Netizen who exposes PAP thrown into IMH!

Tuesday, 02 June 2009

• Netizen who exposes PAP thrown into IMH!

  THIS IS AN APPEAL TO EVERYONE TO REMEMBER ME!HELP IF YOU CAN!
  
  I appeared in Court today for the trial.They did not even allow me to go for trial.They do not dare to,they know i can expose them...They are claiming that i am crazy,and that they want to make an application to throw me into IMH.
  
  Mr Chia Ti Lik has managed to stall them till 2.30pm,but the likelihood is that they will then throw me into the Gulag/IMH.
  
  Doesn't this eerily reminds you of the ISA?Just that they disguised it,and discredit you at the same time by labelling you crazy...?
  
  This is a communist,fascist country!
  
  They are going to throw me into the Gulag for exposing what these villians have done to Netizens!!!
  
  Goodbye.I do not know when i can blog again...
  

http://pothepanda.xanga.com/703616413/netizen-who-exposes-pap-thrown-into-imh/

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=30184.3

Were Temasek/GIC misled by banks or did they go in with eyes open?‏

BofA withheld material information prior to Merrill Lynch merger shareholder vote? - Fw: Billions of reserves lost: Were Temasek/GIC misled by banks or did they go in with eyes open?‏

To: President Nathan,

Further to my Feb 12th email (below), I am attaching an extract and a link to the Bank of America-Merrill Lynch Merger Investigation Report dated 23 Apr 2009 which revealed very material information (more losses amounting to billions purportedly known to BofA senior executives) was not disclosed to shareholders (including Singapore’s Temasek at that time, before such investments were divested which resulted in realised losses of billions of citizens’ reserves) prior to the merger vote.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems Temasek and the Singapore Government have been misled with the BofA-Merrill Lynch merger when material information was not disclosed to shareholders prior to the merger vote, so is Temasek (and the government as Temasek’s shareholder?) doing anything to seek redress?

I remember the share price of Bank of America took a severe beating only after it was learnt of the huge losses (including the undisclosed additional losses) in January 2009. I further understand Temasek had divested some or all of its BofA shares subsequently in February/March 2009 when its share price was at or near its lowest.

If the MPs do not deem it fit to raise this issue in Parliament for full accountability for these losses and possible redress where justified (which could/might have been prevented had full disclosure of material information been made available to all shareholders), I urge you, as the guardian of the citizens’ reserves, and on the citzens’ behalf, to order the government to explore all possible options to seek redress in recovering the losses from BofA and/or US Federal Reserve and/or US Treasury Department if they were found to have withheld material information from being disclosed to shareholders prior to the merger vote.

Yours faithfully,

Jeffrey Ho

NRIC: Sxxxxx76G

Addendum:

http://forum.channelnewsasia.com/viewtopic.php?t=250604

“On September 15,2008, Merrill Lynch entered into a merger agreement with Bank of America….. The merger was approved by shareholders on December 5, 2008, and became effective on January 1, 2009…..The week after the shareholder vote - and days after Merrill Lynch set its bonuses Merrill Lynch quickly and quietly booked billions of dollars of additional losses. Merrill Lynch’s fourth quarter 2008 losses turned out to be $7 billion worse than it had projected prior to the merger vote and finalizing its bonuses. These additional losses, some of which had become known to Bank of America executives prior to the merger vote, were not disclosed to shareholders until mid-January 2009, two weeks after the merger had closed on January 1, 2009.” - New York Attorney-General Andrew Cuomo’s BofA-Merrill Lynch Merger Investigation Report dated 23 April 2009, link - http://www.oag.state.ny.us/media_center/2009/apr/pdfs/BofAmergLetter.pdf

12 Feb 2009

Dear President Nathan,

I write to you as a citizen of Singapore and a stakeholder of the country’s reserves.

Just this week, we were told in Parliament by Senior Minister of State for Finance, Mrs Lim Hwee Hua that Temasek’s assets had lost some $58 billion in value since March 2008. (While no details were given for GIC, another report suggested that GIC’s assets might have lost even more - up to $200 billion - refer “Temasek takes severe hit”, The Nation, 9 Feb 2009, http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2009/02/09/headlines/headlines_30095260.php)

If The Nation’s figures on GIC are accurate, between both these two Sovereign Wealth Funds (”SWFs”), they had managed to lose some $258 billion of stakeholders’ money under their management thus far. (This is equivalent to losing some $70,879 of each citizen’s stake based on Wiki’s 3.64 million Singapore citizens, or for my family of four, some $283,516! Argh……)

As the Elected President, one of your primary duties is to safeguard the country’s and stakeholders’ reserves via the “second key”. (I wonder how the government managed to circumvent this second key safeguard to end up losing $258 billion unless you were a party to all those decisions that resulted in such losses, a fact we are not privy to). Therefore, you are entrusted with the responsibility to ensure the stakeholders’ reserves are prudently managed by the incumbent government - for the future of Singaporeans and generations to come.

Clearly, a grave mistake and repeatedly wrong judgements have been made by the government (via these 2 SWFs of Temasek and GIC) in the $258 billion loss which would include the billions invested in failed or failing banks like Citigroup, Merrill Lynch (now Bank of America), Barclays, UBS, etc. The question I’d like to find out is:

(1). Were they potentially misled by the banks into which they had invested (as evidenced by recent reports of class action suits by shareholders against banks which might have potentially misled them or withheld important information from them that might have affected their decisions)?; or

(2). Did they go in with their eyes open, ie. knowing that there were billions or even trillions of toxic assets on the banks’ books (thus rendering them potentially insolvent, according to Prof Roubini and may others) but yet still went ahead to invest in them, for reasons known only to them?

If it’s (1) above, the government, via Temasek and/or GIC, as shareholders of these potentially insolvent banks, should consider taking legal action/joining in the class action against these banks and/or their officials, shouldn’t they?

But if it’s (2) above, then the government owes its duty to its citizens and stakeholders to come clean and explain why it went in to invest in these banks despite knowing the extent of toxic assets on their books - with a high likelihood of the investments totally wiped out.

Since I do not expect the government to volunteer the information, can you, as the President of Singapore and the de-facto “guardian” of the reserves, require the incumbent government to disclose such important information to its citizens and what actions have been taken or are to be taken so that such mistakes are learnt and not repeated in the future?

How can any competent government ever lose so much in a year what it took some 30 to 40 years of the pioneering and fully competent Old Guard ministers like Messrs Goh Keng Swee and Hon Sui Sen and the citizens’ hard work and sacrifices to build up?

(Note: While not affiliated to any political party, I am copying Mr Tan and the various Opposition (and potential Opposition) parties and party members in the hope that where I fail to get to the bottom of the fiasco via this email, they can continue to pursue them - whether in parliament and/or the cyberspace. Trust in the government, as we’re told to do “blindly”, is no longer in abundance amongst the citizens these days, unfortunately.)

Thank you.

Yours faithfully,

Jeffrey Ho

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=30187.1

AWARE PRESIDENT'S 'APOLOGY'

AWARE PRESIDENT'S 'APOLOGY'

We're sorry for 'trauma' but not for our programmes

June 02, 2009

SPEAKING UP: Ms Dana Lam was picked as the new Aware president after the extraordinary general meeting last month. ST FILE PICTURE AWARE president Dana Lam has apologised to the association's supporters - the teachers, parents, students, 'a certain NMP' and others who have drawn flak from employers and public. Ms Lam was referring to the controversy surrounding the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware). She was speaking at Aware's Top Girls at the Gala Performance on Saturday. She also apologised to sponsors who have been funding their activities for a good 24 years, volunteers, and members of the staff for what she called 'inadvertent trauma of the past weeks'. However, she said, the association is not making any apologies for their programmes. We make no apologies for the support of straight, homosexual or any other members, she added.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28024.566

Let's build bridges rather than burn them

Let's build bridges rather than burn them

I REFER to Dr Thio Su Mien's letter yesterday, 'Militant religionism? It's family values'.

