Dear editors,

I saw this secondary school couple at KFC NEXSerangoon keep hugging and petting one another non-stop in public. They kept on doing it while everyone was looking and they did not even bother.

They are from Hougang Secondary School as can see from the shirt that they are wearing. Even when one of the staff tried to stop them it did not work because many customers felt upset as they talk so loud and keep "playing" with one other. S

ee the way how the girl sit it's just like their house.

Manis Lee

In a Facebook post this morning, millionaire City Harvest Church pastor Kong Hee has accused the Straits Times (ST) of lying about how luxurious Kong's Sentosa Cove home is. He was responding to an article written by ST using information obtained from an unnamed investor, who had allegedly viewed Kong Hee's home while making an offer to buy it.

In that article, Kong Hee's high end Sentosa home was described as being fitted with luxurious and grand furnishings. In an attempt to "sweeten the deal", the investor also claims that Kong Hee had offered to take the investor out for a tour on his yacht.

In his post, Kong Hee says he "respectfully disagreed" with the "grandoise and luxurious" terms used to describe his Sentosa home, and questioned the motives of ST's mysterious, unnamed investor. He took pains to describe his residence there as only temporary - he claims that his family had moved into the Sentosa home only after he had to sell his other properties to pay for legal fees.

Kong admitted that his family was "blessed" enough to live in the property, but only regarded the place as their "temporary home" because they have been trying to sell the property for some time. Kong first bought the property for $9.3 million in 2007 and is asking for $10 million.

He also disputed a statement attributed to ST's investor, who said that the Kongs "knew how to live the high life". He said: "Suffice to say that those who know and are around me, my family and friends, know perfectly well what we have gone through over the past five years, and what we continue to go through today can hardly be called 'the high life'."

Kong added that the investor could have been lying about the alleged yacht ride offered because neither he, his family or his co-owner owned a yacht.

Kong Hee's full statement:

Today (2 July 2015) an article appeared in the Straits Times titled “City Harvest Church founder Kong Hee puts Sentosa Cove home for sale for $10m” by Joyce Lim.

I was surprised and saddened by the contents of the article because significant portions of it are misleading and exaggerated.

To begin with, the “investor” quoted in the article is unnamed and anonymous.

The property that my family and I have been living in is co-owned with another family. We have been living at this property with the co-owner’s kind permission after we had to sell our properties in order to pay the legal expenses for the ongoing trial.

The article quotes the “investor” using superlative terms to describe the property, implying that its furnishings are grand and luxurious. I don't know the intentions and motives of this “investor”, but my family and I would respectfully disagree with what he is trying to suggest.

There is no denying that we are blessed and privileged to be staying at Sentosa Cove. However, we are under no illusion that this is only our temporary home, until the property is sold. The article has given the impression that this unit was only just put up for sale. In reality, the co-owner and I have been trying to sell this property for some time.

I am particularly surprised that the “investor” reportedly said he had "the impression that the owner sure knows how to enjoy the high life”. Suffice to say that those who know and are around me, my family and friends, know perfectly well what we have gone through over the past 5 years, and what we continue to go through today can hardly be called "the high life".

Lastly, I am shocked by the alleged offer made by the agent to take the “investor” out on the owner’s “yacht”. I do not, and have never owned a yacht. As far as I am aware, the co-owner, who does not live in Singapore, also does not own a yacht.

The agent contacted my staff today to apologize. Her message reads:

"Please be reassured I was totally unaware of the intentions of the viewers and believed them to be potential buyers only. I am totally upset that it has caused such adverse publicity for Pastor and his family. The yacht story is also untrue. So sorry this happened."

Speaking at a SG50+ conference today at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam told an eager audience that Singapore would eventually have a non-Chinese prime minister sooner or later, but it would not be him.

He says this is because he is not interested in the job, and current Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong is "fortunately very healthy". He added that there is also already a group of younger candidates waiting in the wings.

This crop of people - those already in the fray, and those entering it - will provide Singapore's future leadership, said Mr Tharman.

A sickening video of a PRC woman setting a dog on fire with a blow torch, turning the poor animal into a charred corpse in 28 seconds, has gone viral on PRC social media.

The woman, allegedly a nurse from Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, is seen holding the blow torch over the dog, which laid twisted on the ground. The animal's shrieks of pain could be heard clearly in the video, but the woman does not relent and even smiles at the camera.

A cyber manhunt has allegedly yielded the personal information of the woman, including her ID number, home addresses and phone number.

However, the PRC currently has no laws against animal cruelty. Law makers have proposed a draft law against animal brutality in 2010, but there have been no developments since.

A link to the video is available on Sina Video and Shanghaiist. Viewer discretion is strongly advised due to strong violence and elements of torture.

The Singapore authorities must immediately and unconditionally release teenager Amos Yee, who is facing a minimum of 18 months of reformative training after criticising the late Singapore Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew online. Amnesty International considers him to be a prisoner of conscience, held solely for exercising his right to freedom of expression. As he is a minor, authorities must also ensure that his treatment is consistent with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to which Singapore is a State party.

