How many more chances do the law-breaking M’sian FTs want?

So Lim Kit Siang of the PAP DAP is calling “Give M’sians arrested in S’pore a second chance”? Anwar’s gang wants to cause problems here, like what they are doing in M’sia? (“Pro-Pakatan Rakyat groups have vowed to overthrow the Barisan Nasional government this year through a massive street rally”)*

Since our police had already used a light touch on M’sian FTs who broke the laws on public demonstrations here, “Apa lagi Kit Siang mahu?”

Despite the police warning that it would take action against illegal demonstrations by FTs, some M’sian FTs ignored the police warning and 21 were arrested on Saturday 11th May. (Bet you these FTs  tot that  since DAP was conceived as PAP Clone, they can do what they like here because it is a PAP govt here. And anyway, because Kit Siang is a devotee of one LKY, sure can chum siong. Taz how politics and cronyism works in KL. And the irony is that the protestors want to change the system.)

Well the police had already shown a light touch with the first demonstration at the same spot (Merlion Park) on Wednesday, 8th May. There were on that day about 100 protestors according to the local media, but only nine (9%) were arrested and then warned by the police.

To show that S’pore is not a place for FTs to “import their domestic issues from their countries into Singapore and conduct activities which can disturb public order, as there can be groups with opposing views”, the police should have rounded up all the protestors on that day and deported all of them.

Back to the 11th May protest: the constructive, nation-building media did not give the numbers who protested on Saturday. Were the 21 arrested, only 9% of those who protested illegally: same proportion like Wednesday? Again they were only warned.

To be fair to the police,  those who took part in both demonstrations will have their passes to remain here revoked. The police should have arrested all the protestors on Saturday, and deported all of them.

Apa lagi mahu? Show some gratitude that the police used the light touch, Kit Siang.

Here’s some interesting (and valid bar one) comments from TRE readers on”the light touch”:

– you can take the foreigner out of their country but you cannot take their country out of the foreigner. why is the pap gahmen granting equal if not more privileges to new citizens and prs compared to true blue singaporeans in terms of subsidized housing, scholarships and cushy jobs?

– hey Must be charge for the illegal assembly. We are having different ethic all over the region in this tiny country, if the recalcitrant Malaysian are to let go with a slap on the wrist, next the Pinoys will start protesting here with the issue back home,then the Bangladeshi,then…depot them & charge hard!

– They should do their protest in JB. Not in Singapore’s soil. They come to earn a living so that is all to it. Why bring grieviences here? And some even begin to talk of Malaysia’s politics at work places.

Malaysian PR and work permit holders most of them are trouble makers. They are neither this nor that….sort of person. Cursing malaysia when they are here…back in their country curse Singaporean for being stupid etc…

I’ve worked with them for decades and the earlier batches were ok when they came… work hard marry our women and raises up family. And personally I have met their children and they performed NS and adapt to our system well. Mixed with other races and all that. But the same cannot be said by the recent batches of them. Ungrateful lot…shooo shooo shoo back to malaysia….true blue local born Singaporean don’t give a shit to Malaysia’s politics! whether Anwar be the PM of Malaysia or PM of Sungai Buloh or rot wherever pls when you come to work place don’t bring your shit politics here in Singapore

And here’s another reason to be tough: possible M’sian Chinese and Indian interference in S’pore’s politics.

And police investigate Singapore Writers and those mentined here

 “Is this a political website or one about writing & Singapore Writers? Why is it always posting about Malaysian politics?

 Singapore Writers: Good question. Thanks! This is a space for writers. And not only are lots of our better senior writers and veteran paid-up members like Catherine Lim, Ranjan Nair etc etc with Malaysian backgrounds but our rising stars like Serene Wee, Nat Sim etc are also from Malaysia (though they studied in SG).

 So important to keep abreast with political developments …”

 SG Writers is full of commentators, like this from Rajan Nair [TRE reader alleges that he is based in KL, being a S’porean-born PR who went home to avoid NS.]

“Some time around the late 1980’s the PAP lost its bearing and started to accumulate reserves for the sake of accumulating. Which was why they introduced an elected President with executive powers to “protect” the reserves in case a future non-PAP Govt squanders it away …

Note the president of Singapore Writers is an ex-RI rugby captain**in the 60s who stood as a WP candidate alongside  JBJ, Francis Seow in the 1998 GE. A quick check of Facebook shows that Rajan Nair , Serene Wee and Nat Sim are always criticising S’pore (not juz the PAP but TJS, TKL, WP, SDP etc) via Facebook. Gals, if S’pore so bad, pls go home: Rajan Nair moved on from here, join him. And M’sia too is bad, migrate.

—

*Anwar’s PKR is very friendly with our very own SDP. PKR, PAS and PDAP are members of PK, the opposition to the BN govt.

**Know him. Played rugby with him in the mid 70s during NS. Smart guy (He waz guy credited for thinking up the by-election strategy for the 1991 GE).but prone to conspiracy theories, and now thinks St Andrews is better school than RI. Still a political animal, despite his protestations. Last yr, he tried unsuccessfully to turn a celebratory function of ex-ST journalists, into a bash-the-PAP session. He failed. And rightly so: they were there to celebrate a strike comrade’s book, not play politics.

Related posts on the strike book:

http://atans1.wordpress.com/2013/02/03/wanted-expertise-on-organising-a-legal-strike/

http://atans1.wordpress.com/2012/11/26/when-devan-nair-was-jedi/

Another gd reason why Todd’s parents are suspicious? And US pushy?

Something bothered me about the way the police was handling the Shane Todd case (other than the hard drive that his parents alleged they found). But I couldn’t place my finger on what was it that was bothering me..

Then last Thursday, I read this: An inquest into the death of exiled Russian tycoon Boris Berezovsky is due to open later.

Mr Berezovsky, 67, was found dead on Saturday on a bathroom floor at his home in Ascot, Berkshire. BBC Online on Thursday 28th March.

Then I knew what had been bothering me: the length of time it was taking the inquest to be held prior to the FT report in February. The inquest in the UK was happening less than a week after the death, Shane Todd’s inquest date is almost a yr after his death.The coroner’s inquiry into the death of American researcher Shane Todd will start on May 13 … Last June, 31-year-old Dr Todd was found hanged in his Singapore apartment in what appeared to be suicide. CNA on 26th March.

Although, I didn’t do crime or death when I was practicising law many yrs ago, I didn’t remember ever hearing it taking so long for an inquest to be held in the late 1970s. And those were the dark agges: it could take three to four years before the High Court heard a case. Between JBJ and LKY, this was sorted out in the late 80s.

I asked around and was told that is that it is very unusual for an inquest to be held almost a year after the death. A more typical response is several months after the incident: http://singaporenewsalternative.blogspot.sg/2010/01/singapore-coroners-inquiry-into-death.html. The delay is not usual especially as it had been classified as “suspected suicide”. Usually, the investigating officer wants to close the file ASAP when it is classified as “suspected suicide”. The case of a lady who jumped to her death was cited to me: the inquest was held about three months after her death.

Only, cases classified as “suspicious” take a long time to reach the inquest stage, the investigating officer having satisfied himself and his superiors on the cause of death.

So the parents, and the US senator and the govt, have reasonable grounds to put pressure on S’pore to move on the case: it wasn’t just the external drive. Of course, the delay could have due to the parents causing the police grief with their queries. Still, the fact that the FT reported the story in late February, and the US senator and govt intervening soon afterwards, makes one wonder if the inquest was called in response to US pressure. And that leaves one wondering why a “suspected suicide” took so long to reach the inquest stage.

The SPF have plenty of explaining to do. There is the

– reason for classifying case as “suicide” but sitting on an inquest call;

– if there was a need to investigate further, why the classification was not changed to “suspicious”;

– missing the external drive; and

– changing its mind on FBI help.

