Don't speak too soon. Wait till the Ah Nehs become the majority citizens, then we' ll see. It will be ironic because Singapore will have all the freedoms we are clamouring for but many of us won't like what we are hearing.
-
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.
Hong Kong and Hong Kong University is giving PAP Singapore Headaches
- Thread starter gingerlyn
- Start date
-
- Tags
- pap regime
Don't speak too soon. Wait till the Ah Nehs become the majority citizens, then we' ll see. It will be ironic because Singapore will have all the freedoms we are clamouring for but many of us won't like what we are hearing.
http://singaporedissident.blogspot.sg/2011/11/lee-kuan-yews-singapore-all-in-family.html
Thursday, November 3, 2011
<meta content="8081742307252789733" itemprop="blogId"><meta content="59658096374753607" itemprop="postId">Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore. All in the family
Edited Nov 03, 2011
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Singapore's state controlled newspaper "Today" of Nov 1, 2011 has the story "New Law Dean at NUS". It says "A successor has been found for the longest serving dean at the National University of Singapore law school". "The NUS announced yesterday that with effect from January Professor Tan Cheng Han (present dean) will be succeeded by Professor Simon Chesterman, 39".
There are 2 interesting things in Chesterman's appointment which if one knows anything about Singapore, wouldn't be interesting at all. Firstly he is only 39, which by any standards is pretty young for any lawyer, let alone, the Dean of a Law Faculty. As for me, at 39 I was just beginning to understand the law, as most other mortals would be.
But his relatively young age in such high elevation would not be surprising anymore if one knew who he was. Yes you guessed it. He has high connections at high places. He is married to none other than Patricia Tan the daughter of the President of Singapore, an ethnic Chinese Tony Tan.
It appears he met this Chinese woman while studying at university and thought it best to marry her, very probably attracted by the goodies that will most certainly fall from heaven or rather the Singaporean Heaven under Lee Kuan Yew if he marries the daughter of Lee's hand picked President.
All Singapore institutions of education without an exception, you would have noticed, have the dubious worldwide distinction of seemingly appearing to have no opinion at all about anything. As we speak today, all the capitals of the world are abuzz with Protest Wall Street demonstrations, yet in Singapore as well as it is in Lee's university campuses throughout the island there is the silence of the cemetery. Every single student in Singapore is so afraid to speak up, they are as good as dead, thanks to the absolutely successful fear mongering that Lee has succeeded in advancing throughout the island.
And I hate to imagine the sort of lawyers that Lee Kuan Yew's National University of Singapore has produced so far and will continue to produce under this political puppet Simon Chesterman.
All in all Chesterman comes forward as a rather weak opportunist who doesn't appear to think too much of himself. For anyone with more confidence in his abilities, any relationship with a University in Singapore , just as a University in North Korea is more a minus than a plus on a resume.
In fact this sort of nepotism is openly seen across the breath of the Lee Kuan Yew government. The repeated attempts to say that Singapore is a meritocracy is as like repeatedly saying that North Korea is a beacon of democracy, which by the way, I believe they do. Look at the list here, which is only what I know, which list is very much longer if one took the trouble to look at it.
Wong Kan Seng, the Home Minister is Lee's Cousin. Tan Pei Ling, the little girl who makes a fool of herself and yet became an MP, is the wife of the Secretary of the Prime Minister. Ho Ching, the woman who runs Temasek the State Wealth Fund is the Prime Minister's wife. Lee's other son runs a government listed company. Tony Tan, Lee's hand picked President's son has avoided military service. And the list goes on if the reader cares to add.
Let's not pull punches and say it as it is. Singapore is nothing more than the Lee family's private possession which he runs with compliant and trustworthy relatives and friends. And that's it. After all blood is thicker than water.
Gopalan Nair
Attorney at Law
39737 Paseo Padre Parkway, Suite A1
Fremont, CA 94538, USA
Tel: 510 657 6107
Fax: 510 657 6914
Email: [email protected]
Blog: http://singaporedissident.blogspot.com/
Your letters are welcome. We reserve the right to publish your letters. Please Email your letters to [email protected] And if you like what I write, please tell your friends. You will be helping democracy by distributing this widely. This blog not only gives information, it dispels government propaganda put out by this dictatorial regime.
