Tuesday, March 13, 2012

TRE Trolls Are Not Safe - TRE Sells You Out!

 Poor Gary, lost his job, lost his hair, lost face and lost faith in TRE!

TR and its latest rebranding, TRE, supposed champion of Singaporean voices, yawn, does not protect you and your privacy. You are an idiot if you believe that TRE truly protects your anonymity when you comment in their website! TR previously swore that they would not reveal IP addresses of its fans who praise its shitty articles and shitted on the PAP and its cronies. Well, ask poor Gary Yue Mun Yew what he thinks about that promise of anonymity. Mr Yue got sacked from his job, and fined, lucky did not get thrown into jail too.

TRE is full of shit and what drives it is publicity and the visits to its website, to earn ad revenue. The more controversy it attracts by its sensationalist rumours and crazy comments, the more clicks to its website. TRE encouraged idiots like Gary Yue to go amok in the comments as it is generally good for business. However if the police wants the IP address of such idiots, TRE knows it has a good business model going and does not want to spoil it, and therefore gives up personal information when they have to. Why be forced to close down when all they have to do is sacrifice some gullible idiots?

Furthermore, if any other gullible TRE trolls have not realised by now, TRE has faked its stories of being DDOS or attacked constantly. Boring. All part of the grand sympathy plan. and we are attacked because we are the true voice of Singaporeans scam. KNS. TOC or Publichouse never DDOS ever despite them being more true voice of Singaporeans than TRE!

Man fined S$8,500 for inciting violence online
Updated 03:30 PM Mar 12, 2012
SINGAPORE - An unemployed man has been fined S$8,500 for inciting violence online.

In what's believed to be the first trial of its kind in Singapore, the court heard that 36-year-old Gary Yue Mun Yew posted a video clip depicting the assassination of former Egyptian President Muhammad Anwar al-Sadat on the Facebook page of socio-political website Temasek Review on August 9, 2010 at about 3.00 pm.

Along with the video, Yue wrote the comment: "We should re-enact a live version of this on our own grand-stand during our national's (sic) parade!".

The former engineer at Singapore Technologies was also found guilty of using a photograph deemed to incite violence on his Facebook profile in late July or early August 2010.

The picture depicted Vietnamese General Nguyen Ngoc Loan executing a Viet cong prisoner.

The head of former Deputy Prime Minister and Home Affairs Minister, Wong Kan Seng, was superimposed on the image of the prisoner. The People's Action Party logo was also displayed on the prisoner's chest.

On each count, Yue could have faced up to five years' jail or a fine, or both.

In sentencing, District Judge Low Wee Ping made it clear that the charges were based on the acts of posting electronic documents that contained incitement of violence.

This, the judge stressed, was a big difference from the act of inciting violence itself.

Yue's lawyers had argued that he had no intent to incite violence through the posting and that the video clip was not effective in inciting violence.

But the judge said these are irrelevant.

Under Section 267 of the Penal Code, the charges Yue faced, were strictly liability offences.

The judge made it clear that the Youtube video and Yue's comment were "without doubt, an incitement to political assassination of persons on the grand-stand" on National Day.

And this was relevant in sentencing.

So he found Yue guilty on both charges and fined him S$6,000 for posting the video clip and another S$2,500 for posting the doctored photograph on his Facebook profile.

In his submissions, Deputy Public Prosecutor Sanjiv Vaswani had urged the court to impose a nine month jail term for Yue on the charge of posting the assassination video clip.

He said this was in line with the criminal intimidation sentencing benchmark.

But defence lawyers countered that the video did not have broad exposure, that it was only established three weeks after the incident that an individual had reported the posting to authorities.

As for criminal intimidation, the defence counsel pointed out that the essence of the offence is that harm is done, which was not the case here.

The defence counsel added that although the video posting was made on National Day, it had absolutely no chance of fruition.

He told the court that the act was "a grandiose statement, hyperbolic, surreal" and the exclamation marks at the end of the comment underlined those facts.

The defence counsel noted that this case is the first of its kind in Singapore, so it is easy for the court to make an example out of the accused.

But he urged the judge not to give a custodial sentence as Yue has already lost his job and has to take care of his elderly father who is unwell.

But DPP Sanjiv argued that it would be cheap to slap Yue with a fine, given the fact that self-radicalisation is a threat.

So, he said a custodial sentence is "imperative to set the sign that such acts will not be condoned".

The district judge said the sentence to be imposed has a wide spectrum and he found that Yue has more personal mitigating factors than aggravating ones, so a fine is liable.


  1. Hi, are you new to this internets thing?

    TRE is TRE. TRE's facebook page is TRE's facebook page. They are not the same thing.

    When you make a posting to TRE, then it is up to TRE to decide whether or not to hand the IP address to the police if they ask for it.

    But this case does not involve TRE. This case is a Facebook thing. So if you have any personal information associated with your facebook page, you are basically posting in the open, under your own name, rather than hiding behind a user name. This has nothing to do with TRE revealing your identity because it was Gary Yue himself who made that disclosure.

  2. Thanks 7-8 for pointing out my mistake! Facepalm.

    Ooops Late at night posting, although it is not a good excuse for not reading the news carefully before shooting!

    1. This entire article hinged on TRE voluntarily revealing information they have in control. Since you agreed with 7-8 Anon that this is not the case, then besides facepalm, shouldn't there also be knockhead, twistear and at least take down this article, if not issuing an apologies to TRE?

  3. tre is the best ever website. it publishes stories the other sites like toc has no balls to publish. it is the site for whistle blowers. err what publichouse? is that the one is toc copycat that is porlampar pap recently?

  4. TRE also sell out Matthew Chua, the writer who contributed the article that led to LHL lawsuit. As part of the settlement, TRE provided Lee's lawyers all info on Matthew Chua. Hopefully, Matthew is smart enough not to trust TRE and use an anonymous proxy to post in TRE. TRE's Richard Wan used to be active in Sammyboy under the moniker "kojakbt". Richard had harassed two forummers accusing them of adultery and even posted the ladies children picture in the forum. However, this Richard Wan was also a married man with a a teenage son when he was posted in the forum about his fun time with KTV hostesses. Perviously, Richard Wan had outed Dr Joseph Ong and Gilbert Goh (cofounder of Transitioning.org) to TNP to save his own skin when he was exposed. Now he does that to Matthew Chua for save himself from Lee's lawsuit.

  5. Any outfit ran by the infamous Dr Joseph Ong is immoral and purely for his personal pleasure and profit. The rehashed Temasek Review Emeritus and Temasek Times wordpress are fine examples.