Saturday, January 25, 2025

PARSING A TYPICAL STATE MEDIA REPORT



This is an old story which someone referred to me recently. I want to put in a few pointers here to show the quality of the state media reporting.

Apart from the main narrative which is basically gossipy to my mind, the report ought to carry some related matters that add to our understanding and knowledge. There were also some name confusion.

First off, there is a distinction between creditors and lenders. All lenders are creditors but not all creditors are lenders. Anyone who is owed money to is a creditor, such as utilities, suppliers, contractors, etc. Lenders advance money to someone, often with a formal lending agreement. Although technically not wrong that ST often refers Tembusu, Qualgro and ACE Spring as creditors, it would be more specific to call them lenders.

Reading along, one needs to back track for the names. Seems there are 3 companies - FTMS Holdings, FTMS, and FTMS Global Academy. So the Academy is the business vehicle, FTMS is the plaintiffs' vehicle that owns the Academy, and FTMS Holdings is the plaintiffs' ultimate holding company. The report confuses which is the borrowing entity. It mentions loans to FTMS but then also mentions $4m loan from Qualgro and $4.5m from Tembusu to FTMS Holdings. Perhaps both have taken on loans, but it's not clear here.

I bet Singaporean readers are piqued by the plaintiffs' claim of conspiracy by lenders and other directors to oust them from the company. These are Cinderella stories to me. What drew my curiosity is firstly, a person-of-interest here, and secondly, is there a violation of the Money Lenders Act.

ST did not provide this backdrop. Qualgro and ACE Spring are capital ventures, Tembusu Growth Fund III is an equity fund managed by Tembusu Partners. The co-chairman of Tembusu Partners is Lim Hwee Wah who owns the company with her husband. Lim Hwee Wah was once a PAP stalward. When I see names like this, my antenna beeps. Not that there is anything wrong with ex-politicians. But surely this is an interesting fact that ST could have mentioned, I think. Won't be surprised to find some Temasek money here. Again not necesarilly means there is something wrong. But it rouses curiosity.
 
The Singapore Money Lenders Act strictly forbids non-bank or financial institutions from lending with interest to others. From the ST report, it suggests the 3 lenders have breached the Money Lenders Act. This is the irresponsibility of state media not to mention or dig into it.

There are exceptions to the rule. Those friendly loans we take from friends is not a problem. Entities which have a vested interest in a borrower can lend the latter to beef up the business.

My simple research shows the 3 lenders had FTMS Global Academy as investee company in their portfolio. Under the circumstances, loans to FTMS Global Academy would not have been in breach of the Money Lenders Act.

The ST report mentions loans to FTMS and FTMS Holdings. Does this constitute a breach of lending law? I'm not quite sure how the court will interpret this. Perhaps the test could be whether the proceeds of loans to the holding company and ultimate holding company of the Academy was used solely in their investee company.

ACE Spring eventually  dropped out of the claims against the plaintiffs and the company was not named a defendant in this case. ST did not explain why.

ST mentioned "March 28, 2017, the lenders transferred all their loan rights to Ace, a company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands." Here's another lack of quality reporting. This is puzzling to the layman. ST does not elaborate. What happened is private equity funds, venture capitalists and hedge fund managers normally gut failed and illiquid assets and transfer them to a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV). There are several reasons. It protects their reputation of the companies as non-performing assets impact their ROI and asset values. These failed assets take years to restructure as liquidators try to regain as much value as possible. There are lots of tax issues which are better handled in a SPV. All these should have been mentioned to inform readers.

ST reports the Cinderella  part of the story but missed out on the business perspective that should give readers a better understanding. 



This platform has Tembusu it's subscriber widget. If you like blogs like this and wish to know whenever there is a new post, click the button to my FB and follow me there. I usually intro my new blogs there. Thanks.

Friday, January 24, 2025

CULTURE IS UPSTREAM OF POLITICS - DOES OPPOSITION HAVE A STRATEGY TO BATTLE IN THIS TERRAIN?


In his pre-inauguration rally, Trump presented Patriot Awards to several individuals who had been instrumental in moving the conservative base. It's an acknowledgement that Trump did not win all by his lonesome self, nor because of his team. There are many committed and very smart people who worked for years behind keyboards and video cams to bring stories and analyses that mainstream media will not cover. Many of these awardees paid posthumous credit to Andrew Breitbart, a name hardly any local commenter has ever mentioned, somewhat demonstrates the limitations of Singaporeans' worldview.

Breitbart was an American conservative journalist and commentator extraordinaire. He started off as a Liberal. a typical product of US universities captured by ideological progressivism in the last few decades. It was during the nomination of Supreme Court Justice Clance Thomas that Breitbart redpilled to conservatism when he saw through the Liberal lies of Anita Hill's unsubstantiated claims of workplace sexual harassment by Justice Thomas. Ditto for Justice Kavannaugh, ditto for Trump -- the Democrat playbook is predictable, all you do is make a claim. It's you-said-he-said stuff, it can't be proven either way, but the political damage is done. He co-founded Huffington Post (now renamed Huffpost) and was a regular contributor to Drudge Report. Eventually he left Huffpost to start his own Breitbart News Network. Huffpost and Drudge Report are now unashamedly progressive Left.

More than anyone, Brietbart recognised early "how the internet could be used to route arround bottlenecks imposed by official spokesmen and legacy news outlets." and how this could be the platform changing the way people write about politics. Breitbart inspired many on the Right in the online sphere. The Left dismisses them as conspiracy sites and weaponised various agencies to take them down. For example, the Islamic gangs in United Kingdom which gang rapes and grooms young British kids are only now getting publicity because of Elon Musk. This has been going on since the 2000s. If you know about this much earlier you probably heard from Tommy Robinson, who was on a mission to get the government to act since 2011. But you would have been branded a conspiracy theorist. Tommy Robinson is rotting in jail in solitary confinement under a marked up charge of being a terrorist when all he did was to raise awareness of about 180,000 rape victims. Musk said he will fund Robinson's appeal for some of the charges. Because of the publicity triggered by Musk's involvement, the case is now a full-blown scandal of unimaginable covers up by police and politicians pandering to the Muslim votes. Singapore seems to share this dismissal sentiment of anything not from mainstream media which is evident when state media publishes only syndicated news of the Left's narratives.

In Singapore politics, the opposition has had a long uphill struggle imposed by problems of fragmentation, quality, funding, lack of clearly defined ideology, and strategy.

Quality has been an issue for two reasons. One, as long as the PAP is providing the stability and decent quality of life, people are happy to trade off certain levels of personal rights and freedom for security. It has not been easy to attract talent under the realistic circumstances of the past several decades of economic success enjoyed by the country. Two, Singaporeans are generally reluctant to take on the sacrifice and pains of a start-up enterprise when times are good and more particularly, with Barisan Socialis, which was upfront Socialist, now long gone, there is no ideological struggle in Singapore politics. It is more like running a family business. A certain tipping point has to be reached before more committed brave souls would consider stepping forward. The Workers' Party appears to be emerging from mediocrity and moving towards that tipping point. It was no coincidence the PAP acted the way it did when it did, against the party. A blooming flower has to be nipped in the bud.

Except for SDP which has tried to put forward their views on the economic management of the country, I have not seen any parties' proposals in a comprehensive manner, be it economics, foreign affairs, education, defence, etc. Now, I am not debating the merits of SDP's ideas here, just mentioning this is what we need to have. The Workers' Party and the PSP are more level-headed. The others are chasing every mis-step and mistake of the government down rabbit holes. Some are focussed on bridgehead attacks, such as Reform Party's focus on management of reserves.

Lim Tean and Kenneth Jeyeratnam constantly share their opinions. Whilst their views are worth digesting, their ascerbic style of presentation drives away the very people they should be trying to convince. Personally I would like to see both of them in Parliament. The duo would be disruptive in Parliament but I see in their rambuctious style, firebrands and mavericks who will be good watchdogs in exposing gaps in governance. They can be guardians of transparency and integrity compelling the incumbent majority to address inefficiencies or wrongdoing. Much as the PAP hates it, this is in the public's interest.

It's often been said of the futility of opposition given the "lame 64%", a derogatory term for PAP supporters. Never blame the voters. Opposition carries the heavy yoke to convince voters on the other side of the aisle. But do they have the strategies? Sure, 'walk-abouts' and door-to-door outreach programmes, gifts, these are all great. But this is not strategy. These are just tactics.

Andrew Breitbart had a famius quote - "Culture is upstream of politics". What this means is the cultural priorities of a society shape the politics of the country. The politics do not dictate the culture. Was he right?

Breitbart was spot on with Islamist countries, and got it mostly right only with countries having decent democracies. Brilliant as he was, Breitbart certainly could not have explained for communist countries and most definitely not for what happened in the West in the past decade.

In the West, Liberal progressive politics created the culture of pronouns, transgenderism, LGBTQ+++, DEI, critical race theory, climate alarmism, all the shebangs of wokeism. The West turned extreme Left, and just like in the days of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Castro, politics was upstream of culture. American 'conspiracy theorists' on the Right saw the trend very early and called out the Democrats as Communists in Socialists' clothings, much to the chagrin of majority of the people unable to see this from their Tik Toks. Don't believe Obama et al are communists? Here's an example. The first black president chose of all people to be his Master Spy, John Brennan, who became the fist conmunist Director of CIA. Brennan is a self-proclaimed communist who boasted having voted presidential candidate Gus Hall, leader of the Communist Party of USA. 
"Pick your target, freeze it, personalise it and polarise it"
Saul Alinsky's Rule #13 (Rules for Radicals)
Saul Alinsky was a self-proclaimed Communist who somehow evaded the McCarthyism dragnet in the 1950s. He was Hillary Clinton's mentor in university days. Barrack Obama honed his skills in community organisation from the teachings of Alinsky's institution, the Industrial Areas Foundation. Breitbart was absolutely wrong about the West. Progressive Democrat politics created the cultural schisms that divided Western socieries. What happened in the West was classic Alinsky #13 in action and how effective it has been.

Most thinking people outside of the West can see the craziness and wondered why are they self-destructing? It's Animal Farm playing out in real time. To recreate the world you want, you must first destroy the existing society. I have had a hard time in the past several years trying to convince people the Democrats are George Orwell's pigs.
"A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag."
Alinsky's Rule #7 (Rules for Radicles)
The US was just one Democrat president away from complete disaster. Trump won partly because the Democrats forget Alinsky's Rule #7. Fatigue sets in after some time watching girls get trashed by men in women's sports, seeing men in girls' bathrooms, or tampons in boys' toilets, kids coming home saying mom I'm not a boy but a girl (happened to Elon Musk's son), not securing a job because one is not with the preferred pronouns, etc, etc. DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) is Liberals' hypocrite virtue-signaling that smart people soon see for what it is -- affirmative action. In our part of the world, we understand what affirmative action has done to our Northern neighbour. DEI throws merit under the bus, quality dives and incompetence is normalised. The disastrous mismanagement of the ongoing forest fires in California is the consequence of municipal attention to DEI ideology instead of high levels of public service. All across America we see evidence of corporation and municipal services deteriorating, including the military, as a consequence of elevation of DEI ideology over merit. Just imagine how close Kamala Harris came to be the first DEI president.

