10/26/2014

Poll - Sneaky Raymond and his despicable masters

There is this Raymond and several others that have been residing in this blog to do nothing but to attack me personally. They act and hide like thieves, knowing that what they did was shameful and unethical and morally low down. Apparently they must have some backings from people or organisations that are of the same shady character, shameful and despicable.

Would you vote/support such people or organisations? You can indicate your feelings on the Poll I have created on the top right of this page.

Redbean

Over billing is not overcharging and is not an offence




I keep pondering over this statement and keep asking myself if it makes any sense? Is over billing overcharging? And why is overcharging an offence and over billing is not?

The Sunday Times gave nearly one page to Salma Khalik’s article with the title, ‘High court slashes SMC’s claims, calling them EXORBITANT, UNREASONABLE’.  I like the big fonts and bold treatment of the words exorbitant and unreasonable. I wonder if there is a deeper meaning to it. Other than slashing down the high bills, there were no penalties for overcharging. Oops, correction, it is over billing, not overcharging. I am so tempted to look at all the dictionaries to see if there is any difference or similarities between the two words.

Susan Lim was found guilty for overcharging the Brunei royalties $24.8m for 7 months of work. She was fined $10,000, suspended for practice for 3 years and to pay cost to SMC. SMC took Susan Lim to task for overcharging. And Susan Lim’s husband took the SMC to court for overcharging. Sorry, it is over billing. The word overcharging keeps bugging me and I could not shake it off. 

Ok, Susan Lim did some work for her client and sent her a bill for her services. In the SMC case, they took Susan Lim to court and won and sent her a bill, not for services rendered but for time and effort spent on the case. So it was not a case of charging a client for services. I think this is the difference between over billing and overcharging.

Now, how much did the SMC over billed? Four cases were highlighted in Salma’s report. 1. from $900,000 to $180,000, 2. from $235,000 to $22.000, 3. from $42,000 to $5,000 and 4. from $150,000 to $70,000. These add up to $1,327,000 and cut to $277,000.

In the same report, Salma mentioned that last year a bill of $1m was cut to $370,000 and last month a bill of $1.3m was slashed to $317,000. I will not try to rationalise the numbers but just using the last two numbers, the two bills came to $2.3m which ended up as $687,000 or an over billing of $1,613,000, or about 220% of $687,000.

In Susan Lim’s case, the court ruled that there is ethical ground not to overcharge a client. I quote, ‘Overcharging can still occur even if there is a prior agreement on fees as ethical obligations of a doctor must “prevail over contractual obligations”. I am not sure if a court would make a similar ruling on overcharging when lawyers over billed or overcharged their clients.  Would ethics be an important factor in legal billings? The decision by the court is between the SMC and Susan Lim.

Would it be over charging if the case is between the SMC and their lawyers when it becomes the lawyer billing the SMC for services rendered? So far the most authoritative body, the Law Society had made a statement that over billing is not overcharging and is an acceptable or normal practice. There is no wrongdoing involved. So the court just slashed the bills and end of story. No penalties or fines or suspension of practices are warranted.

Would the SMC sue its legal representatives and those who stood as witnesses for overcharging? If these parties accepted the court’s decision, there is no more case to follow up, I think, end of story. What if these parties continue to demand payment from the SMC?

Kopi Level - Yellow

In praise of animal life




Singapore is stepping up its effort to care for and protect animal life in the city state. You can go to jail for ill treating animals but not ill treating your parents. The laws to punish animal abusers have been enhanced to increase the punishments that can be meted out.

It is the first time that a minister, Khaw Boon Wan, came out publicly in praise of a group of MPs, Yeo Guat Kwang, Alex Yam, Gan Thiam Poh, Edwin Tong and Vikram Nair, for jointly putting up a bill in Parliament to protect animals. This is only the third time after an MP, Christopher de Souza tabled a bill last year to combat human trafficking and in 1994 when NMP Walter Woon tabled one for Maintenance of Parents.

The importance of animals and their protection are getting more credence and publicity especially with the high profile recruitment of an animal lover by the PAP, with a likelihood of being a candidate in the next GE.  This animal mood seems to be like a prevailing fad and the media is giving wide coverage on animals daily.

If only animals could vote, the PAP will definitely have its majority votes increased overwhelmingly. I hope no one is proposing to change the constitutional rights to allow animals to vote in a general election down the road.

