Where Bears Roam Free

US Dollar sinking

2012-02-28T12:22:00.012+08:00

News and talk about the collapse of the (US) Dollar has been around for years. If you observe closely, slowly but surely it is happening.

Why a Dollar & Euro Collapse Is Guaranteed

About ten or eleven years ago, US$1 gives about CAD$1.6 or so. Today the Canadian Dollar is at parity with the USD.

Note that is about the length of time the US has been drawn into the Afghan and Iraq wars. The US economy and the wars have got to have some correlation!

Incidentally, the Canadian Dollar is known to Canadians as the Loonie. But to the world, the President of the United States (who is a crazed warmonger) is known as The Lunatic.

Heh.

Yankees, go home (Quran burning in Afghanistan)

2012-02-27T08:59:00.007+08:00

In the last few days, we have seen the MSM reporting about the protests against a Quran burning incident in Afghanistan. Obama was quick to condemn the incident. So was the Commander of the NATO forces. But that didn't calm down the situation.

Quran Burning Sparks Angry Afghan Protest

0:49 min - Commander of NATO Forces apologises profusely.

The issue isn't just about Quran burning. It is a whole host of issues which includes:

1. Hypocrisy of US and its allies, using "war on terror" as an excuse when the intention is to control Afghanistan so that an 800 km oil/gas pipeline could be built from the Caspian to India/Pakistan through Afghanistan. That was discussed here. 911 10th Annivesary: Remembering the Lies (Part 1). Scroll down to the sub-header "Invasion of Afghanistan was planned long before 11 Sep 2001".

2. In the process of occupying Afghanistan, which is now more than ten years, US and its allies have indiscriminately bombed civilian targets like hospitals, schools, govt offices. They also bomb funeral gatherings, wedding functions and children's parties. That's on top of using munitions that contain Depleted Uranium which affects the population and future generations. Depleted Uranium: Dead Babies in Iraq and Afghanistan Are No Joke

3. US and its allies also round up young men and torture them without trial. They are detained indefinitely, never to see their families again. Guantanamo Bay detention camp

4. In the process, the Bush Admin followed by Obama's Admin, keeps targetting Islam and Muslims (its own Muslim citizens included) as a terror source. This shows that the govt of US is suspicious of Muslims in general (just like in S'pore). So for all the talk that the 'war on terror' is not about against Muslims, it actually is. NYPD says it is legal to conduct surveillance on Muslims in city and in Newark

Needless to say, the Quran burning is just "the last straw" for the Muslims in Afghanistan. While the US and its allies portray themselves as liberators, the true picture in the minds of these Afghans is that they are nothing more than oppressors and usurpers. Ask the Afghans what they want from these soldiers and they will tell you that they want those troops to go home.

"War on terror" just an excuse to invade lands of Muslims because of their oil and other resource -

Afghanistan -

Afghanistan was invaded because the Taliban halted the construction the 800 km oil pipeline during Clinton's presidency. The purpose of the invasion was to replace the Taliban with a more US friendly govt so that the construction of pipeline could be resumed. Unfortunately, US isn't winning the war, and that pipeline still isn't completed either.

It must be remembered that prior to this Afghan War, the Afghans were fighting against the Soviets in the last century. And who trained Osama bin Laden and his forces (now called Al Qaida by US) to fend off the Soviets? Yep, the United States of America.

After the Soviets were booted out of Afghanistan, America uses Osama as a tool and excuse to invade Afghanistan.

Iraq -

Likewise for Iraq, US supplied Saddam Hussein with Chemical Weapons in the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq War. The war ended when both sides decided to a ceasefire.

Iraq was the second largest oil producer during Saddam's reign. Since Saddam's use to the US was no longer valid, it was decided that he was to be disposed of. And what better way than to accuse Saddam of stockpiling WMDs (never mind that it was the US that supplied him that!) as an excuse to invade.

Prior to the invasion of Iraq, Hans Blix, then Head of IAEA made it clear to Bush that Saddam had no more stockpile of WMDs. Bush decided to invade anyway.

Unfortunately and embarrassingly for the US, Saddam got rid of whatever WMDs he had after the Iran-Iraq War. That turned out to be a big PR disaster for the Bush Admin because after US invaded Iraq, they found no WMDs.

Bush sheepishly said that US troops couldn't find those WMDs because Saddam had destroyed it. But that's what Blix said earlier, didn't he, dumbo? =.=

Iran, next possible target -

Of all the Muslim nations in the Mid East and North Africa, Iran is the most challenging for the US. Many of the young population don't know that Iran was once America's strongest ally.

This short video gives a quick explanation of the recent history of Iran's relationship with the US.
History of Iran & USA in 10 min, Every American must watch this!!

Iran is the third largest oil producing country. That makes it too tempting for greedy US and its allies not to invade. But invading Iran is not like invading Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya or any other Muslim state in the region. Iran is battle hardened and has the backing of Russia and China. Here are four posts I published about the challenges facing Iran's would be invaders.

Bomb Iran? Let's lay out the cards (Part 1 - Military Perspective)

Bomb Iran? Let's lay out the cards (Part 2 - Geopolitical Perspective)

Bomb Iran? Let's lay out the cards (Part 3 - Economic Perspective)

Bomb Iran? Let's lay out the cards (Part 4 - Israeli Involvement)

Quran burning protest must be seen in context -

So let's get back to the issue of the protests against the Quran burning in Afghanistan. The MSM would like to portray this issue as a hyped up, over reaction from some Afghans. However, the issue is much deeper.

The issue is about the anger, the frustration and the deep resentment these Afghan Muslims have towards the invading oppressive troops of the US and its allies.

Afghans are not stupid. Like the Iraqis, Libyans, Syrians, Iranians and many other citizens of nations who have been America's targets, the true message of the protests against the Quran burning is loud and clear.

The message is, "Yankees, go home!"

Aiding accident animal victims - what if it attacks?

2012-02-26T11:00:00.004+08:00

There's a lot of talk from Animal Rights groups that in an event of an accident, the driver should stop and render aid even if the injured is an animal. In fact, the law also states that.

However, the law although explicit about helping animals, by definition within that law itself, does not include cats. So the SPCA would like to have the law to include cats too.

That sounds OK. But what struck me is that while Animal Rights and Welfare Groups give a whole load of advice on what is to be done when someone knocks down an animal, it pays zero attention to the fact that the injured animal may turn aggressive and attack the aider. No advice is given to handle that situation.

Yeah, talking about how these groups are more concerned about animals than humans!

In the meantime, here's the article from ST reporting that SPCA would like to see that the law includes cats. The "simisai animal also must be included" recommendation....

Cats, other mammals neglected under Road Traffic Act
Cast a wider net of protection for animals under the Road Traffic Act, animal welfare groups are urging. The law states that any motorist involved in an accident where a person or an animal is injured must stop to help the victim.

However, as now defined, an animal is any horse, cattle, ass, mule, sheep, pig, goat or dog. This leaves out many others, such as cats.

The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) has approached the Law Ministry about reworking the legislation, said its executive director Corinne Fong.

I don't have a problem with that. After all, if we exclude other animals like cats, cat lovers will scream discrimination.

Where I have a problem is the advice given by these groups. They talk and give advice so much, but with all the minute details left out, it puts drivers who do knock animals down in a more confused and perplexed state as what really he/she should do. Continued below.

HELPING INJURED ANIMALS
WILD ANIMALS

Call the Acres Wildlife Rescue Hotline for advice on 9783-7782. It operates 24 hours.

Fine. Clear and concise. No problem doing that.

Do not pick animals up with your hands, even if you are wearing gloves.

If the animal is severely injured or immobile, place a container over it, slide the lid or a thin board underneath, gently turn the container so the animal ends up at the bottom, then cap it.

But, but... what if injured wild animal attacks? Can I sue Acres for giving ill-advice?

Furthermore that advice is practical for only small animals like say an anteater. Or a squirrel. What if it is a larger animal like a wild boar?

Make sure that there are breathing holes.

To treat for mild shock, keep the animal warm, quiet, and in a dark container.

How does one recognise shock in animals? How does one treat shock? What good is that advice for someone who is not medically trained?

OTHER ANIMALS

Call the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals on 6287-5355. It operates 24 hours.

Place a distress cone or triangle to cordon off the space.

Check if the animal is moving or breathing. If it is still conscious or breathing, prepare to move it to the side of the road.

So far, no problem with that advice.

Use a strip of cloth to wrap the muzzle tightly and tie it behind its neck, to prevent the animal from snapping defensively.

Now this really makes no sense at all. You want the driver to muzzle the animal so that it won't attack? How is that driver going to do it, knowing that most people are not trained to handle animals?

In other words, what good is such advice when it is not practically sound?

Use a piece of cardboard and slide it under the animal.

Avoid carrying the animal as the spine or bones may be fractured, but use the cardboard to slide the animal safely to the side of the road.

All said and done, note that there's a helluva lot of advice on how to lessen the pain of the animal while rendering aid to it.

No advice on what precautions the driver must take in order to be safe from attack from the injured animal while rendering aid.

Now, why do I feel that some Animal Rights groups are Human haters?

Isn't forcing Christian group to stop all activities against freedom?

2012-02-25T10:31:00.005+08:00

Oh the irony of it all. Secularists, who have been using Democrazy, er I mean Democracy, as their benchmark to judge others, are only too quick to use the iron hand against religion themselves, aren't they?

Isn't banning all activities that a Christian group can undertake just as repressive and draconian as the very actions secularists decry against religion? Hellooo?

NUS orders Christian group to stop all activities on campus
The National University of Singapore (NUS) has ordered a student Christian group to cease all activities on campus, after it came under fire for its insensitive remarks about Buddhists and Muslims.

The NUS Campus Crusade for Christ received flak over the comments, which appeared on posters around campus and on its website last week.

The group, which has around 80 to 100 members, had put up the posters to promote a mission trip to Thailand. They said the country, known as the Land of Smiles, was actually 'a place of little true joy' because few there believe in Jesus Christ. The posters then urged students to help take Christianity to the Thais.

It made a similar gaffe on its website, where it promoted a mission trip to Turkey and said the country needed 'much prayer and work' because 'much of the population is M', referring to Muslims.

The group has taken down the offending posters. They have also acknowledged their mistake. What need to ban all activities?

The whole irony is that the "offended" parties, namely the Buddhists and the Muslims, have been largely silent. It is the non-religious guys who are making the most noise. Then in the name of democracy and freedom of expression, the Christian group has all activities banned! Huh?

This is nothing but an opportunistic attempt to engage in some Christian bashing, isn't it? If these people are serious in freedom of expression (but done sensitively), there's no need to wield the iron arm and ban all activities.

This isn't the first time such an opportunistic blatant attempt at Christian bashing has taken place. If you recall, there was a Christian Pastor named Rony, who ridiculed Buddhist teachings. His speech was posted online and it created an uproar.

The main victims, the Buddhists, were not the most noisy. It was a non-religious group - the LGBTs. It just so happened that prior to Pastor Rony making fun of Buddhists teachings, he took a swipe at the LGBT Community.

Again, in the case where Buddhism was ridiculed, while the Buddhist Community forgave Rony for his swipe at Buddhism and moved on, the LGBTs blew hot and cold - about his ridiculing of Buddhism! Why was that needed? Because if the LGBT Community had talked about how he ridiculed LGBT ideals, no one would care? Therefore they tried to "instigate" a docile Buddhist Community into attacking Pastor Rony?

For those who are new here, or have forgotten my religious affiliation, I am no Christian. So this post is not a knee-jerk response to the banning of all activities against a Christian group. It is based on months and years of observation how non-religious groups are quick to attack certain religions in the name of democracy, only to commit the same "sin" they accuse religions of - restricting freedom of the followers to practise and preach their ideals!

=========

PS - As a Muslim, I can tell you I am not too offended by the Christian group about its take on Turkish Muslims. That has been the way Christians talk about Muslims when it comes to "evangelizing Muslims" since the Crusades.

What truly needs to be addressed is the consistent, deceitful portrayal of an existence of "extremist Muslims", when these so called Muslim extremists are actually victims of oppressive wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine, fighting to get their rightful land back from foreign oppressors.

Then to top it up, anyone (and I really mean anyone, even non-Muslims including Jews!) who shows sympathy for these victims, he/she is portrayed as a Jew-hater, American-hater, anti-Semite, freedom-hater and/or a terror supporter.

So non-Muslims who think they are doing Muslims a favour by whacking Christian groups even after these Christians realise their mistakes and have rectified them, please know where the Muslim heart really is.

Stop bashing Christians pretending you are trying to protect Muslims (or Buddhists or any other followers of religion), when your intent is to stem freedom of expression of religion in the first place.

Demonizing Iran

2012-02-24T07:34:00.002+08:00

The warmongers have been trying to bomb Iran for the last few years. As far back as during GW Bush's term. With all the unsubstantiated allegations against Iran flying around and perpetuated by MSM, it is no wonder we have people believing in distorted lies about Iran.

From ST Forum dated 23 Feb 2012
Threat of a nuclear Iran
TWO months into the new year, Iran has halted its oil exports to Britain and France. The prospect of a military conflict with Iran looms on the horizon ('How dangerous is the Iranian threat?'; Monday).

To understand the extent of the danger a nuclear Iran poses to the world, one has only to look at the pro-regime rallies in Iran calling for the destruction of Israel, as well as naming the United States as 'the Great Satan'.

Those who claim the Iranian regime will be deterred from using its nuclear power as a military option, due to the fear of mutually assured destruction, must first understand that Iran itself has not engaged in a conventional war since the Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988).

Instead, the Iranian regime fights using its proxies, having been a long-time sponsor of militant groups such as Hamas of the Gaza Strip and Hizbollah of Lebanon.

Plausible deniability is what the Iranian regime seeks and should Iran arm itself with nuclear weapons, one cannot help but wonder if such devices might fall into the hands of the numerous terror groups that the regime funds. Chances of that happening are arguably greater than Iran directly launching a nuclear warhead at the states it detests.

The untold horror that may unfold should a nuclear weapon fall into the hands of such terrorist groups is inconceivable.

The world should always be watchful of nuclear weapons, even more so when a terror-sponsoring regime like Iran's has desires for them.

Diplomatic sanctions, however biting, seem to have merely delayed the Iranian regime's quest for nuclear weapons rather than stopping it entirely.

The threat Iran poses to the world has never been greater, especially so when it is a nuclear Iran.

Kenddrick Chan

Iran has not attacked or invaded another country the last 200 years. On the other hand, the US and Israel, two nations that have been beating the wardrums to invade Iran, have invaded and pillaged other nations since last century.

Together with other war mongering nations in Europe, which are complicit in the war crimes committed in Afghanistan and Iraq the last ten years, US and Israel are now trying to demonize Iran, a country that has not invaded any other nation.

Here are some facts.

1. Iran is a member of the IAEA, which allows them to build nuclear power plants. US and other European states are also members. This means that US and Europe recognise Iran has a right to build that nuclear plant. Israel on the other hand is a non-member, has 200 over nuclear warheads and no one seems to notice that big, fat elephant in the room. Isn't the assumption that Iran's nuclear site is for building nukes a lie?

I posted a more detailed discussion on the IAEA in this post - Beating the War Drums on Iran

2. During the Iran-Iraq War from 1980 to 1988, it was US who armed Saddam with chemical weapons to be used against Iran. US hypocritically then invaded Iraq in 2003 for that very WMDs they supplied! Unfortunately for US, Saddam disposed those chems long before 2003. So now it makes US look stupid, invading Iraq for some non-existent WMDs, which US supplied in the first place.

3. If Iran supports Hamas and Hezbollah and that makes them terror supporters, what makes US who supports Israel? Super terrorist?

Finally, what's this talk about Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map stuff? Iran has the third largest Jewish population in the world, after US and Israel itself.

Israel has an immigration policy that gives any Jew around world Israeli citizenship. If living in Iran is hell for Jews, why are these Iranian Jews not migrating to Israel?

Stop the lies. Stop the madness. Stop the wars.

Hougang by election a necessity, Marine Parade 1992 by election a circus

2012-02-23T09:41:00.006+08:00

If you thought ministers gave you crazy replies, their subordinates are even worse. It is clear as daylight that WP hit the nail on the head, turning the tables on the PAP claiming that WP was irresponsible by "forcing" a by election on Hougang. Low Thia Khiang reminded how the PAP frivolously called for a by election at Marine Parade in 1992.

But lo and behold, we have the Press Secretary to Senior Minister Emtitus who of course, disagrees. Just take a look at how lame his argument could be.

WP's Low Thia Khiang wrong to cite 1992 by-election
TUESDAY'S report ('WP 'had absolutely no idea of Yaw's alleged affairs'') described the letter by Mr Low Thia Khiang, secretary-general of the Workers' Party (WP), published in Lianhe Zaobao on Monday.

Mr Low had cited the 1992 by-election in Marine Parade GRC called by then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong, to rebut an allegation that the WP had 'abused the democratic system' by causing a by-election in Hougang when the WP expelled Mr Yaw Shin Leong.

The reference to the 1992 by-election is inappropriate.

When Mr Goh announced on Aug 17, 1991 that he would call for an early general election to secure a strong mandate to govern, he said at the same time that he would call for by-elections within 18 months to field more good candidates for self-renewal and to give (the late) Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam a chance to contest for election into Parliament.

Mr Jeyaretnam had complained that Mr Goh had called for an early general election to keep him out of Parliament, as he was still disqualified from standing for elections at that time.

Mr Goh had been transparent about the reasons for the 1992 Marine Parade GRC by-election from the beginning.

The by-election was also expected.

Mr Low therefore cannot compare the reasons for his causing a by-election in Hougang with Mr Goh's purpose in having one in Marine Parade GRC in 1992.

Foo Kok Jwee

Press Secretary to

Emeritus Senior Minister

What's this crap about calling an early election in 1991, only to have a by election 18 months later for "renewal"? The 1991 GE was a snap election. A GE was not due till 1993. Everyone knew that if the GE had been held in 1993, JBJ would have been eligible.

To say that the 1991 snap GE was to call for a strong mandate, only to call for a by election 18 months later is like the PAP slapping its own face. That's because:

1. It implies that the previous GE in 1988 was not a strong mandate for PAP to govern, never mind the fact that it recaptured and won back one seat from the opposition. In 1984, the opposition captured two seats - Anson and Potong Pasir. In 1988, the opposition captured only one - Potong Pasir. And to that fact, PAP admits it did not have strong mandate! What Kok talking Foo Kok Jwee?

2. It means that even with the snap 1991 GE, PAP still will have no strong mandate and hence, need a by election later to get that strong mandate! An even Kokier talk!

The fact was that on the ground in 1991, everyone was talking about the comeback of JBJ and PAP was shivering in their pants. The snap elections in 1991 was to prevent JBJ from returning to politics because if the GE had been in 1993, JBJ would have qualified - and won in an SMC.

PAP came up with a master plan to stop JBJ. Hold a snap 1991 GE to prevent JBJ from contesting any single seat against a weak MP. Then when a by election is held later, get a strong heavyweight GRC (in this case Marine Parade headed by PM Goh himself) to take on JBJ.

The Hougang by election is a necessity. It has been vacated due to unforseen circumstances. The 1992 Marine Parade by election was nothing short of a circus. It was a wayang show to everyone that PAP gave JBJ a chance to contest.

Heck, if PAP really was serious in allowing JBJ to contest, there was no need to have a snap GE in 1991, followed by a by election. They could have waited till 1993. Period.

Some civil servants should stop talking Kok.

=======

PS - Incidentally, that by election in Marine Parade did not see WP (and JBJ) contesting. No thanks to no cow sense pair Chiam See Tong and Chee Soon Juan (then SDP) who hijacked that by elections.

Shouldn't it be humans first, animals second?

2012-02-23T07:47:00.005+08:00

Before I start, let me make my stand clear. I do love animals and nature. But between humans and animals, humans come first.

I was brought up in an environment where I had the chance to be close to nature. Animals included. I learned to love animals, domesticated, stray or wild. It also led me to learn more about animals. It therefore makes me wonder if today's "animal lovers" who have been brought up in urban environment, who don't even know what animals' needs are, know what they are talking about, when it comes to Animal Rights or Welfare.

One of points I contested in this blog is the call to release dolphins into the wild because "dolphins need space". Little do these lobbyists know why dolphins need space in the first place. I discussed that here - Food, strongest bond between Man and Animal; Territory, the most contentious

In this post, I would like to look at three instances where it has come to a point that some sections of society put animals so high up the hierarchy, humans are left second to them. Here is the first incident.

Case 1 - One cat's and many rats' lives are more important than many people's health

Ban on glue board urged after cat death
SINGAPORE: The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) has called for an "immediate ban" on glue board traps used by pest control companies.

This comes after it found a cat stuck on such a trap.

SPCA posted on Facebook a photo of a dead cat which was extricated from the glue board.

The board had been placed by a pest control company hired by the Jurong Town Council to trap rats.

SPCA said the case was reported last Friday and by the time the cat was brought in, it was in "deep distress and panting heavily".

The cat was eventually put down to prevent further suffering.

SPCA has written to the Agri-Food & Veterinary Authority (AVA) to request for an immediate ban on the traps.

It is also calling for action to be taken against the parties responsible.

SPCA executive director Corinne Fong said: "The animals, when they get trapped on these traps - as the case with this cat - they die a slow and very painful death, so we are urging the authorities to ban the use of these products."

SPCA said it has contacted both the town council and pest control company.

Of course it was a cruel way for the cat (the unintended victim) to die that way. It was meant for the rats. But that too, SPCA says it is a cruel way to get rid of rats.

This is the first time a cat was killed. The glue trap has all along done its job perfectly - catching rats. And that's what SPCA has been grumbling about long before this cat incident, because it feels that itself is cruel to the rats.

Let's face this fact. Rats are not just pests. They spread diseases. Rats breed fast. In fact, in many HDB estates, they breed faster than the pest control companies can get rid of them. If not for the glue traps, which is one effective way, what other methods do we have to stem the rat population?

Has the SPCA come up with any other alternatives that is just as effective? Or is SPCA just saying that the kind treatment of animals is so important, human health is secondary?

Case 2 - Doggone it, if you hit a canine and run

This is about animals involved in road accidents.

Dog's death: SPCA gets Remy Ong's statement
Animal rights group says it will work with Traffic Police on case

Animal welfare group SPCA has obtained a statement from national bowler Remy Ong over an alleged hit-and-run incident he was involved in outside the Safra National Service Resort and Country Club on Sunday.

His black Porsche Boxster was said to have hit a stray dog shortly before 1pm along Changi Coast Road.

'We have the authority to take statements... and obtained Mr Ong's this morning,' said the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals' executive director Corinne Fong. As part of its role as an animal welfare group, SPCA also looks into animal cruelty complaints and would obtain statements in such cases to facilitate investigations.

'I'm unable to share contents (of the statement) as it may jeopardise Traffic Police investigations,' she added, noting that the SPCA would work with the Traffic Police in this matter.

Little known to many motorists is that you are to stop and render assistance to an accident victim, even if the victim is an animal. But there lies the problem. If the victim were human, call 995. What if the victim is an animal? Mouth to mouth resuscitation? Call the ambulance? You mean there's an animal ambulance?

The SPCA again is ever so eager to get involved in this, helping the Police. Small wonder why. If you read the full article (you need to be an ST Online subscriber), you will note that SPCA recommends that the person who knocks the animal down takes the victim to a vet.

Well, if these Animal Rights groups love animals that much, how about putting their money where their mouth is? How about raising and/or spending money to have animal ambulances, trained animal first aiders and what not, so that when an animal does get knock down, there is a number to call for aid during that emergency?

Case 3 - A few shark species endangered and its licence to persecute anyone who kills any shark

No sense in shark's fin ban: Marine life experts
It may be politically incorrect, but three marine life experts said at a forum on Thursday that it makes no sense to ban the sale of shark's fin.

But a fourth expert stood his ground, insisting a temporary ban on shark's fin and meat would reduce the killing.

Yes, that's right. "Politically correct" here refers to the societal acceptance, but not supported with scientific fact, that the craving for shark's fins is damaging both the ecosystem and the shark population.

Only a few species of sharks are endangered. If these campaigners against shark's fin are so adamant, how about producing data to show which species are the ones endangered, instead of having a blanket statement such that those who want to eat shark's fin have to give up their favourite dish?

I am no shark's fin lover. Neither am I a shark lover. So I have no vested interest on either side. My point is that if lobbyists want to convince the public that shark's fin should be banned, they have to come up with hard data and not just blanket statements and talk.

Shark's fin is a delicacy. It is also a means of livelihood for many in the trade. Are these shark huggers not worrying about an unproven theory, that eating shark's fins would cause extinction of sharks, more than the livelihood of many people?

Final Word

Being raised close to nature allowed me to love animals and nature. What makes me shake my head is that today's so called animal lovers, who mostly have not had the chance to live in the rural areas to be close to nature, think they know animals so much, they have to love these beings more than they think of human needs.

To me, I take this stand. Love animals and nature all you want. But the line is crossed when that love for animals precedes love for humankind.

Shouldn't it always has to be humans first, animals second? Let's get our priorities right.

The slow but steady deconstruction of the Family

2012-02-22T07:21:00.005+08:00

The slow but steady deconstruction of the family is taking shape right before our very eyes. It all started in the last century during the Woodstock era, where casual sex and live in partners are the in thing. Next thing, it was legalising abortions as a means of birth control.

Today, about half a century later, the latest slew of actions that's out to destroy the very fabric of society, criminalizing rape in marriage, is about to take place in Singapore.

Criminalising marital rape 'worth looking into'

Law Minister K. Shanmugam said in Parliament on Tuesday that he found the arguments for criminalising marital rape worth looking into.

But as the law that grants immunity to husbands who force their wives to have sex with them is in the Penal Code, it comes under the jurisdiction of the Home Affairs Ministry, not the Law Ministry.

He was replying to Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang GRC), who advocated the repeal of this law during a debate on amending the Evidence Act to prevent a rape victim's sexual history from being used to discredit her in court.

Mr Nair said the marital rape law was related to the amendment under debate - which Parliament later endorsed - as both disadvantaged the victims of sexual assault.

Wazzat again? Rape in marriage? Isn't this a misnomer? By definition, isn't rape the forcing of sex by a man unto an unwilling woman? But by definition and cultural acceptance, isn't marriage a blanket understanding between the two spouses that they can have sex?

Now if the issue is about violent forcing of sex on an unwilling spouse, isn't that battery, rather than rape?

Classifying an action as "rape in marriage" is akin to saying that there's "rape in consensual sex". Duh.

No to Rape's objective is to destroy the family -

The founders of No to Rape are the very parties who were involved in the promoting of sex between minors, even teaching underage schoolgirls how to have sex. Its main founder, Jolene, once even made a post in her blog (now defunct) that the Family is supposed to be treated as a loaded gun.

But isn't the term "No to Rape" when it refers to the Family misleading? Imagine a lobby group named "No to Men Bashing" and its objective is to stem the tide of Feminism. Then when feminists object, these lobbyists ask, "You mean you support men bashing?"

Here's one of No to Rape's misleading ads, which I posted in 2009. Say NO to bastardizing marriage

Interestingly, the same campaigners who are trying to criminalize "rape" in marriage, are trying to decriminalize sex between the underage! What a topsy turvy world these guys are living! I wrote about that in this blog too - Agenda of Notorapers exposed - followed by Damage Control

But isn't the argument that these minors are unable to consent to sex in the first place, and that's why sex with a girl below 16 is considered pedophilia in our secular society? So what's with this decriminalizing of sex for the underage?

Isn't violence what the issue is about? -

It is not that there is no protection laws in Singapore, against rape of spouse who have been separated. It is there.

It is also not that there are no laws against a husband who forces on his wife to have sex. It is also there. The husband could be charged for battery.

But these No to Rapers, who have been influenced by the so called "developed world", would like to bring in their weird cultural practices to destroy the Family. To them, sex between minors is OK. But the Family structure is not.

Family the basic unit of society

It is no overstatement that the Family is the basic unit of society. Destroy the Family, and you destroy society. If you can't even respect your parents, don't expect that you will respect teachers in school. Don't expect you will respect your commanders in the military. Don't expect you will respect your superiors in the workplace. And of course, don't expect you will respect the law in society.

Isn't it clear that respect for others and society starts from the Family? And these guys want to destroy the very fabric that binds society?

As a matter of interest, have you noticed that the very parties who are pushing for the No to Rape cause in Singapore, happen to be the LGBT and pro-LGBT groups? AWARE is pushing for it. So is Constance Singam. So is Jolene, the founder of No to Rape. So is Mr Wang, a pro-LGBT ex PP. So is TOC. Interesting. Very, very interesting.

PE, the next pressure cooker for schools?

2012-02-20T20:32:00.003+08:00

As if there isn't enough of pressure in schools already. You have to be bilingual. You have to be good in contrasting subjects. You have to be good in project work. You have to be good in CCA, preferably sports.

Now comes the latest "well rounded" student item to be added into the overflowing basket of "must haves" for students to remain among the top. Physical Education.

Extended PE: Some schools set early pace
Change to curriculum aimed at shaping more well-rounded students

St Hilda's Secondary student Neo En Cheng, 15, practising volleyball in school yesterday. Since last year, some primary and secondary schools have been increasing their weekly PE lessons by an hour, to about two hours in total. This will be implemented in all schools by 2017. -- ST PHOTO: ALPHONSUS CHERN

When Neo En Cheng was told in Secondary 1 that he did not make the cut for his school's volleyball team, thoughts of ever learning the sport properly faded.

'It's not a common sport, which is why I really wanted to learn how to play it,' he said.

But when he was in Secondary 2 last year, his school - St Hilda's Secondary - revamped its physical education (PE) lessons.

One more hour of PE a week was added to the curriculum, and students were also taught the ins and outs of not just volleyball but also hockey, handball, softball, basketball and tchoukball, which is similar to handball.

I can imagine what's going to happen. Now that this extra hour is put into the curriculum, you can expect some sort of grading that would be done on the student's performance for PE! Yeah, that's gonna be yet another thing to be pressurized with!

Sometimes I wonder what MOE is up to. They want our students to be well-rounded. And good at everything too! Now how many students can achieve that gargantuan task?

Then when many fall through the cracks, not because they are lousy, but because they are weak in just one area, be it MT, a particular subject, sports, CCA or project work, but are brilliant in all other areas, they are placed in a difficult position to qualify for local Uni education, because the criteria for entry is that gargantuan task of being good at everything.

So, to replace those "lousy students" who are not well-rounded, our local Unis fill those "vacant" places with foreign students - who don't need to fulfill that almost impossible criteria of being well-rounded and good at all things at the same time!

This, I find is the biggest irony perpetuated by MOE. They set the standards so high, many students can't achieve. And to fill the shortfall, foreign students fill in, but they are without those very high criteria MOE wants and set in the first place!

