THE TEMASEK REVIEW

sheldon:

juliet chua said

1. “IT IRKS me that young people blog negatively about the Singapore Government”

2. “The question often asked is, ‘What can the Government do for me?’, but shouldn’t it be, ‘What can I do for my country?’”

so when people feel it in their patriotic blood to vote the pap out of power, they must be deemed unpatriotic instead.

i should assume ms juliet chua is reasonably intelligent but why is there such a skip in her logic?

the reason is simple, because in her mind, unbeknown to her, pap is synonymous with singapore, just like how kuan yew also think his story is the singapore story.

for the fun of it, let’s call this the juliet syndrome.

‘it’s the fallacy of equating the pap with singapura without knowing it.’ (open to amendments)

we shall expose all the brainwashing effects one by one. who knows, we may even be able to compile a big list.

stan:

this is because juliet chua is living below a covered shelter earning more than the usual singaporean and never have went to see what it is like for low income family, taxi drivers etc etc. she most probably own a car too.

Anonymous:

Juliet Chua is just a fictitious character created by the proproganda team at ST, just like NKorea.

Fairplayplease:

@XisD Tay on Sat, 22nd Aug 2009 1:34 pm…greetings…

My main point is that young bloggers, if they are critical, ARE NOT NECESSARY WRONG OR UNHEALTHY OF CONTRIBUTION because MSM often presents a “landscape” holistic view which is inherently self-destructive when struck with a strategic surprise or strategic blindness.

Just read the example below – when you read the CONTEXTUAL TEXTURE CAREULLY in the publishing of critical minds, you could possibly agree with me that US AND NATO has NO POSSIBILITY OF WINING THE MILITARY WAR IN AFGHANISTAN.

Politicians all believe mistakenly that Afghanistan is a problem that need a MILITARY solution needing more and more commitment of manpower and firepower. WRONG BECAUSE OF PATRONAGE POLITICS OF INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION within Afghan society – the “BAD” guy today is “good” guy tommorow etc and the reverse.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/doing-the-bidding-of-organised-crime-20090821-ett6.html?page=-1

I am sure the Russian with their armour and superior firepower experienced this scary unwinnable war for 10 years (???) and pulled out in defeat.

The caterpillar minds of Americans and their NATO allies even among military generals and advisors have NOT yet figure out the contextual texture of the war in Afghanistan.

Even the sharp investigating journalist can see through the faultline of dumb politicians in Washington and its NATO allies – and they are oblivious that this war cannot be won by military might until the day when it collapsed in complete failure.

Amazing indeed!!!

argh!:

this woman…. is brainwashed.

Must’ve been under the propaganda machine, and had accepted it really well.

Blinded? Seems like it.

she should also ask, “why the gahment like to suck so much money from me?” whhy???? and why no one account for it?? hAAAA??? i want to know why also leh!!!!

FreeLunchExistInSingapore:

What has the ministers and MP have done?

They don’t even fight in elections.

They impose artificial rules to make their own lives easy.

hairy:

mdm chua:
Ref:http://ayolamimpi.spaces.live.com/default.aspx

“….，人们对国家所付出的献身精神，是不需要任何报酬的。如果我们要以好处或利益作为交换，或者公民需要这些利益才肯对国家献身，那我想这份献身精神并没有多大价值。” — 陈振泉

BUT

“人们对国家所付出的献身精神，是不需要任何报酬的”，然而，“部长对国家所付出的献身精神，是要和黄金挂钩的。”

get the idea?

坡仔哥哥:

1. Juliet Chua should be respected for her views, just as she should ours. – i.e. She should simply blog her views and not critize other bloggers “shame on you” – lets stick with the issues and not get personal.

2. vise vsersa for all us anti-Lee Bloggers as well…

3. A lot of “negative” comments are constructive critiscms – if Fairplayplease, of even the ultra cynic XisD Tay do not care – they will not blog so actively….same for me, I am 41 now, and lived more than 7 years (20% of my life) in China / HK.

I understand the situation well here…but I dont care and so I do not blog about China and HK, not my place and not my shit.

4. There can only be 2 reasons why the books were not opened to late Ong Teng Cheong (nor I suspect it ever will be)

- The Common Man is deemed unfit to handle the info i.e. If we know the depth of our federal reserves, we will pressure to re-allocate esources and many voices will surface to “push and pull” in different directions and many debates will explode.

Simply, if we know, we will raise hell and the shit will really hit the fan in Singapore

- Our Competitors will know our secret formulae – like Coke or Pepsi, the formulae will never be released. Our ASEAN region is plauged by other countries that although friendly are envious of our success.

5. I do agree to a certain extent to Juliet’s opinion, but really, the overall social fabric and educational level of singaporean are now different with each and every decade. I think that we are now entitled to ask more questions and debate more.

6. We are democratic but demoracy means different things to different people…the bloggers care about our (yours and mine) singapore, that is why we blog. We should be grateful, but how do we move forward from here? Thru healthy but vigorous debate.

7. The Singapore does not belong to PAP or to the Lees, it belongs to you and me. They are merely our stewards…for now.

A middle-aged, middle-class Singaporean mother:

Dear Julia

Get a life! It’s not just young bloggers who are speaking up against the Government. I’m a graduate, mum of 3 (therefore done my national service), have children studying in top schools & I’m angry & upset with the government and its policies.

My children study long hours to get into a top sec schools & they find that scholars from China are admitted into their top classes. Not only are they a year older, they are offered subjects such as Chinese literature which makes it very easy with Chinese, Higher Chinese & Chinese lit, to score distinctions. Not only are all their expenses paid but they receive tuition paid for from the school. During the school holidays, they obtain tuition everyday. This tuition is only for these foreign scholars. If such privileges were accorded to Singaporeans, would they not do equally well? My children do well because they work very hard. Imagine how much better Singaporeans could do if the government provided such free quality tuition to locals. So Julia, don’t talk to me about being grateful.

Quite a few of my friends over the last few years, have been retrenched or have been forced to take early retirement. And these were people in the civil service. They were told that that this was not because they were not performing, but because they should give way to the younger & more savvy (translation elite S’pore scholars). Not only are these people the main breadwinners for their families, most have school-going children and have to pay mortgages. They are graduates, very computer literate and have a world of experience. What is the government offering them now – taxi drivers, Operation Managers, customer service officers? So Julia, don’t talk to me about being grateful.

More government hospitals spaces are opened up for foreigners and the rich; and even those left for the poor and middle class is not cheap. A Minister had the audacity to state that we build nursing homes in JB for our elderly and infirm as it would be more cost effective. This to me is the final blow where SC have to look to countries overseas to provide humane care when all over life we have been giving our sweat, blood, time and in some cases lives for S’pore. So Julia, don’t talk to me about being grateful.

Anonymous:

for that kind of salary they are getting, they should be able to do even more.

why shld we be grateful when they are earning an exorbitant amount of money, delivering such mediocre job and yet boasting to us they are world class? we taxpayers are their boss, not the other way round.

Alwin Loi:

IT IRKS me that brainwashed people write positively about the Singapore Government

Fairplayplease:

SHAME ON YOU APPEL POLISHERS AND CATERPILLARS WORMING IN OUR MIDST, even an 18 year old grassroot volunteer can see through the smoke and mirror bullshit of MSM and incumbent politic’s chicanery bullshit.

Read this

http://www.asiaone.com/News/Education/Story/A1Story20090826-163584.html

I AM DEEPLY MOVED AND GRATIFIED TO READ of this young Singaporean.

THERE IS HOPE IN THE GREAT MINDS OF OUR YOUNG who benefited from education and MOST IMPORTANT LIKE HER GIVE HER TIME, DEDICATION AND DEEP THOUGHTS OF EMPATHY FOR OUR NATION.

Spare us the glib talks inside that funny zoo.

This is real Majulah Singapura.

Fairplayplease:

@jiak on Thu, 27th Aug 2009 3:56 pm …greetings….

Here are the good answers to your questions

We don’t speak in “hidden” language/message of self-contradictions inside and outside that “funny” zoo,

Because rhetoric is the cousin of lies and deceptions,

Apple polishers don’t know that they are eating apples stored for 9 months and sells as “fresh” fruits and

caterpillars don’t know they are caterpillars – the rest of us
simply observes and laughing.

Need I say anymore???

Anonymous:

Because you are not bombarded with anti-government views 24/7 in your local media and newspapers. Does critical thinking mean anything to YEW?

jiak:

“We don’t speak in “hidden” language/message of self-contradictions inside and outside that “funny” zoo”

How much does your opinion differ from those of Ms Chua’s? How are you able to brand a person ‘brainwashed’ based on a mere 6-para of opinion?

“Because rhetoric is the cousin of lies and deceptions”

Is not the above ‘rhetoric’ as well?

“Apple polishers don’t know that they are eating apples stored for 9 months and sells as “fresh” fruits and”

What basis do you use to justify the above assumption? Who are you trying to categorize? I assume it won’t include yourself?

“caterpillars don’t know they are caterpillars – the rest of us
simply observes and laughing.”

Excuse me, do you know something the rest of the planet doesn’t? How would you know what a caterpillar know or not know? Or are you speaking metaphorically?

“Need I say anymore???”

I’m sorry, what have you said?

jiak:

“Because you are not bombarded with anti-government views 24/7 in your local media and newspapers. Does critical thinking mean anything to YEW?”

I don’t read local papers, I seldom watch local news. And even if I do, how does that affect my ability to think criticially?

jiak:

“We observe !! ROTFLMAO”

Ms Chua observed !!?

jolly:

Dear juliet . i support your views. why don’t you join the youth wing of PAP. and then stand for election which is coming soon. the govt needs you badly as a mouth piece. to talk cock.

Darth Vader:

Jiak, anti-government statements are made by people who have either suffered from the government’s unfair policies, or have noticed others suffering from them, hence they are speaking their minds. Pro-government statements come from either people who actually benefit from its unfair policies, or people who cannot or will not acknowledge its faults. Either way, you’re talking about people who are disconnected from reality, hence pro-government statements are brainwashed.

