hallelujah!
master chee is getting his wish answered after praying to his unhooleey dog.
the ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S CHAMBERS is considering whether to appeal against the acquittal.
if the AG were to proceed, it would mean chee can use ths drama to rant even louder to his foreign master under the guise of free speeches, human rights and democrapsy.
such is the way of the evil and cunning chee. but then if AG appeals, it would mean DJ JOHN NG was wrong to acquit them. whatever it was, the action fr SDP didn't in anyway make sgp a better place. it didn't solve any peasants' livelihood problem. it contributed NOTHING. it just wasting more public resources.
does it amount to asset or liability?
if it's LIABILITY, it's always CHEE so do not be CHEETED!
Oct 8, 2009
SDP 5'S ACQUITTAL
A-G Chambers mulls appeal
By Kor Kian Beng
THE Attorney-General's Chambers is considering whether to appeal against the acquittal of five opposition leaders and supporters charged with taking part in an illegal procession in September 2007.
A spokesman for the Chambers told The Straits Times on Wednesday that it has up to 10 days to file the appeal.
Among the five who were acquitted this week were Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) leaders Gandhi Ambalam, John Tan and Chee Siok Chin. The other two were SDP supporters Yap Keng Ho and Chong Kai Xiong.
The defendants represented themselves in court while the prosecution was represented by Deputy Public Prosecutor John Lu and Assistant Public Prosecutor Evelyn Jasmine Lee.
District Judge John Ng, in a written judgment on Tuesday, cleared the five of charges of taking part in a procession without a valid permit on Sept 16, 2007.
If convicted, they would have faced a fine of up to $1,000 under the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act.
Read the full story in Thursday's edition of The Straits Times.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
master chee is such a GREAT JOKER CHOKER!
what a joke! whether convict or free them, chee soon juan shall still make helluva noise. how to please such joker?
Judge's decision: Nothing to be elated about, nothing to despair Judge's decision: Nothing to be elated about, nothing to despair
Wednesday, 07 October 2009
Chee Soon Juan
DJ John Ng
Before we pop the bubbly and celebrate the acquittal of my colleagues by District Judge John Ng over the protest walk on 16 Sep 07, it is important to examine the Judge's reasoning behind his decision (read the full Judgement here).
Judge Ng had ruled that the Miscellaneous Offences Act (MOA) under which the defendants had been charged was not unconstitutional. He wrote that "There was no basis for the defendants to attack the constitutionality of the legislation."
Perhaps. But Mr Ng misses the bigger point which is that the police will not approve any application for outdoor political activity. The defendants made this point their main contention.
Put simply: the MOA requires groups of 5 or more to apply for permits. Nothing unconstitutional about this, one might argue, at least not in this part of the Act. After all the Constitution does provide for certain conditions under which the Government can deny such activity. Applications for permits will allow the police to assess each case on its merits.
But the PAP goes to the other extreme where it determines that no outdoor political activity is allowed under any condition. The Judge acknowledges this: "The defendants were able to show by their cross-examinations of the prosecution witnesses that there was a policy not to grant any permit for political events to be held outdoors."
Such a policy or administrative act is not backed up by any law and runs contrary to Article 12 of the Constitution.
So while the legislation (MOA) may not be unconstitutional, the administrative act of denying all applications is. This is the nub of our contention: The Government's decision to ban all political activity in public areas is ultra vires the Constitution.
Defendants had submitted on the case of Boddington v PP in which the UK House of Lords unequivocally and emphatically ruled that if an "administrative act undertaken pursuant to [the parent law] is ultra vires and unlawful and that if he establishes that he has committed no crime."
Unfortunately, Judge Ng ignored this point and simply said that "whether a permit could or could not be obtained is not an issue and would not be relevant." He failed to explain why this point is not an issue or how it is irrelevant.
So the main contention of the defence case was not addressed by the Judge. Does this mean that the case is completely unhelpful to the bigger goal of clawing back our fundamental rights as citizens?
No. As my colleague and defendant John Tan said: "This is the first time a judge in Singapore has conceded that not all political activities (in this instance a protest procession) in public places equals public disorder."
It is a small yet significant concession. Judge Ng acknowledges that the reason why the procession (or walk) did not contravene the MOA and its Rules is because it "did not cause inconvenience to the public, affect traffic flow or make noise which disturbed the public peace."
Call this judgement a judicial baby-step if you will. But isn't it true that all things great always first happen with baby-steps?
