李家長公主又發言了。。。

NewFuture

如題。

http://statestimesreview.com/201 ... e-the-previous-pap/

Lee Wei Ling slam Lee Hsien Loong: Your PAP is not like the previous PAP
   

The elder daughter of deceased dictator Lee Kuan Yew, Lee Wei Ling, slam her Prime Minister brother Lee Hsien Loong for being an authoritarian dictator and that his government differs from the previous PAP.

Lee Wei Ling was taking issues with the newly-passed changes to the Contempt of Court charge, that increases the penalties for anyone who speak out against an unfair judgment. Under the new law, it will be an offence to speak out against the Singapore Court and judges.

Lee Wei Ling then complained about the state of apathy among Singaporeans. You may view the original post here.

“Rather, I am amazed that there has not been more vocal protest by more Singaporeans. A phenomenon I observed this morning may provide the answer. I woke up and stepped out of my air-conditioned bedroom and immediately smelled smoked. I asked my two maids who sleep in bedrooms with their windows open whether they smelt anything smoke and they did not. I called a friend who also sleeps in air-conditioned bedroom and he too smelt smoke as he stepped out of his bedroom. Smell is a sensation that we quickly get used to and then no longer notice it if it lingers for less than an hour. Perhaps, Singaporeans have gotten used to an authoritarian government who until recently had always acted for their wellbeing, and so when another new action is taken, they do not even bother to think whether it may be against their welfare. This current government is not like previous PAP governments. I urged all Singaporeans, and all MPs and NMPs to think through what has been proposed, and also read the many commentaries on the internet.”

NewFuture

原文。

https://m.facebook.com/weiling.lee.980/posts/286541565034827

Lee Wei Ling
In Straits Times on 12/8/2016, it was reported that the contempt of court laws are set to be entered into the statutes.
Minister Shanmugam stated that
1) It gives the public a better sense of what action can unduly influence court proceedings, known as sub judice. Ironically, Sub Judice rules were set up for situation where there is laymen jury who may be naïve enough to be misled by rumours or lead by emotion rather than logic as in religious or racial issues. It was this weakness of having a jury swayed by ignorance or emotions that lead our founding PM Lee Kuan Yew, to do away with Juries in Singapore courts. If your judges are so vulnerable, then the cabinet is at fault for its choice of candidates proposed to be promoted to be judges.
2) It provides a framework for contempt of court punishments. The maximum penalty is a fine up to $20,000 and/or jail term up to 12 months. This is very serious penalties for someone who may just want to speak out against an unfair judge and/or an unfair government. When I wrote in ST against the then penalty for Mr Tang Wee Sung, whilst I wrote out of my pity for Mr. Tang and the sense of how brutally unfair the penalty suggested by our Attorney General’s Chambers was, the letter published in Straits Time was worded with the help of Mr Shanmugam and his partner at Allen and Gledhill, Mr Lucian Wong. I would have written even if neither senior lawyers supported me, but the wording of my letter would have been very amateurish. Now being on the side of the government, Minister Shanmugam seems to see justice only from the point of view of the government and the AGC always being right.
In fact, it is bizarre for me after what Mr. Wong and Mr. Shanmugam encouraged and supported me to do then, that Mr. Shanmugam now wants to demolish a tiny trail leading to some degree of justice for someone whom the government considers a nuisance.
3) It provides a framework for contempt of court punishment and sets a limit on fines and prison sentences which as seen from above can be very serious.
This has led to widespread concern amongst Singaporeans who understand the implications of this proposed law and one need only search the internet to find multiple posts stating why this bill will gag public debate on issues that are important to Singaporeans. I will not repeat what has been clearly stated in petition against this bill which was published Straits Times on 12/8/2016.
Rather, I am amazed that there has not been more vocal protest by more Singaporeans. A phenomenon I observed this morning may provide the answer. I woke up and stepped out of my air-conditioned bedroom and immediately smelled smoked. I asked my two maids who sleep in bedrooms with their windows open whether they smelt anything smoke and they did not. I called a friend who also sleeps in air-conditioned bedroom and he too smelt smoke as he stepped out of his bedroom. Smell is a sensation that we quickly get used to and then no longer notice it if it lingers for less than an hour. Perhaps, Singaporeans have gotten used to an authoritarian government who until recently had always acted for their wellbeing, and so when another new action is taken, they do not even bother to think whether it may be against their welfare. This current government is not like previous PAP governments. I urged all Singaporeans, and all MPs and NMPs to think through what has been proposed, and also read the many commentaries on the internet.

蛇仔明

为何波小要设下这个SUB JUDICE法令? 缘由何在?

kcchiew

NewFuture 发表于 14-8-2016 10:43 PM
原文。

https://m.facebook.com/weiling.lee.980/posts/286541565034827

Lee Wei Ling
In Straits Times on 12/8/2016, it was reported that the contempt of court laws are set to be entered into the st ...

这法令我认为有点画蛇添足，应该在现有法令上修改（如毁谤对像和罪名），可能能得到同样的效果。

但法律专家有他们专业的判断，应该有我看不到的不同点。

诡异的是, Lee Wei Ling犯下的引证错误，反而证明了有这法案的必要性（虽然她道歉了）。

kcchiew

被schooling的新闻掩盖了？怎么还没有国会的视频，听说辩论蛮激烈的。。。。

kcchiew

刚听完主要讲词，需要再听至少一次；我的英文很差。

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/n ... ml?tab=6&day=15

jellyfish_8

蛇仔明 发表于 15-8-2016 02:16 AM
为何波小要设下这个SUB JUDICE法令? 缘由何在?

可能看了马国的例子，人民不服1MDB，赵明福，一直在网上呱呱叫，破坏法庭公信力。

可以说是间接的媒体管制瓜？

目前的法令已经很齐全了，何必画蛇添足？

蛇仔明

jellyfish_8 发表于 17-8-2016 12:17 PM
可能看了马国的例子，人民不服1MDB，赵明福，一直在网上呱呱叫，破坏法庭公信力。

可以说是间接的媒体管制瓜？

目前的法令已经很齐全了，何必画蛇添足？

波小的媒体都是李家的，不必管制... 这个比较像是针对网路和社交媒体。

jellyfish_8

蛇仔明 发表于 17-8-2016 12:45 PM
波小的媒体都是李家的，不必管制... 这个比较像是针对网路和社交媒体。

付钱给谷歌/面书就可以蒙蔽你不要人家看到的了。。  

jellyfish_8

kcchiew 发表于 15-8-2016 08:19 AM
这法令我认为有点画蛇添足，应该在现有法令上修改（如毁谤对像和罪名），可能能得到同样的效果。

但法律专家有他们专业的判断，应该有我看不到的不同点。

诡异的是, Lee Wei Ling犯下的引证错误，反而证明了 ...

Hidup adalah panggung sandiwara dan banyak yang actingnya jelek。。