Gopalan Nair in Singapore:Judge Belinda Ang's Kangaroo Court
-
Originally posted by DeerHunter:
"If at all, Gopalan was seeking to create a publicity to the high handed manner in which MM LKY treat the Singaopre Judiciary system - as LKY is famous for using the judiciary as his proxy.
MM LKY has admitted as much in claiming that "if no one fears me, I feel I am nothing!!"
It is common knowledge that MM LKY use the judicial process as a political tool to threaten those who are professionals in the Singapore Citizenry - that they will have to endure similar fate as CSJ, if they enter politics on the side of the Alternative Parties"
There you go again, lies and half truth to push your bigoted alternative agenda.
Famous for using...? - to you alone or everyone else?
Common knowledge that ....threaten? - common to you alone?
Is MM LKY not a citizen of Singapore and entitled to justice of our courts to clear his name?
Are you depriving him of this right?
Are you claiming anyone can just slander against another freely and get away with it?
Edit: And a more serious charge, are you casting aspersion on the independence of our judiciary? You better have facts to back it up.
Is this what your 'alternative politics' should be - freedom of speech to slander without facts or evidences, such as the despicable Gopalan and you are doing, even before you clowns gain the mandate to rule?
DeerHunter,
How many elections you participated har ?
You fresh from school issit ? Must be lah. If not you woulda know what kinda dirty tricks PAP uses lah.
How you so sure the Judiciaries are not fearful of Lee ?
You know what conflict of interest means anot har ?
"Becoming President
Although a Straits Times survey showed that nearly 80 percent of Singaporeans hoped for a contest, Nathan nonetheless took up office unopposed as President on August 18, 1999. His nomination was strongly supported by Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew (then holding the post of Senior Minister)."
If our gahmen very transparent.. you think we bother about people like Nair ?
The people are becoming more suspicious about what the gahmen are doing, is that wrong to question our cheng hu ? Like that is slander meh ? Cham liao lor.
Just because we have no proof does not means it never happen leh. If everything in cheng hu is top secret.. how can a commoner like us get the proof ?
Then got no proof means.. we must accept it meh ? Please lah.
Even our beloved Ong Teng Chong ex-president got problem digging up the truth , you think a small fry like you can get anywhere ???
"However, soon after his election to the presidency in 1993, he became embroiled in a dispute with the government over the access of information regarding Singapore's financial reserves. The government said it would take 56 man years to produce a dollar-and-cents value of the immovable assets. Ong discussed this with the accountant general and the auditor general and came to a compromise that the government needed to give him only a listing of all the properties that the government owns. It took the government a few months to produce the list. But even then the list was not complete. In all, it took the government three years to come up with the information about the reserves that Ong requested.[1] The government also tried to submit a bill to parliament for the sale of the Post Office Savings Bank (POSB), a statutory board whose reserves are to be protected by the president, to the Development Bank of Singapore (DBS), without first informing Ong during the last year of his presidency. Ong's office had to inform the government that the procedure was wrong.[1]"
Politics very dark one.. You think you are obiwan kenobi ah ?
-
16 06 2008 Sub Court express:
GPN was ordered by Judge to report to police daily till he
appear on Sub Court 14.07.2008.Yes 14 July 2008.
He case will be heard in High Court.
First charge has been amended,said to be amended to Penal Code
s 228.
It is a serious case,anyway
SDP site reported he would be charged under Sedition Act,
though he has not been charged under this Act.
AG's approval is required to prosecute under Sediton Act .
U can see AG Chamber is involved in this case as reported by his lawyer:
http://chiatilik.wordpress.com/
05 june 2008
''My My. What a serious case this was.(lion note:first charge)Section 13D(1)(a) carried a maximum punishment of S$5,000/- fine or to imprisonment for up to 1 year. Yet it was found under the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order & Nuisance) Act.
Today however i learnt a new thing, that the prosecution needed its Investigating Officer to converse with the Attorney-General’s Chambers and seek more time for the prosecution to decide how to proceeded with the Accused.''
tc
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
DeerHunter,
How many elections you participated har ?
You fresh from school issit ? Must be lah. If not you woulda know what kinda dirty tricks PAP uses lah.
How you so sure the Judiciaries are not fearful of Lee ?
You know what conflict of interest means anot har ?
"Becoming President
Although a Straits Times survey showed that nearly 80 percent of Singaporeans hoped for a contest, Nathan nonetheless took up office unopposed as President on August 18, 1999. His nomination was strongly supported by Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew (then holding the post of Senior Minister)."
If our gahmen very transparent.. you think we bother about people like Nair ?
The people are becoming more suspicious about what the gahmen are doing, is that wrong to question our cheng hu ? Like that is slander meh ? Cham liao lor.
Just because we have no proof does not means it never happen leh. If everything in cheng hu is top secret.. how can a commoner like us get the proof ?
Then got no proof means.. we must accept it meh ? Please lah.
Even our beloved Ong Teng Chong ex-president got problem digging up the truth , you think a small fry like you can get anywhere ???
"However, soon after his election to the presidency in 1993, he became embroiled in a dispute with the government over the access of information regarding Singapore's financial reserves. The government said it would take 56 man years to produce a dollar-and-cents value of the immovable assets. Ong discussed this with the accountant general and the auditor general and came to a compromise that the government needed to give him only a listing of all the properties that the government owns. It took the government a few months to produce the list. But even then the list was not complete. In all, it took the government three years to come up with the information about the reserves that Ong requested.[1] The government also tried to submit a bill to parliament for the sale of the Post Office Savings Bank (POSB), a statutory board whose reserves are to be protected by the president, to the Development Bank of Singapore (DBS), without first informing Ong during the last year of his presidency. Ong's office had to inform the government that the procedure was wrong.[1]"
Politics very dark one.. You think you are obiwan kenobi ah ?
Jojo, Singapore is ruled by laws. We live in a civilised society, where the strong protects the weak, and not a society where the strongest survive.
The only way in which the strong can protect the weak is thru the rule of law. Laws of which we, different individuals, with different aspirations and personalities may agree upon and live side by side, if not in harmony, at least in peace, instead of fighting with one another in order to survive and for future generations to survive.
Such laws are uniform and universal, fully applicable to all in Singapore, whether he is a PM or a cleaner.
Without laws, we will revert back to barbarism, no better than animals of the wild.
Within our society, it is perfectly normal to accuse someone of a crime or offense. But you would have to have evidences before you do so, otherwise you are only slandering the good name of someone.
Politics may be dirty to you, but no matter how dirty it becomes, no one is above the law. If anyone is accused, he would be given a fair trial, before our judges, whose credibility is unquestionable, made up of men who had provened personal integrity whom rules in an independent court without fear or favour, with rulings in accordance with our agreed upon laws applicable for all.
So if you wish to accuse, you better get evidences. If not, you are slandering. Worse still if you persist or distort the truth, telling lies and half truths, espacially if it concerns the running of a country or head of state. You will be deem to be spreading anarchy or rebellion, which is totally dangerous not to leaders of state, for they are only a minority, but to the safety of men, women and children of Singapore.
