Rilek1Corner

Tag: Lee Kuan Yew

  • Kenneth Jeyaretnam: Amos Yee – Singapore’s Youngest Political Prisoner

    Kenneth Jeyaretnam: Amos Yee – Singapore’s Youngest Political Prisoner

    Yesterday I attended Amos Yee’s sentencing hearing at the State Courts at 9.30am. As you may be aware, Amos has refused to accept probation. The AG had asked for probation, presumably to save the PAP the international opprobrium for jailing a child who had spoken the truth about the late Lee Kuan Yew.

    Instead Amos requested that he serve a jail term instead.  After all he had already served a longer period in remand than the man who assaulted him received after automatic good behaviour. However the AG objected and asked the judge to sentence Amos to reformative training instead on the grounds that he was unrepentant.

    For those of you who are not familiar with what “reformative training” is in the Singapore context, let me enlighten you. The regulations governing it can be found in the Criminal Procedure Code (Reformative Training) Regulations 2010. A person sentenced to reformative training must serve at least eighteen months but no longer than three years. However after release they will be under the supervision of a probation officer and must comply with any conditions imposed.  Any breach of those conditions will result in six months additional sentence. This supervision lapses four years after the date of the original sentence so in the case of someone sentenced to three years reformative training the supervision period is one year but if the sentence is only eighteen months the supervision period is three years.

    This is what an AsiaOne article had to say about reformative training:

    Reformative training is a strict prison regime for young offenders. It consists of foot drills, counselling and education. Offenders spend at least 11/2 years behind bars. Upon release, they are placed under supervision, which includes wearing ankle tags that track their movements electronically.

    The article was about how the courts deemed reformative training as a suitable punishment for young loan shark runners who would not be allowed the “soft” option of probation even for a first offence. However the runner in this case was 20 years old and in NS.

    It revulses me that the court and the AG could  somehow think that the punishment option for someone defacing and vandalising the flats of those owing money to loan sharks, presumably with threats of violence intended to intimidate the unfortunate debtors, and other violent young criminals is appropriate for a  child like Amos.

    I say “child” advisedly even though our law treats him as an adult when he reaches 16 despite not being allowed to vote till you are 21. Yet another inconsistency in Justice Kaur’s judgement was that she claimed to be protecting the youth of Singapore from being corrupted and depraved by Amos’s supposedly obscene image while she was treating Amos as an adult for the purpose of sentencing. Amos’s blog and video were clearly aimed at adults and viewed mostly by adults and not children.

    I will get back to yesterday’s hearing. The queue for the public gallery was quite short, perhaps because the hearing was originally scheduled for 2pm but was then moved to 9.30am. Singaporeans do not like to get up so early. The atmosphere among the crowd was slightly flippant considering that it was a child’s future we were talking about. When I said that the Government was out to break Amos, some people said jocularly that he would be more likely to break the AG and the judicial system by his refusal to bend. A young man in a suit made some comment to the effect that unlike the “soft” West we treated criminals like Amos as adults from the age of 16 and that the “shackles” which presumably soft-hearted liberals like myself objected to were just cuffs.

    After a delay while the prosecution and defence lawyers met outside the courtroom, Justice Kaur entered at about 9.50am. I expected someone older and tougher looking. Instead she looked quite slight and undoubtedly younger than me. She was extremely soft-spoken so it was very difficult to hear what she was saying. It was difficult to fit her image to her reactionary and inconsistent judgement.

    The DPP argued that as Amos had not “learnt his lesson” and refused to agree to probation that a reformative training sentence was necessary. He said that Amos’s conduct and his decision to make the image and video  public again demonstrated the need for rehabilitation and appropriate counselling. The DPP said a jail term or a fine would have no rehabilitative effect on Yee and would therefore not be “tenable, because we cannot be popping back into court every other day.”

    The judge agreed with him and said that “Rehabilitation is the fundamental tenet of our justice system” and ruled that he be remanded for three weeks to assess his mental and physical suitability for reformative training.

    Alfred Dodwell, Amos’s lawyer, argued in vain that Amos should be given a fine or a jail term equivalent to the time he has already spent on remand and pointed out quite correctly that Amos was being punished for a second offence for which he had not been tried.

    At the end of the hearing Amos was taken into custody again. I saw his mother passing him a plastic bag which made me feel very sad.

    There can be no doubt that in this case “rehabilitation” is just a euphemism. The PAP Government mean to break Amos’s spirit through a harsh regime that is worse than prison. They would like to show Singaporeans that anyone here who dares to challenge the official narrative will be harshly dealt with.

    In totalitarian regimes like Communist China, the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany “rehabilitation” meant years of imprisonment in harsh concentration camps. Everyone remembers the infamous words above Auschwitz  which said “Arbeit Macht Frei” which loosely translated meant “Work Makes You Free” which was meant to be a sadistic joke about rehabilitation.

    I feel only a slightly milder version of this punishment regime is in store for Amos. He will be forced to work and if he refuses will likely be punished.  I am concerned that reformative training may include caning if Amos refuses to obey the orders given to him by his captors. He has years of imprisonment to look forward to and when he is inducted into NS he will probably end up serving his time in a military prison. Meanwhile a father who failed to strap his toddler into a car seat causing her death in an accident was only fined. And Lee Kuan Yew made countless racist remarks designed to wound the feelings of minorities and was commended globally for his wisdom and candour.

