Monday 14 April 2008

Jin Jing - The Brave Golden Girl!


Golden Girl Lifts A Nation


2008-04-14 07:16

Actions speak louder than words, however the words of Olympic torch hero Jin Jing trumpeted louder than her brave deeds. "I would die to protect the torch," she said.

The 27-year-old Shanghai girl, whose name "Jin" means "gold", is now a national hero because of her triumph over adversity. The one-legged fencer put her body on the line for her country. Jin tightly grasped the torch as hysterical protesters tried to snatch it during the Paris leg of the relay on April 7. The wild protesters beat her and one angry man pulled her hair.

She fought back the tears and did not let go.

Jin is now known and loved by more than 1 billion people. The images of her fiercely protecting the flame from attackers and smiling in wheelchair are splashing on front pages all over China. Her story has been told through newspapers, TV shows, and on the Internet.

People marvel at her courage and call her the "smiling angel in the wheelchair".

"I burst into tears when I saw you protect the torch with all your effort. You defend the Olympic spirit," wrote one fan on sohu.com.

"I think you are the most beautiful girl in 2008," wrote another.

Jin arrived at Beijing airport last Thursday, the same time as pop star Jay Chou. The golden girl attracted much more attention than the Taiwan-based singer.

After receiving a hero's welcome, Jin said she did nothing great.

"Any Chinese or Olympics-loving torchbearer would protect the torch under such circumstances," she says.

But the circumstances were not for the faint hearted.

Jin was the third torchbearer during the Paris leg. On the early morning of April 7, she received a text message from a friend, who told her to be extra careful, because in London, some attackers tried to grab the torch.

So she prepared for the worst and insisted on holding the torch with her own two hands instead of following the original plan and placing it on a special support device connected to her wheelchair.

After she received the torch from the second bearer and before the torch was lit, several attackers rushed to her and tried to grab it.

She held onto the torch tightly and guarded it with her body. During the struggle her chin and shoulder were scratched.

Police, her guards and surrounding Chinese students helped her and the torch never left her hands during the scuffle. Despite the anger and the hurt, Jin says she tried her best to hold back the tears.

"I think if you know they will grab your national flag and insult it, everyone would do the same thing I did."

After the scuffle, she gave a smile to the 99 percent of Paris supporters who were supporting her and maintained it all the way.

Student Qiu Yu was on the spot recalled when the drama unfolded and said Jin's smile was a great encouragement for her and her fellow students who were there to support their motherland.

"You may not know how much we were cheered up and encouraged by your smile," Qiu told Jin in a TV talk show. "You are a role model and an upright and brave girl."

The attack infuriated Olympic chief Jacques Rogge, who said any attempt to take the torch from the athletes was destroying a dream.

"What shocked me most is when someone tried to rob the torch off a wheelchair athlete, a disabled athlete who was unable to defend the torch. This is unacceptable," the International Olympic Committee President said last Thursday.

In many interviews Jin attributed her heroic behavior to her three guards and the Chinese supporters in Paris.

"I was protecting the torch, and they were protecting me," she says. "They were fearless and facing up to the separatists. I was moved to tears seeing so many Chinese students waving national flags and singing our national anthem along the route."

Jin sent a text message to her mom after the incident.

"You can be proud of me".

Her mother Liu Huayao said Jin was always a strong and cheerful girl.

At 9, Jin lost part of her right leg due to a malignant tumor in her ankle. She survived the ordeal and worked as a telephone operator in a local hotel.

Her colleagues recalled that she took the bus to work by herself, saved her money to buy fashion magazines, and liked shopping with other girls. She was always cheerful and upbeat, despite her disability.

During a speech contest in 2001, Jin met a coach who invited her to join in the local wheelchair fencing team.

A big fan of fictional swordsman Zorro, Jin agreed, thinking fencing was something symbolizing justice and integrity. She picked it up quickly and won silver and bronze in the 2002 Busan Far East and South Pacific Games.

Although she did not win the chance to compete in this year's Paralympics, her optimism and cheerful personality won her a coveted place as torchbearer.

Like most girls at her age, the Shanghai native likes singing, dancing, photography and surfing the Internet.

Her favorite star is Andy Lau from Hong Kong, but she refuses to call him an "idol", because young people should be idols to themselves, she says.

In a TV show on Shanghai-based Dragon TV, she danced in her wheelchair.

The judges told her: "When a door is shut, a window is opened. Happiness at your heart is the most important."

Lim Swee Say Speaks Again ...


April 11, 2008

Rice a small part of bills at FairPrice: Swee Say

Labour chief: Price hikes not alarming if 'total package' considered as costs of other food items fairly stable
By Goh Chin Lian
PENNY WISE: Shoppers looking for cheaper rice can opt for house brands, FairPrice's director said. -- ST FILE PHOTO
THE cost of rice is a small fraction of shoppers' expenditure at NTUC FairPrice supermarkets, according to labour chief Lim Swee Say.

Out of every $10 spent last year, only 22 cents went to rice, he said yesterday.

So, despite exporters doubling the global price of rice, it has not burnt as big a hole in the pockets of consumers, he told 80 union leaders.

They were with him on a tour of NTUC FairPrice's fresh food distribution centre.

'Yes, the cost of living has gone up, but it does not mean your $10 has become $5 because you did not spend all your $10 to buy rice.

'You spent only 22 cents to buy rice,' he said.

VIDEO
Mr Lim derived the figures from the $1.6 billion spent at the supermarket chain, of which $36 million was spent on rice. 'That leaves you with $9.78 to buy many other items,' he added.

The prices of these items, such as vegetables, fruit and frozen food, have stayed fairly stable, increasing by less than 5 per cent, he noted.

'If you look at the total package, then the increase is not as alarming,' he said.

Mr Lim was seeking to reassure workers. He said they had been telling union leaders that they were worried about rice being costly and the shrinking value of their dollar, with some saying that their $10 was now worth $5.

Mr Lim urged union leaders to tell workers not to panic over the rising price of just one item.

'You don't go home, eat rice in the morning and nothing else; lunchtime, eat rice alone and nothing else; dinner, eat rice and nothing else; and then in-between meals, you're hungry, you have rice as a snack and nothing else.

'We should look at it in perspective,' he added.

During the tour, NTUC FairPrice director Tng Ah Yiam assured union leaders that the chain had enough rice, having stockpiled more than two months' supply.

Though the global price of rice rose this week to US$21.50 (S$30) per 45kg - double last year's price - FairPrice had raised prices by between 9 and 14 per cent, he said.

But the supermarket chain is feeling the pressure on costs, because exporters insist on selling rice at prevailing prices and refuse to let buyers lock in the price for three months.

Still, house brands will be 10 per cent cheaper than other brands, Mr Tng added.

After the tour, Mr Lim announced a $4 million gift from the labour movement to its less well-off members. They will get discount vouchers to buy food and household items at FairPrice supermarkets or to pay for fees and other expenses at five other cooperatives that offer such services as health care and childcare.

chinlian@sph.com.sg


Must keep this as a record for posterity. Will comment at a later date, when I am free.


The Garuda.

Thursday 3 April 2008

Can a Restricted Jury deliberate Correct Verdict?

Diana jury deliberates verdicts

Mohamed Al Fayed arriving at the High Court
Mr Al Fayed has attended the inquest regularly and appeared as a witness

The jury in the Princess Diana inquest has retired to consider its verdicts.

Before they left, coroner Lord Justice Scott Baker instructed them to deliver unanimous verdicts.

The inquest into the 1997 crash in Paris that killed Diana, Dodi and chauffeur Henri Paul began six months ago to the day.

The jury will decide if the deaths were the result of an accident, unlawful killing by negligence, or unexplained, but they cannot say they were murder.

Mohamed Al Fayed - the father of the princess's companion, Dodi - and her sister, Lady Sarah McCorquodale, were among those attending London's High Court.

Coroner Lord Justice Scott Baker had already told the jurors they could not find the crash was an "unlawful killing by the Duke of Edinburgh or anyone else in a staged accident".

Witnesses

Earlier this week the coroner gave the jury five verdict options, which included unlawful killing by grossly negligent driving of the paparazzi in pursuing vehicles - a level of negligence he said would amount to manslaughter.

He said that to return this verdict they had to satisfy the criminal standard of proof - meaning they had to be "sure" - rather than the civil standard, which is based on the balance of probabilities.

Unlawful killing through the gross negligence of the driver Henri Paul; and unlawful killing by the grossly negligent driving of both the following vehicles and Mr Paul were also given as options.

A verdict of accidental death could be returned if none of the previous verdicts were established. The jury was also given the option of an open verdict.

The six women and five men will deliberate on evidence from 250 witnesses who testified either in person or through statements.

Earlier Lord Justice Scott Baker told the court said there was "not a shred of evidence" that the Duke of Edinburgh ordered Princess Diana's death or that it was organised by MI6.

Conspiracy theories suggested by Dodi's father Mohamed about the deaths were without foundation, he insisted.

The jury also has the option of highlighting possible contributory factors such as drink-driving, the presence of bright lights or the passengers' failure to wear a seatbelt.

During his summing up the coroner told the panel to treat the evidence of several witnesses with severe caution.

He told them: "Witnesses who give evidence in our courts fall into many different categories ranging from those at one end of the scale who are patently honest and reliable to those at the other end on whose evidence you would not wish to swing a cat."

=========================================================================

That was reported by the BBC Online New at 13:06 GMT, Wednesday, 2 April 2008 14:06 UK.

I will tell you my analysis after the verdict is announced, otherwise I may be held in contempt of court.


The Garuda.


Tuesday 1 April 2008

How did Princess Diana Died?

Did Duke order Diana death?

Diana, Princess of Wales
The cost of inquiries into Princess Diana's death is nearing £7m

There is "not a shred of evidence" that the Duke of Edinburgh ordered Princess Diana's death or that it was organised by MI6, the inquest has heard.

Coroner Lord Justice Scott Baker said jurors could find that Diana and Dodi Al Fayed died accidentally, or because of negligence.

Many conspiracy theories suggested by Dodi's father Mohamed about the deaths were without foundation, he insisted.

The couple died in a car crash in Paris in August 1997.

'Theories dropped'

Speaking to the jury after six months of evidence, the coroner said many of Mohamed Al Fayed's theories about the crash were "so demonstrably without foundation" that even his lawyer was no longer pursuing them.

He put aside theories which, he said, had been encouraged by the media for the past 10 years, as he began to go through evidence from more than 250 witnesses.

Mohamed Al Fayed
Mohamed Al Fayed was in court to hear the coroner

He said of Mr Al Fayed's ideas: "They are not being pursued because there is not a shred of evidence to support them.

"Foremost among them is the proposition that Diana was assassinated by the secret intelligence service (MI6) on the orders of the Duke of Edinburgh.

"There is no evidence that the Duke of Edinburgh ordered Diana's execution, and there is no evidence that the secret intelligence service or any other Government agency organised it."

He said the lengthy and costly inquest had played a crucial role in testing those theories - but that some people would continue to believe in the murder theory no matter what the verdict was.

Of the alleged murder he said: "There are no doubt those who genuinely believe this to be the case and will continue to do so regardless of any verdict you return.

"You have heard the evidence and it is your decision that matters and not anyone else's.

"You will have been reassured to have heard that Mohamed Al Fayed told you on oath that he will accept your verdict; no doubt the other interested persons will do likewise."

Verdict options

He said that he and the jury - plus one Diana fan who sat through all the proceedings with the words "Diana" and "Dodi" painted on his face - were the only ones to hear every word of evidence.

Lord Baker gave the jury five verdict options, and added: "I have determined that it is not open to you to find that this was unlawful killing by the Duke of Edinburgh or anyone else in a staged accident."

The five options were:

  • Unlawful killing by grossly negligent driving of the paparazzi in the following vehicles
  • Unlawful killing through the gross negligence of the driver Henri Paul
  • Unlawful killing by the grossly negligent driving of both the following vehicles and Mr Paul
  • A verdict of accidental death could be returned if none of the previous verdicts are established
  • The jury was also given the option of an open verdict.

'Liars'

Lord Baker said it was regrettable that there had been some witnesses "who it appears have told lies in the witness box or elsewhere", naming former butler Paul Burrell as one of those who were "liars by their own admission".

Mr Burrell appeared at the inquest for three days in January, but in a video recording obtained by the Sun newspaper he apparently claimed he introduced "red herrings" during his evidence and held back facts.

He then refused to re-appear at the inquest to explain discrepancies between his evidence and comments reported in the newspaper.

At the time, the coroner said he could not compel him to give evidence because Mr Burrell lives outside the court's jurisdiction in the US.

=========================================================================

The above is the report taken from the BBC News. Lord Barker said that the Duke did not order Diana's Death.

Despite 7 million pounds and more than ten years of investigation and the courts keep declaring that Princess

Diana 's was due to a car accident, I still do not believe the verdict. Why?

I will tell you why I do not believe in my next post.

The Garuda.