No one must be above the law

In ST on 25 Jun, it was reported that ‘The apex court has made it clear that neither the Govt nor judges can be sued for judicial decisions made, pointing to judicial immunity under the Govt Proceedings Act(GPA)… “In Singapore, the general rule is that the Govt may be liable for, inter alia, the tortuous acts of its public officers,” noted Justice Chao. This means that the Govt is liable like any ordinary employer. However, exceptions to this rule specified in the Act include those exercising judicial functions, he said.’

The above sounds logical and reasonable on the presumptions that the judges are honourable people performing the duties of judges free from interferences from other people or offices. This should be the case as Judge Chao added, ‘The independence of the Judiciary is one of the foundation pillars of Singapore’s constitutional framework and must not be shaken. To this end, the Govt should not be liable for the acts of the Judiciary, over which it has no control or influence.’

Here there is another assumption, that the Judiciary is fully independent of the Govt. What if there is a rogue govt and running roughshod over the judiciary and controlling the Judiciary? There is always the possibility of a rogue govt in office. If this law is to be read without exceptions, even if a rogue govt is in office, should it be valid to shield the Judiciary in such circumstances, or when a corrupt Judiciary is in cahoot with a rogue govt?

There is also another assumption that the Judiciary is made up of righteous men and women. In reality, there are always flawed characters in every profession and the Judiciary is no exception. What happens if there is a crooked judge or a compromised judge, a beholden judge, would he still be protected by this GPA, no exceptions?

I think this is a very dangerous precedent to set, to allow some people, in this case the Judiciary, to be above the law with no exceptions. As long as human beans are involved rogues will appear once a while. How can there be no exceptions?

Judges are also human beans and human beans are human beans, no exceptions. Just because one becomes a judge, one is flawless in character and above the law.

The only consideration that may warrant an exception is that the judiciary cannot be sued by the govt, but can be sued by the people. The people are the highest office in the country. All govt and govt offices, officials are there to serve the people. And if the judiciary committed errors or there is a miscarriage of justice against the people, they must be answerable and held accountable.

The point about cannot be sued by the govt is to protect the judiciary in case they have to rule against the govt. And this is a very likely case when no one can guarantee the characters of politicians and rogue govt. The judiciary must be free from the fear of the govt, independent and not beholden, to do what it is supposed to do, to deliver justice to the people. It is the people that the judiciary should serve and be accountable for and cannot be above the law.

What do you think?

Amos Yee – Baffling saga

‘I find the whole saga of “managing Amos” baffling. First, months ago, Amos’ mother told the court that Amos was assessed on 2 separate occasions before the trial began, by IMH psychiatrist(s).’ – Ang Yong Guan

Dr Ang is a psychiatrist in private practice. He graduated from the National University of Singapore in 1979 and did his postgraduate training in psychiatry at the University of Edinburgh between 1984 and 1986. He served as a military doctor with the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) for 23 years from 1980 to 2003 (17 of which as a military psychiatrist) and retired, with the rank of Colonel, as Head of Psychological Care Centre, Military Medicine Institute, SAF Medical Corps.

Dr Ang was the president of Singapore Psychiatric Association (1997-1998); chairman of the Chapter of Psychiatrists, Academy of Medicine (2001- 2003); and member of National Council on Problem Gambling (2005 – 2011). He is currently founder-chairman of Action Group for Mental Illness (from 2004 to the present), a national advocacy group championing for the mentally ill.

Finally, after so long, there is someone with a unquestionable credential on Psychiatry speaks out. No one can doubt whether his degrees are real or fake or from some degree mills. Ang Yong Guan’s qualification and experience are rock solid, a local talent and authority in this field. He posted an article in his Facebook and reposted in the TRE titled ‘ Psychiatrist: ‘Managing Amos’ saga baffling’.

This is the first time a person of authority and carrying some weight has spoken voluntarily on the Amos case. Let’s see if there is anyone else of some standing that would be bitten by his conscience to open his golden mouth to say something about this case.

Amos Yee is now in IMH and according to his mother he is the only sane person there among the insane. Poor boy.  If he is not mad, his residency in the company of the mad will get to him.  Is managing Amos Yee baffling?

I dunno. I really dunno. 人在做天在看

Here is a comment in his post at TRE

Detention Barracks: June 26, 2015 at 8:54 am  Detention Barracks(Quote)

@Ang

'As ex-Army Colonel shouldn’t you access whether he is suitable for enlisted straight to Detention Barracks instead?
You seems to forgotten your root that feed you for your career. Turning your back against the hand that feed you is not going to get any votes !
Seems like you have been influenced by Glucose Chee a serial loser than turn against his mentor.’

The reason for this comment is to chastise Ang Yong Guan for being ungrateful which is more important than being right or wrong. Being grateful is more important than being morally righteous and just, the rule of law can go down the drain.

PS. Amos' mother Mary Toh also has a post in TRE titled 'A mother visits her son in IMH'. Reading it gives one a creepy feeling and a sense of haplessness.

GE 2015/16 issues for the voters to consider – Issue 1 - Freedom to information

This is the first part of a series of issues that I would be writing about for the coming GE. I would deal with one issue at a time and put it simple and short for brevity and easier for the voters to remember.

