-
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.
The Workers' Party
- Thread starter sengkang
- Start date
THE RIDICULOUS TERMS OF MY BAIL
April 29, 2015amosyeeAmerican, Amos Yee, bailor, Charge, Court, Fine, Freedom Of Speech, Jail, Jason Chua, Judge, Justice And Equality, Lee Kuan Yew Video, Margaret Thatcher, National Pledge, Obscene imagery, Sentenced, Singapore, Terms of my bail13 Comments
What is the purpose of the terms of a bail? It is to ensure that one attends court. Which so far, I have quite obediently complied to. But how I am going to be punished in lieu of the terms of the bail, has absolutely nothing to do with my presence in court, but the added uncanny conditions that were placed.
In addition to showing up to court, the conditions of my bail are:
Not to post, upload, or otherwise distribute any comment or content, whether directly or indirectly, to any social media or online service or website, while the current case is ongoing.
To meet IO Jason Chua every morning at 9am in Bedok Police Station.
And if I breach, anyone of those bail conditions. My bailor loses $20000, and I have to be sent to remand until after the trial has ended.
I heard that in the case of a simple theft, when one has pleaded guilty, it takes 3 months for them to attain their sentence. In my case, since I am going to trial, and also the fact that how I’ve attained my charges is quite unique, especially the charge concerning obscene imagery, which I found out, I am the first person ever in Singapore to be charged for that. Everything is probably going to take much longer…Let’s estimate say… about 8 months.
So technically, they are saying that if I do not meet Jason Chua for 1 morning, I deserve to be sentenced for 8 months in prison and be fined $20000.
So not meeting Jason Chua can have a punishment more serious than that of a robbery.
Every morning during weekdays, at around 7:30am, hundreds of thousands of Singaporeans stand up and recite the national pledge, and say the 2 lines ‘to build a democratic society, based on justice and equality’
And now. Wow… god fucking damn, I’m really feelin that ‘Justice and equality’…
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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)
April 29, 2015amosyeeAmerican, Amos Yee, bailor, Charge, Court, Fine, Freedom Of Speech, Jail, Jason Chua, Judge, Justice And Equality, Lee Kuan Yew Video, Margaret Thatcher, National Pledge, Obscene imagery, Sentenced, Singapore, Terms of my bail13 Comments
What is the purpose of the terms of a bail? It is to ensure that one attends court. Which so far, I have quite obediently complied to. But how I am going to be punished in lieu of the terms of the bail, has absolutely nothing to do with my presence in court, but the added uncanny conditions that were placed.
In addition to showing up to court, the conditions of my bail are:
Not to post, upload, or otherwise distribute any comment or content, whether directly or indirectly, to any social media or online service or website, while the current case is ongoing.
To meet IO Jason Chua every morning at 9am in Bedok Police Station.
And if I breach, anyone of those bail conditions. My bailor loses $20000, and I have to be sent to remand until after the trial has ended.
I heard that in the case of a simple theft, when one has pleaded guilty, it takes 3 months for them to attain their sentence. In my case, since I am going to trial, and also the fact that how I’ve attained my charges is quite unique, especially the charge concerning obscene imagery, which I found out, I am the first person ever in Singapore to be charged for that. Everything is probably going to take much longer…Let’s estimate say… about 8 months.
So technically, they are saying that if I do not meet Jason Chua for 1 morning, I deserve to be sentenced for 8 months in prison and be fined $20000.
So not meeting Jason Chua can have a punishment more serious than that of a robbery.
Every morning during weekdays, at around 7:30am, hundreds of thousands of Singaporeans stand up and recite the national pledge, and say the 2 lines ‘to build a democratic society, based on justice and equality’
And now. Wow… god fucking damn, I’m really feelin that ‘Justice and equality’…
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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)
KENNETH JEYARETNAM SENDS LAWYERS LETTER TO PM LEE ON AMOS ASSAULT
I am writing this blog in a state of shock and horror after seeing the video of Amos Yee being physically assaulted and then taunted outside the Court.
