-
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.
Aljunied GRC MPs Outreach...
- Thread starter sengkang
- Start date
Mr Low Thia Kiang, just one question to Workers Party. How many more MP do you need before you all dare just to speak out for Singapore social injustice?
The real Opposition Supporter
The case against Amos Yee proves we have no Rule of Law
Protected May 5th, 2015 | Author: Contributions
The Amos Yee prosecution is yet another clear demonstration of the fact that we have no rule of law in Singapore.
How would you define rule of law?
Tom Bingham, the late former Chief Justice of England and Wales and a leading authority on human rights law, defined “rule of law” as being the case:
That all persons and authorities within the state, whether public or private, should be bound by and entitled to the benefit of laws publicly made, taking effect (generally) in the future and publicly administered in the court.
This means that the rulers and agencies of government are not above the law but are also bound to act in accordance with the law as administered by an independent and impartial judiciary. It also means that everyone is entitled to due process and not to be detained for anything but the shortest possible time without being charged and judged in a court of law.
What we have in Singapore instead is “rule by law”. There are well-developed legal codes and enforcement but the state and the rulers do not feel themselves bound to act in accordance with the law. Furthermore there is no independent check on their authority.
Amos has been charged under the Penal Code, presumably under Article 298, which makes it an offence to “utter words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound the religious or racial feelings of any person.” He was also charged under Article 292 with electronic transmission of an obscene image.
The third charge was under the new Protection from Harassment Act with making an online video containing remarks about Mr Lee that offended people who viewed it.
The relevant clause is:
4.—(1) No person shall by any means —
(a)use any threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour; or
(b)make any threatening, abusive or insulting communication,
which is heard, seen or otherwise perceived by any person (referred to for the purposes of this section as the victim) likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress.
The second and third charges are patently ridiculous.
The Protection from Harassment Act is plainly intended to cover those on the receiving end of threatening, abusive or insulting communications and not random bystanders or onlookers. This is made clear by the phrase “any person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress.” It is difficult to see how the eleven complainants could reasonably claim to have been caused harassment, alarm or distress. The only people who could conceivably claim that are Lee Kuan Yew himself or his children. The PM, as a public figure, would be expected to have a higher threshold for offence.
Unfortunately the prosecution of Amos for causing offence is supported by several cases in the UK, to which the PAP Government looks for direction for much of its legislation. which is supposed to be a bastion of free speech, has jailed several individuals who were guilty of nothing more than making offensive posts on social media. Though some of these convictions have been reversed on appeal they have had a chilling effect on freedom of speech.
It is only in the US that the right to offensive speech is protected under the First Amendment. This was shown in the case of the Westboro Baptist Church who picketed funerals of military personnel killed in Iraq with signs proclaiming that it was a judgement from God because of America’s tolerance of homosexuality. The US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion in a decision in favour of their right to demonstrate stating:
“What Westboro said, in the whole context of how and where it chose to say it, is entitled to ‘special protection’ under the First Amendment and that protection cannot be overcome by a jury finding that the picketing was outrageous.”
It is absurd to suggest that Christians could be offended by Amos’s assertions that Christians are greedy and that Jesus Christ is bad. They did not have to watch the video. If this prosecution succeeds what will be the next step? Will Christian Fundamentalists in Singapore succeed in getting the works of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens banned in Singapore? Richard Dawkins is the author of “The God Delusion” and Christopher Hitchens wrote “God Is Not Great”. After that presumably the PAP will have to ban the teaching of evolution and other scientific doctrines that contradict religious texts.
The charge of transmitting an obscene image is also absurd when the figures were abstract. No genitalia were shown. In fact the image was more sedate than the ones most people would encounter in any art gallery and were considerably less sexual than most of the images seen daily by people of all ages on television and the Internet. To prosecute Amos for this makes Singapore a laughing stock internationally. Furthermore to prosecute a child for transmitting obscene images is hypocritical when Singapore fails to monitor paedophiles adequately and protect children from sexual exploitation.
Also the prosecution of Amos demonstrates that we have no rule of law in Singapore. Lee Kuan Yew made countless and well-documented racist remarks about every minority in Singapore without ever being prosecuted for wounding the racial and religious feelings of those minorities.
There is this for instance:
If, for instance, you put in a Malay officer who’s very religious and who has family ties in Malaysia in charge of a machine gun unit, that’s a very tricky business. We’ve got to know his background… I’m saying these things because they are real, and if I don’t think that, and I think even if today the Prime Minister doesn’t think carefully about this, we could have a tragedy.
