Wednesday, April 24, 2019

National University of Sex - Part 2

New case of sexual misconduct surfaced in the best University in Asia.

Here are some interesting details and reactions from some bloggers.


25 cases involving sexual misconduct in NUS from 2015-2018 and how they were dealt with.

The National University of Singapore (NUS) voyeurism saga is not all that uncommon.

Three PDF documents detailing a comprehensive list of offences from 2015 to 2018 shines light on the consideration given in the cases, and the penalties meted out.

In one case, a NUS student entered a children’s toilet and filmed children in the adjacent cubicle on multiple occasions.

Interestingly, if the victims involved male students, it is less likely that police reports will be made.

Here are the cases that involve insult and/or outrage of modesty.


NUS undergraduate Ms Monica Baey was filmed showering in the hostel by a fellow student from the Faculty of Engineering. She lodged a police report and was told the pervert was only given a conditional warning instead of being charged in court. Past offenders of similar offences were typically given jail sentences.

Ms Baey said she tried to appeal for a heavier sentence, but was told by the investigating officer "You just have to accept the outcome" or "go to NUS and push for action".

We urged the Singapore police and AGC to apply the law fairly and equally to all by reopening the case and charge the pervert in court! Let a judge decide the appropriate punishment to be meted out!

We need to do more to protect our girls from such perverts! Such inaction is unacceptable and will only encourage more perverts to commit such crimes! It will also set an unhealthy precedent for future cases!
Monica exposed Nicholas in social media....

Letter of Apology.

 Actions by NUSSU exco after her complaint and exposing the crime.

Nicholas caught caressing another girl's thigh.

SINGAPORE — Education Minister Ong Ye Kung has expressed his concerns to the National University of Singapore (NUS) over the “manifestly inadequate” penalties that it has imposed in the recent sexual misconduct case.
Ong said in a post on his Facebook page on Monday (22 April) that he spoke to the NUS President and Board Chairman about the case on Saturday night.
“From here on, for offences that affect the safety of students on campus, we have to take a tough stand, and send a strong signal to everyone. Two strikes and you are out cannot be the standard application. NUS has to make its campus safe for all students, especially female students,” Ong said.
Ong did not specify the details of the case in his post. His comments come amid the furore over the conduct of a male NUS student who was caught on camera filming female undergraduate Monica Baey showering in a hostel toilet. Many NUS students and others have slammed the light punishments meted out to the offender.
The NUS Board of Discipline had ordered the male student to be suspended for one semester, banned from entering into housing premises on campus, undergo counselling, write a letter of apology, among other punishments.
The first-time offender was also given a 12-month conditional warning by the police. If the student were to commit an offence over the following 12 months after the warning, he would be prosecuted for both offences.
Ong said NUS will review its discipline and sentencing framework “swiftly and decisively”.
He added, “I am confident NUS’ review will result in a more robust process and stricter framework. The NUS Board and President are seized with this matter, and are determined to put a stop to such unacceptable behaviour on campus.”
The minister said he has also asked other universities to review their frameworks for similar offences.

Raging controversy over NUS incident

The incident has sparked many debates and widespread concerns over sexual harassment in university campuses in Singapore.
Earlier Monday, NUS said it will hold a town hall meeting this week to address concerns over the controversy.
“The University has heard your concerns. We are holding a town hall this week for NUS students, faculty and staff to gather feedback and concerns about sexual misconduct on campus and to discuss how the University can further strengthen its disciplinary and support frameworks,” NUS said in a post on its Facebook page.
On Sunday, almost 500 NUS students – with support from 194 students from other local universities and educational institutions – wrote a letter to the top management of NUS, urging them to take immediate steps to tackle sexual harassment on campus.
In their statement, the students wrote that the punishments given to the offender signalled that NUS “does not credibly enforce its stance against sexual voyeurism as a serious offence” and that “those who commit such an offence can arguably expect to receive a relatively light sentence”.
The controversy went viral online after Baey expressed anger over what she perceived to be light punishments imposed on the male student in several Instagram posts.
On Monday, Great Eastern said an NUS student has resigned from the company after it has suspended him for misconduct.
“We are aware of the recent incident involving Nicholas Lim, a Great Eastern financial representative. He has been placed on immediate suspension and has since submitted his resignation,” Great Eastern said in a post on its Facebook page.
“Great Eastern strongly disapproves of any inappropriate misconduct by our financial representatives and will not hesitate to take the necessary action,” it added.

