Tuesday, 31 July 2012

说来说去,说到最后就是害怕你跟政府要钱养老。


《我们的人口,我们的未来》专题报告看起来就像是行动党的竞选宣言,如果喜欢就继续投它一票,不然,就只有改变政府,和最重要的就是自我照顾身体,身体健康就是养老的本钱。

事实上,政府最担心害怕的是,年轻人减少,老年人增加,依赖比率(dependency ratio)将增加,工作的人少,养老的人多,当然政府开支就会增加。因此,最后还是钱的问题,没钱怎么养老?

《专题报告》以老年人支持比率(old-age support ratio)做说明。从1970年的13.5人(年龄介于2064岁)到2011年的6.3人,再到2030年的2.1 人。越来越少年轻人支持老年人,钱从哪里来,如何支持老年人养老?

这样的思维对吗?每个人都要过日子,为何有人连最起码的生活都没有,连最基本的尊严都没有。而我们又是世界富国之一。

《专题报告指出,居民人口一旦萎缩,本地家庭结构将改变,企业也会因为请不到人而失去竞争力。公共开支也会因人口老龄化而不断增加。为实现可持续人口愿景,政府将从建设凝聚力强的社会打造优质生活环境打造可持续发展和蓬勃经济三方面着手,检讨人口政策。》(早报727日)

根据统计局的资料,我国的人均收入不是2011年每人高达61692元吗http://www.singstat.gov.sg/stats/themes/economy/hist/gnp.html

怎么会没钱养老想想看,如果每个人都有这么多钱,公积金最低存款,医药保险会有问题吗?如果我们的所得能够公平一点,政府能够公开一点,大方一点的照顾人民,适度增加卫生医药等开支,能够跟上第一世界的水准,或者,最少不要跟第三世界国家比,那又何必如此担心,如此害怕呢。

这令人想起Balding教授的话(baldingsworld.com#:新加坡的财富由于没有天然资源,就是依赖生产力的增加而产生的。但是,生产力的增加后的所得并没有公平的分配,这种做法当然导致有人有太多钱养老,有人没钱养老。分配越不公平,就越多人没钱养老。

如果要最简单的看待这份专题报告和人口政策, 只能说数据不全,先斩后奏 和总结陈词

数据不全

基本的每年统计数据都没有,怎么讨论?每年的人口增加,新公民,新移民,每年有多少?来自何处?有些数字可能有些敏感,对新加坡少数民族产生误解,但是,如果是公开公正的讨论,就应该把所有的数据都拿出来讨论。而不是选择性,把那些对自己有利,证明自己对的数据出来而已。

这真的如早报说的有了更多信息吗?还是,又被误导又被网民误读了呢?

《政府昨天发放更多与人口政策相关的信息,使新加坡人了解我国人口政策面临的挑战,鼓励人民在掌握资讯的基础上参与讨论,并为当局全面检讨人口政策提出建议,以实现可持续人口愿景。》(早报727日)

先斩后奏

人口的大量引进,不是现在的事情。而是发生在5年,10年,15年前的事。现在,才来提供数据来讨论,不是有点先斩后奏的感觉,为何是先做了,才来讨论,而不是先讨论后才来进行。
这也没有什么好奇怪的。行动党的做法是只要是好的,对国家有利的,就先做,不用讨论,反正每次大选都选行动党,因此,先斩后奏也没有什么大不了。

问题是以前是第三世界国家,现在已经升为第一世界国家,就要以第一世界国家的做法来办事。以前可以先斩后奏,不表示现在和以后,可以一样先斩后奏。或许,这可以解释为为何政府现在愿意跟人民讨论人口政策。

总结陈词

这个《专题报告》更像政府的总结陈词,行动党的政策说明。它简单的说明过去,也简单的说明将来。更点名没钱人将来怎么养老的问题。
它不只是解释人口政策,更为移民人口增加据理力争。因此,行动党政府将会继续它原有的人口政策。虽然,《专题报告》也指出近年来,移民人数有所减少,但是,引进移民的政策是不会改变的。这要看人民的反对声音有多大,2011年大选的声音似乎还是不够大,所以只是出了一份《专题报告》就够了。

新加坡人真的那样反对外来移民吗?还是行动党政府自导自演?一个政府有没有做到照顾原有居民的问题,如果做得美美的,老公民还会有这么多的怨气吗?

养好身体

不论如何,大家要把身体保养好,只有这样养老的生活素质才能维持,维护下去。想要行动党政府改变政策,不是这样容易的事,就像华文教育,越改越差。当然,你也可以选择替换政府,让在野党以新思维来管理新加坡。对很多新加坡人来说,这是一副险棋,是有代价的。当人们被压得透不过气来时,铤而走险也是有可能的。因为,行动党也不能保证你的养老问题。

Saturday, 28 July 2012

The Price of Sex - beyond the face value



Sex has intrinsic value and it goes beyond the face value.  How much is it worth? Perhaps, the Chinese saying sums it all: it all depends on the knife above your head. (色字头上一把刀).

The knife can cost you your MP seat, your position as a principal or a teacher, your commanding post in the army, police or civil defence.  Certainly, it can choke off your reputation and image in the society, your career and future.  Like the following public statement:

'At stake is my liberty, integrity and livelihood. My reputation has been tarnished, and my family suffers as a result,' - National University of Singapore (NUS) law professor Tey Tsun Hang.

It is a heavy price if it turns against you or a non-event if you play at the right time and right place. It is certainly not the listed price stated in the internet or the place of entertainment.  It also goes beyond the sex for grade, sex for contract or sex for position.   It has intrinsic value that is hard to measure and it also includes some risks that depend on the venue, country, guessing of age, open and closed protection etc.     

No matter what, the knife is always there. Maybe it is invisible so we forget the existence of the knife. Some smart people can also use the knife to blackmail you; some hide the knife for future use, and some keep the knife away to protect you.  We really don’t know the outcome.   

However, the temptation is so high – high enough until it can cover the sky (色胆包天). Sometimes, you really don’t know what you are doing.  Perhaps, you have achieved something in your life and you want to relax and enjoy. You think you are as great as the sky. So, you set yourself free and easy. You forget to check the identity card, the student card, the name card, the tender process, and the code of conduct.            

It is so confuse that even the famous quote (食色性也) (food and sex are basic human nature) of Confucius is not from Confucius. # Confucius did mention “drink & food and male & female are the great desires” (饮食男女,人之大欲存焉) but Confucius did not mention (食色性也) which develops until today has more meaning of sex than food.  

At the end, from the history of east and west, a hero cannot run away from a beauty (英雄难过美人关) and overcome the ‘beauty gate’.  Many heroes went down because of a beauty and faced the hammer and knife. What can an ordinary man do to resist the temptation?   Maybe you are a lawyer, a principal, a professor, a banker, a civil activist or a high ranking officer but you are not a hero.   


#A quote from Mengzi.语出《孟子》—— 告子曰:食色性也。仁,内也,非外也。义,外也,非内也。


Wednesday, 25 July 2012

博雅的政治校园,能培养致力服务国家的人才吗?


自由女神如果来到新加坡,命运是否和
博雅学院一样?
www.weblicist.com


先谈后一个问题,“所有奖学金得主都该积极并致力于服务国家,思考我们的经济未来,努力把新加坡打造成美好的城市和家园。”

这原本是不用说不用提的,如果拿了奖学金,拿了国家的钱,拿了人民的钱,提高了个人的名声,而又欠缺为国服务的精神,那他是为啥为谁服务?

真的搞不清楚,一个拿过总统和武装部队奖学金的副总理,竟然说出这么“高”智商的话。
《副总理兼国家安全统筹部长及内政部长张志贤,昨天在奖学金颁奖典礼上指出,成立于1961年的经发局在新加坡经济发展中扮演重要角色,让新加坡从失业率高达14%,转变成接近充分就业(full employment),并充满国际竞争力。  他说,随着世界重心转向亚洲,新加坡未来将发展成亚洲和全球领先的城市,汇集各种构想、商机和人才,为新加坡人创造更多机遇和就业机会。  张志贤也主管公共服务署。他希望奖学金得主能专注服务国家。他说:事实上所有经发局奖学金得都该积极并致力于服务国家,思考我们的经济未来,努力把新加坡打造成美好的城市和家园。
所有奖学金得主都该积极并致力于服务国家,思考我们的经济未来,努力把新加坡打造成美好的城市和家园。》(早报724日)

服务国家,思考经济,不用考虑其他问题吗?或许,因为,这是经济发展局的奖学金,这位副总理才这么说。因此,过了一天,在公共服务委员会的奖学金颁发仪式上,才强调奖学金得主要走出校园。

