Originally posted by freedomclub:And the reason why they did that is because the law in Singapore is unjust. It is unjust laws like preventing people from demonstrating and expressing their opinions on political issues that have pushed activists to engage in this kind of 'illegal' behaviour.
In the first place, there is no such thing as laws or government. It only exists in the mind of people, I should say indoctrinated in the minds of the masses. Do you consent to be governed? Or do you not consent to being governed? But of course, if you want to achieve such freedom, you better pack some heat.
And there are many more unjust laws in Singapore. Strengthen, rewritten, reviewed periodically to perpetuate the legacy of PAP and LKY.
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:So if we want to make a protest saying court is kangaroo court controlled by PAP regime, how can we legally do that?
You question set me wondering about Ah Loong's promise of more freedom except those on race, language and religion - sincerity or lie?.
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:So if we want to make a protest saying court is kangaroo court controlled by PAP regime, how can we legally do that?
For one thing, YOU DON'T DO THAT IN THE PRESENCE OF THE COURT DURING A LEGAL PROCEEDING... In any country in the world, such action is a contempt of court...
It is common knowledge around the world, you don't disrespect the court during the legal proceeding...
You want to argue that the court system is flawed, be my guest but don't do that during a legal proceeding...
Out side the court, this include the vicinity of the court house, you can wear what ever T-shirt you want, but remember, freedom of expression is in no way a shield to defamation...
Ah Loong's promise of more freedom
Funny.
Out side the court, this include the vicinity of the court house, you can wear what ever T-shirt you want,
That is legal?
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:That is legal?
but remember, freedom of expression is in no way a shield to defamation...
freedom of expression is in no way a shield to defamation
Yes, that is the correct way.
Use unjust laws to curb civil liberties is also wrong.
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:Yes, that is correct the way.
Use unjust laws to curb civil liberties is also wrong.
I agree.
list down the unjust laws.
5 or more is illegal gathering?
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:Yes, that is the correct way.
Use unjust laws to curb civil liberties is also wrong.
I don't know much about the details of the case, but I don't find it unjust at all...
If what you said the truth, its the truth, no one can argue with that... But if what you say is a lie, you have to take responsibility for what you said...That could be more just than that?
If the defendent can't argue his case that he speaks the truth, what does that say about him....?
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:5 or more is illegal gathering?
5 or more WITH ILLEGAL INTENTION is illegal gathering... or else every school function is illegal gathering...
Penal code chapter 224 section 141
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:5 or more is illegal gathering?
noted. the full law is 5 or more people gathering to do illegal stuff.
i go out with my friends in group of 5 or more, and so far, no problem for me.
anything else?
i go out with my friends in group of 5 or more, and so far, no problem for me.
You did not protest of course nothing.
You protest one person only also got problem.
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:You did not protest of course nothing.
You protest one person only also got problem.
so that gathering of 5 law is not a problem. what you are looking at is maybe public nuisance or having a public speech or event without permit.
so basically, your gripe is the constrain of not being able to protest everywhere, only speaker's corner.
event without permit.
When the hell did PAP regime grant permit for opposition to protest?
Wall Street Journal
The city-state resumes its campaign against the Journal.
Let us begin with an apology to our readers in Asia. Unless they are
online, they will not see this editorial. For legal reasons, we are
refraining from publishing it in The Wall Street Journal Asia, which circulates in Singapore.
Our subject is free speech and the rule of law in the Southeast Asian city-state -- something on which the
international press and Singapore's government have often clashed. We
can't say which side would prevail if the Singapore public could hear
an open debate, but the fact is that we know of no foreign publication
that has ever won in a Singapore court of law. Virtually every Western
publication that circulates in the city-state has faced a lawsuit, or
the threat of one.
Which brings us to the ruling against us this week in Singapore's High Court. Dow Jones Publishing (Asia) was found guilty of contempt of court for two
editorials and a letter to the editor published in The Wall Street
Journal Asia in June and July. The Attorney General, who personally argued the contempt case against us, characterized the articles as "an attack on the courts and judiciary of Singapore inasmuch as they impugn the integrity, the impartiality and the independence of the Court."
In suing for contempt, Singapore chose to go after us for the most basic kind of journalism. The first editorial, "Democracy in Singapore," reported on a damages hearing in a defamation case brought (and won) by former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew against opposition politician Chee Soon Juan. The second editorial, "Judging Singapore's Judiciary," informed readers what an international legal organization had said about Singapore's courts.
Regarding the first editorial, we'll note that court proceedings are privileged under Singapore law, which means they can be reported -- though Singapore's
media rarely do the job. Mr. Chee wrote a letter in response to the
first editorial, which we published and which is cited in the contempt
charge. We also published two letters from Mr. Lee's spokeswoman.
In the second editorial, we reported on the International Bar Association's critical study of the rule of law in Singapore. This is the same outfit that held its annual conference in Singapore last year, a meeting that Mr. Lee himself touted as a sign of confidence in Singapore's courts. The Law Society of Singapore is a member of the IBA. If reporting on what such a body says is contemptuous of the judiciary, then Singapore is saying that its courts are above any public scrutiny.
Again, we published a letter from the Singapore government responding to the editorial. This one was from the Law
Ministry, which blasted the IBA report and us for repeating its "vague
allegations." The IBA then weighed in, in a posting on its Web site,
saying it wished "to correct some inaccurate comments" in Singapore's
letter. It invites readers to read the report and "see for themselves"
that its views are "based on comprehensive examples and evidence." The IBA homepage is www.ibanet.org.
In his ruling, Justice Tay Young Kwang refers to us as a "repeat
offender." He's right in the narrow sense that this isn't the first
time Singapore
has pursued the Journal Asia for contempt. In 1985, the newspaper and
its editors were sued over an editorial about legal actions against
opposition politician J.B. Jeyaretnam. The editors apologized.
In 1989, the paper was sued for contempt again, this time over a news story that quoted Dow Jones's
then-president, Peter Kann. Mr. Kann had criticized a libel judgment
won by Mr. Lee against the Far Eastern Economic Review, the Journal
Asia's sister publication. The paper, its editor, publisher, local
distributor and local printer were all named. They lost.
We are not eager to return to that fractious era, when the Journal Asia had its circulation severely restricted in Singapore
and the paper's reporters were unwelcome. Since 1991, when the
newspaper and Mr. Lee reached a settlement, our relationship with Singapore had been more or less stable until the latest contempt charge.
Meanwhile, in September, the Far Eastern Economic Review lost a
defamation case brought by Mr. Lee and his son, current Prime Minister
Lee Hsien Loong, over an interview it published with opposition leader Mr. Chee. The elder Mr. Lee has long used
defamation suits to silence his critics in the press and among the
political opposition.
As for this week's contempt ruling, the first line of Justice Tay's decision is revealing as a standard for Singapore
justice. "Words sometimes mean more than what they appear to say on the
surface," he writes, going on to interpret the words as contemptuous
because they had an "inherent tendency" to "scandalise the court." The
fine he levied, S$25,000 ($16,500), is the largest ever meted out for
such an offense. Justice Tay expressed the hope that it will deter
"future transgressions."
We'll pay the fine. We'll also continue to express our views about
politics, the courts and other subjects that we think our readers
should know about. And we'll let readers decide what to make of the
judiciary in Singapore.
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:When the hell did PAP regime grant permit for opposition to protest?
I don't know, and I don't care... if people can any how make an event out of the blue, Singapore will be a chaotic country... go ask the relavant authorities for other avenues of expression other than speaker's corner... if there is no other, then stick to speaker's corner...
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:When the hell did PAP regime grant permit for opposition to protest?
no government in the world does that. you think the thai govenment will approve the protestors protesting at the airport?
but in singapore is special, you can have events in hong lim square, like the DBS thingie...
no government in the world does that.
Really?
I don't know, and I don't care
Others care.
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:Really?
Others care.
let's say you are anti government in.... maybe india. will you write in to the government and tell them that you would like to protest at this airport from this date to this date?
a more realistic stand is you inform the government that you are having this event to raise awareness of the public on this issue.
or you just do it without informing the government.
but deviating too much le. any other unjust law?
Originally posted by MohamedF:For one thing, YOU DON'T DO THAT IN THE PRESENCE OF THE COURT DURING A LEGAL PROCEEDING... In any country in the world, such action is a contempt of court...
It is common knowledge around the world, you don't disrespect the court during the legal proceeding...
You want to argue that the court system is flawed, be my guest but don't do that during a legal proceeding...
Out side the court, this include the vicinity of the court house, you can wear what ever T-shirt you want, but remember, freedom of expression is in no way a shield to defamation...
hhmmm
are you in the legal profession? you seems like a lawyer...
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:Singapore's laws that need to be broken
that's what he said. more important is what you think.
So what do you think?