Is Temasek operating a slush fund?

A slush fund in an organisation is a reserve set aside for purposes at best to moderate accounts by keeping some earnings out of a good year (pay less tax) and fudge the earnings of a bad year. At worst, it is money set aside for illicit purposes, such as for bribery, and in the case of political parties, for hiding contributions received. At its nefarious worst, it is used to inflate earnings by crediting revenue account and hiding the debit side in some 'asset' account, hoping for future year profits to square out the losses. Enron Corporation famously cooked their books by using a derivative trader's slush fund to report false earning for many years.

Temasek measures their annual earnings against a targeted benchmark which is the risk-adjusted returns. A hurdle rate is first determined. This is the rate that management accepts as a reasonable return given the risk involved. The rate differs for each class of portfolio and aggregated over all investments. When the earnings are more than the hurdle rate, the difference is the Wealth Added (WA). Of course, in a bad year, the WA can be negative.

The WA is the basis for a special staff compensation scheme. It is called the WA Bonus scheme open only to 3 top levels of managerial staffers including the CEO. The coffee lady, the driver, the clerks and other 'mediocres' (in the eyes of ruling elites) do not participate in this.

Part of the WA is set aside for this bonus. It's a complicated system that incorporates a deferred payout and clawback mechanism. In a good year, a WA bonus is declared and the charge to earnings is by way of provision to a WA Bank A/c. The full sum is not paid out immediately as a certain portion is retained to meet clawbacks of future years. The max that can be paid is estimated to be about 50% of the declared sum. In a bad year when the WA is negative, there is a clawback on the deferred bonus of prior years. A provision has the effect of reducing the net earnings whilst a clawback is a provision written back to P&L which boosters the bottom line.

This adjustment to the WA Bonus scheme impacts the P&L. There is no transparency to this adjustment, which is not surprising as executive compensation has been top national secret ever since Ho Ching, the wife of the Prime Minister, and the most powerful woman in the land, was installed as CEO. Here is an attempt at quantifying this adjustment.

(A) Disclosed in the annual report.
(B) Disclosed in annual report. This is risk-adjusted, or hurdle rate. Basically it is a reasonable rate of return that management want given the risk. It is built bottom-up and aggregated over all investments.
(C) Estimated by applying the risk hurdle rate (B) over invested portfolio value (A).
(D) Disclosed in the annual report.
(E) Net earnings (C+D) before tax before provision for WA bonus.
(F) Computed based on Net return of (E) - EBIT (G).
(G) Disclosed in annual report.

What does the above computation show?

In 2015 the risk-adjusted return of 8% over portfolio of $266B was only $21.28B. With net return of $46.78B there was wealth added of $25.5B. Since there was WA, then a WA Bonus was computed. What is the basis and how much was due to the participating managers, the public cannot compute. A provision is then made which was $25.58B charged to the accounts. What was charged to the accounts each year need not necessarily be the provision for that year as it could involve adjustments of other years. By charging this provision, the net earnings went down from $46.78B to $21.2B.

It should be noted that $25.58B is not bonus paid out. How much is paid out each year, the public will never know. Only a certain sum is paid out and the balance is deferred and retained in a pool (WA Bank A/c) available for clawback in future years. Take for example 2016 a negative net return of $25.34B caused a huge negative WA of $44.7B. A huge clawback of $40.04B from WA Bonus provision allowed Temasek to show a net proft before tax of $14.7B. Again in 2019 a low net return of $3.91B saw a negative WA of $18B. A clawback of $14.79 WA Bonus provision allowed Temasek to show a net profit before tax of $18.7B

Creative accounting is an ingenuous way of cooking the books by staying within the bounds of laws and regulations, and accounting standards, but actually straying from what was intended. It is left to the reader to form their own opinion, regardless of the legality, whether the WA Bonus scheme is a slush fund in a Rube Goldberg machine.

(Rube Goldberg machine is a contraption purposely engineered to handle a simple task into a very complicated process.)

**********

Temasek's multi-billion dollar profit is wool over eyes

For financial year ended 31 March 2019, Temasek reported group net profit before tax of S$18.7 billion. A big chunk of the profit came from government owned corporations which were transferred into the Temasek corral long ago. A few of these GLCs reported record profit for 2018. Take away GLCs' profit, what do we get?

The net figure is in fact lower as dividends received from the subsidiaries and associated companies have not been isolated.

Profits of subsidiaries & associated companies for y/e 31 Dec 2018 in above table are as listed below. Several others have not been included as data is not available.

Each year Temasek publishes a very beautiful Annual Report with impressive explanatory notes. They show equally impressive simulation charts. They boast how they are more transparent than the Santiago Principles.

But all we want are simple accounts to show us Executive compensation and what the company itself actually earns. Temasek hides behind group consolidated accounts, shying away from showing its actual performance, that is, it's real investment activities outside of the GLCs.

Temasek has pulled wool over our eyes year-in year-out. It has never made those profit it declared. For example, its 2019 profit is only about S$6.7 billion (probably less). A sizeable chunk of the profit it boasts come from GLCs, some operating with monopolistic advantages, with no efforts on the part of Temasek. We all know the Minister of Finance, as single shareholder, owns Temasek, but does not interfere with its operations. We also know Temasek does not interfere with the operations of its subsidiaries or associated companies. These came from the horses' mouths. But they take credit for, and reward themselves with compensation based on, overall profits.

The vital statistics they won't show us are what exactly does Temasek make from the reserves transferred to them from MOF or MAS. What is the 10 or 20 year annualised ROI if the GLC operations are peeled away. Stripped off GLC profit, Temasek's vital statistics would'nt look sexy.

It seems to me the brick and mortar guys in GLCs are relegated to the backgroup while Wall Street types in Temasek scoop all the glory and earn handsome compensation packages without any sweat. And for all the inequity, there is not a piggy squeak from members of parliament. I'm guessing the wool gets in the eyes.

Public bashing of Singapore Power's S$1 billion profits

Each time electricity tariff goes up, the public rain curses on the government for making life miserable for consumers. The contention is no matter whether the price of gas goes up or down, SP makes billions of dollars annually. Distrust is high as the public sees the high tariff in comparison to much lower rates from electricity retailers and simply assumed the government has made a killing. Discontent of increased cost of electricity is understandable. However, much criticisms have been misplaced and mostly due to a total ignorance of the system.

It grieves me that there is a lack of a comprehensive documentation on electricity pricing and people rant in the dark. I have written several blogs on electricity pricing before. Here I shall cover some of the same grounds, but as brief and as simple as possible. In addition, I shall explain some additional aspects never covered before, as well as a brief on SP Ltd's financials.

There is a laziness syndrome worldwide, a propensity to rant but unwillingness to read beyond 144 characters of a twitter comment. It behoves one to make an attempt to understand SPL financials and electricity pricing before criticising or run the risk of being the subject of criticism by IBs in whites.

For the last time, let's be clear -- SP Services makes no profit from it's electricity sales !


Financials of SP Ltd (SPL):

SP owns 100% of the following which are it's main profit centres:

• SP Services (SPS) -- It sells electricity, and as Market Support Licencee, is responsible for metering and billing for utilities (electricity, water, gas), manages transfer of accounts of retailers, consumer utility account opening and activation, seller of last resort for electricity, and others.
• SP PowerAssets (SPPA) -- As Transmission Licencee it is responsible for transmission & distribution of electricity (It owns the Grid infrastructure and engages SP PowerGrid Ltd to manage the Grid)
• PowerGas Ltd (PGL) -- As Transmission Licencee for gas, it delivers gas from the gas terminal to consumers.
• Spore District Cooling (SDC) -- manages the district cooling system (supplies cold water for HVAC)

It has 2 associated companies (less than 50% share-holdings) in Australia in the energy transmission and distribution business whose financials are consolidated into SP Group a/c.

The above forms the core financials we are interested in. It previously had 100% of SP Telecommunications Ltd (this owns the telecommunication network infrastructure) but it has been parred down to 49%. The financials of SPTL are not consolidated but booked in SPL as investments. There are some other minor subsidiaries.4.8%)

Group financials above show business segment report. SPS profits accounted for only 10% of the S$1 billion. Very cleary, SPS never make any monstrous profits from electricity sales as most people think. It fact, it makes ZERO money from electricity sales which is explained below. Its profit is from its market support licencee functions, mainly metering business.

Transmission and distribution of electricity and gas is based on similar 'use-of-system' billing model, so they grouped SPPA and PGL together. I was able to see only SPPA's financials which showed its net profit was S$498.0m, with the balance of S$201.5 obviously coming from PGL. Thus 48.4% of SPL's profits of S$1 billion came from transmission and distribution of electricity. In other words, almost half of SPL's S$1 billion earnings come from the electricity grid!


