Page 7 of 20 FirstFirst ... 2345678910111217 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 210 of 573

Thread: Significant Singapore News

  1. #181
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    803

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrTan View Post
    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?
    Food for thought - So young kids going astray should be locked up? "What if" will always be there hence detention without trial is still valid.

  2. #182
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Amber Woods View Post
    Food for thought - So young kids going astray should be locked up? "What if" will always be there hence detention without trial is still valid.
    I assume boys home and girls home are still present today?

  3. #183
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    803

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrTan View Post
    I assume boys home and girls home are still present today?

    As a society, it is always difficult to decide what is best for young kids going astray. Here we have a kid who did not commit any crime but speak "his mind" using the wrong choice of words which were politically sensitive. Lock him up or send him to a home?

  4. #184
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    273

    Default

    Politically South East Asia is not mature yet. If all American that talk bad about their Leader go to jail. I cannot image how many Jail need to be build in USA.

  5. #185
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Amber Woods View Post
    As a society, it is always difficult to decide what is best for young kids going astray. Here we have a kid who did not commit any crime but speak "his mind" using the wrong choice of words which were politically sensitive. Lock him up or send him to a home?
    If not wrong, he was charged for religious sedition and not on political subject. It's a pity his wrong choice of words were not taken lightly by 2 groups of people and 1 out of the 2 subjects was enough to charge him for an act deemed illegal, hence a crime, in the eyes of the Singapore law. If he had solely stayed on the political subject without libel and defamation, guess no one can do anything to him.

  6. #186
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sandiwara View Post
    Politically South East Asia is not mature yet. If all American that talk bad about their Leader go to jail. I cannot image how many Jail need to be build in USA.
    There is always a fine balance between freedom vs control, political maturity vs population maturity. No one political system fits all population demographics. The grass always seems to be greener on the other side.

  7. #187
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    6,134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Amber Woods View Post
    Food for thought - So young kids going astray should be locked up? "What if" will always be there hence detention without trial is still valid.
    Well he was offered bail. His parents didn't turn up to bail. And its a non CASH bail. no need to pay cash. More than likely all his "buddies" want to see him stay in Jail so can "leverage" on the publicity.
    “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

  8. #188
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    803

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrTan View Post
    If not wrong, he was charged for religious sedition and not on political subject. It's a pity his wrong choice of words were not taken lightly by 2 groups of people and 1 out of the 2 subjects was enough to charge him for an act deemed illegal, hence a crime, in the eyes of the Singapore law. If he had solely stayed on the political subject without libel and defamation, guess no one can do anything to him.
    You need to understand the legal definition of a crime to come to your conclusion.

    The intent of his video or message was never about religion but he brought religion in to emphasis his point. In law, it is not consider murder if one has no intent to kill; the charge should be manslaughter and not murder.

    The law does not states whether is right or wrong, only legal or illegal. In this case and in our society, what this kid did was deemed illegal. In other societies, he is likely to be ignored completely if his words or thinking are not consistent with ours.

    This is what we need to understand about this case.

  9. #189
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    6,134

    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?


    Well I if its my kid and my brothers. They should learn from their mistake. If they refuse to learn early correction is called for. So u mean when ur children is taking drugs u should be soft on them and HOPE they will be well? HOPE they get out of it? OR you would take the hard option early to realised the responsibility and help they need?

    We cannot be so selfish to only think that its becoz its a kid or our relatives any wrong doing should be taken softly especially malice was the intent to harm others in the society
    “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. #190
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    803

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by minority View Post
    Well he was offered bail. His parents didn't turn up to bail. And its a non CASH bail. no need to pay cash. More than likely all his "buddies" want to see him stay in Jail so can "leverage" on the publicity.
    You could be right but that was not the point of contention.

  11. #191
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    803

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by minority View Post
    Well I if its my kid and my brothers. They should learn from their mistake. If they refuse to learn early correction is called for. So u mean when ur children is taking drugs u should be soft on them and HOPE they will be well? HOPE they get out of it? OR you would take the hard option early to realised the responsibility and help they need?

    We cannot be so selfish to only think that its becoz its a kid or our relatives any wrong doing should be taken softly especially malice was the intent to harm others in the society
    That was not the point of contention.

  12. #192
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    6,134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrTan View Post
    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?


    2 things comes to mind.

    1. Parents seriously want him to think about his choices. And the parents know that he the bail will be lost if he don't cooperate with the parents.
    2. The parents are also in on this scham where they are con by the RoY GANG to allow his kid to be uses for political mileage. Play victim cards. ask for donations so that they won't be the one loosing the money when the boy come out and go back doing the same thing.
    “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

  13. #193
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    6,134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Amber Woods View Post
    That was not the point in contention.
    Well my pt is he is not jail with out bail. its no one want to bail him. or purposely don't want to bail to leverage for publicity playing victim card.
    “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

  14. #194
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    803

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by minority View Post
    Well my pt is he is not jail with out bail. its no one want to bail him. or purposely don't want to bail to leverage for publicity playing victim card.
    Agree!

  15. #195
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    6,134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Amber Woods View Post
    As a society, it is always difficult to decide what is best for young kids going astray. Here we have a kid who did not commit any crime but speak "his mind" using the wrong choice of words which were politically sensitive. Lock him up or send him to a home?
    Many people use wrong choice of words. They get reprimanded and let off with a slap on the wrist when they admit their collie. This guy have been doing this and have been warned and continue to do so. So he get what he ask for. Lock him up ? well his parents want him to stay in jail. refuse to bail him. His peng u all talk cock. say bo eng need to go malaysia.

    To me this is politically instigated. Trying to pull religion into plolitcs which is a very dangerous thing. So A HARD STOP is needed for theses kind of Political play the oppies want to do.
    “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

  16. #196
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    6,134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sandiwara View Post
    Politically South East Asia is not mature yet. If all American that talk bad about their Leader go to jail. I cannot image how many Jail need to be build in USA.
    America can screw up a few states. they can recover. we? Screw up. we are done.
    “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. #197
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    803

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by minority View Post
    Many people use wrong choice of words. They get reprimanded and let off with a slap on the wrist when they admit their collie. This guy have been doing this and have been warned and continue to do so. So he get what he ask for. Lock him up ? well his parents want him to stay in jail. refuse to bail him. His peng u all talk cock. say bo eng need to go malaysia.

    To me this is politically instigated. Trying to pull religion into plolitcs which is a very dangerous thing. So A HARD STOP is needed for theses kind of Political play the oppies want to do.

    Please read this::

    Quote Originally Posted by Amber Woods View Post
    You need to understand the legal definition of a crime to come to your conclusion.

    The intent of his video or message was never about religion but he brought religion in to emphasis his point. In law, it is not consider murder if one has no intent to kill; the charge should be manslaughter and not murder.

    The law does not states whether is right or wrong, only legal or illegal. In this case and in our society, what this kid did was deemed illegal. In other societies, he is likely to be ignored completely if his words or thinking are not consistent with ours.

    This is what we need to understand about this case.

  18. #198
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Amber Woods View Post
    You need to understand the legal definition of a crime to come to your conclusion.

    The intent of his video or message was never about religion but he brought religion in to emphasis his point. In law, it is not consider murder if one has no intent to kill; the charge should be manslaughter and not murder.

    The law does not states whether is right or wrong, only legal or illegal. In this case and in our society, what this kid did was deemed illegal. In other societies, he is likely to be ignored completely if his words or thinking are not consistent with ours.

    This is what we need to understand about this case.
    Guess we are on the same page here. Regardless murder or manslaughter, it is still a crime. And glad you understand that in this case and in our society, what this kid did was deemed illegal.

    Hypothetically, assuming that what he did was not illegal, do you think there will not be any backlash on him and his family? Whatever he did was done online, whatever he will get will be online too. Think about the past few online cases in which the subject and his/her family have to move to Australia.

    I would sincerely hope that the law of the court will put an end to this saga, instead of allowing online vigilantes to execute their so called cyber justice.

  19. #199
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    803

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrTan View Post
    Guess we are on the same page here. Regardless murder or manslaughter, it is still a crime. And glad you understand that in this case and in our society, what this kid did was deemed illegal.

    Hypothetically, assuming that what he did was not illegal, do you think there will not be any backlash on him and his family? Whatever he did was done online, whatever he will get will be online too. Think about the past few online cases in which the subject and his/her family have to move to Australia.

    I would sincerely hope that the law of the court will put an end to this saga, instead of allowing online vigilantes to execute their so called cyber justice.
    As a society, some members prefer to have more regulations for a more orderly society. Some members prefer a freer society where individuals are respected for their differing views or ideology and hence prevent the formation of self-rightness governments especially less democratic societies.

  20. #200
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Amber Woods View Post
    As a society, some members prefer to have more regulations for a more orderly society. Some members prefer a freer society where individuals are respected for their differing views or ideology and hence prevent the formation of self-rightness governments especially less democratic societies.
    Please read this::

    Quote Originally Posted by MrTan View Post
    There is always a fine balance between freedom vs control, political maturity vs population maturity. No one political system fits all population demographics. The grass always seems to be greener on the other side.

  21. #201
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    3,721

    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??????????????
    The lesson here is this.
    Under the current regime if one does not toe the official line one will be screwed and beaten down even if one is entitled to one's opinion.
    On the other hand if one is on the "right side" of the fence, one can screw up multiple times and need not be held to account.

  22. #202
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    803

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by august View Post
    The lesson here is this.
    Under the current regime if one does not toe the official line one will be screwed and beaten down even if one is entitled to one's opinion.
    On the other hand if one is on the "right side" of the fence, one can screw up multiple times and need not be held to account.
    This is exactually what some members in the society fear will happen when governments become self-rightness over time believing that it can do no wrong as happen in many lesser democratic societies. We may not think it can happen to us but it can over time. That is why the academia in the west believe that Taiwan form of democracy will survive the passage of time while Singapore's system will not unless we change.

  23. #203
    teddybear's Avatar
    teddybear is offline Global recession is coming....
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,800

    Default

    Look at the amount of hatred comments, sneering and even personal attack comics laid against Margaret Thatcher and other UK Prime Ministers in UK over the past 50 years!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Don't need to look so far, just look at this about 1 year old news will do about Margaret Thatcher, headlined: "Margaret Thatcher's death greeted with street parties in Brixton and Glasgow".

    Let me quote part of the article:
    Several hundred people gathered in south London on Monday evening to celebrate Margaret Thatcher's death with cans of beer, pints of milk and an impromptu street disco playing the soundtrack to her years in power.

    Young and old descended on Brixton, a suburb which weathered two outbreaks of rioting during the Thatcher years. Many expressed jubilation that the leader they loved to hate was no more; others spoke of frustration that her legacy lived on.

    To cheers of "Maggie Maggie Maggie, dead dead dead," posters of Thatcher were held aloft as reggae basslines pounded.

    Clive Barger, a 62-year-old adult education tutor, said he had turned out to mark the passing of "one of the vilest abominations of social and economic history".

    He said: "It is a moment to remember. She embodied everything that was so elitist in terms of repressing people who had nothing. She presided over a class war."

    Not all were there to celebrate. Student Ray Thornton, 28, said he was there to commemorate "victims" of Thatcherism. "It is a solemn day. It is important to remember that Thatcherism isn't dead and it is important that people get out on the street and not allow the government to whitewash what she did," he said.

    Unemployed Kiki Madden scrawled "you snatched my milk and our hope" on a fence and said she felt slightly guilty taking delight in Thatcher's death, "but in the end I can't deny the fact that Thatcher made me so unhappy when I was a kid. I grew up in Liverpool and all my friends' dads lost their jobs on the docks under Thatcher. It was an awful time."
    Margaret Thatcher was the past Prime Minister of the UK Conservative Party (and UK is now under the leadership of Conservative Party)....................
    My (limited) understanding was that Margaret Thatcher was hated immensely by the general population (except the elites, the rich, and the high incomers)......
    I read that this was the main reason why she was kicked out as the Prime Minister before the end of her full term.

    And you can read more of the hatred at this URL........

    “She was one of the most divisive figures in British political history.

    “She was celebrated by big business and the rich and powerful, but reviled by huge sections of a society she didn’t actually believe in.

    "For many she leaves a legacy of misery.”
    If UK do the same as Singapore and start jailing people for petty online rants, many many more British citizens and residents will be arrested and UK don't even have enough jail space just to accommodate even 10% of them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Ditto for US Presidents!

    Quote Originally Posted by Sandiwara View Post
    Politically South East Asia is not mature yet. If all American that talk bad about their Leader go to jail. I cannot image how many Jail need to be build in USA.
    Last edited by teddybear; 20-04-15 at 13:30.

  24. #204
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Amber Woods View Post
    This is exactually what some members in the society fear will happen when governments become self-rightness over time believing that it can do no wrong as happen in many lesser democratic societies. We may not think it can happen to us but it can over time. That is why the academia in the west believe that Taiwan form of democracy will survive the passage of time while Singapore's system will not unless we change.
    The prerequisite of change is to have an alternative government. Until the time when a political party is up to the mark to form a government, any talk will be futile.

  25. #205
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    6,134

    Default

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...efore-her.html

    'Every separate group in the country had no feeling and no sense of being part of a community but was simply out to get for itself what it could.” As you might expect, such was the assessment of a former Labour politician. But this was not the late Peter Shore reflecting on the Britain that Margaret Thatcher created. He was talking about the Britain she inherited.
    On January 15 1979, Shore joined the prime minister, James Callaghan, and the rest of the Labour cabinet to discuss whether the national situation had deteriorated so seriously that troops should be brought onto the streets and a State of Emergency declared.
    Doing so was a gamble. But this was the 1970s: the last Conservative prime minister, Edward Heath, had declared a State of Emergency on five separate occasions in his three and a half years in office. Labour succeeded him in 1974 with the expectation that it could use its leverage with the trade unions to end the wave of strikes that had foreshadowed Heath’s downfall. By the end of 1978, they found themselves contemplating the same drastic action.
    On this occasion, Callaghan’s cabinet preferred to give the threat of a State of Emergency time to work. Union leaders were warned that unless they restored order in their ranks, the army would be deployed to undertake essential services and become, in the lingo of the time, “scab labour”.
    Among those sitting anxiously around the cabinet table was the Transport Secretary, Bill Rodgers, whose mother, dying from cancer, was unable to get the chemotherapy drugs she needed because they were subject to a union blockade at Hull docks. Two years later, he was one of the “Gang of Four” of prominent Labour politicians who, despairing of their own party, founded the SDP.

    Nurses and ambulance drivers were on strike. Old people’s homes and schools were closing. The railways were not running. The electricians’ union marked the approach of Christmas 1978 by taking both BBC One and BBC Two off the air. The country was left with just ITV, to watch (the electricians waited until August 1979 to switch off ITV for 75 days).
    More seriously, rubbish was piling high in the streets, creating a health hazard. The most potent metaphor of national decay was in Liverpool. There, a factory was being turned over to storage space for the dead because members of the GMWU union were picketing the cemeteries. Contingency plans were made to bury the city’s rotting corpses at sea.
    It is worth recalling what Britain was like before the advent of Thatcherism. Doing so dispels the now prevalent notion that Margaret Thatcher created a nation of selfish individuals thinking only of their own gain and acting without a care for the needs of others. It also helps explain why, in the early Eighties, there were millions of ordinary Britons who continued to believe that her tough and, at times, distasteful, medicine would eventually work. The alternative – so-called consensus politics – had certainly been given long enough and had bequeathed a country commonly derided as “the sick man of Europe”.


    We must not, of course, judge the pre-Thatcher decade purely through the particularly bitter months of the 1978/79 winter of discontent alone. The Seventies were not all bad. But the overriding sense was of living in a country that had lost its way. One newspaper welcomed in the new year of 1977 with the observation that “Britain is a country that resents being poor, but is not prepared to make the effort to be rich.” It was a sentiment shared by the Sex Pistols’ snarl, “There’s no future, in England’s dreaming.”
    The country in the mid-1970s had witnessed the strikes and power shutdowns of the “three-day week”, a stock-market crash, a secondary banking crisis, tough credit controls and the humiliation of its begging mission to the IMF for a loan. “Britain is a tragedy” Henry Kissinger, the US Secretary of State, lamented to President Gerald Ford, “it has sunk to begging, borrowing, stealing.”
    It had also resorted to high taxation. By the decade’s end, the standard rate of income tax was 33 per cent, the upper rate, 83 per cent. Businesses were hit by corporation tax at 52 per cent. Talent voted with its feet, bringing the expression “brain drain” into vogue.
    There was also the threat of hyperinflation and the incomes policy devised to combat it. Government and union leaders met and fixed nationwide pay “norms” that not only determined maximum pay rises for the
    30 per cent of the workforce who were in the public sector, but also for many in the private sector, too. Many medium- and large-sized private companies were legally obliged to send proposed price increases to the Price Commission, whose civil servants would rule on whether to approve the rise according to a wage-to-price rise formula laid out in its Price Code.
    That inflation might be better controlled by market forces than by bureaucrats second-guessing whether thousands of companies were charging a “fair” price demonstrates how Thatcher changed attitudes. But, even here, she initially sailed against received opinion – and not just from her Labour opponents. The SDP-Liberal Alliance fought the 1983 general election pledging to restore both the incomes policy and the Price Commission. The Alliance’s manifesto promised to introduce a counter-inflation tax on those private sector companies that government officials decided were “paying above the pay range”. Such ideas now seem preposterous. It is Thatcher’s victory that has made them so.
    How much was all this personally her doing? Might a “wetter” Conservative leader have achieved the same results without generating half the rancour, division and hatred? Some Tory policies, such as the sale of council houses, probably would have been enacted without her. With the privatisation policy, she initially had to be emboldened to think big by her Chancellor of the Exchequer, Nigel Lawson.
    Yet, it was when crises struck that she showed her indispensability. After Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands in 1982, her Defence Secretary, John Nott, calculated that the majority of the Cabinet – and of Parliament – would have accepted a peace plan negotiated by Francis Pym that allowed the military junta in Buenos Aires to flood the islands with Argentine “settlers” pending an international verdict on the islands’ ultimate sovereignty. Thatcher was prepared to make this a resignation issue. Other alternative prime ministers might not have done. Luckily for her and the Falkland islanders, the Argentinians rejected the deal.

    Thatcher articulated a clarity of purpose that few in British politics have subsequently mastered, or attempted. “The whole direction of politics in the last 30 years,” she contested in 1981, “has always been towards the collectivist society. People have forgotten about the personal society. And they say: 'Do I count, do I matter?’ ”
    It was a boldness of expression that led to her infamous “no such thing as society” assertion to Woman’s Own magazine in 1987. In fact, the phrase has been so taken out of context as to have had its meaning reversed. She was criticising those who did nothing to help other people by using the excuse that it was up to “society” to do it. Her following sentence was, “There is a living tapestry of men and women and people, and the beauty of that tapestry, and the quality of our lives, will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us is prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate.” Far from being an ode to selfishness, it was an appeal for good neighbourliness.
    That so many people have come to assume that Britain in the Eighties was led by someone who wished to atomise society demonstrates how few solutions were found to the simmering social tensions inherited from the previous decade. The impression is now fixed that the social tapestry was unpicked in the 1980s through towns and regions wrecked by unemployment, crime and the further erosion of the traditional family structure. The extent to which these were both interrelated and the result of government policy continues to divide opinion now as it did then.
    In 1990, Thatcher was forced from office by her own party. Her public standing had been tarnished by her commitment to the ill-conceived poll tax. However, it was her determined opposition to the establishment of a European single currency and the federal Europe she believed it would ensure that incited first Sir Geoffrey Howe and then Michael Heseltine to instigate her fall. She does not now look to have been so evidently on the wrong side of that argument.