Do you understand now?

jiak:

“Jiak, anti-government statements are made by people who have either suffered from the government’s unfair policies, or have noticed others suffering from them, hence they are speaking their minds.”

I guarantee that if the opposition is in power or anyone else other than the PAP, the above would still be true.

“Pro-government statements come from either people who actually benefit from its unfair policies, or people who cannot or will not acknowledge its faults. Either way, you’re talking about people who are disconnected from reality, hence pro-government statements are brainwashed.”

Absolutely disagree.

Maybe some do come across as buying the party line. My point is that anti-govt voices don’t sound that intelligent either. Pls rem you haven’t built anything worthy of constructive criticism. In fact, anti-govt types, in my experience, don’t take criticism themselves very well. Can criticize, but can’t take same.

Another usual characteristic is that you read the headlines, buay song and let go another salvo. But do you actually know what are the options available, the consequences, intended or otherwise, the constrains of having to try and please more people than piss off the minority? Majority of you don’t even read the details?

So what is reality? Policies have to be black and white the way you see it? And if the govt doesn’t see things your way, then they are detached? Everyone else is also detached? What kind of logic is that?

Just one fact, it is legit to be concerned about the poor, the jobless and the disadvantaged. But pls rem, the majority of them don’t pay taxes. They are net beneficiaries of the govt who takes from the working class and especially from the rich. The country is funded in large part by the very rich. Do you not think the govt also has to keep these people happy so that they can take from the rich to help the poor where they can?

If you are in govt, how are you going to balance the two? Or are you just lopsided in your arguments and blind to the needs of the others? I mean to argue, you have to know both sides of the debate? In fact, if you’re a reasonable man/woman, you won’t be branding people as brainwashed pro-govt this and that. Because you will at least understand the other side of the equation. But I suspect for most of you, you only see one side. Thus, you’re no better than the very people you abhor and call names.

btan:

PAP supporters are brainwashed. Anti-PAP people have washed-brain. Cos they have woken up and realised their brain were dirtied by PAP and proceed to cleanse it off its dirt.

More and more people has woken up. One day the numbers will be a force to be reckoned with. Without numbers, we will always live under the tyranny of majority.

Anonymous:

New media corrects SOULLESS distortions in MSM, what is wrong with that?

The public has the right to be objectively informed to make their own decisions.

jiak:

“New media corrects SOULLESS distortions in MSM, what is wrong with that?

The public has the right to be objectively informed to make their own decisions.”

I’m very impressed. So let’s give it a try. Let’s look at our so-called nest egg in the so-called HDB flat of ours. Can you go to the HDB and CPF and other relevant websites. Drill down to the last link and tell me what can we do better pls?

Anonymous:

Does a frog in a well knows how big the world is – just quoting the accidental traveller/s?

A lot of people who don’t just travelled, they lived, survived and more than prospered in foreign land of different cultures. They know a lot more and in-depth than the casual passing traveller/s but they hold their wise and experienced counsel until travellers have spoken erroneously first.

gaibang:

“The public has the right to be objectively informed to make their own decisions”

This is exactly why we should hope to see happening in new media if the MSMs do not want to be objective in their reporting. If both MSMs and new media are lop-sided and not objective, how can we expect the public to make sound judgment and right decision?

The transparency issue is subjective as it depends on what you are comparing with and how you determine transparency.

To people without the specific knowledge, any withholding of the information is seen as not transparent. To people with the full knowledge, any dissemination of information is considered as transparent. It is impractical to ask for full disclosure as no organization will disclose everything about itself to the public. Can anyone determine how much information needs to be disclosed to be considered transparent?

Anonymous:

“You’re wrong on at least one count, I’m not dumb, at least in terms of photons and electrons”

A little knowledge is a very dangerous thing…. read more and learn more here

http://www.answers.com/topic/a-little-knowledge-is-a-dangerous-thing

jiak:

Same old operating procedure. Just take one big blanket and whack. When enquiries about details come in, just simply ignore. Simple questions also cannot answer. Just stand on top of your platform and preach. How to even trust you guys to ask the right questions in Parliament when you don’t even know the subject matter? Or just adopt Ling H.D.’s famous “don’t talk kok” to a question? He got voted out you know?

Anonymous:

FOI law – its execution likely to be a nightmare?? Since when? Why they don’t dismantle it in these foreign countries? QUITE SIMPLY, IT KEEPS THE BASTARDS HONEST is the catchphrase. If ASSUMING Dick Cheney’s instigation of interrogation methods is illegal under the law, then he has to face the consequence of that. Nobody is above the law – regardless. Why is the late President Nixon impeached from the Office of Presidency? He was not above the law!

One Chinaman used FOI laws in Australia to gain documentary evidence and successfully sued the Sydney Olympic Committee for contract breach for an amount exceeding A$40 million in court award. Without that, do you think he can win the legal judgement fair and square? The Government in question would do as they like and in violation of the law!!

It is always better to “keep the bastards honest”. FOI laws serves a very useful purpose of keeping rogues out of public office. And it is efficient because few people actually used FOI laws.

gaibang:

Why they don’t dismantle it in these foreign countries? It should be simply because the law is being used by politicians in-power for their own political interest.

President Nixon was never impeached because he resigned before the impeachment. Why do you think President Ford pardoned former President Nixon? It was to stop the federal criminal investigation on President Nixon. Do you really believe that US politicians and ex-presidents are all law-abiding citizens and the agencies under them had never flouted any law regarding interrogation method, espionage, sabotage, and etc?

Regarding the Sydney Olympic Committee case, how do you know whether there was no political intervention? A$40 million is not a small sum of money and there could be many interest parties at play behind the scene. Could it be due to diplomatic pressure from China or involvement of pro-China camp in the Australian cabinet? What could be the damage to Australia if this case had been brought up to the international level?

Why “Few people actually use FOI law”? Isn’t it plain simple that there is a need to have political clout or strong political backing for it to work?

Anonymous:

gaibang, all your arguments ALL just substantiate my point – FOI serves the useful purpose of “keeping the bastards honest” = TRANSPARENCY AND INFORMATION IN THE FACE OF DISTORTED DISCLOSURES BY GOVERNMENTS. As you agree politicians and ex-presidents are not necessary law abiding nor is their agencies.Absolutely, that is why FOI law is there for.

As for some China man who got the over $40 million court award and your speculation … “could be many interest parties at play behind the scene. Could it be due to diplomatic pressure from China or involvement of pro-China camp in the Australian cabinet? What could be the damage to Australia if this case had been brought up to the international level?” …. is exactly that – YOUR SPECULATION.

I have no awareness of reality that any Australian court judgement is ever influenced by Government of their own country or worse foreign country. If you read some of the posts link by another blogger on this website on an Indian doctor falsely accused of terorism, you know their judiciary at even the magistrate level screwed their devious Government. So your supposition if completely false.

Your comment blah blah blah …”The law is also often use as a tool by political rivals to uncover damaging information from each other for political gain, and is only effective when the party using it has political clout or strong political backing…”

Again is incorrect to facts and defies logic. How can you logically argue that it can only use “when the party using it has political clout or strong political backing?

You mean that if you got no political clout or strong political backing, you can’t use FOI to your advantage? How did the China man use FOI to his advantage? What make you think he got political clout or political backing except in your unexplained imagination? FOI is a law to allow EVERYBODY residing in the country to access SAME information for TRANSPARENCY – whether you are the prime minister, former prime minister, journalists, refugees seeking protection of the law in court decisions, garbage collector or even janitor – it is the same right as all others.

You are obviously commenting without the slightest comprehension of what FOI laws is about and its application. I was there and their immigration ruled against my application for certain rights. I actually paid only $15 to read their documented decision, photocopied it and used that information to seek legal advice of an Australian immigration lawyer to see if the law applied as to my application is correct in their Australian law. I have actual experience and I am a foreigner. It keeps those “bastards” honest! They have to comply their laws and not be unlawfully discriminatory.

So it is very hard to argue with you when you have no understanding of such foreign laws no similar encounter with FOI laws. The reason why it is NOT dismantle it over the decades is because it is found to be useful i.e. forced the “voluntary” departure of John Blair etc, it is easily accessible to all, it is transparent, it is fair, it is informative, and democracy loves it and best of all, it keeps bastards honest.

Summing up, my message to you is ‘KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT IN THIS BLOG”. Keep imagination, speculation and supposition out of the equation for meaningful dialogue and conversation in this blog, unlike Jiak who talks in circle and circus of self-contradiction. That is why I entertain a debate with you here.

Thanks for sharing this conversation, regardless.

gaibang:

Isn’t whatever you said here about the Australian Olympic Committee also speculation based on what you read in the news? Or do you believe everything written in the newspapers? Unless you tell me you are the chinaman himself or you are an insider who knows the details of the lawsuit, why should I believe you?

You said “FOI is a law to allow EVERYBODY” and “few people actually use FOI law”. Do you see the contradiction in these 2 statements? Are you implying majority of the people in those countries with FOI law are satisfied with the information given by their authorities? If you say yes, why do we see so many demonstrations and unhappiness expressed by the people with their governments in US and UK regarding many of their policies? Why did Dick Cheney’s case surface only after the Republican lost the election and not during Bush administration? Why wasn’t the hoax on Iraq WMD that brought Tony Blair down in UK being used against George W. Bush and Dick Cheney in US since they both have the FOI law? You are just in denial that these are real evident supporting my point on the need for political clout or strong political backing.

If you agree that not all politicians are above laws, then why do you think FOI is not frequently used against those who are still in office with strong political clout? My point here is FOI law is not the ultimate answer for the normal people to seek out undisclosed information from the authority as you have suggested it to be. All the big cases that we discussed here so far have political influence in them and it mainly works on those politicians who are losing or have lost their power, except the Olympic case that you disagree with my deduction.

On your experience with the Australian immigration, there is a way to save your $15 if it happened in Singapore. There are many cases here where people only need to write to ST forum or give their story to a news blog or online discussion forum and then they received formal reply from the authority, maybe with apology for the inconvenience caused and plus an official dedicated to address their issue. Do you think it will work if we use this law to ask why there was a 180 degree change in Australian govt’s earlier stance to allow SIA to fly the trans-pacific route after S’pore granted Qantas the equal rights to fly from here to other nations like UK? Can we know what actually transpired during the strong lobbying by Qantas? Allowing SIA on this route will actually benefit the Australian citizens very much.

