Liewgate: TRE writer makes constructive suggestions on improving the administration of justice

But first what the CJ said about prosecutors being “ministers of justice” is nothing new. Many yrs ago, the head of Crime in the AGC said the same thing to me in describing his role. It’s based on an English legal tradition

Prosecutors are more than advocates and solicitors. They are “ministers
of justice” assisting in the administration of justice (see R v Banks [1916] 2 KB621 at 623). As a “minister of justice”, the duty of the prosecutor is to assist the court to arrive at the correct decision. It is neither the prosecutor’s duty to secure a conviction at all costs nor to “timorously discontinue proceedings the instant
some weakness is found in their case” (see Kadar at [109]).

137 A prosecutor must always act in the public interest and it is generally
unnecessary for the Prosecution to adopt a strictly adversarial position
criminal proceedings (see Nabill v PP at [37]). Steven Chong JA speaking extrajudicially to Legal Service Officers and Assistant Public Prosecutors on 10 November 2011 put it in these terms:
The accused, the Court and the community are entitled to
expect that in performing his function in presenting the case
against an accused person, the Prosecutor will act with fairness
and detachment with the sole and unadulterated objective
to establish the whole truth in accordance with the law.
… The role of the Prosecutor therefore excludes any notion of
winning or losing a case. … His role is to seek and achieve
justice, and not merely to convict. The role is to be
discharged with an ingrained sense of dignity and integrity.

CJ menon in Public Prosecutor v Wee Teong Boo and other appeal and another matter [Emphasis added in bold italics]

Well a long standing tradition can always be improved given the allegation that the prosecutors in Liewgate misled the judge that a dvd player was functional when it was note (Note that one of the prosecutors’ is the daughter of a retired senior civil servant who was rebuked by Teo Chee Hean, then DPM and civil service minister yrs ago, for flaunting his wealth publicly amidst a recession).

So the suggestions made by a TRE writer are worth considering.

Justice And Prosecutorial Misconduct

Our legislators at all levels of government as well as the administrators of a plethora of governmental agencies have created an oppressive blanket of laws, rules and regulations designed to forcibly control the behavior of its citizens. But it takes a non-citizen to file an originating summons under Section 82A of the Legal Profession Act, which governs disciplinary proceedings against the legal service officers or non-practising solicitors.

I always thought that the Prosecutor’s main job was to gather and weigh all the evidence (both the damning and the exculpatory) before deciding whether or not to press charges. Prosecutors should be required to sign a statement that all exculpatory evidence had been provided to the defendant’s advisors. A false statement should have the same consequences as perjury.

In cases of prosecutorial and judicial misconduct in which evidence is omitted, manufactured, or misrepresented, the prosecutors and judges should face a trial of the facts and, if convicted, in addition to disbarment, serve individual mandatory sentence for perjury–period. No escape from justice–you know, the in-house exemptions and protections among the legal professionals–for the betrayers of justice.

Next step would be to extend the same requirement to investigating police. Failure to provide possible exculpatory info to the prosecutors would be malfeasance and a firing offense.

So is it hopeless? Well, if our politicians had the intelligence and honesty to recognize and take the action which undoubtedly would reign in official cover-ups, lies and brutality — i.e., a zero-tolerance policy. In other words, those who do not hold justice and decency (towards EVERYONE) above “winning,” would be gone. Faith in the system is the bedrock. Without it, our system is drained of its inviolable authority.

SojoüRner

Liewgate: TOC, witch hunters also wanted justice LOL

And even had due process. They were not running around like headless chickens or TOC readers in an anti-PAP frenzy.

Couldn’t stop laughing at

“The Minister for Law has also seemingly tried to downplay matters by urging the public not to go on a witch hunt. In this, the Minister may have misunderstood public sentiment.

The people want answers and accountability. They are not on a witch hunt. They want justice. To talk of a witch hunt may misguidedly fan the flames of public outrage. What the public want is reassurance that the Government will leave no stone unturned in punishing those guilty of this heinous initial miscarriage of justice – they do not need to be told what not to do.

https://www.onlinecitizenasia.com/2020/09/14/liew-mun-leong-and-ceca-saga-highlights-growing-disconnect-between-public-sentiment-and-the-establishment/?fbclid=IwAR27GNwtWegSA_Ml9Zys0adOcI1uEx5yn8hZYK7_SwZcUeBj0nM9ckT1l1I

The witch hunters also wanted justice, TOC. They tot that witches were hurting them and their families, hence the hunt for witches to burn.

The witch hunters also had due process, unlike cyber lynchings on social media conducted by Team TOC and its zombie fans, or other alt media and their fans.

One way of establishing whether a person was a witch was to throw the alleged witch into the river or deep bond. If the bounded person floated, they’d know the person was a witch, and would burn her.

Another test was to to put his hand into a fire. If the hand was undamaged, they’d burn him as a witch.

Liewgate: TRE, junk can be stolen

I think the u/m Why would anybody want to steal junk? by TRE’s Augustine Low needs a serious correction.

Even if the stuff taken is junk, the maid cannot suka suka take it: taking it can still amount to theft.

Consent must still be sought. Such consent can be implied if the owner throws the stuff into the bin or tells the maid to throw it away. I’ve a spoiled printer and a laptop: junk. I’ve yet to dispose of them because I want to dispose of them responsibly. But if the maid takes them without asking my permission, it’s still technically theft.

Btw, I’ve also got a few watches that could be considered junk. One’s a IWC perpetual watch that needs to be repaired, another a Seiko watch that has it plastic face cover damaged , a Cartier Santos and Rolex that have faulty clasps. If the helper takes them …

Finally, an observation about the High Court judge’s decision. The High Court judge could have acquitted her on the basis of the police’s failure to secure the evidence. And left it at that. That he went further to make comments about Karl etc seems to show his unhappiness over the decision to prosecute. that he had serious concerns about what actually happened. (Note this change was made on 16 September 2020 at 11.30 am.)

The one question that could have saved Parti Liyani much earlier: Why would anybody want to steal junk?

It was a basic question that took four years to be asked.

Had it been asked earlier, it could have saved Parti Liyani from all her troubles and trauma, from languishing in a shelter for four years while awaiting the conclusion of her case of stealing from the home of Liew Mun Leong.

Defence lawyer Anil Balchandani who acted pro-bono for Parti and successfully secured her acquittal, appears in a video put up by HOME (Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics), the non-governmental organisation which provided shelter, food and financial assistance to Parti for four years. The video was shot a week before the High Court ruling on 4 September.

Balchandani spoke of the breakthrough: “I think the maybe memorable or most lucky point that we had was we asked the (high) court to have all the items presented before it . . . . and the court agreed. And that allowed us to present to the court what you can’t see in pictures.”

Once the “stolen” items were presented in court, the effect was telling, said Balchandani: “So the condition of the items, the clothes, the rags, the very old DVD players, the earrings, the jewellery that was outdated – you could see it in a photograph but you will not appreciate it until you see it. And slowly we were, you know, we were able to inch forward. And we have to basically convince the judge, why would someone steal junk?”

Indeed, why would anyone go through the trouble of stealing things which even the rag-and-bone man might reject?

And why wasn’t it a question the police, prosecution and district judge all thought of asking?

Only at the High Court was this question finally addressed. In his lengthy 100-page judgement, Justice Chan Seng Onn pointed to some aspects of this, including the case of a Pioneer DVD player which was allegedly stolen by Parti. She denied the theft, saying it was disposed of by the Liew family because it was “spoilt” and she kept it to bring home to Indonesia for repair.

Justice Chan believed Parti: “As its name suggests, a DVD player’s main function is to play a DVD . . . a DVD player that is unable to play DVD can reasonably be described as ‘spoilt.’”

The judge applied common sense. As was the case when Parti was accused of stealing clothes belonging to Karl Liew, the son of Liew Mun Leong. This strangely included women’s clothing apparel. When asked at the trial if he “had a habit of wearing women’s clothes” Karl actually said that he sometimes wore women’s T-shirts. Justice Chan found this assertion to be “unbelievable”.

So the Parti Liyani case is now to be reviewed by multiple parties because something has “gone wrong in the chain of events”, according to Law Minister K Shanmugam.

They could start by reviewing why nobody thought of asking the most basic questions – such as why would anybody want to steal junk, and how could a man have clothes “stolen” from him that included women’s apparel.

Liewgate: Was Liew Mun Leong that untouchable?

Below is another well written piece by TRE’s Augustine Low: if one is an anti-establishment (especially anti-PAP) pleb.

However, the piece misses a very important point. If Liew was that untouchable (“too big to challenge, too big to be disproved and too big to do any wrong”) why wasn’t his wife and son protected for illegally deploying the wife’s maid, and why was (as alleged) his family afraid of not being able to employ another maid.

Let me explain.

If Liew was that untouchable (“too big to challenge, too big to be disproved and too big to do any wrong”), how come MoM gave his wife a warning and his son an advisory for illegally deploying the maid?. Secret Squirrel tells me that plebs who illegally deploy their helpers also get warnings and advisories for the first offence.

The online narrative is that the family was afraid of being unable to hire a maid (by way of a MoM ban on employing a maid) to clean their two bungalows: something a second complaint would surely bring, they say. Hence the alleged “false” police report to fix the maid.

If Liew was that untouchable (“too big to challenge, too big to be disproved and too big to do any wrong”), he could have easily called up the MoM minister and tell the minister that his family needed a maid, so could the minister help him by not charging his tai tai for the second offence?

For the record, like the mob, I too think that the Liews, father and son, should be crucified. I also believe that Mrs Liew should be made to clean the two bungalows herself, then crucified.

Their offence? Bringing the establishment into disrepute.

Whatever, here’s what Augustine Low wrote.

The system that brought success to Liew Mun Leong also brought him down – does the PAP have the will to fix the system?

The spectacular downfall of Liew Mun Leong is a shock to the system – the People’s Action Party system.

It was the PAP system which set up Liew for stardom – he became an upstanding member of society and a darling of the establishment. As elite and entitled as they come in this country.

Liew’s every word and action became the gold standard. His Chancery Lane address alone bestowed him prestige and respectability.

As an entrenched member of the establishment, Liew became too big to challenge, too big to be disproved and too big to do any wrong. There are many like him. This is the hallmark of the PAP system.

The High Court judgement lays bare the stunning details. Had investigators and prosecutors done a thorough, professional job, had they not given Liew the benefit of the doubt every step of the way, things would have turned out differently.

The case might not even have gone to trial. Liew and his family would then have been spared the eventual outcome – the bombshell High Court findings, too damning to sweep under the rug.

Instead of reining in the excesses, Liew was treated with kid gloves and given a free pass.

A runaway train, when not reined in, will self-destruct or cause twisted wreckage. Ironically, the system that Liew profited from ended up causing his downfall because it was not robust enough to keep him in check.

Home Affairs and Law Minister K Shanmugam said something has “gone wrong in the chain of events.” More important than that, how did the system crack in such breathtaking fashion? What happened to the checks and balances?

The downfall of Liew ought to prompt the PAP government to do soul searching. Unless the PAP has the will and wherewithal to fix the system, trust and confidence in the system will not be restored.

Augustine Low

Lawyers for Liberty is a mama organisation?

Pix of Malaysia-based human rights organisation, Lawyers for Liberty (LFL) from LFL that slimes our S’pore govt saying without publishing credible evidence that our judicial executions are unprofessional and barbaric

Almost an all Indian affair organisation.

Kee Chiu admits PAP are failing

Singapore’s political system must evolve, deliver concrete solutions: Chan Chun Sing

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/singapore-political-system-chan-chun-sing-12289372?fbclid=IwAR25Ow1pWejGNvJL3ZBDZz6vDLMnie-fSrxuPJtzBLMuJTLOt3epfIHmHqQ

Well by saying “Singapore’s political system must evolve, deliver concrete solutions” doesn’t this imply that Singapore’s political system is not evolving, delivering concrete solutions? And as S’pore is a de-facto one-party state since 1957 when the PAP came into power with an overwhelming electoral mandate, the PAP cannot blame anyone for a political system that is not evolving, delivering concrete solutions: Why one-party rule sucks for Xi, Lee and Heng

The word “implied” appeared in the POFMA orders against Brad Bowels and Lim Tean. Brad Bowyers

said the authorities had read the four points of his post “wrongly and then said my post ‘implied’ this and ‘implied’ that and so demanded it to be labelled as false”.

https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/politics/article/3043034/singapores-fake-news-law-protecting-truth-or-restricting-free

For further reading on the Alice-in-Wonderland world PORMA has created, read: Fake news law: Ownself judge where I wrote:

 “In the proposed fake news law, ministers are judge and jury.”

and

My main concern is that it makes ministers the initial (and in most cases the final and only) arbiters of truth about claims regarding the PAP government’s performance: “Ownself judge ownself”.

And

POFMA these ministers?

And

No, not fake news that deserves to kanna PORMA, but from the PAP’s very own minister for Malay affairs, a few weeks ago

Malay-Muslim community to be consulted on more issues that concern them: Masagos

Malay community not consulted enough about their concerns

And

Electricity tariff to rise 3.5% in January-March to hit 5-year high

Why MSM no kanna POFMA for spreading fake news?

You might also want to read:

“Black is white, white is black”: Our UK ambassador defends POFMA

Fact v opinion & “Lies, damned lies, and statistics”

Why PAP never admits to mistakes?

Fake news is in the eyes of the beholder

The one-party state and fake news

Why I no ak the Select Committee hearings on Deliberate Online Falsehoods 

 

POFMA these ministers?

In a liberal, Sino-Asian democracy (I’m thinking of Taiwan or South Korea) that has passed a POFMA-type law administered by a neutral, quasi-judicial entity would the following ministers be sanctioned for falsifying facts?

Ong Ye Kung

A one-party system may give Singapore its best shot at success, because it is a small country that needs to stay nimble, said Education Minister (Higher Education and Skills) Ong Ye Kung yesterday at the Institute of Policy Studies’ annual Singapore Perspectives conference.

Constructive, nation-building ST in 2017

Really? We have become so nimble that it’ll take until November for MoE to decide whether some students will get their PSLE slips even if their parents are too cheap or destitute to pay the children’s school fees.

Kee Chiu for saying

Have economic growth and job creation benefited Singaporeans? And more importantly … have economic growth and job creation benefited Singaporeans more than foreigners. Mr Deputy Speaker Sir, the short answer to both questions is a resounding yes.

Read more at https://www.todayonline.com/commentary/singapores-economic-growth-and-job-creation-have-benefited-citizens-more-foreigners

Really? I’ve heard hard core PAP supporters grumble about FTs stealing their kopi se.

He then scores an own goal asking Pritam Singh what’s the point behind his employment query. Pritam Singh says he wants to counter falsehoods. Ouch: that must hurt.

Pritam wants more clarity on government employment statistics under the various Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs), to show how many jobs are filled by Singaporeans, Permanent Residents (PRs) and foreigners, saying this would help S’poreans track government policies to determine whether they are working to boost employment and improve career prospects, as well as counter falsehoods about such statistics.

He said that the WP would continue to file questions in Parliament to obtain such data.

The Propaganda Information Minister for saying

It is just a convergence or coincidence, possibly an unfortunate one, that the first four correction directions issued under Singapore’s ‘fake news’ law were directed at opposition parties or people affiliated with political parties, Communications and Information Minister S Iswaran said.

Read more at https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/unfortunate-coincidence-first-four-pofma-actions-directed-opposition-politicians

I’ve heard PAP IB members laughing at this comment. As TOC said, it’s the PAP govt who decides when to issue such orders.

What do you think? Should these ministers kanna POFMA?

Before you answer, read: Fake news law: Ownself judge where I wrote:

 “In the proposed fake news law, ministers are judge and jury.”

and

My main concern is that it makes ministers the initial (and in most cases the final and only) arbiters of truth about claims regarding the PAP government’s performance: “Ownself judge ownself”.

And

No, not fake news that deserves to kanna PORMA, but from the PAP’s very own minister for Malay affairs, a few weeks ago

Malay-Muslim community to be consulted on more issues that concern them: Masagos

Malay community not consulted enough about their concerns

And

Electricity tariff to rise 3.5% in January-March to hit 5-year high

Why MSM no kanna POFMA for spreading fake news?

You might also want to read:

“Black is white, white is black”: Our UK ambassador defends POFMA

Fact v opinion & “Lies, damned lies, and statistics”

Why PAP never admits to mistakes?

Fake news is in the eyes of the beholder

The one-party state and fake news

Why I no ak the Select Committee hearings on Deliberate Online Falsehoods 

In a liberal, Sino-Asian democracy (I’m thinking of Taiwan or South Korea) that has passed a POFMA-type law administered by a neutral, quasi-judicial entity, Ong sure kanna POFMA, while the odds are even stevens that the other two will be POFMA.

But in a de facto one-party state, “Ownself check ownself” prevails: will suckling pigs, chickens and ducks vote for Chinese New Year or lambs, sheep and goats vote for Eid? What do you really think?

Can toys protest here?

The report that police are investigating after a report that a foreigner participated in a rally organised by Gilbert Goh reminded me of a recent BBC story

A protest art installation involving toys “holding” banners in the Bosnian city of Banja Luka has resulted in the arrest of one of the organisers.

Stefan Blagic, the leader of NGO ReStart Srpska, was detained by police after he refused to leave Krajina Square, according to the Buka news portal. He was released later that day.

ReStart Srpska describes itself on Facebook as an organisation which “unmasks the wrong and abnormal processes” in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-50558236

Only at Hong Lim Green, I suspect and if they are made in S’pore.

You might be interested in

Seelan Palay: Sylvia Lim was right: Jogging alone wearing the “wrong” tee shirt could be illegal.

PAP uses Lawfare against its opponents?

In S’pore we have rule by law not the rule of law

Fake news is in the eyes of the beholder

So far my attitude to the PAP’s govt use of POFMA (Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act) chimes with that of one Adrian Tan who posted on FB

Based on the Mindef law suit, I was sceptical about what ministers say in parly when passing laws. But so far POFMA couldn’t have been used on nicer people. 🤪 Restoring my faith in what ministers say. 🤣

(Note he was referring to the law suit against, Dr Ting Choon Meng and TOC brought under Protection from Harassment Act (POHA) which a minister had assured us, when it was a bill, that it vwas meant to be a remedy for the little people. Ultimately the courts decided that Mindef could not use the law to harass Dr Tan and TOC.)

But

Critics say the law threatens freedom of expression. Amnesty International said it would “give authorities unchecked powers to clamp down on online views of which it disapproves”.

BBC

But AI is no friend of the PAP govt. In fact, its motto seems to be “Die, die must say bad things about the PAP govt.”  They sound like our very own cybernuts.

Seriously, even we in S’pore live in a post-truth age (Race is BS or “post-truth” at work?) even though the PAP govt has passed the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act.

Btw, one Paul Johnson a towering right wing intellectual in his book Modern Times blamed Albert Einstein for making the truth relative.

Whatever, there’s no truth out there to seek out because

PAP really makes case for banning tobacco and alcohol

Our Pet Minister* (The PAP sees voters who own pets as an important constituency*) likes to draw attention to the scientific literature that show that cannabis and other drugs are harmful, as the reason not to decriminalise them.

Well there is plenty of evidence that alcohol and tobacco are more harmful.

So why PAP no ban them?

Ang moh tua kee at work (West’s ‘human rights superiority complex’)? Our colonial masters didn’t ban alcohol and tobacco but banned these drugs, so their PAP running dogs followed blindly isit?

Fyi

[A] report published today by the Global Commission on Drug Policy, an independent group of 26 former presidents and other bigwigs. They conclude that, as far as the scientific evidence is concerned, current drug laws have no rhyme or reason to them. The commission blames the UN’s drug classification system, which sorts some 300 psychoactive substances into “schedules” according to their harms and benefits. Some, such as morphine, have medical uses. Others, such as psilocybin (the active ingredient in magic mushrooms), are used mostly recreationally. Drugs without any apparent medical utility are automatically placed in the most dangerous category—and subjected to the strictest criminal penalties—regardless of the risk they pose.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2019/06/25/what-is-the-most-dangerous-drug

---

*He and his side kick Louis Ng (PAP MP still sore at childhood failure?) got more power then the ministers responsible for Malays, Indians and Eurasians combined. Says something about the power and influence that pets who really own their so-called masters have in S’pore. Minorities can only envy these dogs and cats.

PAP govt one up up on repressive central Asian republic?

In S’pore, a few years ago, a person was arrested for holding a mirror. So did someone from Kazakhstan study our laws and decide to imitate us?

The Kazakh police took a young activist into custody after he decided to test whether he could get away with standing in the street holding a placard with no writing on it.

Aslan Sagutdinov took the placard to the central Abay Square of his native city of Oral in the west of the country, and held it up opposite the central council offices.

The video blogger took the precaution of having a colleague capture the whole thing on film, which the local Uralskaya Nedelya news site embedded in its report.

“I’m not taking part in a protest, and I want to show that they’ll still take me down the police station, even though there’s nothing written on my placard and I’m not shouting any slogans,” the 24-year-old told reporters who’d turned up to see what happened.

https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-48187353

Here is what I wrote in 2017 about the guy carrying a mirror who was arrested.

Seelan Palay: Sylvia Lim was right

Here I made fun of Seelan Palay’s latest attempt to test the OB markers: he crossed a red line after the police tried very hard not to arrest him, but he persisted, “After several failed attempts by the Police to persuade Seelan to leave the area, he was arrested by the Police at 3.20pm.” (TOC report)

Two years ago I wrote about how one person can be arrested for an illegal assembly

Jogging alone can be illegal?

If wearing the wrong tee-shirt or singlet?

Try walkng 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.

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.

Related post: PAP uses Lawfare against its opponents?

———‘

*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.

