Singapore Police disrupts a peaceful protest
-
If u want to rob a bank,no one is stopping you.But remember,even if you want to rob,pls go n rob GLC banks like DBS and POSB,dont go n rob foreign banks. Becoz GLC banks=government property=PAP=Lee family property.Originally posted by deathbait:
ah ha!
so by your logic, applying for permission to rob the bank is an exercise in futility. That makes it right for me to rob a bank.
-
deathbait, is there something wrong with you? I mean, have you ever been to school where you were taught the difference between right and wrong? I am just puzzled. How on earth could you equate bank robbery with citizens exercising their constitutional rights to gather and voice their grievances?? Our constitution grants us the rights to freedom of speech and assembly! If anything, the police are the ones breaking the law by depriving free citizens of those rights. In this case, the injustice is even more glaring because while CASE went on with their march, the SDP were denied the very same right. Crew
-
Words of wisdom!!!:)
-
Originally posted by Singa Crew:
deathbait, is there something wrong with you? I mean, have you ever been to school where you were taught the difference between right and wrong?
I am just puzzled. How on earth could you equate bank robbery with citizens exercising their constitutional rights to gather and voice their grievances?? Our constitution grants us the rights to freedom of speech and assembly! If anything, the police are the ones breaking the law by depriving free citizens of those rights.
In this case, the injustice is even more glaring because while CASE went on with their march, the SDP were denied the very same right.
Crew
because, as i have already pointed out in another thread, protesting without a permit is AGAINST the constitution, not a constitutional right.
You can be certain CASE had a permit, am I not right?
Thus, to support any party who illegally holds protests is unconstitutional. And if, according to you, being against the constitution is the rule of being wrong instead of right, what does that make you?
If robbery is wrong because it's against the law, how is protesting illegally right? I went to school...I'm just not quite sure you did.
-
Originally posted by Singa Crew:
deathbait, is there something wrong with you? I mean, have you ever been to school where you were taught the difference between right and wrong?
I am just puzzled. How on earth could you equate bank robbery with citizens exercising their constitutional rights to gather and voice their grievances?? Our constitution grants us the rights to freedom of speech and assembly! If anything, the police are the ones breaking the law by depriving free citizens of those rights.
In this case, the injustice is even more glaring because while CASE went on with their march, the SDP were denied the very same right.
Crew
most of us have come to this conclusion, he's either under the P4P's payroll or a very deranged man. -
Some ppl....Yawnzzz.....
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
most of us have come to this conclusion, he's either under the P4P's payroll or a very deranged man.pfft. I'm just standing in the eye of the storm.
If you cannot handle facts, then there's nothing I can do to help you. There is nothing so helpless as a man who refuses to remove his blinders.
To me the case was simple.
1)some people broke the law
2)the police intervened.
Unless you can tell me either of the above two statements are lies, I think we need talk about injustice no further.
If you, however, tell me that the above statements are indeed true, but the police is still in the wrong, then I beg you to explain to me why the police should arrest me if I rob a bank, for apparently to you, breaking the law is not the pre-requisite for police intervention.
-
Well... it's planned...
They applied for permit but lee would definitely not approve such demostration.
Thus it became unlawful that they continued.
Bear in mind that when does PAP demostration get declined? and why such demostration would be rejected?
It just give them a reason to arrest them if they continue and let them seem like the righteous ones...
Bear in mind that some protest was done in silence and in legal numbers but still it drew police to the scene and have them arrested.
And remember the time when Ms Chee was walking to the hotel and she was taken away because they refuse to let her come near to that hotel where a conference was held... while other citizen can... so, they are less than citizen?
-
Originally posted by caleb_chiang:
Well... it's planned...
They applied for permit but lee would definitely not approve such demostration.
Thus it became unlawful that they continued.
Bear in mind that when does PAP demostration get declined? and why such demostration would be rejected?
It just give them a reason to arrest them if they continue and let them seem like the righteous ones...
Bear in mind that some protest was done in silence and in legal numbers but still it drew police to the scene and have them arrested.
And remember the time when Ms Chee was walking to the hotel and she was taken away because they refuse to let her come near to that hotel where a conference was held... while other citizen can... so, they are less than citizen?
Let's not be confused.
If it's illegal for them to protest without a permit, and they didn't get one, what they were doing was illegal. If they applied for a permit, and was explicitly told they couldn't protest, then they were holding the protest in full knowledge that they would be stopped.
Please name the protest done in legal numbers that got people arrested. I have not seen the link, or the report. Ditto for the Ms Chee incident.
What, just because they were never going to get a permit, it's ok for them to break the law? I draw your attention back to my bank robbery scenario. By your logic chain, it's ok for me to rob the bank because they're never going to give me the money if I ask for it nicely.
If you're going to construct arguments to justify the protest, at least come up with something sensible. Next you'll tell me it's ok to speed, or run a red light simply because there are no other cars around.
-
Originally posted by deathbait:
Let's not be confused.
If it's illegal for them to protest without a permit, and they didn't get one, what they were doing was illegal. If they applied for a permit, and was explicitly told they couldn't protest, then they were holding the protest in full knowledge that they would be stopped.
