Category: Politik

  • Amos Yee: My Father Was Abusive

    Amos Yee: My Father Was Abusive

    Now some fellow Mediacorp Actors attributed my actions on the Lee Kuan Yew video solely on the fault of my parents. Now of course being Mediacorp actors, they have the brain size of that of a peanut, with their views having as much insight as the quality of their shows.

    Unless you are enslaved, parents are not the primary influence to their children, especially in our technologically advanced world where influences are much more eclectic. And to claim that the fault of a child, lies mostly in the fault of the parents, is absolutely fucking dumb. However, I do acknowledge that though parents are not the primary influence on a child, like your friends, the books you read or the movies you watch, they do have an effect in your life. And the abusiveness of my father, probably affected me in some ways.

    During my childhood, my father would viciously berate me whenever he was upset with me (For cases such as when I had rubbed my eyes too much), and though I never saw it, I heard that my mother was slapped by him several times. And he did violently pin me down onto a bed when he admonished me for my Chinese New Year video a few years ago (The implications of that image is stunning).

    But, the exact moment that I would I want to talk about that I feel is most indicative of his abusiveness, is the incident that happened just a few hours before my first time in court.

    The night before the hearing, my once-Godmother (Now simply aunt because you know.. Atheist) and my family pleaded with me to ensure that I wore outdoor clothing the next day in court instead of my initially planned, pyjamas(A frequent apparel of mine due to comfort). Claiming that if I did not wear ‘decently’, the judge would be more severe towards me, and would issue harsher conditions that I had to comply with. I of course completely disagreed with the notion that clothing had or should have anything to do with a person’s view towards me, and was reluctant.

    However seeing that they were exceptionally worried, I felt a generosity to put their minds to rest, therefore though I disagreed with them,  I obliged to their request. After all I did have some outdoor clothing that I was comfortable and satisfied with, so I felt that the compromise was worth it.

    A couple of hours before the hearing, my mother and I picked that black shirt and beige pants, the clothes you’ve seen me wore during the court hearing,  that were to my great satisfaction.

    However, contrary to the views of mother and I, my father wasn’t satisfied with those outdoor clothing, in fact he thought that they looked too casual for court.. He wanted me to wear more ‘formal’ clothing, with buttons, collars and possibly a tie or bow, otherwise the judge wouldn’t accept it.

    Such arrogance for my father to put his own personal perspective, and claim that it is that of others. If the judge were to truly dictate his decisions on me based upon the quality of my ware, he would be unjust. Though maybe that was what my father was going for.

    Since I was completely negligent of the state of my closet, formal clothing was scarce, and the only clothes that managed to fit my father’s meat-headed criteria were these horrid-looking collared blue shirt and these exceptionally uncomfortable black pants.  Those clothes appealed to his idea of a ‘formal’ appearance.

    I put them on to and they looked absolutely awful, I witnessed myself in the mirror and was flabbergasted by the sight of a blue leprechaun. However, my father said that those were the only clothing that were acceptable, and I had to wear them.

    Naturally, I expressed refusal to do so, and thus commenced my father’s violent behaviour. He pulled my shirt towards him, and made the gangsterish gesture, of clenching one’s fist and pulling it back, threatening a punch on my face,  if I did not comply.

    My mother screamed, pleaded, and desperately attempted to pull me away from my father’s supposed oncoming attack.

    Initially having complete fear of the violence of my father I had developed ever since I was a child, I said something along the lines of “alright, alright I’ll wear it”, which led him to cease his attack. I proceeded to walk into the toilet to look into a mirror and contemplate (Dramatic I know).

    Then ultimately, having developed a subversiveness that had transcended anything that I had as a child, knowing that I’ll be completely uncomfortable wearing those clothes,  it would probably act as a distraction in court, and the fact that of course it looked absolutely wretched, I refused to comply, and so went out of the toilet and told him:

    “It’s either I’m going to wear the black shirt, otherwise, I’m going to wear pyjamas.”

    He, with uncontrollable, savage anger, held my shirt again and incessantly pushed my body repeatedly on the doors of my cupboard as my mother resumed her fruitless screaming.

