-
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
- Thread starter xingguy
- Start date
Re: HHH, ROY AND 4 OTHERS TO BE CHARGED IN COURT FOR "PUBLIC NUISANCE". FAP = North K
Ravi should now demand the presence of YMCA office bearers to attend court to give evidence........ see if they have been instructed to lodge Police Reports or worse, to fix the protesters.....
Ravi should now demand the presence of YMCA office bearers to attend court to give evidence........ see if they have been instructed to lodge Police Reports or worse, to fix the protesters.....
Re: HHH, ROY AND 4 OTHERS TO BE CHARGED IN COURT FOR "PUBLIC NUISANCE". FAP = North K
lianbeng replies: heard now ravi himself kana sued liao!
lianbeng replies: heard now ravi himself kana sued liao!
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2010
- Messages
- 12,730
- Points
- 113
Re: HHH, ROY AND 4 OTHERS TO BE CHARGED IN COURT FOR "PUBLIC NUISANCE". FAP = North K
It is obvious that the charges were ramped up without giving a thought. The intellectual level of the poodles are really suspect, not that we have not known that. Come to think of it, our real poodles have more brains.
Question - if these are the charges, why were none of the people doing a lot of the above in previous rallies not arrested, let alone warned?
It is obvious that the charges were ramped up without giving a thought. The intellectual level of the poodles are really suspect, not that we have not known that. Come to think of it, our real poodles have more brains.
Question - if these are the charges, why were none of the people doing a lot of the above in previous rallies not arrested, let alone warned?
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2010
- Messages
- 12,730
- Points
- 113
Re: Conditional warnings for "Return Our CPF" protesters at Hong Lim Park
If it was so serious a matter, with the life of a ser fcuking life of a minister in danger, why were they not warned in the first instance during the demo?
Senior police officers and a idiotic director of the NEA were there.
They needed an anonymous police report before they haul Roy and HH in?
What do you think?
If it was so serious a matter, with the life of a ser fcuking life of a minister in danger, why were they not warned in the first instance during the demo?
Senior police officers and a idiotic director of the NEA were there.
They needed an anonymous police report before they haul Roy and HH in?
What do you think?
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2011
- Messages
- 27,848
- Points
- 113
Re: HHH, ROY AND 4 OTHERS TO BE CHARGED IN COURT FOR "PUBLIC NUISANCE". FAP = North K
Now we will need witnesses at the events to testify o how the MC of the YMCA event provoked the CPF protesters.
The trial is going to make the SPF a laughing stock.
Now we will need witnesses at the events to testify o how the MC of the YMCA event provoked the CPF protesters.
The trial is going to make the SPF a laughing stock.
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2013
- Messages
- 17,813
- Points
- 113
Re: HHH, ROY AND 4 OTHERS TO BE CHARGED IN COURT FOR "PUBLIC NUISANCE". FAP = North K
heeehee,charging people with the crime of doing what human beings normally do at a protest/demonstration,me is arm chio......next the poodles will be saying u cant sing gospel songs or pray in a church cause its improper conduct.
heeehee,charging people with the crime of doing what human beings normally do at a protest/demonstration,me is arm chio......next the poodles will be saying u cant sing gospel songs or pray in a church cause its improper conduct.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2010
- Messages
- 12,730
- Points
- 113
Police thought HH would "confess" to her notebook?
I refer to the 19 Oct 2014 Straits Times report “Police have the right to hold notebook”.
The police explained that Section 35(1)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code empowers the police with the right to seize any item suspected to constitute evidence of an offence.
That means the police must have suspected that Han Hui Hui’s notebook contained evidence of her purported ‘crime’. Wonder what that suspected evidence might have been.
Maybe the police thought Hui Hui wrote “I am guilty, I committed the crime, I confess” in her notebook. That would have constituted a confession and hence evidence of her ‘crime’. The police may have thought that Hui Hui was too shy to confess upfront so she wrote her confession in her notebook which must therefore be confiscated.
Or maybe the police thought the notebook was a scrapbook full of incriminating picture evidences that Hui Hui had compiled and brought to the police station but fell just short of giving to them.
Or maybe the police thought the notebook contained a treasure map that led to a treasure trove of evidences Hui Hui had nicely stashed away for them.
The police couldn’t have thought that the notebook merely contained notes of the interview because the police have their own notes and also the video recording of the entire interview session.