Amos Yee was found guilty on 12 May by a Singapore court for “transmitting obscene materials”, under penal code section 292(1)(a) which is punishable by a fine, and for violating penal code section 298, “uttering words with deliberate intent to wound the religious or racial feelings of any person”, punishable by three years in prison and a fine.

He is currently in remand at Block 7 of the Institute of Mental Health in Buangkok, Singapore. He was first arrested on 29 March after he uploaded a YouTube video entitled “Lee Kuan Yew is dead”, referring to the late Singapore Prime Minister, and for posting an image featuring the superimposed photos of Lee Kuan Yew and former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher on the heads of two cartoon figures having sex.

The next hearing in Amos Yee’s case is on 6 July 2015, when a court is expected to decide whether he will be sentenced to a minimum of 18 months reformative training or up to two years’ mandatory treatment for people with psychiatric conditions.

Amos Yee has been remanded several times as the courts explore his sentencing options. His defence rejected the prosecution’s proposal for a punishment of probation and reformative training. According to the Office of the UN Commissioner on Human Rights, reformative training is “akin to detention and usually applied to juvenile offenders involved in serious crimes” and was referred to in a recent Singapore district court decision as “incarcerative in nature
and should be imposed cautiously.”

Amnesty International calls for the immediate and unconditional release of Amos Yee. The right to freedom of expression is enshrined in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). It includes the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers. Under international human rights law and standards, restrictions on the right to freedom of expression must be the exception rather than the rule. What Amos Yee
said was peacefully expressed and was clearly not grounds for criminalization. He has been held for nothing but exercising his right to freedom of expression, and Amnesty International considers him to be a prisoner of conscience.

Pending his release, authorities in Singapore must also ensure that Amos Yee is safe from any security threats and is not tortured or otherwise ill-treated. Singapore has a duty to ensure that Amos Yee’s best interests under the Convention on the Rights of the Child are given priority, including ensuring that he has unconditional access to his parents. As stated in the Convention, Singapore also must ensure that his specific needs as a juvenile are taken into account.

The case of Amos Yee highlights the wider, restrictive environment for freedom of expression in Singapore. Opposition activists, former prisoners of conscience and human rights defenders continue to express their concerns about the restricted space for public discussion in the country, and the government’s tight control of critical debate. The government persists in using defamation suits against critics, and the media continues to be tightly controlled through restrictive laws on censorship. Amnesty International urges the Singapore authorities to repeal or review and amend all laws which impose unlawful restrictions on the right to freedom of expression, to ensure that they comply with international human rights law and standards.

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL

32 year-old Huang Tian Yuan was sentenced to 5 months jail yesterday after he pleaded guilty to 2 charges of outraging the modesty of 2 women on 2 public buses on separate occasions.

Huang committed his first offence on 20th January last year at about 7AM in the morning on a crowded Bus 183 travelling along Toh Guan Road. His first victim was a 21 year-old woman standing in front of him. He had caressed the back of his victim with his hands before progressively getting bolder and touching her shoulders.

Although the victim had initially assumed that that Huang had touched her by accident, she soon realized that he was doing this on purpose. The woman panicked as she did not know what to do or who to turn to. Eventually, she told a fellow male passenger about her ordeal, but Huang had already alighted from the bus. The male passenger promptly told the bus driver on duty about the incident, who then lodged a police report.

Huang was arrested about a month later on 28th February.

After he was released on bail, Huang took Bus 3A towards Tampines Ave 4, and encountered his 2nd victim, a 18 year-old girl seated in front of him.

Unable to control his desires again, he began discreetly caressing the girl's right hip with his fingers. Realizing that she was being molested, the girl confronted her molester, prompting the bus driver to lodge a police report, which led to Huang's second arrest.

Dressed in a grey attire during his court trial, Huang told the court that he felt he had done nothing wrong as he had touched the victims through their clothes.

His argument was promptly shot down by prosecution lawyers, who said that touching a woman inappropriately without her consent was an act of molest, regardless of whether he had touched parts of the body that were clothed or unclothed.

The authorities have arrested 41 people who were involved in a syndicate which brought in illegal foreign labor, MOM said in a statement today.

The 41 - including the alleged mastermind - were nabbed during an islandwide enforcement operation between 1st and 2nd July.

According to the statement, the syndicate had circumvented Singapore's labor laws by setting up shell companies to bring in the foreign workers. Once they bring in the foreign workers, those who did not know about the scam would end up paying for their own costs of living in Singapore and struggling to find employment or ways to survive.

Some workers who knew that they were being brought over as part of a scam paid large sums of money for the chance to come to Singapore and seek illegal employment.

Syndicate members can face up to 2 years jail, fined up to $6000 or both for every illegal worker they brought over. If convicted of at least 6 similar offences, they may also face caning.

