14-year-old jumps to his death after unaccompanied police interrogation for Molest

[KuanYimMa]

Originally Posted by siralexferguson

人在做，天在看。who are we do judge?

A precious life had been lost.... All the gods up there will know what to do....

Karma shall prevail....

All deserve a second chance, even if this little boy made a mistake, educate him is more effective..... Not by using force or some threat or pressure on him.....wats the point?
Solve case within 24 hrs and meet kpi? Show and report on crime watch?

Pls be kind and think of others feelings before taking any action....

How's life after retirement?

[TheDestiny]

Those police who interrogate him should get sack and one of them should dead. One life pay one life.

[sadfa]

Originally Posted by TheDestiny

Those police who interrogate him should get sack and one of them should dead. One life pay one life.

Wont la.

I bet these mother fuckers no conscience.
Benjamins wake I can bet never even turn up or go or even stand 500 m away to pay respects.

Already 7 days liao.
I hope Benjamin visit them.
Make sure they pee green puss, lose weight, lose hair n their breath got rotten smell n even their police specialist can't find explaination.

[sadfa]

I wonder would the son be his usual insensitive self n post on Facebook how different cny is without his father this year, when there's no garbagements statement or condolences to Benjamins family.

I bet Benjamins family having a miserable cny by putting an empty plate out for him n buying his favourite food.

[kuasimi]

UNSEEN video of 2013 little india riot


http://forums.$$$$$$$$$$$$.com.sg/ea...t-5298547.html

[kuasimi]

FIDH: Singapore government fails to address key human rights concerns during UN review

http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2016...ing-un-review/


BY ONLINECITIZEN ON FEBRUARY 8, 2016 INTERNATIONAL



By FIDH – International Federation for Human Rights

The Singaporean government failed to address important human rights concerns that were raised during the country’s second Universal Periodic Review (UPR), FIDH said today.

The UPR was held in Geneva, Switzerland, on 27 January 2016.

“With regard to civil and political rights, the Singapore delegation went on an all-out defense of the status quo based on order, stability, and cultural relativism and their statements showed complete disregard for international human rights standards,” said FIDH President Karim Lahidji.

The highest number of recommendations that Singapore received (55 out of 236) called for the ratification of core international human rights instruments.

In response, the government delegation claimed that while Singapore was not a party to certain human rights treaties, its government’s policies were “generally in compliance with their substance.”

This claim was contradicted by remarks made by several members of the Singaporean government’s delegation made during the review.

With regard to the death penalty, Singapore received 13 recommendations that called for progress towards abolition. Twenty countries recommended the Singaporean government re-establish a moratorium on executions. The government defended capital punishment as “legitimate” to deter the most serious crimes, including drug trafficking. This explanation runs counter to UN jurisprudence, which has repeatedly stated that drug-related offenses do not meet the threshold of the “most serious crimes.”

In response to the five recommendations that called for the abolition of corporal punishment as a legal penalty, the government delegation justified the measure by saying that the use of corporal punishment was “guided by necessity and proportionality” and was administered under “highly-regulated conditions.” The government’s justification is contrary to the absolute prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment, which is a peremptory norm of international law.

In response to four recommendations that called for the amendment of legislation that allows for lengthy pre-trial detention, such as the Internal Security Act (ISA) and the Criminal Law Temporary Provisions Act (CLTPA), the government delegation extolled the benefits of these laws in combating “serious organized criminal activities” and “the threat of terrorism.” However, the delegation failed to address the key issue of pre-trial detention as a violation of the fundamental right to liberty. UN jurisprudence has repeatedly stated that pre-trial detention should be an exception and should be as short as possible and that factors justifying the detention should not include vague standards such as ‘public security’.

Singapore received 12 recommendations that called on Singapore to ensure the realization of the right to freedom of opinion and expression. The government delegation claimed that no one in Singapore was prosecuted for “merely criticizing the government or its policy” and warned that freedom of speech must be exercised “in accord with the need to preserve a harmonious society.” UN jurisprudence has long urged the decriminalization of defamation and has stated that imprisonment is never an appropriate penalty. It has also declared that “the mere that fact forms of expression are considered to be insulting to a public figure is not sufficient to justify the imposition of penalties.”

