Resign, Please Resign Mr Police Commissioner.

February 23, 2014, 10:13 pm

≪ Previous: Singapore Should Bid for the 2022 or 2026 Commonweatlh Games

The Commission of Inquiry (COI) into the Little India riots which commenced last week, got down to serious stuff last Friday with Deputy Commissioner T Rajakumar taking the stand. I had posted a few articles on the riot and the police failings previously, you can read it here,here, and also here.
The gist of Friday's proceedings can be found in this link. Although there's some ways to go, I have been vindicated with some of the things I wrote. In a nutshell, there were a series of mistakes and mis-steps all the way up the Police management. After both the COI Chairman, former Justice GP Selvam and board member, former Commissioner Tee Tua Bah, ripped through DC Rajakumar, I believe the 1 point I have making for so long - has become painfully clear - the Police Commissioner (CP) Ng Joo Hee should be a man and accept responsibility for the police failings and tender his resignation.

The 4 man Commission of Inquiry, includes Justice Selvam and former CP, Tee Tua Bah (the top 2)

I don't know whether the CP is scheduled to testify at the COI, but I doubt it, as what DC Rajakumar has given in evidence would surely be the same that the CP himself would attest to. This begs the question, why was DC Rajakumar made to take the stand to explain the police handling of the riot? Surely CP Ng should have testified instead, faced the commission and given the breakdown of police action and procedures? Why send his deputy? After all, it was CP Ng who rushed to praise his officers conduct and handling following the aftermath of the incident. If he can paint a rosy picture, why can't he also have the guts to stand up to it, give an explanation and be grilled over it? These are not some opposition MPs or their supporters who are questioning him. This is a trained High Court Judge with years of experience of conducting trials and a former Commissioner, who helmed the very same force CP Ng is leading today. They are not biased, they are from the same establishment as himself and they have nothing to gain by grilling him and exposing the flaws.

Deputy Commissioner T Rajakumar 'took the proverbial bullet' for his boss at the COI.

Let's look at some aspects of DC Rajakumar's testimony that's clearly troubling. He listed 3 causes for the riot:

1) The accident
2) The body of the victim adding to a highly charged scene
3) The drunkenness caused by alcohol.

In a stunning rebuke, Justice Selvam made DC Rajakumar read out like a student before a teacher, Section 18 of the Miscellaneous Act which deals with drunken behaviour resulting in incapacity - a seizable offence. Pity DC Rajakumar, it should have been CP Ng that needed this dose of public shaming. Justice Selvam chastised the police for turning a blind eye to this problem when numerous reports and complaints about it have been made over a number of years. In his words, 'the police have done nothing!' He suggested that offenders should be warned and repatriated if they continue to flout the law. (This is clearly a point the Govt must seriously consider, there should be zero tolerance for foreigners be they blue or white collar workers, or from whatever class of society or position, who flout and break laws, they should be repatriated and banned from working here for a number of years, if not permanently).

It doesn't look like hundreds of rioters were attacking this patrol car (one of the first attacked), yet the officers at the scene made no attempt to stop them.

Justice Selvam slammed the police officers for not actively dealing with the initial rioting and instead taking cover and manning exit points. He rightly pointed out that at that juncture only 25 were 'active rioters' whereas there were nearly 100 officers already on the ground. The decision not to engage was made by Tanglin Commander Lu Yeow Lim, it was his judgment, said DC Rajakumar. ' It was poor judgment' remarked the Chairman. It gave the rioters the impression the police were not doing anything and believing they had the freedom to do as they pleased, which they did with an ever increasing number.

Accelerated promotions they want and taking credit for their men's work, but Commanders like Lu Yeow Lim cannot make decisions under pressure. And when they do, it's a poor one.

Then DC Rajakumar mentioned 'that gem' that has been CP Ng's constant refrain - the police chose not to use force because the situation was not life threatening. Even worse, he read from police protocol that in such situations the police were supposed to protect life and property, prevent public disorder, maintain a 'moral high ground and be publicly responsible for their actions.'

To sum up with a word from my British friend - 'Bollocks'. CP Tee observed that the police did not protect the lives of bystanders, diners and civilians. In a straight laced reply , Justice Selvam said the police did nothing to protect the lives of innocent people.

CP Ng Joo Hee should be an insurance salesman, he has a positive thing to say about every bad thing, like the murder of 2 civilians by a police officer.

They pressed home the points that the failure to do anything meant the rioters were not spooked but got emboldened, and as mentioned by my posts, the police did not learn anything from the London riots of 2011 nor did they study the causes of rioting in India in similar incidents involving fatal traffic accidents. 'A lot of things were wrong,' barked CP Tee to a flustered DC Rajakumar, who was at times at a loss to give a meaningful explanation to the conduct of his officers. He even mentioned a failure of training and lack of equipment. Surely all this has to reflect on police commanders in the various divisions and their utter lack of supervision by the man responsible for them - CP Ng.

The riots in London and other English cities in 2011. Was there something to learn for the SPF? Apparently not, it couldn't possibly happen in well policed Singapore.

There was a very poor line of communication on the ground and the command centres at Police Headquarters. As I reflected on the delay to activate, it took almost 18 minutes for the Special Operations Command (SOC) to be activated after the initial request, and the activating officer, Deputy Director Ops mulled for 12 minutes before giving the go ahead. He checked and double checked before agreeing! Why can't senior officers on the ground make that call and the Director should back his judgment up by immediately activating the SOC. That's why we commission senior officers - to make the tough and hard decisions - no to sit in an office, bark orders and take credit for their men's good actions. If a senior officer makes a wrong call, let him answer for it, but do not shackle him and prevent him from making that call.

A convoluted activation procedure and indecisiveness, coupled with poor deployment meant that the SOC took nearly an hour to get to the scene. Luckily no one died in the interim.

The SOC took 38 minutes to arrive (the first troop) and the second one another 33 minutes later. Therefore it took nearly an hour when the request was conveyed to activate them and for them to actually arrive - far too long. DC Rajakumar said it's not possible to have the SOC on the ground at Little India every weekend, they were deployed there 16 times in 2013. This is a poor excuse. Out of 52 Sundays, and adding in another 11 or more public holidays, making 63 days of large crowds in Little India, the SOC was only there 16 times, barely a quarter. No one is suggesting they have to be physically present every time, but surely they could be made to standby at Tanglin Police Station, a mere 500 metres away. And it was proven how effective they and the Gurkha Contigent were. It took them around 15 minutes to gain a foothold and an hour to control the riot.

Watching the show of the year. Despite the injuries to police and SCDF officers, and the large destruction of property, these officers were happy to stay put and let the rioters have 'their fun'.

The officers on the ground prior to SOC's arrival were in flux, there was no leadership provided by DAC Lu or his senior officers. They did nothing! When the first patrol car was torched they did nothing, this emboldened the riotersand they then turned their fury on other Govt vehicles. Instead of trying to stop them, the police officers ran from an ambulance - emboldening the rioters further. Dozens of police and SCDF staff were injured and still nothing was even attempted. The initial scene as DC Rajakumar remarked - the body of the victim lying there, and yet nothing was done to show that the police were on top of the situation by detaining the driver and coordinator.

Although eventually found not at fault for the fatal accident, bus driver Lee Kim Huat (top)and his coordinator, should have been arrested and removed from the scene by the initial officers. This would show the potential rioters that some form of justice was taking place.

No training was provided, no anticipation despite warning signs in other countries, no understanding of the ground, no traffic control, poor judgment, poor communications, utter hesitation and indecisiveness, amongst others. And what does CP Ng say to all this - my officers handled it well and deserve praise for exercising restraint! He should thank his lucky stars that no innocent civilian got injured or got killed, and no public servant suffered such a fate. Who's going to answer if a brick struck an SCDF officer and killed him? Who answers for the millions lost due to property damage - public property paid by citizens and private property?

Proud to received awards, our dear Commissioner. But when failure occurs, he refuses to take the blame. The words by Justice Selvam - 'This is not acceptable' should be sufficient cause for him to accept responsibility and resign.

As Justice Selvam remarked, 'What happened is not acceptable!' Do you hear that Mr Commissioner? Can you still hold your head up high and defend your men especially your senior officers and commanders? They answer to you and reflect you, in the manner they go about their duties. Their failures and yours are painfully obvious to a trained judge and former Commissioner, and obvious now to all of us. I don't know if the COI will recommend your removal, but surely as the person responsible for the whole force, such a scathing assessment of the failures on and before December 8th, together with other shameful acts perpetrated by officers under your command, isn't it obvious now to you, that you should accept responsibility and resign? Or have you no shame?

↧

Anyhow Hantam Now on Facebook!

February 24, 2014, 3:43 am

≫ Next: Taxi Driver Murderer Should Hang

≪ Previous: Resign, Please Resign Mr Police Commissioner.

I've finally decided to create a Facebook page to go with this blog. You can see it at:

https://www.facebook.com/anyhowhantam

Feel free to comment on the articles or to drop me a message via FB. As it's just launched, it'll take some time to get all the previous topics uploaded, so please bear with the rather 'naked' page.

Since it's a Facebook page, I'm not limited to just articles from this blog. I'll also post some articles or topics from across FB or the Net. But essentially it's meant to offer another avenue for readers to read or find the blog.

Thanks for reading my articles and I hope you'll continue to do so, both here and on FB. If you like this blog please like the FB page as well.

↧

Taxi Driver Murderer Should Hang

February 26, 2014, 5:06 pm

≫ Next: A PAP Supporter's View

≪ Previous: Anyhow Hantam Now on Facebook!

Chinese national Wang Wenfeng was convicted of murder of taxi driver Yuen Swee Hong in the High Court in 2011 and sentenced to death. However a review was done in regards to capital punishment and all hangings (the method of execution here) were put on hold. Finally the changes in Law were made effective January 2013, and all those facing capital punishment had their sentences remitted back to the High Court, to see whether they qualified to be sentenced under the new regime. Wang's case came before Justice Lee Sieu Kin and in November last year, he set aside the original death sentence and substituted with one of life imprisonment plus 24 strokes of the cane. The judgment was released earlier this month.

Justice Lee Sieu Kin heard the original case against Wang and imposed the then mandatory death penalty upon convicting him.

Based on media reports and television dramatisations (it appeared in an episode of Crimewatch), I felt Wang deserved the death penalty. My belief was reinforced when I read the original judgment of the trial. (Unfortunately it's no longer on the Singapore Law Reports webpage as they keep the page updated, you'd have to personally purchase a copy I think, or get a lawyer to retrieve it for you). As such I've forgotten a few details - notably the defensive wounds (if any) or how soon death was caused after the injuries were inflicted. It's very important when commenting on a court's decision to read the full judgment, and not rely solely on media reports. A judgment details the offence, the prosecution's case and the defense rebuttal. More importantly it shows what factors the trial judge took in and based his decision on. I was sufficiently convinced that justice was done after reading that report.

Wang Wenfang is lucky to be alive today. He was due to be hanged until a review on the death penalty put a moratorium on all executions.

Now this case had been referred back tot he High Court to consider the sentence based on the changes in law for murder. This referral is not a relook at his conviction, he's been found guilty and that verdict was upheld in the automatic appeal before the Court of Appeal (CoA). This referral is solely to relook at whether the prisoner's sentence should fall under the new provisions for murder. The revamped section for Murder under Sec 300 of the Penal Code reads like this:

Murder

300. Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder —

a) if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death;

b) if it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused;

c) if it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person, and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death; or

d) if the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death, or such injury as aforesaid.

Illustrations are provided and the relevant one is:

(c) A intentionally gives Z a knife-cut or club-wound sufficient to cause the death of a man in the ordinary course of nature. Z dies in consequence. Here A is guilty of murder, although he may not have intended to cause Z’s death.

The punishment for murder previously was the mandatory death penalty. However with the changes, Section 302 (the punishment for murder) reads like this:

Punishment for Murder

302.—(1) Whoever commits murder within the meaning of section 300(a) shall be punished with death.

(2) Whoever commits murder within the meaning of section 300(b), (c) or (d) shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life and shall, if he is not punished with death, also be liable to caning.

So only if you are charged and convicted under Section 300 (a), the death sentence is mandatory. For the other 3, you can still be sentenced to death or given life imprisonment with/without caning. The decision on which section you will be charged rests entirely with the prosecution not with the judge, although the judge can after hearing a case decide to substitute highest charge - Section 300 (a) with any of the other 3, if he finds the evidence demands it. He however cannot substitute any of the lower charges to the highest one - that is strictly the prosecutor's prerogative.

The prosecutor in this case, Bala Reddy, submitted a charge under Sec 300 (c) for this re-sentencing and again asked for the death sentence. Wang was represented by Wendell Wong, who argued for the life term. As it's crucial to make an opinion solely on the judgment, here's the link:

http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/slw/index.php/component/cck/?task=download&file=attached_document&id=36688&utm_source=rss%20subscription&utm_medium=rss&filename=36688.pdf;src=judgments

Brief Facts of the Case:

Wang was working in Singapore, but had lost his job and due to leave Singapore by 15th April 2009. His attempts to get money to buy a plane ticket were futile and he decided to resort to robbery. In the early hours of April 11th, he went to Sun Plaza armed with a 12.5cm fruit knife, a haversack, water-bottle and gloves. He decided to rob taxi drivers because he found them an easy target. He flagged down the victim's taxi and directed him to 'Bottle Tree Park or Bao Ping Chun' in Sembawang. Once near he directed the victim to Jalan Selimang and put on his gloves and took the knife out.

Police Officers conducting the search for taxi driver Yuen Swee Hong in the Sembawang area. (Inset Wang's now estranged wife)

He grabbed the victim from behind and pointed the knife using his left hand at his chest, and demanded money. A struggle ensued and he stabbed the victim 5 times. The victim bled and soon became limp. Wang believed him to be dead and dragged his body to the nearby forest and dumped it there, after rifling through his pockets and taking his cash and valuables including his hand-phone (HP).

He then drove the taxi to a carpark in Canberra Road and cleaned it as best he could. He would later dump the haversack with knife, gloves and his soled clothes in another forest at Nee Soon Road. While on his way back, he received a few missed calls from the victim's wife. Sensing an opportunity, he made a ransom demand for $150,000 from her saying he had kidnapped her husband. He gave her the illusion that her husband was still alive, warning her over the next 2 days that he hadn't eaten. After a wild goose chase, he did not meet her or attempted to collect the ransom. Instead he had bought a flight ticket home for April 14th. However swift action by the police meant that he was arrested on April 13th, 2 days after the murder. He initially denied having anything to do with the victim's then disappearance, although the police had by then assumed him dead owing to the pathologist's determination of bloodletting in the taxi - meant 1 thing, the victim would be dead due to the huge loss of blood unless he had received immediate medical support. (Which still could result in death depending on the injuries).

Finally after 10 days, Wang confessed and led police to the dumping ground, where Yuen's decomposed body was located. He also led to police to retrieve his dastardly tools of the crime.

The Prosecution's Case

The prosecution submitted the Minister of Law's parliamentary speech when moving the amendments on when the death penalty should be preferred for offences under the 3 lower limbs. These were:

(1) the seriousness of the offence, both in terms of the harm that the commission of the offence is likely to cause to the victim and to society, and the personal culpability of the accused; (2) how frequent or widespread an offence is; and (3) deterrence.

For seriousness, the prosecution highlighted the cruel manner of the crime, the premeditation and planning. He chose the early hours, came prepared with knife, gloves and a change of clothes. He chose a vulnerable victim (taxi driver) and made him drive to a deserted area. He chose a dangerous weapon with a 12.5cm blade and 2 of the stab wounds were very deep in a vulnerable part, and 1 went all the way in. The victim suffered an agonising death.

Moreover Wang did not show remorse, he robbed the victim, attempted to conceal his tracks by disposing of evidence, tried to extort money from the wife and made plans to flee the country. He led police on a wild goose chase for several days before finally admitting. He had no mitigating value, financial difficulty is not an excuse to commit crime. They also pointed out that Wang was much stronger than the victim and took him by surprise and there was a lot of public outrage over the murder.

This taxi driver was a victim of assault. Working alone and being older, they are vulnerable to attack by those with sinister designs.

For widespread they mentioned a series of violent offences against taxi drivers in the preceding years. For deterrence, they argued that taxi drivers were vulnerable and pointed out that the Courts have taken a dim view of assaults on taxi drivers.

Although 3 similar murder cases before Wang's resulted in the overturning of the death penalty, they argued this case was different. Wang's premeditation and cruelty, together with the outrage meant he unlike the others, deserved the death penalty.

The Defense's Case

Defense counsel argued using previous cases both here and in other jurisdictions, that the death penalty for murder should only be imposed for the most serious ones, bereft of mitigating value and of a heinous nature. They submitted this was not so in Wang's case. They submitted that Wang did not plan to inflict fatal wounds and these happened during the struggle. He had no intention to stab the victim and only carried the knife to scare a victim into submitting during the robbery.

Defense Counsel Wendell Wong was able to present a more coherent argument than his opposite number thus convincing the judge not to impose the maximum sentence.

He did not stab him in cold blood and inflicted no further injuries to ensure the victim's death. As for what he did after the stabbing, they asked the court not to put weight to it. These were done in panic, fear and adrenalin. They asked the judge to focus on Wang's intention at the start of the offence not what happened after it.

They argued Wang did not plan to commit murder, only carried the knife to commit robbery, did not have a clear mind as he was under financial distress, did not cause Yuen to suffer prolonged pain as it was over within 2 minutes. And although he lied initially, he cooperated eventually and led them to the body. He's also young (30) and can be rehabilitated and reformed. He's parents are not that old and hope to be re-united with him 1 day as does his 12 year old daughter. They submitted for a life sentence and 10 strokes of the cane.

The Judge's Decision.

Justice Lee was the initial trial judge and as such he was aware of the full facts of the case. He ruled that Wang did not set out to commit murder but robbery. He chose taxi drivers because they were vulnerable and chose a deserted spot to rob them. He pointed the knife to force the victim to hand over the money but the victim tried to grab it and as a result of the struggle the fatal wounds were inflicted. He ascertained the victim was dead before dragging him from the taxi and hiding the body.

After that he cleaned himself, hid the taxi and disposed of the body and attempted to leave the country. The extortion part was opportunistic and not part of his original plans. It only came about when the wife called the HP.

Justice Lee accepted taxi drivers and other public transport workers deserve protection from the law and deterrent sentences should be meted out. But it's 1 thing to suggest increasing a fine or jail sentence for assault or robbery, and another between choosing capital punishment or life imprisonment.

For this the prosecution must show that the life term is inadequate and a more deterrent effect is needed. There was just 1 case of murder of taxi driver in the past 5 year - this case. There have been cases of assault against taxi drivers but there was no upward trend. So the deterrence factor wasn't there.

The prosecution argued on the premeditation and planning but did not elaborate on whether this was for the robbery or murder. Both he and the CoA had found that the offence of murder was not premeditated. Death was caused by the struggle, although Wang should have known this. The judge felt Wang deserved the benefit of doubt for his post-killings acts. He did not pre-plan them but acted out of self -preservation. Although the extortion attempt was cruel, it too wasn't pre-planned but opportunistic. Justice Lee felt that the ends of justice would be met if he sentenced Wang to the full brunt of the law, but just short of the death penalty. As such he imposed a life term with 24 strokes of the cane.

The prosecution is disagreeing to this and will file an appeal to the CoA.

My Take.

Having read the initial trial judgment and sentence and this new sentencing decision, I remain unmoved. I still feel that Wang deserves the death sentence. I don't entirely blame the judge for this erroneous decision, as I feel the Prosecutor did not prepare or submit well enough for this re-sentencing. Perhaps Mr Reddy was too over-confident and thus became complacent in his arguments.

Armed robberies in Singapore like this case seldom result in murder. Which leads to the question, what exactly was Wang's true intentions? Just to rob or to rob and use the knife?

Still I think the judge placed too much emphasis on Wang's intention to commit robbery and too little on the particular limb in the law regarding this type of murder. To recap Sec 300 (c) states:

c) if it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person, and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death;

Here Wang came prepared to commit robbery with a very dangerous weapon - a 12.5cm knife. He wore gloves and chose a vulnerable victim. What would his intention be, in bringing such a knife? Obviously to use it if necessary. He could have chosen a smaller knife or blade if he really only wanted to 'scare' the victim. So why such a large knife? Firstly to induce fear, which the judge rightly finds, but what about the next possible cause if the fear factor fails? Definitely to inflict some form of injury. In this particular subsection and crucially in the illustration it mentions:

By pointing the knife at the victim's chest, this is a particularly dangerous area. Wang chose his spot carefully. He sat behind the victim and use the seat as a support to point the knife at the chest, giving him maximum thrusting ability. If he wanted only to rob and scare, he could have sat in front and pointed the knife directly at the victim, or even in the back, prodded it at a less vulnerable area - the victim's side or back. Wang would have realised that his victims could possibly fight back, that's why he chose to seat directly behind, not even the rear left passenger seat where he could again have pointed the knife at the victim's side. He knew that in a struggle he would have to use that knife to overawe and subdue the victim. His choice of seating and area of attack indicated premeditation on his part to stab the victim. He would have known that if such a stab wound occurred it would as the subsection and illustration suggest be sufficient in the ordinary course cause death.

Would this be enough to warrant the death penalty? Alone and a single stab wound, possibly, but Wang repeatedly stabbed the victim, including 2 very deep cuts into the heart area. 1 went the full 12.5cm length. DPP Reddy failed to elaborate on this and the fact that after the 1st stab wound to indicate he meant business, Wang could have at any time ceased the attack against his far weaker opponent. Would the victim have resisted further if Wang stopped? I don't think so.

Senior DPP Bala Reddy wasn't very convincing in his arguments during re-sentencing.

The next point DPP Reddy failed to submit is the location and what would Wang's intentions had been if he solely set out to rob. You bring your victim to a deserted area and then rob him, he submits, what would you have done thereafter? You could not possibly flee and disappear into say a block of flats or some other area, where you can get into another cab and make good your escape. Wang was in the middle of nowhere, he had no getaway vehicle. He did not state his intention was to rob a taxi driver of cash and vehicle. He only planned to rob for money. If he had planned for all this, he would need to do extra planning, he must find an exit route, he must subdue the victim fully, remove his handphone and make sure the victim doesn't have a chance to raise the alarm. He did not come with a rope. Unless he expected to rob the victim and then expect the victim to drive him somewhere else, which would have been silly as the victim would have many chances to raise the alarm enroute. It's more likely that he planned the robbery with the full intention to use the knife at some point to inflict a very severe injury to the victim.

