Black humour: Wankers fix dissident

The Workers’ Party leadership has convened a disciplinary committee to look into my Facebook posts on their handling of the Raeesah Khan matter in Parliament. The committee has called me up for an interview:

“to hear the reasons and rationale behind the above public statements made by you as: 1) Your posts had revealed the inner workings of the Parliamentary caucus of the WP Members of Parliament, and allowed our political opponents to have an inside understanding of how the WP operates; 2) Your posts had cast a cloud over the character of the leadership of the WP.”

Daniel PS Goh on FB

Can’t stop laughing at this

“Your posts had cast a cloud over the character of the leadership of the WP.”

Who made fools of themselves and the WP? And who are being investigated? Certainly not Daniel.

Many moons ago, I posted

Excuse me, Mr Singh, you Wankers have something more important to do.

The WP needs to regain public credibility that it lost when you admitted that you, Auntie and Feisal had kept quiet for three months after you and the other two knew that she lied. The three of you have to explain to the WP and public why the three of you were so stupid. I mean all of you are graduates, and you and Auntie have legal qualifications. Where were your legal brains? In your asses?

Pritam beyond his level of competency

Since then, the Committee of Privileges (Cop) recommended that Singh be referred to the Public Prosecutor “for his conduct before the Committee” because further investigations are needed to decide if criminal proceedings ought to be instituted. Faisal was also referred to the Public Prosecutor for further investigations into his refusal to answer relevant questions by the COP. Auntie got away because she ratted on the other two though WP doesn’t think she ratted on them.

And the Public Prosecutor referred the cases against Pritam Singh and Faisal Manap to the really cops for investigation.

We are awaiting to see whether they’ll be charged. I’ll be posting soon a post on what a retired senior DPP thinks about the cases. He’s no PAP man.

Btw, is the PAP trying to “save” Pritam by raising the fine threshold for MP disqualification from $2,000 to $10,000? And if so. WHY?

All in all, its my opinion that the actions of the three stooges in the RK saga are prejudicial to the public and WP’s interests. Yet the Wankers are going after a cadre who publicly asked the Wankers for public accountability. Public accountability (co-driver) is the reason why many S’poreans vote for the WP.

Maybe the Wankers led by the three stooges really don’t wish S’pore well. They really are like Kirsten Han and friends: Kirsten Han trying to defecate herself and PJ out of self-made crater and Kirsten Han and friends are White Lefts.

Maybe I should be crying? And not laughing.

Advertisement

Preparing to hang Bayee, Auntie and Faisal

And Faisal gave them the rope, admitting

that as an MP, he also had a duty to ensure that no untruth remained on the record in Parliament and that it was important to clarify Ms Khan’s lie as soon as possible, but he did not do anything, nor did he speak with anyone about it

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/raeesah-khan-faisal-manap-cop-lie-parliament-workers-party-2373841

I told a friend weeks ago that I did not understand why the so-called experts interviewed by the constructive, nation-building media never raised the point that the Wankers Three could be in contempt of Parliament and in breach of the law by keeping quiet for so long.

Auntie and Bayee are lawyers. Going by their actions, they are “half-past six lawyers” like M Ravi. At least M Ravi has the excuse of being mentally ill when he doesn’t take his medicine: Law Society should stop indulging M Ravi.

Pritam beyond his level of competency

Former Non-Constituency MP Daniel Goh, who is a WP cadre member, had posted on Facebook twice on his personal thoughts of how his party leaders handled the controversy.

Mr Singh said at Thursday’s press conference that the party would look into his actions.

Read more at https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/analysts-disagree-wps-handling-raeesah-khan-matter-some-party-members-say-leaders-did-what

Excuse me, Mr Singh, you Wankers have something more important to do.

The WP needs to regain public credibility that it lost when you admitted that you, Auntie and Feisal had kept quiet for three months after you and the other two knew that she lied. The three of you have to explain to the WP and public why the three of you were so stupid. I mean all of you are graduates, and you and Auntie have legal qualifications. Where were your legal brains? In your asses?

But thank you for showing S’poreans that there’s a reason why RI boys rule S’pore, not normal stream people like you. As I wrote in Pritam shows why RI boys rule OK, RI boys would have thrown Ms Khan under the bus when they learnt she lied. In fact, they’d have driven the bus to make sure she was killed.

Interesting stat: those going to Normal (Academic) has remained between 20.6-21.4% of PSLE students and about 10.6% to 11.2% of pupils went to the Normal (Technical) stream.

