Kenneth Lin: A conversation with Mr Lui Tuck Yew

 

EDITOR’s NOTE: The following is a conversation that Kenneth Lin recalled having with RAdm(NS) Lui Tuck Yew, Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts and an MP for Tanjong Pagar GRC.

NOTE (added 09 Jan): This is reproduced with permission from Kenneth Lin. All those who wish to reproduce this MUST seek Kenneth’s permission.

I was invited to a “Scholarship and Bursary awards” ceremony organised by CDC and CCC at Catholic Junior College to receive a $650 cheque for being one of the Top 5 in my class. I was reluctant to attend it, but then decided that the money could be put to good use for others. After the entire ceremony was over, I waited for the crowd to disperse before approaching Mr Lui Tuck Yew. Up front, he seemed polite and gentlemanly, with a friendly attitude.

“Hi Mr Lui, I’m Kenneth. You know, I’ve stayed at Tanjong Pagar GRC all my life – 16 years – but this is the first time I’m meeting you!”

“Where do you stay?”

“Jalan Rajah”

“I’ve visited that area quite recently you know. A few months back…” Mr Lui turns to his adviser and bodyguards, and they shook their heads in response.

“What block?”

“107?

“Oh, 107..”

“What school are you from?”

“St. Andrew’s Secondary.”

“Do you take any sports? What’s your CCA?”

“Choir”

“Were you from the Junior School as well?”

“Yes.”

“So you were from the Junior School choir as well?”

“Yes.”

“You know, the Junior School choir is very good, I went to hear them sing before, really good. Like the Vienna Boys Choir. The coach is very good. What’s his name…..”

“Mr Francis Liew”

“Oh ya ya! Very good.”

He goes on talking about how magnificent the coach is and asked me about my trips, etc…

“And how is the secondary school choir? Are you all doing well?”

(smiles)”Not really.”

“You all have the Youth Festival this year right?”

“Yes.”

“Oh I see.”

At this point, I realised we side-tracked too far.

“So Mr Lui, I actually tried to visit you at your Meet-the-Peoples’ session last year. Because I read an article in the papers that said that Singaporeans do not know how to engage their MPs on political issues. The author suggested we make use of the Meet-the-Peoples’ Session to do so.”

“What did you see me about?”

“Since you are the Minister of Information, I assume you’re in charge of censorship and all that in Singapore. So I wanted to ask why certain videos online, such as Lim Hock Siew’s video, was banned.”

“We banned it because we don’t want these people to re-write history. You know he was charged and detained?”

“Yes, but he wasn’t ever tried in a court, he was detained under the ISA, which allows for detainment without trial.”

“Yes, the ISA. You know after the September 11 attacks, countries such as the US now don’t question the other countries’ use of detainment without trial? Because they themselves need such an act, because they can’t charge prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, can’t just release them into the streets. So we need the ISA.”

I didn’t want to debate about the ISA at this moment, so I moved on.

“So anyway, I waited for about 1-2 hours at the Meet-the-Peoples’ session before being rejected and told that you only attend to people with Bread-and-Butter issues.”

“Well, yes, I only have time for those issues, because there are many cases and we normally have to say until very late, like 11pm. So you have to ask yourself, which is more important, the peoples’ issues or just normal questions.”

“So, the author of that article was wrong?”

“Yes, probably.

“So, is there a platform for Singaporeans to engage their MPs in political issues?”

“Well, you can organise a forum or function and invite us, and we’ll attend IF WE SEE IT’S WORTHWHILE“(emphasis added)

“Okay. Thanks.”

I went towards my classmate to ask which way he was heading home, and took out my iPhone to check my email. I noticed Mr Lui’s adviser telling him something in private, and was just about to leave when Mr Lui approached me again, only this time, looking quite angry.

“Did you take a recording with your phone(of our discussion)??”

“No, you want to check?”

“I don’t need to check. Are you a member of the SDP?”

“No.”

“Cause you were in one of the SDP videos. Don’t go one big round, just come out with what you’re doing.”(The last sentence was a bit incomprehensible, so I only post snippets of what I remembered him saying.)

All this time, I just stood there and smiled. The impresssion of a polite and friendly Mr Lui I got when I met him disappeared, as he showed me how threatening he really was. As I turned to leave, all his bodyguards were dangerously looking at me.