Can someone knock some sense into the heads of the civil servants working at MOE HQ Policy Dept?

Now PM sends Hatchet Man to TRE

2012-02-20T09:28:00.007+08:00

And so for the second time in less than a week, the Hatchet Man knocks on your door. First, it was Shanmugam. Shanmugam's veiled threat against Alex Au?

Now, it is non other than the PM himself. PM Lee sends lawyer's letter to editors of TR Emeritus

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong on Sunday sent a lawyer's letter to the editors of the TR Emeritus (TRE) sociopolitical website, asking for a post alleging cronyism in the appointment of Madam Ho Ching as head of Temasek Holdings to be taken down. -- ST PHOTO: LIM SIN THAI

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong on Sunday sent a lawyer's letter to the editors of the TR Emeritus (TRE) sociopolitical website, asking for a post alleging cronyism in the appointment of Madam Ho Ching as head of Temasek Holdings to be taken down.

Madam Ho is PM Lee's wife.

He also asked for an apology to be posted on the website by Feb 24, and which must remain on the website for the same number of days as the offending post had been.

In addition, he also wanted the TRE editors to give a written confirmation by Feb 23 that they would comply, failing which he would start legal proceedings against them.

This talk about Ho Ching being favoured has been around for years. Not that with this lawyer's letter the public is going to start believing the PM's words. It is only going to fuel the belief that PAP is reverting back to its old ways, ie the use of the Hatchet Man to intimidate political commentators and dissenters.

Sigh.

=====

PS - as a point of interest, the term "Hatchet Man" was used in the 1980s, when LKY sued JBJ. There was much disquiet and the public was more than convinced the suit was nothing but a political move.

LKY, in an attempt to quell the "rumours", strongly objected that he used the Hatchet Man to silence JBJ. But in his haste, he said, "I don't need a hatchet man. I am my own Hatchet Man!"

Duh. So he confirmed that it was a political move after all!

That's one of LKY's rare self-pwned instances for the record.

(For those who still don't know what he self-pwned, here it is. In an attempt to argue that it was not a political move, using the Hatchet Man, he confirmed that it was a political move - the Hatchet Man was none other than himself!)

=========

News update - TRE editor apologises to PM Lee

Israel's cowardice exposed again

2012-02-19T11:06:00.007+08:00

For all the trumpet blowing and chest thumping Israel makes, sounding as if they are the meanest military force in the Mid East, when it comes to the real deal, Israel hides its tail between its legs like a beaten dog.

Iranian warships dock at Syrian port after crossing Suez Canal
Two Iranian warships docked Saturday at a Syrian port, the Iranian broadcaster Press TV reported.

The vessels - a destroyer and a supply ship - are to provide maritime training to Syria's navy under an agreement between the two countries, according to the report.

Wazzat again? Baaaad Iran sent two military ships across the Med Sea to baaaad Syria and Israel did nuthin? Where's that usual table banging and relentless war cries from Israel now?

Didn't Israel hijack a Turkish civilian Flotilla like bandits in the Med Sea which was on route to Gaza to deliver civilian aid? Didn't Israel kill those on board like terrorists? And all because the civilian flotilla was delivering humanitarian aid to Gazans? See these links:

Links on Massacre on the Flotilla

ST Forum - Attack on the Flotilla

Let's get the facts straight. So when a Turkish civilian flotilla was sent to Gaza to deliver humanitarian aid, Israel hijacked them in international waters like bandits and killed its crew like terrorists. When Iran sent military ships to Syria (and Iran is known to have armed Syria as well as Hezbollah in Lebanon, Syria's neighbour) chest thumping Israel runs miles away and dares not even approach the two military ships!

This is not the first time Israel runs away from Iran's military ships. It is the second time. Here's the first. Coward Israel shows its true colours. Yep, again two military ships from Iran sailing across the Med Sea, right in front of Israel's borders - and coward Israel, who killed civvies on the Turkish flotilla, took no action!

But wait a minute. Right after that first incident where Iran's ships sailed across the Med Sea, another civilian flotilla again tried to deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza. Guess what? It was intercepted by Israel again! Coward Israel stops humanitarian ships...again

So what does this tell the world? Here's a timeline of the events that took place in the Med Sea.

Timeline -

1. May 2010 - Israel hijacks Turkish Civilian flotilla delivering humanitarian aid to Gaza in international waters and kills civilian crew. Israel even crows that this was to show its miitary dominance and to reclaim its "invincibility status" in the aftermath of its humiliating loss to Hezbollah in 2006.

2. Feb 2011 - Iran sends two military ships through the Suez, and sails across the Med Sea which is the very sea the Turkish Flotilla was hijacked. Iran is known to have supplied arms to Syria and Hezbollah, the very guerilla group that humiliated and defeated mighty Israel in the Israel-Hezbollah War 2006. That was discussed quite in detail over here: Fallacy of the Mean Israeli Defence Force - Part 2. Coward Israel took no action against the two Iranian military ships when they sailed across the Med Sea.

3. Nov 2011 - Israel stops civilian humanitarian ships again! What the heck?

4. Feb 2012 - Another two Iranian warships sail across the Med Sea. And again coward Israel does nothing!

My Conclusion -

Although Israel boasts and crows about its military might, it has actually nothing more than a heart of a mouse. That is why although Israel wants to have Iran bombed, it does not dare do that itself. It keeps goading US to do it for them.

Bring on civilian ships delivering humanitarian aid, and Israel will roar like a lion, attack like a vicious snake and tear the flotilla to bits, before claiming its military might and dominance in the Mid East to the world.

Bring on two military ships (possibly carrying arms and ammo to arm Syria and Hezbollah, two of Israel's arch enemies), and Israel suddenly turns into a beaten dog with its tail between its legs, whimpering and whining away.

That's no way to behave like a tough guy everyone is supposed to be afraid of, which is Israel's trademark (and adopted by SAF), is it?

=====

PS - a further note of interest is that Israel keeps killing Gazans, who are unarmed civilians and are unprotected. But they are very, very reserved when it comes to killing Lebanese (especially after it got buttkicked in the Israel-Hezbollah War 2006), who have the protection of the well armed Hezbollah.

Note the same display of cowardice and hypocrisy?

Shanmugam's veiled threat against Alex Au?

2012-02-18T07:56:00.003+08:00

Sigh. No, make it a big SSSIIIIIGGGGGHHHHH!!!!

Just when you thought that the PAPpies are more laxed and have more or less gotten used to life as real politicians (ie you expect mudslinging in politics), the same old, same old threat of legal suit comes back as the hatchet man.

Yep, you know what I'm talking about. I am talking about the scary, scary (shiver, shiver) veiled threat from a lawyer's office that if Alex Au doesn't remove a comment from his blog, he's gonna get sued till his pants drop, because the real culprit who has been sliming a PAPpy minister can't be identified. What a Srcoobal!

Before I comment on the letter and the withdrawal of that comment, I would like to make a comment about Alex Au and his blog.

I had Alex's site linked to my site under the widget "Frequently Updated Blogs". But that was up till some months ago. I took the link to his blog off because for some strange reason, he has the habit to randomly put up gay porn pics on his site every few months. Trying to sex up the site to increase hits? As you know, that is illegal according to Sg law. So I had no choice but to take the link out because I don't wanna be implicated in any criminal activity.

OK back to the letter to Alex. Again I am not putting up hyperlinks to his site and that's bcos I don't want to be seen as supporting a site that has put up porn pics. You can cut and paste his site address if you wish - that won't register as my blog has been linked to his. Here is the transcript of the lawyers' letter to Alex.

DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS PUBLISHED ON YAWNINGBREAD.WORDPRESS.COM

1. We act for Mr K Shanmugam.

2. We refer to the following comments that you have made on your website, yawningbread.wordpress.com, under the Responses section of the blog posting entitled “The Media and Yaw Shin Leong” published on 8 February 2012:

“I take the points raised in the above two comments. Indeed, I think the role of the mainstream press in this issue needs to be contrasted with the relative silence when it came to allegations swirling around K Shanmugam and Foo Mee Har at various points in the recent past. That there were rumours is widely known, though as in the Yaw Shin Leong case, no one can point to any proof. But that’s not my point here. My point is that the mainstream media’s interest in the Yaw affair does not look like neutral journalism. “

(Response No 24 dated 9 February 2012 at 23:34hrs) (the “Blog Comments’)

3. The allegations against our client that you have referred to in the Blog Comments have been put up primarily by a person who calls himself “scroobal’ on the internet. The allegations are false and scurrilous.

4. Our client has instructed us to try and trace “scroobal’ in order to sue him. But the internet being what it is. “scroobal’ has been untraceable so far.

5. Likewise, others who have repeated the allegations made by “scroobal’ have so far been untraceable.

6. Our client’s instructions are to commence proceedings against anyone who makes such allegations against our client.

7. We request that you take down the Blog Comments, and publish this letter in full on your website.

8. All our client’s rights are reserved.

ALLEN & GLEDHILL LLP

My Thoughts -

Wow. What a veiled threat indeed! And Alex wasted no time taking that "offending comment" down. But wait a minute here, guys. Exactly where has Alex defamed the good minister?

All Alex mentioned was that there were "some rumours flying around" and there was a hush-hush from the MSM. He was comparing the rumours to another situation where an MP from WP also had rumours flying around, but this time, there's a lot of disquiet. Isn't that a fact?

The real defamer is Scroobal, who the lawyers admitted can't be identified. So what has Alex done to deserve this letter in the first place? He didn't slime anyone. He didn't take part in the sliming. In fact, he merely stated a fact - ie the MSM did not make a big fuss over Scroobal's rumour!

Another startling reminder about the Hatchet Man style is the "request" to have that comment made by Alex taken off, which he did immediately. Again, you have to read between the lines that if Alex does not do it, in comes the scary, scary (shiver, shiver) reminder what the defamed person will do (line 6), and that was deliberately put up as a pre-statement, to what Alex must do (line 7)!

Alex Au used as scapegoat to scare other bloggers -

I bet this episode is being watched, monitored and observed with much caution by many political bloggers. It certainly rattled me that an influential blogger like Alex Au, who has been known to be very vocal against many PAPpy policies could be intimidated into withdrawing a statement of fact, which isn't a defamatory statement in itself.

I believe that this just isn't about a suit against defaming words. It could well be a bigger plan to stem the tide of free flow of info on the internet. And what better way than to intimidate a blogger who is known not only in Singapore, but around the world, as one the govt's biggest critics?

Some of you may recall before the era of the internet, how Catherine Lim was more than criticised by none other than LKY for her comments. This letter to Alex reminds me of the dark days of the Hatchet Man.

Just when you thought that a free flow of ideas is being accepted, the same scary, scary (shiver, shiver) Hatchet Man makes his comeback.

Final Word -

I am not saying that Scroobal is right. And I am not saying the defamed party has no right to sue. I am saying that if the defamed party cannot get hold of the perpetrator, it is unethical to pick out on an innocent guy, Alex Au, issuing him veiled threats.

That's how I feel about this whole sick episode of the habit some PAPpy members have, picking out "the wrong guy" in order to teach others a lesson or two.

====

Disclaimer - you can't be too careful when you know the scary, scary (shiver, shiver) Hatchet Man is around alive and kicking, so here's my disclaimer.

I disassociate myself with all rumours Scroobal and/or any other party who have been posting on the internet against the defamed person.

Sex scandals is what Islam has forewarned us all along

2012-02-16T21:19:00.008+08:00

Disclaimer - I am no expert in religion and what I post here is based on my understanding only.

Introduction

Muslims will tell you that this is what they have learnt from their religious classes. There is a saying that when a man and a woman are alone in the room, the devil comes in between. You can take it figuratively if you don't believe in the beyond, but the basic idea is still the same.

I don't have to go into details, but the recent overflow of news how high flying professionals, celebrities and politicians got entangled in scandals, shows how emotionally and psychologically weak some men of stature can be, when that devil comes along.

Iman Al-Ghazali, one of Islam's most revered classical scholars, once said that when a man's organ stands erect, two-thirds of his intellect walks away. Very true.

So what are the ways that are recommended to control sexual desire?

Means to control illicit sexual desire

1. “Tell the believing men to lower their gaze (from looking at forbidden things), and protect their private parts (from illegal sexual acts)” [al-Noor 24:30] (Quran)

Of course, that's easier said than done for many men. So it has to be combined with other deeds like prayer, fasting and remembrance of Allah.

2. Covering women up. Ah, this is gonna be a contentious issue for many non-Muslim women, especially those who uphold "Western" ideals. To those who say why must it be the women who cover up more than the men, the answer is simple. Firstly, don't women have more things to cover than men? Secondly, between a naked woman with a man alone, and a naked man with a woman alone, which situation would likely end up with both having consensual sex? Ah, don't you think it makes more sense to have which gender more covered up?

3. Separation of sexes. Again, some Feminists claim this is misogyny. Especially when the women are made to pray behind men or sit behind men. Simple answer. Is it not true that men are more easily distracted by a woman than women distracted by a man? Need more be said?

The Eye - most frequently sexually stimulated organ among the Five Senses

Isn't the eye the first organ that attracts the person to the opposite sex? In today's context where men and women mix freely, isn't the eye fed with all the sexual stimuli around you, far more than the other four senses combined?

The above being the case, isn't the way to control illicit sexual desire hence, to halt that stimuli at the very source - ie to stop the eye from receiving sexual stimuli? Well, that's how I explain all the reasons for the segregation of sexes and covering of women.

Countering Claims on Misogyny

Some (mainly Western) Feminists are quick to claim that the recommendation in Islam (as cited above) to counter illicit sex desires are mainly misogynistic. They claim that blame is put on the women and the onus on women to cover up is also placed on them. But this is simply cultural acceptance. To Western Feminists, it is misogyny. That's your culture. Thank you, but no thank you. Many Muslim women in Muslim societies choose to cover themselves up on their own accord anyway. What now?

Some Feminists claim that women are as seen as "evil" in Islam. They cite how some past scholars describe women as "fitnah" (can't find an equivalent English word , but it has links to such meanings: trials, upheavals, chaos, disunity in society).

Again, it is a cultural representation of things. That's the language of the people of the times. It does not mean women are evil. It means that if you don't lower your gaze and control your eyes, or your sexual desires, you will end up having illicit sex.

A simple comparison I can give is "Money is the root of all evil."

Of course we know that money is neither good nor evil. It is the people who control them are. Likewise, when some of these scholars decribe women as a "fitnah", it does not refer to the women, but the deeds that follow if you don't control illicit sexual desire.

More Women in Hell according to hadith

So if it is the men who have less control over illicit sexual desires, why is there a hadith that says there are more women in hell? Again, this is yet another argument used (mainly by Feminists and perhaps anti-Muslims) to claim that the teachings of Islam is misogynistic. But there is a simple explanation.

As we can see, it is the eye which is one of the weakest spots in men that leads him to illicit sex. For the woman, the weakest spot is neither the eye nor her desire for illicit sex. It is her tongue.

Now hold a second, ladies. Feminists who want to dispute me that the woman's tongue is her weakest spot can scream all they like. I am sure I can find more women (and men) who agree with me than disagree.

For the man, if he engages in illicit sex, who is he most likely to have sex with? A woman, isn't it? So for every evil deed he does, he brings along another woman with him. Perhaps if she is a prost, she would bring down 20 men with her.

But the fact remains that when the sex act stops, the sin stops there. So for every one deed of sexual act, two people at that time, one man and one woman, would be accountable.

Now compare to the tongue - gossip. For every one session a woman gossips, there would be five, ten, twenty, thirty pairs of ears. And who most likely would be her gossiping peers? Other women, no?

However, when she stops gossiping, would that gossip stop? Unlikely. Wouldn't the second hand gossipers pass to more (women) gossipers?

Unlike the sex act where it is a one man one woman show, gossip sessions involve many. And unlike the sex act where the illicit deed ends there when the couple disengages, the "fitnah" caused by the gossip continues to multiply even after the original gossiper stops. Do your math and see how many men compared to women would hence end up in hell.

Again, critics and Feminists may say the above teaching is misogynistic. But if you look at reality, isn't the situation described fairly accurate?

Back to to topic of illicit sex

So, it isn't surprising that so many men have fallen for the illicit sex trap. We have seen Yaw Shin Leong, a politician from an opposition party. Jack Neo, a local celebrity. High serving officials from the civil service. One even from the education industry.

Didn't it all start from that one organ being stimulated, ie the eye?

I have heard from more than one Muslim (religious) teacher saying this: If a man can control his sexual desire, heaven would be easy for him. If a woman can control her tongue, heaven would be easy for her.

Those are the two very weak points of humans. If a man controls his eyes which is a source of his illicit sexual desires, and if a woman controls her tongue which is a source of her gossip, the world would be a much better place to live.

No sleaze, no sex vice, no gossip, no hate spreading.

But the test in life isn't that easy, is it?

It's PM who's unable to handle the fallout from Yaw Shin Leong's case

2012-02-16T08:27:00.006+08:00

With one move from the CEC of WP, the most hardcore critics were dealt with a killer blow. Suddenly, all the criticism that WP was unable to handle the Yaw Shin Leong case has been put to rest.

WP's sacking of Yaw sends out a strong signal to everyone that WP does what it believes in and practises what it preaches. Personally, I feel that Yaw should not have been sacked. But I admire the strong belief the WP have in them, even if it meant they had to dunk Yaw, with the chance of losing Hougang in a by election.

So guess who are the ones who are unable to handle the Yaw fallout instead? Here's an article reported in the ST.

WP has let Hougang voters down: PM Lee Hsien Loong
PAP chairman Khaw questions WP's 'sudden U-turn' in Yaw saga

THE Workers' Party (WP) has let down the voters of Hougang in its handling of Mr Yaw Shin Leong's alleged extramarital affair, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said yesterday.

Mr Yaw was the WP's MP for Hougang constituency until his expulsion from the party yesterday left the seat vacant.

Under the law, the Prime Minister decides whether to call a by-election. Mr Lee said he would consider the issue carefully.

'Now, the Hougang SMC (single-member constituency) seat is vacant, as a result of what Mr Yaw Shin Leong has done, and the way the WP has handled the matter,' he said in a statement to the media.

PM says WP has let voters down? But look at who's trying to find excuses to bide his time to have a by election? What consideration is he thinking about? How to "fix" the opposition?

Those who expect an early by election may well be disappointed. There have been cases where no by election had taken place. So what makes this any different?

PM and PAP in a political bind -

Whatever happens now, WP has won political leverage at the expense of the PAP. Here's a list of scenarios.

1. WP wins by election - This would confirm that the electorate is firmly behind WP and all the talk by PAP that WP has "let voters of Hougang down" would be immediately dustbinned.

2. PAP wins by election - While this may add one more PAP MP at the expense of a WP MP, it does not erase the fact that WP is principled, and even willing to sacrifice one MP for the sake of its belief in transparency and accountability. That is something the PAP has never matched!

3. Three or more cornered fight - If WP wins this seat, it will go down even more that Hougang supports WP. If PAP wins, see #2.

4. No by election - that about sums up PAP's lack of confidence, wont' it? Need more be said?

My Conclusion -

For all the crappy talk from Khaw and PM Lee, it looks nothing but rhetoric. Putting it in a nutshell, the WP has already scored political points even before any by election, if there's to be any.

The fact that PM Lee and Khaw were quick with their words is just testimony to how rattled they are now, upon seeing the firm and decisive action of the WP. This is something very notably missing in the PAP ranks, when it comes to choosing between the principles it purports to hold, and the seats it risks losing.

Talk is cheap. WP did more than talk. Unlike PAP.

If at all, it shows that it is PM who is unable to handle the fallout from the Yaw Shin Leong case. He now doesn't know how to "fix" the WP to make it look bad. That's why he is rattling his mouth off that Hougang voters have been let down.

Hougang voters let down? Really? How about testing it out with a by election in Hougang then?

Yaw Shin Leong sacked, WP now stands on higher moral ground than ever!

2012-02-15T17:46:00.004+08:00

To all the critics of WP, who have been baying for blood against Yaw Shin Leong and the WP for remaining silent. Eat this piece of news!

Yaw Shin Leong expelled from Workers' Party
Statement from the Workers' Party, 15 February

The Workers’ Party has expelled Yaw Shin Leong from the party with immediate effect.

WP believes strongly in transparency and accountability, and expects no less from our party members, especially our Members of Parliament.

Shin Leong has been accused of several indiscretions in his private life. By continuing not to account to the Party and the people, especially the residents of Hougang, he has broken the faith, trust and expectations of the Party and People.

This is a difficult and painful decision for us. Shin Leong has been a core member of the Party leadership for more than 10 years, and has made significant and unique contributions towards WP’s growth. He has also served the residents of Hougang diligently. However, the Council has decided that it is in the public interest to take this step.

We also believe it is only fair to the Hougang residents that they have another opportunity to elect their Member of Parliament.

We apologise for having to put them through a by-election.

We wish to assure Hougang residents that they will continue to be served by the Party until the by-election is called.

The Meet the People sessions in Hougang will continue, with the other MPs covering. Residents are free to contact any WP MP for assistance. In addition, town council services will continue to be provided under the Aljunied-Hougang Town Council.

Finally, we wish to thank the public for their concern towards the Party and for walking with us through this difficult period.

Sylvia Lim

Chairman

I take my hat off to the WP. Not because I agree Yaw should get the sack, but because WP believes and acts out the very principles it teaches. WP even dares to sack the MP, which means that the very constituency it holds is up for a by-election.

Dare the PAP even think of risking a By Election? One of the reasons of the GRC is to prevent a by election when a PAP MP has to vacate his seat, no? But WP is not bothered. It believes in acting out its principles.

I wish the WP the best in its coming fight. And I also hope that other opposition parties (especially the mavericks at SDP) stay out from this by election.

====

PS - personally, I feel that Yaw need not resign. But I respect WP's firm belief in its principles, and respect even more when it acts out to uphold its principles, even if it means risking losing a constituency!

In support for Tan Kin Lian on the topic of Yaw Shin Leong

2012-02-15T07:48:00.006+08:00

Poor Mr Tan Kin Lian. He's actually a very sincere person. The perfect moral character any mother would love to show her children that's what they're supposed to grow up to be. Flawless moral character, sincere and very family oriented.

However, beyond that, Mr Tan seems lost in the world of wolves and hyenas. That's because although he has loads of moral fibre in him, society in reality does not. His weakest point in my opinion is his naivete.

The Yaw Shin Leong case isn't the first one that got him entangled with opponents who are against his ideas. But before we talk about Mr Tan's stance (and compare that to his opponents' stand) on Yaw SL, let's look at the past cases.

Past Cases of Mr Tan's sincere actions, but let down by his naivete -

Remember how he "shot into fame" when he rounded up to lend support to many retirees who lost much money in the mini bond fiasco? He did it out of empathy and passion. He sought no reward. However, his naivete let him down. Just because in other parts of the world there were success stories that led to (at least partial) recovery of the monies victims lost, it was thought that the same could be repeated in Singapore.

While he did try to help the retirees, he should have realised that Singapore's system is such that it favoured the big bully banks. Indeed, little was recovered for Singapore's mini bond victims.

The second case was during his Presidential Campaign. He appeared to be riding the wave of anti-PAP sentiment on the issue of the ISA arrest. Little did he realise the intention of the devil he was sleeping with. Tan Kin Lian is naive to the point of being ignorant (about the Socialist Left's violent past)

Unfortunately (or should it be fortunately?), a misunderstanding between Tan's supporters and the congregation at the memorial gathering of the late Leftist Leader Tan Jing Quee, did in a way open Mr Tan's eyes whether they supported his cause, or was it that they expected him to champion their cause instead. Here is a report of that altercation. Tan Kin Lian explains Tan Jing Quee memorial commotion

On Yaw Shin Leong -

Mr Tan has written his piece in the ST forum about his stand on Yaw SL. His main point is that the most important person in the whole affair, ie Mr Yaw's wife, wants the episode closed. As such, we are we to judge?

I am of the same opinion. Isn't the most affected person, his wife? So if she wants to have this episode closed and move on, who are these self-righteous people who are crying for Yaw's blood to comment so?

I have to make it clear that I am not endorsing what Yaw SL did. But the most important thing now is that Yaw's family has decided to move on and not be burdened by this baggage.

In a similar vein, about 2 years ago or so, we had the Jack Neo saga. Again, like the Yaw case, his wife forgave him and decided the family should move on. But some self -righteous sections of society wanted to see blood from Jack Neo. I wrote about that here. Jack Neo Saga - Now TOC shamelessly joins the fray

Notably, in the Jack Neo case, there was an unfounded allegation made that he was harassing a young 16 year old girl. This led some of the self-righteous sections of society to crucify Jack Neo - but not realizing that they were the very sections of society that endorsed young girls having sex in the first place! Here are excerpts from the immediate previous link:

Firstly, note the not so subtle and pompous highlight by the writer himself, that the mainstream media found him important to seek his views.

Secondly, note the hypocritical moral, high horse stance again. Let me repeat. TOC was in cahoots with AWARE pertaining to the teaching of young girls to have sex. Who is TOC now to take the moral high stance that Jack is of a low moral character?

[TOC showed tacit support for AWARE's Comprehensive Sexual Education Programme that taught young underage schoolgirls how to have sex, which is a crime in Singapore. This was during the AWARE takeover saga in 2009.]

Here is the final sentence of the article.
"The Foreign Minister and the MP need to say it straight that they are not getting into bed with Jack Neo on this."

It amazes me how hypocritical these people are. Here are some very pertinent points I would like to make pertaining to the way how the public sees the Jack Neo Saga.

1. So far, those who cry for Jack's blood, are feminists, LGBTs, non-Christians and pretenders who say he has wronged his wife and children. Yet, by continuing to crucify Jack, are they not torturing Mrs Neo and the children further?

2. Those who say enough is enough are interestingly Family men and women. Although these people know that it is wrong to be unfaithful, the bottom line is to save the marriage. Isn't that what should be done, if you truly care for Jack's wife and their children?

This is all hypocrisy from the media, be it from the traditional or new media. All they want is to spice up stories so that they can have higher readership and advert revenue. They claim they pity Mrs Neo and the children. But what they do tortures Jack's family further.

So like the Jack Neo case above, isn't this "holier than thou" approach taken against Yaw gong a little too far?

Back to Tan Kin Lian's stance -

Like Tan Kin Lian's stance, I do not endorse Yaw's unfaithful ways. But what is important now is the preservation of his family. The most important person affected, his wife, has decided that she wants the matter closed and move on with life.

Who are these self-righteous people to destroy what Mr and Mrs Yaw want to preserve?

Tan Kin Lian may have been naive and because of that, he may have rubbed some sections of society the wrong way. But deep down, he is a sincere man and that is shown when he knows how to prioritize his cause. In this case, the cause is family preservation over some self-righteous claims from some sections of society.

========

News Update - Yaw Shin Leong sacked, WP now stands on higher moral ground than ever!

American Psychiatric Association is coming to getcha!

2012-02-14T08:16:00.005+08:00

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) is coming to get you. It wants your life. It wants your soul. It wants you to feed and fuel its $80 billion psychiatric drug industry.

Here's the latest push by APA, telling you why you are so sick in the head, you'd better seek psychiatric help fast, so that you can be put on psychiatric drugs. Drugs that you never need to have in the first place.

New mental health manual is 'dangerous': Experts

Millions of healthy people - including shy or defiant children, grieving relatives and people with fetishes - may be wrongly labelled mentally ill by a new international diagnostic manual, specialists said on Thursday. -- ST PHOTO: LIM SIN THAI

LONDON (REUTERS) - Millions of healthy people - including shy or defiant children, grieving relatives and people with fetishes - may be wrongly labelled mentally ill by a new international diagnostic manual, specialists said on Thursday.

In a damning analysis of an upcoming revision of the influential Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), psychologists, psychiatrists and other experts said new categories of mental illness identified in the book were at best 'silly' and at worst 'worrying and dangerous'.

'Many people who are shy, bereaved, eccentric, or have unconventional romantic lives will suddenly find themselves labelled as mentally ill,' said Peter Kinderman, head of Liverpool University's Institute of Psychology at a briefing in London about widespread concerns over the manual.

'It's not humane, it's not scientific, and it won't help decide what help a person needs.' The DSM is published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and has symptoms and other criteria for diagnosing mental disorders. It is used internationally and seen as the diagnostic 'bible' for mental health medicine.

I am not saying that we should ban dispensing psychiatric drugs. In some cases, such drugs are indeed needed. However, what APA seems to be doing is to classify everyday emotions as "mentally ill".

Shy? Reserved? Quiet? Acting differently from the "norm"? You are mentally sick, says APA!

Isn't this just an excuse to put you on psychiatric drug therapy to feed the $80 billion P$ychiatric Drug Indu$try?

Incidentally, APA is the very organisation that voted homosexuality to be declassified as a mental disease. Putting aside whether homosexuality is an abnormality or not, isn't the fact that these doctors voted for something to be classified or declassified a disease, unprofessional?

Imagine a group of oncologists taking a vote to decide if a certain type of growth in certain organs be classified as a non-disease! Won't your confidence in the medical industry (especially oncology) be shaken! But these psychiatrists from APA, who appear crazier than the very patients they are treating, are doing exactly that!

Below is another video from an ex-industry player, telling you as it is - ie the Psychiatric Drug Industry is dictated by $$$. The more people classified as mentally ill, the more business they have. Their economy depends on how much you believe you are sick, so that you can be put on their drug therapy.

Pharma Not in Business of Health, Healing, Cures, Wellness

If you love your elderly parents, grandparents or your young children, think twice. Think thrice. Think many times before you allow them to be put on psychiatric drugs.

Shouldn't the first treatment for mentally depressed patients always be non-drug therapy? Shouldn't it be that drug therapy be the last resort?

Why then is APA pushing for you to be classified mentally sick, and why is the Psychiatric Health Industry so eager to put you on drug therapy as first resort?

The answer is simple. It is an industry fueled by an $80 billion demand.

Christian Zionism and Israel

2012-02-13T13:56:00.003+08:00

I have to make a qualifying statement before I even start doing anything else. This post is directed at Christian Zionism and not Christianity itself. While Christianity is a religion that accepts Jesus as Son of God and a saviour, Christian Zionism is a political ideal that supports Israel's right to kill others (innocents included) for the sake of Israel's existence.

Here is a short video that gives you a quick and concise idea what Christian Zionism is all about.

Christian Zionism in USA to Protect Israel ? John Hagee Jesuit trained

My view -

The majority of Christians are just that - Christians. However, there is a minority group of Christians who justify the insane killings of "Israel's enemies" to justify Israel's existence. I have come across such Zionist Christians.