Posted by<meta content="http://www.blogger.com/profile/15399145588654603667" itemprop="url">Gopalan Nairat<meta content="http://singaporedissident.blogspot.com/2011/11/lee-kuan-yews-singapore-all-in-family.html" itemprop="url"><a class="timestamp-link" title="permanent link" href="http://singaporedissident.blogspot.sg/2011/11/lee-kuan-yews-singapore-all-in-family.html" rel="bookmark"><abbr class="published" title="2011-11-03T17:20:00-07:00" itemprop="datePublished">5:20 PM</abbr>
All the more Chesterman should be appointed as Dean - or even higher. Not only has he a good brain which benefits Singapore, he has a 6th sense. He is able to tell way in advance that Dr Tony Tan is going to voted as the President of Singapore 10 - 20 years down the road (even though it was very narrow victory).
Singapore needs such people of vision. Singapore need more Chesterman. It's a pity there are no Chestermans for daughters of LHL, TCH, Tharma, Halimah and all the top Government men or women. No Chesterman, Chesterwoman can do!
1. Nothing will change simply because one professor decided to up sticks and move to Hong Kong or elsewhere.
2. Critical articles in academic journals, however well received by peers, do not have any impact at all where it matters most – votes. In a Westminster style first past the post system, your average Ah Kow with an IQ of 85 has one vote, same as a professor with an IQ of 150.
3. You need intellectuals and other able men and women who can mingle with their equals as well as explain things in simple terms to laymen and get their votes.
4. Even those supposedly intelligent Sinkies are infected by this bug called the “climate of fear”. Read somewhere that when that Professor Teh was in court, not a single one of his university colleagues, which will include that Professor Hor Fatso, attended the court hearing to show support. Go to point 5.
5. One man or even a few men can do little. Large groups acting in concert can move the world. See the video.
6. The future for Professor Hor is bright; for Sinkies it is blight unless ………
7. Pretty girl @ 1.12 of video, the cameraman got good taste in females, just like me.
[video=youtube;v8WczX0v6gk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8WczX0v6gk[/video]
2. Critical articles in academic journals, however well received by peers, do not have any impact at all where it matters most – votes. In a Westminster style first past the post system, your average Ah Kow with an IQ of 85 has one vote, same as a professor with an IQ of 150.
3. You need intellectuals and other able men and women who can mingle with their equals as well as explain things in simple terms to laymen and get their votes.
4. Even those supposedly intelligent Sinkies are infected by this bug called the “climate of fear”. Read somewhere that when that Professor Teh was in court, not a single one of his university colleagues, which will include that Professor Hor Fatso, attended the court hearing to show support. Go to point 5.
5. One man or even a few men can do little. Large groups acting in concert can move the world. See the video.
6. The future for Professor Hor is bright; for Sinkies it is blight unless ………
7. Pretty girl @ 1.12 of video, the cameraman got good taste in females, just like me.
[video=youtube;v8WczX0v6gk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8WczX0v6gk[/video]
Those with IQs of 85 and lower have more votes because there are lot more of them.
lianbeng asked: why compare apple with orange?
different fruit from different tree leh!Dear brothers and sisters,
if you guys read chinese, you would know that SPH 154 media is very cunning and it never mention about Prof Hor critics on NUS Academic Freedom and Singapore freedom of expression. This part was conveniently ignored in Zaobao media.
国大何耀明教授接任港大法学院院长联合早报网讯）
新加坡国立大学法律系教授何耀明（Michael Hor）获聘香港大学法学院院长的消息近日率先被香港媒体报道。国大今早发表文告证实了这一消息。
国大法学院院长陈西文教授（Simon Chesterman）在文告中说，何耀明的离去对国大来说“苦乐参半”（bittersweet）。
他说：“一方面他是个很好的同事，他通过研究和培养一整代的学生（对国大）作出巨大贡献。我们都对他即将离开感到遗憾。同时，我们对他被予以新的重任感到骄傲，祝愿他马到成功。”
何耀明教授1984年毕业自国大法律系，之后又到牛津大学和芝加哥大学深造，他于1988年到国大任教，擅长刑事法。他将于明年7月接任港大法学院院长陈文敏。（本报记者：杨萌）
- See more at: http://www.zaobao.com.sg/realtime/singapore/story20131201-283115#sthash.6HRS3A5A.dpuf
where is the part of :
Essential to any faculty, indeed any university of any note, is the protection of the freedom of thought and conscience, of speech and expression, of assembly and association, and with it the freedom of academic endeavour.
