atans1

Posts Tagged ‘Calvin Cheng’

Fake news the TOC way/ History is very complicated

In Internet on 11/06/2019 at 11:24 am

Last week, TOC and its fellow anti-PAP cybernuts discredited themselves thrice over with the voters the Oppo needs to win over in any general election (the PAP voters who voted for Tan Cheng Bock in PE 2011 who but for TKL, Goh Meng Seng and Tan Jee Say would have been president: really fixing the PAP).

TOC, using Vietnamese and Cambodian state media reports (Vietnam did not invade Cambodia as claimed by PM, these reports screamed) as their source material, pictured PM as getting his history wrong. The cybernuts went into overdrive dissing PM’s lack of knowledge of the “liberation” of Cambodia by Vietnam.

When the complicated truth emerged on cyberspace, showing that TOC and friends were propagating fake news, TOC and the cybernuts changed tack. They then said PM should not have upset the people of Vietnam and Cambodia with his comments. Example:

Sivakumaran Chellappathere was absolutely no need to mention what he should know clearly to be a diplomatic minefield. He could of course have had continued to maintain his stand on that matter without ever mentioning it.

When this didn’t wash with the target audience, they changed the conversation accusing those who disagreed with their view of history of calling them “traitors” (There were some PAP nutters, the PAP version of TOC and cybernuts, using the  “t” word, but not enough to tar people like me who disagree with TOC’s and the cybernuts’ view that Vietnam liberated Cambodia): when they were juz patriotic S’poreans who believed in the truth.

Truth, what truth? Their truth was to swallow uncritically what the Vietnamese and Cambodian state media said. Why are they so uncritical of the state media of really repressive regimes? Because these media attack the PM and his PAP govt? (Related post “Licking the ass of the enemy of my enemy”)

Calvin Cheng got it about right when he posted on FB

I wonder why so many anti-Government people are willing to take the side of foreigners, during this storm in a teacup regarding PM Lee’s remarks on Vietnam and Cambodia.

The issue is actually very simple.

Did Vietnam invade Cambodia?

Yes.

Whether you invade to liberate (Current Vietnam and Cambodian point of view) or invade to set up a puppet Government (the prevailing view then), it’s still an invasion right ?

Why is Vietnam angry?

Because they don’t want to be called invaders.

Why is Cambodia angry ?

Because PM Hun Sen was one of the 7 central committee members in the pro-Vietnam Government that Vietnam set up. If he admits it’s an invasion, then he is a collaborator with invaders. So he can never say it was an invasion, but rather he was a Cambodian patriot who came to power with Vietnamese help.

Did the Vietnamese invasion stop a murderous regime, that of Pol Pot?

Yes.

But if the international community back then allowed Vietnam to invade Cambodia to overthrow the Khmer Rouge on the basis of ‘liberation’, what was to stop communist Vietnam from invading Thailand to liberate them from the bourgeoisie capitalists ? And then Malaysia? And then Singapore?

That’s why ASEAN had to oppose it on principle. Even if the consequences in Cambodia were benign.

Who says choices in international relations are easy ?

Finally, why did PM Lee mention it when writing a condolence note for Thai Gen Prem?

Because that was one of Gen Prem’s biggest achievements – staring down the Vietnamese across the border and opposing them, knowing that his country could be next.

So that’s a simple summary of the issues.

No need to write long op-eds and posts to over-complicate.

Just silly opportunists looking to obfuscate, confuse, and to make people angry with PM Lee.


When I said Calvin Cheng was a dickhead

Riposte to Calvin Cheng’s defence of UA

Calvin, Amos & other cyber-vermin: the global perspective

Why MLC has to talk about Calvin

When I agreed with him

When being a minister turns from a calling into a job for life

Kee Chiu Cybernuts who want to migrate to Bangladesh

HIV data leak: Calvin Cheng is right again


All in all, TOC is proving to be a better friend of the PAP then even TKL, TJS and Meng Seng. TOC is a really useful idiot. or maybe Terry and his TOC team are as mad as M Ravi, when he’s not taking his medicine? More evidence that being anti-PAP is bad for yr mental health

HIV data leak: Calvin Cheng is right again

In Public Administration on 01/02/2019 at 2:34 pm

😱Don’t know whether to 😰 or 🤣

I know, I know, I’ve called him a dickhead

———————————————————–

When I said Calvin Cheng was a dickhead

Riposte to Calvin Cheng’s defence of UA

Calvin, Amos & other cyber-vermin: the global perspective

Why MLC has to talk about Calvin

——————————————————————————————-

But I have to agree with him yet again*.

Mr Cheng told TODAY: “Given the sensitivity and stigma surrounding HIV patients, I do not think there was an urgent need to tell the general public.

“There is, however, responsibility to tell the affected HIV patients. I think MOH genuinely thought in 2016 that the information was retrieved and the perpetrator caught and punished. The moment they realised this was not the case in 2018, they informed the affected people.

“In 2019, when the information was put out into the public domain, they announced this to the public… In this case, the need for privacy for the HIV patients takes precedence over the need for the general public to know.”

However, Mr Cheng said that the MOH “ought to have told the affected parties immediately in 2016 even after they apprehended (Brochez)”.

https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/health-ministry-should-have-gone-public-earlier-hiv-registry-leak-observers

————————————————-

*I wrote before

I agree with Calvin Cheng. I know, I know, it’s getting to be a habit ( When being a minister turns from a calling into a job for life) . But what can I say except that he seems to have mellowed.)

Kee Chiu Cybernuts who want to migrate to Bangladesh

Kee Chiu Cybernuts who want to migrate to Bangladesh

In Political economy on 13/10/2018 at 11:34 am

Can’t stop laughing at our ungrateful, envious cybernuts. In their KBKBing that S’pore is ranked below Bangladesh, Namibia, Costa Rica, Guyana, Moldova, Kazakhstan, Kosovo and Palestine, they come across to the 35% swing voters as saying that these countries are better places to live in vis-a-vis S’pore.

Know any cybernut wanting to move out of their rented two-room HDB flat and move to Bangladesh, Namibia, Costa Rica, Guyana, Moldova, Kazakhstan, Kosovo and Palestine? I doubt any exist. They know life is better here. They juz behaving like ex-local MSM journalists who bite the hand that once fed them. They are worse because because cybernuts still get fed.

I agree with Calvin Cheng. I know, I know, it’s getting to be a habit ( When being a minister turns from a calling into a job for life) . But what can I say except that he seems to have mellowed.)

Singapore ranks below countries such as Bangladesh, Namibia, Costa Rica, Guyana, Moldova, Kazakhstan and even Kosovo and Palestine.

Ask yourselves if any Singaporeans, no matter how relatively poor, would rather live in those countries.

This highlights the sometimes shrill obsession with inequality, rather than focusing on absolute standards of living. Both are important, but I would argue that absolute standards of living are far more important. We should make sure our poor and even our average Singaporeans have good standards of living, regardless how they compare to rich Singaporeans.

We must be careful to keep our priorities right and balanced, and not give in to the politics of envy that has rend many Western societies apart in recent years.

———————————————————–

When I said Calvin Cheng was a dickhead

Riposte to Calvin Cheng’s defence of UA

Calvin, Amos & other cyber-vermin: the global perspective

Why MLC has to talk about Calvin


Coming back to the report and our cybernuts. Here’s another reasoned perspective on the Oxfam report,

There is a need “to have a better conversation about inequality” in Singapore, he added. “But it cannot be premised on research that is not well-suited for the challenges we face in Singapore, and ultimately, doesn’t produce a measure that correlates well with the living reality of Singaporeans, who know that inequality is a problem here, but is not characterised by the poverty and absolute deprivation seen in many countries of similar ‘rank’.””

Walter Theseira, academic, NMP

Wanted President: Must not embarass the PAP

In Political governance on 21/01/2016 at 1:16 pm

Professor Kishore Mahbubani* believes that we should consider the possibility that a rogue president could be elected, and that we should consider having the president be chosen by Parliament once again (“Let’s talk about policy failures and the elected presidency“.

The assumption is that the elected president can do serious damage to S’pore. The last time a PAP minister addressed the issue before PE 2011, the Pet Minister made it clear that the constitutional position of the president was jaga only. He has very limited powers that he could exercise by himself. And these are of a custodian nature i.e. jada work. So at best a rogue president can embarrass S’pore.

Well, we had one such appointed rogue president, Devan Nair, who behaved inappropriately when drunk in Sarawak. And he was appointed by parliament wasn’t he? Turned out badly didn’t he? A real disgrace to S’pore and S’poreans. Worse, he alleged he was fixed.

(Related post: The other PAP apologist, one Herod Cheng, on the issue of the presidency)

What Kishore and Cheng should tell us is that history shows us is an elected president can embarrass the PAP administration. Think Ong Teng Cheong and the wayang he staged over inmovable state assets to show us he was a good jaga.

That row made Ong Teng Cheong the hero of the anti-PAP nuts. Funny thing is that if he had his way, the reserves cannot ever be touched. Interest, dividends and capital gains would be locked up in the name of capital preservation. And he’s a hero to the anti-PAP mob? They bleat that the PAP steals our CPF. OTC wanted to locked away from use.

So if the two PAP apologists had argued that the elected presidency should be scrapped because a “rogue” president can embarrass the PAP administration, I’d sit down and shut up because they have a point. But they argue this way because it’d mean that they will no longer be able to grovel, “The PAP is always right.”

Seriously, there will be great black comedy when the PM has to explain publicly why an appointed president can be a better protector of reserves and minorities than an elected president can. Didn’t the PAP say only an elected president had the electoral mandate to resist Mad Dog Chee’s plans to squander the reserves if said Mad Dog became PM?

Ownself contradict ownself. Or should it be Ownself argue against Ownself.

The other black comedy will be to see the Worthless Party of very highly paid social workers (Kate Spade Tin is their poster gal: social work more impt than talking cock in parly) sit on their hands leaving Lion Man to savage the PAP. Yes I’m hoping the WP will not castrate Leon the Lion. Rumour has it that he had things he wanted to say about the internal review of the SDH tragedy that was made public but was told to sir down and shut up by the WP leaders. Let’s see if he speaks up when the tragedy is discussed in parly. If he doesn’t, then there’ll be some truth to the rumour of Low muzzling the Lion Man.

————————————-

*He accused a US regulator of being a rogue regulator, after the regulator went after StanChart. Shortly, thereafter StanChart admitted it was a rogue bank.  The PAP apologist looked like a real cock.

Herod Cheng signposts PAP’s “fixing” plans

In Political governance on 18/01/2016 at 11:36 am

(Explanation for those who never had the benefit of Sunday school: Herod was the ruler of Judea at the time of the birth of Jesus, who orders the Massacre of the Innocents i.e. babies)

Will the rules change so that Dr Tan Cheng Bock cannot, or will not be eligible to stand in the next PE due later this yr? Is PM fixing the Oppo, something he “promised” to do in 2006 but was silent on in 2011 and 2015 because he could see the swing voters didn’t like the Oppo being “fixed’: but he now thinks he has a mandate of 70% to do so?

These tots crossed my mind when I read on CNA that

The Government will look into whether Singapore’s political system can be improved, to ensure the nation has capable and honest leadership in the long term, President Tony Tan Keng Yam said in his opening address to Singapore’s 13th Parliament.

“Our political system has delivered stability and progress for Singapore. But this system must be refreshed from time to time, as our circumstances change,” Dr Tan said on Friday, Jan 15

Shortly after the speech Herod Cheng, the PAP’s sinister clown in residence, suggested changes that would ensure that S’pore remains a de facto one party state, forever and a day.. My comments on his rant are in [ ] and in normal font.

CHANGES TO THE POLITICAL SYSTEM – PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS

The one thing that stood out in yesterday’s Presidential Address was the remarks about possible changes to Singapore’s political system.