Transmission & Distribution :

To gripe about SPS making money out of excessive tariff is barking up the wrong tree. Clearly it is in the transmission & distribution of electricity and gas that needs to be scrutinised. I have no data on SPG so I shall limit my comment on SPPA.

There are 2 major points on SPPA.

• The electricity tariff for 2019 Q3 is S$0.2422/kwh before GST. Of this, the network cost (grid or transmission/ distribution) is S$0.0544/kwh. The question is, is this rate high or not? Well the current annual aggregate load of Singapore is about 54 tetrawatts which gives SPPA a gross revenue of S$2.938 billion a year. With a capex of S$15.3 billion, this represents an gross margin of about 0.19% pa. This will be a good basis to benchmark against other utilities, but I don't have the data.  Offhandedly, it does appear excessive to most people I would think.

• This is infra heavy business so it obviously tend to have high capital cost. The capex recovery cost is thus a main cost driver that determines its pricing structure. With this type of operation, the fear is always that revenue collection formula remains unchanged long after fixed cost have been fully depreciated.
  
  SPPA's plant and machinery are in leasehold land & buildings, switch gears, transformers, other plants & machinery etc. As at 2019 its carrying cost was $15.3 billion and it made a provision for depreciation of S$510 m which means a recovery rate of about 3.3%pa. This works out just about right since its transmission licence is for a 25 year term.

On PGL, the company levies a 'use of system' rate that consumers of gas pay. The main consumers are the gas power generation plants. The cost of which gets into the power generation company's production and impacts the wholesale price of electricity. Whether the rate applied is excessive or not, I have no idea. But obviously S$201.5m seems a hefty profit.

Transmission & distribution rates are high for both electricity and gas because the system milks consumers to fund the never ending pursuit of investment in the latest technology, infrastructures and products and planning for a massive population and economy.

Transmission/Distribution & Market Support Licence Regulatory rates :

How much SPPA, PGL and SPS are allowed to earn are based on complex formulae spelt out in their respective licence. The rates are regulated by the Electricity Market Authority and established for a 5-year time frame. Each year, what the Licencees actually billed their customers and what they are legally allowed to recover, will differ. This is due to volume variance and other factors.

Licencees are allowed to report a cash P&L (actual billed revenue) and adjust for the variance with regulatory rates to arrive at a regulatory P&L. This adjustment represents a deferred income or expense which they will collect or refund customers by way of future rate adjustments. The net profit of S$1,019 for 2019 shown above is before the regulatory adjustment. In 2019 for example, they under-billed, so there was a regulatory adjustment of additional sum of S$152.1m (of which SPPA portion is S$103.2m) to their profits. The amount of this regulatory adjustment which has not been refunded or recovered is reflected in a Regulatory Deferred Accounts in the balance sheet. As at 31 Mar 2019 there is about S$110.2m to be refunded, and S$264.7m to be collected of which S$197.5 relates to SPPA.

In a previous blog I wrote "Unknown to most people, they upped the use-of-system rate by another $0.0013/kWh to $0.0544 in Q2". There you go, SPPA was quick on the collection. With that small adjustment in rates and aggregate load of 54 tetrawatts, SPPA collected additional S$70.2 million from consumers in 2019.


Sale of electricity by SPS :

How come SPS makes no profit form sales of electricity?

SPS determines a tariff quarterly. The tariff comprises a fixed portion (transmission. market support services & administrative costs) and a variable portion which is the energy cost. It makes a forecast of the cost of electricity generation for the next quarter. In this forecast it takes into consideration many parameters such as spot price of oil (because gas price is indexed to oil prices), US$/S$ exchange rates (because oil is priced in US$), and the capex cost, reasonable ROI, etc. It computes just like a new entrant coming into the market who needs to figure out the plant and machinery cost and their amortisation. SPS uses the most efficient model of gas plant currently employed in Singapore at latest market cost. This is known as the long run marginal cost model where in the long run, all cost are held to be variable, including capex.

Unlike SPS, the power generators' cost of fuel (gas) does not depend on forecast or spot prices of gas. It depends on their management of inventory, such as long term supply contract, hedging strategy, etc. If they had locked in their prices at low rates, they benefit. If their supply is locked in at a high rate, they suffer (which was the probable cause of Hyflux's problem). Generators compute on the short run marginal cost model. They don't bother with the capex cost because it is a sunk cost. In the short run, as long as their price is higher than their variable cost, they have cashflow to cover variable cost and some fixed cost. As long as variable cost can be covered, they can survive. Of course, to be profitable, their price needs to cover all cost and provide a decent margin. Power generators' production are auctioned in the electricity market every 30 minutes. Thus their pricing is based on the next 30 minutes time frame. With a market that is very much over capacity, a very important factor in their pricing is market competition. If they are not priced right, their plants don't get despatched.

All market participants, including SPS, purchase electricity at the same wholesale price at the Singapore Electricity Wholesale Market (SWEM). The wholesale electricity price changes every 30 minutes and sometimes, it can be very volatile.

SPS sells electricity to their customers at tariff which is fixed for 3 months. Since SPS purchase at SWEM every 30 minutes at wholesale prices, it is exposed to price volatility. To overcome this risk, it adopts a policy of fully hedging itself. Having computed the energy cost, SPS enters into vesting contracts with power generators. These are hedge arrangements. In these vesting contracts, a strike price is agreed (which is SPS computed energy cost for the qtr). If wholesale electricity price is higher than strike price, generator compensates SPS. If it is lower, SPS compensates generator. In other words, SPS is assured that the cost of their electricity purchase will always be the energy cost they computed, which is in the tariff.

Each time SPS makes a purchase, it settles periodically with power generators the vesting contract differences. Sometimes it gains, sometimes it looses. However, for the past few years, power generators' short term marginal cost curve has consistently been lower than SPS' long term marginal cost curve. A good reason is market over capacity is forcing power generators to price themselves low. This has resulted in SPS being a net payer under the hedging arrangement almost every year. It has paid out S$ billions to power generators over the years.

Is the SPS worried about all these S$ billions of hedging cost paid out? Not the least. SPS hedges on behalf of their customers. All these cost are charged to their customers by adjusting the tariff. There is actually a time lag. One quarter's hedging cost is adjusted in the following quarter's tariff. Now all hedging transactions can go one way or the other. So there are times when power generators pay SPS who then refunds the credits to customers, again via an adjustment in the tariff. However, the trend has basically been one way, with power generators benefiting at the expense of customers.

So in reality, the regulated tariff comprises of one portion of fixed fees (transmission, distribution, metering, admin costs), a variable cost of forecasted energy cost for next quarter, and an adjustment for last quarter's hedging cost or refund. All consumers who have not switched to retailers bear the full effects of this vesting contract adjustments because their supply for electricity from SPS is at regulated tariff..

The objective of vesting contracts started off as a mechanism to control market power of power generators. By today, no power generator controls the market by capacity, so vesting is really not required. However, it has mopped into a mechanism to ensure the success of the LPG terminal project. Today it is known as the LPG vesting contracts. SPS hedges a certain volume of aggregate electricity load with power generators who purchase their gas from the LPG operator. With the vesting contract strike price consistently higher than wholesale market price, power generators who buy LPG from the terminal operator use the vesting account as a way to compensate their earnings. This vesting volume is enough to cover all SPS customers, any excess not covered,SPS passes the hedging cost or refund to electricity retailers who build this into their rates for their customers.

It can be see quite clearly that SPS makes ZERO profits from their electricity sales.


Why electricity retailers can charge lower than SPS:

The market dynamics at the moment is one where power generators' short run marginal cost is much lower than SPS long run marginal cost (the basis for tariff computation). In other words, generators price themselves much lower than SPS' forecast. This state of affairs is due mainly to market over capacity in the power generation sector. The consequence is a much lower wholesale price than the energy cost component in the tariff.

At the moment, the gap between the wholesale price and energy cost component in the tariff (SPS' forecast), is wide. Retailers and SPS buy at the same wholesale price. Retailers sell at wholesale price +++ (to cover hedging cost, admin cost, profit margin) which is at a level that is 20-30% lower then tariff. Retailers hedge with electricity futures. SPS buys at wholesale price and sells at tariff (based on their forecast) and fully hedges in vesting contracts.


Why retailer pricing model may not be workable in a perfect market:

With a capacity of 13,350 MW and peak demand of 7,000MW, there is massive overcapacity of 48%. Supply over capacity is driving wholesale prices down. In other words, consumers who have switched to retailers must thank their lucky stars ELECTRICITY IS CURRENTLY ACTUALLY LOWER THAN IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN.

