LOL so will PAP go POFMA Bloomberg now?

[2012 Bloomberg report] "Of the 122,600 jobs created in Singapore....about 70%, or 84,800 went to foreigners."

PAP passed this into law while M'sia removed it, for the very simple reason of preventing a rogue government from abusing it, oh such irony.

LMFAO observe how Mahathir sniggered at Pinky's hypocrisy when he served up glorious excuses to justify POFMA.

Lim Tean: The Incredible Law Known As POFMA! I read with incredulity the submission of the Deputy Attorney-General, Hri Kumar, to the High Court today, that the burden of proof is on the SDP to prove that the statements they made which were POFMAD are true. This submission is so ridiculous I would have sneered it out of Court. Let’s examine some fundamental undeniable facts under this crazy law, which is against all tenets of free speech guaranteed under our Constitution. First, the Minister has the power to POFMA a post and demand that you put up a “Correction Notice “ on your post stating that “it contains false statements of fact” and to click onto a link for the “correct facts “. If the party putting up the post is aggrieved at the Minister’s decision, it is supposed to appeal to the Minister and if the Minister rejects the appeal, then the aggrieved party has to bring court proceedings under an originating summons to a High Court judge, if he/she wants to take the matter further. Hri Kumar says that since the SDP is the party bringing the court action, the burden of proof is on them to prove the truth of their statements. What a wonderful way to reverse the burden of proof! It is like telling the accused that he has to prove his innocence rather than compel the accuser to prove his guilt! It is the complete adulteration of legal principles as I know it. Here the Minister is the one saying the POFMAD statements are “false”. That Minister has the burden to prove that the statements are indeed false! If the Minister can’t prove that the statements are false, he or she had no business in the 1st place issuing the POFMA notice. The Law is called The Prevention Of Online Falsehood, for goodness sake! You can see now how ridiculous this law has become! It appears that all the established legal principles are being truncated by an authoritarian government and its legal officers to suppress free speech. I am ready to have this post of mine examined by International legal experts who can pass judgment on my conclusions.

Here is why CCS is lying about the job creation for S'poreans

CCS claimed that 60,000 new jobs were created in Singapore between 2015 and 2018, with 50,000 going to S'poreans and 9,000 going to PRs. What CCS does not tell you is that between 2015 and 2018, the PAP granted 87,543 new citizenships to fucking foreigners. These 87,543 new citizens were considered as the part of those 50,000 "Singaporeans" receiving new jobs. If you assume that 67% (or 2 thirds of these new citizens) are working age adults, then 33,500 freshly inducted individuals would be gainfully employed. Therefore, of the 50,000 new jobs that purportedly went to Singaporeans, as many as 33,500 could have gone to new citizens. Native born Singaporeans probably might have secured only 16,500 out of this 50,000 opportunities. Pretty pathetic if you ask me. Folks born and bred here who have to fulfill NS obligations, whose fathers and grandfathers have toiled for this country are more deserving of jobs than these fucking foreign mercenaries. I guess CCS doesn't see it that way.

https://www.sammyboy.com/threads/here-is-why-ccs-is-lying-about-the-job-creation-for-sporeans.278812/

[Admin]: SDP vs MOM POFMA case update 3 --------------- Dr Chee took issue with MOM’s graph showing no rise in retrenched PMETs. But the graph showed only data from 2015-2018. But why limit the data to only 2015? Dr Chee asked. Why not before 2015? He then presented MOM’s own data of retrenched PMETs from 2010-2018 which showed a clear rising trend. How can one party insist of using data of a period of its choosing and then insist that the other party must stick to this period, otherwise the statement is false? It is important to go back to before 2015, Dr Chee said, because the problem started way before then and has continued until today. But the MOM accused the SDP of relying on data from 2010 onwards to downplay the downward trend of PMET retrenchment. It said that this was an attempt by the SDP to manipulate statistics to show an upward trend. Dr Chee countered that Ms Josephine Teo should repeat the statement in front of the mirror. The SDP can, likewise, charge the MOM of restricting the data to between 2015 and 2018 to downplay the upward trend of local PMET retrenchment. Isn’t this also an attempt by the MOM to manipulate statistics to support its case? What is good for the goose is good for the gander. This highlights the nub of SDP’s case. Ms Teo cannot arbitrarily set a timeline for the data it wants to show and then accuse SDP’s post as false. This is abuse of POFMA, Dr Chee told the court.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10159864974528849&id=79314173848

I guess this is how POFMA works now..... Minister: I declare this post is false.

Victim of POFMA: No! I disagree! I wanna appeal! (submits application to the courts) Case gets heard behind chambers and judge simply dismisses the application. The public learns absolutely nothing as far as the facts of the case are concerned. They are really treating us Sinkies as idiots.

