Remember the 4 super dangerous protestors?

• Cindyfeh

  20 Oct 05, 20:26

  A-G Chambers says action against minister and police chief is 'scandalous, frivolous'
  
  Lee Ching Wern
  [email protected]
  
  THE application by the Attorney-General's Chambers to strike out an application filed by three protesters against Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng and Commissioner of Police Khoo Boon Hui was heard yesterday in High Court behind closed doors.
  .
  Ms Chee Siok Chin, the sister of Singapore Democratic Party chief Chee Soon Juan, Ms N Gogelavany and Mr Yap Keng Ho were part of a group of four protesters dispersed by police outside the Central Provident Fund Building on Aug 11.
  .
  They filed an application in the High Court last month to seek a declaration that Mr Wong and Mr Khoo had acted "in an unlawful and unconstitutional manner" when the group was ordered to disperse for causing a "public nuisance".
  .
  The fourth protester, Mr Tan Teck Wee, is not party to the application filed against the Government. In the request to strike out the trio's application, the A-G Chambers described it as "irregular, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious" and "an abuse of the process of the Court".
  .
  The A-G Chambers argued that the protesters were "attempting to use the proceedings as a means to their political ends" and the Court should not allow this action to go any further.
  .
  It argued that they wrongly named Mr Wong and Mr Khoo as respondents to the legal action. Doing so "creates the impression in the eyes of the public that this action is brought about by the personal actions of the present holders of these offices".
  .
  It also said the application was an abuse of the process of court as there must be a "real contest of legal rights" between parties before the court grants a declaration.
  .
  The other reasons cited by the A-G Chambers: The trio are not claiming any consequential relief or any legal redress for the alleged wrong they suffered; and the application preempts criminal prosecution.
  .
  Mr M Ravi, the lawyer representing the trio, argued that the Constitution clearly states that four or less protesters is lawful and that the police ought to determine how the protesters were a nuisance.
  .
  Ms Chee, 39, told reporters after the hearing that the "peaceful protest" was carried out in their personal capacity. According to their affidavit, the trio were standing peacefully with a fourth person, Mr Tan Teck Wee, outside the CPF Building in Robinson Road on Aug 11 when police asked them to leave.
  .
  The hearing continues on Friday. A-G Chambers says action against minister and police chief is 'scandalous, frivolous'
  
  Lee Ching Wern
  [email protected]
  
  THE application by the Attorney-General's Chambers to strike out an application filed by three protesters against Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng and Commissioner of Police Khoo Boon Hui was heard yesterday in High Court behind closed doors.
  .
  Ms Chee Siok Chin, the sister of Singapore Democratic Party chief Chee Soon Juan, Ms N Gogelavany and Mr Yap Keng Ho were part of a group of four protesters dispersed by police outside the Central Provident Fund Building on Aug 11.
  .
  They filed an application in the High Court last month to seek a declaration that Mr Wong and Mr Khoo had acted "in an unlawful and unconstitutional manner" when the group was ordered to disperse for causing a "public nuisance".
  .
  The fourth protester, Mr Tan Teck Wee, is not party to the application filed against the Government. In the request to strike out the trio's application, the A-G Chambers described it as "irregular, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious" and "an abuse of the process of the Court".
  .
  The A-G Chambers argued that the protesters were "attempting to use the proceedings as a means to their political ends" and the Court should not allow this action to go any further.
  .
  It argued that they wrongly named Mr Wong and Mr Khoo as respondents to the legal action. Doing so "creates the impression in the eyes of the public that this action is brought about by the personal actions of the present holders of these offices".
  .
  It also said the application was an abuse of the process of court as there must be a "real contest of legal rights" between parties before the court grants a declaration.
  .
  The other reasons cited by the A-G Chambers: The trio are not claiming any consequential relief or any legal redress for the alleged wrong they suffered; and the application preempts criminal prosecution.
  .
  Mr M Ravi, the lawyer representing the trio, argued that the Constitution clearly states that four or less protesters is lawful and that the police ought to determine how the protesters were a nuisance.
  .
  Ms Chee, 39, told reporters after the hearing that the "peaceful protest" was carried out in their personal capacity. According to their affidavit, the trio were standing peacefully with a fourth person, Mr Tan Teck Wee, outside the CPF Building in Robinson Road on Aug 11 when police asked them to leave.
  .
  The hearing continues on Friday. A-G Chambers says action against minister and police chief is 'scandalous, frivolous'
  
