Equally mind racking is attempting to piece the jigsaw of the curious case of Woffles Wu. One blogger hit a nerve with a very long post, comingling the the facts and fiction amidst flotsam and jetsam of the internet. The Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) wasn't excited with the theorising, and concluded: "In essence you allege that our entire judicial system has been biased for a long time." Yale-NUS may be here, but the road to liberalised contemplation is still mined with black holes.
The monkey wrench in the works is why the authorities are taking so long to find out who was actually behind the wheel of the rebuilt stretch Mercedes. NY Times Lawrence Klaus wrote that a career in theoretical physics has taught him that nature usually has a far richer imagination than we do. Anything can happen on a Friday 13th, perhaps a dash of quantum physics, suitably fuelled by your mind bending beverage of choice - alcohol or kopi-kau - might solve the puzzle.
Suppose for a moment the one who took the car out for a high speed spin is a "god-like" individual. One with impeccable progeny, perfect scholastic scores, prestigious business credentials. The ideal candidate to be feted at an Istana tea party, and groomed for higher office - the ultimate millionaire club type. It would be a shame of national resources to waste such talent, to smear the pristine record with a yucky documented traffic offence.
Suppose a wise older person, out of magnanimity and his cognizance of the greater good for society, volunteers himself as sacrificial pawn, surrenders himself to the authorities and takes the fall. He suggests someone to pen his name in the "request to provide driver's particulars" - hence the abetting part. That would explain the statement that "I was fined for providing the name of someone who was not driving the car". It would also explain the other comment, that the abettor "did not make the misleading statements himself". Neat, huh?
Of course, there is the outstanding matter of the real driver's name, as elusive as the real boson. Recall a "god particle" is unstable, decaying into other particles as soon as it's created, leaving no trace of its brief existence. A name could be produced, mainstream media could put it into a spin faster than the Large Hadron Collider at CERN is capable of, and the matter is quickly put to rest - faster than the speed of light. Neat, huh? So, guys, what do you think? What do you think?
Posts
LOL LOL. Great! I dunno what to say! Stomp! Stomp!
ReplyDeleteWhat I think..Another officer to be charged under neglect of duty (after the culprits ran away that is..)
ReplyDeleteNot yet even in the grave.
ReplyDeleteAnd standards already dropping.
All I know about the higgs is that people are cross-breeding bison with boson all over the place.
ReplyDeleteI think our guys here are cross-breeding boar with bullshit. While a rocket scientist can cut to a concise video chase of this complex particle, surely our smart elites-non-nobel-quality-scholars-cum-rulers can simply cut to a particular 'video chase' too?
Oh heck, is friday. I think we should declare the weekend open with a very neat explanation of that elusive Higgs while we all await for Batman Rises to nab the real "god-like" figure....or is it, fake preachers?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Uh5mTxRQcg&feature=player_embedded
Yes.
ReplyDeleteSimplest way to settle the issue.
Ask Woffles Wu;
"Who was driving his car?"
Woffles must be the newly discovered god's papsicle.
ReplyDeleteBy now can we conclude that either WW is not admitting he was the driver or that the authorities are in no hurry to get to the bottom of it？
ReplyDeleteAnd not only is it no longer a simple traffic offence violation，it now involves an alleged false declaration as well as a case of obstructing justice as well which we are often reminded are serious offences，no？
So what sort of message do they want to send out now？
"Ask Woffles Wu;
ReplyDelete"Who was driving his car?""
It is Dennis Ho. As who is actually Dennis Ho, it can be Woffles or it could be another person. No matter what, you won't get the answer because the govt think the public can't handle the truth. The truth according to what Alan Shadrake has written all along and get jail for that.
Has the alleged driver of Woffles Wu's car been charged for speeding yet?
ReplyDeleteSo who is this Woffles Wu that do not need to give an answer to "Who was driving his car?"?
ReplyDeleteIt seemed that this case was almost sucked into a black hole before someone made a complaint to bring it to light.
That light is now bright enough for all to see. We can only feel sorry for those who still admire the emperor in his new clothes.
When PM Lee mentioned that only 'selective messiness' is allowed, he must be referring to this case.
ReplyDeleteQuote from PM Lee's india trip : -
DeleteIn the old days, we would have just said solve the problem and tomorrow they would be literally gone. But now it has been discussed. This is what happens when things are discussed: But we have to go through this discussion and engagement, and explanation and in the end, it takes longer but it will be done."
Anyone smell a new catchphrase for pacifying the masses: "But now it has been discussed! = noise = engagement "
But same conclusion, just that it takes longer and "it will be done."
Anything that opens pandora box and let demons out must not be allowed..that includes graffiti. No where was there mention of CPF or SWF pandora box.
It's clear that they have lost in the court of public opinion. The emperor has no clothes.
ReplyDeleteThe waffles case is like a can of worms that the pap gov would like very much to sweep under the carpet. Like using their law to hush up anyone speaking up on it. Hoping this case will be forgotten.
ReplyDeletePerhaps in the good ole days maybe but not anymore.
I say "their" law because I perceived miw having different treatment for different people... LAW.
When AGC replied to a TOC’s article, he said that Woffles Wu was charged under section 81(3) of the Road Traffic Act instead of section 182 of the Penal Code because no major accident or injury was involved.
ReplyDeleteBut TOC replied in another article that the reason given by the AGC cannot be right by citing various cases that contradicted AGC's position.
But then, when AGC demanded an apology from Alex Au, AGC argued that Woffles Wu was charged under section 81(3) of the Road Traffic Act because no major accident or injury was involved and because the false statement made by Woffles Wu was not used to cover up serious offences like rash driving, etc.
There was therefore a refinement in argument by the AGC in Alex's case.
But why didn't the AGC gave the more refined reasoning to TOC in the first place? If he had, Alex, who relied on TOC's article, might not have written the way he did and therefore might not have resulted in AGC demanding an apology.
It seemed that to date, AGC has not replied to TOC's rebuttal article.
Is it true to say that if the AGC cannot enlighten the public as to who were the persons speeding in WW's car, the car is like the google's car with no driver?...otherwise it must be the responsibility of WW to provide the identities of the drivers? Doesn't the law presume that the owner is the driver in situations like these but AGC won't prosecute?
ReplyDeleteWhat is god particle?
ReplyDeletehttp://cerntruth.wordpress.com/
http://divinitynow.com/036376_Higgs_boson_conscious_cosmology.html