GE coming, so die die must conceal all data that makes the PAP look bad?

SINGAPORE: The Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) argued in court for the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) to release data on local PMET (professionals, managers, executives and technicians) employment, to prove that their statements are false and so settle the matter. SDP was issued correction directions by Manpower Minister Josephine Teo over three online posts they made that referred to a purported rising trend of local PMET retrenchments. MOM said SDP's article and two Facebook posts on Singapore's population policy contained a misleading graphic and false statement of facts. It said there was no rising trend of local PMET retrenchments, and that employment of local PMETs has instead risen steadily since 2015. However, SDP stands by its posts and say they are accurate based on what data is made available, and took to the High Court in a chamber hearing to argue their case. Speaking to reporters outside the courtroom after SDP made some headway on their arguments on Thursday (Jan 16) afternoon, SDP Secretary-General Chee Soon Juan demanded MOM release the data to prove the party's posts false. "Our main point - the crux of the matter is that Singaporean PMET employment is coming down," he said. "We communicated in chambers that MOM has this data. Just release this data and settle the matter once and for all. Produce the data. Show us." He said MOM had indicated that it was "not willing" to release the data. Party chairman Paul Tambyah said the statements made in the posts were inferences based on data that was publicly available on MOM's website. "It would be so much easier to have all the data released," he said, adding that the statements had been made based on "lived experiences". These were backed up by inferences drawn from different sets of data that are available. Dr Tambyah said specific data on local Singaporean PMET employment was not available, and that they had to infer from other sets of data. When approached by CNA, Deputy Attorney-General Hri Kumar Nair declined comment, saying these matters are part of ongoing arguments in court. The hearing was heard in chambers after SDP failed in its bid to have it heard in open court. It resumes on Thursday afternoon.

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/pofma-court-case-sdp-mom-release-data-on-local-employment-12267868

Absolutely inappropriate for the Shit Times to politicize this matter in the education section, but they fucking went ahead with it anyways.

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/education

Forgone conclusion but let's see what leap of logic our pliant judiciary can come up with. :P

They can argue their case in court till the cows come home, but seriously what's the point? They will lose anyways, everyone already knows what the verdict will be. :P

SDP files case against MOM in High Court to fight for what little democratic space we have left

https://yoursdp.org/news/sdp-files-case-against-mom-in-high-court-to-fight-for-what-little-democratic-space-we-have-left-in-s'pore

The SDP has filed an Originating Summons against Minister for Manpower Josephine Teo in the High Court. The legal action follows the rejection by Ms Teo of the SDP's application for her to cancel the Correction Directions she issued under POFMA for three of our posts. The court has set 16 January 2020, Thursday, for the hearing starting at 10 am. The SDP will not be engaging counsel but will, instead, argue the matter ourselves. The SDP had set out its case in a detailed submission to the Minister, including statistical analyses of the MOM's own data, explaining why she is wrong to issue the orders. We also indicated that MOM had cited different sets of data as well as accused us of making statement that we did not make in order to support its case. Ms Teo arrogantly dismissed our application saying that it "does not provide sufficient grounds for the cancellation of the CDs" and refused, or was unable, to back-up her allegations in her rejection of the our submissions. We are therefore left with no choice but to pursue the matter in the High Court. We look forward to Ms Teo explaining her decision on the witness stand. Another important reason for the SDP's legal action is that Ms Teo's order is an abuse of the law. If her POFMA order succeeds, then the last holdout where important national issues are openly and robustly debated on the Internet in Singapore would be irreparably closed. The employment of Ministerial decree to accuse the opposition of stating falsehoods when the statements are in fact true cannot be condoned. In a political debate, the application of facts and logical reason to persuade the public must not be sacrificed for the whims and opinions of Ministers. By virtue of her action, Ms Teo has plunged a dagger into the heart Singapore's political system already plagued by anti-democratic rules that keep the PAP entrenched in power. The PAP must not be allowed to be the accuser, prosecutor and judge on any political matter, let alone one like the foreign-worker issue which has been the source of much frustration and anger among Singaporeans. If the ruling party gets away with using POFMA in such a slipshod and partisan manner, then every critic will be at its mercy. The SDP would rather focus on the coming election campaign. But we have deliberated the matter at length and we undertake this legal action because, as difficult as it may be, we must stand up for our fellow Singaporeans and fight for what little space we have left in Singapore to uphold our democratic freedoms. While the court of public opinion is on our side, we must nevertheless attempt to also succeed in the court of law. This is not just the fight of the SDP but of every opposition party, every organisation and, indeed, every Singaporean who values our Pledge "to build a democratic society, based on justice and equality."

The arrogance of the PAP just reached a new nauseating high.