Retard Cenotaph Vandal Pwned and Rotan Soon

Dumbass vandal Mohamad Khalid Mohamad Yusop is only getting 3 strokes. I thought he deserved more in jail time or better, rotaning as he was the dick who sprayed on the Cenotaph. Sticker Lady was at least funny in a cheeky way. If want to break the law, at least try to get popular support by being funny or relevant to the popular imagination. Khalid 's "work" was just distasteful. Vandalism of a memorial for the war dead is cock and crass. BTW Swiss FT Oliver Fricker got 5 months and 3 strokes for tagging MRT trains.

Cenotaph vandal gets 3 months’ jail, 3 strokes
SINGAPORE — A security officer who vandalised the Cenotaph War Monument was sentenced to three months’ jail and three strokes of the cane today (Aug 26).
By Claire Huang Jingyi



SINGAPORE — A security officer who vandalised the Cenotaph War Monument was sentenced to three months’ jail and three strokes of the cane today (Aug 26).

Mohamad Khalid Mohamad Yusop, 33, was also made to pay S$208 to the state for the cost of repair.

He had used a can of red spray paint to write an “X” followed by the word “Democracy” on the monument on 23 April night.

In sentencing, District Judge Lim Tse Haw described the act as “highly anti-social” and “very selfish”.

Citing the case of Oliver Fricker, the foreigner who vandalised two SMRT train carriages, the judge said Singapore’s strict laws against vandalism are largely responsible for a clean and graffiti-free environment here.

While the judge noted that the cost of repair was higher in the Fricker case at about S$11,000, compared with the S$208 in the Cenotaph case, he said the key aggravating factor is the significance of the public property that was vandalised.

Built in 1922, the Cenotaph monument is dedicated to the memory of 124 British soldiers born or resident in Singapore who died in World War I. It was later also dedicated to the memory of those who died in World War II.

“These soldiers sacrificed their lives so that we can enjoy the peace that we have today,” the judge told Mohamad Khalid. “By your actions, you have shown great disrespect to the memory of our war dead and hurt the feelings of their descendants.”

The judge noted that Mohamad Khalid had a low level of premeditation.

He also took into account the fact that Mohamad Khalid had apologised and sought the forgiveness of all Singaporeans for his unthinking action.

Still, the judge said the monument is in a public place and a deterrent sentence is warranted.

Mohamad Khalid could have been fined up to S$2,000 or jailed up to three years and caned between three and eight strokes. CHANNEL NEWSASIA

Demon-cratic's Buttocks Thumped, Again

Once more with feeling! Poor Leslie Chew is getting famous once more. Not sedition but contempt of court! SDP is bound to back their favourite cartoonist as they have done so in the past. Why is AGC out to thump Demon-cratic again? Two simple reasons. The earlier sedition charges were not punitive enough and the cartoons did not stop or at least tone down despite the obvious warning to Leslie to stay low.

Hence, if Demon-cratic was dumb enough to be stubborn, urged on by his fans, friends and SDP for all we know, AGC is going to take action for the Super White and fine and/or jail Leslie to scare the monkeys. Too bad for Leslie but it is all good for him as he wants to be a rebel. It gives his defiant cartoons more street cred and omph. But why pick Leslie and not the others?  Also why now? Hmmm part of the broader hard touching of some but not others in the Internet?

BTW Anti-death penalty UK citizen Alan Shadrake was sentenced 6 weeks jail and fined $20,000 for scandalising the judiciary.  I'm not a big fan of Demon-cratic's lame messages compared to other cartoonists, also because he used software rather than hand draw like the others, so popcorn out, watching the show and waiting to see what would happen to Leslie. Nothing good I bet! I think 3 weeks and $10,000 fine. Gulp.

Singapore Charges Cartoonist for Alleged Contempt of Court
By Chun Han Wong

Singapore prosecutors are pursuing charges against a local artist for alleged contempt of court over cartoons he drew that authorities say had scandalized the judiciary.

Leslie Chew, 37, has been under police investigation since April for potential wrongdoing in several cartoons he drew for his Internet comic strip. The Attorney-General’s Chambers this week launched formal legal proceedings against Mr. Chew over five of his cartoons, the agency said Thursday in a statement.

The proceedings are “aimed at protecting the administration of justice… and upholding the integrity of one of our key public institutions,” the agency said. Singapore’s High Court accepted the application in relation to four cartoons and set the next hearing Aug. 12.

If found guilty, Mr. Chew could be jailed, fined, or both. Singapore law doesn’t prescribe any maximum penalty for contempt of court.

Mr. Chew said that he would meet his lawyers before deciding his next move. The cartoonist publishes a comic strip on Facebook titled “Demon-cratic Singapore,” which he describes as a “totally fictional comic.” The strip has over 25,800 followers on Facebook.

According to the AGC, the four cartoons cited in the contempt proceedings were published in July 2011, January 2012 and June 2012. Those comic strips made references to  legal proceedings in Singapore courts that had occurred near the time of publication. Two of them mentioned the phrase: “The Kangaroo Court of Singapore.”

In April, police had questioned Mr. Chew over a Dec. 14 cartoon that referred to the recent retirement of a Supreme Court judge, according to Choo Zhengxi, one of Mr. Chew’s lawyers. The questioning followed a letter that the AGC sent Mr. Chew in December, which said that cartoon “scandalizes” Singapore courts through “scurrilous and false” allegations, Mr. Choo previously said. Police and prosecutors have declined to comment. The Dec. 14 cartoon isn’t part of the AGC’s contempt proceedings against Mr. Chew.

Singapore has in the past won several cases of contempt against opposition politicians and foreign publications. Rights activists say the government uses such suits to stifle criticism. Officials say the actions are necessary to defend themselves against false allegations.

Mr. Chew first came under investigation in April, when he was arrested and questioned for alleged sedition after a citizen filed a police complaint against the cartoonist for certain comic strips that the person said were racially insensitive. These cartoons are not the same ones as those currently alleged to be in contempt of court.

The cartoonist was subsequently released on bail while prosecutors considered whether to bring charges. The charges announced Thursday did not include sedition. Singapore law broadly defines sedition as acts agitating against the government and the administration of justice, fostering discontent among citizens, and promoting hostility between ethnic groups.

Todds Sabo-ed by their Own Expert Dr Adelstein

The Todds relied on 2 irritating we-are-US-therefore-better backing at first to prove that their son Shane Todd was murdered. Murdered by whom? The Todds were saying, the Tiongs, as Shane was working in a secret project with Huawei, the big evil Chinese corporation. O RLY?

The sibeh super secret modem-hand chicken maker Huawei project Shane Todd was working on... shhhhhh secret hor

First the Todds said that the hard drives Shane had were tampered with and FBI would back them up. Then the FBI checked and said that they were not tampered with. Todds has nothing to say except that their son was still murdered. <Shake head> Our Mata no credibility and need endorsement from FBI. Mata better make more CLIF shows with Mediacorp to boost street cred. Where is Inspector Mike Chin and SGT Alan Leong? LOL

Second, the Todds relied on one Dr Adelstein who said that Shane was strangled to death by a hitman with a cord, like in movies.Then during a court 'live' interview, although he is safe in the US, Dr Adelstein backtracked and said Shane was not garrotted because 2 more reputable US pathologists already disagreed with the garrote conspiracy theory. Ooops. However not to lose face, the good doctor <cough cough> charlatan, said that Shane was murdered. Must have been the same uncaught gunman from the grassy knoll who did it! Seriously, if there was a conspiracy, it was the CIA who killed him as Shane was working for the Tiongs and would have returned to the US to spy! BTW that's another retarded wild story befitting of a new Fox 24 series.

The whole court drama is one simply about the Todds cannot get over it that their son CMI and want to blame someone. First it was the Tiongs who killed Shane, then Mata who could not find evidence, now Court and Singapore for a cover-up. When would they blame their own friends and others like Dr Adelstein who urged them to further levels of self-denial and sorrow?

