The Singapore Prison Service retrofitted 25 cells with mobility-aid features like handrails, grab bars, anti-slip flooring and nurse call help button. State media Straits Times however attributed the double in elderly inmates due to an ageing population. – the Statestimes Review
The Statestimes Review also said, ‘Due to insufficient CPF retirement fund, Singaporean elderly are turning to crimes to get free lodging and food from the prison. According to state media Straits Times, the number of elderly prisoners above the age of 60 have doubled in the past 5 years from 359 at 2.8% of the prison population in 2012, to 651, or 5.3%,in 2016.’
With no jobs, no money, little CPF savings, Medisave as good as untouchable for minor illnesses that did not incur more than a few thousand dollars, the senior citizens are just following the trend of developed western countries like the USA, commit minor crimes to get free lodging, free food and free medical from the prison institutions.
The Singapore Prison is quite forward thinking, thinking ahead, planning ahead to cater for this new trend. Unfortunately 25 cells may not be enough given the size of the senior citizen population now about 1m and growing. The Prison authority should be more generous in the expansion of facilities for the seniors that are planning to make the prison their permanent home. A couple of blocks of HDB flats may be the solution and may shall be inadequate in view of the rising demand.
Senior citizens are getting innovative and creative in planning for their retirement, in the comfort of Changi Prison, everything taken care of. And the facilities have been upgraded to make sure they did not slip and fall. Comforting thought.
3/19/2017
3/18/2017
I thought it was a joke or a hoax
Below is posted in the statestimesreview.
‘I am deeply saddened and shocked by the events that took place on March 4. My mother is 73 years old, frail and suffers from a host of medical conditions.
That morning, she went to the Ang Mo Kio South Neighbourhood Police Centre to report a lost pawn shop ticket. However, the officer-in-charge informed her that there was a warrant of arrest issued against her in 2015 for failing to appear for a court hearing on a town council-related matter. They did not provide her with any further details of the offence.
She was detained and taken to the Ang Mo Kio Police Station and, from there, to the State Courts, before being remanded at Changi Women’s Prison (CWP). While in custody, my mother was stressed and overwhelmed, and was unable to recall the contact details of any of her relatives....
Furthermore, when my mother was moved between the police station, CWP and the court, she was handcuffed and had leg restraints on. It is appalling that a weak old woman was subjected to such harsh treatment.
Law enforcement officers must be empowered to exercise flexibility to handle such cases with empathy and more humane considerations. I hope our pioneer generation members will not be subjected to such an ordeal in future.’
When I read this narrative, immediately I don’t believe that this could happen in Singapore. Our police officers are very well trained, very caring, very proper, very professional, as exemplified in the Benjamin case. How could they treat a 73 year old woman like that? This cannot be true, this must be a joke.
The statestimereview must verify the details before posting this kind of articles or may incur the wrath of the police. I hope the statestimesreview double confirm this case or remove it from its site.
Oops, after writing the above I came across a half page article in the ST on 16 Mar stating that indeed this case was genuine. The victim that was restrained/not restrain, is a Gertrude Simon. The police respond on this, ‘A joint statement by the Singapore Prison Service (SPS) and Singapore Police Force (SPF) last night said she was not restrained by the police, and this was done only when she was transferred to prison as part of standard procedure.’
The Police added, ‘The Police and SPS have a duty to enforce the law and to ensure that the rule of law is respected. At the same time, we are committed to ensuring the well being and safety of persons in our custody.’ The Police were just doing their duty and also for the well being and safety of the person to restrain/not restrain a person. And she was offered food and water, to call home and like Benjamin, ‘She did not show any sign of being traumatised, and was alert in police custody.’
The daughter said, ”When I saw her after her release she was very quiet and when I brought her home, she slept with her hands closed to her face, like in handcuffs,” she added.
Basically she was very well and professionally taken care of, under standard operating procedures, when under police custody. Everything was done properly according to the law and lawful procedure. Case close, no big issue.
Would the kind and compassionate Shanmugam want to review this procedure just like the Police reviewing the procedure after Benjamin’s case, to rethink if it is appropriate to restrain/not restrain a 73 year old woman with respect to the nature of her crime that warranted a restrain/not restrain procedure?
A few questions to ask.
1. Did she commit a serious crime that requires handcuff and leg restraint?
2. Can the handcuff and leg restraint protect her from harming herself?
3. Would she be able to run away from the police?
4. Is it necessary to restrain a mild, weak 73 year old woman?
‘I am deeply saddened and shocked by the events that took place on March 4. My mother is 73 years old, frail and suffers from a host of medical conditions.
That morning, she went to the Ang Mo Kio South Neighbourhood Police Centre to report a lost pawn shop ticket. However, the officer-in-charge informed her that there was a warrant of arrest issued against her in 2015 for failing to appear for a court hearing on a town council-related matter. They did not provide her with any further details of the offence.