Never forget the race riots of our past and how innocent lives were hurt or lost through the political ambitions of a few.
-
IO could not see GPN for few days leading to daily report
Chia Ti Lik said in court today at around 4pm last Thur ,IO told him
that GPN to report to Police at 5 pm same day.
He could not contact him then.
Even as i was even rushing to Queenstown Remand Prison to see Dr. Chee. The IO was asking me to get Gopalan to report to Central Police Station at 5pm. This was like less than 1.5 hours notice. And that they had parted with Gopalan in Court only less than 3.5 hours earlier. As i could not get in touch with Gopalan Nair in the midst of driving i could only promise to do my best to get in touch with him.
Miscommunication arose bewteen IO and Chia that GPN
would report to IO at 3 pm Friday.In fact,IO
could not make it.
At 2 pm Friday,Chia called IO that GPN could not report at 3 pm.
Chia contacted GPN through the bailer,Chairman? of SDP.
GPN was busy to arrange for his accommation.
IO could not see GPN until this Monday morning.
Therefore,DPP requested vary the terms of bail.
Instead of reporting to police as and when required since
05 June, he has to report daily from tmw till 14 JULY.
Judge rejected Chia request that investgation interview limited
to maximum 2 hours daily .
Why does GPN not get a hand phone
If he gets a HP,IO could call him in the last few days.
Then he no need report to IO daily for one month.
read
http://www.sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/320837
for Thurs press conference
Gopalan Nair's quickie press conference
-
Jojo, Singapore is ruled by laws.
Gazelle, what is your view on this:
A WP statement yesterday wanted the Public Prosecutor "to explain why it was not an offence for Mr Goh Chok Tong, BG Lee Hsien Loong and Dr Tony Tan to stand, not only within the grounds of the station, but also to enter into the polling area to observe voters casting their votes".
On the advice of the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC), the police had dismissed the complaints last week, saying that there was no provision in the Parliamentary Elections Act for any offence of unauthorised entry into, or presence within, a polling station.
But yesterday's two-page WP statement pointed out that section 82 of the Parliamentary Elections Act said that: "No person shall wait outside any polling station on polling day, except for the purpose of gaining entry to the polling station to cast his vote."
It also quoted the paragraph in the Act that said: "No person shall loiter in any street or public place within a radius of 200 metres of any polling station on polling day."
The statement, signed by WP chief J. B. Jeyaretnam, said that the party was "amazed" that the police had ruled that no offence had been disclosed in five police reports filed, including two made by the Singapore Democratic Party.
It also noted that the complaint against the PAP leaders and members was not that they were exchanging greetings and shaking hands with voters in the polling stations. Instead, it was that under the law they had no business to be present within the polling stations' precincts when they were not the wards' candidates.
Noting that the law made it an offence for non-voters to wait or loiter within a radius of 200m outside a polling station, the WP asked if the Public Prosecutor was suggesting that it was acceptable for them to enter the grounds of the polling station and loiter there instead...
http://www.singapore-window.org/0715st.htm
-
GPN seem have read the Sedition Act.
He said in his statement:
In the US where I come from, the judiciary just as any other government or official body is open to criticism and they accept it as necessary for the advancement and improvement of the administration of justice.
i can assure him that this has been alreday taken care of in SG Sedition Act:Seditious tendency.
3.(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), any act, speech, words, publication or other thing shall not be deemed to be seditious by reason only that it has a tendency —- (a)
to show that the Government has been
misled or mistaken in any of its measures;
- (b)
to point out errors or defects in the
Government or the Constitution as by law established or in legislation
or in the administration of justice with a view to the remedying
of such errors or defects;
- (c)
to persuade the citizens of Singapore
or the residents in Singapore to attempt to procure by lawful means
the alteration of any matter in Singapore; or
- (d)
to point out, with a view to their
removal, any matters producing or having a tendency to produce feelings
of ill-will and enmity between different races or classes of the
population of Singapore,
if such act, speech, words, publication or other thing has not otherwise in fact a seditious tendency.
The standing of SG judiciary is not below US one.
-
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:
Gazelle, what is your view on this:
A WP statement yesterday wanted the Public Prosecutor "to explain why it was not an offence for Mr Goh Chok Tong, BG Lee Hsien Loong and Dr Tony Tan to stand, not only within the grounds of the station, but also to enter into the polling area to observe voters casting their votes".
On the advice of the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC), the police had dismissed the complaints last week, saying that there was no provision in the Parliamentary Elections Act for any offence of unauthorised entry into, or presence within, a polling station.
But yesterday's two-page WP statement pointed out that section 82 of the Parliamentary Elections Act said that: "No person shall wait outside any polling station on polling day, except for the purpose of gaining entry to the polling station to cast his vote."
It also quoted the paragraph in the Act that said: "No person shall loiter in any street or public place within a radius of 200 metres of any polling station on polling day."
The statement, signed by WP chief J. B. Jeyaretnam, said that the party was "amazed" that the police had ruled that no offence had been disclosed in five police reports filed, including two made by the Singapore Democratic Party.
It also noted that the complaint against the PAP leaders and members was not that they were exchanging greetings and shaking hands with voters in the polling stations. Instead, it was that under the law they had no business to be present within the polling stations' precincts when they were not the wards' candidates.
Noting that the law made it an offence for non-voters to wait or loiter within a radius of 200m outside a polling station, the WP asked if the Public Prosecutor was suggesting that it was acceptable for them to enter the grounds of the polling station and loiter there instead...
http://www.singapore-window.org/0715st.htm
Poh, I will answer on behalf of gazzelle, for i am not him, as i believe you are addressing me.
You yourself, in your post had already answered your question. The answer is:-
"On the advice of the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC), the police had dismissed the complaints last week, saying that there was no provision in the Parliamentary Elections Act for any offence of unauthorised entry into, or presence within, a polling station."
However, WP argued that there was a provision. Why didn't they pursue the matter and seek resolution from our independent judiciary?
By all means, accuse, its their rights, if they THINK they have a case. But if they fail to seek resolution, then who is to be blamed? Better you ask WP instead of speculating here. Do you wish to spread anarchy?
-
Originally posted by DeerHunter:
Jojo, Singapore is ruled by laws. We live in a civilised society, where the strong protects the weak, and not a society where the strongest survive.
The only way in which the strong can protect the weak is thru the rule of law. Laws of which we, different individuals, with different aspirations and personalities may agree upon and live side by side, if not in harmony, at least in peace, instead of fighting with one another in order to survive and for future generations to survive.
Such laws are uniform and universal, fully applicable to all in Singapore, whether he is a PM or a cleaner.
Without laws, we will revert back to barbarism, no better than animals of the wild.
Within our society, it is perfectly normal to accuse someone of a crime or offense. But you would have to have evidences before you do so, otherwise you are only slandering the good name of someone.
