atans1

Posts Tagged ‘Criminal justice’

Amos: When Nemesis wet Hubris/ Why PAP PR bad

In Uncategorized on 10/07/2015 at 5:35 am

The following passage from a BBC report applies to the PAP administration not just the Chinese one:

The Chinese government, like all governments, worries that public outrage at the scale of the disaster might become directed at the state.

But instead of using normal public relations it uses public information control.

The problem for the PAP is that the public information control has never applied outside S’pore, and there is now cyberspace aka new medis https://atans1.wordpress.com/2015/07/05/pm-esm-on-new-media/.

Last Sunday, I posted the PAP administration’s response to an Economist piece on Amos and other freedom of expression issues in S’pore.

Here’s what the High Commissioner in London was made to say about Amos’s case:

Your piece “Zip it” (June 24th) is unbalanced. It champions unfettered freedom of speech without providing the context of cases mentioned. Amos Yee was convicted for insulting the faith of Christians. In a small, highly diverse society like Singapore we guard our social peace jealously and make no apologies for it. We cannot allow people to denigrate or offend the religious beliefs of others: the result is anger and violence, as we have seen elsewhere. Protection from hate speech is also a basic human right.

https://atans1.wordpress.com/2015/07/04/economist-piece-on-amos-etc-dark-side-cousin-responds/

Put it this way, I should be out rooting for Amos. But I didn’t because of the way Amos and mother Mary treated a good Samaritan.

Funnily the PAP administration had a more convincing explanation for the 55 days (as of the day of release): It could and should have said

Here’s a breakdown of the time he spent in captivity and the reasons thereof

— Two days when police investigated his case.

— He was in remand for 18 days because his parents and fans didn’t want to bail him; then when he was bailed by a stranger he broke bail, and then after trial when he was being assessed for probation he broke bail conditions yet again. Even the Joker, Penguin or Lex Luthor are less criminal than Amos.

— Then 21 days remand because he had to be assessed whether he was suitable for reform training given that he refused probation.

— Then 14 days because judge wanted to find out whether he could be given a mandatory treatment order if he was autistic.

If he had accepted probation, he would be home where mother Mary could cater to his every whim and fancy. And if his parents or fans had offered bail, and if he’d not broken bail conditions, he needn’t have spent 18 days in remand.

Hubris met Nemesis and Nemesis won.

(My Facebook avatar posted a variant of this on Facebook, in response to TOC’s and Function 8’s support of Amos the Fantastic. Got quite a few “Likes” and no rebuttal from TOC or F8.)

Seriously here’s the discredible bit about the detention.

He spent two days (police interrogation) away from mummy’s care. Actually, these two days were very unreasonable given the nature of the offences under investigation.

But I suspect, the police wanted to give him a scare, in the expectation, that he’d apologise, repent and the case could be closed with a warning. They didn’t know Amos, his mum and the anti-PAP human-rights activists (aka the ang-moh tua-kees) pulling the strings of Amos and mum, cheered on by the cybernuts.

As to his treatment during the last 35 days, he was treated no better or worse than any convicted offender undergoing examination for a RTO ot MTO.  He wasn’t persecuted.

He spent 53 days in captivity because he was quai lan: he tot he was entitled to do what he liked and not suffer the consequences. The IMH report to the court said Amos is misguided in not appreciating that ‘freedom of expression is not freedom from consequence’https://atans1.wordpress.com/2015/07/07/amo-what-imh-recommended/.

The system is telling him he is juz another criminal.

In one of John Wayne’s Westerns, he said “Life is tough but tougher if you are stupid”. Amos and Mother Mary should ponder these words of wisdom.

They should also ponder that Hubris always loses to Nemesis. The gods play with loaded dice.

 

What Amos said in his police statement

In Uncategorized on 08/07/2015 at 4:20 am

Amos the “fantastic who was sentenced to four weeks’ jail on Monday, almost immediately instructed his lawyers to file an appeal. “Amos, duly advised by his lawyers, is of the view that the conviction is wrong in law and sentence levied against him is manifestly excessive,” said a statement from his lawyers from Dodwell & Co on Monday.

I do hope that the lawyers and Amos remember what was reported at the time of the trial.

Deputy publi prosecutor Hay Hung Chun said Yee’s defense contradicted a statement he had given police on the night he was arrested in which he said he knew his video was bound to promote ill-will” among Christians. https://sg.news.yahoo.com/defense-singapore-teenager-didnt-intend-offend-video-142023078.html

He was responding to Lawyers for an outspoken Singaporean teenager charged with offending religious feelings in an online video that criticized the city-state’s founding father said that he did not intend to hurt Christians.

(Emphasis mine)

And I’ve not read any report nor heard from anyone who attended the trial that the defence challenged the DPP’s comments. So I have to assume that the DPP was right about what Amos said in the police statement.

All in all this appeal could be an example of what the IMH doctor says about Amos being misguided in not appreciating that ‘freedom of expression is not freedom from consequence’: or to put it another way, “Can suka suka do what he likes and not kanna takan.

More on what the doc “ordered”: https://atans1.wordpress.com/2015/07/07/amo-what-imh-recommended/

The situation comedy, “The antics of Boy Fantastic and his Mother Marry” is still running.

 

Amo: What IMH recommended

In Uncategorized on 07/07/2015 at 6:21 pm

The psychiatrist who conducted the court-ordered evaluation of the youth at the Institute of Mental Health, Dr Cai Yimin, is also Emeritus Consultant, Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Institute of Mental Health.

He recommended in his report to the court that

— Amos Yee would benefit from having a counsellor or mentor to guide him in the “responsible use of the Internet”*,

—  he should continue with formal education where he would have opportunities to socialise with his peers, and

— family counselling should take place to improve the interaction and relationship among all members of the teenager’s family.

He said Amos is misguided in not appreciating that ‘freedom of expression is not freedom from consequence’.*

http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2015/07/conviction-wrong-sentence-manifestly-excessive-amos-yee/

*Remember his grandma blamed his addiction to the internet for his problems. Cybernuts and HR activists mocked her.

**Blame mother Mary is at fault for this sense of entitlement?

Amos: Yaya papaya no more/ Mandatory treatment order given

In Uncategorized on 06/07/2015 at 5:03 pm

The Prosecution had decided not to press for reformative training, which will see Yee instituted for at least 18 months, and go for a jail term because of what was described as a “seismic shift” in attitude on Yee’s part.

It was noted that Yee has voluntarily removed the material and signed an undertaking to not post on sensitive issues anymore. “Amos has admitted to his guilt and promised not to re-offend”, said the Prosecution, because he understands issues of law and racial harmony.

http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2015/07/4-weeks-jail-for-amos-yee/

Yee also has to go for mandatory counselling, which the teenager has agreed to.

Yee’s medical report said that he does not suffer from any mental disorders, but instead needs mentoring. Amos has agreed to counselling and mentoring from a doctor at Raffles Hospital.

All in all sentence passed is fair and reasonable

[S]entenced to four weeks imprisonment, for charges relating to creating a video criticizing Lee Kuan Yew.

He will serve one week for posting obscene materials and three weeks for wounding the religious feelings of Christians in his video and the sentenced is to be served consecutively.

The sentence has also been backdated from 2 June.

He wants to appeal against conviction and sentence as is his right.

Mother Mary: Why “fantastic is in Block 7

In Uncategorized on 29/06/2015 at 5:18 am

A regular commenter responded to Mary’s Toh self-centred, victimhood lament (analysed here) on waz happening to her “fantastic” boy wonder (Emphasis mine. Btw, this guy knows his way round the healthcare system here and he hates the PAP. But he’s no frus cybernut like Ng Kok Lim).

He’s in block 7 because … Those who are arrested and remanded by judges for psychiatric review are all done at IMH block 7. This block is the only psychiatric block purposely built for prison-like control, with secured doors & checkpoints / guardposts at all levels & at the entrance manned by cisco personnel / prisons officers.

Btw, all other blocks also contain “truly mentally ill” patients. There are also plenty of patients with violent symptoms in these other blocks.

Becoz he has been found guilty & under remand, he no longer has civilian privileges. No going to KK Hospital as outpatient in posh air-con office to be assessed by their specialist. Now anything to do with brain, go to prison block at IMH for assessment.

Even if authorities allow Amos to be assessed as outpatient at IMH i.e. everyday bring him to IMH block 7, Amos will still be incarcerated at Changi prison. It’s not like he can go home and take his own sweet time to report to IMH, if ever.

Btw, commenting on the rants against the warding of Amos in Woodbrudge for two weeks: Cybernut Investor pointed out that his fellow cybernuts cybernuts missed an impt IMH connection:

@Ng COCK Lim* and other fellow cybernuts, why no balls meh.

The logical and reasonable conclusion of Cock Lim’s cooments is that the head of Woodbridge is responsible for everything. Esp as she is daughter of person who Amos insulted? Or Cock Lim and you all that STUPID?

———

*Cock Lim, cybernut in resident in TRE’s rat nest who describes himself thus Ng Kok Lim is a regular TRE contributor who specialises in rebuttal. Err more like lying.

He accused me of lying about my prediction that Amos would be sent to Woodbridge citing that TRE reported it befire my piece appeared in TRE.

I posted this on TRE and got no response from him:

Ng Kok Lim, You are either very stupid or a bigger liar than Roy or Amos or Amos’s mum.

My prediction piece preceded TRE’s piece (It came out on my blog on Tuesday morning before the sun rose)  I can’t help it if TRE republished my piece a few days later.

TRE trying to fix me idit?

Whatever it is, it shows the quality of yr research: more Roy Ngerng and Balding than Chris K. ))))

 

Laments of Amos’s mum & why she should get real

In Uncategorized on 26/06/2015 at 4:59 am

TOC published a moving lament by Mary Toh on her feelings (“It has been a very exhausting journey these last few months for everyone in the family …” and I wish he could be home with me so I can care for him”) on her son’s plight.

She has right on her side when she asks

I understand that block 7 is where they also keep the truly mentally ill patients, and those who have committed crimes or offences and who are also mentally unsound.

It is also where my son is being held.

I wondered why my son, who is here to be assessed if he has autism, is kept here in the same block as those who are mentally ill.

The authorities should explain to her and the public why  if he has autism, is kept here in the same block as those who are mentally ill.

But methinks she refuses to see Amos and herself as anything more than victims when they are actually major players, their decisions impacting on what is happening to them.

“Amos made a video and ended up in a mental institute.”: What a misrepresentation of the facts.

She left out the following: Amos,had spat on the offer of probation that the state had preferred and which his lawyer and his mother had advised him to accept. He has reposted the offending material, and posted nasty comments about the judge. And he had earlier broken his bail conditions. All these and the false allegation that his bailor had molested him and his flip floppng on an apology to the bailor make him a victim of a vengeful state? Come on.

In a peaceful place like S’pore, this is tantamount to the Joker’s or Penguin’s misdeeds in Gotham City.

And

He wishes that he could sleep at home and go for daily assessment, but that is not what the court ordered.

Given his track record can he be trusted to go for the daily assessments? Remember he refused to meet his probation officer and was bitching about having to go to the police station and 9.00am because he wanted to sleep when he was on bail awaiting trial?

He juz wants the world to revolve round his wishes. And who is largely responsible for this sense of entitlement? Who calls him “fantasttic” and laughs off his bad behaviour? Not his dad, it’s mummy.

Given that

Amos is now exhausted, and yes, frightened. And I can understand why.

He has been remanded in prison for so long* (40 days now) – even before he is sentenced – that he probably feels things no longer make sense.,

why not advise him to

— say sorry to Vincent Law (his bailor) and the judge (remember he abused her), and

— give the passwords to his lawyer to privatise all his posts and not repost the offending posts. According to his lawyer Alfred Dodwell he had agreed to privatisingthe posts  and removing the offending posts.

These actions will show that he’s willing to play ball.

Finally, someone should lend her a video of “One flew over a cuckoo’s nest” so that she can see that rebelling can have awful consequences for the rebel https://atans1.wordpress.com/2015/06/02/amos-flew-over-the-cuckoos-nest/.

Hopefully she can pass the message on to Amos.

Oh and btw, the original offences are no longer relevant. Amos and his mum have put in motion a juggernaut, nothing can stop it now. The judge, if Amos cooperates, can mitigate the consequences, but it takes two hands to clap.

——-

*Hello, why didn’t she offer bail pending trial? She wanted other people’s money for that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Amos: Judge going the extra mile

In Uncategorized on 25/06/2015 at 5:02 am

Almost no credit is given in cyberspace that the judge iseems to be trying her best to uphold the law while looking after the long term welfare of Amos.

Below are two posts from Facebook that explain what the judge seems to be doing.

But let’s be very clear:  the reformative training suitability report says that he is physically and mentally suitable for reformative training, even if he is autistic. Juz being autistic doesn’t give anyone the right to break the law and evade responsibility.

