Disqus - Friends of motochan

Re: An over-the-top attempt at character assassination

Jeremy Chen — Wed, 17 Jul 2013 06:37:16 -0000

Of course, the statement

"the 9 million masks are coming into Singapore only on Monday (June 24). But none will be for the public"

is not true... now. Because prior to the statement being made on the social media, the decision had been made that the masks were to be for healthcare workers (this was confirmed in Parliament on 9 Jul by the Defence Minister). Clearly the statement referenced the original decision. Sometime when it was realized that the haze was severe, that decision was reversed and some masks were released to the public. Of course after the the reversal the truth of the statement switched... But that does not discredit whoever made the statement at all.

Being a lawyer, I'm sure you are against arbitrarily changing the law and having it apply retroactively suddenly and without notice. In so far as that is unfair, your statement, too, is unfair. And you know it (or jolly well should).

Re: Fracking Victim Sued for Defamation After Proving Drinking Water Flammable

Jeremy Chen — Sun, 10 Nov 2013 00:23:01 -0000

Here's a simple "incentive compatible" test for contamination: Get the natural resource company to do the test on camera and report the finding... on camera. If the result is "no contamination", they should stand next to the well, on camera, and light a match. Perhaps the whole thing might be live-streamed.

Re: S'pore not world-class in social behaviour

Jeremy Chen — Wed, 01 Jan 2014 11:32:58 -0000

Singaporeans are fairly decent people. At least 15 years ago that seemed rather clear just based on what one might observe on public buses/trains. There was never an issue about giving one's seat to someone else in need. In fact, the definition of "in need" at the time would have been rather expansive by today's standards. Singaporeans were good exemplars of the 好公民 (good citizen). But things have changed.

From the perspective of an evolutionary system, "poor public morality", as a strategy adopted by members of sub-populations, is like an invasive species that makes those engaging in good behaviour lose out. Even some of the earliest philosophers (Plato, in particular) recognized that the just individual often loses out to the dirty play of the unjust. Thus, from an evolutionary perspective, "losing out" without a reasonable moral basis can cause "good citizens" to change how they behave to avoid being taken advantage of, and therein lies the rub (and the burn).

So in Singapore, the question to ask is whether "good citizenship" has been diluted or poisoned? In the former case, it just means that the raw number of "good citizens" has not fallen and it is just a matter of converting the "freshman Singaporeans/PRs/foreign workers" to adopt the right forms (someone did say we are a "Confucian society") of behaviour.

But on the other hand, what if the latter is true and some of the "non-freshman Singaporeans/PRs" have decided that being "good citizens" is not worth it and that adopting bad behaviour prevents them from losing out. (Basically... nice until "sian diao", no point being decent, change behavior.) So Singaporeans changed their behaviour or is it just a simple dilution effect? I believe the former to be a significant dynamic and am concerned on that count.

This is why integration into some aspects of the original Singaporean way of life is necessary. Immigrants need not give up their cultural heritage, but certain attitudes and behaviours (especially anti-social ones) have to change. Call it cultural imperialism if you must, but some modes of social interaction and behaviour are just superior. (In fact, I do not even think it is a matter of imposing our values on others. The uncultured and uncouth have fellow countrymen in Singapore who are ashamed of the bad behaviour of the former and sometimes apologize on behalf of their country. So it might turn out that the former do not live up to the standards/ideals of their own country.)

Singaporeans may not have had perfect social mores, but we were doing well and perhaps about to make more progress. Over the past decade, there has been a massive set back in social graciousness. Integration is necessary to halt (and possibly reverse) the secular decline. One thing to take comfort in is the fact that, as far as I can see, Singaporeans take pride in being aware that anti-social behaviour is not good. This is a good anchor point we cannot concede.

Re: No need for major reform of govt policies

Jeremy Chen — Fri, 10 Jan 2014 00:35:46 -0000

"Public hospitals have amenities that are as good as, if not better than, those at private hospitals." Seriously?

Re: Collective appeal by animal welfare organizations to review the case of alleged animal abuse in Pasir Ris Camp

Jeremy Chen — Thu, 20 Mar 2014 01:05:18 -0000

Well... if it's a crime in civilian law but not one defined as a crime under military law then it is clear that the police and civilian courts have jurisdiction.

Re: Mr Lee Kuan Yew's response to wikileaks' claim

Jeremy Chen — Fri, 25 Apr 2014 00:05:29 -0000

Hmmmm... Time to comment on an old article.

Did Wikileaks have something to gain from misrepresenting LKY? No. They just released a big pile of documents.