DISCLAIMER: I did not at all take a recording of the conversation I had with Mr Lui. All these words were recalled by me, and are therefore subject to error. However, the meaning and message of each sentence is still fairly accurate.

View the original article here

Liberal democracy gives rise to social ills? Part 2

In his bluster in the Foreign Affairs magazine in 1994, Mr Lee Kuan Yew said: “The expansion of the right of the individual to behave or misbehave as he pleases has come at the expense of orderly society. In the East the main object is to have a well-ordered society…”

If Mr Lee’s main object is to achieve a well-ordered society, he has missed it by a mile. For starters, streaking – a fad normally reserved for decadent societies in the West that Mr Lee excoriates – seems to be catching on in Singapore.  A couple flashes buck naked at patrons of a kopitiam at Holland Village, a guy walks into a MacDonald’s joint in his favourite skin, and a lady disrobes at a bus-stop and boards a bus in her full glory.

Another lady, a 19-year-old, had a little bit more class. She chose Fullerton Hotel for her act. She climbed on to a lamp. In her buff. On the second floor balcony. After scrambling past five rooms.

These weren’t one-off shows. In 2010, there were 105 reports of indecent exposure in Singapore in the first half of the year – that’s one strip act every two days. Public nudity cases went up by 22 percent between 2009 and 2007.

And what is a well-ordered society without an altercation or two? Spats between ordinary folks on our buses are a common occurence.

If this is a well-ordered society, we shudder to think of what a crazy one looks like.

All this is not just harmless expressions of frustration. In Part 1, we pointed out the explosion of crime and vice in Singapore.

One really can’t type fast enough to keep up with reports of violence. Before we could post this piece another murder took place last night, this time at Bukit Batok. A 29-year-old man was found dead – in a church compound – with bruises on his face and a shirt soaked in blood.

The pastor of the church said: “We seem to be hearing of quite a number of incidents of violence in our society.”

The worst part is that it is rubbing off on our children – yes, children. Gang fights involving eight-year-olds (that’s a boy in primary two for easier reference) and violent robberies by kids in their early teens seem to be the norm. (See here)

And girls? In the first half of 2009, there was a 70 percent increase in prosecutions of statutory rape (sex with underaged girls). And these are just the cases that get reported to the authorities. One 12-year-old girl was found to have had sex with 15 men.

Confucius confounded

What happened to our Confucianist culture that Mr Lee was such a fan of, the one that prides itself on communitarian values and high moral standards? Yes, the very same one that decries and rejects democratic values.

“We focus on the basics in Singapore,” Mr Lee wagged his finger. “We used the family to push economic growth…”

Apparently not anymore. Casinos, it appears, is the way forward nowadays. Family, shmamily. Easy Street, fast money is the new mantra.

But what about vice and crime that come with casinos? Mr Lee’s son, the prime minister, concedes that casinos bring “undesirable activities” but then comes to his senses: “We had no choice.”

No choice? You mean we have no choice but to see our sons kill each other in gang fights, our underaged daughters have sex with older men, our  youths parade themselves naked in public, our uncles and aunties engage in fisticuffs, our rich turn to drugs, and our poor to suicide?

We pay him $3.8 million to tell us we have no choice but to tear our society apart?

Anything but democracy

We hope that it is clear by now that social ills don’t come about because we have political freedom. We still live under a very authoritarian regime, and yet our social problems are only increasing.

The truth is that democracy and political freedom do not cause crime and vice. Rather it is the blind pursuit of wealth by the elite at the expense of the rest of society that is fueling a breakdown in order. Social breakdown comes about when a ruling party is left unchecked. Its excesses perpetuate income disparity and places an unbearable strain on society. The result is a degeneration in social order.

In fact it is in democratic societies (and they are not confined to the West) that the people can balance misguided government policies through open debate and elections, and exert an ethical influence over public policy.

The irony is that the PAP has copied all the undesirable traits of crass consumerism and corporate greed from the West while eliminating the moderating influence of an open and democratic system. Singaporeans must understand the democracy is not a Western value. It is a practice that allows the governed to prevent the government from bringing a country to ruin.

The PAP will tolerate and allow anything – even social ills. But it will not allow democracy because social ills do not affect members of the ruling elite. Democracy does.

View the original article here

Idealism of Youths Needs to be Encouraged

EDITOR’S NOTE: Permission must be sought for reproduction of any article from this website.