Pritam shows why RI boys rule OK

I’m sure readers are aware that “Liar. liar pants on fire” Ms Raeesah Khan has now accused Bayee, Auntie and Feisal of telling her to keep on lying (Page 15 or B5 of https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/selectcommittee/selectcommittee/download?id=435&type=report&fbclid=IwAR2tVtm3bARuR7Thj_DAUIxMr2kwRN_aUo3BsEEgZELbpySrSkwbbxfBDHc)

Earlier Bayee had said publicly that he and other two had known for months that she had lied but had advised her to repent in parly which she did, albeit after a long delay.

This shocked many S’poreans and attracted adverse comments on social media from people who are not rabid PAP supporters.

Us RI boys would have thrown Ms Khan under the bus once she confessed to us. LOL. Difference between RI and normal stream students. Bayee is praised by the woke and progressives (all not from RI) for being a normal stream student made good. Well they are pretty quiet now. Juz like about their hero Amos Yee.

Well he has driven the Wankers into a serious car crash.

Seriously, for the record:

1 The funny thing is that I was sceptical about Bayee for a long time. Only after the last GE did I change my mind and think that I was wrong about him. An ex-WP senior cadre also changed his mind about Mr Singh. We were wrong. Dead wrong, he’s a wanker.

2 I had in August heard about a cover-up from the above ex-senior cadre who heard it from party insiders. We discussed this and came to the conclusion that Pritam and the other leaders were not that stupid to hush the matter up. We were wrong. Btw, it’s alleged by insiders that her pa was a big donor to the defence fund for Low, Sylvia and Pritam. That was cited as a possible reason for the cover-up.

Oh and I think Pritam, Sylvia and Feisal should temporarily step down. Low should return temporarily to take charge. My ex-WP friend disagrees. He thinks Low is just as bad as the three of them.

https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/selectcommittee/selectcommittee/download?id=435&type=report&fbclid=IwAR2tVtm3bARuR7Thj_DAUIxMr2kwRN_aUo3BsEEgZELbpySrSkwbbxfBDHc

PAP govt one up up on repressive central Asian republic?

In S’pore, a few years ago, a person was arrested for holding a mirror. So did someone from Kazakhstan study our laws and decide to imitate us?

The Kazakh police took a young activist into custody after he decided to test whether he could get away with standing in the street holding a placard with no writing on it.

Aslan Sagutdinov took the placard to the central Abay Square of his native city of Oral in the west of the country, and held it up opposite the central council offices.

The video blogger took the precaution of having a colleague capture the whole thing on film, which the local Uralskaya Nedelya news site embedded in its report.

“I’m not taking part in a protest, and I want to show that they’ll still take me down the police station, even though there’s nothing written on my placard and I’m not shouting any slogans,” the 24-year-old told reporters who’d turned up to see what happened.

https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-48187353

Here is what I wrote in 2017 about the guy carrying a mirror who was arrested.

Seelan Palay: Sylvia Lim was right

Here I made fun of Seelan Palay’s latest attempt to test the OB markers: he crossed a red line after the police tried very hard not to arrest him, but he persisted, “After several failed attempts by the Police to persuade Seelan to leave the area, he was arrested by the Police at 3.20pm.” (TOC report)

Two years ago I wrote about how one person can be arrested for an illegal assembly

Jogging alone can be illegal?

If wearing the wrong tee-shirt or singlet?

Try walkng or jogging alone* wearing a “Free our CPF” singlet: remember that any public assembly of more than one person** needs police permission.

And jogging in a group of two or more”Free our CPF” singlets will be like jogging in groups in Burundi: illegal.

Running is a national pastime in Burundi, with hundreds of people out jogging on weekend mornings. But in March [2014] the authorities banned jogging in groups – unless permission was sought from the authorities. It affects all group sports in the capital, which can now only be played in designated areas.

The restrictions followed the arrest of some opposition members who were out jogging and chanting political slangs. Police officers tried to stop what they regarded as an illegal march and the situation deteriorated into clashes. More than 40 Movement for Solidarity and Democracy (MSD) party members received sentences ranging from five years to life.

Burundi: Where jogging is a crime

Wonder what about wearing a tee shirt with a Oppo party logo, drinking teh tarik as social media celebrities Ravi and Jeannette Chong used to do when they were NSP tua kees.

And what about the crowds assembling to pay their respects to LKY? What about the crowds at the National Museum LKY exhibition?

Seems anything the PAP administration or the SPF doesn’t like can be an illegal assembly.

Related post: PAP uses Lawfare against its opponents?

———‘

*Auntie Sylvia was absolutely right in 2007 and 2009 when she spoke out publicly:

“The change in definition of “assembly” and “procession” is more disturbing. As the Explanatory Statement to the Bill says, these words are no longer restricted to gatherings of 5 persons or more. This means even ONE person alone can constitute illegal assembly, thus giving the State complete control over an individual citizen’s freedoms.

‘First, to say that 1 person constitutes an assembly is certainly an abuse of the word. Secondly, is the government making the change because there had been incidents involving less than 5 persons which had disrupted public life? Unless there is compelling evidence to prove to us that expanding the definition of assembly and procession is needed, this expansion does not deserve our support,”  Sylvia Lim in parly in 2009.

Earlier, in 2007, she had said:

“This refers to clauses 29 and 30 of the Bill. By clause 29 of the Bill, we are removing the heading “Offences Against Public Tranquility” and replacing it with “Offences relating to Unlawful Assembly”. By Clause 30, we will be deleting “mischief or trespass or other offence” and replacing it with “to commit any offence”.

S 141 has been amended to bring it in line with a recent Court of Appeal case: PP v Tan Meng Khin [1995] 2 SLR 505. Now, an assembly will be unlawful if people intend to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment of 6 mths or more, even if it is peaceful and does not disturb public tranquillity. Under our law, a person who organizes a procession or assembly after the police rejection of a permit can be punished with max 6 months jail under the Miscellaneous Offences Act. Hence 5 or more people who gather to do so will become members of an unlawful assembly.

As our society continues to evolve, the time is surely ripe for us to allow peaceful outdoor protests as a form of expression. By all means, we can have rules about how, where and when such processions may be held, but wider law reform is needed. S 141 should be restricted to offences which threaten the public peace, and other laws such as the Miscellaneous Offences Act which require permits for peaceful assemblies should be modified.”

**Two men between the ages of 24 and 25 were arrested by police outside the Istana on Saturday afternoon (Apr 4).

Police said the duo had turned up in front of the Istana with placards at about 4pm. Channel NewsAsia understands that the men were holding signs that read “You can’t silence the people” and “Injustice” for about half an hour. They were clad in identical red hoodies and dark blue jeans.

Police also said both of them had refused to stop the activity despite requests from officers. As such, they were arrested for organising a public assembly without a permit, under Section 16(1)(a) of the Public Order Act, Chapter 257A.

Seelan Palay: Sylvia Lim was right

And there’s this more recent event: Jolovan’s latest problem shows Sylvia Lim’s and my prescience

Jolovan’s latest problem shows Sylvia Lim’s and my prescience

 

And that Terry Xu has a good point on the police and constructive, nation-building media.”

Many moons ago, I asked:

“Jogging alone can be illegal?

‘If wearing the wrong tee-shirt or singlet?”

Well something like it has happened here.

Social worker and activist Jolovan Wham is being investigated for protesting outside State Courts without a valid permit, police said on Saturday (Mar 2)*.

Seriously, Auntie Sylvia was absolutely right in 2007 and 2009 when she spoke out publicly:

“The change in definition of “assembly” and “procession” is more disturbing. As the Explanatory Statement to the Bill says, these words are no longer restricted to gatherings of 5 persons or more. This means even ONE person alone can constitute illegal assembly, thus giving the State complete control over an individual citizen’s freedoms.

‘First, to say that 1 person constitutes an assembly is certainly an abuse of the word. Secondly, is the government making the change because there had been incidents involving less than 5 persons which had disrupted public life? Unless there is compelling evidence to prove to us that expanding the definition of assembly and procession is needed, this expansion does not deserve our support,”  Sylvia Lim in parly in 2009.

Earlier, in 2007, she had said:

“This refers to clauses 29 and 30 of the Bill. By clause 29 of the Bill, we are removing the heading “Offences Against Public Tranquility” and replacing it with “Offences relating to Unlawful Assembly”. By Clause 30, we will be deleting “mischief or trespass or other offence” and replacing it with “to commit any offence”.

S 141 has been amended to bring it in line with a recent Court of Appeal case: PP v Tan Meng Khin [1995] 2 SLR 505. Now, an assembly will be unlawful if people intend to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment of 6 mths or more, even if it is peaceful and does not disturb public tranquillity. Under our law, a person who organizes a procession or assembly after the police rejection of a permit can be punished with max 6 months jail under the Miscellaneous Offences Act. Hence 5 or more people who gather to do so will become members of an unlawful assembly.

