Comments for The Online Citizen

Comment on Do we not have room for remorse, repentence and conversion? by Andrew Loh

Andrew Loh — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 14:22:56 +0000

And as I said, at the end of the day, it all comes down to this:
Do we, should we, have room for remorse, repentence and conversion?
What is your stance, locke?

Comment on Do we not have room for remorse, repentence and conversion? by Andrew Loh

Andrew Loh — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 14:20:01 +0000

And to remind you, when the president of the Law Society, Michael Hwang, called for the govt to release more information and for the govt/institutions to conduct studies into the penal system, he was met with a point-blank rebuttal by the Law Minister who dismissed his call.
So there. Lets not even compare the US with Singapore’s flow of information access.

Comment on Do we not have room for remorse, repentence and conversion? by Andrew Loh

Andrew Loh — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 14:18:14 +0000

lockeliberal,
Until and unless we have a Freedom of Information Act, a free media, etc, your point is moot and you know it.

Comment on Do we not have room for remorse, repentence and conversion? by lockeliberal

lockeliberal — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 13:44:52 +0000

Dear Andrew
I take as an example the US and how moratoriums in the US came about. Firstly many of the moratoriums were imposed because of the “cruel and inhumane” nature of the executions. Basically screws up in the execution process but with improvements and new rules some have continued afresh. Hanging has been by all definitions quick and painless.
The interesting ones here are in particular Illinois and its moratorium. That came about because of gross miscarriages of justice and the dedicated work of Journalists and students.
Firstly one has to asked, has there been any proven miscarriages of justice for those on death row with similar to those in Illinois ?
Secondly whatever flaws in the judicial system in Singapore at present, has it resulted in a demonstrable miscarriage of Justice which you can prove / disprove ?
Lastly even if Yong is hanged is it a miscarriage of justice or is it just justice which you do not agree with ? One can just blithely assert injustices legal miscarriages without proving it as was done in Illinois, they proved it, they just did not write about it

Locke

Comment on Productivity: Senior Minister, is it that simple? by Shake Head

Shake Head — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 13:35:15 +0000

And Taneug, other countries are not interested in this silly game. Their Govts work for their people, period.

Comment on Productivity: Senior Minister, is it that simple? by Shake Head

Shake Head — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 13:33:03 +0000

Taneug

If you are a Minister, your charge is with the masses. Do you mean the SM’s productivity knowledge cannot be conveyed easily to the pohpiah man in meaningful, understandable term? What about this: Using a bit of machinery, the maker can produce more poh piahs in shorter time. We are high tech Sg, ‘best for public education’, most efficieint, how come the SM still talks about labour intensive productivity? I tell you why – because this filthy rich Govt only knows how to collect money, never know how to give back. If the SM talks about machinery, he might need to help fund not just the equipment but the brains to innovate them. This is a glaring eg to you of the ground not matching the figures & claims but instead of being amused, you ironically throw out more credentials and figures to make your argument. Yes, Sg will continue to collect trophies from the world but is that all you want the Govt to do?

Comment on ST and LHZB censor Chee’s letter on PAP undermining Singapore’s interests by Sylvester Lim

Sylvester Lim — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 13:21:55 +0000

Link for the above http://aussgworldpolitics.wordpress.com/2010/02/02/singapore-glcs-political-donations-to-australias-political-parties/

Comment on ST and LHZB censor Chee’s letter on PAP undermining Singapore’s interests by Sylvester Lim

Sylvester Lim — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 13:21:06 +0000

Are Singapore GLCs making donations to Australian political parties based on this report? "The Political Donations Act in Singapore prohibits political groups and politicians from accepting foreign funding. The purpose of this legislation is ‘to prevent foreign groups from interfering in domestic politics’. Yet, it appears there are no qualms for Singapore Government Linked Companies (GLCs) to make corporate donations to both major Australia’s political parties. According to an article, ‘Mayne digs some donations data dirt’ published on Crikey, an independent Australian-based news website, … Foreign dictators could pour millions into an Australian political party. Indeed, the Singapore Government gave $20,000 to both major federal parties through Optus, a business whose fortunes are particularly vulnerable to federal laws and regulations’."

Comment on TOC Editorial: Cooling-off day may lead to heated confusion by Haiz

Haiz — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 12:52:50 +0000

PAP should just focus on economics, rather than on fixing the opposition.

Comment on ST and LHZB censor Chee’s letter on PAP undermining Singapore’s interests by angry reservist

angry reservist — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 12:49:56 +0000

even if he had foreign backer, that doesn’t really matter..Since we can get screw by our own self elected leaders.

so whats the pt of contention?

PAP sucks

Comment on M Ravi: Death penalty should not be dispensed ‘in an automated, robotic, spasmodic approach’ by james

james — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 12:46:48 +0000

lobo 76

To my knowledge, the only person caught with more than the stipulated amount of a drug who didn’t go to the gallows is German student Julia Bohl. Not because the trial judge decided she was not guilty, but because the Public Prosecutor (no doubt responding to pressure from the German government) lessened the charge against her.

Unless you can give me an example where the judge decided someone carrying over the stipulated amount of a drug was in fact innocent, then in practice once the machinery has been set in motion (ie the public prosecutor has charged someone with trafficking) the death sentence follows automatically. Even if the judge thinks, as in Tochi’s case, that the accused didn’t know that he was carrying drugs. Even if the judge thinks the accused made a youthful mistake and is capable of rehabilitation.

And yet the public prosecutor has discretion as to how to prosecute, and the President has a pardon. Isn’t it a bit ridiculous that the only person unable to use his discretion is the judge?

Comment on $2 billion in PAP town councils’ sinking funds but need to increase charges? by PeterC

PeterC — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 12:38:34 +0000

You guys ever heard of ENZON and PONZI???????

Comment on $2 billion in PAP town councils’ sinking funds but need to increase charges? by Haiz

Haiz — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 12:37:42 +0000

PAP members are greedy pigs.

Comment on Productivity: Senior Minister, is it that simple? by eungtan

eungtan — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 12:29:41 +0000

Michael Spence is a economics Nobel Prize winner and you don’t get to serve on his commission if you don’t know economics. So let’s not argue about his credentials or whether he understands productivity.

what to argue? the above is a nobel prize winner..heck he is not even a prime or senoir minister..gohchoktongue is a trained minister from backdoor to senoir front door..who promised us a swiss gold or chocolate bar..butt endup in us livin in the morgue de rue alley of france…
productivity as in what? peanuts countins perhaps? or wearin a big green hat?

Comment on Do we not have room for remorse, repentence and conversion? by Andrew Loh

Andrew Loh — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 12:09:51 +0000

locke,
If it were any other aspects of law, I would agree with you that the system need not be stopped while it is being improved. However, we are talking about an irreversible and mandatory death sentence here. That is, lives are taken.
That, to me (and I believe all sensible people) makes all the difference.

Comment on Do we not have room for remorse, repentence and conversion? by Andrew Loh

Andrew Loh — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 12:07:38 +0000

“Where we will disagree is the need for the moratorium whilst the process is improved.”
I am glad you agree that the system needs to be improved. However, I do not understand why you think there is no need for a moratorium while the system is being improved. Lets put it this way:
1. System is faulty (which is why you agree it needs to be improved)
2. Faulty system may lead to wrongful prosecution
3. Thus, moratorium imposed while system is improved only makes sense.
I am thus not sure what your grounds are for saying the system can carry on while it is being improved. Strange.

Comment on TOC Editorial: Cooling-off day may lead to heated confusion by Wong Kan Yew

Wong Kan Yew — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 11:51:55 +0000

in the end, after we pour out our disapproval or dissent or dismay or disappointment about the new bills, does it mean we can only watch and accept as the bills get passed, presumably?

I mean, its not like we have strong number of opposition to veto the bills, is it?

So, i wonder what is the point of us spending time here lamenting the Inevitable?

Real action will come after the tick tock went up the car.

Comment on A CASE of double standards? by Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 11:49:45 +0000

Check this out:
http://www.afa.org.sg/wadwalk/

“World AIDS Day Walk 2009″ (from SCAPE Youth Park) on 28 November 2009, and PAP’s Mr Baey Yam Keng was its Guest of Honour.

Comment on $2 billion in PAP town councils’ sinking funds but need to increase charges? by George Neo Ler Kan aka da boomz

George Neo Ler Kan aka da boomz — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 11:45:38 +0000

Before we ask this question posed by the article, we should ask ourselves, why is it that perceivably, majority singaporeans knowing how much funds TC already has and yet seems to Accept and not question too much?

Why so Unique? Is it because singaporeans have not experienced what having strong number of opposition MPs is like that they do not know how to /dare to ask questions?

I wonder.

Comment on Productivity: Senior Minister, is it that simple? by Shake Head

Shake Head — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 11:45:08 +0000

Hi Taneug

Its good to hear from you again and I appreciate your time to respond.

Back to this article. The author based his comment on what the SM has spoken which was the whole point. Are you trying to say that if you have a brilliant credential, you should be allowed to get away with saying anything? Try telling the judge that you said something misleading not from what you knew and actually meant and you won’t because you have won a nobel prize. What kind of reasoning is this?

With regards to the best govt, although you did not give quotes or references, I do believe what you stated. Unfortunately you are still doing what the Spore education system has done to you. Do you even look into when or how the prof draw his conclusion? Did the prof work, live and raise a family in SG? What do you think will be his criteria? If he is not a local, then his conclusion would be drawn from data supplied and who churned out these figures?

Similarly please tell us what the Economist take into consideration to rate education system. Is it exam scores or number of hours in classes or enhancement classes….? If only the Economist measures the number of Sceintifci breakthroughs or number of no.1 books published or top of chart music or sports achievement, to reflect public education, SG might rank no. 1 from the bottom.

Tell me what is the concept or purpose of education? To score in exams? What a laugh! Why does the Govt keep saying that Sporeans have to compete hard with foreigners? If they have the world’s best education, doesn’t it worth something, like put a premium on their wages? Don’t Sporeans have an edge if their education is so solid?