Did our US counterpart have an interest in misrepresenting LKY? No. If they did so, they'd run the risk of acting on faulty intelligence. And because these diplomatic cables are supposed to be "secret", there is no concern about "face saving" and "public scandal".

Did the MFA notetaker have an incentive to misrepresent LKY? Hmmm... This is not clear one way or the other.

In the public service, when taking minutes for deliberations, the chair will, from time to time, tell the note takers to not take something down. Here is a non-OSA violating example. Some director/DCE/CE in DSTA once said, in a DSTA Management Committee Meeting, "Do, Salah, Try Again" (DSTA) to much laughter... And the chair told the note takers (us) "Don't record that!"

I'm not saying that LKY is lying. (I haven't.) I'm just looking at the incentive picture. We have to note that "freak events" do occur. =P

Re: End discrimination in rental market, President & PM urged

Jeremy Chen — Fri, 02 May 2014 04:25:13 -0000

First, it is important to note that racism is not the major factor at play. The dominant factor is economic. Rental discrimination should stop. But negative externalities have to be dealt with too. It is only fair. If a kitchen has to be overhauled, or massive refitting has to be done there must be appropriate compensation and security. "Safety deposits" may not cover damage that might include breakage, significant wear to a point approaching breakage, long lasting odours, stains, etc. The problem is that "market rate" safety deposits don't cover the risk to landlords. (Money and time by the landlord, and rental downtime in remediation.) This must be so, because landlords are ultimately in it for the money, and would rent if the unnecessary risks are covered.

Re: Citizen Statement on Prime Minister Lee’s Defamation Action against Mr Roy Ngerng

Jeremy Chen — Thu, 22 May 2014 11:51:46 -0000

I'm from the SDP and I don't support it based on reading it. (Not that I got the draft.) [And as far as I know, the party has no official position on the matter.]

Letting any one just post "LHL+CPF=ChinaWine" without describing what the wrongdoing is, and trying to run a civil society bail out is not healthy. Contrary to what the statement claims.

This is not the same as asking whether a large loan was extended to another country in breach of the law because that can be checked. Making such a statement puts the ball in the government's court to say whether it did contravene the law. But it's not the same in this case.

The statement suggests that the government has not clarified the important "issues like CPF and retirement funding" that are supposedly relevant to this libel case. In fact, the government has been publicly clarifying CPF over the past weeks. Even "accrued interest".

In terms of clarification, the only thing outstanding is "LHL+CPF=ChinaWine" which is for Roy to clarify.

This "statement" is formally identical to the Wall Street bailouts that had bankers laughing their way to the bank. Bankers took risks, and when it paid off they took all the gains personally, but when it blew up, the government bailed them out and they took no personal losses. Here, Roy Ngerng used sensationalist half-truths to boost his public profile and when nothing happened, it was great publicity wise, but now that he has overstepped, the attempted civil society bailout comes.

This statement disappoints because it does not attempt to shift the culture of political defamation. Libel suits are a very powerful instrument accessible only to the powerful. They leave a bad taste in the mouth when used as a first/second resort in cases relating to governance because it feels like something is being hushed up. There should be a change in the legal culture so fact finding and clarification is inserted in the process before things go to court. For instance, demand letters might be changed from their current "Apolologize or I Sue" form to something along the lines of "Either clarify your allegation with evidence/a precise statement of where evidence can be found, or apologize. Failing which, I will sue." This statement by civil society ignores the larger issue of pushing for fact finding and clarification to be the first resort in such disputes.

Re: Ngerng vs Lee – where does Civil Service stand?

Jeremy Chen — Sat, 21 Jun 2014 01:01:43 -0000

This accusation is a bit disingenuous. People cannot on one hand scream that what matters is how the CPF system is run as well how politics is conducted (purportedly with truth-seeking as a focus rather than threatening litigation as an opening move), and then cry bloody murder when a press secretary replies to a newspaper on the issue of the conduct of politics (substantiated facts rather than sensationalist defamation). This is not the HPL case and has a substantially greater public character. The author should know better.

Re: The public service, political impartiality, and the future of the nation

Jeremy Chen — Sat, 21 Jun 2014 01:15:13 -0000

There is a national and non-partisan interest in protecting the office of the Prime Minister from lies and malicious slurs. It doesn't matter if we look upon the PM as a mere figurehead leading the Ministry without Portfolio or as an involved leader setting direction. The issue is not whether the PM is a policy mastermind or a walking public relations fiasco (walking policy fiasco or public relations mastermind?). Whoever holds the office, any and all cases, even purely personal ones (which this recent one is not because of all the political entrepreneurship in the air), will affect the inherent dignity of the office which matters for domestic governance and foreign relations. Care should be taken for the public sector to work within the public sphere, but there may be spillovers. To err on the side of coverage or to err on the side of clear jurisdiction is a fair judgement call to make.

Re: Ngerng vs Lee – where does Civil Service stand?

Jeremy Chen — Mon, 23 Jun 2014 04:43:18 -0000

So where exactly is the code of conduct violated?

Re: Ngerng vs Lee – where does Civil Service stand?

Jeremy Chen — Wed, 25 Jun 2014 02:20:46 -0000

Honestly, and I'm not trying to be difficult, it is not spelt out fully because it is not clear that the matter is a purely private controversy. That has to be established and without that being established, the claim that the code of conduct has been violated is shaky.

As I mentioned in my previous comment, I observe how some activists with a reasonably strong voice are painting the case as a matter of public interest from the perspective of public policy, not "the private life of the PM". Some might think that it is a private matter, but not all.

The totality of the character of comment on the muddy muddy issue would be reasonable justification for "activating" a Press Secretary -- enough people think it impinges on how policy debate is carried out. But those who assert it is a private matter would not agree.

Re: Ngerng vs Lee – where does Civil Service stand?

Jeremy Chen — Wed, 25 Jun 2014 04:55:24 -0000

In fairness, referring to the letter, ...

http://www.economist.com/ne...

... everything was a statement of "what happened" or "what was claimed in the press". The apology is an obvious fact, making it no mere "allegation". That was the only value judgment in the letter.

I do not think restating what has happened and/or what has been said is a problem.

Re: Ngerng vs Lee – where does Civil Service stand?

Jeremy Chen — Wed, 25 Jun 2014 04:59:54 -0000

Also, ...

"When someone makes false and malicious personal allegations that impugn a person’s character or integrity, the victim has the right to vindicate his reputation, whether he is an ordinary citizen or the prime minister."

... is a statement of civil rights. Note that it is so general and incomplete as to not outline the type of recourse that should be available... So let's not go on the "poor man" thing because Ngerng has been selling and people have been buying.

Re: CDL chairman again calls on gov’t to ease property curbs

Jeremy Chen — Wed, 02 Jul 2014 04:33:32 -0000

"Property" is not a sector of the economy that contributes to Singapore's international competitiveness. Rather, it leeches off the desirability of Singapore as a place to work or live. So The causal link Kwek Leng Beng suggests is the opposite of that in reality. Any competitiveness argument thus falls flat.

Re: Singapore sovereign wealth funds – Part 2: Anathema to a free market

Jeremy Chen — Mon, 04 Aug 2014 00:06:50 -0000

“The government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem.” - Milton Friedman

Seriously???

Why listen unthinkingly to economists pontificating. We have to consider issues at their most basic level and check if the (usually self-interested) recommendations of pundits hold up.

Re: Police can’t assist in spyware enquiry

Jeremy Chen — Mon, 15 Sep 2014 12:49:43 -0000

I've sent the police the same question possibly phrased differently.

I think the key to getting a straight answer is to phrase things such that it would be embarrassing for the police to not have a straight answer. Such as "If I observe someone defacing part of Parliament House and make a police report, will the police respond with the intent of making an arrest?" It would be really silly if they said "I can't help you, please seek legal counsel."

But I guess, given my lack of knowledge of the statutes, I may not have phrased things as well as the could be. Maybe the best thing to do is for multiple people to try.

This is what I sent them:

"""
Hi,

I am a Singapore citizen and would like to clarify whether the possession and/or use of the software described in...

http://www.theonlinecitizen...

... is a criminal offence. Possibly under the Computer Misuse and Cybersecurity Act (50A) (e.g.: 6 Unauthorised access to computer material, 4 Unauthorised use or interception of computer service, 8 Unauthorised disclosure of access code).

Or is it an act of trespass (criminal trespass/house-trespass/lurking house-trespass/lurking house-trespass by night) under the Penal Code (C224; 441-444).

In particular:

1) If someone is known to be in possession of such software and a police report is made, will the police act to make arrests?

2) If such software is used on someone and a police report is made, will the police open an investigation with the intention of making arrests?

Please do clarify. These are important criminal matters that we'd like to know the official position of the police on.
"""

Re: Constitution does not provide for defamation action: Ngerng’s defence

Jeremy Chen — Fri, 19 Sep 2014 01:34:16 -0000

This is bullshit:

"""Mr Ravi said, Mr Ngerng’s opinion, in the form of his admission, is in fact completely irrelevant to the case before the courts."""

