• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

What exactly was Amos Yee’s crime?

Confuseous

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
The Amos Yee saga has got me thinking about how we as a society deal with “non-mainstream individuals”. While I do not profess to agree with Yee’s erstwhile sentiments, I do wonder if we have overreacted to what is essentially an angry teenager’s rant about society.

Sure, Yee’s statements are annoying but when does annoying behaviour become a crime? Does that justify handcuffs and the weight of our court system on the paltry shoulders of a teen?

The charges against Yee are that he has contravened the Penal Code and the Protection from Harassment Act by insulting Christians in a video he uploaded shortly after the death of Mr Lee Kaun Yew. Based on what I have read about Yee’s video and conservations with people who have viewed the contents, I understand that it was perhaps more insulting to Mr Lee than to Christians per se. The comments about Christianity do not appear to be any more radical than old and often repeated criticisms against the church from international comedians and renowned writers. The late Sir Terry Pratchett has certainly said much worse without coming off badly.

I am of course not putting Yee in the same category as Pratchett. One has had a long and esteemed career as a writer with a rigorous intellect while the other is a rebellious teen. But do Yee’s alleged insults against Christians really merit such a punishment? Are his anti-Christian remarks even that controversial? Many Christians have in fact come out to say that they forgive Yee and that no offense was taken. On the face of it, it would therefore seem that his video, while insensitive, has no lasting damage apart from showcasing a teenager’s puerile view.

This begs the larger question of what exactly Yee is guilty of. The public outcry that resulted in the authorities’ swift clampdown seem more like revenge on a teen for daring to criticise Mr Lee when others are glorifying his legacy. Is it really about safeguarding multi-racialism in Singapore as claimed?

I do not condone Yee’s video. However, it seems more like a silly childish prank than a dangerous threat. Sure, it was very insensitive to criticise Mr Lee without also acknowledging Mr Lee’s contributions to Singapore. But when has anyone, no matter how well regarded, been above criticism?

Besides, Mr Lee was a renowned statesman and a public figure. Don’t all public figures have to endure praise and criticism alike? That is the nature of being a public figure. Have we sacrificed straight logical thinking – something Mr Lee himself would have championed – for political correctness?

Yee does not come across as the most likeable. He seems totally oblivious to his current circumstances and appears not to realise the gravity of the situation. Or perhaps, it is the arrogance of youth or the enjoyment of the attention his notoriety has brought. But when has unpopularity become a crime?

People are entitled to have their views and with the proliferation of the Internet, it will be common to come across opinions that we may not agree with or like. It may even be offensive but when does offensiveness cross the line to become a crime?

I don’t profess to have the answers but perhaps it would be more “criminal” if there was actually harm caused to society. Yee’s video was hardly a call for arms against Christians and I think it is fair to say that no Christians feel physically endangered by Yee’s histrionics. Yet, some have felt the need to make police reports and have even expressed their desire to see violence done to him. Are we a mature society or even a humane one if we are after the blood of a maladjusted teenager whose only crime seems to be the innate ability to cause offence?

Many have criticised Singapore for being a society that does not condone difference. By pouncing on Yee, we are unfortunately living up to that criticism. Do those who are baying for blood not have a sense of irony?

Society is made up of diverse people and diversity means that there will be some views at odds with ours. Just because someone expresses a different sentiment does not make it criminal. Yes, Yee lacks the social niceties but again, that is not a crime. Let’s differentiate rising emotions from criminal behaviour.

Is Yee troubled or is Yee a criminal? If anything, Yee sounds like a troubled teenager who needs help, in which case we are better off offering assistance, as what family counsellor Vincent Law and three lawyers have done, rather than punish a child like an adult. What he and his family do not need is more media scrutiny, death threats, law suits and handcuffs. Easing off the publicity might actually deprive Yee of the attention he seeks, which might actually be good for him now.

For the authorities and political leadership, now might be a good time take a step back, consider their choice of actions, and demonstrate some sensible leadership rather than push through with punishing Yee at the beck and call of an agitated lynch mob, even if they are legally bound to do so. As GE 2015 looms, does the ruling party wants to be seen as inclusive and compassionate, or do they want to be seen as the party who turned the full weight of the law on a precocious and troubled child who is struggling to fit in?

http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2015/04/what-exactly-was-amos-yees-crime/
 

borom

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Many critics of 16 year old minor Amos seemed to forget that he is presumed innocent until proven guilty in court .