As mentioned above Prof Hor has no faith of Singapore academic freedom and freedom of expression and PAP regime has no conscience (良心)
if you guys read chinese, you would know that SPH 154 media is very cunning and it never mention about Prof Hor critics on NUS Academic Freedom and Singapore freedom of expression. This part was conveniently ignored in Zaobao media.
国大何耀明教授接任港大法学院院长联合早报网讯）
新加坡国立大学法律系教授何耀明（Michael Hor）获聘香港大学法学院院长的消息近日率先被香港媒体报道。国大今早发表文告证实了这一消息。
国大法学院院长陈西文教授（Simon Chesterman）在文告中说，何耀明的离去对国大来说“苦乐参半”（bittersweet）。
他说：“一方面他是个很好的同事，他通过研究和培养一整代的学生（对国大）作出巨大贡献。我们都对他即将离开感到遗憾。同时，我们对他被予以新的重任感到骄傲，祝愿他马到成功。”
何耀明教授1984年毕业自国大法律系，之后又到牛津大学和芝加哥大学深造，他于1988年到国大任教，擅长刑事法。他将于明年7月接任港大法学院院长陈文敏。（本报记者：杨萌）
- See more at: http://www.zaobao.com.sg/realtime/singapore/story20131201-283115#sthash.6HRS3A5A.dpuf
where is the part of :
Essential to any faculty, indeed any university of any note, is the protection of the freedom of thought and conscience, of speech and expression, of assembly and association, and with it the freedom of academic endeavour.
As mentioned above Prof Hor has no faith of Singapore academic freedom and freedom of expression and PAP regime has no conscience (良心)
Unlike 154 media which purposely ignore academic freedom and freedom of expression, Hong Kong apple daily clearly mention that it is the must for Hong Kong University to enjoy academic freedom and freedom of expression in Hong Kong.
張曾問過何有關佔中問題，「佢都好平常心，始終係academic freedom（學術自由），只要唔compromise教書嘅嘢都冇問題」。
http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20131201/18531843
In Singapore, there is no academic freedom and the latest example is Prof George Cherian who was purged by its own master PAP.
張曾問過何有關佔中問題，「佢都好平常心，始終係academic freedom（學術自由），只要唔compromise教書嘅嘢都冇問題」。
http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20131201/18531843
In Singapore, there is no academic freedom and the latest example is Prof George Cherian who was purged by its own master PAP.
Heated exchange in TR Emiratus and people questioning about nepotism and cronyism by Singapore and NUS and how Simon Chesterman was promoted to Dean of NUS Law School.
http://www.tremeritus.com/2013/12/01/prof-who-didnt-become-nus-law-dean-assumes-law-dean-in-hku/
NUS Professor Michael Hor Yew Meng has been selected to become law dean, not in NUS but in the University of Hong Kong (HKU) instead. It was announced by HKU on Friday (29 Nov).
He will be taking over in July next year from Professor Johannes Chan Man-mun, who has been law dean of HKU for more than a decade.
Prof Hor told the Hong Kong media that he was “deeply honoured” by the appointment and would do all in his power to nurture the spirit of liberty passed down by HKU academics.
He said:
“Essential to any faculty, indeed any university of any note, is the protection of the freedom of thought and conscience, of speech and expression, of assembly and association, and with it the freedom of academic endeavour.”
HKU vice-chancellor Professor Tsui Lap-chee described Prof Hor as an “inspiring and passionate teacher”. Prof Hor was selected after two rounds of a worldwide search by HKU.
However, according to Singapore mainstream media reports [Link], Prof Hor was seriously being considered to assume the position of law dean at NUS not too long ago.