Employers who hire illegal foreign workers can be fined up to $30,000 or be jailed up to 12 months, or both.

They may also be barred from employing foreign workers.

Foreigners who work without valid work passes can be fined up to $20,000 or be jailed up to 24 months, or both. They may also be barred from working in Singapore.

Dear all,

Found a heavily tattooed and buff man lying by the side of the pavement along Nicoll Highway at 2am and had thought he was drunk.

Upon approaching, realized he drenched in sweat had peed in his pants. Victim was conscious but eye and head movements were strange. No visible injuries apart from those caused by the fall on the left side of his body. Called the ambulance immediately and put him in recovery position.

Confirmed from his broken whispers that he had a history of stroke and it was probably recurring, paralyzingly his side. Helped him stow his belongings, whip out his Argentinian ID and communicated with the ambulance about his situation when they arrived.

Together, we lifted him over the barrier onto the stretcher and into the ambulance. He maintained eye contact with me throughout, lifting his hand gingerly as he was in the ambulance as a sign of thanks. I am reminded that he could've been left there for a long period of time had I not passed by at that moment. And there is a time and place for everything.

Sending you positive vibes Lucas, may you get through this.

Cai Yinzhou

Dear Editors,

As what people always say, nursing is a rewarding career because nurses care for the ill no matter what race we are.... but what the public don't know is not all hospitals treat their staff well. Especially nursing staff. At least not in my ex dept of XXX hospital.

Staff are usually overworked with tons of patients to assist everyday.... numerous different appointments that has to be made for 1 patient and many have to work Over Time just to finish a day's work so that it wont be accumulated to the next. Because next day anticipated will have more work than the previous.

After staffs who left, the management only got agency nurses to come in.... permanent staff are all low moral and not motivated because the management is not bothered at all. This leads to frequent taking of Unpaid Leave and MC. We really cant blame these nurses, they are simply overworked.

Some even developed health issues over time. In order to create more revenue, the hospitals take in more patients and thus increasing workload of everyone when it is already damn taxing. Often the staff don't go for lunch which is 1 hour of break, and MOM law states that your 1 hour lunch is unpaid. So these nurses practically work through their unpaid lunch and no food at all. Is this even humane? Judge for yourself.

And lastly, yes this happens in a hospital in our lovely Singapore.

Fairy God Nurse
A.S.S. Contributor

Blogger Roy Ngerng took the stand again today (3 Jul) in the final day of the trial to determine the amount of defamatory damages payable to PM Lee.

Senior Counsel Davinder Singh, representing Mr Lee, asked Roy if he is apologetic, why he was drawing public attention to the state of the legal process.

Roy explained that he kept publishing lawyers’ letters and other updates on the legal battle between him and Mr Lee on his blog “simply as a matter of freedom of speech”.

Mr Singh also asked about statements by the International Commission for Jurists in Thailand and Centre of Law Philippines included in Roy’s opening statement 2 days ago, saying that those were included to put added pressure on the Singapore judiciary.

At the point, Supreme Court Justice Lee Seiu Kin told Mr Singh, “I face absolutely no pressure.”

Just before lunchtime, Roy broke down in tears while on the stand, saying he believes he continues to be silenced in terms of what he is allowed to write on his blog about the CPF system.

“We all know that I’m being persecuted. I do not hate the Prime Minister, but we need to speak up for the people,” he said, referring to many Singaporeans who are unhappy with the current CPF system.

Later when the court convened, Mr Singh accused Roy of not being truthful. For example, Mr Singh said, Roy had sent emails regarding the take down of his blog post to 82 journalists’ email addresses, instead of the claimed 52.

Mr Singh also said that at the time of the incident, Roy’s blog homepage had ten times the pageviews of the offending blog article itself. But when Mr Singh and his team asked for information on pageview number of Roy’s home page, they were not provided by Roy.

Roy argued that the popularity of a post should be measured by the article’s pageviews, and not the homepage’s, which contains other articles. It is pointless to obtain the statistics of the whole site since the dispute on hand is the one offending article – the one which compared Mr Lee to Kong Hee of CHC.

Mr Singh also accused Roy of not publishing Mr Lee’s rejection to his out-of-court offer for $5,000. In defence, Roy said that Mr Lee’s response to the offer being “derisory” was already reported by mainstream media.

Seeking financial help from public

Roy explained to the court why he needed to seek financial help from the public, as his savings have been dwindling since Mr Lee started suing him.

He told the court that of the $110,000 donated by the public, $70,000 had been paid to lawyer M Ravi while $36,000 was used to pay Mr Lee’s lawyer represented by Mr Singh’s firm Drew & Napier. This amount was for the legal costs of Mr Lee for the summary judgement as well as the Queen’s Counsel application, which was rejected by a previous court session. As such, Roy has to pay costs.