I’m also thankful for your sharing of the FOI knowledge and do appreciate this discussion with you, but it’s still difficult for me to be convinced that it can be used to achieve true transparency and bring officials and politicians to toe the line. You make it sounds too idealistic and without limitations. You maybe right to say that I do not understand the law well enough to argue against it, but I do have many doubts on how effective it can be used by normal people against malpractices, especially by those with strong political clout and backing. Also, you cannot deny me the rights to raise my doubts even if I do not understand much about this law yet.

Do you fully know about this law yourselves? As much for me, I think it will also be useful for you to spend some time to read more information about it and its limitations in the different countries. This maybe what jiak is complaining about you and some of the lop-sided comments posted here.

Anonymous:

Gaibang, I will be nice, do you a favour and to avoid doubt of how FOI laws actually works in Australia for those weak politically with not clout or backing, I have google the net for the case history of Mohamed Haneef, a doctor on working visa in Queensland, wrongly accused and charged for alleged linked to UK terrorism.

Read this comment in the Age

Documents released under freedom-of-information laws have revealed that at the time Mohamed Haneef was charged with a terrorism-related offence, the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions was aware that the case against him was weak, The Age newspaper reported on Friday…

Haneef’s lawyers have forwarded the 1,351 pages released under freedom-of-information laws to John Clarke, QC, who is heading Haneef inquiry.

The link is below

http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/may/16glasgow.htm

Subsequently,…read this comment in another newspaper

The case collapsed for lack of evidence and is now the subject of a government-ordered inquiry headed by retired NSW Supreme Court judge John Clarke SC.

The link is below

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23887711-601,00.html

READ HOW THEY KEEP THE BASTARDS HONEST.. Read the comment below

But Mr Keim then stepped forward to identify himself as the source of the documents and explained he had merely put on public record information the government and the police were attempting to hide.

This is the link

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23075053-601,00.html

This is not a movie make believe. It is a real case of FOI information of over 1351 pages of truth exploded under the balls of the Commonwealth Public Prosecutor which the judge threw the case out the door!!

FOI laws are very effective in keeping the bastards honest – both for the Government and the defendant. IT IS FAIR AND ACCOUNTABILITY TO TRUTH. POLITICAL CLOUT AND SO-CALLED BEHIND THE ACTION DIRTY TACTICS DON’T WORK BECAUSE THE CROOKS WILL BE EXPOSED EITHER IN THE MSM OR IN CYBERSPACE.

Now do you believe me that FOI is extremely beneficial to small man framed up by dirty politicians???

Anonymous:

Gaibang, it is NOT a matter of giving me doubt or not. It is about factual truth and constructive debate. You knoew about Haneef case but you have NOT (until your last post) mentioned it and even when you mentioned it most reluctantly ( in hindsight of truth???) you distorted the information with Indian Government intervention and falsely claim that this was a factor in Haneef’s victory.

That is blatant intellectual dishonesty which unfortunately reflects poorly of your conduct.

The weblink I supplied showed VERY CLEARLY a combination of actions and decision involving

- 1351 pages of FOI information exposed the deceptions in Commonwealth Prosecutor’s case

- the uncompromising guts and professional determination of two lawyers leaking FOI information to the Australian media and

- of course, most importantly, the integrity of the Australian judiciary magistrate who threw out the case out the door WITHOUT HANEEF’S DEFENCE being called. The judge saw the case as obviously malicious persecution, NOT prosecution of terrorism law the Government pretended.

were the ONLY FACTORS that destroyed the Commonwealth Government’s case.

There was definitely politics involved BUT OF THE DEVIOUS KIND involving the Australian Government to destroy a foreign talent. Haneef is only an innocent man and small man of no political clout nor backing. Inside Australia, nobody knew him other than his workmates in Australia.

The judge DID NOT call the Indian Government before deciding the case- it is all your imaginations, ignorance of truth and your advantage of perpetrating lies in this forum.The judge REFUSED TO HEAR the Commonwealth case. It was out the door, PERIOD. It was all in the international press, as you said even in Singapore. The uproar of injustice rocked Australians who is greatly impressed by Haneef’s lawyer conduct and leaking of FOI -sourced information to the media. The Howard’s Government’s handling of this matter and its credibility with Australian was decimated. The Minister who handled this case was NOT re-elected back into Parliament – complete disgrace.

Your insinuation of Indian Government’s involvement in winning the case for Haneef (after having read the link provided) is KNOWINGLY FALSE AND HYPOCRTICAL OF YOUR INTELLECTUAL CONDUCT. If there was a long hearing, long recession for deliberation behind closed door – then your false insinuation would have am opening to hawk your lies. If your claims has got the slightest whiff of your imaginative creative lies, ask yourself the stupidity of your logic – the Indian Government lobbied for Haneef, and John Howard threw his re-lection prospect (and possible history as the longest serving prime minister) to please the Indian Government? It is moronic of stupidity of no measurement possible of such wild claims of yours. The Australian Government would protect their national interest of security – kicked the sh$t of Indian Government’ s intervention ( if there is ever one) in the worst of circumtances and scandously convicted Haneef to claim victory for law and Australia.

In this case, all the papers in Australia and overseas showed NO HEARING OF DEFENCE EVIDENCES took place. The judge only looked at the prosecution evidences and decided no case to answer for Haneef. So, you, very poorly lied here to pretend credibility to your claims that Indian Government’s intervention won his day. It was Haneef’s legal team and FOI exploded the balls of the Commonwealth prosecutors leaving the judge with no alternative but testing the prosecution’s evidence rigorously and thrown him out of his courtroom.

I really would appreciate a little bit more intellectual honesty from you. Post from anyone else in this thread with obvious circus-like fictional imagination and logical fallacy will NOT get my attention of rebuttal. These are posted by monkey/s meant for the zoo. Readers can dissect them.

And then another fictional stuff of yours in closing….”FOI mainly works for influential people or people with strong backing or in cases where there is diplomatic intervention…”

Does the read I provided on Haneef answered that question faithfully and truly.? Haneef got the backdoor help from Indian Government? Or was the Indian Government’s words came into the picture AFTER THE COURT DECISION in Australia? Does the Indian Government got unfettered rights to meddle in the internal matter of Australia or anywhere else on a matter of foreign jurisdiction of national security – disregarding international protocol? Does the Malaysian Government tells Indonesia to protect and assist the physical and emotional comfort of Noordin Top who fled to Indonesia? Come on, Gaibang, stupidity has got limits!!

All said, I will give you one last chance of redemption of truth and self-respect in this forum. I took trouble to find out more details on google regarding Sydney Olympic case involving a China man and I found some information even though I cannot find the link to the final court judgement of that complete (several parts involving claims of injured emotion and contract breaches ) hearing. The High Court of Australia, awarded Peter Tao Zhu – just for the emotional hurt part -
was over A$4 million by the NSW Supreme Court. I am aware that he won the final part too IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA having regard to how the contract was breached by Sydney Olympic Committee and how thuggish he was treated in Australia – the final sum was over $40 million. The Government had no case – the judge was scathing in condemnation of Government’s conduct. Read this paragraph in the link below.

The New South Wales Supreme Court awarded Mr Zhu
$4,234,319, including $95,000 in aggravated damages for injured feelings due to the arrest and $200,000 in exemplary damages for SOCOG’s behaviour which Justice Patricia Bergin labelled highhanded, disgraceful and reprehensible.

http://www.hcourt.gov.au/media/Zhu.pdf

Now you don’t have to give me anymore benefit of doubt. JUST GET REAL WITH YOUR INTELLECTUAL HONESTY.

With FOI law, transparency and truth WINS ALL COURT CASES IN AUSRALIA. Haneef’s global-famed case and Peter Tao Zhu proved the ignorance and niavety of those bloggers who denied the value of FOI laws to “keep bastards honest” anywhere in the world.

There is no need to debate this stupidity with you anymore on this subject. If you find it inadequate of your satisfaction, take a flight to Australia and seek further information from your legal advisor on Haneef, Peter Tao Zhu and generally on the integrity of Australian judiciary. My understanding of an hours’ time with an Australian Queens Counsel will make you poorer by at least A$15,000. You already got FOI law knowledge from me for free. You please yourself.

Anonymous:

It is very obvious to all that you are delusion. Your wiki source does NOT even give a link to enable anyone to check and verify the DATE WHEN the Indian Government intervene – BEFORE OR AFTER THE JUDGEMENT DECISON to throw the case out. You hide behind a curtain of concealment ( like your deliberate silence of Haneef case for so long is the other proof of your deception). After Haneef case was thrown out, obviously the Indian Government has to express anger at how he was treated. Until that decision, you must be of idiotic proportion of stupidity to believe that Australian Judiciary is influenced by Indian Government “intervention” when even Australian Government cannot contain the damage to itself. You are in the same category as Jiak…conspiracy theories existing in your rat-infested minds. No sane minds believes you.

An another obvious delusional rat-infested conspiracy is evidently displayed in your further comment on Peter Tao Zhu case. IF YOU HAD OPENED YOUR BLIND EYES AND SHUT YOUR CONSPIRACY MIND AND SEARCH FOR THE OBJECTIVE TRUTH OF FACT – PETER AT THE TIME OF LITIGATION IS AN AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL – je was a former Chinese citizen – exactly like Stern Hu of Rio Tinto saga. The Chinese Government detained Stern Hu for alleged spying..blah..blah..blah.. WHY WOULD THEY BOTHER TO BACK PETER TAO ZHU except in your incredibly stupid mind???? Read the link I gave you.

Wow are the only two pair of morons like Jiak to claims and assert that foreign sovereign governments like India and China can successfully interfere with the judiciary process of another country. If that is really the case, Stern Hu would be out of Chinese jail long ago and Peter Tao Zhu would not have been so shabily treated to get over A$4million over just for “injured feelings” alone.

