How come so many offenders so anti government? They can't commit crime and get away without punishment in Singapore?
Last edited:
-
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.
Netizen arrested by Singapore police for posting anti-YOG remarks on Facebook
- Thread starter BuiKia
- Start date
How come so many offenders so anti government? They can't commit crime and get away without punishment in Singapore?
With regard to Malik's arrest over his "burn" the minister statement on facebook, let's examine what he actually wrote on the facebook:
"This is the time for us to burn Vivian Balakrishnan and the PAP!!!!! Rally together and vote them out!!!"
You can physically burn a person but how are you supposed to burn a political party (i.e., "burn... and the PAP")? Burn down PAP's HQ? I don't think so. Now, let's go on and read the next line - "Rally together and vote them out!!!". He is qualifying his previous "burn" sentence by asking citizens to vote PAP out.
Reading both sentences together, the meaning of the word "burn" becomes clearer. It's referring to burning as in "burning someone at the stake".
Figuratively, it means:
- to chastise or denounce someone severely or excessively. Stop yelling. I made a simple mistake, and you're burning me at the stake for it.
Can some English teacher here go teach those PAP idiots how to read?
"This is the time for us to burn Vivian Balakrishnan and the PAP!!!!! Rally together and vote them out!!!"
You can physically burn a person but how are you supposed to burn a political party (i.e., "burn... and the PAP")? Burn down PAP's HQ? I don't think so. Now, let's go on and read the next line - "Rally together and vote them out!!!". He is qualifying his previous "burn" sentence by asking citizens to vote PAP out.
Reading both sentences together, the meaning of the word "burn" becomes clearer. It's referring to burning as in "burning someone at the stake".
Figuratively, it means:
- to chastise or denounce someone severely or excessively. Stop yelling. I made a simple mistake, and you're burning me at the stake for it.
Can some English teacher here go teach those PAP idiots how to read?
<TABLE id=msgUN border=0 cellSpacing=3 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD id=msgUNsubj vAlign=top>
Coffeeshop Chit Chat - ST tries to character assassinate Malik!</TD><TD id=msgunetc noWrap align=right> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=msgtable cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="96%"><TBODY><TR><TD class=msg vAlign=top><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgbfr1 width="1%"> </TD><TD><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR class=msghead vAlign=top><TD class=msgF width="1%" noWrap align=right>From: </TD><TD class=msgFname width="68%" noWrap>kojakbt_89 <NOBR></NOBR> </TD><TD class=msgDate width="30%" noWrap align=right>Aug-25 9:19 pm </TD></TR><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgT height=20 width="1%" noWrap align=right>To: </TD><TD class=msgTname width="68%" noWrap>ALL <NOBR></NOBR></TD><TD class=msgNum noWrap align=right> (1 of 29) </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgleft rowSpan=4 width="1%"> </TD><TD class=wintiny noWrap align=right>37996.1 </TD></TR><TR><TD height=8></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgtxt>Character assassination by Straits Times against arrested YOG critic Abdul Malik
August 26th, 2010 |
Author: Your Correspondent
The Straits Times has resorted to its usual character assassination to cast doubts on the credibility of YOG critic Mr Abdul Malik who was arrested two days ago by the Singapore police for “inciting violence and public unrest” with a comment posted on Facebook.
Mr Malik was picked up at his workplace two days ago by three plain-clothes police officers from Bedok Police Division whose Commander is DAC Teo Chun Ching and its Head Investigator is DSP Goh Tat Boon.
The “offending” comment was highlighted in red below:
Instead of seeking the expert opinions of lawyers on the case, the Straits Times journalist Ted Chen chose to focus on Mr Malik’s previous conviction which is completely irrelevant to his arrest.
Furthermore, he failed to mention the fact that there are many netizens whose identities are known who are against the YOG and Dr Vivian besides Mr Malik.
Will the police NOT arrest Mr Malik if he turns out to be a lawyer, doctor or engineer with a squeaky clean record?
Ted pressed on to question if Mr Malik’s past “dishonesty” and conviction will affect his credibility to criticize to which Mr Malik replied:
“It’s not the question. I am just putting out my opinion. I do not care whether people trust me.”
At the present moment, there are no laws forbidding ex-convicts from criticizing the government. Their voting rights have not been rescinded either. In Mr Malik’s case, his criminal record is deleted automatically after five years.
The Straits Times’ editorial stance against former convicts seem to run contrary to the Home Affairs Ministry’s campaign to rehabilitate them back into society.
Judging from the level of support shown by Singaporeans towards Mr Malik, many do seem to mind his previous transgression with the law.
