Siew Kum Hong - Discouraged under fire? Hardly!

To answer the previous question I wrote in "Siew Kum Hong - Discouraged under fire?", I'd have to say that it's hardly so. The latest news has the NMP Siew Kum Hong makes police report against netizens for posting defamatory comments about him.

The line has been crossed, he grimly declared in his blog & hey, I admit that I agree with him. People have limits & although many are often confused about it, politicians are people too. They do have their limits & if they need to sue to prove their innocence, they just have to do it!

Sure, suing others is never a popular action. (See also the recent suing by AIA against the ten policyholders with the allegation that "they had conspired to exploit the insurer's mistake in determining the bid prices for allowing them to switch funds". The forum in Channel NewsAsia titled, "AIA in the news again!" are flooded with disgust towards AIA. C'mon, AIA...can't you even think of alternative ways to resolve the issue without making it known to the whole world that YOU have made a mistake in 'determining the bid prices of the funds'?! That's not something any reputable insurance company ought to be proud of, no?)

I digress (and a long one at that).

Back to the point, suing others is indeed never a popular action. Both party (the one who sues & who is/are sued) would have themselves to be scrutinized. Oh, don't let me bring up the fall of (old) NKF by T.T. Durai just because he tried to 'prove his innocence' by suing SPH in 2004.

What I'm saying, both party should be really prepared. It will be a very messy issue for all involved. All the best!

---

Nominated MP Siew Kum Hong has made a police report against netizens posting defamatory comments about him. He revealed this in his blog. He has also requested forums which hosted such remarks to take them down.

When contacted, Mr Siew refused further comment, saying the matter is now with the police.

The latest attacks have alleged or insinuated that he had asked for and is receiving foreign funding from a Swedish politician who allegedly funds the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) as well.

They have also alleged that he is involved or associated with the SDP and may be their representative or "mole" in Parliament.

Mr Siew has issued a strong rebuttal to these allegations on his blog. He said both of these allegations are untrue and false.

He considered them extremely defamatory and criminal in nature and goes beyond anything that a reasonable person could possibly perceive as being a valid or legitimate exercise of the right to free speech.

Mr Siew stressed that he did not at any time ask for and have not at any time been offered or accepted any sort of funding from any local or foreign entity.

He said the only sources of income or funding that he has are from his employer and the government in the form of his monthly NMP allowance.

He also said he is not involved or affiliated or associated, whether directly, indirectly or in any other way, with the SDP, and certainly not their representative or "mole" in Parliament.

The attacks on Mr Siew first started in the aftermath of the extraordinary general meeting of the Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE). They have culminated in a campaign to sabotage his re-application for a second term of NMP.

A week ago, netizens flooded the REACH portal with comments about why he should not be given a second NMP term.

REACH chairman Amy Khor confirmed that the feedback unit has received Mr Siew's request to take down defamatory comments about him.

As a general policy, while "always mindful that over-regulation could stifle participation and engagement of contributors", Dr Khor said that like other online platforms, REACH would not hesitate to remove postings "deemed sensitive or offensive".

As at 8pm on Monday, the discussion thread involving Mr Siew had almost 13,900 page views and more than 900 postings since it was initiated on May 1.

On one occasion last week, REACH administrators urged Netizens to refrain from personal attacks and offensive postings. After growing feedback from users and as the discussion "became heated", said Dr Khor, REACH had removed some of these postings.

Meanwhile, the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) has referred to the Law Society the issue of Mr Siew's role in the AWARE saga.

Earlier this month, corporate counsel Tongel Yeo had emailed the AGC and three other legal bodies, including the Law Society, to ask if Mr Siew had breached the Legal Profession Act by advising the AWARE "Old Guard".

When contacted, a Law Society spokesperson said that under the Act, it "cannot comment on any complaint or disciplinary matter".

From Channel NewsAsia, "NMP Siew Kum Hong makes police report against netizens".

---

The attacks have continued since my last posting on this blog. In particular, the latest attacks have alleged and/or insinuated that (a) I asked for and am receiving foreign funding from a Swedish politician, who allegedly funds the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) as well, and (b) I am involved or associated with the SDP and may be their representative or “mole” in Parliament.

Both of these allegations are untrue and false. They are vile, vicious and malicious attacks on me, and nothing short of character assassination. I consider them extremely defamatory and criminal in nature.

I did not at any time ask for, and have not at any time been offered or accepted, any sort of funding from any local or foreign entity, including the Swedish politician named in the latest attack. The only sources of income (or funding) that I have, are my employer and the Government of Singapore (in the form of my monthly NMP allowance). Furthermore, I am not involved or affiliated or associated, whether directly, indirectly or in any other way, with the SDP, and am certainly not their representative or “mole” in Parliament.

While I have not previously taken any action in response to the attacks to me on the Internet, I feel that this latest attack crosses the line and goes beyond any attacks that I am willing to countenance as being fair game for a public figure. I do not think that it is appropriate or acceptable for any MP, including an NMP, to accept any funding, whether local or foreign.