Our Police force has failed to protect Amos and seem to have ignored or not taken seriously the numerous online threats of violence and sexual violence against him, a child. As a result someone has taken the law into their own hands.
It is not enough for the Law Minister, Shanmugam, to say at this late stage that the vigilante violence is unacceptable and to say that it should be left to the courts to deal with Amos. The central problem is that this teenager should never have been charged. The thug said after he punched Amos, “Sue me, sue me” which shows that his attack was motivated by Amos’s comments about Lee Kuan Yew rather than by so called offence to Christians.
For this reason if not any other, the Prime Minister, Lee Hsien Loong, now needs to step out of the shadows and make a clear cut statement. The PM needs to state his own views and the official line of his party, the PAP, with regard to attacks both digital and actual on children and other dissenting voices.
Not only would this be the only acceptable response from a man who is capable of such acts as penning an insensitive, callous and deeply offensive letter of condolence to me on the death of my father but also because he bears direct responsibility for the assault on Amos. So far he has done nothing to cool the flames and to discourage an atmosphere of collusion with threats of violence. This repeated failure to condemn the culture of threats of violence suggests that he has even surreptitiously added the threat of physical reprisals as a new weapon in his armoury of fear.
Because of the PM’s refusal to speak up I have decided to share with you a letter that my lawyers sent to the Prime Minister last year so you can see that the Prime Minister’s failure to condemn the culture of violence against dissenters is not a random act. I have pasted here a copy of the actual letter sent to Lee Hsien Loong in his capacity as Secretary General of the PAP:
I am writing this blog in a state of shock and horror after seeing the video of Amos Yee being physically assaulted and then taunted outside the Court.
Our Police force has failed to protect Amos and seem to have ignored or not taken seriously the numerous online threats of violence and sexual violence against him, a child. As a result someone has taken the law into their own hands.
It is not enough for the Law Minister, Shanmugam, to say at this late stage that the vigilante violence is unacceptable and to say that it should be left to the courts to deal with Amos. The central problem is that this teenager should never have been charged. The thug said after he punched Amos, “Sue me, sue me” which shows that his attack was motivated by Amos’s comments about Lee Kuan Yew rather than by so called offence to Christians.
For this reason if not any other, the Prime Minister, Lee Hsien Loong, now needs to step out of the shadows and make a clear cut statement. The PM needs to state his own views and the official line of his party, the PAP, with regard to attacks both digital and actual on children and other dissenting voices.
Not only would this be the only acceptable response from a man who is capable of such acts as penning an insensitive, callous and deeply offensive letter of condolence to me on the death of my father but also because he bears direct responsibility for the assault on Amos. So far he has done nothing to cool the flames and to discourage an atmosphere of collusion with threats of violence. This repeated failure to condemn the culture of threats of violence suggests that he has even surreptitiously added the threat of physical reprisals as a new weapon in his armoury of fear.
Because of the PM’s refusal to speak up I have decided to share with you a letter that my lawyers sent to the Prime Minister last year so you can see that the Prime Minister’s failure to condemn the culture of violence against dissenters is not a random act. I have pasted here a copy of the actual letter sent to Lee Hsien Loong in his capacity as Secretary General of the PAP:
If the Workers Party want to govern sinkapore, then it should step out in the limelight to fight for sinkees.
That it is silent on the Amos Yee's case speaks much about this party. Surely, the WP, can see the injustice.
That it is silent on the Amos Yee's case speaks much about this party. Surely, the WP, can see the injustice.
[h=2]The Workers' Party[/h]
AHPETC: Interim Updates on Follow-ups to AGO Report
"AHPETC’s Members of Parliament from the Workers’ Party are mindful of our duty to be accountable to you, the residents who have put us in office to serve." - Chairman of AHPETC, Sylvia Lim
INTERIM UPDATE ON FOLLOW-UPS ON AGO REPORT (02 May 2015) | AHPETCAHPETC
Dear Residents of Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town, INTERIM UPDATE ON FOLLOW-UPS ON AGO...
www.ahpetc.sg
https://www.facebook.com/sexiespider?fref=photo
From :Roy Ngerng Yi Ling
"I do not want to be bailed," Amos said to me in court.
