12/30/2018
White racist attacking a Chinese
12/29/2018
Leong Sze Hian's defence fund
Leong, in the meantime, is hoping to raise at least $10,000 for his
defence fund. You may contribute through the following channels:
Account Name: Leong Sze Hian
POSB Savings 064064070
Paynow S0009739Z
Paypal ecuadortrade@yahoo.com.sg"
For those who would like to donate to Leong Sze Hian's defence fund, you can use the above accounts at your convenience.
Account Name: Leong Sze Hian
POSB Savings 064064070
Paynow S0009739Z
Paypal ecuadortrade@yahoo.com.sg"
For those who would like to donate to Leong Sze Hian's defence fund, you can use the above accounts at your convenience.
Abacus Bank - Racist indictment of a small bank during the subprime crisis
The causes of the subprime crisis in 2008/9 were very clear by now and how leniently the big US banks were treated by the US govt. No one goes to jail. No big banks were indicted. Yes, all the American banks were treated with special care like they were family despite the huge fraudulent packaging of foul property products and sold to the public.
There was one incident that very few people outside the USA heard off involving the abusive indictment of a small local bank in New York for subprime crimes. 182 charges were slammed at this small bank as if it was the main cause of the subprime crisis. Why? The bank was owned by a small group of American Chinese operating in the Chinatown district of New York.
Here are some of the comments in Wikipedia about this racist indictment of a small Chinese owned bank in the so called rule of law country, the protector of human rights, rights of an individual and democracy. The police charged into the bank and handcuffed all the employees and linked them onto a long chain before parading them out of the bank like the days of black slavery. White supremacist marshalls rounding up black slaves in chains.
In May 2012, New York prosecutors from the Manhattan District Attorney's office indicted the bank and 19 of its employees on charges of fraud in relation to hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of mortgages that had been sold to Fannie Mae between 2005 and 2010. The bank was accused of falsifying loan applications so that borrowers would qualify for mortgages. Abacus argued that it uncovered the improper behavior itself, reported it to the regulator, and fired the employee in question. It also said it was not involved with the fraudulent packaging of subprime mortgage securities and had a mortgage default rate of 0.5%, a tenth of the national average.
Verdict
The bank, along with its former Chief Credit Officer and its former loan supervisor, were acquitted of all charges brought by the New York prosecutors in a jury trial in New York Supreme Court on June 3 and 4, 2015. (After a long 5 year legal battle defended by the legally trained daughters of Sun Quchen, the founder of the bank).
The aggressive prosecution of Abacus, in contrast to the relatively lenient treatment received by large banks, was questioned and criticized by various media outlets. It was criticized by journalist Matt Taibbi in his 2014 book The Divide: American Injustice in the Age of the Wealth Gap.
The story is told in Steve James's feature-length documentary Abacus: Small Enough to Jail, which had its premiere at the Toronto International Film Festival, September 11, 2016. It was broadcast nationally on PBS Frontline on September 12, 2017. Abacus: Small Enough to Jail was nominated for the 2018 Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature.
The above brief showed how racist and discriminatory was the American administration in Washington and how they victimized law abiding minority citizens in fake and fraudulent charges and abusing them with the rule of law and the justice system. This was the only small bank, or the only bank attacked by the American administration for subprime crime when the guilty parties, all white banks were spared from such abuses.
You can read more about the racist white regime in the USA and reflect on how they are dealing with Huawei and the illegal and outrageous arrest and treatment of Meng Wanzhou, even knowing that the whole deal was political but refusing to admit that it was political and refusing to release Meng claiming that they were following the rule of law. It is white man’s rule of law applied to coloured people in the USA and the rest of the world. Such injustice must be put to an end and the hypocrisy of the white men must be shamed in public.
There was one incident that very few people outside the USA heard off involving the abusive indictment of a small local bank in New York for subprime crimes. 182 charges were slammed at this small bank as if it was the main cause of the subprime crisis. Why? The bank was owned by a small group of American Chinese operating in the Chinatown district of New York.
Here are some of the comments in Wikipedia about this racist indictment of a small Chinese owned bank in the so called rule of law country, the protector of human rights, rights of an individual and democracy. The police charged into the bank and handcuffed all the employees and linked them onto a long chain before parading them out of the bank like the days of black slavery. White supremacist marshalls rounding up black slaves in chains.
