Amos Yee: Singapore’s Youngest Political Prisoner
Yesterday I attended Amos Yee’s sentencing hearing at the State Courts at 9.30am. As you may be aware, Amos has refused to accept probation. The AG had asked for probation, presumably to save the PAP the international opprobrium for jailing a child who had spoken the truth about the late Lee Kuan Yew.
Instead Amos requested that he serve a jail term instead. After all he had already served a longer period in remand than the man who assaulted him received after automatic good behaviour. However the AG objected and asked the judge to sentence Amos to reformative training instead on the grounds that he was unrepentant.
For those of you who are not familiar with what “reformative training” is in the Singapore context, let me enlighten you. The regulations governing it can be found in the Criminal Procedure Code (Reformative Training) Regulations 2010. A person sentenced to reformative training must serve at least eighteen months but no longer than three years. However after release they will be under the supervision of a probation officer and must comply with any conditions imposed. Any breach of those conditions will result in six months additional sentence. This supervision lapses four years after the date of the original sentence so in the case of someone sentenced to three years reformative training the supervision period is one year but if the sentence is only eighteen months the supervision period is three years.
This is what an AsiaOne article had to say about reformative training:
Reformative training is a strict prison regime for young offenders. It consists of foot drills, counselling and education. Offenders spend at least 11/2 years behind bars. Upon release, they are placed under supervision, which includes wearing ankle tags that track their movements electronically.
The article was about how the courts deemed reformative training as a suitable punishment for young loan shark runners who would not be allowed the “soft” option of probation even for a first offence. However the runner in this case was 20 years old and in NS.
It revulses me that the court and the AG could somehow think that the punishment option for someone defacing and vandalising the flats of those owing money to loan sharks, presumably with threats of violence intended to intimidate the unfortunate debtors, and other violent young criminals is appropriate for a child like Amos.
I say “child” advisedly even though our law treats him as an adult when he reaches 16 despite not being allowed to vote till you are 21. Yet another inconsistency in Justice Kaur’s judgement was that she claimed to be protecting the youth of Singapore from being corrupted and depraved by Amos’s supposedly obscene image while she was treating Amos as an adult for the purpose of sentencing. Amos’s blog and video were clearly aimed at adults and viewed mostly by adults and not children.
I will get back to yesterday’s hearing. The queue for the public gallery was quite short, perhaps because the hearing was originally scheduled for 2pm but was then moved to 9.30am. Singaporeans do not like to get up so early. The atmosphere among the crowd was slightly flippant considering that it was a child’s future we were talking about. When I said that the Government was out to break Amos, some people said jocularly that he would be more likely to break the AG and the judicial system by his refusal to bend. A young man in a suit made some comment to the effect that unlike the “soft” West we treated criminals like Amos as adults from the age of 16 and that the “shackles” which presumably soft-hearted liberals like myself objected to were just cuffs.
After a delay while the prosecution and defence lawyers met outside the courtroom, Justice Kaur entered at about 9.50am. I expected someone older and tougher looking. Instead she looked quite slight and undoubtedly younger than me. She was extremely soft-spoken so it was very difficult to hear what she was saying. It was difficult to fit her image to her reactionary and inconsistent judgement.
The DPP argued that as Amos had not “learnt his lesson” and refused to agree to probation that a reformative training sentence was necessary. He said that Amos’s conduct and his decision to make the image and video public again demonstrated the need for rehabilitation and appropriate counselling. The DPP said a jail term or a fine would have no rehabilitative effect on Yee and would therefore not be “tenable, because we cannot be popping back into court every other day.”
The judge agreed with him and said that “Rehabilitation is the fundamental tenet of our justice system” and ruled that he be remanded for three weeks to assess his mental and physical suitability for reformative training.
Alfred Dodwell, Amos’s lawyer, argued in vain that Amos should be given a fine or a jail term equivalent to the time he has already spent on remand and pointed out quite correctly that Amos was being punished for a second offence for which he had not been tried.
At the end of the hearing Amos was taken into custody again. I saw his mother passing him a plastic bag which made me feel very sad.
There can be no doubt that in this case “rehabilitation” is just a euphemism. The PAP Government mean to break Amos’s spirit through a harsh regime that is worse than prison. They would like to show Singaporeans that anyone here who dares to challenge the official narrative will be harshly dealt with.