As our society continues to evolve, the time is surely ripe for us to allow peaceful outdoor protests as a form of expression. By all means, we can have rules about how, where and when such processions may be held, but wider law reform is needed. S 141 should be restricted to offences which threaten the public peace, and other laws such as the Miscellaneous Offences Act which require permits for peaceful assemblies should be modified.”

Jogging alone can be illegal?

Terry Xu wrote on FB yesterday

[T]he shocking part for me, is that the Police had provided information to the media to create an impression that Wham willfully committed an offence on 13 Dec despite being warned.

This is even before any charge is being made against Wham and established that a protest was being held in front of the state court. What is factually established is Wham took a photo in front of the state court with a piece of paper that had some wordings. He was not being approached by any officers nor arrested for his act, which would imply it was either too insignificant or too short of a time period to be noticed by the guards.

Also, the act of taking a photo should not be considered an offence as photographers from the media take photos of suspects on a regular basis. Unless there is a blatant double standard by the Police.

Yet the Police and the media frame it up as an act which justifies the investigation launched upon Wham.

It’s not shocking to me, or I’m sure, Auntie.

As I wrote many moons ago, try walking or jogging alone wearing a “Free our CPF” singlet: remember that any public assembly of more than one person needs police permission.

But what about wearing a tee shirt with a Oppo party logo, drinking teh tarik as social media celebrities Ravi and Jeannette Chong used to do when they were NSP tua kees? Nothing happened to them.

Seems anything the PAP administration or the SPF doesn’t like can be an illegal assembly.

Sad. Because discretionary, or vaguely worded powers can one day be turned against you, the upright, civic, PAP-voting S’porean; not juz against the usual suspects like Jolovan Wham.

Vote wisely.

Related posts:

PAP uses Lawfare against its opponents?

Seelan Palay: Sylvia Lim was right

Jolovan Wham: Nothing wrong in asking Tun M to intervene in S’porean affairs

Why Jolovan Wham’s vigil singled out?

---

*CNA report goes on

Wham had posted a photo on Dec 13 on social media channels, which showed him standing outside the court complex while holding up a piece of paper that read: “Drop the charges against Terry Xu and Daniel De Costa.”

The protest happened the same day Terry Xu, the editor of socio-political website The Online Citizen, and Daniel De Costa were charged for publishing an article that alleged corruption among the Singapore Government’s highest officers.

In response to Channel NewsAsia’s queries, police said that Wham had written to the police earlier in November to apply for a permit to stage a protest outside the State Courts. His application was not approved.

“The State Courts is gazetted as a Prohibited Area under the Public Order Act, with stricter security protocols,” police said.

“He was well aware that a police permit was required for such an event. Still, he went ahead to protest outside the State Courts on Dec 13, 2018.”

Read more at https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/police-investigating-activist-jolovan-wham-protest-state-courts-11305502

 

 

 

PAP confident of winning back Aljunied

(Update on 14 October 2019 at 5.30pm: The latest from Secret Squirrel is that Nicole Seah will stand in place of Auntie:

She’s been working hard and quietly in the Marine Parade GRC.

Akan Datang: New WP Sec-Gen and Chairman

Bayee die die wants to stand.)

So confident that

Around 1,500 lifts managed by the Aljunied-Hougang Town Council will undergo the same Lift Enhancement Programme in the next 10 years, with the first batch of 180 lifts slated for upgrading in the next 15 months, a spokesman said in response to media queries.

HDB not allowing WP GRC to turn into slum

My take on chances of PAP winning in Aljunied: very good, if Pritam, Auntie and Low stand, or if Pritam stands with the other two stepping down, as I expect them to. Whatever the outcome of the court case against them, they are soiled goods: WP: Will Ownself sabo Ownself?

(Related post: “Peanuts”: WP MPs’ liability)

---

In 2017, I wrote

Well since earlier this year, I had it from Morocco Mole‘s twin brother that Low and Auntie would not be contesting the next GE. And it wouldn’t have been a secret if Morocco Mole’s twin brother knew about it. It was something the WP cadres were openly talking about among themselves, even if they were not posting about in on FB

WP Low’s anointed one

Related post: Akan Datang: New WP Sec-Gen and Chairman

————————————-

But if WP has Faizal, Show Mao and three new faces (I’m assuming that they’ll be the usual credible WP candidates, one of whom will be Lion Man: Will WP MPs walk the talk of Lion Man Leon?), I think that the swing voters will give the Wankers the benefit of the doubt, especially if Dr Tan Cheng Bock endorses the team. Interesting that Bayee is in this photo (Blackface Chee/ Tan Cheng Bock etc): Auntie and Low would rather be dead then be seen with Mad Dog.

