Thanks for the clarifications TY.
Nothing specific stated in the following website :
www.mha.gov.sg/ecitizen/roses/images/docs/faq_data.htm#Q2Key thing to ensure is that the constitution should not promote adverse ideas
involving communities and religious sensitivities and/
or illegal activities.
They will definately not allow any society to conduct any business that will violate the law of the land.
But I don't think we'll have that problem because
I believe no part(s) of the proposed constitution draft is deemed promoting illegal events or activities. Can you point out which paragraphs or sentences that may be problematic?
The Club's name
Fly Fishers.............
In the constitution..........specifically
fly fishing........
in our "fresh water
reservoirs and inland water ways"....
So if you look at it as a whole thing,
PUB has signs advicing "no fly fishing tackle" which a lot of people
interpret as "illegal to fly fish" and some ranger also interpret as
"illegal to fly fish".
Again as a whole thing,
the whole constitution already violates the "advice".
If the PUB, NParks, the courts interpret that it is "illegal to fly fish"
in our fresh water reservoirs and inland waterways,
then aren't the constitution violating the laws?
We are debating/arguing about some chicken and egg thing here.
1. Do we go ahead with the constitution which already violete the very basic rule/law in the parks?
(Pardon me please, I have a lawless mind and limited knowledge of the law and how judges and learned scholars interpret them)
But as a layman simple in the head, I take it that it is such.
2. Is it or would it be more prudent to get the PUB to suspend the rule first, then introduce the constitution.
We have a law maker on our side now.
We have to make full use of this opportunity to get the law changed to our favour.
Otherwise, why do we need to bring our case to the law makers and the ministers?
Because some of us believe, with commitment (and in number)
we can get it change; not only for ourselves but for the future generation.
It is going to take hell of a long time.
We may not be able to enjoy those changes.
I may be gone even before those changes take place.
(That is how I view the way civil servants worked)
But we're doing it anyway.
The main objective of this standing committee is to help ensure that all our members share our vision for the association. If we have a member that loves to catch and kill and openly declare that we should all C&K regardless of the situation,
then I think he should not remain in our association.
Totally agree with his C&K matter.
Key is to be
tolerant to individual preferences and not be overly prescriptive, but address the bread and butter issues that the association is is promoting.
I like this one better, TY.
We should be more tolerant to our members and not to impose
any rules which will retard the creative thinking of those young ones who want to join.
In fact we should be tolerant to those who had, like most of us,
fly fished illegally, berly the water with bread and tiger barbs and guppies, target breeding pairs (like me), wade into the water to try to take a picture of a female peacock bass trying to lay her eggs,(disturbing her till she "run" away), releasing luohans and other fish into the waters etc etc...many more.
You are going to tell the fishing community
that suddenly (drums rolling) after we form a club,
we are now saints and are now sinless (like going for confession)
The whole lot(fishing community) will laugh at you man.
And believe me the guys at SFAS will laugh the loudest.
They advocate legal fishing and kept their distance from us,
while we (the ones who go against the gahmen)
keep on going to nz, wh, 7t, cake shop etc etc........
If one of us did not try the $5 experiment,
we would not have the extra(valuable) knowledge of
how to catch those pbs and sebbie effectively.
If one of us did not venture into the reserves,
how wuld he know that we have sebbie breeding places deep in the forests.
There are many more illegal but harmless, in fact creative,
things that our members had done in the past which we should
be thankful for.
If not, how would we know the situation so much,
and get those knowledge that it spurn us to take some action
to see what we perceived that the PUb is doing wrongly,
and try to get a law maker to help us put them right.
(And put it right the correct way, through consultation
and through trying to get the law changed, and NOT taking the LAW into our own hands)
Finally, I don't believe that we should stop our creative ways
of finding better fishing methods and trying to find a way to
sustain the fishing stock in our waters for the future generation,
and for the ecopnomic development in the leisure/sport fishing industries.
And I certain don't believe,
just because we are going to form a club,
or we have formed a club,
we suddenly become saints and such.
And that we have more moral authority to tell
those people who have fished illegally with us before
that they are doing something wrongIt is like you are in changi prison and then the pastor
converted you and you regret your mudering your father
and suddenly you have the moral high ground to preach
to your fellow changi prison prisoners that murder is wrong.
We chosed to fish illegally in the past.
Why?
Because we believe, by doing this civil disobedience,we can be noticed.
They'll have to take notice and find a better way to manage the parks. (with or without the help of the SFAS or us)
If they take notice of us, and try to find a better way, they'll find a better way.
