Will you get trouble if you criticise government policy?
-
Originally posted by 韩飞官:
thats bullshit,i don believe in evolution. i read a book talking abt this. they say if there is such things,y humans after thousands of years, still remaind the same look? y we don see our surrounding animals evolve? to me humans is a unknown.
everyone is racists. no doubt.
the blacks don like white and the white don like blacks.
the yellow don like the brownie and brownie don like yellowish.
somehow yellow also don like white and black
white also don like yellow and brown.
anyone give brown cat food and they treat them as their frensif u think u are superio race, then ur racists concept will be in ur heart forever.
now is whites, lets wait for the western to collapse and yellow shall rule the world.
if you have a facebook, "western" controls you
-
come on we are airing our views. democracy, not communism we are here.
-
cannot criticize PAP and LKY...................
they will exterminate your entire clan....................
-
We are not criticising, we are talking about fact.
As long as we don't defame anyone, we can speak whatever we want.
我è¦�è®²ä»€ä¹ˆï¼Œæ˜¯æˆ‘çš„äººç”Ÿè‡ªç”±ï¼Œä»–äººæ— æ�ƒå¹²æ¶‰ã€‚
-
There''s freedom of speech in internet. Look at the ANit PAP posts online everyday. The ppl cannot vent anger on traditional media so all flock in to internet. My mom say if SIngapore got Call in political show like Taiwan and USA, she go scold PAP there.
-
at this stage they dont bother about our criticisms anymore
-
Majority needs to be politically educated to vote in a credible party for GE next.
Speak to the people on the street,generally they are not politically aware and politically mature.
Ridiculous, some even vote base on looks, damn childish!
-
Originally posted by Domo Kun:
There’’s freedom of speech in internet. Look at the ANit PAP posts online everyday.
The ppl cannot vent anger on traditional media so all flock in to internet.
My mom say if SIngapore got Call in political show like Taiwan and USA, she go scold PAP there.
Hello, Almond Cookies.
-
Predicted Tony will win. He won with not a strong mandate 35% only. No landslide victory for Tony Tan.
Here we see the weakening power of PAP.
Tony is their best choice of President. Own people, relatives of the Lees, damn, makes it so easy to work along. Our reserves how leh?
-
Originally posted by kira.sg:
We are not criticising, we are talking about fact.
As long as we don't defame anyone, we can speak whatever we want.
我è¦�è®²ä»€ä¹ˆï¼Œæ˜¯æˆ‘çš„äººç”Ÿè‡ªç”±ï¼Œä»–äººæ— æ�ƒå¹²æ¶‰ã€‚
The english and chinese are not talking about the same thing. -
Originally posted by kira.sg:
We are not criticising, we are talking about fact.
As long as we don't defame anyone, we can speak whatever we want.
我è¦�è®²ä»€ä¹ˆï¼Œæ˜¯æˆ‘çš„äººç”Ÿè‡ªç”±ï¼Œä»–äººæ— æ�ƒå¹²æ¶‰ã€‚
High 5, share the same sentiments!
-
Originally posted by jmstar~:
Majority needs to be politically educated to vote in a credible party for GE next.
Speak to the people on the street,generally they are not politically aware and politically mature.
Ridiculous, some even vote base on looks, damn childish!
Isn't our President good for his look only?
The job of governing Singapore is in the hands of the government. The voice of the people come from the members of parliament elected. The president is there for ceremonial purpose, to raise funds for charity, a pretty face is important.
ya...majority needs to be educated, who are the teachers. 众人皆醉我独醒。
-
Originally posted by 韩飞官:
i am not alien. i am a man. a real man struggling with my degree money
what is degree money? -
base on where in the net don't know is it true that this event really occurs?
Robert Ho May 9 2003, 2:56 am
Newsgroups: soc.culture.singapore
From: [email protected] (Robert Ho)
Date: 9 May 2003 02:56:54 -0700
Local: Fri, May 9 2003 2:56 am
Subject: RH: Was Cheng San election result rigged?
'Proof'?
QUOTE: " You may be interested to know the following:
On the polling night of the Cheng San elections I was
with a lawyer
friend - quite prominent- sitting at a coffee shop
directly opposite
the etrance to the Anderson School where the counring
was to take
place for Cheng San.
Our vantage point was about 20' higher than the road
which fronted the
school gates. The school building was another 50
metres away from the
gates. The gates were closed with two uniformed police
as security.
The lights in the open coumpound up to the building
were off but the
building lights were well on.
The counting should have started at about 8pm but we
took our
positions about 8.30pm.
We had one eye on the Anderson School counting centre
and another eye
ahead of us on the coffeeshop TV monitor perched a
little above our
heads. We could keep watch on the TV to see the
results as they came
in and also on the school.
