NS Educates! - youths learns through painful mistakes
-
Originally posted by fudgester:
I was 22 just four years ago.
At that age, I was in my second year of undergraduate studies. I looked like a student, I felt like a student, and I was indeed a student. However, at that age, I also knew that if I were to commit a crime, I would be tried as an adult no matter what.
I'm 26 now, and I'm still a student. Can I be tried as a juvenile if I were to commit a crime?
So, let me get this straight - he looks young and he feels young, he should be tried as a young person? So if Leonardo diCaprio or Christiano Ronaldo were to commit a crime, we should treat them as juveniles? They look so baby-faced!
If you tell me that a psychiatrist had certified him to be mentally challenged, I might still sympathise with him. But the bottom line is, he's a full-grown adult who has to take responsibility for his own actions. If he can't even understand that till now, then that's not the problem of the law.
If you don't set the lower bar for adulthood at 21, where do you want to set it then - 35?
Wouldn't it be better if the legal adult age is 18?
-
Originally posted by Fatum:
wow ! ... so are you saying that he looks dumb, and so he must be ? .... you can tell all that from a picture ? ....
. Actually, he does not look intellectually subnormal to me, ... he can't help how he looks of course, you may want to take it up with his parents.
Your reading ability should be commended for the amazing skills and ability in discerning the underlying details that never was.
Was anywhere written in my last response that what I say must be so ?
If you believe that I am wrong in judging from the photo, are you now saying that you can tell that "he does not look intellectually sub-normal" by looking at the photo ?
Are you now claiming that you are better at judging a person from the photo than anyone ?
Why don't you post your photo and I will tell you if you are close to being the "boy" ?
so, to you, what is the threshold ? How smart does a person has to be, before you'd consider him fit to be responsible for his own actions, and fit to be punished for the crimes he's committed ? ... does he have to be freaking einstein ? At what age, and at what level of cognitive ability, did personal responsibility begin for you, since you didn't feel like an adult at 22 ?
What is the threshold for responsibility ?
Should I venture from my own thoughts or would you prefer this to come from some authoritative source to determine what the threshold should be ?
Was this 'boy' given a psychological or psychiatric test to determine his IQ level before sentence was passed ?
With the methods employed by the SAF in allocating vocations according to the IQ Tests and scholarly achievements - can we not hazzard a guess as to the IQ level of this 'boy' based on his SAF vocation and obvious academic or intellectual abbilities ?
It is interesting that you should ask at "what age and at what level of cognitive ability, did personal responsibility begin ..... if not at 22".
Let me lean on a speech by DPM Prof S Jayakumar during the Committee of Supply Debate in Parliament, on 2 March 2007:-
Has the gradual process of adulthood reached this 'boy' at age 22 ?
You said so yourself, and I quote "At its very worst, the crime was serious in that he had co-operated with foreign military personnels to breach military security" How is that not a serious offense, pray tell.
Sure, he has committed a misdemeanour, no one is denying it - and as I had mentioned the offense was - "At its very worst, the crime was serious in that he had co-operated with foreign military personnels to breach military security".
How did you brilliantly read the seriousness to be anything less as you have claimed to have been said by me ?
Was the issue about the seriousness of the offense committed, or was the point that I had made that being a first time offender, the sentence is not commensurate with the offense committed ?
And it gets funnier .... so ..... you really want to impound a warship of a neighbouring country ? ..... That's powerful stuff you've been smoking, where did you get it ? ....
but hey, I guess that's enough for a saturday morning .... cos the bear's said it all ....
If you believe in all the smoke and drama created by The Bear a.k.a the Drama Queen of this Speaker's Corner - I will not be surprised if your IQ allow you to so easily succumbed to being impressed to all the smoke from his expertise that seldom come with any bang.
Did you hear any bang created by The Bear amidst all the smoke through all the threads in this Speaker's Corner ?
If only you had made some space in your lungs to breathe in the fresh air in all the hoopla of the SAF Pledge, you would have found some small iota of pride in the abilities of the SAF after all the millions spent in the 3G hoopla.
Singapore has exerted our independent and sovereign rights towards big and small nations before, and this will not be the first time if Singapore assert our position again if necessary.
The PAP Government had moved aside the personal plea for leniency from the late President Suharto to spare the lives of two Indonesian military personnel who were caught for planting the bomb at MacDonald House during Konfrontasi, and both were hanged on 17 October 1968 - when Konfrontasi was formally over in August 1966 and relations was moving "up and up" between Suharto and LKY.
The PAP Government ignored the plea for leniency from then President Bill Clinton and proceeded to placed 4 strokes on the butt of Michael Fay.
The PAP Government ignored the advances of three Indonesian Governments after the fall of ex-President Suharto - for a treaty to extradite Indonesians convicted of economic crimes against Indonesia and had taken refuge in Singapore, where they continue to remain till this day.
What happened to your hoopla pride for the SAF - in allowing the Indonesian vessel to sail away with the perpetrators of the crime that was committed within the Changi Naval Base - not once but on two consecutive occassions ?
Have you no confidence in the SAF, or simply find it diplomatically impossible to enforce our rights to do so ?
Perhaps you simply doubt the billions invested in the 3G hoopla that has been advertised in the glitzy high tech short SAF movies over Media Corp ?
-
Originally posted by the Bear:
fuck lah.. atobe.. everything also not his fault..
it's all the MIW's fault
it's all Singapore's fault..
it's all his parents' fault
it's all society's fault
it's EVERYONE'S FAULT except his own...
diplomatic?
if he was let off, would you be here ranting that "democracy wasn't served" because he wasn't treated equally?
frankly, you ought to get off your high horse.. dumbass..
The rantings of The Bear never fail to amaze, when it is designed with all the usual drama that is intended to fill a room with all the smoke that can be possibly created, but simply without the bang to come.
Why has this been a common feature from The Bear - who created so much smoke that the bang is forgotten ?
Even when the occassional small bang should happen by chance, it is always a weakling and wimpy bang.