Politics may be dirty to you, but no matter how dirty it becomes, no one is above the law. If anyone is accused, he would be given a fair trial, before our judges, whose credibility is unquestionable, made up of men who had provened personal integrity whom rules in an independent court without fear or favour, with rulings in accordance with our agreed upon laws applicable for all.
So if you wish to accuse, you better get evidences. If not, you are slandering. Worse still if you persist or distort the truth, telling lies and half truths, espacially if it concerns the running of a country or head of state. You will be deem to be spreading anarchy or rebellion, which is totally dangerous not to leaders of state, for they are only a minority, but to the safety of men, women and children of Singapore.
Never forget the race riots of our past and how innocent lives were hurt or lost through the political ambitions of a few.
Oh , plese.. you lecturing me about the purpose of law .
Yes law... I also know some law.
But since you so expert on law.. I ask you har.. got any law that says it is unlawful to abuse the law anot har ? You must not be a lawyer lah, because lawyers are good at exploiting loop holes in the laws leh. It's call " Gaming the system"... is that unlawful anot har ???
Our court very independent meh ? I really wonder leh.
Our judiciaries are appointed by the President .
If the president is an elected one.. I have no comprain.
But our current president is not people elected one.. ok ? He supported by MM one.
Like that is independent meh ? No leh.
If you talking about court is independent to the common people is ok lah.
But how can a court be independent when MM is involve har ??? Very strange leh.
Ofcors I doubt the court will make Nair bankrupt lah.. Since he give up SG citizenship liao.. he cannot go for election lor. That already satisfy one of the disqualification for election mah. You go think about it lah.
If our gahmen continue with their anti-people ways.. no need Nair.. soon when people really becomes buay tah han liao.. you think there will be no riot meh ?
-
Very well DeerHunter, I trust that you are not Gazelle.
What is your view of below statement by AG?:
Text of a letter from Singapore's attorney general to law minister S. Jayakumar on the presence of unauthorised persons inside polling stations. The minister summarised the attorney general's opinion when he replied to a query in parliament from non-constituency MP and Workers' Party chief J. B. Jeyaretnam July 30:
11. Plainly, a person inside a polling station cannot be said to be within a radius of 200 metres of a polling station. A polling station must have adequate space for the voting to be carried out. Any space has a perimeter. The words "within a radius of 200 metres" ' therefore mean "200 metres from the perimeter of" any polling station. This point is illustrated in the diagrams in the Appendix.
http://www.singapore-window.org/ag0721.htm
Unauthorised persons inside polling stations: SDP's response
http://www.singapore-window.org/sdp0812.htm
-
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:
Very well DeerHunter, I trust that you are not Gazelle.
What is your view of below statement by AG?:
Text of a letter from Singapore's attorney general to law minister S. Jayakumar on the presence of unauthorised persons inside polling stations. The minister summarised the attorney general's opinion when he replied to a query in parliament from non-constituency MP and Workers' Party chief J. B. Jeyaretnam July 30:
11. Plainly, a person inside a polling station cannot be said to be within a radius of 200 metres of a polling station. A polling station must have adequate space for the voting to be carried out. Any space has a perimeter. The words "within a radius of 200 metres" ' therefore mean "200 metres from the perimeter of" any polling station. This point is illustrated in the diagrams in the Appendix.
http://www.singapore-window.org/ag0721.htm
Unauthorised persons inside polling stations: SDP's response
http://www.singapore-window.org/sdp0812.htm
First of all, this is purely a political matter that already had been accepted or at least deemed to be accepted by the various political groups, of which we can vote with conscience for.If such political groups are not satisfied with the answer given, there are peaceful parliamentary avenues to express their dissatisfaction or seek redress.
I ask you.
Had they, for whom they seek to represent, usefully utilised such means?
Had they exhausted every one of them?
And also, if one political group is allowed to move within the so called radius, can other groups too, not follow suit? Afterall, did we see any politician, ruling or opposition, weld menacing guns and pointed at anyone going into polling stations, or intimidated anyone there with threats when citizens whose vote would ultimately be secret within the both?
Poh, in the silence of those political opposition figures who did nothing except to complain on blogs when they could have done better, we the citizens can only deem them satisfied with answers provided. The case is closed. To pursue what is already closed would amount to a will to spread anarchy. Is this your recommended course of action?
Please, please pardon my presumption, but you MAY be an ex-inmate of an mental institution, thus will not be held accountable for your actions by the authorities, BUT DO spare a thought for those other innocent lives who must account for their actions if they were to follow your recommendations.
-
But what is your opinion on the statement? You didn't answer the question.
11. Plainly, a person inside a polling station cannot be said to be within a radius of 200 metres of a polling station. A polling station must have adequate space for the voting to be carried out. Any space has a perimeter. The words "within a radius of 200 metres" ' therefore mean "200 metres from the perimeter of" any polling station. This point is illustrated in the diagrams in the Appendix.
What is your opinion on above statement by AG?
-
It is strange that neither Chia nor GPN requested that
GPN shall be allowed travel to US and no need reporting
to police daily.
I thought they would raised the request to allow GPN travel to US
for 2 or 3 weeks then come back for further reading.
DPP will object,certainly.
-
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:
But what is your opinion on the statement? You didn't answer the question.
What is your opinion on above statement by AG?
I have no opinion on that statement. It is a matter my political representatives must resolve and explain. But as it does not harm me in anyway or obstruct my life, or prevent me voting in secret within the booth, i do not see a need a pursue it.IF you feel strongly about this statement, then i suggest that you pursue your opposition political representative for an explanation, as it matters most to them, instead of you or me doing the work for them while they rest on their butts waiting to be elected.
-
when u accuse a woman as prostitute,u have to prepare
the woman fight with u or she just walk away,
treating u as crazy.
If she is a Judge of SG,she will kick your butt,very hard.
Ladies and Gentlemen,Boys and Girls,
GPN is not just a blogger -next-door.In his 300 plus blogs in
18 months,he admits in his 30.05.2008 blog:
http://www.singaporedissident.blogspot.com/
There is no doubt in the Singaporean sense, I have defamed him and his Prime Minister son, not only in my last blog post but in almost all my blog posts since my blog's inception in December 2006.
i think the reason DPP changes the charge because Penal Code
can cover his offenses even they were committed in US!!
Therefore,DPP requests 4 weeks more to investigate.
AFP - 42 minutes ago---06.06.2008
US blogger charged with insulting Singapore judge
SINGAPORE (AFP) - - A US citizen was charged Monday with insulting a Singapore judge in his blog by saying she was "prostituting herself", a court document said.
<!-- if(window.yzq_d==null)window.yzq_d=new Object(); window.yzq_d['QUdrTnxseNE-']='&U=13fvqj1uf%2fN%3dQUdrTnxseNE-%2fC%3d629078.12732857.13035082.3272417%2fD%3dLREC%2fB%3d5378559%2fV%3d1'; // -->In the blog, Gopalan Nair criticised a recent legal hearing at which Singapore founding father Lee Kuan Yew and his son, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, testified in a defamation case they filed against an opposition party.
