atans1

Posts Tagged ‘Justice’

Amos: When Nemesis wet Hubris/ Why PAP PR bad

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Two days when police investigated his case.

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

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

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

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

Hubris met Nemesis and Nemesis won.

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

Seriously here’s the discredible bit about the detention.

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

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

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

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

The system is telling him he is juz another criminal.

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

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

 

What Amos said in his police statement

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

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

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

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

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

(Emphasis mine)

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

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

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

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

 

Amo: What IMH recommended

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

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

He recommended in his report to the court that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amos: Yaya papaya no more/ Mandatory treatment order given

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

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

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

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

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

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

All in all sentence passed is fair and reasonable

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

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

The sentence has also been backdated from 2 June.

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

Mother Mary: Why “fantastic is in Block 7

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

———

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

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

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

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

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

TRE trying to fix me idit?

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

 

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

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

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

She has right on her side when she asks

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

It is also where my son is being held.

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

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

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

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

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

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

And

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

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

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

Given that

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

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

why not advise him to

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

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

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

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

Hopefully she can pass the message on to Amos.

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

——-

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

Amos: Judge going the extra mile

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In that sense, I appreciate the new sentencing option.

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

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

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

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

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

I personally feel that Amos should not be institutionalised.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Psychiatrist behind Amos report/ Waz ASD?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Update at 5.00am: Waz ASD?

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is characterized by:

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Update at 1.30pm:

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

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

CNA)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DSC_0029 DSC_0106

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

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

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

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

———

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And this on Facebook from one Nicole Ling

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

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

Err what if what he allges are still more lies?

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

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

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

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

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

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

——-

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

Amos “flew over the cuckoo’s nest”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

————————

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

We need protection from the Harassment Protection Act?

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

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

It was a shield.

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

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

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

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

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

Amos lacked this?/ Hope judge, activists do this

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wants to be a martyr

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

CNA reports

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

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

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

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

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

Amos: Misled or misunderstood the law?

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

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

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

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

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

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

(2)  Parliament may by law impose —

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

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

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

Cybernauts. do not think the “right” tots.

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

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

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

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

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

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

14.

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

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

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

Amos: Even dumber comments / Parental Responsibility

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

Tomorrow, Monday, Amos will again appear in court.

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

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

KJ TeamRP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Andrew Loh

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

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

MARUAH

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

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

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

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

(Facebook)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They too cared.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

————————

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jogging alone can be illegal?

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

If wearing the wrong tee-shirt or singlet?

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

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

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

Jogging by Lake Tanganyika

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

Burundi: Where jogging is a crime

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

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

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

———‘

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

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

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

Earlier, in 2007, she had said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

A few days later he was fired. His employer said

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I end by posting remarks made by a TRE reader

Pinoy Leader Didn’t Give Face:

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

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

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

—–

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

M Ravi: No news is good news

In Uncategorized on 12/03/2015 at 4:53 am

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

In Public Administration on 07/03/2015 at 10:23 am

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?

In Political governance on 19/01/2015 at 4:49 am

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

http://yawningbread.wordpress.com/2013/09/19/rule-of-law-in-singapore-is-so-thin-it-holds-no-more-meaning/

http://yawningbread.wordpress.com/2013/02/24/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

In Uncategorized on 17/11/2014 at 4:27 am

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

Banksy mural showing pigeons in Clacton

(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

Banksy mural showing pigeons in Clacton

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remember, you heard it first here.

Related post

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Shylock in The Merchant of Venice)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Xenophobia: Govt sends wrong signal to S’poreans?

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

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

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

Of the 53, he said:

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

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

(Shylock in The Merchant of Venice)

As Terry Xu of TOC put it on Facebook:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Govt, activists score own goals

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*Update at 8.43 am on # January 2014:

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

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

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

Alex Au doing a Dr Chee?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brainwashed, simple-minded paper tigers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Think about it.

Before going to court, test sincerity of govt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

****Ecclesiastes 3

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

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

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

Todds, even yr beloved, trusted FBI contradicts you

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Waz that again Law Soc?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 242 other followers