Breitbart has it right in the case of decent democracies where the constitution prevails. Culture is upstream of politics. However, whether culture shapes the politics, or politics create the culture for control, the real political battle is not winning arguments about the SimplyGo funble, or the PSP vs PAP volunteers in the voter-outreach altercation, or the Rajahs of Ridout Road, etc. The real battlefield is in the terrain of our local culture.

Taking pot shots at the ruling party over isolated mis-haps and misteps of government is guerilla warfare or pandering to populist appeals. These are useful, but to win, the opposition needs to confront the real battle and must have a strategy for fighting in the terrain of our culture. To do so, it must first understand and identify what are the terrains.

Fighting in the culture terrain is not the same as culture war.

Culture encompasses values, norms, practices and beliefs such as freedom of speech, religion, association, gender roles, etc. A culture war is a challenge in all these components. The culture war in the West is between conservative Judeo-Christian values of the Right centred on family, personal responsibility, accountability, hard work, upholding the Constitution, versus the subjective relativism of the progressive Left of unfertered individualism that manifests in pro-criminal policies, religious persecution, and often surfacing in hedonism and debauchery. Thankfully, Singapore has no such problems. But we should be wary of the creep of progressive Leftism which advocates for systematic changes to achieve social, economic and environmental justice. An illustration is the statement on the LGTB+++ issue by the president of AWARE not too long ago.

The culture terrain is the arena where values, norms, practices and belief systems evolve in today's globalised and digital world. Fighting in the culture terrain means having an appropriate strategy and execution capability to maximise presence and understand trends. This places the opposition in a good position to offer policy propositions that are non-partisan in appeal. What are these terrains?

Digital culture:

These are contents consumed online over platforms like Facebook, Youtube, Tik Tok, X, Rumble, etc and more heavyweights like podcasts and online news platforms. It also involves online interactions and watching social media trends.

In the 2016 Philippines presidential election, Nicanor Gabunada was the social media strategist for Rodigo Duterte's campaign. A former ABS-CBN executive, Nic was instrumental in leveraging social media platforms to bolster Duterte's online presence and engage with voters. Nic's army of influencers turned the incumbent challenger, a brilliant administrator Mar Roxas, into a bumbling mess in the eyes of voters.

In the US, Trump faced a much tougher challenge in the online war as the Left has captured almost all forms of media. Of cable news, only Fox is the single Right wing voice. Even then, its CEO is ultra Left globalist Lachlan Murdock, and RINO ex-speaker Paul Ryan, a rabid Trump hater, is an influential board member. The original owner Rupert Murdock has lost control of editorial direction to his progressive son Lachlan. The son let his team lean right in their reporting and analysis work because it is all about the Benjamins, where they earn big bucks. But he pulls the reign at critical junctures, such as calling the 2020 election early for Joe Biden, and sacking the very popular Tucker Carlson.

Almost all Big Tech such as Google, Meta, Apple, Youtube, etc, are lined up behind Democrats. All fact checking sites are from the Left. The Left is well organised and funded by Soros, Democrats, and sone dark money sources. The Left understands this terrain very well and have insidiously build up mastery and control for the past several decades. Conservatives are new kids on the block and are mostly a disparate group of independents with people like Alex Jones of Info Wars, Breitbart News, The Federalists, The Gateway Pundit, Revolver News, Glenn Beck, Tim Cook, Charlie Kirk of Turning Point USA, Joe Rogan, James O'Keefe of OMG Media, Dan Bongino the ex-Secret Service guy, Candice Owen, Wayne Alley Root, and many more. It is worth noting Beck, Rogan and Breitbart started out as Liberals. While the Left platforms have carte blanche, the Right faced political persecution, service denials and advertisement squeeze by big tech. The battle for free speech finally swing in favour after the purchase of Twitter by Elon Musk in 2022. But for Musk, democracy would have died in darkness as one side of the political narrative is snubbed out. Trump owes much to a bunch of patriots who worked to bring conservative narratives to the fore.

Singapore opposition faces the great wall of state media. The parties all have Facebook accounts. Kenneth Jeyaratnam of Reform Party has his angry provocative blog, Chee Soon Juan of Democratic Party and Lin Tean  of People's Voice have their occasional videos. Facebook presence alone does not quite cut it because they circulate in echo chambers. As far as I know, only Goh Meng Seng of People's Power Party, has stepped up to have regular late night live stream sessions. Whereas previously Goh had been the bane of jokes by his detractors, in part for his colloquialism and somewhat shallow in content, I see some remarkable improvements in his contents lately that now has some meat. Overall the opposition lacks a proper strategy and technical strategists in this terrain. On independent fighters in this arena, the terrain is barren except for Alex Xu and his Online Citizen website.

Opposition needs two things. One is a strategy and strategists to position themselves and dominate the terrain with their narratives. They need a small army of influencers to amplify their messages. Two is less focus on populist tactics, that is, taking pot shots at mis-steps of governance and blasting in their echo chambers. Remember Alinsky's Rule #7. Their job is to convince fence-sitters and if possible, PAP supporters. This can only be done without the vehemence or show of anger. This is not a political rally where one works to fire up the base. It is a battle for minds, one that can be entertained if approached in a more subtle way. I don't see the opposition having the capability to make inroads into the more educated and upper percentile population with their current approach. This needs a more visionary and philisophical level of discourse which unfortunately is absent. For example, there are the usual noises that accompany each electricity price increase. But I have never seen anyone attenpting a big picture scenario explanation on the systemic grip of the forever price increases. The closest I think is Jamus Lim of Workers Party whose take on issues has been unbiased. He can do better if he marries his professorial lecture style with a bit more oratorical delivery.

Entertainment culture:

This is a big deal in America where Liberals dominate. Hollywood is unabashedly Democrat. I think lifestyle has a lot to do with tbis. Art pushes the envelope. Liberalism skews towards the abandonment to explore the limits. Conservative values hold one back. The music industry is no less different. Comedians are commentators of current affairs and have always been non-partisan, pulling pranks and jokes at the expense of politicians of all shapes and sizes on any topics. In the Biden era, only Ricky Gervais can get away with what he did at the Golden Globe awards ceremony when he told fellow Liberals to just come up stage, receive award, thank mom and dad, and fxxx off, don't give any political speeches. Any other comedian saying something like that would have been skewered in that cauldron of Liberals. But of course comedians can be Liberal heroes when it comes to Trump-bashing. Did you see Kathy Griffin holding a bloodied head of Trump?   Entertainment culture is totally pro-actively avid Trump-haters and it is a terrain conservatives have lost for decades.Entertainers have big megahorns and deep pockets as Democrat donors and totally dominate the politics. Only a handful of gutsy voices committed to faith can be seen in support of Trump. This includes Jon Voight, James Wood, Dean Cain, Vin Diesel, Mel Gibson, Kevin Sorbo, Scott Biao. etc. 

In the end, despite their dominance, Hollywood endorsements of Kamala Harris did not matter. Perhaps Alinsky's Rule #7 had a lot to do with it.

In Singapore there is hardly any significant nativist entertainment industry here that matters. The channel 8 TV stars are an artificially contrived lot of no importance in the context discussed here. What is important is for Singapore to recognise we are importing and consuming so much Western, predominantly American, culture. Most of us can appreciate but not necessarily agree the lifestyles of the artistes. We can like the music, but not the drugs of the bands. We can like Robert de Nero's masterly performance in 'Taxi Driver" but not his senseless, imbecilic, profanities against Trump. Unfortunately there are always the Amos Yee's amongst us that are vulnerable to these subtle cultural suggestions.

Whilst we are small time content creators, we are huge consumers of the massive imported culture. To that extent, opposition must have a strategy to immerse itself in the arena. Do you have any connection with the hundreds of thousands of Taylor Swift fans in Singapore? I can offer a sure win simple idea for Workers Party. Host a community talent time series. Live stream it. You get an inmense audience. Other details, get your consultants.

Sub-cultures:

These are smaller groups with distinct practices and beliefs. Examples are online gamers, niche hobbyists, tatoo afficianos, health enthusiasts, night clubbers, football fans, fight club alphas, investors, crypto traders, etc. I am wondering how much Kelce Travis and Taylor Swift got paid by the Left for monetising their love story in the football public stadiums. Did you notice the amount  of support Trump receives whenever he watches an MMC fight? The Workers Party has Kim Song but does not know how to utilise the resource. Kim Song is just an example. I am sure that are more names out there. A presence in all these sub-cultures pays dividends.

Traditional and heritage practices:

These are customs, practices and traditions passed down through generation. This is a terrain the ruling party doninates through various agencies like People's Association, the schools, grass root organisations, religious bodies, and their members sitting in various advisory boards. Opposition has and must continue to build their presence even though it is restricted to the various festive dates.

Global influences:

The government grants about 2,000 new citizens monthly. We have a huge foreign born citizenry in our midst. These have entirely different cultural backgrounds. Does the opposition have any presence amongst them?

Opposition must seek to dominate these culture terrains and it is not just for name recognition and familiarity, but to understand the cyltural  trends, the aspirations. the difficulties, all of which eventually impact policies. Be in a position to sell policy suggestions that matter to the particular culture terrain. This way opposition is not promoting populist narratives to their echo chamber, but propositioning to a particular segment of the population. Although the base is important, opposition must try to reach out to all Singaporeans which is best done in the culture terrains. In this battlefield, it is not about high HDB prices, inflation, MRT train breakdowns, etc. It is about the cultural values of the terrain.



This platform has withdrawn it's subscriber widget. If you like blogs like this and wish to know whenever there is a new post, click the button to my FB and follow me there. I usually intro my new blogs there. Thanks.

Friday, January 17, 2025

A REALITY CHECK FOR NOAH'S ARK - WAS IT COPIED FROM THE SUMERIANS


IMG-9696

The three monotheistic faith of Judaism, Islam and Christianity share the same story of Noah and the Great Flood. Each views the story in slightly different lights.

In Judaism, Noah's story is about morality, divine judgement and God's covenant with humanity. Noah was a righteous man who walked in a world of corrupt humanity. The rainbow after the flood was God's covenant that he will never bring such calamitous judgement on humanity again.

Islam sees Nuh (Noah) as a warner, a prophet, and the consequence of rejecting divine guidance. The Quran mentions Noah has another son who rejects his father's call to board the Ark. He takes to climbing the highest mountain and drowns. The Quran is all about obedience to Allah and the consequence of disobedience.

