>Kum Hong no moral torch for Pei Ling’s case – he was no angel either

>Introduction -

I do not condone the bitching that’s being going on round the internet. Yes, I am talking about how cybernetters have used underhand tactics to strip Tin Pei Ling bare.

However, much as I do not agree that’s the way, I accept that is part and parcel of politics. After all, has not the PAP done that too?

It is because of this dirty background stuff that I have witnessed when I was involved in grassroots politics, that I have decided to leave the scene more than ten years ago.

Some people have asked me why didn’t I then join the opposition. My answer is simple – what makes you think it is any different?

The High Moral Ground Stance -

There are people who claim the high moral ground. They will condemn the tactics used on this young lady, citing ethics. But by the same breath, they too have engaged in politicking and were not any where near the high moral ground they seek to stand.

If you look around the internet, you will find many such people. I am going to name only one specific person. Readers can search who the others are themselves. That person I am naming is Siew Kum Hong. Here is his article on the “let’s (not) bitch about Pei Ling” fiasco -

This is not what I want Singapore politics to be like

And that is precisely my point. I would like politics in Singapore to be about the candidates and their views and their competency/suitability as MPs and office holders. I would not like politics in Singapore to become an exercise in gutter journalism. If and to the extent that a politician makes morality and virtue part of his/her platform or public persona, then that becomes fair game as well — but only then, and not before.

Note Kum Hong’s self acclaimed high moral tone in his title. As if he is the moral torch bearer overseeing how politics should be played. Come on, Kum Hong, you have been involved in politics to KNOW that’s the standard play. But that is not the main issue. The issue is that you have been playing gutter politics yourself. Can’t recall? Let me help you.

Kum Hong and the Aware Fiasco -

The main issue I have is that Kum Hong is not an ethical player himself. In fact, he has also played gutter politics, not in the elections campaign in a pre-GE situation, but during the Aware Saga. That’s not hardcore politics, but politics still.

I am talking about the AWARE EGM in 2009, where Kum Hong played a pivotal role in creating a tense situation at an EGM, such that it was no longer conducive for members to vote fairly and squarely. Here is that incident, which I was a witness to – Sectarian Christians replaced by Sectarian Gays – So what’s the difference?

For the uninitiated, the issue was AWARE’s EGM called by the Gay community, after a Christian group was returned as members of the council in the previous Annual General Meeting (AGM). I was not present the AGM, but I was present at that marathon EGM.

At the EGM, chaired by Josie (from the Christian group), Kum Hong introduced himself as the “advisor” to the old guard who was then trying to reclaim their place in the council. Kum Hong is a lawyer and he KNOWS how meetings should be conducted. There is an agenda and it is the duty of the chair to see that agenda is adhered to.

What I witnessed Kum Hong did was very unprofessional (and unethical) on his part…..

1. He INSISTED that the floor mike be on at ALL TIMES, allowing the floor to interrupt the chair at will. This made it very difficult for the chair to control the rowdy crowd.

2. Kum Hong also insisted to be seated with the ordinary members, when he was just an associate member. Associate and ordinary members were seated separately. This was because associate members have no voting rights. So when the voting takes place, there won’t be allegation of “ghost” votes.

3. Kum Hong by INSISTING to be seated with ordinary members, created a tense situation which again triggered the already very rowdy crowd.

4. Kum Hong, in spite of being “advisor” to the old guard, failed to advise the EGM that there was a $90k bill that had to be addressed. Under Aware’s Constitution, the council has no authority to pay that bill. But the General Meeting has. The rowdy and tense crowd, triggered by Kum Hong’s combative approach towards the chair, failed to address the $90k bill. Why didn’t Kum Hong advise the EGM to approve the bill on the spot?

Had he not as self-appointed “advisor” to the Old guard who sought to reclaim the council, (negligently) failed to perform his duty to remind them of this bill? As it turned out, when the EGM closed, the $90k bill was still hanging. And the “new council” that reclaimed from Josie’s group did not know what to do with that $90k bill! – The 90 000 kg monster everyone pretends not to be AWARE of

As can be seen, Kum Hong was playing gutter politics himself. Not the backstabbing type where Pei Ling faces, but gutter politics nevertheless.

Who is he to take the high moral stance now?

He was there not to “advise” but to create tension and friction at the EGM. He was an NMP. He was a public figure and the rowdy crowd was behind him. He was using the influence of the rowdy crowd to intimidate the chair and was controlling the atmosphere of the General Meeting. It was designed to wear down the chair and meeting, so that the old guard could reclaim the council easily.

After Kum Hong plays gutter politics, he decries others doing the same -

Kum Hong’s post (on Pei Ling) continues….

I would like Ms Tin to be given a chance to show what she would be like as an MP, instead of digging up all this personal stuff — things which, frankly, to my mind have been overblown and do not say anything about her suitability as an MP, or even her as a person. She is a 27-year-old professional, not a nun.

I find what has happened to be quite offensive and reprehensible (which is why I am deliberately not including details of or links to the comments). It is almost as if people, in their antagonism towards the PAP, are willing to overlook and ignore what is right and what is dignified.

The consequence of all this, is that people will be deterred from joining politics, even more so than before. I for one will openly admit that I have thought about it and decided against taking the plunge, in part because of these things. I have been a victim of these whispers. It is not fun. It is not right. It is not what I would want Singapore politics to be like.

