Ministerial Committee versus Hague Tribunal

Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss, another member of the SPP, described the Ministerial Committee as a “tragic joke”.

“It is like the Boss of a company has a quarrel with Mr Someone. Then the Boss gathers a number of his employees and empowers them to decide who is right: he (the Boss) or Mr Someone. Boss submits a long testimony to this group of his employees giving them his account of the events and his opinion about Mr Someone’s motives.

How on earth can such a group of subordinates, who are otherwise answerable to the Boss, be expected to act independently and to able to make an objective decision? Does such a dubious committee really have the option to decide against their Boss?

It is a rule of natural justice that a man cannot be a judge in his own cause: “Nemo judex in causa sua”. Asking your underlings to determine the outcome of a case in which you have a personal interest in, is to me a breach of that rule.

Tragically, the joke is on us, the citizenry. For it does not bode well for us when we cannot detect, turn a blind eye to or condone conflict of interests and use of state powers for personal benefits.”

After reading Jeannette Chong’s comment about the Ministerial Committee it straight away reminded me of the ‘UN supported’ Hague Tribunal that ruled against China on the SCS Islands case. In this tribunal, supposedly a private court that willing parties went for an arbitration but the western media trying to con the world that it was a ‘UN backed’ organization as if it was an UN body, it was set up unilaterally by the Philippines and its backers ie the USA and Japan, without China participating, chose its own judges, paid the judges to decide in their favour against China. And the Americans and some western countries including little USAs went about trumpeting that it was a fair and ‘UN backed’ court and that its decision must be complied with. Today all these silly buggers are like what the Hokien phrase said, ‘chui tat lan’, all voiceless, become dumb, after their scheme was exposed as hollow, silly and mischievous.

 

Now, would this kind of court be a tragic joke, ridiculous?  Setting up your own court, choosing and buying your own judges to judge against another party that did not agree and did not want to be a part of it? Compares the Ministerial Committee to this kangaroo court, which is the bigger joke? Was there any natural justice, did supporting this kangaroo court bode well for Singapore as a country that has been touting the rule of law?

The Lee Family Feud – petty or grave

Singapore will not be dragged down by Lee family's 'petty disputes': ESM Goh

'Grave concerns' about how Lee Kuan Yew's last will was prepared: PM Lee

 

Above are two headlines in Channel News Asia online appearing one above the other on 17 June as if the editor intentionally placed them there to let the readers see the contradiction. Whether this is petty or grave is a matter of opinion, and depends on whether one is a party to the feud or just a bystander watching with disinterest on the sideline.

 

Many have been saying that this is a petty family matter and should not be out in the public as it concerns the inheritance of LKY. Is it that simple, about whether his family home should be demolished or to be gazetted as a national monument? Or perhaps it is like what Lee Sheng Wu said, if one’s million dollar salary depends on not understanding an issue, then it is petty to them. The second issue would be of public interest for sure. The squabbles between the siblings could be private and personal that the public need not know.

 

The open joint letter added a few other factors to make it a public concern, ie the abuse of power charges, using state organs and threats or fear of personal safety. What would these allegations mean to the public?  Petty or grave? The PAP likes to talk about the intent and purpose of an issue. The allegation of abuse of power is no petty matter, or is it? The abuse of state organs too is no small matter. What about the fear or threat of personal safety? This last part is more a digression from the main issue.

 

Hsien Loong is going to Parliament to defend these allegations. So, do you think it is petty or grave? Hsien Loong even lifts the whip and encourages all the MPs from both camps to question him vigorously. Not sure if the format of questioning is still the same, that MPs must submit questions one week in advance or something like that, or would they be allowed to throw questions at him off the cuff, on the spot?  Whichever, this is the first time that a PM has volunteered to be challenged and questioned vigorously, ie giving permission for the MPs to ‘tarok him jialat jialat’ in Parliament. He must have believed in the saying ‘genuine gold not afraid of fire’ or 真金不怕火. The MPs can light all the fire in Parliament but he would stand out unaffected.

 

See how grave is this matter? Hsien Loong even apologized to the people. Now who is saying that this is petty and the people are tired of it?

 

The next big question, would Hsien Loong dare to sue his brother and sister, the children of Lee Kuan Yew, or put them behind bars for whatever charges? The loyalists and the old guards would not allow it, the cabinet ministers would not allow it, the people of Singapore would not accept it. Doing so would be the downfall of Hsien Loong and the PAP, I think.

There is a stronger message in the joint statement that was made public. What did Wei Ling and Hsien Yang want the public to know that is more important than the status of the family home and the family squabble? What is the message?  I would not venture further than where the angels fear to tread. Obviously Hsien Loong and those that could see that this is not a petty family dispute can see the picture very clearly.

