KEVIN Rudd is preparing the nation for cuts to benefits and increased taxes for high-income earners, to help pay for his pledge to boost pensions by billions of dollars. As the Government prepares for its May budget, the Prime Minister said "fairness" would guide its decisions.
“Longer term you have to look at what can be afforded by way of additional support from those who are better off,” Mr Rudd said today. “A pensioner is not out there earning 150,000 a year. There is a question about fairness in Australia to how you balance it out.
“We think Australia is all about fairness. People who are at the upper end, over time, perhaps could be in a position to provide greater support.”
*************************************************************************************
Is this fairness? Don't the people who earn more deserve what they get paid? The market dictates that these people demand the salary they earn, and we have the government manipulating this to pander to the 'poor'. Now before you go whacking me for my insentitivity, at least hear me out. It is a no brainer that a progressive tax system, one like what Australia's got is a disincentive for hard work or to take on more responsibility for higher pay. What is worst, the Prime Minister of Australia want to tax the higher income people even more, who at the highest tax rates is already paying 46.5 cents to the dollar.
Australia's taxation system needs a complete revamp according to tax experts as it is too complex. There should not be a reason why an individual with minimal investments should not be able to do his own tax returns but sadly a high proportion of personal tax submissions are done by hired accountants. The main reason is hardly a day goes by without some sort of change
in the tax legislation. According to some reports I've read, the cost of implementing the Goods and Services Tax is more than half the GST itself. The Family Tax Benefits and other pension calculation etc. are so complicated you'll need a double pHD to even understand the crux of how it all works.
Tax rates either through bracket creep or a reduction in the tax rates has put a lot of money back in the pockets of the taxpayer for the last decade under the Liberal government. Liberal has always been about business and money while Labor has always been about 'fairness'. I've got nothing against fairness but is this so called 'fairness' doing a disservice to the country? Obvious examples are the chronic unemployed who have little incentive to find a job. They get the dole from the government for doing nothing so there is little incentive to go out to find a job. Most of the skill sets of the chronic unemployed do not give them the luxury of a high paying job, so when they work, their dole entitlements will be reduced accordingly. Let me illustrate this point in case. An unemployed man is getting a $500 dole payment a fortnight from the government. He then gets a job at Mc Donalds that pays him $500 a fortnight. Technically if all else remains equal he should have an income of $1000 ($500 from the dole and $500 from Mc Donalds). However, in reality, his dole will then be reduced to $150 a fortnight, which means he will take home only $650 a fortnight ($150 from the dole and $500 from McDonalds) putting him up only $150 compared to if he didn't work, although he needs to put in about 40 hours a fortnight or 20 hours a week to get this additional $150. What's more, taxes need to be paid and earning more may also put him in a higher tax bracket, so in all reality, he'll probably end up with less than $150. To a lot of them, it's just not worth it and I tend to agree.
I think social welfare is good and should be improved to help the people who really need it. I agree with the 'fairness' espoused by Kevin Rudd, but I don't agree in the intended forms of implementation to get it. By raising the higher incometax rates (which is already at 46.5% as mentioned before) makes Australia a very unattractive destination for top talents, especially from overseas. They will choose other nearby destinations like Hong Kong and Singapore which have more attractive tax structures especially if these expatriates are not going to retire in Australia hence not going to be able to enjoy the generous Australian social welfare which their high taxes are funding.
If you produce a child, the Australian government will give you a $5000 bonus, even if you are a multi millionaire (although I understand this legislation has changed recently to be means tested). If you are over 65 years old and had no income, the government will give you the full pension (tax exempt) even though you may have ten million dollars in superannuation and you're sitting on a fully paid off multi million dollar mansion. While that happens a working family may be on a single income taking home only half their salary after paying 46.5% in taxes (excluding Private Insurance cover which is mandatory for families earning over $140,000 a year) and laden with crippling bills like a $3000 mortgage (based on a $400,000 house loan), thousands in education and tuition fees and 10% interest car loan for their two cars, one for work and one to bring the kids to school.
I'm not against helping the poor and being 'fair' but it should really be fair and not blindly give the pensioners and lower income people a hand out just because they are technically poor. As it is the technically poor already enjoy discounted medication, car licence and insurance, water and council rates, free bus travel and a whole lot of other benefits. I would not for a moment deny the really deserving poor their right to these priviledges but the loophole has gotten larger and those not deserving are benefitting unfairly as well. Some of these technically poor people are going on holidays twice a year and drinking coffee everyday while many working class people pack their lunch everyday and have never gone on a holiday for years. I'm all for helping the poor but in the same vain, they must be genuinely poor and not through some technicality of being a pensioner or unemployed. With these populist politicians, all they know is bashing the rich and pandering to the 'poor' as apparently there are more poor people than rich people and that's where they'll be looking for their next votes.
Just by taxing the rich more and giving them to the 'poor' is not going to make anything 'fairer' nor is it going to improve Australia's international competitiveness as a destination of choice for employment.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
KEVIN Rudd is preparing the nation for cuts to benefits and increased taxes for high-income earners, to help pay for his pledge to boost pensions by billions of dollars. As the Government prepares for its May budget, the Prime Minister said "fairness" would guide its decisions.
“Longer term you have to look at what can be afforded by way of additional support from those who are better off,” Mr Rudd said today. “A pensioner is not out there earning 150,000 a year. There is a question about fairness in Australia to how you balance it out.
“We think Australia is all about fairness. People who are at the upper end, over time, perhaps could be in a position to provide greater support.”
“Longer term you have to look at what can be afforded by way of additional support from those who are better off,” Mr Rudd said today. “A pensioner is not out there earning 150,000 a year. There is a question about fairness in Australia to how you balance it out.
“We think Australia is all about fairness. People who are at the upper end, over time, perhaps could be in a position to provide greater support.”
*************************************************************************************
Is this fairness? Don't the people who earn more deserve what they get paid? The market dictates that these people demand the salary they earn, and we have the government manipulating this to pander to the 'poor'. Now before you go whacking me formy insentitivity, at least hear me out. It is a no brainer that a progressive tax system, one like what Australia's got is
a disincentive for hard work or to take on more responsibility for higher pay. What is worst, the Prime Minister of
Australia want to tax the higher income people more, who at the highest tax rates is already paying 46.5 cents to the dollar.
Australia's taxation system needs a complete revamp according to tax experts as it is too complex. There should not be a
reason why an individual with minimal investments should not be able to do his own tax returns but sadly a high proportion of
personal tax submissions are done by hired accountants. The main reason is hardly a day goes by without some sort of change
in the tax legislation. According to some reports I've read before, the cost of implementing the Goods and Services Tax is
more than half the GST itself. The Family TAx Benefits and other pension calculation etc. are so complicated you'll need a
double pHD to even understand the crux of how it all works.
Tax rates either through bracket creep or a reduction in the tax rates has put back alot of money into the pockets of the
taxpayer for the last decade under the Liberal government. Liberal has always been about business and money while Labor has
always been about 'fairness'. I've got nothing against fairness but is this so called 'fairness' doing a disservice to the
country? Obvious examples are the chronic unemployed who have little incentive to find a job. They get the dole from the
government for doing nothing so there is little incentive to go out to find a job. Most of the skill sets of the chronic
unemployed do not give them the luxury of a high paying job, so When they work, their dole entitlements will be reduced
accordingly. Let me illustrate this point in case. An unemployed man is getting a $500 dole payment a fortnight from the
government. He then gets a job at Mc Donalds that pays him $500 a fortnight. Technically if all else remains equal he
should have an income of $1000 ($500 from the dole and $500 from Mc Donalds). However, in reality, his dole will then be
reduced to $150 a fortnight, which means he will take home only $650 a fortnight ($150 from the dole and $500 from Mc
Donalds) putting him up only $150 than before, although he needs to put in about 40 hours a fortnight or 20 hours a week to
get this additional $150. To a lot of them, it's just not worth it and I tend to agree.
I think social welfare is good and should be improved to help the people who really need it. I agree with the 'fairness'
espoused by Kevin Rudd, but I don't agree in the intended forms of implementation to get it. By raising the higher income
tax rates (which is already at 46.5% as mentioned before) makes Australia a very unattractive destination for top talents,
especially from overseas. They will choose other nearby destinations like Hong Kong and Singapore which have more attractive
tax structures especially if these expatriates are not going to retire in Australia hence not going to be able to enjoy the
generaous Australian social welfare which their high taxes are funding.
If you produce a child, the Australian government will give you a $5000 bonus, even if you are a multi millionaire (although
I understand this legislation has changed recently to be means tested). If you are over 65 years old and had no income, the
government will give you the full pension even though you may have ten million in superannuation and you're sitting on a
fully paid off multi million dollar mansion. While that happens a working family may be on a single income taking home only
half their salary after paying 46.5% in taxes (excluding Private Insurance cover which is mandatory for families earning over
$140,000 a year) and laden with crippling bills like a $3000 mortgage (based on a $400,000 house loan), thousands in
education and tuition fees and 10% interest car loan for their two cars, one for work and one to bring the kids to school.
I'm not against helping the poor and being 'fair' but it should really be fair and not blindly give the pensioners and lower
income people a hand out just because they are technically poor. As it is the technically poor already enjoy discounted
medication, car licence and insurance, water and council rates, free bus travel and a whole lot of other benefits. I would
not for a moment deny the really deserving poor their right to these priviledges but the loophole has gotten larger and those
not deserving are benefitting unfairly as well. Some of these technically poor people are going on holidays twice a year and
drinking coffee everyday while many working class people pack their lunch everyday and have never gone on a holiday for
years. I'm all for helping the poor but in the same vain, they must be genuinely poor and not through some technicality of
being a pensioner or unemployed. With these populist politicians, all they know is bashing the rich and pandering to the
'poor' as apparently there are more poor people than rich people and that's where they'll be looking for their next votes.
Just by taxing the rich more and giving them to the 'poor' is not going to make anything 'fairer' nor is it going to improve
Australia's international competitiveness as a destination of choice for employment.
Is this fairness? Don't the people who earn more deserve what they get paid? The market dictates that these people demand the salary they earn, and we have the government manipulating this to pander to the 'poor'. Now before you go whacking me formy insentitivity, at least hear me out. It is a no brainer that a progressive tax system, one like what Australia's got is
a disincentive for hard work or to take on more responsibility for higher pay. What is worst, the Prime Minister of
Australia want to tax the higher income people more, who at the highest tax rates is already paying 46.5 cents to the dollar.
Australia's taxation system needs a complete revamp according to tax experts as it is too complex. There should not be a
reason why an individual with minimal investments should not be able to do his own tax returns but sadly a high proportion of
personal tax submissions are done by hired accountants. The main reason is hardly a day goes by without some sort of change
in the tax legislation. According to some reports I've read before, the cost of implementing the Goods and Services Tax is
more than half the GST itself. The Family TAx Benefits and other pension calculation etc. are so complicated you'll need a
double pHD to even understand the crux of how it all works.
Tax rates either through bracket creep or a reduction in the tax rates has put back alot of money into the pockets of the
taxpayer for the last decade under the Liberal government. Liberal has always been about business and money while Labor has
always been about 'fairness'. I've got nothing against fairness but is this so called 'fairness' doing a disservice to the
country? Obvious examples are the chronic unemployed who have little incentive to find a job. They get the dole from the
government for doing nothing so there is little incentive to go out to find a job. Most of the skill sets of the chronic
unemployed do not give them the luxury of a high paying job, so When they work, their dole entitlements will be reduced
accordingly. Let me illustrate this point in case. An unemployed man is getting a $500 dole payment a fortnight from the
government. He then gets a job at Mc Donalds that pays him $500 a fortnight. Technically if all else remains equal he
should have an income of $1000 ($500 from the dole and $500 from Mc Donalds). However, in reality, his dole will then be
reduced to $150 a fortnight, which means he will take home only $650 a fortnight ($150 from the dole and $500 from Mc
Donalds) putting him up only $150 than before, although he needs to put in about 40 hours a fortnight or 20 hours a week to
get this additional $150. To a lot of them, it's just not worth it and I tend to agree.
I think social welfare is good and should be improved to help the people who really need it. I agree with the 'fairness'
espoused by Kevin Rudd, but I don't agree in the intended forms of implementation to get it. By raising the higher income
tax rates (which is already at 46.5% as mentioned before) makes Australia a very unattractive destination for top talents,
especially from overseas. They will choose other nearby destinations like Hong Kong and Singapore which have more attractive
tax structures especially if these expatriates are not going to retire in Australia hence not going to be able to enjoy the
generaous Australian social welfare which their high taxes are funding.
If you produce a child, the Australian government will give you a $5000 bonus, even if you are a multi millionaire (although
I understand this legislation has changed recently to be means tested). If you are over 65 years old and had no income, the
government will give you the full pension even though you may have ten million in superannuation and you're sitting on a
fully paid off multi million dollar mansion. While that happens a working family may be on a single income taking home only
half their salary after paying 46.5% in taxes (excluding Private Insurance cover which is mandatory for families earning over
$140,000 a year) and laden with crippling bills like a $3000 mortgage (based on a $400,000 house loan), thousands in
education and tuition fees and 10% interest car loan for their two cars, one for work and one to bring the kids to school.
I'm not against helping the poor and being 'fair' but it should really be fair and not blindly give the pensioners and lower
income people a hand out just because they are technically poor. As it is the technically poor already enjoy discounted
medication, car licence and insurance, water and council rates, free bus travel and a whole lot of other benefits. I would
not for a moment deny the really deserving poor their right to these priviledges but the loophole has gotten larger and those
not deserving are benefitting unfairly as well. Some of these technically poor people are going on holidays twice a year and
drinking coffee everyday while many working class people pack their lunch everyday and have never gone on a holiday for
years. I'm all for helping the poor but in the same vain, they must be genuinely poor and not through some technicality of
being a pensioner or unemployed. With these populist politicians, all they know is bashing the rich and pandering to the
'poor' as apparently there are more poor people than rich people and that's where they'll be looking for their next votes.
Just by taxing the rich more and giving them to the 'poor' is not going to make anything 'fairer' nor is it going to improve
Australia's international competitiveness as a destination of choice for employment.
