Han hui hui and roy ngerng to go to court on monday for the charge of public nuisance

[Sammyboy RSS Feed]

An honorable member of the Coffee Shop Has Just Posted the Following:

HAN HUI HUI AND ROY NGERNG TO GO TO COURT ON MONDAY FOR THE CHARGE OF PUBLIC NUISANCE

.node-article .field-name-link-line-above-tags{float: right;}.node-article .field-name-ad-box-in-article {float: left;margin: 15px 15px 10px 0;}.node-article .field-tags{clear: both;} Post date:
24 Oct 2014 - 2:17pm








Yesterday, TRS reported that the police has charged Han Hui Hui, Roy Ngerng and four other Singaporeans for “public nuisance”.

Two weeks ago, the police started investigating Ms Han, Roy and eight others for “illegal assembly”. Four were given a warning and were not charged. Ms Han had organised the #ReturnOurCPF protest on 27 September 2014. Ms Han had been organising the protests monthly, since June. September’s protest was the fourth.

Roy, who is currently being sued for defamation by the Singapore prime minister, has also been speaking at the protest.

Ms Han and Roy wanted the government to be transparent and accountable to Singaporeans about how they were using Singaporeans’ Central Provident Fund (CPF) retirement funds.

Since June, the protests have been attended by more than 10,000 Singaporeans.

When TRS spoke to Roy about the charge, Roy said, “We had spoken up because we want to fight for justice and for Singaporeans’ money to be returned to us. The government takes our CPF to invest and earn 6% but only return 3%. This has resulted in many elderly Singaporeans who are unable to retire and have to continue to work in hard conditions.”

Roy added, “I told the police – we are speaking up because we feel that things are not right in Singapore."







Speaking to Ms Han, she said, “Last year, they used the AGC to sue me. This year, they are using the Singapore Police Force to charge me. Why can't they simply return our CPF? We wouldn't have protested if we have transparency and accountability. This is a total silence on freedom of speech and against our rights to assembly even at Singapore's only venue HLP.”

TRS understands from Roy and Ms Han that the government has not yet reached out to them on their demands. Roy had also extended an invite to the Singapore prime minister for an “open dialogue” over the CPF issue. However, this was rebuffed by the prime minister.

Roy, Hui Hui and four others have been asked to appear at the state court at 1 Havelock Square on Monday, 27 October 2014, at 10am to face the charge. The police said that it would issue a warrant an arrest for them if they do not turn up.

TRS understands that if Ms Han and Roy proceeds with court action, they are likely to have to spend costs as high as $26,000, which would include legal fees of $20,000 for their lawyer to represent them in court, and another up to $1,000 fine for each of them, which the charge of “public nuisance” carries.

Roy said, “This charge of “public nuisance” is unwarranted. We did what was legal. We spoke up because we want to defend the rights of our people.”
“If by speaking up to defend our own rights is considered as “public nuisance” by the government, then it looks like the government does not want to take Singaporeans’ concerns about the CPF seriously.”

Does the government considers Singaporeans’ worries about their CPF a “nuisance”?

A Blackbox Research survey showed that more than half of Singaporeans consider the current CPF system to be “unfair”. Only 37% felt that it was “fair”. Among low- and middle-income Singaporeans, 60% of Singaporeans thought that the CPF is “unfair”.

Indeed, it does seem for Roy and Ms Han to speak up on the issue is a legitimate concern and the government does have a responsibility to respond to their demands.

However, the police action not only puts a dampener on their fight for justice, but it also prevents Roy and Ms Han from being to continue to speak up, to speak up for the rights of Singaporeans and for the fairness of Singaporeans’ CPF.

Roy and Ms Han will go to court on Monday. It is unknown if they would be able to raise the $26,000 required by their lawyer for the case.


Click here to view the whole thread at www.sammyboy.com.