Expert witness retracts opinion that Shane Todd was garrotted

SINGAPORE: The medical examiner engaged by the family of American researcher Shane Todd has retracted his initial opinion that the 31-year-old was garrotted.

Giving his evidence on Tuesday over video-link from the US, Dr Edward Adelstein said he agreed with four other forensic pathologists that Dr Todd was not garrotted - which is strangulation with a cord or wire - as there were no signs of any internal neck injury.

This came after he reviewed more information he received from Dr Todd's family a few days ago. Dr Adelstein had based his initial findings on the autopsy report and photographs of Dr Todd at his wake.

Dr Adelstein added however, that he still believes Dr Todd's death to be a homicide.

When questioned by Senior Counsel Isaac Tan as to what caused Dr Todd's death, Dr Adelstein suggested that he could have died from a taser or from a carotid armlock or a neck chokehold - but admitted he did not have medical evidence and could not know for sure.

Dr Adelstein added that he believes that Dr Todd was already dead when he was "strung up with the ligature around his neck".

He confirmed however, that he was not a certified forensic pathologist.

The Todd family walked out of the subordinate courtroom shortly after the afternoon session began.

They said a witness, who allegedly saw Dr Todd the day before he was found hanged, has been sprung on them by surprise and they did not have time to prepare for his evidence.

They have asked for his evidence to be adjourned till Wednesday, but the witness - Luis Alejandro Andro Montes - is due to leave Singapore on Tuesday evening.

The Todds told reporters they have not decided if they will attend the remainder of the inquiry.

The Idiot Parade: Zainudin, Lina, 21 Malaysians, Jolovan

Lots of idiots parading in front of us this past week. Firstly, it was Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC MP "gang rape is democracy" man. Facepalm. And we thought "blood will be shed" Vivian Balakrishnan or "I don't know what to say" Tin Pei Ling were bad. OK so what if Zainudin was quoted out of context. That is the game right? If it is too hot, stay out of the kitchen! Well, talking about kitchen, Aunty Lina Chiam who lost Potong Pasir the last time should stay in the kitchen and not wear the pants and try politics. Oops am I sexist? She tried to hit Zainudin with a frying pan in her SPP statement because the PAP MP made the gang rape mobocracy quote. In the end she slipped and fell on her fat ass as she didn't understand what the hell was happening and thought that Zainudin condoned rape culture. LOL Let's boot out idiots Zainudin and Lina next election PLEASE!

Then there were the Malaysian protestors at Merlion. WTF instead of protesting outside the Malaysian High Commission or take a bus to JB to protest at City Square since that is Malaysian problem right? No, they too lazy to go Malaysia JB and want to protest somewhere in central Singapore instead. There was an earlier protest where 9 were warned. Then others didn't get the message and protested at Merlion on Saturday. Police cannot take it that these Malaysians cannot get the hint, so had to arrest 21 from this second protest next! Since the 9 inspired whether they intended or not, these 9 would probably be sent home now, and the 21 would be jailed and/or fined and then sent home. Too bad for the employers who hired these 20, have to hire other Malaysians instead.

Anyway, I don't care and it is good entertainment, more fun than what 6.9 protest at Hong Lim park by that Gilbert guy. Still, PRC workers strike, Malaysians protest, what next? Bangla flash mob? LOL wait, I better not laugh, it might happen!

Then Jolovan Wham is back again at Speakers Corner. First he showed solidarity with PRC drivers who went on strike. Now he showed solidarity with Malaysians who protest. What is his infatuation with foreigners breaking laws? Wasn't it reported before he went to Hong Kong and asked Hongkies to protest to help the Tiong workers who got arrested for the strike here? He really likes foreigners who play hardass and resist!

Rumpole is a Funny Actor!

WTF! Horny professor Tey aka Sammyboy Rumpole deserves a Razzies award for worst lead actor in a comedy. He is now back to playing stressed and insane victim in his courtroom comedy drama. He screwed his students, has a family-breaking mistress working in CRA and now looks like trying to bed the 2 lawyers working for him too! LOL

Aiyoyoh! Look at his crotch - looks like a hard on!

Ng Boon Gay is Free to Go

Well, the court, specifically District Judge Siva Shanmugam, implied that where Ng wanted to put and poke his dick is his own private and personal business, and a "corrupt" act that his in-laws should get involved in, not CPIB. In retrospect, the entire story behind this case was whether Cecilia Sue is chio or not, and whether she is more chio than Ng's wife, and finally whether Ng's wife should have stood by him or divorced him and get some serious alimony. Not whether Ng gave contracts for sex, which he had no power to as he did not deal with such contracts at all so it seemed.

All the controversy and speculation on who the mystery woman initially raged, and when Cecilia appeared finally, it climaxed. Although before that some poor people were wrongly outed in the internet as the woman who slept with the CNB chief. Singapore's number one political gossip and inner circle forum Sammyboy naturally had its fair share of insider leaks on what was happening e.g. Cecilia's colleague Koh Hong Eng desperately attempted to defend her by saying there was some government conspiracy to screw Ng.

Cecilia then caused some court drama when she insinuated that the CNB top cop forced himself on her. Oh-Oh. While "rape" was not mentioned, she managed to shoot holes into her own story by turning it upside down for CPIB that that there was no corruption and exchange of favours. The inconsistencies in her story screwed CPIB.

In the end, about one year after the first sex scandal of 2012 arose, there is no totally happy ending for poor Ng and Cecilia, their names jizzed on for public ridicule. Ng although acquitted, as a top civil servant of a cool outfit, his career is fucked coz of some extra-marital affair. Wrong woman, wrong time, wrong enemy. Some competitor in the IT business was probably angry with Oracle or Cecilia's fat government accounts, and that started the whole CPIB corruption and sex comedy. Office politics and backstabbing stakes much higher now as CPIB and the court is involved! Beware of who you offend at work and in the industry nowadays! The other side of the sharp sword - not sure of how to totally screw your rival and to get ahead? Well...smirk.

The other morale of this story, hurrah for the court. It has shown critics again that the judiciary can and is independent. CPB can think and hope all they want but the court might not give to them the head they wanted in the end.

Ng Boon Gay's "not guilty" verdict: AGC will assess whether to appeal decision
By Joyce Lim

The Attorney-General's Chambers says it has not decided whether it will appeal the not-guilty verdict of former top cop Ng Boon Gay.

A spokesman said: "We will assess the grounds of decision and assess whether to appeal or not".

Similarly, the prosecution will have to decide whether or not to charge star witness Cecilia Sue, 36.

Mr Ng, 46, the former head of the Central Narcotics Bureau, was found not guilty by District Judge Siva Shanmugam on Thursday afternoon.

He was accused of obtaining four counts of oral sex from Ms Sue in 2011, in exchange for furthering the business interests of her then employers, Hitachi Data Systems and Oracle Corporation Singapore.

Mr Ng's lawyer, Mr Tan Chee Meng, said they are "extremely happy with the outcome".

Mr Ng's wife, Madam Yap Yen Yen, was crying and holding a relative's hand when the judgment was being read out and when the judge accepted her husband's testimony to be true. Mr Ng looked calm.

Asked later if it was the best Valentine's Day present she had received, she nodded and smiled.

In his verdict, the judge said he found no ulterior motive or corrupt intent in what Ng did. He said both Mr Ng and Ms Sue's intentions were "innocuous", and that there was no reason to believe that her offer of oral sex was intended as an act of inducement.

Mr Ng could have been jailed up to five years and fined up to $100,000 for each of the four charges.

Mr Tan, who had put up a strong defence of Mr Ng, said it had been a tough year for his client and the latter wanted to extend his heartfelt gratitude to people who have supported him, including strangers.

Lost Your Job? Easy, Claim Sexual, Gay, Racist, Bigot, Foreigner Harassment or Unfairness and Sue!

Boo hoo hoo. The new normal now when you lose your job, blame the foreigner who stole your job. Blame the Ah Neh boss as racist if you are not Indian, and that the boss recruited his same kind Ah Neh to replace you. The most recent excuse, blame the boss who dislikes gays.

Sometimes as bosses we don't get along with kar kias as they are stupid, cocky, incompetent, political or whatever reason. Sometimes as kar kias we don't like our bosses as they stupid, cocky, incompetent, political or whatever reason too. Whether they are gay, fat, skinny, pimply, body odour, bald, skanky, these are just physical pretexts. Office politics and progression is about chemistry and personal relations, besides performance, and if a boss thinks kar kia is incompetent or doesn't fit in as one of the girls or lads, that's it time for the kar kia to move on. That's life, don't be a pussy about it.

This gay Lawrence Bernard Wee, is he a gay Catholic BTW?, wants to sue aunty-fashion giant Robinsons! WTF and the reason is that he thinks he was unfairly dumped as he was gay and his ang moh boss hates buttfuckers. Caveat, some heterosexual guys also into butt-fucking, giving and taking, if porn films are reality TV documentaries of sexual tastes.

I digress. Maybe the boss thinks Lawrence is incompetent or no integrity which are fair grounds for dismissal, and Lawrence used the gay card as his own defence of unfair dismissal instead? I don't know what is going on under the boss table over this case but Lawrence might have a better defence if he said the ang moh foreign talent boss sacked him because he is a local and that the boss is racist. Cannot fly, but better.

Persecuted at work because he's gay
Ex-senior manager sues Robinsons, says he was forced to leave over his homosexuality; company denies allegations. 

Juliana June Rasul
Mon, Feb 11, 2013
The New Paper

SINGAPORE - In what is believed to be a first here, a local man has sued his former company, claiming he was harassed into leaving his job because he is gay.

In papers filed in the High Court in December, Mr Lawrence Bernard Wee Kim San, who turns 40 this year, is claiming "constructive dismissal" against Robinsons.

He says his former boss at the departmental store, Mr Jim McCallum, had harassed him because he did not agree with Mr Wee's homosexuality.

He worked for Robinsons for six years before leaving last August.

In its defence, the store denies Mr Wee's claims of "biasness", "unfair treatment" or "persecution" by anyone at Robinsons, or that he faced "difficulties" or "threats" when he wanted to leave the company.

It said Mr Wee had made the decision to leave last June "to pursue other interest, outside of Robinsons effective 2013" (sic).

It also said that Mr McCallum, whom Mr Wee has accused of treating him unfairly, was the one who had approved his promotions and salary increments.

In his affidavit, Mr Wee claimed he resigned from Robinsons last August "not as a matter of choice", but due to "unrelenting and unceasing persecution" by Mr McCallum, who is the Asia head of the store's Middle-Eastern owner, the Al-Futtaim Group.

Mr Wee claimed that in April or May last year, his direct supervisor, Mr Shia Yew Peck, was told by Mr McCallum that "anything from Lawrence cannot be right to begin with as Lawrence is wrong already as a person".

A few months earlier, Mr Shia, who has known since 2006 that Mr Wee is gay, had allegedly asked him whether he had ever considered turning "straight".

The supervisor later explained that Mr Wee would then be deemed more "normal" and "accepting" to others, especially his bosses, he added.

Last June, Mr Wee started talking about leaving the store and he claimed he had a discussion with Mr Shia.

In that discussion, Mr Shia shared how it was unfortunate that Mr Wee's career at the store would be prematurely terminated primarily due to Mr McCallum's personal bias against him because of his sexual orientation,Mr Wee said in his affidavit.

Pay rise, bonuses

Mr Wee joined Robinsons in 2006 as a senior manager of its cards department. In his six years there, he received raises and bonuses.

By the time he left in August last year, his salary had more than doubled from $7,200 in September 2006 to more than $16,000.

As part of the store's cards department, Mr Wee claimed that he was key in increasing the store's corporate sales from $20 million in revenue a year to over $32 million a year due to "key strategic accounts" that he had brought on board.

Mr Wee also said that at a management town hall meeting in July 2010, the then chief executive officer of Al-Futtaim Group, Mr Robert Willett, had praised him for "being a leader with business acumen and guts" after hearing him speak.

Mr Wee claimed Mr Shia later told him that Mr McCallum had said he (referring to Mr Wee) should "learn to keep his mouth shut".

Mr Wee claimed that his professional life suffered after he began working directly with Mr McCallum in 2011.

On several occasions, he claimed he was put down by Mr McCallum in front of other colleagues during meetings.

He also had his work disparaged, Mr Wee said.

Last April, Mr McCallum asked Mr Wee whether he had orchestrated a compliment he had received from a customer, specifically asking if "the card member was (Mr Wee's) auntie".

Mr Wee claimed he was told on several occasions by Mr Shia that he might not have a future at the store because of Mr McCallum's perception of him.

On a business trip to London in July 2011, Mr Shia told him that Mr McCallum "still had a strong dislike" for him despite his good work, Mr Wee said.

Almost a year later, in June 2012, after what he claimed to be persistent harassment from Mr McCallum,Mr Wee tendered his resignation.

The harassment, he claimed, did not end there.

After discussing his resignation with Mr Shia that month, Mr Wee said that it was agreed (verbally and via e-mail) that he would work until December - more than the contractually agreed two months' notice - to allow Robinsons ample time to find a suitable replacement.

Mr Wee claimed that Mr Shia later told him that Mr McCallum wanted him to leave early as he did not want him to be introduced to Robinsons' new managing director.

In August, Mr Shia told him the store would pay him three months' salary if he were to leave that month.

A day later, Mr Wee met the store's general manager of human resources, Ms Chee Nian Tze, to inform her that he wanted to stay on until December as originally agreed, and that he should be paid accordingly even if he were to leave before then.

Robinsons then agreed to pay Mr Wee a total of four months' salary when he left last August.

Robinsons: None of his claims is true

Robinsons denies Mr Wee's claims that he was unfairly harassed by his boss, Mr Jim McCallum.

The company also expressed dissatisfaction with Mr Wee's failure to provide written or verbal proof of his claims of what Mr McCallum had said to him or to his supervisor, Mr Shia Yew Peck.

It denies that any of Mr Wee's claims are true, including his claim that Mr McCallum had told Mr Shia that Mr Wee" is wrong already as a person".

In defence papers filed in the High Court, Robinsons said Mr Wee had tendered his resignation twice in his six years with the store, to pursue other career opportunities.

On both occasions,he later withdrew the resignation notice.

It also said that Mr Wee's salary increments, promotions, and company bonuses between 2010 and 2012 had been approved by Mr McCallum.

Robinsons also denied Mr Wee's claim of having "increased the corporate sales" for Robinsons from $20 million to over $32 million a year.

Instead, it described Mr Wee as being a member of the Robinsons team which "reported to and executed the decisions made by senior management".

As for his claims that he was made to quit his job, Robinsons said: "There was no actual or constructive dismissal of (Mr Wee). Rather it was (Mr Wee) who resigned from (Robinsons)on 24 August 2012."

Robinsons denies that Mr Wee faced "difficulties" or "threats" in leaving the company.

It also denies that Mr Wee had "performed well" in his role at the store, and had received increments and bonuses as "an acknowledgement of (his) excellent service".

It said that before he resigned,Mr Wee and Mr Shia discussed the former's "handling of (Robinsons') relationship with one of its key business partners and on other matters related to his unsatisfactory work performance".

In his affidavit,Mr Wee had claimed that he was harassed to leave earlier than the six-months' notice he had agreed on with Mr Shia.

Not true, Robinsons said in its defence.

It pointed to Mr Wee's employment contract and his conversation with its human resource general manager, Ms Chee Nian Tze.

The contract stated that "written notice of termination from either party will be two calendar months or two calendar months' salary in lieu of such notice".

Ms Chee had explained to Mr Wee that the offer of two months' salary in lieu of serving notice, and an additional one month's salary was"generous".

julrasul@sph.com.sg

Good Game, Philip Pillai

Who is Pillai?

He is the guy who threw out that law soc lawyer who barged into court and said M Ravi was mad, as well as walked the fine line in the Hougang by-election hearing - his decision not to let Vellama pay damages when she lost the case. He was the judge in Dr Susan Lim's case for overcharging the Bruneian royalty. He presided over an Indonesian businessmen who sued Citibank when he lost money in investments. Overall, by the way he adroitly handled the Hougang by-election decisions,  he is one balanced judge. Too bad he won't be around in court anymore. Bye!

Singapore High Court Judge, Philip Pillai, to retire
AsiaOne
Tuesday, Dec 11, 2012

SINGAPORE - Supreme Court Judge, Justice Philip Pillai, will retire on 12 December 2012 when he reaches 65 years old.

He will be leaving the Public Service after three years of distinguished service.

Justice Pillai received his Bachelor of Law degree from the University of Singapore in 1971, and his Master in Law and Doctor of Juridical Sciences from Harvard University in 1973 and 1983 respectively. He was admitted as an advocate and solicitor in Singapore in 1972.

From 1971 to 1985, Justice Pillai taught at the Law Faculty of the National University of Singapore.

He was a Senate Member of the National University of Singapore from 1976 to 1985.

From 1981 to 1985, Justice Pillai was a member of the Board of Legal Education, as well as a member of the Executive Committee and Board of Trustees of the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

He was in private practice from 1986 to 2009 as partner of the law firm Shook Lin & Bok LLP and joint managing partner of Allen & Overy, Shook Lin & Bok.

Amongst other appointments, Justice Pillai was a Director and Audit Committee member of the Monetary Authority of Singapore from 2000 to 2005. He was also a member of the Regional Panel of Arbitrators of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre from 2003 to 2006.

From 2001 to 2003, Justice Pillai was the Chairman of the Singapore Committee on Company Legislation and Regulatory Framework. In 2003, he was awarded the Singapore Public Service Medal.

Justice Pillai was first appointed as Judicial Commissioner on 1 October 2009 and then as a Judge of the Supreme Court on 1 June 2010.

He was appointed as a member of the Legal Service Commission from 2007 and has been a member of the Special Personnel Board from 2010.

Strike, and You're Out!

I want Tiongs, Banglas, Letticias. We need them in our economy. Construction, drivers, sales staff, nurses, cleaners, KTV girls, and other jobs that locals are not desperate enough to do. Despite what small-minded Singaporeans think that we should kick them all out. BTW I have even seen Pinoys cook and serve Chinese-style mee pok in food courts! They put so much vinegar into the mee pok, as if like their Pinoy dishes! WTF

Recently, SMRT bus drivers went on strike, more than 100 some more. They think it is some Foxconn strike! In a strike, there are always 2 sides to the story and given SMRT's pathetic track record on maintenance, I tend to give the bus drivers some leeway about their sad sob story (dirty dorms, not enough sleep, low pay - fucking pussies, it sounds like my BMT). However, people were inconvenienced and public transport, like public utilities and services should never be held hostage by strikers, especially if they are foreigners. Giordano or McDonalds workers strike I don't care. But SMRT staff?

It is only good news that 5 strike ring-leaders were charged and 29 others, probably those who instigated to a lesser degree, would be deported ASAP. The strikers are not the victims once they broke the law and ignorance is never an excuse. Bye-bye! Those who support the strikers unconditionally, shut the fuck up, you want the strike to spread and continue?

It would have been better if more of the 100 plus strikers were deported to show a strong disapproval and a zero tolerance on workers crippling public services. But the main reason more were not kicked out probably with SMRT negotiation is because too many bus drivers would have been taken off the roads as a result. It would self-pwn sabotage of SMRT bus services and cause more inconvenience to SMRT bus passengers.

SMRT bus strike: 5th driver to be charged, 29 to be repatriated
By Royston Sim & Maria Almenoar

The police has "substantially completed" its investigations into the illegal strike earlier this week and will be charging a fifth SMRT bus driver from China for instigating the work stoppage.

It has also issued stern warnings to 29 other drivers, who have since had their work permits revoked, and will be repatriated by the Immigration & Checkpoints Authority (ICA) soon.

The Ministry of Home Affairs and Manpower Ministry, providing an update on the incident, said in a joint press statement on Saturday that "barring any new developments, we do not expect further arrests or repatriations related to this illegal strike".

"The police will be issuing warnings to the others who were involved, but no further action will be taken against them and they will be allowed to remain and work in Singapore, so long as they continue to abide by our laws," added the ministries.

Hangman Shan Alone on the Mountain on Death Penalty!

I think Mr Shan the Law and Foreign Affairs minister is dumb to say that the death penalty is a deterrence in the war on drugs. This kind of comment how to defend or quantify? He was a former lawyer some more. This type of comment is as dumb as those lefty softy wussies who say the death penalty is NOT a deterrence in crime. Facepalm.

The death penalty should not be mandatory for drug cases. That one I support Mr Shan all the way up to the mountain and down again. The death penalty should be kept still despite all the whining about death penalty is so barbaric. This one I also support Shan-Shan. However, whether the death penalty is deterrence or not depends. In fact, whether the death penalty is a deterrence, it is sure a question of extent and not yes-no. The death penalty should be approached as more accurately retribution in the justice system, and horrible punishment for horrible crime, not deterrence.

Drug cases should not be 100% capital punishment - it depends on the facts. If it is a drug lord monkey, gallows as retribution would get XXX votes like in America's Got Talent - you think Simon Cowell would vote against death penalty? You want to give these Golden Triangle criminals another chance? If it is poor drug donkey, ok can skip the gallows if there are pitiful circumstances like if the person don't carry drugs to pay off his housing and gambling debts, his younger brother, sister and golden retriever would be forced into prostitution and make XXX movies. Similarly, in murder cases where there is cold calculation like those psychos in the TV show Criminal Minds, to the gallows! In berserk killing rage between lovers, then gallows might not be just retribution.

Nothing can stop those from doing heinous crime if they are so desperate or diabolical. Tough laws and punishments just make some criminals very careful about being caught, rather than frighten them away from crime. Still, cannot deny that tough laws scare people. If there is a law that says if we don't use a parking coupon in URA car parks, and  instead of getting fine, LTA chops off our hands, I will definitely put a parking coupon when I eat prata at Casuarina! Why risk my hand? But the real point of law is not about making would-be offenders in drugs, murder or theft scared or not, it is about punishing them justly or not. Ergo, eating prata, no parking coupon and hand-chopping.

So Shan should screw that rhetoric about capital punishment deterring people and a thumbs up for the war on drugs, and stick to "Keep death penalty still for certain crimes but not mandatory, song boh".

Mandatory death penalty no longer imposed for all murder cases

Updated 09:26 PM Nov 14, 2012

SINGAPORE - The mandatory death penalty will not be imposed for all murder cases , under amendments to the Penal Code which were passed in Parliament today. Where the killing is not intentional, the court will now be able to decide if the accused should be given the death sentence or life imprisonment. All existing cases, if eligible, will be considered for re-sentencing under the new law.

Opposition Member of Parliament for Aljunied GRC Sylvia Lim asked if the mandatory death penalty should apply even when there was an intention to kill. As an example, she highlighted the difference between a hired contract killer and an accused who was unable to get over a serious, long-time betrayal of a marriage partner.

Law and Foreign Affairs Minister K Shanmugam responded: "But the fact is even in the latter situation, it is deliberate, cold-blooded, intentional killing. Because if it is not cold-blooded and intentional, if it is on the spur on moment, there is a defence, Ms Lim knows that - if there is provocation. There are other defences as well, self-defence, provocation."

Take away death penalty and weaken war against drugs: Shanmugam
AsiaOne
Wednesday, Nov 14, 2012

SINGAPORE - Capital punishment has worked to deter drug traffickers from Singapore and should be used as a continuing punishment for drug offenders here, Law Minister K. Shanmugam said in Parliament on Wednesday.

Mr Shanmugam said that fear of hanging has kept drug offenders at bay and drug prices high.

The number of drug abusers caught in Singapore has also fallen since the 1990s, he said.

The Minister was speaking in response to questions posed by 16 MPs on amendments made to the Misuse of Drugs Act.

A Bill on changes to be made to the act states that the death penalty will no longer apply if two "specific, tightly-defined conditions" are met.

To those MPs who asked that judges be given even more discretion in death penalty cases, Mr Shanmugam warned that the death sentence could be abolished in practice, if judges are given more discretion in death penalty cases.

He also asked if Singapore was ready to accept the risks of weakening the death penalty.

Mr Shanmugam added that the "substantial assistance" condition, which allows offenders to avoid the death penalty upon cooperation with investigators, is needed to help authorities nab the real masterminds of drug syndicates.

Vellama and Ravi Lose Case, Yet Win, Donation Where

Playback - cuckoo lawyer M Ravi instigated Mdm Vellama to take on a court case against PAP that a Hougang by-election should be held within 3 months after WP Hougang MP Yaw bugged out. Mdm Vellama, a Hougang resident, is a part-time cleaner and face it, is not the shrewdest political watcher around and she was just Ravi's puppet. A Hougang resident taxi driver or a Hougang kopitiam Tiger-drinking ah pek is more apt as a political pundit than Mdm Vellama.

The court squashed Ravi and Mdm Vellama's case as expected as the constitution is explicit that there is no fixed by-election deadline which means the PM can drag it out to a time which suits his political playbook. We all then know that Ravi and Mdm Vellama are proper fucked, as AGC wanted to make them foot the legal bill. Losers in court cases usually get it back and front. Lose never mind, still must pay bills for the winning party as well.

However, what was unexpected and good for a relieved Mdm Vellama, the court and all citizens is that Justice Phillip Pillai ruled that she need not pick up the tab of $10,000. Pillai said, "where a matter raises a legal question of genuine public concern, it may be inappropriate to make a cost order against the applicant even where the judicial review is unsuccessful". Three cheers for Pillai!

This Pillai fella is clever and shows how the judiciary can really be independent and does flex its independence. On one hand he backed the reading of the constitution and made sure mad Ravi did not anyhow hantam for political credits (BTW WP smartly did not want to be dragged into this court case and was this Ravi's attempt to be in WP's good books), and eventually on the other hand made a point that Ravi and Mdm Vellama should not be screwed by the government. Pillai walked the fine line between political interpretation and constitution reading, public interest and party influence. Three cheers for the judiciary in setting this precedent, and I'm waiting for the next case where ordinary citizens can take the government to court and not pay the bill if they lose.

BTW what happens to the donated money to share Mdm Vellama's legal costs she was anticipated to pay to AGC? There was a public donation drive before. She and Ravi take the money celebrate their victory eat fish head curry and buy loads of sari? Deepavali coming! LOL

SMRT vs Legless Thai Girl

Poor Nitcharee Peneakchanasak lost her legs after she fell into the tracks at Ang Mo Kio station last year and an oncoming train rolled over her. Fucking sad, also fucking mad if she managed to win that $3.4 million law suit against SMRT and even LTA for her accident in April 2011. Poor girl as she not only lost her legs, she will lose her law suit also soon.

I don't remember of any local who accidentally fell onto an MRT track. Not one. Jumped onto an incoming train to splat himself and have his messy inconsiderate suicide inconvenience thousands of commuters in peak traffic, yes and lots of them until SMRT had to build that stupid glass barrier that made platforms stuffy on hot days. However, I never remembered any horrible accident of  someone who slipped onto the tracks. WTF.

Most likely she was some clueless Thai girl who stood too near the yellow line. Any streetwise urban person would know to back off from that line until the train has stopped. MRT commuters should always be prepared that their stalker Ex, former recruit they tekan during BMT, employee they sacked and replaced with a cheaper foreigner, neighbour who hated their curry cooking or mahjong or marble dropping on the floor etc, is waiting for the chance for revenge and push them onto the tracks.

The Thai girl even said she was pushed although CCTV footage supposedly showed that the platform was not crowded. Huh? Like that also can ah? To win $3.4 million in a law suit, must try harder rather than that lame story right?

It looked that the poor Thai girl and her family decided to scam some money and take advantage of the situation. Maybe SMRT did not give her enough compensation in the first place and she pissed and wanted payback, literally. Anyway, WTF it was clearly damn sad she fell onto the tracks and for better or for worse, she only lost her legs. However, how was SMRT liable I don't know as I'm not some crafty glib-tongue lawyer. Is her lawyer going to say that former butch SMRT CEO spent more money on SMRT retail rather than on SMRT rails at the platform and it was SMRT gross negligence that led to the poor accident? Wow.

Gays Happy Only

OMG would there be a repeal of 377A? There is excitement in the air for homos since the court of appeal says OK for gay lawyer Ravi to get the chance to challenge the constitutionality of 377A in high court!

Ravi super gay only at the news! Firstly in an earlier case a judge dismissed the interruption of a lawyer brandishing a medical report about Ravi going bonkers, and now another judge upheld his appeal for his client about guy-guy bonking. Hopefully Ravi doesn't turn mad again when he is stressed and dash the chances of the pink community's rights to fuck and suck like the rest of us. Let's be fair, and crude to get the point across. If heterosexuals can fuck and suck, homosexuals should also be allowed that fun. Nonetheless, Ravi's recent Speakers Corner epic fail installation art as an example of his mental health, if the pink community wants to win, another lawyer should represent them, not Ravi.

377A in the spotlight again: Court of Appeal overturns High Court decision, allows challenge of provision that criminalises sex between men
by Amir Hussain

SINGAPORE - Declaring the issue to be "of real public interest", the Court of Appeal has overturned a High Court decision and allowed an application to proceed to challenge the constitutionality of Section 377A of the Penal Code which criminalises sex between men.

In a ruling issued yesterday, which observers believe could reignite a heated debate on the provision, the Court of Appeal - comprising Justice V K Rajah, Justice Andrew Phang and Justice Judith Prakash - referred to Article 12 under the Constitution, which guarantees to all persons equality before the law and equal protection of the law.

Delivering the 106-page written judgment, Justice Rajah said: "We emphasise that we are not deciding here that Section 377A is inconsistent with Article 12 as that goes to the merits of the Application, but are instead merely deciding that it is arguably so, which suffices for the present appeal on the preliminary issue of whether the Application should be struck out."

The judge added: "The constitutionality or otherwise of Section 377A is thus of real public interest. We also note that Section 377A has other effects beyond criminal sanctions. One unwanted effect of Section 377A is that it may also make criminals out of victims."

The application arose after an unemployed man, Tan Eng Hong, 49, was initially charged under Section 377A with performing fellatio on another man in a public toilet at CityLink Mall in 2010. After the application was made by Tan's lawyer, Mr M Ravi, the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) replaced the charge with one of committing an obscene act in public. Tan and his partner were subsequently fined S$3,000 under the replaced charge.

Tan's application to challenge the constitutionality of Section 377A in the High Court was struck out after the AGC applied to do so. Tan's appeal against the High Court decision was heard in September last year.

In the Court of Appeal judgment, Justice Rajah said: "Without going into the merits of the Application, we want to acknowledge that in so far as Section 377A in its current form extends to private consensual sexual conduct between adult males, this provision affects the lives of a not insignificant portion of our community in a very real and intimate way."

He added: "Such persons might plausibly assert that the continued existence of Section 377A in our statute books causes them to be unapprehended felons in the privacy of their homes."



'Threat of prosecution persists' under Section 377A



The Attorney-General's case is there is "no real and credible threat of prosecution" under Section 377A for private consensual sexual acts between two adult males, Justice Rajah noted.

But the judge pointed out that, as long as the provision "remains in the statute books, the threat of prosecution under this section persists".

"It is uncontroverted that Section 377A is a law which specifically targets sexually-active male homosexuals," said Justice Rajah.

The judge noted that, according to submissions by the Attorney-General, in instances where stern warnings under Section 377A were issued, "the police do not check for continued compliance with the warnings and the persons concerned are, for all intents and purposes, left alone".

But Justice Rajah pointed out: "A stern warning is a way of informing the individual who is warned that, if he continues to indulge in the type of conduct circumscribed by Section 377A, leniency may no longer be forthcoming in future and he may well be charged under Section 377A if he is found engaging in such conduct in the future."