She was detained and taken to the Ang Mo Kio Police Station and, from there, to the State Courts, before being remanded at Changi Women’s Prison (CWP). While in custody, my mother was stressed and overwhelmed, and was unable to recall the contact details of any of her relatives....
Furthermore, when my mother was moved between the police station, CWP and the court, she was handcuffed and had leg restraints on. It is appalling that a weak old woman was subjected to such harsh treatment.
Law enforcement officers must be empowered to exercise flexibility to handle such cases with empathy and more humane considerations. I hope our pioneer generation members will not be subjected to such an ordeal in future.’
When I read this narrative, immediately I don’t believe that this could happen in Singapore. Our police officers are very well trained, very caring, very proper, very professional, as exemplified in the Benjamin case. How could they treat a 73 year old woman like that? This cannot be true, this must be a joke.
The statestimereview must verify the details before posting this kind of articles or may incur the wrath of the police. I hope the statestimesreview double confirm this case or remove it from its site.
Oops, after writing the above I came across a half page article in the ST on 16 Mar stating that indeed this case was genuine. The victim that was restrained/not restrain, is a Gertrude Simon. The police respond on this, ‘A joint statement by the Singapore Prison Service (SPS) and Singapore Police Force (SPF) last night said she was not restrained by the police, and this was done only when she was transferred to prison as part of standard procedure.’
The Police added, ‘The Police and SPS have a duty to enforce the law and to ensure that the rule of law is respected. At the same time, we are committed to ensuring the well being and safety of persons in our custody.’ The Police were just doing their duty and also for the well being and safety of the person to restrain/not restrain a person. And she was offered food and water, to call home and like Benjamin, ‘She did not show any sign of being traumatised, and was alert in police custody.’
The daughter said, ”When I saw her after her release she was very quiet and when I brought her home, she slept with her hands closed to her face, like in handcuffs,” she added.
Basically she was very well and professionally taken care of, under standard operating procedures, when under police custody. Everything was done properly according to the law and lawful procedure. Case close, no big issue.
Would the kind and compassionate Shanmugam want to review this procedure just like the Police reviewing the procedure after Benjamin’s case, to rethink if it is appropriate to restrain/not restrain a 73 year old woman with respect to the nature of her crime that warranted a restrain/not restrain procedure?
A few questions to ask.
1. Did she commit a serious crime that requires handcuff and leg restraint?
2. Can the handcuff and leg restraint protect her from harming herself?
3. Would she be able to run away from the police?
4. Is it necessary to restrain a mild, weak 73 year old woman?
3/17/2017
China needs a doctrine of universal appeal to survive
The West have the Doctrine of Christian Discovery and the Arabs the Doctrine of Jihad. The Chinese need to have a national doctrine of universal value to stay ahead for survival.
The Chinese have always been a disunited people. They are prone to fight among themselves rather than against invading foreigners. This can be seen in their disunity in the face of foreign invasions by the Mongols and the Manchus and later by the Japs and Western countries inclusive of Russia.
The Chinese people and nation must be united if they do not want to be humiliated again. To foster that unity the Chinese need a doctrine that will galvanize Chinese civilization and solidify the national spirit of the Chinese people and the patriotism of the Chinese soul.
The West inclusive of Russia have that militant Doctrine of Christian Discovery. That doctrine works wonders for the West. Armed with that doctrine Western countries have adopted a very assertive and aggressive spirit of aggression and conquest for centuries. That explains how England, France, Spain, Portugal and Holland and later US expand their empire worldwide. That also explains how Russia expands and controls a huge empire stretching from Europe across Asia to the Pacific coast largely at the expense of the Chinese.
To enhance its aggression and hegemony of the world USA adds in the Doctrine of Manifest Destiny and the Doctrine of Exceptionalism.
It is not just the European countries adopting a doctrine to serve their justification of aggression and conquest . The Arabs like the Europeans also have for centuries a powerful doctrine to drive their ambition of conquest and dominance of other countries. The Arab muslims militant doctrine is no different from white men's Doctrine of Christian Discovery. Theirs is the Doctrine of Jihad in submission to Allah's demand of world conquest and mass conversion of conquered people to embrace Islam. That explains how the Arabs conquered and ruled large swathes of land from Middle East to Central Asia and North Africa and how Islam spread far and wide to Pakistan, Bangladash, Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines and even to China.
China is the only country and ancient civilization without a national doctrine that had been frequently attacked, conquered and torn apart by foreign invaders. The map of China since 1689 and the map of China today will show clearly how Chinese territories shrink in size every other decade from 1689 due to foreign aggression and occupation of Chinese territories.
The Chinese need a strong and powerful doctrine with universal appeal to counter the West and the Arab militants. Chinese all over the world must think of a good doctrine to serve and protect Chinese integrity and security.