Singapore also received six recommendations that urged the government to ensure the realization of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly. The government delegation responded by justifying the severe restrictions on the exercise of this right with the need to ensure “society’s need for order and stability.” These criteria fall short of internationally accepted standards, which require that any restrictions to the right to freedom of peaceful assembly be necessary and proportionate. International standards also stress the principle that a peaceful assembly should be presumed lawful and deemed as not constituting a threat to public order.

With regard to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex (LGBTI) rights, Singapore received 12 recommendations, 11 of which called for the repeal of Article 377A of the Criminal Code – a clause that criminalizes sexual activity between consenting men. The delegation justified the government’s failure to repeal the British colonial-era provision by saying that Singapore is “basically a conservative society” and that authorities did not “proactively enforce” Article 377A. The UN has for long recommended to abolish laws used to criminalize individuals on grounds of homosexuality for engaging in consensual same-sex sexual conduct.

“The Singaporean government has been churning out its obsolete arguments against internationally accepted human rights standards for too many decades. It’s time they move forward with implementing the necessary legislative and institutional reforms that would make Singapore a truly modern, rights-respecting country,” said FIDH Secretary-General Debbie Stothard.

FIDH urges the Singaporean government to implement the recommendations it received during its second UPR concerning the ratification of key international human rights instruments, the death penalty, pre-trial detention, corporal punishment, LGBTI rights, the right to freedom of opinion and expression, the right to freedom of peaceful assembly, and the right to freedom of association, and to set time-bound benchmarks for their implementation.

The recommendations that Singapore has accepted will be known by the 32nd session of the UN Human Rights Council, to be held in June 2016.

[kuasimi]

https://www.facebook.com/STReview

https://www.facebook.com/TheIndependentSG


https://www.facebook.com/theonlinecitizen/


https://www.facebook.com/The-Alterna...8759327518739/


https://www.facebook.com/allsgstuff


https://www.facebook.com/Fabrication...97912132/?rc=p


https://www.facebook.com/The-Workers...5421570592834/


https://www.facebook.com/WPgrassroots


http://wpcf.sg/

[kuasimi]

The bizarre behaviour of the Honourable Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam


By The Independent - February 11, 2016


http://theindependent.sg/the-bizarre...r-k-shanmugam/


https://www.facebook.com/TheIndependentSG



By: Yoong Siew Wah

“Nero fiddled while Rome burned”. This famous quote could not be more poetic in portraying the bizarre reticence of the Honourable Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam when the whole of Singapore is agitated and livid over the questionable tactics of the police in the handling of the case of a 14-year-old student Benjamin Lim which resulted in his tragic suicide.

Minister K. Shanmugam is known to be very loquacious at other times especially in his crusade against the cruelty of cats. Does this mean that a human life is less worthy than a cat in his lofty views? Just like the Chinese saying: To treat the people like grass.(視人民如草芥).

A young life has been cut short which could be attributed to his traumatised experience at the hand of the police. While Singaporeans are questioning the antiquated police procedure in dealing with a minor and are waiting for a decent answer from the police, it is beyond logic and belief that the Honourable Minister K. Shanmugam could be turning a deaf ear to all these deafening rumblings by Singaporeans for social justice.

The public would certainly like to know what he has to say about the questionable police tactics and the tragic suicide of the minor. The police department comes under his control and it is incumbent upon him to give his unbiased views on the issue.

On the other hand the police seem to be dragging their feel in the long overdue review of their antiquated procedure in dealing with minors. While they are sitting on their arses wrangling among themselves, there may be another tragedy waiting to happen.

How can they be impressed of the urgency of finding a quick solution to the problem? They seem to be waiting for a cue from their Honourable Minister which is taking a long time to come. So the opening quote of “Nero fiddled while Rome burned” is not misplaced.

PM Lee Hsien Loong has prided himself on a prompt and efficient civil service. It would be interesting to hear what he has to say on both the police tardiness in reviewing their procedure and the funkiness of Minister K. Shanmugam in giving his views on such a grave matter.