Nair, 58, is charged with insulting Justice Belinda Ang Saw Ean by saying she was "prostituting herself during the entire proceedings, by being nothing more than an employee of Mr Lee Kuan Yew and his son and carrying out their orders," a court document said.
Justice Ang presided over the hearing.
The latest Penal Code charge replaces an initial charge which alleged Nair sent the comments in an email, his lawyer Chia Ti Lik said.
If convicted, Nair, a former Singaporean lawyer now based in California, faces up to one year in prison and a 5,000 dollar (3,630 US) fine.
Last Thursday, another charge accused him of calling Singapore judges "corrupt."
Nair is free on bail in Singapore and has vowed to dispute the charges.
-
BTW,i think western medias is using BLOGGER
to blacken the name of SG.western medias
just make use of westerns sterotypes of SG----
restrict freedom of expression,restrict freedom in medias etc
They should use
US lawyer charged with insulting Singapore judge
Less people would smpathy with GPN if they know he has been a lawyer
for 25 years,including 10 years in SG.
-
Channel NewsAsia - 1 hour 40 minutes ago
Ex—S’porean lawyer charged with insulting S’pore judge
SINGAPORE — Former Singaporean lawyer and ex—Workers’ Party election candidate, Gopalan Nair, was charged Monday with insulting a Singapore judge in his blog by saying she was "prostituting herself", a court document said.
In the blog, Gopalan Nair — a US citizen — criticised a recent legal hearing at which Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew and Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong testified in a defamation case they filed against opposition Singapore Democratic Party (SDP).
Nair, 58, is charged with insulting Justice Belinda Ang Saw Ean by saying she was "prostituting herself during the entire proceedings, by being nothing more than an employee of MM Lee and PM Lee and carrying out their orders," a court document said. Justice Ang presided over the hearing.
The latest Penal Code charge replaces an initial charge which alleged Nair sent the comments in an email, his lawyer Chia Ti Lik said. If convicted, Nair faces up to one year in prison and a S$5,000 fine.
Last Thursday, another charge accused Nair of calling Singapore judges "corrupt".
Nair is freed on bail in Singapore and has vowed to dispute the charges.
Nair was also told by the court on Monday that he must report daily to the police, as a condition of his bail, until July 14, when a date for his trial will likely be set. — AFP/CNA/ir
-
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
BTW,i think western medias is using BLOGGER
to blacken the name of SG.western medias
just make use of westerns sterotypes of SG----
restrict freedom of expression,restrict freedom in medias etc
They should use
US lawyer charged with insulting Singapore judge
Less people would smpathy with GPN if they know he has been a lawyer
for 25 years,including 10 years in SG.
BTW I think you cannot think properly.The reason why he is at issue is because of his activities on his blog, hence blogger is a more apt term, but I suppose that's lost on you.
We don't give a hood or nickle if he's a lawyer or not.
In any case their titles are far more neutral, and make more sense then the titles you give your topics.
-
Originally posted by purpledragon84:
well, he's taking up the old man's dare what..
dun see y the pap supporters so agitated.. if the old man so zai, we'll see the ah neh sued.. simple..
If Justice Belinder Ang could recall, it was MM Lee who issued the challenge to sue people for telling lies about in the blogs about government in the recent defamation suit by MM Lee and PM LHL against opposition politicians CSJ and his sister CSC.
Gopalan was only responding to MM Lee'c challenge. He brought to attention in his blog Singapore government's persecution of political dissidents. Belinder Ang could be his key witness. She could be asked to take the stand to testify whether in that case whether MM Lee has actually issued the challenge to anyone for lies about government. If the judge could testify this challenge then the issue involved should be whether Gopalan was justified in calling a spade a spade offering to be sued by MM Lee to test the veracity of his challenge to bloggers as a leader.
If Gopalan's calling of judges and government names of his particular description is indeed truly a spade why should Gopalan be faulted for in that case he would be just responding to MM Lee's challenge to test the integrity of the government as claimed by MM Lee.
What else does MM Lee want? If people do not challenge his statement of this nature, how then could any verify the integrity of his government as he has tried to present to the court in his defamation case against CSJ and his sister.
-
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
BTW I think you cannot think properly.The reason why he is at issue is because of his activities on his blog, hence blogger is a more apt term, but I suppose that's lost on you.
We don't give a hood or nickle if he's a lawyer or not.
In any case their titles are far more neutral, and make more sense then the titles you give your topics.
very funny that he mentioned western media using blogger to blacken the name of Singapore. all he has been saying here in sgforums tells what sort of idiot he is --> lionnoisy. Indeed, he is really noisy with not much to contribute but noise --> empty vessel makes the most noise. Gopalan writes his own blog out of his own free will and it has nothing to do with the western media.
If the ruling party is so upright, so transparent, so democratic, western media will not keep exposing them.
Either the brain of lionnoisy is totally blocked or he is plain stupid to side the ruling party blindly.
-
Originally posted by DeerHunter:
"If at all, Gopalan was seeking to create a publicity to the high handed manner in which MM LKY treat the Singaopre Judiciary system - as LKY is famous for using the judiciary as his proxy.
MM LKY has admitted as much in claiming that "if no one fears me, I feel I am nothing!!"
It is common knowledge that MM LKY use the judicial process as a political tool to threaten those who are professionals in the Singapore Citizenry - that they will have to endure similar fate as CSJ, if they enter politics on the side of the Alternative Parties"
There you go again, lies and half truth to push your bigoted alternative agenda.
Famous for using...? - to you alone or everyone else?
Common knowledge that ....threaten? - common to you alone?
Is MM LKY not a citizen of Singapore and entitled to justice of our courts to clear his name?
Are you depriving him of this right?
Are you claiming anyone can just slander against another freely and get away with it?
Edit: And a more serious charge, are you casting aspersion on the independence of our judiciary? You better have facts to back it up.
Is this what your 'alternative politics' should be - freedom of speech to slander without facts or evidences, such as the despicable Gopalan and you are doing, even before you clowns gain the mandate to rule?
Do I need to cast any aspersion on the independence of our judiciary ?
Just put some of the political decision of our judiciary to any independent legal panel of international jurist - and we should be able to get a neutral and indpendent opinion that will clarify this question.
The 1992 Privy Council decision to overturn the highest Singapore of Appeal that was presided by the Chief Justice had found the decision to be flawed, and upheld a lower court decision by District Judge Michael Khoo to be correct.
LKY had publicly stated in his challenge to JBJ that he will seek a Presidential Pardon for JBJ if the Privy Council were to find him clean of all those political charges.
The Privy Council did find the charges and judgment to be in error, and LKY renegaded on his very public statement to JBJ.
The hypocrisy of it all was that LKY pushed through a bill to remove the Privy Council from being the final arbiter in Singapore Judicial System - claiming that it was out of touch with Singapore's values and culture - when he was also the very person to INSIST keeping the Privy Council to ensure high standard of judicial decision and practices.
