Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 2:16 PM
To: PM LEE
Cc: PM LEE PA 1 ; <a title=”k_shanmugam ; MIN SHAN PA ; <a title=”stlocal ; ST NEWS ; <a title=”pritam.singh ; LEON ; <a title=”sdp ; SYLVIA LIM ; <a title=”theonlinecitizen ; TODAY ; <a title=”andrew ; YAHOO ; <a title=”zblocal
Subject: 20160701 Did ex Parliamentarian Calvin Cheng receive preferential treatment from the SPF?
Dear PM Lee
A few weeks after police reports were made against Bryan, he was charged on 30 June.
While threats of violence must not be condoned, the government appears to have made an exception to the rule when it involved an ex Parliamentarian, Calvin Cheng.
According to a media report dated 16 December 2015, Calvin has been under police investigations since. There have been no updates and an efficient SPF shouldn’t have required more than 6 months to complete an investigation. Since it took merely a few weeks to investigate and charge Bryan Lim, why is it taking forever to complete investigations into Calvin’s case?
Calvin Cheng, a public figure, had clearly incited violence when he said “So you kill them too before they kill you. And their children too in case they grow up to take revenge”. It’s unmistakable.
However, the mainstream media had allowed Calvin to clarify that his comment was not “hate speech”.
Further comments by Calvin (below) actually confirmed he meant what he said, ie kill the terrorists and their children: Calvin held up the example of Xi Jinping who “not only deals with his enemies, he makes sure their families are also destroyed”.
While Calvin is entitled to his views, his comments, if read by terrorist, would have endangered Singapore. The SPF can ill afford not to take any action against such a loose canon.
It has also been reported that Bryan’s desktop, laptop and phone have been seized by the police. However, none of Calvin’s belongings has been seized by the police for investigation. Is everyone equal before the law, according to our National Pledge?
The SPF should not take Calvin’s comments on killing the children of terrorists lightly. Will terrorists justify a pre emptive strike on Singapore using his comments, even though sane Singaporeans do not share his view?
I believe Calvin’s case warrants immediate, though belated, action from the SPF.