Whatever is the reason, the police must have truly believed that the evidence could be found in Hui Hui’s notebook so they had to keep it in order to flip through it again and again to find it. They couldn’t simply photocopy it as they could have also suspected that Hui Hui used invisible ink to make their job a little bit more challenging and worthwhile.
Police work can be so interesting it almost feels like child’s play.
Thank you
Ng Kok Lim
http://www.tremeritus.com/2014/10/2...eason-to-suspect-notebook-contained-evidence/
I refer to the 19 Oct 2014 Straits Times report “Police have the right to hold notebook”.
The police explained that Section 35(1)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code empowers the police with the right to seize any item suspected to constitute evidence of an offence.
That means the police must have suspected that Han Hui Hui’s notebook contained evidence of her purported ‘crime’. Wonder what that suspected evidence might have been.
Maybe the police thought Hui Hui wrote “I am guilty, I committed the crime, I confess” in her notebook. That would have constituted a confession and hence evidence of her ‘crime’. The police may have thought that Hui Hui was too shy to confess upfront so she wrote her confession in her notebook which must therefore be confiscated.
Or maybe the police thought the notebook was a scrapbook full of incriminating picture evidences that Hui Hui had compiled and brought to the police station but fell just short of giving to them.
Or maybe the police thought the notebook contained a treasure map that led to a treasure trove of evidences Hui Hui had nicely stashed away for them.
The police couldn’t have thought that the notebook merely contained notes of the interview because the police have their own notes and also the video recording of the entire interview session.
Whatever is the reason, the police must have truly believed that the evidence could be found in Hui Hui’s notebook so they had to keep it in order to flip through it again and again to find it. They couldn’t simply photocopy it as they could have also suspected that Hui Hui used invisible ink to make their job a little bit more challenging and worthwhile.
Police work can be so interesting it almost feels like child’s play.
Thank you
Ng Kok Lim
http://www.tremeritus.com/2014/10/2...eason-to-suspect-notebook-contained-evidence/
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2010
- Messages
- 34,328
- Points
- 113
Re: HHH, ROY AND 4 OTHERS TO BE CHARGED IN COURT FOR "PUBLIC NUISANCE". FAP = North K
Any doubts that sinkieland is a police state? (for sinkies only).
Go against the leegime and you must die.
Talk so much cock so much wayang for fucks?
Only thing left to do and you can do is to vote them vile shit out.....do it before its too late.....before they devise some vile tricks to take away that vote of yours.
Wake up the morons and cowards from 60.1%
Any doubts that sinkieland is a police state? (for sinkies only).
Go against the leegime and you must die.
Talk so much cock so much wayang for fucks?
Only thing left to do and you can do is to vote them vile shit out.....do it before its too late.....before they devise some vile tricks to take away that vote of yours.
Wake up the morons and cowards from 60.1%
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2010
- Messages
- 2,086
- Points
- 83
Re: HHH, ROY AND 4 OTHERS TO BE CHARGED IN COURT FOR "PUBLIC NUISANCE". FAP = North K
Obviously trumped up charges. During 1997 GE, when then ?DPM Lee H L was found loitering within the election polling station (?still campaigning on polling day?), the AGC bestowed on the ruling politician the powers of teleportation so it is understood that no loitering could be decerned regarding the politicians journey from around the poling station to the inside zone despite a by statute defined 200m polling station no-loitering radius/zone.
In the HHH/ CPF protest event, it is apparent to me that the 2 event sites were not even pre-designited by N Parks resulting in the N Parks director (and a gang of like 5 plus plain clothes policemen) having a lover's tiff with HHH on video for ?10minutes.
In the light of the lack of pre-designition by N Parks about the actual pre-designition of event sites and the permitted loitering of PAP politicians around polling stations during general elections, I find the charges against the CPF protesters (HHH et al) to be filed in very bad taste.
(Pict source)
Where no-go zones are CLEARLY demarcated, politicians are absolved through the unwieldily explaination of super-natural teleportation. Where boundaries are blurr (not pre-desiginitated before event day), opposition politicians are deemed criminal trespassers: a world of double standards (by the AGC which ought not have political affiliations) it seems to me...
Obviously trumped up charges. During 1997 GE, when then ?DPM Lee H L was found loitering within the election polling station (?still campaigning on polling day?), the AGC bestowed on the ruling politician the powers of teleportation so it is understood that no loitering could be decerned regarding the politicians journey from around the poling station to the inside zone despite a by statute defined 200m polling station no-loitering radius/zone.