The West and the Arabs have done much harm to the world for centuries. It is time to stop them from doing further harm by exposing the true nature of their doctrines.
Southernglory1
Friday, 17th March, 2017
The Chinese have always been a disunited people. They are prone to fight among themselves rather than against invading foreigners. This can be seen in their disunity in the face of foreign invasions by the Mongols and the Manchus and later by the Japs and Western countries inclusive of Russia.
The Chinese people and nation must be united if they do not want to be humiliated again. To foster that unity the Chinese need a doctrine that will galvanize Chinese civilization and solidify the national spirit of the Chinese people and the patriotism of the Chinese soul.
The West inclusive of Russia have that militant Doctrine of Christian Discovery. That doctrine works wonders for the West. Armed with that doctrine Western countries have adopted a very assertive and aggressive spirit of aggression and conquest for centuries. That explains how England, France, Spain, Portugal and Holland and later US expand their empire worldwide. That also explains how Russia expands and controls a huge empire stretching from Europe across Asia to the Pacific coast largely at the expense of the Chinese.
To enhance its aggression and hegemony of the world USA adds in the Doctrine of Manifest Destiny and the Doctrine of Exceptionalism.
It is not just the European countries adopting a doctrine to serve their justification of aggression and conquest . The Arabs like the Europeans also have for centuries a powerful doctrine to drive their ambition of conquest and dominance of other countries. The Arab muslims militant doctrine is no different from white men's Doctrine of Christian Discovery. Theirs is the Doctrine of Jihad in submission to Allah's demand of world conquest and mass conversion of conquered people to embrace Islam. That explains how the Arabs conquered and ruled large swathes of land from Middle East to Central Asia and North Africa and how Islam spread far and wide to Pakistan, Bangladash, Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines and even to China.
China is the only country and ancient civilization without a national doctrine that had been frequently attacked, conquered and torn apart by foreign invaders. The map of China since 1689 and the map of China today will show clearly how Chinese territories shrink in size every other decade from 1689 due to foreign aggression and occupation of Chinese territories.
The Chinese need a strong and powerful doctrine with universal appeal to counter the West and the Arab militants. Chinese all over the world must think of a good doctrine to serve and protect Chinese integrity and security.
The West and the Arabs have done much harm to the world for centuries. It is time to stop them from doing further harm by exposing the true nature of their doctrines.
Southernglory1
Friday, 17th March, 2017
How to lose your country?
In the past losing your country was usually through conquest. The foreigners just marched in, killed the kings and proclaimed themselves as the new kings. Then the colonialists came, doing almost the same, some just planted their flags and claimed they found the land and the land belonged to them. Many silly Asians still read this in their history books and accepted this silliness.
In order to defend themselves and their countries, armies were raised with paid or unpaid soldiers, trained to fight and die to defend the country, the people and their way of life. The soldiers are there to protect the country and people from foreigners coming to rob and loot them and to occupy their country, to the country as theirs.
With globalization, things are changing. It is a good thing to invite foreigners to your country, to take over your country, to change your way of life. The big question, why is there still a need for soldiers, to defend what when foreigners are happily invited home to take over what you have built, to be owners of your country?
Still don’t understand? Ok, let me give you a simple and real example that is easy to understand. This is reported in YahooNews.
‘A 51-year-old owner of a three-room flat in Hougang Avenue 8 was forced to move out of his own home, after his tenants (a couple) refused to leave the flat, reported Shin Min Daily News.
The homeowner, who works at a supermarket, began renting his flat out 10 years ago to supplement his income.
The couple moved into his home in July 2013. After paying their rent for the next nine months, the couple suddenly stopped making their payments and even refused to move out.
With this, the homeowner decided to move out and began renting a house from a colleague.
“It’s been three years and I had given them many chances, yet they deliberately delay payment and refuse to move out…My family members worry for my safety and advised me to move out,” he said.
“I have a home, yet somehow I’m homeless and have to rent a room from someone else…This is laughable indeed.”’
No this is not laughable. This is stupidity, the hallmark of a stupid people, a daft people that did not know that they are daft. This happened to a home. Translate this to a country, the homeowner(citizens) renting his flat/country out, ie allow foreigners to come in as visitors or PRs, to work and stay in the flat(country)
The tenants(visitors/PRs) then refused to go away. The owner left his flat/country to rent another place to live, ie migrated to another country to live, leaving his country to the foreigners. And the daft owners think it is alright when his home/country is being occupied by his tenant/foreigners. And he stupidly asked, “I have a home, yet somehow I’m homeless and have to rent a room from someone else…”
He did not know that he has lost his home/country and did not know his right to take it back or how to take it back. Singaporeans are boat people in the making.
Daft Singaporeans would soon lose their country without a fight, without knowing why, without knowing that it is their right to their own country, without knowing that they have lost their home and country. And the soldiers, do they know why they are soldiers, why there is a need to be soldiers, why NS, to defend what? What are there to defend against when the foreigners are here, taken over their country and everything?