You may think that the way to "correct" these Zionist Christians is to get them to study their own Bible, and get them to point out where did that "licence to kill innocents" come from. My view is that idea won't work. That's because Christian Zionists have been programmed all their lives that Israel has a right to exist - even if it means the killing of innocents.

Stop the killing. Stop the madness. Stop the wars.

Whitney Houston, yet another victim of substance abuse

2012-02-12T15:07:00.005+08:00

One of the greatest singers of our time has died. Whitney Houston was found dead on Saturday morning.

Whitney Houston broke records, barriers and hearts

In this dated Jan 1, 2000 filed photos shows American singer Whitney Houston performing at private function just after midnight 01 Jan 2000 in Hong Kong. Grammy-winning pop legend and actress Whitney Houston was found dead Saturday Feb 11, 2012 in a Beverly Hills hotel, police said. She was 48, her publicist confirmed. -- PHOTO: AFP

LOS ANGELES (AFP) - Pop legend Whitney Houston, who was found dead Saturday, was the vocal star of a generation whose soaring voice broke records and inspired millions of fans before substance abuse sent her on a downward spiral.

Whitney Houston dies Award-winning singer Whitney Houston dies at age 48. Duration: 0:58
'She was a legend. These people don't come around often,' British television host and producer Simon Cowell, of American Idol and Britain's Got Talent fame, told CNN television. 'No one could sell a song like Whitney.' She was a trailblazer who proved that a female artist could dominate the pop market, Cowell said.

With a ferociously powerful voice and a dazzling range, Houston achieved stardom as a pop-soul singer known as 'the Voice' and the 'Queen of Pop' in the 1980s and 1990s

Case against legalizing drugs -

How many more people (including celebrities) do you want to see dead? How many more lives? Today, in America, there are lobby groups that are campaigning for the legalization of drugs. Yes, no joke. This seems like a crazy idea in a place like Singapore. But in America, the campaign to legalize drugs is picking up steam.

I believe that the main reason behind is to stimulate the American economy. Yes, a very crude way. I discussed about that here - US in Deep Doodoo - Legalizing Drug Trade for Tax Revenue?

Pro-legalization for Drugs lobbyists argue that if drugs are legalized, organised crime would fall. Well, OK, at least for the drug trade. But while organised crime may fall (as far as the drug trade is concerned), the overall crime rate for drug cases will go up. You are simply transferring the crime occurrences from the organised gangsters to the ordinary people.

Alcohol legalized but it didn't bring crime rate down -

A similar case was done on alcohol. In the last century when America banned alcohol, organised gangs immediately started distributing alcohol illegally. Alcohol related crimes were mainly committed by rival gangs then, due to competition and inter-gang disputes.

It was argued that if the govt made alcohol legal, the organised crime rate would fall. And it did.

But that simply transferred alcohol related crimes from the orgnanised gangs to the ordinary household, no? After that, because alcohol flowed freely, we had more domestic violence due to alcoholism. More public fights among drunkards and other public disturbances. Not to mention more killed on the roads no thanks to drunken drivers.

Is not the same going to happen if there is a legalization of drugs?

Final Word -

As mentioned, the main driving force in America to legalize drugs appears to be economically driven. But that's a lousy excuse. Aren't these people selling their souls for some cheap way to stimulate the economy?

Too many lives have been lost through drugs. The fact that so many celebrities have been embroiled in drug abuse is telling. It tells you that drugs are addictive. And if it is made easily available to you (celebrities have the money to buy all the drugs they want, no?), there's no stopping those drugs from killing you.

How many more lives do we want to see wasted?

Schoolkids seeing psychologists - how did we come to this?

2012-02-12T10:58:00.004+08:00

Something has got to be really wrong with our Education System, if a significant number of our schoolkids end up seeing psychologists to check if they are "outside the norm" of the learning ability of the average. These schoolkids are young. Some as young a 7 or 8, that being the average age of a Primary 2 child.

Worried parents taking children to psychologists
But many parents are confusing anxiety to perform in school with learning disabilities

Psychologists say stress levels could be exacerbated by the hothousing that goes on in enrichment classes. Children go to class already knowing all the answers, forcing teachers to raise the standard even more.

These days, enrichment classes are not the only extras in children's schedules.

Parents are also packing their children off to see psychologists - paying upwards of $100 per hour - fearing that they may have learning disabilities.

Some do so on the advice of teachers. Others do so because their children have problems coping in school, presumably because of the accelerated pace of learning.

BACKGROUND STORY

JUST STRESS

'The learning disabilities I sometimes see in my clinic are not disabilities by any definition. I'm seeing kids from good schools with good grades who feel anxious just because they did not ace their exams.'

Dr Adrian Wang, consultant psychiatrist at Gleneagles Medical Centre

TOO TAXING?

'Her maths homework in Primary 2 looked like what I did in Primary 4... It's like she is forced to learn how to cycle and juggle at the same time.'

Lecturer David Chin, on his daughter's Primary 2 homework last year

One 42-year-old parent, who wanted to be known only as Mrs Tan, said her son's Primary 2 form teacher in a local top-tier primary school had complained about his inattentiveness in class and hinted that he might have attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

MOE places the blame on "kiasu" parents. But how did this come to be in the first place? Isn't it the MOE that brought the pressure to the kids in the first place? We all know that the vacancies in the local universities is limited. And the fact that the govt allots quite a substantial number of vacancies for foreigners is partly to blame too.

To get into the university, the surest way is acing your A levels or the International Baccalaureate. That means you have to get into the JCs. It is also a fact that the top JCs produce students that have the highest chances of entering the universities.

To get into the JCs, you have do to well at secondary. With the introduction of the Integrated Programme (IP), you bypass the O levels. But to get into these IP schools, you must do well for your PSLE. Again, the "top schools" at primary level traditionally have better PSLE results too.

Can it not be concluded that the pressure to gain entry into the top JCs has been brought down for secondary schools to primary schools, after the introduction of the IP system?

So what's this claim by MOE that parents are over-pressuring their children, when MOE itself is a party contributing to the very highly tense and competitive situation in the first place?

In the article above, it was reported, "But many parents are confusing anxiety to perform in school with learning disabilities."

Isn't that an indication that the system is pressurizing these kids?

The govt may blow its horn that we have one of the finest education system in the world. That may be true. What lays hidden from many is the high pressure cooker environment. Out of every high academic achiever we produce, there are many other children who fall within the cracks.

MOE, their ministers and the policy makers should start walking the ground and see the real ugly truth, instead of bathing in the glory of only the high academic performers.

Activists fighting against Life Term

2012-02-11T07:44:00.001+08:00

I have been arguing against the Death Penalty citing one reason. The convict may one day be released a free man to commit his atrocious crimes against society again. Here are three examples I gave.

Case study on Death Penalty - Tim McVeigh, Oklahoma Bomber

Case study on Death Penalty - Ted Kacynski aka Unabomber, FBI's longest manhunt

Why I support the Death Penalty

What is to stop the murderer from killing people again once he is released? Anti-Death Penalty argue that sentencing the convict to life imprisonment is an alternative. I never buy that argument. I said that the next thing Human Rights activists will say is Life Imprisonment is inhumane and will get that abolished too. Looks like it didn't take long for my prediction to happen.

Khmer Rouge jailer's life term 'bad example': Observers
PHNOM PENH (AFP) - A life term handed to a feared Khmer Rouge jailer has elated Cambodians, but observers say the historic verdict violates the torture chief's human rights and serves public opinion rather than justice.

Kaing Guek Eav, or Duch, who oversaw the deaths of some 15,000 people at S-21 prison in the late 1970s, had his punishment increased on appeal by Cambodia's UN-backed tribunal from 30 years to a full life term for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The long-awaited ruling last Friday, which dismissed Duch's appeal against his conviction, was hailed by survivors of the brutal regime, with Bou Meng, 71, one of the few to walk out of S-21 alive, calling it 'perfect justice'.

Legal experts and human rights campaigners however voiced dismay at the judges' decision not to give Duch a reduction for the time he spent in illegal detention before the court was established.

So if the Death Penalty were to be abolished, it would give the criminal a chance to be free again - to kill.

Who is going to fight for the rights and safety of the future victims?

Full article reproduced here.

Related Article:
Anti death penalty lobbyists take note - no such thing as 'life' sentence

IMH report on stress - stats breakdown by ethnicity

2012-02-10T07:41:00.006+08:00

An IMH report seems to be confirming the stereotypes about the races we have been used to for decades which are:

1. Chinese are the most stressed. (Majority Chinese attributes that to their "hardworking nature", while others see it as plain kiasuism.)*

2. Malays are the least stressed. (Majority Chinese attributes that to "bochup", but Malays see it as being "spiritually balanced".)*

3. Indians are in between.

4. (As always, if you are not one of the three ethnic races, somehow you don't appear to be important to be surveyed.)*

*Points made in brackets ( ) are not part of the results of the survey.

Results of IMH Survey (PDF)
Screenshot below

Excerpts of report -

IMH researchers come up with method to check if you're happy
Those in their 40s to 60s had a more positive outlook on life than those in their 20s and 30s.

Women reported having greater emotional support in their lives than men, but scored lower when it came to personal growth and independence.

The Chinese scored the lowest in terms of spirituality, and also had lower scores for positive mental health compared with the Malays and Indians.

Single and married people coped better with stress or problems than those who are divorced, separated or widowed.

The survey was conducted on Chinese, Malay and Indian residents aged between 21 and 65 from December 2010 to February last year.

However, researchers from the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) - who came up with the Positive Mental Health method - cautioned that the results may not reflect the actual situation in Singapore.

This is because of the small number of people surveyed, and the nearly equal number of Chinese, Malay and Indian respondents, which does not reflect the actual population mix.

My own opinion -

You can say what you like about the Malay race. Being a Chinese myself, I have seen how (some of) my fellow Chinese tend to "look down" on Malay lifestyle ie "too relaxed". But one thing you have to hand it to the Malays is that they know how to handle everyday stress better than most races.

I find that it is no coincidence that the their religion have a big part to play with this ability to handle stress better than other races. Malays being Muslims, especially the older Malays, tend to attribute everything (be it good or bad experiences) to God.

If it is a blessing, they thank God for it. If it is a test or challenge, they ask for spiritual strength. That in my opinion is the key how they handle stress so well.

To some extent, I have seen this in other races and other religions too. Usually Christians. From my own experience, Buddhists and Hindus for all their belief in Karma, they don't seem to be able to apply that in their lives to handle stress as well as the Malay Muslims, or for that matter, some Christians. Not that I am saying that there are no such Buddhists or Hindus. I am saying by and large, Singapore Buddhists and Hindus are not able to apply the concept of Karma to handle life stress as well as Muslims applying the concept of "everything is from God, blessing or test".

The above is my personal observation. You are free to feel otherwise due to your own personal life experiences.

Full Report Reproduced here
Published on Feb 8, 2012
By Cheryl Ong

What makes Singaporeans happy?

Researchers here have come up with a method to measure the positive mental well-being of Singaporeans.

This Positive Mental Health model has been tested on 400 people. Besides happiness, it also gauges other factors including the sort of emotional support a person has, and his spirituality.

Those in their 40s to 60s had a more positive outlook on life than those in their 20s and 30s.

Women reported having greater emotional support in their lives than men, but scored lower when it came to personal growth and independence.

The Chinese scored the lowest in terms of spirituality, and also had lower scores for positive mental health compared with the Malays and Indians.

Single and married people coped better with stress or problems than those who are divorced, separated or widowed.

The survey was conducted on Chinese, Malay and Indian residents aged between 21 and 65 from December 2010 to February last year.

However, researchers from the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) - who came up with the Positive Mental Health method - cautioned that the results may not reflect the actual situation in Singapore.

This is because of the small number of people surveyed, and the nearly equal number of Chinese, Malay and Indian respondents, which does not reflect the actual population mix.

The IMH researchers said that current methods to gauge mental health are developed and used in Western countries, and may not be as relevant in Asia.

In 2008, researchers there decided to come up with a method that would solely measure positive mental well-being, so as to raise awareness of how Singaporeans' sense of well-being can be improved.

Associate Professor Chong Siow Ann, vice-chairman of the medical board of research at the IMH, said: 'As a society, if we are able to identify certain areas that need greater emphasis, then we can come up with programmes that perhaps talk more about emotional support and our sense of community.'

A team of IMH researchers interviewed 100 people to find out what they associate happiness with. They found that spirituality - either being religious or feeling like there is a greater purpose in life - was an important issue to many.

The questionnaire involved in the model is thus the first in Asia to include spirituality as a key component, said the IMH.

At a press conference on Tuesday, Ms Janhavi Vaingankar, one of the lead researchers, said: 'What we found was spirituality in itself led to maintaining social networks and getting emotional support. So it indirectly leads to those things that lead to positive mental health in a person.'

The researchers said more research would be necessary to find out the reasons for the difference in scores among different groups of people.

The method to gauge positive well-being follows the IMH's large-scale Singapore Mental Health Study last year, which surveyed more than 6,000 Singaporeans and found that one in 10 would develop mental illness in their lifetime.

The issue of happiness and whether there could be indicators of how happy Singaporeans are made the news late last year.

Prof Chong said the method would help policymakers think of ways to improve Singaporeans' sense of well-being.

The IMH researchers also pointed out that their model measures not just happiness but a person's ability to be resilient and to feel well.

Dr Adrian Wang, a consultant psychiatrist at the Gleneagles Medical Centre, who was not involved in the new method, noted that different cultures and races have different coping styles and different ways of defining happiness.

'Some may value material needs and wants and define having them as happiness more than people from other races,' he said.

ongyiern@sph.com.sg

LKY usurps power, hence young generation don't know S'pore's pioneers

2012-02-09T07:47:00.001+08:00

When Dr Goh Keng Swee passed away last year, many young Singaporeans did not know who he was. They were surprised when they learned that he contributed much to Singapore's early success. They only learned about that after he passed away.

When Dr Toh Chin Chye passed away this year, the same young Singaporeans who did not know Dr Goh, were again surprised that Dr Toh contributed just as much during the early days.

So why are our young Singaporeans so ignorant about these pioneering men?

Don't let S'pore pioneers be a lost generation
However, at some point, when our children become adults, we are aghast at what they do not know. Or perhaps our dismay is over what we have failed to pass on to them.

In the days since Dr Toh died on Friday, much lament has been made about how little younger Singaporeans know about the founding chairman of the political party that has shaped almost every aspect of life in Singapore.

I heard about this gulf between young Singaporeans and Dr Toh on Friday night from former MP Tan Cheng Bock. He had posted a tribute to Dr Toh online, which garnered surprise from young followers of his Facebook page. Some wrote that they did not know who Dr Toh was.

Twenty-two years ago at an event commemorating the 20th anniversary of the People's Association, Dr Toh asked: 'Where have the young people gone?' He felt then that young Singaporeans were shying away from community involvement.
Full report reproduced here

So why do our young not know these pioneers?

Isn't it because they have been fed in school that Singapore = PAP = Lee Kuan Yew, for 10 to 12 years of their lives?

Nobody else among the old guard gets mentioned. Only LKY. He wants the glory all to himself and sidelines the others.

So for 10 to 12 years of a young Singaporean's life, the only person they know is Lee Kuan Yew. He usurps all powers, the other fade into oblivion - until they die.

=========

Related article - Old Man wants all the glory to himself

Supporting war crimes and proud of it

2012-02-08T07:18:00.002+08:00

The "war on terror" started by GW Bush is nothing but war crimes against humanity. The Afghan war is illegal. So is the Iraq War. War crimes have been committed by US and its allies. Hospitals bombed. Schools bombed. Wedding parties and funeral gatherings bombed. Tortures meted, prisoners kept in long captivity without trial. This is human rights violation.

The SAF supports the above - and is proud of it.

Interview: Ng Eng Hen, Singaporean Minister of Defence

The security challenges facing Singapore encompass both traditional and non-traditional threats, according to Singapore's Minister of Defence, Dr Ng Eng Hen. "In terms of traditional threats," he said, "the world is increasingly interconnected and even events that take place far away affect Singapore.

"If someone suggested 10 to 15 years ago that Singapore would send assets and troops to Afghanistan it would have been dubbed a fantasy, but here we are with a number of rotations to Afghanistan [and the] Gulf of Aden, as many other countries are."

The Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) have been deploying various specialist detachments to Afghanistan since 2007, including weapon-locating radar teams and medical teams to Uruzgan in southern Afghanistan and a 52-strong unmanned aerial vehicle task group to Tarin Kowt in Uruzgan province.

Currently, a six-strong imagery analysis team is also stationed at Tarin Kowt, while a team of military institutional trainers (MITs) are deployed at an artillery school at the Kabul Military Training Center until December 2012. The SAF will also deploy a five-strong MIT team to Uruzgan between February and November 2012 to partner the Australian Defence Force in training Afghan National Army commanders to detect and identify improvised explosive devices.

If you gave aid to Hitler's forces to help him kill innocent civilians without repercussion, are you not complicit in war crimes?

"Singapore wants to do its part in this global effort against extremism as we recognise that it can affect all of us," said Ng. "We have contributed in ways that we think are meaningful and aid the stability of Afghanistan so that extremism is not exported.

Ah, extremism. The all purpose war card excuse to invade and pillage the lands of others. In the 1960s to 1970s, it was Communism. That gave the United States of Terrormerica the licence to kill innocent North Vietnamese. The innocent villages were Napalmed, Orange Agented and blown to bits. Today it is (Islamic) "extremism" in Afghanistan and Iraq.

"I won't overstate our contributions, but neither has it been a token force," Ng said.

Dr Ng, there is nothing to be proud of that should be overstated, or even stated. Why are you so proud that our boys are complicit in the war crimes?

"We have sent what we can, we played our role and our philosophy has been [making a] meaningful contribution, which we will continue to do."

Singapore has also provided a landing ship tank and maritime patrol aircraft to Combined Task Force 151: the international anti-piracy mission in the Gulf of Aden. Aside from that and the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) contribution in relation to the threat of extremism, Ng added that Singapore was also in an area that contained key sealines of communication, including the Strait of Malacca and South China Sea.

Furthermore, the rise of China and India and evolution of countries belonging to the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) in terms of population, expertise, production and consumption - factors that shift security circumstances - demand a new security architecture, said Ng. In Singapore's view this architecture will preferably be built around ASEAN, given the organisation's centrality to the region. "The other stakeholders, whether it is the US, China, India, Australia or Europe, can understand that if ASEAN is in the driver's seat there is a good reason to find common ground for security and stability in the region," Ng said.

Why are we bootlicking the US, portraying that China and India are a force that is hostile, such that we need a "balance of power" and suck up to the US, to have their big ships and big guns here?

Isn't the presence of US attracting the very "extremists" we are supposedly to be terrified of, just like flies are attracted to rubbish?

Significant security achievements have already been made with the ASEAN Defence Ministers' Meeting (ADMM) forum encouraging dialogue and co-operation between member states. To this end a common statement was issued in May 2011 laying down its aims towards building a stable and secure region. The establishment of the ADMM+8 in 2010 has also enabled ASEAN to have a security dialogue mechanism with eight Asia-Pacific nations: Australia, China, India, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea, Russia and the US.

Ng said one of the key achievements of the ADMM and ADMM+8 had been establishing five expert working groups dealing with maritime security; humanitarian assistance and disaster relief; counter-terrorism; military medicine; and peacekeeping operations. "These are not news grabbing, but on a day-to-day basis they add much to maintaining stability," he said, "because if you exercise regularly and know your counterparts, it reduces the risk of miscalculation and misunderstanding."

Singapore's close and long-standing relationship with the US means that it views President Barack Obama's much-vaunted 'shift to Asia Pacific' in less dramatic terms. "I'm not sure that the US ever went away; if you look at the record, they've been very much around," Ng said, adding that the city state strongly believes "that the US presence in this part of the world has enhanced regional peace and stability". On China's rise, Ng said that it was in "everyone's interest - including China's - for it to play a constructive role and to support the global system that at the end of the day it will have to rely on to prosper and thrive".

With regard to non-traditional operations, Ng highlighted a global trend for militaries - and their large reserve capacities - to take the lead in humanitarian and disaster relief operations: a trend in part due to the privatisation of other public bodies. Meanwhile, he added that the threats of terrorism and weapon proliferation have not gone away. "The scope of operations for the military, not only for Singapore but also other countries, has expanded," he noted. "It has become a much more challenging and complex landscape and we will have to chart a path ... that finds consensus if we are to evolve a stable and robust security architecture."

It is OK if we deploy our troops to help in disaster relief. It is also OK if we deploy them to help fight piracy in the high seas. But to support war criminals in their war efforts?

Forget about the excuse that we help set up schools and hospitals. That is saying that it is OK to invade, pillage, kill their innocent women and children, because help we set schools and hospitals in their lands. That is also akin to a robber saying that he is an angel because he administered first aid to his victim, after shooting him.

Stop being proud being complicit in war crimes. Stop the madness. Stop the wars.

MOE's confusing signal on role of teachers

2012-02-07T08:12:00.003+08:00

With more and more cases of inappropriate relationship between teachers and their students starting to surface, the MOE makes it clear that the profession should not be tainted and strict rules should be adhered. This includes keeping teacher-student relationship in a professional manner.

But with the advancement of tech like Facebook, Twitter and other social networking applications, it is becoming difficult to draw the line between school and social life.

But then again, didn't MOE blur this line in the first place, portraying that teaching is not just about school, but dedication to the student's welfare - including his social life?

Mrs Chong

MOE Recruitment Advert

The Sunday Times ran a report about this very dicey teacher-student relationship on 5 Feb 2012.

Balancing act (you need to be an ST Online subscriber to gain access to read full report)
Cases of infatuated students are not unusual, say education experts. And for many such students, it is a passing phase, with them moving on.

But the emotional state of mind of both students and teachers plays a part too.

There is such a thing as the 'hero syndrome', said Singapore Children's Society's (SCS) director of youth services Carol Balhetchet.

This can happen when, say, a child from a family with absent or inattentive caregivers meets a kind and understanding teacher. For the child, it is a stark contrast with his experience at home.

Conversely, for a teacher with ego issues, a student's adoring attention could fan the flames of infatuation.

Now wait a minute.... Take a good look at the advert "Mrs Chong" again. Isn't that kind of environment portrayed in the advert the perfect situation for infatuation between teacher and student to blossom?

So what's this all about from MOE?

Get what you want now, talk problems that come along later -

It appears that MOE's philosophy is that it does whatever it wants to do now, and talk about any problems that may arise from those deeds later.

The immediate concern of MOE is the short supply of teachers. So come what may, get those teachers first. And what better way to get people into the teaching profession, other than to make teachers look good, professional and a hero in society? Ah... so the "perfect teacher" comes along - a real life story based on a teacher named Mrs Chong.

But the problem with the advert is that it gives the public, and more importantly to those who are applying for the Teachers' job, the idea that being a teacher is also about getting involved in the social aspects of the the students' life. That's where the problem lies, isn't it?

Of course, we know that the intention from MOE is good. The student who was helped by Mrs Chong certainly needed help. Mrs Chong, being the "perfect teacher" went beyond her call of duty. I admire her.

Where I disagree is that MOE should not have used this episode as a recruitment drive. That's because the ad appears to tell potential applicants that is what teaching is about - getting involved in the social aspects of the students.

A teacher's job is exactly that - teach. Getting involved in the social aspects to help the student is beyond the call of the teacher. It is the parents' job. If that fails, it is the job of the social counsellor. If that also fails, the teacher may help out. But to advertise as if that is the core job of the teacher is giving the public and potential applicants of the teaching profession the wrong idea.

Not to mention that now MOE has a problem trying to tell teachers how to draw the fine line between the classroom and social life.

Full report reproduced here

Dr Toh Chin Chye's interview gives insight where LKY's Islamophobia took root

2012-02-06T07:36:00.003+08:00

With the passing of Dr Toh Chin Chye, there have been many tributes written about him. This following article was published in Mr Pritam Singh's (MP for Aljunied GRC) personal blog. It contains valuable info, giving us an insight where LKY's Islamophobia came from.

Thank you Dr Toh Chin Chye. RIP.
Excerpt of an interview with Dr Toh Chin Chye, published in 'Leaders of Singapore' by Melanie Chew, 1996. First seen on a facebook note shared by Martyn See on 4 Feb 2012.

August 9, 1965

Dr Toh Chin Chye: I remember that morning very clearly. In the morning, I wrote a letter to Tengku. He promptly replied in the afternoon.

I stayed behind (in Kuala Lumpur) and Lee came back to announce to the public in Singapore that Singapore had become independent. I stayed behind to clear up the mess. The Malaysian Parliament was meeting the next day. Lee Kuan Yew told me to go to the Parliament. Can you imagine the uproar? I had no chance to face the members of the Malaysian Solidarity Convention to break the news. Their support for Singapore came to nothing.

When Lee Kuan Yew got back to Singapore, he invited the members of the Convention to attend his press conference. He was crying. I don't understand him at all. On one hand, he worked so hard for merger. Having gotten the cupful, he shattered it. And then cried over it.

He held two successive press conferences, and in which both he cried. On the third morning I went to work, and saw the press boys again. I asked Lee Wei Ching, his press secretary, “Why are they hanging around here?” Another press conference! I told Lee Wei Ching, “You ought to tell the Prime Minister to go to Changi and take a rest. Call the press conference off! Another crying bout, and the people of Singapore will think the government is on its knees. So he went to Changi, staying at the government bungalow for six weeks.

One smart reporter noted this by going through Hansard. There was a big time gap in Hansard between our last parliamentary meeting and the next meeting. More than five months. One would have thought with such a big event, Parliament should be immediately summoned and the announcement made to Parliament. The opposition came at me. Why is there no Parliament sitting? So I had to hold the fort.

I was not appointed to act for him while he was away. When he went off to Changi, Parliament did not meet. So Singapore had a Parliament in suspended animation. Keng Swee and Lim Kim San saw me and asked me what was the constitutional position. Has he recovered? What if he does not recover? So what happens? I said I thought he was getting better, although I could not see him and telephone calls were not put through.

Q: So after the separation, you did not have Parliamentary meetings until December?

Parliament last met on June 16th, 1965 when Singapore was still in Malaysia, and recommenced only on December 8th, 1965 after we had left Malaysia.

Q: But the appearance of government was normal. The government was still carrying on. It seemed like business as usual.

Your point is taken. In a crisis there will be public spirited figures who will rise to the occasion, for better or worse.

Only the constitutional position was unclear, because according to the constitution it was the Yang di Pertuan Negara who appoints the Prime Minister, who in turn appoints the Cabinet. The constitutional position was not clear about an absent or an incapacitated Prime Minister, and Goh Keng Swee and Lim Kim San were both anxious.

Q: Mr Lee at that time was in a very emotional state?

Yes, he was. I knew he was. And was very worried for him. That is why I told Lee Wei Ching to call the press conference off.

Q: Was he in a very emotional state because he felt he had made a blunder?

You have to interview him on that. I cannot answer for him.

Q: Could his provocative speeches have been part of a deliberate strategy?

I do not know why he did that. But he was influenced by Alex Josey, who came from the Middle East where he had been a reporter. Josey fed him ideas about the Muslims. The "Mad Mullahs." The "Ultras." Lee used the term, "Mad Mullahs." This was Alex Josey's phrase. Alex Josey was his close friend, golfing friend and biographer.

Alex used to play golf with me. He was an operator. He used to pick me up as early as five a.m., because I had no one to play golf with at that time. He was an operator, feeding me stories of his experiences with the Arabs. I had suspicions about him. Now he's dead.

Q: Lee Kuan Yew asked the Tengku to write to you to explain that it was Tengku's decision to separate.

Yes, I think that was the purpose. To tell me that it was a decision made by the Tengku.

Q: Was it because he was afraid?

So the blame would be on the Tengku's shoulder. Not on our shoulders. The Tengku was far sighted. However desirable it was to continue as one country, we could not do so. He wrote, "We cannot avoid a bloodshed if we remain."

"Tengku had been in charge of multi racial Malaya since 1957. He knew, better than any of us, what was possible and impossible. The 1969 riots in Kuala Lumpur proved him right."

Note that besides him being fed Islamophobic ideas, LKY was actually shivering in his pants when we first separated. It was Dr Toh, the calm and cool guy, who held the fort.

When Dr Goh Keng Swee passed away, LKY's eulogy in Dr Goh's honour exposed that LKY's claim we were kicked out of Malaysia was a lie. Did LKY Lie We Were Kicked Out of Malaysia?

When Dr Toh Chin Chye passed away, LKY's Islamophobia and his inability to handle political pressure is exposed.

LKY certainly has been taking far much more credit than he really deserves the last half century.

LKY's over-simplistic immigration policy to stimulate economy

2012-02-05T08:58:00.003+08:00

It is now quite obvious that it was Lee Kuan Yew's team of old guards and not himself, that's the driving force of Singapore's economy in the early stage. While we had great ideas from the 1960s right to the late 1980s, its seems that LKY is devoid of ideas today, when it comes to understanding how simple economics work. Could the absence of his trusted old guard be the cause?

Lee Kuan Yew calls for understanding towards immigration policy

SINGAPORE: Former Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew has called for the understanding of Singaporeans towards the government's decision to continue taking in immigrants.

Speaking at a Lunar New Year gathering in his constituency of Tanjong Pagar on Friday, Mr Lee said Singapore's per capita income is one of the highest in Asia.

But it faces an ageing and shrinking population. Last year, the birth rate was 1.15, with the Chinese leading the decline among other races.

Mr Lee said Japan also suffers from similar problems. But its decision not to take in migrants has contributed to economic stagnation.

He said: "Our choice must be the other one - taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economy stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on."

-CNA/ac

Numbers for the sake of numbers -

It appears that LKY believes in having the numbers just for the sake of having numbers. Somehow, it looks like to him, the magic silver bullet to stimulate our economy is having numbers.

Maybe numbers do work in a crude way. With the 7% GST and the more numbers we have in Singapore, the more tax revenue Sinkie govt collects. Some economists will argue that taxation will slow down rather than stimulate our economy. But we are in a different position. With the tax collected from the GST due to larger population base because of immigration, it is the govt coffers that get fatter - to pay themselves and the many employees under their service, as well a fund govt projects.

The 7% GST is quite substantial. And you can't escape it. As long as you are a human being, never mind citizen, PR or foreigner, you have to eat, clothe yourself and have a roof over your head. It doesn't matter if you are white, black, whatever religion, healthy or sick, young or old. You need to spend on essential items - which attract the 7% GST.

Naturally, the more people we have here the greater the GST revenue. Isn't that a crude and simplistic way for the govt to collect revenue and re-distribute it back to the economy?

We need to make numbers count -

If you were to seek PR in any developed country, the first thing you must have is the skills they want. Unlike Singapore where there is no criteria, your skills and employability is the number one factor. No skills no talk. Period.

