Amos Yee – punishment versus correction

 

 

Offenders and criminals are rightly and expectedly punished by the rule of law when the law is broken. States need law to maintain order, security and rule of conduct for the proper functioning of a society. The rule of law provides a platform for people to coexist under a given set of rules that would make life bearable, orderly and to a great extent predictable.

 

The punishments meted out by the courts are measured and proportional to the crime committed. But before handling out a punishment, there is always the thought of corrective actions, to help the offenders not to commit the same offence again. But in some serious cases, the punishment is severe with no thought of reforming the offender. Death penalties are passed down in crimes where lives were taken or drug offences that are serious enough that corrective or reformative actions are found unnecessary.

 

So there are at least these two considerations when punishment are passed down, to correct and reform if possible, but if the crime is too serious, the court would do away with the corrective actions, and sentence the criminal to death.

 

In the Amos Yee’s case, it is not serious enough to want to just punish for the sake of punishment like serious crime. The thought is about reformation, about turning the boy offender around. And corrective actions can come in many shades and colours, from a pep talk, a warning, to reformative training and jail. What is then appropriate in the Amos Yee case would depend on how serious was the offence. In this particular case, I think many people have great differences in opinion. Some would rubbish this as the rant of a wayward youth and could simply be ignored. Some treated this very seriously and wanted the maximum punishment to be meted out. And the in betweens could vary between the two.

 

What is thus appropriate to be handed down to Amos Yee, a jail sentence or a long detention in a reformative centre? The prosecution is adamant on a long reformative training under detention and justifying it as reformative and corrective training. They are going to reform the boy.  The intent is so noble. Would it work? Would the boy be reformed after the stint in the reformative centre? Or would it lead to rebellion and harden the boy’s attitude towards authority?

 

Obviously a jail sentence would be just a punishment and would not do much good in correcting the boy. But would reformative training be more effective or be worse than a jail sentence? What’s next if the reformative training is ineffective and counter productive, recommend for an extension to keep the boy in detention again until he is reformed?

 

The effectiveness of reformative training for such a case is questionable.  No one can be assured that a reformative training would work and not to hurt or destroy the person under training. The result may be negative and just the opposite. This case would need the wisdom of mature adults to think through it carefully with the good of boy in mind. The corrective action or punishment must befit the severity of the offence.  What would a sincere and kind wise man or woman recommend for the good of the boy?

What would the people in the Kindness Movement recommend?

Loh Boon Chye – A Singaporean CEO in SGX at last!

 

 

It is good news to know that a Singaporean has been appointed as CEO of SGX to replace Magnus Bocker. Hope with his appointment, the flirtation with foreign talents is over and those infected with the foreigner is good disease will not look for another foreigner in the days ahead. The damage done to the Exchange over the last few years is so severe that Loh Boon Chye would have a hard time trying to breath life back into it. And hope they will give him time to understand the inherent problems in the system and to tear out a few chunks of cancerous growth that has cost the Exchange to go into a comma for so long. It would be painful and the Exchange would get worse before returning to its former glorious days.

 

Anyone thinking that the recovering of a dying exchange can be healed in a year or two would be hallucinating and deluding himself. And any small scratches on the surface would not do any good. Hope Loh Boon Chye could get a good grasp of the cancerous growth in the Exchange system and recommend what is necessary to save the Exchange before it is eclipsed and be irrecoverable. Perfunctory or cosmetic changes would not do.

 

It would take a lot of guts and persuasion for the new CEO to revamp the Exchange and return it to becoming what it was meant to be, a stock exchange and not a casino. Perhaps Loh Boon Chye may want to talk to other stakeholders to get a better grasp of the severity of the cancer instead of talking to the converts that are part of the problem. Talk to the people who know and not those who are asking for the return of a lunch break for the sake of a lunch break or those who think cutting commission, reducing bid size or smaller board lots would save the day. They could not tell the difference between a cold and SARS or MERS.

 

The Exchange is in dire straits and needs immediate attention to identify the real cause of its precarious state of being. There is no time for more wayangs and pretensions if the Exchange is to be saved. All the computers plugged into the system must be unplugged immediately as their modus operandi is detrimental to the fundamentals of a stock exchange. They seek short term profits that are contrary to the long term good of stocks and the Exchange. The Stock Exchange must return to its original role of supporting the growth of companies on a long term basis when fund managers can return to talk about fundamentals and long term investment to grow with the companies.

Education – A time and place for everything

National Remembrance Day, half mast, PM and ministers’ condolence messages, support from friends and relatives, kind words, all these meant nothing to the parents that were flown all the way to Kota Kinabalu to identify the bodies of their children and to bring them home, lifeless. This is a tragedy that cannot be described in words. The loss is devastating to the parents and loved ones.
 
Would anyone, any school, wish to continue with such a programme for their 12 year olds or 16 year olds? What is the role and function of a school, a primary school, a secondary school? Is leadership training part of the curriculum, a responsibility of the schools?
 
There is a time for everything, a time to be a child, go to school, be a playful teenager, NS, tertiary education, get a job, settle down and start a family. Schools should not over extend themselves to do things that are beyond their scope of responsibility. Sending children overseas for whatever educational activities should not be the function of primary and secondary schools. Leadership training at 12 is a farce! Go and do well in the PSLE first. Leadership training in an overseas trip is a bigger farce! 2 years in NS may not make any difference in making leaders of NS men. Challenging the 12 year olds to their limits is high falutin. No need to say more.
 