Christianity sees the symbolism in the story. The Ark is seen as the Church and Salvation with the water representing baptism. Noah is seen as a model for Christian living in his unwavering faith and obedience to God. The flood represents God's judgement on Sin and the Ark His mercy and provision for those that follow HIm.

All three faiths believe the three sons of Noah were the progenitors of the human race. The lineage of Shem, Ham and Japheth are described in the Table of Nations in the Bible with Shem as the progenitor of the Semitic peoples.

In a previous blog on the Sumerian flood myths I showed the close similarity of the Biblical Noah story to these myths. The Sumerian myths in cunneiform clay tablets are dated centuries before the Bible. The inconvenient question is could these myths have influenced the latter day writers of the Old Testament? If this is correct, it absolutely shatters the world view of Judaism, Islam and Christianity. No flood means no Shem, Ham or Japheth; means no human race today.

While there are similarities there are also vast differences. Sumerian myths are basically about embellishing ancient kings with legacies set against a backdrop of cosmic interferences. The Biblical account is about God's relationship with humanity and his judgement, salvation and redemption.

Both the Sumerian myths and the Quran lack the details and the depth found in the Biblical account in terms of literary richness, theological meanings and cultural context. In the psychology of plagiarism, the secondary works often simplify or omit minutiae, focusing on core ideas while omitting the original's complexity. This helps to conceal the source or to fit a new context. Though this is not universal, it has often been the case.

The Sumerians developed written form very early. Is it possible the Sumerians were influenced by oral traditions of other ancient peoples which found its way into the myths to embellish the legacies of their Kings?

My theory, not supported by evidence, is the Biblical stories influenced the Sumerians, not the other way round. But who were the people who could have these Biblical accounts earlier than the Sumerians,  to influence them? The Sumerians were a much developed civilisation in the Mesopotamia region than the other people that they came into contact with. Influence logically flows from the higher civilisation to the lesser ones. However, historical evidence shows the ancient peoples in the Mesopotamia region were accommodative of the cultures of others. In all probability, some exciting and unique traditions of a lesser community could have found its way into mainstream Sumerian culture.

The discovery process of my theory requires understanding some important timelines, transmigration of ancient nomadic peoples, and the way people are classified.

First, some historical timelines of ancient Mesopotamia, the swathe of fertile land covering the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers known as the 'Cradle of Civilisation'. May be boring, but watch out for the types of people and the lingua franca. Be amazed at the historical integrity of the Bible.

Ubaid Period 6500-4100 BC
Normadic people settled into agricultural villages in southern Mesopotamia.

Uruk Period 4100-2900 BC
Population expands into city states. Writing invented on clay tablets called cuneiform. Wheels invented.

Sumerians 2900-2350 BC
Sumeria was a collection of city states in Southern Mesopotamia. Important cities were Ur and Eridu. They were famous for building ziggurats and coding laws. The people grouped in cities, there was no national consciousness. Sumeria was a term given by the Akkadians. They called the southern region of Mesopotamia Sumurus. Their lingua franca was Sumerian.

Akkadian Empire 2334-2154 BC
Sargon of Akkad, in Northern Mesopotamia, unified the region with central rule. It was not a conquest but sheer domination of culture. Akkadian and Sumerian languages co-existed. Eventually Sumerians assimilated into Akkadian culture. In the end, iternal strife weakened Akkadian central power.

Neo-Sumerian 2112-2004 BC
Sumerian culture revived, such as in Ur. It then declined due to invasions by Elamites and Amorites.

Old Babylonian Period 2000-1600 BC
Amorites took over the Southern region known as Babylon. Amorites were normadic herders from the Syro-Arabian deserts. They settled in Mesopotamia, Canaan and Syria. Amorites were considered uncultured and barbaric. They spoke a language related to Akkadian. Known for King Hammurabi famous for the Code of Hummarabi. Weakened by attacks from Hittities and Kassities.

Kassities Period 1595-1155 BC
Kassities came from the Zagros Mountains of Iran. They were not Indo-Europeans or Semites. Their origin is unknown. They maintain the cultural continuity of the region. Their language was Kassite but eventually adopted Akkadian.

Middle Assyrian Period 1365-1050 BC
The Assyrians got their name from the city of Ashur (in Northern Iraq). Their community settled in the Tigris area since 2,600. They were a militaristic people and built many cities, like Nineveh. They spoke a dialect of Akkadian, but eventually adopted Aramaic.

Neo-Assyrian Empire 911-609
A period of territorial conquest and expansion by the Assyrians. In 721BC King Sargon II conquered Isreal and dispersed the 9 Israelite Tribes all over Assyrian territories. In 701BC King Sennacherib besieged Jerusalem but was unable to conquer it. Biblical account tells of Hezekiah's prayers and of the intervention of God's angels which destroyed 185,000 Assyrian soldiers. In 621 BC, King Sennacherib destroyed the city of Babylon which had rebelled. Assyrian rule declined due to internal strife and attacks by Babylonians and Medes.

Neo-Babylonians 626-539 BC
Chaldeans defeated the Assyrians and set up their empire in Babylon in the South. The origins of the Chaldeans were unknown. They settled in the marshy region of the Persian Gulf in the region called Chaldea in the 10th century BC. They were Semitic speaking and everually assimilated the culture and language of Babylon. They came into prominence by the 7th century BC. Most famous king was Nebuchadnezzar II who conquered much territories. In 597 BC he conquered Jerusalem and deported King Jehoiachin and royal family members, officials and artisans to Babylon. Bible tells of 10,000 Judaens who were exiled. Zedekiah, uncle of Jehoiachin, was installed as puppet king. In time, Zedekiah rebelled and Nebuchadnezzar sacked Jerusalem a second time in 586BC. This time, Solomon's Temple was destroyed and Judaen nobles, priests and all skilled workers were exiled to Babylon. Judah became a province. All these events correctly narrated in the Bible.

Achaemenid Empire 539-331 BC
In 539 BC the Persians conquered the Babylonian empire of the Chaldeans. Most famous was King Cyrus who allowed the Jews to return to Judah and decreed the Temple be rebuilt. The Bible says so and evidenced in the famous archaeological find of Cylinder of Cyrus' Edit.

In 331 BC Alexander The Great defeated the Persians which brings an end to the era of our interest.

The Thesis

At this juncture, let's ponder the common thesis Sumerian myths influenced the Biblical narrative. There are two data points where this could have happened.

Firstly, the Jewish Exile in Babylon. The first 10,000 exiles came in 597 BC and the second bigger batch came in 586 BC. Could these Jews have been influenced by Sumerian myths? The answer is impossible. Here's why.

The Torah, also known as the Pentateuch, comprises of the first five books of the Old Testament. These are Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. Noah's flood story is of course in Genesis. There are two schools of thought of when the Torah was written.

According to Judaism and Christian traditions, the Torah was written by Mosses during the Exodus. That would put it at about 15th-13th century BC. Mosses could not possibly have been influenced by Sumerian narratives. He could have been influenced by ancient Engyptians, who however, do not have a universal flood story.

The second school of thought is called the Documentary Hypothesis put up by scholars. This posits the Torah was written, compiled and edited by different contributors over centuries. There are four scources known by the acronym YEDP. Y=Yahwist, E=Elohist, D=Deuteronomist, P=Prisetly. The style, terminology used, and focus are distinctive for each source. E.g 'Y' calls God YHWH while 'E' uses Elohim. For 'Y' God is anthropomorphic while 'P' sees God as transcendent. The estimated timeframe these sources were completed are :
* 'Y' - written in Judah 10-9th century BC.
* 'E' - written in Northern Kingdom of Israel. 9-8th century BC
* 'D' - written during the reforms in King Josiah's reign. 7th century BC.
* 'P' - sritten after the Babylonian exile in 6th century BC.
All these were put together into a single document around 5th century BC possibly under Ezra's leadership. Because they were compiled from different sources, there are inherently many repetitions and contradictions over minor details.

From the timeline, only 'P' could possibly have been influenced by Sumerian myths. However, 'P' focused on religious matters and codification of laws. The Babylonian Talmud was written in Babylon. Furthermore, during the Babylonian exile, the Israelites settled along the rivers in their own community and kept their own culture and religion.

Thus both the Mosaic authorship or Documentary Hypothesis could not have been influenced by Sumerian myths.

The second datapoint has to do with Abraham. The Bible says Abram (his name at the time) was from 'Ur Of The Chaldean', ie Ur, the city of the Chaldeans. Critics point out this is an error of anachronism in the Bible. The Chaldeans came into prominence in the 7th century BC in the Neo-Babylonian period. That was many centuries after Abraham's time. However, Chaldeans settled in the region much earlier. It is possible some were present in Ur during the time of Abraham and their unique presence caused the city to be called Ur of the Chaldeans. Abraham was born in Ur. He eventually relocated together with his father Terah to the city Haran where his cousin Lot resided. After the death of Terah, God called Abraham to leave for Canaan. Scholars estimate Abraham left Haran sometime 2000 BC.

The common theory is Abraham and his entourage, which included Lot and his family, uprooted from Mesopotamia and carried with them memories of the Sumerian flood. The  cuneiform tablets were from 1700-1000 BC. Scientists have discovered several massive localised floods in the regions carbon-dated to have occured between 3900-2900 BC. Flood myths came from memories of these experiences. Could there possibly have the same flood myths dated earlier than those discovered so far? If not, then the timeline suggests Abraham's departure preceded the Sumerian myths.

According to Prof James Ussher (1851-1656) working solely based on the genaogical timeline in the bible, Noah's flood occured in 2348 BC. Accordingly Abraham was born about 2166 BC. At least here, the Bible seems to get a credible timeline. The Blical flood preceded Abraham as well as the Sumerian myths.

Haran, where Lot resided, was a city enclave of, let's call them Israelites (which is a latter name). History has shown that this people, wherever located, tends to keep to themselves and maintain their own culture and practices. Thus if they had their own flood story, they would have held on to it.

The Antithesis

My proposition is the flood story could have come from Abraham's predecessors which the Sumerians borrowed and modified to fit their context. To examine this, some understanding of languages, how people are called, and trans-migration is essential.

In the study of a group of people, common classification can be on the basis of gene, race or ethnicity.
Genetic group is one where the people are traced to a common ancestry by their biological make-up.
Race is grouping people according to some physical characteristic such as skin colour. This is a superficial basis and is a social construct.
Ethnicity is grouping by a shared common cultural background, which is often geographic origin where people has a common language culture and ancestry.

Most of the time a group of people are known by ethnicity. The name given depends on who made the call. Ethnonym is the name a group of people call themselves. Exonym is what outsiders call a group of people. For example we call the people of Germany Germans, they call themselves Deutsch, Chinese as the people of China who call themselves Huaren, or Eskimos as we say, but they call themselves Inuit

Now let's look at some of the more important groups of ancient people who traversed the region and development of languages. The idea is to see the possibility of flood stories coming from both inside and outside of Mesopotamia that could have influenced the Sumerian myths.

Elamites
The Elamites came into prominence in 2700 BC. They settled in Elam, a region in South-Western Iran. It's strategic location made them a bridge for the civilasations on the Iranian Plateau and the Indus Valley. They had lots of contacts with Mesopotamia in trade, diplmacy and conflicts. They never subdued Babylonia but had much interaction with the people. By 539 BC they were weakened and finally absorbed into the Persian Acheamennid Empire. Though their timeline makes it possible for them to influence the Sunerian myths, they have no records of flood stories. Elamite is a linguistic isolate. They have their own pantheon of gods.

Canaanites:
There is no single distinct Canaanite people but rather a collection of several city states such as Tyre and Sidon. Canaan is the region comprised of today's Israel, Palestine, parts of Jordan and Syria. They spoke a North-West Semitic language, precursors of Hebrew, Aramaic and Phonecian. They came to prominence between 3,300-2,000 BC during which time they interacted with Egypt snd Mesopotamia. They had no centralised power and so fell in 1550 BC as Egyptian vessel state. From then on they were further weaken by attacks from sea-faring people on the coastal stretch who were known as Philistines. Canaanites on the Northern coastal stretch became known as Phonecians. In the first half of the 1st century BC Israelites overlapped the region. Eventually the Canaanites were lost to history. They have no flood story of their own.

Assyrians:
These were part of the milieu of people living in ancient Mesopotamia. They were prominent in the Northern region and got their name from their main city Ashur. They took over the whole Mesopotamia region from the Akkadians from 2,500-609 BC. They spoke in Old Assyrian, a Semitic dialect of Akkadian. By the 1st century BC Aramaic became a regional language and Assyrians adopted it. Assyrians had no flood stories of their own. They made copies of many Sumerian works including Atrahasis and Epic of Gilgamesh and preserved them in their famous library in Nineveh. The Assyrians were driven out by the Persians in 6th century BC but they have survived in distinct groups to these day. These are the Syriac Christians living in Iraq, Syria and Turkey.

Amorites:
Sumerians called them Amuru. The Amorites emerged in the west of Euphrates (Syria) at about 2,500 BC. They were a nomadic people which spreaded out and lived amongst the Sumerian cities. They spoke a North-Western Semitic language related to Canaanites. Around 2,000 BC they took over Babylon. The Amorites assimilated Sumerian culture and there is no record of them having their own flood stories. When Kassites took over Babylon in 1600 BC, Amorites moved west into Canaan where they merged with the other Semitic peoples and was lost to history.

Hittites:
They emerged about 1,600 BC in Anatolia (Turkey). Their language is Hittite which is an Indo-European group. They spreaded Southwards into Northern Syria, Northern parts of Canaan. They traded and had military campaigns into Egypt and Mesopotamia. They sacked Babylon in 1595 BC but did not occupy it. By 8th century BC they had weakened and was absorbed into the Assyrian Empire. They could not have influenced the Sumerians which preceeded them.

Kassites:
They came from the Zagros Mountains of Iran. Kassaites were neither Indo-Europeans nor Semitic people. Their language is an isolate and their origin is unknown. Kassites took over Babylonia from 1595-1155 BC. Eventually they were absorbed into Sumerian culture, except for religion. They came with their own pantheon of gods with Marduk as the chief god. Kassites could not have influenced the Sumerian myths as they came too late and the flood stories had the Enlil pantheon of gods.

Chaldeans:
They appeared in the 8th century BC. Too late to have any influence on the Sumerian myths.

The Persians:
The Acheamenid Empire in Mesopotamia used Old Persian, an Indo-European language. They also use the local Elamite and Akkadian as well as Greek. The Persians timeline in Mesopotamia 539-331 BC is way too late to have influenced the Sumerian myths.


For one reason or another, none of the goups of ancient people that traversed the Mesopotamia region could have influenced the Sumerian myths.

Perhaps the Bible has the answer all this while but overlooked by all.
"Then you shall declare before the LORD your God: “My father was a wandering Aramean, and he went down into Egypt with a few people and lived there and became a great nation, powerful and numerous."
Deuteronomy 26.5
The context of Deuteronomy 26.5 is Mosses instructing the Israelites on the rituals of "first fruits" to give thanks to God once they entered and settled in the Promised Land. The 'father' he refers to is Jacob, also known as Israel. So Jacob and his descendants were called Israelites and they were Arameans.

Arameans:
The Bible mentions Arameans several times. Who were the Arameans? It has to be taken in context for there are two meanings:

(1) In geographical context, Arameans refer to the people in the land of Aram, a region covering Southern Syria and parts of Lebanon. Sumerian records mention Arameans as a distinct group of people. They had small kingships centred around various cities such as Aram-Damascus, Aram-Zobah, Aram-Haran (which was in Northern Mesopotamia - where God called on Abraham to go into Canaan). These Arameans were Semitic nomadic tribes from the Syrian desert and Upper Mesopotamia who eventually settled in the cities. They appeared around 2500 BC. After 12th century BC when the Hittites and Egyptians weakened, the Arameans came into prominence. From the 900-600 BC, Assyrian expansionism wiped out the Arameans who were dispersed and lost to history.

The Arameans great contribution was their language. They spoke a North-Western Semitic language called Aramaic which influenced the development of other Semitic languages such as Phonecian and Hebrew. After the Assyrian conquest, use of Aramaic became widespread in the Near East. The Assyrians, and later, the Persian Archeanemid Empire, adopted it as the lingua franca replacing Akkadian. Aramaic was the spoken language of Jesus. Aramaic declined with the arrival of Islamic caliphates around 700 AD. Today Aramaic is still spoken in certain clusters amongst Assyrian, Chaldean and Syriac Christians.

(2) In the genealogical sense, Aram refers to one of the five sons of Shem. The Bilbe also refers to the descendants of Aram as Arameans.

The Bible does not explicitly mention it, but it supports the theory Aram and his descendants settled in the land which was named after him. Thus Aramean is both a geographical and genealogical term. 

Are Israelites Arameans:
First of all, who were the Israelites? They are the descendants of Jacob whose name was changed to Israel by God. Jacob's lineage is traced back to Isaac, then Abraham, and all the way back to Arphaxad, anothr son of Shem. Thus Israelites are not from the line of Aram from the fathers' side. When Abraham sought a wife for his son Isaac, he went to Aram- Naharain, an Aramean city. Rebehka, Issac's wife, came from the line of Aram. Abraham himself was born in Ur but later on moved North to Aram-Haran, an Aramean city. In later times, Jacob fled to Aram-Haran to escape his brother Essau's wrath. There he married Leah and Rachel, the daughters of Laban whose lineage can be traced back to Aram. All these establish the case that Israelites, descendants of Jacob who came out of the Exodus, were Arameans both from the point of view of residents of Aram cities, and lineage to Aram from the mother's side.

According to Prof James Ussher (1851-1656) working solely based on the genaogical timeline in the bible, Noah's flood occured in 2348 BC. Accordingly Abraham was born about 2166 BC. At least here, the Bible seems to get a credible timeline. The flood preceded Abraham as it should be. 

Arameans and Sumerian flood myths
The Arameans were already present in the northern Mesopotamia area by 2500 BC as historically recorded by the Sumerians. Since Aramaic had no writtem form till after 1000 BC, Arameans kept their Noah's floof story by oral traditions. None of the Sumerian flood myth clay tablets discovered have been earlier than 1700 BC.

The fact Arameans were in the neighbourhood before the Sumerian myths appeared, opens up a high possibility for my anthesis that Abrahamic oral traditions of Noah's flood story influenced the Sumerian flood myths.

Imago Mundi
This is the Babylonian map known as the oldest map of the world. It is on clay tablet estimated to be no earlier than 9th century BC. It was acquired by the British Musuem since 1882.

All that is the Babylonian world is within the inner circle. It is surrounded by a "bitter river". Outside the circle are supposed to be eight triangular spikes representing faraway lands. Descriptions of the spikes are on the reverse side of the tablet, but fragmented. Curators could not match the descriptions to the triangles until 1995 when a third piece of the triangle fragment was found.

The description for Triangle #4 says "To the fourth to which you must travel seven leagues ... are a thick pasiktu vesssel ... 20 fingers ..."

Pasiktu is a trigger word. It is a kind of religious boat in Sumerian times. The Akkadian Epic of Gilgamesh and Utrhasis mention the construction of the ribs of the ark are as thick as the pasiktu.

Immediately at the foot of Triangle #4 and within the circle, is inscribed the word "Urartu". Translated in Hebrew, it reads Ararat. That of course, is where the Bible says Noah's Ark came to rest, on Mount Ararat. It points to the fact the Ark is in a place far away from Sumeria.  Could this possibly be Sumerians saying the story came from outside their world?  However one takes it, I shall leave it at that.



This platform has withdrawn it's subscriber widget. If you like blogs like this and wish to know whenever there is a new post, click the button to my FB and follow me there. I usually intro my new blogs there. Thanks.

Saturday, January 11, 2025

TAKING PHOTOS, VIDEO-AUDIO RECORDINGS IN PUBLIC SPACES


IMG-9768

The recent altercation between PSP and PAP volunteers taking videos of each other in their resident outreach programme is a storm in a teacup. As a police report has been made of a claim of physical assault, let the due investigation take its course. I like to address a broader issue here, one where many have asked before. Is it illegal to take photos or video-audio record people in public?

"No expectancy of privacy": This is a legal doctrine used to determine whether a person has a reasonable right to privacy in a given situation, especially in cases involving surveillance, recording, and search or seizure.

That means when someone is in a situation where he or she cannot expect privacy, then there is no violation of law for their actions, words or appearances to be observed, recorded or documented by anyone.

Such places where one cannot expect privacy are public places, which are places accessible to the public generally. A school or some offices which do not permit entry to people who have no business to be there, is still a public space. A privately-owned property serving the public, such as a restaurant, a shop, a gymn, etc, are public spaces. The MRT, buses, taxis, parks, etc are of course public spaces.

On the other hand, the rest rooms or toilets and bathrooms in these public places are not 'public' because there is expectancy of privacy in such places.

Under this general rule, CCTV surveillance is legal if installed in public spaces. Police can perfom searches or surveillance in public. You are free to record all you want in public spaces.

However, beware of exceptions to the rule, that is "private acts in public spaces". This is touchy and would require a court's decision. For example if someone tries to change his/her clothings and made attempts to conceal their acts, a mother breast-feeding, or a drunken woman lying down and exposing some parts, a mentally-challenged person exposing himself/herself, etc. On the other hand, a couple in heat and engaging in lewd acts in open public cannot expect privacy.

