Monday, May 29, 2006

When it's all foggy at Sandy Bay





Took this from my balcony a couple of weeks ago. Visit me soon?? :P

When it's all foggy at Sandy Bay





Took this from my balcony a couple of weeks ago. Visit me soon?? :P

Finally!!!



Dear all,

I still can't figure out why I wasn't able to look at MY OWN blog in the uni. Probably something to do with my page addy. Anyhow, just figured out how to load photos without using "Hello".

For those who missed me. This was me say a month ago. *wave wave*

heh.

Friday, May 26, 2006

Today Online 24/05/2006

The line between defamation and debate
Defence of reputation, free speech calls for a delicate balance of interests

Thomas Koshy


"PRACTICAL politics consists in ignoring facts," American historian Henry Adams said over a century ago. But time and again, ignoring the facts has been shown to be a perilous path to take in Singapore politics.
.
This was seen most recently when, faced with the prospect of having to defend their statements in court, 10 out of the 12 Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) Central Executive Committee (CEC) members apologised and withdrew statements made in relation to the National Kidney Foundation saga.
.
The party has since also decided not to file its defence and has discharged its lawyer, who continues to represent Dr Chee Soon Juan and his sister in the lawsuit.
.
The loss of credibility and apparent breaking of ranks, which earned the SDP the moniker "Slowly Disintegrating Party", probably contributed in no small part to the party — which was once the leader of the Opposition — ending up as the last choice of the people in the General Election.
.
With the many defamation suits filed against members of Opposition parties in the past, Singaporeans probably felt a sense of deja vu as matters unfolded against the CEC members. Invoking defamation laws to prevent falsehoods from gaining currency has been a consistent strategy employed by the ruling party.
.
By contrast, the Workers' Party (WP) demonstrated a rather different tack when the character of its members came under attack. It took the stance that Singaporeans are mature, they can think for themselves and come to their own conclusions.
.
This was a clever stroke that was sure to charm some, telling Singaporeans who are used to paternalistic, if not patronising, treatment, that they were mature enough to decide for themselves.
.
After the elections, the legal investigations into whether Mr Gomez had committed offences of criminal intimidation, giving false information and using threatening words and behaviour ended in anti-climax — with only a stern warning for the least serious of those offences: Using threatening words against a public servant.
.
Mr Gomez had apologised to staff of the Elections Department for the inconvenience caused to them, but never admitted to any intent beyond having been "distracted" from handing in his application form.
.
Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, however, has maintained that Mr Gomez is a liar and dishonest and that if Mr Gomez claims that he is not a liar nor dishonest, "he can go to court to clear his name".
.
On the one hand, the approach of the WP is that the people can decide. On the other hand, Mr Lee says: "He has a problem if he doesn't sue me, isn't it?"
.
In any event, Mr Gomez has made it clear that he had no plans to sue Mr Lee. One wonders what conclusions Singaporeans draw from this episode.
.
Some may be confirmed in their view that this issue was so much hyperbole and does not warrant any more attention either way — that even if Mr Gomez had been dishonest, it was an insignificant transgression that was blown out of proportion.
.
Others may assume that his failure to sue the Minister Mentor for defamation shows that Mr Gomez did indeed lie and act dishonestly.
.
Yet others may not be willing to draw any conclusions from Mr Gomez's failure to go to court. After all, going to court is not a small matter, even if one thinks one has a good case.
.
Putting aside technical legal issues such as whether the defence of "fair comment" might be a stumbling block to a defamation suit, there could be a multitude of reasons why Mr Gomez chose not to sue.
.
Most obviously, he may prefer to focus on his job overseas rather than on litigation in Singapore. Or maybe he doesn't relish the idea of getting bogged down in court against a team of lawyers for the next few months.
.
More simply, he may just not be "the suing kind" and may be happy to "let the people decide". Not everyone who is defamed chooses to sue.
.
Indeed, one view is that invoking defamation laws every time statements are made which cannot be proven in court stifles liberal discussion and may even backfire by arousing suspicion.
.
Not everything can be proven in court. But that does not mean that they are not true or should not be discussed.
.
Still, one cannot doubt that persons defamed have a right to clear their name in court. Just where freedom of speech ends and defamation begins, or when suits start to stifle useful public debate, is an issue we should be alert to. Like many things in life, it is a fine balance between competing interests.
.
Meanwhile, the court action filed yesterday by the SDP's Chee Siok Chin to challenge the constitutionality of the ban on podcasting during the hustings and the validity of the election results adds a new dimension to the legal strategies employed in Singapore politics.
.
Just how matters develop is likely to be closely watched, particularly since the issues raised in the action were hotly debated by many Singaporeans. But whether the Opposition may see this as an innovative means of challenging the establishment remains to be seen.
.
The writer is a lawyer. This is his personal comment.

Today Online

Something that caught my eyes...

完颜藉-变态档案

● 完颜藉

  梁少初和刘红梅亲密过后,从她的背后勒死她,还没肯定她有没有断气,就把她的身体切成七块,扔进河里。虽然平时以“一脸正经”对人,但他这种杀人的冷酷,只有心理变态的人能够为之。

  变态的杀人事件,在历史上,真个像阿扁所形容的那样“罄竹难书”。隋朝末年,有两个豪富,一个叫诸葛昂,另一个叫高瓒。他们的残忍,自是超越梁少初多多。他们的变态和冷血,不是在激情场合表现,是借设宴请客来表达:高瓒作东,当场杀了一个小妾,将她的头和腿盛在盘中拿出来招待客人;轮到诸葛昂作东时,他吩咐一个绝色美女,为客人捧酒端菜;最后的压轴节目是:让那美女躺在一个巨型银盘里,叫人把她连盘带人抬上酒席,诸葛昂一声:“请!”,然后伸手到那美女的腿间,用力一拔,登时拔下美女腿上的一块肉,送进口里。众宾客在惊悸过后,才发现原来银盘中的美女,是早就在厨房里先被蒸熟了之后才上的“佳肴”!

  像这类变态的故事,在野史里尤其多。与男女激情有关的变态者,唐朝的宜城公主就是一个。这位公主醋性特强,有一天,她发现丈夫在外面搞婚外情,养了二奶,她马上派人将那二奶抓来,先是割下后者的鼻子,接着切下那女人的私处,将它硬硬贴在丈夫的脸上,对丈夫说:“你不是很喜欢她这个的吗?”她这样做,气仍出不够,还把丈夫的好朋友都请来当观众,来看看她的“死鬼丈夫这副德行!”

  老外历史中也不乏变态人。罗马帝国第二任皇帝卡里古拉(Caligula)就是一个。有一天,他在宴会上突然狂笑。会中的众官问陛下为何笑。他回答得十分荒唐:“当我想到我只消点一个头就能割掉你们所有的人的喉咙时,我真开心!”将人喂狮子和把人活活分尸这类事,卡里古拉的确做过。据说那些冒犯过他的官员,知道杀身难免,很多找卖淫女子,把她带回家,然后借做爱为“享乐”式的自杀。

  但变态皇帝卡里古拉的下场,比受死刑的梁少初惨得多:他的卫队将他宰了,割下他的脑袋和生殖器,连他的家人也不得好死。

Lianhe Zaobao

Wednesday, May 24, 2006

TERMINATOR 4: RETURN TO JESUS

This is SO fucking funny!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA...............

It's 6 degrees out there despite the bright sun, another freezing night. Need some lovey... soon.... *pout*

Daily Cartoon provided by Bravenet Daily Cartoon provided by Bravenet.com
law.com Dictionary
Free Links from Bravenet.com Free Links from Bravenet.com
law.com Dictionary