Lam Pin Min
See [left] ; Lam [right]
See [left] ; Lam [right]
The Singapore Police has decided not to take any further action against People’s Action Party (PAP) Member of Parliament for Sengkang West SMC, Lam Pin Min, over a post he had made online.

Dr Lam, who is also Minister of State for Health, had posted in February this year about the arrest of three men over an incident during the Thaipusam festival.

His post had linked to an article on the blog, Lovely Singapore, together with the note:

“An example of how alcohol intoxication can cause rowdiness and public nuisance.”

The article, TOC understands, has since been removed by the blogsite, but it is unclear why it had done so.

Filmmaker Martyn See later filed a police report, alleging that Dr Lam had contravened the Sedition Act (Chapter 290) and that his post was sub judice contempt of court.

He accused Dr Lam of having “distorted an allegation by the Police into a statement of fact”.

An earlier police statement on the arrest of the three men had said that “all three men were believed to have been drinking earlier as they smelt strongly of alcohol.”

Mr See said that this, however, was yet to be ascertained by the authorities as fact and the three men have not be guilty as charged.

One of the three men alleged to be involved in the incident had also denied being drunk. (See here.)

Mr See said that Dr Lam’s remarks had thus “caused ill-will and hostility between different races and communities.”

“The responses on his Facebook page show overwhelming hostility to his remark,” Mr See said in his police complaint. “Yet, he has allowed his offending words to remain online”.

He also said Dr Lam may have breached the sub judice rule, as judicial proceedings in this case were still ongoing.

In its response to Mr See, dated 3 July and some four months after the latter made the report, the Police said:

“After careful considerations of the facts and circumstances of the case, and in consultation with the Attorney-General’s Chambers, the Police have decided not to take further action for the matter.”

Mr See, speaking to The Online Citizen (TOC) on the police’s decision, said:

“I felt that Dr Lam’s remarks had promoted feelings of ill-will towards Indians and Hindus in Singapore. But the AG, after 4 months of deliberation, now states that it is okay to freely associate alcohol and unruly behaviour with  Thaipusam. I like to know if Dr Lam was ever issued a warning.”

Dr Lam’s post remains on his Facebook page. (See here.)

Lam's Facebook post
Lam’s Facebook post
Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Single mother fighting stage four ovarian cancer appeals for help

A 46-year-old Singaporean mother is fighting stage four ovarian cancer called ‘Ovarian…

Roy Ngerng reaches target of $70k to cover legal costs

Blogger Roy Ngerng has reached his target of collecting $70,000 to cover…

Gas supply from Indonesia to Singapore will cease by 2023

By 2023, Indonesia’s Energy and Mineral Resources Ministry is looking to stop…

国大95亿元! 三大学拥数十亿储备金惹议

新加坡3所大学在去年捐款排行榜上因为拥有数十亿的储备金,虽不是新鲜事,却也引起民众争议。 昨日(7月28日)《海峡时报星期刊》报导,指新加坡国立大学坐拥95亿储备金,在去年3月底结束的财政年度中,收到2亿2700万元捐款,并赚取6亿200元的投资收入,成为我国最成功的筹款机构。 最成功10大募款机构,榜上有名的还有另外两间大学,分别是位居第四,拥有37亿储备金的南洋理工大学(NTU)和第九,拥有12亿元的新加坡科技设计大学(SUTD)。 捐款和投资方面,南大所获得的捐款为5000万元以及1亿4900元,而科技设计大学则拥有2700万元和6600万元。 其它上榜单位还包括了新造教会、国家福利理事会慈善基金、城市丰收教会和观音堂佛祖庙等。 大学算慈善机构? 此报道引起民众关注,一名45岁的社工读者(魏辰德)致函该报,对大学性质表示质疑,不解为何该机构能被归纳为慈善机构,并且与了解相关大学任何管理显著的储备金。 他质疑既然拥有大量储备金,不明白大学还需要捐款者捐献的原因。“慈善捐款的饼就这么大,如果拿下一大块,就意味着留给其他慈善机构的就不多了。到底捐款和储备金,要多少才算足够?” 针对质疑,国大发言人指出,该大学利用储备金赚取投资收入,用于资助不同的运作费,如奖学金、支持研究和推广企业化。 她指出,大学需要继续筹款让储备金处于健康水平,才能加强长期的财务可持续性。 国大募款事宜职员50人 而根据《海时》报导,仅仅国大发展办公处负责募款事宜的职员就有50人,而国大未透露有多少募款志工。…