Rilek1Corner

Tag: Vincent Law

  • Will The People Egging Amos Yee Do The Same If It Was Their Child?

    Will The People Egging Amos Yee Do The Same If It Was Their Child?

    The response to my previous article on Amos Yee, was not altogether unexpected. Many would agree, but there will be those who are so virulently anti-PAP, that any article that calls into question the actions of persons who are in some political or anti-establishment matter, will be met with derision.

    Some people are making Amos Yee into a political figure. Have they taken leave of their senses? He’s 16 for crying out loud. Which 16 year old should be a political figure?

    Anyone who ‘langgars’ (Malay for crashes into) the Govt, is a hero and must be supported at all costs. If you disagree, don’t support or worse condemn and question the actions of this person, you too must be condemned. But these people miss 1 key point, if you say the PAP is so bad that it disallows dissent and freedom of expression (and this is not altogether untrue), then by opposing anyone who disagrees with your point of view, you’re actually no better than the PAP. 1 must support all opposition parties or every single action by those who rail against the PAP. You cannot be different, you cannot support some policies or even like some PAP men, you must oppose all.

    Whatever happened to freedom to disagree? Why must I support Roy Ngerng, just because I also am not a PAP fan? Why can I not question Amos Yee’s actions since his arrest or offer a caution as in the article? Why must I only subscribe to your point of view – all out support? Some think by attacking the PAP at every turn, in the same vein as sites like FAP and others attack the Worker’s Party (WP), SDP and certain prominent opposition figures and political activists, they are combatting the PAP and cementing the ground in favour of the opposition.

    Some hardcore opposition supporters don’t realise the damage that people like Roy Ngerng and Leong Sze Hian are doing in regards to swing voters, whose votes are crucial.

    I beg to disagree, I think there’s a considerable middle ground, those who hardly comment on politics online, don’t follow either pro or anti-establishment or alternative sites or don’t really give a toss. Sure many of those in this segment of society, have also felt the effects of bad PAP policies in particular those concerning public housing, immigration, health care and transport costs, but their only action or input in politics will be that singular action – casting a vote. And there’s no guarantee whether they will vote opposition.

    Observing the conduct of some people who are very vocal, both online and in real life (attending protests, forums or speaking out), I am very worried that they are not doing the opposition cause as a whole any good. By being so extreme in their views, and the easy way they simply condemn and dismiss everyone who disagrees, they are putting off many swing or neutral voters. Worse they could be scaring them into not taking the plunge at the ballot box.

    I am not concerned by attacks or condemnation of what I write – I am not campaigning for anything and it won’t bother me if my blog is well read or not. In fact I’m quite amused by some of them. Take some the latest – that old chestnut – this blog is helmed by a PAP IB (Internet Brigade) or PAP supporter. (Which PAP IB/supporter calls for Lee Hsien Loong to resign? Calls the actions of PAP supporters reprehensible, condemns LKY for stifling dissent).  My post is too long winded (I agree). Roy and Alex Tan are heroes for speaking out (but do their content have substance, or is it generated to increasing viewership of their websites?). All these doesn’t bother me, it makes a good laugh between me and my friends. What concerns me is that these people think Amos has done nothing wrong and must have full unequivocal support.

    The Fault Lies with the Law.  

    They slam the Govt for prosecuting Amos. In actuality, 1 must first question the Police and then the AGC for acting so swiftly. No Govt Minister or MP called the Commissioner of Police or the DAG and specifically directed them to proceed all out to ‘whack’ Amos. This is always the misconception – if there is any evidence of this, it must be raised. Has any former police officer or DPP ever come forward to say, they were pressurised to act in a certain way by a politician? There cannot be political interference in the legal process. I have met many police officers and legal officers, they do not ‘receive a phone call’ and then given instructions. They do what they do, based on police reports filed (for the police) and the case filed submitted (for DPPs).

    Of course it’s open to speculation that these officers know which side ‘to butter their bread.’ But the real culprit is how the Law is fashioned. These officers are duty bound to follow the Law as it stands. I have met the case officers who handled some of the cases involving the SDP leadership and even knew personally 1 of the officers who had to detain Dr Chee Soon Juan. He like many of those mentioned are actually opposition supporters. They vote opposition, but when it comes to their duty, they are obliged to follow the Law.

    Ok let’s just agree with this TRS snapshot and blame the PAP, the question next is: Do you think the charges will be dropped just like that?

