Benjamin Lim - barking up the wrong tree?

Below is an extract from a CNA report on 7 Jan 17.

SINGAPORE: From April 2017, young suspects below the age of 16 under criminal investigation will be accompanied by a grown-up during interviews under a new Appropriate Adult Scheme for Young Suspects (AAYS) announced by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) on Friday (Jan 6).
The Appropriate Adults (AAs) will be independent, trained volunteers whose job at police interviews will be to look out for signs of distress as well as aiding communication and providing emotional support. They must remain neutral and not advocate for the young suspect, nor provide legal advice or disrupt the course of justice in any way....

On whether young people would benefit from having a neutral adult present at interviews, he said: "You have to balance between having to interview quickly in order to make sure there's no information leakage, and the need to consider whether it's helpful for a 12- or 13-year-old to have someone else present at a police station ... Regardless of how the police treats him, he's still in uniform."

The initiative comes in the wake of 14-year-old Benjamin Lim’s suicide in January 2016, after he underwent a police investigation over alleged molestation.

The impression I have after reading all the reports in the media about how the school officials and police officers handled Benjamin Lim's case, is that there was absolutely no issue at all. There were a lot of tender loving care shown to Benjamin, everyone was so kind and caring, so sensitive, and there was no undue pressure on Benjamin. My conclusion is that this amendment may be superfluous and an over reaction. When Benjamin was handled professionally by all the trained professionals, following proper procedures and protocols, and with kindness, consideration, and above all, sensitivity, anything that was wrong should not be on the part of the police protocol. The amendment is kind of an over reaction, an after thought that may not be really necessary. Some may label it populist. Or have they found some reasons to do?

There is a saying that if things are not wrong, don't try to fix it. Fix it only when it is wrong.

And the police were not in uniform in the school, that helped except that maybe one or two police officers would be less intimidating on a child. It is good that Shanmugam acknowledged the point that police in uniform is intimidating to a child, but not in Benjamin's case. Only in the police station that the police were in uniform. Maybe the amendment could include police not to be in uniform when handling cases involving children.

The appointment of a trained volunteer to look for signs of stress sounds proper and would be right if the police protocol and procedure are intimidating to young people. But were these present in Benjamin's case that led to his stress level and eventual suicide? Any meaningful linkage?  If I remember, it was reported that Benjamin did not show any sign of stress at all. What I thought would be more appropriate in the case of children is to have someone close to him, like parents whom he is comfortable with, to provide the emotional and psychological support needed in such situation. Another stranger that the child does not know could hardly be reassuring to the child, and could add more pressure instead.

Which is more important, to look out for signs of stress or to provide the child with some sense of security, that he is not alone, and the parents are there with him? In the latter case, there will definitely be lesser stress than in the former case that could add to the stress level.

Shanmugam also pointed out that the police were very sensitive in Benjamin's case and suicide is more a case of the individual.

Oh, the MOE also introduced new measures to protect school children when investigated by the police, like being accompanied by teacher, counsellor or someone from the school.

No one deem it right, necessary and important for the parents of a child to be present. Why? Can a stranger in whatever profession be good enough in such cases? Touch your heart.

I hope Benjamin and his family could be comforted that his death is not in vain and the new measures would prevent other children from going through the same ordeal as Benjamin and no more Benjamin will fall in the future.

What do you think?

Can Abe be trusted?

Abe went to Pearl Harbour to lay a wreath and the Japanese made it very clear that he was not there to apologise for the sneaky attacks against the Americans. Actually he needs not apologise for the Americans believe the Japanese are honourable warriors living by the samurai code of honour, no sneaky attacks. This is what the Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshida Suga said of the visit, ‘The visit to Pearl Harbour was to console the souls of the war dead, not to apologise.’

What does he meant by making an official visit but still refusing to apologise? Japan did not do anything wrong. There is nothing to apologise about. Get the message?

And during the visit Abe pompously said, ‘We must never repeat the horrors of war again. This is the solemn vow we, the people of Japan, have taken.’  No more wars, no more atrocities! Then why did Abe and his cabinet tore awaiting the pacifist Constitution that forbid Japan to go to war unless being attacked? Why is Japan so eager to engage in wars overseas, to support wars overseas, including fighting alongside the Americans?

How to believe someone talking about peace and no war when the same person tore away a pacifist Constitution that would not allow Japan to go to war, remilitarize his armed forces with bigger defence budgets and happily sending his soldiers to theatres of war all over the world.

Is Abe a liar or an honourable man to be trusted not to conduct war? The refusal to apologise to the victims of a sneaky attack in Pearl Harbour speaks volumes about what is inside Abe’s head, what he stands for. He did not see it necessary to visit the war memorials of all the countries that Japan invaded except this one in Pearl Harbour, all because Obama had to visit the memorial site in Hiroshima first. He has never visited the memorial sites in Koreas and China, two countries that took the worst blow from the invading Japanese Imperial armies. But he had in many occasions visited the Yasukuni Shrine that honoured the war criminals of Japan that invaded Asia and South East Asia. 

