Let the PAPies show us TRUE Graciousness. Ong Kah Chua needs medical supervision.

[Dan Now]

Dear Danny

I hope we agree that the due process of the law will be respective irrespective of the person the crime was committed on. Firstly OKC is guilty due to the heavy weight of evidence against him, the only question is the extent of his guilt and whether there are any mitigating circumstances which the judge can take into account.

For example diminished responsibility or an insanity plea. Aka the "ghost I heard speaking to me asked me to burn SHT". Perhaps extreme paranoia and schizoprenia might render him not guilty but in any other country he would still be locked up away from the general public.

Diminished responsibility, slight paranoia and schizophrenia would allow him a lighter jail sentence but he would still have to go to jail.

The fact that he is old is besides the point for the purposes of jail :_)) Look at Madoff and the no of people howling for him to be jailed.

He should be charged and the courts should be allowed to arrive at its verdict.




Locke

Dear Locke,

Long time no hear. Hope all is well and good with you.

Now, is Madoff mad ?

OKC is nuts. A Walking loonie. So lunatic that he sets another man on fire.
Thats a fact.

Enuff said

Thanks for responding.

 

[Dan Now]

I agree with you 100% bro ..

Mentally unsound, living alone, broke and about to be homeless, the elderly Mr Ong clearly needs society's help.

I remember the GST was increased by 40% to help the poor. Let's see how the system grants assistance to our sick and elderly.

Now that Mr Ong is under the ward of the authorities, I'm sure many will be watching.

Dear Mr Guan,

Ah, it would seemed that you acutally read my post as it is. For that, A big thank you.

You can judge for yourself the kind of respond that this particular post have generated. That they have failed to understand the MORE IMPORTANT message that I have been trying to bring across.

That our MARGINALISED Sick and elderly NEEDS OUR ATTENTION NOW.

I repeat.

NOW.

Cheers

Dan

 

[KKC007]

So, for the following reasons, that

1. He is 70 years old.
2. That he is jobless
3. That his family could have abandon him
4. That he have mental issues
5. That he needs money

And you still insist that he should be flog and be jailed, so be it.

Dan

I'll say other than point 4, all others are irrelevant. Even point 4 is debatable. He was in and out of IMH does not mean he was not of sound mind when he committed the crime.

He committed a crime, and a court is where he should be judged. Jail, flog or IMH, only a court can decide. You cannot just whisk him off to IMH without a trial.

Of course, having said that, we all know how the court will rule when PAP is involved.

 

[Dan Now]

I'll say other than point 4, all others are irrelevant. Even point 4 is debatable. He was in and out of IMH does not mean he was not of sound mind when he committed the crime.

He committed a crime, and a court is where he should be judged. Jail, flog or IMH, only a court can decide. You cannot just whisk him off to IMH without a trial.

Of course, having said that, we all know how the court will rule when PAP is involved.

Dear Mr. KKC.

Yes, everything is irrelavent.

What is relavent is mercy, compassion and graciousness.

Is that relavent ? What is relavent to you then pray tell.



Dan

 

[KKC007]

Dear Mr. KKC.

Yes, everything is irrelavent.

What is relavent is mercy, compassion and graciousness.

Is that relavent ? What is relavent to you then pray tell.



Dan

You asked why he is charged in your original post. A crime was committed. Let the courts decide what to do.

What you have listed are the mitigating circumstances the judge should consider during sentencing. From the sentence meted out, you can see how gracious the system is.

BTW, why have you already concluded he was mentally unsound?

 

[Dan Now]

I'll say other than point 4, all others are irrelevant. Even point 4 is debatable. He was in and out of IMH does not mean he was not of sound mind when he committed the crime.

He committed a crime, and a court is where he should be judged. Jail, flog or IMH, only a court can decide. You cannot just whisk him off to IMH without a trial.

Of course, having said that, we all know how the court will rule when PAP is involved.

Thanks for responding KKC.

A measured fair post.

This remind me, when an EX MP Mr Chng Hee Kok was convicted of not reporting his own private business interest when he was in NTUC, he was fine $5000.

Now he is still running the SAME business outfit which belongs to NTUC.

Clearly the PAPies have been gracious and compassionate to thier own business and parliamentary collegues or ex collegues in this case.

But when it comes to Citizens, we deserve no dram of empathy, compassion, and graciousness. Else, why would our elites been always DEMONISING ALL of us as Kiasu, Kiasee, World class whiners, welfare seekers, lazy etc.

The PAP track record of DEMONISING and NAME CALLING THE CITIZENS that they serve is truly world class.