By Dr Wong Wee Nam
12 Jan 2011

“???????,???????“

“Good mediClick Here!">cine is bitter to the mouth but cures the illness; honest words grate the ears but right the act.”

Who is Kenneth Lin? Well, he is a boy who has just turned 16. He is also a smart lad who was recently given a scholarship at a grassroots scholarship award presentation. After the ceremony when the crowd had thinned out, Kenneth approached the Guest-of-Honour, a minister, to have a chat with him.

The conversation started cordially about what Kenneth did in school. Then Kenneth started asking difficult political questions. The conversation ended amicably but the parting of ways left a sour taste in the mouth after Kenneth was asked if he had recorded the conversation on his handphone and whether he was a member of a political party.

After reading the conversation recounted by Kenneth, I could not help but be reminded of the story of David and Goliath.

Like Kenneth the choirboy, David also used to sing and even founded the Temple of Singing. Like David, Kenneth does not appear to be intimidated by more important or powerful people.

The Idealism of Youth

I can understand Kenneth because, like him when I was young, I used to approach ministers whenever I got the opportunity and engage them on political issues. To me, 16-year-old Kenneth is probably just an idealist trying to look for a perfect society.

This type of idealism may be an anomaly in today’s Singapore but in the 50s and 60s, it was not uncommon for a fifteen year-old to be interested in politics. Singapore would not have got its independence without the idealism of its youths then.

There is, therefore, nothing wrong for a young boy to be idealistic. They should be. In fact, this is what is sorely lacking in Singapore’s youths today. Instead of frowning on the likes of Kenneth Lin, Singapore would do well to have more young people like him instead of having those who run around killing each other, posting their sexual escapades on the internet, taking pictures of female underwear and getting all the A’s in school while being oblivious to society’s problems.

Young people are naturally full or dreams and idealism. If Singapore’s youths are stifled to the extent that they are no longer idealistic or are afraid to share their dreams, then this country, as a nation, is going to be in serious trouble in future.

Thus a young person should be encouraged to speak his mind and have his questions answered instead of getting them brushed aside. In this age and time, we should try to eradicate the climate of fear and replace it with a more conducive environment for youths to develop a more enquiring mind.

I do not understand, therefore, why a meeting between a young boy and a minister should start so well and end up in such an unhappy confrontation.

I do not understand because it did not happen to me when I was young.

The Older Politicians

The Old Guard ministers that I had met were not condescending even though the style of their government at that time was certainly much more intimidating. They did not avoid thorny political questions. In fact you could see their face light up when political issues were brought up. If they did not agree with you, they would try to show why your premise was wrong, sometimes even with facts that could not be published in the press.

At no time did they appear to be worried that I would record our conversations (they did not ask if I had a tape recorder on me) nor did I care if anyone else had been covertly recording what had been said.

Even when I became an active Opposition politician, MPs like Dr Tan Cheng Bock, Tan Soo Khoon and some others felt comfortable talking to me. To these people, belonging to another political party does not make a person any lesser a Singaporean.

Only just last night I met a minister at a function. After we shook hands, he asked what I was doing now. I told him I am cultivating some young people. He told me that is a good thing to do. We need more young people coming forward. It would be good for Singapore.

There were no bodyguards staring at me. There was no sour ending. Kenneth would certainly have benefited from such an encounter.

It would, therefore, be good for political newbies to learn from these political veterans. Political affiliations should not devalue the merits of a political debate. In fact, diversity will enrich such a discourse.

Political leaders must know that their plans for the country are not the necessary the only workable solutions. Once they can realize this, they will be able to accept criticisms as positive feedback.

Wisdom From The Past

One exemplary leader that they can learn from is Duke Huan of the State of Qi.

Duke Huan of Qi (???) had a half-brother called Jiu. Each had a mentor to groom them to take over the throne. Duke Huan’s teacher was Bao Shuya (???) and his brother’s tutor was Guan Zhong(??).

When their father Duke Xiang was killed and the usurpers of the throne were in turned murdered, a vacuum was created. At that time Duke Huan was in the State of Ju and Jiu was in the State of Lu. Both brothers then led their men and raced back to Qi to try and claim the throne.

As State of Ju was nearer State of Qi, it was likely that Duke Huan would reach Qi first. Guan Zhong, Jiu’s mentor, decided to intercept Duke Huan before he reached Qi. Just outside the city, he met the Duke’s entourage, took out his bow and shot an arrow at the Duke.

As Duke Huan was wearing an armour at that time, this did not hurt him at all. Nevertheless he led out a loud cry and pretended to be dead. Satisfied, Guan Zhong rode away. Subsequently Duke Huan managed to arrive in Qi earlier than Jiu and took the throne and became the Marquis of Qi from 685 BC until his death.

After he came onto the throne, he demanded that Guan Zhong be extradited to Qi to be executed. When Guan Zhong was sent back to Qi, Duke Huan’s mentor, Bao Shuya, advised that the former be not put to death but be made the Prime Minister instead because he was such a talented person. Though Duke Huan was very unhappy at being nearly assassinated by Guan Zhong, he, nevertheless, took the advice and indeed, under the latter’s reforms, Qi became the strongest state of the time.

The moral of the story is to look at the positive side of a person.

The Young and The Future

The future of the country belongs to the young of today.

However, the young need to feel they belong and have a stake in this country. The political climate must, therefore, allow for the maximum development of intellect, the moral character and the creative energy of our youths.

The best guarantee of a good future for our country is the participation of a better-informed and educated young people.

Without such participation, we will only encourage bright young people to drop out of society, the talented to migrate and the majority to live their lives of apathy without any love or passion for their country.

Thus our youth, people like Kenneth, must be made to feel that there is a future and they have a hand in molding it. When we stifle idealism of young people, by refusing to engage them, we destroy their motivations, hopes and love for the country.

This is the meaning of being a true blue Singaporean.

Who then is this Kenneth? He is a true son of Singapore.

View the original article here

The essence of a democratic society

 

With the General Elections looming near, it is important to understand what true democracy is all about. The most important ingredient of a democratic society is a co-operative society. It is a society in which everyone pools their resources for the common good.

On the other hand, capitalism is a threat to real democracy. It encourages the spirit of greed, self-centredness and consumerism. Capitalists tend to be corrupted and consumed by the love of money. Money is their idol and they labour under the misconception that money makes the world go round.

It has been said that nothing is certain but death and taxes. We may not be able to avoid death but death can teach us to number our days and to seek the meaning of life. We can learn to face death so that we will live well. And as we live well, we will die well. Likewise, we can seek to make better use of our taxes.

Taxes in a democratic society are to be used for the welfare of the community. This is very different from a feudal society in which taxes are collected to enrich the feudal lord. Hence taxes in a democratic society will be used to fund essential services such as defence, health and education. One dollar collected from one million people each will amount to $1,000,000 and this can used for essential services. However, $1,000,000 given out to one million people means that each person will receive only ONE paltry dollar!

In a co-operative society, our small change can be used to make a big change in our society. Budget surpluses can be better used to provide education for our children up to secondary level. This is NOT welfarism but an investment in our young. Likewise it is not welfarism to provide medical services for our elderly sick – it is our grateful response as well as responsibility in recognition of their contributions in the past.

Unless and until we change the mindsets of the people about the purpose of taxes, we will not be able to cultivate a caring and compassionate society. And to change the mindsets we need a change of heart – from narcissism to altruism.

To live meaningful and fruitful lives, our focus cannot be on ourselves but on others. A meritocratic society tends to encourage selfishness and motivate through greed. A better alternative is a creative society which seeks to develop the potential of every individual. Success will not be measured in terms of one’s salaries and material acquisitions but on how one has been a blessing to others.

We need selfless leaders to show the people the way to a life of love, joy and peace. We need such leaders to develop the fruits of love and compassion in a co-operative society. General elections are the time for the people to choose such leaders. Those seeking only to win elections, more often than not, do not have the interests of the people at heart. Candidates from whatever party who resort to “gutter politics” do not deserve to be elected. The people have the responsibility not to cast their votes for such candidates.

True leaders will not seek to “sell” themselves or promise goodies to the people. They offer themselves to serve the people and to present ideas and visions that will inspire people to be more caring and creative. If we want servant leaders we must be prepared to take the risk to elect new leaders who have presented themselves for service to the nation. Unless the people are prepared to move out of their comfort zone and take a risk to give new leaders a chance, how can such leaders prove themselves?