Akan Datang: New WP Sec-Gen and Chairman

I predicted that Bayee would not be WP’s Sec-Gen: WP Low’s anointed one

I was wrong but the I guy tipped to be Sec-Gen will soon be: OK, OK before next GE. Read above link to see who is that person.

Reason? The trial going on involving Bayee, Auntie and Sifu Low.

The trial involving three elected members of the opposition Workers’ Party held Aljunied-Hougang Town Council began last Friday. The stakes are high, and a potential judgment against the MPs could see them bankrupted and disqualified from holding public office.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/remy-choo-zheng-xi/ahtc-trial-what-to-look-out-for/10156061952333737/

While one suit is brought in name of AHTC (Ownself sue ownself), the suits came about because an independent panel (My take on the panel when it was set up) approved by the Wankers’ Party (AHTC accounts: WP outsources decision to recover monies) recommended that legal action be taken against the town council members and others to recover the alleged improper payments.

I do not see any reasonable defence to these claims. Think of all the bad accounting (KPMG report on AHTC: Notice the deafening silence?) and expect the defendants to lose. Related post: Wankers’ Party still blur on audits and accounting.

Low and Auntie, I’ve predicted will not stand in next GE, so at worse their political careers are cut short near the end. Not a happy ending if they are bankrupted but they fought the good fight, keeping alive the flame of Opposition in a dark time.

But Bayee is young and is a newly elected Sec-Gen of WP and losing the case and being bankrupted and disqualified from holding public office will be a great end of his so far unimpressive political career.

Whenever Auntie steps down, the betting in the WP, Secret Squirrel and Morocco Mole tell me, is that one Nicole Seah will be the next chairman: remember her?  She’s been working hard and quietly in the Marine Parade GRC.

The Law Suits, in Summary

There are two lawsuits.

Suit 668 is brought by AHTC, acting on the instructions of an Independent Panel appointed by order of the Court of Appeal.

Suit 716 is a lawsuit brought by Pasir Ris-Punggol Town Council (PRPTC).

In both Suits, it is alleged that the Defendants are liable for alleged improper payments made by the Managing Agents to third party contractors between May 2011 – November 2015.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/remy-choo-zheng-xi/ahtc-trial-what-to-look-out-for/10156061952333737/

Auntie’s behaviour: Why PAP can hang her

If they want to. But will they dare?

But first, Grace Fu is that cock meh that she had to take advice from AG?

The law is simple. Parliament decides what is parliamentary privilege.

The Court of Appeal in 1988 upheld the ruling by the Parliamentary Committee on Privileges by against one JBJ on the ground that Parliament was empowered by the Constitution to decide on what was covered by parliamentary privilege and to punish an MP if the Committee held that the MP had abused his or her privilege or were in contempt of the Committee or Parliament.

Therefore, it was up to the Committee and not the Courts to decide whether JBJ was covered by parliamentary privilege.

Parliament is judge, jury and executioner, the court effectively said, reflecting the common law position that is is still applicable in the UK.

---

Is this what AG advise?

Secret Squirrel and Morocco Mole claim to have seen AG’s advice on the matter.

They claim that AG referred to the Court of Appeal ruling in 1988 upholding the ruling by the Parliamentary Committee on Privileges by against one JBJ. The CA said that Parliament was empowered by the Constitution to decide on what was covered by parliamentary privilege and to punish MPs if the Committee held that such MPs had abused their privilege or were in contempt of the Committee or Parliament.

That the AG said is the law of the land. Well at least that’s what Secret Squirrel and Morocco Mole said the AG said.

——————————-

And because Parliament is judge, jury and executioner, therein lies the political danger for the PAP if the PAP decides to “fix” Auntie because if even a PAP voter cheers on Auntie, says Fu talking cock, there’ll be many more S’poreans (many not anti-PAP) that will agree with this anti-PAP cybernut

HarderTruths:

 Sylvia Lim will be found guilty as sin. If not for one thing then for something else.

Does anyone remember JBJ and CST plus Amos. It does not matter what you do, as longas you stand up to these bunch of bullies you are done for.

if Auntie kanna whack by the Parliamentary Committee on Privileges.

Tan Cheng Bock, as usual, gets it about right. He posted on FB

BE GRACIOUS IN PARLIAMENT

Having watched the video on the GST debate, I felt the PAP ministers especially Shanmugam were brow beating MP Sylvia Lim by demanding an apology for asking whether the government postponed the GST hike because of negative public feedback. Many people perceive this brow beating as arrogance. I remember our former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew once told all PAP MPs in 1988 “Any show of arrogance or indifference by any MP or Minister will erode confidence in him and, later, in the government.”

