-
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.
The Workers' Party
- Thread starter sengkang
- Start date
from TR Emeritius
The ruling party has made it clear many times by telling the opposition parties that they are not there to help them get into Parliament. The opposition parties must work for it to win the votes of the people. Why should the PAP make it easy for them? This is politics. You expect the PAP or any ruling party to make things easy for the opposition? Grow up. And it is a fair statement and position to take for the ruling party or any ruling party.
Similarly, it is not the job of the opposition parties to make it easy for the ruling party. Their job is to oppose any policy and expose their flaws. Of course no need to anyhow shoot when a policy is good lah. That would only make the opposition unreasonable. But can always keep quite or say that it was expected, good policies are expected. And after being paid obscenely still expects to be kissed and patted on the head? What if bad policies?
It is not the job of opposition parties to praise the ruling party. If they chose to, it is ok, but it is not their duty to do so. Just because the ruling party asked them to praise them does it mean that they must obey, and dutifully praise the ruling party? Are they that easy to train?
And it is not their duty to jump the gun to prove that they are reasonable, to attack anyone from the opposition or critics of the govt for any missteps or mistakes. Reasonable they must be but no need to be compliance. Why is it the duty of the opposition politicians to appease the ruling party to prove that they are good boys? And to jump to attack anyone that they think have crossed the line and must be whacked, and to whacked first to look reasonable, to justify themselves to be in the good books of the ruling party? Idiots.
There is no need to put yourself in the good books of the ruling party if you are on the other side of divide. Unless you want the ruling party to give you a pat and say ‘good boy’, or you want to cross over. In the eyes of any ruling party, the opposition parties are opposition parties, waiting to replace them, not friends in politics and the struggle for power, and could even be regarded as ‘enemies’ to some with very strong views. That is why they will be attacked and attacked ruthlessly when they crossed the line or make a mistake. Apologies not enough, must also explain.
In realpolitiks it is a competition of opposition camps for the right to rule. Though it is good to be on friendly terms on a personal basis, there is no need to score brownie points to be on the good side of the opposing parties. It would be silly to attack fellow opposition members or critics just to prove you are reasonable. You really think the ruling party will appreciate that? Or would they be laughing themselves silly at your stupidity, so quick to draw the sword to kill your comrades in arms for your enemies.
Do I make any sense? Should opposition politicians prove that they are whiter than white to be dictated by the whites, to please the whites?
Chua Chin Leng AKA RedBean
The ruling party has made it clear many times by telling the opposition parties that they are not there to help them get into Parliament. The opposition parties must work for it to win the votes of the people. Why should the PAP make it easy for them? This is politics. You expect the PAP or any ruling party to make things easy for the opposition? Grow up. And it is a fair statement and position to take for the ruling party or any ruling party.
Similarly, it is not the job of the opposition parties to make it easy for the ruling party. Their job is to oppose any policy and expose their flaws. Of course no need to anyhow shoot when a policy is good lah. That would only make the opposition unreasonable. But can always keep quite or say that it was expected, good policies are expected. And after being paid obscenely still expects to be kissed and patted on the head? What if bad policies?
It is not the job of opposition parties to praise the ruling party. If they chose to, it is ok, but it is not their duty to do so. Just because the ruling party asked them to praise them does it mean that they must obey, and dutifully praise the ruling party? Are they that easy to train?
And it is not their duty to jump the gun to prove that they are reasonable, to attack anyone from the opposition or critics of the govt for any missteps or mistakes. Reasonable they must be but no need to be compliance. Why is it the duty of the opposition politicians to appease the ruling party to prove that they are good boys? And to jump to attack anyone that they think have crossed the line and must be whacked, and to whacked first to look reasonable, to justify themselves to be in the good books of the ruling party? Idiots.
There is no need to put yourself in the good books of the ruling party if you are on the other side of divide. Unless you want the ruling party to give you a pat and say ‘good boy’, or you want to cross over. In the eyes of any ruling party, the opposition parties are opposition parties, waiting to replace them, not friends in politics and the struggle for power, and could even be regarded as ‘enemies’ to some with very strong views. That is why they will be attacked and attacked ruthlessly when they crossed the line or make a mistake. Apologies not enough, must also explain.
In realpolitiks it is a competition of opposition camps for the right to rule. Though it is good to be on friendly terms on a personal basis, there is no need to score brownie points to be on the good side of the opposing parties. It would be silly to attack fellow opposition members or critics just to prove you are reasonable. You really think the ruling party will appreciate that? Or would they be laughing themselves silly at your stupidity, so quick to draw the sword to kill your comrades in arms for your enemies.
Do I make any sense? Should opposition politicians prove that they are whiter than white to be dictated by the whites, to please the whites?