And all this in a case that involves the hegemon’s concerns (reasonable or otherwise) about “reds under the bed”. The FT reported recently that more than a quarter of US companies surveyed by the American Chamber of Commerce in China say they have had trade secrets stolen or compromised through cyber attacks on their China operations, And involving a S’pore govt research institute that gets US research money but was trying to do a deal with a Chinese co that the US has been targeting for yrs: suspecting it of being an arm of the Chinese govt with a mission of stealing secrets from the West (rightly or wrongly)

I don’t envy the investigating officer and those who secured the premises. Nor the administrators at the research institute responsible for the proposal to the Red company and selecting Todd to work on the project.

Related post http://atans1.wordpress.com/2013/03/20/what-the-pope-can-teach-our-pm-and-police/ When TRE republished this, shumeone posted this rebuttal to the parents’ conspiracy theory:” If SPF secure the hard drive in the first place, this conspiracy will be covered up and not known to the world. By the time USA found out, they will be screwed really hard by China.”

So will SPF prosecute property agents and money lenders for “mischief”

“Sticker Lady”, who is alleged to be behind the stickers and “MY GRANDFATHER ROAD” graffiti painted on several roads last May, will be charged in court today together with her alleged accomplice, the police said yesterday.

The two, graffiti artists Samantha Lo, 26, and Anthony “Antz” Chong, 30, will be charged with mischief and not vandalism — which would have been punishable with a fine of up S$2,000 or jail of up to three years and caning for men. Mischief carries a lighter maximum punishment of a fine or a jail term of up to two years, or both. Today.

Right, so can I expect the police to charge the property agents and money lenders who put up “ugly’, “non-artistic” stickers in my neighbourhood? It should be a cinch arresting these mischief makers as they displayed their mobile phone numbers prominently. Details in the post I wrote earlier last year — see below.

Their offences are worse because they are not easily removable (they used industrial glue to put up their stickers).

But somehow, I doubt the police bother about these property agents and money lenders.

BTW, I’m impressed that minister shan, in his capacity as MP, took the trouble to write to the police, on behalf of these artists. Nice of him. So unlike, George Yeo’s ladies from hell who once took the attitude that “the law must take its course”.

—————–

If SamL’s a vandal, are these not vandals too?

The police took the antics of the Sticker Lady very seriously, explaining a few weeks ago how the police had to divert substantial resources to identify the culprit behind the case saying, “vandalising public property is a very irresponsible act”. And that it cost money, time and effort to clean up after her.

Err so how come nothing has been done in my private housing estate since then to clean up acts of vandalism that would put the lady to shame, and to arrest the culprits?

It’s not as though it would be difficult to identify the vandals. They left their telephone numbers behind.

Let me explain. Within a 50m of my home, property agents and money lenders have been sticking up ads prominently displaying their telephone numbers. These are pasted on the public property, on electricity boxes, They read

Legal Loans : 90158055/ 84692899

Legal Loans : 93910045/ 98955254

Legal Moneylender: 90158055/ 93910045

Urgent buyer [of property] …/ Serious doctor …: 82855947

They make the place look like a slum (OK, OK I exaggerate a lot, but the public property has been turned into free ad billboards for money lenders and property agents at no benefit to the taxpayer). And have no artistic merit at all. They are juz black print on white paper.

I can understand the importance of zero tolerance policing and the arrest of the Sticker Lady in the context of zero tolerance policing. I cannot understand why property agents and money lenders are exempt from zero tolerance policing rules. Nor why these stickers are not removed. In M’sia, property agents and money lenders pay the police bribes to ensure they are allowed to put up illegal ads. Same here too? After all, if ex senior Home Team leaders are accused of offering contracts in return for sex, what should junior officers do?

Or is it OK to put up “commercial” stickers that deface public property but not arty-crafty scribblings? Or are property agents and lenders different? Like Woolly Wally Woffles’s employee who escaped prosecution, they work for the rich?