Love it or hate it, that is what politics is about. If you want to be in it, you have to face it. If you can’t face it, leave. Simple as that.

Kum Hong the target of gutter politics-

Yes, Kum Hong has had his fair share of being targeted. But then again, he is being naive. At least I can excuse Pei Ling for being green and wet behind the ears. But Kum Hong? Here is what he wrote about being the target of gutter politics after the Aware Saga. He was asking for it, wasn’t he? -

The line has been crossed

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.

Here is my piece on Kum Hong being the target of gutter politics.
So what now, Kum Hong?

A final point worth noting. There are MANY allegations against Kum Hong, but he finds that he needs to clear these two:

“(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.”

By denying the above two and keeping silent on the other allegations, does this mean that implicitly he admits that the other allegations are true? Here are the other allegations that he has been silent on.

1. That he deliberately flamed the tension at the AWARE EGM on 2 May 09.

2. That he acted unethically, being the advisor of AWARE on 2 May 09.

3. That he acted incompetently or negligently, as advisor for AWARE, when he did not highlight newly EXCO had to seek general members’ approval to clear $90k bill.

Please note that he has decided to remain silent on the above three issues. See link here.
http://siewkumhong.blogspot.com/2009/05/what-i-took-away-from-2-may.html

The fact that he STILL REMAINS SILENT on the above issues, yet denies two other issues, itself has implication.

I find Kum Hong terribly naive not to see these things coming his way. This really shows his incompetence as an NMP.

Kum Hong is now stuck – damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

He shouldn’t have been involved in the AWARE saga in the first place.

(PS – the allegation about Kum Hong receiving foreign funds and a mole of PAP was not from me, but from unknown characters)

Conclusion -

I have to repeat that I do not condone how Pei Ling was stripped bare publicly. But at the same time, I admit that is how politics is played.

There are only three ways to deal with such gutter politics.
1) Bear with it.
2) Do unto them what they do unto you.
3) Leave.

I have nothing to comment if your choice is #3.

If you choose #1, you will be seen as a nice but weak guy. Sooner or later, you will be thrown out. Remember Abdullah Badawi?

If you choose #2, you are a true politician.

Finally, those who have committed sins before, shouldn’t be throwing stones today. After all, your (political) life has been opened once you choose politics. Being an NMP is no different.

==========

Final Point

I pre-empt that some critics would say that in Pei Ling’s case, it is character sliming, while in Kum Hong’s case, it is not.

My counter to those critics is – who are you to decide what is acceptable politicking and what is not?

It is either you play the game of politics, which the rules are actually you can do about anything under the sun as long it is is not illegal, or you don’t play it (ie leave).

There is NO middle ground in the game of politicking. Kum Hong found that out when he tried to politicise the Aware Saga, didn’t he?

Claiming that there are “acceptable” and “not acceptable” ways in the game of politics (other than you should not break the law), is like saying if an animal wants to hunt a prey, it must do it in an “acceptable way”. What crap!

>So what now, Kum Hong?

>Reality has bitten Siew Kum Hong, the NMP behind the controversial AWARE saga. Is Kum Hong that politically naive such that he did not see all this coming his way? If he didn’t, then he is not cut to be NMP. If he did, why complain?

Initially, I wanted to post this lengthy article in reply at Kum Hong’s site. But then, I may be dirtying his backyard – and that’s not ethical.

So what I’ll do is post it on MY blog and if there are any flamers, it is MY backyard that gets dirty. I may be bo liao like some of my critics brand me, but at least I believe in ethics.

Here is the link to the article in Kum Hong’s blog.
http://siewkumhong.blogspot.com/2009/05/line-has-been-crossed.html

Italics and coloured words are taken off Kum Hong’s blog, while non-italics and black fonts are my comments.

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.

Criminal in nature? How so?

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.

I don’t believe that there is any crime committed. If Kum Hong wants to have those sites down, he has to obtain a court order.

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.

Note that Kum Hong has not denied meeting up with that Swedish politician who funds the SDP. Even if Kum Hong had not received any funding himself, isn’t that allowing a foreign entity to interfere with the politics of Singapore?

I have long objected to foreigners telling us what to do. No matter how much I criticize the PAP, I believe our internal politics is our business. If we get foreigners to help us out, there will always be payback time. They will expect us to return the favour to them in future. God knows what that favour might be. Sanctions against China? Against India? Involvement in human rights in Iran?

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. 

… end of Kum Hong’s post.

A final point worth noting. There are MANY allegations against Kum Hong, but he finds that he needs to clear these two:

“(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.”

By denying the above two and keeping silent on the other allegations, does this mean that implicitly he admits that the other allegations are true? Here are the other allegations that he has been silent on.

1. That he deliberately flamed the tension at the AWARE EGM on 2 May 09.

2. That he acted unethically, being the advisor of AWARE on 2 May 09.

3. That he acted incompetently or negligently, as advisor for AWARE, when he did not highlight newly EXCO had to seek general members’ approval to clear $90k bill.

Please note that he has decided to remain silent on the above three issues. See link here.
http://siewkumhong.blogspot.com/2009/05/what-i-took-away-from-2-may.html

The fact that he STILL REMAINS SILENT on the above issues, yet denies two other issues, itself has implication.

I find Kum Hong terribly naive not to see these things coming his way. This really shows his incompetence as an NMP.

Kum Hong is now stuck – damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

He shouldn’t have been involved in the AWARE saga in the first place.