Chua Chin Leng AKA RedBean
from TR Emeritius
opposition-parties-must-be-bold-for-sporeans-sake
Wolaiye2:
October 12, 2014 at 10:24 am (Quote)
Yes, political parties must take the opportunity now to build up a support base, clearly state their political stance, philosophy and alternative policies to the PAP’s, etc. by going to HLP regularly to address the citizens. Make use of the alternative mass media, i.e. Internet, to deliver the messages, in addition to the usual house-to-house calls by legwork. Don’t be like the WP, and come alive only during the week that the govt allots for electioneering after the GE is announced. It will be too late. The window of opportunity is fast closing as the dirty govt’s next target is the banning of Youtube live streaming, which will not be available come the next GE. It’s shameful that Roy and Han HH have to show the way instead of our opposition parties
opposition-parties-must-be-bold-for-sporeans-sake
Wolaiye2:
October 12, 2014 at 10:24 am (Quote)
Yes, political parties must take the opportunity now to build up a support base, clearly state their political stance, philosophy and alternative policies to the PAP’s, etc. by going to HLP regularly to address the citizens. Make use of the alternative mass media, i.e. Internet, to deliver the messages, in addition to the usual house-to-house calls by legwork. Don’t be like the WP, and come alive only during the week that the govt allots for electioneering after the GE is announced. It will be too late. The window of opportunity is fast closing as the dirty govt’s next target is the banning of Youtube live streaming, which will not be available come the next GE. It’s shameful that Roy and Han HH have to show the way instead of our opposition parties
Yee Jenn Jong, JJ (余振忠)Madam Speaker, I understand a reason given for allowing exemptions is to allow enforcement through entities that we can better monitor. However, we need to tread this carefully as the ills of gambling are far reaching, as we have already seen from our experiences with the casinos and other forms of legalised gambling. There need to be constant monitoring of the effects of remote gambling and to restrict participation by vulnerable persons and to also restrict the type of gaming activities allowed.
While I support the broad principles of the Bill to ban remote gambling, I find that there are many unanswered questions regarding the exemption provisions. I fear that once we open the floodgates to have legalised remote gambling, we may end up with very high social costs and other unintended consequences in the future. Hence, I also ask that the Bill be committed to a Select Committee to examine the exemption provisions in detail to convince Singaporeans why exemptions are necessary and if so, how we can tighten our legislation to implement very strong safeguards.
Remote Gambling Bill – Strong Safeguards Needed
yeejj.wordpress.com
I delivered this speech during the debate on the Remote Gambling Bill on 7 October 2014. The video of speech is here. The Rise of Remote Gambling Madam Speaker, online gambling is increasingly beco...
from TR Emeritius
Ravi’s letter demanding police to return Hui Hui’s private property
Protected October 14th, 2014 | Author: Contributions
14 October 2014
Central Police Division
No. 391 New Bridge Road
Police Cantonment Complex
Block A, #03-112
Singapore 088762
Attn: Senior Investigation Officer, Inspector Wong Yu Wei
Dear Sirs,
HAN HUI HUI (NRIC NO. S*******H) WRONGFUL SEIZURE OF LEGALLY PRIVILEGED DOCUMENT
1. We act for Han Hui Hui.
2. We are instructed that our client, acting on legal advice, made a written record of the questions and her answers put to her in an interview with Senior Investigation Officer, Inspector Wong Yu Wei on 10 October 2014 at Central Police Division. This personal record was prepared so that she would have accurate details of the matters in question for her legal advisers, and as such it constituted a privileged legal communication.
3. It is a matter of the gravest concern that it appears this personal record was seized from her at the interview and has not been returned to her.
4. We request an explanation for the wrongful seizure of private property from our client.
5. We hereby serve you with a formal demand on behalf of our client for the return of the personal record to our client, who has authorised us to receive it on her behalf, not later than 1600 hours Wednesday 15 October 2014.
6. We place you on formal notice that this document is a private document over which legal professional privilege is asserted.
7. All our client’s rights are expressly reserved.
Yours faithfully,
M Ravi
Ravi’s letter demanding police to return Hui Hui’s private property
Protected October 14th, 2014 | Author: Contributions
14 October 2014
Central Police Division
No. 391 New Bridge Road
Police Cantonment Complex
Block A, #03-112
Singapore 088762
Attn: Senior Investigation Officer, Inspector Wong Yu Wei
Dear Sirs,
HAN HUI HUI (NRIC NO. S*******H) WRONGFUL SEIZURE OF LEGALLY PRIVILEGED DOCUMENT
1. We act for Han Hui Hui.
2. We are instructed that our client, acting on legal advice, made a written record of the questions and her answers put to her in an interview with Senior Investigation Officer, Inspector Wong Yu Wei on 10 October 2014 at Central Police Division. This personal record was prepared so that she would have accurate details of the matters in question for her legal advisers, and as such it constituted a privileged legal communication.
3. It is a matter of the gravest concern that it appears this personal record was seized from her at the interview and has not been returned to her.
4. We request an explanation for the wrongful seizure of private property from our client.
5. We hereby serve you with a formal demand on behalf of our client for the return of the personal record to our client, who has authorised us to receive it on her behalf, not later than 1600 hours Wednesday 15 October 2014.
6. We place you on formal notice that this document is a private document over which legal professional privilege is asserted.
7. All our client’s rights are expressly reserved.
Yours faithfully,
M Ravi
[h=5]Chen Jiaxi Bernard
[/h]<a class="_5pcq" href="https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152370391306625&set=a.485418621624.256579.530146624&type=1" rel="theater"><abbr title="Tuesday, October 14, 2014 at 1:12pm" data-utime="1413263535" data-shorten="1" class="_5ptz timestamp livetimestamp">5 hrs</abbr> · Tampines Estate, Singapore ·
The year 2015 is the seventieth anniversary of the end of the Second World War. The Malayan Peoples' Anti-Japanese Army made up of cadres from the Malayan Communist Party (MCP) was instrumental in the local resistance efforts against the Japanese. This is a historical fact and autobiographies of Chin Peng, and the works of historians such as T. N. Harper, Cheah Boon Kheng attest to that too. It is important for the state to make it known to young Singaporeans and "awaken interest in them what actually happened, what the battle was about, and why it was vital that the right side won (Teo Chee Hean, 2014)." Maybe Mr. Teo and the Singapore would like to re-acknowledge the critical roles played by the MCP during the Japanese Occupation of Malaya and Singapore just as they have reaffirmed their interpretation of the merger negotiations in recent days.
[/h]<a class="_5pcq" href="https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152370391306625&set=a.485418621624.256579.530146624&type=1" rel="theater"><abbr title="Tuesday, October 14, 2014 at 1:12pm" data-utime="1413263535" data-shorten="1" class="_5ptz timestamp livetimestamp">5 hrs</abbr> · Tampines Estate, Singapore ·
The year 2015 is the seventieth anniversary of the end of the Second World War. The Malayan Peoples' Anti-Japanese Army made up of cadres from the Malayan Communist Party (MCP) was instrumental in the local resistance efforts against the Japanese. This is a historical fact and autobiographies of Chin Peng, and the works of historians such as T. N. Harper, Cheah Boon Kheng attest to that too. It is important for the state to make it known to young Singaporeans and "awaken interest in them what actually happened, what the battle was about, and why it was vital that the right side won (Teo Chee Hean, 2014)." Maybe Mr. Teo and the Singapore would like to re-acknowledge the critical roles played by the MCP during the Japanese Occupation of Malaya and Singapore just as they have reaffirmed their interpretation of the merger negotiations in recent days.
I’d like to suggest that MOE can look at having schools open up participation of Edusave-funded enrichment courses in their schools to those that are home schooled or in the smaller religious and private schools nearby.
I’d like to suggest... See More
Debate on Education Endowment and Savings Schemes (Amendment) Bill
yeejj.wordpress.com
I delivered the following speech in Parliament on 8 October 2014. Madam Speaker, I wish to declare that I run businesses that offer...
I’d like to suggest... See More
Debate on Education Endowment and Savings Schemes (Amendment) Bill
yeejj.wordpress.com
I delivered the following speech in Parliament on 8 October 2014. Madam Speaker, I wish to declare that I run businesses that offer...
[h=2]Chen Jiaxi Bernard (陈家喜)[/h]
The WPCF will bring together the party’s various efforts and resources in community assistance in helping the underprivileged of our society, regardless of political affiliation.
WP Community Fund
Encouraging a Singaporean Society that cares and helps its disadvantaged citizens.
wpcf.sg
[h=5]Yee Jenn Jong, JJ (余振忠)[/h]
"The evening gave way to dusk as the sun sets. In less than a year, the sun will set permanently on this piece of Siglap when the residents and shops shall move out to make way for new developments. Thanks for being part of my growing up memories."
Photo documentation of our visit to the soon-to-be-demolished four blocks of HDB flats in Siglap.
Disappearing icons - Siglap HDB Flatsjoochiattoday.wordpress.com
Tucked away in the heart of Siglap and in the centre of the area defined by the Joo Chiat SMC of today are four 5-storey low-rise flats. These were built in 1962 as one of the first projects by the...
from TR Emeritius
Kelly Fuc:
October 16, 2014 at 12:11 am (Quote)
Its karma on WP for being a timid subdued , politically correct non-protesting opposition party.
And WP BERNIE BOY lambasted our Roy as if he jia bah boh sai bang.
Hope WP gets sued jialat jialat by pap. Help us have other opposition party in parliamemet.
Its rare that i support pap.
LTK, your karma is coming.
WP needs to wake up:
One reason to summarize the whole issue, WP is not good enough, PAP bullying WP cause they know WP is ineffective in Parliament. Hopefully after this incident WP will wake up and have more bites to counter the asshole LHL and BASTARD PIGS in Parliament.
Kelly Fuc:
October 16, 2014 at 12:11 am (Quote)
Its karma on WP for being a timid subdued , politically correct non-protesting opposition party.
And WP BERNIE BOY lambasted our Roy as if he jia bah boh sai bang.
Hope WP gets sued jialat jialat by pap. Help us have other opposition party in parliamemet.
Its rare that i support pap.
LTK, your karma is coming.
WP needs to wake up:
One reason to summarize the whole issue, WP is not good enough, PAP bullying WP cause they know WP is ineffective in Parliament. Hopefully after this incident WP will wake up and have more bites to counter the asshole LHL and BASTARD PIGS in Parliament.
[h=5]Pritam Singh[/h]
Made my day to see this! Ground-up movements with residents taking the initiative inevitably result in a strong community with deep roots and bonds of friendship. The Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council will do its best to support such activities as much as it can.
After MP Faisal took over in 2011, a group of resident bonsai enthusiasts came forward to suggest turning a gated compound left empty between Block 512 and Block 513, Bedok North Street 3 into a bonsai appreciation garden. After collecting feedback from the residents living near the compound and having met the residents who voluntarily formed themselves into a multi-ethnic committee to run and care for the garden on a daily basis, the bonsai appreciation garden was started about a year ago. Every Sunday, this garden is opened to residents and members of the public and according to the gardeners, groups from as far as Woodlands have visited their garden. Kudos to another ground-up initiative in the Kaki Bukit community.
(4 photos)
LikeLike · <label class="uiLinkButton comment_link" title="Leave a comment"></label> · Share
[h=5]Chen Jiaxi Bernard
Like the national narrative that it represents, dominant and far too uniform. Like the polity that it finds itself situated in, no room for alternatives. An inclusive Singapore it is (not).
[/h]
from TR Emeritius
pay how much speak how much:
October 16, 2014 at 8:57 pm (Quote)
We can even set this question in the coming PSLE Mathematics exam.
Problem sum #1:
A talented MP from the ruling party who is a lawyer can earn $100 000.00 per hour.
His allowance is $15 000.00 per month as a MP.
Calculate how much time he can allow himself to speak in the Parliament in a year, in order that the MP allowance is enough to pay for his speech, and he don’t feel underpaid by taxpayers.
Give your answer in minute and second (nearest second).
Marks will be deducted if workings are not shown.
pay how much speak how much:
October 16, 2014 at 8:57 pm (Quote)
We can even set this question in the coming PSLE Mathematics exam.
Problem sum #1:
A talented MP from the ruling party who is a lawyer can earn $100 000.00 per hour.
His allowance is $15 000.00 per month as a MP.
Calculate how much time he can allow himself to speak in the Parliament in a year, in order that the MP allowance is enough to pay for his speech, and he don’t feel underpaid by taxpayers.
Give your answer in minute and second (nearest second).
Marks will be deducted if workings are not shown.
Hougang fair went ahead as AHPETC did not agree with NEA's actions: Sylvia Lim
The two-and-a-half day trial saw Sylvia Lim, the town council's chairman, explaining why she felt NEA's "trade fair" application form was not suitable for this fair. The District Judge is expected to deliver his ruling at the end of November.
The Lunar New Year Fair at the centre of the spat between NEA and the AHPETC was held in January this year (file picture).
AHPETC chairman Sylvia Lim and her lawyers Peter Low and Terence Tan (behind) arriving the State Courts
SINGAPORE: The trial on whether the Workers' Party town council held an illegal event in January this year wrapped up on Thursday (Oct 16), with Workers' Party Member of Parliament Sylvia Lim taking the stand again for cross-examination by the National Environment Agency's (NEA) lawyer.
The Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC) is accused of organising a Lunar New Year fair without a permit. It was then issued a summons by the NEA. The event, from Jan 9 to Jan 30, comprised five stalls which sold items such as festive decorations, cookies and potted plants.
The two-and-a-half day trial saw Ms Lim, the town council's chairman, explaining why she felt NEA's "trade fair" application form was not suitable for this fair. The town council said what it had organised was a "community event" or "mini-fair" on its common areas.
During Thursday's court session, the NEA said the town council had been informed in December that a permit was required under Section 35 of the Environmental Public Health Act. The prosecution asked Ms Lim why the town council made no assertion to tell NEA that its event did not require a permit. In response, she said the town council did not have the authority to do so.
The day's session also established that the town council did not specifically tell NEA that the Lunar New Year event was a "mini fair". But Ms Lim did refer to a Jan 9 letter from Workers' Party chief Low Thia Khiang to NEA, which described the "community nature" of the event.
The prosecution said it was clear the town council accepted NEA's clarification that a permit was required when it submitted its application. In response, Ms Lim said forms were submitted as the town council wanted to avoid any problems that may occur during the Lunar New Year fair.
The prosecution also pointed to an email from NEA on Jan 10, which told the town council to cease operations of its fair until a licence is issued. Ms Lim said from this point onwards, there was no more correspondence between the town council and NEA.
She said the event in Hougang Central went ahead as the town council did not agree with NEA's actions. Even though it wanted to avoid any enforcement action, the town council agreed that "these matters" may have to be resolved in court.
The trial concluded after two other town council employees testified on the authenticity of documents presented during the trial. AHPETC lawyer Peter Low said after reviewing the evidence, he decided not to call on Hougang MP Png Eng Huat as a defence witness.
The District Judge is expected to deliver his ruling at the end of November. If the town council is found guilty, it could face a fine of up to S$1,000.
PART IV
FUNCTIONS AND POWERS OF TOWN COUNCIL
21.—(1) A Town Council shall, for the purposes of the residential and commercial property in the housing estates of the Board within the Town — (a)
control, manage and administer the common property of the residential and commercial property for the benefit of the residents of those estates
- CNA/xy
The two-and-a-half day trial saw Sylvia Lim, the town council's chairman, explaining why she felt NEA's "trade fair" application form was not suitable for this fair. The District Judge is expected to deliver his ruling at the end of November.
The Lunar New Year Fair at the centre of the spat between NEA and the AHPETC was held in January this year (file picture).
AHPETC chairman Sylvia Lim and her lawyers Peter Low and Terence Tan (behind) arriving the State Courts
SINGAPORE: The trial on whether the Workers' Party town council held an illegal event in January this year wrapped up on Thursday (Oct 16), with Workers' Party Member of Parliament Sylvia Lim taking the stand again for cross-examination by the National Environment Agency's (NEA) lawyer.
The Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC) is accused of organising a Lunar New Year fair without a permit. It was then issued a summons by the NEA. The event, from Jan 9 to Jan 30, comprised five stalls which sold items such as festive decorations, cookies and potted plants.
The two-and-a-half day trial saw Ms Lim, the town council's chairman, explaining why she felt NEA's "trade fair" application form was not suitable for this fair. The town council said what it had organised was a "community event" or "mini-fair" on its common areas.
During Thursday's court session, the NEA said the town council had been informed in December that a permit was required under Section 35 of the Environmental Public Health Act. The prosecution asked Ms Lim why the town council made no assertion to tell NEA that its event did not require a permit. In response, she said the town council did not have the authority to do so.
The day's session also established that the town council did not specifically tell NEA that the Lunar New Year event was a "mini fair". But Ms Lim did refer to a Jan 9 letter from Workers' Party chief Low Thia Khiang to NEA, which described the "community nature" of the event.
The prosecution said it was clear the town council accepted NEA's clarification that a permit was required when it submitted its application. In response, Ms Lim said forms were submitted as the town council wanted to avoid any problems that may occur during the Lunar New Year fair.
The prosecution also pointed to an email from NEA on Jan 10, which told the town council to cease operations of its fair until a licence is issued. Ms Lim said from this point onwards, there was no more correspondence between the town council and NEA.
She said the event in Hougang Central went ahead as the town council did not agree with NEA's actions. Even though it wanted to avoid any enforcement action, the town council agreed that "these matters" may have to be resolved in court.
The trial concluded after two other town council employees testified on the authenticity of documents presented during the trial. AHPETC lawyer Peter Low said after reviewing the evidence, he decided not to call on Hougang MP Png Eng Huat as a defence witness.
The District Judge is expected to deliver his ruling at the end of November. If the town council is found guilty, it could face a fine of up to S$1,000.
PART IV
FUNCTIONS AND POWERS OF TOWN COUNCIL
21.—(1) A Town Council shall, for the purposes of the residential and commercial property in the housing estates of the Board within the Town — (a)
control, manage and administer the common property of the residential and commercial property for the benefit of the residents of those estates
- CNA/xy
Last edited:
from TR Emeritius
The silence of the sheep
Protected October 17th, 2014 | Author: Contributions
The barrage of attacks against Roy Ngerng and Han Hui Hui for heckling Special Needs Children is followed by a police investigation for unlawful assembly at Hong Lim Park. Several protesters had been called up by the Police to assist in the investigation. Han Hui Hui had been called up too and so was Roy, but he was overseas.
Social media is on fire with what they see as victimisation against the two youngsters. Many netizens have stood up in their defence, to dismiss the accusations against them as senseless and baseless. Many have been working overtime digging out facts and even the constitution to prove their innocence. Other than the social media and netizens, who could the two youngsters and the protesters depend on to speak out for them? The Police are investigating a complaint against them and are unlikely to be on their side.
Could Roy and Hui Hui fall back on the politicians? Funny, this island got politicians or not? Why not a sound heard from any politician on this case? Maybe this is not a political issue and no politicians want to get involved. Politicians only want to serve the people but don’t like this kind of things. No wonder there is an eerie silence from the politicians of all stripes and colours. Hey, will the new Singaporeans First Party seize the moment?
It looks like there in only one man, other than Leong Sze Hian, that the two can rely on to defend their innocence, and in the courts of law. Yes, this is a rule of law country and the only redress is in the courts of law.
Another crowd funding coming up? This is probably the last avenue for citizens like Roy and Hui Hui that are on the wrong side of things. They have no one else to seek redress and support except the people. Isn’t it pathetic?
