LTA officer fighting with Uber driver

The news can be read here (Suspended LTA officer caught fighting Uber driver on camera arrested by police, Straits Times).

-

I don’t see a victim here. Both are at fault. The Uber driver was confrontational and the body language and first response (e.g. immediately punching to the officer in retaliation) after being punched suggest that the 59 years old are hot headed too. If he had been younger, the one lying on the ground being kicked on the rib would be the LTA officer.

-

Next, the officer is “rude”?

-

Sometimes, we don’t really know how to distinguish between “rude” and stern. Being stern and strict can be mistaken as being “rude”. Similarly, security guard at certain buildings sometimes appear RUDE which is puzzling because they are supposed to be friendly-but-assertive in their job.

-

Even if the LTA is “rude”, it would be foolish to confront the officer just because you are upset with his attitude. That foolishness caused one arrested and another one missing a tooth.

-

That’s what happens when we let our temper reign.

Are we by default leasing our home to domestic helpers?

I have a colleague who was shocked when she saw via real-time recording of her home CCTV that an unidentified man went into her house. That man was led in by her helper (without consent from the employer). That man came into the house when my colleague's 2 years old girl was asleep.
-
That man knew his way into the house and which room to go to. He went directly to the helper's bedroom. The thing about real time CCTV is that there is no playback. You can press a record button (when you need to record) but the rest of the footage is not saved (unless you opt for pricier hardware that can accommodate recording for several days before it overwrite).
-
Panic struck my friend and she had to leave work to rush home. Several calls were made and neighbour was alerted. My colleague's main concern was for the child. The neighbour was instructed to go into the house and retrieve the baby. Reluctantly, the helper let the neighbour into the house and told the neighbour that she had guest. The guest was let off and most importantly, the baby was safe.
-
My friend decided to terminate the helper's contract. The agency advised my friend against reporting to the police because that will delay the replacement. To a family with working parents, my friend had no choice but to comply. The helper was sent home with high probability of returning to Singapore to work. That would be a disaster to the next household.
-
After some thoughts, my friend decided to report to the police. After much deliberation, the police decided that there is no case against the helper and the "intruder". The police said that since the helper invited the unidentified man to the house, there is no criminal element to it. My friend insisted that the helper "invited" the man without their consent. To that, the police said that since the helper is staying in my friend's house, she has the right to invite people over.
-
All in all, it would suggest that if a household hire a domestic helper, it is by default that the said household is leasing their home to the helper and thus, the helper has the rights to invite people over.
-
I was shocked to know this!
-
An advice to parents/employers who have to leave their babies at home with domestic helpers (especially without any other family members such as grandparents at home): -
-
The next time you renew your helpers' contract, please include a term in the contract that forbids helpers from inviting people over to your houses (esp. without your consent). Having it written in legally binding contract will protect you from having to go through what my friend went through. I guess that would make the "invitation" illegal then.
-
For now, the helper is already back to Singapore waiting for the next assignment.
-
Just to share.

Bali Nine post-execution

Australia tried to save its citizens who were caught and sentenced to death by firing squad for trafficking huge amount of drug punishable by death. Prior to the capture, the Australians involved were given plenty of warnings (such as the figure depicted below) prior to the their endeavor in trafficking the huge amount of drug. I am guessing that they took a calculated risk.

Sourced from Death penalty news blog

It is understandable why Australia tried to save its citizens. Any country or government would do the same thing, probably Indonesia too in different circumstances. The reason being that it is the only time that any government is not dealing with difficult and pressing issues concerning home (e.g. tax, unemployment, economy, corruption, ineffective country administration, etc.) BUT rather a "war" between we and them (which is easier to tackle and serve to publicize to their citizens that "government is here to help you no matter what"). The show would be about the "we" trying to save ourselves (or preserving our good values) against "them", the perceived "enemy" (with negative values). I'm guessing that such an event would provide the only opportunity to divert the people/citizens from home-issues to something more manageable by any government (read about diversionary foreign policy).
-
Bilateral ties between Australia and Indonesia will not be affected in the long run. All the threats and drama were just part of the show. No country is stupid enough to destroy a good bilateral (and economic) tie with any country just to save their convicts off-shores. There is just no real motivation to do so.
-
I don't know the mastermind and Bali Nine members (i.e. who are they as persons), but the way they used people to trafficking drug sort of described some of their true selves. Furthermore, I don't really trust any people who claimed that they had turned-over-new-leaves or became god-fearing people. I only look at the cumulative deeds they had done (e.g. track record). Also, instructing teens to swallow cache of condom-wrapped-heroine to smuggle across country is considered selfish and despicable. I have no information/data about courier's death due to a leak of condom-filled-drugs that caused over-dose, but I do know that such incident happens, e.g. Henry Vera of Columbia died of over-dose due to leak of swallowed drug.
-
What is the immediate effect of the post-death of Bali Nine?
-
It is more interesting to know this.
-
First, the drug that was meant for circulation had been eliminated (low supply).
-
Second, the highlight of the case provided fresh/refreshed perspective of the real risk involved in drug smuggling in South East Asia, especially in Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore. With renewed reminder of such risk, the price for the drug will not be any lower any time soon (steady demand but low supply translates to higher-to-exorbitant prices).
-
Third, exorbitant prices and low supply of the drug would mean that those with plenty of money will get it while the poor will be deprived of it.
-
Last, less lives destroyed by drug.
-
As a reminder, cocaine is not recreation drug with simple psychological addiction. It is the systemic addiction with severe withdrawal syndrome! So, don't play play (jangan main main; meaning don't fool around).
-
Bali Nine death is welcomed by family and society devastated by the drug menace.
-
Also, few crying moms for the death of their sons by firing square can't compare to the innumerable amount of crying mothers whose families were devastated by drugs all over the world (their crying faces were not recorded because there was no motive in doing so and hence their cries are forever hidden from the public. I guess if their crying faces were shown, there will be public unrest and any government will be butchered quickly by negative public opinion).

Sukuraman's mother Raji crying (mother of the convict). Sourced from this news.

Just a few 'Other' opinion

• When a country is weak, it will be bullied (by SusuBesarBundar at Therealsingapore)
• Opinion: "Bali Nine ringleaders deserve to die" (Sunshine Coast daily)

-
If an ill person needs to kill a tumor in order to safe his/her life, then removing "societal tumor" is the same thing. Furthermore, no medicine would aim to contain any tumor with any chance of remission. We prefer to eliminate it completely. Furthermore, to contain tumor would be foolish and wasteful of resource which could have been used to help rehabilitate drug users (the real victims) instead.
-
That is my one cent thought.

Update: About Bali Nine death sentence and Indonesia-Australia standoff

Previous post "About Bali Nine death sentence and Indonesia-Australia standoff". Latest update, "Indonesia rejects Australian offer to pay for pair's jail time" (Yahoo Sg).
-
Indonesia has rejected offer to maintain pair's jail time. The decision is probably made to prevent future clemency for drug traffickers.
-
Anyway, heroin is no recreational drug. Heroin is hardcore drug and very addictive. Difficulty in withdrawal (or discontinuation from usage) is the reason addicts resort to crimes (and some resorted to violence) in order to get the next kick. Prostitution/slavery is associated with heroin usage as well. What more is there to say? Heroin and morphine (although given to terminally ill and suffering patients) shouldn't be misused for monetary gain while destroying/enslaving healthy lives.
-
8.3 kg is a lot of heroin. Note that a newborn weighs about 3 kg. So the amount of heroin Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran (along the Bali Nine) were dealing corresponds to almost three newborn babies.
-
How many lives/families would have been affected/destroyed if this quantity was used to entice new drug abusers (those "adventurous" young minds)?
-
It's true that alcohol and cigarettes are addictive too, but there is no withdrawal symptoms to deal with and addicts are not desperate that they have to resort to crime to get the next kick. Similarly, sniffing glues, drinking concocted cough syrup, and smoking pots are addictive but they too don't possess the difficult to handle withdrawal symptoms that really push addicts into desperation to get the next dose.
-
So, heroin is dangerous.
-
Other references

