Letter to press by SMU dean's list law student: if indeed it is the dean's list law student, my guess is that many in Singapore's political elite are money faced/ smoke weed in their ivory towers...
Why does his legal logic reek of the same bias and stink as the AGC conclusion about LHL's influence of votes at poking station in 1997 ???!!!
So its all about tax revenue $$$ or the bullying of minorities??? These scholars in their ivory towers should better stop smoking the weed that they pass around to each other: morally, they are no better than the shisha smokers loitering in dark alleys...
Banning shisha, but not cigarettes, a justified move | TODAYonline
Quote:
Dunno if it is the same guy, but my guess is that it is...
DEAN'S LIST 2012
LL.B. Dean's List
To qualify for a place on the Dean's List, students have to achieve a Grade Point Average (GPA) of 3.7 or better, over two consecutive terms of an academic year.
The excellent performance of these students in the academic year 2012/2013 placed them on the Dean's List.
Dean's List 2012 | School of Law (SMU)
Admission Year 2011-12
Soon Shao Wei, Jerald |
Quote:
Banning shisha, but not cigarettes, a justified move
FROM
JERALD SOON SHAO WEI
PUBLISHED: 6:48 AM, NOVEMBER 14, 2014
While there appears to be an inconsistency in the approach towards shisha and cigarettes, there are justifications for banning shisha, while only imposing taxes on cigarettes. (“Banning shisha but not cigarettes a contradiction”; Nov 11)
From a utilitarian perspective, the harmful effects of shisha are greater. A stricter measure in the form of a ban is therefore justified.
While the countervailing consideration is that consumers should have the liberty to decide what is good for them, one could also argue that the Government is indirectly promoting our liberty by banning a harmful product. For example, one’s life expectancy could be increased by abstaining from vices detrimental to our health. This will allow us to further other pursuits in life.
So why not ban cigarettes, too? Again, one may refer to the concept of liberty: Banning cigarettes would curtail our liberty to a greater extent than banning shisha, as about 15 per cent of the population smoke cigarettes regularly.
Banning cigarettes would affect a larger portion of the population. In light of a potential backlash from the banning of cigarettes, the Government has opted for the less drastic measure of imposing taxes.
Further, the tax money can be directed towards raising awareness of the ill effects of smoking cigarettes. Smokers can make their own informed decision to quit smoking. For example, the Health Promotion Board’s “I Quit” campaign is said to have reversed a five-year upward trend in smoking. Banning shisha, but not cigarettes, is arguably justified.
Banning shisha, but not cigarettes, a justified move | TODAYonline |
The same logic used post GE1997 by AGC.:
(
Pict source)(
alt source)
More side effects from their smoking weed:
Wee Shu Min elitism controversyProof that many of these elites are just very $$$ money faced:
Quote:
"If the annual salary of the Minister of Information, Communication and Arts is only $500,000, it may pose some problems when he discuss policies with media CEOs who earn millions of dollars because they need not listen to the minister's ideas and proposals. Hence, a reasonable payout will help to maintain a bit of dignity."
- MP Lim Wee Kiak apologises for comments on pay
 [IMG URL] |