    However, he, supposedly wondering why after all these years I had actually resumed a provocation even after threats of violence. Having a kind of uncanny, revelatory expression like that of a confused hog, slowly released his grip and said something along the lines of, “ You know that if I hit you, and there is mark.. and then there are reporters out there….’

    And of course, I grinned, and then responded, “Ahh.. I see you have found out my plan”.

    He plodded away in defeat.  I proudly went back into my room, and changed my clothing.

    This was the  1st ever instance in my life where I had overcome the threats of violence from my father, when I had not acceded to his demands, but he had to accede to mine. There was a sense of victory as I donned my black clothing, and beige tight pants. And after I had equipped myself, I sauntered up to him and said a few words.

    And those few words catalysed his almost brutal execution…

    With both hands, he took my head and violently slammed it on the wooden table beside us. Then he held me on my head and my body, flailing me around as I wailed and shrieked in terror, before he released his grip. I fell down hard on the floor.

    He, had still not satiated his anger, and thus took my head and violently banged it on the hard, concrete floor.

    In the background, obviously with the incessant screaming from myself, it caught the attention of the other people in the house. My mother continued her pleading for him to stop, my grandmother and maid just stood in a corner and did absolutely nothing.

    Finally I think that my mother realised the ineffectual nature of her noise and decided to implement some form of tugging to my father. I think she used quite a considerable amount of force as she pulled my father’s arm.  And quite surprisingly, in a sort of miracle, the beast was finally tamed.

    Huffing and puffing, he lumbered away.

    Now fortunately, during both times my father slammed my head on the table and the floor, I had both my hands, firmly placed on the sides of my head, protecting me from the impact. If I had not had both those hands on my head, I would have the full impact of both the force of my father, and the floor. Knowing that the head was an especially sensitive area, I could have potentially become a vegetable, or died before I entered the court.

    And after this episode, as I sat on the floor trembling in fear, my grandmother, instead of berating her son for his horrid behaviour, went up to me and said to me in Chinese ‘He’s just doing this because he cares for you, you should behave yourself and not make him so angry’

    He’s doing this because he cares for me? Well if almost killing me is his way of expressing care, then I absolutely fear the instance when he ever decides to express love.

    I can see from the view of grandmother, how these violent tendencies runs in the family. I so dearly hope that these acts of abuse, turmoil and violence, is not hereditary, because I would not be able to live with myself if I ever had to resort to violence to solve my problems, or to express to anyone my quote unquote ‘care’.

    And whenever I tried to tell people what he did to me, they like my grandmother just said, ‘he only did that because he cared for you’ and would not do anything to try to stop him. And when he and I were out of the sight of others, he would tell me ‘There is no harm, or damage to your body, no one will ever believe you’.

    Now the few words I said to him before he commenced his nearly brutal execution, were:

    ‘I am willing to let the previous incident slide, let bygones be bygones. But If you are ever violent to me again, I will reveal to everyone what happened.’

    He then proceeded to almost killing me, so here we are.

    Now of course, the common viewer could blame me for being terribly provocative to my father, but are you actually going to validate that my provocation was worthy of such a behaviour? It’s like trying to validate summoning bears to maul 42 children for making fun of a bald priest. God actually did that by the way (2 Kings 2:23-25).

    Ever since that incident, whenever I talked to my mother, I would refrain from referring  to my father’s previous titles of  ‘father’ or ‘daddy’, and instead refer to him as ‘the killer’ or ‘the bastard’.

    If one is able to almost kill a person over the choice of one’s clothing, seeing how the pressures of my court case is prevalent and as you can see I am as subversive as ever, I think it would be wise for me to have some semblance of a restraining order.

    I seek and implore for help. If my mother would kindly file for a long overdued divorce and some sort of child protection service could be in order, that would be great.

     

    Source: https://amosyee.wordpress.com

  • Amos Yee: The Ridiculous Terms Of My Bail

    Amos Yee: The Ridiculous Terms Of My Bail

    What is the purpose of the terms of a bail? It is to ensure that one attends court. Which so far, I have quite obediently complied to. But how I am going to be punished in lieu of the terms of the bail, has absolutely nothing to do with my presence in court, but the added uncanny conditions that were placed.