    Now this you can blame the PAP, for introducing/enacting such Laws. But the point is, having voted them in and given them a free hand to pass draconian laws, whose fault is it? You disagree with the Law, you should do 2 things, canvass widespread support and write in to the PAP or your respective MP saying why you disagree with the Law and want it changed. Not some anonymous online petition, actually writing in under your hand and name. The other is obvious – vote for someone else. But until either happens – you cannot simply disregard the Law as it stands merely because you disagree with it or think it’s unjust.

    Some people think online petitions like this have an effect. The answer is no, it’s just a gimmick that serves no real purpose. I read in Australia, MPs get sometimes 2,000 letters a week from their constituents telling them not to support something or change a law. This frightens politicians, voters in their constituencies writing in telling them won’t vote for them if they continue down a certain path.

    Ask yourself this, you say Amos is unfairly targeted, but will you go and do the same? Will go and produce a video in the same fashion? Will you and demonstrate outside the Court? You won’t right? Why? Because you know you will be on the wrong side of the Law.

    Amos Yee is not Blameless Either. 

    I read somewhere someone disagreeing with my take that Amos would not be prosecuted if this was in a ‘real Western democracy,’ saying my reference to ‘hate speech’ was wrong. Amos obviously did not produce hate speech, it’s merely ‘offensive.’ But my referencing that is to show, that there is no such thing as total freedom of speech even in the West. And given Amos’ conduct, even if he was in the West, it’ll be only a matter of time before he ups the ante and descends into that as well. Or if he’s smart enough to avoid that, the offensive nature of his content will eventually lead him down to a path of no return. He would go on insulting Christianity more and more, before next attacking Islam.
    Eventually he would piss the wrong people off and be subjected to violence, much worse than a mere slap.

    The Whole Point of that Article. 

    I can summarise that article under 3 key points:

    1) He’s being badly advised or no one is advising him correctly
    2) He’s not grasping the severity of his case.
    3) He’s in real danger of going to the Reformative Training Centre (RTC).

    You can dismiss me or my whole article, but you cannot make the case go away like that. You can blame the Police and Prosecution for acting so hastily. You can accuse them of double standards and mention other cases like Jason Neo’s, the RC member who threatened him with violence, the NTUC woman mocking a Malay wedding etc. And you have valid points there. But no matter how unfair it is, the lack of freedom of speech and the heavy handed manner, it will not make the charges disappear. At the end of the day the charges must be faced and combatted, if not, a clear and present danger exists.

    Amos Remains Defiant and Stubborn.

    Amos continues to remain defiant. In a bail hearing (Wednesday) before his trial commenced yesterday, there was a major climb down by the prosecution. Here’s some excerpts from a Today article:

    ‘Prosecutors offered to lower his bail amount by one-third to S$10,000 and not require him to report daily to Bedok Police Divisional Headquarters, provided the 16-year-old continues to go for psychiatric counselling. The ban on making postings on social media before his trial concludes, however, must still stand, while those that he had posted in breach of bail conditions have to be taken down.
    Amos, however, refused to budge on all three fronts.

    Decked in purple prison garb, Amos, who appeared in good spirits, frowned and shook his head when Deputy Public Prosecutor Hay Hung Chun called him a troubled person needing psychiatric help.
    When Mr Hay mentioned Amos’ blogged about his bail conditions in “not-too-polite terms”, Amos grinned.
    High Court judge Tay Yong Kwang questioned why it was so difficult to temporarily refrain from public online posts, and said the teenager would just have to learn to curb himself. With Amos’ refusal to go for psychiatric counselling, Justice Tay said he saw no reason to vary the bail conditions.’
    Sources close to his legal team have revealed that they have encouraged him to go psychiatric help/assessment and accept the lower terms. But he continues to be stubborn and maintain his own warp sense of right and wrong.
    Take his argument for not taking down the posts – it’ll still be available online! Simply put if I found an article that’s defamatory or inflammatory and posted it on my blog, I should ignore calls to remove it because it’s still available online. This cannot be correct. If the posts and video remains online, it will not be his fault anymore, so long as he himself doesn’t upload or post it.
    Lawyer Alfred Dodwell is doing his best and the latest argument on the legality of the obscenity charge is a valid one. But at the end of the day, he can only act on the instructions of his client, even if it’s a 16 year old kid. I’ve been told he’s been giving the correct advise to Amos who refuses to listen to the 1 person he should.
    And he’s taking it like some kind of game, grinning and smiling in court, when serious matters are being raised against him. Does he honestly believe that the Court will not take his demeanour and defiant attitude into account when determining what sentence to impose if it finds him guilty?
    Even the issue of going for psychiatric assessment is not a bad idea. If he’s found to be suffering from some kind of illness like an attention disorder or as I was informed, Asperger’s (his mother thinks so), it’ll help a lot in any sentencing. A court might be inclined to refer him for continual psychiatric help and as such agree to probation.
    Adults Behaving Badly.
    On Day 1 of his trial, it was revealed he decided to post the video even though he knew it will cause offence to Christians. And it was revealed he had consultations with some SDP members, who also directed him to watch Roy Ngerng’s videos and speeches. Roy also contacted Amos and wrote a really stupid article called ‘My friend Amos Yee.’