Justice Rajah also said that ministerial statements made in Parliament indicating the law will not be "proactively" enforced can "comfortably bear a spectrum of meaning".

Not only do such statements not have the force of law, they also do not bind a future or even the same government, said Justice Rajah, adding that no minister "has gone so far as to state that there will be no enforcement of Section 377A".

When contacted yesterday, the AGC said it is studying the judgment. The date of the hearing for the application has not been fixed.

Constitutional experts TODAY spoke to noted the significance of the Court of Appeal judgment and expects it to reignite a debate that had erupted during the Government's review of the Penal Code in 2007.

Singapore Management University's (SMU) Assistant Professor Jack Lee said: "This will no doubt be seen as a significant step by the applicant and those seeking to have Section 377A invalidated as it's the first time the Singapore courts will have to decide this issue. However, we'll have to wait and see what the courts think of the substantive arguments in the case."

Assistant Professor Eugene Tan, also from SMU's law faculty, pointed out: "The non-legal question is whether the forthcoming litigation on Section 377A will galvanise the various stakeholders … to become engaged in the legal dispute."

He added: "To be sure, contestation and debate are to be expected. The key question is how will it be conducted this time. Will we reach a new consensus?"

Judge and Lawyer Talking Cock

Now is the judgement a surprise? Yes? Did I hear you say Yes??? You also believe in Santa Claus and the Merlion legend! Did I hear you say No? Sorry, no prizes for you as there were 1001 cynics before you who thought so too.

There are 2 simple reasons why cleaner Vellama sure lose. OK, 3 reasons if you include this obvious reason - once she chose Mad Ravi as her lawyer, it is gone case. If she is crazy enough to take up crazy Ravi, then kaput is as certain as WP winning East Coast GRC the next time. The other reason is that in political cases where PAP's judgement, integrity and reputation is at stake and left to the court to decide, somehow, somehow, PAP always win. Always. Win. Maybe PAP's stand is so solid, or their lawyers always so steady, or other reasons you say, errr I don't know. Smirk. The house always wins!

The last reason is also very simple. Mad Ravi is talking cock. The constitution simply did not say that the election must be held within 3 months. The constitution says it is ASAP and what is ASAP only Tua Pek Kong, Allah, Jesus, Vishnu, and Harry Lee will know. Not a cleaner and a lawyer.

However this Pillai judge also a bit talking wild cock. He said that it is up to the PM to call the by-election, not that he has to call a by-election. Now, that is really shocking news. Article 49 of the constitution, others have pointed out clearly that an election is a must because of the modal verb "shall". English teachers from P1 to Sec 4 are relearning what is "shall" all about because of Pillai's "shall" as meaning "maybe if happy". Makes me wonder if Pillai passed his PSLE English! LOL Legal documents all over Singapore are being reinterpreted as we speak since "shall" loses its sense of obligation and promise and there is wriggle room for people to screw each other and break contracts.

Article 49 Filing of Vacancies
(1) Whenever the seat of a Member, not being a non-constituency Member, has become vacant for any reason other than a dissolution of Parliament, the vacancy shall be filled by election in the manner provided by or under any law relating to Parliamentary elections for the time being in force.

Hougang resident's by-election application dismissed by High Court Judge
Updated 03:25 PM Aug 01, 2012


SINGAPORE - A High Court Judge has dismissed a Hougang resident's application to declare that the Prime Minister does not have "unfettered discretion" over whether and when to call a by-election.

Madam Vellama Marie Muthu had also applied for a mandatory order for the by-election to be called in Hougang within three months or a reasonable time, after the seat was vacated.

Mdm Vellama, 42, a part-time cleaner, had filed her application on March 2, following the sacking of former Member of Parliament Yaw Shin Leong from the Workers' Party on Feb 15.

In his judgment released today, Justice Philip Pillai noted there was no requirement in the Constitution to call elections to fill elected Member vacancies. There being no such requirement, there arises no prescribed time within which such elections must be called, he added.

Under the Constitution, to call or not to call an election to fill an elected Member vacancy is a decision to be made by the Prime Minister, said Justice Pillai. Should the Prime Minister decide to call an election to fill an elected Member vacancy, he has a discretion as to when to call it, he added.

The Parliamentary Elections Act merely provides the mechanism to hold such an election should the Prime Minister decide to call one, said Justice Pillai. In the event that the Prime Minister decides to call an election to fill an elected Member vacancy, section 24 of the Parliamentary Elections Act requires that the President issue writs under the public seal to the Returning Officer to convene such election to supply vacancies caused by death, resignation or otherwise. "In so doing, the President is obliged to act in accordance with Article 21 of the Constitution," he added.

Rumpole Tey the Self-Pwn Law Lecturer

I love Sammyboy. You never know what treasures you can find in the trash. The trick is to sort it out and that is half the fun while waiting for the bus, in the car, when taking a shit or during a boring team meeting in the office. The latest tale that made me laugh till I cried was about some unknown law professor Tey Tsun Hang who was screwing his law student. It's all consenting adults despite the dodgy ethics so WTF if they want to do it in the lecture hall or office wearing those white curly wigs and black gowns, and students outside waiting impatiently for consultation. It adds kinky to the quicky sex.

 Hee haw! I want some young ass too!

However, CPIB got into the picture because she offered her young body in exchange for better grades. Jealous law students show how it is done to get ahead and put down the competition! All this time, pretty basic JAV stuff and just waiting for the court case to start and hanky panky sexposed in Wanbao and TNP - like how many times of BBBJ, CIM or golden shower in the car in some ulu car park, or maybe how many times simple guilty missionary sex between teacher and student at Bt Timah campus. Mmmm nose bleed.

Then it got interesting. This Tey fella, feeling the cage closing on him, started a Sammyboy account Rumpole just this month in his one-man-internet-brigade! And so far with only 5 posts, and went defending the law lecturer in a thread he started, saying he the law lecturer was some heroic PAP critic and was therefore persecuted! Oh. Like that ah. He even said "First, I need to clarify that I do not know and have not met the law professor." All the more it is him in guilty conscience self-pwn! LOL

Rumpole Teh Self-Pwn

Who is Tey? PAP critic? Seriously ah? Sorry, never heard of him. And if the PAP wanted to fix Tey, they would have just shipped him out on the first Air Asia since he is a foreigner, or sued him until sarong drop. Simpler PAP neck chop for vocal critics on the judiciary like Shadrake and Gopolan Nair. PAP bullying 101. PAP pattern to whack their own people like Peter Lim, Ng Boon Gay, Bernard Lim is to use CPIB instead in public shame mode, we all know that from Teh Cheang Wan days. Same surname!!?? The use of CPIB and not a PAP attack dog lawyer to sue him bankrupt thus means that Tey is one of their own asses being sacrificed.  Facepalm.

Anyway, at the end of the day, did Tey take advantage of his position, and I don't mean sexual position like doggy or reverse cowboy, and get corrupt sex from Darinne Ko? BTW she hired Subhas. This already tells you a lot.

Professional Misconduct, Corruption and Naughty Behaviour

I have JAV role-playing fetishes in my mind playing the whole day. Dr Kong Sim Guan was suspended for 3 years by the SMC for screwing his patient. Also today, there was news about a NUS law faculty lecturer being investigated by the bloodhound CPIB in a sex-for-grades scandal with his consenting student. I want to see if she is some skanky chiobu and hoping someone updates Gutter. Waiting. Waiting.

Wait. WTF how come a doctor who screwed his patient is reprimanded by SMC while a still unnamed horny law professor who screwed his go-getter consenting student is having coffee with CPIB now? Where does misconduct end and corruption start in sex cases? As a parallel, there were many other cases where doctors who sold controlled Subutex probably to patients abusing Subutex, and were just give slaps on the wrists and suspended by SMC. Not CNB cases.