    Even with his time on remand Amos has served more time than the man who attacked him. The reports said that he would not be with adult inmates. However since Amos is already being treated as an adult that seems just another example of the AG’s disingenuity. He will presumably be placed with the kind of hardened criminals who are normally considered suitable for reformative training. He wlll probably be bullied and may be sexually assaulted. Of course many comments from PAP supporters and LKY worshippers on the internet were that rape was much too good for him.

    The PAP Government’s treatment of Amos is an international embarrassment to them and to Singapore. The PAP always justify draconian restrictions on our freedoms by saying we enjoy Swiss standards of living as  a result. But I look around and I can see that we have neither, except maybe PAP Ministers and their relatives and wealthy foreigners. Steve Wozniak, who founded Apple with Steve Jobs.  said no innovation or creativity would come out of SIngapore. Is it any surprise?

    I called Amos Singapore’s youngest political prisoner which led to the usual fierce attacks from people saying that he was tried and convicted.  However so was Nelson Mandela who received a sentence of life imprisonment for terrorism. Yet today no one would dream of calling Nelson Mandela a criminal let alone a terrorist.

    I will end by letting Amos’s own words speak for him:

    “And yes, to the chagrin of numerous people, I have not ‘learnt my lesson’, nor do I see any ‘lesson’ that needs to be learnt.If you are going to try to tower over me and say that you know something important that that I don’t, make sure you have a compelling argument for that. And if your lessons are borne from a corrupt, archaic Government lead by primitive monkeys,…then sorry if I doubt the credibility of your quote unquote ‘lessons’.

    Hopefully history eventually vindicates me. But as of now, district judge Jasvender Kaur has deemed me guilty and the Prosecutor does in fact feel, that 30 months of a place worst than Prison (RTC) should be given to a boy who has posted an internet video.

    Unless you do in fact relish in my misery, I hope both of you will be able to sleep at night, and live with the fact that right now, as it is written in the annals of history, my blood is on your hands.”

     

    Source: http://sonofadud.com

  • Amos Yee: Refutation Of The Charges Against Me

    Amos Yee: Refutation Of The Charges Against Me

    Well, as most of you probably know, ever since I uploaded the ‘Lee Kuan Yew is finally dead!’ video, I’ve been put in a cell, charged, deemed guilty and now bailed out. A just law would never have charged me for these crimes, but then again that’s with the assumption that the Judicial system in Singapore is actually just.

    Since I’m the person who’s receiving the charges, and am the one who has discussed and thought about it extensively during this period of time, I should be more than capable to refute the charges against me, and I am, so here it is.

    As the general public capable of looking at something critically (haha), I urge you not to simply see the matter at it’s surface, but actually contemplate, and use logic to form a judgement on whether or not I should be deemed guilty. Because really If you simply looked at the charge that I uploaded an obscene image on the surface, then yes, I did in fact upload an obscene image, and I would have immediately pleaded guilty. However, once you actually think about what in the context of Singapore, the definition of ‘obscene’, then you find out how seeing things on face-value (an aspect inherent in school) is usually false.

    The written charges that were given to me are extremely long-winded, needlessly verbose, and is probably an indication of the inefficiency of the law system in general. Therefore I have paraphrased them. If you want the exact phrasing of these charges, look it up online or it could be mentioned in one of the news reports that about me. Though really, my paraphrasing doesn’t constitute at all to any loss of meaning.

    1st charge – Charged for deliberately intending to wound the religious feelings of Christians in general and the feelings of Fong Huiling Pamela, female 26 years old and Lim Zijin, male 27 years old in particular (Section 298 – wounding religious feelings of a person either verbally or through an action) Punishment of up to 3 years, fine or both.

    2nd Charge – Charged for insulting Lee Kuan Yew and intending for it to viewed by people who would be distressed by it(Section 4(1)(b) punishable under section 4(2)) Punishment of up to a $5000 fine.

    3rd Charge – Charged for uploading an obscene image (Section 292 1(a) – distributes any obscene materials) Punishment of up to 3 months, fine or both

    Now I found out that I am the 1st person ever in the history of Singapore to be charged with posting obscene material, and seeing how news of my charges has become international, there would probably be a significant section of my charge in the law book. It’s flattering that news of me would be studied by law students for years to come, though looking seeing how content in school textbooks are characterized by sheer mundanity, I hope they do not bowdlerize it.

    The arguments I’m making here are not in any way the ‘script’ my lawyers used in trial, this isn’t verified by any of them, in fact most of this was written before I even met my lawyers. This is just a personal, logical refutation of the charges in my own words. Enjoy!

    1. Charged for the intention of wounding religious feelings as well as Pamela and Zijin in particular (Constitutes the most severe sentence of 3 years imprisonment, fine or both)

    Firstly, I would like to ask , who the fuck is Pamela and Zijin? I have absolutely no idea who these bitches are. I’m assuming that they are the cunts that managed to make their police report of their dear religion so attractive, so much so that their fucking names have to be blatantly shown on my charge.

    I do not know what their hobbies are, what they’re doing now in their lives, whether or not they are ugly as fuck (They probably are) whether or not Zijin is a virgin, or if Pamela has double Ds, the only thing I’m assuming is that they are Christian, with a complete devotion to a fictitious, mass-murdering, sexist, racist, sadomasochistic God, formed by the unrelenting social conditioning of their religious parents ever since they were youths, a constant barrage of threats that they will go to a equally fictitious hell if they ever defile the dear Jesus’ name, wasting copious amounts of time weekly mindlessly singing hymns and listening to soporific sermons.