SPF issues statement on Nicholas Lim
There have been public discussions regarding the 12-month conditional warning given to a 23-year-old male National University of Singapore (NUS) undergraduate who had committed criminal trespass and insulted the modesty of a female undergraduate at the NUS.

There are two factors (which are both inter-related and yet separate): the first relates to rules to ensure that premises like NUS provide a safe environment, and the second relates to criminal prosecution. On the first, Police understand that NUS is reviewing its rules, on how such conduct is to be treated.

On the second issue: Police and AGC understand public concerns, on ensuring that our laws and enforcement provide sufficient protection for potential victims, and sufficient deterrence against would-be offenders. That is the approach that Police and AGC take.

In deciding whether to recommend prosecution for a criminal offence, a number of factors are considered by Police in each case, including the age of the accused, the likelihood of reoffending/rehabilitation, the extent of remorse shown, whether there are aggravating factors (for example, like circulation of the offending images).

In this case, the accused was assessed to have a high likelihood of rehabilitation, and was remorseful. There were also additional factors relating to his conduct which were relevant, such as the absence of other obscene materials in any of his devices.

A prosecution, with a possible jail sentence, will, likely ruin his entire future, with a permanent criminal record. Taking into account these factors, he was given a conditional warning, which means that if he commits any other criminal offence within 12 months, he will be liable to be prosecuted for both this current offence and the subsequent other offence. He will then likely face a jail sentence.

Our criminal justice system seeks to temper punishment and deterrence, with giving offenders a second chance to reform, based on assessment of the relevant factors.

The approach in this case is consistent with the approach taken in other cases. There have been a number of similar cases, where such conditional warnings have been given.

Where other relevant factors are involved, for example, a prior criminal record, premeditation to evade detection, there will often be a prosecution.

Allegations that the man was not prosecuted because he has influential parents are untrue - the Police and AGC did not consider his parents' background. Such factors are irrelevant considerations. It is unfortunate that such untruths have been put out. The man’s parents have agreed for it to be disclosed that his father is a driver in the public transport sector and his mother is a housewife.

The Police are also aware of comparisons being made between this case and a 2015 case involving a 23-year-old man who was charged and sentenced to 10 weeks’ imprisonment for filming a woman showering at Republic Polytechnic (RP).

The accused in the RP case had committed multiple criminal trespass offences, taken deliberate action to avoid detection by covering up the CCTVs in the vicinity and covering his face with a towel, and did not own up voluntarily but was arrested following Police investigations to track him down.

He was a former student of RP and had committed the offences over a period of four months. As such, the Police, in consultation with the AGC, prosecuted him in court. The facts in that case are quite different.


The system has to be fair and just to Nicholas too

The system has to be fair and just, it can't be the more vocal ones get disproportionately more say over the rest...

So the current punishment meted out to Nicholas is based on precedent cases and through the board of discipline ...

NUS did no wrong as this system has been practiced all along. To single out Nicholas for special treatment is manifestly unjust...

The National University of Singapore (NUS) on Monday (April 22) said it has a "second strike and you are out" policy for sexual misconduct cases.

Setting out how the university handles such cases, NUS vice-provost (student life) Florence Ling told The Straits Times that a student found guilty of sexual misconduct for a second time will be expelled.

"For first-time offenders, because we are an educational institution, we want to give the students a chance. Student offenders who appear before the Board of Discipline for the first time are given a range of punishments, but not immediate expulsion," she said.