The Minister for Education could also not escape the admonishment of the public for staying aloof of all these discreditable happenings. Did he not find something remiss in the conduct of the principal of the school and should not there be a review of the procedure in the handing over of a minor to the police for investigation making it less stressful to the minor?

Benjamin Lim was in a state of starvation and the principal would be remiss in not noticing it. And his tardiness in responding to the minor’s father who called him after his son’s suicide cannot be condoned. He returned the call only the next day.

—
Republished from Mr Yoong’s blog ‘Singapore Recalcitrant’.

The erudite Mr Yoong was the Director of Singapore’s Internal Security Department (ISD) from 1971 to 1974. He was Director of the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) in the 1960s, and had a distinguished career in the Singapore Special Branch in the 1950s.

[kuasimi]

NCMP Dennis Tan on Benjamin Lim’s case: Don’t let public confidence in police be adversely affected


By The Independent - February 11, 2016


http://theindependent.sg/ncmp-dennis...sely-affected/

https://www.facebook.com/TheIndependentSG





Workers’ Party member and Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP), Dennis Tan, has weighed in on the case of the 14-year-old boy, Benjamin Lim, who committed suicide after police interrogation.

Extending his deepest condolences to the parents and family of the boy, Dennis said that he had initially wanted to wait for the authorities to report its findings on the case before commenting.

The NCMP said that he expected the authorities to carry out a thorough and impartial investigation on the entire incident, including on how the interview was conducted. The authorities should also let the public have the full details of the investigations in due course, he said.

This is to ensure that “public confidence in the police force will not be adversely affected by this incident,” Mr Tan remarked.

The opposition party member pointed out how in many other countries, it is a common practice for a minor to be accompanied by an appropriate adult (e.g. parent, guardian, lawyer, social worker or even an adult of his choice) when the minor is being questioned by police, but is “sadly not the case for Singapore so far”.

Mr Tan welcomed Singapore Police Force’s recent announcement to review its procedures on the interrogation of minors.

“I hope that the review will result ultimately in improvements to the current law and protocols,” he said.

[kuasimi]

Chee Soon Juan: Minister Shanmugam’s silence in Benjamin Lim’s case is disturbing

By The Independent - February 11, 2016


https://www.facebook.com/TheIndependentSG


http://theindependent.sg/csj-shanmug...se-disturbing/


By: Dr Chee Soon Juan
Secretary General, Singapore Democratic Party

In October last year, a 4-year-old boy fell to his death from an open window that had no grilles. Back then, Mr K Shanmugam spoke up very promptly, writing on his Facebook:

“One can understand the parents’ anger, anguish. To lose a child like this because someone has not done what he is supposed to have done. And the conduct after the tragedy is shocking. There must be steps taken against such contractors – if what the father says is correct. We must help the family to get legal recourse. It won’t bring back the child, but there has to be some justice done. I have told them we will help find a lawyer for the family.”

Mr Shanmugam was angry – and justifiably so. Still, his aggressive tone was surprising. After all, he didn’t possess, at least at the time he wrote his post, all the facts pertaining to the episode.

This is why his silence on the Benjamin Lim’s matter is especially disturbing (Mr Shanmugam is the Minister for Home Affairs as well as the Minister for Law). In Benjamin’s case, the police have even, in not so many words, admitted culpability when they said they would review the procedure when it came to questioning minors.

Yet, the Minister has not uttered a word or even commiserated with the Lim family. The silence is awkward, to say the least.

—
Republished from Dr Chee’s FB.

https://www.facebook.com/cheesoonjuan/?fref=nf

[kuasimi]

https://www.facebook.com/The-Alterna...type=3&theater


In October last year, a 4-year-old boy fell to his death from an open window that had no grilles. Back then, Mr K Shanmugam spoke up very promptly, writing on his Facebook:

“One can understand the parents’ anger, anguish. To lose a child like this because someone has not done what he is supposed to have done. And the conduct after the tragedy is shocking. There must be steps taken against such contractors – if what the father says is correct. We must help the family to get legal recourse. It won’t bring back the child, but there has to be some justice done. I have told them we will help find a lawyer for the family.”

