TR EMERITUS

作者:费言 今天(23/8/2010)看报纸，真为张思乐和Singapore Foods的总裁捏把冷汗。 李显龙总理与何晶夫人，在昨天一起去奥运村参观， 还和奥运村长张思乐与义工们一起用餐，想想看，如果让他与何晶夫人吃到新加坡家长所Complaint的那种“三根菜豆”的饭盒，张思乐的乌纱帽肯定不 保，何晶夫人是Singapore Foods的老板娘，也肯定不会放过那个负责青奥运全部伙食的Singapore Foods总裁。 【 敢敢就让青奥运的义工们吃三条菜豆？】 把来青奥运参加比赛的选手们说成“外贼”，把义工们说成“家奴”，当然很不妥当啦！ 但是，我却从堂堂新加坡国营的伙食公司Singapore Foods，给义工们提供的饭盒看出来问题来。网络上许多人爆料，原来青奥运主办当局，给几千名本地义工提供的伙食饭盒，竟然是：白饭+三条菜豆+一片泰国PFP公司进口的最廉价炸鱼饼。 从这个“猪饭水平”的饭盒，就可以看见，主办者，似乎根本没有把这些义工当一回事，的确把他们义工当成“家奴”来看待。 如果不是把义工们当家奴来随意虐待，为何他们的伙食，比哪些提供优惠杂菜饭，以一元特价卖给孤苦老人的那种廉价饭还不如呢？维文医生和张思乐有没有吃过这个 人家说的“比猪吃的还不如”的盒饭呢？如果不是把他们当可有可无，可以随意对待刻薄的家奴，为什么他们的伙食，与参赛选手们的伙食，严重相差得天南地北， 如此令人咂舌的地步？ 网上的评论就更刻薄了：“哇。。。让外国选手吃咖哩鸡腿，让我们的孩子吃咸鱼菜豆饭，真是吝啬刻薄得惊人喔。。。！” 我无意中上OMY网看到那个“三条菜豆”的饭盒照片，就多事打印了去问了卖杂菜饭的安涕，问说这饭盒要多少成本。 安涕比三指不说话，我说要三块钱吗？她终于开口：“三毛啦！就那片鱼片比较值钱，白饭和三条菜豆要多少钱呀？那炸鱼片4块钱一包也有几十片，泰国PFP公司出的，鱼浆包面粉炸的，每个米粉摊都有，你再不信，去Shop & Save 或NTUC都可以买到。” 她再补充一句，如果我来包给他们呀，一包一块钱，三样菜，有鱼有肉，他们Singapore Foods是大公司，总裁薪水高，不好赚他们不做的，可能呢，奥运会给他们的价钱是一包五毛钱，所以他们就照成本赚点，包一包“猪饭”送货去啰！ 我开玩笑说，青奥运如果来和你定包杂菜饭，吃了“漏塞”怎么办？她指着晚上的报纸新闻反驳说，哪。。。看新闻，Singapore Foods包的，吃了还不都全部“漏赛”吗？ 哦。。说的也是，义工们吃了饭盒“漏赛”泄肚子事件，似乎又凸显了歧视义工的同个问题。 为什么同样公司负责的饮食，选手们吃了好好，没半个人漏赛，义工们吃了就会漏赛呢？难道不是义工们的饭盒品质恶劣比较差，甚至是使用劣质原料来做成的？ 让我们以小人之心来幻想吧！参赛选手们吃的好料，是Singapore Foods从母公司，机场餐饮集团哪里，把为新航做商务舱高级配餐的最好主厨拉来做的，我们义工孩子们吃的烂饭盒呢，是因为厨房人手不够，请安涕临时工来 随便搞的吗？或者，去向什么外面尤诺士小贩中心的马来摊订购的打包“那西罗玛”？ 没有人会无理取闹，要求我们义工孩子的饭盒，要和尊贵的选手们相比，但厚此薄彼到如此荒谬的地步，张思乐难道不应该出来向家长们道歉，或者，公布一下真相，让新加坡人明白，他们主办青奥运的财政预算已经很幸苦，严重超支了，只好处处省点钱，给孩子们吃猪饭啰？ 我们的主办当局到底在干嘛呀？这不明明就是慈善太后“宁予外贼，不予家奴”，厚此薄彼的那副刻薄德性吗？ 我早就说了，明明就是打肿脸皮充胖子，又要面子出风头，又舍不得花钱，又劳民伤财，还硬硬搞来干嘛？难道这就是奥运精神？ 大马论坛  Read More →

"Not a single clemency in the last 11 years," lawyer for Yong Vui Kong, Mr M Ravi, told the crowd at Speakers’ Corner on Sunday. The event, titled “The elected President is not a rubber stamp”, is in response to the High Court’s decision on 13 August with regards to Mr Ravi’s application for a judicial review on the powers of granting clemency. Mr Ravi’s application was made after the then-Attorney General stated that: “Although in theory it is the President who exercises the prerogative of mercy, in fact it is the Cabinet that makes the decision”. Justice Steven Chong’s judgement agreed and said such powers “rests solely with the Cabinet.” The judgement has raised questions of the role of the elected President and whether the Cabinet has “usurped” the President’s powers with regards to granting clemencies. Referring to the government’s hardline policy against drug trafficking, Mr Ravi said this was precisely why “politicians cannot decide clemency process because [their] decisions are influenced by policy and not mercy.” “Why call it ‘power’ when .. you say the President has no discretion? Why even use the word ‘power’?” Mr Ravi asked, referring to the term “presidential clemency power”. Mr Ravi again referred to what the Law Minister, Mr K Shanmugam, had said at a public forum in April before the Court of Appeal handed down its decision and before Yong had submitted his clemency appeal to the President – “Yong Vui Kong is young. But if we say ‘we let you go’, what is the signal we are sending?”. “You take the clemency petition and what do you decide? Die. Even before clemency petition presented, he says die,” Mr Ravi said. “We will petition the President .. under Article 100 of the Constitution to convene a Constitutional Court … Why is this important? … Cabinet has usurped those powers [of the President].” “The elected President, when he convenes the Constitutional Court, he uses the State’s resources, he has immense amount of resource, and you have the best experts in the world to come before the Constitutional Tribunal to deliberate.” Also speaking at Speakers’ Corner was The Online Citizen’s Chief Editor, Mr Andrew Loh. Referring to the court’s judgement, Mr Loh said it made “no sense” to him. Referring to the provisions in the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA), he said: “There’s a whole host of presumptions (in the MDA), at the end of which, if you are found guilty, you die. Full stop. You don’t get 20 years, you don’t get life imprisonment, you don’t get all that. You die. And it is the same people who constructed this law that now have the final say on clemency.” Press reports on past clemencies have given the impression that it was the President which had the power to grant clemencies, Mr Loh said. “For example, President Wee Kim Wee has pardoned three people… People have written to him to thank him personally for granting the clemencies. But now we know that is all not true. He didn’t do anything at all.” Participants at Speakers’ Corner were then urged to sign the letter to the President to convene a Constitutional Court. Copies of the letter were made available to the participants. About 50 people among the crowd signed the letters and they will be posted to the President on Monday. Also, Mr Ravi wrote to the Singapore Prison Service last week to ask it to confirm that the deadline for Yong to submit his clemency appeal has been extended, as Justice Chong had “invited” the Prison Service to do, in light of the appeal which will be lodged with the Court of Appeal with regards to Justice Chong’s decision on the powers of clemency. The Singapore Prison Service has yet to reply to Mr Ravi. Yong’s original deadline to submit his appeal to the President ends this Thursday, 26 August. He could be hanged anytime after that. Separately, the campaigners to save Yong Vui Kong from being hanged, have collected close to 100,000 signatures – both online and from Malaysians on the streets in Sabah – which will be handed to President Nathan this week. [ Video of Sunday’s  event at Speakers’ Corner ]   by Andrew Low Constitutional Court: A constitutional court is a high court / tribunal that deals primarily with constitutional law. Its main authority is to rule on whether or not laws that are challenged are in fact unconstitutional, i.e. whether or not they conflict with constitutionally established rights and freedoms. * Reproduced with permission from The Online Citizen.  Read More →

38-year-old MEDIACORP actress Patricia Mok has donated $10,000 from two cases of molestation she has settled with an accused to 2 charities, the HCA Hospice Care and Rainbow Centre Yishun Park School, a school for the mentally disabled. Patricia Mok On Monday, the actress agreed to compound the cases with Yeoh Chuen How, 30, who was originally accused of rubbing Ms Mok on her left shoulder and forearm and groping her 15 minutes later at Zirca Mega Club at Clarke Quay on June 22 last year. Counsel for Mr Yeoh, Mr Ratan Kumar Rai applied to compound the matter with no objections from Deputy Public Prosecutor Stella Tan Wei Ling. Mr Yeoh also tendered his apology to Ms Mok in open court and was granted a discharge by District Judge F.G. Remedios.   Online Press  Read More →