I did not have to ask why. The bail conditions that they have placed on Amos were not only onerous, they were ridiculous.
Amos was not allowed to post or comment on anything, either directly or indirectly. They did not want him to speak at all.
When we met with several people over the course of the week, the people had to be told that they could not post anything about him online. He could not even take photos with them, because his bailer, Vincent, did not know if the photos would be posted online.
Not only did they want to make it difficult for Amos, they wanted to make it difficult for his bailer too.
But it was not like Amos had to do anything more to break his bail. The media was doing it for him all the time. They kept putting up his pictures. They were helping him break his bail.
It is a wonder why the state-controlled media was allowed to keep posting his photos and breaking his bail, and where the AGC did nothing about it.
Why did they place such unreasonable bail conditions on Amos, yet allow others, specifically state-sanctioned media, to break his bail for him?
They did not want him to speak but they wanted to be able to frame his story the way they like it, to paint him black.
This exposes the hypocrisy behind the bail terms and the law, doesn't it?
They simply did not want Amos to speak.
Vincent asked Amos again, "Do you want to be bailed? I can do it, you know?"
Vincent had said, "I've no regret bailing him really."
But Amos said, "No."
I tried to be optimistic. I told him that the court might still decide to reduce his bail terms. I was being naive, of course.
But Amos was clearer.
He said that he would have to break the bail terms anyway. The bail conditions were simply intentionally made difficult.
They took Amos away into the chambers for a while.
We waited outside.
When Amos and his parents came out again, he told us that they did not reduce the bail terms at all.
I couldn't believe it. They were supposed to review his bail terms that day but they did not review it! Not only that, they even increased the bail amount to $30,000.
But we didn't have long.
We asked if Amos wanted to bailed. We could get him out.
I apologised that I could not bail him because of the criminal charges that I am currently facing from the government as well, for protesting. I didn't know about this initially.
But it doesn't matter.
Amos said that whoever was to bail him, the bail would have to be broken. It was simply too restrictive. They wanted to make it so.
Maybe there were ways the bail wouldn't be broken, we tried to discuss.
But no matter what, Amos would not be able to speak. Meanwhile, the state-sanctioned media would still have a field day painting him in a negative light, the way the government wanted it.
He was being put at a disadvantage.
But we didn't have much time to discuss.
Within a few minutes, they hauled Amos back in.
We could not speak to him again. The next time we saw him, he was taken away by some police officers into remand.
We couldn't even ask him to take care of himself.
We sat there, a bit lost, but we composed ourselves. What else were we to do, or could we do?
They did not want to let Amos speak. They did not want to let him go.
They said that they would review his bail conditions but they did nothing of that sort but instead increased his bail amount.
But this is so unjust, it is so wrong.
What did Amos do that warrant such persecution? How could they treat a child like this? I understand that none of the state authorities wanted to conduct a psychological assessment for him.
You are leaving a child in remand, which is pretty much akin to being in prison, and there are no psychological officers to assess his health to ensure that his health is taken care of? Or is there a social welfare officer who would look out for him, while he is held in an adult prison?
I simply do not understand what the state is thinking. Have they become so insecure and insulated that they would persecute a child because they actually think that he would threaten their power?
You know, Amos cannot speak now. He cannot speak, now that he is in remand. But he wouldn't be able to speak as well even if he was on the outside.
If you think that it is unjust how they are trying to stop Amos, then please speak up. Help Amos speak.
If Amos cannot speak, you can.
He spoke about the injustices in our system. He spoke about the income inequality in Singapore. He spoke about the unjust and "horrible" laws.
If Amos cannot speak, you can.
You can speak up on the injustices that Singaporeans are facing, how many of us languish into poverty and how many people have been unfairly persecuted.
If Amos cannot speak, you can.
You can speak up to protect ourselves. You can speak up for Amos.
Do not let Amos sit inside remand unjustly and allow the system to persecute him unfairly.
Speak up for Amos. #FreeAmosYee
From :Roy Ngerng Yi Ling
"I do not want to be bailed," Amos said to me in court.
I did not have to ask why. The bail conditions that they have placed on Amos were not only onerous, they were ridiculous.
Amos was not allowed to post or comment on anything, either directly or indirectly. They did not want him to speak at all.
When we met with several people over the course of the week, the people had to be told that they could not post anything about him online. He could not even take photos with them, because his bailer, Vincent, did not know if the photos would be posted online.
Not only did they want to make it difficult for Amos, they wanted to make it difficult for his bailer too.
But it was not like Amos had to do anything more to break his bail. The media was doing it for him all the time. They kept putting up his pictures. They were helping him break his bail.
It is a wonder why the state-controlled media was allowed to keep posting his photos and breaking his bail, and where the AGC did nothing about it.
Why did they place such unreasonable bail conditions on Amos, yet allow others, specifically state-sanctioned media, to break his bail for him?
They did not want him to speak but they wanted to be able to frame his story the way they like it, to paint him black.
This exposes the hypocrisy behind the bail terms and the law, doesn't it?
They simply did not want Amos to speak.
Vincent asked Amos again, "Do you want to be bailed? I can do it, you know?"
Vincent had said, "I've no regret bailing him really."
But Amos said, "No."
I tried to be optimistic. I told him that the court might still decide to reduce his bail terms. I was being naive, of course.
But Amos was clearer.
He said that he would have to break the bail terms anyway. The bail conditions were simply intentionally made difficult.
They took Amos away into the chambers for a while.
We waited outside.
When Amos and his parents came out again, he told us that they did not reduce the bail terms at all.
I couldn't believe it. They were supposed to review his bail terms that day but they did not review it! Not only that, they even increased the bail amount to $30,000.
But we didn't have long.
We asked if Amos wanted to bailed. We could get him out.
I apologised that I could not bail him because of the criminal charges that I am currently facing from the government as well, for protesting. I didn't know about this initially.
But it doesn't matter.
Amos said that whoever was to bail him, the bail would have to be broken. It was simply too restrictive. They wanted to make it so.
Maybe there were ways the bail wouldn't be broken, we tried to discuss.
But no matter what, Amos would not be able to speak. Meanwhile, the state-sanctioned media would still have a field day painting him in a negative light, the way the government wanted it.
He was being put at a disadvantage.
But we didn't have much time to discuss.
Within a few minutes, they hauled Amos back in.
We could not speak to him again. The next time we saw him, he was taken away by some police officers into remand.
We couldn't even ask him to take care of himself.
We sat there, a bit lost, but we composed ourselves. What else were we to do, or could we do?
They did not want to let Amos speak. They did not want to let him go.
They said that they would review his bail conditions but they did nothing of that sort but instead increased his bail amount.
But this is so unjust, it is so wrong.
What did Amos do that warrant such persecution? How could they treat a child like this? I understand that none of the state authorities wanted to conduct a psychological assessment for him.
You are leaving a child in remand, which is pretty much akin to being in prison, and there are no psychological officers to assess his health to ensure that his health is taken care of? Or is there a social welfare officer who would look out for him, while he is held in an adult prison?
I simply do not understand what the state is thinking. Have they become so insecure and insulated that they would persecute a child because they actually think that he would threaten their power?
You know, Amos cannot speak now. He cannot speak, now that he is in remand. But he wouldn't be able to speak as well even if he was on the outside.
If you think that it is unjust how they are trying to stop Amos, then please speak up. Help Amos speak.
If Amos cannot speak, you can.
He spoke about the injustices in our system. He spoke about the income inequality in Singapore. He spoke about the unjust and "horrible" laws.
If Amos cannot speak, you can.
You can speak up on the injustices that Singaporeans are facing, how many of us languish into poverty and how many people have been unfairly persecuted.
If Amos cannot speak, you can.
You can speak up to protect ourselves. You can speak up for Amos.
Do not let Amos sit inside remand unjustly and allow the system to persecute him unfairly.
Speak up for Amos. #FreeAmosYee
copied TR Emeritius
Singapore No Longer Safe
Protected May 3rd, 2015 | Author: Contributions
One may fault the female A*STAR researcher for walking a dimly lit path unescorted, but nobody could imagine a child would be assaulted in front of the Family Justice Courts building.
In broad daylight, in the vicinity of the subordinate courts complex where uniformed policemen are usually milling around. And then there’re the scum bags who give paparazzi a bad name, neither rendering assistance to the victim nor giving chase after the assailant.
From whence did law and order descend to such a hellish state in safe haven of Singapore? Some may trace it all the way back to when a heavy hand was laid on the cheek of Dhanabalan, the gory account of which is found on page 150 of Ross Worthington’s book, “Governance in Singapore”, available at the Lee Kong Chian reference library. Others may point towards the lack of action from the Singapore Police Force, despite multiple reports already filed against one Jason Tan, the politically protected advocate of child abuse. And it looks like he’s getting away with his brand of violence too.
Even the taciturn Minister of Law had to draw a line on the brazen attack.
The prime minister may make political mileage out of advocating stronger action against the ISIS at the 26th ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lumpur, but the real terror is already in town.
.
Tattler
Singapore No Longer Safe
Protected May 3rd, 2015 | Author: Contributions
One may fault the female A*STAR researcher for walking a dimly lit path unescorted, but nobody could imagine a child would be assaulted in front of the Family Justice Courts building.
In broad daylight, in the vicinity of the subordinate courts complex where uniformed policemen are usually milling around. And then there’re the scum bags who give paparazzi a bad name, neither rendering assistance to the victim nor giving chase after the assailant.
From whence did law and order descend to such a hellish state in safe haven of Singapore? Some may trace it all the way back to when a heavy hand was laid on the cheek of Dhanabalan, the gory account of which is found on page 150 of Ross Worthington’s book, “Governance in Singapore”, available at the Lee Kong Chian reference library. Others may point towards the lack of action from the Singapore Police Force, despite multiple reports already filed against one Jason Tan, the politically protected advocate of child abuse. And it looks like he’s getting away with his brand of violence too.
Even the taciturn Minister of Law had to draw a line on the brazen attack.
The prime minister may make political mileage out of advocating stronger action against the ISIS at the 26th ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lumpur, but the real terror is already in town.
.
Tattler
This is so called Opposition Party
This is why we must stop personal attacks in politics
Print
Added on: Sunday Today
Total comments: 0
Singapore Democrats
The assault on Mr Amos Yee last week as he was walking to court shocked many Singaporeans. Watching the video, one could hear the revolting crack of palm on cheek.
We heave a collective sigh of relief that the assailant did not carry a weapon, otherwise the situation could have turned even more tragic. As it is, if the culprit had landed closer to Amos' ear, it could have caused critical perhaps even irreparable damage to the boy.
Lest we think that this was an isolated incident, it should be noted that the discussion against Amos had been building up to a climax, with expressions of hate often accompanying the comments.
We should not be surprised therefore that someone took it upon himself to express his emotions through a violent act.
It is the PAP's rhetoric, often bordering on incitement, that provides the substratum for mistrust and hate.
For example, Mr Tang Liang Hong was accused of being an anti-Islam, anti-Christian Chinese chauvinist. The incendiary labels stoked vicious threats against Mr Tang so much so that immediately following the elections in 1997, he fled the country.
In a similar vein, Mr Francis Seow was accused of being a stooge of the US Government colluding with the CIA. For effect, the NTUC even staged a theatrical protest outside the US embassy. An over-emotional PAP supporter given to delusions could have easily acted in a very regrettable manner against Mr Seow.
The late J B Jeyaretnam was likened to a “mangy dog”, and his political challenge became analogous to a scenario involving cul-de-sacs and weapons.
I have been called a gangster, a traitor who opposes Singapore and even diagnosed a psychopath. When you top this off with a call to “annihilate” me, you set up a scenario laced with poisonous tension, tempting individuals to perpetrate acts of malice and aggression.