In it, she states her endorsement of mainstream and government-supported family structure and values.

I believe Singapore should not merely be a domain wherein the majority always wins or has the final say. This should be complemented and buffered by values of pluralism and polycentrism.

That said, every identity, faith and family structure deserves the same right to participate, to be represented, respected and protected.

The conventional family structure, according to the Government as reiterated by Dr Thio, may be the 'heterosexual stable family'. However, we should not use this rhetoric - or even hide behind it - to dehumanise, devalue and discriminate against other family structures.

Like Dr Thio, I am against anti-religious hostility. Singaporeans have the right to faith and the right to participate in domain of religion.

Unfortunately, people from religious domains have sought to belittle, invalidate and delegitimise various segments and communities in the public domain.

The public domain consists of people of diverse faiths and religious affiliations, and even the understated non-religious. However, it involves a lopsided participation and representation of views and discourses from specific circles. I believe it is not merely the alleged presence of a numerical majority, but rather the participation of an educated elite with an opposing moral agenda.

As a son and a husband, I believe in family values too, but these values are based more on function than form or appearance. Love and safety are two important values.

The structure of any family outside our own should neither concern nor affect us. If it does, we need to question the extent to which we claim moral, intellectual and emotional superiority and righteousness over others.

I also take issue with Dr Thio's labelling of the 'homosexual agenda' in Singapore.

The term, originating in the United States in the 1990s, is polarising. Moreover, it exacerbates social division with obscene amounts of misinformation, self-righteous moralising and fear-mongering.

The term is also generalising, simplistic and disrespectful to those who seek to address issues of discrimination, equality, protection and pluralistic social integration. I find it unnerving that there are some who want to make Singapore unsafe - socially, emotionally and professionally unsafe - for people who identify as 'queer'.

Instead of closing doors and burning bridges, let us make the effort to communicate openly.

Ho Chi Sam

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=29775.41

Opposition won't gain muscle with NCMPs

Opposition won't gain muscle with NCMPs

SUNDAY'S article, 'Reducing GRCs the way forward', stresses the point that while change is welcome, more must be done by the Government to promote differing yet constructive views being voiced in Parliament.

Even though the priorities of Singaporeans are good government, excellent living conditions, proper housing, safe jobs and a secure country with racial and religious harmony - all of which we have achieved to the envy of many - they also look for more space to accommodate a credible opposition in Parliament. Many Singaporeans, particularly the younger generation who have travelled widely, aspire for more breathing space in the political theatre at home.

The recent announcement by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong - that future group representation constituencies (GRCs) will have five or fewer group representatives, that the number of Non-Constituency MPs (NCMPs) will be raised to nine, and the Nominated MP scheme made a permanent feature - is indeed a step forward and welcomed by the majority.

Mr Lee is to be congratulated on this bold, progressive step. However, there is some disappointment among those who wish to see more single-member constituencies and smaller GRCs.

We are world leaders in racial integration, economic growth, housing, health facilities, education system, clean air, safe water, meritocracy, good governance and many more. To be truly considered a world-class nation, we should have the courage and political will to accommodate more public opinion. Mr Lee's new initiative is indeed a step in that direction.

The argument that GRCs guarantee minority representation in Parliament is a strong one, but restrictions on their formation appear to limit the presence of legitimate opposition. If the opposition is to be legitimate and pragmatic and play a useful part in Singapore's future development, it should not be government-appointed but truly chosen by the people. This will not be achieved by increasing the number of NCMPs.

We should not fear different points of view but listen to them all so we can create a society that is tolerant, not just in racial and religious terms but also on numerous other issues.

On a side note, while younger members are desirable in Parliament, age should not be a barrier, as some older Singaporeans are equally capable, fit and forward-thinking. Chronological age should not be an obstacle in politics as physical and mental age can overcome genetic age.

Dr V.P. Nair

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=29775.40