Mark's as usual devastatingly clinical and precise condemnation of Ruiyong 💓💗
Singapore's most gifted maestro of law
The premise that guides this post today: is my dear dear son Ruiyong mentally of sound mind?!
Reading Mark Teng's commentary on the Malik versus Ruiyong defamation case just makes my gastric juices flow so hard and fast and my blood rushing to my brain as if overpowered by loads of dopamine, does that make sense?!
Easily one of the best commentaries from one of Singapore's most gifted doctor of the law or lawyer!!!!
He highlights so many instances of my dear dear son Soh Ruiyong being illogical and unreasonable it's beyond astounding that so many foolish Singaporean men and women or diehard supporters of Ruiyong still think him a man of principle or man who stands by moral and ethical virtue and its reason!!!!!!
My dear dear son Ruiyong thinks to justify his actions using a combination of Kantian deontological morality, and, Bentham consequentialism or utilitarianism morality but the District Judge ruled that there was negligible or hardly any morality from either Kantian or Bentham realms such as in those acts which definitively revealed him to be on par with 'unsound mind' such as:
- The cutting of holes in singlets against the orders and commandments of SA, SNOC, SA sponsor 2XU.
- Disputing the blackout rule in seemingly trying to 'bring more attention' to the multiple traditional long-standing management gaffes of SA, SNOC, Sports Singapore or Sports Institute.
- Disputing the 20% payout rule back to SA from his winner's earnings in the 2017 SEA Games marathon.
- Claiming Ashley as a liar from hell or otherwise despite his gross or flagrant omission in not even giving the statutory declarations from other witnesses a glance!!!!!! Like what da heck man.............this is insane.........mentally unsound/unstable...................
- Claiming Malik was vindictive or otherwise out to harm and destroy his career and reputation when not only the truth of Malik's defamatory words were pin-point and accurate but that Malik, according to my knowledge and experience, HAD ALWAYS LOVED MY DEAR DEAR SON SOH RUIYONG DEEPLY AND PASSIONATELY FROM THE BEGINNING!!!
Taking a look at point 1 above, the cutting of holes according to unsound logic from Ruiyong aims to create more cooling effect for his marathon physiology thus improving performance which is a 'good' or utility under Bentham morality, BUT, there is preponderant or stupendous counter-weight or counter-effects of cutting such holes in the singlet not least SMEARING THE REPUTATION OF SA, SA SPONSOR 2XU, SNOC, SINGAPORE FLAG, and of course gaining the ire of literally the entire Singapore sport establishment or government. Besides, the reputation and prestige of other Singaporean athletes would have been collectively and directly tarnished due to one man's morally hence logically (under Bentham law) unsound behavior and actions.
And of course as I have always mentioned, the utility garnered from cooling from the holes in the singlet is grossly outweighed and outpowered by Ruiyong's powerful or otherwise already highly effective artificial performance enhancement drug regimen installed by no less than America's number 1 doping proponent and coach Ben Rosario of NAZ elite whose star athlete Jordan Chipangama, Ruiyong's BFF till this day, was also caught and convicted of doping!!!
Does that make sense like this ladies and gentlemen?!!!
Haizzzzzzz.............oh mine oh dear, I'm like so insane right now man.........................
Then if we weigh point number 1 under Kantian morality----deontology we find AN OUTRIGHT MORAL WRONG with zero regard for any utility or 'goods' even so called 'scientific physiological goods' from the holes in the singlet because deontological law prohibits using the 'ends (ie, utilitarian consequences) to justify the means'!!!
The end result of cutting holes is supposedly scientific physiological cooling which supposedly brings curious indeed dubious benefit to racing performance in a marathon but deontology denies this outright as morally outrageous by only relying on the pure and simple fact that 2XU, SA, SNOC, Sports Singapore says NO!!!
Deontology says 'rules are rules', we don't give a damn about utility or 'goods' because we ground our pride and honor in stubborn and authoritarian rules and obeying these rules to the letter is MORALITY OR MORAL AND ETHICAL IN AND OF ITSELF!!! Deontology says more like 'if the means justify the ends, you are fortunate, but if it doesn't, you stick to the means (rules) and forgo the ends...."
Of course, living in a complex world with multiple conflicting morality and ethics due to human sin and corruption entails a consideration of a good mix of both Kantian and Bentham law together but even after we combine these 2 laws and pass judgement on the morality of Ruiyong's cutting holes in his singlet we still find that this act of Ruiyong's still grossly fails to satisfy or fulfil any of the stringent criteria in any of Kantian or Bentham law respectively to attain a passing grade precisely because of a palpable lack of mental/moral sound-ness in his doing (deontolology and consequentialism), not to mention even his being (metaphysics and ontology)!!!
Does that make sense?!!
The same set of criteria can be applied to points 2 to 5. Ruiyong's actions in 2-5 were too unbelievably whimsical, juvenile, delinquent, and downright capricious and vain to pass much less fulfil with DISTINCTION any kind of moral law criteria set out by Kantian and Bentham law!!!!
As Mark Teng and District Judge Lim pointed out, disputing blackout rules and 20% payout hardly brought forward or advanced the sport the way Ruiyong had supposedly envisioned and hence achieved the consequentialist good or utility in like manner. Instead, it only made for sensational headline news and a few more weeks/months or even years of general malaise or indignance and strife/discord in all ranks of sports government, officials, and the general public observer. If Ruiyong's actions presumed to constructively change any blackout rule or 20% payout it ultimately didn't and history after 2017 revealed that the status quo was virtually kept the way it was previously. Ruiyong also didn't follow up seriously or constructively on his discontentment with the aforementioned rules of sport and instead lost his 'mojo' or moral chiding or urging to do right by Bentham's consequentialism or Kant's deontology!!!
Thus the reason why I say Ruiyong's actions or lack thereof in 2-5 were just as whimsical as those in 1 and incapable of satisfying any basic criteria in Kantian and Bentham moral laws respectively.
No law can reside in a whim simply put. A whim is lawless or lawless-ness, it's punkish, it's juvenile, agitated, and downright erratic.....
If Ruiyong were serious about his discontentment, he would apply proper channel or rules of sport to raise the matter at higher-up management so that he fulfils Kantian deontological moral law yet also overlap with distinction Bentham's consequentialist one insofar as not only promoting the consequentially (pun intended) POTENTIALLY greater good or utility for one and all not limited to himself, but also directly fulfilling strict rules and channels for rewriting and reconsidering the law.
And of course there is no need for me to deem points 4 and 5 much if at all seeing that I have written innumerable posts and commentaries on the shockingly and disdainfully bad and poor logic and reason respectively displayed by my dear dear son Ruiyong in the Ashley and Malik defamation cases.
There are direct consequences to be suffered for not only denying a statutory declaration without powerful or moral or legal basis, but denying it in a manner of being (metaphysical/ontological) so soooo sooooooooooooo presumptuous and capricious only a down syndrome child with a relative IQ of 50 could conceivably commit or cause to err!!!
Kant and Bentham would be balking in their graves at such clearly disdainful, intentional or otherwise mentally inapt lack of propriety and regard for the law and its morality/ethics.
How is my dearest son training to attain the certificate of law in this regard like that huh?!!! IS THAT A HYPOCRITICAL OR PRETENTIOUS LAWYER?!!!!
How in the world ladies and gentlemen, haizzzzzzzzzzzz, is this really?!
Oh mine, oh dear, just what da heck man...........................
Then point 5 is downright no brainer that Malik's words or lack thereof had never a single unit of energy or momentum enough to materially injure or hurt Ruiyong's already non-existent reputation given what has transpired and proven TRUE in points 1-4!!!
What is the injury may I ask my dear dear son Soh Ruiyong when Malik says you are 'incapable of love etc'?!!
Your lack of love, as deemed by Judge Lim did on a balance of probabilities likely always incriminated you with the very 'incapable-ness' of love that Malik could not prove in the event that you have not passed from this planet earth and your events and circumstances of life thus not fully critically indeed forensically assessed and dissected to the molecule/atom yet!!!
Does that make sense Ruiyong?!!
You now have a history or red mark in your report card of a gross lack of love, empathy, care, compassion for others both as an athlete and as a human being and this is one of the criteria or attributes that would be used to assess the inviolability of the word 'incapable' when you have finished your time on earth!!! Make sense?
I would like to thank Mark Teng and That.legal LLC for their resounding success in their commentary post. Mark never fails to make my day both insofar as the name Mark stands for Martyrdom in ancient biblical times, and of course he is or becoming Singapore's most outstanding lawyer in many ways!!!
I love you Mark, kudos to you 👍👍👍👍👍👌👌👌👌👌
