http://military-life.blogspot.com/2009/02/money-got-enough-defence-budget.html
Evidently, having a standing military force with the navy and airforce mostly comprising of professionals while the army continues to conscript its male citizens is not "free". It is a very expensive proposition because in 2008/09 Mindef asked for $10.6 billion for its budget. In 2009/10 they are asking for $11.45 b. This is no small change.
Jane's mentions that Malaysia spent US 4.5 b (taking 1.5 exchange rate is about SGD 6.75 b) but don't forget Malaysia includes Peninsular Malaysia (i.e. north of Singapore) and Sabah, Sarawak. The territories are wide and they have borders with Thailand to patrol as well as a long coastline that includes the Straits of Malacca.
Indonesia budgeted about US 3.9b (SGD 5.85b) for FY 2008 for defence and it is a country of thousands of islands an a population of close to 237 million people.
We are spending almost what both Indonesia and Malaysia spends combined and they have larger territory sovereignty to defend. In addition, they have hotspots to patrol. Malaysia's border with Southern Thailand is not exactly the most peaceful place in the Peninsula. Indonesia still has its far flung provinces of Papua and Irian Jaya to defend after Timor Leste gained independence.
I am not against scrapping our defence forces. The world is a dangerous place. Whilst diplomacy and friendly ties is the order of the day, the ability to defend yourself against potential aggressors and in today's world of Jemiah Islamiah and terrorism, defence is needed.
The question is HOW MUCH of defence then is needed and HOW should this defence be deployed using TAXPAYERS MONIES.
I am for a change in the system of defence. I see conscription as an anarchronism in today's age. It is not working effectively and efficiently to deliver a robust defence posture for the amount of resources we pour in.
Mindef has professionalised the RSAF (airforce) and the RSN (Navy). Is it such a logical leap to ask if the army can be similarly professionalised with mostly volunteer regulars instead of conscript cannon fodder?
So for the $11.45b we are going to spend even if under the guise of pump priming the economy. How much of that goes to full-time NSFs who get a miserly allowance of $600ish for risking their lives unvoluntarily to the State? Even reservists who get retrenched would only get some rank pay if they are called back for in-camp training and not their previous pay since the SAF reimburses EMPLOYERS and if you're unemployed, tough luck. Maybe ICT gives you free room and board for three weeks but not much in terms of wages.
I seriously question the wisdom of flinging our hard-earned tax dollars down the bureaucracy that is Mindef. What next big weapons systems is in Mindef's radar? More UAVs? More submarines? More Self-propelled artillery systems? More Multiple Launch Rocket systems? Hey, why not throw in a WHITE HORSE alert system that scans soldiers' 11B coded with RFID so that Commanders and Officers know who they are and AVOID giving them prefential treatment?
Majullah Singapura.
There is too much wastage in Mindef.
Friday, February 6, 2009
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Misconceptions about the Singapore Democrats
What you do not read from the Straits Times and MSM.
Misconceptions about the Singapore Democrats
Tuesday, 03 February 2009
Singapore Democrats
Through the years, much has been said about the SDP. As a result many views have been formed and propagated about what we stand for, our beliefs and how we go about achieving our goals – some accurate and others completely false.We take a moment here to address these misconceptions so that Singaporeans can get a better understanding of the party. The information below will also be useful to counter the propaganda put out by the PAP.
Misconception No. 1: The SDP is not interested in parliamentary elections
Parliamentary elections are the cornerstone of a functioning democracy and we cannot emphasize more that we see elections as the only legitimate way of political parties gaining power. We have taken part in every election in the past and will continue do so in the future.What we don't believe in, however, is that an opposition party, under present political circumstances, should focus exclusively on elections. This is because elections in Singapore are not free and fair. The PAP amends electoral rules to suit its own needs, controls the media, and victimises opposition leaders. Where else in the world can a prime minister openly say that he needs to "fix" the opposition and "buy" votes -- and get away with it?
The truth is that it is impossible for the opposition to make any meaningful inroads into Parliament through the existing electoral process. This is why, over and above taking part in elections, opposition parties – together with civil society – must work to reform the election system.What the SDP wants to see is a truly fair parliamentary election system in Singapore, one acceptable by international standards.