The politicians are so quiet. It is none of their business. See nothing, hear nothing, say nothing is the best. We are a first world country with first world politicians that are always ready to help and serve the people, but not one stepping forward to help Roy and Hui Hui.
Chua Chin Leng aka redbean
The silence of the sheep
Protected October 17th, 2014 | Author: Contributions
The barrage of attacks against Roy Ngerng and Han Hui Hui for heckling Special Needs Children is followed by a police investigation for unlawful assembly at Hong Lim Park. Several protesters had been called up by the Police to assist in the investigation. Han Hui Hui had been called up too and so was Roy, but he was overseas.
Social media is on fire with what they see as victimisation against the two youngsters. Many netizens have stood up in their defence, to dismiss the accusations against them as senseless and baseless. Many have been working overtime digging out facts and even the constitution to prove their innocence. Other than the social media and netizens, who could the two youngsters and the protesters depend on to speak out for them? The Police are investigating a complaint against them and are unlikely to be on their side.
Could Roy and Hui Hui fall back on the politicians? Funny, this island got politicians or not? Why not a sound heard from any politician on this case? Maybe this is not a political issue and no politicians want to get involved. Politicians only want to serve the people but don’t like this kind of things. No wonder there is an eerie silence from the politicians of all stripes and colours. Hey, will the new Singaporeans First Party seize the moment?
It looks like there in only one man, other than Leong Sze Hian, that the two can rely on to defend their innocence, and in the courts of law. Yes, this is a rule of law country and the only redress is in the courts of law.
Another crowd funding coming up? This is probably the last avenue for citizens like Roy and Hui Hui that are on the wrong side of things. They have no one else to seek redress and support except the people. Isn’t it pathetic?
The politicians are so quiet. It is none of their business. See nothing, hear nothing, say nothing is the best. We are a first world country with first world politicians that are always ready to help and serve the people, but not one stepping forward to help Roy and Hui Hui.
Chua Chin Leng aka redbean
[h=5]The Workers' Party Youth Wing (WPYW)[/h]Youth wing members will be out at Dhoby Ghaut tonight for their Hammer outreach. We look forward to meeting and speaking to you!Folliow us on Instagram: @wpyouthwing
[h=1]Why WP is right to seek court’s decision[/h] <time class="entry-date published" datetime="2014-10-17T10:04:53+00:00" itemprop="datePublished">October 17, 2014</time> by Andrew Loh in Main story · 17 Comments
By Andrew Loh
The trial of the Workers’ Party Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC) has ended after just two days. Five days had originally been set aside for it.
While the court takes its time to issue its judgment, expected in the latter part of November, it is good to recap why the WP had declined the offer of a composition fine by the National Environment Agency (NEA) for allegedly flouting Section 35 of the Environmental Public Health Act.
There are apparently two reasons for this.
One, the WP town council does not feel that it had done anything wrong in holding the fair.
Two, the WP felt that the NEA’s procedures were in conflict with the town council’s statutory responsibilities as laid out under the Town Councils Act.
It is this second issue of its statutory responsibilities under the Town Council Act which is the focus.
Here, the sequence of events will shed light on why the WP felt it was necessary to allow the matter to go before the court.
The WP had first notified the NEA on 20 December and asked if it required a permit to hold the Chinese New Year event.
The NEA said yes, it was required, and duly sent the AHPETC the relevant forms.
It is worth noting that at no time during the exchanges with the AHPETC in the following days did the NEA say or indicate that the AHPETC was not allowed to hold the fair.
The NEA’s only conditions were that the AHPETC submitted the relevant forms and documents in its application.
Indeed, even after the AHPETC informed the NEA that it (the AHPETC) itself was organising and running the fair, the Assistant Director (Operations, Hygiene) of NEA, Kwek Keng Chuan, told the town council on 27 December 2013:
The confirmation of this came on 6 January when the NEA sent a reminder to the AHPETC to: “Please proceed to seek approval from the following authorities…”
The NEA was referring to other government agencies such as the Singapore Civil Defence Force.
And finally, on 9 January, the NEA again asked the AHPETC to submit the “documentary approvals from all relevant agencies and local stakeholders for the trade fair to proceed.”
If the AHPETC had submitted the application and documents as NEA required and advised, the permit for the fair would in all probability have been approved and granted to AHPETC, or at least it would seem.
However, here is where the conflict arises.
5 days after the fair had started on 9 January, the Ministry of National Development (MND) sent a letter to the AHPETC on 14 January to inform the town council that it has no authority to hold such an event.
The MND letter said:
“We wish to remind the Town Council that Town Councils [sic] are set up to manage, maintain and make improvements to common property in HDB estates. Town Councils are not allowed to engage in commercial activities, including the organisation and operation of fairs, as these activities are not related to the function of management and maintenance of common property.”
Why did the NEA apparently feel that it was alright for the town council to hold the fair, as long as it met application requirements, while the MND felt otherwise?
What is even more strange is that the MND’s statement that “Town Councils are not allowed to engage in commercial activities, including the organisation and operation of fairs” does not seem to be stated anywhere in law.