So what happens next? The Prosecution may appeal, the High Court may overturn Judge Ng's decision, other judge's may re-look at the cases that are on-going - who knows? In other words, what will come from this one single judgment is unclear. It may or may not lead to bigger things.
What is absolutely clear, however, is that without challenge, the status quo will remain. I am reminded that failure does not come when we fall short, it comes when we don't try - a subject I will talk more about in a subsequent piece.
Judge's decision: Nothing to be elated about, nothing to despair Judge's decision: Nothing to be elated about, nothing to despair
Wednesday, 07 October 2009
Chee Soon Juan
DJ John Ng
Before we pop the bubbly and celebrate the acquittal of my colleagues by District Judge John Ng over the protest walk on 16 Sep 07, it is important to examine the Judge's reasoning behind his decision (read the full Judgement here).
Judge Ng had ruled that the Miscellaneous Offences Act (MOA) under which the defendants had been charged was not unconstitutional. He wrote that "There was no basis for the defendants to attack the constitutionality of the legislation."
Perhaps. But Mr Ng misses the bigger point which is that the police will not approve any application for outdoor political activity. The defendants made this point their main contention.
Put simply: the MOA requires groups of 5 or more to apply for permits. Nothing unconstitutional about this, one might argue, at least not in this part of the Act. After all the Constitution does provide for certain conditions under which the Government can deny such activity. Applications for permits will allow the police to assess each case on its merits.
But the PAP goes to the other extreme where it determines that no outdoor political activity is allowed under any condition. The Judge acknowledges this: "The defendants were able to show by their cross-examinations of the prosecution witnesses that there was a policy not to grant any permit for political events to be held outdoors."
Such a policy or administrative act is not backed up by any law and runs contrary to Article 12 of the Constitution.
So while the legislation (MOA) may not be unconstitutional, the administrative act of denying all applications is. This is the nub of our contention: The Government's decision to ban all political activity in public areas is ultra vires the Constitution.
Defendants had submitted on the case of Boddington v PP in which the UK House of Lords unequivocally and emphatically ruled that if an "administrative act undertaken pursuant to [the parent law] is ultra vires and unlawful and that if he establishes that he has committed no crime."
Unfortunately, Judge Ng ignored this point and simply said that "whether a permit could or could not be obtained is not an issue and would not be relevant." He failed to explain why this point is not an issue or how it is irrelevant.
So the main contention of the defence case was not addressed by the Judge. Does this mean that the case is completely unhelpful to the bigger goal of clawing back our fundamental rights as citizens?
No. As my colleague and defendant John Tan said: "This is the first time a judge in Singapore has conceded that not all political activities (in this instance a protest procession) in public places equals public disorder."
It is a small yet significant concession. Judge Ng acknowledges that the reason why the procession (or walk) did not contravene the MOA and its Rules is because it "did not cause inconvenience to the public, affect traffic flow or make noise which disturbed the public peace."
Call this judgement a judicial baby-step if you will. But isn't it true that all things great always first happen with baby-steps?
So what happens next? The Prosecution may appeal, the High Court may overturn Judge Ng's decision, other judge's may re-look at the cases that are on-going - who knows? In other words, what will come from this one single judgment is unclear. It may or may not lead to bigger things.
What is absolutely clear, however, is that without challenge, the status quo will remain. I am reminded that failure does not come when we fall short, it comes when we don't try - a subject I will talk more about in a subsequent piece.
cold depressive autumn for sdp clan
BryanT - SDP's sad or happy day? Tue 06 Oct 2009 6:45 PM SDP members and supporters won't know whether to laugh or cry over this acquittal.
Obviously, SDP should be euphoric that the acquittal vindicates what they have done in Sep 07. They could also rejoice that the judge has been amicable enough to interpret the law in their favour.
But I would like to remind SDP that it was let off on what seems like a technicality - the lack of a clear legal definition of "progression". Hence the judge has had to rely on a “natural and ordinary” meaning of the word.
SDP should note that this oversight (ie. lack of definition) can be easily corrected by parliament in future, although personally I think we should let it be, besides the fact it would make the government seem retributive to make the amendment at this stage.
On the other hand, SDP has reasons to be sad because the acquittal DEBUNKS their long-held and oft-repeated insinuation that the judiciary is at the beck-and-call of the ruling party. Here was a case whereby the judge has given SDP the benefit of doubt with regards to the law.
Based on its mindset, whenever judgments were proffered that were not favourable to the SDP, it would make accusations of judges being biased and beholden to the government. This mindset is embodied recent accusations made by its supporters of the type as follows:
- Shame on those lap dogs - the judges, ministers, technocrats, etc who are so educated yet have to suck up to one old
peesai miserable man.
