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

[LogGal]

Originally Posted by ComplainKing

Though I may not agree with some of his posts in the past but in what way has this thread got to do with anything political ?

Some people think that disagreeing with some issues is political

[kuasimi]

Originally Posted by LogGal

Some people think that disagreeing with some issues is political

Well Said LogGal


14 yr old XDD led away by 5 polis with 1 hand hold a cold bun & drink, jump to his death ...


http://forums.$$$$$$$$$$$$.com.sg/ea...h-5296693.html

[kuasimi]

Published on March 5, 2016 Comments 4
Why Protect My Country When My Country Doesn’t Protect Me?
written by Lhu Wen Kai


http://lhuwenkai.com/2016/03/05/why-...nt-protect-me/

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





So two pieces of army-related news broke out in Singapore over the past couple of days. A YouTuber-turned-movie-actor was sentenced to 9 months in detention barracks (the army’s version of prison) for smoking weed, while a platoon sergeant escaped jail time for killing a private.

Hmm, strange huh?

For my international readers and those who aren’t quite up to speed with the matter, here’s a bite-sized summary of the whole incident thus far:

21-year-old private Dominique Sarron Lee collapsed after his commander, Captain Najib Hanik Muhammad Jalal, decided to throw more smoke grenades (six) than he was allowed to (two) during an urban obstacle training exercise in April 2012. The former went on to suffer an allergic reaction from the excessive zinc chloride in the smoke (as certified by the Health Sciences Authority) and died in the hospital shortly after.

Then-Defence Minister Mr Ng Eng Hen agreed in Parliament that safety breaches led to the deaths of Private Lee. The Committees Of Inquiry also believed that “if the Training Safety Regulations had been complied with, Lee and his platoon mates would not have been subjected to smoke that was as dense as that during the incident”.

Despite the evidence, lawsuits filed against the Singapore Armed Forces, the platoon commander, and the chief safety officer of the exercise for negligence on their part were subsequently thrown out of the court.

And as if losing a son to his superiors’ utter incompetence isn’t enough, the courts decided to stick its finger to the Singapore Kindness Movement and ordered the victim’s family to pay the legal fees of all three parties involved, which amounted to around $22,000!

Talk about rubbing salt on the wounds.

A lot of talk since has centered around the presiding judge, Judicial Commissioner Kannan Remesh, and his seemingly ridiculous verdict. I admit, I too was initially pissed at him and his questionable decision, but I realised he didn’t really had a choice. Under Section 14 of the Government Proceeding Act (Chapter 121),

“Nothing done or omitted to be done by a member of the forces while on duty as such shall subject either him or the Government to liability in tort for causing the death of another person, or for causing personal injury to another person…

… No proceedings in tort shall lie against the Government for death or personal injury due to anything suffered by a member of the forces…”

As much as the court of public opinion find Captain Najib guilty beyond doubt, the Judge didn’t have much to fault him with. Yes, while it’s unfortunate that Najib caused the death of someone and never got round to receiving punishment beyond a court marshall, our focus should be on changing the relevant laws our lawmakers have legislated, and realise how they can potentially allow high-ranking officials to, metaphorically speaking, stay above the law and escape punishment for their carelessness and/or incompetency.

Equally alarming was the fact that the personnel present weren’t capable of dealing with an asthma attack, much less an “acute allergic reaction”:

Taking the stand back in 2012 during the inquest, Corporal Goh Khen Hui was asked if he was well-equipped and had enough training to deal with asthma emergencies. He said no, and so did three other servicemen, who told the coroner they were not trained to spot signs and deal with asthma attacks. The chief safety officer during the training, Captain Chia Thye Siong even said that having access to such information”would have been helpful” to him at the time of the incident. I’m sure the combat medic who first attended to him would agree, having said that he did not have “enough medical training or adequate equipment to deal with asthma attacks”.

The cause-of-death ultimately wasn’t due to asthma as originally speculated, but doesn’t their unpreparedness implicate the higher-ups further?

The government wants every able-bodied male citizen in the country to sacrifice two years of their prime to serve the country, yet when someone fails to do their job properly and commits a fatal error, they are allowed to cover their asses and get off the hook?

