4 year old boy’s death from Nasi Padang a misadventure

From ‘NEA to take action against stall owner’, 1 Nov 2014, article by Hoe Pei Shan, ST

THE National Environment Agency (NEA) yesterday said it will be taking action against the owner of the nasi padang stall linked to the death of a four-year-old boy. A coroner’s inquiry completed the day before found that Shayne Sujith Balasubraamaniam had likely contracted salmonella from food which his mother bought from the stall in Northpoint Shopping Centre’s Kopitiam foodcourt, before dying four days later on Jan 22. The coroner called the tragedy a “misadventure”.

Operations at the stall were suspended for three weeks for the NEA to conduct investigations. After the coroner’s inquiry, netizens wondered if stall owner Siti Abibah Guno would face further action. Responding to queries from The Straits Times, an NEA spokesman said yesterday: “With the coroner’s inquiry now completed, NEA will proceed to prosecute the licensee in court.”

Under the Environmental Public Health (Food Hygiene) Regulations, Madam Siti faces a fine of up to $2,000 for each charge. Investigations had revealed unsafe levels of bacteria at the stall because of two main hygiene lapses – failure to register a food handler as required and failure to protect food in a covered receptacle.

Madam Siti was adamant when she told The Straits Times over the phone on Thursday that she had done nothing wrong as her licence to run a food stall had not been revoked.

What the article did not mention was what happened to Siti Abibah’s stall after the 3 week suspension following the incident earlier this year. According to the NEA’s advisory webpage, ‘3 persons’ were reported to contract ‘food poisoning’ on 18 Jan 2014, but NEA decided to adjust the grading down to ‘C, but only effective from 10 April 2014, nearly 3 months after the boy’s death. My Paper reports that other than the deceased, his mother and 2 year old sister were also hit by the salmonella bug, the culprits being curry chicken and tahu goreng. If you check the latest grade for Siti’s stall, you would find, to anyone’s befuddlement, that it has since been upgraded to A (as of today). But what’s more surprising is that Siti was awarded NO DEMERIT POINTS and listed as NO SUSPENSIONS at all the past year, despite the Jan incident. You might even say it’s an unblemished track record just looking at the details below. No wonder she thinks she has done ‘nothing wrong’.

Screen Shot 2014-11-01 at 7.47.12 AM

 ‘C’ means a score of 50-69%, or barely meeting the passing mark, though the running joke among fans of hawker food is that the lower the score, the tastier the food, with the lowest rating ‘D’ standing for ‘Delicious’. With this Nasi Padang tragedy, you can’t tell that joke anymore without someone groaning at its, well, tastelessness. D is diarrhoea, then death. So, the question remains, how reliable are these ratings anyway? How does the public make an ‘informed choice’ from these grades if there’s a lapse of a few months between a tragedy and the actual ‘demotion’? Or if your online licensing details says there were no suspensions the past year when in fact there was?

It seems that NEA will only issue some kind of strained apology or reassurance when hundreds of people are affected, like the Geylang Serai rojak poisoning back in 2009, which also took 2 lives thanks to an outbreak of Vibrio parahaemolyticus, a bacterium that also sounds like a Harry Potter spell to induce instant faecal incontinence. Back then, the CEO of NEA himself wrote a letter to Today saying he was ‘deeply saddened’ and that NEA ‘should have moved in firmly’ to tackle the rat infestation problem at the Temporary Market. In this Nasi Padang case, they’ve decided to go on the litigious offensive straight off, before telling us how ‘affected’ they are by the tragic demise, or what measures, other than tweaking gradings up and down, are going to be implemented to ensure that such ‘misadventures’ don’t happen again. Incidentally, the rojak stall was also rated C (Rojak stall given C grade for hygiene in Dec, 8 April 2009, ST).