Actually I see a judge desperately trying not to give Amos a record. When he flaunted bail conditions he tied her hands. She’s in a really difficult place. To let him go free is setting a precedence for others to disregard rules as well. That’s why I wished ay could have just taken a step back lose the battle for now and wait it out. Then again he’s a recalcitrant teenager! Not sure whether he may also have some psychological issues. A good test is not harmful especially if it can save him some unnecessary trauma. The first step of charging him was wrong. It just spiralled downwards and AY certainly did not help himself. A real tragedy!

And here’s what someone who I personally know and who works with autistic kids says in the same thread. In addition to talking about the judge, he also gives an explanation of the mandatory treatment order (MTO) that the judge is exploring.

The MTO is a relatively new sentencing option iwhich requires an offender suffering from psychiatric conditions to undergo treatment in lieu of imprisonment.

If offender completes treatment successfully, he/she will be cleared of conviction.

Prior to this sentencing option being made available to judges, people with mental disorders were imprisoned. We can just do a google search for people with very low IQ who were sentenced to time in prison for offences such as outrage of modesty before this sentencing option was made available. Some people with mental conditions like intellectual disability, may not understand what offence they may have caused.

In that sense, I appreciate the new sentencing option.

[Err let’s give the Pet minister who also happens to be the law minister credit for this. And the PAP administration too.]

Just like intellectual disability, ASD is also on the Diagnostic & Statistical Manual IV.

Only a qualified person can diagnose where in the Spectrum a person diagnosed with ASD is (Asperger’s or whatever). I am not qualified, so I will not speculate.

IMO, the judge may be bending over backwards not to leave him with a criminal record – which is good as Amos is only a young boy.

I am not sure if MTO mandates institutional care once the diagnosis has been made, or if the ‘offender’ can commit to a term of outpatient care.

I personally feel that Amos should not be institutionalised.

On the last sentence, it takes two to tango and two hands to clap.

The “yaya papapaya”, that is Amos, had spat on the offer of probation that the state had preferred and which his lawyer and his doting mother Mary advised him to accept. And he has reposted the offending material, and posted nasty comments about the judge. And he had earlier broken his bail conditions. All these and the false allegation that his bailor had molested him and his flip floppng on an apology to the bailor make him a one-boy clear and present danger  to other S’poreans, who is unlikely to be prepared to undergo outpatient treatment.

Best if he’s locked up until he responds to treatment if he can be treated.

If not bring on the Reformative Training Centre, a heavily structured programme for young offenders involving military-style training as well as counselling, which can last up to 30 months. 

http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21655044-feisty-bloggers-face-trouble-zip-it

And do remember, the reformative training suitability report says that he is physically and mentally suitable for reformative training, even if he is autistic. Juz being autistic doesn’t give anyone the right to break the law and evade responsibility.

 

Psychiatrist behind Amos report/ Waz ASD?

In Uncategorized on 24/06/2015 at 4:21 am

Before the State Courts on Tuesday (Jun 23), District Judge Jasvender Kaur said that a report by Dr Munidasa Winslow said that Yee may suffer from autism-spectrum disorder. This emerged from the reformative training suitability report, which found the accused physically and mentally suitable for reformative training. (CNA)

He’ll be sent to Woodbridge for two weeks’ of observation and may then undergo mandatory treatment. (Trumpets pls, I predicted this early yesterday morning before the sun rose https://atans1.wordpress.com/2015/06/23/arkham-awaits-amos-autism-isnt-mental-illness-but/) While the UK’s Nation Health Service website says says that “autism is not a learning disability or a mental health problem”, it goes on to say that “some people with autism have an accompanying learning disability, learning difficulty or mental health problem”. http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Autis

Already the cybernuts are saying that Amos is being “fixed”. As does his mother, Mary: “They always want to paint him as mentally unsound,” she commented with a frown. (TOC report)

The problem with this view is that M Ravi (Remember him? The kickass, take-no-prisoners constitutional lawyer who is the hero of the cybernut mob and the ang moh tua kees) personally chose to consult Dr Munidasa Winslow, after Ravi fell out with his previous psychiatrist in 2012 .  M Ravi has also not disowned Dr Winslow’s diagnosis in February 2015 that he was in a “hypomaniac” phase of his bipolar disorder (A mental illness causing elevated moods and periods of depression that he was diagnosed with in 2006.)

Furthermore M Ravi has not challenged his suspension from practicising law. He is resting.

So if M Ravi is being treated by Dr Munidasa Winslow, how can one reasonably argue that Amos Yee is being fixed? The doctor trusted by M Ravi is the one saying Amos may be autistic. Unless of course, one asserts that M Ravi has been conned into consulting Dr Winslow?

Finally, here’s what the Novena Medical Centre website says about the good doctor

A/Prof. Muni Winslow MBBS, M.Med.(Psych), CMAC, CCS, FAMS

Munidasa Winslow has worked in general psychiatry and addiction medicine at the Institute of Mental Health since 1988. He was one of the pioneers responsible for the setting up and development of addiction services both in the hospital and in the community. His last appointment was as chief of the Addiction Medicine Department, IMH. He is recognised as an expert in addiction and impulse control disorders (alcohol, substance dependence, gambling, gaming, sexual compulsivity etc) in the Asia-Pacific region frequently speaking at conferences around the region. Despite being a fully qualified psychiatrist, he has taken the time and effort to maintain and develop his therapy/counselling skills as seen by his being accredited as a certified master addiction counsellor and a certified clinical supervisor. He has published and presented widely on both general psychological and addiction issues. He continues his academic and research interests through his academic appointments with Duke GMS and NUS and teaching in many medical and counselling courses. His passion is to help therapists develop and hone their skills to effect real change in those they seek to help.

http://www.novenamedicalcenter.com/our-doctors/dr-winslow-rasaiah-munidasa/

Update at 5.00am: Waz ASD?

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is characterized by:

  • Persistent deficits in social communication and social interaction across multiple contexts;
  • Restricted, repetitive patterns of behavior, interests, or activities;
  • Symptoms must be present in the early developmental period (typically recognized in the first two years of life); and,
  • Symptoms cause clinically significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of current functioning.

Even children with ASD who have relatively good language skills often have difficulties with the back and forth of conversations. For example, because they find it difficult to understand and react to social cues, some highly verbal children with ASD often talk at length about a favorite subject, but they won’t allow anyone else a chance to respond or notice when others react indifferently.

Children with ASD who have not yet developed meaningful gestures or language may simply scream or grab or otherwise act out until they are taught better ways to express their needs. As these children grow up, they can become aware of their difficulty in understanding others and in being understood. This awareness may cause them to become anxious or depressed.

More at http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/autism-spectrum-disorders-asd/index.shtml?utm_source=rss_readersutm_medium=rssutm_campaign=rss_full

Arkham awaits Amos?/ Autism isn’t mental illness BUT …

In Uncategorized on 23/06/2015 at 4:54 am

(Update at 1.30pm:

Amos has been remanded at the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) for two weeks pending a psychiatric report.

Before the State Courts on Tuesday (Jun 23), District Judge Jasvender Kaur said that a report by Dr Munidasa Winslow said that Yee may suffer from autism-spectrum disorder. This emerged from the reformative training suitability report, which found the accused physically and mentally suitable for reformative training.

CNA)

Later today, Amos may find out whether he’ll go to  to a Reformative Training Centre (RTC) for 18 months. In my NS days, former inmates of RTC had no fear of being sent to detention barracks: they had seen worse.

So RTC does seem rough for juz sliming Harry and Jesus?

But pls remember before sympathising with the “yaya papapaya” that is Amos, he had spat on the offer of probation that the state had preferred and which his lawyer and his doting mother Mary advised him to accept. And he has reposted the offending material, and posted nasty comments about the judge. And had earlier broken his bail conditions. He’s a one-man crime wave.

All these and the false allegation that his bailor had molested him and his flip floppng on an apology to the bailor, does make a tough sentence appropriate. He has sown the wind, and he shall reap the whirlwind.

Given that he has spent it seems 39 days in remand, only a long prison sentence will mean that he goes in and stays in for a while.

All in all 18 months in a RTC seems about right: keeps him out of mischief.

But people with political, anti-PAP agendas are refusing to see this and getting noisy, saying that he should not suffer the consequences of his misdeeds:

— s/o JBJ is KPKBing about Amo being a young political prisoner*.

— And the ang moh tua kees who poured out their anguish publicly but didn’t offer to stand bail are wailing in public again** despite Amos telling them what he tot of them forsaking him. He tot they were “horrible” (my word not his).

He is a special one because he slimed the Ninth Immottal and the 501dt Arhat?

DSC_0029 DSC_0106

But don’t be too surprised if he gets sent to the Institute of Mental Health (our very own Arkham***) for observation and possible treatment.

Remember that mother Mary says he has Asperger, a form of autism****, and SDP member and former ISD detainee Teo Soh Lung has said she has heard from Amos’s sympathisers that he is autistic.

While the UK’s Nation Health Service website says says that “autism is not a learning disability or a mental health problem”, it goes on to say that “some people with autism have an accompanying learning disability, learning difficulty or mental health problem”. http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Autism/Pages/Autismoverview.aspx

So if he gets sent to Woodbridge, remember you heard it here first.

———

*Wonder if there’ll be faeces on s/o JBJ’s face again? A few yrs ago when M Ravi was “maniac” and the Law Society was trying to get him to get treated, s/0 JBJ came out with a piece comparing M Ravi to Soviet dissidents who were classified by the state as “nuts”. When it turned out that M Ravi was really as sick as a parrot, s’o JBJ had to sit down and shut up.

**We note with alarm, a letter from Amos Yee’s lawyer stating that his client was recently placed on suicide watch while in remand. According to the letter, Amos was strapped down for one-and-a-half days, and kept in a room along with two other persons of unsound mind. He was also denied access to toilet facilities and had to relieve himself in a bottle next to his bed. It is unclear if Amos was given any counseling for harbouring suicidal thoughts.

CAN: Shelley Thio, Lynn Lee, Joshua Chiang, Jolovan Wham, Jennifer Teo, Woon Tien Wei, Rachel Zeng, Roy Ngerng and Martyn See.

Btw, they seem to think being in remand should be like in a Club Med holiday facility. He’s in prison, and is being treated like other inmates. Why should mother Mary’s child be treated better than other inmates? Because he slimed Harry?

https://atans1.wordpress.com/2015/06/15/fool-them-once-shame-on-amos-fool-them-twice-shame-on-them/

***For those who are wondering, the Elizabeth Arkham Asylum for the Criminally Insane,called Arkham Asylum or juz Arkham is where many of Batman’s opponents are locked up for treatment.

When he is released, willhe come out changed like McMurphy in “One flew over a cuckoo’s best”? https://atans1.wordpress.com/2015/06/02/amos-flew-over-the-cuckoos-nest/

****But then she says a lot of things: he’s ” fantastic”, “a liar” that always “tells the truth”. Maybe she too needs a visit to Arkham?

Fool them once, shame on Amos; fool them twice, shame on them

In Uncategorized on 15/06/2015 at 4:32 am

On Saturday TOC reported that his lawyer had written to the judge hearing his case saying that Amos claimed

the treatment that Yee was subject to that left him in “a state of depression and having severe suicidal thoughts” which was aggravated by his time spent in remand. He then told the prison officer that he was feeling suicidal.

“Regrettably, as a result of what Amos shared, Amos was taken to the prison medical facility and strapped to a bed in a medical facility for approximately one and a half days. This episode aggravated Amos’s suicidal thoughts. He was restrained with one of his hands and one of his legs strapped to the bed. Amos informed us that he could only sit up or lie down. He found it extremely difficult to urinate and defecate. He was expected to urinate into a jar at the side of the bed, which would be left there after he does so notwithstanding the pungent odors which would emanate. He had to bend down painfully against his straps in order to do so. In the said medical ward, Amos was surrounded by patients who were mentally unsound. One patient was constantly jerking against his chains and another one would talk to himself and be unresponsive to other people. Furthermore, the lights were never switched off throughout the day and was glaring into our client’s eyes such that he could hardly have any restful sleep.”*

http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2015/06/inappropriate-to-even-consider-rtc-for-amos-yee-teens-lawyer/

Almost immediately a group of the people who whined about his earlier treatment (but as Amos pointed did bugger all to help him) came out with

We note with alarm, a letter from Amos Yee’s lawyer stating that his client was recently placed on suicide watch while in remand. According to the letter, Amos was strapped down for one-and-a-half days, and kept in a room along with two other persons of unsound mind. He was also denied access to toilet facilities and had to relieve himself in a bottle next to his bed. It is unclear if Amos was given any counseling for harbouring suicidal thoughts.

CAN: Shelley Thio, Lynn Lee, Joshua Chiang, Jolovan Wham, Jennifer Teo, Woon Tien Wei, Rachel Zeng, Roy Ngerng and Martyn See. (Note that TOC’s Andrew Loh and Terry Xu, And Vincent Law didn’t sign this time round. Amos slimed TOC.)

http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2015/06/can-excessive-to-send-amos-to-a-reformative-training-centre/

And this on Facebook from one Nicole Ling

Some weeks ago, I told myself I’d refrain from making political posts and comments and I think I had pretty much adhered to that self-made agreement…well….until I received news about Amos Yee’s torture in prison. If the state wanna jail him, jail him. Be a man and accord a prisoner his own rights. If a prisoner reports he is unwell, feels depressed or suicidal, it is the prison’s responsibility and duty to provide the prisoner psychological support and counselling. You do not use brute force and physical torture on a someone without explanation. How does strapping Amos down, shining bright lights into his eyes all day, preventing him from movement, urination and defecation and humiliating him in every possible way remain helpful in rehabilitating a 16-year old boy?

You wanna charge the boy, go ahead but treat the prisoner fairly. Debate with him with logic and analysis. Challenge him intellectually with wit and reasons, but what you don’t do is resorting to physical torture because only cowards and bullies do that. So what’s all these torture and humiliation? What is the purpose of the torture? To break him down? To tear his spirits? To drive him to deeper suicidal thoughts? What do they really want? If a parent did the same thing to a child like what the prison did to Amos, would the parent be excused for merely “rehabilitating” the kid?

Err what if what he allges are still more lies?

Given that he lied about the allegation that his bailor, Vincent Law,molested him and flip floped on an apology to Vincent Law, I’m surprised that these good hearted, ang mog tua kee kay pohs dare trust him to tell the truth? Feeling guilty they talked cock, sing song while refusing to bail him. leaving him to rot in remand?

I mean even his doting mum says he’s a liar.

They had independent confirmation that he was “tortued”? I doubt it.

They’ll all look like a bigger bunch of fools than they already are if it turns out the allegations are untrue. Actually, no-one outside the remand system will know the truth. But given his track record of lying, the burden of proof is on him, not the system. All the authorities need to do is to deny the allegations and the majority of S’poreans will believe that he’s lying.

But their agenda, like that of the cybernuts who infest TRE, is to always slime the PAP in the hope that some mud will stick. They know, unlike the cybernuts, that 60-70% of S’poreans think they are irresponsible nuts.

Note that his lawyer did the right thing by his client and the legal profession in reporting Amos’s allegations to the judge. And I’m sure he didn’t leak the letter to TOC. Was it Mummy? She is so dotingly dumb that she can say her son a liar while in the next sentence says he tells the truth. I kid you not. She told that to Terry Xu. He posted the text conversation on his Facebook wall.

——-

*Mummy and Amos thinking that remand should be a restful place? Hey it’s Harry’s Law that rules, not Mary Toh’s indulgences.

Amos “flew over the cuckoo’s nest”

In Uncategorized on 02/06/2015 at 4:30 am

(Update at 11.45 am:  Amos Yee Pang was remanded for three weeks as a report is made to assess whether he is suitable to serve reformative training. He rejected the option of probation and a term in the Reformative Training Centre (RTC) as a sentence, sticking to his original plea for a jail term. Yaya papaya: Think law is Mummy’s law. It’s Harry’s Law. Hehehe

Defence lawyer Alfred Dodwell cautioned against the RTC sentencing, noting that it was out of proportion to the offence Yee is charged for. The DPP said the Amos’s actions in re-uploading an image and video, and the various postings he made on his Facebook page after he was found guilty of his charges, should be taken in consideration as an indication of his conduct and character. Yup couldn’t agree more.)

If the judge makes a decision to send him to a Reformatory Training Centre (as demanded by the persecutors prosecution) later today, Amos Yee will be remanded for up to four weeks for a report to be conducted on his suitability for an RTC sentence. The irony is that “One flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest”  did not feature in a recent blog post of his on the various films he liked. Hi should have given his situation. If he has not seen it, too bad for him as it is very relevant*. Maybe if he had seen it, he’d realise what he’s up against though I suspect he’d still have done what he did. But he’d have done so knowing what will happen to him. In the film an ex-army nurse Rached dominates a group of patients in a mental health institute. When new arrival McMurphy (played by Jack Nicholson in an Oscar winning performance) arrives he takes on Rached in a battle of wills and leads a rebellion of the inmates. Btw, he wasn’t nuts, he pretended to be nuts to escape going to prison. In the end, he is made into an imbecile by having part of his brain removed. Today drugs can control a person’s peronality: no need for surgery.

But then the tot crossed my mind that maybe Amos (if he saw the film) sees himself as McMurphy instigating a rebellion in the reform centre when he gets in, thinking that mummy wouldn’t let what happened to McMurphy happen to him.

Seriously, the state is demanding that Yee be send to a Reformatory Training Centre: “Reformative Training Centre is not jail,” the AGC insisted, saying that young offenders sentenced to such a programme have no contact with adult prison inmates. They may not have contact with adult prisioners, but I’ve heard that ex-RTC inmates are not afraid of being put into detention barracks when they do NS: they’ve experienced worse.

Yet another irony is that those sentenced to undergo the programme are detained for a minimum 18 months. The guy that slapped Amos should be out soon, if he’s not already out.

A further irony is that the four week detention for a report to be conducted on his suitability for an RTC sentence, if the judge makes a decision in favour of RTC, does not count against the 18 months. Mummy’s “fantastic” darling really stitched himself real good. Well he did compare himself to Nelson Mandela https://atans1.wordpress.com/2015/05/15/amos-intelligence-is-an-over-rated-trait-2/. Btw, Mandela was no mummy’s darling.

————————

 *Maybe Shelly Thio should share it with him. According to Roy, she gave him books to read when he was about to go into remand. Didn’t offer bail though. A friend in need is a friend in deed. She’s real a good hearted kay poh that believes ang mohs are tua kees.

We need protection from the Harassment Protection Act?

In Internet on 18/05/2015 at 4:14 am

I don’t know what were the PAP administration’s intentions when it passed the Protection From Harassment Act. But based on the reports of the constructive, nation-building media of the comments made by comments and commentaries by Judases journalists , I got the impression that the Act was meant to protect the ordinary S’porean who could not afford to sue for defamation. It was an “affordable” remedy for us mere mortals. not multi-millionaire ministers or govt agencies etc.

It was a shield.

The PAP administration’s public statements certainly did not suggest that it was meant to be added to the tool-kit of sledge hammers and power drills that the state, rich people and others could use to “suppress” criticism; something the usual human rights kay pohs said it would be used for.

Well the ang moh tua kee kays have been proven right. It is a sword, not a shield.

Mindef successfully applies under Protection From Harassment Act against Dr Ting, TOC

That it happened to TOC, the promoter and champion of irresponsible, bullying hooligans like Roy Ngerng, his side-kick New Citizen Han Hui Hui, and Amos Yee, Mummy’s Pet, is no consolation; though it might seem poetic justice of sorts.

And it could have been worse. A charge for making comments about the late Harry Lee that were likely to cause distress to people who saw the comments was dropped by the prosecution in Amos Yee’s case. The charge was earlier stood down. The charge was based on the above act. If anyone can defend himself, it’s certainly Harry.

Amos lacked this?/ Hope judge, activists do this

In Uncategorized on 12/05/2015 at 4:52 am

(Update at 6.00pm Amos Yee has been granted bail pending a suitability for probation report in 4 weeks. Bail is at $10,000 – TOC)

(Update at 4.30pm: Amos found guilty, wants to go to jail. The prosecution said the main sentencing consideration should be for rehabilitation and called for counselling and appropriate probation. Details at end of article.)

Today, the judge will deliver her verdict on Amos’s case.

If the judge finds him guilty, accepting the AGC’s arguments, I hope she will ask for a psychiatrist’s report before deciding on a suitable sentence*.

It’s usual to get the National Mental Institute to provide such a report. But maybe real civil society activists, people like P Ravi**, Lynn Lee, Richard Wan, and Terry Xu (Btw, Roy Ngerng, Andrew Loh and Teo Soh Lung, a SDP member, were attending the trial), will arrange funding for him to also see a private psychiatrist to assure themselves, and anti-PAP activists and their cybernut fellow travellers that Amos is not being “fixed” (or “fixed” if the diagnosis differs from the National Mental Institute) on medical grounds.

M Ravi’s psychiatrist would be a good choice because since he’s M Ravi’s personally chosen psychiatrist, even cybernuts accept that M Ravi has a mental health problem, and that the Law Society’s latest actions against M Ravi is not a “fix”. M Ravi had really gone “bananas”: he never did try to go to court to challenge the Law Soc’s suspension. The good news is that he’s recovering. I think he attended the real May Day at Hong Lim.

If he is autistic, this should come as no surprise not only to mainstream media readers but also to readers of Teo Soh Lung’s Facebook page. While the constructive, nation-building media speculated on his possible autism, Ms Teo wrote on her Facebook page that she was told he was autistic.

Let’s be serious, maybe the real root of Amos’s problem is that Amos never had a dog to pet or a rabbit to  cuddle? [T]he research shows that children facing emotional difficulties, such as “bereavement, divorce, instability and illness” place a particular importance on their pets.

http://www.bbc.com/news/education-32608771

Maybe the Pet minister can arrange for him to have a suitable pet dog? Err tunour has it that a certain FT MP’s “Blackie” is not happy. Maybe Amos would give it the TLC that this FT MP is allegedly not giving the dog, who ran way a few years ago when the FT MP adopted him.

Wants to be a martyr

Amos Yee Pang was found guilty and convicted of two charges for making offensive or wounding remarks against Christianity and another for circulating obscene imagery.

CNA reports

He had pleaded not guilty to both charges on May 7. No witness took the stand during the trial. Defence lawyer Alfred Dodwell said that Yee’s police statement is sufficient in explaining Yee’s stance. A third charge, for the 16-year-old’s statements on the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew in a YouTube video, was withdrawn.

In the plea for sentencing Yee’s lawyer Alfred Dodwell said the teen does not want to be considered for probation and wanted to be sentenced according to a jail term. The prosecution said the main sentencing consideration should be for rehabilitation and called for counselling and appropriate probation. 

The defence called for a fine or two weeks’ jail with the jail term taking into consideration the time that Yee had already spent in remand. Mr Dodwell said Yee has spent close to 18 days in remand.

*Whether a person is or is not guilty is for the courts and what the punishment should be, is also for the courts. But we have amended the law quite substantially to allow the courts a range of options in these matters,” Mr Shanmugam, the Pet minister, said.

**Yes, yes, I know he is a member of the Chiams’ party, but he’s a fair-minded guy even after he was named in parly by Yaacob for spreading a rumour.

Why stone throwers shouldn’t live in glass houses

In Uncategorized on 11/05/2015 at 3:17 am

(Or “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.”)

Given that the LGBT militants have called for the community and fellow travellers to boycott IKEA, and Pink Dot, has in Orwellian double-talk voiced its support of such a boycott, surely pastor Khong, the polo-playing magician, can call for like-minded-Christians, and Muslims to boycott BP patrol stations and Cathay cinemas?

Ufse Bing, not Google? Use Reuters, not Bloomberg? Throw away Twitter.

And for rich Christians and Muslims and influential Christians and Muslims to ensure that no business they control or influence is done with BP, Barclays, JP Morgan, Goldman The Gunnery (a media production business).

Doubtless if this happens, the LGBT community with be screaming “discrimination”, “bullying” and “intimidation”?

They don’t agree that what is sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander meh?

Two can play the boycott game.

image

Here’s something constructive for the LGBTs to think about in promoting acceptance of their way of life here: money talks. The serious money, S’poreans can make if 377A is aboloished and gay civil marriages allowed.

In Australia, at least 18,000 same-sex couples are waiting for the law to change to allow them to get married, according to the University of Queensland.

If, and when, their big day comes, it could be an expensive business covering the cost of hotels, caterers, photographers and florists, not to mention clothes, rings and a honeymoon.

Campaigners estimate that the average Australian wedding has a price tag of around 35,000 Australian dollars ($27,000; £18,000).

“The world’s expert body on the economic impact of marriage equality, the Williams Institute at UCLA, says the most conservative estimate for the [potential] wedding spend of Australian same-sex couples is A$161m,” says Rodney Croome, the national director of Australian Marriage Equality.

“It could be as high as A$600m.

“On top of this, Australia’s failure to achieve marriage equality is a competitive disadvantage when it comes to attracting those skilled migrants and investors for whom non-discriminatory laws are important.”

Two years ago, New Zealand became the first country in the Asia-Pacific region to legalise same-sex marriages, and the architects of change believe it has had a transformative effect.

“I know that popular wedding destinations like Queenstown and Rotorua have had a real boom time with same-sex couples from Australia coming over the get married here.”

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-32655943

Rather than raping S’poreans to accept their way of life, how about seducing S’poreans thru’ their wallets and purses?

Amos: Misled or misunderstood the law?

In Internet, Uncategorized on 07/05/2015 at 4:39 am

Today, Amos will stand trial and if he’s going to base his defence on his “right” of free speech, he should think again given that yesterday, a high court judge dismissed his application that the bail conditions, which forbid him from uploading or distributing any content online until his case has concluded, amounted to a gag order*.

It seems he believes in a constitutional right to suka suka say what he likes: Yee was remanded after the pre-trial conference, as he refused to set his blog posts to private. He had earlier flouted bail conditions by publishing two posts on his blog. His lawyer Alfred Dodwell said the teen feels very strongly that he has not done anything wrong with his posts.

“The Constitution does provide for a person to have the freedom of speech and expression, hence he feels very strongly that he is just doing that,” said Mr Dodwell**. (CNA last Friday).

Well M Ravi, Maruah and all the other ang moh tua kee kay pohs will be cheering Amos on (There’s a soccer match going on, the poor boy [Amos] is the ball, and the crowd watches in morbid fascination as the own-goals pile up on both sides. The new normal way to win, wrote a perceptive reader of this article https://atans1.wordpress.com/2015/04/21/amos-parents-finally-got-it-walk-the-talk-amoss-groupies/#comments).

Sadly for Amos, the constitution is pretty clear on the limits on free speech here.

(2)  Parliament may by law impose —

(a)
on the rights conferred by clause (1)(a), such restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof, friendly relations with other countries, public order or morality and restrictions designed to protect the privileges of Parliament or to provide against contempt of court, defamation or incitement to any offence;***
Pretty clear ain’t it. There are a lot of exceptions to freedom of speech here. The bolded words mean, and the courts have said so too, that it’s very easy to limit free speech here: just pass a law thru parly.
So where did this boy get the idea that in S’pore we have the kind of freedom of speech that people in the US and PinoyLand have? We don’t. There is the right of free speech but only in very limited circumstances. And S’poreans seem happy with the situation. Since the 1960s, S’pore has been a de-facto one-party state: the PAP wins general elections with majorities of over 60%, often a lot more.
Here’s something that Amos should read https://atans1.wordpress.com/2015/01/19/will-m-ravis-barrage-of-constitutional-challenges-change-anything/
(Related post: https://atans1.wordpress.com/2014/11/03/m-ravis-grandfathers-parliament-is-it/)
So where did this boy get the idea that in S’pore we have the kind of freedom of speech that people in the US and PinoyLand have? Whether he was misled on or misunderstood the law on freedom of speech here, Amos’s failure to understand the law relating to free speech here shows the power of cyberspace: he like many young people is a cybernaut.
Mr Cheong Yip Seng (LKY’s favourite newsman, ex-ST chief editor) told us of an incident which showed that LKY was aware of the impact of new media. One November evening in 1999, Mr Lee telephoned Mr Cheong. He was troubled by a new information phenomenon, which was threatening to overwhelm the traditional media industry: eyeballs were migrating from print newspapers to cyberspace. Mr Cheong said that LKY was anxious about how the information revolution would impact the Singapore traditional media.

“He was anxious to find a response that would enable the mainstream media to keep its eyeballs. He wanted us at Singapore Press Holdings to think about the way forward.”

Well SPH, and the rest of constructive, nation-building media didn’t do what they were ordered to, did they? That despite throwing serious money and other resources at the problem.

Cybernauts. do not think the “right” tots.

For society the problem is that in cyberspace, anything goes. There is plenty of misleading information and lies out there from the likes of Roy Ngerng and Ng Kok Lim. And there is the bigotry of lazy abstraction, when commenting: “PAP always wrong”. (Mind you this does balance the “PAP is always right” of the SPH and MediaCorp publications, channels and stations.)

Then there is the issue of only listening to others who share one’s views and values, rather than being exposed to different views. Again the SPH and MediaCorp publications, channels and stations do the same, to be fair to cyberspace.

————————————-
*“We have informed the court from the outset that the bail conditions are too wide and in violation of his constitutional rights to freedom of speech and expression,” Mr Alfred Dodwell, Amos Yee’s lawyer, said.“How can one place a gag order when he has not even been found guilty? So we had to challenge it.”(TOC)
ST reported: Mr Dodwell said that being on social media was “the equivalent of him drinking water” and the conditions were “taking away a lot from him.”

During the hearing, Justice Tay Yong Kwang asked Mr Dodwell what was so difficult about complying with these social media conditions. “They just have to learn to curb themselves,” he said.

– See more at: http://www.straitstimes.com/news/singapore/courts-crime/story/amos-yees-mother-took-his-son-see-psychiatrist-he-stopped-after-tw#sthash.kAzMyQfJ.dpuf

**“We always advise our clients to comply with all conditions, until otherwise revoked,” he continued. “But if a client chooses not to comply, we don’t father the client, we just tell the client what to do, and if the client refuses to do so, we do ask why but we don’t probe further than that. They face the consequences of that action.”
***Freedom of speech, assembly and association

14.

—(1)  Subject to clauses (2) and (3) —

(a)
every citizen of Singapore has the right to freedom of speech and expression;
(b)
all citizens of Singapore have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms; and
(c)
all citizens of Singapore have the right to form associations.
(2)  Parliament may by law impose —

(a)
on the rights conferred by clause (1)(a), such restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof, friendly relations with other countries, public order or morality and restrictions designed to protect the privileges of Parliament or to provide against contempt of court, defamation or incitement to any offence;
(b)
on the right conferred by clause (1)(b), such restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof or public order; and
(c)
on the right conferred by clause (1)(c), such restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof, public order or morality.
(3)  Restrictions on the right to form associations conferred by clause (1) (c) may also be imposed by any law relating to labour or education.

Pink Dot, LGBT militants score own goal

In Uncategorized on 06/05/2015 at 4:52 am

(There’s a soccer match going on, the poor boy [Amos] is the ball, and the crowd watches in morbid fascination as the own-goals pile up on both sides. The new normal way to win, wrote a perceptive reader of this article https://atans1.wordpress.com/2015/04/21/amos-parents-finally-got-it-walk-the-talk-amoss-groupies/#comments)

If it’s one thing I admired about the Pink Dot movement, it is its successful attempt to show that S’poreans that LGBTs (esp gays) are just ordinary S’poreans: their sexual tastes are juz different loh.

Well I think the Taliban Christians (like the polo playing pastor Khong who had a daughter who had a child out of wedlock) will rejoice because Pink Dot has shown that it has a darker, sinister side when it came out swinging against IKEA while pretending it was doing no such thing. (At the end of this piece is what it said on the Khong, IKEA issue*.)

It came out in support of more militant LBGTs who are upset with IKEA. Worse it does so in Orwellian double talk. While saying it respects diversity of opinion, it says that IKEA should not have hire the pastor for a magic show (the militants are demanding that he no longer be hired, and are threatening IKEA with a boycott if it doesn’t repent) and goes on to imply that the LGBTs have a major problem with IKEA because of this difference of opinion.

I’ll quote what someone in a Facebook group I belong to wrote because he sums up what I feel:

 Very weird. If pink dot respects diversity of opinion, then why does it still think that ikea should not hire the pastor for a magic show?

I think that some people can’t get it in their head that ikea is only buying a magic show and that the seller’s religious, political and sexual views do not enter into the equation at all.

Just because I buy palm oil products does not mean I agree with companies burning forests in Indonesia to clear land. Nor am I obliged to stop purchase because you don’t like it.

And

Also note that ikea is Not sponsoring anything. I don’t sponsor Toyota when I buy a car from them. It’s purely a commercial transaction. I do not associate myself with Toyota’s beliefs, philosophies or principles just because I happen to buy a car from them.

Same for ikea and the pastor. Same for Muslim food. Just because I eat at a Muslim stall does not mean I agree with the religion. All it means is I think the food is good.

Gays will do well to remember this, especially if they want to sample Muslim food, because islam’s stand on homosexuality is quite clear.

Pink dot should remember that one not read too much into everything. It is not like what George Bush said– that you are either with us or you are against us– when he addressed the world after Sep 11. Just because your straight friends go to a magic show by the pastor does not mean they have turned against you.

I’d add three tots to the above: 377A is still the law of the land, yet Pink Dot and the LGBT community already think that they can dictate to us what we can think and do: they think they like PAP administration isit?

Imagine if 377A is abolished, would the gays then demand this:  legal action against a Christian-run bakery firm over its refusal to bake a cake with a pro-gay marriage slogan. Sounds far fetched? Well wanting IKEA to drop a magic show because the performer has some really rabid, nasty views about gays, I think reasonable people can assume that this too will come here.

(Actually, I was sympathetic to the abolition of 377A   https://atans1.wordpress.com/2014/11/03/male-gays-here-on-permanent-parole/ but I’m beginning to have my doubts, seeing the way the LGBT community is behaving.)

Whatever it is, those ang moh tua kees in the LGBT movement here that are demanding a special position for the gays have to realise that there are 12-15% of S’poreans whose religion says homosexuality is morally wrong. (Dozens of countries call themselves Islamic and derive their laws, in whole or part, from Islamic religious law, ban homosexuality.)

So abolish Islam isit here?

Like it or not, S’pore is not like the West, where its two major religions, Christianity and secularism, have made their peace with LGBT rights, and where the next fight is human rights for chimps.

Thirdly, Pink Dot has some regular corporate sponsors. Taliban Christians with serious money can decide not to use JP Morgan following the logic and thnking of Pink Dot and the militants.

I’ll end with a lawyer’s tots on Facebook that chime with my views too.

The campaign against Ikea’s support for Lawrence Khong’s magic show is problematic on a few levels, at least as I see it.

The protesters have asked IKEA to withdraw its support for the magic show so as to to maintain its secularity in choosing whom they should support in order to be sensitive to the LGBT communities, and the other Ikea patrons.

Going by this logic, the minorities for example, can ask there to be no Getai performances during the 7th month just because it could be insensitive to them.

I am not sure if the Pastor’s main source of income is from the magic shows, if so, is the protest aimed at adversely affecting his livelihood, just because he does not believe in diversity? [My comment: Nope magic shows are his hobby]

More importantly, where does this end? For example, will the protesters picket his favourite restaurant, asking it not to serve him just because he patronises it often? 

When the other side starts boycotting LGBTs and their allies, LGBT community and friends don’t Cry Mother Cry Father. You want to boycott, other side can too.

I think IKEA came to the correct and principled conclusion.

The point ,,, is that the magic show offered good entertainment AND had nothing to do with the promoting an anti-gay issue at all.

I don’t share LK’s views on sexuality, e.g. I don’t support Section 377A but nor do I agree with the calls by the LGBT lobby to recognize gay marriage or to have IKEA Singapore withdraw the discount offered for LK’s show.

In the end, IKEA Singapore chose to respect the diversity of views of people in Singapore – and I support this approach …

—————————-

*Important to respect variety in viewpoints and perceptions

PAERIN CHOA, SPOKESPERSON, PINK DOT SG

PUBLISHED: 4:17 AM, APRIL 28, 2015

IKEA’s ongoing support of controversial religious figure Lawrence Khong’s magic show has stirred deep-seated emotions among Singaporeans, in particular among the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) community.

On the surface, this is understandable. Mr Khong is well known for his vehemently anti-LGBT stance; any organisation choosing to partner him, therefore, gets associated with this anti-LGBT viewpoint.

This is at odds with the fact that IKEA is well known worldwide for championing cultural diversity.

The brand enjoys strong support from LGBT communities the world over, so its decision to continue promoting the show is seen as a form of betrayal.

Drill deeper and the situation becomes significantly more complicated. Leading academics, commentators and activists — and not a small number of lay people — have weighed in with their own opinions.

Some called IKEA hypocritical, others laud the company for sticking to its guns.

Some call this issue an infringement of its diversity policies, others say the exact opposite.

Who is right?

As a movement that supports the freedom to love, regardless of race, language, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity, Pink Dot is disappointed at IKEA’s decision to continue promoting Mr Khong’s show.

Mr Khong’s denunciations of same-sex relationships and LGBT people in general are well documented and not worth repeating. As customers — some very loyal ones at that — the displeasure is perhaps justified.

However, as a movement that also advocates inclusivity and celebrates diversity, Pink Dot also recognises the importance of respecting variety in viewpoints and perceptions, even those that run counter to our own.

It has never been in Pink Dot’s DNA to respond in tit-for-tat fashion because we recognise that a diversity of opinions is part and parcel of a truly pluralistic society.

Dr William Wan from the Singapore Kindness Movement raised an important point recently: “When emotions get the better of us, we lose the sensibility to know where to draw the line.”

It is all right to be angry. But let us channel our energies instead to better engage companies such as IKEA, instead of turning away from them. It is important to keep the conversation and dialogue going.

As customers, we have every right to voice our displeasure — respectfully — but let us not cut off the relationship altogether or risk becoming the mirror image of the very people denouncing other LGBT-affirmative firms with their brand of intolerance.

IKEA had made a business decision and, for better or worse, they will have to live with it, and justify it to its stakeholders.

Will that negate all the goodwill it has painstakingly built with the LGBT community? Only time will tell.

At the end of the day, what are we truly fighting for?

We do not think it is a Singapore in which every difference of opinion is met with heavy-handed belligerence and raised pitchforks.

Rather, we see it as one in which we face our challenges with stoic dignity and measured actions, always with an eye on the bigger picture — to build a Singapore that is emotionally strong, gracious, kind and loving.

