Hong Lim Affair – Who entraps who?

There is this theory going around that Roy Ngerng and Han Hui Hui walked into a trap set up for them. I have another theory, that unwittingly Roy and Hui Hui had allowed a counter trap to fall in place and many fell in without know that the hunter is now the hunted.

The first theory was quite obvious to those who saw it that way. There was this huge party for Special Needs Children and senior citizens. These were vulnerable people and everyone should take special care not to encroach into their area of activities to upset or disturb them. And there were all the good reasons to let this party to be held side by side with Roy and Hui Hui’s protest. And it was very tempting, whether in the heat of the moment, intentionally or unintentionally, or being provoked, to wander into the forbidden zone and to be seen to be disturbing the peace, violating the space of the vulnerable. And finally, to irritate and agitate them, the authority appeared at the last moment asking them to move to another corner of the Park when this could be done well in advance.

Roy and Hui Hui apparently fell into this entrapment, marched into the forbidden zone to be seen as ‘heckling’ the Special Needs Children. Now they must face the music.

The other entrapment theory is that both Roy and Hui Hui would go as planned and let the authority mess up themselves in the eyes of the public by appearing as overbearing and intimidating two young persons. The authority would have to handle themselves very well and proper, with decency but without looking like thugs and gangsters bullying two youngsters. It would be a matter of how the law were used and interpreted and how the process of the law was being applied.

Now let’s recap this unfortunate incident to see if the authority has fallen into an entrapment by chance. The verdict would be in the eyes of the beholder. There would be those who would want to look for all the reasons to entrap Roy and Hui Hui. There would also be those who want to see how fair is the authority towards the citizens and whether there is an abuse of power, and to judge how the authority is behaving.

The granting of the two events with incompatible agenda and dynamics has already raised many eyebrows with many yelling entrapment. It was an event that could easily be avoided but allowed to happen for whatever reasons.

With Hui Hui and her party fully prepared with their video cameras to protect themselves, there came marching, a group of men that required serious make ups to look nice and friendly people, all caught in camera, towards a scrawny little girl that was less than 5 ft tall. It was like a scene from a gangland movie. And while some ruled that the little girl was in defiance, some would not look too kindly on the group of men muscling over the little girl.

The flurry of news splashed on the main media, followed with all the condemnations of ‘heckling’ of Special Needs Children, even from ministers and MPs appeared the next day. It made a very strong first impact on the readers. As days passed and more evidence was produced in the social media, this overload of news in a media that has low credibility rankings by international agencies started to turn rancid. No one believes that there was any heckling in the first place and the accusation was overdone and hardly could hold any water. It backfired and supported the conspiracy theory.

Everyone thinks that it would be blown over when sanity returns. But no. The social media is now filled with coverage of the knocking of doors in the quiet of the night by the police to serve notice to some participants at the protest rally, this time for suspicion of being members of an unlawful assembly. Many eyeballs are rolling. This is going to rattle nerves, and if the authority knows, would not go down well with the public. In the past it was easy as there was no social media. Today, everything comes under the glare of a spotlight.

I shouldn’t use any strong or emotional words on how this is being received by the public, especially the netizens. Comments in the social media have been one way, furious, totally negative, uncalled for, puzzling and exasperating. The authority got to be very careful in what it is doing and how it carries out its law enforcing duty. The people are watching and questioning, very cynical and unforgiving, if not very angry over the latest development.

Maybe the feedbacks in Reach are cheering and clapping at how successful was the first entrapment and failing to see the second entrapment.

Looking at the whole picture, has the authority fallen into an entrapment that puts a spotlight on them in a very negative way? If this is what the public/netizens are perceiving, this unwitting entrapment is going to be more serious and more costly to the govt. The govt must not be seen to be harassing the people or turning against the people. The govt is for the people, to protect the people, the guardian of the people. The authority is everything about the rule of law, fairness and justice to the people. The govt has to be extremely careful not to be seen to be bullying the people, or it will fall right into the entrapment.

Now we have this double entrapment theory, or entrapment within an entrapment. How would they turn out and who would end up the loser? Who is the heckler? Who is entrapping who?

Kopi Level - Yellow

Protesters at Hong Lim on 27 Sep called up by Police for investigation

Below is part of an article posted in TOC on the investigation by the Police for ‘Unlawful Assembly’ at Hong Lim during the ‘Return My CPF’ protest rally on 27 Sep.