 Meanwhile, if you think you’re safe if you avoid stalls which display uncovered food, whether it’s economic rice, rojak or Taste of Nanyang Chicken Rice, think again. Even dipping your fishballs in a Sichuan hot pot may not avert a gastrointestinal holocaust. Nor eating Prima Deli chocolate cakes. You should also worry about what your kids eat in their school canteens. If you see a food stall with a ‘C’ rating, don’t think of it as ‘satisfactory’ or ‘average’, but ‘CAUTION’.  Do a quick spotcheck of the premises before ordering, and don’t gobble down the food in case it’s swarming with gross, hidden maggots, as what happened with another case of Nasi Padang last year, also from a stall in Yishun, an image that is enough to turn you vegetarian for a week. Watch out for Ecoli in salad though.

As for NEA’s online database, if it’s really a case of wrong information displayed, then you’ve just scored a big ‘F’ in my book.

About these ads

Purge Prank generates alarm, fear and panic

From ‘Producers of Purge Prank Youtube video advised on possible consequences: Police’, 28 Oct 2014, article in Today

The Singapore Police Force (SPF) has advised the producers of the “Purge Prank” YouTube video on the possible consequences of staging such pranks, which may “generate unnecessary alarm, fear and panic in the community”, the police said today (Oct 28). The police said, in a Facebook post, that it has received several reports lodged against the video.

The video, slightly longer than two minutes, has gained popularity online. It shows a masked man confronting members of the public with what appears to be a machete. The video was released by local YouTube channel Merlion TV on Oct 20 and has since garnered more than 150,000 views to date.

“The Police would like to take this opportunity to advise the public to refrain from such activities,” added the police.

There are many ways to pull off a Halloween prank. An elaborate set up in a lift involving a creepy screaming kid appearing out of thin air, or frightening innocent folks with a robotic Annabelle doll, rank among the best.

The Purge prank, on the other hand, even if we assume that the masked stalker was carrying a plastic machete, violates two key tenets of the practical joke. Firstly, it must be, well, funny. Second, it must be sufficiently ridiculous. A moving, talking doll is part-shock part-disbelief. Not so with a human stalking you with a weapon, fake or not. In fact, with real-life slashing events happening in the past, having a armed psycho hoodlum sneaking up on you in the middle of the night is a genuine, though faint, possibility, whether your attacker is in street gear or dressed like a goddamn samurai.

Fear, alarm and panic aside, this is a hazardous prank, really. Not only do you risk scaring the victims into a heart attack or falling over injuring themselves, but the prankster himself may be at the receiving end if someone tough strikes back wildly in self-defence . Seeing the ‘purger’ getting the beat down with an umbrella, handbag or a roll of newspaper – now that’s HILARIOUS.

 The team from ‘Merlion TV’ could save themselves from a public nuisance charge, joining the likes or Roy Ngerng and Han Hui Hui, if they could convince the police that the victims were accomplices to the prank all along. The worst thing that could happen as a result of the Purge Gag is when MDA realises that the Purge movies, by inspiring viral copycat videos, are a threat to ‘national security’ and rate them ‘Not Allowed for All Ratings’, alongside another dangerous movie about ageing commies. Without machetes.

NUS assistant professor faking academic credentials

From ‘NUS probing work of ex-medicine faculty member’, 14 Sept 2014, article by Linette Lai, Sunday  Times

The National University of Singapore (NUS) has opened an investigation after reports that former faculty member Anoop Shankar had faked his academic credentials. “In view of the media reports on Anoop Shankar, NUS has initiated an internal investigation into his research publications when he was at NUS,” a university spokesman said yesterday.

According to his resume, the former assistant professor at NUS graduated from India’s top medical school when he was 21 and had a doctorate in epidemiology. However, a review of his work by West Virginia University in the United States found that Mr Shankar had only a master’s degree from the University of North Carolina and did not graduate from the All India Institute of Medical Sciences in New Delhi.

In addition, some publications listed on his resume were either authored by someone else, or did not exist.

