A matter of extreme prejudice

‘PARTY AGAINST PEOPLE:

September 3, 2012 at 12:11 am (Quote)

It is rumored that the actions of law society has the implicit approval of the PAP government. Ravi is the only lawyer among the 3000 lawyers who dare represent the downtrodden and opposition clients against the government. The rest of the lawyers, as we the public view them, are in the profession for LOVE of the money and sucking up to PAP. I wonder with the many Senior Counsels in Singapore, who among them will dare represent Ravi, probono, of course. Any lawyer willing to step up?’



Why is it that the finger will be pointed at the PAP? The above is a comment posted in TRE on the persecution of M Ravi. It claimed that it is rumoured, nonetheless, why should it be a rumour against the ruling party? Practically every comment in the thread and other blogs would also look at this witch hunt in the same manner, and guessing who is behind it. Are the rumours/assumptions right that the party is behind it is the party behind it? Or are the assumptions wrong, and the perceived party to be behind it is not the party behind it? No one is wiser though everyone knows who is wiser. All the circumstantial evidence and logic only point to one direction. But since these are all conjectures and not facts, and no one is brave enough to stand up to make the claim, it is at most rumour mongering. And PAP, or any organization, would not respond to rumours. It would take someone to call a spade a spade and be ready to meet in the court of law to prove his case.

For the time being, it is just the Law Society versus M Ravi. The fact is, it has nothing to do with the govt or the PAP. While many would put one and one together, sounds so logical and real, but could be unreal and not the truth. In the same manner, any blogger that is being spammed or attacked will also think the same. It is like whatever is wrong or bad, it must be the work of the devil. The poor devil becomes the fall guy for whatever is sinister, and people use this to capitalize on the suspicion.

In international relations, the false flag formula always works as it is difficult to prove, and the real culprit will take a very simple step to cover his track. In local politics, is the covering of one’s track that simple? I doubt so as it is so easy to trace back to the very culprit if one has the resources. The PAP could easily take the rumour mongers to task and sue them for libel or intentional harassment. The inconvenient truth could easily be put right and should be put right for the good of the PAP. It should be in its interest to right the wrong, clear the wrong perception, and clear its name.

It must have its own reasons not to do so, not to want to do so and keeps everyone guessing. Or is there a need to guess? Is it wrong for the public to have such negative perception of the PAP? Is it fair for the public to regard the PAP as the devil to take all the blame? Whatever, the PAP has a perception problem and saboteurs could use this credibility gap to fly false flags with PAP ending up carrying it. The more bloggers are attacked, the more damage control needs to be done even if PAP is totally innocent. Cyber insurgency is proving to be a double edged sword and can cut either way.

What do you think?