Categorized | Philosophy

Tags : , ,

Why are people so mad at Remy Ong?

Posted on 20 February 2012

Corroborative physical evidence, compelling witness testimony and yes, just desserts.

By Belmont Lay

Have you ever watched the uber successful television series C.S.I?

You know that one which spawned other equally successful C.S.I Miami and C.S.I New York?

Yeah?

You want to know what is their secret to being so awesome over the years?

It’s all really very simple: Every single episode revolves around three elements.

One: You need a dead body.

Two: You need corroborative physical evidence.

Three: You need witness testimony.

And that’s about it.

That’s what the entire franchise essentially runs on. Get all these elements strung together and have the case solved before the hour’s over and the audience will be wetting themselves with delight.

Basically what viewers are getting every single episode week after week is a rehash of these three fundamental elements.

They can be tossed up with some mind boggling CGI, twisted time series, unique extraction methods for DNA samples, witness accounts, fortuitous discovery of evidence and a compelling narrative standpoint.

And the scariest thing about it is that no one actually ever gets bored of watching it.

So here’s the point of today’s missive: If you’re wondering why everyone seems to be on to our national bowler Remy Ong’s case after his alleged doggy hit-and-run, it’s because we’ve got a bare bones C.S.I. story on our hands.

One: We’ve got a compelling evidence of a dead body. Well, make that a few dead bodies considering the doggy was expecting.

Two: We’ve got a license plate that is more than enough to serve as physical evidence to pinpoint a culprit.

Three: We’ve got a whistle-blowing eye witness account posted on Facebook that belongs to a real person.

So, if you’re wondering where on Earth all the public outrage is coming from, it is probably not because Remy is famous and drives a Porsche.

My guess is that the sum of these three components is pulling a combined weight that is much, much greater than any individual factor alone could have mustered.

And also perhaps due to the witness claim that Remy did not stop immediately to help the wounded animal. This is, without a doubt, the most damning indictment, although real intent to escape from the scene in this case is going to be very difficult to prove and can be argued about until the cows come home.

I mean, Remy returned to the scene eventually, didn’t he?

But I’d like to speak on behalf of people who drive and commiserate with other road users: Sometimes, animals are completely unpredictable when they are approaching the road.

I have on at least two occasions braked very hard to avoid driving into what could perhaps be a very big rat or a very small cat.

Only to have it scurry away.

It’s really a blink-and-miss-it kind of thing.

But having said that, judging from the pictures of the size of the dog that got hit, one might have to admit to be GOING PRETTY FAST to run something this big over without even realising it — if that’s what Remy’s going to use as his defence.

Just saying.

This post was written by:

- who has written 230 posts on New Nation.


Contact the author