Page 6 of 20 FirstFirst ... 23456789101116 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 180 of 573

Thread: Significant Singapore News

  1. #151
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    6,134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by teddybear View Post
    Pointing out mistakes and wrong policies is to help any party in power to improve themselves, and these are CONSTRUCTIVE by themselves! Why are people instead criticising these people instead of welcoming them? These people don't want the government to know and identify the problems and solved them to improve Singapore???!

    These people who POINTING OUT FAULTS / PROBLEMS of policies etc are already doing GREAT SERVICE to Singapore after careful and detail thinking! What more do you want? After all, they are NOT PAID MILLIONS $$$ SALARY to solve the problem!

    For example, the COMPULSORY LAND ACQUISITION introduced into LAW by Lee Kuan Yew in 196x has UNFAIRLY treated many early Singaporean landlords! On the other hand, those poor at that time will rejoice for the "robin hood strategy" by Mr Lee Kuan Yew because the government is then able to build cheap housing on these land being compulsorily acquired for many "national development", such as HDB flats, selling for a thousand dollars!
    However, the irony is that, the current DPM Tharman (see his comments below) said that "being Robin Hood not Singapore Government's strategy"! Wasn't this the strategy in early days through "compulsory land acquisition"?

    So, how???

    To increase social spending, obviously somebody has to pay for it! So, where are these additional tax revenues to come given that Singapore's GDP growth has slowed tremendously to current 2-3% per year???
    Will we see additional taxes being implemented, such as increase in GST, or other form of wealth taxes after coming General Election? Would the government ensure that "wealth taxes" are really raised from the rich, and not the general middle-income families and the lower-income families, which make up of >90% of Singapore's population? Will "no robin hood" strategy means that the additional taxes will be raised from most of the Singaporeans instead of just the truly rich????

    TITLE: Being Robin Hood not Singapore Government's strategy: DPM Tharman

    By Wong Siew Ying
    POSTED: 25 Feb 2015 01:34
    URL: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/.../1678200.html#

    Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam - speaking at MediaCorp's Budget forum, Ask the Finance Minister, on Tuesday evening (Feb 24) - says Singaporeans have to take collective responsibility to build their society.
    SINGAPORE: A day after unveiling Budget 2015 in Parliament, Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam urged Singaporeans to get involved and take a collective responsibility in building a strong society.

    Mr Tharman was speaking at MediaCorp's Budget forum, Ask the Finance Minister, on Tuesday evening (Feb 24), and he addressed wide-ranging questions about this year's Budget measures.

    This year's Budget is aimed at providing support for all Singaporeans at different phases of life - cash supplements for needy elderly in the form of the Silver Support Scheme; the SkillsFuture initiative to help Singaporeans, young and old, to continue to learn and deepen their skills; and a range of measures to help businesses innovate and expand beyond Singapore.

    SMES MUST BREAK OUT OF 'VICIOUS CIRCLE'

    Some questions raised during the hour-long forum focused on the training of employees: Whether there can be more flexibility on the range of approved courses, as well as if there are enough service providers to offer training for various industries and revamp training programmes to better suit older workers.

    Mr Tharman said that companies could consider working with trade associations to craft relevant training programmes, which could even be held within the company's premises. Larger firms can also conduct training collectively for the industries, he said.

    But he also pointed out that SMEs have to break out of a "vicious circle" in the area of staff training.

    "I think we have to tackle ageism in Singapore. There is sort of a quiet, unstated discrimination among the mid-careers and those who are in their 50s. Mid-40s and 50s, it's usually not so easy for them to get back in," said the Deputy Prime Minister.

    "They are good people, hardworking, who have accumulated a lot of experience. Sometimes a particular industry has folded, but they have got skills which are relevant to other industries, and I think collectively, employers working with the Government have to make it easy for them to come back in, give them the training required and let them prove their full worth. That's a resource for Singapore and also the right and fair thing to do for those individuals.

    "I think many of our SMEs are today in a vicious circle: No time to train people, no time to invest in the person because you are not sure if the person will be with you two years, or maybe even a year from now. As a result, people leave and turnover is higher because they are not even sure they have a future with the firm.

    "We have got to break out of that vicious circle by investing in people, giving them a sense of ownership in the firm. It is hard for SMEs individually to do it, but SMEs collectively can do it - SMEs working with industry associations, setting up their own training facilities, sharing trainers, joining forces so that each of the SME benefits from being part of that coalition."

    HIKE IN PETROL DUTY RATES

    Another question raised was about the increase in petrol duty rates at a time when global oil prices have been falling, and whether this would have a trickle-down effect.

    Said Mr Tharman: "It is of course better to raise the petrol levy when oil prices have fallen compared to when prices are going up. But the basic point is this: Petrol is used mainly by cars - it's not used by commercial vehicles, it is used mainly by all of us driving around. We have got to make sure that over time in Singapore we move towards a society that is less about driving cars - particularly driving cars during the most congested period - and more about taking public transport, and also sharing cars and basically moving towards a greener environment.

    "From time to time, some of these taxes will change, it cannot stay unchanged permanently. From time to time, we have to make an adjustment and the last adjustment was 12 years ago. The fact that oil prices have come down and pump prices have come down made it opportune to raise the duty. I will be quite frank about that - it is much better than doing it when prices are going up.

    "I am not too worried about this filtering through to the cost of living because commercial vehicles largely use diesel, and this is a cost that basically can be borne in the Budget, when we were in fact lowering costs on many other fronts. Many families who drive a car also hire a maid and they will be saving more on the maid than the additional cost of petrol."

    RAISING THE CPF SALARY CEILING

    Budget 2015 also includes measures to help Singaporeans build up their savings, among them the increase in CPF salary ceiling from S$5,000 to S$6,000. Questions were raised if this would put a squeeze on the middle-income, who will have to set aside a little more of their take-home pay for CPF contributions.

    Mr Tharman said the middle-income group will be a significant beneficiary of the move, noting that CPF is completely tax-free.

    With the salary ceiling raised, "the employers are contributing more, the individual is putting a little more into their Ordinary Account, which is usually taken out to pay for housing mortgage during the working years".

    "So, the net effect of this raise in the salary ceiling isn't very much difference for the individual, because he is putting money into his Ordinary Account and taking it out to pay his mortgage. The net effect is the employers pay more and we've got to do that in the right measure - we can't overdo it. But this increase in employer contribution is affordable in the context of a tight labour market where wages are going up anyway; all we are doing is making sure this is saved for long-term retirement."

    ROBIN HOOD? THAT'S NOT OUR STRATEGY: THARMAN

    To fund the range of measures aimed at strengthening Singapore's social security system and building skills for the future, the Government will tap on increases in revenue from higher personal income tax rates for top earners.

    Mr Tharman said: "We have got to be careful that we don't think we are Robin Hood, where you can simply take money from the rich and give it to someone else. It's in everyone's interest - especially the poor and the middle-class - that we have an economy where jobs are always available and wages can go up. That can happen if we are competitive, and we have entrepreneurs, we have professionals, we have everyone here in world-class teams - that's in everyone's interest.

    "Robin Hood makes a good newspaper commentary, but that's not our strategy. We need to spend more over the next five years in the common interest.

    "We need to have the Silver Support Scheme, we need to strengthen some of our social provisions, that's part of it and I think it is fair that those that are better off pay for it, but most of what we do is in the common interest, not of one particular group alone. If you talk about our transport infrastructure, if you talk about our hospitals, if you talk about some of our new economic infrastructure like T5 at Changi, everyone will benefit from it either because of jobs or because of cohesion.

    "To have a cohesive society you need public good that everyone shares in, and someone has to pay for it. We all pay for it: Most people pay for it by GST, those who are better off also pay for it through the property taxes which are higher than others and also income tax. So everyone pays for this common good that we are all benefiting from, but the rich pay more, and the poor get some benefits out of the system, and that's fair."

    TAKE COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY: THARMAN

    Mr Tharman's message to Singaporeans: To take collective responsibility to build their society for the future.

    Said the Deputy Prime Minister: "It is important for all of us, whenever we talk about taxes, whenever we talk about our obligations, to take a collective approach. This is our society. It is our society. We need to take collective responsibility.

    "If someone needs help, the Government should do its job, I would contribute to the Government so it can do its job, but I should also find other ways in which volunteers, community organisations, everyone gets involved. That keeps us a strong society and it keeps everyone involved in society. It's our society."


    YOU AND YOUR USUAL BULLSHIT AND LIES! WAT ELSE TO EXPECT FROM U? SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”
    ― Martin Luther King, Jr.

