My Thoughts on NMP Siew Kum Hong's Police Report

NMP Siew Kum Hong has come under attack recently for his role a 'legal advisor' for the Aware Old Guard at the last EOGM. More recently, a slew of accusations have perpetuated in online forums, insinuating that he had received foreign funding from a Swedish politician (who allegedly funds the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), and is somehow the SDP's representative or "mole" in Parliament.

Siew has unequivocally denied these allegations and has filed a police report and requested the removal of said posts.

First, I would like to clearly state that i have a tremendous amount of respect for Mr Siew. This respect was formulated from his performance in parliament and his genuine interest in serving society and providing a voice for the disempowered.

Second, I do not, nor have ever, condoned nor encouraged irresponsible and inflammatory comments under the cloak of anonymity on the Net.

Having established these two points, I am slightly perturbed by the potential ripple effects that his legal actions may have. I hate the "slippery slope" argument but unfortunatley, things always have a way of escalating.

Although Alex at yawningbread.org fully supports Siew's actions, he did note that "those who put themselves in the public eye should be more tolerant of public discussion of their activities and motives than truly private citizens." This is just something I hope Mr Siew and other public figures will keep in mind.

I have to date refrained from taking any legal action in response to the lies and falsehoods that have been levelled at me. But this latest attack goes beyond anything that a reasonable person could possibly perceive as being a valid or legitimate exercise of the right to free speech, and I certainly will not tolerate the latest rounds of character assassination from cowards hiding behind the perceived anonymity of he Internet. -- Siew Kum Hong

Although I am sympathetic to Mr Siew - no one should be subject to the concerted attacks on his person - I do have doubts over a move to track down anonymous netters when and no action was taken against the real life agents of the former Aware New Guard when they operate in the light of day and accuse him of abusing his position as NMP to further a Gay-agenda.

Obviously both are lies and as Alex has noted, the burden of proof (in libel law) lies on the person making the allegation.

While we are on the subject of libel, there are some cases to bear in mind:

1) The Lee's defamation suit against the publisher and editor of FEER
http://www.aseanaffairs.com/page/singapore_pm_ups_stakes_in_libel_case

2)The use of defamtion against CSJ
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ASA36/010/2001/en/dom-ASA360102001en.html

3) Libel suit against Gopalan Nair http://cpj.org/2008/06/singapore-detains-us-blogger-over-libel-commentary.php

Obviously these cases are different from Siew's curretn predicament, but they serve as reminders that what is deemed fair comment is often skewed by those with the power and money to sue.

When the little guy has to watch every single word he uses in fear of being accused of at best innuendo, and at worst libel, the only form in which free speech can take place is ironically in the shape of anonymity.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Also read: http://www.sgpolitics.net/?p=3072

Temasek and Bank of America - Are we missing something?

Published first at http://singaporeenquirer.sg/?p=3762

In December 2007 – the nascent and uncertain times prior to the eventual global credit meltdown – Temasek Holdings placed a strategic US$4.4 billion bet on troubled US investment bank Merrill Lynch. As markets continued to unravel from the subprime crisis and credit squeeze Temasek nearly doubled down with an increased stake of US$ 3.4 billion in July 2008.

In justification of this tremendous capital injection in uncertain times, and perhaps to calm nervy Singaporeans, Temasek declared “great confidence” in then Merrill Lynch CEO John Thain.

MP Lim Hwee Hua – Singapore's minister of state for finance – announced in parliament that “Because our reserves are invested with a long-term horizon, this long-term orientation will keep us from selling in panic in a market downturn” and that “The downturns also offer opportunities for our agencies to invest in good quality assets at prices that are attractive from a long-term perspective.”

History is cruel and unforgiving as less than a month later, Lehman Brothers went bust; setting off a chain of events threatening to take down giant insurers, banks, motor companies, … etc down with it.

Having already suffered heavy loses on initial investments, optimism sprung eternal when Bank of America bought over Merril Lynch to prevent it from going bankrupt.
The conversion of Merril into Bank of America shares promise some long term recovery given that Bank of America is a much bigger franchise.

Had Temasek sold its stake after the Bank of America takeover in Sep 2008, it could have gained US$1.5 billion, according to an estimate by Ilian Mihov, an economics professor at graduate business school INSEAD in Singapore. The stock price of Bank of America ranged from US$26 – US$37 per share in Sep 2008.

Perhaps Temasek believed in its mantra of having a long term investment horizon and sought to retain the Bank of America stock to earn more than what to them was a measly potential 20% return on investment.

That resolve, or foolishness, was short lived and today it was confirmed that Temasek had sold its entire stake by 31 Mar 09. Choosing instead to increase investments in emerging markets and reduce exposure to developed economies.

Market timing is clearly not a strong suit of Madam Ho Ching. Since the end of March, when Temasek completed the sale (at an average price of US$6.73), Bank of America stock has risen 66 percent (presently it is US$11.31).

US$11.31 is not much compared to the US$37 it could have made in Sep, but its obviously much better than US$6.73.