No, the daft Singaporeans did not mind losing their country. They love the foreigners and happy to share their country with the foreigners, to give their country to the foreigners?
When 50% of the population is new citizens, it is as good as giving away 50% of the country to them. If it is more, eg 70%, it would mean the foreigners are owning 70% of this country. Is this acceptable, the way to go? Is this what the original Singaporeans want, to give their country away without a fight?
Is this too difficult to understand?
In order to defend themselves and their countries, armies were raised with paid or unpaid soldiers, trained to fight and die to defend the country, the people and their way of life. The soldiers are there to protect the country and people from foreigners coming to rob and loot them and to occupy their country, to the country as theirs.
With globalization, things are changing. It is a good thing to invite foreigners to your country, to take over your country, to change your way of life. The big question, why is there still a need for soldiers, to defend what when foreigners are happily invited home to take over what you have built, to be owners of your country?
Still don’t understand? Ok, let me give you a simple and real example that is easy to understand. This is reported in YahooNews.
‘A 51-year-old owner of a three-room flat in Hougang Avenue 8 was forced to move out of his own home, after his tenants (a couple) refused to leave the flat, reported Shin Min Daily News.
The homeowner, who works at a supermarket, began renting his flat out 10 years ago to supplement his income.
The couple moved into his home in July 2013. After paying their rent for the next nine months, the couple suddenly stopped making their payments and even refused to move out.
With this, the homeowner decided to move out and began renting a house from a colleague.
“It’s been three years and I had given them many chances, yet they deliberately delay payment and refuse to move out…My family members worry for my safety and advised me to move out,” he said.
“I have a home, yet somehow I’m homeless and have to rent a room from someone else…This is laughable indeed.”’
No this is not laughable. This is stupidity, the hallmark of a stupid people, a daft people that did not know that they are daft. This happened to a home. Translate this to a country, the homeowner(citizens) renting his flat/country out, ie allow foreigners to come in as visitors or PRs, to work and stay in the flat(country)
The tenants(visitors/PRs) then refused to go away. The owner left his flat/country to rent another place to live, ie migrated to another country to live, leaving his country to the foreigners. And the daft owners think it is alright when his home/country is being occupied by his tenant/foreigners. And he stupidly asked, “I have a home, yet somehow I’m homeless and have to rent a room from someone else…”
He did not know that he has lost his home/country and did not know his right to take it back or how to take it back. Singaporeans are boat people in the making.
Daft Singaporeans would soon lose their country without a fight, without knowing why, without knowing that it is their right to their own country, without knowing that they have lost their home and country. And the soldiers, do they know why they are soldiers, why there is a need to be soldiers, why NS, to defend what? What are there to defend against when the foreigners are here, taken over their country and everything?
No, the daft Singaporeans did not mind losing their country. They love the foreigners and happy to share their country with the foreigners, to give their country to the foreigners?
When 50% of the population is new citizens, it is as good as giving away 50% of the country to them. If it is more, eg 70%, it would mean the foreigners are owning 70% of this country. Is this acceptable, the way to go? Is this what the original Singaporeans want, to give their country away without a fight?
Is this too difficult to understand?
3/16/2017
Water hike protest at Hong Lim
Last
Saturday’s protest at Hong Lim was reported in the Straits Times not because of
the protest but because Reuters gave the wrong and misleading reason for the
poor turnout. Reuters said it was fear that kept people from attending the
protest. The SPF objected to the argument of Reuters, claiming that it was
misleading and untrue.
I think
there could be some element of truth in Reuters’ point but how much was due to
fear is debatable. Who is able to quantify this data? What I think could be one
of the major reasons for the pathetic turnout of 100 was the lack of publicity
on the event. How many people really know of the protest to even want to attend
the event if they did not even know of it?
What I think
organizers of future events at Hong Lim should take note of is to at least
create more publicity and awareness of such protests. Don’t expect people to
know if very little is said of it. Even poor Donald Trump must go down to
twitting to get his message to as many people as possible. Organisers must know
that they are not Donald Trump and only need to hold an event and expect
everyone to know and to want to attend.
Organising
an event with little or no publicity, with little or no notice, is as good as
not organizing it at all. When failure or poor turnout is assured, what is the
point? Are the organizers trying to prove that Singaporeans are not interested
in such protests and let the attendance speaks for itself? What kind of
impression are the organizers going to create with a 100 attendance?
My advice, do
it properly, seriously, and no effort should be spared to inform the public of
the event. Make use of all the options like social media, twitter, youtube,
google, facebooks etc etc to get the message across. It must be quite
disheartening for the speakers and those attending the event last Saturday to
see the handful of attendance.
Want to hold
more protest at Hong Lim again?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)