As I have argued before, whilst the PAP still has its 2/3 majority [Hello, no faith that in next GE PAP will retain this majority? Call yr self a PAP bootlicker? Only hard core TRE nuts believe that the PAP will lose this majority in next GE], it needs to implement constitutional changes to safeguard the future of Singapore, and ensure we avoid the degeneration that Western political systems (and those who have adopted them) have seen. [Last time I looked, the West is in pretty good shape and China, the great Asian exemplar is in a mess. I mean Europe hasn’t imploded despite the Eurozone crisis and the influx of unwanted and unwelcomed immigrants. And the US is the hegemon. So what cock you cock talking?]

Our own system is also largely based on the Westminster system, although we have important aspects that now differ. For example, LKY changed our system to prevent elected members from changing parties and still retaining their seats. More now needs to be done to ensure that we improve on our system even more to ensure the stability of our system. [Well Bukit Brown is a pretty tranquil place, if you like stagnation.]

Some changes I would like to see:

1) Elected Presidency – As I have argued, the elected presidency has become a proxy for partisan politics. Short of scrapping it, at the very least the bar needs to be raised to prevent unqualified populists from degrading the office of the Presidency. [You got explanation for PAP to explain why a nominated president can be a better protector of reserves and minorities than an elected president isit? Didn’t PAP say only elected president had mandate to resist Mad Dog Chee’s plans to squander the reserves? Seriously if the PAP tries to revert to a nominated presidency, it’ll be really great black comedy to see how they argue against themselves. Ownself contradict ownself.]

He also wants more NMPs [God forbid if they are baby killers and morons and PAP fan boys or gals.]

I think better to more deeply entrench the NMP system by increasing the numbers and making their term the same as elected MPs, instead of the half-terms currently. NMPs of the second session always see their terms cut short. The last cohort only served for a year as elections were called early.

Both an Upper House and the NMP scheme function on the same principle – non-elected voices are needed to check populism and politicking amongst professional politicians.

As lessons from the West has shown, countries with unelected legislators like the UK are less likely to go down the populist route as it acts as a brake on demagoguery. [Last time I looked, the UK’s House of Lords was a cesspool of scroungers who were making claims for work they didn’t do.]

Calvin, Amos & other cyber-vermin: the global perspective

In Uncategorized on 07/01/2016 at 5:43 pm

Recently, I wrote about the PAP vermin and their siblings the TRE nutty rats and about Killer Cheng and Amos the Fantastic. They all are angry, abusive and full of hatred for their fellow S’poreans. The funny thing is that it’s all online only: they don’t walk down the street shouting.

Here’s some global perspective on the paradox of their weird behaviour from a BBC article: http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-35111707

First the angry, abusive behaviour.

2015 saw a greater normalisation of hate speech in society than in previous years,” says Andre Oboler, chief executive of the Australia-based Online Hate Prevention Institute. “Where previously a person might make a vague negative allusion to race, religion, gender or sexuality, by the end of 2015 the comments on social media were blatant and overt.”
“Where previously people hid behind pages and fake accounts, by the end of 2015 many people felt their hate was acceptable and were comfortable posting it under their real name or their regular social media account,” Oboler noted.

And the fact Amos, and Oxygen, Dosh and other TRELand vermin, and Killer Cheng, Jason Chua and other PAPpies  don’t walk down the street shouting at random strangers – and in fact, if we do, and bystanders capture it on film, it becomes news, has an interesting explanation:

… because in many places, the social fabric more or less holds in real life. People might shout racial slurs in ALL CAPS online …

Could it be that what’s happening in our daily lives might be diverging from the world of digital mass conversation?

Todd says increased hate online is in part a reflection of the wider culture of public discourse.
“Despite extraordinary efforts by community and educational groups to sensitise people to the pain they cause online, the countervailing trend, especially in politics and entertainment, is the use of demeaning and damaging language and communication,” she says.

Todd’s research has uncovered a “constellation” of motivations for online abuse – “everything from feelings of powerlessness to alcohol and drug abuse and on to mental illness.”

But whatever, there is shumething uniquely S’porean in all this: only here could Calvin Cheng remain on the Media Literacy Counil, after advocating killing ISIS babies.