    Take a step back, read some of the rubbish Roy has posted. Do you think he’s been doing right by Amos? Shouldn’t he of all people advise Amos of the dangerous path he’s taking and not end up like him? Shouldn’t he of all people be vehemently encouraging Amos to comply and live to fight another day?

    I find these actions very troubling and reprehensive. What were these people thinking? Here’s a naïve 16 year old kid with no knowledge of politics and you encourage him? And Looney Fringe Roy instead of being a responsible adult and telling Amos, ‘No, this is my battle, I don’t need you to support me, please consider your future, you’re are in serious trouble. I too was arrested and charged in court, it’s a very serious matter, you should just cooperate, try and mitigate and hope to get off with a warning or probation.’
    What does Roy do? He writes in support of Amos, praising him for his honesty! He doesn’t chide or advise Amos to be respectful to his parents. (I read somewhere he called his mother a ‘bitch once’ and openly defied his father, provoking him into assaulting him). This is the same Roy that some people think is a hero! A hero who associates with kids and openly encourages them to continue down a dangerous path instead of warning them of the seriousness of the matter and consequences.
    What Advise/Action would People Egging him on do if it was their kid?
    As mentioned earlier, the extreme elements are all praising Amos, encouraging him and egging him on, just because he’s in a battle with the PAP.  What effect do you think this will have on him, together with the actions of Roy and others? Instead of realising he’s made a mistake, he will think he’s doing the right thing and should stick to his guns, which so far he has.
    But let’s for argument’s sake, agree with them – Amos is doing the right thing and should be praised, encouraged and egged on. The question to ask is whether they would do the same if it was their kid? Will they now tell or teach their sons and daughters to do what Amos has done? I think the answer is obvious.
    And how would they react if their own kid behaved like Amos? Refusing to listen (his mother told him not to upload the video, he wanted to wear pyjamas in court and purposely provoked his father until he snapped). The prosecution has made an offer to reduce bail and even his lawyers recommend going for psychiatric treatment. What will all these people do if their kids did the same, being openly stubborn, defiant and insisting on getting their own way?

    This is the image of Amos Yee people should take into account – just a kid. Not someone with worldly experience to battle the system.

    You want Amos to be your hero, but not your own kids. As I wrote in the earlier article, Amos is becoming a rebel for someone else’s cause. But just imagine if everyone he met, every adult including Roy, all tell him, ‘Never mind boy, you’ve already raised the issue of freedom of speech. You should be careful about insulting religion and there’s no point at this stage getting involved in politics. This is very serious, you can go to RTC, you better back down and just go through the motions the system requires. When you’re older, you can come back and be more involved in politics.’
    If everyone he interacts with tell him the danger and wrongdoings he committed (insulting religion, being disrespectful to his parents and even quitting school), you think he won’t be sceptical? He won’t hesitate and take stock?
    All those who egg him on should be ashamed of themselves. They are not discharging their duties as a responsible adult.
    RTC is very much on the cards, if not now then later. 
    I came across a comment saying I’m over-reacting, this is usually a fine case. Yes that’s possible, but only if you’re an adult. The guiding principle as far as the Courts are concerned with youthful offenders is rehabilitation. Of course the Court can if he’s found guilty, impose just a fine on all 3 charges.
    However the question 1 must ask, what is the prosecution going to ask for? You think after he thumbed his nose at every request they demanded he comply, they will be willing to recommend just a fine? After being told not to upload/take down or post further, he blatantly ignores. What if they agree to a fine and he goes and does this again? A fine looks very unlikely, most probably the judge will call for either a probation or RTC report.
    Ordinarily for a 1st time offender not involved in violent crime, probation is the norm. But before the officer recommends probation, there has to be certain things to suggest it’ll work. These includes:
    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.
    In the above (a), (b), (e) and (f) are the key factors. Has there been any indication up to now that Amos is prepared or capable of abiding by any of these? There has been none, and in that case, the RTC report will show:
    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.