    And what of our modern discontents? Thatcher’s government was the last in Britain to become a net repayer of national debt. Not for her the massive borrowing and deficits of Gordon Brown’s stewardship at the Treasury. Faced with similar burdens, the countries of southern Europe that have done least to introduce the market reforms she pioneered are the ones that are now in the deepest crisis. This is not a coincidence. Salvation does not lie in the return of militant trade unions, measures to raise the cost of hiring employees and crippling levels of tax and red tape.
    Combine the reimposition of these millstones with a Britain locked into the euro that her opponents supported, and it is not hard to envisage a country ripe again for a State of Emergency.
    “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. #206
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    6,134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Amber Woods View Post
    This is exactually what some members in the society fear will happen when governments become self-rightness over time believing that it can do no wrong as happen in many lesser democratic societies. We may not think it can happen to us but it can over time. That is why the academia in the west believe that Taiwan form of democracy will survive the passage of time while Singapore's system will not unless we change.
    Living in a multi cultural country sensitivity of the people culture around is important. Freedom of speech don't mean freedom without responsibility . Even is the so call US or Europe they have jail people for blogging malice.
    “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. #207
    teddybear's Avatar
    teddybear is offline Global recession is coming....
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,800

    Default

    What makes you so sure?

    How about you tell us the difference between the below 2 cases:
    (a) 5 or more debt collectors do something - "UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY"!!!! Charged!!!!!
    (b) 5 or more PAP activists do something - Why this is not "UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY"??????

    Quote Originally Posted by MrTan View Post
    If not wrong, he was charged for religious sedition and not on political subject. It's a pity his wrong choice of words were not taken lightly by 2 groups of people and 1 out of the 2 subjects was enough to charge him for an act deemed illegal, hence a crime, in the eyes of the Singapore law. If he had solely stayed on the political subject without libel and defamation, guess no one can do anything to him.

  28. #208
    teddybear's Avatar
    teddybear is offline Global recession is coming....
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,800

    Default

    Funny indeed. As far as I interpret, a 17-year old boy making some online rant, didn't even kill a cat or a dog!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Wow! So serious until need to be charged and need "bail"??????
    May be some lawyers can help to explain?

    I was guessing whether his parents purposely "dissent" against the system and test the system if don't bail their boy out see what will they do to a 17-year old boy???? Keep him in police remand or jail forever until court hearing 1 year or more later????? (or even 3 years or more since in the other YPAP racist remark case which should be under "Sedition Act" it seems investigation seem not completed?). Wow! May be like that they can save a lot of money? (let the state support their child until 21 years old!)

    We have also seen other cases of racist remarks by a YPAP member but 3 and half years later still investigating??????

    Quote Originally Posted by minority View Post
    Well he was offered bail. His parents didn't turn up to bail. And its a non CASH bail. no need to pay cash. More than likely all his "buddies" want to see him stay in Jail so can "leverage" on the publicity.

  29. #209
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by teddybear View Post
    What makes you so sure?

    How about you tell us the difference between the below 2 cases:
    (a) 5 or more debt collectors do something - "UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY"!!!! Charged!!!!!
    (b) 5 or more PAP activists do something - Why this is not "UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY"??????
    That was not the point of contention.

    Instead of being a keyboard warrior, please go ahead to file a police report if you feel so strongly about this subject which you have been harping for the past few weeks/months.

  30. #210
    teddybear's Avatar
    teddybear is offline Global recession is coming....
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,800

    Default

    By the way, police report had been filed about that case, but we still didn't hear the reason what is the difference, so case not closed yet..................

    Quote Originally Posted by MrTan View Post
    That was not the point of contention.

    Instead of being a keyboard warrior, please go ahead to file a police report if you feel so strongly about this subject which you have been harping for the past few weeks/months.

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
  •