Mr Shanmugam was angry – and justifiably so. Still, his aggressive tone was surprising. After all, he didn't possess, at least at the time he wrote his post, all the facts pertaining to the episode.

This is why his silence on the Benjamin Lim's matter is especially disturbing (Mr Shanmugam is the Minister for Home Affairs as well as the Minister for Law). In Benjamin's case, the police have even, in not so many words, admitted culpability when they said they would review the procedure when it came to questioning minors.

Yet, the Minister has not uttered a word or even commiserated with the Lim family. The silence is awkward, to say the least.

[kuasimi]

S$6,063 – the price of justice for Jolovan Wham



http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2016...-jolovan-wham/

https://www.facebook.com/theonlinecitizen/


By onlinecitizen on February 12, 2016 Commentaries


By Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss

On 22 December 2015, the High Court handed down a judgment which clarified the legal effects of a police warning. Wham Kwok Han Jolovan v AG [1] (“Jolovan’s case”) clarified that police warnings are merely expressions of opinion that the recipients had committed an offence, but do not otherwise have any legal effects on its recipients.

The judgment was the outcome of a Judicial Review application by Jolovan Wham to quash (i.e. void) a police warning administered to him. As the Court held that there was no decision in the warning administered to Jolovan for the court to quash, the Court dismissed Jolovan’s application with costs.

On 1 February 2016, the High Court ordered Jolovan to pay S$6,063 in costs to the Attorney-General (“AG”) for his failed court application. The amount was arrived at after discounting 20% off the amount sought by the AG, to take into account aspects of the process by which the warning was issued.

I am disappointed with the AG for seeking costs against Jolovan and with the Court’s decision to order Jolovan to pay S$6,063 in costs to the AG.

Before Jolovan’s Case

The practice of issuing warnings in lieu of prosecution is not a creature of statute or regulated by legislation. Before the decision in Jolovan’s case, the implication of receiving a police warning was mired with uncertainty.

In a seminal article by lawyer Tan Hee Joek “Be Warned of the Stern Warning” published in the Law Gazette in 2013[2], the author said:

“… local cases have shown that a stern warning may still be relevant in judicial proceedings as a criminal antecedent for sentencing and for related civil claims”.

The author cited five reported cases in which the prosecution had brought the accused’s prior warnings to the attention of the sentencing judge. One of those cases was PP v Tan Hiang Seng[3], which I shall say more about. The author concluded that the five cases showed that police warnings can have adverse effects for the recipients.


PP v Tan Hiang Seng

Of the five cases cited by Tan Hee Joek in his 2013 article, three of them were referred to by Justice Woo Bih Li, the judge in Jolovan’s case.

Of the three cases, Justice Woo found that in two of them, the court did not actually take into account the previous warnings when sentencing the accused. But Justice Woo agreed, and AG conceded, that in PP v Tan Hiang Seng, the court certainly did take into account a prior warning to the accused while considering the issue of sentence. On this point, Justice Woo stated in his judgment that a court is not entitled to treat a warning as an antecedent or as an aggravating factor since it has no legal effect and is not binding on the recipient.

I looked up the case of PP v Tan Hiang Seng. In pressing for a custodial sentence, the prosecution in that case informed the court that the accused had been given a stern warning for taking his mother’s identity card without her permission. The judge in that case said in her grounds for sentencing:

“… the accused had taken his mother’s identity card without her permission. This was itself an offence of theft. He was given a stern warning by the police for this. I considered this an aggravating factor.”

The judge sentenced the accused to 4 weeks’ imprisonment and a fine of $2,000.

PP v Tan Hiang Seng is a clear instance where the court when sentencing an accused, had considered the fact that the accused had been warned by the police to be an aggravating factor.

The AG can’t run away from PP v Tan Hiang Seng. Small wonder that in Jolovan’s case, Justice Woo noted:

“… the AG submitted that it would be wrong for a court to take into account a prior warning, whether as an antecedent or not, for the purpose of sentencing and he stressed that the prosecution would not in future mention a prior warning to a court for the purpose of enhancing a sentence.”

Hence, the AG admitted that the prosecution’s practice of informing the sentencing judge of prior warnings was wrong and that they would stop doing that in future.

This means that the prosecution in PP v Tan Hiang Seng (and in each of the four other cases cited by Tan Jee Joek) erred by telling the court about the accused’s prior warning; and the judge in PP v Tan Hiang Seng erred in considering that factor when sentencing the accused in that case.

Looks like poor Mr Tan Hiang Seng’s sentence was unfairly enhanced. Now that Jolovan’s case has brought those mistakes out in the light, is there justice for Mr Tan Hiang Seng? Would the AG take the initiative to review Mr Tan Hiang Seng’s sentencing? To right the wrong, to set the record straight? Or is all that water under the bridge?


S$6,063 to the AG

Mr Tan Hiang Seng’s case is long over, but Jolovan’s case is still live, as he has now been ordered to pay the AG the sum of S$6,063 for “failing” his court application.

As Tan Hee Joek’s article shows, before Jolovan’s case, there were concerns that police warnings could have adverse implications for the recipients. Given the prevailing legal opinion, we cannot fault Jolovan for being motivated to apply to Court to quash the police warning.

Apart from uncertainty over the legal implications of police warnings, the circumstances faced by Jolovan make the cost order imposed him seem unfair.

Concerning Jolovan’s visit to the police station on 25 March 2015, Justice Woo declared at paragraph 1 of his Judgment that “it was not even clear whether a warning was administered”. Jolovan asked for a copy of the Notice of Warning, but his request was denied. Justice Woo also criticized the wording of the Notice of Warning and called it “poorly drafted”.

On 4 May 2015, Jolovan called the police to enquire about the outcome of the investigations against him. The police told Jolovan that a warning had been administered to him on 25 March 2015. When Jolovan tried to engage them further, he was stone-walled.

On 9 May 2015, Jolovan wrote to the police and protested the issuance of a warning against him. He did not receive a reply. On 23 May 2015, he wrote to the Attorney-General’s Chambers to similarly protest the issuance of the warning against him. Again, he did not receive a reply. Jolovan then went ahead to file his application for judicial review.

Let’s step into Jolovan’s shoes. How the police engaged Jolovan – the way he received his warning and how he was subsequently stone-walled – left much to be desired. In Singapore, we do not have any independent commission or body which can bridge the gap between the police and civilians at the receiving end of police actions. What else could someone in

In Singapore, we do not have any independent commission or body which can bridge the gap between the police and civilians at the receiving end of police actions. What else could someone in Jolovan’s shoes have done? Jolovan has no way to protest the issuance to him of the warning. Jolovan’s only recourse was to seek the Court’s help by applying for Judicial Review.

Unfortunately, Jolovan has now been penalised with a cost order of S$6,063. The decision to impose the cost order sends the ominous signal that Justice is only available to those who can afford it. Often, for someone aggrieved by a decision made by a state agency, application to Court for Judicial Review is the only recourse. If he wants to apply to Court for Judicial Review, he had better make sure he has the requisite financial means to see the application through. Jolovan’s experience shows that applying to the court for help carries the risk of having to pay costs to the AG.

CONTINUE......

[kuasimi]

CONTINUE

S$6,063 – the price of justice for Jolovan Wham



http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2016...-jolovan-wham/

https://www.facebook.com/theonlinecitizen/


By onlinecitizen on February 12, 2016 Commentaries


By Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss

Loser Pays


The legal basis for ordering costs against Jolovan is the principle “costs follow the event”. On this principle, the loser has to pay the winner’s legal costs. This principle works well most of the time.

But there is a strong case to suspend this principle when the applicant is an aggrieved civilian seeking the Court’s help against the heavy hand of state action. Without protection from adverse cost orders, no one will dare to complain against state action, for fear of being slapped with cost orders in the event that the Court upholds the decision taken by the state agency.

In Jolovan’s case, the Court regarded him as having lost his bid, and therefore he has to pay costs to the other side, which in his case, is the AG. Had the AG decided not to seek a cost order against Jolovan, there will be no issue of costs to decide. For Jolovan’s case, the AG in their wisdom decided to seek costs from Jolovan. As to why the AG so decided, I do not know, but they did.