The ultimate test for Singapore and all Singaporeans

A family feud is now in centre stage in Singapore’s plastic squeaky clean politics. Everything is now on display and the media could do itself more harm to attempt to take sides as the social media is there to offer the truth in its purest form, uncensored, as it is. Two opposing views will be aired unrestrained for all to see and judge. Every Singaporean, every foreigner living in the little island would be watching and would have his views and opinions plus a generous dose of gossips and wild interpretations of the event. The good, bad and ugly would have no where to hide but be exposed or exposed themselves.

Right at the very top is the integrity, honesty, conduct and honour of the PM at stake. What he said and what his siblings said would all be weighed and he has to come up clean and shining as before the event. Anything else would not be good for him and his party and govt. The PM is put on the spot light, put under severe test and severe examination and cross examination in the public court of the people.

Then the members of his Cabinet/MPs too would be watched carefully on what they said or what they did not say, what they did or failed to do right. They cannot be neutral or hide under ‘no comments’. They will have to take positions, legally, politically or morally on this feud. Can they afford to be neutral, to hide in the toilet? They are not just politicians but deemed honourable, righteous and responsible leaders of the country, to stand up, to speak out and not to hide under the table. How could they have no opinion or no view on this affair? Would they take positions based on political convenience, morally right or legally correct? My guess, the parrots would have lost their voice and remained ‘diam diam’ for good measures. No comment! Eh, this is not just a family affair, many aspects of it concern the govt of the day, the integrity of leaders.

The opposition political parties and politicians would also be expected to make their comments and keeping mum is not an option especially for those that have made this a second nature or a policy.

Govt organs and civil servants too would be watched on what they do or say. Making a wrong move, choosing the wrong side, could be deadly, a misstep can be very costly, pun intended.

And the people, the supporters of the PAP/govt, the grateful hoi polloi of LKY, and those that are in the opposing camp would be watching closely on the happenings and would be making their own judgement, not just on legal issues but moral issues and the issues of filial piety, issues on honouring their idol and fulfilling his last wish. Would they grant their hero his last wish or would they refuse him his last wish now that he is dead and gone? Worst, when the lion king is dead, would they devour his young lions?

This is an occasion when the whole country is under watch, put to a test. Singapore is a nation under a microscope. What is Singapore all about, what kind of govt and leaders are ruling this island are now being questioned. Is Singapore the honourable, rule by law, morally upright priesthood nation, or it has all been a myth, a bad dream, and the truth is ugly and embarrassing to talk about?

Govt debunks a sms message on CPF nomination

SINGAPORE: When Central Provident Fund (CPF) members pass away, their savings will be given to their nominees in cash - and not transferred to their Medisave account as claimed in a message making the rounds on social media.

"There is absolutely no basis to this rumour," stated a post on the Singapore Government website on Saturday (Jun 17), debunking the message circulating on WhatsApp, SMS and social media.

"The truth is, by default, your nominees will receive your CPF savings in cash when you pass away. This is unless you have opted for a different type of CPF nomination," it said.


The above govt statement is to debunk a sms message going around saying that in the event of death, all CPF money would be paid to the nominee's Medisave Account. This sms message is not true or inaccurate. But what Phillip Ang wrote about the ENS scheme is true. Read the govt statement above,

"The truth is, by default, your nominees will receive your CPF savings in cash when you pass away. This is unless you have opted for a different type of CPF nomination," it said."

What is this different type of CPF nomination? The govt statement did not elaborate and stopped there. This different type of CPF nomination is the ENS or Enhanced Nomination Scheme that Phillip Ang was talking about in his post that I quoted in this blog on Saturday.

What Phillip Ang is warning about is this ENS scheme. Make sure this is what you want for your nominee when you opted for this ENS scheme. Your CPF savings will go to your nominee's CPF account and not paid out in cash if you opted for the ENS.

USS Fitzgerald collided with a ....

Transcript of an exchange between a USS Fitzgerald and ship captain, off the coast of Japan yesterday. This radio conversation was released by the Chief of Naval Operations after the incident.

Americans: “Please divert your course 15 degrees to the North to avoid a collision.”

Ship Captain: “Recommend you divert YOUR course 15 degrees to the South to avoid a collision.”

Americans: “This is the captain of a US Navy ship. I say again, divert YOUR course.”

Ship Captain: “No, I say again, you divert YOUR course.”

Americans: “THIS IS THE AIRCRAFT CARRIER USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN, THE SECOND LARGEST SHIP IN THE UNITED STATES’ ATLANTIC FLEET. WE ARE ACCOMPANIED BY THREE DESTROYERS, THREE CRUISERS AND NUMEROUS SUPPORT VESSELS. I DEMAND THAT YOU CHANGE YOUR COURSE 15 DEGREES NORTH. THAT’S ONE-FIVE DEGREES NORTH, OR COUNTER MEASURES WILL BE UNDERTAKEN TO ENSURE THE SAFETY OF THIS SHIP.”

Ship Captain: “This is an ultra large crude oil tanker. Your call.

After landing American troops in the Philippines without the approval of Duterte, some Pinoys were very angry with the Americans....