    In addition to showing up to court, the conditions of my bail are:

    1.       Not to post, upload, or otherwise distribute any comment or content, whether directly or indirectly, to any social media or online service or website, while the current case is ongoing.
    2.       To meet IO Jason Chua every morning at 9am in Bedok Police Station.

    And if I breach, anyone of those bail conditions. My bailor loses $20000, and I have to be sent to remand until after the trial has ended.

    I heard that in the case of a simple theft, when one has pleaded guilty, it takes 3 months for them to attain their sentence. In my case, since I am going to trial, and also the fact that how I’ve attained my charges is quite unique, especially the charge concerning obscene imagery, which I found out, I am the first person ever in Singapore to be charged for that. Everything is probably going to take much longer…Let’s estimate say… about 8 months.

    So technically, they are saying that if I do not meet Jason Chua for 1 morning, I deserve to be sentenced for 8 months in prison and be fined $20000.

    So not meeting Jason Chua can have a punishment more serious than that of a robbery.

    Every morning during weekdays, at around 7:30am, hundreds of thousands of Singaporeans stand up and recite the national pledge, and say the 2 lines ‘to build a democratic society, based on justice and equality’

    And now. Wow… god fucking damn, I’m really feelin that ‘Justice and equality’…

     

    Source: https://amosyee.wordpress.com

  • Tribute To Lee Kuan Yew – Part 1

    Tribute To Lee Kuan Yew – Part 1

    Part 1: A candid obituary

    So powerful once, yet so helpless in his last few weeks… hooked to a ventilator for dear life until he passed away this morning at 3.18 am.

    For about half a century LKY hogged the stage, relentlessly pursuing power, slamming down opponents, but unswerving in his determination to turn a little red dot into a precious pearl.

    His authoritarian ways resulted in great economic success, but also claimed many victims.

    It will take time to look at such a towering and controversial figure in perspective. History may be the best judge.

    A litmus test of his greatness is: How long will Singapore remain stable and prosperous without him?

    I think his baby – Singapore – will take his demise in stride and life will proceed as normal except during the short mourning period.

    This is double-edge: it can be seen as a compliment or otherwise, for the departure of great leaders will usually stir a storm in their wake that will take time to settle.

    You can say many good things about Lee: brilliant lawyer, fearless politician,peerless nation builder, but he is no prophet, no revolutionary, no Mandela.

    He leaves behind him a first class civil service, a developed economy,highly-literate and technologically savvy population and though not perfect, a stable society based on multi-racialism, meritocracy and rule of law.

    But he also leaves behind him a rather meek and depoliticised populace, obsessed mainly with material comforts, and a ruling party determined to maintain its monopoly on power by fair or foul means.

    What has become apparent especially in the latter part of his life is that his first class mind that can analyse the toughest of problems with logical precision and prescribe solutions based on pure logic and reason is both an asset and a liability.

    They have their limits as shown by his past policies: no alternative to merger within Malaysia, the two child policy that brooked no opposition and his embrace of globalisation to the extent of becoming even more capitalist than the capitalists.

    It is also the over-reliance on both logic and reason that led him from day one of independence to discriminate against the Malay minority in the security services; a policy that is still being wound down by his successors.

    That, I suppose is why, despite his boast of rising from the grave if he felt the Singapore ship was off course, he fail to act when the present government put growth first and the people last in the years leading up to the last general election.

    He could not because they were just following in the path that he had laid out. If he had, would PM Lee junior have to apologise to the electorate a few days before polling day for ‘’mistakes’’.

    As can be shown from his past actions since independence in 1965, he is no idealist reformer. He is not interested in tearing down the old and building a brave new one, but only in making the existing one more workable through two basic principles: equal opportunities and meritocracy.

    His brilliance too has its limits and his much respected skills as a geopolitical strategist appears to be limited only to the Far East, Japan, China and Taiwan.