- the ruling party has used the whole civil system like the police, army, media and justice to perpetrate the manipulation and suppression on the people
- Everyone knows kangaroos run our courts!
Now that a judge has shown clear and balanced legal mind to acquit these SDP members, the party and its supporter can no longer lay claims to persistent legal suppression. SDP can no longer deliberately breach laws and then attribute their incarceration to miscarriage of justice.
A principled judiciary is not helpful to SDP's cause since it has essentially lost one of its raison d'être to overhaul the Singapore system.
I know a sparrow does not summer make, but overall it's a sad autumn day for SDP.
as usual, sdp hopes for the worst to have happened to them. but when something really nice happen to them, they are confused and depressed.
Obviously, SDP should be euphoric that the acquittal vindicates what they have done in Sep 07. They could also rejoice that the judge has been amicable enough to interpret the law in their favour.
But I would like to remind SDP that it was let off on what seems like a technicality - the lack of a clear legal definition of "progression". Hence the judge has had to rely on a “natural and ordinary” meaning of the word.
SDP should note that this oversight (ie. lack of definition) can be easily corrected by parliament in future, although personally I think we should let it be, besides the fact it would make the government seem retributive to make the amendment at this stage.
On the other hand, SDP has reasons to be sad because the acquittal DEBUNKS their long-held and oft-repeated insinuation that the judiciary is at the beck-and-call of the ruling party. Here was a case whereby the judge has given SDP the benefit of doubt with regards to the law.
Based on its mindset, whenever judgments were proffered that were not favourable to the SDP, it would make accusations of judges being biased and beholden to the government. This mindset is embodied recent accusations made by its supporters of the type as follows:
- Shame on those lap dogs - the judges, ministers, technocrats, etc who are so educated yet have to suck up to one old
peesai miserable man.
- the ruling party has used the whole civil system like the police, army, media and justice to perpetrate the manipulation and suppression on the people
- Everyone knows kangaroos run our courts!
Now that a judge has shown clear and balanced legal mind to acquit these SDP members, the party and its supporter can no longer lay claims to persistent legal suppression. SDP can no longer deliberately breach laws and then attribute their incarceration to miscarriage of justice.
A principled judiciary is not helpful to SDP's cause since it has essentially lost one of its raison d'être to overhaul the Singapore system.
I know a sparrow does not summer make, but overall it's a sad autumn day for SDP.
as usual, sdp hopes for the worst to have happened to them. but when something really nice happen to them, they are confused and depressed.
members, supporters, sympathisers and activists - CONFUSING!!
Judge acquits five SDP leaders and activists
By Ong Dai Lin, TODAY | Posted: 07 October 2009 0703 hrs
Photos 1 of 1
Singapore Democratic Party's logo
SINGAPORE: They have been hauled to court many times for staging protests and other activities in public, with a guilty verdict the regular outcome.
On Tuesday, however, a group of Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) leaders and activists were acquitted of holding a procession without a permit.
On Sept 16, 2007, five of them had marched from Speakers' Corner to Queenstown Remand Prison to mark the first anniversary of a protest led by SDP secretary-general Chee Soon Juan at the World Bank-International Monetary Fund meetings in 2006.
[I]The group, comprising SDP chairman Gandhi Ambalam, assistant secretary-general John Tan, central executive committee [B][U]member[/U][/B] Chee Siok Chin, SDP [B][U]supporter[/U][/B] Yap Keng Ho and [B][U]human rights activist[/U][/B] Chong Kai Xiong, also wore white T-shirts with the words "Democracy Now" and "Freedom Now". [/I]
In his written judgment, District Judge John Ng noted that the group had walked mainly on pedestrian pathways and did not attract "any significant" attention of the public.
They also did not carry any of the usual equipment associated with a protest, such as placards or banners, and the walk did not disrupt pedestrian flow.
The judge said: "It was a group of people walking purposefully in a public place from one point to another, but on this occasion, it never amounted to a procession."
He added that there has to be a distinction drawn between "walking in a group from one point to another, even if it was to commemorate an event, and being part of a procession".
When contacted, Institute of Policy Studies senior research fellow Gillian Koh told MediaCorp: "The judgment suggests at face value that there are political activities that seem to be acceptable which we never thought would be allowed."
She said that political activists should look at the previous cases and the specifics of the judgment, and "they would want to be cautious in staging political activities in order to avoid running afoul of various laws".
