Where Bears Roam Free

Lobbyists' non-disclosure incriminates Yong Vui Kong further

2012-01-31T07:36:00.015+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

2011-12-29T08:56:00.002+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?

My 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.

LKY should have let Nantah died a natural death

2011-12-28T10:56:00.010+08:00

Pro-Nantah groups decry that Lee Kuan Yew's move to shut down Nantah was political. I agree. Others say that if Lee Kuan Yew had not shut down Nantah, it would have died a natural death. I agree too.

But history has it that Lee Kuan Yew shut down Nantah, and that gave pro-Nantahans the excuse to blow their horn that they were a formidable force to be reckoned with. That I don't agree.

(Image at right corner taken from http://remembersingapore.wordpress.com/jurong-west-nantah-arch/)

Nantah was an elitist, sectarian, race-based society that would have divided Singapore if it had succeeded to dominate the Singapore Education System. But due to the fact that many preferred English stream education and employers sought after English streamed graduates, Nantah would have died a natural death by the late 1980s anyway.

To give you an idea what it would be like if Nantah had succeeded and were alive today, just imagine a group of Chinese speaking SAP elites who give no sh*t about other races or cultures. As it is now, we already have many ex-SAP students in top posts in the govt and you can see their aloofness towards other cultures and races. They come from NUS, NTU and/or some foreign university, but generally most are the product of the Eng ed SAP elitists from the SAP pseudo Chinese schools. Now extrapolate that aloofness to the guys who would be from Nantah, a pure Chinese stream education system.

I take you got the picture.

Here is an article that plays the same stale tune that Nantah was closed because it was a force to be reckoned with, and LKY decided to close it down. From Nantah to NTU: Difficult but necessary journey

Here is a speech from Chia Thye Poh, one of the last early Socialist Left Leaders who's still around. Let's see what he has to say about Nantah.

Chia Thye Poh: The spirit of Nantah lives on

Honourable chairman, dear friends,

First, I would like to thank the LLG Cultural Development Centre for giving me the Lim Lian Geok Spirit Award this year.

In my life, I benefited a lot from mother-tongue education and Nanyang University, but have given back very little. Compared to those who have tirelessly worked for the mother-tongue education and Nantah, my contribution is indeed nothing. So, the honour of this award should go to all of them.

A university is not an ivory tower. Modern facilities alone do not constitute a good university. What matters is its spirit, its capacity in bringing up graduates that empathize with the people and work for the progress of mankind and world peace.

Not long ago, I came across an article about the National Southwest Associated University of China during the Resistance War against Japanese Invasion. In those difficult years, the lodgings for teaching staff were partitioned only by cloth-curtains, classes were conducted in thatched cottages, and students had to queue up for a seat in the library. Yet, the Southwest Associated University brought up not only courageous fighters against the Japanese aggressors, but also talented professionals including Yang Zhenning and Li Zhengdao, who later won the Nobel Prize in Physics.

Note Chia's reference and allusion of the Nantah Spirit to the fight for liberty against the Japanese. That's something only the Chinese (and that too the hardcore Chinese who feel for China and not all Chinese) can empathise. But Singapore has other races and culture. So why this Chinese slant which even many Chinese can't relate to? Didn't I say that Nantah is interested in sectarian interests?

The establishment of Nanyang University was, as described by Mr Tan Lark Sye, the crystalization of the wish and courage of ‘over 3 million Chinese’ in Southeast Asia. This can be seen from the support and donation given to Nantah from all walks of life including millionaires, labourers, taxi and pedicab drivers, hawkers and artistes, etc. On the inauguration day of the university, tens of thousands of people thronged to the campus. The whole Jurong Road was a long queue of vehicles, and the motorcade of Singapore Governor Sir William Goode was delayed for more than two hours before reaching the inauguration ceremony.

Again, note the very heavy emphasis of "SE Asian Chinese", totally ignoring that there are 10 over million Malays, Indians and other indigenous groups in Malaysia; as well as the 200 million Indonesians of various races and cultures; as well as the Filiponos, Thais, Viets etc. Suddenly 3 million looks like a very small number to be concerned about. Unless you're only interested in the elite Chinese, which is what Nantah is all about, isn't it?

The purpose of establishing Nantah was to serve the society of Southeast Asia, irrespective of races. It promoted inter-cultural exchanges. Besides donating huge sum of money to Nantah, Mr. Tan Lark Sye also donated to University of Malaya and other institutes in Southeast Asia. In Nantah, there were Department of Chinese Language, Department of Modern Languages, and also Department of Malay Language. However, while Nantah was working hard to develop itself, it suffered blow after blow of attacks from the Singapore Lee Kuan Yew Administration. Mr Tan Lark Sye, who had fought for the citizenship of Singaporeans during the colonial era, was himself deprived of citizenship by the Lee Kuan Yew Administration. In 1980, Nantah was closed. At that time, I was still in prison. One day, an official from the Singapore Home Affairs Ministry came to interrogate me. He wanted my opinion on the merger of Nantah with Singapore University. I gave a cold answer: ‘The people will never forget who closed down Nantah.’ After that, I refused to say anything more. He was unable to pursue the matter further, and the interrogation was called off.

That's the part (bolded above) where the Socialist Left and Nantahans take glory they don't deserve in the first place. But no thanks to LKY who closed Nantah, these guys now blow their horns and make heroes out of themselves, patting each other on their backs.

If Nantah had succeeded, won't we see more Chinese elites far worse than SAP products in the govt service, who are so aloof and out of tune with the majority of Singaporeans?

Just as Mr. Lim Lian Geok had said, his body might be destroyed, yet his spirit would survive and flourish. Today, Nantah no longer exists, but it will always live in the heart of the people. The Spirit of Nantah has already spread and can never be stamped out. It will always inspire us to overcome all difficulties and march on.

Thank you.

The irony is that Nantah purports to be for all races, when it is very clearly very sectarian. So what if they have a Department of Modern Languages and another Department of Malay Language. How many non-Chinese graduated from Nantah? Heck, I'll push it further - how many non-speaking Chinese graduated from Nantah?

Need I stress further the sectarian nature of Nantah?

My Opinion and Conclusion -

I have no problem with the existence of Nantah per se. Yes, they are sectarian. But that's alright. So what if they want to further their own interests to the wishes of a small group?

What I am against is the politicising of Nantah by the Socialist Left. The closure of Nantah now gives the Socialist Left the excuse to push its political agenda and claim that it is an alternative rule to the PAP.

But then again, aren't the Socialist Left even worse than the PAP? The PAP is racist. No doubt. But the Socialist Left in SE Asia is worse.

The closure of Nantah only gives the Socialist Left the excuse to blow their horn that LKY was afraid of them. In reality Nantah, like Barsan Socialis, would have died a natural death, because not only the non-Chinese cannot connect with them, even the majority Chinese cannot connect with such elitists.

There was really no need for LKY to absorb Nantah into Singapore Univeristy. If you recall, Barisan Socialis allowed itself to die naturally and be absorbed by WP. Wouldn't have Nantah faced the same fate?

Stop over-glorifying Nantah. It did about nothing for Singapore as a whole - except allowed the Socialist Left SE Asian Chinese to pat themselves on the back - for achieving self-centred sectarian goals no one else can relate to. Not even the majority of the Chinese population.

Has Israel's double dealing undermined SAF and Singapore's defence?

2011-12-27T08:14:00.007+08:00

It just had to be Israel, the nation SAF trusts so much that's scuppering our National Defence Security. It can't be any other nation. Israel after all, has a record of backstabbing its allies including America and Brit. So what's Sinkiepore to untrustworthy Zionist Israel?

Before I go into details of how Israel scr*wed us, here is some news to show you how Double Dealing Israel has compromised the military defence of its Godfather, the US.

After Demanding Patriot Missiles as Protection from Iran, Israel Sells Secret US Technology to China
Finnish authorities have confirmed the seizure of 69 Patriot missiles manufactured by Raytheon Corporation today. During a routine search of the MS Thor Liberty, a ship flagged by the Isle of Man, at the Finnish port of Kotka, authorities found 69 Patriot missiles capable of a type capable of intercepting ICBMs, the most modern available and America’s most sensitive military technology.

These units, the most advanced Patriot system had only been supplied to nation, Israel. The 69 Patiot ICBM interceptors are believed to be a highly secret consignment demanded by Israel as protection from any retaliatory strike by Iran were war to break out in the region, Instead of deploying them, the missiles were apparently sold to China labeled as “fireworks” accoring to Interior Minister Paivi Rasanen.

Though the missiles themselves were worth only $4 billion, the technology transfer itself would be worth over $125 billion, and represent a signficant loss of defense capability for the United States. Sources termed it, “An absolute disaster, even if they only received the radar systems alone, much less the missiles. That this would go unreported though the story was broken in Europe 48 hours ago is astounding. Nobody in Washington has this although even the BBC report contains more than enough information to bring Washington to a halt.

China of course denies it. But amazingly and quite naively I have to say, China says that the shipment was heading to South Korea! My, my, my! So the Chinese DO KNOW of such a shipment! Here is that amazing denial that is actually an admission! Iron Dome Defense Missiles Seized by Finland, Labeled “Fireworks” 69 Newest Patriot Missiles Bound For Reds

Patriot ICBM Interceptor - PAC3

The next stop for this cargo, valued at over $4 billion even without the associated radar, which may well have been shipped via some other method, was Shanghai, China.

Yet the Chinese government has given an official denial of any knowledge of this transaction.

They went even further, they claimed the missiles were heading to South Korea. However, were China to have given the issue a second’s thought, it would have been advisable to have failed to acknowledge any familiarity with the issue whatsoever.

Yep, how did China know such missiles were around the area in the first place? Talked too much and gave away details they wanna keep secret?

So China now has America's most advanced military tech. But that's not the most damaging part. The most damaging part is that China is KNOWN to sell military tech to Iran as well!

By the way, if Iran could have gotten US military tech through the backdoor, that about explains how the Iranians managed to down America's most sophisticated Stealth Drone, doesn't it?

So, has Singapore been scr*wed? -

So how does this all affect Singapore? Well, according to some reports, Singapore has funded Israel's "Iron Dome" Project. It has to be made known that Israel has never really designed any of its military stuff from scratch. It gets all its military tech from US and it simply makes modifications.

The only exception is the Merkava Tank which Israel designed itself. It turned out to be quite a disaster, when put to actual combat, as can be seen when it lost the war to Hezbollah in 2006. As many as 15% of those tanks were annihilated. I wrote about that here - Fallacy of the Mean Israeli Defence Force - Part 2

Here is the Iron Dome Project which was reported that's actually meant for Singapore. Was Iron Dome defense system actually built for Singapore?

According to the report above, Singapore funded the project for Israel to build an Iron Dome. The report also states that The Iron Dome was meant for Singapore's use. But as mentioned, Israel never designs its own military equipment system. And neither does it build for others. It is only known to have modified systems.

So is our Iron Dome just a modification of the US Patriot Missile Defence System? If it is, we're scr*wed, aren't we? That's because China has now gotten hold of it and in all probability Iran will have it too, because China does sell military tech to Iran!

This is serious. Are we shortchanged? This means that the system we have is just a modified US System which other countries also have. What good is that if they can reverse engineer to counter our so called "Iron Dome"? Hasn't Double Dealer Israel undermined us?

Our SAF top guys have been worshipping these backstabbers for decades when it has a record of attacking its allies' interests! Aren't top SAF guys goons?

Israel has history of backstabbing its allies -

Israel has a history of backstabbing its allies. Even before it got its independence, Zionists had attacked allies to make it look like it was done by others, so that its allies would be fooled into attacking Israel's enemies on its behalf. Here are some high profile cases.

USS Liberty - During the Six-Day War, unmarked Israeli jets pounded on an American ship, USS Liberty, to deceive America into believing it was Egyptians. The idea was to get US to attack Egypt on its behalf. The plan was to sink the ship so there would be no survivors or witnesses. But the ship didn't sink and the survivors told their story. The US govt tried to cover up the story to save their godson, Israel.

Lavon Affair
The Lavon Affair refers to a failed Israeli covert operation, code named Operation Susannah, conducted in Egypt in the Summer of 1954. As part of the false flag operation,[1] a group of Egyptian Jews were recruited by Israeli military intelligence for plans to plant bombs inside Egyptian, American and British-owned targets. The attacks were to be blamed on the Muslim Brotherhood, Egyptian Communists, "unspecified malcontents" or "local nationalists" with the aim of creating a climate of sufficient violence and instability to induce the British government to retain its occupying troops in Egypt's Suez Canal zone.[2] The operation caused no casualties, except for those members of the cell who committed suicide after being captured.
Note that Israel was willing to attack American and Brit interests to blame Egyptians. The Zionist saboteurs were caught because one of their bombs went off prematurely. (As you can see, terror bombings was originally a Zionist idea.)

King David Hotel bombing
The King David Hotel bombing was an attack carried out by the militant right-wing Zionist underground organization Irgun on the King David Hotel in Jerusalem on 22 July 1946.[1][2] 91 people of various nationalities were killed and 46 were injured.[3]

The hotel was the site of the central offices of the British Mandatory authorities of Palestine, principally the Secretariat of the Government of Palestine and the Headquarters of the British Forces in Palestine and Transjordan.[3][4] The attack, which initially had the approval of the Haganah (the principal Jewish paramilitary group in Palestine) and was conceived of as a response to Operation Agatha (in which widespread raids, including one on the Jewish Agency, had been carried out), was the deadliest directed at the British during the Mandate era (1920–1948).[3][4] More people were killed than by any bombing carried out in the subsequent Arab-Israeli conflict.[5]
Brit interests attacked by Zionists even before Israel's independence. I told you terror bombings originated from Zionists! The idea was to pressure Brit to get out of Palestine so that a Zionist state could be established.