And of course, a hypocritical liar like you will not hesitate to use words like “suspicious suspiciously large to be common if the case just involves a common China citizen? … FOR BOTH OF YOU, SUSPICIOUS EQUALS FACTUAL TRUTH. Amazing stupidity!! and then the next line…”my deduction on political or diplomatic intervention is still valid” …DEDUCTION EQUAL FACTS!!!!

and then…”I believe all these are real facts that you cannot deny….” YOUR BELIEF EQUAL FACTS AGAIN… Wow

And your link http://sgpropertypress.wordpress.com/2007/11/19/howard-faces-bust-despite-aussie-boom/.

is the ONLY factor of why Howard lost the election – one man’s opionion, like yours. You see what you want to see, you believe what you want to believe and your conspire what you want to conspire.

suming up,

your formulae of intellectual honesty is

Suspicious + deduction + belief + concealment of date = conspiracy theories = FACTUAL ACCOUNTS.

This is your measurement of intellectual honesty. Go fly to Australia and find out for yourself, absolute morons.

Michelle:

To Gaibang,
That “John Blair” was ever used (and twice!) instead of “Tony Blair” to refer to the ex-Prime Minister of the UK in this argument kinda settles it for me. So, go you!

Anonymous:

GAIBANG, YOU REALLY ARE A MONUMENT OF IMPOSSIBLE STUPIDITY. HERE IS THE PROOF FROM WIKIPIDEA AND YAHOO LINKS.

First the wiki-linked information extracts – the cap locks are my additional comment of observation highlight for your attention.
Haneef was arrested on 2 July 2007 at Brisbane Airport, Brisbane, Australia on suspicion of terror-related activities. He is the first person arrested and detained under the 2005 Australian Anti-Terrorism Act and the first to have his detention extended under the Act, being detained for twelve days without being charged with a crime.
Read this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Haneef

Australian Government denied Haneef the presumption of innocence
Haneef was released when the Director of Public Prosecutions withdrew its charge on 27 July 2007.whereby his passport was returned and he departed Australia voluntarily on 29 July 2007. Final vindication for Haneef came when the cancellation of his visa was overturned by the Federal Court on 21 August 2007, with the decision being reiterated by the full bench of the court on 21 December 2007,

Read this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Haneef#Investigation.2C_allegations.2C_and_responses
Central to the case, has proved to be false and investigating British police officers have concluded that the case is being driven by politics rather than policing. A review by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Damian Bugg, revealed the allegations connected to the SIM card use as “error of fact”
Haneef was ordered to be freed on a relatively modest, $10,000 surety on 16 July 2007,]after the public prosecutor failed to convince the magistrate that the doctor should be remanded in custody. THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT DATE – THE MAGISTRATE THREW OUT THE PROSECUTION CASE AS I HAVE STATED REPEATEDLY IN MY POSTS. IT IS THE COLLAPSE OF THE PROSECUTION CASE.
Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews announced that Haneef’s visa has been cancelled immediately on “character grounds” and, if released on bail, he will be taken into immigration detention
After the decision by Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews to cancel his work visa., HANEEF IS NOT LONGER A LEGAL VISITOR IN AUSTRALIA AND HE WAS DETAINED UNDER IMMIGRATION LAW AS A PROHIBITED RESIDENT AND TOOK HIM INTO CUSTODY AND CONTINUE TO PROSECUTE THE COMMONWEALTH CASE AGAINST HANEEF.
The “ Character grounds” were BULLSHITS. Haneef’s legal team lodged an appeal against this decision with the Federal Court. In the preliminary hearing, Justice Spender described as “absolutely astounding” the government’s argument that mere association with a suspected criminal means a non-citizen fails the character test for the purposes of his visa. NOT E HERE THAT THE CASE WAS NO LONGER HEARD IN A MAGISTRATE COURT AT THE QUEEENSLAND STATE LEVEL THAT FREED HANEEF ON 16 JULY 2007 BUT IT IS NOW IN A FEDERAL COURT – A DIFFERENT JURISDICTION AT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT LEVEL.
JUSTICE SPENDER REBUTTAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH CASE HAS THIS SCATHING COMMENT….”Unfortunately, I would fail the character test on your statement because I have been associated with persons suspected of criminal conduct,” adding “Suppose he had a cup of coffee with them 12 months ago, is that all association means?” the counsel representing the government, agreed, that would be enough for Justice Spender to fail the test, if he were a foreign citizen working in Australia on a visa.”

Justice Spender was also sceptical of the timing of the minister’s decision, just hours after Magistrate Jacqui Payne granted Haneef bail. He said it was “curious” the minister had not decided to cancel the visa earlier. JUSTICE SPENDER WAS NOT SATISFIED WHY THE MINISTER CANCELLED HANEEF VISA IMMEDIATELY RIGHT AFTER THE MAGISTRATE RELEASE HIM ON 16 JULY 2007 AND NOT EARLIER. IN OTHER WORDS, IT IS ABOUT POLITICS, NOT ABOUT POLICING JUST LIKE THE BRITISH POLICE AUTHORITIES HAD SAID IN LEAKED FOI DOCUMENTS WHICH THE AUSTRALIAN PROSECUTOR KNEW ABOUT.

The Australian Government lost AGAIN IN LEGAL PROCEEDING. The judge and the law favoured Haneef.

On Sunday, 22 July, some News Limited papers]reported unsubstantiated claims from unnamed law enforcement sources that the AFP. IT WAS LEAKED BY HANEEF’S LAWYERS OF FOI INFORMATION.
On Sunday 22 July the Queensland government revealed that Haneef will be treated “as a terrorist” while detained in jail and subject to special conditions, including solitary confinement for 23 hours a day.
Australian authorities charged Haneef under Section 102.7(2) of the Criminal Code Act 1995. THIS IS THE FIRST TIME IT WAS PUBLICLY DISCLOSED HANEEF WAS CHARGED AS A TERORIST, not as an ordinary criminal. The law says you cannot detain anyone for more than 48 hours without a charge if you are suspected of other non-terrorist crime. It would be under the Crimes Act – another legislation passed way BEFORE THE CRIMINAL CODE ACT 1995. All sorts of crimes were convicted by thousands others before 1995.
Justice Spender decided that a full day of hearing has been set for 8 August 2007 in fairness to proceedings demanded by the AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL Government. THAT HEARING NEVER TOOK PLACE BECAUSE THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT ABANDONED THE CHARGE FORMALLY ON 27 JULY 2007 AND HANEEF FLEW OUT VOLUNTARILY ON 29 JULY TO SEE HIS FAMILY.

FACTS OF THE CASE WAS
- The Australian Government arrested, detained and prosecuted persecuted Haneef on baseless ground FROM 2ND July 2007 till 27 July 2007.
- Haneef was detained for 12 days WITHOUT CHARGE MEANING PRESUMPTION OF GUILT OF UNKNOWN ALLEGED OFFENCE ( until publicly disclosed on 22 July 2007 for the first time). IT IS HIS TREATMENT OF DETENTION UNDER THOSE CONDITIONS THAT PROVOKED INDIAN GOVENRMENT PROTEST.
- The Magistrate in Qeensland on 16 July 2007 threw out the prosecution case WITHOUT HANEEF’S DEFENCE BEING CALLED. In effect, he was a free man and declared innocent and had been unfairly treated.
- Kelvin Andrews invoked Immigration Law on 16 July 2007 immediately outside the court-room and detained Haneef – NOT ON TERORRIST CHARGE ( which came later on 22 July 2007) BUT ON IMMIGRATION LAWS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONTINUIING TO HOLD HANEEF IN DETENTION UNDER IMMIGRATION LAW AS A PROHIBITED RESIDENT.
- 22 July, 2007, Australian Government charged Haneef under the terrorism law found in under Section 102.7(2) of the Criminal Code Act 1995. IN THE FEDERAL COURT.
- Justice Spender in the Federal Court threw out the “character case” immigration law detention. THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT GOT SCREWED AGAIN BY THEIR OWN JUDICIARY FOR THE SECOND TIME.
- Justice Spender set the hearing date of 8 August 2007 to hear the Government’s charge under
Section 102.7(2) of the Criminal Code Act 1995. IN THE FEDERAL COURT.
THAT NEVER WENT AHEAD. THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT SUBMITTED IN HUMILIATION TO ITS JUDICIARY AND WITHDREW THE CHARGE ON 27 July 2007. Haneef flew out of Australia on 29 July 2007.

YOU TALKED ABOUT CONSPIRACY AND INTERVENTION OF INDIAN GOVERNMENT AFFECTING OUTCOME OF THE LEGAL CASE IN AUSTRALIA. The key word is Legal and conspired with who??? Indian Government conspire with the Australian Government behind the scene ? The Indian Government conspire with the Queensland magistrate or Justice Spender in the Federal Court??
The simple truth is that HANEEF WON on the FOI-leaked document to the Magistrate on 16 July 2007 which got him to be released on unlawful detention for 12 days under unlawful conditions and presumption of guilt. The simple truth is that Australian Government continued to persecute him using immigration laws under false “character test” clause to detain him DESPITE INDIAN GOVERNMENT PROTEST ALL ALONG. THEY DONT GIVE INDIAN GOVERNMENT PROTEST ANY CONSIDERATION. The simple fact is also, JUSTICE SPENDER HUMILIATE THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT’S CASE PROVING ITS JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE FROM GOVERNMENT – AUSTRALIA OR INDIA. IT CITED LEGAL GROUNDS OF FALSE PRETENCE AND DENIAL OF NATURAL JUSTICE – how can you accused someone of crime just for having coffee?? IT IS THE LAW, NOT POLITICS, NOT GOVENMENT AND NO INTERVENTION ANYWHERE WILL CHANGE THE JUDGE DECISION. The fact is that the Judge allowed a final hearing on 8 August 2007 – IT IS LAW – no matter it was whose complaint – be it Australia or India. It does NOT matter. Only the law matter. THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT DROPPED THE CASE ON 22 JULY 2007 – the LEAKED FOI DOCUMENT PROVED THEIR WEAK CASE – IT CANNOT BE WON. The Australian Government decided that it was IN THE LAW it cannot win. If they think they can win, why not let the hearing of 8 August 2007 proceed??? The Judge already given them the opportunity.
BOTTOMLINE IS NO CONSPIRACY BETWEEN AUSTRALIA, INDIA AND THE AUSTRALIAN JUDICIARY. Your conspiracy theory PROVED YOU ARE A COMPLETE IDIOT OF MORONIC INTELLIGENCE BEYOND MEASUREMENT.
As for Stern Hu, You got your facts wrong. China paid the same price for iron ore to Australia and Brazil – bit higher in Australia because of shipping charges difference due to distance difference. Stern Hu spying cause China to lose billions??? How stupid can you be??Stern Hu spying for Brazil too – Australian competitors. China negotiated separately with Australia and Brazil and there is also a reference to spot price which the parties negotiated on in reference to that price. Stern Hu was a former Chinese national – exactly the same as Peter Tao Zhu.
And one more fact – Peter Tao Zhu was born in the People’s Republic of China in 1962, migrated to Australia in 1989 and became an Australian citizen in 1997.
Read this
http://sg.search.yahoo.com/search?p=Peter+Tao+Zhu+%2B+socog&fcss=on&fr=yfp-t-101&toggle=1&cop=&ei=UTF-8
…Peter Tao Zhu, an Chinese-born Australian citizen….
As an Australian citizen and the case heard in 2004 – some 8 years later – does China has any legal right to represent the interest of Peter Tao Zhu – interfering in Australia domestic affair and instigating Peter Tao Zhu against his own Australian Government since he is already its citizen??. Which Judge IN AUSTRALIA did China talked to and which Australian Government did China talked to and AUSTRALIA LOST THE CASE ? Don’t Australian Government wants to win the case? There are 5 high court judges which decided the final case – who did China or Australia bribe or conspire to LOSE THE CASE IN FAVOUR OF PETER TAO after treating him so badly that another court in Australia gave him over A$4 million JUST FOR INDJURED FEELINGS.??
WOW – YOUR INTELLIGENCE AND IMAGINATION IS UNLIMITED. THAT IS WHY I CHOSE TO TRASH YOUR GREAT CONSPIRACY THEORY, SUSPICIOUS, DEDUCTION, BELIEF OF IMAGINARY CONSTRUCT OF REALITY IS FACT HERE.
Sorry, morons, you keep proving your stupidity as each post comes come your end.

Anonymous:

All the events are REAL LIFE EVENTS AND DOCUMENTED IN PERMANENT LEGAL RECORDS. Anyone in doubt can fly to Australia, check the records of judgment proceedings to his or her satisfaction of date,subject of litigation, who are the judges, parties to the litigation, outcome of proceedings etc and lots of foreign and Australian papers to corroborate.

Better still, hire your lawyer here and asked them to do a data search in Australia for you – if you lacked the requisite skills and information access and not knowing how to use FOI laws.

You pay through your nose for that though.

Truth always separate itself from fiction, suspicion, deduction, mythologies, and funny conspiracy theories of creative imagination and rats-infested belief of no possibility of occurences.

I am NOT doing the homework for any morons.

Anonymous:

GAIBANG, YOU REALLY ARE A MONUMENT OF IMPOSSIBLE STUPIDITY.

when did I said this statement – other than your new creation and fiction?
“You must be kidding yourself to believe that the Indian govt only knew about the arrest on or after 16 July and then they sent out their concerns and protest on this case.”

Next one

“If Haneef was arrested and confined since his arrest on 2 July due to some suggested links with the terrorists, do you need this leaked FOI information on the 20th day after the arrest to know that Haneef was supposed to be charged as a terrorist and not as an ordinary criminal, …”

As usual another smoke-screen to cover your rubbish posting proving that you are A COMPLETE IDIOT WITH MORONIC INTELLIGENCE..

Well the reason is simple. The Government played to the gallery, the lawyers for Haneef retaliated the Government propaganda. YOU STUPID AGAIN

Next one

Your statment..

When did I say that China has legal right to represent the interest of Peter Tao Zhu and interfering in Australia domestic affair and instigating Peter Tao Zhu against his own Australian Government? In diplomacy

And your own answer by the next sentence..

In diplomacy, it is all about connections and shared interest.

Wow coinnections and shared interest in diplomacy is the outcome of court cases in Peter Tao Zhu’s proceedings. ANOTHER GREAT CONSPIRACY THEORY IN THE WORK OF YOUR MIND!!! AND DENIED AT THE SAME TIME.

Next one

Don’t Australian Government wants to win the case?”
Win the Peter Tao Zhu case or haneef case or iron ore dispute case – another smoke screen of your rubbish AGAIN. Not surprised at all here.

Next one

Your statement

I have only said my deduction on political or diplomatic intervention is still valid, and I didn’t say that this is the truth.

SO THE CORRECT ANSWER IS THAT YOU DEBATE BY DEDUCTION AND INSIUTATION BY THROWING IN A LOT OF LIES WHICH YOU NOW ADMIT THAT YOU ‘DID NOT SAY THIS IS TRUE!!!

How amazing of rationalisation again!!!! need I say any more??

You are exactly what I said earlier. Your formulae of intellectual honesty is.

Suspicious + deduction + belief + concealment of date + conspiracy theories = FACTUAL ACCOUNTS

These are your favourite terms of reference reflecting your state of mind of falsehoods.

gaibang:

It’s good if you understand that Indian govt was involved much earlier in the case before 16 July. If you can read that Haneef’s wife asked Indian govt to exert MORE PRESSURE on Australian govt to release her husband, you should agree that India had already given some pressure but the wife thought it was not enough. With the Indian PM who was so worried about the case until he couldn’t sleep well, it was already clear that India had tried to seek his release using diplomatic measures and would have been exerting pressure on Australian govt throughout the trial of Haneef. So, how can you not consider this important factor that attributed to the final release of Haneef?

Don’t understand your gibberish statement about “The Government played to the gallery, the lawyers for Haneef retaliated the Government propaganda.”. I guess you must be admitting to your stupidity to say that it was not known that Haneef was supposed to be charged as a terrorist and not as an ordinary criminal before the FOI news leak on 22 July.

The 16 July news on the involvement of Indian govt included this paragraph – “Haneef, who has been charged in connection with last month’s failed car bombing attempt in Britain, was granted bail by a Brisbane court on Monday. But the Australian government subsequently cancelled his visa and invoked immigration laws to keep him behind bars.” The date of the news already proven that it was already a known fact that Haneef would be charged in connection to the terrorist act in Britain. Isn’t it stupid of you to insist that the credit was due to the leaked FOI news on 22 July?

On Peter Tao Zhu’s case, it is another empty ranting by you when you can’t invalidate my deduction. You are really a sad case to have nothing more to support your weak argument against mine.

You said “SO THE CORRECT ANSWER IS THAT YOU DEBATE BY DEDUCTION AND INSIUTATION BY THROWING IN A LOT OF LIES WHICH YOU NOW ADMIT THAT YOU ‘DID NOT SAY THIS IS TRUE!!!”. This is another confirmation of your severe lack of intelligence. Based on available information, my deduction is there is a possibility that there was China’s connection involving in Peter Tao Zhu’s case. Unless you have proof to invalidate my deduction, the possibility remains valid. To disprove this deduction, you need to find out whether there was any china connection in Peter Tao’s business and whether this China connection was influential enough to affect the case. I believe you don’t have the resources to find out all these information, and neither do I. So, it is still a deduction and not a truth yet. If information supporting my deduction is available in future, then my deduction becomes truth. Deduction that cannot be falsified is not falsehood. I really wonder whether your limited intelligence can differentiate between deduction, falsehood and truth. If everyone doesn’t believe in deduction like you, then human race will not have progressed at all because all scientific discoveries involve deduction at some stage.

I was not wrong to say that you must be conned often by the newspapers because you don’t seem to know how to sift and question the reasonableness of information in the news and then make deduction which can support or counter the view put forward by the news. Our discussion on the Australian election has already proven your gullibility beyond doubt.

It is only you who cannot differentiate deduction from truth, because of your limited intelligence, can think that I contradicted myself with this statement “I have only said my deduction on political or diplomatic intervention is still valid, and I didn’t say that this is the truth.” Deduction is just one step before truth, get it? The monument of impossible stupidity is definitely reserved for you only, and nobody will dare to challenge you for it.

Let me remind you that you have not explained the coincidences of the FOI cases involving politicians like Dick Cheney, Tony Blair and Chen Shui Bian or find a successful FOI lawsuit case that involves the common people without any diplomatic influence. You also do not dare to do the simple test on the SIA deal to prove that FOI law works well for the normal people. Until you can do all these, my view on “FOI mainly works for influential people or people with strong backing or in cases where there is diplomatic intervention. As for the normal people, it will works for non-critical cases when the authority does not see the need to put up any legal challenge (as in your case).” still stand.

Anonymous:

Gaibang, for the sake of sharing only and for the last time on this topic, I will tidy up the utter mess in your mind. You either deliberate recalcitrant or you are truly clueless to what you are talking here.

In matters involving both Haneef and Peter Tao Zhu, you must agree that it is NOT Shakespearean drama but ACTUAL LEGAL PROCEEDINGS in succession that has an outcomes – both favouring Haneef and Peter. These documented in permanent legal records in Australia. You, me and anybody else cannot deny this fact – ever . By your last post, you are obviously clueless, how judiciaries weigh what is fact and what is law to come to whatever conclusions reached in both cases. In a theoretical construct, to arrive at what is “fact” in the determination of LAW in common law jurisdictions, not what is “fact” in your own mind or mine, courts would only look at “RELEVANT ADMISSIBLE” evidence” – THE KEY WORDS BEING “RELEVANT “AND “ADMISSIBLE “ which I extract part of it below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admissible_evidence

Admissible evidence, in a court of law, is any testimonial, documentary, or tangible evidence that may be introduced to a factfinder–usually a judge or jury–in order to establish or to bolster a point put forth by a party to the proceeding. In order for evidence to be admissible, it must be relevant, without being prejudicial, and it must have some indicia of reliability.

Hearsay is generally barred for its lack of reliability. PLEASE NOTE I UNDERLINE THIS LINE.