The remaining money was used to pay Roy’s new lawyer George Hwang, but the blogger received an additional £5,000 (S$10,500) from London-based human rights organisation Media Legal Defence Initiative (MLDI) to fund the case. Roy said MLDI and another London-based organisation, Article 19, assisted in legal advice.

When Roy told the court that all the donations had been spent, Mr Singh said that knowing his means were limited, he should not have aggravated the offence with follow-up blog posts.

“As you were incurring these expenses and filing fees, you were aware that if you continued to aggravate the injury, there was a risk that the damages could be increased,” Mr Singh said. “The sensible thing to do was to stop aggravating.”

Mr Singh noted that after receiving the letter of demand from Mr Lee, Roy immediately offered damages “to get away on the cheap”, yet continued aggravating the offence with his subsequent actions.

“He is continuing to attack the plaintiff (Mr Lee) for improper motives,” he said.

The case was adjourned at 3pm, with written submissions due 31 Aug. Roy told the court that he needs to go for his reservist training in the next 2 weeks. Justice Lee then gave him another additional six weeks after that to make his written submissions.

Dear All Singapore Stuff,

Two weeks ago it was in the papers about Ministry Of Manpower is monitoring closely and taking serious actions to those working illegally at the festive bazaar. But it seems these illegal workers are very brave, they seems to be handling customers and lots of cash during peak period.

The issue is by allowing these people coming to Singapore on social visit pass and letting them work freely is depriving real singaporeans who really need a job or those students, low income family to work part time or extra income.

Strict measures should be taken so that these foreigners do not take advantage and work freely as they want. Hope All Singapore Stuff can bring out this issue.

Farhad
A.S.S. Contributor

I refer to ST article, “PM Lee’s lawyers seek ‘very high’ damages in defamation case against Roy Ngerng” and Today’s “Blogger Roy Ngerng still straying into issue of defamation, says Prime Minister’s lawyer”.

ST’s article makes the damage assessment case to be so complicated that it requires an army of “PM Lee’s lawyers” to come to his defence. In Today’s article, it appears Lee is defended by only one lawyer, Davinder Singh.

Anyone reading ST’s headline would have been disgusted as PM Lee’s intent is clearly to more than bankrupt an ordinary citizen. But then again maybe not because, in all likelihood, CPF members will rally around Roy.

Seeking damages in excess of $400,000 will make PAP a global laughing stock. Unnamed lawyers seem to be making a mountain out of a molehill. In other truly democratic countries, their leaders wouldn’t even bother in the first place. How many Singaporeans have been swayed by Roy’s defamatory article? I mean, if someone thinks the world of PM Lee, wouldn’t he have simply brushed it off?

On the other hand, if a person already has a negative view of PM Lee, would Roy’s posts make any difference?

PM Lee has been ill-advised to take legal action and has wasted tax dollars by spending 7 hours in court today, excluding preparations for the hearing. We’ll never know the opportunity cost of PM Lee spending 3 days in court attempting to claim hundreds of thousands which Roy does not have. Any other head of state will be given the boot at the next election.

PM Lee: ”(Ngerng) wanted to make as big a dent in my reputation as he could”. Pause and think about this – can an honest and competent leader’s reputation be dented big time by a single image, a blogpost or even numerous posts?

If a blogger could easily dent the reputation of a prime minister, the most powerful man in Singapore, then he probably had very little reputation to begin with.

PM Lee once revealed that he had stayed positive online because he was ‘flameproof’. Hmm… so how come now so easily set ablazed by a few blogposts? PM Lee must learn not to flip flop on his words or he will lose more credibility.

PM Lee’s famous words which I think Singaporeans will now find them hard to believe: “Never forget that we are servants of the people. Always maintain a sense of humility and service”.

Questions:

1 PM Lee (our servant) has taken action to bankrupt a citizen (his master). Where is the humility?

2 PM Lee and the entire civil service have refused to engage citizens in any meaningful manner on the CPF issue, besides wayang, and have also refused to disclose information which rightly belongs in the public domain. Is this service to the people?

Even if Roy is silenced, the unhappiness of CPF members has still not been addressed.

A government exists to serve the people and there’s no such a thing as being given “authority in Singapore indefinitely without having to ask those who are governed whether they like what is being done..”.

In an email to PM Lee last year, I highlighted certain issues pertaining to CPF as well as the negative PR it was creating by demanding excessive monetary compensation from an ordinary. It was a bad idea then and still is. Wouldn’t have wasted my time if I had known it was actually hara kiri.

CPF issues concern an increasing majority of citizens and cannot be allowed to fester. The court case is not one of PM Lee vs Roy but hundreds of thousands of CPF members.

Whatever obscene amount PM Lee demands, CPF members will speak as one. Even if a quarter of active CPF members aged 50 and above contribute $5 to Roy each, it will be more than sufficient to settle PM Lee’s demand for ‘very high’ damages. What’s next?

