Comments for Building Credibility 2.0 http://kevynsh.wordpress.com Kevyn Eng's Perspective Sun, 01 Mar 2009 15:30:36 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 Comment on Singapore Opens up to New Media by Mike http://kevynsh.wordpress.com/2009/02/25/singapore-opens-up-to-new-media/#comment-9 Mike Sun, 01 Mar 2009 15:30:36 +0000 http://kevynsh.wordpress.com/2009/02/25/singapore-opens-up-to-new-media/#comment-9 Just passing by.Btw, your website have great content! _________________________________ Making Money <a href="http://tinyurl.com/rich-quickly/1105276" rel="nofollow">$150 An Hour</a> Just passing by.Btw, your website have great content!

_________________________________
Making Money $150 An Hour

]]> Comment on Back to basics for entry to Malaysia by hyperX http://kevynsh.wordpress.com/2008/07/16/back-to-basics-for-entry-to-malaysia/#comment-7 hyperX Wed, 16 Jul 2008 03:22:10 +0000 http://kevynsh.wordpress.com/2008/07/16/back-to-basics-for-entry-to-malaysia/#comment-7 This triggers me an idea of having the same kind of Identification Card of all people around the world. Imagine everything can be access by the card. Passport renewal is not required anymore. This triggers me an idea of having the same kind of Identification Card of all people around the world. Imagine everything can be access by the card. Passport renewal is not required anymore.

]]> Comment on Moving On by David Bradfield http://kevynsh.wordpress.com/2008/06/30/moving-on/#comment-6 David Bradfield Sun, 29 Jun 2008 20:46:34 +0000 http://kevynsh.wordpress.com/2008/06/30/moving-on/#comment-6 Best of luck with your future endeavors, Kevin. We'll miss you at Fleishman-Hillard. Best of luck with your future endeavors, Kevin. We’ll miss you at Fleishman-Hillard.

]]> Comment on Repeal S377A by kevynsh http://kevynsh.wordpress.com/2007/10/23/repeal-s377a/#comment-4 kevynsh Tue, 30 Oct 2007 06:59:13 +0000 http://kevynsh.wordpress.com/2007/10/23/repeal-s377a/#comment-4 Agree with you, but issn't it shooting oneself in the foot to have the section there but closing an eye on it? There are serioous remifications to that principle. Let me explain. In theory, once a section is included in the penal code, a violation of the section constitutes a criminal offence. By closing an eye on the issue, is it, then closing an eye on a criminal offence being committed? Secondly, at policy level, it can be said that it will not be implemented. At ground level, it is still an offence. So, how are the law enforcers going to reconcile this? Finally, havin kept the section, if the community pushes the boundaries, then at what point does it consider an offence? It is really vague and fuzzy, not the best case scenario from a legal standpoint. For example, if someone goes to court, then do the lawyers cite the statue or should they rely on legislative intent? I think the former's gonna stand, statutory offence right? What then happens to the policy decision in Parliament? Will the policy advisory then constitute obiter dictum? Or will it act to the same effect as stare decisis? At the end of the day, without removing the section, it is still a criminal offence, still discrimination, still an unfair practice, no matter what is said. Of course, at least, the woes are heard. There are so many conservatives in the society that have yet to be educated on legal implications. There's mix-up between morals and social acceptance from law. On a political front, the decision is logical and rational. It doesn't however make right from a fairness / justice front. But the least we could do, is to discuss it in the public forum, of which Singapore did, and we did well. It educates the public, slowly, but surely. It is a step closer towards eradicating inbalances in society that still exists in today's world... Agree with you, but issn’t it shooting oneself in the foot to have the section there but closing an eye on it? There are serioous remifications to that principle. Let me explain.

In theory, once a section is included in the penal code, a violation of the section constitutes a criminal offence. By closing an eye on the issue, is it, then closing an eye on a criminal offence being committed?

Secondly, at policy level, it can be said that it will not be implemented. At ground level, it is still an offence. So, how are the law enforcers going to reconcile this?

Finally, havin kept the section, if the community pushes the boundaries, then at what point does it consider an offence? It is really vague and fuzzy, not the best case scenario from a legal standpoint.

For example, if someone goes to court, then do the lawyers cite the statue or should they rely on legislative intent? I think the former’s gonna stand, statutory offence right? What then happens to the policy decision in Parliament?

Will the policy advisory then constitute obiter dictum? Or will it act to the same effect as stare decisis?

At the end of the day, without removing the section, it is still a criminal offence, still discrimination, still an unfair practice, no matter what is said.

Of course, at least, the woes are heard. There are so many conservatives in the society that have yet to be educated on legal implications. There’s mix-up between morals and social acceptance from law.

On a political front, the decision is logical and rational.

It doesn’t however make right from a fairness / justice front. But the least we could do, is to discuss it in the public forum, of which Singapore did, and we did well. It educates the public, slowly, but surely. It is a step closer towards eradicating inbalances in society that still exists in today’s world…

]]> Comment on Repeal S377A by barry http://kevynsh.wordpress.com/2007/10/23/repeal-s377a/#comment-3 barry Thu, 25 Oct 2007 15:39:46 +0000 http://kevynsh.wordpress.com/2007/10/23/repeal-s377a/#comment-3 indeed for a personal and private choice that does not do explicit harm to another, there is no valid reason for others to assume the moral high ground. the act, whether it exists or not, has not been enforced for reasons of 1. implicit recognition that it is archaic 2. sensitivity to the human's personal choice that the law can't interfere with does it still make a difference if it should be repealed or not? or does the very existence of such a law (even when unenforced and forgotten), strikes fear into the community it singled out? indeed for a personal and private choice that does not do explicit harm to another, there is no valid reason for others to assume the moral high ground.

the act, whether it exists or not, has not been enforced for reasons of
1. implicit recognition that it is archaic
2. sensitivity to the human’s personal choice that the law can’t interfere with

does it still make a difference if it should be repealed or not?

or does the very existence of such a law (even when unenforced and forgotten), strikes fear into the community it singled out?

]]> Comment on Staying true to your philosophy by Nicole http://kevynsh.wordpress.com/2007/08/03/staying-true-to-your-philosophy/#comment-2 Nicole Sun, 05 Aug 2007 13:17:30 +0000 http://kevynsh.wordpress.com/2007/08/03/staying-true-to-your-philosophy/#comment-2 you very cryptic lor... too cheem for me already... i need an explanation over lunch...are you proud of me that I speak Singlish now? you very cryptic lor… too cheem for me already… i need an explanation over lunch…are you proud of me that I speak Singlish now?

]]>