In English law and in United States law, confessions • business records, excited utterance, dying declaration
party admission, ancient document, declaration against interest, present sense impression, res gestae learned treatise etc etc..each has its defined legal meanings and limitation admissible.

Your comment in your last post – not mine….

“If you can read that Haneef’s wife asked Indian govt to exert MORE PRESSURE on Australian govt to release her husband, you should agree that India had already given some pressure but the wife thought it was not enough. With the Indian PM who was so worried about the case until he couldn’t sleep well, it was already clear that India had tried to seek his release using diplomatic measures and would have been exerting pressure on Australian govt throughout the trial of Haneef. So, how can you not consider this important factor that attributed to the final release of Haneef?…”

Which part of these asertions of yours meet the criteria of “relevant” or “admissible” evidence either in US or English law applications in the Commonwealth of Australia?? Indian PM could not sleep affect law decisions in Australia, UK or USA? Or Haneef’s wife request to Indian Government to exert (in your cap locked words ) MORE PRESSURE on the Australian government constitute the law aplications of “admissible evidence” – not that it matters at all to Australian Government. In fact, Australian Government did exactly the opposite – it correctly ignored Indian Government’s protestation and pressed ahead UNRELENTINGLY AGAINST HANEEF. Imagine for a moment of sane thoughts, a wife goes into a court room petitioning a divorce on grounds of non-cosummation of a marriage telling a judge that on seeing her husband’s manhood so small and she “FEELS” that he is unlikely to give her an orgasm, what do you think the judge’s reply will be? The learned judge would be kind to say ..”Go and see a marriage counsellor for help” I will not give you a divorce. I can’t grant a decision on your feeling and there is no evidence before me that he cannot performed, if at all “performance” or otherwise is a criteria justifying the grant of any divorce in this lawful jursidiction. IN MATTERS OF LAW, FEELINGS COUNT FOR NOTHING – this is my message to you, Gaibang.

Just look at the statement you wrote and try to discover how ridiculous out of alignment of factual truth you presented. Again the words…” throughout the trial of Haneef” …..found at second last line in the first paragraph. Is this your assertion of “fact” or is it in reality a “fiction” in my mind. You presented as though it is a continuous trial lasting from his first appearance 16 July since detention, until the time the Commonwealth withdrew its proceedings on 27 July 2009. It is a fiction when understood in the context of LAW.
Haneef went through two LEGAL PROCEEDINGS BUT WAS NEVER CROSS-EXAMINED on the charge he was ARRESTED FOR. That is to say the alleged offence defined under Section 102.7(2) of the Criminal Code Act 1995.Haneef’s legal team was formally told only on Sunday 22 July the Queensland government revealed that Haneef will be treated “as a terrorist”. And the “trial” for this charge was fixed by Judge Spender to be heard on 8 August 2007 . Haneef left Australia on 29 July and has NOT been backed since. Was there a trial of the charge under Section 102.7(2) withdrawn by the Commonwealth on 27 July. Or was it a fiction as I asserted here, Gaibang??? The “fact” of reality and “fact of law” is that the Commonwealth lost the “legal proceedings” long before the scheduled trial of 8 August. THERE WAS NO TRIAL which, in your mind, spoke of Indian Government intervention, Haneef’s wife distressed’s mind and any Australian Government’s reaction to such irritations (if any) could have THE POSSIBILITY of in your words again found in the last sentence of your first paragraph… “important factor that attributed to the final release of Haneef?” ASK YOURSELF THIS SIMPLE QUESTION – SINCE THE TRIAL SCHEDULED FOR 8 AUGUST FAILED TO MATERIALISE, how could any factor influence the outcome of a NON-EXISTENT LEGAL EVENT?

Your first paragraph of last post of FULL OF UNMITIGATED ERRORS OF FACTS. And you add in your imagination, deduction, belief ( of your own construct) and throw in conspiracy theories, how can you NOT be a monument of imposible stupidity?? Gaibang, strong as these denounciations may be to you and Jiak, my robust response is true and correct in all instances and substance – where are the proofs?

Let us look at the ACTUAL EVENT SEQUENCE WHICH ARE AGAIN IN LEGAL RECORD IMPOSSIBLE OF DENIAL OF YOU AND ME AS WELL.
2 July, Haneef arrested at Brisbane Airport and detained without specific charge, trial for indefinite period beyond 48 hours, most of the time in solitary confinement. – it could be at LAW be lawful detention ( if FORMALLYcharge under Section 102.7(2) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 or unlawful if under any other section of criminal law – The COMMONWEALTH SILENT – the detention assumed QUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENCE..
16 July, brought to court byHaneef’s petition against unlawful detention. The Commonwealth still investigating the evidences. Magistrate Jacqui Payne granted Haneef bail BUT NO COMMENT OR DECISION MADE ON POSSIBLE CHARGES TO BE PREFERRED AGAINST Haneef at this stage – the reason because no credible evidence exist to pretend Haneef is quilty of any offence. THE DETENTION WAS IN THE MAGISTRATE DETERMINATION UNLAWFUL, HE WAS DEEMED INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN QUILTY AND ALLOW a very small BAIL. The magistrate agreed that the allegations against Haneef was “very weak” to continue to hold him in detention. HANEEF’S DEFENCE WAS NOT CALLED FOR. The Commonwealth can change its charge as evidence comes to light but no FORMAL CHARGE.

16 July, Kelvin Andrew’s Immigration Department, outside Magistrate Jacqui Payne courtroom revoked Haneef work visa and detained him NOT as a criminal of assumed quilty until proven innocence BUT AS A PROHIBITED RESIDENT without a valid legal residency visa and took him into custody. Magistrate Jacqui Payne cannot interview because it has nothing to do with lawful determination that Haneef is innocent until proven quilty if he is formally charged later.

Event of 22 July – Commonwealth leaked all sorts of innuendos about Haneef to give public impression that Haneef is a terrorist. Terrorist, he is NOT- at least in the mind of his lawyers and FOI information documents. Haneef lawyers retaliate and leaked 1351 pages to the media. The country exploded in anger. On Sunday, 22 July, the Government went public saying Haneef will be charged under Section 102.7(2) of the Criminal Code Act 1995. Gaibang, tell me which country in which the court is open on a Sunday to charge an arrested person unless it is extremely urgent. THERE WAS NO HEARING ON THAT DAY, JUST AN ANNOUNCEMENTvia the media. You cannot charge anybody for an alleged offence by mere announcement to the press BUT CAN ONLY BE CHARGED INSIDE A COURTROOM. It was more political than policing the terrorism law.

Haneef lawyers filed in the Federal Court ( not a magistrate court now) and this time is was an APPEAL AGAINST THE CANCELLATION OF THE VISA, not about the charge which the Commonwealth had not formally undertaken, Hearing was before Judge Spender,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Haneef#Appeal_to_Federal_Court_against_visa_cancellation

Again, Judge Spender threw out the Commonwealth case of unlawful revocation of Haneef visa on frivolous “character grounds”… Suppose he had a cup of coffee with them 12 months ago, is that all association means?” the counsel representing the government, agreed, that would be enough for Justice Spender to fail the test, if he were a foreign citizen working in Australia on a visa.

AGAIN THE DETERMINATION WAS BASED ON CORRECTNESS OF LAW APPLICATION.

Even the seriousness of the alleged violation of under Section 102.7(2) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 DID NOT MATTER BECAUSE YOU CANNOT ASSUME SOMEONE IS GUILTY AT LAW BECAUSE HE HAD COFFEE WITH AN ALLEGED CRIMINAL. Otherwise anybody walking or talking to Haneef should all be in jail – how ridiculous of law would that be?? Gaibang?

Did the protestation of indian Government, Haneef’s wife, Australian Government’s objections against his vsia cancellation matters??? ABSOLUTELY NONE. IT IS ONLY THE LAW THAT COUNT AND THE LAW IN JUDGE SPENDER WORDS SAYS HAVING COFFEE WITH SOMEONE IS NOT AN OFFENCE.
The law humiliated the Commonwealth but it did NOT give up despite India’s protest. The judge granted a FULL DAY hearing for 8 August 2007

Haneef was released when the Director of Public Prosecutions withdrew its charge on 27 July 2007,[1][2] whereby his passport was returned and he departed Australia voluntarily on 29 July 2007. Final vindication for Haneef came when the cancellation of his visa was overturned by the Federal Court on 21 August 2007, with the decision being reiterated by the full bench of the court on 21 December 2007, resulting in Haneef having his Australian visa returned

So was there a trial for the charge under Section 102.7(2) of the Criminal Code Act 1995??? IF THERE IS NO TRIAL FOR THIS CHARGE, THERE IS NO LEGALLY DETERMINED OUTCOME ON THAT CHARGE RIGHT? And if there is no trial and no outcome from the non-existence trial, where is the IMAGINATIVE CONSPIRACY THEORIES OF INDIAN GOVERNMENT, AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT AND HANEEF’S WIFE DISTRESSED PRESSURE AFFECTING A FICTITIOUS EVENT??? Show me gaibang please???

The final humiliation that the Federal Court on 21 August 2007 overturned the cancellation of Haneef’s visa. His passport was given back to him on 27 July but the visa to return was still cancelled. Despite objections by the Australian Government to stop his return, the full bench of the HIGH COURT again ruled against the Commonwealth on 21 December 2007.

Notice that for both sittings of the Federal court and the High Court, Haneef was outside Australia – ex parte. The judges had to rely on the admissible evidences of only one side – the Commonwealth and FOI AVAILABLE DOCUMENTS. The Commonwealth lost both big legal cases.

THE SIMPLE TRUTHS IS FOI LAW KEEPS THE BASTARDS HONEST IS CORRECT CATCHPRASE AND ALL LEVELS THE JUDICIARY IN AUSTRALIA FROM THE MAGISTRATE AT STATE LEVEL TO FEDERAL COURTS AND HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA ARE COMPLETELY INDEPENDENCE OF THE EXECUTIVE. NO ONE INFLUENCE THEIR DECISIONS – POLITICAL OR OTHERWISE. ONLY THE LAW MATTERS AND FOR IS THE
PUBLIC GUARDIAN OF JUDICIAL FAIRNESS.