Straits Times, September 19, 1999 on Malays in the Singapore Armed Forces
Also in his interview with National Geographic magazine in 2009 LKY complained that,
“The influence from the Middle East has made them [Malays] have head-dresses for no rhyme or reason.”
He went on to say:
“Well, we make them say the national pledge and sing the national anthem but suppose we have a famine, will your Malay neighbour give you the last few grains of rice or will she share it with her family or fellow Muslim or vice versa?”
Of course no one dared to make a police report about LKY like the 22 individuals who claimed that Amos’s video offended them. Yet I do not see how anyone can argue that LKY’s words were not intended to wound the racial and religious feelings of the Malay minority.
LKY’s comments have enabled countless offensive and racist comments from members of the PAP yet there have been no prosecutions. There was the incident in Parliament in 1992 when PAP MP Choo Wee Khiang said that when he went down to Little India at 4pm it was already dark “not because there was no light, but because there were too many Indians around there“. What he said in Parliament may have been protected by Parliamentary privilege but his colleagues should have punished him. After all when he was an MP, J B Jeyaretnam was frequently fined and suspended by the PAP MPs. Yet even though he was an adult he was allowed to apologise by PM Goh and the matter was closed.
Similarly despite numerous police reports the AG choses not to prosecute Jason Neo for his offensive posting in 2011 equating Muslim schoolchildren with terrorists. Admittedly it would have been the height of hypocrisy to prosecute Jason Neo when he only expressed the same views as his leader LKY.
Article 12.—(1) of our much ignored and abused Constitution states that
All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.
Yet in charging Amos Yeo, a child of 16, the AG has clearly ignored this when so many others from LKY downwards have been able to get away with similar offences.
What makes the lack of rule of law and equal treatment under the law even more glaring is that Amos would be regarded as a child in most jurisdictions. In Singapore, under the Children and Young Persons Act, only juveniles up to the age of 16 enjoy special protection. Despite being a signatory to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the PAP Government has not extended the protections under the Convention to children over 16 and below 18. Thus what is barbaric treatment of a child, particularly one accused of a non-violent offence, by the standards of other advanced countries, is perfectly legal in Singapore. This treatment includes handcuffing him and setting his bail amount far in excess of what would be in line with the seriousness of his offence. The judge also refused to allow anyone except
Amos’s parents to post bail for him when someone made a police report that he had violated his bail conditions. This resulted in Amos being confined in a police cell almost certainly with adult offenders which would be a serious violation of his rights under the UN Convention.
Amos Yee said in his video that we had no freedom in Singapore. Ironically the authorities’ actions to suppress him and scare Singaporeans have proved his contention beyond a shadow of doubt.
Kenneth Jeyaretnam
* The writer is Secretary-General of the Reform Party and blogs at sonofadud.com
The real Opposition Supporter
The case against Amos Yee proves we have no Rule of Law
Protected May 5th, 2015 | Author: Contributions
The Amos Yee prosecution is yet another clear demonstration of the fact that we have no rule of law in Singapore.
How would you define rule of law?
Tom Bingham, the late former Chief Justice of England and Wales and a leading authority on human rights law, defined “rule of law” as being the case:
That all persons and authorities within the state, whether public or private, should be bound by and entitled to the benefit of laws publicly made, taking effect (generally) in the future and publicly administered in the court.
This means that the rulers and agencies of government are not above the law but are also bound to act in accordance with the law as administered by an independent and impartial judiciary. It also means that everyone is entitled to due process and not to be detained for anything but the shortest possible time without being charged and judged in a court of law.
What we have in Singapore instead is “rule by law”. There are well-developed legal codes and enforcement but the state and the rulers do not feel themselves bound to act in accordance with the law. Furthermore there is no independent check on their authority.
Amos has been charged under the Penal Code, presumably under Article 298, which makes it an offence to “utter words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound the religious or racial feelings of any person.” He was also charged under Article 292 with electronic transmission of an obscene image.
The third charge was under the new Protection from Harassment Act with making an online video containing remarks about Mr Lee that offended people who viewed it.
The relevant clause is:
4.—(1) No person shall by any means —
(a)use any threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour; or
(b)make any threatening, abusive or insulting communication,
which is heard, seen or otherwise perceived by any person (referred to for the purposes of this section as the victim) likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress.
The second and third charges are patently ridiculous.