Although it's not proven in the initial trial and appeal that he set out to commit murder, the fact he used the knife to point at a very vulnerable spot should lend credence that he knew that any such injury from it would be sufficient to cause death if left untreated. Although there was a struggle and he stabbed him 5 times only, DPP Reddy failed to point out that 5 stab wounds including 2 serious would be sufficient to end all resistance and bring Mr Yuen to or close to death. Had his body not yet gone limp after the 5 wounds, what would Wang have done further? Surely one can assume it would be to inflict further injury until all resistance ended.

And his actions thereafter, we can discount the extortion that would be under a different charge altogether. He came with a bottle of water to wash up and clean himself together with a change of clothes. Does this suggest only robbery? How many robbers commit robbery with a bottle of water on standby and change of clothes? Why the water and clothes? To clean off any bloodstains and remove his blood-stained clothes which would arouse suspicion. He went into the robbery knowing full well that he would use the knife at some point.

DPP Reddy also used a poor example to example the widespread nature of the crime, this being the only case of murder of a taxi driver since the fatal stabbing over decade ago of the 4 men involved in the York Hill shooting. He should emphasised on the nature of the offence and the cruelty more. As for deterrence, he should have instead focused on the heinous and cunning nature of the accused. He was younger and stronger and could have simply subdued the victim by brute force or with a less serious stabbing to force submission. Justice Lee also focussed too much on defense submission of deterrence and rehabilitation. Murder is one of the few charges where the 3 sentencing principles of
rehabilitation, prevention and deterrence pale very much when compared to the 4th - retribution or punishment. Unless an offender is very young and killed in the spur of the moment, there's very little rehabilitative value in reforming a prisoner committing murder. You cannot undo a murder or a life lost. Few murderers go on to commit other murders anyway upon release, most would be very old.

Madam Chan, Mr Yuen's wife was put through a very shameful ordeal that no wife ever imagines going through.

Wang is not a young man, at 30 he would be sufficiently matured. He's married and has a child. He knew what he was doing. This case has a lot of public outrage even we if we discount the public outrage at the extortion attempt and the 'false hope' he gave to Mrs Yuen and her son only with crushing blow that was to come. We can also discount the public outrage at the fact he's a PRC citizen, and we are currently extremely angry at foreigners who commit crimes here. All those should not affect the sentencing in a death penalty case. But there's outrage even without those for the cruel manner in which he stabbed Mr Yuen and disposed of the body, leaving it to rot for 10 days. He did not even give the victim's family a chance of an open coffin. After the robbery, he did not bother to check if the victim was fully dead only assuming it. Even if he was dead, Wang had many opportunities to direct the police, ambulance or his wife to the location so Mr Yuen could at least be given a proper funeral. If he solely set out to rob, he could well called an ambulance after making good his escape, to show some compassion for his victim. He was cruel plain and simple. This was clearly a heinous crime.

Madam Chan and her son leaving the High Court with family members. They will never see their husband or father again, something Wang's children can expect to.

I am not a keen proponent of the death penalty, but I feel this case is one that fully merits it. Wang is alive and will live, Mr Yuen isn't and can't. Wang's daughter and family can see him, Mr Yuen's family can't. And although he's got a life sentence, there's nothing to say he won't be released some day maybe 25 years from now. He'll still be only in his 50s or if later in his 60s. There's every chance he'll be released some day and be repatriated back to China. Unless there's a sentence where life imprisonment has the provision - no possibility of release, I feel this sentence although long and next to the maximum, is not appropriate. I hope the DPP does better in the appeal and the CoA pays more attention to the crime itself than the other factors and overturns Justice Lee's sentence and re-imposes the death penalty.

↧

A PAP Supporter's View

March 3, 2014, 12:12 pm

≫ Next: Little India Riot: Tanglin Police Commander - You Suck!

≪ Previous: Taxi Driver Murderer Should Hang

I came across this Facebook posting by a PAP supporter, using the moniker True Singaporean Stand Up For Facts (or TSS for short):

https://www.facebook.com/notes/true-singaporean-standsupforfacts/your-choice-a-party-who-cares-for-singapore-or-one-who-cares-for-votes/1465777130304551

Now before I delve into this post, let's be clear and mature about certain things. Everyone has a right to support the party they want. We may disagree sometimes even vehemently, but we must respect the other side's freedom of choice. We are becoming a bit too partisan. Opposition supporters calling PAP ones, boot-lickers while the latter uses unflattering terms to label the former, like calling them stupid and traitors. Some even have suggested that if you don't like it here or the way PAP runs things, migrate elsewhere. This is downright wrong. As citizens we have the right to be here and not be told to leave if we dislike the ruling party. We are not fascists and if we don't like the party in power we have every right to vote them out, not to be told to leave when they win by their supporters. I think PAP Ministers should have a closer look at what some of their supporters are saying and how unhelpful or hurtful certain remarks made by them are.

TSS's Facebook page cover photo. You can visit them and comment on their page at this link.

Looking at the TSS post, I will say his focus is wrong. He expectedly lays too much into the opposition - here almost certainly referring to the WP. Now why is it that the PAP must bear the brunt of criticism and the opposition less? Well it's the way things work in life. Take seditious or highly defamatory remarks made by say a Chinese against a Malay, why does it become a big issue, and less when the opposite happens? Both are wrong of course. Or if you say something bad or false against Islam, you'll almost certainly be looking at criminal charges but if it was against say Christianity or Buddhism, a warning is more likely after a contrite apology.

The largest and principal mosque in Singapore - the Sultan Mosque. Given their heritage and smaller size, it's only fair Malays Muslims must be given slightly higher protection against insults.

It boils down to being the bigger or larger group and their ancestry and heritage to Singapore.. The big is always expected to look after the small, the strong after the weak. If it was the other way round and Malays Muslims were the majority, the reverse would happen, comments criticising Indians or Chinese would be getting a lot of angry retorts and calls for action. The same goes with politics, the higher expectation and criticisms must be the PAP's to bear simply because they control every facet of political life here. They control the Parliament, they control the Executive, the Presidency, the press, they control the conduct of elections and they are the ones that set out the policies. They are the ones that demanded the highest salaries in the world. They are paid to do a job. It is them that must answer. It's not the opposition's duty to rebut or challenge them on every issue, it's not their preserve to lay out policy. The WP has every right to cherry pick on the key issues. They do not even have enough numbers to form a 'Shadow Cabinet' neither do they hold the parliamentary position of being the official opposition. In a Whitehall democracy on which our system is based, an official leader of the opposition is given an office and provided staff by the state, and his team of 'Shadow Ministers' will respond directly to a policy made by a Minister of which they are shadowing. The WP is only 7 against 80 strong.

Ed Miliband is the official Leader of HM's Most Loyal Opposition. He's entrusted with an office and certain privileges in Parliament by virtue of this position. The WP is not even close to having the numbers to be accorded this privilege.

Expectation for them to address every issue is something the PAP supporters can demand of them, but I doubt opposition supporters or neutrals are too bothered by them. It's important that they make a stand on key issues like the White Paper, the annual Budget, raise pertinent questions and work hard on the ground in order to retain their constituencies and win more. That's where their priorities must lie for now. If they had say 25-35 MPs and started cherry picking, TSS and others, even the opposition's own supporters are justified to question their perceived silence on some issues.

The highly controversial Population White Paper introduced last year. The WP and other opposition parties were not slow in challenging it and coming up with their own versions or responses.

There a number of mistakes made by TSS in his post.

1) WP MPs do not earn the same salaries as PAP Ministers, only the same MP's allowances of $13,000.
2) The PAP White Paper is a higher projection in order to build the infrastructure. The Govt is credited with projecting a higher figure. In fact the opposite can be said, why use the decimal 6.9? Shouldn't it read 7 million instead? After all it's only a projection right? Because of a selling tactic, you don't sell something for $10, when $9.90 sounds better. What he doesn't explain is why there's a need for this higher figure when the country now already seems grappling with the higher population. We were still only 2.5 million around 1999, in 15 years or so, we have added 3 million more inhabitants to reach 5.5 million today. Is it still necessary to bring in another 1.5 million?

Almost a decade ago, the UAE has survived very well with a large foreign influx, because of demarcations and benefits for citizens. Foreigners don't compete against locals but work alongside them for the local's benefit.

Why must the non citizen population be increased? They can be replaced each and every time with newer and younger workers from foreign lands, while the Govt focusses on the Singaporean core. The UAE has nearly 2/3 foreigners, yet there's no issue with the foreign workforce because a clear distinction is made between them and the 1/3 citizens.

3) He comes out with the following line:

'What the PAP is doing, is planning long-term. You may not see the effects now, neither can we see the effects in future. The effects will only be seen, if these measures are not in place.'

Please try to fathom what he's trying to say, I cannot for the life of me make out the logic here. Ok the effects cannot be seen now, but it also cannot be seen in future? Then why have them if we cannot see or reap any benefit? And how can it thus be seen if it's not in place, when you can't see them when they are in place? A policy that produces no effect is a policy not worth pursuing.

4) Another point:

'For EXAMPLE, many are not aware of the advantage safety we have in Singapore. They are also not aware of what is being done to keep us safe. They may think nothing is done.
Until one day the safety and peace is no longer there, only then they will realise how much has been put in to keep our safety in place. By then, it would be too late.'

Even peace loving and neutral Switzerland has a military and NS (although they are thinking of having a fully professional army). Every Govt that's voted in has a duty to ensure the nation's defense and maintain law and order. PAP supporters cannot demand credit for this most basic duty.

Again this argument is very weak. Why do we vote in a Govt be it PAP or another? To do nothing about defense, crime, law and order? Pray tell which Govt in the world comes to power totally ignoring these factors? Even the peace loving and neutral Swiss, have some form of defense (they have conscription as well). Will Singaporeans tolerate a Govt that does nothing about defense or law and order? Will we tolerate rampant crime or allow Singapore becoming a breeding ground for terrorists? If the PAP did nothing, no need for 2016, by 1968, 1972, 1976, 1980, they would have been history. I can elaborate a bit on defense, but I think that's a topic for another day. This argument of TSS has no legs to stand on.

5) He ends with the following:

'This is the type of Government we need, and must continue to have. Doing what is right, despite knowing it will result in a loss of support. This also proves that they are not "vote-minded", or doing whatever it takes to retain their million-dollar salaries.
You are probably referring to the wrong party, as I have just proved above.
We need a Government who truly cares for Singapore, not one that cares for your votes or support.'

This is the mindset at the very top of our leadership, even though there's a really a groundswell against it. Why not put it to the ultimate test - a free and fair vote? (ST article)

Errm, I think he's taking too much liberties, he's not actually proven anything except that the Govt has done some basic duty that every citizen expects them to do. They have not given the justification to explain why the floodgates have been opened and continue to be open, and why the local population is no longer the majority or close to losing its majority, nor has anything concrete been done to curb the drastic effect this policy has had on the people. Housing has gone up or reached a stage where's it beyond many people's means. The Govt continues to use data and statistics to back themselves up, without realising what's truly happening on the ground. It's not helpful when you have million dollar Ministers saying $1000 is enough to buy a flat or I think the PM even said a couple earning $2000 each should be able to get by, when neither he nor his team has actually lived on this income scale.

Instead of his claim that the Govt is not vote-minded or doing whatever it takes to retain their million dollar salaries, the opposite is in effect slowly but surely entering more and more voters minds. 5% new citizens have voted in 2011, this figure is expected to increase in future years all the way up to the 6.9 million figure. It's a foregone conclusion as to where nearly all of them will vote in elections.

With 18 Ministers, including 3 in the PMO and others as 2nd Ministers, not to mention 14 other office holders, 40% of PAP MPs are earning ministerial salaries - the highest in the world. 32 office holders is quite large for a small Parliament like Singapore's.

More ministries have been created, and the number of Ministers without portfolios has increased. The rich and powerful are catered to nicely, while ordinary middle and lower class citizens are struggling with the pinch of ever increasing costs on basic stuff. To win votes, the GRC system has not been tweaked to allow a more level playing field and unlike normal years when GST rebates are paid out (in August), in an election year it's paid out in an election month. Promises and apologies are made, but when the dust settles, a slew of policies designed to benefit certain segments that are crucial in their voting block are introduced, while ordinary citizens must come a begging to receive benefits, like CDC allowances, which carry the PAP Grassroot Advisors signatures.

Lift and block upgrading was the 'ransom' that voters had to decide upon from the 1991 to 2006 elections. Vote against PAP and go bottom of the queue and lose value on your flats.

Does the Govt care for Singapore? Now this is a bit tricky, I won't accuse them of acting against Singapore. Instead they are determined to portray Singapore to the world as perfect and No 1, at all costs, without realising another world is existing where the lower middle class and poor cannot get by without a daily struggle that seems to have no end. Does it care for your votes? For sure, they have weakened democratic institutions to a point that the people are forced to accept mediocre MPs or vote them, or lose benefits for exercising their right to choose other elected representatives. And it seems they are now buying an insurance policy to keep their hold onto power. If the GRC system was introduced to stem the rot from GE 1984, Town Councils/Upgrading to combat 1991's shock loss of 4 seats, then new citizens are the new method of ensuring their vote share isn't diminished by the 2011 and 2016 GEs losses. In fact increasing the House size means they today hold the same number of seats as they did in 2006 - 80, losing only 4 seats and conceding a total of just 7.

8 of the 9 Workers Party MPs and NCMPs. Should they do more? For sure. Are they failing? Given their 2 by-election victories, I don't think they are. But the question is why are PAP MPs and supporters questioning their 'so-called inertia'? Surely it must be to the PAP's benefit that they are doing so, they can convince voters come election time of it. Or does the PAP really want them to come after PAP gunsblazing and attacking each and every one of them. Surely it can't be good politics to ask your opponents to attack you? You don't have to expand energy defending yourselves. Everywhere else ruling parties will desire this, truly uniquely Singapore - PAP style.

The tiny opposition in Parliament is trying its best to swim against the tide and plotting its battles carefully while trying to stay out of potential pitfalls like lawsuits. Of course like TSS suggest they can do better and improve further, but the onus is not on them, it's on the bigger guys - the very PAP he supports that must do more and work on the people's problems. It is they that hold power and have the instruments of state which they have a iron clad grip on. But if people like TSS is forever going to follow and buy into whatever they say without questioning them or telling them to stop, then it's the future generations who will have to suffer, living a polarised country of 'the have and have-nots', where instead of the former caring for the latter, it's the latter who must forever be at the former's mercy and show gratitude. The very same policies that the PAP fought against all those years ago in the 50s against a Colonial power that segregated people along these very lines, is now becoming the same policy that the PAP is forcing onto today's and future generations. And PAP supporters like TSS are the ones that are allowing them to get away with it.

Widely respected worldwide, Indian Finance Minister P Chidambaram acknowledged that a democratic Govt cannot continue to go against the people's desires, time and again, without providing them the right to determine the Govt's fate. (My view: It's 1 thing avoiding being populist, quite another being dictatorial or expecting the people to accept their decisions without question or recourse)

If you don't like or trust the opposition, fair enough, but at least do something to get your party to change direction and reform. Not brushing off and crushing dissent and ramming policy after policy that only results in life getting harder and harder. Indian Finance Minister P Chidambaram said it quite well in a BBC interview in January - 'in a democracy the Govt cannot continue with policies that people don't want.' You simply cannot introduce policies that only you think is right all the time. You don't have to be populist for sure, make policy just to win votes, but in the same token you cannot also tread on a path the people are against each and every time and use the excuse you're not being populist. If you insist then you must provide a fair and level platform at the ballot box, where the people can make the final determination. You do not place obstacles that hinder that choice. This is not democracy but hidden fascism. In the long run this will, not external threats and not opposition supporters, that will bring Singapore to its knees because people like TSS dare not and will not challenge them but use weak arguments or support them blindly. A Govt that systematically ignores its people or forgets that the people are the masters not them, is the greatest threat to Singapore.

(This post can be found on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/anyhowhantam . Feel free to comment on it or sending in your questions)

↧

Little India Riot: Tanglin Police Commander - You Suck!

March 5, 2014, 6:55 pm

≫ Next: Policemen to wear body cameras - Good Idea. What about Interrogations, Investigations and Interviews?

≪ Previous: A PAP Supporter's View

The Commission of Inquiry (COI) into the Little India Riot on Dec 8th last year grilled the 1 man most responsible for the police debacle on Tuesday - Tanglin Police Division Commander, Deputy Assistant Commissioner (DAC) Lu Yeow Lim. They did not hold back with a scathing criticism of his actions with Commission member, Tee Tua Ba, himself a former divisional commander and Commissioner of Police (CP) telling DAC Lu, 'You made the problem worse!' The New Paper (TNP)detailed much of the grilling with a 4 page report in yesterday's edition:

http://www.tnp.sg/content/little-india-riot-inquiry-grills-ground-commander

The 5 key points directed at DAC Lu and highlighted by TNP were:

1) He did not know what was happening

2) He didn't know how many men he had on the ground

3) He took no action

4) He held the ground at the wrong place

5) His explanation of being powerless to act wasn't acceptable.

Tanglin Police Division Commander, DAC Lu Yeow Lim leaving the Sub-Courts after his testimony before the COI (TNP photo)

1) His unawareness of the scope of the riot

Upon his arrival, he positioned himself at Hampshire Road X Race Course Road - a poor choice since he could not see the full incident, as his vision was blocked by busses and other Govt vehicles. He stood behind a shield and had around 10 men with him. He took over command from ASP Jonathan Tang, who had made the effort to walk around and gather information, yet DAC Lu made no effort to communicate with him to be de-briefed about the situation.

ASP Jonathan Tang perform heroically unlike the Tanglin Commander (TNP photo)

When asked why he failed to walk around, he replied that protocol prevented commanders from going into the heat of battle! I find this strange that a police commander should say this, 'Shouldn't he be leading from the front?' This is not a war zone with enemy snipers positioned to take out commanders. No one had a firearm. But let us accept this protocol at face value, as Commission chairman, Justice GP Selvam pointed out, 'No one asked you to go to the centre. You could have walked around the periphery . You stayed put and did not know what was happening and did not bother to find out'

2) He did not know his strength.

This was perhaps the most shocking revelation of all - a most basic duty of any commander in whatever uniform group - to establish how many men you have available.

A policewoman manning the Combined Ops Room or 999 line. Granted it was busy during the riot with numerous calls, DAC Lu should have found other means to communicate with the men on the ground.

His explanation was that communication lines were down and he was unable to contact Combined Ops Room (COR), or in layman's terms - 999 Police Radio Division. In actual fact they were 110 officers at the scene, but DAC Lu said he believed he only had 10 armed officers. When questioned by CP Tee on whose fault it was - his or the system's? DAC Lu evaded answering by saying he was not in a position to make that judgment. There you have it folks - a classic act of refusing to take responsibility.

In fact COR had despatched 53 mobile resources to the scene before SOC and Gurkha Contigent's deployment. If DAC Lu did not know his manpower and refused to walk around, he should have done 1 of 4 things:

a) Direct 1 or 2 of his officers to walk around to find out
b) Gone to a better or higher ground to get a clearer picture. There are around 4-5 HDB blocks at Farrer Park overlooking the riot scene, that would have been a better vantage point. From there he could see the unfolding events away from harm's way and know exactly where the resources were.
c) If communication lines with COR were down, he could have instead liaised with his own divisional ops room (DOR) and got them to brief him on what they knew and how many men had been sent. Police lines may have been down but telephone lines were working normally, he could have gotten DOR to get the other officers on the ground especially ASP Tang to call him or vice-versa.
d) He himself could have retreated back to DOR a mere 500m away, where he could monitor the resources and direct the resources. He would have gotten a clearer picture. If he did not want to leave the scene, surely he had many other senior officers to delegate the duty to - his Head Investigations, Head Ops, Head Manpower, OC Patrol, OC NPCs and dozens other senior officers of and above the rank of Inspector to take charge of DOR and form a direct line of communication between them and him via his mobile phone.

SCDF officers battle a fire. They are truly 1 of the best in Asia and of a very high standard. Their incident commanders do not stand idly by, like DAC Lu.

The bottom line, whichever way you look at it, be it in the military or SCDF, is know how many men you have. No ground fire commander would simply tell his men to all go and attack a fire just like that, he would assign each a role and acting in cohesion they would go about their duties. No platoon commander will not assess his strength before he engages an enemy. DAC Lu is not some new recruit out of the academy, he must have known that in a situation like this, there would be no way that COR or DOR would only send 10 men to ground. There had to be at least dozens more, surely his primary task would have been to verify their position and to report their observations for him to make a decision.

Standing like a dead duck behind a shield, what purpose was it serving? No command post or position was established where reports could be converged in 1 spot, so that responsive action could be taken.

3) His failure to act.

He stood there for 30 mins and took no action. Worse still he prevented his officers from trying to do something, either to arrest a rioter or prevent damage.

Former Commissioner Tee Tua Ba pulled no punches, saying to DAC Lu 'You made the problem, worse!'

He gave the order to hold the ground until SOC's arrival. He said his objective was prevent the riot from escalating! Well we've got news for you DAC Lu, the riot did escalate and as the commission members pointed out, it was because no police officer was taking any form of action to stop them. This emboldened them. And there's no running away from this fact, when CP Tee an officer who witnessed the last riot in the 60s said, 'Look at the perspective of the rioters, with each police car overturned, you are not moving, the impression you are giving is that you are not going to do anything.''Are you really minimising or escalating the situation?''You have made the problem worse!'

4) He held the ground at the wrong place.

The main rioting was near Race Course Road X Kerbau Road, yet DAC Lu held the ground at Hampshire Road where only 1 police car was flipped.

When questioned by Justice Selvam as to whether as the ground commander (whose duty it was to observe where the real action was) he did that, he mumbled a 'no'. He then gave a strange reply, saying, 'It was unsound of me to turn my back against rioters, Do not take your eyes of the enemy!!' Perhaps this comes from the saying 'If looks could kill!'

5) His incapacity and failure to act was unacceptable'

CP Tee pointed out that the first SOC troop commanded by DSP Lim Sin Bin were able to walk through the rioters to DAC Lu's position, and a Traffic Police Officer who charged at a group of rioters with just his baton had gotten them to retreat, yet DAC Lu made no such move in the hour he was there.