Seelan Palay: Sylvia Lim was right

And there’s this more recent event: Jolovan’s latest problem shows Sylvia Lim’s and my prescience

“There is freedom of speech, but I cannot guarantee freedom after speech”

Did Minister Shan say this?

No. But he could have and still may soon. Or some other minister may say it, if Shan is taking a break, because this is the philosophy behind the new law. Ministers can publish corrections alongside claims about public institutions that it deems false. Those who publish false statements with “malicious intent” face criminal sanctions, including fines of up to S$1m and jail sentences of up to 10 years.

Don’t believe me? The law differs from laws against the spread of misinformation in other jurisdictions, which typically focus on taking down problematic content from online platforms.

Still don’t believe me? Read The one-party state and fake news where I quoted from Fake news law: Ownself judge ownself

The problem about lies or “fake news” is who gets to decide what is or is not a lie or “fake news”.

In liberal democracies, even the president of the US cannot get his view of what is or is not a lie or “fake news” accepted by even a majority of the voters. There’s some sort of consensus (“conventional wisdom”) driven (manipulated?) by the elites and media about what is or is not a lie or “fake news” in which facts often play an important part.

In a one-party state (de facto or de jure) the ruling party decides what is or is not a lie or “fake news”

— Keeping power in a one-party state

— Would this happen in a one-party state?

— Coldstore: Why Harry’s narrative or the highway

The planned tackling of “fake news” is a smokescreen for muzzling further netizens, not juz cybernuts. The internet and social media has made it a lot easier for S’poreans to share facts, ideas, and criticisms of the way we are governed by the PAP.

— Minister wants his cake and eat it/ PAP doesn’t get the Internet

— Ingratitude, uniquely S’porean? Blame the internet? Not really

— Us Netizens: Comancherios of the Internet?

This freedom (relative) to share facts, ideas, and criticisms of the way we are governed by the PAP worries the PAP (juz like the CCP worries about the internet and social media in China), hence the plan to further muzzle the internet and social media.

And then read

Why the PAP is really afraid of Facebook?:

The PAP is trying to intimidate Facebook not really because of fake news but because Facebook can be used to turn sheep into wolves.

Other relevant posts

Silencing fake news and inconvenient voices: two sides of the same coin

Fighting fake news while raising revenue

What is “news”?/ “Fake news” is not “fake” says Harvard expert

Btw,

There is freedom of speech, but I cannot guarantee freedom after speech.

was said by Idi Amin

a Ugandan president best known for his brutal regime and crimes against humanity while in power from 1971-1979.

Idi Amin – Facts, Life & Uganda – Biography – Famous Biographies

https://www.biography.com/people/idi-amin-9183487

2 must reads: NUS voyeurism balls-up

Or is it cock-up?

Sorry. Can’t help the flippancy. What happened is really black comedy at it’s blackest. After the police, AGC and NUS washed their hands (OK sort of) over a voyeur (Maybe taking the attitude “From poor family; must pang chance.”?), the unhappy victim got the voyeur crucified on the day the Christ was crucified or thereabouts.

If the system fails her, she cannot be expected to behave like a meek and mild lamb, can she? Power to her for having the balls to demand publicly that she gets her retribution. Note I said “retribution”, not “justice”.

Here’s a link to a very good commentary on the perspective that the police, AGC and NUS missed: a damning indictment of their failure to understand how gals feel.

Commentary: Here’s what zero tolerance towards sexual misconduct looks like

The NUS voyeurism incident offers lessons for all education institutions, says AWARE Executive Director Corinna Lim.

Read more at https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/commentary/nus-sexual-misconduct-zero-tolerance-toilet-filming-monica-baey-11472002

Even better is this comment from someone who seems to know how prosecutorial discretion works in practice. What he says bring back memories of the days when the then head of Crime section in the AGC and I chatted about the role of his team. Where he is wrong, is the person making the decision is supervised and the head of the crime division has to sign-off.

Heng Choy Yuen

I agree with the contents of your article. But the OVER-dependence on protocols and routine thinking may become too dogmatic. Here’s why I say so …. the RESULT of any interview by counsellors, investigations led by the SPF depends on whose desk the case file lands inside the AGC. He/she at AGC is the one who decides whether the legal process stops at his/her desk or be sent for arraignment. Due to the peculiar nature of sex-related and sexual crimes (stealing underwear, peeping tom, filming videos, physical outrgae of modesty, rape), sometimes a less-experienced AGC legal officer may make an error of judgement, not due to lack of factual evidence but simply because the analysis of cases involving sexual crimes require a deeper and thorough understanding beyond what is written in the Penal Code and statutes. Yes, there are more than sufficient precedents to guide towards a judgement (from 2015-2018 there were reportedly 20 cases of sexual misconduct handled by NUS alone) but I think in MIss Baey’s case, the person at AGC charged with deciding the punishment of MIss Baey’s offender perhaps made an error of judgement – by showing leniency (protecting the offender’s future) by itself is not ‘wrong’ when weighed against the evidence and facts gathered – but the ‘high probability of being remorseful” is an ASSESSMENT, not a fact. THe AGC officer in this case should have also considered a more potent FACT backed up by global research on the mental health of sex crimes victims – the FACT that Miss Baey, along with countless victims of similar sex crimes, will live with her mental trauma, fears and anguish. In all probability for the rest of her life. No amount of remorse, a single letter of apology can erase the mental scarring that has already occurred. Therefore while it is commendable to show leniency for ‘remorseful first-time offenders’, the LIFE-LONG irreversible mental damage on the victims of sexual misconduct MUST be prioritised – the victim had no say but … the perpetrator (unless mentally ill) made a wilful, perhaps even premeditated, decision. He was also reportedly under the influence of alcohol but how drunk he was we do not know …. so how does a drunk man summon enough soberness to go from cubicle to cubicle (captured on CCTV) ostensibly to film a naked woman bathing? Obviously his vision was not impaired by alcohol in making his directorial debut …. Isn’t it ironical that the efforts by the law enforcement authorities and NUS to show leniency just so the offender’s future is not destroyed, is producing the very opposite aftermath? Did they anticipate that their ‘merciful’ punishments would generate such public uproar and media attention? A few days ago, Great Eastern put the perp (who was working there) on suspension, but he chose to resign. But while he may recover some semblance of normalcy say after 4-5 years, the mental trauma he caused to MIss Baey is etched in her memory perhaps forever. THAT is a LESSON no victim would ever want.

(Emphasis mine)

Silencing fake news: even SPH has concerns

Further to Silencing fake news and inconvenient voices: two sides of the same coin, when even the constructive, nation-building SPH is concerned

In a submission to Parliament, Singapore Press Holdings, the country’s largest media organization, warned that a broad interpretation of “fake news” could could lead to “fears among citizens about freely expressing their opinions or engaging in robust and constructive debates, or even to self-censorship by news outlets wary of falling foul of the law.”

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/02/asia/singapore-fake-news-intl/index.html?fbclid=IwAR22aU_0W-3Io4sCj03lopodZMWnS_95xaYgRcknGGIJkgdMI2KPlw4PQAg

, PAP voters who voted for Tan Cheng Bock as president should be concerned about the coming law’s powers to ministers: Fake news law: Ownself judge ownself.

Here’s something I came across sometime back, but can’t remember where:

Removing content is not the only way to shape our minds; the most powerful censorship tactics are those we never see – for good and ill.

The coming laws on fake news is nothing more than an attempt to ensure self censorship, something S’poreans are very good at, even Goh Meng Seng, for all his fake news skills:

— Meng Seng: fake news propogator

— What Meng Seng and TOC don’t tell us about dispute with Tun

— “Licking the ass of the enemy of my enemy”

Fake news law: Ownself judge ownself

Or in posh English, not Singlish, “In the proposed fake news law, ministers are judge and jury.”

This is a seriously good reason to be concerned about the proposed bill introduced on Monday, which gives the government very sweeping powers in the name of regulating fake news propogators like Goh Meng Seng and TOC’s Danisha Hakeem.

My main concern is that it makes ministers the initial (and in most cases the final and only) arbiters of truth about claims regarding the PAP government’s performance: “Ownself judge ownself”.

That is most unfair and unnatural because it makes a minister the judge and the jury in his own cause. Worse although there is some sort of a right of appeal, the burden of establishing the truth lies on the appellant, not the minister. I do not think a minister should have the power to regulate comments made about them or their department in the same way as the government having the power to regulate hate speech or even seriously offensive speech against race or religion.

There is an obvious potential for serious conflicts of interest here, like “Ownself check ownself”.

Related post: Fake news laws give SPH biz advantage

 

 

In trouble: Must be Bill Ng’s footie club again LOL

Hougang United Football Club, one of nine clubs in the professional football league, has filed a police report against an employee after losing S$278,200 from its coffers.

A female administrative staff member, Tean Tai Tee, allegedly misappropriated the sales revenue from the clubhouse between Nov 29 and Dec 11 last year. Tean, 25, was subsequently arrested by the police and charged in court on Dec 16 with criminal breach of trust.

MSM late last week

Chairman of the club is one Bill Ng. Who he? The wannabe saviour of S’pore footie (Bill’s Game Changers trying to avoid 41 – 3 thrashing) who was arrested and is out on bail.

Sport Singapore filing a police report against National Football League side TBFC for suspected misuse of club funds and a purported attempt by a senior club official to obstruct the completing of audits of the league’s sit-out clubs.

TBFC and Hougang chairman Bill Ng and his wife Bonnie Wong, former FAS general secretary Winston Lee and former FAS president Zainudin Nordin were subsequently arrested.

Details that emerged from the case also shocked members of the fraternity, as TBFC was found to have earned S$37 million from its clubhouse operations while spending just S$169,000 on its football team.

https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/s250000-missing-hougang-united-football-club-staff-arrested#cxrecs_s

————————————————————–

Bill Ng: S’pore footie’s ang pow king

Bill the “donation” king/ A friend in need is not a friend indeed?

—————————————————————

As he, his wife, ex-FAS senior official and ex-MP have yet to be charged, or the cases dropped by the police, maybe it’s time for human rights activists to KPKB about persecution etc? They were arrested and released on bail almost a yr ago: Bill Ng, wife, ex-FAS president and FAS gen sec arrested.

That’s a long time ago. In the normal course of events, they should be charged or cleared.

Fat chance of ang moh tua kees KPKBing on their behalf. Human rights activists (think Maruah) don’t do rich people or alleged terrorists, only drug traffickers (or alleged ones), middle class ang moh tua kees like themselves, or FTs: Human rights kay pohs don’t do “fixers” and “jihadists”.

———————————————–

Amos’s lament about ang moh tua kees who “Talk the cock but don’t walk the cock”: Amos: Only mum is still a fan.

—————————————————————-

I’ll end by asking for some help. Could someone who has access to ST’s premium service, copy and past the u/m article in the comments section to this article (Scan article also can do). Need to confirm what I think the article said. There’s another Bill Ng story in the writing, if I get access to the article.

Football: Albirex Niigata go down to Chinatown People’s Park, Football News & Top Stories – The Straits Times The controversial clubhouse at the centre of last year’s Football Association of Singapore (FAS) election donation saga will reopen today under the new ownership of Singapore Premier League (SPL … www.straitstimes.com

https://www.straitstimes.com/sport/football/albirex-go-down-to-peoples-park

Jolovan’s latest problem shows Sylvia Lim’s and my prescience

 

And that Terry Xu has a good point on the police and constructive, nation-building media.”

Many moons ago, I asked:

“Jogging alone can be illegal?

‘If wearing the wrong tee-shirt or singlet?”

Well something like it has happened here.

Social worker and activist Jolovan Wham is being investigated for protesting outside State Courts without a valid permit, police said on Saturday (Mar 2)*.

Seriously, 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.”

Jogging alone can be illegal?

Terry Xu wrote on FB yesterday

[T]he shocking part for me, is that the Police had provided information to the media to create an impression that Wham willfully committed an offence on 13 Dec despite being warned.

This is even before any charge is being made against Wham and established that a protest was being held in front of the state court. What is factually established is Wham took a photo in front of the state court with a piece of paper that had some wordings. He was not being approached by any officers nor arrested for his act, which would imply it was either too insignificant or too short of a time period to be noticed by the guards.

Also, the act of taking a photo should not be considered an offence as photographers from the media take photos of suspects on a regular basis. Unless there is a blatant double standard by the Police.

Yet the Police and the media frame it up as an act which justifies the investigation launched upon Wham.

It’s not shocking to me, or I’m sure, Auntie.

As I wrote many moons ago, try walking or jogging alone wearing a “Free our CPF” singlet: remember that any public assembly of more than one person needs police permission.

But 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? Nothing happened to them.

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

Sad. Because discretionary, or vaguely worded powers can one day be turned against you, the upright, civic, PAP-voting S’porean; not juz against the usual suspects like Jolovan Wham.

Vote wisely.

Related posts:

PAP uses Lawfare against its opponents?

Seelan Palay: Sylvia Lim was right

Jolovan Wham: Nothing wrong in asking Tun M to intervene in S’porean affairs

Why Jolovan Wham’s vigil singled out?

---

*CNA report goes on

Wham had posted a photo on Dec 13 on social media channels, which showed him standing outside the court complex while holding up a piece of paper that read: “Drop the charges against Terry Xu and Daniel De Costa.”

The protest happened the same day Terry Xu, the editor of socio-political website The Online Citizen, and Daniel De Costa were charged for publishing an article that alleged corruption among the Singapore Government’s highest officers.

In response to Channel NewsAsia’s queries, police said that Wham had written to the police earlier in November to apply for a permit to stage a protest outside the State Courts. His application was not approved.

“The State Courts is gazetted as a Prohibited Area under the Public Order Act, with stricter security protocols,” police said.

“He was well aware that a police permit was required for such an event. Still, he went ahead to protest outside the State Courts on Dec 13, 2018.”

Read more at https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/police-investigating-activist-jolovan-wham-protest-state-courts-11305502

 

 

 

Welcome to S’pore: Mall BSing on data protection law

(Part of an occasional series on uniquely S’porean behaviour, attitudes, customs etc)

The TOC article reported in Welcome to S’pore: Punish public-spirited S’porean is priority, got this considered FB response from a lawyer:

The article says that the management of the mall issued a statement that said, “We have mentioned that firms actions will be taken with regards to the video leak. To further clarify, the point of issue is on the filming of the CCTV footage, which is a breach of PDPA rules and regulations as well as security protocol.“

The statement seems a little confused. If the issue is on the “filming of the CCTV footage” (the collection of personal data) then the fact that there could have been signs informing the public of the existence of CCTV cameras capturing footage and hence personal data would be sufficient notice if the signs informed of the collection and the purposes of collection and the channels of disclosure of the personal data collected. In any event as the place was a public space, the collection of personal data in a public space – in this case the filming – could have been done without consent because the data was in this case “publicly available”. However the guidelines do encourage the good practice of putting up signs that inform that CCTV cameras are in use and the purposes for such collection of personal data.

On the other point of the “leak” (disclosure of the relevant personal data) and who is responsible rather depends on whether the leak was occasioned by an employee of the mall or an external service provider. If it was an employee, then the mall would still be the organisation responsible and the enquiry would revolve around whether the mall had taken all reasonable action to prevent such disclosure. If it was by an external service provider like a security company who was engaged by the mall, then the security company would be the subject of the Commission’s enquiry.

But ultimately someone was hurt. For the statement issued by the mall to centre on a possible PDPA breach rather than on what they would do to take care of a fellow human being is, in my opinion, inappropriate.

(Samuel Seow via TOC)

Welcome to S’pore: Punish public-spirited S’porean is priority

(Part of an occasional series on uniquely S’porean behaviour, attitudes, customs etc)

It was recently reported in the media that a lady was hit by a falling glass door at the Alexandra Central Mall on Sunday (24 Feb).

As a result, she suffered multiple serious injuries, including head and liver injuries. She also had multiple fractures along her legs and pelvic bone, which means she will have to undergo surgery to help support and stabilize her spine.

She has been warded at National University Hospital. According to the victim’s sister, the victim would “cry out in agony” every time the painkiller wears off.

Meanwhile, the management of Alexandra Central Mall is reportedly on the hunt for the person who leaked the CCTV footage online. The footage captured the entire episode showing how the glass door fell on the lady.

TOC

Seems that mgt is claiming that the leak is in breach of data protection laws so he has to be caught.

Shouldn’t the mgt of Alexandra Central Mall be more interested in ensuring that no-one else gets hurt?

But TOC may offer an explanation

[F]ormer Chief of Navy and Transport Minister Lui Tuck Yew joined Chip Eng Seng’s Board of Directors in 2016, after he stepped down from politics in 2015. He did not want to run for elections anymore.

(Chip Eng Seng, a listc, owns the mall)

Remember an ex-soldier told MRT commuter that people must die before SMRT train can be damaged: SMRT SVP is great believer in shareholder value?.

OK, OK, I exaggerate, the PR head of SMRT said yrs ago

If you are stuck inside a train, never smash the windows or force the doors open. Stay calm and wait for help.

My response:

But what if passengers are in great discomfort or suffocating to death in the dark because the back-up system that was supposed to activate emergency lights within the carriages and provide ventilation was not working? And passengers don’t know when help is arriving because the driver is not authorised to tell them, or he doesn’t know?

Still no smash windows to breath fresher air, Mr Goh?

The reasonable implication of what Mr Goh says is that SMRT (remember he is SVP) prefers S’poreans to suffer great discomfort or die rather than damage SMRT property.

Shareholders will be pleased that they have someone, like Mr Goh managing SMRT, who is so concerned about shareholder value that he would rather people die than damage SMRT property.

I’ll go buy some SMRT shares tomorrow. With managers like him, nothing for shareholders to worry about neh?

That was a great buy. Sad didn’t buy enough.

“Peanuts”: WP MPs’ liability

All this talk about Hyflux’s accounts and KPMG reminded me of another set of accounts that involved KPMG.

Aljunied-Hougang Town Council (AHTC)

is seeking to claim S$33.7 million of “improper” payments made to AHTC’s former managing agent FM Solutions and Services (FMSS) and contractor FM Solutions and Integrated Services (FMSI).

A retired WP cadre (no friend of Auntie, Low or Bayee) told that this amount is excessive. It’s all the gross payments made by WP run Aljunied town council to FMSS and FMSI without deduction for services provided. No-one, not even PAPpy running dogs (apologies to the real dogs), denies that services were provided: What the US army and WP have in common. The issue is accounting for those payments: Wankers’ Party still blur on audits and accounting and AHTC accounts: WP outsources decision to recover monies.

The lawyer for the Wankers Three said

The sum of money that AHTC seeks to claim is unreasonable, as it amounted to all payments made to FMSS and FMSI. This contradicts the previous assessment made by accounting firm KPMG, which stated that there was an alleged improper payment of slightly over S$1.5 million, with only about S$624,000 to be recovered.

The retired cadre who has read all the various audit reports (AGO/ PwC and KPMG) says that while KPMG has lots of issues about the payments made to FMSS and FMSI , it has only flagged as an improper payment an amount around $1.5m. The other payments are open to question, some more questionable than others, only considering as haram an amount around $1.5m  : What the US army and WP have in common

Whatever, funny that the defence lawyer slammed KPMG while relying on its view of liability of the amount in question:

Defence lawyers in AHTC trial slam the way KPMG compared managing agent costs

Read more at https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/defence-lawyers-ahtc-trial-day-4-slam-kpmg-managing-agent-costs-10812630

Low can easily pay off $1.5m: juz sell one of his condos.

 

 

 

 

Gods punishing Potong Pasir residents for voting PAP?

In the space of the last few days, the constructive, nation-building media reported without comment (Imagine if these bad things had happened in Aljunied or Hougang?):

Giant trap to control Javan Myna population trialed in Potong Pasir

Read more at https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/javan-myna-birds-potong-pasir-giant-trap-trial-ava-11069350

and

Burst pipe in Potong Pasir leaves homes without water for several hours

Read more at https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/burst-pipe-potong-pasir-leaves-homes-without-water-hours-11064146

It could be that the Gods are punishing the residents of Potong Pasir for preferring material benefits that the PAP offers in return for deserting the Chiams.

Will the residents repent abandoning the Chiams in 2011 and not turning back to them in 2015? Will they vote for Mrs Chiam in next GE?

Seriously, I’m shocked that anti-PAP publications like TOC, TRE and The Idiots, and the cybernuts on social media are not using the incidents to show that the PAP govt is incompetent: it can’t even look after areas that support the PAP.

Maybe, these people are on luxury holidays overseas and so missed the news.

But most probably, the cybernuts (not enough money to even donate peanuts to keep alive TOC and TRE let alone go on luxury hols) are distracted by what they consider as the persecutions of Uncle Leong, Terry and Daniel Augustin De Costa aka Willy Sum: PAP & strategic distraction

Or even more likely, the PAP has succeeded in frightening the chickens and sheep by suing a few monkeys.

What do you think?

Prosperous 2019. Vote wisely but not for the three stooges: Mad Dog, Lim Tean, Meng Seng where are yr durians?. And make a distinction between Dr Chee and the SDP.

Law on sharing defamatory articles

Uncle Leong is playing the innocent victim, saying he juz shared the infamous article on social media.

“He does not assert that what the article said or is alleged to have said was true,” said Mr Lim [Lim Tean, Uncle Leong’s lawyer] in Mr Leong’s defence, adding that all Mr Leong did “was to share without endorsement or comment a link to an article” which had been sent to him on Facebook.

Read more at https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/leong-sze-hian-defence-counterclaim-lee-hsien-loong-defamation-11064586

 

The cybernut brigade (CB?), the anti-PAPpists’ answer to the PAP IB, have said that since Uncle Leong has been sued, everyone else sharing said article should also be sued. And if they are not sued, why not? They got a point and it’s juz like these nuts to want to sabo other cybernuts who shared said article.