 

 

Amos: Even dumber comments / Parental Responsibility

In Uncategorized on 03/05/2015 at 5:25 pm

Tomorrow, Monday, Amos will again appear in court.

Here I said that Amos had changed for the better before his last court appearance. Well I looked like a real cock when he ended up in remand again. At least he was decently dressed and wasn’t eating a banana when he entered court. But while not playing up to the gallery, he was quietly stubborn, hence the remand. He refused to set his blog posts to private. He had earlier broken bail conditions by publishing two posts on his blog.

So I’m glad to report that there are even dumber comments than mine, coming from the usual heroes of the anti-PAP cybernuts:

KJ TeamRP

This is disgraceful. This is nothing less than state-sponsored violence against a child for saying considerably less than Lee Kuan Yew got away with. Edit:I say this is state-sponsored because the media is Government-owned and controlled and the Government and its leaders have failed to take steps to protect Amos Yee. By their silence they have encouraged their supporters to take the law into their own hands. If anything happens to Amos, his blood is on Lee Hsien Loong’s hands.

Can he provide evidence that the state “sponsored” the one tight slap? But then this is the guy who when M Ravi went “bananas” a few yrs back, drew parallels with the Soviet Union’s labeling of dissidents as “insane”. Sorry can’t find the link to that great own goal by s/o JBJ.

From a Do-Gooder who doean’t want drug mules hanged

I’ve always felt that Amos Yee is unsafe in Singapore. Cyber terrorism against this boy has escalated to physical street violence. Truly, I’m beginning to worry about his safety and wouldn’t be surprised if this boy dies from an assault one day. For his own safety, Amos should obtain a scholarship from a university in the U.S. and live there as an American citizen. He would flourish in a western country who celebrates and welcomes his intelligence, uniqueness and individuality.

If he goes West, he might get killed by someone who takes exception to his antics. And gd US unis don’t suka suka give scholarships to kids who misbahave. Dime a dozen in the ghettos. Real stupid ang moh tua kee this lady.

Shelley Thio, Rachel Zeng, Jennifer Teo, Woon Tien Wei, Terry Xu, Roy Ngerng, Martyn See, Jolovan Wham, Lynn Lee, Kirsten Han, Vincent Law

“Given the rhetoric against Yee, and the numerous threats to his safety, he should have been “committed to a place of safety or a place of temporary care and protection” under the Children and Young Persons Act. Instead, he is now back in remand, over his failure to abide by his bail conditions.

CAN believes that the conditions imposed on Yee are unnecessarily onerous. Apart from having to report to his Investigating Officer every day, he is also barred from posting anything online. This curtailment of Yee’s right to express himself doesn’t just infringe on his constitutional rights as a citizen, it is also disproportionate to the charges he is currently facing.”

The Community Action Network’s statement on Amos Yee’s charges and the assault on Amos Yee outside of state court On Thursday. None of whom bothered to stand bail on Friday. At least two of them were in court.

Scared to lose their money? Mr Law (the previous bailor) may forfeit S$20,000. This will depend on the outcome of a separate hearing.

Andrew Loh

Now, has anyone asked if Amos Yee has received medical attention for his injuries? 

Going by photo he placed in article asking the above: Injuries? What injuries? As a former prop who played for school and SAF, I’ve come out of rugger matches looking a lot worse than this.Amos Yee, with bruised eye

MARUAH

MARUAH strongly condemns this act of violence and intimidation. This is not the way a mature and civilised society deals with opinions and opinion-makers.

One guy slaps this boy and whole S’pore society gets blamed? WTF?

A very sensible retort to the above BS:  especially the last three

does he deserve to be beaten in public? no. does he deserve to be given one tight slap? yes.

(Facebook)

I’ll be serious. Bertha Henson (aka retired Imperial Stormtroop general, paper division, and wannabe Seth Lord) got a lot of unfair flack because of the” vicarious pleasure” she got in seeing Amos getting slapped.

She could and should have explained it better; what having been a senior spin doctor for Harry and the PAP.

Self and many others were appalled that the parents didn’t slap or cane him for his boorish behaviour. Seeing him getting slapped, albeit in breach of the law, made us feel that moral justice was done. I think Ms Henson felt the same.

Finally, I emailed the following to someone above in CAN who I respect because he believes in fighting injustice, and tries to do something, not juz talk about it. Never got a reply.

If you guys were not so anti-PAP administration, you should be asking why parents don’t ask for him to be examined by Mental Health Institute. I suspect they scared if he found to have mental health problem.
 
At his age the law assumes that parents have the primary responsibility and it defers to them. Doubtless this doesn’t suit the agenda of some people. LOL.
 
Roy was there on Friday, why no offer bail. Talk is cheap, very cheap.  

Amos: A changed boy/ Why M Ravi went “bananas”/ Misreped again and again

In Uncategorized on 30/04/2015 at 5:24 am

Update at 5.30 am 1 May: Not bailed: in remand until Monday https://atans1.wordpress.com/2015/04/30/amos-in-remand-again/

(Update at 2.40pm: What can I say? I forgot to check his Facebook page, website before I posted LOL this morning. Let’s hope he doesn’t go to court earting a banana. I’d be a right Charlie ((((((.)

(Update at 4.55pm: Phew he wasn’t eating a banana and was dressed in smart casual. 

And no, I’m not the guy in red who slapped him. Bet you the ang moh tua kees and their cybernut allies will be screaming that he should have had police protection. And that it was all a plot to intimidate him.)

(Update at 5.20pm: Yup, political figures are suggesting that it’s a disgrace it happened outside court. Thinking about it, maybe he needs to be in remand until his trial because his life is in danger?)

Amos Yee will appear in court today for a pre-trial conference.

I’ve been told, he’ll no longer be a ya ya papaya eating a banana to show that he doesn’t give a hoot about the law. And no, my source is not my Morocco Mole who once told me that WP would support the PAP’s immigration white paper. https://atans1.wordpress.com/2013/02/04/wp-will-vote-for-the-white-paper-moley/ 

Seems his parents gamble in refusing to bail him paid-off. His spell in remand has sobered him up considerably.

I also understand that his lawyers will be asking for a postponement of the trial because they want to make representations to the AGC along the lines that he has repented (an apology is being drafted) and that the time spent in remand (four nights and three days) is more than sufficient punishment as a consequence.

Hopefully a fair and reasonable deal can be struck so that the only fruscos will be those ang moh tua kees and their anti-PAP cybernut allies who want him to be martyred for the anti-PAP cause; and those who want him hanged or caned for insulting Harry. All three groups are equally deserving of the scorn of reasonable people.

Though given his past behaviour (before remand to be fair), he could prove today that I’m talking cock about a changed boy. He may decide to revert to a ya ya papaya to secure the approval of the mob, and stick a finger into his parents’, bailor’s and lawyers’ eyes.

But if he remains quai chye, those who saw him as a human rights poster boy because he insulted the memory of one Harry Lee will spin a different tale.

Humans right activist, ISD detainee and 2011 SDP MP candidate wrote on her FB on 23 April : And at the pre trial conference last Friday, he was also handcuffed and led out of Court No. 17 into the holding area for alleged adult offenders. I am told he looked terrified.

So poor Amos spent several days among alleged adult offenders. I am told he is banging the wall and going crazy. He is apparently autistic.

Well going by the way he behaved when he was finally bailed last Tueday, by a Christian, not by a human rights wimp activist or an anti-PAP activist, it doesn’t look as though he was “nuts”or terrified. Here’s him waving.Image result for amos yee + pre-trial conference

Btw, it seems one Ng Kok Lim cannot help but misrepresent me. In his second latest BS* on TRE he claimed I sympathised with Amos Yee, quoting me out of context, and saying I too didn’t help Amos. He conveniently left out the link I put in the article he selective choses quotes from: that he should be caned. Err that sympathy? But then that point disturbs the narrative of the misrepresentation,

*In his latest piece, he shows that he read a lot of my pieces, yet quotes and misrepresents me, Chin Peng and the Plen extensively. (He makes Roy look like a paragon of truth on CPF when it’s a fact that Roy admitted that he lied about PM stealing our CPF**. M Ravi had a problem explaining to the court hearing the case why this admission shouldn’t be taken into account by the judge.)

Yet Ng cannot point to anything I wrote  over the years that called certain leftists “communists” as he alleged when he screamed: CI is making the same unqualified smearing of the Lefitsts by the PAP by labeling them as communists like those in Cuba and so on. Where is CI’s proof that the leftists were actually communists? https://atans1.wordpress.com/2015/04/02/seek-truth-from-facts-tre-commentators-dont-misrepresent-me/

I ask him again: Where did I ever call the Coldstore detainees “communists”?

Ng may have wished I called some leftists “communists”, but where’s the proof?

**https://atans1.wordpress.com/2014/08/06/roys-defence-has-me-confused/ Since then I’ve been told that one of the reasons why M Ravi went “bananas” and had to stop practising law, was Roy’s refusal to listen to his advice.

Amos: Talk is cheap, very cheap/ Harry really needs no monument

In Uncategorized on 22/04/2015 at 4:53 am

Over the weekend, a Facebook post* bemoaning the charges against Amos Yee and his remand had many “Likes”, sympathetic comments,  and a few shares. It ended:  And the rest of us? The rest of us should play happily and gratefully in the corner we’ve so conscientiously painted ourselves into. The rest of must remember never to participate in the dangerous act of boundary-crossing. A 16-year-old did, and he is now being treated like a criminal – because jailing a child makes Singapore a much better place.

Looks like the writer and those who shared her sentiments really decided to  play happily and gratefully in the corner we’ve so conscientiously painted ourselves into. The rest of must remember never to participate in the dangerous act of boundary-crossing.

No-one came forward to post bail on Monday and it was only on late Tuesday (at 6.00 pm) that  family counsellor Vincent Law posted bail for him. 

Mr Law said that he came forward to post the S$20,000 bail as he is a Christian, and wanted to show he was not offended by Yee’s posts. “It seems the charges say he made disparaging remarks about Christianity. I’m a Christian and I’m stepping up to say I’m not offended,” he said, adding that he, too, is a parent.

The 51-year-old, who is not related to the Yee family, hopes that Yee will also be willing to be counselled by him, and that he may respond better to a third party. (CNA)

Three cheers for him, even though Amos Yee’s parents would it seems have preferred to have kept him in remand by refusing to bail him.

Three cheers too for Alfred Dodwell, Chong Jia Hao from Dodwell & Co LLC, and Ervin Tan from Michael Hwang Chambers LLC told the court they would be acting for Yee pro bono.(CNA)

They too cared.

And jeers and sneers for those who claim to support, sympathise Amos Yee but who stood aside. The absence of the anti-PAP cybernuts who pollute the comments section of TRE is not surprising. They after all are unwilling to fund TRE.

But where were the ang moh tua kee human rights activists like Kirsten Han (she wrote an eloquent, sympathetic piece on him in Yahoo) and the lady who so eloquently blogged on Amos? They left him to rot in jail, while they eloquently proclaimed his right (duty?) to slime one Harry Lee Kuan Yew, and hurt the feelings of 20-odd S’poreans? Seems, he’s a flag or mascot, not a human being to these ang moh tua kees.

My serious point is that these ang moh tua kee “activists” cannot be taken seriously. They are notprepared to walk the walk, just talk the walk.

LKY needs no monument. So long as these people are around, Harry will be remembered. He had contempt for them, and rightly so.

I hope Amos Yee will reflect on the kind of supporters he has. With friends like cybernuts and ang moh tua kee “activists”, he doesn’t need enemies.

I hope he apologises for his actions and agrees to be counselled. And I hope the AGC drops the charges in return. Let’s remember, he has spent four nights in jail.

Related post: https://atans1.wordpress.com/2015/04/21/amos-parents-finally-got-it-walk-the-talk-amoss-groupies/

————————

*A 16-year-old is spending the weekend in prison because of a YouTube video. His parents have decided not to post bail. It’s likely they’re holding back for fear the boy might breach some very onerous conditions imposed by the court. I imagine it must be stressful to have a child who insists on pushing boundaries – pushing hard despite knowing full well that doing so might mean serious trouble. The boy’s parents must be under immense pressure***.

But what boundaries did this kid breach? He insulted a dead politician. He made fun of a religious figure. He was rude. He was arrogant. He was “dumb” not to back down. And when authorities hauled him off to court, he smiled and ate a banana. How dare he? This boy, this attention-seeking child who won’t play by the rules we’ve all been conditioned to follow.

Twenty-one people thought it was their duty as upstanding citizens to report the boy for his behavior. The fabric of our society is apparently so fragile, so poorly woven together, one YouTube video is all it takes to tear us apart.

No one seems to be asking why we think so little of this fabric. Why are we not made of stronger stuff?

Even before the boy was arrested, one man openly fantasized about castrating the child and stuffing his private parts into his mouth. Online, other people said he should be put in prison, whipped, whacked, exiled. When the police came for him, a collective squeal of glee erupted across the Internet. Adults celebrated. They knew this would happen. It served him right. The kid, apparently, had it coming. He was fully aware that he’d crossed some invisible line, but he was not repentant. Even worse, he appeared to relish the limelight.