Instead of getting upset, the Ministers should be thankful Sylvia Lim gave them an opportunity to explain. If the government’s position is ‘no’ then just say no and let’s just stop at that. No need to get defensive. As PM Lee Hsien Loong rightly said at the close of the Oxley Road debate: “If MPs believe that something is wrong, it’s an MP’s job to pursue the facts and make these allegations in their own name, decide whether something seems to be wrong, and if you think something is wrong, even if you’re not fully sure, then come to this House, confront the Government, ask for explanations and answers.” I enclose a video clip of Sylvia Lim quoting PM Lee.

PM Lee was echoing the view of our former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew who said “All MPs new and old, should speak out. You have to speak up and bring out the grapevine criticism in the coffee shops and hawker centres. It is damaging for the government not to openly refute it with facts and argument. By bringing up apparently embarrassing issues, you help the government openly state the facts and explain the reasons for our policies and so continue to hold the ground.”

So be gracious, no need to over-react or ask for any apology for bringing out “grapevine criticism” or “apparently embarrassing issues” in Parliament.

Sad that I can’t call him “My president”. For that blame Goh Meng Seng and Tan Kin Lian

Goh Meng Seng, our very own Wu Sangui

Remember he was

the guy who helped (Was he paid? Or did he do it out of the goodness of his heart because he loved the PAP?) the PAP’s preferred candidate to win in PE 2011 by

— persuading TKL to run;

— then running a shambolic campaign for TLK;

— and then saying he had to go to HK for a job interview,

Meng Seng wants us to kowtow to Xi

Silence of Goh Meng Seng

Can u hear the deafening silence?

We have yet to hear

come out to join Grace Fu and Indranee Rajah (The reincarnation of the  Wicked Witches of West and East  from the Land of Oz?) in calling Auntie “dishonourable” etc. Already s/o JBJ has come out to slime Auntie and the WP (and to be fair the PAP) over Auntie’s remarks on “test ballons”.

Seriously for a supposed Oppo party leader, he (Meng Seng not s/o JBJ) spends more time attacking other Oppo parties’ leaders than the PAP.

—————————————-

Goh Meng Seng, our very own Wu Sangui

Remember he was

the guy who helped (Was he paid? Or did he do it out of the goodness of his heart because he loved the PAP?) the PAP’s preferred candidate to win in PE 2011 by

— persuading TKL to run;

— then running a shambolic campaign for TLK;

— and then saying he had to go to HK for a job interview,

Meng Seng wants us to kowtow to Xi

Btw, in the above link, he slimes WP Low whom he called his sifu in the past. What an ungrateful apprentice*.

—————————-

Whatever he has form in sliming Auntie. Years ago when Auntie and Quah Kim Song became an item, when other S’poreans were wishing them well, he was sliming Auntie. Citing “the bigger picture”, he called her names for disgracing the Oppo by her relationship. Come on: Quah was a widower and Auntie was single. So waz wrong? But no Meng Seng slimed her.

So it’s really surprising that he is so quiet on this issue. Maybe thirty pieces of silver have yet to be paid into his bank account?

——————————–

*Btw, Goh Meng Seng was looking for apprentices after last GE

End of Journey Start from Fresh

I believe many opposition politicians from my generation feel the same way, we might have come to the end of our political journey in the sense that, in view of the current electoral results, we may not be walking into parliament during our lifetime.

However it doesn’t mean we should end here. It would be overly pessimistic that opposition politics will have no more hope. Politics is a long drawn battle.

We may have come to our end of journey but we have to lay the Foundation for the future generations of politicians and activists to take over the baton. We just have to pass it on.

So hang on there my fellow opposition politicians. We still have unfinished business to do a proper handover.

http://singaporealternatives.blogspot.sg/2015/09/end-of-journey-start-from-fresh.html

Wonder if Low Wai Choo became one? She stood with him in the GE.

In 2016, she was fined $450 each for public nuisance. I think she was involved in Roy Ngerng’s and Loh Han Hui Hui’s (Remember them?) savaging of autistic children at Hong Lim Green.

 

PAP voter cheers on Auntie, says Fu talking cock

Here’s two FB posts by a senior lawyer who admitted that he voted for the PAP in past elections

I think that Minister Grace Fu should drop the threat to refer to the Committee of Privileges.