Retired Justice G P Selvam was described as a sharp legal mind by lawyers. He's handling the COI well by trying to get to the bottom of things.

This followed a testy exchange which Justice Selvam declared, 'we do not accept that you could do nothing' followed by CP Tee saying, "You read the crowd wrongly'.

Unbelievably DAC Lu replied, 'I did not have the benefit of hindsight. I read the crowd based on what I saw, everything I saw suggested that the crowd would retaliate. If the intention was to quell the riot and bring justice, to be as brave as that single officer, what would be the point? He did not make any arrests.'

CP Tee rightly pointed out, 'It would show the police are taking active control. The TP Sgt said you do not need hundreds to disperse a crowd of hundreds.' Justice Selvam added, 'His assessment is very different from the imagination you're putting across.' Mr Tee also pointed out to DAC Lu, 'Some of the things that happened, you conveniently say you don't know, but what action have you taken about it?'

Can you imagine the calibre of senior commanders we have today, who instead of accepting responsibility and taking charge, instead use the excuse of hindsight to counter any criticism of their actions? DAC Lu, we are not talking about hindsight, we are talking about foresight! Every police officer, senior or junior must have foresight before and during any incident. Even in a simple accident, they must have the foresight to know what to do, how to assist the ambulance officers, how to cordon the scene and direct traffic and call for back up. Yet in a major case, you lack the foresight and vision to do something. Worse still you do nothing and prevent your officers from acting by saying what's the point? Imagine a fire commander at a scene of a raging fire, saying, 'No point, the fire too strong, let those trapped inside die or the whole unit be razed to the ground!'

The appointments of Commanders like DAC Lu and their failure reflects the failure of their boss - CP Ng Joo Hee.

The bottom-line is that he has no experience on the ground and refused to consider the advice of his junior men by giving them the support. 39 police and SCDF personnel were injured and you did nothing? Little India was a powder keg and throughout his command he did not do anything about it. No attempts were made to control traffic or the crowd. He had no situational awareness, no foresight and worse of all not 1 word of an apology for his failure. Instead he has a litany of excuses at the ready. This whole episode has shown 1 thing - his position is untenable and the same should be said of his fellow commanders, all of whom have been parachuted into such positions by a series of repeated promotions simply because they are scholars. His failure is a reflection amongst other things the failure of the Commisioner Ng Joo Hee to lead and supervise his commanders. He should be demoted or given the option to leave the force. We certainly do not need this kind of weak, buck pushing officers leading the various divisions. To put it bluntly as the title suggests - DAC Lu Yeow Lim - You suck!

Finally I want to touch on 1 issue that's also arisen from the after-math of the riot - the issue of criticising the police. Some have suggested that such criticism is unfair and typical of arm-chair critics like myself. Take popular blogger Chua Chin Leng aka Redbean with this post in his blog - 'My Singapore News':

http://mysingaporenews.blogspot.sg/2014/03/the-revelations-of-little-india-riot.html

He lambasts armchair critics, saying the police did better in not resorting to serious action and had they done so, we could have seen some of them in body bags. He says it's easy to criticise when we were not there and like others, questions what would we have done? What he's fail to point out is that the COI has repeatedly criticised the conduct of the police on the day. And he's obviously failed to notice that 39 officers were injured. This defies the most basic instinct that every police officer must subscribe to when going out for their daily duties - you go to your duties in 1 piece or form, make sure you return in the same manner. Something seriously went wrong when some of them had to go the hospital. Something seriously went wrong went SCDF officers were not given the protection and they too had to go to hospital.
We have also seen on social media comments made by some police officers and certain pro-Govt pages, that it's unfair or improper for the public to be laying into the police over their actions in the riot. Worse, some have suggested that if we are so smart and clever in our criticisms, we should put on the uniform and go handle these kind of cases and see how we perform!

Blogger Chua Chin Leng criticises armchair critics for lambasting the police. But he himself doesn't know or appreciate what happened on Dec 8th, so who's he to make such a judgment?

This is totally out of order. Firstly, the police are public servants, they answer to the public, the public must have every right to question and even condemn them over their failures and inaction. In his testimony before the COI, DC Rajakumar said that the police had to before using their firearms, be sure it was proper and whether they could justify to the public, such use. So there can be no doubt that upper police management know that they are answerable to the public. It thus must follow that the public has a right to question them. So people like Redbean, junior police officers who come online and their supporters, can go fly a kite if they think the public cannot question them.

DC T Rajakumar addressing reporters. He acknowledged that the police answers to the public, so it must follow that the public has every right to question and condemn the police when something goes wrong.

I will go further, it's because people like me and others, including former police officers have undergone such duties, that we are criticising them, not merely as armchair critics, but as one who have undergone the same set of duties. It baffles us that the management could allow such a situation to deteriorate so rapidly with no action taken. It also baffles us as to why over many months and years, nothing was done to anticipate or prepare for such an incident.

Finally about the suggestion of the questioning public donning the uniform, this is again unacceptable. To such officers with this mindset -let me say this this, you're not indispensable, never think that we are dependant solely on you, or that without you, the SPF will crumble and Singapore would be a lawless state. You were hired to filled a position. If you didn't join, if you quit, even die tomorrow, somebody else would be hired to replace you. You filled a quota with your appointment. If you feel that such criticism is unjust or unfair and you don't like it, please quit immediately. So we can hire someone else who's prepared to do his or her duty without feeling that the public is obligated to them. You were hired to serve the public, you were trained and paid a good salary, if you are no longer prepared to accept these terms, please resign and let someone else who is, do the job for us. Maybe even with such positions becoming vacant, some of us 'so-called armchair critics' can be given the chance to the job.

↧

Policemen to wear body cameras - Good Idea. What about Interrogations, Investigations and Interviews?

March 10, 2014, 4:36 pm

≫ Next: Top 10 Funny Football Quotes, Insults and Put-downs

≪ Previous: Little India Riot: Tanglin Police Commander - You Suck!

2nd Home Affairs Minister S Iswaran announced in Parliament last week that uniformed policemen will wear body cameras from the middle of this year,

http://news.asiaone.com/news/singapore/police-wear-body-cameras

I think this is an excellent idea. I had previously wondered why we weren't following certain police forces elsewhere, which have cameras mounted on the police vehicles dashboards to record activities whilst patrolling or stopping cars and persons. This measure goes 1 better, instead of just in a car which can only record from 1 angle (the front) and on a road, a body camera can capture and record activity anywhere. I'm sure we have a law that forbids people from recording or sharing their recordings of policemen in the execution of their duty. Or the police can seize such recordings on the pretext it interferes or compromises their investigations. So to resolve this in an ever increasing digital world, a video recording by a policemen will help, provided protocols are in place to prevent their tampering, if and when it becomes necessary to view it.

An example on where and how body cameras will be displayed on front-line uniformed officers.

Minister Iswaran mentioned that such cameras has benefitted police forces in the UK and Canada. He added, 'Such cameras and their recordings have been useful in deterring crime, calming rowdy members of the public and providing valuable investigative leads.' He also reflected, 'that leveraging on technology is an "important element" in the fight against crime. Between May 2012 and January this year, footage from police cameras installed in HDB blocks and multi-storey carparks have helped to solve 48 crimes, and generated investigative leads for 195 other cases. So far 2000 such cameras have been installed in HDB blocks and carparks with another 1000 planned for this year. By 2016 all 10,000 HDB blocks and carparks will have cameras installed, a promise made by Commissioner of Police Ng Joo Hee, in a Sunday Times interview last year.

2nd Home Affairs Minister and Minister in the PM's Office, S Iswaran addressing Parliament.

So there can be no doubt about the value of such cameras and recordings, which brings me back to a post I made last year about having cameras in police interrogation rooms. If the Ministry and Police feel that equipping officers on the ground and affixing cameras in HDB blocks is a useful tool, surely it must follow that having cameras in police interview and interrogations rooms will have similar effects. And it won't cost anywhere as much given that only 6-7 police land divisions need equipping. As mentioned in that post, 1 problem that routinely surfaces in criminal trials is that accused persons allege that their statements or confessions were coerced or made under threat. Some even have alleged police brutality like the SMRT bus strike accused and most recently, some of those arrested for the Little India riot.

The newly renamed 'State Courts' will clearly benefit if all police dealings with accused persons of an investigative nature, are recorded and available for verification at trials.

To resolve this, a 'Newton Hearing' or 'trial within a trial' must be held, before the judge rules whether such statements or confessions were made voluntarily and thus admissible as evidence. A video recording will once and for all eliminate any such doubts whether these allegations are true and provide a useful tool for the judge to determine the validity of the statements. In the UK, any recording of statements has to be recorded and the accused informed of this. It serves as a useful reminder to officers to follow procedures and the Law to the letter. It provides the best check against possible police brutality and it will confirm or deny any allegations of the same.

So there can be no compelling reasons not to have them if the Police is going to/able equip the thousands of ground officers with cameras and have them in 10,000 HDB blocks. It will be open and transparent and do much to enhance the reputation of the Police as being professional and fair. And it'll help in the administration of justice and make the Court's work easier.

The usefulness of cameras was again underlined last Saturday when a 65 year old man allegedly smuggling drugs dashed through the Woodlands Checkpoint ignoring calls by immigration and police officers for him to stop. The video left no room for ambiguity of his actions.

YouTube video of the suspect ignoring orders to stop by police and immigration officers. It'll also help in determining what mistakes were made (if any) and can be used a learning tool for other and future officers.

So do the right thing please and ensure that police interview and interrogation rooms are equipped with video cameras. Failure to do so, inevitably will raise questions that the police have something to hide or are more self-serving than public or justice serving.

↧

Top 10 Funny Football Quotes, Insults and Put-downs

March 16, 2014, 3:53 pm

≫ Next: An Ang Moh's (Caucasian's) View of Singaporeans (Part 1)

≪ Previous: Policemen to wear body cameras - Good Idea. What about Interrogations, Investigations and Interviews?

Yesterday saw 2 very big games in the English Premier League, with Arsenal playing rivals Spurs and Liverpool visiting Old Trafford to entertain their long time nemesis Manchester United. Given how popular these clubs are in Singapore and their considerable following here, I decided to have a football theme for this blog entry. A few weeks ago, The New Paper published a list of some famous put-downs and insults in football. Here's my version. In no chronological order:

By Legendary Liverpool manager Bill Shankly:

1) If Everton were playing in my back garden, I'll pull the curtains. He also reserved another insult for Everton (a club that also originates from the same city) - There are only 2 good teams in Liverpool - Liverpool and Liverpool Reserves.

2) To his goalkeeper Ray Clemence, who had conceded a goal.

Ray: Sorry boss, I forgot to close my legs.

Bill: No, your mother should have!

Bill Shankly, the man credited with making Liverpool into a giant of English football.

3) Then Nottingham Forest manager Brian Clough (he's got a list of famous quotes)

Northern Ireland midfielder Martin O'Neill was dropped and consigned to the reserves after some poor form.

MON: Why I have been dropped to the 2nd team?

Brian: Because Martin, you're far too good for my 3rd team!

Brian Clough poses with the European Cup. Humble as ever, he once said when asked who he thought was the best manager ever, 'I wouldn't say I was the best ever, but I was in the Top 1.'

4) Tottenham Legend Jimmy Greaves on Wimbledon's hard man Vinnie Jones:

"Well stone me! We’ve had cocaine, bribery and Arsenal scoring two goals at home. But just when you thought there were no surprises left in football, Vinnie Jones turns out to be an international player."

Jimmy Greaves was a prolific striker for Spurs and England. Unfortunately he got injured in England's 1966 World Cup campaign, his replacement - Geoff Hurst, would go on and score the first and to date - only hat-trick in the Final and get the lion's share of the plaudits.

5) Diego Maradona to a cameraman he'd just run over in his car:

'What an arsehole you are. How can you put your foot under the wheel, man?'

Diego Armando Maradona, arguably the greatest player ever. He almost single-handedly led Argentina to their second World Cup triumph in 1986.

6) Then Italian goalkeeper Walter Zenga on English footballers:
'The average English footballer could not tell the difference between an attractive woman and a corner flag.'

As 'safe as houses' is 1 way to describe Inter Milan and Italian national team goal-keeper, Walter Zenga.

7) By former Southampton manager and current Scotland manager Gordon Strachan:
(describing Wayne Rooney's rise to stardom and first England call-up)

“It’s an incredible rise to stardom. At 17 you’re more likely to get a call from Michael Jackson than Sven Goran Eriksson.”

Strachan also had his way with words, once when cornered by reporters after a game with the question, 'Gordon can we have a quick word?' Strachan replied - 'Velocity,'

A wee man with a fiery temper best describes Scotland national team manager, Gordon Strachan.

Footballers are not known for their intelligence as these prove:

8) Former England Captain Terry Butcher (he was born in Singapore btw):

“The beauty of Cup football is that Jack always has a chance of beating Goliath.”

He's more Goliath than Jack, to use Terry Butcher's own words.

9) Former Chelsea manager Ruud Gullit explaining a defeat:

“We must have had 99 percent of the game. It was the other three percent that cost us the match.”

He was a great player for sure, but Maths was never Ruud Gullit's favourite subject.

No list will be complete without some pearls of wisdom by Chelsea manager Jose 'The Special One (self-appointed)' Mourinho. He said this a month ago about Arsenal manager Arsene Wenger:

"He's a specialist in failure. If I do that in Chelsea (failed to win a trophy), eight years, I leave and don't come back."

No he's not playing popular English charade game - 'I spy with my little eye.' Jose Mourinho is telling the referee what he think's of the decision given against his team.

So there you have it - my list. I avoided using those published in The New Paper. There's literally hundreds if not thousands more. For the record Arsenal defeated Spurs 1-0 whilst Liverpool swamped Man Utd 3-0. I taunted my friend after that defeat, saying this of their beleaguered manager David Moyes -'Sacked in the morning'. He replied -'Hopefully! Only Ibrahim Mat Zain (Malaysia's famous bomoh) can save our season now!'
And to add insult to injury I spotted a Man Utd fan wearing his team's jersey inside out (to hide the logo) in Woodlands!

↧

An Ang Moh's (Caucasian's) View of Singaporeans (Part 1)

March 17, 2014, 9:29 pm

≫ Next: A Caucasian's View of Singaporeans (Part 2)

≪ Previous: Top 10 Funny Football Quotes, Insults and Put-downs

We've probably heard or read of what Ang Mohs (Hokkien dialect for Caucasians) living and working here think of us, notably the Singaporean workers. Most have been uncomplimentary and some down right rude like Anton Casey for example. We've been termed as whiners and moaners and unappreciative of how well the PAP Govt has run Singapore. Last night I managed to put this theory to the test in a series of debates on Facebook (FB) with an Ang Moh executive and a few other fellow Singaporeans. Of course one shouldn't necessarily believe all that's written by someone in their FB profile or pages, but for arguments sake, let's just take his as genuine. His name is Terry Knight and this is his FB profile.

The accident scene at River Valley Road yesterday. The driver was a PRC national, who is used to left hand driving back home.

The debate started over a thread about a PRC (Chinese national) bus driver involved in an accident at River Valley Road and another about the Budget's supposed lack of protection for local PMETs. Essentially he took offence to a Singaporean's reply that opening the floodgates has brought cheaper but unskilled PRC drivers, other foreign workers (FWs) and foreign talents (FTs), whose presence made it impossible for Singaporeans to work or survive in such fields or other industries. They were stealing jobs from right under our noses because the Govt allowed it to happen. I'll reproduce some of the arguments, comments and replies made from the PRC thread below (Part 1). The comments from the other thread will be posted in a day or two (Part 2).

Caucasian Foreign Talents in action outside the State Courts. Their respect for our laws and local citizens is second to none.

To simplify things, I'll use abbreviations and correct the spelling, grammar mistakes and edit some of the replies for brevity, but because the debate was quite extensive, I had to break it into 2 parts. Some comments I think it better to reproduce wholly as they reflect genuine feelings on the ground, which is much better than just me giving my views in a blog entry. He's TK, the other Singaporeans will have their initials like FG, OLW, AL and my replies - Me.

1) The Beginning:

TK: Such un-educated and blind comments! Pure and simple, foreign workers are in this land because there is a shortage of top end management and bottom end labour. 'Local' individuals are all very happy to have domestic helpers and let these so called PRCs clean there roads and build their houses but when they make a mistake they are the lowest of the low and 'should go back to their own country' You should be ashamed to even claim to be a 'Singaporean' with the below remarks when you know only too well that your pledge to your country is;

We, the citizens of Singapore,

pledge ourselves as one united people.....

(He reproduces the whole pledge)

Our pledge (according to Lee Kuan Yew) is not a rule but a concept. I never thought that the day would come when we have to take lectures from an 'AngMoh' on observing the pledge. Maybe he should write to Lee Kuan Yew and share his thoughts on the matter.

Replying to the posting of the pledge this reader writes:

FGK: Terry Knight, Foreign workers are not citizens. For an Oxford graduate, you should know what the word 'citizen' means. Please do not bring the pledge into this. If it is not clear, citizens of Singapore only refers to those who hold the Pink NRIC card. Not the blue and definitely not the employment visa.

Another reader responds:

RT: Terry, we are fine with foreigners working here. But not at the expense of displacing our local citizens. The cheap labour market and ever increasing cost of living is driving us up the wall. Even the UK is restricting immigration when they realised what it is doing to their country and their local citizens. Actually everywhere in Europe is tightening on immigration. Immigration doesn't only contribute to stagnant pay but due to supply and demand, it increases the cost of living. We, the locals got no where else to go when all hell breaks loose. Look at HK. We are becoming like them. I don't expect you to know how we feel as you are not one of us. We need to face rising house prices, medical costs, child care, day to day expenses. When you have to decide whether your child has to eat or you have to see a doctor, you will know of the pressure and the pain. We're living in a state now where a sick person prefers to die in order not to be a burden to their family, because of the medical costs they will incur.

A Hong Kong Immigration Processing Company's flyer. Note the duration it takes to process a successful application as compared to ours.

Terry Knight responds:

TK: RT, some valid points but what are you 'the locals' looking for? Hand-outs? Pity..... This land has clean water, clean roads, electricity, food, clothes... etc the list is endless, what more is there to have and all that is required is for an individual to work. What is it the individuals making a lot of noise actually want? And as I previously stated what is the solution if all the 'no good FT' leave tomorrow? nN one to collect the rubbish, no one to clean up, no one to serve the food at the restaurants...... Brothers and sisters, there is no one solution to this on going issue but day by day if we learn to live together in a world with no boundaries I personally believe it will be for the better.

He then takes issue with another Singaporean responding to another foreigner who suggested that no Singaporeans wanted to be bus-drivers, that's why PRCs are employed.

AL: Mr Artvandalay, what do you mean no Singaporean wants to be bus drivers, that why PRCs are employed? It is because the transport company wants cheaper labour, that's why they employ from China. Please get the facts right. They come to work in Singapore at very low cost with accommodation and transport provided. Can the same salary work for Singaporeans? Singaporeans have to pay for their homes which are not cheap (unless you say all Singaporeans stay single, have no children and stay in their parents home). So please stop talking about Singaporeans not wanting to do the work.

TK: "What do you mean no Singaporeans want to be bus driver..... employ PRC?" Absolutely agree with this statement. The transport company does not offer cheap labour, it is only because local labour do not want to do the job - they would rather spend time on Facebook complaining about the FT 'taking' their jobs which in fact weren't 'theirs' in the first place. Open you eyes and stop putting your head in the sand please.

Mr Knight boldly asserts that 'transport operators do not offer cheap labour, just that locals refuse to do the job.' I now wonder why these PRC nationals went on strike for. Maybe they didn't like the colour of their uniforms.

Another reader tells him not to get involved in this debate as it's a matter for only Singaporeans to discuss. He replies in a similar vein:

TK: What a great response from someone who no doubt has changed history with his own hands. What would you suggest? Lets just say all of the FT are sent home tomorrow, how would you suggest the country be run? I am sure your response will involve sitting at your laptop commenting on Facebook no doubt, or do you actually have a good idea? Please tell the nation they are waiting....

2 readers rebut his theory that no Singaporean wants to be bus drivers.

AFKT: Hello mate, who says no locals want to be bus drivers? I have applied for the post before and was not accepted.

MC: Well well, Terry thinks he got it figured out but he does not know that there are many Singaporeans who don't mind being a bus driver. Hell I bet he's yet to see many Singaporean women driving these buses. He has no idea about the preference in recruitment of cheap labour. Oh so naïve and a little dumb too, if I may add that.

2) The Debate Intensifies:

I enter the fray and chide him on talking about this issue while ignoring what effect the same policy is having back home in his native Britain (perhaps I got too emotional as well):

Me: Mr Terry Knight were you born stupid or did you have to work on it? Before we talk about Singapore, let's look at Britain. With an influx of foreign workers across Europe because of the freedom of movement and employment in the EU, many Britons have been complaining about Romanians, Poles and other Eastern Europeans coming to the UK to take jobs away from locals. Mechanics, plumbers and other lower end blue collar jobs have all gone to them because they are prepared to accept lower pay that would make it virtually impossible for an ordinary Briton to get by. A Pole can work at half the pay and still have enough to go home and lead a better life.

The House of Commons debates a motion to restrict EU freedom of movement laws. Over 90 MPs from the ruling Conservative voted to have this restriction imposed to protect British workers and citizens.

In fact the Polish economy has picked up because of returning Poles with more money. The same here, if the floodgates did not open, companies would be forced to ensure salaries remain on par with the cost of living. That was the case pre-2002-2003 before the floodgates opened. Average salaries were around $7 per hour, some even as high as $9-10. The market was capable of handling itself. Then what happened? The floodgates opened and instead of restricting foreign labour to industries that needed them, it was opened across the board. What was the result? Salaries stagnated and eventually went down, now the average pay is around $5 an hour for these blue collar and lower end jobs - a 1990s rate.

I continue:

Me: Australia practises rigorous rules on foreign employment. You gotta show why you are needed. My friend has a café in Sydney, he employs Aussies at the market rate of $13-20 per hour depending on their role and experience. If bus drivers here were paid a rate over and above $2200 to $3000, you'll find that many Singaporeans would be willing to drive buses. This rate is not Utopian, it's the market rate for driving a heavy vehicle like trucks and lorries. The bottom line is Govt policy has allowed firms to hire cheaper labour and to profit at citizens' expense. But the Govt is unwilling to reduce taxes, rental and cost of land, thus forcing smaller firms to hire foreigners in order to stay in business and remain profitable. Or firms are just too greedy making use of this loophole. If salaries are stable and fair, the locals would be willing to work.