And they still had the cajones to label the lawsuits as “frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the court process”?

Yea, you have a thesaurus, big f***ing deal.

Are the lives of ‘Singaporean Sons’ worth nothing much to our government?

Are we just there to make up the numbers and protect a bunch of people who probably don’t value our lives?

Are our contributions so meaningless that we can’t warrant some basic form of respectful closure should anything happen to us (touch wood)?

Tell me then, why should I serve a country who treats me like an expendable and easily-replaceable object?

How can parents allow their sons to serve the country in peace when any attempts to seek recourse should something fatal happen to them ultimately end up fruitless?

How can we be willing to put our lives on the line when any wrongful mistakes committed by those looking after us can be unfairly twisted to deny justice from taking its course?

How can I answer the call of duty without an ounce of reluctance knowing that should my life be ruined by my superiors’ negligence, they are immune from being tried in court?

More importantly, to the people in power, how do you even sleep at night, knowing that you were responsible for the blood, tears, and anguish behind an incident that eventually ended with a distraught mother compensating his son’s killers?

Just… how?

By telling them that “shit happens”? By telling them to “suck it up”? Or by rolling in your bed with wads of five-figure cash?

And while all this is happening, you have a guy going to jail for taking a substance that killed absolutely no one in 2015.*

Now that’s not very Majulah now, is it?

*Sidenote: While I’m a staunch anti-drug advocate, I am more than willing to accept the findings of medical papers and studies on the benefits of drugs. There’s a big, big difference between telling the public the adverse effects of marijuana, and telling the public that marijuana provides no conclusive medical benefits. The former is understandable; the latter is plain ignorant, backwards, and myopic.

The purpose of this article isn’t to find fault with the Judicial Commissioner, or to shit on Capt. Najib for not getting his just desserts. We must take a moment to review the section of the Statutes and make the necessary changes to prevent similar outcomes from happening again. Our laws and justice system are meant to protect the weak and vulnerable, not the rich and powerful. We need to stop affording a cloak of immunity to those in power and start making them aware of the consequences brought about by their actions.

For now, there will be a bunch of wankers thinking they are almighty and above the law (or at least on-par, for now), and that any accusations made against them are just inconveniences that should be glossed over asap. A total lack of compassion coupled with the ultimate insult of being forced to pay the people responsible for your son’s death remains truly astounding and unbelievable. The classless manner in which this case was handled displayed ignorance and arrogance of the highest level, ‘qualities’ simply unacceptable for an ‘organisation’ that essentially represents the strength and security of our country. National Service was meant to teach boys to be responsible, respectful, and to take ownership of their actions.

How cruelly ironic that turned out to be.

Follow me on Instagram @wenkai31 and Facebook here.

Why we should stop telling people they’re beautiful when they’re not. Read my latest article, No, You’re Not Beautiful, by clicking here.

Do share the article:

http://lhuwenkai.com/2016/03/05/why-...nt-protect-me/


A movie actor got sentenced to 9 months in detention barracks for smoking weed; a platoon sergeant escaped jail for killing a private. The victim's family then has to pay $22,000 to compensate SAF, the chief safety officer, and the killer's legal fees.
God bless Singapore.
I have lost my love and affinity for this country a long time ago, and the events over the past week (Benjamin Lim, Cross Island Line, Tesla surcharge, and now this) has made me lose even more hope for this plastic, soulless country. We sacrifice two years of our prime protecting the country yet when shit happens to us, the higher-ups are immune from responsibility. And as if to further rub salt into the wound, the judge who dished out the verdict, never even served NS!
I really have no idea what the 70% of you were thinking.

[kuasimi]

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

The Alternative View
12 hrs ·
Dear friends
As you have read yesterday, the PAP Government is now starting to use state agencies and draconian laws to target The Online Citizen following Shanmugam's vicious and childish outburst for its coverage of the Benjamin Lim case.

The order by MDA for TOC to return $5000 to UK-incorporated bookseller Monsoons Book Club, meant for an essay contest, is the first salvo.

MDA had enquired about the $5000 in Nov last year but had chosen only now to order TOC to repatriate the funds. The timing is baffling and certainly uncanny.
As TOC runs on a very tight budget, it may have difficulty meeting the order.

