include("cmp.php");

The paradox of the Public Order Act

This whole thing of being investigated for holding a playcard without a permit is getting ridiculous. It is now PAP MP Louis Ng at the receiving end of the police investigation for holding a playcard to support hawkers.

This is similar to Jolovan Wham’s case where he held a placard with a smiley face in front of a police station and got charged for it.

Another absurdity was when the police charged and fined Jolovan Wham for organizing a conference over skype.

A third man was charged for protesting alone outside the US embassy in Singapore.

Where is this all bringing us to? We are slowly turing into a police state. The govenrment seems to be intolerant of dissenting voices and prosecuting even at the slightest transgression with a sledge hammer.

Even a good cause like supporting hawkers as what MP Louis Ng was doing can get him into trouble. It will be interesting to see what happens to him, as he is regarded as someone from the establishment.

A quick comparison between Jolovan Wham’s incident of holding a smiley playcard seems to be similar as to what MP Louis Ng is doing. Both are holding a playcard and without police permit. Jolovan Wham was charged and fined.

If PAP MP Louis Ng is being let off with just a stern warning, it will then reinforce the public perception of a double standard when applying the law for the common man and the elites.

But if the AGC decides to prosecute MP Louis Ng, then the law is excessively applied just like in Jolovan Wham’s case.

This is what happens when the police is heavy handed whenever it deals with activist. It now has a hard time applying its discretion as the one who violates the law comes from its own establishment.

Precedent has been set. Rule of law has to be applied in this case or run the risk of eroding the trust of the people.

 

Osman Bin Sulaiman

 

 

yyy
READER COMMENTS BELOW

25 Responses to “The paradox of the Public Order Act”

  • TEMUSIK PATRIOT:

    Wayang, lah, Man! even if the MP gets fine similar to Wham it is to show that there is a level playing field leh!!! Tipu Budak Budak lah!!!

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • @TEMUSIK PATRIOT

    Yes, I would agree that this is another wayang kulit staged by THE party LEEdership, with the end result being a “stern warning” and then case closed. He cannot and will not be charged in court like the poor Jolowham because if he kanna fined, his MPship kiss bye bye.

    One would be daft to think that it was the police whom initiated the action against him, an MP from THE party. If I may opine so, even the AGC would not dare to lift a finger against him if nobody from the top LEEdership gave the nod and go-ahead.

    From what I have heard, it was Terry Xu from the TOC who snooked him because Terry had applied for the permit to do the exact same thing which he has done, but the police rejected him citing tons of BS reasons.

    So then Terry asked if Louis can do it, why not he, the LEEdership kenna snooked, so have to appear to be fair and therefore this wayang kulit.

    If the LEEdership don’t take any action, picture Terry or other opposition members also holding the same sign and then go hawker centre to support the hawkers, then how, dio bo?

    What do you think?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Lanjiao Party:

    In the near future with very advance technology, just by thinking of carrying a smiling face on the street also can be fine. Paranoid until they become mr. bo lam par.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Please lar, you think they scared of the smiley face meh? Even if one were to carry a cardboard with “I Love PAP” logo one would also kenna charged and fined one.

    It really depends on who is carrying it and whether that person carrying it is a person under teh radar or not.

    Come to think of it, Terry maybe should try carrying a cardboard with the word “I Love PAP” and take a selfie outside teh PA, dunno he also will kenna fined like Jolowham or not. lol

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Lupin:

    Hang the “old man with wheel-barrow” cardboard on some 4-legged stray and let it wanders around.

    TRE Techie:
    Please lar, you think they scared of the smiley face meh? Even if one were to carry a cardboard with “I Love PAP” logo one would also kenna charged and fined one.

    It really depends on who is carrying it and whether that person carrying it is a person under teh radar or not.

    Come to think of it, Terry maybe should try carrying a cardboard with the word “I Love PAP” and take a selfie outside teh PA, dunno he also will kenna fined like Jolowham or not. lol

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Singaporeans R Free Riders:

    Dear Readers,
    Let me give you a example.

    Scenario 1
    If you are outside a brothel and you lick a banana like below link at the chicks that pass through the brothel, no one give a hoot about it.
    https://fathergeek.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/inthenameofscience.jpg

    Scenario 2
    If you are in a school or university and you lick a banana at every female students, you will be charged in court.

    Same action but done in different place, different people and it has different meaning.

    So, to the Ang Mo Tua Kee blind pro democracy supporters, do you understand now?

    GE2024.PAP.Guarantee.Win.HuatAgain
    Majullah $PAP$ $PAP$ Huat$

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • xoxo:

    frankLEE,*THEY* boh-pian.
    This is called *KARMA*???

    POT CANNOT CALL KETTLE BLACK.
    White is white,BLACK is BLACK?

    LETS NOT EXAGGERATE FOR EXAGGERATIONS HAVE DANGEROUS ENDS.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • What is good for the Goose?:

    That pappy MP has got to get the same treatment as Wham!

    $8000 fine or go to goalie!

    What is good for the Goose must be for the Gender?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • PAP is Finished:

    Smiley face friendly not obscene. No one lick banana except you in your dreams. Those anti LGBT are normally closetted LGBTs.

    https://www.advocate.com/world/2020/12/02/anti-lgbtq-politician-caught-all-male-orgy-resigns-post

    Singaporeans R Free Riders:
    Dear Readers,
    Let me give you a example.

    Scenario 1
    If you are outside a brothel and you lick a banana like below link at the chicks that pass through the brothel, no one give a hoot about it.
    https://fathergeek.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/inthenameofscience.jpg

    Scenario 2
    If you are in a school or university and you lick a banana at every female students, you will be charged in court.

    Same action but done in different place, different people and it has different meaning.

    So, to the Ang Mo Tua Kee blind pro democracy supporters, do you understand now?

    GE2024.PAP.Guarantee.Win.HuatAgain
    Majullah $PAP$ $PAP$ Huat$

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Poor guy:

    So this guy cannot afford the service of a teleporting lawyer?

    On a serious note, is it a crime now to hold a piece of paper at our HDB windows?

    Is it a crime to pin the paper to our shirt and walk along Orchard Rd?

    Is it a crime to print something on our t-shirt and walk along somewhere? Oh, wait, this is already a crime.

    Better apply for police permit before we leave our homes, or stand at our windows.

    So dangerous, with 5 million police cameras pointing everywhere.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • oxygen:

    ANYONE WALKING HIS/HER puppy/s or cat in public space MUST BE ALSO CHARGED for offence under the Public Order Act – THEY ARE OBVIOUSLY ENGAGED IN ILLEGAL ASSEMBLY.

    Their “towage” in tow is dirtying public space with their waste discharge, sometimes engage in needless noise pollution and in some instances threatening of todler’s safety playing in the public parks.

    isn’t all these behaviors of PET LOVERS AND THEIR PETS OBVIOUSLY disrupting of public peace??

    Where is the mata (police) in those instances?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Dr Tan Tai Wei:

    It undermines the very reason for having the law. It purportedly has been to preserve public order. Assembly of people arguably can result in chaos and violence. But when you stretch it so that even one person is a crowd, besides flouting language and logic, you raise issues as to your motive, sincerity and trustworthiness for so legislating. How on earth could one person holding a card in public really threaten the peace? And you can continue to exaggerate, forging imagined links, how one can lead to another, and so on and on. But that will only increase the suspicion that one is stretching the argument only to satisfy your real motive, which is to punish or eliminate disagreement and opposition.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Homeless Cat:

    What an idiotic example. Typical of a PAP supporter in need of permanent retirement.

    Singaporeans R Free Riders:
    Dear Readers,
    Let me give you a example.

    Scenario 1
    If you are outside a brothel and you lick a banana like below link at the chicks that pass through the brothel, no one give a hoot about it.
    https://fathergeek.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/inthenameofscience.jpg

    Scenario 2
    If you are in a school or university and you lick a banana at every female students, you will be charged in court.

    Same action but done in different place, different people and it has different meaning.

    So, to the Ang Mo Tua Kee blind pro democracy supporters, do you understand now?

    GE2024.PAP.Guarantee.Win.HuatAgain
    Majullah $PAP$ $PAP$ Huat$

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • oxygen:

    ONLY COMPLETE A*SEHOLES have no respect for the law doctrine of “common law” found and practised in all Commonwealth law jurisdictions including US.

    There is one COMPLETE A*SEHOLE loitering around in this thread to sow confusion with his/her regular circus-like buskering and carnival-like festering.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • oxygen:

    Ooops typo error there, sorry

    oxygen: There is one COMPLETE A*SEHOLE loitering around in this thread to sow confusion with his/her regular circus-like buskering and carnival-like festering

    The caption above should be read as

    oxygen: There is one COMPLETE A*SEHOLE loitering around in this thread to sow confusion with his/her regular circus-like buskering and carnival-like JESTERING

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • oxygen:

    THAT COMPLETE A*SEHOLE must have deep conviction/belief to be preaching the practice of law is a “LYING COW” divine book of law just like this establishment law-maker facing intense public scrutiny (that she ended up in hospital care under intense mental pressure before “confessing” of such unacceptable derogatory behavior AFTER A YOUNG STAFFER went public and accused another of rape).

    Minister responds to claim she called Brittany Higgins a ‘lying cow’

    https://au.yahoo.com/news/minister-responds-claim-called-brittany-higgins-lying-cow-232439156.html

    When peasants point to law-breaking behavior/violation among walking cows, inevitably these “walking cows” ostensibly as moral law architects will turn around and label their accusers as “lying cows”.

    IF AND WHEN CONFRONTED BEFORE A TOUGH JUDGE as to how a walking cow (aka COMPLETE A*SEHOLE) weave a beautiful cobweb of deceit (aka as lying cow), the answer that must inevitably comes back must be this – I DON’T KNOW.

    And then what thereafter?

    I guess infinite possibilities. The walking cows might try this as last Houdini escape of fainting in the courtroom to be “rescued” to SGH emergency ward for emotional distress, huh???

    SO WALKING COWS, LYING COWS AND THE LAW/EQUITY ARE THE SAME THINGS??

    To avoid doubt, just ask the New Zealand law professor Kirk on insect and animal.

    I AM SURE IT IS BEYOND THE INTELLECT OF A COMPLETE AR*SEHOLE, walking cows and lying cows too.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • oxygen:

    “COMPLETE A*SEHOLE” should desist advertising in TRE his/her fetish obsession with “banana” licking.

    It can only confuse peasants’ comprehension of law.

    Hypocritical walking cows can also be “lying cows” and the reverse is also true i.e. political “lying cows” can also pretend to be innocent caring “walking cows”

    Read these two weblinks for political educations.

    https://au.yahoo.com/news/minister-responds-claim-called-brittany-higgins-lying-cow-232439156.html

    and

    https://www.9news.com.au/national/linda-reynolds-brittany-higgins-lying-cow-parliament-rape-accusation-politics-news/4d760ee9-dbe2-4617-afd9-fa236bc5a377

    In brevity of real life history – here is the summary.

    Brittany Higgins alleged she was raped in a Ministerial office (her former boss, sitting Defence Minister Linda Reynolds) in Parliament House. Ms. Linda Reynolds was hospitalized (now on medical leave for 2 weeks) for mental distress of intense public scrutiny after Brittany Higgins went public of her alleged ordeal.
    Govt ministers are in denial of prior knowledge including PM, SCOMO.

    The law says that delaying referral by any concealment or obstructive means to police investigation is helping to destroy evidence and obstructing the course of justice administration – THAT IS IN TWO WORDS – crime offence.

    It is dangerous of law offence for “walking cows” to finger point “lying cows” when the truth awaiting exposition is the opposite direction.

    Law application is NOT WHAT “COMPLETE A*SEHOLE” has made out to be of “banana licking”.

    The insect/animal analogy is better explanation of “walking cows” and “lying cows” deception.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Pioneer:

    I believe he would plead guilty and pays the fine. End of story.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Pioneer:
    I believe he would plead guilty and pays the fine. End of story.

    ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE. There is no way he is going to be charged in court and fined. At most the police will issue a warning and that will be the end of the wayang kulit.

    There is no way on earth that THE party is going to allow him to be charged and fined because he will lose his MPship, if he is fined over $2000 UNLESS the wayang kulit continues and he is fined $1999. lol

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • mike:

    Osman Bin Sulaiman:
    We are slowly turing into a police state. The govenrment seems to be intolerant of dissenting voices and prosecuting even at the slightest transgression with a sledge hammer.

    We ARE a police state since 1960 and 1st enhanced in 1985. You Dumb! Sorry, i am rude.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • What did Executioner say?:

    Pun intended :
    What did the Executioner of Fakkaland say when asked, why did he end the life of a prisoner on death row and this prisoner never do him any harm.

    He replied : ” My boss tell me to do it. Its just my job.”

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Try this:

    Walk on the street wearing a bright yellow T-shirt with a placard printed on (or sewn on) it saying “Support Them” and include a smiley face. See if you will be arrested for illegal public assembly. If you are more adventurous instead of “Support Them” use “F**k PAP”.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Sinchiapor Syndrome Oi.....:

    Librarians may be shy, but their patrons aren’t. Look at their oddball requests: One patron offered me $100 to steal a bonsai from the PA garden Heeheehee. Another patron wanted me to find a book to teach her puppy Shanghainese…. toa seow ah! Another one on his way to the casino asked to rub my red hair for luck… I don’t even have a “huat” face you know? Another patron once asked me for my home phone number so she could call me for book reference questions when I wasn’t at work – grossly overtime! Then oh my gosh…. Jolovan stood still four feet in front of my counter for twenty minutes to protest against the library – you see…. we just didn’t have the book “The Idiot’s Guide to Peaceful Protests & Sundry Misgivings”

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • oxygen:

    I HAVE COMPELLING APPREHENSION the public mind is going to watch if this circus turns up another Briginshaw v Briginshaw ignominy.

    This is a LANDMARK AUSTRALIAN HIGH COURT DECISION handed down in 1938 which is still been invoked by establishment Down Under of protected rights – unchallengeable – until the courtrooms decided it is farcical of law injustice.

    In Briginshaw v Briginshaw decision, the presiding judge ruled that Mrs. Briginshaw cannot be impugn of her evidence presented BECAUSE OF HER STATUS AS A MARRIED WOMAN.

    In other words, the outcome of judicial determination is DEPENDENT ON “WHO” is the prosecution/Applicant and/or “WHO” is the accused/defendant IN THOSE PROCEEDINGS.

    If you are of the “right” package or background, YOU WIN THE CASE without any serious effort of energetic exertion.

    If you belong to the “wrong” pedigree, SHOCKING BAD LUCK will strike you down like lightning – only that this time where the lightning will strike to fatal ending is PREDICTABLE of legal precedent set in Briginshaw v Briginshaw common law.

    Which is why this weblink below is a great law article to read – point to the wavering accusing finger in BRIGINSHAW LAW IMPERATIVE.

    THE BRIGINSHAW ‘STANDARD OF PROOF’ IN
    ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LAW: ‘POINTING WITH A WAVERING FINGER’

    http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MelbULawRw/2003/13.html

    FORTUNATELY, judicial thoughts and doctrine in Australia have progressed with time and judges are no longer moved or intimidated by any party seeking privileged protection of Briginshaw law debasement.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • oxygen:

    IF BRIGINSHAW V BRIGINSHAW LAW DEBASEMENT STILL PREVAILS in Australia, Eddie Mabo – literally a poor peasant without any legal aid/assistance -singlehandily fought the COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA on aboriginal land right.

    It is a one-man peasant fight against the whole country’s legal juggernaut. He died without knowing the outcome.

    5 months after his death in 1992 –

    “on 3 June 1992, the High Court announced its historic decision to overturn the legal doctrine of terra nullius, which defined land which was supposedly “uninhabited” as liable for government seizure.

    That decision, formally “Mabo v Queensland (No 2)”, now commonly called “Mabo” in Australia, is recognised for its landmark status.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Mabo

    The judgment proves that the Commonwealth -if it attempts to rely on Briginshaw v Briginshaw foul play at law – would be crushed at law and justice.

    NOBODY IS PROTECTED specie – not even if the defendant is the country against a single peasant with little education and who was then employed as a gardener at the University of Newcastle, New South Wales.

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

UA-67043412-1