Penultimately, a wicked tot. If the money lenders and property agents are arrested, will “The PAP govmin are bastards” netizens (Andrew Loh, SG Hard Truths and Fabrications about the PAP are not in this group of “The PAP are always wrong”) rush to their defence saying, “The ads are so artistic. They are great examples of minimalist chic: black on white”.

Finally an apology to Sam the Sticky Lady. When I read the ST report where her dad described her as being traumatised by her arrest, I tot, “What a spoilt brat who thinks that she entitled to break the law with impunity. Thinks S’pore is her grandfather’s property when she is not a Lee or Tan”. But in view of the revelations of the culture of deceit and fakery at STOMP, ST could be misrepresenting the facts about how she felt on being arrested.

http://atans1.wordpress.com/2012/06/27/if-samls-a-vandal-are-these-not-vandals-too/

CHC: A prophecy

First some recapping: 

– CHC mgt says:

“The people currently in the news are our pastors and trusted staff and leaders who have always put God and CHC first,” he said. “As a church we stand with them and I believe fully in their integrity.”

“The S$24 million, which went into investment bonds, was returned to the church in full, with interest… The church did not lose any funds in the relevant transactions, and no personal profit was gained by the individuals concerned.”

– And Geriatric Geisha’s hubbie says : “Kong Hee insisted on his integrity” and “Please know that there are always two sides to a story. I look forward to the day I caun tell you my side of the story in court.”

Going by the above comments by management and Kong,  and the failure of CHC  to appeal against the findings of the Commissioner of Charities, I prophesy that when the court finds him and the other four guilty as charged (Yup I think the court will find them guilty as charged), CHC management, Kong and the other four will simply say,”It was an honest mistake. We know what we did was in accordance with the wishes of the God of prosperity, and we thought it was legal under S’pore’s law. It seems we were badly advised on the latter.”

Based on the words of mgt and Kong, and the failure to appeal against CoC’s findings, the basis of the charges against the Famous Five, it would seem that the factual findings of the COC is not in dispute.

While there are good legal, and financial (lawyers are expensive and Auntie Sun needs money for her Hollywood lifestyle) reasons not to appeal the CoC’s findings of fact, but to use the coming trials to contest them, the very public assertions of the accused “integrity”, no monies lost, and the deafening silence on the findings of fact by CoC leads me to conclude that

– at the trials, the “pureness” of the motives (saving souls via Auntie Sun’s Hollywood lifestyle and work) will be stressed in the hope that this will lead to their acquittals, and

– if it doesn’t, then they will spin “It was an honest mistake. In our desire to save souls, we unwittingly broke the laws of Caesar for which the five of us will go to jail. Pass the plate round, we need to pay the lawyers and the rent of Auntie Sun’s Hollywood mansion.”

Err someone should ask CHC mgt abt their God’s mansions and how come Auntie Sun and Kong (remember his prnthouse in Sentosa Cove): “In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.”

Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s

(Or “CHC members: Why should tax-payers subsidise Sun Ho’s Hollywood life-style?” or “We are subsidising CHC in Crossover Project”)

In this, I pointed out, among a few other things, some in favour of CHC members, some against, that CHC members were wrong in thinking that CHC’s money could be spent as they wished: that it was not their grandfather’s money. This post expands the point I was trying to make because based on their media comments, some CHC members are showing a great deal of entitlement over spending taxpayers’ money over Sun Ho’s Hollywood life-style and Crossover Project. 

Maybe, they don’t realise they are using the money of other S’poreans, who may not share their idea of Christianity, or who may believe in other gods, or even no god. 

Methinks the members of the City Harvest Church in expressing their love and support of Kong, the other four accused and Geisha Sun are forgetting what Jesus is reported to have said in Luke 20:25,  Matthew 22:21 and Mark 12:17 about the relationship that should exist between the church and the state. Luke’s version reads, ”Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar’s, and unto God the things which be God’s”.

In this saying, Jesus was establishing  the limits, regulating  the rights, and distinguishing “the jurisdiction of the two empires of heaven and earth” according to a famous American biblical commentator of the 19th century  http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1810_clarke_commentary.html

I’ll try to explain the relevance of this quote to the CHC situation.

CHC management and members are saying that how the money spent by the five is a CHC internal affair and nothing to do with others, implying that the Commissioner of Charities should leave them alone: it’s their money and if they want to spend it on their Auntie Sun and her hollywood buddies so be it.

But the problem with this view is that the status of a charity is granted not by God but by Caesar (the state).

CHC could have opted not to become a charity, but it chose to register as a charity (presumably because it was greedy for — OK taking advantage of — the tax benefits and reputational branding of being a charity). It becomes subject to the Commissioner of Charities, and all that entails.

It is no longer a private organisation, and the laws and regulations relating to charities applies.

In return for the tax benefits and seal of gd corporate governance that CHC gets by being designated as a charity, it has to play by S’pore’s (Caesar’s) laws, and in particular, the laws and regulations that CoC’s enforces. These include not “misusing” (as defined by Caesar’s laws, not the laws of God as understood by CHC) the charity’s funds . It cannot pick and choose which laws and regulations it has to obey.

Not their grandfather’s money.

Because of the exemptions from tax that a charity and donors get, the tax-paying public is subsidising Geriatric Gyrating Geisha’s Hollywood life-style and music performances. This explains how the state subsidises a charity, any charity.

As Christians, CHC church members accept that it’s either God’s way or the highway to Hell. Likewise they must accept that by becoming a charity, CHC and its managers have to obey the laws of Caesar. And that if the managers fail to “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s”, they will be punished by Caesar’s courts. At least there are courts. Their God is prosectuor, judge and executor (OK, also the defender).

“For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind: it hath no stalk: the bud shall yield no meal: if so be it yield, the strangers shall swallow it up,” as Hosea 8:7 says.

No wonder other Christians are worried. CHC members should listen to this lady and “sit down and shut up” before they upset other S’poreans with their sense of entitlement that other S’poreans must subsidise Auntie Ho’s Hollywood life-style and Crossover Project.

CHC management and members, and Kong and his Geisha seem unable to appreciate that hard times for the many mean greater scrutiny of the few who flaunt living in Sentosa Cove penthouses or Hollywood mansions, especially when the former are subsidising the latter’s lavish life-style.

They shouldn’t forget that one reason why the PAP government is unpopular is because of its perceived indifference to the widening income gap. And remember, the PAP ministers don’t show-off their life-styles unlike Auntie Ho.

In a coming post (hopefully next week), I will prophesie  that Kong and the management of CHC are preparing the way to take a course of action more usually associated with a certain political party.

CHC: Charity, Denial & Persecution

(Or “Answering some issues raised by the CHC case”, or “Can’t blame CHC members from being defensive” or “Netizens rushing to crucify before hearing the evidence”)

One question that has been asked on the internet, “What happens if all the members of City Harvest Church sign a resolution giving retrospective approval to what the pastor and the others charged are alleged to have done? Can they escape the consequences of the charges and the Charity Commissioner’s findings?”

The answer is: Even if all the church members agree to give their retrospective approval, nothing changes. By becoming a charity, CHC becomes subject to the Commissioner of Charities, and all that entails. It is no longer a private organisation, and the laws and regulations relating to charities applies. After all by becoming a charity, CHC deprives tax benefits: in return it has to play by the law and the Coc’s regulations. These include not misusing the chariy’s funds. Cannot suka suka choose what to obey. Not their grandfather’s money: it’s the money of Harry’s Law. Harry’s Law is more like obeying God: cannot pick and choose what to obey. It’s either God’s way or the highway to Hell. Same for Harry’s Law.

Another question raisen on the internet is, “Has the CoC defamed a CHC executive committee member?

The man is in denial. CoC is justified in giving details of its findings. Only if he can prove that at least one of the CoC’s findings is wrong, can he win a defamation suit.

Are the church members supporting Kong and the others in denial, and too defensive in defending Kong, wife and friends?

Those netizens who are anti-CHC, Kong, the others charged, Auntie Sun and the “prosperity” gospel can reasonably argue that the members should accept the CoC’s findings.

But as the appeal process has not even begun, church members can reasonably point out that their support does not mean they are in denial.

They are waiting to see the evidence. After all, netizens are always telling S’poreans that, “The PAP government is always wrong, never ever right”. So why should it be any different in this case? Because netizens don’t like pastor Kong, Auntie Sun, the CHC, and the “prosperity” gospel, so everyone got to trust the PAP govt that it does no wrong

And anyway, only charges have been filed against the pastor and friends. They have yet to be found guilty, and the law says that a person is innocent until proven guilty. And the bar is very high: beyond reasonable doubt, not on the balance of probabilities. The latter is the standard the CoC uses in his investigations.

So those who want to scourge, give gall wine, crown with thorns, crucify and spear CHC, Kong, the others charged, Raunchy Auntie and the “prosperity” gospel, hold your instruments of torture and death. Bit too early to drag them to slow and lingering deaths by dragging them behind Satan’s chariots.

Let Harry’s Law pass judgement first.

Seriously, it’s sad to see so many netizens waste and squander the after-effects of the unmasking of STOMP’s (and SPH’s) fabrications. Juz because they don’t like Kong, wifey, friends and the “prosperity” gospel doesn’t mean they should behave like the journalists and editors of the constructive, nation-building media at their howling, baying, snarling best. 

Only the PAPpies will be happy: netizens are vigilante comboys and cowgals that S’poreans have to be protected against.

If SamL’s a vandal, are these not vandals too?

The police took the antics of the Sticker Lady very seriously, explaining a few weeks ago how the police had to divert substantial resources to identify the culprit behind the case saying, “vandalising public property is a very irresponsible act”. And that it cost money, time and effort to clean up after her.

Err so how come nothing has been done in my private housing estate since then to clean up acts of vandalism that would put the lady to shame, and to arrest the culprits?

It’s not as though it would be difficult to identify the vandals. They left their telephone numbers behind.

Let me explain. Within a 50m of my home, property agents and money lenders have been sticking up ads prominently displaying their telephone numbers. These are pasted on the public property, on electricity boxes, They read

Legal Loans : 90158055/ 84692899

Legal Loans : 93910045/ 98955254

Legal Moneylender: 90158055/ 93910045

Urgent buyer [of property] …/ Serious doctor …: 82855947

They make the place look like a slum (OK, OK I exaggerate a lot, but the public property has been turned into free ad billboards for money lenders and property agents at no benefit to the taxpayer). And have no artistic merit at all. They are juz black print on white paper.

I can understand the importance of zero tolerance policing and the arrest of the Sticker Lady in the context of zero tolerance policing. I cannot understand why property agents and money lenders are exempt from zero tolerance policing rules. Nor why these stickers are not removed. In M’sia, property agents and money lenders pay the police bribes to ensure they are allowed to put up illegal ads. Same here too? After all, if ex senior Home Team leaders are accused of offering contracts in return for sex, what should junior officers do?

Or is it OK to put up “commercial” stickers that deface public property but not arty-crafty scribblings? Or are property agents and lenders different? Like Woolly Wally Woffles’s employee who escaped prosecution, they work for the rich?

Penultimately, a wicked tot. If the money lenders and property agents are arrested, will “The PAP govmin are bastards” netizens (Andrew Loh, SG Hard Truths and Fabrications about the PAP are not in this group of “The PAP are always wrong”) rush to their defence saying, “The ads are so artistic. They are great examples of minimalist chic: black on white”.

Finally an apology to Sam the Sticky Lady. When I read the ST report where her dad described her as being traumatised by her arrest, I tot, “What a spoilt brat who thinks that she entitled to break the law with impunity. Thinks S’pore is her grandfather’s property when she is not a Lee or Tan”. But in view of the revelations of the culture of deceit and fakery at STOMP, ST could be misrepresenting the facts about how she felt on being arrested.

ST misreps yet again

(Or “Four unexplained mystries in WofflesGate”) 

So Germany beat Greece, and are into the Euro semis, which reminded me that even footie facts are misrepresented by the nation-building, constructive ST to promote government’s FT is “betterest” policy (See below. To be fair, ST published the rebuttal. Balls-up or subversion? Or someone with a conscience?). Is nothing sacred? What next? Footie scores get misreported? More likely is that goals scored and saves made attributed to players that fit ST’s agenda of nation-building, constructivism.

I am exaggerating? Look at an ST report of WofflesGate: [in relation to the incident in September 2005,] . . . Wu got Mr Kuan, then 76, to tell police that he was the driver of a car speeding at 95kmh on Lornie Road. Mr Kuan is said to have lied again about a speeding offence committed at 9.45am on Nov 10, 2006. The car was then travelling at 91kmh on Adam Road.

The speed limit in both instances was 70kmh and involved Wu’s car. Court papers did not state who the actual driver was.

The court heard that a notice was sent to Wu to reveal the identity of the driver. Concerned that he would accumulate demerit points were he to accept liability for the speeding offences, he roped in Mr Kuan, then a maintenance technician in his clinic. Now 83 years old, Mr Kuan was also described as a close family friend of the doctor. He has not been charged.

The report makes it clear implicitly that Woolly Wally was the driver by stating that hr was concerned about getting demeit points.  Yet we now know that both the Attorney-General’s Chambers and the Law minister said that investigations were ongoing, as to who the driver actually was; and that the case has not been concluded.

Funnily, ST has not retracted its story. Nor have the authorities asked for a retraction. These are four  mysteries that need to be explained to convince S’poreans that the rich are not different.

———

Read the u/m in ST Forum about two weeks ago.

Go for local football talent

CONTRARY to what the report (‘Talent mining in the sports world’; May 25) implies, Germany does not have an official programme recruiting foreign-born footballers.

Circumstances that led to Polish-born strikers Miroslav Klose and Lukas Podolski representing Germany differ completely from the mechanics of Singapore’s Foreign Sports Talent scheme.

Klose moved to Germany at age seven, while Podolski did so at two. Both are therefore home-grown German players.

The only non-native player recruited by the Football Association of Singapore (FAS) who can be considered home-grown is Daniel Bennett, who came here as a toddler.

Many Singaporeans rightfully question the ‘Singaporean-ness’ of foreign sports talent, something that even Bennett himself is concerned about.

He was quoted two years ago in the Singapore Armed Forces Football Club official website as saying: ‘I am more Singaporean than many of the other foreign players who took (up) citizenship more recently, as I grew up here and it’s my home.’

Apparently concerned by the excessive use of imported players contravening the spirit of the game, football’s world governing body Fifa tried to introduce regulations in 2008 to restrict such usage.

Unfortunately, the FAS remains stubbornly persistent with its push to recruit more foreigners. It claims foreign sports talent plug the gaps in its youth development programme (‘Change of heart by NSAs’; May 28).

Our national football administrators should find answers to why, after almost two decades of S-League football where would-be Lions play with and against foreign players weekly, and years of employing foreign technical directors, the FAS is still struggling to develop quality international-level talent.

It is impossible to prove, but perhaps native and home-grown players strive harder for their country.

Michael Ang

Why AG has a good reason to appeal Wally Woffles’ sentence

Netizens are up in arms over Wally Woffles’ $1000 fine. There are several reasons for this, and I will explore a darker reason later this week, I hope.

I was annoyed by his comment as reported in ST (remember this is the newspaper that is perceived by many as having an agenda when reporting the news) that he believes “many people similarly did not know that this is an offence”. I take this to mean that he still doesn’t realise the seriousness of what he did (in spirit helping to pervert the course of justice) and is not repentant. In fact, he comes across in the ST report, as saying,”This is not an offence that even merits me paying a ‘peanuts’ of a fine.” Why he was such a Wally to behave in such a perceived manner could be due to sheer arrogance or stupdidity or both. And anyway only a Wally would talk to the media: sit down and shut up is my advice when approached by a ST or SPH report.

In view of his unrepentant attitude to in spirit perverting the course of justice, this is a good reason for the Attorney-General to change his mind and appeal the sentence. The AG’s Chambers had earlier said that it was not going to appeal the sentence because a fine is “within the norm of usual sentences” under that charge.

This appeal is not throwing meat to the snarling beasts of the internet jungle, or handing over someone to the vigilantes from cowboy towns: but a proper and proportionate response to a unrepetent criminal (if ST is to be trusted) who in spirit perverted the course of justice.

But it would seem that the AG would do no such thing. SIGH, it would have dispelled the notion that the rich are different. Gd responses to the official spins coming from Law Minister and AG.

 

 

What price human dignity or safety?

(Or “It’s official: cheating is “bigger” crime than brutal assault”)

I tot of these headlines last Saturday as I read that a High Court judge allowed a $400,000 bail set by the lower court for each of the three directors of Profitable Plots to be reduced. He ordered bail for two amg moh FTs - John Andrew Nordmann,  and Timothy Nicholas Goldring - to be cut to $200,000 each, while Singaporean Geraldine Anthony Thomas, Nordmann’s wife, had her bail reduced to $150,000.

All three were still at Singapore Changi Prison, where they have been remanded since they were each charged in the Subordinate Courts with 86 criminal counts of abetment for conspiracy to defraud investors of US$2.42 million on investments related to an industrial lubricant called Boron early last week. They are trying to raise funds to post bail, it is understood.

The defendants’ lawyer had asked for bail to be reduced to $15,000 each because the three had not absconded and had abided by bail conditions during investigations. But the deputy public prosecutor  disagreed, rightly, saying that the situation is different now that the three are charged in court. The three pose as flight risks given the size of the losses and that they, if convicted, may be jailed for up to 10 years per charge.

One can only wonder why the authorities placed such a low value of around $12,000 bail, I believe, per ang moh FT, in the case of the ang moh FTs who brutally beat up several S’poreans at Suntec City in 2010. It was set so low, that two of them tot it smarter to run away and forfeit their money, when they were allowed to travel overseas.

Why the discrepancy between the dollar value of a crime and its consequences on human dignity or safety is what the Home Affairs minister and DPM should be asking the relevant people in Home Team and other relevant agencies.  The minister had said in parly in March,”If there were any lapses or negligence, the police will take appropriate disciplinary action against the officers involved. We expect the internal inquiry to be completed next month.” Hopefully, he would now ask them to explain why the authorities placed such a low value on human dignity and life. But pigs would fly first, I suspect.

This is S’pore and money talks. Remember the MP who said that he could only respect those earning serious money?  Dr Lim was reported by the Chinese press in 2011 as having said:“If the annual salary of the Minister of Information, Communication and Arts is only $500,000, it may pose some problems when he discuss policies with media CEOs who earn millions of dollars because they need not listen to the minister’s ideas and proposals, hence a reasonable payout will help to maintain a bit of dignity.”

True he finally apologised saying, “Dignity cannot be and must not be measured purely in monetary terms”. But boy did he twist and turn before he decided to apologise.

No I’m not exaggerating. Minister Teo was asked about the assessment of foreigners for flight risk, the measures taken to prevent such foreigners from absconding and the criteria applied in the assessment of whether extradition proceedings against such foreigners who have fled jurisdiction will be commenced. In reply, he said that there is a standard set of procedures for the handling of accused persons, whatever their nationality, from arrest, to investigation, to charging them in court, and to police bail (Emphasis added).

Better to beat up a S’porean by bashing his head against a pillar, than cheat a S’porean of his money is my understanding of the way the two cases were handled and the minister’s words seem to confirm that my interpretation is reasonable. BTW, he tried to deflect blame from Home Team and the other authorities saying that the court had the final say in deciding bail. Err who makes the request in the first place, minister?