Jonathan Pollard - An American Jew who stole military secrets from US and passed them to Israel. Initially Israel denied he was an Israeli spy. However, Israel now lobbies for his release and pro-Pollard Zionists even argue that Israel has a right to steal those classified info! What audacity!

Were there more such cases of sabotage by Israel? -

The above are instances where Zionist Israel was caught red-handed. What about the times they were not caught? It is not believable that these Zionists only attempted three terror attacks and one espionage, and bungled all three terror attacks plus that one espionage case. After all, the Zionists pride themselves for "being the best".

This opens the question to all other terror attacks where Israel's enemies were blamed, which includes 911, London's 7/7, Madrid bomb blasts, the Mumbai Blasts, Bali Blasts etc.

Conclusion

The SAF model is based on Israel's model. That is an open secret. For decades, naive SAF (and many ignorant Sinkies) believe that Israel is our friend and ally.

In reality, Israel has had a record of backstabbing its allies, even attacking them to deceive them into war against Israel's enemies. As can be seen, Israel is no true friend.

For years, I have wondered if the SAF (or Singapore) has been sold out or shortchanged, because if they can even attack America, their biggest supporter, who is tiny red dot to them.

Looks like today, my suspicions are confirmed. As Singaporeans, you should be wary of Israel too.

Aren't our top guys and scholars in the SAF, who have been supporting Zionist Israel, suckers after all?

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

2011-12-26T07:53:00.005+08:00

Intro -

In my past posts, I have argued for the Death Penalty. In this post, I will present a case for you to decide if you wish to see if a serial bomber is fit to die, so that he won't be free to kill more people. This post is hence for readers to decide for themselves and not for me to argue my points.

In other words, in this article, the point I am making is whether you are for or against the Death Penalty, it is a judgement call.

The Unabomber -

The Unabomber. Pic taken from - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski

Theodore John (Ted) Kacynski. Genius, Harvard grad, Mathematics professor, eccentric, seclusive .... and a serial bomber. His targets were mainly airlines and institutions of education like universities. Hence, the FBI named him "Unabomber". The "Un" for universities and "a" for airlines.

Over nearly a twenty year period, he killed 3 people and injured 23 others. His method of attack was self made bombs delivered as mail in the form of packages to his victims.

It took the FBI nearly 20 years to finally arrest him because he was such a genius, he virtually left no clues.

Background Story of the Unabomber -

Ted Kacynski was born in America to Polish migrants after WW2. He was a child prodigy in Mathematics. At the age of 16, he was accepted into Harvard University. However, in spite of his brilliant academic performance, he was a social misfit. He preferred to be alone in the countryside living in a hut without running water or electricity. But it was from here he planned and executed his deadly bombings. He held the ideal that technology is evil and hence, attacked institutions that helped in advancement of technology.

The Unambomber's attacks became more sophisticated after every attack. His family never suspected him because he lived away from them. But that was set to change when he gave a newspaper tabloid to print his manisfesto, and threatened to kill more people if it was not published within 90 days.

When his manisfesto was published, his brother David took special interest after being notified by his (David's) wife. David suspected it was Ted because there's so much similarity between the manifesto and Ted's past unpublished writing.

David was in a dilemma. Does he turn in his own brother and face the possibility of having him executed, or does he keep mum and allow his brother to kill more innocents?

Your call now -

As I said, I will leave it to readers to decide. The burning issue is:

1. If there is a death penalty hanging over the head of the informant (eg David, Ted's brother), it could prevent the informant from helping investigators pin the criminal down.

2. If there is no death penalty, which means the criminal can walk free after some years or decades, won't there be a risk that this serial killer will kill again?

Video Documentary on FBI's longest manhunt, the Unabomber -

For those of you who have the time, or if you want to know in detail about the case, I have linked the Unabomber's story which comes in 5 parts. I embedded only the first link.

Very moving indeed, as it also takes a look at the perspective from Ted's family, which includes his parents, brother and sis-in-law.

Ted Kaczynski: The Unabomber (1/5)

Ted Kaczynski: The Unabomber (2/5)

Ted Kaczynski: The Unabomber (3/5)

Ted Kaczynski: The Unabomber (4/5)

Ted Kaczynski: The Unabomber (5/5)

My Final Words -

In America, there is a sentence called "Life Sentence without Parole" (which Ted Kacynski was sentenced with). This means there's no possibility of release before his death.

But then again, we don't know what the future holds. One day, Human Rights activists may campaign that is inhumane and ask for that to be abolished too. It may come to a stage where the Unabomber may one day walk away free again - to kill more people.

Like I said, it is your judgement call.

=====

Next case study, Timothy James McVeigh, Oklahoma Bomber. Would you have fought for him to live so that one day, he could have walked out a free man to bomb more people to death?

=====

External article you may like to read - Lessons from the Unabomber

=====

Update - Case study on Death Penalty - Tim McVeigh, Oklahoma Bomber

Ron Paul for US President; any other, it's more wars

2011-12-25T08:13:00.005+08:00

The American Decay began after Ronald Reagan completed his second presidential term in 1988. Since then, we had dumb George Bush (Senior) who was more interested in settling a score with Saddam. Followed by Bill Clinton who was more interested in Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky than his presidential duties or his husbandly duties to his wife, Hilary. Followed up by George W Bush who was more interested in finishing off Saddam on behalf of his dad. Then by Barrack Obama, who continues the wars the Bush admin created.

Because of the terror wars America caused, invading lands of others, it is now the most hated nation in the world. All presidential candidates for the next term are war hawkish, save for Republican Ron Paul. This is the only guy who could save America, and the world, from WW3. Before we take a look at Ron, let's see how America looks like. Strong video message below (less than 3 min). The message of Ron Paul.

If China Attacks America (JUST IMAGINE)

Incidentally, the voice you hear from the 2:05 min mark is the voice of Ron Paul relaying his message why the wars must stop.

The only sane American Presidential candidate is Ron Paul. All other candidates want to have more wars, wars, wars.

Ron Paul's previous Presidential Campaign -

As promised, more about this guy. Many Singaporeans don't know who Ron Paul is. Not surprising. Not too many Americans know either! Why? Because he is censored by the major news media. All major news network prefer duds like McCain, Obama, Mrs Clinton, Gingrich etc. Same for last presidential campaign.

Here's what I wrote about Ron Paul (Nov 2007) during his last presidential campaign. Last Hope for America (and the world) – Ron Paul

Note that in the link above, although Ron was the most searched of all candidates on the internet, he got very little air time or mention in the mainstream media. That's because the media is controlled by the war hawks. They don't wanna an anti-war US President.

Ron Paul's Presidential Campaign 2012 -

Ron's back. And this time, the mass media's tricks are less effective. More and more Americans are getting to know him and more and more of them like him! Here is Ron's official campaign website - Ron Paul 2012. His fan site is over here - Ron Paul Fan Site

Here is a video clip of an actual debate between some pro-war guy (Rick Santorum) with Ron. The point discussed is setting up a war with Iran. Note how Ron Paul (the guy on the right) gets interrupted intermittently by his opponents when he replies - just like how PAPpies like to cut off opposition members when they speak!

Ron Paul Destroys Rick Santorum On Iran! - Iowa Republian Presidential Debate (2 min)

Ron Paul is definitely more well-known and popular this campaign than the last. Thanks to the internet. But no thanks to mainstream media, which still tries to down Ron's credibility. Just like in Singapore, no? See video below from CNN.

Ron Paul Walks Out On Interview With CNN Media Whore

===
Update!! - What the heck! Found another video clip of the above and this proves that CNN censored 30 secs of the clip to make it look as if Ron Paul didn't answer the question and walked out!

Note that in the clip above there's a cut at 2:29. Now here's the uncut version. The missing section is at 7:25 min.
Uncut Ron Paul Interview - CNN Gloria Borger

I told you the MSM in US is as scr*wd up as the Straits Times in Sinkiepore! What freedom to spit, er I mean.. of speech, that exists in Americuh?

End of update.
===

Summary of Ron Paul's Stand on Issues -

Here is a summary of Ron's stand. On the Issues (Ron Paul).

Quite a long list which I did not go through all. But I do know that he is anti-war and pro-economy. The only issue I have against is his pro-drug legalisation. Other than that, I don't have any real objections with his stand.

In the meantime, here's one of Ron's debate on why the Afghan war is illegal. This speech was made sometime in 2010.

This War Is Illegal! Ron Paul Afghanistan War Debate

1:55 min - Ron explains why the war in Afghanistan is illegal.

Oh yeah. This never gets played up on MSM in America, and neither does it get air time in Lapdog of America, Sinkiepore.

Concluding Words -

There's really no choice but to vote for Ron Paul if you're an American and don't wish to have wars. There's really no other presidential candidate who is serious about ending the illegal terror wars caused by America.

Unfortunately, the war machine of America has big funds to sponsor big guns and would never allow Ron to smell the White House.

Let's hope that the American people are saner than the war hawks.

Issue on excessive data roaming charges still not addressed

2011-12-24T10:15:00.007+08:00

Even with all the so called advice and "explanation" by experts, authorities and telcos, I really wonder if there was any complicity, or at least negligence, on the part of the telcos themselves. I am talking about exorbitant bills on data roaming charges.

Mobile phone data roaming causes SingTel bill shock
Picture of a mobile phone bill showing a staggering amount of about SGD $350,000 has gone viral on Facebook..

This prompted Singapore's consumer watchdog to advise smart phone users to better manage their data roaming plans.

The phone bill was uploaded on Facebook by SingTel customer, Kave Goh.

It sparked wide discussions on whose responsibility it is to manage data charges.

A SingTel spokesperson, however, told Channel NewsAsia the amount Mr Goh is liable to pay is $14,000, and not $350,000.

That's because the sum of $336,000 incurred on data charges comes under a Bridge DataRoam plan that allows subscribers to pay a flat rate and latch on to an overseas partner network for that rate.

I don't get it. If the subscriber incurred data charges that comes under a Bridge DataRoam plan that allows him to pay flat rate and latch on to an overseas network for that rate, how come he was charged the higher rate of $350,000 and not $14,000 in the first place? Huh? Any explanation from Singtel on that anomaly?

Another link. Singtel bills user SGD350,000 for data roaming
A Singtel mobile phone bill is spreading all over Facebook today because the user is being billed up to SGD350,000 for data roaming charge. This despite the user have paid SGD182 for the Singtel Bridge Data Roam service.

According the user, Singtel has agreed to wave all of Taiwan Mobile charges but insist that the user pay 12K Far EasTone.

The user may have resigned to fate the Singtel would sue him for bankruptcy.

Yet another report below and it amplifies the intriguing question I put up above.

'Blame the overseas operators' for data bill shocks, say experts
Why are overseas data roaming charges so exorbitant as to run into hundreds of thousands of dollars for a couple of weeks? Blame overseas mobile operators, experts say.

One analyst even added that in countries where there are dominant players with the market power to dictate 'take it or leave it' prices, telcos can earn more than 90 per cent profit.

The issue was raised this week following a furore over a bill posted on Facebook earlier this month. SingTel customer Kave Goh claimed he was billed $350,000 after a 16-day trip to Taiwan last month. The telco later clarified the amount payable was about $12,000.

This $12,000 is payable because Mr Goh had, on three occasions, logged on to a network not affiliated to SingTel and used about 600MB of data, or about $20 per megabyte. The rest of the data consumed, about 15GB, was covered by SingTel's Bridge DataRoam plan with Taiwan Mobile. As he was on the plan, about $336,000 in data charges was reduced to a flat charge of about $14 a day.

Huh? Now let's get this straight.

1. He was on a plan that allowed him to be charged $14 flat rate a day.

2. If that was the case, how the heck did Singtel bill him for the charges that were out of that $14 per day plan he was on in the first place?

3. It was reported Singtel decided to reduce the charges because he had that $14 a day plan and used that plan to download 15GB.

4. Heck, shouldn't he be billed for that plan in the first place? Singtel should apologise for its error, rather than try to make itself look gracious and generous!

5. If the subscriber had not appealed, wouldn't have Singtel charged the higher rate, which means it profited from the ignorance of the subscriber? Isn't this cheating?

6. How many subscribers have been cheated this way?

7. Why have not the "experts" who explained the high charges questioned Singtel's unethical billing methods?

8. Why has the authorities (IDA) remained so silent?

There is so much opacity on how these charges work. The "explanation" given by all parties, be they "experts" or the telco itself, is not satisfactory.

Punch Drunk Americans

2011-12-23T03:48:00.007+08:00

Don't these high profile Americans have a sick sense of humour? Take a look at the series of video clips. Self explanatory.

60 Minutes Kroft To Joking Obama "Are You Punch Drunk?"

Hillary Clinton on Gaddafi: We came, we saw, he died

Top US nuclear official bursts into laughter after question on deaths of irradiated Fukushima workers (VIDEO)

McCain on 'Bomb Iran' Joke: "Get a Life"

In Praise of Lynching: US media cheers Gaddafi killing

Seng Han Thong perpetuating racism

2011-12-22T10:45:00.002+08:00

MP Seng Han Thong's "explanation" on the recent SMRT fiasco is so PAPpy like. Always thinking that the minority races are backward. I can't believe that after more than 50 years of PAP rule, their MPs are still living in the 1960s, where PAPpies believe that the only educated ones are Chinese. Malays to them are the sweepers and cleaners while Indians are the security watchmen. Only Chinese work as managers, engineers, doctors and laywers.