This state of affairs is not sustainable for the industry because power generation companies are bleeding. The auction system of National Electricity Market of Singapore works best in a market with a slight over capacity. What happens when that optimum capacity scenario is reached? In a near perfect market, the power generators' short run marginal cost curve and SPS' long run marginal cost curve will be closer together, some times one is higher, sometimes the other.

Herein lies the paradox. When over capacity is resolved, the wide gap between the short run and long run marginal cost curves disappear. With that, the wide gap between wholesale prices and the energy cost component in the tariff disappear. Then the business model of retailers come crashing down because their wholesale+++ retail rates will be higher than the tariff.


The non-equity in the vesting contracts :

The vesting contracts are no longer for the initial purpose of preventing power generators exercising market power. It is now a mechanism to encourage the use of the LNG terminals. When the government interferes in the market, it distorts price discovery. The irony is that price discovery is the holy grail the government tries to achieve with the liberalisation of the electricity industry.

Customers who have not switched to retailers suffer a double whammy. Firstly, they lock themselves into a tariff where the energy cost is much higher than wholesale market prices. Secondly, 100% of aggregate load of SPS customers (except those that buys from the pool) are fully hedged. The hedging cost of the vesting contracts are applied to them.

Where the vesting volume is in access of SPS customer aggregate load, the proportion of hedging cost are apportioned to retailers' customers.

*********************

The great wall of legal obfuscation that Terry Xu must face

Sometime in 2017, Dr Lee Wei Ling posted on her Facebook some explosive comments relating to the final will and testament of her father Lee Kuan Yew. Her narrative alleged some impropriety on the part of her brother, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Long. This fed into the brewing private family dispute which has spilled into the public domain. On the promise of transparency, the PM put the matter up for discussion in parliament where, without hearing the evidence of all other parties to the dispute, PAP members of parliament cleared the PM of any wrong-doing. PM Lee refused to sue his sister as it would 'further besmirch' their parents' names. The parliament 'debate' raised a further public outrage that the PM has misused government resources for a private dispute, it served the PM well to self-absolve from blame in a PAP version of transparency, 'come clean' and just allow the matter to quietly fade away.

Last month August 2019, Terry XU, Chief Editor of online news The Online Citizen, reposted the old 2017 post of Dr Lee, in TOC's Facebook. It was not an editorial piece and neither did Xu add any personal comments. It was not exactly ad verbatim but basically a factual report on that controversial comment of Dr Lee. He has now been sued by PM Lee. The uniquely Singapore circus is back in town again.

The crux of the family dispute was one party (Dr Lee and brother Lee Hsien Yang) wanted to honour LKY's dying wish to have his house demolished, whilst the other party (LHL) does not. The reason why LKY wanted his house demolished was his disdain for the building of a cult after his passing as well as to be fair to the neighbours who never had a chance to rebuild their properties and were disadvantaged in the property boom years.

Without getting into the full details of the dispute, there were allegations (in relation to this suit) that :

• LHL misrepresented to his father that the government is gazetting the property as heritage site, ie, he lied - there was no such gazette. This persuaded LKY to change his dying wish for his house to be demolished.
• Mrs Lee Suet Fern, one time managing partner of law firm Morgan Lewis Stamford and sister-in-law of PM Lee, drafted the last will, which she has denied.
• M/s Kwa Kim Li, managing partner of Lee & Lee, and cousin of PM Lee, was the one who drafted the final will. All LKY's legal affairs were handled by the law firm Lee & Lee. Kwa has denied she drafted the final will.

Obviously someone, possibly more than one, in the Lee family had LIED. If LHL has been aboveboard all the while, then all is fine. If not, then he has certainly painted himself into a corner with this libel suit, for a fair trial must certainly come to the truth of the matter regarding the family dispute. The whole world will discover whether the prime minister, or managing directors of powerful local law firms, of a country that boasts of a clean government, has been dishonest. When the dust has settled, it is the reputation of Singapore that will be severely damaged, done in not by media, least of all XU, but by the powerful who uses defamation laws as their preferred tools to browbeat the weak.


The chill winds blow for Xu :

Xu's first mistake -- he decided to represent himself, ignoring the old adage 'a man who is his own lawyer has a fool for his client'. But one ought to salute his sincerity and strength, traits not often seen in the government leadership. For Xu, his post was not defamatory and he will not apologise to avoid the suit. He will speak truth to power and carry the burden of financial losses, fighting in what he believes for the rights of Singaporeans to freedom of speech.  He said he cannot afford a lawyer and he does not wish to burden the public with crowd funding.  He is right as far as legal fees are concerned. To face the might of PAP in court, one needs heavyweight lawyers the likes of Shanmugan or Edwin Tong from the esteemed firm of Allen Gledhill, whose services save one in legal battles but kill in legal fees. Perhaps Xu is not saying that he ran out of numbers to call. There is a certain chill in Singapore that blows through the legal fraternity. Why take such cases which warrant stepping on the toes of a well-connected Singapore Inc and risk multi-million dollar projects drying up. Years back, twice the opposition leader Chee Soo Juan, could not get any lawyers to represent him in defamation suits brought by the Lees. He had to resort to engaging Queens Counsel from UK.

There are questions the public asks -- this is not POFMA but a libel suit, so what is the ramifications of selective legal action against someone reposting some comments, and not on the originator of the comments. The original post did not elicit a libel suit, does not that imply plaintiff consent? If plaintiff was not damaged by the original post, how can he suffer damage from a repost. Similarly if plaintiff has suffered damage from original post, can he suffer again from a repost? How many skins does a man have? Our local legal personalities are not vociferous so there is hardly any public discourse to educate us on this case. The experts hide behind the excuse of not wanting to run foul of sub judice laws or holding public trials, but it's up for speculation what the real fear is. In this void, allow this legal-illiterate writer to ponder the Great Wall Of Legal Obfuscation in store for Xu.


Reputation of Singapore courts :

This is the case of a private individual from media against the most powerful man in the country, no less the prime minister. With Singapore's low ranking in the international index for human rights, no bookie is taking a bet in favour of Xu. But let no one disparage our judiciary. We have a very competent and independent judiciary. The government does not dictate to the courts. "This is not the way our government works" according to LKY. After all, the question of executive interference in judicial decisions has been put to rest in the 1980s following the curious case of the transfer, demotion or promotion of Michael Khoo from District Judge to Public Prosecutor shortly after he had cleared opposition icon JB Jeyaratnam of some criminal charges. An Inquiry of Commission (chaired by a sole commissioner Justice Sinnathuray) was formed which found no executive interference in the removal of Khoo as judge. The opposition howled it's a white-washed internal inquiry with the chair objected by many. It satisfied PAP's standard of transparency and is written into the national legal archive as such for posterity.

The reputation of Singapore's judicial system has made our country a popular place for arbitration in this region. This is true in commercial and criminal cases. Not so for libel.

Singapore court has taken a divergent path away from black letter laws (which are well-established case laws) in the area of defamation jurisprudence. Xu will do well to grasp this as he attempts to build his defence or it will be a knock out for him by the first bell. In understanding the judicial ideology, getting into the minds of the court in libel cases, Xu may well find his legal battle mission impossible.


PAP exceptionalism :

According to Prof Jayakumar, ex-Law Minister, who said of Lee Kuan Yew : “He is prepared for a robust criticism of his policies. He can be criticised for foolishness, maybe even for incompetence, for arrogance, but his red line was — not on reputation and integrity.” He brought defamatory charges not to “drive home a point that (the Opposition politician) should not have stood for the elections”, the point LKY was trying to make was to get those who impugn his integrity to justify their allegations. In the cut and thrust of politics, all sorts of accusations are hurled. LKY disliked the rambunctious way of the West and sought to establish a threshold that people of integrity in government and in Cabinet must be prepared to defend.

From this purist and noble philosophy has evolved a PAP exceptionalism. The ruling elites, anchored on million dollar salaries, are incorruptible perfectionists and anyone that impugns on their personal integrity denigrates the credibility of the government. An attack on them personally is an attack on the state. It becomes the unwritten policy that ministers must sue when they are defamed. The fear narrative is implicit. A smear on their personal integrity shakes the foundational pillar of governance. If left unchallenged, the government will come crashing down. With this badge of self-honour, arise a trigger-happy PAP with a litigious culture.

It is one thing for libel suits to be pressed against persons who are political players with an agenda, but something else when small time bloggers and honest media face the full force of powerful bureaucrats.


Judiciary ideology sculpted in stone :

In the words of Chief Justice Yong Pung How : “ [the] sovereignty, integrity and unity of Singapore are undoubtedly the paramount mandate of the Constitution and anything … which tend[s] to run counter to these objectives must be restrained.”