    So Amos likes bananas. He thinks it’s funny to be photographed eating one outside court. A judge might assist him in his crave for bananas. I’m told bananas are often served in the RTC.

    Which of the 2 looks more likely based on all that has transpired? Even if he gets probation, but then goes and breaks the terms, he will go to RTC.
    Amos hasn’t done something that in normal circumstances will result in reformative training, but the conduct he has shown, the contempt, the disregard to instructions laid out by the Court and his refusal to listen to his parents, even his lawyers who are trying their best. All these are factors the judge may very well take into consideration and decide the only recourse is to send him to the RTC.
    Conclusion. 
    So to everyone who thinks he’s a hero, and deserves to be encouraged – you are doing more damage than good. He’s too young, naïve and immature to be your hero. He needs to be guided and given advice. You can condemn me, condemn my article – by all means, but are you doing the right thing for him? You will be terrified if your own 16 year old kid or brother did something like this. You’d never accept the kind of defiance, rudeness and total disregard for your authority. Why should it be any different with Amos Yee?
    Source:http://anyhowhantam.blogspot.sg
  • Amos Yee: A Dig At TOC – Media Free Of Manipulation Required

    Amos Yee: A Dig At TOC – Media Free Of Manipulation Required

    Now I also feel compelled to judge the journalistic integrity of my friends at TOC.

    This happened before I wrote that lengthy blog post revealing how I was victimized by Vincent’s sodomizing hands.

    In lieu of my Facebook post, which they quoted in their own article, I did not apologize to Vincent, I just said I was going to.

    But yet, TheOnlineCitizen so boldly put as a headline, ‘Amos Yee apologises for molest allegation against former bailor’

    It’s a small difference, but significant nonetheless. A blatant claim that I had already apologized, seems much more convincing than he is about to apologize soon, now doesn’t it?

    So you add that little pepper that thestraitstimes commonly use to attempt to salvage your actions, and not lose a huge part of your outreach because you spoke up for him.

    Because you don’t want people to feel that the boy whom you so boldly put up on a pedestal to advocate freedom of speech, might be a fucking dick for falsely accusing his bailor of molestation for no good reason, and is not especially remorseful for it.

    We’re all capable of twisting the truth a little when things don’t go our way now aren’t we? And with the moral quandary of having both Amos and Vincent on your side, Terry (The writer of TOC), got a little bit flustered, which constituted to that little fuck-up.

    So let’s all not choose whether or not to criticize someone just because somebody is on your side, but instead choose to criticize them, because they are wrong.

    And from there, we can perhaps more effectively create a political climate and a media, that is honest, and isn’t constantly rife with manipulation.

     

    Source: Amos Yee

  • Amos Yee – A Response To Francis Micah Law

    Amos Yee – A Response To Francis Micah Law

    So Vincent’s son, Francis Micah Law, wrote a Facebook post, trying to validate the emotional abuse that his father had caused me:

    Most of the post is blatant pandering to his father, constant repetition of how what Vincent was doing was borne from kind-hearted intentions, most of which I have refuted extensively in my previous blog post, coupled with little ramblings of how he tried to attain his inner chee, attempting to give the impression that he’s a deep thinker, without actually being one.

    I’ll respond to some selected sections of the post.

    Amos claimed that nobody but himself knew what was going on? Well, now there’s me.

    No, you never knew what was going on. We had one conversation at your home, and the one-sided reasons your father gave to you on why he so kind-heartedly bailed me, and you claim that you knew exactly what he did to me?

    You knew that he intimidated me? You knew that he threatened to discharge himself 9 times? You knew I was completely miserable when I had to meet him every day?

    Wow… I see we have a psychic in the family.

    In many ways, my dad treated Amos almost like a son

    Wow, so like me, you experienced emotional abuse every day? Damn… you gotta speak up man.

    My dad did it because he saw a brilliant boy who needed a second chance. He didn’t care for the publicity, he wasn’t “jealous” that Amos was getting all the attention. All he wanted was to help Amos out of his predicament

    It’s so arrogant, that whenever you disagree with someone’s views, or their approach in doing things, you imply that they have some sort of problem that needs to be fixed, and they are in a ‘predicament’.