Corporate Reaction to NUS
SINGAPORE — The fallout over the National University of Singapore's (NUS) handling of a peeping tom incident has widened, with a company declaring that it will cease all dealings with the university while the mother of the victim lashed out at NUS for letting the perpetrator off "so lightly".
Meanwhile, almost 500 students put up a statement addressed to NUS' senior management, including president Tan Eng Chye, provost Ho Teck Hua and dean Peter Pang, calling on the university to take a "stronger stance against sexual harassment and set a positive example for other universities around the world".
The victim, 23-year-old NUS undergraduate Monica Baey, had taken to Instagram to publicise an incident in which she was filmed by a fellow student while she was showering in her hostel bathroom at NUS' Eusoff Hall last November.
She said that the police handed the perpetrator a 12-month conditional warning, while NUS got him to write a letter of apology to her, suspended him for a semester, barred him from entering halls and residences, and made him attend counselling.
She said in her posts that she wanted “real consequences for perpetrators that commit such acts”.
On Sunday (April 21), OnHand Agrarian, an urban farm that has taken in NUS students for internships, said in a Facebook post that it has made "the monumentally stupid decision" to compromise its product and clients by "allowing a criminal" to continue to use its facilities.
Therefore, the company said that it will "suspend all dealings" with NUS until the perpetrator is expelled.
"No talks, no internships, no site visits, no use of our company when you need industry partners to be Co-PIs (co-Principal Investigator) for government grant submissions," it said.
NUS had said on Saturday that it will set up a committee to review its current disciplinary and support frameworks.

The executive committee of the NUS' students’ union then said in a statement on Sunday that it condemns any form of sexual harassment at the institution, but urged fellow students not to harass the perpetrator.
Ms Baey herself was one of 489 signatories in a statement addressed to the NUS' heads on Sunday, expressing deep concerns about the university’s "approach towards sexual harassment".
The statement said: "While we understand the University’s need to maintain a balanced position on the matter and to keep in line with precedence, we find the punishment meted out in this case problematic because it signals to the NUS community at large that i) our University does not credibly enforce its stance against sexual voyeurism as a serious offence; ii) those who commit such an offence can arguably expect to receive a relatively light sentence; and iii) survivors of sexual violence and harassment will not receive adequate institutional and social support even if they voice their concerns to the relevant authorities."
The group of signatories made four recommendations, including suggesting that NUS make a "stronger statement against sexual harassment on campus" than the one dean Pang had issued, and publicly committing to a "zero-tolerance policy against sexual harassment".
"As one of the world’s top universities, we hope that NUS would take a stronger stance against sexual harassment and set a positive example for other universities around the world," the statement said.
Meanwhile, the victim's mother has called the 12-month conditional warning issued by the police to the perpetrator as "completely ridiculous".
"What this means is, the police are giving him a slap on his hand and say don't do it again within 12 months," Mrs Mary Baey commented on Facebook.
"How can we know this is not going to happen again and how can there be no serious consequences for such action?"
She also criticised NUS for letting the peeping tom off "so lightly with an absurd and pathetic apology, and a suspension of a semester", describing the punishment meted out as "completely unacceptable".
"I was given to understand that this is not the first case, there have been many cases, some reported to NUS and some that went unreported," Mrs Baey said.
"How can we place our trust in NUS, a national and international institution? This trust is now broken."


Someone defending Nicholas...


Wednesday, April 17, 2019

Latest Updates From Lee Wei Ling as Lee Dynasty Collapse

In recent months, the government newspapers like Straits Times and CNA, have been been spreading fake news of Lee Hsien Yang’s wife, Lee Suet Fern, being guilty of professional misconduct.

Singapore’s mainstream media is ranked 151st in the world for credibility.

The Attorney General, who is Lee Hsien Loong’s former private lawyer, commenced legal actions against Lee Suet Fern as soon as he became AG, in a veiled attempt to invalidate Lee Kuan Yew’s last will.

In his last will, Lee Kuan Yew specified that the 38 Oxley Road house is to be demolished after his death.

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong however wanted to turn the site into a memorial, so he could tether his political image to his father’s popularity. The move is also aimed to pave the way for his son, Li Hongyi, to become the next Prime Minister.

Lee Hsien Loong is currently seeking to circumvent the last will, through the abuse of his premiership powers by enforcing a legislation under the Preservation of Monuments Act. The PAP dictator is also persecuting his younger brother’s family members, sister-in-law Lee Suet Fern for allegedly “professional misconduct” and nephew Li Shengwu for allegedly “contempt of court”.

The other two siblings – Lee Hsien Yang and Lee Wei Ling – are defending the last will in their own way. Lee Wei Ling isolated herself residing in the house alone so the National Heritage Board could not enforce the Monument Act legislation.

Lee Hsien Yang is currently supporting and funding opposition political elements, hoping that his dictator brother Lee Hsien Loong will lose governance in the coming general election expected to take place later this year.

General public comments on this issue...