Sanctity of private space: - It is an intrusion of privacy to record into a private space even though the recorder is in an open space. Casual and passive observation into a private space such as through open windows, doorway, front or backyards, is not an offence. It becomes an intrusion of privacy if the observer persistently observes, uses devices like binoculars, or positions himself more advantagesly like climbing his fence or uses a ladder etc.

Finally, there are public places which have security restrictions that forbid recording by anyone.You can get shot at before you can shoot any pictures.

Use of recordings: While it may be legal to record in public spaces, using or sharing such as posting online, may have harassment or defammation issues. It may also have copyright issues if recording performances. There are of course criminal issues if it is used illegally, such as for blackmailing, cause embarrassment, intimidation etc.

How the recording is done: Specific laws of harassment or stalking may be violated if the recording is done in an aggresive, intimidating, threatening or intrusive manner. This is the crux of the PSP vs PAP team altercation.

Stopping someone from recording: Generally, in public places where there is no expectancy of privacy, one cannot stop others from doing their recording if they are not violating any law, such as harassment and intimidation. But there are however, ethical considerations when it involves the vulnerables such as children, elderlies, handicapped, drunks, etc.

Application of no expectancy of privacy: Different jurisdictions have varied scope of what is a reasonable expectation of privacy.

In US this is enshrined in the Fourth Amendment that deals with protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. It relies on a 1967 landmark case of Katz vs US where the test is - did the individual exhibit an expectation of privacy, and is that expectation the society is prepared to recognise as reasonable?

In Singapore, privacy-related issues are addressed through existing laws on confidentiality, data-protection and specific offences under the penal code. For our purpose here, the following applies :
* Penal Code S44 Criminal Trespass - If you step into a private space without consent, it is a criminal trespass.
* Penal Code S377BB Voyeurism - it is an offence to observe or record someone in private without their consent (such as in bathrooms) or recording under skirts, etc. Max 2 years jail and caning.
* Penal Code S377BE Distribution of Intimate Images - it is an offence to share intimate images or videos of someone without consent. Max 5 years jail, caning.
* POHA Protection from Harassment Act - it is an offence to persistently follow and record someone in a manner that causes distress amounting to stalking and harassment.

Special case of audio recordings: - Some jurisdictions have wiretapping or eavesdropping laws, which also covers video recording with audio. Jurisdictions are split into "one-party consent" and "all-party consent" states. As the name implies, "one-party" means the recorder does not need anyone's consent; "all-party" means everyone has to consent. This is to protect private conversations. So taking a video of a crowd is not a problem as long as private conversations are not captured. California and Canada are examples of "all-party consent" jurisdictions.

Singapore is a "one-party consent" jurisdiction. There are no laws explicitly relating to the secret tapping of a conversation so long as one is a party to it. It is not illegal as long it is not used illegally. Under the Evidence Act such recordings are allowed at the discretion of the courts which take into consideration the relevance and authenticity, and whether they are fairly and legally obtained.

When in doubt - mobiles down; don't shoot.



This platform has withdrawn it's subscriber widget. If you like blogs like this and wish to know whenever there is a new post, click the button to my FB and follow me there. I usually intro my new blogs there. Thanks.

Wednesday, January 8, 2025

LET'S TALK ABOUT THE SENTENCING OF TRUMP



The world awaits the sentencing of Trump on January 10 in the "falsification of accounts" case. It is an unprecedented situation in the history of the US which makes it interesting. The affable social commentator, local lawyer Michael Han, waded in and shared his thoughts some 3 days ago. Here I parse Michael's Facebook post, not as a contest of wits or ego, but in the Grecian agoras spirit of open-mindedness. 

Michael:

"That’s the President-Elect of the most militarily powerful nation of the world. He is Donald J. Trump. He is not happy.

He was arraigned on 30 May 2024 to face multiple charges. And they have got to do with an actress and social escort, whose stage name was Stormy Daniels."


There is a minor mistake of fact here. But just to set the record straight, because, although not a legal issue, this case stands a lot on the reputation of three persons - Daniels herself, Trump and star prosecution witness Michael Cohen (who was once Trump's lawyer). Stormy Daniels was a porn star. I wonder why Michael insists on 'actress'. I get it, slam Trump and pamper the other.. Amongst her other pursuits she is a writer. She authored a book about ..... her and Trump, what else. Sex sells, especially with a Trump name. And you probably won't know, because nasty leftist media blocked this out. What she wrote about the sex act itself, and the evidence in court, were two different accounts. In the book the sex was so-so ... booring. She was on record in an interview of having said the same thing ... the sex was boring. In court, her evidence was high drama. Trump was a sex maniac and she was fearful. She lied in court. Imagine a porn star fearful of a sex partner! Who's buying that?

Daniels under-reported her income from the book deal. Geez is that not falsifying accounts? The reason has to do with denying Trump access to those money. Bet you don't know she sued Trump for defammation and lost and owes the Orange mop US$83m in damages and legal fees. Media don't tell you. 


 Michael:

"Trump was convicted of 34 counts for falsification of business records to cover up payment to Stormy. He was convicted by a jury of his peers."

This is wishy washy statement, not fair to a person being vilified. You should explain the facts then readers can judge the judicial shenanigans in the closed court hearings. 34 counts falsifying sounds horrendous, and that is the purpose for the way the charge was framed. Sensationalise to impact the election. It's one act of 'falsification' but 34 installment payments were made making it 34 counts. But actually I wonder how many CEOs micro manage to the level of giving instructions to the accountant which account to book an expense. The money were paid to Cohen, his lawyer at the time, so the accountant booked it under "Legal Fees". Having done some years as external auditor, I can attest to the fact clients consistently book payments to lawyers as " Legal Fees" instead of breaking it into professional fees and the nature of the legal expenses.

Readers must understand the case is not about falsification of accounts per se. If that were the case, it will just be an IRA issue - of hiding a tax-disallowed expense under another tax-allowed heading in order to claim tax cover. But this is not a tax prosecution. In any case, IRA would have simply dis-allowed the expense for tax purposes. It is not a felony. No prosecution. In my time, there was once I had interest expense of US$50m dis-allowed which worked out to about US$5m tax cover denied (based on 10% tax on Asian Current Unit book).

So what was the case all about? Did you know the DA Alvin Bragg did not specify the felony that was committed? It became clear in the course of the proceedings that it was New York Consolidated Laws, Penal Law - PEN § 175.10 . Under this, if the intention of falsifying the account is to further another crime, then it becomes a felony. Judge Juan Merchan explained to the jurors the 3 breaches of law : (1) Falsify accounts, (2) Tax violation, (3) intent to influence 2020 election. (1) and (2) are not felonies per se. But because of the intent in (3), all 3 acts become felonies.

That intent was never proven in court. The court spent time delving into salacious aspects of Daniels' testimony, designed to damage Trump's reputation. Both Daniels and Cohen were caught in a web of lies. In fact, in the court, Cohen admitted to a pack of lies he had testified. Perjury was an issue the court never addressed.

This case will wind its way to the appellate court and SCOTUS where I wager it will be dismissed for 2 reasons :
(1) A felony requires unanimous jury decision. Judge Merchan instructed the jurors no unanimous decision is necessary so long as they all agreed Trump had committed any one of 3 acts he identified. Merchan is fundamentally wrong in this and a recent June 2024 SCOTUS ruling in Erlinger Vs US settles this issue.
(2) Presidential election is a Federal affair and thus Merchan has no jurisdiction. Did you know this case was investigated at Federal level and it was decided there was no predicate crime? To understand why DA Bragg persued the case, you have to follow the money. But that's another story.

"Hush money" sounds salacious. It is all about Non-Disclosure Agreements and everybody knows NDAs are perfectly legit. Kill Trump's character, say "Hush Money".

If you like more details about the Stormy Daniels case and what her lawyer Michael Avenatti said about holding Trump to ransom, check my previous blog here. Recall the lawyer had such fame representing Daniels that Liberals started the "Avenatti For President" craze? He is sitting in prison today. For misappropriating money from Daniels' book deal. Some funny spiritual thing going on?


Michael:

"Although he is unlikely to face jail time, Justice Merchand has ordered Trump to appear before him to be sentenced on 10 Jan 2025, 10 days before his ascension to the power seat.

Trump’s lawyers have asked for the courts to make an exception to the rule (or those being ruled). They argued that he is president (soon-to-be) after all. He is the people’s choice. He cannot be distracted by the conviction/sentence.

I suppose his lawyers likened Trump to the last man standing in the electoral equivalent of the Hunger Games. The odds were indeed stacked up in his favour. And the conviction and sentence will only “impede his ability to govern.”


On what basis does Michael say jail time is unlikely? New York Consolidated Laws, Penal Law - PEN § 175.10 is a Class E Felony providing for jail term up to 4 years. Being a first offender, the judge MAY only order a probation. Throwing Trump in jail will bring about a Constitutional crisis.

It's giving no credit to Trump's lawyers. People talk and tweet and give all sorts of opinions. Those are opinions. Trump lawyers do court filings based on legal pleadings, not yakkity yak. What they did:
(1) A pleading with the court, ie Judge Merchan, to stay the sentencing based on (i) the SCOTUS decision on presidential immunity has not been argued out; (ii) the case is with the Appeals court.
(2) Filed appeal based on legal arguments on (i) presidential immunity; (ii) no unanimous jury decision (Erlinger vs US), (iii) no jurisdiction for Federal Offence.

Having said that, there have been 2 latest developments: (i) Last Friday, Merchan ruled “This court finds that neither the vacatur of the jury’s verdicts nor dismissal of the indictment are required by the Presidential immunity doctrine, the Presidential Transition Act or the Supremacy Clause." In other words, he disregards SCOTUS ruling and "no jurisdiction" claim. However, he said he will not impose jail time, and even allow Trump to appear virtually for sentencing.
(ii) Yesterday, an appelate court judge said they have ruled and the conviction stays. Trump lawyers requested for the full court ruling.

My own feeling is Merchan will give a slap on the wrist probation. That way, the left can forever call Trump a "convicted felon". That's the whole idea. So Hillary Clinton, first out the stable, has started calling him that. Which may prompt the new DOJ to press charges on Hillary for her role in the "Russia Russia Russia" lie in impeachment #1. Then of course Michael will then say there you go, Trump persecuting all those against him.


Michael:

"As an aside, in Trump’s universe, he is a political martyr. A very biblical one. Many of his supporters endorse him as God’s chosen. He now rides on the Beast (mind you, that’s the name of the presidential limousine) on Palm Sunday to the deafening chant that he’s the One who will set things right.

For he has escaped two bullets, possibly one explosion, and two impeachments, with many charges pending, and one conviction, with possibly a no-jail sentence. There has to be a purpose to all that.
 "

No comments.


Michael:

"Anyway, to his supporters, Trump shall turn the moral tide. The world will pay for their sins (or defiance), especially those who go against his foreordained rule and the collective faith of his believers.

Mind you, he has held the people in his universe in a messianic trance, especially so when he rose from the ashes which will be captured in his second coming this 20 Jan 2025.

And sadly this is how it works and I have seen it. In Trump’s universe, either you are for him or against him. If you don’t support him, be and stay loyal to him, regardless of whatever stand he takes, you are against him.

A world like that is indeed black and white. It’s binary. Anyone against him (that is, his policies and/or his innocence) stands on the other side of the line. His supporters are his enforcers. They will ensure that you are earmarked as being not-one of-us. And you will be treated as an outcast."


And just like that, Michael condemns 180m Americans into mindless idiots. In contrast, does Michael then prefer the non-binary world of Biden and Democrats? A DNC which accepts no contrarian views that forced four of their best legislators to resign from the party, namely Tulsi Gabbard, RFK Jr, Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema.

And you know what the Democrat side is like. Conspiracy theorists have been telling them in the last 4 years that Biden's brain is gone. There are videos that appear to show Biden pooped in his pants in public. But no one is allowed to mention Biden's visible deterioration. It's only when Hollywood celebrity George Clooney was conned into saying this to pave the way for the DNC coup to take Biden off the ballot, when suddenly, overnight, to all Democrats, their social influencers, media and liberal public, old Joe magically turned mentally challenged. Never seen senility hit a man so fast in my life!

On the other hand, Trump has a VP elect JD Vance who was fiercely anti-Trump previously, Marco Rubio who criticised Trump like crazy years ago is the nominated Secretary of State, a critical appointment. Pam Bondi (Sec DOJ nominee) and Pete Hegseth (sec Defence nominee) have been critical of some of Trump's policies.

None of us are the fly on the wall in White House meetings. It would be condescending for us to say a whole bunch of super intelligent and forceful people sit down in White House meetings and play "Yes Sir, No Sir" and rollover to the President, whether Trump or anyone else. It ain't a PAP cabinet meeting for sure. Insiders have talked of robust arguments. Trump accepts critical views backed by logic or evidence, the same as Lee Kuan Yew. But no leader will tolerate anyone who works against an agenda. One can disagree, but cannot work against it. Trump has learnt his great lesson in his first presidency where appointees actually worked against him. General Miley, Colonel Windman, Victoria Nuland, John Bolton, etc. In his second term, all Biden's handover critical personnel will be thoroughly vetted.


Michael:

"And if you’d indulge me, I believe that due to outrageous inequality and promises repeatedly broken (before Trump), the world is now polarised (and usurped) by outrageous logic, and moral values bend towards that collective outrageousness. All hands are therefore in the cookie jar (and Trump just happens to be the byproduct of that outrageous angst)."

That is so spot on. I'm glad you identify the causality was before Trump. But there should have been a courtesy mention of Obama, the one well-schooled in the communist Saul Alinsky's dictatorial and divisive tactics, who is primarily responsible for the US cultural shift into chaos in the last 2 decades.

But it is incorrect to say Trump is a by-product of the "outrageousness". He is here to change that and Make America Great Again. As social commentator Dan Bongino, ex-Secret Service guy and major investor in social media platform Rumble, said, "cute-sy time" is over. A broken house needs a tough leader carrying a big stick to put it in order.


Michael:

"All said, Justice Juan Merchan however will have none of that (that is, making Trump an exception to those ruled by the law). He stood firm and said: “setting aside the jury’s verdict would undermine the rule of law in immeasurable ways.”

He criticised Trump’s “unrelenting and unsubstantiated attacks” against the integrity of the criminal proceeding, and noted that he had found him guilty of 10 counts of contempt during trial for “repeatedly violating an order restricting out-of-court statements about witnesses and others.

Justice Merchan said: “the Defendant has gone to great length to broadcast on social media and other forums his lack of respect for judges, juries, grand juries and the justice system as a whole.”

Alas, unto thyself, there is no law. But fortunately, for the America’s embattled justice system, the rule of law still manages to stand ankle-deep against the rule by law."


The purpose of gag order is usually to prevent information of public interest from getting out, such as some state secrets, sensitive data, etc. It is also to prevent influencing the jury. A gag order is normally imposed on media, lawyers and witnesses.

In America, the court has to balance a gag order with First Amendment rights, ie freedom of speech, in order to ensure the defendant has all the protection against judicial over-reach. It is to be done in a way that does not infringe on a defendant's rights to an honest trial, not to prevent a judge from having his name smeared. In the case of Trump, we have a gag order on a defendant. We have a biased leftist media with megahorns to continously blast one side of the story and Trump denied his right to respond. And all this in a closed court proceeding where transparency becomes an issue. Especially in a hot political case. Take for instance, would the public have known about the possibility of conflict of interest in Merchan's daughter's work with the DNC? Would the public have known star witnesses Daniels and Cohen lied through their noses?


Michael:

"But come the inauguration, and the next four years thereafter, where her integrity and stamina will be put through the furnace fire, we shall then see which ruler will come out of the furnace like gold."

Agree. I am skewed towards the party of conservative values and believe in the constitutionality of law. Do you prefer the party of Biden who nominates to the courts based on DEI and not excellence in judicial knowledge? Bidens Supreme Court appointee Ketanji does not know what a woman is and has been consistently on the wrong side of the majority in so many SCOTUS decisions. And do you agree with the hundreds of radical leftist DAs that Soros' money put in place, those that let murderers and rapists walk free, but prosecute shop owners who wallop thieves who tried to rob them, and those that support the call to defund the police?


Michael:

"In any event, I commend Justice Merchan’s stand. That’s undeniably a courageous act. A lone justice in a worn-out robe, standing against the voice of the majority, clamouring for the politically-motivated system to let their adored president go."

No Sir, that is not courage. That is simply following judicial proceedings. He made his rulings, that is as it should be. There will be those who agree with him, and those that don't. The case will work its way through appeals and then the Supreme Court. Conservatives have little chance in a political case in a DC court where jurors are almost 100 % liberal.

On the contrary, it is more dangerous for Merchan to acquit Trump. All hell would have broken loose with the Leftists. That's my opinion.

I think courage is when SCOTUS ruled against Roe-Wade, when conservative judges had angry, leftists crowds outside their homes, when Chief Justice Kavannagh had an attempt on his life.

Courage is when a conservative Judge Cannon in Florida, who handles the Mar-a-largo classified documents case, slammed down on Special Counsel Jack Smith for his numerous shenanigans which included evidence tampering and attempt to bribe a defence lawyer.

Now the disapproval of a stay of sentencing has nothing to do with the courage of Merchan. It is based on the legalities of the case. I realise I am addressing Michael, a seasoned lawyer, and me wrangling the legal mumbo jumbo. Let me present the logic. An appeal for stay of sentencing is complicated with pre-trial and post-trial defferences. There are however, certain circumstances, when a stay is granted, which Merchan has refused to address.

When filing a motion for stay of sentencing, defence must show irreparable harm may be done, or the appeal raises significant legal or constitutional questions. All 3 counts are present in Trump's appeal. Legal question is the non-unanimity of the jury, constitutional question is a Federal case handled in state court, and irreparable harm is, for heavens sake,  he is the President-elect of the country.

Now let's compare this to the case of Jussie Smollet. Media don't want to talk about this. Smollet is a black, small time actor. He arranged with 2 other black men who made up as white supremacists. They staged a faux lynching attempt, all captured on video. Smollet made a false report to police that he was a victim of racist and homophobic assault. He was convicted of lying to police and faking a hate crime. He was sentenced to 150 days jail time. After 6 days in jail his lawyer filed appeal and motion for stay of sentence. He was released pending appeal. The reasons? He's a celebrity, jail is dangerous for him; his appeal raised serious legal issues, making it unfair for him to serve time while his appeal is in progress. See the difference? By the way, Smollet is a huge fan of liberal ideology.


Michael:

"Let me end with what Plato said about his mentor Socrates.

'If you take my advice, you’ll care little for Socrates but much more for the truth. If you think I’m speaking the truth, agree with me; but if not, resist me with every argument you can muster.'

And Justice Merchan did just that. He stood by truth. We should too, same with our children, and our children’s children.

So that the world is not about a tribal line of oppositions, but one of a cross of grace, sacrifice and redemption."


In reality, justice is not always aligned with truth. Often, truth lost due to errors in legal strategy, or to persuasion, or social prejudices, etc. Especially in the trial by jury system, persuasion is tremendously important. Black celebrity OJ Simson got away with murder of his white wife because of social prejudice and persuasion. As I mentioned, in Washington DC, conservatives have ideological partisanship stacked against them as jurors are predominantly liberals.

In any event, the truth of the case had nothing to do with Merchan. The judge is not the one who determines the outcome of the case. That's the jurors' duty. The judge manages the proceedings and advises the jurors on the legal intratricacies of a case. And in this case, Merchan advised the jurors they need not have unanimity in all 3 criminal acts as long as they think one of the act has been committed. This is in clear violation of the law in a felony case where the bar is set high requiring "guilty beyond reasonable doubt", that is, unanimous decision by the jury.

So yes, Truth can also lose in a court of law by the acts of the presiding Judge.



This platform has withdrawn it's subscriber widget. If you like blogs like this and wish to know whenever there is a new post, click the button to my FB and follow me there. I usually intro my new blogs there. Thanks.

Saturday, January 4, 2025

PAPDICY AND THE PANGLOSSIAN SUPPORTERS


IMG-9706

To the panglossian voters, even the most flawed candidate of their party of choice, carries the seeds of a better tomorrow
If you don't know what "papdicy" means, don't worry. There is no such word. I neologise it with a portmandeau of "PAP" and "theodicy". It is a play on words to mean the vindication of PAP in the face of policy missteps and wrong-doing. It means the PAP can do no wrong.

I think most folks would also have a problem with "panglossian". In the most simple term, it means having the most extreme optimistic view in all situations to the extent the term is meant to be a sarcasm. A pangloss is the irritating impossible optimist. The word is derived from a Dr. Pangloss, a character in Voltaire's satire "Candide". One scene had it that Dr. Pangloss was with two companions on a boat in Lisbon harbour when a merciless storm hits. One of the companion, Jacques, was swept overboard. To console the despair of the other companion, Pangloss explained the Lisbon Habour was created for Jacques to drown. Voltaire was satirising fellow philosopher Gottfried Liebniz's central argument that our world is the best of all possible worlds, in his attempt to solve the problem of evil. "Panglossian" turns out to be more commonly used in place of "Liebniz optimism".

PAP supporters brand opposition parties and their members "whiners". From my point of view, I would be biased not to say there is a ring of truth sometimes, but certainly not all the time. Though it does get testy when the opposition miss the big pictures and harp on minor issues. In politics, incumbents are often at a disadvantage, compelled to defend their records. That is the nature of politics. The role of the opposition is ... to oppose.