What has values and culture have to do with the sense of justice.
The absurdity of his reason simply rapes human logic.
Has LKY any respect for the Singapore Laws or is he above the Laws that he initiated simply to secure his own political relevance and power in Singapore ?
At his slightest whim he will have Chia Thye Poh, Lim Chin Siong, and ex-member of the PAP to be incarcerated for daring to differ and challenge from his political ideals and agenda.
‘Chia Thye Poh’ - was incarcerate for over 24 years, and to Chia's credit he managed to resist the regular taunting by his political tormentors to withstand their efforts to tempt him with freedom - if only he will submit an admission to LKY's charge that Chia was advocating a "Communist armed revolution to overthrow a legitimately elected government of Singapore".
Yet without getting Chia's written admission to LKY's accusation, Chia Thye Poh was released from being incarcerate under the ISA - which was surprising as Chia was considered to be more potent a threat than the members of the Social Wing of the Singapore Catholic Church - who were similarly accused by LKY to be members of an under-ground Communist cell attempting to inflitrate the Catholic Churhc in the same manner as the events in the Philippines and Latin America had developed.
24 years of Chia's life was wasted and released as a pauper, while LKY lived in the comfort of the Istana, consolidated his own political position and passed a legislation for the Million Dollar Wages - that he need as a crutch to prevent corruption amongst his appointees as Ministers.
If LKY had given the minimum justice to his political challengers, he would have been as deserving as the amount of justice that he dispenses to his political opponents.
Has he not arbitrarily become the accuser, prosecutor and judge of all whom he see as challenging threats to his political fortunes and that of his successors ?
Do I need to slander LKY, or has the facts of the events that had transpired not true ?
Will LKY dare to submit himself to an International Court of Justice to redeem himself and the Singapore Judiciary of wrong doings, wrong judgments - all of which goes against the grain of human decency ?
it is in such oppressive circumstance that you have conscientious individuals like CSJ, Gopalan, Francis Seow, Tan Liang Hong, Robert Ho, daring to butt head with LKY - and there are similar individuals that appear in the Communist Soviet Union, China, East Germany, Communist Poland, Communist Czekoslovakia, Communistg Hungary, Communist Georgia, Myanmar and all the other societies and communities that are subjected to oppressive rule.
Their methods maybe disputable, but their goals remain the same - and that is to seek more space for the Citizens, and return to the Citizens the dignity of deciding for themselves their political future - in the same manner as the First World Citizens of Switzerland.
Then again, what will a juvenile DeerHunter know, or even attempt to understand when all he sees is through the narrow myopic vision of his telescope ?
-
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:
But what is your opinion on the statement? You didn't answer the question.
What is your opinion on above statement by AG?
This must take the cake for being the lamest reply coming from one who is supposed to be a DeerHunter. Can he hunt deers when he cannot even tell the front from the rear end of his gun ?
Originally posted by DeerHunter:
First of all, this is purely a political matter that already had been accepted or at least deemed to be accepted by the various political groups, of which we can vote with conscience for.This is the typical view of one who simply prefer hypocrisy then calling a Spade for what it is - A Spade.
Can sweeping the dirt under the carpet hide the dirt from existing, or will the accumulated dirt affect our own health over time ?
This must be the lamest excuse to overlook the Ruling Political Party in having the Attorney-General's office to re-interprete the Law to its own convenience.
If such political groups are not satisfied with the answer given, there are peaceful parliamentary avenues to express their dissatisfaction or seek redress.
I ask you.
Had they, for whom they seek to represent, usefully utilised such means?
Had they exhausted every one of them?
With a Political Party able to bend the interpretation of a Law that is written in clear and simple English is there any hope for the future of Singapore ?
Splitting hairs can re-direct attention to another re-interpreted action - unfortunately, the action is clearly criminal and no clever re-interpreation can hide that fact.
Is "Ground Zero" not within the stipulated 100 meters radius around the Polling Station ?
If Ground Zero is not within the 100 meters restricted zone, where is Ground Zero located ?
This must be the lamest excuse to overlook the Ruling Political Party in having the Attorney-General's office to re-interprete the Law to its own convenience.
If the PAP candidates inside the Polling Station is considered ''NOT within the 100 meter radius" - as disingeniusly intrepreted by the Public Prosecutor - where were they located if their position inside the Polling Station is treated as Ground Zero ?
And also, if one political group is allowed to move within the so called radius, can other groups too, not follow suit? Afterall, did we see any politician, ruling or opposition, weld menacing guns and pointed at anyone going into polling stations, or intimidated anyone there with threats when citizens whose vote would ultimately be secret within the both?
Is Poh the qualified person to answer your lamed question ?
The law state very clearly that no election candidate should be seen within 100 meter radius from a Polling Station - is the location WITHIN the 100 meter not including the Ground Zero space inside the Polling Station ?
What was the purpose of this legislation ?
Was it is not to have politicians being present at the time the ballot paper is being considered, and the Law had assumed that the presence of politicians will place undue pressure of influence on the decision making process of a Citizen.
In the Singapore Political Process - is it necessary to have guns, knives and any weapons to have the Citizens feel threatened ?
Poh, in the silence of those political opposition figures who did nothing except to complain on blogs when they could have done better, we the citizens can only deem them satisfied with answers provided. The case is closed. To pursue what is already closed would amount to a will to spread anarchy. Is this your recommended course of action?
Please, please pardon my presumption, but you MAY be an ex-inmate of an mental institution, thus will not be held accountable for your actions by the authorities, BUT DO spare a thought for those other innocent lives who must account for their actions if they were to follow your recommendations.
Is SILENCE an indication of satisfaction to the questionable events, or to its status quo ?
Or is the Silence an abject resignation to a hopeless situation in which dirty politiking has been seen to be practised in the characteristic ways that are already well know ?
It is a fact that the majority of Singaporeans are Chinese, and LKY know that the Chinese fear violence, and hold the prospect of wealth creation above all else.
However, LKY should not falsely assume that such an attitude will persist into perpetuity, as there will come to a point in time, when there is no hope, and no future - that will result in the Chinese taking on a more pro-active role in participating more actively in the political process.
The PRC Chinese had shown that tolerance to an existing situation will reach boiling point - as was seen in the Tian-An Men incident.
It is simply bravado for LKY to speak that the shooting of 1000 person is acceptable if it ensure peace for China.
Does he believe that he can get away with the same act in Singapore ?
If at all, LKY for all the blusterful of talk - in his knuckle-duster, axe-wielding, and shooting - he is still a very careful Lawyer, ensuring that he work within the fine interpretation of the Law, even as he is prepared to stretch the legal interpretation of the Law to maximum stretchable perimeters of logic.
China being a benign super-power, the Government can and has got away with murdering 1000 citizens in the Tian-An Men incident - do you seriously think that LKY or his Government will get away doing the same when the Singapore population is only a fraction that of China ?
There is still the International Court of Justice that scrutinise the poliitcal persecution of rougue governments - especially when mass killings occur.
If LKY dare to shoot 1000 Singaporeans, do you think he can hide himself from such a murderous crime ?
Before consdiering others as being mentally suspect - are you capable of knowing of your own mental inadequacies, let alone your potency ?
From your effort to be a macho DeerHunter - you can hardly even sniff out a Deer, let alone hunt it down. Perhaps hunting a Gazelle will be more rewarding for you, if you can wank some "point_blank" shots without htiting 'blank points'.
-
Originally posted by DeerHunter:
Jojo, Singapore is ruled by laws. We live in a civilised society, where the strong protects the weak, and not a society where the strongest survive.
The only way in which the strong can protect the weak is thru the rule of law. Laws of which we, different individuals, with different aspirations and personalities may agree upon and live side by side, if not in harmony, at least in peace, instead of fighting with one another in order to survive and for future generations to survive.
If there is Rule of Law - why did Belinda Ang tolerated the insulting acts of MM LKY and his bodyguards - when they burst into her Court when PM LHL was being cross-examined mid-way ?
Why did Belinda Ang not chastised the bodyguard for approaching her bench without even asking for her permission to do so ?
Has the strong PAP supported the weaker Alternative Politial Parties ?
Has the strong PAP - with 82 Parliamentary seats - protected the interests of the all the Citizens living in Pasir Ris and Hougang Constituencies, or has the PAP denied them of their basic right to the Neighborhood Improvement Schemes that are funded by Tax Payers' Money ?
If it has not been the silent disgust that the Citizens - living in Pasir Ris and Hougang - towards the PAP, emotional outbursts would have been a daily occurance.
The fact that it did not happen is due to the oppressive and all pervasive tentacles of the Ruling Party and its Government machinery in their joint efforts at suppressing all legitimate protests from Singaporeans.
Such laws are uniform and universal, fully applicable to all in Singapore, whether he is a PM or a cleaner.
Without laws, we will revert back to barbarism, no better than animals of the wild.
Did Belinda Ang charged MM LKY and his bodyguards for contempt, when she was so quick and liberal in charging CSJ and sister with contempt ?
How did the Public Prosecutor so brilliantly intrepreted that the PAP election candidates stanind on Ground Zero position inside the Polling Station - is not within the descrition of the words that "political candidates should not be within 100 meters of a Polling Station" ?
It surely take leap of imagination to paint black into white - and is simply misleadingly dishonest.
Within our society, it is perfectly normal to accuse someone of a crime or offense. But you would have to have evidences before you do so, otherwise you are only slandering the good name of someone.
Was there any evidence produced to support LKY's 24 year claim that Chia Thye Poh had advocated "an armed Communist revolution to overthrow a legitimately elected Governemt of Singapore" ?
In all his 24 years of incarceration, no trial was held, and no evidence was ever produced - but throughout the 24 years of incarceration - Chia said that he was regularly given a tour of Singapore, tempting him with "freedom" to return to Society and participate in Singapore's progress.
To the credit of Chia Thye Poh he refused this conditional offer of freedom, and continued to demand for an open ttrial with evidence produced.
Chia was finally released but no written confession was ever taken from him - in the same manner as the confessions were forced from those arrested as members of an underground Communist Cell in the Catholic Church of Singapore.
Is this the kind of "Rule of Law" in Singapore ?
The Singapore Constitution guarantee that everyone is deemed to be innocent until proven guilty, and yet the Police is given wide powers that will arbitrarily confined an accused person without any access to legal advise, and allowed the latitude to force, trick or cajole an accused person to make statements that incriminate the accused - with no recourse of retracting such statements.
Politics may be dirty to you, but no matter how dirty it becomes, no one is above the law. If anyone is accused, he would be given a fair trial, before our judges, whose credibility is unquestionable, made up of men who had provened personal integrity whom rules in an independent court without fear or favour, with rulings in accordance with our agreed upon laws applicable for all.
Are you being fickle or simply indecisive of your understanding of ''dirty politics'' even as you attempt to gloriously "teach" someone about politics ?
If "politics maybe dirty to you" - are you suggesting that "politics is not dirty" from your own perspective ?
After stating the above - are your retracting from your cynical position, to doubt yourself by taking on a more cautious position by immediately suggesting that - "no matter how dirty - politics - become.......''
This clearly shows that you are not even clear of your own values, let alone any moral values that will dictate acceptable political principles.
So if you wish to accuse, you better get evidences. If not, you are slandering. Worse still if you persist or distort the truth, telling lies and half truths, espacially if it concerns the running of a country or head of state. You will be deem to be spreading anarchy or rebellion, which is totally dangerous not to leaders of state, for they are only a minority, but to the safety of men, women and children of Singapore.
Can you handle evidences when you cannot even accept facts ?
Will LKY dare to subject his charges - that James Gomez is a liar, or CSJ is a cheat, or JBJ is a charlatan - to an independent and politically neutral tribunal that is similar to the International Court of Justices ?
Surely if he is supremely correct, it will be in the interest of Singapore and himself - to obtain a clear and unequivocal clearance that will shut all such claims that he finds offensive ?
Did LKY spread anarchy or rebellion in his outrageous accusation towards JBJ, Tang Liang Hong, Francis Seow, CSJ, and even Chiam See Tong ?
If at all, his derogatory remarks of Chiam's O-Level results led to an overwhelming votes given to Chiam as a outright display to spite LKY's outrageous views towards a loyal and conscientious Singaporean.
Never forget the race riots of our past and how innocent lives were hurt or lost through the political ambitions of a few.
If you will remind Singaporeans not to forget the race riots - should you not also remind Singaporeans of the causes that led to such riots ?
Who were the main political characters and the issues involved that led to these unfortunate incidences ?
Why will you conveniently remember parts of Singapore History, but will conveniently suffer amnesia to enter a vegetative state of denial to other not so complimentary events ?
Is it not a fact that the political ambitions of a few in Power for the last 50 years have now taken away the political liberties and rights of Singaporeans as clearly worded in the Singapore Constitution ?
Evey coin has two sides with different imprints - are you having one that show the same imprints on both sides of the coin ?
Are you attempting to cheat on those who are not aware of your insidious ways ?
-
CSJ,How can u mix up 5 days and 36 hours?
CSC asked LHL how many % of 5000 vs SG population in court.
Can u asks CSC give u a maths tutorials?
I respect CSJ shows his faith to God publicly,but i want him
tell any story in 100% truth,be a real Christian and politician------dunt be a liar.
But how come u cheat us again,---or in a diplomatic way----misleading us again
I am very stubborn.I want 100% fact.
u said in SDP site:
Mr Nair was arrested by the police on 31 May and kept in the police lockup for five days before being produced in court and released on bail. His American passport has been impounded.
http://www.yoursdp.org/index.php/component/content/article/1-singapore/536-confusion-over-charges-but-harassment-of-nair-continues
Do u want to please your foreign buddies(u will sue me if i say Master)
that this is any SG black marks,by locking up a person for
5 days before bring him to court?