The MOE must re examine the role of education at different levels and keep the eager beavers under control. It is good to want to conquer the world, to be the best of everything. But do it at a proper time. Do not try to over achieve and go astray with fallacious activities not suitable or appropriate for the different age groups. There is no need to prove beyond what the schools are set out to do. Going the extra mile is always good if done within limits and without endangering the safety of the children.
 
Educators are expected to be professionals and to know the limits of what they can do and should do and what is unnecessary and superfluous. Do not expose the educators to do things that they would regret for the rest of their lives. No amount of kind words can bring back the children that were lost. The parents would live a life of painful memories and regrets of their loved ones prematurely taken from them. Can you imagine the grief?
 
I am lost for words to console the victims’ families. The loss of lives is so unnecessary. We don’t have earthquake but have so many earthquake victims to mourn and a day of remembrance for it. So unnecessary.

Aquino had an audience with Emperor Akihito

In his latest visit to Japan, Aquino was given the honour to dine with the Japanese Emperor. This fine gesture is akin to Emperor Pu Yi being honoured by the late Emperor Hirohito of the Second World War. I could not remember if Pu Yi did enjoy this rare honour of the company of the Japanese Emperor then. If he did, he would be just as flattered as Aquino is today. Is Aquino hoping to be appointed to head another Manchuko in the Philippines should Japan decide to go on another military rampage to bring the whole of East and Southeast Asia under its neo Asia Co Prosperity Sphere?
 
In the days of Puyi and his Manchuko, Manchuria was the industrial base for raw material for the Japanese Imperial Army. Would the Philippines be able to provide the raw material needed by the industrial Japan and its war industry? If it could, Aquino would definitely be highly decorated and placed on high pedestal by the Japanese for his great contribution to the Japanese Empire. He has already been targeted as a good replacement for Pu Yi and is awarded the highest medal of Japan for his potential to be part of the Japanese Empire.
 
If the Philippines could not provide the industrial base, it could play the role of Korea by providing foot soldiers and comfort women for the Japanese Imperial Army. In these two areas the Pinoys would excel perfectively. Pinoy soldiers like war and are trigger happy. They are macho and enjoy being heroes. As for providing comfort women to the Japanese Imperial soldiers, this would be a piece of cake for the Pinoys, a job cut out for them.
 
The military alliance between Japan and the Philippines is a perfect match to rule East and Southeast Asia. They compliment each other with their comparative advantages. The Japanese are so happy with this catch in Aquino and Aquino is so happy to serve the Japanese Empire willingly. He must have seen many advantages in this make in heaven marriage of convenience.

Hsien Loong, numbers don’t count, substance counts

‘In an interview with a group of ASEAN journalists on Thursday (4 Jun), PM Lee told the visiting foreign journalists that democratic progress comes from quality discussion in Parliament, not the number of opposition members. (He did not mention the number of ruling party members implies that without the presence of opposition members they could have good quality discussion among themselves. Is my assumption tiok or not? )
 
He described the duty of the opposition as one to “raise serious issues which concern the country, which offers real alternatives to the population and which then debates the hard choices which the country has to make”.
 
“If they do that, whether they have one member, whether they have ten members, they are good opposition,” he said. “If they don’t do that, you may have 20, 30 members, you are not being responsible. So, I would not go on the numbers. I would go on the substance of the debate.”’ TRE Editorial on 6 Jun 15
 
I have this bad habit of going with the flow and not to dispute what is politically right to say. So I must agree with Hsien Loong that substance is important in Parliament and not numbers. What is the point of having 87 duds in Parliament when one dud will do the same damage as 87? Similarly, one good opposition leader like Chee Soon Juan or Kenneth Jeyaratnam would be good enough, no need any more opposition members in Parliament. And on the ruling party side, one good member would be equally effective than having a full house of NGs. And this has been proven, after the departure of the pioneering leaders, there was really only one good member in Parliament and Parliament still functione as a Parliament.
 
Wait wait, I stand corrected. As I said earlier, I always agree with the politically right statement. Did someone say that if you have a good orchestra, even a dud conductor would not make any difference? Now does this analogy say numbers are important? Or is it numbers with substance are important? Ok, ok, I have figured this out. There is no contradiction here. Basically it is about substance. When got substance, one is good substance and many are many good substances, so can have a full house of good substance or good opposition members. You cannot be contented with one or two when you can have more with good substance to be in Parliament.
 
And don’t forget, Parliament is not a house for schoolboys to debate and see who is cleverer and who wins a debate for fun. It still needs the numbers to vote and pass bills into laws, if not, just to cheer or jeer or to laugh down the opponents. Ok, I never disagree. Good substance is good. But I think can have more the betterer, at least when come to jeering and laughing session, the voices and laughter would be equally loud which can be translated to be effective or at least give the impression to be so. Anyone saying never mind about voting, voting is not important, not necessary? The ruling govt can do the voting and passing of bills. That is the job of the ruling govt. The job of the opposition is merely to debate to make the Parliament looks like a democracy, got quality debate.
 
How many of you would agree with me? Never mind, did anyone say power logic?