In May 2012, New York prosecutors from the Manhattan District Attorney's office indicted the bank and 19 of its employees on charges of fraud in relation to hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of mortgages that had been sold to Fannie Mae between 2005 and 2010. The bank was accused of falsifying loan applications so that borrowers would qualify for mortgages. Abacus argued that it uncovered the improper behavior itself, reported it to the regulator, and fired the employee in question. It also said it was not involved with the fraudulent packaging of subprime mortgage securities and had a mortgage default rate of 0.5%, a tenth of the national average.
Verdict
The bank, along with its former Chief Credit Officer and its former loan supervisor, were acquitted of all charges brought by the New York prosecutors in a jury trial in New York Supreme Court on June 3 and 4, 2015. (After a long 5 year legal battle defended by the legally trained daughters of Sun Quchen, the founder of the bank).
The aggressive prosecution of Abacus, in contrast to the relatively lenient treatment received by large banks, was questioned and criticized by various media outlets. It was criticized by journalist Matt Taibbi in his 2014 book The Divide: American Injustice in the Age of the Wealth Gap.
The story is told in Steve James's feature-length documentary Abacus: Small Enough to Jail, which had its premiere at the Toronto International Film Festival, September 11, 2016. It was broadcast nationally on PBS Frontline on September 12, 2017. Abacus: Small Enough to Jail was nominated for the 2018 Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature.
The above brief showed how racist and discriminatory was the American administration in Washington and how they victimized law abiding minority citizens in fake and fraudulent charges and abusing them with the rule of law and the justice system. This was the only small bank, or the only bank attacked by the American administration for subprime crime when the guilty parties, all white banks were spared from such abuses.
You can read more about the racist white regime in the USA and reflect on how they are dealing with Huawei and the illegal and outrageous arrest and treatment of Meng Wanzhou, even knowing that the whole deal was political but refusing to admit that it was political and refusing to release Meng claiming that they were following the rule of law. It is white man’s rule of law applied to coloured people in the USA and the rest of the world. Such injustice must be put to an end and the hypocrisy of the white men must be shamed in public.
Mahathir, Trump for National Day medals
When the next National Day comes around, we should present Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad and US President Donald Trump with medals for unintended lessons in national education. We should invite them here and hang the medals around their necks. I’ve already had the names of their medals worked out. For Mahathir, I’ll simply call it the WNLYWNE (With Neighbours Like You Who Needs Enemies) medal. For Trump, it’ll be the HTBYFBT (How To Betray Your Friends Big Time) medal, pure and simple. If you find the names jarring, I apologise. But clunky names usually come with clunky acts.
First the WNLYWNE medal. Singaporeans, especially PM Lee, are grateful to Mahathir for rising from the dead (he said at 93, he ought to be dead) to lead Malaysia on another beggar-thy-neighbour incursion into Singapore waters. Move over Pedra Branca, here comes Johor Bahru port! While Pedra Branca only had a few Malaysian vessels flitting in and out of its waters, the JB port actually had them parking brazenly in front of our summons aunties who couldn’t do a thing about it. But why the gratitude to Mahathir? For years, our PM Lee has been talking himself hoarse about external threats without eliciting a pulse from comatose Singaporeans. Then he got lucky. Enter Mahathir who did the job for him. Now Singaporeans know mushy stuff like external threats and national defence are not play, play. They are very real - as real as the mobilisation exercise that roused those RSAF servicemen from their Sunday siesta that Dec 10 afternoon. For helping PM Lee open Singaporeans’ eyes, Dr M richly deserves the WNLYWNE medal.
Next the HTBYFBT medal, which Trump also richly deserves. Read the headline of yesterday’s Straits Times article (28 Dec) by Leslie Fong and you will understand why - “The perils of trusting America: A reminder for Asian allies”. It was an essay on the US’ well-documented abandonment of allies - from the Hungary in 1956 through Vietnam and Cambodia in 1975 to Syria last week. When Trump precipitately announced that he was bringing the boys home from Syria after the “defeat” of ISIS, he made PM Lee’s job of justifying Singapore’s jaw-dropping defence budget that much easier. Nobody will fight your fight for you. You will have to do the job yourself. Just read Donald “America First” Trump’s tweeter on his Syrian pullout - “Does the USA want to be the Policeman of the Middle East, getting NOTHING but spending precious lives and trillions of dollars protecting others who, in almost all cases, do not appreciate what we are doing? Do we want to be there forever?”. For that - and for simplifying PM’s job - Trump deserves the HTBYFBT medal around his neck. Just don’t pull it tight.