So why is Singapore not following suit? Why do we seem to accept any Tom, Dick and Harry? One of the reasons for this lose immigration policy I believe is due to the fact that Sg govt is more interested in demographics than anything else. I wrote about that here. Singapore's PR Policy is about Racial Demographics first, Talent second

Here's another report on LKY's call to have more babies, otherwise we need to increase our population via immigration - with a twist - he is most alarmed about the Chinese race than Singapore's population itself - ‘Unless we have more babies, we need to accept immigrants’

Speaking at a Tanjong Pagar group representation constituency Chinese New Year dinner, Lee said that given our almost record-low birth rate of 1.2 from last year, Singapore will need to depend on immigrants to “make up our numbers”, reported The Straits Times (ST).

He also shared the breakdown — 1.08 for Chinese, 1.09 for Indians and 1.64 for Malays — with 2.1 as the benchmark replacement rate, reported TODAY.

“In other words the population of Chinese Singaporeans in the next generation, 18 to 20 years, will half,” he was quoted by the paper as saying as well.

Didn't I tell you that the first objective about immigration is about demographics?

My Conclusion -

LKY has always been depending on his strong men. They include Goh Keng Swee, Toh Chin Chye, Rajaratnam and others. He was the one who spoke most eloquently and he was the one who was in the forefront. But without them, you can see how amateurish his recommendation to solve issues is.

As for the immigration policy itself, it appears that it is a crude way to bring in revenue via the GST effect. This is unlike where true value is brought in when you selectively allow only the people with the skills you want into your country.

Finally, it looks very much like the first objective of the immigration policy is to maintain the race demographics of the country. Helping out the economy is secondary.

If not for the late Dr Toh Chin Chye, there won't be LKY

2012-02-03T14:43:00.007+08:00

That is no under statement. That is a historical fact. A fact Lee Kuan Yew himself doesn't wish to admit. Here is a past article I published to support that claim.

Old Man wants all the glory to himself

Excerpts below:
The Old Man wants it all. Everything. Every single bit of glory there is, he wants it all to himself. And he is doing it, before he checks into the world beyond.

In the following article published in the Straits Times dated 5 Sep 09, Did Lee become PM by one vote?, Old Man claims he has no knowledge of the one vital vote, casted by Dr Toh Chin Chye (the Chairman of the PAP then), that allowed him to be the PM of Singapore. It was a nail-biting 6-6 vote, casted by the "inner core" of the pioneer PAP leaders. It was a tie between Ong Eng Guan and Lee Kuan Yew.

Being a tie, the chairman, Dr Toh, exercised the chair's vote, and Old Man became the PM.

But, Old Man, being what he is, does not want to admit it. He denies that there was such an event. Phew! Now why did Old Man have to wait for 50 years to say that? All along, it was written in the history books that he won by the chair's vote.

Excerpts from the article above:

When chairman Toh Chin Chye received the votes, he opened and counted them one by one. There was a hushed silence when he declared six for Lee and six for Ong. The deadlock could not have been more dramatic. Then exercising his prerogative as chairman, he used his casting vote to break the tie, and Lee went on to be prime minister and to preside over the miraculous transformation of Singapore for the next 31 years.

This cliff-hanger reconstruction is culled from the reminiscences of Toh and then organising secretary Ong Pang Boon in a series of interviews for this book. It corroborated the account making the rounds in countless publications that there was a CEC vote to decide the premiership.

One oft-quoted source was Thomas J. Bellows' The People's Action Party of Singapore: Emergence of a Dominant Party System in which the American scholar recorded that the CEC met to designate a prime minister after the elections and that party chairman Toh voted twice, first in the original vote and then as the result of a tie, a casting vote.

In 2006, the political science professor recalled that 'the person I interviewed was an individual in whom I had especial confidence and was very courteous to a struggling graduate student'. His dissertation for Yale University was based on extensive interviews with members and supporters of all major political parties in 1964 and 1965.

References to the vote were never refuted publicly. In fact, a column on 12 July 1960 by Gordon Hung in The China Mail, which preceded the South China Morning Post, noted Ong's tremendous popularity saying that 'the only thing that seemed to stop him from becoming Singapore's first prime minister was the formality of a vote by the central executive committee'.

Yak Keow Seng, a former PAP activist and close aide of Ong Eng Guan, remembered the former mayor and minister confiding in him and saying that there was indeed a CEC vote after the elections and that he lost to Lee by one vote.

....In what must surely go down as the greatest mystery of the PAP story, Lee said he was completely puzzled by accounts of such a vote. 'I don't remember any such thing. I cannot understand this, that Ong Pang Boon and Toh Chin Chye would say so. If one said so, I can dismiss it, but two said so...

'I led the elections. I crafted the strategy. I made the major campaign speeches. I made the last major broadcast. It was assumed that I would be the leader. I was the man meeting governor William Goode before, during and after the elections, not Ong Eng Guan. I negotiated with him for the release of the detainees, not Ong Eng Guan.'
Boy oh boy. That shows much about Old Man's character. He wants to be worshiped as a god before he leaves this world. If he could "forget" this very important incident (how he became PM of Singapore), what more about all the other tales in his memoirs? Can he be trusted that history as what he told is accurate? Including the merger, and our eventual ouster?

As can be seen above, if Dr Toh had voted Ong Eng Guan instead of LKY, we would have a very different PM during our early history, as well as today.

Dr Toh made that pivotal decision and it has gone down in history of Singapore that LKY is our first and longest serving PM, and his son the current PM.

As for Dr Toh, he is no longer with us. And he would no longer be around to testify and confirm that LKY won the PM post by that one crucial single vote. Perfect for glory seeking LKY.

May the good soul of Dr Toh rest in peace.

S'poreans less hungry and have less drive? But what is hunger and drive?

2012-02-03T08:36:00.004+08:00

Ah, same old, same old. Same old stuff that is. I have been hearing this for years. I have been hearing this same old stuff when I was a youngster myself and who was just new to the workforce then.

Yesterday, in the Straits Times, there's a report about how some HR experts see Singaporeans are less hungry and have less drive compared to others. But that actually depends on how you define hunger and drive, no?

See article here - Young Singapore Adults (PDF)

Read the lengthy article? So exactly what is hunger and drive? All these execs in the HR industry are doing is just scaring the pants out of newbie Minister for Ed, Mr Heng Swee Keat. They just tell him what young Singaporeans expect in life, then extrapolate that reasoning as the "lack of drive" in the workplace.

Note there is an implicit definition of hunger and drive in the article. It started off with a super success story that led a young guy to run a million dollar business.

But is that an accurate portrayal of what hunger and drive is in real life? Here are my thoughts -

Real life situation of what hunger and drive is about -

Let's face it. All companies are here to make profits. That includes increasing revenue and lowering costs. That is their bottom line. So if any suggestion that does not lead to that final objective, you'd better not even bring your idea up.

So you expect these employees who are working at the mid management level right down to the shopfloor to come up with ingenious ideas that will increase profits or lower costs? Yes, there are such cases. The reward for these employees would normally be a token of appreciation like Employee of the Month, a mention in the inhouse newsletter, or some cash token reward.

Hmm.. that's hardly anything for any company to shout and scream about, huh? What we want is the X factor that would catapult the companies' profits into the beyond. Other than that, it is just small savings. Not that it doesn't count. It does over a long period. But where's that missing X factor in Singapore employees? Isn't this what is the hunger and drive that the so called "experts" are referring to?

But to have this X factor that is able to get companies to save hundreds of thousands or millions in one brilliant move, you need more than just mid exec and shopfloor workers to contribute. This area is probably very specific, very technical and is the job of the very senior and/or specialized people.

It could be anything from engineering design to capturing untested markets which requires tons of commitment and $$$ from the company. Now would any company be willing to test that new idea out, if say a salesperson who knows the customers better than the marketing director, makes a suggestion that requires tons of $$$ from the company?

But if the same idea came from the marketing director, presto, the $$$ comes along! Then of course when it gets to be a big success, the credit goes to the marketing director and not the salesgirl, who had the very same idea!

So on goes the same old story that Singapore employees are not hungry and have no drive. All the ideas have to come from the top, and not from the lower rungs.

My own assessment -

I have worked in MNCs and I have also worked with govt officials. It is all the same. Generally, it is the companies who are not willing, or rather have no belief, that the lower rung employees are able to come out with ideas that would save the company millions.

At most, companies would accept ideas that save the company some money here and there. But nothing spectacular like millions saved or extra millions flowing in revenue. To start with, most million dollar savings and successes have to have some specialised knowledge for the idea to work. That's outside the skills and expertise of most lower rung employees.

So why this comparison of million dollar success, which the so called HR experts bemoan Singaporeans don't have? Yes, we do see that some smaller companies have such success. But is lack of numbers of such establishment due to lack of hunger and drive? Or it is basically that the so called experts are expecting the ridiculous, ie all Singapore employees must have the skill and expertise to save and/or make millions for companies?

My conclusion -

I think this scaremongering stuff is unjustified. Singapore employees have worked diligently and have the required skills to do their jobs efficiently and effectively. It looks to me that these so called experts are just parroting the same old, same old stuff we heard years ago - ie young Singapore workers lack drive.

Hey, didn't these unmotivated, undriven, non-hungry workers work well enough to bring Singapore to where it is today? Have more trust in Singaporeans, will you?

Lobbyists, make up your mind! Death Penalty or Mandatory Death Penalty?

2012-02-02T09:24:00.008+08:00

I have about enough with the flip-flip, ding-dong, wishy-washy, neither-this-nor-that ever changing objectives of these anti-death penalty campaigners.

First, it was a call to the public against the Mandatory Death Penalty to get the public behind them. Then when the momentum picked up, presto! It magically changed to an anti-Death Penalty campaign.

Naturally, when that happened, those who are willing to campaign against the Mandatory DP but not the DP itself (like me), started to withdraw their support.

So what do these campaigners do to restart their stalled engine? Yep, roll in the hot air flatulence that they are against the evil Mandatory Death Penalty (and not Death Penalty) again!

Come on, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Ain't nobody is gonna fool me a second time, dude!

Death penalty has contributed to low rates of drug use? Where’s the proof?

Ooooh... look at that evil noose and the evil Mandatory Death Penalty. They're out to getcha! (Pic from TOC)
It's true that although 16 states and the District of Columbia have abolished death penalty in the United States of America, it is still practiced in the other states of the USA. The mandatory death penalty though has been ruled as unconstitutional since 1976 in that country.

Only 5 countries in the world have mandatory death penalty – Singapore, Malaysia, Taiwan, Japan and India. In India it is reserved for murder by a convict serving a life sentence. In Japan it is limited to instigation to a foreign aggression. In Taiwan the mandatory death penalty has recently been relaxed to a large extent. Which means that Singapore and Malaysia remain the only two countries which have not set aside or relaxed the mandatory death penalty.

Professor Michael Hor who teaches at the National University of Singapore Faculty of Law said in an interview in 2010, 'we must also be clear, on the other hand, that none of this proves that the mandatory death penalty does not work. We simply do not have, in my view, convincing reasons to believe that it does'.

OK, fine. So Mandatory Death Penalty is baaaad. Agreed. How about removing that and keep the Death Penalty intact?

Note that the article makes no distinction between the Mandatory DP and DP itself. If you read between the lines, the article is in fact asking for the abolishing of Death Penalty, by arguing against the faults of the Mandatory Death Penalty!

Look who's confusing the public, only to claim that non-supporters are always mistaken that both Mandatory DP and DP are the same!

Anti-death penalty lobbyists, if you seriously want public support, you have to be serious yourselves and stop ejecting flatulence. Period.

Nobody is gonna get fooled a second time.

For the record, here is the first time the public got fooled - Anti Death Penalty Activists must be honest

Singapore coy about its relationship with US on military ties

2012-02-01T10:24:00.003+08:00

Aw, come off it! On one hand Sinkie govt wants to "benefit" from the military ties with US. On the other hand, it does not want to anger China and its Muslim neighbours who are suspicious about the US military. Lookie here, the old saying you can't have your cake and eat it applies in this case.

Photo: AP

Here's a report showing how Sinkie govt tries so hard to say that US and Sinkie are not so close because it doesn't want to anger China (and our Muslim neighbours).

Singapore is not a US treaty ally, MFA clarifies
(You have to be an ST Online subscriber to view the full contents in the hyperlink)
THE Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) has corrected a Washington Post article which gave the wrong impression of Singapore's defence ties with the United States.

The Post article, which The Straits Times republished last Friday, was on the Philippines seeking the expansion of US military presence there, in a strategic move to counter a rising China.

The Post said that the Philippines' move was the latest taken by countries in the Pacific region to embrace Washington amid growing fears of China's rise as a military power and its assertiveness in staking claims to disputed territories, such as those in the South China Sea.

The Post also quoted an unnamed Philippines official as saying that 'Australia, Japan, Singapore' were doing the same as 'nobody wants to face China or confront China'.

Yesterday, responding to the report, the MFA pointed out that Singapore was unlike the other countries cited by the Philippines official.

'Singapore, unlike Japan, Australia and the Philippines, is not a US treaty ally,' an MFA official said.

'While Singapore has allowed US ships and aircraft usage of some of our military facilities, this is not a reaction to any recent developments. It is a long-standing arrangement dating back to 1990.'

Singapore and the US signed a Memorandum of Understanding in 1990 which allowed the US expanded use of facilities here for its warships, for naval repairs and for air force training.

Yesterday, the MFA official also said that 'Singapore maintains friendly relations with all the countries in Asia, and their naval ships call regularly at Singapore'.

Last Thursday, while in Davos, Switzerland, for the World Economic Forum, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong was asked about the same issue by CNN anchor Fareed Zakaria, and whether Singapore would host a US naval base.

Replying with a definitive no, Mr Lee said: 'A naval base would be twice the size of Singapore.'

Technically, MFA is correct. Sinkie is no treaty ally of US. But that doesn't address the core point - Sinkie allows those big ships with big guns to be docked here. Isn't that the issue which is going to attract unwanted attention from China and our neighbours?

Here's the report that MFA is referring to. Note that there really is nothing said about Sinkie being a treaty ally of the US. It is about putting those big ships and guns on our shores. So what's with the red herring our MFA is putting up? Trying to tell others we are not America's lapdog, but in the process showing that we are America's lapdog?

US in talks to increase heavier military presence in the Philippines
WASHINGTON (REUTERS) - The Philippines is in talks with the United States (US) government on expanding its military presence in the south-east Asian country in response to the growing assertiveness of China, the Washington Post reported on Thursday.

In recent months, the US has announced plans to set up a Marine base in northern Australia and station warships in Singapore, moves seen in China as a part of a broader US attempt to encircle it as it grows into a major power.

The newspaper said that negotiations were in the early stages but quoted officials from both governments as saying they were favourably inclined towards a deal.

It said more talks were scheduled for Thursday and Friday in Washington before higher-level meetings in March.

'We can point to other countries: Australia, Japan, Singapore,' the newspaper quoted a senior Philippine official as saying.

'We're not the only one doing this, and for good reason. We all want to see a peaceful and stable region. Nobody wants to have to face China or confront China.'

A Philippine defence department spokesman, however, told Reuters he was not aware of any plans to deploy US troops or ships in the country, but the two sides were in talks to boost joint exercises that their militaries hold each year.

'What is on the table is a request for more frequent exercises. The bottom line is frequency. These training and exercises will benefit our troops in terms of new knowledge, learning new techniques to fight terrorism and anti-piracy as well as on how to operate new equipment,' Peter Paul Galvez said.

The Philippines used to host major US military bases until about 20 years ago.

More recently, its relations with China have been strained by conflicting claims to islands in the South China Sea - an issue which has also tested China's ties with other countries in the region.

Among the options under consideration are operating Navy ships from the Philippines, deploying troops on a rotational basis and staging more frequent joint exercises, the Post said.

Officials in the Philippines were quoted as saying their priority is to strengthen maritime defences, especially near the South China Sea. They indicated a willingness to host US ships and surveillance aircraft.

A commander in the western Philippine naval forces told Reuters that a greater US presence in the region, especially in the disputed waters of South China, would help boost security.

'The presence of US Navy in Philippine waters could be an effective deterrent and increase our domain awareness in the disputed areas,' he said.

So where's the part that claims Sinkie is treaty ally of US? Huh? All it says that a base would be built in Australia and warships would be stationed here.

But that itself would anger China, no?

Sinkie wants to please both US and China and gets buttkicked by both -

You really can't serve two masters at a time. Lapdog Sinkie wants to please US by allowing it to station its warships here but hopes not to anger China. Ha ha. Have not our PAPpy leaders been double dealing and have been double buttkicked all along? Here are two past article I posted in this blog pertaining to being double buttkicked.

No dog can serve two masters

MM Lee offers Singapore’s butt to US, PM Lee offers it to China

So like in the past, in this case, the same scenario applies. Singapore wants to please both US and China. It won't be long before the double buttkick comes along again, would it?

Final Word -

It is either we allow US to station their ships here to please US and anger China, or we disallow those ships to please China and cause a rift between US and ourselves . All the hot air MFA tries to explain that we are not a treaty ally of US rings hollow when those big ships and guns arrive here.

Too bad Sinkie can't have its cake and eat it. For too long, we have been a lapdog of US supporting their wars to the point we can't unchain ourselves from them. Now we have problems trying to please China as well.

That's the problem when you support a warmongering nation to start with.

Lobbyists' non-disclosure incriminates Yong Vui Kong further

2012-01-31T07:36:00.016+08:00

This post is a continuation of my last post on the issue of Yong Vui Kong. Here is that post - Yong Vui Kong's case getting murkier and murkier

Regular readers of this blog will note that I have been closely following Yong Vui Kong's case. One of my peeves in this case is what appears to be the unwillingness of lobbyists who have worked on VK's case to dispense vital material info to the public.

My final straw came when it is made known to the public that no reason is given for the unexplained absence of a key defence witness, Chia Choon Leng, in VK's trial because VK himself asked that Chia not to be called up in Court.

What really gets me even more is that lobbyists who have been working closely on the case themselves say that they do not know the reason why VK made that very strange decision! Helloooo? Can't they ask VK himself why he decided that?

It appears to me that they have asked VK and VK has answered. And the answer and truth they got is probably more incriminating to VK than whatever info the public has now. That is the only conclusion I can make. Otherwise, why the stingy approach by these lobbyists when it comes to info dispensing?

My Thoughts -

As the weeks turn to months, my belief that VK's case is just an experiment for lobbyists to contest the Death Penalty gets entrenched deeper. Here are my reasons:

1. The lobbyists shifted goalposts from campaigning against Mandatory Death Penalty to Death Penalty once they got the momentum when the public showed interest.

2. Info on VK's case is so sketchy and comes in bits and pieces, it takes a hell lot of effort just to understand the case. I went through the various documents and presentations at the different "Save Yong Vui Kong" sites. It was like one giant jig-saw puzzle. Hey, if these lobbyists are serious, won't they make it reader friendly? It appears that they are hiding something.

3. Lobbyists are not open enough to give full info. At best, they "pretend" or prefer not to know the facts themselves.

4. One example of #3, is the fact that VK did not want to have Chia Chin Leng testify in court, when M Ravi (his current defence lawyer) in his letter to MHA states that Chia is the sole key defence witness. Can't M Ravi or the lobbyists ask why VK didn't want Chia to be around, instead of telling public "for some unexplained reason he didn't want Chia to be around"? These lobbyists take the public for fools or what?

5. It appears that it is the lobbyists who are afraid to tell the public the real reason why VK didn't want Chia around, more than the PP or VK himself. Hiding something far more incriminating against VK than the info that is available to public now?

My Conclusion

Digging up VK's case is tiring and mentally draining. No thanks to the stingy way info is being dispensed. Hardly getting any info and so many undisclosed cards held firmly to the lobbyists' chests.

My only reason why I feel so much for the case is VK's ailing mom. If not for her, I won't even care about the case.

As it is, after many months of digging and looking at the case, I have come to the conclusion that the lobbyists who are working on VK's case know VK cannot be saved on the merits of his case alone. That's because he is as guilty as what the Court judged him to be.

Hence, the lobbyists are now trying to hide whatever facts they know from the public, hoping that sympathy for him won't be hijacked by the incriminating truth - ie VK in all probability did not act out of ignorance, unlike what lobbyists try to portray to be the case.

I take my personal leave from the Yong Vui Kong case.

Muhammad Ali was a freedom fighter outside the ring

2012-01-30T16:39:00.002+08:00

Ah never was an 'Ali fan cuz ah never was a boxin' fan. All ah knows is that 'Ali jab 'em quick. But so was his mouth to match 'em jabs. So ah never really paid attention to any news 'bout 'Ali... till this one...

Anti-war Muhammad Ali puts Barack Obama the warmonger to shame

Highlights

- Ali was drafted (during the Viet War) and refused induction on grounds of religious conviction. He was not willing to kill innocent people. He served a jail term for that.

- Ali questioned why should he shoot and kill innocents. They never did him or his family any harm.

- Ali was left financially poorer for his decision because he was not allowed a licence to fight (in the ring) and was denied a visa to travel outside the US to fight.

- One day he was asked to speak to college students at three different colleges. His reward if he did that was US$1500 per college.

- He (literally) broke his piggy bank and used that money to travel to the colleges to give his speech. But some white students challenged his stance on the Viet War. Note that discrimination against blacks was still quite rampant during this era. (1960s)

- Watch how Ali punched and jabbed them to the floor with his mouth and tongue, even when these college guys had a far better education than him.

- Ali said that he would rather fight his fellow white Americans than to kill some innocents in Vietnam. The white American won't even fight for him as an American when get got discriminated as a black in his own country.

As we know, Ali became a very successful professional boxer America loved. But noticed his stance?

1. He wasn't willing to fight for America because he did not believe in killing innocents.

2. He'd rather fight against his own white American citizens than to kill an "enemy" of America.

3. His decision was based on his religious beliefs.

Ali served time in jail for his conviction and belief against the wars America was involved in. But in the late 1960s and early 1970s when the tide turned and when American citizens wanted out of Vietnam, the Court overturned the sentence and Ali was once a free man again. This time, to fight professionally in the ring.

What if another Ali did the same today? -

Now let us imagine another Ali did that today. Wouldn't he be considered a security threat, even a terror supporter? Consider these points:

- refusal to fight for country.
- willing to fight against own country man.
- cites religious belief and places that over country's goal.

What do you think would happen to that American guy? Heck, what do you think would happen to that guy if he were a European or even a Singaporean?

So was Ali a hero? That depends who you are. If you love wars and hate blacks, he was a villain. If you are a boxing fan, he was a hero.

Very unfortunately, if you are a freedom fighter and a Human Rights fighter, you won't even talk about him as a role model. Which Human Rights activist have you heard citing his case?

Ali's famous quotes on the Viet War -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Ali
Quotes about Vietnam war

“ I ain't got no quarrel with the Vietcong. No Vietcong ever called me Nigger.[29] ”

“ No, I am not going 10,000 miles to help murder, kill, and burn other people to simply help continue the domination of white slavemasters over dark people the world over. This is the day and age when such evil injustice must come to an end.[30] ”

“ Why should they ask me to put on a uniform and go ten thousand miles from home and drop bombs and bullets on brown people in Vietnam while so-called Negro people in Louisville are treated like dogs and denied simple human rights?[29]

My own assessment

I have always known that Ali converted to Islam because he was disillusioned with White America and its discriminatory practices against blacks and other coloureds. He joined the Nation of Islam on political grounds. However, although I knew those facts, this is the first time I have seen him on tape how he speaks passionately about his convictions.

Again, what if another Ali did that today? Converting to Islam because politically, he thought America was killing innocents and discriminating against him? He'll get discriminated because of Islamophobia. The slavemaster and/or colonial mindset is not dead yet.

In the 1960s, it was hate against the North Vietnamese and discrimination against Blacks. Today, it is hate against the Arabs and discrimination against Muslims.

To many boxing fans, Ali was a champion. To me, he was a champion alright. He fought for the innocents and was willing to sacrifice himself. Pity many so called Democratic and Human Rights activists simply missed citing this great man.

Stop the madness. Stop the injustices. Stop the wars.

Yong Vui Kong's case getting murkier and murkier

2012-01-29T11:40:00.007+08:00

I am not only frustrated with the lack of info I can get from the mainstream media on Yong Vui Kong's case, I am even more frustrated with the info dishing out by the anti-death penalty alternative media blog admins, who seem to be just as non-transparent. I have discussed some details on blogs, even with an anti-death penalty activist, but I am not getting the info that appears to be so crucial to Vui Kong's case.

Here is what I put up on Vui Kong's case. Yong Vui Kong's story is still murky - can those who lobby for him enlighten me? I highlighted the inconsistencies not only from the state sponsored counsel Vui Kong had, but also from Vui Kong's current lawyer.

As if the above inconsistencies are not enough, there's now yet another even murkier fact to deal with. M Ravi, Vui Kong's current lawyer, in an attempt to show how inconsistent the courts have charged Vui Kong, has now himself acting in a way that befuddles the logical thinking person. Here is the latest development on Vui Kong's case.

Yong Vui Kong. His case gets murkier as the weeks pass by. Pic taken from TOC.

Selective prosecution? Re-open the decision upholding the Vui Kong’s conviction
A Criminal Motion has been filed in the Court of Appeal today on behalf of Yong Vui Kong. The motion challenges the constitutionality of the prosecution’s decision to charge Vui Kong with a crime that attracts the mandatory death penalty while withdrawing previous charges made against Vui Kong’s ‘boss’, Chia Choon Leng.

In his affidavit, Vui Kong’s lawyer, M Ravi, states that in acting in this manner, the Attorney-General has violated Vui Kong’s fundamental right to equal protection of the law enshrined in Article 12(1) of the Constitution. Applying the standards set out by the Court in the recent case of Ramalingam Ravinthran vs PP, it is submitted by Mr Ravi, that ‘the Applicant is able to raise a prima facie case of a breach of Article 12(1).’

Chia has been identified by the Attorney-General’s chambers as the alleged mastermind behind the criminal enterprise that Yong was found to have been a part of. In reply to queries made by Mr Ravi, the Deputy Public Prosecutor confirmed that Chia had been arrested in connection with the trafficking syndicate that Vui Kong was a part of. Yong had also mentioned his name repeatedly to the police and to the court while accounting for his actions.

During the criminal trial in the High Court, it was found that Chia was the person who initially contacted Vui Kong, and subsequently provided him with the ‘gifts’ to deliver. The ‘gifts’ that Vui Kong was caught with was found to have contained the 47.27g of diamorphine, which he was sentenced to death for.

Chia however, remains uncharged and in executive detention under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act. The Prosecution had informed the court that they had withdrawn charges against Chia due to a lack of evidence. However, Vui Kong, in his affidavit, states that, ‘ I do not recall having been asked by the Prosecutor to assist in relation to any difficulty of evidence perceived in relation to Chia.’

Again, note M Ravi's "let's challenge the interpretation of the constitution" stuff, instead of going for the kill - ie VK did not have fair trial due to incompetent state-sponsored counsel he was assigned. Has not M Ravi missed the big picture which could save Vui Kong's life, instead of being soooooo obsessed with the constitution stuff?

The latest piece of news the pubic gets to hear that adds to the already murky state is now Vui Kong has a key witness that could save his life - Chia Choon Leng, who is Vui Kong's boss - yet this line of defence is not followed up? What the heck is going on here?

Here's another report on the same piece of news - with one more vital info that could save Vui Kong's life, which appears that everyone, including anti-death penalty campaigners, missed.

The Mule, the Mastermind and the MDP

At a Parliamentary sitting on 15 September 2010, then-NCMP Sylvia Lim posed an interesting question to then-Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs, Wong Kan Seng. She asked if the government had detained, under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act, any person believed to have organised drug trafficking activities involving Yong Vui Kong, an inmate on death Row.

The Minister’s response was just as interesting. In a written reply, Wong said, “Apart from Yong, there were indeed others who were part of the syndicate. Several have been prosecuted for trafficking. One has been detained under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act.” (Read Wong’s full statement here.)

In a recent letter to Yong’s lawyer, M Ravi, the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) identified that person as Chia Choon Leng – the very same person Yong had named, in a police statement, as the mastermind of his crime. However the AGC said Yong also made it clear that he did not wish to identify Chia in court. (Read AGC’s letter and M Ravi’s query here.) [see screenshot below]

The AGC said Prosecution did not call Chia as a witness because his evidence was not necessary for their case. It said it also informed the Defense about the detention, however, Yong’s then-lawyers decided not to call Chia as a witness. According to court records, the Prosecution withdrew charges against Chia due to “the difficulty of the evidence”. Instead, “executive action” was taken against him.

It is unclear why Yong decided not to identify Chia in court. One can only speculate. What is clear though is that despite “the difficulty of the evidence”, Chia remains in custody. This must surely mean that authorities have sufficient reason to detain him. But while Chia will eventually be let go, Yong has been sentenced to hang.

It is now very obvious that the sole key defence witness Vui Kong has is Chia Choon Leng. Here are two screenshots of the letter from M Ravi.
Page 1

(you can click on image above to enlarge)

Page 2

The above shows that Vui Kong's current lawyer, M Ravi, believes that the only person who could save Vui Kong is Chia Choon Leng. He questions why was Chia not called up by the court. The reply was that Vui Kong did not want him to be called and that the state sponsored counsel did not call for the key witness.

That's the vital piece of info everyone missed. If M Ravi believes that Chia is the only person who could save VK's life, why isn't this followed up? Why is the curent defence not challenging the fact that the state-sponsored counsel then did not call this key witness, which could have saved VK's life? Isn't this ground for a fresh trial?

To help readers understand the long, loopy case, here is the summary so far.

Summary of critical points -

1. According to M Ravi, a key witness, Chia Choon Leng (Vui Kong's boss), is able to confirm Vui Kong's ignorance on the matter.

2. According to the exchange of letters, Vui Kong did not want Chia to be called upon. The then defence for VK, the state sponsored counsel, hence did not call Chia up as witness.

3. In view of the "new" piece of news above, VK's case looks even murkier because from my earlier link, what remains unanswered was why did not M Ravi challenge the whole trial itself because it appears there's incompetence on the part of the state sponsored lawyer, when he did not challenge the prosecution after the trial judge recommended the charge be lowered to a non-capital crime.

4. With this "new" piece of info, why doesn't M Ravi challenge the whole trial itself on the point that the state sponsored counsel was inept when they did not call up Chia Choon Leng?

5. Here is the screenshot of the reply M Ravi got. Note that VK did not wish to have Chia informed that VK informed against him. Also note that the state sponsored counsel simply "took the easy way out" and did not call for Chia as the key defence witness. All this shows ineptness and/or negligence on the part of the state sponsored counsel. Why doesn't M Ravi contest this point?

(click on image to enlarge)

Main defence line not followed up -

I cannot understand why Yong Vui Kong's current counsel and anti-death penalty lobbyists are so obsessed with challenging the interpretation of the constitution, to the point they appear to put that priority above VK's life itself.