KEVIN Rudd is preparing the nation for cuts to benefits and increased taxes for high-income earners, to help pay for his pledge to boost pensions by billions of dollars. As the Government prepares for its May budget, the Prime Minister said "fairness" would guide its decisions.
“Longer term you have to look at what can be afforded by way of additional support from those who are better off,” Mr Rudd said today. “A pensioner is not out there earning 150,000 a year. There is a question about fairness in Australia to how you balance it out.
“We think Australia is all about fairness. People who are at the upper end, over time, perhaps could be in a position to provide greater support.”
“Longer term you have to look at what can be afforded by way of additional support from those who are better off,” Mr Rudd said today. “A pensioner is not out there earning 150,000 a year. There is a question about fairness in Australia to how you balance it out.
“We think Australia is all about fairness. People who are at the upper end, over time, perhaps could be in a position to provide greater support.”
*************************************************************************************
Is this fairness? Don't the people who earn more deserve what they get paid? The market dictates that these people demand the salary they earn, and we have the government manipulating this to pander to the 'poor'. Now before you go whacking me formy insentitivity, at least hear me out. It is a no brainer that a progressive tax system, one like what Australia's got is a disincentive for hard work or to take on more responsibility for higher pay. What is worst, the Prime Minister of
Australia want to tax the higher income people more, who at the highest tax rates is already paying 46.5 cents to the dollar.
Australia's taxation system needs a complete revamp according to tax experts as it is too complex. There should not be a
reason why an individual with minimal investments should not be able to do his own tax returns but sadly a high proportion of
personal tax submissions are done by hired accountants. The main reason is hardly a day goes by without some sort of change
in the tax legislation. According to some reports I've read before, the cost of implementing the Goods and Services Tax is
more than half the GST itself. The Family TAx Benefits and other pension calculation etc. are so complicated you'll need a
double pHD to even understand the crux of how it all works.
Tax rates either through bracket creep or a reduction in the tax rates has put back alot of money into the pockets of the
taxpayer for the last decade under the Liberal government. Liberal has always been about business and money while Labor has
always been about 'fairness'. I've got nothing against fairness but is this so called 'fairness' doing a disservice to the
country? Obvious examples are the chronic unemployed who have little incentive to find a job. They get the dole from the
government for doing nothing so there is little incentive to go out to find a job. Most of the skill sets of the chronic
unemployed do not give them the luxury of a high paying job, so When they work, their dole entitlements will be reduced
accordingly. Let me illustrate this point in case. An unemployed man is getting a $500 dole payment a fortnight from the
government. He then gets a job at Mc Donalds that pays him $500 a fortnight. Technically if all else remains equal he
should have an income of $1000 ($500 from the dole and $500 from Mc Donalds). However, in reality, his dole will then be
reduced to $150 a fortnight, which means he will take home only $650 a fortnight ($150 from the dole and $500 from Mc
Donalds) putting him up only $150 than before, although he needs to put in about 40 hours a fortnight or 20 hours a week to
get this additional $150. To a lot of them, it's just not worth it and I tend to agree.
I think social welfare is good and should be improved to help the people who really need it. I agree with the 'fairness'
espoused by Kevin Rudd, but I don't agree in the intended forms of implementation to get it. By raising the higher income
tax rates (which is already at 46.5% as mentioned before) makes Australia a very unattractive destination for top talents,
especially from overseas. They will choose other nearby destinations like Hong Kong and Singapore which have more attractive
tax structures especially if these expatriates are not going to retire in Australia hence not going to be able to enjoy the
generaous Australian social welfare which their high taxes are funding.
If you produce a child, the Australian government will give you a $5000 bonus, even if you are a multi millionaire (although
I understand this legislation has changed recently to be means tested). If you are over 65 years old and had no income, the
government will give you the full pension even though you may have ten million in superannuation and you're sitting on a
fully paid off multi million dollar mansion. While that happens a working family may be on a single income taking home only
half their salary after paying 46.5% in taxes (excluding Private Insurance cover which is mandatory for families earning over
$140,000 a year) and laden with crippling bills like a $3000 mortgage (based on a $400,000 house loan), thousands in
education and tuition fees and 10% interest car loan for their two cars, one for work and one to bring the kids to school.
I'm not against helping the poor and being 'fair' but it should really be fair and not blindly give the pensioners and lower
income people a hand out just because they are technically poor. As it is the technically poor already enjoy discounted
medication, car licence and insurance, water and council rates, free bus travel and a whole lot of other benefits. I would
not for a moment deny the really deserving poor their right to these priviledges but the loophole has gotten larger and those
not deserving are benefitting unfairly as well. Some of these technically poor people are going on holidays twice a year and
drinking coffee everyday while many working class people pack their lunch everyday and have never gone on a holiday for
years. I'm all for helping the poor but in the same vain, they must be genuinely poor and not through some technicality of
being a pensioner or unemployed. With these populist politicians, all they know is bashing the rich and pandering to the
'poor' as apparently there are more poor people than rich people and that's where they'll be looking for their next votes.
Just by taxing the rich more and giving them to the 'poor' is not going to make anything 'fairer' nor is it going to improve
Australia's international competitiveness as a destination of choice for employment.
Is this fairness? Don't the people who earn more deserve what they get paid? The market dictates that these people demand the salary they earn, and we have the government manipulating this to pander to the 'poor'. Now before you go whacking me formy insentitivity, at least hear me out. It is a no brainer that a progressive tax system, one like what Australia's got is a disincentive for hard work or to take on more responsibility for higher pay. What is worst, the Prime Minister of
Australia want to tax the higher income people more, who at the highest tax rates is already paying 46.5 cents to the dollar.
Australia's taxation system needs a complete revamp according to tax experts as it is too complex. There should not be a
reason why an individual with minimal investments should not be able to do his own tax returns but sadly a high proportion of
personal tax submissions are done by hired accountants. The main reason is hardly a day goes by without some sort of change
in the tax legislation. According to some reports I've read before, the cost of implementing the Goods and Services Tax is
more than half the GST itself. The Family TAx Benefits and other pension calculation etc. are so complicated you'll need a
double pHD to even understand the crux of how it all works.
Tax rates either through bracket creep or a reduction in the tax rates has put back alot of money into the pockets of the
taxpayer for the last decade under the Liberal government. Liberal has always been about business and money while Labor has
always been about 'fairness'. I've got nothing against fairness but is this so called 'fairness' doing a disservice to the
country? Obvious examples are the chronic unemployed who have little incentive to find a job. They get the dole from the
government for doing nothing so there is little incentive to go out to find a job. Most of the skill sets of the chronic
unemployed do not give them the luxury of a high paying job, so When they work, their dole entitlements will be reduced
accordingly. Let me illustrate this point in case. An unemployed man is getting a $500 dole payment a fortnight from the
government. He then gets a job at Mc Donalds that pays him $500 a fortnight. Technically if all else remains equal he
should have an income of $1000 ($500 from the dole and $500 from Mc Donalds). However, in reality, his dole will then be
reduced to $150 a fortnight, which means he will take home only $650 a fortnight ($150 from the dole and $500 from Mc
Donalds) putting him up only $150 than before, although he needs to put in about 40 hours a fortnight or 20 hours a week to
get this additional $150. To a lot of them, it's just not worth it and I tend to agree.
