When Dorothy was on the yellow brick road to the Emerald City, she met the Scarecrow, Tin Man, and the Cowardly Lion who each planned to ask the Wizard for a brain, heart, and courage respectively. I think we can write off heart and courage, for those who couldn't care less for the downtrodden and sneak into parliament regularly on the cowardly GRC ticket. They could be wishing for more brains, given the mess they made of deporting the Indian foreign workers so hastily.
Amazingly, Senior Minister of State for Law and Education Indranee Rajah still maintains that due process had been given to the 57 foreign workers who were sent packing. Due process being "extensive interviews and investigation", none of which has been aired for third party inspection. The Minister says so, was sufficient input to put her brains in park mode. These guys may make sure they have their Amex cards with them when they leave home, but the gray matter can be probably left behind.
She's not alone, of course, even the Law Minister has stopped thinking and ignored the important fact that the Government has played judge, jury and executioner in deciding who should be (1) charged, (2) repatriated or (3) given advisories. Note those repatriated are not charged or issued advisories, suggesting they may not have committed any criminal wrong doing. If these legal eagles, and one beaver, had paused to think it through, they could have charged them for illegal assembly in groups exceeding five in number, and taken the sting off the human rights protestations. When you have seen the human queue in a typical day lining up to face the court for traffic offences, you will know it doesn't take too long to pronounce judgement on 57 hapless individuals.
Maybe the dirty secret is that they did not include brainpower in the request list for Santa. Thinking is hard work, better to just go with the flow like one ousted minister confessed. Anyway, they are too engaged laughing all the way to the bank to worry about the intricacies of law. And the option to repatriate without rhyme or reason may come in useful one day when the opposition gets too pesky.
Posts
You mean send to exile? Like Chia Thye Poh?
ReplyDeleteCTP was deprived of freedom and placed in the gray of law for many years, communism is an idea like democracy, armed struggles applies to both ideal.
DeleteThis must be the due process they practised:
ReplyDelete“We pleaded them that we had no involvement in any kind of violence but they never paid any attention,” he said. Tamil speaking policemen questioned them and recorded statements on their own and in the end asked them to admit to the offence, Muruganandam said.
- From The New Indian Express
Why did the chicken cross the road?
ReplyDeleteIndranee Rajah:
We sent the chicken across the road after our due process of extensive interviews and investigation.
No wonder our UN has such a bad report about the state of human rights in Singapore. MPs like Indrani don't give a shit about about we Singaporean basic rights, what more about lower class foreign workers?
ReplyDeleteBy the way have we heard of any PAP MP like this Indrani speaking out against the 6.9m Population White Paper in the interests of all those who protested in one way or another? They seems not to give a damn, don't they?
The PAP leadership can be described as being a three in one character of the scarecrow, tin man and cowardly lion.
DeleteImagine being the wizard , you will surely be dumbfounded knowing they are the highest paid on the planet, and you now have to bestow a brain for them to think better, a heart so they can feel empathy, and of course, courage to admit to all the screw ups and redeem themselves. A tall order indeed, right ?
Emerald City = sillipore and its billion dollar garden of the rich
ReplyDeleteDorothy = the 40% silliporeans struggling to free itself from the yellow road to serfdom paved with gold for the rich
Wizard = papig politicians
Scarecrow = the 60% who forgot they once had a brain
Coward Lion = paper generals
Winged monkeys = foreign workers exploited by the crony towkays
Wicked Witch of the west = already departed empress mother
wat does teo think? oh, but he belongs to the scarecrow class, dumb question!
Why did the chicken cross the road?
DeleteTeo Chee Hean:
The chicken did not cross the road. I deported the chicken across the road ... after due process.
"Speaking to reporters today (24 Dec), Prime Minister (PM) Lee Hsien Loong reminded Singaporeans that even in a stable society, riots like the one on 8 December in Little India can still happen."
ReplyDeleteDorothy: “How can you talk if you don’t have a brain?”
Scarecrow: “I don’t know…But some people without brains do an awful lot of talking…don’t they?”
"If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking" - George S Patton
Their Christmas stockings were stuffed pretty early this year. So they must have been good quiet girls and boys all year.
ReplyDeleteSnippets from the British TV Series: Pinky and the Brain (1995-1998)
ReplyDeleteBrain: This is the earth. And this is Pinky. You can tell the difference quite easily. One is a lump of inert matter hurtling blindly through the void. The other... is the earth.
Pinky: What's free-market capitalism?
Brain: Erm... cheating, lying and backstabbing intrigue.
Brain: Has it ever occurred to you, Pinklet, that your scarf is constricting the bloodflow to your head?
Pinky: Yes! And it keeps my neck all cozy-warm.
Brain: Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?
Pinky: I think so Brain, but if you replace the P with an O, my name would be Oinky, wouldn't it?
Brain: Do you practice being dim or is it a natural talent?
Pinky: Oh practice Brain. All day, EVERYDAY!
/// ... Chua Chu Kang GRC MP Alex Yam had his present delivered early, to the back door of his Yew Tee branch office, a plastic bag of fecal matter. ///
ReplyDeleteIt was not fecal matter.
The stork just delivered a baby PAPig.
What is the difference between the content of the bag and the recipient?
ReplyDeleteAnswer: the bag.
Due process, my foot. This is what the rest of the world is saying:
ReplyDeleteUnder the current Employment of Foreign Manpower Act's (EFMA) Fourth Schedule, Part VI, clause number 8 says that “foreign employee shall not be involved in any illegal, immoral or undesirable activities, including breaking up families in Singapore”. However, there is no specific reference as to what would be the action taken under the law if a holder of a work permit 'transgresses' this particular clause. If the 57 workers deported were indeed involved in illegal or undesirable activities, it would be reasonable to assume that the illegality of their involvement in the Little India Riot should have been established under the relevant laws. Which in this case should, at the minimum, invoke clauses 36, and 37 of the Public Order Act (POA) and clause 20 of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance Act). But based on existing public reports and accounts, there appear to be no explicit instances of the 57 workers being produced in a court of law confirming their culpability. Instead, we have a situation whereby the workers are pronounced to be deported through executive fiat, and are accordingly to be treated under the Immigration Act (Cap 133).
The operation of the Immigration Act manifestly falls short of international standards. It's clause 33, subsection 4, directly contravenes the ILO Recommendation 151's clause 33 which states that any appeal by the worker “should stay the execution of the expulsion order, subject to the duly substantiated requirements of national security or public order”. Even if national security or public order is cited as the reasons, they should be clearly substantiated. However in this case it is clearly counteracted by the Immigration Act's clause 33's subsection 6 which allow the authorities leeway to not disclose the actual reasons for the deportation order. Yet, the recent justification of the deportation order based on the authorities' assessment successfully demonstrated the failure to clarify the legal, national security or public order grounds.
Thus in the case of the Little India riot, it is not clear if any of these 57 workers were involved in any capacity, nor is there clarity on the due process. Their deportation which begun on 19 December 2013 may also result in less corroborating evidence or testimonies as to the actual cause of the riot. Moreover, what benefit was it for any individual to provide accurate recollection of the incident for the Committee of Inquiry when it was certain that they would be deported. Also, while the riot is clearly not a case of labour dispute or strike, the system's treatment of the workers is uncannily similar to last year's Chinese bus drivers’ strike case.