But was the line was in the right place, or even necessary to begin with?

And now, the boy is spending the weekend in prison. Police handcuffed him when they led him out of court. He is to be tried as an adult.

Twenty-one Singaporeans can congratulate themselves for defending the nation against a 16-year-old. For safeguarding the boundaries. For being offended enough, concerned enough, patriotic enough to set the police on a child.

And the rest of us? The rest of us should play happily and gratefully in the corner we’ve so conscientiously painted ourselves into. The rest of must remember never to participate in the dangerous act of boundary-crossing. A 16-year-old did, and he is now being treated like a criminal – because jailing a child makes Singapore a much better place.

Remember the person behind this angst is a groupie of convicted drug mule groupies, loving them to distraction. And despite her angst and those of her Facebook friends over Amos’s plight, why didn’t they post bail? Talk is cheap, walk the talk. But then money talks, BS walks.

Amos: Parents finally got it?/ Walk the talk, Amos’s groupies

In Uncategorized on 21/04/2015 at 3:49 am

A lot has been BSed about Amos Yee (Below* is something I came across on Facebook by someone who believes that convicted drug mules should not only not be hanged, and not caned, but be put up in five-star hotel suites and given food from Tung Loke daily.).

Me? I think it’s wrong that he is charged under the Protection from Harassment Act. He should not be charged under any law for his bad, loitish but non-violent behaviour. But sadly in today’s environment, using the law is the only way society can show its outrage at breaches of accepted norms of behaviour.

In the bad old days when Harry’s Law was the law, Amos’s dad would cane him six times and then say, “I’ve punished my son for his bad behaviour. Sorry leh for offence caused.”

We’d all move on. Boy got what he deserved, no damage done to his long term prospects.

Today Maruah, AWARE, Mad Dog Chee, Cherian George**  and all the other good-heatred but misguided ang moh tua kee kay pohs  would be yelling for the father to be jailed.

And if he didn’t cane his son, the police would pay him a visit and suggest that he did so. If he demurred, they’d offer to do it for him. If he further demurred, they’d take father and son in for questioning. If a spell in custody, didn’t soften up dad’s reluctance to allow his son to be caned, then there would be an accident involving the boy.

He’d get a black eye or two or a broken arm: accident leh, slipped on a bar of soap.

There would be be nods and winks, and we’d move on.

Well it seems that Amos Yee’s parents have hit on a variation of caning Amos or allowing him to be caned: they refused to cough up bail, allowing him to remain behind bars over the weekend and on Monday. No one has yet come forward to bail him out.

A bail review will be held later today at 4 pm while the next pre-trial conference has been scheduled for 13th May at 4 pm.

Err where are his friends like Roy, TOC? Not posting bail for him? Talk is cheap. Walk the talk, post bail. AGC was so kind as to ask the court to allow anyone to post bail for Amos, not just his parents. Yet no-one has yet come forward to bail him out. Certainly not the ang moh tua kee human rights activists like Kirsten Han (wrote a piece on him in Yahoo). They leaving him to rot in jail, while they proclaim his right (duty?) to slime one Harry Lee Kuan Yew, and hurt the feelings of 20-odd S’poreans? Seems, he’s a flag, not a human being to these ang moh tua kees.

I hope thar if he comes out of remand, a more sober person, apologises for his behaviour and promises to behave himself in future, the authorities should drop the charges.

My serious point, is that society has to come up with modern variants of parents using or authorising corporal punishment. Using the majesty of the law for bad, loutish but non-violent behaviour by minors, demeans the law. But excusing Amos Yee’s behaviour as merely “boundary-crossing” (see below*) is equally unacceptable. But then what would expect of a drug mule groupie who thinks that convicted drug mules deserve the good life: air-cobn cells, no caning, Crystal Jade food.

Society’s anger at its rules being broken should be allowed to manifest itself without affecting the boy’s future too much. The issue is how without invoking the law and without vigilantism.

Maybe “six of the best” administered or sanctioned by the parents should be politically correct once more? Btw, LKY was a fan of “six of the best”. A friend who had the dubious honour of sitting beside LKY at two lunches (overseas) said that at one of them LKY was talking of lining up journalists against the wall and giving them “six of the best”.

But let’s end with three cheers for the parents: they are punishing Amos Yee in the right way.

—-

*A 16-year-old is spending the weekend in prison because of a YouTube video. His parents have decided not to post bail. It’s likely they’re holding back for fear the boy might breach some very onerous conditions imposed by the court. I imagine it must be stressful to have a child who insists on pushing boundaries – pushing hard despite knowing full well that doing so might mean serious trouble. The boy’s parents must be under immense pressure***.

But what boundaries did this kid breach? He insulted a dead politician. He made fun of a religious figure. He was rude. He was arrogant. He was “dumb” not to back down. And when authorities hauled him off to court, he smiled and ate a banana. How dare he? This boy, this attention-seeking child who won’t play by the rules we’ve all been conditioned to follow.

Twenty-one people thought it was their duty as upstanding citizens to report the boy for his behavior. The fabric of our society is apparently so fragile, so poorly woven together, one YouTube video is all it takes to tear us apart.

No one seems to be asking why we think so little of this fabric. Why are we not made of stronger stuff?

Even before the boy was arrested, one man openly fantasized about castrating the child and stuffing his private parts into his mouth. Online, other people said he should be put in prison, whipped, whacked, exiled. When the police came for him, a collective squeal of glee erupted across the Internet. Adults celebrated. They knew this would happen. It served him right. The kid, apparently, had it coming. He was fully aware that he’d crossed some invisible line, but he was not repentant. Even worse, he appeared to relish the limelight.

But was the line was in the right place, or even necessary to begin with?

And now, the boy is spending the weekend in prison. Police handcuffed him when they led him out of court. He is to be tried as an adult.

Twenty-one Singaporeans can congratulate themselves for defending the nation against a 16-year-old. For safeguarding the boundaries. For being offended enough, concerned enough, patriotic enough to set the police on a child.

And the rest of us? The rest of us should play happily and gratefully in the corner we’ve so conscientiously painted ourselves into. The rest of must remember never to participate in the dangerous act of boundary-crossing. A 16-year-old did, and he is now being treated like a criminal – because jailing a child makes Singapore a much better place.

Remember the person behind this angst is a groupie of convicted drug mule groupies, loving them to distraction. And despite her angst over Amos, why didn’t she post bail? Talk is cheap, walk the talk. But then money talks, BS walks.

**Cherian George, the Director of Asia Journalism Fellowship, cautioned people against treating Amos as an adult in a widely shared Facebook post. He pointed out that under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, Amos is still a child, and regardless of how much he seeks publicity, he is at a stage of life where he needs to be protected—even from himself. Quoting Article 40 of the Convention, Cherian explains:

“Every child alleged as, accused of, or recognized as having infringed the penal law” must be “treated in a manner consistent with the promotion of the child’s sense of dignity and worth” – which means, among other things, that states must guarantee that the child has “his or her privacy fully respected at all stages of the proceedings”.

***Well they didn’t bring him up the right way, did they? Though by refusing to bail him, they are atoning for that oversight.

Jogging alone can be illegal?

In Political governance, Public Administration on 07/04/2015 at 4:48 am

If wearing the wrong tee-shirt or singlet?

Try waling or jogging alone* wearing a “Free our CPF” singlet: remember that any public assembly of more than one person** needs police permission.

And jogging in a group of two or more”Free our CPF” singlets will be like jogging in groups in Burundi: illegal.

Running is a national pastime in Burundi, with hundreds of people out jogging on weekend mornings. But in March [2014] the authorities banned jogging in groups – unless permission was sought from the authorities. It affects all group sports in the capital, which can now only be played in designated areas.

Jogging by Lake Tanganyika

The restrictions followed the arrest of some opposition members who were out jogging and chanting political slangs. Police officers tried to stop what they regarded as an illegal march and the situation deteriorated into clashes. More than 40 Movement for Solidarity and Democracy (MSD) party members received sentences ranging from five years to life.

Burundi: Where jogging is a crime

Wonder what about wearing a tee shirt with a Oppo party logo, drinking teh tarik as social media celebrities Ravi and Jeannette Chong used to do when they were NSP tua kees.

And what about the crowds assembling to pay their respects to LKY? What about the crowds at the National Museum LKY exhibition?

Seems anything the PAP administration or the SPF doesn’t like can be an illegal assembly.

———‘

*Auntie Sylvia was absolutely right in 2007 and 2009 when she spoke out publicly:

The change in definition of “assembly” and “procession” is more disturbing. As the Explanatory Statement to the Bill says, these words are no longer restricted to gatherings of 5 persons or more. This means even ONE person alone can constitute illegal assembly, thus giving the State complete control over an individual citizen’s freedoms.

‘First, to say that 1 person constitutes an assembly is certainly an abuse of the word. Secondly, is the government making the change because there had been incidents involving less than 5 persons which had disrupted public life? Unless there is compelling evidence to prove to us that expanding the definition of assembly and procession is needed, this expansion does not deserve our support,”  Sylvia Lim in parly in 2009.

Earlier, in 2007, she had said:

“This refers to clauses 29 and 30 of the Bill. By clause 29 of the Bill, we are removing the heading “Offences Against Public Tranquility” and replacing it with “Offences relating to Unlawful Assembly”. By Clause 30, we will be deleting “mischief or trespass or other offence” and replacing it with “to commit any offence”.

S 141 has been amended to bring it in line with a recent Court of Appeal case: PP v Tan Meng Khin [1995] 2 SLR 505. Now, an assembly will be unlawful if people intend to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment of 6 mths or more, even if it is peaceful and does not disturb public tranquillity. Under our law, a person who organizes a procession or assembly after the police rejection of a permit can be punished with max 6 months jail under the Miscellaneous Offences Act. Hence 5 or more people who gather to do so will become members of an unlawful assembly.

As our society continues to evolve, the time is surely ripe for us to allow peaceful outdoor protests as a form of expression. By all means, we can have rules about how, where and when such processions may be held, but wider law reform is needed. S 141 should be restricted to offences which threaten the public peace, and other laws such as the Miscellaneous Offences Act which require permits for peaceful assemblies should be modified.”

**Two men between the ages of 24 and 25 were arrested by police outside the Istana on Saturday afternoon (Apr 4).

Police said the duo had turned up in front of the Istana with placards at about 4pm. Channel NewsAsia understands that the men were holding signs that read “You can’t silence the people” and “Injustice” for about half an hour. They were clad in identical red hoodies and dark blue jeans.

Police also said both of them had refused to stop the activity despite requests from officers. As such, they were arrested for organising a public assembly without a permit, under Section 16(1)(a) of the Public Order Act, Chapter 257A.

 

Ello, Ello! FTs bully, beat S’poreans with impunity?

In Public Administration on 01/04/2015 at 4:38 am

(Updated on 7 April 17.00 to reflect that SPF has finally charged Ello Ello^. Hopefully the Pinoys, especially the ambassador, will know their place here.)

Last Wed, the local media reported that Australian and Singapore permanent resident, Aaron Peter Jeremicjczyk, has been fined $3,000 for assaulting jazz singer Dawn Ho last year in Sentosa.

My first tot was, “Now more ang moh men will beat up local gals: only $3,000 fine for doing so: juz claim provocation”. I hope the prosecution appeals against the sentence: verbal abuse should not ever mitigate an offence where physical violence resulting in injuries. Btw, this FT was a marketing executive: we no got this skill here meh?

This reminded that in early January, Pinoy Ello made offensive anti-Singaporean comments on Facebook: remarks that went viral. He filed a police report claiming that his Facebook account had been hacked.

A few days later he was fired. His employer said

Our decision for dismissal is independent of the ongoing police investigation of the more recent alleged posts made in January 2015. We are still in full cooperation with the police on the alleged comments.”

He had made earlier anti-S’porean remarks and did not deny them.

Since then there has been silence from the police (Still investigating or case closed? Compare Ello’s case with how quickly Amos Yee, a S’porean boy, was arrested for among other things insulting Christianity) and the Pinoy ambassador. The latter had criticised S’poreans for anti-Pinoy remarks:

The Philippines ambassador to Singapore, Antonio A Morales … expressed concern about “the few Singaporeans” who have lashed out, and condemned the blog that suggested abusing Filipinos.

“I think it was unfair and racist and discriminatory,” he said, adding that the blogger had still not been identified.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-28953147

(My take on the interview https://atans1.wordpress.com/2015/01/01/pinoy-tua-kee-gives-the-finger-to-govt-meng-seng-2/)

But he has never criticised Ello for the comments that Ello said he made https://atans1.wordpress.com/2015/01/06/ello-ello-pinoy-ambassador-has-nothing-to-say/. Pinoys above our laws isit?

The Filipino embassy told Ello to be “extra careful with his social media usage”, days after the nurse, Edz Ello, made some insulting and threatening comments about S’porean on social media.

https://atans1.wordpress.com/2015/01/09/pinoy-and-prc-diplomatic-behaviour-contrasted/

Seems the Pinoys see S’pore and S’poreans no ak despite coming here by the container load.