    I do not know at all, who these 2 people are, and even if I did, I never once mentioned their names in the video, how the fuck am I able to deliberately hurt them ‘in particular’. There were 32 police reports filed when my video became viral, so why isn’t there an extensive list of the names of 32 people, what makes Pamela and Zijin so special?

    When I first saw this, I was so overwhelmed by how fucking stupid this is. I already knew that the law and police were dumb, but to this extent, I would have never imagined.

    This section of the charge, even more so than the rest, is the most ridiculous, it blows my mind on so many levels, and I will not be fucking deemed guilty for this fucking bullshit. And if the judge has the gall to claim that I knew these 2 people and deliberately tried to wound them, I will personally castrate myself, because that could possibly be the only way to ease the pain.

    So since this charge has 2 aspects to it (Wounding religious feelings and wounding 2 cunts in particular) is it possible for me to be accountable for half the charge? Would the final sentence therefore be halved if I am deemed guilty for a half-charge?

    *Update: The prosecutor did eventually remove the specific names of those 2 people before they found me guilty of this charge. My hope for humanity has been restored*

    If you claim that Jesus is malicious, or that priests are deceptive, you don’t necessarily have the intention of promoting ill-will. Like when you say Hitler is malicious, does that mean that you deliberately intended to promote ill-will to people who are anti-Hitler? Just because a piece of work causes ill-will, doesn’t necessarily mean that it was intended to cause ill-will, subtle difference. And the law’s failure to distinct that the effect isn’t necessarily the intent is extremely egregious.

    Furthermore, you never charged me for my ‘Refuting Christians with their own Christian bible’ video, and unlike the brief section that criticized Christianity in the Lee Kuan Yew video, this video dealt purely with the religion itself, it’s so obviously more effective in promoting ill-will amongst religious groups. You did include that video in my statement so you obviously acknowledged it . Yet you never charged me for that, thus indicating that the law deems that video as alright. So if that video isn’t considered as ‘intending to wound the religious feelings of Christians’, then why is that little section in the Lee Kuan Yew video deemed so?

    Is that section considered harassment only because the LKY video was much more popular? So you’re saying that what is deemed harassment is not by whether or not the content stirs ill-will, but by how many people claim that the video stirred ill-will, what the fuck?!

    Whether 1 person is distressed by a murder, or 50 people are distressed by the exact same murder, both murders should be sentenced with the same punishment because if the extent of public outcry somehow dictates the severity of a law, it seems like it can be very easily manipulated, especially in our technological world, where creating the illusion of a great public reception on the net is relatively easy (As can be seen from your Internet Brigades (https://www.reach.gov.sg/Mobile/YourSay/DiscussionForum.aspx?ssFormAction=%5B%5BssBlogThread_VIEW%5D%5D&tid=%5B%5B10072%5D%5D#top) and Justin Bieber Instagram followers (http://popcrush.com/justin-bieber-instagram-followers/).

    And if the law still unfairly claims that the effect is able to accurately be indicative of an intent, then why didn’t Jason Neo get charged for this? Jason Neo was the dude who took a picture of a bus of black children, and claimed they were terrorists. This sparked public outcry and a long police investigation on the issue. However, up till today, he still hasn’t been charged for intending to promote ill-will amongst religious groups even though, at least in relation of this inane mindset of effect equating to intent, he did.

    Is it because Jason is a member of the ruling party and I’m not, which is why he got charged and I didn’t? Well no where in the law book did you say that politicians are exempted from the law. So they are? Wow, that isn’t liable to abuse at all. I’m really glad that Lee Hsien Loong is allowed to run naked on the streets singing ‘Yankee Doodle Dandy’.

    If your definition of ‘intending to promote ill-will amongst religious feelings’ is consistent and politicians aren’t exempted from the law (And yet you complain that people call Singapore a dictatorship), since Jason Neo wasn’t charged, then I too shouldn’t have been charged, and even more so, be deemed guilty.

    2. Refutation of insulting Lee Kuan Yew and intending for it to be viewed by people who will be distressed by it

    *The charge currently withheld by the Prosecutor though since it might be brought up again since I’d unprivatized my videos, and once again with the semblance that the law is consistent (Haha), they should*

    Now, I would like to ask, how in the world are you able to accurately claim the existence of an intended purpose of a content-creator. Unless you have some sort mind-reading device, somehow I don’t think that you can.

    Let me tell you that never in the process of conceptualizing to editing, did I ever acknowledge an intended purpose of making this video. Do you really think that I’m cackling in a corner all day, constantly trying to conjure up the most effective ways to piss people off? Saying ‘First Singapore, then Asia, then the world’?

    The truth of the matter is that most content-creators, at least the good ones, ironically don’t acknowledge or aren’t really concerned with their intended purpose or target audience, at least consciously, because it doesn’t really affect the work and neither should it, you just produce the piece of work.

    I’m sure everyone, at some point in time whether they were a kid or an adult, had drawn a picture of the sun. Now before or when you’re drawing it, do you ever honestly think ‘Oh! I want to impress middle-aged adults with my drawing of this sun’, or ’I intend to promote feelings of joy and satiation with my representation of this sun’, no, you just draw the fucking sun!

    And also in relation to several exemplars in the past, Anton Casey definitely distressed the public and fans of public transport, when he made his comment about ‘wiping the stench of public transport’. Similarly Amy Cheong who criticized Malay weddings for their length and implied that it constituted to a high divorce rate. Both of their words constituted to a large public outcry, and what I’m assuming the law deems as ‘distress’. Those 2 eventually lose their jobs, but they weren’t charged though. Why not?