 

 

Amos flees Mummy/ Peceptive tots on Boy Wonder

In Uncategorized on 16/12/2015 at 7:53 am

(Update on 17 December 4.30am: My sources tell me that he’s hiding in S’pore, not gone overseas. As to his reissue of the LKY video, It’ll be interesting if Mad Dog Chee comes to his defence. The anh moh tua kees like Kirsten Han, Lynn Lee etc etc, have moved on.)

If anyone is interested Amos posted on 14 December that he had failed to attend a police interview.

He then suffered an outbreak of verbal diarrhoea (as bad as any Roy Ngerng has had) and  claims to have run away from home. The latest by the MSM is that

The police said officers will interview teenage blogger Amos Yee “upon his return to Singapore”, in connection with investigations into religiously offensive remarks made online.

Yee, 17, was to have shown up at Jurong Police Division on Dec 14 to assist with investigations, but he failed to do so.

A TRE reader had earlier posted this on Amos

— His NS will last five yrs including detention barracks.

— He has no supporters left after he insulted them. Thinking about it, even Mad Dog Chee is running to support him. Must be pills the RI doctors are prescribing.

— Amos is no artist.

Nathan:

December 13, 2015 at 1:06 pm  (Quote)

What’s there for the police to investigate? Just use whatever section of the law to detain him indefinitely without trial. Hold him till he comes of age to do National Service. From there, the military can take over the prosecution of Amos. Most probably, Amos will be moving in and out of detention barracks for 5-7 years instead of the 2 years doing his National Service. This will keep him out of circulation until he returns to civilian life. Then the vicious cycle of social prosecution will repeat itself.

Eventually, Amos will end up an old jail-bird, rotting in
jail most of his life – unless he chooses to emigrate to another country
ASAP.

Amos has alienated most of his sympathisers because of his motor-mouth. Insulting, despising and mocking opposition leaders and showing disrespect and disdain for our pioneer anti-Lee Kuan Yuan fighters who have suffered years of unjustified imprisonment.

Amos, even as an artist has been a huge disappointment. Sorry, Amos my opinion of you has changed. You thought that by putting down the opposition leaders the government will look at you in a different light. Punk, you are still light years away from being an artist. A manipulator perhaps to one up all and sundry in whatever you choose to do or said.

And this from the post below

Amos is a strange one. Talented and unique. However he is taking the kindness of so many of his sympathisers for weakness. All the opposition who spoke out for him, his admirers and fans here and overseas. He sneered at them in return just because he feels like it. At the moment he has all the ‘fame’and attention he wants. Things are going swimming well for him. The next time he falls into the shithole again, there won’t be any sensible people crying for him in Hong Lim Park. Freedom lovers friends from Hong Kong will pay scan attention to his plight. I have learned, have you?

On Calvin Cheng, he makes a good comment that the PAP approved clown that is not taken seriously by the PAPpies and anti-PAP “intellectuals”

He also makes some good points on the making of police reports.

Nathan:

I do not care, if I want somebody hard enough I will reveal my identity,my name, my everything and go to a police station and make a report against that person for whatever grievances I had against that person.

Do you want Calvin Cheng hard enough to lodge a police report against him? I think you do, but what are you afraid of? that I don’t know. Believe me, I had done exactly I am telling you people here to do. If you guys want to be insulted then I go ahead. The police are not interest in small fry like you and me no matter how right you are. If there is a case to be make against the person in the report, they will go ahead. They will do the job. They will have all your personal records. Whether that will be used against you in future by them or any third party that’s the risk you will have to take if you want Calvin Cheng hard enough. There lies the difference between doing and just talking.

As for Calvin Cheng, I have watched him in the Inconvenient Question online. I observed the host, the invited speakers and the audience do not seem to take what he said seriously. They even laughed and poked fun at him. I got a hunch but I do not where it comes from that Calvin Cheng is let loose by the Establishment to be as controversial and outspoken as he likes to counter the daring of the anti government social websites. Some of the PAP candidates have say things and behave similarly to Calvin Cheng although not that extreme. The electorate seemed impressed and the PAP did win handsomely. So, it’s worth your while to go after this clown if the government is behind him? Calvin Cheng is not even worth a mention by anyone.