In an interview with The Straits Times published in September 2009, then NUS law dean Prof Tan Cheng Han even cited the names of his possible successors: NUS law professor Michael Hor and Professor John Phillips from King’s College London.
Eventually, in late 2011, NUS announced that Professor Simon Chesterman, who is the son-in-law of President Tony Tan, would take over Prof Tan as the new NUS law dean with effect from January 2012. Prof Chesterman joined the faculty as an associate professor in 2007.
Prof Chesterman later said that he had been approached in 2008 for the dean’s post and that, in fact, he had turned it down as he had just joined the faculty and had not attained full professorship.
With regard to the selection of law dean, NUS said that the school’s Dean Search Committee had invited applications in November 2010 and looked for possible candidates through 18 top international law schools and identified about 60 possible candidates. NUS explained that eventually, the committee unanimously recommended Prof Simon Chesterman for the deanship, which was “approved by the NUS Board of Trustees”.
At the time of Prof Chesterman’s appointment, NUS Deputy President Prof Tan Eng Chye said that Prof Chesterman “has the necessary experience and drive to make one of the top law schools in Asia even better”.
Prof Hor has been known to be critical of some of the judicial judgements. In particular, he has scrutinized the nature of section 8B(2) of the Internal Security Act. The Internal Security (Amendment) Act 1989 introduced section 8B(2), which is an ouster clause providing that no judicial review of orders made under the ISA shall be available save in relation to questions relating to the procedural requirements of the ISA.
In other words, an ouster clause essentially is an attempt by the legislature to prevent an act or decision by a public authority from being challenged before the courts. Such clauses thus serve as a signal to decision-makers that they may operate without fear of intervention by the courts at a later stage.
In Teo Soh Lung vs MHA case, the Court of Appeal declined to address the constitutionality of section 8B and, in particular, how section 8B(2) should be interpreted. In his book “Constitutionalism and Subversion – An Exploration” published in 2009, Prof Hor had described the judiciary’s reluctance to address these points as “an elegant piece of judicial ‘kung fu’” in which it chose to evade the problem.
Prof Hor obtained his first degree at NUS, followed by Bachelor of Civil Law studies at Oxford University. He also holds a Master of Laws degree from the University of Chicago.
http://www.tremeritus.com/2013/12/01/prof-who-didnt-become-nus-law-dean-assumes-law-dean-in-hku/
NUS Professor Michael Hor Yew Meng has been selected to become law dean, not in NUS but in the University of Hong Kong (HKU) instead. It was announced by HKU on Friday (29 Nov).
He will be taking over in July next year from Professor Johannes Chan Man-mun, who has been law dean of HKU for more than a decade.
Prof Hor told the Hong Kong media that he was “deeply honoured” by the appointment and would do all in his power to nurture the spirit of liberty passed down by HKU academics.
He said:
“Essential to any faculty, indeed any university of any note, is the protection of the freedom of thought and conscience, of speech and expression, of assembly and association, and with it the freedom of academic endeavour.”
HKU vice-chancellor Professor Tsui Lap-chee described Prof Hor as an “inspiring and passionate teacher”. Prof Hor was selected after two rounds of a worldwide search by HKU.
However, according to Singapore mainstream media reports [Link], Prof Hor was seriously being considered to assume the position of law dean at NUS not too long ago.
In an interview with The Straits Times published in September 2009, then NUS law dean Prof Tan Cheng Han even cited the names of his possible successors: NUS law professor Michael Hor and Professor John Phillips from King’s College London.
Eventually, in late 2011, NUS announced that Professor Simon Chesterman, who is the son-in-law of President Tony Tan, would take over Prof Tan as the new NUS law dean with effect from January 2012. Prof Chesterman joined the faculty as an associate professor in 2007.
Prof Chesterman later said that he had been approached in 2008 for the dean’s post and that, in fact, he had turned it down as he had just joined the faculty and had not attained full professorship.
With regard to the selection of law dean, NUS said that the school’s Dean Search Committee had invited applications in November 2010 and looked for possible candidates through 18 top international law schools and identified about 60 possible candidates. NUS explained that eventually, the committee unanimously recommended Prof Simon Chesterman for the deanship, which was “approved by the NUS Board of Trustees”.