Sorry back to “sharing” as defamation

Repeating defamatory matter

 

The general rule in English law is that it is no defence in an action for defamation for a defendant to prove that he was only repeating the words of another. Accordingly, if producers wish to repeat potentially defamatory allegations, they must always seek legal advice. It may be that we will safely be able to repeat the allegations because, for example, the reporting is covered by privilege, but advice from the programme lawyer must be sought. On matters of public interest, the neutral reporting of disputes between third parties, where allegations are not adopted or endorsed, is likely to be defensible but again advice from the programme lawyer must be sought.

https://www.channel4.com/producers-handbook/media-law/defamation/intentional-accidental-defamation

Need I say more than that S’pore law is also liddat.

 

Willy Sum: cybernuts’ new hero

Since born-loser Roy Ngerng buggered off to Taiwan to find love, our cybernuts have been looking desperately for a new hero to egg on and cheer on.

---

Why Roy Ngerng is a born-loser

Taiwanese voters … approved three initiatives to curb gay rights. Taiwan’s constitutional court has ruled that the government must allow some form of gay marriage. The referendum result complicates the government’s undertaking to enforce that ruling.

Economist

Roy is still in an illicit affair.

—————————————-

Cybernuts now have Willy Sum who allegedly alleged high level govt corruption (but hasn’t yet produced the evidence). For his pains, he had his home ransacked and electronic equipment seized by the police for a possible offence of “criminal defamation” after IMDA lodged a police report. It’s widely believed that this is the first time, a govt agency or department has lodged a report for “criminal defamation”.

But Willy’s he’s cybernut nor is he juz a talk cock, sing song paper warrior. He’s a social activist (like Terry of Terry’s Online Channel) who uses words in place of stones to try to get justice for the helpless.

In Is Singapore a police state?, Teo Soh Lung, another activist, tells us about his work

Willy is a good listener. He spends hours listening to people pouring out their troubles. He writes about their hardship and problems. He highlights the problems they face, occasionally using online platforms like TOC and Transitioning.org. He writes about their inability to cope with the high cost of living, their joblessness and occasionally their brush with the law. He helps them to communicate with relevant ministries and is simply elated when his letters receive the necessary attention and the status of his “clients” is improved. His “clients” are grateful to him and he is happy. He is a sort of the olden days “petition writers” except that he does that all for free.

Recently, he helped Siti, a mother of three with this article published in Transitioning.org: ”Kids taken away from custody of parents by MSF even after negative drug test“.

Siti’s children were removed from her custody by the very ministry that was supposed to help her hold her family together. When everything failed and she was pushed to the wall, Willy came to her rescue. Shortly after the publication of Siti’s letter in Transitioning.org, her three children were reunited with her. Thanks to Transitioning.org and Willy.

Morocco Mole tells me that his cousins in Home Team say Willy should only get a warning not to repeat his allegation about corruption in high places if he repents. Let’s hope this happens and that Willy learns his lesson.

He was doing valuable work helping the helpless and I hope he can return to his valuable, useful work. He should not listen to the cybernut mob cheering, and egging him on: though based on his open letter below, I think he’s going down the path Roy Ngerng took.

This is Willy’s open letter to S’poreans.

Dear Fellow Singaporeans,

It has been a tulmetenous period for both TOC’s Mr Terry Xu and myself, since our undue “arrests” a fortnight ago.

We have been rounded up by top CID officers, possibly under directions from the Commissioner himself! We had our IT equipment seized, the items that have very much been the tools of our fight against modern day oppression and one that brought to light countless discrepancies for public attention and discourse. Otherwise, these contentious issues would go unchallenged and not have brought improvements to the lives of our people.

I was served with a SPF letter dated the day itself, with constant threats of Warrants of Arrest from the Magistrate should I not turn up for questioning on their stipulated day and time. Even the worst suspects have between 2 to 3 weeks to show up for questioning! My personal emails and messages to irrelevant parties like Mr Pritam Singh were also accessed during the “criminal defamation” probe. I feel violated, totally devoid of human dignity and handled like an enemy of the State, akin to the time when Hitler rounded up the Jews for extermination!

What still motivates me to write on social justice issues is the undeniable fact that many pressing matters can be traced to our oligarchy system of governance, which provides little to no checks of an absolute power and State Institutions/Functions have been reduced to a sham! Statements by the establishment to voice out on occurrences we deem suspicious, have been met with threats or the brute force of government agencies.

I am not undermining confidence in the government but that trust has already been eroded since the amendment to the Constitution for a Reserved Presidency, non-committal of the GST hike despite assurances there will not be one until 2025, plummeting housing prices with no solution at sight and not forgetting, the 38 Oxley Rd saga with its many deafening allegations.

Are these the values upon which our Founding Fathers built this Nation? If not, then what happened to them, especially so soon after the demise of Mr LKY? Even as the dust has not yet settled on our case, I urge you to take time to ponder on what kind of society you want for yourselves and if the present system is tenable for your dreams and ideals?

We, the bloggers and civil activists have done all we can in good conscience and often at our own expense and safety, to make heard your voices and fight for what you deserve! We have now been bogged down with lawsuits and criminal charges one after another by the State.

We hope you will continue this strive for a better society and appoint from among yourselves, courageous people to do so as we may not be able to hold on much longer as we wish we could.

#In Good Conscience

Willy Sum

P/S: Willy Sum is a pen name and not representative of anyone.

His mum, Judy Wan emailed TRE as follows

The authorities are alleging that my son and Mr Xu are conspirators to publish the article in question and we having been in constant contact with Mr Xu is simply ridiculous. We do not possess his cell phone number!

If I am not wrong, this is one of the rare time in Singapore’s history that Criminal Defamation had been invoked to deal with two civilians. They were not used previously on The Late Hon. J B Jeyaratnam and Dr Chee Soon Juan.

My son and I were surrounded by police around 2.30pm yesterday at the void deck, which caused a mini commotion among our neighbours sitting below and attracted curious onlookers. We were told to cancel our Grab booking and disallowed to go anywhere.

We were then escorted up by the officers who conveyed to us their intention of seizing our electronics regardless of ownership of the items, armed with court warrants.

In the flat, my son was being queried extensively on his association with a childhood friend, his activist activities and a confirmation of what police had gathered about my son from relatives and friends. My younger siblings contacts and addresses were also taken to facilitate further investigations. I remain disturbed at such excessive surveillance on two very ordinary civilians while criminal investigations on the abandoned “Masarati” case at Senette Estate, cheating by IOC and Cuffz holdings amongst other pressing cases remains inconclusive.

We were treated as though we are big time criminals with absolutely no rights! I wonder why it is legal for the authorities to keep tabs on us while illegal for us to do the same to them?

The IO then brought my son to the staircase landing where they had a “private conversation” and I can second guess where that was leading to. After 2 hours, police proceeded to impound the items and informed us of “consequences” should they uncover anything incriminating from the devices. My son asked for assurances that passwords or other personal info not be divulged to other parties but police were unable to provide the confirmation.

State-approved media later spun the story out of context in the evening, implying that people can lose faith in the PAP following this publication when no one has even step forward to claim so! The only barometer to gauge this will be conclusion of the next General Elections.

I vividly recalled Ms Sylvia Lim’s speeches on the 38 Oxley Rd saga and the amendment to the Presidential Election, to halt “tampering” with the Constitution and “safeguard” the Public Institutions before it is too late! Is that considered defamatory as well?

I am only a low wage admin worker drawing a meagre salary and took 11 months to painstakingly save up $680 to plan a small scale celebration for my birthday next Friday. This has presently been destroyed yesterday once police disallowed us to leave the Country and UOB refusing to refund the money paid.

I understand State strategy to be draining the financial resources of litigants until they are crushed into pleading guilty!

My son has since taken ill from this undue episode with gastronomic condition and massive migraine! He will be requesting a later date for statement taking as he is not in the right frame to do a recording at the moment.

I feel very distressed and vulnerable going through this alone as my religious community is based overseas and have no one to turn to after my husband died 7 years back. Does not help with no safeguards in the law to guarantee my son and I will not be arrested when we step out of the house for breakfast tomorrow morning?

Crazy Rich Ganga User jailed for another yr

In Yet another Crazy Rich Asian druggie has gd lawyer, I blogged about how Metro scion Ong Jenn had a good lawyer that got him off on a lesser charge than what the prosecution wanted.

The prosecution appealed saying he should be convicted of abetting to traffic drug. But a High  Court judge dismissed the appeal against the conviction and against Ong’s reduced charges, to rule that he should not be convicted of abetting to traffic drugs.

But as for the prosecution’s appeal against the sentence, the judge agreed that the should jail term extended by a year to three years.

Even in S’pore where “Money talks, BS walks”, money can’t get a person everything.

Why S377A is a gate worth storming, or defending/ Legal basis of repeal

Hawkergate* (thankfully because the focus has shifted to a bread-and-kaya issue not air fairy human rights) has made anti-PAP S’poreans especially the cybernuts forget about the attempt to repeal 377A. So let’s spend a few minutes (only a few) to reflect on why the zealots on both sides of the Pink line think the row is very impt. And why most of us are boh chap the issue, unlike on Hawkergate.

The attempt to repeal section 377A in the Penal Code is the mother of all battles for the Talinanites of both sides because a victory for the repealers will open the mountain pass, or the gate of the fortress or Great Wall to the “barbarians” as the other side sees them. Of course, the stormers say history is on their side and objectively they are right.

---

Other Gay Suff

Male gays here: On “permanent” parole

Gays versus Taliban Christians etc

Oppressed to Oppressor: Pastor Khong describes Christianity’s evolution, not the gays’ agenda

——————————–

For those who fight for the retention of S377A, they know (rightly) that the “barbarians” (or “progressives”) will then fight for legal same-sex marriage. This will then lead to same-sex married couples becoming eligible to buy HDB flats and govt grants. It’s all about money, ain’t it?

….Then it will lead to toilet issues like man cross-dresses to woman’s attire entering women’s toilet, education system and curriculum, neighbours, etc and will lead to many other issues. Hence, it is better to keep 377A status quo. What they do privately in their bedrooms is their business.

FB post

So the fight to retain 377A is to head off the legalisation of gay marriages in the future. S377A has to be repealed first. If it’s repealed tomorrow, one less barrier or hurdle to overcome.

Onto the legal basis of the challenge

The lawyers of Johnson Ong who is taking legal action to repeal the law which criminalises sex between two men,  Mr Eugene Thuraisingam and Mr Suang Wijaya

will highlight the concept of human dignity, which was not argued in a previous challenge filed four years ago.

They will argue that Section 377A “violates human dignity”, and that sexual orientation “is unchangeable or suppressible at unacceptable personal cost”.

They will adduce expert evidence, which was also not led in the 2014 case that was struck down. They include proof that same-gender sexual orientation (including identity, behaviour, and attraction), and variations in gender identity and gender expression are “a part of the normal spectrum of human diversity and do not constitute a mental disorder”.

If established that sexual orientation is unchangeable or suppressible, they will argue that the criminalising of consensual sex is a violation of human dignity and breaches Article 9(1) of the Constitution, which states “no one shall be deprived of life and personal liberty save in accordance with law”.

The lawyers will also argue that there have been many changes and legal developments around the world since the October 2014 challenge was struck down.

https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/dj-has-file-his-evidence-challenging-section-377a-nov-20

I wish them well but point out that the predecessor of s377A was the law of the land long before the Con was enacted. The Indian case is not binding on our courts, as the lawyers know. Besides it’s an Indian, not an ang moh ruling: even for our ethnic Indian judges.

---

*The Hard Truth about hawker food: Link edited at 7.30am after first publication

Coming? Cyber law forbidding “anti-state purposes”?

(Or “Who said “Law should not protect the weakling but make the strong even stronger”)

A law has just been passed in Vietnam which

bans internet users in Vietnam from organising people for “anti-state purposes” and contains sweeping language under which users would not be allowed to “distort history” or “negate the nation’s revolutionary achievements”

FT

Such a law can be used lock up one PJ Thum (What Oxford really says about PJ Thum and Project Southeast Asia) and his side kick one Sonny Liew (Coldstore: Why Harry’s narrative or the highway).

While our Minister for Pets and Police could have said this based on what he has said about the authorities needing more powers

Law should not protect the weakling but make the strong even stronger.

he didn’t.

This was said by Hans Frank’s Hiltler’s personal lawyer immortal words (cf. Konrad Heiden,’The Fuehrer’, p. 567).

Coldstore: FT minister thinks Pa rightly detained

At least that’s the reasonable conclusion one can draw from his remarks to ST.

In an interview with ST (‘Facts, falsehoods, feedback – Janil has firm grasp of them all’, 7 May), the new Senior Minister of State for Communications and Information Janil Puthucheary said

he believes there were national security reasons for the Coldstore arrests and detentions.

“I think that is a reasonable conclusion to come to, that there were indeed national security considerations,” he said.

So, Puthucheary agrees that there were good grounds for interning his father and uncle without trial, since his father and uncle (and others) were considered to be “dangerous communists” ready to overthrow the government through violence.

All this reminds me of what Jesus told Peter

I tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me.

When the ST reporter asked him about his father’s case, talked using both sides of his mouth, he said “I am quite comfortable talking about it but I don’t see that it is in any way relevant.”

He’ll be a full cabinet minister soon.

For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

Btw, looks I was wrong when I wrote this: FT jnr minister disagrees that “Pa” was a justly detained commie?

 

Fake news law: Malays not stupid

The Malays ruling M’sia show that authorities in SE Asia (S’pore included) got a point on need of a “fake news” law.

M’sia’s first use of its newly passed “fake news” law will have ang moh tua kees here wondering what hit them. They’ll have to admit that the actions of one Sulaiman (who pleaded guilty) shows the need for such a law even if it limits freedom of expression:

A Malaysian court has convicted a Danish citizen over inaccurate criticism of police on social media, the first person to be prosecuted under a new law against fake news.

Salah Salem Saleh Sulaiman, 46, was charged with spreading false news after he posted a video on YouTube accusing police of taking 50 minutes to respond to distress calls after the shooting of a Palestinian lecturer on 21 April.

Police said they took eight minutes to respond to the shooting in the capital, Kuala Lumpur. The charge against Sulaiman said he had “with ill intent, published fake news through a video on YouTube”.

Sulaiman, who was not represented at the court hearing, pleaded guilty, but said the video was posted in a “moment of anger” and he did not mean any harm. “I agreed I made a mistake … I seriously apologise to everybody inMalaysia, not just in the Malaysian police,” said Sulaiman, a Danish citizen of Yemeni descent.

From ang moh tua kees favourite newspaper https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/30/first-person-convicted-under-malaysias-fake-news-law

It’s a sad day for the ang moh tua kees here and the rest of SE Asia because

Governments elsewhere in south-east Asia, including Singapore and the Philippines, have also proposed laws aimed at clamping down on the spread of fake news, to the dismay of media rights advocates.

FT jnr minister disagrees that “Pa” was a justly detained commie?

Yesterday, I ended Coldstore: Why Harry’s narrative or the highway promising to explain why I thought an FT jnr minister

disagrees with the the official narrative of  “Bunch of commie subversives who had to be locked up because they wanted to make S’pore Great for Communism” when it comes to his Pa ans uncle.

Here’s my reasoning.

In his parly maiden speech,

Dr Janil Puthucheary said while he felt it inappropriate to detain a citizen without trial, he is convinced by the hard logic that the safety and security of Singapore must be paramount. That’s because there are threats that Singapore faces and which must be dealt with swiftly and decisively.

But he wants to know what safeguards are in place to prevent the ISA from being abused.

Dr Janil said: “I believe I share this view with many Singaporeans; we understand the need to ensure our security despite our misgivings, we recognise the cold hard facts despite the uncomfortable feeling they generate. However, we lack confidence and assurance that the extraordinary power of a State to detain its own citizens without trial will not be abused.

“The process of the safeguards around the ISA needs to be discussed in a more transparent manner, even as the facts associated with a given detainee need to be kept secret. We need to know that the review process works and operates independently of Cabinet. We need to see that the President exercises his authority on this issue.”

Dr Janil asked if the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) will be introducing further measures to enhance these safeguards and to what extent can the decisions of Cabinet be challenged.

CNA

Did he by saying

— “we lack confidence and assurance that the extraordinary power of a State to detain its own citizens without trial will not be abused”

— “The process of the safeguards around the ISA needs to be discussed in a more transparent manner”

imply that the use of ISA against his Pa and his uncle were an abuse of power? And that they were innocent of the allegations made against them.

To me, it sounds reasonable to say it sounded like he was trying to imply that

— the use of ISA against his Pa and his uncle were an abuse of power, and

— they were innocent of the allegations made against them.

Anyone knows whether in in the public records* there is anything about what jnr minister’s Pa and uncle (also detained in Coldstore) tot about their detentions. I can’t find anything where they KPKBed about being wrongly detained*. They were released and sent  back to M’sia. And they became distinguished (and filthy rich) lawyers there.

Related post: Were the Coldstore detainees communists, progressives or leftists?

---

*I can’t remember if they were interviewed in Men in White: don’t have a copy at hand. Should get it as reference book because

The Straits Times backed by four researchers conducted some 300 interviews in Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Hong Kong and China.

Coldstore: Why Harry’s narrative or the highway

(Or “Why Harry’s Coldstore narrative must be the truth”)

The roughing up of someone who dares to publicly talk about a Coldstore narrative that is different from that of one Harry Lee has cyberspace talking cock and upset*.

Amidst the noise and fury, one important issue in both what constitutes “fake news”, generally,and, in particular, in the ongoing dialogue of the deaf about different Coldstore narratives has been forgotten.

The son of one of the Coldstore detainees recently said:

For some of the matters around national security, race, religion, economic and financial issues, public health issues, by definition that source of truth must be government-backed or state-backed. The most egregious issues, the issues with significant impact, significant impact on our social fabric, on our national security, on our public health, the issues of peace, stability, the facts behind those, if you’re going to have a source of truth, it needs to be state-backed.

Dr. Janil Puthucheary, a Jnr Minister, at the Select Committee hearings on Deliberate Online Falsehoods, 23 March 2018

As S’pore is a de facto one-party state (because the voters regularly agree to it), Harry’s version of ColdStore (Bunch of commie subversives who had to be locked up because they wanted to make S’pore Great for Communism) is the official version. 

And because it is “government-backed or state-backed” it must be the truth going by what the jnr minister said. (And don’t forget that the greatest of the Hard Truths is that “Harry is always right. Harry is never wrong”.)

Related post: Were the Coldstore detainees communists, progressives or leftists?

Coming back to the jnr minister’s comments, looks like he agrees with what a M’sian minister said is “fake news”:

“Any information related to 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB) that has not been verified by the Government is considered fake news.

Datuk Jailani Johari (pic), the Deputy Communications and Multimedia Minister, explained that fake news is information that is confirmed to be untrue, especially by the authorities or parties related to the news.”

What “fake” news will be allowed

What else does the jnr minister says about “fake news”? Fake news traffickers will be hanged.

But does the jnr minister disagree with the allegations made against his Pa and uncle who were Coldstore detainees, thereby contradicting the official narrative of “Bunch of commie subversives who had to be locked up because they wanted to make S’pore Great for Communism”?

---

*The grand inquisitor explains why he did what he did

I have been asked why I spent some time asking PJ Thum questions.

PJ’s main point, in his written submission to the Select Committee, was that Mr Lee Kuan Yew was the biggest creator of fake news in Singapore, a liar, and Operation Coldstore was based on falsehoods.

These are serious allegations made in Parliament about our founding PM.

Either they have to be accepted, or shown to be untrue. Keeping quiet about them was not an option.

Thus I told PJ I will ask him questions, on what he had said.

PJ refused to answer many of the questions directly – if a person believes in what he says, and has gone through the documents carefully, then what is the difficulty in answering questions?

It took 5 hours plus to go through the documents and records carefully.

In the end, PJ said that he had not read some of the material published by ex-Communists on what happened in Singapore; that he disregarded the statements made by Chin Peng, the CPM leader; that the way he set out the most important documents (of December 1962) was not accurate; the key meetings of Barisan Socialis showed that they were prepared to use armed struggle to overthrow a Government of Singapore, if necessary; and the British had a honest view, in December 1962, that security action (which was Operation Coldstore), was necessary.

People know me – I am direct, I deal with the facts, and say it as I think it is.

I can see that Sonny Liew is not happy with what happened with PJ. It is quite understandable. Based on what he says, he and PJ are quite close; they work together in a venture. His award winning cartoon, The Art of Charlie Chan Hock Chye, is also based on PJ’s version of history.

I have not met Sonny, but I have to say he is a good cartoonist. He is a talent.

K Shanmugam Sc‘s post

Btw, I agree with the points he makes about Sonny Liew being a good cartoonist and about why he asked the questions he asked. He had every right to beat up PJ Thum. I make no comment on

PJ refused to answer many of the questions directly – if a person believes in what he says, and has gone through the documents carefully, then what is the difficulty in answering questions?

Btw, seems PJ gave as good as he got, so his whining seems strange. But that’s grist for yet another post soon.

What “fake” news will be allowed

Adding to my tots in Fake news traffickers will be hanged

there was this

“Any information related to 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB) that has not been verified by the Government is considered fake news.

Datuk Jailani Johari (pic), the Deputy Communications and Multimedia Minister, explained that fake news is information that is confirmed to be untrue, especially by the authorities or parties related to the news.”*

Read more at https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2018/03/21/unverfied-info-on-1mdb/#QKmu29kU273TUQuU.99

M’sia is introducing legislation that would result in people found guilty of publishing “fake news” being jailed for up to 10 years or face fines of up to M$500,000: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-43538109

This reminded me of

 

 

The Straits Times (ST) splashed on the front page today (16 Mar) the headline, “Fewer foreigners, more locals in workforce last year“.