 

Media Literacy Council doesn’t think words matter?

In Political governance on 03/12/2015 at 10:18 am

Words don’t have have consequences, they seem to say.

Followig the shootings at a Colorado abortion clinic, Planned Parenthood (the operator of the clinic) executive vice president Dawn Laguens said, “One of the lessons of this awful tragedy is that words matter, and hateful rhetoric fuels violence. It’s not enough to denounce the tragedy without also denouncing the poisonous rhetoric that fuelled it.”

She was referring to the rhetoric of the opponents of Planned Paewnthood which includes all the Republican presidential contenders. The candidates have been condemning Planned Parenthood’s activities, some using the language that we associate with Calvin Cheng but without the claim of talking difficult philosophical issues to justify their comments.  Someone of Facebook comparing Trump’s comments with Calvin’s comments on killing ISIS. “But this one not pretending to advise public on media literacy and etiquette.”

Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chair of the Democratic National Committee, more bltnt ande more partisan,called the Colorado shootings “an act of terrorism”, “Those running for president and those of us in leadership roles in our country’s major political parties have an obligation to denounce these attacks and clearly say that violence and intimidation in the pursuit of ideology are not acceptable in America.”

That “words matter, and hateful rhetoric fuels violence” is something that Calvin Cheng, a member of the Media Literacy Council, and his protector the chairman of the Media Literacy Council, Professor Tan Cheng Han) seem to have forgotten. Despite them being tasked by the PAP administration to advise S’poreans on media literacy and etiquette.

Worse they also ignore what the High Court judge in the Amos Tee case said This is not freedom of speech, this is a licence to hate, to humiliate others and to totally disregard their feelings or beliefs by using words to inflict unseen wounds”. It seems like … throwing stones at his neighbour’s flat to force the neighbour to notice him, (and) come out to quarrel.”

But let’s look on the bright side. My Facebook Avater commented:

And as Calvin Cheng and the chair of the Media literacy Council show even calling for the killing babies can be justified as not amounting to “hate speech”. //The internet has (by accident, not design) has fostered a culture in which anybody can pretend to be who they like, or give no details at all: “Nobody knows you’re a dog” as a New Yorker cartoon put it. // Calvin Cheng and Prof Tan have dropped all pretence of trying to show that they are intelligent men worthy of respect. ))))

Someone commenting on FB about this post of mine that the books of Maugham, Foster and Wilde (all greater writers) may be removed from the shelves of NLB because they are gat, said.

We clearly have a rightwing segment in society but in light of twits such as Calvin Cheng, do we have a far right loony fringe? This may not matter since the fringe is well, the fringe but one should be reminded that people like Calvin Cheng makes a beef about being part of the establishment.

Now, then ask yourself; who is more dangerous to the nation? The 30% who desire pluralism or the right wing loonies who among other things would rather Singapore violate stuff like the Geneva Convention.

I commented in reply  V.V Good points abouy people like CC claiming to be part of the establishment. And that 30% not so dangerous. Going by the way chair of MLC defends CC, we can only wonder if the real establishment shares the views of CC.

As I always tell my dogs that if they misbehave in public, they reflect badly on me. But then Calvin is no ‘dog”, he’s more of a TRE cyber-rat.

 

 

“Hate speech”: MLC chair ignores judge’s comments

In Uncategorized on 02/12/2015 at 2:26 pm

(Ot “Provocation” is not freedom of speech”)

I was very disgusted by Dr Tan’s defence of Calvin Cheng a member of the Media Literacy Council of which Dr Tan chairs. His mealy-mouthy defence is here.  Calvin Cheng is white horse isit?

Here’s something my Facebook avatar  posted on Siow Kum Hong’s wall when Siow took the high moral ground that CC should not be given the AY treatment and which happens to explain my difference of opinion with prof Tan: If it waz gd enough for Mummy’s Boy Fantastic, it’s gd enough for Calvin Cheng. No double standards pls. Justice S’pore style must be done. Here’s what the high court judge said in Amos Yee’s case that applies to “Kill IS babies” MLC member Calvin Cheng: Justice Tay said: “This is not freedom of speech, this is a licence to hate, to humiliate others and to totally disregard their feelings or beliefs by using words to inflict unseen wounds”. It seems like … throwing stones at his neighbour’s flat to force the neighbour to notice him, (and) come out to quarrel.”