In totalitarian regimes like Communist China, the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany “rehabilitation” meant years of imprisonment in harsh concentration camps. Everyone remembers the infamous words above Auschwitz which said “Arbeit Macht Frei” which loosely translated meant “Work Makes You Free” which was meant to be a sadistic joke about rehabilitation.
I feel only a slightly milder version of this punishment regime is in store for Amos. He will be forced to work and if he refuses will likely be punished. I am concerned that reformative training may include caning if Amos refuses to obey the orders given to him by his captors. He has years of imprisonment to look forward to and when he is inducted into NS he will probably end up serving his time in a military prison. Lee Kuan Yew made countless racist remarks designed to wound the feelings of minorities and was commended globally for his wisdom and candour.
Even with his time on remand Amos has served more time than the man who attacked him. The reports said that he would not be with adult inmates. However since Amos is already being treated as an adult that seems just another example of the AG’s disingenuity. He will presumably be placed with the kind of hardened criminals who are normally considered suitable for reformative training. He wlll probably be bullied and may be sexually assaulted. Of course many comments from PAP supporters and LKY worshippers on the internet were that rape was much too good for him.
The PAP Government’s treatment of Amos is an international embarrassment to them and to Singapore. The PAP always justify draconian restrictions on our freedoms by saying we enjoy Swiss standards of living as a result. But I look around and I can see that we have neither, at least not for the bottom 80% of the population.
I called Amos Singapore’s youngest political prisoner which led to the usual fierce attacks from people saying that he was tried and convicted. However so was Nelson Mandela who received a sentence of life imprisonment for terrorism. Yet today no one would dream of calling Nelson Mandela a criminal let alone a terrorist.
I will end by letting Amos’s own words speak for him:
Unless you do in fact relish in my misery, I hope both of you will be able to sleep at night, and live with the fact that right now, as it is written in the annals of history, my blood is on your hands.”
I am seriously concerned by those last words and worry that, if this harsh treatment of a 16 year old that makes me sick to my stomach is not stopped and some compassion shown that Amos may do something that will indeed leave the AG, the judge and the PAP Government with blood on their hands
The sentencing of Amos to rtc is obviously a political message….criticise the pap and you will suffer.
Jc009 is clearly a PAP scholar/ stooge pushing shot uphill. Anyone with average cow sense can see that no matter how much smoke and mirrors he/she throws on the argument, only one thing remains clear. You criticize the ruling elite at your peril. The only way this will change is when the party implodes with potential leaders with different ideologues or when the majority of the electorate gets royally passed off. That’s the only way we’ll get a ray of hope cast upon the Emperor’s long shadow.
Neo Gia Huah shocked the nation when he ambushed Amos and gave him a big slap while Amos was on his way to court. Neo was charged quietly and without fuss for a grand total of three weeks for his offence. The norm of our justice system is that Neo will get one -third of his sentence cut as a remission for good behaviour. So he served only two weeks and not three weeks as sentenced by the judge. No such thing for RTC inmates. See the difference between a jail sentence and being committed to RTC. Amos has not done anything criminal or violent and this is his first encounter with the justice system.
And his crime was pre meditated he in fact stalked Amos and staked out the place failing in his first attempt, so he got off very lightly with just the charge of voluntary hurt.
How many Christians were hurt by Amos? I saw a few said they are fine and some are very angry, how to rule by law when the law that aims to protect are a large cross section of people that are angry, indifferent or amused.
We are a secular society, or at least we are suppose to be and the law needs to be applied in that context. Many people believe that the treatment of Amos has been harsh, even if he only has his own stupidity to blame, but let us not forget it is the stupidity of a 16 year old and not an full grown adult. I think if anyone votes PAP after this in 2016 then they are really asking for more of this kind of imbalance and questionable treatment of it’s own citizens. While everyone can hide behind the law and say that the law is being applied, it does not mean that the law cannot be improved upon. Clearly Amos is to be made an example of, but things could have gone better for him if he had of just taken a step back. He didn’t. He pushed peoples buttons even further by re-releasing the video in question even after being requested not to. And while people can argue freedom of speech, everyone must already know that any speech is not so free in Singapore and certainly not free of any consequences.
I have to respectfully say that you are wrong when you say things could have gone better for him if he had taken a step back. Two examples immediately spring to mind. One is Alex Au of Yawning Bread and the other is Roy Ngerng of The Heart Truths. By apologising or removing their posts or editing them they both lost any chance to defend themselves against the charges. Removing or editing being taken as an admission of guilt. There is also a defence of not knowing or not intending to defame/wound/etc and this too is lost to you when you remove the post or apologise.
We are yet to see the consequences for Roy in terms of damages to be awarded to PM Lee but we know they will be over 250,000.
It is commonly agreed that by referencing City Harvest Church and pockets, Roy’s post was clearly going to be defamatory. We all know what happened to Chee when he tapped his pocket at GCT. Why I defend Roy is not because he wasn’t unintentionally defamatory but because the response by PM Lee was out of all proportion .
The big difference in Amos Yee’s case is that, I certainly, don’t believe he is guilty of an offence. I think he should appeal. The judgement seemed questionable in certain areas such as claiming that teenagers could be tempted to experiment sexually. A euphemism for saying that they could be ‘turned gay’. I have blogged my views on this previously.
And then of course Amos is 16. 16. 16.
The LHL govt is cowardly. It is hiding behind the excuse of ‘wounding’ Christianity to exact a harsh punishment against Amos Yee. Typically, the Lee govt has once again abuse the law for its own political purpose. Indeed Amos Yee’s case is exposing the vindictiveness, the partiality, ugliness and murk of the PAP.
The deep-seated moral corruption of the Singapore system by LKY and carried on by his rather inapt son is exemplified by the manner that the police, the AGC and the judiciary have proceeded to date in the case.
Dr Chee Soon Juan, was perhaps among the first to accurately point out that in Singapore it is rule BY law and NOT rule OF law – whereby THE LAW IS AN END IN ITSELF (TO SERVE THE GOVT’S SELF-INTEREST) WHEREAS IN ALL MODERN CIVILIZED SOCIETIES, THE LAW IS A MEANS TO AN END. The PAP has in 50 years all but destroyed the moral fibre od Singaporean society.
What nonsense is this “Reformative Training”? If Singapore does not want Amos Yee, it should build a Great Firewall to keep its citizens safe from the “evil” Internet. If it wants to show 50 shades of grey, it shouldn’t complain when people adopt such a lifestyle. I am appalled that the majority actually wants to see Amos punished when his cartoon of Thatcher drew no reaction from UK but got him thrown into jail in Singapore because he offended Lee.
Why don’t we ask Vincent Law, the man who actually had the courage to risk his own money to bail him what he thinks of this?
Oops,Amos defamed him as a molestor.
What about Terry Xu and the Online Citizen? Whoopsie. Amos turned on them too.
Lol even Roy Ngerng is afraid of the little psycho.
Ah well, the good ole boys inside RTC will make him understand why RTC is also known as Recruitment and Training of Criminals.
It’s basically prep school for gangsters. Hope he survives the syllabus.
Let’s face it here, this is nothing about hurting Christians (which the Christians themselves have denied) or posting obscene material ( Children can access full XXX porn via internet, not stick drawings). This is all about insulting a enlightened political despot’s legacy and so as promised by the dead man himself, the institutions are making a child go down on his knees and trying to crucify him. What they are doing is nothing short of legalized child abuse in the name of rehabilitation. The UN should be informed about the treatment they are giving to a child in the name of upholding law. Everyone is at the mercy of this ethically corrupt regime. All I can say is that the judge has blood on her hands and I hope her conscious kills her, if she has one. I believe, she has sold it the the devils in white for wealth and title. One day she will pay with her own children, that’s not for revenge but repentance
The Law Minister, replying as to why a mere sixteen year old is charged as an adult, said “A civilized society goes by the rule of law”, by which he apparently means that as our law says you are adult by sixteen, and as Amos has committed the offence, then to be civil, he must be accordingly charged. He also said, acknowledging the dispute, that “we have recently enlarged the scope for judges to make due allowance for such young offenders”; so he agrees that Amos isn’t quite adult yet to be tried as adult. But as the AG has the discretion whether to charge, and in what court to charge, a “civilized society” that acknowledges that Amos isn’t yet adult should not charge him as an adult. Seems somewhat contradictory to defend his being charged as adult, and then trying to reassure us that our laws enable his being treated with due consideration for his age even in an adult court. Worse, it may even be a lie, for surely there are limits in an adult court as to how much sentencing can bend to take account of his youth. And the Law Minister said a very silly thing on the age to treat offenders as “criminally responsible”. He said “When society decides you are criminally responsible once you reach sixteen, then you are criminally responsible at sixteen”. Stupid; for the issue is whether society is right to make that ruling!