MP Seng Han Thong: SMRT’s unpreparedness also due to Malay and Indian staffs English language inefficiency

But then again, you really can't blame MP Seng when the very top leaders of the PAP are racists. The number one culprit is of course and old man, who thinks minority races are inferior to Chinese.

MP Seng's words reflect the perpetuating racism that's part of PAPpy's policies.

Truly confused - even Feminists confuse each other

2011-12-20T22:27:00.003+08:00

As if it is not bad enough to confuse men. As if it is not bad enough to confuse women. Feminists are now confusing each other. Can't feminists agree on anything? Yep, they agree to disagree.

No means no means maybe means yes means it better be no. What's that again?

Sexually confused - when no is a game
As a follow up to an earlier piece "Sexual Consent: When no is really no", I would like to discuss when the act of saying no is actually a game women play; or, when no is actually a heavily coded yes.

When I first read this piece “No” Means “No.” So Why Do Some Women Teach Men It Means “Maybe?” written by Roland Hulme, it resonated with me. Women are quick to pounce on men who do not take no for an answer – surely one no should suffice, and women should not need to repeat themselves. But what if men are confused about the no women are saying?

In his article, Hulme shared how, many years ago, he backed off when a woman he was expecting to have sex with said no. He stopped what he was doing, thinking the no was an actual no, and then the young woman promptly went to another room and had sex with someone else. She had apparently meant “yes” with her “no”. The experience bothered him for years – as it would for most people if they could not figure out what they did wrong.

Things fell in place for Hulme when he came across the concept of LMR, or Last Minute Resistance by MTV’s Pick-Up Artist Erik von Markovik. Also known as ASD, or Anti-Slut Defense, it appears to be an interrupt mechanism to help her avoid being perceived as a slut, or feeling like she is one to herself. I might even call it part of the game of playing hard-to-get.

Because this was such a timely article in view of recent happenings in Singapore – SlutWalk Singapore, the launch of AWARE’s Sexual Assault Befrienders Service, and legal discussions about sexual consent – I reposted Hulme’s article with the comment on Facebook: “While men should get no means no, this man highlights how some women have been encouraging men to do the opposite for decades. Lets get better in speaking our truth!”

I did not expect the kind of ferocity that lay behind a comment by a friend:

“Sure! Let’s put the blame back on women! Come on... as a woman it’s fun (and an important part of foreplay!) to feel ‘conquered’ by desire. Your own and his. Only a moron can’t tell the difference between a real “no” (as in ‘f*** off you a***** and get off of me already’ kind of “no”) and a playful ‘no’ (usually accompanied by some tantalizingly seductive body language ;-)”

Here is a friend whom I have long thought of as an empowered individual, and she is calling men who can’t read body language (when accompanied by negative actual language) morons? She is talking about putting up a LMR or ASD. To her, that’s a core erotic theme, but she is indignant that I would suggest that women should speak their truth about their sexual desires?

I responded:

“Nobody was blaming anyone here. Sure I understand what you are saying, but it is not fun or funny when women are getting raped for men who (these women) really meant no. It is about being congruent verbally and physically, and sometimes sending mixed signals only leads to frustration for the men, or dire consequences.”

I am no prude. I can imagine that perceived resistance or a playful no can add to a woman’s allure. But, surely, there is merit in communicating your sexual intentions not just physically but also verbally, so there is no confusion or room for misinterpretation. What of the women who are raped because men are taking their no as a big fat joke? Do they deserve to be violated? What of the men who are not good in non-verbal communication, who end up confused like Hulme, or worse, commit a (non-violent) violation simply through the lack of communication from the woman?

Her reply:

“Hmmm ... It still sounds to me like you’re implying that it’s the women who are sending mixed signals ... not the men who don’t know how to read them as something other than what they want to read. I doubt that any woman who felt raped and protested during the act would feel it’s fair on her to say she sent mixed signals when she told him to stop.”

Me:

“I did not imply anything. I was saying we need to be clear about what we want and communicate it so there is no misunderstanding. To call men who can’t read your body language signals morons is to assume that all men are made equally. Discernment is needed in each situation. You are choosing to read my words in a way that seems convenient to your purpose of engaging in some kind of debate. Sorry I am stepping on your toes. Please go post elsewhere and leave me alone.”

I was angry. Women who persist in saying no verbally and communicating yes physically are indeed, by definition, sending mixed signals. Of course they do not deserve to be raped (no one does) but they certainly could do better at speaking up – speaking their truth. I found myself now siding with all the confused men out there who don’t know how to read such signals – the men this friend called morons.

Her reply:

“Whoa ... where did that reaction come from??? If you don’t want people to engage in meaningful discussions with you on interesting topics you post, what’s the point in posting them? No reason to make things personal, Martha. Relax.”

My last response was:

“Didn’t seem as though you wanted to discuss anything but focused on interpreting my words your way. I could say ditto to you.”

Was I taking it personal? Was I unfair? Should women stop putting up LMR or ASD or playing hard-to-get? Discuss. And remember, there’s nothing wrong in being genuine.

In the first place, these young women should simply heed their grandmas' advice. When good old grams says no, you shouldn't dress sleazily or get drunk, she means never ever do it, and not just no for the moment. No means never, not just no

Comparing Chinese Chauvinism to Nazi Supremacy

2011-12-19T23:14:00.004+08:00

I have been putting up articles about the fact that the bilingual system and Mother Tongue issue has been given too much of a Chinese Chauvinist twist. Whenever the issue of bilingualism and/or Mother Tongue comes up, somehow it is always about the preservation of the Chinese Language and Culture. As if there are no other Mother Tongue languages and/or other cultures in Singapore.

This forum letter below however, beats them all. Not only it is chauvinistic, it is self-glorification which has reached a supremist level. Reading it reminds me how the Nazis see themselves as the superior race, where everyone else must kowtow to.

Mandarin, dialects and English
I CONCUR with Dr Yik Keng Yeong ('Bilingual proficiency is about attitude'; last Wednesday) that there is no scientific evidence that exposure to vernacular dialects is harmful to the mastery of Chinese.

I grew up with the Teochew dialect and learnt English only when I was seven years old. In Secondary 1, I started learning Putonghua (Mandarin, the official language of China) and passed my Chinese four years hence by the skin of my teeth. I ignored Chinese in university but resurrected it when I started work because I had to. Today, I can read Chinese newspapers.

Chinese Singaporeans speak several dialects but they share the same writing system based on Chinese characters. My late father could read Chinese papers in the Teochew dialect.

Studies have shown that people who speak a tonal language like Chinese possess a form of absolute pitch, something that is possessed by people with unusual musical talent such as Mozart and Beethoven.

Studies using brain scans have found that Mandarin speakers use more areas of their brain than people who speak English. Unlike English speakers who use only one side of their brain, Mandarin speakers generally use both sides.

Dialects including Hokkien and Teochew are not only tools for communication but are also living fossils carrying culture. They are invisible wires that link people with different backgrounds to one another and let them share their thoughts, ideas and emotions.

We can jettison our dialects but they will be irretrievably lost to our future generations.

Heng Cho Choon

Note that it is all about how superior the Chinese Language is. Nothing about Mother Tongue itself and how it affects our students.

If Chinese Chauvinists want to preserve the Chinese Language and/or Culture, that if fine with me. However, using the Mother Tongue to do that is highly chauvinistic, because it gives scant regard (and respect) to non-Chinese speaking students and people. Chinese Chauvinists can always set up their own self-funded programmes to promote their chauvinism if they wish, and not use public assisted programmes (through MOE or other ministries and/or stat boards) like Mother Tongue in schools.

It amazes me how these chauvinists (as well as MOE, PAP and the mass media) are not able to perceive the sensitivities of the non-Chinese speaking citizens, whenever they discuss about bilingualism and/or Mother Tongue.

Also note the tone of arrogance and "superiority feeling" in the forum letter above, that Chinese is a superior language and/or race, to the point the writer feels he has the right to sideline other languages and races. As if those cultures and languages don't exist.

You could say, this shows Chinese Chauvinism at its supreme form. I prefer to say that this is the Chinese version of Nazi supremacy and mindset.

==========

Related Articles:

Chinese Chauvinism at the heart of bilingualism

PAP's Racist MT Policy, Part 2 - PAP is forcing Han Culture, not Chinese Culture, on us

PAP's Racist MT Policy, Part 1 - The Sidelining of other Races and Cultures

Chinese Chauvinism Rampant at Heart of MT Issue

Chia Thye Poh had chance to denounce CPM, but he blew it.

2011-12-18T23:41:00.005+08:00

Once again, more sympathy articles for past Leftist leaders on the internet. Latest one here - Chia Thye Poh, the world's second longest serving prisoner of conscience

On my part, I have been posting articles arguing why we shouldn't glorify these Leftists. Here are some of my past articles.

ISA Arrests - who did Tan Jing Quee have in mind to link up with, in the North?

Ex-ISA Detainees Issue - Teo Soh Lung's smoking gun

Exactly what is the (hidden) agenda of these ex-ISA detainees?

Are the Socialist Left truly for S'pore or do they have a sinister agenda?

PAP gloats its "glory" days, Socialist Left gloats its "gory" days

As for Chia Thye Poh, I wrote an article earlier this month, arguing that he did have his chance to state clearly his stance on the Terrorist group, the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM), but he failed to denounce it. Here is that article.

Stop godifying Leftist Leaders - they're highly sectarian and inward looking

Chia Thye Poh had chance to state his stance on CPM and he blew it -

Let's take a look at what Chia Thye Poh's stance on CPM, the terrorist group, was (or is). Chia Thye Poh
Arrest and imprisonment
(first para snipped)

The other detainees were released eventually after they each signed a document promising to renounce violence and sever ties with the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM).[7] However, he refused as he felt that signing such a document would imply that he was affiliated with the CPM and, in his own words: "to renounce violence is to imply you advocated violence before. If I had signed that statement I would not have lived in peace."

I admire Chia's principle for not signing the statement that would have set him free. Signing that statement to renounce violence would mean that he partook violence or at least supported it. But... where is his statement from his own mouth that if he had signed that statement, it would mean that he was affiliated to CPM?

Let's look at the devil in the details again.

1. The statement implies Chia was affiliated to CPM, the terror group.

2. It implies that Chia supports violence.

In Chia's own words, he refused to sign the statement that would set him free because #2 implied he supported violence.

Why then did he not do the same, say it in his own words, that he refused to sign the statement because that would also imply he was affiliated to CPM?

Of course, there's no evidence that he was affiliated or had intention to link with CPM. And that's the reason for the ISA arrest in the first place, no? Otherwise, it would have been a direct charge and conviction.

But doesn't his omission to state that he refused to sign the statement because it would imply he was affiliated (or intended to affiliate) to CPM make it very suspicious, when he was so convicted in his principles not to sign that same statement because he stated that if he did, it would imply that he supported violence?

So why did he blow his own horn, stating he stood by his principles on #2, but not #1?

My Opinion -

1. I am against all detention without trial, be it ISA or "war on terror".

2. We shouldn't glorify those who support terror or refuse to denounce terror groups.

3. I feel that there is an overplay of Leftist glory.

If Leftists are trying to make a comeback, they should be honest and say it so. Then let the people decide if they want a Socialist Left rule in Singapore.

We should stop elevating past Leftists to the status of heroes. After all, the Left in Singapore and Malaysia had a very violent history and their leaders have never once renounced the violent acts of riots in Singapore (or terror attacks in Malaysia).

Most important of all, we had at least one 1960s Left Leader, Tan Jing Quee, who was ready to link up with the North (who else but with the CPM?), and one current Leftist politician (Teo Soh Lung) who openly endorses that idea held by Jing Quee.

To top that up, we have also seen how Chia Thye Poh was ever so willing to quote that the reason why he "did not sign his freedom document" was because it would imply that he had supported violence, yet at the same time, he was totally silent on the fact that same document also expected him to renounce CPM.

On that point (his requirement to denounce CPM), he was totally silent. Why? Was it because like Jing Quee, he harboured linking up "with the North", ie with the CPM?

S'pore like US, makes enemies out of friends

2011-12-17T18:11:00.003+08:00

US the warmongering nation is known for its ability to make enemies out of allies and friends. I have covered much about how US does that in the Mid Easts region in this blog. As if making foes in that part of the world is not enough, it has of late been irritating China by being nosy in the South China Sea region. And who but Lapdog Sinkiepore is behind Nosy US on a collision course with China?

US Navy eyes stationing ships in Singapore
The US Navy will station several new coastal combat ships in Singapore and perhaps in the Philippines in coming years, moves likely to fuel China's fears of being encircled and pressured in the South China Sea row.

The US gives the excuse that it is to fight piracy in the area. But we all know that is bull. It just wants to control the sea routes around this part of the world.

Sinkiepore, the Lapdog that will do anything to America's bidding, stupidly jumps into the fray. Firstly, by allowing US to put its big ships here, America's enemies see our shares as perfect targets. Secondly, this is not going to please China either.

So now, not only we make ourselves targets of attacks against American interests, we have also rubbed our good economic friend China, the wrong way.

Lapdog Sinkiepore, like US, sure knows how to make enemies out of friends.

SAF complicit in these war crimes

2011-12-16T08:56:00.008+08:00

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

1:30 min - Jon Michael Turner, veteran formerly from 8th Marines, addresses audience.