If you cannot read what has been written, and prefer to re-interpret in the preferred venom that has filled your brain – if any brain is left after being cut through the various threads – should we leave you with any sympathies for the childish controversies that you prefer to constantly indulge in ?
Diplomacy and democracy ?
How did your brilliance managed to link these two together ?
If anyone who cannot mount a horse it can only be The Bear, who would prefer to eat the horse then to see the bigger and clearer picture from on top of a horse.
Is it any wonder that The Bear will only indulge with a vision of the dumbass ?
-
should mentally retarded people serve NS?
Is that 22 year old guy retarded?
Should we give preferential treatment to people who are not mentally retarded, but not that smart?
I think answering these questions will make the debate easier to digest.
I think i caught a glimpse of the word "PAP"... Why? can just stick to the topic about dumb looking boy instead of digressing to how PAP sucks and stuff?
-
Originally posted by skythewood:
should mentally retarded people serve NS?
Is that 22 year old guy retarded?
Should we give preferential treatment to people who are not mentally retarded, but not that smart?
I think answering these questions will make the debate easier to digest.
I think i caught a glimpse of the word "PAP"... Why? can just stick to the topic about dumb looking boy instead of digressing to how PAP sucks and stuff?
As a lay person, I would think that there are degrees of "retardedness", as there is a difference between mentally retarded, mentally deficient and mentally handicapped.
It all depends on the psychological and / or psychiatric assessment on the subject before being qualified for NS.
In the past, the Singapore Judiciary has not made any difference between the IQ of the offenders charged with all types of dismeanour, of which some high profile cases has received unwanted bad publicity for the Singapore Justice system.
It will be enlightening to note the Attorney-General - Walter Woon's statement in his speech to the Association of Criminal Lawyers of Singapore Inaugural ACLS Annual Lecture on 11 December 2008 -
With reference to the PAP references made, it was in response to The Bear's hint with the 'MIW' smoke and hoopla that Fatum was drawn to - so as to make it easier for his IQ level to absorb.
-
Originally posted by Atobe:
Your reading ability should be commended for the amazing skills and ability in discerning the underlying details that never was.
Was anywhere written in my last response that what I say must be so ?
If you believe that I am wrong in judging from the photo, are you now saying that you can tell that "he does not look intellectually sub-normal" by looking at the photo ?
Are you now claiming that you are better at judging a person from the photo than anyone ?
Why don't you post your photo and I will tell you if you are close to being the "boy" ?
What is the threshold for responsibility ?
Should I venture from my own thoughts or would you prefer this to come from some authoritative source to determine what the threshold should be ?
Was this 'boy' given a psychological or psychiatric test to determine his IQ level before sentence was passed ?
With the methods employed by the SAF in allocating vocations according to the IQ Tests and scholarly achievements - can we not hazzard a guess as to the IQ level of this 'boy' based on his SAF vocation and obvious academic or intellectual abbilities ?
It is interesting that you should ask at "what age and at what level of cognitive ability, did personal responsibility begin ..... if not at 22".
Let me lean on a speech by DPM Prof S Jayakumar during the Committee of Supply Debate in Parliament, on 2 March 2007:-
Has the gradual process of adulthood reached this 'boy' at age 22 ?
Sure, he has committed a misdemeanour, no one is denying it - and as I had mentioned the offense was - "At its very worst, the crime was serious in that he had co-operated with foreign military personnels to breach military security".
How did you brilliantly read the seriousness to be anything less as you have claimed to have been said by me ?
Was the issue about the seriousness of the offense committed, or was the point that I had made that being a first time offender, the sentence is not commensurate with the offense committed ?
If you believe in all the smoke and drama created by The Bear a.k.a the Drama Queen of this Speaker's Corner - I will not be surprised if your IQ allow you to so easily succumbed to being impressed to all the smoke from his expertise that seldom come with any bang.
Did you hear any bang created by The Bear amidst all the smoke through all the threads in this Speaker's Corner ?
If only you had made some space in your lungs to breathe in the fresh air in all the hoopla of the SAF Pledge, you would have found some small iota of pride in the abilities of the SAF after all the millions spent in the 3G hoopla.
Singapore has exerted our independent and sovereign rights towards big and small nations before, and this will not be the first time if Singapore assert our position again if necessary.
The PAP Government had moved aside the personal plea for leniency from the late President Suharto to spare the lives of two Indonesian military personnel who were caught for planting the bomb at MacDonald House during Konfrontasi, and both were hanged on 17 October 1968 - when Konfrontasi was formally over in August 1966 and relations was moving "up and up" between Suharto and LKY.
The PAP Government ignored the plea for leniency from then President Bill Clinton and proceeded to placed 4 strokes on the butt of Michael Fay.
The PAP Government ignored the advances of three Indonesian Governments after the fall of ex-President Suharto - for a treaty to extradite Indonesians convicted of economic crimes against Indonesia and had taken refuge in Singapore, where they continue to remain till this day.
What happened to your hoopla pride for the SAF - in allowing the Indonesian vessel to sail away with the perpetrators of the crime that was committed within the Changi Naval Base - not once but on two consecutive occassions ?
Have you no confidence in the SAF, or simply find it diplomatically impossible to enforce our rights to do so ?
Perhaps you simply doubt the billions invested in the 3G hoopla that has been advertised in the glitzy high tech short SAF movies over Media Corp ?
hey ! ... I never made any judgements about his mental abilities, based on his picture or otherwise. In case you've forgotten what you've written, you were the one who casted doubts on his judgements and mental abilities in the first place ... I quote you here
"You should step back and take a look at the photo placed by TS - is that an adult's face looking like anyone mature ?
He looked like someone with a serious deficiency in judgment."
I think you owe him and his parents an apology, he can't help how he looks.
And also, you're actually basing your argument on your own "hazzarded" guess that
1 . Because to you, he looks dumb, and therefore, he must be, so as a dumb person, he can't be responsible for his actions ?
2. Since to you he's assigned to be a driver, he must be dumb ? I quote you here again
With the methods employed by the SAF in allocating vocations according to the IQ Tests and scholarly achievements - can we not hazzard a guess as to the IQ level of this 'boy' based on his SAF vocation and obvious academic or intellectual abbilities ?