What about the horny SCDF and CNB chiefs and their sordid sex acts. Was it misconduct, which basically just means ear-pulling and towel flicks to the balls by their wives, or corruption. Ooooo corruption means jail time, and thus ear-pulling and towel flicks to the balls by other inmates who really want to get back at civil servants remotely related to the police.

Psychiatrist suspended over sexual relations with patient

Updated 11:44 PM Jul 25, 2012

SINGAPORE - A psychiatrist has been suspended for three years for having a long-term sexual relationship with a patient while she was under his care.

Dr Kong Sim Guan, a psychiatrist at The Psychiatric & Behavioural Medicine Clinic (Ang & Kong), faced one charge of professional misconduct arising from a complaint to the Singapore Medical Council (SMC) on March 23, 2010.

"The fact that Dr Kong had a sexual relationship with the patient for at least 10 years between 1997 to about 2008 was never denied," said the SMC in a statement today.

Dr Kong, 63, contested the charge on the basis that the relationship only started after the doctor-patient relationship had ended.

According to the published grounds of decision, Dr Kong claimed that the sexual relationship only started after June 5, 1997, when the patient "seduced" him.

However during the hearing, which lasted six days and with five witnesses giving testimony, the disciplinary committee found "incontrovertible documentary evidence" that Dr Kong was her doctor and provided medical advice, prescriptions, admission notes, medical certificates and medical reports for the patient.

Dr Kong, whose suspension took effect on June 24, also contended that he was treating a family member by likening the patient to a mistress, who would be recognised as a "de facto wife" in "many countries".

Providing prescription to one's mistress cannot constitute a doctor-patient relationship, he had argued.

Dr Kong further claimed that the patient had a "borderline personality" and was out to trap him from January 2007.

The disciplinary committee, however, said that regardless of whether one treats a family member or complete stranger, "the fact remains that the doctor is providing treatment as a doctor", said the SMC.

The committee also considered the patient as "vulnerable" as she started out seeking psychiatric help.

"As her psychiatrist, Dr Kong should have been more than aware that his sexual relationship with her can only be interpreted as taking advantage of her troubled state and vulnerability, let alone exacerbating and complicating her marital problems," said the SMC.

In the grounds of decision, the disciplinary committee said: "Whilst we are prepared to give the respondent (Dr Kong) the benefit of doubt that the patient did initiate the relationship, or even seduced him, the respondent could have stopped the patient from taking this matter further.

"We, however, find that he encouraged her, directly or indirectly, by visiting the patient at her home, taking her to her physiotherapist and accompanying her to a hotel."

In sentencing, the committee considered Dr Kong's "unblemished record for over 30 years" and his extensive service to the professional community and the community at large.

Dr Kong was also fined S$10,000 and has to bear the costs and expenses of the inquiry.

Thank You for Smoking

They are tax-payers, they are fellow Singaporeans. They are fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, sons and daughters. They used to have freedom to practice what they do. They used to have more space for themselves. Over the years, there is a public campaign to marginalise them, keep them out of public spaces. They can't do it anymore in restaurants, bars, indoors and even outdoors. Their rights are being encroached, it is the tyranny of the public. Why is nobody defending their rights? I'm not talking about gays or lesbians. I'm not talking about Scientologists or Satanists. I'm talking about smokers.

More public places to be designated as non-smoking areas

There will be more non-smoking areas in Singapore within the year.

Minister for the Environment and Water Resources Dr Vivian Balakrishnan said in Parliament yesterday that the National Environment Agency (NEA) will be extending the prohibition to common areas in residential buildings, sheltered walkways, linkways, overhead bridges, outdoor compounds of hospitals and a five metre buffer zone around bus shelters.

In reply to a question posted by Member of Parliament for Nee Soon GRC Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim about the effectiveness of non-smoking areas in Singapore, Dr Balakrishnan said that the Ministry is actively monitoring and implementing initiatives to protect non-smokers and to reduce smokers.

The ministry's long-term goal is to prohibit smoking at all public places, except at designated smoking points.

Dr Balakrishnan said that the Smoking (Prohibition in Certain Places) Act was introduced in 1970 to protect the public from the toxic health effects of environmental tobacco smoke. Other measures to achieve their objectives involve public education, legislation and taxation measures, provision of smoking cessation services and promotion of a smoke-free lifestyle.

Through the enforcement rounds conducted regularly and with the help of the public, the number of offenders caught has increased from 4,379 in 2007 to 5,057 in 2011.

Those caught smoking in a prohibited area will be liable to a maximum court fine of $1,000.

The Death Penalty is Dead! Long Live the Death Penalty!

In a surprise ass-kissing thought-provoking sensible move, the PAP decided that they are going to kill the mandatory death penalty for drug traffickers. Clap clap, pop a champagne, clap clap. Drug donkeys are happy, among them Yong Vui Kong, the poster boy for the anti-death penalty crowd, who love him and want to give him a second chance. Eee-haww. He is not let off the noose just yet BTW, just that it is not guaranteed he is a dead drug donkey, for the moment. His gay lawyer Ravi probably got a hard-on at the good news - his years of love the dead man walking on death row lobbying paid off. Finally, the government has the pig brain that the mandatory death penalty is a cock idea. If there is a mandatory death penalty in the first place, it should be for kidnapping and armed robbery with a firearm. Where is the sense of proportion if it is confirmed gallowing for drug peddlars but not for psycho killers? If there is a mandatory death penalty. That's my disclaimer.

Don't think that I'm a lefty softy wussy. I'm all for the death penalty for serious crimes. What is serious? Murder, kidnap, use of firearms in crimes, drivers who change lanes without signalling. OK maybe the last is not serious enough for the death penalty, but chopping off their fingers on the right or left hand for Jap or Conti car drivers at least is a must.

Anyway, the death penalty is not a deterrence in my book, should be fucking retribution, let's not be pussies - the noose is sometimes better than rehab. The government can kill mandatory capital punishment, but I want them to save capital punishment in the law and courts. Let the judge earn his pay and reserve the right of offing a kidnapper or murderer, or a driver who changes lanes without signalling - there I go again on road idiots. Some harsh penalties must remain, it is the fiery court of public opinion and the cold court of law to exercise together whether death is bestest form of punishment.

Seriously, the softy wussies over at changi-gallow.blogspot.com or sgdeathpenalty.blogspot.com or whatever can argue to save drug donkeys but they can stop there and don't come over and take away the court's and therefore public's right to off some kinds of criminals. The anti-death groupies know that - people at The Online Citizen, Maruah, and the usual suspects know all too well. They didn't bother save the lives of the murderers - oops! An obvious selective this-but-not-that "they deserve a second chance" crap. Their efforts to remove the mandatory from death penalty is a great small step. However, that should be the last step.

Singapore to Soften Death Penalty for Drugs
By SHIBANI MAHTANI

SINGAPORE—Singapore announced plans to amend laws that dictate a mandatory death penalty for drug traffickers, a surprise move that signaled a small but significant shift in the city-state's strict laws on drug-related crime.

The proposed new law will give courts the discretion to sentence some people convicted of drug-related crimes to life in prison with caning, rather than to death, provided they cooperate with authorities in a "substantive way," or provided they have a mental disability, said Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean.

Speaking in Singapore's parliament on Monday, Mr. Teo, who is also the Minister for Home Affairs, said the changes would apply to drug couriers, rather than to those involved in the supply or distribution of drugs at higher levels. Convicted drug distributors and syndicate leaders would still face the mandatory charge of death by hanging. Mr. Teo didn't elaborate on how the law will differentiate between low-level couriers and more-serious offenders.

The changes come after a yearlong review of the county's death penalty, and include an easing of the penalty for homicide in the city-state. Also speaking in Parliament, the country's Minister for Law and Foreign Affairs K. Shanmugam said that certain types of homicide cases, in which there is no explicit intention to kill, will no longer result in the mandatory death penalty.

"Our cardinal objectives remain the same. Crime must be deterred," said Mr. Shanmugam when announcing the proposed laws on Monday. "But justice can be tempered with mercy and where appropriate, offenders should be given a second chance."

