poor mom looks tired!

Wunderfool said:

But the sad thing is the other party has shown no remorse for what he said to you and your father

Click to expand...

winnipegjets said:

The mom and dad preferred the PAP to their son.

Sick parents that deserve the worst in life.

Click to expand...

Wunderfool said:

Now , I ask you the same questions for Amos.

Did he learn the lesson ?

Did everyone agree that he was wrong ?

I am agreeable for the above case that the CO did the right thing not to charge him.

Click to expand...

Wunderfool said:

You didn't reply to my question.

If those remarks & obscene drawings by Amos are for you and your father, would it say the same things ?

You will be clearer if you say Yes or No,

Click to expand...

Wunderfool said:

You don't get it, do you ?

The charges are made on Amos for all the offensive remarks against the late LKY and insensitive statements to Christianity that cause distress and harassment to the aggrieved and the public. These are the issues.

Now, it is easy for anyone to skip through the charges and say that those charges are harmless.

So, the right way to understand the feelings of the aggrieved parties is to put yourself under their skin and understand the impact of what it was said to them. If you can say to yourself, especially if the remarks were meant for you and your father that you are not at all affected, then truly, the charges are not the issues. But the sad thing is the other party has shown no remorse for what he said to you and your father.

Click to expand...

The charges are made on Amos for all the offensive remarks against the late LKY and insensitive statements to Christianity that cause distress and harassment to the aggrieved and the public. These are the issues.

Click to expand...

Wunderfool said:

Did the soldier learn the lesson ?

Quote "Everyone was angry with the soldier for his foolish action in front of external controllers." Unquote.

That is the most important question.

What is the general public think of the soldier ? Did all agree that he is wrong ?

Quote " After the exercise, the CO after understanding the mental state of the soldier did not charge him. Nobody think that the soldier was right. " Unquote

Now , I ask you the same questions for Amos.

Did he learn the lesson ?

Did everyone agree that he was wrong ?

For the above case, the CO did the right thing not to charge him because both questions have the right answers.

Click to expand...

winnipegjets said:

Amos is entitled to his opinion and I think he was right. Whether he was right or wrong is immaterial. No one is forced to view his video. If people choose to watch it and feel offended, it is not Amos's fault. If an American says the same thing in the US, is PAP going to arrest him when he visit sinkapore? No, it won't. So, it is obvious a persecution of sinkees ...in this case, of a child. He is 16, but still a minor.

The brutality is reflected that they incarcerated Amos for 3 days, a sentencing before trial. They treated a 16-year old whose only wrong was use vulgarity like a hardcore criminal. He was cuffed on the hands and ankles and escorted by more than 5 guards! Goodness me, is the PAP so afraid of a mouthy 16-year old?

You know that the PAP is doom when they react so harshly to such triviality.

Click to expand...

Seee3 said:

In my opinion, for cases involving people with abnormal behaviour (for example, display of fearlessness with intensive anger), we should not follow by the book because such individuals are likely to be autistic. They do not understand social norm. They have no fear and get very angry if things are not going their way. (There was an old case of a young man pushing an old lady down a bus for blocking the way)

For your first question on whether did Amos or the soldier learn the lesson? The answer is a clear no. They do not understand what is right or wrong. They only want things their way. However, for the soldier's case, the CO did win his heart. Autistic people listens to only their minder (if they have one). The minder can be a volunteer, usiually the mother,, who earned their trust ithrough years of patience, care and interaction. They will accept only instructions and words from their minder. No amount of punishment can change their behaviour. (just like no among of caning can stop a hyperactive child). Incidentally, that soldier was on "extended NS" because he had been in and out of detentions. In those days, there was a lack of understanding on autism and he was viewed as a stubborn fearless gangster. However, after the incident, he obeyed because he was reminded that they were from the CO, his new found minder. If the CO is no longer there, I am sure he will be back to his old way. (in gangster language, they call it "give face" to the CO) Sadly for Amos, he has no minder,

For the question on whether did everybody agreed that he was wrong, I believe it was not important and was never taken into consideration when the CO made his decision. His wisdom led him to pardon the soldier because he knew that he had a mental problem. However, his wise move earned him greater respect. For Amos, it will be great if the authority had established whether he has any inborn inhibition first, before proceeding to sue him. Amos is an above average kid but dropping out of school and showing complete fearless defiance. These are clear signs that he is not normal. Therefore, if proper checks on the background has been made, more people will agree with the action of the authority. (Incidentally, for the old case of the autistic chap who pushed down an old lady from a bus, he was also charged in court, which makes me wonder what was the purpose although was let off subsequently because of his condition.)