I end by posting remarks made by a TRE reader

Pinoy Leader Didn’t Give Face:

The Philippines with 100 million population couldn’t give a damn about the tiny red dot. If its the mother Mrs Aquino in charge, she would definitely attend L*Y funeral.

All the top leaders of Asean were in Singapore [not correct but the leaders of the major countries were here except for the Philippines] except President Aquino. He cannot even spare a few hours to fly in for the funeral. What’s is more important that he has to personally attend to ? What’s the point of sending the Foreign Minister ?

This show that L*L has been played out wholesale and not given any face like the Chinese saying goes. Its time to send all these ungrateful Pinoys home.

—–

*http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-32115052

Reminds me of what Robert Kuok said: He wondered how to encourage that entrepreneurial spirit among Singaporeans, and would put the question to powerful businessmen he met there. South-east Asia’s richest man, Mr Robert Kuok, remembers how he responded to Mr Lee: “I told him, you have governed Singapore too strictly, you have put a straitjacket on Singapore. Now, you need to take a pair of scissors and cut it.” – See more at: http://www.straitstimes.com/news/singapore/more-singapore-stories/story/remembering-lee-kuan-yew-the-greatest-chinese-outside-ma#sthash.ix2sIx93.dpuf

Does the SPF have to throw the book at every insult to religion and LKY?

Here’s another case where SPF took their very sweet time prosecuting FTs (this time beating up S’poreans) https://atans1.wordpress.com/2012/02/13/heads-must-roll-in-the-home-team/

^CNA reports that Ello has been arrested and charged. He can go to prison for a few years

… Ello Ed Mundsel Bello was arrested and charged in Court on Tuesday (Apr 7). He faces two counts under the Sedition Act, and another three for providing false information to the police during investigation.

Police alleged that the 28-year-old had posted two comments on Facebook which had the “tendency to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different classes of the population of Singapore”, namely the Singaporeans and Filipinos here, the charge sheet stated. 

The first comment allegedly stated: “Now the Singaporeans are loosers in their own country, we take their jobs, their future, their women, and soon, we will evict all SG loosers out of their own country hahaha. The best part, I will be praying that disators strike Singapore and more Singaporeans will die than I will celebrate. REMEMBER PINOY BETTER AND STRONGER THAN STINKAPOREANS.”

The second comment allegedly stated: “Yes I love our people, we will kick out all the Singaporeans and SG will be the new filipino state.”

The other charges under the Penal Code were for misleading the police who were investigating the case. Ello told the police he did not post the abovementioned comments, and that his Facebook account had been accessed without authority, according to the charge sheets.

Under the Sedition Act, if Pinoy Ello is found guilty of promoting feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of S’poreans, Ello is liable, on conviction for a first offence, to a fine of up to S$5,000 or a jail term of up to three years, or both.

Under the Penal Code, giving any information which person knows to be false to a policeman is punishable with a jail term which may extend to one year, or a fine up to S$5,000, or both.

 

M Ravi’s grandfather’s parliament, is it?

In Uncategorized on 03/11/2014 at 1:39 pm

Update at 4.30am on 4 November 2014: I’ve been told I’m wrong because Parly listened to Ravi. My point is that the Speaker and Minister involved know more about sub judice than M Ravi credits them for. And publicly telling the Speaker how to suck eggs, is unseemly and distasteful from someone who has admitted (see below) that his behaviour has caused problems, in another case, in the administration for justice. As I wrote below, Bit like the lunatics of Arkham Asylum trying to tell Batman how to rid Gotham City of criminals, it seems to me.

Update at 5.20 pm: Minister and Speaker behave properly, a lesson M Ravi will hopefully will follow in his practice of the law, though I doubt it very much.

In Parliament today, National Development Minister Khaw Boon Wan commented that he will not be commenting on the Hong Lim Park incident, as police investigations and legal proceedings are ongoing.

“It is not appropriate to comment on the incident or to give a view on what could or could not have prevented such an incident,” Mr Khaw said, responding to MPs Denise Phua and Zainal Sapari’s questions on the incident. NParks is a statutory board under the purview of the Ministry of National Development.

Speaker of Parliament Halimah Yacob also warned the MPs that as the case was before the courts, comments which fell foul of sub judice laws would not be allowed in the House.)

MP Zainal Sapari (Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC) and MP Denise Phua (Moulmein-Kallang GRC) will later today raise questions in Parliament about the incident at Hong Lim Park on 27 September 2014 when some of #ReturnOurCPF protestors KPKBed at a YMCA event, disrupting it.  Charges have been made against six alleged hooligans participants of the #ReturnOurCPF event. The details of the MPs questions are given at the end of this post.

In response to the move by the two PAP MPs to ask questions about the incident, M Ravi, who is representing the six persons charged, has written to the Speaker of Parliament, Halimah Yacob, to highlight his concerns about the questions and issues raised by the MPs.

In particular, Mr Ravi is concerned that since the case against his 6 clients is sub judice, any discussions by the MPs on the matter may impede or prejudice the course of justice in the relevant proceedings of the case.

Mr Ravi wrote that he has been instructed to make a constitutional challenge on the Parks and Trees Act, and a formal letter to the Minister for National Development has also expressly reserved the right to make the constitutional challenge. His grandfather wrote the constitution, with one JBJ assisting is it?

“It will no doubt be your view, very properly, that Members will not need to be reminded that they should not utter anything on the floor of the House which would affect the evaluation of the merits of proceedings which are imminent or before the courts, or influence the result of proceedings, in particular the likelihood of an acquittal,” Mr Ravi wrote to the Speaker of Parliament asking for Mdm Halimah to be discrete.

He thinks he knows better than the Speaker? His grandfather owns parly, is it? What I find extremely funny and distasteful is that here is someone who effectively pleaded guilty to a complaint by the AG in respect of his conduct in another case, trying to  tell the Speaker of her duties, when he couldn’t conduct himself properly in the other case? Bit rich ain’t it?

Bit like the lunatics of Arkham Asylum trying to tell Batman how to rid Gotham City of criminals, it seems to me. For those who don’t know Gotham City, Arkham Asylum is home to some of the criminals he brought to justice. They were found to be looney.

M Ravi goes on, “It would be a dereliction of our duty as Advocates not to do everything lawfully and appropriately to uphold the rule of law and thereby protect our clients’ legal rights  by deferentially drawing attention to details of the pending charges for your proper consideration.”

The letter has been copied to the Attorney-General’s Chambers, Minister for National Development and the Commissioner of Police: so that they too can have a laugh?

—–

MP Zainal Sapari has filed the following question for National Development Minister to answer:

To ask the Minister for National Development:

  • (a) if he can give a full account of the incident that happened at Hong Lim Park on 27 September 2014;
  • (b) whether there has been any non-compliance by the organisers of both events in ensuring public peace; and
  • (c) whether there is any follow-up action to ensure that such incidents will not happen again.

MP Denise Phua is asking about the use of Speakers’ Corner and the Telok Ayer Hong Lim Green Community Centre:

To ask the Minister for National Development:

  • (a) whether Hong Lim Park is for the sole use of Speakers’ Corner participants;
  • (b) what designated spots in Hong Lim Park are meant for Speakers’ Corner activities;
  • (c) what is the list of activities permitted for Hong Lim Park;
  • (d) when and for what activities can the adjacent Telok Ayer Hong Lim Green Community Centre facilities such as the stage be allowed for use by Hong Lim Park users;
  • (e) what standard operating procedures pertain to the use of Hong Lim Park and the adjacent Telok Ayer Hong Lim Green Community Centre’s facilities; and
  • (f) how the recent incident pertaining to the use of the same ground by YMCA and advocates of the Return-My-CPF group can be avoided.

 

 

Male gays here: On “permanent” parole

In Economy, Public Administration on 03/11/2014 at 5:48 am

Gay rights in Singapore

On permanent parole

(http://www.economist.com/blogs/banyan/2014/10/gay-rights-singapore)

The above headlines encapsulate the issue male gays face more than TOC’s and M Ravi’s pontificating, sanctimonious, self-serving anti-PAP rubbish. Their comments are more aimed at sliming the PAP govt, than advancing the cause of gay men.

I was a supporter of the govt’s studied ambiguity on the issue. And that the gay community in pressing for abolition were pushing their luck.

But the Economist’s headline made me realise the problem that male gays faced. The repeal of 377A is necessary to ensure that male gays can come out to play, hold hands or kiss publicly without the fear of the govt of the day deciding that it, after all,  wants to enforce 377A: not enforcing it was an “honest mistake”. Remember the decision not to use 377A is by way of administrative fiat. What is decided by administrative fiat one day, can be changed without warning another day without public debate.

Accepting LGBTs doesn’t harm society, could even be beneficial as LT’s Lombard points out: The coming out of Apple’s Tim Cook is a chance to remind readers of Tomkins’ Rule. This proposes a nation is civilised in proportion to its tolerance of gays, because they are distinctly different in a way that does not harm others and are always in a minority. Works for a big company too.

Btw, ever wondered like I did about why gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transsexuals are lumped together? Here’s the reason, The term LGBT, representing lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender, has been in widespread use since the early 1990s. Recent additions – queer, “questioning” and intersex – have seen the term expand to LGBTQQI in many places. But do lesbians and gay men, let alone the others on the list, share the same issues, values and goals?

Anthony Lorenzo, a young gay journalist, says the list has become so long, “We’ve had to start using Sanskrit because we’ve run out of letters.”

Bisexuals have argued that they are disliked and mistrusted by both straight and gay people. Trans people say they should be included because they experience hatred and discrimination, and thereby are campaigning along similar lines as the gay community for equality.

But what about those who wish to add asexual to the pot? Are asexual people facing the same category of discrimination. And “polyamorous”? Would it end at LGBTQQIAP?

There is scepticism from some activists. Paul Burston, long-time gay rights campaigner, suggests that one could even take a longer formulation and add NQBHTHOWTB (Not Queer But Happy To Help Out When They’re Busy). Or it could be shortened to GLW (Gay, Lesbian or Whatever).

An event in Canada is currently advertising itself as an “annual festival of LGBTTIQQ2SA culture and human rights”, with LGBTTIQQ2SA representing “a broad array of identities such as, but not limited to, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual, transgender, intersex, queer, questioning, two-spirited, and allies”. Two-spirited is a term used by Native Americans to describe more than one gender identity.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-28130472

 

 

With a lawyer like this, does M Ravi need enemies?

In Uncategorized on 30/10/2014 at 4:42 am

A disciplinary tribunal recommended that human rights lawyer M Ravi be penalised for releasing court documents to the media before serving them on the Attorney-General because the release interfered with the cases.

The tribunal also recommended that Mr Ravi be fined $7,000 for the professional misconduct, in a report released on 23 Oct.

He pleaded guilty to the charges, not contesting them. Originally, when the AG complained, he came out fighting, KPKBing that he would contest the charges. But like in his defamation suit against the Law Society, and complaint against a doctor for professional misconduct, he quietly changed his mind.

His lawyer Eugene Thuraisingam urged the tribunal to consider Mr Ravi’s bipolar condition, which is now under control but which sometimes leads him to act “uncharacteristically”.

I don’t think his lawyer should have raised his bi-polar condition as a mitigating factor for his conduct because isn’t his bi-polar disorder the best excuse to disallow him from practicing law*? Practising law can be taxing mentally and emotionally, and thaz before the long hours (the main reason I moved on to financial services).

And bi-polar sufferers need a routine: any change, even going on holiday can cause problems.

Holidays are supposed to be a time for relaxation, but not for Charlotte Walker, a mother and blogger with bipolar disorder. She values the opportunity to spend time with her children, but fears that a change from her routine may mess up the mental stability she works hard to achieve.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-ouch-22395852

Ravi’s kick-ass, high stakes, take-no-prisoners style of litigation certainly does not help him keep regular routines.

To add insult to injury, his lawyer added that Mr Ravi is a pro bono lawyer who contributes actively to society and that the cases he deals with involve general public interest which occasionally leads to emotions running high. Doesn’t this drive home the point that his legal practices makes his disorder more likely to get out of control?

I’ll not be surprised if the great and the good start thinking of banning him from practising law on the ground that his bi-polar disorder means legal practice not the right profession for him. It makes him more prone to his disorder getting out of control .

Remember, you heard it first here.

Related post

https://atans1.wordpress.com/2013/06/02/understanding-m-ravis-bi-polar-disorder/

*He has to get a doctor to certify that he is taking his medicine, and that his bipolar disorder is under control.