Such a display of arrogance and high-handedness doesn’t impress me, and should not impress Singaporeans.

The facts are this, simply.

The G has said since 2013 that revenues must be raised. I was long aware of PM’s comments at the time. So we know that taxes are going up at some time in the future, but not when.

I was also aware of DPM’s 2015 remarks that the G had enough revenue for the decade. This implied that GST might not need to be raised this decade but it was not a clear, direct and explicit promise not too. Neither was PM’s remarks at the 2017 PAP Convention a categorical promise or confirmation.

The was much discussion in 2017 about an impeding announcement of a GST increase, promoted at least in part by PM’s and Minister Heng’s remarks.

Many economists speculated about the timing of the GST increase. Many of them thought it would be this decade, notwithstanding the G’s earlier comments.

For myself, I was not sure what the G would announce in Budget 2018. I expected an announcement of GST to be raised, but I had no confidence whether it would be after or before 2021.

Does this mean that I thought the G dishonest in its earlier comments?

No, not at all, because while earlier statements were made about having sufficient revenue for the decade, these statements did not amount to a clear promise not to raise the GST in this term of government.

If the G thinks the earlier remarks were clear and categorical, so that citizens could have no doubts, how does it explain why so many reputable economists were willing to entertain thoughts of an increase this decade?

And later

Having read all the transcripts, Minister Fu’s ability to understand the debate seemed dodgy at best. As Bertha has written elsewhere, she seemed out of her depth and one has to say that this impression is not without basis.

For example, she deplored the fact that Sylvia Lim “continued with this accusation” after the G’s explanations but what does the Honourable Minister mean by that? Sylvia said clearly that she can accept, in light of the G’s response as to its intentions, that her suspicions may be wrong, but she simply does not accept that there was no basis for suspicion when originally made.

I rather struggle to see how this position could reasonably found a complaint to the Committee of Privileges except for a hyper-sensitive government – and that should NOT be encouraged.

Minister Fu also failed to give any coherent explanation of how – if the G’s contention that their intentions not to raise taxes this decade has been made clear in numerous statements pre-budget 2018 – that numerous respected economists could have entered and speculated about exactly that possibility.

Her answer was this : “But having said so, after she has brought the matter here, we have laid down the facts to her. And yet she continued to insist on the allegation. This is the difference between what we say in this chamber and what economists, analysts say outside this chamber.”

This answer of course says nothing about whether Minister Fu would claim that the G had previously made its position so clear that entertaining the possibility of an increase this decade was an unreasonable idea. And probably Minister Fu would, with respect, struggle to make a convincing claim here.

Instead, Minister Fu focuses her complaint simply on Sylvia’s (alleged) continued maintenance of her claim despite the G’s response.

But what does this (alleged) continued maintenance consist of?

Sylvia made plain that in light of the G’s insistance on its position, her suspicion might be wrong as a matter of fact (although the true facts are only known to Cabinet).

But she maintains that, when made, the suspicion was not without basis and essentially Minister Fu had no coherent explanation for why that was the case. She simply is unhappy that Sylvia did not withdraw the original allegation or apologise.

But why should Sylvia, unless the G could demonstrate that there was no basis for suspicion when the claim was first made – and here Minister Fu has no explanation (see above). For example, she did not respond to the question of whether all the economists who speculated on a budget increase this decade after after DPM’s 2015 statement and PM’s PAP Convention speech were thinking in an unreasonable way.

So to threaten to refer to the Committee of Privileges in these circumstances simply reflects poorly on Minister Fu, with the greatest of respect.

 

 

Seelan Palay: Sylvia Lim was right

Here I made fun of Seelan Palay’s latest attempt to test the OB markers: he crossed a red line after the police tried very hard not to arrest him, but he persisted, “After several failed attempts by the Police to persuade Seelan to leave the area, he was arrested by the Police at 3.20pm.” (TOC report)

Two years ago I wrote about how one person can be arrested for an illegal assembly

Jogging alone can be illegal?

If wearing the wrong tee-shirt or singlet?

Try walkng or jogging alone* wearing a “Free our CPF” singlet: remember that any public assembly of more than one person** needs police permission.

And jogging in a group of two or more”Free our CPF” singlets will be like jogging in groups in Burundi: illegal.

Running is a national pastime in Burundi, with hundreds of people out jogging on weekend mornings. But in March [2014] the authorities banned jogging in groups – unless permission was sought from the authorities. It affects all group sports in the capital, which can now only be played in designated areas.