    So your father went in bailing me with such condescension, wanting to be the dominant one that gave advice. I can see why your father is now acting particularly insecure, now that he’s the one that is submissive.

    Part of my father’s conditions as a bailor was to keep in contact with Amos every 24 hours

    And yet Vincent told me initially, that he only intended to meet me once a week. Hmmm.. so suspicious.

    which, I must add, Amos wasn’t very compliant to.

    Yeah, no fucking shit I was not compliant, you do not need to ‘add’ anything. I’m sure that if you are absolutely miserable and experiencing emotional turmoil every day, you wouldn’t be considered ‘compliant’, now wouldn’t you?

    ‘There was once Amos came over to my place, he stared long and hard at a luggage tag in the shape of those green aliens from Toy Story 2. Convinced that Amos really liked it, my dad would look through every shop he passed by that might sell the luggage tag’

    I have not seen a luggage tag at Vincent’s house, I have absolutely no recollection of a luggage tag at his house, I am absolutely confused and shocked that there is a story about me seeing a luggage tag at his house. This is an absolute lie.

    I still remember his first words to me after we introduced ourselves to each other.

    “Hey Francis, your father is a great man. He bailed me out of jail!” With a wide grin on his face.

    Ahh.. you were seeing the manipulation at work.

    After-which we all sat down and had a chat about his plans for the future as well as our personal thoughts on education and film. I would say we all had a pretty good time. In that space, we all respected each other’s opinions which I was something I really appreciated.

    Ok this has absolutely nothing to do with Vincent, but it’s getting kind of distracting so I have to mention, please proofread your post. Like a few times before posting. Because it’s very clear that you didn’t.

    ‘wanted to fulfil is role as a bailor’, ‘which I was something I really appreciated’?

    I know there’s like a 40-minute time limit whenever you have to write an English composition, and you never have time to proofread your writing. But this is an internet post, you have all the time in the world.

    I see comments on your post and one of them was ‘brilliantly written’, what the fuck are they talking about? Can the prose be any blander? Does this phrase sound grammatically correct to you?

    ‘look through every shop he passed by’

    I mean I know I’m guilty of making spelling and grammar mistakes all the time, but regardless, I’m interested in how one can ‘look through’ a shop. Is the entire shop made of glass?

    You can tell why we are behind in the arts scene when people considers this ‘brilliant writing’.

    And no I didn’t, I completely disrespected your opinions, they were absolutely horrible.

    You were taking this thing called ‘Mass Commmunication’ in polytechnic where there was some kind of film course included.

    And I argued that especially with the availability of the internet, film schools are an absolutely inefficient and awful way to study filmmaking. If you did it by yourself, you are not constrained by a syllabus and can learn the techniques of filmmaking, from the movies that not your film professor, but you like, and make your independent film whenever you want. And people from Rodriguez, to Linklater to Paul Thomas Anderson, have already proven that.

    But then you were like ‘No! No! There are so many things that you can only learn in school, that you can’t learn anywhere else.’

    And yet you were never able to identify one.

    And concerning the fact that several film students have complained about how they were absolutely bored when they had to study the films their film professors put in the curriculum (Citizen Kane, Casablanca. God damn.. I wanna see some pulp fiction dude)

    You replied with one of the stupidest things that I’ve ever heard in my life:

    ‘Most of the time, you can’t learn things that you like, that’s part of learning’

    Ladies and gentleman, that’s basically the mindset that school teachers hold when they try to validate their horrid job, not feeling any remorse that they are spending 8 hours a day teaching material to kids that don’t give a solitary fuck.

    And when people come up to me and ask, ’Amos! How do you know so much stuff?’

    Well, not wasting my time on shit that I’m not interested in, and learning things because I want to instead of scoring well for an exam, kind of helps.

    And that is why, despite several people’s claims that I will have a much brighter future if I went back to study, and their enticements of students visas overseas, I will not accept it, because I am not going back to school.

    Just before he left (and stared at the luggage tag),

    What fucking luggage tag?

    he turned around and said, “You know Vincent, I wasn’t so sure about this before, but this was quite nice. We should do this again sometime.”

    Wow I was really good wasn’t I?

    let me quote two passages in the Bible that explains my reaction to his allegations.