He was arrested at 9 pm on 31 May 2008 Sat and brought into court
9 am 2 June 2008 Mon.Thats is only 36 hours---one and half days.
pl read GPN blogs lah
http://www.singaporedissident.blogspot.com/
Saturday, June 14, 2008
Singapore. My Arrest
Ladies and Gentlemen,
After I had posted the blogpost of May 29, 2008, at about 9 pm, May 31, 2008, I was arrested by at least 5 plain clothes policemen including at least 2 women.I was kept in this manner from May 31 2008. Since it was a weekend, I had to be kept till Monday morning to be brought to court. 14.07.2008 blog
My BIG WORRIES
How can i put my family futures into your good hands?
I am worry,if u are eligible to run for election, would u
do better than James Gomez in submitting form and other necessiarly
procedures,not to mention running a country?
Like Chinese say:To change one's habit is more difficult change a gavaman!
If u are not honest in this incident,then u are so careless.
Would u sell Billions $$ of GIC and Temasek
Holdings assets for 50 cents?
Ladies and Gentlemen,Listen carefully!!The team in charge of
SG can sell the above Billions dollars of highly liquid assets
and put into their pockets or into your pockets.
Think before u cast your vote,for your children's sake.
His faith
CSJ says he want:
lead Singapore into an exciting and democratic future, one that is full of hope, security, and prosperity not just in material terms, but spiritual ones as well.
http://www.yoursdp.org/index.php/the-party/why-we-do-what-we-do/25-about-the-party/91-why-we-do-what-we-do
While he mix religion into politics,i respect his freedom of expression.
He declared in court in his Closing Submission
I willingly assume the position in this life because if this is the path that God has chosen for me then I cannot run away.
http://www.yoursdp.org/index.php/component/content/article/1-singapore/484-unlike-reputation-character-cannot-be-bought-chees-closing-submissions
Remember,U are a Christian.
So act like a real Christain,for God's sake!
IN TRUTH.WE TRUST.
-
Originally posted by Atobe:
Do I need to cast any aspersion on the independence of our judiciary ?
Just put some of the political decision of our judiciary to any independent legal panel of international jurist - and we should be able to get a neutral and indpendent opinion that will clarify this question.
The 1992 Privy Council decision to overturn the highest Singapore of Appeal that was presided by the Chief Justice had found the decision to be flawed, and upheld a lower court decision by District Judge Michael Khoo to be correct.
LKY had publicly stated in his challenge to JBJ that he will seek a Presidential Pardon for JBJ if the Privy Council were to find him clean of all those political charges.
The Privy Council did find the charges and judgment to be in error, and LKY renegaded on his very public statement to JBJ.
The hypocrisy of it all was that LKY pushed through a bill to remove the Privy Council from being the final arbiter in Singapore Judicial System - claiming that it was out of touch with Singapore's values and culture - when he was also the very person to INSIST keeping the Privy Council to ensure high standard of judicial decision and practices.
What has values and culture have to do with the sense of justice.
The absurdity of his reason simply rapes human logic.
Has LKY any respect for the Singapore Laws or is he above the Laws that he initiated simply to secure his own political relevance and power in Singapore ?
At his slightest whim he will have Chia Thye Poh, Lim Chin Siong, and ex-member of the PAP to be incarcerated for daring to differ and challenge from his political ideals and agenda.
‘Chia Thye Poh’ - was incarcerate for over 24 years, and to Chia's credit he managed to resist the regular taunting by his political tormentors to withstand their efforts to tempt him with freedom - if only he will submit an admission to LKY's charge that Chia was advocating a "Communist armed revolution to overthrow a legitimately elected government of Singapore".
Yet without getting Chia's written admission to LKY's accusation, Chia Thye Poh was released from being incarcerate under the ISA - which was surprising as Chia was considered to be more potent a threat than the members of the Social Wing of the Singapore Catholic Church - who were similarly accused by LKY to be members of an under-ground Communist cell attempting to inflitrate the Catholic Churhc in the same manner as the events in the Philippines and Latin America had developed.
24 years of Chia's life was wasted and released as a pauper, while LKY lived in the comfort of the Istana, consolidated his own political position and passed a legislation for the Million Dollar Wages - that he need as a crutch to prevent corruption amongst his appointees as Ministers.
If LKY had given the minimum justice to his political challengers, he would have been as deserving as the amount of justice that he dispenses to his political opponents.
Has he not arbitrarily become the accuser, prosecutor and judge of all whom he see as challenging threats to his political fortunes and that of his successors ?
Do I need to slander LKY, or has the facts of the events that had transpired not true ?
Will LKY dare to submit himself to an International Court of Justice to redeem himself and the Singapore Judiciary of wrong doings, wrong judgments - all of which goes against the grain of human decency ?
it is in such oppressive circumstance that you have conscientious individuals like CSJ, Gopalan, Francis Seow, Tan Liang Hong, Robert Ho, daring to butt head with LKY - and there are similar individuals that appear in the Communist Soviet Union, China, East Germany, Communist Poland, Communist Czekoslovakia, Communistg Hungary, Communist Georgia, Myanmar and all the other societies and communities that are subjected to oppressive rule.
Their methods maybe disputable, but their goals remain the same - and that is to seek more space for the Citizens, and return to the Citizens the dignity of deciding for themselves their political future - in the same manner as the First World Citizens of Switzerland.
Then again, what will a juvenile DeerHunter know, or even attempt to understand when all he sees is through the narrow myopic vision of his telescope ?
When you have to resort to insults to back up your facts, everyone else will know you are talking nonsense and twisting the truth to prove your over-inflated ego right.
You claim to speak on behalf of the citizens of Singapore, but yet you want our former colonnial masters to have a final say in our affairs, more so our political ones. M MLKY did right to kick the final vestiges of colonnialism out of our lives. Espacially those whom publish laws such as 'Dogs and Chinese are not allowed'.
You had offended billions of the chinese when you derogatively twisted it as a myth in another thread to support your atrocious views when it was an actual ordinance by our ex-masters in China.
http://www.polonews.info/documenti_originali/Repubblica%20(1912%20-%201949)/Dog_shanghai.pdf
This study is an attempt to be objective, but still, written by a Western foreigner.
Chia TP was a relic of our turbulent past during our infant independence days. The authorities had good reason for his incarceration, which was to protect innocent men, women and children from the volatile and dangerous communists stirring up the population, to turn SEAsia into a communist zone.
Such people are akin to terrorists of today, who hides amongst us to kill and achieve their political agenda. Thus the need for ISA to clamp down on such persons. In the 60s, the terrorists were communists.