F***Up system…Hope our Singaporean vote wisely…familee please get out…shame…bullies a 16 yrs old boy
I can’t believe reading Jeyaretnam’s reply to the article “youngest political prisoner” If you have any children it concerns me what disciplinarian actions you would have taken on your own children when they made mistakes in life, big or small. Facebook is a social media where one is allowed to air your like or dislike on anything. If the individual attacked is distressed than he or she responds, as in the case of LKY it was Amos personal opinion. To make it a court case and now sentence him to REHABILITATION – SINGAPORE’S way is just showing the world Spores method of breaking you down, very correctly compared to POW with Japan. Amos is young and mentally strong but anyone who has been arrested and gone through the method of torture to sign and agree to matters they did not believe, it is all re surfacing. My deepest sympathy to his mother who must be shattered. I hope you kind people of Spore not only support Amos but care for his mother with a broken heart
I agree with the blogger.
Amos is the youngest political prisoner
Im an 13 this year and im a hacker a singaporean.i hate the pap for jailing a 17 year old kid.
Well pap why dont sue me as well,i totally agree amos.
They i troll people im just a kid Haha
I think you’re failing to observe the severity of matter at hand and moving away from an objective view. This is an individual who continues to disrupt the social balance despite several warnings, repeatedly defames various individuals in the public sphere and disregards any form of authority. To classify Amos’ posts and videos as freedom of speech and expression would be self-incriminating. These traits are likely to create an unstable, unpredictable individual which could desacralize the commitments and values which are established in this country. A rebel without a cause serves neither the institution or the anti-institution.
Hence, should the governing institution of a country not take action, not restrict or restrain and not deter, any individual who persist on indoctrinating his/her worldview through any measure and form, at the cost of another’s value, integrity and well-being? I would abstract the fact that, there are numerous police reports filed and vigilantism as a reaction from the members of public to be substantial evidence of the implications of the severity of this issue. Also, the lack of remorse or repentance of the individual adds to the seriousness towards the offence, rationalising more stringent measures of enforcement.
To label Amos Yee as a child would be presuming he has a lesser responsibility towards society than an adult? At what age should he be tried as an adult? He is in his 17th year of existence, would he be deemed less innocent next year past his 18th birth date? I would propose that a person who uses the caveat that himself being a child is less accountable for his actions and speech, has already lost his innocence and is no longer deemed childish.
The comparison of the Reformative Training Centre (RTC) to prison and concentration camps is perhaps more literal flair than an observed analogy. RTC focuses on rehabilitation of a person who has stepped outside the premises of morality, family values and rationality and has inflicted harm, directly or indirectly, on other members of society or on himself. The individual would not have a criminal record which would affect his/her future career/relationship/social opportunities. A mind of a fully autonomous individual often leads to psychosis and presents the danger of irrational ideals and perspectives whose actions and expressions would impact the cohesiveness and fundamentals of a democratic society.
Your opening paragraph echoes the excuses given by the Nazis when they wanted to get rid of people who held different views from theirs……views which are anathema to a style of government that is oppressive.
Amos is a typical rebellious teenager who has broken your laws but surely the punishment imposed on him is excessive in relation to the gravity of his actions. After all the purpose of punishment is to rehabilitate the offender not to destroy his spirit and his chances of a decent life after the sentence..
Singapore can hardly claim to be an example of a democratic society as in all its years as an independent state, opposition in its true sense of the word was never tolerated.
Hi Marie Rose,
I would ask that you watch and read Amos’ posts and video to reconsider if he has a different view. These are not respectful commentary which highlights the difference between religious and idealogical views, in a manner which measures the dignity and agency of each one of us. Nor was it a challenging deliberation and debate in a public setting through reasoned persuasion and rationale. In a country where proper debates on governance and the legal system are taking place weekly, in our universities, forums and in parliament itself, I would be less than inclined to term as oppressive. There are channels where the citizen can provide feedback and recorded applications on social political issues, to the ministers on a weekly basis. To link Nazism to such an institution is preposterous. Of course, there are those which would disagree on certain issues and have a different approach towards government if they were in charge. However, in the absence of uniformity, we must not overtwist personal demands into a remorseless decline towards irrational, meaningless thoughts which often end up leading to the abuse of human freedom, justice and security.
