Prof Jayakumar reprimanded Sylvia Lim for conspiracy theory
-
they do so because they are KS.Originally posted by robertteh:He will use the 6-man grc to get in by blocking with another heavy-weight minister. That is precisely the reason for increasing the size of GRC to 6. -
KS or disgustingly dishonorable? Afraid of effective opposition so they cannot raise their million dollars salaries with public money or KS?Originally posted by qlqq9:they do so because they are KS. -
they can use so many tactics to silence the critics, JBJ was knocked down for a minor thing like discrepancy in the acc, CSJ was knocked down for claiming taxi fare extra few dollars, they can destroy their opponents by fault findingOriginally posted by qlqq9:Just as arrogant and autocratic as before, nothing changes about their ways. Control as much as they can so they can stay in power forever, worst than those emperors in China in the ancient times. -
Maybe when their deeds was discovered, they could make a contribution to a charity like what the Lees during the revelations of their suspicious property deals. They would be absolve from all criminal proceedings.Originally posted by t_a_s:they can use so many tactics to silence the critics, JBJ was knocked down for a minor thing like discrepancy in the acc, CSJ was knocked down for claiming taxi fare extra few dollars, they can destroy their opponents by fault finding
-
Interesting link to an article by Tang Liang Hong. There's a link to a HPL property purchases.
The old man's serial number 00000003, long expired liaoz. Haven't go and hand in IC.
http://www.tangtalk.com/laikewchai.html
I wonder whose NRIC are 00000001/I and S00000002/G?
Lim Yew Hock? -
they have been such for a long long time. shame on them!!! They specialise in making the public think badly of the oppositions. dirty, very dirty! dirty and super thick skin!Originally posted by t_a_s:they can use so many tactics to silence the critics, JBJ was knocked down for a minor thing like discrepancy in the acc, CSJ was knocked down for claiming taxi fare extra few dollars, they can destroy their opponents by fault finding -
just like durai sueing those poor chaps who claim he took first classOriginally posted by t_a_s:they can use so many tactics to silence the critics, JBJ was knocked down for a minor thing like discrepancy in the acc, CSJ was knocked down for claiming taxi fare extra few dollars, they can destroy their opponents by fault finding
-
"shhh... you've giving us all away!"
-
haha, too bad MP Sylvia Lim isnt a duly elected MP eh. and hello, so what if she's a MP. PAP MPs arent allowed to vote according to their consciences anyway, ever heard about the party whip?Originally posted by robertteh:I am surprised as a lawyer, Prof Jayakumar does not seem to know or attach sufficient weight to the fact that under the constitution, courts and parliament are two places where elected MPs are officially granted the right to speak up on any issues, right;y or wrongly believed, factual or false, substantiated or unsubstantiated with immunity from any prosecution of any nature without fear or favor or threat of sanction.
Yet prof Jaya keeps forgetting this fact that MP Sylvia Lim was speaking with immunity from any threats or prosecution and it is wrong for him to threaten her with any commission of inquiry just because she raised certain issues not to the liking of the ruling party. As an elected representative she has the higher duty than ruling party's need to save face to ask questions conscientiously without being subjected to such threats or admonishing for resurrecting the past conspiracy theory raised by former MP Jeyaretnam.
Does MP Sylvia Lim not having the right to speak on relevant issues like independence of the judiciary free from any influence by the ruling party especially in a country widely known and even admitted to be practising autocracy or top-down system.
Has MP Sylvia Lim not the duty to ask questions in parliament so as to get facts from ministers. If Jayakumar is so sure that the judiciary is fully free from influence by the executive directly or indirectly, he is the one who should produce full facts to address issues of concern expressed in the past or now.
For example Jayakumar should clear the air himself to many unanswered issues from the past as well as to whether the decision to transfer judges like Michael Khoo was made independently without influence by the executive since such transfer seemed to happen to judges after favorable verdict was given to opposition leader being sued for speaking in the course of electioneering process.