The restrictions followed the arrest of some opposition members who were out jogging and chanting political slangs. Police officers tried to stop what they regarded as an illegal march and the situation deteriorated into clashes. More than 40 Movement for Solidarity and Democracy (MSD) party members received sentences ranging from five years to life.

Burundi: Where jogging is a crime

Wonder what about wearing a tee shirt with a Oppo party logo, drinking teh tarik as social media celebrities Ravi and Jeannette Chong used to do when they were NSP tua kees.

And what about the crowds assembling to pay their respects to LKY? What about the crowds at the National Museum LKY exhibition?

Seems anything the PAP administration or the SPF doesn’t like can be an illegal assembly.

Related post: PAP uses Lawfare against its opponents?

———‘

*Auntie Sylvia was absolutely right in 2007 and 2009 when she spoke out publicly:

“The change in definition of “assembly” and “procession” is more disturbing. As the Explanatory Statement to the Bill says, these words are no longer restricted to gatherings of 5 persons or more. This means even ONE person alone can constitute illegal assembly, thus giving the State complete control over an individual citizen’s freedoms.

‘First, to say that 1 person constitutes an assembly is certainly an abuse of the word. Secondly, is the government making the change because there had been incidents involving less than 5 persons which had disrupted public life? Unless there is compelling evidence to prove to us that expanding the definition of assembly and procession is needed, this expansion does not deserve our support,”  Sylvia Lim in parly in 2009.

Earlier, in 2007, she had said:

“This refers to clauses 29 and 30 of the Bill. By clause 29 of the Bill, we are removing the heading “Offences Against Public Tranquility” and replacing it with “Offences relating to Unlawful Assembly”. By Clause 30, we will be deleting “mischief or trespass or other offence” and replacing it with “to commit any offence”.

S 141 has been amended to bring it in line with a recent Court of Appeal case: PP v Tan Meng Khin [1995] 2 SLR 505. Now, an assembly will be unlawful if people intend to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment of 6 mths or more, even if it is peaceful and does not disturb public tranquillity. Under our law, a person who organizes a procession or assembly after the police rejection of a permit can be punished with max 6 months jail under the Miscellaneous Offences Act. Hence 5 or more people who gather to do so will become members of an unlawful assembly.

As our society continues to evolve, the time is surely ripe for us to allow peaceful outdoor protests as a form of expression. By all means, we can have rules about how, where and when such processions may be held, but wider law reform is needed. S 141 should be restricted to offences which threaten the public peace, and other laws such as the Miscellaneous Offences Act which require permits for peaceful assemblies should be modified.”

**Two men between the ages of 24 and 25 were arrested by police outside the Istana on Saturday afternoon (Apr 4).

Police said the duo had turned up in front of the Istana with placards at about 4pm. Channel NewsAsia understands that the men were holding signs that read “You can’t silence the people” and “Injustice” for about half an hour. They were clad in identical red hoodies and dark blue jeans.

Police also said both of them had refused to stop the activity despite requests from officers. As such, they were arrested for organising a public assembly without a permit, under Section 16(1)(a) of the Public Order Act, Chapter 257A.

 

 

Cedric Foo: Talking rubbish again

Cedric Foo attacked Sylvia Lim when she made her happiness speech in parliament saying, “I think the Opposition could not have chosen a more dissimilar country [referring to Bhutan] to compare Singapore with. We are exposed to the sea, exposed to the onslaught of competition to the world. We were dealt a different deck of cards and a different hand together, and we want to find our own formula forward.”

Well, Singapore was a co-sponsor of the Bhutan initiated resolution at the UN General Assembly titled “Happiness: towards a holistic approach to development”. So Singapore does believe that it is relevant, otherwise why co-sponsor the resolution?

His comments means that Cedric Foo is saying that the government was wrong to support the resolution And that Singapore should have opposed the resolution or at least abstained from co-sponsoring it.

Or was it an “honest mistake” that he didn’t know that Singapore had co-sponsored the resolution. He must be a very busy man at NOL, a TLC. He was appointed Group Deputy President in April 2005 and, additionally, Chief Financial Officer from January 2007. And he has his MP duties at his SMC. Not so easy to get another MP to cover him, unlike in a GRC.

Or was he just attacking Sylvia Lim’s speech because it was made by an Opposition MP? Waz this about co-operating for the good of Singapore?

Another foo(lish) remark it seems, whatever the reason. He was the junior minister who said, “[T]he term ‘white horse’ was used to identify sons of influential persons to ensure such enlistees were not given preferential treatment. And their medical classification and vocation assignments are scrupulously fair.”

Hands up those who believe his “white horse statement”?