Well, aside from the rather elitist flavour of the statement (I think you owe the SAF driver corps an apology). I am saying that your hazzarded guess was damm haphazzard indeed.
That he is stupid, is still your own assumption from your reading of his picture. And I wonder if you actually have a driving license yourself ? Have you ever taken driving license tests ? There is a reason why we don't see forrest gumps behind the wheels on the road you know .... Okie, based on the observations you've made, I'm assuming that you don't.
All in all, I'm amazed at the stretch you go to, just to be the typical nay-sayer that you are. All that spun out, just from you looking at a picture ... but well, really, bear's right, you were just trying to justify your own gutter sniping against the powers-that-be .....
but, I just have to ask this, at what age, did you and your cognitive ability matured into the threshold of responbility ? .... you were a late bloomer ? have you reached there yet ?
-
Originally posted by Fatum:
hey ! ... I never made any judgements about his mental abilities, based on his picture or otherwise. In case you've forgotten what you've written, you were the one who casted doubts on his judgements and mental abilities in the first place ... I quote you here
"You should step back and take a look at the photo placed by TS - is that an adult's face looking like anyone mature ?
He looked like someone with a serious deficiency in judgment."
I think you owe him and his parents an apology, he can't help how he looks.
For one who did not make any judgments about anything, you sure have a whole lot of judgmental things said and cleverly sly away after being debunked.
Have you preferred not to engage what has been exposed to be your failings in your judgment as shown in my last response, and now decide to start on a new avenue of argument to redeem your false pride ?
Do I need to cast any "doubts on his judgements and mental abilities in the first place" - when his judgment and mental abilities have already got him into his present predicament ?
Are you suggesting that his judgments and mental abilities are something that his parents should be proud of considering his present predicament and require my apology ?
Are you suggesting that one cannot help oneself to improve from what one has been endowed with from birth ?
Should he be able to help himself as to how he looks - considering his unusual talent in getting himself into a fix ?
With the abilities to put your foot into your mouth time and again, it is doubtful if you will be able to improve your image any further - and should we need to pursue this matter any further concerning you ?
And also, you're actually basing your argument on your own "hazzarded" guess that
1 . Because to you, he looks dumb, and therefore, he must be, so as a dumb person, he can't be responsible for his actions ?
Yes, he looked pretty dumb as a kid at the age of 22, and he must be dumb to have got himself into the hot soup that he is in - are you not dumb enough to be disputing this fact ?
Being as dumb as he is, do you think that he is capable of being responsible for his actions ?
Obviously, with the kind of IQ that you have displayed so far, it is doubtful if you can appreciate that it warrants further psychiatric or psychological evaluation to be made to determine his IQ levels before sentencing was made.
2. Since to you he's assigned to be a driver, he must be dumb ? I quote you here again
With the methods employed by the SAF in allocating vocations according to the IQ Tests and scholarly achievements - can we not hazzard a guess as to the IQ level of this 'boy' based on his SAF vocation and obvious academic or intellectual abbilities ?
Well, aside from the rather elitist flavour of the statement (I think you owe the SAF driver corps an apology). I am saying that your hazzarded guess was damm haphazzard indeed.
Should we be surprised with your distracting efforts in your sudden persistence in having me apologise to everyone for my responses made - except to yourself ?
Are you simply too embarass with my responses that had corrected your erroneous views that you have made with so much pomposity - and have decided to take a new direction to redeem yourself ?
That he is stupid, is still your own assumption from your reading of his picture. And I wonder if you actually have a driving license yourself ? Have you ever taken driving license tests ? There is a reason why we don't see forrest gumps behind the wheels on the road you know .... Okie, based on the observations you've made, I'm assuming that you don't.
Forrest Gump - a simple movie character - certainly had more gifted qualities than you possibly can hope for yourself.
Judging by the foolish statements that you have made and which have been debunked in my last response, it does not take too much intelligence for anyone to guess your doubling of efforts to move into new controversies by spinning old tales with some new flavors.
Only a hollow canister like you will believe that it is so difficult to get a driving licence, which reveal that you must have tried more then once and probably still wondering what failed you.
Do you think that it is so difficult to get through the SAF Driving School ?
If you believe that it takes a high IQ to get a driving licence from the SAF Driving School - MINDEF must be looking in the wrong areas to fill places at OCS.
All in all, I'm amazed at the stretch you go to, just to be the typical nay-sayer that you are. All that spun out, just from you looking at a picture ... but well, really, bear's right, you were just trying to justify your own gutter sniping against the powers-that-be .....
but, I just have to ask this, at what age, did you and your cognitive ability matured into the threshold of responbility ? .... you were a late bloomer ? have you reached there yet ?
Yes, The Bear WAS right, how can he not be - considering his class act in all the vulgarity that he can muster into his expert role as the Drama Queen of this Speaker's Corner.
Can you compare with his class acts when your performance is only a useless childish act to remove your foot that you have jammed deep into your throat ?
Is it an irony for you to speculate others to be a late bloomer when you have shown yourself to be one and certainly incapable to form first impressions ?
Obviously your parents did not teach you about differentiating between good and bad, and to take pre-cautions for your own safety.
Or perhaps they did filled you up with all the goodness that required skimming of the cream from the top, and left the scum behind ?
If only you had listened and remembered what was taught from young.
Add this to your impoverished IQ levels, should we be surprised to the missing maturity in your judgment from simple reading that revealed your expertise to find all the underlying details that do not exist.
Did the spark of brilliance appear suddenly from the blank space in your mind ?
How long did that spark last before it disappear as suddenly as it came ?
-
Let me sum up your arguments, Atobe:
1. You say that he looks pretty dumb, and he acted pretty dumb for doing this crime => so we should be going easy on him because it's obvious that he is dumb.
Hey, guess what - no one disputes that the fella is a dumb criminal. Actually, if you think about it, in a way, most criminals are dumb. Just probably not in the normal sense of the word 'dumb'. They are not mentally dumb. They just chose to make dumb decisions.
