Originally posted by lionnoisy:
[b][url=http://jamesgomeznews.blogspot.com/]---Thursday,
May 18, 2006
2.Not a foul-up,but a set up.Gomez u really have face and asking
for foreign
support!![/b]
In a legal suit, there is usually one right and one wrong. This
is too simplistic. In real life, there is often no absolutes but a
mixture of right and wrong with both parties contributing one part
of the problem.
Singapore's democracy framework ..eg its one-man-one-vote election
system has been altered to suit the power in power to perpetuate
its control and power.
The basic and fundamental rights of citizens are in danger of being
superseded by new meanings interpreted legalistically to suit
narrow interest of the power that be.
There is no more rule of law when the significance of justice,
fairness and equity are being made less objective and more
subjective. Innuendos have taken over as important part of evidence
in defamation suits.
Whoever is in political power will be able to interpret new
innuendos as almost every utterances can be interpreted as
innuendos. How does the judiciary going to go about in
administration of laws and its legal system when we are fast
reaching a point where distinction between right and wrong has
become quite blurred.
It now looks like the government can deprive citizens of their
rights and entitlements for estate upgrading depending on loyalty
to the political party in power. There is no absolute right or
wrong now about citizens' rights too.
So it would be quite farcical to carry on talking about mistakes in
forms or who is liars etc as bigger mistakes committed depending on
who committed those mistakes may not be mistakes but excused or
justified on some shifting subjective ground.
