Why waste time camping in the house?

Is there a necessity to respond to MP Murali’s amended motion when the WP knows that it will be passed by 83 PAP MPs who were already instructed to vote for it? Why waste time camping in the House and trying to persuade MP Murali to withdraw his amended motion?

Come on Ms Indranee. Don’t try to fool us by telling us that WP failed to debate on the amended motion. It was already near midnight and MPs need to go home and sleep rather than talk to stones.

MP Sylvia Lim was absolutely right to tell the House that WP disagrees with the amended motion and all its members voted against the amended motion.

The PAP government can continue to believe that the criminal justice system is fair to all when it is not.


Teo Soh Lung




12 Responses to “Why waste time camping in the house?”

  • xoxo:

    So,the *show* must go on..
    First Shanmugam,now, another famous lawyer?
    Is gunning down OPPO MPs called *DEBATES*?
    Guess more like *HOUSE* VIOLENCE???

    We need more oppo MPs to have REAL DEBATES, dont we, Ms Indranee?

    Its like going to court with one lawyer because thats all a poor guy could afford vs the other with a few lawyers on the panel.

    Sounds familiar?
    Ask Lim Tean.

    GD Star Rating
  • Tremendous:

    Still haven’t learnt their lesson. Going hardball with that fake news thing and kenna whacked on vote shares when the public villagers were looking for solutions and opinions that the group failed to come up with. Now try to use her group members to distort the motion. The whole group won’t learn but maybe dropping a few more vote percentage points next round is fine with them.

    GD Star Rating
  • mike:

    When u do not have competition, u get very efficient to pĺay xtra time to your own liking. Frankly, what else can a tiny party do?

    A motion on amended motion. This is fxxking smart!

    GD Star Rating
  • therichisthelaw:

    She noted that many of the WP’s suggestions put forth during the debate were already being considered by the Government – such as the notion of a public defenders’ office.

    “Other suggestions could not be so easily implemented due to high costs and potential downsides. For suggestions that the Government disagreed with, the PAP ministers took pains to explain why this was so,” said Ms Indranee, a former practising lawyer.

    The useless opposition did not pick up on “high cost” and “potential downside” and continue debating.

    Why? Because they are also “high cost” and resistance to “potential downside”

    Hence, lawyers and judges are very expensive employees only the rich could afford(especially those who preside over the reserve)

    GD Star Rating
  • Realistically:

    @ Teo Soh Lung

    Once again you show your out-of-date ignorance………….the ultimate voting result was a foregone conclusion with the overwhelming PAP majority.

    In which case, why have so-called opposition at all? Might as well follow the HK example where ALL democrats resign en mass.

    The purpose of having the so-called oppos & also the wayang party’s motion is to show up the bankruptcy of the emperor without clothes baseless claims regarding the functioning of the judicial system which is geared towards his self-preservation and interest………….which unfortunately the wayang party had failed to achieved totally…..

    Like I said in the other thread, people like U, the other writer, Paul Thambyah etc should debunk Law & Home Affairs Minister so-called Parliament Statement on the Parti Liyani’s case.

    Oh, I have told you to read up Assoc Prof Eugene Tan’s commentary in the TODAY on-line newspaper and also that by Harpreet Singh Nehal SC in the Straits Times…………..the issue is NOT limited to the “CRIMINAL” justice system BUT the entire justice system whereby the emperor without clothes could utilise to “FIX” his critics/opponents and the “BUY” his supporters’ support………… least that is what I THINK……….MY OPINION LAH.

    Quite pathetic really……….you have been RANTING for YEARS ………..what hv YOU and similar sinkies achieved except to hand the emperor without clothes the power to cause more miseries to sinkies while they continue to be paid millions from the tax-payers’ $..

    GD Star Rating
  • liew mun leong must be jailed:

    the winner gets to rewrite history.

    currently pap rules.

    in any badly run nation, a large portion of its citizens, whether sharing in the spoils or not, vote for them.

    the good thing is, in any such nation, there is a remnant who continuously work tirelessly to turn the tide.

    as history shows, he tide shall turn.

    so our message to all 39% is this, unity is strength. help PSP and WP in west coast east coast marine parade. in FOUR years we shall have the joy of seeing pap clown and wife and their S$m gang in New Court under New Government.

    GD Star Rating
  • TUMASIK Patriot:

    They have to earn their KEEP and Play to the gallery even by making a fool of themselves…Not bad for a few Hundred K per year

    GD Star Rating
  • oxygen:

    IT IS SUCH A SIMPLE CASE from the Crown against a defendant accused of theft BUT IT TURNED UP SUCH A BIG FARKED-UP from the moment of investigation to AGC’s prosecution in the courtroom and the judgement that followed BEFORE that was over-turned in the Appeal Court.

    It is NOT EXACTLY a Sherlock Holmes crime thriller or an exciting sex offence case.

    The political fall-out and debate in the POLITICAL ZOO is even a BIGGER FARK-UP wrestling match.

    Who can blame the peasants if the public minds distrust the judicial system’s fair or unfair competency thereafter?

    GD Star Rating
  • Pioneer:

    So far, the WP MPs have done well in ParLeemen. Agree with WP refuting that lady MP from the Party Against People. It is pointless for WP MPs to speak on the amended motion when the Papayas have 83 yes sir MPs without independent minds of their own. They are like white sheep following behind their emperor’s instructions. Too many white MPs just wasting of tax payer money. They have no “balls” to go against their Emperor.

    GD Star Rating
  • Realistically:

    Like what I said in another current thread:

    The wayang party’s MPs should hv hammered Shanmugam about his Parliament Statement being a FARCE, but they didn’t.

    November 14, 2020 at 4:22 pm (Quote)

    @ Peggy Sue

    I think Law & Home Affairs Minister Shanmugam beli stoooooooopid wan lah……..he neber read the CHIEF JUSTICE judgment in which the CJ oso implicitly criticised District Judge Olivia Low………

    I just give ONE example from the judgment….I use capital letters to emphasise what I consider to be the important point:

    13 At the end of the trial, the DJ held that the key question in relation to the Device was not its functionality but rather whether the applicant had permission to take the Device. …… No finding was made as to the Device’s functionality or whether Mdm Ng had intended to throw it away. I digress to observe that the DJ APPEARED NOT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANCE OF WHETHER THE DEVICE WAS OR WAS NOT WORKING IN ASSESSING THE CREDIBILITY OF MDM NG AND THE APPLICANT (ie Liyani) ….. However, IF it turned out that the Device WAS FAULTY it would lend weight to her contention that she had been told it was faulty; and WOULD CUT AGAINST MDM NG’s CONTENTION that it was perfectly functional. This could then BEAR ON THE CREDIBILITY …….of each of them on the question of whether the Device had been discarded or not.

    14 On appeal, the Judge thought that the EVIDENCE AS TO THE WORKING CONDITION ……….WAS IN FACT OF CRUCIAL evidence as to the working condition of the Device was in fact of crucial relevance to the applicant’s defence. ….The JUDGE CONSIDERED THAT THE DEVICE ….AS SPOILT …(A)ccordingly, he accepted the applicant’s defence that her employers had no longer wanted the faulty Device and acquitted the applicant of the s 381 charge in relation to the Device (see Parti Liyani (HC) at [94]– [96]).

    People can read the CJ’s judgment at this link:
    Re Parti Liyani [2020] SGHC 227

    How come Shanmugam neber mention anything about the CJ’s judgment ar finding fault with the District Judge and the DPPs?

    Like this oso can wan meh……..& call it Parliament Statement? What a FARCE!!!!!! And ALL those monkeys in white oso agree with the Murali’s amendment!!!!!!!! So PATHETIC………

    GD Star Rating
  • Realistically:

    And the FACT that there are so many lawyers, including the law grad from Cambridge U FAILING to call out Shanmugam’s FARCICAL Parliament Statement only shows up that WP stands for wayang party.

    GD Star Rating
  • DeLorean:

    Indranee is a lawyer and speaking like one. The WP did their job. I do not know what is the job of PAP. But it looks like they think their first job is to protect their turf as usual. Don’t expect them to work for the people.

    GD Star Rating
Member Services
Self-SupportMembers LoginSelf-Support
Sponsored Advertisement
Search On TR Emeritus
Sponsored Advertisement
Visitors Statistic
Latest Statistic