Accordingly, I made a police report on this matter tonight. I have also requested those forums that I am aware are currently hosting these falsehoods, to take them down.

In the interests of full transparency, I did meet with certain Swedish gentlemen recently. Details of those meetings are set out in my statement to the police. I met them at their request, just as I have met other foreigners from time to time, including staff from the various High Commissions and embassies in Singapore (such as from Australia, the US, the UK and other EU countries) and visiting foreigners, such as academics doing research on aspects of Singapore. At these meetings, we discuss matters related Singapore, in particular current affairs and the political situation in Singapore. From my perspective, these meetings are to help the foreigners obtain a better understanding of Singapore. I do not think that there was anything wrong with those meetings, and I have nothing to hide.

While I continue to believe that it is, on the whole, beneficial for Singaporeans to speak up for what they believe in, and I certainly hope that this wish and desire will continue and extend beyond the current discussions around the NMP re-nomination process and homosexuality, I also do believe -- and have always believed -- that rights and freedoms have limits.

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 the Internet.

From the NMP Siew Kum Hong's blog, "The line has been crossed".

---

Ten investors thought they struck it rich when their $1.06 million in AIA's investment-linked policies turned a huge profit in 2006.

But when they wanted to cash out their paper profit of $17.7 million last August, AIA refused to pay and instead sued them.

In the suit filed in the High Court, AIA is seeking damages from the 10 policyholders, alleging they had conspired to exploit the insurer's mistake in determining the bid prices for allowing them to switch funds.

Both sides have hired high-powered lawyers, with Senior Counsel Quentin Loh of Rajah & Tann representing AIA and Mr Quek Mong Hua of Lee & Lee acting for the policyholders.

The American insurance giant's claim rests on the allegation that it had made a mistake in valuing the funds by using one-day-old bid prices to effect the fund switches.

This had led to the defendants being given a larger share of the funds than what they were entitled.

As a result, AIA is accusing the group of 'unjustly enriching' themselves by $17.7m.

AIA allows policy-holders to switch funds as many times they like. The first four switches in a policy year are free, after which clients must pay $25 for each switch.

Among the 10 defendants are a married couple, MrWong Cherng Yaw, 34, and Madam Junie Tan, 30, who were AIA agents when the investment was made.

The other defendants include their parents and siblings.

AIA claims that they had breached their fiduciary duties and contracts as its agents.

AIA terminated Mr Wong's services on 20 Sep last year, three months after his wife resigned.

While the case has yet to go to trial, two defendants - Mr Wong's mother, Madam Liaw Chong Kiaw, and a close friend, Mr Lim Wee Chee - made an interim application to the court to get AIA to release some monies to them.

They filed affidavits to describe their financial problems as a result of the turn of events.

Mr Lim, a former junior college teacher, said he had invested about $275,000 and was now unable to repay his bank loans and faced bankruptcy.

He said he found it hard to get a job again as a full-time teacher because of his financial situation. He now teaches part-time for a much lower salary.

Madam Liaw invested $130,000, a big portion of her retirement money, and said she faced financial hardship if she could not get the money released by AIA.

In his affidavit, Mr Lim said he and the other policy-holders suffered huge losses in the first few months.

He said he started analysing and observing the performances of the various funds and the markets to which they were linked, then took calculated risks by switching funds to avoid adverse price fluctuations and to ride on positive trends.

Through more than 300 fund switches over two years or so, the defendants were able to make large profits.

During this time, Mr Lim and the other policyholders were able to make partial withdrawals from their policies. It was not mentioned in the court papers how much they withdrew.

Questioned by superior

Then in June 2007, Mr Wong's boss noticed the frequent fund switches and questioned him about them.

Mr Wong explained that he, Mr Lim and the others had switched funds after analysing the markets.

In May last year, Mr Wong was queried again on the same matter by a member of AIA's compliance department. He gave the same reply.

AIA continued to carry out the policyholders' instructions to switch funds.

The investments peaked on 7 Aug last year, with the policies valued at about $18m, giving the holders a paper gain of about $17.7m.

But the next day, when Mr Lim applied for a partial withdrawal, AIA refused.

Mr Wong, Madam Tan and Mr Wong's brother, Shyh Yaw, 37, also faced the same problem.

Their requests to switch funds were also rejected.

AIA later sent them a letter to say it had filed a suit against them.

The trial has been set for October.

While AIA assured the defendants on 19 Sep that the disputed monies would be held in escrow pending resolution of the suit, the global credit crunch has depreciated their initial profit.

By 9 Oct, the total value of their investments had plunged to $11m.

Justice Andrew Ang ruled in favour of the defendants and ordered AIA to pay them the remainder of their principal investment, which came up to about $1m.

AIA is appealing against the order. It will be heard on 22 May.

From Asiaone, "Give us our $17.7m".