Dear PM,

Since we're in this super-high morality mode of "high integrity", I thought I'd take this opportunity to ask you to clarify a few similar lies I've heard from the PAP.

First of all, can you please clarify if you slapped Dhanabalan sometime around 1990? Then why did Tony Tan, Yeo Ning Hong and Dhanabalan threaten to resign in succession? Vivian cited internal notes as his evidence of guilt or innocence -- well, page 150 of Ross Worthington's book, "Governance in Singapore" (Publisher: Taylor & Francis, Inc, Dec 2002) also had internal notes about this slapping incident. This rumour had been flying around for years and in 2005, then outgoing PM Goh addressed it head on by denying its existence. This is no different from, say, Sylvia Lim denying the accuracy of NEA's internal notes.  As such, I conclude, using the same line of reasoning as you and Vivian, that such denials are to be dismissed.  Does that mean that PM Goh had lied publicly to Singapore?  Do you believe his integrity is intact? What about your own integrity, since this incident involves you directly and no less a person than yourself should clarify? By his act of ommission (ie. keeping silent), does that mean that President Tony Tan had also acted without integrity?

Since this matter concerns the highest level of our government, ie. PM, President, Emeritus SM -- I'd appreciate if you can clarify this matter as a matter of urgency to all Singaporeans. Remember - internal notes are sacrosanct and trumpets all other forms of denial.

Secondly, in 2003, then Minister of State for Defence Cedric Foo told Parliament that prior to 2000, the term 'white horse' "was used to identify sons of influential persons to ensure such enlistees were not given preferential treatment. And their medical classification and vocation assignments are scrupulously fair."  Note the words "scrupulously fair".

This assertion was so contrary to the everyday experiences of male Singaporeans that it drew a laugh. If anything, their everyday experiences is that "white horse" accords unfair treatment to sons of influential persons. Such everyday experiences is the equivalent of the internal notes cited by Vivian.  Remember - anyone can take internal notes based on his or her own observations and they are held in private and not disclosed to the other party, but can be used (for purposes of ascertaining integrity) at any moment as a gotcha to the opposite party.  Since this explanation is contrary to the experiences of everyday Singaporeans, is the then Minister lying to Parliament?  Since Goh Chok Tong was then the PM, should he be held accountable for this lie, just like you're endeavoring to hold Low Thia Khiang accountable right now?  And since you're then the Deputy PM, is your integrity also impugned?  Did Patrick Tan (son of Tony Tan) benefit from such unfair advantages?  Or was his NS experience also "scrupulously fair"? I would also appreciate if you can clarify this matter, since this is prima facie a lie to Parliament and as you said, we're shooting for a First World parliament here.

Last, but by no means least (PS to readers : Any other similar examples you can think of?), in the White Paper debate, you said that whether we have 6.9 million population (of which Singaporeans will be a minority in his own country) in 2030 is up to Singaporeans to decide in the future.  May I then ask you back at that time, what is the population of Singapore and how many foreigners net have you let into the country?  At this rate, are we on track to 6.9 million people by 2030?  If it is up to Singaporeans to decide in the future, may I know why you're still letting in such influx of foreigners? Did you lie to Parliament?  Surely, this lie is of bigger consequence, than .. oh .. cleaning of a hawker centre ????

Like the Pharisees of biblical times, I appreciate that you suddenly take on the mantle of high morality.  Unfortunately, I'm unable to shake off these past "lies" so I would appreciate if you can publicly clarify these matters to Singaporeans. Remember your own standard -- failure or unwillingness to clarify denotes guilt.

Thank you,

Tan Ah Kow