• What about the victims of the heroin trade? (ABC)

About Bali Nine death sentence and Indonesia-Australia standoff

This is the latest news I followed, "Indonesians collect coins to protest Australian tsunami comments" (Yahoo 10 March 2015).
-
I have no objection to death sentence for convicted drug traffickers. It is not revenge killing, BUT more to removing threats from society. Similarly, death sentence to Bali Bombing perpetrators served to remove threats from society. In this case, Australians and their government kept mum over the sentencing. Is there selective objection over death sentence here?
-
Is Australia aware of the devastation caused by heroine (which is not RECREATIONAL drug) to any society?
-
Now, if Australia really insist on not letting these Australian drug lords being subjected to death sentence, and was willing to dig-out the old issue of humanitarian aid it selflessly volunteered during the 2005 Tsunami crisis (Publicity then, Shame now - Abbott's blunder), then if I am with the Indonesian government, I would have suggested to the higher-up to just accept Australia's demand of not giving death sentence to these Australian drug lords.
-
On two conditions.
-
These two Australians will be locked up in Indonesian prison FOREVER.
-
The cost of maintaining them will be footed by Australia, in which case the well-being of these two prisoners will be dependent on the amount paid by Australia.

-
I would say, AUD 20,000 per month per head wouldn't be too big a deal. On top of that, whatever security measures, medical bill, and additional costs will be borne by Australia. Also, if these two prisoners escaped (due to whatever reason), Australia will have to pay compensation to Indonesia for "letting loose" two threats to Indonesian society yet again.
-

Just an alternative thought.

Pedophile Old Man jailed 8 years for sexually assaulting girl, 5

Man jailed 8 years for sexually assaulting girl, 5
Chin Wei Foong, 54 doesn't look like an opportunist monster. His outlook betrays his deed. His white hair and age reflects an old and wise man. That is the scariest reality we live in,  i.e. a monster can look so much like us. This old man is fortunate that he has surpassed the age of 50, otherwise he would have gotten the cane (or rotan in Malay). In my opinion, the law should be amended to allow other types of caning to these people. If an old man can commit serious crime,  he should be subjected to similar (or alternative) caning. If the conventional caning at the buttock can't be done,  then he should be caned on the palm. For 1 stroke of the rotan that he misses,  he should be caned an extra 10 to 20 strokes of cane (or rattan) on the palm. The pain he suffered is not even close in comparison to the pain that the little girl suffered,  or mental scar she will have in future. Not to mention the anger and pain the family suffered.

Should we and other family train our children to be less friendly to stranger? Should we start discourage our kids to greet neighbours, uncle, auntie, or Mister on the street? It is people like Chin who are forcing children to "grow up" and be "defensive", while robbed of their innocent good nature. I as a parent have not the heart to do it. I hope people like Chin rot in this life and hell thereafter.

As a side note. Monsters are hard to distinguish. People tend to let look deceive them. Take for example, conmen tend to dress up (and act up) to deceive victims.  There are recent cases mentioned in the news of how certain respected public figures can end up stealing millions of money and still lie about it. How about certain people who seemed like helping the society,  but all he does is complain, complain and complain in public and in blogs (while the real angels are those who committed their time doing voluntary social work helping the less fortunate). The difference between these two types of people is that, while one constantly thrashes the system (without real solution), the other try to find ways around the system that works for the people. The latter people are nobler than the noisy tin can.

Just a thought. 

Abolish statutory rape else lock up Lee Sze Kiat

Is this news ("Teenager has sex with minor while on probation for similar offence", The Straits Times 29 Dec 2014) a mockery to statutory rape law? How the heck did Lee Sze Kiat escape jail and whip for having sex with a 16 yo? Would an adult doing the same act be given such leniency? Does it make sense that just because the perpetrator is a minor himself, he is "free" to commit the act? 

In my opinion, the statutory rape law had failed to protect minors and allowed Lee Sze Kiat (16 yo, although technically a minor) to continue being a predatory "rapist". Remind me again please, what is the function of statutory rape law? Lee Sze Kiat was so audacious that he targeted another younger victim (12 yo) during his probation!