If Bernie Madoff had been a little smarter, he would have figured that swindling lotsa people of their life savings at the risk of dying in prison is a dumb idea.
Heck, I can give you a hilarious article on The five dumbest terrorist attack attempts of all time. The last one's a particular gem. One of the terrorists was a doctor in the National Health Service!. But hey, even intelligent people can make dumb decisions to do dumb crimes.
So you say we should go easy on all those dumbos too, eh? Lack of good judgement == diminished responsibility?
Oh yeah, Bernie Madoff looks like a real dumbo to me. So you're saying that he should not be made to take responsibility for his own dumbness?
2. So, it's pretty easy to go through the SAF Driving School => only dumb morons who will do dumb crimes will pass through it?
Hey, guess what. Two of my BMT section mates became drivers. One entered NUS after ORD - I know because I bumped into him repeatedly on campus over the past four years. Not sure about the other guy, but I heard that he went to pursue a degree overseas. They're certainly not challenged in the intellectual department, and last I heard, they haven't committed any dumb crimes. You seriously owe them an apology.
I suppose Fatum was right - maybe you really don't have a licence yourself? You don't know that no moron can actually pass driving tests without having some measure of intelligence to understand the Highway Code?
I've had drivers to thank for brilliantly navigating the mazes of Lim Chu Kang and Pasir Laba to help me evacuate no-duff casualties (yes, I'm a medic). No way am I calling the drivers dumb.
-
ah ... pure atobe .... here's a deluge of verbal diarrhea, most of which are actually just attempted put downs, and actually doens't make much sense at all, for it was just to satisfy your bruised ego at being found out, isn't it ? ... looking at the long passage, the last edit being at 2.48AM this morning, I can imagine you thumping your keyboard in rage ...
eh ? where did the "You should step back and take a look at the photo placed by TS - is that an adult's face looking like anyone mature ?
He looked like someone with a serious deficiency in judgment." bits go ? ....
suddenly changing tracks ? ...
.... wait ! ... oh no .....for it's became"Yes, he looked pretty dumb as a kid at the age of 22, and he must be dumb to have got himself into the hot soup that he is in, Being as dumb as he is, do you think that he is capable of being responsible for his actions ?"
woo ... so now you're saying that criminals who got caught, must be dumb, since dumb people are not responsible for their own actions ?
But wait ! ... your whole deck of cards is based on the premise that dumb people are not responsible for their actions. And because he LOOKS dumb, therefore, he MUST BE dumb ..... wow ! .... you actually thought that would fly ? ...
hey, it's alright, it shouldn't be held against you .... since according to you, dumb people are not capable of being responsible for their own words and actions neh ? .....
so atobe, back to my question ... since at age 22, you didn't seem to think that you've reached the maturity level and cognitive ability of "responsibility" .... at what age, did you cross over into that threshold ? ....
-
I think the NS men's supervisor also at fault as according to press report, army vehicle was changed to larger one when the consignments increased. Why questions were not asked why the driver needed a larger vehicle as their duties were to transport the Indonesian navy officials only.
-
Originally posted by fudgester:
Let me sum up your arguments, Atobe:
1. You say that he looks pretty dumb, and he acted pretty dumb for doing this crime => so we should be going easy on him because it's obvious that he is dumb.
Did anyone suggest that "we should be going easy on him because it's obvious that he is dumb ?
That seems to be your preferred interpretation of what I had written :-
Yes, it was too bad that he made a mistake and deserve to be punished for the offense committed.
What was the gravity of the crime that was committed to warrant such a sentence for a first time offender ?
Hey, guess what - no one disputes that the fella is a dumb criminal. Actually, if you think about it, in a way, most criminals are dumb. Just probably not in the normal sense of the word 'dumb'. They are not mentally dumb. They just chose to make dumb decisions.
Is my understanding of the word "dumb" different from yours - as in the manner used in your statements that "most criminals are dumb" - and they chose to make dumb decisions ?
Are we on the same wavelength in the understanding of the word that "dumb" means - lacking of intelligence, or good judgment; stupid; dull-witted; lacking some usual property, characteristic; pertaining to the inability to do processing locally, cannot process, - or to dumb down : to make or become less intellectual, less sophisticated ?
Can we expect "dumb criminals" to make dumb decisions ?
If Bernie Madoff had been a little smarter, he would have figured that swindling lotsa people of their life savings at the risk of dying in prison is a dumb idea.
Do you think that Bernie Madoff is not smarter than most criminals compared to even our "SAF boy" who got only a few cartons of cigarettes from the Indonesian sailors ?
Can you put yourself in Bernie Madoff's shoes to be able to have the same sense of value judgment in his mind ?
Do you seriously believe that your values are the same as his - in terms of what is smart and clever, or what is dumb and risky ?
Heck, I can give you a hilarious article on The five dumbest terrorist attack attempts of all time. The last one's a particular gem. One of the terrorists was a doctor in the National Health Service!. But hey, even intelligent people can make dumb decisions to do dumb crimes.
So you say we should go easy on all those dumbos too, eh? Lack of good judgement == diminished responsibility?
The terrorists who is a doctor intent on being a suicide bomber has a higher motivation value then our SAF boy, and comparing the two in terms of intelligence, intellect, intellectual motivation, sense of judgment - is like comparing the water from the polluted sea to that of a dirty drain. Is there any comparison even if you are entitled to claim a criminal is a criminal ?
Obviously, you have not heard of the differences in the sentence meted out to murderers, kidnappers, bank robbery with fire arms, robbery with knives, or with threats to bodily harm, and the difference between robbery and petty thefts.
Your views are based on your skewed premise to how you have interpreted my statement as repeated above in this response.
Oh yeah, Bernie Madoff looks like a real dumbo to me. So you're saying that he should not be made to take responsibility for his own dumbness?
Was there any statement made that the criminal should not take responsibility for the dumb act ?
Do you seriously believe that Bernie Madoff is as dumb as you and I ?
2. So, it's pretty easy to go through the SAF Driving School => only dumb morons who will do dumb crimes will pass through it?