  Lee Ching Wern
  [email protected]
  
  THE application by the Attorney-General's Chambers to strike out an application filed by three protesters against Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng and Commissioner of Police Khoo Boon Hui was heard yesterday in High Court behind closed doors.
  .
  Ms Chee Siok Chin, the sister of Singapore Democratic Party chief Chee Soon Juan, Ms N Gogelavany and Mr Yap Keng Ho were part of a group of four protesters dispersed by police outside the Central Provident Fund Building on Aug 11.
  .
  They filed an application in the High Court last month to seek a declaration that Mr Wong and Mr Khoo had acted "in an unlawful and unconstitutional manner" when the group was ordered to disperse for causing a "public nuisance".
  .
  The fourth protester, Mr Tan Teck Wee, is not party to the application filed against the Government. In the request to strike out the trio's application, the A-G Chambers described it as "irregular, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious" and "an abuse of the process of the Court".
  .
  The A-G Chambers argued that the protesters were "attempting to use the proceedings as a means to their political ends" and the Court should not allow this action to go any further.
  .
  It argued that they wrongly named Mr Wong and Mr Khoo as respondents to the legal action. Doing so "creates the impression in the eyes of the public that this action is brought about by the personal actions of the present holders of these offices".
  .
  It also said the application was an abuse of the process of court as there must be a "real contest of legal rights" between parties before the court grants a declaration.
  .
  The other reasons cited by the A-G Chambers: The trio are not claiming any consequential relief or any legal redress for the alleged wrong they suffered; and the application preempts criminal prosecution.
  .
  Mr M Ravi, the lawyer representing the trio, argued that the Constitution clearly states that four or less protesters is lawful and that the police ought to determine how the protesters were a nuisance.
  .
  Ms Chee, 39, told reporters after the hearing that the "peaceful protest" was carried out in their personal capacity. According to their affidavit, the trio were standing peacefully with a fourth person, Mr Tan Teck Wee, outside the CPF Building in Robinson Road on Aug 11 when police asked them to leave.
  .
  The hearing continues on Friday.
• Cindyfeh

  20 Oct 05, 20:27

  ===
  
  Indeed, how can the protestors file scandolous actions against our beloved MP and police chief. Don't they know that it is the culture here is that any gathering more than 4 people is not welcomed?
  
  Why so?
  
  Look at our birth rates. It is at 1 child to a couple. The society has subtlely agreed that a good number for gathering is 3 and not 4 or above.
  
  Thanks to our benovelent leaders, they have tried to encourage larger gathering of 4 by legislating that a gathering of 5 or more is illegal. Look, they are so considerate that they even cap it at 4. They want to encourage singaporeans a step at a time.
  
  So please, if you are planning to have a family, stop at 1 child. If you have 3 or more, please remember to apply for permit every time you have a family outing. I don't want my shopping trip to be spoilt by 50 riot police arresting a family of 5.
• sbst275

  20 Oct 05, 20:28

  Soon, they can turn bankrupt
• chunyong

  20 Oct 05, 20:38

  Originally posted by sbst275:

  Soon, they can turn bankrupt

  Of cos, dats need less to say one lor....sure ganna counter-sue....Bi Sheng Shou coming....haaaaaiiii
• sbst275

  20 Oct 05, 20:39

  By right ar, if they are zeng hu, do they also like ppl go to the streets and protest?
• OH-FF

  20 Oct 05, 20:40

  If you haven't noticed these Laws happen to be against Local Citizens only.
  
