On learning that some of my students flunked their Law paper, I volunteered to tutor them although I am no lawyer. But a number of High Court litigation cases that I attended in the past had sharpened my knowledge - so much so that I thought I could teach law better than some of these law lecturers. My advantage lies in my ability to explain in Chinese and an ability to give specific examples of some of the cases that I personally went through.

One of the subjects that I taught was "Misrepresentations". One has to determine if it is a statement of opinion or a statement of facts. So a statement of opinion cannot be a statement of facts, and vice versa.

But someone in the corridors of power has given new meanings to old words. Since he is a man of high standing in the country, I am considering calling the students to tell them that I have been teaching them the wrong things.

As a matter of principle, I don't buy the English dailies as I am of the opinion that they are not fair in their reporting. But I do get to read the tabloid news because "the Sun" is free. On page 4, it was reported that this man said the man who was found guilty of money politics three years ago should be given a second chance. Therefore voters should vote for him. He went on to say that although he was found guilty of money politics by his own party, and suspended for six years (later reduced to three years on appeal), he was never charged in Court and therefore his guilt was a "technicality". Now I realised that I was wrong - that although it was a fact that he was corrupted, he was technically "not corrupted". So does it mean that a statement of facts has now become a statement of opinion? I think that's what it is tentamount to. So supposing that Ah Beng has been stealing money from his family members for the past 22 years, but his family did not have the heart to bring him to the police. Nevertheless, they had a conference, and they decided that Ah Beng would have to be punished by not receiving any pocket money for the next three years. After the three years was up, Ah Beng is now no longer a thief because he has been "punished." After all, his theft was just a technicality because he has never been convicted in the court of law.

The above shows I still don't understand politics. But as the saying goes- "Ignorance is bliss."