Not impressed by Sham

In Uncategorized on 07/03/2016 at 1:25 pm

“My ministry has the responsibility to ensure that protocols are in place… If there are questions about the protocol, I will answer, as I am doing now… The responsibility is mine. Let’s not attack the police officers, who cannot defend themselves. They are doing their job, every day, in difficult circumstances.” says minister Shamugam.

Well cyberspace (OK “cowboy town”) was not impressed by what he said but neither it seems is one PAPpy.

I came across a PAPpy who said that the boy was guilty of molesting a girl. When my Facebook avater asked for evidence, he referenced the newspaper articles that reported Sham’s parly comments, and then Sham’s presentation material. I’m sure Sham would have something to say to this PAPpy about what he said.

Back to cyberspace.

A life has been taken unjustly but all I hear is accusations by the government on others. Please be open and fair to the citizens.

Another person posted

[S]o we come to the crux of the problem. Trust in the police and the integrity of the institution versus the death of yes an innocent 14 year old. If ever there was a david versus goliath scenario this i would suppose be it.

Public pressure and outrage serves a purpose in my view , it keeps the issue in the lime light and serves to keep pressure on the issue of minors in detention and the non existent rights they have.

But please understand this and this is the implausible scenario which does not fit. The police were cuddly and nice and told Benjamin and his parents they would recommend a warning and it would be probably be OK, on hearing that he went home decided it was the end of the world when he could not go to a school camp and decided to Jump.

Any tragedy disaster is a chain of interlocking events so you are right in a need to seriously look at the protocols.

Perhaps the police were “nice” , perhaps his words as quoted , I said what the police told me to say, well were reflective of the police just well not doing anything or not being threatening in any way but again we will never know because no adults nor recordings are allowed, and that is what the Minister defends the notion of total absolute trust in the SPF with its vast powers even against minors and that the exercise of said power was not abusive in any way . Trust us he says , trust us even when an innocent 14 year old HAS KILLED himself.

He had earlier posted:

The criticism some well informed , some just pure anger is a given in this age of instant communication and instant opinions. By nature of it being timely and being driven by individuals some of it will be more accurate and some of it less so but I would ask without the public questioning however wild, would we be able to get the disclosure that we have had thus far ?

The honourable minister is clearly defending the police whilst allowing for “change in the protocols. ” and while the criticisms are harsh some of it seems warranted.

For example the outrage at the utter waste of life because in Essence Benjamin killed himself over an act which on AGCs review would have merited a “warning” a f******* warning. In essence he DIED innocent and thats not without going into that whole legal debate because of another activists the “legality of a warning”.

To not put to fine a point of it and what I have said to detractors ,there is room and allowance for a 14 year old minor which will not exists for an adult because simply as a minot he should be given the benefit of the doubt.

The very fact that CCTV catches him following the girl and touching the girl , the very fact that the Home Minister states that he admitted to “intentionally” molested/touching the girl cast not one iota of light onto his actual intent.

He might have liked the girl and though it a way to get her attention, He might have been trying to steal a kiss, or being playful etc etc . There are many variations which can and will be played out but we need a better nuanced understanding of “intentionally” above the simple one provided.

His last paragraph is a gem because it points out that CCTV is not evidence of a crime. It was only evidence that the boy needed to be interviewed by the police.

The CCTV was a record but a record of what ? There was no report or allegations of force, use of threats, criminal intimidation, robbery etc etc etc NONE. so how did such naughty at best behavior end in such a tragedy……


  1. Am glad that people are looking at the big pictures – i.e. the existing protocols in place ARE the problems and NOT TOC/lawyers are misrepresenting OR Ben could be guilty.

    The old govt method of throwing smoke bombs to confuse everyone is not going to work anymore except maybe on the baby killer blogger.

  2. You can’t just blame the protocols. The operators e.g. police, didn’t exercise good judgment or even basic decency when dealing with this 13 yr old kid. You’re not dealing with 5 yr old child soldiers carrying AK74s out in the African bush, but a relatively domesticated middle-income city-bred school kid. Different situations call for different tactics & response, with SOPs and regulations being a guide.

    Frankly it’s not even the fact that 5 policemen had to corner him in school and escort him back to the police station that is the main problem. But rather the demeanor and attitude of those involved. I’m very sure that the policemen went out of their way to intimidate, insult, manipulate, accuse and verbally abuse that kid, all the way from inside the car to the interrogation process up till the parents arriving at the police station. You can get a hint by the kid’s words recounted by the mum — “If they say I did it, then I did it…”.

    The protocols or SOP does not say to shout Hokkien vulgarities, insult the suspect’s parents, kick or bang the table / chairs, threaten what they will do to the suspect’s family members, etc. (all of which are permissible). The SOP or protocol will merely state to interview & extract pertinent facts from the suspect in the most expeditious, effective and efficient manner. How you interpret & execute is up to the officers on the ground.

    Hiding behind protocols or SOPs or regulations is like German & Jap officers and soldiers in WW2 — I was just carrying out orders, else I myself would be shot or sent on suicide missions. After all, what the Japs did in S’pore and to the people were perfectly legal under Jap law then. And not to execute or abuse Sinkies at that time was to dishonour yourself, your family, Japan and the Emperor, and disobeying a lawful order under wartime conditions.

  3. […] – Naiviews: Suicide of a Teenager – Thoughts of a Cynical Investor: Not impressed by Sham […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: