Citizens of our Nation were rocked by revelations of a ‘thwarted’ attack, which was supposed to have ‘occurred’ this year on the anniversary of the infamous “Christchurch” attack in March 2019.
Sketchy details of how a teenage Christian boy of Indian origin with super intelligence (wonder what his academic results are like) planned the purported attack, with intent to purchase ammunition (in Singapore for crying out loud), steal his father’s bank card (this one believable) and operate an electric powered vehicle (without a license) to carry out attacks on local mosques.
Sounds terrifying? Except we do not know if it is fact or fiction! The same can be said of all other detainees who were never produced in a Court of Law (in first world Singapore), where SPP candidate Osman Sulaiman even vouched for one of them asserting he is neither radicalised nor a terrorist.
In the event one has forgotten Jolovan Wham’s case of 2015, we revisit the words of Justice Woo Bih Li: “warnings are no more than an opinion of the relevant authority that the recipient has committed an offence. It does not bind the recipient, it does not and cannot amount to a legally binding pronouncement of guilt or finding of fact. Only a court of law has the power to make such a pronouncement or finding.” He furthermore went on to say: “that a court is not entitled to treat a warning as an antecedent or an aggravating factor for the purpose of sentencing a recipient who is subsequently convicted.”
Hence, in the absence of trial and evidence such a heinous incident took place, we can safely dismiss yesterday’s announcement as “fabrications of a PAP government”. This has been conclusively settled with the controversial detention of Ms Teo Soh Lung, Chng Suan Tze and others whose guilt the PAP government has never been able to establish to this day and restitutions were never made to right the wrongs perpetuated on them!
The ISA and OSA Acts were deliberately enacted so citizens of our Country can never hold the PAP accountable for any past or present misendeavor while ruling with an iron fist.
Before the PAP expects absolute trust from the electorate, it should be cognisant of the fact this work both ways and that if they indeed have nothing to hide, they should not be afraid of information leaks and behaving maliciously after that.
Now, how our religious leaders react to such pronouncements will determine the level of wisdom (or lack of) they possess when they either probe the incident further or merely act as the second mouthpiece for the government to denounce the incident which may otherwise, not have taken place at all.
The role of religious leaders is not to second governmental actions as Church and State should be separate but to act as wise counsel to their flock. We see this lacking in most of our religious institutions here, whether it is MUIS which silence on flawed halal certifications is deafening or the Council of Churches, which has not ascertained whether the latest incident is true.
In the meanwhile, stay tuned for more PAP dramas coming your way as they slip down the barometer of trust until the next election.
Dan De Costa