The five SDP leaders and activists had been charged for participating in a procession without a valid permit. Each of them could have been fined up to S$1,000 if convicted.
and now there is another new category who are not SDP MEMBER but "human rights activist".
this brings us to the next question. human rights activists, are they on its neutral position or representing a political party such as SDP? if they do represent a political party, why then aren't they subscribed themselves as "MEMBERS"? what's the logic behind ths for not bold enough to enrol as "MEMBERS"?
yet, the SDP is claiming that their "membership is growing from strength to strength". isn't this confusing the peasants and putting up a fake picture about their real supports? confusing enough or not?
By Ong Dai Lin, TODAY | Posted: 07 October 2009 0703 hrs
Photos 1 of 1
Singapore Democratic Party's logo
SINGAPORE: They have been hauled to court many times for staging protests and other activities in public, with a guilty verdict the regular outcome.
On Tuesday, however, a group of Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) leaders and activists were acquitted of holding a procession without a permit.
On Sept 16, 2007, five of them had marched from Speakers' Corner to Queenstown Remand Prison to mark the first anniversary of a protest led by SDP secretary-general Chee Soon Juan at the World Bank-International Monetary Fund meetings in 2006.
[I]The group, comprising SDP chairman Gandhi Ambalam, assistant secretary-general John Tan, central executive committee [B][U]member[/U][/B] Chee Siok Chin, SDP [B][U]supporter[/U][/B] Yap Keng Ho and [B][U]human rights activist[/U][/B] Chong Kai Xiong, also wore white T-shirts with the words "Democracy Now" and "Freedom Now". [/I]
In his written judgment, District Judge John Ng noted that the group had walked mainly on pedestrian pathways and did not attract "any significant" attention of the public.
They also did not carry any of the usual equipment associated with a protest, such as placards or banners, and the walk did not disrupt pedestrian flow.
The judge said: "It was a group of people walking purposefully in a public place from one point to another, but on this occasion, it never amounted to a procession."
He added that there has to be a distinction drawn between "walking in a group from one point to another, even if it was to commemorate an event, and being part of a procession".
When contacted, Institute of Policy Studies senior research fellow Gillian Koh told MediaCorp: "The judgment suggests at face value that there are political activities that seem to be acceptable which we never thought would be allowed."
She said that political activists should look at the previous cases and the specifics of the judgment, and "they would want to be cautious in staging political activities in order to avoid running afoul of various laws".
The five SDP leaders and activists had been charged for participating in a procession without a valid permit. Each of them could have been fined up to S$1,000 if convicted.
and now there is another new category who are not SDP MEMBER but "human rights activist".
this brings us to the next question. human rights activists, are they on its neutral position or representing a political party such as SDP? if they do represent a political party, why then aren't they subscribed themselves as "MEMBERS"? what's the logic behind ths for not bold enough to enrol as "MEMBERS"?
yet, the SDP is claiming that their "membership is growing from strength to strength". isn't this confusing the peasants and putting up a fake picture about their real supports? confusing enough or not?
magistrate also sianz to charge SDPpies craps now
Oct 7, 2009
SDP five cleared
By Kor Kian Beng, Political Correspondent
THREE leaders and two supporters of the opposition Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) were acquitted in court on Tuesday of the charge of taking part in an illegal march in 2007.
The SDP leaders were Mr Gandhi Ambalam, chairman; Mr John Tan, assistant secretary-general; and Ms Chee Siok Chin, central executive committee member. The supporters were Mr Yap Keng Ho and Mr Chong Kai Xiong.
The five were cleared of charges of taking part in a procession without a valid permit on Sept 16, 2007. If convicted, they would have faced a fine of up to $1,000 for the offence under the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order & Nuisance) Act.
District Judge John Ng, in a written judgment, said he acquitted the five on the sole ground that he did not consider what they had done a 'procession'.
'The prosecution's position appears to be that so long as a group of five or more people walked from one point to another point in a public place to commemorate an event, the people in that group had participated in a procession for the purposes of the Act...I am not able to agree with such a simplistic interpretation of the word 'procession',' he wrote.
