David Neo: Idiots?

Following the Singapore Lions’ historic win at the Kai Tak Stadium in Hong Kong, which sealed Asian Cup qualification for Singapore for the first time on merit, Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth David Neo Chin Wee was seen in a video circulating online telling the players, “It was fantastic, the team was fantastic. You kena pressured by them, all the fans were bloody idiots, end up players also played like idiots ... But you all played like lions.” (Minister David Neo says he should have been more respectful towards Hong Kong fans, The Straits Times, published 19 Nov 2025, 07:28 p.m., updated 20 Nov 2025, 9:27 a.m.).

Firstly, it is disrespectful, especially for an acting cabinet minister. It is unacceptable, even though it was spoken to the Lions in their locker room. Perhaps, it might have been acceptable when a commander is speaking to his soldiers about enemy soldiers in a real combat situation (Mr Neo was most recently a major-general and Chief of Army in the Singapore Armed Forces), although even then it's risky to under-estimate their enemy.

Secondly, the Hong Kong team played much better than the Lions, in my opinion, except that they didn't manage to convert their superiority into goals and a lapse of concentration for a few minutes allowed the Lions to score two quick goals.

Thirdly, does this mean that, in Mr Neo's mind, the fans of the Lions have been bloody idiots and the Lions themselves have played like idiots in previous versions of the Asian Cup because the Lions have never before qualified for the Asian Cup on merit?

Fourthly, what was an acting cabinet minister doing in Hong Kong watching a football game even if it involved the Lions and sports is part of Mr Neo's portfolio? Doesn't he have more important matters to attend to?

Mr Neo took back what he said, according to The Straits Times.

Last updated 22 Nov 2025 11:54 p.m.

Jail for Lying

A woman was sentenced to one week's jail for lying about her address, which she did in order to give her daughter priority to be enrolled at a certain primary school (A week’s jail for woman who lied about address to enrol daughter in primary school, The Straits Times 13 Nov 2025 10:54 a.m., updated at 11:20 a.m.).

A person may be jailed for up to two years, fined or both for knowingly giving false information to a public servant and may be jailed for up to two years, fined up to $3,000 or both for giving false information when reporting a change of address, according to The Straits Times.

Imprisonment in this case seems harsh: the prosecution had asked for $13,000 fine only.

The district judge said a jail term was warranted, given the woman’s calculated actions and selfish motives.

The woman may not be named because of a gag order to protect the daughter's identity. This is unfortunate: the woman should have been named as it would have been a worse punishment. If it resulted in her daughter's identity being exposed, any repercussions fall squarely on the woman. It will be a significant deterrent for others thinking of doing what the woman did.

In any case, the school transferred out the daughter in October 2024 when she was in primary one, according to the report. Her classmates would be able to narrow down her identity.

Finally, what was the woman thinking when she told the school about a change in her daughter's address that would violate the conditions of, and invalidate, the priority enrolment?

Should Scammers Or Mules Be Caned?

With the passage of the Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill on 4 November 2025, scammers and their syndicate members and recruiters, and those who help them such as money mules who provide them with access to their bank accounts, SIM cards or SingPass credentials, face caning as part of their punishment in the future.

Ministry of Law is over-reacting to the scale of scams, in my opinion.

Scammers and others assisting them do not cause bodily harm to their victims, and caning should not be meted out upon their conviction, in my opinion.

For example, people convicted of simple theft are not caned.

People convicted of theft in a building, tent, or vessel or theft by a clerk or servant are not caned, unless there are aggravating factors.

Interestingly, on the same day, Parliament approved the removal of caning for acts that endanger the safety of passengers under the Railway Act.

Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs Sim Ann explained, “These are generally offences that do not involve intentional harm to a person nor cause significant harm to the public, and for which we assess that the other penalties are adequate."

Interestingly, too, no caning is prescribed for people convicted of circulating obscene material to ten or more people, even if the victim is under 18 years old.