At the time of Prof Chesterman’s appointment, NUS Deputy President Prof Tan Eng Chye said that Prof Chesterman “has the necessary experience and drive to make one of the top law schools in Asia even better”.
Prof Hor has been known to be critical of some of the judicial judgements. In particular, he has scrutinized the nature of section 8B(2) of the Internal Security Act. The Internal Security (Amendment) Act 1989 introduced section 8B(2), which is an ouster clause providing that no judicial review of orders made under the ISA shall be available save in relation to questions relating to the procedural requirements of the ISA.
In other words, an ouster clause essentially is an attempt by the legislature to prevent an act or decision by a public authority from being challenged before the courts. Such clauses thus serve as a signal to decision-makers that they may operate without fear of intervention by the courts at a later stage.
In Teo Soh Lung vs MHA case, the Court of Appeal declined to address the constitutionality of section 8B and, in particular, how section 8B(2) should be interpreted. In his book “Constitutionalism and Subversion – An Exploration” published in 2009, Prof Hor had described the judiciary’s reluctance to address these points as “an elegant piece of judicial ‘kung fu’” in which it chose to evade the problem.
Prof Hor obtained his first degree at NUS, followed by Bachelor of Civil Law studies at Oxford University. He also holds a Master of Laws degree from the University of Chicago.
Some accounts had it that Chinese migration to Fragrant Harbour
Actually increased after Baker Cheong was acquitted of murder
Shows that British rule of law is superior to airy fairy Asian values
Next time you shop at Lane Crawford
Emerge from its doors looking like a peacock
Your wallet several thousand dollars lighter
Please enjoy your wealth and success
And remember this important lesson
Or to put in another way what do you think Harry Baboon
Would have done if he were in Lord Bowring's shoes
And would you the middle class feel more comfortable
Living under the rule of the FamiLEE or rule of law
Lord Bowring and the Great Bakery Incident
……….
By the 1850s Hong Kong was firmly established as a lucrative British trading centre on the doorstep of the massive Chinese market. By the mid-1850s, the island’s population had risen from approximately 7,500 to 72,000.
But the commercial success and great wealth masked serious tensions between westerners and the Chinese. Society was almost entirely segregated along racial lines and the British held a tight grip on the reins of power. It was inevitable that such disparity or opportunity and privilege would breed resentment, plot and intrigue.
The tensions were exacerbated by the knowledge that the Chinese vastly outnumbered the Europeans. In 1857 the population of Hong Kong consisted of approximately 70,000 Chinese, 2,000 Indians and only 500 Europeans. In addition, friction with Imperial Chinese officials on the mainland had already reached boiling point, with the Arrow Incident providing the casus belli for the Second Opium War.
It was with all this in mind that a plot was allegedly hatched. The conspirators, it was reasoned, planned on the basis that only the westerners ate bread in Hong Kong whilst the Chinese ate rice. If the bread supply were tainted, it would therefore only affect ‘foreigners’, leaving the Chinese free to reassert their control of the island.
It was alleged that Chinese agents managed to convince Cheong Au Lum, the owner of the colony’s most popular bakery – the E Sing Bakery, to put arsenic in his bread. On 15 January 1857, the dastardly plot was put into motion. According to the reports, that morning, Cheong added ten pounds of the tasteless powder to the usual mixture and then fled the island with his family on board a steamer bound for Macau. The plan was almost a devastating success – over 400 Europeans were poisoned. But the plotters had overlooked two key factors.
The first was that arsenic poisoning was a delicate balance – too little arsenic would allow the victim to survive the attack. Too much arsenic and the body’s natural response was to vomit, violently expelling the toxic substance. Cheong had added far too much powder to his mixture, resulting in a distinctly indecorous bout of vomiting on the Peak, but few fatalities.
……….
The second was the fact that the island’s Indian population also ate bread. As they were earlier to rise than their European masters, they acted as involuntary food tasters for the western population. It was clear in many households that there was something very badly wrong with breakfast that day.