The Protection from Harassment Act is plainly intended to cover those on the receiving end of threatening, abusive or insulting communications and not random bystanders or onlookers. This is made clear by the phrase “any person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress.” It is difficult to see how the eleven complainants could reasonably claim to have been caused harassment, alarm or distress. The only people who could conceivably claim that are Lee Kuan Yew himself or his children. The PM, as a public figure, would be expected to have a higher threshold for offence.
Unfortunately the prosecution of Amos for causing offence is supported by several cases in the UK, to which the PAP Government looks for direction for much of its legislation. which is supposed to be a bastion of free speech, has jailed several individuals who were guilty of nothing more than making offensive posts on social media. Though some of these convictions have been reversed on appeal they have had a chilling effect on freedom of speech.
It is only in the US that the right to offensive speech is protected under the First Amendment. This was shown in the case of the Westboro Baptist Church who picketed funerals of military personnel killed in Iraq with signs proclaiming that it was a judgement from God because of America’s tolerance of homosexuality. The US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion in a decision in favour of their right to demonstrate stating:
“What Westboro said, in the whole context of how and where it chose to say it, is entitled to ‘special protection’ under the First Amendment and that protection cannot be overcome by a jury finding that the picketing was outrageous.”
It is absurd to suggest that Christians could be offended by Amos’s assertions that Christians are greedy and that Jesus Christ is bad. They did not have to watch the video. If this prosecution succeeds what will be the next step? Will Christian Fundamentalists in Singapore succeed in getting the works of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens banned in Singapore? Richard Dawkins is the author of “The God Delusion” and Christopher Hitchens wrote “God Is Not Great”. After that presumably the PAP will have to ban the teaching of evolution and other scientific doctrines that contradict religious texts.
The charge of transmitting an obscene image is also absurd when the figures were abstract. No genitalia were shown. In fact the image was more sedate than the ones most people would encounter in any art gallery and were considerably less sexual than most of the images seen daily by people of all ages on television and the Internet. To prosecute Amos for this makes Singapore a laughing stock internationally. Furthermore to prosecute a child for transmitting obscene images is hypocritical when Singapore fails to monitor paedophiles adequately and protect children from sexual exploitation.
Also the prosecution of Amos demonstrates that we have no rule of law in Singapore. Lee Kuan Yew made countless and well-documented racist remarks about every minority in Singapore without ever being prosecuted for wounding the racial and religious feelings of those minorities.
There is this for instance:
If, for instance, you put in a Malay officer who’s very religious and who has family ties in Malaysia in charge of a machine gun unit, that’s a very tricky business. We’ve got to know his background… I’m saying these things because they are real, and if I don’t think that, and I think even if today the Prime Minister doesn’t think carefully about this, we could have a tragedy.
Straits Times, September 19, 1999 on Malays in the Singapore Armed Forces
Also in his interview with National Geographic magazine in 2009 LKY complained that,
“The influence from the Middle East has made them [Malays] have head-dresses for no rhyme or reason.”
He went on to say:
“Well, we make them say the national pledge and sing the national anthem but suppose we have a famine, will your Malay neighbour give you the last few grains of rice or will she share it with her family or fellow Muslim or vice versa?”
Of course no one dared to make a police report about LKY like the 22 individuals who claimed that Amos’s video offended them. Yet I do not see how anyone can argue that LKY’s words were not intended to wound the racial and religious feelings of the Malay minority.
LKY’s comments have enabled countless offensive and racist comments from members of the PAP yet there have been no prosecutions. There was the incident in Parliament in 1992 when PAP MP Choo Wee Khiang said that when he went down to Little India at 4pm it was already dark “not because there was no light, but because there were too many Indians around there“. What he said in Parliament may have been protected by Parliamentary privilege but his colleagues should have punished him. After all when he was an MP, J B Jeyaretnam was frequently fined and suspended by the PAP MPs. Yet even though he was an adult he was allowed to apologise by PM Goh and the matter was closed.
Similarly despite numerous police reports the AG choses not to prosecute Jason Neo for his offensive posting in 2011 equating Muslim schoolchildren with terrorists. Admittedly it would have been the height of hypocrisy to prosecute Jason Neo when he only expressed the same views as his leader LKY.
Article 12.—(1) of our much ignored and abused Constitution states that
All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.
Yet in charging Amos Yeo, a child of 16, the AG has clearly ignored this when so many others from LKY downwards have been able to get away with similar offences.