To fight against PAP's attempts to monopolize power and information, we urge you to go to this page and pledge a donation to TOC. You can pledge $1 a month or any amount you like.

We cannot let the PAP continue to ride roughshod over us and decide how we think, what we read or what we want to write about. That is a dangerous route as it shuts out sources of alternative ideas of governance and policies and will only lead to a downward slide for this country and most critically, our next generation.

https://www.patreon.com/tocsg?ty=h

https://www.patreon.com/tocsg?ty=h

https://vimeo.com/123671178

The Online Citizen is Singapore’s longest-running independent online media platform. Our aim is to examine the issues that matter, or should matter, to Singaporeans and to reflect the diversity of life, of ideas and opinions, that is Singapore.

We believe that Singapore’s future is best served by having an informed and involved citizenry that has access to a wide range of sources of news and views and an open and vibrant environment in which to share and to debate ideas and opinions. The Online Citizen was set up to help create such an environment, and that is what we continue to work towards.

We aim to be a platform for all citizens and aspiring journalists to collaborate, produce content and cover stories without restriction, censorship or profit driven control of content to bring an alternative view of the world around us and to pursue the truth behind incidents.

Your funding will help us make this dream come true.


https://www.patreon.com/bePatron?rid...tAmt=1.0&exp=1


https://www.patreon.com/bePatron?rid...Amt=10.0&exp=1


https://www.patreon.com/bePatron?rid...Amt=30.0&exp=1


https://www.patreon.com/bePatron?rid...mt=100.0&exp=1

[sadfa]

Originally Posted by ComplainKing

They are training your children to be cleaners for the future . Did the school seek permission from the parents to allow the children to do area cleaning ?

Don't need to seek permission la.

The child take up football rugby golf must seek permission meh?

And the school send Benjamin for police interview only inform parents after he taken away . So they also inform parents after the fact Lo

[kuasimi]

MDA asked TOC to return foreign money, so we asked (both of) them what happened
March 4, 2016


http://mothership.sg/2016/03/mda-toc-foreign-funding/


The Opinion Collaborative Ltd (TOC2), please return your money from a foreign entity in 30 days, starting from today.

That’s what the Media Development Authority (MDA) told social enterprise (TOC2), who in a statement from the statutory board “remains the registered entity of The Online Citizen (TOC1)”.

Before we continue any further, let us help you understand what is TOC1 and TOC2:

TOC1 is the socio-political website in the news this week, after they received a scolding from Home Affairs and Law Minister K Shanmugam about publishing inaccurate articles on the Benjamin Lim case. TOC1 is now a one-man show, run by its Chief Editor Terry Xu.

TOC2 is the social enterprise managed by former TOC1 opinions editor Howard Lee.

Okay. Let’s continue with the story…

In Sep 2014, the MDA informed TOC2 to register under the Broadcasting (Class Licence) Notification of the Broadcasting Act.

This means that TOC2 has to declare to MDA that it will not receive any foreign funding for TOC1’s operations.

Who is the foreign funder, and where is it from?

It is from the United Kingdom. Unfortunately, it is not MI6.

It is a non-commercial entity incorporated in the United Kingdom, called the Monsoons Book Club.


So who owns it? Any famous British people we know? James Bond perhaps?








Not really.

Among its directors is Tan Wah Piow, a former student union leader who was accused of being involved in the 1987 “Marxist Conspiracy”, while in political exile in London after travelling there in 1976.

Now a British citizen, he continues to live there, and has previously contributed articles to TOC.


So what actually happened? We asked TOC1 and TOC2 for answers.

Xu told us that TOC 1 “was not the recipient of the money”, and that it was handed over to TOC2 for the purpose of organising an essay competition for the Monsoon Book Club.

Lee, who is a director of TOC2, told us that the “directors will meet up soon to deliberate” whether they will return the funds to the Monsoon Book Club.

Lee also shared with Mothership.sg that MDA contacted him at 9pm on Thursday to request for a meet-up. Unfortunately, Lee was busy and did not meet them. He asked them to email him instead, resulting in the MDA sending him a letter to return the funds at 3pm on Friday…. alongside press releases informing the media of the same.


Why is this announcement significant?

This is the first time a registered website has been asked to return advertising revenue, according to the MDA.


But didn’t TOC1 and TOC2 split up?

Indeed, they had “consciously uncoupled” in December 2015.

In fact, Lee told Mothership.sg back then that the folks from TOC1 and TOC 2 “have also met up with them (MDA) to provide a better understanding of the decoupling”.

Lee even speculated that they “(did) not foresee that (they would) still be registered under the Broadcasting Act”, since they were “no longer in ownership of any news website”.


So why is MDA still making TOC2 return money? Aren’t they no longer under the Broadcasting Act?

This is explained by the fact that Monsoons Book Club gave them the money before the divorce — April 10, 2015.



Now that we are clear, here is the full media statement from MDA:

“The Media Development Authority of Singapore (“MDA”) today directed The Opinion Collaborative Ltd (“TOC Ltd”) to return $5,000 in advertising revenue to a non-commercial foreign advertiser.

TOC Ltd is registered under the Broadcasting (Class Licence) Notification as an Internet Content Provider engaged in the propagation, promotion, or discussion of political issues relating to Singapore. As part of the registration, TOC Ltd has undertaken not to receive funding from foreign sources for the provision, management and/or operation of the website, The Online Citizen (http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/), except for bona fide commercial purposes. This is to ensure that foreign entities do not engage in domestic politics and to uphold the principle that domestic politics must remain a matter for Singapore and Singaporeans alone.

TOC Ltd’s requisite updates of its funding sources for the period of January to April 2015 show that an overseas entity, the Monsoons Book Club Limited (“MBC Ltd”), had provided TOC Ltd with $5,000 on 10 Apr 2015 to advertise on The Online Citizen website.

MBC Ltd is a non-commercial foreign entity incorporated in the United Kingdom. TOC Ltd’s receipt of the advertising revenue from MBC Ltd is thus a clear breach of the licence conditions.

MDA has therefore asked TOC Ltd to return this tranche of advertising revenue to MBC Ltd within 30 days.

Related articles:

There are now officially 2 TOCs in S’pore as they are no longer interwined

http://mothership.sg/2015/12/there-a...er-interwined/

The Online Citizen blog gets regulated twice by two authorities in 4 years

http://mothership.sg/2014/09/the-onl...es-in-4-years/

[sadfa]

Originally Posted by kuasimi

https://www.<br /> The Alternative ...nd 100.0&exp=1

This is really fucking pathetic n petty.

This prohibition on foreign funding is to prevent foreigners from influencing local affairs. As if this monsoon books want to influence local affairs. Influence so they can sell books ar??

And now we see how politically motivated this registering online news sites are about. Those who don't plp gets fcuked n life made difficult for them. Really fcuked up.

Shows how garbagement wants sporeans to be permanently brainwashed.

[kuasimi]

Originally Posted by sadfa

This is really fucking pathetic n petty.

This prohibition on foreign funding is to prevent foreigners from influencing local affairs. As if this monsoon books want to influence local affairs. Influence so they can sell books ar??

And now we see how politically motivated this registering online news sites are about. Those who don't plp gets fcuked n life made difficult for them. Really fcuked up.

Shows how garbagement wants sporeans to be permanently brainwashed.

Singapore Media, Grassroots events, PAP Government have been influenced by funding (advertisements, sponsors, business deals etc) and investments from foreign MNCs for 50 years. One broad PAP policy influenced by foreign MNCs was the Pro-Business policies aka Republican policies.

Politics should not be more taboo than pornography, gambling, prostitution, sex, drugs etc. It will be weird.

There is nothing wrong for ex-Singaporeans to contribute back to Singapore.

In the first place, it is weird Singaporeans need to leave their own country because of political differences. It is not a crime. You do not see citizens in civilized society at established developed countries doing that.

[kuasimi]

Is The Straits Times character-assassinating The Online Citizen?
By The Independent - March 5, 2016


https://www.facebook.com/TheIndependentSG


http://theindependent.sg/is-the-stra...nline-citizen/





By Ghui

After I wrote my article yesterday in relation to what constitutes “friendly” websites, I thought it was time to perhaps give the Benjamin Lim case a little respite.

The family deserves the some time to grief without the constant media glare and given the importance of accountability as highlighted by this incident, it is vital that the public does not get fatigued by the constant deluge of reports on this and lose interest. Sometimes saying less is more.

However, this is a developing story with many angles. Just as I am about to lay my pen down, a new issue that I believe requires addressing arises.

The Straits Times has published an article headlined “The Online Citizen is now a one man show“. The article then proceeds to give an overview of how far the website has seemingly fallen. While the two incidents may well be unrelated, it seems to imply a forgone conclusion that the website is now on its last legs. The timing comes hot on the heels after Minister Shanmugam took it publicly to task.

Yet based on the number of “likes” on articles and comments posted on The Online Citizen’s (TOC) website, it would seem that it still attracts quite a number of readers. Why then is it presented as a forum that is about to meet its demise? Is the timing not a little curious?

Next, I read that the Media Development Authority (MDA) has requested for monies given to TOC by Monsoons Book Club over a year ago be returned. Perhaps it is coincidence but given the timing, it would appear that one after another, the government and all its affiliations have closed ranks against TOC, even if that is not the intention.

The Straits Times article also appears to be giving the impression that some of TOC’s former editors may even agree with the remarks made by Minister Shanmugam.

“Former TOC editors are split over Mr Shanmugam’s comments.

Mr Philemon said there was a need for “appropriate moderation” and fairness in any commentaries that are published.

But Mr Choo and Mr Lee said Mr Xu had done his best to get all sides of the story and tried to seek comments from the Government.”

I don’t see how Mr Philemon, Mr Choo and Mr Lee are split over Mr Shanmugam’s comments. From the quotations, I think that all the comments are pointed at the right direction – that it is important to present all sides fairly. How is that a split?

It just appears like a weak attempt by The Straits Times to present TOC as a failing website whose own former editors are now also criticising when that is not the case? Well, not from the quotations any way.

More importantly, who decides that a website is no longer relevant? Is it the government, newspapers or the readers?

While I am sorry to once again have to invoke Benjamin’s name, it would appear that his death has highlighted so many important issues, chief of which are accountability and the limits to state power. Clearly, the Lim family wants some transparency too.

[kuasimi]

Benjamin Lim’s mother experiencing mental breakdown claims TOC’s editor
By The Independent - March 5, 2016


https://www.facebook.com/TheIndependentSG


http://theindependent.sg/benjamin-li...s-tocs-editor/


The Online Citizen’s (TOC) editor, Terry Xu, has gone on a local forum to chastise trolls and the People’s Action Party’s Internet Brigade for causing Benjamin Lim’s mother to have a “mental breakdown” because of all the false accusations they have been spreading about the 14-year-old boy’s family.

“If anything were to happen to the mother, I hope all of you can sleep properly at night,” he warned them, and asked the moderators at $$$$$$$$$$$$’s forum to better moderate unfounded allegations against the family.

Source: http://forums.$$$$$$$$$$$$.com.sg/10...7-post135.html

[kuasimi]

What’s this sub judice?
By The Independent - March 5, 2016


http://theindependent.sg/whats-this-sub-judice/


https://www.facebook.com/TheIndependentSG






By: Tan Wah Piow

For weeks, Singaporeans were screaming for the Minister K Shanmugam to respond to the death of 14 year old Benjamin Lim. The young lad who was accused of molestation, was arrested and interviewed by the police in the absence of his parents. And upon his release, apparently committed suicide soon after returning home. The collective shock over this unfortunate incident led to the public furore over the official silence on the issue.

When Shanmugam, who is both the Minister of Home Affairs and Minister of Law eventually opened his mouth, he defended the police, alleged that the government’s critics were wrong on the facts, and hinted that some might have committed the offence of sub-judice.

But what is this sub-judice?

Sub-judice in Latin means under judgement. It is a law which forbids public discussions of a court case once it is pending. The theory is that apart from factual reporting, any discussion could potentially prejudice the course of justice.