《要成为一个好的公务员,他不仅学业成绩要优异,更须具备同理心,以及与广大社群联系的技能。公共服务委员会主席张赞成昨天在奖学金颁发仪式上,鼓励公共服务委员会奖学金得主,在求学期间,积极走出校园,与校园外的不同社群接触,继续参与社区的志愿服务。 他对奖学金得主说:这些与不同社群接触、参与社区志愿服务的经验,会让你在往后与不同利益相关者接触,共同制订一些影响国人的政策时,起着重大帮助。(早报7月25)
服务国家,与不同社群接触、参与社区志愿服务,这些原本就是奖学金得主应该就有的思考,他们应该比其他学生在心智上更成熟,但是,却要副总理,高官一而再再而三的提醒。为何?

还是,副总理,部长,高官这些人在以前领取奖学金时,根本没有考虑这个问题,根本没有服务人民的念头,和献身国家的精神。所以,他们才一直提醒现在的奖学金得主注意这个问题。当年,他们出国留学,就是要拿一等荣誉学位,回国好做个高官。他们当然没有思考国外校园的政治气氛,社群服务。一心只想读好书,回来有个好功名。

但是,现在是什么年代了?在十几年前,入读本地大学,不只学业成绩要可以,政治思想也要可以。没有一张“政治健康“证明书,就休想进入本地大学就读。现在的大学生当然不知道有这么一回事。但是,没有了“政治健康“证明书,难道大学校园就有健康政治吗?政治开放了吗?

当然没有。因为,连最新引进,最美式开放的博雅学院都做不到。
美国的耶鲁大学特别发表一道文告,为它与新加坡国立大学联合开办的耶鲁-国大博雅学院禁止校园内的示威和政党活动辩护。其文告说:我们不要期望我们(耶鲁)在新加坡的存在能够即刻改变这个国家的政策或是文化。
看来,博雅学院比芳林公园的演说者角落还要不政治开放。学生能不能在这样的环境里,充分的学习到博雅学院的人文素养,人文教育。

或许,这正如当年新加坡的奖学金得主一样,他们到国外学习,眼睛看到只是自己的前途,校园内,校园外发生的事情,他们不需要知道。他们最重要的一件事就是要达标,达到公共服务委员会要求的学分和成绩。

所以,耶鲁-国大博雅学院禁止校园内的示威和政党活动是完全可以理解的。因为,从前,他们出国留学,也没有受到这些校园内外的政治影响,也没有接触这些活动,当然,把博雅学院搬来新加坡,也就不需要这套校园内的示威和政党活动。既然从前自己没有接触学习这些,没有受到这些影响,未来的领袖,下一代的接班人,当然,也就不需知道这些。

原来,文化和人文教育在新加坡是可以这么切割的。

禁止校园内的示威和政党活动,当然可以杜绝两党或者多党制度的发展,美国,欧洲等国家的校园政治活动等同校园外的国家政治。我们现在还是一党专政,因此耶鲁的文告说:我们不要期望我们(耶鲁)在新加坡的存在能够即刻改变这个国家的政策或是文化。看来,老外还是有其妥协和中庸之道的。不要说,红毛直,他们也懂得转弯的,该出手时就出手。

我们真的要衷心的佩服行动党政府,他们不只身体力行,还叫耶鲁大学和它一起起舞,支持‘禁止校园内的示威和政党活动’。看来美国人也不过尔尔。为了打开亚洲市场,美国人的自由女神不知是否也可以搬来新加坡。即使搬来了,自由女神的精神还在吗?就像是耶鲁的博雅学院搬来,其精神还在吗?

这让人想起中国有好多不知名的城市,依样画葫芦,把欧洲的城堡搬来,格局大小,布置景色,都一样,但是那份人文气氛,风土人情,一样吗?新加坡这么做,或许就跟他们一样,就是要吸引多些旅客,说不定我们的博雅学院,将来也是国外高官的必游之地。拍拍照,放在脸书上与人共享。

这像不像把赌场变名为综合娱乐城呢?害人之心有所减轻吗?


Tuesday, 24 July 2012

The Cracks, The Fault Lines and The “Master of Balance”



Throughout the history of Singapore, cracks and fault lines are always there. If there are no cracks or fault lines, the “Master of Balance” will lose its acting power and basically, has nothing to do or no way to play politics.  Politics is a game and every game needs a master to balance off difference forces.