‘Several participants of the Return Our CPF protest at Hong Lim Park on 27 September have been called up by the police for questioning with regards to the event….

In its letter to the participants to present themselves at the Police Cantonment Complex to assist in the probe, the police said it was investigating “an offence of unlawful assembly” committed on 27 September at Hong Lim Park.

The Online Citizen (TOC) understands that at least 5 of the participants were called up for the investigation on Thursday. Plainclothes officers from the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) had visited them at each of their homes to serve them the “notice to appear” at the police station.

Two of them told TOC that they were served the notice at midnight on Thursday, just hours before they were required to appear for questioning.

“They knocked on my door at 12.20am in plainclothes,” one of the participants told TOC. “My parents panicked and thought I had committed a crime. They are still kind of panicky now too.”…’

A few points in question. 1. Is Hong Lim Park legislated for such protest and demonstration? 2. How did the gathering of protesters at Hong Lim become an illegal assembly of people? 3. Was the permit withdrawn for the protest rally that made the protest illegal? 4. If the Park is legislated for such purposes, does it require a permit or just a confirmation to use the Park would suffice?

Those being called up must have quite a frightening experience to have people knocking at their door in the middle of the night be they strangers or the police. No one welcomes knockings at their doors in the wee hours of the morning. It is so eerie and scary, like being visited by an owl.

Kopi Level - Green

Insecure politicians

The ruling party has made it clear many times by telling the opposition parties that they are not there to help them get into Parliament. The opposition parties must work for it to win the votes of the people. Why should the PAP make it easy for them?  This is politics. You expect the PAP or any ruling party to make things easy for the opposition? Grow up. And it is a fair statement and position to take for the ruling party or any ruling party.

Similarly, it is not the job of the opposition parties to make it easy for the ruling party. Their job is to oppose any policy and expose their flaws. Of course no need to anyhow shoot when a policy is good lah. That would only make the opposition unreasonable.  But can always keep quite or say that it was expected, good policies are expected. And after being paid obscenely still expects to be kissed and patted on the head? What if bad policies?

It is not the job of opposition parties to praise the ruling party. If they chose to, it is ok, but it is not their duty to do so. Just because the ruling party asked them to praise them does it mean that they must obey, and dutifully praise the ruling party? Are they that easy to train?

And it is not their duty to jump the gun to prove that they are reasonable, to attack anyone from the opposition or critics of the govt for any missteps or mistakes.  Reasonable they must be but no need to be compliance. Why is it the duty of the opposition politicians to appease the ruling party to prove that they are good boys? And to jump to attack anyone that they think have crossed the line and must be whacked, and to whacked first to look reasonable, to justify themselves to be in the good books of the ruling party? Idiots.

There is no need to put yourself in the good books of the ruling party if you are on the other side of divide. Unless you want the ruling party to give you a pat and say  ‘good boy’, or you want to cross over.  In the eyes of any ruling party, the opposition parties are opposition parties, waiting to replace them, not friends in politics and the struggle for power, and could even be regarded as ‘enemies’ to some with very strong views.  That is why they will be attacked and attacked ruthlessly when they crossed the line or make a mistake. Apologies not enough, must also explain.

In realpolitiks it is a competition of opposition camps for the right to rule. Though it is good to be on friendly terms on a personal basis, there is no need to score brownie points to be on the good side of the opposing parties. It would be silly to attack fellow opposition members or critics just to prove you are reasonable. You really think the ruling party will appreciate that? Or would they be laughing themselves silly at your stupidity, so quick to draw the sword to kill your comrades in arms for your enemies.

Do I make any sense? Should opposition politicians prove that they are whiter than white to be dictated by the whites, to please the whites?

Kopi Level - Green

Kopitiam Talk – The fish rots from its head first

Heard this Ah Long boasting in the Kopitiam about his riches. In his fineries, diamond studded Rolex and his gleaming brand new Mercedes 300 parking in the No Parking lot, he was in a world of his own, an emperor of the Kopitiams.
 
Recently his tone was very different. He sounded so much of himself, so confident. Someone asked him why he was openly telling everyone that he was an Ah Long. He quipped, ‘Today the law is different. Now I only have to tell them that I don’t know, 不知道, what my runners were doing, then I am innocent. Those money lending activities and door painting jobs were done by my runners and nothing to do with me. I didn’t know, 我不知道. ’
 
See, by pleading ignorant, I am innocent. At most they will slap me on the wrist. Really ‘hosay leow’. Not knowing is a valid and acceptable excuse for charging people a lot of money with high interest rate!

Kopi Level - Green

Singaporeans Sacrificed for Top Universities Rankings

By MIKOspace

Were Singaporean Students and Professors Sacrificed for NTU Top Rankings? Singaporeans are Collateral Damage for Top Universities Rankings.  Was it Worth it?

“NTU heads QS' list of top 50 universities …”, according to London-based Quacquarelli Symonds (QS), one of three international universities ranking systems.

For the sake of meeting the Criteria of a Bogus Ranking Standard of Dubious Excellence, it appears that NOTHING was spared so as to Obtain a Brand of Questionable Authenticity.

Let’s examine 3 of the QS’ 5 Criteria here.

International Students Ratio (5%)

In 2013, 28% of NTU’s 23,484 undergraduates or 6,575 were foreigners. Why 28% foreign students? Canadian universities, for example, averaged only 8.9% foreign students in 2009. 

Some NTU “rejects” even went on to Ivy League Universities overseas. Many understandably could not afford the costly overseas education. A mere tweaking of the arbitrary cut-off points for NTU Admissions would easily have absorbed 6,500 more Singapore students. The cutoff point appeared deliberate in order to have less local students, in favour of foreign studnets in order for NTU to excel in the foreign students criteria of the QS Ranking criteria.

Were more than 6,500 Singaporean students, or between 1,700-1,900 annually, denied NTU admission into various 3-year and 4-year Undergraduate Programs, over 2009-2013, so that NTU could excel in the International Students Ratio criteria of the QS Ranking?

Totally Unacceptable is also the Fact that at least 40% of the “rejected” students would have completed National Service in their citizenship duty to serve and defend this Country, and only to find upon NS completion that a Public Institution in our Beloved Country had “sold them out” for a Foreign bogus ranking standard of dubious excellence!

What is Baffling is the fact that millions of Singapore funds are used to pay for the thousands of “free” scholarships for most foreign students to study in NTU and other local Universities. 

WHY THEN IS THE NEED FOR A BOGUS RANKING AUTHENTICATION to attract Foreign Students to study “free” here?

International Staff Ratio (5%)

Singaporean Professors in NTU were similarly discriminated for a better QS Ranking.  In a purge of Professors under the pretext of Tenure Evaluation from 2007-2010, mostly Singaporean Professors, including many already qualified for Tenure previously, were dismissed.  And when the dusts settled in 2010 after the Purge, Singapore citizens including new citizens formed only 44% of the faculty; 56% of NTU faculty are foreigners from 56 countries worldwide including Singapore PRs.

Professors who are Singaporeans were clearly discriminated and sacrificed so that NTU could excel in the International Staff Ratio criteria of the QS Ranking.

Faculty/Student Ratio (20%)

Following the Purge of Singaporean Professors, many more foreigners were engaged as NTU Professors. These are mostly freshly-graduated PhDs, and others lacking the acclaims, experience and research citations of those Singaporean Professors who were “terminated” by NTU. Their increased numbers were however necessary in order to meet the QS’ Faculty/Student Ratio.

While the first 3 Criteria may account for just 30% of the QS Criteria, the sacrifice of Singaporeans as students and Professors appeared necessary as the tipping points for NTU to excel and top the bogus standard of dubious excellence.

United Nation Education agency UNESCO had also challenged the validity and reliability of University Rankings like QS, viewing them “of dubious value” that “use shallow proxies as correlates of quality.” Really Sad, ALL THE SACRIFICES BY SINGAPOREANS ACTUALLY FOR NOTHING AUTHENTIC OR OF SUBSTANCE, REALLY. 

For the Sake of Authenticity and Integrity, Singapore universities should no longer participate in any “Global Universities Ranking” scams.  Singapore’s presence in the Global Universities Rankings invariable lends our hard-earned Reputation for Authenticity and Honesty to mask their lack of credibility, validity and reliability.  We owe it to our Founding Generations never to cheapen our Reputation, painstakingly built over the past 50 years, in any manner.  

Kopi Level - Green 

Read Full Article here:

Were Singaporean Students and Professors Sacrificed for Top NTU Rankings?