Elections are a time for leaders to be accountable to the people as well as a time for the people to send leaders reminders that power lies in the people and not in the elite. Our people must be prepared to exercise their power through the ballot box. Concern for the nation and not fear must dictate the way they vote. Leaders need to be held accountable and that is the purpose of elections.

Finally it is important to recognize that many of those who are standing for the opposition are not anti-Singapore but who have a passion for Singapore. In fact they have more to lose than those standing for the ruling party. A democratic government is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people – it is a government that comprises of both the ruling party and the opposition parties.

View the original article here

PM wants TOC labelled as political association

Posted by The Online Citizen
Original link here.

The Prime Minister of Singapore has revealed his intentions to declare The Online Citizen as a political association.

According to an email sent to TOC at 5pm yesterday evening by the Prime Minister’s office, the Prime Minister  ”intends to declare the owners, editorial team, and administrators of The Online Citizen, by order in the Gazette, to be a political association for the purposes of the Political Donations Act. The owners, editorial team, and administrators of The Online Citizen have been determined to be an organization whose objects or activities relate wholly or mainly to politics in Singapore.”

This means that TOC is barred from receiving funds from foreign donors, letting foreigners take part in its events, operating as a political party and being affiliated to any local or foreign political party.

It is also not allowed to use its funds, premises and new media platforms in any election here, including the sponsoring of any candidate or member.

TOC has 14 days to reveal the identities of its owners, editorial team and administrators. TOC is also required to designate a President, Treasurer and Secretary of the association, and they will be responsible for the preparation and accuracy of the donations reports for The Online Citizen.

The last group to be gazetted is human rights advocacy NGO Maruah in November last year. Maruah is the fourth group -after the Open Singapore Centre, the Think Centre and Singaporeans For Democracy – to be gazetted as a political association.

If TOC complies, it will be the fifth. It will also be the first time bloggers are considered a political association.

View the original article here

Liberal democracy gives rise to social ills? Part 1

“[I]t has a lot to do with the erosion of the moral underpinnings of a society and the diminution of personal responsibility. The liberal, intellectual tradition that developed after World War II claimed that human beings…would be better off if they were allowed to do their own thing and flourish. It has not worked out…Westerners have abandoned an ethical basis for society…”

Thus saith Lee Kuan Yew in an interview he gave to the Foreign Affairs magazine in 1994.

He surmised that democracy equals Western values and Western values equal individualism. Individualism, in turn, brings about moral decadence leading society to eventual ruin. Democratic values, by implication, must be rejected.

The ‘erosion of moral underpinnings’

Ethics and morality are terms Mr Lee chooses to frame the discussion of the success – or failure – of a society. Against this premise, let us examine the situation in Singapore and the kind of society he has forced on this country.

Our sex industry is thriving where high- and low-end sex workers flood the island. In 2007, 5,400 unlicensed prostitutes were arrested, an increase of 25 percent from the previous year. We have become the centre for the trafficking of sex workers.

And where prostitutes gather, so will pimps. With pimps come gangs and with gangs come crime – violent crime. Orchard Plaza, a venue permeated with adult stores and sex bars, came into the spotlight recently where a gang, wielding machetes, brutally murdered a man in the wee hours of the morning.

Another gang, also with parangs, went on a chopping spree in Kallang, killing one and severely wounding another including hacking off the victim’s fingers.

Retiree, Mr Lee Kaw, had gone to buy a newspaper in the evening. When he stepped into a lift, another man pulled out a knife and slashed him across the throat. Mr Lee stumbled out and with blood gushing from his neck, managed to get help from neighbours.

“First, you must have order in society,” Mr Lee lectured. “Guns, drugs and violent crime all go together, threatening social order.”

We may not have guns in Singapore but knives do just as well.

And drugs? A Reuters report stated: “Evidence tells of the emergence of an underground party drug scene mostly at night clubs frequented by the wealthy.” In 2007 heroin arrests exploded by 600 percent.

Our youths are violent too

On youths Mr Lee said: “Then the schools; when you have violence in schools, you are not going to have education, so you’ve got to put that right.” That’s the rhetoric.

