-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
AGC warns against public or online comments on Thaipusam incident
- Thread starter Leepotism
- Start date
Re: Minister of Manpower Politely Tells Indian To Fuck Off & Don't talk about Thaipus
Cut n paste from tre.
lost faith in white:
February 13, 2015 at 12:49 am (Quote)
Well said, Aljnied residents.
There is never a level playing field b/w the pigs and WP.
“They should be ashamed of themselves. You are a disgrace to the meaning of the word “Singaporean”.
We totally look down on you pigs… For years, we have been conned by them and recently we even seen the Liang Shan Bo and ZhuYing Tai being brought out of their grave just to justify and pacify to the people that it is a ‘sincere mistake’ just move on!!!. I don’t see why even after YOG overbudget by 300% can be given a clean bill and not debated in parliament to that extent as compared to just a newbie managing the GRC causing such a big hoo-haa…
What about the lost of investment from the sinking fund from TCs. Who is accountable, what about our CPF, Is there any transparency? What about the usage of tax paer money!!!
Lets call a spade a spade, if the pigs does not lead the way by doing all the right things, don’t expect and demand that from the opposition!!
It is a national disgrace to see the elites doing all the wrong things and yet questioning others and wanting others to do thing right isn’t it!!!
Cut n paste from tre.
lost faith in white:
February 13, 2015 at 12:49 am (Quote)
Well said, Aljnied residents.
There is never a level playing field b/w the pigs and WP.
“They should be ashamed of themselves. You are a disgrace to the meaning of the word “Singaporean”.
We totally look down on you pigs… For years, we have been conned by them and recently we even seen the Liang Shan Bo and ZhuYing Tai being brought out of their grave just to justify and pacify to the people that it is a ‘sincere mistake’ just move on!!!. I don’t see why even after YOG overbudget by 300% can be given a clean bill and not debated in parliament to that extent as compared to just a newbie managing the GRC causing such a big hoo-haa…
What about the lost of investment from the sinking fund from TCs. Who is accountable, what about our CPF, Is there any transparency? What about the usage of tax paer money!!!
Lets call a spade a spade, if the pigs does not lead the way by doing all the right things, don’t expect and demand that from the opposition!!
It is a national disgrace to see the elites doing all the wrong things and yet questioning others and wanting others to do thing right isn’t it!!!
Re: Minister of Manpower Politely Tells Indian To Fuck Off & Don't talk about Thaipus
[h=1]MOM ON MAKING THAIPUSAM A PUBLIC HOLIDAY: IT'S TOO DIFFICULT[/h]
Post date:
13 Feb 2015 - 7:25pm
In response to the many calls to make Thaipusam a public holiday, the Ministry of Manpower has responded explaining that it'd be too difficult.
Here is their full letter:
We appreciate the perspectives shared by many Singaporeans on whether Thaipusam should be reinstated as a public holiday.
As many have noted, Thaipusam was a public holiday until 1968. The prospect of the British withdrawal and the need to compete for a living in world markets necessitated many changes in the country. The government decided to reduce the total number of public holidays, amongst other things.
The decision on which public holidays to give up in 1968 was reached only after careful consultation and discussions with various religious groups. The Muslims chose to give up Prophet Muhamed’s Birthday as well as an extra day for Hari Raya Puasa. The Christians, who had to give up two days as well, chose to give up the Saturday after Good Friday and Easter Monday. The Hindus had to choose between retaining Thaipusam or Deepavali as a public holiday, and chose the latter.
These were difficult decisions for the leaders of each faith, with something of value being given up by each group in the larger interest. The Buddhists, who comprised the largest faith and had only one public holiday to begin with, Vesak Day, were not asked to offer any cuts. Some groups continued to celebrate religious events of significance to them, such as Vesakhi for the Sikhs and Lao-Tzu’s Birthday for the Taoists, without these being public holidays.
The resulting 11 public holidays that we now enjoy is neither high nor low when compared to other countries. It is the same number enjoyed by New Zealanders, Canadians and the French, among others. Our closest neighbours, Malaysia and Indonesia, enjoy a few more days than we do, but we have a few more than developed countries like the United Kingdom and Germany.
But beyond numbers and economics, our calendar of public holidays is a reflection of our multi-ethnic, multi-religious society. There is much value and meaning attached to each of our ethnic and religious festivals, including Thaipusam, both among that particular group and Singaporeans generally.
But any move to reinstate any one festival as a public holiday will immediately invite competing claims, and necessitate considerable renegotiation with all communities. Balancing the wishes of each community will not be a simple matter. Neither can we simply re-allocate public holidays by ethnic group, as amongst both Chinese and Indians we have citizens of a few different faiths.
While we will always ensure that all Singaporeans can practise their faiths freely, it is impractical to make all important festivals of all faiths public holidays. But it must always be possible for Singaporeans of all faiths to make arrangements to observe their respective religious festivals. We encourage all employers to show understanding and flexibility in this regard.
We have learnt to live harmoniously with each other with this balanced approach, where everyone makes some compromises for the greater good. It has served us well for the better part of five decades and remains the best way for Singapore.
Alvin Lim
Divisional Director, Workplace Policy & Strategy Division
Minister of Manpower
[h=1]MOM ON MAKING THAIPUSAM A PUBLIC HOLIDAY: IT'S TOO DIFFICULT[/h]
Post date:
13 Feb 2015 - 7:25pm
In response to the many calls to make Thaipusam a public holiday, the Ministry of Manpower has responded explaining that it'd be too difficult.
Here is their full letter:
We appreciate the perspectives shared by many Singaporeans on whether Thaipusam should be reinstated as a public holiday.
As many have noted, Thaipusam was a public holiday until 1968. The prospect of the British withdrawal and the need to compete for a living in world markets necessitated many changes in the country. The government decided to reduce the total number of public holidays, amongst other things.
The decision on which public holidays to give up in 1968 was reached only after careful consultation and discussions with various religious groups. The Muslims chose to give up Prophet Muhamed’s Birthday as well as an extra day for Hari Raya Puasa. The Christians, who had to give up two days as well, chose to give up the Saturday after Good Friday and Easter Monday. The Hindus had to choose between retaining Thaipusam or Deepavali as a public holiday, and chose the latter.
These were difficult decisions for the leaders of each faith, with something of value being given up by each group in the larger interest. The Buddhists, who comprised the largest faith and had only one public holiday to begin with, Vesak Day, were not asked to offer any cuts. Some groups continued to celebrate religious events of significance to them, such as Vesakhi for the Sikhs and Lao-Tzu’s Birthday for the Taoists, without these being public holidays.
The resulting 11 public holidays that we now enjoy is neither high nor low when compared to other countries. It is the same number enjoyed by New Zealanders, Canadians and the French, among others. Our closest neighbours, Malaysia and Indonesia, enjoy a few more days than we do, but we have a few more than developed countries like the United Kingdom and Germany.
But beyond numbers and economics, our calendar of public holidays is a reflection of our multi-ethnic, multi-religious society. There is much value and meaning attached to each of our ethnic and religious festivals, including Thaipusam, both among that particular group and Singaporeans generally.
But any move to reinstate any one festival as a public holiday will immediately invite competing claims, and necessitate considerable renegotiation with all communities. Balancing the wishes of each community will not be a simple matter. Neither can we simply re-allocate public holidays by ethnic group, as amongst both Chinese and Indians we have citizens of a few different faiths.
While we will always ensure that all Singaporeans can practise their faiths freely, it is impractical to make all important festivals of all faiths public holidays. But it must always be possible for Singaporeans of all faiths to make arrangements to observe their respective religious festivals. We encourage all employers to show understanding and flexibility in this regard.
We have learnt to live harmoniously with each other with this balanced approach, where everyone makes some compromises for the greater good. It has served us well for the better part of five decades and remains the best way for Singapore.
Alvin Lim
Divisional Director, Workplace Policy & Strategy Division
Minister of Manpower
Re: simi thaipusam fighting over drum? where's the drum?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeB91jU8YRE
move move.... move where. totally congested.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeB91jU8YRE
move move.... move where. totally congested.
Re: simi thaipusam fighting over drum? where's the drum?
of course it is la. WTF is it ok to hantam anyone on the street then? The way you're putting it it's like if that person isn't plain clothes then it's ok to hantam him.
of course it is la. WTF is it ok to hantam anyone on the street then? The way you're putting it it's like if that person isn't plain clothes then it's ok to hantam him.
Re: simi thaipusam fighting over drum? where's the drum?
High possibility in the ears.:o
High possibility in the ears.:o
AGC tries to have its cake and eat it?
The Attorney General Chambers (AGC) issued a 163-word statement on Wednesday with regard to the public discourse surrounding the Thaipusam incident, comprising four paragraphs that look like they were written by five different people.
The main aim appears to be the suggestion that comments made publically may be sub judice contempt of court if they are calculated to affect the judicial process and there is a real risk of prejudice being caused to the proceedings.
However, the fact that it has been reiterated time and time and time again that the Singapore judiciary is incorruptible, means that it simply has to be beyond any real risk of prejudice to the proceedings. In logical terms, if the judiciary is of such a high moral, ethical and legal standard that it is beyond the risk of prejudice, than no public comment, statement or online post in the world can reasonably pose any real risk of such prejudice.
Perhaps what the AGC is hinting at is the real risk in terms of undermining public confidence in the judiciary, in which regard, the comments and statements surrounding this incident are more the result of conclusions arrived through the independent analysis of events than any calculated attempt to influence public perception.
It would therefore be more helpful for the AGC to clearly spell out what sort of discourse would pose a real risk of prejudice instead of issuing blanket reminders that only cause confusion among the public which it is obligated to protect.
For instance, the Singapore Police Force (SPF) recently commenced investigations into the conduct of its officers based on a report filed by a woman who claimed to have been pushed down at the scene of the incident, but added “…if the allegations are found to be false, appropriate action, in accordance with our laws, will be taken…” when in fact this assertion was not supported by any concrete evidence at the time. This seems to fall squarely within the description of having a real risk of prejudice being caused to the proceedings.
In a similar vein, Member of Parliament Lam Pin Min’s assertion that the incident was an “example of how alcohol intoxication can cause rowdiness and public nuisance” soon after the incident had been reported in the press, had the effect of confounding the issue when nothing of the sort was established – he had apparently based his conclusion on the arresting officers’ testimony that the arrested persons “smelt strongly of alcohol”.
Such premature misrepresentation of the circumstances might lead many a layperson to erroneously take the MP’s word for verified truth and subsequently form expectations of the judiciary to prosecute or address the issue of public drinking. It could therefore be argued that there is a very real risk of public confidence in the judiciary being undermined as a result of misrepresentation by someone in high political office.
Such occurrences – be they unintentional or otherwise – have the potential of causing discord to the social fabric of Singapore. If this is the type of sub judice contempt the AGC is referring to, then it should be more explicit in its position on the issue, lest the general public be mistaken that this is some sort of veiled threat issued to the masses.
http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2015/02/agc-tries-to-have-its-cake-and-eat-it/
The Attorney General Chambers (AGC) issued a 163-word statement on Wednesday with regard to the public discourse surrounding the Thaipusam incident, comprising four paragraphs that look like they were written by five different people.
The main aim appears to be the suggestion that comments made publically may be sub judice contempt of court if they are calculated to affect the judicial process and there is a real risk of prejudice being caused to the proceedings.
However, the fact that it has been reiterated time and time and time again that the Singapore judiciary is incorruptible, means that it simply has to be beyond any real risk of prejudice to the proceedings. In logical terms, if the judiciary is of such a high moral, ethical and legal standard that it is beyond the risk of prejudice, than no public comment, statement or online post in the world can reasonably pose any real risk of such prejudice.
Perhaps what the AGC is hinting at is the real risk in terms of undermining public confidence in the judiciary, in which regard, the comments and statements surrounding this incident are more the result of conclusions arrived through the independent analysis of events than any calculated attempt to influence public perception.
It would therefore be more helpful for the AGC to clearly spell out what sort of discourse would pose a real risk of prejudice instead of issuing blanket reminders that only cause confusion among the public which it is obligated to protect.
For instance, the Singapore Police Force (SPF) recently commenced investigations into the conduct of its officers based on a report filed by a woman who claimed to have been pushed down at the scene of the incident, but added “…if the allegations are found to be false, appropriate action, in accordance with our laws, will be taken…” when in fact this assertion was not supported by any concrete evidence at the time. This seems to fall squarely within the description of having a real risk of prejudice being caused to the proceedings.
In a similar vein, Member of Parliament Lam Pin Min’s assertion that the incident was an “example of how alcohol intoxication can cause rowdiness and public nuisance” soon after the incident had been reported in the press, had the effect of confounding the issue when nothing of the sort was established – he had apparently based his conclusion on the arresting officers’ testimony that the arrested persons “smelt strongly of alcohol”.
Such premature misrepresentation of the circumstances might lead many a layperson to erroneously take the MP’s word for verified truth and subsequently form expectations of the judiciary to prosecute or address the issue of public drinking. It could therefore be argued that there is a very real risk of public confidence in the judiciary being undermined as a result of misrepresentation by someone in high political office.
Such occurrences – be they unintentional or otherwise – have the potential of causing discord to the social fabric of Singapore. If this is the type of sub judice contempt the AGC is referring to, then it should be more explicit in its position on the issue, lest the general public be mistaken that this is some sort of veiled threat issued to the masses.
http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2015/02/agc-tries-to-have-its-cake-and-eat-it/
Re: AGC tries to have its cake and eat it?
n a similar vein, Member of Parliament Lam Pin Min’s assertion that the incident was an “example of how alcohol intoxication can cause rowdiness and public nuisance” soon after the incident had been reported in the press, had the effect of confounding the issue when nothing of the sort was established – he had apparently based his conclusion on the arresting officers’ testimony that the arrested persons “smelt strongly of alcohol”.
if mp say, is ok?
what about under investigation?
n a similar vein, Member of Parliament Lam Pin Min’s assertion that the incident was an “example of how alcohol intoxication can cause rowdiness and public nuisance” soon after the incident had been reported in the press, had the effect of confounding the issue when nothing of the sort was established – he had apparently based his conclusion on the arresting officers’ testimony that the arrested persons “smelt strongly of alcohol”.
if mp say, is ok?
what about under investigation?
Similar threads
