• 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.

No offence committed? But what are the reasons?

Confuseous

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2015/03/no-offence-committed-but-what-are-the-reasons/

Not illegal but….

What we can conclude from the incidents mentioned above is this:

The distribution of flyers in itself is not illegal in Singapore.
It is unclear if the content of such flyers or the act of distributing them would constitute “intentional harassment”.
The gathering or assembling of person/s to distribute such flyers requires a permit.
The third point is perhaps the one which needs further clarification.

If a permit is required to gather in order to distribute flyers (as Justice Woo’s judgement in the SDP case indicates), then did Mr Lye and his activists apply for one and was one given?

The authorities, particularly the Attorney General and the SPF, should explain in more details its conclusion that Mr Lye and the PAP activists had not committed any offence in distributing the flyers, why this is so and whether a permit was issued for the activists to gather as a group to carry out the distribution.

“Art 12(1) does not require that there be no discrimination at all; rather, it requires that those within a similar category or class of persons are not to be treated unalike.” – Justice Woo Bih Li.
 

phouse3

Alfrescian
Loyal
What is an anomaly now may be a norm in the future. What was an anomaly in 2006 may be a norm today. Today, even the PAP goes to Hong Lim Park to "protest".

WP supporters used to call liberals bloody leftists. Just days ago, WP said moving to the left is right. So you see: last time, mata used to wear shorts.

Selling of newsletters was once deemed as illegal hawking. Today, everybody goes about doing it. Ditto for flyering.

WP had been knocking on doors and distributing flyers before close of Nomination Day. I am 100% sure it will be doing the same for the coming general elections. Oddly, it was WP which claimed that flyering is illegal.

TOC editors should not behave like they know all today and look fools tomorrow. Grow up and don't kelong so much.

Now, stop the charade and answer the questions.

1. Was there a conflict of interest between AIM and PAP town councils?

If there is a hole in your left pants pocket and you transfer the items to the right pocket pending the purchase of a new pair of pants, is there any conflict of interest? Is the allegation of corruption in AIM defamatory?

2. Was there a conflict of interest between WP friends and WP town council?

Just like in Maths, when 2 sets are not exactly the same, the elements in the intersection presented a tug and pull effect. Did FMSS tug away financial resources from the town council which are the residents' money?

Were any of the monies:
- expended as town council contracts for WP leaders?
- re-circulated back to WP as donations?
- expended as workers' salaries and bonuses?
 

halsey02

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
You need a printing permit to distribute them flyers under the Printing Act..oh! we forgot!...they write the laws, they can modify, interpret or change it for their convenience!:rolleyes:
 

PMPunk

Alfrescian
Loyal
Lol phouse3 aka DOGTOR Joseph Ong Chor Teck, up to mischief again? Glenda Han left WP liao, dun have to keep whacking WP because she rejected you the teeko dogtor ..... Lol
 
Top