PAP cannot continue to intimidate citizens with threats of bankruptcy in order to avoid meaningful engagement and continue to ”never mind what the people think”. The people are not daft.

Most Singaporeans are disgusted with PAP for resorting to legal means and bankruptcy to silence citizens. The people will soon speak at the GE and our message to the PAP is its “servants can bankrupt citizens” system must go.

Philip Ang

Hi Editors,

Our new generation of Singaporeans are shielded and protected vicariously by their parents. Most of those from younger generation I know are unused to hard work and have things always served on a silver platter for them.

Once they open their mouths, mommy feeds them, once they open their hands, daddy gives them money. In short, most of them are just spoilt, arrogant and self-entitled to the world.

If you read up, strawberries need a very conducive environment to thrive in, plenty of attention and care, most important, strawberries are damaged easily. Once damaged, they can't recover and have to be thrown away, cannot be saved.

This strawberry generation is shouting for change, they want their voices to be heard, they want things their way, no more of the old rigid ways. Will this group of strawberries lead Singapore into a bright future or will they be the cause of our country's downfall.

Only time will tell. I am praying for Singapore.

Tony Lam
A.S.S. Contributor

Recently, attention has been given to the fall in the number of nuclear families and its implications for social support.

We wish to caution against assuming that extended family support can or should be the main source of social support (“Extending the support of families”; last Saturday).

This is a simple matter of arithmetic. There are currently 4.8 working adult citizens for each elderly citizen, a fall from 8.4 in 2000. This ratio is set to decrease to 2.1 by 2030.

Yet, Singapore’s population is growing, mostly due to immigration. It does not make sense to limit the support for older people to the resources of their immediate or extended families. Rather, the taxes paid by all people working in Singapore should contribute.

Working adults are now less able to support aged parents financially, let alone extended family members. Doing so risks compromising their own financial security in old age, creating a greater burden on their own children.

Insisting on “intergenerational responsibility within families” over socialising costs will reinforce inequality between households over several generations.

High-income earners may well be able to provide for their elderly parents and other relatives, as well as plan for the future. However, low to middle-income earners will be impoverished, and their chances of social mobility negatively affected.

Recently, the Association of Women for Action and Research conducted in-depth interviews of 20 elderly, low-income women to understand their priorities and needs in old age.

Nearly three-quarters of these women reported that their children did not provide them with financial assistance, that money was a source of tension in their relationships with their children, or that their children may have been willing to support them financially but were torn between supporting their elderly parents and their own children.

Moreover, if older people are dependent on their family members for financial support, they will also be more vulnerable to elder abuse.

There is no proof that older people would rather rely on kin than receive support from the state. There is nothing shameful about social support – it is simply an expression of our collective responsibility and commitment to all members of our society, as acknowledged by the Silver Support Scheme, introduced earlier this year.

And who has a better claim to society’s support than the elderly who have spent their entire lives contributing to it?

Goh Li Sian (Ms)
Research and Advocacy Coordinator
Association of Women for Action and Research

On the second day of the SG50+ conference yesterday (3 Jul), jointly organised by the Institute of Policy Studies and the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, DPM and Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam said that as society evolves, changes must be viewed with an open mind.

But at the same time, the government must focus on holding the centre strong, he said.

“You must have that culture starting from very young, pre-school, primary school, where kids got to have a mind of your own. There’s something to it. I believe in that. What it implies for speak up. You don’t need to always make sense, you don’t need to speak logically, but you’ve political culture and systems, you need some humility on this.”

Mr Tharman’s speech contrasted drastically from that of PM Lee on Thursday (2 Jul) at the same conference (‘PM: SGs should count their blessings every election‘).

In response to a moderator’s suggestion that a culture of challenging authority might be needed to nurture innovation and creativity, Mr Lee told the audience that a certain “natural aristocracy” was needed in the system.

He said, “You want people to stand up, not scrape and bow. But if you don’t have a certain natural aristocracy in the system, people who are respected because they have earned that and we level everything down to the lowest common denominator, then I think society will lose out.”

“Aristocracy” is defined in the Oxford dictionary as “a form of government in which power is held by nobility… a class of society comprising of people of noble birth with hereditary titles”.

With regard to the defamation suit against blogger Roy Ngerng, the moderator felt that Mr Lee should have ignored Roy, saying, “Look at what people call Barack Obama on the Internet. It would have made your blood curdle.”

In other words, President Obama never bothers suing American voters for calling him names or accusing him of all sorts of things.

When questions were thrown open to the floor, medical professor Paul Tambyah revisited Roy Ngerng and Amos Yee’s cases. With the government’s focus seemingly shifting to “minor players, such as a rude and insensitive teenager … (and) the son of a chai tow kway seller who wrote 400 blog articles”, will there be more space for diverse views in the future, asked Dr Tambyah.

Mr Lee replied that one can discuss anything, but “you can’t defame anybody you like”. He added: “If you can’t redress defamation, how can I clear my name when somebody defames me?”