These are chilly words. What CJ Yong meant was the convergence of judiciary and executive views that constitutional rights of individuals must take back seat in deference to the interest of the state. Which means the court must balance the individual's right of free speech to the protection of the integrity of leaders. In other words, the judiciary has normalised the agenda of the PAP. Singapore is a state where socio-enconomics prevail over civil-political interests.

The rule of law is a very contestable concept. It is a tug between a procedural rule-based 'thin rule of law' and a substantive rights-based 'thick rule of law'. Singapore's judiciary takes the thin rule path. What this means is the court is only concerned whether the laws have been enacted properly, they are apathetic to the fairness, justness, and reasonableness of the laws. Under such circumstances, the judiciary is tilted to defer to the executive in the interpretation of those laws. The court is not fixated on democracy but on protection of the economic interests of the state which has been obfuscated to protecting the integrity of bureaucrats. The PAP's integrity is the state's integrity.

"The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which." George Orwell's Animal Farm.

The thick rule laws are more adversarial in nature and this concept predominates in western democracies. It goes without saying the government prefers a thin rule whilst the opposition, and probably the public too, would want a thick rule. The true test for the integrity of the PAP elite is whether one day, when they are in opposition, will they stay true to their position on a thin rule law. When they are creatures from the outside looking in, will they demand to see the 'pig' from the 'man'.


Rule of Law :

Is a 'thin rule' dogma innately wrong? Certainly not. The Diceyian 'rule of law' postulates that (1) Everyone is equal before the law (including prime ministers). (2) Sanctions have to be backed by law. (3) Courts are the ultimate body and supremacy of court is ambivalent in civilized society. But Albert Dicey was writing from the context of UK which presupposes a robust working opposition and a judiciary prepared to make judicial reviews, or proportionality analysis, when necessary. Two critical elements that are missing in Singapore.


Uniquely Singapore black rule laws on defamation :

Singaporeans final course of appeal used to be the Privy Council in UK, an arrangement that LKY praised when it suited him in the past. It bore testament to the independence of our judicial system. Thanks to opposition icon J B Jeyaratnam winning an appeal in the Privy Council in 1988 against his disbarment from parliament, LKY abolished the right of appeal to the council. The rationale has changed to jurisprudence must reflect the values of Singapore society, something a court in faraway UK is not expected to deliver.

Black rule laws are case laws which have gone past scrutiny and are well established principles. To reflect unique Singapore values means that autochthonous jurisprudence must come from the four corners of Singapore and not foreign-dependent. Junk foreign case laws and rebuild Singaporean black rule laws is the way to go. The many cases of defamation since then has allowed the courts to build some indigenous case laws. With a judiciary and executive convergence of a thin rule ideology, the ascendancy of parliament in the court is the status quo.


Libelocracy :

Clive Walker & Russell Weaver coined the term 'libelocracy' to describe a regime where politicians sue non-political publishers, politicians sue politicians, repeated claims, and seeking substantial damages, all these not for vindications of purely personal integrity, but for political success of self and significant political damage to the other.

As the court continues to compile its black rule laws of defamation arising from 'libelocratic' cases, would it not lead to some clash of doctrines with libel cases from commercial or civil domains where universal principles apply? The logical conclusion is a ridiculous situation of a duality of doctrines.

Xu should do well to study not libel cases from the commercial or civil domains, but those 'libelocratic' cases of the past, of which there are many. Here are some illustrations:

LKY vs Seow Khee Leng (1989)

Judge Chua : “[m]oral authority is the cornerstone of effective government. If this moral authority is eroded, the government cannot function.”

What does this mean? All due respects to non-Chinese Singaporeans. The court takes a Confucianist view of Singapore society. The ruling political elites form the 'junzi' of society. They are the PAP elites that has moral legitimacy to look after the interest of the community. In other words, their integrity is a foregone assumption. You attack their integrity, you attack the state. The 'pig' and the 'man' is one and the same.

The good judge has solidified the light that CJ Yong shone to restrain attacks against the Junzi, which is an attack on the state.

(By the way, if the PAP are 'junzi', what does that make for the rest of Singaporeans in Confucianist terms? They are the 'xiaoren' -- the small people who panders to pettiness and mundanes, or in the words of PAP, the mediocres, the lost hopes, 'si kwee kia' which means dead little devils).

Lee Hsien Loong Vs Singapore Democratic Party (2007 NKF case)

'Qualified privilege' is a black rule case of defence in defamation cases. It is a freedom of speech allowed to certain parties who has immunity from legal suits. A good example is the media, provided they publish with honesty in their belief in the truth of the story and without malice.

A defence of 'qualified privilege' was made by SDF that the party has a duty to publish their views as a matter of public interest. Judge Belinda Ang viewed the argument was a “distortion,” and “[t]he mere fact that a publication relates to ‘political information’ or ‘matters of serious public concern’ does not entail that qualified privilege therefore attaches to its dissemination to the world at large.”

The court has definitively and plainly stated that this line of defence is no longer available in uniquely Singapore. The executive has regulated online news and The Online Citizen is considered a media and has paid registration fees diligently, but the court will not recognise freedom of speech immunity for TOC.

JB Jeyaretnam v. Goh Chok Tong (1985)

In 1981 GCT, then a Minister of Defence, made certain remarks about JBJ leaving a Singapore Democratic Party meeting. JBJ felt the comment was defamatory and sued. The defendant GCT line of defence was 'fair comment'. This line of defence holds the view that, however the statements may led to an inference that it was biased, prejudiced, or grossly exaggerated, it is a fair comment if fair-minded persons could have honestly arrived at the same conclusion, that it was just a reasonable fair comment.

Time for hooray, for a defence of 'fair comment' is actually allowed. It is a fair court after all, no? Well, actually, too bad for Xu. It is not the line of defence he should take. In this precedent case, plaintiff JBJ actually proved in court the defamatory words imputing dishonorable conduct or a lack of integrity. But the court allowed for GCT's defence of fair comment.

This sets the precedent for the use of 'fair comment' as it applies to bureaucrats and affords protection to the executive. What is good for the gander is not good for the goose.


Lee Hsien Loong vs The Review Publishing (2010)

This case is significant for two stunning acts by the court.

(1) On the defendant's 'qualified privilege' defence, the court made a review of the practice in UK, Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, Ireland, Samoa, and South Africa. A very unusual undertaking to show the approaches countries adopt to balance defamation and the rights of freedom of free speech. It then defined the approaches as three rights -

• 'preferential rights' - where freedom of speech is preferenced over protection of reputation if it is reasonable and relates to government and political matters.
• 'fundamental rights' - freedom of speech trumps protection of reputation, unless the defamatory statement was published with malice then they they do not enjoy constitutional free speech.
• 'co-equal rights' - where neither freedom of speech nor protection of reputation takes precedence over the other.

In reality, it was a judicial meandering of no legal nor academic consequences because the court then retreated to a safe ground and declared as the defendants were not Singapore citizens, they do not enjoy constitutional free speech

Is it not remarkable that protection of reputation is not the preferred approach in all three cases. Since Xu is a Singapore citizen, what will the court now say?

(2) Freedom of speech was enshrined in the Constitution in 1963, at a time when there was political and economic instability. Strong defamation laws were necessary to prevent political assassination of bureaucrats' integrity which can be used to destabilise the country. The court commented that a balance of freedom of speech and protection of reputation is still as important today as it was in 1963.

It then made a jaw-dropping statement. Any 'qualified privilege' defence must be able to produce evidence that the political, social and cultural values today have changed.

What does this mean? The defendant is provided an Augean stable. It seems to be a statement that not only confirmed the normalisation of PAP exceptionalism by the court, but that it has no intention of changing their position. 


The case for Plaintiff Lee Hsien Loong :

The normal principle that he who asserts, must prove, applies. These are the assertions in the summon which the plaintiff LHL must prove:

1. The offending words are false and baseless.
2. Were calculated to disparage and impugn the plaintiff as well as in his office as the Prime Minister.
3. The plaintiff has been gravely injured in his character and reputation, and has been brought into public scandal, odium and contempt.
4. There was malice on the part of the defendant

The assertion of 'malice' is interesting.

Firstly, it is a very difficult standard for a plaintiff to prove 'actual malice'. The number of cases where plaintiffs have been successful in using 'actual malice' in defamatory suits are few. If you think 'malice' means LHL is claiming Xu hates, and has ill will towards him and intends to do harm with the Facebook posting, you are wrong. It has nothing to do with the intent of Xu. "Actual malice' in a defamation case means publishing a statement knowing that it is false, or acting with reckless disregard for the statement's truth or falsity. It has nothing to do with what a reasonable person would have published or investigated prior to publication.