Hey, guess what. Two of my BMT section mates became drivers. One entered NUS after ORD - I know because I bumped into him repeatedly on campus over the past four years. Not sure about the other guy, but I heard that he went to pursue a degree overseas. They're certainly not challenged in the intellectual department, and last I heard, they haven't committed any dumb crimes. You seriously owe them an apology.
So what if TWO of your section mates became drivers and entered NUS after ORD ?
That is TWO out of the thousands that the SAF churned out since 1966 - how many actually went to NUS ?
Can you handle statistics ?
Even if they are not challenged in the intellectual department, many NS guys are known to "skive" and duck the length of NS service if they should get another stripe, and would prefer to end up in the worst possible vocation.
Are they smart or are they being plain dumb ?
This is a judgment call of personal values.
I suppose Fatum was right - maybe you really don't have a licence yourself? You don't know that no moron can actually pass driving tests without having some measure of intelligence to understand the Highway Code?
I've had drivers to thank for brilliantly navigating the mazes of Lim Chu Kang and Pasir Laba to help me evacuate no-duff casualties (yes, I'm a medic). No way am I calling the drivers dumb.
If you cannot get around the maze at Lim Chu Kang, it is no surprise - especially when you are a medic, and obviously did not take navigation too seriously during BMT.
Does it take that much effort in the intelligence department to understand the Highway Code ?
I guess the SAF must be getting great crops of recruits these days.
If you believe Fatum, you may as well believe that the gazelle has stripes, or perhaps even mushrooms does grow in Oxford.
-
Originally posted by Fatum:
ah ... pure atobe .... here's a deluge of verbal diarrhea, most of which are actually just attempted put downs, and actually doens't make much sense at all, for it was just to satisfy your bruised ego at being found out, isn't it ? ... looking at the long passage, the last edit being at 2.48AM this morning, I can imagine you thumping your keyboard in rage ...
You surely have diarrhea of the brain that result in a cronic constipation of ideas.
Suggestions, suggestions, suggestions.... trying to turn table around when you have no idea how to tackle my response that already exposed your own failed positions for their bald lies.
It is pathetic that all you have is a diatribe of personal attacks.
You must be commended for your brilliance in spreading your ignorance around with nothing to add, but observing the times of my postings.
What have you been doing thumping away on your keyboard at 9.58AM on a Sunday morning ?
You should try replying in the silence of the night, as it is especially invigorating after a few rounds late into Saturday night.
In any case, do we want to disappoint a little boy's ego, who will surely be anxious to know what reply will be coming on a Sunday morning ?
eh ? where did the "You should step back and take a look at the photo placed by TS - is that an adult's face looking like anyone mature ?
He looked like someone with a serious deficiency in judgment." bits go ? ....
suddenly changing tracks ? ...
.... wait ! ... oh no .....for it's became"Yes, he looked pretty dumb as a kid at the age of 22, and he must be dumb to have got himself into the hot soup that he is in, Being as dumb as he is, do you think that he is capable of being responsible for his actions ?"
woo ... so now you're saying that criminals who got caught, must be dumb, since dumb people are not responsible for their own actions ?
You could check with 'fudgester' - who is a new fan of yours and believed that criminals must be dumb for the dumb crimes.
Are you disputing your preferred interpretation of what was in my response, when you prefer to restate it in your own words ?
"Because to you, he looks dumb, and therefore, he must be, so as a dumb person, he can't be responsible for his actions"
But wait ! ... your whole deck of cards is based on the premise that dumb people are not responsible for their actions. And because he LOOKS dumb, therefore, he MUST BE dumb ..... wow ! .... you actually thought that would fly ? ...
Some say that idiots are perfect, but in your case - you are doing quite alright.
No one can say that you are nothing, after all you have so much to prove about yourself. Keep it up.
hey, it's alright, it shouldn't be held against you .... since according to you, dumb people are not capable of being responsible for their own words and actions neh ? .....
Someone once said that those who believe themselves to be smarter is due to the fact that they have been treated stupid for too long by too many people.
so atobe, back to my question ... since at age 22, you didn't seem to think that you've reached the maturity level and cognitive ability of "responsibility" .... at what age, did you cross over into that threshold ? ....
With the maturity that you have shown, should we hazzard a guess if you can be responsible for your intellect at this stage ?
Have you crossed the threshold to know where the threshold is for yourself ?
With the intelligence that you displayed so far, it looks like someone has cut your family tree and left you out on a limb to dry - somehow the sun left you still wet behind the ears.
-
Originally posted by Atobe:
Everything was loaded onto this 'boy' - who obviously is from one of those 'deficient' family that should have got him into The Boys' Town Rehab School as a permanent resident. How did he ended up with the SAF ?
What about the Indonesian sailors who initiated the entire criminal acts ?
Nothing was mentioned about the actions taken against them and the Naval Ship that brought the contraband into Singapore.
Obviously, diplomacy and military relations takes precedence and it seems that the Singapore 'boy' will be made a scapegoat for all other NSF to learn the consequence.
In any case, with good behaviour - this 'boy' will be out in half the time served.
However, Singapore society will be paying a long term social price for incarcerating a 'boy' into prison that expose his impressionable mind to the hard tricks of life from more hardened offenders.
Brilliant reformative sentence.
Can you deduce his maturity and IQ just by looking at a single photo? Being babyfaced at 22 has no bearing on either faculty, and he bears none of the facial features of a person with Down's.
It's not the maximum sentence for the charges brought against him, and look at the amount forfeited in taxes and duties. He would have little idea about the total amount of contraband the Indons were bringing in but it does not excuse him. Warnings about smuggling, security breaches and accepting bribes and gifts are repeated in ROs.
By extension of your logic, no one should go to prison, including hardened criminals (makes them more bitter, huh?). But security from terrorists and other external threats takes priority over random crimes he might commit in the future. You might not like it but it's nothing out of turn in Singapore.
-
maybe atobe looks dumb... and is an apologist for dumb people?
and is trying his damnest to prove that dumb-looking people are dumb by posting some of the dumbest things possible?
hey atobe.. get this into your brain..
you rant about democracy.. in a democracy, people take personal responsibility for their own actions.. they do right, good because whatever benefits they get from their good action, be it karma, profits, adoration, whatever.. they earn it..
but they screw up, they make their bed and they get to lie in it..
simple isn't it?
unless you secretly want to be like the MIW.. because you seem to be cut from the same cloth.. privilege without the responsibilities.. sort of like shortass Wong "it should not have happened, i'm sorry it happened"...
maybe shortass Wong looks dumb and therefore got away with it? because he sure as hell looks like a dumbass...
were you raving that he got away with it? i bet you were...
now.. go back to your little utopian nightmare of your delusions where smugglers who colluded with the military of other countries to smuggle stuff can go off scot free because "they look dumb"
just a bit of advise... don't go sprouting this out IRL.. because you'll end up not only looking dumb, your words will confirm that you are dumb...
ahahahahahahaha
-
both also dumb,...Uncle atobe and the bear..dumb n dumber
-
Originally posted by Kuali Baba:
Can you deduce his maturity and IQ just by looking at a single photo? Being babyfaced at 22 has no bearing on either faculty, and he bears none of the facial features of a person with Down's.
Can you tell from the photo that he bears none of the facial features of a person with Down's syndrome ?
If he has Down's syndrome would he have slipped through the SAF classification system and landed in the vocation assigned ?
It's not the maximum sentence for the charges brought against him, and look at the amount forfeited in taxes and duties. He would have little idea about the total amount of contraband the Indons were bringing in but it does not excuse him. Warnings about smuggling, security breaches and accepting bribes and gifts are repeated in ROs.
Yes, is it not odd that while the authorities let the Indonesian naval personnel out of the ambit of Singapore Law, they imposed a stiff sentence of four years for being an intermediary in transporting the smuggled cigarettes.
As you have been so observant to note that "he would have little idea about the total amount of contraband the Indons were bringing in" - should he be given the harsh sentence considering that he is a first time offender ?
In an ICQ publication dated 26 August 2003 - it stated that :-
The penalty was a fine of S$10,000, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or to both - and this is for persons found guilty for importation of the goods for the purpose of trade.
This 'boy' is a first time offender, and not even the importer of the contraband.
By extension of your logic, no one should go to prison, including hardened criminals (makes them more bitter, huh?). But security from terrorists and other external threats takes priority over random crimes he might commit in the future. You might not like it but it's nothing out of turn in Singapore.
That is your preferred interpretation of your own reading of what was clearly written.
Was there any suggestion that "no one should go to prison, including hardened criminals" - or even to "(makes them more bitter, huh?)" ?
Is anything ever out of turn in Singapore - considering 52 years of being subjected to consistent conditioning to the monologue ?
-
Originally posted by the Bear:
maybe atobe looks dumb... and is an apologist for dumb people?
and is trying his damnest to prove that dumb-looking people are dumb by posting some of the dumbest things possible?
Is that a reflection of truth from the proven Drama Queen in this speaker's corner ?
hey atobe.. get this into your brain..
you rant about democracy.. in a democracy, people take personal responsibility for their own actions.. they do right, good because whatever benefits they get from their good action, be it karma, profits, adoration, whatever.. they earn it..
but they screw up, they make their bed and they get to lie in it..
simple isn't it?
Can you make your own bed, or did Mama Bear pick after you as she can bearly tolerate your useless fence sitting habits and rantings ?
For one who talks loudly about others taking "personal responsibility for their own actions... they do right, good because whatever benefits they get from their good action, be it karma, profits, adoration, whatever.. they earn it."
Can you do right by your own efforts ?
Or have you not been proven to be a hypocrite fence sitter, ranting against the PAP, as much as you rant against the Alternative Parties ?
Certainly you have not taken responsibility for your own misleading actions in denying the facts about Chiam See Tong's rejection by the SDP, and persist with spreading your ignorance in denigrating CSJ for your own petty agenda.
Karma, profits, adoration for you ? You will certainly earn it on your judgment day.
unless you secretly want to be like the MIW.. because you seem to be cut from the same cloth.. privilege without the responsibilities.. sort of like shortass Wong "it should not have happened, i'm sorry it happened"...
With your ability to spread ignorance, we will not hold you to your stupidity if you cannot read what has been clearly printed.
maybe shortass Wong looks dumb and therefore got away with it? because he sure as hell looks like a dumbass...
were you raving that he got away with it? i bet you were...
now.. go back to your little utopian nightmare of your delusions where smugglers who colluded with the military of other countries to smuggle stuff can go off scot free because "they look dumb"
just a bit of advise... don't go sprouting this out IRL.. because you'll end up not only looking dumb, your words will confirm that you are dumb...
ahahahahahahaha
Do you know even where to place your bet when you can hardly discern the writings on the wall with simple spellings made for you ?
'maybe shortass Wong looks dumb' - but not as dumb as the Drama Queen who lives on the whimsical smoke created for the stage that brings out the real drama of skewed visions.
With the intelligence that you possess, only you will be able to discover an "utopian nightmare" - do we need to know the useless diarhea of views that you have as a "fence sitter" ?
Can a "fence sitter" know anything more challenging then the dumbness that surround the remaining intelligence that hold you to your fence ?
It seems that you owe your parents alot for what has become of you, you should send them a cheque for ten cents and balanced the account with them.
-
Originally posted by Atobe:
Can you tell from the photo that he bears none of the facial features of a person with Down's syndrome ?
If he has Down's syndrome would he have slipped through the SAF classification system and landed in the vocation assigned ?
Yes, is it not odd that while the authorities let the Indonesian naval personnel out of the ambit of Singapore Law, they imposed a stiff sentence of four years for being an intermediary in transporting the smuggled cigarettes.
As you have been so observant to note that "he would have little idea about the total amount of contraband the Indons were bringing in" - should he be given the harsh sentence considering that he is a first time offender ?
In an ICQ publication dated 26 August 2003 - it stated that :-
The penalty was a fine of S$10,000, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or to both - and this is for persons found guilty for importation of the goods for the purpose of trade.
This 'boy' is a first time offender, and not even the importer of the contraband.
That is your preferred interpretation of your own reading of what was clearly written.
Was there any suggestion that "no one should go to prison, including hardened criminals" - or even to "(makes them more bitter, huh?)" ?
Is anything ever out of turn in Singapore - considering 52 years of being subjected to consistent conditioning to the monologue ?
- It can't be ruled out totally. but he doesn't have a short rate, small chin, flat brow or nose bridge, etc. So what makes you think he that you can tell he is mentally impaired by reading a picture?
- Of course I'd want to know what happened to the Indons. But the lad was caught red-handed and is equally culpable for facilitating the passage of contraband. I do not cotradict myself by saying that he had little idea how much was involved. It may be used in an appeal but such ignorance does not absolve him of the crime.
Even though he's a first time offender, he was also the main person involved on the S'pore side, and there was bribery. He won't get a lighter sentence than the other two guys. So what punishment would you have meted out?
- It's not purely my interpretation. You wrote that the prison enviroment and company are detrimental for him. Then why should it be bad only for first timers?
-
Originally posted by Kuali Baba:
- It can't be ruled out totally. but he doesn't have a short rate, small chin, flat brow or nose bridge, etc. So what makes you think he that you can tell he is mentally impaired by reading a picture?
Are those the standard features of a person having Downs Syndrome ?
Did I mention anywhere in any statement that "he is mentally impaired by reading a picture" ?
This seems to be the skewed conclusion preferred from reading my following simple statement printed on Page 1 of this thread:
"You should step back and take a look at the photo placed by TS - is that an adult's face looking like anyone mature ?
He looked like someone with a serious deficiency in judgment."
Maturity and mental deficiency is a world apart - if you can grasp the meanings implied.
- Of course I'd want to know what happened to the Indons. But the lad was caught red-handed and is equally culpable for facilitating the passage of contraband. I do not cotradict myself by saying that he had little idea how much was involved. It may be used in an appeal but such ignorance does not absolve him of the crime.
Is anyone denying the fact of the lad being caught red-handed ?
Was there any ignorance involved or claimed in my statement ?
Even though he's a first time offender, he was also the main person involved on the S'pore side, and there was bribery. He won't get a lighter sentence than the other two guys. So what punishment would you have meted out?
- It's not purely my interpretation. You wrote that the prison enviroment and company are detrimental for him. Then why should it be bad only for first timers?
Punishment has to be commensurate with the crime and the background of the offender.
In my previous response to your first post to this thread, I had clearly shown the punishment for the importer of the smuggled contraband to be S$10,000 fine, a jail term of 5 years, or both.
Is this "lad" the importer to deserve the 4 years jail time, and for being a first time offender ?
Are you serious that this "lad" cannot be subjected to the influence of full-time criminals, when locked four to a cell ?
Even in NUS, there are raggings to the newbies, what will await this "lad" in prison ?
Just last month, there was a Parliamentary debate 'about a first timer being sodomised and bullied by his cell mates over a period of four months, and despite the designed safety system - the abuses were not detected until the first timer went to the medical unit to seek treatment'(*1).
This is only the part of the first timer being a victim, what about first-timers being recruited for the future upon release - that surely will be the start of a long term social costs for Singaporeans to bear.
The Singapore Authorities have been smart enough to separate the religious JI suspsects from the general prison population, so as to prevent the pollution of such Jihardist ideas in the prison.
Somehow, they do not seem to realise that the other kind of indoctrination can and do take place to first timers.
Do you think that this "lad" will not succumb to such criminal influence ?
-
may i ask a question of you?
what does "personal responsibility" mean to you?
because from your rationalisations, it doesn't mean squat and i can blame everyone and everything for my actions...
sorry to sound blunt but you sound like the ambulance chasers in the US where they are too stupid to take personal responsibility for something as dumb spilling coffee on themselves without suing everyone for their own idiocy..
can the gabrament sue you for this guy's smuggling because, indirectly, your bleeding heart defence of irresponsible and criminal behaviour promotes their action because deep down inside their "dumb-looking minds" they feel they can get away with their crimes?
hell! society is to blame right?
-
Originally posted by the Bear:
may i ask a question of you?
what does "personal responsibility" mean to you?
because from your rationalisations, it doesn't mean squat and i can blame everyone and everything for my actions...
From your position as a Drama Queen accustomed to squatting on a fence - it is not surprisng that you will want to know what "personal responsibility" means to others.
Can I help you to understand the phrase any differently from those who wish for less drama then you always desire to have ?
Have you not been blaming everyone and everything for your actions ?
Has it not been your acts of wilfull dishonesty to hold CSJ responsible for the decision of the general membership of SDP in throwing out Chiam See Tong - when this act is purely your own dramatic creation that you cannot accept responsibility in any dramatic way ?
sorry to sound blunt but you sound like the ambulance chasers in the US where they are too stupid to take personal responsibility for something as dumb spilling coffee on themselves without suing everyone for their own idiocy..
Ambulance chasers spilling coffee on themselves ? While chasing ambulances ?
More drama from a Drama Queen ?
can the gabrament sue you for this guy's smuggling because, indirectly, your bleeding heart defence of irresponsible and criminal behaviour promotes their action because deep down inside their "dumb-looking minds" they feel they can get away with their crimes?
hell! society is to blame right?
You must remember that a sharp tongue is no indication of a keen mind.
Surely you are not always so stupid, or is this thread a special occassion for you to be unable to read what has been clearly written ?
Is it not in your characteristic ways of wilfull misinterpretation of events - (a'la CSJ and CST and the SDP ) - that you prefer to indulge so as to create more drama ?
With the characteristic drama that is your hallmark, we can agree with your suggestion of society is always to be blame - afterall you insist on CSJ being responsible for CST departure from the SDP - even when the records show that CSJ was on hunger strike at his home, while the SDP held an EGM at their Party HQ where the general membership with the CEC voted to throw CST out of SDP.
How straight is your arrow ?
-
Originally posted by Atobe:
Are those the standard features of a person having Downs Syndrome ?
Did I mention anywhere in any statement that "he is mentally impaired by reading a picture" ?
This seems to be the skewed conclusion preferred from reading my following simple statement printed on Page 1 of this thread:
"You should step back and take a look at the photo placed by TS - is that an adult's face looking like anyone mature ?
He looked like someone with a serious deficiency in judgment."
Maturity and mental deficiency is a world apart - if you can grasp the meanings implied.
Is anyone denying the fact of the lad being caught red-handed ?
Was there any ignorance involved or claimed in my statement ?
Punishment has to be commensurate with the crime and the background of the offender.
In my previous response to your first post to this thread, I had clearly shown the punishment for the importer of the smuggled contraband to be S$10,000 fine, a jail term of 5 years, or both.
Is this "lad" the importer to deserve the 4 years jail time, and for being a first time offender ?
Are you serious that this "lad" cannot be subjected to the influence of full-time criminals, when locked four to a cell ?
Even in NUS, there are raggings to the newbies, what will await this "lad" in prison ?
Just last month, there was a Parliamentary debate 'about a first timer being sodomised and bullied by his cell mates over a period of four months, and despite the designed safety system - the abuses were not detected until the first timer went to the medical unit to seek treatment'(*1).
This is only the part of the first timer being a victim, what about first-timers being recruited for the future upon release - that surely will be the start of a long term social costs for Singaporeans to bear.
The Singapore Authorities have been smart enough to separate the religious JI suspsects from the general prison population, so as to prevent the pollution of such Jihardist ideas in the prison.
Somehow, they do not seem to realise that the other kind of indoctrination can and do take place to first timers.
Do you think that this "lad" will not succumb to such criminal influence ?
I'll take back what I said about the mental deficiency part. Still, how do you read that he isn't mature enough to make decisions like a person of majority age, or that he should've been in Boys' Town, just by looking at a photo?
The punishment is commesurate - he showed brazeness by indenting a larger vehicle for the job, accepted gifts, led the other 2 chaps and facilitated a security breach. Are you more concerned about what happens to him in prison? Then you should be advocating that he be separated from violent criminals. Then again, who says "white collar criminals" can't recruit among themselves or abuse him?
-
CSJ did throw CST out in a drama more suited to bollywood than anything...
you just chose to sew your eyes shut..
but with your selective memory, remembering what suits you, and then making up the rest, i guess you do deserve "diminished responsibility"
anyway, back to the guy who breached national security and would have caused a diplomatic incident just to smuggle some cigarettes...
did he, or did he not do the crime, wilfully? did he or did he not plan the crime with forethought? and did he or did he not know that what he did was a crime?
if so, throw the goddamned book at him..
because, if he does the crime, hell! he deserves the time...
unless, bleeding hearts like you are ruini.. uhh.. running the place, then you can go give all of them pardons...
-
Originally posted by Kuali Baba:
I'll take back what I said about the mental deficiency part. Still, how do you read that he isn't mature enough to make decisions like a person of majority age, or that he should've been in Boys' Town, just by looking at a photo?
Thank you for your correction.
Did you miss out on my quote from Prof S. Jayakumar, which I posted on 29 Aug '09 4.00PM - Page 2 of this thread ?
For your benefit I will repeat it here:
How did you refer him as a "lad" in your reply at 12.51PM of this date ?
Obviously, from his boyish face had been noticed by you.
The fact that he was stupid enough with his judgment that landed him into hot soup clearly showed that Prof S. Jayakumar was correct - that adulthood could not possibly arrived into the mind of this "lad" just because he passed a fixed birthday.
The punishment is commesurate - he showed brazeness by indenting a larger vehicle for the job, accepted gifts, led the other 2 chaps and facilitated a security breach. Are you more concerned about what happens to him in prison? Then you should be advocating that he be separated from violent criminals. Then again, who says "white collar criminals" can't recruit among themselves or abuse him?
There is no dispute to your observation, and you are correct with your views that he should be separated from violent criminals - so that the longer term social cost to Singapore will be looked into now.
Can anyone insulate him permanently ?
The least we can do for ourselves is to ensure that while in prison, this "lad" should not come under any influence from the more mature criminals.
-
Originally posted by the Bear:
CSJ did throw CST out in a drama more suited to bollywood than anything...
you just chose to sew your eyes shut..
but with your selective memory, remembering what suits you, and then making up the rest, i guess you do deserve "diminished responsibility"
Another drama of bald lies unashamedly promoted and expertly woven by the resident Drama Queen in this Speaker's Corner.
Selective memory from me ?
Which part of the records concerning ‘Singapore Democratic Party published in Wikipedia’ (*1) are you disputing and claimed to be my selective memory ?
Is it not ironical that you will want to even bring out "diminished responsibility" - considering your total dishonesty about CSJ and the SDP ?
Is your dishonesty a result of mama bear's neglect ?
anyway, back to the guy who breached national security and would have caused a diplomatic incident just to smuggle some cigarettes...
did he, or did he not do the crime, wilfully? did he or did he not plan the crime with forethought? and did he or did he not know that what he did was a crime?
if so, throw the goddamned book at him..
because, if he does the crime, hell! he deserves the time...
unless, bleeding hearts like you are ruini.. uhh.. running the place, then you can go give all of them pardons...
So the drama is now about NATIONAL SECURITY and creating a DIPLOMATIC incident by a Lance Corporal who is seen by others as no more then a "lad' ?
Your mind must have been over fertilzed to come up with so much drama that certainly suit your recall of Bollywood.
Was there any dispute about the crime, or were you objecting to the fact that a claim was made that the sentence does not fit the offense ?
Coming from the Drama Queen of Speaker's Corner - with an inability to take events with honesty and responsibility - what value is there with the verbage that you have woven with so much drama ?
The main drama has been skewed by you in all accounts - when the fact are clear that you have thrown the book at CSJ and the SDP simply to protect the dishonorable CST determined to protect the PAP instead of his own Assistant-Secretary General who had been maligned by a PAP stalwart with false charges.