Mr Shankar was at NUS’ Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine from 2005 to 2008, where he was part of the department of community, occupational and family medicine. There, he wrote several papers on topics such as diabetes, and was also part of a research programme looking into eye diseases in Singapore.

Dr. Anoop Shankar, if that is in fact his real name, was part of a team of researchers involved in the epidemiology of eye diseases in Singapore, according to the 2004 Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine annual research report. Ironically, it is NUS senior management who were too BLIND to realise they have been supporting a fraudster’s work with research funding all this time. Some of his outlandish claims can be easily refuted with random background checks or maybe a few calls (courtesy of NBC news):

1. He was never a member of the Royal College of Physicians.

2. He supposedly wrote a paper in 1976 (the year after he was born), not 1996 as claimed in his resume. It turned out that none of the papers listed were actually written by him.

3. He wasn’t among the top 3 graduates of the All India Institute of Medicine in Delhi.

4. The university where he claimed he got his doctorate in epidemiology from doesn’t even have a department of epidemiology.

5. He had photos online pointing to him being a graduate of Kottayam Medical College, not the ‘Harvard’ of India.

It all seems like a sloppy yet preposterous act of forgery to me, and ever since he charmed his NUS employers into hiring him despite the phantom qualifications, not a squeak of suspicion emerged from 4 years in the university. Some of his latest work with VWU were not even directly related to his ‘specialty’ in NUS. In 2013, he suggested a link between a chemical in popcorn and heart disease. This guy is either incredibly charismatic or has a knack for spinning scientific yarn, the academia equivalent of conman Frank Abagnale (played by Leonardo DiCaprio) in the film Catch Me if you Can.

But it’s not the first time that we let a liar boasting illustrious credentials weasel his way into a senior position in the NUMBER ONE university in Asia, and then only wait for someone else to ferret him out. In 2011, former NUS don Dr Alirio Melendez was hauled up by the University of London for research fraud, when his paper published in the Nature Immunology journal was retracted due to ‘inconsistencies’. NUS soon launched their own battery of investigations, uncovering more than 20 cases of alleged fabrications and plagiarism. He was found guilty earlier this year.  Prior to the fiasco he had been working with a team on a new potential drug which may treat septic shock. I thought this discovery would have been sufficiently ‘shocking’ for NUS to tighten their employee screening and audit processes, yet no one in NUS bothered to snoop on Anoop. How many more ‘world experts’ like these have slipped through the cracks? How many bogus articles are floating out there in scientific publication universe? Quite a few apparently. Some folks have even done it as a PRANK.

Fake professors writing fake articles don’t just waste research funds which could have been put to better use. Imagine if Shankar had fabricated his way into establishing a causal link between popcorn and blindness, and a ‘respected’ medical journal is taken in by this doyen of epidemiology’s gobbledegook and made it the health scare of the century, we’d all be stuck with soggy nachos at the movies, while hailing the man as the hero who saved humanity from poison pop corn.

Police investigating toppled Singapore flags

From ‘Singapore flags felled in Ang Mo Kio’, 10 Aug 2014, article in Today.

An act of mischief ruined National Day decorations at an HDB estate in Ang Mo Kio Avenue 3 today (Aug 10).

Town council workers had put up Singapore flags in the build-up to the celebrations. On Sunday morning, it was discovered that several flags had been felled. Police officers were seen clearing up the damage when our reporter got to the scene at about 2pm. Town council workers were also seen putting up new flags. They said the flag poles were broken but there was no damage to the flags.

Flag down

Flag down

Oh dear God, there’s a flagpole chopper on the loose! Quick apprehend the vandals before more Singapore flags are felled. Our 49th birthday post-NDP celebrations depend on it! This foul deed is as despicable as someone peeing all over our Cenotaph, or decapitating Sir Stamford Raffles’ statue, dammit.

Since we’re doing the policing and stuff, we should also round up anyone who has the audacity to allow the Singapore flag to touch the filthy ground. Like the perpetrators behind this brutal act of flag dumping below, leaving a sad pile of bleeding flag corpses, innards wrenched and spilled, outside a disgusting rubbish chute. I can’t get this ghastly image out of my head. The horror!

BASTARDS!

Even the hand-held flags are not spared. Look at how these two innocent flags are tossed among random filth near a lift. It’s as heartbreaking as seeing children lying broken and lifeless in a corner after a gangrape. I don’t want to live on this earth anymore.

DAMN MURDERERS!

How dare you also allow the flag to stand on a grass patch and lean against some bushes? Would you make Jesus stand on broken glass? This is so, so cruel.

TORTURERS!

What about bringing Li Jiawei to justice? At the Beijing Olympics representing Singapore she, the FLAGBEARER, was spotted dragging the flag all over the ground. WHERE IS SHE NOW (back home in China probably)? Get Interpol on the case for Christ’s sake!

NOOOOOOOOOO!

And don’t think that if you’re a celebrated playwright you could get away with flag assault. In Cook a Pot of Curry, a Wild Rice play, the producers allowed the flag to be dropped on stage while the actors were singing the National Anthem. This is INHUMANE. It’s like dropping a baby from a height sufficient to not just paralyse for life, but KILL. Curse you Arts people! Someone should send the cops down to your houses to search for flagpole-destroying parangs, axes or chainsaws!

It is truly an unspeakable crime, and I will remember this 49th National Day as the day someone hacked my country, my dreams, my home, down to the ground. God Save Singapore.

Woman peeing in Pinnacle@Duxton lift

From ‘Caught in the act of urinating in Pinnacle@Duxton lift’, 18 June 2014, article by Hoe Pei Shan, ST

The first photo shows the back of a woman in neat attire squatting down in a lift; the second shows the same woman, her hair tied up in a ponytail, in the same spot, but this time with a puddle near her feet in the lift. The photos were featured in posters put up this week by the Tanjong Pagar Town Council in the void deck of Block 1E at Pinnacle@Duxton, following complaints about urine in one of the lifts back in May.

The youthful-looking woman, whose face is not seen, was caught in the act by surveillance cameras in the lift at 8.22pm on May 23.

“The Town Council has received feedback regarding the stench of urine in the Fireman Lift in Blk 1E… This has caused much inconvenience to residents,” read the message in the poster. The posters and photos are part of what MP Lily Neo (Tanjong Pagar GRC) describes as the town council’s “very effective” method of addressing such incidents, and have been employed several times at the Pinnacle@Duxton estate as well as elsewhere in the constituency.

…”We would never show people’s faces in the photos used, so only the person committing the act would know it is him or her,” she said. “We’re not trying to shame anybody, we put the posters up only in the affected blocks. Our job is not to make trouble, we just want to stop the urination problem.”

No one has stepped forward so far regarding the latest incident, and little is known about the woman pictured. “Urination in public places still happens from time to time in different areas around Tanjong Pagar, but thankfully it’s not that prevalent,” said Dr Neo.

This iconic housing project was indeed once the PINNACLE of international design, the first in the world with 2 skybridges linking the 7 blocks, creating what could be the LONGEST continuous skygardens in the world. A winner of the 2010 President’s Design Award, the Pinnacle’s skydecks have been described as ‘social dynamos’ encouraging communal activities, initiating an ‘innovative typology of public communal spaces that are metaphorically reclaimed from the air.’ A bit TOO communal perhaps. This, like how we deal with most social nuisances, calls for a CAMPAIGN, before someone brands the building The ‘Pee-nacle’ (Wait, that has already happened). The mascot could be a singing, dancing giant incontinence pad, one who goes around smothering people before they even unzip their trousers.

