GE coming

[kuasimi]

https://www.facebook.com/leonperera7...21826174642219

A busy weekend, with two walkabouts at Serangoon Avenue 4! Heard different perspectives on local and national issues from many constituents. There’s been much discussion about the need for the Workers’ Party to put forward alternative policies.

There has been less discussion about how the government should respond to such alternative policies. WP MPs have been conveying alternative policy ideas inside and outside of Parliament for years. There are a few possible ways the government can respond to these ideas:

𝐚. 𝐑𝐞𝐩𝐥𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐮𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐲 𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰𝐞𝐝. 𝐒𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞𝐬 𝐚 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐲 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐦𝐚𝐝𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐚 𝐢𝐧 𝐬𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐲.

Of course, many voices may have contributed to prompting that policy change, not only the WP voice. But it would be good for the public to know when and by what pathway such changes happen, through fair media reporting and good public commentary.

𝐛. 𝐀𝐫𝐠𝐮𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐚 𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥, 𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐬𝐨𝐥𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐦 𝐢𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐨𝐫 𝐰𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞-𝐞𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐰𝐞𝐢𝐠𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞. 𝐁𝐮𝐭 𝐢𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐥𝐲 𝐢𝐬 𝐜𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐧, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐟𝐮𝐥𝐥 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐚, 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐬𝐭𝐮𝐝𝐲 𝐨𝐫 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐬𝐮𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐬𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜 𝐝𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐛𝐞 𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐝.

Data and evidence can be subject to more than one reasonable interpretation. For example, the government conducts many public opinion surveys using state funds. I have raised in Parliament the question of why all of these surveys are not automatically published for use by civil society, scholars and alternative parties to better formulate alternative policy ideas.

Of course, sometimes evidence overwhelmingly suggests that something is a bad idea. But sometimes the evidence is inconclusive. The result of a new policy idea can rarely be guessed with complete certainty, unlike outcomes in the natural sciences. There can be different views about future outcomes of the same policy that are consistent with the available evidence. We ought to acknowledge that. Let’s have more transparency about underlying evidence and data.

𝐜. 𝐑𝐞𝐩𝐥𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐠𝐨𝐨𝐝 𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐚. 𝐁𝐮𝐭 𝐰𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐭 𝐚𝐧 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐢𝐭.

This is what the Workers’ Party called for when it suggested a randomized controlled trial for the impact of smaller form class sizes in schools, through a Parliamentary adjournment motion in 2017.

𝐝. 𝐑𝐞𝐩𝐥𝐲 𝐛𝐲 𝐚𝐯𝐨𝐢𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚 𝐝𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐥𝐲 𝐨𝐫 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧. 𝐇𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐚 𝐥𝐨𝐨𝐤 𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐱𝐜𝐞𝐫𝐩𝐭 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐩𝐭 𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐰.

The WP had mooted an alternative policy approach to POFMA, namely that correction directives be approved by judges (among other things). If you read the way the Minister responded to this alternative idea in the excerpt below, do you think that the alternative was seriously considered and addressed?

One hopes that alternative ideas are debated vigorously in Parliament with respect to options (a), (b) and (c) above, and not (d).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): I would like to pose a clarification to the Law Minister. I had intended originally to pose a clarification to Mr Cedric Foo. But I think in light of the Law Minister's comments at this point, I will just pose some clarification to him.

It is quite simple. Is it the position of the Law Minister and the Government that our Courts could not be sufficiently resourced, structured, if necessary a new process, a new expedited process created, if necessary a new process for assigning judges created, additional capacity created? Is it impossible?

Is it inconceivable that this could be done in the future in order to issue interim prima facie decisions in urgent, time-sensitive cases under POFMA? Is that impossible by definition?

By definition is that impossible in the future if we take all these steps to put in the resources to put in the process, if necessary create a special of class of judges, so on, so forth. Is that impossible by definition?

And I would add that in other jurisdictions to the best of my knowledge, and I may stand corrected, in other jurisdictions, for example, in some states in the US, it is my understanding that an arrest warrant has to be approved by a judge under certain circumstances.