The changes to the laws must be approved by Parliament before they are adopted, but will likely pass with little opposition as the ruling People's Action Party controls a majority of seats—81 of 87—in Parliament.

Legal representatives, including the Association of Criminal Lawyers of Singapore and the Law Society of Singapore, called the proposed changes a "milestone" in the country's legal history and said.

They are a sign that the government has been responsive to the views of the legal community, many of whom have pushed for a change to the mandatory death penalty in favor of giving courts more discretion.

"This change... recognizes that the measure of a society is how it treats its most unfortunate," said Subhas Anandan, president of the Association of Criminal Lawyers of Singapore and one of Singapore's most prominent defense lawyers, in a statement. "Death row inmates deserve punishment, but not all deserve death. These new measures...will have a massive impact on the criminal justice system."

But some legal experts say the law doesn't represent a huge shift in Singapore's policy on capital punishment, but rather is a refinement of an existing policy according to changing social norms.

"There is a concern that this could lead to false hope and expectations. This is not a big bang at all, but a refinement," said Eugene Tan, a professor of law at the Singapore Management University and an independent lawmaker. "This is not Singapore sending a signal that it is soft on capital punishment."

Many activists who have campaigned against the country's strict death penalty said the announcement was unexpected but is a step in the right direction for Singapore, which has long been criticized for what human-rights group say are unnecessarily harsh laws around drug control.

"[We] certainly did not expect this announcement to be made today," said Kirsten Han, co-founder of the anti-death penalty activist group We Believe in Second Chances. "I think it is a good first step and hope it means that inmates... will be able to have their cases relooked, and that they will be shown mercy."

Since the review of the mandatory death penalty last year, all pending executions have been halted, Mr. Teo said. He added that draft legislation implementing changes outlined in Parliament on Monday will be introduced later this year, but all accused people, including those in open cases and those already convicted, may choose to be considered for resentencing under the new laws.

Adding that she had "initial concerns" on how certain criteria and specifics would be defined, and that drafting and implementation of the new laws remain to be seen, Ms. Han said that the new rulings are a sign that the government is responding to civil society groups and is willing to engage with them.

Other groups, while applauding the government's efforts, maintain that this is but a "small step" in the right direction but want to see an end to the mandatory death penalty without any conditions such as those sketched out by the government. Human-rights group Maruah, for example, said in a statement that the government still has not provided evidence of the effectiveness of the death penalty in deterring crime and added that the death penalty is "fundamentally troubling" and continues to be applied to a substantial number of offenses.

Singapore's use of the death penalty, particularly to control narcotics, has invited widespread criticism over the years. In the early 1990s, a journalist dubbed the city-state "Disneyland with the death penalty"—a catch phrase that has stuck. According to an Amnesty International report published in 2011, at least 26 people were sentenced to death between 2007 and 2010—though not all of these people have been executed. Since 2009, nine people have been executed in the city-state, according to official prison statistics.

In recent years, cases of those on death row—including Yong Vui Kong, a 24-year-old Malaysian—have garnered emotive responses from those in the increasingly politicized city-state who believe the mandatory death penalty should be implemented mercifully. Lawyers and activists say Mr. Yong is illiterate, didn't know the penalty for smuggling drugs was death, or that the package he was carrying contained drugs. Appeals for clemency on his case have so far been turned down by courts, and his case has widely been viewed by opponents of the death penalty as a symbol for the problems with Singapore's implementation of the death penalty.

Mr. Tan added that high-profile cases, including that of Mr. Yong, may have pushed the government to amend the laws in tandem with what he said are society's norms and expectations.

The government has long defended its strong stance on crime and the death penalty, which it says has succeeded in keeping drug usage and homicide rates among the lowest in the world.

Akan Datang HDB Farms Everywhere!

 Clementi Gothic - Just imagine a HDB farmer uncle and aunty with BLK 339 behind instead in the picture

Imagine that! HDB farm allowed after HDB farmers appealed! Oh Ah Chan had a farm, ee-arr eee-arrr ooooh.

Surprisingly, despite the law backing them, SLA decided to reach a compromise with the squatter farmers at Clementi, in the DIY farmland next to the canal. The state-squatter compromise is neither free or forever as there is a $60 rental per year and the farm can stay for another 3 years.

What happens after 3 years? Probably the land lease would go up and any infringement of the lease would be used as an excuse to kick the farmers out. The farmers are squatters - obvious to any taxpayer. Just coz state land is there and vacant, it is not a green light to start having green fingers there. Ahem. Just coz a girl sit down there with legs open, don't mean you take out your banana and plant your seed inside her. Must get her permission first. Not plant first then get permission later. LOL

Really, this SLA flexibility sets a precedent. Will wannabe farmers from Tampines (in the empty plots near Down Town East) to Telok Blangah (right at bottom of Mt Faber) decide to farm kangkong, bananas and papaya? If they do, you think SLA will allow? You can always try - take your SAF chungkol, and try planting a durian or a rambutan tree right downstairs the HDB block on a patch of grass next to the playground. Perhaps for a start to test whether neighbours sabo and report to SLA like what happened in Clementi, try planting pandan plants as easier.

So on one hand, SLA showed flexibility. People who benefited from this flexibility should be happy. Three cheers for SLA. On the other hand, SLA is going to show double standards soon when they ban other people from starting their own farms on state land. LOL cannot make anyone happy! Such is the comedy of government policy.

SINGAPORE: Clementi residents will soon have a community farm in their backyard.

The Singapore Land Authority said it's processing an application from the Bukit Timah Citizens Consultative Committee for a three-year Temporary Occupation Licence for a plot of State land at Clementi Avenue 4 for the farm.

The 1,250 square metre plot, previously occupied by illegal farmers, is where the community farm will be.

The land will be divided into 30 plots.

Eighteen individuals who had been working on the land had come forward to SLA before the April 3 deadline, and will now get a 32-square metre plot on which to grow their produce.

Priority for the other plots will be given to residents living in the area.

Users of the community farm will pay an annual maintenance fee of S$60 to defray costs.

Farmers will also get water supply and a temporary footpath will be constructed.

MP for Holland-Bukit Timah GRC, Sim Ann, who is also MP for the area, said: "Arising from feedback from the residents, we feel that this project can be integrated with a temporary footpath that links Block 305 all the way to the Ulu Pandan Park Connector, which is where many of our residents go for jogging and for walks. And I think this footpath, because it's integrated with the community garden, will also allow residents to access and to admire, the plants and the crops that the farmers are cultivating."

The Cleaner, the Court... Part 2

The court earlier said they would reserve judgement and just this week decided to move on and have an open court hearing on April 16. AGC, peeved, appealed that Ravi and his proxy, Vellama, had no case.

Cynical me might say that the court is damn good at wayang so far! Why? There is no separation of the executive, judiciary and the legislative they would say in unison. Like in some cheesy Hong Kong show when all the characters hilariously try to emphasis a point. However, today I'm not in a cynical mood and generously see this whole drama, although it is not Korean sob story standard yet, as the expected court independence. At least in showing why Ravi has no case. Frankly, I think Ravi would be mocked in court and that cleaner will be put to the stand and shown how clueless she is about the constitution.  16 April. Watch ...The Cleaner, the Court and the Constitution!

AGC appeals against ruling to hear Hougang by-election application
By Ng Jing Yng | Posted: 04 April 2012 2142 hrs

SINGAPORE: The Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) has lodged an appeal against a High Court judge's ruling that there are sufficient grounds to hear, in open court, an application by an Hougang resident to order the Prime Minister to hold a by-election in the constituency within three months or within a "reasonable time" deemed by the court.

A closed-door hearing will be held on Thursday before the Court of Appeal to consider the AGC's application for an urgent date for its appeal.

The AGC, represented by Chief Counsel David Chong, had argued before Justice Philip Pillai that Madam Vellama's application was "wholly misconceived" and "is legally unsustainable and is unarguable in law and fact".

Madam Vellama had filed an application on March 2 for the Prime Minister to be held accountable for calling a by-election in Hougang, following the sacking of former Member of Parliament Yaw Shin Leong from the Workers' Party.