If you were to recollect my initial comments, I reasoned that Amos’ actions, words and demeanour was not that of a typical rebellious teenager, hence the causality of the charges and mitigation held against him. If you consider the implications of religious unrest in our country, one which is surrounded by, predominantly Islamic neighbours. One which has numerous practising religions within a small space of land. Would you negate any possibilities that by the open humiliation of another’s religion, the consequence would not directly or indirectly promote fiction between various groups of individuals? Before removing any barriers, perhaps its wise to take a few seconds to reflect why was it placed there in the first place.
The definition of democracy is where the majority of citizen’s opinions are reflected in the legislation, culture, rights, etc. and that the minorities are protected within a boundary of human rights and morality. Freedoms and individual rights are obtained within the boundary and not outside. Total freedom would lead to anarchy. I would first query if opposition towards the prevailing government transgressed the boundaries, if the counter perspectives are valid, rational and logical and if it improves and represents the society and nation on a whole. Would you be willing to provide an example of a country where democracy is adapted more efficiently within its social and political realms, so that we can have a comparison of social indicators and benchmarks for a democratic society.
Who doesn’t know that “total freedom leads to anarchy”? The issue is whether the sort of control and limitation being imposed upon Amos is excessive and inhumane. Democracy and individual liberty puts the onus of proof on the authorities, wherever the freedom is being curtailed. The contention here is whether that proof is forthcoming, considering the treatment the state is meting out to Amos. You should be wary of this propagandistic ploy, just like, whenever criticized for being too restrictive at welfare aid, the state accuses critics of wanting “free handouts”. There is also your challenge for comparison to “democracy” practiced elsewhere. How is that relevant? Shouldn’t we aim to do right, no matter what others do? This is another ploy of our politicians. Wherever convenient, they say “others do the same”. At other times, however, they say we are unique and “world-first”, that ours is “democracy that works”.
Hi Tan Tai Wei,
The supplication of a frame of comparison, was directed towards Marie Rose, in reply to her opinion that “Singapore can hardly claim to be an example of a democratic society as in all its years as an independent state, opposition in its true sense of the word was never tolerated.” with regards to, the preceding perspective of the confines and defines within a Democratic system. It would not be relevant outside the prior discussion which follows on the second point below.
Without separating political predetermination, private opinions and subversive inclination, we are unable to view social issues objectively. For example, “Amos’ freedom of speech is limited by the government”. However if that were true, he would not be able to post and even to subsequently repost, his views to the public. What follows on is purely cause and effect and not a initial limitation based on discrimination or suppression. Thus, we examine the cause of the imposed limitation, in the order of events, with decent indifference. My concern would be more focused on an individual who is openly intolerant of other individuals’ freedom. The direction, if any, is to unsettle any form of human dignity and agency, be it religious, ideological, rational, intellectual or philosophical. Just recollecting recent incidences of such insensitive expressions, in Sydney, France and Malaysia, and what it has resulted in, should provide for sufficient evidence for the society to take apprehension. The crass and disdain in which this was promoted, should not be the standard in which we base our dispensations. Excessive and inhumane are not provable in any discipline except mathematics (unless you are a theist). Some might say Amos is excessive and others the control is inhumane. Others would say Amos is inhumane and some would say the control is excess. Some others might postulate that if Amos were not detained, why is the government arresting another 17th year old for his religious beliefs? Why is his private ideologies (not even on Youtube) considered radical? Did he do anything illegal?
I’m less willing to be entertained in the dance exhibition itself but rather the assignment of the initiator of the dance and the ramifications this would lead to. I believe this would bring reason into what was being imposed on Amos.
It’s not the curtailing of Amos’ conduct we question, but the manner of the curtailment. “Excessive and inhumane” is subjective, hence cannot be the basis of our objections? But you yourself appeal to “human dignity”, respect for which you rightly claim Amos’ conduct shows no concern for. Well, that is one “objective” standard by which you and we may appraise the manner the state is going about curtailing Amos.
You are one sick person. You are the type who can murder in the name of religion.
just done the bit that changed the meaning. My work is full of typos so never mind. I’m not sure if my blog format allows users to edit by themselves. It would be a useful tool to have.