Panglossian PAP supporters get lost in their rhetorics, unable to ask intelligent and tough questions in a sea of government foul-ups the past few years. Why are they not asking questions like hey, why not discuss the high death rates?, where is the result of KK Hospital's study on the Covid-19 vaccine on young children?, where is the result of the investigation into how the MRT train axle box got dislodged?, why a lawyer who was rumoured to have stolen documents can become an Attorney General?, why a candidate who breached Constitutional requirement can become a president?, why "inside" a polling station is not "within a restricted" area of 200 metres around such a polling station?, etc. The last of which must certainly have been the most gobsmack explanation a hundred times more of a head scratcher than MDDS Minister Josephine Teo's explainer on the masking and unmasking of NRIC numbers. I could go on, but then I'll be branded a whiner. PAP supporters can see silver linings on the darkest cumulonimbus clouds during the most severe tropical storms.

PAP supporters argument-killer of choice is the retort "what have you done, what are your suggestions?" I have to say from what I can see in social media discourse, these are questions from the better educated percentile. Indeed, as far as social media is concerned, that seems to be the profile of PAP supporters - better educated, better off in life.

They fail to understand the errors of their ways. Retorting "what have you done, what are your suggestions?" is a faux pas and betrays political inmaturity. This is a misrepresentation of the opposition's role in a democracy. Whilst it is fair to expect constructive suggestions from the opposition, they are not the Executive. Holding them to the same standard as the government is misunderstanding their primary role.

The opposition does not have control over policy initiatives and implementation, no control over state resources, no legislative powers, are only cognisant over facts and developments same as what the public sees not being privy to details or other bigger scheme of things which the government does not share. The opposition's primary role is to scrutinise, critique, if possible provide suggestions. Theirs is never to formulate nor execute policies.

The government of the day holds executive authority and this comes with responsibility and accountability. Theirs is to answer why. The questions "What have you done?" is to be levelled at them, not the opposition.

The reason why we cannot demand fully detailed policies or suggestions from the opposition is because of resource imbalance. The opposition has no access to complete data, resources or bureaucratic support compared to the government.

To ask the opposition argument-killer questions is a tactic of accountability deflection. Perhaps the best way to go about is to enquire of the opposition "I hear you. You are making so much criticism of this issue, what is your concern here?" A better discourse within bounds of respect might follow.

For the record, I do not hate the PAP and neither do I have blind faith in the opposition. I am issues-related. Unfortunately, there are a host of policy issues I have with the PAP. I like to focus more important big picture, likely existential, issues but understand many minor issues have raised uproars from the public. For example, the Simplygo fiasco to my mind, is an administrative fumble, doesn't score high in my scale of national importance.

My most important concern is the accelerated rate of inflation in housing cost. It is now on a runnaway train, pushing immense pressure on affordability. My concern is the HDB secondary market. It is headed for unsustainable levels. PAP supporters never understand the only ones to benefit are the PRs who can cash out at the right time and return to their home country. And the issue is not specifically the runaway cost of housing. In land scarce Singapore, rent is a major cost of business and thus a key driver of the general price level. It is turning Singapore into a renter economy, to the delight of the rich investors in the many REITS. This needs to be addressed urgently. But the panglossian retort is to point to some housing affordability index that shows we are still OK without clear understanding that this is a meaningless comparison on its own. Panglossian views are really fascinating. Just the other day someone made a comment on Facebook he was so thankful to the government when he paid hardly a cent on his recent medical bill - Medisave took care of it. I wondered if his children explain to him Medisave is his own money.

Another great concern of mine is the Singaporeans-last policy that shares some similarity with Biden's Americans-last policy. The government allocates massive resources to support foreign residents in housing, education, health services, employment and business. Citizenship and PR applications are fast tracked while some Singaporeans are unable to obtain even a long term visit pass for their foreign spouse and citizenship for foreign born children.

I don't blame foreign workers flocking here to work nor do I despise them. With mobility, labour  goes to where the opportunities are, can't blame them. But we need to cut the bullshit about foreign talents creating jobs. Risk takers, indistrialists, people with ideas and visions, entrepreneurs, they create jobs. Not the admin managers, facility managers, analysts, operations managers, and a host of other professionals, etc, with all due respects to their talents. I wrote about the hollowing out of Singaporean knowledge base a few years back as local born PMETs dislocate into gig and platform jobs, unable to compete with cheaper foreign imports. The government allows the lowering of standards as employers take on volume in their foreign worker recruitment drives bringing in folks with questionable papers. There are people in America talking about the phenomenon of the "Indianisation" of corporations and the consequences. A foreign born Indian comes into a top position starts a process of displacing heads, first in his department, and soon the whole company. It doesn't stop there. The Indianisation sweeps across the business operation into the supply chain. 'Buy India' benefits. As they say, you employ an Indian, you employ his whole village, and more. This has manifested in many large corporations accross America. It takes years, but corporations see a creep into mediocrity as a direct outcome. Something has to give way. Some suggests Boeing Corporation is suffering from the sins of corporate greed, squeezing extra bucks by lowering quality. Is it a coincidence for the onslaught of quality issues Boeing is now facing? Is that also happening in SMRT? I could be wrong, but we certainly need to have a good conversation about this.

The above two issues are just shots across the bow. There are many other issues that we certainly need to discuss seriously as a nation.

In America, the Liberal Left buried their heads in the sand and allowed the Democrats to bring the country to breaking point. With Trump's victory, slowly and surely, many are coming to their senses. There is something called the Victory Syndrome or Critical Mass Effect. In the beginning of a movement or a fight, very few will join the underdog. Sure, the SWOT analysis applies. Overwhelming majority do not want the sacrifice or the pain of being early leaders. With victory assured, they all climb on the bandwagon. Nobody gave Brexit King Nigel Farage a chance years ago. Today the ranks of his Reform Party is swelling as the smell of victory is in the air.

We remain grateful we have differences over support for political parties, which is natural, but we as a society, are not fissured across political ideologies like in Western countries where the divide has grown into hate. The mutual animosity is real and has gone to a level that it's going to be difficult for them to bridge. The hate is deeply visible on the Liberal side where Democrats are prepared to go scorched Earth to frustrate the incoming Trump administration. Instead of allowing the winning party the space to do what it can for the country, they are actively underming the new team. The same cannot be said of opposition in Singapore. They function in accordance with our constitution in the interest of the people.

All I'm saying is our opposition shouldn't whine on minor issues, and PAP supporters should discard their panglossian airs. The future of Singapore is better served if we have serious adult conversations. We should all get aboard the bandwagon and battle issues rather than battle each other.



This platform has withdrawn it's subscriber widget. If you like blogs like this and wish to know whenever there is a new post, click the button to my FB and follow me there. I usually intro my new blogs there. Thanks.


Thursday, January 2, 2025

BIBLICAL NOAH HAS MUCH SIMILARITY WITH SUMERIAN FLOOD MYTHS


IMG-9690

"Flood myths are as old as the human imagination, rising with the waters of fear and falling with the hope of survival."
James Frazer, Writer

The Biblical story of Noah and the Great Flood is well known to all, not just Christians and Jews. What's not common fare is the fact flood stories are recurrent across diverse ancient cultures. The details may vary, but they share similar emphasis on obedience and respect for the divine, and harmony with nature. They share common themes of a divine judgement, a chosen survivor, and renewal after the flood. Of particular interest is the flood stories of ancient Mesopotamia, for the close similarity with Noah's story and because Abraham came from the city of Ur in the South-Eastern part of the region, which has great implications for the Biblical account.

Flood story : Ziusudra Tablet (1,700 BC)

Creation narrative: An (Sky god) and Enlil (Earth/storm god) and other gods, created humans. The gods create cities such as Eridu and organise society. Kingship is granted as a bridge between gods and humans.

Flood narrative: Led by Enlil the gods decide to send a catastrophic flood to destroy humanity. Enki advises King Ziusudra to build a large boat to save himself and his family, and other living creatures. A massive deluge engulfs the land, destroying nearly all life. After the flood, Ziusudra offers sacrifice to the gods. Seeing his piety the goods grant him immortality and transport him to a paradise-like location, a land of divine blessing.

Comment: The text is in Sumerian. The tablet is fragmented and massively damaged. Very little details are learnt from it. There are no details on how humans were created or the reasons for wanting to destroy humanity. The contents appear similar to Eridu Genesis. As to "land of divine blessing", various records show Sumerians refer this to Dilman. Location unknown today.

Flood story : Epic of Atrahasis Tablet XI (1,700 BC)

Creation narrative: In the beginning there were lesser gods called Igigi. These dieties were tasked with hard labour on Earth such as construction of canals, maintenane of Earth. In time they rebel against the overseer gods, the Anunnaki. To resolve the rebellion, the gods decide to create humans to take over the labour. Enki (god of wisdom) and Nintu/Mani (goddess of birth) undertake the task. The process is by mixing clay with the blood of a slain god. Humans work for the gods cultivating the land and providing offerings

Flood narrative: Over time, human population grows. Their noises and activities disturb the gods, especially the chief god Enlil. The humans frustrate Enlil who sees them as disruptive and disrespectful. Enlil devises several attempts to reduce human population, such as plagues, famine and drought. Each time, Enki intervenes to save humans by providing them survival guides. Enlil obtains collective decision of the gods for a final solution in the form of a great flood. Enki warns Atrahasis , a wise and devout human, of the impending flood. He teaches Atrahasis to build a large boat to save himself, his family, and a selection of animals. He provides the specifications. Design: circular (a traditional boat at the time in Mesopotamia called coracle.) Diameter: 120 cubits. Materials: reed and wood. Bitumen is used for waterproofing. Divide into sections to house animals. The flood engulfs the Earth for seven days and seven nights. All other humanity perishes except for those in the boat. After the flood Atrahasis offers sacrifice to the gods. On smelling the aroma of the sacrifice, the gods regret the flood and realise the need for humans. They introduce measures to control overpopulation such as infertility in some women, allow infant mortality as natural, and shorten human lifespans.

Comments: The text is Akkadian. Atrahasis did not gain immortality. He was not a king.

Flood story : Eridu Genesis Tablet (1,600 BC)

Creation narrative: An (sky god), Enlil (Earth, storn god), Enki (wisdom, freshwater god) and Ninhursag (goddess of birth, fertility) together create humans. They create humanity to serve gods and perform labour on Earth as well as to give offerings to gods. The gods grant kingship to humans as a divine institution. Gods create cities such as Eridu and Shuruppak.

Flood narrative: The gods, led by Enlil, decide to destroy humanity. He warns King Zuisudra of the impending flood. Enki instructs Zuisudra to build a large boat to save himself, his family, and other living creatures. The flood engulfs the land, destroying nearly all life. After the flood, Ziusudra offers a sacrifice to the gods in gratitude for his survival. The gods see Ziusudra's piety and grant him immortality. The gods transport Ziusudra to Dilman, a paradise-like land associated with divine blessings and eternal life.

