Sunday, November 2, 2014

False accusation by former security officer on The Real Singapore

Hello editor,

I am sending this to you because of an accusation on the trash site “The Real Singapore”.

This site reported that a security officer had been ill treated by the company, forced to work under the hot sun and haze. He further claims to be fired because of “resting during his break”.

He accuses his company, and that of Marina Bay Sands Management, amongst others that of unfair termination.

The fact is, this Jeffrey Pay had been treated very well, given promotions and even study opportunities. His behaviour turned from bad to worse after being promoted.

How do I know this? I was his colleague and I cannot stand to see people bite the very hand that feeds them, not especially because of personal vendetta.

This “Real Singapore” is equally pathetic for not fact checking and falsely accusing good employers. Everyone here is just using this false story for their own purposes.

I’ll probably get into trouble for leaking this document, but it is a risk I’d wish to take. There has been far too much misinformation on the internet.

Evidential photos are attached below and identities of Operations Managers (OM), client names, dollar values given to him are all censored for privacy.

Thank you for publishing this.


(Attached is a copy of the text in the photographed documents in full)



REPORT ON PAY HOCK GUAN (S7xxxx92A)

The following is a report on Security Executive Jeffrey Pay Hock Guan since the time he was recruited as a security personnel till the time that he has left our employment.

2. Jeffrey Pay was recruited as [position] on 28 February 2013 and has been working at [date] March 2013.

3. In April 2013, Jeffrey Pay applied for our [Company] Bursary and was given a sum of [dollar value] for his two children.

4. On 1 June 2013, Jeffrey Pay was confirmed as a [position] and he received a salary increment due to his confirmation.

5. On 1 July 2013, Jeffrey Pay was promoted to Security Executive (SE) and received another salary increment. He then continued to serve the company as a supporting role for the Operations Manager in charge, either as a security supervisor or as a security officer at site whenever required. However, upon his promotion to SE, his work attitude and performance changed terribly and he became arrogant towards his colleagues. During his stint as SE, there were numerous feedbacks received from clients and officers about his work performance, as well as his bad behaviour of insulting and bad mouthing colleagues. One of our clients from [client] wrote in on 2 occasions (22 July 2013 and 30 July 2013) to request for his removal as he was causing morale issues amongst the fellow security officers working there.

6. From the period between July 2013 till October 2013, Jeffrey Pay was shuffled among several assignments, including [clients] as all the clients did not welcome him at their sites owing to his bad attitude.

7. In October 2013, when Jeffrey Pay was assigned to work at The Sail at Marina Bay, the company received numeruous complaints from [name]. [name] spoke to Jeffrey Pay about these accusations and to attempted to guide Jeffrey Pay in carrying out his duties in a more professional manner. By 28 October 2013, all the staff working at the Sail at Marina Bay Condo had individually written complaint letters about the way Jeffrey Pay was behaving at site. Jeffrey Pay was accused of threatening the officers daily and causing arguments amongst staff, poor leadership, shouting at and abusing the officers and also asking officers to spy on each other. On 8 November 2013, Jeffrey Pay wrote a letter to deny these accusations. OM Mr. [name] again tried to counsel Jeffrey Pay about carrying out his work more professionally. At the same time, Mr. Thomas raised a request for disciplinary action against Mr Pay for his actions. Wanting to give him another chance, Mr. Thomas deployed him at the Central Provident Fund (CPF) assignment.

8. In December 2013, Jeffrey Pay applied for our [company] Bursary and was again given a sum of [dollar figure] for his two children.

9.   Thereafter, Jeffrey Pay was transferred to OM [name] and assisted him at the CPF sites. He was cooperative with his colleagues at the beginning stage. However, as time passed, Jeffrey Pay began receiving complaints from the members of the public, tenants and supervisors from CPF Board. Jeffrey Pay was often caught playing games on his Samsung phone/tablet (Please see Picture 1 below). He was given verbal warnings and counselling several times by his site Operations Executive (OE), site Operations Manager (OM), and our HQ Operations Managers (OM). However, he denied that he was using his handphone for leisure and instead insisted that he was checking emails from the officers (please see Picture 2 below) when in fact, he was not given the authority of running any men. He was advised that should officers have any grievances or sought any advice, they can speak to the OE or OMs.

10. Subsequently, in view that Mr Pay was not able to carry out our instructions of cutting down on his usage of mobile phone while on duty and also the complaints that he had received from the tenants, he was to be removed from CPF assignments in June 2014.

11. In May 2014, Jeffrey Pay applied for our [company name] Bursary and was again given a sum of [dollar figure] for his two children.

12. [Name] informed Jeffrey Pay on 10 June 2014 that he would be posted to another assignment. On the same morning, Jeffrey Pay walked out of CPF Bishan branch after being told to report to CPF Robinson by site OM [name] and did not turn up for work. This is a serious offence as he is disobeying a direct order from his OM and abandoning post. OM [name] then put up a disciplinary form requesting for his demotion to Security Supervisor from Security Executive for this serious offence. On 11 June 2014, Jeffrey Pay called up to report sick and went on his rest day on the following day but no medical certificates were given to OM Jimmy. On 13 June 2014, Jeffrey Pay returned to work and was informed about his demotion to Security Supervisor for his behaviour. Jeffrey Pay continued to work until 18 June 2014, went for his off day on the following day, and since then, he had refused to report for duty despite numerous calls by site OM, site OE and OM Jimmy to recall him back to work at other assignments.

13 As OM Jimmy is aware of Jeffrey Pay’s financial situation (Jeffrey Pay has been the recipient of our [company name] Bursary Award for his two children and has since received the bursary three times since his employment for a total of [dollar value]) and family situation, despite him having AWOL for more than 4 days, OM Jimmy sought permission to give Jeffrey Pay more time to return to work. OM [name] and site OM and OE continued to try to contact Jeffrey Pay to come back to work but he still refused to answer them or come back. Finally on 14 July 2014, OM Jimmy made the decision to terminate Mr Pay’s service due to his breach of contract of having been AWOL for more than 4 days. A letter was sent to his registered address by registered mail to inform him of his termination and the sum of money has to repay the Company for his failure to service notice.

14 It is clear from the chronological report above that the Company has been very fair and restrained in handling the disciplinary lapses of Jefrrey Pay. Aligned with our Company’s motto of Tender Loving Care, we have provided him with bursaries for his children over three semesters as well as given him a bonus at the end of 2013. Despite his frequent problems with clients and colleagues, we did not terminate him but instead counselled him to improve himself.

15. The Company will be taking legal action against Jeffrey Pay through the MOM Labour Courts. As for Jeffrey Pay’s false allegations in his postings on TRS, the Company is in the process of consulting our lawyers on civil proceedings.


Prepared by [company] Pte Ltd.
22 Jul 2014





Picture 1: Jeffrey Pay using handphone while on duty

Picture 2: Screenshot of a vulgar message from Mr Pay saying he is advising
officers with his hand phone






Monday, September 29, 2014

Hong Lim Park incident: Roy Ngerng is no freedom fighter



Thanks to social media, my Facebook feed has been flooded by shares, reposts and people voicing out against the crazies. For all the horror that has been inflicted onto children, let us note there exists, perhaps, a renewed hope.

For far too long, the silent majority has not spoken very much. They have finally have. Friends whom I know that are clearly not into current affairs or local issues have spoken up, shared and liked posts on this issue. It may have come a little late, but their response gives us hope that they will indeed speak up when someone goes too far.

People from various walks of life have indeed written their face statement on this issue. An example: a prominent public intellectual:



The main issue of the day: how can anyone, for the sake of his or her own agenda, disrupt or stall another persons activity? This was not the freedom of expression or speech anyone wanted. Freedom of expression or speech can only be granted with the consensus that people do not infringe on one anothers activities.






Clearly the NParks director made a point: two lawns, so one lawn to each group. No big deal about it. If HHH had accept the terms there and then, end of story.

But that was not the case. What we see here is a new citizen of Singapore going all bonkers and demanding her rights at the expense of everyone else and calling out all sorts of conspiracy theories just to advance the agendas they fight for.

Some might ask: isnt a protest supposed to be disruptive? There is a fair point to suggest that protests possess an element of disruption (otherwise it will just be a kid throwing a tantrum).

However, a responsible and reasonable protestor who wants to make his or her demands known will try his or her level best not to disrupt the innocent. London is a good case study. Tube workers have gone on strike, protesting about various unfairness and grievances they face. They disrupt the Tube. Reasonable enough. Because of the disruption they cause, they announce it. People feel the pain of the Tube not being usable and hence are inconvenienced. Aims of strike achieved. Protests, strikes and riots are not the best way to solve problems, but they have forced people to come to a compromise before, as London suggests. Whether Singapore is ready for such a culture is a debate best left for another day.

However, in this case, the circumstances are different. Disruption of a charity event — as though the YMCA has control over CPF. Spinning tales to make it look like it is a conspiracy after that, when videos have shown they indeed heckled, and were given offers to compromise but refused. Utterly unacceptable. Even any honourable opposition figure would not have agreed with this, as seen by the condemnation swiftly spread around by NCMP Yee Jenn Jong, and the noticeable silence even among opposition figures.

This is nothing short of deplorable. Our views on political matters may differ. However, to use children, disruptive tactics and spinning tales to advance a political cause is simply uncalled for.

How about civil society at large? Many have spoken up based on conscience. Regardless of affiliation, people from all walks of life have given their opinion on what they thought on the Hong Lim Park issue. Yet, this reminds us that the silence of the silent majority may have indeed caused some opportunistic people to take advantage of the silent to spin tales that carry nothing valuable except emotional rhetoric. The silent majority would do well to heed this lesson and not stay so silent anymore. As a society that is increasingly seen as polarised politically, such standing up for right and wrong is indeed a step forward for the level-headedness of people who generally care about the nation, yet it is several steps back for the activists: how would people go about public advocacy in the face of a few bad eggs abusing the rights to voice their dissatisfaction at the G, and in the process, disregarding everyone else?

As Singaporeans, we have learnt two lessons: there are mad protesters, and that the silent majority needs to step up a little more often on matters that concern them, or else such an act of madness will repeat itself. No sympathy at all to the protestors, and hopefully the kids are alright from the madness.

Roy Ngerng deserves every bit of being sued by the Prime Minister. He should continue to be litigated by the other organisations - GIC, YMCA even the NParks.

Tuesday, June 10, 2014

10 reasons to unlike and stop reading TRS


The "Real" Singapore is a disgrace to Singapore. Those of us who are sane, responsible and actually do think through our thoughts will find the material from TRS offensive and distasteful.

Internet service providers should consider banning the site.

Here are just 10 reasons why TRS is the filth it is and why you should unlike the scandals site straight away.


10. Twisting of messages


For example: Grace Fu (of the Prime Minister's Office) had told reporters that MediShield Life are "...major policies that the PA has to work hard to explain."



Here's what the TRS did to her:



Anything to make someone look bad.


9. Outright plagarism


Almost all of their articles are clipped from other sites on the internet. They will take your article in its entirety and publish it, leaving you a small worthless link to your site as a credit. It is like after they've robbed you of your money... and leaving you a dollar to take a bus home.

It has been reported that if you're an innocent blogger who's requesting for them to take down the article, they'll reply you rudely with a "Who do you think you are? Even the Prime Minister doesn't even dare ask us to take down our articles!"

We're hoping for some big media company to sue them.

Here's an example:



It is plagiarism. 

And Google does help to remove some of their articles. 



If you see your article being plagiarised by TRS, read more about how to deal with them here: http://labnol.blogspot.sg/2006/07/dealing-with-website-plagiarism-when.html



8. Every mildly positive articles starts with “PAP supporter says…”





7. Like buying


Their likes increased from zero to 100k overnight shortly after the elections. Every now and then, even if it is a slow news day, their numbers increase by blocks of hundreds or thousands.

Sure, it may be suspected like buying. But why suspect anymore? If they're doing things to escape Facebook's spam detection, why not lodge a complaint to Facebook yourself? 

Find out how to do so here: http://www.wikihow.com/Contact-Facebook



6. It is run by vulgar mouthed Alex Tan






5. They are eager for the demise of LKY


Respect TRS. Get some.





4. They (very frequently) objectify women, using sex and women to boost their views. In the most distasteful manner





3. Facts are often wrong or omitted



They say 6000....

When Yahoo Singapore says....


...it is actually 3k....


2. TRS is making a lot of money from your viewership 




1. Time and again, they have gotten into trouble with their articles






At least Stomp has some form of journalistic integrity. TRS is just pathetic. 


Stop reading TRS. Stop sharing TRS. There's even a bunch of people who want them out of Singapore, do give them a like here: https://www.facebook.com/shutdowntrs







Friday, June 6, 2014

Of politics and the politics of money...


Here are some "whys" that I have:

Why are Roy Ngerng, Leong Sze Hian, Gilbert and Han Hui Hui always seen to be organising things together?

And why is it that whenever they release publications, or are faced with criticism, The Real Singapore is always so quick to be to their rescue? 

Now - The Real Singapore has click through advertisements by both Google and maybe even paid commercial entities. You can hide anything from print publishing, but you can’t really hide things from the internet.

They are estimated to make $7k USD a month. Where is this money going? 


Alex Tan used to be from the SDP. And so was Vincent… apparently they have resigned from the party, but what are the links?

We know that Jolovan Wham is a lover of Vincent. But why does Vincent have intimate photographs taken with M. Ravi? What is their relationship really?

When I sat down to draw it out, I think the relationships are rather interesting: 



It looks messy doesn’t it? But trails of deceit are meant to be - so that tracks are hidden and people find it hard to cover.

I’ll start by saying, this is in no means an accusation. If anything, these are questions. Questions as to how these organisations and people are related, and bigger questions of why, who and what is the agenda?

Is it money?

Is it politics?


And whilst we’re on this topic… does anyone remember this relationship diagram about the SDP?




As politics heats up in Singapore, with more citizens being aware and taking a stand, having a voice… sometimes, these questions just begs to be answered. 


Sunday, June 1, 2014

Donations: Roy could be in deeper trouble


There’s a lesson to be learnt in the Roy Ngerng fiasco.

a.) Don’t accuse your Prime Minister of being a criminal without proof
b.) Don’t anyhowly solicit for donations

We’re not going to kick a man when he’s down, so no point harping on point a. above.

However, the point of note for us is: can we use the internet to ask for money?

As there isn’t a provision for collections solicited from the internet, the closest law that Roy could flout is this:

The House to House And Street Collections Act

If any person promotes a collection, and a collection is made in any locality pursuant to his promotion, then he needs a licence.

Without the licence, Roy could be be guilty of an offence liable to a fine of not exceeding $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or to both.


Does his site “The Heart Truths” constitute a charity?

If “Heart Truths” is a charity, or if his buddies at Gilbert Goh’s Transitioning and Jolavan Wham’s TWC2 wants to act on his behalf, then he would flout this:

The Charities Act, Prohibition on conducting fund-raising appeal without permit

According to Part VIII of the Charities Act, Roy is prohibited to conduct fund-raising appeal without a permit.

No person shall conduct or participate in any fund-raising appeal unless the Commissioner is convinced that the fund raising is conducted in good faith for charitable, benevolent or philanthropic purposes.

The words “charitable and benevolent” is open to interpretation - it is going to be hard to convince a Judge that a majority of Singaporeans consider his intentions as such.


Political Donations Act

Is Roy associated with any political party? He’s been seen on very intimate terms with the National Solidarity Party (NSP) and the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP).





At his events, I have heard that politicians have either come to support him, or to speak. Is the HeartTruths a body that writes on behalf of these parties?

He also has been seen giving comments that he wishes to run for political office:


 http://joochiatroadonline.blogspot.sg/2013/10/interview-my-interviw-with-activist-roy.html

If any of these are true, and although weak arguments, his intentions could be seen as political ambitions.

If so, then he may be flouting the Political Donations Act.

But nevertheless, the man clearly wants to get into Parliament - even if it is by the route of the Nominated Member of Parliament.




Audit of books

Whatever it is, to be fair to his donors (and to the Singaporean public), he ought to have his books audited.

Roy claims to have achieved $36,600 in two days after he made his online appeal. That’s more than the $30k Chee Soon Juan raised in 10 days in 2012.

How true is this, is not a matter of big concern. What I’m more curious about is… how is he intending to spend this money? Is it to pay his lawyer for administration (like he says so in his blog), or is it to pay off the defamation charges?

But the poor boy, his friends have been posting pictures of him eating plain rice and taking buses.

If you’d like, see if you want to send him some money for his purpose. We don’t need to give you the link, you can search for him easily on Google :)






Friday, April 4, 2014

The Rise of the Pseudo-Intellectual



One of the most heartening developments in Singapore civil society is the willingness and ability of people to give details, professional and sometimes expert analysis into issues of the day. This is especially true in difficult and specialized topics such as health and personal finance.

I have no financial training and I am not good with numbers, so my rule for money is: trust the expert.

So when I was sent an email by a friend, written by a financial expert with the name Roy Ngerng, I thought, hey, this guy is making a strong point! Maybe there is something wrong with our CPF!

But then, reading the article closely, I realized this guy is only shamming. Instead of someone who analyzes and shares ideas, he has a fixed idea and is massaging facts and figures around this

I don't know much the facts that he points to – I don't know whether it is true that Singapore’s pensions returns are lower than Pakistan and Philippines. Or how we rank in terms of contribution. But I do know simple logic – and I have my own experience.

So, leaving alone whether the facts he uses are accurate, let’s look at his arguments on their logical merits.

1. Red Herrings

Many of us who take out loans know that we have to pay interest. I live in a private property (condo) and I know two things – my home will cost me a lot more than the listed price because I took out a loan on it, and it will be worth nothing in 99 years.
But the way Rog Ngerng writes it’s like something the government invented to cheat us out of money, and that it is some big surprise that HDB flat is worth nothing at the end of 99 years.
“Can someone please explain to me why we have to pay $600,000 (after 30 years) on a $300,000 for a flat that has absolutely no value at the end of its lease? Then what the hell are we even paying for? So, your flat is supposed to increase in value but after the end of the lease, this value suddenly disappears?”
Hello! This is what “99 years lease” means! In China it is 70 years only! In London, most of its flats are leasehold, sometimes to 125 years. This is the fact of property life, all over the world.
In Singapore, even Sentosa Cove is worth nothing after 99 years. Are the private developers also cheating us?
He did the same thing with the interests on mortgage – people know that they will have to pay far more than the price of their property if they count in the interest. This is unpleasant but not surely hidden. 
Why is this guy making it out to be some dark conspiracy here? This made me suspicious about his real motives. Then I did the maths he did – and came up with very different conclusions.

2.    Semantic Sleight of Hand: 2.5 per cent interest for the highest social pension contributions.

He says that at 37%, our contribution to social pensions is the highest in the world. Of course it is, if it were true.

But I know that I only pay 20% and my employer pays 16%. So on his chart, we are much lower than other countries such as Italy, China, Malaysia, Netherlands, Switzerland, Finland and so on.

So he is telling us a lot of numbers, but mixing them up – and using them wrongly.

The same for the 2.5%.

The interest that CPF gives us is 2.5% - he says this is low compared to what Temasek earns. (I don’t know the exact link between Temasek and CPF.)
But with 2.5%, our money will double in 29 years. This is the normal rule of thumb with compound interest! I think double in 29 years is good returns.

True, this is not as high as in other countries – in New Zealand – at 14 % the money will double in 5 years! How do people there do it? Well, in a high-interest regime, interest is generally higher. If you take out a mortgage at 14% your payment will double in 5 years!

But 2.5% is the interest we pay on our mortage too. RN goes on quite a bit about how at 2.5%, you have to pay so much more on your flat. Well, you either have a low interest rate regime or a high one, you cannot talk out of both side of your mouth!

I know that the mortage rates and the interest paid to us are not the same thing. But interests are returns on the use of money – it makes sense to think of them as being in the same regime. So, the 2.5% number has to be seen from both sides.

In the end, his numbers lead us to the wrong place. This is the same thing I saw when he talks about us paying interest twice - on the money that belongs to us.


3. Apples, Pears and Durians altogther.

The problem he wrote about was the CPF accrued interest.
This is the policy as he wrote it: “If you sell your HDB flat, you need to refund the principal amount you had earlier withdrawn for the purchase of the flat, including the accrued interest, to your CPF account. This interest is the amount you would have earned, had the savings not been taken out.”
His explanation: You are paying interest for money that is no there anymore. And the PAP is asking you to do this. If they want the money, they should pay for it!
He says it like this “So, see if you get this – if you had left your money inside the CPF, the government will pay the interest. But when you take the money out, the government wants you to pay the interest back. In the first place, since you have taken the money out, the interest can no longer be earned and even if the government wants you to earn the interest, they should be the one paying the interest, right?”
My initial reaction was “Right!”  Once I take the money out, the interest can no longer be earned.
But the money is earning something else – it is “feeding” my flat. I stay in the flat – if I didn’t use the money, I would have to rent a house. So the money was used to provide me with shelter.
The alternative was to leave the money in – and get the 2.5% interest. I would then have to use the 2.5% to pay my rent. But I would prefer to buy a house – because there is a chance that the housing prices would go up!
So after I sell my house, I would have to make good the opportunity cost – that is I would have to pay into my CPF (which still remains my money) the interest it would have earned because I used the money for something else – shelter. The value I got is the “rental” I would have otherwise paid. Also the capital appreciation of the flat.
To say that “you are paying an interest of 2.5% on money that is no longer in the CPF. You are paying an interest into the CPF on nothing”, is, as he would say, “nothing but trickery.”
He is mixing up CPF downpayments, with mortgages with interest foregone, and wild allegations about CPF accounts with “nothing” that we are still paying interests on.
Getting scared? You should be. There are lots of psuedo intellectuals like RN around.  You don’t have to be an expert or a maths genius, just simple logic and common sense.