Singaporeans, especially the younger generation are getting more astute and sophisticated. The usual dirty underhanded tactics to demolish an opponent by character assassination will not work anymore and will simply peeve off more voters.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
The Straits Times has resorted to its usual character assassination to cast doubts on the credibility of YOG critic Mr Abdul Malik who was arrested two days ago by the Singapore police for “inciting violence and public unrest” with a comment posted on Facebook.
Mr Malik was picked up at his workplace two days ago by three plain-clothes police officers from Bedok Police Division whose Commander is DAC Teo Chun Ching and its Head Investigator is DSP Goh Tat Boon.
The “offending” comment was highlighted in red below:
Instead of seeking the expert opinions of lawyers on the case, the Straits Times journalist Ted Chen chose to focus on Mr Malik’s previous conviction which is completely irrelevant to his arrest.
Furthermore, he failed to mention the fact that there are many netizens whose identities are known who are against the YOG and Dr Vivian besides Mr Malik.
Will the police NOT arrest Mr Malik if he turns out to be a lawyer, doctor or engineer with a squeaky clean record?
Ted pressed on to question if Mr Malik’s past “dishonesty” and conviction will affect his credibility to criticize to which Mr Malik replied:
“It’s not the question. I am just putting out my opinion. I do not care whether people trust me.”
At the present moment, there are no laws forbidding ex-convicts from criticizing the government. Their voting rights have not been rescinded either. In Mr Malik’s case, his criminal record is deleted automatically after five years.
The Straits Times’ editorial stance against former convicts seem to run contrary to the Home Affairs Ministry’s campaign to rehabilitate them back into society.
Judging from the level of support shown by Singaporeans towards Mr Malik, many do seem to mind his previous transgression with the law.
Singaporeans, especially the younger generation are getting more astute and sophisticated. The usual dirty underhanded tactics to demolish an opponent by character assassination will not work anymore and will simply peeve off more voters.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
He'd still be arrested for inciting sodomy against a minister.
Now, this is from a 3in1 posting, quoting from Young Damocrats. LKY apparenly has said this before:
"Everybody knows that in my bag I have a hatchet, and a very sharp one. You take me on, I take my hatchet, we meet in the cul-de-sac."
Now, does that mean LKY wants to become like Jason in "Friday the 13th" movie, taking the hatchet to physically slash his opponents?
"Everybody knows that in my bag I have a hatchet, and a very sharp one. You take me on, I take my hatchet, we meet in the cul-de-sac."
Now, does that mean LKY wants to become like Jason in "Friday the 13th" movie, taking the hatchet to physically slash his opponents?
You'd be very worried if you're in a vacation cabin and see his face outside the window. He's not kidding. He'd do it.
HAHAH! And wearing a mask some more...
Anyone miss me here?
I agree with MM's assessment here. Malik will most probably let off with a warning and the reason is GE round the corner.
But sometimes, we will never know how dumb the PAP govt is when it comes to manage public relationship. They might just go ahead and charge Malik.
It would be very interesting then; they will antagonize two voting blocks: Malay voters as well as young voters who are active on the net.
At the present moment, they have already created skepticism, cynicism and unhappiness among the young netters by this action of questioning Malik. It is not about law anymore. It is about Public relationship management prior to GE. They will have to back off to limit the damage, if any.
Goh Meng Seng
Wah lau! GMS! you cannot even manage your own public relationship always so poor thing "kena" misquoted by media, you got any moral authority to teach others what is PR?
Please buckle up!
I've asked for help to interpret Malik's controversial statement on this English Language forum: http://www.usingenglish.com/forum/ask-teacher/128976-can-someone-help.html
Even this UK English teacher said the word "burn" should be interpreted metaphorically:
"No. I think it's a metaphorical 'burning' meaning to destroy his career as a Minister and ensure that someone else is voted in. I don't think anyone would be so silly as to advertise their desire or plan to physically harm someone. In some countries, that's a criminal offence."
Even this UK English teacher said the word "burn" should be interpreted metaphorically:
"No. I think it's a metaphorical 'burning' meaning to destroy his career as a Minister and ensure that someone else is voted in. I don't think anyone would be so silly as to advertise their desire or plan to physically harm someone. In some countries, that's a criminal offence."
Buck up, not buckle up. If he buckles up, I'm afraid the buckles will snap.
Dirty Harry can get off with anything! But if you say to him, right, I'll meet you in the cul-de-sac with a gun, you'll probably be arrested too.
You mean I just sit there idly and do not protect myself...I will find myself a weapon & fight with him...and I 'eliminate' him, I will tender in a self defence plea...
Similar threads