The main question is who would the people want to vote for?  The first issue is about the right to information. Would the voters want to vote for a govt that want to decide on what they can see, read, hear or say? Is this simple enough?

Do you want to vote for a govt that dictates to you what you can or cannot read, what you can or cannot see, what you can or cannot say? In other words, would you vote for a govt that wants to control you, control your thoughts? Do you want to be controlled by the people you elect to be the govt?

Think about it.

Control the people’s thinking

Related to my post ofn Freedom to information, there is this big issue of modifying behavioural thinking in the media today. Peter Ong, the Head of Civil Service, touched on the discussions in the social media. He said policymakers would need to study human behaviour, particularly in the social media, to nudge the discussion in the right direction. To do this, the first few postings would normally set the trend and tempo of a discussion, ie you can control the discussion.

So, by getting in early, the trend of thoughts in a discussion could be guided and modified in a way to suit the intent of the people wanting to lead a discussion. It is all about behavioural control.

What is missing in this line of thought, similar to those who claimed that everything can be explained away with good communication, is that the advocates are trying to treat a symptom but not the cause. If there is no cause, if govt policies are right and good for the people, there would be no need for opposing views and negativity. If policies are wrong, no amount of explanation can change that, no amount of behavioural modifications or control can change that. Any change would be momentary, when a clever argument may pull wool over the eyes for a short while. But the bad policies stayed and would still invoke objections and opposition when the wool is removed.

The crux of the matter is to get the policies right, administer policies that are good for the people, not silly policies pushed through by applying power logic. So many policies in housing that were silly and against the interests of the people were pushed through and have to be rectified but not before doing so much harm to the people. In a way, Murphy’s Law is also applicable to bad policies. Bad policies are bad policies and would bounce back at the face of the policymakers in a matter of time. You cannot get away with bad policies. No amount of foolish and contrived explanations or behavioural modifications can change a bad policy to a good policy.

There is one condition that may make it an exception. Use of power logic. Use of power to impose on the people, shaft it down their throats like before. Oh, there is also another assumption that may make such a thinking works for a while, if the people are really daft and cannot see the difference between what is good or bad for them.

Power logic and behavioural control are just that. Nothing is changed, bad policy is bad policy. It would be wiser to go to the root cause of the problem and save the need to explain what cannot be explained away, or to modify people’s behaviour and thinking that it would work.

You can bluff the people all the time. You can’t bluff the people and get away with it forever.

Beware of your pockets

If the forum pages of the main media are an indication of what is over the horizon, I am fearful of what is in the pipeline. The main media has rightly been perceived as the sounding board for the govt policies, what the govt has in mind are often tested first in the media for a ground feel or to signal what is coming next. And the preview could lessen the impact when policies are implemented with the people mentally prepared for the shock.

The last few days the signals are for higher cost of water consumption and hitting hard on car ownership. Two foreigners, I am guessing from their names, likely new citizens or PRs, one a Dr Asit K Biswa and a Cecilia Tottajada, wrote to the ST forum that the cost of water was too low, or cheap and it was time to tighten the tap on cheap water to reduce consumption. Another comment, not sure if it was from the same two, ‘the price of water has not increased since 2000’.

See the reasoning for the increase? So long never increase so much increase. The other reason, must increase price to cut down on consumption. Aren’t the people already paying too much for water with different kinds of water conservation taxes? Not enough, still want to increase? And the reason is to cut down on consumption. Did they know the history of water pricing and the cost of water instead of gut feel of cheap or expensive, based on what, market mechanism?

Hey professori from whatever university, I already limit myself to take bath once a week to cut down on water usage. Not enough? And I only brush teeth once in two days. And I also use used water to flush the toilet bowl, which means the water is used several times before flushing down the drain. Do you know or not? It is so easy to talk about cutting down consumption. Tell the poor worker to cut down on food consumption lah. But make sure you know how many meals he is taking and what he is taking in the first place. If the guy is already taking plain bread or plain porridge and only two times a day, how much more to you want him to cut down? You think everyone eat like a pig, 5 meals a day? You think everyone is hosing water on their cars?

Do these so called academics know what they are talking?

And the other call, not by an academic I think, to reduce car usage, is to make car use prohibitive. What a moron. The next thing, to manage the use of precious land, shrink the size of flats by half to make it painful. There are many people who must use car whether for work or for special needs. Using the car is a necessity and sometime unavoidable. And there are many small enterprises that need a car or they could not operate. Increase cost to make it prohibitive? I see shit coming out of the mouth.

But put these silly thinkers and comments aside. What is behind these calls, is it an indication of what is coming and the media or govt is preparing the ground for increase in water fees and more financial disincentives to car usage?

What are the real problems to water usage and car usage? What are the causes to high water usage and car population? You dunno meh? Think 10m or 6.9m. If the govt is crazy to keep pumping more people into this piece of rock, water will always be not enough and no matter how high the price is, the people would still need to use them. Fuck the pseudo academics. And so will be space for cars. 5m and we are so squeezed with so many cars, 6.9m and 10m, how would it affect car prices and car usage? Is this what we want? Is this for better quality of life? Prohibit car ownership, prohibit water consumption so that everyone would smell like a sweaty manual worker and cannot afford to bathe?

This is already one of the most expensive city to live in. Want to increase cost further by more stupid suggestions?