There’s another relevant bit even if “Kill IS babies” Cheng doesn’t use vulgar words: “Yee used coarse, hard-hitting words to arouse emotions … vulgar insults to deliberately provoke readers and draw them out,” he said, adding that the 16-year-old should “wean himself off his preference for crude, rude language (and engage in) real debate”, which can “flourish in an environment of goodwill, reasoning and civil language”.

And I’ll add to the above this for Professor Tan’s further education even if he’s a legal academic:

The fact that it was Yee’s “dominant intention” to critique Mr Lee is irrelevant, said the prosecution, led by Second Solicitor-General Kwek Mean Luck. As long as Yee had a “deliberate intention”, it is enough to prove the charge, Mr Kwek said.

Prof Tan pls note. Whatever Calvin’s intention, they are irrelevant.

Yee’s “deliberate intention” was evident, said the prosecution, as Yee himself had admitted that he was “fully aware that his remarks were bound to promote ill-will amongst the Christian population”, said Mr Kwek.

Prof Tan pls note. “Killer” Cheng has made it clear that he wants to provoke controversy i.e. trouble and ill-will.

Justice Tay noted that Yee had an “unhappy experience” in the Catholic Church. In one of his police statements, Yee said that he was “kicked out of the altar boys” for uttering a profanity at an altar boys meeting. There was therefore a background when he made the offending comments. “They were not innocent words uttered without real thought”, Justice Tay said.

Well, based on his track record of comments, it can be reasonably argued that Calvin Cheng really wants to kill babies of ISIS fighters if he is given the opportunity.

Background

Amos (Mummyy’s Boy Fantastic) had an appeal against his conviction and jail sentence dismissed by the High Court on Oct 8. was found guilty of two charges in May, after a two-day trial. He was convicted of one count of making offensive or wounding remarks against Christianity and one count of circulating obscene imagery.

Other interesting snippets_ from CNA about the appeal hearing:

The defence argued that Yee was exercising his constitutional right to freedom of speech and provoke “critical discussion”. Said Mr Dodwell: “Yes, Amos has been rude but were his actions a crime?”

— Justice Tay Yong Kwang said: “Yee used offending words against the central figure of the Christian religion.”

“Yee’s attitude of complete disregard for others … is not commonly seen. He did not respect anyone.” He had “openly defied” court orders and made sure his “bravado” was made known. Judge got this about right.

— Another of Yee’s lawyers, Mr Chong Jiahao, said that it “cannot be proven as fact” that Yee intended the comments to wound the religious feelings of Christians. “His purpose was to talk about the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew”, Mr Chong said, adding that there was no “cogent evidence” otherwise produced in court.

— On the obscene imagery charge, Justice Tay said that the image Yee circulated “must be obscene by the standards of any right-thinking society”.

Yee’s third lawyer, Mr Ervin Tan argued that the image “does not depict any genitalia” and that the district judge had used the “wrong vantage point” in determining the image to be able to deprave and corrupt young minds.

The District Judge had put herself “in the shoes of right-thinking parents and teachers of our community” and concluded that they would not approve of their children or students viewing the image, said Mr Tan, adding his view that this test is wrong and has “no foundation in law”.

“A picture does not become obscene only when genitalia is explicitly shown”, Justice Tay said. “Depravity and corruption relate essentially to the mind”, said Justice Tay.

He then challenged Mr Tan: “Would a young man bring this picture to show to his girlfriend’s family and say ‘hey, look that this funny picture’? No. Why would he not do it? Something in you says, it’s not right.”

