- Joined
- Mar 12, 2009
- Messages
- 13,160
- Points
- 0
The Online Citizen questioned for “anti PAP” flier
June 18th, 2010 | Author: Your Correspondent
<--- http://www.temasekreview.com/2010/06/18/the-online-citizen-investigated-for-anti-pap-flier/
The Online Citizen reported on its website that its Chief Editor, Andrew Loh was summoned to
“the police station to ask about the so called “anti-PAP” flier which was distributed to several household in April.”
We would … like to disclose that the police did summon TOC’s Chief Editor, Andrew Loh, to the police station
to ask about the so-called “anti-PAP” flier which was reportedly distributed to several housing estates in April.
The police wanted to know if Andrew knew who was behind the flier. Andrew told them the truth –
which is that he didn’t. The interview with the police was cordial and lasted less than 15 minutes.
Both censored and uncensored copies of the supposedly “Seditious Flier” had appeared on several websites
including but not limited to Temasek Review, fuckwarezone and Sammyboy Alfresco Coffee Shop.
If SPF deems that The Online Citizen has got to be investigated in relation to this case, then it is only fair
that all the sites reproducing / displaying copies of the said flier should be investigated to eliminate
possible allegations of double standards practised by the Singapore Police Force.
Is this an exercise to ’silence’ the critiques of PAP (People’s Action Party), both offline and online; and
what was the basis for SPF to investigate this incident under the Sedition Act (as reported by Straits Times),
where the offender if convicted, faces a fine of up to $5000 and/or a maximum of 3 years imprisonment.
This writer fail to understand how an anti-Party (ie: PAP) flier can be construed as anti-Government
by the Singapore Police Force.
Maybe readers with legal background can shed some light?
June 18th, 2010 | Author: Your Correspondent
<--- http://www.temasekreview.com/2010/06/18/the-online-citizen-investigated-for-anti-pap-flier/
The Online Citizen reported on its website that its Chief Editor, Andrew Loh was summoned to
“the police station to ask about the so called “anti-PAP” flier which was distributed to several household in April.”
We would … like to disclose that the police did summon TOC’s Chief Editor, Andrew Loh, to the police station
to ask about the so-called “anti-PAP” flier which was reportedly distributed to several housing estates in April.
The police wanted to know if Andrew knew who was behind the flier. Andrew told them the truth –
which is that he didn’t. The interview with the police was cordial and lasted less than 15 minutes.
Both censored and uncensored copies of the supposedly “Seditious Flier” had appeared on several websites
including but not limited to Temasek Review, fuckwarezone and Sammyboy Alfresco Coffee Shop.
If SPF deems that The Online Citizen has got to be investigated in relation to this case, then it is only fair
that all the sites reproducing / displaying copies of the said flier should be investigated to eliminate
possible allegations of double standards practised by the Singapore Police Force.
Is this an exercise to ’silence’ the critiques of PAP (People’s Action Party), both offline and online; and
what was the basis for SPF to investigate this incident under the Sedition Act (as reported by Straits Times),
where the offender if convicted, faces a fine of up to $5000 and/or a maximum of 3 years imprisonment.
This writer fail to understand how an anti-Party (ie: PAP) flier can be construed as anti-Government
by the Singapore Police Force.
Maybe readers with legal background can shed some light?
Last edited:
