10/17/2014
1962 – When the people were not daft
‘I have recounted these events so that you can see and decide for yourself what is in your best interest’. I heard this statement by LKY over the TV promoting the Battle for Merger book/film.
In 1962, LKY had full confidence in the people to think and to decide for themselves what was best for them. In 1962, the bulk of the people were illiterates. In 1962, the highest educational level attained by the population was primary with some at secondary school level. In 1962, the people were still British subjects, but were allowed to make the most important decision in their lives, to decide in a referendum, whether to be a part of Malaysia or otherwise.
The best part, and I repeat, the LKY govt did not treat the people as daft, unthinking and irresponsible. And the govt would not decide what was good or bad for them but for the people to decide for themselves.
Today, after achieving 1st World status, high level of university education and sophistication, the people became daft, irresponsible, unable to think and decide what is good or bad for them. They could not even be trusted with their money in the CPF. They could not be trusted to view a movie to decide what is truth or untruth, and the govt has to ban the film to protect them from being misguided or conned.
In a way the govt’s position is understandable. Just look at the numbers of unthinking IBs in the internet. They simply parrot whatever the official view is and went around attacking netizens that have a different view from them. If this is the level of thinking of the majority of the population, then I can support the govt’s decision to ban the film as we are becoming a nation of irresponsible and unthinking daft. Totally blank in the head.
No wonder they did not know that their country is being overwhelmed by foreigners to the point of them becoming a minority, a stranger in their own country. They could not see the risk of losing their country and are laughing away happily and unthinkingly, like what daft usually do.
How could the people of 1962 be smarter and better thinking people than the daft of today? Unbelieveable, but it is true. The govt in 1962 trusted and believed in the people to decide what was best for themselves. The govt of today does not trust the people and think they are daft, which is, in a way, quite true also.
Have we progressed as a people?
Kopi Level - Green
10/16/2014
Law Society – Alvin Yeo did not overcharged
‘In Singapore, the general rule is that the losing party has to pay
costs to the winning party. Parties can agree on the quantum to be paid,
or if they disagree, the court will decide the amount payable after
hearing arguments from both sets of lawyers. This is known as taxation.
The winning party’s lawyers submit an itemised bill of costs for taxation, which sets out the work done, time spent, lawyers involved and quantum claimed. This bill of costs is subject to the court’s detailed scrutiny, and the losing party is entitled to challenge both the overall quantum claimed as well as specific items.
The winning party is entitled to a reasonable amount of all costs reasonably incurred. Any doubts about reasonableness are resolved in favour of the losing party. The quantum determined by the court is an amount that the losing party ought reasonably to pay, and not what a lawyer may reasonably charge the client….
The Law Society does not condone overcharging by lawyers, and complaints about overcharging are subject to a statutory regime. Complaints made to the Law Society are referred to independent committees for investigation. These committees are not appointed by the Law Society, and it has no control over them.
The public can have every confidence that there are long-established safeguards in place to address overcharging, whether by one’s own lawyer or by an opposing lawyer.’
Shawn Toh
Director, Communications
The Law Society of Singapore
Below are some of the comments posted in TRE in response to the above letter (not in full) from the Law Society. I leave it to the readers to enjoy the read.
• downfall of singapore:
October 16, 2014 at 11:52 am (Quote)
these people know now that singapore is in a state of disarray with regards to moral and ethical behaviour so fleece as much a possible before it tanks
Rating: +8 (from 8 votes)
• Crooked ppl, crooked logic:
October 16, 2014 at 11:54 am (Quote)
Why no such logic in the medical field? Dr Susan Lim wouldn’t have been found guilty if she can also defended herself by saying, “Medical fees being judged to be lesser than charged doesn’t mean overcharging.”
Rating: +9 (from 9 votes)
• Define "over-charging"...:
October 16, 2014 at 11:58 am (Quote)
If the Law Society claims that Alvin Yeo did not overcharged Susan Lim then can it kindly elaborate on the following:
(1) what did Alvin do if it was not overcharging?
(2) define overcharging (in legal and in layman’s terms)?
(3) isn’t a lawyer ultimately responsible for the bill on his services?
(4) what is different in Alvin’s Yeo case from those cases previously judged by the Law Society as overcharging?
Rating: +8 (from 8 votes)
• Confirmed & double confirmed !:
October 16, 2014 at 11:59 am (Quote)
The law is a joke, is a rich man game. Now, it confirmed that it is also manipulated protection of the PAPees Rating: +7 (from 7 votes)
• Party Against People:
October 16, 2014 at 12:02 pm (Quote)
The blatant increase in Alvin legal fees is not overcharging makes the rapist claim that he did not rape the victim but had sex. Come off Lembus, speak in clear
English as majority of your clients do not have your legal skills. LS statement is joke of the decade and SDP Chee should highlight in his speech in IBA. Hahaha
Kopi Level - Yellow
The winning party’s lawyers submit an itemised bill of costs for taxation, which sets out the work done, time spent, lawyers involved and quantum claimed. This bill of costs is subject to the court’s detailed scrutiny, and the losing party is entitled to challenge both the overall quantum claimed as well as specific items.