At about 10.30pm we noticed a small closed van
approach the gates and
gates opened after some inquiry by the security police
and the small
van drove straight to the building. This was unusual
as the other few
vehicles that entered the building that we saw all
turned to the left
upon entering to park. But this van was allowed to
proceed to the
building entrance.
We were interested and watched closely the driver and
his assistant,
both in army uniforms, went to the rear doors of the
van and took our
some boxes and proceeded to carry them to the
building. They did a few
trips each with a box. The boxes looked like ballot
boxes.
We would be about 80 metres away and noted that the
van had no
markings but was of one colour which in the darkness
could have been
grey. After carrying the boxes in and immediatly
after, the van drove
off with the same two persons.
Nothing untoward occurred further that night.
We waited at the spot until all other results were out
and announced
but not Cheng San which completed at about 1.40am or
so.
We were known to one of the Cheng San opposition party
candidates and
we asked him what took so long as he was in there and
also with the
two other scrutineers of the opposition party. This
was after they
emerged from the counting centre.
They were surprised themselves and said that the
counting took some
time because there was recount after recount.
But they said that what was stranger was that they
were well into the
counting when the Rreturning officer on duty said
there were another
few boxes - 8-10 more to be opened as they had just
arrived. This
approximated to the time we saw the van driving up to
the school
building.
The scrutineers and the candidate said they checked
the unopened boxes
and found that the opposition party seals were not in
place.They
informed the Returning Officer who then said that the
absence of the
opposition seal did not render them invalid as the
responsibility for
having the seal in posiiton was that of the opposition
party.
The boxes contents (votes) were counted and they noted
that the votes
composition was very much in favour of the PAP unlike
the other boxes
where they votes more or less balanced out.
We drove the two lady scrutineers home and upon oiur
inquiries we
learned from them in all their innocence that the
extra ballot boxes
wre only opened and counted after the initial counting
had taken
place. Also that the preponderance of PAP votes in
those boxes were
not following the trend of the earlier countings. We
know somebody had
been had.
The Returnoing Officer is duty bound to ensure that
all ballot boxes
are in place before allowing counting to commence. " -
Could be, someone ordered Pizza?
-
Originally posted by E.Y.A.J:
base on where in the net don't know is it true that this event really occurs?
++++++++++Meaning that a van went in, 2 guys took out several boxes and drove off.
Any photos to show that?
-
Originally posted by FirePig:
The english and chinese are not talking about the same thing.
The chinese part is a continued statement. -
Originally posted by Susanteo2011:
cannot criticize PAP and LKY...................
they will exterminate your entire clan....................
PAP, MP and oppositions were sharing the joys of criticizing the government policy in the parliament. They started it so there is nothing wrong. It is a policy, not LKY or PAP
but do it gracefully because it does cause you heart attack or stroke if too long in this mode of emotional "disgrace" ...
-
Could, they sent the wrong pizza, I know LHL like to eat hawaii pizza.
-
come one make casino rcreate jobs for singaporeans. - you want your children to work in casinoes? probably the ebst casino jobs is to be a police there.
-
Originally posted by Whimsy:
PAP, MP and oppositions were sharing the joys of criticizing the government policy in the parliament. They started it so there is nothing wrong. It is a policy, not LKY or PAP
but do it gracefully because it does
cause you heart attack or stroke if too long in this mode of
emotional "disgrace" ...True.
There's nothing wrong if you criticise the policies. Or even say it is stupid. It is perfectly alright. But lose track and to go from attacking policy to attacking person, saying the person is a gangster, a crook, a motherfucker, then sure kena sue lah. Want to rely on freedom of speech no use. Can only say 'wah criticise only kena sue' which is not correct. Kena sue because say or hint the person, a crook, a cheat.
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
Could, they sent the wrong pizza, I know LHL like to eat hawaii pizza.
You saw it at a grassroots event? That's the cheapest pizza.
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
Could, they sent the wrong pizza, I know LHL like to eat hawaii pizza.
You know him so well, he is your biggest client in your sexy business?
-
Originally posted by mancha:
But lose track and to go from attacking policy to attacking person, saying the person is a gangster, a crook, a motherfucker, then sure kena sue lah.
I don't think so. If the person's personality is like shit, he or she should also be criticised.
-
Originally posted by Dalforce 25:
I don't think so. If the person's personality is like shit, he or she should also be criticised.
Just back it up with proof, when call upon to do so. Its only when you can't backup your statement about the person, that you land in deep shit.
If you want to call a person a liar, then you must prove he is a liar. Can't just shout an insult, and call that criticism under freedom of speech.