Here’s the reality: In Singapore, students are killing students. Nineteen-year-old, Darren Ng, was cut to death in a youth-gang fight, a group of teenagers, in which the youngest member was 8, went on a rampage slashing passers-by at Bukit Panjang; two boys, aged 12 and 14, punched and robbed an elderly man in Ang Mo Kio; a gang of three, aged 13, 15 and 18, nearly severed the hand of a man in a violent confrontation. All this in a matter of weeks over November and December last year. (See here)

Then on Christmas eve, youths fought each other in three separate incidents: a couple was attacked at Downtown East (the place where Darren Ng was killed) and left the man with blood dripping from his eye; 10 youths attacked another at Orchard Road until he was unconscious and in critical condition; and a brawl took place at Clarke Quay leaving the victim with a broken nose. (See here)

Democratic values to blame?

The liberal, intellectual tradition has abandoned an ethical basis for society?

Let’s look at the facts. Singapore is not even a democratic society, let alone a liberal one, where individuals enjoy political rights. It is very much a state where the ruling party sits on top of all and sundry and directs society from its perch.

And yet, we are seeing drugs, crime, and youth violence hit this country like never before.

In truth, it is not that liberal democracy causes social breakdown as Mr Lee would have us believe, rather it is the wayward policies forced on the population by this regime.

Much of this is fueled by the PAP’s lust for all that glitters. Its relentless push to achieve GDP growth, no matter the havoc that it wreaks on society, is inflicting much injury on the social arrangement in this country.

The opening up of the casinos and the re-writing of our banking laws to turn Singapore into a tax haven has opened up our society to easy money for the Government. The result of such a policy cocktail is an explosion of crime and vice in this country.

The irony is that without democracy, dissenting – and moderating – voices are silenced. The PAP, with all its machinations of the electoral system and the control of the media, continues to tell us the lie that democracy is bad and dictatorship is good.

For our part, the Singapore Democrats will continue to speak up. More important, however, Singaporeans must wake up to the dangers that we face with an autocratic PAP.

In Part 2, we will take a further look at the erosion of social order in Singapore and examine its causes.

View the original article here

TOC strengthens its resolve in the face of gazetting

The Online Citizen website has affirmed that it would not be intimidated by the recent action of the authorities in gazetting them as a political association or being required to register with the Media Development Authority (MDA).

In a statement entitled “Keep Calm and Carry On” released today at 1800hrs, TOC said they have been completely above board in their operations, and that they have nothing to hide nor fear from being gazetted. TOC added that “shutting down or going underground is precisely what those who misunderstand us want”, and they will not give them that satisfaction.

TOC has also written to the Prime Minister’s Office seeking a clarification on why it is being gazetted as a political association. In an open letter published together with their press release, TOC said that they “do not engage in partisan politics, and have no interest in engaging in partisan politics”.

They also added that “TOC is political to the extent and in the exact same way that all ordinary Singaporeans are political: by being interested in, and talking about, political issues that impact us and our country”.

As such TOC believes that being gazetted as a political association on the basis that it is “an organization whose objects or activities relate wholly or mainly to politics in Singapore” in unreasonable, and they asked the PM to reconsider his decision.

TOC also affirmed that they have never received foreign donations, and never intend to, and as such, have nothing to fear from being gazetted as a political association. Nonetheless, TOC has chosen to raise the objection as it feels that the threat that bloggers face in being gazetted “will have significant chilling effect on free expression in Singapore“.

Pending the outcome of TOC’s appeal to PMO to reverse the gazetting decision, TOC also said in a letter to MDA that they would, for now, not be sending MDA any information.

I personally believe The Online Citizen has handled the matter very professionally. They clearly understand the significance and implications of being gazetted as a political association, and have articulated why they feel it is an unfair move by the authorities.

But one thing stands clear: TOC is not afraid of being gazetted as it has already remained open and transparent, and has never availed itself to foreign funding. All their editors long ago have revealed their identities, and they are also likely to be prepared to put their names down on record and be held collectively responsible for TOC in the legal front.

In fact, on the issue of foreign funding, it is the government that has been hypocritical. Our government through its investment arms have regularly interfered in the domestic politics of other countries.

In fact, Singapore’s Government-Linked Corporations (GLCs) have even funded Australia’s political parties: see here. This is very shameful.

The government has enacted laws that seeks to intimidate its citizens and curtail freedom of speech. However, some people would not be intimidated or curtailed in such a cowardly manner. Only those who live in the shadows and attack other people behind a veil of anonymity should be afraid of the glare of sunlight. TOC has absolutely nothing to fear indeed.

View the original article here