Australia is very strict about overseas workers coming to find employment. They have to at least match or add to the Australian workforce or be in an industry that specifically requires manpower like mining.

Are you willing to work for 8-10 hours a day at $1000-$1200 a month, knowing that meals would cost you $10 a day, transport $6-8. And we haven't even talked about money to pay the mortgage and for the family? Why didn't you stay in Britain and work there? Because they offered you a higher post and salary here right?

He responds:

TK:

Excellent response, and for a second I nearly commended you on it. Now where does one start?

You utter something about why I am not currently in the UK, well the cold and harsh truth is that the company here feel there is no suitable candidate for my position in Singapore and are prepared to over pay to get the right candidate from overseas, as an educated man I am sure you agree on that this a good policy.

'The bottom line is Govt policy has allowed firms to hire cheaper labour and to profit at citizens' expense.' - here's another spin on this, maybe the Govt introduced cost effective labour for many reasons but one being so they can provide a cost effective means of transport for the masses.
You won't hear from any uncles in Singapore who have worked their entire life and live in a landed house somewhere, we seem to always hear from those who haven't quite made it because of this or that.

Cheaper labour equals cheaper public transport says Mr Knight. Yeah right, tell us about it.

To sign off on this, ultimately the bottom line is there are not enough local born people to fill the jobs in the current market. There will never be an end to this discussion as 'locals' feel they are hard done by and the sentiment that the 'FTs steal' their jobs (by definition: to take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it.). Which were never their jobs in the first place. #Hardworkworks Try it sometime.

Maybe Mr Knight is not an Ang Moh but a die-hard supporter of the PAP. He certainly talks like one.

He replies surprisingly, like a typical narrow minded PAP diehard. He uses terms 'like maybe cost effective labour means they can provide cost effective public transport!' Instead of providing a hard fact, he makes an assumption, which all us already know is wrong. Public transport is hardly cost effective with rising prices despite a never ending series of breakdowns and a rise in profits for the transport operator. He obviously has not travelled or used public transport regularly, if at all.

He generalises further by saying 'those uncles who worked their whole lives live landed property.' Really, pray tell where's the fact and figures to show this? We must be having tens maybe hundreds of thousands of rich 'uncles' living in private property just because they worked all their lives! He laments at those who did not achieve this status as failures, moaners and whiners.

Another reader FG gets in on the action (and he's being blunt):

FG: Terry Knight, are you that dumb? We aren't against immigration or foreigners working here. We are against when there's too many of them, snatching our jobs that the government didn't protect. The Ang Mohs monopolizing the PMETs and highly paid jobs and the government not doing anything about it. Everywhere it's too crowded, prices went up and more negative impact than actual positive impact. Yet our government says having foreigners are good for us, our government giving them citizenship and trying to make us the minority. We serve NS while these foreign trashes steal our jobs. The government comes up with policies that makes it more beneficial to hire foreigners. Locals get retrenched only to be replaced with cheap labour.

Serving 2 years on a measly allowance is a privilege solely for Singaporeans according to PAP MP Dr Lim Wee Kiak.

It's easier for a foreigner to get a job than a local. NS men and local graduates can't get a job after ORD/graduation. Some committed suicide. So what's so good to be a local, when it is more beneficial being a foreigner? Are our forefathers sweat and tears for this country futile? Why are foreigners getting all the perks, while we get the shitholes?

I don't necessarily agree with all that he says, he's also taking some liberties with his argument. But this is a common response from many an ordinary Singaporean, and it's important that their feelings get aired and heard. Anyway Mr Knight duly responds:

TK: Phew, glad you got that off your chest, FG. Why all the hate? Your money, your jobs? I don't remember you ever applying for my job, oh yes you didn't because you were too busy moaning about life on Facebook. Like my previous discussion with your other chum, you will never have anything handed to you on a plate - you (generic) need to go out and get it.

Facebook is the stomping ground for lazy, whiney Singaporeans who can't make it in life - according to our expatriate friend.

Ultimately what is it you want? Better job, higher salary etc, it is out there matey, you just need to go and get it, stop feeling sorry for yourself. To add to this, I am also happy to offer you and your chums jobs with immediate start & doubled salary - just PM me for details.

I do accept some parts of his reply. Few things are handed on a plate in life, you need to have drive and ambition. And yes, stop feeling sorry for yourself - that's good advice. However he also mistakes anger at policies (which citizens have a right to express) as self-pity and whining. But it appears he's offering jobs at double pay even. Anyone interested, please PM him! Anyway Ms FGK replies:

FGK: Terry Knight you can offer a better job, better pay? How many employers are like you? I am overseas now - coming close to 2 decades, if this continues. When my junior 'Ang Moh' colleague wanted to apply for a position in Singapore, I also sent in my application for fun. Both of us got an interview. Both of us got an offer. His salary offer was better than mine. His benefits were better than mine. Why? Because my NRIC is pink.

Before we talk about the possibility that I did not do well in the interview, the point is that I was 2 ranks above him. More qualified. More experienced. And the fact that I was provided with better offers from other countries and he did not make it to those interviews - that says a lot more. You can make the accusation that Singaporeans are sitting on their butts and doing nothing about it except to complain. This is how it feels to be discriminated against in your own country. Not that I care, I am staying with the country that nurtures my career the most, instead of my own country which rather offers me a joke of a salary, while offering a foreigner more. Not many of my countrymen can pack up and leave for other countries. So I sympathise with them.

FG replies as well since TK's response was directed at him (no holds barred again):

FG: Terry Knight acting all high class and hinting at people who hasn't made it far in life as failures. I sense your dig but we all breathe the same air and bleed the same blood. Don't act like you're better because of where you are in life right now and act all high class just because you're White. You are so far from the topic, and can't even reply to answers and questions people here have posed to you. Fyi, we aren't talking about life but citizens rights which you are dodging and not answering. So from whichever shithole you're from, do they practice citizens rights there? Listen (expletive used), don't try to talk down to me like I'm one of your slaves. Colonial times are over.

Rule Britannia! I think some British expats living and working here still feel that colonial rule exists here in some form.

A few other responses from other readers:

LK: All the Govt only wants is growth, cheap labour, low national debt and high country reserves.
All are politically and economically correct for the next generation they say. Hence this generation now suffers but the Govt doesn't have an answer to inflation. Taxpayers are paying the consequences.
Our living standard is dropping.

RT: Terry, like I have said, foreigners are fine as long as they do not displace the locals. Majority are angry about FTs displacing the locals in the PMET market. I do not understand what you mean by hand-outs. Are the necessities for living considered hand-outs, if they are provided for free or at a low cost? In my point of view, housing, public health care and public schools must be provided free or at a low cost. The amount we pay for taxes is not small and I am all in favour of higher taxes if those mentioned benefits are free. A person should not worry about the basics of living. The inflation of living cost is way above the wage increments and this is a huge problem. You can easily see the inflation by the price of our day to day expenses and property.

Since he made a 'lucrative job offer' the topic switches to his firm:

FG: Terry Knight are you sure you're willing to hire Singaporean staff? It seems all your staff are Caucasian! Are you being racist in Singapore, by opening up a company here but unwilling to hire locals? Yet you want to reap your wealth here! Lol, trying to shout racists at us, but you are worse. Too bad a lot of your kind does the same thing - open up companies here and become CEOs in banks etc, but put Caucasians in all the top roles. Stealing jobs that actually belong to my fellow Singaporeans.

AL: Terry obviously does not know what we are talking about here. Does your company also pay for your housing in Singapore? So you do not know how much is needed to pay for the housing loan? A pay of $1200, after CPF deduction leaves around $900 or so. Please tell me how to survive in Singapore with $900 monthly? So please, Terry, do yourself a favour and stop making yourself a fool here.

At the end of Part 1, I'll let Terry Knight have the final say before I sum up:

TK: Well done on the excellent retort, even got a few 'likes' - yes, my company which is actually mine that I have worked hard for, does pay my housing but I can tell you this - none of it came from sitting at Facebook complaining about what I haven't got. It all came from HARD WORK! You do have choice to earn more, you do have a choice to achieve more, instead you are make the choice to moan about this and that. Dude, this is in fact what these 'foreign workers' are doing, they are making the choice to have a better life, because where they originate from, the choice is work 'fucking' hard or die. Luckily for you the choice is different but yet you can still be unhappy with what you claim not to have. AL, perhaps do yourself a favour and get off your backside and do something about your future. Just saying bro

An old cleaning lady doing her job. She needs to work harder and upgrade herself, so she can be successful and fend off the FWs. If she fails, it's her fault because these FWs have a life and death choice in choosing to come here.

Conclusion:

Well the more I read through his comments, the more doubts I have of his credibility as an Oxford alumni and what he claims to be. Okay, let's excuse his grammar mistakes (yes there were many, I had to correct in sharing it here). He started off by saying he came here because the company COULD NOT find anyone in Singapore to hire for the position. As he was so proficient, the company was willing to overpay just to bring him in. (This the same man who says the Govt runs Singapore so well and benefit many, surely this company would have no problems hiring the very best Singaporeans that assisted the Govt in making us a success? Heck they could have even hired a few former Govt leaders, MPs or senior civil servants)

Mr Knight's company could not find a single Singaporean for his position, not even former Ministers like Lim Boon Heng and other retired/current PAP MPs. So they were forced to overpay in order to hire him!

Yet in the last reply (above), he now says the company is actually his! So which is which? Was he hired or did he set up shop here? I think it's the latter since he's suggesting he can offer jobs to locals at double pay. I don't think an employee of a firm, no matter how senior, will be allowed to hire workers with the promise of double pay. It's just not good business sense, why pay more when the option is there to pay less, or just pay the normal rate?

I think he's just muttering a whole lot of hogwash in a feeble attempt to win an argument online. He doesn't get into specifics and just generalises, like many PAP supporters do when defending Govt policy, using terms that it's long term planning and one must accept the challenges in a global world in order to stay ahead.

He says hard work is crucial in order to survive and make it in life, and locals who fail are just lazy moaners and whiners on FB. He argues hard work alone will make you succeed, which is a very simplistic term. Hard work helps for sure, but everyone who succeeds will also attest that working smart is just as important. No point working hard when your efforts are not going to be recognised. In the end one becomes demoralised. Hard work is insufficient when the rules or procedures keep changing or to use that footballing cliché - the goalposts are continuously being shifted.

Supposedly hailing from the UK, he's apparently blind to the problems faced by his fellow Britons at home. Liberal immigration, freedom of movement and employment policies within the EU, opens up normal blue collar and lower end jobs to citizens of the poorer Eastern European countries. These people are more than willing to work in these jobs at half the wages earned by a normal Briton, who needs that minimum sum in order to get by in a 1st world economy. And these are the same restrictions and protections offered in other 1st world economies like Japan, the USA and Australia for the benefit of their citizens.

Mr Knight as others have pointed out is using the concept of life as a whole to argue a case of citizen's rights within their homelands. It's a totally different argument altogether. He's too far removed from the reality of normal day to day life by ordinary citizens whether here or in his homeland, to be in a position to offer advice or direct criticism. He comes out as an aloof 'White man' still clinging on the last vestiges of colonialism, by talking down to those of a lesser station in life than him. He's unprepared to listen to their problems and views, and assumes that only his arguments however tenuous must prevail. Now this is exactly the kind of thing we are experiencing from our political leaders, who are so far removed from reality on the ground, that based on the facts and figures of our success, there shouldn't be any real problems on the ground. Even if there are, the people should just listen to and follow their lead and the problems will disappear.

Another talented Briton whom Singapore had the privilege in welcoming, was none other than Mr Anton Casey. I recommend Mr Knight to get in touch with Mr Casey and become firm friends. They have much in common especially their knowledge of local citizens and their lifestyles. Heck maybe these 2 can set up a company that can advise and teach local citizens on how to be better and succeed in life.

It's therefore no surprise that people like Terry Knight, Anton Casey and others of their ilk, are reaping the benefits of Singapore's labours and successes, when the Govt opens their arms widely in welcoming them and accommodating their every wish. Even if it's at the expense of the ordinary citizens for whom, they are paid the highest salaries in the world to serve, protect and secure.

(Part 2 will be written and published soon. You can also follow this and other blog posts on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/anyhowhantam)

↧

A Caucasian's View of Singaporeans (Part 2)

March 20, 2014, 4:39 pm

≫ Next: Some Known Facts About MH 370

≪ Previous: An Ang Moh's (Caucasian's) View of Singaporeans (Part 1)

This is the concluding part to the earlier article where myself and a few other Facebook readers engaged in a debate with a Caucasian named Terry Knight. In essence he says that Singaporeans are whiners and moaners who refuse to work as hard as foreign talents (FTs) when there are ample opportunities to better ones'self here. He says we expect hand outs from the Govt and if FTs all leave tomorrow, we are doomed because no one who do certain jobs like being a public bus driver (the topic that started this debate).

In this part, I shall not go into the debate itself but offer my views as to why his perceptions (and that of many Caucasian FTs) are wrong. Here's another view from a person named Jorg Dietzl, who flew into Singapore over the weekend from Seoul. His argument is that having worked and travelled across major Asian cities the past decade, he's better able to make comparisons.

Here's my replies made on FB to these arguments:

'I've met many well educated and highly paid expatriate executives working in Singapore. Most of them are from the West but some are from Asian countries like China, India, even ASEAN countries like Malaysia, Indonesia and Philippines. 1 common refrain is - 'Singapore is such a well run country, your Govt is every effective and good, maybe our home countries should have this kind of Govt, so our problems will disappear.' And of course there's valid reasons in their remarks.' Having travelled the world and working abroad they appear to have some knowledge about how good or bad a country is run. But when questioned deeper, you realise that such knowledge and experience is limited only the areas/fields where they work and the kind (or few) of locals they interact with. Some only interact with fellow expatriates, all of whom come from the upper bracket of well paid workers in these countries.'

(Expatriates enjoying the nightlife at popular Clark Quay joint - Attica. With a generous salary, accommodation and entertainment allowances, life in Singapore is great)

To these expatriates who have firms here that employ a workforce which inevitably has problems finding Singaporeans, the reasons can be looked in this reply:

'Everything was going on smoothly with markets forces dictating salary. Salary kept pace with rising cost of living. Foreign workers were only allowed in certain industries, blue collar or lower end jobs based on nationality and qualifications. Eg: Only Malaysians were allowed to work in restaurants or as bus drivers, to meet any shortfall. Pinoys restricted to jobs like music/entertainment, service sectors and nursing. Then what happened - in 2002 the Govt decided to remove all these restrictions with a total open door policy. Guess what - lower skilled or qualified foreign workers became accessible to every firm. A cleaner was paid anywhere from $1200 to $1500 found himself out of a job if he refused to work at $800-$1000. Even old women doing menial jobs found themselves replaced by foreigners because at their salary (low as it was) still allowed firms to hire 2 foreigners willing to accept such impossible terms. Can you imagine a salary in the hundreds in the present century in modern day Singapore?

(An elderly cleaner in Singapore. The salary range was around $40 a day a decade ago, with the floodgates opened, this has dipped to $30 or less today)

Public bus drivers driven by Malaysians and Singaporeans (who were paid slightly more) were paid anywhere from $1700-$2000 and above. But these same jobs were now offered to PRCs willing to accept a salary at around $1100-$1400. Were these Singaporeans lazy? I think not. Even those Malaysians were replaced by a new batch prepared to work for lesser. We are not talking about skilled or upper management jobs that should be given to the most ably qualified from whichever country, we are talking about ordinary jobs, that forced the poorer and less well off to be involved in a competition they simply could not win. Look at McDonalds, you know how much they are paying those old aunties working there? Anywhere from like $3.20 an hour to just under $5. Why? Because foreigners from Philippines, Indonesia and Malaysia could accept these terms. And McDonalds is not some small firm struggling to get by, they earn millions, but why are they doing this? Simple - because they can.

(Why does McDonalds and other firms offer people like this lady less than $5 an hour? Because they can - if she don't want to accept this 1990s rate, there's 2 or 3 FTs willing to)

Obviously all these is incomprehensible to you. And the Govt turns a blind eye because they can still collect levies and taxes from both the worker and firms. And they are unwilling to spend these monies on improving people's lives, instead they go and increase rates like train fares and utilities using global trends as the reason. When it suits them, they will quote things happening in the West and the rest of the world and saying Singapore must follow suit or we'll lose our way. But when it comes to giving more freedoms like free press, free speech and a fairer voting system, they turn around and say - Oh No, No way we can do these things that the West are doing - we must do things our own way and what we think right and not be swayed by events elsewhere.'

So when an expatriate firm grumbles about lazy Singaporeans, ask them this question - 'How fair is your salary in relation to living costs?' Would you be able to hire a local in your country at these terms? Or would you accept these kind of salaries and working hours if you were working in these jobs back home?'

And for those who sing praises of the way Singapore is governed or how they wish their governments back home ran their countries in the same manner - let's put this reply to them :

'However when you challenge/rebut or inform them about the reality on the ground, and then ask them if they are prepared to accept the same terms back in their home lands? - the answer again is almost unanimous - they would not tolerate such policies.

No such thing as locking away your pension funds and limiting the amount you can take out, or returning it piece-meal with monthly instalments. No such thing as runaway skyrocketing public housing (not private) that runs into several hundred thousands, which you can only pay with your pension funds until 55, thereafter you have to come up with the cash or wait until 62 before the Govt 'rebuys or let's you sell the flat' and force you into tiny pigeon hole apartments for which you must purchase for over $100k with no instalments allowed.

(The quagmire that is the CPF - ask an expatriate how they like the idea of not being able to touch their hard-earned monies once they reach retirement age)

They also will not tolerate rising costs of basic amenities like utilities, transport and health care, when the state boards running them are turning in millions of profits each year. They do not appreciate GST at 7% with a potential to go further up. They do not accept GRC systems in their voting papers. They do not accept a restricted press. They do not accept laws that provide detention without trial. They do not accept stifling laws that are geared to extract monies away from citizens. They do not accept the logic that the world's highest paid Ministers demand that you support them at the polling booth or risk having your estate go to the bottom of the queue.

They don't accept the Govt treating them like kids and demanding you come up with ideas to rebut them (which they will ignore anyway), when it's they that are paid to do that very job. They don't accept the Govt or Civil Service becoming like masters and not servants of the public. They will also not accept foreigners coming to take jobs that their children could work in because they are prepared to accept even below 50% of what they children need in order to survive. And they don't accept conscription or reserve duty that impedes their children's chances in getting or staying in a job. And the list can go on further.

When all these are put to them and asked whether they would be still prepared to forgo all these rights or stomach all these policies, or return to their 'supposedly poor managed countries', there's no doubt which they will choose - their own countries.'

(Ask an expatriate how long would they tolerate a Prime Minister like Lee Hsien Loong running their country - I doubt they would even tolerate 1 full term if he enacted the same policies in their homelands).

And that's the bottom line folks - no matter how much a German, Briton, American, French, Dutch, Australian even Japanese complain about the politicians running the country back home - I have yet to meet 1 who's prepared to forego all the liberties they enjoy as citizens in order to have imposed on them a Govt like ours. They may say wonderful things about life here, how clean, how safe and how beautiful it is here, they will concede that they would never be able to stomach the policies listed above and the restrictions such a Govt will impose on them.

So next time a Caucasian tells you to be thankful and stop whining, please advise him to put his money where his mouth is, cut off all ties with his homeland and migrate here permanently and experience the wonderful we live here under the yoke of autocratic rule.

↧

Some Known Facts About MH 370

March 24, 2014, 1:51 pm

≫ Next: Does the PAP Accept this FLOP?

≪ Previous: A Caucasian's View of Singaporeans (Part 2)

Following Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak's statement on the loss at sea of MH370 last night, here's some things to consider, amidst the never ending rumours, gossip and conspiracy theories.

(Malaysian PM Najib Razak announces definitively the loss at sea of MH 370)

For those hoping the black boxes of MH370 will reveal everything bear in mind a few things:

1) The companies or navies capable of sending the underwater submarine that can map the ocean floor and possibly locate it needs to have a specific grid to begin work.

(Woods Hole OI was tasked to search for the black boxes of the doomed AF 447 flight)

2) The sub will be deployed over the next few days and needs to be flown to Australia. Then it needs to go out to the location. This whole process will take a week thereabouts.

(The Remus 600 is a type of underwater submarine capable of tracking debris on the ocean floor by mapping it)

3) The black boxes gives out a beacon signal for about 30 days only. If the sub can reach the area where they are, it will have less than a week to track the signals. If not it can takes weeks or months. The crash site into the Atlantic of AF447 6 years ago was known, yet it took 2 years and around 100 dives by the sub to locate the debris field and black boxes.

( 1 of the flight recorders or black boxes of AF447 was eventually spotted on the ocean floor)

4) The data voice recorder only records the last 2 hours preceding a crash r contact with water, this plane flew for around 6 more hours after the deviation from its original flight path. As such the key incidents from 1.10am on 8/3/2014 to around 2am will not be available for anyone to listen to as this communication would have been over-written and deleted. The voice recorder would only be able to capture any communications in the cock-pit from 6.11am to 8.11am on 8/3/2014 when it's presumed to have crashed into the sea. If the pilots or anyone in the cockpit was dead before 6.11am, no voice data will be there except the emergency warning sounds from the plane, eg: low fuel, stall warning (stick shaker) and terrain (too low about to crash)

5) The flight data recorder however should have been able to record whatever changes were made, including the switching off the transponder or any other flight input into the plane's computers. eg: if the pilots or someone changed the flight path or if there was any electrical or mechanical failures.

(Cockpit doors like the one above are re-enforced, making it impossible to penetrate from the outside)

6) No one would have been able to enter the cockpit if the pilots had followed procedures and locked the doors which are now re-enforced and disallowed anyone to enter. If 1 or both of the pilots were dead or incapacitated, whoever else in the cockpit would have sole control if he had locked the doors.

7) The possibility of anyone surviving the initial crash would have been extremely remote. If the plane stalled and crashed, the impact of the G-force would have been so great that everyone on board would have died on impact depending on the height from which it fell from the sky.

