Must say something good about the Courts

Credit must be given when it is due. There was a report in the ST on 22 Oct titled ‘SMC witness accused of overcharging’. A Dr Hong Ga Sze, ‘an expert witness for the Singapore Medical Council (SMC) to the high profile disciplinary hearing two years ago that saw Dr Susan Lim convicted of misconduct for overcharging the Queen of Brunei’s sister, had his claim of $42,000 for appearing as a witness sliced to $5,000 by the High Court.
 
Another expert witness, Dr Tan Yeow Oo, had his bills reduced from $12,145 to $9,000. These two cuts were the latest after the Court slashed the legal fee of Wong and Partners from $1.3m plus to about $300,000.
 
What is strange is that the SMC case was all about overcharging and now the experts have also been accused of overcharging and had their bills slashed by the Court. OK, I stand corrected, though it was reported as overcharging, or like overcharging, or something like overcharging, it may not be overcharging at all. So it is not exactly right to say it was overcharging as according to the Law Society, just because the Court reduced the legal fees by $1m, it did not imply or say that there was overcharging.
 
The correct version could be that no one was overcharging. Susan Lim also did not overcharge and neither the two expert witnesses. They just submit an excessive sum in their bills and it was the Court’s prerogative to slash the sum to a more realistic or reasonable level. And the sums decided by the Court just happened to be a fair amount in the eyes of the Court, not because anyone had overcharged. Or is it like that? No?
 
I rest my case. But must say that the Court has done a great service in assessing what were fair amounts to be paid by the parties. If not, the cost of everything will keep going up and inflation will hit the roof and those on the wrong side of the equation would be paying very, very much more than they should.
 
Thank God, or thank the Courts, to deliver justice to those who needed justice.

Kopi Level - Green

Mark Zuckerberg - Why my Mandarin listening ability so bad

Mark Zuckerberg won over many Chinese fans when he met them and spoke to them in Mandarin while in China. They enjoyed his casual style and personal snippets like when he asked his Chinese wife why was his Mandarin listening ability was so bad.

His wife, 'You're also bad at listening in English'.

My answer would be, 'You are American'. The Americans have very serious problem listening to the Chinese even when the Chinese speaks in English.

Kopi Level - Green

Where is the hottest bed breeding terrorists?

The cuckoo has come back to nest. It all comes full circle. No, the answer is not Malaysia or Indonesia or the Philippines. The hottest terrorist bed is UK. The United Kingdom is producing 5 terrorists every week to fight in Syria. Looks like it’s free immigration policy is bearing fruits, a lot of fruits in the form of terrorists, and very deadly ones.
 
This is a section of a report from The Telegraph.
‘Ben Farmer
Oct. 22 (Telegraph) -- Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, says 'the drumbeat of terrorism in the UK' had become 'faster and more intense'

Five young Britons a week are travelling to fight in Syria alongside jihadists, joining hundreds already thought to have left, the country’s most senior policeman has disclosed.

Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, said “the drumbeat of terrorism in the UK” had become “faster and more intense” because of the conflict. Jihadist activities were “not just the horrors of distant lands”, returning fighters posed a terrorist threat, he said.

His warning came as research led by a former director of GCHQ suggested that shopping centres, sporting events and public gatherings could be vulnerable to chemical or biological attacks by terrorists using unmanned drone aircraft. The drones could be turned into flying bombs using improvised explosives.

Sir Bernard said: “We know that over 500 British nationals travelled to join the conflict. Many have returned and many will wish to do so in the coming months and perhaps in future years….’
Please note the dangers posed by drones and what the drones are capable of doing in an open air event like in a stadium or Marina Bay Platform where large numbers of people are present.

Kopi Level - Green

Ho Kwon Ping – A Rebel is also a human bean

Ho Kwon Ping delivered his first Nathan Series lecture under the roof of the Institute of Policy Studies in a much unexpected tone. He was a young rebel turned business tycoon and many people were wondering what his thoughts were over the years and the changing role and lifestyle he has taken on. How much of the rebel is still in him or left of his youthful idealism of the past.
 
His lecture was on the next 50 years of the PAP. I could not see any trace of a rebel left in the man but so much deference to the PAP, and, saying all the right things. Maybe he was trying to be polite, after all he was giving a lecture as a fellow of S R Nathan lectures. Anyone expecting some flashes of fire and some unwitting snipes must be disappointed. It was all so tame and so familiar.
 
First, he expects the PAP to be still a dominant force and still be in charge in the next 15 years, untouchable. Of course it was only his opinion and gazing at his own crystal ball. No one is wiser what tomorrow shall hold for the PAP. But this is a pleasant note to the establishment.
 