    Matthew 5:44 “But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you”

    Mark 12:31 “The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

    But your dad instead decided to uphold these other 2 passages:

    Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him. -Luke 12:5

    Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written … him only shalt thou serve. – Matthew 4:10

    As a Christian myself, I believe that responding in love instead of hatred would not only be a more peaceful solution, but a more constructive one as well.

    So if Vincent rapes me, I should respond with love?

    I could take legal action against him,

    Go ahead

    get him and the media to apologise

    No you can’t.

    or I could just forgive him and find an alternative solution to protecting my father’s reputation.

    Your father emotionally abused a child, I don’t know how much ‘protecting’ you can offer.

    my father’s choice in bailing Amos out was not a mistake.

    Tell that to Jolovan.

    I firmly believe that he was right to offer Amos a second chance and I fully support my father in this matter.

    You fully support your father emotionally abusing a 17-year-old boy. Wow… like father like son eh?

    If anyone has any questions regarding what I said above, please do not hesitate to contact me.

    Oh hi I have a question, what the fuck is wrong with you?!

    So it seems that in a stunning display of nepotism, Francis has so boldly came out of the shadows, validating his father’s actions and advocating child pedophilia as a method of showing ‘care and concern’, I am so fucking fearful for Francis’ future kids.

    And I would also like to point out the fact that Francis did not even mention the evidence that really proved that his father was a dick.

    He didn’t mention the frequent threats his father made to discharge himself, he didn’t mention still pushing himself in my line of vision at court, even when I and many people had made it clear that I never wanted to see him again. He didn’t mention his father advocating freedom of speech and the release of me and then afterwards threatening to sue me for defamation.

    You know because I want to portray my dad as the victim of the situation, so don’t mention all that stuff and hopefully nobody will noticed. Well I noticed. Ah hah, I got you there Francis, you might be able to fool everyone, but you can’t fool me.

    So I’m sure Francis has read my blog post concerning his father’s molestation. So that means that in Francis’ view, threats, intimidations and emotional abuse are now considered ‘counselling techniques’ and an expression of ‘love’ and ‘care’.

    And unfortunately Francis isn’t the only who thinks that way, because looking at the comments on the ‘My Abusive Father’ blog post, my father hitting my head on the ground, almost killing me, that is validated as the actions of a parent, done simply because he ‘cares’ for me. They coin that method as the ‘chinese way’.

    So we live in a society, where emotional and physical abuse, is a form of showing one’s care and concern. Wow…. For me and everyone out there, I am terrified.. I am really fucking terrified….

     

    Source: https://amosyee.wordpress.com

  • Francis Micah Law: Not A Mistake For My Father To Bail Amos And Offer Second Chance

    Francis Micah Law: Not A Mistake For My Father To Bail Amos And Offer Second Chance

    So in the recent weeks I’ve been bombarded with many questions about Amos Yee in regards to my father, Vincent Law.

    “Why did your dad do it?” “Have you met Amos?” “How do you feel about the allegations that Amos made against you dad?”

    Not wanting to jeopardise my reputation for fear of my future, I had decided to stay silent. However, after reading Amos’ latest post, I feel it is time my selfishness came to an end. Amos claimed that nobody but himself knew what was going on? Well, now there’s me.

    So let’s begin with “Why did you dad do it?”

    My dad did it because he saw a brilliant boy who needed a second chance. He didn’t care for the publicity, he wasn’t “jealous” that Amos was getting all the attention. All he wanted was to help Amos out of his predicament.

    In many ways, my dad treated Amos almost like a son. While he may have seemed hard on Amos in front of him, my dad stood up for Amos in more ways than one. Whenever the press questioned him, he would never put Amos down, always painting a positive portrayal of Amos in hopes that that would improve the public opinion of Amos. I’m not saying that my father is right in raising his voice at Amos, but he did it because he cared for him and wanted to fulfil is role as a bailor. Part of my father’s conditions as a bailor was to keep in contact with Amos every 24 hours, which, I must add, Amos wasn’t very compliant to.

    There was once Amos came over to my place, he stared long and hard at a luggage tag in the shape of those green aliens from Toy Story 2. Convinced that Amos really liked it, my dad would look through every shop he passed by that might sell the luggage tag. While he did manage to find and purchase a figurine, he never had a chance to give it to him because Amos had already gone and broke his bail terms.

    Which leads me to the next question, “Have you met Amos?”

    It was about 9 in the morning on the first Saturday after my father had bailed Amos out. I was awoken by loud discussions coming from the living room. Annoyed by the noises I opened my door, and, lo and behold, it was Amos Yee in his pyjamas sitting on my couch.