These arrest warrants are very time-sensitive and the judge has to make a decision on the balance of probabilities, whether to arrest the person. That is a serious matter. Whether to arrest a person in extremely time-sensitive circumstances. Sometimes, late at night the law enforcers will go and see the judge. Because that system has been created and structured and resourced in such a way that it is possible. So, that is my clarification.

Mr K Shanmugam: A number of points here. The first of which is this. Let us take the sequence, the process of these things. First, you got to draft something and file in Court. We are now talking about the Select Committee's recommendation to do something within a matter of hours. You got to draft and file.

You got to put aside some time for that. After that, you must find the judge. Let us say in your scenario, we have a High Court Judge who does nothing but sits there 24/7 because it can break out anytime, and will be available as soon as the Government calls. It is technically not impossible.

Of course, you can have a Judge who does nothing but this, and no other cases. Because if he is hearing a case, he cannot break the case and come and listen to you. He has to go to finish the case for the sitting, until lunch time or until the evening, depending on the scenario.

Duty Judges hear their cases too. So, we are saying, if supposing something has happened and I want to stop the communication within the next two hours, do you think it is possible by going to Court?

Then, there are further factors which have further levels of uncertainty. You file, you go before a Judge and you say, "Look, Judge, it is so urgent that I am not going to serve this on Google, Facebook or whoever, wherever it is spreading. I just need an urgent order, ex parte, and then later on I will serve". Sometimes, the Judge may agree but the Judge may also disagree.

Supposing he disagrees, then it takes a further length of time. The decision maker, the person who has the facts might take one view and the responsibility for dealing with that situation also rests with the Executive.

Have you not known of instances where within 24 hours, there have been riots and people have been killed? Supposing the Judge says, "I think I would like to hear the other side, urgent as it is".

It has happened. Urgent ex parte applications have been heard on a contested basis. Any of these are possible. The Judge could give you ex parte. But he could also ask for contested ex parte.

He could ask the other side to turn up quickly. And if he does that, and the other side turns up, and then, they say, "We do not have time to file an affidavit but we want to know the basic facts before we can argue. We need until this evening; we need until tomorrow morning." Once you set up a Court process, then, you must allow for the due process.

So, my point to you, Mr Perera is, having now heard this explanation, is it your position that definitionally, it is possible, every single time, whenever we want it to be dealt with urgently, that it can be dealt with urgently, in a matter of hours? Is that your position?

Mr Speaker: Mr Perera.

Mr Leon Perera: I thank the Law Minister for his explanation. And I think that there are a number of points that he made which relate to judicial capacity, for want of a better term, and process. I would imagine that, based on what the Law Minister has said, he can envisage, that the necessary capacity can be created to deal with such a caseload, based on what Law Minister said.

Mr K Shanmugam: Possible, if the Judge does nothing else but waits for the applications. That was what I said.

Mr Leon Perera: Yes. So, I would take it that necessary capacity can be created. We can create a special class of Courts, duty Judges. Capacity is a question of resource planning. So, with sufficient resources applied, necessary capacity can be created.

Next, there is an issue of process. And I think the Law Minister alluded to the fact that while the Government will have to word the submission, even an ex parte submission to the Court, and that is time consuming, and while this is going on, the clock is ticking away and the falsehood is viralising and so on.

But within the Ministry, or the Statutory Board or agency, the civil servants also have to word the submission to the Minister or communicate with the Minister.

Can we not create a process whereby the communication, the form and the format of communication between the civil servant and the Minister, is very similar to the form and format of communication between the Government and the Court in those very time-sensitive cases, to obtain an initial prima facie decision?

So, my point there is that I think, at the level of process, a process can be created to minimise the time lag from Ministry to Court. I would put it to the Minister that a process can be created in that way.

And I think we have addressed the issue of capacity and we have addressed the issue of process. The Minister has been talking about the current situation, right now, with the capacity we have and the process we have. If we can add more resources and capacity, and we change the process to make it expedited to arrive at that prima facie decision, to stop the viralisation, I would put it to the Law Minister that that is perfectly conceivable.

And I also want to address the other point that the Minister made, that in some cases, the Judge will not agree. That is precisely the point. In some cases, the Judge will not agree.

If the Judge feels that he is being asked to make a prima facie decision, but he is looking at it on a balance of probabilities and he feels that the Executive is over-reaching or the Executive is abusing its power, so he may not agree in that case. And that is precisely the value of the check.


Mr K Shanmugam: I would ask Mr Perera not to put words in my mouth. When I said "not agree", it may be because he says, "I want to hear what the other side has got to say".

So, my point to Mr Perera is: therefore, we can take it, and it will be very simple, can I take it your position is that, definitionally, every single time it is necessary to make a decision, you believe that the Courts can be used to make a decision to break the virality within a matter of hours; every single time, when it is necessary to do so? Is that your Party's position? Is that your position? If it is yes, yes. If it is no, no. That is all. It will be very good to clarify that.

Mr Leon Perera: If the Courts are sufficiently structured and resourced and the process is defined to enable that to happen, then the answer is yes.


Mr K Shanmugam: And you believe that that can be done by simply putting some submission to the Court? Is that it, whatever the civil servant submits to the Minister, can simply be submitted to the Court?


Mr Leon Perera: What I am saying to the hon Minister is that a simplified process can be created to absolutely minimise the lead time between Minister and Court to get a decision. There is a certain amount of lead time, in any case, for the internal conversation between civil servants and Ministers in such cases.

What we are talking about is the additional lead time between the Minister and the Court to get that decision to break the virality. So, I would put it to the Minister that a process can be defined that is very simplified to minimise that lead time.

Mr K Shanmugam: Yes. I have got the clarifications I needed, Sir. Thank you.

Mr Speaker: Thank you. Mr Leon Perera, your speech.

https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/sprs...ortid=bill-366

[kuasimi]

https://www.facebook.com/pritam.euno...47939928561630


-PRITAM SINGH-

TC Case
————
The public can read our short submissions on the matter of the Plaintiff’s application to amend their Statement of Claim after judgment has been rendered, on our blog - In Good Faith (https://ingoodfaith.blog).

https://ingoodfaith.blog/2020/08/03/...ment-of-claim/

(In response to CNA article issued on 3 Aug 2020, in link below)

https://www.facebook.com/21135232888...7939928561630/



https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/ahtc-lawsuit-wp-leaders-object-to-plaintiff-new-claims-12986488?cid=FBcna&fbclid=IwAR2nAseKKi9CbP1eRrRhbD 9ujEn3J4xXnWOlTNO_dVL3mfuv2Wehv4R4WnI

[kuasimi]

Originally Posted by JasonJG

Chiam See Tong started as an independent candidate, and got 30+ percent. He never lost his deposit.

Thank you for this bit of history that hardly people know.

[kuasimi]

[kuasimi]

[kuasimi]

[kuasimi]

[itchytopside]

Originally Posted by ml1138

Yes but they are COWARD, dare not show they names..

Can we call them white pappie maddogs?

[CuntChunSing]

Originally Posted by itchytopside

Can we call them white pappie maddogs?

Or bolanpar pappie dogs also can

[itchytopside]

Originally Posted by CuntChunSing

Or bolanpar pappie dogs also can

Could be pappie bitches too

[kuasimi]

Originally Posted by itchytopside

Can we call them white pappie maddogs?

[kuasimi]

Originally Posted by itchytopside

Could be pappie bitches too

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10157620831138176&id=70028817 5


https://www.ourclassnotes.com/post/i...-workers-party


https://www.ourclassnotes.com/post/f...junied-hougang


http://geraldgiam.sg/2009/10/hdb-sho...ying-politics/

https://www.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne...11-278284.html



http://geraldgiam.sg/2009/10/how-pap...omment-page-1/

[kuasimi]

[kuasimi]

[kuasimi]