It happened on several occasions to my family and I. For present purposes, I will cite only two: The first was that my German Shepherd dog was poisoned, the cause of death was confirmed by the vet. The second involved the repeated slashing of my car tyres. Both episodes happened in the late 1990s at the height of the PAP's vitriol against me.
While the PAP leaders have bodyguards to ensure their physical security, they must realise that their opponents are vulnerable to attacks by persons on the violent fringe. Engaging in over-the-top rhetoric and using violent imagery is dangerous.
All it takes is just one moment of madness by one lone individual to commit one violent act, and no amount of calling for justice by the Minister for Law can undo the damage.
I have often counseled against personal attacks and character assassination in our politics. It is base and primitive, and has absolutely no place in the modern and civilised nation that we aspire to.
I call on those in the PAP to stop its practice of name-calling and personal destruction. Leaders must lead and we must set the example to cultivate a political culture that is free of hateful rhetoric and incitement.
Instead let us set about a new politics in a new era where we engage each other on policies – vehemently if we must – but always with respect as fellow Singaporeans. When we do this, our supporters and the general public will follow.
We have the opportunity and the ability to set this new direction, let us seize it and, in so doing, uplift our nation.
Chee Soon Juan
This is why we must stop personal attacks in politics
Added on: Sunday Today
Total comments: 0
Singapore Democrats
The assault on Mr Amos Yee last week as he was walking to court shocked many Singaporeans. Watching the video, one could hear the revolting crack of palm on cheek.
We heave a collective sigh of relief that the assailant did not carry a weapon, otherwise the situation could have turned even more tragic. As it is, if the culprit had landed closer to Amos' ear, it could have caused critical perhaps even irreparable damage to the boy.
Lest we think that this was an isolated incident, it should be noted that the discussion against Amos had been building up to a climax, with expressions of hate often accompanying the comments.
We should not be surprised therefore that someone took it upon himself to express his emotions through a violent act.
It is the PAP's rhetoric, often bordering on incitement, that provides the substratum for mistrust and hate.
For example, Mr Tang Liang Hong was accused of being an anti-Islam, anti-Christian Chinese chauvinist. The incendiary labels stoked vicious threats against Mr Tang so much so that immediately following the elections in 1997, he fled the country.
In a similar vein, Mr Francis Seow was accused of being a stooge of the US Government colluding with the CIA. For effect, the NTUC even staged a theatrical protest outside the US embassy. An over-emotional PAP supporter given to delusions could have easily acted in a very regrettable manner against Mr Seow.
The late J B Jeyaretnam was likened to a “mangy dog”, and his political challenge became analogous to a scenario involving cul-de-sacs and weapons.
I have been called a gangster, a traitor who opposes Singapore and even diagnosed a psychopath. When you top this off with a call to “annihilate” me, you set up a scenario laced with poisonous tension, tempting individuals to perpetrate acts of malice and aggression.
It happened on several occasions to my family and I. For present purposes, I will cite only two: The first was that my German Shepherd dog was poisoned, the cause of death was confirmed by the vet. The second involved the repeated slashing of my car tyres. Both episodes happened in the late 1990s at the height of the PAP's vitriol against me.
While the PAP leaders have bodyguards to ensure their physical security, they must realise that their opponents are vulnerable to attacks by persons on the violent fringe. Engaging in over-the-top rhetoric and using violent imagery is dangerous.
All it takes is just one moment of madness by one lone individual to commit one violent act, and no amount of calling for justice by the Minister for Law can undo the damage.
I have often counseled against personal attacks and character assassination in our politics. It is base and primitive, and has absolutely no place in the modern and civilised nation that we aspire to.
I call on those in the PAP to stop its practice of name-calling and personal destruction. Leaders must lead and we must set the example to cultivate a political culture that is free of hateful rhetoric and incitement.
Instead let us set about a new politics in a new era where we engage each other on policies – vehemently if we must – but always with respect as fellow Singaporeans. When we do this, our supporters and the general public will follow.
We have the opportunity and the ability to set this new direction, let us seize it and, in so doing, uplift our nation.
Chee Soon Juan
Similar threads