Misconception No. 2: The SDP wants to effect change through "extra-legal" means
As explained above, when effecting change through undemocratic elections is impossible other peaceful, non-violent approaches are the only other options open.What the SDP is fighting for are the freedoms of speech and peaceful assembly for Singaporeans, rights that are enshrined in our Constitution. They are the building blocks of free and fair elections without which we cannot press the Government to reform the electoral process.But when the PAP continues to violate the Constitution and bans citizens from peaceful assembly, Singaporeans must stand up and protect our Constitution. The only way that this can be achieved is by defying the repressive laws put in place by the PAP.
Protecting the Constitution is not extra-legal because the Constitution is the supreme law of the country. It is the PAP that has resorted to extra-legal measures by violating the supreme law of the land.
Misconception No. 3: The SDP is an extremist party that advocates breaking laws
Let us be absolutely clear: Citizens cannot go about breaking a law just because they don't agree with it. This is not what civil disobedience is about. Civil disobedience is about standing up and not submitting to unjust laws put in place by governments to deny citizens their most basic rights. These rights are universally accepted as inalienable to all persons and the PAP has no right to take them away.In fact it is the PAP that does not adhere to the rule of law. Case in point: The police arrested Tak Boleh Tahan protesters on 15 Mar 08 while allowing Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) members to conduct their protest. Such discrimination clearly infringes Article 12 of the Constitution which demands that the law must apply equally to all without favour or fear.
We, the Singapore Democrats, are protecting our Constitution and there is nothing extreme about that. In fact it is the duty of all citizens of this republic to stand up for our Constitutional rights.In any democratic society, we would be considered a moderate party. It is only in an authoritarian system that the ruling party tries to brand reformers as extremists.
Misconception No. 4: The SDP does not offer constructive alternative ideas
Like the other misconceptions, this is one that the PAP likes to spread despite abundant evidence to the contrary.Way back in 1994 the party adopted Dr Chee Soon Juan's book Dare to Change: An Alternative Vision for Singapore as its manifesto. The book explicitly spells out alternative policies as well as the rationale for these ideas, including those for the economy, politics, society, culture and the arts, education and the media.These ideas were subsequently expanded in Your Future, My Faith, Our Freedom: A Democratic Blueprint for Singapore. They are further developed in A Nation Cheated. Our flagship publication, The New Democrat, and pamphlets consistently focus on our alternative ideas to the PAP programmes.
A look at Our Manifesto in this website would nail the lie that the SDP does not offer constructive alternatives. The latest example is our Budget proposal to help Singaporeans and the economy.But Singaporeans don't know much of this because the state media will not publish our ideas and keeps printing lies that the Singapore Democrats simply criticise and don't offer constructive ideas.
Misconception No. 5: The SDP is only interested in human rights and not bread-and-butter issues
The SDP has always been at the forefront of raising concerns about the escalating prices of essentials. Again, a quick glance through this website would show clearly that issues such as health care costs, CPF savings, public transport fares, etc are regularly addressed.The ongoing Tak Boleh Tahan campaign, for example, is one of our main programmes to ensure that the Government keeps the cost of living affordable. The plight of working Singaporeans and SMEs remain high on our agenda. In fact during the general elections, we zero in on pocket-book issues such as the minimum wage, retrenchment entitlements, and the Singaporeans First Policy.The reason why the wider public does not realise this is because the mass media censor much of what we say and do, especially on pocketbook issues that we raise. A good example is their refusal to report our proposals for this year's Budget. At the same time, however, it is important to bring up human rights matters. Human rights and bread-and-butter issues are two sides of the same coin. In order for us to talk to the people about issues that concern them, we need freedom of speech. Without this freedom we cannot effectively communicate with the people.
http://www.yoursdp.org/index.php/perspective/special-feature/1796-misconceptions-about-the-singapore-democrats
Misconceptions about the Singapore Democrats
Tuesday, 03 February 2009
Singapore Democrats
Through the years, much has been said about the SDP. As a result many views have been formed and propagated about what we stand for, our beliefs and how we go about achieving our goals – some accurate and others completely false.We take a moment here to address these misconceptions so that Singaporeans can get a better understanding of the party. The information below will also be useful to counter the propaganda put out by the PAP.
