ValueBuddies.com : Value Investing Forum - Singapore, Hong Kong, U.S.

Good afternoon everyone.

asking a stupid question.

Is Roy a True Blue Singaporean?

what in "your" definition is a true blue singaprean?

(12-06-2014, 12:57 PM)sgd Wrote: [ -> ]what in "your" definition is a true blue singaprean?

Hi Sgd san,

here sir..

First, all those who were here in 1965 and were citizens or subsequently made citizens is a true blue Singaporean. All born and bred and served NS is another. All those new citizens who have served NS is also another. This latter category is to accept new citizens who are willing to serve the nation like all NSmen.



http://therealsingapore.com/content/what...ingaporean

Hi kbl san,

I don't get your point point sorry


my view about this whole thing. when one thinks of the era of LKY and GCT the word comes to most people's mind is "stern" "unapproachable" or even "fierce" compares that to LHL when he first came into office till now his approach has been "openness". Many from all walks even kids were "allowed" or invited to istana to have chat and tea and using social media like facebook or instagram has made it even more personal I will say this has so far sit very well with the young who saw a "change" a different kind of leader one who is like a patient friend as I mention compares with approach of previous prime ministers.

This openness encouraged by PM could have "created" Roy Ngerng. If you compares now and then, previously nobody has dared to voice out or join any opposition groups.

But almost 10 years into office suddenly we now have internet restriction laws and we starting to see defamation lawsuits over again. Are we now going back to previous times?

Personally I had expected LHL to just accept that token of $5k as a symbolic gesture an admission of "wrong doing" on Roy's part and moved on would have shown patience and magnanimity of PM and Roy is after just a small fry. This now looks bad.

(12-06-2014, 01:03 PM)kbl Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-06-2014, 12:57 PM)sgd Wrote: [ -> ]what in "your" definition is a true blue singaprean?

Hi Sgd san,

here sir..

First, all those who were here in 1965 and were citizens or subsequently made citizens is a true blue Singaporean. All born and bred and served NS is another. All those new citizens who have served NS is also another. This latter category is to accept new citizens who are willing to serve the nation like all NSmen.



http://therealsingapore.com/content/what...ingaporean

Interesting definition. Many new citizens convert to take advantage economically. I personally now foreigner couple who convert one (either husband or wife) of the couple to citizenship. And they are not afraid to tell me its becos of the monetary benefits. Some even thinking of dropping the citizenship after some years, citing reason like stress on their kids education etc

Just wondering if the same would have happened to an individual if he/she were to defame another person and use his or her time to do personal work during office hours ?

Probably not a very good time for this to happen when sentiments are quite bad. Housing, public transportation, CPF, etc.. More grouses and perhaps singaporeans are getting more demanding..

As a Singaporean, I really worry if we know how to react if a real crisis happens.. just my thoughts

Though job for those in power..

(12-06-2014, 12:35 PM)egghead Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-06-2014, 12:04 PM)specuvestor Wrote: [ -> ]1) Roy Accusing PM of stealing.
1.1 PM threatened to sue
1.2 Roy admit cannot substantiate what he said
1a Roy took down post
1b Instead posted summary of what he posted before and made a video (?)
1c Offered $5k compensation
2) PM suing of Roy

I roughly remember more details as follow:

1) Roy Accusing PM of stealing.
1.1 PM threatened to sue
1.2 Roy admit cannot substantiate what he said
1a Roy took down post and apologized. Asked for more time to offer damage and was granted
1b Instead posted summary of what he posted before and made a video (?)
Received further demand to remove postings and video or face aggravated damage. Pretend to comply but instead circulated postings and videos to international media.

1c Offered $5k compensation
2) PM suing of Roy

Correct me if I'm wrong.

(12-06-2014, 10:59 AM)CityFarmer Wrote: [ -> ]I disagree with your "disagreement"

If a staff committed a wrongdoing and admitted it unambiguously, not verbally, but in signed black and white. The company is absolutely right to dismiss the staff, even the case is not reported to police, and convicted in court.

I assume the same applies to Roy case.

Well, that's akin to opening a can of worms though. There should be proper protocol to follow, this is to protect both the employees and employers from unfair dismissals lawsuits, which sadly, isn't very strongly enforced here.

(12-06-2014, 02:20 PM)yourusualkid Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-06-2014, 10:59 AM)CityFarmer Wrote: [ -> ]I disagree with your "disagreement"

If a staff committed a wrongdoing and admitted it unambiguously, not verbally, but in signed black and white. The company is absolutely right to dismiss the staff, even the case is not reported to police, and convicted in court.

I assume the same applies to Roy case.

Well, that's akin to opening a can of worms though. There should be proper protocol to follow, this is to protect both the employees and employers from unfair dismissals lawsuits, which sadly, isn't very strongly enforced here.

I don't quite understand the statement. You means the protocol not proper, and will open a pandora box?

With limited experience, I will consider the protocol above is proper. We do give chance, but we need an insurance of black and white.

Roy Ngerng’s termination: ‘Sub judice’ and ‘due process’?
http://www.tremeritus.com/2014/06/12/roy...%e2%80%9d/

(12-06-2014, 10:38 AM)specuvestor Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-06-2014, 10:13 AM)CityFarmer Wrote: [ -> ]Mr Low Thia Khiang did go against the "masters", both on current "master" and the more "garang" previous "master". I didn't recall he was sued for defamation

There must be a major difference between him and ROY, to allow the privilege.

Agree

And to set the record straight please correct this chronology of events if you think it's incorrect, then we have some basis on why I think Roy deserve it:

1) Roy Accusing PM of stealing.
1a Roy took down post
1b Instead posted summary of what he posted before and made a video (?)
1c Offered $5k compensation
2) PM suing of Roy
http://www.valuebuddies.com/thread-5216-...l#pid85621

WP being the main opposition will have a view on major issues or debates. Fact that they kept quiet is an agreement by omission. Those parties that join the rally shows me what substance they really are. It is one thing for individuals to join, but quite another when a political party with a stated manifesto joins.

Which leads to my disagreement to what said below: An entity can have their own view, but if your view is a decision against another entity, ie sacking in this case, it has to be able to stand up to scrutiny. What NPark did to Lim on the Brompton Bike is correct protocol and sensible. What TTSH did is not... or rather half... if they just shutup up to the point when they said they dismissed Roy due to poor performance... that's valid enough

(11-06-2014, 05:38 PM)egghead Wrote: [ -> ]I don't see it that way.

Any person or organization can act on its own. It cannot mean that just because A is sued by B for defamation, everyone else has to wait for that case to settle. It is totally ok, for example, that in the mean time, C comes out and call A a liar as well and act accordingly in C's own interest. As long as C is satisfied that its own action is defensible.

____________

(11-06-2014, 09:41 PM)pianist Wrote: [ -> ]seems like many troubles or signs of troubles got brewed from the public service sector. I recalled there was one civil servant playing double 1) talking up & 2) talking down on new toyo thread.

is it true that civil service got so much free time? if so, I wonder if they are really doing their job during work hours..hmm..

I don't see a difference between the amount of commitment or the potential for hubris between public or private sector.

I don't believe civil sector should be talked down like in Taiwan. All it does is immobilise the civil service and essentially the infrastructure

I agree with LKY and believe for the common good a strong civil sector competitive with the pte sector is needed. It is the execution that I sometimes find issue with.

WP must have a view or debate on this ''major '' issue ?: