atans1

Posts Tagged ‘Justice’

Govt detains without trial S’poreans: No outrage meh activists?

In Public Administration on 13/01/2014 at 4:51 am

It might be the season to be jolly and of peace and goodwill, what with the Christmas and NY hols gone and the CNY hols coming, but the human rights activists have really got my goat.A man dressed as Krampus in Austria … pretty scary, huh?

The contrast between their vocal support for FT deportess, and their seeming indifference to S’poreans detained without trial make me sick. The Holly Man outside the Globe Theatre in London

Last Friday, it was reported by CNA that, “MHA has placed the son of Singapore Jemaah Islamiyah leader Mas Selamat Kastari under a two-year detention. Masyhadi Mas Selamat, 25, was detained on 21 November 2013 on an Order of Detention under the ISA.”

The silence on his detention from the usual human rights kay pohs is deafening.

TOC, Maruah, Vincent Wijeysingha, Rachel Zeng, Kirsten Han etc etc were all up in arms demanding justice for the manual migrant workers detained by the police after the riot. They were upset many of those detsined were then given air-tickets to move on out of S’pore, rather than sent for trial. Some had the charges  withdrawn and the court granted them discharges amounting to acquittals and then were deported, while many were never charged, just deported. They demanded “due process” for these FTs, even though as someone posted on Facebook, ” Rightly or wrongly, deportation is more lenient than jail and caning.” A lot more, so is it fair to insist as the kay pohs do that the courts must be involved in “due process”? One could even argue that the govt is being easy on “alleged” rioters.

The deportation law is draconian but there are more draconian laws that true blue S’poreans are subject to: the Internal Security Act and the Criminal Law Temporary Provision Act.

They allow the govt to detain almost indefinitely people who never had the benefit of a trial. The former is nowadays used to detain alleged “Islamic” terrorists,  while the latter is used to detain Dan Tan (the guy alleged to have fixed footie matches) and alleged drug dealers (mules get murdered, judicially, after due process if they don’t have useful evidence).

Yes, yes, I know that TOC and Maruah have spoken out against these laws (albeit once upon a time) and have called for their abolition (again once upon a time), and I’m sure Vincent, Kirsten, Rachel etc etc, if asked, will say they oppose these laws and want them abolished.

Still, their silence*, or indifference(?) whenever the govt and mainstream media report these detentions (and they do) when contrasted with the chorus of disapproval and outrage over what is happening to the alleged rioters, and deportees is disturbing at the very least. Double standards?

I have never heard any activist say about Dan Tan, Masyhadi or any other alleged Islamic terrorist, or drug dealer, “Activists, while often faced with heart-wrenching stories, are not just bleeding hearts. Behind the criticism lies a much bigger issue: that of access to justice and due process … But we are obliged to ensure that they have access to justice.” (Kirsten Han in http://sg.news.yahoo.com/blogs/singaporescene/did-deported-workers-deserve-time-court-015254163.html)

As I wrote last year: The coming deafening silence [referring to Dan Tan's case] of the usual human rights kay pohs will tell us a lot of their prejudices: they are supportive of FT drug mules, and middle class anti-PAP activists. But not working class criminal suspects (no-one is complaining that Vui Kong’s alleged drug lord is held under ISA CLTPA) or those whom the govt alleges are Islamic radicals. Touch a FT or a middle class anti-PAP activist, and the screams will be deafening, even if it’s juz a policeman paying a home visit.

Are S’poreans too not worthy of “justice and due process”, Ms Han? They too like FTs are human

                                                                                               Hath
 59   not a Jew eyes? hath not a Jew hands, organs,
 60   dimensions, senses, affections, passions? fed with
 61   the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject
 62   to the same diseases, healed by the same means,
 63   warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as
 64   a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed?
 65   if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison
 66   us, do we not die?