The walk by the SDP five was held to mark the first anniversary of a similar protest planned for September 2006, when the International Monetary Fund and World Bank meetings were held in Singapore.
whether the magistrate charged, jailed or screwed sdppies disciples, there would always be some far fetched comments from those clowns. if they had broken the law, then they would be charged. when they were charged, they would rant like loudhailers as though they were higher than the law.
now they were set free. magistrate was too sianz with their looney antics. he knew they were broke to poor or even got money also refused to pay. jailing them would be wasting the country's rice.
the wise magistrate decided to free them. such a kind and compassionate magistrate! even after freeing them, they wasn't any words of thanks or appreciationg. the rantings continued.....
typical sdppies disciple - whether u jailed them or free them, there is always lame comments. they are still thinking they are the law and above the law.
CRAPS IS WHAT THEY REALLY ARE!
SDP five cleared
By Kor Kian Beng, Political Correspondent
THREE leaders and two supporters of the opposition Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) were acquitted in court on Tuesday of the charge of taking part in an illegal march in 2007.
The SDP leaders were Mr Gandhi Ambalam, chairman; Mr John Tan, assistant secretary-general; and Ms Chee Siok Chin, central executive committee member. The supporters were Mr Yap Keng Ho and Mr Chong Kai Xiong.
The five were cleared of charges of taking part in a procession without a valid permit on Sept 16, 2007. If convicted, they would have faced a fine of up to $1,000 for the offence under the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order & Nuisance) Act.
District Judge John Ng, in a written judgment, said he acquitted the five on the sole ground that he did not consider what they had done a 'procession'.
'The prosecution's position appears to be that so long as a group of five or more people walked from one point to another point in a public place to commemorate an event, the people in that group had participated in a procession for the purposes of the Act...I am not able to agree with such a simplistic interpretation of the word 'procession',' he wrote.
The walk by the SDP five was held to mark the first anniversary of a similar protest planned for September 2006, when the International Monetary Fund and World Bank meetings were held in Singapore.
whether the magistrate charged, jailed or screwed sdppies disciples, there would always be some far fetched comments from those clowns. if they had broken the law, then they would be charged. when they were charged, they would rant like loudhailers as though they were higher than the law.
now they were set free. magistrate was too sianz with their looney antics. he knew they were broke to poor or even got money also refused to pay. jailing them would be wasting the country's rice.
the wise magistrate decided to free them. such a kind and compassionate magistrate! even after freeing them, they wasn't any words of thanks or appreciationg. the rantings continued.....
typical sdppies disciple - whether u jailed them or free them, there is always lame comments. they are still thinking they are the law and above the law.
CRAPS IS WHAT THEY REALLY ARE!
Monday, October 5, 2009
why ah lian loves ah juan?
Originally Posted by amsyl
http://tankinlian.blogspot.com/2009/...soon-juan.html
Chee Soon Juan
I met Chee Soon Juan two years ago at a barbeque organised by The Online Citizen in East Coast Park. He brought his wife and three daughters with him. I had a friendly chat with him.
I met him on a few subsequent occasions. I gave some puzzles, quizzes and my books to him to give to his daughters. I have always wondered about how difficult life must be for his daughers in school.
I have spoken to Chee Soon Juan spoke on a few occasions and heard him speak at public meetings. He came across as being a sensible person and has some views about what is good for Singapore. I agree with his views on the need to have to promote democracy and to have a government that reflects the aspirations of the people and is accountable to the people.
The mainstream media has painted a negative picture of Chee Soon Juan. Many Singaporeans perceive him in a negative light, which I believe is a wrong perception. I hope that they will have the chance to meet him and listen to him, or read his views in this blog.
I met a friend at a coffee shop this morning. I told him about my views of Chee Soon Juan and his family. He agreed with me. He had heard a story that Soon Juan's daughter had to speak up in class and tell her classmates, "My father did not commit any crime". He was emotional; tears came down from his eyes when he said, "I wonder how any parent would feel if our own daughter had to face this kind of difficulty in the class".
I like to wish Chee Soon Juan, his wife and three daughters all the best as they face the difficulty of life in Singapore. I hope that more Singaporeans will come forward to express their support to him and his family.
Tan Kin Lian
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 12:07 PM
the sins of the father fall on the daughters. chee doesn't care about the dilemma his family or anybody faces. he's just bent on having his personal vendetta and revenge on the famiLEE.
just look at his mesmerised clowns who followed him into the big longkang. those clowns are but just his pawns which are dispensable and disposable.
another tonic or toxic soup brewing in ah lian's cauldron. tan ah lian the former chiefy of CUNT was all passive and neutral about CUNT's management and bureaucry.
once he left, he had never stop ranting about CUNT and the LEEgime's mismanagement. why like dat one huh? why leh?
not long ago, he sucked up to master chee. were they passively in love now? a new dawn of BROKEBACK MT FABER soon?
interesting! the pains in the butt they had to go through to accomplish their hidden intention, that is, to be dominant ruler of the martial arts world of politics.
wow!! interesting indeed!!
http://tankinlian.blogspot.com/2009/...soon-juan.html
Chee Soon Juan
I met Chee Soon Juan two years ago at a barbeque organised by The Online Citizen in East Coast Park. He brought his wife and three daughters with him. I had a friendly chat with him.
