Sunday, April 4, 2010

The Nuts and the Coconuts

This is the story of the nuts (referring, in a slang way, to the idiots) and the coconuts (referring to the—well—tropical fruits.) It so happened that his neighbour is the nuts who had the habit of conducting prayers under his beloved coconut trees.

Unfortunately, those old coconut trees were said to be tilting and liable to fall. The other nuts, the neighbour, requested the City Council folks to cut down the trees, which they did. That was in June last year, and both those nuts have been at "war" because of the coconuts. One nuts has been abusive and has been throwing rocks, garbage and pig's body parts into the other nuts' compound. The latter has been lodging police reports—roughly once a week since June last year. He has to this date lodged 42 police reports against his neighbour—so far. [The Star]

The nuts who've been a frequent visitor to the police station asked an interesting question:

"Will the police take action only when my neighbour kills me?"

Silly question, don't you agree? Obviously the police are more occupied with more pressing matters instead of dealing with the nuts and their coconuts? Of course the police are busy beating up their prisoners. And oh! they also go in pairs to nab those who did not turn up for the summer camps organised by the government. [NST]

Nah... just kidding. Actually, the police had been looking into this matter. Only that the other nuts had also lodged several police reports. Very, very strange people!

But damn! 42 police reports—what the hell do they do with all those reports? I bet it's all nicely filed up in a cabinet somewhere.


Socrates29 said...

Despite of 42 police reports having been made, I guess you may be right about the police being busy with other cases which requires their immediate action.

Take for example the very recent bizarre case of one sibling killing his older sibling in a fit of rage.
The news even reached one of the national papers (The Star, yesterday issue).

Cornelius said...


It's quite a coincidence that you actually brought up the matter of the siblings rivalry.

The deceased worked temporarily, but for a very short while in my company. So I was somewhat surprised to read the news of his death last week.

What a misfortune for the parents to lose one of their sons that way. And if the other son is found guilty of murder somehow, they may lose both their sons in the end!

But on the other hand, I suppose one has to wonder if anyone liable to lose their temper to that extent should be allowed to be at large. It's like a time bomb waiting to explode anytime!

Socrates29 said...


The hatred or rivalry between these 2 brothers must have been going on for quite sometime and you are right to say it was like a time bomb just waiting to explode.

It got me thinking about this case and I would like to hear you opinion and also those who frequently read or contributed to your blog - what were the parents doing all this while when they are fully aware of what was going on between their 2 sons.

Being both working adults and holding very senior positions, maybe they don't have quality time for them?

The way I see it,although I am not qualified nor am I in any position to judge or comment, both boys lacked parental attention and were being left very much on their own and to adopt such hostile attitude towards each other.I do pity their situation.

It is indeed a small world while the deceased had worked temporarily with you, he visited my house once a few years back with some schoolmates of his who knew one of my son.

Someone in the medical line did commented once to me this- "forget about the dead, think about the living". What should be done now is to ensure that both parents do not lost the other child although the other one is gone, by giving the other remaining one the best defense and legal representation by a good lawyer in court.

Just my 2 cent piece of opinion.

Cornelius said...


I'm sure the problem is much more complicated than what it appears like from the surface. And of course seeing from a distant it is easy for us all to speculate. So this opinion probably is not worth much.

I think it's quite common that siblings occasionally fight with one another - not only when they're young, but also as grownups. But the thing which is uncommon is the extent of the hatred, i.e. leading to the loss of life. If the parents had realised the extent of rivalry or hatred between the 2 brothers (I think the father mentioned previous fights where one of the 2 sons was injured) then one must wonder why he did not do something dramatic to prevent a tragedy such as loss of life.

There is a mention of separating the sons by sending one of them for further studies etc. That was probably the parents' approach to "solve" the problem. Only that they took far too long to actually carry out their plan. Maybe in that sense, one can say that the parents were at least the co-authors of their misfortune!

This is all very easy for people like us to comment. As always, hindsight is 20-20!

As for the defence for the living son, I think the parents are already doing their best even from the beginning. They mentioned that the elder brother had hurt the younger son several times in the past, thus laying the foundation for the grounds of "self-defence". That is a good start in defending against murder. There are of course other possible defences, e.g. provocation, temporary insanity etc.

However, I think one tricky fact in this case is that the deceased was stabbed 5 times. The first might have been for self defence. The second, maybe, was the fatal blow. Or if not the second, then perhaps the third? Why 5 stabs?