For an admission not obtained by means such as torture, this claim makes very little sense. Economic torture? It was clear to everyone that at most a small financial penalty would have been extracted if the dishonest actions that followed were not carried out (e.g.: covert e-mails in contravention of undertakings, continuing to make things available on the internet). At the worst, Ngerng would have lost another holiday in Europe. (Ngerng has refused to explain those actions even when he said he would.)

It is arguments like this that put law in disrepute. It is just like a past-CJ's ruling on the Cheng San polling station. In fact, since the latter ruling was based on language ambiguity, in some sense, this "irrelevant admission" argument is even worse.

Re: Constitution does not provide for defamation action: Ngerng’s defence

Jeremy Chen — Fri, 19 Sep 2014 01:53:14 -0000

"""Mr Ravi said that ultimately, it is up to the judge to decide if Mr Ngerng’s blog article would be interpreted by an ordinary reasonable reader, who is not avid for scandal, upon reading the article as a whole, that Mr Lee is guilty of criminal misappropriation."""

Isn't almost all of what Ngerng has been posting "avid for scandal", and thus agreeable to exactly the reader who is "avid for scandal"?

Re: Constitution does not provide for defamation action: Ngerng’s defence

Jeremy Chen — Fri, 19 Sep 2014 05:27:27 -0000

No need to eavesdrop. One of the recipients just needs to forward it.

On the second point, the recipients who forwarded the message probably considered the dishonesty of Ngerng undertaking to do one thing and sneakily doing the opposite.

It's a matter of integrity.

For instance, the censorship of From Singapore with Love is problematic because it is a matter of silencing voices presenting a side of history. In Ngerng's case it is, to a sizable extent, holding him accountable for saying he'd do something and doing the opposite.

Re: Constitution does not provide for defamation action: Ngerng’s defence

Jeremy Chen — Fri, 19 Sep 2014 05:29:05 -0000

One can be simultaneously against the lack of transparency in government dealings and also oppose the dishonesty of certain people who are exploiting public dissatisfaction for personal gain.

Re: Constitution does not provide for defamation action: Ngerng’s defence

Jeremy Chen — Fri, 19 Sep 2014 06:13:51 -0000

Go look up what Ngerng initially agreed to do.

There's an informal contract nature to it. You lend someone money, you expect to get it back and legal recourse is possible if you don't. Ngerng agrees to take down material he accepts as defamatory and not to promulgate it further and similar principles hold.

Things on the integrity front would be somewhat different if he never ever accepted the material was defamatory, never agreed to take things down, and never agreed to not promulgate them further. In that case, he might spread it far and wide and not be regarded as dishonest on that count. (As to the quality of the materials, that is a different matter.)

Re: Constitution does not provide for defamation action: Ngerng’s defence

Jeremy Chen — Fri, 19 Sep 2014 10:04:43 -0000

It's not about offending people. There is no right to not have your feelings hurt. But fraudulently assassinating someone's character hurts that person in a real economic sense, just as spreading lies about the hygiene standards about a restaurant will hurt its business.

Telling a restaurant owner he is ugly is something he can't take legal action against you for. But telling people even privately, lies about how the restaurant uses recycled gutter oil and adulterate its meat using the many rats its catches in its kitchen to cut costs, would be grounds for a defamation suit. The size of damages would then depend on the number of people you "privately" lied to and other factors.

Why use PAP-style arguments to grasp at straws and bat away the truth. Facts are facts even if more than 60.1% of the people reading this article don't like them.

I helped Roy Ngerng get some pledges for contributions before he started fund raising. But I came away disgusted with his lack of integrity.

Re: Constitution does not provide for defamation action: Ngerng’s defence

Jeremy Chen — Fri, 19 Sep 2014 12:56:03 -0000

...

Re: Constitution does not provide for defamation action: Ngerng’s defence

Jeremy Chen — Fri, 19 Sep 2014 13:01:04 -0000

The PM's thin-skinned-ness is his personal problem.
Roy's lack of integrity is Roy's personal problem.

The PM's personal problem makes him less suitable as a politician.
Roy's makes him untrustworthy.

But the PM is not stupid. If he starts entertaining every baseless accusation, then he'll be very very busy entertaining baseless accusations. From his point of view, it's far more efficient to show that baseless accusations can be costly to the accuser, so people thinking of making such accusations should bear in mind what it might cost them. A bit ruthless, but not stupid.

And Roy is both attention seeking and untrustworthy.