for the purported “uploading” issue, my contract with NUS did not require me to “upload” my master’s thesis. NUS unilaterally imposed that purported “requirement” long after I contracted with NUS. In any event, NUS did not dispute that I submitted my master’s thesis to the NUS Registrar’s Office, in the PDF softcopy format which NUS had stipulated, on the deadline which NUS had stipulated, and NUS confirmed by email that NUS had received my master’s thesis. All of this happened four days before NUS expelled me. NUS has argued that it expelled me because I did not “upload” the PDF of my master’s thesis on the NUS website, but that is just a “red herring” and a “lame excuse.” There was nothing stopping NUS from uploading a copy of my master’s thesis which NUS already had in its possession into any other electronic depository under NUS’s control. In fact, the real reason why NUS expelled me, was in retaliation for my refusal to agree to comply with Lily Kong’s improper demands in her ultimatum letter, in which she improperly demanded that I agree to “accept” the purported exoneration of an NUS professor, after NUS had already secretly decided to “censure” him for his conduct towards me. I now have a copy of the secret report of the NUS COI that recommended that the professor be “censured” for his conduct towards me. The fact that this was the “real reason” why NUS expelled me, is proven by documentary evidence, including (especially) Lily Kong’s own written words, in the email that she sent to her boss, Dr Tan Chorh Chuan, two days before NUS expelled me on Lily Kong’s orders. The litigation process forced NUS to disclose a copy of that email to me, as well as a copy of the secret report of the NUS COI that secretly recommended that an NUS professor be “censured” for his conduct towards me. After the trial, the trial judge wrote in his official written judgment, that regarding “the Acceptance requirement, ie, to require [me] to accept the decision of the COI … VP [Lily] Kong admitted in cross-examination that it would not be correct for her to impose such a condition but she did not accept that she had in fact imposed such a condition on [me]. As I have mentioned above, she did impose that condition. I also conclude that it was wrong of her to do so.” (Emphasis added.) In other words, the trial judge found that Lily Kong had, in fact, demanded that I “accept the decision of the COI” as a “condition” for me to avoid being expelled, contrary to what Lily Kong had stated under oath in her sworn affidavit and in her sworn testimony in Court. The trial judge also confirmed that “it was wrong of her to do so” – that is, that “it was wrong” for Lily Kong to impose that “condition” upon me. The Straits Times did not report on any of the trial judge’s findings against Lily Kong. Despite these findings by the trial judge against Lily Kong (quoted above), the trial judge failed to grasp the obvious fact that the real reason why Lily Kong had arranged for NUS to expel me, was in retaliation for my refusal to agree to comply with Lily Kong’s improper demands, which were stated in her ultimatum letter, in which she threatened to retaliate against me unless I would agree to stop complaining and accept the purported exoneration of the professor – a professor whom NUS had already secretly “censured” for his conduct towards me. This was clearly a case of “abuse of power” but, somehow, the trial judge “missed the forest for the trees.” The litigation process forced NUS to disclose to me an email which Lily Kong sent to her boss two days before NUS expelled me; and, in that email, Lily Kong revealed that the real reason why she arranged for NUS to expel me, was in retaliation for my refusal to drop my complaints. Anyone who thinks that a big university such as NUS would never attack one of its own students or former students, should read a recent article in The New Yorker entitled “How an Ivy League School Turned Against a Student,” which is available online at this link: Anyone who doubts that NUS “elites” could be guilty of serious misconduct, should recall the recent series of scandals at NUS. On 29 April 2022, the Straits Times reported on “the fourth staff member from NUS known to have been fired for inappropriate behaviour in the past two years.” (Notice the word “known.”) This article, entitled “NUS professor fired for inappropriate behaviour towards student,” is available online at this link: The trial judge also failed to grasp the obvious fact that Lily Kong had committed perjury, similar to the way in which the trial judge in Ms Parti Liyani’s case, also failed to grasp the obvious fact that a key witness had committed perjury while testifying against Ms Parti Liyani. Anyone who doubts my complaint, that the trial judge in my case was deceived by Lily Kong’s perjury, should remember that the trial judge in Ms Parti Liyani’s case was also deceived by perjury that was committed by an “elite” witness. No Court and No Judge Has Ever Cleared or Exonerated Lily Kong of Perjury, and No Court and No Judge Has Ever Decided Whether or Not Lily Kong Committed Perjury I am appealing to you now, to help me in