I’m not an economist but I am well aware of the shortcomings of attempting to time markets. It is often described as a fool’s quest and I therefore can appreciate the long term investing philosophy. So why the sudden abandonment of this philosophy? We will probably never know the real reason.

Meanwhile, we continue to reward incompetence over and over, AND over again.

Am I missing something?

--------------------------------

Also read: http://wayangparty.com/?p=9407

Update: Temasek explains BoA sale - http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_380131.html

I will not begrudge the series of self-back-patting that will commence from here on. We as Singaporeans demanded that MSk be recaptured and the authorities have delivered in this.

MSK's recapture will now provide the real accounts of his escape and this will be put side by side with the COI report to be check for disprepencies. If there are more loopholes in the system, now is the time to identify them and rectify them.

Mas Selamat’s rearrest a good lesson — Zuraidah Ibrahim
Source: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com

MAY 8 — To the paranoid, Singapore’s Internal Security Department, or the ISD, is omnipresent. To many others, it is an organisation to be feared, respected and admired for its ability to keep Singapore safe from any untoward incident that threatens the peace here. But mostly, it is to be feared.

It knew the country's business and, if it needed to, it knew your business. So, it was with great incredulity that the public received the news on Feb 27 last year that the organisation had let one of its biggest catches escape.

That sultry afternoon, the wily Mas Selamat Kastari went into a Whitley Road Detention Centre toilet and out into the wilderness — using nothing more than his wits and the indolence of officials on his watch as his escape kit. That, plus a baju for a change of clothing.

When details of the escape emerged in dribs and confusing drabs over the immediately following days, Singaporeans were dismayed that it was complacency that had created the lax conditions that enabled Mas Selamat to bolt. For a while too, Singaporeans wondered and debated whether complacency had indeed set in to taint their national psyche.

Then, there were the conspiracy theories that abounded about how he must have been re-arrested and then beaten to death in detention. By then too, the baju had become a burqa. Hands up those of you who did not receive an e-mail with a photoshopped picture of Mas Selamat wearing a tudung.

Amidst all this, a wan-looking Deputy Prime Minister and Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng had to tackle questions in a parliamentary debate that was less wrathful than the mood of the public, but no less intense.

He was under severe pressure and Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong stepped in to say that he had full confidence in Wong and the ISD chief. There was no need for Wong to resign, as was being demanded by some quarters, said PM Lee.

Since then, even as Wong and others have consistently said that they had not given up hope that Mas Selamat would be found, many other people were sceptical.

When The Straits Times' senior regional correspondent Leslie Lopez called to tell me about his scoop which we reported on today's front page, my first reaction too was of sheer doubt. Mas Selamat caught in Johor Baru? Within sneezing distance of Singapore? Not in some remote corner of Indonesia or the Philippines?

It didn't help when he said that Mas Selamat was caught on April 1. Too late for that April Fool's joke, I told him.

But his thorough checks across the region proved solid and we decided to go with the story.

So, it would appear that Mas Selamat was good, but not that good. This is the third time he has been caught while on the run. Security analysts say that fugitives eventually slip up and try to resume contact with the people they know. The challenge for security operatives is to know whom the fugitive knows and be unrelenting in connecting the dots to find a trail.

Sources said that it was the Singapore ISD that gave the Malaysians the lead on Mas Selamat's trail. If so, the department, which has come under the heaviest fire, has redeemed itself.

The recapture will clear the stain that his escape had left. Indeed the ISD had up to then been doing credible work in the arrest of suspected militants. After the first and second wave of arrests of Jemaah Islamiah (JI) members in Singapore in 2001 and 2002, the department had beavered away at finding out about others who escaped the two dragnets.

In the past five to six years, a check of published reports found that it had managed to reel in more than a dozen who had been on the run overseas. This is work that should have enhanced its reputation, but has been largely forgotten in the aftermath of the Mas Selamat episode.

Security analysts have often remarked at the high degree of cooperation among regional intelligence agencies that do their work diligently and are unswayed by the political temperature of bilateral and regional cooperation.

That the Singapore and Malaysian security agencies work closely is well-known. Mas Selamat's capture is yet another affirming signal of how such cooperation can pay dividends and how such ties must continue to be ring-fenced from the politics of the times.

The Home Affairs Minister and the ISD have reason to be satisfied and relieved. With the arrest, they have brought some closure to an embarrassing episode.

But this is not to say that there are no more questions to be asked. Once further details of his capture are released, a lot more will be asked about how it all happened.

How did he manage to get out of Singapore? Just how porous are Singapore's borders? Can there be steps taken to make them impenetrable without encumbering freedom of passage for law-abiding citizens? Did Mas Selamat have accomplices who were aiding and abetting him here? What other steps are being taken to close whatever loopholes his arrest have exposed? What punishment awaits him?

Meanwhile, if nothing else, Singaporeans may have learnt from Mas Selamat's escape the costs of complacency. His recapture should teach us the value of patience and persistence. — Straits Times