It reported that the number of foreigners working in Singapore fell by 32,000 last year – the biggest in 15 years, ST said.

However buried within the artcle ST did report that the decline was mostly due to fewer work permit holders due to weakness in the construction and marine industries. For more read https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2018/03/16/net-increase-in-foreign-pmets-last-year/

I think ST’s headline is more than misleading or misrepresenting the truth: it’s “fake” news analysis. Inconvenient facts are “hidden” from view.

Sadly this is the kind of “fake” news that will be allowed. Why? Because ST and other constructive, nation-building publications and channels practice it as part of nation-building.

In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act

George Orwell

Sadly in S’pore our anti-PAP cybernuts do not believe in doing revoluntary acts. They’d rather tell lies too: think Phillip Ang.

---

*But then

Communications and Multimedia Minister Salleh Said Keruak (above) today assured that the US Department of Justice (DOJ) filings on 1MDB won’t be considered fake news.

He said this during a meeting with foreign correspondents today which also saw the government tabling its the Anti-Fake News Bill in Parliament.

“You can quote them, what did they say, based on the filings. It is not considered fake news.

“It’s their views. Like DOJ, you quote them, what they said,” he said.

 

Fake news traffickers will be hanged

That was my tot when I read on FB

Singapore may fight fake news in the same way as drugs: Puthucheary

(Constructive, nation-building headline last week)

My FB avater commented: Hang convicted people isit? Terry Xu u have been warned.

TX: I am always prepared to die for what I am doing. So not much of a threat.

My avater: Respect.

Seriously, other than hanging convicted traffickers of “fake news”, there’s another probability about what the FT (He sneered at those who did NS) jnr minister wants: there’ll be no presumption of innoncence for those accused of trafficking in fake news. They got to prove their innocence.

If a suspect is caught with a prescribed amount of an illegal drug, it is deemed to be a trafficker and liable to be hung. It’s up to the suspect to prove that it isn’t a trafficker.

So maybe a suspect traffickier of ‘fake” news has to prove his innocence?  Stuff from certain sites like “The Indian Idiots — S’pore” are presumed to be “fake” unless proven otherwise by the suspect? Maybe anything that Dr Chee says will be deemed to ne “fake” news, until proven otherwise?

And maybe the presumption of guilt can be overturned by showing that the “fake” item was from a report that orginated from the constructive, nation-building local media like Mothership or ST? Or that a govt agency said it?

And maybe there’ll be a law that says that whatever a minister or govt agency says is the truth: those who allege otherwise will be deemed to be traffickers of fake news who will have to prove their innocence like drug “traffickers”.

The mind boggles.

S/o JBJ wants to like Pa?/ Lees’ feud

Seems like after failing to be someone who is respected or loved like Pa was (Even by those who like me who despaired that he was God’s gift to the PAP), s/o JBJ wants to emulate Pa by trying to get PAP to sue him until he is bankrupt and destitute like Pa was. (Related post: Doesn’t this remind u of another father and son?)

Ending an “analysis” of the Budget (Good in part like the curate’s egg, the analysis, not the Budget), he wrote

Heng and the PAP must be the only con men in history who have persuaded people to hand over their money in return for promising to halve it year after year and made them grateful into the bargain.

So he is accusing Heng and the PAP administration of criminal misappropriation like Roy Ngerng accused PM and the PAP administration of “stealing” our CPF.

Wonder if Heng has called Davinder Singh? Heng should sue for defamation if he wants to show that he’s a worthy successor of one Harry Lee.

============================

LKY on Heng

“Heng Swee Keat, now Education Minister, was the best Principal Private Secretary I ever had. The only pity is that he is not of a big bulk, which makes a difference in a mass rally.”

============================================

The present PM last year failed this “sue and sue” test when he failed to sue his siblings after in the past suing and suing Oppo leaders and nobodies (Think Roy Ngerng) for defaming him.

Didn’t his Pa (Or was it Mao?) who said that the Party, People and Nation came before family? And I’m wondering why his sister is not calling him a “dishonourable son” for failing to sue her and their brother for defaming him.

 

 

 

 

 

UK followed S’pore

A few years ago, the UK passed a law so that the govt can revoke the citizenship of a naturalised citizen when it is “conducive to the public good”.

So why our ang moh tua kees KPKBing about fact that S’pore’s constitution allows the state to revoke the citizenship of a naturalised citizen.

Ang moh can, S’pore cannot isit?

Even PAP govt thinks ang moh tua kee

Juz different type of ang moh. They look up to the “Victorians” i.e. the arch colonisers. (Btw, one Raffles, was a pre “Victorian”. Farquhar with his Malay mistress and support of gambling as a source of revenue, was not.

But first, below is the govt’s response to an Economist article entitled “Rules are thicker than blood” which made fun of S’pore’s “Victorian” values.

It makes several good points that our ang moh tua kees forget or ignore or are ignorant of:

— “today’s Western norms … are historically recent and by no means uncontested, even in Western societies”; and

— “time will tell if a cautious approach to social change is wiser”.

———————————————————-

Singaporean values

“Rules are thicker than blood” (January 13th) derided Singapore’s norms on what constitutes a family as “Victorian”. Our values and social norms on what makes for a stable family unit are conservative and shape the government’s policies and rules on adoption. They differ from today’s Western norms, which are historically recent and by no means uncontested, even in Western societies. Singaporeans will determine their own pace of any change in family values.

A push for rapid social change, especially on contentious moral issues, risks polarising society and producing unintended results. In Singapore nearly all children are born and raised in wedlock, starkly different from what now happens in the West. We make no claim to know which values are best for every society. The Economist may think Singapore is quaint and old-fashioned, but time will tell if a cautious approach to social change is wiser.

FOO CHI HSIA
High commissioner for Singapore
London

---

OK, OK yes I know “Victorian” values were once ang moh values. And that shows that today’s ang moh tua kees are also real S’poreans like the PAPpies.

D-Day for M Ravi

Update at 2.00pm: Ravi was sentenced to an 18-month mandatory treatment order on Friday (Jan 5) for causing hurt to two lawyers, and breaking into an office.

Ravi has to comply with five conditions under the mandatory treatment order. He has to undertake blood tests as and when required to determine that he has taken his medication and will need to undergo psychological sessions at the Institute of Mental Health.

Ravi will also have to agree to have his private psychiatrist, Mr Munidasa Winslow, share information with the IMH team.

Read more at https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/m-ravi-given-18-month-mandatory-treatment-order-after-assaulting-9835020

———————————————————————————————–

Doom Day for Ravi. Later today, He’ll appear in court to find out if he’ll get a MTO order or go to prison. The former is the more likely outcome. It’ll not be a good day for Ravi, whatever happens. In a way, MTO is worse than going to prison because he’s an icon of local and foreign human right activists, and other anti-PAP types.

The court ordered last year that Ravi (after he pleaded guilty to a string of serious offences) be assessed by an Institute of Mental Health (IMH) psychiatrist as to his suitability for a Mandatory Treatment Order (MTO)

A MTO is “a community-based sentencing option where offenders undergo mental health treatment in lieu of jail”.

M Ravi apologises for assaults after pleading guilty

Given the severity of the charges he pleaded guilty to (2 assaults and breaking into an office and “Four other charges, including two counts of public nuisance at the Sri Mariamman Temple on Jul 31 and Aug 11 this year, will be taken into consideration during sentencing.”), one would have tot a MTO is better than going to prison.

But as a TRE reader put it

nathan:

November 28, 2017 at 4:19 am  (Quote)

If the Mandatory Treatment Order comes to pass then Ravi can be detained in the IMH indefinetly at the mercy of psychiatry review after psychiatry reviews stretching for years until the panel of IMH doctors all agrees that Ravi is ready for release for outpatient treatment. I am sure Ravi is aware of the implication and will resist it best as he can in Court. The MOT is more feared than a normal jail sentence for those familiar with our criminal justice system.

Has Ravi apologised for abusing and hurting a grieving mum?

He’s right. Local and foreign human right activists, and other anti-PAP types are worried that, through a MTO, Ravi will be locked away forever and a day.

---

Light reading for the weekend: M Ravi’s grandfather’s parliament, is it?

_______________________________________________________

But for those of us who wish him well, a MTO is the only way he’ll be treated properly. This assesment is based on what has happened to him when he was allowed to take his medicine voluntarily. In 2006 – 2007, before he became an icon for the local and foreign human rights activists, he had to serve out a MTO: he had pleaded guilty to causing a public disturbance outside a mosque. Incidentally, this was the first time his bi-polar condition became public knowledge.

The treatment worked and Ravi was soon released. He was thought suitable for the usual treatment for bi-polar sufferers.

Since then his regular manic episodes and his repeated boasts of refusing to take his medicine are on public record. As are his claims, whenever he got into trouble, that he was sorry for his misbehaviour and that he was now taking his medicine.

 

 

Why Jolovan Wham’s vigil singled out?

I understand quiet vigils outside Changi Prison have been “allowed” for a long time. So the police intervention to disrupt* part of the vigil for Prabagaran was surprising; as was the investigation of the vigil, the charge against Jolovan Wham and warning letters issued to the usual suspects present at the vigil: the usual trouble makers like Kirsten Han.

When TRE used Why Jolovan Wham kanna whack? there was a response from a TRE reader that may shed some light on why the police did what they did.

nathan:

December 2, 2017 at 4:07 pm  (Quote)

The G was feeling the heat and getting nervous with the execution of Singaporean drug trafficker Muhammad Ridzuan Md Ali, 31 who, was executed on Friday (May 19) at Changi Prison. His accomplice was spare the noose while Ridzuan refused to rat on others involved to the CNB. So one get a second chance to live while the other got to die for the same capital offence.

For once, there was an outpouring of collect grief by the Malay community. It was an unprecedented sympathetic huge gathering at Ridzuan funeral as he was buried and lay to rest at the Muslim cemetery captured for all to see beamed live via videos in the Internet that must taken the Government aback.

Not long after this execution it was the turn of a Malaysian drug trafficker Prabagaran to be hanged. Jolovan Wham held an vigil for him. Unfortunately for JW, the G was not in the mood for any activists to play up any unwanted publicity for Prabagaran after what the G had seen of the aftermath of executed Ridzuan.

…

---

*Kirsten Han’s FB post

About 15 people, including Prabagaran’s family, are gathered outside Changi Prison for a vigil for Prabagaran, who is scheduled to be hanged at 6am.

We put up photos of Praba and lit tea lights for him at about 11:15pm. At about 11:30pm the police came to tell us that we can’t set up the candles and photos. They asked that we put out the candles and said they had to seize everything according to their police procedure. They filmed and photographed everything – including the people who were present – and took away the candles and photos.

It seems like we’re able to stay.

[UPDATE at 6:40am] People dispersed around 1:15am to get showers/rest/food. We met up again at about 5am. Praba’s family were able to stand by the fence and pray. Thank you to all those who attended the vigil or sent your thoughts and wishes to the family.

 

Jolovan Wham: Money talks, BS Walks do-gooders

My FB avater is kinda tired of getting messages from do-gooders to sign a petition to get the authorities to drop the charges against Jolovan Wham. It’s as futile an exercise as Inderjit Singh banging his turban against a wall asking for help for SMEs. It’s a waste of time.

When TRE used Why Jolovan Wham kanna whack? a TRE reader made a suggestion that these do-gooders would be wise to follow: help raise money “for him to fight the case”.

ftvhunik:

December 2, 2017 at 6:34 pm  (Quote)

If can, someone just do crowdfunding for him to fight the case. Tbh, if one want to make a different for sg, either change from within, study well and join the opposition, be an activist but knowing the law well or simply escape this country for good. You will never get a good ending when you against the gov.

Singaporeans are not worth for all these sacrifices that you have done for them, they will u turn taking advantage of you and ungrateful to you by calling you dumb instead. Just let them screw and suffer from the shitty policies, one day they will wake up themselves and understand things.

Kee Chui those willing to donate?

Why Jolovan Wham kanna whack?

Wham was charged with seven charges by the Attorney-General’s Chambers which include three counts of organizing a public assembly without a police permit and one count of vandalism for sticking two A-4 paper on a MRT train. Details: https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2017/11/28/activist-to-be-charged-by-police-for-various-offences-in-court/

“Wham is recalcitrant and has repeatedly shown blatant disregard for the law, especially with regard to organizing or participating in illegal public assemblies,” the police said in a written statement.

But is lawfare and rule by law being used against him? PAP uses Lawfare against its opponents? 

Yesterday, in What do social activists like Jolovan Wham etc want? I drew attention to a FB post that mocked social activists

So, what do some civil society activists want? As far as one can determine, they want “restorative justice” for ex-ISA detainees; they want S377a to be repealed; they want both capital and corporal punishment to be abolished; they want freedom of assembly anywhere in public; they want freedom of speech and oppose politicians initiating actions for defamation.

The above list (by no means exhaustive) are some of the issues close to the hearts of civil society activists and liberals. Packaged that way, what percentage of the electorate would support those issues? Certainly not the close to 30% that did not vote PAP at GE2015. If one was to hazard a guess, it would be maybe 15% and, it would not come as a surprise, if it was actually under 10%.

I posted it because I agreed with its sentiment that most S’poreans (cybernuts included) do not support the views of these social activities. Which then begs the question, “Why is the PAP govt whacking Jolovan Wham?”

Later in the day, came across a quote from anthropologist Margaret Mead which could explain why the PAP administration charges him with seven offences.

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.”

Jolovan Wham is no talk cock, sing song cybernut from TRELand. Or an ang moh tua kee. Or even a cyber-warrior.

He’s a warrior: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/29/world/asia/singapore-arrest-protests-gatherings.html?_r=0 .

If he’s found guilty and jailed, this should frighten the other non-warrior social activists, cyber warriors, cybernuts, sheep and chickens.

Which is why this is a lot of BS

One Singapore-based observer said the “seemingly disproportionate” legal response to Wham’s actions brought under scrutiny issues such as executive restraint and proportionality in the Lion City.

http://www.scmp.com/week-asia/politics/article/2122153/new-chee-soon-juan-singapore-activist-jolovan-wham-defiant-after

The actions are not disproponiate.

When the ISA gets used again, like in 1987, against middle-class people, it’ll really show the leopard hasn’t changed its spots and that the light shining from Tharman’s ass is the oncoming light from the PAP juggernaut.

 

PAP uses Lawfare against its opponents?

Is Lawfare the PAP’s weapon of choice against the enemies of the people the PAP?

Yesterday, I came across a word that JBJ, Dr Chee, Roy, Amos, Francis Seow and many other opponents of the PAP would have agreed as being the victims of, if they knew of the term. The word is “lawfare”.

The term is used by the Brazilian lawyers of ex-president Lula da Silva who was recently found guilty of corruption in a letter to the editor in the latest issue of the Economist . They define “lawfare” as “the misuse of law for political ends” and they accuse the Brazilian authourities of using lawfare against their client. 

What do you think? The PAP is using lawfare against its opponents?

Very related article: In S’pore we have rule by law not the rule of law.   

(Last para added at 6.20am)

Seelan Palay is really very happy

Don’t buy the BS that he’s been persecuted for protesting.

Don’t believe me isit? Then read the u/m by Martyn See (another anti-PAP activist).

When I read it, I realised how hard Seelan Palay was trying to getting himself arrested for a second time since his first arrest in 2006. It took him 11 years of provoking the authorities before the police arrested him again recently.

And even then, the police arrested him after really, really trying hard not to arrest him. TOC (no friend of the authorities especially the police) reported, “After several failed attempts by the Police to persuade Seelan to leave the area, he was arrested by the Police at 3.20pm.”

So let’s be happy that he was successful in getting himself arrested again after 11 years.

Martyn See’s post

Sept 2006 (IMF-World Bank Meetings): 21-year-old artist Seelan Palay is arrested by police over a plan to distribute flyers ahead of the IMF-World Bank meetings. Palay had earlier initiated an online campaign to capture photos of “400 Frowns” in protest against government policies.

Jan 2008: Artist Seelan Palay completes a solo five-day hunger strike outside the Malaysian High Commission in protest against the Malaysian Government’s detention of five leaders of ethnic Indian group Hindraf. Wearing a placard around his neck that said, “Give them fair trial,” Palay was briefly warned by police that he would be flouting the law. No arrest or charges are filed.

May 2008: Five Singaporeans, holding aloft a series of banners with messages such as “Censored News Is No News” and “Newspapers and Printing Presses Act = Repression”, stand outside the Singapore Press Holdings building to mark World Press Freedom Day. There are no reported arrests.

May 2008: Officers from the Board of Film Censors, assisted by the police, enter the Peninsula-Excelsior Hotel to seize a film which was undergoing its private premiere. Witnessed by about a hundred guests including foreign diplomats, organisers hand the DVD copy of the film to officials. Entitled “One Nation Under Lee”, the documentary was made by artist Seelan Palay and its premiere hosted by the SDP. Palay is currently under investigation for exhibition of a film without licence.

Jan 2009: Wearing red t-shirts and holding a banner that read ‘Stop ill-treatment of Burmese activists’, two protesters stood for an hour outside the Ministry of Manpower before being handcuffed and escorted into police vehicles. The two were protesting against the non-renewal of visas to some Myanmar expatriates, whom the Government says are “not welcomed in Singapore”. The two Singaporeans, Seelan Palay and Chong Kai Xiong, are being investigated for the offence of criminal trespass.

Oct 2017 : Artist and activist Seelan Palay marks his 32 years of age by holding a mirror in front of Parliament House to highlight the long-term detention of Dr Chia Thye Poh from 1966 to 1998. He is arrested and released 24 hours later.

http://singaporerebel.blogspot.sg/…/1994-2011-chronology-of…

Video:

“We are still colonised in Singapore, previously by white man, and now by men in white.”

https://m.facebook.com/story.php…

Tharman talking cock? Or cracking a joke?

[R]ecently, a DPM said we are now more tolerant than in the 70s and 80s. I remember participating in a couple of demonstrations in the 70s organised by the student union without asking for permission – how do you square all this?

Tan Tee Seng, Operation Spectrum detainee, on FB

The preceding bit reads

From my perspective, the case is simple – an artist used a performance art to draw attention to a shameful chapter in our historical past, much like a one-man flash mob performance. There were 3 scenes – the first at Hong Lim Park was attended by about 30 – 40 people. Part 2 was in front of the National Gallery and Part 3 was outside the Parliament House (both are public spaces). About 15 odd people saw the performance with a few passers by. After the performance, the artist was arrested – handcuffed and bundled into a police car, some of the audience were told they were “witnesses” to a commission of an offence which the police could not ascertain. Artist was kept 24 hours for his part and may be charged. The “witnesses” may be rounded up later to assist in the “investigation” – all because there was no permission given and yet our constitutional rights provide us the freedom of expression, assembly and speech.

The whole post

 

Related post: Tharman the wannabe comedian

Anti-PAP Amazon fights alongside White Mare

AG’s plans to whack Li Shengwu

for comments he made suggesting the city-state’s courts were not independent, said on Saturday (Aug 5) he would not be returning to Singapore.

The office of Singapore’s attorney-general said on Friday it had filed an application to start contempt of court proceedings against Li, a US-based academic, over a Facebook post he made on Jul 15.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/li-shengwu-says-will-not-return-home-to-face-charges-9095394

reminded me of a really unholy alliance.

One of the usual suspects, a S’porean version Xena, the warrior princess, recently wrote

I am sad for Singapore and Singaporeans. A single word about the judiciary in a private facebook entry which drew just 20 likes has attracted the attention of the Attorney-General’s Chamber.

How did my country descend to this depth?

Given that she’s always so unhappy about the S’porean way of life, what else could make Teo Soh Lung unhappy?

Li Shengwu, grandson of Lee Kuan Yew has now attracted the attention of the attorney general’s chambers. I believe the chamber was already watching him when he took side with his father, Lee Hsien Yang over his and his aunt’s dispute with the prime minister.

The attorney general will tell the world that there is no conflict of interest when his chamber decides to look into the private facebook entries of Li Shengwu, but I will not believe that. What business has he to look into a person’s private facebook? Isn’t there more important work than to spy on personal facebooks?”

Am I being overly cynical in thinking that if the AGC did not say the AGC was investigating this White Horse (progency of the First Familee), she’d be KPKBing, “Why no investigate? White Horse isit?”

As it is now, she’s on the same side as über White Mare Lee Wei Ling with her whine

I am surprised that AGC takes such negative reaction to a private post. Is there a government servant whose duty is to follow the Facebook activity of all people related to Hsien Yang and I, including our private musings. Also, what Shengwu posted is a common topic amongst Singaporeans who are well informed. Is this not an example of ” big Brother government”. Perhaps it is a case of “if the hat fits, take it.”

Churchill said a fanatic is “one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject”. Fits Ms Teo: life is always seen in the lens of resentment against the PAP administration. An administration that has the support of 60- 70% of voters. True it locked her up without trial but that was a long time ago. Time to move on?

I mean being on the same side as Lee Wei Ling is so, so pathetic. And so is the cause. I mean White Horses (especially über ones) should be held accoutable for their actions, juz like nobodies like Roy or Amos.

I’m glad that the AGC is upholding the laws that Harry made illleral and in sending the message that über White Horses from the line of Lee not exempted.

M Ravi’s right to be upset with AGC

Even though he’s a really sick superhero and needs medical treatment, he’s right to get agitated and angry with AGC. AGC looks like it’s gunning for him i.e. out to make sure he goes to jail, and then throw the key away.