Reference

1. Law passed for scammers, mules to be caned after victims in Singapore lose almost $4b since 2020 (ST, published 4 Nov 2025, 3:55 p.m., updated 5 Nov 2025, 1:24 a.m.

Stupid Question or Stupid Person?

Consider this amazing exchange in Parliament on 5 November 2025.

Minister Chee Hong Tat: … But we need to adopt a sensible and calibrated approach and should refrain from a kneejerk over-reaction when cases happen from time to time. Similar to all major financial centres, it is not possible to have zero incidence given the complex nature of the financial services industry and the high volume of daily transactions. … Compared to other financial centres, many industry stakeholders already consider Singapore to have more stringent due diligence standards for high net-worth clients. If we were to tighten further to the point where processes become overly cumbersome, it will affect our competitiveness, deter legitimate investors and put many local jobs at risk. This is not the outcome we want for Singapore. … This is the approach we take in Singapore: risk proportionate not zero risk. MAS will continue to take a risk proportionate approach to maintain our status as a trusted financial centre. …

Member of Parliament Kenneth Tiong: … As more cases of criminality associated with family offices that have been set up in Singapore have come to light, will the Government start to work on the assumption that illicit money generated by scams and other cross-border crimes have already penetrated Singapore and therefore will the Government mandate enhanced due diligence on existing client relationships across all regulated financial sectors, not just new client onboarding?…

This is a sensible question or suggestion.

Chee:  … May I ask Mr Tiong to clarify if The Workers' Party's position is that we should adopt a zero-risk approach or would he agree with me that we should adopt a risk-proportionate approach  … ?

What was the relevance of Mr Chee's question? In addition to onboarding due diligence, Mr Tiong was suggesting ongoing due diligence. There was nothing in Mr Tiong's question to suggest that he or The Workers' Party advocated a zero-risk approach.

The Speaker should have asked Mr Chee to explain the relevance of his question in the context of Mr Liong's question or simply to answer Mr Liong's question, but he did neither.

Tiong: There is a pattern of ministers and public office holders asking very rhetorical, you know, like rhetorical questions which have no meaning ...

It is understandable why Mr Tiong was exasperated with Mr Chee's response.

Speaker Seah Kian Peng: You could just respond to him, to Minister.

Tiong: So the answer is no and I don't think and I don't think it is the Minister's point of view that we should in fact have a zero-risk approach, because it is impossible. So he is asking a stupid question.

Mr Tiong was saying that Mr Chee's question was stupid, not that Mr Chee was stupid.

Chee: Sir, I think it is not quite appropriate for Mr Tiong to use the word "stupid" when we are having a discussion in this House, I asked him a question what is his position and I respectfully ask him to withdraw that comment and to apologise.

…

Seah: Let me read what [Standing Orders 50 Section 4] says, "It shall be out of order to use offensive or insulting language about Members of Parliament." … [A]nd the use of such language about a fellow Member of Parliament is not par for the course.

Mr Seah was mistaken: Mr Tiong said that Mr Chee's question was stupid, not that Mr Chee was stupid. There is a crucial difference between criticising what another person says or does, and the person himself.

Several minutes later:

Chee: … MAS will continue to review our rules and procedures. I think Mr Tiong is mistaken that we do our checks only at the point of application and not on an ongoing basis.

Surely, that should have been Mr Chee's reply to Mr Tiong's question, instead of asking him about The Workers' Party zero-risk approach.

Note: The words spoken by each of the persons above were taken from video clips on the internet, which might have been edited by the entities posting them online.

Post-Graduate Early Childhood Educators

Early childhood educators will be able to pursue post-graduate studies under Early Childhood Development Agency's scholarship programme ("More support for early childhood educators to pursue studies", The Straits Times, 31 Oct 2025).

Senior Parliamentary Secretary for Social and Family Development said "[W]e hope that an ECE (Early Childhood Education) scholarship will attract and nurture more passionate individuals ... who are committed to making a lasting impact in the early childhood sector."

Does a person really need a Master of Education or similar post-graduate qualification to be a better or more effective early childhood educator?

Or is it just another example of unnecessary paper chase?