Misconception No. 1: The SDP is not interested in parliamentary elections
Parliamentary elections are the cornerstone of a functioning democracy and we cannot emphasize more that we see elections as the only legitimate way of political parties gaining power. We have taken part in every election in the past and will continue do so in the future.What we don't believe in, however, is that an opposition party, under present political circumstances, should focus exclusively on elections. This is because elections in Singapore are not free and fair. The PAP amends electoral rules to suit its own needs, controls the media, and victimises opposition leaders. Where else in the world can a prime minister openly say that he needs to "fix" the opposition and "buy" votes -- and get away with it?
The truth is that it is impossible for the opposition to make any meaningful inroads into Parliament through the existing electoral process. This is why, over and above taking part in elections, opposition parties – together with civil society – must work to reform the election system.What the SDP wants to see is a truly fair parliamentary election system in Singapore, one acceptable by international standards.
Misconception No. 2: The SDP wants to effect change through "extra-legal" means
As explained above, when effecting change through undemocratic elections is impossible other peaceful, non-violent approaches are the only other options open.What the SDP is fighting for are the freedoms of speech and peaceful assembly for Singaporeans, rights that are enshrined in our Constitution. They are the building blocks of free and fair elections without which we cannot press the Government to reform the electoral process.But when the PAP continues to violate the Constitution and bans citizens from peaceful assembly, Singaporeans must stand up and protect our Constitution. The only way that this can be achieved is by defying the repressive laws put in place by the PAP.
Protecting the Constitution is not extra-legal because the Constitution is the supreme law of the country. It is the PAP that has resorted to extra-legal measures by violating the supreme law of the land.
Misconception No. 3: The SDP is an extremist party that advocates breaking laws
Let us be absolutely clear: Citizens cannot go about breaking a law just because they don't agree with it. This is not what civil disobedience is about. Civil disobedience is about standing up and not submitting to unjust laws put in place by governments to deny citizens their most basic rights. These rights are universally accepted as inalienable to all persons and the PAP has no right to take them away.In fact it is the PAP that does not adhere to the rule of law. Case in point: The police arrested Tak Boleh Tahan protesters on 15 Mar 08 while allowing Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) members to conduct their protest. Such discrimination clearly infringes Article 12 of the Constitution which demands that the law must apply equally to all without favour or fear.
We, the Singapore Democrats, are protecting our Constitution and there is nothing extreme about that. In fact it is the duty of all citizens of this republic to stand up for our Constitutional rights.In any democratic society, we would be considered a moderate party. It is only in an authoritarian system that the ruling party tries to brand reformers as extremists.
Misconception No. 4: The SDP does not offer constructive alternative ideas
Like the other misconceptions, this is one that the PAP likes to spread despite abundant evidence to the contrary.Way back in 1994 the party adopted Dr Chee Soon Juan's book Dare to Change: An Alternative Vision for Singapore as its manifesto. The book explicitly spells out alternative policies as well as the rationale for these ideas, including those for the economy, politics, society, culture and the arts, education and the media.These ideas were subsequently expanded in Your Future, My Faith, Our Freedom: A Democratic Blueprint for Singapore. They are further developed in A Nation Cheated. Our flagship publication, The New Democrat, and pamphlets consistently focus on our alternative ideas to the PAP programmes.
A look at Our Manifesto in this website would nail the lie that the SDP does not offer constructive alternatives. The latest example is our Budget proposal to help Singaporeans and the economy.But Singaporeans don't know much of this because the state media will not publish our ideas and keeps printing lies that the Singapore Democrats simply criticise and don't offer constructive ideas.
Misconception No. 5: The SDP is only interested in human rights and not bread-and-butter issues
The SDP has always been at the forefront of raising concerns about the escalating prices of essentials. Again, a quick glance through this website would show clearly that issues such as health care costs, CPF savings, public transport fares, etc are regularly addressed.The ongoing Tak Boleh Tahan campaign, for example, is one of our main programmes to ensure that the Government keeps the cost of living affordable. The plight of working Singaporeans and SMEs remain high on our agenda. In fact during the general elections, we zero in on pocket-book issues such as the minimum wage, retrenchment entitlements, and the Singaporeans First Policy.The reason why the wider public does not realise this is because the mass media censor much of what we say and do, especially on pocketbook issues that we raise. A good example is their refusal to report our proposals for this year's Budget. At the same time, however, it is important to bring up human rights matters. Human rights and bread-and-butter issues are two sides of the same coin. In order for us to talk to the people about issues that concern them, we need freedom of speech. Without this freedom we cannot effectively communicate with the people.
http://www.yoursdp.org/index.php/perspective/special-feature/1796-misconceptions-about-the-singapore-democrats
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Defending What is Yours.