    I still remember his first words to me after we introduced ourselves to each other.

    “Hey Francis, your father is a great man. He bailed me out of jail!” With a wide grin on his face.

    After I had brushed my teeth, I returned to the living room to see that my brother was receiving the same greetings I had just a few minutes ago.

    “Hey Frederick, your father is a great man!” he repeated.

    After-which we all sat down and had a chat about his plans for the future as well as our personal thoughts on education and film. I would say we all had a pretty good time. In that space, we all respected each other’s opinions which I was something I really appreciated.

    Just before he left (and stared at the luggage tag), he turned around and said, “You know Vincent, I wasn’t so sure about this before, but this was quite nice. We should do this again sometime.”

    So yes, I have met Amos.

    And of course, “How do you feel about the allegations Amos made against your dad?”

    I would be lying if I said I wasn’t angry. In fact, I had half a mind to take legal action against him as well. That’s my father he was defaming!

    Then again, no one makes the best decisions when they’re angry so I decided to calm down before taking any further action.

    Disclaimer: Before reading this next portion, I would like you to know that I am not using this post to promote my faith. Everything I’m writing is merely my opinion and you have every right to disagree with me.

    After I taken a step back and looked at the situation in its totality, I decided there really was no point in me retaliating in anger.

    In his post, Amos referred to Mark 3:29. Well, let me quote two passages in the Bible that explains my reaction to his allegations.

    Matthew 5:44 “But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you”
    Mark 12:31 “The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

    As a Christian myself, I believe that responding in love instead of hatred would not only be a more peaceful solution, but a more constructive one as well. I could take legal action against him, get him and the media to apologise and so forth, or I could just forgive him and find an alternative solution to protecting my father’s reputation.

    Once again, I’d like to stress that I’m not trying to impose my faith on the reader through this post, I’m merely stating my side of the story that wouldn’t be complete without including my beliefs.

    At the end of the day, no man is perfect, my father included. We all make mistakes and bad choices. However, my father’s choice in bailing Amos out was not a mistake. I firmly believe that he was right to offer Amos a second chance and I fully support my father in this matter.

    I hope that this post clears the air up a bit on the issue pertaining to my father’s tenure as Amos’ bailor. If anyone has any questions regarding what I said above, please do not hesitate to contact me.

     

    Source: Francis Micah Law

  • Vincent Wijeysingha: In persecuting Amos Yee, Singapore Has Lost Its Humanity

    Vincent Wijeysingha: In persecuting Amos Yee, Singapore Has Lost Its Humanity

    I wrote the following last weekend but did not publish it until now because Amos Yee’s case was still sub judice:

    I avoided making any public comment on the Amos Yee case because parties associated with the PAP would seize upon anything to suggest that some eminence grise was behind his video, that Amos was being exploited for some perverse political enterprise. This accusation is regularly leveled at opponents of the PAP. When five SMRT drivers were in jail following the bus drivers’ strike in 2012, the authorities showed them a photo of me and asked if they recognised me. No doubt someone was most anxious to divert the story from that of labour discrimination to one of political manipulation so as to absolve the SMRT and, therefore, the government, from any culpability.

    However, tonight, as I contemplate the conclusion of the trial and await the judge’s verdict next Tuesday, I have one or two things I feel I must say even if only the ISD pays attention! In all of my forty-five years, I have never been so disgusted, so ashamed to be a Singaporean as I have in these last 6 weeks watching the state torment and bludgeon a teenage boy who had, in its opinion, the temerity to utter sentiments that, if the truth be told, many, many people were feeling in the wake of Lee Kuan Yew’s death. I need not rehearse the points made by Amos in his fateful video post but I’d wager there are many who did not share the public mourning and did agree with Amos that the man who was being so lamented had a tremendously dark side which resulted in terrible outcomes for the people whom he made his enemies and that, therefore, his passing from the political stage was welcomed. I am one of them: I welcome his passing from the loathsome, crepuscular political stage he engendered.

    I was so profoundly disgusted to watch the state use all the means at its disposal to throw a bulwark against this boy for fear that the sacrosanct memory of the departed prime minister might be tarnished. Can anyone be blamed for entertaining the suspicion that the real reason they treated him thus was not because of his obscenity or his harassment or his sedition but plainly and simply to safeguard the former prime minister whose posthumous reputation will be so useful to the PAP’s vote share at election time?