Why MLC has to talk about Calvin

In Internet on 29/11/2015 at 1:28 pm
(or “Yet Another good reason to beat-up the MLC and Calvin”)
Calvin Cheng (“kill children” he said), I was told, said on radio recently that he only deletes and blocks abusive trolls, and accepts criticism.
So it’s really strange that the following piece from one Renson Seow, a leading member of a pretty conservative Facebook group (Examples: Their general consensus was that Amos Yee got what he deserved, and the PAP deserves 70%  of the vote but public tpt and FTs suck) went missing (AWOL? MIA?), hours, after it was posted as a comment on Calvin Cheng’s wall. It was in response to Cheng’s “apology” after he got a ticking off from Professor Tan Cheng Han, the chairman of the Media Literacy Council.
Read it and decide if Renson Seow is trolling Calvin Cheng. And if he isn’t, think about complaining to Professor Tan Cheng Han the chairman of the Media Literacy Council about Calvin Cheng setting yet another bad example on how to behave on the internet and on his talking the talk( only deletes and blocks abusive trolls, and accepts criticism). but not walking the talk (removing reasoned criticism). http://www.medialiteracycouncil.sg/Pages/contact-us.aspx
Renson Seow writes
The recent attempts to reframe Calvin’s comments as “meant to be intended to refer to children of terrorists *who are terrorists as well*” are misconceived, as his initial words were unambiguous.

===

The terrorists are not common criminals, it’s not about crime punishment and deterrence. They are a mortal enemy intent on killing and destroying. So you kill them before they kill you. And their children too in case they grow up to take revenge. It’s as simple as that. Please don’t complicate matters.
===

Within the sentence “And their children too in case they grow up to take revenge” are the key two words: *in case*

This clearly means that the proposed killings of the children of terrorists are precautionary in nature, and that he is *clearly aware* that there will be a proportion of those killed, who will not “grow up to take revenge”. (I.e. innocent personnel).

By his own admission, he also states that he was not going for general deterrence value – meaning that he did not also intend to intimidate future terrorists into submission – a stance which would leave room for mercy, for those children of terrorists who are so intimidated by the killing of kin now, that in future they are too cowed to take up the sword.

No, he was going for *precautionary killing*, in *full knowledge* that those killed will include a significant portion of innocent personnel.

The gulf between general deterrence and this is stark – equivalent to the comparison of passing of a deterrent death sentence on a single murderer’s kid to *dissuade* future children of other murderers from following their fathers’ footsteps, against that of setting a policy of killing all these other children too as a utilitarian precaution *in full knowledge* that *not all will turn*, with no room or thought given for the restraining effect of general deterrence.

This callousness and failure to err on the side of innocence is further compounded by the fact that these personnel are children, which have been clearly recognized both in the court and science as deserving of a more rehabilitative, rather than retributive or deterrence-focused sentencing.

The overreach of killing, in Calvin Cheng’s full recognition that there will be risk of killing of innocent underaged personnel, goes directly against the principle that “”It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer” (the well-known Blackstone Formulation).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_formulation

Needless to say, this view of his also puts up a dangerously extreme view that can be easily be mistaken for an officially espoused viewpoint, given the great efforts in which Calvin Cheng has poured into advertising that he had once been appointed as a NMP, which although without a vote, does come with a voice of influence in Parliament and the policies of Singapore.

If left without censure now, it is too easy for the common man to make the logical leap that perhaps Cheng’s view is not opposed by the powers here, and from that, it is only too easy for the next radical here to justify his extreme ways with the battlecry of “They will kill our kids as a precaution, nevermind whether they turn out ultimately innocent or not”

What remains now is the question, of how a member of the Media Literacy Council (MLC), with the higher burden of responsibility placed on his online commentary, could behave like this (and have a noted history of other uncivil comments), and yet continue undisciplined in the same role.

Thus ends Renson’s piece.

Calvin the wannabe baby-killer has by apparently deleting RS’s comments shows us the kind of guy that the MLC thinks is representative of the internet community.
As a member of the conservative group says: Nothing else need be said: For here is clearly demonstrated the sort of merit expected of someone who had once been an ex-NMP, and current member of the Media Literacy Council (MLC)… and more interestingly, the sort of acceptable standard his supporters (many of whom have identified themselves in the course of the affair) deem acceptable.