I thought LHL being the PM of Singapore, should set a good example, instead fighting about the house becomes hot news in the mass and social medias.......

walaneh! shock Bro, family disputes became public issues ah! Worried Why can't they just settle behind closed doors leh?

How can the head of a rich nation, PM Lee being called a dishonourable son (person), a liar, and abuse of power and yet, powerless to take action? What will the world think of the people in Singapore?

Without any sign of a peaceful solution or discussion for a ceased fire agreement in sight. Soon the attack from PM Lee's siblings and nephew will be intensified and could even be more vigorous and powerful than ever before..

Tuesday, April 16, 2019

Hyflux Debacle and the Water & Electric Power Scandal

Who Killed Hyflux?

Hyflux investors got fingers burnt.

No bail-out for Hyflux

Hyflux protesters

Hyflux contracted at $200 MWh In 2012 without hedging and prices Plummeted forcing Hyflux into bankruptcy...

So how can PAP MPs proposed and approved electricity rate increase?

Its total Madness to cheat consumer...

How come singapore power still charge us sky high electric bill?

Did they quietly profited from the low electric prices
and PAP just keep quiet ?

just think lah....................Open Electricity = 30% cheaper..........PUB can easily sell us 50% cheaper and still make a lot..........

We all needs electricity for our daily lifes, and it had become a necessity rather than a luxury. Therefore, we don't have a choice if the price of electricity is doubled in years to come.


The online petition comes as shareholders and investors are asking why Hyflux’s audit firm gave the organisation a clean bill of health in its annual reports over the last decade, instead of flagging the risk that Hyflux would become embroiled in heavy debt

By Jewel Stolarchuk - April 17, 2019

Over 800 individuals have petitioned President Halimah Yacob to appoint a commission of inquiry to look into Hyflux.

About 34,000 perpetual securities and preference shareholders who invested in the water and power company are owed a total of S$900 million, but only stand to receive a recovery rate of 10.7 per cent comprising of 3 per cent in cash and 7 per cent in equity.

Calling these retail investors “risk averse and non sophisticated investors,” the online petition noted that these investors chose to invest their hard-earned funds into Hyflux as they considered the company’s water desalination plant a strategic national asset.

The online petition comes as shareholders and investors are asking why Hyflux’s audit firm gave the organisation a clean bill of health in its annual reports over the last decade, instead of flagging the risk that Hyflux would become embroiled in heavy debt.

KPMG has audited Hyflux since 2008. Hyflux slipped into the red for the first time in 2017 since it was listed in 2001. Two months later, it filed for bankruptcy.

The move shocked investors who had believed the company was healthy. Indeed, Hyflux’s financial statements before this point did not give cause for concern since it was prepared on the basis of an accounting method that assumes the company will remain solvent and operational indefinitely until proven otherwise.

Asking the President to intervene, the petitioners asked her to “appoint a commission of inquiry to take an independent review of this matter.” The petitioners requested that the review should look into whether adequate steps were taken to protect the interests of investors.

View the petition, which is nearing 1,000 signatures, HERE. One of the individuals who signed the petition is former presidential candidate and ex-NTUC Income CEO Tan Kin Lian, who funded the recent protest at Hong Lim Park against Hyflux’s restructuring plans.

The petition was organised as Singapore’s regulators have initiated a review into Hyflux to discover whether the debt-laden firm has breached regulations.

In a joint statement to Channel NewsAsia, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA) and the Singapore Exchange Regulation (SGX) said they are “currently reviewing Hyflux-related disclosure issues”.

MAS, ACRA and SGX are also looking at “compliance with accounting and auditing standards, to determine if there have been breaches of listing rules and/or the relevant laws and regulations”.

Hyflux, which is nearing the end of a court-sanctioned debt moratorium on 30 Apr, told the publication that it is “cooperating fully” with the regulators.
Analysts have said that the odds of liquidation for Hyflux have risen, especially after the Salim-Medco rescue deal fell through with no assurances of another such deal. The Indonesian consortium was touted to be a “white knight” and the only hope for the retail investors of Hyflux who have been left high and dry.

On Monday, Hyflux filed a writ of summons in the Singapore High Court against the Indonesian consortium “to commence an action against the investor for repudiation of the restructuring agreement” as well as to claim a deposit of S$38.9 million.