LHL must produce clear and convincing evidence that the defendant actually knew the information was false or entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication. Irrationality, stupidity, obstinacy,  failure to contact LHL for comment, relied on a biased source, revived the post after taking it down - all these on the part of Xu do not constitute malice. 

In determining 'actual malice', the court will focus on the actual state of mind of Xu at the time of publication. All that is required of Xu is to hold that he honestly believed the opinion he expressed to be true, but no more is required of him.

In US, 'actual malice' claim applies only to certain categories of public figures. Private figures do not need to prove 'actual malice'.

Secondly, if 'actual malice' is difficult for plaintiff to prove, why did LHL make this assertion. The reason is with 'malice', quantum for damage is multiplied many times over. It demonstrates the vindictiveness of the executive.


The case for Defendant Terry Xu :

A defendant in a defamation case has several lines of defence. Xu needs to be extremely careful on what lines he intend to adopt.

1. He has qualified privilege.
2. It was a fair comment.
3. There was plaintiff conscent.
4. That the statement is True (and he honestly believed it to be true)

Xu's job is to argue against the 4 assertions by the plaintiff and then argue for his own line of defence. He should forget about defence (1) since 'freedom of the press' is a bad word in our court. He should not adopt defence (2) and (3) but instead use these lines of argument when countering against Plaintiff's assertions (2) and (3) respectively.

Whilst the first three strategies are arguable, previous defamation cases brought about by the powerful have shown the court tends to hold laodicean views on these lines of defence which are easily killed by some creative judicial wisdom.

Xu's defence rest entirely on the plea that Dr Lee's version is the truth. It will be a great challenge for the court to separate Xu's case from the Lee family dispute. It is in fact, impossible. That being so, there may be tendencies for the court to be skewed towards protecting the sensibilities of one of the parties. Given this scenario, there is perhaps wisdom in Xu representing himself. With no links to the legal fraternity nor concern for projects from Singapore Inc, Xu can be a loose canon in the court. One recalls the case of university student leader Tan Wah Piow who represented himself when he was (falsely?) charged for rioting in 1987.

Tan:    May I ask a question, Sir?
Judge: You may ask 1 question.
Tan:    Thank you Sir. Question 1(a)....., 1(b)....., 1(c).....

By the way, for those who still think Tan is a communist (anyone?), he is'nt. And here's the reason -- he fled Singapore. A communist will die-die stay his ground. Of all people, LKY knew the dedication of communists well.

The cold reality is, Xu will find his presentation of facts and arguments an almost Sysiphian task in a Singaporean system where the court and the government hold a convergent view that subjugates personal interest in deference to the larger communal interest. Where the court holds the executive has moral legitimacy. Where there is a blurring of lines of the persona of executive and government ie. the 'pig' and the 'man' are one and the same.


Conclusion :

In 'libelocratic' defamation cases, the Singapore regime is one of economics over democracy. Socio-economics triumphs over civil-political rights. Whether this is the best way to organise society is debatable as both Singapore and China has proven that the platform of thin rule law has lifted millions out of poverty within one generation.

There is a strong case for the need to protect the integrity of bureaucrats, especially for a country that has built its foundation on the pillar of anti-corruption. But this approach must not itself become a dogma that equates protection of bureaucrats to protection of the state. The 'pig' must be differentiated from the 'man'. Failure to do so allows the capture of a legal tool by a ruling elite to perpetuate power.

It will be a great travesty of justice to see this LHL vs Terry Xu case produce a judicial wisdom that PM Lee's exoneration by parliament is final and using this to justify a move for summary judgement, thereby denying the public a glimpse into lurid details. Highly unlikely, but it will be a fool who rule out this escape hatch.

This whole idea of PAP to sue when their integrity has been tarnished is laudable. It is the partisan interpretation of the two common defence of 'qualified privilege' and 'fair comment' by the court that is troubling. Yet a glaring omission to act against so many defamatory posts in 'johnharding.com' and 'escapefromparadise.com' all these years is befuddling. Allegations of John Harding alone certainly seem much more damaging than all the indiscretions of JB Jeyaratnem, Chee Soo Juan, Amos Yee, Roy Ngern, Leong Tse Hian, New York Times, FEER, and others, all put together. Harding's posts seriously damaged the integrity of Singapore and not one cabinet member has ever felt it important enough to raise the matter in parliament. If PAP exceptionalism deems defamatory allegations on them personally is an attack on the state, then non-action against Harding surely tantamounts to a dereliction of duty. The fact of the matter is, the PAP, our government, Singapore, has been damaged by what Harding posted.

In the same light, Dr Lee's original statement regarding 38 Oxley Road, is state business after all and rightly was discussed in parliament. But if Dr Lee's statement was an attack on the state, then, not taking any action against her is also dereliction of duty.



Addendum :

In my research for this blog, I had particularly wanted to learn of the strange case of a plaintiff not suing the originator of a statement but only a secondary party. Are there precedents we can learn from. I came across only one more or less similar situation.

Cherneskey v. Armadale Publishers Limited and King (1978)

The plaintiff Cherneskey, a city alderman, claimed he had been libeled by a letter written by two law students and published by the defendants in their newspaper. The law students were not sued, nor were they called as witnesses, so no evidence as to their honest beliefs was presented. The defendants’ testimony showed that they did not agree with the opinions stated by the law students, but they argued that they were entitled to enter the defence of 'fair comment' as they believed the letter reflected the law students’ honest beliefs.

Trial judge : There was no evidence that the words complained of were anyone’s honest opinion, the defence of fair comment could not be put the jury. Plaintiff won.

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal : Trial judge had erred in not placing the defence of fair comment before the jury and that it was not up to the defendants to establish an honest belief before the defence of fair comment could be put, but rather it was up to the plaintiff to show, in answer to the defence, that the opinion was not an honest one. Defendants won.

Supreme Court of Canada : The appeal was allowed and the trial judgment restored. As there was no evidence as to the honest beliefs of the writers of the letter and as the defendants did not agree with the opinions in the letter, the defence of fair comment should not properly be put to the jury. Plaintiff won.

Xu should do well to look up this case. There are pertinent lessons.

Story behind the story behind the story

The story is not of this realm. It is of the eternal fight between the forces of light and darkness ever since time began. Men of deceit plot behind the scene, but many are unwary that they themselves are playing out the cards dealt by forces they do not comprehend. There is a Deeper State beyond the Deep State, and it is operated by demonic principalities. It's an incredible story of the world seen from a great distance. If it's the first time you hear this story, it will chill your blood. Our story deals with the Satanic forces that seek to prevent God from sitting on his throne in the Holy of Hollies. Satan knows he wins if he destroys the Temple or the Jewish people.

The chosen people:

There is some confusion here, so let's get it right. Abraham belonged to a race called Hebrews. Some 4,000 years ago God asked Abraham to pack up his tents and go to a land He promised to be filled with milk and honey. Cut a very long story short, after Exodus out of slavery in Egypt and the death of Mosses, Joshua led his people into the Promised Land. By then they had grown into 12 big tribes. The land was separated into a northern part called Isreal occupied by 10 tribes. The southern region was called Judah and occupied by 2 tribes. Those that lived in Israel were called Israelites and those in Judah were called Jews. In 1948 when the state of Isreal was created, all those living there are called Israelis, who may be Jews, Israelites, Arabs, or others. For our purpose here, 'Jews' is used to loosely describe the people of Abraham.

Satan's design - destruction of Temple, Jews, and their God:

'I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit on the mount of assembly on the heights of Zaphon; I will ascend to the tops of the clouds, I will make myself like the Most High"... Isaiah 14:12-14)

For that iniquity, the Morning Star was cast down from heaven since time began. Thus commenced his eternal contest with the Creator for the minds of man starting at the Garden. Satan's tool of his trade is Deceit and Temptation for he understands the weakness of man. His modus operandi -- God creates, he destroys; what is consecrated to God, he desecrates; what is holy unto God, he causes abomination; God loves his chosen people, he hates and tries to destroy them. As with God who uses kings for his purpose, Satan too speaks and acts through lesser Man.

The Throne of Satan:

Our story began after the death of Alexander the Great when his empire was split into four regions among his generals. Antiochus IV came from the Selucid line that ruled over Syria. He failed in his attempt to conquer Egypt. Meanwhile political maneuvering in Jerusalem by two factions, one pro-Egyptian and one pro-Syrian, finally led to Antiochus IV (Epiphanes) to invade and capture Jerusalem in 168 BC. He wanted to Helenise his region and so he wiped out Jewish culture. He placed a statue of Zeus at the altar of Temple of Solomon and offered a pig as sacrifice, banned circumcision, instituted burnt offerings at the temple, carted away all religious holy paraphernalia, and put in Greek idols. He thoroughly desecrated the temple. This was the first Abomination of Desolation prophesised by Daniel.