But did Jolovan really “lose”? Jolovan’s application was to quash the warning he received. In the end, the Court decided that since police warnings are not “decisions” but merely opinions, there was nothing to quash. The logic being that the Court cannot quash something which cannot be quashed.

But wait – if there is nothing to quash, can it be said that Jolovan’s application to quash the police warning has failed? Jolovan’s case is not one in which the Court upheld a decision, but one in which there was no decision to affirm or quash. But it seems that no decision to quash means that Jolovan’s application has failed and his case is lost.


Public Interest


While Justice Woo has deemed Jolovan to have “lost” his case, Jolovan has won for the general public a much-needed clarification on the legal effects of police warnings. Justice Woo razed 20% off the amount sought by AG, to take into account the AG’s various mis-steps. Justice Woo should have given Jolovan a much higher discount to recognise the public interest elements in Jolovan’s case.

The principle that the loser has to pay the winner’s legal costs should be suspended for someone in Jolovan’s shoes, a civilian who has no other avenue that to seek the court’s help for his predicament. Jolovan’s case is an application for Judicial Review by an individual who is aggrieved by a certain action taken by the police against him. Such cases have a strong element of public interest as they concern the interaction between individual rights and state powers.

In cases where there are strong public interest elements, the civilian applicant should be given protection from adverse cost orders. Such protective measures operate as safeguards against abuse of state powers. Without protection from costs, aggrieved individuals on the receiving end of state actions, will be inhibited from bringing their grievances to court, for fear of cost implications.

It should be noted that when an individual contends with the state, it is a David vs Goliath scenario. The individual is handicapped by the limits of his personal resources. The state has the armada of the AGC to avail of.


Appeal?


Jolovan is entitled to appeal against the S$6,063 cost order. But I can fully understand if Jolovan decides not to appeal. For if Jolovan appeals, he risks being slapped with a further cost order in the event that the Court decides to uphold the S$6,063 costs order.

S$6,063 is already a lot of money for an individual to fork out. To take on further exposure to legal costs would be daunting. It will certainly be safer for Jolovan to cough up the dough and be grateful for the clarification given by the court that the warning he received has no legal effect.

Jolovan’s case is a cautionary tale that Justice comes with a price tag.



[1] Wham Kwok Han Jolovan v Attorney-General [2015] SGHC 324[2015]

[2] Law Gazette – “Be Warned of the Stern Warning”

[3] [2012] SGDC 484, also read “Barred punter fails in appeal against jail“

[kuasimi]

Benjamin’s death: Out of The mouth of ministers


http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2016...-of-ministers/


https://www.facebook.com/theonlinecitizen/







By onlinecitizen on February 11, 2016 Letters



By Law Kim Hwee

Out of the same mouth of the PAP cabinet- eerie silence and empty words.

As a father of two sons and a daughter, I have had the good fortune of seeing and watching all three grow and blossom in their own special ways – and live – past their tender teen age of 14. I can’t say that I can identify or adequately empathize enough with how Mr & Mrs Lim, parents of Benjamin, must be going through since their son’s painful, untimely death.

I hope that our ministers in the current cabinet – with children of their very own, especially those who are of Benjamin’s age and especially, the Minister of Home Affairs, the 2 newly-appointed young Education Ministers and, not least, the PM himself, as their leader, with his own bevy of grown-up children – will pause to think more deeply beyond their party’s desire to project a mythical image of flawless leadership, of not admitting to mistakes in a timely manner as befits an unfortunate event such as the death of a boy, a son of Singapore. That they would look deeper into their own hearts, their own souls to reflect on the even deeper anguish of Benjamin’s father, mother, sister and brother. And the heartfelt sadness of us Singaporeans.

No one is blaming anyone in the police or the school to have intentionally wished Benjamin his death. Nor, for that matter, any ministers or the PAP.

Neither has anyone remotely suggested that the police not be allowed to do a thorough, hopefully, objective review to improve on the protocols that have resulted in a precious, young life lost forever. And whilst they are at it to, hopefully, call to account any lapse or heavy-handedness or neglect by those whose actions or inactions might have contributed to Benjamin’s unacceptable death.

Likewise, the MOE and its protocols.

What is so profoundly inexplicable, is for the ministers whose responsibilities the police and the school come under, to be completely silent over Benjamin’s death.

No word of comfort. No word of solace for Mr & Mrs Lim and Benjamin’s sister and brother? No signal to Singaporeans that any such incident or such death is just plain irrefutably unacceptable of Singapore society, whether we are Third or First World?

In place of silence from the relevant ministers, listen to what the PM himself preached, not just this CNY but in 2015, too:

In a Chinese New Year message on his Facebook account, 18 Feb 2015, PM Lee ostentatiously begins with

“Chinese New Year is a time to celebrate with our families. It is a time to reflect on the blessings of having a family – to thank our elders for what they have done for us, to appreciate our spouses, to shower love on our children. It is a time to enjoy the simple goodness of family.

….The Government is doing all it can to help people build strong families.

….Strong families are the bedrock of our society. Family members not only take care of each other. They laugh and cry together. Every member is shaped by every other. Our families inspire us to be better, not just for ourselves but for each other. Our families are always there for us, in sickness and in health, for better or for worse.”

Again, in his 2016 CNY message, he sings a similar refrain, “Besides babies, family is also about living a full life, experiencing joys and sorrows over a lifetime together with our loved ones – from being a child, growing up, finding love, starting and bringing up a family, growing old together. So when I watched this video, I thought it encapsulated what family really means. This is why the family is such an important building block of society. It is the model of how we should relate to one another as fellow citizens, seeing one another as members of an extended Singapore family.”


Only the irredeemably deaf or daft will not hear the deafening, empty hollowness of PM Lee’s words in the context of his colleagues’ total silence over Benjamin’s death and all our sorrow.

What are we as citizens looking to Ministers for leadership in times of grief at Benjamin’s horrifying, devastating death to make of the ministers’ silence on the one hand (it’s been 16 days since) and, on the other hand, the platitudes of the PM’s preaching? How can it be that out of the same mouth of the PAP cabinet proceed eerie silence on Benjamin’s life lost but wonder words on the importance of family members?

We are not suggesting that unfortunate happenings cannot befall one’s life. But surely we are not solely homo economicus or Benjamin just another brick in the wall. A leadership devoid of emotional underpinnings cannot hope to grow and lead citizens with emotional bonds to the land or be unified. Or is the message here, ‘Be self-reliant, Mr and Mrs Lim!’?

What does it take for ministers to come forth with words of comfort, of solace for Benjamin’s parents and sister? Was PM Lee’s only takeaway, from watching the video, the beautiful-sounding words and idea of “seeing one another as members of an extended Singapore family”? Is that all? Is that it? Only inspiring words. But, but, BUT, Mr Prime Minister, Sir, why have you not a kind word to Benjamin’s grieving ma, pa, sister and brother – your, our extended Singapore family members?

Do and can ministers only cry when a Mr Lee Kuan Yew passed on in his ripe old age? But not for a 14-year old who took his own life?

Or, God forbid, will that only come about if and when one of your minister’s or MP’s own child meets with a similar fate?

Justice for Benjamin can wait. Comfort, to be meaningful, cannot.

RIP, dear Benjamin.

We are all truly, madly and deeply sorry for you, Mr & Mrs Lim and Benjamin’s elder sister and elder brother.

Mr Law also blogs at 2econdsight.wordpress.com


http://2econdsight.wordpress.com/

[kuasimi]

COI needs to be held to determine level of accountability of police and school


http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2016...ce-and-school/


https://www.facebook.com/theonlinecitizen/

By onlinecitizen on February 11, 2016 Letters



The content below is a letter sent to TOC for publication

By Tan Hua Lim

Reading the responses to the tragic demise of Benjamin, one cannot help but conclude that North View Secondary School (NVSS)’s abdication of responsibility and police’s vague protocols had, in no small measure, been a significant factor in causing the death of 14-year-old Benjamin Lim.

Benjamin’s school, NVSS had chosen to entirely honour its “obligation to the police” while ignoring its duty of care when Benjamin’s parents should have been contacted immediately, delaying his trip to the police station until his parent’s arrival.

Reactions to this tragedy showed that fear of the police had been successfully instilled not only among Singapore’s general population but that this fear virus had even infected other government departments. How else to explain the abdication of the principal’s primary duty of care and instead choosing to discharge his “obligation to the police”? Was NVSS’s principal so overwhelmed by the appearance of five T-shirt wearing police officers in an unmarked car that he forgot that, as the principal of the school, he too had the right and authority to request for Benjamin’s parents to be present when the boy was brought to the station?

Did the five police officers, but more likely the team leader, indicated to the principal either in words, body language, gestures, signals that he was not to interfere with police business and that Benjamin was to follow them to the station at the time of the police’s choosing?

It can be argued that NVSS even exceeded its “obligation to the police”, perhaps unconsciously. How? The police’s job was considerably eased through the school’s many acts of commission and omission. it was probably fear and the school’s eagerness to be seen to be cooperative that Benjamin was disallowed to eat his bun while on the way to the principal’s office, even though it was the school’s recess. For most parents, it would be unthinkable for a vulnerable, hungry minor to be sent to the police station unaccompanied by either his adult family member or the school’s. But that was what NVSS did!

The failure of the school to maintain contact with the police during Benjamin’s incarceration and with his parents after his release from police custody is illustrative of the school’s unconcern. Frantic and repeated calls by Benjamin’s parents to the principal after his death went unanswered until the next day.


The school’s unilateral action to disallow Benjamin to attend the pre-arranged school camp which he looked forward to attending was insensitive, arrogant and inexplicable.

Neither Benjamin nor his parents were consulted. The school’s explanation that it was better for Benjamin to spend time with his parents instead of going to the school camp after his experience with the police does not wash. Was this the tipping point that led Benjamin to leap from his room?

The school’s unilateral action to disallow Benjamin to attend the pre-arranged school camp which he looked forward to attending was insensitive, arrogant and inexplicable. Neither Benjamin nor his parents were consulted. The school’s explanation that it was better for Benjamin to spend time with his parents instead of going to the school camp after his experience with the police does not wash. Was this the tipping point that led Benjamin to leap from his room?

NVSS has to be held accountable for failing in its duty. The Ministry of Education has to realise all is not well in Singapore’s school, particularly the school’s cowed attitude whenever police officers turn up on their doorstep. No other young child should ever have to face what Benjamin went through.

The police: its vague protocols and default system of extracting confessions with threats and overwhelming force must change.

The police, in a statement on 31 Jan 16, reported Benjamin “cooperated fully with the police”. Read this as Benjamin “cooperated fully with the police…’out of fear’”. Posit the police statement with Benjamin’s parent’s report that their son ‘denied” he had committed the offence. Again, posit this against Benjamin’s haunting last words: “They said I am guilty, so I am guilty lor.”

The police are well-known for its expertise in extracting confessions, some of which turned out to be incorrect. See the recent case of the man with dementia signing a confession for a series of theft which was later proven false (read here).

By no stretch of the imagination can anyone see 14 years old Benjamin as a violent, hardened criminal. He does not deserve to have the whole arsenal of brutal police tactics applied to extract his cooperation. To begin with, Benjamin had already been softened by his school who appears to have bent backwards to cooperate with the police. Ang Mo Kio Police has to explain to Benjamin’s parents and all parents in Singapore the following: why send 5 T-shirted officers to arrest Benjamin when 1 or 2 would be more than adequate to do the job?

Was it humane to deprive young Benjamin of food and drinks during the lengthy interrogation in an unduly cold air-conditioned open office where Benjamin’s as yet unproven allegations of “outrage of modesty” must have been overheard by all and sundry in that office? Wasn’t the police aware that the minor only had a cold bun from the time he went to school until they finished with him at 2.50pm? Was it any wonder that Benjamin’s mother reported that her son’s hands were “unduly cold” when he was released to her?

Benjamin’s young life had been untimely snuffed out. There should be an enquiry into the incident to determine the level of accountability of the police and his school, so that no other parents with school-going children in Singapore should ever have to hear Benjamin’s haunting last words “They said I am guilty, so I am guilty lor”