Please name the protest done in legal numbers that got people arrested. I have not seen the link, or the report. Ditto for the Ms Chee incident.
What, just because they were never going to get a permit, it's ok for them to break the law? I draw your attention back to my bank robbery scenario. By your logic chain, it's ok for me to rob the bank because they're never going to give me the money if I ask for it nicely.
If you're going to construct arguments to justify the protest, at least come up with something sensible. Next you'll tell me it's ok to speed, or run a red light simply because there are no other cars around.
Hmmm... I'd like to see how you'll react one day you find yourself on the short end of the stick.
Law is law, but if the law is used justly or abused is another question entirely.
If you want to see things by letter of the law fine with me, but you might find yourself on the short end of the stick one day when some person who knows the loopholes better then you decide it's totally legal to exploit you.
I'd rather live by the spirit, and not the word of the law. The law is there as a framework to determine what is right and wrong, but right and wrong in itself is much larger then written law and it's up to the conscience of men to decide if they want to follow the law if they have, by conscience come to realize that the law might be wrong in the context of the absolute right and wrong.
-
The law is only useful if everyone abides by it.
The moment anyone starts taking liberties with it, no matter how small, the law grows a little bit weaker.
You are right. There is right, and there is wrong. This falls outside the boundaries of the law. The law is there to make sure we do not cross too far over the line. It is not the definate measure of what is wrong.
But let's not be misled by these complicated concepts. If you know you're breaking the law, and you continue to do so, you lose all moral highground. Let's be clear on that. The way around bad laws is to change the law, not break it.
You elect your representatives to parliament. They represent you. They are the check and balance to the system. Too often I hear people who say they are useless...they won't put their necks out for the people. I then question : why did you elect them then?
The way to do this properly is via slow changes to the system introduced by the representatives who do their job. The system is not isolated from us, the people. We simply can't be bothered to use it. I see alot of disgrunted people here. When was the last time ANY one of you bothered to write to your MP? When was the last time ANY one of you did anything resembling in depth research before electing him to office? If the government fails to do it's job, it is OUR fault. WE don't put in the effort, then act surprised when the shit hits the fan. Then we try to elect opposition party members to office just because they happen not to be PAP. And then we're surprised they don't do a good job.
The law against large groups of people in public areas is an archaic one, and is perhaps abused in the current situation. BUT IT IS STILL THE LAW. And a society that does not abide by it's laws does not deserve, and cannot for long remain a peaceful society. The correct approach is to elect competent people to office. People who will look into these small details, ever ready to tweak things as situations change.
So if you don't agree with how the law is being carried out in this incident, WRITE TO YOUR REPRESENTATIVE. Go door to door to campaign for someone you feel WILL give a crap about these small matters. Vote for competent candidates, not just because they belong to a specific party. But for crying out loud, do not defend the actions of these protesters. For make no mistake, they DID knowingly break the law. And everytime someone breaks the law, laws hold less meaning. And I for one do not wish to one day find myself in a society where laws are reduced to nothing.
Remember, two wrongs don't make it right. Don't confuse one wrong with another. The protest was wrong. Simple as that. Just because you feel the law is wrong does not make the protest right.
-
Lee Kuan Yew is a person without feelings....Usually when something goes wrong,we will ask ourselves why,and try to solve it. But this LKY simply use force to clear all the problems if he encounter any.(like ppl try to voice out different opinions,he will simply ask them to shut up) I am sure not only most Singaporeans hated him now,even some ppl in the PAP party also hated him deep into bone.Most probably,his own sons also dont like him.Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:
If Lee Kuan Yew dies, I wonder whether this disgraceful behaviour will end.
I don't see a reason why a peaceful protest cannot be held.
I don't understand Lee Kuan Yew at all.
What a sad bastard.
-
Tanjong Pagar GRC may fall like nine kingpin, minister so what, nowadays the young voters are more mature and can think positively, I am only worry about the older generation of voters. Seem that Tsunami is coming to singapore in afew years time
-
Laws are meant to be broken.If no body breaks the law, then there is no need to enact the law. stupid ass. Why we have laws to guide us, why there is Bible, because people tend to break the law since ancient time
-
Talking about GRC (some digression):
The opposition has never won a mega-GRC (5-6 men) in history. The GRC was a useful concept in bringing in minorities into the parliament, but with only 4 major races, is there a need for GRCs to reach 6 men per team, yet only have a requirement of a minimum 1 minority race in each team? We don't need 5-6 men GRCs to bring in minority races.
Also, if there's racial harmony day and there exists policies to prevent the marginalisation of minority races, why is there a need to file for a minority race application to contest in a GRC?
Sometimes they just don't make sense.
-----Ok, end of rant.-----
-
Originally posted by deathbait:
Please name the protest done in legal numbers that got people arrested. I have not seen the link, or the report. Ditto for the Ms Chee incident.
Well, for one, the CPF saga back in 2005... riot polices over 20 against 4 pax...did not arrest on the spot though but brought back for questioning...
-
Yap Keng Ho not part of protest
Singapore Democrats
17 Mar 08
Mr Yap Keng Ho was not a participant in the Tak Boleh Tahan! Protest on 15 Mar 08.
