Dear Moderators,
I am posting this as a new thread rather than as part of the previous one by Atobe because I don't want this post to sink in the middle of 5 pages of long debate.
Basically, this is a letter that I sent to TODAY 2 days ago, which apparently got ignored by TODAY (or censored away by its editors anyway).
I am going to be trying to send this in to the Straits Times too, although I sincerely doubt that they will publish it.
Rgds,
the (returning pikamaster)
The Letter is as follows:
(letter length: 497 words)
LETTER TITLE: Why the Mistakes, MinLaw?
I am a citizen who is sorely disappointed with the quality of MinLaw's criticism of the IBAHRI after reading the full text of the IBAHRI's report.
Para 2 of MinLaw's 9 July response admits that it only perused the Executive Summary. If it had bothered to read all the first 30 pages, it would have seen 5 substantial quotations from its 9 April response, which it says was ignored by the IBAHRI. And there are more following.
PERC is quoted in a two-liner on page 21 of the report. The Report does not quote extensively from PERC has MinLaw would prefer, but it provides Transparency International's and the World Bank's comments, which run along the same lines.
Para 5 of MinLaw's reply pounces on one single comment on page 70. In my view, that comment is a protection against the evasive "but it has not happened before" response. In fact, the monetary tables on page 60 are sufficient to substantiate IBAHRI's "grave accuasation". Why is there a $307,350 disparity between the total amounts awarded to the PAP litigants and those awarded to the non-PAP litigants? And why is the highest litigation award for a PAP member - MM in this case - $500,000 (1994) which is 5 times as much as the maximum awarded to a non-PAP litigant (1995). Is it that some allegations can be more "scurrilous and untrue" than others?
MinLaw's assertion in para 7 is simply untrue and totally ignores the IBAHRI's report, which goes at length to rebut and clarify inaccuracies in the 9 April letter by MinLaw to IBAHRI on its report. For instance, it notes Justice Brooke's full comments with regard to the Privy Council in 1989, articulated on pages 31 and 32, in which is stated that "In due course the Privy Council was to be critical of the decision of a district court judge not to transfer the retrial to the High Court" and thus puts the comment that the verdict was "unusual" in a formal, rather than critical, context.
In addition, most of paras 7 and 8 are focused on shoring up the government's superiority, not in providing any fresh counter-criticism to any part of the content of the 72-page report. In general, it seems that MinLaw aims to focus exclusively on an East-West divide, without taking to heart IBAHRI's exhortation "to engage with the international community in a more constructive manner". MinLaw has clearly failed to engage IBAHRI in a proper meaningful discussion.
I hope that the Law Society can offer a more informed response than MinLaw did, being as professional as their critics from the IBAHRI. I do hope that the Law Society's reply would not regurgitate any of the sections of its 25 April letter quoted on page 68 of the IBAHRI report.
At the end of the day, MinLaw's reply only reflects poorly our ability in engaging in healthy political discussion. I do hope our authorities can be more cosntructive and mature in the future.
Originally posted by pikamaster:Dear Moderators,
I am posting this as a new thread rather than as part of the previous one by Atobe because I don't want this post to sink in the middle of 5 pages of long debate.
Basically, this is a letter that I sent to TODAY 2 days ago, which apparently got ignored by TODAY (or censored away by its editors anyway).
I am going to be trying to send this in to the Straits Times too, although I sincerely doubt that they will publish it.
Rgds,
the (returning pikamaster)
The Letter is as follows:
our gahmen don't engage in discussions they only dispense advice as they are the best.