  Those foreign workers gathering on the grass patches having beer and picnics at night/day are not considered Illegal Gatherings ?
  
  
• crazy monkey

  20 Oct 05, 20:42

  they shd learn from sitoh next time have getai outside cpf building
• sbst275

  20 Oct 05, 20:43

  Originally posted by crazy monkey:

  they shd learn from sitoh next time have getai outside cpf building

  Good idea
• Rahmania

  20 Oct 05, 21:57

  Next tme u see foreign workers gather, call the police...
• Rahmania

  20 Oct 05, 22:00

  chinese funeral have more than 4 people gather, why they not arrested?
• SMAPLionHeart

  21 Oct 05, 07:03

  Originally posted by Rahmania:

  chinese funeral have more than 4 people gather, why they not arrested?

  cause it happens to be Mr Soh
  
  
• Mr Fugue

  21 Oct 05, 08:16

  I have a feeling that this thread needs a sacarsm-o-meter!!
• LazerLordz

  21 Oct 05, 08:57

  Well, if you throw out all the other distracting crap, the main cruz of the issue is how four people standing outside a building expressing their views in a peaceful manner have broken the Constitution/Penal Code when it clearly says illegal assembly is only when there are 5 or more people.
  
  Did anyone get hurt?No.Is it a crime in situ to wear t-shirts and hold placards in public?I've not come across any law that says you cannot hold a sign.Durian sellers hold signs and plant signs in public too.
  
  Problem here is that the content is unsalacious to some people and without running the risk of flaming certain individuals, anyone who reads this article would realise that something is amiss.If the AG's chambers call it a frivolous act, and this application even made it that far, it's a strikingly morbid example of real freedom of speech.
• Cindyfeh

  22 Oct 05, 09:22

  Originally posted by LazerLordz:

  Did anyone get hurt?No.Is it a crime in situ to wear t-shirts and hold placards in public?I've not come across any law that says you cannot hold a sign.Durian sellers hold signs and plant signs in public too.
  
  

  Do you know why our powerful police force sent 40 well armoured and armed riot police instead of normal ones?
  
  Ans:
  Shenton way is a windy place. Our super-smart scholar police leaders must have spent millions of dollars borrowing computing power from the best super computer calculating the chances of a super strong wind blowing and acceralerating the paper plycard to vast super sonic speed that can cause major destruction when it hit anything.
  
  In short, our police leaders must have believed that the plycard can do some real hurt.
  
  I really respect our police leaders because of such considerations they have taken on behalf of the public safety!
• iveco

  22 Oct 05, 12:48

  Singapore is fast becoming another Third Reich or USSR.
• launtpc

  22 Oct 05, 12:54

  Originally posted by Cindyfeh:

  ===
  
  Indeed, how can the protestors file scandolous actions against our beloved MP and police chief. Don't they know that it is the culture here is that any gathering more than 4 people is not welcomed?
  
  Why so?
  
  Look at our birth rates. It is at 1 child to a couple. The society has subtlely agreed that a good number for gathering is 3 and not 4 or above.
  
  Thanks to our benovelent leaders, they have tried to encourage larger gathering of 4 by legislating that a gathering of 5 or more is illegal. Look, they are so considerate that they even cap it at 4. They want to encourage singaporeans a step at a time.
  
  So please, if you are planning to have a family, stop at 1 child. If you have 3 or more, please remember to apply for permit every time you have a family outing. I don't want my shopping trip to be spoilt by 50 riot police arresting a family of 5.

  Schooling is illegal, as one class consists of 35 students + 1 teacher and I do not see a permit anywhere.
  
  Submit this to Straits Times forums leh, and see how the wonderous Garmen can get off. See? Gahmen shot themselves in their own foot for too many laws.