It appears that we are way behind in understanding autistism. In US, they have many self help groups for early intervention. A friend of mine has an autistic kid (quite violent). Luckily, he was posted overseas when the kid was 2 yrs old. With early intervention and support from the groups, the kid has grown up and now working pretty normally. However, nobody knows that he still needs to take his daily mediation to suppress his violent streaks that can trigger anytime anywhere. So it is not a behaviour that they chose to be but they are trapped in that mental state.

Click to expand...

Wunderfool said:

I have to correct the perspective. Everyone is entitled to his opinion. That is the freedom of expression. But everyone must be responsible and be accountable for the freedom of expression.

Let me give you a simple example. Someone , unrelated to you, whom you have no dealings with, spew vulgarities at you and your dad and even draw caricatures of you dad buttfuck with another woman, not your mum. That is his freedom of expression. And it is broadcast on internet; to the whole world.

Now, you say you choose to do nothing about it.

The next day, the same person spew vulgarities at you and your dad again and this time draw caricatures of your dad with a deity and it is broadcast on internet. You say you will choose not to take action on it.

The third day, he becomes even bolder. He says you have no balls to dance with him.

All your friends come to know about it and inform you, your dad and your mum about it.

Do you think you should or should not respond to the person ?

Click to expand...

Wunderfool said:

Do you think you should or should not respond to the person ?

Click to expand...

kryonlight said:

Yes, your dad can sue him for defamation under civil law provided he's still alive and kicking.

It seems you don't understand the problem. The problem is the archaic sedition criminal laws and the nonsensical harassment criminal laws. It is not a crime to voice one's opinion about a political or religious figure.

Seriously, do you think the police is so free to arrest a lunatic targeting your blue-collar daddy?

Click to expand...

Wunderfool said:

It is not the laws that are wrong.

Click to expand...

kryonlight said:

The laws are wrong. Period.

Click to expand...

Wunderfool said:

Sure ... if you preside over the case , the case is closed.

Click to expand...

kryonlight said:

I have no interest in presiding the case. The case should be non-existent, because the laws are wrong in the first place.

Click to expand...

Wunderfool said:

Whoa... no need even to preside over the case, you decide the case.

Click to expand...

Seee3 said:

In my opinion, for cases involving people with abnormal behaviour (for example, display of fearlessness with intensive anger), we should not follow by the book because such individuals are likely to be autistic. They do not understand social norm. They have no fear and get very angry if things are not going their way. (There was an old case of a young man pushing an old lady down a bus for blocking the way)

For your first question on whether did Amos or the soldier learn the lesson? The answer is a clear no. They do not understand what is right or wrong. They only want things their way. However, for the soldier's case, the CO did win his heart. Autistic people listens to only their minder (if they have one). The minder can be a volunteer, usiually the mother,, who earned their trust ithrough years of patience, care and interaction. They will accept only instructions and words from their minder. No amount of punishment can change their behaviour. (just like no among of caning can stop a hyperactive child). Incidentally, that soldier was on "extended NS" because he had been in and out of detentions. In those days, there was a lack of understanding on autism and he was viewed as a stubborn fearless gangster. However, after the incident, he obeyed because he was reminded that they were from the CO, his new found minder. If the CO is no longer there, I am sure he will be back to his old way. (in gangster language, they call it "give face" to the CO) Sadly for Amos, he has no minder,

For the question on whether did everybody agreed that he was wrong, I believe it was not important and was never taken into consideration when the CO made his decision. His wisdom led him to pardon the soldier because he knew that he had a mental problem. However, his wise move earned him greater respect. For Amos, it will be great if the authority had established whether he has any inborn inhibition first, before proceeding to sue him. Amos is an above average kid but dropping out of school and showing complete fearless defiance. These are clear signs that he is not normal. Therefore, if proper checks on the background has been made, more people will agree with the action of the authority. (Incidentally, for the old case of the autistic chap who pushed down an old lady from a bus, he was also charged in court, which makes me wonder what was the purpose although was let off subsequently because of his condition.)

It appears that we are way behind in understanding autistism. In US, they have many self help groups for early intervention. A friend of mine has an autistic kid (quite violent). Luckily, he was posted overseas when the kid was 2 yrs old. With early intervention and support from the groups, the kid has grown up and now working pretty normally. However, nobody knows that he still needs to take his daily mediation to suppress his violent streaks that can trigger anytime anywhere. So it is not a behaviour that they chose to be but they are trapped in that mental state.

Click to expand...