I think social welfare is good and should be improved to help the people who really need it. I agree with the 'fairness'
espoused by Kevin Rudd, but I don't agree in the intended forms of implementation to get it. By raising the higher income
tax rates (which is already at 46.5% as mentioned before) makes Australia a very unattractive destination for top talents,
especially from overseas. They will choose other nearby destinations like Hong Kong and Singapore which have more attractive
tax structures especially if these expatriates are not going to retire in Australia hence not going to be able to enjoy the
generaous Australian social welfare which their high taxes are funding.
If you produce a child, the Australian government will give you a $5000 bonus, even if you are a multi millionaire (although
I understand this legislation has changed recently to be means tested). If you are over 65 years old and had no income, the
government will give you the full pension even though you may have ten million in superannuation and you're sitting on a
fully paid off multi million dollar mansion. While that happens a working family may be on a single income taking home only
half their salary after paying 46.5% in taxes (excluding Private Insurance cover which is mandatory for families earning over
$140,000 a year) and laden with crippling bills like a $3000 mortgage (based on a $400,000 house loan), thousands in
education and tuition fees and 10% interest car loan for their two cars, one for work and one to bring the kids to school.
I'm not against helping the poor and being 'fair' but it should really be fair and not blindly give the pensioners and lower
income people a hand out just because they are technically poor. As it is the technically poor already enjoy discounted
medication, car licence and insurance, water and council rates, free bus travel and a whole lot of other benefits. I would
not for a moment deny the really deserving poor their right to these priviledges but the loophole has gotten larger and those
not deserving are benefitting unfairly as well. Some of these technically poor people are going on holidays twice a year and
drinking coffee everyday while many working class people pack their lunch everyday and have never gone on a holiday for
years. I'm all for helping the poor but in the same vain, they must be genuinely poor and not through some technicality of
being a pensioner or unemployed. With these populist politicians, all they know is bashing the rich and pandering to the
'poor' as apparently there are more poor people than rich people and that's where they'll be looking for their next votes.
Just by taxing the rich more and giving them to the 'poor' is not going to make anything 'fairer' nor is it going to improve
Australia's international competitiveness as a destination of choice for employment.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
The Law is Wrong!
I'm no lawyer but I think that there is a critical flaw in the law against criminals and serving a multitude of injustices against victims time and again. How many times have we seen people 'get away with murder' literally where the law sets the seemingly guilty free to create more havoc and crime. We see it all the time, where if you had enough money you can hire a star defence lawyer to help you get your freedom even if you are guilty. Many people for the want of trusting our legal system do refrain from going overboard with criticising a seemingly unjustified verdict but more times than not, the law, defence lawyers and the jury are just plain wrong!
The part of the law that I have difficulty swallowing is that a person is normally proven guilty 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. This means that if there is a 'reasonable' doubt of the person's guilt, then the defendant should not be found guilty. The problem is there is no definition of reasonable. What does reasonable mean? It could mean one thing to you and another to me. According to the dictionary, 'reasonable' means: showing reason or sound judgment and not excessive or extreme. Now you can see that those definitions does not make it any clearer as far as the law is concerned as to what 'reasonable' really means. What is of excess to me may not be of excess to another person, meaning if I thought a rapist who had raped ten times before most probably guilty but another person on the jury may think this is not sound judgement and the past is no indicator of the current facts presented in the current case. One may think that past indiscretions may be a good indicator of current indiscretions and think this is reasonable deduction whilst another may think this is unreasonable. It only takes one jury member to have any doubt for a defendant to be found not guilty. With the plethora of 'technical' arguments, the defence lawyers are capable of puting a multitude of doubts into the minds of the jury. Remember, the defence lawyers are skilled lawyers who defend criminals and manipulate juries everyday for a living and the jury are common people who for many find themselves in court for the very first time.
It's not that we should not have defence lawyers. That would be unreasonable as who would defend the defendants? It's also not that I don't think defendants should receive a fair trial, that would be an injustice. It's just that we have seen too many instances where we have seen injustices against victims where the thugs and murderers get away scot free and the victims and sometimes their families get a life sentence. Who can forget the case of Matt Butcher, the cop who was head butted from behind by a cowardly thug and found himslef paralysed over half his body, all for doing his job. What did his attacker get for his cowardly attack? Nothing, he got away scot free and the defence lawyers insist that the common man not present in the courts would not understand the jury's decision as they did not hear both sides of the story, even though there was video evidence of the whole incident, which the public saw and based their views on. The defence lawyers are asking us to put our trust in them and the law as we as common people will not understand the 'technicalities'. Then explain to us! I bet you they can't. I'm afraid, they're just justifying their abhorrent acts, getting their clients freedom with their ability to find loop holes and technicalities in the already flawed law.
We've seen one too many suspended sentences, only to see the defendant commit another crime immediately after getting his freedom. We've seen a one and the half year jail sentence for taking another person's life while you may get three years for missing a digit on your tax return. The law needs to change with tougher penalties and securing a conviction should not be as Herculean as it currently is. The counter argument is, what if we put an innocent man to jail? That's not what I want. Trying to make a conviction not as challenging does not necessarily mean that more innocent people will go to jail. There should be appropriate changes made as the law is too much in favor of the defendant. I'm just asking for some balance back in favor of the victim, then maybe we can see more justice served!
The part of the law that I have difficulty swallowing is that a person is normally proven guilty 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. This means that if there is a 'reasonable' doubt of the person's guilt, then the defendant should not be found guilty. The problem is there is no definition of reasonable. What does reasonable mean? It could mean one thing to you and another to me. According to the dictionary, 'reasonable' means: showing reason or sound judgment and not excessive or extreme. Now you can see that those definitions does not make it any clearer as far as the law is concerned as to what 'reasonable' really means. What is of excess to me may not be of excess to another person, meaning if I thought a rapist who had raped ten times before most probably guilty but another person on the jury may think this is not sound judgement and the past is no indicator of the current facts presented in the current case. One may think that past indiscretions may be a good indicator of current indiscretions and think this is reasonable deduction whilst another may think this is unreasonable. It only takes one jury member to have any doubt for a defendant to be found not guilty. With the plethora of 'technical' arguments, the defence lawyers are capable of puting a multitude of doubts into the minds of the jury. Remember, the defence lawyers are skilled lawyers who defend criminals and manipulate juries everyday for a living and the jury are common people who for many find themselves in court for the very first time.
It's not that we should not have defence lawyers. That would be unreasonable as who would defend the defendants? It's also not that I don't think defendants should receive a fair trial, that would be an injustice. It's just that we have seen too many instances where we have seen injustices against victims where the thugs and murderers get away scot free and the victims and sometimes their families get a life sentence. Who can forget the case of Matt Butcher, the cop who was head butted from behind by a cowardly thug and found himslef paralysed over half his body, all for doing his job. What did his attacker get for his cowardly attack? Nothing, he got away scot free and the defence lawyers insist that the common man not present in the courts would not understand the jury's decision as they did not hear both sides of the story, even though there was video evidence of the whole incident, which the public saw and based their views on. The defence lawyers are asking us to put our trust in them and the law as we as common people will not understand the 'technicalities'. Then explain to us! I bet you they can't. I'm afraid, they're just justifying their abhorrent acts, getting their clients freedom with their ability to find loop holes and technicalities in the already flawed law.
We've seen one too many suspended sentences, only to see the defendant commit another crime immediately after getting his freedom. We've seen a one and the half year jail sentence for taking another person's life while you may get three years for missing a digit on your tax return. The law needs to change with tougher penalties and securing a conviction should not be as Herculean as it currently is. The counter argument is, what if we put an innocent man to jail? That's not what I want. Trying to make a conviction not as challenging does not necessarily mean that more innocent people will go to jail. There should be appropriate changes made as the law is too much in favor of the defendant. I'm just asking for some balance back in favor of the victim, then maybe we can see more justice served!
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Another skewed view on Freedom of Expression in Malaysia
I thought of writing little today after reading an article I read in the Star Online (Malaysia) today which I will reproduce below (not in full as the later part of the article is on other inconsequential matters). I played badminton yesterday and badly injured my arm and shoulder and it's not helping my typing either, so this article may have to be a short one. Anyway here is part of the news story:
Raja Nazrin raises concern over publication of malicious books
KUALA LUMPUR: Raja Muda of Perak Raja Dr Nazrin Shah is concerned over the trend of political books vilifying certain individuals. He noted that these books were published on a seasonal basis and were closely linked to the activities of certain political organisations in the country.
“This trend, if allowed to grow, will create writings that nurture a slanderous culture, and unethical writings that tended to ignore the facts,” he said.
“Such texts will have a negative influence on the development of the mind.
“Such writings, for the profit of narrow-minded individuals and groups, will cause long-term loss to the race.”
Raja Nazrin was speaking at the launch yesterday of the book Keberanian Menggapai Harapan a Bahasa Malaysia translation of The Audacity of Hope by US President Barack Obama
*************************************************************************************
I can't help but sense that there is a political tone to his words although just a few days ago, his father, the Sultan of Perak was the same Sultan who criticised people who criticised the monarchy and boldly stated that the monarchy was above politics.
More importantly, we have to ask how the Raja Muda knows that the books are slanderous? Has he got any evidence that it is? Slander should be resolved in the courts. The avenue is there, so take it. While the books are not established as fact, neither have they been proven to be slanderous, so the Raja Muda has no credence to say so. With all due respect to the Raja Muda, this is what we call freedom of expression, maybe something new to the Malaysian establishment which still have draconian laws like the Sedition Act, Internal Security Act, the Official Secrets Act and the Publicationas Act, all designed to unfairly prosecute people who express their anti-establishment views. So maybe this Raja Muda should heed his own father's words and stay out of politics as he's making himself look silly.
Raja Nazrin raises concern over publication of malicious books
KUALA LUMPUR: Raja Muda of Perak Raja Dr Nazrin Shah is concerned over the trend of political books vilifying certain individuals. He noted that these books were published on a seasonal basis and were closely linked to the activities of certain political organisations in the country.
“This trend, if allowed to grow, will create writings that nurture a slanderous culture, and unethical writings that tended to ignore the facts,” he said.
“Such texts will have a negative influence on the development of the mind.
“Such writings, for the profit of narrow-minded individuals and groups, will cause long-term loss to the race.”
Raja Nazrin was speaking at the launch yesterday of the book Keberanian Menggapai Harapan a Bahasa Malaysia translation of The Audacity of Hope by US President Barack Obama
*************************************************************************************
I can't help but sense that there is a political tone to his words although just a few days ago, his father, the Sultan of Perak was the same Sultan who criticised people who criticised the monarchy and boldly stated that the monarchy was above politics.
More importantly, we have to ask how the Raja Muda knows that the books are slanderous? Has he got any evidence that it is? Slander should be resolved in the courts. The avenue is there, so take it. While the books are not established as fact, neither have they been proven to be slanderous, so the Raja Muda has no credence to say so. With all due respect to the Raja Muda, this is what we call freedom of expression, maybe something new to the Malaysian establishment which still have draconian laws like the Sedition Act, Internal Security Act, the Official Secrets Act and the Publicationas Act, all designed to unfairly prosecute people who express their anti-establishment views. So maybe this Raja Muda should heed his own father's words and stay out of politics as he's making himself look silly.
Friday, April 17, 2009
Stinking Celebrity Behaviour!
We’ve all seen shows like ‘Celebrities Acting Badly’ where the bad behaviours of celebrities are laid bare for the world to see. Isn’t that just the truth? Most celebrities think they are above the common man and have a stinking behaviour to match. Some even think they are above the law! When they don’t get things their way they huff and they puff till they do.
Thank goodness the courts found Phil Spectre guilty and he deserved what he got and hopefully he will only see the light of day when the prison guards wheel him out in a body bag the day he dies in jail, the same fate he so cruelly bequeaths Lana Clarkson, the actress he shot dead in the head, just after he humiliated and taunted her for being a second grade actress and wanting to leave his house. Heavens know what would happen if a woman wanted to leave Phil Spectre’s house. The first trial ended in a mistrial and at that stage I contemplated to myself that it may end in another one of those miscarriages of justice that let the rich powerful defendant with his multimillion dollar defence lawyer get away with murder. OJ Simpson and James Blake come to mind immediately. If it walks and talks like a duck, then it is a duck but the highly paid defence lawyers are going into the infinitesimal detail to basically lay doubt in the juror’s minds. This is where jurors are put in a difficult position as if there is any doubt to the guilt of the defendant; they will have to find him not guilty. Some defence lawyers are scums for getting these murderers of the hook, and some of them know at the very beginning their clients are guilty. They will just never admit it. Anyway for being the callously depraved human being he is Phil Spectre will spend a very long time in jail for his crime. Let’s hope his appeal will never be successful. Women can be safe from this putrid person for now at least.
Continuing on with bad celebrity behaviour, you can’t ignore the queen of pop, Madonna. As usual what Madonna wants, Madonna gets and when the court in Malawi did not grant her permission to adopt a Malawi child she huffed and puffed in a fit of rage and shouted in disbelief. How could this scanty court in beggarly Malawi say no to her, one of the biggest celebrities on the planet, although what she was trying to do clearly violated Malawi law? Her previous adoption was a farce where she promised the child’s father he would have constant access to his son whenever he wanted and sadly one and the half years later, his son never recognised his father. No doubts Madonna is doing this only for Madonna and no one else, not even the child is more salient in this whole saga. If she really wanted to help the Malawi children, half her wealth would be able to build sufficient schools so all of Malawi’s children can have a school to go to. Why doesn’t she do that? No Madonna is doing this for Madonna and nobody else matters. Heck she even admitted it herself. When asked what her response was to her critics, she answered ‘It’s nobody’s business.’ Nobody? How about the child? How about the child’s family? How about the law? You see, these celebrities have been getting things their way ever since they can remember that to get knocked back by the ‘common people’ is somehow inconceivable to them. Their actions are nobody’s business, even if it breaks the law.