Wednesday, April 10, 2019

The $70 Passport Renewal Fee

What does the $70 passport renewal fee tells you about this Govt?

I have often heard this complaint of the high passport renewal fee, but just shrugged it off as another of those daily complaints by typical Singaporean. After all, you pay it only once in 5 years, as the passport is valid for 5 years.

But when a coffeeshop cleaner started grumbling about the fee, and that he will not be renewing his passport, I decide to put myself in his shoes, and analyse the situation he is facing that is so serious, that it caused him not to have a passport at all.

More importantly, what he doesn't understand is, why the regime of LKY charged only a token sum of $10 for a new passport but the current regime is charging such high fee that it deterred him from having a passport altogether?

Let's look at the numbers. There are about 3.3 million Singaporeans, and over 5 years, these people would have paid 3.3million x $70 or about $47 million to the government's coffer. Divide that by 5 and you have approximately $9.4 million per year of collection.

Based on what we heard from Heng Swee Keat, every year we have a surplus of $1 billion to $10 billion, every year.

Except for the recession year some time in 2009, which happened only once a lifetime. And that is also because the Govt chose to dig into the Reserves, even though they can chose not to, and we would have been OK.

Important Reminder - One billion is 1,000 millions. So even if the govt decide to pay for all the passport renewals, it will be less than an insect bite to the Govt. So why did this new regime under Lee Hsien Loong, is determine to hit Singaproeans with "fine" for renewing their passport?

Just to put things more in perspective, the casino levies collected from Singaporeans and PR came to $134 million a year in 2017. More than enough to pay for all passport renewals, by more than 13 times.

And I haven't even talked about other forms of gambling levy in other legalized gambling outlets, and other form of taxes, GST, COE, etc.

By the way, passport fees are regressive, just like the GST. It means the poor will be the hardest hit. It is like robbing the poor to pay for the rich. You may google to find out why GST is regressive, it will be another topic for now.

Questions surfaced after this simple analysis.

1. Wouldn't it be better politically for him to stick to previous policy of the previous administration? Give something back to the people? In this case, every Singaporean will benefit. Take it as a personal right for all Singaporeans to travel freely, without any financial barrier or restriction?

2. This analysis also threw out the govt's argument that fee had not been increased over the years, and the need to cater for rising cost. It is obvious that it is a blatant lie, a total rubbish in more layman's term. Is it not?

3. All these fee increases, in this case by over 7 times, would have taken away the so-called cash distribution in the form of GST rebates. Last known was $300 annually for those eligible. Would it not?

For all the items above, looking at it from a non-partisan or non-biased view, it is quite obvious that the govt doesn't really care too much about it's people when come to money.

In fact, the govt's attitude is that of, EVERY CITIZEN OWES THE GOVERNMENT, (regardless of your financial background, race or religion) and not the way around. The govt has created a world class country that is safe for you to stay and be proud of, you must pay them for that, regardless.

So they will not hesitate to impose, if deemed fit, any form of charges, fees, rates, fares, taxes and salary increases for themselves. And, if deemed fit, to increase the existing ones.

Whatever form of subsidies or grants that they offer you, will be taken back from you eventually in other forms.

And all these money collected from you, the people, will be channelled to the Sovereign Fund held by Temasek and the GIC. The monies will be invested oversea, not you and me.

Although there are strict provisions for it to be used for the country under very unlikely circumstances, you are not likely to ever see those money again in your lifetime. For the people, these monies can be written off as bad debt.

Tuesday, April 2, 2019

Raising of CPF Withdrawal Age to 70

Let's hear it from some veterans, past and present, and the public in general. Some names of authors are not given basically to protect them from any persecution by the dictator government.

This is the words of our great leader of the founding generation, ex-Deputy PM Mr. Toh Chin Chye on why raising the withdrawal age is a breach of trust by the dictator government.

"Dr Toh Chin Chye: We need to clearly define the boundaries within which the CPF will be used for retirement. We must spell that out. You just cannot say, “Let us raise the withdrawal age to 60 or 65.” It must be 60. It must be 65. Now, at which age?

This Paper does not contain any calculation at all to say what will happen if it is withdrawn at 60, or what will happen if it is withdrawn at 65. If I were a person who has no relatives, if I were a widower with no children, all the assumptions made by this Committee – that you will be looked after by your children – then I do not qualify under any of these grounds.

Mr Speaker, I think fundamental principles are being breached. The fundamental principle is this. The CPF is really a fixed deposit or a loan to Government, which can be redeemed at a fixed date when the contributor is 55 years old.

If I were to put this sum of money in a commercial bank and, on the due date I go to the bank to withdraw the money, the manager says, “I am sorry, Dr Toh, you will have to come next year”, there will be a run on the bank! It is as simple as this, that the CPF has lost its credibility, the management of it.

This is fundamental…This is the nub of the problem – the credibility of the management, gradual encroachment into the purpose of the CPF which was instituted really to provide for retirement."


Imagine you put your money in a bank as 1yr fixed deposit.

After one year you go to the bank to collect the $$. Banker say cannot auto extend for 10yrs. You ask why banker say we worry about you people have bad habits take tge money will go anyhow spend so i am doing it for your own good. In any case i think you need insurance and annuities I think it is good for you so i already enroll you. If you want you can use the money to service housing loan with us...otherwise cannot touch until 10yrs later for your own good.

That is essentially what has happened to CPF....

Just like banker, those in control wont tell the real reasons why they do this instead they use a pretext and claim they are doing for your own good.

There are many reasons why the govt delays. and control access to your own fund:..

1. They can lower their own expeditures by enrolling you on various insurance and scheme using your CPF for programmes that should be supported by govt revenues.

2. Second is the the CPF funds is loaned to sovereign wealth funds GIC/Temasek for investment purposes and they keep the excess returns. This create a big conflict of interest because the more they delay your access the more they can exploit your funds. In fact of you go read the early speeches of Goh Keng Swee, such an arrangement was used to build up reserves when Singapore was poorer.

I proposed 2 serious reforms:

1. To require all excess returns from use of CPF for sovereign wealth investment to be returned to account holders....all countries and major pension do this. The current practice create a conflict of interest in policy making should be stopped.

2. Stop compulsory insurance schemes that potentially drain cpf accounts over time.

Its a slipppery slope.

But its not just delay, CPF now forciby used for insurance like careshield and converted into annuities the govt now is forcing this money into schemes they created so they do not need to spend from their budget

Once you allow govt to use the argument that you cannot be trusted to have access to your own cede controlto on what they can do....

You basically go onto that slippery slope...they can create various schemes to use CPF to reduce their budget expenditure on healthcare and elderly care etc by tapping CPF into various schemes.

Today the govt raise withdrawal age and included all sort of scheme and insurance etc so that they are not indebted to people.
They drained everything.

They already got 70% votes and monopolize Parliament for so many years
Why should they care about trust ?


Imo, they cannot simply just push the cpf withdrawal age up and up and up .....

They should take into the consideration of people's life span and the enjoyment we needed.

If they push it up to eg 65, we have less than 10 years to enjoy our fruits.....supposing we kick the bucket average 75 yr old , not to factor in before kick the bucket, we probably spend another 1 to few years struggling in the hospital waiting to die....

Their computation is based on how to accumulate as much at the govt side from the people.

Whether you have quality of life or lying in hospital when your cpf money finally come is not their concern.

They only concern is how to keep the money from us.

I have a friend, her mother passed away at the age of 79 yr old.

She started dementia around 75 yr old. Struggling for 4 years in and out of hospital, coma, liver not functioning, etc...

Just imagine, if push to 65, only have 5 years to enjoy and probably more than 40 years of hardship.


You seriously think they are in politics because they love the masses and public? You are a politician because you love to control, love to come up with policies and rules for the masses. The handshake and walkabout are just ways to PR. Try having them walk the ground everyday and without any media coverage. You think it will happen?

They rather be playing golf somewhere.


“I want to get my money back,” said Mr Weng. “The government should not lock up our money. I have 40% of my CPF locked up (in the Minumum Sum). I mean, I’m a retiree now, and I tried asking the CPF front office for it, but they didn’t do anything.”

Ibrahim, 60, shared similar sentiments. “I am old enough to know how to spend my own money, so why does the government want to control my CPF? I want to use it to help support my daughter who is studying in Australia. I also need to spend some on my Hajj, as this is a very important religious obligation for me.”

“I tried speaking to my Member of Parliament, but he did not help. I’m not happy with it,” he added.