my effort to appeal against the High Court’s refusal to hear my application (called “OS 226”) for the Court to confirm that witnesses for NUS committed perjury by lying to the High Court in my trial. The main witness for NUS (and against me) in the trial, was the perjurer Lily Kong, the current President of Singapore Management University (SMU), who was formerly a Vice-Provost and a Vice President of NUS. Lily Kong lied to the Court repeatedly, under oath, and her lies and perjury are proven by the documentary evidence of her own written words. I have copies of these documents, and these documents have been accepted as authentic by the Supreme Court of Singapore. The litigation process forced NUS to disclose to me an email which Lily Kong sent to her boss two days before NUS expelled me; and, in that email, Lily Kong revealed that the real reason why she arranged for NUS to expel me, was in retaliation for my refusal to drop my complaints. In my application in OS 226, I asked the High Court to confirm that this perjury occurred, and then to “set aside” the Court’s judgment against me – a “tainted” judgment which has allowed NUS to take steps to bankrupt me. However, the High Court has refused to consider the evidence of perjury and make a decision or determination as to whether or not Lily Kong committed perjury, despite the fact that I pointed the Court to the documentary evidence of Lily Kong’s own written words that clearly prove that she committed perjury. I am now attempting to appeal. I need your help! Anyone who doubts that a Singapore Judge could be deceived by perjury, should recall the recent scandal surrounding the wrongful conviction of an innocent women, Ms Parti Liyani, by a Singapore District Court Judge, who was deceived by perjury committed by an “elite” perjurer. Although Ms Parti Liyani was innocent, a Singapore District Court Judge found her guilty of a crime that she did not commit, and the judge sentenced Ms Parti Liyani to more than two years in prison. The BBC has reported that members of a wealthy Singaporean family “were able to have the police and the lower court fall for the false allegations” that they made against Ms Parti Liyani. That BBC article is available online at this link: After Ms Parti Liyani successfully appealed her conviction, a key witness against her, Karl Liew, was charged with “giving false evidence” in Court – in other words, lying to a judge, which is “perjury.” On 5 November 2020, CNA reported that “Karl Liew Kai Lung, the son of former Changi Airport Group chairman Liew Mun Leong, was charged on Thursday (Nov 5) with giving false evidence and false information in the case of Ms Parti Liyani, his family's former maid. … He is accused of intentionally giving false evidence on July 17, 2018, at the State Courts before District Judge Olivia Ho. According to charge sheets, he testified at a trial, while legally bound by oath, that a cream polo T-shirt and a red blouse belonged to him, when he did not believe those statements to be true.” [Source] After what happened in Ms Parti Liyani’s case, no one should rule out the possibility that a Singapore judge could be deceived by perjury. Ms Parti Liyani’s case proves that it is possible for a perjurer to deceive a Singapore judge, and her case shows that allegations that a Singapore judge was deceived by perjury must be properly considered and investigated, and not dismissed out of hand. This is essential for the integrity of the Court itself. I am certainly not accusing any judges of any dishonesty, “actual bias” or deliberate wrongdoing, but it is simply a fact of human nature that many people are likely to be more willing to believe apparently “respectable” “public officers” and other “eminent” and “high status” or “elite” people, and there is no reason why judges would not also tend to think this way, even if only unconsciously. This fact has been acknowledged by Singapore Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, who has stated that: “Seniority and eminence are characteristics that attract a heightened sense of trust and confidence,” in His Honour’s written judgment in the case of Ang Peng Tiam v Singapore Medical Council [2017] SGHC 143; [2017] 5 SLR 356 at paragraph [93]. In other words, Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon has confirmed the fact that people are more likely to believe someone, who has “seniority” and/or “eminence,” such as high-ranking “elite” officers of “public bodies” such as NUS and SMU, of which the deeply dishonest perjurer Lily Kong is now the President. Lily Kong is also a Member of the Public Service Commission (or “PSC”). Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon has also stated that “bias is an insidious thing so that a person may well believe with all sincerity and good faith that he is acting impartially and yet his mind may unconsciously be affected by bias” in His Honour’s written judgment in the case of Re Shankar Alan s/o Anant Kulkarni [2006] SGHC 194; [2007] 1 SLR(R) 85 at paragraph [58], and His Honour went on to quote with approval at paragraph [67] the following statement by Lord Justice Devlin: “Bias is or may be an unconscious thing and a man may honestly say that he was not actually biased and did not allow his interest to affect his mind.” NUS has tried to convince the High Court to believe that, back in 2018, a judge cleared and exonerated Lily Kong and the other NUS witnesses of perjury. NUS tried to convince the Court of this falsehood as recently as a hearing on 22 September 2022, as recorded in the official transcript at page 31, lines 13-14. However, the High Court has confirmed that no judges have ever decided whether or not perjury occurred in the trial, and no judges have ever “cleared” the NUS witnesses of perjury, including Lily Kong. (I refer to Ten Leu Jiun Jeanne-Marie v National University of Singapore [2022] SGHC 247 at [30] and [32].) Nevertheless, the High Court still granted NUS’s application to strike out my application in OS 226, which means that the Court is refusing to even consider the evidence of perjury and determine whether or not perjury was committed by witnesses for NUS in my case, especially Lily Kong. Click to enlarge I emphasise that no Court and no Judge has ever cleared or exonerated Lily Kong of perjury, and no Court and no Judge has ever decided whether or not Lily Kong committed perjury. This fact was confirmed recently in the judgment of the Singapore High Court in Ten Leu Jiun Jeanne-Marie v National University of Singapore [2022] SGHC 247 at paragraphs [30] and [32]. I have repeatedly asked the Court to consider the evidence of perjury and determine whether or not perjury was committed by witnesses for NUS in my case, especially Lily Kong, but, every time I have raised the issue of perjury with the Court, the Court has refused to make any decision or determination as to whether or not Lily Kong committed perjury. Although I have presented the Court with compelling, documentary evidence of perjury, supported by an expert opinion written by a UK law professor who is also an expert on whistleblowing, the High Court of Singapore still refused to consider the evidence of perjury and determine whether or not perjury was committed. Every time I have raised the issue of perjury with the Court, the Court has refused to make any decision or determination as to whether or not any witnesses for NUS committed perjury. The Court has also failed to properly consider my legal arguments based on the fundamental legal principle called “fraus omnia corrumpit” – a Latin maxim which is commonly translated into English as “fraud unravels everything.” This legal principle means that court judgments that are tainted with fraud (including perjury) must be “set aside,” not only for the sake of the individual victims (like me), but also for the sake of the Court itself, because the Court itself is a victim whenever a judge is deceived by perjury, which is what happened in my case. The legal principle that “fraud unravels everything” is an accepted part of Singapore law. Although “fraus omnia corrumpit” is Latin, this principle has been accepted as an established legal principle in Singapore. Justice Steven Chong Horng Siong stated, in His Honour’s written judgment in the case of Jiang Ou v EFG Bank AG [2011] 4 SLR 246 at paragraph [120], that: “One must not lose sight of the foundational legal rule that fraud unravels all: fraus omnia corrumpit. … once fraud is proved, ‘it vitiates judgments’” (emphasis added). Thus, according to Justice Steven Chong, the principle of “fraus omnia corrumpit” or “fraud unravels everything” is a “foundational legal rule” in Singapore. It is also well known that perjury is a form of “fraud upon the Court.” Although I recently submitted to the Court extensive written legal arguments based on the principle that “fraud unravels everything” (or “fraus omnia corrumpit”), the Court has failed to properly consider my arguments based on this legal principle, and the Court has recently refused to consider the documentary evidence that proves that Lily Kong committed perjury. I now have no choice but to appeal, since the High Court has refused to consider the documentary evidence of perjury – the proverbial “elephant in the living room” – and the Court instead decided to strike out my application in OS 226. A Tragedy for Singapore When Different Sets of Rules Apply To The Common People and To Elites This case is not just about my personal tragedy. This case is a major national scandal, and it is also a tragedy and a disaster for every honest person in Singapore, because, if the “elite” perjurer Lily Kong (the President of Singapore Management University and a Member of the Public Service Commission) can continue to get away scot-free with perjury, as though she is “above the law” in Singapore, and if NUS can continue to get away with retaliating against a whistleblower, then this will embolden all dishonest “elites” in Singapore, as well as major corporations, to believe that they, too, are “above the law” and to believe that they can also follow Lily Kong’s example and commit perjury with impunity, and retaliate against whistleblowers, as though they are “above the law” in Singapore. NUS is still trying to bankrupt me and has already caused me to be