” This is an individual who continues to disrupt the social balance despite several warnings, repeatedly defames various individuals in the public sphere and disregards any form of authority. ”
I can name you an individual who had done what you are saying in your quote above who had repeatedly transgressed the very same ‘principle’ and who had gotten away with it. What he had said is in fact IN PRINT and freely available in our bookshops. That person is of course the late Mr LKY.
Is this not a DOUBLE STANDARD or is it your case that some people in ‘special positions’ are/were ABOVE THE LAW?
While the AGC may claim for itself the prerogative to decide, in effect, whom and what to prosecute, it stands to commonsense and reason that it cannot be an unfettered discretion and it carries great responsibility to be ALWAYS ACCOUNTABLE AND CONSISTENT FOR OTHERWISE IT CAN BE JUSTIFIABLY ACCUSED BY OTHERS, ESPECIALLY SINGAPOREANS, OF BEING USED BY ITS POLITICAL MASTERS AS A TOOL TO PERSECUTE ITS CRITICS.
I don’t think anyone is saying that Amos Yee should go scot free for his behaviour. Instead we are recoiling at the manner that the authorities have been going about it. And it is IMPOSSIBLE in most thinking and sensible minds to believe that the hard ball being dealt Amos Yee is because he had offended Christian.
I’m not sure if this has been done before but you (or any individual for that matter) would be at liberty to issue a police report or sue for libel if you believe you have sufficient grounds for a case of defamation, just as members of the public has done so in Amos case. However, if you would refer to my response to Tan Tai Wei, I highlighted that if we were objective about our thoughts, in light of the transpired events, timing and the personality, it leaves the current authority and even the anti-authorities, with little alternatives really.
Let us not take it so light and easy with words like suing for libel/defamation as if it is like applying for a driving licence. In any case, what in my comments bore any relevance to this comment from you. BTW apart from the counselor who volunteered to bail Yee (he did not sue in any event), I am not aware of any other members of the public who did. So what are you talking about? What we do know is that several police reports were lodged against Yee for his Youtube clips and FB post. Anyone who felt ‘aggrieved’ enough is free to do so, but IMHO, the AGC has very conveniently been playing to the gallery by charging Yee when the WHOLE WORLD KNOWS THE ULTERIOR MOTIVE FOR ITS ACTION. The AGC appeared prepared to put its reputation and credibility on the line by doing so as Singaporeans and observers the world over can plainly see it wasn’t a concern about Christianity or that crude drawing, but it is all about the ruling establishment’s anger with Yee for his insults, which we all know have a very weak legal grounds to proceed on in a civilized country. The whole sorry saga has everything to do with people in power using the law to satisfy their based instinct for revenge and getting even. IMHO, the AGC is being used like a cat’s claw. In the process, it puts the poor judiciary in a quandary which wouldn’t have been the case, if it is truly independent. But it cannot be under the present ‘arrangement’ of judges tenure being up to the PM to decide. This point is beyond dispute, like flogging a dead horse.
” I highlighted that if we were objective about our thoughts, in light of the transpired events, timing and the personality, it leaves the current authority and even the anti-authorities, with little alternatives really. ”
Also, can you speak plainly, just what are you talking about here? Casting Innuendos will never get you the understanding you seek.
Reblogged this on rawveganclub's Blog and commented:
It’s very disgraceful that the PAP government of first world country, Singapore, will want to lock a 16 yrs old child up just because of the child’s different views! A child is a child. A child takes 18 years to be an adult. Barbarians do not respect it. Free Amos Yee today!
“The PAP Government’s treatment of Amos is an international embarrassment to them and to Singapore. The PAP always justify draconian restrictions on our freedoms by saying we enjoy Swiss standards of living as a result. But I look around and I can see that we have neither, except maybe PAP Ministers and their relatives and wealthy foreigners. Steve Wozniak, who founded Apple with Steve Jobs. said no innovation or creativity would come out of SIngapore. Is it any surprise?”
Spot on, Kenneth.
But what can we expect form this half-baked govt with its half-baked judiciary system?
to me, no matter whether you like him or hate him, amos yee did singapore a favour: he has illuminated our system in a crucial time. now we can see clearly as a society, and make critical decisions, and hopefully vote a government, or create parties that have interest in the progression of singaporeans.