    For,as the records show, he was one of the earliest and most ardent supporters of the Iraq War, a war that Bush initiated more to exact revenge from the Muslims rather than to make the world safe.

    The consequences of that disastrous war, which claimed hundreds of thousands of victims, continue to be played out in Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, as well as in Paris, Copenhagen, Madrid and around the world. The only winners were Bush’s right-wing clique and the industrial-military oligarchy.

    In fighting tooth and nail for what he wants, mainly power, he can be both determined and cunning, and even ruthless and vindictive against anyone standing in his path.

    Just look back at his political life and you will not have any difficulties in finding how he had bent the laws and stretched the rules to outmanoeuvre his opponents: the flawed 1962 Referendum on merger, the vain attempt to get the PAP to take over from the MCA in the Umno-led Alliance, the frantic struggle for Malaysian Malaysia and the jailing of opponents after independence.

    Even now, it is difficult to say whether Lee wanted power for power’s sake or he wanted power to build a better world for us. I suspect the truth lies somewhere in between.

    I have often asked myself what Lee would do if he had lost through a fair vote.Would he hand over power peacefully or would he continue the battle to the bitter end, even if it results in the burning of Singapore?

    The story of his political life is like the story of a firebrand who slowly evolves into an arch conservative, more rightists than the rightists, accepting the widening wage gap as inevitable and seemingly callous towards the woes of the working class.

    But people of my generation must be grateful to him. Almost all of us had benefitted in many different ways from Lee and the PAP.

    And that was why we had preferred to look the other way and stifled our conscience to the victims of his authoritarian rule. They ranged from those who were detained longer than justified to those held behind bars on charges so flimsy that few believe in the government story.

    Most observers now believe that the so-called Marxist conspiracy was a cynical exercise to clear the deck of possible threats and potential opposition to his hand-picked heirs.

    Anyway, Lee has run his race and we should thank him and move on. Just as many Chinese continue to revere Mao for his contributions, we too must always respect and revere Lee for all the good that he had done in building Singapore to what it is today.

    In mourning him, we must also spare a kind thought for his victims…..Lim Chin Siong, Poh Soo Kai, Chia Thye Poh, Said Zahari, Vincent Cheng, Teo Soh Lung and so on…and give them their just dues.

    Let us use this opportunity to work for reconciliation and the healing of past wounds. Let the exiles from Tan Wah Piow to Francis Seow return in peace to the land of their birth.

    Forgive but not forget

    Honour but not whitewash

    Mourn him but respect his opponents

     

    Source: Ismail Kassim

  • Kenneth Jeyaretnam: Why A By-Election Should Be Called In Tanjong Pagar

    Kenneth Jeyaretnam: Why A By-Election Should Be Called In Tanjong Pagar

    The death of Lee Kuan Yew leaves his seat in Tanjong Pagar GRC vacant.  Recently a Bloomberg journalist asked me to comment on the suggestion that  Lee’s seat in Tanjong Pagar be left vacant as a mark of respect. Her resultant article can be read here.  Some commentators have suggested that the Opposition should boycott any by-election, giving the PAP a walkover similar to the ones it has enjoyed ever since Lee Kuan Yew’s constituency was included as part of Tanjong Pagar GRC.  In addition a lot of people have been asking me whether I think a by-election will or even must be called.

    The fact that any one could even suggest that denying the democratic rights of the citizens of one ward to choose their representative is a way to show respect for the founder of our one-party authoritarian system goes a long way to explaining how far from being a democracy that system is and how far we have to go to become a developed nation in terms of our political and legal structures.

    LKY’s seat had of course been effectively vacant for some time. For many years other MPs in the GRC had performed his constituency duties. Ill-health and advanced years also meant that his appearances in Parliament after his unopposed re-election in 2011 were mostly perfunctory.  In a democracy an MP who was incapacitated by advanced years or ill-health would have resigned to allow a new and fitter incumbent to perform the duties that he was no longer able to.