Since Sir Stamford Raffles landed in Singapura, our lion city, there were cracks all the way until now.  However, to solve the crack lines, a “Master of Balance” will have to appear and harmonise the fault issues.

The “Master of Balance” (MB) of course is the colonial ruler or the ruling party of the time. It may also be a single person, likes Sir Stamford or the founding father of Singapore.  

Sir Stamford Raffles managed to persuade the Sultan of Johor to let the British to set up a trading settlement in Singapore in 1819. From a fishing village to a British possession, besides merchants from Arab, Europe and other countries, the British East India Company also started to import labour from China and India to develop Singapore.  In the course of doing so, they had to balance the rights of Malay and the new immigrants even though all did not have voting rights.

During the Japanese occupation, Japan became the MB. To keep the government running, they needed to employ some locals to maintain laws and orders as well assisting in administration.  The way to maintain the balance during this period is through force and military.
  
When the PAP gained power in 1959, it became the MB. The PAP also claimed and acknowledged that there were cracks among themselves and that led to the formation of Barisan Sosialis in 1963.

“The leftist Barisan Sosialis was slammed by the PAP as a Communist front and attacked vehemently as being a radical pro-Communist group. ……..
Nevertheless, many Barisan Sosialis members did have (to varying extents) admiration and belief in the leftist ideals of Communism as well as Socialism due to the influence of Communist China. This communist orientation was used by the PAP to damage their reputation and viability in the Singaporean context.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barisan_Sosialis)
Even Barisan Sosialis got it right with the issue of merger with Malaysia (Singapore joined and finally left Malaysia in 1965), the MB still managed to win in 1963 election with the help of Operation Cold Store. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barisan_Sosialis)

Not only the PAP is able to balance the result in election, it has also managed in balancing the Chinese and English educated, the racial tension (Malay and Chinese), housing, employment, and in certain way the rich and poor gap in the early days of independence.

So confident is the MB, it claims to move Singapore from third world to first world country.  In the process, there are cracks and fault lines like the Marxist Conspiracy, the merger of newspaper groups, the closing of Nantah, the GRC, the Elected President, the Court Appeal (to UK), and many others.  

Some of these cracks and fault lines still remain today.  This is why PM Lee describes the new crack as the gap and difference between old and new citizens.  

Cracks are not necessary the bad things for the PAP. It can turn into advantages to the MB if he plays the cards well and balance the different demands from different people. Cracks and fault lines are Wei Ji (危机) for the MB and it contains risks () and opportunities().  The problem is how the current leaders of the PAP handle and balance the situation.

Experience proved that in 1963 (see below),  even with 46.9% of the popular votes, a good MB could still win the election with more than two-third majority.

Party
Votes
%
Seats
+/-
272,924
46.9
37
-6
193,301
33.2
13
+13
48,967
8.4
0
48,785
8.4
1
+1
Partai Rakyat
8,259
1.4
0
Pan-Malayan Malaysian Party
1,545
0.3
0
United Democratic Party
760
0.1
0
286
0.1
0
Independents
6,788
1.2
0
-1
Invalid/blank votes
5,818
-
-
-
Turnout
587,433
95.1
51
-
Electorate
617,450
Source: Singapore Elections

Not to mention the PAP obtained 60% of the popular votes in 2011, the MB still has many rooms to move and cards to play.  Unless the quality of the PAP leaders drops sharply to the third world standard and the MB has only paper generals to deploy, then the change of government is possible.     

Cracks and fault lines are not new in Singapore.  In the past, the PAP as the MB has managed to balance the different demands from different sectors.  And in most of the cases, the PAP is acting against the minority, like the Chinese educated, the so-called communists or pro communists, the human rights fighters, the ISA protesters, even the poor is the minority in Singapore as claimed by the government and they are well taken off and provided with safety net.

However, the immigration issue is quite difference. It seems the MB is acting against the wishes of the majority - the old citizens.  MB, of course, can use the old tactics of ‘divide and rule’. 

We will see more of these tactics but will it work again?

Friday, 20 July 2012

罗生门遇到司马昭 疯律师激傻律师公会 司法精英何在?


我国法律和司法界最近很热闹,不过从他们的表现看来,这群被社会人士认为的精英份子,恐怕我们要对他们大打折扣了。难怪律师这个专业,现在已经无法名列新加坡10大收入最高的工作了。当然,除了律师外,医生也被排挤在10大之外#

难怪,在这起罗生门对上司马昭的事件中,医生也要凑上一脚。

早报718日的报道:
《前天诉辩双方的律师针对后港区补选案件总结陈词后,受律师公会委托以联系拉维和其精神医生冯顺龙的王少鸿律师,在内堂把拉维的医生检验报告交给法官皮莱。该报告指出,拉维被诊断出躁郁症复发,病情极有可能影响他的专业能力,目前不适宜执行律师工作。》
躁郁症是一种精神病,严重的话也会发疯发癫,当然,一旦病情发作,就不适合从事律师的工作。

律师,医生都是专业人士,他们的建议,论述,行为,可以影响法律,司法的公正,影响法官的判决。因此,这些社会精英的行事作为,除了要有精英的素质外,更要有正义感,良心和良知了。

这后一点,很难下判断。读圣贤书的人不少,但是,行圣贤之道的人,却不多。人各有志,我们实在不能强人所难。

因此,我们只能谈谈法律精英的素质。看到以下的标题,的确令人吓一跳:

律师公会澄清:拉维医药报告提呈法院 理事会成员之前不知情 (早报, 718日)

理事会成员之前不知情,会长当然也不知情。手下做事,上头不知道。如果,这是一个合同,这个合同算不算数。如果,这是一个外汇或者股票交易,赢了我认账,输了我不认人,可以吗?如果如此,好多大国际银行,都不需要为手下员工的错误决定而负责,他们在外汇交易上,损失几亿,都可以不认账了,那该多好。我们的雷曼迷你债券也可以不用认账了,可以拿回本钱了,真好呀!

看看律师公会的声明怎么说:

《不过,律师公会会长王明明高级律师昨晚发出文告澄清,王少鸿律师星期天接到冯顺龙医生的通知,知道拉维的病情。结果他自己决定把从冯顺龙医生处获得的信息呈交给法官。  王明明认为,虽然这是王少鸿个人的决定,但他的出发点是好的。(早报 718日)》
到底王少鸿律师要负责,还是,律师公会要负责。是的,“他的出发点是好的”,但是,谁要负责?如果,欧巴马手下的将军发了一枚核弹头,谁要负责,将军还是欧巴马?难怪,新加坡的部长不用为逃马事件负责,当然,律师公会也不必为手下的‘好的出发点’而负责。地铁公司被罚2百万,陆路交通管理局和政府收钱,当然也是好的出发点。

如果,王少鸿是个人决定,他上的了法庭吗?他要有一个身份,没有律师公会的代表身份,他如何在法庭上说上话。

我们的律师精英,竟然是这么想问题。或许,这不是素质问题,而是品格问题。看看邻国马来西亚的律师公会,或许,他们在素质和收入上都没有我们的精英来得高,但是,在据理力争方面,却是可以抬头做人。

不只律师如此,我们的法官也是如此,或者,最少我们的总检察署也是如此想问题。

同一天,早报的另一则新闻:
《总检察署强调,藐视法庭的法律之所以存在,是为了维护公众对司法公正的信心。
  它昨天发表文告指出,对司法不公的指责会打击民众对制度的信心,而法官很多时候无法对诸多的指责做出回应,因此必须通过法律使民众对司法公正的信心不至于被种种指控动摇。》
总检察署认为,法官无力,“无法对诸多的指责做出回应”,因此,‘藐视法庭的法律’有其必要性。不知道,包青天是否同意这个说法,包公审理案件,会害怕“无法对诸多的指责做出回应”吗?清者自清,我们的总检查署实在是太为法官着想,害怕他们被人指责,有口难辨,因此,要有一个法律来保护他们,同时,也警告他人,不要藐视法庭。

从律师公会,总检察署,再到法官,这些精英的素质和自信都到哪里去了?搞法律的人,当然要对法制有信心,是否有理,有论据,当然要看个人的本事有多少,个人素质不同,立论也就不同,结局当然也不同。如果是真理,为何要设这么多保护网,保护律师,检察官,法官呢!

因此,我们只好继续罗生门,也只有罗生门,我们才看不到司马昭。把司马昭藏在罗生门里面,加多一层保护网,不是什么都看不清楚了吗?