suspended from work for 15 months. What kind of Singapore do Singaporeans want for the next generation? Do we want Singapore to become a place where there is one set of rules for ordinary citizens or “commoners,” and another set of rules for the “elites?” Although my police report against Lily Kong has been continually posted online on my blog every day since late February 2022, and although I also posted this police report on Facebook, and this police report accuses Lily Kong of dishonesty and of being guilty of the serious crime of perjury, Lily Kong has not attempted to sue me for defamation, nor has she or her lawyers sent me a “letter of demand” to demand that I stop posting the police report online, nor has Lily Kong attempted to take any other action against me over my posting of the police report, as far as I am aware. There has also been no attempt to use the “POFMA” against me, as far as I am aware. Singaporeans know that when public allegations are made against “elites” the “elites” take legal action against whoever dared to accuse them of wrongdoing – yet the “elite” Lily Kong has not done this. I do not believe that this is because the perjurer Lily Kong is “nice” or “kind.” Her past abuse of power towards me was anything but “nice” and “kind.” I ask Singaporeans to think for themselves about the reasons why a wealthy and powerful “elite” such as Lily Kong, who has already demonstrated her utter dishonesty and her willingness to abuse her power, would stay silent in the face of serious public allegations being made against her, day after day online, for all the world to see. I ask Singaporeans to remember what happened to T.T. Durai, when he sued SPH for defamation. T.T. Durai’s downfall shows what can happen when a guilty “elite” makes the mistake of suing for defamation. Younger Singaporeans might not be aware of the “NKF Scandal” and the downfall of T.T. Durai, the “elite” CEO of the NKF, although this was one of the biggest scandals in the history of Singapore. Ironically, T.T. Durai’s downfall was provoked by his decision to sue SPH for defamation regarding an article that had been published by the Straits Times. T.T. Durai’s lawsuit against SPH for defamation backfired on him, and T.T. Durai soon faced criminal charges, and he was eventually convicted and sentenced to prison. Younger Singaporeans who are unaware of the “NKF Scandal” might want to look at the Wikipedia articles at these links: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Kidney_Foundation_Singapore_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._T._Durai It is a national scandal that an “elite” such as Lily Kong can get away scot-free with the serious crime of perjury, as though she is “above the law” in Singapore. Every honest Singaporean should be concerned about this national scandal. The lawyers for NUS have admitted to the High Court that they have spent $698,940.11 on the case. This is a major national scandal, comparable to the NKF Scandal, because the fact that SMU President Lily Kong is getting away with perjury, as though she is “above the law” in Singapore, is a national scandal that calls into question Singapore’s commitment to integrity and to the rule of law, as well as to the values that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong talked about in his big speech about perjury that he delivered in Parliament on 15 February 2022, the day after I lodged my police report against Lily Kong – yet the deeply dishonest “elite” perjurer Lily Kong continues to hold high public office as both the President of Singapore Management University and as a Member of the Public Service Commission (or PSC). Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s Big Speech About The Hazards of Perjury Should Apply to Elites Such As Lily Kong According to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s own reasoning, that he explained in his big speech about perjury, Singapore is now “heading for trouble.” In his big speech in Parliament on 15 February 2022, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said that: “If someone in a position of responsibility tells lies, and visibly gets away with it, how can the public trust the system? … If we let flagrant, egregious transgressions pass, it will erode trust in our leaders, respect for Parliament, and support for our whole political system, and Singapore will be heading for trouble.” I certainly agree. Lily Kong is an “elite” person “in a position of responsibility,” and she has told lies to the Court under oath, and this “elite” perjurer is “visibly” getting away with perjury, scot-free, as though she is “above the law” in Singapore. As Mr Lee said, “how can the public trust the system?” The official transcript of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s big speech about perjury, is available online at this link: Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong also said in his big speech about perjury, that “perjury is a serious criminal offence” and that “nobody is above the law” and Mr Lee emphasised that it is important “to uphold integrity, enforce rules and standards, apply the same rules equally