12/28/2018
Leong Sze Hian vs Lee Hsien Loong - Hottest wayang in town
In law courses it is often quoted cases pitching the people versus the
Crown. Here in little red dot, we are seeing the people versus the PM.
And this is not new, happened since Lee Kuan Yew’s time, the incumbent
PM suing an ordinary citizen for libel. What is new is for the people,
an ordinary people, to sue the PM. Leong Sze Hian is countersuing Hsien
Loong on this ground, ‘The predominant purpose of the claim is the use
of the legal process to chill freedom of expression in Singapore
generally and in particular to restrict reporting on any role the Govt
may have had in the 1MDB scandal.’ Leong Sze Hian ‘is seeking
compensation for damages to his reputation through the issuance,
continuance and reporting on the legal proceedings, as well as costs…’
as reported in thenewpaper.
There is now a new buzz in the air. Everyone’s eyes are wide open, wanting to know what is going to happen with this new twist. Many are wondering if this countersuing would ever end up in court or would be thrown out by the court. And if it did end up in court, you can expect it would be full house on the day of hearing. Everyone interested in the political happenings of the island would want to see a repeat of Chee Soon Juan versus Lee Kuan Yew and this time seeing how Lim Tean questions Hsien Loong in court.
Hsien Loong would be in the hot seat. But he has nothing to fear. He would have the services of the best of the best in the legal system, top dog lawyers like Davinder Singh, Edwin Tong or even Shanmugam would be there to defend him. Lim Tean would have to face these legal giants, all ten foot tall, while he is a midget in a way.
What kind of questions would Lim Tean posed to Hsien Loong? Would he be able to put Hsien Loong in an awkward position? How would Hsien Loong answer questions impromptu, without being submitted two weeks in advance? Would Lim Tean be able to do a David and Goliath act in the Singapore court?
And the verdict, if this case did get into court, would be closely watched. Who is the lucky judge to be picked to preside over this case? Any volunteers?
Would this wayang be played out in court and be broadcast in details in the main media? Everyone is very eager to want to know. What can be more exciting with Hsien Yang throwing his money behind Leong Sze Hian and Lim Tean as reported in the mothership site?
The importance of this case can be judged by it being reported on page 16 of the newpaper and somewhere in the middle pages of the ST. Front page news of thenewpaper was about a 60 year old auntie wielding a knife and needed to be tasseled before being disarmed.
There is now a new buzz in the air. Everyone’s eyes are wide open, wanting to know what is going to happen with this new twist. Many are wondering if this countersuing would ever end up in court or would be thrown out by the court. And if it did end up in court, you can expect it would be full house on the day of hearing. Everyone interested in the political happenings of the island would want to see a repeat of Chee Soon Juan versus Lee Kuan Yew and this time seeing how Lim Tean questions Hsien Loong in court.
Hsien Loong would be in the hot seat. But he has nothing to fear. He would have the services of the best of the best in the legal system, top dog lawyers like Davinder Singh, Edwin Tong or even Shanmugam would be there to defend him. Lim Tean would have to face these legal giants, all ten foot tall, while he is a midget in a way.
What kind of questions would Lim Tean posed to Hsien Loong? Would he be able to put Hsien Loong in an awkward position? How would Hsien Loong answer questions impromptu, without being submitted two weeks in advance? Would Lim Tean be able to do a David and Goliath act in the Singapore court?
And the verdict, if this case did get into court, would be closely watched. Who is the lucky judge to be picked to preside over this case? Any volunteers?
Would this wayang be played out in court and be broadcast in details in the main media? Everyone is very eager to want to know. What can be more exciting with Hsien Yang throwing his money behind Leong Sze Hian and Lim Tean as reported in the mothership site?
The importance of this case can be judged by it being reported on page 16 of the newpaper and somewhere in the middle pages of the ST. Front page news of thenewpaper was about a 60 year old auntie wielding a knife and needed to be tasseled before being disarmed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)