但是,保护网越多,律师司法界的素质也就很难提上来。难怪,精英们都改走金融之路,赚钱容易又高薪,据理力争不关己。这样的恶性循环,律师,医生的素质恐怕又要再下降了,同时,保护网又要增加了。

素质差,再加上品性不好,的确是需要多一些保护网的。但是,老子又说:天网恢恢,疏而不漏。保护网即使再多,最后也保护不了败坏司法,破坏公理,扭曲法律的人。因为,天理难容。

Thursday, 19 July 2012

From 'local' Hougang BE to 'national' loan to IMF, which has a bigger impact?


The cases of Hougang by-election and IMF loan are now in the High Court for judgment. While waiting for the outcome, we may look at the seriousness of the issues, the implication and the discharge of duty.  Between the 2 cases, rather than seeing who is right and who is wrong, perhaps, we can say one is a small case and the other is a big case.   

Small case means it is a localized issue and as PM Lee has said whether there is one more or one less opposition MP, it will not affect the basic structure of the Parliament.   

Big case means it is the matter of the whole Parliament and the President.  No matter how safe and whether finally the loan will be used, it touches on the principle of safeguarding our reserve – the money of all Singaporeans.  And whether the government has acted in a “suka suka” way.

A summary of the 2 cases in our main stream media:

Hougang by-election:
A Hougang resident's bid for the High Court to declare that the Prime Minister does not have unfettered discretion in deciding whether and when to call by-elections was heard in open court for the first time on Monday morning. (ST, 17 Jul 2012)

IMF loan:

Reform Party Secretary-General Kenneth Jeyaretnam is proceeding with his legal bid to stop Singapore's US$4-billion pledge to the International Monetary Fund.…. The loan will be part of the Official Foreign Reserves (OFR) held by the MAS.
Mr Jeyaretnam said he filed an application, in his private capacity as a citizen, for a quashing order on 6 July.
He contends that the loan violates the Constitution of Singapore under Article 144, as no prior approval for the pledge was sought in Parliament or from the president.
Among other things, Article 144 states that "no guarantee or loan shall be given or raised by the Government except under the authority of any resolution of Parliament with which the President concurs". (channelnewsasia, 17 Jul 2012)

The difference

For the Hougang by-election, even the verdict is that the Prime Minister has to call for a by-election within six months or a certain time, there is no wrong doing of the PM and he just follows the Court’s decision and holds future by-election accordingly.  Not to mention, if the PM wins the case and he can hold or not hold by-election as he wishes.

However, the IMF loan is a different issue. The Singapore government has made the promise to IMF and it is quite clear that both the Parliament and the President have not been informed.  

It will be interesting to see the definition of “The loan will be part of the Official Foreign Reserves (OFR) held by the MAS.” Is this OFR part of our official reserve and required the debate/approval of the Parliament and the President?

If the outcome of the IMF loan case is against the government, what does it mean? It means there is no respect of the Parliament and the President.  And the government is doing something behind the Parliament and the President for our reserve, and possibly many other things in the past and present.  This is the situation that the government does not want to see.  Losing the case definitely has a bigger implication for the PAP government.   

Unfortunately, the lawyer involved for both applications seems to be an unsound person?  There is no guarantee the show will go on. We just have to wait and see the next development. 

Local vs. national issue

In this circumstance, we really can conclude that the Hougang by-election is a local issue – it only involves a member of parliament. However, the IMF loan case involves the whole Parliament and the President.  The PAP may have the foresight to predict the Hougang by-election as a local election but I wonder whether they have seen the bigger picture of the IMF loan. Maybe they are over confidence. Perhaps, they are used to doing such things in the past and present – what about the future? No one knows, but first let see how the High Court’s development is.

Of course, it is also a ‘local’ issue of a single lawyer and the bigger issue of the Law Society of Singapore. Strange! A Law Society representative can act alone to represent the Society and the Society does not know anything but still acknowledges he is acting on good intention:

<LSS is satisfied that although Mr Wong had acted very much on his own, he did so with the best of intentions.> (LSS Statement)

For the bigger picture of LSS, we better refer to their statement again and not to complicate the matter:

<It is very easy to speculate and criticize LSS. LSS is confident that it has discharged its duties properly and in good faith.  LSS asks that commentators check their facts, preferably with LSS, before making their comments.> (LSS Statement)
Unfortunately, before the High Court makes any decision, the LSS may have to make its decision and clarification first. Man is doing his work and the sky (heaven) is watching him as the Chinese saying “人在做,天在看‘。