After one s/o JBJ penned an article, several yrs back, hinting that the authorities were fixing Ravi the way the Russians fixed dissidents (by getting them certified mad), it became clear that Ravi had not been taking his medicine. This was around the time he was prancing half-naked in Hong Lim sliming WP MP lawyers, a journalist filed a police report against him alleging intimidation, TOC (a leading Ravi cheerleader) reported him as saying he had a string of int’l law offices, and the police were called to a temple where he was “worshiping” and spoke to him. His defamation suit against the Law Society, and complaint against a doctor for professional misconduct arouse out of the aforesaid events

Remember our Sticker Lady? Her English equivalent

In Humour on 28/07/2014 at 4:22 am

Catherine Bolsover

 

Postbox on Sonning Bridge on Friday, October 25th, 2013

When I saw the above photos (link below) I remembered this ST line from some yrs back, “Samantha Lo Xin Hui, dubbed the Sticker Lady for her graffiti at several public areas last year, was yesterday sentenced to serve 240 hours of community service.” There about the same time, a SunT article that reported that HDB residents were complaining of stickers put up by estate agents etc, and I remember “8551 3997” had been plastering “For Sale” signs in the Siglap area trying to flog $3m properties.

SunT quoted a smart ass lawyer who said these estate agents can get away with it because “Law does not deal with trivae”, so nothing would be done. But then isn’t her behaviour trivae, I tot, then and still do.

But to be fair to the SPF, the English authorities don’t like Sam’s English counterpart:

… insists that his anonymity is necessary because “councils don’t really have that kind of sense of humour” and “take life very seriously”.

“I really don’t want to stand up [and try] to explain to a po-faced and humourless court why I have done things which are essentially humorous and whimsical.

(And I, as Anglophile, tot England was tolerant of harmless eccentrics)

“It would feel too much like school where teachers are always pretending to be angry or disappointed by naughty behaviours which they in reality think are quite funny.”

He says his art is inspired by his belief that people are encouraged to take life seriously “despite the fact that it’s absurd and tragic”.

“We are encouraged to act responsibly, we are encouraged to go off to work every day to, by and large, do something pointless in order to sustain a meagre existence, so that we can go to work again, and are released from this cycle when all joy and spirit has been squeezed from us,” he says.

“We are encouraged to get to our grave safely and responsibly, and if possible with an insurance policy to help with ‘those funeral expenses’. 

“We are encouraged to buy tat we don’t want with money we don’t have.

“What I do is not that.”

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-27884890

Related post: https://atans1.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/so-will-spf-prosecute-property-agents-and-money-lenders-for-mischief/

 

Traffic islands on river

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

Where use of ISA-type law will be met by silence from the usual human rights kay pohs

In Footie on 28/09/2013 at 1:59 pm

Update on 22 23 October 2013: Minister explains use of Criminal Law Temporary Provision Act (http://au.sports.yahoo.com/football/news/article/-/19491410/football-match-fixing-witnesses-fear-reprisals/).

(Correction: My friends tell me that the ISA will not be used: It will be the Criminal Law Temporary Provision Act. This too allows dention without trial. Used for drug cases too. Sorry, never was gd at criminal law)

The coming deafening silence 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.

Dan Tan’s home, even his car (a BMW 735) were well known to the authorities, but until they had evidence that a crime had been committed on Singaporean soil the police were powerless to act.

In the wake of the Italian reports, the Singaporeans made requests to police forces in Italy, Hungary, Germany and Finland to share what evidence they had. But cross border co-operation between prosecutors proved painfully slow.

It took months and in some cases more than a year for documents to be shared while approaches to speak to key witnesses have still, in some cases, gone unanswered.

All that time Singapore’s detractors sharpened their knives. The apparent inaction was criticised, with some even suggesting a high-level conspiracy to protect the alleged master match-fixer living in their midst.

Those with knowledge of the investigation say the truth is more mundane. It has simply proved very difficult to find those brave enough to testify against Dan Tan and his powerful syndicate.

The defecting members of the syndicate are too scared to testify in person so the police are hoping to use draconian security laws from the 1950s to keep the suspects in custody.

In the next few weeks all the evidence that has been gathered against the syndicate will be presented behind closed doors to the Ministry of Home Affairs and then an advisory council, before a final decision is made by the president.

If all agree that the suspects should remain under “preventive detention”, then Dan Tan and his associates could be held for years without ever having the evidence tested in a court of law.

Under huge pressure to act, the Singaporeans say they’ve now “cut the head off the snake”.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-24238681

Another case of ang moh tua kee. Can our Home Team be blamed when our human rights activists adopt the prejudices of their ang how mentors?

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.

Quadruple confirm: Public servants don’t do cost-benefit analysis

In Financial competency, Humour, Public Administration on 04/06/2013 at 5:12 am

Former NUS law professor, Tey Tsun Hang, was sentenced to a 5 months’ jail term and ordered to pay a penalty of $514.80 by the court yesterday. He was convicted of corruptly obtaining gifts and sex from former student Darinne Ko.

Last week, the former chief of the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF), Peter Lim Sin Pang, was convicted by a District Court for corruption. He was on trial for abusing his position to obtain sexual favours from Ms Pang Chor Mui in return for favorable consideration of her company’s tender bid for business.

Also last week, the Ministry of Home Affairs said disciplinary proceedings against the former chief of the Central Narcotics Bureau Ng Boon Gay would remain suspended until a final outcome in the criminal proceedings. Mr Ng was acquitted of corruption charges in February. Mr Ng was accused of obtaining sexual favours from IT sales manager Ms Cecilia Sue in return for furthering the business interests of her two employers. The MHA spokesperson also said that the prosecution was studying  the written grounds of decision and assessing whether to file a Petition of Appeal.

Even though Gay was acquired, all three public servants paid a high price for being a bit (very cheap actually) cheap when it came to sex. In return for a few freebie trysts, they ended up spending very serious money on lawyers , and damaging their reputations and earning capabilities. I mean who will want to employ two soiled police scholars and an academic who proclaimed his academic integrity* when he was charged?

Then there was ex-Speaker of Parliament, “Mangoes for Laura” Palmer. True he wasn’t charged and never paid lawyers’ fees, but the guy was castrated in public: within a few hours he fell from “tua kee” to zero you-know-what.

Obviously, they didn’t do cost-benefit analysis. If they had been, they could have realised that the costs of being cheap on sex was higher than if they had paid for it. They would have realised that paying for sex was less risky for their careers and reputations. Based on legal fees of $500,000 a case (and I’m being conservative given the size of the legal teams), even if each man charged had sex 100 times (and the reports indicate that the frequency wasn’t that high), the cost would be $5,000 a session. And these were with aunties! Not slim, tall Vogue model-types.

If these senior public servants, didn’t use cost-benefit analysis on such an impt, personal matter, what are the chances that public servants use cost-benefit analysis when analysising or making decisions for us the masses? Yup, highly unlikely.

Anyway, these four cases illustrate the ancient Chinese saying of, “Kill a cock to frighten the monkeys”. Here four cocks were “killed’ to remind public servants that free sex is not a benefit of service. Never mind, public servants can afford to pay for sex, juz like they can afford to buy $5m to S10m apartments from a TLC, even when the TLC expresses concerns that it can sell some of these apartments. And if the MDA chairman and CEO may have problems with their personal cost-benefit analysis (what with QE possibly being reversed, with knock-on effects for S’pore property, and KepLand’s remarks on selling its apts), can ministers and the public trust that the MDA has done its cost-benefit analysis on its new media regulations? It could be telling that the Manpower minister replaced MDA’s CEO at a Talking Points programme on the issue of new media regulation? BTW, where was the water engineer**, Yaacob?

Note (Last three lines added two hrs after first publication, after reading FT etc)

——

*I tot he was going to deny that he ever had sex with his student. It has been part of Western academic tradition since the times of the Greeks that sex with students was taboo. There was a lewd Roman joke that Socrates never had sex with Plato despite both being gay because Plato was Socrates’ pupil. The Romans didn’t do gay sex.

**See the * at end in link on what I mean by “water engineer”.

Todds: When grief overwhelmed

In Public Administration on 24/05/2013 at 5:45 am

So the Todds’ have moved on out from the inquiry and are leaving S’pore, saying they no longer have confidence in the system.

Bet you once out of S’pore, they will bitch loudly about the hearing and withdraw Mrs Todd’s apology for calling the court system “corrupt”. I’m sure they will allege that Mr Todd was intimidated into apologising on her behalf.

Prior to their moving on, they suffered a few blows to their credibility.

Their expert, Edward Adelstein, 75, a deputy medical examiner in Missouri, contradicted Singapore police findings that Shane Todd killed himself, but admitted his conclusions were based on pictures of the body and circumstantial information.

“The cause of death of Dr. Todd was strangulation by a ligature around his neck,” Adelstein said in a written statement admitted as evidence Tuesday at the inquiry, adding that “I would rule his death a murder — a homicide.”

He said Todd was “a very dangerous person” to the two Asian companies (Institute of Microelectronics where he worked ana Huawei, the Chinese tech company that Washington politicians love to hate), and asserted without offering any evidence that “they had him killed” and well-trained “assassins” may have been involved*. Adelstein said Todd could have been disabled with a taser — an electronic device designed to stun — and killed with an arm lock before being hanged**. This explanation could take care of the inconvenient fact  the well-built 31-year-old’s body did not show evidence of a struggle.

Sounds like something from a Fu Manchu & the Yellow Peril movie, updated of course, to take account of the rise of Chinese economic power, with its plans to replace the US as hegemon.

Note that in an October 2012 report, Adelstein had said that Todd was killed by “garroting” but at the hearing the doctor said he was speculating at the time.

Before the above, there was the issue of the hard drive.

Now that they will no longer testify, it will not be possible for them to be asked if they allege that they found the hard drive, something that they told the Financial Times according to its story. The FBI’s evidence is that the hard drive is the same as the one the S’pore police handed over to the Todds, now we know in the presence of US embassy officials.

I wasn’t too surprised that the Todds moved on quickly out of the inquiry after these comments reported on Saturday: Tai Wei Shyong, the senior state counsel for Dr Todd’s inquiry, welcomed Mr Bonner to give evidence in this inquiry.

“If he (Bonner) wishes to give evidence, we would be happy to accommodate that and we would have to apply to the court to see if the court would be prepared to hear his evidence. The state would be happy to make the application because we want the full story about this case to be told.” CNA

Mr Bonner was one of writers of the Financial Times article and if the Todds were ever to deny that they said they found the drive, he could contradict them. I had heard runours that they were going to say when they were called to give evidence that they had not told the FT that they found the drive. Anyway, this convenient avoiding of giving evidence, may not work. District Judge Chay Yuen Fatt said that the statements taken from them would be used as evidence, so maybe we can still learn if they said anything in their statements about how they got the drive.

Whatever it is, it is very rare for this writer to agree 100% with a PAPpy minister (even if like me he loves dogs), but Shan is correct here in his comments on the Todds’ behaviour.

RIP Shane Todd and may the Todds reconcile themselves to the circumstances of his death even if they think he was murdered.

—-

*Where to find such an Assassin?

1. Must be Stronger and Bigger than Shane to bring him down and hang him single handle-ly after bringing him down !

2. Must have great computer skill to hack into his computer.

3. Must have so much time to alter his browser history 19 times to show that he visited suicide sites?

4. Must be able to to complete all the above task in as short duration as possible so that nobody notice !

Is there such an Assassin ?

Is the Assassin so free and dumb to stay in the crime site to hack the ocmputer after killing him?

Wouldm’t it be easier to take the computer and hard disk away?

(TRE reader)

**Two certified forensic pathologists from the US who provided expert opinions have confirmed that Dr Shane Todd’s death was consistent with asphyxia due to hanging.

The two pathologists, Dr David Fowler and Dr Valerie Rao, took the stand in day eight of the coroner’s inquiry into the death of the American researcher.

They also dispelled theories by the Todd family’s expert witness Edward Adelstein that Dr Todd could have died because of a taser or a carotid armlock, which is a neck chokehold.

Dr Fowler said Dr Todd’s body had shown no signs of taser marks or vertical scratch marks up and down his neck – which would have indicated a struggle to remove the chokehold.

They also corroborated the evidence of two Singapore forensic pathologists that the discolouration on Dr Todd’s hands was due to a pooling of the blood in the limbs that occurs after death.

Both were also of the opinion that based on all information they had access to, they believed Dr Todd’s death to be a suicide. CNA

Doubtless, there will be TRE readers who will point out that they were paid by the S’pore govt. Doubtless these readers voted for Tan Kin Lian in 2011, and s/o JBJ at the Punggol East By-election.

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

In Humour, Malaysia, Public Administration on 19/05/2013 at 5:17 pm

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:

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

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

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

In Public Administration on 03/04/2013 at 6:40 am

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 https://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”

In Political governance on 26/03/2013 at 7:42 am

“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.

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

CHC: A prophecy

In Corporate governance, Humour on 13/07/2012 at 7:51 am

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

In Uncategorized on 06/07/2012 at 6:02 am

(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

In Accounting, Humour on 29/06/2012 at 6:08 am

(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?

In Political governance on 27/06/2012 at 6:01 am

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

In Footie, Media on 24/06/2012 at 6:18 am

(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

In Political governance on 18/06/2012 at 5:08 am

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?

In Political governance on 03/04/2012 at 5:58 am

(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?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 245 other followers