Monday, June 28, 2010

A clear case of discrimination & persecution ;)

This is the content of my case closing submissions for the case in April 15, 2006 just a week before the GE2006, at Bangkit Road, Bukit Panjang SMC, where I was raising funds for the SDP election campaign by selling the New Democrats and the famiLEE LEEgime charged me & Dr. CSJ to be providing Public Entertainment without LEEgime's license. The video will be released in July next month, I have it from the case evidence, but I hold on to release as I promised court to hold on until case is over before I put it on Internet.


The NSP Sec Gen Mr. Goh Meng Seng recently informed the public via Internet that his party was harassed by LEEgime complaining to NEA when they sold their news letter North Star similarly.


In the Matter of PS730-2006










Defendant Yap Keng Ho's submission are as follows:

  1. The defense proved that the prosecution demanded Strict Liability against the defendants while there is no such liability applicable to other entities conducting similar activities which defendant had modeled his own activities in accordance with. While denying the admission of evidence gathered by defendant Yap from Xin Ming Daily regarding SPH promoting their news papers at MRT station, the court already indicated that it took notice of similar hawking activities are commonly existing in Singapore.

  2. Defendant would like to raise the Notes of Evidence from PS718 & &21 & &26 & 729of 2006 from DJ Tian Yee Zi, to support that both BEFORE & AFTER the incident at Bangkit Road in this case, the police had done similar enforcement against the same defendants, and the evidence captured on police video proved undisputed by prosecution that many other street hawkers and fund-raisers were at the same location, side by side with the defendants, at the same time and place doing the same things, all recorded within the same police video. And It was abundantly clear that the police were only selectively enforcing PEMA specifically just against the defendants alone.

  3. It is in evidence that Defendant Yap had observed and collected evidence of other fund raising and sales activities, and modeled his own activities in accordance with these other activities after confirming that PEMA license requirement had not been enforced against these activities. The prosecution have not contested against such facts.

  4. It is in evidence that Defendant Yap had told various officers that he was not providing nor intended to provide any public entertainment, nor wanted to violate any laws, was merely promoting publications for the SDP to raise fund for the election expenses. Further he indicated that he was willing to be fully cooperative with the police, and asked for direction and guidelines from the police which he was willing to comply with. The police was not cooperative however, and no instructions what so ever was given. The prosecution have not contested against such facts.

  5. It is in evidence also uncontested by prosecution, that Defendant Yap had demanded Equal Treatment from the police, and reasoned that other hawkers and sellers are doing the same sales & fund raising etc, which were deemed legitimate and did not faced enforcement under PEMA.

  6. There is no dispute from the prosecution regarding the defense's position in this case, that the defendants were merely promoting the sales of publications and the activities took the same form as other street hawking and promotional and fund-raising activities. There is no challenge from the prosecution against defense position that police will not film nor charge the persons from these common street hawking & promotional activities for providing public entertainment without license under PEMA.

  7. The prosecution only on the weak ground of relevancy objected against the admittance of various relevant evidence, that were raised by defense, which proved that police were satisfied that similar activities by others were NOT DEEMED TO BE PROVIDING ANY PUBLIC ENTERTAINMENT, especially when Defendant Yap called the police to check on the licenses and proved that there were no PEMA license hold by SPH as they were promoting Xin Ming Daily News Paper at Bugis MRT on 15th May 2010. The defense insist that is relevant and will apply Criminal Motion to High Court to ask for ruling to allow these evidence to be raised in this case.

  8. The 1st ground of defense for defendant Yap will be that, STRICT LIABILITY IS NOT APPLICABLE, based on constitutional providence of Equality. As the same liability had not been applied to so many other instances and entities, even as defendant had repeated demanded, and proved to the police at scene (in case PS718 & &21 & &26 & 729of 2006) that others were conducting the same activity, (defendant Yap told DSP Chan Peng Kuan at scene as recorded in police video, & DSP Chan admitted under cross-exam). Defendant are entitled to equal protection by law under constitutional article 12. When the other similar activities of other persons are not deemed to be providing public entertainment without license, the activities in this case by defendant Yap, should be treated in no difference by law, and hence found not guilty, as these alleged activities should not be deemed to be amounted providing any public entertainments.

  9. I challenge the prosecution to show any difference between my activity on the 15 April 2006, apart from any common street sales or promotional activities. I further challenge the prosecution to show any case law that street sellers other than Opposition Political Activists were convicted by court Under PEMA, for holding street sales of publications. I am confident that there is no other cases other than the same defendants and late Mr. JBJ's case within case law, and that Mr. JBJ's case was addressing an official opening speech for Workers Party's new office, and he was not selling anything at that time.

  10. The second ground of defense for defendant Yap is the validity of law, the PEMA.

  11. The relevant legislation had already been since the cases amended, this indicated that legislator discovered the necessity to regulate political activities apart from entertainment industries. The POA had been introduced at date after these cases. Defendant's argument regarding this legislation is that it is on it's face unreasonable and invalid to legislate and regulate political activities with the mixture among entertainment activities which is entirely different in nature.

  12. It is clear that the Lee Kuan Yew Regime had intended to block challenging opposition parties from holding activities especially those held out-door, this is proven by parliamentary records raised by defendants in this case. However, within the statutes and by-laws, there is absolutely nothing that binds the court to incriminate opposition parties apart from other legal entities to hold legitimate activities out-door and not enclosed within a stadium for example.

  13. The police officers and obviously been implementing the policy against political parties out-door activities, in this case. This is Unlawful Discrimination by the police.

  14. The Third Ground of defense for Defendant Yap is an reinforcement of the 1st, which is there is no evidence at all that entertainment had been provided by defendant Yap, from the perspective that is NO AUDIENCE in this case. There is no one proven to be receiving or accepting any form of public entertainment in this case. Even if the defendants could be alleged to be intending to provide entertainment to the public, (which is not the charge of attempt in this case) the charges in these cases, alleged that public entertainment had been provided instead of attempted, therefore a necessary element must be RECEPIANTS, which the prosecution had not proven at all. In evidence there is no one paying attention to the allegedly provided entertainment except for police officers who were ordered to be at the scene by their Divisional HQ, and they were not at all there for purpose of receiving any public entertainment.

  15. There was no crowd built up before SDP's sales booth, the people at the pavilion where neither audience as they were engaging in their own normal activities, there is no responses (cheers, applause etc) to any alleged entertainments, if they had purchase from the defendants that was sales and purchase transactions not amounting to entertainment, as they paid for publications and wasn't paying for entertainment. The prosecution did not alleged that any one had paid to be entertained by defendants.

  16. The reporters were not doing any video nor voice recording nor were copying down anything said by defendants, the reporters' interest were not in anything said by defendants but rather they were interested about police officers' enforcement against defendants. The reporters did not even behaved as if they were covering any speech event. The female reporter took photos at police officers engaging the defendant, but did not take picture of defendant Yap as he held and spoke through the microphone.

  17. The charges of providing public entertainment can not be convicted because there is no evidence of public entertainment received by any person. Entertainment is no provided unless it is received. No one in the video appeared to be entertained at all.

  18. I challenge the prosecution to point out any recipients that were at the scene staying and paying attention to any entertainment and appears to be entertained.

  19. The evidence showed that there were no complains about nuisance. Even if there were, nuisance will only indicate that complainants felt the disturbance and had not been amused nor entertained by what the defendant provided. In other words there is still no recipient of entertainment to cause entertainment to become provided.

  20. The 4th ground of defense is that defendants were fully aware of police stands and enforcement present, and were cautiously and actively preventing and avoiding any violation of law in particular the PEMA. This is proven and undisputed by prosecution. Defendant Yap had actively and constantly checked on other similar street sales activities and strictly keeping his own activities within the same style and models like the other legitimate activities. He had even asked the police officer to provide a clear guide to him in order to avoid any unintended and unnecessary violation. That is to say, all efforts and best possible efforts on the part of defendant had been rendered to uphold and observe PEMA. The officers had provided no assistance to defendants even after being asked for and told about intention of cooperation, however the officers had only deliberately picked on defendants activities by constantly recording – even after defendant had packed up and left to car park. The conducts of enforcement officers is clearly to incriminate defendants; by picking on and; dis-cooperation; and bad faithed; this amounted to entrapment and inducing or force-extracting any incriminating act from the defendants. This is exactly like the defendant was struggling to stay within the law and the enforcement officer instead of help, just cornered the defendant at the fringe of law and intended cause the defendant unnecessary difficulties to keep his activities within the law, and the unlawful pressure from the enforcement officers could had cause defendant to slip in moments of negligence and be caught on the outer-fringe of law.

  21. Thus if there were any violation under PEMA, the police officers' conducts and unlawful enforcement had only caused them, and the defendants can not be held accountable for.

  22. The defense proved that the entire activity on 15th April 2006 was planed and executed lawfully and had no intention nor substance to provide any form of public entertainment, and had been rendering strongest efforts to prevent any unnecessary and unintended violation against PEMA, and the enforcers were influenced by a ministerial policy which unlawfully discriminated against only opposition political parties, and the enforcers were harassing the lawful activities of defendants as defendants were struggling hard to stay within the law. The acts conducted by defendant Yap was merely promotion of publication's sales, identical to other street sales activities, and that Yap had prevented any audience from building up in a public place, and kept speaking duration short and interrupted by intervals as well as change of languages and subject frequently, and adhered to introducing the publications on sale, more strictly observing & respecting PEMA than common street hawkers, as he knew that police were filming and all-out to get him under PEMA. There is no violation of law in this case but a shameful case of political discriminations and persecution victimizing the defendants, who should all be acquitted.


In the Matter of PS730-2006










Friday, June 25, 2010

Give the MEWR minister a Life Vest this coming GE

Related forum post 1
Related forum post 2

famiLEE LEEgime's minister for Environment & Water Resources is paid $$Thousands PER DAY and $$Millions PER YEAR. Surely also the world highest minister in charge of water & drainage.

Orchard Road and many other areas of Singapore suffered heavy flooding not once but twice within the same 10 days.

Today more areas were hit by flooding than the previous. That is after 1o days of Yaacob Imbrahim's men catching up with clearing their slacked maintenance of famiLEE LEEgime's proud $$Billion Dollar World Class Drainage. They initially blamed a clogged culvert at Delphi Orchard located UPSTREAM (near Tanglin) of the flooded Orchard Road.

Today's rain further exposed their classic falsehood and hoodwinking tactics.

The real clogs must be located within their brains.

Yaacob badly needs a life vest to meet with his voters during this coming GE, he is sinking fast among the sinking famiLEE LEEgime.

Don't leave home without your swimming trunk Yaacob!

Sammyboy.Com Thread

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

Calling Singaporeans to EXPOSE famiLEE LEEgime Town Councils

The falsehood of famiLEE LEEgime need to be exposed. Now please be focus to hit them hard on their town councils.

I now ask Singaporeans to gather and provide evidence and case details of famiLEE LEEgime's town councils scandals and cock-ups. There will be a mountain of these. You have any evidence or cases against Town Councils of famiLEE LEEgime, or know anything, or aware of cases, please do your part to expose them.

  1. use the Internet, post in forum, post on your blog or friends' blogs
  2. take videos and post on Youtube.Com
  3. offer leads and stories and evidence to Opposition Parties and Activists
  4. take photos of poor maintenance; dirty environment; negligences; wastages; mistakes; delays; bureaucracy etc
  5. copy documents and letters and web publish them
  6. tell the stories on video interviews, contact activists like myself, I will record interviews (can hide your faces) and put on YouTube.Com
  7. record conversation & meetings with famiLEE LEEgime town council staffs, handphone can record conversations, record what their counter staff said. If they are rude; unreasonable; harsh; bully; bureaucratic etc, catch them and we will use them to slam their MPs & ministers
  8. get organized, they brag and fabricate falsehoods for the GE, lets expose the truth!
  9. use these cases and evidence as ammunition during the GE.
I had previously interviewed a resident from Yishun New Town who the HDB evicted him and provoked him to jump from HDB block. You have these sort of cases, I am most welcomed to expose them for you. Just keep them coming.


According to the feedback from my interviewee, the attitudes of HDB officers became ultra friendly after the video hit YouTube.Com :-) so that's why we must do it!

Sammyboy.Com Thread

Monday, June 14, 2010

Tale-Telling that Bakiyev is Another Thug-Sin

Bakiyev made the same denial as Thug-Sin after last month deadly bloodshed in Bangkok. They both sang Micheal Jackson's lyric Billy Jean is no my girl and the kid is not my son.

They both fled their countries after their ousters from power and are wanted by their countries right now and became fugitives. They are both accused of remotely controlling thugs that stirred up deadly blood-shed in their countries, and they had both denied.

I think Thailand should not had let Thug-Sin fled, and Kyrgyzstan should not had let Bakiyev fled similarly. And I warn that Singaporeans should NEVER let famiLEE flee. I also foresee that if Chen Shui Bian fled Taiwan, he will command his followers to stir up Huge turmoils that is potentially bloody and deadly also in Taiwan.

CRI news URL

Bakiyev Denies Involvement in Unrest in S. Kyrgyzsatn
2010-06-13 17:52:43 Xinhua Web Editor: Yang Yang

Kyrgyzstan's former president Kurmanbek Bakiyev denied on Sunday his alleged involvement in the unrest in southern Kyrgyzstan, the Interfax news agency reported.

"I state with responsibility that it is a brazen lie," Bakiyev said in the Belarussian capital of Minsk.

The ousted leader said the bloodshed must be stopped, and blamed the interim government for not "mobilizing necessary resources and localizing the conflict."

"Kyrgyzstan, as a republic, can lose its state sovereignty today. People are being killed and no one in the current government can protect them," Bakiyev said in a statement.

The Kyrgyz interim government declared a state of emergency and curfew in the southern cities of Jalalabad and Osh on Saturday as the unrest, which erupted Thursday due to inter-ethnic clashes, has killed at least 82 people and injured more than 1,000.

Related News URL - Thousands flee ethnic bloodshed in Kyrgyzstan

Kyrgyz police detain Bakiyev's snipers

Belarus recieved extradition request for Bakiyev in original

Belarus recieved extradition request for Bakiyev in original 31

11:52, — Politics

Materials of the case at 18 pages are "studied" at the moment.

As BelaPAN has been informed by The Belarusian Prosecutor General’s Office, it has recieved by post an extradition request for ousted Kyrgyz President Kurmanbek Bakiyev and materials against him.

As said by the interlocutor of the agency, the materials at 18 pages are studied at the moment. We remind that a copy of the extradition request was recieved from Kyrgyzstan on May 11.

We remind that Kurmanbek Bakiyev stays in Belarus since April 19. The decision to offer him political asylum was adopted by Alyaksandr Lukashenka personally. It caused protest of the new government of Kyrgyzstan and the families of the killed protesters, at whom Bakiyev ordered to open fire. Pickets are held near the Embassy of Belarus in Bishkek constantly. The new government of Kyrgyzstan demands to extradite Bakiyev to his country, however the Belarusian authorities refuse to do that.

It is known that Bakiyev with one of his inofficial wives and children lives in Lukashenka's residence in Drazdy or in Berezensky natural reserve.

Sammyboy.Com Thread

Friday, June 11, 2010

famiLEE LEEgime chickened of 1-man KFC protest

Certainly yet another World Class JOKE by famiLEE LEEgime.

They are unable to stop MRT train from being re-designed by artists, yet they can over-react on tiny harmless event which is completely peaceful, while on the other hand they get their own minions to stage few thousand persons protesting EMPTY subjects like Junk Food by CASE on Consumers Rights day 2008.

What kind of falsehood Chicken LEEgime is this?



Home > Breaking News > Singapore > Story

Jun 10, 2010

Protestor runs afoul of law

American Edward Basse (seen here in Kota Kinabalu) had planned to don a chicken costume and hold up a placard that read: 'KFC: Stop Chicken Cruelty' outside its Bedok outlet at 11.30am on Thursday morning. -- PHOTO: PETA

AN ANIMAL rights activist's attempted protest outside a Kentucky Fried Chicken outlet in Bedok was abruptly ended after it ran afoul of the law.

American Edward Basse had planned to don a chicken costume and hold up a placard that read: 'KFC: Stop Chicken Cruelty' outside its Bedok outlet at 11.30am on Thursday morning. But within minutes of arriving in a taxi, the 24-year-old was approached by police and advised to leave, as he did not have a valid permit to protest there.

Mr Basse, who has been a full-time campaigner for American animal rights organisation People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (Peta) for a year, was there to protest against what his orgnisation deems as KFC's 'cruel' treatment of their chickens.

'Peta wants to raise consumer awareness about the suffering that the chickens have to endure in factory farms, which have limited space,' he told The Straits Times on Thursday.

When contacted, police confirmed the incident and added that no arrest was made. They are investigating.

Mr Basse has claimed that police officers also confiscated his costume, placard and other Peta paraphernalia from his hotel room. His assignment in Singapore was part of a worldwide Peta campaign dubbed The KFC Campaign.

Monday, June 07, 2010

Dutch man exposed Ah Seng MRT Security FALSEHOOD

Jun 7, 2010


Swiss monitoring graffiti case

Oliver Fricker

So face the judgment of truth now Ah Seng.

If he can do it, JI also can install bombs in MRT trains at their depots, or can they? How many more vulnerable security loopholes can you pretend to be covering?

Oliver exposed that your Ostrich Ass is still exposed high up in the air, while you continue to pretend to be secured.

Quick Ah Seng! You can still beat JI to it! Deploy all your Gurkha Guards all over MRT Depots and have your matas search all the Ang Moh's bags for paints! Don't just search for MSK! Search for Micheal Fay as well!


Get your K9 dogs to sniff MRT undercarriages every morning, that's where the bombs are!

Sammyboy.Com Thead

Tuesday, June 01, 2010

famiLEE LEEgime still trying to Act Blur on Deadly Gaza Assult

MFA Statement 31.May.2010

MFA Spokesman's Comments in response to media queries on reports of fatalities resulting from an Israeli naval interception of a flotilla carrying humanitarian supplies towards the Gaza Strip

In response to media queries on reports of fatalities resulting from an Israeli naval interception of a flotilla carrying humanitarian supplies towards the Gaza Strip, the MFA Spokesman said:

"We only know what has been reported in the media and are still trying to determine the exact circumstances of the incident. But loss of life is always a tragedy and we extend our condolences to the families of those who were killed or had been wounded.

This tragic incident yet again underscores the need for a just and lasting solution to the underlying problem that will take into account the legitimate interests of all parties. Otherwise the cycle of violence will only continue."

. . . . .

31 MAY 2010

George Yeo is not acting blur for the Korean Ship matter this is his MFA statement, but he acts blur on the Gaza incident. The world already condemned Israel a dozen of governments already expressed their stands. George Yeo is acting blur?

Is he still busy trying to arrest Romanian envoy or explaining how immunity is invalid in famiLEE LEEgime?

Following is part of MFA's Korean Ship statement which was made on the same date as the act-blur statement on Gaza:
"We believe that the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) should take up this matter. The rising tension on the Korean Peninsula is of very serious concern to us because the situation there could potentially destabilise the entire region. If East Asia is destabilized, the consequences will be global. This is thus certainly a matter that affects international peace and security.

What action the UNSC takes depends primarily on all the Permanent Members agreeing. We do not have any influence over their decisions; nor can we influence what happens on the Korean Peninsula. But we are following developments closely and have always done so. You would have seen MFA's earlier statement on this latest incident and our many other statements and comments over the years on the situation on the Korean Peninsula generally, including on the nuclear issue. They represent our principled and consistent position over many years."

Sammyboy.Com Thead