Hong Kong- Free enterprise

The 3 months of street demonstration and warfare have show how enterprising the Hongkongers were and how free is the economy of Hong Kong. While the western news media were churning up all the news about an oppressive police force, the threats to their political freedom and human rights, the reality is that the Hongkongers have never have life so good to them in their entire history. Under the British colonial masters, they did not have political freedom or human rights. They did not suffer much oppression then, saved from such brutal colonial oppression simply because they were too docile, accepted the rule of their colonial masters without protesting or rioting. They accepted the cramp and expensive housing that they are protesting today, the corruption of the colonial masters and the lack of political freedom and human rights then.

Today, the Hongkongers have many more times the political freedom and human rights under the Hong Kong govt. If they were to protest against the British colonial masters like they did today, they would have been machine gunned down like the British did to the Indians in India.

The grievances against poor housing were not the doing of the present govt, but the legacy of the colonial rule. This can be easily resolved by a massive resettlement programme with new cities in the neighbouring provinces. With the improvement in high speed trains they could be in Hong Kong in less than half an hour, free from the jams in crowded Hong Kong and living in spacious and reasonably priced housing. Their quality of life could take a quantum leap for the better, and they could have all the economic freedom and the new political freedom and human rights under a China that is racing ahead in economic growth and prosperity. They could travel the world freely like the Chinese and enjoy the growth and prosperity of a new China. But they chose to protest, to riot, to get themselves criminalised, harmed and maybe killed or deported eventually, when the good life is theirs to make.

I have digressed from the topic of free enterprise in Hong Kong today. Look at the following pictures of the police riot wear and those of the rioters. Both are equipped to the best they could get, money could buy, in free enterprise Hong Kong.

Hong Kong riot police wear. Pic from CNA

Rioters' riot wear.  Pic from SCMP

Another rioter very well equipped and protector from tear gas and other material thrown at them by the police. Pic from SCMP

From the above pics, the rioters are just as well equipped and protected as the riot police. I can't call them protestors anymore. They have turned into rioting and bordering on being terrorists. They could buy all their protective gears easily from the streets of Hong Kong. There is apparently no control on these items. Even the dangerous laser lights could be purchased freely to be used against the police.

Where else would a govt allow such equipment to be sold on the streets like toys, easily available to the rioters, to be used against the police? Oops, someone told me another story. The rioters could get their gears easily because some parties are supplying them and the police or some quarters of the govt are closing an eye to this business.

What is real? Is the Hong Kong govt so stupid to allow these gears and dangerous equipment to be made available so easily, in abundance to the rioters? Is this free enterprise in Hong Kong or a conspiracy involving some parties in the govt, and the whole thing is a big wayang?

The best thing for China to do is to declare an emergency and remove all the colonialists in the govt. The Hongkongers are Chinese and should not be ruled by foreigners that filled the bench in the Supreme Court to rule against the interest of Chinese people, Hong Kong and China. This is the time for China to clean up Hong Kong from colonial rule. Hong Kong is not ruled by Hongkongers but by foreigners, with high court judges that are not Hong Kong citizens, not Chinese citizens, some holding dual nationality, some simply foreign citizens. This shameful existence of foreigners in the Supreme Court has to be cleansed immediately. Hong Kong is China and not a part of the British Empire.

What defines a Singaporean? Principles or Pragmatism

Funding target met for appeal to Appellate Court

Ms Ten Leu Jiun Jeanne-Marie has on Monday (26th Aug) informed TR Emeritus (TRE) that she has managed to secure enough funding to bring her case before the Appellate Court.
On 10th August, Ms Ten had made an appeal for funding on her blog and TRE for a sum of SG$20,000 being costs for an appeal she intends to file with the Appellate Court. [ LINK ]
Ms Ten has been involved in a lengthy 12-year legal battle with the National University of Singapore (NUS) over a Master’s Degree which she has earned but has been withheld by the university. [ LINK ]
Of the $20,000 required, an interest-free loan of $6000 was offered by a student with the balance met by proceeds from the online crowd-funding and her own savings.
Representing herself, Ms Ten filed the Notice of Appeal at the very last minute on Monday (26th Aug).
Ms Ten would like to express her appreciation to all those who have contributed and/or offered encouragement.
The Team@TRE wishes Ms Ten all the best.

The above article is posted in the TRE. Ten Leu Jiun is fighting NUS for her masters degree which she claimed was due to her but NUS refused to confer to her because she was a whistle blower on the misconduct of her professor. It has been a long 12 years battle and she is going to court again after raising enough money to fight for what she thinks is right and hers. You can't find justice in Singapore if you can't pay for it like this case. I have contributed my small part to her legal fund.

