Aye, but one wishes another could have put that in more grammatical a manner.

Anyway, court or prosecution evidence apparently showed that the defendant had indeed asked the officers to ‘resolve’ the problem. ‘Resolve’ is likely the accurate translation from the Malay, and would be akin to ’settle’– you know how some cops expect Singaporeans apprehended with traffic offences to go, ‘Bang, settle, bang?’ before expecting some currency folded nicely between travel documents handed over. ‘Settle’ or ‘resolve’, these synonyms are a good translation for the equivalent in Bahasa Melayu but let’s get to the point, which is that ‘resolve’ is a very general word. I doubt if the defendant charged with abetting the murder had actually insinuated that the victim be murdered; the defendant just had too much at stake and going for him to have made this mistake, the well-connected analyst that he is. Of course he did wish that the victim would go away and never bother him ever again– who in his position wouldn’t? That’s what the killers knew, and what the victim knew as well, although her interests in the matter were obviously in conflict with theirs. All the defendant, now acquitted, asked for however was a police beat box, probably at the entrance of his home, to provide a kind of signal to the victim that there was police presence and protection and that she ought not to make a scene at his place. But the victim apparently did not heed that, and did exactly what she was expected not to. The second time she turned up at his place, whether she created a scene or not, the officers decided to resolve the problem the way they knew how. I guess the first hypothesis in a previous comment was correct. The officers grew tired of having to contend with her. They decided to dispose of her. (That says a lot about law enforcement over there. I’m quite sure the Singaporean police don’t do things like that, or for the matter, security and intelligence forces, whether enforcement or military– in fact, it has been claimed that they do not conduct ‘political assassination’ in the conventional sense. Any kind of political assassination is conducted with the pen. Or word. But you know what I mean.) Anyway, the killers probably depended, and probably still are depending, on those they had political affinities with to cover for them, but when cover was blown, and considering the magnitude of the offence, the killers found that those they resolved the matter for were of course not going to “share the blame”. Experts at politics, you see, are better at blame-shifting and delegation of tasks (like the resolution of problems and difficult persons). Nonetheless, those who murder will pay for murder, as well as those who abet such offences. This, surely, will turn out a lesson to us all never to resort to violence.

‘…We read murder stories with a strong sense of the unreality of the villainy involved. Murder is doubtless a serious crime, but if private murder really were a major threat to our civilization it would not be relaxing to read about it…The next step is an ironic comedy addressed to the people who can realize that murderous violence is less an attack on a virtuous society by a malignant individual than a symptom of that society’s own viciousness.’

Frankly I don’t understand Frye very well on these two points here; I can understand somewhat the second statement since he is addressing fiction and ironic comedy, but on the first I should say that I often read news about murder with great apprehension and belief that the perpetrators are killers. He isn’t too far wrong though about ‘private murder’ not being a major threat to civilisation in general; he chose his words well, especially the adjective ‘major’, because one murder really is not going to pose any huge problem to everything that civilisation is. I would greatly prefer though that murderous violence be non-existent inside fiction or ironic comedy and outside of it, and I am more familiar with the kind of self-inflicted violence that is less an attack on a society by an individual than a symptom of that society’s own malignance, and voyeurism.

No, not well said actually. Isn’t it supposed to be ‘One does not get respect simply by being who one is, but by what one does?’.

And #32 should have said ‘Perhaps disrespect begets disrespect.’

Have a great day.

Back to the main article, you can only hope the judicial system here will get better.

WHat happens in M’sia, really should be the model, which Spore should strive NOT TO HAVE.

What do you mean, if any? There was this MP chap who had nude pictures of himself and his maid or someone exposed all over the media in Singapore, wasn’t there? In a case like that, pictures (whether moving or still-life) or no pictures, decisions of political leaders or without, the MP is bound to want to step out of the limelight, and there are things he can do– like resign from his position if need be. Of course there will also be persons bearing the name of political leaders, in other words, ‘name-drop’, with or without the actual decision of the latter, to “help” a person like the MP do the needful. Can’t agree with you more about how “respect for one’s leaders” is terribly lacking amongst young people now, as then. What have our leaders not done to earn the kind of respect we, unlike young people, accord them? How is respect from young people earned anyway? Is it by doing things like infringing upon their privacy and freedoms, or the opposite? Perhaps respect begets respect.

http://oneworldtalk.freeforums.org/malaysia-s-persecution-of-anwar-is-destroying-its-reputation-t1492.html

Secrecy, suspicions, questions remain unanswered.

Anyone involved in incriminating the power that be will be put away.
Raja Petra in his article implicated Najib and his wife, Rosmah Mansor, in the murder. But instead of suing for defamataion, they chose ISA. Why? Afraid that cross examination would expose more dirt in the courts.

‘He earned whooping millions from the submarine deals on the back of the Mongolian girl.’

This isn’t very familiar with us. What do you mean?

“One thing for sure MM does not tolerate hanky-panky “. what a laugh !

making the judiciary suck up to him or the judiciary willingly suck up to him, which ever way you wish to see it, is hanky-panky, right ?
manipulating the elections system to win is also hanky-panky, right ?
special arrangement of family members in key positions is hanky-panky, right ?

your understanding of hanky-panky seems to be centred on extra marital activities only.
implementing a system with so many eunuchs sucking up is one hanky-panky that is truly tough to beat. what a laugh !

>Our MM have his wife with him during past travels ? Maybe only cos she >insisted lah but I am wondering are the tax payers footing her bill ?? >Remember when she fell sick in UK last time, MM ordered SIA to make a >special flight just to take 2 of them back to S’pore. Is this abuse of power ?

————————————

`Maybe’ ………that means you are not sure. In the same instance, `maybe’ it was MM who insisted, right?

One thing for sure MM does not tolerate hanky-panky ………so one can safely expect that no minister or MP who appeared in any scandalous video ( if there are any ) will ever have a chance to be in power again in the government.

As for that special flight, perhaps you could ask SIA. Note that none of the opposition members make any bone out of the incident. Perhaps it is called ` respect for one’s leaders’ which I find most lacking now, especially among young people.

Maybe, a descend into a really traumatic situation, like what the Indonesians went through ………….and still are, would wake us up to the importance of having good clean leadership. I do not expect leaders to be angels, as all men have their own defects, and consequences of their leadership could even be killings. We cannot dispute that Ghandi was a good leader, but the consequences of his fight for independence got many killed in inter-ethnic – religious conflicts

I think that’s where you wrong. It doesn’t matter which line you’re in; very often people who work under people– in fact there are few people who don’t have to work under other people, we’re most of us liable to someone– think they interpret something sinister for which if they do not pass on they are going to be the recipient of. Killers often kill because they think their supervisors will kill them if they don’t kill, meaning that no order is necessary– just a sinister look, a steeple made with the fingers, a veiled threat, and the killers are good to go. Now I’m not saying that the killers in this case didn’t receive orders. What I am saying is that persons who commit violent acts like murder often think they had received indirect orders to. My other contention is that the killers in this case, if they were law enforcers, probably grew weary or frustrated at how things were turning out; seeing as how this woman couldn’t be coerced with whatever they tried, either legal/enforcement authority or covert operations or both, and thinking that since she wasn’t even a citizen they could do anything to her– like make her disappear. Again, that she was not Malaysian is only one contributing factor as to why they could bring themselves to kill her. The woman it seems had tried to blackmail the acquitted.