(Shylock in The Merchant of Venice)

A wicked, cynical, unworthy and doubtless mistaken tot. Could it because our kay pohs know that ang mohs are not too fussed when alleged drug dealers, footie fixers and Islamic terrorists are detained? Only when migrant workers are? http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/international/2013-12-18/human-rights-activists-accuse-singapore-of-failing-to-recognise-the-rights-of-rioters/1236768

Since the CIA and MI6 are pretty relaxed about working with countries that do not give alleged Islamic terrorists "access to justice and due process", one can legitimately (if unreasonably) ask if these agencies have managed to influence our kay pohs.

Let me be clear, the kay pohs like Ms Han etc have every right to champion and fight any cause they like: if they want justice for FTs, taz their right. They also have the right not to want justice for S'poreans. They are free to do what they want to do. But I, and other S'poreans, are entitled to make judgements based on their actions, silence and inaction.

My judgement is that "FTs tua kee" attitude is not confined only to the govt: our kay pohs too take pride in it too. Why like that meh? Hath
 59   not a S'porean eyes? hath not a S'porean hands, organs,
 60   dimensions, senses, affections, passions? fed with
 61   the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject
 62   to the same diseases, healed by the same means,
 63   warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as
 64   a FT is? If you prick us, do we not bleed?
 65   if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison
 66   us, do we not die?

Related post: Kirsten Han wants S'poreans to have a dialogue with the govt on FTs, despite fact that as a HR activist she should know that the govt doesn't do dialogue .

--

*WP asked about Dan Tan in parly getting the standard non-answer. BTW, surprised that DPM Teo didn't ask Auntie, "Bookie ask WP to ask question meh?". But then, DPM Teo's late father was a gentleman and must have brought up DPM Teo the "right" way. BTW2, I understand that Maruah had planned to denounce Dan Tan's detention, but that the media release got lost. An honest mistake, I assume? Like holding a seminar in Little India on "struggle for workers' rights" weeks after a riot there, albeit on a day unlikely to have many workers in the area?

Xenophobia: Govt sends wrong signal to S’poreans?

In Public Administration on 05/01/2014 at 4:53 am

Readers will know I support deportation* as an administrative measure in lieu of being charged for criminal offences. Still as someone in agreement with the govt’s stand, the Law Minister’s explanation on the use of deportation, as reported here, is most shocking and disturbing:

Mr K Shanmugam, the minister in question, reportedly said that “repatriation happens on a regular basis.”

Of the 53, he said:

“If every case has got to go to court and a judge makes a decision, then repatriation decisions becomes [sic] judicial rather than administrative. Then every foreigner is entitled to stay here at taxpayers’ expense, housed here at taxpayers’ expense, it could stretch on a year or more.” (CNA)

By talking of the cost of judicial process for migrant workers, isn’t the govt telling us they are lesser mortals, where only cost is an issue? Hath
 59   not a Jew eyes? hath not a Jew hands, organs,
 60   dimensions, senses, affections, passions? fed with
 61   the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject
 62   to the same diseases, healed by the same means,
 63   warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as
 64   a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed?
 65   if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison
 66   us, do we not die?

(Shylock in The Merchant of Venice)

As Terry Xu of TOC put it on Facebook:

The total foreign worker levies collected were S$2.5 billion for the Financial Year 2011 and S$1.9 billion for the Financial Year 2010. Similar to other sources of Government revenue, the foreign worker levies are not ringfenced for any specific purposes. All Government revenue collected would go into the Consolidated Fund used to fund Government expenditures in general."

And it goes up even more in the year 2012, 2013 given that there are more workers and that the levies have increased since then.

So yup, all these money does not include paying for the fair trial of workers who have contributed to this total collected sum of money, cause that is the government's money and have to consider the tax payers money instead.

Terry Xu has a valid point even if I disagree (see above link) with him that the use of the workers' levy is a reasonable use of the money.

The minister would have been on safer ground if he said, "Deportation is a lot less severe that imprisonment and caning. So why involve the courts?" He could have added, "Give FTs airfare home, kay pohs also bitch. What more do the kay pohs want?".

---

*Actually, the kay pohs' call for judicial due process in deportation cases ignores the fact that there is the possibility of judicial review as kick-ass, take no-prisoners, superhero lawyer, Ravi, has shown. He has asked for judicial review of a case where his client has been deported.

Govt, activists score own goals

In Public Administration on 03/01/2014 at 6:09 am

(Or “The govt is its own worst enemy: it can’t communicate the right facts”)

Recently  I blogged on why Scrooge the Grinch government can do more, a lot more to help the manual workers who gift us S$2.5bn++ a year.

But on the use of the deportation law on alleged “rioters”; I’m on the govt’s side with one important caveat.  The cavaet is: What the hell were the police commissioner and DPM Teo talking about?

– [The Police Commissioner] explained that this group is less “culpable” than those who were charged, as the latter were “active participants” in the riot, “violent” and “had attacked uniformed personnel and vehicles, damaged property, and had incited others to do so”. So what did they actually do?

Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs Teo Chee Hean noted that those who were to be repatriated had “impeded the riot control and emergency rescue operations” and that “their actions and conduct had threatened public order,  Did they or did not riot?

I looked up what the official statement and only then I understood why there were deportations, not charges for most of those detained: they were alleged rioters that the police considered should be treated more leniently (those charged can be jailed and caned if convicted).

Group Two consists of 53 persons whom Police has identified to have participated in the riot and who failed to disperse despite Police’s orders to do so. They had knowingly joined or continued to participate in the riot, after being ordered to disperse, impeding the riot control and emergency rescue operations. Their actions and conduct had threatened public order, thus making their continued presence in Singapore undesirable. They were all rounded up in a Police operation in the early hours of this morning. They will be repatriated after being issued a stern warning. They will be prohibited from returning to Singapore.

The Police Commissioner and DPM Teo, scholars both, should be ashamed of their explanations which only made it easier for the activists to attack the govt. And s/o of Devan Nair is not doing doing his job as the govt’s PR man.

Coming back to the deportees, fair enough that they are deported  without judicial “due process” as far as I’m concerned for two reasons.

Firstly, as someone posted on Facebook, ” Rightly or wrongly, deportation is more lenient than jail and caning.” A lot more, so is it fair to insist as the kay pohs do that the courts must be involved in “due process”? One could even argue that the govt is being easy on “alleged” rioters.

Next, given that he has shown himself as a most compassionate chap, I’m sure the Pet minister is ensuring that the ministerial discretion of banishing people from S’pore is fairly exercised, and with appropriate regard for non-judical due process. I’ll go on to assert that he has ensured that the police behave fairly, and with appropriate regard for due process (non-judical), when investigating the cases which result in banishment orders.

Though I must admit charging a few people, then not proceeding with the cases and then allowing them to be given “discharges not amounting to acquittals, then deporting them look slip-shod. They shouldn’t have been charged, juz deportrd. And if, as happened,  they were charged, and the police then realised that officers had made “honest mistakes”, the police should have asked for “discharges not amounting to acquittals”, and then deported them. That would have prevented the usual anti-govt activists from shouting “acquitted but still deported”. Technically, the kay pohs are right, though the govt has a point when it says the “acquittals” did not result from trials, but by the police withdrawing charges. I suspect the police tot, “Heck these guys are not coming back here, so might as well allow discharges amounting to acquittals”: little knowing that the kay pohs would seize on this technicality to agitate against the govt.

Given his track record on looking after the interests of dogs even where a possible dog killer is a FT (example), the HR kay pohs should cut him a lot of slack. Now if the minister was the ACS boy who sneered at elderly, poor S’poreans, I’d agree that the kay pohs have a point about the need of ensuring that justice is done. Hey but this is a most compassionate minister (he loves dogs and, even cats) from RI, not an ACS rich kid. What more do they want?

And there is still the possibility of judicial review, shumething that kick ass, take-no-prisoners superhero M Ravi is pursuing in  several cases. So kay pohs should sit down and shut up.

No trust police and Pet Minister is it? AG should think of suing said activists for making defamatory innuendos about the minister and the police.

By now I’m sure you know that I’m no supporter of using a bit of billions the manual workers gift us to pay for “due process” for the deportees. We have to do right by the manual workers, but there are limits, something the kay pohs seem to refuse to acknowledge. I’m sure in their heart of hearts, they want the detainees to be detained in a 5-star hotel with access to the best lawyers, all at the expense of  us tax-payers. Their ang Moh masters mentors would expect no less.

If the anti-govt kay pohs really cared about the migrant workers they should have been advocating and campaigning from yrs ago that some spare change from the S$2.4 bn++ that the govt gets from the manual workers goes to helping them: without them S’pore would have to pay more, a lot more, for labour intensive jobs. Instead, the said activists want the spare change to be used on judicial “due process”. Some thing is not right about their priorities?

As I pointed out in the earlier piece, there could be a medical insurance fund, and a general welfare fund. BTW, a SDP doctor tells me that the SDP healthcare plan (involving an insurance fund and comprehensive coverage) would cover manual FTs (all FTs in fact) too. Before GG and friends, and TRE readers get upset with the SDP, they should remember that the SDP has also called for a policy of putting locals first and tightening the use of FTs by businesses.

Let me end by returning to said kay pohs: substitute the term “activists” for “management” in the following quote from a famous American psychologist* and you will know why I’m uneasy about their motives and actions: “This is what I get  vaguely uneasy about in the reading on management, namely a certain piety, certain semireligious attitudes, an unthinking, unreasoning, a priori kind of ‘liberalism’ which frequently takes over as a determinant, thereby to some extent destroying the possibility of maintaining the sensitivity to the objective requirements of the actual, realistic situation.”

*Update at 8.43 am on # January 2014:

Think I’m unfair on the activists? Yesterday, I wrote: Here’s an interesting piece from a TRE reader on the appropriateness of the original venue of its seminar on “the struggle for workers’rights”. . I agree with the sentiments expressed within it, though to be fair to Maruah the date of said seminar was on 23 December. Somehow I don’t think that there would be many FTs in the area on a Monday. One of these days I’ll blog on why Maruah and the police deserve each other: both have lousy public communication skills, though the police’s skills iare a lot better than Yaacob’s finest, who only know how to slime.

They may be anti-govt, but we shouldn’t be on their side juz ’cause they got the balls to take on the govt publicly. Their actions and motives have to be analysed and scrutinised, juz like the govt’s, even though we should not hold them to the standards we expect of the govt. They don’t have the resources of the govt.

*Abraham Harold Maslow (April 1, 1908 – June 8, 1970) was an American psychologist who was best known for creating Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, a theory of psychological health predicated on fulfilling innate human needs in priority, culminating in self-actualization. Wikipedia

Alex Au doing a Dr Chee?

In Uncategorized on 29/11/2013 at 5:12 am

Alex Au’s at it again. No I’m not referring to the allegations of contempt by the AG against him yet again. That’s par for the course, and not really news anymore; anymore than that he is a gay rights activist and internet tua kee.

No, I referring to being so subtle so as to be misunderstood yet again by other netizens (self excluded). Remember, I defended him against charges by his fellow tua kee bloggers and lesser lights, and PAP stooges like an ex-NMP that he was advocating violence against the state?

This time a figure no less than the hubbie of ST’s editor misunderstood his latest mischief: If Au – one of Singapore’s most conscientious and civic-minded bloggers – cannot avoid the contempt minefield, then perhaps the problem is actually with the law. Is it getting in the way of intelligent critique of important issues?

The rejoinder would probably be that there are ways to comment without scandalising the court. In theory, perhaps. But again, I would have to ask, if even Alex Au cannot find the path through that minefield, perhaps the fault is with the treacherous terrain?

Au is a meticulous and gifted writer. If he is charged with contempt, there would be a significant chilling effect on other citizens who do not consider themselves anywhere near as polished in their use of words. 

(http://journalism.sg/2013/11/26/why-alex-au-deserves-a-break/ The writer is Associate Professor Cherian George described on Facebook by someone whose views I respect as “one of Singapore’s most accomplished and civic minded media commentators”.)

Sorry, but I have to disagree with Cherian whose views are always worth a reading, at the very least.

It is precisely because Au is a meticulous and gifted writer that we should discount the so-called chilling effect. on other citizens who do not consider themselves anywhere near as polished in their use of words.

This is not a case of someone not knowing the law. In my view, Alex Au is deliberately baiting the AG.

A Facebook poster put it better than I can (though I wish he’d not use exclamation marks), “[H]e is in the business of pushing boundaries, he choose to explore the “treacherous edge”. That business of his carries well-understood risk. He wasn’t out of words, he chose them carefully from abundance. In short, he is asking for it!!”. A PAPpy wants him in jail, “If guilty, he should spend a couple of months in prison so that he will know that there are consequences for his actions.”

As to why “he is asking for it”, I can only speculate.

Maybe, it is a follow-on from the recent pieces that were mischaracterised, misunderstood or misrepresented as a call for violence against the state. He wrote“[I]f the king has made something a criminal offence, then no one should ever try to flout it, no matter how horrible you think the king is?. On this I commented, “Shades of Thomas Aquinas, Locke etc. Look up these names if you don’t recognise them, or have forgotten their arguments on the nature of justice, among other things.”

He could be doing, something other than talking the talk of disobedience. He could be doing what Dr Chee and gang were doing earlier this decade, before the RI doctors put him on medication (anti-mad dog pills and “Think Economics, not HR”if you must know): civil disobedience, Gandhi-style.

Let me be very clear, I’m not commenting or taking sides on whether Alex Au is right or wrong in taking on the AG, or the rights and wrongs of civil disobedience.

I’m simply observing that given his skills as a is a meticulous and gifted writer who has recently written,” [I]f the king has made something a criminal offence, then no one should ever try to flout it, no matter how horrible you think the king is?”, and his history of social , activism, I think he is following in the footsteps of Dr Chee and Gandhi.  I could be wrong. He could be clumsy in his use of language when it comes to issues on the judiciary, though I suspect that pigs would fly first, or VivianB apologises to the elderly poor for his sneers.

I could also be wrong about Cherian. He could be juz trying to portray Alex Au juz as another ordinary S’porean, clumsy with words, like the tpical TRE poster, knowing full well that Alex is baiting the AG. I mean no disrespect to Cherian: he is no-detached ivory-tower observer. He too is a civil society activist. In fact, he was one before it became fashionable (and reasonably safe) to be one. And he has suffered for his sins.

One final tot. When people like Dr Chee and Au take on the state are they not accepting that the PAP govt isn’t that bad? Let me quote Orwell when he criticked Gandhi and his civil disobedience methods: The important point here is not so much that the British treated him forbearingly as that he was always able to command publicity. As can be seen from the phrase quoted above, he believed in “arousing the world”, which is only possible if the world gets a chance to hear what you are doing. It is difficult to see how Gandhi’s methods could be applied in a country where opponents of the regime disappear in the middle of the night and are never heard of again. Without a free press and the right of assembly, it is impossible not merely to appeal to outside opinion, but to bring a mass movement into being, or even to make your intentions known to your adversary. Is there a Gandhi in Russia at this moment? And if there is, what is he accomplishing? The Russian masses could only practise civil disobedience if the same idea happened to occur to all of them simultaneously, and even then, to judge by the history of the Ukraine famine, it would make no difference.

But then I could be wrong again. Orwell was writing in the pre-internet dark ages. We don’t have a free press and the right of assembly but the internet  and social media has got the govt terrified that S’poreans can voice their opinions publicly.

Brainwashed, simple-minded paper tigers

In Uncategorized on 06/11/2013 at 4:57 am

Taz the conclusion I draw about many keyboard warriors from their reactions to the hack on a ST blog, which they should have treated as, at best a ripple, in a after-dinner Chinese-tea cup, and their reactions to Alex Au’s piece criticking their reactions to the said hack.

[H]ow many bloggers and social media participants took pains to distance themselves from the hacking: We don’t approve of such tactics, they kind-of say.

Then what are you saying? That even if you are victimised by a brutish government, you should go no further than respectful and polite conversation?

Get a grip. Hacking is not sui generis. It is one among a vast continuum of acts of resistance.

(http://yawningbread.wordpress.com/2013/11/02/hacker-strikes-fear-among-good-citizens/ There is a part 2)

BTW, make sure you read his replies to the howls of outrage his pieces provoked. Damned gd.

Alex is absolutely right in his disdain and scorn of the goody-two-shoes rushing to reassure the ISD and us that they are quai, even if he goes overboard at times. I felt a bit sick about the said responses to the hack: they were it seemed to me rushing to assure everyone that they didn’t approve of such an “atrocity”. They were rushing to condemn the hack as though it was some major atrocity like 9/11, 7/7 or the like. As he pointed out, it wasn’t even a disruption: Get a grip. Hacking is not sui generis. It is one among a vast continuum of acts of resistance.

I didn’t blog on how I felt because I had problems putting my tots into words (It would have sounded like Alex Tan at his foulest low). Thankfully Alex has done it for me, though for the record, I want to stress that for all its many faults (lack of compassion, muddle-headed tinking, lousy execution, bad PR, love of BS and jargon etc), the PAP govt is not “brutish”. BTW, I don’t think Alex was implying that our govt is “brutish”. But, it’s not for me to say what he thinks.

He has been accused of condoning disruption or violence, or trying to incite disruption, or, worse, violence. This is a very superficial reading, of the piece, if not intentional misrepresentation worthy of a defamation suit. It’s actually a chim piece on the nature and role of activism in any society: democratic, authoritarian or totalitarian.

The howls of “We quai chye” by said activists drew this response from Alex in part 2 of his piece, “[I]f the king has made something a criminal offence, then no one should ever try to flout it, no matter how horrible you think the king is?” Shades of Thomas Aquinas, Locke etc. Look up these names if you don’t recognise them, or have forgotten their arguments on the nature of justice, among other things.

More evidence that many of our cyber warriors are wannabe elitists who didn’t make the grade in our elite schools, or if they did, later in govt, stat boards, or GLCs. Juz expressing their frustrations by ranting and bitching against the PAP govt? Or as is more likely, they are intellectually, not very well-read. They have been too well-conditioned by the state’s schools and media?

87% of the Stompers showed up the pretensions of these paper tigers by feeling “shiok” about the hack.

Finally, something for these toothless paper tigers to chew on. Have they ever tot that the disruption to biz, transport and life, generally, that protests can caus,  play a big part in forcing a govt (democratic or authoritarian) to concede? Remember the credit default swaps fiasco here and in HK. The Hongkies got more of their money back because they were willing to inconvenience the public by regularly protesting on the streets. Singkies when to Hong Leong Green. Well DBS ended up paying Honkies, but not Singkies despite the S in its name standing for “Singapore”.

Think about it.

Before going to court, test sincerity of govt

In Public Administration on 26/08/2013 at 4:51 am

”The government remains committed to explain any issues arising from this tragic incident and to do whatever it can to assist the family,”said a statement from the Ministry of Home Affairs.

Well, Dinesh’s mother should test the sincerity of the govt by asking for details (beyond what has been already provided, not much it seems) that she wants to know. If the govt fails to give her satisfaction, then she should proceed further with her application to the court for the inquiry to her son’s death to be reopened. She should “suspend” for the time being her court petition.

Recently, I blogged that his family had the right to know more, that it would be gd PR for the govt* to provide them with more details of how he died (but that I doubted it would: bad PR seems to be a Hard Truth for the govt)), and that the family should try a non-legalistic way of finding out more.

Well, since the govt has said it ” remains committed to explain any issues arising from this tragic incident and to do whatever it can to assist the family”, they should test it. If there is no satisfaction, then go the legal route with M Ravi their action man, superhero, “kick ass”, “take no prisoners” lawyer** who loves to fight cases on constitutional grounds***. He once advised TRE to fight a request to remove an allegedly defamatory article on constitutional grounds. Another lawyer helped resolved the matter to the satisfaction of everyone involved. But when it’s time to go to court, its good to have M Ravi as your lawyer. He’s a tenacious, brave terrier. If you respect or admire, especially for his pro bono work, him buy his book. It’s the least you can do.

Perhaps, the family should approach Peter Low’s law firm to supplement the efforts of M Ravi. I’ve been told that Peter Low’s firm helped resolve a cartoonist’s row with the AGC on charges of “scandalising the judiciary”. The cartoonist apologised and removed the offending articles. M Ravi was also involved in this case.

Backgrounder on Peter Low: http://www.straitstimes.com/the-big-story/case-you-missed-it/story/62-year-old-lawyer-shows-no-signs-slowing-down-20130501. I don’t usually commend ST articles, but this one doesn’t play the DRUMS, not even a riff. People whose views I respect, praise him for his effective, quiet way of getting issues involving human rights or dignity resolved fairly. No posturing or wayang from him.

Horses for courses. Or a time for everything****. Plenty of time to “whack” the govt, if the family cannot get the info it wants by simply asking. And going the legal route, isn’t exactly a sure way of getting the info they want, at least going by M Ravi’s track record in winning cases: not gd.

And if Tey, the legal academic, is to be believed, the judiciary isn’t a check on the executive  http://yawningbread.wordpress.com/2013/08/18/book-legal-consensus-by-tey-tsun-hang/. He was jailed after a court found  he had “corrupt intention and guilty knowledge” in a relationship, an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. He had had sex with a student. Even he admitted that this was in breach of the academic code of conduct, after initially saying he would defend his “academic integrity”, which at the time I tot would mean that he would say in court, “I didn’t have sex with her”.

*Giving more info would help the PM rebuild trust with the masses.

**Think I exaggerate? This is what TOC reported M Ravi as saying, “The AG’s response is shocking to the conscience in view of the demands of natural justice and the plea by the family to open the inquiry. Dinesh’s family was devastated to hear the AG’s decision.

“The Coroner is wrong in law to discontinue his inquiry as there was no finding into the circumstances of Dinesh’s death. There is no information as to how the other 7 officers were involved in Dinesh’s death. In fact, it is the AG who should be calling for a full inquiry in the public’s interest and not Dinesh’s mother having to do so.

“This is a serious human rights violation and this marks a black day for human rights in Singapore.”

This is the part of the response in parliament (much earlier) to questions on what had happened: Following the conviction of the senior prison officer on 19 July 2013, MHA has been in touch with the family of Dinesh Raman and their lawyer to discuss the family’s concerns, as well as the matter of compensation. AGC has informed the family and its lawyer in writing that the Government accepts liability and will compensate the family. As discussions are on-going, I am not able to provide details.

http://geraldgiam.sg/2013/08/death-of-inmate-in-prison/

***The funny thing is that he, like me, did our legal education in England. S’pore’s constitution was certainly not taught or analysed in any great detail there in my time, and I’m sure in his time.

****Ecclesiastes 3

To every thing there is a season,
and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
a time to be born, and a time to die;
a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;
a time to kill, and a time to heal;
a time to break down, and a time to build up;

a time to cast away stones,
and a time to gather stones together;
a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;

a time to rend, and a time to sew;
a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
a time to love, and a time to hate;
a time of war, and a time of peace.

Todds, even yr beloved, trusted FBI contradicts you

In Public Administration on 16/05/2013 at 5:53 am

I juz read that the Todds threw a tantrum making more accusations against the police. Even this believer of the tendency of our police to do incompetent things (Example) thinks the Todds’ are going to far, now that a FBI report contradicted them

The external hard drive accessed by the Singapore Police Force (SPF) three days after American engineer Shane Todd was found dead in his Singapore apartment in June last year was identical to the one the Todd family handed over to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to examine in March this year, according to a report by the FBI.

 At the ongoing coroner’s inquiry into Mr Todd’s death, the court heard yesterday that the FBI had come to this conclusion after the SPF had officially asked the FBI on March 19 this year to confirm whether the two external hard drives were, in fact, one and the same.