    In addition because of LKY’s deliberate creation and reinforcement of a climate of fear, and the very real measures he took to crush anyone who stood up to him, the voters of his GRC have been denied the right to choose their representatives for several decades. Even in 2011, when every other seat was contested and our aim was to see Singapore’s first non-walkover GE , a team of independents ran out of time in filing their nomination papers and were disqualified.  The fact that the people of that ward have gone without choosing their representatives for so long means that there is a more urgent need to hold a by-election in his constituency now. But can the PM leave the seat vacant indefinitely in defiance of every democratic norm but as has been normal PAP practice until recently?

    The short answer  and the absolute legal fact is that it would be unconstitutional not to hold a by-election unless the Prime Minister decides to call a general election within the next three months or so.

    The argument ( thanks to Article 14) runs like this.

    Article 49 of the Constitution states:

    49.

    —(1)  Whenever the seat of a Member, not being a non-constituency Member, has become vacant for any reason other than a dissolution of Parliament, the vacancy shall be filled by election in the manner provided by or under any law relating to Parliamentary elections for the time being in force.

     It was established by the Court of Appeal decision in Vellama d/o Marie Muthu v AG (2013) that the calling of a by-election is mandatory and not discretionary and that it has to be held within a reasonable space of time, normally three months.

    The Parliamentary Elections Act (PEA) seems to contradict this requirement when it states in Article 24-2(A) that:

    (2A) In respect of any group representation constituency, no writ [for a by-election] shall be issued under subsection (1) for an election to fill any vacancy unless all the Members for that constituency have vacated their seats in Parliament.

    However this places Article 24-(2A) of the PEA at odds with the Constitution. Where this is the case the Constitution clearly overrides any laws enacted by Parliament, as stated in Article 4 of the Constitution:

    1. This Constitution is the supreme law of the Republic of Singapore and any law enacted by the Legislature after the commencement of this Constitution which is inconsistent with this Constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.

    Article 24-(2A) of the PEA is clearly inconsistent with Article 49 of the Constitution. Therefore under Article 4 of the Constitution it is void.  Therefore the Prime Minister must call a by-election for Tanjong Pagar GRC, or at least for the constituency vacated by his father’s death, within the next three months.

    If the PM refuses to do so, I (and I know my Party members would join me) would support an application to the Court to declare that the PEA is inconsistent with the Constitution and that a by-election must be called. It should be easy for Lee Hsien Loong’s poodle, the Elections Department, to carve out Tanjong Pagar SMC from the GRC if the PM does not want to call a by-election for the whole GRC. However as it was uncontested in 2011 it would be right now to hold an election for the whole GRC.

    In the event that the PM observes the Constitution and calls a by-election, it would be good for the Opposition parties to come together and agree to field a joint “A” team against the PAP under an umbrella with all our strongest candidates combined. This would be an important step in the process of transforming the Opposition in the eyes of the electorate into a credible force that is ready to form an alternative Government.

    Screenshot 2015-04-23 13.00.44

     

     

    Source: http://sonofadud.com

     

  • M Ravi Apologises To The Law Society

    M Ravi Apologises To The Law Society

    Lawyer M. Ravi on Wednesday apologised for claiming that the Law Society’s counsel shouted at him and assaulted him during a hearing in February.

    Mr Ravi, who has been suspended from practice following concerns about his mental health, attended a hearing in High Court in February after the Law Society of Singapore, represented by Shook Lin and Bok lawyer Pradeep Pillai, applied to have his practicing certificate suspended and to compel him to undergo a medical examination.

    In a Facebook post on Wednesday, Mr Ravi said: “I had published a media statement…(which) stated that during the hearing, Mr Pillai had shouted at me and assaulted me. My statement was malicious, utterly and demonstrably false…Both Mr Pillai and his team of lawyers had acted with decorum at all times during the hearing.”

    He added: “I accept that my statement was defamatory. I hereby unreservedly and unconditionally apologise to Mr Pillai. I further undertake not to repeat my statement.”

    When contacted by The Straits Times, Mr Pillai declined to comment further.

    He said: “The apology speaks for itself.”

    A spokesman for the Law Society added: “The Law Society always maintained that Mr M. Ravi’s allegation was false… The (society) is glad that Mr Pillai has been vindicated.”

     

    Source: www.straitstimes.com