TR EMERITUS

CCS is smartest but unwise & foolish at times. 聪明反被聪明误。 TCJ is most honest but too straight to the point of naivety. We term it as Angmo teed, 不懂得转弯，直冲直撞。 OYK is most ambitious without enough ability. Ambition outweighs ability, 野心大过能力，何德何能。 HSK is the political goondu with too many daggers stabbed on his back but still will say 谢主隆恩。愚忠背顶万刀刺，笨拙醜像传万世。 LW is most... Liang PoPo with a poker face who can sell you increase in GST, increase in petrol tax etc with a smile and many people will still like him... 棉肚藏针，笑里藏刀，深藏不露。   Goh Meng Seng      Read More →

Our infamous number 1 Ah Goh happy in retirement, now a new candidate has been appointed. The MSM was quick to point out Pinky wasn't involved, ex Malaysian KBW was collecting consensus. When Ah Goh was appointed, it was the same strategy, Old Lee also did the same, he wasnt involved. Who is us to kid? Lao Lee stayed on to hand hold or monitor the transition to Pinky. Surely we expect Pinky to do the same for his clown prince and Empress Dowager. Our succession is similar to our democracy model,looks as if democractic but ultimately it is closer to autocracy. If people think LW was democractically selected, those are simply low IQ. HSK was probably the candidate with better profile than OYK, LW and Cotton Chan but he was deemed too old. During the confession conference, you could sense his angst and pittance. He was probably told to make way, who would believe he gave up the throne himself? These three candidates weren't outstanding, one was famous for his kee chiu and famous audio recording Singlish peppered with colloquialism has been leaked in 2020. OYK and LW were tasked to fix pandemic but largely did not perform up to mark, flipping pratas so many times, forcing many businesses to shut and not to say the handouts and lock downs amounting to massive expenditure. Talking about LW, his performance being the finance leader, he looked to be reading from scripts about the budget. When questioned about help for needy or drivers, all he could reply was vouchers. We are a very strange country, we put leaders with no or little background to do what they are not good at. So in the end, they are merely reading from the plans and scripts their inferiors submitted. LW had been quite arrogant a number of times when attacking oppositions, either condescending tone or looking smirk when having an edge, signs of elitism and cockiness. In regards to his charisma, he is nothing compared to Ah Singh, when he speaks, he does not carry that kind of inspiration nor look like a leader, he is at best looking like a supervisor reporting progress. All the 4G teams have not delivered much all these years, one was even a loser in election but put into another GRC safe heaven and then given a big post. The second one had been in several sia suay incidents. We have a very mediocre team which was selected by Pinky. The deterioration of quality is so clear and the utilisation of same strategies of Pay And Pay and import/convert of foreigners into locals have always been the same. They are stucked with old ideas of GDP growth and massive immigration, nothing else have worked. We are still trying to be innovation, technology, finance and all kind of hubs after so many decades. Sinkies need to understand that in order for this island to prosper further, we do need fresh ideas and new men to reform. Do you agree?   Eng Kiat      Read More →

The two opposing camps in relation to vaccine mandates both primarily predicate their arguments on the significance of vaccines in safeguarding public health. Those who are for vaccine mandates aver that the mRNA vaccines are the apotheosis of Covid-19 treatments, so miraculous that the forcible compulsion of others for such treatment is wholly justified. On the other hand, others who are against vaccine mandates bring attention to alternative treatments and new data which seemingly undermine the prevailing perceptions of vaccine efficacy. Seeing as there might be more than it meets the eye, they repudiate the vaccine mandate. While both schools of thought have their merits, they fail to take into account a consideration that renders the premises of vaccine mandates moot in the first place. This blind spot pertains to the neglected premise of law. Before we even discuss vaccine mandates as law, it would be ridiculous if we fail to ascertain the nature of law and its capacity. For this, we can take reference from Frederic Bastiat’s observations in his magnum opus ‘The Law’. Bastiat begins with the premise that all human beings are bestowed with life, liberty and property with their existence. “Life, liberty and property do not exist because man have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that causes men to make laws in the first place” Frederic Bastiat, The Law (1850) Whilst seemingly obvious, the beauty in this statement is that it succinctly disabuses the widely held sentiments that the law provides one with life, liberty and property. This is inaccurate. Rather, the law provides security for one’s already existing life, liberty and property. With this in mind, we can proceed to Bastiat’s conception of the law. “Each of us has a natural right — from God — to defend his person, his liberty, and his property… If every person has the right to defend — even by force — his person, his liberty and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organise and support a common force to protect these rights constantly.” Frederic Bastiat, The Law (1850) Indeed, every person has a right to defend the aforementioned faculties, which suggests that the law is the collective right of people in protecting said faculties. There is not much meaning or logic in disputing otherwise. Bastiat subsequently highlights how his above observation holds value in determining the boundaries of law. “Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other mission for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.” Frederic Bastiat, The Law (1850) Because a person has no jurisdiction in violating the personality, liberty and property of another individual, it follows that the law, which is an agglomeration of the jurisdiction of many individuals, holds no place in such violation too. Such is the negative concept of the law; its capacity only lies in defending. While the law can be used to prevent one from engaging in the harm of others, it cannot be utilised to compel one to act against their own personality, liberty and property. A simple example would be how it is perfectly reasonable for the law to punish thieves, molesters and murderers (those who harm others) but unreasonable for the law to force a person to engage in charity or to exercise even if it serves to benefit everybody including the participant. Vaccine mandates are diametrically opposed to such a notion of law. As Bastiat states: “When law and force keep a person within the bounds of justice, they impose nothing but a mere negation. They oblige him only to abstain from harming others. They violate neither his personality, his liberty, nor his property. They safeguard all of these. They are defensive; they defend equally the rights of all.” Frederic Bastiat, The Law (1850) Vaccine mandates impose more than a negation, they directly impose a fixed choice for an individual. It is evident that this is in direct violation of one’s liberty and person. It is expected for proponents of the vaccine mandate to bring up the Harm Principle and point out Bastiat himself stating that the law’s purpose is in ‘(obliging) him only to abstain from harming others.’ If vaccines help to prevent serious symptoms from Covid-19 which when uncontrolled would lead to a burden in healthcare, or even better, prevent one from contracting Covid-19 itself, then failing to take the vaccine would lead to the harming of others. This justifies a vaccine mandate. This perspective is as popular among the advocates of the vaccine mandate as it is easy to deconstruct and viewed as flawed. When Bastiat mentioned the harming of others, he is referring to direct harm as opposed to indirect harm. The same is applicable for the notion of the Harm Principle. This conclusion is one that is easily reached with a little bit of logical reasoning. Suppose that Bastiat and the Harm Principle were referring to all forms of harm, including indirect forms, they would be irrelevant in all discussions of society. Every action we take will lead to indirect harm to others however minute. Consuming more of a limited resource will always lead to lesser resources for others to consume; the problem of scarcity engenders the persistent presence of indirect harm. In such situations, there will always be those who are unable to access said resources and one’s access to said resources indirectly contribute to the inaccessibility of said resources to these people. Hence, it is absurd to claim that either Bastiat’s philosophy or the Harm Principle encompasses indirect forms of harm as such a standard imposed would render everyone culpable. Taking into account the targets of a vaccine mandate, one would see that the bulk of the population are not currently infected with Covid-19. In other words, a vaccine mandate would mean for those who are healthy to be vaccinated. What is noteworthy is that the healthy cannot and do not directly harm others through Covid-19. They can only do so only after they have contracted Covid-19. Thus, it perfectly follows that there are no legal precedents that warrants an imposition of will or the infringement of person and liberty against those who have not engaged in the harm of others. Furthermore, even if the target audience of a vaccine mandate is shifted towards those who are currently infected with Covid-19, there are still insufficient or controversial grounds for supporting vaccine mandates. After all, it is only when one who is infected intentionally maximises his social interactions can he be considered to directly harm others through his weaponization of Covid-19. Otherwise, is he not a victim of circumstances? Can his adherence to his routines and activities for his sustenance really be considered as something to be penalised? Let us not forget that nobody intentionally contracts illnesses too. Is it reasonable to impose restrictions on a group of people who are bound by the shackles of fate? If anything, is the act of resuming life whilst infected dissimilar to an act of self defence; in this case, one that is against the effects of Covid-19? With respect to the limitations of healthcare, if we were to fault people for being in a position where they are a liability to healthcare services, would the indirect harm on public health due to a multitude of factors such as genetics, diet, exercise, sleep and so on not suggest that everyone is at fault? The conclusion is that there is simply no case for vaccine mandates. Vaccine mandates are an overreach of law as it strips away one’s liberty when it has no capacity to do so as there has been no precedent of a direct infringement of person, liberty and property committed by any groups of people in the first place. The above argument holds even if the vaccine do contribute more than they destroyalthough this has been sufficiently proven otherwise by the extensive repository of counter-literature (which further undermines the case for vaccine mandates). Singapore’s decision to impose a quasi vaccine mandate is a shameful one that will always reflect poorly on the dominant political party and the pusillanimous quasi established opposition in the eyes of those astute enough to see it.     TheAstuteArbiter    Read More →