Dear Sammyboy Forummers,
I like to inform you that a member of the Attorney General’s Chamber (“AGC”) is in SammyBoy. His nick is LockeLiberal.
Set out below is his post #41 from the thread Looking Beyond the Persecution of Tey Tsun Hang (“the Thread”) and my response.
Posts #35, #38 and #39 of the Thread, referred to in my response, will appear in the next post here so that you can judge for yourself if I am correct in my assessment that LockeLiberal is from the AGC and panicked.
Singaporeans, read this post and the following carefully and make your own judgment. If like me, you come to the reasonable conclusion that the mass zapping and PAP IBs orchestrated chatter thereafter in the Thread is a vain attempt to prevent a feared exposure of the AGC’s involvement in IB activities, then you MUST vote the PAPzis out in 2016. Your taxpayers’ money have been used to fund these FIXING activities.
Please Twit, Facebook or otherwise transmit these message to as many Singaporeans as possible if you agree with my assessment.
A massive turnout at Hong Lim on 1st May will send out your message LOUD AND CLEAR.
Cheers, WMM.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Locke,
No you didn’t laughed. You PANICKED.
Within a minute or so of my having posted #38 and #39 of thread titled Looking Beyond the Persecution of Tey Tsun Hang (“the Thread”) in response to your very lawyerly sounding #35, your taxpayer funded IBs zapped me 9 times in rapid succession to bring my rep points from +125 down to -23.
Probably so that you can redeem yourself by posting #41 of the Thread before I make any more postings. A PANICKY attempt at damage control is what I see. You claimed to have ZERO legal training in this posting #41. I did have a roaring good laugh after saw that panicky mass zapping. Almost fell off my chair.
Here’s why. A person with “ZERO legal training” will not be able to respond in this manner to forummer Rumpole:
Dear Rumpole,
I would like to address your concerns vis sa vis the "springing of statements". The new CPC in place whether one goes through a criminal discovery process or not allows for defence lawyers to have sight of all the statements of the accused. Under the new rules, of discovery, any evidence to be used by the prosecution has to be disclosed at Pre Trial conference. There are however still several areas to be worked on which further lobbying might assist om.
a. Disclosure of key witness statements pre trial, in full and not at the discretion of the prosecution.
b. Recording of accused statements and whether it should be recorded or not and with a lawyer present or not.
Locke
It takes a person with intimate knowledge of the criminal litigation process to be able to respond with such admirable clarity and precision. Gotcha PAP IB and member of the AGC!
On the other hand, I feel pity for you. A lawyer is first and foremost an officer of the Court. Engaging in IB activities to help the PAPzis FIX anybody is not only against the rules of professional ethics, but downright degrading.
Please send my warm regards to your boss, the AG, Mr. Steven Chong. Perhaps, he or someone else high up made you do this thankless and unethical errant.
Yours Sincerely,
WongMengMeng
(NotMyRealName)