    Not content to put the fear of, well, god, into him, the public authorities arrested him in his grandparents’ home, handcuffed him and hauled him away, remanded without adult protection for days before they put him in front of a judge. And as if to compound or underline the government’s bellicosity, the state-run media published downright untrue headlines about the case.

    I was disgusted and ashamed to watch a child handcuffed and shackled in my name, and wearing a nauseatingly ugly prison uniform while surrounded by any number of policemen. This treatment has continued every time Amos has been brought to court and no public body or official thought it apposite to enter an objection. Each time I read that Amos was so shackled, I wonder what threat the public authorities believe this skinny sixteen year old poses to public safety. Well, let me tell them there is none. This boy is not violent; he is neither a danger to himself nor to others. He only offended by his words. There was no reason whatsoever to treat him the way the police did. And speaking as a social worker who has worked for many years with children, I am so very deeply concerned at the long-term damage this experience will do to him.

    To watch the state deal with a gifted child on the threshold of a lustrous adulthood, the government utters a fundamental untruth when it says that people are our only resource. In fact, its only resource is its own reputation, however beleaguered it currently is. And to extend it, it would bully a child.

    There is no public official today who can be proud of himself for the treatment dealt this boy well before he was convicted of any offence. Even the shameful spectacle of the public prosecutor bargaining for a reduction in Amos’ bail conditions if he would submit to psychological assessment had nothing whatsoever to do with the purpose of bail, which is to compel subsequent attendance in court. Amos is not a flight risk. Therefore the suspicion that the state intended to make life as difficult for him as possible cannot have escaped the mind of anyone who has paid attention to the case.

    That the state considered the utterances of this boy to endanger the reputation of a two thousand year old institution and the memory of a world renowned statesman, widely considered the father of his nation, was testament not so much to the virulence of his words but to the scandalous wickedness of the state which punishes a young boy for daring to offend the memory of the PAP’s founder and jeopardise his electoral utility.

    I am nauseated by how the justice system has treated this boy. And every parent, every social worker, every teacher, should be equally scandalised. To me, not a lawyer, this is a repudiation of the sacred confidence we vest in our courts. Tonight, the state stands indicted before the court of natural justice.

    I sincerely and earnestly hope the PAP will suffer for so doing come election time.

    Why has no public body raised its voice in defence of this boy? Why did the Director of Social Welfare, whom we charge to safeguard vulnerable children, not assume her statutory duty and inquire into his well-being. Why did she not make appropriate inquiries when he disclosed parental abuse? She cannot pretend to be ignorant because the entire nation was aware of how he was abused at home and in public. Until this moment no social worker has called for this young man to be protected rather than attacked and assaulted. As a social worker I am so thoroughly ashamed of the members of my profession, of social work teachers at SIM and NUS, of the Singapore Association of Social Workers, who have refused, in craven cowardice, to raise their voices in defence of a child whose “crime” was to say something that some, and only some, considered objectionable.

    That stranger who hit Amos outside the State Courts encapsulated and summed up the state’s attitude to Amos. And it is this: that if you challenge the status quo, the received wisdom, the reputation of those with power, you will be hammered and bludgeoned. His entitlement to punch Amos was an entitlement he believed conferred upon him: he watched how the state dealt with Amos and felt himself justified in replicating it. And the state has confirmed this view by keeping his identity private while splashing Amos’ identity all over our media, both print and broadcast. As if to quantify and codify the prevailing temper, that so-called journalist, Bertha Henson, cheered from her cowardly sideline when Amos was assaulted. That malevolent woman, together with everyone who approved of the unprovoked assault on Amos, has forfeited her right to be regarded any more as a human being because she has connived in the abuse of a child. To harm a child is inhuman; to cheer when it is done is anti-human.

    The state which has played out this sorry saga must hang its head in shame. Amos Yee was not just assaulted on the piazza of the State Courts, he was assaulted by Singapore itself. It is no longer, nor can it be, a return to business as usual. Because our community and our government have today descended to the depths of depravity where children are beaten in public, where the system closes an eye as we shackle and handcuff them, where journalists cheer as children are assaulted, where newspapers write misleading headlines.

    All in the name of protecting a dead politician whose enormous reputation and, indeed, many misdeeds, have neither need for nor right to protection.

    Vincent Wijeysingha

    *  Vincent is a lecturer at SIM University.

     

    Source: www.tremeritus.com