What makes the lack of rule of law and equal treatment under the law even more glaring is that Amos would be regarded as a child in most jurisdictions. In Singapore, under the Children and Young Persons Act, only juveniles up to the age of 16 enjoy special protection. Despite being a signatory to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the PAP Government has not extended the protections under the Convention to children over 16 and below 18. Thus what is barbaric treatment of a child, particularly one accused of a non-violent offence, by the standards of other advanced countries, is perfectly legal in Singapore. This treatment includes handcuffing him and setting his bail amount far in excess of what would be in line with the seriousness of his offence. The judge also refused to allow anyone except
Amos’s parents to post bail for him when someone made a police report that he had violated his bail conditions. This resulted in Amos being confined in a police cell almost certainly with adult offenders which would be a serious violation of his rights under the UN Convention.
Amos Yee said in his video that we had no freedom in Singapore. Ironically the authorities’ actions to suppress him and scare Singaporeans have proved his contention beyond a shadow of doubt.
Kenneth Jeyaretnam
* The writer is Secretary-General of the Reform Party and blogs at sonofadud.com
copied TR Emeritius
Netizen urges oppo MPs to raise these Qs in Parliament
Protected May 9th, 2015 | Author: Contributions
Parliament
I’ve sent the following questions to opposition MPs hoping that they will raise some of these hot button issues in Parliament. I hope they can get the govt to answer these questions. The next session of parliament will be held next Tuesday, 12/05/2015.
To MHA:
1: WHAT is taking so long for the police to solve the following cases?
J/20111117/2218: case of sedition for posting image with caption offensive to Muslims, report made against Mr. Jason Neo. Case still unresolved after 3.5 years.
E/20121211/2119: case of death threats made against Singaporeans, report made against Mr. Topher Yakuza. Case still unresolved after 2.5 years.
E/20150211/7007: case of sedition for posting comments offensive to ethnic Chinese, particularly Buddhists and Taoists, report made against Mr. Neill Graham. Case still unresolved after 3 months.
D/20150402/7009: case of threats of physical violence and sexual abuse made against Mr. Amos Yee, report made against Mr. Jason Tan Kok Whee. Case still unresolved after 1 month.
(I have attached copies of the police reports as evidence)
2: In view of the terrorist threats that Ed Mundsel Bello Ello made against Singaporeans and Singapore, WHY was he only charged under lesser charges of sedition and not the far more severe charge of subversion, and WHY wasn’t the ISA used against him given the severity of his threats?
Doesn’t the failure to use the ISA against Edz Ello when he made terrorist threats against the country PROVE that the ISA is worthless and should be abolished immediately?
3: In view of the revelation that Ms. Nisha Padmanabhan of the IDA has an MBA while “Dr.” Marc Jonet has a Masters Degree & a Ph. D from known degree mills, WHAT measures are the ICA taking to ensure that permanent residencies and citizenship are awarded ONLY to people with bona fide qualifications, NOT fake ones?
To MinLaw:
1: WHY was lawyer Alvin Yeo’s case classified as “over-billing” and not “overcharging”? WHAT exactly are the differences between them apart from being a case of mere semantics? (Alvin Yeo is currently a PAP MP).
To MOM, MOE, MOF, NTUC:
1: In view of the revelations that Ms. Nisha Padmanabhan of the IDA has an MBA while “Dr.” Marc Jonet has a Masters Degree & a Ph. D from known degree mills while “Dr.” Anup Shankar, formerly of NUS is NOT a qualified medical doctor at all, WHAT measures are the government taking to ensure that ONLY foreigners who GRADUATED from PROPERLY ACCREDITED universities receive gainful employment here, particularly in the PMET sectors?
Moreover, considering that “Dr.” Shankar was teaching medicine in NUS when he’s not a qualified medical doctor, how will this affect the status of his former pupils since they were taught by somebody unqualified to teach them?
2: If restoring the status of Thaipusam as a public holiday will cause major negative impacts in productivity and GDP growth, then WHY is the government considering gazetting a “Founder’s Day” in honor of Mr. Lee Kuan Yew when this will ALSO cause the SAME major negative impacts in productivity and GDP growth?
To MOT:
1: SMRT Ltd and SBS Transit are still giving mediocre performances as PTOs, especially SMRT Ltd. Despite this, they keep raising transport fares while earning healthy profits. WHY are they allowed to do this?
If it is because as former PTC Chairman Gerard Ee says that they must earn a level of profit that they are comfortable with before they can focus on resolving issues, then shouldn’t the PTOs be nationalized since the privatization policy has clearly FAILED to improve service quality or productivity but has instead encouraged profiteering and greed?