"Public confidence in the principled administration of justice must inevitably be the paramount consideration." ......
There are two essential elements in it which must be carefully nurtured. The first is public confidence. A criminal justice system which does not command the confidence and respect of the public is one that has failed in its principal mission - the preservation of the safety and security of everyone within the jurisdiction. But, there is another fundamental element: the administration of justice must also be principled. The criminal justice system must not only be effective and efficient; it must also be fair and seen to be so. Most of the time there is no conflict between these elements, but occasionally (though rarely, we hope), the two may seem to clash. When such a scenario arises, Mr Rajah (then Justice Rajah) once aptly noted: "The ends cannot be inevitably and invariably held to justify the means. To do so can only result in indelible scars to the administration and perception of justice."

- See more at: http://www.straitstimes.com/news/op...gal-tidal-waves-20140801#sthash.nLtucZRc.dpuf
 
Last edited:

laksaboy

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
A lot of the critics of 16 year old Amos seemed to forget that he is presumed innocent until proven guilty in court .

A kangaroo court eager to score points and a bunch of rabid LKY fantards who didn't like their idol getting insulted... what criminal justice system are you talking about again? :rolleyes:
 

Asterix

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset

Sinkieland under the FamiLEE is a nation no a corporate
Ruled by or through law which exists to serve the Party
Lightning remains above the law and its internet brigade
Has gone into overdrive waging war through trial by media
If Little Red Dot indeed has Westminster style rule of law
These fucktards would all be charged with contempt of court
Daft Sinkies wanted this in exchange for "free" lift upgrading
After Amos has been fixed next one to be screwed will be you


President Xi Jinping called for it, the Communist Party endorsed it and the country's judicial system is to be governed by it but there is still no consensus on how it should be rendered in English.

At the end of the annual gathering of the party's elite last month, leaders backed Xi's push to promote fazhi - a concept officially translated as "rule of law". But others argue that the term is better translated as "rule by law" or "rule through law" to drive home the point that whatever the changes to the system, the law is not something unto itself - it's there to serve the party.

The term fazhi is comprises two characters - fa meaning "law" and zhi meaning "to rule" and "to govern" - and dates back to the second or third century BC.

University of Nevada political science professor Xiaoyu Pu said "rule of law" and "rule by law" both meant that law should govern a nation.

But while "rule of law" in the western sense stressed that political authority should be held in check by the law, the "rule by law" in the Chinese tradition underscored the use of law to rule society.

In the West, rule of law is also associated with democracy, government accountability and human rights, elements that have long been rejected by the Communist-ruled government.


Nicholas Calcina Howson, from the University of Michigan's Law School, said the party and the government had increasingly used other rhetorical forms in the last decade, such as yifa xingzheng (to administer by law) and fazhi zhengfu (to govern by law). It is also about what is called yifa zhiguo (rule by law).

"These latter formulations conjure up a state not where there is constitutional review and civil and political rights protection - much less democratic institutions - but where government administration is pursued according to law," said Howson, who has been a consultant to various Chinese ministries, in particular on the formulation of key statutes.

Lynda Oswald, professor of business law at the University of Michigan, said that in the US the rule of law was a "constitutional system of checks and balances; in parliamentary systems, it's their system of no-confidence votes and regular elections". "But in China … it is clear that the party remains above the law," she said.

Indeed, the party has stressed that its absolute leadership is a requirement for the promotion of the "rule of law". The 16,000-character statement issued after the plenum also emphasised the strong "Chinese characteristics" in such an endeavour.

Analysts also noted that the party gathering endorsed a raft of legal changes to promote a more predictable and rule-based legal system while keeping the courts under the party's firm control.

The leadership said in a keynote document released after the plenum that the party would retain ultimate control over the legal system. "Socialist rule of law must uphold the party's leadership, and party leadership must rely on socialist rule of law," the post-plenum document said.

Howson said the party would neither introduce true rule of law nor "party rule of the judiciary".

"Is it the same idea as the form of governance used to describe how both the Kuomintang after 1927 and the Communist Party after 1949 governed China - with Chiang Kai-shek's 'party-ised judiciary' and the Maoist regime's complete subjection of the legal system to Communist Party leadership," Howson said.

However, Oswald said that the fact that the party had begun a conversation on the rule of law was encouraging. "Merely using the vocabulary - 'rule of law' - is a step forward," she said.