In the HHH/ CPF protest event, it is apparent to me that the 2 event sites were not even pre-designited by N Parks resulting in the N Parks director (and a gang of like 5 plus plain clothes policemen) having a lover's tiff with HHH on video for ?10minutes.
In the light of the lack of pre-designition by N Parks about the actual pre-designition of event sites and the permitted loitering of PAP politicians around polling stations during general elections, I find the charges against the CPF protesters (HHH et al) to be filed in very bad taste.
Where no-go zones are CLEARLY demarcated, politicians are absolved through the unwieldily explaination of super-natural teleportation. Where boundaries are blurr (not pre-desiginitated before event day), opposition politicians are deemed criminal trespassers: a world of double standards (by the AGC which ought not have political affiliations) it seems to me...
Last edited by a moderator:
Gestapo and legal lackeys prepare to fix CPF dissenters Roy and Hui-Hui
Transmodified from Certified Mouthpiece CNA
hxxp://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/conditional-warnings-for/1431584.html
PEASANTPORE: Loan shark shy Poodles have issued conditional warnings to two rebellious peasants who had participated in a "Return Our CPF" event at Peasants' Corner at Hong Lim Park on Sep 27.
The individuals were not named, but a lackey gleefully said on Thursday (Oct 23): "Senior lackeys in the know has conveyed special instructions to us .... and the pro-regime Attorney General Bastards' Chambers. The outcome has been decided for the remaining rebellious peasants and will be made known to them coincidentally before important holidays e.g. Christmas or New Year. Rest assured, we have a surprise for those swines who want to make Ruler Loong look stupid, we studied the Animal Farm very careful to milk ideas to fix Roy and Hui Hui, there will be good bonuses for us, hee hee hee!".
Poodles who were never so hardworking against loan sharks, zealously confirmed several peasants who took part in the rally had been 'fixed' aka asked to assist in investigations into the event. There were hearsay evidence that rally supporters, led by blogger dissenter Han Hui Hui, had allegedly disrupted performances and frightened special needs-children who were mysteriously forced to take to the stage for a YMCA charity event.
Peasant Han and fellow blogger Roy have said that they harassed by lackeys pretending to be investigators. She posted on her Facebook page on Thursday evening that she would be going to Poodles Cantonment Complex on Friday at 10am for a mug shot and probably be 'fixed'.
Meanwhile late Thursday, Peasant Ngerng said on Facebook that he is being charged in a show trial for taking part in the Sep 27 protest and shared an article which said six peasants will be charged for fixed by the Kangaroo Courts for "public nuisance" in connection with the incident.
Peasant Han also posted confirmation that rebel Ngerng and her, along with four others, will be turning up at the Imperial Court on Monday morning for a show trial in which they will be paraded as turkeys and demonized as rabid baboons who disturb children while making fun of Ruler Loong!.
Transmodified from Certified Mouthpiece CNA
hxxp://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/conditional-warnings-for/1431584.html
PEASANTPORE: Loan shark shy Poodles have issued conditional warnings to two rebellious peasants who had participated in a "Return Our CPF" event at Peasants' Corner at Hong Lim Park on Sep 27.
The individuals were not named, but a lackey gleefully said on Thursday (Oct 23): "Senior lackeys in the know has conveyed special instructions to us .... and the pro-regime Attorney General Bastards' Chambers. The outcome has been decided for the remaining rebellious peasants and will be made known to them coincidentally before important holidays e.g. Christmas or New Year. Rest assured, we have a surprise for those swines who want to make Ruler Loong look stupid, we studied the Animal Farm very careful to milk ideas to fix Roy and Hui Hui, there will be good bonuses for us, hee hee hee!".
Poodles who were never so hardworking against loan sharks, zealously confirmed several peasants who took part in the rally had been 'fixed' aka asked to assist in investigations into the event. There were hearsay evidence that rally supporters, led by blogger dissenter Han Hui Hui, had allegedly disrupted performances and frightened special needs-children who were mysteriously forced to take to the stage for a YMCA charity event.
Peasant Han and fellow blogger Roy have said that they harassed by lackeys pretending to be investigators. She posted on her Facebook page on Thursday evening that she would be going to Poodles Cantonment Complex on Friday at 10am for a mug shot and probably be 'fixed'.
Meanwhile late Thursday, Peasant Ngerng said on Facebook that he is being charged in a show trial for taking part in the Sep 27 protest and shared an article which said six peasants will be charged for fixed by the Kangaroo Courts for "public nuisance" in connection with the incident.
Peasant Han also posted confirmation that rebel Ngerng and her, along with four others, will be turning up at the Imperial Court on Monday morning for a show trial in which they will be paraded as turkeys and demonized as rabid baboons who disturb children while making fun of Ruler Loong!.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2014
- Messages
- 1,620
- Points
- 48
Re: Gestapo and legal lackeys prepare to fix CPF dissenters Roy and Hui-Hui
mscitw doesnt get enough credit for his transmodified pieces. I for one love reading them. Keep up the good work man!
mscitw doesnt get enough credit for his transmodified pieces. I for one love reading them. Keep up the good work man!
- Joined
- May 26, 2009
- Messages
- 17,247
- Points
- 63
Re: Gestapo and legal lackeys prepare to fix CPF dissenters Roy and Hui-Hui
The pap has to face the Court of Public Opinion. And that's the Highest Court in Singapore
The pap has to face the Court of Public Opinion. And that's the Highest Court in Singapore
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2011
- Messages
- 6,740
- Points
- 113
Re: Gestapo and legal lackeys prepare to fix CPF dissenters Roy and Hui-Hui
Truely a sad day for Sinkiepore, two Kids being charged for speaking out on CPF. Imagine, if adults were to go against the PAP, sure have their heads chop like tos Middle East Countries.
Truely a sad day for Sinkiepore, two Kids being charged for speaking out on CPF. Imagine, if adults were to go against the PAP, sure have their heads chop like tos Middle East Countries.
- Joined
- May 26, 2009
- Messages
- 17,247
- Points
- 63
Re: Gestapo and legal lackeys prepare to fix CPF dissenters Roy and Hui-Hui
Has been sad since Lim Chin Siong's, Lim Hock Siew's and Chia Thye Poh's time. We are thankful that internet will highlight pap's misdeeds.
Have you heard of Ang Swee Eng and Henry Khoo?
Has been sad since Lim Chin Siong's, Lim Hock Siew's and Chia Thye Poh's time. We are thankful that internet will highlight pap's misdeeds.
Have you heard of Ang Swee Eng and Henry Khoo?
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Messages
- 33,627
- Points
- 0
Han hui hui and roy ngerng to go to court on monday for the charge of public nuisance
[h=1]HAN HUI HUI AND ROY NGERNG TO GO TO COURT ON MONDAY FOR THE CHARGE OF 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:
24 Oct 2014 - 2:17pm
<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>
Yesterday, TRS reported that the police has charged Han Hui Hui, Roy Ngerng and four other Singaporeans for “public nuisance”.
Two weeks ago, the police started investigating Ms Han, Roy and eight others for “illegal assembly”. Four were given a warning and were not charged. Ms Han had organised the #ReturnOurCPF protest on 27 September 2014. Ms Han had been organising the protests monthly, since June. September’s protest was the fourth.
Roy, who is currently being sued for defamation by the Singapore prime minister, has also been speaking at the protest.
Ms Han and Roy wanted the government to be transparent and accountable to Singaporeans about how they were using Singaporeans’ Central Provident Fund (CPF) retirement funds.
Since June, the protests have been attended by more than 10,000 Singaporeans.
When TRS spoke to Roy about the charge, Roy said, “We had spoken up because we want to fight for justice and for Singaporeans’ money to be returned to us. The government takes our CPF to invest and earn 6% but only return 3%. This has resulted in many elderly Singaporeans who are unable to retire and have to continue to work in hard conditions.”
Roy added, “I told the police – we are speaking up because we feel that things are not right in Singapore."
<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>
Speaking to Ms Han, she said, “Last year, they used the AGC to sue me. This year, they are using the Singapore Police Force to charge me. Why can't they simply return our CPF? We wouldn't have protested if we have transparency and accountability. This is a total silence on freedom of speech and against our rights to assembly even at Singapore's only venue HLP.”
TRS understands from Roy and Ms Han that the government has not yet reached out to them on their demands. Roy had also extended an invite to the Singapore prime minister for an “open dialogue” over the CPF issue. However, this was rebuffed by the prime minister.
Roy, Hui Hui and four others have been asked to appear at the state court at 1 Havelock Square on Monday, 27 October 2014, at 10am to face the charge. The police said that it would issue a warrant an arrest for them if they do not turn up.
TRS understands that if Ms Han and Roy proceeds with court action, they are likely to have to spend costs as high as $26,000, which would include legal fees of $20,000 for their lawyer to represent them in court, and another up to $1,000 fine for each of them, which the charge of “public nuisance” carries.
Roy said, “This charge of “public nuisance” is unwarranted. We did what was legal. We spoke up because we want to defend the rights of our people.”
“If by speaking up to defend our own rights is considered as “public nuisance” by the government, then it looks like the government does not want to take Singaporeans’ concerns about the CPF seriously.”
Does the government considers Singaporeans’ worries about their CPF a “nuisance”?
A Blackbox Research survey showed that more than half of Singaporeans consider the current CPF system to be “unfair”. Only 37% felt that it was “fair”. Among low- and middle-income Singaporeans, 60% of Singaporeans thought that the CPF is “unfair”.
Indeed, it does seem for Roy and Ms Han to speak up on the issue is a legitimate concern and the government does have a responsibility to respond to their demands.
However, the police action not only puts a dampener on their fight for justice, but it also prevents Roy and Ms Han from being to continue to speak up, to speak up for the rights of Singaporeans and for the fairness of Singaporeans’ CPF.
Roy and Ms Han will go to court on Monday. It is unknown if they would be able to raise the $26,000 required by their lawyer for the case.
[h=1]HAN HUI HUI AND ROY NGERNG TO GO TO COURT ON MONDAY FOR THE CHARGE OF 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:
24 Oct 2014 - 2:17pm
<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>
Yesterday, TRS reported that the police has charged Han Hui Hui, Roy Ngerng and four other Singaporeans for “public nuisance”.
Two weeks ago, the police started investigating Ms Han, Roy and eight others for “illegal assembly”. Four were given a warning and were not charged. Ms Han had organised the #ReturnOurCPF protest on 27 September 2014. Ms Han had been organising the protests monthly, since June. September’s protest was the fourth.
Roy, who is currently being sued for defamation by the Singapore prime minister, has also been speaking at the protest.
Ms Han and Roy wanted the government to be transparent and accountable to Singaporeans about how they were using Singaporeans’ Central Provident Fund (CPF) retirement funds.
Since June, the protests have been attended by more than 10,000 Singaporeans.
When TRS spoke to Roy about the charge, Roy said, “We had spoken up because we want to fight for justice and for Singaporeans’ money to be returned to us. The government takes our CPF to invest and earn 6% but only return 3%. This has resulted in many elderly Singaporeans who are unable to retire and have to continue to work in hard conditions.”
Roy added, “I told the police – we are speaking up because we feel that things are not right in Singapore."
<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>
Speaking to Ms Han, she said, “Last year, they used the AGC to sue me. This year, they are using the Singapore Police Force to charge me. Why can't they simply return our CPF? We wouldn't have protested if we have transparency and accountability. This is a total silence on freedom of speech and against our rights to assembly even at Singapore's only venue HLP.”
TRS understands from Roy and Ms Han that the government has not yet reached out to them on their demands. Roy had also extended an invite to the Singapore prime minister for an “open dialogue” over the CPF issue. However, this was rebuffed by the prime minister.
Roy, Hui Hui and four others have been asked to appear at the state court at 1 Havelock Square on Monday, 27 October 2014, at 10am to face the charge. The police said that it would issue a warrant an arrest for them if they do not turn up.
TRS understands that if Ms Han and Roy proceeds with court action, they are likely to have to spend costs as high as $26,000, which would include legal fees of $20,000 for their lawyer to represent them in court, and another up to $1,000 fine for each of them, which the charge of “public nuisance” carries.
Roy said, “This charge of “public nuisance” is unwarranted. We did what was legal. We spoke up because we want to defend the rights of our people.”
“If by speaking up to defend our own rights is considered as “public nuisance” by the government, then it looks like the government does not want to take Singaporeans’ concerns about the CPF seriously.”
Does the government considers Singaporeans’ worries about their CPF a “nuisance”?
A Blackbox Research survey showed that more than half of Singaporeans consider the current CPF system to be “unfair”. Only 37% felt that it was “fair”. Among low- and middle-income Singaporeans, 60% of Singaporeans thought that the CPF is “unfair”.
Indeed, it does seem for Roy and Ms Han to speak up on the issue is a legitimate concern and the government does have a responsibility to respond to their demands.
However, the police action not only puts a dampener on their fight for justice, but it also prevents Roy and Ms Han from being to continue to speak up, to speak up for the rights of Singaporeans and for the fairness of Singaporeans’ CPF.
Roy and Ms Han will go to court on Monday. It is unknown if they would be able to raise the $26,000 required by their lawyer for the case.
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2010
- Messages
- 2,086
- Points
- 83
Re: HHH, ROY AND 4 OTHERS TO BE CHARGED IN COURT FOR "PUBLIC NUISANCE". FAP = North K
"encroaching on the lawn where the charity carnival was held " is the crutial part of the charge: police are alleging that HHH and the Looney CPF protest gang were 'encroaching' which is a similar territorial designation issue in the LHL 'encroachment' of the Cheng San pooling station area circa 1997 accusation.
U have missed the woods for the trees my dear. Without the encroachment criteria, even soccer fans within national stadium would be (ridiculously) liable to be charged for 'public nuisance' since they too 'shout slogans, drum loudly, waive banners, blow whistles' etc.
The encroachment criteria, whilst now convicting the pro-CPF early withdrawal motley crew, seems to have been deliberately blindsided by the AGC in 1997, thus my suspicion that the AGC is practising double standards given the territorial designation issue running in the same vein in BOTH these cases (Hong lim park activity segregation vs polling station loitering ban). In one case, loopholes in law were exploited max, in the HHH case, all loopholes are intentionally CLOSED. If that is not double standards, then please tell me what is???!!!
ilold said:
"encroaching on the lawn where the charity carnival was held " is the crutial part of the charge: police are alleging that HHH and the Looney CPF protest gang were 'encroaching' which is a similar territorial designation issue in the LHL 'encroachment' of the Cheng San pooling station area circa 1997 accusation.
U have missed the woods for the trees my dear. Without the encroachment criteria, even soccer fans within national stadium would be (ridiculously) liable to be charged for 'public nuisance' since they too 'shout slogans, drum loudly, waive banners, blow whistles' etc.
The encroachment criteria, whilst now convicting the pro-CPF early withdrawal motley crew, seems to have been deliberately blindsided by the AGC in 1997, thus my suspicion that the AGC is practising double standards given the territorial designation issue running in the same vein in BOTH these cases (Hong lim park activity segregation vs polling station loitering ban). In one case, loopholes in law were exploited max, in the HHH case, all loopholes are intentionally CLOSED. If that is not double standards, then please tell me what is???!!!
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2010
- Messages
- 2,086
- Points
- 83
HHH cf. LHL: sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander please.
HHH cf. LHL: sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander please.
LHL was obviously trying to (illegally) campaign/ influence the Cheng San GRC election results by his very presence at the poling station on that 1997 GE election day. He should have been charged/ warned for that incursion if not for the AGC coming to his rescue by helping him exploit a loophole in the wording of law.
Now Han Hui Hui et al. are being charged for conducting their protest, whilst within Hong Lim park, was not on their purported 'designated' ground. Whilst I admit that I am not privy to by how far HHH was warned / if at all her permit was cancelled, I cannot help but recall how much in 1997, the AGC went out to of his way to read the law in favour of incumbent politicians no matter how ridiculous that legal excuse/ conclusion sounded.
No country is perfect, not USA and certainly not China, however, it is the onus of every citizen in a democratic country NOT to elect clowns and from time to time, when either the AGC or politicians fall short of moral expectations, people come out to protest, at first on the internet at first, then at Hong Lim park and finally at the ballot box if necessary.
Whilst I agree that HHH's conduct on 27Sept was quite disrespectful, I believe so was the conduct of LHL at the Cheng San GRC GE in 1997 (if not worse: UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!). Just as the AGC leaned backwards to forgive the earlier LHL case, so must it accommodate HHH (the latter case).
Just my personal opinion based upon facts to the best of my knowledge. U are free to record yours down in so far that U act for the greater good of all. This is how democracy is supposed to work after all.
What is sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander: then only do we have justice and equality for all (ref: national pledge).
HHH cf. LHL: sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander please.
Separate events but question about space occupied and the activity conducted therein run in the same vein.ilold said:
LHL was obviously trying to (illegally) campaign/ influence the Cheng San GRC election results by his very presence at the poling station on that 1997 GE election day. He should have been charged/ warned for that incursion if not for the AGC coming to his rescue by helping him exploit a loophole in the wording of law.
Now Han Hui Hui et al. are being charged for conducting their protest, whilst within Hong Lim park, was not on their purported 'designated' ground. Whilst I admit that I am not privy to by how far HHH was warned / if at all her permit was cancelled, I cannot help but recall how much in 1997, the AGC went out to of his way to read the law in favour of incumbent politicians no matter how ridiculous that legal excuse/ conclusion sounded.
No country is perfect, not USA and certainly not China, however, it is the onus of every citizen in a democratic country NOT to elect clowns and from time to time, when either the AGC or politicians fall short of moral expectations, people come out to protest, at first on the internet at first, then at Hong Lim park and finally at the ballot box if necessary.
Whilst I agree that HHH's conduct on 27Sept was quite disrespectful, I believe so was the conduct of LHL at the Cheng San GRC GE in 1997 (if not worse: UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!). Just as the AGC leaned backwards to forgive the earlier LHL case, so must it accommodate HHH (the latter case).
Just my personal opinion based upon facts to the best of my knowledge. U are free to record yours down in so far that U act for the greater good of all. This is how democracy is supposed to work after all.
What is sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander: then only do we have justice and equality for all (ref: national pledge).
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2008
- Messages
- 1,573
- Points
- 63
Re: Gestapo and legal lackeys prepare to fix CPF dissenters Roy and Hui-Hui
Vote them out! They have turned Singapore into a police state infested with third world foreign trash. No rule of law except rule by their own self serving laws!
Vote them out! They have turned Singapore into a police state infested with third world foreign trash. No rule of law except rule by their own self serving laws!
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Messages
- 33,627
- Points
- 0
FAP Poodles Tighten Noose Around HHH & Roy. Additional Charge of Illegal Demonstratio
These are the same shit who kena chased around by real Indian FTrash rioters while exercising "maximum restraint". To the 60% lost sheep, if you still insist on returning such despotic and treacherous traitors to power, you deserve to go into extinction!
[h=1]HAN HUI HUI AND ROY NGERNG GIVEN ADDITIONAL CHARGE OF "ILLEGAL DEMONSTRATION"<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:[/h]24 Oct 2014 - 5:30pm
<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>
[Latest Update]: The Police has given Han Hui Hui and Roy Ngerng an extra charge.
The Police called Ms Han and Roy to the Police Station today to charge them with two charges each. They were charged with “public nuisance” and were given an extra charge of committing an offence under Regulation 23(2)(b) under the Parks and Trees Regulations, Cap 216.
The first charge carries a fine of up to $1,000 and the second charge carries a penalty of up to $5,000. If the both of them are found guilty of both charges, they will each be made to pay as high as $6,000.
TRS understands that this is the first time that the Parks and Trees Regulations has been used to charge ordinary Singaporeans at the Hong Lim Park.
Ms Han was called to the Police Station at 2.30pm and Roy met the Police at 4.45pm today.
The police started calling up the attendees to the #ReturnOurCPF protest on 27 September 2014 to investigate them for “unlawful assembly”. 10 attendees were called up.
Four attendees were let off with a warning. TRS broke the news yesterday that six of them were charged with “public nuisance”. Ms Han and Roy found out today that they were both charged with a second penalty under Regulation 23(2)(b).
TRS understands that at least two others attendees were called up for interview yesterday. It is unknown what the police will charge them with.
The Police charged that Ms Han and Roy were the organisers of the #ReturnOurCPF protest and claimed that they did not apply for a permit to protest.
According to the letter given to them, the Police charged that Ms Han and Roy “organise(d) a demonstration at the area in Hong Lim Park known as the Speakers’ Corner, without the approval of the Commissioner of the Parks and Trees” and have thus committed a crime.
On NParks website, registrants are required to register for their event as a “Speech”, “Demonstration” or “Performance”. It is understood that the police has charged Ms Han and Roy for applying only for a “Speech” and not a “Demonstration”.
In effect, the Police wants to charge the both of them on a technicality. This charge carries a penalty of $5,000.
<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>
The six Singaporeans who have been charged, including Ms Han and Roy, have been told to appear at the state court at 1 Havelock Square on Monday, 27 October 2014, at 10am to face the charge.
The police warned the six who were charged that if they do not turn up or if they are late, a warrant would be sent to arrest them.
It is understood, however, that Ms Han is the sole organiser of the #ReturnOurCPF event. However, the Police has also charged Roy to implicate him with an additional charge.
Roy has also been charged with an offence which carries a maximum $5,000 penalty. If anyone is fined more than $2,000 in court, this will also disqualify them from standing for elections.
If the prosecution has come directly from the government, this would mean that the government is going all out to not only silence the two of them but to also prevent them from going into Parliament to question the government on its use of Singaporeans’ Central Provident Fund (CPF) retirement funds.
Ms Han and Roy have been speaking up to advocate that the government is transparent and accountable to Singaporeans on their management of Singaporeans’ CPF. The government has yet to respond to their demands.
TRS understands from the latest updates that the lawyer of the six Singaporeans, including Ms Han and Roy, will be charging them $20,000 in legal fees. If the six of them receive the maximum penalty, they will be fined for a total of $16,000.
To exercise their freedom of speech and expression to protect the rights of Singaporeans, this will cost the six of them a total of $36,000.
In Singapore, freedom of speech is not free, as this latest incident has shown.
These are the same shit who kena chased around by real Indian FTrash rioters while exercising "maximum restraint". To the 60% lost sheep, if you still insist on returning such despotic and treacherous traitors to power, you deserve to go into extinction!
[h=1]HAN HUI HUI AND ROY NGERNG GIVEN ADDITIONAL CHARGE OF "ILLEGAL DEMONSTRATION"<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:[/h]24 Oct 2014 - 5:30pm
<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>
[Latest Update]: The Police has given Han Hui Hui and Roy Ngerng an extra charge.
The Police called Ms Han and Roy to the Police Station today to charge them with two charges each. They were charged with “public nuisance” and were given an extra charge of committing an offence under Regulation 23(2)(b) under the Parks and Trees Regulations, Cap 216.
The first charge carries a fine of up to $1,000 and the second charge carries a penalty of up to $5,000. If the both of them are found guilty of both charges, they will each be made to pay as high as $6,000.
TRS understands that this is the first time that the Parks and Trees Regulations has been used to charge ordinary Singaporeans at the Hong Lim Park.
Ms Han was called to the Police Station at 2.30pm and Roy met the Police at 4.45pm today.
The police started calling up the attendees to the #ReturnOurCPF protest on 27 September 2014 to investigate them for “unlawful assembly”. 10 attendees were called up.
Four attendees were let off with a warning. TRS broke the news yesterday that six of them were charged with “public nuisance”. Ms Han and Roy found out today that they were both charged with a second penalty under Regulation 23(2)(b).
TRS understands that at least two others attendees were called up for interview yesterday. It is unknown what the police will charge them with.
The Police charged that Ms Han and Roy were the organisers of the #ReturnOurCPF protest and claimed that they did not apply for a permit to protest.
According to the letter given to them, the Police charged that Ms Han and Roy “organise(d) a demonstration at the area in Hong Lim Park known as the Speakers’ Corner, without the approval of the Commissioner of the Parks and Trees” and have thus committed a crime.
On NParks website, registrants are required to register for their event as a “Speech”, “Demonstration” or “Performance”. It is understood that the police has charged Ms Han and Roy for applying only for a “Speech” and not a “Demonstration”.
In effect, the Police wants to charge the both of them on a technicality. This charge carries a penalty of $5,000.
<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>
The six Singaporeans who have been charged, including Ms Han and Roy, have been told to appear at the state court at 1 Havelock Square on Monday, 27 October 2014, at 10am to face the charge.
The police warned the six who were charged that if they do not turn up or if they are late, a warrant would be sent to arrest them.
It is understood, however, that Ms Han is the sole organiser of the #ReturnOurCPF event. However, the Police has also charged Roy to implicate him with an additional charge.
Roy has also been charged with an offence which carries a maximum $5,000 penalty. If anyone is fined more than $2,000 in court, this will also disqualify them from standing for elections.
If the prosecution has come directly from the government, this would mean that the government is going all out to not only silence the two of them but to also prevent them from going into Parliament to question the government on its use of Singaporeans’ Central Provident Fund (CPF) retirement funds.
Ms Han and Roy have been speaking up to advocate that the government is transparent and accountable to Singaporeans on their management of Singaporeans’ CPF. The government has yet to respond to their demands.
TRS understands from the latest updates that the lawyer of the six Singaporeans, including Ms Han and Roy, will be charging them $20,000 in legal fees. If the six of them receive the maximum penalty, they will be fined for a total of $16,000.
To exercise their freedom of speech and expression to protect the rights of Singaporeans, this will cost the six of them a total of $36,000.
In Singapore, freedom of speech is not free, as this latest incident has shown.
Similar threads