(The presumed area of where MH 370 met its end is in a remote and desolate part of the Indian Ocean)

8) If it fell from a lower and more tolerable G-force altitude, the possibility of people surviving would also be very low. They would have needed the crash to be much milder and they would have needed to activate their life vests only after impact. Then one needs to consider the temperature of the waters in that part of the Indian Ocean, if it was very cold, hypothermia would also have set in. If there was rough weather, then drowning would also have occurred eventually, as a life vest can only offer so much protection from the choppy seas. Plus the possibility of surviving (for more than a few days) at such a remote part of the ocean so far away from land is virtually nil.

(An Australian Flight Lieutenant flying across a large swath of the Indian Ocean as part of an international team trying to locate debris or spot wreckage from flight MH 370)

9) If the debris spotted by the Chinese and Australian planes yesterday, is found just to be floatsam and not debris from the plane, the possibility of locating actual debris or the crash site may also may be never known, if false leads keep turning up. Debris could eventually wash up ashore, most debris do after sometime, but some can end up several thousand miles away, like debris from Japan's 2011 Fukushima disaster end up on the shores of the western United States. Although on the balance of probabilities now, there seems a higher chance that debris from the plane will be found closer to the scene of the crash, but the question of how long, when and what key things will be found is one, no one can yet give a definitive answer.

10) Finally while initial evidence or investigation points to a criminal act, one cannot also rule out mechanical failure or an accident on board that knocked out the communications systems and eventually the flight crew. Only the recovery of the flight data recorder will provide the bulk of the answers, but if the voice recorders does not contain anything of value, the flight data recorders will only show whatever mechanical action was put into the system or any failure thereof. It might show some deliberate action by someone to divert or crash the plane, it will not tell us who did it, if the voice data recorders does not contain any human voice to confirm it.

(The competence and neutrality of Britain's Air Accidents Investigations Branch (AAIB) has never been called into question in the hundreds of investigations they have been involved over the years)

Whatever it is, you can be certain there will always be many conspiracy theories, even if the truth comes out. If the whole truth cannot be fully ascertained but only some and the rest speculated or theorised, these conspiracy theories will continue to fester. In the end, it's up to you what you want to believe, but bear in mind - truth is usually plain and dull. But also consider that Immarsat (the satellite company) and the British Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) were the ones that analysed the data and definitively said the plane would be in the southern part of the Indian Ocean. If the AAIB and other agencies from France, Australia and the US are involved in the investigation, these organisations are unlikely to ruin their reputations by providing false information or deliberately lying in a cover-up. Plus such a cover-up would have to involve dozens if not hundreds of persons. It's easy to make wild allegations, but proving the experts wrong is another thing altogether if you don't posses any known or reliable facts, just assumptions and theories.

(The 2 Iranians Nourmohammadi (18) and Reza Delawar (29) who used stolen passports to board this flight in order to flee to Europe)

Let me end by offering my sincere condolences to the relatives of those who perished. In particular the 2 Iranians who must have paid a bundle to smuggle themselves on board this flight in the hope of a better future elsewhere, and were wrongly suspected of being involved in the disappearance.

(This post can also be found at my FB page: https://www.facebook.com/anyhowhantam)

↧

Does the PAP Accept this FLOP?

March 26, 2014, 11:10 pm

≫ Next: PAP MP Baey: Selfies are Okay, Self-Praise is Not!

≪ Previous: Some Known Facts About MH 370

Not content with controlling every aspect of the main stream media (MSM) here, the ruling PAP had signalled its intent to 'do battle everywhere including the growing trend of social media' as one time Army General turned Minister, Chan Chun Sing said in a speech at the party's conference last year:

http://news.asiaone.com/news/singapore/pap-must-fight-get-message-across-chan-chun-sing

He echoed a similar message made by his boss, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong who said 'we must correct every untruth or half-truths especially online.' All this is well and good and I'll even say fair enough, that is well within your rights. However what happened to letting the other side have a fair crack at the whip? Your MSM does not publish the policy broadcasts, problem raising and even rebuttals made by the opposition fully. At best we get an edited version which deliberately takes the sting out of the message they want to convey. During campaigning, your candidates and policies are given the 'full monty' while theirs is reduced to a few lines or mere columns. Anything unflattering, a verbal blunder or something taken out of context by an opposition politician is given repeated coverage with 'wholesome' analysis by your editors. Yet when a PAP MP or Minister does the same, it's hardly ever mentioned. When then Hougang MP, Yaw Sin Leong of the Worker's Party was involved in an adulterous affair and expelled by the WP and thus prompt a by-election, your party was not slow in criticising him and the WP, and such remarks were given ample coverage by the MSM.

(Major Gen Chan Chun Sing is finally able to lead in battle, even if it's only an online one)

Yet when your honourable Speaker, Michael Palmer did a lot more than 'just speaking' and was forced to quit in similar circumstances, the MSM was markedly more conservative with him and did not chide your party or draw a similar reference to the Yaw saga. Thus its little wonder that many Singaporeans are now turning to online sites and forums, in order to hear the alternative message or to express their frustrations at Govt policy. And unlike the MSM, they know their message or comments are more likely to be aired. They do not have the freedom of expression or press freedoms where they can be certain that issues critical of the government will be published and they not subjected to oppression or being made an example of. Social media and forums are the only avenues they have left and yet even these the PAP does not want to allow unimpeded.

(Yaw Shin Leong and Michael Palmer both committed adultery, guess who got the better press coverage?)

I am not talking of pure bile or slander, unsubstantiated allegations which of course the PAP may choose to rebut strenuously. I am talking of ordinary people and even some opposition members making remarks and offering reasonable dissent to policies of the PAP. There's always 2 sides to every policy. No single policy can encompass a whole population's satisfaction. Some will not benefit and some will be penalised. And of late certain policies like housing, immigration, workplace benefits and employment have clearly given rise to a lot of dissatisfaction on the ground. Comments against these should always be fair game in any democracy. No Govt should attempt to stop and combat these commentators, they should do 1 of 2 things, a) ignore or the better one b) take this on board and try to bring about policies that can address these. You will never see President Obama, PMs David Cameron, Tony Abbott or Chancellor Angela Merkel directing their members to battle those who do not support them in the manner Chan Chun Sing has. Perhaps given his lack of military battle, he thinks it prudent to engage in online warfare where through control of instruments of state, he will always have the superior force, in order to show his mettle.

(I didn't realised WP MP Chen Show Mao has a son named Darryl Tan, I wonder if Mr Chen does too?)

These comments are unfortunate and uncalled for. Worse still it sends a clear message to all their party supporters that they have the green light to go after each and every comment or social media site, because of the backing of the Govt. Many have created numerous online accounts using the very condition of anonymity the PAP condemns opposition supporters for. These pro-PAP sites seem to disregard the very rules the Govt is trying to introduce, including online harassment. Take 'Fabrications against the PAP' (FAP), whose site was given coverage in the MSM. Numerous articles openly mock and condemn opposition politicians and yet when the same is done to PAP ones, they raise a hue and cry. And things can get very personal, FAP which routinely tags PAP MPs and Ministers had on 1 occasion alleged that a certain Darryl Tan was the son of WP MP Chen Show Mao (They are unrelated). They cherry picked some of his personal details or comments that were unflattering and then tenuously tied them to MP Chen. Does the PAP leadership think this is not harassment?

And today's article refers to another site named F.L.O.P. - Fabrications led by Opposition Parties. It uploaded this article on its Facebook page. It attacks 4 persons namely Alex Tan, Kenneth Jeyaretnam (both opposition candidates in GE 2011) and activists Gilbert Goh and Ms Han Hui Hui calling them hypocrites for supporting calls to end/minimise our open door policy in regards to immigration and foreign employment. I do not know these 4 personally but I think its proper that I show some support and rebut these vile allegations.

1) Alex Tan

(Then Reform Party candidate Alex Tan has a foreign wife, does this automatically bar him from talking about the FT problem?)

Alex's crime is having a foreign wife. Now what has this got to do with open door policy? Love is universal, PAP MPs like Penny Low and Mah Bow Tan have foreign wives too. Is it wrong? Obviously not. Neither Alex nor any opposition politician is calling for the banning of foreign brides. If Singaporeans marry foreign wives or husbands, by all means let them stay here and set up a family. What's the percentage of these foreign brides compared to the vast numbers of 'foreign talents' who are allowed to bring their 'whole jing-bang' here and compete for housing and jobs with Singaporeans? Who is posing the problem and what is the problem, is it marriage or employment?

2) Kenneth Jeyaretnam

(Kenneth Jeyaretnam is not allowed to sound like his father and his Cambridge education is not valid according to FLOP)

His 'sin' is having studied abroad for long periods and speaking with a strange slang. Does one's talking style pose a problem? His father spoke in the same manner, was it an issue? Don't children take after their parents? And since when is studying abroad a detriment? If that is so that means FLOP should immediately condemn the Prime Minister who studied at Cambridge for some time as did his father, Lee Kuan Yew.

3) Gilbert Goh

(I think it's really good that a champion for workers rights like Gilbert Goh is taking the lead against excessive immigration and foreign employment)

Gilbert worked in Australia for some time and is a champion of workers rights here. He did also call for better treatment of foreign workers here. What is the problem? Shouldn't this be condoned? He has not called for the abolishment of foreign workers here totally, but better treatment especially for those doing the menial jobs like construction and shipbuilding. Isn't this commendable? Where foreign talents are not needed they should not be welcomed here, where they are needed they also deserve worker protection rights just like any Singaporean worker.

4) Han Hui Hui

(Ms Han Hui Hui is lambasted for being a new citizen despite studying here for several years and then taking her oath upon reaching 21. Isn't she the type of new citizen we want, one that's immersed in our way of life and wants to stay, not run away after enriching oneself?)

This is another pathetic attack against a young lady who's giving back to society by championing for social causes like fairer transport charges and employment. She's not a politician, so why tie her citizenship and oath taking to the 2011 GE? What has that gotta to do with anything? And if you delved deeper, Ms Han actually came here much earlier and studied in local schools. Is it her fault that as a child her parents moved to Singapore? If that were so, then PAP MPs like Janil Puthucheary, Lee Bee Wah, Minister Khaw all should have no role to play here as well, because they too are new citizens. Ms Han as with any other naturalised citizen had to take her oath upon reaching the age of 21. Isn't it commendable that she chose to do so instead of using the option many PRs are now doing - by simply using Singapore as a springboard to a better life, either back home or to migrate to the West?

( Glass houses are pretty nice things, but not for throwing stones from within)

FLOP calls them hypocrites. No, FLOP are not hypocrites, it's the people behind FLOP that are the real hypocrites for using a tenuous and totally irrelevant argument to tie these 4 persons as being opposition members, who are unworthy Singaporeans. I do not necessarily agree with the politics of Messrs Alex Tan and Kenneth Jeyaretnam or support every cause undertaken by Ms Han and Mr Goh. But I respect their right to do so and to do it openly and be subject to scrutiny. The question therefore to Minister Chan and those who support the PAP, is whether they agree this kind of baseless attacks is fair game in the political and social sphere? Is this what they mean by 'going after every comment or person online? There's no use of having anti-harassment laws when protection is only offered to those who support you and no condemnation is made when your supporters breach them. As the saying goes - 'those who live in glass houses should not be throwing stones.' As for FLOP, hey, you guys have really lived up to your name!

(Do visit my FB page - https://www.facebook.com/anyhowhantam.)

↧

PAP MP Baey: Selfies are Okay, Self-Praise is Not!

March 30, 2014, 11:45 pm

≫ Next: M Ravi Should Be Careful

≪ Previous: Does the PAP Accept this FLOP?

I came across this Facebook status update cum selfie by PAP MP Baey Yam Keng:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10203614747472428&set=p.10203614747472428&type=1&theater

Presumably taken this morning at around 9am, Mr Baey an MP from Tampines GRC lays into critics who claim that he 'gyms' during working hours only. He adds that this photo was taken in the Parliament library where he was doing some work for his residents. He goes on to say he's been up working since 6am!

(A selfie of Mr Baey Yam Keng working out. He has a habit of posting selfies of himself in action)

Those who are familiar with Mr Baey, know that he's been dubbed the 'Minister of Selfies!' For those who still don't know what selfies are, please see this Wikipedia link. MP Baey has over the years been a rather fervent uploader of such self-portraits showing him doing all sorts of good work.

(Mr Baey last created a buzz with this upload of a Nasi Padang meal that cost him just $2.50)

Well there's indeed a lot of buzz, a 'feel good factor' and a way of connecting with your electorate by using social media. Many politicians both here and abroad have not been slow to use social media to enhance their image. Mr Baey has taken it, shall we say - 'to an art form.'

However social media also works both ways and the more you try to enhance your image the more likely you will eventually trip up. The "Nasi Padang issue' last year, where he got charged just a mere $2.50 for a meal that's virtually impossible to procure anywhere today, simply because the stall holder recognised him. Instead of positive vibes, it ended up back firing on Mr Baey as being out of touch with food prices that ordinary Singaporeans have to fork out daily.

As so we come to this morning's selfie. It seems Mr Baey is a bit sensitive to criticisms about his 'non work activities' and feels he must rebut them. However this selfie instead of brushing those criticisms aside does the exact opposite. So you're in the House library doing constituency work? What do you want more? Is the $13,800 a month allowance given not enough to do this job? Do you need a bonus? Should the State employ a personal assistant for you?
And you've been up working since 6am!! Well blow me! You must be the only person in the whole country who's up at the time working, or the only one who's ever worked extra before or after work!

It's really a pity that MP Baey should resort to posting such a childish upload with those comments included. From what I gather, he's quite a good MP who's popular with residents and does try his best. Unfortunately with remarks like these, we must question whether his heart is really into it? Is he just doing it for show, or doing it that we ordinary citizens should be thankful that elites like him sacrifise some of their time to serve us?

Well that's the message or vibes I'm getting from this selfie. If this occurred in another democracy, you can be certain the Press would latch onto this, or at the very least demand an explanation from him. But hoping the MSM here will respond in kind is like waiting for Christmas to come early.

For Mr Baey, I have just this advice, hey take all the selfies you want. Plaster them all over your social media, it's all 'kosher.' But remember this cliché - 'Self-Praise is an International Disgrace.'

(You can also read this article on FB at: https://www.facebook.com/anyhowhantam)

↧

M Ravi Should Be Careful

April 2, 2014, 3:39 pm

≫ Next: History of Singapore 1 - Seletar

≪ Previous: PAP MP Baey: Selfies are Okay, Self-Praise is Not!

The Attorney General's Chambers (AGC) has sought to have lawyer M Ravi referred to a Disciplinary Tribunal over certain disclosures he made to the Press.

https://sg.news.yahoo.com/attorney-general-complains-to-law-society-over-release-of-court-documents-by-m-ravi-124238965.html

The Law Society upon receiving the complaint will forward it to the Chief Justice (CJ) who will determine whether to order a Disciplinary Tribunal headed by a Senior Counsel and another lawyer to hear it. The Tribunal can either dismiss the complaint or in finding him guilty impose a fine, unless it finds such complaint a serious breach, then it'll refer it back to the CJ, who could decide to have the matter heard before a Court of 3 Judges. The latter has the final say and it could suspend, fine or have the lawyer struck off the rolls.

(The Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon will have to decide whether to refer the AGC's complaint to a Disciplinary Tribunal)

The AGC's complaint revolves around 3 specific cases:

- The constitutional challenges (Lawrence Wee’s Article 12 challenge to include prohibition against discrimination on grounds of sexuality)

- Judicial Review Applications (Little India Riots Case and the application filed by Malaysian National Cheong Chun Yin facing execution who is challenging the AG’s decision on not granting the Certificate of Cooperation)
- Court actions ( Death of inmate Dinesh Raman who died while in custody).

The AGC believes that Mr Ravi acted “in a manner unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court by causing Court documents to be prematurely released to the media”, and that he made statements “to the media which contravened” parts of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules.

(The Supreme Court of Singapore, all lawyers here are regarded as Officers of the Court)

The AGC accepted the principle of 'open justice' where Court decisions and proceedings should be made publicly available, but added, “it does not mean that all documents are open to inspection by members of the public the moment they are filed in court, for the principle of open justice is engaged only when a court has made a decision involving a consideration of those documents.”

Finally the AGC opined that Mr Ravi’s premature release of these court documents was deliberately done “to gain unfair advantage in the cases, and/or to interfere in the conduct of fair proceedings by prejudicing the respondent’s case in the minds of members of the public, and/or to hold up the persons and institutions referred to in the affidavits to public obloquy.”

(Defending people like Alan Shadrake, has earned M Ravi a worldwide reputation as a human rights lawyer)
Suffice to say, much has been made about this action initiated by the AGC. Mr Ravi has earned a reputation as a 'human rights lawyer' and seen in some quarters as perhaps the only lawyer one can turn to in taking on the Establishment. Needless to say, Mr Ravi has been battling cases opposite the AGC for some time. Naturally this action is seen by his supporters as an act of vendetta by the AGC. Some have even inferred that it's being done at behest of the Govt itself, tired at Mr Ravi's constant questioning of the legality of Laws they passed.

This action is undertaken to silence him once and for all. The other version by those who don't support Mr Ravi or his causes, is that he's a troublemaker who's been pushing the envelope too far and shows scant regard to the Rule of Law or administration of justice here. Finally there's some who believe he's broken the rules and as such must be held accountable, irrespective of whether he's anti-Establishment or a human rights advocate.

(Some of his supporter are planning a rally to show their solidarity with him)
Whatever position one holds in regards to this matter will always be subject for debate. In fact I hear there's a plan in motion to rally support for Mr Ravi in this matter. But all this does not detract from the fact that Mr Ravi will in all likelihood have to answer charges before the Tribunal.

In essence his case can be summed up to 2 main points:

a) He's wrong, OR
b) The system is wrong.

If it's (a), then of course the matter is clear cut, he'll be found guilty and then be sanctioned accordingly. But what if it's (b)? He will no doubt have a good defense and may even get away with it altogether.

However I think there's a crucial point that will come into play even if (b) is the decision. Mr Ravi as a lawyer is an Officer of the Court. His primary duty is to the Court (to ensure the principles and administration of justice according to the Law are upheld). If he finds that things are wrong, the most prudent course would be to raise these matters with Courts, to point out the flaws in the system in regards to disclosure. He shouldn't go first and raise the issues in public before letting the Court determine it. The fact also remains that no other lawyer (defense or prosecution) does it. Doing so puts Mr Ravi at an unfair advantage.

(M Ravi in Malaysia with other human rights activists, to rally support to spare Yong Vui Kong's life)

Mr Ravi has stated that he will vigorously defend himself and I agree that he should. Furthermore this article is not written to spite or condemn Mr Ravi (despite what I've written thus far), rather to warn and advise him. If you've been following his exploits, most of his actions can be termed as altruistic. He genuinely wants to help his clients or to raise awareness to what he believes as 'flaws within the legal system.' And he's one the very few lawyers who have the guts to do it. The term 'human rights lawyer' is an apt one. However he also has a habit of 'playing to the gallery' sometimes - that is, he likes to revel in the attention he gets both here and notably abroad.

(Yong Vui Kong was days away from being executed before M Ravi stepped in and eventually got him off the death sentence)

It would be unfair of me to suggest that in these cases, he acted as such. He's entitled to the benefit of doubt that he was acting solely in his clients interests - anyway this will be determined by the Tribunal. However a crucial point that's inescapable and something I hope Mr Ravi ponders carefully over, is how important he has been especially to those who have only him to turn to, in order to fight their cases. It was his dogged determination that saved Yong Vui Kong from the gallows as I mentioned in an earlier article. And he represented the plaintiff in the 'Hougang by-election case' which saw the Court rule that the PM does not have unfettered discretion in regards to not calling a by-election in single member wards.

(M Ravi with Mdm Vellama Muthu, the plaintiff in the Hougang by-election case)

Many of the cases he undertakes are cumbersome and highly unpopular. Some walk a political tightrope and others are matters of 'life and death.' The 1 common factor in all of them is him. So what will happen to these people should Mr Ravi be sanctioned by a suspension or even worse disbarment? This is something I hope Mr Ravi takes on board when he next decides to use unorthodox methods to defend his clients. As much as he wants to fight for them or argue a legal point, he can only do so if he remains a practicing lawyer. And this requires him to conform to uniform rules applicable to all practising lawyers here. If he disagrees with certain rules and procedures, by all means challenge them, but in the legally prescribed way.

Playing to the gallery is all well and good, but remember the gallery does not and cannot defend you in a Tribunal. And when before the Tribunal or the worst case scenario - before the Court of 3 Judges, remember the bigger picture. There's no point being overly aggressive or challenging the authority of those hearing your case or calling into question their ideals or integrity. All this serves no real purpose, it'll make you popular for sure with those that support you, but will not save you from sanction. There's also no point in throwing support behind any planned rally by the public to defend you by lambasting the AGC or worse the Courts and legal system. Worse still to speak at such a rally yourself. The organisers might end up saying things that can be held in contempt and you singled out as the primary instigator. This can only lead to further charges and more serious sanction.

As it stands, I don't think the Tribunal will impose any drastic penalty if they find Mr Ravi guilty. Mr Ravi should argue his case forcibly but always within the bounds of decorum and respect. Any dispute with their decision or verdict should be appealed in the normal way not by raising further contempt.

(In the Singapore legal context, running away is not always a bad idea)

Whatever it is, or whatever outcome, M Ravi should remember he has a lot of enemies who wish to see him fail and fall. He should be careful not to give them that opportunity. At this stage of his legal career and our political journey, not having him around or having him severely curtailed will be a huge step backwards. Just remember that old school boy maxim - 'those who fight and run away, live to fight another day.' So being contrite here and pleading for leniency does not impede his future. Madasamy Ravi must remain a legal advocate, not a legal martyr.

(Facebook links - M Ravi support page is here , while mine is here,)

↧

History of Singapore 1 - Seletar

April 2, 2014, 11:36 pm

≫ Next: Little India Riot: Questions for the Police

≪ Previous: M Ravi Should Be Careful

I've always liked to learn about the history of places in Singapore, how it came into being, what it went through or was like. With ever increasing modernity in Singapore, some places are being consigned to history without people realising what it was in days gone by. So I've decided to start a new series looking at the various estates in Singapore. I'll begin with a colourful district in the North East - Seletar.