Peeing in lifts is a scourge that won’t go away soon, with exploding bladders, loose sphincters, alcohol and lack of public toilets often used as mitigation pleas when culprits do get caught. Most of these, to no one’s surprise, are men. In 1988, the ST ran a survey which revealed that of 112 pissers caught, ONLY ONE was a woman, and they were mostly adults within the age range of 36 to 54. These days, people seem to get away with urinating in lifts without having the media shout their name, age and occupations like they used to. An anonymous offender smearing a public amenity gets away with nothing more than embarrassment, while a blogger who smears the name of someone very illustrious gets hunted down and sued his pants off for defamation. Even getting caught EATING a damn sweet on the train is a worse situation than this.

You must be truly desperate if you’re a woman and need to resort to 1)pulling down/aside your underwear 2) squatting 3) answering the call of nature 4) risk soaking your damn feet while at it. No one seems to ever get remanded in IMH for such behaviour, especially one that has been fetishised by the authorities since Singaporeans began living in HDBs, with some MPs in the 80’s even suggesting a JAIL TERM for offenders. Peeing in a lift is an entirely different breed of public disgrace compared to say dumping litter or throwing cigarette butts out of cars. A grown adult urinating in a closed, moving compartment, especially one in which you have to eventually use yourself, seems to me more of a bizarre psychological disorder rather than a case of uncontrollable nerves, mischief, or even ‘vandalism’. It’s like vomiting on the side of your plate, and then continuing to eat the rest of your food like nothing happened.

The Pinnacle may boast one of the most panoramic, expensive residential skygardens in the world, but all the lifestyle frills and pledges of ‘sustainability’ aside, one thing that the building appears to be sorely lacking is a basic lift URINE DETECTOR, a gadget that stops the lift dead when someone takes a leak on the floor, sounds an alarm, and traps you inside until the cops come and whisk you and your vile bladder to court. A brilliant invention because it forces you to be confined with your own putrid stench for at least a good half an hour, and more importantly, catches you red-handed, with or without CCTV. Have we gone all soft on lift pissers lately? Will the Pinnacle management take more serious measures only when MP Lily Neo steps on a golden puddle during her walkbouts like what happened to former Speaker Tan Soo Khoon in 1991?

Urine detectors can’t do anything to prevent one from DEFECATING in the lift, though. Yes, it happens, I shit you not.

UDDs will give residents a piss of mind

Wikipedia ‘vandal’ calling the PAP a fascist regime

From ‘Vicious edits to PAP’s Wikipedia page’, 13 June 2013, article by Hoe Pei Shan, ST

A People’s Action Party MP called on his organisation to consider legal action yesterday after “vicious” edits were made to its Wikipedia page. Tampines GRC MP Baey Yam Keng spoke out after a user of the website changed the name of the party to “Party Against People” and added lines such as “down with the fascists” and “vote for Opposition” into the text.

According to the page’s publicly available editing history, the user who first made the changes appeared to have done so on Wednesday afternoon under the name “AlikVesilev”.

The user claimed that “proof of (the PAP’s) suppression of freedom of speech” was demonstrated by the sacking of blogger Roy Ngerng by Tan Tock Seng Hospital this week, a move later backed by the Ministry of Health.

Human rights group Maruah thought that Roy’s dismissal and the subsequent endorsement by MOH was handled poorly, symptomatic of the high-handed, remorseless manner in which the PAP and its underlings deal with dissenters. ‘AlikVesilev’ also praised socialism and went ‘URA!’ in his rant, which I’m guessing refers to a Soviet battle cry for ‘Hooray’ (Most definitely not the ‘Urban Redevelopment Authority’).

If nothing happens to this wiki ‘vandal’ after his ‘vicious’ attack, Roy would be hitting himself on the head for not having exploited the CPF Wikipedia page instead to get his message across, now that he’s facing an insurmountable defamation suit and currently jobless. But this isn’t the first time that the PAP’s hardcore style of punishment and intolerance for ‘free speech’ have been compared to ‘fascism’.

1963: The Barisan Socialis invoked ‘fascist repression’ when the PAP revoked citizenship for political detainees, accusing the party of ‘abusing power’ to unjustly punish anyone opposed to the regime. A familiar routine that anyone that has been cast away in political exile, or fired from a job because he impugned the integrity and character of our great leader, can relate to.