"Are Singaporeans defending the PAP government and its interests? Are we defending the stratification of society? Are we defending the large income divide? Are we defending the institutions that cause elder people to continue to work when they can retire, to continue to be rubbish bin scavengers and all?"
http://thinkingbetterthinkingmeta.blogspot.com/2009/01/defending-whats-yours.html
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/01/blog-feature-national-service
http://thinkingbetterthinkingmeta.blogspot.com/2009/01/defending-whats-yours.html
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/01/blog-feature-national-service
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Friday, January 16, 2009
Family wins suit
The fact that the family has to resort to a law suit to get Mindef to be responsible shows much the State loves NSmen. This family could afford the lawyers to take up the lawsuit, what about the poorer family?? Thank you MINDEF!!!
Jan 16, 2009, The Straits Times
Breaking News
Family wins suit
By Selina Lum
THE parents of a former full-time national serviceman, comatose for more than three years after an incident in camp, have won their lawsuit against the Defence Ministry. The High Court decision paves the way for the family of Jeremy Tan, now 26, to seek disability compensation and medical benefits from Mindef. On Aug 3, 2005, Mr Tan, then a corporal rostered as duty storeman at Seletar East Camp, was found unconscious at the foot of a building where his bunk was located on the third-level.
The ministry classified Mr Tan's injuries as non-service related and stopped paying for his medical treatment at Tan Tock Seng Hospital from March 2007. But Justice Tay Yong Kwang ruled at the end of a four-day hearing that Mr Tan's injuries were 'attributable to service' and he was therefore entitled to a payout. The case hinged on the interpretation of a provision in the Singapore Armed Forces (Pensions) Regulations, which provides for payouts to disabled servicemen. Lawyer Lau Teik Soon, acting for Mr Tan's parents, argued that when he was found with injuries at 6pm, Mr Tan's tour of duty had not ended. But government lawyers argued that even though Mr Tan was performing his national service, he was not doing anything related to his duty at the time. He was not at his place of duty and was last seen resting in his bunk. But Justice Tay said that the words 'attributable to service' can cover injuries caused while a serviceman is on standby duty and was not doing any particular work.
Jan 16, 2009, The Straits Times
Breaking News
Family wins suit
By Selina Lum
THE parents of a former full-time national serviceman, comatose for more than three years after an incident in camp, have won their lawsuit against the Defence Ministry. The High Court decision paves the way for the family of Jeremy Tan, now 26, to seek disability compensation and medical benefits from Mindef. On Aug 3, 2005, Mr Tan, then a corporal rostered as duty storeman at Seletar East Camp, was found unconscious at the foot of a building where his bunk was located on the third-level.
The ministry classified Mr Tan's injuries as non-service related and stopped paying for his medical treatment at Tan Tock Seng Hospital from March 2007. But Justice Tay Yong Kwang ruled at the end of a four-day hearing that Mr Tan's injuries were 'attributable to service' and he was therefore entitled to a payout. The case hinged on the interpretation of a provision in the Singapore Armed Forces (Pensions) Regulations, which provides for payouts to disabled servicemen. Lawyer Lau Teik Soon, acting for Mr Tan's parents, argued that when he was found with injuries at 6pm, Mr Tan's tour of duty had not ended. But government lawyers argued that even though Mr Tan was performing his national service, he was not doing anything related to his duty at the time. He was not at his place of duty and was last seen resting in his bunk. But Justice Tay said that the words 'attributable to service' can cover injuries caused while a serviceman is on standby duty and was not doing any particular work.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Opt-out Insurance Coverage for MINDEF Employees and SAF Personnel
http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/news_and_events/nr/2009/jan/01jan09_nr/01jan09_fs2.html
With effect from 1 January 2009, all MINDEF employees and Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) active servicemen will be automatically insured for $100,000. This initiative, which rides on the existing SAF Group Term Life (GTL) Insurance scheme, is aimed at encouraging them to have a minimum level of insurance protection for themselves.
For a monthly premium of $12.80, all eligible MINDEF employees, regular servicemen who are 45 years old and below, and full-time National Servicemen (NSFs), who do not opt out of the scheme will be insured for the sum of $100,000. The insurance coverage will provide protection against personal accidents in daily life.
SAF GTL Insurance Scheme
The SAF GTL insurance scheme is a voluntary life and personal accident insurance scheme that has been available to SAF active servicemen and Operationally Ready National Servicemen (NSmen) since 1983.
Features of the SAF GTL include:
● Low cost and affordability. MINDEF/SAF is able to leverage on its large population base to negotiate the best terms and rates for its employees and personnel.
● Portability. MINDEF and SAF personnel can continue to enjoy the coverage even after they leave service, as long as they pay their premiums. Insurance coverage will continue up to age 65 based on the prevailing premium. From age 66-70, the premium will be based on a different prevailing rate every year.
Increase in NSF allowance
With the introduction of the SAF GTL opt-out $100,000 insurance coverage, MINDEF will increase the monthly allowance of NSFs by $20 to help them pay for the monthly premium. The increase in NSF allowance takes effect from 1 January 2009.
With effect from 1 January 2009, all MINDEF employees and Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) active servicemen will be automatically insured for $100,000. This initiative, which rides on the existing SAF Group Term Life (GTL) Insurance scheme, is aimed at encouraging them to have a minimum level of insurance protection for themselves.
For a monthly premium of $12.80, all eligible MINDEF employees, regular servicemen who are 45 years old and below, and full-time National Servicemen (NSFs), who do not opt out of the scheme will be insured for the sum of $100,000. The insurance coverage will provide protection against personal accidents in daily life.
SAF GTL Insurance Scheme
The SAF GTL insurance scheme is a voluntary life and personal accident insurance scheme that has been available to SAF active servicemen and Operationally Ready National Servicemen (NSmen) since 1983.
Features of the SAF GTL include:
● Low cost and affordability. MINDEF/SAF is able to leverage on its large population base to negotiate the best terms and rates for its employees and personnel.
● Portability. MINDEF and SAF personnel can continue to enjoy the coverage even after they leave service, as long as they pay their premiums. Insurance coverage will continue up to age 65 based on the prevailing premium. From age 66-70, the premium will be based on a different prevailing rate every year.
Increase in NSF allowance
With the introduction of the SAF GTL opt-out $100,000 insurance coverage, MINDEF will increase the monthly allowance of NSFs by $20 to help them pay for the monthly premium. The increase in NSF allowance takes effect from 1 January 2009.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
NSman found Unconscious
"The Malaysians serve this 3 months chicken feed NS ...but I found out that the Malaysian govt is so paranoid it buys insurance for every one of its NS men for this 3 month period. They have alot to learn from the Singapore govt - they should save all this money ...why waste it on ordinary citizens who have to serve their NS by law anyway when they can use the money to send some of their elites for courses in Harvard."
http://singaporemind.blogspot.com/2009/01/ns-man-collapsed-in-camp-in-his-uniform.html
NSman found unconscious had apologised repeatedly, court told By Leong Wee Keat, TODAY 13 January 2009 2327 hrs
Jeremy Tan's father Tan Kian Lee (R) and mother Hor Hong Kiow (L) have chalked up outstanding hospital bills of S$133,000 for his treatment SINGAPORE: He had seemed "confused" when he returned to his bunk and, according to a platoon mate, Mr Jeremy Tan Chia Whee told them: "I do not know who I am." Twenty minutes after this, at about 6pm, Mr Tan - who was then a full-time national serviceman - was found unconscious on a grass patch outside the block of his third-level bunk at Seletar Camp.