Some have dejectedly told her to give up as it is too costly both in time and money, like most Singaporeans would do, being practical or being hapless. Some have told her to fight on on the grounds of principle and ideals. It is tough fighting the establishment and hope she gets her justice she deserves. Big question, principles and values more important or being practical more important? This question defines what a typical Singaporean is like.

Below are a few comments on her case in TRE.

Rabble-rouser:

August 27, 2019 at 9:10 am  (Quote)

Nothing to say except good luck! I hope that you find what you’ve been pursuing all this time worthwhile!
A 12 year legal battle takes a lot out of your productive lifetime. And a lot of money went to feed the lawyers & the court system in the process.
The legal mechanism is an unproductive industry where everyone loses except for the ones holding the court proceedings & their legal players. The only other such industry I know are the casinos.
Would wish you all the best but my gut feeling is that there will be more to come after you take on a system which is not only authoritarian but also unaccountable to public opinion. There can be only one outcome!
Court of Appeal judgement cost are even more prohibitive! If the appeals judges awards 100% cost to the defendants ie. NUS. Methinks that $20k deposit wouldn’t be enough to settle the final sum on the appeal on top of the earlier court judgement amount mentioned which is yet to be settled.

patriot of TUMASIK:

August 27, 2019 at 11:12 am  (Quote)

You deserve to WIN…(12 years is a long time and your patience is God-Given)… even if the odds look bad with the current system in place…May the Hand of God & Fair Justice be upon whoever that sits on that Panel and may he/she have the CONSCIENCE of Mind and NOT the CONviction of man to come to a JUSTIFIED decision

Self Check Self:

August 28, 2019 at 4:57 am  (Quote)

Bernard:
My own experience shows there are Principled and Morally upright Judges.
Hope you get appeal Judges with these values.
Importantly, provide facts with evidences.
These facts can’t be twisted.
Only hope that the appeal Judges don’t say “it’s not the mandate of this Appeal Court” for what ever reason.
Stay strong, be focus, be and have patience, never loose your cool, be graceful and nice to all including the Appeal Judges.
You can’t go wrong.
May God Almighty guide, enlighten, bless and Justice will prevail
Merdeka

This is the belief that led to the mess she is now.
Your experience is not worth a dime and costly outside the familee.
Wake up.

Brown face, who to decide what is sensitive and what is not?

The brown face ad again became the topic of discussion of Shanmugam and some academics and undergrads at NUS. According to Shanmugam, we should be discussing about race and sensitivity, ‘how do the minorities feel, and how do the majorities feel. Have this openness in the conversation.’

Perhaps this is the first time someone asked about how the majority feels. It has all the time been how the minorities feel. As the majority, how do they feel when some minorities, bigots, scold you as racists with four letter words? Only in Singapore can the minorities get away with such coarse verbiage hurled at the majority freely and with increasing frequency and thinking that it is ok, and the timid majority will not hit back but accept being cursed and attacked meekly. Try that in Malaysia or Indonesia and see if their majority would be as meek as the so called ‘racist’ Chinese here.

If the Chinese are racists as the two bigots claimed, there would not be so many mixed marriages involving Chinese to other races, to a lot of Indians. If the Chinese are racists there would not be so many ministers and CEOs that are Indian, based on meritocracy. If the Chinese are racists, the President of NTU, the seed of Chinese language and culture, would not be given to an Indian. If the Chinese are racists, Chee Soon Juan would have won in Bukit Gombak hands down, not to an Indian by the name of Murali. Or maybe the Chinese are simply stupid, did not know what is going on, did not bother.

What more is needed to dispel the views of the bigots that Chinese are racists? If the Chinese are racists, the silly Chinese that appeared in the bigots’ video clip would not be so silly to be there, chirping along as if he is not Chinese and enjoying being cursed and fucked at.

In this whole episode, no one bothers to ask the view of the Chinese majority as if they are non existent. What is important in such claims of racism and discrimination is who should be deciding when it has crossed the line. Obviously it must not be left to the bigots and minority racists to decide. In the brown face ad case, it was the two bigots that set the agenda, that decided that it was racist, wrong, insensitive. And the unthinking stupids went along and demanded everyone to apologise. Not true?

Hey, what is wrong man? The Council in charge of advertising in Singapore and the AGC said there was nothing wrong with it, nothing criminal! So what the fuck is this brown face ad being repeatedly used as something wrong and insensitive to the minority, that this is the new OB line? Which minority? Can a black face decide for the brown face and call foul? Maybe can because we are still puzzled if the President is a Malay or an Indian. 

If minority bigots are to decide what is right or wrong, acceptable or not, sensitive or not, then the swine woman that tore apart an innocent young boy for mentioning beef curry without knowing what’s wrong should be seen as right and Singapore and all Singaporeans should henceforth ban the saying of anything about eating beef, eating steak etc etc. In the same vein, no one should be talking about eating bak kut teh or roast pork, suckling pig or steakhouse because a few bigots claimed these to be sensitive to them.