Zeus was the head of the Greek pantheon of pagan deities. But who actually was Zeus? The pagan gods evolved over time and civilisations. Zeus is the Greek version of Ba-al. 'Ba-al' is a word from antiquity spoken by the people in the Levant. It meant 'owner' or 'Lord'. Over time it was used to depict a deity, and then associated with Had-baal, the God of Storm. Ba-al became Bel in Babylon, Zeus in the Grecian God of Storms and Jupiter to the Romans. Ba-al is mentioned 15 times in the Bible and it is the pagan god that Israel turned to each time they deserted their God. Rationalists reason that Ba-al is the god of the season, thus ceremonies depict deaths and decay. Ba-al ceremonies are beyond representation of seasons. They are full of depravities, of sexual deviances, intoxication, lust for materialism, sacrifices. Ba-al is no doubt a pagan god, but who is the principality behind this?

The Maccabees rose up and fought against Antiochus IV. Maccabees were the lowest social crust of the people. They were the isolated farmers, the hill-billies of the Jews. A tiny band of untrained Jews, with no adequate weapons, fought and won against a professional army many times their size. How was that even possible? The Maccabees cleansed the Temple and rebuilt a new altar.

Antiochus IV was defeated and died in 164BC. As Jerusalem prospered again under the Jews, we see the rise of the Altar of Zeus in Pergamon, also known as Altar of Pergamon,  in about 156 BC. The Enemy now sits on his throne in Pergamon and the city thrived. It was a very important Greecian city in Asia Minor (modern day Turkey) for many years.

Revelation 2:13 Apostle John, then a prisoner on the Island of Patos, wrote to the 7 churches in Asia Minor, the words spoken by a Voice behind him -- that of Jesus through the Holy Spirit. To the Church of Pergamon, he wrote :

"I know where you live; where Satan has his throne. Yet you remain true to my name. You did not renounce your faith in me, even in the days of Antipas, my faithful witness who was put to death in your city; where Satan lives"

Then came the Romans who swept through the whole region. In AD70, Roman legions under Titus captured Jerusalem and sacked the Second Temple. The Temple was totally destroyed and all spoils shipped back to Rome. The Arch of Titus in Rome celebrates this event. This was the second abomination of desolation prophecised by Jesus in Mark 13: "not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down". Because of this, many today believe the 'Wailing Wall' is not part of the Temple wall since the place was completely demolished. Like Antiochus IV, the Romans wanted a total demolishment of Jewish culture.

Meanwhile, as Satan worked to wipe out Jewish culture and religion in Jerusalem, God reciprocated. Christianity began to spread throughout the region culminating in the baptism of Constantine in AD 337 before his death. With Christianity entrenched in the Roman Empire, the Altar of Pergamon lost its prominence and disappeared from history for the next 2,000 years. Satan tried to wipe out Jewish religion, God wiped out paganism. It is an irony that from the Greeks that tried to erase Jewish culture, came the Septuagint Bible.

When Islam appeared, with a stroke of genius, the Enemy had Umayyad caliph, Abd al-Malik, built the Al-Aqsa mosque in AD 691 right on the Temple Mount. Solomon's Temple was built on high ground with uneven terrain and the area is called the Temple Mount. That First Temple was destroyed by Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar II in 586 BC. The Second Temple was rebuilt on the same grounds in 515 BC and completely destroyed by Titus in AD 70. The Romans built a platform over the uneven terrain and then a Temple of Jupiter on it. The Muslims built the mosque on the Roman platform. (Many mistake the Dome of the Rock as the mosque. The Dome is a shrine, they are different buildings). With the mosque in place, Satan has been rolling with laughter as he has denied the building of a Third Temple for 1,300 years. The Third Temple now cannot be rebuilt without causing WWIII. No Temple, no Throne for God. The Enemy wins

There are a few things that are intriguing of the Islamic structures, the conclusion is left to the readers.

Prophet Muhammed was ferried by his winged-horse from Mecca on a night journey to this very mosque where he ascended to heaven to meet Allah. The prophet arrived at the mosque in AD 621, decades before it was built. Well, it could be as they said, the mosque was originally just a small hut. The mosque has been rebuilt several times after destructive earthquakes. The mosque was considered as a commemoration of the prophet's ascend to heaven, yet walled inscriptions never mention that event.

This picture shows the design of the pagan Roman Temple of Zeus, the al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome. Superimpose them and they fit to a 'T'.


Aniconism is the avoidance of images of sentient beings in any form which is the Islamic way, and so there are no artistic depictions of such in mosques. Yet the walls of the Dome are adorned with devilish embellishments like this image. These are not Islamic nor Arabesque patterns, and they are not found in any other mosque in the world. Muslim scholars are hard put to explain these unholy creature-like images. Is that a sign of the Enemy's topsy turvy signature - the holy Temple had cherubins facing each other, the Dome has their devilish symmetries.

Many inscriptions in the Dome and mosque declare God has no wife, thus no son, thus Jesus is only a man. Instead of focusing on Islam, the focus on 'God has no son' was obviously a chastisement of the Jews and Christians. What are we to make of these irregularities? Psychologists will say these are signs of defiance. But by Who and to Whom?

Then in 1871, German engineer Carl Human discovered some artifacts of the Altar of Zeus. If you have been reading warily, time to wake up. This is where our story exploded.

1871 - the year artifacts of Altar of Zeus were discovered and shipped backed to Berlin, something else stirred. The German Empire came into being. With the exception of Austria, other Germanic regions got together, and for the first time in history, the German nation came into being. (1871-1918 was considered to be the period of the 2nd Reich (Empire). The 1st Reich was the time of the Holy Roman Empire AD 800-1806).

With permission from the Ottoman Empire, the Germans started excavation in 1878 which lasted till 1886. All artifacts were shipped back to Berlin. The Altar of Zeus was reconstructed and housed in a building sitting on an island in the city of Berlin. They named it the Museum of Pergamon. As the Enemy was building his new Throne, the ground was being prepared. One year after excavation began, German agitator and publicist, Wilhelm Marr created the term 'anti-semiticism'. About the time they finished putting the altar back together in Berlin, a little German boy was born in 1889. His name was Adolf Hitler.

By the 1870s, as the Altar of Pergamon was reawakening, Europe was in a great arms race. Hostility was fermenting. Pergamon Museum took a while to construct, and as the Enemy sat on his new throne in Berlin, World War 1 broke out in 1914.  Germany lost and lived in shame and frustration under the Treaty of Versailles. WWI devastated Eastern European Jews. Hundreds of thousands died in the war and equally many more in the pogroms that followed after the war. This was not given much publicity because there is no name attached to this tragedy, such as 'holocaust'. WWI also intensified anti-semitism in Europe that fed into WWII.

The first museum to house the Altar of Pergamon was defective. Reconstruction for a new building began in 1910 and it took 20 years to complete. During this time, something else came into being. The Thule Society was formed in 1918. This was an occult society prominent for its belief in the supremacy of the Germanic Aryan race, its hatred of Jews and communist, of course its occult practices, and its emblem of the reverse swastika. The Buddhist swastika is an aniconic symbol of Buddha, symbolising eternal cycling. Thule Society had it the reverse way -- the Enemy's topsy turvy fun. Hitler was not a member of Thule whose membership listed many early Nazy sympathisers, amongst whom were Rudolf Hess and Alfred Rosenberg. Thule eventually warped into the German Workers Party which itself became the National Socialist German Worker's Party, Nazi Party for short. The Nazi Party took log stock and barrel the ideologies, hatred, symbols and occultism of the Thule Society. It was without doubt, an occult party. Heinrich Himmler, very much into occultism himself, was appointed by Hitler to head the SS (Gestapo). He was the architect of all sorts of diabolitcal and satanic rites in the German Army and a main architect of the holocaust.

By 1921, Hitler had assumed leadership of the Nazi Party. But they were still a mediocre political organisation with only a few thousand members and insignificant presence in the Reichstag (parliament). The same year when the Pergamon Museum opened in 1930, the Nazi Party suddenly had the 2nd highest number of members in the Reichstag (parliament). Party membership exploded from a mere few thousands into millions. At its height, it had 8.5 million members. Hitler was on his way to the top.

Hitler chose to hold his rallies in Nuremberg. For this purpose, he had architect Albert Speer construct a platform. Speer, certainly unknowingly, modeled Hitler's platform on the Altar of Pergamon. It was on this altar that Hitler made all those fiery, spell-bounding rousing speeches like a man possessed. Was the Enemy speaking on his throne through Hitler? From this Seat of Satan, Hitler announced his Nuremberg Laws and the 'Final Solution of the Jewish Question'. Germany went into a frenzy to exterminate the Jews. The whole German nation was demonised.

The word holocaust came from the Greek 'holokaustos' which means wholly or completely burnt. In the Septaugint Bible, holocaust is used in many references for prayers and offerings. The Jews gave offerings to God for salvation. Pagan offerings were to pagan Gods and other spiritual principalities for power or other worldly benefits. As Satan sat on his throne in Berlin, he will have Jews exterminated, what better fitting way than as holocaust offering to him. In WWII, 6 million Jews were exterminated in the holocaust and a total of 60 million people died in the war. The Jews were the 10th%, the tithe, or the first offerings. The Enemy had his topsy turvy fun yet again.

    "He shall immolate the lamb, where the victim for sin is wont to be immolated, and the holocaust, that is, in the holy place." ...Lecitivus 14:13.

The holocaust offering is to be performed in a 'holy place'. That's what the Bible says. Well, in Poland there is a town called Oswiecim. In Polish, it means 'holy place'. The German name for this town is Auschwitz. About 1.1 million Jews were gassed and burnt in the concentration camps in Auschwitx.

    "And they were scattered, because there is no shepherd: and they became meat to all the beasts of the field, when they were scattered." .....Ezekiel 34:5

The Jews were led like sheep to the slaughter. Literary, they were transported by trains in cattle cars to concentration camps, just the way animals are transported. Without a messiah, the Jews have been scattered all over the world such as lambs without a shepherd. And what happens to lambs without a shepherd - the wolves seek them out. Hitler's first name of Adolf is the shortened Germanic word 'athalwolf' which means 'noble wolf'.

With the Altar of Pergamon in Berlin, Germany was on a roll. They won spectacular victories all over Europe and North Africa. Its military prowess was at its zenith. But Light always overcome Darkness eventually. Germany lost WWII and officially surrendered to Allied Forces on 7 May 1945. No good ending comes to one who sells his soul to the Devil. Hitler committed suicide in a bunker and his body was burnt. He was the last holocaust for the Altar. He died on 30 April 1945, the day of greatest significance to the occult world. It is known as the Walpurgis' Night, a night where the ancients built bonfires all over their cities to ward off witches and evil spirits. (There are those who believe in the conspiracy theory of Hitler escaping to Argentina).

Germany then split into East and West Germany. The capital city Berlin itself was split into 2. East Germany and East Berlin went under USSR control. In 1948 the Soviets took parts of the Altar of Pergamon and shipped it to Leningrad. Satan's throne is now partly in Leningrad and partly in East Berlin. And so, just as Hitler rose with the Altar, the Soviets grew in size and strength. With the Enemy now in the Soviet bloc, what did he do? Same old story of anti-semitism as the Soviets expelled Jews, banned Christianity, torn down churches, desolated all Jewish cultural institutions, indiscriminately killed, deported, etc. History is unsure how many millions were slaughtered, both Jews and Soviet people.

With the Altar of Pergamon under Soviet control, the USSR and communism prospered. The East had turned Red with Eastern Europe under Soviet domination, and the far east under Mao Tse Tung. Soviet nuclear might paralleled the US. The nuclear arms race was on. The space race was on, just to demonstrate power. The Soviets won. Yuri Gagarin became the first man to fly in space in 1961. Behind all this, communism painted the Eastern bloc red with the blood of those they slaughtered.

Some will recall that the USSR voted for the creation of the State of Isreal, as well as being the second country to recognise Israel, and supported the Jewish state with weapons in their first Israel-Arab war of 1948. This was not an act of love. The Soviets thought the new Israeali nation will be a socialist country and its creation would weaken British influence in the Middle East at the time.)

Here's another coincidence. In 1878 when excavation at Pergamon started, when the Enemy was rising, a little Russian child was born. His name was Stalin, and he was Satan's Plan B. Satan's bet on Hitler evaporated but now, under Stalin after WWII, Soviet power and dominance grew and half the world was painted Red. The Enemy, intent on world destruction, now bring the world to face a new holocaust -- nuclear holocaust. The new era of Cold War started and Berlin is now a flash point. In 1948, the US refused to ship reparations from their sector in West Berlin to the Soviets. (Soviets wanted a neutral and crippled Germany as a border state and thus demanded plentiful reparations; US wanted a Germany rebuilt and strengthened to face a new Soviet threat to Western Europe). Stalin reacted by blockading all roads into West Berlin. That was the first Berlin Crisis. The US airlifted supplies into Allied's sectors of East Berlin. Soviet blockade was inutile.

In 1958, the Soviets returned the artifacts taken from the Pergamon Museum and Satan now sat once again in Berlin. Immediately the Second Berlin Crisis erupted in that same year. The Soviets wanted all parts of Berlin occupied by Allied Forces to be relinquished to them. The French, British and US merged their sectors and denied the demands. The Soviets constructed the Berlin Wall and Checkpoint Charlie was immortalised.

After the failed Bay of Pigs Invasion, President Castro requested for Soviet nuclear missiles on Cuba. Kruschev agreed as this also counters US nuclear installations in Western Europe. When US intelligence saw the Cuban missile sites being built up, John F Kennedy ordered the Cuban Blockade in 1962 to prevent further shipment of Soviet hardware. Castro asked for Soviet nuclear strikes on the US. After frantic negotiations, both sides defused the situation. Kruschev withdrew all IIyushin II-28 bombers and missiles, JFK withdrew nuclear missiles from Italy and Turkey. Now, where were the US missile installations in Turkey? In the District of Pergamon. And what were those US missiles called? Jupiter ballistic missiles.

The world will never know how close we came to a nuclear holocaust and oblivion during the Cold War era.

Immediately after WWII, Winston Churchill saw the danger of the rise of the soviet bloc as capital after capital in Eastern Europe fell behind the Iron Curtain. He prompted the US to carry out a pre-emptive nuclear strike against Moscow as he felt it was a matter of time before the Soviets gained nuclear capability. Truman rejected the idea. The Soviets eventually caught up with the nuclear race and the world entered the era of Cold War with the menacing nuclear threat over our heads.

In 1962, at the height of the Cuban Crisis, a Soviet nuclear submarine was under orders to head for Cuba. The blockade started and they lost communication with Moscow. US battleships spotted the sub and dropped depth charges to get them to surface. The cat and mouse game went on for a few days and it became intolerable for the submariners who had to resurface for fresh air. The captain judged that war had broken out and he decided to launch nuclear missiles to take out the US vessels. The second-in-command concured. Soviet protocol required a third senior officer to agree. Flotilla commander Vasily Arkhipov refused to authorise the use of nuclear missile. He reasoned the way the charges were dropped to the left and right of the sub was an indication for them to surface to talk. For his action, he faced a disciplinary court martial. For the world, Vasily prevented a nuclear holocaust.

In 1983 shortly after the Soviets shot down the Korean airliner, the Soviet satellite warning system at Oko reported a missile had been launched by the US and then followed by another 6. According to Soviet military protocols, that should have initiated an action that would have caused Soviet retaliation against US. Lt Colonel Stanislav Petrov judged it was a false alarm and disobeyed their protocols. As it turned out, it was systems malfunction. But for Stanislav, the world would have been obliterated.

The Words of Karl Marx, the Voice of Satan :

To the non-disbelievers, surely we can agree the red tide owed a lot to one man -- Karl Marx. Yet ask how much do you know of the main players. Marx, Lenin, Trotsky - they could'nt care two hoots about the poor people, the proletariats. It was all about destruction, chaos, eliminating religion (Judeo-Christianity) and power. All this madness came out of the cauldron of philosophies of atheism, naturalism, rationalism, Darwinism, anarchism, and anti-capitalism, being pedaled in Europe since Enlightenment era. Marx wrote the famous ‘The Communist Manifesto’. The draft was titled 'The Communist Question of Faith’ and question 22 called for total obliteration of religion. Marx is credited with the quote - 'religion is the opiate of the masses' although some said that came from his hero Moses Hess.

In his poem 'Human Mind', Marx declared his motivation is destruction.

Words I teach all mixed up into a devilish muddle.
Thus, anyone may think just what he chooses to think
With disdain I will throw my gauntlet full in the face of the world,
And see the collapse of this pygmy giant whose fall will not stifle my ardor.
Then will I wander godlike and victorious through the ruins of the world
And, giving my words an active force, I will feel equal to the Creator.