Fundamentalists insist that this rule is necessary to protect the rule of law, which is the bedrock of democracy. They argue that this is especially relevant in jury trials, or where cases in the lower courts are decided by lay justices who are not professional judges. This will ensure that decision makers are not subject to public pressure.

Freedom of speech advocates, however, argue that sub-judice law is an affront to free speech. The risk of interference to the due process is exaggerated because professional judges are capable of ignoring irrelevant opinions, and would guide the jurors to exclude from their deliberations any information or views which were not produced in court. Lay justices could likewise be trained with the mental discipline to decide on a case based exclusively on the evidence in a case. The freedom of speech school would like to restrict the application of the sub-judice law only to a very small number of exceptional cases where there is a real and serious risk of prejudice.

Both are respectable competing arguments in democracies where there are proper check and balances. Sub-judice when narrowly and responsibly applied, is a tool to protect the due process in the legal system.

However, when sub-judice law is applied in a dictatorship, it becomes a tool for repression. In an authoritarian society, the judiciary, and the legal profession operate under entirely different circumstances, and ethos. The distinction between the State and the dominant party is blurred.

For example in trials involving senior party officials say in China, the invisible hands of the security forces are known to work in mysterious way to secure the intended outcome, with judges toeing the party line. In such a society, sub-judice law, where it exists, would simply function as a silencer to avert any scrutiny of the wrongdoings by the State and the dominant party.

In a sophisticated authoritarian society ruled by a dominant party, sub-judice lies alongside scandalizing the court legislation, and libel law as part of the arsenal used to criminalize and clobber its critics. Discussions and pressures through social media on cases which attract public interests are often the only outlets beyond the regime’s control. Such forum acts as a positive counter-balance to the State-controlled media, and the insidious influence of the dominant party. They do at times achieve the right result, at least in exposing any miscarriages of justice. It is in those moments that sub-judice is invoked to suppress freedom of expression.

If the sub-judice law is correctly applied in an authoritarian society, the guilty would be the dominant party, the security forces, and the State media.

How different is Singapore from such a dictatorship? It is worth noting that even the more ‘liberal’ wing of the PAP unashamedly supports the dominant party ideology.

Anyway, it is ironic that Shanmugam should decry about sub-judice when what he said in Parliament on the Benjamin case would be frown upon by the standards of British Parliamentary practice. The Minister detailed statement exonerating the police and the school, and his remarks on the conduct of Benjamin are precisely the type of sub-judice which should be avoided even if he claimed that he got the green light from the Attorney General.

I would dismiss Shanmugan’s proposal to tinker with the sub-judice law as yet another attempt to further narrow the political space for expressions of dissent. His targets are clearly the independent social media, and civil society. This will ultimately lead to the criminalization of yet another generation of activists who dare stand up against the dominant party.

To ensure a better system, we need to return to the rule of law, increase the democratic space for civil society and shackle the government to a democratic Constitution.

Only through people’s power can this vision be realized as Parliament has clearly failed to protect the citizens’ constitutional right to freedom of expression.

[kuasimi]

BENJAMIN LIM'S DAD: MY SON IS NOT A MOLESTER, I WILL SEEK JUSTICE FOR HIM
Submitted by farhan on Sat, 05/03/2016 - 10:53am


https://www.facebook.com/allsgstuff

http://www.allsingaporestuff.com/art...ek-justice-him




Ah Hui, is everything alright at your end? What are you doing now? Did you receive those latest gadgets we sent to you? There are those games that you wanted so much but we didn't buy for you because they were so expensive... and the computer that you have been asking for... are they useful to you at wherever you are now?

Don't worry about us, everyone in the family is alright. We miss you a lot... if you are able to read this message, do come into our dreams and let us know that you are alright too...

And ya, before I forget, the Ministers are saying that you molested a girl? They are saying you followed the girl to her block and went into the lift with her, and molested her? Now it rings a bell... I recalled you said there was this girl staying at neighboring block, you like her and that she is cute... Is she the one? You couldn't have molest her, we do not believe you will do such thing.

The Ministers said there is CCTV recording in the lift... perhaps this CCTV recording can eventually help to clear your name. Daddy will seek justice for you. Let's us wait patiently for the CI, let us not speculate further... People wrote to us, saying very nasty things about you... saying that you are a molester because the Minister mentioned in Parliament that you probably will receive nothing more than a warning.

