Has the govt forgotten the meaning of National Service?

The death of Dominique Lee and the revelation of a law that said SAF soldiers cannot be sued for negligence in the course of duty for tort even causing the death of NSmen is very disturbing indeed. Has the govt forgotten the meaning of National Service? The govt is conscripting the sons of Singapore citizens to be trained to defend this country, to die for this country in the defence of this country, not to die because someone is negligent and irresponsible, or doing something rash or stupid.

The govt and the SAF owe every NSman and their family an unqualified duty to ensure that the NSmen are in good and safe hands, in responsible hands, that the people looking after them, training them and leading them to war, are professionally trained, responsible and NOT negligent in the conduct of their responsibility. The last part is the least that the govt and the SAF must do, to make sure that no one is negligent or thinks he can be negligent and get away with it when the lives of NSmen is at stake.

The NSmen did not volunteer for National Service. They are not professional soldiers, ‘tan chiak peng’, who joined the SAF for a salary. They are conscripted and paid a miserly allowance for their service at the prime of their lives. The govt and the SAF must take absolute care to see to it that negligence is not to be condoned. The parents brought up their sons for 18 years. Do return their sons healthy and alive at the end of their NS. Accidents cannot be prevented, but negligence can and cannot be encouraged or protected.

A law that said negligence cannot be sued is like protecting people who are negligent and that negligence is acceptable. Negligence is UNACCEPTABLE. Not in a NS military organization when young people are conscripted by law to serve. A law that protects negligence has no place in a NS army. It compromises the safety of the NSmen. The rationale for such a law is unbelieveable! It cannot be justified under any ground.

The sons of our citizens deserve better protection from the state, from the SAF. They did not ask to be NSmen. Don’t forget this.

In memory of Dominique Sarron Lee and Benjamin Lim 13 Mar 16 (Sunday 6 pm) Hong Lim Park

Parents with children are encouraged to show up this Sunday at Hong Lim Park to support the parents of Dominique Sarron Lee and Benjamin Lim. Gilbert Goh has finally got a last minute permit for this event to speak about the ordeals and the pains the parents of these two boys are going through and would have to live with them for the rest of their living daylight.

The event is primarily to voice the concerns of Singaporeans and parents for the safety of young children and NS men, to create awareness and to tell the govt that more must be done, urgently for the sake of our children and to protect their lives while in NS or in police custody and investigation.

The event, In memory of Dominique Lee and Benjamin Lim

Sunday 13 Mar 16

Hong Lim Park

6 pm

More Questions on LTA’s Wrongful Tesla Decision

Mystery Deepens in Singapore’s War on the Tesla All-Electric Vehicle

By Michael Heng@MIKOspace

More questions emerged even as the Singapore Land Transport Authority (LTA) attempted to explain further its decision to impose a S$15,000 carbon tax surcharge on a Tesla pure electric vehicle (EV) which emits no CO2 from its non-existent exhaust. 

The LTA claimed to have relied on the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) R101 standards. UNECE told a Singapore news agency that Singapore is not one of the contracting parties to the 1958 Agreement which ratifies the harmonisation of vehicle regulations.  In any case, the UNECE R101 standards do not have any provisions to measure non-existent carbon emission of all-electric vehicle like the Tesla Model S.   

The news agency quoted Mr Jean Rodriguez the UNECE Information Chief that the “LTA appears to have applied UNECE R101 correctly when assessing the carbon emission of a used Tesla Model S recently”.  Yet, the only R101 protocol pertaining to pure electric vehicles only specifies the way to measure the energy consumption of the vehicle or “tank-to-wheel”.  The alleged statement by Chief Rodrigeuz would thus “appear” disingenuous since it is inconsistent with the capability of his R101 Standards.

At best, the LTA could only apply R101 Annex No: 7 which describes the “Method of measuring the electric energy consumption of (pure battery-operated electric) vehicles”. 

It is however unknown whether VICOM, the Singapore vehicle inspection company, has been assessed to have the necessary equipment and has actually been certified by UNECE to conduct the R101 tests so as to make the relevant valid computations.

Chief Rodrigeuz also further pointed out that Singapore LTA appears to be the only national regulator to have included power grid emission into the evaluation of electric vehicles’ (EVs) carbon footprint.  What this means is that the LTA had acted arbitrarily when factoring in the power grid emission without scientific support from any international authoritative test or quality standards.

From the determination of electric energy consumption to the attribution of carbon emissions by the Tesla EV would require the LTA to adopt a series of assumptions not hitherto supported by any international protocol or quality standards. The results are understandably dubious and questionable.  For example, the LTA claimed to have calculated that the electric energy consumption of the imported used Tesla car to be 444Wh/km, and translated that to the equivalent of 222g/km of CO2 after factoring a grid emission factor of 0.5 CO2/Wh.

Actually, the official Singapore’s Grid Emission Factor is about 0.43g CO2/Wh not 0.5 g.  And the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had recommended electric energy consumption of almost half of 444Wh/km for city driving.

Now we know a little more how LTA determined and subjected the Tesla EV to the resultant C3 S$15,000 carbon tax surcharge band under its Singapore's Carbon Emission-based Vehicle (CEV) Scheme, thus placing the Tesla all-Electric Vehicle with non-EV car models like the Mazda 8, Land Rover Freelander, Lexus RX270 and Maserati Ghibli. 

In other words, the LTA has deemed the Tesla Model S pure electric vehicle to be as polluting as the other fossil-fuel vehicle addicts.

Seriously, LTA? This would of course make Singapore a laughing stock in the world of sustainable energy and sustainable electric mobility. 

This incident with the Tesla EV severely tested the capability of our fossil-fuel based authorities and the limits of fossil-fuel vehicle regulations.  We are found seriously wanting and in need of fundamental change in our mindsets, policies and practices.

In the final analysis, the LTA has actually made a decision error in the Tesla EV case.  It failed to apply and follow its own definition and policy.  The LTA has already defined carbon emissions explicitly in its CEV Scheme as “the release of carbon dioxide from the use of a vehicle” and it “measures … the weight of carbon dioxide (CO2) released for every kilometre that the vehicle is driven”.   

It is thus disingenuous to compound its error by confusing sustainability-minded motorists with references to irrelevant and non-universal variables and factors.   Singapore’s reputation as a leader and active warrior against climate change by making fossil fuel history has been damaged by this incident.  Let’s restore our reputation for political leadership and hard-headed decision-making.

NUS cooking up more First Class Law graduates

The law students must be in déjà vu with the recent announcement by the Dean of NUS Law Faculty that there will be more First Class honours graduates from the faculty.  Now, how can they be so sure that there will be more First Class honours graduates? Are they going to teach them better or are they going to admit more better grade students and coach them better to get the First Class honours? It is quite easy really, no need to work so hard or teach so hard.

You see, statistically, other world class universities are producing many more First Class honours than NUS. Some are producing as many as 30% of a cohort. NUS is producing a miserable 10% or at times 5%. How can be like that? So to get even with the best universities of the world, NUS would be raising the percentage to maybe 20% or 30%. See, it is so simple.

One big question, have we been shortchanging our graduates and depriving them from getting First Class honours for the last few decades? What a crime against our local talents. And is this applicable to other faculties as well? Is this also one of the reasons why ‘foreign talents’ are all flashing First Class honours degrees and deemed better than our graduates caused we were so stingy in giving First Class honours to deserving or undeserving graduates?

Who is doing the right thing and who is doing the wrong thing? How about flashing First Class honours from degree mills or Timbuktu? Who are the fools that have been fooled all these 50 years?

No wonder we have so few talents in all fields while other countries are producing First Class honours in everything, making every fool looking like super talents flashing their First Class honours degree here.

This foreign talent law dean is doing something right for Singapore. We need more clever foreign talents. He deserves every dollar we are paying him. Singaporeans would not be able to think of such an innovative and clever idea to produce more First Class honours graduates. The other faculties must also learn from this.

The Americans are militarising Asia

The daft Asians could not bother to think what the American pivot to Asia is all about. They only listen to the Americans screaming China is militarizing the South China Sea. And when they blow the pipes, the daft Asians all fall in line and follow the pipe piper without knowing where they are being led to.

China is the expansionist power. So it is right for the Americans to sail their warships and fly their war planes to balance this new emerging power when the while the world’s Number One hegemon continues to militarise Asia and threatens everyone with wars. The American pivot to Asia is as good as the Americans saying ‘We are back, to take control of you, yes you, the daft Asians.’ We are the Empire and we will rule you, daft Asians. We will tell you who is good and who is bad and we will make you fight among yourself, Asians against Asians, and we will sell you all the weapons to kill yourself.

While the daft Asians are still smoking the American designed drugs, the Americans are moving in, bases in Singapore, negotiating for bases in the Philippines, in Vietnam and Australia. They are going to station nuclear bombers, the B1s and B52s in Australia with enough reach to the South China Sea and the whole of Asia. These are on top of more than 100 military bases in their semi colonies in South Korea and Japan, the military fortresses in Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean that the Indians could do nothing about, and in Guam.

The nuclear bombers are offensive weapons with a global reach. The whole of Asia is now under the American nuclear umbrella. They can do regime change to any Asian country they want and no one can do anything about it. They are here to balance against China? China’s military strength is not even one tenth of the American military power. Who is balancing against who? I am posing this question to the daft Asians.

And what kind of weapons did China placed in the South China Sea? Defensive missiles, to protect the islands, not offensive bombers and aircraft carriers with strike aircraft and bombers.

Daft Asians cannot tell the difference between offensive and defensive weapons. The Chinese are arming themselves with defensive weapons to defend against the American offensive fighters, bombers and aircraft carriers. The American aircraft carriers, bombers, missile destroyers are all attack weapons of war. Understand?

Who is the aggressor? Who is amassing attack weapons in Asia, not just the little pond called South China Sea. Who is in charge, in control, militarily of Asia? Is China putting defensive weapons on the islands a threat or Americans moving in their nuclear weapons and offensive weapons to rule over Asia and the daft Asians a bigger and real threat, clear and present danger?

How daft can Asians be? The Ameicans set up a straw man to distract their real intention and the daft Asians swallowed it without thinking and keep throwing stones at the straw man while the region is taken over by the Empire.