Despite their numerous and endless cock up in recent years, they would still demand that we should be thankful for thier REAL and PRESENT Track record of failures and lossses.

Dan

 

[kakowi]

I'll say other than point 4, all others are irrelevant. Even point 4 is debatable. He was in and out of IMH does not mean he was not of sound mind when he committed the crime.

He committed a crime, and a court is where he should be judged. Jail, flog or IMH, only a court can decide. You cannot just whisk him off to IMH without a trial.

Of course, having said that, we all know how the court will rule when PAP is involved.

I hold a different opinion that:

1. He is 70 years old.
2. That he is jobless
3. That his family could have abandon him
4. That he have mental issues
5. That he needs money

​

that these are irrelevant issues because these are indeed underlying issues that may have a bearing on the final judging decision.

Doubtless you do not meant whether he is guilty, but only the extent of his guilt.

There is another issue which should be used in the final judging decision: that of MP Seng and his track record of having been attacked twice.

True, some here and elsewhere indicate that he is a kind and wonderful man. But his attackers were people who are in desperate need.

Thus it should also be examined if he is only kind and wonderful to people who do not need such help from him.

For that, a good lawyer is needed. Moreover, one who has the expense account to subpeona even MP Seng to the stand, the previous assailent and others who are willing to stand forth and testify as to MP Seng's character.

I doubt that you can find such a lawyer in singapore. For the same reason that i do not doubt that you will not be short of people who will stand up to testify to MP Seng's good character.

So, in the end, it all depends on the mercy of the Court.

Judging from the fear of some of the PAP MPs interviewed on the media and the call for a deterrent sentence, his crime will probably be dealt with more harshly than Mas Selamat who intended to put some portions of Singapore in flames.

And it is highly likely that portions of that 70 year-old man's past will be dug up - to show the world that he cannot manage his family well, to insinuate that he is not a good father, husband, to tell the world that his poverty is his own fault etc, etc - and yet, to show the world that despite all these mental pressures, he is still sane when he commit the act in harming the "great MP Mr Seng of the great PAP" - the words of a self-professed PAP supporter.

In this world of Singapore's one party rule, where people clamour for the favours of rich and powerful, it is gratifying to hear the words of one pleading for the hand of mercy to a guilty man.

Thank you Dan.

 

[silverfox@]

Dear Mr Fox,

I am afraid you got yourself into a bind.

I don't think so, you read on.

NOW, having said that, OKC indeed have mental problems. Why are you ignoring that fact ?

I have not ignore this fact. To be frank, I am not a doctor, neither a psychiatrist. So I am in no position to determine whether OKC is indeed sane or insane.

Besides, I can even go as far as to agree with you that SHT is a goodman as he have let off a Taxi Driver who have punched him once but would only do so only the conditions are met. Those conditions are well, unknown. Why is it unknown ? Well you can speculate it yourself.

The taxi driver was let off only if he apologised and not retract his apology.
The taxi driver apologised and then retract.
Do you mean to say that if I give you a punch on your face, I should not be prosecuted by the law? If this is the case, this would become a lawless country.

Whats even more interesting is about the info you have provided. That OKC could be abandon by his wife and kids, perhaps of his mental issues, well, we just have to wait for more info from our STATE MEDIA.

There is a case of people who read what they want to read. If the state media paints OKC in the bad light, you wouldn't believe. If the state media paints Seng Han Thong in good picture, you doubt the authenticity of the report and source. So I would advise you not to wait for more info as your judgement pertaining to the matter is already biased.

So, for the following reasons, that

1. He is 70 years old.
2. That he is jobless
3. That his family could have abandon him
4. That he have mental issues
5. That he needs money

And you still insist that he should be flog and be jailed, so be it.

Which part of me ever said that he should be flog
I only agree with the reason that he should be prosecuted by the law. Caning is out for him as he is too old. He would not have any money to pay his fines. The only alternative left for him is to either be jailed in Changi or the Mental Institute.

I am NOT going to judge you. Remember, I could have called you an ungracious, Kiasu, Singaporean and that you are truly ungracious, but I didn't.

Your morals dimensions remains with you and yourself. Am I more gracious because of that ? ABSOLUTELY NO.

The POINT CANNOT BE SIMPLER. SHOULD A 70 Year old man, with mental problems be sent into prison ? I plead for leniency to be shown, for graciousness to flourish.

Today we are talking about someone being torched on fire. Remember it is in the public where Seng han thong received help. If Seng han Thong was alone, he could have died under the hands of his attacker.
I am now wondering what kind of message would be sent across to the public if OKC is given a lenient sentence or even set free.