to everyone, make sure nobody is above the law.” However, these things are not happening in my case, and the “elite” perjurer Lily Kong is getting away scot-free, as though she is “above the law” in Singapore. In a Facebook post in 2015, Prime Minister Lee wrote: “When we discover wrongdoing, we do not hesitate to act. We will not allow any cover up, even when it is awkward or embarrassing for the government.” Therefore, in view of these wonderful, excellent public statements that Mr Lee has made, I have every right (and every Singaporean has every right) to expect that Mr Lee’s government will move swiftly against the “elite” perjurer Lily Kong, without fear or favour, and without further delay. I need your help! There are at least two ways that you can help me. One way you can help me, is by donating money to my legal battle. The other way that you can help me, is by “spreading the word,” on social media or through your phone apps, which will not cost you any money at all! If you cannot afford to help me financially, then please help me simply by “spreading the word” and publicising my case on social media. Every “post” will help to raise awareness about this national scandal, which could “shame” the police and the government into finally taking the appropriate action against the “elite” perjurer Lily Kong. I appeal to all honest people to support me by either donating to my cause or by “spreading the word” and publicising this national scandal, to raise awareness. So many of us are struggling financially, so if you can’t donate money, your help to “spread the word” is just as important. I will provide updates regarding the donations collected on my blog, and I will also provide more details regarding my case. I have copies of documents that back up, substantiate and prove all of my allegations against NUS and the perjurer Lily Kong. These documents have already been accepted as genuine and authentic by the Supreme Court of Singapore. For more information about my legal battle, including my police report that I lodged against Lily Kong, please look at others posts on my blog. Warning! There’s a lot of misinformation floating around online about me and my case. If you Google my name, you will likely see some online falsehoods about me. For example, you may see false statements online that say or imply that I rejected settlement offers from NUS, but that is not true. In fact, NUS has never offered me a “settlement” in the way in which ordinary people understand the word “settlement” in the context of litigation – that is, where the wrongdoing party offers to pay compensation or make proper amends to the innocent party, in exchange for the innocent party agreeing to stop litigation. You might also see false statements online that say that I did not even try to appeal the Court judgment against me, but that is not true; in fact, I filed my Notice of Appeal “on time” on 8 August 2018, but the Court refused to hear my appeal. You might also see false statements online that say that I did not submit my master’s thesis to NUS, but that is not true; in fact, I submitted my master’s thesis to NUS four days before NUS expelled me, on the deadline which NUS had stipulated for the submission of my master’s thesis, and I submitted my master’s thesis to the NUS Registrar’s Office in the PDF softcopy format that NUS had stipulated. The NUS Registrar’s Office sent me an email on the same day, which confirmed that NUS had received my master’s thesis. NUS has not disputed any of these facts. NUS has argued that it expelled me because I did not “upload” the PDF of my master’s thesis on the NUS website, but that is just a “red herring” and a “lame excuse.” The real reason why NUS expelled me, was in retaliation for my refusal to agree to comply with Lily Kong’s improper demands in her ultimatum letter, in which she improperly demanded that I agree to “accept” the purported exoneration of an NUS professor, after NUS had already secretly decided to “censure” him for his conduct towards me. I now have a copy of the secret report that recommended that the professor be “censured” for his conduct towards me. The fact that this was the “real reason” why NUS expelled me, is proven by documentary evidence, including (especially) Lily Kong’s own written words, in the email that she sent to her boss, Dr Tan Chorh Chuan, two days before NUS expelled me on Lily Kong’s orders. The litigation process forced NUS to disclose a copy of that email to me, as well as a copy of the secret report of the NUS COI that secretly recommended that an NUS professor be “censured” for his conduct towards me. I Have 2 Weeks To File My Notice of Appeal I now have a window of 2 weeks to file the Notice of Appeal (by 29 November) and will need at least $21,000 and I am asking for your help now. The main payments that I need to make to the Court (not including additional filing charges payable to the Court’s appointed vendor LawNet Service Bureau), are: 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 Please donate to: POSB account: 120-792642-3 PayNow or PayLah!: 93884036 PayPal: [email protected]   Thank you so much!   Ten Leu Jiun Jeanne-Marie  https://jeanneten.blogspot.com/   P/S: TRE understands that unless an appeal is launched in the Apex Court, Ms Ten's fight against NUS is official over and the bankruptcy petition launched against her by NUS will proceed.        Read More →