Seletar

(The coat of arms of RAF Seletar when Singapore was still part of the Straits Settlements)

A) Seletar was originally a rubber plantation before the British Govt decided to build an airbase in the Far East. The idea was first mooted in 1921 and in 1923, the Straits Settlement Govt agreed to its handover. 600 acres of land belonging to the United Rubber Plantations Limited was acquired including 100 acres of mangrove swamps. The swamps were filled, coconut trees cut down and hills leveled, before the RAF Seletar Airbase was completed in 1929 under the direction of Mr CE Woods. It was declared open on January 1st 1930. It also has a civilian terminal which is still in operation today, making Seletar the first and oldest airport in Singapore.

(RAF Seletar Airbase as it appeared in the early 1950s)

It was also the RAF's first airbase apart from India in Asia. The runway was just a strip of flattened grass. However when the Japanese occupied Singapore, they replaced it with a concrete runaway. After the war, the RAF again took control before handing it over to newly independent Singapore Air Force in 1968. It served as dual military and civilian airport before the Civil Aviation Authority took over full control.

(Today Seletar Airport remains an international airport but primarily serves private flight schools and owners of private planes such as the above)

Currently it serves just 1 airline - Berjaya Air, but plans are already afoot to make Seletar an aviation logistics hub, with runway extensions to accommodate the bigger Boeing 737s and Airbus A320s. It primary clientele now are flight schools and as an airport catering to private planes.

B) Seletar was primarily a private housing estate. It encompasses the areas surrounding the airbase and later military camps and extends into the farmways and carpentries off Jalan Kayu, into the Seletar Hills Estate off Yio Chu Kang Road. There were some 'kampungs' in the East Camp and Jalan Kayu. The West Camp comprised mainly of colonial terrace houses and bungalows for the expatriate British and Australian communities. The unique thing about the West and East Camps are that all the roads are named after streets and places in London. You'll find names like Piccadilly, Lambeth Walk, Battersea Road amongst others there.

(London comes to Singapore courtesy of Seletar. It might not be the same as its London original but Piccadilly Circus is still standing today)

Seletar also had a few HDB blocks at Seletar Road and Seletar East Farmway. These were eventually torn down and the residents given an option to buy new flats at Fernvale. Fernvale now sits on a plot where carpentries and pig farms were situated. Oh yes, an unmistakable smell of Seletar in the late 1960s and 1970s were those coming from the pig stys.

(Thasevi is the original Jalan Kayu prata shop. You know it has to be good, when no one comes to take your order, instead you have to place your own and pay before the food is served)

Jalan Kayu had a small kampong surrounded by firstly PWD quarters and then later semi-detached and terrace houses. The famous Jalan Kayu 'roti prata shop - Thasevis, started there with a corner stall in a coffee-shop in 1960. Many still consider it to be Singapore's best prata.

(The old market and food centre at Seletar Road, it saw the new millennium in but has since been torn down and in its' place now sits Greenwich Village)

Seletar also had number of schools - Jalan Kayu Primary and a Chinese medium one (unfortunately I've forgotten its name). It had an outpatient public clinic (precursor to the present day polyclinics)and a number of 3 to 4 storey flats called quarters as well. In the East Camp these were Army quarters and off Yio Chu Kang Road near Jalan Kayu, they were for telecoms staff and their families. And Seletar even had a small prison - Seletar Prison, mainly for petty criminals. It had a golf course (the club has remained but moved further in). It was from this course that current SPGA President M Murugiah got involved in the sport as a caddy back in the 1970s.

(The old guardhouse into Seletar East and West Camps. If you weren't a resident, you'd have to exchange a pass before entry was granted)

Before the military took over full control, with the 2nd Battalion Guards amongst others moving in, Seletar Beach was still open to the public, including the clubhouse. They also had a private taxi service - the Seletar Car Company, before the Govt bought them out in the late 70s. If I'm not mistaken the first feeder services also started in Seletar with services 314E (East) and 314W(West) plying between the Jalan Kayu bus interchange and the estate. Services 70, 103 and 163 terminated at Jalan Kayu.

(The old Jalan Kayu bus terminus lasted right up to the mid 1990s, not bad for a small estate like Seletar to have 4 services plying the area)

C) Finally I'll touch a bit on the electoral history of Seletar. As part of the Rural East in the first Legco Elections of 1948, Seletar was represented by Sardon b Jubir, who ran as an independent. He served for 1 term before switching over to Malayan politics by joining UMNO. Seletar became a seat on its own in the next Legco Elections of 1951, seeing a 3 way contest. The Labour Party and Progressive Party both fieled candidates but they ate into each others votes allowing a Mdm Vilasini Menon, running an independent to sneak home. Unfortunately for her, she was charged with CBT in India a year later and was forced to vacate her seat. In the by-election there was a walkover with City Councillor, the lawyer MPD Nair winning the seat.

(Sardon b Haji Jubir - Seletar's (Jalan Kayu) first ever elected representative)
With the creation of a local Govt for the 1955 Legislative Assembly Elections, there was a 4 way contest for the seat. MPD Nair again retained the seat albeit by a wafer thin margin. With self govt on offer in 1959, the PAP put up a candidate in the newly renamed Jalan Kayu seat. 28 year old farmer Tan Cheng Tong defeated incumbent Nair, then a Minister in the Lim Yew Hock Singapore People's Alliance Govt. In the 1963 elections, Mr Tan ran again but this time as a Barisan Socialis candidate and he narrowly defeated 3 others to retain his seat. But the Barisan eventually walked out of Parliament in 1964 and the seat fell vacant. In the mean time, Singapore would go on to become independent and the next elections were only held in 1968 - which resulted in a PAP clean-sweep (which they would do so until the 1984 GE). PAP's candidate this time Hwang Soo Jin easily defeated the newly created Worker's Party candidate winning 82% of the votes to become Jalan Kayu's (and Seletar's) first Member of Parliament.

(Mr Hwang Soo Jin - Jalan Kayu's first ever elected Member of Parliament. He served 4 terms)

Hwang Soo Jin would continue to represent Jalan Kayu until the 1984 GE, in each of the electoral contests of 1972, 1976 and 1980, he defeated the area's former Assemblyman MPD Nair, who had run as a WP candidate. Mr Nair came within a whisker of winning the seat in 1984 garnering 49% of the vote to the PAP's Heng Chiang Meng. With the introduction on NCMP's, Mr Nair was the 'best loser' but did not take up the seat.

(JB Jeyaretnam nearly led the WP to victory in Cheng San GRC (including Jalan Kayu/Seletar) in the 1997 GE)

From 1988 onwards Seletar/Jalan Kayu has been part of a GRC, uncontested as Cheng San in 1988. An easy PAP followed in 1991 before the battle royale of 1997. JBJ himself led the WP team against the PAP team led by Lee Yock Suan. They came close but not close enough. This also marked Mr Heng Chiang Meng's final term as MP for the area. He was replaced by Mr Wee Siew Khim in the 2001 GE when the ward was part of the 6 man uncontested AMK GRC team. In 2006, the WP send its rookie team led by Yaw Shin Leong, they managed a creditable 34% of the vote against the PM's team. Finally in 2011, Mr Wee retired and was replaced on the ticket by Ms Intan Azura Mohktar (I honestly forgot the PAP had such an MP!). The PAP team defeated a makeshift Reform Party team that itself garnered a decent 30% of the vote.

(PAP's Mdm Intan Azura Mokhtar, the current MP for the Jalan Kayu constituency)

With that I conclude this first part of a series looking back at old estates in Singapore. This will be an on going series and I'll be posting newer ones from time to time. I hoped you found some of the information useful, with the photos bringing back memories (if you had lived or visited there).

↧

Little India Riot: Questions for the Police

December 8, 2013, 2:32 pm

≫ Next: Ng Joo Hee - Singapore's Worst Ever Police Commissioner

≪ Previous: History of Singapore 1 - Seletar

Singapore witnessed its 1st major street riot this century, not seen on the streets since perhaps the late 1960s, with close to 400 foreign workers running rampage in Little India:

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/fire--rioting-taking-place-in-little-india--reports-152651999.html

The riots were sparked by a fatal accident involving a private bus and a foreign worker believed to be a Bangladeshi. As emergency rescue personnel from the SCDF and Police attended the scene and tried to extricate the deceased, a large crowd turned their anger from the driver to these officers.

Rioters hurl rocks, while a police car is overturned. It was later torched.

Projectiles were hurled at the ambulance staff and the traffic police officers, while the bus was smashed. Reinforcements were summoned but they too became the targets. In a stunning scene not witnessed by Singaporeans since the 1960s, 5 police cars were damaged, 2 were torched including the ambulance. 18 emergency personnel including 10 policemen and 4 SCDF personnel had to be conveyed to hospital after sustaining injuries from the fracas.

Not a scene from downtown Cairo or Bangkok, but in Singapore. A scene reminiscent of the 1960s rioting.

The Gurkha Contigent and the Special Operations Command riot control staff had to be activated and they finally restored control around 90 minutes after the incident first started. 27 arrests were made, but not before several private cars were damaged and probably private property too. Race Course Road, where the accident and riot occurred, resembled a street in downtown Bangkok (with the on-going anti-Govt protests) or Cairo during the overthrow of Presidents Mubarak and Mursi, rather than a street in hitherto peaceful Singapore.

DPM Teo and 2nd Minister Iswaran chair the news conference. CP Ng seems to be cowering in the corner as his bosses take the heat for him.

The Minister responsible for the Police - DPM Teo Chee Hean had a press conference shortly thereafter together with his No 2, S Iswaran, Police Commissioner (CP) Ng Joo Hee and his deputy, Rajakumar. He remarked that it was a serious incident with damage to property and injuries and as expected, promised that the police would spare no effort to find the perpetrators and bring them to justice.

The damage to the ambulance and the attack on its personnel was totally unjustified. These were the officers trying to assist the deceased.

I find no reason to disagree or doubt him in regards to this matter. This was an appalling act. Even if it was a fatal accident, we cannot allow a 'lynch mob' to exact 'street justice'. There is a specific law and adequate resources by the State to handle these kind of cases. The attacks especially on SCDF staff simply trying to do their job, which is firstly to try and rescue the victim, failing which (owing to his passing) to try and extricate his pinned body, is abhorrent, uncalled for and unjustified. Neither can the attacks on the Police officers who were simply trying to do their job in a fair manner be condoned. The destruction of 5 patrol cars (2 beyond hope of repair) and the ambulance is downright disturbing, depriving citizens the use of these emergency vehicles. The needless destruction of the private cars and property, which had no connection to the accident, the police or the SCDF was a wanton act. The bottom-line has to be a condemnation of these destructive acts and an outpouring of sympathy for the innocent victims of this crime, the emergency personnel who were simply trying to do their job.

Burnt to a crisp - the 2 patrol cars that were in flames are doused by fire-fighters.

However as with any major incident, hard questions must be asked to ensure that a repeat either does not occur, or at the very least, the possibility of it reoccurring is kept to the absolute minimum. As this is a 'law and order issue' inevitably the questions must be at the door of the Singapore Police Force (SPF) and its chief, the Commissioner. Even so before we express our outrage and anger at the rioters and question the police, we should also not over dramatise the situation, to regard every foreign worker that goes to Little India as a dangerous criminal or treat them with contempt. 400 rioters may seem a large figure but compared to the thousands that work here and visit Little India on their Sunday off-day, it's a just a tiny fraction. Most of them are odd job labourers with little education, who work long hours for little pay. We should not begrudge them their right to congregate as they have done years on end without incident. Let not the actions of a tiny few tarnish the general good behaviour and observance of our laws by the overwhelming majority.

Riot police from the Special Operations Command keeping an eye on the ensuing carnage.

And so the question must then go to the Police. We should not fault the first responders, who were simply doing their job as they would in any accident scene, not their reinforcements who responded to their colleagues urgent calls as the situation went south rapidly. In fact we can also praise these officers, for demonstrating a high level of calm and not making the situation worse by responding with a brutal show of force. No shots were fired, even though police officers were injured. No rioters were brutally beaten or killed. The responding officers deserve praise for a high level of tolerance at the expense of their own safety and well-being. We should also not fault the Police for declaring that they will pour resources into identifying and prosecuting those that took part in the riot. Let their investigations continue unimpeded.

However I do also believe a separate inquiry must be initiated by either the Ministry or the Commissioner as to why the situation deteriorated so rapidly, why it was allowed to fester and what can be done in future to ensure a swifter response with lesser causalities. Foreign workers gathering in Little India on Sundays and public holidays are a common sight, the question to be asked is how well prepared were the police in handling and monitoring these crowds? I remember in the past a mini-command post was erected to monitor the situation, is it still being maintained? There were a lot of patrols done by both uniformed and civilian officers, are they still being done, and if so, by how many men?

Deputy Assistant Commissioner Lu Yeow Lim is the top dog at Tanglin Police Station. He served as Deputy Commander previously and had stints at the Operations Department as Asst Director Licensing and AD Policy and Development. But it still appears he hasn't come to grips to overseeing policy, planning and supervision of his men and an understanding of the ground.

I believe the Police management have taken their 'eye of the ball' on this issue. Instead of many uniformed police officers, instead now I see 'Security personnel' who are obviously not police officers making the rounds accompanied by Cisco officers. They seem content to ignore the crowds and instead seem focussed on 'summoning vehicles parked illegally'. The accident took place at Hampshire Road X Race Course Road, barely a kilometre away from Tanglin Police Station on Kg Java Road. Yet every Sunday, scores of private busses are allowed to parked along Hampshire Road effectively blocking the road and making it impassable to all other traffic. Being a narrow road with busses, some park abreast of each other, manoeuvring these big vehicles becomes a hazardous exercise especially when you add the mix of hundreds maybe thousands of workers crossing the very same roads. In fact you can conclude in some ways, it was a miracle that no fatal accident occurred in the past given how narrow Hampshire and Race Course Roads are. This was an accident waiting to happen. Where is the Traffic Police (TP) in regards to this issue? TP has used the excuse that it has to give the illegal parking enforcement to the LTA, in order to free up their officers for more urgent tasks. Why were they not deployed to direct and control traffic? They tend to outsource this to Cisco now, but how well trained are these Cisco officers, and what level of supervision does TP maintain in regards to them? Are TP actually aware of the situation on the ground at Little India?

Brilliant idea for the management of a private building on Sundays to have a sign forbidding foreign workers from crowding on their premises. Where does DAC Lim and CP Ng propose they go to then when it rains?

I doubt so, last night I was actually driving in Little India at around 8pm or so. Serangoon Road, a 4 lane road was reduced to 2 , sometimes just 1 and a half-lane of passable traffic. Crowds were spilling on the left and right most lanes. Furthermore it was raining all day and night, and scores of people simply crossed the road at all points even with moving traffic. It was accident waiting to happen and it did. It's not the first time, that it has rained on a Sunday like this, furthermore it's common behaviour by pedestrians to be more interested in avoiding getting wet and dashing across roads rather than considering the safety aspect. Surely TP isn't blind to this? Why didn't they direct extra resources to monitor the road safety aspect in Little India on a day like this? Where is the supervision and direction by the TP Commander and his head, the CP?

Foreign workers 'camp' in a field at Farrer Park, when it rains they obviously have to move into the shophouses along Race Course Road and thus spill-over onto the road.

Next we have to look at the Tanglin Commander, whose station was within walking distance of the incident. How well versed is he on the situation on the ground? What is the senior management doing? Do they actually bother to walk the ground and access the situation and give direction to the junior officers on the beat? Does the Commander know how bad the situation is on rainy Sundays in Little India? With their usual 'picnic' spots on the fields surrounding Farrer Park becoming unavailable because of the rain, obviously the crowds would spill into the sidewalks and the shophouses, flats and streets. Does he or his senior management have any plan to deal with them? Judging from today's incident, I think the answer is obvious.

SOC officers patrolling 'an extremely busy Boat Quay' in the early night-time of a weekday. For the 'less busy period of 2 to 4 am on Friday and Saturday nights', when the clubs close, these officers obviously will not be needed.

Next we must look at the SOC who are the primary anti-riot arm of the SPF. Why aren't the SOC regularly deployed during events where a large crowd gathers? Instead you find them patrolling the streets on 'less busy weekdays'. Spotting their ubiquitous 'red busses' parked along Orchard Boulevard, South Beach Road, Clarke Quay, even Little India, and their men walking the streets with guns totting, is a common sight. Unfortunately it appears they only do so on weekdays. On weekend nights after midnight when the crowds spill out on their way home, especially Fridays and Saturdays, you do not see them. Neither do you see them in Little India on rainy Sundays, or normal Sundays for that matter. Are we employing 'fair-weather' riot policemen? What is the point of deploying them on weekdays when you do not use them when their presence can be the best deterrent to violence? Had they been deployed in and around Little India, the riot could have been put down far quicker than it took, with staff injured and widespread damage to property. Maybe if they were thereabouts, the full riot might never have gotten off the ground. This represents a failure of planning by the Commander and his management team.

Police Commissioner Ng Joo Hee posing with NPCC cadets from Xin Min Sec. Heading the NPCC might seem a task more suited to CP Ng than the SPF.

Finally the question must also be asked of the CP. I've said it before and I'll say it again, Ng Joo Hee is too junior to be Commissioner. He is an accident waiting to happen. Today he again 'got out of jail', because his boss the Minister answered for him. But clearly he lacks the vision and foresight to lead his team of senior officers. Instead of being a proactive force, that assesses and finds solutions to problems before they might occur, the SPF is now a 'reactionary force' that only pledges to do things after something has gone wrong. Senior Officers are far too junior in age or experience to be given important positions like Commanding Officers. In a desperate attempt to promote graduates and scholars in key positions in the hope of retaining their loyalty and service, CP Ng has failed to ensure that they have a keen understanding of the positions they hold and to have adequate levels of supervision in key areas. Instead there seems to be a policy of relying heavily on technology and pushing mundane tasks to non-active or fully equipped organisations like Cisco or LTA. What CP Ng has failed to realise that 'boots on the ground' and understanding of how ground officers perform their tasks and identify potential situations, is just as, if not more important. What's the use of technology, if it cannot help prevent crime and only serve as an investigative tool?

CP Ng, his Commanders SOC and Tanglin Division were on high alert to snuff out any anti-Govt protest on November 5th after hacker 'The Messiah' urged Singaporeans to congregate. But the small matter of tens of thousands of foreign workers gathering on a rainy Sunday in crowded Little India was no cause for concern.

And his Commanders seem more keen to trump up their so called 'achievements' and he more keen to impress his Ministerial bosses, than actually doing their primary duty of supervising their men and understanding what's happening on the ground. Take the November 5th 'supposed Guy Fawkes protest'. Well Commander Tanglin did a superb job didn't he, with the arrests of 3 persons in Orchard Road wearing masks? Not to mention the deployment of extensive police personnel in Orchard Road, and Shenton Way, in preparation for any demonstration! For all these, CP Ng and his Commanders can seem to plan in advance and take every step to prevent things getting out of hand. But for an on-going mass gathering in Little India, with almost 5-10 times more the possible crowd that Hong Lim can accommodate, especially when it rains, this seems to slip his mind!

In closing, the officers on the ground today, the junior officers and the SCDF staff responded remarkably and are worthy of praise. The calm shown and refusal to use lethal or brutal force, is a testament to their level headedness. However as usual, their superiors in the commanding positions and their chief, CP Ng once again, showed themselves incapable of understanding, supervising and to provide the planning required to assist them in their daily duties. As I said with the Kovan murder case, CP Ng should do the honourable thing and resign. How many more missteps and failures of management must Singaporeans undergo while he come to grips with the responsibilities of his office?

↧

Ng Joo Hee - Singapore's Worst Ever Police Commissioner

April 7, 2014, 5:14 am

≫ Next: Tales of the Kelong King - Wilson Raj Perumal Part 1

≪ Previous: Little India Riot: Questions for the Police

Contrary to what I wrote earlier about his non-appearance here, Singapore's Police Commissioner (CP) Ng Joo Hee did appear before the Commission of Inquiry (COI) into the Little India riot on December 8th last, as the penultimate witness. However after hearing what he had to say, I can sum it up into 2 points:

a) He shouldn't have bothered appearing
b) I'm more than ever convinced he should be replaced or sacked.

I think we've had 6 CPs since independence and of the 6, there's no doubt that CP Ng is the worst of the lot. Inexperienced, immature, lacking of leadership, defiant (for his faults), poor supervisory skills, blind loyalty and over-dependence on his equally unqualified commanders and most of all, quick to find every excuse for whatever failures he or his organisation makes, instead of taking responsibility.

(Proud of himself, CP Ng leaving the State Courts after appearing before the COI - CNA photo)

Here are 2 summaries of his testimony before the COI. The first by Asiaone, the 2nd by his own mouth piece - Home Team News. I think I can run through a list of phrases to describe the testimony - shocking, irresponsible, missing the point, deflecting the blame and unapologetic, just to name but a few. However before I delve into them, I want to highlight some other pathetic testimonies by another of his commanders - DAC Daniel Tan, the Central Division Commander and the Rochor NPC head - DSP Ho See Ying. You can read a summary here.

(Central Police Division Commander, DAC Daniel Tan 'deserves a kick' to 'wake up his idea')

DAC Tan declared that the public 'should not kick us when we are down.' He said morale had been affected. He said he was proud of his officers and that many of them got injured and they still had to return and patrol these areas and urged the community to continue working with them. I have no quarrel with this statement, but what I find troubling is that despite him saying they have been active there and deployed a number of resources over the years, neither he or any of his senior officers had a clue of what the problems were on the ground at Little India, especially on Sundays and public holidays. Overcrowding, disrupted traffic flow, rampant jay-walking, drunkenness, littering amongst others. I would add, a poor deployment of forces on the ground, no traffic supervision, no supervision of auxiliary police forces like AETOS and Certis CISCO or co-ordination with them and no effort made to research the possibility of fatal/serious accidents and the crowd reaction in the aftermath.

(Peninsula Plaza at Coleman Street is a meeting place for many Burmese in Singapore)

That is to say, you patrol an area surrounded by Indians and other South Asians, don't you bother to read through or study how these people behave back in their home countries in any given situation? The similar thing can be said for Golden Mile (Thais), Peninsula Plaza (Burmese), Haig Road (until recently Sabahans and Sarawakans) or Orchard (Filipinos). You are a scholar and law graduate - you and senior officers don't bother to check the background of how these people react back home in any given situation? You don't post advisories or take pro-active measures? In fact in Haig Road until the Govt put a stop to mass recruitment of East Malaysians following the fatal Kallang stabbings cum robberies, you always had fights breaking out between Sabahans and Sarawakans owing to long held rivalries back home. No lessons were derived from all these? No affirmative action taken to ensure that the situation is always held in check to prevent an escalation?

