Archive for March, 2016

Shame on Sham

March 6, 2016

The following statements are not to be read in part or in whole by anyone connected to the coroner’s inquiry on Benjamin Lim’s case. If you happen to be part of the coroner’s inquiry on Benjamin Lim’s case or are connected to it, kindly refrain from reading further. This is to ensure that the comments made here will not prejudice the coroner’s inquiry in any way.

I refer to Minister Shanmugam’s parliament statements on Benjamin’s case.

The claim that the girl had been traumatised doesn’t square with the opinion that Benjamin would have received no more than a warning and that the specific molest is less serious. As far as the law is concerned, touching the hand can be considered molest too. Even the hair is considered a part of the girl’s body. If indeed the girl had been subjected to traumatic molest, then a mere warning would appear unjust to the girl.

Throughout his statements, Shanmugam gave next to nothing about the young girl so quite clearly, protecting the young girl was never a problem to begin with.

From media reports, it is clear the family desperately sought answers; answers that Shanmugam didn’t give. Shanmugam’s disregard for Benjamin’s family’s pleas for answers is not characteristic of someone who is genuinely respectful. Respect for Benjamin should not have precluded Shanmugam from sharing what he knew with Benjamin’s family privately.

The confrontational nature of Shanmugam’s response doesn’t square with his superficial admission of responsibility. What’s there to be responsible for if the protocols did not contribute to Benjamin’s death? If Shanmugam indeed feels responsible and sees the need for protocols to be re-examined, surely he must at least feel a little apologetic that he hadn’t examined the protocols sooner? But one detects absolutely no remorse in Shanmugam’s answers. It is almost as though he did no wrong and nobody in the government was wrong. I think the 70% vote that PAP secured must have given him tremendous confidence to act this way.

Shanmugam’s concern with politicisation in this case appears one sided only. While he goes to great lengths to condemn politicisation against his own government, he spoke next to nothing about the vicious attacks on the family of Benjamin whom he supposedly respects.

Shanmugam said:

The Rules of Sub Judice generally preclude discussions which may prejudice proceedings but public officials like myself can make statements, if they believe it to be necessary in the public interest, even if there is a hearing pending.

What is Shamugam saying? He, as an official, is above the law? As an official, he is not bound by the law but we peasants are bound by it? What kind of law is this? Peasant’s law?