Shouldn't the main line of defence now be that VK was not accorded a fair trial because:

- Was VK's unwillingness to call Chia then due to the fact he was afraid that the syndicate would harm him and/or his family?

- Why wasn't VK and his family accorded assurance of police protection then?

- Why didn't the state sponsored counsel advise VK accordingly so that he could be defended fairly and not be sent to the gallows?

- Does this not show incompetence and/or negligence on the part of VK's defence (which was state sponsored) team then, and hence, grounds for a fresh trial?

Like I said, I cannot understand why this line of argument is not followed up, but instead, the queer, unexplained obsession with the constitution continues.

Final Word -

I am against the Mandatory Death Penalty. But I am not against the Death Penalty itself.

At the same time, I feel that Yong Vui Kong's case is still very murky because not only the prosecution seems to be evasive why Chia was not prosecuted, but more importantly why do VK's current counsel and anti-death penalty lobbyists keep talking about the constitution rather than VK's case itself, when there appears to have enough ground to call for a fresh trial.

There are probably many Vui Kongs out there who would be hanged to death. Anti-death penalty lobbyists blame the system and miscarriage of justice. That may be so. But equally to be blamed is the misplacement of emphasis on the constitution instead of fighting for the defendant itself on the part of anti-death penalty lobbyists.

=========

Related Link: Lobbyists' non-disclosure incriminates Yong Vui Kong further

Relooking at why high pay doesn't attract (the right) talent

2012-01-28T19:00:00.007+08:00

I have posted the recent high profile cases on the CPIB probe as example why high pay does not necessarily mean it can stop corruption. In this post, I will discuss why dangling these material carrots may not even attract the right talent. But before that, let's look at the latest development in the two separate but not so separate cases so far.

CPIB probe: Woman IT exec involved with both men

The 36-year-old woman is assisting the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) in the cases involving the former chiefs of the SCDF and CNB, Mr Peter Lim Sin Pang (left) and Mr Ng Boon Gay (right). -- PHOTOS: SCDF, CHEW KOK WEI

A married IT executive is believed to have had sex with two top-ranking public officers being investigated under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The 36-year-old woman is assisting the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) in the cases involving the former chiefs of the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) and Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB), Mr Peter Lim Sin Pang and Mr Ng Boon Gay.

Sources told The Straits Times that the two men had been unaware that she had been intimate with both of them. Both officers are married. In Mr Ng's case, he had known the woman for over three years and they are believed to have been close since early 2009.

Ah, so it isn't just about money. It's about a woman as well. Now how are you going to address that?

Such scandals are not new or unique. It happens in many places to many high office holders too. Even Bill Clinton, then President of the US, fell for women. Headline news splashed about it all over the place.

So how are we going to prevent sex scandals from occurring in high offices? If one were to argue that high pay is to prevent corruption, can we by the same argument say providing women (or men, if the office holder is a woman or a gay) to high office holders would prevent sex scandals outside office?

Huh? Do I hear my critics moan? You think that's absurd? But you bought the idea that high pay prevents corruption, didn't you?

On the other hand, if you don't buy the argument that providing women (or men) to high office holders would stop them from being scandalous outside office, what makes you think paying them filthy high wages would stop them from being corrupted, if they already not are closet corrupts?

But providing women (or men) itself is scandalous! -

Spot on! At least you have the sense to realise that! Now admit that dishing out filthy high pay to high officials is also a scandal in itself. Why are you so unwilling to do it?

Critics may say that the main flaw with this analogy is that people work for money and not for women. I agree.

My point about providing high officials with women (or men) is to show you that if a person is a closet corrupt or a closet sexually scandalous person, he or she would fall for that sin anyway, high pay or low pay, with women supplied or no women supplied.

My point is that paying high does not eradicate corruption, the way providing women won't eradicate scandals and the scandalous high official from seeking more women than he's supplied with.

What does stop corruption and scandal has to come from inside the high office holder himself or herself- ie his/her moral values in him/her.

But critics to my idea would say it is a tall order to find such people. My answer is that you are insulting humankind. Just because there are people who are closet corrupts or sexually scandalous, doesn't mean that people with high morals don't exist.

Real life examples of politicians driven by non-monetary incentives -

If we look at the first generation of PAP politicians, they were not driven by money. They were driven by passion and belief. A belief that Singapore has to survive.

On the opposite side, we had the Leftists. They too worked hard and needed no money to drive them.

All over the world, we see this. Hamas worked hard against the anti-Palestine lobby and got elected into office democratically. Did they have money as the driving force? If money is in it for Hamas officials, they would have been Israel's and/or America's stooges who keep selling out their own people.

Likewise, in view of the Arab Spring the last year or so, we have seen how many politicians keep coming in to seek office to replace the highly paid corrupted officials sponsored by America. These newly elected officials (mainly from the Muslim Brotherhood) are not driven by money.

So what drives this people if not money? Passion. That's right. Passion, belief in what they are doing, and even their love for their religion.

Passion and Belief the biggest motivator -

It is passion and belief that will conquer mountains. It does not just occur among politicians. It occurs everywhere. Even the simple guy on the street who wants to live.

A good example that still exists today is the will of the Palestinians to live. For more than 40 years of Israeli oppression and massacre, the Palestinians are not giving up. It was on the agenda of many Israeli PMs (and it still is) in the past to remove Palestinians from their homes. Yet time and time again, in spite of the fact Israel has the most sophisticated weapons in the Mid East, the Palestinians fight back to get back their land. The Palestinians needed no money to fight back, did they?

How many Singaporeans are willing to fight a war to defend our land the way Palestinians did the last more than forty years?

Moral beliefs comes from inside unlike monetary incentives -

Let's not talk about being one people, one nation. Let's just talk about a simple belief that is related to the CPIB case and other high office scandalous cases. The belief we want to have in us is that we must have a high moral standard - ie no corruption including buying sexual favours. So how do we get that embedded in us and in our future generations?

Isn't it all back to teaching moral ethics right from very young? Again, critics will say that is just a Utopian Dream. My counter argument is that high pay never really worked at all. But at least, there's a history and real life cases where moral ethics and beliefs have worked. Moral ethics and beliefs have worked for the first generation PAP leaders.

We also saw how it worked for the Leftists in Singapore in the 1960s. We see how it worked for Hamas officials. Now we are seeing how it works for many newly elected Islamic politicians as the result of the Arab Spring.

Ironically, what has prevented them or still preventing these non corrupt officials from carrying out their goals is/was the current ruling govt of the day! Yes, the very govt that is in control in first place. Aren't these govts that are in control now using their big funds to oppress these upcoming uncorrupt officials?

Ah, again, the practice and belief that money is the one that controls everything.

Final Word -

One final criticism I see coming from my critics is this - where are we going to get people with passion and belief to serve high office?

Here's my reply. The current govt should let go of their desire to control everything in their desire to hold onto power. Stop harassing dissenters with ISA, threats and other disincentives. Those with the talent, desire and moral beliefs will come naturally after that.

Inherent flaw in S'pore's Employment Act pertaining to AWS

2012-01-27T07:44:00.004+08:00

A Court case in UK has ruled that the Annual Wage Supplement or AWS (otherwise known as 13th month bonus) is part of basic pay. This has implications because an employee's benefits is worked out on his basic pay.

13th month pay 'part of basic wage' in SIA case
The 13th month annual wage supplement is part of basic pay, an English court has ruled, in a case involving Singapore Airlines and a consultant firm.

The issue had emerged as a preliminary point to be settled in a court suit in London between SIA and Buck Consultants. SIA hired Buck in 1997 as a pension benefits consultant and administrator. But the airline sued Buck for alleged negligence over its drafting of revised pension scheme rules in 2000.

While the ruling is not legally binding here, lawyers say that the Englishcourt's rationale could be a reference point for employers mulling over whether to give the 13th month pay to older workers renegotiating their jobs. An SIA spokesman said the ruling had no impact on the airline as it had been including the 13th month payment when rehiring workers in Singapore past the retirement age of 62.

'The recent ruling in the UK court has no bearing on the practice,' he said. Under newly enacted laws that took effect this month, employers must offer re-employment to workers who turn 62, though not necessarily in the same job or on the same terms.

Reproduced full report here: https://docs.google.com/Doc?id=df8pj3wz_655dbgvbnxp

AWS implicitly not considered base pay in Singapore's Employment Act -

It is claimed that this ruling does not affect workers in Singapore. That can be argued if we look at the Employment Act on how salaries are calculated on a daily basis. See link below.

Calculation of Salary
There are two ways to calculate daily wages: the basic rate of pay, and the gross rate of pay.

Basic rate of pay is used to calculate pay for work on a rest day or public holiday.

For a monthly-rated employee, the basic rate of pay for one day is calculated as follows:

(12 X monthly basic rate of pay) divided by (52 X average number of days an employee is required to work in a week)

Note that the basic pay for one day's work is worked out on the basis of 12 months and not 13 months. The period covered is for a full year and that is shown in the 52 weeks.

But is this a fair method, or is there inherently a flaw here?

Argument for AWS being part of basic pay -

One argument that AWS is part of basic pay is the fact that being paid monthly is not as equitable as being paid weekly. For sure, there are only 7 days a week. But the number of days per month varies. That being the case, shouldn't the monthly payments also vary accordingly? But that would cause an admin headache. So in comes the AWS!

Here is a tabulation to show how being paid monthly instead of weekly entitles one to the AWS, which means AWS is part of basic pay and not a bonus given to employees as a privilege.

4 weeks in a month will give 28 days. But each month (with the exception of Feb) has more than 28 days. If we were to total the excess days, we will get 29 days, which is nearly one month.

Isn't this the one month we have been shortchanged when we are paid monthly instead of weekly? Isn't the AWS hence part of our (deferred) basic pay, which will be given to us at the end of the year?

My Views -

Currently, the Employment Act (in Singapore) is worded such that the AWS is not part of our basic wages. In view of the court ruling in the UK which deems AWS is part of basic pay, it would perhaps be time for the NTUC and MOM to work something out to get Parliament to amend the Employment Act to reflect that AWS is indeed part of basic pay.

Misleading report by ST on inflation

2012-01-26T10:03:00.006+08:00

A highly misleading article from the ST, portraying that the more well-off would be far more affected by inflation than less well-off was reported this morning. This is as good as a public lie. Sometimes I feel that some journalists smell as bad as the politicians they try to bootlick.

Inflation hit three-year high of 5.2% last year
Well-off bear biggest brunt of the price increases, figures show

Inflation surged to a three-year high of 5.2 per cent last year, driven by the higher costs of owning a car and steep rents. -- ST PHOTO: CAROLINE CHIA

Inflation surged to a three-year high of 5.2 per cent last year, driven by the higher costs of owning a car and steep rents.

But not all income groups felt the effects uniformly, with the well-off feeling the brunt of rising prices more, the Department of Statistics (DOS) said on Wednesday. Last year, the top 20 per cent of income earners were hit by an inflation rate of 5.7 per cent - much higher than the 4.7 per cent for the bottom 20 per cent of households.

But the difference is far sharper if the cost of renting a home is stripped out. More than 87 per cent of Singaporeans owned their homes in 2010 and do not pay rent. Minus the cost of rentals, the lowest 20 per cent of households had inflation of just 2.2 per cent, less than half the rate experienced by the top 20 per cent.

Minus the cost of rentals? But isn't the bottom 20% more likely to be renting out flats rather than buying homes because of their financial status? By removing this are you not skewing the stats deliberately to make it look as if the poor are not as badly affected, then claim the poorest of the poor is not having it as bad as the filthy rich?

Helloooo??? Did I must something here?

Now here's the misleading part. In the link above, there is a column titled "Background Story". Read what it says before I tell you where the misleading part is. I reproduce it below for those who are too lazy to visit ST's actual webpage, or if the link I gave expires. Here it is:

New gauge takes out accommodation cost

A NEW indicator that throws more light on the level of inflation was unveiled by the Department of Statistics (DOS) yesterday.

The number strips out imputed rents on owner-occupied accommodation (OOA) from the overall consumer price index (CPI) compilation.

Imputed rent is typically calculated to reflect how much a household would have to pay if it were renting the home, based on market rates.

It is the only non-cash item in the basket of data used to compile the CPI, so by stripping it out, the index can more accurately reflect households' actual expenditure.

As of 2010, around 87.2 per cent of households own their homes and therefore do not need to pay rent.

The DOS said in a statement yesterday that the 'changes in the CPI-imputed rentals on OOA... have no direct impact on the monthly cash expenditure of most households in Singapore'.

This latest indicator - CPI less imputed rentals on owner-occupied accommodation - was 4.3 per cent higher last month compared with the same month a year before that.

The DOS also compiles the overall, or headline, inflation figure. The figure for last month was 5.5 per cent.

Apart from this headline figure, the DOS calculates a CPI figure excluding accommodation costs. That means it excludes the non-cash item - imputed rentals - as well as other items such as maintenance fees, which are paid out in cash.

Accommodation cost was the single largest driver of headline inflation last month.

The Monetary Authority of Singapore and the Ministry of Trade and Industry said in a joint report that the increase in accommodation cost 'reflected the sharp rise in imputed rentals on owner-occupied accommodation'.

Compiling an indicator for CPI less accommodation helps to strip out volatility.

This volatility arises due to the rebates for service and conservancy charges that are given to households living in HDB flats, at different times of the year.

The Monetary Authority of Singapore also compiles a core, or underlying, inflation number that strips out accommodation and private road transport. The core inflation stood at 2.2 per cent for the year.

For the whole of last year, the rise in CPI less imputed rentals on owner-occupied accommodation was 4.2 per cent. The overall CPI was 5.2 per cent.

MELISSA TAN

Here is a screenshot of the tabulation given by ST in their link found in their webpage. The link is here. CPI RISE FROM 2010 TO 2011. The screenshot is found below.

Still unable to find where the misleading part is? Don't blame you. It is so well crafted, you have to go through it with a fine-tooth comb to see the lie ST puts up.

For those who still can't see it, I'll walk through this stuff with you.

Walkthrough -

1. First, ST reports that the upper income earners experience a higher rate of inflation than the lower income earners. Then ST reports that the gap is greater if cost of rentals is stripped out. (But why should this even be stripped out when the biggest cost to low income earners is housing costs due to rental costs?)

2. Next they try to give you a "Background Story" and by doing so, conflate two different issues, which are: 1) actual cost of rental experienced by low income earners, and; 2) imputed rentals which a home owner would have to pay, based on the assumption that is the rental amount he has to pay, if he were to pay rent for that home he resides in.

3. I know #2 sounds confusing. But what it means is that if the homeowner does not own his home, it is assumed he would have to pay rent for that house. That's what is being stripped out from the calculation of the CPI. Rightly so. He doesn't need to pay that rent, hence, why should it be considered as part of the calculation in the first place?

4. ST on the other hand is trying to say if actual rental costs paid by low income owners is stripped off, the lowest income earners would have an even lower CPI and hence, making the CPI gap between highest and lowest income earners even greater than it already is - meaning the highest income earners would be "suffering" even much more than lower income earners now!

5. But isn't the rental paid mostly by low income earners actual costs and should therefore remain as part of CPI calculation - as rightly is being done so now, as can be seen from the screen shot above? The actual rental costs is under "Housing".

6. Imputed rent, which has been truly stripped off (the red row in the screenshot above) is a non-cash item because it is based on assumption that the homeowner pays rent, if he were not the owner of that home.

7. So while the imputed rent has been rightfully stripped off, ST tries to confuse readers that housing costs, which is the highest for low income earners, if stripped off, would mean the rich would "suffer even much more" than the poor now. But why should that be the case? Trying to fudge some figures there, ST?

8. Note the very misleading statement by ST in the "Background Report" -

Apart from this headline figure, the DOS calculates a CPI figure excluding accommodation costs. That means it excludes the non-cash item - imputed rentals - as well as other items such as maintenance fees, which are paid out in cash.

Accommodation cost was the single largest driver of headline inflation last month.

Now take a look at the figures in the screenshot above. Isn't the single largest driver for low income earners "housing"?

So isn't ST trying to confuse readers that the imputed rentals (which has been stripped off) is the same as "housing", by lumping both items as "accommodation"?

Isn't ST trying to confuse you that since it is justified to remove imputed rentals, it is also justified to remove housing, because both are accommodation?

9. The Dept of Stats, Min of Trade and Industry and MAS all agree that imputed rentals should not figure in the calculation. That is a step in the right direction. It shouldn't be there in the first place. But why is ST trying to infer that all accommodation costs (including actual rent paid) also be removed?

My Summation and Views -

To the poorest of the poor, housing (in terms of rent) is the biggest cost. ST tells us if that is removed, it doesn't look so bad for the poor guys.

ST then tries to confuse readers by conflating two different items, which are actual rent paid by the lowest income earners with imputed rentals the very rich would have to pay if they paid rent on the residence they are living in.

This is journalism that stinks so bad, even the stray dog in my neighbourhood would die of a heart attack if it smelled the stench from the misleading ST report.

Don't be quick to judge CPIB probe? How about telling that to PAP?

2012-01-25T20:19:00.007+08:00

Two PAP MPs say that the public should not judge the two high profile cases pertaining to the CPIB probe. One involving the Head of SCDF and the other the Head of CNB.

CPIB probe: Public should wait before passing judgment, say MPs

Mr Hri Kumar Nair (left) and Mr Alvin Yeo (right). -- ST PHOTO: STEPHANIE YEOW

The public should await the outcome of investigations before passing judgment on the case involving two senior Home Team officers, said MPs on Tuesday.

Mr Hri Kumar Nair, chairman of the Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) for Law and Home Affairs, said: 'The authorities are doing what they are expected to do. Let's not jump to conclusions and start making judgments before the authorities have finished investigations.'

He was reacting to news that the chiefs of the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) and Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) have been replaced and are being investigated. His views were echoed by fellow GPC member Alvin Yeo, who said: 'It is good to know that our authorities are vigilant and will follow up on every lead.'

Here's an update on the issue @ 7 pm on 25 Jan 2012. From the ST.

SCDF and CNB chiefs on bail, in separate investigations
Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) chief Peter Lim Sin Pang and Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) director Ng Boon Gay were arrested on Jan 4 and Dec 19 respectively, by officers from the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB).

The bureau, responding to queries from The Straits Times on Wednesday, said both men were arrested under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA) but were released on bail and are now assisting the CPIB in what are 'separate investigations'.

The CPIB did not elaborate on the details of their probe, a spokesman said: 'Given the nature of our work and as our investigations under the PCA are still ongoing, the CPIB is unable to provide further details.'

We can safely assume without waiting for the outcome that wrongdoings have occurred because:

1. The CPIB won't arrest the two men if they don't have enough ground to do so.

2. The two men won't be relieved of their duties from their respective posts if there is not enough evidence.

3. The probe and the arrests were made quite some time back, but only made known now. Isn't this a sign CPIB is sure of the outcome?

The above said, let's scrutinize Mr Hri Kumar's and Mr Alvin Yeo's plea to the public not to judge too soon. If at all, it is the PAP that has been judging opposition members and/or dissenters all along, even when no proper investigation is carried out. So why this holier than thou attitude from these PAPpy MPs?

Wasn't Tang Liang Hong called a Chinese chauvinist (without reason)? Wasn't Francis Seow judged to be working for Marxists such that he was detained? Wasn't his son, Ashleigh, also targetted because it was assumed he worked in collusion with his dad?

Wasn't Dr Ang Swee Chai detained under the ISA because it was assumed that her husband was a "Euro Communisit"? The detention of Dr Ang also highlights the point it is assumed she was working in collusion with her husband on Communist ideals.

Were not the "Marxist Conspirators" of the 1980s arrested because it was assumed they planned to infiltrate the WP to introduce Marxism in Singapore? If the govt had evidence against them, they would have just arrested them and put them on trial. But since there was not enough evidence, they were detained under ISA. Isn't this assuming they were guilty?

There's a whole long list of assumptions that can be listed.

Let not any PAPpy MP portray he is standing on high moral ground, when it is the PAP itself that has done the judging and assuming the most.

==========

Related link - SCDF Comm and CNB Chief cases prove high pay does not eradicate corruption

SCDF Comm and CNB Chief cases prove high pay does not eradicate corruption

2012-01-24T13:36:00.006+08:00

For all the horn blowing by PAPpies that Singapore's govt is not corrupted (like some other countries around which PAPpy has been mocking), the cases of the SCDF Commissioner's under suspension, and CNB Chief under probe, both for corruption, it is now shown that high pay does not remove corrupted officials from high office.

What keeps corruption away is the moral fibre of the leader and/or high official. That cannot be bought with high wages.

SCDF commissioner suspended, CNB chief under probe

The Commissioner of the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF), Peter Lim (left) , has been suspended from his duties and the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) chief, Ng Boon Gay (right), has been questioned by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB), according to Chinese daily Lianhe Wanbao. -- PHOTOS: SCDF AND MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
The Commissioner of the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF), Peter Lim, has been suspended from his duties and the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) chief, Ng Boon Gay, has been questioned by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB), according to Chinese daily Lianhe Wanbao.

In a front page story on Tuesday, the paper quoting reliable sources, said that Mr Lim had been suspended for nearly a month and six other SCDF officials, including two of senior rank, are also under investigation. The paper quoted sources as saying the case is 'linked to money and women'. Mr Lim had his use of the official SCDF car taken away from him, said the report. Mr Ng was said to have been called in for questioning by the CPIB but no further details were given on when exactly he did so.

Mr Lim, 51, became the SCDF Commissioner in May 2009, moving up from the rank of Deputy Commissioner. He has been in the SCDF for 24 years. He was an engineering service officer, rising through the ranks to become deputy commissioner in June 2005.

Mr Ng Boon Gay, 45, has been in the Police Force for 20 years. A local government merit scholar, he was previously in the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) before taking over at the CNB in January last year. In his term as the CID director, he oversaw the setting-up of the Casino Investigation Branch to deal with casino-related crime amongst other responsibilities.

Next time PM or any other PAPpy member tries to tell you that high pay eradicates corruption, tell them that morals cannot be bought.

If you can buy someone with high wages to serve high office, you have bought someone who is already a closet corrupt.

That's why the high wages needed to stop corruption argument never convinces me. Never.

==========

News update - Don't be quick to judge CPIB probe? How about telling that to PAP?

American atrocities - Little girl shot in head and lives to tell her story

2012-01-24T09:17:00.005+08:00

The United States of Terrormerica, the Number One Terror Nation, continues to commit crimes in the name of Democrazy.

WAR WITH IRAN: MORE CHILDREN WILL SUFFER

A little girl was shot in the head by the Americans.

0:15 min -
Interviewer: Why do you need surgery?

Little girl: Because in my head, I got shoot.

Interviewer: And who shot you?

Little girl: America people.

0:30 min - bullet entered girl's left temple, exited through her forehead. When the bullet exited, it exploded and shattered her skull.

0:50 min -
Interviewer: If you could talk to the soldier who shot you, what would you say?

Little girl: Why did you shoot me? It's not fair. I did not do anything. Why you shoot me? I'm a girl.

Note the little girl's pain and innocent smile as she wonders why she was shot.

1:30 min - More victims are introduced in the video.

The little girl's op was sponsored by "No More Victims", an American NGO that opposes the wars.

Stop the madness. Stop the wars.

Visit NoMoreVictims.org for more information.

Lawyers' Association (ACLS), Lapdog of PAPpy

2012-01-23T11:11:00.004+08:00

Like the NTUC that laps up, drools and barks supportingly on every issue PAPpy's govt arm does on Labour issues, the ACLS does the same for every issue PAPpy's govt arm does on Criminal/Legal issues.

Lawyers' association explains stand on AGC's discretion
THE Association of Criminal Lawyers of Singapore (ACLS) supports the decision of the Court of Appeal in Ramalingam Ravinthran versus Attorney-General ('Apex court clears air on A-G's power'; Jan 11), both on principle and on authority.

ACLS believes that given the nature and width of the prosecutorial discretion vested in the Attorney-General by Article 35(8) of the Constitution, the view that the Attorney-General should explain how he exercises his discretion is misplaced.

There must be an element of trust and faith that the Attorney-General will carry out his duty in good faith. That element of trust is institutionalised in the Constitution of Singapore. Without such faith and trust, the legal system in our country will not work effectively and efficiently.

While ACLS would defend and protect the rights of all accused persons as it should, it also recognises that the protection of the innocent should be of paramount importance in the criminal justice system.

Our criminal justice system has numerous forms of checks and balances to ensure that no one person has unfettered discretion. The exercise of prosecutorial discretion involves numerous layers of internal review. There would be no end to matters if every single decision is questioned excessively. However, it is clear that meritorious cases will be reviewed by the court should the need arise.

The fact remains that it is Parliament which needs to legislate such change if the people demand change. In the meantime, the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) must continue to carry out its duties pursuant to the Constitution. ACLS trusts in this.

Subhas Anandan
President
Association of Criminal Lawyers of Singapore

Isn't the issue that the public needs to know the details as how it is decided the Prosecution decides what charge is to be made against the accused that is the core point? And the Lawyers' Association supports the idea that everyone should just trust the system? Hellooo?

For those who want a quick background on the case, this is about how one man, Ramalingam Ravinthran, was charged with a capital crime, while his co-accused, had a non-capital crime charged against him. Both men committed the same crime. There lies the issue. Ramalingam's defence asks why was his charge not lowered too.

Related links here:
Death Penalty: Ramalingan Ravinthran, another blooper by anti-death penalty lobbyists?

AG's explanation on Ramalingam's case unconvincing

Isn't the real issue about the Mandatory Death Sentence, which AGC is grappling with? -

You don't need to be a legal expert to sense that this double standard, where two men are charged differently for the same crime, is due to the fact that the Prosecution was trying hard to allow Ramalingam's co-accused to escape the Mandatory Death Sentence. You see, the co-accused has an IQ of only 68.

There lies the problem of the Mandatory Death Sentence for Drug Trafficking. I am against the Mandatory Death Sentence. This is not to be confused with the Death Sentence itself.

If the co-accused is charged with a capital crime like Ramalingam, and if he is found guilty, he would be hanged to death. That's because hanging is mandatory. So in all probability, in order not to have him hanged, the co-accused had his charge reduced.

But this of course triggers the question why was Ramalingim's charge not reduced, when both committed same crime.

Many side issues on the Ramalingam case -

There are many side issues in this unique case. In summary they are:

1. The prerogative of the Prosecution to decide what charge, and more importantly, its non obligation to tell the public or even the defence, why it is decided on that charge, does not bode well for the work towards transparency. The AGC talks as if the prosecutional authority is his god-given right.

2. The ACLS has shown itself, like the NTUC, to be nothing more than a lapdog of the govt. It shows it is not an institution to protect the rights of citizens.

3. The Singapore Govt, in this case the Judiciary, is showing the world it rather worms its way out of the controversial Mandatory Death Sentence, than addressing the issue itself.

4. Most importantly, I feel the anti-Death Penalty campaigners goofed this one big time, contesting Ramalingam's charge by questioning its legality citing the Constitution. The govt will NEVER touch the constitution. What the lobbyists should have done was to argue Ramalingam's case on its own merits and ask for a reduced charge. By citing the constitution, the Courts simply hardened their stand.

My Final Word -

If not for the tragedy that Ramalingam would be hanged, all this certainly looks like one big circus with the govt, NGOs and some anti-Death Penalty Lobbyists performing for the world to see their comical act.

Why all this loopy explanation and act, when the issue is about transparency and the right for the public to know how the Prosecution comes to the decision on what the charge should be?

AG's explanation on Ramalingam's case unconvincing

2012-01-22T08:45:00.004+08:00

Ramalingam has been charged with a capital crime for drug trafficking. His co-accused was charged for a crime that does not warrant the Death Penalty. Problem is both committed the same offence.

The defence for Rmalaingam argued that Rmaa should have his charge reduced to save him from the gallows. I touched a little on that here - Death Penalty: Ramalingan Ravinthran, another blooper by anti-death penalty lobbyists?

Ramalingam's appeal was rejected. Here is the Attorney General's explanation why it is possible for Rama and his co-founder to be charged for different charges when both committed the same crime. Central to the argument is that the AG has prosecutorial discretion. Franky, I am not convinced.

AGC: Robust reviews before discretion is exercised
(You need to be logged in as a subscriber to read the full report. Otherwise, you will only get a truncated report.)

AGC: Robust reviews before discretion is exercised
Internal guidelines exist; findings of innocence or guilt decided by courts

By K. C. Vijayan
The Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) on Friday sought to reassure the public that its decisions to charge offenders involved in the same crime differently are done only after thorough reviews by many levels of officers.

There are internal guidelines that guide its officers and ultimately the finding of guilt or innocence is determined by the courts and not the AGC, it said in a statement.

Note that we are not told what these "internal guidelines" are.

The reassurance comes in the wake of a recent case that sparked debate on the issue of prosecutorial discretion.

What "assurance" when we are kept in the dark? Just take the AG's word for it?

Last week, the Court of Appeal ruled that it is neither unlawful nor unconstitutional for the Attorney-General to artificially reduce the amount of drugs in a trafficker's charges, to differentiate them from those of his accomplice.

But the court, in a written judgment by Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong, stressed that the Attorney-General's decision to prosecute can be called into question if he acted unfairly in the use of his discretion.

If no clear guidelines are made public, what is "unfair" is just subjective.

In the case, Ramalingam Ravinthran was sentenced to death for trafficking in cannabis, while his accomplice was jailed for 20 years and given 24 strokes of the cane.

Ramalingam had filed a motion to question if the Attorney-General had deprived him of his right to fair treatment and sought to have his charges amended.

Several lawyers, academics and human rights group Maruah had commented on the case, asking the AGC to be more transparent in its decisions to prosecute.

In its statement on Friday, the AGC explained why it might not be appropriate to do so for many reasons, from constitutional right to efficiency and public interest.

Note the usual crap why info cannot be shared to the public.

It began by noting that prosecutorial discretion is provided for in the Constitution and is a responsibility undertaken with full recognition of its impact on society.

Isn't that just an interpretation? There is nothing in the constitution that says the reason for deciding what the charge be against the accused not be made public. In any case, there is also nothing that states that the interpretation that prosecutorial discretion of AG cannot be challenged. AG speaks as if it is his god-given right.

The public should be assured that each decision is made carefully, with full consideration of the facts and due regard to what is required in the public interest.'

The only way the public is assured is when the reasons for the different charges be made open to the public for scrutiny.

The rest of the article is just more mere rhetoric. No convincing explanation as to why the reasons cannot be made public in the name of transparency.

The AGC explained that in everyday matters, prosecutorial discretion is exercised by officers working under the close supervision of the Chief Prosecutors of the various crime divisions. In turn, they are supervised by the Solicitors-General and the Attorney-General.

