Rum Raisin ice cream banned after 10.30pm

From ‘Fairprice restricts sale of alcoholic ice cream’, 21 Apr 2018, article by Lydia Lam, ST

Supermarket chain FairPrice has restricted the sale of Udders ice cream with alcohol content that exceeds 0.5 per cent to comply with the Liquor Control Act. Ice cream that has more than 0.5 per cent alcohol cannot be sold between 10.30pm and 7am at its outlets.

This includes four of Udders’ flavours: Rum Rum Raisin (3.9 per cent alcohol), Tira-miss-u (3.8 per cent alcohol), Wineberries (3.5 per cent alcohol) and Orange Liqueur Dark Choc (2.7 per cent alcohol).

…Under the 2015 Liquor Control Act, “liquor” means a beverage containing more than 0.5 per cent ethanol by mass or volume; a mixture of ethanol and some other substance or liquid (including water) and containing more than 0.5 per cent ethanol by mass or volume; or any other substance prescribed by the regulations as liquor.

Yes, rum raisin ice-cream is technically a form of ‘liquor’ according to its legal definition. And yes, you possibly may get drunk on ice-cream. That’s if you melted 10 tubs of Udders into liquid and shoot it up your rectum as an enema in addition to eating it with a ladle.

Also according to the definition, any ‘mixture of ethanol’ containing more than 0.5% falls under the list of abusable substances. Which means in order to be consistent and fair to Udders, Fairprice should also remove Listerine mouthwash off the shelves after 10.30pm, especially since it contains more than 40 TIMES the alcohol limit.

Screen Shot 2018-04-21 at 6.54.30 AM

But, but – you say, people don’t DRINK MOUTHWASH!

Or do they?

There are in fact medical case reports of extreme intoxication following mouthwash abuse. So the answer is yes. People are more likely to get drunk on Listerine than an entire tub of alcoholic ice cream. More so if you restrict alcoholics from their nocturnal booze like what we’ve done here. In fact, regular non-drunkard users of mouthwash may get exposed to more alcohol through swallowing than people eating that occasional Tira-miss-U.

But still, thanks Fairprice for letting the world know that alcoholic ice-cream exists. One ice cream company’s udders must be swelling and getting all tingly with delight.

Advertisements

Human Rights Watch spreading deliberate falsehoods

From ‘PAP Policy Forum slams Human Rights Watch report, calls it a ‘deliberate falsehood’, 23 Mar 2018, article by Aqil Haziq Mahmud, CNA

The People’s Action Party Policy Forum (PPF) has slammed a Human Rights Watch (HRW) report which described Singapore as a “repressive place” that imposed criminal penalties for peaceful speech.

The group, an arm of the People’s Action Party that engages Government leaders on policy issues, called the report as a “type of deliberate falsehood” in a written submission to the Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods on Friday (Mar 23).

It said the report is “an example of how false and misleading impressions can be created by a selective presentation of facts, designed to promote an underlying agenda”, which is to change the society in Singapore.

…The ministry suggested that HRW had chosen not to come to Singapore to publicly defend its views because it knows that its report would not withstand scrutiny.

“HRW, by its conduct, has shown that it cannot be taken seriously as a commentator or interlocutor on issues relating to Singapore,” the ministry said.

If you actually read the HRW article titled ‘Kill the Chickens to Scare the Monkeys‘, you’ll realise than it’s more than just the defunct The Real Singapore or Amos Yee who are highlighted as poster children of Singapore’s ‘repressive’ regime. It also mentions the ‘Marxist conspiracy’, people ‘scandalising the judiciary’, Roy Ngerng, and artists having their possessions seized without warrant by the police, which the PPF decided to ignore in their fault-finding. The only item missing from the HRW critique is chewing gum.