(Ashley Fruno was allowed to protest against Air France without fear of repercussions)

DAC Tan says the public shouldn't criticise the police, but why shouldn't they when the Police appear to practise 'double-standards?' Take the protest by French activist Ashley Fruno outside the Air France offices, or the seemingly over-whelming show of force during the 'supposed Guy Fawkes Day' protest on November 5th last. Ms Fruno was allowed to protest with gay abandon, while 2 or 3 Singaporeans wearing Guy Fawkes masks were arrested and repeated warnings were given before the date, warning the public not to engage in any activity. Of course the public have a right to draw inferences by well coordinated police planning and actions into matters dealing with their rights, and the lack thereof when it involves foreigners. Were any warnings ever issued repeatedly in Little India prior to the riot? Was a 'show of force' be it big or small ever projected in Little India as a deterrent before the riot? The answer is no, it's only now that the area is well policed and contained. So why shouldn't the public not be able to criticise the police over their handling and actions in the riot?

Then comes the shocking excuse by DSP Ho, trying to rebut what COI Chairman G P Selvam had slammed Deputy Commissioner (DC) Rajakumar over - the issue of drunken behaviour. She said around 60 persons were arrested last year for being drunk under Sec 18 of the Miscellaneous Act and most were not foreigners. Whilst admitting this doesn't reflect the reality on the ground, she added 'that her priority was not to go around arresting drunkards but crime fighting!' Maybe she's forgotten that rioting is also a crime and that all her bosses have stated that drunkenness was the primary cause of the riot.

(Crime fighter extraordinaire - DSP Ho See Ying. She doesn't believe drunkenness can lead to rioting)

Even if we were to humour her explanation, it's a poor excuse. Nobody is asking the police to around arresting each and every drunkard in Little India or to deploy resources away from crime fighting to it. Logic and common sense is in short supply with our senior officers it appears. Let me use another example: A policeman on patrol comes across say 100 vehicles parked illegally along a road. What should he do, given that all are in breach of traffic laws? Does he summon all 100? Does he ask for extra manpower to help with the issuing of tickets? To do both would be utter stupidity, instead he should use discretion. Book the first and last cars or any others causing the most serious obstruction. No one in the right mind expects you to book all 100. Just a handful to send a message. Then over time return and monitor, again booking the few cars. Keep doing this and sooner or later the message gets across. That's what parking enforcement does for illegal parking, they come, show their faces, book a few and then without fail the offending drivers will turn up and remove their vehicles. Keep doing this daily around the same time, and the message becomes clear. I've seen countless places where consistent enforcement have made illegal parking less of a problem. The same with drunken louts, get a few officers, go and arrest a few drunkards in public view. Book a few for littering and do it consistently. The foreign workers who throng Little India are not first-timers, they have been coming repeatedly. If they see officers even just handful together with auxiliary officers taking action repeatedly, the message will get through. In the same way, if officers do nothing just because they are put off by the sheer numbers, these workers will go away thinking it's alright, the police won't be bothering us, we'll just carry on as normal.

(Geylang at night. The art of Taichi - CP Ng has turned the COI into Little India into a COI of Geylang)

Now to CP Ng, if he doesn't bother supervising his senior officers and commanders, if he doesn't ask them to come up with a proper policing plan to deal with anti-social issues, then he's just as culpable when they are clueless and powerless to act. Coming to his testimony, I find it shocking that until today he still doesn't want to accept responsibility. Instead he uses the same refrain - 'I'm proud of my men, for not using deadly force.' Worse still, when questioned over Little India, he cites the problems at Geylang instead and bemoans a lack of manpower, saying he needs another 1000 officers to police Singapore effectively.

(As a senior police officer, Director Prisons and Commissioner, Tee Tua Ba always led from the front unlike the current occupant now)

Mr Commissioner, we are not talking about Geylang - that is a separate place with separate dynamics. That is a red light area, where you have a large number of Singaporeans as opposed to Little India where the majority are South Asians. Geylang has illegal vice and possibly gang activity. That requires a whole different method of policing (I'll touch on this in my next post hopefully). Little India does not have the deep criminal undertone that is seen in Geylang. All it requires is a consistent and systematic approach to deal with crowds and anti-social behaviour. Even if you use the excuse of insufficient manpower because of the 'open floodgates policy' of the Govt, you have no excuse to the fact that the SPF now has the Auxiliary Police Forces helping you in policing, something that your predecessors likes Committee member, Tee Tua Ba, did not have when they were in charge. Those days the policemen had to deal with everything including illegal parking, crowd control, sentry duties and other non-urgent matters. Now these Auxiliary officers do all those. So why are you still complaining so much?

The fact is there's no coordination or will to ensure policing is done systematically on the ground. The SPF just passes on responsibilities like illegal parking/traffic marshalling to LTA/CISCO and AETOs and washes it hands off the issue. If Traffic Police had done its job, it would realise that traffic is at a standstill in some places in Little India and it's worse when it rains, like it did on December 8th. If the traffic was marshalled properly, if private busses were not given a free reign to obstruct and block traffic along Race Course Road, this fatal accident would not have occurred. There would a proper boarding and dis-embarking place, under proper Auxiliary police patrol and control. Drunkards like the victim, would be removed and not allowed to chase after the bus. He would either be arrested before that or told to simmer down and only be allowed to board when he sobers up.

(You don't need 100 cops to arrest 100 rioters says this policeman, but this logic doesn't apply to CP Ng, he probably wants 1000 policemen to handle 1000 rioters)

He has 'the cheek to say' that the police response 'although not perfect, was FAR from inadequate!' And he commends Tanglin Commander, DAC Lu Yeow Lim, for holding his ground and doing nothing but exercising restraint! This is like telling 'the Captain of the Titanic, that he did a good job, just because there were some survivors.' DAC Lu stood and held his ground in the wrong place, he was caught unawares, he did not know how many men he had, he prevented his men from taking action even though a Traffic Sergeant and AETOS officer testified, they felt they could have done something. The Sgt even correctly said, you do not need 100 officers to arrest 100 men. Yet CP Ng sticks behind his Commander's assessment claiming the were outnumbered 8-1. Perhaps he failed to realise that all of the 400 rioters did not all start to riot all at once. As more and more inaction of the police became more apparent, the number of rioters rose from the initial 10-20 to 50-60, 100-150 until the figure of 400 was reached. And a majority of them were passive rioters (as reflected by those being charged and convicted in court)

('Cometh the hour, cometh the man' - to a lay person this won't apply to Tanglin Commander Lu Yeow Lim (a), only to CP Ng it does. Heck he might even recommend a promotion for DAC Lu)

There was enough time to nip it in the bud and do something, instead of letting it escalate. CP Ng calls it restraint, well that restraint saw a large number of private cars damaged, shopkeepers and patrons in fear and a host of public vehicles including ambulances, SCDF and police vehicles damaged. The only mitigating factor is not that the police did not use deadly force as he proudly boasts - the only mitigating factor is that no innocent member of the public got injured, died or widespread looting did not occur. This was because the rioters were angry at only the police besides the bus driver and coordinator.

Yes the police did not use deadly force because for the simple reason, the situation never arose. No one's life was in imminent danger. But the interesting question to also ask is, "What happened if it was?' Would DAC Lu and the others still be doing nothing? And even if it happened, given where they were positioned or the poor level of communications, they probably wouldn't be aware until after the fact. It was just fortunate the rioters did not take it a step further, because I highly doubt the police with senior officers like Daniel Tan, Ho See Ying, and Lu Yeow Lim, would have been situationally aware or brave enough to make the tough decision. They would dithered and delayed until they found someone higher up prepared to give the order.

(The Gurkhas on the march, this I agree to an increase in numbers. Their reliability is unquestioned)

CP Ng admits there was a delay to activate the SOC, so whose fault is this? Yes, they have now done a review and improved this line of communication, but having been in the force for so many years, must it always take an incident before the police can respond professionally? He says the patrol officers and initial responders were not trained to handle a riot, fair enough, but what about incident management? There can be no excuse for a lack of training for incident management. If the initial officers had arrested the bus driver and coordinator and removed them, the area cordoned off and a call made for witnesses, I think the incident would have been contained and become far easier to control instead of escalating.

It's not a question of being trained to handle riots, that's the primary duty of the SOC and Gurkhas, it's question of leadership and incident management on the ground. So if police officers are not trained for this, can we assume that if something were to happen at another large scale public event like a football match, NY countdown etc, the initial officers would also be similarly unable to handle? They would just hold the line and let the chaos go unchecked and escalate until either the Gurkhas and SOC arrive?

Clearly CP Ng has no clue and he doesn't even bother to ensure his Commanders are in control or ensure they brief and train their officers on the ground. They don't bother to find out the reality on the ground and instead sit in their offices thinking of grandiose ideas, rely on technology solely and quick to accept credit for every good arrest or action but just as fast to deflect blame and find excuses. But at the end of the day, can you really blame these Commanders and senior officers, when the fact remains that they know no matter what goes wrong, their Commissioner will never find fault with them and instead praise them to the hilt?

(CP Ng seems proud of the riot - I doubt his counterparts elsewhere would echo similar sentiments)

CP Ng ended his testimony in the similar way he started since assuming command stating:
'Wrapping up, he said the silver lining had to be considered: Besides some damaged vehicles, there were no deaths or serious injuries to anybody and the violence was put down within two hours.
"I think many of my counterparts in the other side of the world would have taken this riot any time."

I think not, I think many other Commissioners would have been ashamed by the conduct of your senior officers and the shocking lack of responsibility on your part. Most would have tendered their resignations or accepted being sacked for such an omission. You on the other have no shame and the way the whole SPF operates at senior level is a reflection of that shame. You're only in the job because somehow or rather your Govt remains ' perpetually in love' with scholar types who profess blind loyalty to them. And unfortunately, we the public and tax-payers have to continue to pay for each and every mistake you make. You can go away feeling smug and sleep soundly at night, but the fact is crystal clear - you are definitely the worst Police Commissioner, we've had the misfortune to have.

↧

Tales of the Kelong King - Wilson Raj Perumal Part 1

April 29, 2014, 3:16 am

≫ Next: The Office of Prime Minister Should be Respected.

≪ Previous: Ng Joo Hee - Singapore's Worst Ever Police Commissioner

Singapore's most infamous match fixer - Wilson Raj Perumal, was arrested recently in Finland on an Interpol Red Notice. The Singapore authorities it appears are trying to get him extradited here to firstly, serve a 5 Corrective Training sentence for assaulting an auxiliary policeman, and possibly to face further charges that saw another match fixer Dan Tan and others arrested and detained under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act, commonly referred to as 'Section 55' (The old section under which persons could be detained without trial).

The cover of the "e-book" titled Kelong Kings by 2 Italian authors, A Righi and E Piano.

While awaiting his outcome for the possible extradition, a book entitled 'Kelong Kings' was published online on April 28th. This book is by 2 Italian authors who published the 'e-book' through a series of correspondence with Wilson while he was under some form of 'house arrest' in Hungary. You can read/buy the book at this website. In fact Wilson has been trying for some time to 'sell his life-story' to the highest bidder. He initially wanted to have a movie or documentary made of his exploits for a sum in the hundreds of thousands at the very least, or to have an autobiography written in his honour for a similar sum. Unfortunately for him, this was always going to be a tough ask as much of his exploits would involve making allegations against players, officials and coaches, past and present, not to mention those whom he dealt with. And much of this would be unsubstantiated and based solely on his version of events. Therefore I was rather surprised that this production company 'Invisible Dog' decided to go ahead and publish this e-book.

Wilson Raj Perumal at a 'pre-trial hearing' after his first arrest in Finland in 2011.

Excerpts from this book and details of his arrest were released by the local New Paper yesterday and today. Wilson was arrested previously in 2011 in Finland for trying to 'fix' league games there. In fact he's believed to have 'fixed' a number of games there previously as part of Dan Tan's syndicate. He had fled Singapore after jumping bail for his appeal hearing and had roamed the globe in pursuit of his match fixing activities. He did so using someone else's passport. Unfortunately for him, a delayed flight in Costa Rica meant he had to spend another day there, and having nothing to do, he went on a heavy betting spree which resulted in a large sum of losses of the monies that Dan Tan had given him for bribing players. In order to cover this up, he told Tan he had paid the players, and Tan proceeded to bet on the 'supposed fixed games.' Needless to say, these games didn't go as planned, and Tan had enough of Wilson and arranged to have him apprehended in Finland on the 'false passport' he was travelling on. He was sentenced to 2 years jail but served only 1 year (good behaviour). The question then arose as to where next to send him. Wilson had fixed a series of fixtures throughout the globe from Bahrain, Turkey, South Africa, Malaysia and Hungary. Since Hungary is part of the European Union, they would have 'first bite at the cherry.' He was given a chance to come clean about activities involving their leagues, and Wilson was later placed on 'house arrest' in Debrecen. The term 'house arrest' is used loosely here, he was allowed all the access to telephones, the internet and could freely travel within Hungary.

Dan Tan, nicknamed 'Ah Blur' was Wilson Raj's match fixing syndicate boss.

This proved to be a huge mistake as Wilson has been actively involved in match fixing activities. He's believed to be behind the spate of arrests of lower league footballers in Australia and England this year alone. In fact a British newspaper had a sting operation with 1 of his lieutenants, who went to boldly describe on camera the length and breadth of the match fixing possibilities of his boss - Wilson. With an ever increasing heat and lack of possibilities, Wilson has grown desperate in recent months as reported in yesterday's New Paper. He had been frequently been calling friends and associates with all sorts of stories to procure loans. Much of these have not been repaid. Furthermore he has also become a father of twins after bedding a Norwegian girl. Sources have informed me that it's very likely this girl did not know the full extent of Wilson's activities or his past. It's also believed he's been lying about his true age to her - his Facebook page lists his age as 36, although he was born in 1965. According to his sister - Santha - he was going to Helsinki to meet up with his wife and kids and that becoming a father had changed 'his outlook on life.' However according to another friend, his sole purpose of going to Finland again was to continue where he left off - to fix a particular game during the Good Friday weekend. He was there to meet a potential investor and thereafter players. The fact that he could and should have made the trip to Norway if he wanted to see his family, instead of Finland, lends more credibility to this theory rather than his sister's pleas of innocence on his part. Moreover he has admitted to foreign reporters of going to both Norway and France whilst on house arrest, ostensibly on some forged or fake travel documents, he therefore could have again gone to Norway to meet his family. Any father would naturally use this course.

A 'Stomp' headline on Wilson Raj's arrest after hitting an auxiliary policeman at Changi Airport.

Coming to his 'tell-all' book, it's clear he's trying paint a better picture of himself than it actually is. Fair enough, most people would appreciate that autobiographies are just that - an attempt to paint oneself in a better light and explain things. Unfortunately he's also trying to whitewash history, minimising his roles, activities and crimes, while pointing fingers at others who have 'betrayed him.' I have many stories about Wilson and I could easily write another book on his nefarious lifestyle just as easily as this book attempts to do the opposite. Take the foreword of book by Irish professor Tony Brophy:

'I like Wilson. I came to have a deepening and growing liking for and appreciation of him throughout the book, an empathy and sympathy for the path he took in the daily battle for survival, its labyrinthine twists and turns. His philosophy is perhaps crude but authentic: we are all animals who will prey off each other when and if necessary. It is hard to dispute this, even with the highest of moral and altruistic intentions, when the chips are really down, to use a relevant metaphor. All you have to do is watch a good programme on animal habits and survival or listen to or read a professional commentary on the widespread, depressing state of the world today, the abysmal living conditions of the great poor, the cynical, hard-nosed indifference of the great rich, thespirituallyimpoverished state of religion, under corrupt politicians and hardened, bureaucratic church leaders, without exception, almost. Theirs too is a different, much more pernicious kind of gambling, with far more serious consequences where the un-named stakes are considerably higher in humanterms.

Wilson has opened my eyes and mind to a different world than the one I envisaged as a child. I cannot condemn him for what he did, the path he followed. Who am I to do so. He sets it out with compassion, kindness and gentleness. And with lucidity and frankness, great self-honesty and awareness, as he outlines the devious paths he took or life took him on.'

In this foreword it clearly indicates that Prof Brophy has fallen 'hook line and sinker' for Wilson's gifts of persuasion. A few sources told me that Wilson has this innate ability to make people fall for his charms or believe whatever he's telling them, despite whatever reservations they had before-hand. Prof Brophy praises Wilson for 'self-honesty' even describing him as taking necessary steps to survival, living in abysmal living conditions and had to take the paths he took, but with compassion, kindness, gentleness and that life took him on the devious paths. This is wholesale 'bullshit' - if I am to be a bit crude.

In naming him after incumbent British Prime Minister Harold Wilson, Wilson's father had hoped he would make his mark in Singapore and the world. He certainly did! But not perhaps in the manner the senior Perumal would have wanted.

Wilson was born on July 31st, 1965 to a middle class family. He wasn't born into poverty as alleged. In fact his father had high hopes for him and his other brother. Wilson Raj was named after the incumbent British prime Minister - Harold Wilson. His brother was named after a famous Tamil Chief Minister. Wilson was able to go and do his 'A' Levels at Woodsville Secondary, while his brother was able to go and get in a degree in Australia. This doesn't indicate that his early life was anywhere as tough as suggested or that he had limited choices. In fact he turned out to be quite a good middle distance runner - he could do the 800m in under 2 minutes or thereabouts, very close to the national record, a fact he repeated to his friends time and again. He also could play football reasonably well to be selected for Combined Schools - the pre-cursor to the current youth football's -Centres of Excellence. Wilson had at that juncture a clear choice - to be a national runner or a budding footballer with local clubs and eventually the national team's set-ups or with his 'A' levels, he could easily have found gainful employment. Instead he chose 'house-breaking and theft.' Arrested as a youthful offender, he was given probation and another chance in life. After completing his National Service, he could have started working and laid the foundations for life that many of us have taken, and many more will undertake.

Wilson mapping out a sketch of his match fixing activities which he shared with the writers.

As a friend said, 'Wilson has never believed in gainful employment. The very thought of going to work to earn an honest salary was anathema to him.' He always wanted to find the easy way to success and inevitably this was a journey to crime. No one forced him, no one put a gun to his head, society had not abandoned him - he had opportunities to sort himself out both then, during his criminal spree and even now. But he always wanted to the easy way out - and that would time and again prove to be his downfall. In this series, I will reveal some of his activities. since with the publication of his book, he has decided to be a 'sabo king' and do a number on the persons who have helped him, worked with him or under him. It's only fair that in his attempt to paint a glowing picture of himself, or minimising his roles in some of the most telling tales of match fixing, the real side of Wilson Raj Perumal is brought to the surface as well for the discerning reader to decide which is true.
In this first part I will touch on some of the excerpts revealed in today's papers.

Rajendran Kurusamy or 'Pal' was Wilson's initial boss in his match fixing journey.

A) He claims sympathy for then Singapore national coach P N Sivaji whose national side had faced Sundram's Kedah in the Malaysia Cup Final. His boss 'Pal' - another notorious match fixer Rajendran Kurusamy had paid Kedah to fight tooth and nail to prevent a Singapore triumph. They won the match 3-1. Whatever is said of Pal in this case, you cannot say Pal paid Kedah to throw the match, he paid them to do the job they were supposed to do - to win, which they did.

But why would Wilson turn on Pal here? He also mentioned an incident where Pal paid him and another to attempt to bribe the Birmingham City goal-keeper before an FA Cup match with Liverpool in 1995. This proved unsuccessful. However Wilson fails to mention how he 'cheated' Pal in the 1996 Atlanta Games. Pal had given him $150,000 to offer as bribes to players of an African team. Instead of doing so, Wilson found 3 or 4 'black persons of African origin' to pose as players for a small fee. He then pocketed the bulk of that $150,000. When Pal found out, he was furious with Wilson, and for over a decade, Wilson avoided Pal like the plague in fear of his life.

B) Wilson mentions another case where he deposited $500,000 to a Chinatown shopkeeper cum bookie as the sum of a wager on a bet. When he won, his runner RP couldn't collect his own deposit or the winnings as the shopkeeper had literally disappeared. This is an attempt to paint him in a good light perhaps.

But a friend revealed to me, some of Wilson more nefarious and altogether despicable activities. Take a woman he got to know. He sweet talked her with promises of marriage and persuaded her to part with her life-savings of close to $100,ooo. He brought her to a condominium rented by another friend and fraudster, named Roy. Wilson claimed the this house was his and after spending all his money on the purchase, he needed her to come up with the renovation monies. Roy who ran a fictitious renovation company, produced a renovation work plan and potential invoice of $100,000. Thinking this was gonna be their future home, this woman gave Wilson all of her life-savings to her 'future husband.' Wilson took the $100,000, went on a gambling spree and disappeared from her life altogether, leaving her in the lurch. And this was to be 1 of a number of incidents where gullible women fell into his trap and parted monies to fund his nefarious lifestyle. The friend went on to say, these women while admitting later to their foolishness also have cursed him for eternity. 'This is why he can never succeed in life, no matter how much money he has', he added.

While on the run, Wilson lived the 'high-life' and made numerous postings like the above with a 'Harley Davidson bike' on Facebook. He truly believed he was 'untouchable.'

C) And perhaps this curses have rung true. For the umpteenth occasion, Wilson had procured for himself sums in excess of hundreds of thousands of dollars, and even in the millions. It's believed he had close to $8 million, when he was arrested in 2009 for assaulting the police officer. Regarding that arrest, another source said, 'I can't believe how dumb he is!' Here's a millionaire, who could buy any car, say a top of the range Mercedes. Why can't he hire a driver for $2000 or so a month? Why must he drive when he has no driving license? And then of all places, he parks the car (belonging to a friend) unattended at Changi Airport! How dumb can 1 get? Obviously it attracted the attention of an airport policeman, who wanted to detain him pending the arrival of the regular police. With no license, Wilson should have just surrendered, and then later be charged in court for the driving offence and pay the fine, surely he could afford it!

Given his notoriety, you would expect him to 'lie low.' But that's not his style, he just had to post photos of himself at famous stadiums in the world, thumbing his nose at FIFA and Singapore.