What did all these said of this man Abe and of the Japanese people?

What is Wei Ling’s agenda or intent?

I don’t normally want to comment about the biggies and natural aristocrats, what they say or what they do.  This is reported in the SCMP, ‘Xi Jinping’s anti-corruption campaign ‘to weed out rivals’, says Lee Kuan Yew’s daughter.’  This latest comment by Wei Ling about Xi Jinping’s anti corruption drive came as a surprise. I don’t remember Wei Ling indulging in international affairs, mostly about domestic politics, social affairs and about her father and brother, but this flash in the pan comment is getting all the attention in the social media especially in China.
 
Wei Ling must have known that such a comment is not going to be well received or quietly received in China. Wei Ling must also have known that relations between China and Singapore is at rock bottom and any fanning of fire or adding of oil would only make things worse.
 
Why would Wei Ling choose this moment to launch this remark at Xi Jinping? There are several angles to look at this moment of anger or utterance. One camp said she is supporting her brother, or at least not happy with China about the Terrex Incident. Another opposing view is that she is stoking fire and you don’t have to guess who would be burnt. I must be very sensitive here. These are not my views or interpretations, just what I heard. I have not even seen her full statement except a couple of sentences that appeared in social media.
 
Whichever view, the rage in China against Singapore could only mount instead of cooling down. Why, what is Wei Ling trying to achieve with this comment that is best not said, not at this sensitive time? It is politically wrong to say such a darn thing at this juncture when dark clouds are all over the horizon.
 
This is really puzzling. I can expect the retards involved in foreign affairs and diplomacy to say it but not Wei Ling. Now what? The elite, natural aristocrats, politicians, ambassadors or those connected to the leaders are not daft and know very well that what they said would be noted and would have consequences. They cannot feint ignorance, spoken in private capacity. My two balls are laughing.
 
The higher one perches on the tree top, the louder would be the voice and the further the noise would carry.

The Second China Card

20 years ago the mantra of the day was to have a China Card.  Major western manufacturers must have a production base in China to take advantage of cheap labour, cheap land and the skilled Chinese workforce to lower production cost. This China Card gave the international manufacturers an unassailable advantage to compete in the world market. The European and American manufacturers have become uncompetitive against the Japanese, South Koreans and Taiwanese and the Chinese in producing goods for international consumption due their high labour and production cost at home. Having goods manufactured in China allowed the western manufacturers to regain the comparative advantage to sell to the world.

This old China Card no longer works like before. The new world market, the largest consumer market, is in China. 1.4 billion Chinese are moving up the economic ladder to be consumers of better quality goods and services. The growing middle class is creating a huge demand for higher end goods and services. The buying powers of the Americans and Europeans have diminished and so is the buying power of the Japanese. The big consumers are the nouveau riche Chinese in China. The current wave of China tourists buying overseas would not last for long when China is making all the goods they desired.

The new China Card is to produce in China and sell to the growing affluent Chinese market. Many western and Japanese manufacturers have the foresight to seize on this opportunity to be in China to sell to the Chinese consumers. There will be more and more joint ventures with branded high value foreign manufacturers partnering Chinese businesses to manufacture and produce for the Chinese market. Without this ticket many of the western manufacturers would go the way of the dinosaurs, uncompetitive and without a big enough market to sell to.  The Americans can try to produce at home and sell to the Americans at American prices but would not be able to export anything to the world at a competitive price.

The new China Card is the way to go to survive.  The new China Card is the passport to the world’s biggest consumer market. A new partnership to make and sell to the world’s biggest consumer market in China will mean profitability or heading towards oblivion for the manufacturers of quality consumer goods and services. This is the new challenge and new normal of the 21^st Century.

Who says there will be no qualified Malay candidates for the EP?

There have been talks everywhere that there will be no qualified candidates for the Malay EP election. Some say there will only be one candidate put up by the PAP and since there would be no other contestants, it would be a walkover just like the times of SR Nathan.

I briefly run through my mental computers and could easily churn up such a long list of eligible candidates that is unbelieveable. Top among them would be Halimah Yaacob, Yaacob Ibrahim, Masagos Zulkifli, Ahmad Mattar, Othman Wok, and if ministers of state and Parliamentary Secretaries are eligible, the list would be a few pages long. What about non political candidates? Does it matter, when all the best Malay talents available are in the list mentioned above?

Now who say there are not enough Malay candidates for the EP election? You want three corner fight or four corner fight also got.

One thing for sure, there will be no Second Chance. The EP election is likely to be a straight fight or a walkover, depending on who the PAP will be putting up for the election. Or it could be like a repeat of Ong Teng Cheong versus Chua Kim Yeow in the first election for an EP where only one candidate willing to run and no one really wants to run.

It is a little too late to appoint a Malay talent to head a $500m GLC to qualify for the EP election. It would be difficult if the appointee has to be in an executive position, not just chairmey. Oops, I mean chairman with no executive power.