The police are being mischievous as photographs and videotapes show that Mr Yap did not appear with the group. He was one of the many people who were documenting the event with cameras and video-recorders. It is clear that he was not wearing the protest T-shirt.
If Mr Yap is charged for participating in an illegal assembly and procession, then those who were photographing and videotaping the event must also be similarly charged.
Mr Kushwant Singh's report makes two errors. First, he reports that Mr Yap is a member of the SDP. Mr Yap is not an SDP member. Two, Mr Yap refused to post bail. It was not that he could not afford to post bail as reported.http://www.singaporedemocrat.org/articleWCRDprotest17.html
-
Let me enlighten deathbait here about the constitution and our rights as citizens. He’s been going on and on about how the whole protest was illegal because the SDP did not get a permit and examples about bank robberies using his ‘Alice in Wonderland’ logic. Let me explain some fundamentals here. Our rights to freedom of speech and assembly are inalienable. All free citizens are born with these rights. They are not transferable and cannot be taken away. That’s the nature of ‘rights’. Now, if the PAP say you can only exercise your rights under certain circumstances or with their permission, then they are not rights but privileges. If that is the case, the PAP should just re-draft the constitution and call them ‘privileges to freedom of speech and assembly’. Yes, parliament passed an act requiring us to get a permit before we can protest. That’s a blatant case of tampering with our inalienable rights as citizens. The PAP are therefore guilty of breaking the law themselves. That particular amendment to the Constitution should be declared null and void! Mr Gopalan Nair has pointed out: “There are rare instances, such as serious national issues, where a constitutional provision can be temporarily amended. But such instances, as I said, are very rare.� Now can anyone tell me, (deathbait you out there?), were there any serious national issues that warranted the police taking action against the peaceful protesters on Saturday? Yes, we do have a dangerous terrorist on the loose. But that did not prevent CASE from holding their own protest. Why the double standard? Crew
-
Same old fools talking about their rights to go against the law..."...In those days there was no king....every man did that which was right in his own eyes." (Jud 21:25)
-
are you guys reading your own posts?
laws are meant to be broken?
the constitution doesn't matter because YOU think a clause should be declared null and void?
Either you use the constitution or you don't. You can't use the constitution to defend someone's actions and then carry on to say part of the constitution is wrong anyway.
The constitution does not protect Dr Chee in that rally. There are no "national issues" required to amend it, because it did not need amending.
Can you honestly not see the difference between the CASE march and the SDP one, or are you just trolling?
I'm not sure you understand what rights are.
In any case, I hope you at least agree that the march is illegal. It's right there in the law. I can't think of a more black and white case. Just because you don't agree with the law doesn't make it legal. -
Yes, we are reading our own posts. And we like what we see! :-) You said: "the constitution doesn't matter because YOU think a clause should be declared null and void? Either you use the constitution or you don't. You can't use the constitution to defend someone's actions and then carry on to say part of the constitution is wrong anyway." You know what? I agree with what you said. The PAP think the constitution doesn't matter just because they are uncomfortable with a certain clause granting citizens the rights to free speech and assembly. The PAP are wrong to ignore our rights enshrined in the constitution. Either they use the constitution AND respect our rights as citizens or they don't. They can't amend and use the constitution to defend themselves and pretend the part of the constitution granting citizens the rights to freedom of speech and assembly does not exist. :-) Crew
-
Originally posted by Singa Crew:
Yes, we are reading our own posts. And we like what we see! :-)
You said:
“the constitution doesn’t matter because YOU think a clause should be declared null and void?Either you use the constitution or you don’t. You can’t use the constitution to defend someone’s actions and then carry on to say part of the constitution is wrong anyway.”
You know what? I agree with what you said.
The PAP think the constitution doesn’t matter just because they are uncomfortable with a certain clause granting citizens the rights to free speech and assembly. The PAP are wrong to ignore our rights enshrined in the constitution.
Either they use the constitution AND respect our rights as citizens or they don’t. They can’t amend and use the constitution to defend themselves and pretend the part of the constitution granting citizens the rights to freedom of speech and assembly does not exist.
:-)
Crew
there is a CLAUSE in the constitution that made that rally illegal. You can't just use the parts you like and ignore the parts you don't.
The constitution is not like the bible.
-
Originally posted by caleb_chiang:
Well, for one, the CPF saga back in 2005... riot polices over 20 against 4 pax...did not arrest on the spot though but brought back for questioning...
so in other words, they weren't arrested.
-
Originally posted by deathbait:
The law is only useful if everyone abides by it.
the law is only useful if it is applied impartially. -
Originally posted by deathbait:
there is a CLAUSE in the constitution that made that rally illegal. You can't just use the parts you like and ignore the parts you don't.
The constitution is not like the bible.
you really are retarded. that clause was added in.Anyone read Animal Farm? Remember that wall of rules that were conveniently amended to constantly benefit the ruling class at the expense of all the other animals?
There were always the few stupid animals that would look at the wall and go, "yes, that's the law. it's written there", regardless of how crudely the law was amended using paint to overwrite the original laws?