A youth with low IQ has been arrested by police after flying into a rage at a Meet-the-People session (MPS), upset at what he felt was his MP’s cold-shoulder treatment of his mother’s financial plight.
The 17 year old boy hoisted an aluminium foldable chair over his head and slammed it against a glass door seconds after walking out of MP Cynthia Phua’s Serangoon North office with his mother. (read full article here)
According to the teen’s mother, he was unhappy with the condescending tone of Cynthia Phua during the conversation in which he was asked many specific questions including the reason for his unemployment.
His mother was not given a chance to explain that the boy is mentally challenged and therefore has difficulties holding on a proper job.
The family has gone to their MP to seek financial assistance.
Nobody was injured in the fracas. The teenager was whisked away shortly by a neighbor. Nevertheless, the police still turned up at his home on the same night to arrest him.
It is not known it was Cynthia Phua or her henchmen who made the police report.
Like in a previous case where PAP MP Denise Phua was allegedly “intimidated” by a garaguni man over the phone even though she was not at the receiving end, the police acted in double-quick time to apprehend the culprits.
However, ordinary citizens who were assaulted in the streets usually need to file a complaint to a Magistrates Court before action will be taken.
Instead of attributing the blame entirely on uncouth residents, PAP MPs should also reflect upon their attitude and behavior which may be interpretated as insensitive, rude and arrogant to some.
MPs are paid by taxpayers to serve the people. They should be attentive to their needs and provide a listening ear to their problems.
If the teen had slammed the chair against the door of a clinic, restaurant or school, it is unlikely that charges will be pressed against him so quickly.
It seems that some people are accorded special treatment over the others in Singapore especially when you belong to the ruling party.
The judge should consider the mitigating circumstances in this case:
1. The teenager is of low IQ and is unable to control his emotions.
2. He was provoked into a rage by the MP who might have insulted his dignity with her callousness.
The family is in financial difficulties and the boy has already repented. A warning will be suffice to teach him a lesson which he will never forget in his life: never ever throw tantrums at your PAP MP.
The 17 year old boy hoisted an aluminium foldable chair over his head and slammed it against a glass door seconds after walking out of MP Cynthia Phua’s Serangoon North office with his mother. (read full article here)
According to the teen’s mother, he was unhappy with the condescending tone of Cynthia Phua during the conversation in which he was asked many specific questions including the reason for his unemployment.
His mother was not given a chance to explain that the boy is mentally challenged and therefore has difficulties holding on a proper job.
The family has gone to their MP to seek financial assistance.
Nobody was injured in the fracas. The teenager was whisked away shortly by a neighbor. Nevertheless, the police still turned up at his home on the same night to arrest him.
It is not known it was Cynthia Phua or her henchmen who made the police report.
Like in a previous case where PAP MP Denise Phua was allegedly “intimidated” by a garaguni man over the phone even though she was not at the receiving end, the police acted in double-quick time to apprehend the culprits.
However, ordinary citizens who were assaulted in the streets usually need to file a complaint to a Magistrates Court before action will be taken.
Instead of attributing the blame entirely on uncouth residents, PAP MPs should also reflect upon their attitude and behavior which may be interpretated as insensitive, rude and arrogant to some.
MPs are paid by taxpayers to serve the people. They should be attentive to their needs and provide a listening ear to their problems.
If the teen had slammed the chair against the door of a clinic, restaurant or school, it is unlikely that charges will be pressed against him so quickly.
It seems that some people are accorded special treatment over the others in Singapore especially when you belong to the ruling party.
The judge should consider the mitigating circumstances in this case:
1. The teenager is of low IQ and is unable to control his emotions.
2. He was provoked into a rage by the MP who might have insulted his dignity with her callousness.
The family is in financial difficulties and the boy has already repented. A warning will be suffice to teach him a lesson which he will never forget in his life: never ever throw tantrums at your PAP MP.