1964: V David from the Socialist Front, KL, referred to the PAP governance as a ‘reign of terror’ and ‘a fascist dictatorship’.

1971: A bunch of Malaysian and Singaporean students staged a demonstration against ‘fascist Lee Kuan Yew’ in London’s Hyde Park, burning an effigy of the PM. The ST referred to them as ‘radicals’.

1976: The United People’s Front leader Harbans Singh blamed the inequality between the rich and the poor on the ‘parasitic’ fascist regime that is the PAP. He was later hauled up to court for making scurrilous remarks about LKY being a ‘scoundrel’ and ‘gangster’ from the way the blunt tool that is the ISA was being implemented.

1977: Detainee Ho Kwon Ping was accused of portraying the PAP as an ‘elitist, racialist, fascist, oppressive and dictatorial’ government in an article for the Far Eastern Economic Review, which he allegedly used as a platform to channel his ‘pro-Red’ sentiments. He later became the founder of Banyan Tree and now a successful millionaire. Some jailtime may be good for you after all.

2006: John Burton of the Financial Times wrote about the uncanny similarity between the PAP’s lightning logo and that of the British Union of Facists (BUF). According to the writer, LKY admitted a ‘design influence’ from the fascist symbol. Apart from the logo, the other stark difference between the BUF’s Blackshirts and our current PAP mould would be the colour of their uniforms.

Fascist logo, or insignia of the Flash?

2013: DJ X’Ho calls us a ‘hushed’ fascist state, that we may well be the ‘unproclaimed fascist capital of the world’ but wouldn’t admit it.

High-handed brutality aside, most of us don’t have sexual fantasies about our glorious leaders, nor do we worship them as war heroes, man-gods or sing songs of total party devotion and then weep in ecstasy like how they do in a megachurch or a pure fascist state. According to a list of ‘defining characteristics‘ by a certain Dr Lawrence Britt, there are examples of ‘fascist’ elements in almost every modern government you can think of, not just Singapore, among which include:

1. Disdain for Recognition of Human Rights: Anti-gay laws, the ISD’s detention without trial.

2. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause: ‘Self-radicalised’ individuals, ‘CPF bloggers’, disgraced Opposition leaders.

3. Supremacy of the Military: Last year’s defence spending was $12 BILLION.

4. Rampant Sexism: Our cabinet ministers are all male. Not many female boardroom members in corporations.

5. Controlled Mass Media: ST, hello? Crackdown on ‘seditious’ Facebook posts, defamatory blogs. Censorship of political films, movies about gay sex, threesomes or zany plots about the assassination of Malaysian Prime Ministers.

6. Obsession with Crime and Punishment: Death penalties, caning, and ‘enhanced’ powers of the Police in Little India.

One may think of fascist governance as a continuous spectrum, just like how we all lie in the emotional range from ‘super nice’ to ‘psychopath’.  The PAP, as our PM once admitted himself, is in fact a ‘Paranoid’ government, one that ‘worries’ all the time. In other words, one that is constantly in FEAR of things not going their way. I would put that nearer to the psychopath end of the spectrum.

 

PM Lee rejecting Roy Ngerng’s derisory $5000 offer

From ‘PM Lee rejects blogger’s offer of $5000 as damages’, 27 May 2014, article by Nur Asiyiqin Mohammed Salleh, ST Singpolitics

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has rejected blogger Roy Ngerng’s offer of $5,000 as damages, his lawyer Davinder Singh said in a letter to Mr Ngerng’s lawyer on Tuesday. This offer is “derisory” and “completely disregards” the gravity of Mr Ngerng’s conduct, the undisputed fact that the libel – that PM Lee misapproriated CPF funds – is false and malicious, and Mr Ngerng’s “calculated and systematic aggravation of the injury and distress” to Mr Lee, Mr Singh wrote.