The decision to charge a person is taken by at least two officers with at least one separate higher level of review in all cases.

'In many cases, including capital cases, there are multiple levels of review including personal review by the Attorney-General.'

Among other things, the officers look at the evidence, the facts as they relate to the law, the investigations done and the public interest in charging the accused person.

Cases in which two offenders may have been caught in apparently similar circumstances but are charged differently could be due to a wide range of factors.

These include the strength of evidence, the cooperation shown by the accused and mitigating circumstances such as mental or physical weakness, which might call for a compassionate approach.

Internal guidelines exist to ensure consistency. But these guidelines are not published and the Attorney-General does not generally explain his prosecutorial decisions because in arriving at the decisions, he and his officers 'consider a large number of often competing interests, including those of the victim, the accused person and society as a whole'.

Also, with the inevitable resource constraints, the AGC has to prioritise and it takes into account enforcement priorities, among other things.

By not publishing the guidelines, the Attorney-General is also able to be flexible when it needs to depart from them. This is critical because each case can then be scrutinised on its own merits 'at a nuanced level, which is the cornerstone of prosecutorial discretion', said the AGC.

Revealing the guidelines would also show which areas the prosecution is focused on and may incentivise offenders to commit crimes where they expect lesser charges.

Demand for reasons behind every decision would also delay proceedings and lead to frequent challenges by people unhappy with specific decisions, said the AGC.

It also noted that in the United States, the Supreme Court too has been reluctant to examine the basis of a prosecution as this is a function of the executive branch of the government.

This is also the case here, as provided for in the Constitution. Any shift would impair the Attorney-General's ability to prosecute.

Noted the AGC: 'While the Attorney-General determines who is charged and what charge is preferred, the determination of guilt or innocence, and consequently, punishment, is solely within the province of the court after it has considered the evidence and heard full arguments.'

It added that the Attorney-General's powers were open to judicial review and correction if it is shown they were exercised wrongly or in an arbitrary manner.
'There are clear remedies in cases where prosecutorial discretion has been exercised unlawfully or contrary to the Constitution.'

Separately, the Association of Criminal Lawyers of Singapore said on Friday that recent calls for more transparency in the Attorney-General's decisions were 'misplaced'.

'There must be an element of trust and faith that the Attorney-General will carry out his duty in good faith. Without such trust and faith the legal system will not work effectively.'

vijayan@sph.com.sg

Note how the Association of Criminal Lawyers simply lap up everything the AG says. No different from how some pro-PAPpy NGOs lap up PAPpy's crappy stuff.

Here's the background to the case, taken from the same link.

Case that sparked the debate

RAMALINGAM Ravinthran and his accomplice Sundar Arujunan seemed destined to face the hangman, after they were arrested in 2006 for trafficking in cannabis.

Sundar, however, escaped the gallows when he was charged with trafficking in a shade less than the quantity that draws the mandatory death penalty.

This, after the Attorney-General exercised its prosecutorial discretion and reduced the amount of drugs specified in the charges against him.

But when Ramalingam was dealt with later, the quantities of drugs in the charges against him still meant the death penalty.

Sundar pleaded guilty to the lesser charges and was sentenced to 20 years' jail and 24 strokes of the cane.

Ramalingam, however, was convicted and put on death row.

After he had exhausted his avenues of appeal in September 2010, he filed a motion in an attempt to reopen his case.

Central to his application was that even though he and Sundar were involved in the same crime, he was prosecuted for capital offences whereas Sundar was accused of non-capital offences.

Ramalingam wanted his charges amended so there would be no difference in their punishment.

Last week, the Court of Appeal dismissed his motion in a 48-page written judgment delivered by Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong.

CJ Chan in his judgment, said it is not unlawful or unconstitutional, for the Attorney-General to artificially reduce the amount of drugs specified in a trafficker's charges, to differentiate from those of his accomplice.

Prosecutorial discretion refers to the powers of the Attorney-General to decide what charges to prefer against an accused person. It is a power that cannot be challenged except under exceptional circumstances such as when the Attorney-General has used it unfairly. The Attorney-General cannot be compelled to explain his use of discretion in deciding what offences to proceed with.

K. C. VIJAYAN

=========

Update - Lawyers' Association (ACLS), Lapdog of PAPpy

How Noor Atiqah's life is saved without challenging the Death Penalty

2012-01-21T07:40:00.005+08:00

In my last article on the issue of Death Penalty, I argued how Singapore's anti-Death Penalty campaigners have the tendency to challenge the interpretation of the Constitution pertaining to the Death Penalty and/or Mandatory Death Penalty rule. I also mentioned how other means like convincing the courts to have the capital charge reduced is not followed up as an appeal. Here is that article - Death Penalty: Ramalingan Ravinthran, another blooper by anti-death penalty lobbyists?

In this post, I shall discuss how a convicted life has been saved without challenging the Death Penalty rule itself. This is the story of Noor Atiqah, convicted and condemned to death for drug trafficking. The case was heard in Malaysia.

Singapore's anti-Death Penalty lobbyists can take a leaf from Malaysia. While our lobbyists have taken the one-track route, ie challenging the legality of the Death Penalty and/or Mandatory Death Penalty, they have totally missed out other more effective and proven ways how lives are saved from the gallows.

Here is Noor Atiqah's story. She was convicted and condemned to death - until a capital charge against her was reduced.

Singapore woman escapes gallows in Malaysia

Noor Atiqah, saved from the gallows not because the defence successfully challenged the Death Penalty, but because the Court decided against the Prosecution and had her charged with a non-capital crime instead of a capital crime.
KUALA LUMPUR - A Singaporean woman sentenced to death in Malaysia for drug trafficking has been spared the gallows, after the charge against her was reduced to possession instead, an offence which does not carry the mandatory death penalty in Malaysia.

Noor Atiqah M. Lasim, 26, will now have to serve a 12-year jail term instead, after she was caught with 370g of heroin and other drugs in her bag at the Sepang airport budget terminal on Jan 5, 2009.

She has maintained all along that she had not known that the bag she was carrying contained drugs.

During the Court of Appeal hearing in Putrajaya on Wednesday morning, the prosecution decided not to contest the appeal against the conviction for trafficking.

I have for countless of times argued with anti-Death Penalty lobbyists that the more effective way to save a condemned person's life is to argue for the capital charge against the accused be reduced. I argued it for Yong Vui Kong's case. The lobbyists' reply has always been the same - ie it is the Prosecutor's prerogative to decide whatever the charge may be.

My reply to that is simple. No one in Singapore has challenged the opinion it is the prosecutor's right to decide the charge. That being the case, why are anti-Death Penalty Campaigners assuming the Courts won't allow the charge be reduced?

Noor Atiqah's case shows that it can be done. Note that it is the Court of Appeal that overrules the High Court. It was the High Court that condemned her to death. The Court of Appeal overturned that decision by having the accused's charge reduced to a non Capital Crime. Note that the Prosecution does not intend to appeal against that.

Back to Singapore's cases of condemned criminals. So why are Singapore's anti-Death Penalty lobbyists not taking the same route? Why are they always stuck in the "let's challenge the interpretation of the constitution" route pertaining to the Death Penalty?

The main idea is to save lives. Of course if the Death Penalty is repealed, it would be a blanket assurance no further lives would be condemned to the gallows. But in the meantime, why is not the safer route, ie capital charge reduced, being pursued?

If anti-Death Penalty lobbyists are serious about saving lives, they can take a leaf from Malaysia's court. Noor Atiqah's case is proof of that.

A deeper analysis of Noor Atiqah' case -

To understand better what is the reason for the Court of Appeal's overturning of Atiqah's case, here's a link to ST's reproduced full report - https://docs.google.com/View?id=df8pj3wz_654csh45ncz
Relevant excerpt here:
When her case went before the Court of Appeal, however, Mr Gobind was given rare permission by the court to introduce fresh evidence.

The lawyer produced a detention order from the Home Ministry stating that Mr Stanley had been operating a drug trafficking syndicate, with details that linked him to Noor Atiqah's case.

This new evidence probably led to the prosecution's decision not to contest the appeal, Mr Gobind told The Straits Times on Thursday.

Anti-Death Penalty lobbyists may argue that in Atiqah's case, there was reason for the downgrading of the charge and hence, the defence appealed for that. My reply is, so what makes you think there isn't any case for Vui Kong's charge to be downgraded?

According to the reports on Atiqah's case, the "new evidence" was that it is shown that Atiqah had been linked to a known drug syndicate operator. As such, her charged was downgraded to possession of drugs, rather than drug trafficking - a crime that does not carry the Death Penalty in Malaysia.

(Personally, I don't buy that new defence argument. Doesn't the link to the syndicate operator actually reinforce that she was trafficking even the more? Anyway, that saved her life.)

In Vui Kong's case, there is no such "new evidence". But the trial judge did recommend a downgrade of charge that does not warrant the Death Penalty. The PP declined. Why didn't the defence contest?

The fact is that the defence in Malaysia did not challenge the sanctity of the Death Penalty, or for that matter Mandatory Death Penalty. The defence worked straight on the issue - Noor Atiqah's case itself. The Court of Appeal hence took the evidence presented by the defence and was in no way distracted by the arduous task of decidiing the legality of the Death Penalty itself. The decision was quick, simple and effective. Atiqah was thus saved from the gallows. Period.

Question time for anti-Death Penalty lobbyists in Singapore -

Now why can't anti-Death Penalty lobbyists in Singapore be just as efficient as that? Why get bogged down challenging the validity of Death Penalty and/or Mandatory Death Penalty, wasting precious time in their bid to save the condemned?

There is always ample time to campaign to repeal the Death Penalty. But when time is of essence and the condemned's ultimate doom draws near, there isn't the luxury of long, arduous court hearings. The immediate concern is to save the life of the convicted.

Atiqah's case shows that when the defence just sticks to the case itself and not get bogged down by challenging the Death Penalty, things will work out favourably for the accused.

My Conclusion -

The top priority is the lives of the convicted. The campaign to have the Death Penalty and/or Mandatory Death Penalty repealed is secondary. Anti-Death Penalty campaigners in Singapore should keep that in mind.

From the cases we have seen so far, the most effective way is to get the charge reduced to a non-capital charge. We can discuss about repealing the Death Penalty when we have the time do so - after the lives of the convicted have been saved.

Death Penalty: Ramalingan Ravinthran, another blooper by anti-death penalty lobbyists?

2012-01-20T08:01:00.008+08:00

I have been following the cases anti-Death Penalty lobbyists have been campaigning. The most well-known case is of course Yong Vui Kong, who is now awaiting his execution.

In Vui Kong's case, I argued that M Ravi (Vui Kong's lawyer) should have contested the whole trial itself, because the trial judge recommended that Vui Kong be charged with a non-capital punishment crime. The PP refused and the then counsel (a state sponsored one) did not contest. Then when M Ravi took over from the state counsel, he too did not contest that!

I brought this issue up in some casual comments of blogs with some lobbyists. The answer given was that the PP's decision "cannot be contested". Personally, I don't buy that argument. It appears to me that M Ravi didn't even attempt to contest in Vui Kong's case.

Now, we have another case. Another man is awaiting his death for drugs, like Vui Kong. But the difference now is that M Ravi is contesting the PP's decision not to have the accused (Ramalingam Ravinthram) charged with a lower crime that does not warrant the Death Penalty.

So why didn't M Ravi also contest to have Vui Kong's charge lowered, which was recommended by the trial judge, instead of contesting the legality of the Death Penalty and/or Mandatory Death Penalty itself?

Background on Vui Kong's case -

I have written a few articles about Vui Kong. Here an article published pertaining to the background for those who are not familiar.

Yong Vui Kong's story is still murky - can those who lobby for him enlighten me?
The points in the article can be summarized in the excerpt below.
1. Why didn't the original counsel (ie Kelvin Lim) contest the prosecution's unwillingness to downgrade Vui Kong's charge as suggested by the judge so that VK won't face the Death Penalty?

2. Why doesn't M Ravi (his current counsel) contest that Vui Kong had the chance of escaping the gallows, when the trial judge suggested a lower charge, but was rejected by the prosecution, and left unconstested by the then defence?

3. It is mentioned that Vui Kong requested his counsel (Kelvin Lim) to withdraw the appeal because he "did not want to lie". But withdrawing an appeal would mean sure death. Why didn't Kelvin Lim advise his client? Isn't this an act of unprofessionalism on the part of Vui Kong's then counsel? Is not counsel supposed to act in the best interest of the client? Yet, he allowed young Vui Kong to die without an appeal?

4. More importantly, why didn't M Ravi highlight this, contest the whole trial itself because Vui Kong was represented by an inept and unprofessional state-assigned defence lawyer, and ask for a retrial - and this time get the charge reduced to one that does not warrant the Death Penalty, as suggested by Justice Choo?

As we know, M Ravi never took the route to contest the PP when the PP did not lower the charge to avoid the Mandatory Death Penalty, as per trial judge's recommendation. Instead, M Ravi contested the legality of the Death Penalty itself, citing the Constitution.

At the same time, M Ravi did not contest to have a retrial even though it can be seen that the first counsel (state sponsored) was less than professional in his execution of duties.

Wouldn't these arguments have been the easier route to save Yong Vui Kong's life?

Now let's take a look at Ramalingam's case where M Ravi does contest against the PP's decision to charge the accused which carries the Mandatory Death Sentence.

Background on Ramalingam Ravinthram's case -

From an anti-Death Penalty campaigner. How much discretion should the Prosecution have?
The Court of Appeal has reserved its judgement in the case of Ramalingam Ravinthran v Attorney-General after the appellant’s lawyer Mr M Ravi mounted a challenge to the use of prosecutorial discretion at the Supreme Court on Wednesday.

Mr Ravinthran was arrested alongside with a Mr Sundar Arujunan in 2006. Both were charged with drug trafficking.

However, while Mr Ravinthran was charged with the full amount of drugs (5560g of cannabis and 2078g cannabis mixture), Mr Arujunan was only charged with trafficking in 499.99g of cannabis and 999.99g of cannabis mixture, just below the thresholds for the Mandatory Death Penalty. Therefore, Mr Arujunan has received 20 years in jail with caning, while Mr Ravinthran is on death row.

“Equal before the law”

Human rights lawyer Mr Ravi argued before Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong, Justice V K Rajah and Justice Andrew Phang that although the prosecution does have discretion in charging individuals, this discretion is limited by Article 12 (1) of the Singapore Constitution, which states, “All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.” Thus, it is unfair for the prosecution to charge two individuals with the same offence, yet with different amounts that result in unequal sentences.

Again, note M Ravi's tendency to cite the Constitution to argue his case against Death Penalty. Isn't this a dead end? M Ravi's core argument is "equality". Why was the co-accused charged reduced, but not for Ramalingam, when both committed the very same offence?

Some may argue that in Ramalingam's case, there is ground to argue for a lower charge because his co-accused was charged with a lower crime that does not warrant the death sentence. Hence, M Ravi argues on grounds of "equality" to have Rama's charge lowered too.

Let's leave aside the fact that can backfire because if equality is the issue, the PP could have raised the charge for the co-accused that warrants the Mandatory Death Penalty! Now what?

My big question is, why is the point that PP's decision is final not contested? Isn't it easier to contest the interpretation that the final decision belongs to PP, than to contest the Death Penalty citing the constitution?

Are we going to see another blooper made by anti-Death Penalty campaigners again, this time with Ramalingam's life?

There is a very glaring similar point in Rama's case with Vui Kong's case which M Ravi and anti-Death Penalty lobbyists appear to miss totally - the judge's compassion. Shouldn't they have worked on it? The judges in both cases appear to disagree with the PP. Why didn't M Ravi work on this? Excerpt continues below.
Decisions should be left to Prosecution

Public Prosecutor Ms Mavis Chionh said that although Article 12 requires equal punishment for the same level of legal guilt, it does not require equal punishment for different moral blameworthiness.

However, Justice Rajah asked how two people could be charged with different amounts despite it being the same bag of drugs, saying, “Is it proper prosecutorial discretion to salami slice the physical amount?”

In both the cases for Vui Kong and Ramalingam, both judges appear compassionate towards the accused. Both judges gave the condemned a leg up and a lifeline to live. Yet M Ravi did not even contest the PP's position when it claims that it has the final say? Instead M Ravi takes the "let's challenge the Death Penalty citing the constitution" route? Huh ?????

Yet another case study of Compassionate Judge; this time he gives PP no hoot -

Here is another case where the judge is much more compassionate than the PP. This time, the judge gives PP no hoot. Well, that's what the writer claims. Here is the article, written by none other than Teo Soh Lung, politician from SDP and ex-ISA detainee.

How fair is our criminal justice system?
The recent decision in the motion filed by M Ravi, lawyer for Ramalingam Ravinthran complaining that in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, his client was unfairly charged with the crime that carries the mandatory death penalty is disturbing. Ramalingam was charged and sentenced to death for trafficking in cannabis while his accomplice was jailed for 20 years and given 24 strokes of the cane, a sentence which cannot be considered light especially if the claim that he has low IQ is true.

...[snip]...

I too had a taste of how arrogant prosecutors had become. In one case, my client was fortunately saved by the senior district judge and in the other, my client paid the price. The former dealt with an adult offender over 30 years of age. He came from a very good family but due to his mother’s terminal illness and his inability to cope with his depression, he shoplifted dvds from various shops all in one morning. He was caught and it was not difficult to know where he had stolen the articles. He was a first time offender and had a history of mental illness. The prosecutor charged him with more than 4 offences, taking each object of theft as one charge.

I naturally plea bargained with the prosecutor but he was only willing to reduce the number of charges to 3 which meant that the judge in sentencing would have no choice but to give him consecutive sentences and not concurrent sentences. The senior district judge was surprised that the prosecutor had taken such a tough stand against a first time offender and advised that perhaps I should see the senior deputy prosecutor. I did but to no avail. I then informed the judge in mitigation that that was the prosecutor’s stand. I asked that my client be put on probation even though it was rare that an adult would receive probation. The wise and compassionate judge granted probation, much to the surprise of the prosecutor.

So in all three cases, the judge was much more compassionate than the PP. If what Soh Lung describes is true in the rest of her article, it does appear that to be the general case.

That being so, wouldn't contesting the idea that PP has final say what the charge should be an easier route to save the accused's life than to contest the interpretation of constitution, simply because judges will tend to be more compassionate and hence be more willing to favour the defendants?

If M Ravi or anyone were to argue successfully that PP does not have the final say as what the charge may be, it opens the door to contest that charges that carry the Mandatory Death Penalty, or even the just the Death Penalty, can be reduced to a charge that does not warrant the Death Penalty, as per judge's recommendation!

That would save Ramalingam's and Vui Kong's life, wouldn't it?

My Views and Conclusion -

We have seen three cases where the judge has more compassion than the PP. It also appears that to be so in general, according to Ms Teo Soh Lung.

If anyone were to contest the interpretation the PP has the final say as to what the charge may be, the judge being generally compassionate, may just rule against PP's interpretation.

When that happens, the door is now open for both Vui Kong and Ramalingam (as well as others) for their charges to be reduced because it is no longer the prerogative of the PP.

The fact that M Ravi and anti-Death Penalty campaigners do not take this route, but choose the more difficult one, ie challenging the interpretation of the constitution, makes me question their wisdom or perhaps should I say, foolhardiness.

It looks like Ramalingam will face the same fate as Vui Kong.

Related Links:
AG's explanation on Ramalingam's case unconvincing

Lawyers' Association (ACLS), Lapdog of PAPpy

========

Next up on the issue of Death Penalty, Noor Atiqah. How a convicted person's life is saved with a reduced charge, without contesting the legality of the Death Penalty itself. That's something Singapore's anti-Death Penalty campaigners should take note of.

Update - How Noor Atiqah's life is saved without challenging the Death Penalty

LKY defends ministers' pay - showing they are not capable of defending it themselves

2012-01-19T07:38:00.003+08:00

So finally, the great old man speaks - about the ministers' pay. But the irony is that by speaking, it shows that he is not convinced that those who spoke before him (ministers included), have done a good job convincing the masses. Doesn't that about rubbish the argument that the ministers are capable people, because it takes Great Grand Old Man to throw his weight on the issue?

Lee Kuan Yew defends competitive ministerial salaries

Singapore's former Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew has defended the need for a competitive ministerial pay to attract committed and capable people who will serve the country.

In a letter sent to the media on Wednesday after a parliamentary debate on political pay, Mr Lee, who had fought strongly for competitive political pay when he was in the Cabinet, noted how with a different generation, political attitudes change.

But he said unless Singapore has a steady stream of people to serve as ministers, Singapore as a little red dot will become a little black spot.

I disagree. It is not that we don't have enough people coming up to serve. It is that PAP has been fixing the opposition. Since 1960s right through the turn of this century, opposition members have been jailed, sued, ISA-ed and what not.

In the sixties and seventies PAP threw Barisan Socialis members and their sympathizers in detention cells without trial. In 1980s, PAP sued and prosecuted JBJ till he was bankrupt. In the 1990s right to this day, Chee has been sued till he's a bankrupt.

Not to mention many others like Francis Seow, Ashleigh Seow, Tan Liang Hong etc who had to be in exile because of PAP.

So come off this nonsensical talk that we don't have enough people to come up to serve, when it is PAP who's been stifling leadership through oppressive means.

He pointed out that Singapore did not get from Third World to First by "head-hunting ministers willing to sacrifice their children's future when undertaking a public service duty."

That's another bullcrap. When we became independent, all the governmental infrastructure was already there. To say PAP led us from Third World to First is a lie.

We already had schools, hospitals, the Police Force, roads, rail, public transport, utilities etc in place. All PAP did was to take over the goodies the Brits handed over, and claim glory for the work done by the previous (Brit) govt. Cheap shot.

He said the leadership took a "pragmatic course that does not require people of calibre to give up too much for the public good."

Mr Lee added that Singapore must not be reduced to another ordinary country in the Third World by dodging the issue of competitive ministerial remuneration.

Mr Lee said Singapore cannot underpay ministers and argues that their sole reward should be their contribution to public good.

"Every family wants to provide the best for their children, to go to a good university. We were pragmatic and also paid competitive salaries in order to have a continuous stream of high calibre people to become MPs, and then ministers. They put their careers at risk and undergo an uncertain and unpredictable election process," he said.

The above argument is a long way off the mark. These highly paid ministers can afford all the properties overseas and fund their children in overseas universities. The ordinary folk is trying to make ends meet and would be happy if they can afford to pay local uni fees for their children.

What an insensitive comparison! That's the trouble of paying ministers too much. They lose touch with the ground and become insensitive to the ordinary Singaporean's needs.

He pointed to the heavy responsibilities of ministers in making Singapore a success.

"A PM and his ministers carry heavy responsibilities for the nation. If they make a serious mistake, the damage to Singapore will be incalculable and permanent. Their macroeconomic policies will decide the GDP of the country, which was more than S$300 billion in 2010, with per capita GDP of S$59,000."

- CNA/ck

Actually the "success" is just a claim. Singapore has NEVER opened its books to the public. Somehow, deep inside me, I feel that there is a lot of cover ups. Because if there is nothing to hide, surely PAP would show the figures to; 1) get more votes and; 2) assure foreign investors to pump in more money here.

So why the close book policy? Hmm.

If LKY wants to juse the above argument to justify ministers' pay, the least he should do is to get the govt to open the books to support his claim. Otherwise, it is just that - a claim. And a hollow one too.

Finally, as mentioned, doesn't it occur to you that when LKY defends the ministers' pay, it means he is not convinced the ministers have won the public's hearts? So if he is not convinced himself that these ministers can do the work themselves, how the heck does he expect Singaporeans to be convinced they deserve the pay?

LKY should have remained silent. At least it signals he is silently approving behind them. Now he has shown he doesn't even trust his own ministers are capable of doing the job and he has to do it himself.

Ha ha. Thanks for proving us right the ministers don't deserve that pay.

This is what US wants to bomb

2012-01-18T22:42:00.002+08:00

America, the Number One Warmongering Nation in the world, has invaded and pillaged more countries than any other the last 5 decades. However, its current number one target has been on the list since 1979, yet US has not yet invaded it. That Number One target is Iran.

This is the Iran that US wants to bomb.

Disturbing images from Iran you rarely see

Doesn't look too much different from America, does it?

So why is the US so hesitant to invade Iran, unlike its other targets? In fact, US is so nervous about Iran, it even cancelled its drill in the Straits of Hormuz with Israel indefinitely!

There are a few reasons why US is so nervous about Iran. Firstly, Iran has the backing of Russia and China. Secondly, Iran's nuclear sites are all over the place in a large area. US can't do a "hit and run" strike. Thirdly, US has very little intelligence on the Iranian ground, unlike Afghanistan, Iraq or even Libya. Yet another reason is that after a decade of war in Afghanistan and another eight years in Iraq, US has about depleted its resources.

Finally, US is a spent force economically as well. Two concurrent wars over a decade has cost it trillions of dollars and the wheels of the financial war machine are coming off.

But then again, US being US, thrives on wars to drive their economy. It has been that way for decades. Only difference is that this time, the war driven economy isn't working.

Stop the wars. Stop the madness.

Ministers' (and MPs') Pay

2012-01-18T10:03:00.002+08:00

Here are some quick thoughts I have about the non-ending debate on Ministers' pay.

1. Before we look at ministers' pay, let's look at MP's pay. Why are they paid so high in the first place, only to allow them to hold onto their daytime jobs? If the high pay for MPs is to make up for any loss in income, shouldn't they leave their daytime jobs? On the other hand, if expecting them to hold onto their day jobs is because asking them to leave is too much sacrifice, why the high pay to justify "the loss"? What loss talking these cock-talkers, if they hold onto their day jobs?

2. Comparing nations where leaders are corrupt to justify high pay for ministers here is like slapping oneself. You are saying that our ministers are corrupt, and hence, need high pay to make them "uncorrupt".

3. Comparing ministers' pay to top CEOs is rubbish. In the private sector, your pay, promotion etc is based on your performance. You can get kicked out anytime. Ministers' don't get kicked out and with the PAPpy system of "fixing" the opposition, your job is safe and sound.

4. What? You said that G Yeo losing Aljunied debunks the safe job mentality? Wait a minute there. G Yeo got kicked out because he is no longer an MP of Aljunied. Nothing to do with his performance as minister.

5. In the private sector, the financial performance of the company is one key factor that decides if you stay on the job. As a minister, even after our GIC lost billions, they are still around. Why are the books not opened for inspection to the public in the first place? Note that even our CPF funds is not made public! You just wanna take PAPpy's word it has not been touched?

6. Ever since ministers' pay has been tied to private sector to inflate their pay and enrich themselves, they have lost all moral authority to tell workers and citizens to tighten their belts.

Those are some thoughts that have been in my mind on the pay issue for ministers.

Death Penalty - Many issues in Yong Vui Kong's case still unanswered

2012-01-17T07:26:00.008+08:00

Activists marked Yong Vui Kong’s 24th birthday last Sunday. Vui Kong - the turning point?

I am of the opinion that if we want to save Vui Kong's life, we should look into his case and drop the constitutional challenge on the Death Penalty itself. I believe he still has a chance to live if his case is challenged because there has been so many inconsistencies in his trial.

I highlighted those inconsistencies in this article - Yong Vui Kong's story is still murky - can those who lobby for him enlighten me? Here is the article in full published on 3 Aug 2011, unedited.

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

[start]

As regular readers of this blog know, I am for the Death Penalty. However, I am still open on my stand on the Mandatory Death Penalty.

Of all cases the last few months, Vui Kong's case is the most discussed. For months, I have been reading his case, trying to understand what actually "went wrong" with his trial, such that he had to be hanged at such a young age.

As it turned out, he was over 18 at the point of his offence and hence, technically, he had to be hanged - because the crime he committed warranted the MANDATORY Death Penalty.

One of most intriguing facts I found about this case is that the trial judge recommended that Vui Kong be tried for a lesser crime, which would mean he won't face the Death Penalty, let alone Mandatory Death Penalty, if the recommendation was taken up. The prosecution declined.

What startles me most is why, was this point not made as a defence argument for Vui Kong's case? Why did the defence then, at that point of time when Vui Kong was represented by a state-assigned lawyer, not contest the prosecution's unwillingness to take up the trial judge's recommendation?

Today, why does M. Ravi (Vui Kong's current lawyer) take the much harder path and contest the constitution, instead of arguing that Vui Kong probably did not have a fair trial, in what appears to be a case of the defendant being represented by an inept state-assigned lawyer?

Another point that needs to be opened for discussion is that it appears that the lobbyists are implying that Vui Kong was either made to believe that he "had to lie", (or was not advised that this belief is totally wrong), in order to proceed to appeal to a higher court. Why was he not advised accordingly by his state-assigned counsel, Kelvin Lim?

Tried as I hard for the last few months, I never have gotten an answer from the anti-death penalty campaigners. So I actually read through (many, many times I assure you), the webpage in the link below from lobbyists, who are campaigning for Vui Kong's life. Unfortunately, the story of Vui Kong seems as murky as ever.

Here is Vui Kong's story. I'll zoom in straight onto the relevant parts.

Yong Vui Kong's Journey
Vui Kong would later shuttle back and forth Singapore and Malaysia several times until he was caught in June 2007 with possession of 47g of heroin. Yong was 18 and a half years old at the time of arrest. Singapore drug laws stipulate mandatory death for 18 years and above. Vui Kong faced certain death the moment he was caught by narcotics officers.

Vui Kong, represented by state-assigned counsel Kelvin Lim, was trialed in Singapore High Court.

Before passing the judgement, trial judge Justice Choo Han Teck summoned both the defence and presecution into chamber and asked the prosecution if they would consider reducing the charge given the relatively young age of the drug offender, who was not even 19 at the age of the offence. The prosecution declined and the death sentence was handed to Vui Kong.

Yong's then defence counsel, following the common practice for almost all capital cases for drug trafficking, was preparing to take the case to the Court of Appeal.

Kelvin Lim, under specific instruction from his client, withdrew the Appeal.

Why did Vui Kong withdraw the appeal?

Apparently, he was under the impression that a High Court Appeal could only work if there are new evidence to prove that he was innocent of the charge, and he thought that the only way out was to lie to be able to save himself.

After taking up Buddhism as his religion while in prison, Vui Kong did not want to lie which was a sin according to Buddhist beliefs, he therefore instructed his counsel to withdraw the Appeal.

Vui Kong did not know that he involuntarily extended his stay in this world by withdrawing his own High Court Appeal, the only legal lifeline available to him.

Because of this withdrawal, the high Court hastened the execution process and ordered Yong to be executed on 4th December 2009.

M. Ravi intervenes

Singapore human rights lawyer Madasamy Ravi got wind of Yong's case. He promptly took over the case from Yong's counsel Kelvin Lim after a court hearing.