The mantle of spoilt and bad behaving celebrities has probably got to go to Britney Spears. We were thought from young that Mom and Dad know best right? Well she sacked her parents from managing her because she did not get things all her way with them. Most everybody Britney knows has been kissing up to her arse not because they like her arse but to basically get more of their hands on the Britney Financial Pie. That’s how it works in the celebrity life (not that I have experienced it). Who are your real friends and who are pretending to be your friends to get a piece of the action is blurred. When she sacked her parents, her life went on a downward spiral with alcohol and drug abuse a constant feature in her life, finally culminating in her being suicidal and sent to hospital and put under suicide watch. She lost custody of her two children to Kevin Federline and Dr Phil offered to help her recover from her desperate situation. Now you know you’re in trouble when you lose custody of your children to Kevin Federline and head guru, Dr Phil comes a knocking! Anyway, she came to her senses, sacked her ‘close aides’ who were only interested in making money off her and reinstated her parents as her guardian and manager again. Even Britney has hope!
We see time and again celebrities acting badly and it may actually be they way society idolises these celebrities that encourages these appalling behaviours. One only have to look at celebrities like Mike Tyson, Michael Jackson, Naomi Campbell, Lindsay Lohan, Nicole Ritchie, Oasis, Elton John, George Michael, Robert Downey Junior, Hugh Grant, Tom Cruise and countless others to know that bad behaviour amongst celebrities are common place. We need to look at things objectively. Everyone is good at something (mine is complaining) and it’s just that these celebrities are good at things the public really like and would pay lots of money for. We've put them up on pedestals and what is real and what is fantasy is no longer obvious to us. They shit, fart and burp like the rest of us. They fight, complain and divorce like the rest of us. But they insist on putting up this celebrity wall which makes them untouchable, different, more special than the common man, fuelling our ever growing desire to see them even more. Society is idolising celebrities and celebrities are milking this for all that it's worth. What happened to just admiring these celebrities for what they are, skilful professionals in their chosen jobs, nothing more? Maybe that way they won’t get such big heads which is encouraging their stinking behaviour.
Thank goodness the courts found Phil Spectre guilty and he deserved what he got and hopefully he will only see the light of day when the prison guards wheel him out in a body bag the day he dies in jail, the same fate he so cruelly bequeaths Lana Clarkson, the actress he shot dead in the head, just after he humiliated and taunted her for being a second grade actress and wanting to leave his house. Heavens know what would happen if a woman wanted to leave Phil Spectre’s house. The first trial ended in a mistrial and at that stage I contemplated to myself that it may end in another one of those miscarriages of justice that let the rich powerful defendant with his multimillion dollar defence lawyer get away with murder. OJ Simpson and James Blake come to mind immediately. If it walks and talks like a duck, then it is a duck but the highly paid defence lawyers are going into the infinitesimal detail to basically lay doubt in the juror’s minds. This is where jurors are put in a difficult position as if there is any doubt to the guilt of the defendant; they will have to find him not guilty. Some defence lawyers are scums for getting these murderers of the hook, and some of them know at the very beginning their clients are guilty. They will just never admit it. Anyway for being the callously depraved human being he is Phil Spectre will spend a very long time in jail for his crime. Let’s hope his appeal will never be successful. Women can be safe from this putrid person for now at least.
Continuing on with bad celebrity behaviour, you can’t ignore the queen of pop, Madonna. As usual what Madonna wants, Madonna gets and when the court in Malawi did not grant her permission to adopt a Malawi child she huffed and puffed in a fit of rage and shouted in disbelief. How could this scanty court in beggarly Malawi say no to her, one of the biggest celebrities on the planet, although what she was trying to do clearly violated Malawi law? Her previous adoption was a farce where she promised the child’s father he would have constant access to his son whenever he wanted and sadly one and the half years later, his son never recognised his father. No doubts Madonna is doing this only for Madonna and no one else, not even the child is more salient in this whole saga. If she really wanted to help the Malawi children, half her wealth would be able to build sufficient schools so all of Malawi’s children can have a school to go to. Why doesn’t she do that? No Madonna is doing this for Madonna and nobody else matters. Heck she even admitted it herself. When asked what her response was to her critics, she answered ‘It’s nobody’s business.’ Nobody? How about the child? How about the child’s family? How about the law? You see, these celebrities have been getting things their way ever since they can remember that to get knocked back by the ‘common people’ is somehow inconceivable to them. Their actions are nobody’s business, even if it breaks the law.
The mantle of spoilt and bad behaving celebrities has probably got to go to Britney Spears. We were thought from young that Mom and Dad know best right? Well she sacked her parents from managing her because she did not get things all her way with them. Most everybody Britney knows has been kissing up to her arse not because they like her arse but to basically get more of their hands on the Britney Financial Pie. That’s how it works in the celebrity life (not that I have experienced it). Who are your real friends and who are pretending to be your friends to get a piece of the action is blurred. When she sacked her parents, her life went on a downward spiral with alcohol and drug abuse a constant feature in her life, finally culminating in her being suicidal and sent to hospital and put under suicide watch. She lost custody of her two children to Kevin Federline and Dr Phil offered to help her recover from her desperate situation. Now you know you’re in trouble when you lose custody of your children to Kevin Federline and head guru, Dr Phil comes a knocking! Anyway, she came to her senses, sacked her ‘close aides’ who were only interested in making money off her and reinstated her parents as her guardian and manager again. Even Britney has hope!
We see time and again celebrities acting badly and it may actually be they way society idolises these celebrities that encourages these appalling behaviours. One only have to look at celebrities like Mike Tyson, Michael Jackson, Naomi Campbell, Lindsay Lohan, Nicole Ritchie, Oasis, Elton John, George Michael, Robert Downey Junior, Hugh Grant, Tom Cruise and countless others to know that bad behaviour amongst celebrities are common place. We need to look at things objectively. Everyone is good at something (mine is complaining) and it’s just that these celebrities are good at things the public really like and would pay lots of money for. We've put them up on pedestals and what is real and what is fantasy is no longer obvious to us. They shit, fart and burp like the rest of us. They fight, complain and divorce like the rest of us. But they insist on putting up this celebrity wall which makes them untouchable, different, more special than the common man, fuelling our ever growing desire to see them even more. Society is idolising celebrities and celebrities are milking this for all that it's worth. What happened to just admiring these celebrities for what they are, skilful professionals in their chosen jobs, nothing more? Maybe that way they won’t get such big heads which is encouraging their stinking behaviour.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
When Will Thailand Grow Up?
Thailand has been embroiled in a political stalemate for the past 3 years. Even by Thailand’s standards which have seen 18 military coups since the 1930s, the last three years has been one of utter political chaos. The popular Prime Minister then was Thaksin Shinawatra who was ousted in a bloodless military coup backed by royalist and the business elite who claim Thaksin’s government were corrupt to the core.
They set up a group called People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD –also called the ‘yellow shirts’) but their actual goals was for less democracy instead of more. They opined that the rural poor were less educated to be involved in politics and suggested a political system where ministers were picked instead of elected by the people. This would lead to a situation where Thaksin’s support bases, who were mainly rural farmers making up the masses, would lose their politically voice (they are known as the ‘red shirt’ people). The elitist, judiciary and military would hence have a tight reign over the political landscape in Thailand; picking whomever they feel like to political office. It makes a mockery of their name, People’s Alliance for Democracy.