Let's not digress.

In fact, I can even agree with you that Mr Seng is a good man. But I would say that he is a GREATER Man if he can find it in his heart to forgive Mr Ong.

Thanks for responding.

Dan

Forgiving someone is one thing. But not forgetting what he did must be punishable by the law regardless of the act being carried out on a MP or non-MP.
Remember this is a criminal action. I don't like your face, however, it doesn't give me a right to douse you with petrol and set you on fire. By giving him a light sentence would set a message across, that if I have evidence of you being a farker, I can justify my actions on hurting you, just because the public would sympathise with me.

 

[silverfox@]

I hold a different opinion that:

1. He is 70 years old.
2. That he is jobless
3. That his family could have abandon him
4. That he have mental issues
5. That he needs money

​

that these are irrelevant issues because these are indeed underlying issues that may have a bearing on the final judging decision.

Doubtless you do not meant whether he is guilty, but only the extent of his guilt.

There is another issue which should be used in the final judging decision: that of MP Seng and his track record of having been attacked twice.

Why should the decision be made based on him being attacked twice. It was not Seng Han Thong who made the attack. By using the victim's "so-called track record of being attacked twice" as a mitigating factor for Ong Kah Chua, I can simply say its nonsense.

Year 2002, you are punched by Friend A.
Year 2008, you are slashed by Friend B. Friend B was charged in court and he used the reason that you are an arse just because you are punched by Friend A in 2002 as a mitigating factor for getting a light sentence so as to justify what he did was right.
I can't believe law can be kangaroo-ed in this manner.

True, some here and elsewhere indicate that he is a kind and wonderful man. But his attackers were people who are in desperate need.

Thus it should also be examined if he is only kind and wonderful to people who do not need such help from him.

I think we are digressing too much into other aspects.
Did Ong Kah Chua douse a man on fire? If yes, let's not base who he did it to, but based on a commoner, that should be enough to sentence him and I would say he could be lucky not to be charged with attempted murder.

Desperate needs does not mean you need to hurt people. When you are desperate, it does not justify your actions of robbing a bank as correct. When you are desperate, it does not justify your actions of raping a woman just because she wears more sexily on that day. When you are desperate, it does not justify your actions of killing someone, just because he insulted your family.

For that, a good lawyer is needed. Moreover, one who has the expense account to subpeona even MP Seng to the stand, the previous assailent and others who are willing to stand forth and testify as to MP Seng's character.

I doubt that you can find such a lawyer in singapore. For the same reason that i do not doubt that you will not be short of people who will stand up to testify to MP Seng's good character.

I already said those online forummers with their praise on OKC's actions, I am sure there are at least that 1 or 2 who are lawyers. Will they step up voluntarily to act as his lawyer. Online support maybe, real life support? :o

So, in the end, it all depends on the mercy of the Court.

Judging from the fear of some of the PAP MPs interviewed on the media and the call for a deterrent sentence, his crime will probably be dealt with more harshly than Mas Selamat who intended to put some portions of Singapore in flames.

If the attacker attacks you and got caught, do you think the court should give him a deterrent sentence?

And it is highly likely that portions of that 70 year-old man's past will be dug up - to show the world that he cannot manage his family well, to insinuate that he is not a good father, husband, to tell the world that his poverty is his own fault etc, etc - and yet, to show the world that despite all these mental pressures, he is still sane when he commit the act in harming the "great MP Mr Seng of the great PAP" - the words of a self-professed PAP supporter.

Is Ong Kah Chua a good father, a good husband, that you got to ask his son, daughter, and wife. Who all 3 are not staying with him, or should I put it as he is not staying with them?
So can I use this argument that with OKC's son, daughter, wife, 3 people who doesn't wish to stay with him, means OKC has a bad track record, my statement sounds screwed doesn't it? but here it is you are trying to tell us earlier that we should look at Seng han thong's track record of being attacked twice in his political career.
We can't look at things from this perspective.
It's a fact, Ong Kah Chua committed a crime. He should be punished for it.

In this world of Singapore's one party rule, where people clamour for the favours of rich and powerful, it is gratifying to hear the words of one pleading for the hand of mercy to a guilty man.

Thank you Dan.

If it is your family member who got burned, would you feel gratified hearing people pleading for the hand of mercy on a guilty man, knowing that your family member could have passed away?