Ravi submitted a clemency appeal to the Singapore President, but on 20th November, it was rejected by the Istana.

There are just too many inconsistencies and unexplained issues in the above article. If lobbyists want to campaign for Vui Kong, they have to be dead serious. Not giving bits and pieces of info and hiding the rest.

I would like to campaign (on this blog) for Vui Kong's life - but I have to know the whole truth, not bits and pieces. As such, I hope these campaigners can address my concerns below;

1. Why didn't the original counsel (ie Kelvin Lim) contest the prosecution's unwillingness to downgrade Vui Kong's charge as suggested by the judge so that VK won't face the Death Penalty?

2. Why doesn't M Ravi (his current counsel) contest that Vui Kong had the chance of escaping the gallows, when the trial judge suggested a lower charge, but was rejected by the prosecution, and left unconstested by the then defence?

3. It is mentioned that Vui Kong requested his counsel (Kelvin Lim) to withdraw the appeal because he "did not want to lie". But withdrawing an appeal would mean sure death. Why didn't Kelvin Lim advise his client? Isn't this an act of unprofessionalism on the part of Vui Kong's then counsel? Is not counsel supposed to act in the best interest of the client? Yet, he allowed young Vui Kong to die without an appeal?

4. More importantly, why didn't M Ravi highlight this, contest the whole trial itself because Vui Kong was represented by an inept and unprofessional state-assigned defence lawyer, and ask for a retrial - and this time get the charge reduced to one that does not warrant the Death Penalty, as suggested by Justice Choo?

I find the story very, very murky. I hope those who have worked on Yong Vui Kong's case could enlighten me. I need the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, if I were to join the campaign to save Yong Vui Kong.

[end]

=========

Shallowness of Feminist writing exposed - The Egyptian Blue Bra

2012-01-16T10:20:00.005+08:00

Many issues in the world are intertwined such that you cannot separate one from another. As an example, you cannot separate Human Rights from oppression or even global hypocrisy.

Take the issue of Egypt. Is it about human rights and liberation? Or is it about Egyptians fighting against Western control, and hence, opening up the issue of hypocrisy of the West?

So when a Feminist slant is given to the Egypt issue, I am really beginning to feel that Feminists are just simple-minded one-track people. They see only from one angle - the misogyny angle. To them, something is either liberating for women, or oppressing women. Never mind that there are bigger issues that are tied to it.

Before I link you the Feminist-slanted article, here is the incident that sparked the one-track, one-minded, shallowness of the article.

Shocking Video: 'Blue bra' girl brutally beaten by Egypt military

So what do you make out of it? As a human being, isn't it wrong to kick and stomp on someone who is already down? Yes, the issue is Human Rights. But it can also be about hypocrisy. Because all over the world, this happens. Be it in America, Canada, Australia, UK, Europe, Israel etc.

In the West, the protests and police brutality is about Occupying Wall Street and anti-war demos. No one ties it to Feminist issues although women have been beaten like slave dogs. Likewise, the issue linked to this short video is about about liberty, oppression and hypocrisy. Not about Feminism and not about defiance against Islamic rule.

But Feminists being feminists, see issues only from one angle. The narrow, simplistic misogynistic angle. Here's that article.

Amid the misogyny and violence, one thing stood out: the blue bra
The blue bra. That’s what did it for me.

Yes, I know. There have been jillions of atrocities against women all over the world, many much worse than what happened to the young Egyptian woman who was beaten, stomped on and nearly stripped by the military during a demonstration. Aside from the sheer brutality, I think what got to me was that she was wearing this gorgeous, sexy bright blue bra. Under her abaya.

There was something so shocking about it, so unexpected. This person covered from head to toe demonstrated her beliefs through her choice of underwear. The blue bra said what I imagine her to be feeling: “I may be oppressed. I may not have rights. I may have to cover up my body and face. But you cannot destroy my womanhood. You can’t rob me of my femininity. You can’t take away my power.”

That blue bra, to me, was the ultimate symbol of women’s power, the one thing that threatens men above all. It makes them so crazy that over the centuries they have encoded it into their religions that women are kept down and denied the same freedoms that men have. There are very few religions where women have not been oppressed.

Men know that women’s sexuality is something they cannot live without; it is something that renders them powerless. Women can have babies, women can breastfeed, women are the lifegivers. The blue bra is a bold statement of that.

The blue bra resonated with demonstrators in Egypt. Some have replaced the eagle in the center of the Egyptian flag with a blue bra. When the incident incited a protest by women two weeks ago, the hashtag #BlueBra was used on Twitter to help organize it. More and more there are blue bra moments, not just in Egypt but around the world.

A young woman in Egypt who was given a “virginity test” when she was arrested last March has courageously filed a criminal case against the military. This week the Egyptian court banned virginity tests in jail. That woman should wear a blue bra.

A woman is running for president of Egypt. She should wear a blue bra.

In Israel there have been protests after a young woman was asked to sit in the back of the bus in an ultra-orthodox neighborhood. She refused and has become a heroine among moderate Israelis. She should wear a blue bra.

In the United States, a report out this week says that the number of sexual assaults in the military academies rose from 41 last year to 65 this year. All women in the service academies should wear blue bras.

In Iran, women can be arrested if they are not totally covered. Even President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, seeing the writing on the wall, is trying to promote attractive government-approved fashions for women. “Again we face a situation in which a small group will decide for all women what is allowed and what is not,” one Egyptian designer told The Washington Post. Iranian women should all wear blue bras.

The Egyptian woman in the blue bra has not come forward. She has been criticized for protesting in public and for not wearing more clothes under her abaya. (She was also wearing jeans.)

See how this Feminist writer missed the whole big picture and saw just a one off-the-point angle?

Some quick pointers about the article above -

The writer tries to allude a blue bra as liberation from "Islamic oppression". Frankly, I don't see the link. What a Muslim woman wears under her burka or whatever is none of society's business. This appears to be a lame attempt to link the Egypt issue as a Feminist one.

Then out of the blue, the writer brings up virginity tests, women in Israel, US military and Iran. Whatever happened to the horrific scenes of helpless citizens being stomped on by armed policemen? See the shallowness of a Feminist writer?

This is so typical of Feminist writing not just in blogs, but in journalism too. A tiny issue within a bigger issue made into a central point, then suddenly the discussion is all about oppression of women, societal patriarchy, and what not, linked to all over the place, that has nothing to do with the original issue at hand.

The "Blue Bra", which is the central emphasis of the writer, happens only for a few seconds. It was not like she had her clothes torn deliberately to be humiliated. It just happened. It could have been an old man who had his clothes torn, showing a green underwear. Furthermore, one policeman even had the sense to try to cover her modesty by pulling her clothes back on. Yet this Feminist see it as a Feminist issue?

So how did this end up as a Feminist issue in the first place? An opportunistic attempt by a feminist who can't break out from the box?

Biggest Issue is Islamization and protest against Western Hypocrisy -

Those of you who have followed the news on Egypt will know that this is not the first demo. The first was to remove Mubarak. However, following that, the army took control.

The Egyptian Army is not well liked by Egyptians either. They see the army as an extension of Mubarak, who himself is seen as an extension of US. There lies the real issue which the Feminist writer missed totally.

The issue is not about Feminism or oppression of women. It is about liberty. Liberty from the hypocrisy of the West which has been controlling Mubarak and Egypt's Army.

I have written a few articles about the first demo in Egypt. Here are two of them.

- Fellow Sporeans, I told you that you won't wanna walk like an Egyptian
- Singapore political scene is nowhere near Egypt's

The first demos last year was to campaign for the removal of Mubarak. After he was removed, the army took over. But the citizens don't like the army either. So they elect an Islamic govt. However, the army refuses to allow the Islamic Parties to form the govt. Hence, that's what the demos today are about.

The Egyptian demos are about liberty. It's about Islamization. It's about the protest against the Army, which is a Western stooge. It's about hypocrisy that the West does not condemn the refusal of the Egyptian Army to recognize that the people of Egypt want an Islamic Govt!

Here's the post I made about how even after the people of Egypt elected an Islamic Govt, the Army simply refuses to accept the results - and the hypocritical West World, who has been calling for democrazy, er I mean democracy, stands idly.

Hypocrisy of Democrazy Elections
How many times have we seen that whenever the people of the land were to vote in the "wrong govt", these hypocrites from the West either brand the new govt as terror groups, or stand idly if the newly elected govt is blocked by the incumbent powers that are aligned to the West? The latest example is Egypt.

Egypt's rulers: Parliament won't be representative
Egypt's military rulers said Wednesday the next parliament will not be representative enough to independently oversee the drafting of a constitution, and they will appoint a council to check the influence of religious extremists on the process.

The announcement followed a surprisingly strong showing by Islamist groups who took the overwhelming majority in the first round of parliamentary elections. The outcome caused concern among the liberals who drove Egypt's uprising and the military, which took power from ousted leader Hosni Mubarak.

"We are in the early stages of democracy," said Gen. Mukhtar Mulla, a member of the ruling military council. "The parliament is not representing all sectors of society."
Ha ha. The people voted and they overwhelmingly ditched the liberal western lackey govt into the drain. And the current interim govt (another Western lackey) says this is not representative?

Not first time Western Hypocrisy blatantly exhibited -

This is not the first time Western Hypocrisy is displayed in such unashamed manner. Currently, Hamas is the democratically elected govt in Gaza. But the US and its warmongering allies consider it a "terror group". Wazzat again?

In the 1990s, when Algeria went to the polls, an Islamic Party (FIS), was heading for a landslide victory. The incumbent govt however hijacked the elections and deployed military tanks to literally mow down FIS supporters. The West World stood idly.

After the Arab Spring and overthrow of Arab leaders, Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt and now even Libya are heading towards Islamic governance. The West, self-proclaimed saviours of the world and propagators of democracy, are slow to welcome the change.

Why? Because the change is towards an Islamic governance. Not towards Western style secularism.

My Views -

The Egypt demos is about the Arab Spring. The Arab Spring is about a people in the Mid East and N African states, finally putting their feet down and taking control of their own future.

It is about liberty. It is about the fight against Western oppression, using stooges to control their country. It is about hypocrisy of the West, blaring their horns they support democracy. But when that democracy means a govt that they do not like, their support stops. That is the big issue.

What blue bra?

Unfortunately, one Feminist sees it from a tiny, simplistic viewpoint. Why do Feminists always do things that reinforce the idea Feminists can't think outside the Feminist box?

US/Nato Atroticities - killing innocents, children included

2012-01-15T10:39:00.004+08:00

The United States of Terrormerica, in collusion with its allies, terrorizes innocent civilians, bombing civilian infrastructure. This is the untold story of US and Nato's bombing of Libya.

I Cried Watching This. Americans and Nato Bombing Babies , Every Human Must Watch. Spread It

3:24 min - Actual footage of bombs raining on civilians. Children included. You can hear the children screaming.

6:25 min - Child victim treated in hospital. Listen to his cries of pain from his injuries. The video continues to show more child victims.

9:50 min - Babies included.

Imagine a foreign force says your govt is oppressive and undemocratic.

Imagine that it decides to bomb your country in order to remove your govt.

Imagine that they bomb your schools, hospitals, homes and other civilian buildings.

Imagine that they kill many civilians in the process.

Imagine that those killed are your parents and children.

What would your reaction be?

Stop the wars. Stop the terror. Stop the hypocrisy.

Israeli Atrocities - Palestinian Girl's parents killed in front of her

2012-01-14T19:02:00.006+08:00

This video is only 1 min 23 sec long. But long enough to move you to tears.

Heartbreaking Palestinian Girl

Imagine a foreign force invades your land. Then they kill your parents and your family in front of you. Imagine you're only a child when you witness such atrocities. How would you feel?

Who is wiping who off the map?

Why China's military is stronger than America's

2012-01-13T07:52:00.006+08:00

It looks like a full cycle. The Cold War is coming back.

In the last century, America whipped up the bad guy as the Soviets. When the USSR collapsed, there was a void as who would be the bad guy. So in came Al Qaida and the Islamic Jihadists (which are more than probably CIA fronts). But as time goes by, the world sees that it is America who are the oppressors, while the Muslims whose lands got invaded are victims. That led to many American citizens to stop supporting the wars.

So what better way now than to revert to the Cold War, which has been so effective in getting Americans to support their senseless expenditure on defence?

Here's a (propaganda) video, which gives you a glimpse of what's to come in the new old Cold War.

China Is Stronger

I like the part reminding Americuns their total population is smaller than the Chinese Women's Army.

Longer version of video clip here.

Military Hardware -

Critics may argue that America's tech and equipment are more sophisticated and advanced, and hence they have an edge. Really? You mean it's so sophisticated that their drones keep mistaking civilians for insurgents that they have killed more innocents (women and children included) than insurgents?

Or do you mean so sophisticated like their stealth drone was so stealthy, they didn't know where it went? Until the Iranians showed the world where the drone was? Ha ha.

Here's an article where I highlighted how because of China's Hai Ying supersonic missile, it has kept US away from Taiwan.

Bomb Iran? Let's lay out the cards (Part 1 - Military Perspective)
Surface to Surface Missile 3M80 -

The Russians have manufactured the fastest surface to surface missile in the form of the Moskit 3M80. It travels between Mach 2 to Mach 3, faster than the speed of sound, and definitely faster than any current US-made missile. What the US should consider before striking Iran is that Russia has sold this technology to China, which has in turn, sold it to Iran.

Defense Focus: Iron Man lessons -- Part 4
Yet the threat to surface warships from submarine, air or surface-launched anti-ship missiles is vastly greater today than it was 26 years ago when the Falklands war was fought. Impressed by the impact of the Exocets, weapons designers around the world, especially in Russia and China, have invested big in much faster and more formidable anti-ship missiles than the Exocet. The king of the crop today is the Moskit 3M80 -- NATO designation SS-N-22 Sunburn -- that now figures prominently in the anti-warship inventories of China and Iran. The Russians also have developed the even more advanced SS-N-27 Sizzler.

These weapons fly two and a half times faster than U.S. ones. American cruise missiles are subsonic, but Russian-made ones can fly at well over Mach 2, or more than twice the speed of sound -- with speeds estimated at 1,500 mph to 1,700 mph at close to ground level.

Russia has sold the technology to build the Moskit to China, which manufactures it as the Hai Ying or Sea Eagle HY2. It can carry an almost 500-pound warhead, and it can deliver a tactical nuclear weapon. The threat of the Hai Ying is so great that it has effectively barred operational access to the Taiwan Strait to U.S. aircraft carriers in time of high tension. China has also supplied the Hai Ying to Iran.

America has very little support -

Another consideration is the fact that America's troops are not very well liked. After all, it has a history of arrogance, self-righteousness, as well as records of torture and war crimes to boot. This causes third parties to either sabotage America's war plans or simply do not support them in actual war situation - like the how ordinary people of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and many other nations it has invaded, refused to co-operate with American troops.

China on the other hand, with the exception of Tibet and perhaps Xinjiang Province, does not have this past baggage.

This lack of support is not only from ordinary citizens of the world. The so called Coalition of the (un)Willing is slowly tearing many European countries apart. America and its allies went to war into Afghanistan on a strong note. But as the years dragged on, many of the coalition parties pulled out because of lack of funds or pressure to withdraw from their citizens.

As for Iraq, it was worse. US went would have gone almost single-handed, if it were not for Brit and Australia.

America's Incompetence -

Yet another consideration is the incompetence of American troops. As mentioned, even with the sophisticated equipment, US ends up killing far more civilians than combatants. Many of it is due to simple incompetence on the part of the troops. This incompetence is seen even before Afghanistan was invaded in 2001. I wrote about that here. US Armed Forces - the most incompetent military in the world

In the article found in the immediate link above, I mentioned how during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, a captain of a US frigate failed to take defensive action when two Excocet missiles struck. That incident killed 37 US military men.

Not long after, another US captain ordered to down an aircraft that was deemed hostile. That resulted in 200 over civilian deaths because the aircraft turned out to be a civilian airbus.

I also mentioned how an American rescue doomed and goofed big time in Iran, when its ops went horribly wrong. It would have been as comical as a Johnny English movie, if not for the many deaths of its own troops that occurred.

American troops have no self-belief -

Finally, because many American troops kill innocents (women and children included), many of them live in guilt. You can't fight a war when you know you're the bad guy, can you? Here's another article I published. SAF complicit in these war crimes
Our SAF has been deploying troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. US and NATO have been committing war crimes with impunity. Our troops who have been giving them tech, medical and other support are hence complicit in the war crimes.

These are the crimes committed against humanity. Straight from the horse's mouth, a veteran from Iraq.

U.S. Marine Jon Turner tosses his medals

My Views -

We can argue till the cows come home as to who has a stronger military. China or America.

But what we can't argue is the fact that America has shown that it is highly incompetent, making a lot of silly goofs and mistakes. It is also known for a fact that America tortures innocents and hence, get very little support to win the war from the ground.

It is also shown that many American troops believe that they are the bad guys and hence, not willing to fight wars.

So who's the stronger, or rather, weaker military force?

America had better think twice before it starts another Cold War. After all, it has shown that it cannot even win guerilla warfare in Afghanistan or Iraq. What makes it think it can take on a real army like China, or for that matter, China's ally, Iran?

Lookie here!
China SaysThis About IRAN ~ UH OH!

"said China will not hesitate to protect Iran even with a third World War"

O.O

Israeli Atrocities - meet Jamila Al-Habash (victim)

2012-01-12T07:49:00.003+08:00

The US, Europe and mainstream media have been lying to the world that Israel is the victim, while Palestinians are the aggressor for the last half century. Isn't it about time the truth be told?

Let's meet the victims of the war crimes perpetuated by Israel, and covered up by the mainstream mass media.

Jamila Al-Habash

This is Jamila Al-Habash. On January 4, 2009, Jamila (14) and her younger siblings and cousins were playing on the rooftop of their family home when an unmanned Israeli drone aircraft fired a missile at the children, killing her sister, Shaza (10) and her cousin Isra (11) immediately. As a result of injuries sustained during the attack, Jamila lost both her legs above the knee. Her mother, Hala recounts:

“The first thing I saw was Jamila without her legs, it was like she had been butchered, cut like meat. Her left leg was thrown about 100 metres, we gave it to the ambulance later…. Isra, I saw her brain. Then I saw Shaza, she was cut through her hip to her stomach. Her leg was gone, she was dead. I am a teacher, I take care of the health of the children if they are hurt. I did the same with Jamila, I told her not to worry, that I would take her to hospital, that I would get an ambulance.”

Jamila Al-Habash is the epitome of Palestinian resilience. She is my hero.

Another victim here.

Farah

Some scars never heal.

This is Farah. She is 3-years-old. Her tiny body was burned by white phosphourus during Operation Cast Lead three years ago. Farah survived miraculously after treatment in Egypt. Unfortunately, her mother did not make it. She died due to infections of her wounds 3 months after the massacre. Today Farah is cared for by her grandmother.

Children like Farah inspire us to keep fighting for justice every single day. Their struggle is our struggle.

Imagine a foreign force occupies YOUR LAND. Then the foreign force steals your resource, builds settlements for its own citizens on YOUR LAND, and drive you out from your homes.

Imagine that when you defend yourself to get your land back, the mainstream media brands you as terrorists.

Welcome to the Occupied and Stolen lands of Palestine. Occupied and stolen by none other than Zionist Israel, funded by Terrormerica, in complicity with the Mainstream Mass Media.

These are the war crimes that go unnoticed and unpunished.

Chan Chun Sing accepts Chief of Mossad post (satire)

2012-01-11T09:21:00.009+08:00

Chan Chun Seng aka Ah Beng Chan, the Islamophobe product of Islamophobic SAF (the most Islamophobic institution in Singapore), who once told Sinkies to be aware of the 200 over million baaaaaad Muslims in Indonesia, has landed up in his dream job - Chief of Mossad, head of the most Islamophobic Institution in the World.

"This is my dream job," said Ah Beng Chan.

"When I was in the SAF, I could spread fear and disdain for 200 over Muslims in Indonesia to Sinkieporeans. Now I can spread fear and disdain for one billion Muslims all over the world," declared a beaming Chan.

It was reported that Chan responded to an advert from Mossad, seeking Chinese-speaking Islamophobes to fill the vacant post. Analysts have said this is a tactical move by Israhell ever since it noted the China has been striking some very lucrative deals with the Arab and other Muslim states in the Middle East.

Chan Chun Sing aka Ah Beng Chan
Pic from http://www.onlineusanews.com/chan-chun-sing-as-singapores-minister-17085.php

Similarities between Sinkiepore and Israhell

Political analysts commented that Chan is most suitable for the job. After, all both Sinkiepore and Israhell have many similarities. They include:

1. Both nations propagate the belief they are surrounded by Biiiig Baaaaad Mozelim populated nations.

2. Both nations have military that are highly Islamophobic.

3. Both have military that are considered oversized for their respective nation's population, to ensure those Biiiig Baaaad Mozelim nations know who's boss.

4. Both nations have military that have the idea that their neighbours want to wipe them off the map, in spite of the fact that these neighbours are more interested in their own domestic affairs.

5. Both nations believe in "acting tough" so that their neigbours will "fear them", but in actual fact, they expect their bigger allies to take on their "enemies" for them on their behalf.

6 Both nations depend on distorted history to perpetuate their fear for their neighbours. Israhell inflates the figures of the victims of the Hollowcause, while Sinkiepore inflates the number of times reminding Sinkies of our race riots, when we had more labour riots instigated by Leftists than race riots.

7. Fill in more similarities you can think of .....

But the one thing Israhell does not have that Sinkiepore has, is that Sinkie has a military chief who can speak Mandarin. So up came Israhell's advert to look for that man. Mossad seeks Chinese speakers

It was reported that many around the world who has had military experience applied for the Mossad Chief position. The final decision was made when it was found that Ah Beng Chan could speak Mandarin.

It looks like Singapore's bilingual policy in school, yes the policy that promotes Mandarin and not Malay or Tamil or Hindi or any other language, has finally paid off.

So all you critics, be it from the Chinese who feel that Mandarin sucks, or from non-Chinese who feel bilingual policy discriminates you, know that the policy has its advantages. We can now be proud that one of our citizens has landed up in the most prestigious job in the most Islamophobic institution of the world.

Flashback - Army boy Chan Chun Sing talking cock

Overseas experience made him sensitive (Q&A Pt5)

Q: How was your experience working in Jakarta allowed you to understand the Malay Muslim community better?

Chun Sing starts off by saying we should not assume things. Indonesians and Malays are different. Indonesia is a very diverse country with many ethnic cultures. We should not pigeon hole them and put all Indonesians into one group.

Wah, very impressive. At least he now talks like how an officer should talk.

However, that's about it. His intellectual ability to apply what he has learnt takes a sudden reversal with the closing statement he makes.

In his closing statement, he reminds everyone of the scary, (shiver, shiver....) fact that Indonesia is reproducing at an astronomical rate. A rate of one Singapore (population size) per year. He then makes a subtle (and sly) implication that these Indonesians (ya, the very population he told us not to pigeon hole) is in unison in idea, to usurp Singapore.

Wah piang eh! Got this type of officer ah? First he say don't pigeon hole them then later he pigeon hole them. What cock he talk ah?

....[snip].....

In our history, Singapore was an adversary of Indonesia only once. That was during the Confrontation Period, when we were under the Malaysian Federation.

The issue was between one Muslim majority country (Indonesia) against another Muslim majority country (Malaysia). Singapore, being part of Malaysia then, was of course one of Indonesia's target.

However, LKY, being a racist, dishonestly portrays (till this day) that the issue was about a Muslim nation with a population of nearly 200 million then, who were about to usurp tiny, poor Singapore.

This dishonest portrayal of the Muslims in the South wishing to see Singapore's demise, is nothing short of mischief, with the hope of creating a feeling of tension and fear, so that you will support PAP's mad over-expenditure of the defence budget.

"You must never be in a senang diri position, let alone rehatkan diri. You must always stand sedia, because there are 200 over million hostile savages out to take your homes. Also remember, I was working with the 200 over million people there. So I know them. Don't ever pigeon hole them. But be careful of them because all of them want to take your homes. Remember, don't pigeon hole them, OK?"

Anwar Ibrahim - the trial that should never have been

2012-01-10T08:47:00.007+08:00

So finally, the verdict's out. Anwar Ibrahim has been acquitted. Many believe that this case was politically motivated.

That aside, I believe that this case should have never even made it to the courts. The evidence is so flimsy, the judge ruled that it was not enough to convict Anwar.

Anwar Ibrahim acquitted in sodomy trial

Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim was acquitted and discharged on Monday in a politically-charged sodomy trial he has denounced as a government bid to cripple his opposition ahead of upcoming elections.

Judge Mohamad Zabidin Diah issued the eagerly-awaited ruling at the Kuala Lumpur High Court as thousands of Anwar supporters gathered outside to denounce the trial and demand that he be exonerated.

In his brief verdict announcement, the High Court said he could not rely on controversial DNA evidence submitted by the prosecution.

"The court is always reluctant to convict on sexual offences without corroborative evidence. Therefore, the accused is acquitted and discharged," he said.

Actually, it should be the court should always be reluctant to convict on ANY offence without corroborative evidence.

The fact that the public prosecutor felt it fit that this case warrants a trial is enough to make you believe that it was politically motivated. So why then the acquittal? I believe due to the availability of the New Media, the public now knows much more than the govt of the land would like them to know. You can fool the public only for so long. Hence, it would be better to simply close the case instead of convicting him, when almost everyone knows Anwar has all along been a political target.

Repealing the ISA -

So what does Anwar's case in Malaysia got to do with the ISA? Nothing much, but I would like to highlight that the ISA does not allow a public scrutiny of evidence, while an open court case does.

Now if the early Leftists of the 60s and latter Leftists of the 80s had been given a fair and open trial, I am sure the courts would have to throw their cases out. Likewise, if the current JI members were to be put on an open trial, their cases would be thrown out too. Just like the Anwar case where there is not enough evidence.

One of the arguments of pro-ISA supporters is that it is because of the lack of evidence they are arrested under the ISA. Otherwise these people would walk out free.

That argument is as stupid as the ISA itself. Isn't it because there is no evidence or lack of it, we shouldn't punish the accused in the first place? What's this innocent until proven guilty stuff?

My Conclusion -

In order to preserve justice, we need to have a system where the accused is allowed to defend himself. The Anwar trial shows that when there is an open trial, the world watches and hence, any allegation against the defendant is up for scrutiny.

Contrast that with the ISA detainees of the 60s, 70s, 80s and even today, where the arrested do not even have the basic right to defend themselves in a fair, impartial manner.

American atrocieties - Fallujah under siege

2012-01-09T07:18:00.008+08:00

The Lying Machine of the Mainstream Media, in collusion with the United States of Terrormerica, portrays Fallujuah which is a city in Iraq as a hotbed for breeding terrorists. Nothing is further than the truth.

In 2004, residents of Fallujah had one of their schools under siege by the American Terror Force. That's when the civilian residents tried to claim their rightful school back. Then when some American vehicles were hit by IED, four Blackwater mercenaries who were killed had their bodies butchered and hung up in public by some angry residents.

The American media played up the horror scene and that agitated the American troops to kill more Iraqi civilians. The media told only half the story. The other half which is all about American crimes have been hidden.

But this video below is about to change that. Here's the testimony from a first hand witness to the crimes the mainstream mass media hides. The video is uploaded by a blogger who makes numerous posts about war in Iraq. This video is about the incident in Fallujah, and the consequences that followed the school under siege. The poster of the video (the man at the bottom left of the screen) interviews a first hand witness to the war crimes that America tries to hide from the world. The war crimes committed in Fallujah in 2004.

Syrian Girl - Fallujah War Crimes

0:30 min - At the very beginning, the Fallujah Resistance didn't start until American Forces took over a school. Residents protested and as result, 14 civilians died, including children and one US soldier. This was the first siege. (Violence started to spread from this incident and a total of about 800 civilians were killed eventually.)

6:05 min - Second Siege. There were more civilians killed, including babies. Sustained bombing. Hospitals, power stations hit.

7:00 - Males between 15 and 55 were not allowed to leave Fallujah when the others were evacuated.

7:45 - US Forces obliterated Fallujah. White Phosphorous used. (Warning - Video images are graphic @ 8:00)

8:35 - Even Enriched Uranium used.

9:30 - Neutron Bomb used on Baghdad Airport.

12:00 - Ambulances shot at.

13:10 - Second siege included bombing and raiding a hospital.

13:45 - American Forces handcuffed doctors and even pulled wounded patients from the operating tables. Destroyed medicine.

Heavy Civilian Casualties -

It has been reported that about 800 civilians were killed in each of the two sieges. The first siege was in Apr 2004 and the second in Nov 2004.

Remember Fallujah
War crimes in Fallujah

April 2004
According to a detailed analysis of 300 contemporary news reports by Iraq Body Count (www.iraqbodycount.org) at least 572 of the roughly 800 reported deaths during the first US siege of Fallujah in April 2004 were civilians, with over 300 of these being women and children.

...[snip]...

November 2004
A high-ranking Red Cross official estimated that "at least 800 civilians" were killed in the first 9 days of the November 2004 assault on Fallujah (Inter Press Service, 16 November 2004) - an operation originally codenamed "Thanksgiving massacre" (Telegraph, 24 December 2004).

America uses WMDs and has committed war crimes -

In the Siege of Fallujah, WMDs were used. That includes Enriched Uranium, White Phosphorous and perhaps the Neutron Bomb.

Some warmongers may argue that White Phosphorous is not classified as WMD, unlike Napalm or Agent Orange. My reply is - Really? Wanna try to have some White Phosphorous on your skin?

As if that is not enough, they bombed schools, hospitals, power stations and other civilian infrastructure. Not to mention they torture civilians, as well as kill women, children, the sick, invalid and the elderly.

Conclusion -

The wars must stop. These wars, be it is Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, the impending wars in Syria and Iran, are all for the purpose of usurping Muslim lands for their oil and rich mineral resource.

It isn't about war against terror. It isn't about democracy. It is about greed for other people's lands and resource.

Stop the wars. Stop the madness. Stop the crimes.

Another SMRT delay, yet again

2012-01-08T15:28:00.003+08:00

Track fault causes delay on East-West Line

Train services on the East-West Line between Boon Lay and Joo Koon were delayed Sunday afternoon due to a track fault.

At about 2.00 pm, SMRT said the track fault had cleared and services on all lines were operating normally but urged commuters to allow extra time for travel due to wet tracks.

SMRT told Channel NewsAsia that the problem started at about 12.30 pm on Sunday.

At about 1.00 pm, SMRT said east-bound and west-bound services between Boon Lay and Joo Koon were slightly delayed due to a track fault.

Some commuters were asked to alight from one of the trains at Lakeside station as a precaution.