The charges against Thaksin for a long time were never proven, until lately when he and his wife were found guilty of corruption. By then the impartiality of the judiciary had been severely tainted by allegations of political biasness. After the military coup in 2006, fresh elections were held and a group closely allied to Thaksin was voted in to government. The PAD, did not like it and through the years waged a brutal political campaign to undermine the democratically elected government. The courts removed the serving Prime Minister, Samat Wongsawat from office by finding him guilty of hosting a cooking show while in office. Apparently, he contravened the constitution and had to be removed. Many saw this as an excuse by the courts to get rid of the Prime Minister. He was then replaced by Thaksin’s brother in law, Somchai Wongsawat from the People’s Power Party. He too was not acceptable to the PAD and was removed by the courts. He was found guilty of vote buying and the PPP dissolved with Somcahi and it’s executive members barred from politics for five years. This happened during a period of massive street demonstrations culminating in the capture of Thailand’s two international airports crippling its already weakened economy.
What the PAD did with the airport siege in any other country tantamount to treason, but they we rewarded in this case when Somchai Wongsawat was removed by the courts and the opposition alliance headed by Abhisit Vejjajiva came into power with a slim majority. The protesters, packed their bags, walked home and proclaimed victory. Not one of the leading organizers from the PAD was charged for any criminal wrongdoing although their irresponsible act plunged Thailand’s tourism industry into turmoil losing billions of dollars. This led many to believe that the PAD were being backed by a very ‘powerful figure’, but who could be that powerful?
Since taking office, Abhisit’s administration has been paralyzed by similar mass street demonstrations that saw him get into power. The ‘red shirts’ are looking to use the same tactics used by the ‘yellow shirts’ to topple government and their biggest ‘victory’ yet was the cancellation of the 16 nation Asian Summit, humiliating the administration of Abhisit who wanted to use the summit to show the world that he was still in control of Thailand. This backfired humiliatingly for him. Abhisit then declared that what the red shirts did was illegal and he was going to use force if necessary. He declared a state of emergency to restore order.
There seems to be no end in sight. The red shirts are asking Abhisit to step down and fresh elections held. Will this solve anything? Hardly, considering Samak Sundaravej and his coalition were democratically elected after the military coup and was later unceremoniously removed by the courts. As long as the Prime Minister from either alliance cannot be accepted by either side, we have a stalemate. The only person who can break this stalemate is Thailand’s revered King Bhumipol Adulyadej who has stepped in numerous times in the past to resolve political conflicts. This time round, the king has been suffering from ill health and has been steadfast not to interfere. The king’s intention is to let the political parties fight it out and in the process hopefully come out politically more mature. However, through the last three years with massive street demonstrations and airport sieges with no end in sight, Thailand's fragile economy has taken a severe battering with tourist and investors dollars scattering to safer more politically stable landscapes, it will unfortunately be a case where the king is forced to step in again and resolve Thailand’s political mess. Mature they certainly are not. More like kids having a tiff in the school yard, with seemingly grave consequences.
They set up a group called People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD –also called the ‘yellow shirts’) but their actual goals was for less democracy instead of more. They opined that the rural poor were less educated to be involved in politics and suggested a political system where ministers were picked instead of elected by the people. This would lead to a situation where Thaksin’s support bases, who were mainly rural farmers making up the masses, would lose their politically voice (they are known as the ‘red shirt’ people). The elitist, judiciary and military would hence have a tight reign over the political landscape in Thailand; picking whomever they feel like to political office. It makes a mockery of their name, People’s Alliance for Democracy.
The charges against Thaksin for a long time were never proven, until lately when he and his wife were found guilty of corruption. By then the impartiality of the judiciary had been severely tainted by allegations of political biasness. After the military coup in 2006, fresh elections were held and a group closely allied to Thaksin was voted in to government. The PAD, did not like it and through the years waged a brutal political campaign to undermine the democratically elected government. The courts removed the serving Prime Minister, Samat Wongsawat from office by finding him guilty of hosting a cooking show while in office. Apparently, he contravened the constitution and had to be removed. Many saw this as an excuse by the courts to get rid of the Prime Minister. He was then replaced by Thaksin’s brother in law, Somchai Wongsawat from the People’s Power Party. He too was not acceptable to the PAD and was removed by the courts. He was found guilty of vote buying and the PPP dissolved with Somcahi and it’s executive members barred from politics for five years. This happened during a period of massive street demonstrations culminating in the capture of Thailand’s two international airports crippling its already weakened economy.
What the PAD did with the airport siege in any other country tantamount to treason, but they we rewarded in this case when Somchai Wongsawat was removed by the courts and the opposition alliance headed by Abhisit Vejjajiva came into power with a slim majority. The protesters, packed their bags, walked home and proclaimed victory. Not one of the leading organizers from the PAD was charged for any criminal wrongdoing although their irresponsible act plunged Thailand’s tourism industry into turmoil losing billions of dollars. This led many to believe that the PAD were being backed by a very ‘powerful figure’, but who could be that powerful?
Since taking office, Abhisit’s administration has been paralyzed by similar mass street demonstrations that saw him get into power. The ‘red shirts’ are looking to use the same tactics used by the ‘yellow shirts’ to topple government and their biggest ‘victory’ yet was the cancellation of the 16 nation Asian Summit, humiliating the administration of Abhisit who wanted to use the summit to show the world that he was still in control of Thailand. This backfired humiliatingly for him. Abhisit then declared that what the red shirts did was illegal and he was going to use force if necessary. He declared a state of emergency to restore order.
There seems to be no end in sight. The red shirts are asking Abhisit to step down and fresh elections held. Will this solve anything? Hardly, considering Samak Sundaravej and his coalition were democratically elected after the military coup and was later unceremoniously removed by the courts. As long as the Prime Minister from either alliance cannot be accepted by either side, we have a stalemate. The only person who can break this stalemate is Thailand’s revered King Bhumipol Adulyadej who has stepped in numerous times in the past to resolve political conflicts. This time round, the king has been suffering from ill health and has been steadfast not to interfere. The king’s intention is to let the political parties fight it out and in the process hopefully come out politically more mature. However, through the last three years with massive street demonstrations and airport sieges with no end in sight, Thailand's fragile economy has taken a severe battering with tourist and investors dollars scattering to safer more politically stable landscapes, it will unfortunately be a case where the king is forced to step in again and resolve Thailand’s political mess. Mature they certainly are not. More like kids having a tiff in the school yard, with seemingly grave consequences.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Another Spineless Judge Representing our country's Thugs!
First read this article in the Daily Telegraph today:
Todd Munter jailed over 'water rage' attack on Sydney Grandad Ken Proctor
The Daily Telegraph
April 09, 2009 01:51pm
Man jailed over fatal "water rage" attack
Offender was "time bomb", judge says
May be out of jail in less than year
THE family of a Sydney grandfather who died after he was kicked and punched in a mistaken case of "water rage" expressed disappointment that his attacker could walk from prison in less than a year's time.