All that Jayakumar needs to do is to understand that in an age of globalisation, ministers should globalize and not continue to work like ostriches with faces buried under the sand and refusing to answer question of MP with objective facts by countering her with convening commission of inquiry to put her down for truly speaking up on people's utmost issues. -
Heh, true, strait times is full of propoganda from some ruling party.Originally posted by qlqq9:thanks for info. I don't subscribe to STs, as I find that there are loads and loads of crap in there and full of propaganda. I only buy STs on Sundays. -
another brain dead singaporean. we keep loosing sight of what we lost we will loose it all the way.Originally posted by shilin:Why are we arguing over such things, (where there's no concrete effects from the parliament talk).
When ... other countries are facing corrupted judiciary system, from mata to PM.
When .. other countries don't even know what the hell their government is doing.
Not apathetic, just my own opinion. -
It's time to make them loose their "so-call" heavy-weight. Honestly, I don't see any heavy weights in the current generation and if I get a chance to vote, I'm not going to vote in some young elite punks who sneak their way in through the sleeves of other ministers.Originally posted by robertteh:He will use the 6-man grc to get in by blocking with another heavy-weight minister. That is precisely the reason for increasing the size of GRC to 6. -
however u might feel and whichever perspective you subscribe to...
for the betterment of singaporeans and for those years that you might, probably, still be staying in Singapore...... urge you to never forget what has happened.
For when election comes.. the carrots are all too good to be true... and our judgement will once again be clouded.
Lest we forget..... -
Singaporeans, especially majority of the old people will be taken in and then cast their votes to them. Some of the folks don't look beyond the surface, heard a couple of them talking about the gahmen are so good to give them $$$$. I give up on them, really!Originally posted by sir sickolot II:however u might feel and whichever perspective you subscribe to...
for the betterment of singaporeans and for those years that you might, probably, still be staying in Singapore...... urge you to never forget what has happened.
For when election comes.. the carrots are all too good to be true... and our judgement will once again be clouded.
Lest we forget..... -
Parliamentary privileges should not be abused.
As a lawyer herself, she should know that.
Anyway she is safe from punishment, but don't forget Prof Jayakumar also can say what ever he likes, and that includes ticking off Slyvia.
The integrity of the judiciary should be protected.
Slyvia Lim as a lawyer, should know that.
As a lawyer and also as a person having the privilege of speaking in Parliament, she should know that what ever she wants to allege must be backed by evidence. Parliamentary privileges aside, she cannot just say that the executive will interfear with the judiciary, and leave it at that. Where is the support for the assertion?
By the way, if she has proof, she knows that she can bring it out in Parliament with immunity. If she is a coward, and fears reprisals, thats her own doing. -
Please answer this question that Silvia asked: "Why must the PM personally appoint two "gang members" of his choice if not to influence the judiciary?"
He thinks the PSC is incompetent? The thinks that the PSC appointees will not be impartial? -
Proof? Proof like these are equivalent to proving political alignment in subversive communist elements. If you think that she is able to provide proof such as these, then they should be able to prove subversive communist elements and repeal the Internal Security Act altogether.Originally posted by mancha:Parliamentary privileges should not be abused.
As a lawyer herself, she should know that.
Anyway she is safe from punishment, but don't forget Prof Jayakumar also can say what ever he likes, and that includes ticking off Slyvia.
The integrity of the judiciary should be protected.
Slyvia Lim as a lawyer, should know that.
As a lawyer and also as a person having the privilege of speaking in Parliament, she should know that what ever she wants to allege must be backed by evidence. Parliamentary privileges aside, she cannot just say that the executive will interfear with the judiciary, and leave it at that. Where is the support for the assertion?
By the way, if she has proof, she knows that she can bring it out in Parliament with immunity. If she is a coward, and fears reprisals, thats her own doing.
Acts such as these form tacit collusion, though no money is exchanged, but the very act of appointing candidates to high position based on one's power, holds these very candidates beholden to the appointer.
Cowards are those that shroud the system to prevent more transparency. -
Slyvia Lim is not a layperson, she knows the protocol.
Slyvia Lim was admitted to Parliament on a technicality.
Fear? What can you do about someone elses fear.
PM chooses for the people. Remember he was voted in. How he is voted in? that's another issue. Most of this forum has been on this subject. -
She never said will, she said the chance remains.