In summary, what Mr Lee is saying is kids can have a mind of their own but they still need to “respect” those who have “earned” it through the “natural aristocracy” in the system.

Keeping the centre strong

At the conference yesterday, Mr Tharman also said that Singapore should keep its centre “strong”.

“I think we should keep our minds open as to how this (politics) will evolve. We can’t decide how, 30 or 40 years from now, our politics will be. We can’t decide in advance. But we have a very good reason, based on our history and our sense of the reality we operate in, that we do need a system where the centre holds strong,” he said.

“And the centre doesn’t hold strong because of the invisible hand of society. Quite the opposite. The invisible hand of society tends to pull things away from the centre. It holds strong because you’ve got a Government elected by people that works to keep it strong.”

Mr Tharman also touched on the need for the government to be able to plan for the long term.

“There is a sense in which if your vote goes down significantly, any government will tend to focus more on the short term than the long term. That’s a reality of politics all over the world. Certainly, the current government wants as much as it can to preserve a culture where we keep thinking long-term in the interest of people. Because it’s fairer,” he said.

“It’s much fairer to tell people that it’s not just what we can give today, but what we can sustain in future. And the societies that haven’t done that end up hurting the poor and the middle-income groups. That’s the reality of it. It’s not just about inter-generational equity, about the old versus the young. It’s also about the rich versus the poor. Because it’s the poor who suffer when you’re unable to sustain the welfare policies that you start off with.”

“Amnesty International considers him to be a prisoner of conscience, held solely for exercising his right to freedom of expression,” the human rights organisation says in a statement released on Friday, 3 July, with regards to the case of Singaporean video-blogger, Amos Yee.
The 16-year old was found guilty of “wounding the religious feelings of Christians” on 12 May by the State Court for a video he had uploaded onto Youtube. He was also found guilty of a second charge of posting an obscene image on his blog.

An original third charge, that of having caused “distress” to those who viewed the video and who were thus “harassed”, was later withdrawn by the state prosecutors.

Since then, the case has taken on a mindboggling turn with the court, which was trying the teenager as an adult, calling for Amos Yee to be “assessed” three times for his suitability for various possible sentences.

The teenager was first to be assessed for probation. When he refused to meet with his probation officers, this was later changed to assessing him for reformative training.

Amos Yee was remanded for three weeks in Singapore’s main prison in Changi for this purpose.

After the results were out, the court decided to have him further assessed for his suitability to be issued a possible Mandatory Treatment Order (MTO).

The court then ordered him to be sent to be assessed by a psychiatrist – for two weeks in a mental institute where he is housed in the remand ward, which is believed to be normally reserved for those with mental illness and the criminally insane.

All in all, Amos Yee would have been held in remand for a total of 55 days by the time of his next hearing on 6 July 2015.

- 2 days of interrogation at Bedok police station on initial arrest.

– 18 days remand in Changi Prison when first arrested.

– 21 days remand in Changi Prison for RTC assessment.

– 14 days in remand in the Institute of Mental Health for MTO assessment.

The young boy could still face more prison time, or a minimum of 18 months in detention if he is sent for reformative training.

It is thus no surprise that many, including those who scorned at the teenager’s dismissive and bratty attitude towards his situation, are shocked at how the state is treating him.

Many, both in Singapore and internationally, are calling for his immediate release, saying that his “crime” of posting a rude video online did not warrant such excessive use of the law.

Even Christians, who are supposed to have been offended by his video, have stepped forward to say they were in fact not offended and that Amos Yee should be released.

Two petitions calling for this have attracted more than 10,000 signatures of support in total. (See here and here.)

Is Amos Yee then a prisoner of conscience, and the world’s youngest one too?

Amos Yee is believed to be persecuted or prosecuted for his political views, and not for his views on Christianity, despite the charges levelled at him by the public prosecutor.

Many hold the view that as his 8-minute video was released at a time when the country was mourning the death of its former prime minister, Lee Kuan Yew, the government felt that his video, in which he castigated the late Lee as a “horrible person”, was an affront to the memory of Mr Lee.

Thus, the government acted against him for purely political purposes, and not, as it claims, for protecting the “religious feelings of Christians”.

Seen in this light, Amos Yee would thus be a prisoner of conscience, as Amnesty International said.

Is Amos Yee then the world’s youngest prisoner of conscience?

Not exactly, although he is no doubt one of the youngest.

The youngest political prisoner is Gedhun Choekyi Nyima – the 11th Panchen Lama.

“In May 1995, Gedhun Choekyi Nyima was only six years old when His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama identified him as the reincarnation of the 10th Panchen Lama. China was so terrified of the young kid of six, that shortly afterwards, the young lama and his family disappeared, never to be seen or heard from again.” (See here.)

Till this day, activists continue to campaign to have access to the Panchen Lama, who would be 26-years old now. (See here.)

Another young political prisoner is 17-year old Shahin Novruzlu in Azerbaijan.

In 2013, Shahin and his group of youth activists called for a peaceful protest against injustice in Azerbaijan through a Facebook event in February 2013.

“Shortly after, they were arrested and some of them tortured; the youngest activist, Shahin of 17, lost four of his front teeth”, while another in his group, Mammad Azizov, lost his hearing in his left ear.

Amnesty International had also called for their release.

While Amos Yee may not be the world’s youngest prisoner of conscience, his situation nonetheless calls for an urgent resolution, especially when reports have emerged that he is under mental stress while in the IMH, and after having been imprisoned for so many weeks – even before he has been sentenced.

While Amos Yee may not be the world’s youngest prisoner of conscience, he is undoubtedly Singapore’s youngest political prisoner.
This would go along with the other title that Singapore has held – for having Singapore’s and the world’s longest-serving political prisoner in Chia Thye Poh.

The Singapore government, under Lee Kuan Yew, had imprisoned and held him in detention for a total of 32 years – from 1966 to 1998 when he was finally allowed to be free.

This article was first published on The Online Citizen.

A viral photo of a discriminatory notice pasted on an entrance outside Kallang Leisure Mall has caused outrage among Singaporeans (above).

The sign, which reads, "NO ENTRY TO ALL NDP UNIFORME PERSONNEL", was found plastered on the glass door of one of the mall's entrances. The notice specifically targets Nationa Day Parade (NDP) uniform groups who have been rehearsing tireless over the past few weekends for the upcoming National Day Parade - which is widely expected to be one of the grandest in Singapore's history as Singapore celebrates it golden jubilee anniversary.

As of this time, the management of Kallang Leisure Mall has yet to explain its discriminatory policy against uniformed personnel - which likely includes the men from the Singapore Armed Forces, Singapore Police Force, Civil Defence and possibly other school uniformed groups.

The lack of clarification however, has prompted netizens to speculate about the possible reasons for the ban.

One netizen argued that netizens should not judge the mall's management too harshly as the ban may have been imposed to deter uniform personnel from dirtying the mall with the soil from their boots.

Yet other netizens had harsher words for the management. Several netizens said that the notice was both discriminatory, disrespectful and ungrateful, citing the long hours that NDP uniform personnel have to put it for rehearsals.

"I think it is fair if they put a notice to ask those who had soiled shoes to not enter, or best is send a notice to the NDP organiser so that NDP can arrange places for people to wash their and dry their shoes before entering," A netizen wrote, "But you cannot base it [the ban] on a uniform or race. That is discrimination."

Another netizen added that he was very disappointed with Kallang Leisure Mall's management for failing to show support for fellow Singaporeans and the nation, "NDP is a national event and this is Singapore. This is not just normal discrimination. We should charge the person who put the note for treason."

Comparing the treatment of soldiers locally to those in the US, a netizen lamented: "In the US, it's customary on flights to give up business or first class seats to servicemen and shift yourself to the back of the cabin. Even Hollywood actresses do it. In Singapore, servicemen have their own chartered flight or military transport because the public finds them an eyesore or a stench."

<strong>1/3 off for good behaviors</strong>

All prisoners except for certain type of prisoners which I will elaborate on later in this thread. These prisoners are eligible for 1/3 off their sentrence for good behavior. This means that they only served 2/3 of the sentence imposed by the judge. This is also known as minus PH and weekends to some of you.

This entitlement is for those who behaves themselves inside the prison while doing their time. Those who fight or misbehave will not be granted the above.

There are 2 dates on the prisoner's card that is put outside his/her cell. This cardboard card will reflect the prisoners' name, Prison number, medical needs, special care (if any), EDR (Earliest Date of Release - this is the date of release after deducting 1/3 off) and LDR(Late Date of Release - the original date where the prisoner is supposed to be released)

Those who are sentenced for CT (Corrective Training) are not eligible for this incentive as they are repeated offenders.

Only those who had been sentenced to more than 14 days in prison are entitled. Last time yardstick was 3 mths.

<strong>Caning </strong>

All those who are sentenced to rotan will get a medical checkup before the caning. They must be certified fit by a Doctor. The caning must be done before the prisoner reach 50 yrs old.

Regardless of how many strokes the Court imposed, all the rotans were be done on the same day unless the prisoner is unfit to carry on during the caning.

The prisoner is secured to a standing platform where only his butts are exposed. The warden will then pick any of the canes in the room and procceed with the caning.

As a general rule of the thumb, it is strongly advised that a person should never scream in pain when being cane or you will be the laughing stock of the rest of the prisoners.

<strong>Home Dentention Schemes </strong>

This scheme is opened to all prisoners except those on RT or had committed serious crimes or is a foreigner.

The eligible prisoner has to served at least 50% of his sentence after the 1/3 off scheme for good behavior

This scheme is where the prisoner is released from prison to serve his/her remaining time at home and is part of the rehabitation of the prisoner. The prisoner's family members like wife/husband/sister/brother/parents must be agreeable to this before the prisoner can go on this scheme

A device is used and put on the ankle or wrist of the prisoner. A monitoring device is also placed in his/her house. The device linked to Cisco will sound if the tag is out of its monitoring zone in the house during the period of time when the prisoner is supposed to be at home.

The prisoner is supposed to be at home during a certain set period of time. He/She can only be out of the house when working/studying where prior pernission must be granted by his/her supervisory warden.

There are strict rules for this scheme
1) Must be at home during the period of time when he/she is supposed to be
2) Cannot indulge in vice like gambling, drinking, drugs or smoking
3) No tampering of the device or monitoring system
4) Subject to s/check via calls to residential house number or visits
5) Subject to random urine test

Any breaches will result in the home scheme being cancelled for the prisoner

<strong> Courses </strong>

Educational or skill courses are offered to prisoners to improve their employablities after their release, its also part of the rehabitional programme that the Prison dept undertakes.

<strong>Yellow Ribbon Project</strong>

This dept help former inmates to find jobs after their release

Parachuting in on the National Day Parade (NDP) is sometimes seen as the most thrilling part of the yearly celebration, with the Singapore Armed Forces' most experienced airborne personnel performing an exciting jump off a plane high above parade goers, free falling thousands of feet below finally landing safely within the designated parade grounds.

But what many people do not see are the risks involved in performing, and even rehearsing for such risky maneuvers.

Our reader, Mr Koh, witnessed first hand today how a Red Lion had a close brush with death today as he fell dangerously close to the ground with his main parachute stuck and unable to deploy fully.

"I saw one of the parachutes did not open properly and the jumper just fell straight down,"

Thankfully, the stunt did not end in tragedy as the Red Lion deployed his reserve chute, which is white in color as opposed to the original orange.

"Luckily he deployed his reserve parachute in time. He was extremely close to the ground by the time he cut away," Mr Koh said.

Dear editor:

Had a ridiculous experience in Nara Thai Cuisine in Westgate Mall today.

We, my wife and I, ordered dishes and rice. When the rice was served, we realized it is in blue color. Photo as attached.

Because my wife has severe food allergy and dare not to try anything she has not taken before, we requested to change the rice to normal plain rice, at least for her. We were then told that the blue rice was steamed with Anchan flower, not food coloring. The waitress brought us a laminated brochure and showed us some information. We explained that my wife's food allergy was severe and there could be catastrophic consequences. She could be demanded to hospital emergency for the allergy. The waitress went to check with manager. Later, the manager came and told us that "we are not allowed to serve plain rice. The boss has forbidden us from doing so!" We asked him that, since they have fried rice in their menu, before the rice was fried, was it plain or blue. The answer is "plain". When we asked " in that case, why not you serve us that plain rice? We don't mind if you charge as the blue Anchan rice." We emphasized it is not because of preference, it is because of the risk of wife's severe allergic reaction which had demanded us rush to hospital emergency and had adrenalin injection. However, the answer was still "sorry, we can not do that, we worry if other customers saw the plain rice and would ask the same."

I am not sure if it is because we are fuzzy, or if they are too rigid.

First of all, if their food is unique or out of ordinary, they should advise the customers first, before or when ordering. They said "it is on the menu", but the actual indication was in a separate piece of laminated brochure which was not attached to the menu and was not passed to us, only after we asked about the blue rice then they brought that brochure over as explanation material. I appreciate they might be trying to promote their product, but they still should keep the customers informed in advance, instead of retrogradely.

Secondly, the autonomy should be given to customers, instead of presuming"it is good, you must love it!" They should have set the price of plain rice and the blue rice at same price, and promote the blue rice to the customers, saying something like "we have this unique serving of Anchan rice, you like to try out? Since it is the same price anyway..."

Thirdly, there is plain rice available, not like they have to steam the plain rice just for us. And we don't mind to be charged as the blue rice. Why it is so rigid not to serve the already-available plain rice? What does it mean by "we worry other customer saw the plain rice and would demand for the same"? Shouldn't the customer be accommodated rather than being asked to? Shouldn't the dining experience be pleasant instead of being frustrated? Why it is a concern that the customers ask for plain rice? Why there is even a boss order which "forbidden us from serving the plain rice"?

Most importantly, it is not simply because we don't like it. I took the blue rice myself. Not too different from the plain rice but I didn't expect it to be. It is because my wife might have allergic reaction to it, and we wish not to take the unnecessary risk. For some recreation activities, like Roller Coaster or Bungee, the service provider would place health warning and suggest "not advisable for those with heart conditions, or pregnant ladies". Shouldn't there be some basic consciousness to accommodate such a simple request from customer, instead of simply saying "no, boss order can not"? What kind of service standard are we talking about?

After all, we will never go back to this restaurant again!

Douglas Zhong
A.S.S. Contributor