    Is it because I do not have a job to lose therefore you feel the need to charge me? Is that a criteria that is written in the law book that people who do not have jobs to lose should cause the prosecutor to be more compelled to issue a charge? I don’t see that anywhere.

    Am I being charged because the distress was catalyzed from insulting a supposedly loved figure? Well once again, the law didn’t say anything about how this charge relates to the distress caused specifically by insulting a public figure. I think there should be some form of prejudice equality, and you should charge me for intending to distress school students (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYwqCDRKvsk) and Hunger games fans (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gk4FNustn1A) as well.

    It seems like it’s either the law is pulling all these criterias out their asses and inserting them into the law book as we speak, or they’re just being biased, and are able to get away with it because they have a high position of power. The latter argument seems quite convincing.

    3. Charged for obscene imagery

    I was also charged for posting an obscene image (The picture of Lee Kuan Yew buttfucking Margaret Thatcher). I had absolutely no idea that there such a law. And I think that it would be perfectly reasonable if I were to ask, how the fuck would I know?

    When I was in Secondary 3 and 4, I studied Romeo and Juliet for English literature and in that play, there are several references to rape, sex, anal etcetera. Teachers explain the meaning and implications of these sexual references on a daily basis, and students are required to study them. Not only that, they are rewarded higher marks if they are able to more effectively articulate the depth of Gregory’s boasts about the massive size of his schlong.

    Furthermore, E.L. James’ 50 shades of grey is also readily available in popular bookstores and sold to the general public, I myself have bought a copy. Although there is a little indication on the cover that says that this material might not be suitable for younger readers, a rating or a warning that claims that a book is obscene, doesn’t at all make it less obscene now doesn’t it?

    I also distinctly remembered that when I was in Secondary 2, I borrowed a book called ‘The Claiming Of Sleeping Beauty’ by Anne Rice, from our very own public national library, if you dug out my library records you’d probably find the evidence. Unfortunately though, the book has already been taken down from the official NLB catalogue, so maybe in lieu of this law, they did their job, though unlike the banning of the book about homosexual penguins, this wasn’t announced to the public. So if that obscene book isn’t around anymore, then why is obscene material still taught in schools?

    Does the word obscene only apply to images? Well the law that I’m being charged for says ‘obscene material’ so I’m guessing all pornographic books, films etcetera should be banned too right? And I think, at least if we’re being objective, a single pornographic image would be deemed less obscene compared to over 500 pages of pornographic writing. Why is my picture deemed obscene while the others aren’t?

    Is it because the previous cases of obscene material was not reported while mine was? The law never claimed public opinion or the scale of public reaction dictates the relative level of obscenity, and if whether or not something is deemed obscene is dictated by the public, then once again, it seems very easy to manipulate.

    If I hire 15 people to file police reports and ask them to create a multitude of anonymous accounts to stimulate a public outcry online about the Romeo and Juliet being placed in schools, does that mean that every secondary school English literature teacher is going to be arrested?

    Is my image considered obscene and not the others because I used once living faces of figures as opposed to fictitious ones? So if Singaporeans posted Mario’s grand italian dick rubbing against Rosalina’s clitoris on the moon, that would be fine?

    And how do you actually quantify obscene? Would you consider pornographic writing less obscene compared to pornographic images? Is something that is just a little bit obscene not be deemed obscene, even though it is still obscene?

    I’m assuming that if there’s a law that so adamantly claims that the posting of obscene imagery is illegal, all books and materials that are obscene should be banned in Singapore? And if not, then I shouldn’t be liable for this charge.

    In conclusion

    So I explained, that even in relation to these inane law, I should not be deemed guilty for all of my charges. Unless the judicial system, the advocators of the law, is in fact, unlawful, which they are, but you know… there’s frequently hope that they wouldn’t be.

    These laws are unnecessary, inane, and I also found out, unjustly placed without any fair or careful deliberation in parliament whatsoever. And because of that, people like me have to be victims of it.

    And yes, to the chagrin of numerous people, I have not ‘learnt my lesson’, nor do I see any ‘lesson’ that needs to be learnt.If you are going to try to tower over me and say that you know something important that that I don’t, make sure you have a compelling argument for that. And if your lessons are borne from a corrupt, archaic Government lead by primitive monkeys, living under Dwayne Johnson (Thank you F.F.), then sorry if I doubt the credibility of your quote unquote ‘lessons’.

    Hopefully history eventually vindicates me. But as of now, district judge Jasvender Kaur has deemed me guilty and the Prosecutor does in fact feel, that 30 months of a place worst than Prison (RTC) should be given to a boy who has posted an internet video.

    Unless you do in fact relish in my misery, I hope both of you will be able to sleep at night, and live with the fact that right now, as it is written in the annals of history, my blood is on your hands.

     

    Source: https://amosyee.wordpress.com

  • Amos Yee To Be Remanded For Three Weeks, Judge Calls For Reformative Training Report

    Amos Yee To Be Remanded For Three Weeks, Judge Calls For Reformative Training Report

    Teenage blogger Amos Yee who was found guilty of uploading an obscene image and making remarks intending to hurt Christian feelings will be remanded for 3 weeks. The Judge has also called for a reformative training report.

    Earlier, the prosecution again called for Yee to be sent for reformative training. But defence, in light of Yee’s rejection of probation pushed for a short jail term.