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Dan

Hale and hearty. I believe the question of whether he is nuts or not is something left to a court and the medical professionals :_)). However the fact that he "assaults" or tries ' GBH" that itself does not make him clinically " nuts", might make him a candidate for anger management but thats a differing issue

You might want to note there are differing degree's of "nuts" which might lead to mitigating circumstances versus an out right accquital.

You I believed pointed out his age as a mitigating circumstance I was just trying to point out that age has no bearing.


Locke

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Kawoki

He is guilty as hell, witnesses galore caught red handed, all the issues you have raised would be at most mitigating circumstances for a plea bargain but would not absolve him of guilt in any way. Think about it if the victim was not SHT but a man in the street would these factors as you stated matter in determining guilt ?

SHT might be an arsehole, might have been rude and argued with him if ever but in any case , no court would accept the defense, SHT was an arsehole hence I have the right to do GBH and assault, burn , stab etc etc.


Locke

 

[boring]

On another note, Jack Neo our famous filmmaker director visited Mr Seng in the hospital and he told the press in an interview that Mr Seng is a very approachable man. Did he recieve any help from Mr Seng personally ?

For those who thinks Jack Neo is steep and tight with the sentiments in the heartlands just like Mr Seng, well, you can judge for yourself again.

Dan[/QUOTE]

this fucking jackass neo had already sold his fat oily soul to pap, look at this movies, they r just presenting the pap msg.

 

[Dan Now]

Dear Dan

Hale and hearty. I believe the question of whether he is nuts or not is something left to a court and the medical professionals :_)). However the fact that he "assaults" or tries ' GBH" that itself does not make him clinically " nuts", might make him a candidate for anger management but thats a differing issue

You might want to note there are differing degree's of "nuts" which might lead to mitigating circumstances versus an out right accquital.

You I believed pointed out his age as a mitigating circumstance I was just trying to point out that age has no bearing.


Locke

Dear Locke,

Good that you are healthy and hearty.

Obviously OKC is not healthy nor hearty.

I am still a little taken aback at your lack of a sense proportion to compare OKC with Madoff.

Madoff have a spanking hell of a good time burning millions of dollars of his investor money and he enjoys a high life. And he did so, maliciously, sanely and with full cunning.

What kind of life is OKC leading ALL THIS TIME ?

Think

Dan

 

[Dan Now]

I hold a different opinion that:

1. He is 70 years old.
2. That he is jobless
3. That his family could have abandon him
4. That he have mental issues
5. That he needs money

​

that these are irrelevant issues because these are indeed underlying issues that may have a bearing on the final judging decision.

Doubtless you do not meant whether he is guilty, but only the extent of his guilt.

There is another issue which should be used in the final judging decision: that of MP Seng and his track record of having been attacked twice.

True, some here and elsewhere indicate that he is a kind and wonderful man. But his attackers were people who are in desperate need.

Thus it should also be examined if he is only kind and wonderful to people who do not need such help from him.

For that, a good lawyer is needed. Moreover, one who has the expense account to subpeona even MP Seng to the stand, the previous assailent and others who are willing to stand forth and testify as to MP Seng's character.

I doubt that you can find such a lawyer in singapore. For the same reason that i do not doubt that you will not be short of people who will stand up to testify to MP Seng's good character.

So, in the end, it all depends on the mercy of the Court.

Judging from the fear of some of the PAP MPs interviewed on the media and the call for a deterrent sentence, his crime will probably be dealt with more harshly than Mas Selamat who intended to put some portions of Singapore in flames.

And it is highly likely that portions of that 70 year-old man's past will be dug up - to show the world that he cannot manage his family well, to insinuate that he is not a good father, husband, to tell the world that his poverty is his own fault etc, etc - and yet, to show the world that despite all these mental pressures, he is still sane when he commit the act in harming the "great MP Mr Seng of the great PAP" - the words of a self-professed PAP supporter.

In this world of Singapore's one party rule, where people clamour for the favours of rich and powerful, it is gratifying to hear the words of one pleading for the hand of mercy to a guilty man.

Thank you Dan.

Thank you Kakowi.

Elegant convincing post indeed.

We all already know that a fair trial for OKC would mean the engagement of expert psychiatrist.

Can OKC afford them ? Can OKC afford the expensive legal services to help him mitigate his case ?

For those who are still ignoring those simple factors obviously have their heads high above in LA LA land.

Thanks again

Dan

 

[Dan Now]

You asked why he is charged in your original post. A crime was committed. Let the courts decide what to do.

What you have listed are the mitigating circumstances the judge should consider during sentencing. From the sentence meted out, you can see how gracious the system is.

BTW, why have you already concluded he was mentally unsound?

