See Blinkymummy's entries
I didn't know about these!
What's this?!
Previously sentenced to 6
weeks of jail for driving without a licence,
Catherine Peter (wife of a commercial pilot, housewife, and mother
of 2) has gotten her jail term dropped in her latest appeal.
"Justice V
K Rajah decided to set aside the jail sentence, saying that
Peter was not likely to repeat the
offence. He added that "this decision does not signify the
present judicial status ... but it is a one-off case that commands
a departure from the norm". "
Fwah! So special for her...
Please! She's obviously recalcitrant!
Know why she was driving without
licence on 29 Aug 2009? Coz her licence had been
previously suspended for drink-driving on
9 Apr 2009, just 4 months ago! If this is
not being recalcitrant, what is? Simpy no regard for our
laws.
She claims that she had to drive without a licence
to the mall coz she couldn't find a cab and had to get to the mall
to buy her sick son a toy. Guess where her husband was while their
son was ill? The commercial pilot was not
overseas flying, but was in Singapore. He had gone to the SIA
Sports Club that afternoon. Was her son really sick? Or perhaps
she's a self-suffering wife holding the family together on her own?
Hence, having to make unthinking decisions such as driving without
licence just 4 months after getting caught for
drink-driving?
While the report avoids mentioning the nationality or immigration
status of Catherine Peter, it's quite obvious that her husband is a
Foreign Talent and these are probably a couple of PRs or even New
Citizens. This would explain why the judge had decided to drop the
jail term, because by default for PRs/foreigners, who have been
sentenced to jail in Singapore, cannot step foot in Singapore
again. (Though it may be possible to appeal for re-entry to be
granted on a case-by-case basis.)
Hence, if this woman were to be sentenced to jail as decided in the
district court earlier, she would have to leave Singapore after
serving her jail term. This would mean that she would not be able
to take care of her kids, while her husband was overseas for work.
This would also mean that Singapore might altogether lose her
husband, i.e. a Line Instructor and Pilot of the
A380 fleet, Flight Operations Division of Singapore
Airlines.
Even if the complications arising from their immigration status
were disregarded, it makes one wonder if we had ever jailed a
mother of young children, rendering these children 'motherless' for
some time. Is it more ok then to jail local mothers coz their kids
could be taken care of by the extended family in Singapore?
Will the Prosecution be appealing against the appeal
decision?
(2) While
We Were Fighting Ourselves
Just a few days ago, I put up a blog entry,
lamenting that if we ever got into trouble with non-Singaporeans,
how unlikely it was
for fellow Singaporeans to fight along side with us in
Cambridge.
'Good Fren' suggested that the only time such 'support' by
Singaporeans would be possible was if we got into a fight during a
sports meet where Singaporeans from Oxford and Cambridge played
against one another, i.e. 自己人打自己人.
You would think 'Good Fren' was exaggerating.
Then over the weekend... TA-DAH!!
We get a real-life example, i.e. front page news of
Singaporean school boys bashing one another up during and after a
Rugby match.
Meanwhile, few have learnt about the latest sports news that
our foreign talent
Olympic Silver Medalist joining the team in her former
hometown, because the same mainstream papers
have not mention any word about it.
Hello?!! Wake up! Wake up!
Stop wasting energy on mindless competition amongst ourselves!
While we were busy fighting ourselves, the aliens have come and
left with bags of gold oredi!!
Related note: If the online
community is guilty of 'astroturfing', i.e. creating false
impressions of certain views, by spamming formal channels, the
mainstream media ain't that much better either.
Omitting significant pieces of news (and/or only highlighting
partial truths) is just another way to create false
impressions