No instead, he tried to drive off and thus hit the poor policeman and then face far more serious charges. Given his previous cases of assault, including one involving an S-league player and another for rioting (beating up guys who harassed his then girlfriend's sister) and his long criminal history, Wilson should have realised that he could face the tougher Corrective Training regime (minimum 5 years with no remission). Instead, he mounted a weak defense in court and was shocked to find out he was sentenced as such. He had to forego the bail money of $80,000 for his appeal and fled the country using someone else's passport.

As the friend noted, from 1 or 2 simple offences - driving without license and insurance cover which would result in fines, he went on to commit far more serious ones, culminating with immigration offences. It's now a distinct possibility he will face further charges to driving without licenses and multiple immigration charges to go with the possible match fixing ones. If the AG or DPPs do a thorough job, the friend noted that Wilson could be facing further Corrective Training sentences or Preventive Detention, where sentences start from 7 years all the way to 20, without remission.

This photo was taken this year in Hungary, Wilson is now hoping dearly he'll be allowed back into the country.

Well whatever transpires for Wilson in Finland, it does appear that his future is bleak. Either from a financial standpoint or on a personal level. Instead of lying low and trying to survive as a fugitive out of the reach of the Singapore authorities, as a number of fugitives in the past and present have done, he goes and ups the ante, furthering his match fixing activities, when he's already been exposed and outed as one. As more excerpts are revealed, I will reveal more insights into his activities that have spanned over 2 decades. I hope you find this expose interesting!

(You can also read/share this article on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/anyhowhantam)

↧

The Office of Prime Minister Should be Respected.

May 1, 2014, 1:03 pm

≫ Next: Tales of Match Fixer Wilson Raj Perumal (Part 2)

≪ Previous: Tales of the Kelong King - Wilson Raj Perumal Part 1

As part of his May Day protest rally, organiser Gilbert Goh had posted on his Facebook page that he planned to bring a huge poster of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong. He urged those attending to vent their frustrations at the PM by defacing the poster like kicking it, spitting at it or even throwing dog poo at it. He added, 'We don't need to respect him at all.....because he never cared for us one bit'.

Gilbert Goh and his Transitioning.org organised yesterday's event at Hong Lim Park.

Naturally our 'super efficient Singapore Police Force' was quick on the draw and duly warned Mr Goh that he would be committing an offence by going ahead with such actions. Pity they only seem keen to warn opposition supporters of potential law breaking but seem unprepared when foreigners go on strike and riot. Anyway Mr Goh then proceeded to remove the offending post and acknowledged the warnings but added that 'it didn't mean we can't scold the PM for his errant pro-foreigner policies.'

Mr Goh has developed a strange fetish for effigies and posters.

That said, I must disagree with Mr Goh's actions here. It's definitely alright to criticise the PM and the Govt for any flawed policy or express his complete disgust with the way the PM runs the country. Every citizen must have that right in any functioning democracy or 'supposed democracy' like ours. However we must draw the line as to where and how the condemnations can go and must stop.

Let's leave the jibes about our PM to individual Singaporeans amongst themselves, not by organisers of rallies or any senior opposition figures. Personally I find him too boring a figure to bother with a nickname or jibe.

Mr Goh may dislike Lee Hsien Loong and his policies but he should not stoop to such childish levels to chide the PM. The Office of Prime Minister must be respected in that sense, and even the holder of that position. He is the duly elected Chief Executive of the country. There must be certain respect and decorum granted to holders of that office. If opposition supporters do not respect the office now, then the situation can so easily become similar when an opposition party wins the election and takes up the office, and PAP supporters do the same.

The ousted Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich deserves the ire and acts of hatred for leading his country to ruin and enriching himself, something the PM here cannot be accused of.

This will lead to unnecessary tensions and take partisan politics a bit too far. For all his faults, the PM is no Viktor Yanukovich or Vladimir Putin. It's too much of a stretch to say he's corrupted, has bankrupted the country or has led the country to economic ruin. We can disagree strongly with his policies, but petty name calling and childish acts is something we can and must avoid. There's no brownie points to score with such antics. Instead it reflects badly on the opposition as a whole and can so easily scare off neutral voters, whose votes are key to any prospective opposition gains or win.

Mr Goh has been raising a number of good points but politics is also about perception. People are more likely to term him as part of the 'loony fringe' for such antics, than remember the points he has raised.

Low Thia Khiang has been wise not to associate and join forces with certain parties. There's nothing to gain and everything to lose by associating with a 'loony fringe.'

Other prospective opposition candidates should learn this lesson and stick to raising and debating the issues in a mature and vote-appealing way. Taking it a step too far, not only attracts needless police attention but will scare many fence sitters. They must not become the issue but make sure the issues and the PAP handling of it, is the only issue that voters need to decide on.

↧

Tales of Match Fixer Wilson Raj Perumal (Part 2)

May 2, 2014, 1:54 am

≫ Next: 12 Soccer One Liners

≪ Previous: The Office of Prime Minister Should be Respected.

More and more excerpts from Wilson Raj Perumal's e-book, Kelong Kings are finding their way in the various newspapers worldwide including our very own The New Paper and its fellow SPH online new sites like Asiaone. It reprinted an article that also appeared in the New Paper. You can read it here. It cited Wilson's primary reason for coming out with this e-book - jealousy.

Starting off as a motorcycle riding expert, Zaihan Yusoff (r) is now the go to guy in the local match fixing reporting scene.

Ah yes, that cardinal sin - envy, leads many down a slippery path. Wilson's envy is directed at American, Amanda Knox. He emailed reporter Zaihan Mohd Yusof. He stated at first he had no inclination to publish but changed his mind after learning that Ms Knox was reportedly paid US$4 million to tell her side of the story, after being accused, later acquitted and now re-accused of murder. He said, 'That bitch is a murderer and a liar, and has become a celebrity overnight. I am considering contacting a publisher." This phrase in a nut-shell summarises another of Wilson's chief flaws - he thinks he's extremely clever, according to someone close to him named Sunny. Sunny remarks, 'Wilson gets envious of others easily and wants to better them, but he blindly rushes into things without considering consequences. He succeeds at first but inevitably he fails later on, because he forgets that 'in order to throw the first stone, one must be free of sin.' And so with information given by Sunny and others, I've compiled a further list of Wilson's nefarious activities that sheds a much different light to what he's been saying in the e-book.

A) Let's Start with Murder

Amanda Knox may not be an angel, but Wilson Raj is definitely no 'Saint' either.
Since he accuses Ms Knox of murder, let's start here. Is or has Wilson never been involved in murder or causing the death of someone? As outlandish as this notion seems, there's some possibility that he has crossed this shocking line. According to a family source, Wilson was involved in a conspiracy to gain $200,000 from NTUC Income for the death of a traveller. He apparently bought travel insurance for a person to go to Indonesia sometime in 2002-2003. A few weeks later he produced a death certificate for that person and got his lawyers, to seek the amount from NTUC. Now travel insurance is usually bought to cover for the most unlikely of deaths like a plane crash, natural disasters and the like. It's almost never claimed by first time traveller or purchaser. The source believes that Wilson must have played a part in that person's death and it's unlikely that the certificate was obtained fraudulently. This is because NTUC Income has enormous means to investigate these kind of claims that raises immediate red flags. The source says that it has been proved that the certificate was not a forgery or from an act of corruption, because had it been NTUC Income, then only aware of Wilson's background would have almost certainly lodged a police report for fraud.

However, it's also unlikely that any payment was eventually made as Wilson then went to prison for other charges after making the claim and did not pursue the matter further by taking NTUC Income to court for non-payment. Perhaps NTUC Income are in the best position to shed light on this shady affair.

B) A Menace to Society

Sunny reveals that many people have the mistaken notion that Wilson is only involved in match fixing activities and only goes after bookmakers. There's a far more sinister side of him, adds Sunny. He cites 2 examples:

a) The New Singapore Shares (NSS)
b) The SIM card frauds.

The NSS is the pre-cursor to the annual GST handouts by the Govt. It first started in 2000 as the NSS. Singaporeans were for the first time given Singtel shares (which they could cash out) and later cash handouts by the Govt. Wilson saw an 'immediate income opportunity.'

With people like Wilson Raj Perumal around GST vouchers and similar hand-outs are gone very quickly as this meme suggests.

Sunny recounts, 'When Wilson is out of money, he becomes very desperate and will think of various schemes to fleece innocent victims out of their rightful monies. Sometimes he will spend the whole night brooding and bouncing ideas of friends.' He realised there was a number of down-trodden Singaporeans who were not aware of the schemes. These would include the mentally ill, alcoholics, uneducated and homeless with little or no family contact. He would borrow a friend's van and scour the island for these kind of people. He would approach them with promises of work, lodging or drinks as the case may be, and inquire if they had their NRIC? Most of these people wouldn't have it, and he would generously offer to have it replaced by paying the replacement fee.'

He would meet them the next day, ensure they were washed up and presentable and bring them to ICA to make their replacement NRICs and thereafter bring them to banks to open accounts by stumping up the initial deposits (which would be withdrawn immediately thereafter). He would make some excuse for retaining their ATM cards and then give them some pocket money say $50 to 100. Naturally these persons who have been down in the dumps for ages, see Wilson as some kind of 'God send' and are happy to take this 'small sums' which to them means a lot. Wilson thereafter would play the waiting game, after registering their claims with the CPF Board and pocket the thousand or so that is deposited. $1000 or so, minus expenses doesn't look like a tidy sum for the man described in future as a Kelong King. But $1000 x number of persons can run into the tens of thousands or more.

The homeless, the downtrodden, the mentally ill and uneducated poor, proved to be source of 'happy hunting' by the future "Kelong King"

Not content with just these, Wilson then realised he could also sign these people up for mobile SIM card accounts and collect the free handphones offered on contract. If he managed to find some crooked handphone shop owner, this would be a cinch. He just presented the ICs and signed up for as many phones as available. At that time M1 and Starhub were still new in the market, so these people would normally only have outstanding accounts with Singtel. Obviously he couldn't always go to the same handphone shops as this would arouse the suspicions of the telcos, when a host of unpaid bills all seem to stem from this 1 or 2 shops. So he would pose as the holders themselves (in the case of middle aged Indians) or get a friend to do it. For those without a resemblance, he would have to bring the ICs holders personally to sign for the free contractual handphones. He would then give them some pocket money, promise to pay the bills, thereafter sell the phones and disappear without a trace.

As Sunny said, 'when Wilson is facing a charge or just out of prison, that's where he's at his most dangerous.' This is because he's almost always broke at the time. Another source who operates in the Desker Road area recounted how he was shocked to see Wilson walking up to some drunkards lying on the floor in a drunkard stupor, and try to relieve them of their wallets or valuables.

C) A Friend in Need is a Friend to make use of.

Occasionally when Wilson is flushed with cash, he's a dream guy to hang out with, relates a former associate, David. He would be extremely generous, giving cash in the hundreds daily, even to people he hardly associates with. He'll throw money bringing them to clubs to party and have good meals to eat. However Wilson doesn't do anything for some altruistic purpose recalls David, who later became a victim himself.

Together with other friends from his 7 -a side futsal group, dubbed Brazilian Boys (it seems they still play together after being founded by Wilson in the 1990s), these became a huge income source for Wilson. Being the oldest, they would look up to him and he would throw money on them or help them occasionally. David and a few others were doing renovation work on a free-lance basis. Wilson with the help of Roy (a known fraudster), got David and friends to set up a number of 'dummy renovation companies'. They then scouted round for persons in financial difficulties and offered to get them renovation loans for a small fee, usually 15%, sometimes 20%.

In addition to that, as 'managers' of these firms David and friends were directed to apply for credit cards. The think with credit cards, is that you only need 1 approval - ie; if Bank A approves your card, then getting cards from Banks B, C, D and E are a 'walk in the park.' Wilson dutifully handed over the first card to David and Co, minus a small fee of course, and these guys were elated with having their first ever credit facilities. What they didn't know is that on the sly Wilson and Roy, had procured a number of other cards in their names, which they used to fund their lifestyles and betting activities.

Wilson Raj leaving the then named Subordinate Courts. A trip he would frequently make in his adult life.

Eventually the bubble would burst when both Roy or Wilson hit a dire patch. Roy had kept a renovation loan all to himself instead of handing over the bulk to the applicant. The applicant without realising he too was party to a criminal conspiracy to cheat the banks, made a police report. And 1 of Wilson's friends, C had stupidly opened a credit card approval letter and called the bank to check the withdrawal limit, thus raising the suspicions of the bank's anti-fraud branch. The net was closing in, Roy was first detained by the Commercial Affairs Dept and then released on bail. Wilson then arranged for a friend to hand over his passport and handed it to Roy (whose own was impounded) and drove him across the border to escape justice. But as they say, there's no honour among thieves, what Wilson didn't realise was that Roy had pushed the bulk of the blame for the scam to Wilson when he was in the CAD.

As Wilson was happily driving back into Singapore after helping Roy escape, his name was flagged in the Woodlands Checkpoint stop list. He was duly detained and charged in court. He served a 4 year sentence for this spate of cheating offences.

The then Queenstown Remand Prison, Wilson's 'home away from home' for much of the 1990s and 2000s. He has yet though to make his appearance in the new Changi Prison Complex.

But don't let this episode fool you. Wilson in an earlier New Paper interview, said he was sick of Singapore because he couldn't tell who the 'wolves were amongst the sheep' - a reference to the friends who 'betrayed' him.

D) A Wolf in Wolf's Clothing

'D' a former long time friend concedes that there's nothing good in associating with Wilson. 'When you mix with Wilson, be prepared for 3 things - going 'pok' (bankrupt), getting arrested and going to jail.' He cited himself as an example. In 1997, he was associating with Wilson, who was then wanted by the CPIB for bribing S-League players and referees. He was unaware of Wilson's fugitive status. One night after partying in the Rochor area, they were leaving a club, when they were surrounded by CPIB officers. Wilson immediately punched an officer flooring him and ran away making good his escape. D with no criminal record obviously stayed put. However there's an old law enforcement saying, 'If you can't catch the dog, catch the cat instead.' D was detained and asked to explain his association with Wilson. The CPIB was quite satisfied with D's protestations of innocence and were about to release him pending a 'routine search' of his house. Unfortunately for D, he had a collection of porn films and was duly arrested for this and charged in court. He had to spend 7 months in jail for it and as a price of associating with Wilson.

Woodlands Wellington playmaker, Ivica Raguz became an unfortunate victim of a hockey stick attack by Wilson in 2000.

In 2000, he was arrested by CPIB again for assaulting an S-League player, Ivica Raguz and for his part in an S-League match fixing scandal. After interrogation and investigation, he was brought to Tanglin Police Station to be released on court bail of $30,000, and to attend court the next day. He finally managed to get a friend, Maniam, to bail him. But Wilson had no plans whatsoever to face the charges. He stole a cousin's passport and immediately headed for Woodlands Checkpoint. But his stupidity got the better of him, when he decided to jump queue because the first line he was in was long. This caught the attention of a former school mate working in Immigration, who recognised him and alerted her colleagues. Upon closer examination, it was discovered he was travelling under a different name than the one she had mentioned. He was duly arrested and sent to court the next day. However had he escaped, Maniam would be liable for the bail money. Since he had a low paying job, it was a foregone conclusion that the a jail term awaited him for this potential non-payment. When asked later why he attempted to put Maniam in such a spot? His answer - 'Oh 10 years earlier in a poker game, he cheated me of a few thousand dollars, this is pay back!'

A Clementi Khalsa reserve team player, nicknamed 'Titanic', got to know Wilson and ended up smuggling heroin into Italy. Let's just say he was the 'Titanic' but no match for Wilson, who was the 'Iceberg.'

Finally let me end with the tale of a former footballer, nicknamed 'Titanic' who got to know Wilson. A potential S-League player, his association with Wilson put paid to his playing career. With only primary school education, he could not easily gain employment. But that time Wilson was at a high and Titanic enjoyed the night life in Wilson's company. But Wilson and money always seem to part ways, and he soon was back in the doldrums. Titanic obviously began a more desperate lifestyle, after the credit cards he helped Wilson apply ran out of credit. But no worries, Wilson came up with a brilliant plan, he found out someone was smuggling 'white gold' into Europe and in search of a mule. A Singapore mule at the time didn't attract much suspicion owing to high ranking of our travel documents. Wilson introduced Titanic to the smuggler who informed the 'white gold' was to obtained in India and to be brought to Italy and he would be paid US$5,000. Wilson denied he knew what 'white gold' meant, but given his criminal past, few believed that he did not know it was heroin.
He convinced Titanic to make the journey. This was how dangerous the task entailed - from India, he had to bring it to Dubai, then fly to France, take a train into Switzerland and finally, Italy. Somehow or rather he managed to escape detection in the first 4 legs of airport/customs checks, but came up short in the Italian city of Como, where he was arrested. Fortunately though this was Italy, and he only ended up with a 5 year sentence, of which he served slightly over 2, before being deported back to Singapore. Had this been Singapore, Titanic's life would be well and truly sunk.

These 3 cases are but a drop in the sea, to the number of people who have associated with Wilson and ended up in some degree of difficulty or other. Sunny has the final word, 'Wilson has the 'Indian sign' over him. If you want to live an extra-ordinary life fraught with danger and peril, by all means, go be his friend. But don't come crying when disaster strikes, because strike it will.'

A 'wolf in wolf's clothing' is how one should sum up Wilson Raj Perumal as a person.

This concludes Part 2 which describes Wilson's character and acts away from football. In Part 3, I shall touch on that aspect and debunk the theory and perception that he is the King of Kelong. He's no King, he's only the 'Court Jester.' If he's a King, it's the King of Foolishness and Failure.

(This article also appears on my FB page. Please like and follow if you find it interesting)

↧

12 Soccer One Liners

May 2, 2014, 9:05 am

≫ Next: Soccer or Football Match-Fixing - How it Works

≪ Previous: Tales of Match Fixer Wilson Raj Perumal (Part 2)

I like all sports generally but football remains the 1 I like best. In an earlier article, I shared some funny football insults and quotes. Here's another list of 1 liners, I got from the English tabloid - The Daily Mail.

They made the compilation after the Atletico Madrid manager came up with a classic I liner, when his team defeated favourites Chelsea to reach the Champions League Final on May 24th against bitter city rivals, Real Madrid. So let's begin:

1) 'I would like to thank the mothers of my players for giving them the 'cojones' to play like that' - Diego Simeone. (I'll leave it to your imagination to figure out what cojones means).

(In the previous 2 seasons in charge, Diego Simeone has led Atletico Madrid to a trophy each time. Now in his 3rd, he has a chance to win them the biggest 2 available - the Spanish La Liga title and the European Champions League)

2) 'My greatest challenge is not what's happening at the moment. My greatest challenge was knocking Liverpool off their fucking perch. And you can print that!' - Sir Alex Ferguson (Fergie), after a very successful 2008 season. (He wasn't very fond of the then all domineering Liverpool, taking great pleasure in outlasting a succession of Liverpool managers. This also made the 2 set of fans hate each other's team, sometimes each other, even more)

(Fergie holds the European Cup aloft after Man Utd's amazing victory in 1999)

3) 'Football... bloody hell!' - Fergie, when asked to explain Man Utd's unbelievable turnaround to win the Champions League in 1999. (Trailing 0-1 and being outplayed virtually the whole match, they get their equaliser in the final minute and win with the last kick of the game, courtesy of current Cardiff manager, Ole Gunnar Solksjaer)

(Ian Holloway is a colourful personality. He's pictured here in his time as QPR manager)

4) 'To put it in gentleman's terms, if you've been out for a night and you're looking for a young lady and you pull one, some weeks they're good ones and some weeks they're not the best. Our performance today would not have been the best looking bird, but at least we got her in the taxi!' - Ian Holloway (then manager of QPR). (He used it to describe an unimpressive victory over Chesterfield, back in 2003).

(Despite being successful at club level, Graham Taylor's tenure as England manager was a failure earning him the unenviable nickname, 'The Turnip')

5) 'Do I not like that' - then England manager Graham Taylor in a sentence mix-up. (This followed a drab 1-1 draw with Poland in 1993, which would be the start of a series of poor results that saw England failing to qualify for the USA World Cup in 1994).

(He had a big mouth and an opinion on practically everything, but Brian Clough won back to back European Cups, a feat only achieved by 1 other English club manager - Liverpool's Bob Paisley)

6) 'If God wanted us to play football in the sky, He'd put grass up there!' - iconic Nott'm Forest manager Brian Clough decrying the long ball game. (He always believed that football had to be played by passing the ball from 1 player to the other, with the final receiver taking the shot on goal. Simple but effective)

(Eric Cantona's infamous kungfu kick on a Crystal Palace fan in 1995)

7) 'When seagulls follow the trawler, it's because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea.' - Man Utd legend Eric Cantona. (This was in response to his 8 month ban in 1995, for a kung-fu kick on a Crystal Palace fan who had taunted him following his 'red card' in the match).

(A small man, but Gordon Strachan was a very talented player and reasonably good manager)

8) 'If a Frenchman goes on about seagulls, trawlers and sardines, he's called a philosopher. I'd just be called a short Scottish bum talking crap' - former United player and then Coventry manager, Gordon Strachan. (He clearly wasn't impressed with Monsieur Cantona's sound bite).

(George Best was an exceptional 'player' both on and off the field!)

9) 'In 1969, I gave up on alcohol and women, and it was the worst 20 minutes of my life!' - another Man Utd legend, George Best. (A dazzling winger only recently surpassed by Cristiano Ronaldo, he was famed for his exploits both on and off the field)

(Terry Venables posing with the FA Cup following Tottenham's 1991 triumph)

10) 'I had mixed feelings - it was like watching your mother-in-law driving off the cliff but in your car' - former Engalnd, Barcelona and Tottenham manager, Terry Venables. (He was trying to explain his team's performance despite the 'not so bad' result)

(Ian Holloway, now manager of Millwall, likes to see his teams attack. He also attacks but with words)

11) 'Right now, everything is going wrong for me. If I fell in a barrel of 'boobs', I'd come out sucking my thumb' - Ian Holloway describing a spate of bad results.

(Gary Lineker is England's 2nd highest goal-scorer of all time, but unlike the No 1 record-holder, Bobby Charlton, he didn't win the World Cup because of 'them Krauts')

And we'll leave the final word to prolific England striker Gary Lineker, describing England's heroic but eventually futile effort in trying to defeat Germany in the Italia '90 World Cup semi-finals:

12) 'Football is a simple game. 22 men chase the ball for 90 minutes, and in the end, the Germans always win.'

(I hope you're equally amused as I was)

↧