The winning party is entitled to a reasonable amount of all costs reasonably incurred. Any doubts about reasonableness are resolved in favour of the losing party. The quantum determined by the court is an amount that the losing party ought reasonably to pay, and not what a lawyer may reasonably charge the client….
The Law Society does not condone overcharging by lawyers, and complaints about overcharging are subject to a statutory regime. Complaints made to the Law Society are referred to independent committees for investigation. These committees are not appointed by the Law Society, and it has no control over them.
The public can have every confidence that there are long-established safeguards in place to address overcharging, whether by one’s own lawyer or by an opposing lawyer.’
Shawn Toh
Director, Communications
The Law Society of Singapore
Below are some of the comments posted in TRE in response to the above letter (not in full) from the Law Society. I leave it to the readers to enjoy the read.
• downfall of singapore:
October 16, 2014 at 11:52 am (Quote)
these people know now that singapore is in a state of disarray with regards to moral and ethical behaviour so fleece as much a possible before it tanks
Rating: +8 (from 8 votes)
• Crooked ppl, crooked logic:
October 16, 2014 at 11:54 am (Quote)
Why no such logic in the medical field? Dr Susan Lim wouldn’t have been found guilty if she can also defended herself by saying, “Medical fees being judged to be lesser than charged doesn’t mean overcharging.”
Rating: +9 (from 9 votes)
• Define "over-charging"...:
October 16, 2014 at 11:58 am (Quote)
If the Law Society claims that Alvin Yeo did not overcharged Susan Lim then can it kindly elaborate on the following:
(1) what did Alvin do if it was not overcharging?
(2) define overcharging (in legal and in layman’s terms)?
(3) isn’t a lawyer ultimately responsible for the bill on his services?
(4) what is different in Alvin’s Yeo case from those cases previously judged by the Law Society as overcharging?
Rating: +8 (from 8 votes)
• Confirmed & double confirmed !:
October 16, 2014 at 11:59 am (Quote)
The law is a joke, is a rich man game. Now, it confirmed that it is also manipulated protection of the PAPees Rating: +7 (from 7 votes)
• Party Against People:
October 16, 2014 at 12:02 pm (Quote)
The blatant increase in Alvin legal fees is not overcharging makes the rapist claim that he did not rape the victim but had sex. Come off Lembus, speak in clear
English as majority of your clients do not have your legal skills. LS statement is joke of the decade and SDP Chee should highlight in his speech in IBA. Hahaha
Kopi Level - Yellow
Tony Abbott – Is Australia having a mad man as PM?
Tony Abbott first came on to the international limelight when he jumped the gun by telling Najib that he knew where MH370 had crashed. Today he is still telling the interested parties that the knew where the aircraft had sunk, into the Antarctic Ocean. Today he is still leading the search. Of course nothing was found and it may take another decade for him to tell the Chinese and Malaysians where the aircraft is.
In the Today paper yesterday, 14 Oct, Abbott is warning Putin that he would pull him by his shirt to give him a good shake up. This was what was reported, ‘Look, I’m goint to shirtfront Mr Putin, you bet I am….I’m going to be saying to Mr Putin, Australians were murdered and they were murdered by Russian backed rebels using Russian supplied equipment….we now demand that you fully cooperate with the criminal investigation.’
Anyone thinking that George Bush Jr was mad, think Abbott. He even threatened to ban Putin from entering Australia to attend the G20 summit. Is this a statesman or a gangster?
Wondering what Putin will do if Abbott really did what he said? Would Putin pull his ears and ask him to kneel? Or would Putin carry a cane and give him a couple of whacks?
Australians, what is happening to Tony Abbott? Sure he is alright?
Kopi Level - Yellow
Singapore a New Concept City State and a New Consumerism
I am not sure if this is the concept plan for the future of Singapore as
a rich, prosperous and vibrant city state. But if anyone is to look at
the policies being implemented, it is like clockwork precision in its
execution. The concept is to buy anything and everything that the city
state needs.
It goes like this, the state needs sportsmen and sportswomen, just buy. If the state needs professors, just buy, engineers, doctors, scientists etc, just buy. If there is a need for bankers, just buy, IT specialists, just buy. Needs billionaires, this one no need to buy, just seduce them to be here for free.
On a bigger scale, if there is a need for any specialty engineering equipment or processes, or companies, just buy. Needing tunnelling expertise, just buy, building of marina barrage and undersea tunnel expertise, new stadium, just buy the companies lock, stock and barrel. No need to grow indigenous companies too. SMEs just remain as SMEs, low tech, low skill to service the high tech, high skill big companies brought in to do the major works.
If this is the concept plan, there is really no need for universities, no need for polytechnics. There is really no need for schools too. Why bother to have schools and tertiary institutions to teach and educate students when there is no guarantee of the products, and it takes a long 15 to 20 years? Just buy. Close down all the schools and tertiary institutions.