I met him on a few subsequent occasions. I gave some puzzles, quizzes and my books to him to give to his daughters. I have always wondered about how difficult life must be for his daughers in school.
I have spoken to Chee Soon Juan spoke on a few occasions and heard him speak at public meetings. He came across as being a sensible person and has some views about what is good for Singapore. I agree with his views on the need to have to promote democracy and to have a government that reflects the aspirations of the people and is accountable to the people.
The mainstream media has painted a negative picture of Chee Soon Juan. Many Singaporeans perceive him in a negative light, which I believe is a wrong perception. I hope that they will have the chance to meet him and listen to him, or read his views in this blog.
I met a friend at a coffee shop this morning. I told him about my views of Chee Soon Juan and his family. He agreed with me. He had heard a story that Soon Juan's daughter had to speak up in class and tell her classmates, "My father did not commit any crime". He was emotional; tears came down from his eyes when he said, "I wonder how any parent would feel if our own daughter had to face this kind of difficulty in the class".
I like to wish Chee Soon Juan, his wife and three daughters all the best as they face the difficulty of life in Singapore. I hope that more Singaporeans will come forward to express their support to him and his family.
Tan Kin Lian
Posted by Tan Kin Lian at 12:07 PM
the sins of the father fall on the daughters. chee doesn't care about the dilemma his family or anybody faces. he's just bent on having his personal vendetta and revenge on the famiLEE.
just look at his mesmerised clowns who followed him into the big longkang. those clowns are but just his pawns which are dispensable and disposable.
another tonic or toxic soup brewing in ah lian's cauldron. tan ah lian the former chiefy of CUNT was all passive and neutral about CUNT's management and bureaucry.
once he left, he had never stop ranting about CUNT and the LEEgime's mismanagement. why like dat one huh? why leh?
not long ago, he sucked up to master chee. were they passively in love now? a new dawn of BROKEBACK MT FABER soon?
interesting! the pains in the butt they had to go through to accomplish their hidden intention, that is, to be dominant ruler of the martial arts world of politics.
wow!! interesting indeed!!
Saturday, October 3, 2009
lau lee in ABC moonlighting
last nite lau beh see lee was in abc market instead. shit! and that was suppose to be queenstown. weird! it's confusing! so abc is queenstown and queenstown is not abc??
abc was the territory of the haggling fishmonger troll. she just loved to tekan baey ayam. she even comprained the poor korean hunk look alike to lau lee over petty illeegal parking summon and bangala parading at her lift landing.
and now or rather yesterday nite when the MOON was bright and round, lau lee - the overlord of peesailand turned up in her territory. what did she do? MIA - missing in action. she should ve approached lau lee and repeated her accusation against baey ayam. sh must add that baey ignored her or baey got hots for her. whatever it was, maybe she could have found baey sexier and cuter than her 1/2pastsix. must be regretting missing the forest for a lame tree. LOL!
so lau lee was there meeting the peasants and having mooncake with them when i said mooncake, i really mean MONSTER MOONCAKE - the biggest u ve ever seen next to lau lee's full moon.
but the abc fishmonger troll was missing. just when the loud ranting was most needed, she was missing in action!
why huh? why leh?
abc was the territory of the haggling fishmonger troll. she just loved to tekan baey ayam. she even comprained the poor korean hunk look alike to lau lee over petty illeegal parking summon and bangala parading at her lift landing.
and now or rather yesterday nite when the MOON was bright and round, lau lee - the overlord of peesailand turned up in her territory. what did she do? MIA - missing in action. she should ve approached lau lee and repeated her accusation against baey ayam. sh must add that baey ignored her or baey got hots for her. whatever it was, maybe she could have found baey sexier and cuter than her 1/2pastsix. must be regretting missing the forest for a lame tree. LOL!
so lau lee was there meeting the peasants and having mooncake with them when i said mooncake, i really mean MONSTER MOONCAKE - the biggest u ve ever seen next to lau lee's full moon.
but the abc fishmonger troll was missing. just when the loud ranting was most needed, she was missing in action!
why huh? why leh?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