………
At first it seemed as though the ruling elite had enjoyed a lucky escape. The few immediate fatalities were confined to the boarding houses, home of: “the dregs of the foreign population, whose powers of resistance had been weakened by abuse of alcohol, or where, in ignorance, remedies where not applied in season.” But the poisoning would eventually claim a victim on the opposite end of the social scale when the Governor’s wife, Lady Bowring, finally succumbed.
The island was gripped by paranoia and hysteria – a mood that was only exacerbated by the arrest of 52 of the bakery’s employees and the return of the Cheong family. Only the Governor’s person intervention prevented a mob from lynching the suspects. The case was seized upon by by the pro-war party in Westminster to support the rather flimsy pretext behind the Second Opium War.
Was Cheong part of a widespread Chinese nationalist conspiracy? Or did he act alone out of a grudge against the English? Was he independently demonstrating his displeasure with the Second Opium War? Or was he the puppet of a malevolent mainland Mandarin? These questions were discussed at length in both Britain and Hong Kong, but no definitive truth ever emerged.
Cheong was eventually acquitted for lack of evidence in a case that, for many on the island and around the world, demonstrated the even-handedness of British justice. Just to be on the safe side, however, the British deported Cheong and his family back to mainland China.
Another curious consequence of the poisoning plot was the establishment of Hong Kong’s greatest department store. After the Great Bakery Incident, the European population on the island refused to buy bread from Chinese bakers. Into this doughy vacuum stepped two Scottish bakers, Thomas Ash Lane and Ninian Crawford. They would go on to make a fortune in the booming colony and found Lane Crawford, a department store so grand and expansive that you could find everything from a “pin to an anchor”.
http://www.vaguelyinteresting.co.uk/?p=1364
Actually increased after Baker Cheong was acquitted of murder
Shows that British rule of law is superior to airy fairy Asian values
Next time you shop at Lane Crawford
Emerge from its doors looking like a peacock
Your wallet several thousand dollars lighter
Please enjoy your wealth and success
And remember this important lesson
Or to put in another way what do you think Harry Baboon
Would have done if he were in Lord Bowring's shoes
And would you the middle class feel more comfortable
Living under the rule of the FamiLEE or rule of law
Lord Bowring and the Great Bakery Incident
……….
By the 1850s Hong Kong was firmly established as a lucrative British trading centre on the doorstep of the massive Chinese market. By the mid-1850s, the island’s population had risen from approximately 7,500 to 72,000.
But the commercial success and great wealth masked serious tensions between westerners and the Chinese. Society was almost entirely segregated along racial lines and the British held a tight grip on the reins of power. It was inevitable that such disparity or opportunity and privilege would breed resentment, plot and intrigue.
The tensions were exacerbated by the knowledge that the Chinese vastly outnumbered the Europeans. In 1857 the population of Hong Kong consisted of approximately 70,000 Chinese, 2,000 Indians and only 500 Europeans. In addition, friction with Imperial Chinese officials on the mainland had already reached boiling point, with the Arrow Incident providing the casus belli for the Second Opium War.
It was with all this in mind that a plot was allegedly hatched. The conspirators, it was reasoned, planned on the basis that only the westerners ate bread in Hong Kong whilst the Chinese ate rice. If the bread supply were tainted, it would therefore only affect ‘foreigners’, leaving the Chinese free to reassert their control of the island.
It was alleged that Chinese agents managed to convince Cheong Au Lum, the owner of the colony’s most popular bakery – the E Sing Bakery, to put arsenic in his bread. On 15 January 1857, the dastardly plot was put into motion. According to the reports, that morning, Cheong added ten pounds of the tasteless powder to the usual mixture and then fled the island with his family on board a steamer bound for Macau. The plan was almost a devastating success – over 400 Europeans were poisoned. But the plotters had overlooked two key factors.
The first was that arsenic poisoning was a delicate balance – too little arsenic would allow the victim to survive the attack. Too much arsenic and the body’s natural response was to vomit, violently expelling the toxic substance. Cheong had added far too much powder to his mixture, resulting in a distinctly indecorous bout of vomiting on the Peak, but few fatalities.
……….