…Mr Lee had on Monday offered to waive aggravated damages if Mr Ngerng removed four blog posts and a Youtube video and undertook not to publish similar posts or videos. Mr Ngerng agreed. But instead of removing the video, Mr Ngerng made it private. He also sent two e-mails out republishing the video and offending posts.

“He therefore has only himself to blame for losing the opportunity of not having to pay aggravated damages,” said Mr Singh.

Channel 8 news tweeted an image of Davinder Singh’s retort to the measly $5ooo offer, and surprisingly, I was able to understand most of the ‘legalese’ in the letter. Judging by Roy’s behaviour it looks like it won’t be the last we see of such letters and requests for ‘service of process’. The saga has dragged on for far longer than necessary, with ‘lost opportunities’ on both sides to settle their differences in a more palatable manner other than one dominant party simply asking for more money from the other.

Here’s some choice selections from the latest salvo, a masterclass in defamation suit demands written with the panache of an executioner sharpening his blade before chopping someone’s head clean off.  You can even use this as a template when a restaurant owner offers you free dessert after a waiter spills hot coffee all over you, that it’s a ‘derisory’ compensation for the ‘injury and distress’ that you’ve suffered, completely ‘disregarding the gravity’ of your situation.

1. ‘Derisory and completely disregards the gravity of your client’s conduct’.

Meaning the 5K is an insult and I spit on your ridiculous offer. The next logical question to Davinder would be, so how much do you want then. Is there a market rate for ‘damages’? How much higher do I need to bid before ‘derisory’ becomes ‘acceptable’? I expected Roy to come up with less in fact, and maybe top up the remainder of damages with a thousand kowtows.

2. ‘The undisputed fact that the libel is false and malicious’.

Legalese 101: Libel is any defamation that can be seen, such as writing, printing, effigy or statue. Slander is any defamation that is spoken and heard. If Roy had reserved his misappropriation accusations for his Return my CPF protest, it would have been slander, though I’m not sure which of the two is more serious. The word ‘undisputed’ is used twice in the letter by the way, a word one would usually hear in the context of a boxing championship match, though it’s obvious who’s the one getting bruised up the most here.

3. ‘He therefore only has himself to blame of losing the opportunity of not having to pay aggravated damages’.

In short, Roy asked for it. Instead of restraining himself and keeping a low profile, he allegedly circulated the ‘deleted’ posts to ‘local and international’ media. Obviously, the phrase ‘live to fight another day’ doesn’t mean anything to Roy. What was he trying to achieve with the leaking? Get support from the Queen’s Counsel?

4. ‘Your client’s explanation..that it was a momentary lapse of judgement is disingenuous and incredible’

Disingenuous is a bombastic word that only became popular when Spellcheck spared us all the burden of having to spell ‘-nuous’ correctly. It’s best used when you want to accuse someone of dishonesty but want to lord over him while at it, like ‘Take that! I just used a big word on you’. It’s also an accusation that is unlikely to get a comeback because the recipient will be wondering what you meant, and will have trouble finding a response that has more letters in it.

5. ‘He has also not come clean with you…did not disclose to you that he intended to renege on that undertaking’

i.e Roy lied to you M. Ravi. Renege is another word people don’t usually say in real life. It sounds too French for something that’s not actually food.

So the stakes have been raised. Place your bets for what PM Lee will finally accept as a decent offer for his suffering. I’m thinking somewhere in the region of $25K, which can probably cover half our Government’s standard donation to our Indonesian neighbours after a massive earthquake.

UPDATE: Roy has been fired from TTSH for misusing hospital resources for his personal stuff, namely fighting a losing battle against PM Lee. The other reason was that he did not conduct himself ‘honorably’ and with ‘integrity’ in his legal dealings with his accuser. He’s not helping matters by alleging that the sacking was ‘politically motivated’. Roy, is one defamation suit not enough?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 299 other followers