1:48 min - Jon throws his medals to the applause of the audience.

2:10 min - Jon tells of his first confirmed kill. He was an innocent man. Jon shot him in front of the man's friend and father.

Jon's first kill. An innocent civilian man.

3:00 min - "We (the marines) all were congratulated when we had our first kills" - Jon Turner.

3:05 min - Jon's Company Commander personally congratulated him for his first kill. This was the same commander who said anyone whoever got his first kill "by stabbing them to death" will get a 4-day off when he returned from Iraq.

3:30 min - Jon cites an incident where the troops were fired at but didn't know where the fire came from. So they took out a civilian house with an 84mm rocket. Jon states they didn't know if anyone was in it or if that's where the fire was coming from.

4:10 min - Jon's third confirm kill was a man riding a bicycle. Another innocent man. Jon confesses that he and his colleagues "took out some individuals" because there were no reporters or cameramen with them. He also states that the marines will act differently, ie "on key" and no illegal war crimes committed, if they had embedded reporters with them.

Jon's third kill. Another innocent civilian man.

5:18 min - House raids. Done at early hours in the morning. Marines would just "kick down doors and terrorise families" (in Jon's own words).

5:50 min - "If the men of the household were giving us problems, we'd have them taken out any way we felt necessary. Whether it would be choking them, slamming their heads against the walls..."

6:28 min - Marines fire at a minaret of a mosque just to vent off frustration. (This btw, is a war crime. Hospitals, schools, places of worship and other civvy installations are not to be attacked if there's no enemy fire from those installations.) Jon states that there were no enemies nor fire coming from the mosque.

Civilian installations targetted. A mosque being fired upon for no apparent reason, other than troops venting anger.

These are the crimes SAF is complicit in. Other war crimes include repeated bombings by US and NATO troops on civilian targets killing many innocents, women and children included. These include wedding celebrations, birthday gatherings and even funerals. Not forgetting the use of torture on captives too.

There's nothing to be proud of, when our govt gives out medals to our troops who have been giving support to world terrorists.

MRT down, commuters walk on tracks

2011-12-15T20:39:00.005+08:00

SMRT is really screwed. Lost count how many times it broke down. This time, it is so bad we have commuters who had to walk along the tracks. Imagine doing that in the underground tunnels.

Breakdown on North-South MRT line
Train services along the MRT North-South line are down.

Channel NewsAsia is getting reports that services are affected on both directions, from Marina Bay to Braddell.

There is darkness reported at some stations.

One viewer said he is stuck at Toa Payoh station.

While another said he is held up between Orchard and Somerset stations and that the train is in total darkness.

Another viewer, Nizam Rahim, said his wife is stuck in a train at Dhoby Ghaut station and commuters are being evacuated and walking out of the tunnel.

Peak hour traffic is also affected in some parts.

Passengers described scenes of confusion, as they tried to make sense of the situation.

One commuter, Adam, said he and hundreds of passengers were stuck on the train travelling from Somerset to Orchard.

The electricity appears to have been cut off, as the train was in total darkness.

Neither did the air-conditioner seem to be working.

Adam said: "We have been stranded there for one hour, and it is very hot and stuffy. The train doors are all closed. The light also suddenly (switched off), so it's total darkness.

"The train doors (are) also not open, and it is terrible.

"A lot of people angry, banging on the windows to break the windows, I don't know whether (the windows) can (be) broken or not, so that the air can come in. It's very stuffy, it's like a sauna."

Adam later told Channel NewsAsia that the train appeared to have been towed to Orchard MRT station.

Someone in one of the carriages then forced the train doors open, freeing the trapped passengers.

Another commuter, who wanted to be known as Mr Tan, spoke to Channel NewsAsia from Raffles Place MRT station.

He was on his way to work, and heard several announcements asking passengers to avoid the North-South line and to take the East-West line instead.

Mr Tan said: "A lot of us all have problems. There are so many people coming downstairs and people telling them the train is not moving anymore. I think the crowd is getting very big.

"The only thing I know is that I'm late for work, so I have to take alternative route. So I quickly ran upstairs to get a taxi, hopefully I can get a taxi. Now I'm still trying to get a taxi actually."

Another spoke to us from Toa Payoh station, and said there were long queues of people, who seemed to be requesting refunds.

First World public transport.

Replacing ISA with something worse - "war on terror"

2011-12-15T07:47:00.008+08:00

I have always been against all kinds of detention without trial. Be it ISA or "war on terror". Somehow, some anti-ISA lobbyists don't seem to know that they are stupidly asking for the removal of the ISA to be replaced with an even worse and draconian act - ie "war on terror".

At the moment, four Singaporeans are on trial in Singapore and are expected to be extradited to the US under America's "war on terror" campaign. These four claim innocence. Note that the trial is NOT about whether they have committed or aided in terror activities, but whether they have acted in a way that contravened America's business ethics and deserve to be extradited.

Singaporeans in Iran deal: 'It was just business'
Three men and a woman, accused by the American government of conspiring to evade a US trade embargo against Iran, denied any wrongdoing in a Singapore district court on Monday.

The Singaporeans are accused of shipping - from Singapore to Iran - 6,000 radio frequency modules they had bought from an American company, Digi International.

In statements read by their lawyers, they said they had believed that it was an ordinary business transaction.

The four, held under the Extradition Act, are Lim Yong Nam, 37, Lim Kow Seng, 42, Benson Hia Soo Gan, 44, and Wong Yuh Lan, 39. They are believed to have tricked Digi into selling them the modules through a network of companies.

BACKGROUND STORY

The Singaporeans are accused of shipping - from Singapore to Iran - 6,000 radio frequency modules they had bought from an American company, Digi International.

In all probability, these four would be extradited and would then be put on trial in the US on terror charges. While technically they will appear to be given a fair trial in the US, we should take note that US has a history of torture in order to extract "confessions" from the accused.

Here is one very common torture method used on terror suspects. Water boarding.

Red Cross secret report accuses the CIA of torture
The testimonies collected by the inspectors of the Red Cross uniformly agree on the use of coercive tactics such as multiple beatings, sleep and food deprivation, extreme temperatures, and in some cases, a simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding.

Image taken from above link.

Of course, the CIA, master of torture techniques, has a thousand other ways to get you to do what they want. All in the name of "war on terror".

So those anti-lobbyists who have been calling for removing the ISA and it to be replaced by "war on terror", are you not asking for something worse?

We should just campaign for the removal of the ISA and all detention without trial. Period. No replacing of a torture practice with another torture practice.

======

Update - Wait a minute, with the new bill passed in the US, maybe those four Singaporeans who would soon be extradited may not even have a fair trial in America!

US lawmakers target Pakistan aid, Iran central bank
With the White House's blessing, the US House passed legislation Wednesday to freeze some Pakistan aid, slap harsh new sanctions on Iran, and endorse indefinite imprisonment of suspected terrorists.

SMRT should be the one in hot soup, not Hossan Leong

2011-12-14T18:53:00.004+08:00

Hossan Leong has been ticked off for reporting on air that the Circle Line was down before SMRT officially reported it. To me, the issue is what the heck took SMRT so long to notify the public in the first place, such that Hossan beat them to it?

Singapore radio personality in "hot soup" for reporting train delays based on Tweets
Hossan Leong, a Singapore radio personality for The Gold Breakfast Show on Gold 90.5, was censured today for reporting on train delays on the Circle Line because he based the information on Tweets, rather than waiting for the official reports from the Circle Line operator, SMRT.

It is, however, unknown if the "warning" came from Mediacorp producers or SMRT.

As if that wasn't enough, SMRT screwed up its announcement if the report is accurate. Continued below.

The SMRT Circle Line was reported to be down this morning during peak hours and started as early as 7am. However, local news only received official statement was received by the mainstream media at about 9am. It seem like the fault started as early as 6.40am.

One of the biggest problem with SMRT in communicating delays is that they seem to prefer official statements which requires time for approval. By the time, it is disseminated, passengers will be already by stuck at the stations.

There are also no warning signs to inform passengers that the Circle Line is down or experiencing delays before they enter the station or decide to make the transfer.

One tweet wrote that he was given wrong information by the control station staff that the Circle Line was working only to be stuck in the station with announcements that it was down and delay was expected.

Poor Hossan. Poor commuters. SMRT will probably get a small token fine only from the LTA.

Remembering Holocaust, yes; Remembering Rape of Nanjing, noo...

2011-12-14T07:54:00.002+08:00

Qualifying Statement -

I am against all wars. Be it the holocaust, the Rape of Nanjing or even the hypocritical "war on terror".

I am also against the hypocritical Western ideology of repeating the ad nauseam argument of the Holocaust as if the Germans shouldn't be forgiven, while at the same time the same hypocrites criticise the continued playing of the remembrance of the Rape if Nanjing.

But most of all, I am against making use of the sufferings of the victims of the Holocaust and the Rape of Nanjing, to justify hate against Arabs/Muslims and Japanese respectively.

Issues on the movie about Rape of Nanjing -

Right, with the above sorted out, let's get down to the core business.

Chinese massacre film stirs debate
The Nanjing massacre was an orgy of violence in which Japanese soldiers murdered tens of thousands of Chinese soldiers and civilians.

Although it took place more than 70 years ago, it is still remembered with anger in China, and continues to taint the country's relationship with Japan.

In the article above, the main issues discussed appears to be Chinese Nationalism and Japan bashing. You can read the two views about that in the link.

My point is not about the movie itself, but what appears to be an idea perpetuated by China that it wants to continue, or rather it wants the world to continue to remember the massacre that happened 70 years ago. It appears that China wants Japan to apologise for that massacre over and over and over without end.

But many Japanese, or for that matter China nationals, were not even born yet. Hasn't Japan apologised enough?

On its own, the Nanjing issue appears to be a China-Japan issue, with Western commentators being "kaypoh" (nosy) about the whole issue. But looking at the bigger picture, the Nanjing issue exposes the West's hypocrisy.

Western commentators expect Rape of Nanjing to have expiry date, but gives the Holocaust perpetual air-time -

Critics are quick to comment that the film in the Rape of Nanjing is about Chinese Nationalism and/or Japan bashing. Yet these same hypocritical commentators gave the thumbs up for movies that keep perpetuating the Holocaust issue, like Schindler's List.

As a parallel comparison, if the Rape of Nanjing is to be seen as propaganda for China, isn't Schindler's List a propaganda for Zionist Israel?

Again, I am not trying to belittle the victims of either the Rape of Nanjing or Holocaust. I am highlighting the double standard and hypocrisy of the Western media.

What history, if no data is studied? -

It amazes me how we can call the Holocaust history in the first place, when academics are jailed whenever they want to study in detail the Holocaust.

There are claims that millions of Jews were killed and gassed. But with today's tech that is able to scan for underground remains, why are the mass graves of the millions of Jews so elusive? Surely by now we could find countless of mass graves.

Compare to other cases of mass killings like the Killing Fields of Cambodia. Or those that were committed in Bosnia or Rwanda. Even without modern day scanners, mass graves have been uncovered.

Again, I am not saying that the Holocaust did not happen. It did. But are the numbers accurate? Or have they been magnified without any data to back them up?

In fact, how can the Holocaust even be considered history, if no one is allowed to make critical studies of this event?

Rape of Nanjing used as psychological war against Japan, Holocaust used as justification to kill Palestinians -

The difference between the Rape of Nanjing and Holocaust is that in the former, it is only used as a psychological war against Japan. It does not translate into actual killing or bloodshed.

However, in the case of the Holocaust, it is used as an excuse to kill, maim, and steal lands from Palestinians. Whenever world opinion is turned against Zionist Israel for their atrocities against Palestinians, out comes the hollow hoodocast card and the world is expected to forget those Zionist atrocities.

My Concluding Words -

I see the film on the Rape of Nanjing from two angles. First, as a movie, it has "entertainment cum educational value". It is a good show if you wish to know about some history. But from another angle, this movie also has a political message. Likewise for movies on the Holocaust.

The difference is that hypocritical Western commentators are quick to shoot down the Rape of Nanjing as propaganda, but are totally blind that movies on the Holocaust are propaganda too.

Kenneth Jeya more untrustworthy than Chee Soon Juan

2011-12-13T07:15:00.007+08:00

I know that it was "Human Rights Day" and hence, the message is about Human Rights. But was Kenneth talking about HR as an opposition politician or is he talking as an activist? What's he trying to say? That his party is pushing a foreign agenda?

Kenneth, like Chee Soon Juan, appears to be a stooge for foreigners to introduce their ideals Sinkies don't give two hoots about.

Your fundamental political rights have been taken away – Kenneth Jeyaretnam
Good afternoon everyone, I’m here to talk to you about Human Rights Day 2011. I will start with a bit of history.

Yawwn.... as if not enough History Lessons. Just get onto the main heartland issues and stop wasting Sinkies' time!

Human Rights Day was established by the UN to commemorate the Universal Declaration on Human Rights published in 1948. This set out a number of political and civil rights, many of which you have been deprived of in Singapore. It also set out a number of economic and social rights including the right to work as well as to education and health care. In 1966 the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights recognised that these rights were interdependent.

Like the SDP, the Reform Party is more interested in promoting issues like Human Rights, LGBT Rights and whatever rights, before even talking about heartland issues. No wonder these two parties didn't perform well in the Elections.

2011 has in many ways been a watershed year. People all over the world have demonstrated that the old ways of repression and authoritarianism will no longer be tolerated. In Egypt the people showed that getting rid of the dictator Mubarak was not enough. When the army tried to hang on to power the people came out on to the streets to force the army to bring free elections forward.