More than three years later, Mr Tan is still on the mend. Now 26, he is warded at the Tan Tock Seng Rehabilitation Centre, unable to move or speak, fully dependent on doctors and nurses for his daily needs. His parents are now suing the Ministry of Defence (Mindef) over compensation issues. Mindef has classified Mr Tan's injuries as non-service related injuries, which means he is only compensated on 80 per cent of his ward and meal charges. But Mr Tan's parents claim their son should be entitled to full compensation as he was on duty, and was wearing his army t-shirt, trousers and boots when found. There were apparently no witnesses to what had happened; medical reports said he suffered a head injury consistent with a fall from height. Mr Tan Kian Lee testified yesterday that his son was the duty storeman on Aug 3, 2005, and had been waiting for his replacement, holding on to the store keys when he was found. But Staff Sergeant Wan Chuan Seah - Mr Jeremy Tan's superior - said the general practice was that the duty storeman may return to rest at around 5pm, upon completing his tasks for the day. This was despite the stipulated duty hours for the duty storeman being from 8am to 6pm.
Since Mindef's payments ceased in February 2007, his parents have chalked up outstanding hospital bills totalling $133,000 for his upkeep. Yesterday, mother Hor Hong Kiow told the court that manpower officer Linda Quek had told her she would appeal to Mindef to cover Mr Tan's medical fees, as his injuries had occurred in the course of duty. Madam Hor also claimed Major Quek had told her the Singapore Armed Forces would appeal on the family's behalf. Mr Jeremy Tan's sister, Jasmine, provided the court with a transcript of SMSes that he had sent to two servicemen, copied off his mobile phone. In one SMS, Mr Tan reportedly asked a serviceman what time he was coming back to the boat-shed. He also messaged another man, Sergeant Chew Zi Guo, with his apologies. State Counsel Shawn Ho said Sgt Chew, who also spoke to Mr Tan over the phone, would testify that he did not understand why Mr Tan said he blamed himself for everything, apologised repeatedly and cried. The hearing continues.
http://singaporemind.blogspot.com/2009/01/ns-man-collapsed-in-camp-in-his-uniform.html
NSman found unconscious had apologised repeatedly, court told By Leong Wee Keat, TODAY 13 January 2009 2327 hrs
Jeremy Tan's father Tan Kian Lee (R) and mother Hor Hong Kiow (L) have chalked up outstanding hospital bills of S$133,000 for his treatment SINGAPORE: He had seemed "confused" when he returned to his bunk and, according to a platoon mate, Mr Jeremy Tan Chia Whee told them: "I do not know who I am." Twenty minutes after this, at about 6pm, Mr Tan - who was then a full-time national serviceman - was found unconscious on a grass patch outside the block of his third-level bunk at Seletar Camp.
More than three years later, Mr Tan is still on the mend. Now 26, he is warded at the Tan Tock Seng Rehabilitation Centre, unable to move or speak, fully dependent on doctors and nurses for his daily needs. His parents are now suing the Ministry of Defence (Mindef) over compensation issues. Mindef has classified Mr Tan's injuries as non-service related injuries, which means he is only compensated on 80 per cent of his ward and meal charges. But Mr Tan's parents claim their son should be entitled to full compensation as he was on duty, and was wearing his army t-shirt, trousers and boots when found. There were apparently no witnesses to what had happened; medical reports said he suffered a head injury consistent with a fall from height. Mr Tan Kian Lee testified yesterday that his son was the duty storeman on Aug 3, 2005, and had been waiting for his replacement, holding on to the store keys when he was found. But Staff Sergeant Wan Chuan Seah - Mr Jeremy Tan's superior - said the general practice was that the duty storeman may return to rest at around 5pm, upon completing his tasks for the day. This was despite the stipulated duty hours for the duty storeman being from 8am to 6pm.
Since Mindef's payments ceased in February 2007, his parents have chalked up outstanding hospital bills totalling $133,000 for his upkeep. Yesterday, mother Hor Hong Kiow told the court that manpower officer Linda Quek had told her she would appeal to Mindef to cover Mr Tan's medical fees, as his injuries had occurred in the course of duty. Madam Hor also claimed Major Quek had told her the Singapore Armed Forces would appeal on the family's behalf. Mr Jeremy Tan's sister, Jasmine, provided the court with a transcript of SMSes that he had sent to two servicemen, copied off his mobile phone. In one SMS, Mr Tan reportedly asked a serviceman what time he was coming back to the boat-shed. He also messaged another man, Sergeant Chew Zi Guo, with his apologies. State Counsel Shawn Ho said Sgt Chew, who also spoke to Mr Tan over the phone, would testify that he did not understand why Mr Tan said he blamed himself for everything, apologised repeatedly and cried. The hearing continues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