He posted on FB on at 3.00am on Saturday, after a meeting with the AGC on Friday:

At first they preferred 3 charges of criminal trespass on us. Then they dropped 2 charges. Today at the PTC they withdrew the remaining criminal trespass charge and guess what? They proceeded to serve 3 charges of HOUSEBREAKING!!!

Can you see the persecution? If convicted i would face mandatory jail which can extend to 2 years per charge. Mandatory means there’s no option for a fine. They want to jail me!

I need your support and help. Can you continue to donate for my legal fees and especially George’s?

Details are:

Posb savings 188-6776-22

All contributions no matter big or small is welcome. This is now very serious and I will need to spend for lot of resources to basically trying to get into my own office! They even tried to apply to remand me in IMH so they could prevent me from using Facebook, that was their argument. They are trying to silence me.

So please contribute as we need to prepare properly, make applications and pay for experts if necessary. It’s no longer a small simple case.

Wonder if the person who lodged the police report that led to the present charges, reputed to be a really good friend who had helped him but who Ravi then whose hand Ravi bit, is repenting his action? As are those who encouraged him to lodge report? They have good motives, I understand. They wanted (and still want) him to get mandatory medical treatment. He refuses to take his pills making his mental condition extremely unstable.

So maybe serious jail time for Ravi is the only way he can get the treatment he desperately needs.

It’s a dilemma worthy of a graphic novel.

Does he need to go to jail to regain his superpowers? Or are the cybernuts applauding his FB videos and verbal farts right that in his present state of mind (Conventional wisdom, as opposed to cybernut stupidity, believes M Ravi is in the manic extreme of bi-polarism*), he has even greater superpowers?

What do u think?

---

*The manic phase is characterised by:

• Delusions (false beliefs) or hallucinations (false perceptions)
• Hyperactivity
• Irritable mood
• Decreased need for sleep
• Exaggerated, puffed-up self esteem
• Rapid or “pressured” speech
• Rapid thoughts
• Poor attention span
• Recklessness

https://www.healthhub.sg/a-z/diseases-and-conditions/49/topics_bipolar_disorder?gclid=EAIaIQobChMInJuhzfSx1QIVxgQqCh3atwV0EAAYASAAEgLC_PD_BwE

Amos: 7 months in US jail, 4 more to go at least

I tot readers might want to take a break from Oxleygate and sneer, ridicule or laugh at Amos Yee.

OK, there’s a big difference between sneering, ridiculing or laughing at very privileged spoiled brats and PAP ministers, and one of their pleb “victims”. But one can grow tired of abalone and suckling pig, and go for cold porridge and kiam chye for a change.

Amos Yee’s poatings are not by him but by people sympathetic to him. Ah well there are loonies born every day. Juz look at M Ravi.

Amos Yee

April 27 ·

Although Amos has won his case for political asylum in the US, the prosecutor [Chief Consul: Karen E. Lundgren, Assistant Chief Consul: Elizabeth Crites] appealed the case. Meaning, even though Amos has already been in American jail for 5 months, he has to stay in jail for another 6 more months until the judge makes a decision on the appeal. Amos was on suicide watch in the jail hole for the past 2 weeks.

So by the end of the process, he’ll have spent 11 months in an US jail and about a month in detention here. Still a good idea to dodge NS the Amos Way, Mother Mary? Especially as his asylum application could still be rejected.

Did he get the book he wanted?

Amos Yee

May 27 ·

Amos is still needlessly in prison because the government continues to challenge the court ruling that granted his political asylum. The government’s decision to continue to incarcerate him weighs heavily on his spirits as he continues to fight against the enduring stress of his imprisonment in the US and the trauma from his imprisonment in Singapore. Amos has found comfort reading books that his supporters have sent him over the weeks. Amos has requested Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam‘s book “Make it right for Singapore: Speeches in Parliament, 1997-1999” in solidarity with those who have been unjustly persecuted by their governments. Amos extends his solidarity to those around the world who fight against authoritarian regimes. From Raif Badawi in Saudi Arabia, to Wikileaks‘ Julian Assange in the UK, to Liu Xiaobo in China, to Edward Snowden in Russia, I stand with you.

–

The prison only allows paperback books purchased from large retailers such as Amazon. The Amazon link has been provided below.

https://www.amazon.com/Make-right-Singapore-Parliament-1…/…/

Books can be shipped to:

Amos Yee – Inmate #300802
Dodge Detention Facility
216 W Center St.
Juneau, WI 53039
USA

All Singapore Stuff , The Independent Singapore , Mothership.sg , The Online Citizen SG , The Straits TimesYahoo Singapore , 黃之鋒 Joshua Wong , Singapore Embassy in Washington DC

Make it right for Singapore: Speeches in Parliament, 1997-1999

Make it right for Singapore: Speeches in Parliament, 1997-1999

AMAZON.COM

Wayang king at work. But is anyone watching?

Amos Yee

May 20 ·

The US government still hasn’t released Amos Yee despite Amos’s asylum being approved by Judge Samuel B Cole. We suspect that the Singaporean government might have a role in interfering in a US court’s ruling that the Singaporean government acted against Amos in bad faith and that Amos should be granted political asylum. As a result of Amos’s numerous prolonged stays in detention his psychological health is suffering. In the US, Amos has been placed twice in solitary confinement.

On the first occasion he was in solitary confinement for 2 weeks. According to Amos, he decided to attend a religious lecture with a visiting Imam. During that lecture Amos challenged the Imam claiming that Muhammad had left many violent statements in the Quran. The Imam challenged him to prove it, Amos asked the Imam for the Quran so that he could show him the verses, the Imam called security on Amos where he was immediately placed into solitary confinement for 2 weeks.

On the second occasion that Amos was placed into solitary confinement it was after he was visited by a reporter. The reporter believed Amos to be suicidal, the proper authorities were notified of Amos’s situation, and he was then immediately placed on suicide watch for two weeks. During suicide watch Amos was placed in a small cell, he wasn’t allowed any cell mates, he wasn’t allowed access to the common areas, he wasn’t allowed to shower, and had numerous other privileges limited during that time.

Amos is currently out of suicide watch but his prolonged stay in jail is only making his situation even worse. Amos is suffering under great psychological stress. We are disappointed that immigration authorities under the Trump administration would not uphold our Western values of taking in persecuted political dissidents; our country was founded on these principles. We can only suspect interference by the Singaporean government as there would be no other legitimate reason for Amos to be detained for so long after being granted asylum by the court. All updates on Amos’s page are being made on his behalf by people working on Amos’s case.

Remember Mother Mary telling us that he was faking it when he looked “lost” when he got out of detention here and that his claims of feeling suicidal when inside were lies? Funny her post on this was removed.

Shameful silence as M Ravi’s cows come home

Non-practising lawyer M Ravi was charged on Friday (Jun 30) with one count of criminal trespass “with intent to annoy”, for allegedly trespassing into the offices of law firm Eugene Thuraisingam LLP at People’s Park Complex.
Read more at http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/lawyer-m-ravi-charged-with-criminal-trespass-8990976

And this isn’t all. A lawyer reported on FB that the police are investigating his complaint that M Ravi beat him up badly. (Finally, someone stood up to complain that he was beaten up by M Ravi. Over the yrs, there’ve been allegations of such beatings, followed up by allegations of his “friends” settling matters so that Ravi’s public image is not hurt.)

He’s in for a rough time.

Whatever, his FB videos and comments seem at the very least to indicate that there should be a medical examination to determine if he’s ill again.

There seems to be a conspiracy of silence or denial by a group of anti-PAP activists (They are really, really very quiet) that usually cheer his every move, egging him on. Maybe they don’t want to him to get compulsorily* treated because of the stigma of him, an icon of the anti-PAP activists, going into Woodbridge.

I mean I never lived down voting for an ex-Woodbridge patient who was bi-polar too. The PAP dubbed him “mad” and “looney”, but I gritted my teeth and voted for him, a WP candidate,because of the “big picture”: the need for an Oppo. Not that it made a difference when the WP finally won a GRC: their MPs juz sat down, looked at their bank statements, grinned and kept quiet most of the time.

But as M Ravi has been charged with a criminal offence, there’s always the Mandatory Treatment Order that the court in its discretion can order. As in his autobiography written in 2014 or 2015, he said he didn’t take his prescribed medicine, he meditated instead, the court could, among other things, order that he be subjected to forced medication.

But if the court orders treatment of any sort, I’m sure these anti-PAP “friends” will scream that the state is abusing its power and that there’s nothing wrong with him.

Can the PAP voters that voted for Dr Tan Cheng Bock (25- 30% of the voters) ever support the causes that such people espouse? I doubt it.

—————————-

*I was wrong here to think his friends could apply for a  Mandatory Treatment Order. It’s only available in criminal cases. But there’s a separate civil procedure for compulsory treatment.

Anti-PAP activists, cybernuts support Hsien Yang but trust PM: WTF?

I’m seeing on Facebook two usually sane anti-PAP activists agreeing with the cybernuts that Lee Hsien Yang is right to ask PM to challenge the will in court.

———————————————-

My takes on the will:

Why PM could not go to court.

But he should have just sat down and shut up not tell his subordinates his concerns.

———————————————————

Seems the nuts and the sane anti-PAP activists don’t realise that:

The Chief Justice, Judges of Appeal and Judges of the High Court are appointed by the President if he, acting in his discretion, concurs with the advice of the Prime Minister. Before tendering his advice as to the appointment of a judge, the Prime Minister is required to consult the Chief Justice.

Since they trust the judges that PM has a hand in selecting, why not believe and support him directly?

They too nutty isit?

Seriously, in a de-facto one-party state, like in a real one-party state, actively opposing the ruling party can be bad for one’s mental health. Just ask M Ravi, Mad Dog Chee and Lee Wei Ling. Why do you think Lee Hsien Yang and his wife decided to “visit friends” in HK? They need a break. Opposing the PAP is mentally taxing.

Oxleygate: We got monkeys as ministers isit?

But to be fair to our monkeys ministers, I still can’t stop laughing about a White Horse and a White Mare (lineage of Lee and Kwa) KPKBing screaming about the abuse of power, the absence of “checks and balances to prevent the abuse of government”, and how the constructive, nation-building media ignores or disses those that don’t fit into the “right” narratives.

They seriously expect us to think that these are new developments and that they are the first to notice? (More on these matters one of these days.)

Back as to why reasonable people can reasonably conclude that Lee Hsien Loong and the Oxley house cabinet committee members are a bunch of overpaid monkeys, and cocks to boot.

LHL really fixed himself. Here I explained why it was impossible for him to challenge the will in court: it would let world know the family was rowing; and because if he had challenged it and succeeded, the estate would be divided by the law governing situations where’s there no will*, not by an earlier version of dad’s will. Not something a filial, honourable son would do.

So as he couldn’t challenge the will, he should have just sat down and shut up and not KPKB tell his subordinates his suspicions that the will may have been improperly executed. He could comfort himself with the thought that dad’s wish in the will to demolish the house, was just a wish because LKY accepted that the govt could decide not to demolish the house. He personally could sidestep the issue by really recusing himself on the issue of what to do with the house.

As to the cabinet committee members, when they heard his KPKBing suspicions about the execution of the will, they should have told him, “Sorry boss, no can do anything. Not appropriate to do anything since you, rightly as honourable and filial son, didn’t challenge the will in court.

‘So we can’t go into the issue of whether the 9th Immortal was railroaded into signing the will.

‘We have to accept, because it says so in the will, that HE wanted the house demolished .

‘Even if you can get Ho Ching to summon him from Hell Hades his place of honour beside the Jade Emperor, to say that he didn’t want the house demolished, and that he was “fixed”, we have to accept what the will said he wanted.

‘Anyway, what’s the big deal? He accepted that the govt has the final say.”

Seriously I don’t think it was wise of the Lee Hsien Loong or the cabinet committee (and by extension the cabinet) to try to go into the execution of LKY’s will, and that it was a serious and bad mistake to try to do so.

Btw, still think that serious money gets us ministers who are not monkeys?

————————————

*https://singaporelegaladvice.com/law-articles/in-the-absence-of-a-will-how-is-the-deceased-estate-distributed/

Worse in M’sia

But S’pore gets really bad publicity because we cane ang mohs.

Caning

is relatively widespread: in Singapore 2,203 people were caned in 2012, including 1,070 foreigners, the US State Department said.

Since 2010, at least three Europeans have been sentenced to be caned for vandalism, including Swiss software consultant Oliver Fricker, who spray-painted graffiti on a train.

But the numbers pale in comparison to Malaysia.

In 2010, Amnesty International released a report saying some 10,000 prisoners and 6,000 refugees were being caned each year, punishment for more than 60 crimes – including drug-related and sexual offences, as well as migration violations.

Extract from BBC Report

Operation Spectrum: Ownself contradict ownself

There’s been a lot on FB about about the “Marxist” conspiracy by anti-PAP gang, rational and nuts, in rebuttal LKY was quoted a lot by the pro-PAP cybernuts.

But going by their quotes, it seems even LKY didn’t think there was a “Marxist” conspiracy.

Let’s set the scene. 21 May 1987 was the day when 16 people, mostly Catholic social workers, were arrested and accused by the PAP administration of waging a “conspiracy” to topple the government. Later, six more were arrested for the same reason.

They were never charged in open court where the administration would would have to produce the evidence for detaining them, and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they were subversives out to undermine the state. Instead the Internal Security Act was used: the state was prosecutor and judge.

Now, 30 years on, the ex-detainees continue to maintain their innocence, and accuse the PAP administration of faking the “conspiracy” for political reasons: conveniently forgetting that they had confessed and then recanted and then some recanted their recantation.

The PAP administration maintains that the ex-detainees were subversives, driven by Marxist ideology.

But if so why then did LKY tell the Catholic Archbishop of Singapore, the late Gregory Yong, that detainees themselves were of minimal concern to him. He dismissed them as “do-gooders who wanted to help the poor and the dispossessed” and “simpletons”.

Err so where’s the Marxist subversion?

But then helping “the poor and the dispossessed” is Marxist subversion because it showed up the PAP’s BS on welfare?

Here’s another point I want to make. Many of those who want pluraity of views here join the ex-detainees, and the anti-PAP activists and the cybernuts nuts in asking for a commission to establish the truth.

Actually, it’s good for those of us who want greater plurality that the administration refuses to listen.

The more the PAP administration ignores the calls, the more it shows to the voting public the hollowness of “Ownself check ownself” and the flaws in a one-party state . If it does the right thing, it can spin this as “Ownself can check ownself”.

 

 

 

 

Don’t anyhow “Like”

While the u/m happened in a country where the English common law law of defamation doesn’t apply, I wouldn’t be surprised if in the near future, the lawyers of a leading member of the PAP sue some S’porean for liking a defamatory FB post about their client.

A court in Switzerland has fined a man for “liking” comments deemed to be defamatory that were posted on Facebook.

The landmark case involved comments made about Erwin Kessler, the head of an animal protection group.

He was accused of being anti-Semitic and racist, media reports say.

The Zurich district court said the defendant “clearly endorsed the unseemly content and made it his own” by liking comments.

The 45-year-old man liked six comments, according to Swiss newspaper Le Temps.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40097792

But LKY is dead, so stop this whining BS

I tot the above when I came across this extract on FB from what must be a post from either a ng kum guan or an ang moh tua kee type (I’ll attribute if I know where it came from)

“As the 30th anniversary of this event approaches, there is concern that the impact of Operation Spectrum can still be felt. Without an open and honest accounting of what took place, the uncertainty continues to perpetuate a climate of fear and nervousness. It creates barriers to Singaporeans engaging fully in civil society and civic life, and becoming the active, engaged citizenry that benefits every democratic country.”

There are lots of things wrong with the way S’pore is governed because it’s a de facto one-party state

Keeping power in a one-party state

Would this happen in a one-party state?

And “Yes” there’s a lot of righteous anger among the detainees, and their friends and allies.

But let’s fight today’s and tomorrow’s battles, not yesterday’s battles.

I mean can anyone seriously imagine PM (LKY’s son) or any leader (present or next generation) using the ISA to detain political dissidents? They have better means of fixing “the “enemies of the people”. Err OK the enemies of the 70%ers. Juz looking at the AHTC. Or Terry’s Online Channel.

Btw, the TRE cybernuts are calling PM and his ministers weak people when comparing him to LKY: They want LKY to be in charge again isit?

 

 

 

CHC: The Other Side of the Hill

In analysing or making judjments, it’s good to see the perspective of those going against the flow of conventional wisdom..

Below is a purported piece from a member of the CHC conregation. Do read it.

I agree that “Only the CHC family is hurt in the CHC Saga”. Going by the comments on social media and the internet, the so-called hurt many S’poreans feel is nothing more than envy that Sun Ho got others to fund her Holywood lifestyle, and envy that her bubbie is a good entrepreneur with a business model that is hard to replicate.

Yes there is reason to be concerned ( I hope to explore it soon) but most of the comments don’t reflect this concern.

I agree with the following except I would exclude Sun Ho’s husband

If anyone has suffered loss, it would be the 6 of them who have suffered financially, in their reputation, in their careers and even up to this point, when their families are dealing the pain of separation in 2 weeks’ time, fellow Singaporeans are hoping to prolong this pain of separation.

Kong Hee benefited because he didn’t have to fund Sun Ho’s Hollywood dreams and ambitions and lifestyle.

I dispute “this whole project was internally agreed upon and funds was internally and voluntarily raised.”

This assrtion is very misleading. There was no full and proper dislosure of what was happening for a long time. Matters were hidden from the auditors and church members. It was the failure to disclose what was happening was the reason why why the six were found guilty of CBT.

If they had disclosed what they were up to, there would have been no CBT. But the leaders didn’t trust their church members. They should have with hindsight. God’s a prankster like Loki?

Finally, if you want to know wht I come down so hard on tthe anti-PAP cybernuts go to http://www.tremeritus.com/2017/04/12/only-the-chc-family-is-hurt-in-the-chc-saga/  and read the reaction from the cybernuts to Pauline Kong’s letter.

With people like them, the majority of swing voters will always prefer the PAP.

The piece

Only the CHC family is hurt in the CHC Saga

Since there were so many ones who could not understand how the case was concluded and sentence was reduced, could we ask the High Courts to engage the public and make the findings clearer in layman terms to us?

I am a member of CHC since 2002 and though we are not perfect, we aim to be a church that blesses and give. Our community service arm gives to the less privileged regardless of race and religion. All our works are a reflection of the positive values in our leaders. Quite contrary to most charitable organizations, church funds are raised internally and voluntarily. The givers have a clear idea what they are giving to and the leaders are accountable to the givers.

I am afraid the public has been misled by the media to think that our leaders have perhaps taken money from the public to spend on their personal lives. If that is truly the case, I am sure our honorable legal system would have already captured that. But coming from someone who followed the case from the first trial to the last, I have not heard of any such findings.

I am saddened that because of all the demeaning images and words on the media, Singaporeans have been so misled to the point that they don’t think they can even trust the judicial system anymore. Perhaps the way to clear the air is to present the facts and erase all the misleading information that has nothing to do with the case. Once again, this whole project was internally agreed upon and funds was internally and voluntarily raised. If anyone has suffered loss, it would be the 6 of them who have suffered financially, in their reputation, in their careers and even up to this point, when their families are dealing the pain of separation in 2 weeks’ time, fellow Singaporeans are hoping to prolong this pain of separation. If anyone is a parent like me, the thought of leaving your children or family behind for weeks or months is already so unbearable, these people have to leave their families for years…

So, please consider the fact that they really didn’t hurt anyone. If there is anyone they can hurt, it would be the church because they are responsible to the church, but the church is NOT hurt, we love them. Did they hurt the public in any way? With all honesty, none as well. There was no public soliciting of funds. Perhaps charity and church needs to be separately governed so that the public does not feel so threatened by the outcome of the case, thinking it will affect governance towards other Charitable organizations that gets public donations?

Lastly, I believe we all can play a part to build a society that is honorable towards our national leaders, empathetic towards fellowmen and united as one people.

Pauline Kong

 

A man of principle: Ahmad Mohamed Ibrahim

These LKY remarks reminded me about someone history has forgotten

the Minister of Law who is a lawyer had to fight a tremendous duel with the Attorney-General’s office to formulate this law …  And you know, we have a lot of liberal lawyers in the Attorney General’s Chambers. They would not put up a draft. They literally refused. They wrote long screeds why this was against the best traditions of penology.”

LKY and the Lawyers who would not draft a law

The AG of the time (and S’pore’s first) was Ahmad Mohamed Ibrahim He was AG from 9 Aug 1965 – 31 Jan 1967. Before that he was State Advocate-General of the State of Singapore from 25 Jun 1959 – 8 Aug 1965.

He was from RI and a Queen’s scholar (like Mrs Lee, LKY was not one.) In the late 1930s, he received from Cambridge first class honours in economics and law

Because of the row with the government*, he opted for retirement. He moved to Malaya in 1969. In 1972, he became the dean of the law faculty of the University of Malaya. There he established the first law faculty in Malaysia.

===========

*Update at 8.00am: A friend who knew him personally told me that he personally objected to the law (and others) that the govt were passing.

 

Mental illness is no excuse for dangerous driving

Taz what I tot when I read in today’s ST

A man was charged in court on Thursday (Jan 12) with driving a car in a dangerous manner along the Ayer Rajah Expressway (AYE) at about 1.40am on Jan 5.

Brandon Ng Hai Chong, 30, allegedly drove against the flow of traffic.

His lawyer, Mr Luke Lee, told District Judge Carol Ling that his client has a medical condition and has been diagnosed with Asperger Syndrome.

He said Ng had also been diagnosed with depression and is regularly seeing a psychiatrist.

…

The lawyer added that prior to this current case, his client had been sent to jail and had also been put on probation.

However, he did not mention the nature of Ng’s earlier convictions.

