He is simply practising his dark
art of ''trolling'' after
getting drunk at the Bar...
Basically speaking, if I can set the rules, and if Gazelle has no
choice but to follow them, I can charge him 500 bucks for an item
or service that others pay 50 bucks for and say that since it is
all by the book and law no wrong or villiany was conducted since I
have played by the rules that I myself have set for Gazelle to play
by regardless of if he agrees with them or not.
But because something is the law does not mean it is correct, if a
person is unable to see this then there is something seriously
amiss with his character, or he is simply being
dishonest.
What more can one hope from a
slippery character with very queer and hilariously dubious
preferences?
It will be fortunate that anyone will be charged 50 bucks when you
charge Gazelle 500 bucks - as in actual fact, the cost for the
service or item is a mere 50 bucks, but everyone is accused for
whining at being charged 500 bucks.
Only a Gazelle will be happy to pay for the ''500 bucks to be at his
service''.
The logic he is attempting here is bizzare, as well as NKF-ish.
It's pratically the same as the old NKF justifying their excesses
that ended up with just 10 cents going to the patients, as long as
everything was by the book and there is no power to catch them or
say it's wrong, then no wrong exists.
Laws exist because of an underlying belief in a higher right and
wrong. Laws can be out of line with this absolute but being legal
does not make it legal.
For example, I can go by the Law of the Jungle, Survival of the
Fittest. If I can gain something from Gazelle by lets say, robbing
him, injuring him for life, and setting his house on fire
destroying all he has and can do it without getting caught by some
devious plan of mine, then there is really no law stopping me from
doing it for right and wrong, by Gazelle's own reasoning, is
restricted only how well we can exploit the
rules.
The Law of the Fittest is already
a fact, and the
Machiavelli's Tiger has existed past his prime, and
continue to flaunt his claws - with a list of casualties that will
stretch over the last 50 years of his reign of terror.
Singapore is small, surely it is too much of a co-incident for the
wife of a judge and a cabinet minister's wife, sister, and daughter
to have each buying properties from a single development, and with
the developer offering discounts to each individual purchase that
is not usually offered to anyone else ?
Is it not odd too that a wife is left to buy a property that cost
over ONE Million without the husband even knowing, and that the
wife will unwittingly accept a discount from the developer without
considering the hint of ''improprietary'' in view of the
husband's high political profile ?
If not for the accidental leak of this transaction - at the
Property Development shareholders meeting, with the director
subjected to questioning for the discount given - the entire event
would simply have passed muster.
This could not be called ''corruption'' but simply an oversight
- a bad judgment call by the ladies out on a Million Dollar
shopping trip; and ''WITHOUT'' their
husbands knowing.