Commuters had to wait an extra two minutes for the trains.

Callers to the Channel NewsAsia reported similar delays.

One commuter, Stanley, said he was at City Hall station when he heard the announcement at about 12.40 pm of a delay in service.

I believe that the Joo Koon - Boon Lay section is the "newer" part of the EW line.

Is all these breakdowns a symptom of a bigger underlying problem?

American war crimes and SAF is complicit

2012-01-08T10:35:00.010+08:00

The Mainstream Media glorifies wars. American veterans, who are actually terrorists who kill and maim innocents (women and children included), are honoured with medals. And of course, our SAF troops who have given them support are complicit. For those who think that SAF is giving humanitarian support, imagine giving such support to the Nazis.

Here are some of the results of the crimes committed by the Terrormericans.

Fallujah babies: Under a new kind of siege

Congenital abnormalities have mushroomed in the wake of devastating US sieges in Fallujah in 2004

The above defect is suspected to be caused by Enriched Uraniuam used by the Terrormerican Forces. Say... wasn't Iraq invaded for the use of WMDs in the first place?

Enriched Uraniuam is not to be mistaken for Depleted Uranium (DU). The latter is found in the munitions of American equipment. DU is not used as a "weapon" but is used in the design of the equipment itself. However, DU does give off radiation that affects the population too, after the munitions have been expended.

Enriched Uranium on the other hand is used as part of WMD! So howabout invading The United States of Terrormerica?

US invasion leaves lasting Iraq scars

Excerpts from first link above:
Fallujah, Iraq - While the US military has formally withdrawn from Iraq, doctors and residents of Fallujah are blaming weapons like depleted uranium and white phosphorous used during two devastating US attacks on Fallujah in 2004 for what are being described as "catastrophic" levels of birth defects and abnormalities.

Dr Samira Alani, a paediatric specialist at Fallujah General Hospital, has taken a personal interest in investigating an explosion of congenital abnormalities that have mushroomed in the wake of the US sieges since 2005.

"We have all kinds of defects now, ranging from congenital heart disease to severe physical abnormalities, both in numbers you cannot imagine," Alani told Al Jazeera at her office in the hospital, while showing countless photos of shocking birth defects.

As of December 21, Alani, who has worked at the hospital since 1997, told Al Jazeera she had personally logged 677 cases of birth defects since October 2009. Just eight days later when Al Jazeera visited the city on December 29, that number had already risen to 699.

"There are not even medical terms to describe some of these conditions because we've never seen them until now," she said. "So when I describe it all I can do is describe the physical defects, but I'm unable to provide a medical term."

'Incompatible with life'

Most of these babies in Fallujah die within 20 to 30 minutes after being born, but not all.

Four-year-old Abdul Jaleel Mohammed was born in October 2007. His clinical diagnosis includes dilation of two heart ventricles, and a growth on his lower back that doctors have not been able to remove.

...[snip]...

In April 2011, Iraqi lawmakers debated whether the US attacks on the city constituted genocide. Resolutions that called for international prosecution, however, went nowhere.

Scientific proof

Alani, along with Dr Christopher Busby, a British scientist and activist who has carried out research into the risks of radioactive pollution, collected hair samples from 25 parents of families with children who have birth defects and sent them to a laboratory in Germany for analysis.

Alani and Busby, along with other doctors and researchers, published a study in September 2011 from data obtained by analysing the hair samples, as well as soil and water samples from the city.

Mercury, Uranium, Bizmuth and other trace elements were found.

The report's conclusion states:

"Whilst caution must be exercised about ruling out other possibilities, because none of the elements found in excess are reported to cause congenital diseases and cancer except Uranium, these findings suggest the enriched Uranium exposure is either a primary cause or related to the cause of the congenital anomaly and cancer increases. Questions are thus raised about the characteristics and composition of weapons now being deployed in modern battlefields."

"As doctors, we know Mercury, Uranium and Bismuth can contribute to the development of congenital abnormalities, and we think it could be related to the use of prohibited weapons by the Americans during these battles," Alani said.

These are the war crimes made in America. And our SAF is complicit. Stop the wars. Stop the madness. Stop the crimes.

Pre-tests at tuition centres - missing the bigger picture

2012-01-07T07:18:00.004+08:00

There's a big cry from parents and other groups on the issue of tuition centres getting pupils to take pre-tests before they can even be enrolled. Some argue that this practice adds pressure on the child in an already pressurized society.

'Sorry, your child is not bright enough'

Pic taken from above link
As the tuition landscape here evolves - with a burgeoning market for helping children who are strong academically to become even better - the practice of some enrichment centres of holding entry tests for children as young as six has raised hackles among some parents.

But centres which hold such tests defend it as a way to screen prospective students and understand their abilities better.

Even so, observers TODAY spoke to said that these tests could add more pressure on parents and affect a child's confidence at an early stage.

In the good old days, isn't tuition meant to help those who are weak to "catch up" with the rest?

Looks like we are falling into the vicious pressure cooker cycle. Some blame parents for pushing their children. What is missed is the bigger picture. Isn't all this pressure due to the govt's doing?

It all starts with the govt looking for the "best brains". So they come up with creative ideas like IP. But what IP does is to start the education pressure at primary level, when all along it had been at secondary level.

Before the era of the IP, to get into the top JCs, which is the path to get into NUS or NTU, you need to do well for your O Levels. So pressure had always been at the secondary level traditionally.

Ever since the IP was introduced, the O Levels is not an issue anymore, because IP schools bypass O levels. But to get into these IP schools, you need to have top PSLE results. This is where the pressure has been brought down from doing well in secondary to doing well in Primary.

So isn't it now a valid reason for parents to wish their children excel well in PSLE, so that they can get into IP, to get into NUS or NTU?

That is the bigger picture I am talking about everyone seems to miss. PAPpy and MOE always seem to be blaming parents for being kiasu. Little do they acknowledge that it is their own doing that is causing this pressure cooker situation.

Looking for "best brains" need not be through the IP way. Even before the IP, Singapore students have always excelled in their O Levels globally. Our A level students have also always done well such that our median results have always been higher than the world average too.

So what's with this wise idea of IP to start with, that's now causing the pressure to start right at Primary One? Then after that, PAPpy and the policymakers at MOE place blame on the parents!

Not impressed with ministers' pay cut

2012-01-06T07:24:00.003+08:00

I am not impressed with the pay cut for ministers because Number One, they should not have been paid such indecent amounts in the first place. Number Two, it is still way above what other world leaders are paid.

With the pay cuts, this is the analogy I will use to understand how greedy they still look.

Imagine a govt of a country decides to mine a certain large area of land for its rich minerals. But on this land lies a rich forest with rivers, fertile lands inhabited by aborigines of the land.

Imagine the govt decides to clear that forest at a rate of say 100,000 hectares a year, and compensating these aborigines by relocating them on a tiny one hectare land.

Imagine that the argument given is the govt is not breaking any known laws of the country and that the development and clearing of these lands is for the good of the economy of the country. Never mind that the only "compensation" to the natives of the land is just a one-hectare plot of land they will be relocated to, while they pay themselves millions a year harvesting the resource of that land.

Imagine due to the outburst and outcry from society about this broad daylight oppression of the natives, the govt finally says that they would reduce the development rate by one-third and hence, clear the forests and lands at "just" 670,000 hectares a year. And still no monetary or other compensation for the natives, other than the one-hectare land plot to live in.

If you were a native of that land, would you accept that the reduction rate to usurp your land is enough, let alone wrong, because you were never even compensated justly in the first place?

Back to the ministers' pay cut. The economy is everyone's pie. Why have Singaporeans had to bear the brunt of the economic downturn, when the ministers had been paying themselves so handsomely way above the world market for ministers, using our hard earned taxes, which is the country's resource, for the last twenty years?

Would you accept that one third pay reduction for the ministers, when they shouldn't have paid themselves indecently, with your resource in the first place?

Isn't that how the natives of the land would feel in that analogy I gave?

So what's there to be impressed when the PM takes one-third pay cut, when he shouldn't have been paid such indecent amounts in the first place - and with your taxes too!?

51% pay cut for President Tony Tan does not make up for $42b he lost

2012-01-05T07:14:00.004+08:00

So you think Tony Tan's 51% pay cut is enough. What about the $42 billion he lost as as Deputy Chairman of Singapore's GIC? To think that he proudly advertised his "expertise" on finance matters during his Presidential Campaign last year. Yeah, advertising how to lose big time, that is!

"Only $42 billion, what. Not $42 trillion!" - World's highest paid "ribbon cutter" even after the pay cut.

Singapore President Tony Tan lost nearly $42 billion dollars of Singapore’s soverign wealth
Tony Tan’s track record at Government of Investment Corporation (GIC) has been a disaster. According to the Wall Street Journal, during his time as Deputy Chairman, GIC lost approximately $42 billion.

In January 2008, just when investors are shorting U.S. banks, Tony Tan spent billions of dollars of Singapore taxpayers’ monies to invest in Citigroup and UBS.

To justify his reckless actions, Tony Tan said in an interview with the Business Times, “In the case of UBS, they have a worldwide global wealth management business which is something not replicable by any bank. Citigroup has an international worldwide consumer business which is also unique.”

At the time, Jim Rogers, a former partner of George Soros in the famed Quantum Fund, said he felt “sad” for Singapore as it would be losing a lot of money.

Rogers continued, “They’re making a big mistake; these banks have many more problems still ahead. They should wait until these companies are really on the ropes a few years from now . . . and trading at $5 a share.”

Rogers also expressed doubts about the capability of GIC’s fund managers, including Tony Tan, “I know these people, and they have never given me the impression that they’re smarter than anyone else…They have gigantic amounts of money, but they’ve made a bad judgment in these cases.”

A few months later, the value of GIC’s shares in Citigroup and UBS crashed after both got mired in toxic debts during the 2008 global financial crisis.

The news was naturally censored by the Singapore media, but the Wall Street Journal reported that GIC suffered a loss around 59 billion Singapore dollars (US$41.6 billion) in 2008, making it one of the worst years for the sovereign wealth fund since it was established in 1981.

Now, Tony Tan is Singapore’s president.

The writer of the above article is John Harding. He was the guy who exposed ex-PAP minister Dr Yeo Cheow Tong's wife's questionable financial transaction in his best selling book "Escape from Paradise".

The book is not banned in Singapore, so there's no worry about ordering it if you wish - Our book, “Escape from Paradise,” was never banned by Singapore. Thank you Singapore!

Nope, I am not paid by Harding or any party. The above is not an advert for his book. It is info distribution.

OK, get back to work or your boss will come after you. You can order it in your own free time. There's no hurry. It is temporarily out of stock anyway.

US Presidential Elections 2012 - Iowa Caucuses live results

2012-01-04T07:27:00.001+08:00

For those who are following the run to the US Presidential Elections, here is a link to the Iowa Caucuses live.

GOP caucus results
If the site is slow to load, just remember that America has over 200m population and many are interested in the results.

It doesn't look good for Ron Paul because it looks like the vote stealing will happen. They're gonna count the votes in a secret location! What????

Tonight's Iowa Vote Count To Take Place At Secret Location

Vote stealing in America!

Looks like the warmongers are soooooo afraid of Ron Paul winning, they have to resort to all means to prevent that from happening. Yeah, America, the democratic nation. What hot air!

American soldiers rape about anyone

2012-01-03T23:47:00.002+08:00

When the Yankees stole lands from the Native Americans, it wasn't enough to satisfy them. So they raped women and children.

More than 200 years later, whenever they steal lands (like in Afghanistan and Iraq), they continue their rapes and torture.

But that ain't enough too. So they rape their own womenfolk serving the military.

Rape in the ranks: Female US soldiers raped by comrades fight war on two fronts

Some American female troops deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan have had to fight another, more private battle. Besides the physical and psychological hardships of war, they've also had to face the trauma of sexual abuse from male comrades. And very few victims report the crime, as RTs Marina Portnaya reveals.

O:40 min - One in three women in the military gets raped!

Ironic that one of the arguments pro-war mongers give is that America invades Afghanistan and Iraq to remove despotic regimes which abuse women. So where are these hypocrites now when it is the American soldiers who rape their own women?

Hard evidence of impersonation via email hacking

2012-01-03T21:16:00.008+08:00

Update - The original message in this post has been removed because:

1. I received an email from the perpetrator and he apologised for the mischief he has caused.

2. The aggrieved parties have agreed to close the case.

Although I feel that aggrieved parties should pursue the case because I doubt his mischief will end here, I respect their decision and hence removed the original message as part of the closure agreement.

The previous two posts stay because somehow, nothing was mentioned by the perpetrator or the aggrieved parties on that.

=========

Related two previous posts -
Open Letter to Dr Yong Wah Goh of University of Southern Queensland

Reply from Dr Yong Wah Goh

Abstinence IS part of Sex Education

2012-01-03T09:32:00.003+08:00

Liberals are making a big hooha, claiming it is a step backwards when MOE decides to include abstinence as part of Sexual Education Programmes. See links below.

MOE’s revision of sexuality education

Sex Ed: More than going beyond second base

Is MOE Encouraging the Spread of STD?

It seems strange to me that so many bloggers who are younger than I am, appear to be saying that they have been taught "abstinence" in schools and that doesn't work. I was born in the sixties era and I recall being taught sex ed stuff in the 1970s. The stress was definitely about "safe sex" rather than "abstinence". And that was topped up by the fact that I was from a Christian mission school too!

The only time abstinence was taught was during Moral Ed (that time it was known as Civics) classes. But when it comes to sex awareness, be it from the MOE or MOH viewpoint, it had always been about "safe sex".

So who are these guys, younger than I am, to claim that abstinence was taught over safe sex in the 1980s and 1990s, when already in the 1970s, it had always been safe sex over abstinence?

Abstinence is part of sex education. Safe sex is also, but it is a misnomer because it gives people the idea that it is safe.

Some creative goons suggest that we replace the term "safe sex" with "safer sex" to address the misconception. But aren't these goons showing their gooney side, because it would mean that if you just have sex, it is safe, but if you practise "safer sex", it is safer?

Huh? Wazzat again?

Let's face it. Safe sex has been taught, drilled, hyped up over and over again since he 1970s. If at all, it is the safe sex ed approach that doesn't work.

After four decades of drilling of safe sex, even adults still don't practise it because most still don't care. Condoms are sold like sanitary pads and cigarettes at convenient stores. Are you trying to say that these highly sexed people don't know condoms exist, or don't know where to get them?

Come on! The only true safe sex is abstinence or being faithful to your spouse. He/she must also be faithful to you, of course.

Any other way, including the (un)safe sex way, is no guarantee. That's because not only the HIV virus is able to pass through the latex, but more importantly, after 4 decades of teaching safe sex, many people just don't care.

Stopping educators from teaching abstinence as an alternative is denying the truth that is the only true and safe method.

Reply from Dr Yong Wah Goh

2012-01-02T13:25:00.019+08:00

This is a follow up on the post - Open Letter to Dr Yong Wah Goh of University of Southern Queensland

Dr Yong Wah Goh of USQ has finally replied me. That's two days after he has been notified to contact me. He does not deny the allegations made against him in his reply.

Here is the screenshot showing the details of the date of his email to me.

(Details flagged down from drop menu.)

Amazingly, in his reply to me, he addressed TWO parties that have been impersonated on the internet!

I have NEVER linked anyone or named any site where parties have been impersonated on this public blog and neither have I informed him through email or other means any such details. Yet, Dr Goh (Yong Wah), addressed two of the impersonated parties to me?

Helloooo? Did this guy make yet another Freudian slip and got his addressees of those who he has been harassing and impersonating on the internet mixed up, such that in a hurry to post, he addressed me as his victims?

Here is the damning evidence that he knew much more than anyone else reading this blog because I have NEVER linked or mentioned any of the aggrieved parties, but he did in his email to me!

What? You expect me to reveal the identities of the aggrieved? Of course I have to blank them out to protect his victims!

This episode serves as a notice to Dr Goh, that if he wants to sue anyone for defamation, he has to know that I have now in possession evidence that he is a party to the self-defamation himself, as well as to all the mischief has put up, impersonating the aggrieved parties.

Finally, let's recall that this is not the first Freudian Slip he made on my blog. Here is that classic self implication he made letting everyone know he posts hate against Christians by placing an expletive beside the name of Jesus. He used yet another identifiable email when he made that post in the comments section. Of course he deleted that comment when he realised he self-kicked, but my email notification is now etched in stone. (The expletive word f*****g is blanked out.)

Ooopsie! Did you notice that he admits that he is yongwah, albeit he claims I can't prove it? Didn't he just prove he is yongwah, when he mocked and claimed I couldn't prove he was?

Heck, who mentioned yongwah when the issue is about Beast's mention of hating Islam and Christians? This guy Freudian slips too many times, no?

Happy New Year, Doc!

=========

Related Link:
Hard evidence of impersonation via email hacking

The Wall of Hate (constructed by Israel)

2012-01-02T09:12:00.003+08:00

Israel builds walls that cuts across the West Bank, Palestinian Territories, cutting off Palestinians from each other, their farms, water etc.

Short documentary below.

The Wall of Hate

Israel steals not only land from the Palestinians, but their water resource as well, starving them of the water they need for sustenance. A war crime the US, NATO and the world keep ignoring.

Who is wiping who off the map?

Site Stats Review of Where Bears Roam Free

2012-01-01T19:17:00.005+08:00

The Year 2011 is closed and gone. Here's a look at the site stats of Where Bears Roam Free for the year 2011.

Here's the total pageviews for "All Time", which is actually not all time because the period starts from May 2009 and not from the start of this blog.

Chan Chun Sing, as you can see, is the Number One crowd puller to this site. Followed by Nicole Seah (a very distant second), then LKY and Chen Show Mao. It used to be LKY was the Number One before the GE in May 2011.

Next image below is the search for keywords. Note that this Ah Beng guy is so "popular" it even beats my own "where bears roam free" keyword search. Out of over 7000+ keyword searches, Ah Beng totals about 35% of my total search engine results that land up here! Those who search for this site keying "where + bears + roam + free" make up about 26% only.

In fact, search engines have been consistently sending me hits from surfers who type "Chan Chun Sing" till today. So much so, that the all time top post of Ah Beng is able to feature in my Top Ten posts (Last 7 Days) every consecutive week, since April 2011. Screenshot below was taken on 1 Jan 2012 at about 12 noon.

Next, let's take a look at where visitors come from. (Period - 31 Dec 2010 to 30 Dec 2011)

(Click on image to have clearer view)

The top referrer is Google search, followed by those who come to this site directly. This is followed by the sites, Singapore Daily, Singapore News Alternative and Facebook.

Those who come here through search engines and direct means tend to stay longer and view more pages than those who have been referred. Quite typical, since the former two groups are the guys who came here with the intention to either find out more on what they searched for, or to read what has been posted here.

I consider if you have a large data figure like 10,000+ and if those figures show that your readers read more than 1 page and stayed for more than 1 and a half minutes, it is a sign you have attracted quality readers. They are willing to stay on your site long enough to explore around and not just take a quick look at the landing page and leave after a few seconds. This means that a large portion of your readers did not come here to "touch and go" just because you have been referred to by another party.

Finally, we take a look at the daily stats. Screenshot below was taken on 1 Jan 2012 @ 3.00pm. The day starts from midnight.

Well, those are the stats for this site. Have a happy and prosperous New Year 2012!

Vote stealing in America!

2012-01-01T01:26:00.003+08:00

So you thought that vote fraud only occurs in Third World countries? You thought hurdles put up to hinder free elections only happen in Singapore and Malaysia? Lobbyists who have been using the West (especially America) as their role model, take a look at this.

A few days ago, I wrote about how Ron Paul, the only anti-war US Presidential candidate for 2012, will face an uphill task. Ron Paul for US President; any other, it's more wars. I predicteed (in the comments section of the article) that the war hawks will do about anything, unethical means included, to stop him from even smelling the White House. True enough, this is what is gonna happen come 3 Jan 2012.

It looks like the war hawks are gonna steal the Iowa Caucuses from Ron Paul. This is just the "preliminaries" to the actual Presidential Elections. The Republicans are deciding WHO to put up as candidate to represent their camp. And they are stealing it from Ron Paul!

It has been decided the the vote count would be done in a secret and undisclosed location! What? Even Singapore and Malaysia don't do that! This gives cheaters the chance to steal the elections from Ron Paul. Here is a video clip from a very angry American who hosts his private radio talk show. You need only to view the first few minutes to get the idea how serious this situation is.

Ron Paul: Iowa Vote Fraud

Click "Show More" to see what you can do! If Ron Paul has Iowa stolen from him, then violent revolution has become inevitable, as John F. Kennedy warned.

Iowa GOP moving vote-count to 'undisclosed location': to prevent a Ron Paul victory. http://12160.info/profiles/blogs/iowa-gop-moving-vote-count-to-undisclosed-lo...

Threats to disrupt the Iowa Republican caucuses next week have prompted state GOP officials to move the vote tabulation to an "undisclosed location," POLITICO has learned.

to prevent a Ron Paul victory?

The war hawks, in collusion with the media and the various corrupt govt agencies of the US, are desperately trying to prevent Ron Paul, the only anti-war pro-economy Presidential Candidate, from even being put up as a Republican rep for the coming US Elections!

Here's another video clip, showing that vote fraud is nothing new in America!

Proof of voter fraud in the USA - from the horse's mouth

What DEMONcracy and democrazy elections that exists in the US, some of our own Sinkies who have been using America as their model to tell PAPpies to hold free and fair elections?

Open Letter to Dr Yong Wah Goh of University of Southern Queensland

2011-12-31T13:32:00.006+08:00

Dr Goh,

It has come to my attention (through email and/or comments that I have removed from this blog) that real life characters have been impersonated at various sites and then linked to this blog. You have been implicated (in the emails and comments I removed) by the site/blog admins as the one responsible for the various impersonations.

If you want me to mediate between you and the aggrieved parties, please:

1. Contact me at this email: aggygator@gmail.com

2. Use your official email, (goh@usq.edu.au), so I will know that it is truly you.

If I do not hear from you, I will NOT take the trouble to remove spams and/or flames against you in this blog as a repercussion of your dispute. I do not like to clean up the dirty work of others.

Barrie.

=====

PS - the message above has been forwarded to Dr Goh (also known as Yongwah by his colleagues at USQ) and to the aggrieved parties with emails that I have. However since I do not have the email of every aggrieved party, this post is to serve notice to those aggrieved parties (whom I am unable to contact) that I am making effort to mediate the dispute.

=====

Update -
Reply from Dr Yong Wah Goh

Hard evidence of impersonation via email hacking

Chan Chun Sing, you wanna be PM? Sharpen your PR first

2011-12-31T12:40:00.006+08:00

Chan Chun Sing did not give a very good first impression to Singaporeans when he was introduced as a PAP candidate last GE. Now it is reported that Chan Chun Sing could be the next PM.

My concern is not so much whether he is liked at home or not. The bigger issue is that he appears to be very suspicious and confrontational towards our neighbours, especially Indonesia. Our first PM had a history of skirmishes with Malaysia due to his Malayphobia. We sure don't need another PM to be in direct confrontation with an even bigger neighbour!

For all the talk that Chan was in Indonesia for a stint and Singapore could benefit from his experience, I think it is the opposite. He wasted his time there and wasted tax payers' money too. He learns about nothing from his Indonesian stint. I'll come to that later.

In the meantime, here's the report about newbie Ah Beng Chan who's gonna leapfrog over many others, including Tharman and Teo Chee Hean.

Faces of 2012: Chan Chun Sing - Next PM?

Chan Chun Sing. Smiling on the outside, but disdain for Indonesians on the inside? Pic taken from link above.
From a young age, Mr Chan Chun Sing has been a high-flier. A President's Scholar at 18, he became Chief of Army at 40. Now, at 42, he is one of the youngest ministers to be appointed to the Cabinet.

This has fuelled talk that the Acting Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS) is a front-runner to become the next prime minister. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong aims to step down by 2020.

While these are early days, observers concur that his performance has been promising. They hail recent MCYS plans - such as more resources to support services for the elderly, initiatives to help the disabled and improving the childcare sector - for delivering welcome government aid. Those who have worked with the Cambridge economics graduate speak of his sharpness in analysing issues.

His portfolio gains special significance next year as a slowdown looms and demand for social aid increases. Mr Chan says he wants to make the social service sector more effective, and to achieve economies of scale while maintaining its 'personal touch'.

That's what the papers and the pro-Chan Chun Sing camp say. Now let's take a look at his past performance.

Chan Chun Sing learned nothing from Indonesian Stint -

It has been quoted widely that Chan has portrayed a view we are to fear the 200+ million Indonesians around us - Army boy Chan Chun Sing talking cock. It appears that his stint in Indonesia was a big waste of time and funds paid from our tax payers. He could have learned the culture of the Indonesians and helped bridge our relations with Indonesia. Instead, he completely missed that opportunity and came back totally empty handed - plus the feeding of the paranoia to Singaporeans about how 200+ million Indonesians want to usurp tiny Red Dot!

Two of the most thorny and outstanding issues we have with our southern neigbours are:

1) the extradition of corrupt Indonesian tycoons (who have their corrupted funds safely deposited in safe haven Singapore!), and

2) the dallying of return of a piece of Indonesian airspace which is currently under Singapore's control.

I wrote about that here - Chan Chun Seng goes to Indonesia, learns nothing, resolves nothing

PAPpy has counter argued that Indonesia wants to use the extradition as a bargaining chip to rescind some joint military exercise both parties have agreed on.

Come on! Say what you like, PAPpy. Those illegally laundered funds ain't ours, so even if you don't wanna extradite those crooks you are harbouring here, at least return those funds back to the rightful owners, ie Indonesia!

Note that Chan's stay at Indonesia did about nothing to improve our ties and does nothing to help ease the strain due to those two issues. Incidentally, it has been argued by political commentators that the sand ban was due to the fact that the extradition talks collapsed. Yeah, no thanks to our bad foreign PR, our cost of building and real estate and housing have shot up!

My Conclusion -

I think some factions of the pro-Chan Chun Sing group are trying to push him too fast and too far too soon. If he does get to be PM, with his atrocious judgement and lack of diplomacy on Indonesian matters, it is gonna be one big pain in the *ss for Sinkiepore when it comes to relations with Indonesia. We learned the hard way when our first PM goofed his relations with Malaysia in the 1960s all the way to 1980s. Let's hope we don't have to deal the same with a bigger neighbour, no thanks to Ah Beng Chan.

He has to sharpen his PR skills not only at home, but more importantly with our neighbours as well.

PS - I think only these are the ministers who have the calibre of PM material at this stage.

-Tharman (very sharp and astute)
-Shanmugam (ditto)
-Teo Chee Hean (enough international experience, but his downside is that he's an Islamophobe)
-Heng Swee Keat (untested in foreign dealings but has shown he's a doer who gets things done and not just a talker).

Note that a BG's name (who is the current PM) is not in my list. He simply takes up space. Anyone can do that.

I would have considered Ng Eng Hen, but seeing him cave in to the minority vociferous "Let's promote Chinese" group on the MT issue, I think he can't take the pressure of being a PM, should we have an international crisis.

So who's the Terrorist?

2011-12-30T08:13:00.000+08:00

Short 2 minute video. Concise, to the point.

The Bitter Truth

Case study on Death Penalty - Tim McVeigh, Oklahoma Bomber

2011-12-29T08:56:00.003+08:00

In my last discussion on the Death Penalty, we took a look at Ted Kacynski, the Unabomber. Here is that post. Case study on Death Penalty - Ted Kacynski aka Unabomber, FBI's longest manhunt

In this post, we will take a look at Timothy James McVeigh, Oklahoma Bomber.

Background Story -

Oklahoma Bomber. Pic taken from http://bookhaven.stanford.edu/tag/timothy-mcveigh/

You could say Tim, that's what he's called, was a radical. He was also very seclusive and did not mix around much with society, just like Ted Kacynski the Unabomber.

Tim was a war veteran (Iraq War 1991) and served as a gunner of a Bradley. Yep, the very vehicle that almost became nothing but a dud, if not for Col Burton's intervention. I wrote about that here - US military hardware problems. Scroll down till you come to the subheading "The Bradley, classic example of cutting corners to save cost rather than save men".

Tim was awarded the bronze medal by the military for his service. However, his post military life was anything but honour and glamour. He felt disillusioned with America's govt and felt that he should rebel. He was even present at the Waco Siege (which has its own unique story to tell) and distributed leaflets of his literature explaining his ideals.

Then he decided to act out his ideals...

The Bombing -

Oklahoma City bombing
The Oklahoma City bombing was a terrorist bomb attack on the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in downtown Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995. It was the most destructive act of terrorism on American soil until the September 11, 2001 attacks. The Oklahoma blast claimed 168 lives, including 19 children under the age of 6,[1] and injured more than 680 people.[2] The blast destroyed or damaged 324 buildings within a sixteen-block radius, destroyed or burned 86 cars, and shattered glass in 258 nearby buildings.[3][4] The bomb was estimated to have caused at least $652 million worth of damage.[5] Extensive rescue efforts were undertaken by local, state, federal, and worldwide agencies in the wake of the bombing, and substantial donations were received from across the country. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) activated eleven of its Urban Search and Rescue Task Forces, consisting of 665 rescue workers who assisted in rescue and recovery operations.[6][7]

Within 90 minutes of the explosion, Timothy McVeigh was stopped by Oklahoma State Trooper Charlie Hanger for driving without a license plate and arrested for unlawfully carrying a weapon.[8][9] Forensic evidence quickly linked McVeigh and Terry Nichols to the attack; Nichols was arrested,[10] and within days both were charged. Michael and Lori Fortier were later identified as accomplices. McVeigh, an American militia movement sympathizer, had detonated an explosive-filled Ryder truck parked in front of the building. McVeigh's co-conspirator, Terry Nichols, had assisted in the bomb preparation. Motivated by his hatred of the federal government and angered by what he perceived as its mishandling of the Waco Siege (1993) and the Ruby Ridge incident (1992), McVeigh timed his attack to coincide with the second anniversary of the deadly fire that ended the siege at Waco.

Tim McVeigh was executed and his body was cremated.

Question time -

Would you have fought against his Death Sentence, knowing the fact that if he did one day walk out free from prison, he could have bombed more people to death?

Unlike the Unabomber, McVeigh was very young when he was arrested. He was still less than 30 years old then. Assuming that he got his release from prison 30 years later, he would still not have hit the age of 60 yet. Let us remember that the Unabomber continued to execute his serial bombings when he was in his fifties, and probably would have continued through his 60s or even 70s, had he not been caught.

Are you willing to risk to have a guy like McVeigh walking free?

Final Word -

Every argument has two sides of the coin. While anti-Death Penalty lobbyists argue that the criminal has the right to live, the counter argument is that so do the future potential victims of the criminal.