[tgs]

Firstly, your drawing in of various peripheral characters does not have a relevance to Tey's case. Are you merely being mischievous? Perhaps you want to tell us you know about so-and-so?

Thanks for your comments. Please indulge my "lawyerly" style and don't get offended. Even my clients sometimes ask me why I am talking to them as if they were the other side's lawyer.

Actually, there are only two places in my thread that might give you that impression - the "One Can't Sing" part and the "graduating class is 2SB1" part. These are just two SMALL parts and do not detract from the much larger whole. They are just the icing on the cake and not the cake itself. How I got to know about these is besides the point.

We are not here talking about "Relevance" in terms of admissibility of pieces of evidence in court. Note that I have completely avoided commenting on the case itself, because I stand by the advice that I gave to NUS - that the matter is sub-judice and to comment on the case itself or the principals would "prejudice a fair trial".

"Relevance" in the layman sense is what I am after. Everybody knows about office politics, nobody is silly enough to assume that there is none and that personal relationships, networks, etc have no part to play at all in SG or anywhere else.

I did consider whether to exclude the part about Peter Tan as it is not of direct relevance and would have excluded it if there was a "guillotine". However, no issue exists in isolation free from the context of the society out of which that issue arises. That unequal treatment in NS is a "hot button" issue is undeniable and it crops up regularly. Hence, it is there, and I don't apologise for including it. The underlying message is that there are many things wrong with our society and commentators are free to raise any points and should not be required to "compartmentalise" their arguments. It is typical PAP tactic to "compartmentalise" the arguments e.g. national issues vs local by-election. It is this "pigeon hole" mentality that has got us to where we are now.

Second, you are inviting conjecture(s) linking Tony Tan and/or to Tey's case. Would you say this is a fair act? Do you have more facts or information establishing a stronger link? Otherwise, is it not better to consider other explanations / possibilities that there is no link between them?

It is fair to lay out the facts which are: Simon is son-in-law of Tony; Tey reports to Simon; Tony is President and PAP man most of his life and currently facing some questions about his seriousness in protecting our reserves; Tony is linked to Yong via OCBC and Shook Lin & Bok; Yong has been subject to strong criticisms by Tey for not upholding the Judiciary's role as a protector of citizens' basic human rights.

I did no more than lay these out. If you are of the view that we live in Alice in Wonderland where there is no office politics and personal relationships, networks, etc plays absolutely no part at all, then you are entitled to your opinion. My point is, readers are entitled to know these and come to their own conclusions. They can also use their knowledge of other facts to aid them in their thinking.

Also, politicians in democracies all over the world know that they have to have a thick-skin, otherwise get out of politics. SG is the only exception where the defamation laws have been distorted so far from the common law model that the "public figure" doctrine has been turned on its head. In all other common law countries, public figures are accorded less protection than ordinary citizens by defamation laws because citizens' right to criticise their leaders are deemed more important than the politicians' right to have their reputations protected. Only in SG has it been twisted around to accord politicians more protection.

PS: ... Some of us are discerning enough not to give too much regard to what's written in the media, and will apply the same dose of questioning cynicism to writings in a forum such as this.

I thank you for sharing things you know, but I'm not comfortable that your post may color and influence the view of a reader less critical.

"Some of us are discerning enough ..." - meaning your good self, but you have less faith in your fellow readers? "... may color and influence the view of a reader less critical" - meaning you think others may be daft, but you are not. On the other hand, I do have more faith than you that Singaporeans are NOT daft, but just to err on the side of safety, I have ended my thread with the warning from Confucius, which applies to the ST as well as to postings on this forum including mine. You see, I am very fair, I warn people not to believe the ST blindly and also warn them not to believe me blindly!

Anyway, AtticusFinch, thanks for your comments and apologies for my "lawyerly" reply.