GE 2015/16 issues for the voters to consider – Issue 2 – Your representative, your interest

Do you want to vote for a govt that represents your interest in Parliament?

Do you want to vote for a representative that listens to you and go to the Parliament to speak up for you? Or do you want to vote for a representative that thinks what is good for you without consulting you, without getting your consent, and go to Parliament to vote against what you think is good for you?

Or do you want to vote for a representative who votes for pary interest aboveyour interest?

Think about it.

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.