Todd Munter, 38, was sentenced to three years and three months' jail with a non-parole period of 18 months for the manslaughter of Caringbah retiree, Ken Proctor, 66, The Daily Telgraph reports.But the sentence imposed by Justice Roderick Howie was back-dated to October last year to take into account the time he has already served in custody. The court heard Munter was having a bad day when he came upon Mr Proctor hosing his wife's roses in October 2007. Munter, who had a metal device implanted in his back for a work-related injury, had just been told he needed another large operation. He had also fought with his girlfriend earlier.
Although Mr Proctor was entitled under council guidelines to use the hose on a Wednesday, a heated argument began after Munter called him a "stupid old goat.'' When Mr Proctor turned the hose on his aggressor, Munter punched the older man once in the face and shoved him, causing him to fall and hit his head on the footpath. A short time later, Mr Proctor suffered a fatal heart-attack on the lawn, while Munter and a number of neighbours - including an off-duty police officer - attempted to revive him using CPR.
Justice Howie said it was clear Munter was "truly remorseful'' by his efforts in trying to revive Mr Proctor and his tearful recounting of the incident later. He said Munter did not have a record of violence and the offence was out of character. "The offender has clearly suffered a chronic pain disorder as a result of the injury to his back and the subsequent surgery,'' Justice Howie said. "I am satisfied that his irritability with Mr Proctor was a result of pain and disappointment with its prognosis.'' The case was, for both families involved, a "real human tragedy'', Justice Howie said. "It was simply the interaction of a number of factors, none of which were the offender's fault, that resulted in him being primed as a time bomb waiting to go off,'' he said. Outside the court, Mr Proctor's widow, Lynette, and their children, said they were disappointed with the sentence. "We would have liked a little bit more than that,'' Lynette Proctor said. Her daughter, Michelle, said although the family wasn't happy with the result "we'll accept it because we know he'll suffer for a very long time, as we are.'' She described her late father as a "very good'' man.
**************************************************************************************************
Now let me know what you think of that. What a horse shit of a judge! See what he says: "It was simply the interaction of a number of factors, none of which were the offender's fault, that resulted in him being primed as a time bomb waiting to go off,'' he said. Holy macaroni! He punches a guy to death and it is not his fault! Then whose fault is it? If I were the victim’s family, I would punch this judge in the face for saying that. As if the blow of losing a loved one in such a tragic manner was not enough pain, they get a second blow by this insensitive judge. What is going on with our judges nowadays? Don’t they know that violent crime is on the rise? Do they know they are not helping the situation by their illogically soft stance on these types of crime?
How about this one:
"The offender has clearly suffered a chronic pain disorder as a result of the injury to his back and the subsequent surgery,'' Justice Howie said.
So was this the catalyst for going around behaving like a boxer? Sounds like just another lame excuse and the judge is helping the offender get away with it.
Call me silly, but even if you had a bad day, you are not exempt from following the tenets of civilised human behaviour, no matter how bad your day is. Otherwise, society will not be able to rest looking out constantly for people who have had a ‘bad day’. What a load of crap and the judge should be sacked.
Ok, if we look at it factually and not just emotionally like I have been doing, we have the following facts:
· The offender approached Ken Procter with no provocation whatsoever. He went looking for trouble when there was none available.
· Ken was well within his rights to use his hose to water his wife’s roses on a Wednesday. Water restrictions did not apply to watering from a hose. He got that wrong as well.
· The offender was the aggressor by first acting aggressively and calling Ken a “stupid old goat”.
.The reaction did not fit the crime, which we know it wasn't.
· The offender punched Ken knowing full well that Ken was an older man and he did not have a fair chance to defend himself.
As far as I’m concerned whether he didn’t have his morning coffee, he was raped by his baby sitter or any other lame excuse; it’s just that, a lame excuse. Anybody can make something up and surprisingly it has become very effective with spineless judges like this one. So he felt remorseful and decided to help revive the old man. Well wouldn’t you do that too if you fucked up real bad? The fact remains he fucked up real bad and he has to pay an appropriate punishment for fucking up real bad and 3 years apparently is the value of life nowadays.
Monday, April 6, 2009
Media ladies prefer to be 'stripped down' - 2nd Most Viewed Article in the Star Online - Bloody Cheap Trick!!
Media ladies prefer to be ‘stripped down’
SEPANG: The women working at the Formula One paddock prefer to go naked under the intense heat –neck up that is.
French journalist Anne Laure Bonnet, 30, said she doesn’t wear much make-up because it would run in the heat and leaves streaks on her face.
“I only put a bit on before we go ‘live’ to look a little more fresh.
“I put on some MAC powder and Benefit lip gloss, and that’s it. Elsewhere, I would wear a bit of blush as well, but not here. It’s just too hot,” she said when met at the paddock here yesterday.
The TV commentator for Sky Italy also swears by a special cream she bought in France to keep her legs feeling cool.
Ferrari press officer Stefania Bocchi, 40, who sports a healthy tan too, prefers to keep her make up to a minimum.
“I wear sun block in the morning, and that’s about it. We’re also very busy here, so we don’t really have time to touch up our make-up, so it’s best to keep it natural,” she said.
************************************************************************************
Now this is an article that appeared in the Malaysian Star newspaper today which was the second most read article of the day. When I read the headline I too was intrigued by the news story (for obvious reasons), but was sorely letdown when I read the rest of the article. What a fizzer. What an anti climax. How can the writer and editor resort to such deceitful tactics to get people to read his nothing article? How do you even go naked face up? Maybe the writer is being tongue in cheek, but it borders on a sexism, not that I'm a great advocate of anti-sexism but I don't condone sexism either, especially when done in such a suggestive way. Don't you agree that the article is basically crap, describing ladies and their make up or lack of it and fear of it running streaks along their faces. Blah! Get a life! Second most read article in the Star for the 6th April 2009. Must be a very slow news day.
SEPANG: The women working at the Formula One paddock prefer to go naked under the intense heat –neck up that is.
French journalist Anne Laure Bonnet, 30, said she doesn’t wear much make-up because it would run in the heat and leaves streaks on her face.
“I only put a bit on before we go ‘live’ to look a little more fresh.
“I put on some MAC powder and Benefit lip gloss, and that’s it. Elsewhere, I would wear a bit of blush as well, but not here. It’s just too hot,” she said when met at the paddock here yesterday.
The TV commentator for Sky Italy also swears by a special cream she bought in France to keep her legs feeling cool.
Ferrari press officer Stefania Bocchi, 40, who sports a healthy tan too, prefers to keep her make up to a minimum.
“I wear sun block in the morning, and that’s about it. We’re also very busy here, so we don’t really have time to touch up our make-up, so it’s best to keep it natural,” she said.
************************************************************************************
Now this is an article that appeared in the Malaysian Star newspaper today which was the second most read article of the day. When I read the headline I too was intrigued by the news story (for obvious reasons), but was sorely letdown when I read the rest of the article. What a fizzer. What an anti climax. How can the writer and editor resort to such deceitful tactics to get people to read his nothing article? How do you even go naked face up? Maybe the writer is being tongue in cheek, but it borders on a sexism, not that I'm a great advocate of anti-sexism but I don't condone sexism either, especially when done in such a suggestive way. Don't you agree that the article is basically crap, describing ladies and their make up or lack of it and fear of it running streaks along their faces. Blah! Get a life! Second most read article in the Star for the 6th April 2009. Must be a very slow news day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)