The MND letter itself does not cite the relevant authorities either.
In fact, when news site Yahoo Singapore reported in January that the NEA was taking the AHPETC to court, it said that it too could not find any such rules in the law.
“Checks by Yahoo Singapore in the Town Councils Act do not show such a clause or section. Yahoo Singapore understands that this rule is a policy stance of the ministry’s.” (See here.)
If it is indeed a “policy stance”, as Yahoo reported, where is it stated?
If it is an internal ministry policy, then how are town councils (and the public) supposed to know about this?
In fact, the MND letter itself did not say it is a “policy”.
To complicate matters further, the application forms which the NEA had sent to the AHPETC had left out the term “town councils” from the list of entities allowed to hold fairs.
In earlier versions, one of which was shown to the court during the trial, it stated “town councils” as one of those organisations allowed to hold fairs.
And to make things even more murky, the AHPETC is told that it has to obtain a “letter of support” from the chairman of the Citizens’ Consultative Committee (CCC) as one of the requirements for the permit application to be valid.
So, what would you do if you are faced with these:
What if the NEA had granted the permit to the AHPETC and the latter had proceeded to hold the fair with NEA’s permit?
Would AHPETC (and in fact, NEA) have contravened MND’s apparent policy that town councils are not allowed to engage in commercial activities?
The WP is thus right in adhering to the NEA requirements as much as possible by submitting the forms it felt were applicable, while at the same time indicating in the forms that the event was not a “fair” but an “event”, and to decline the offer of a composition fine because it would not have brought clarity to the issue.
The WP is right in seeking clarity from the courts not just for the above issues and questions, but also to know where exactly the authority and responsibilities of the town councils (including PAP-run ones) lie under the Town Council Act.
This is especially so when the NEA and the MND themselves seem to contradict each other.
“We came to the conclusion that these matters may need to be resolved by the court,” said Sylvia Lim, the chairman of AHPETC, and also chairman of the WP.
Indeed.
http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2014/10/why-wp-is-right-to-seek-courts-decision/
By Andrew Loh
The trial of the Workers’ Party Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC) has ended after just two days. Five days had originally been set aside for it.
While the court takes its time to issue its judgment, expected in the latter part of November, it is good to recap why the WP had declined the offer of a composition fine by the National Environment Agency (NEA) for allegedly flouting Section 35 of the Environmental Public Health Act.
There are apparently two reasons for this.
One, the WP town council does not feel that it had done anything wrong in holding the fair.
Two, the WP felt that the NEA’s procedures were in conflict with the town council’s statutory responsibilities as laid out under the Town Councils Act.
It is this second issue of its statutory responsibilities under the Town Council Act which is the focus.
Here, the sequence of events will shed light on why the WP felt it was necessary to allow the matter to go before the court.
The WP had first notified the NEA on 20 December and asked if it required a permit to hold the Chinese New Year event.
The NEA said yes, it was required, and duly sent the AHPETC the relevant forms.
It is worth noting that at no time during the exchanges with the AHPETC in the following days did the NEA say or indicate that the AHPETC was not allowed to hold the fair.
The NEA’s only conditions were that the AHPETC submitted the relevant forms and documents in its application.
Indeed, even after the AHPETC informed the NEA that it (the AHPETC) itself was organising and running the fair, the Assistant Director (Operations, Hygiene) of NEA, Kwek Keng Chuan, told the town council on 27 December 2013:
“We note that Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC) will not appoint an operator to run the fair. In this case, AHPETC, as the organiser and operator of the fair, is required to obtain a permit from NEA before commencing the fair.
“Please submit the trade fair application with the necessary details to NEA quickly to avoid any delay in issuing the permit.”
So, clearly the NEA felt it was ok for town councils to hold such fairs, even without an operator.“Please submit the trade fair application with the necessary details to NEA quickly to avoid any delay in issuing the permit.”
The confirmation of this came on 6 January when the NEA sent a reminder to the AHPETC to: “Please proceed to seek approval from the following authorities…”
The NEA was referring to other government agencies such as the Singapore Civil Defence Force.
And finally, on 9 January, the NEA again asked the AHPETC to submit the “documentary approvals from all relevant agencies and local stakeholders for the trade fair to proceed.”
If the AHPETC had submitted the application and documents as NEA required and advised, the permit for the fair would in all probability have been approved and granted to AHPETC, or at least it would seem.
However, here is where the conflict arises.
5 days after the fair had started on 9 January, the Ministry of National Development (MND) sent a letter to the AHPETC on 14 January to inform the town council that it has no authority to hold such an event.
The MND letter said:
“We wish to remind the Town Council that Town Councils [sic] are set up to manage, maintain and make improvements to common property in HDB estates. Town Councils are not allowed to engage in commercial activities, including the organisation and operation of fairs, as these activities are not related to the function of management and maintenance of common property.”