The second was the fact that the island’s Indian population also ate bread. As they were earlier to rise than their European masters, they acted as involuntary food tasters for the western population. It was clear in many households that there was something very badly wrong with breakfast that day.
………
At first it seemed as though the ruling elite had enjoyed a lucky escape. The few immediate fatalities were confined to the boarding houses, home of: “the dregs of the foreign population, whose powers of resistance had been weakened by abuse of alcohol, or where, in ignorance, remedies where not applied in season.” But the poisoning would eventually claim a victim on the opposite end of the social scale when the Governor’s wife, Lady Bowring, finally succumbed.
The island was gripped by paranoia and hysteria – a mood that was only exacerbated by the arrest of 52 of the bakery’s employees and the return of the Cheong family. Only the Governor’s person intervention prevented a mob from lynching the suspects. The case was seized upon by by the pro-war party in Westminster to support the rather flimsy pretext behind the Second Opium War.
Was Cheong part of a widespread Chinese nationalist conspiracy? Or did he act alone out of a grudge against the English? Was he independently demonstrating his displeasure with the Second Opium War? Or was he the puppet of a malevolent mainland Mandarin? These questions were discussed at length in both Britain and Hong Kong, but no definitive truth ever emerged.
Cheong was eventually acquitted for lack of evidence in a case that, for many on the island and around the world, demonstrated the even-handedness of British justice. Just to be on the safe side, however, the British deported Cheong and his family back to mainland China.
Another curious consequence of the poisoning plot was the establishment of Hong Kong’s greatest department store. After the Great Bakery Incident, the European population on the island refused to buy bread from Chinese bakers. Into this doughy vacuum stepped two Scottish bakers, Thomas Ash Lane and Ninian Crawford. They would go on to make a fortune in the booming colony and found Lane Crawford, a department store so grand and expansive that you could find everything from a “pin to an anchor”.
http://www.vaguelyinteresting.co.uk/?p=1364
Last edited:
This is why Singapore can have all the trappings of the first world but we will never be world class. Not until an anti-LKY turns up. Someone with his intellect and drive but with a vision to finally break us free of the old phobias.
Dumbfuck opposition supporting retard. Singapore have already overtaken Hong Kong's economy. For a country with massive influx of PRC FT and twice the size of SG and a higher population their GDP and salary is lagging behind us
Further proof that there is no academic freedom and freedom of expression and freedom of thinking.
in Singapore all sinkies must strictly follow Lee ideology and if not, all will be purged.
Law school is barred from discussing on anti gay law.
James Scott ’67, Sterling professor of political science and anthropology who specializes in East Asia, said he thinks this hesitation to address politically sensitive material could influence universities’ faculty hiring and research programs. For example, NUS Law professor Michael Hor said Douglas Sanders, a law professor at the University of British Columbia, was not allowed to give a public talk on sodomy laws.
http://yalenusblog.com/2012/07/11/y...ws-piece-by-ava-kofman-and-tapley-stephenson/
in Singapore all sinkies must strictly follow Lee ideology and if not, all will be purged.
Law school is barred from discussing on anti gay law.
James Scott ’67, Sterling professor of political science and anthropology who specializes in East Asia, said he thinks this hesitation to address politically sensitive material could influence universities’ faculty hiring and research programs. For example, NUS Law professor Michael Hor said Douglas Sanders, a law professor at the University of British Columbia, was not allowed to give a public talk on sodomy laws.
http://yalenusblog.com/2012/07/11/y...ws-piece-by-ava-kofman-and-tapley-stephenson/
but you said china is crap , everything in china is copied and stolen from west.
so how can it defend hk ?
so tis is the reason you ran away ? got citizenship of other land , came back but ready to run
at the first sign of trouble like most lacky who are serving the emperor now.
what market ? china ? sillypore also exporting to china , right ? sillypore also doing construction
in china , right ?
what product you want sillypore to export ? anything the hk and sillypoore make can and are being
made in china
Wow, this Michael Hor has more guts than Singaporeans.
Hong Kong has never been an independent country, someone is always their boss! Yet the people are able to exercise more democratic rights than Singapore.
Last edited:
Singapore needs to be governed more firmly than HK because if is a multi racial country and is more unstable.
Similar threads