It is how, as a club, we can influence those "better ways".
That's is a big "If". A lot of the loan sharks in Singapore are also hoping that the Court and Police can suspend the rules on load sharking, then they'll "suddenly" become law abiding citizens. But who is going to listen to their reasoning?
You have bring up a very good point here(OT, but good point)
I shall say a few word on this subject from the other side to the world.
I believe, the law should be changed to make loan sharks legal
like the law should be changed to make fly fishing legal.
WHY?
Most of us are not poor and have a very confortable life.
Most of us don't need to worry about our next meal.
Most of us don't have a bad habit which we over spent.
To sumarised, we are all "okay" people.
Some of you may have not seen "the other side"
Most of the people who borrow from the loan sharks
are poor people and the banks don't want to lend them money.
(Banks only want to lend you when you don't need the money..
you'll have to take my word for it.)
Most of the poor will start to pawn their jewelleries.
Pawn shops are bigger loan sharks(but they pay tax).
Why are they legalised?
My arguement,
if loan sharks are legalise, and can set up shop like pawn
shops, there will be extra employment for singaporeans also.
If the gahmen cannot get banks to give unsecured $200 loans
to a poor man, why stop the loan sharks from lending the money to them.
They have mouths to feed, school fees to pay, MRT/bus fares
to pay, electricity to pay...........
If you legalise the loan sharks and they can openly go to a
borrower's house and take away his tv or pc or fridge,
then they don't have to go and pour paint on people's door
in the middle of the night and make mistakes and pour the neighbours door,
because it is nearer the staircase.
(They get paid as long as they pour the paint, doesn't matter wrong door)
For pawn shop, you bring your stuffs there first.
For banks and loan sharks, you take the money first.
(Loan sharks can let you watch your tv while they lend you money,
pawn shops take your tv first)
Any difference?
Banks will also go to the courts to get the legal papers
to seize your tv, pc, fridge.
They also paste paper on your door with the court papers.
They even put stickers on all your favourites items
as long as they sense they can get some money from it.
Any different?
Court process are expensive.
So for a loan shark giving $200 loans,
they should be a court which charge $2 (token sum)
so that the legal loan sharks can turn to if someone defaulted.
Even the HDB and big banks use cisco guards to chase you
out of your house in broad daylight if you owe them money.
Mostly, the difference between loan sharks and the big banks
is a thin line which the law makers put in place
that say they are illegal.
Just like the thin line that the PUB say fly fishing is illegal
Maybe we should help the loan sharks write a petition to the ministers
and see if they can get the rule changed for them too. ******
Afterall they are like us.
They are helping the poor while the banks are helping the rich.
They can even come under the MCYS because they help the poor.
They are like fly fishers because the law say they are illegal.
So getting the law change for them """MAY""" be a good thing.
Then they will run a legal business.
BUt I think if they are successful, the big banks will want
to have a share of their business too.
NOTE: Most of the smart ass who defaulted the loan sharks
are planned defaulters.
They go to the police very quickly and they use other people's addresses.
So you see, loan sharks have risks like banks too,
they get cheated too.Same as if we are successful in our attemp to get the law changed
to our favour, there will be people who will want to
come and openly take credit for it too.
We'll wait and see.
Pardon me to talking off-topic so long.
I must be getting really old.
Because even old Mr Lee of LPR could not tahan sitting with me
at the kopi shop and listen to my preaching about fly fishing.
*******
Please don't believe a word I say in this OT.
I think I was drunk.
I was talking cock thru my arse hole.
Key is to establish moral high grounds and credibility first to get our cases and arguments heard. If we don't establish that in the first place, nothing is likely to move or change.
For repeat offenders, the judge usually give more severe sentences.
What moral high ground for repeat offenders?
Who are we to say we have higher morals just because
the MP meet up with us and blessed us with a place in his CC?
Let he who has not sin cast the first stone.
We didn't elevate ourselves to "moral high ground"
before we decided to write those letters.
The Minister took notice of us NOT because of our "moral high ground".
He took notice(and ordered the PUB to talk with us) because he
knew we are talking something sensible and we are sensible people.
Not "Moral high ground" people.
He knew we have something to offer to the waters in singapore.
The minister is not looking for a law maker,
and we are not running to be law makers,
so "moral high ground" is not so important as it is now.
If after the club is formed,
and if we want a "moral high ground" guy to be at the helm,
I think it is very difficult to get one from our ranks.
We'll have to out source it and maybe get one from the monastery.
PS: If my quoting of some religious stuff is wrong pardon me please.