These worshippers of Human Rights and other foreign ideals don't even know what the real issue in Egypt is about. They just parrot what they hear.

I have been constantly reminding supporters of "Arab Spring" in Sinkiepore that what these Mid Easterners are looking for are:

1. The disassociation from America and its allies, which they see as foreign interfering agents, trouble makers and even warmongers.

2. An establishment of an Islamic rule.

3. The severing of ties with Israel.

It has NOTHING to do with Human Rights, which America and its allies, as well as some mistaken Westerner wannabes from Singapore like the SDP, Reform Party and their supporters think.

I have discussed the above in these links.

- Fellow Sporeans, I told you that you won't wanna walk like an Egyptian
- For the last time, Egypt is not like Spore
- Singapore political scene is nowhere near Egypt's

Kenneth Jeya then moves onto heartland issues on housing and CPF in his speech. Methinks he is using the heartland issues to push his agenda on Human Rights, rather than using Human Rights to push for heartland issues!

No comment from Kenneth on his partner's terror linked affairs -

The more I dig up about this Kenneth guy, the more I think he's a snake in the grass. There have been reports that a member of his party has had terror links and has been arrested and charged in America. Yet, Kenneth Jeya has not breathed a word about this. Yes, not even to distance himself from the whole affair! What's happening here?

Read this reply to Kenneth Jeya from John Harding, author of the bestselling book "Escape from Paradise", the book that exposed former cabinet minister Yeo Cheow Tong and his wife Helen Yeo of some illegal property transaction.

Singapore Reform Party Secretary-General Kenneth Jeyaretnam attacks us!
Being an American, I am doing my patriotic duty in speaking out about the your close relationship with convicted terrorist Balraj (aka Baldev) Naidu.

Naidu, your partner and co-founder of Singapore's Reform Party, of which you are Secretary-General, is currently serving a prison sentence in the United States for his terrorist activities.

I believe that you should not be allowed to enter the United States due to your terrorist connections.

John

And what was the terror related activity Kenneth's partner was involved in? Supplying weapons to the Tamil Tigers, the now defunct guerilla group classified by the United of States of America (who are terrorists themselves nonethless) as a terror group.

Man convicted of trying to buy U.S. weapons for Tamil Tigers
October 18, 2010|By Carol Cratty, CNN

A Singapore man was convicted by a Maryland jury Monday of attempting to purchase American arms for use by the Tamil Tigers, a U.S. designated terrorist group in Sri Lanka.

Balraj Naidu,, 48, was found guilty of conspiracy to provide material support to a terrorist group, and he now faces a maximum of 15 years in prison.

According to a press release by the U.S. attorney's office in Maryland, Naidu and his co-conspirators wanted to obtain grenade launchers, sniper rifles, machine guns and other state-of-the-art U.S. weapons. In 2006, Naidu and his associates started dealings with an agent for an undercover business in Maryland to obtain weapons. According to the U.S. attorney's office, one of Naidu's co-conspirators named Haniffa Bin Osman during the summer of 2006 traveled to Baltimore, where he examined the arms and test-fired many of them.

Representatives of the Tamil Tigers then made a wire transfer to the undercover business for $250,000. That was a down payment on a total price of $900,000. The government says 28 tons of weapons and ammunition were air-lifted to Guam. A group of conspirators inspected the shipment and then another payment of $450,000 was transferred to the undercover business.

At that point, Naidu and his co-conspirators were arrested.

Naidu is scheduled to be sentenced in December. Osman and three others pleaded guilty and received sentences ranging from three years to almost five years.

The Tamil Tigers organization sought to overthrow the government of Sri Lanka in a 26-year insurgency that ended last year. The group frequently used suicide bombers to attack military and civilian targets.

The State Department designated the group a Foreign Terrorist Organization in 1997, and it is not allowed to buy weapons or try to raise money in the United States.

My gawd! If JB Jeyaretnam were to be alive, he would have instantly made a statement loud and clear to all that he strongly disapproves such character and would have sacked Naidu on the spot.

Note that the report is dated 18 Oct 2010. That's before the last GE in May 2011. Yet Kenneth quietly hid this info from Singaporeans during his electioneering campaign? Why didn't he publicly distance himself from Balraj Naidu? Why the hush hush?

My Personal Thoughts -

I feel that Kenneth Jeya by far is the most untrustworthy opposition leader. I can accept if Chee has an axe to grind against Chiam. I can accept if he thinks Human Rights, LGBT Rights and what not precede Singapore's heartland issues. At least Chee is open about all that and he discussed those issues (rather unashamedly I have to add) on SDP's website. I have give credit to Chee for being transparent, much as I don't agree with his style or agenda.

But Kenneth Jeya? Why is he hiding all this?

Methinks that between Kenneth Jeya and Chee Soon Juan, KJ is the bigger and sneakier snake.

======

PS - As a sidenote, me cannot help larfing at America's hypocrisy, having a list of terror nations, while leaving itself out. Hypocrites.

Paranoid SAF spends $30b to fight phantoms while our poor starve

2011-12-12T09:13:00.006+08:00

$29.6 billion. That's with a "b". That's also how much paranoid SAF is gonna spend on their terror toys to ward off phantom enemies we never had while our poor and elderly have to collect empty drink cans to earn a living.

Mindef to spend $29.6 billion on equipment: IHS Jane's
Singapore's Ministry of Defence is likely to spend US$23 billion (S$29.6 billion) on purchases of patrol aircraft, helicopters and other military equipment by 2015, according to a new report by IHS Jane's.

Mr Nicholas de Larrinaga, emerging markets analyst at IHS Jane's, said that Singapore's defence budget was seen rising by more than 50 per cent between 2010 and 2015 to more than US$14 billion.

Singapore allocated US$9.39 billion for defence in its budget for the fiscal year beginning April 2011, a rise of 5.4 per cent from 2010/11.

IHS Jane's said Singapore was an attractive choice for Western defence firms because of its relative transparency and its commitment to open-market acquisitions.

If the PAP or SAF tries to fib you that they are after terrorists, this does not make sense. Terrorists work with cells and not with armies. All the sophisticated equipment is not designed to pick up terror cells walking in the crowds. Those equipment are designed to kill people in large numbers, which is an act of terror in itself. The proper way to fight terrorism is to up security rather than defence.

So why is SAF wasting so much resource, when the amount could have been used for other areas like education, health, tech research and development or even social help? That's because of two very insane reasons.

1. Paranoid SAF believes that the more than 200 million Muslims surrounding tiny Red Dot are going to usurp Singapore.

2. Sinkiepore, a Lackey of the United States of Terrormerica, is expected to be more involved in the terror wars of the US in the near future. As more countries bail out from the Coalition of the (un)Willing (to engage in terror acts with the US), the US expects more troops and commitment from our own terror forces to make up for the shortfall.

A Critical Look at our Defence Spending -

SAF has been paranoid from Day One. For many decades, it is all about our neighbours attacking us. What SAF fails to explain is why would they want to attack us. Attack us for what? We have no land, no sea, no resources. All the things we have, they have. In fact, they have more. So the argument that our neighbours want to attack us is just an excuse for them to deprive you of the finance resource, while they keep buying their terror toys.

Of late, the need to spend so much is due to our "commitment" to the US. The US is a warmongering machine. It has invaded far more countries than any other nation in the world the last 100 years. It is the only nation that has used Nuclear Bombs on civilians. It has used chemical weapons on civilians more than anyone else in the world too. Only Israel is second to the US, save for the fact it did not use the nuclear bomb.

Wasteful and unnecessary spending -

Firstly, no country has intention to invade tiny Singapore. The idea that we would be attacked by forces from the North and South is a figment of imagination, seated in the minds of top ranking officers (and some ministers) in our military.

Secondly, why the heck should we assist US in their terror wars? Like I mentioned, we should fight terror at home by increasing security. Helping US to invade in fact makes more enemies!

As can be seen, the billions spent is not being put to good use. They do not achieve the purpose of what is is supposed to do - ie enhance our security.

Implications of being complicit in war crimes -

The US has been known to have used chemicals in their wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Yes, note their hypocrisy. Isn't chemicals the reason why US invaded Iraq in the first place?

The US and their allies have been bombing indiscriminately. They bomb civilian targets. Hospitals, schools, markets, wedding parties, birthday parties, funerals etc. Aren't these war crimes?

Wait a minute... SAF has helped too. We gave medical and tech support. Are we not complicit in these war crimes?

Imagine our children and grandchildren, having to learn the fact that SAF, our pride, is complicit in war crimes. Imagine our top officers, who would then be old men, be put on trial for the world to see. Imagine the humiliation and shame our children and grandchildren have to face that we had been involved in war crimes killing innocents.

Imagine the Nazis, which the Germans till today have to live with. Don't we have our own set of war criminals in our military?

Concluding Words and Summary -

I note that many Singaporeans are taught to be proud of the SAF. They are told that we are the best in SE Asia. Yep, our tech is superior.

But what good is that if it is used to help terror nations blast innocent women, children, elderly, sick and invalids to pieces?

If it is about fighting against terrorists, what good are those fighter jets etc? Terror cells walk among innocents. You wanna blast those innocents together with that one terror cell? The way to fight terrorism is to enhance security, not with fighter jets and other terror toys.

At the same time this wasteful spending could have been used for other more productive areas. Pity our SAF and PAP are too paranoid to see reality.

Unstealthy Drone is latest incident of US Incompetency and Embarrassment

2011-12-11T08:03:00.012+08:00

Why all the hooha from the Mainstream Media about the US downed drone? Why all about America's loss of military tech and know how to Iran and its allies like Russia and China, rather than about America's hostile action of sending a drone deep into Iranian territory?

Wouldn't there be a big loud cry among US and its hypocritical allies, if Iran were to send a spy drone into say Europe or Israel? That's food for thought.

The fact that US had remained silent about this incident for so long, which is so much in contrast to its usual roaring chest-thumping style, shows that its downed drone in Iran is seriously affecting and compromising US military strategy and technology.

Iran shows film of captured US drone
Iranian TV has shown the first video footage of an advanced US drone aircraft that Tehran says it downed 140 miles (225km) from the Afghan border.

Images show Iranian military officials inspecting the RQ-170 Sentinel stealth aircraft which appears to be undamaged.

US officials have acknowledged the loss of the unmanned plane, saying it had malfunctioned.

However, Iranian officials say its forces electronically hijacked the drone and steered it to the ground.

Another report below.

Iran shows film of captured US drone

Iran's Press TV said that the Iranian army's "electronic warfare unit" brought down the drone on 4 December as it was flying over the city of Kashmar, about 140 miles (225km) from the Afghan border.

Nato said at the weekend that an unarmed reconnaissance aircraft had been flying a mission over western Afghanistan late last week when its operators lost control of it.

Pentagon officials have said they are concerned about Iran possibly acquiring information about the technology.

Iran, the most challenging target -

I have been writing quite a few articles on why Iran is the most difficult target to be attacked. One of the biggest factor is that so little is known about Iran. Ever since the Shah (America's lackey) was deposed, the US and its allies have very little military intelligence info on Iran. This includes Iran's defence tech, hardware and the physical locations of their military installations. Bomb Iran? Let's lay out the cards (Part 2 - Geopolitical Perspective)

US Lacks Intelligence -
(I mean militarily and not literally - but if you want to take the latter, that's fine too, ha ha)

It is an irony that this break in diplomatic relationship between US and Iran is one of the reasons why it is now difficult to invade Iran, as compared to Iraq or even Afghanistan.

US had a close relationship with Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war. US could collect intelligence easily. As for Afghanistan, US helped it against the war against Russia. Again, intelligence gathering could be done easily. However, because of the break in relationship with Iran since 1979, only limited intelligence could be gathered from inside the country, if any at all. This now poses a problem. US can only gather intelligence from the outside, eg using satellite images and feeders who "defect" from Iran - not forgetting the fact they have proven to be unreliable at times.

Iran is a huge country and many of the targets US would like to hit are underground. How deep? How well fortified? How well defended? All not known - unlike Iraq.

US tries to downplay the claim that Iran downed the drone electronically. If that claim by Iran is true, it serves as a warning to US and all its warmongering allies that there is so much about Iran's military defence tech they do not know.

The fact that the drone is in one piece, without any damage supports the claim that it was brought down deliberately by electronic means, rather than blasted off the sky, or it crashed down due to malfunction.

America has had an embarrassing record of incompetency waging war against Iran -

The downed drone is a reminder to the United States of Terrormerica that after more than three decades since US was kicked out from Iran in 1979, it still is not ready to invade its prized target, Iran. Here are past very embarrassing events of US incompetency, which would have been good for laughs, if not for the deaths of hundreds, innocents included.

I wrote an article on the above here - US Armed Forces - the most incompetent military in the world

In the article above, I discussed America's horrendous incompetence which could have been passed off as a comedy of errors, if not for the large number of lives lost. Here is the list.

1. During the Iran-Iraq War in which US at that time supported Iraq, one of its frigate was hit by two Exocets released by (friendly) Iraqi fire. The captain of the frigate took no defensive action to take down the missiles. 37 US Navy crewmen died. USS Stark (FFG-31)

2. In the same war, probably due to panic because of the frigate incident, the US captain of a warship mistook a big fat slow-moving jumbo Iranian civilian airbus for a small fast fighter jet and brought it down with an anti-aircraft missile. 290 innocent civilians died. Again, this shows incompetence on the part of the US military. Iran Air Flight 655

Note that when defensive action was needed in Case #1, no action was taken. 37 US crewmen died because of the inaction due to US incompetence. In Case #2, where defensive action was not needed, action was taken. This time, 290 innocent civilians died and again it was because of US incompetence.

3. But perhaps the most embarrassing and of all goofs is Operation Eagle Claw. This was a rescue op to get American hostages who were held in Iran after the Iranian Revolution. Operation Eagle Claw
The plan called for a minimum of six helicopters; eight were sent in.[3] Two helicopters could not navigate through a very fine sand cloud (a haboob) which forced one helicopter to crash land and the other to return to the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz (CVN-68). Six helicopters reached the initial rendezvous point, Desert One, but one of them had damaged its hydraulic systems. The spares were on one of the two helicopters that had aborted. From the early planning stages, it had been determined that if fewer than six operational helicopters were available, then the mission would be automatically aborted, even though only four were absolutely necessary for the operation.[3] In a move still debated,[4] the commanders on the scene requested to abort the mission; Carter gave his approval.

As the U.S. force prepared to leave Iran, one of the helicopters crashed into a C-130 Hercules transport aircraft containing fuel and a group of servicemen. The resulting fire destroyed the two aircraft involved [3] and resulted in the remaining helicopters being left behind and the deaths of eight American servicemen. Operation Eagle Claw was one of the first missions conducted by Delta Force.[5]

The entry was a disaster and the exit was catastrophic. Such is the incompetence of the US military in Iranian territory. This occurred 31 years ago in 1980 . The earlier two incidents occurred in the later part of 1980s during the Iran-Iraq War.

Fast forward to Dec 2011, US is still jinxed whenever it comes to hostile military moves against Iran.

My Personal Observation -

I have noted (since 1979) somehow, whenever US tries to invade or attack Iran militarily, it is humiliated in front of the whole world how incompetent it is.

The latest case is of course the hostile stealth drone that tried to spy on Iran, which turned out to be so unstealthy, it was brought down in one piece for the Iranians and its allies to get "free transfer" of military tech from Terrormerica.

Hypocrisy of Democrazy Elections

2011-12-10T10:32:00.005+08:00

The Western powers, especially the United States of America, purport to "free the people" of dictatorships, especially in the Middle East and North Africa. But when the people vote democratically an Islamic govt, democracy turns to hypocrisy.

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?

Egyptians threw Mubarak out, but his military still wants power -

The military has had very close ties with Mubarak, the Western Zionist Lackey that the people got rid of. The military took over during the interim period till elections. The electorate chose an Islamic govt. So what's the military trying to say now?

Wait a minute, why the cold steely silence from United States of Terrormerica and its allies? I am sure if an Islamic party were to block a secular one, these hypocrites would be jumping up sky high from their seats!

Not first time Hypocrite West stands idly -

This is not the first time the Western powers who purport to promote democracy promote hypocrisy instead. Gazans voted Hamas as their governing leaders too. Yet, US and its gangster of allies don't recognise Hamas as the legitimate ruling power in Gaza, but instead promotes western lackey Abbas.

In 1991, the Islamic Front was on its way to a landslide victory in Algeria. The incumbent govt which sensed the defeat, immediately sent out tanks to mow down the Islamic supporters literally. Many were killed. Yet, the hypocrites of the world did nothing!

Compare that event to the Tianenmen Square incident where tanks were also used to mow down demonstrators. There were no short of harsh words, plus all the PR campaign and propaganda against Red China.

Ah, the hypocrisy of democrazy elections!

My Conclusion -

When the West tells you it favours Democracy, it means that it wants you to vote for the kind of govt it wants.

That's Democracy Western style, otherwise known as Democrazy.

Lee Kuan Yew's haram book - hard luck on Hard Truths

2011-12-09T18:26:00.004+08:00

Federal Islamic authorities declared LKY's book as haram. My guess is that the reason is LKY urged Muslims in Singapore to be "less Islamic". How can you expect Muslims to do that? Isn't that tantamount to asking Muslims not to practise Islam as it should but how a non-Muslim wants, which if a Muslim were to take that advice, it would be..... haram on his part?

Jakim declares book on Lee Kuan Yew haram
Federal Islamic authorities have declared haram a book in which Singapore’s founding father Lee Kuan Yew urged Muslims in Singapore to be “less strict on Islamic observances.”

Lee Kuan Yew: Hard Truths to Keep Singapore Going, a collection of interviews published in January, was included in a list of 15 books declared haram by the Department of Islamic Development Malaysia (Jakim).

Jakim’s planning and research division confirmed the decision was made when its committee on the censorship of publications with Islamic elements met in October.

Nothing said about the book being banned. It simply means that the book is haram to Muslims (in Malaysia at least). Going by what LKY said that Muslims should be "less strict on Islamic observances", the book can be construed as unIslamic. But I am not going to comment on that because this blog is set up to comment on political issues, rather than Islamic jurisprudence. So here's my take...

Why did Jakim take so long to decide and announce that decision? One reason is that many decisions taken by panels on whether something is haram or not is not done overnight. But for about nine months? Perhaps the timing is political then.

Just like LKY had a political agenda when he made that racist statement, which if it had been made by an ordinary citizen he would have been charged, Jakim probably also has some political agenda. After all, Malaysia's elections is coming. That could be one point.

Another point that could be read as is that Malaysian authorities are trying to hint to Muslims in Singapore that LKY is anti-Islam. Yeah, as if we don't know that!

Those are the two political implications I see in Jakim's decision to conclude that LKY's Hard Truth is haram after many moons.

So is the book also haram to Singapore Muslims? MUIS is totally silent. From what I have learned about the Science of Islamic Jurisprudence (Usul Figh), ie how Islamic laws are derived, if MUIS is silent and does not contest Jakim's opinion, it can be taken that the law is binding on Singapore Muslims too.

Of course that is just my opinion.

But whatever it is, this ruling from Malaysia was coming. After all LKY has been an Islamophobe for half a century. Surely our Muslim neighbours won't sit idly on that.

Finally, of course, if you listen to the advice of an anti-Islamic person on Islam against the teachings of Islam, that has to be haram. No doubt about that.

Ex-PAP MP charged for corruption

2011-12-08T18:24:00.004+08:00

Notice that the Straits Times is so subservient to the PAP, it doesn't even dare to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

Ex-chairman of STTA? Ex MP of Jalan Besar? Why won't say it straight that this corrupted guy who has been charged is an ex-PAP MP? Afraid of being sued? Sued for what? For stating the truth?

Former table tennis chief charged with corruption
Choo Wee Khiang, the former president of the Singapore Table Tennis Association (STTA) was charged on Thursday with three counts of corruption and one of criminal breach of trust totalling about $10,671.

Choo, 57, was alleged to have corruptly accepted from table tennis paddler Liu Zhongze a $1,500 bribe in return for giving the then 17-year-old more opportunities in representing STTA in tournaments. The alleged bribe was given through assistant coach Luo Jie at a coffeeshop in Toa Payoh sometime in 2005.

Choo, a former MP for Jalan Besar GRC, is also said to have accepted US$200 (S$257) in 2003 and US$400 (S$514) the following year from Mr Shi Mei Sheng, an STTA coach, for approving the use of training facilities in Shanghai, as an overseas training venue for STTA coaches and players.

The last charge accuses him of converting STTA funds of $8,400 received from Fuhua Secondary School to pay Mr Luo, who did not provide any training services in 2005.

The former president of the Singapore Table Tennis Association (STTA) was charged on Thursday with three counts of corruption and one of criminal breach of trust totalling about $10,671. -- ST PHOTO: WONG KWAI CHOW

Incidentally, this guy was the one who made a racist remark against Indians when he was still an MP in the 1990s. He inferred that whenever he went to Little India, it was all dark and he couldn't see because...

ST and other PAPpy media always will publish and make a big hooha if any opposition politician gets into trouble with the law. However, when it is news that taints the PAP, the same double standard media plays it down.

Yes, while we're at it, let's play up the most infamous incident of a PAP member who was convicted in the courts - Tharman, the 'forgotten' ex-convict

No worry. Nothing slanderous about the above. It is the truth.

No means never, not just no

2011-12-08T09:07:00.008+08:00

When wise Old Grandma advises you no, you shouldn't wear slutty clothes or mix around with men at bars getting yourself drunk, it doesn't just mean no. It means never ever do it.

But Feminists, who are usually much younger and less wiser than grandmas, think they know better. So they tell you that you are right in doing what you want, never mind what your wise grand old lady told you. So go out and have fun all you like. That's until the signal you give visually isn't the signal you intended to send. That's also when these Femmies try to repair the damage by giving you loads of info on how to tackle the after effects of date rape. Too late, don't you think so?

Here's an article written by a self-proclaimed professional sexologist. I didn't know that there's a doctorate in sexology, if I were to believe her. Shouldn't she simply stick to the physiology of sex (that's what she claims her expertise is), rather than try to be an adviser on social matters like "date rape"?

Sexual consent - when no is really no
So what exactly is consent when it comes to sex?

According to Scarleteen, a popular sexuality resource website for young people, consent is:

• Voluntary: Not coerced.

• Sober: A person who is intoxicated cannot legally give consent.

• A process: Asked for at every step of the way.

• Verbal: If you want to move to the next level of sexual intimacy, just ask.

• Informed: Never implied and cannot be assumed.

• Mutual: Both people should be involved in the decision to have sex.

• Wanted: Just because you are in a relationship does not mean that you have permission to have sex with your partner, even if sexual activity has already occurred.

• Enthusiastic: The absence of a “no” doesn’t mean “yes”, and “maybe” is still a “no”.

....cut....

AWARE’s leaflet “What is consent?” cautions that consent has to be expressly given to any form of penetration. It states that rape is committed when a man penetrates a woman’s vagina with his penis without her consent. Penetration of the vagina or anus with fingers or the hand, or getting a woman to give a blow job without her consent constitutes “unlawful sexual penetration”, which carries the same penalty as legal rape. The penalty for both offences is imprisonment for a term of up to twenty years plus a fine or caning.

I have often been asked whether seeking consent each step of the way during a sexual encounter would break the flow of activity or dampen the intensity of the emotional connection. It would appear to be disruptive; however, I would say the reverse would be true. One should not assume any entitlement to another person’s body or sexuality. The verbal articulation can reduce any second-guessing, when and where non-verbal communication cues are not clear. This respect and honesty can reassure your partner, as well as build even more trust and intimacy in the relationship, which, in turn, leads to sex being a better experience. It is normal and healthy for women to communicate their needs, wants and preferences.

Let’s be clear, once again, about when No means No.

“Not now” means No.

“Wait” means No.

“I rather be alone” means No.

“No thanks” means No.

“You are not my type” means No.

Silence means No.

“Stop” means No.

“Get off me” means No.

Sexual assault can be extremely traumatic. Normal reactions of victims include fear, guilt, anger, confusion, sadness, depression and shock after the incident. Ladies do not need to go through this alone.

Note the comical and laughable situation where the guy has to ask for permission at every step. But that's not my point. My point is over here....

Dr Martha Lee, like others, keeps giving the message that no means no. But your Wise Old Grams have for generations been saying this is not good enough. No means never. In the first place, why should you go round wearing sleazy clothing, getting yourself drunk and make yourself vulnerable?

By relying on the "consent" argument, it only adds confusion. I have noticed that the first question that crops up is what constitutes "consent". Recently the argument has evolved to consent means an explicit and audible "yes". But then again, the woman can say yes now but later says she didn't, and cry rape when she regrets it.

So, isn't it back to Grandma's good old advice that when she tells these girls no, they shouldn't go out with men in tight clothes giving them wrong signals, it really means never?

Others have never done it, so why can't you abstain? -

It is isn't just your grandma who didn't party when she was a young woman then. Till today, there are many who don't do it. Conservative societies, especially in Muslim states not only don't encourage, it forbids mixing of sex freely.

You don't have to go far to the Mid East. Take a look at Brunei. After nightfall, the only public activity is praying at mosques. Of course I am not saying that we get our youngsters to do that because firstly, not everyone is Muslim. Secondly, even among Muslim youth, it would be asking a little too much for them to think of no leisure but prayer only.

My point is that dressing up sleazily, partying and getting yourself drunk is a matter of lifestyle choice. It is not a "must have" activity. It is the likes of liberals who make you believe you must have it and when danger lurks in the form of date rape, they give you the ridiculous unworkable "anti-date rape formula", that is "no means no".

Come to think of it, that unsound advice sounds like - "no" means "oh noooooo...!" LOL What message do you think that girl is giving her partner in the middle of her ecstasy?

How about addressing the issue of date rape by taking good old grandma's advice that when she says to you - "No, you must not dress sleazily or get drunk" - it means NEVER do it and not just no for the moment!

'Modern Day' sex ed just doesn't work

2011-12-07T10:15:00.009+08:00

To all liberals who think that the good old abstinence programme doesn't work on youngsters who "experiment sex" (or on adults who are just as sexually active), what makes you think "Modern Day" Sex Ed programmes work any better?

After decades, yes, decades and not just a few years, of drilling from all sides of society that you need to be careful, all sorts of people just don't listen and the instances of STD, HIV and unwanted babies just doesn't seem to relent.

Liberal sexual lifestyle became an in thing, a cool thing and a way of living half a century ago, at the start of the Woodstock Era. That's the time where single motherhood, co-habitation and drugs were seen as the things the young do, compared to the conservative lifestyle the oldies lead.

There isn't really anything new about liberal sexual lifestyle today, if you were to look at it carefully, is there?

So if the so called "Modern Day" sex ed programme is the way, why is it not working on society?

Girls having abortions are getting younger

The number of teen abortions has been falling steadily in recent years but medical counsellors say the girls undergoing abortions are getting younger.

Some of them are as young as 16 years of age.

The counsellors say it could be due to girls falling in love earlier, not having enough communication with their parents or not knowing enough about sex.

I was born in the sixties and I can tell you that in the last 4 decades that I can recall as a kid and youth, is that argument above has been around for as long as I can remember. Yep, not enough communication and not enough knowledge about sex.

So the liberals of the day forty years ago that I can recall, decided to educate the "modern way" (ie "safe sex"), and at the same time ditching the "old fashion way" (ie is abstinence).

Fast forward 40 years later and it seems this so called "modern day" sex ed programme approach, which purports to teach about "safe sex", still isn't working.

Come on. It is about time society faced the truth. It is not that info is not readily available. Many adults (not just youngsters) in spite of the knowledge of the risks of liberal sex, just don't give two hoots about "safe sex". That's why the number of cases of STD and Aids go up, on top of the number of abortions.

Condoms are sold like sanitary pads openly. You mean to say that these people who engage in liberal sex don't know that such items exist? Huh?

There is so much talk about sex, sex, sex and their repercussion on the internet. You mean these youngsters don't know anything about it, while they beat adults hands down on techie stuff on the internet?

Let's face it. So called "modern day" and liberal sex ed programmes are just not working. It hasn't the last half century or so.

Iran the decoy, Syria the target

2011-12-06T18:26:00.006+08:00

The last few months saw much war drum beating from The United States of Terrormerica and its allies against Iran. However, in the last few weeks, it appears that it was just a decoy. It looks like the real target is Syria. I have come to that conclusion based on two very significant events. They are:

1. Steady US/NATO military build up near Syria rather than Iran.

2. Russia has responded militarily in Syria's case, whereas none for Iran.

Here's an article about Russia moving in to prevent an air strike on Syria AFTER US had placed an aircraft carrier some days earlier.

BREAKING: Military Confrontation between Washington and Moscow? Russian Warships head for Syria

Moscow is deploying warships at its base in the Syrian port of Tartus. The long-planned mission comes, providentially, at the very moment when it could help prevent a potential conflict in the strategically important Middle Eastern country.

The Russian battle group will consist of three vessels led by the heavy aircraft-carrying missile cruiser, Admiral Kuznetsov.

Russian military officials insist that the move has no connection with the ongoing crisis in the region and was planned a year ago, the Izvestia newspaper reports.

No connection with ongoing crisis? Ha ha. Then why the need for Russia to deploy S-300 anti-aircraft missiles?

Reports say Russian ships in Syrian waters delivered advanced anti-aircraft missile system and technicians
The Russian warships that arrived in Syrian territorial waters in recent days were reportedly carrying technical advisors who will assist the Syrian government in setting up an array of the super-advanced S-300 missiles.

The S-300 is highly sophisticated. It can track up to 100 incoming targets and engage 12 at a time. Hmm...now wait a minute. Isn't this an indication that Russia expects US/NATO to use their usual air-raid style on Syria?

The S-300 is very versatile. It is mobile and can be launched within just a few minutes. A sure deterrent to any hostile forces who think they can invade with an air raid.

A video clip showing a military exercise which deployed the S-300
S-300 missile crews destroy ten aerial targets in two minutes

My Personal Observation and Comments

Firstly, it is not a secret that the United States of Terrormerica wants to control the Mid East because of OIL $$$. At the moment, many of the Arab countries are in America's pocket, simply because the Arab rulers are American Lackeys.

Saddam Hussein had a fallout and hence needed to be replaced. No need to update you on what the status is. So far of all the nations in the Mid East and N Africa, Iran is the most elusive. The last time America managed to control it was in 1979 just before the Shah or Iran (another puppet of US) was disposed unceremoniously. It can also be claimed that of all the nations in the Mid East, Iran is the "most hostile" towards America. Hence, re-invading Iran has always been on America's plan since 1979.

But Iran is not an easy target. I have discussed that in this blog in detail, in four parts.

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)

That's why there's just a lot of hot air talk for years about invading Iran, but no action yet.

Syria on the other hand is different. Syria appears to be an easier target. In fact, Israel has breached its airspace a few times the last few years, and that is an indication that US, Israel and their allies were testing ground, and are now more confident taking out Syria than Iran.

Russia knows what those warmongers are up to -

Russia ain't stupid, unlike US. It knows danger when it sees it. The fact that Russia has sent ships and its sophisticated anti-aircraft S-300 to Syria, but rather cool towards defending Iran, shows that it knows that Syria is the more likely target.

Russia has very little waterfront. Iran is currently its ally and that's the only water front access it has in the Mid East and Asian area. In the west, the only access to the Med Sea is, yep, Syria. So if Syria falls to US, the only accessible waterfront for Russia in the Med Sea will go too.

That's the reason why Russia is willing to deploy its military to tell US and its warmongering allies that it means business.

My Personal Assessment -

With Russia's deployment, I doubt that US and their warmongering nations would raid Syria as easily as they did to Libya. After all, Russia has the most sophisticated surface to air anti-aircraft defence system, the S-300, at the moment.

As for Iran, the war drum beating will still continue. As it is, there probably won't be an invasion just yet over there too. If there is to be one, Russia would be as quick to deploy their military stuff in the Persian Gulf as quickly as they did in the Med Sea.

Slutwalkers, this is how you look like

2011-12-05T14:28:00.005+08:00

Slutwalk message: Don't rape, not don't get raped.
My message: You think the criminal will listen to you?

Here's another public protest against .... well, some sort of the same kind. It is a protest against the exploitation of women, especially women's bodies. And they intend to go round the world. Hmm. Sounds familiar?

Naked Ambition: Topless protests go global
(probably an M18 rating clip)

A naked woman in a city's central square is bound to attract attention, which is exactly what Ukraine's Femen group is hoping for with a series of high-profile demonstrations against the abuse of women's rights which has made the news across Europe.

Well, well. Slutwalkers, do you agree with the women who stage the protest?

If yes, then you mean you'd like to go round naked protesting?

If no, isn't it the way they protest (ie going round naked) that you are against, rather than the message itself? But isn't that the point anti-slutwalkers have been telling you about slutwalk?

Well, either way, don't slutwalkers look as silly as those naked protesters? Yeah, that's how you look like, slutwalkers!

If it is the need to stop abuse against women that we want to put across, it has to be a more dignified way. Going round naked or calling yourselves sluts won't work. Ironic that these women want respect from society when they themselves can't respect their own bodies or stature.

On the lighter side, I found a pic that hilariously depicts the kind of "respect" these slutwalkers get for calling themselves sluts. Taken from (Lycan Times), Current Affairs – Slutwalk

If you want society to respect you, you have to stop calling yourself disrespectful names, like "slut". Otherwise you will really look like the naked protestors, humiliating themselves more than putting a message across.

What? Do I hear some hardcore slutwalkers still supporting those naked protesters? Oh well. That speaks volumes, doesn't it?

Stop godifying Leftist Leaders - they're highly sectarian and inward looking

2011-12-04T23:40:00.003+08:00

Qualifying Statements

- I am against detention without trial. It deprives a person to defend himself.

- I have nothing against a Socialist rule either. If the Singapore electorate were to vote for that, I'll accept.

- I am against the over-exaltation of past Left Leaders (in Singapore and perhaps Malaysia) to the point as if they are to be worshiped like some demi gods, just like how PAPpies over-exalt an Old Man as if he was the one who brought Singapore from zero to hero.

- That said, I feel among all Leftist leaders detained, Chia Thye Poh has been most wronged in view of the fact that he was detained the longest. This is compounded by the fact that he has been the "least violent" in ideology among all early Leftist leaders too.

Chia Thye Poh given award by M'sian centre
(Kuala Lumpur) The longest-serving political prisoner in the Asian history, former Singapore member of parliament Chia Thye Poh, 70 years old, was awarded Lim Lian Geok Spirit Award today, which is announced by the LLG Cultural Development Centre at a press conference.

The reason for his winning is upholding of his belief on democracy without any comprise and never losing his faith under 32 years of unjust detention without trial. An exemplary of the spirit of Nanyang University.

Chia Thye Poh

Again, I have to make a statement that Chia was wrongly detained without trial. However, a sectarian group of Chinese in Singapore and Malaysia appears to be harbouring the idea of reviving a Chinese style pro-Socialist rule for Malaysia-Singapore. Talking about you can't trust the Malays because "they envisage the Malay-izing" of Singapore-Malaysia! So Chinese-nizing Singapore-Malaysia is acceptable?

I find it ironical and hypocritical, perhaps even laughable if not for the violence committed by these SE Asian Leftists, that they purport to fight for "equality of all races" by citing the "unfair favour" granted to the Malays, only for them to have a very high skew for favouring elite Chinese ideals!

The devil in the details -

In my past articles I have highlighted the covert intention of these past Leftists in Singapore to link up with the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM), a terrorist group, in the North. ISA Arrests - who did Tan Jing Quee have in mind to link up with, in the North?

In the article above, I discussed how Teo Soh Lung (a detainee herself in 1986) supported the idea by Jing Quee (one of the early Leftist Leaders who was detained in 1960s) to "link up with the North" to have a unified Singapore-Malaysia rule under the Socialist Flag.

My contention is, with whom did Jing Quee have in mind to link up with, other than Communist Terrorist Leader Chin Peng from the CPM?

The devil is in the details in Teo Soh Lung's own words. A memorial gathering in honour of Tan Jing Quee
Like people of his (ie Tan Jing Quee) generation, he believed in the Malayan dream, which saw Singapore as part of a socialist Malaya. To them, the politics of race in Malaysia today, as well as the persistent vulnerability of Singapore, and its problematic attempts at nation-building are a result of the betrayal of this dream.

From the above, we can see that there were at least two Leftist leaders, one from the earlier group in the 1960s (Jing Quee), and another later one in the 1980s (Soh Lung), who had the ideology of a unified Singapore-Malaysia rule under the Socialist banner, by linking up with a Communist Terrorist group.

Now the big question is this just the idea of two isolated leaders, or is this just a peek into the bigger ideals of the whole Leftist Movement in Singapore, which the ISD has alleged?

Chia Thye Poh had chance to state his stance on CPM and he blew it -

Let's take a look at what Chia Thye Poh's stance on CPM, the terrorist group, was (or is). Chia Thye Poh

Arrest and imprisonment
(first para snipped)

The other detainees were released eventually after they each signed a document promising to renounce violence and sever ties with the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM).[7] However, he refused as he felt that signing such a document would imply that he was affiliated with the CPM and, in his own words: "to renounce violence is to imply you advocated violence before. If I had signed that statement I would not have lived in peace."

I admire Chia's principle for not signing the statement that would have set him free. Signing that statement to renounce violence would mean that he partook violence or at least supported it. But... where is his statement from his own mouth that if he had signed that statement, it would mean that he was affiliated to CPM?

Let's look at the devil in the details again.

1. The statement implies Chia was affiliated to CPM, the terror group.

2. It implies that Chia supports violence.

In Chia's own words, he refused to sign the statement that would set him free because #2 implied he supported violence.

Why then did he not do the same, say it in his own words, that he refused to sign the statement because that would also imply he was affiliated to CPM?

Of course, there's no evidence that he was affiliated or had intention to link with CPM. And that's the reason for the ISA arrest in the first place, no? Otherwise, it would have been a direct charge and conviction.

But doesn't his omission to state that he refused to sign the statement because it would imply he was affiliated (or intended to affiliate) to CPM make it very suspicious, when he was so convicted in his principles not to sign that same statement because he stated that if he did, it would imply that he supported violence?

So why did he blow his own horn, stating he stood by his principles on #2, but not #1?

Critiquing the Chinese Chauvinism in Leftist Ideals using case comparison -

Again, I have to state that I am not belittling the sufferings of the detained. I am questioning the presentation of the case that it is OK to argue for a Leftist Ideal that is skewed to the Chinese Elites, while at the same time if one argues for the advancement towards a different ideal (eg an Islamic state), that is considered extremism.

So let's compare two different sets of ISA detainees, both with different ideals, but with the same line of argument.

Besides trying to establish a Socialist rule, the early Leftist Leaders also demonstrated little love for America due to the Vietnam War.

Singapore's gentle revolutionary
To drive their point home, Mr Chia says he and a small number of other like-minded MP's staged a boycott. At the same time, the Vietnam War was raging and Mr Chia says he was among the peace campaigners calling for an end to the heavy American bombing of Indo-China. "We wanted peace. If the war escalated, it probably would have spilled over to the rest of the region." He insists to this day he was a peace campaigner, not an insurgent for the Vietnamese communists or Red China.

Peaceful campaign. Yes. This was in the sixties already. But please remember that the early Leftists rioted violently in the 1950s. So the record is there.

Once again, note that Chia was quick to deny any links with Viet and/or China communists. Why wasn't he as quick to deny his affiliation, or intention to affiliate himself with CPM?

Now compare to the current JI detainees. All we have heard so far is from the govt. Not from the detainees themselves. But even that, didn't the govt say that these detainees intended to fight with the insurgents in Afghanistan and/or Iraq? So we do know what they were detained for.

Now what if these detainees were to claim that it was all just a peaceful campaign because if the war in Afghanistan escalated, it would spill over to the region? What if these JI detainees were to claim that there are not insurgents for the Iraqi or Afghan rebels and not what the govt claims them to be?

What if these detainees said that all they wanted was to establish a unified Singapore-Malaysia Islamic rule?

Would all these arguments now seem that the ISA has been detaining the "JI terrorists" wrongly?

What? Do I hear howls that JI has been bombing civvies to bits? Huh? You mean the Terrorist CPM didn't kill? Didn't they kill 11,000 Malayans, women and children included, in their decade long terror war in Malaya?

(PS - while it is confirmed by Chin Peng and gang that they were responsible for the deaths and killings during their terror campaign, all the "terror attacks" by "JI and Al-CIAda" are just allegations of US and their allies "supported" by dubious never-existed parties before.)

Chinese Elite governance good, Islamic governance bad -

As mentioned, I really cannot understand why a section of Elite Chinese think it is OK for them to push their elitist agenda of trying to rule this region with their Chinese ideals. Yet, at the very same time, it is portrayed as extremism, when another party even dares to mention about Islamic rule.

All this is presentation. All this is construction of meaning.

If you say that the Leftists have been detained wrongly because of "Leftist" ideals, why are the JI detainees not wrongly detained because of the "Islamic" ideals?

On the other hand, if the JI detainees have been rightfully detained because they have linked themselves to "terror ideals", then won't that make it a legit reason to have the Leftists detained too, because of their "terror ideals"?

My Conclusion

Again, I have to repeat that I am not belittling the detention all detainees had gone through or are going through now.

My thoughts are about the inconsistency of a section of some Elite Chinese in Singapore who believe that they are a god-given lot who should lead Singapore and Malaysia with their Utopian, idealistic plan of a Socialist Left, highly skewed towards Chinese Han heritage.

Yes, many Left leaders have been wronged. But let's not overdo it and start beatifying them or honouring them to the point they look like demi gods. After all, they really had a very violent history, much worse than the current JI detainees.

Giving them too much honour is showing support for their inward looking ideals that Singaporeans and Malaysians are only interested in Socialist Left ideals. And that too, skewed towards Chinese Elitism. Now that's very sectarian indeed.

Fellow Sporeans, I told you that you won't wanna walk like an Egyptian

2011-12-03T23:52:00.007+08:00

Ten months ago, when Egyptians rallied for a change in regime, many Singaporeans celebrated as if they expect the same change for Singapore. Remember that was Feb 2011, a few months before our GE in May 2011.

The fact that Egypt got rid of their dictator and some Singaporeans (especially blog writers) acted as if it was a precedence to follow, showed just how little these guys know about world politics - especially Mid East issues.

I contested their feeling of joy and celebration and even said that what the Egyptians wanted isn't really what Singaporeans want - ie a proper Islamic govt. Here is one of my articles on the "Egyptian Revolution" that called for change.

Singapore political scene is nowhere near Egypt's
Do you really wanna "Walk Like an Egyptian"?

Before Singaporeans walk and talk like an Egyptian, let's see what the Egyptians are asking for, on top of Mubarak's ouster.

1. It must be remembered that the biggest opposition party that is asking for Mubarak's ouster is the Muslim Brotherhood. That's the organisation that was banned under Mubarak's regime. Needless to say, the name of the organisation tells you about its ideals.

2. Non-interference from foreign governments, in particular, the US. Ah, isn't that what Singapore bloggers who are asking for Human Rights and what not, is being detested in Egypt?

3. Closer alliance with neigbouring nations (Muslim ones of course, what did you expect?), and the distancing of ties with Israel. So is that what Singapore bloggers also want?

I made another post two days later, mentioning the Muslim Brotherhood waiting at the sidelines to take over.

For the last time, Egypt is not like Spore
US backed govt corruption the trigger, Islamic govt the "silver bullet" -

That's about sums up what the Egyptians have in mind. While the US backed govt is corrupted, and that's what triggered the protests, it is the belief that an Islamic governance would end all that. Suddenly, for the first time in 30 years, all parties who have been supporting the corrupt US Lackey Mubarak Regime are worried. That includes the US and Israel of course.

The biggest opposition influence in Egypt is the Muslim Brotherhood. This organisation is banned in Egypt and as such, the Muslim Brotherhood cannot form a political party to contest elections. But that has been circumvented easily. Members of the Muslim Brotherhood stand as independent candidates - and they have been doing quite well, considering the oppressive Mubarak Regime.

Fast forward ten months ahead and this is what has unfolded in Egypt's Elections so far...

Islamists sweep early results in Egypt election
Early results from Egypt's first post-revolution election showed Islamist parties sweeping to victory, including hardline Salafists, with secular parties trounced in many areas.

Partial figures trickled in for the areas of the country that voted in record numbers on Monday and Tuesday, confirming earlier predictions that Islamist parties would win at least two thirds of the ballots cast.

In northern Port Said, the moderate Islamist alliance led by the previously banned Muslim Brotherhood triumphed with 32.5 percent of votes for parties, while the hardline Al-Nur party gained 20.7 percent, the Al-Ahram daily said.

The liberal Wafd party won 14 percent, while another Islamist party, Al-Wassat which advocates a strict interpretation of Islamic law, recorded 12.9 percent, according to the state-run newspaper.

In the southern Red Sea district, the Brotherhood's alliance won 30 percent, while secular coalition the Egyptian Bloc came in second with 15 percent, it said.

I have noted that ever since the Iranian Revolution in 1979, the general population in the Mid East and N Africa have been watching which will be the next Islamic Republic, to the dismay of America and its allies.

1991 in Algeria, the Islamic Front was on its way to a landslide victory, triggering concerns among the Western allies. However, the incumbent govt used its military machinery to literally mow down the Islamic supporters. The West world watched idly at this civil genocide because it was a secular govt that was oppressing the Islamic supporters.

This year in 2011, we have seen Morocco, Tunisia and now Egypt, all voting for Islamic governance. I can't help the feeling that it is America's own undoing. For decades, America has used lackeys to control the Muslim states. They have also allowed Israel to oppress West Bank, Gazan and Lebanese Palestinians. After decades of oppression and suppression from US and Western lackeys, these nations have finally decided what's best for them - an Islamic governance.

Like I said, Singaporeans (especially the blog writers) who have been rejoicing and who wished to have an Egypt style revolution, should know what Egyptians are asking for.

It isn't just regime change. It is Islamic governance.

You still wanna walk like an Egyptian?

Food, strongest bond between Man and Animal; Territory, the most contentious

2011-12-02T23:33:00.006+08:00

I have written how appalled I have been, upon observing how some Animal Rights Activists behave. That includes the boorish behaviour of ACRES and the violent acts of the Sea Shepherd. What many readers may not know is that I was born in the 60s, where contact with strays (cats and dogs), and with the "unwelcome guests" (usually snakes) during that period was inevitable.

At the same time, I had the chance to wander (usually alone) in the Nature Reserves to come up close with wild monkeys and birds. It was from here that I managed to observe, learn and appreciate the behaviour of animals, both wild and domesticated.

My Experience with Animals -

First, a clarification. I am not the typical "crazy" Animal Lover, ie I don't go bonkers over animals and fight for their rights at the expense of humans. It is that I just appreciate them as they are. To me, I put human needs first, animals second. OK, now that's cleared, let's continue.

I have been in contact with stray cats and dogs for so long during my younger days that even till today, when a stray comes up to me, I know what that stray is thinking, just like I know that it knows what I am thinking. Have you noticed they (cats especially) are able to differentiate between people who love them and those who abhor them?

Notice that if you are a cat lover, the stray cat automatically comes up to you (without even you doing anything) and tries to slide its body against your leg? And if you are a cat hater, have you noticed that same stray cat will run miles away from you? That's cat instinct.

The strongest bond between Man and Animal (it doesn't matter if the animal is domesticated, wild, in captivity or not) is FOOD. This is something some Animal Rights groups like ACRES don't seem to understand. The animal knows who feeds it and the more consistently you feed it, the more trust it has in you.

That said, animals are very territorial. This is true even with domesticated animals. If it senses competition, it will attack its competitor. There is a "first come first served" unwritten rule in the territorial Animal World. The only way to gain that territory from the "first owner" is through a fight - usually a bloody one. I meant that literally and not as a swear word.

Interest in Animal Welfare grows because of contact with aninals -

I find it ironical that ACRES purports to fight for Animal Rights, when they don't even know the very basic needs of animals, or how they respond to humans. For that matter, how humans respond to animals.

The way to get people to appreciate animals is to get people (usually children because they have no baggage to carry against animals) to be in direct contact with them. It is for this reason I feel that Resort World, for all the claims ACRES makes, is making a step in the right direction.

Dolphins in RWS to play integral role in conservation awareness
SINGAPORE: The dolphins at the heart of the controversy surrounding Resorts World Sentosa's Marine Life Park (MLP) will play an important role in educating the public on conservation, said the park's vice-president Peter Doyle.

The MLP, which opens next year, will be home to 25 dolphins. Their captivity has been the subject of controversy in recent months.

Mr Doyle said conservation begins with education, and the dolphins are an integral part of the process.

He announced an initiative under which students in Singapore will get a hands-on experience with marine life at the MLP.

Many will take those words with a pinch of salt, knowing that RWS has vested interests. Let's put that aside. Let's talk about how contact with animals get people at a young age to appreciate animals.

In order to get the young (or anyone) interested in Animal Welfare, the most important thing is to get them "immersed" with "animal culture". This means you need to understand the needs of animals and why they behave the way they behave. What better way than direct contact, like what RWS is doing?

Today, with highrise buildings, many domesticated animals are artificially trained to behave in tight, confined spaces. That to me is worse than the dolphins who are handled by trained professionals who know the needs of the dolphins. Hence, I find it ironic that ACRES is barking up the wrong tree, when they say that penning animals up is "torture".

Food - the basic need of all living things -

No food, no life. Simple as that. That's why food is the strongest bond between Man and Animal. You can say what you like about the dolphins being penned up. But you cannot deny that the bond established between trainer and animal via food is so strong, the animal knows who its feeder is. This is true for many animals and not just dolphins.

In the wild, Territory decides how much food you have -

Makes sense, doesn't it? If you have a large territory, your food supply is more. It doesn't matter if you are a herbivore or carnivore. If you have less territory, your food supply is less. Hence, the fight for territory among animals is so important, it sometimes is the factor that decides wether you (and your pack, herd, pride etc) live or not.

This territorial instinct is about universal for many animals - domesticated ones included. Hence, many ignorant pet owners are mistaken that an "older pet" being hostile to a newer pet is due to "envy". Maybe so. But deep down inside, that behaviour is partly instinctive.

Ditching and dishing the "penning up" argument -

ACRES have got it all wrong when it uses the "penning up" of dolphins argument to have them released. Their argument is that dolphins swim for kilometres and kilometres in the wild, and hence, penning them up in water parks is "torture".

What these uninformed animal lovers wannabe don't understand is why wild animals need such huge space in the first place. They need it because of food. More space, more territory, more food. Simple as that. An animal that has food aplenty will hence see "space" as a "bonus". Space wandering becomes a "leisure" rather than a need.

Looking at how territory is preserved -

To understand how animals see territory, let us look at how a pride of lions function as a unit. The title "King of the Jungle" bestowed upon the Male Lion is a misnomer for two very distinct reasons. Firstly, lions don't live in jungles. They live in the open savanna. Secondly, the male lion doesn't hunt. The females do. What king?

But don't be mistaken. The male lion is not a lazy lion. It is just that its mane is so distinct, it makes hunting impossible. The prey will be able to spot a male lion a mile a away. So it is the females that hunt.

So what does the male lion do? It guards territory. Again remember, bigger territory, bigger hunting ground, more food. Smaller territory, smaller hunting ground, less food.

The male lion has not only to guard territory against other pride of lions trespassing, it also has to guard against other animals interfering with the females' hunt. Hence, hyenas that also hunt for the same game on the same ground is seen by lions as a pest, if not a competitor. There are cases where lions have attacked and killed hyenas not for food, but for trespassing into their territory. That's how territorial animals are.

Back to the "penning up" argument by ACRES -

It seems to me that the volunteers of ACRES are so amateurish in their arguments. All they can say is that the dolphins are suffering because of being penned up. But do they know why animals need large space in the first place?

Rather than mouthing and mimicking what other groups are saying that the dolphins are suffering, shouldn't ACRES members take the trouble to find out what makes animals tick?

Food is the strongest bond between Man and Animal. At theme parks, food the bond, is ever present all the time. That cements the relationship between trainers and dolphins.

As for the point of "penned up", it is all about territory. Animals see their territory threatened when they sense their food/water supply in that territory diminishes. A large water hole that is enough to quench the thirst of a herd of elephants and pride of lions at the same time will see no bloodshed. But as the waterhole dries up, so does their tolerance for each other.

This territorial instinct is so basic that sometimes, hikers who accidentally trespass on animal territory will also get attacked in the wild. Not that these animals want humans for food. We are not part of their food chain.

ACRES' lack of understanding about space for animals certainly is baffling.

My Final Words -

It was from my direct contact with animals when I was young that made me interested in how animals behave. Long before the existence of internet, I had to depend on books, magazines and documentaries on animals on TV or cinemas. Most of what I have discovered about animals took place decades ago, hence there's no internet links that I give you.

My final point to Animal Rights wannabe is that you should at least make an effort to have a direct contact with animals to appreciate them, learn more about them, before simply mouthing what others have been mouthing without substance.

And what better way to be in contact with such wild animals than in zoos, safaris and theme parks, the very institutions that "pen up" these animals?