And guy still allowed to drive? He could be another Lim Chai Heng?

It was not an excuse to drive a Mercedes Benz against the flow of traffic, killing and injuring others in “lesser”* cars. Someone by the name of Adrian Tan said on Facebook that using a Mercedes in this way was like firing an assault rifle into a crowded room.

The son of Lim Chai Heng said his father was depressed, and apologised.

Let’s recap the facts.

A 53-year-old businessman, Lim Chai Heng was initially charged by the police on Dec 20 for an offence of Rash Act Causing Death (The charge was a holding charge so that he could be detained while the police decided whether to charge him with a more serious offence, say murder). He drove a Mercededs Benz against the flow of traffic.

On Jan 3 the charge was amended. He is now accused of committing culpable homicide when he drove his Mercedes Benz against the flow of traffic along AYE and hit Mr Liong Kuo Hua’s car at 8.02am on Dec 19, 2016. The maximum penalty for culpable homicide is 10 years’ jail and a fine.

He is remanded for psychiatric evaluation at Complex Medical Centre in Changi Prison until Jan 24.

As his son was sitting beside him , I hope the police investigate the son in an ice-cold interrogation room: why he allow his dad to do what he did? Want to win “Most filial son” award isit?

---

What the Mercedes Benz driver did:

Lim, who was driving a silver Mercedes car at high speed against traffic flow during morning rush hour, had crashed into several other vehicles, killing media personality Liong Kuo Hwa, 37, and leaving three others – excluding Lim himself – seriously injured.

The trail of destruction saw four cars, one motorcycle and one private bus wrecked, and the wall of the expressway before the Tuas West Road exit severely damaged.

Today

————————————–

No defence for physical abuse

Well the son should by now realise that in another case,

Despite the accused’s claims that her obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) led her to starve her Filipino maid, a judge on Thursday (Dec 22) ruled that Chong Sui Foon’s preoccupation with cleanliness would not have led her to restrict the quantity of food given to the victim.

District Judge Low Wee Ping was delivering his findings on whether Chong’s mental condition was linked to her committing the offence, and which would have a bearing on her sentencing to be meted out in February.

ST

---

ST also reported

In March, Chong and her husband, Lim Choon Hong, both 48, were found guilty of starving Ms Thelma Oyasan Gawidan, causing her weight to drop from 49kg to 29kg within 15 months.

Lim, a freelance trader, faces one charge under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act, which requires employers to be responsible for the maintenance of their foreign employees, including providing them with adequate food. Chong faces one count of abetting her husband in committing the offence.

---

Glancing at ST reports of court cases, one gets the impression that a specialist can be conjured up to come up with some sort of mental illness for any person on trial. The exception was Amos Yee but then he didn’t have the money for a lawyer didn’t he? The lawyers representing him were doing pro bono work. So he couldn’t afford to pay for a mental health specialist to say that he had a mental illness.

Or maybe Amos is a cheap-skate. He claimed to have made millions from his videos.

————————————–

*One Ivan Gan posted: “I think Mercedes is safer. At least kill other driver, I am safe inside. Good killing machine. Just pay few K fine and free again.”

“We Mercedes driver has right to drive in any direction we prefer. Other driver must give way to us Merc driver. “Other driver just go back suck thumb inside your piece of junk. Haha.”

After he got whacked on Facebook, he too used the depression excuse

Ivan Goh should join Lim in Woodbridge.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Amos and Chippy: The Empire strikes back

Amos and Chippy are soulmates. Both are in trouble with the law what with Amos

pleading guilty to five charges and facing jail. Chippy us not allowed to emigrate but was sent for rehabilitation at a RTO, a fate Amos avoided, just

Prison awaits Amos

A day after he reversed a decision to stand trial and pleaded guilty to two charges of failing to show up at a police station, teen blogger Amos Yee again threw in the towel and admitted to three counts of wounding religious feelings. ST

This leaves him fighting three charges. He is alleged to have posted one photo and two videos online, between April and May, with the intention of wounding the feelings of Muslims.

Bet you he will plead guilty.

Hopefully jail will cure his Narcissistic Personality Disorder

————————————

Open the “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders”, a widely used handbook in the US and elssewhere, and the checklist for Narcissistic Personality Disorder could be notes for a profile on Amos. Symptoms include abnormal attention-seeking, self-centredness, a sense of entitlement, exaggerated self-appraisal (ie, fibbing about achievements) and warped relations with others. The outside world is mostly of interest as a mirror, reflecting back on the narcissistic self.

---

Seriously,  he’s got a genuine, rare talent that he can exploit for fame and $. More soon.

RTO for Chippy

Details of whar happened to Chippy are below. Really sad tale.

Why can’t the authouriies juz let him emigrate at no cost to us tax-payers. Instead we kanna fund his “rehabilitation” at an ACRES RTO. Why liddat PAP administration?

The irony of it all

Amos left the country but returned voluntarily, Chippy cannot leave but is further confined.

It seems Amos fled to Oz, planning to seek asylum. It a;so seems, he was advised that with  socially conservative politicians ascendant in Australia, it was unlikely that he would get asylum via ministerial discretion. This meant that he would have to go through a long legal process to get asylum.

And as he didn’t have the money and Mother Mary looking after him, he decided to come back.

Seems some well-off members of Caring Action Network, helped fund his holiday but wouldn’t fund any legal case.

———————

The sad tale of Chippy

The long-tailed macaque, which was befriended at the start of this year by Normanton Park resident Madam Prema, is now with wildlife rescue organisation Animal Concerns Research and Education Society (ACRES) for “rehabilitation”. This is so that Chippy can “hopefully be wild and free again rather than be held captive,” said ACRES’ Executive Director Louis Ng. [No point asking yout PAP MP to help, as Louis is one of the MIW]

In a joint statement, NParks, AVA and ACRES said they were working together to rehabilitate the monkey. “The main objective is to wean the monkey off human food, so as to reverse the monkey’s dependence on humans caused by the feeding and interaction with the monkey by members of the public.”

(CNA Aug 17)

“Had we known Chippy was going to ACRES, we would not have helped catch him.”

The report continues

But even now that Chippy is out of the wild, Mdm Prema and her family are now concerned about his well-being at ACRES.

“He’s got no chance with them…I’ve seen the way they handle him…I don’t trust them,” she said, citing the behaviour of an ACRES staff member towards Chippy earlier this year. In video footage captured by Mdm Prema’s daughter, an ACRES staff member can be seen waving and banging a long stick on the ground in front of Chippy in order to keep the monkey out of the Normanton Park condominium compound.

(Video: Courtesy of Mdm Prema)

She claimed that her family’s calls and queries to ACRES have gone unanswered, and she has no idea how Chippy is doing. This has, she said, caused her some distress and sleepless nights, particularly because she said she was asked by the authorities to help catch Chippy.  

“Chippy was running away and would not come down from the tree. We were told that he was going to the AVA, and they promised me he would not be culled. There was no talk about ACRES, no talk about rehabilitation, nothing.”

“So I used his favourite toy to coax him down, and we captured him in 45 minutes.”

“It was only the day after when we called NParks that we found out he was at ACRES. That made me feel like I wanted to die,” she said.

“Had we known Chippy was going to ACRES, we would not have helped catch him.”

 

 

If Roy Ngerng had defamed a real “natural aristocrat”

Remember PM quoting Jefferson on “natural aristocrats”?

Well Jefferson, a real “natural aristocrat” (Daddy wasn’t anybody really important in Virginia. He was a planter and surveyor, albeit a rich man,  who died when Jefferson was fourteen) wouldn’t have sued Roy Ngerng and other defamers .

Thomas Jefferson bore the brunt of brutal attacks when he ran for president in 1800. But Jefferson never responded to criticism by threatening to shut down dissent. “The people are the only censors of their governors”, he wrote, and “even their errors will tend to keep these to the true principles of their institution”.

To punish these errors too severely would be to suppress the only safeguard of the public liberty. The way to prevent these irregular interpositions of the people is to give them full information of their affairs thro’ the channel of the public papers, & to contrive that those papers should penetrate the whole mass of the people. The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2016/08/bad-press

“Warriors”, not “Wankers” / Worthless, Wayanging, Wanking NMPs

JBJ would have been proud of the WP MPs on Monday.

Three cheers for the WP. They are finally doing in this Parly what they failed to do in the last Parly, and in the process disappointing many of those who voted for them (self included).

They stood up and spoke out on a really bad piece of legislation. Low’s and Auntie’s speeches and the questions asked by the MPs made clear the BS about the changes to the laws on contempt of court that the PAP administration wanted.  The real issue was about controlling the flow of information in a defacto one-party state in the age of social and new media. This is something that even the CCP is grappling with in a de jure one-party state.

This was so unlike the Wankers’ Party of old who repeated avoided scoring open goals eg avoiding calling for the nationalisation of public tpt despite it being in the 2011 manifesto when the PAP administration was fighting three fires: trying to fix a broken public tpt system, while denying anything was wrong, and while spending public money to help the listed public tpt operators maintain profits.

Lots of open goals were avoided. No attempts on goal were even made. And it was a PAP MP that suggested nationalisation.

Looks like the WP has done some soul-searching and their elected MPs have moved on from being worthless, wayanging, wanking wannabe social workers, only interested in looking at their monthly bank statements, to become warriors. Let’s hope they keep this up, speaking out loud and clear when the PAP administration is doing wrong or trying to throw smoke.

Seems the results of GE 2015 and the challenge to Low in the WP’s internal elections have resulted in the WP “waking up its ideas”. More than one Lion Man now going by Monday’s debate.

The worthless, wayanging wankers in Parly are now the three NMPs who proposed changes to the bill (one of whom organised a petition and delivered it) and spoke out against the bill and then voted for the bill. This guy (quoted by TRE) got it right:

So much for signing a bloody petition. In the end, who were the 9 who opposed? Singapore, if you think you can count on NMPs to speak for you, see for yourself what happened today.

They will bring your petition to the House, withdraw it, and then vote in favour for the very Bill they were petitioning against, without any amendments to it whatsoever.

Very reliable folks indeed. Spineless. Pretentious. And so much less.

(From TRE)

Terry of TOC (The Online Citizen not Terry’s Online Channel) explained on FB the damage the three worthless, wayanging wankers caused by their two-faced actions:

The problem I see with such voting by the NMPS is that ppl in the general public will see that their well thought arguements have been answered by the law minister, which is why they would have voted yes to the bill without amendements. 

For the record, I’ve seen only one of the NMPs come out with a defence of why she voted for the bill. It’s a load of gibberish. She should have just sat down and shut up like the other two, And wait, like them, for her thirty pieces of silver.

China v S’pore: Abusing judicial process

Here judges and AG only scold the lawyers: witness what happened to Ms Chong and Mr Dodwell. In China when a lawyer annoys the court

Mr Wu was allegedly assaulted by three officers inside a courtroom, in front of two judges who rejected his request to file a case in the district court of Nanning.

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-china-blog-36466485

This is what S’porean critics of the PAP here but fans of China want Hongkies to accept? They won’t accept this behaviour here (we all wouldn’t), but expect Hongkies to accept this kind of behaviour. Remember that Uncle Redbran and Goh Meng Seng etc advise Hongkies to accept Chinese rule, saying it’s benevolent, while decrying the PAP’s actions here.

Amos and the the art of protest/ Why Ali was “the greatest”

So Amos was back in the news. I’m sure he came back because he missed Mother Mary’s pampering to his every whim, and the publicity. But he must be disappointed that he’s history even though he was charged in court and assaulted in public. The ang moh tua kees have got their knickers wet over the Roy and Teo show, not Amos. Interestingly, they don’t give two hoots about the Indian TISG, even though P Ravi is now running the show.

Seriously, coming back to Boy Fantastic, I suspect he’s really a stupid, dumb kid (What to expect of boy who didn’t go to RI.? (OK, OK, I admit that  GCT,Kee Chui, Tan Jee Say and Tan Kin Lian are also RI boys) unable express (let alone understand) himself. I think he really wants to be a protest artist like Petr Pavlensky, Ai Weiwei, Theaster Gates and Beyonce, but can’t express or understand this honourable calling. Instead, he positions himself as mummy’s boy gone wrong.

I’m sure you’ve heard of Ai Weiwei and Beyonce, but not the other two.  Below is something on Petr Pavlensky and Theaster Gates http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-36163543 aboit.

Doesn’t Petr Pavlensky’s antics  make one think of Amos’ antics? The sewing of his mouth and the nailing for his scrotum reminds me of Amos’ self-inflicted stint at our very own Arkham. Both actions were avoidable but done to shock and sensationalise with the aim of making themselves celebrities: celebrities with a cause.

Petr Pavlensky is a Russian artist at the radical, Dadaist, end of the spectrum. His reference points include Guy Debord’s Situationist International movement, the Sex Pistols and Kazimir Malevich – and less obviously, Lucien Freud and Caravaggio.

He, like Beyonce, thinks there’s room for improvement in the way in which his country is run.

He too thinks there is oppression, police brutality, and corporate/state corruption. But he doesn’t have access to the sort of levers available to the US singer, and even if he did, I doubt he’d pull them in quite the same way.

Briefly. He started out at art school, but found the teaching dogmatic and dull.

He left and found his artistic voice by sowing his mouth shut in response to the incarceration of members of Pussy Riot following the performance of their Punk Prayer in the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour in Moscow.

It made for a strikingly nasty image. An image, that had it been made by a non-artist, would have received little attention, but by pulling the one lever had got – art – his work received international attention.

He followed that up with a piece called Fixation (2013). That’s the one where his genitals come in to play.

After weeks of preparation and planning, he went to Red Square, stripped naked, and nailed his scrotum to the paving stones. Extreme? Yes, very. But maybe extreme situations call for extreme actions? …

Ai Weiwei uses the notion of art in a similar way. He too turns himself into a one-man picket to bring attention to what he perceives as the shortcomings of the authorities in his native country, China.

He has also been incarcerated, although for far less obvious reasons.

The American Theaster Gates is another artist who “leverages” the status of art in society to turn the detritus he finds in the dilapidated buildings he buys on the Southside of Chicago into sculptures worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.

He then uses the money to help regenerate the area, which has been called the murder capital of America. …

He is furious. Ai Weiwei is furious. Theaster Gates is furious. Beyonce is furious.

They are all using art to protest, and to some effect – but admittedly with different immediate outcomes.

Well one thing is certain, Amos is furious, and like Ai Wei and Petr Pavlensky, has been incarcerated. But will he ever be famous? (Being a celebrity in S’pore doesn’t count.)

Btw, even his cybernut fans in TRELand are turning against him, or at least keeping quiet, like the ang moh tua kee paper warriors and activists that were championing him.

Amos’ boasting, his cockiness, his stoicism are all part of a plan to defy society. Ali shows such a plan can work. Ali who the Economist said did not know his place. His boasting, his cockiness, his stoicism—all were part of a plan to defy the established order.

But unlike Amos, Ali’s provocation was all the more complete because his bragging was so often backed by success.

Amos’ bragging remains all talk, no action.

Thinking about it, Ali was a protest artist. My favourite Ali quote: A man who views the world the same at 50 as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life.”

Inconvenient facts about the Indian, Teo and Roy

(Or “Authorities helping Teo prove her point on freedom of speech and she’s upset?”)

New media has given a really one-sided version of what is happening to the dynamic trio of the Indian (Hey everyone at TISG, as it likes to be called, is Indian.), Teo and Roy. While I’m not defending what seems like the tearing the wings of a live insect to bits by the authorities, I’d like to point out some inconvenient facts that new media netizens don,t know or wilfully ignore or suppress.

Did you know that the Indian Independent TISG posted even after receiving a reminder? Sounds like it wanted to play rough. It’s not the “honest mistake” defence that it has been saying, isit? Surely this garang attitude warrants a more robust push-back from the authorities*? And note that the Indian has just appointed as editor a member of the SPP. Even if Lina Chiam now sounds like a PAPPy, appointing an oppo party member seems to indicate that TISG is looking for a fight. But maybe P (Philemon not Politician) Ravi will resign from the SPP? Or has resigned? Transparency pls TISG.

Or that Teo Soh Lung, a SDP member, put up four posts which are the subject of police investigations. Not one or two but four posts. Sounds like she wanted to say a lot of things on cooling-off day. Waz so important? To be fair to her, she said “that it was my constitutional right to free speech and expression.” Sounds like she was trying to prove a point by her postings? So investigating her is fair, while charging her for breaking the “cooling-off” law will really be doing her a favour. She can go to court to argue her point.

Govmin so kind meh? Ms Teo and Ms Chong even complain about govmin being helpful isit? Why the ladies liddat? Oh forgot they anti-PAP.

And here’s something I didn’t know until I read it.

In the same period, Ngerng posted a “photo campaign” for Chee on his blog, which he claims has more than 6.5 million hits, and 30 Facebook posts. The police can very well view these as deliberate and repeated transgressions, and investigate more thoroughly than before. 

Cooling Off Day breaches since 2011… and what happened to them

The blogger went on They were not minor slips. They were major election campaigns!That’s his opinion but I think the comment is a fair one, if the allegations are true.

I don’t know if the above allegations about Roy’s postings are true but even if Roy posted half the alleged quantity, surely police got good grounds to investigate?

I’ve been trying to find out what Roy and Teo posted that got the authorities upset but am having no luck. All I get is the “noise” that “They are being persecuted.”.

Well if the dynamic trio think that their grandfathers drafted the “cooling-off” law or that they are above the law, they deserve everything they kanna so far, especially the Indian. It said it wants to make money, lots of it. Contrast that commercial motive with Roy simply wanting to remain a public celebrity (like his hero Amos Yee), And Ms Teo wanting to exercise his constitutional right of free speech.

Finally, I find some actions of Ms Teo and friends puzzling and problematic. Ms Teo wrote on FB, After the law enforcement officers left my flat, my friends and I did our best to protect the privacy of my friends. We changed passwords to email accounts, deleted contacts and finally removed my entire Gmail and Yahoo accounts. I lost several thousands of emails and archival materials. I also deleted other applications.

So one delete emails that can be the subject of police investigations? But then she and her buddy Jeannette Chong** (who was with her in the flat) are experienced lawyers, who also happen to be oppo party members.

Related post: The garang ang moh tua kees

=========================

*Finally the two TISG interns (both Indians I’ve been told) have met some adults. People linked with TISG, were called up on Monday (31 May), Tuesday (1 June) and Wednesday (2 June), to assist the police with their investigations into the alleged breaches of Cooling Off / Polling Day restrictions.

Readers will know that I’ve grumbled that the Indian’s interns needed adult supervision. Well TISG may soon face the consequences of its interns’ persistent juvenile delinquency. Actually they are adults from NTU School of Journalism. They will benefit from P Ravi’s supervision. if he decides to risk retaining them.

**Here’s a really bitchy, wicked but funny take on her.

[W]hat is the matter with this Jeanette Chong-Aruldoss woman?

Why is she entering the fray everywhere, from trying to abuse the court procedure last week to police investigations this week? Now they are saying the policemen are not carrying cards. As long as the lead officer in charge of the team is carrying the warrant card, it is enough.

Obviously, some of these people are trying to put the police in the bad light and trying to throw people off the real offence. Remember Jeanette is the same person who recently abused the court process to defend a brutal murderer.

Cooling Off Day breaches since 2011… and what happened to them

Impotent fury and arrogance/ Roy and Teo: the chosen

The ang moh tua kees are KPKBng* that the persecution of Roy and Teo Soh Lung (two of the “usual suspects”) should stop. And if the persecution doesn’t stop, what will they do? Bugger all. Juz sit down and shut up and wait for a new “event” to come along to KPKB about and denounce the govt that 70% of voters noted for. As much as they might disagree with the PAP’s position on human rights and media freedom, the voters don’t. Ok to be fair,  only 70% agree with the PAP’s position. But that doesn’t mean the 30% must prevail, does it? I mean the ang moh tua kees believe in democracy, don’t they?

Meanwhile, the swing voters think, “We  aren’t concerned with the right to talk cock once in a blue moon.” Let’s face it, is it really necessary to talk cock, sing song on cooling-off day? How often does that day come along? Exactly, once every 4-5 years and once in a blue moon in between grneral elections. Cannot close mouth for one day isit? Why liddat?

The voters who vote PAP just want to know if our streets are safe, will the trash be collected, can we drink the public water, will our children be educated, can we afford to live in our houses?

(Letter to FT on what voters in the UK want)

Returning to the “persecution” of Teo and Roy, juz think of it like this: killing two monkeys to frighten the sheep. Note that monkeys are chosen, not respectable and intelligent people who disagree with the policies of the PAP administration. PAP not that stupid lor. Neither are the respectable, intelligent people. They don’t get themselves “persecuted”. Only the likes of Roy and Teo do.

——-

*We, the undersigned are gravely concerned by the ongoing police investigations into alleged breaches by Roy Ngerng and Teo Soh Lung of the Cooling Off Day rules.

We are disquieted by the seizure of their property from their homes, in particular without warrant, and the wholesale and indiscriminate archiving of broad swathes of their personal data.  These excessive and intimidating measures are completely disproportionate to any harm alleged to have been caused by the actions of Ngerng and Teo.

To openly express a political view – including and especially views on party politics – is the fundamental right of every member of society.  If we are to achieve a democratic society where legislators and the government are truly representative of the values and wishes of citizens, every individual must be free to fearlessly express their views of politicians, parties and electoral processes.

For an individual seeking to understand the Cooling Off Day regulations, the application of the prohibitions on individual conduct is not clear.  Someone relying on the wording on the Elections Department website, which indicates an exemption for “the transmission of personal political views by individuals to other individuals, on a non-commercial basis, using the Internet, telephone or electronic means”, might reasonably conclude that their posts were exempt.