"That doesn't mean that this conversation might not eventually lead to significant and welcome reform at local levels of government."

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1635985/rule-law-one-term-two-characters-many-meanings
 

xingguy

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
he just curse and swear, everyone does.
the only crime is target wrong person.

Is this a crime?

nhRqF2X.png


Expletives, fuck, the fuck word is commonly used by the youths be it for cursing or celebration.

Here, it is used by a NTU Valedictorian for celebration, " We fucking did it!"

[video=youtube;te7FLD4qHBU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=te7FLD4qHBU[/video]

Amos is not the first teenage to fuck the scums in white. Remember Teo Chee Hean's famous "What do u think?" infuriated students so much that one of them blogged and fucked him.

Excerpt from "JC student Reuben Wang who ‘f**ked’ DPM Teo Chee Hean apologizes to him in person at MHA"

The JC student Reuben Wang who caused a stir by hurling vulgarities at Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean has apologized to him in person at the Ministry of Home Affairs together with his parents.

The student from St Andrew’s Junior College (SAJC) had earlier blogged about his unpleasant experience with DPM Teo during the recently held Pre-University seminar, criticizing him for dodging questions posed by students and counter-asking them for solutions instead:

The participants made it extremely clear they were dissatisfied with DPM Teo- and when we asked about our concerns which we do not know what can be done to solved, he will give the fucking ridiculous reply “What do you think (can be done)?”.

His blog post polarized public opinion in Singapore with many netizens applauding him for daring the speak the truth while the mainstream media condemned his rant, smearing him as a ‘keyboard thug’.
 

Asterix

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Hallelujah!

FUCK THE SINKIE POLIS!

Nothing happened to these Hongkie youths for exercising their freedom of speech. Hong Kong is still one of the safest and most economically vibrant cities in the world.

FUCK THE PAP!:oIo: :kma:

[video=youtube;d2T51_g88Mo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2T51_g88Mo[/video]
 

unclesam

Alfrescian
Loyal
Hallelujah!

FUCK THE SINKIE POLIS!

Nothing happened to these Hongkie youths for exercising their freedom of speech. Hong Kong is still one of the safest and most economically vibrant cities in the world.

FUCK THE PAP!:oIo: :kma:

[video=youtube;d2T51_g88Mo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2T51_g88Mo[/video]

They called me Supercop
I will report u to police so that I be faster to be promoted to Super Supercop
lionels.jpg
 

winnipegjets

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Many critics of 16 year old minor Amos seemed to forget that he is presumed innocent until proven guilty in court .

"Public confidence in the principled administration of justice must inevitably be the paramount consideration." ......
There are two essential elements in it which must be carefully nurtured. The first is public confidence. A criminal justice system which does not command the confidence and respect of the public is one that has failed in its principal mission - the preservation of the safety and security of everyone within the jurisdiction. But, there is another fundamental element: the administration of justice must also be principled. The criminal justice system must not only be effective and efficient; it must also be fair and seen to be so. Most of the time there is no conflict between these elements, but occasionally (though rarely, we hope), the two may seem to clash. When such a scenario arises, Mr Rajah (then Justice Rajah) once aptly noted: "The ends cannot be inevitably and invariably held to justify the means. To do so can only result in indelible scars to the administration and perception of justice."

- See more at: http://www.straitstimes.com/news/op...gal-tidal-waves-20140801#sthash.nLtucZRc.dpuf

Amos has already got the first installment of punishment ....3 days in jail. God knows what they did to him over those 3 days.

They treated him like a hardcore criminal ..cuffing him on the hands and ankle. They had MORE than 5 guards to escort him. Goodness, what has this 16-year old done that deserves such high security?
 

NanoSpeed

Alfrescian
Loyal
Amos has already got the first installment of punishment ....3 days in jail. God knows what they did to him over those 3 days.

They treated him like a hardcore criminal ..cuffing him on the hands and ankle. They had MORE than 5 guards to escort him. Goodness, what has this 16-year old done that deserves such high security?

This is good PR for Amos' next video.
 

winnipegjets

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
This is good PR for Amos' next video.

This is good material for the WP to use for next GE.

The line could read: Here's why we need to kick the PAP out - abuse of process. You could be next?

Scare tactics work ....the WP and other opposition parties should use it, like the PAP has done so for decades. Show sinkees how their lives will be worse off with the PAP in charge.
 
Top