Comments: This tablet is in Summerian. It is also fragmented but more details can be pieced together. There is no mention of the process of creation. There is also no reason for the decision to destroy humanity, no description of flood duration. It is obvious the tablet follows the Ziusudra tablet. Despite the fragmentation, it shows the Sumerian world view. It has a cohesive structure which influenced later Mesopotamian and Biblical traditions.

Flood story : Epic of Gilgamesh tablets (1,200-1,100 BC)

Old Babylonian version (known as "Surpassing All Other Kings") dates around 1,800 BC
Standard version compiled by Sin-leqi-unninni dates 1,200-1,100 BC. This is the most complete version.

Tablet I (Gilgamesh's reign in Uruk) - Gilgamesh is introduced as a powerful but oppressive king. People of Uruk pray to the gods for relief from his oppression. The gods create a wild man Enriku to rival and balance Gilgamesh's power.

Tablet II-III (Gilgamesh and Enriku) - Enriku begins as a wild man living amongst animals, disrupting hunters. Shamhat, a temple priestess, civilises him and brings him to Uruk. Enriku meets Gilgamesh. They fight but become friends when they realise their strengths were equal.

Tablet IV-V (The Cedar Forest) - The duo set out to seek glory by defeating Humbada, the monstrous guardian of the Cedar Forest. With the blessing of Shamash the Sun god, they kill Humbada. They cut down sacred cedar trees to build a huge gate for Uruk.

Tablet VI-VII (Enriku's death) - The goddess Ishtar proposes marriage to Gilgamesh but he scorns her citing her history of mistreating lovers. An enraged Ishtar sends the Bull of Heaven to punish him. Gilgamesh and Enriku kill the Bull. This enrages the gods further. As punishment the gods decree Enriku must die. Enriku dies, which devastates Gilgamesh.

Tablet XIII-X (Quest for immortality) - Grief-stricken and fearful of his own death, Gilgamesh sets out to seek immortality. He learns Utnapishtim is the only mortal granted eternal life by the gods and that he lives "at the mouth of the river" in a faraway land beyond the Mashu Mountains (dwelling of gods). Gilgamesh sets out for Mashu Mountains. He meets the terrifying Scorpion beings who guard the entrance to the dark tunnel that leads to the other side of the mountain. The Scorpion beings are impressed with his determination they let him access to the pitch-black tunnel. On the other side, Gilgamesh sees a paradiasical garden and meets a wise alewife Siduri. She advices him to abandon his quest and enjoy life's simple pleasures, but eventually directs him to Urshanabi, boatman to Utnapistim. Gilgamesh convinces Urshanabi to help him cross the danderous Water of Death which surrounds Utnapishtim's dwelling. Direct contact with the water is fatal.

Tablet XI (Utnapishtim's counsel) - Gilgamesh arrives at Utnapishtim's remote dwelling. Utnapishtim is surprised to see Gilgamesh and listens to his plea for the secret of immortality. He tells Gilgamesh his story of how he survived the flood and gained immortality.

Tablet XII Utnapishtim's Flood Narrative :

IMG-9695

* The gods decide to destroy humanity - Enlil, the chief god, grows angry with humans for their noises and disruptiveness. The gods make a collective decision in secrecy to destroy humans with a flood as punishment.
* Ea (name changed from Enki) favours humanity and secretly warns Utnapishtim. Ea speaks to Utnapistim via a dream or vision through the walls of his reed hut. He tells Utnapistim to build a big boat and abandon his possessions to save his life.
* Construction of the boat - Ea gives instructions for the boat construction. Design: cube-like structure. Dimensions: length x height x width 120x120x120 cubits. Materials: Wooden planks, bitumen to waterproof inside and outside, pitch and tar to seal the vessel. Labour involves many craftsmen and labourer. Divided into seven stories, each divided into nine compartments.
* Boarding the boat - Utnapishtim boards the boat with his family, craftsmen and animals and provisions.
* The flood - Abad, the storm god, unleashes the torrents of rain. The water submerges even the highest mountains. The gods watch the catastrophic destruction and regret their action, cowering in fear and grief. The storm lasts for seven days and nights.
* The boat rests - After the storm subsides, Utnapishtim opens a window and releases 3 birds to find dry land. On the first day a dove flies out and later returns. Next day, a swallow flies out and soon also returns. On the 3rd day a raven flies out and never return, indicating it has found land. The boat eventually comes to rest on Mount Nimush (location unknown today).
* Utnapishtim offers sacrifice - Upon disembarking, Utnapishtim builds an altar and offers sacrifice to the gods. The gods gather around the sacrifice and are appeased by the offering.
* Immortality for Utnapistim - Enlil remains angry that Utnapishtim survives. Ea intervenes and points out the Utnapishtim acted on divine instructions and did not defy the gods. Enlil grants Utnapishtim and his wife immortality. He allows them to live forever in a paradiasical land "at the mouth of the rivers".

Utnapishtim and Gilgamesh has a long conversation. Utnapishtim finally tells Gilgamesh immortality is not a gift for humanity. He says : "Life, which you look for, you will never find. For when the gods created men, they let death be his share, and life withheld in their own hands." However, he gives Gilgamesh some hope in the form of the Plant of Eternal Youth. It restores youth rather than granting immortality (???) Unfortunately Gilgamesh looses it to a serpent (this reinforces the idea humans cannot escape immortality.)

Tablet XII (Return to Uruk) - Gilgamesh returns to Uruk, still a mortal but wiser man. He reflects on the greatness on the city he built, emphasising on the enduring legacy of human achievement.

Comment: This epic exists in several versions. The Akkadian version above is the most well-preserved as a complete collection. Sumerian fragments exist but they are not part of a complete collection. Epic of Gilgamesh is a myth that embelishes the life of a historical king of Uruk, an important and flourishing city at the time. Gilgamesh appears in the Sumerian King List as a post-diluvial king, with a reign of 126 years. He was estimated to live around 2,800 to 2,500 BC. The flood story is a separate story thrown in to complete the plot of Gilgamesh's quest for immortality.

Two other tablets of interest:

Sumerian King List (2,000-1,800 BC)

The list has been found on multiple tablets and fragments. The most significant is the Weld Blendell Prism housed in the Ashmolean Musuem, Oxford, UK. This is estimated to be dated 2,000-1,800 BC. It cannot be carbon dated because it is written on baked clay which is not suitable for radiocarbon dating. This is in Sumerian. Some earlier fragments are dated to 3,000 BC.

This List is a record of Sumerian kings. It is updated as new reigns take over. Earlier names are likely based on oral traditions, hence grossly influenced by myths. It mentions a flood. The text reads "Flood swept over. After the flood had swept over, kingship was re-established in Kish." The date of the flood is estimated about 2,900 BC. This text splits the List into two, kings that were antediluvial, and those that were post-diluvial. The antediluvial or pre-flood period, portrays archetypal rulers with divine kingship and longetivity, some ruling for tens of thousands of years. The last antediluvial king is listed as "Ubaru-Taru, King of Shuruppak". The post-diluvial kings have more realistic reigns.

There are three interesting points to note. (1) Ubaru-Taru is listed as the last king before the flood. Ziusudra is not in the List but the Eridu Genesis associates him with the last ruler of Shutuppak. Ziusudra is also described as the last king of Shuruppak who survived the flood. That makes Ziusudra either a successor or descendant, possibly the son, of Ubaru-Taru. Instruction of Shuruppak tablet makes this clear. (2) Historically, the civilisation was re-established in the city of Kish. (3) The flood appears to be a historical event.

Instruction on Shuruppak tablet (2,600-2,500 BC)

This is in Sumerian. There are better-preserved copies from Old Babylonian period (1,800-1,700 BC). King Shuruppak is a Solomonic type king. The text contains words of advice of King Shuruppak to his son Ziusudra. However, there is no King Shuruppak in the Sumerian Kings List. The List mentions the last king before the flood as "Ubaru-Taru, King of Shuruppak". It appears this tablet takes Ubaru-Taru as " King Shuruppak". In which case, it confirms Ziusudra was indeed the son of Ubaru-Taru.

Opinion:

Ancient mythology commonly mixes historical facts with fantasy. Kings and warriors are embellished with super capabilities. In today's language we call it cult building. The epics "Romance of Alexander The Great" and "Legions of Alexander The Great" are myths of the man of his conquests and journey in search of the Water of Immortality. I remember a scene in the movie "Braveheart" where Mel Gibson played the Scottish revolutionary William Wallace. A young citizen soldier looked at him in awe and said he thought "William Wallace is seven feet tall." Gibson by the way is five feet ten inches, short by their standard. Wallace replied: "Yea, I've heard. Kills men by the hundreds. And if he were here, he'd consume the English with fireballs from his eyes, and bolts of lightning from his arse."

Stories of floods could most probably be due to a civilisation's collective memory of some real events. Scientists have discovered evidence of large scale flood events in the history of the regions referenced in these tablets. In Ur, massive 11-foot thick layer of flood sediments was discovered in 1920. This was carbon-dated to 2,900 BC. In Shuruppak, 60 cm thick sediments have been discovered and carbon-dated to 2,900-3,000 BC. In Kish, sediments were found and carbon-dated to 3,900 BC, although this layer is not so pronounced.

The Sumerian (4.500-2,004 BC) and Akkadian (2,334-2,112 BC) myths use two historical kings, Ziusudra and Gilgamesh, as protagonists. Sumeria was the first known civilisation of cities, each having its own kingship. Zuisudra was the son of the last king of Shuruppak before the flood. Gilgamesh was king of Uruk in the period after the flood. Zuisudra moved his people to resettle in Kish to escape a flood. He must have done a great job saving his people from the flood, that being the reason he was immortalised in the tablets. Atrahasis was not mentioned as king, but a devout and wise man. Utnapishtim is Akkadian version of Sumerian Atrahasis.

Abraham was born in Ur, a thriving Sumerian city state, a cultural centre famous for its ziggurats. He was estimated to have lived 2,000-1,800 BC. The Babylonian exile of the Judaens was from 586 BC till 539 BC when Persian King Cyrus allowed them to return to Judah. This poses inconvenient implications to both Jews and Christians. The Biblical Noah and the Flood bears a striking similarity to the flood stories in these Sumerian cuneiform clay tablets. Is it possible the Jews were influenced by these Sumerian myths? In a coming blog, I shall address this touchy issue, which at the same time will clarify the confusion of Judaens, Jews and Hebrews. 



This platform has withdrawn it's subscriber widget. If you like blogs like this and wish to know whenever there is a new post, click the button to my FB and follow me there. I usually intro my new blogs there. Thanks.