    OUT WITH THE SHIT TRASH

    https://www.facebook.com/shutdowntrs

  2. #152
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    6,134

    Default

    AS USUAL BULLSHIT!

    EAT THIS !!! FLY PAPER MY ASS.

    http://www.singaporelaw.sg/sglaw/law...r-2011-sghc-40

    You, [name of appellant] are charged that you, on the 10th day of September 2006 at about 12.15 pm, in the vicinity of Raffles City Shopping Centre, North Bridge Road, Singapore, which is a public place, together with the [two other appellants and three other people, ie Tan Teck Wee (“Tan”), Jeffrey George (“Jeffrey”) and Harkirat Kaur d/o Harmit Singh (“Harkirat”)], did participate in an assembly intended to demonstrate opposition to the actions of the Government, which assembly you ought reasonably to have known was held without a permit under the MOR, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Rule 5 of the said Rules.

    GO READ THE CHARGE BEFORE YOU LIE. LIE ALSO MUST HAVE FACT! BULLSHIT BLOODY LIAR!
    “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”
    ― Martin Luther King, Jr.

    OUT WITH THE SHIT TRASH

    https://www.facebook.com/shutdowntrs

  3. #153
    teddybear's Avatar
    teddybear is offline Global recession is coming....
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,800

    Default

    minority,

    DON'T bloody LIE again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


    It is clear that UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY is an offence.
    The 7 debt collectors mentioned in below news had also been arrested for UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY as well!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That is according to the statement by Police (as reported in the Newspapers)......................

    I am asking you, why the 6 PAP activists distributing "anti-WP" flyers together as a group does not constitute "UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY"?????
    (There is now even PHOTO EVIDENCE to prove that they are together distributing flyers!).

    Now, Let's see:

    (1) 5 or more people (7 debt collectors) together do something (collect debt) is an offence under "UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY". (read the news below).

    (2) 5 or more people (5 opposition activists) together do something (to demonstrate) is an offence under "UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY" (because "ASSEMBLY" held without permit). (read what minority posted).

    (3) 5 or more people (6 PAP activists) together do something (to distribute flyers) is NOT an offence and DOES NOT CONSTITUTE "UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY"??

    minority,
    Can explain What is the difference of (3) from (1) and (2)????????????

    Debt collectors who messed up Funan stall arrested for unlawful assembly
    Posted on 14 February 2015

    PHOTO: LIANHE WANBAO
    Police have arrested the debt collectors who caused a ruckus at the Food Junction foodcourt at Funan DigitaLife Mall during lunchtime last month, reports AsiaOne.

    According to a statement from the police, seven men aged between 35 and 48 have been nabbed for their involvement in a case of unlawful assembly.

    The incident occurred at about 1.20pm on Jan 15. Preliminary investigations by police revealed that the debt collectors were demanding loan repayment from one of the stall owners. It is believed that they had prevented customers from patronising the food stall during that time.

    According to the police, the identities of all seven suspects were established after an extensive probe and they were eventually arrested on Feb 12 and 13 at various locations island-wide.

    Computers, laptops and company documents were also seized as case exhibits.

    All seven suspects will be charged in Court on Feb 14 for an offence of Unlawful Assembly which is punishable with jail term of up to two years or with a fine, or both.

    The New Paper reported on Jan 22 that the debt collectors were from Double Ace Associates, and wore dark blue polo shirts with the words "Debt Recovery Unit" on the back.

    The 53-year-old stall owner, who gave his name only as Mr Zhang, told Lianhe Wanbao that he owed a supplier $21,000, but never expected the supplier to hire a debt collector to chase the debt.

    The floor of his Chinese soup stall was littered with empty bowls, styrofoam boxes, a rice cooker and a cash register after they were done. A plastic spoon and a plastic container with condiments were also reportedly thrown into a pot of soup.

    The debt collectors also returned the next day with a large banner that read "Attention. Debt collection in progress".

    However when interviewed by The New Paper, Mr Frankie Tan, the owner of Double Ace Associates, claimed the mess in the stall was not created by his employees.


    Quote Originally Posted by minority View Post
    AS USUAL BULLSHIT!

    EAT THIS !!! FLY PAPER MY ASS.

    http://www.singaporelaw.sg/sglaw/law...r-2011-sghc-40

    You, [name of appellant] are charged that you, on the 10th day of September 2006 at about 12.15 pm, in the vicinity of Raffles City Shopping Centre, North Bridge Road, Singapore, which is a public place, together with the [two other appellants and three other people, ie Tan Teck Wee (“Tan”), Jeffrey George (“Jeffrey”) and Harkirat Kaur d/o Harmit Singh (“Harkirat”)], did participate in an assembly intended to demonstrate opposition to the actions of the Government, which assembly you ought reasonably to have known was held without a permit under the MOR, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Rule 5 of the said Rules.

    GO READ THE CHARGE BEFORE YOU LIE. LIE ALSO MUST HAVE FACT! BULLSHIT BLOODY LIAR!
    Last edited by teddybear; 30-03-15 at 20:55.

  4. #154
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    6,134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by teddybear View Post
    minority,

    DON'T bloody LIE again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


    It is clear that UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY is an offence.
    The 7 debt collectors mentioned in below news had also been arrested for UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY as well!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That is according to the statement by Police (as reported in the Newspapers)......................

    I am asking you, why the 6 PAP activists distributing "anti-WP" flyers together as a group does not constitute "UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY"?????
    (There is now even PHOTO EVIDENCE to prove that they are together distributing flyers!).

    Now, Let's see:

    (1) 5 or more people (7 debt collectors) together do something (collect debt) is an offence under "UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY". (read the news below).

    (2) 5 or more people (5 opposition activists) together do something (to demonstrate) is an offence under "UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY" (because "ASSEMBLY" held without permit). (read what minority posted).

    (3) 5 or more people (6 PAP activists) together do something (to distribute flyers) is NOT an offence and DOES NOT CONSTITUTE "UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY"??

    minority,
    Can explain What is the difference of (3) from (1) and (2)????????????



    CPMMON DONT BE A LAZY TROLL. AT LEAST YOU CAN DO IS READ THE CHARGE. LIARRRRRRRRRRRRRRR~!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”
    ― Martin Luther King, Jr.

    OUT WITH THE SHIT TRASH

    https://www.facebook.com/shutdowntrs

  5. #155
    teddybear's Avatar
    teddybear is offline Global recession is coming....
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,800

    Default

    minority,
    Stop beating around the bush!

    Let me summarize what the charge is (correct me if I am wrong):
    5 people gather to do something without permit hence UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY!

    So, question to you:
    5 or more people (6 PAP activists this time) gather to do something without permit, why is it NOT CONSIDERED UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY??????

    Quote Originally Posted by minority View Post
    CPMMON DONT BE A LAZY TROLL. AT LEAST YOU CAN DO IS READ THE CHARGE. LIARRRRRRRRRRRRRRR~!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Quote Originally Posted by teddybear View Post
    minority,

    DON'T bloody LIE again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


    It is clear that UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY is an offence.
    The 7 debt collectors mentioned in below news had also been arrested for UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY as well!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That is according to the statement by Police (as reported in the Newspapers)......................

    I am asking you, why the 6 PAP activists distributing "anti-WP" flyers together as a group does not constitute "UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY"?????
    (There is now even PHOTO EVIDENCE to prove that they are together distributing flyers!).

    Now, Let's see:

    (1) 5 or more people (7 debt collectors) together do something (collect debt) is an offence under "UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY". (read the news below).

    (2) 5 or more people (5 opposition activists) together do something (to demonstrate) is an offence under "UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY" (because "ASSEMBLY" held without permit). (read what minority posted).

    (3) 5 or more people (6 PAP activists) together do something (to distribute flyers) is NOT an offence and DOES NOT CONSTITUTE "UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY"??

    minority,
    Can explain What is the difference of (3) from (1) and (2)????????????
    Quote Originally Posted by minority View Post
    AS USUAL BULLSHIT!

    EAT THIS !!! FLY PAPER MY ASS.

    http://www.singaporelaw.sg/sglaw/law...r-2011-sghc-40

    You, [name of appellant] are charged that you, on the 10th day of September 2006 at about 12.15 pm, in the vicinity of Raffles City Shopping Centre, North Bridge Road, Singapore, which is a public place, together with the [two other appellants and three other people, ie Tan Teck Wee (“Tan”), Jeffrey George (“Jeffrey”) and Harkirat Kaur d/o Harmit Singh (“Harkirat”)], did participate in an assembly intended to demonstrate opposition to the actions of the Government, which assembly you ought reasonably to have known was held without a permit under the MOR, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Rule 5 of the said Rules.

    GO READ THE CHARGE BEFORE YOU LIE. LIE ALSO MUST HAVE FACT! BULLSHIT BLOODY LIAR!

  6. #156
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    6,134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by teddybear View Post
    minority,
    Stop beating around the bush!

    Let me summarize what the charge is (correct me if I am wrong):
    5 people gather to do something without permit hence UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY!

    So, question to you:
    5 or more people (6 PAP activists this time) gather to do something without permit, why is it NOT CONSIDERED UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY??????
    STOP BEING LAZY OPPSS FORGOT YOU ARE A LIAR!!!
    “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”
    ― Martin Luther King, Jr.

    OUT WITH THE SHIT TRASH

    https://www.facebook.com/shutdowntrs

  7. #157
    teddybear's Avatar
    teddybear is offline Global recession is coming....
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,800

    Default

    Ok, so it is obvious to us that you can't explain WHY right?

    I also cannot understand why.
    Could anybody in the government help to explain why???????
    Could any journalist request for clarification from the relevant authority the reason why?


    Quote Originally Posted by minority View Post
    STOP BEING LAZY OPPSS FORGOT YOU ARE A LIAR!!!
    Quote Originally Posted by teddybear View Post
    minority,
    Stop beating around the bush!

    Let me summarize what the charge is (correct me if I am wrong):
    5 people gather to do something without permit hence UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY!

    So, question to you:
    5 or more people (6 PAP activists this time) gather to do something without permit, why is it NOT CONSIDERED UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY??????

  8. #158
    teddybear's Avatar
    teddybear is offline Global recession is coming....
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,800

    Default

    minority,

    So your lies have been exposed and you have gone into hiding??????????????


    Quote Originally Posted by teddybear View Post
    Ok, so it is obvious to us that you can't explain WHY right?

    I also cannot understand why.
    Could anybody in the government help to explain why???????
    Could any journalist request for clarification from the relevant authority the reason why?
    Quote Originally Posted by teddybear
    minority,
    Stop beating around the bush!

    Let me summarize what the charge is (correct me if I am wrong):
    5 people gather to do something without permit hence UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY!

    So, question to you:
    5 or more people (6 PAP activists this time) gather to do something without permit, why is it NOT CONSIDERED UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY??????
    Quote Originally Posted by teddybear View Post
    minority,

    DON'T bloody LIE again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


    It is clear that UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY is an offence.
    The 7 debt collectors mentioned in below news had also been arrested for UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY as well!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That is according to the statement by Police (as reported in the Newspapers)......................

    I am asking you, why the 6 PAP activists distributing "anti-WP" flyers together as a group does not constitute "UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY"?????
    (There is now even PHOTO EVIDENCE to prove that they are together distributing flyers!).

    Now, Let's see:

    (1) 5 or more people (7 debt collectors) together do something (collect debt) is an offence under "UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY". (read the news below).

    (2) 5 or more people (5 opposition activists) together do something (to demonstrate) is an offence under "UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY" (because "ASSEMBLY" held without permit). (read what minority posted).

    (3) 5 or more people (6 PAP activists) together do something (to distribute flyers) is NOT an offence and DOES NOT CONSTITUTE "UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY"??

    minority,
    Can explain What is the difference of (3) from (1) and (2)????????????

  9. #159
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    6,134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by teddybear View Post
    Ok, so it is obvious to us that you can't explain WHY right?

    I also cannot understand why.
    Could anybody in the government help to explain why???????
    Could any journalist request for clarification from the relevant authority the reason why?
    IF YOU ARE TOO DUMB AND BLIND OR JUST PLAIN FOCUS ON SPREADING LIES WHAT THERE TO EXPLAIN TO YOU? A AND ITS ALREADY EXPLAIN BUT IF YOU ARE TOO CLOUDED TO EVEN SEE OR BOTHER TO EVEN LOOK AT THE CHARGE THAT IS NOT MY BLOODY PROBLEM. DUMBNESS HAVE NO CURE. BUT THEN YOU ARE JUST A PLAIN LAIR SO WHO THE F CARE?
    “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”
    ― Martin Luther King, Jr.

    OUT WITH THE SHIT TRASH

    https://www.facebook.com/shutdowntrs

  10. #160
    teddybear's Avatar
    teddybear is offline Global recession is coming....
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,800

    Default

    minority,
    as usual, beat around the bush, don't dare to answer my question directly!

    But what to expect from a LIAR and a SCOUNDREL like you with ZERO INTEGRITY AND HONESTY?????????????



    Quote Originally Posted by minority View Post
    IF YOU ARE TOO DUMB AND BLIND OR JUST PLAIN FOCUS ON SPREADING LIES WHAT THERE TO EXPLAIN TO YOU? A AND ITS ALREADY EXPLAIN BUT IF YOU ARE TOO CLOUDED TO EVEN SEE OR BOTHER TO EVEN LOOK AT THE CHARGE THAT IS NOT MY BLOODY PROBLEM. DUMBNESS HAVE NO CURE. BUT THEN YOU ARE JUST A PLAIN LAIR SO WHO THE F CARE?
    Quote Originally Posted by teddybear View Post
    minority,

    DON'T bloody LIE again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


    It is clear that UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY is an offence.
    The 7 debt collectors mentioned in below news had also been arrested for UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY as well!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That is according to the statement by Police (as reported in the Newspapers)......................

    I am asking you, why the 6 PAP activists distributing "anti-WP" flyers together as a group does not constitute "UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY"?????
    (There is now even PHOTO EVIDENCE to prove that they are together distributing flyers!).

    Now, Let's see:

    (1) 5 or more people (7 debt collectors) together do something (collect debt) is an offence under "UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY". (read the news below).

    (2) 5 or more people (5 opposition activists) together do something (to demonstrate) is an offence under "UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY" (because "ASSEMBLY" held without permit). (read what minority posted).

    (3) 5 or more people (6 PAP activists) together do something (to distribute flyers) is NOT an offence and DOES NOT CONSTITUTE "UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY"??

    minority,
    Can explain What is the difference of (3) from (1) and (2)????????????

  11. #161
    teddybear's Avatar
    teddybear is offline Global recession is coming....
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,800

    Default Should we respect will of a person to the extend of over-riding national interest?

    Should we respect will of a person to the extend of over-riding national interest?

    This is an interesting question, regarding the house of Mr Lee Kuan Yew, which is more or less in original form since Singapore's independence. The house has great significance to Singapore, from the fight for Singapore's independence to now SG50.

    Because of this, Singaporeans have high regard for Mr Lee Kuan Yew's historical house, which they regard as a form of "historical monument" for Singapore. Furthermore, Singapore really has a lack of "national monuments" of some sort, some monument that Singaporeans can say "this is about Singapore", "made in Singapore", part of the "history of Singapore" etc!

    However, ironically, we were now told that Mr Lee Kuan Yew had explicitly requested for the house to be demolish after his death instead. If the government allows them to do so, then many people may feel that it is akin to allowing them to erase "part of the history" of Singapore!

    So, now the interesting question that should be subjected to debate is:

    Should we respect will of a person (regardless of who he is) to the extend of over-riding national interest?


    Lee Hsien Yang, Wei Ling urge Singaporeans to respect Lee Kuan Yew’s wishes on Oxley home

    POSTED: 12 Apr 2015 18:55
    URL: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/...g/1779720.html

    Mr Lee Kuan Yew had stated in his will his wish that his house be demolished after his death, according to the statement issued on Sunday (Apr 12).
    SINGAPORE: Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Ms Lee Wei Ling have issued a statement via their law firm reiterating their father Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s wishes regarding his house on Oxley Road.

    In the statement issued on Sunday (Apr 12), the two Lee children said that it was their father’s wish, as stated in his will, that the house be demolished upon his death or after Ms Lee has moved out.

    Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong will address the issue of his father's home at Oxley Road in Parliament on Monday (Apr 13), Channel NewsAsia understands.

    The statement in full reads as follows:

    We would like to thank Singaporeans for sharing in our grief on the passing of our late father, Lee Kuan Yew, on 23rd March, 2015. We have been deeply touched by the huge outpouring of affection for and respect of our father. We humbly thank each of you.

    Our late father, Lee Kuan Yew, appointed the two of us as the executors and trustees of his last will and testament dated 17th December 2013 (“Lee Kuan Yew Will”).

    In his Lee Kuan Yew Will, he stated, “I further declare that it is my wish, and the wish of my late wife, KWA GEOK CHOO, that our house at 38 Oxley Road, Singapore 238629 (“the House”) be demolished immediately after my death or if my daughter, Wei Ling, would prefer to continue living in the original house, immediately after she moves out of the House. I would ask each of my children to ensure our wishes with respect to the demolition of the House be carried out.”

    Our father has made public this wish on many occasions, including in his book Hard Truths to Keep Singapore Going. In addition, both our parents have expressed this same wish with respect to our family home to their children in private on numerous occasions. Indeed, he stated in his Lee Kuan Yew Will that “My view on this has been made public before and remains unchanged.”

    Our father was well aware of calls to somehow preserve his home. His wish both expressed to us privately, and publicly was unwavering, and was for the house to be torn down upon his passing. He was concerned an order might be issued against his wishes.

    He therefore added in his Lee Kuan Yew Will that “If our children are unable to demolish the House as a result of any changes in the law, rules or regulations binding them, it is my wish that the House never be opened to others except my children, their families and descendants.”

    We have a duty (as executors and trustees of his Lee Kuan Yew Will) and a moral obligation (as his children) to ensure that his Lee Kuan Yew Will is administered strictly as stated. He has given us clear instructions directly and in his Lee Kuan Yew Will to demolish the house either immediately after his death, or if Wei Ling continues to live in the original house, then immediately after she moves out of the House.

    Our father has given his life in service to the people of Singapore. We hope that the people of Singapore will honour and respect his stated wish in his last will and testament.

    Lee Wei Ling and Lee Hsien Yang
    12th April 2015

  12. #162
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    521

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by teddybear View Post
    Should we respect will of a person to the extend of over-riding national interest?

    This is an interesting question, regarding the house of Mr Lee Kuan Yew, which is more or less in original form since Singapore's independence. The house has great significance to Singapore, from the fight for Singapore's independence to now SG50.

    Because of this, Singaporeans have high regard for Mr Lee Kuan Yew's historical house, which they regard as a form of "historical monument" for Singapore. Furthermore, Singapore really has a lack of "national monuments" of some sort, some monument that Singaporeans can say "this is about Singapore", "made in Singapore", part of the "history of Singapore" etc!

    However, ironically, we were now told that Mr Lee Kuan Yew had explicitly requested for the house to be demolish after his death instead. If the government allows them to do so, then many people may feel that it is akin to allowing them to erase "part of the history" of Singapore!

    So, now the interesting question that should be subjected to debate is:

    Should we respect will of a person (regardless of who he is) to the extend of over-riding national interest?
    I have to say that "anything LKY supported, teddy would disagreed. Anything LKY disagreed, teddy would agree".

    If the house is LKY's private property, it is little of teddy's business, even if he is really in the favour of Singapore.
    no one has the right to set up a special law to restrict late LKY and his family's decision.

  13. #163
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    4,035

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lionhill View Post
    I have to say that "anything LKY supported, teddy would disagreed. Anything LKY disagreed, teddy would agree".

    If the house is LKY's private property, it is little of teddy's business, even if he is really in the favour of Singapore.
    no one has the right to set up a special law to restrict late LKY and his family's decision.
    I think is because of people who think like him that Mr LKY wants to demolish the building. Who knows what he can do if he enters that building...
    The three laws of Kelonguni:

    Where there is kelong, there is guni.
    No kelong no guni.
    More kelong = more guni.

  14. #164
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    3,721

    Default

    The son is the prime minister, lol. And the house will be demolished as stated in father's will. These petiton people really has nothing better to do, or are they trying to gain attention for themselves?

  15. #165
    teddybear's Avatar
    teddybear is offline Global recession is coming....
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,800

    Default Should Government protect and enforce "National Interest" over "Personal Interest"?

    My response to your comments:

    1) "I have to say that "anything LKY supported, teddy would disagreed. Anything LKY disagreed, teddy would agree"."

    No you are wrong, you arrive at the wrong conclusion. I will agree with LKY when he is/was right.

    2) "If the house is LKY's private property, it is little of teddy's business, even if he is really in the favour of Singapore.
    no one has the right to set up a special law to restrict late LKY and his family's decision.
    "

    Yes, the house is LKY's private property, you said it very well indeed!

    But why you say "no one has the right to set up a special law to restrict late LKY and his family's decision."?
    You are utterly and totally WRONG indeed, and Mr LKY had proven you wrong!!!!!

    Let me bring you back to 1960s - A person called Lee Kuan Yew leading the Singapore Government at that time championed the "Compulsory Land Acquisition" Act in the name of "National Development" for Singapore Government to compulsorily acquire land from land-owners in Singapore. According to news and reports, many of the land were acquired at below market rate and hence many Singaporeans had appealed against the low compensation but was unable to prevent their land from being forcibly acquired despite the low compensation.

    So, you are telling us that YOU ARE NOW telling LKY in the face that:
    "hei, the land is the private property of many Singaporeans in Singapore, it is little of LKY's business! no one has the right to set up a special law to restrict these landowners decision and to force them to sell their land to the Singapore government!"?


    Does the above make sense? NO!
    The government at time (under the leadership of LKY) was doing it (legislating "Compulsory Land Acquisition" Act) for the "National Interest" and hence was over-riding and sacrificed the "Personal Interest" of many Singaporean land-owners!

    Coming back to now,
    LKY's house is like a Singapore historical national monument, and Singapore really lacks historical national monument! Many Singaporeans are NOW calling for LKY's house to be preserved/conserved and retained as a museum to teach our young about history of Singapore, the difficult path from Singapore's fight for independence until now in 2015's SG50 etc.
    So, should the government now (under the leader of LHL) be over-riding "National Interst" (in the form of preserving LKY's house as a National Monument and may be changed it into a museum) just for ONE INDIVIDUAL's "Personal Interest"?

    We will wait and see the outcome.......................

    Remember:
    *** Many people's "Personal Interest" (their ownership of their land) had been over-rided and sacrificed for "National Interest" by the Singapore government (under leadership of LKY) in the 1960s.

    *** Now in 2015, Will "National Interest" be over-rided and sacrificed for the "Personal Interest" of ONE INDIVIDUAL (LKY)?



    Quote Originally Posted by lionhill View Post
    I have to say that "anything LKY supported, teddy would disagreed. Anything LKY disagreed, teddy would agree".

    If the house is LKY's private property, it is little of teddy's business, even if he is really in the favour of Singapore.
    no one has the right to set up a special law to restrict late LKY and his family's decision.
    Quote Originally Posted by teddybear View Post
    Should we respect will of a person to the extend of over-riding national interest?

    This is an interesting question, regarding the house of Mr Lee Kuan Yew, which is more or less in original form since Singapore's independence. The house has great significance to Singapore, from the fight for Singapore's independence to now SG50.

    Because of this, Singaporeans have high regard for Mr Lee Kuan Yew's historical house, which they regard as a form of "historical monument" for Singapore. Furthermore, Singapore really has a lack of "national monuments" of some sort, some monument that Singaporeans can say "this is about Singapore", "made in Singapore", part of the "history of Singapore" etc!

    However, ironically, we were now told that Mr Lee Kuan Yew had explicitly requested for the house to be demolish after his death instead. If the government allows them to do so, then many people may feel that it is akin to allowing them to erase "part of the history" of Singapore!

    So, now the interesting question that should be subjected to debate is:

    Should we respect will of a person (regardless of who he is) to the extend of over-riding national interest?

  16. #166
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    6,134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by teddybear View Post
    Should we respect will of a person to the extend of over-riding national interest?

    This is an interesting question, regarding the house of Mr Lee Kuan Yew, which is more or less in original form since Singapore's independence. The house has great significance to Singapore, from the fight for Singapore's independence to now SG50.

    Because of this, Singaporeans have high regard for Mr Lee Kuan Yew's historical house, which they regard as a form of "historical monument" for Singapore. Furthermore, Singapore really has a lack of "national monuments" of some sort, some monument that Singaporeans can say "this is about Singapore", "made in Singapore", part of the "history of Singapore" etc!

    However, ironically, we were now told that Mr Lee Kuan Yew had explicitly requested for the house to be demolish after his death instead. If the government allows them to do so, then many people may feel that it is akin to allowing them to erase "part of the history" of Singapore!

    So, now the interesting question that should be subjected to debate is:

    Should we respect will of a person (regardless of who he is) to the extend of over-riding national interest?


    THIS IS THE USUAL BULLSHIT FROM YOU. DISAGREE FOR THE SAKE OF DISAGREE ITS A PRIVATE PROPERTY AND ITS LKY OWN WILL THEY CAN BUILD A PARKING LOT ON IT IF THATS WHAT HE WANT IT TO BE. SO ITS NON OF YOUR BUSINESS TO TALK COCK SING SONG .