In the same manner you have concluded that he was mentally sound, I have concluded that he might be mentally unsound.

Cheers

 

[silverfox@]

Can OKC afford them ? Can OKC afford the expensive legal services to help him mitigate his case ?

For those who are still ignoring those simple factors obviously have their heads high above in LA LA land.

Thanks again

Dan

You have driven your point. Besides saying all these on the internet, how much would you contribute to help OKC engage an attorney?

Talk is free or some say cheap.

 

[Dan Now]

I don't think so, you read on.


I have not ignore this fact. To be frank, I am not a doctor, neither a psychiatrist. So I am in no position to determine whether OKC is indeed sane or insane.


The taxi driver was let off only if he apologised and not retract his apology.
The taxi driver apologised and then retract.
Do you mean to say that if I give you a punch on your face, I should not be prosecuted by the law? If this is the case, this would become a lawless country.



There is a case of people who read what they want to read. If the state media paints OKC in the bad light, you wouldn't believe. If the state media paints Seng Han Thong in good picture, you doubt the authenticity of the report and source. So I would advise you not to wait for more info as your judgement pertaining to the matter is already biased.


Which part of me ever said that he should be flog
I only agree with the reason that he should be prosecuted by the law. Caning is out for him as he is too old. He would not have any money to pay his fines. The only alternative left for him is to either be jailed in Changi or the Mental Institute.


Today we are talking about someone being torched on fire. Remember it is in the public where Seng han thong received help. If Seng han Thong was alone, he could have died under the hands of his attacker.
I am now wondering what kind of message would be sent across to the public if OKC is given a lenient sentence or even set free.




Forgiving someone is one thing. But not forgetting what he did must be punishable by the law regardless of the act being carried out on a MP or non-MP.
Remember this is a criminal action. I don't like your face, however, it doesn't give me a right to douse you with petrol and set you on fire. By giving him a light sentence would set a message across, that if I have evidence of you being a farker, I can justify my actions on hurting you, just because the public would sympathise with me.

Indeed you are binded.

You have concluded that Mr Seng is a very good man and that if we don't belive in your insistence, we can denounce you for spilling bullshit. So the onus now is on you, to provide your own personal expereince with Mr Seng to say that he is a good man.

Else we can call you a bullshitter simply because you have open the invitation for all the readers here to do so.

However since you do not know Mr. OKC, you have stated that he should be persecuted fully and be shown no mercy because you have rejected ALL the mitigating circumstance that lead to the attack.

Why the Double standards ?

So you are the judge, the jury and the executioner ?

That my friend is a bind.

My point is simple, simple simple and clear.

That Mr Ong be accorded with the world class brand of our Leader's graciousness and be show mercy.

No part in any of the postings in this thread is saying OKC is innocent. Got that ? Are you clear ?

Please don't confuse yourself further.

While you are out calling for OKC to be prosecuted fully and be shown no mercy, thousands of our elderly are living sordid miserable lives.

That is the bigger issue at hand.

Dan

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Dan

That is for a court appointed psych to decide bout his mental status and for the court to decide his health status and whether he is able to go to jail based on the two

You bought up his age as amitigating circumstance, my point was clear that it does nto matter whether he is 70 or 27, he remains liable for his crime and will be found guilty. If there are mitigating circumstances it will happen after guilt has been determined and not in actual verdict itself.


Locke

Dear Locke,

Good that you are healthy and hearty.

Obviously OKC is not healthy nor hearty.

I am still a little taken aback at your lack of a sense proportion to compare OKC with Madoff.

Madoff have a spanking hell of a good time burning millions of dollars of his investor money and he enjoys a high life. And he did so, maliciously, sanely and with full cunning.

What kind of life is OKC leading ALL THIS TIME ?

Think

Dan

 

[Dan Now]

You have driven your point. Besides saying all these on the internet, how much would you contribute to help OKC engage an attorney?

Talk is free or some say cheap.

Indeed, your talk is cheaper because you cannot afford mercy, graciousness and compassion.

Cheers

 

[Dan Now]

Dear Dan

That is for a court appointed psych to decide bout his mental status and for the court to decide his health status and whether he is able to go to jail based on the two

You bought up his age as amitigating circumstance, my point was clear that it does nto matter whether he is 70 or 27, he remains liable for his crime and will be found guilty. If there are mitigating circumstances it will happen after guilt has been determined and not in actual verdict itself.


Locke

Dear Locke,

No one in this entire thread, says he should be let off completely and that OKC is innocent.

He needs medical supervision, and for mercy to be accorded to him.

Dan