[Circa Mar 2016]
"...it turns out that, shockingly, completely unfiltered democracy has downsides. Take the charming saga of r/rape, which started as a subreddit for rape fetish porn before being turned into a support group for sexual assault survivors ... but it still gets lewd visits from people interested in the original function."On CSJ promises for Bt Batok:
"If I win this election... I will give you... MORE elections."
If you recall, in the PE BE, Chee had suggested to WP that he could stand and if he wins, WP can run the town council for PE, while Chee does the "heavy lifting" in Parliament - you know the difficult job of turning up and asking embarrassing questions of the PAP.
So now he wants to have elections for town council leaders... Hmmm... sounds to me like he reaises that he DOESN'T know how to run a town council... or realises that running a town council sounds like a lot of REAL work, instead of "work" like writing books, making speeches, and confronting PAP in parliament - you know the things he's good at and likes to do.
You gotta respect a man who knows his limitations.
On the SAF shield law.
If I were the parent and my son died during a SAF training incident, I too would not be satisfied. I too would want "justice"... BUT... there is no justice. Even if I won the court case, even if the court awarded me 7 figure compensation (or more), even if the two officers were found guilty of gross negligence and sentence to death even, I would not get my son back.
So what justice is there?
Satisfaction that the negligent officers were sentenced to death and executed? They are somebody's sons and husbands, and maybe even fathers too.
Satisfaction that I am right and the SAF is to be blamed for my son's death? How to be satisfied about my son's death?
Satisfaction over the compensation paid? How cheap is my son's life? Yes to me, that is the price of "satisfaction" that is a finding attributing the cause of my son's death to the SAF. But there is no compensation for a loved one.
I'd rather have my son.
So I'll step away from identifying with the parent and ask why did the SAF "hide" behind the law that shielded them from civil suits from action arising from even negligence in a training exercise?
Why is there such an unfair law?
Because it is necessary.
Because during a training exercise, you have to ask your soldiers to do things which are risky. Because as a good soldier, you will try to minimise risks and danger but in reality, things don't always go according to plan. Because you can take a lot of precaution but up to a point, Otherwise, you might as well forget about doing the training.
Because without that law to protect the SAF officers, when generals tell their captains to do something, the captains can say, "Sorry sir. That is too risky. Someone could die or get injured and I could get sued."
Then we might as well not have SAF and SAF training, then.
On Sumiko Tan's column on how it is easier to love a dog than a person
<<Repeated post, deleted. Link above.>>