I'm dumbfounded. Did the law failed because it is selective? Is it selectively lenient towards minors committing the same/identical act (that would have landed adults in jail or whipping)? If that is the case, statutory rape law is not protecting minor per se. It is rather limited to protecting minors against predatory adults (those over the technical term "minor").

If the law is not selective, why was Lee not being punished similar to how adults would be have been punished, e.g. a jail sentence or whipping? If the court tried to be "rational" by suggesting that a jail sentence would have been inappropriate considering that jailing the minor would surely have destroyed his future and wouldn't have served to correct him (as compared what probation could do), what about the two victims (and probably the unaccounted for or future victims) that got DESTROYED? To save a life that will destroy more lives doesn't make sense. I'm not an economist, but I think the math doesn't add up right in this case. Do you? This is like being "penny wise pound foolish".

Also, if jailing minor destroys his future, wouldn't jailing adults destroy their futures too? If jail is not effective/efficient in correcting a person, why not send all statutory rapists (regardless of technical age) to probation too?

If statutory rape law can be interpreted in many ways (by discretion) to cater for different types of rapists and victims, I don't think this law can completely serve to protect minors from predatory sexual act on them.

Statutory rape law was implemented to protect minors. It is not for minors to commit the act and get away with it. If the law is selective as this Q&A statement from AWARE, it will not do any good to protect minors from predatory rapists (minor or not)

Q & A: "What if both parties are 15 years of age?

Technically, this still constitutes the offence of Statutory Penetration of a Minor under S376A, Penal Code. However, the police, exercising its discretion and taking into account the age of the parties, may not initiate any charges."

We were once (or are now) teenagers and minors too, for those who got educated with sex early knows that sexual urge and thoughts are normal sensation/feeling (i.e. only human). However, what is not normal is what LEE SZE KIAT did to the girls. If he can get away with being irresponsible with his sexual urge (or libido), what is the signal being sent to other minors with equally high sexual urges too? What makes Lee special?

Lee should not be selectively let off (especially after the second act on another victim) while those abstaining the act watch with contempt.

Keypoints

• Don't be selective in meting out sentencing for statutory rape. It gives wrong signals.
• Economy of letting off minor rapists is bad. One unrepentant rapist can destroy more lives and families than the court thinks.
• To have strong libido is normal, but to be a predatory sex fiend who targets multiple minors to satisfy one's sexual urge is not. 

About sextortion in crime watch Singapore

Most will say that the victims were gullible. My opinion is that they were brave. Their moves to report helped others from ending with the same fate.

The perpetrator struck by providing very narrow time window for his victims to response. Most of his victims were under distress at the time and whatever decision they made was of poor judgement. That's how con-men normally operate. In this case, the perpetrator was also a rapist. Unfortunately,  he (Mani Velmurugan , 28) was not charged and convicted of the crime, except for a conviction on criminal intimidation (sentenced to 32 months behind bar). To me, a rape is when victims didn't have a choice and the "consented sex" was under duress. But legally,  it's difficult to determine this type of rape. It's not like statutory rape in which by clear definition, the act is punishable.

The next question is why would victims still be unaware of the risk of sextortion? Were they unaware of the technological capability of webcams to record (and not just for real time viewing)? Did they think that they have found their trustworthy soul mates (and hence sending compromising pictures of themselves was safe)? But how could you be sure without even meeting the person in flesh? I hope public awareness on this subject will help highlight this risk. 

One thing we need to bear in mind,  the victims were given very narrow time window to act. Victims acted under extreme duress. The prospective damages to the victims were usually too great that they would be willing to do anything. 

One thing we have learnt, the more the victims give in and suffer in silence, the more the motivation for this crime to thrive. When a crime idea works, it will be copied and used extensively. However, when victims start reporting to the police and the action is translated to convictions (as well as providing the public an awareness of such crime), they helped to prevent the crime. I respect that. 

Update: Mani Velmurugan was not charged with rape because his victims did not file them. Would they have succeeded in getting justice if they did? "Consented sex" under duress is no consent.