-
Problem is not with Sylvia who would probably want to comply with all necessary procedures like checking up on facts etc before she speaks but problem may be the ministers are not willing to let MPs speak freely reserving their half-conceived right of reply by throwing mud back at the MP whenever any criticisms are not to their liking.
Everyone will start respecting all procedures of parliaments when leaders like tghe ministers are willing to be accountable and answer to criticisms without treating the MPs as adversarial. There is a larger perspective and larger duty expected of our ministers as leaders which they probably up to now still do not understand.
Problem is that although MPs are elected or presumed elected due to no contest under the GRC gerrymandering, and are given the right to speak on any issues and problems brought up by citizens even if rightly or wrongly believed, ministers who have a higher duty to investigate and answer queries are not being accountable believing that they could find fault with MPs instead with their other half-conceived right which they really do not have in the larger perspective.
If ministers refuse to discharge the higher duty and respect such rights of MPs when speaking in parliament then the whole system will break down with parliament becoming a facade for ruling party to do whatever they like as the ministers could easily find a fault with MPs instead of conscientiously carrying out their higher duty to citizens and country as ministers.
Ministers could then easily avoid accountability by threatening MPs with such intimidations of holding commissions of inquiry whenever they cannot defend certain actions or unable to stand up to scrutiny.
Are ministers willing to make the first move by setting good example of themselves and showing willingness to uphold the whole parliamentary system including allowing MPs to speak freely with immunity without any such threats.
If our ministers want to build a more cosmopolitan and inclusive society, they ought to change their mindset by leading by examples. If ministers instead of following the decorum of parliamentary proceeding insists that they too have the equal right to sling mud at MPs then this is not what Ministers are employed for according to codes of conduct for ministers.
So the constant reliance on issuing threats and intimidation of MPs for many years even for speaking on issues of great public concern with commissions of inquiry when MPs are merely raising issues and feedbacks rightly or wrongly believed should stop.
Ministers are not perfect as seen in the ministers' salary benchmarking and NKF issues and should be made accountable going forward. Being not perfect they should not be allowed to exert such undue authority as if they are perfect.
They should listen intently to all areas of shortcomings and should lead the MPs being being accountable before they could ask MPs to comply with every parliamentary rules or conventions.
If ministers want to uphold law and order there must not be two sets of laws one for minister and another for MPs. The law and order advice to citizens will not be respected if ministers refuse or are unwilling to take a lead to show their own accountability to the whole parliamentary system in this light.
Ministers have been ignoring MPs' role to question and ask for accountability of the ministers in many matter.
That is why under our system we have many problems left unsolved like the NKF despite years of feedbacks because ministers could shut the whole issue by telling less, not telling or issuing threats to the MPs to hold commissions of inquiry. -
Cowards will always take the side of the rich and powerful instead of taking the sides of truth and justice.
That TT Durai won a few court cases before a thorough transparent exposure of all his dealings show clearly why these people demand proof while hiding behind opacity. -
Interestingly, why is the "rich and powerful" seen as the direct opposite of "truth and justice"? Why can't the rich and powerful also be the truth and justice? But I'm taking your words at face value and if the words are used metaphorically, then please ignore the post.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:Cowards will always take the side of the rich and powerful instead of taking the sides of truth and justice.
That TT Durai won a few court cases before a thorough transparent exposure of all his dealings show clearly why these people demand proof while hiding behind opacity. -
Sorry for this post, he made and amendment instead of contuning where he left off. -
x2Originally posted by 105090:on that report, parliament voted for some issue.
unsuprisingly, the vote was 74-2.
those 2 against was Mr Low and Mr Chiam.
PAP MPs dont dare to oppose any issues
We are essentially paying them to follow and agree with the 'boss'.
With a potential million dollar paycheck, who would dare to risk incurring the wrath of the 'emperor' ? -
I meant, take the sides of they rich and powerful when the rich and powerful are against truth and justice.Originally posted by wisefool83:Interestingly, why is the "rich and powerful" seen as the direct opposite of "truth and justice"? Why can't the rich and powerful also be the truth and justice? But I'm taking your words at face value and if the words are used metaphorically, then please ignore the post.