• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Return My CPF Thread: Han HuiHui & Roy Ngerng vs the CPF/NParks

Mr Brown is Mr PAP Brown Nose

  • Yeah, he's a fucking PAP dog

    Votes: 12 75.0%
  • No, because he's didn't bother to find out the TRUTH before opening his cb mouth

    Votes: 3 18.8%
  • Favourite sinkie option: I dunno leh......

    Votes: 1 6.3%

  • Total voters
    16
  • Poll closed .

Confuseous

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Does Nparks have unfettered discretionary powers to impose bans?

The law, thus, seems to be quite clear that Ms Han did not need to obtain a permit for her march at Hong Lim Park on 27 September, let alone having the need to apply for one.

One would also think that she wouldn’t need one for her 25th October event too.

Having said all the above, it is also clear that there seems to be a contradiction or conflict between what is stated in the Parks and Trees Act and the Public Order Act.

While the aim of the latter seems to be to make the use of Speakers’ Corner freer – without the requirement for a permit for “assemblies or processions or both therein” – the former seems to contradict this and requires one to have a permit in fact.

So, it is good that Nparks’ notice of withdrawal to Ms Han is being challenged – so that Singaporeans, and especially those who want to make use of Speakers’ Corner – will have clarity on the legal requirements for the use of the park, so that they are not confused by the arbitrary conditions set by the governing authority.

Surely, the spirit of the Government’s intention behind the relaxation of the rules for the use of Hong Lim Park must be taken into consideration.

In July last year, the court laid down that the prime minister does not have “unfettered discretion” when deciding if he should hold a by-election in a constituency where the Member of Parliament has vacated his seat.

Similarly, one would think that the commissioner of Nparks does not have unfettered discretion or powers to arbitrarily....
 

soIsee

Alfrescian
Loyal
Re: Does Nparks have unfettered discretionary powers to impose bans?

This is nothing new. All these authorities have been abusing their powers and uses their unfettered discretionary powers in imposing bans, financial penalties on anything they deem fit.

From NP to NEA to URA to your whatever 'A' they have been thru the years gone on a brink to push every conceivable boundaries to impose their 'will' onto the population.

Sinkie should have seen this coming long ago. Given unfettered powers to everthing from your retirement savings to your ability to speak up, YOU VOTERS ARE THE ONE TO TAKE THE BLAME.

COS IT'S YOU FOR FAILURE TO WAKE THE FUCK UP THAT IS THE CAUSE OF YOUR OWN DOING LEADING TO YOUR OWN DOOM.
 

Satyr

Alfrescian
Loyal
Re: HHH giving PAP sleepless nights

B
It is a trampling of rights that the WP need to speak up.

If I am asked " are HHH and RN being targeted" , I would say yes, probably. But could they have overstepped the law? Possibly , unintentionally , we do not know. We ourselves do this every time we jaywalk for example . Just that we are not targeted .
Should the WP speak up for them ? Yes, if abuse is proven . Anything before that is premature. No other political party has joined in the fray. Why not ?
Must the WP aim to govern ? Yes , if they have a large minority of Singaporeans behind them. They are not quite there yet and they are wary of raising expectations and disappointing people. However if they don't show they are working towards that day , people will lose faith in them . If you want a party with clear ambition to run the country today , vote SDP or SFP if you dare. On that note, please feel free to express your disappointment in any party if you have supported them materially. I mean hard cash. Else let them fight their way. I have contributed to Roy and I am happy to give more if I can. Why? Because I admire his bravery and I feel he has been treated harshly. He may have been a bit reckless but he should have been let off after his apology. He is David facing Goliath.
Democracy will not come to us until we are willing to fight for it. No better signal than to support RN and HHH by giving to their Defence fund. If we are not willing to do that , no point ranting here. People deserve the government they get.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

winnipegjets

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Re: Ravi pushes NEA further to the corner it created itself

In the past, people will just kwai kwai accept any edicts passed down by the authority. PAP can govern carefreely. Now, people are pushing back ...PAP still have not changed with the time. Instead, PAP just go back to adopt LKY's method of governance.
 

Sinkie

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Re: Ravi pushes NEA further to the corner it created itself

Well argued. I support.

Push it song for you guys.....

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/uc2UEfWjvo8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 

laksaboy

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Re: Ravi pushes NEA further to the corner it created itself

In the past, people will just kwai kwai accept any edicts passed down by the authority. PAP can govern carefreely. Now, people are pushing back ...PAP still have not changed with the time. Instead, PAP just go back to adopt LKY's method of governance.

LKY was a bastard traitor of the highest order. I find it amusing that the powers-that-be have the nerve to put out the 'Battle For Merger' propaganda to depict him as some hero in some Twilight Zone alternate dimension of revisionist reality. :rolleyes:

The truth is he backstabbed the Barisan Socialis folks, the Chinese-educated folks, his political opponents, and lumped everyone together and call them 'communists'. Towards the end both the British and the Tunku have utterly distrusted him, and saw him for the self-serving scum he truly was.

The 60.1% should learn some real history and stop worshipping a traitor and his legacy.

[video=youtube;NXcN4LLHhUQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXcN4LLHhUQ[/video]


KEDFkAh.png
vNFYEys.png



李光耀是国贼,而不是国父
 

Satyr

Alfrescian
Loyal
Re: Ravi pushes NEA further to the corner it created itself

Bravo Ravi. Let's see if they do something stupid like hastily arrest HHH and RN. Hell would break loose and the civilized world will compare our leaders to those stupid generals governing Myanmar .
 

makapaaa

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
FAP Trying to Frighten SGs from Attending #ReturnOurCPF protest. Try this on HKers!

[h=1]POLICE CLOSE THE CASE AND ISSUE 'STERN WARNING' TO CPF PROTESTORS FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE[/h]


<!-- /.block -->
<style>.node-article .field-name-link-line-above-tags{float: right;}.node-article .field-name-ad-box-in-article {float: left;margin: 15px 15px 10px 0;}.node-article .field-tags{clear: both;}</style>
Post date:
23 Oct 2014 - 8:03pm









<ins id="aswift_0_expand" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: currentColor; width: 336px; height: 280px; display: inline-table; visibility: visible; position: relative; background-color: transparent; border-image: none;"><ins id="aswift_0_anchor" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: currentColor; width: 336px; height: 280px; display: block; visibility: visible; position: relative; background-color: transparent; border-image: none;"><iframe name="aswift_0" width="336" height="280" id="aswift_0" frameBorder="0" marginWidth="0" marginHeight="0" scrolling="no" vspace="0" hspace="0" allowfullscreen="true" style="left: 0px; top: 0px; position: absolute;" allowTransparency="true"></iframe></ins></ins>


A few hours ago, the police started calling up the attendees of the #ReturnOurCPF protest who were being investigated for “unlawful assembly” to turn up at the police station.
The Real Singapore understands that a female attendee had gone down to the police station at 5pm today and was given a warning letter.

In the letter, the police said that investigations into the case have been completed” and the Police “have decided to administer a conditional warning of 24 months” for the offence of “public nuisance”, a charge which carries a fine of up to $1,000.

The attendee was warning not to “commit a similar offence again in Singapore” or she can be charged.

Some other attendees will go to the police station tomorrow. It is unsure if they will similarly receive a warning letter or if they will be charged for any offence.
The attendees were previously interviewed by the police for the charge of “illegal assembly”.

The police investigations against the CPF event attendees began two weeks ago. Attendees were being systematically called up to assist in investigations.

After the police had interviewed eight attendees, they called up Han Hui Hui, the organiser of the protest and Roy Ngerng, who is currently being sued for defamation by the Singapore prime minister, for the interviews.

Ms Han was kept at the police station for 8 hours. Her notebook was also illegally snatched from her by the police. After her lawyer, M Ravi, intervened to demand the return of her notebook as it constituted "wrongful seizure of private property", it was returned after a few days. The police claimed that it was their right to detain her notebook as it was "suspected to constitute evidence of an offence".

The police tried contacting Roy two weeks ago for the interview but he was in Malaysia for a conference on media and Internet freedom. He returned late Sunday and the police went to his home on Monday night to ask him to go down to the police station. Roy was interviewed on Tuesday evening. He was interviewed for 4 hours.
It is understood that many of the attendees who were asked to be interviewed also had the police knock on their doors late at night to request for their attendance.











On Tuesday night, after Roy’s interview ended, NParks and the Police sent a joint media release to state that Ms Han will not be able to organise further protests, pending police investigations into her "case". NParks said it “will also cancel any existing approvals or not approve any further applications made by individuals under investigation for the 27 Sept event, until their cases are concluded.”

Mr Ravi countered that NParks has overstepped its boundaries and has no legal right to ban Ms Han or any Singaporeans from protesting at Hong Lim Park, and that NParks has “no rational basis for the ban on applying for a permit”.

It is understood that Ms Han has also received a letter demanding her to come down to the police but Roy has yet to receive any notice.

It is unknown if they will also be let off with just a warning.

The current ongoings have gone on for a month after the #ReturnOurCPF protest, which was held on 27 September 2014. It was the fourth #ReturnOurCPF protest that was held. In total, the protests which has been held monthly since June have been attended by more than 10,000 people.

Ms Han started organising the protests to advocate for transparency and accountability on the government's management on Singaporeans' Central Provident Fund (CPF) retirement fund. Roy was sued for defamation for the same reason. In his affidavit for his case, he explained that he wanted the government to account for why they took Singaporeans' CPF to earn 6% in the GIC but returned only 3% and questioned if the government's simultaneous positions on the Board of Directors of the GIC is a conflict of interest - will their allegiance lie with the Singaporean citizenry or in making money from GIC, Roy asked.

The Singapore constitution protects Singaporeans' rights to the freedom of speech and assembly. The allowance of Singaporeans to only be able to protest at Hong Lim Park is already a transgression by the government on the rights of Singaporeans, as enshrined by the constitution.

Since 2000, Hong Lim Park has been designated as the only venue in Singapore where Singaporeans are able to "legally" assemble and protest. However, the police investigations go against the spirit of not only the Singapore constitution but of Hong Lim Park as well.

Some Singaporeans have commented that the investigations are unwarranted in the first place.

Singaporeans will do well to keep a close and careful watch on the investigations and its outcomes, as it will signal the new trajectory by the government towards the further restrictions on Singaporeans' ability to seek out more information about what is going on. The current police investigations come on top of the use of the law against Singaporeans who speak up online, the licensing rule by the Media Development Authority to regulate online news sites and blog and the use of the Broadcast Act to regulate news sites as well.
 

Sinkie

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Re: FAP Trying to Frighten SGs from Attending #ReturnOurCPF protest. Try this on HKer

The conditioner can use to wash hair or not?
 

streetcry

Alfrescian
Loyal
Conditional warnings for "Return Our CPF" protesters at Hong Lim Park

[h=2]Police confirm that two people have been served conditional warnings for taking part in a protest march which disrupted a YMCA charity event. Blogger Roy Ngerng said he is being charged for taking part as well.[/h]
hong-lim-park-cpf-protest.jpg
The Return Our CPF rally on Sep 27, 2014. (Photo: Diane Leow)







SINGAPORE: Police have issued conditional warnings to two people who had participated in a "Return Our CPF" event at Speakers' Corner at Hong Lim Park on Sep 27.

The individuals were not named, but a spokesperson said on Thursday (Oct 23): "These actions are taken after careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, and in consultation with the Attorney General's Chambers. The investigation outcome for the remaining individuals will be made known to them in due course".


Police had earlier confirmed several people had been asked to assist in investigations into the event. Participants of a march, led by blogger Han Hui Hui, had reportedly disrupted performances and frightened special needs-children who were taking the stage for a YMCA charity event.

Ms Han and fellow blogger Roy Ngerng have said that they have been called up for investigations. She posted on her Facebook page on Thursday evening that she would be going to Police Cantonment Complex on Friday at 10am.


Late Thursday, Mr Ngerng said on Facebook that he is being charged for taking part in the Sep 27 protest and shared an article which said six Singaporeans will be charged for "public nuisance" in connection with the incident. Ms Han also posted confirmation that Mr Ngerng and her, along with four others, will be turning up at the State Courts on Monday morning.




- CNA/ly
 

soIsee

Alfrescian
Loyal
Re: FAP Trying to Frighten SGs from Attending #ReturnOurCPF protest. Try this on HKer

What a joke.

NP issue permit and withdraw it last moment when protest was on-going and Poodle termed as Public nuisance?

Why don't termed it ' Public nuisance with a license to do so'?

Fantastic! Sinkie better examine this and ask themselves where are their lives heading to with such ppl running their lives!

Honest question here is, DO SINGAPOREANS KNOWING FULL WELL WHAT SORT OF 'MANAGEMENT METHODS' ARE BEING USED TO MANAGE THEIR LIVES, DO THEY CONTINUE TO ACCEPT THIS?
 

makapaaa

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
HHH, ROY AND 4 OTHERS TO BE CHARGED IN COURT FOR "PUBLIC NUISANCE". FAP = North Korea

[h=1]HAN HUI HUI, ROY NGERNG AND FOUR OTHERS TO BE CHARGED IN COURT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE[/h]
<!-- /.block --> <style>.node-article .field-name-link-line-above-tags{float: right;}.node-article .field-name-ad-box-in-article {float: left;margin: 15px 15px 10px 0;}.node-article .field-tags{clear: both;}</style> Post date:
23 Oct 2014 - 11:06pm





<ins id="aswift_0_expand" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: currentColor; width: 336px; height: 280px; display: inline-table; visibility: visible; position: relative; background-color: transparent; border-image: none;"><ins id="aswift_0_anchor" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: currentColor; width: 336px; height: 280px; display: block; visibility: visible; position: relative; background-color: transparent; border-image: none;"><iframe name="aswift_0" width="336" height="280" id="aswift_0" frameBorder="0" marginWidth="0" marginHeight="0" scrolling="no" vspace="0" hspace="0" allowfullscreen="true" style="left: 0px; top: 0px; position: absolute;" allowTransparency="true"></iframe></ins></ins>


The Police has charged six Singaporeans, including Han Hui Hui and Roy Ngerng, with “public nuisance” in connection with the #ReturnOurCPF protest on 27 September 2014.

The Police has ordered the six Singaporeans to appear at the state court this coming Monday, 27 October 2014, at 10am to “answer to the charge”. A warrant of arrest will be issued if they do not appear in court.

Earlier today, the Police has issued a warning to four other Singaporeans who were also interviewed in relation to the protest but were let off with a warning.
(See: Police close the case and issue 'Stern Warning' to CPF Protesters)

The Police started investigating the ten Singaporeans two weeks ago, including Ms Han, who is the organiser of the protest and Roy, who is currently being sued by the Singapore prime minister for defamation and had spoken at the protest.

The Police had initially investigated the attendees for “unlawful assembly”. However, it changed the charge against the six Singaporeans, including Ms Han and Roy, to “public nuisance”. They are ordered to appear in court on Monday to be formally charged:

zDIGF3L.png
gKOSb3o.png


The Police is charging the six Singaporeans for “disrupt(ing) the YMCA event and caused annoyance to the public) and having committed the following acts:

  1. marching around the general vicinity of the YMCA event
  2. shouting loudly
  3. chanting slogans
  4. waving flags
  5. holding placards
  6. blowing whistles loudly
  7. beating drums


According to Section 268 of Chapter 224, “A person is guilty of a public nuisance, who does any act, or is guilty of an illegal omission, which causes any common injury, danger or annoyance to the public, or to the people in general who dwell or occupy property in the vicinity, or which must necessarily cause injury, obstruction, danger or annoyance to persons who may have occasion to use any public right.”

However, one might question the relevance of the charge of “public nuisance” considering that the Speakers’ Corner is intended for the specific purpose of protests and demonstrations.

The very nature of protests and demonstrations would require marching, the chanting of slogans, holding placards, etc or precisely what the attendees to the #ReturnOurCPF protest are being charged for.

In fact, NParks regulations on the use of the Hong Lim Park for protests and demonstrations recognises the use of “flags” and “placards” as well.

As such, to charge Ms Han, Roy and the other four attendees seem to be ironic, considering the purpose of the space.

Would the Police wanting to charge the six of them for exercising their rights to the natural use of the space be a transgression of the police’s powers?



<ins id="aswift_1_expand" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: currentColor; width: 336px; height: 280px; display: inline-table; visibility: visible; position: relative; background-color: transparent; border-image: none;"><ins id="aswift_1_anchor" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: currentColor; width: 336px; height: 280px; display: block; visibility: visible; position: relative; background-color: transparent; border-image: none;"><iframe name="aswift_1" width="336" height="280" id="aswift_1" frameBorder="0" marginWidth="0" marginHeight="0" scrolling="no" vspace="0" hspace="0" allowfullscreen="true" style="left: 0px; top: 0px; position: absolute;" allowTransparency="true"></iframe></ins></ins>


At this point, it is still uncertain as to who had made the report against the attendees and what the report made was about. Also, how was the decision made to charge the protestors for “unlawful assembly” and then “public nuisance”?

The two charges carry with them different meanings. “Unlawful assembly” refers to “An assembly of 5 or more persons … to overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force”.

Could the Police have realised the ridiculousness of charging the attendees for “unlawful assembly” for having “legally” assembled at the Hong Lim Park and thus switched to the charge of “public nuisance”?

Even so, both charges would do not sync with the natural use of the space of Hong Lim Park – for protests and demonstrations.

At this point, it might perhaps be necessary to hear from YMCA on their explanation. If YMCA had made a police report against Ms Han, Roy and the other attendees, on what basis was the report made?

Did YMCA encroach on the Hong Lim Park space or did the #ReturnOurCPF attendees encroach on the YMCA event? Also, why did NParks allow two events which were clearly going to have some tension happen at the same time?

(See also: NParks: We let two events happen together at HLP as we've never had problems before)
It was exposed that the YMCA Board and Patron have affiliations to the current ruling party, the People’s Action Party (PAP), and this has set tongues wagging as to whether the prosecution of Ms Han, Roy and the four other Singaporeans is an attempt at silencing critique towards the PAP government – akin to the use of NEA to unfairly prosecute the Worker’s Party.

The question, however, is – is there no other recourse but the use of law? Indeed, could the government have addressed the concerns of Singaporeans over the Central Provident Fund (CPF) retirement funds, in view of how the protests are in relation to this matter? Or could YMCA have met with Ms Han and Roy to amicably discuss the issue?

The use of the law to prosecute Ms Han, Roy and the four other Singaporeans thus seem overly-heavy handed and unrefined.

This prosecution will be understood by most observers as an intentional move by the government to silence Ms Han, Roy and the protestors.

As yet, the government has yet to respond to the call for more transparency and accountability over the CPF, as the protestors have demanded.

The government’s action of ignoring the protestors’ calls to protect Singaporeans but instead use the law to prosecute them would be seen as not only unfair, but an attempt to evade having to respond to the questioning of the CPF.

The charge of “public nuisance” carries with it a penalty of up to $1,000 for each person.
 

makapaaa

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Re: HHH, ROY AND 4 OTHERS TO BE CHARGED IN COURT FOR "PUBLIC NUISANCE". FAP = North K

leehsienloongpointingfingers_zpsefb36004.jpg


I dare you Stinkees to vote me out the next GE! *hee*hee*

[video=youtube;KRPQfN3K648]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=KRPQfN3K648[/video]
 
Last edited:

makapaaa

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Re: FAP Trying to Frighten SGs from Attending #ReturnOurCPF protest. Try this on HKer

The FAP Traitors are simply resorting to cheapskate dirty "leegalized" tactics to silence HHH, Roy and others. These traitors think that they will get away again with their evil and despicable ways. They think they can buy their international community to silence. They think the 60% will continue to remain silent and give them a blank cheque. They think the 40% will only kpkb, but have not guts to march on the street like what the diehard Hongkongers are doing. Well, they may be right. But little do they know that retribution acts when it is least expected.
 

soIsee

Alfrescian
Loyal
Re: HHH, ROY AND 4 OTHERS TO BE CHARGED IN COURT FOR "PUBLIC NUISANCE". FAP = North K

Insp Wong should have included :
8. Attendees doing tribal dance.
9. HAN Hui Hui going bra less
10. Using broken English with lots of Grammatical errors( which no doubt the boss here would love to correct)
11. Nobody bothered to put on formal wear of coat and tie during protesting unlike million dollars pastors during preaching
12. No invitations send to Elites to attend the protest.
 

Sinkie

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Re: HHH, ROY AND 4 OTHERS TO BE CHARGED IN COURT FOR "PUBLIC NUISANCE". FAP = North K

This case should just proceed to the family court for mediation, as we're ONE BIG FAMILY....why so much animosity.

Also, they could have been there to assist NEA to chase away the mosquitoes for the YMCA event by all the :


marching around the general vicinity of the YMCA event
shouting loudly
chanting slogans
waving flags
holding placards
blowing whistles loudly
beating drums


It is proven that such actions work wonders, better than using poisonous insecticide that will harm the brains of special needs children and the esteemed no-brainer guest of honor.
 

laksaboy

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Re: HHH, ROY AND 4 OTHERS TO BE CHARGED IN COURT FOR "PUBLIC NUISANCE". FAP = North K

I know of rowdier FTs who were not even warned, much less getting charged for 'public nuisance'. :rolleyes:

Petty, passive-aggressive fixing by the pappies. :rolleyes:

I think they should be like Gandhi. Don't pay the British their salt tax, and instead choose to go to jail. There's nothing much to lose anyway.

You pay fines of $1k here and $1k there, you're just feeding the beast and helping it grow stronger. :wink:
 

makapaaa

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Re: HHH, ROY AND 4 OTHERS TO BE CHARGED IN COURT FOR "PUBLIC NUISANCE". FAP = North K

Roy and HHH should start a donation drive. It is not so much to raise $2k, but to allow SGs to express their stand against the despotic and treacherous FAP regime!
 
Top