http://www.straitstimes.com/Free/Story/STIStory_168340.html
Recent cases of people impersonating as high court officials in order to swindle money out of people have surfaced, with the frauds posing as officials demanding outstanding summons to be settled. At least 35 people have been targeted, and sums as large as $10,000 have been cheated out of a single victim.
While this new fraud is clever than the old fraud which involved the prize which the victim had to pay for before collecting, it still puzzles as to how people can actually fall for it. When one tries to stand in the victim's shoes, we can only conclude that some external factor must have clouded his or her judgement, as a person with calrity of thought at the instant would never have transferred $10,000 to a high court official over the phone without once thinking to check with the high court itself.
The impression of a high court official standing on the other side of the line could be an scary thought for the would-be victim, and he or she might want to hasten to get over with the trouble and forget about the whole business. It is likely that the deep-lasting fear for the police has caused the victim to fall prey.
In light of these new fraud cases, a solution must be quickly thought up to solve all of future problems of the same light. The police must educate the public to be more watchful of such potential frauds, espicially those that invovle the handling of money without ever seeing the other party. Thus, the police teach the people that just because he claims that he is a high court official, he is not neccesary one, and that the public should exercise caution in dealing with such people. Only in this way can future similar scenario be avoided.
2007年10月19日星期五
Group sets up site urging Singapore to keep gay sex ban
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/cna/20071018/tap-306534-231650b.html
A website has been set up by a group calling themselves 'the Majority' has a set up a website to counter another online campaign that has been calling for the repeal of Section 377A of the Penal Code, which states that it is illegal for men to have sex with another man. Some of those who signed the petition for the website has listed several reasons against the repealing of Section 377A, including the argument that the majority of the population will see homosexuality as weird or against traditional family values, or that the government should not bend to the will of what other nations are doing.
However, either the source has failed to provide with more valid reasons, or that it was absent tin the website itself, the reasons gave against the repealing of Section 377A are weak and off the point. If the website believes that homosexuality should remain illegal, they must give stronger points to counter those of the gay rights movement. For example, legalizing homosexualities will cause potentially disturbing environments to infants or young children, and affect their mental consitution as they grow up. If the website wants to make a lasting impact, stronger evidence and arguments must be used, in order to completely sway the public towards their idea.
Perhapes if the websites' designers had taken more time to decide on their next move, instead of providing a seemingly neck-jerk reaction to the movement, more convincing arguments could have been put forth. As it is, their motives can be questioned. If they don't mind ' What the gay community does in private is their private space', then why should they bother about the repealing of the Section?
A website has been set up by a group calling themselves 'the Majority' has a set up a website to counter another online campaign that has been calling for the repeal of Section 377A of the Penal Code, which states that it is illegal for men to have sex with another man. Some of those who signed the petition for the website has listed several reasons against the repealing of Section 377A, including the argument that the majority of the population will see homosexuality as weird or against traditional family values, or that the government should not bend to the will of what other nations are doing.
However, either the source has failed to provide with more valid reasons, or that it was absent tin the website itself, the reasons gave against the repealing of Section 377A are weak and off the point. If the website believes that homosexuality should remain illegal, they must give stronger points to counter those of the gay rights movement. For example, legalizing homosexualities will cause potentially disturbing environments to infants or young children, and affect their mental consitution as they grow up. If the website wants to make a lasting impact, stronger evidence and arguments must be used, in order to completely sway the public towards their idea.
Perhapes if the websites' designers had taken more time to decide on their next move, instead of providing a seemingly neck-jerk reaction to the movement, more convincing arguments could have been put forth. As it is, their motives can be questioned. If they don't mind ' What the gay community does in private is their private space', then why should they bother about the repealing of the Section?
订阅：
博文 (Atom)