2: WHAT measures are the government taking to recover the loss of half a billion dollars from Alpine Bau GmBH (Singapore branch) in view of their insolvency and failure to complete the 2 MRT stations they were contracted to construct?
To Opposition MPs:
As the elected representatives of the people mandated to provide check and balance on the government, please raise these issues and keep pressing the government for answers as many Singaporeans are getting tired of our Govt evading questions and practising double standards.
If you guys are not willing to check on them, perhaps you guys should stand aside and retire. Let others who are more willing to question the government to run for the next election and get into the Parliament.
Don’t waste our time!
Thanks & best regards.
Patrick
* Submitted by TRE reader
Netizen urges oppo MPs to raise these Qs in Parliament
Protected May 9th, 2015 | Author: Contributions
Parliament
I’ve sent the following questions to opposition MPs hoping that they will raise some of these hot button issues in Parliament. I hope they can get the govt to answer these questions. The next session of parliament will be held next Tuesday, 12/05/2015.
To MHA:
1: WHAT is taking so long for the police to solve the following cases?
J/20111117/2218: case of sedition for posting image with caption offensive to Muslims, report made against Mr. Jason Neo. Case still unresolved after 3.5 years.
E/20121211/2119: case of death threats made against Singaporeans, report made against Mr. Topher Yakuza. Case still unresolved after 2.5 years.
E/20150211/7007: case of sedition for posting comments offensive to ethnic Chinese, particularly Buddhists and Taoists, report made against Mr. Neill Graham. Case still unresolved after 3 months.
D/20150402/7009: case of threats of physical violence and sexual abuse made against Mr. Amos Yee, report made against Mr. Jason Tan Kok Whee. Case still unresolved after 1 month.
(I have attached copies of the police reports as evidence)
2: In view of the terrorist threats that Ed Mundsel Bello Ello made against Singaporeans and Singapore, WHY was he only charged under lesser charges of sedition and not the far more severe charge of subversion, and WHY wasn’t the ISA used against him given the severity of his threats?
Doesn’t the failure to use the ISA against Edz Ello when he made terrorist threats against the country PROVE that the ISA is worthless and should be abolished immediately?
3: In view of the revelation that Ms. Nisha Padmanabhan of the IDA has an MBA while “Dr.” Marc Jonet has a Masters Degree & a Ph. D from known degree mills, WHAT measures are the ICA taking to ensure that permanent residencies and citizenship are awarded ONLY to people with bona fide qualifications, NOT fake ones?
To MinLaw:
1: WHY was lawyer Alvin Yeo’s case classified as “over-billing” and not “overcharging”? WHAT exactly are the differences between them apart from being a case of mere semantics? (Alvin Yeo is currently a PAP MP).
To MOM, MOE, MOF, NTUC:
1: In view of the revelations that Ms. Nisha Padmanabhan of the IDA has an MBA while “Dr.” Marc Jonet has a Masters Degree & a Ph. D from known degree mills while “Dr.” Anup Shankar, formerly of NUS is NOT a qualified medical doctor at all, WHAT measures are the government taking to ensure that ONLY foreigners who GRADUATED from PROPERLY ACCREDITED universities receive gainful employment here, particularly in the PMET sectors?
Moreover, considering that “Dr.” Shankar was teaching medicine in NUS when he’s not a qualified medical doctor, how will this affect the status of his former pupils since they were taught by somebody unqualified to teach them?
2: If restoring the status of Thaipusam as a public holiday will cause major negative impacts in productivity and GDP growth, then WHY is the government considering gazetting a “Founder’s Day” in honor of Mr. Lee Kuan Yew when this will ALSO cause the SAME major negative impacts in productivity and GDP growth?
To MOT:
1: SMRT Ltd and SBS Transit are still giving mediocre performances as PTOs, especially SMRT Ltd. Despite this, they keep raising transport fares while earning healthy profits. WHY are they allowed to do this?
If it is because as former PTC Chairman Gerard Ee says that they must earn a level of profit that they are comfortable with before they can focus on resolving issues, then shouldn’t the PTOs be nationalized since the privatization policy has clearly FAILED to improve service quality or productivity but has instead encouraged profiteering and greed?
2: WHAT measures are the government taking to recover the loss of half a billion dollars from Alpine Bau GmBH (Singapore branch) in view of their insolvency and failure to complete the 2 MRT stations they were contracted to construct?
To Opposition MPs:
As the elected representatives of the people mandated to provide check and balance on the government, please raise these issues and keep pressing the government for answers as many Singaporeans are getting tired of our Govt evading questions and practising double standards.
If you guys are not willing to check on them, perhaps you guys should stand aside and retire. Let others who are more willing to question the government to run for the next election and get into the Parliament.
Don’t waste our time!
Thanks & best regards.
Patrick
* Submitted by TRE reader
copied TR Emeritius
Ariffin:
May 9, 2015 at 6:21 pm (Quote)
Worker party if you want to be elected again you have to ask all these questions. We elect you to check on the government. If you keep quiet I am afraid you will not retain your seats in the next election.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Netizen urges oppo MPs to raise these Qs in Parliament
Protected May 9th, 2015 | Author: Contributions
Parliament
I’ve sent the following questions to opposition MPs hoping that they will raise some of these hot button issues in Parliament. I hope they can get the govt to answer these questions. The next session of parliament will be held next Tuesday, 12/05/2015.
To MHA:
1: WHAT is taking so long for the police to solve the following cases?
J/20111117/2218: case of sedition for posting image with caption offensive to Muslims, report made against Mr. Jason Neo. Case still unresolved after 3.5 years.
E/20121211/2119: case of death threats made against Singaporeans, report made against Mr. Topher Yakuza. Case still unresolved after 2.5 years.
E/20150211/7007: case of sedition for posting comments offensive to ethnic Chinese, particularly Buddhists and Taoists, report made against Mr. Neill Graham. Case still unresolved after 3 months.
D/20150402/7009: case of threats of physical violence and sexual abuse made against Mr. Amos Yee, report made against Mr. Jason Tan Kok Whee. Case still unresolved after 1 month.
(I have attached copies of the police reports as evidence)
2: In view of the terrorist threats that Ed Mundsel Bello Ello made against Singaporeans and Singapore, WHY was he only charged under lesser charges of sedition and not the far more severe charge of subversion, and WHY wasn’t the ISA used against him given the severity of his threats?
Doesn’t the failure to use the ISA against Edz Ello when he made terrorist threats against the country PROVE that the ISA is worthless and should be abolished immediately?
3: In view of the revelation that Ms. Nisha Padmanabhan of the IDA has an MBA while “Dr.” Marc Jonet has a Masters Degree & a Ph. D from known degree mills, WHAT measures are the ICA taking to ensure that permanent residencies and citizenship are awarded ONLY to people with bona fide qualifications, NOT fake ones?
To MinLaw:
1: WHY was lawyer Alvin Yeo’s case classified as “over-billing” and not “overcharging”? WHAT exactly are the differences between them apart from being a case of mere semantics? (Alvin Yeo is currently a PAP MP).
To MOM, MOE, MOF, NTUC:
1: In view of the revelations that Ms. Nisha Padmanabhan of the IDA has an MBA while “Dr.” Marc Jonet has a Masters Degree & a Ph. D from known degree mills while “Dr.” Anup Shankar, formerly of NUS is NOT a qualified medical doctor at all, WHAT measures are the government taking to ensure that ONLY foreigners who GRADUATED from PROPERLY ACCREDITED universities receive gainful employment here, particularly in the PMET sectors?
Moreover, considering that “Dr.” Shankar was teaching medicine in NUS when he’s not a qualified medical doctor, how will this affect the status of his former pupils since they were taught by somebody unqualified to teach them?
2: If restoring the status of Thaipusam as a public holiday will cause major negative impacts in productivity and GDP growth, then WHY is the government considering gazetting a “Founder’s Day” in honor of Mr. Lee Kuan Yew when this will ALSO cause the SAME major negative impacts in productivity and GDP growth?
To MOT:
1: SMRT Ltd and SBS Transit are still giving mediocre performances as PTOs, especially SMRT Ltd. Despite this, they keep raising transport fares while earning healthy profits. WHY are they allowed to do this?
If it is because as former PTC Chairman Gerard Ee says that they must earn a level of profit that they are comfortable with before they can focus on resolving issues, then shouldn’t the PTOs be nationalized since the privatization policy has clearly FAILED to improve service quality or productivity but has instead encouraged profiteering and greed?
2: WHAT measures are the government taking to recover the loss of half a billion dollars from Alpine Bau GmBH (Singapore branch) in view of their insolvency and failure to complete the 2 MRT stations they were contracted to construct?
To Opposition MPs:
As the elected representatives of the people mandated to provide check and balance on the government, please raise these issues and keep pressing the government for answers as many Singaporeans are getting tired of our Govt evading questions and practising double standards.
If you guys are not willing to check on them, perhaps you guys should stand aside and retire. Let others who are more willing to question the government to run for the next election and get into the Parliament.
Don’t waste our time!
Thanks & best regards.
Patrick
* Submitted by TRE reader
Ariffin:
May 9, 2015 at 6:21 pm (Quote)
Worker party if you want to be elected again you have to ask all these questions. We elect you to check on the government. If you keep quiet I am afraid you will not retain your seats in the next election.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Netizen urges oppo MPs to raise these Qs in Parliament
Protected May 9th, 2015 | Author: Contributions
Parliament
I’ve sent the following questions to opposition MPs hoping that they will raise some of these hot button issues in Parliament. I hope they can get the govt to answer these questions. The next session of parliament will be held next Tuesday, 12/05/2015.
To MHA:
1: WHAT is taking so long for the police to solve the following cases?
J/20111117/2218: case of sedition for posting image with caption offensive to Muslims, report made against Mr. Jason Neo. Case still unresolved after 3.5 years.
E/20121211/2119: case of death threats made against Singaporeans, report made against Mr. Topher Yakuza. Case still unresolved after 2.5 years.
E/20150211/7007: case of sedition for posting comments offensive to ethnic Chinese, particularly Buddhists and Taoists, report made against Mr. Neill Graham. Case still unresolved after 3 months.
D/20150402/7009: case of threats of physical violence and sexual abuse made against Mr. Amos Yee, report made against Mr. Jason Tan Kok Whee. Case still unresolved after 1 month.
(I have attached copies of the police reports as evidence)
2: In view of the terrorist threats that Ed Mundsel Bello Ello made against Singaporeans and Singapore, WHY was he only charged under lesser charges of sedition and not the far more severe charge of subversion, and WHY wasn’t the ISA used against him given the severity of his threats?
Doesn’t the failure to use the ISA against Edz Ello when he made terrorist threats against the country PROVE that the ISA is worthless and should be abolished immediately?
3: In view of the revelation that Ms. Nisha Padmanabhan of the IDA has an MBA while “Dr.” Marc Jonet has a Masters Degree & a Ph. D from known degree mills, WHAT measures are the ICA taking to ensure that permanent residencies and citizenship are awarded ONLY to people with bona fide qualifications, NOT fake ones?
To MinLaw:
1: WHY was lawyer Alvin Yeo’s case classified as “over-billing” and not “overcharging”? WHAT exactly are the differences between them apart from being a case of mere semantics? (Alvin Yeo is currently a PAP MP).
To MOM, MOE, MOF, NTUC:
1: In view of the revelations that Ms. Nisha Padmanabhan of the IDA has an MBA while “Dr.” Marc Jonet has a Masters Degree & a Ph. D from known degree mills while “Dr.” Anup Shankar, formerly of NUS is NOT a qualified medical doctor at all, WHAT measures are the government taking to ensure that ONLY foreigners who GRADUATED from PROPERLY ACCREDITED universities receive gainful employment here, particularly in the PMET sectors?
Moreover, considering that “Dr.” Shankar was teaching medicine in NUS when he’s not a qualified medical doctor, how will this affect the status of his former pupils since they were taught by somebody unqualified to teach them?
2: If restoring the status of Thaipusam as a public holiday will cause major negative impacts in productivity and GDP growth, then WHY is the government considering gazetting a “Founder’s Day” in honor of Mr. Lee Kuan Yew when this will ALSO cause the SAME major negative impacts in productivity and GDP growth?
To MOT:
1: SMRT Ltd and SBS Transit are still giving mediocre performances as PTOs, especially SMRT Ltd. Despite this, they keep raising transport fares while earning healthy profits. WHY are they allowed to do this?
If it is because as former PTC Chairman Gerard Ee says that they must earn a level of profit that they are comfortable with before they can focus on resolving issues, then shouldn’t the PTOs be nationalized since the privatization policy has clearly FAILED to improve service quality or productivity but has instead encouraged profiteering and greed?
2: WHAT measures are the government taking to recover the loss of half a billion dollars from Alpine Bau GmBH (Singapore branch) in view of their insolvency and failure to complete the 2 MRT stations they were contracted to construct?
To Opposition MPs:
As the elected representatives of the people mandated to provide check and balance on the government, please raise these issues and keep pressing the government for answers as many Singaporeans are getting tired of our Govt evading questions and practising double standards.
If you guys are not willing to check on them, perhaps you guys should stand aside and retire. Let others who are more willing to question the government to run for the next election and get into the Parliament.
Don’t waste our time!
Thanks & best regards.
Patrick
* Submitted by TRE reader
TR Emeritius
any:
April 23, 2015 at 7:48 pm (Quote)
Mr Low Thia Kiang, just one question to Workers Party. How many more MP do you need before you all dare just to speak out for Singapore social injustice?
Rating: +64 (from 66 votes)
any:
April 23, 2015 at 7:48 pm (Quote)
Mr Low Thia Kiang, just one question to Workers Party. How many more MP do you need before you all dare just to speak out for Singapore social injustice?
Rating: +64 (from 66 votes)
[video=youtube;TnrW0sY_HKc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnrW0sY_HKc[/video]Neo Gim Huah’s Punishment Is Too Lightxingguy
xingguy is offline Alfrescian (Inf)
Angry Neo Gim Huah’s Punishment Is Too Light
Source: States Time Review
admin / 9 mins ago
I am disappointed with the verdict of Neo Gim Huah, who was jailed 3 weeks for voluntarily causing hurt against 16 year old Amos Yee. This is what Neo Gim Huah said of his actions in Court today:
“I remember how arrogant he was…That’s why I thought by giving him one slap would instill fear in him, and also let him know what are the ways of the world.”
“Neo had said that he had intentionally hit Yee in the presence of the media as he “wanted the assault to be publicised so that the world at large would know that (Yee) was being taught a lesson”
Photo from The Straits Times
This is clearly not only one charge of voluntarily causing hurt. By his own admission in Court, there are two other valid charges against Neo Gim Huah:
1) An attempted criminal intimidation to make Amos Yee plead guilty
2) A subjudice contempt of court to influence Court’s judgment on an ongoing trial
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clearly this piece of "chicken shit" Neo Gim Huah's slapping of Amos is pre-mediated and was jailed only for 3 weeks.
It is just a slap on the wrist compare that of a man who spits at Woodlands Bus Interchange and got 5 weeks in jail and fine $800.
Prosecution should appeal and ask for a heavier sentence. Otherwise Neo's sentence is making a mockery of the law.
Excerpt from Yahoo News:
The man at the centre of the Woodlands Bus Interchange spitting incident last year was sentenced to five weeks in jail and slapped an $800 fine, but he was wiping away grateful tears as he was led out of court handcuffed.
Juraimi bin Kamaludin, 48, was on Thursday found guilty of criminal use of force, causing a public nuisance as well as for a rash act endangering life and the personal safety of others.
The charge of disorderly behaviour, which was initially stood down, was taken into consideration.
xingguy is offline Alfrescian (Inf)
Angry Neo Gim Huah’s Punishment Is Too Light
Source: States Time Review
admin / 9 mins ago
I am disappointed with the verdict of Neo Gim Huah, who was jailed 3 weeks for voluntarily causing hurt against 16 year old Amos Yee. This is what Neo Gim Huah said of his actions in Court today:
“I remember how arrogant he was…That’s why I thought by giving him one slap would instill fear in him, and also let him know what are the ways of the world.”
“Neo had said that he had intentionally hit Yee in the presence of the media as he “wanted the assault to be publicised so that the world at large would know that (Yee) was being taught a lesson”
Photo from The Straits Times
This is clearly not only one charge of voluntarily causing hurt. By his own admission in Court, there are two other valid charges against Neo Gim Huah:
1) An attempted criminal intimidation to make Amos Yee plead guilty
2) A subjudice contempt of court to influence Court’s judgment on an ongoing trial
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clearly this piece of "chicken shit" Neo Gim Huah's slapping of Amos is pre-mediated and was jailed only for 3 weeks.
It is just a slap on the wrist compare that of a man who spits at Woodlands Bus Interchange and got 5 weeks in jail and fine $800.
Prosecution should appeal and ask for a heavier sentence. Otherwise Neo's sentence is making a mockery of the law.
Excerpt from Yahoo News:
The man at the centre of the Woodlands Bus Interchange spitting incident last year was sentenced to five weeks in jail and slapped an $800 fine, but he was wiping away grateful tears as he was led out of court handcuffed.
Juraimi bin Kamaludin, 48, was on Thursday found guilty of criminal use of force, causing a public nuisance as well as for a rash act endangering life and the personal safety of others.
The charge of disorderly behaviour, which was initially stood down, was taken into consideration.