His second point, no opposition party would want to wake up the next morning winning 80 seats in Parliament, even if in a freak election. This is a strange thought in my view. This is a moment that all oppositions will relish and have been waiting for all these years. And why should a winning by the opposition party be called a freak election? Are the people all freaks when they choose the opposition and all sane when they choose the PAP? Of course this is classic establishment rationale. The people are smart when voting for the ruling party but mad if they vote otherwise.
 
And more, the opposition party would be booted out duly in the next election. The assumption of course is that the opposition is not ready or did not have able leaders to run the country and cannot do good for the people. Only the PAP can. This is also very establishment thinking and very condescending. Only the PAP is able to run the country. Opposition leaders are half bakes and can only drum and make a lot of noise, no substance really. Even after winning an election they would fail miserably and would be kicked out by the people summarily in the next election, as sure as the sun will rise. Really?
 
And the PAP will play by the democratic rule. The soldiers will not be marched out of their camps to seize power in the event of a freak election. Smell the deference stench? Of course not. This is a democratic country and everyone will play the democratic game, no cheating, no abuse of power, no gerrymandering, no fixing of opposition. And the soldiers will stay out of politics, and a new party will be welcome to rule by the will of the people.
 
We cannot be worse off than the Indonesians can we? Yudhoyono is the perfect gentleman of a politician. He has shown all the 3rd world leaders how to hand over power gracefully in a democratic system. Are we up to it to learn from the Indonesians, to admit defeat when the people have decided? Or we can be the scoundrels of a 3rd world pretending to be 1st world polity but behaving with the predictability of 3rd world thugs when the time comes.
 
And, this is classic PAP mantra. No one wants to change the govt. Really, really, really? Ho Kwon Ping said he has spoken to many people and no one really wants a change of govt but everyone wants to vote the opposition. What does he mean by that? I have spoken to many with a totally different set of answers.
 
There is no trace of rebellious blood left in this senior citizen. Maybe he was just trying to be nice and saying all the right things that people want to hear. Let’s forget about Ho Kwon Ping the young rebel. Everyone grows old with time, very few exceptions. Rebels grow old too.

Kopi Level - Green

Return My CPF - Ravi's demand letter to NPark

Below is an extract of M Ravi's demand letter to the NPark to withdraw its cancellation of the permit for this Saturday's protest rally at Hong Lim. The full article is posted in TRE.

'In response and acting on behalf of Hui Hui, lawyer M Ravi wrote to the Commissioner of Parks and Recreation of NParks, Dr Leong Chee Chiew, today (23 Oct) to voice his objection to the cancellation.

Mr Ravi told the Commissioner that the reason given by NParks for the cancellation – to assist the Police with investigations into an incident which occurred during #ReturnOurCPF event on 27 Sep – constitutes a breach of Hui Hui’s rights of freedom of speech and assembly.

Such rights, explained Mr Ravi, is guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution, and is ultra vires Regulation 8(3) of the Parks and Trees Regulations (Cap. 216. R 1). That is, Article 14 of the Constitution is beyond the legal power of Regulation 8(3) of the Parks and Trees Regulations.

Mr Ravi further explained that the act of assisting the Police “does not constitute nor can it be construed as an implication, assertion or proof of guilt of any offence, nor does it constitute evidence of a breach of any law or of the terms and conditions of approval for the Return Our CPF Event”.

“There is therefore no rational basis for the revocation and it is wholly unreasonable as being based on irrelevant considerations,” Mr Ravi said.

“Furthermore, our client emphatically rejects your characterisation of the fact that she has been interviewed by the police and has been assisting them in their enquiries as constituting a ‘case‘ against her, and it is submitted that this is in itself an error of law that vitiates your decision,” Mr Ravi said to the Commissioner.

The restriction for Hui Hui to speak is likewise a breach of her rights of freedom of speech and assembly under Article 14 of the Constitution, Mr Ravi said.

“Depending how long the Police investigations take, the restriction may last indefinitely. It is an indeterminate, wholly disproportionate and oppressive ban (on Hui Hui to speak),” he argued.

“The purpose of Speaker’s Corner is to provide an arena in which free speech is allowed to be exercised and it appears wholly out of keeping with this purpose for the residual authority given to a Commissioner of Parks and Recreation under Regulations to effectuate the Parks and Trees Act to deny and place a ban on free speech in the very place where it supposed to be allowed.”

Mr Ravi emphasized again that the ban, essentially for an indeterminate period of time, is in principle, a profound threat to Hui Hui’s Constitutional rights.

As such Hui Hui, through Mr Ravi, is formally requesting that the ban by NParks be lifted immediately.

Mr Ravi told the Commissioner in the letter that if the ban was not lifted by 1600 hours tomorrow (24 Oct), his client, Hui Hui, reserves the right to apply to the Court for relief without further notice to NParks....'

Kopi Level - Yellow