Which means it’s cherry-picking on both sides. On one hand, a non-profit organisation intent on maintaining the image of Singapore as a ‘Disneyland with the Death Penalty’, and the other obsessive-compulsive in its pursuit to discredit anything that makes the government of the day look bad by sweepingly labelling it as a ‘deliberate falsehood’. In the old days, we used to refer to such allegations as ‘LIES’. But lies don’t get you public apologies or compensation. Lies is when Mommy caught you masturbating and you say that you were trying to pull a caterpillar out of your pants.

When even honest suspicions are bludgeoned to death in Parliament, when a private post commenting on the ‘pliability’ of our legal system forces you into exile, when the Police begin to do the heavy lifting for what’s fast becoming a dystopian Ministry of Truth, you start to wonder if the government’s crackdown on anything resembling an opinion is the modern equivalent of burning books in the proverbial bonfire.

If the ruling party could pull out all the stops to force an international paper to apologise or risk legal action for making suggestions of nepotism, they could jolly well do the same to the HRW. The report is a falsehood, the organisation is a falsehood. Hell, if a leader of country disses us, then that whole fucking country is one big fat falsehood too.

#simisaialsodeliberatefalsehood

Sylvia Lim’s dishonest ‘test balloon’ remark on GST hike

From ‘Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat asks is Sylvia Lim will withdraw ‘test balloon’ allegation on GST hike timing’, 2 March 2018, article in CNA

Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat issued a statement on Friday (Mar 2), asking if Workers’ Party chairman Sylvia Lim was ready to apologise to the House and withdraw her allegation that the Government had floated “test balloons” about raising the goods and services tax (GST).

In Parliament on Thursday, Ms Lim said that the Government had floated “test balloons” before the Budget announcement, then possibly “backed down” on an immediate GST hike due to the negative public reaction.

She said: “We do note that in the run-up to the Budget discussion there were some test balloons being floated out about the fact that the Government needs to raise revenue. And immediately the public seized on the fact that DPM Tharman and perhaps other leaders had earlier said that the Government has enough money for the decade. So the public pointed out that ‘hey, you know, is this a contradiction?’

“And I rather suspect myself that the Government is stuck with that announcement, otherwise, you know, if their announcement had not been made, perhaps we would be debating a GST hike today.”

This sparked a testy exchange in Parliament with Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam, who called Ms Lim’s comments “baseless suggestions” that were “hypocritical and dishonest”.

 

According to the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act,

There shall be freedom of speech and debate and proceedings in Parliament, and such freedom of speech and debate and proceedings shall not be liable to be impeached or questioned in any court, commission of inquiry, committee of inquiry, tribunal or any other place whatsoever out of Parliament.

Yes, even in a setting where freedom of speech is codified in law, you can’t bring out ‘suspicions’, ‘honest beliefs’ or even a ‘personal opinion’ without raising the red flag of FAKE NEWS. Poor Sylvia can choose to take back her words like fellow WP colleague Leon Perera, or take the long road like JBJ back in 1982 when he was threatened with possible breach of ‘Parliamentary Privilege‘. Likewise one has no qualms about accusing an Opposition member for being a liar or hypocrite because Parliamentary Privilege that’s why.

These leaders in the House serve as a sad role model for senior management in public service when it comes to dealing with feedback. Don’t complain unless you have substance to back you up. If not, you’re fucking Fake News. It reflects MP Louis Ng’s comment about public officers refraining from speaking up out of fear of retaliation. Turns out that Louis himself floated a test balloon that was promptly burst by Ong Ye Kung’s rebuke that this ‘does not do justice’ to the public service.

Why not let Sylvia’s supposedly off-the-cuff comment serve as a learning point and chance for clarification for the PAP, instead of an opportunity to flex some time-wasting verbal muscle and vindicate everyone’s opinion of the PAP as an uptight, arrogant party who won’t stand for a little intellectual tickle from their political opponents, only to be soothed by the orgasm of hearing someone like Sylvia saying ‘I’m sorry my lord’, like a bawling baby calmed by cooing and sweet nothings.

I say let’s just get on with it, people.

 

 

 

Toa Payoh hawker centre couple punished by society

From ‘Public backlash making us live like fugitives’, 13 Aug 2017, article by Lester Hio, Sunday Times

The couple caught in a viral video verbally abusing and shoving an elderly man at a Toa Payoh hawker centre said they believe they have been “punished by society” over the past four months.

Mr Chow Chuin Yee, 45, and Ms Tay Puay Leng, 38, were fined in court on Friday for the use of criminal force and harassment on Mr Ng Ai Hua, 76, in April.

Ms Tay was fined $1,200 for using abusive words on the retiree, causing alarm, while Mr Chow was fined $1,500 for using criminal force.

Asked about comments from netizens that they had got off lightly with a fine, Mr Chow told The Sunday Times yesterday that they have been “living like fugitives” to prevent any further public incidents after facing backlash both online and in public.

The last time individuals were ‘punished by society’ because of some online fracas, they decided to leave the country. Think Anton Casey or Amy Cheong. As if a fine and a blemish on their reputation isn’t enough, the Chows felt compelled to play the victim card, breaking down on national TV and dragging an grandmother with dementia into the fray. Telling everyone that you lost it because you had a bad day isn’t going to cut it.

Somehow they seem to be getting it worse than men previously convicted of having underage sex. Because of the bullying incident, the Chows-run Novel Learning Centre got a thrashing on Google reviews, with a total rating of 1.2 stars. More like Centre for Kids Learning How to Steal other people’s Lunches. Oh, wait.

Screen Shot 2017-08-13 at 7.06.02 AM

It’s unfortunate that they happen to be educators, and were caught being total assholes to an elderly man, but as a society that places so much emphasis on filial piety and graciousness, perhaps we should also aspire to one that exercises compassion and forgiveness, rather than stooping to their level of tormenting others for purely selfish reasons.

Maybe we should reflect on the moments when we kicked mud in the face of another human being but were lucky enough not to get caught and shamed on social media. You could be the professor who screams vulgarities as a service staff for being slow. Or just a nobody who treats your elderly mother at home as a slave. In most cases, you’d be punished only by karma or divine justice, not a society generally oblivious to your everyday behaviour. You could be a moral vigilante one moment and find yourself at the receiving end of a social media witch-hunt the next.

The problem with society being labelled as judge jury and executioner is that it changes our motivation for good behaviour, that it’s no longer about respect or due consideration, but a fear of mob repercussions, that we’re safe only when we’re out of the panopticon that is the public eye.

Toa Payoh couple, be remorseful, make amends, but stop assuming that ‘society’ as a whole gives a shit about you and your self imposed fugitive exile.

Li Shengwu surprised that Government is so petty

From ‘Li Shengwu surprised that Facebook post on Singapore court system enough to trigger AGC response’, 17 July 2017, article in ST

The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) said on Monday (July 17) it is looking into a recent Facebook post put up by Mr Li Shengwu, the son of Mr Lee Hsien Yang and nephew of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.

In a private post, which was uploaded on Saturday, Mr Li, 32, shared a Wall Street Journal article on the recent Oxley Road dispute, titled “Singapore, a model of orderly rule, is jolted by a bitter family feud”.

He also commented on Singapore’s court system.

The AGC said in a brief statement on Monday morning that it is aware of Mr Li’s post and is looking into the matter.

In a Facebook post on Monday afternoon responding to AGC’s statement, Mr Li said he was “somewhat surprised” that his last post – which was shared on “friends only” privacy settings – was enough to trigger a response.

He added: “I’m surprised that the Singapore government is so petty. Would they also like to trawl my private Facebook feed for seditious vacation photos?”

In the offending post, Li Shengwu, a Harvard academic, shared his thoughts on media censorship, as a side note to a linked article summarising he Oxley ‘political crisis’.

Keep in mind, of course, that the Singapore Government is very litigious and has a pliant court system. This constrains what the international media can usually report.

We all also keep in mind, of course, that Shengwu is PM Lee’s nephew, and PM Lee has declared in public that he would not take legal action against another member of the Lee family as it would besmirch LKY’s name. But that wouldn’t stop the AGC from calling this being in ‘contempt of court’.

Or would it?

This could well be a post-Oxley Catch-22. AGC has taken to task people like cartoonist Leslie Chew and rogue political activist Han Hui Hui.  We should expect them to demand that the offender issue a statement of apology, or least remove the post from the face of the earth. But this is – dun-dun-dunnn – PM Lee’s own flesh and blood.

Incidentally, one possible reason why international media tends to be cautious about commentaries on Singapore’s elite is they may get ‘sued until their pants drop’. Which is what both Shengwu’s uncle and – guess who – late grandfather LKY did when they were accused of running a dynasty by the Herald Tribune. Now that alleged dynasty has been dramatically torn apart.

Shengwu is a grown man and doesn’t need daddy to tell him what not to post on Facebook, even if it’s in ‘private’ setting. He’s also been described as ‘Oxford’s finest debater‘, having won Best Speaker at a World Debating Championship. It’s interesting to see how being a world-renown master debater can get you out of a tangle with the all-powerful AGC. I wonder how ‘seditious’ those vacation photos could be, though. Did he pose with kangaroos in Oz with ‘sensitive captions’?

Maybe Dad and Aunt Lee Wei Ling are drafting their Facebook notes as we speak. It’s Game of Thrones week, but save some popcorn for this one.

UPDATE: Lee Wei Ling just described this ‘petty’ incident as a case of ‘Big Brother’ syndrome and suggested that there’s a FB police monitoring the Lee siblings’ posts, even infiltrating privacy settings. It’s more likely attributed to the very nature of social media itself, rather than a Government hack charming his way into Shengwu’s circle of friends.

No doubt her big brother is watching this intently. Like a pesky cockroach that refuses to die.

 

 

 

DAG Hri Kumar ‘hitting below the belt’

From ‘Tan Cheng Bock hits out at Hri Kumar for ‘highly inflammatory comments’ over EP challenge’, 8 July 2017, article by Faris Mokhtar, Today

Former presidential candidate Tan Cheng Bock has slammed Deputy Attorney-General (AG) Hri Kumar Nair over remarks in the latter’s court submissions against Dr Tan’s legal challenge on the coming reserved Presidential Election, calling them “hitting below the belt” and  “highly inflammatory”.

Dr Tan’s challenge was thrown out by the courts on Friday (July 7), with Mr Nair — who was representing the Attorney-General’s Chambers — describing Dr Tan’s case as “entirely self-serving“, “purely selfish”, and having “no regard for the principle of multiracial representation” 

Writing on Facebook, Dr Tan, who was not present in court when the ruling was delivered in chambers, said Mr Nair had encroached into “dangerous racial politics” with his words.

Dr Tan pointed out that as a public servant and a former People’s Action Party Member of Parliament (MP), Mr Nair “should not have made such a statement”. Mr Nair was a two-term MP who stepped down in 2015, before he was appointed as Deputy AG in March this year.

“This case is not about race. It is about process and procedures. It is about upholding the Constitution. Let’s keep it that way,” said Dr Tan, who is also a former PAP MP.

On the appointment of Hri Kumar as DAG, peers heaped nothing but praise for the ex-PAP MP. Senior Counsel Davinder Singh said he was the ‘best among the best’. The Law Society president describes him as ‘incisive, diligent, fair-minded and yet for all his intellectual rigour, affable to a fault.’ Surely this can’t be someone capable of ‘hitting you below the belt’, a term usually thrown at opposition MPs, or even PAP MPs for that matter?

Blunt personal attacks may be tolerated if you were still an MP, but as a High Court judge, it seems rather unprofessional. It may be called the ‘Chambers’, but surely there is no room for mud-slinging or shit-dredging here.  You can easily be in contempt of court for the slightest insult, but that doesn’t mean the court should treat you with contempt, especially if you’re a past President-elect.

TCB didn’t charge into this fight unarmed of course, having sought advice from Queen’s Counsel lawyer Lord Pannick who opined that Section 22 of the President Elections (Amendment) Act 2017 was unconstitutional. Section 22 is basically a roster of mostly dead presidents and what race they were. It’s strange, though, to say a President ‘belongs’ to a specific community when he, the PRESIDENT, belongs to all peoples, regardless of race, language or religion.  Also, one people, one nation, one Singapore. Never forget.

Screen Shot 2017-07-08 at 7.41.23 AM

To sum up the whole argument, TCB contends that Ong Teng Cheong should be the first elected President. The law says it should be Wee Kim Wee because although he wasn’t elected per se, he acted like one. Hence if you use your fingers to count five terms based on the hiatus-triggered model, the next President should be a long-overdue Malay one. Take that, Lord Pannick! Take that, Her Majesty!

Incidentally, DAG Hri was appointed by President Tony Tan (another ex-PAP man), ‘under the advice’ of PM Lee Hsien Loong.  He joins Lucien Wong  (PM’s previous personal lawyer and now AG) to oversee the laws of the land. The Government has full confidence that their links with the PAP (and ex-boss) has no bearing on their duty to uphold our ‘rule of law’ whatsoever. Why? Because they say so, that’s why. Justice is blind, and so are we.

There’s a scary resonance with the recent Oxley saga here – people quarrelling over dead men’s bodies. In LKY’s case, his residence. In this case, their claim to being an ‘elected president’. We already have one ex-leader coming to haunt us this Seventh Month, let’s not add 2 more ghosts to the list.

 

 

Parent suing ACS (Barker) over confiscated phone

From ‘Parent sues school over confiscated mobile phone’, 7 June 2017, article by KC Vijayan, ST

Should a school hang on to a confiscated phone for three months?

This issue has reached the courts after a parent felt that the penalty was too harsh. The parent is suing a secondary school principal for damages, but has not succeeded in getting the school to return the phone.

The parent’s request to have the phone returned immediately was turned down by District Judge Clement Julien Tan. The judge ruled that the principal was justified in holding on to the phone, as the school rules had made it clear that any student caught using a phone during school hours will have it confiscated for at least three months.

…The father, represented by lawyer Andrew Hanam, is claiming that retaining the phone amounts to the tort of conversion – which involves denying a person’s rights to his property. He asked the court to get the school to return the phone while the case is being decided.

Curiously enough, this isn’t the silliest reason ever for suing a school. A UK Dad sued a private school because his kid flunked his GSCE exams. Parents in a US school sued because their daughters were forced to wear skirts as uniform. If I had known Andrew Hanam then, and had rich as fuck parents, I could have hired him to sue the cranky pants off my Chinese teacher for making me stand outside in the rain as punishment and risking death by pneumonia.

Worse things have happened to kids in schools without having Mum and Dad file torts willy-nilly. They’re given nasty names by bullies, they break their limbs from playground falls, they get psychologically abused by fierce teachers to the point that the police need to be called in. We get knocked about by the system because that’s what school used to be, preparing the next generation for adversity and hardship beyond the stuff you memorise in books and forget months later.  You screw up, you lose your phone. Live with it. Grow up. A 3 month phone hold may sound like a harsh punishment, but if you can’t obey a simple commandment like not bringing a phone to school, then you’re screwed when you enter the working world.

In the past when you got your Walkman swiped by the discipline master, you either deal with it or plot revenge with thumbtacks, because bringing the matter up to your folks would only mean supplemental lashing at home. Not so these days. Parents sue if they have the means, or make police reports if they don’t. The rest demand that you share their sob stories on Facebook. Anyone to blame except themselves if the kid wets his pants the moment he puts on an army uniform during NS.