Given this ambiguity and the great importance of freedom of expression for individual citizens, it is wholly inappropriate for police investigations of such an intimidating and intrusive nature to take place.  The main effect of this police action is to intensify a climate of fear that deters the frank discussion of political issues by all individuals – a discussion that our society both needs and deserves.

We note that there have been previous allegations of breaches of the Cooling Off Day rules by electoral candidates.  Such conduct is far more likely to cause the harm to the electoral process which Cooling Off Day is designed to avert.  Yet we are not aware of such draconian investigations made in those circumstances.  A society which values the free exchange of political ideas must not apply more restrictive standards to ordinary citizens than to electoral candidates.

We call upon the state to ensure the immediate return of all confiscated property to Ngerng and Teo, the removal of any data obtained from them from state and police possession, and an immediate and total cessation of the investigative process.

Signed by:

1. Abdul Salim Harun
2. Adrian Heok
3. Alex Sng
4. Alexander Luciano Roberto
5. Alfian Sa’at
6. Alvina Khoo
7. Ana Abdullah
8. Ananth Tambyah
9. Andre Goh
10. Ang Chong Leong
11. Annie Jael Kwan
12. Ariffin Sha
13. Ashukumar Veerapan
14. Ashura Chia
15. Azmi Monday
16. Benjamin Matchap
17. Benjamin Seet
18. Bhavan Jaipragas
19. Brendan Goh
20. Brenton Wong
21. Brian Yang
22. Bryan Choong
23. Cecilia Joven Ong
24. Celine Lim
25. Chang May Lian
26. Chan Wai Han
27. Chew Keng Chuan
28. Chng Nai Rui
29. Christine Sng Mechtler
30. Chui Yong Jian
31. Dan Koh
32. Dana Lam
33. Darius Zee
34. Daryl Yang
35. David Lee
36. Dinah Sim
37. Dolly Peh
38. Edmund Wee
39. Edward Eng
40. Edwina Shaddick
41. Elisa Kang
42. Emily Lim
43. Erica Chung
44. Esther Kong
45. Fadli Bin Fawzi
46. Fadly Razali
47. Farhan C. Idris
48. Fenwick Melville
49. Fong Hoe Fang
50. Gina Lim
51. Godwin Koay
52. Goh Chok Chai Ricky
53. Ho Choon Hiong
54. Hong Weizhong
55. Irene Oh
56. Ivan Heng
57. Jackie Heng Lim
58. Jamal Ismail
59. James Weng Hong Lam
60. Jason Soo
61. Jeremy Tiang
62. Jocelyn Teo
63. Johannes Hadi
64. Jolene Tan
65. Jolovan Wham
66. Jony Ling
67. Joo Hymn Tan
68. Joshua Chiang
69. Keith Tan
70. Kenneth Lin
71. Kokila Annamalai
72. Kuan Wee
73. Lee Yi Ting
74. Li Xie
75. Lim Jialiang
76. Lim Kay Siu
77. Lim Xiuhui
78. Linda Ong
79. Lionel Deng
80. Lisa Li
81. Lita Patricio
82. Loo Zihan
83. Low Yit Leng
84. Lucas Ho
85. Lynn Lee
86. Mansura Sajahan
87. Mark Wong De Yi
88. Matilda Gabrielpillai
89. Megan Boey Sean Ching
90. Melvin Wong
91. Merv Tan
92. Miak Siew
93. Morgan Awyong
94. M Ravi
95. Muhammad Faliqh Rahman
96. Muhd Firdaus
97. Nathanael Tan
98. Neo Swee Lin
99. Ng Guohui Nigel
100. Ng Yi-Sheng
101. Niki Ng
102. Nina Chabra
103. Ong Sooi Eng
104. Pak Geok Choo
105. Robyn Yzelman
106. Roy Tan
107. Sam Lim
108. Sam Ong
109. Sathiya Moorthy
110. Sean Francis Han
111. Semangeline Teo
112. Sha Jumani Basari
113. Shelley Thio
114. Shimin Wong
115. Shirleen Chong
116. Siauw Chong
117. Siew Kum Hong
118. Smith Adrian Jude
119. Sonny Liew
120. Stephanie Chok
121. Stephen Baldy Ho
122. Tan Elice
123. Tan Tee Seng
124. Tan Zong Xuan
125. Tay Kheng Soon
126. Teng Yong Ping Daryl
127. Terry Xu
128. Thum Ping Tjin
129. Timothy Todd
130. Trevor Chan
131. Valence Sim
132. Vanessa Ho
133. Vivian Wang
134. Wendy Chan
135. Wong Souk Yee
136. Yap Ching Wi
137. Yap Hon Ngian
138. Yee Kai
139. Zee Wong
140. Zulkarnain Hassan

Would this happen in a one-party state?

Even in a country like the UK with its long tradition of fair play, an active and usually liberal civil society, and independent institutions, it took almost three decades to uncover a cover-up and a perversion of justice about 96 men, women and children who died in the Hillsborough stadium disaster in April 1989.

The cover-up has taken almost three decades to be torn down. A government inquiry, the Taylor Report, concluded that the disaster was caused primarily by a failure of police control. The inquest into the deaths of the victims was completed in 1991 and recorded a verdict of accidental death. The refusal of the families to accept the inquest’s findings led to a campaign to have the evidence re-examined. This eventually led to the formation of independent panel, which in turn resulted in a High Court decision in 2012 to order a new inquest. That investigation concluded on April 26th with the very different verdict of unlawful killing.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2016/04/economist-explains-18

The critics of the PAP administration would point to the SGH tragedy (SGH tragedy: “Penny wise, Safety foolish” allegation), the deaths during NS training, the frequent MRT breakdowns as examples of our Hillsboroughs that need exposing.

Even without going so far, the official response to the SGH tragedy “no one is really responsible” (my interpretation of what the Health Minister said in parly leaves a bad taste in the mouth. As does the failure of accountability in SMRT and other TLCs and GLCs when goof-ups occur (think NOL and, SGX for starters).

In a one party-state, the party must be protected against the people.

In  China, a de jure one-party state the CCP’s concerns were made clear in a document that began circulating in secret in April 2013 and was later leaked. Document Number Nine, as it is called, describes “the current state of the ideological sphere” and identifies seven challenges to it. They include Western constitutional democracy, universal values, civil society, neoliberalism and “the West’s idea of journalism”

Now isn’t our very own PAP worried about Western constitutional democracy, universal values, civil society, neoliberalism and “the West’s idea of journalism”. 

To end, only in a de facto one party state,

— can the loser in a by-election who lost by 22 points can say “[I]t doesn’t feel like [a] loss”.

— and for anti-PAP cyberwarriots (more likely to be nutty than rational) to proclaim that the PAP should be afraid, very afraid because it only won by 22 points.

Benjamin’s death and PM’s CNY message

I tot of Benjamin Lim and his family when I read the following on CNA

‘Family an important building block of society’: PM Lee in CNY message

In his Chinese New Year message on Sunday (Feb 7), Mr Lee said that the Government will continue to support Singaporeans “in the many responsibilities and joys of parenthood”, adding that he hoped to see more babies born in the new year.

Come on PM: pull the other leg, it’s got bells on it. Sadly, it’s not funny.

Whatever comes out of the investigations into Benjamin Lim’s suicide one thing is already very clear.

The SOPs of the police and MoE and the actions of their officers show that MoE and the police, they do not believe that parents’ have rights and that teenagers can be very fragile people*.

On the latter first.

A school is a kampung so why did the police commander send in five policemen in plainclothes (with some allegedly wearing tee-shirts with the word “POLICE”, which if true defeats the purpose of wearing mufti) in two unmarked cars? Two cars with five persons coming into the school compound during recess is sure to attract attention. And more when all or most of them head for principal’s office. Furthermore remember that students are observant and will notice the guns being carried under mufti.

If I were a student, I’d find a legitimate excuse to get into the general office which I assume is adjacent and connected to the principal’s office.

And then students will notice a schoolmate being escorted in by the student counsellor. They will notice that he’s being rushed as he is carrying his lunch into the office (a no-no in normal circumstances). Why liddatt?

I’d have lied to get into the general office. I know someone was in big trouble.

And while, we don’t know how Benjamin Lim was escorted out, we can guess based on pictures from ST etc on how suspects are escorted by the police. There’ll be one person in front, one on each side of the suspect and one behind.

Students would say, “Double confirm! Ben’s in big, big trouble!”

My point is that students are very observant, can put “two and two together”, gossip a lot and love teasing (I can imagine the teasing he’d face). This is something that the police and the school officials couldn’t be bothered to think about when they did what they did.

So the police should have been a lot more discrete. Three officers in one car and only one to into the general, principal office. And turn up when lessons are in progress, so that there’s no crowd to see what’s happening.

And so could have the school: the counsellor should let him eat his food before escorting him to the office.

As to the rights of parents, why couldn’t the police wait for the parents to come to the school to accompany the student to the police station.  It really wasn’t a “time is of the essence kind of investigation”. It was not as though he was suspected of planting a bomb that was going to go off at any moment, killing or hurting people.

I found the initial police response via a retired cop chilling. He said the law allowed to the policemen do what he did and thaz the end of the story. And he’s supposed to be a police “ambassador” to the public?

As for MoE’s disregard for the rights of parents (Schools must comply with the law, duty of care to parents is secondary: my interpretation of MoE’s remarks to the media), I can do no better than quote what Dr Wong Souk Yee Chairperson of the SDP wrote:”School officials must be aware that their duty is, first and foremost, to protect students’ welfare as well as their families’ interests. Doing this would not impede law enforcement officers from carrying out their duty. It would, on the other hand, help to prevent tragedies like Benjamin’s suicide from taking place.”

If PM’s

“Family an important building block of society” 

And that the Government will continue to support Singaporeans “in the many responsibilities and joys of parenthood”

are to mean anything, heads must role, and procedures relooked.

For example I’m told that it’s SOP that five policemen should be sent to arrest any one person. Commanders have discretion but they know that if anything goes wrong, they’ll be asked, “Why no five officers? Don’t know SOP isit?” Want to be her isit?” So they always send five.

“Even if the police were concerned that Benjamin would not be co-operative and could overpower the officers and escape, how far could he have run? And even if he did make a getaway, did the police not have his family, school and classmates that they could contact?” Dr Wong wrote.

Come on PM, pull the other leg: it’s got bells on it.

Sadly, it’s not funny.

——

*Not all of them are brats like Amos Yee and not all parents are as irresponsible like his Mother Mary.

Hard truth about the FT “terrorists”/ Indi overtaking TRE?

But first, let’s remember that the authorities tell us that they were not planning attacks, bombings here but back home. This means they were here to earn a living, not plant bombs etc. Really good guest workers, not like some PRC rats who came here to strike or chear S’poreans  or the Indian rat who took citizenship  but with the inyent of making sure his son avoids NS while working here.

Even more to the point, the ISA (detention without trial) was used, not the criminal law statutes.

But to be fair to the authorities, “they could have easily changed their minds and attacked Singapore”, Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam (aka the Minister for pets) said in a Facebook post.

But do the Bangladeshi authorities regard them as dangerous?

Bangladesh authorities say 14 of its nationals deported from Singapore are being held over links to a group blamed for attacking secular writers.

The men were part of a larger group of 26 construction workers who were expelled from Singapore last year for supporting armed jihadist ideology.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-35379056

So the others deported (12 out of the 26) were released? Yes.

The other 12 men, who returned on different dates, have been allowed to go back to their families as detectives “did not find their links with militancy in primary investigation”, Mashrukure Rahman, deputy commissioner (South Division) of Detective Branch at Dhaka Metropolitan Police, told The Daily Star on Wednesday (Jan 20).

Nonetheless, they are still “under close observation”, he added in the report.

Whatever, it’s clear that the Bangladeshi authorities don’t agree with S’pore’s perception that these 12 guys are very dangerous.

But then it’s hard to disagree with the administration and 70% of the voters that “Better safe than sorry”. Of course the anti-PAP cybernuts of TRELand (a tiny minority* among the 30%ers would disagree cheering on this view:  http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2016/01/were-the-27-arrested-bangladeshis-terrorists/

——————–

*And getting smaller if the Indian’s Independent’s claims are to be believed: the Indian Indi claims it gets more views than TRE. Sounds like Indian PM talking his usual cock. 

 

 

 

 

PRC’s detention without trial versus ours

A reader of this asks chua chin leng (aka redbean) cheers for prc (china) and goh meng seng cheers for hk (sar). why don’t these two blokes change their citizenships instead ?

Because, this doesn’t happen in S’pore, to critics of the PAP administration, even “Marxist conspirators”, alleged Jihadists, bookies and drug lords?

Another associate of a Hong Kong bookshop specialising in titles critical of the Chinese government appears to have disappeared. [HK media later reported later said he called his wife from a mainland-registered phone number , saying he was“assisting in an investigation” ]

Last month four other employees of the same bookshop and publishing house, including its owner, went missing.

Their colleagues believe they have been detained because of their work.

Freedom of the press is guaranteed in Hong Kong, but many in the publishing industry say they are beginning to feel pressure from mainland China.

The latest associate to be reported missing is the man who raised the alarm when his colleagues disappeared in October.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-35208879

Despite the lies that Tan Wah Piow, sex pervert Comrade Bala, Dosh, Oxygen, Meng Seng etc tell about S’porean justice, in S’pore detention-without-trial arrests are never so secretive and out of the public eye.

And even an alleged cat killer gets a lawyer pro bono, juz like LKY-hater Amos Yee. .

And would Uncle Redbean or Meng Seng dare criticise China the way they criticise the PAP administration? I doubt it.

By not moving on from S’pore citizenship, we know that they don’t walk the talk, juz talk the talk.

 

Ravi pleads guilty, blames hypomanic episode

But tribunal is not moved and cuts him no slack. Case referred to panel of three High Court judges who can really terkan him (or as the cybernuts, Ravi’s groupies, and ang moh tua kees say, “Fix him”: fine or censure him.

Last week’s M Ravi’s attempt to escape more severe punishment in a disciplinary case failed. He had appeared before a Law Society tribunal on four charges and pleaded guilty to the four charges of misconduct.

One charge was hooliganish behaviour at the Law Society premises, a video clip of which was posted online. Another charge was making nasty, vicious statements against the Law Society president and his family members in a Facebook post. The last two other charges were about false allegations made by Ravi about two lawyers in February.

Psychiatrist Munidasa Winslow, his doctor, testified that Mr Ravi suffered from bipolar disorder and a hypomanic episode from mid-January to late February.

His lawyer, Mr EugeneThuraisingam said that he had shown remorse, apologised in April to the people affected and was prepared to pay $10,000 as a penalty to the Society or one of its pro bono schemes. He was also taking steps to prevent a relapse. (Is he taking his medicine? In his autobiography, he boasted that he refused to take his pills preferring meditation Now I meditate a lot but there’s a limit to what meditation can do.)

Dr Tommy Tan, a psychiatrist called by the Law Society, said Mr Ravi’s mental condition did not serve to excuse but to mitigate the acts complained of against him.

M. Ravi will be dealt with by a court of three High Court judges. The tribunal recommended the move, saying that it had no power to fine or censure Ravi as he was being dealt with as a non-practising lawyer. It said that in the case of a non-practising lawyer, its task is limited to finding if the charges are sufficiently serious to have it referred to the three judges.

Ravi was charged as a non-practising lawyer as he was suspended in February because his fitness to practise was impaired by his bipolar disorder.

ST reported:

The tribunal, in its report released yesterday, said a prima facie case had been established against Mr Ravi since he had “pleaded guilty to the four charges and his mental condition as per the evidence of Dr (Tommy) Tan (a psychiatrist) does not exculpate him for his various acts of misconduct but are mitigating factors only”.

Eugene Thuraisingam argued that the case did not justify being referred to the Court of Three Judges as the offences were due to Mr Ravi’s mental condition. [Go bananas is licence to play havouc and get away with it isit? Hmm, lessons for Amos?]

But lawyers … for the Law Society countered that the case was sufficiently serious to be referred to the Court of Three Judges, pointing to the scurrilous statements he had made.

The tribunal held that it had no power to order any sanction or to accept Mr Ravi’s offer to pay $10,000, and that its role was to report to the Chief Justice if the case was serious enough for disciplinary action.

These ang mohs should sit down and shut up. Even his doctor and M Ravi himself said he was ill.

Finally, his claim of getting his practicing cert back should make this bunch of Canadian lawyers*** sit down and shut up. A Canadian NGO has asked LawSoc “to discontinue disciplinary action against internationally known human rights lawyer M. Ravi and to take all steps necessary to ensure the reissuance of his practising certificate”.

TOC summarises their arguments http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2015/08/the-case-of-m-ravi-lrwc-issues-call-for-law-society-to-remain-impartial-from-government/

The arrogance of the Ang Mohs is astounding. As the LawSoc pointed out the Canadians want due process to be ignored. They think we still under ang moh rule isit?

***A bunch of M’sian lawyers also made a similar call.

Related post

— Why Ravi went bananas: blame Roy, Hui Hui and other young hooligans

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background

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

Other interesting snippets_ from CNA about the appeal hearing:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Human rights kay pohs don’t do “fixers” and “jihadists”

The Court of Appeal ordered the release of alleged match-fixer Dan Tan release from detention on Nov 25. (Bit strange as he should have released on Oct 15)

The Court of Appeal ordered Tan’s release and called his detention without trial “unlawful”. The court not only gave the reasons for their decision but also also addressed the scope of the Home Affairs Minister’s powers in such cases.

————————————————————

Background 

He has been detained without trial since October 2013, under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act. The Act gives the Home Affairs Minister power to detain without trial “a person who has been associated with activities of a criminal nature … if the Minister deems it necessary in the interests of public safety, peace and good order”.

He was arrested in September 2013 for allegedly being the “leader and financer of a global football match-fixing syndicate operating from Singapore”. Between 2009 and 2013, Tan had been linked to match-fixing activities in Egypt, South Africa, Nigeria, Turkey and Trinidad and Tobago. Tan also allegedly recruited runners and agents in Singapore to help in these illegal activities.

Originally detained for one year, Tan’s detention was extended for another year, until October 2015. Tan’s first appeal to review his detention was dismissed by the High Court in September 2014. The Court of Appeal heard Tan’s application against this dismissal.

——————————————————————————————

Below is something I wrote in Jan 2014 about the case and what it showed abiut the human rights kay pohs, Below it is an excerpt from CNA on judges’ reasoning.

(Btw, since the Paris murders, HomeTeam has renewed the detention of several alleged jihadists. Maruah and the rest of the kay pohs are silent but had earlier this yr rushed to the defence of Amos Yee, Mummy’s Boy Fantastic. They scared of being killed by jihadists?)

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

It might be the season to be jolly and of peace and goodwill, what with the Christmas and NY hols gone and the CNY hols coming, but the human rights activists have really got my goat.

The contrast between their vocal support for FT deportess, and their seeming indifference to S’poreans detained without trial make me sick.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Shylock in The Merchant of Venice)

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

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

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

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

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

—

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

From CNA on the Dan Tan judgement

ACT SHOULD NOT HAVE A “LOOSE OR OPEN-ENDED REMIT”: CHIEF JUSTICE

In coming to their decision to free Tan, the Chief Justice and Judges of Appeal Chao Hick Tin and Andrew Phang Boon Leong examined in detail the proper scope of the Act. “At its inception, the Act was intended to deal with real and physical threats of harm within Singapore,” the judges noted, citing times when Singapore had been terrorised by “gangsters, secret society members, and drug traffickers with underworld and international syndicate connections”.

The criminal activities must be of a “sufficiently serious nature” to come under the ambit of the Act. While the “precise range of activities caught by the Act had broadened over time, their core characteristics have not”, the CJ pointed out, saying that the act should not have a “loose or open-ended remit”.

DETAINING TAN WITHOUT TRIAL BEYOND MINISTER’S POWER: CHIEF JUSTICE

The apex court also came to a landmark judgement regarding the scope of the power vested in the minister, and ruled that in Tan’s case, the minister’s action “fell outside the limits of his power”.

The Act provides for detention without trial if the criminal activities have a “prejudicial effect” on the public safety, peace and good order of Singapore. This is the “entire reason” for the Act, CJ Menon wrote, emphasising that the activities need not have occurred here, but that they must threaten our public safety, peace and order.

However, there is “nothing to indicate that (Tan) did engage in any activities of so serious a nature” as to warrant detention without trial under the Act, CJ Menon wrote. Furthermore, Tan’s criminal acts had ceased almost two and a half years before he was served with a detention order, he noted.

Though Tan has been linked to syndicated international match-fixing activities, his actions at best “amount to a slew of corrupt practices”, CJ Menon said. “As reprehensible as they undoubtedly are, (they) cannot be said to rise to the level of gravity that they would have to in order to come within the scope of the Minister’s power to act.”

Would this be an offence here?

If say Amos Yee had painted the names “Lee Kuan Yew” and “Jesus Christ” on two pigs and intended to release them in Hong Lim Green?

Let me explain. There is a graffiti artist called Danilo Maldonado, commonly known as “El Sexto”, whose work is unrelentingly critical of the Cuban government.

On this occasion, the authorities decided he had gone too far: he had mocked the leaders of the revolution.

On 25 December 2014, he painted the names Fidel and Raul on two pigs and intended to release them in a plaza in Havana.

His idea was that people would try to catch the pigs and the winner could keep them.

Whether you see it as a cheap publicity stunt or a valid artistic expression, the event was never likely to be allowed to happen in Cuba.

Maldonado was stopped by state security officers before he got to the square and was put in jail, reportedly without trial.

The government say “El Sexto” is a mercenary in the pay of anti-Castro groups in Washington and Miami.

But Amnesty International recently deemed him a prisoner of conscience.