I DON’T WANT TO SPEND TIME TEACHING YOU MATTER ON PETER TAO ZHU CASE. YOU HAVE TO DO YOUR HOMEWORK IF YOU WANT TO LEARN SOMETHING FOR YOURSELF. IAM NOT INERESTED IN PROVING HOW MONUMENTAL IMPOSIBILITY OF STUPIDITY YOU ARE HERE.

You know HOW STUPID YOU ARE– that is sufficient. Or perhaps, you and Jiak don’t know how stupid you are with all those strange conspiracy theories.

Anonymous:

Jiak, just to satisfy your complete dumb arse living in denial of truthful assertion of exactly WHAT FOI APPLICATION IS. Here is one which FOI application access was allowed by British Juidiciary on sensitive matter of UK Gulf War participation.

Read the comments of the judge here.

For the reasons set out above we have concluded that the factors in favour of maintaining the exemption did NOT, at the date when disclosure was refused, outweigh the public interest in disclosure. We accordingly dismiss the appeal and direct that disclosure be made in accordance with the terms of the Decision Notice,

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIT/2008/EA_2007_0047.html

SO PLEASE KEEP YOUR STUPID CONSPIRACY THEORIES IN YOUR STUPID.
MIND

The reality of FOI laws is still “keep the bastards honest”. Hope you are NOT one of those that needs FOI laws to restrain you!!
subject only to a very small redaction in the manuscript annotations. This is not
central to the purpose or content of the substantive document. Our reasons for
directing it to be made are set out in the confidential schedule to this decision.

gaibang:

You said “In matters involving both Haneef and Peter Tao Zhu, …. These documented in permanent legal records in Australia. You, me and anybody else cannot deny this fact – ever .” Do you really think all judgments are cast in stone? No, you are wrong. The judgment made on a case is based on all available evident at that moment when the judgment was made, similar to deduction which is based on all available information. If new evident surface later, the case will have to be re-trialed. A recent example is the Tiwary’s case.

You must have mistakenly interpreted the intention of my deduction, and thought I am trying to put forward new evident to challenge the judicial process in the Haneef’s case. My deduction on the India govt’s involvement does not challenge the judicial process that led to the final judgment of releasing Haneef. So, admissible evidence does not apply to my deduction at all and listing out the whole trial details will not nullify my deduction, get it? My deduction is only to prove to you that there was diplomatic involvement in this case. Whatever I presented here has already established the fact that the Indian govt had exerted diplomatic pressure on Australia govt. This is already enough to defend my view on “FOI mainly works for influential people or people with strong backing or in cases where there is diplomatic intervention. For the normal people, FOI law will works for non-critical cases when the authority does not see the need to put up any legal challenge”. If you disagree with me, you have to prove that the India govt was NOT exerting any pressure on the Australia govt. But you have failed to do this, so I don’t understand why you are spending so much effort dissecting the whole trial to me again. Normal intelligent people will know a court trial will record everything by the book, so it is plain stupid of you to try to find a statement that goes like “the Australian court has decided to declare Haneef innocent because Indian govt and Haneef’s wife have exerted a lot of pressure on our government.” Do you now understand why I need not be specific of whether there were ONE or TWO legal proceedings?

The Haneef’s case is a poor example to use as a supporting case for your view on FOI law works effectively for the normal people. Firstly, the case was already a sure-loser from the beginning because there was no incriminating evident to prove that Haneef was a terrorist, and this also has nothing to do with the FOI law. Secondly, the worried Indian govt was helping Haneef to fight against the charge, so you have to admit that there was diplomatic influence in this case. Thirdly, it had got the attention of international media and was reported widely overseas. This has made Haneef a reluctant ‘star’, so he cannot be considered as a normal person anymore. Fourthly, the FOI information was deemed as non-critical to the authority which explain why it was made readily available to Haneef’s lawyers, and so this is not a lawsuit of an authority challenging the FOI request to release undisclosed information. Given these 4 points, you really need to find another lawsuit involving a real normal person – without any media limelight until the FOI information has been disclosed, without foreign or political influence throughout the trial and involving critical undisclosed information that would create upheaval to the authority. If you can’t find a real life case, my view still stands. I doubt you can find one easily. Assuming there are such existing cases involving the normal people, the authority will not want them to be publicized. As such, I think my suggestion for you to test the FOI law on the SIA deal is a much simpler approach.

After our initial discussion and my own reading on the FOI law, I find that it does have its usefulness as a way to get undisclosed information from the authority. Unfortunately, as with most laws, it works more effectively for the rich and influential rather than for the common people. As explained in one of my comments, the procedures described in website of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) put the onerous task of proving the validity of the case on the FOI applicant. The successful use of the law is also dependant on whether the authority involving in the case wants to put up serious challenge against the applicant and whether the applicant has the resources to fight back, as shown in the lawsuits involving FOX Business vs Treasury and Bloomberg vs Federal Reserve. In addition, there are many leeways that the authority can use to restrict the scope of the FOI law as in the Scotland news or turn down and frustrate the application with the exemptions. If lawsuit is required to effect its use under these mentioned situations, isn’t it fair to say the law has limited use for the common people? I believe this is the key reason why there are few people who use the FOI law although it is available to all. I think jiak was just trying to tell you these but you are too defensive of your position to understand that.

I’m also not interested to prove that the monument of impossible stupidity is reserved and belonged to you only. With that long comment on the Haneef’s trial, you have proven quite convincingly that you are intelligently challenged, and I fully agree with it – that is sufficient.

jiak:

The last I checked, the US FOIA has nine exemptions; one of which is related to “trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential”. I’ve no idea why or how an FOIA advocate can ask “People asking why Chip Goodyear left, the answer “strategic differences” – two big words but meaningless even for professionals in the financial world.”

Your very understanding of the FOIA is as follows, “Want to be honestly transparent WITHOUT the burden of deciding what information and what extent to disclose? Very easy – pass the Freedom of Information (FOI)laws like in US, UK, Australia..” or in short, “keeping the bastards honest” is both naive and misconstrued.

FOIA _do_ afford govt the privilege of deciding the type and extent of disclosure. One of the criticisms in the UK was that “the range of exemptions is wider than for any of freedom of information act existing in a democratic state”. The govt still decides what they don’t want you to hear.

Further, “the right of access is to records rather than information raising the possibility of selective editing”. How “honestly transparent” is that?

“The obligations to establish publication schemes were diluted meaning that there is no duty to publish information of any specified type.” Meaning, the govt can tell you there is no record or documents pertaining to your query.

And lastly, “there is a ministerial veto which undermines the Act.” Despite FOIA, the govt holds the ultimate decision whether to release those records. How on earth then do you intend to “keep those bastards honest”?

And that is just your misunderstanding of what a FOIA provides.

But what is the point of yelling for FOIA? If you don’t trust info provided by the govt now, would you change your mind if the govt were to provide you info via an FOIA? Pls answer this instead of talking through both sides of your mouth.

If you want FOIA = unadulterated, transparent truth, then you will have to be in govt? To achieve at least parity with the govt so that you can influence legislation? I venture to say, that is not a very difficult task regardless what conventional wisdom suggest. But everytime someone who is angry with the govt has to cast a vote, all they need is to remember people like YOU and the vote goes back to the govt.

I think the PAP govt should give you a medal.

Anonymous:

US FOIA learnt only today and brag here to TR readers of your peanut information uncovered?

Another self-confessed proof of you as totally niave and uninformed.

And my visa issue already resolved?

IT IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. MYOB.

Anonymous:

Don’t bother. No one is arguing with any fools anymore.

jiak:

“US FOIA learnt only today and brag here to TR readers of your peanut information uncovered?”

I’ve been in the financial mkts for close to 30yrs, but I don’t have to use that re your inane Chip Goodyear qn. I will still have to arrive at your wikipedia level?

And ‘knowing’ isn’t the same as ‘understanding’. Your very basis for understanding the scope of FOIA _can_ be easily debunked by any casual search.

“Another self-confessed proof of you as totally niave and uninformed.”

They are all taken from your ’standard’, the wikipedia. FOIA does not solve the problem the way you think it should. There are exemptions. There is ministerial veto. You still have to go through a court. These are simple facts that you ignore. FOIA does not = transparency. FOIA does not = info. FOIA is still access to govt sanctioned records and documents. Why don’t you try and dispute these facts instead of throwing juvenile tantrums?

“And my visa issue already resolved?

IT IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. MYOB.”

If its your own business, then pls don’t use it as an example that you ‘keep the bastards honest’. Don’t even introduce it. Nobody should bother with it since its your own private biz?

So once again, if you don’t accept any info given by the govt now, how on earth will you accept govt sanctioned info via an FOIA?

What about “Want to be honestly transparent WITHOUT the burden of deciding what information and what extent to disclose? Very easy – pass the Freedom of Information (FOI)laws like in US, UK, Australia..”? It isn’t that easy, and you still don’t get to decide what info and what extent of disclosure. Your contention is thus, false.

Anonymous:

Jiak, WOW, my brain just cracked open in dizzy admiration of your great knowledge and experience in investment – REALLY HIGH FINANCE.

You told one and all here that in your most hyperbole language…”I’ve been in the financial mkts for close to 30yrs…”

Now just one humble plea from me. Leave your “juvenile tantrums” in the toilet of yours but just do me one favour of a life time.

Explain to all TR readers here using your TERRIFYING “30 years of investment experience” the contents of this investment announcement and see if you understand just 5% of its technical information.

http://imagesignal.comsec.com.au/asxdata/20090723/pdf/00970801.pdf

If you can’t handle the depth of its content, try giving Mr. Tony Rovira a call on +61 8 9481 2555 tommorrow. There is no great hurry to prove your stupidity.

Tony, to my knowledge, was previously the Exploration Manager for another entity called Jubilee Mines Limited which operated Cosmos, Cosmos deep, Sinclair sulphide nickel mine. I bought this stock at only Australian 27cents and sold nearly A$21.50 a few years later when Xstrata Limited took over. Ask Tony if he came from Jubilee Mines and that entity was a success story.

