Police Reject Permit For Workers' Party's Cycling Event

AndrewPKYap SG

But then somebody must empower the youths by organising them into a strong political force that can make a change for the better for themselves and their own children....

LimSianTong SG

Its just a cycling event.

With all due respect to the party I support, if WP is unable to persist and get a cycling event organised, then what else is there to expect from WP?

Jontst78 SG

So what do you expect? Not everyone is like the SDP, who are willing to get arrested for their beliefs.

The PAP government uses the Police to stifle activities of opposition parties and now the onus is on the those parties?

They might or might not persist, but the fact of the matter is, the police rejected it in the first place....

Rolling Eyes

CryOnMyShoulders SG

yea, and even if they persist,they still won’t get what they want. Cos’ this is Singapore. Opposition party in S’pore is always at the losing end. so whatever.

SuperProPAP SG

boohoo the police is scared, cowardly police shivering and pissing their pants!

LimSianTong SG

So, nothing can be done to cycle.

and this is what the majority dont mind also?

if so, I wonder how other country political observers and researchers would describe this mentality and phenomenon which seems to remain for eternity.

de_middle SG

not everyone like CSJ leh Laughing

countdracula SG

it’s only cycling in an open park…just bring the bikes and cycle…no need to organize anything, bri your own food and have a picnic, like any social event….

Melvin Tan SG

My two-cents' - I am unsure if "persist" mean persist with the permit application or persist with the event? Very Happy

I believe at this point of time, a re-application would see the same results, but perhaps it is worth a try.

As for persisting with the event, this would mean that the event will be deemed illegal. WP could break the law and the worse case scenario would be Low Thia Khiang and Sylvia Lim lose their Parliament seats. Perhaps not everyone feels it is a big deal but I believe, based on feedback, that they want opposition MPs to bring up issues like annuity, which they deem is more important than a party's cycling event.

I think there are other things WP could do minus this. For one, the party already has regular activities around the weekly clock.

Regards

Melvin Tan SG

I do browse SBF every now and then. The main reason for not posting there is due to what I perceive is an "overcrowding" of a forum. There is a post every 1 to 5 minutes in the day, more than what other forums enjoy.

As a result, individual posts are diluted as there is too much to read and respondents are largely unable to spot one another's posts that can serve as a reply to them such that they have to keep repeating themselves.

Personally, I do not feel that it should be the only well-visited forum, although as one individual I can't do much.

As far as I know, only one WP member is a "regular" there. As for supporters of WP, I have neither authority nor inclination to control what they write.

Apologies to all to digress from the topic of this thread Smile

Regards

SevenEleven SG

i do agree. apply again. if is is being rejected again, it goes to show the pettiness of the ruling party. meanwhile it is the ultmost concern with regard to the complusory annuities scheme and the unclear string attached to it

qlqq9 SG

Originally posted by royston_ang:

I think your argument is rather silly. So, you mean WP can only try to organize thing which PAP has done before?

So what if PAP managed to get a go ahead to organize a cycling event in [b]west coast park instead of east coast park? Maybe you will said its because the location is different next? Laughing

The question here is why the police classify an outdoor cycling event as "have the potential for public disorder and mischief, and may disrupt community life." ? Aren't there countless cycling events held successful in Singapore before? And I don't see how indoor and outdoor activities will make a different? Maybe you can enlighten me on this point? Question [/b]

Do take note that this guy is known to be immature in other forum, so he is exhibiting his immaturity here as well. Need to stoop to his level when communicating with him.

qlqq9 SG

Police are scared of the tyrants they work for, to ordinary folks they just go on to bully when they feel like it.

CryOnMyShoulders SG

Shocked how to cycle INDOORS?

ndmmxiaomayi SG

Ever watch Olympics? Laughing

spinsugar SG

Go gym cycle Laughing But seriously, this is ridiculous.

LimSianTong SG

I cannot reply with quote to de_middle and melvin tan.

So, I post directly here.

Melvin ,
By 'persist', I mean re-apply.

De_middle,
CSJ is a joke. by doing what you think is not wrong, is not being CSJ.
CSJ has a bad name whether by design or accident.
Equating a re-application to cycle with CSJ seems to tell people that cycling is illegal, rash, wrong, and very CSJ.

Its like the method of saying other 1st worlds have less suicides than 1st world singapore. So, does this mean singapore is doing well or can afford to have more suicides, having been a 1st world only a few years compared to other 1st worlds?

I see many people trying to use this method to convince people who are quite naive really.

hawkeye1819 SG

Maybe WP is so hated 'cause of GMS and this guy quit WP still defending WP in a bad way. Last time he ask pple who don't agree with him to join politics...... sound like Wooden Goh ask Catherine Lim to join opposition..... ????

Laughing

hawkeye1819 SG

Melvin your (WP excomrade?) said WP cycling event is open to public. True or not??

From sammyboy:
From: F-4E Phantom II - Lord (TiLik) 14:10
To: KwonZ unread 123 of 123

150808.123 in reply to 150808.120

From: KwonZ 12:59
To: F-4E Phantom II - Lord (TiLik)

What you and your crony have done is to strip away the basis for the questions to support your stand.

The fact of the matter is that hopengkee was being less than truthful. The fact that pappies have done similar cycling get-togethers is a clear sign that he was less than truthful in his initial response to LTK.

KwonZ

Sigh. I don't think you understand LaMei's statements enough to even know what she was asking. Let us have it all in context:

1. WP MPs question Ho Peng Kee on refusal of permit for cycling event.

2. LTK exchange with HPK does not go well, Ho Peng Kee makes an unpleasantremark.

3. Internet activists like you speak up against HPK, YoungPAP cycling event brought out to show unfair discrimination against WP.

4. LaMei questions nautre of WP cycling event - open to public or not? which may be the reason why YoungPAP's event allowed and WP's event is not. It seems that Young PAP's event was just for its members.

5. WP representatives have not replied on LaMei's queries.

6. Discussion goes on on why remark is avoidable or not and whether or not remark is unacceptable or is acceptable robust parliamentary engagement?

7. You make the statement that my and my crony strip away the basis for the questions to support my stand.

Do you see it clearly now?

t_a_s SG

singaporeans pls be united, and bring WP to parliament esp in Aljunic GRC, we need opposition badly to debate the CPF scheme, they suka suka change this and that according to thier whims and fancy, enough is enough

« Previous Page Next Page »