Why did the NEA apparently feel that it was alright for the town council to hold the fair, as long as it met application requirements, while the MND felt otherwise?
What is even more strange is that the MND’s statement that “Town Councils are not allowed to engage in commercial activities, including the organisation and operation of fairs” does not seem to be stated anywhere in law.
The MND letter itself does not cite the relevant authorities either.
In fact, when news site Yahoo Singapore reported in January that the NEA was taking the AHPETC to court, it said that it too could not find any such rules in the law.
“Checks by Yahoo Singapore in the Town Councils Act do not show such a clause or section. Yahoo Singapore understands that this rule is a policy stance of the ministry’s.” (See here.)
If it is indeed a “policy stance”, as Yahoo reported, where is it stated?
If it is an internal ministry policy, then how are town councils (and the public) supposed to know about this?
In fact, the MND letter itself did not say it is a “policy”.
To complicate matters further, the application forms which the NEA had sent to the AHPETC had left out the term “town councils” from the list of entities allowed to hold fairs.
In earlier versions, one of which was shown to the court during the trial, it stated “town councils” as one of those organisations allowed to hold fairs.
And to make things even more murky, the AHPETC is told that it has to obtain a “letter of support” from the chairman of the Citizens’ Consultative Committee (CCC) as one of the requirements for the permit application to be valid.
So, what would you do if you are faced with these:
- NEA seems to say or indicate repeatedly that AHPETC could hold the fair. It even advised the AHPETC to submit the necessary documents to the NEA “quickly to avoid any delay in issuing the permit.”
- NEA requires AHPETC to obtain “letter of support” from CCC chairman to apply for a permit to hold the fair, even though the premises where the fair will be held is under the aegis of the AHPETC, as stipulated in the Town Council Act.
- NEA application forms, however, mysteriously removed “town councils” as one of the entities allowed to hold the fair.
- MND tells AHPETC, after the fair has started, that it is not allowed to hold such fairs, or “to engage in commercial activities, including the organisation and operation of fairs.”
What if the NEA had granted the permit to the AHPETC and the latter had proceeded to hold the fair with NEA’s permit?
Would AHPETC (and in fact, NEA) have contravened MND’s apparent policy that town councils are not allowed to engage in commercial activities?
The WP is thus right in adhering to the NEA requirements as much as possible by submitting the forms it felt were applicable, while at the same time indicating in the forms that the event was not a “fair” but an “event”, and to decline the offer of a composition fine because it would not have brought clarity to the issue.
The WP is right in seeking clarity from the courts not just for the above issues and questions, but also to know where exactly the authority and responsibilities of the town councils (including PAP-run ones) lie under the Town Council Act.
This is especially so when the NEA and the MND themselves seem to contradict each other.
“We came to the conclusion that these matters may need to be resolved by the court,” said Sylvia Lim, the chairman of AHPETC, and also chairman of the WP.
Indeed.
http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2014/10/why-wp-is-right-to-seek-courts-decision/
from TR Emeritius
Kiswhore Kanninathan:
October 17, 2014 at 8:19 pm (Quote)
We need more of such articles.
This writer is able to present BOTH sides of the COIN.
This gives him Credibility.
Not all opposition voters are good people.
Some just cursing to blame their misfortune on PAP.
PAP deserve to be blamed and criticized by people like Roy who
can write and speak so well presenting so many strong arguments against PAP and he base on strong evidence and statistics.
Some who vote against PAP are Ugly singaporeans.
These can give opposition a BAD image.
No one is perfect. Even Roy has made mistakes. But overall, his good outshine his Bad.
WP’s Bernie boy, on the other hand ,instead of critizing PAP’s failed CPF policies, chose to lambaste Roy for falling into an entrapment.
Bernie, you Jia Bah Boh Sai Bang is it? Boh Sai Pang can also be said as Boh Seow Pang.
Opposition will not be able to Unite because they are sinkies.
PAP cannot lose. Trust me , sinkies.
Kiswhore Kanninathan:
October 17, 2014 at 8:19 pm (Quote)
We need more of such articles.
This writer is able to present BOTH sides of the COIN.
This gives him Credibility.
Not all opposition voters are good people.
Some just cursing to blame their misfortune on PAP.
PAP deserve to be blamed and criticized by people like Roy who
can write and speak so well presenting so many strong arguments against PAP and he base on strong evidence and statistics.
Some who vote against PAP are Ugly singaporeans.
These can give opposition a BAD image.
No one is perfect. Even Roy has made mistakes. But overall, his good outshine his Bad.
WP’s Bernie boy, on the other hand ,instead of critizing PAP’s failed CPF policies, chose to lambaste Roy for falling into an entrapment.
Bernie, you Jia Bah Boh Sai Bang is it? Boh Sai Pang can also be said as Boh Seow Pang.
Opposition will not be able to Unite because they are sinkies.
PAP cannot lose. Trust me , sinkies.
The Workers' Party Youth Wing (WPYW)A fitting conclusion to Youth Hammer! Thank you all for coming by!
Similar threads