In the meantime, please refrain from any further posting here, the more you hit the keyboard, the more inverse intelligence and pride you betray voluntarily on your own.

I won’t be because you are not good enough to debate with me.

jiak:

“Now just one humble plea from me. Leave your “juvenile tantrums” in the toilet of yours but just do me one favour of a life time.

That’s your own version of ‘hyperbole language’?

Explain to all TR readers here using your TERRIFYING “30 years of investment experience” the contents of this investment announcement and see if you understand just 5% of its technical information.
http://imagesignal.comsec.com.au/asxdata/20090723/pdf/00970801.pdf
If you can’t handle the depth of its content, try giving Mr. Tony Rovira a call on +61 8 9481 2555 tommorrow. There is no great hurry to prove your stupidity.
Tony, to my knowledge, was previously the Exploration Manager for another entity called Jubilee Mines Limited which operated Cosmos, Cosmos deep, Sinclair sulphide nickel mine. I bought this stock at only Australian 27cents and sold nearly A$21.50 a few years later when Xstrata Limited took over. Ask Tony if he came from Jubilee Mines and that entity was a success story.”

What ‘investment announcement’? What ‘depth of content’? It’s just a ‘quarterly overview’. Overview has no depth? It merely provide some background info and some corporate sales talk. As a basis for investment, it’s toilet paper?

If you are trying to say that everyone in ‘HIGH FINANCE’ should understand metallurgy then I have to disagree with your investment philosophy. We only invest in mkts that are familiar, or at least have some proprietory knowledge of. I mean lets take a benchmark, Warren Buffett. He frequently claims he doesn’t invest in things he don’t know anything about. And if he doesn’t understand metallurgy, does that make him any less of an investor?

And you make the fundamental mistake of assuming that any thing you buy that rises must be due to your foresight/analysis. Like I said, it could be mere coincidence of the rub nose/rain varietal. It could be the advent of BRIC that lifted all commodity boats. Meaning, you employ a monkey to throw darts at commodity stocks, you can’t really go that much wrong. At most, you may have proprietary knowledge, but that does not prove quality of analysis.

“In the meantime, please refrain from any further posting here, the more you hit the keyboard, the more inverse intelligence and pride you betray voluntarily on your own.”

For once I have to agree with you, it doesn’t take much to expose your duplicity. Mere ‘inverse intelligence’ suffice.

“I won’t be because you are not good enough to debate with me.”

And I’m supposed to be the one with ‘pride’?

Hello siam king, this is not a debate. At a debate, people bring up facts, they listen to objections and offer counter arguments. They justify and substantiate. Siam here siam there does not = debate. What you have done so far is ‘preach’. You just assume a high pedestal and declare people dumb lah, blind lah, deaf lah, brainwashed lah and blah.. and offer nothing to substantiate your stupid claims. You merely make declarations, understand?

Walking around in platform shoes is outdated, in bad taste and does not make you a nanometer taller.

gaibang:

It’s difficult for me to believe that you have strong acumen in stock investment because your comment on Stern Hu’s case actually went quite far off the tangent, if not off the wall.

Anyway, I have seen enough multi-baggers boasting by many con-artists in the financial sector. If you want to prove that you are really good, just tell us which stock will go up or down by more than 20% next week, next month and next year. From your answers, we can at least know someday how accurate is your short, mid and long term stock analysis. If you can’t do it, please do us a favour and keep your trading history out of this discussion.

gaibang:

Even Michelle who just joins in the discussion also knows that FOI law isn’t a magic bullet, why are you still hanging on to your inflated ego? Don’t be a conceited fool lah.

Not by any means, I’m still waiting anxiously to see the best part of your self-degrading ‘treatment’. LOL

jiak:

“Jiak, my most learned friends would say you have fallen very hard on only two words.

It is called “Mens rea”

Don’t try very hard to get up cause I am laughing. ha ha ha.”

You have been called upon a few times to justify your labelling or your support of such of a person to be ‘brainwashed’ based on mere 6 para of opinions. Thus far, you’re just acting blur.

You have failed to indicate how the FOIA had in any way kept ‘the bastards honest’ as far as your Aussie visa was concerned. You suddenly declared that as a private affair, if so, why announce to one and sundry in an attempt to justify ‘keeping the bastards honest’?

You claimed “For example, actual breakdown construction costs of HDB relative to the price they were sold etc.” When called upon to list the ‘actual breakdowns’, you act blur.

You claimed “Want to be honestly transparent WITHOUT the burden of deciding what information and what extent to disclose? Very easy – pass the Freedom of Information (FOI)laws like in US, UK, Australia – let the person or persons interested in the relevant information pay a token fee and look at information file and copy what he or she wants – except those of national security interests which can be challenged in the courts as well to force their release.”

When shown from the very same standard wikipedia that it isn’t easy as claimed, that you still don’t decide on the type of info nor the extent of disclosure, you act blur. On the qn of going to court, whether you have any confidence in our courts, you siam.

And you really must have very low self-esteem or you just cannot comprehend simple English. When your Chip Goodyear qn came out, I _did not_ say any 1-year junior in the financial mkts would know non-disclosures are standard in the fund management space. I did not say hey I’m in ‘REALLY HIGH FINANCE’ and Temasek is a private coy and are not obliged to reveal what they consider ‘trade secrets’ or any confidential &/or privileged info.

So I really have no clue how a refrain could cause your brain to ‘cracked open’ nor how you generate ‘great knowledge’ from the way I was trying not to preach, which incidentally, is your modus operandi.

jiak:

“Anyway, I have seen enough multi-baggers boasting by many con-artists in the financial sector. If you want to prove that you are really good, just tell us which stock will go up or down by more than 20% next week, next month and next year. From your answers, we can at least know someday how accurate is your short, mid and long term stock analysis. If you can’t do it, please do us a favour and keep your trading history out of this discussion.”

Nobody on this planet can tell you what stock will go up 20%. They can only assume. If you believe anyone can fortell the future, you’re a bloody idiot. Only a greenhorn will ask such a stupid qn, which you have just done.

Anonymous:

To: I am not Anonymous….Jiak & Gaibang,
Two of you are simply comical. Plain kartoon. Clown!

ROTFLMAO.

They did proved exactly that above. HOW PROPHETIC OF YOUR GENIUS THOUGHTS.

HAHAHAHAHAHA

jiak:

“Australian governments, steeped in liberal representative institutionalism, have failed to adopt FOI comprehensively, resulting in a tempered emancipation of information.”

“These rights are limited by a broad range of exemption provisions and a mechanism which allows Ministers to bypass external merits review by issuing conclusive certificates.”

“Despite its noble-sounding intentions, the Australian FOI Act has been hamstrung since its inception. Broad exemption clauses, toothless review mechanisms and a government-fostered culture antithetical to the object of the Act have served as powerful obstacles to its effective operation.”

“The inability of the FOI Act to facilitate information access to politicians and media effectively is indicative of its failure to achieve its aims of improving the accountability of the executive branch of government and opening government activities to scrutiny, discussion, comment and review.”

“One of the chief limitations in the Commonwealth FOI framework is its drafting. While it purports to extend “as far as possible” the right of access to government-held information, it provides so many and such broadly defined exemptions that this claim is significantly undermined.”

jiak:

You are the only person on this planet who looks for ‘depth of content’ in an ‘overview’. Even my 1 day old intern will laugh at your utter stupidity.

jiak:

And if you agree with me that nobody can forsee the next 20% move, then pls also apply ” HOW PROPHETIC OF YOUR GENIUS THOUGHTS. HAHAHAHAHAHA” to: ” I bought this stock at only Australian 27cents and sold nearly A$21.50 a few years later..”

Even a monkey can do that.

Anonymous:

Jiak & Gaibang, Monuments of impossible stupidity,is it not probable case, but patently PROVEN here right?

To save yourselves of those impossible-to-erase embarassment of this public self-humiliation (not my fault) and anger, buy yourselves a new brain each! One that is a little more intelligent than “Baby”, my dog.

After all 30 years of investment expertise behind you, Jiak, you must be very rich by now. You can afford to buy a calmer reflection dog’s brain.

And Gaibang? Oh well, you must be a pyschic. Singapore Big Sweep must have made you richer and faster than 30 years of struggling with the tiny Singapore stock market often plagued by meltdown compared to Jiak. Yours won’t be a 80 bagger but millions of baggers since your capital outlay is only $2 and it is in SINGAPORE DOLLARS only., not the more expensive variety called Australian dollar!

I envy both of you. I really do, believe me. Anymore funny circus shows from your end minus your dropped underpants? Ooops!

ROTFLMAO

jiak:

After more than a decade of internet space to afford anti-govt/opposition types to share their ideals and wisdom, you inevitably end up with these ball-less, brain dead pimples on platform shoes. The amazing thing is that nothing seemed to have changed over all these years. Same modus operandi. What govt say is propaganda. You are stupid if you believe what they say, you are brainwashed. What the pimples say are ‘truth’.

In this case, the benchmark was wikipedia. So ok wikipedia it is. When shown even wikipedia is disputing its case, the dreaded anons of this world suddenly become blind. They would not see their own mistakes. They can yell atop their soapbox govt is not transparent, not responsive, they are there to point out the govt’s ‘mistakes’. But when confronted with their own mistakes, they will simply ignore the discussion. They would actually morph into the very PAP stoic silence they so despised.

And this is exactly how every anon I’ve met over the years operate. I fully understand why that is the case. I was just hoping this time round, I may actually find an anon with an intelligence slightly better than a pimple. But I guess I was overly optimistic.

And on and on it goes in almost every anti-PAP forum. The hypocritical pimples on platform shoes are all giving anti-PAP types a bad name. They drive even fence sitters to the arms of the PAP. They try and pretend there is a debate, when in fact even a simple discussion to justify why one would brand a person ‘brainwashed’ over 6 para of opinion didn’t go beyond round two.

And so thanks to forums like this, we will at least know who not to vote for. And as for that pimple on platform shoes.. here … have a peanut.. great job.

Anonymous:

Shame on you two. Kluber-ross grief cycle works wonderfully.

http://changingminds.org/disciplines/change_management/kubler_ross/kubler_ross.htm

The emotional graph says it all