Kishore Mabubhani Kishore Mabubhani made the following statements in his book (Can Asians Think) about democracy, human rights and freedom of the press. 1. American journalists do not believe in the Christian rule "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" or "Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone". It believes that the infidelities of a politician are public property, to be exposed in every detail. But infidelities seems about the same in all sectors of society, whether in Congress or in the press corps. 2. Power corrupts. The absolute power of the western journalists in the third world corrupts absolutely. On arriving in a third world capital, the American journalists believes that he has arrived as a lone ranger battling an evil and corrupt government. He did not realize that he is behaving like a colonial proconsul demanding attention from the officials of the third world government. 3. A free press can serve as the opium of society. The American media prides itself on the ability of its investigative journalism to uncover the real truth behind the stories put out by government, big business and other major institutions. It could never stomach the proposition that it could serve as the opium of American society. But it has. 4. A free press need not lead to a well ordered society. A free press can lead to good government, but it can also lead to bad government. 5. Western journalists are conditioned by both western prejudices and western interests. the claim of "objective" reporting is a major falsehood. 6. Western governments work with genocidal rules when it serves their interest to do so. 7. Western governments will happily sacrifice the human rights of third world societies when it suits their interest to do so. 8. The west has used the pretext of human rights abuses to abandon third world allies that no longer serve their western interest. 9. The west cannot acknowledge that the pursuit of "moral" human rights policies can have immoral consequences. 10. An imperfect government that commits some human rights violations is better than no government, in many societies.   Tan Kin Lian      Read More →

Mdm Ho is right in saying that “Singapore is a small island” and that “land is a common heritage for all our people”, meaning, the land on our small island belongs to all Singaporeans. By extension, it means that all Singaporeans have a right to a roof over their head and to use the land to make a living, at a reasonable price. However, in Mdm Ho’s and the government’s books, belonging to all Singaporeans means that when the land is sold at market price - the market, comprising not just Singaporeans, but practically people and corporations of the whole wide world - it’s proceeds should be locked in our Reserves for the benefit of Singaporeans. Thus belonging to Singaporeans can be interpreted to mean Singaporeans have a right to the land on the one hand, and, the proceeds of the sale of the land to the market, should be locked up as savings for Singaporeans, on the other. The question is: is it fair to Singaporeans that the price of land is chased to stratospheric levels due to big business and the government’s pursuit of growth at all cost - including, almost tripling the population since Independence, incessant inflow of foreign talents, low corporate tax rates, relentless pursuit of foreign investments, liberal policies that allow foreigners to buy property here - and Singaporeans are made to pay the so-called market price, which then goes into the Reserves? Bear in mind, ordinary Singaporeans who buy HDBs, by and large, did not benefit from the government’s growth-at-all-cost policies - big business, including many foreign ones, and their associates, did. On the contrary, ordinary Singaporeans have to suffer the consequences including overcrowding, high cost of living, social friction and stress. They would rather the government shift from growth-at-all-cost to sustainable growth that benefit them directly rather than foreigners. Land on this island belong to all Singaporeans. They should not have to pay obscene market price due to unfettered capitalism when they buy a subsidized flat. Sim Ann says that by drastically lowering BTO prices to the point of almost disregarding land cost would end up hurting, instead of helping, Singaporeans. She is right and she is wrong. Property investors will find the value of their investments dropping off a cliff and may well make the ruling party pay at the polls, but young Singaporeans looking for a first property, especially an HDB, will be very happy. But more to her point that money will need to be found to replace the loss from the drastically reduced price of land for HDB - it will hurt the ruling party more than the people because it will have to fight for a mandate with less funds. But as always, they will twist it around.   Foong Swee Fong      Read More →