Let’s recap the case:
Tin Pei Ling sent a GE-RELATED reply to someone on 6 MAY 2011 at 1.30 PM. That day had been designated by the govt as the COOLING OFF DAY before polling day on 7 May 2011. Her message was sent more than 12 HOURS INSIDE COOLING OFF DAY ITSELF.
There was never any dispute or question that the message was sent from her Face Book account, only that she denied, disingenuously, responsibility for it claiming that SOMEONE ELSE, ONE DENISE HE, whom Tin claimed to be an ‘administrator’ helping her, and has access to her Face Book account, did it WITHOUT Tin’s knowledge or approval!
In Nicole Seah’s case the message was posted to her FB wall by a volunteer almost on the stroke of midnight, arriving on Seah’s FB wall, just A MINUTE after 12 mid night on 6 May 2011 BEING DELAYED BY UNDISPUTED HIGH ONLINE TRAFFIC THEN.
I am no forensic expert, but I think any reasonable minded person using his or her commonsense, let alone a competently TRAINED POLICE investigator, would draw the following obvious and reasonable conclusions:
In the case of Tin Pei Ling: GUILTY OF AN OFFENCE UNDER THE LAW ENACTED BY THE PAP GOVT ON COOLING OFF DAY. Her defence of innocence – that the message was sent by her administor without her knowledge or approval – is rubbished by two material facts: Her claim that the message was sent out by her ‘administrator’ using Tin’s phone is NOT supported by the evidence – there was no remark to the effect that the message had originated from a mobile phone usually appended with the message that appeared on Tin’s FB. Anyway, what is her phone doing in the hands of Denise He, for that matter? One excuse after another? Is she a credible witness on her own behalf?
Furthermore, Tin has submitted WRITTEN DECLARATION TO THE ELECTION DEPT AS PART OF HER CANDIDACY IN THE MAY 2011 GE, TO THE EFFECT THAT SHE ALONE MANAGES HER OWN FACEBOOK ACCOUNT WITHOUT ANY THIRD PARTY ASSISTANCE. This declaration required by the Election Dept is very obviously and precisely intended for a situation such as that facing Tin Pei Ling. So that the offender CANNOT WRIGGLE OUT of responsibility when such a situation eventuate, AS IN THIS CASE WITH TIN!
And the POLICE, THE AG AND THE ELECTION DEPT (UNDER YAM AH MEE) had obviously conveniently turned a blind eye to the material facts. Is there any particularly good reason for the authorities not to mete out an appropriate punishment for such a deliberate offence on the part of Tin and her associate, Dennis He? Had it been an opposition member in Tin Pei Ling’s shoes, would he or she be accorded such a special lenient treatment? Going by past examples, it would be extremely unlikely. So it is apparent that there is a set of preferential treatment in the implementation of the law for PAP members and a different, more stringent, set for the opposition and other citizens?
(Can we all forget the case of Goh Chok Tong, Lee Hsien Loong and Tony Tan who were found in a polling station during one GE year where they have no legal right to be but were somehow found to not have committed any offence by the then AG Chan SK (currently the Chief Justice)? Taken together with this present case of Tin, one can justifiably conclude that indeed Singapore’s justice is served depending on your affiliation or lack thereof with govt?)
In the case of the message sent to Nicole Seah (it bears stressing that she played no part in it), it is clear from the content itself and time of arrival (at one minute past midnight) on her FB wall that it was not purposely sent to break the law. To come to any other conclusion is to split hair for the purpose of fault-finding.
If the PM is truly sincere about his own undertaking during the May 2011 GE hustings he can start showing us that he meant what he had said and that it wasn’t a ploy to win back votes that he genuinely felt are slipping away from his party.