Actually there is no need for babies, no need for citizens. Just buy the best from the rest of the world. What about the bought expertists and citizens growing old, can sell them and get rid of them? Or how best to get rid of them when they are no longer useful?
Tell them that they can only get their CPF if they give up their citizenships. If they don’t, selling their properties may not help much either as a huge sum of money will be retained as minimum sum in the CPF. Want your money, please quit and go live somewhere. All residents having out lived their usefulness shall vacate this city, take their CPF and go.
In this way, Singapore can become a New Concept City State where all its manpower needs and technology or engineering and professional needs can be bought. It can save on not having any need for schools and education institutions. It may not even have needs for maternity hospitals as no children need to be born here.
Oh, uniformed police and soldiers can also be bought. No need SAFTI and training grounds too.
And the population will be kept at a young and commercially productive age range. No children and no oldies. It will be a truly vibrant city state of vibrant and economically active and productive people. What citizenship, obsolete idea.
Kopi Level - Yellow
It goes like this, the state needs sportsmen and sportswomen, just buy. If the state needs professors, just buy, engineers, doctors, scientists etc, just buy. If there is a need for bankers, just buy, IT specialists, just buy. Needs billionaires, this one no need to buy, just seduce them to be here for free.
On a bigger scale, if there is a need for any specialty engineering equipment or processes, or companies, just buy. Needing tunnelling expertise, just buy, building of marina barrage and undersea tunnel expertise, new stadium, just buy the companies lock, stock and barrel. No need to grow indigenous companies too. SMEs just remain as SMEs, low tech, low skill to service the high tech, high skill big companies brought in to do the major works.
If this is the concept plan, there is really no need for universities, no need for polytechnics. There is really no need for schools too. Why bother to have schools and tertiary institutions to teach and educate students when there is no guarantee of the products, and it takes a long 15 to 20 years? Just buy. Close down all the schools and tertiary institutions.
Actually there is no need for babies, no need for citizens. Just buy the best from the rest of the world. What about the bought expertists and citizens growing old, can sell them and get rid of them? Or how best to get rid of them when they are no longer useful?
Tell them that they can only get their CPF if they give up their citizenships. If they don’t, selling their properties may not help much either as a huge sum of money will be retained as minimum sum in the CPF. Want your money, please quit and go live somewhere. All residents having out lived their usefulness shall vacate this city, take their CPF and go.
In this way, Singapore can become a New Concept City State where all its manpower needs and technology or engineering and professional needs can be bought. It can save on not having any need for schools and education institutions. It may not even have needs for maternity hospitals as no children need to be born here.
Oh, uniformed police and soldiers can also be bought. No need SAFTI and training grounds too.
And the population will be kept at a young and commercially productive age range. No children and no oldies. It will be a truly vibrant city state of vibrant and economically active and productive people. What citizenship, obsolete idea.
Kopi Level - Yellow
MP versus CCC Chairman – Who is bigger?
In the AHPETC vs NEA case in court, it seems that an MP holding a mini fair or event must get the approval of the Chairman of the CCC. I quote from an article in TRE,
‘AHPETC: Holding “mini-fair” or “event” does not require permit
AHPETC, whose chairman is Aljunied GRC MP Sylvia Lim, is disputing NEA’s argument. Its lawyer Peter Low pointed out that it was a “mini-fair” or an “event”, and hence did not require a permit.
He also said he would seek clarification from the NEA on why it was necessary to get the Bedok Reservoir-Punggol Citizens Consultative Committee’s (CCC) approval when applying for such a permit especially when it is chaired by a PAP grassroots leader….’
The question here is that an MP/Town Council needs to get permission from a grassroot leader to hold an event in his constituency? Who is bigger, I don’t mean bigger in physical size, but who should have the authority over such an issue. An MP is the people’s elected representative, a member of Parliament, a law maker, elected by the people for the people. What is a Chairman of a CCC? A civil servant working for the NEA or a political appointee appointed by the ruling govt to look after grassroot activities on a volunteer basis?
What power should be vested on a volunteer worker, an unelected grassroot leader in order that an elected MP must seek his approval to hold an event in the constituency the MP is elected, by the people?
Anything wrong with such a reporting or controlling procedure? In a democracy, the people is the master, and the MP is a representative of the people. Who is the Chairman of a CCC or the CCC representating? Do they have executive power over the people and events in the constituency? Are they govt employees vested with the power of a civil servant?
Any legal experts can help to explain the intricacies of these relationships? I look look and see see and still catch no balls. What is the right procedure or what is the proper legal procedure or what is the correct administrative procedure? I really blur like sotong now.
MP must go seek approval from a CCC Chairman? Tiok boh? If ask approval from NEA officers can understand because that one is govt mah. And NEA officers are employed by the govt to manage and regulate such matters mah. NEA officers can say ‘I chenghu mah’. Can CCC Chairman say he chenghu or not?
Sorry ah, I layman only asking question for clarification to know what is going on.
Kopi Level - Yellow
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)