Still in doubt of the Satanic mind of Marx? In 'Oulanem', he wrote:

Stop, I’ve got it now! It rises from my soul....
Yet I have power within my youthful arms
To clench and crush you with tempestuous force,
While for us both the abyss yawns in darkness.
I have lost heaven,
And know that for sure.
My soul, once faithful to God,
Now is destined for hell.
I'll set up my throne above,
Cold and terrible will be the peak of it.
Superstitious trembling is at its base,
Master - most black agony.
The one who will look with healthy looks,
Will turn away, turn pale and deadly mute.
Possessed by blind and cold deathness,
Will prepare a tomb with his happiness.
You will sink down and I shall follow laughing,
Whispering in your ears, “Descend, come with me, friend.”

One is reminded of Isaiah 14:13-14 on Satan's design.

Karl Marx was born Moses Mordecai Levy, son of a Jewish rabbi. They became Christians later on. He turned atheistic and his father feared he had turned demonic. Marx actually offered to dedicate a chapter in his 'Manifesto' to Charles Darwin who politely refused as he was not anti-religion. The Iron Curtain world swooned to the Words of Marx without understanding it was the Voice of the Devil.

What is Satan brewing today :

We turn the pages of history. In 1972 came the SALT treaties and nuclear dis-armament. The centrally planned economics of communism failed and red countries reinvented themselves. Many turned democratic, socialist democrat, and allowed free enterprise as well as the re-appearance of religion in their countries. In the 1980s, Perestroika (Reformation) and Glasnost (Openess) caused the USSR to collapse in 1991. In the same year, the Berlin Wall came down. Eventually, Satan's grip waned, despite the Altar of Pergamon still remaining in Berlin.

Has the world discarded the darkness? Methinks not quite yet. In 2014 the Pergamon Museum was closed for rebranding. In will re-open in 2024. It is stirring yet again. With Germany's new economic might, its dominance in the European Union, EU in turmoil with an invasion of Islamic immigrants, rising right wing populism, and Satan on his throne in Berlin, something is brewing yet again. The EU is going to create its own army. Watch out for developments in Germany.

In recent times, Russia and US have withdrawn from the SALT treaties, bringing the spectre of nuclear holocaust to the forefront once again. US Jupiter missiles remain at Incirlik Air Base, Turkey, in the district of Pergamon.

What is wrong with the US :

What is one to make of Obama's bizarre behaviour in July of 2008? With his campaign team in disarray, he went to Berlin, the seat of Satan, and gave a rousing speech to a large appreciative German audience. The EU loves him, then and to this day. He was not yet president, but they received him like a great world leader. His speech was about the New World Order, same as what Hitler spoke there. One month after Obama returned from Berlin, he was nominated by the Democratic National Convention. Thereafter, his campaign became supercharged. For his nomination speech, Obama stood on a platform that was modeled on the Altar of Pergamon, exactly the way Hitler did. Was he trying to invoke certain powers?

One of Obama's mentor was the socialist Saul Alinsky (who also mentored Hillary Clinton). Alinsky was socialist and godless and has been likened to Rasputin, Joseph Goebbels, servant of the devil, and harbinger of insurrection. He was famous for his book "Rules for Radicals". Obama's favorite rules are No. 5 on 'ridiculing' the opposition and No.13 "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it." Is it a wonder in the Obama era the Dems have gone to the radical left extreme and polarisation is a curse in the US today. What abomination ensued in the Obama years? Child sacrifice in the abortion legislation, the abomination of the holy sanctity of marriage, and disavowed God in all public places and services. Obama did not discriminate, expel or kill Jews, but he brought US-Israel relationship to the lowest level it has ever been in history. He put Israeli security at great risk in a deal where he handed billions of $ to Iran and practically allowed them to pursue nuclear capability despite the Iranian repeated public threats to exterminate the Jewish state. In 2014 Obama threatened to shoot down Israeli jets if they attempt to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities. (Israeli media reported this, US media said it's rumours). It's best to let someone else do the killing. Same-o same-o Satanic scenarios.

"And I will bless those who bless you, And the one who curses you I will curse." ... Genesis 12:2-3

Apart from His convenant with His chosen people, God established His doctrine of reciprocity. This has been played out over and over again in human history but largely gone un-noticed.

The US was the first country to recognise the state of Israel in 1948. Ever since, US has been extremely generous to and protective of the security of Israel. The God narrative sees the US blessed economically, militarily, and technologically in almost a century of prosperity and world leadership. The abominations now going on in the US and the turning away from God is not going to be positive for the country's fortunes. In 2014 after the Obama threat to shoot down Israeli Jets, China's economy overtook the US to become the world number one.

In 2015, Obama interfered in the Israeli election with an all-out offensive with veiled threats, anonymous news leaks and media messages that portrayed Netanyahu as a danger to Israel with his antagonistic relationship with the White House. Polls showed Netanyahu's popularity dropped tremendously, but a last minute surge won him an unexpected victory. (There's a story of God's hand in this, but that's for another day).  God did to US what Obama did to Israel - God interfered in the US election 2016.  Hillary Clinton was supposed to be the hands down winner. A last minute surge from evangelist votes tipped the scales for Trump.

Are these stories and events nothing but coincidences :

A coincidence is the concurrence of events or circumstances that do not seem to have any apparent connection. To the scientific minds, the stories here are hogwash. There are no dots to connect. But what about the immensity of coincidences running throughout the Bible? Statisticians will explain the law of coincidences of large numbers. Simply expand the population of observations and it’s possible to conjure up many coincidences. Or they will say these observed coincidences are simply ‘confirmation bias’. The writer conveniently ignores what he does not wish to show

But are there coincidences which are meaningful although their occurrences have no causal relationship? Carl Jung has a word for this. He called it 'synchronocity'. The Bible then, is full of synchronocities.

What does the Bible say of coincidences? It is mentioned only once, by Jesus himself in Luke 12.7. In the parable of the Good Samaritan, Jesus described a traveler who was robbed and injured and lying by a roadside. “And by a coincidence a certain priest was going down in that way, and having seen him, he passed over on the opposite side”. From the Septaugint the word is 'sygkyria' which translates to 'what occurs together by God's providential arrangement of circumstances'.

From the brilliant scientific mind of Albert Einstein : 'A coincidence is a small miracle when God chooses to remain anonymous'.

God does his work in mysterious ways, using kings and empowering others that he choses. For reasons we do not comprehend, God's ways tend to use important Jewish holidays or patterns of dates for important events. Perhaps it is a way to communicate to us that a transcendental force is at work. The following coincidences will blow your mind :

• In 1313 BC Moses and his people had reached the frontier of the Promised Land. 12 spies were sent out to see whether the land could be taken from the Canaanites. 10 of the 12 reported negatively, only Caleb and Joshua had positive reports.
  Numbers 14:1 describes the people gathered that night the spies returned. They chose to believe the negative reports. People were frightened, did not wish to fight the Canaanites and angry that God's promise was not to be. “The people wept that night.” That night was Tisha B’Av, the 9th day of the Jewish month of Av. God declared: “They cried for no reason; in the future I’ll give them good reason to cry.”
  God was pissed that Israel had no faith in Him and wanted to disinherit and create a pestilence for them. Mosses pleaded for the rebellion of the Jews and God relented. He punished them with 40 years of wandering in the desert, 1 year for each of the 40 days the spies spent doing their intel gathering. None of that generation 21 years old and above were allowed to enter the Promised Land except Caleb and Joshua. The 40 years was enough time for the oldies to die out in the desert.
  That night on the 9th of Av in 1313 BC, God sent the Jews out to wander the desert for 40 years for atonement of their sin. That set off the mystery of the 9th of Av. Almost every sorrowful event of the Jewish people fell on this day of their calender.
• The First Temple was destroyed by the Babylonians and Jews taken into Babylon as slaves - 9th of Av 586 BC.
• The Second Temple was completely destroyed by Roman legions under Titus - 9th of Iv AD70.
• Jews at Betar massacred in revolt against Romans - 9th of Av AD135.
• Jews martyred in England, York Castle in an anti-semitic rioting - 9th of Av 1190.
• The Jews expelled from England - 9th of Av 1290.
• Jews expelled from France - 9th of Av 1306 (actually happened on the day after)
• Jews expelled from Spain - 9th of Av 1492.
• Jews in Rome moved to a ghetto - 9th of Av 1555. The Roman Ghetto was initiated by Pope Paul IV and lasted till 1870.
• Germany declared war on Russia and WWI started - 9th of Av 1914 (with terrible consequences for Jews).
• SS Commander Heinrich Himmler formally received approval from the Nazi Party for “The Final Solution” 9th of Av 1941.
• Mass deportation of Jews from Warsaw Ghetto to extermination camp - 9th of Av 1942.

There are no coincidences. God is real. The Enemy is real. The battles are real.