    The next hearing will be at 9.30am on June 23.

    Clad in yellow, Yee arrived at 9.30am with his parents and showed the middle finger as he passed. When asked by The Straits Times before the start of the session how he was feeling, Yee said he was “fearful” but did not elaborate.

    The court gallery is less packed today than on previous sessions, with only about 20 seats filled. There was also no queue to enter the gallery. Among those present in the gallery is activist blogger Roy Ngerng. Yee’s former bailor Vincent Law who Yee had falsely accused of molesting him was absent.

    Yee could find out his sentence for the May 12 conviction, or be remanded for up to four weeks to be assessed for reformative training.

    The 16-year-old had been summoned back to court last Wednesday for an urgent hearing, after he refused to attend any interviews with his assigned probation officer and again made public the image and video that got him into trouble in the first place.

    The obscene image had the faces of Singapore’s founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew and former British premier Margaret Thatcher superimposed on it.  Yee was also found guilty of deliberately hurting the feelings of Christians in the YouTube video, which criticised Mr Lee.

    Yee initially privatised both the video and the blog post with the image after District Judge Jasvender Kaur ordered him to do so, as a consequence of the convictions.

    But the prosecution noticed on May 21 that the offending video and post had been made public again.

    On Monday, Yee uploaded the image onto his Facebook page as well.  He also made a series of defiant posts refusing to remove the offending material.

    “Me taking down my video is just candy for the Singapore government, candy that I’m not willing to give,” he wrote.

    In court and behind closed doors last Wednesday, Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Hay Hung Chun asked Judge Kaur to call for a report to assess Yee’s suitability for reformative training.

    The judge had initially called for a probation suitability report, which would have left the teenager without a criminal record.

    DPP Hay said a jail term or a fine would have no rehabilitative effect on Yee.

    He argued that a stint at the Reformative Training Centre (RTC) would “provide the necessary structure and discipline which Yee’s present circumstances clearly lack, and will be conducive to his rehabilitation.”

    Reformative training is a rehabilitative sentencing option for young offenders aged under 21 who are found to be unsuitable for probation.

    A stint at the RTC lasts between 18 and 30 months, and includes structured rehabilitation programmes, foot drills, and counselling. Offenders will not have contact with adult prison inmates.

     

    Source: www.straitstimes.com

  • RTC Is Now A Clear And Present Danger For Amos Yee

    RTC Is Now A Clear And Present Danger For Amos Yee

    Looks like I wasn’t very far off the mark with my warnings to Amos Yee in this previous post. I could see then that if he continued down the dangerous path he was taking, he was in serious danger of spending a lot of time at the Reformative Training Centre (RTC). And the events of the past 24 hours confirms it’s now a clear and present danger:

    All fun and games. Go late to court, upload photos on Instagram. Don’t bother with a haircut. Oh the Court wouldn’t dare touch me! (Mediacorp photo)

    1. Apples and Oranges Approach by Some.

    Before I comment on the latest developments, I’d like to point out the serious flaw in the arguments made by those who leapt to his defense then. (I don’t know if they still do now, given his antics since). Their arguments stem from the fact it was Lee Kuan Yew (LKY) insulted in the video, and further to this, this whole exercise is an attempt by the PAP to do him in and muzzle free speech. Of course when a political figure, especially LKY, is insulted, you can bet this will not go down well with the PAP members, especially since his son, Lee Hsien Loong is Prime Minister. Making a link that this is political is not difficult – some may even say, it’s obvious.

    Be that as it may, this does not detract from the fact that Amos broke the law in relation to insulting religion and uploading an obscene caricature. And it does not make the 32 police reports made against him go away. Put it this way, if Amos made no mention of LKY in the video, but just contained the insults to Christianity, what would the response be? Or if he insulted any other religion – be it Hinduism, Buddhism or Islam? Get my drift? Whether this is acceptable in the West or elsewhere, is also besides the point. As far as the law stands here, we do not insult religions. I dare say the majority of Singaporeans will agree to this position, that all faiths must be respected.

    And that’s the ‘apples and oranges comparison’ made by activists or those who are anti-PAP. Instead of stepping in to reproach the boy, get his parents to see the dangers, they instead seized on the opportunity to use this for their own activism. Rather than look at the case as one where a law has been broken, how best to remedy the situation and mitigate, they foolishly thought by ‘blowing it up,’ they could get the Govt to back down.

    Anymore candlelight vigils, letters to the UN, Pope, banana munching led by star pupil Roy Ngerng? A lot of good that did and how did he respond? He basically asked all of you to go fly a kite.

    All the banana chomping, vigils, writing to world bodies etc, what exactly did it achieve? Instead of helping Amos, it just made it worse. It egged him on and his behaviour since then has only proven the prosecution’s case more and more. Because the prosecution will say if asked, that this was never political. There was no call from the PM to charge him, no order from higher ups to do so. Rather they took this as they would in any other case – police reports lodged, complaints investigated, laws determined to have been breached and as such prosecution must follow.

    The Law itself is not on trial here, Amos is. Arguing about the unfairness of the Law is irrelevant to the present case. It’s on the statute book. It’s the Law of the land. Don’t like it, get Parliament to change or remove it. But if you live here, you follow the Law. There are probably 100 laws I would like to see changed, especially strict liability laws.  But it doesn’t mean, we can start choosing which laws we don’t like and don’t want to follow. In Russia, homosexuality is a crime, in Thailand insulting the Monarch is a crime, consuming alcohol in public is an offence in some Muslim countries, women can’t drive in Saudi Arabia and must be veiled. Does it mean if we go to these countries, we can disregard these laws, because in the West it’s not an offence?

    Political or no, unfair law or no – at the end of the day, can anyone stand up and accuse the prosecution of acting incorrectly? And can anyone object to the simple argument that the prosecution is merely enforcing the Law? That is the only issue that matters and 1 that some just refuse to accept or see.

    Instead of tackling the charges, how best to get them dropped or obtain the lowest possible sentence, they went to focus on the political side of things and attacking the Law. Of course this could be done, but not now, the urgency is to combat the charges. Let the case be over, then by all means campaign against the Law in question. And Amos through his actions, has shown the flaws in your activism. It’s about discipline, it’s about obeying the Law and showing respect to others. Whether LKY is an ass-hole or saint doesn’t matter. That’s a different topic altogether.

    2. Reformative Training is now 90% certain.

    When this whole thing blew up, the possibility of Reformative Training (RT) was probably only 5%. Some may have accused me of being alarmist or unrealistic. But observing his conduct, the conduct of his parents and so-called ‘supporters’, I could sense the possibility although remote then. It could not be so easily dismissed as I observed in asubsequent post.  Ordinarily this would almost always end in probation if he observed the following:

    a) Supervision at home

    b) An ability to follow parent’s advice and instructions
    c) Avoid mixing with person’s of doubtful character.
    d) Interacts with similar minded disciplined kids his age, and not adults with no relation to him.
    e) Is either studying or finds a proper job.
    f) Will comply with terms of probation
    g) Will not be a spoilt brat who must always have his way.
    (a) (b) (e) and (f) being the most important. Probation is not a ‘picnic’ but it’s clearly a ‘walk in the park’ compared to RT. Probation is monitored by officers from the MSF by men and usually women, who have a lot of experience dealing with troubled youths. They would be different from Vincent Law, his former bailor, no proselytising – all professional and secular. Their responsibility primarily is to the Court, to ensure compliance to an accepted, tried and tested formula of supervision. These are professionals who are good at their job, counselling and other support measure will obviously follow but first, the probationer must adhere to some basic rules. But these people are not inflexible. I’ve known some youths who underwent probation – they were extremely grateful they got that and not RT.
    You want to go out with your girlfriend – no problem, just inform. You want to stay out late occasionally, even say to midnight (these usually has to be family events, where 1 parent or a responsible adult is there), sure, just inform and get permission. You have  part-time job or class to attend and want to postpone counselling or a session, sure, let us know. Basically you can do or request anything reasonable, provided you display responsible behaviour and ask permission and remain contactable. And the best part is that you have freedom of movement, freedom to be in your home, your own bed, your toilet and be with you own friends.
    But Amos in his misguided sense of right and wrong, or as I would put it – an open display of defiance – did not even want to take the 1st step – and meet the probation officer. He did not even want to hear the terms and access the suitability of it. And so the probation officer has no choice but apprise the court of this.
    The other thing is why not just impose a jail term or fine? Insulting religion usually carries a fine or minimal jail term. But that’s for adults. Why not for him? Because this becomes a criminal record and the courts here have always adopted policy of not imposing jail terms for 1st time youthful offenders, especially for non-violent crimes. Probation and RT are not criminal records and can be expunged. A criminal record can be a big stain in future. He wants to go to the US, Canada, Australia and many Western countries, well you must declare your criminal record. You want to apply for a job, you must declare your criminal record. The courts position for youthful offenders is not primarily punishment but rehabilitation. What about his 18 day stay in remand? Well, remand is not a jail sentence. Plus it wasn’t continuous, he was bailed out and could have remained bailed out, but he refused to comply with the terms, so whose fault is it?

    He calls the press ‘irritating cunts’ but who’s there waving to them? Who was it yesterday, repeatedly turning to face the photographers?

    Given his behaviour since arrest and conviction, he’s now out on bail again, instead of showing he understands the severity of the matter, he’s again thumbed his nose at the Law. Even yesterday, before attending court he posted on Facebook – ‘why bother to go to court early because the judge is always late?’ That’s his attitude. And from a mere 5% 2 months ago, RTC is now 90% certain. As the DPP said, he’s a misguided youth who’s likely to continue to defy the Law. RTC offers the following which I mentioned:
    1) Will be under supervision 24/7

    2) Will have to undergo psychiatric treatment, if so directed
    3) Will be subject to discipline 24/7
    4) Can attend classes within RTC including doing his A levels.
    3. His Parents especially His Mother is to Blame. 
    No doubt his parents are not on trial. The bulk of the fault is his but they must be chided for allowing things to deteriorate to such levels. Of course no 1 can say for sure what the family dynamics are. He speaks of an abusive father and a loveless marriage. But given his propensity to lie, can we take him at his word? Perhaps he’s the cause for his parent’s rift? Perhaps he plays his father against his mother? Unlike others, I don’t want to condemn his father for ‘whacking him.’ Here’s a 16 year old kid, calling you a ‘bastard, a dumb-fuck’ and openly defies you time and again, which father wouldn’t snap? And who do you want to punish the kid, the father or the Law? I know an incident involving a then senior police officer who did murder investigations. His son was reckless in his behaviour and even started taking drugs. So afraid that his son would be arrested and jailed, he took the drastic measure of handcuffing his son at home, whenever he had to go for work or out. Draconian, brutal and surely wrong you may say, but what’s the alternative? A father’s love extends to protecting his son from a greater awaiting danger.
    His grandmother told “Today” that he was addicted to the Internet. Why did his mother continue to allow him to do so? Do you reward bad behaviour with more freedoms? (Today photo)
    But even if we disregard Mr Yee, we cannot let his mother Mary Toh off so lightly. He lives with her and her mother in their Shunfu flat. He wanted to quit school for some ‘fantastic idea’ that school was a ‘waste’ and that he wanted to be a ‘movie producer.’ And she let him. Ok maybe we say, he needs a break, ok let him have a break. He even gave up giving tuition and now expects his mother to finance him and she again lets him. He wanted to upload the video, she disagreed but did not stop him. He spends an inordinate amount of time on the Net (his grandmother confirmed) and she let him. He deliberately disobeyed his bail conditions, she let him. He made a disgusting allegation of molest against Vincent Law, and she didn’t rebuke him, instead according to him, found for him a secondary meaning of ‘molest’ to justify his outrageous behaviour. She didn’t raise a single cent to bail him but readily accepted strangers to bail her son. She allowed him to mix with people like Roy and get politically involved when he knew next to nothing about politics. She allowed him to crowdfund for monies he didn’t need because the lawyers were acting pro-bono. And when he boasted of how he wants to splurge with the monies, she didn’t stop him and tell him it was wrong. He claims to have raised $20,000 (I don’t think it’s that much, but thousands there was, no doubt). She allows a 16 year old to handle this huge sum and to continue to demand more.

    Mary Toh’s parenting beggars belief. Instead of imposing discipline and guidance, she engages in appeasement. She deserves to be slammed for the manner she allowed things to turn south in a space of 6 months since January 1st.

    He openly disregards directions from a judge and refuses to meet a court appointed probation officer, and she allows him. Worse, she herself refuses to meet with the officer. He issues threats online against his cousins and other persons. Spews vulgarity, shows no gratitude, he even made a video where he boasts of watching porn and masturbating twice daily and wants to have sex. All these she doesn’t step in. Instead he says, he’s taught her how to use FB and she’s correcting his grammar and English in some of these disgusting posts and administers his page for him. If true, it just shows how reckless and irresponsible she is. Not only does her son need psychiatric help (she claims he has Asperger’s), I honestly think she needs it too. She needs to attend some ‘parenting 101’ classes. I know parents who are less educated or qualified as her (she’s a Maths teacher), who can better monitor, guide and teach their sons and daughters values.

    What would you or any normal person do when you have a teenager who refuses to follow basic instructions, who openly defies you, is rude to elders (he called a woman who delivered cookies and chocolates on his doorstep a ‘bitch’), shows no gratitude, makes false allegations, tells lies and insults religion? Would you simply ignore him and let him have his way? Of course not, common sense and maturity will tell you, you need to impose discipline. You don’t even need to use violence. He doesn’t want to go to school, fine, you cut his pocket money. No money whatsoever, you provide food and basic clothes, that’s it. He wants to go out and have leisure with friends, you severely curtail that. He’s obsessed with the Net, you stop internet subscription, you cancel cable TV, or even remove all computers. His hand-phone you downgrade to a basic 1. You give him tasks to complete, he cleans the house, cleans his room, helps his grandmother. He’s still stubborn, you tell him, he’s gonna have to stay with the 1 person he detests – his father. You seize his bank account, all monies people donated, you either return or inform unknown donors, you’ll donate it to charity. You do not allow him to procure monies online from strangers – you do not give an irresponsible kid thousands of dollars and allow him to buy stuff.

    You’re not sure what to do, you consult or get another adult relative to be discipline master. You’re not showing love by spoiling your child. This has nothing to do with freedom of speech or liberties. This is about parenting and disciplining a wayward kid.

    4. Can he now avoid RT? 

    Does his mother think all this is a game? Maybe he thinks so. In his warped thinking, as long as he captivated the public with his antics – he has fans and will get money. Does she think the judge or DPP is playing a game of poker with her son? That by calling their bluff, or by letting this become a widely reported case, charges will be dropped and he’ll get a lenient sentence or the judge will sympathise with him and her? At every stage, he’s openly defied the court. Courts don’t issue rulings for fun. Prison officials don’t ignore directions from the court, neither do probation officers.

    Probation was a chance to wipe the slate clean, hunker down, get back to the basics – do something meaningful – study, take up sports, do charitable works etc. There is of course a chance he might not be sent for RT. But is it too late now? His lawyers must come up with a very strong argument that he’ll comply with directions and instructions and obey the Law. But I doubt the DPP will be willing to budge. It’s almost certain come June 2, he’ll have to go back inside for 4 weeks to assess his suitability for RT. (These 4 weeks don’t count against any eventual RT sentence). Then it’s up to the prison officials to prepare the report and make recommendations for or against RT. I’ve seen cases where the report is negative – the youth is not recommended for RT, because something less stringent is an available option – that almost always means probation. But given his utter lack of supervision, his open defiance not only to his parents, but the court and his insistence on doing whatever he wants, can any reasonable person come out with an assurance that probation is the better alternative?

    It’ll be a minor miracle, if lawyer Alfred Dodwell can convince DJ Jasvender Kaur not to call for an RTC report and not to impose 1, if it’s so recommended.

    Jasvender Kaur, I feel is probably 1 of the top 3 judges in the lower courts. I’m surprised she’s not a High Court judge by now. Her decisions are meticulous and she’s always known to be a fair judge, not someone who’s extremely harsh or inflexible. Very seldom are her findings overruled by an appellate court. Her overriding factor would be rehabilitation and a chance for the boy to be responsible and get back on track in life. But even she cannot simply ignore, his repeated refusals to comply with her instructions. She cannot simply disregard the probation officer’s report on his refusal to even take the 1st step in meeting her. She cannot ignore the inability or reluctance by his mother to impose some discipline on him. He’s already been sniping at Christianity again, and has made veiled references against Buddhism. To let him off the hook now, how certain will it be that he’ll suddenly change overnight and start complying, when even after conviction, he’s been thumbing his nose at the Law? Unless the defense lawyers can come out with strong arguments, she has to seriously consider the DPP’s requests on sentencing.
    Conclusion.
    Some people have said, ‘oh he’s so talented, he writes well’ – a few even said he’ll make a good politician – prime minister no less! They gotta be joking. I can point to hundreds if not thousands of students in top schools like RI, RGS, ACS, Hwa Chong, even ones like St Andrew’s, St Joseph’s or maybe even top students from neighbourhood schools, who can write better. Who can speak just as well if not better, who are able to argue their cases logically and with maturity.
    What these people fail to see is a kid who latched on to the hottest topic of the day, to gain fame or notoriety. The issue is not about LKY, wanna call him, dog, cat or whatever – that’s a civil matter. But insult religion, Singaporeans don’t want to see or hear that. It could have easily have been the death of the pope or Dalai Lama, he would probably use that to gain the fame he craves. To garner ‘fans.’
    This is how he uses the Net – another snipe at Jesus and Christianity. Another example of ‘teaching people not to ‘fuck with Amos Yee.’
    For too long he’s been allowed to get away with whatever he wants, without consideration for the feelings or actions it has on others. He hides behind the computer, thinking it gives him the power to get his ‘revenge.’ Just read his posts against his cousins or other persons, who he thinks ‘molested him.’ His childish response – ‘I’m gonna shame you online – you don’t fuck with Amos Yee.’ Well nobody really cares if you think you’re getting your revenge – you’re not – you’re making a fool of yourself. A lot of people can see through your lies. A lot of people can see how spoilt you’ve become. And society and the Law has little time for such antics. No Western country is gonna take you based on your conduct. You can’t even get a passport, with NS looming. No schooling means no chance of going abroad either to study or get a long term visa.
    ‘Sleepers’ is a movie kids and their parents should watch – where 1 mistake and a combination of events can conspire to ruin your life.
    There’s this show he and his mother should watch – it’s called ‘Sleepers’ starring Brad Pitt, Robert de Niro and Dustin Hoffman. It’s about some kids who made the 1 mistake by playing a prank and ended up in a juvenile boys home. (Of course the show indicates the boys were sodomised by the guards, this is not gonna happen here). But the similarities are there – on January 1st this year – you started the year like any normal 16 year old finishing your O levels. But instead of acting rationally and doing what most kids do, you decided to continue living in your virtual world and do whatever you like – ignoring all the red flags. You’ve only got yourself to blame. RTC can make or break you, it’s really up to you, but a game it is not. It’s gonna be extremely hard, much tougher than NS. The tolerance for misbehaviour and disregarding rules is very low, maybe even zero. You either reflect and choose to study, or you face the daily grind of drills and discipline, and living with boys older and bigger than you, who won’t let you do things to ‘sabotage them’ like disobeying orders. They won’t take too kindly with a nerd trying to ‘act smart.’ Neither will the prison officials. And Mary Toh, well in trying show ‘your love for your son’ by just simply giving in each and every time, well now you’re not gonna have him around for 2 whole years, maybe more.
    At the end of the day, if you go back to January 1st and reflect on all that has transpired, you gotta ask yourself 1 question if RT is imposed – was it worth it?
    Source: http://anyhowhantam.blogspot.sg
  • Zulfikar Shariff: Jangan Bandingkan Lee kuan Yew Dengan Nabi Muhammad

    Zulfikar Shariff: Jangan Bandingkan Lee kuan Yew Dengan Nabi Muhammad

    I received a message from a Tipah who is trying hard to promote LKY. According to this Tipah (who claims to study at UIA)

    “i done my homework…and sy dapati beberapa perkataan LKY yg sama dgn cara Nabi awak….yg paling ketara ketika Nabi masuki Madinah Baginda menukarkan sistem ekonomi Madinah dari pertanian dan penternakkan kpd perniagaan…tidakkah itu ucapan LKY di city hall tahun 1965??”

    Dah kena tipu gila.

    LKY pun tukar sistem ekonomi Singapura dari pertanian/ penternakan ke perniagaan juga?

    Wahai Tipah. Singapura sejak zaman nenek moyang memang pusat perniagaan.

    Singapura’s location and harbour made it an ideal centre for sea trade.

    And when the British came, they did not develop an agriculture based economy. They focused on trade.

    There were gambier and pepper plantations prior to British colonization and there were attempts to promote a rubber industry but none of these industries stood close to the entrepôt trade that Singapore conducted.

    The British developed the trade system that is still applied in Singapura today. Not LKY.

    Will you now claim the British colonization of Singapura is based on Islam?

    These Tipah keep insulting Rasulullah by saying a man who is known for his zalim model his governance after Rasulullah.

    Sayang LKY sangat sampai boleh hina Rasulullah?

     

    Source: Zulfikar Shariff