Not only that, dogs and cats are also have a great time in cafes specially catering to their whims and fancies. But this is only a natural trend after having taken good care of the people, especially the senior citizens’ welfare. The senior citizens are now all happily working and enjoying a very dignified life. When people’s problems are solved, there will be time, money and resources and the luxury to entertain animals and animal welfare. This is something only a first world country can indulge in when not only human beans are important, animals are important too.

This is progress as the people become more civilised.

Kopi Level - Yellow

PS: Writing about dogs and cats is about the safest thing on a Sunday morning. And for those reading about cats and dogs, it is free and not having to pay for it. Maybe Sundays I shall write about what I eat, what toothpaste I used, where did I go walking the dogs, examine the colour of dog poo.

10/25/2014

South Korea – A pathetic semi American colony




In 2012, when the South Koreans thought it was time to take back military control of their armed forces from the Americans, a queer incident happened. The South Korean warship Cheonan was torpedoed and many South Korean soldiers were killed. The blame was simply pointed at the North Koreans. Subsequent investigations and evidence proved that the North had nothing to do with its sinking. It was a black operation, a false flag incident. But it was a good enough reason for the Americans to say No to return control of the South Korean armed forces to the South Koreans. Unbelieveable, but it is still happening. A sovereign state has its military forces under the control of an occupying foreign power. South Korea is anything but an independent state. It is a semi colony of the USA, just like Japan. The Americans’ military forces are still stationed in the two states.

Now you know why the North Koreans have to be the ‘mad country with mad leadership’ and always harped as a threat to the South Koreans. The Americans would keep on harping on this threat, keep on provoking and instigating the North Koreans to react, to retaliate and then to tell the pathetic South Koreans that the USA forces must remain in South Korea and in command of all the South Korean armed forces. Do the South Koreans have any choice that their soldiers are controlled by the Americans and the American bases and soldiers are in their soil?

Apart from reacting with vitriol to the repetitive provocations by the American war games along its shores and sanctions, what are the hostile acts of the North that are raising tension, so the Americans told the South Koreans?

According to the South Korean Defence Minister Han Min Koo, ‘The security situation on the Korean peninsula is more precarious than ever…North Korea is continuing to launch new types of provocations, including an additional nuclear test, development of new tactical missiles, infiltration by miniature UAVs and machine gun fires.’ He should have also said the face of Kim Jung Un is appearing in South Korean media daily and he could not sleep. And South Korea’s military is still not ready or incapable of defending itself against the North and needed the Americans to be there and to have operational control of the joint military forces.

With such pathetic military forces that cannot defend itself against the North, the handover of military control of the South Korean forces back to the South Koreans is further delayed. Yes the Americans are not going to return control to the South Koreans. Hagel said yesterday, ‘While this agreement will delay the scheduled transfer of operational control, it will ensure that when the transfer does occur, Korean forces have the necessary defensive capabilities to address an intensifying North Korean threat.’ With this statement, the handover is pushed back to 2020. And it would be pushed back further after 2020 and further into the future and decided by the Americans.

The reason, the South Koreans would never be able to defend itself against the North, but funnily will continue to provoke the North with more military war games and flying propaganda balloons to the North to provoke them in order to raise tension.  The game is to ensure that there will always be tension and the Americans would be stationed in South Korea with effective control over the pathetic and useless South Korean forces, and to make South Korea a perpetual semi colony of the Americans.


One can easily detect many contradictions in the positions of the South Koreans. Would the South Koreans be crazy to be provoking the North if they cannot defend themselves? Would the South Koreans be happy to be a semi colony of the Americans and allowed its armed forces to be controlled by a foreign power and with bases in their own country, and deciding all the military matters for them? Do the South Koreans have any pride in themselves to want to be an independent country, free from foreign domination and control, free from the Japanese and free from the Americans?

Who is benefiting from the drumming up of tensions in the Korean Peninsula? The US said that ‘an improved missile defense system for South Korea would be a prerequisite for handing over command’. What does this mean? The South Koreans must pay if they want back the command of their armed forces. And the media reported that the South Koreans are reviewing the need to buy the Lockheed Martin Corp’s Terminal High Altitude Area Defence system, THAAD. South Koreans would also be buying the ultra expensive but troubled plagued F35A, 40 pieces from the Americans. These are only the money reason.

This is the price the South Koreans have to pay for being a semi colony of the American Empire. Forever under the control of the Americans, forever under a siege mentality created by the Americans by provoking the North, and forever having to pay for American hardware, and forever be a semi colony.

PS: How could the South Koreans live with the truth that the Cheonan sinking and the death of their soldiers, the bringing down of President Kim Dae Jung and the assassination of President Park Chung Hee were the works of the Americans?

Kopi Level - Green

Hong Lim Affair - Latest news

Reported in ST today 25 Oct 14

'She(NParks spokesman) said NParks did not cancel the approval given to Ms Han's "Return Our CPF" event on Sept 27. One of the charges Ms Han and Mr Ngerng are expected to face on Monday is of organising a demonstration without approval.'  Rachel Au Yong

Is there a fine distinction between having a free speech, protest rally and demonstration without approval?

Kopi Level - Green

What would Singapore be like without the true blue Singaporeans?




The true blue Singaporeans built this place from Independence to a prosperous first world country. Now they are deemed as redundant, obsolete, lazy and don’t have the skills to fit in. So they are now systematically being replaced by hungry 3rd world talents and rogues from the West.

The question, what would Singapore be like in the future if the true blue Singaporeans become insignificant? Would Singapore still be a safe, rich and attractive place for the foreigners to come here to live and work?

Would the island still be a good and safe place to bring up children, low drug problems, women and children can go home safely in the early hours of the night without being raped, mugged or robbed?

Would the streets be clean and safe? Would the housing estate be rundown and turn into slums? 

Would there be law and order, rule of the law?

Would the businesses and industries continue to have the same vitality and productivity?

Would the foreigners turn this island into a better place or into hell? Would Singapore return to the 3rd World like where the foreigners came from?

Kopi Level - Green
 
Below are two video clips of what Singapore is turning into if lawlessness rules the day.
VIDEO: Coffee shop patron beaten up by a group of unruly PRC gangsters operating in Hougang

 

New recommendations for protesters at Hong Lim Park


All protesters planning to hold a protest or even a party at Hong Lim should take note of the charges against Roy Ngerng and Han Hui Hui. Both have been charged for   “disrupt(ing) the YMCA event and caused annoyance to the public” and having committed the following acts:

1. marching around the general vicinity of the YMCA event
2. shouting loudly
3. chanting slogans
4. waving flags
5. holding placards
6. blowing whistles loudly
7. beating drums

I think the above charges are relevant when there is another event with participants in the Park. I am not sure if the above charges can be levied for annoyance to the public nearby. What if the hotel or hotel guests complained of the noise and disturbances? This point needs further clarification.

So, in view of the above, may I offer a few suggestions to protestors so that they would not be charged for the same offence by committing the same crime and doing the same things as Roy and Hui Hui. The Hong Kong Govt can learn a trick or two from Singapore and charge those students for causing annoyance to the public and all the 7 points above plus misuse of umbrellas and pitching tents at the wrong place.

Let me concentrate on the Singapore scene so that protesters in the future would not get into trouble with the law. Yes they can protest at the Speakers’ Corner but must get a permit first from the NPark. What about the provisions in the Constitutions and the POA? What about them? I am not a legal expert.

The protesters must observe the following:

1.  Check if there is another event in the Park. If there is, speak to them nicely and beg them not to report to the police if they are disturbed by the noise make by the protesters or offended by the placards, slogans, flags etc etc.
2.    Do not march around in the Park close to the participants of another event. I am not able to advise how close is close. This point must get clarifications from NPark or the Police.
3.    Don’t shout loudly even if it is a protest. Speak in a normal tone like talking to someone in a kopitiam. I think loudspeakers are definitely out now. Too loud and very disturbing.
4.    No chanting of slogans.
5.    No waving of flags even if it is the national flag.
6.    No placards, especially those with not nice things on them.
7.    No whistles ok. This is not a football match and Hong Lim Park is not the National Stadium.
8.    And also no beating of drums. What do you thing, a protest rally is not a dragon or lion dance ok.
9.    The best is to ask NPark and the Police what can or cannot do for additional safety measures. Perhaps the two agencies could come up with a Can Do and Cannot Do list to help the protesters not to break the law.
10.     And make sure it is not an illegal assembly even if the Park is designated for public assembly and protest. It can still be illegal.

I think protesters would be able to protest in peace and would not be heckled or harassed by other park users if they observe the above 10 Commandments. Good luck.

PS: The above should be read in conjunction to my other recommendations posted earlier.

Kopi Level - Green