People jumped into conclusion that you are guilty... that you are now guilty of a crime that you may not even have committed! But Ah Hui, daddy has taught you to be a reasonable person. What is right, we fight for it. What is wrong, we admit it.

Do not point fingers at anyone for now, let the investigation be completed and let the judge do his findings. All you need to know now is, we believe in you and we love you!

Source: http://www.thebeautifulmemories.com/...11075272341108


Editor's Note:
Do you have a story to share? Please use our submission form or email us at [email protected]. If not, why not give us a 'Like'?

[kuasimi]

BENJAMIN LIM'S MOTHER IN MENTAL BREAKDOWN AFTER HARASSMENT BY ONLINE TROLLS
Submitted by farhan on Sat, 05/03/2016 - 10:32am



https://www.facebook.com/allsgstuff


http://www.allsingaporestuff.com/art...-online-trolls







Responding to online trolls on a popular local forum, Terry Xu, Chief Editor of The Online Citizen slammed them for spreading untruths about Benjamin Lim's family members. Mr Xu shared that Benjamin's mother was "now in mental breakdown because of all the comments as the above sent to the email address and the kind of accusation put against the family."

The Editor of The Online Citizen was forced to respond to online trolls after one forum user "p_eppermint" crossed the line with his defamatory and scandalous rumour-mongering.

'p_eppermint' claimed that Benjamin's father was his ex boss from Aug 2015 to Feb 2016 and made unsubstantiated unsavoury rumours about the family's situation. He said:

"whether he's the sole breadwinner or not, that I dunno. all I know is that the parents are divorced. the father is a gambling addict. step into his ofc n u will see bottles of rws mineral water which he offers to his clients. he frequently has free passes to sentosa, free hotel stays at rws, free hotel stays at genting etc. of cos the free hotel stays at rws he keep for himself la. the rest he'll give his staff.

he even goes to the extent of flying to Las Vegas to gamble for God's sake. he has a gf now. apparently sgrean but she looks exactly like a China girl lol. why I know? there was once he actually brought her to work.

many other things la, too many to say. whether he's a good father or not, I dunno. can't comment on that. for sure there are no fathers that don't love their son n wouldn't be hurt by what's happened. but I seriously doubt his reasons for doing all this. if the family really wanted to grieve in peace, he would have made that clear from the start."

It is unbelievable the lengths some individuals will go to destroy an already downtrodden family facing the grief of losing their son in such an unjust manner. We hope our readers will respect the family and give them the peace and space to grief in this difficult time.

Source:
http://forums.$$$$$$$$$$$$.com.sg/10...7-post135.html

[kuasimi]

SDP: Mr Lim’s contradiction of Minister’s statement, a serious matter


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

http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2016...erious-matter/



BY ONLINECITIZEN ON MARCH 4, 2016 LETTERS




In a press release issued today by the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), penned by its Secretary-General, Dr Chee Soon Juan Committee, the party points out the discrepancy in accounts provided by Acting Minister for Education Ng Chee Meng and Benjamin Lim’s family regarding the telephone call between the school and Benjamin’s mother and highlights the seriousness of the matter.


Below is the full press release by SDP

The SDP notes with concern the discrepancy between the accounts of Acting Minister for Education Ng Chee Meng and Benjamin Lim’s family regarding the telephone call between the school and Benjamin’s mother.

The Straits Times reported Mr Ng telling Parliament that a school counselor had called Benjamin’s mother and that both school and parent had agreed that her son should not attend the school camp:

“Regarding the school camp, Mr Ng said a school counsellor had called Benjamin’s mother later in the day to check on the student’s well-being.

The counsellor also discussed with Benjamin’s mother if it would be better for Benjamin to remain with his family during this difficult period, said Mr Ng.

‘His mother agreed and hence it was decided that Benjamin would stay at home,’ he said. ‘Throughout the conversation, the school’s motivation was to care for Benjamin’s well-being.’