“To jail an artist for painting a name on a pig is ludicrous,” said Carolina Jimenez, the organisation’s Americas Deputy Director for research.

(BBC Online)

(For the record Amnesty Int’l wrote about Amos as follows:

“Amos Yee is not a criminal. He should never have been charged, let alone convicted. He has been punished solely for exercising his right to freedom of expression,” said Rupert Abbott, South East Asia and Pacific Research Director at Amnesty International.

“If there is any justice Amos Yee would be walking free from court without a conviction against his name. The Singapore authorities must respect the right to freedom of expression.”

For the record, I say, “Ang moh, don’t talk cock.” I think this judge got it right about Mummy’s Boy Fantastic.)

Sorry for the digression, back to Amos and the naming of the pogs. Well going by the offences Amos was found guilty of earlier this yr, Amos could be guilty of

— “intention of wounding the religious feelings of Christians” if he painted ‘Jesus Christ” on a pig; and

— “threatening, abusive or insulting communication” which is anan offence under under the Protection from Harassment Act for painting “LKY” on the other pig,

with the intention of releasing the pigs on Hong Lim Green so that Han Hui Hui, Roy, Goh Meng Seng, s/o JBJ, M Ravi, Gilbert Goh, Dr Chee and their like could try to catch the pigs.

Brown-noser and PAP member Lionel De Sousa (“Hang 100 innocent people lest one guilty person gets away” seems to be the motto of this self-styled super robo cop who never got confirmed as an inspector, retiring as a sergeant in the SPF.) is sure to lodge a police report, something he did in the case of Amos Yee. .

Reminder of what Amos did for those with short memories. In late March 2015, shortly after the death of one LKY, Amos uploaded a video on YouTube criticising LKY. In the video  he compared Lee to Jesus, and said nassty things about both of them. Yee also uploaded to his blog an image depicting Lee and Margaret Thatcher engaged in anal sex. Yee was arrested and charged with “intention of wounding the religious feelings of Christians”, obscenity, and “threatening, abusive or insulting communication.” The first two charges were for offences the Penal Code. The third charge, later stood down, was under the Protection from Harassment Act.

Amos Yee: The anti-PAP caravan moves on

Double confirm, Amos is history, a celebrity no more. The anti-PAP paper (or cyber) warriors and activists ignored the end of the saga (or is it farce?) “Amos the Freedom Fighter: S’pore’s Nelson Mandela”. There was hardly a word on new media about the dismissal of his appeal.

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

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

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

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

Justice Tay said (rightly in my view): “This is not freedom of speech, this is a licence to hate, to humiliate others and to totally disregard their feelings or beliefs by using words to inflict unseen wounds”. It seems like Yee is throwing stones at his neighbour’s flat to force the neighbour to notice him, (and) come out to quarrel.”

“Yee used coarse, hard-hitting words to arouse emotions … vulgar insults to deliberately provoke readers and draw them out,” he said, adding that the 16-year-old should “wean himself off his preference for crude, rude language (and engage in) real debate”, which can “flourish in an environment of goodwill, reasoning and civil language”. Hear, hear.

The activists (paper and real) that were egging him on are silent e.g. the members of Community Action Network (CAN: Shelley Thio, Lynn Lee, Joshua Chiang, Jolovan Wham, Jennifer Teo, Woon Tien Wei, Rachel Zeng, Roy Ngerng and Martyn See.), Maruah, Aware, and Dr Chee.

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

He has served his purpose as an instrument to attack the administration of justice here. Their caravan has moved on, in search of the next instrument to attack the PAP administration, the administration of justice etc.

But to be fair, I’m sure these anti-PAP activists will say they don’t want to go to jail for criticising the judge’s reasoning.

But no need to feel sorry for Amos. He didn’t bother to turn up for the hearing despite asking his lawyers to appeal, and despite them working for free.

Mother Mary sure knows how to bring up a kid.

 

Roy: Cannot be relied on

Roy Ngerng pleaded guilty to charges of public nuisance and organising a demonstration without approval, on Oct 7. He was fined $1,900.

Both offences were committed at Hong Lim Park on Sep 27, 2014, where the YMCA was holding a charity carnival, YMCA Proms @ The Park 2014*.

By pleading guilty Roy has “fixed” New Citizen Han Hui Hui (hear they no longer on talking terms and Roy crosses his heart whenever her name is mentioned) and the other young hooligans who want to stand trial.

By pleading guilty, he’s making it more difficult for the others to defend themselves given that the leader has said he is guilty as charged. District Judge Liew Thaim Leng said Roy was the “leader of the group”.

His co-accused are expected to go on trial on Oct 12. H3 is facing charges of public nuisance and organising a demonstration without approval, while   Low Wai Choo (Goh Meng Seng’s choice of fellow S’porean to stand with him at Choa Chu Kang GRC in last GE: what does Meng Seng have against autistic children?), Goh Aik Huat, and Koh Yew Beng each face a charge of public nuisance.Another co-accused, Chua Siew Leng, had pleaded guilty in March this year. She was fined $300 for causing a public nuisance.

Roy the drama queen is now a sabo king (queen?). But he has form. He tot of standing bail for Amos Yee, mummy’s pet and boy fantastic, but didn’t. Result: Amos got locked up over a week-end. And he didn’t stand by H3 when s/o JBJ didn’t want her as a RP candidate for Ang Moh Kio. She is really angry with him for not standing by her: after all she did for him.

Roy according to his lawyer “is “deeply remorseful” at jeering at autistic kids**. Why he always like this? He was sorry he defamed PM And then went to defame PM a few more times. Will he ? “He will not reoffend”, Mr Thuraisingam added, in seeking a fine.

Let’s wait and see.

Will he break the law again?

Whatever it is, the voters in AMK have showed him and the cybernuts that they are not impressed by his antics done in the name of S’poreans. Time for him to sit down and shut up.

———————————————

*Ngerng, together with fellow blogger Han Hui Hui, 24, and four others, held their #ReturnOurCPF protest rally at the same time and place as the YMCA event.

When then-Minister of State for Trade and Industry Teo Ser Luck – the guest-of-honour for the YMCA event – arrived at the Park, the attendees of Ngerg’s protest became “more emotive”.

The group demonstrated by shouting loudly, chanting slogans, waving flags, holding placards, blowing whistles loudly and beating drums, the court heard.

(CNA)

**Ngerng’s lawyer Eugene Thuraisingam said his client had contributed to society by volunteering his time to teach special needs and autistic children***. He is also a “well-known advocate for matters of public interest”, Mr Thuraisingam said.

“His offence is ignorance”, said the lawyer, as Ngerng did not know that separate approval was required for a demonstration, after he had already obtained approval to hold an event at the Park.

Ngerng holds a “genuine belief” that he was speaking on matters of public interest, and is “deeply remorseful he did not do this in accordance with the law”, the lawyer said.

“He will not reoffend”, Mr Thuraisingam added, in seeking a fine.

***Pls leh, the parents rightly refused to let him anywhere near the kids. So how can his volunteering be contributing to society?

 

 

 

 

 

Amos: When Nemesis met Hubris/ Why PAP PR bad

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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.

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 …

(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?

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?

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, wil he 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

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”

(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.

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090421181641AAcVWNo

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?

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

(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.

Amos: Misled or misunderstood the law?

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.

Amos: Even dumber comments / Parental Responsibility

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.

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

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.

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

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

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 that 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?

If wearing the wrong tee-shirt or singlet?

Try walkng 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.

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?

(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.

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:

March 31, 2015 at 4:34 am  (Quote)

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: No news is good news

Not heard  anything in new media or media about M Ravi, so the stories I hear coming from his friends must be true.

He is taking his medicine, visiting his doctor regularly, resting and not getting stressed over his clients and the courts (he can’t as he’s barred from practicising well until his doctor says he is OK). Sadly this kind of news doesn’t make it to new media or the traditional media.

One thing I’ve learnt about bi-polarism (Ravi’s mental condition) from a Facebook thread on M Ravi’s condition is that there are good, reasonable reasons for patients to avoid taking the medicine prescribed. They are terribly unpleasant primarily because they are a cocktail of drugs to treat the contradictory nature of bi-polarism: depression and hyper-actism. So the medicine used treats opposites. The effects of the medicine on the body cause severe discomfort.

Maybe he needs to stop practicising constitutional litigation. It’s very stressful what with clients like Roy and the structure of the Constitution.

The other thing I learnt about this mental condition is the importance of routine: a luxury litigators don’t have.

Pet minister and e-justice

No not elephant justice but electronic-justice.

As he is also the law minister, he should take off from his very important role as pet minister to modernise the civil justice system by ordering the development of an “online court”

The first tier would be “dispute avoidance”, helping people diagnose their issues and identify the best way of resolving them.

Tier two would be labelled “dispute containment” using facilitators to help the parties reach agreement on resolving the issue.

Finally, tier three would be “dispute resolution”, employing the use of online judges to consider cases online, largely on the basis of papers received electronically, but with an option of telephone hearings.

Taz what England is planning:

The body overseeing the modernisation of the civil justice system is calling for an “online court” to be developed in England and Wales to reduce costs.

The Civil Justice Council’s report recommends an Online Dispute Resolution system, which would see judges deciding some non-criminal cases online, without the expenses generated by a court.

The report suggests a pilot followed by a full roll-out in 2017.

Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service says it welcomes the report.

The proposed scheme would include online tools to diagnose and resolve disputes, online facilitators to help parties reach agreement, and if that fails, online judges whose rulings would be as binding as court rulings.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-31483099

And I know juz a software developer that can build such a system.

Will M Ravi’s barrage of constitutional challenges change anything?

Ravi’s latest antics (see below) reminded me that I couldn’t stop laughing when the the go-to, kick-ass, take-no-prisoners constitutional lawyer for a drug mule who think the world owes him a living, hooligans who think it is a human right to disrupt YMCA activities and tell lies, and a gay (Tan Eng Hong) that homely gays don’t want to be associated with (some other gays, see below, didn’t want their case heard with his), said that S’pore is a “democratic society”.

No I’m not joking, M Ravi said, “We are instructed to place on notice our client’s profound sense of regret that in a democratic society like Singapore, her Constitutional rights and freedoms have been curtailed so drastically on a premise that in her submission is flawed, and all her rights are reserved.”

Now I’m not that looney (OK, OK, idealistic or naive) as his client  to think S’pore is a democratic society. It is an authoritarian, de-facto one-party society that allows free, peaceful, intimidation free but “unfair” (here meaning a tilted field where the odds and rules favour the continued dominance of the PAP) elections to choose the next dictator for the next few yrs. And since 1959  by very big or at least decent majorities (save in 1963), the voters have chosen the PAP to rule.

There are some who want to change this state of affairs, not via the ballot box but by getting the courts to reinterpret the constitution. So far they too like Oppo politicans have been banging their heads against a steel door.

Alex Au, a social advocate for change, said, at the end of last yr, on the con-job constitution, “If you sit back and take in the bigger picture, you’ll see that basically our constitution, as long interpreted, offers no protection for civil liberties or human rights: not freedom of speech, not freedom of assembly, not a right to transparent and accountable government, nor even a fair electoral process. The questions rush in. Is there something wrong with the constitution, the interpretation, or both?”

Well I’ve got news for Alex Au, rational activists, and anti-PAP paper activists, whether rational, or irrational and deluded, our constitution was drafted by ang mohs and locals steeped in the tradition that the ruling elite know best, certainly not the demos or mob or masses or ordinary people.

The drafters probably had liberal instincts but were elitists having gone to elite schools here or in the UK, and then to Oxbridge colleges. The mob are only allowed a choice of their dictator every 4-5 yrs. To further ensure the mob doesn’t get ideas beyond their station, it was drafted in such a way that all the colonial-era laws still applied and were “deemed” constitutionally legal.

Suited one LKY to a T when he came to power.

And here’s where the de-facto one-party state problem makes things more difficult. Think of China where the issue is how to use the law to help the party rule the country. The party sees the law as one of its tools; an instrument meant to help strengthen, rather than check, the power of one-party leadership.

True, we are not China, but the temptation is there.

Coming back to S’pore,then there is the judicial presumption that government actions are constitutional:

The court itself, both in oral arguments last summer and in this ruling, repeatedly expresses unwillingness to consider “extra-legal” and “emotional” arguments, which have their place in the legislative rather than the judicial process. The court’s role, the ruling said, was to be “independent, neutral and objective”, though in the early, throat-clearing section of this ruling, the court noted that it grants the government a “presumption of constitutionality”, because “our legislature is presumed not to enact legislation which is inconsistent with the Singapore Constitution.” In other words, the court will neutrally and objectively weigh the arguments presented by each side, though one side (the government’s) enters with the wind at its back.

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

I can’t argue against the decision because there are good precedents (no not from China or the USSR or North Korea, but from “white” Commonwealth countries) that lead to this conclusion.

Those who want peaceful change, have to go down the political route, not the constitutional road, in a parliamentary system. Even though the political road is very tough (think GRCs, campaigning rules, funding rules etc), the constitutional road is tougher because of the way the Constitution was drafted and judges’ view that the court “grants the government a “presumption of constitutionality”, because “our legislature is presumed not to enact legislation which is inconsistent with the Singapore Constitution.” In other words, the court will neutrally and objectively weigh the arguments presented by each side, though one side (the government’s) enters with the wind at its back.

Coming back to M Ravi. Every few months, this tot crosses my mind,”M Ravi thinks his grandfather wrote our laws? With JBJ assisting in the drafting?”

The latest occasion was on Friday, when I read that Ravi was escalating his row with PM’s press secretary (Background). He said, “Even as a trainee lawyer, I could understand that the PM’s press secretary was in breach of Section 44 of the Code of Conduct for Civil Servants and the PM is in breach of the same section being subject to the same guidelines of the Public Service Commission. A declaration will be sought in the High Court subsequently to determine the ambit of the said Section 44 and if both the PM and his Press Secretary are in breach of this code the PSC should investigate this matter and dismiss both of them.”

Well I never. Let’s see if Ravi wins (his record is lousy: no outright victories, one score draw: the need to call a by-election). From what my contacts in the Legal Service tell me about the code, he doesn’t have a leg to stand on.

The same tots on his grandfather and JBJ drafting the law crossed my mind in late October 2014  when Mr Ravi said (in an interview with TOC [Link]) that NParks had no authority to govern the expression of free speech and had overstepped its powers*.

M Ravi also said he may be taking an application to mount a constitutional challenge against Regulation 23(2)(b) of the Parks and Trees Act on behalf of those celebrity hooligans, Roy and New Citizen Hui Hui.

(For the record, he sent H3’s appeal to the wrong minister and had to resent the BS missive. For the record too, Roy has recently blogged on the latest developments.)

Btw, he added to my merriment when a few days later, he decried the Court of Appeal’s decision when on Oct 29 it ruled that a law (399A of the Penal Code) that criminalises sex between men is constitutional. The ruling covered two cases contesting the law, one brought by two graphic designers who have been in loving relationship for 16 years, and the other by an artistic therapist (whatever that means) who had been arrested for a sordid, quickie sexual act in a public toilet. No need to guess who he represented: the artistic therapist Tan Eng Hong.

Related articles on the Constitution: Gd stuff even though Alex Au is not a lawyer

“Rule of law” in Singapore is so thin, it holds no more meaning

Book: Authoritarian Rule of Law, by Jothie Rajah

—-

*“It is apparent in the Act that the object of Parks and Trees Act is specifically for purposes of regulating the park, example prevent anyone from endangering the park.

No where in the act, the minister has been conferred with any authority to make regulations in relation to speech and assembly.

The Public Order Act has clearly exempted any requirement for permit for speech or demonstration. Therefore the charging of Ms Han and Roy under the Parks and Trees Act is ultra vires the Public Order Act and Public Entertainment and Meetings Act (PEMA).

The regulation in this regard, also violates article 9 of the Singapore Constitution that says that no one shall be deprived of his or her liberty, save in accordance with law.

Therefore the enactment of Parks and Trees regulation under Section 23(2) (b) in relation to speech and assembly are promulgated not in accordance with law.”

 

The Dark Side of vigilantism

My Facebook avater posted something on FB to the effect that “It waz vigilantism that won the Wild West. Without concerned, fed-up citizens taking action, the US wouldn’t have had the rule of law.” Of course, he was talking rubbish.

It’s well documented that innocent people were killed by posses of outraged citizens because they just happened to be “outsiders” like blacks, Jews or atheists.

And here are two examples of the Dark Side of vigilantism here

Whatever happened to due process and sub judice for FTs?

Let’s castrate Yang Yin, now that rabid anti-PAP paper warriors and other cyber-nuts, have found Yang Yin guilty of being a scheming, cheating PRC FT.

I tot of the above when I saw this

(A stencil showing a group of pigeons holding anti-immigration banners towards an exotic-looking bird appeared in Clacton-on-Sea in England in October. But it was quickly removed by Tendring District Council, which said someone had complained it was “racist”. Turned out it was by Banksy, a famous UK street artist who is no racist).

Funnily these same people are demanding justice for Roy Ngerng and New Citizen H3, and insisting that the MSM is not observing sub judice rules regarding them.

Even a rational, thinking anti-PAP warrior, Ms Teo Soh Lung (human rights campaigner, among other things,  who had been KPKBed that the govt had broken sub judice rules in Roy’s case (Many other legally trained people disagree, including me).is silent when it comes to Yang. He hasn’t been found guilty of anything yet Unless being a PRC FT is a crime?

Btw, Goh Meng Seng seems to have gone AWOL in Yang Yin’s case? He usually leads from the front where FTs are concerned. Going by his choice of words on Facebook, I get the impression that he takes pride in being called a xenophobe. But then he is now busy on Facebook battling for justice Roy, New Citizen H3 and the other hooligans.

Btw, Gilbert Goh is busy with humanitarian work. Gd for him.

Uniquely S’porean

But returning to this

In the u/m from TRE, the vigilantes would seem to be Pinoy FTs, and a Singapore the outsider: and in our own country too: Uniquely S’porean. Sigh.

S’porean fights for his rights when bullied by FTs

A brave Singaporean, Mohd Bin Japar, decided to tell his story to Gilbert Goh, the founder of transitioning.org, after 7 of his Filipino colleagues at the Great World City branch of Cold Storage allegedly ganged up to bully him.

Gilbert posted the following video interview with Mohd on his Facebook page:

www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10153374054958975

Mr Mohd Bin Japar – a department manger with Cold Storage spoke to us about the tussle with his Filipino staff at Great World City supermarket outlet.

He called the police on 5 Nov when 7 Filipino staff surrounded him during a work dispute.

The police came and the matter has been referred to the MOM for investigation.

He just started his stint as department manager on 25 Oct and is still undergoing training.

The whole video interview lasted ten minutes.

Mr Japar is aware that he will face the sack after the release of this video online.

Despite the possibility of being sacked by Cold Storage after going public with his story, Mohd felt that it was necessary to let Singaporeans know they need to stand up for their rights in the face of the huge influx of foreign workers into Singapore.

In the video interview, Mohd said that he works as a department manager at the Great World City branch of Cold Storage.

While undergoing his managerial training at Great World City on 5 November 2014, he had a dispute with one of the Filipino cashiers. For some reason, the Filipino cashier then shouted at him.

Afterwards, Mohd reported her to his training manager, who is also a Filipino. However, instead of reprimanding the cashier for insubordination, the training manager sided with her. Mohd’s complaint had sadly fallen on deaf ears.

Mohd said that the other Filipino staff then joined in the dispute and surrounded him. Altogether, 7 Filipinos – 4 women and 3 men – surrounded him. They were all speaking in Tagalog, supposedly talking about Mohd.

Feeling threatened, he immediately called the police.

When the police came, it was determined that Mohd was not harmed physically. The police advised Mohd to lodge a report with the Ministry of Manpower (MOM), which he did.

MOM is reportedly investigating the matter.

Mohd shared with Gilbert that many of his colleagues in Cold Storage are foreigners and at least one came to Singapore on a tourist visa before securing employment at Cold Storage.

Apparently, this Filipino woman came to Singapore as a tourist and went to an agency in Lucky Plaza to help get her a job. Not long after, she got a job and is currently said to be working as a manager at the Jelita branch of Cold Storage in Holland Road. Mohd said that she had to pay some money to the agency to get the job.

“This is happening in Singapore right now under our nose – how Singaporean jobs get robbed by foreigners… don’t tell me the govt doesn’t know this is happening,” Mohd said in the interview.

Mohd also revealed that he was spoken to by the GM of Cold Storage and was told that he should not have called the police.

Mohd expects to be terminated by Cold Storage for his decision to bring the matter to public attention through Gilbert.

He said he is not afraid to be sacked because he feels he is doing the right thing by bringing the matter to the attention of Singaporeans – that foreign workers in a workplace can actually gang up to bully Singaporeans, who are increasingly becoming a minority in their own country.

More

Editor’s note: There is this thing called “Filipino pride”. Filipinos, in general, are proud of being Filipinos. As such, they are quite united. There are even articles on how not to offend their pride, which may get a visitor to their country in trouble: tenminutes.ph/ndy-10-ways-offend-filipino-pride

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

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

Understanding M Ravi’s 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

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

It might be the season to be jolly and of peace and goodwill, what with the Christmas and NY hols gone and the CNY hols coming, but the human rights activists have really got my goat.

The contrast between their vocal support for FT deportess, and their seeming indifference to S’poreans detained without trial make me sick.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Shylock in The Merchant of Venice)

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

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

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

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

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

—

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

Xenophobia: Govt sends wrong signal to S’poreans?

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

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

Of the 53, he said:

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

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

(Shylock in The Merchant of Venice)

As Terry Xu of TOC put it on Facebook:

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

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

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

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

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

—

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

Govt, activists score own goals

(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