    I CALL YOU A BULL SHIT!
    “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”
    ― Martin Luther King, Jr.

    OUT WITH THE SHIT TRASH

    https://www.facebook.com/shutdowntrs

  17. #167
    teddybear's Avatar
    teddybear is offline Global recession is coming....
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,800

    Default

    What? minority the SUPER LIAR and SCOUNDREL still around here? Hei, you still HAVEN'T answer my previous queries to you!!!!!!!!!!!

    As usual, you are a REAL COWARD, don't dare to answer my queries directly!!!!!!!!!!
    Is it because you have been exposed as a LIAR again and again and afraid that your lies will be exposed again?????????

    LKY property is a private property? According to many Singaporeans, they consider it a National Monument which is subjected to National Interest, part of the history of Singapore!!!!!!!!!!!! Without it, there will be no Singapore today!
    LKY himself championed that "National Interest" must over-ride "Personal Interest" of many Singaporeans!
    Now you are telling us that the "Personal Interest" of just ONE SINGLE INDIVIDUAL can over-ride "National Interest"???????

    Hello, minority, why you so super double face double standard with doubly dubious character?????????????


    Quote Originally Posted by minority View Post
    THIS IS THE USUAL BULLSHIT FROM YOU. DISAGREE FOR THE SAKE OF DISAGREE ITS A PRIVATE PROPERTY AND ITS LKY OWN WILL THEY CAN BUILD A PARKING LOT ON IT IF THATS WHAT HE WANT IT TO BE. SO ITS NON OF YOUR BUSINESS TO TALK COCK SING SONG .

    I CALL YOU A BULL SHIT!

    Quote Originally Posted by teddybear View Post
    My response to your comments:

    1) "I have to say that "anything LKY supported, teddy would disagreed. Anything LKY disagreed, teddy would agree"."

    No you are wrong, you arrive at the wrong conclusion. I will agree with LKY when he is/was right.

    2) "If the house is LKY's private property, it is little of teddy's business, even if he is really in the favour of Singapore.
    no one has the right to set up a special law to restrict late LKY and his family's decision.
    "

    Yes, the house is LKY's private property, you said it very well indeed!

    But why you say "no one has the right to set up a special law to restrict late LKY and his family's decision."?
    You are utterly and totally WRONG indeed, and Mr LKY had proven you wrong!!!!!

    Let me bring you back to 1960s - A person called Lee Kuan Yew leading the Singapore Government at that time championed the "Compulsory Land Acquisition" Act in the name of "National Development" for Singapore Government to compulsorily acquire land from land-owners in Singapore. According to news and reports, many of the land were acquired at below market rate and hence many Singaporeans had appealed against the low compensation but was unable to prevent their land from being forcibly acquired despite the low compensation.

    So, you are telling us that YOU ARE NOW telling LKY in the face that:
    "hei, the land is the private property of many Singaporeans in Singapore, it is little of LKY's business! no one has the right to set up a special law to restrict these landowners decision and to force them to sell their land to the Singapore government!"?


    Does the above make sense? NO!
    The government at time (under the leadership of LKY) was doing it (legislating "Compulsory Land Acquisition" Act) for the "National Interest" and hence was over-riding and sacrificed the "Personal Interest" of many Singaporean land-owners!

    Coming back to now,
    LKY's house is like a Singapore historical national monument, and Singapore really lacks historical national monument! Many Singaporeans are NOW calling for LKY's house to be preserved/conserved and retained as a museum to teach our young about history of Singapore, the difficult path from Singapore's fight for independence until now in 2015's SG50 etc.
    So, should the government now (under the leader of LHL) be over-riding "National Interst" (in the form of preserving LKY's house as a National Monument and may be changed it into a museum) just for ONE INDIVIDUAL's "Personal Interest"?

    We will wait and see the outcome.......................

    Remember:
    *** Many people's "Personal Interest" (their ownership of their land) had been over-rided and sacrificed for "National Interest" by the Singapore government (under leadership of LKY) in the 1960s.

    *** Now in 2015, Will "National Interest" be over-rided and sacrificed for the "Personal Interest" of ONE INDIVIDUAL (LKY)?

  18. #168
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    6,134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by teddybear View Post
    What? minority the SUPER LIAR and SCOUNDREL still around here? Hei, you still HAVEN'T answer my previous queries to you!!!!!!!!!!!

    As usual, you are a REAL COWARD, don't dare to answer my queries directly!!!!!!!!!!
    Is it because you have been exposed as a LIAR again and again and afraid that your lies will be exposed again?????????

    LKY property is a private property? According to many Singaporeans, they consider it a National Monument which is subjected to National Interest, part of the history of Singapore!!!!!!!!!!!! Without it, there will be no Singapore today!
    LKY himself championed that "National Interest" must over-ride "Personal Interest" of many Singaporeans!
    Now you are telling us that the "Personal Interest" of just ONE SINGLE INDIVIDUAL can over-ride "National Interest"???????

    Hello, minority, why you so super double face double standard with doubly dubious character?????????????
    REPLY U? NO NEED TO REPLY YOU LAH. COZ YOU KNOW ALL THE BULLSHIT THERE IS. SO WHATS THERE TO REPLY U!!!!

    BUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I CAN TELL U!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    U ARE FULL OF LIES AND BULLSHIT!

    THAT I CAN TELL U IN YOUR STUPID LYING FACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! EAT IT DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”
    ― Martin Luther King, Jr.

    OUT WITH THE SHIT TRASH

    https://www.facebook.com/shutdowntrs

  19. #169
    teddybear's Avatar
    teddybear is offline Global recession is coming....
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,800

    Default

    As usual, no sign of intelligent response, or rather, really idiotic and out of sync, doesn't make any COW sense..............

    Caught him so many times telling lies and trying to mislead until lost count!

    Is minority posting here done by a web robot? No wonder full of contradictions, lies, bullshits, double face, double standard, of dubious character, without integrity and honesty despite constantly preaching these to us, like its master "minority"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Anyway, give minority 1 more chance to response sensibly like a proper human (not some cow-dung or shit):

    *** According to history, Many people's "Personal Interest" (their ownership of their land) had been over-rided and sacrificed for "National Interest" by the Singapore government (under leadership of LKY) in the 1960s (despite the land-owners' objections).

    *** Now in 2015, Will "National Interest" (of a potential historical singapore national monument in the form of a century-old house of LKY) be over-rided and sacrificed for the "Personal Interest" of ONE INDIVIDUAL (because he insisted to demolish the house after his death or after his daughter is no longer living there)?

    Quote Originally Posted by minority View Post
    REPLY U? NO NEED TO REPLY YOU LAH. COZ YOU KNOW ALL THE BULLSHIT THERE IS. SO WHATS THERE TO REPLY U!!!!

    BUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I CAN TELL U!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    U ARE FULL OF LIES AND BULLSHIT!

    THAT I CAN TELL U IN YOUR STUPID LYING FACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! EAT IT DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Quote Originally Posted by teddybear View Post
    What? minority the SUPER LIAR and SCOUNDREL still around here? Hei, you still HAVEN'T answer my previous queries to you!!!!!!!!!!!

    As usual, you are a REAL COWARD, don't dare to answer my queries directly!!!!!!!!!!
    Is it because you have been exposed as a LIAR again and again and afraid that your lies will be exposed again?????????

    LKY property is a private property? According to many Singaporeans, they consider it a National Monument which is subjected to National Interest, part of the history of Singapore!!!!!!!!!!!! Without it, there will be no Singapore today!
    LKY himself championed that "National Interest" must over-ride "Personal Interest" of many Singaporeans!
    Now you are telling us that the "Personal Interest" of just ONE SINGLE INDIVIDUAL can over-ride "National Interest"???????

    Hello, minority, why you so super double face double standard with doubly dubious character?????????????
    Last edited by teddybear; 14-04-15 at 13:17.

  20. #170
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    650

    Default Straddling fine line between public and private wishes

    http://www.asianewsnet.net/news-74078.html

    Straddling fine line between public and private wishes

    Fiona Chan
    The Straits Times
    Publication Date : 14-04-2015

    The biggest struggle for any public figure is the sacrifice of some personal desires.

    It was a trade-off that the late Lee Kuan Yew faced over and over again, from missing out on seeing his children grow up while he was busy building a nation, to arguing with the Cabinet in 2011 over whether his house should become a museum - against his and his wife's wishes - after his death.

    Now, the task of balancing public interest with private preferences has fallen on his son, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, who yesterday reiterated in Parliament that his father had strenuously opposed preserving 38, Oxley Road as a relic to his memory.

    The late Mr Lee had "seen too many other houses of famous people 'kept frozen in time... as a monument with people tramping in and out'. They invariably 'become shabby'," PM Lee recalled his father saying. In front of a packed House, he also recounted his mother's distress at the thought of strangers traipsing through her private spaces long after her death. Noting that his father had asked in his will for his house to be "demolished immediately" after his death, PM Lee said: "Speaking as a son, I would like to see these wishes carried out."

    Yet, PM Lee has his own fine line to toe between his filial responsibilities as a son and his official obligations as head of government.

    Since his father's death on March 23, the calls to preserve 38, Oxley Road have grown louder, with an online petition to save the house gathering 1,700 signatures in about a week and polls showing strong support for such a move.

    These calls are not disrespectful or deliberately dismissive of the late Mr and Mrs Lee's wishes.

    They simply reflect the desire to preserve an irreplaceable artefact: the house where Mr Lee and his colleagues founded the People's Action Party and decided to contest the 1955 elections, setting Singapore on the path to independence. It was also where Mr Lee, who chose to live there instead of moving into Sri Temasek, worked into the night on issues that shaped the country. And it was where PM Lee and his siblings grew up and gained their first exposure to politics, with a young PM Lee absorbing the excitement whenever his home was turned into election headquarters to prepare for the polls.

    At yesterday's sitting, Nominated MP Chia Yong Yong suggested that memorials have little impact on citizens' lives and national identity, and proposed focusing instead on how to pass down Mr Lee's ideals to the next generation, such as by teaching them in schools.

    But this underestimates the power that physical symbols hold in education and nation-building.

    A country's history and values are difficult to absorb from even the best textbooks. They are better imbibed when brought to life, such as through museums or conserved buildings - including the Shakespearean houses in Stratford-upon-Avon, where the late Mr and Mrs Lee were married in 1947.

    Indeed, PM Lee's response to Ms Chia noted the need for a solid "form for abstract ideals to focus the mind, to generate the emotion and to bond people". The national mourning and state funeral service for the elder Mr Lee made this clear, he added.

    "It's a form, right? But it meant something to the participants and it left an indelible mark and it changed them," he said.

    In a year packed with SG50 events celebrating Singapore's heritage, Mr Lee's death has catalysed an organic groundswell of interest in national history that no orchestrated initiative can match.

    Many younger Singaporeans said they had learnt more about the country's past from the eulogies and newspaper articles over the week of national mourning than they ever did in school.

    Other suggestions yesterday by MPs Ang Wei Neng (Jurong GRC) and Irene Ng (Tampines GRC) to create a virtual tour of 38, Oxley Road, or to donate its furniture to a museum, would help keep the memory of the house alive in some way. But they would not create the same immersive and participatory experience future generations could have walking through the rooms where history was made, and seeing the simple furniture and fittings that embodied Mr Lee's lifelong ideals of pragmatism and thrift. Barriers could be erected to keep Mr and Mrs Lee's private rooms closed, with only the significant common spaces - such as the basement dining room in which many seminal political discussions were held - opened to the public.

    Such real-life history lessons are especially key for a young country that has always looked forward, sometimes at the expense of remembering the past, and that tends to prize progress over sentiment.

    In some ways, the directive to demolish his house is classic Lee Kuan Yew. He had said that demolishing it would raise property values for all who lived in the area. But Singapore has torn down enough buildings rich in history to know that demolition can lead to permanent regret. And since it is not uncommon for private properties to be gazetted for government use in the name of national interest, this rule could theoretically be applied to 38, Oxley Road too.

    The decision has been deferred as PM Lee's sister, Dr Lee Wei Ling, is still living in the house. Significantly, PM Lee said he would leave the decision on whether to tear down the house to the "government of the day" when Dr Lee stops living there.

    It will be a difficult decision to make, for PM Lee in particular, having to honour his father's wishes while also bearing in mind the wider, longer-term national significance of the house where so much history was made.

    - See more at: http://www.straitstimes.com/premium/....cPNooU2h.dpuf

  21. #171
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    6,134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by teddybear View Post
    As usual, no sign of intelligent response, or rather, really idiotic and out of sync, doesn't make any COW sense..............

    Caught him so many times telling lies and trying to mislead until lost count!

    Is minority posting here done by a web robot? No wonder full of contradictions, lies, bullshits, double face, double standard, of dubious character, without integrity and honesty despite constantly preaching these to us, like its master "minority"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Anyway, give minority 1 more chance to response sensibly like a proper human (not some cow-dung or shit):

    *** According to history, Many people's "Personal Interest" (their ownership of their land) had been over-rided and sacrificed for "National Interest" by the Singapore government (under leadership of LKY) in the 1960s (despite the land-owners' objections).

    *** Now in 2015, Will "National Interest" (of a potential historical singapore national monument in the form of a century-old house of LKY) be over-rided and sacrificed for the "Personal Interest" of ONE INDIVIDUAL (because he insisted to demolish the house after his death or after his daughter is no longer living there)?

    WHEN TALIKNG TO STUPID DICK LIKE YOU WITHOUT INTELLIGENCE NO NEED TO SAY TOO MUCH. COZ ITS USELESS TALKIN TO SOME ONE WHOS HEAD IS SO FAR UP HIS ARSE. HOW TO TELL YOU ANYTHING WHEN YOUR ARE FULL OF LIARING SHIT!!!!

    TALKING ABOUT MISLEADING!!! WOW YOU ARE THE NO.! BULLSHIT LIAR LEH!!!!! WHO CAN MISLEAD YOU ? COZ YOU ARE ALREADY MISLEAD!!!!!!
    “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”
    ― Martin Luther King, Jr.

    OUT WITH THE SHIT TRASH

    https://www.facebook.com/shutdowntrs

  22. #172
    teddybear's Avatar
    teddybear is offline Global recession is coming....
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,800

    Default

    An interesting blog post by Bertha Henson, who is an ex-SPH journalist can be see at this URL.........
    I copied to highlight some sections........

    In addition to request for some lights be shed on the use of Sedition Act, I would also like to see more lights be shed about "UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY", and why 5 and more debt collectors gather together do something is "UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY" and why 5 and more PAP activists gather together do something is NOT "UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY"??????

    COURTS, SEDITION ACT, TRS

    TRS kena
    In News Reports on April 15, 2015 at 1:58 am

    I am no fan of The Real Singapore. I read it occasionally when articles pop up on my Facebook newsfeed and always end up asking myself why I was even taking the time to do so. I suppose the curious in me was wondering what TRS was up to yet again. Another anti-foreigner diatribe? Yet another cut-and-paste job with a twisted headline?

    I happened to have been a victim of such venom. But, frankly, I couldn’t care less. If readers choose to believe what they read, so be it. If they think this is the “real’’ Singapore, a place to carp and complain and make unsupported accusations in the name of free speech, then I don’t know what to say about their judgment. The website, in my view, is simply…scurrilous. That, I suppose, is its attraction and why it has so many followers. I tell myself that people read it to be entertained, but I think they also read it to be riled up and roused into some kind of righteous indignation over foreigners, the G and whatever or whoever is the favorite enemy of the day.

    Time and again, we see people upset by remarks posted on TRS which abdicates responsibility by saying that it doesn’t control what their usually anonymous contributors post. Yet their shadowy owners with overseas servers seem to be beyond the grip of the law. Sue them for defamation? Who are they? Where are they? I was looking forward to seeing someone use the Harassment Act against the site but it seems the law beat people to it.

    Now that the couple, a Singaporean student and his Australian girlfriend has been charged, it’s a bit tough to say anything that would not compromise their case. I must say the use of the Sedition Act was a bit of a surprise coming so soon after the same charge was levelled against a Filipino ex-nurse. It is a “heavy’’ legislation and very wide-ranging, which might account for its infrequent use.

    The first seven charges come under section 4(1)(c) of the Sedition Act (Cap. 290) read with Section 3(1)(e):

    Offences

    4.—(1) Any person who —

    … (c) prints, publishes, sells, offers for sale, distributes or reproduces any seditious publication ….

    shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction for a first offence to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or to both, and, for a subsequent offence, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years; and any seditious publication found in the possession of that person or used in evidence at his trial shall be forfeited and may be destroyed or otherwise disposed of as the court directs.

    Seditious tendency

    3.—(1) A seditious tendency is a tendency —
    (a) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the Government;
    (b) to excite the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore to attempt to procure in Singapore, the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of any matter as by law established;
    (c) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Singapore;
    (d) to raise discontent or disaffection amongst the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore;
    (e) to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore.

    The seven charges each refer to a particular posting, with the most recent being the false allegation that a Filipino family was involved in a fracas during Thaipusam.

    The thing I wonder about is this: Why are the seven postings still accessible online if they are said to incite ill-feelings? Shouldn’t they be taken down to prevent further distribution?

    From a reading of TRS’ own report of the court case on its site (yes, I had to look at it) it looks as though it is attempting to bring the original writers into the fray. Or at least to show that they were not involved in “content creation’’.

    For example, one charge concerning an article on the sacking of “Pinoys’’ and an Indian national had the TRS saying that this “is a complaint shared with TRS in an email which was also published on Facebook by the original writer’’.

    Likewise, it published a rant by a soon-to-be divorced woman who complained about the presence of female Chinese nationals who were stealing husbands. TRS said “This article was a complaint sent in by a TRS reader by email on May 22nd 2014’’.

    What takes the cake is a charge involving a picture of a supposed female Chinese national making her grandson pee into a bottle on the MRT. Of this, TRS said: “This was sent in to TRS by a reader who also sent the same complaint to STOMP which also republished the same article inclusive of these allegedly seditious lines.’’

    Ooh. In other words, double standards?


    TRS said that the woman, Ai Takagi, “has been involved in the approval and publication of reader submissions for some of the content posted on TRS’’ but not Yang Kaiheng, the Singaporean. It also very handily listed the “seditous’’ comments that it has been accused of broadcasting.

    For example, on the anti-PRC women rant:

    “I would like to voice out my unhappiness with the over-populated China Chinese people in Singapore now!”
    – “these Chinese women just apply permit/visitor pass using all kind of job excuse”
    – “Do you know by simply granting another work permit to these Chinese women means you are destroying many Singapore homes out there!”
    – “These Chinese women sleep around with our men … and doesn’t care whether the men are married or with kids.”
    – “they only hopefully the men can divorce & married them and after that apply for S’porean citizenship and dump the guy! ”
    – “We are flooded with enough Chinese all around us now! and enough is enough!”

    I find it troubling. Because I think there are plenty of people who share some of these sentiments and would rant in similar fashion. Unless the case is that TRS has a deliberate agenda given the long list of other charges? Would it not be more suitable to use the Broadcasting Act or some other law to prevent such diatribes – or even to issue a take-down order under the Harassment Act? Until the case of the Filipino nurse with his anti-Singapore rant, the Act has been used against those who spout statements against a particular race or religion. And now…?

    Hopefully, some light will be shed on the use of the Sedition Act.

  23. #173
    teddybear's Avatar
    teddybear is offline Global recession is coming....
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,800

    Default petition for the release of Amos Yee at this website

    For those interested, there is a petition for the release of Amos Yee at this website:

    as well as many stimulating discussions, as well as interesting comments (like below).....................

    This is a beautiful thing......true followers of Christ!

    He is not a criminal, just shared his message in a controversial manner and in the WRONG country. Throwing someone this young in jail/detention DOES NOT ENCOURAGE REFORM.
    Can he be educated to share his thoughts in a more engaging and sensitive way? YES. that would be a more constructive way to deal with this.
    Give him time doing COMMUNITY WORK Singaporeans.....he's not a criminal.

    He is a hopeless kid and by the way he insulted Christian people.

    Andy Tan clearly not all Christian people, and he has a mind that speaks for himself...clearly.......he is actually very gifted. Been watching his other videos. Probably way too advanced for your liking....understandable, this is way beyond your comprehension. We may not like what he said, we don't have to agree with it, but he's thrown in jail at 16 being controversial on a platform that gives us the freedom of speech? what are you, living in North Korea?? Surely Singaporeans now are first world people, living in a first world country and should have the confidence and the wisdom not to overreact because of criticism? Guess what? The rest of the world deals with it, except for developing countries in a dictatorship. The Christians here are forgiving, clearly they're doing exactly what Christ would do, and has done. So why are YOU upset about it?

    @Wally Tham. Thank you for the updates. Well done. I am so impressed with your effort and it speaks well of your faith which is sadly lacking in some who utters 'GOD' but behaves otherwise. I am not a Christian.

    Singapore need ingenious nerds like Amos, to break free from involuntary / subconscious servitude we are so conditioned to.

    Phrases like, "don't try to be smart / funny", "test / challenge the system", belongs to the past.

    https://www.facebook.com/FreeAmosFreeSpeech?ref=hl

    i say let the law cane him....if he breaks the law he has to face the law. Period.

    The law, yes the law. In some countries, the law says we can stone women to death, does it make it right? Right and wrong are not subjective concepts.


    Miguel Silveira SINGAPORE
    Dear Amos,

    This is a message of support.

    Your video on LKY did not shock me at all because I am an expat that comes from a country where there is unconditional freedom of speech and people are used to having that freedom abused. What shocked me was how unprepared Singaporeans are for it. I watched your other videos and was impressed with so much genius. Your video on how to speak Singlish is simply brilliant, thank you for it. Your article on your 4 years spent on high school is one of the most intelligent things I’ve read written by a Singaporean and it beats anything I have read on Singaporean newspapers. You are an inspiration for those who appreciate sarcastic humour, like myself.

    This is why I’m approaching you: I fear the current negative experience of imprisonment and court will tame you down to be like everyone else in this country, something you clearly are not, and that would be a great loss. You must not change, you just need to change your focus. Singapore is already a lot of people’s project. You need your own project where you can excel at. Speaking to a camera by itself isn’t art, and you claim to be an artist: where can you translate your thoughts into something inspiring and useful using a metaphor? That is your project. Stand-up comedians are allowed to say anything … (just a thought)

    You come across as a furious arrogant teenager and you often rely on incorrect information (the Chinese new year celebration precedes the western roman new year by almost 2000 years and Singapore certainly does not have one of the highest poverty rates!). That’s just because there is too much rage inside of you, and that’s because you’re obviously frustrated. As you grow your attitude will naturally change (you’ll drop the swearing) and you’ll find yourself focussing more on how to be respected so that people can actually hear what you have to say and less on how to be offensive. Your intelligence can only reach others if they can access it. Slapping your listeners with vulgarities does not credit you with anything. Show respect and you will be respected. Show actual informed knowledge and people will listen all the way.

    You can make a difference with your thinking. Probably not in Singapore, but the world is a big place. You’re very young and you never experienced living in a country where people simply don’t care. Be strong and remember that there’s a world out there that might welcome you more than here.

    A message to your parents:

    I too was a raging teenager when I was younger. I had agitated discussions with my parents and left the house multiple times. I needed my space and hated everyone and everything in my way. I eventually calmed down and nowadays have a healthy loving relationship with my family. I needed time to learn how to see beyond my ego and to be broken down by life itself. That process made me a much more balanced human being.

    Amos needs that time but Singapore is certainly not the right space. He is man of expression imprisoned in an expressionless country. It other places he would have his own TV or radio show by now. Singapore is not ready for him and probably won’t be for a long time, and it would break my heart to see so much talent wasted due to geographical constraints.

    Take him to London, take him to New York. Give him a project – journalism, cinema, music. He claims he’s an artist – give him art! Singapore is void of it. If he grows influenced by peers who are allowed to think and speak and have the same critical thought process as him he will naturally find his own path on to something meaningful and useful, and who knows, even great. People like him can change the world if given an opportunity.

    I hope this doesn’t go unread and helps comfort you all in this hard period.

    There’s always a better tomorrow is we’re strong enough to dream of it, and Amos you certainly have the potential to be great.

    Humble regards,

    Miguel


    Edmund Liew SINGAPORE, SINGAPORE
    If you arrest this kid, then why isn't there any arrest made on the Grassroots leader who made that vicious, self-centered threat to harm this kid, as well?

    We all have seen pictorial proof of what the grassroots leader said. Why isn't he arrested for causing disharmony as well? This grassroots leader is equally dangerous to society with his sinister mentality as the young kid might have been!
    Last edited by teddybear; 19-04-15 at 18:35.

  24. #174
    teddybear's Avatar
    teddybear is offline Global recession is coming....
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,800

    Default This Amos Yee now becomes world-famous?

    This Amos Yee now becomes world-famous?
    Imagine the newspapers around the WORLD reported about his case in major news sites!!!!!!!!!

    3,520 people have signed a Christian Singaporean group's Change.org petition, arguing that they were NOT offended by Amos' comments and wanted his release.

    News of the arrest has made headlines around the world reflecting the news worthiness, some examples are as follow:

    1. New York Times: Singapore Arrests Teenager Over Video Critical of Lee Kuan Yew
    2. BBC: Singapore arrests teen behind anti-Lee Kuan Yew rant
    3. Australian Broadcast: Spore teenager Amos Yee faces charges over anti-LKY YouTube
    4. Bloomberg: Singapore Teen Charged for Religious Comments in Anti-Lee Video
    5. The Independent: Teen blogger who called LKY a ‘horrible person’ is arrested by police
    6. The Guardian: Singapore police arrest 17-year-old over critical Lee Kuan Yew video
    7. New Yorker: Amos Yee: YouTube Star, Teen-Ager, Dissident
    8. telegraph.uk: Singapore teen arrested for likening late founding leader to Hitler
    9. Radio Australia: Spore teenager Amos Yee faces charges over anti-LKY YouTube video
    10. ABC.au: Amos Yee faces court, charged over anti-Lee Kuan Yew YouTube video
    11. zee news: 'Good riddance Lee Kuan Yew', says Singapore teen in YouTube video
    12. lybio.net: Amos Yee On Lee Kuan Yew Prime Minister Of Singapore
    13. Malaysia Sin Chew: 拍片“賀”李光耀逝世‧新加坡少年被捕
    14. South China Morning Post: Spore police arrest teenage activist behind anti-LKY video
    15. CNN Indonesia: Kritik Lee Kuan Yew, Remaja Singapura Ditahan Polisi
      (translation: CNN Indonesia: Criticism of Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore Teens Arrested Police)
    16. hindustan times: Singapore arrests teenager over video critical of Lee Kuan Yew
    17. Free Malaysia: Look at Spore, the person who criticised LKY has already been arrested
    18. Jarkarta Post: Singapore teen behind anti-Lee Kuan Yew video arrested: Police
    19. Apple Daily HK: 李光耀逝世17歲男無懼被控 拍片鬧爆假民主真獨裁
    20. See Hua Daily News: 短片狠批李光耀独裁 少年被捕
    21. RFA: 举国皆醉十六岁郎独醒? 国父入土为安少年“入册”
    22. ÉPOCA: Adolescente é preso em Cingapura por falar mal de primeiro-ministro morto
      (translation: SEASON: Teenager arrested in Singapore for speaking dead prime minister of evil)
    23. Libération: Amos Yee, 16 ans, arrêté pour avoir critiqué le fondateur de Singapore
      (translation: Release: Amos Yee, 16, arrested for criticizing the founder of Singapore)
    24. News Liputan6: Hina Lee Kuan Yew, Blogger Amos Yee Hadapi 3 Dakwaan
      (translation: News Liputan6: Hina Lee Kuan Yew, Blogger Amos Yee Faces 3 Charges)
    25. Phuketwan: Teen Charged Over Lee Rant
    26. Knack.be: Zestienjarige Singaporees schoffeert premier en riskeert drie jaar cel
      (translation: Sixteen Years schoffeert Singaporean prime minister and risking three years in jail)
    27. Vietnam news: Singapore bắt giữ thiếu niên phỉ báng ông Lý Quang Diệu
      (translation: Singapore arrested teenager defamatory Lee Kuan Yew)



    Quote Originally Posted by teddybear View Post
    For those interested, there is a petition for the release of Amos Yee at this website:

    as well as many stimulating discussions, as well as interesting comments (like below).....................

  25. #175
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    6,134

    Default



    Keep the shit in Jail. Teach him a lessons that he is being used by people as proxy and to be sacrificed as lamb.
    “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”
    ― Martin Luther King, Jr.

    OUT WITH THE SHIT TRASH

    https://www.facebook.com/shutdowntrs

  26. #176
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    6,134

    Default

    Keep that shit in jail teach him a lesson of being used by Asses for their agenda.
    “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”
    ― Martin Luther King, Jr.

    OUT WITH THE SHIT TRASH

    https://www.facebook.com/shutdowntrs

  27. #177
    teddybear's Avatar
    teddybear is offline Global recession is coming....
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,800

    Default

    Looking through the video, I have the impression that that is his personal rant, why so big hoo-ha????

    How about this cyberbully case against Amos Yee by a person called Jason Tan who threatened to cut his dick and put it in his mouth? Doesn't this fall under the "Harassment Act"????
    Why nobody charge him under harassment act? Oh by the way, the webpage mentioned that he is a PAP grassroot leader and was recently the recipient of a Long Service Achievement Award in August 2014!

    How about the 6 PAP activists doing something together? How is it different from the case of the 7 debt collectors who had been swiftly charged for "UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY" since their incident?????

    How about this PAP Youth member's 'racist' online posting?
    The news article said at least 3 police reports had been made against him.
    So, is his case still under investigation until now after more than 3 and a half years????
    Why so so slow and incompetent compared to Amos Yee's case which is totally competent and really >100% efficient?

    Why all the above people are not being taught a lesson?
    Will we get an answer for all the above??????????????


    Quote Originally Posted by minority View Post
    Keep that shit in jail teach him a lesson of being used by Asses for their agenda.
    Last edited by teddybear; 20-04-15 at 01:17.

  28. #178
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    6,134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by teddybear View Post
    Looking through the video, I have the impression that that is his personal rant, why so big hoo-ha????

    How about this cyberbully case against Amos Yee by a person called Jason Tan who threatened to cut his dick and put it in his mouth? Doesn't this fall under the "Harassment Act"????
    Why nobody charge him under harassment act? Oh by the way, the webpage mentioned that he is a PAP grassroot leader and was recently the recipient of a Long Service Achievement Award in August 2014!

    How about the 6 PAP activists doing something together? How is it different from the case of the 7 debt collectors who had been swiftly charged for "UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY" since their incident?????

    How about this PAP Youth member's 'racist' online posting?
    The news article said at least 3 police reports had been made against him.
    So, is his case still under investigation until now after more than 3 and a half years????
    Why so so slow and incompetent compared to Amos Yee's case which is totally competent and really >100% efficient?

    Why all the above people are not being taught a lesson?
    Will we get an answer for all the above??????????????

    YAWNNNNNNNNNNNN

    ITS A BULL SHIT CASE OF TRYING TO POLITICISE AND PLAY VICTIM CARD.


    similar case of sedation of trying to insult muslim kids on school bus. the person apologises immediately and everyone moved on. This JOKER IS being used a pawn to politicise some stupid agenda using Religion. There is no intention to apologise or stop. And HE IS STUPID TO THINK THOSE JOKERS WILL STAND WITH HIM? LOL!!!! AND HE LIKE THE ATTENTION!. SO LET HIM SIT IN JAIL AND HAVE ALL THE ADDED ATTENTION!
    “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”
    ― Martin Luther King, Jr.

    OUT WITH THE SHIT TRASH

    https://www.facebook.com/shutdowntrs

  29. #179
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    803

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by minority View Post
    Keep that shit in jail teach him a lesson of being used by Asses for their agenda.
    Do we need to be so hard to a 16 yr old kid even if he had been made used off by other people? It could happen to our very own brother or children and do we like our own to be treated by society in this manner?

    There are many more adults who are being made used of by their bosses, colleagues, business partners in the business world and doing people in with a clear mind that what they did are not ethical or even illegal and they still do it. They are luckier that they never got exposed or caught up by the law. Isn't these people more dangerous than this young kid?

  30. #180
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Amber Woods View Post
    Do we need to be so hard to a 16 yr old kid even if he had been made used off by other people? It could happen to our very own brother or children and do we like our own to be treated by society in this manner?

    There are many more adults who are being made used of by their bosses, colleagues, business partners in the business world and doing people in with a clear mind that what they did are not ethical or even illegal and they still do it. They are luckier that they never got exposed or caught up by the law. Isn't these people more dangerous than this young kid?
    Food for thought - no one, not even his parents, is bailing him out even though cash is not required upfront. So what does that imply?

    Another thought - what if the so called bad asses happen to be ISIS or drug org? Will age still matter anymore, regardless how young he or she is?

Similar Threads

  1. Bear News - Singapore Total Deposits
    By Arcachon in forum Coffeeshop Talk
    Replies: 2
    -: 16-05-20, 11:55
  2. Significant Property News & Discussions
    By teddybear in forum Singapore Private Condominium Property Discussion and News
    Replies: 871
    -: 05-06-17, 01:38
  3. Here’s why Brexit is bad news for Singapore property
    By reporter2 in forum HDB, EC, commercial and industrial property discussion
    Replies: 9
    -: 20-06-16, 23:39
  4. Replies: 0
    -: 19-01-14, 17:44
  5. Straits Times Singapore News flash
    By KTKW in forum Singapore Private Condominium Property Discussion and News
    Replies: 34
    -: 21-06-12, 20:27

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •