-
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.
Samster's vote for next PM!
- Thread starter Cottonmouth
- Start date
Ratface is another Houdini just like Looong. His disappearance acts are fondly remembered.
Wat do u expect from fuckeins?Ratface is another Houdini just like Looong. His disappearance acts are fondly remembered.
He may be effectively bilingual, and his spouse's family may be financially strong and well connected, but his face and looks, do not appeal to me as trustworthy.
More so, regardless of his beliefs and affiliation, if it was me, I would never betray my father.
This may also apply to a lawyer, whose father was continuously hounded by the government at that time. As a smart, reputable and successful lawyer, may be, he should have stayed that way, and not be associated with the ruling party, the government and judiciary. I am sure many of us will recall how the appeal went to the then Privy Council, and how the District Court Judge was over ruled by the High Court. Subsequently, that judge left the legal service.
More so, regardless of his beliefs and affiliation, if it was me, I would never betray my father.
This may also apply to a lawyer, whose father was continuously hounded by the government at that time. As a smart, reputable and successful lawyer, may be, he should have stayed that way, and not be associated with the ruling party, the government and judiciary. I am sure many of us will recall how the appeal went to the then Privy Council, and how the District Court Judge was over ruled by the High Court. Subsequently, that judge left the legal service.
Inside Singapore’s Unusually Shaky Leadership Transition
https://www.bloombergquint.com/politics/inside-singapore-s-unusually-shaky-leadership-transition
After Heng’s multi seat constituency squeaked out a win by 6.8 percentage points — a narrow margin by Singapore standards — some insiders privately expressed concerns about him to other ministers, according to six party members, among whom are two high-ranking individuals familiar with the discussions.
The unease over Heng may have built over the subsequent months, and last week word spread among a handful of senior PAP cadres that he had decided to step aside as designated successor because he believed Singapore needed a younger leader to take over from Lee, said four people familiar with the matter.
https://www.bloombergquint.com/politics/inside-singapore-s-unusually-shaky-leadership-transition
After Heng’s multi seat constituency squeaked out a win by 6.8 percentage points — a narrow margin by Singapore standards — some insiders privately expressed concerns about him to other ministers, according to six party members, among whom are two high-ranking individuals familiar with the discussions.
The unease over Heng may have built over the subsequent months, and last week word spread among a handful of senior PAP cadres that he had decided to step aside as designated successor because he believed Singapore needed a younger leader to take over from Lee, said four people familiar with the matter.
Ong Ye Kung's breaching of rules: Complainant questions police on whether it has properly discharged its duties, has authority to delegate investigations to ARO - The Online Citizen Asia
The individual who filed a police report against Minister Ong Ye Kung for allegedly breaching campaign rules during the recent general election recently raised questions on whether the police has sufficiently discharged its duties in their investigations.
The complainant, who identified himself as Pee Jay on Facebook, disclosed in a post on Monday (20 July) screenshots of his recent email to an investigating officer (IO), after learning that the police had issued a media statement that it will not be taking any further action against his police report on Mr Ong.
In his email, Pee Jay highlighted that the police “have remained completely silent” on whether Mr Ong committed an offence, when typically police investigations involve “taking a position on whether an offence is disclosed” and exercising “their discretion on what to do next”.
“This is a tenuous position since Ong Ye Kung has already admitted/confessed to breaching electoral rules on his own Facebook page,” he wrote.
Pee Jay also questioned the police on whether it has the authority to delegate such investigations to the Returning Officer (RO) or the Assistant Returning Officer (ARO), given that the police and the RO/ARo are “two separate administrative bodies, serving distinctly different roles and functions”.
The duties of police, he stressed, is to “detect offences and crimes”, while the RO/ARO’s scope of powers is “limited to the electoral process”.
ROs/AROs do not have police powers such as those allowing them to launch an investigation, recommend a charge against an accused person, and to be able to prosecute an accused person, among others, argued Pee Jay.
“The statement that the RO/ARO had “looked into the matter” therefore rings hollow as the RO/ARO do not play any role in “looking into” a possible offence under s83 Parliamentary Elections Act; the duty to ‘look into the matter” lies with the Police alone,” he said.
The RO/ARO, Pee Jay added, is “neither empowered by legislation nor equipped to investigate or deal with an offence under s83 Parliamentary Elections Act”.
“I would argue that for the avoidance of any doubt, the Police should fully discharge its duties by concluding its own investigations and place on record whether it has determined if Ong Ye Kung has in fact committed an offence,” he urged.
Pee Jay also called upon the Attorney-General’s Chambers to offer its views on the matter as “this is an arrestable offence”.
On 2 July — the third day of campaigning — Mr Ong had posted a three-minute video featuring a young boy who lives in Sembawang, in which they spoke about “how it is a good place to grow up” in.
Shortly after, however, Mr Ong issued an apology and took down the video after being “informed by authorities that this is not in line with electoral rules”.
Under Section 83(1)(a) of the Parliamentary Elections Act, primary and secondary school students are prohibited from partaking in any election activities — including videos such as the one uploaded by Mr Ong.
A police report was lodged against Mr Ong over the video.
Last Saturday (18 July), however, the Elections Department (ELD) and the Singapore Police Force (SPF) in a joint statement said that the latter will be taking no further action against Mr Ong as the Assistant Returning Officer (ARO) “had looked into the matter”.
Their statement added that the ARO “had issued an advisory to Mr Ong Ye Kung to remind him to comply with the law in relation to all campaigning activities”.
Commenters criticised what they branded as a form of “double standards”, as politicians from alternative parties may not be treated as leniently.
One has to note that back in 2016, it was the ARO who filed police reports against individuals and entities for violation of cooling off day regulation where Teo Soh Lung and Roy Ngerng had their house ransacked and electronic devices seized by the police.
The statement from the ELD back then to justify the police reports was “Given the blatant disregard of the (rules) in the Bukit Batok by-election, the Assistant Returning Officer decided to make police reports so that the police could investigate.”
It added: “As part of the investigations, the police need to examine for evidentiary purposes electronic devices used to publish the online postings. As such, these devices had to be seized. When the investigations are completed, the police will make their recommendations to the Attorney-General’s Chambers.”
It took about ten months of investigation before the police dropped those cases with stern warnings issued while in the case of Mr Ong, no investigation by the police was even needed to dismiss the report.
Share this:
No data found.
No data found.
The individual who filed a police report against Minister Ong Ye Kung for allegedly breaching campaign rules during the recent general election recently raised questions on whether the police has sufficiently discharged its duties in their investigations.
The complainant, who identified himself as Pee Jay on Facebook, disclosed in a post on Monday (20 July) screenshots of his recent email to an investigating officer (IO), after learning that the police had issued a media statement that it will not be taking any further action against his police report on Mr Ong.
In his email, Pee Jay highlighted that the police “have remained completely silent” on whether Mr Ong committed an offence, when typically police investigations involve “taking a position on whether an offence is disclosed” and exercising “their discretion on what to do next”.
“This is a tenuous position since Ong Ye Kung has already admitted/confessed to breaching electoral rules on his own Facebook page,” he wrote.
Pee Jay also questioned the police on whether it has the authority to delegate such investigations to the Returning Officer (RO) or the Assistant Returning Officer (ARO), given that the police and the RO/ARo are “two separate administrative bodies, serving distinctly different roles and functions”.
The duties of police, he stressed, is to “detect offences and crimes”, while the RO/ARO’s scope of powers is “limited to the electoral process”.
ROs/AROs do not have police powers such as those allowing them to launch an investigation, recommend a charge against an accused person, and to be able to prosecute an accused person, among others, argued Pee Jay.
“The statement that the RO/ARO had “looked into the matter” therefore rings hollow as the RO/ARO do not play any role in “looking into” a possible offence under s83 Parliamentary Elections Act; the duty to ‘look into the matter” lies with the Police alone,” he said.
The RO/ARO, Pee Jay added, is “neither empowered by legislation nor equipped to investigate or deal with an offence under s83 Parliamentary Elections Act”.
“I would argue that for the avoidance of any doubt, the Police should fully discharge its duties by concluding its own investigations and place on record whether it has determined if Ong Ye Kung has in fact committed an offence,” he urged.
Pee Jay also called upon the Attorney-General’s Chambers to offer its views on the matter as “this is an arrestable offence”.
On 2 July — the third day of campaigning — Mr Ong had posted a three-minute video featuring a young boy who lives in Sembawang, in which they spoke about “how it is a good place to grow up” in.
Shortly after, however, Mr Ong issued an apology and took down the video after being “informed by authorities that this is not in line with electoral rules”.
Under Section 83(1)(a) of the Parliamentary Elections Act, primary and secondary school students are prohibited from partaking in any election activities — including videos such as the one uploaded by Mr Ong.
A police report was lodged against Mr Ong over the video.
Last Saturday (18 July), however, the Elections Department (ELD) and the Singapore Police Force (SPF) in a joint statement said that the latter will be taking no further action against Mr Ong as the Assistant Returning Officer (ARO) “had looked into the matter”.
Their statement added that the ARO “had issued an advisory to Mr Ong Ye Kung to remind him to comply with the law in relation to all campaigning activities”.
Commenters criticised what they branded as a form of “double standards”, as politicians from alternative parties may not be treated as leniently.
One has to note that back in 2016, it was the ARO who filed police reports against individuals and entities for violation of cooling off day regulation where Teo Soh Lung and Roy Ngerng had their house ransacked and electronic devices seized by the police.
The statement from the ELD back then to justify the police reports was “Given the blatant disregard of the (rules) in the Bukit Batok by-election, the Assistant Returning Officer decided to make police reports so that the police could investigate.”
It added: “As part of the investigations, the police need to examine for evidentiary purposes electronic devices used to publish the online postings. As such, these devices had to be seized. When the investigations are completed, the police will make their recommendations to the Attorney-General’s Chambers.”
It took about ten months of investigation before the police dropped those cases with stern warnings issued while in the case of Mr Ong, no investigation by the police was even needed to dismiss the report.
Share this:
No data found.
No data found.
How come. Minoritiea are not on the list? Even US has matured and accepted reality
Many within the party tried to sabo Chan through subordinates but his popularity is well-reflected in this poll. 
Last edited:
i support sunxueling and tinpeilingIf you support Chan, kee chiu and salute him!
not in the options available in this thread
haaaa
Tats why i vote for OYK. Havent seen him tekan oppie. Same for Tharma. But hes not tat young.
KNN imuho many people would think you need to have this this this and that that to be a pm but actually all wrong KNN my uncle think many average iq sinkie with good eq also can be a pm becas most of the work are done by other people while the pm make critical leecision KNN it doesn't mean that smart or highly qualified people then can make the correct leecision KNN eg if my uncle is the pm sg would not have any covid19 cases at all from the beginning becas my uncle had made a quick witted best leecision for the sake of the cuntry KNN eg2 my uncle would have steer sinkie losers to have over a mil $ in savings earning an average of $3.5k KNN this is what a pm is for KNN
If my uncle is the pm sg will be saved but all the leech business conman will be in big trouble KNN my uncle will make law to disallow losers to get married or buy house KNN salary ranges from 3k to 10k max KNN noone shall earn more than 10k KNN education fee at all levels will be from the state and whoever can study get the higher celery KNN ceo pay cap at 10k KNN you may ask then who want to be ceo ? My uncle say KNN you ask the higher qualified to get 10k being a ceo or 10k being a labourer he will also choose to be a ceo correct ? KNN prison will be expanded to cater for all the law breakers becas expected to have many losers KNN in summary wealth will be leestributed in the range of 3k to 10k for a typical worker KNN there is then equality and the sg pledge will make complete sense KNN
Last edited:
Should be Kim saluteIf you support Chan, kee chiu and salute him!
Tharman is only 64. Why not Tharman
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