You had conveniently or suffer from selective amnesia on the things Chia did. The govt will not simply arrest anyone and throw him in jail. You had failed to mentioned:-
a. He studied and was a lecturer in Nanyang Uni of the 60s, the hotbed of communism activists.
a. He was a member of the fiery Barisan Sosialis
b. He was banned permanently from entering Malaysia in the wake of a political speech he delivered to the Perak division of the Labour Party of Malaysia on 24 April 1966
c. He was convicted for publishing a seditious article in Jul 66
d. He was arrested for unlawful assembly with 25 others in Jul 66 to protest the Vietnam war.
e. He declared war on our govt by stepping up street demostrations, protest meetings, and strikes.
Now in the 21st century, with communism as a lost cause, he can deny everything and blame everyone else for his incarceration. No one needs to fear him anymore, because China now is only paying lip service to idealogy and more concern with giving its citizens a better life through capitalism, thus his final freedom from jail.
But in the 60s, many civilian lives would have been lost ( had he not been jailed,) and for purpose? Would our lives had been better if he was allowed to destroyed what MM LKY had planned for our People - freedom from hunger, freedom from poverty, freedom from illiteracy, freedom from disease, freedom from discrimination, and so much more?
Go on, Atobe, twist facts, lie and present half truths to serve your attention whoring dishonest political commentating master. At least 70% of our People are discerning enough to know you and your master's cunning ways to gain power, which offers nothing to citizens except perhaps 'glucose water' to solve our hunger. problems.
-
Originally posted by Atobe:
If there is Rule of Law - why did Belinda Ang tolerated the insulting acts of MM LKY and his bodyguards - when they burst into her Court when PM LHL was being cross-examined mid-way ?
Why did Belinda Ang not chastised the bodyguard for approaching her bench without even asking for her permission to do so ?
Has the strong PAP supported the weaker Alternative Politial Parties ?
Has the strong PAP - with 82 Parliamentary seats - protected the interests of the all the Citizens living in Pasir Ris and Hougang Constituencies, or has the PAP denied them of their basic right to the Neighborhood Improvement Schemes that are funded by Tax Payers' Money ?
If it has not been the silent disgust that the Citizens - living in Pasir Ris and Hougang - towards the PAP, emotional outbursts would have been a daily occurance.
The fact that it did not happen is due to the oppressive and all pervasive tentacles of the Ruling Party and its Government machinery in their joint efforts at suppressing all legitimate protests from Singaporeans.
Did Belinda Ang charged MM LKY and his bodyguards for contempt, when she was so quick and liberal in charging CSJ and sister with contempt ?
How did the Public Prosecutor so brilliantly intrepreted that the PAP election candidates stanind on Ground Zero position inside the Polling Station - is not within the descrition of the words that "political candidates should not be within 100 meters of a Polling Station" ?
It surely take leap of imagination to paint black into white - and is simply misleadingly dishonest.
Was there any evidence produced to support LKY's 24 year claim that Chia Thye Poh had advocated "an armed Communist revolution to overthrow a legitimately elected Governemt of Singapore" ?
In all his 24 years of incarceration, no trial was held, and no evidence was ever produced - but throughout the 24 years of incarceration - Chia said that he was regularly given a tour of Singapore, tempting him with "freedom" to return to Society and participate in Singapore's progress.
To the credit of Chia Thye Poh he refused this conditional offer of freedom, and continued to demand for an open ttrial with evidence produced.
Chia was finally released but no written confession was ever taken from him - in the same manner as the confessions were forced from those arrested as members of an underground Communist Cell in the Catholic Church of Singapore.
Is this the kind of "Rule of Law" in Singapore ?
The Singapore Constitution guarantee that everyone is deemed to be innocent until proven guilty, and yet the Police is given wide powers that will arbitrarily confined an accused person without any access to legal advise, and allowed the latitude to force, trick or cajole an accused person to make statements that incriminate the accused - with no recourse of retracting such statements.
Are you being fickle or simply indecisive of your understanding of ''dirty politics'' even as you attempt to gloriously "teach" someone about politics ?
If "politics maybe dirty to you" - are you suggesting that "politics is not dirty" from your own perspective ?
After stating the above - are your retracting from your cynical position, to doubt yourself by taking on a more cautious position by immediately suggesting that - "no matter how dirty - politics - become.......''
This clearly shows that you are not even clear of your own values, let alone any moral values that will dictate acceptable political principles.
Can you handle evidences when you cannot even accept facts ?
Will LKY dare to subject his charges - that James Gomez is a liar, or CSJ is a cheat, or JBJ is a charlatan - to an independent and politically neutral tribunal that is similar to the International Court of Justices ?
Surely if he is supremely correct, it will be in the interest of Singapore and himself - to obtain a clear and unequivocal clearance that will shut all such claims that he finds offensive ?
Did LKY spread anarchy or rebellion in his outrageous accusation towards JBJ, Tang Liang Hong, Francis Seow, CSJ, and even Chiam See Tong ?
If at all, his derogatory remarks of Chiam's O-Level results led to an overwhelming votes given to Chiam as a outright display to spite LKY's outrageous views towards a loyal and conscientious Singaporean.
If you will remind Singaporeans not to forget the race riots - should you not also remind Singaporeans of the causes that led to such riots ?
Who were the main political characters and the issues involved that led to these unfortunate incidences ?
Why will you conveniently remember parts of Singapore History, but will conveniently suffer amnesia to enter a vegetative state of denial to other not so complimentary events ?
Is it not a fact that the political ambitions of a few in Power for the last 50 years have now taken away the political liberties and rights of Singaporeans as clearly worded in the Singapore Constitution ?
Evey coin has two sides with different imprints - are you having one that show the same imprints on both sides of the coin ?
Are you attempting to cheat on those who are not aware of your insidious ways ?
Your insults put me off in giving you a decent reply. The only reply i will give you is crawl back into your rubbish bin and mouth your rubbish to the banana peel next to you. Before that, you have yet to reply to:-
"If at all, Gopalan was seeking to create a publicity to the high handed manner in which MM LKY treat the Singaopre Judiciary system - as LKY is famous for using the judiciary as his proxy.
MM LKY has admitted as much in claiming that "if no one fears me, I feel I am nothing!!"
It is common knowledge that MM LKY use the judicial process as a political tool to threaten those who are professionals in the Singapore Citizenry - that they will have to endure similar fate as CSJ, if they enter politics on the side of the Alternative Parties"
There you go again, lies and half truth to push your bigoted alternative agenda.
Famous for using...? - to you alone or everyone else?
Common knowledge that ....threaten? - common to you alone?
Is MM LKY not a citizen of Singapore and entitled to justice of our courts to clear his name?
Are you depriving him of this right?
Are you claiming anyone can just slander against another freely and get away with it?
And a more serious charge, are you casting aspersion on the independence of our judiciary? You better have facts to back it up.
Is this what your 'alternative politics' should be - freedom of speech to slander without facts or evidences, such as the despicable Gopalan and you are doing, even before you clowns gain the mandate to rule?
If you cannot even reply to these simple questions, but to evade them, then please return to your bin. Don't even attempt to talk about rule of law, because the only law you will ever recognise is your own laws you and your whoring master sets or interpretes.