 The FBI’s report appears to conflict with allegations made by the Todd family in a Financial Times report earlier this year, where his parents Richard and Mary said that they found the hard-disk drive at Mr Todd’s apartment themselves and kept it.

 According to the SPF, Sergeant Khaldun Sarif took the Seagate hard drive back to the Central Police Division after he was called to the scene of Mr Todd’s death on June 24, 2012. After viewing the hard drive on the night of June 27, 2012, he gave it to Mr Todd’s parents on June 28, 2012. (BT 15 May 2013).

Interestingly, they still do not deny the implication of the FBI report that they lied:

Their claim that they had found the hard disk drive has been central to their claims that their son did not take his own life. As I wrote here, I was about to stop reading the FT story and bitch to the FT that a reputable paper like the FT had better things to do than print the rantings of grieving parents. I didn’t because I next read that they claimed that had found the drive which implied that the police had missed it. The claim put things in a different light: our police could have cocked up, like over the Suntec beatings (Incidentally, we still don’t know the result of the police disciplinary action against the investigator. Can a PAP MP or Mrs Chiam ask? WP MPs presumably too busy handing out contracts to supporters)

As they had then wanted the FBI to supervise the investigations of our police (which annoyed me), the FBI finding that the drive given to them by the parents, is the same as the one the police gave the Todds, tells us they misrepresented the facts.

Sergeant Khaldun Sarif was generous to the Todds, yet they behaved like vicious snakes towards him. He could have played it by the book and retained the drive. He handed it to the parents and look at what they did. They claimed to have found it to give credence to their claims that their son was murdered, putting him in a bad light: that as investigator he had missed the drive.

The Todds are bad or mad: that’s the conclusion any reasonable person would draw from the FBI report. Grief over the death of their son is one thing, trying to fix  Sergeant Khaldun Sarif or blame others is another. But would bad people lie about the origins of the drive, and handed it over to the FBI? So grief may have driven them mad, and they tot that they found the drive?

 

Waz that again Law Soc?

In Corporate governance on 20/07/2012 at 4:58 am

Or “Law Soc in denial?” or “More patients for you Dr Fonz?”

The Law Society seems to want to be like the PM and his DPMs: trying to be comedians. And no, I don’t mean to talk about its officer,Wong Siew Hong, turning up in court without his jacket (bit like appearing at a wedding in one’s underwear), but this: “LSS asks that commentators check their facts, preferably with LSS, before making their comments.” Ain’t the Law Soc forgetting something?

Forgot that it retracted earlier statements? Statement that many netizens used when commenting on the Law Soc’s actions. The boys and gals at TRE did a good article on this retraction.

But even funnier is: “LSS believes that it is important that the public has confidence in LSS as an independent professional body which has always balanced the interests of the public and individual lawyers.” Come on, pull the other leg, its got bells on it. Ever since the changes initiated by the government in the 1980s, many members of the public and even many lawyers regard the Law Soc as part of the Dark Side: to publicly deny this perception amounts to a form of insanity: denial of a perception.

No, I’m not going to make fun of, “Any suggestion of a conspiracy involving the LSS is untrue and irresponsible” because I’m waiting to see if Ravi denies a report in ST that he was involved in an incident at a temple on Sunday the 15th of July. I mean it’s ST, part of the constructive, nation-building media, and more importantly, the sister publication of STOMP where a “content producer” fabricated a story, and where “content producers” posed as citizen journalists and members of the public.

If it could happen at STOMP, it could happen at ST where during the Hougang by-election, pixs were used very judiciously. One got the impression that Ah Huat was Low’s proxy, while Desmond Choo was “his own man”. And again in that by-election, there was no mention that Desmond’s “model” (his uncle, an ex-PAP MP) is a convicted cheat, facing fresh charges. If it had been Ah Huat’s uncle, I’m sure we would’ve been reminded of the relationship with a criminal.

If Ravi doesn’t deny the story, then I’ll blog on why Wong Siew Hong and Dr Fones should be commended for being good civic-minded S’poreans, even if they did not do things the proper way, and why the Law Soc Council does not deserve any respect. But taz another day.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 199 other followers