From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

Contents 1 Background 1.1 Item removed 1.2 Regarding PAP 1.2.1 Article reverted 1.3 Arrest 1.4 Inherent Bias of writer is evident

[edit] Background

This article is controversial due to its political nature. Kindly refrain from using uncited information. The cited information should be from reputable sources, such as official newspapers and other international news sources.

[edit] Item removed

Removing it should have little harm, since we can re-add when source is given later. For biography article, it is better to play safe when it comes to unsourced attacking statements. --Vsion 06:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding PAP

[edit] Article reverted

Article reverted to original form, after removing offensive paragraph. Links and books written not to be removed.

--6 May 2006

[edit] Arrest

Arrest of Gomez

He had said to an election officer, "Do you know what the consequences are?". What he said was caught on CCTV.

This quote is not in the article. Can someone provide a transcript of the conversation. Furthermore the statement by itself does not sound very intimidating. Thank you for the clarification. --Ghormax 15:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Follow-up

I have read the transcript on this website. I cannot find anything that would conclude me to believe there was any "criminal intimidation" (even though the law can be interpreted to mean nearly anything). Is there also a transcript of the CCTV footage of the second meeting? Furthermore, the fact that Gomez did not want to discuss the issue with the media is understandable (especially in Singapore's case).

The government also claims: "By brushing aside the issue of what happened at the election department, he has left doubt in the public’s minds as to whether ELD had been straight in dealing with him." If this counts for the whole case of the government, it seems very weak. It was not James Gomez who went to the media to complain about the Election Department, it was the PAP. --Ghormax 16:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inherent Bias of writer is evident

One gets a sense that the writer of James Gomez has a bias towards the PAP. Unquotable "facts" like james gomez firing the first salvo are listed. (the first public statements came via PAP). Also the fact that James Gomez was the one that suggested to check the CCTV to the Elections Department is not referenced. This fact of course would absolve him of any "vast conspiracy" that naysayers might raise.