There is the law, there is the govt. Should not the govt set the agenda, have laws to draw the line between what is sensitive and what is not? And there is the courts of law to be the arbiter. The last thing to happen on such a sensitive subject is for the bigots in the minorities to set the standard and norm. In fact the bigots should be locked up and shut up. Singapore must not be ruled by the tyranny of the minorities. The majorities have rights to live their way of life and are also sensitive too. Do have some respect for the sensitivity of the majority while peddling your minority views and sensitivity.

I am semi vegetarian. Should I imposed my sensitivity to those around me not to eat meat when I am around? While we respect each other’s sensitivity, we must not use this as an excuse to impose our will on others. We have different lifestyles and love different things, eat different things and do different things, like and dislike different things. If everyone is allowed to claim sensitivity and play victims, there is no way for a multi culture, ethnic and religious society to coexist peacefully.

The govt and the law must rule above others and put the bigots in their place. Do not allow the bigots to set the agenda, to rule over the rest by crying victims, feeling hurt and the rest must appease to them.

What is the problem? The problem is when the govt lost its way and bowed to the pressure of a few bigots. I say again, the AGC and the Council for Advertising Standards said there is nothing wrong with the brown face ad, nothing criminal, no intention to offend. So buck off and stop using this brown face ad to whip the innocents for the sake of the bigots.

The bigots are damn happy after a punishment that was anything but a punishment and thinking that they have done right, achieved in making their points, as bigots to impose their absurd sensitivity on the majority. And the govt is playing into their hands by agreeing with them.

Maybe Shanmugam may want to follow up with the discussion on the privileges of the Chinese majority and wanted to change this, or about an article in theindependent.sg titled ‘101 ways to erase Chinese privilege’ in Singapore.

Wildlife in Phuket

The husband of a Singaporean was strangled to death by a wildlife in Phuket. Amitpal Singh Bajaj, a Briton, was holidaying in Phuket with his Singaporean wife and a 20 month old son. The cause of this tragedy was a din caused by the wildlife in the early morning hours, screaming and shouting out his hotel room balcony. The Norwegian is a martial arts expert, a Roger Bullman.
 
Amitpal Singh and family were in the next room, wife and child disturbed, went to the balcony to tell the wildlife to stop the noise. Wildlife kicked down the adjoining door, barged in and attacked Singh and strangled him to death. Wildlife claimed he did not know it would kill Singh. Must believe him because he is white.
 
This wildlife has been arrested and facing 15 years of jail for manslaughter and granted a bail equivalent to S$18,400. Is this the price of a Briton to take? Cheap, cheap, cheap. Maybe killing a white wildlife will cost more.
 
For those who are very caring and protective of wildlife and got irritated by this term, my definition for wildlife is anything that behaves like wild animals, including those that may earn more than $500k and wearing business suits and driving fast cars and living in high end condos.
 
One innocent life gone over something so trivial. Only wildlife can kill so freely, by animal instinct.

Benjamin Lim - A pathetic case of unnecessary and premature death

'In 2016, 14-year-old Benjamin Lim fell to his death from his Yishun flat, hours after returning home from Ang Mo Kio police division for an alleged molestation incident involving an 11-year-old girl in a lift.

The North View Secondary School student was brought to the police station by police officers for his statement to be taken and released to his mother after being questioned by the police for three and a half hours, without the presence of a lawyer or accompanied by any adult.

As expected, the case sparked a debate on police processes and speculation over the circumstances leading up to his death. In fact, many instances of what happened before his death also emerged, causing the Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam to take the rather unusual step of delivering a ministerial statement on the issue in Parliament in March 2016.

In August that year, State Coroner Marvin Bay ruled that the teenager’s death was a deliberate act of suicide that could have occurred probably from issues with managing his anger and emotions, as well as stress of being under criminal investigations....'

The above is from M Ravi's post in the TRE on the need to protect a child during police interrogation by the presence of an adult so that a child would not self incriminate itself. What is so tragic about this case was what Benjamin was put through alone, a 14 year old being interrogated in the police station by police officers. How frightening was the experience to a young boy without his parents or teachers to lean on for support.

Let hope no young person in Singapore would ever have to go through the same ordeal as Benjamin Lim. Some might have the wrong impression that Benjamin was having a party with his friends in the police station instead. His sad and miserable ending told you otherwise. This is a case of feeling sorry for Benjamin and his family is not good enough.

Anyone feeling guilty about Benjamin's death? Any sense of guilt, prick by conscience? Or everyone thought they had been very kind and caring to Benjamin?