However, Benjamin’s father has now refuted Mr Ng’s account saying, according toToday’s report:

“When the school’s counsellor called Benjamin’s mother at 4.13pm, he merely informed her that the school had a meeting, and Benjamin will be excluded from the camp. Before the mother can ask any further questions, (he hung up),” Mr Lim said. “(In) the entire conversation…there were no questions asked about (Benjamin) at all…zero questions about (his) well-being.”

This is a serious matter. Did the Minister, in his review of the incident, contact, or directed his Ministry’s officials to contact, the Lim family to find out what transpired in the telephone conversation between the school and Benjamin’s mother?

If he did, what were his findings?

If he did not, why didn’t he? Is it not Mr Ng’s responsibility as a Minister to do everything he can to get to the bottom of a very tragic incident involving a student and one of his schools? If the Minister did not get the side of the family’s story, why did he not say in Parliament that the school’s account had yet to be corroborated by the Lim family?

It is regrettable that Mr Ng presented only the school’s side of the story. Benjamin’s father’s refutation of his Parliament statement must be addressed. It must be emphasised that the ultimate intent of this episode is to ensure that such an incident does not recur.

[kuasimi]

For the Record / March 3, 2016
About A Boy: The Tragedy and Spectacle
by Moses Lemuel

http://inconvenientquestions.sg/abou...and-spectacle/

https://www.facebook.com/inconvenientquestions/




The tragic case of Benjamin Lim has led to confusion, anger and even hostility among the public. Was this all the doing of some groups in the media? Could it not have been prevented by a prompt and clear response from the authorities?


The tragic case of Benjamin Lim, a 14-year-old boy who committed suicide after being picked up by the police over an allegation of molest, has received intense public and media scrutiny. Even after the case was addressed in Parliament on 1st March, public debate on it does not seem to have shown signs of abating. If anything, it appears to have become rowdier.


In his statement to Parliament, Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam clarified the facts of the case and followed with a broadside against socio-political site The Online Citizen’s (TOC) coverage of it. “It is sad to see this level of dishonesty and politicisation of this matter,” he stated.


Indeed, the matter has become highly politicised. We can see the familiar line being drawn between pro-establishment and anti-establishment voices online. One side accuses the other of twisting or hiding the truth. Even though the Minister’s intention was to clarify the situation, his statement has been met with still more confusion and bickering.


In spite of statements by two ministers, including Minister for Education Ng Chee Meng, there are still question marks revolving around what is known about the incident in the weeks after it transpired, like cartoonish stars dancing around a dizzy head.

Mr Shanmugam blasted TOC for carrying out an “orchestrated campaign” to spread “falsehoods”, including an inaccurate picture of the circumstances in which the police officers picked up Benjamin.

However, could misunderstanding have arisen partly from the ambiguity of the statement issued by the police where some of these details are concerned?


Details in Mr Ng’s clarification on the decision for Benjamin not to attend his school camp has also been disputed by the family. Hence, is it necessarily the case that the inaccuracies are the result of an “orchestrated campaign”? Could they not have been caused by a lack of clarity, under circumstances where there is sparse and conflicting information?


The government does have a point. It is right to insist that the media fulfil its ethical obligation to verify the facts it is reporting, instead of merely relying on hearsay.

But in situations where there is a great amount of concern among the public, does the media not also have a responsibility to report both accurately and promptly on the issue? And how can they do so if they are faced with a lengthy silence from the authorities?


The alternative is surely worse – speculation both in the media and among the public that would only serve to agitate people and diminish trust in public institutions. Unfortunately, this is in fact what has happened in Benjamin’s case.

To pre-empt this situation, the onus is therefore on the authorities to facilitate prompt and accurate reporting by the media by verifying the facts of the case and communicating clearly to the public early on.

Moreover, there should be room for other perspectives on the case without them being condemned as calculated attempts to contradict the authorities. Otherwise, the result is likely to be widespread confusion and speculation, and the issue might become more politically-charged.

When that happens, nobody wins, and a family tragedy is turned tragically into a media circus.

Top photo: Greek tragedy masks, Thanos Vovolis.


Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the author’s and do not reflect the opinions or views of IQ


About the Author:
Moses Lemuel is a member of the Inconvenient Questions editorial team. He has a background in politics, philosophy, economics and media studies, and tries to keep up with his reading during lengthy commutes.