On 18 June Hri Kumar, MP for Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC and Senior Counsel, put up a post on his Facebook page presenting me in a false and wholly negative light in an attempt to damage my credibility and both my personal and professional integrity. He titled this “Disruptive Politics” and ended his post with the words “Singapore is our home – we must come together to build it, not destroy it”, thus repeating the smear that the PM used in his infamous condolence letter.
The opposite of constructive is actually unconstructive (not disruptive) and its simplest meaning is ‘unhelpful’ or “providing no assistance”Those of you who watched the video of Hri Kumar at the forum dodging a simple question from me will agree there could be no better definition of that fiasco. Unhelpful. Providing no assistance.
I found the MP’s midnight post on Facebook (HRI KUMAR: REFORM PARTY'S KENNETH JEYARETNAM IS A LIAR) and manner of writing to be histrionic and his content less than convincing. It was a strange way to behave. If Mr Kumar feels I have represented his arguments falsely then he needs to sue me for defamation in open court.
For my part I am not going to bring myself down to his level or use his behaviour, as a model. There is nothing constructive about arguing in a, ‘he said/I said’ manner. Nobody is impressed by the SC’s response where he says that he never said “Singaporeans are lightly taxed” but instead said “Singaporeans pay lower taxes”, to take but one example from his post.
To stoop to name-calling is not behaviour worthy of a Member of Parliament either. But no matter, I feel very strongly that the more the PAP resort to calling me a ‘liar’ the closer I must have got to the truth.
Hri Kumar deals with several points where he says I have misquoted him. I never claimed to be giving a verbatim report. Mr Kumar was showcasing PAP policy and I dealt in general with the arguments advanced by the PAP at the forum. These arguments therefore also apply to Hri Kumar unless he operates an independent and separate micro-economy exclusively in Thompson-Toa Payoh.
Hri Kumar’s response and the government’s response in general have been so unconstructive as to rattle citizens already suspicious of government’s motives in holding back their money.
To take one such response, I touched on CPF’s safe AAA rating. Hri Kumar announced in bold, “ I did not say that.” So what did he say? He doesn’t tell us. What are the citizens to conclude? That CPF is not AAA rated and safe?
Repeatedly saying, I did not say that without further elucidation is the most unconstructive method of presenting an argument that I have ever seen. People all over Singapore are wondering what he isinsinuating.
Enough. The people have had their fill of this mixture of half truths, oversimplifications, falsehoods, disinformation and propaganda.
They do not want the minimum sum to be raised and they are not swallowing the government’s rationale for raising it. In fact they do not see why the government needs to keep any of their money beyond 55. This is not a question of taxpayers having to foot the bill because people are living longer. The CPF is purely self-funded. What right does the government have to keep our money because some of us are living longer? What next? The government takes all our salaries and gives us a weekly allowance based on some criteria like how likely we are to use it wisely.
Is it so surprising that the citizens would take that leap and begin to wonder if their money is just not there anymore?
The whole rationale for the PAP regime is prudent financial management. The citizens are beginning to lose trust in that claim. The people have every right to demand to know where their money is, how it is being used, where it is ending up and how much there is left. An elected government has a duty and an obligation to be transparent over fiduciary management and to explain that in a manner that is accessible, easy to understand and demonstrable.
There is a video of the forum that shows me asking questions about the Budget figures put up on a slide that Hri Kumar presented as part of the Forum. It is clear that Hri Kumar avoids answering my question. He dodges it with the flippant remark that I should put up my own figures. I was an attendee at Hri Kumar’s forum not he an attendee at mine. The figures being questioned were those being presented by Hri Kumar on a slide on behalf of the government. If he were an intern of mine and was unable to answer a question on his own slide, in his own presentation, then I would be extremely concerned. Mr Kumar is a public servant. He has failed in his duty.
It is also clearly audible in the video that Hri Kumar refers to “my friends”. On his Facebook post he again refers to “we allowed him and his supporters in”. This is simply not true. I have irrefutable evidence and witnesses to say that I attended on my own. Those angry people at the forum were all unknown to me. If the PAP truly believe that all dissent at that forum was pre-organised by me in some kind of conspiracy or possible Marxist plot then they are in serious trouble indeed.
There was only one person really known to me. This was Abdul Malik, who was previously with PKMS and SDP and had hit the headlines when he was arrested for online threats against the PAP and then later applied to become a member of the PAP. If anyone deserves the moniker disruptive it is he.
No Party members attended. No friends of mine attended. . I attended not as a party member but independently, in my capacity as a Singaporean at the age when I would like to withdraw my CPF funds and therefore deeply interested in this topic. It is common wherever I go that complete strangers will come up and want to shake my hand as was the case with the line of charming retired nurses. This seems to have unnerved Hri Kumar. It should not What Mr Kumar must accept is that the CPF Minimum Sum is a national issue
Hri Kumar titled his post “Disruptive Politics” as though asking questions is disruptive. In a robust democracy the voices of ordinary people are not seen as disruptive but as a signpost to a better way for all. It is wholly unconstructive to suppress dissent.
Mr Kumar and the political party that he represents need to understand that this objection to the raising of the Minimum Sum is not some secret conspiracy but a genuine and spontaneous public outcry. People at that forum were very angry indeed and wanted their questions to be answered not brushed aside or met with lies and evasion. I can understand that the PAP are rattled that the aims of civil society and political society are starting to intersect and that they may be dealing with a mass movement. However the solution is not to evade the questions and brand me some kind of Marxist agitator.
The PM can be as unconstructive as he wishes and sue as many bloggers as he chooses but he will not be able to stop people asking the questions. He has stepped into a media death spiral and if he is not careful he will find himself replaying a pivotal scene from the movie Spartacus. Already Singaporeans en masse have stepped forward to say, “I am Roy”, and have donated over S$100,000 to aid Roy to defend the PM’s defamation suit against him.
The PAP must open up the books to scrutiny. In the end it is a political question not an economic one and it will ultimately be decided at the next election.
I am grounded in reality, economics and numbers. I am on record as saying that Roy got his numbers wrong. I have criticised Chris Balding for double counting and other mistakes. They make leaps for which there is no evidence. However I am still an absolute supporter of Roy and others because the crux of the matter is that we will all benefit from the answers. Coming from the world of finance and investment, I know only too well the risks that lack of transparency brings. Like all of us I merely want to see a fairer and better Singapore, a free and dynamic Singapore and a Singapore that delivers prosperity to all not just a chosen few. I believe this can be achieved in an entirely constructive manner.
Kenneth Jeyaretnam
*The author blogs at http://sonofadud.com