Tag: SPF

Are SPF And ELD The Lapdogs Of PAP?

I have a very poor opinion of Roy Ngerng. I think most of the things he writes are senseless drivel and some of the things he writes are dangerously incendiary. I thought that it is not entirely without reason that he got his ass handed to him in court for writing stupid things about PM Lee.

All that said, I am abhorred by the way he was treated by the police recently. A police report was made against Roy Ngerng and Teo Soh Lung by the Elections Department Department (ELD). I had earlier written that I, as well as many others, were baffled by that action.

For their alleged offence, Roy and Ms Teo were interrogated by the police for hours. Worse, the police went to search their homes. You can see the brave men-in-blue (though they are in plainclothes here) in action:

So the two of them posted things that could possibly be in contravention of ELD’s cooling off day regulations. And we can’t even be certain if they did. They are individuals writing about their personal political views. Something which isn’t prohibited by the cooling off day restrictions.

But let’s say that there is a prima facie case against them. The police therefore need to investigate to see if there is sufficient reasons to charge them. Fine. But is there a need to search their homes? Is there a need to take their laptops, computers and mobile phones? And to mobilize so many people to do it? A tad excessive no? And an utter waste of state resources isn’t it?

Here’s Roy’s account of the abhorrent ordeal that he had to go through:

What is more abhorrent and disgusting is the inconsistency. Let’s say that Roy and Ms Teo were both guilty of contravening ELD’s regulations. Let’s say that the police really had to do what they did to establish guilt. Then why the hell weren’t they as rigorous in investigating other alleged breaches of ELD’s regulations?

What other breaches you ask? These other breaches:

Here you see Minister Shanmugam’s face plastered all over a hawker centre. That was during the GE2015. If you scrutinize those posters, you will realise that none of those posters “bear the bear the official stamp issued by the Returning Officer.” Worse, they are in a hawker centre! That is a clear violation of ELD’s regulations!

So what has the police done to investigate the report made by Mr Daryl Teng? Don’t know. Were they as rigorous? Did they search the home of Minister Shanmugam? Highly unlikely. Why this inconsistency? God (if you are the God-fearing type) knows! It is no wonder that many people are of the opinion that the SPF and ELD are lapdogs of the PAP.

Now SPF and the ELD has one chance to redeem themselves. A fresh complaint to ELD was made on 30 May. It was made against the site Fabrications against PAP. It alleges that the page shared a post on cooling off day that made specific reference to DPM Tharman’s speech at PAP’s rally that called people to vote for Murali.

The nature of that post and those that landed Roy and Ms Teo in trouble appear identical. If Roy and Ms Teo were subjected to such treatment as a result of what they posted on cooling off day, then the people behind Fabrications about PAP ought to be subjected to the same treatment. Otherwise it would confirm the opinion of many people – SPF and ELD are lapdogs of the PAP. Lapdogs that would snap and bite people when they speak against the PAP, but would loyally and doggedly defend those who speak in favour of the PAP.

And that would be really sad. And ironic. Ironic because just this Monday,DPM Tharman said that there is now more freedom of speech today compared to a decade ago. He said:

“We have evolved into a society that has more freedoms, but it has some restrictions and they serve a purpose.”

It seems that our evolution is proceeding at a glacial pace. And sometimes seem to be a Sisyphean evolution. Or perhaps he meant to say that there is freedom, up until you dare to threaten PAP’s stranglehold on power?

Source: https://crazyrandomchatter.com

June 2, 2016
Police: NSF Who Leaked Photo Of Dead SMRT Worker Investigated Under Official Secrets Act

A photograph of the body of one of the two workers killed in the SMRT accident that made its rounds online was a screenshot of a police computer terminal.

It was allegedly leaked by a full-time police national serviceman, the police said yesterday.

The picture, which showed a close-up of Mr Muhammad Asyraf Ahmad Buhari’s body lying on the MRT track, was circulated on social media websites, forums and messaging app WhatsApp earlier this week.

It was even seen by some of Mr Asyraf’s family members before they received news that he had died, The New Paper reported on Thursday.

The picture, which also revealed the 24-year-old’s full name and IC number, appeared to have been taken off a screen.

Yesterday, in response to media queries, a police spokesman told TNP that investigations revealed that the picture was a screenshot of a police computer terminal.

A police NSF is believed to have shared the photograph with his family and friends.

The officer is being investigated for an offence under the Official Secrets Act (OSA), the spokesman said.

The police are also investigating how the photograph was uploaded online.

“The police deeply regret the insensitive and illegal action of the officer and met with the family today to explain the circumstances surrounding the leakage,” the spokesman said.

“The police have strict rules on the management of official information and take a very serious view of any breach. Officers who commit any wrongdoing will be dealt with in accordance with the law.”

SERIOUS OFFENCE

Criminal lawyer Rajan Supramaniam from Hilborne Law said an offence under the OSA is a serious one, particularly so in this case when the sensitive photograph was allegedly leaked while Mr Asyraf’s family was still grieving.

He said that such photographs are taken and strictly used for investigation purposes, and are not meant for public viewing.

“If leaked, they could cause a public outcry, distort the impact of the case and affect the post-mortem findings by authorities,” he said.

Mr Asyraf’s cousin, Mr Muhd Kamal, 24, an undergraduate, told TNP last night upon hearing the news: “It was a very sensitive picture and we wanted to find out who did it. And now we know.

“But we would now leave it to the police to best handle it.”

He had earlier urged people not to circulate the picture, saying it was disrespectful to the deceased.

Mr Asyraf’s father, Mr Ahmad Buhari, 61, had told TNP that he saw the photograph when he was in Mecca, Saudi Arabia. ”I was very sad when I saw the picture,” he had said.

The maximum punishment for wrongful communication of information under the OSA is a two-year jail term and a $2,000 fine.

The police deeply regret the insensitive and illegal action of the officer and met with the family today to explain the circumstances surrounding the leakage.

– A police spokesman

Source: www.tnp.sg

March 26, 2016
Goh Meng Seng: Do Not Divert Attention From Real Issues In Benjamin Lim’s Case

I am utterly disappointed by the Minister for Home Affairs (who is also the Minister of Law, which I always feel is totally inappropriate as it may constitute a conflict of interests but this article is not about this) Mr. Shanmugam’s statement made in parliament with regards to the case of Benjamin Lim Jun Hui.

Instead of addressing the many valid pertinent concerns raised by the public, on and off-line, he has put up a barrage of fire attacks at The Online Citizen (TOC) and the President of Law Society, Mr. Thio Shen Yi with totally irrelevant petty details of bickering.

Whether there were 4 or 5 policemen went to the school, wearing police uniforms or plain clothes are really irrelevant to the pertinent questions asked by TOC, Mr Thio and the public at large.

It is even more ridiculous for the Minister to cast doubts on TOC’s intent by raising the fact that it has reported that the Police refused to comment on the matter when approached!

For whatever reasons the police refused to comment (such as those reasons presented by the Minister himself), it should just say so when TOC asked them! A good and competent Public Relations Officer from the Police would have made simple comment like “We cannot comment on this case as internal investigation is still ongoing.” or “We cannot comment on this case as there will be Coroner Inquiry, please wait for the result of Coroner Inquiry”…etc.

The total ignore or silence from the Police is smacked of either arrogance or complete incompetency in Public Relations communication.

The Police has its own Pubic Relations officers. If the Police refused to answer to TOC’s inquiries, then the Minister cannot blame the TOC for reporting so (the truth that the police refused to comment) and the public will have their own discretion to form their own opinion.

So my dear Minister, it is the FAILURE of Police Public Relations officers in responding to the matter in timely manner that created public perception, not TOC. TOC merely reported the NO RESPONSE from the police!

It is of course the prerogative of the Police in keeping silence but it must also understand that keeping quiet will have its consequences and implications.

By the way, the Main stream media also reported 5 officers went to the school! Please lah! Why not fire at the Main stream media as well?

As for the President of Law Society, the point made was the necessity of the police making the arrest at the school! So, don’t try to divert from this pertinent question by going into the irrelevant bickering. Do you think it is appropriate or necessary for the police to send 4 or 5 police officers to the school to make the arrest?

There are more important questions raised by the public and I expect the Minister to address them, instead of using diversion tactic to dodge from these questions and public anger:

1) Does the Minister think it is RIGHT (never mind if it is legal or not) for policemen to go to school to arrest students who are just suspects of crimes?

2) Does the Minster think it is RIGHT (never mind if it is legal or not) for the police to interrogate minors without the presence of guardian or legal representative? In fact, is it right for police to deny legal representation or aid to suspects, regardless of age, during interrogation?

These are the two important issues raised by the President of Law Society and they are valid questions to be addressed fully. These questions raised does NOT constitute sub judice but it is of GREAT PUBLIC INTERESTS.

I hope the Minister could address these real issues instead of wasting time trying to divert attention to inconsequential minor details and bickering.

Oh, by the way, the poor boy was just investigated but NO OFFICIAL JUDGMENT has been made about him just yet. I do not understand why the Minister would insinuate him as “guilty” in parliament just because, according to the police interrogation, he “confessed” to the crime. His confession could be contested in court if there was really a court case but unfortunately, he won’t have that trial now. So I would urge the Minister not to put judgment on the poor dead boy in parliament even though he is also the Minister of Law, but he is not the judge nor the case has been heard.

Goh Meng Seng

Source: People’s Power Party – PPP

March 3, 2016
Goh Meng Seng: Singaporeans Also To Blame For Death Of Benjamin Lim

When Amos Yee was ill treated by the State Police, put through the torture of interrogation and remained in IMH, many people didn’t see the problem of such act by the police state. Even when people like me protested against such treatment, even though I do not agree to his rude behavior, were scorned at and criticised.

When it comes to Benjamin, the same police state tactic was used upon this poor child who was even younger than Amos Yee. The only difference is that this young boy could not take the pressure and committed suicide. Then there is this uproar.

The irony is, the same old technique has been used by the police over and over again, regardless whether you are a teenager or adult. Cruel techniques were used to extract unwilling confession from the ISD detainees but nobody squeaked. Few people squeaked when Amos Yee was treated badly by the same police state just because people are more intolerant of his rude behavior than the rouge police state.

Few Singaporeans see the need to speak up against the rouge police state because they are blinded by their own fear and prejudice. Singaporeans have little sense of social justice until something really bad goes wrong. Singaporeans also lack the empathy to understand that by not standing up to the tyrannic police state, they will become part of the justification of the murderous system. Yes, Singaporeans, by keeping quiet all along with all the injustice happening throughout the decades, are guilty of letting this bloody system grow and take the life of a teenager.

Pastor Martin has this to say about the COWARDICE of the Germans under the Nazi:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

And the same can be said about Singaporeans as well:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Student Activists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Student Activist.
Then they came for the Opposition, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not an Opposition.
Then they came for the Social Activists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Social Activist.
Then they came for the Young Rascal Amos Yee, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Young Rascal like Amos Yee.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

I do not think Benjamin will Rest In Peace when the whole society is guilty in part to the murderous police state.

Goh Meng Seng, People’s Power Party

Source: People’s Power Party- PPP

February 5, 2016
SPF: Death Of 14 Year Old Male Student Under Investigation For Alleged Outrage Of Modesty – Procedures To Be Reviewed

In this case, a Police report was lodged about a molestation. Based on CCTV evidence, Police officers went to conduct enquiries at a school. To keep investigations discreet, the officers went in plainclothes and in unmarked cars. After discussions with the school officials, and the viewing of the CCTV records, Benjamin was identified as the boy in the CCTV records. He was brought to the Principal’s office by a school official and was spoken with in the presence of a Police officer. Before he was brought back to Ang Mo Kio Division, he contacted his mother to inform her of the Police’s investigations. The Police officer also spoke to the mother.

While at Ang Mo Kio Division, he was interviewed by one Investigation Officer at his workstation in an open plan office with other workstations. He was fully cooperative during the interview. He was then released on bail and went back with his mother.

The Police have been asked whether it should review the procedure to allow an appropriate adult to be present when a young person is interviewed. The Police will review and address this issue.

Police investigations have not been completed. A Coroner’s Inquiry will be held upon the conclusion of investigations, where all the relevant facts will be presented to the State Coroner. At the inquiry, the family will also be able to raise all questions that they may have.

Benjamin’s passing was tragic. The Police have expressed their deepest condolences to the family. They have met the family to address their questions on the case and provide clarifications on the actions of the Police officers during their interaction with Benjamin.

Source: Singapore Police Force

February 2, 2016