Sunday, September 17, 2006
Chees Continue Face-Off With Police

I woke earlier than usual today to visit Hong Lim Park, where the group of 8 protesters are still standing surrounded by a crowd of policemen, prevented from proceeding onto Parliament House.  As far as marches go, these people certainly haven't marched far.  They are only a few hundred metres from Speakers Corner, where the event was to begin yesterday, 16th September.  When I arrived, I had at first thought that my sources were outdated or misinformed, for there was astounding quiet and peace in the area.  I couldn't see a crowd as I approached the Park, nor could I hear anything except the calls of insects.  I had half expected, no doubt from the endless associations drawn for us between rallies/protests and violent shoot-outs, water canons and bottle-slinging, for there to be more of a disturbance.

When I found the area where the face-off was occurring, however, only one jarring sound seemed out of place from the usual hustle and bustle.  As I drew nearer, the puzzle was solved:



Several strapping German Shepherds had been tethered to trees and were making an unearthly din at a nearby stray whom no one was bothering to chase away; I surmise they were police dogs, anyone else's would probably have been culled or something.  They were straining at their bonds and generally being scary.  If this was a tactic to scare away anyone thinking about joining in the protest, I must say it worked pretty well.  Another dog lounged on the lawn with its handler and several other people I assumed to be plainclothes policemen.  Several other "keepers of peace" and defenders of public morality included:



Policemen lurking behind pillars on the opposite side of the road;



A police car by the road, though that may have been just another day's transportation for the guys working in the (very) nearby police station;



The impressive array of assorted police vehicles in the carpark behind the ongoing protest;



And, of course, the crowd of policemen outnumbering the protesters or onlookers themselves.

I hung around for a little while, just watching the proceedings.  Everyone was calm and collected; there was no shouting, badgering, or heatedness.  Then a protester walked past me (I later found out he was on his way to the washroom) and I snapped a photo of him from behind:



I felt compelled to talk to this man, so on his way back, I accosted him and asked him for a short interview.  I found out that he was Gandhi Ambalam, a member of the Singapore Democratic Party.  Despite frequent claims by the PAP that opposition members -- perhaps those belonging to the SDP in particular -- are unqualified and sub-par, the government evidently did not find him unqualified for a PSC scholarship in his youth, and a later career as a civil servant.

I sat him down at a chess table in the park, and we began a simple chat.  I asked him how many protesters there were, and if they were all from the SDP.  "Eight," he said, "Some of them are graduates waiting to go into national service."

"That's...brave of them." I said bemusedly, thinking that trigger-happy conspiracists would be eager to condemn those men to hell in national service for having participated in dissident activities.

"Brave? What brave? There is no bravery.  There is no fear.  It should be natural." He said heatedly.  "It is natural that citizens want to think for themselves instead of simply following what we're told."

I simply nodded, inclining my head and murmuring agreement, and the conversation moved onto other areas.  He expressed his anger at the media for what he alleged was biased and irresponsible journalism.  "They said the event ended last night.  Those are lies.  The rally is still going on, we were here overnight and we will continue to stay.  I just went to wash my face." Here he rubbed his face and apologized, explaining, "Didn't sleep last night." I expressed my sympathy and let him continue.

"The media should tell the truth," he said firmly.  "They said the public complained about a disturbance.  Who complained?" (I wondered briefly if someone had complained about the German Shepherds; if they hadn't yet, someone jolly well should have).  "We had an appreciative crowd.  This is low level journalism.  I should know -- I was a journalist."

This threw me off quite a bit.  A journalist? Surely he couldn't have worked in Singapore? I asked him for clarification, and he informed me that he was Chief Editor in TCS (now known as Mediacorp) of News, "in all four languages".  When I returned home, a quick check confirmed his background as someone who used to work for the state media.

I couldn't resist.

"So was there censorship?" I asked.

He paused a while, and his mouth worked soundlessly for a moment before he grinned, and we both shared a laugh.

"You shouldn't be asking that," He reproached.

"No fear!" I quoted him.

"No, what fear, no fear," he hastened.  A short pause.  "I was there for almost 20 years.  Censorship is there.  Censorship is complete and total."

He qualified this statement, however, by adding that they chose people to fill the top positions whom they didn't need to censor, seeming to imply that the censorship was not direct nor immediate, but rather an unspoken agreement that made interference unnecessary.  "No media is free," he added.  "What we want is a pluralistic media.  If the Straits Times wants to be pro-PAP, go ahead.  Just don't come and lie to us and say that they always publish the truth as the national newspaper, as PM Lee claims.  Now you can go home, on your blog, and you can write what you think about me.  I won't change anything or interfere.  That is a pluralistic media, where there is a clash of views."

He also claimed that the media had published that the event had ended so as to dissuade supporters from turning up to watch (this was when I promised him to publish this on my blog so people would know what was going on, whether or not he was right about the media's intentions).  Aside from the media, he also cited the group's frustration with the authorities, whom he claimed had not told them why they were not being allowed to proceed despite repeated inquiries.

"But you are breaking the law," I pointed out.

"Which law?" He asked a little belligerently.

"The law that says that you can't gather in public without a permi --"

"Permit? What permit?" He asked me.  "Permit to walk? I was arrested in 2002 on the May Day Rally under the Public Entertainment Act, with Chee Soon Juan.  It used to be just the Public Entertainment Act, but it was changed later to become the Public Entertainment and Meetings Act.  They change the law as and when it suits them." (Note: Apparently the act was amended in 2000 and came into effect in 2001.)

He paused, calming down.  "We accept traffic rules.  But if a law is unjust, to hell with it.  We defy an unjust law to stand for the rule of law.  If we are doing something wrong, why don't they arrest us?"

"Probably to avoid negative publicity," I offered.

"Then that is inconsistency.  Oh, wait -- smile for the camera!"

I turned around to find myself face to face with a young chap holding a big big video camera, only a few metres away from us, directly and very obviously filming the interview (there was no one else in our vicinity and he had the equipment pointed straight at us).  I gave the camera my most brilliant smile and waved in several different poses.  Then I whipped out my own camera and snapped this:



...and after a few moments, he wandered off, now apparently filming the greenery at Hong Lim Park.  I turned back to the interview, dismissing any discomfort with amusement, and we continued.  I asked him about his interaction with Chee Soon Juan and for his opinion of the man.

"I've known him since 1993 to be a man of sincerity and honesty," he said.  "If the man is untrustworthy or a congenital liar, then why are we too afraid to interview him? And if Lee Kuan Yew is not afraid to be cross-examined in the witness box, as he has said, then why the summary judgment against the Chees?"

I wrapped up the discussion as the conversation dwindled by asking him how long they planned to carry on.

"Until they let us march," He said.  I was about to point out that that would be, well, never, when he qualified -- "Or until Tuesday, when PM Lee will make a speech for the World Bank and IMF meetings.  Then we will see what we will do.  We might respond to his speech, and by then we may have said what we wanted to say."

"So you will be here at least until Tuesday?" I asked, and he affirmed it.  That concluded things, and I snapped a final picture:




Posted at 11:54 pm by gaylegoh

kel
October 21, 2006   06:18 PM PDT
 
see how screwed up and fearful the PAP is? haha...how pathetic. getting dogs and police to fence up the place to scare away protestors. sets me thinking, how lame can the govt gets?
kel
October 21, 2006   06:18 PM PDT
 
see how screwed up and fearful the PAP is? haha...how pathetic. getting dogs and police to fence up the place to scare away protestors. sets me thinking, how lame can the govt gets?
john riemann soong
October 19, 2006   07:10 AM PDT
 
ML: My elementary school days were spent in the United States, though I attended the last two years of primary school in Singapore. Am I Treasonous? I think not. I'm not Gayle, but I would say the issue is more complex than that!
Kurakat
October 4, 2006   02:50 AM PDT
 
Reading your blog entry has been a pleasure. Even more so when I read the comments posted here. do keep up the good work.

If we want the gahment to hear us, and to treat us seriously, we need to show them that we are at least competent in deciding what we want and what we don't want.

We need to drive the idea across to them that we can think on our 2 feet and make reasonable demands.

They need to have this point internalised and drilled into their head.
ML
October 3, 2006   10:11 AM PDT
 
This blog is treasonous to Singapore!

I suppose you're going to be one of those quitting quitters that quit Singapore! You dont even sound like you went through Singapore schools! How is it possible with this slimy, un-Confucian "critical spirit" you have?

I suppose you'll be doing Uni in Europe or the States, and staying there and being happy? Well, good riddance.

(but seriously, you don't seem like an actual Singaporean. . .)
blueheeler
October 1, 2006   01:48 PM PDT
 
Excellent blog! Thanks for making the effort stand in the hot sun and interview them, despite the out-of-proportion police presence. You blog shows that if we know our rights, there's nothing to fear! Blog on!
freemason
September 26, 2006   02:42 PM PDT
 
To Chris:
Behind Everything there is usually an explanation. Behind every power there are shadows working behind the scenes. This sign is a clue, a hint, for those in the know to take heed. It is neither one decimal point lesser nor more. It is exactly 66.6. Reality IS stranger then fiction. There are principalities & powers most ppl dont know about and they try to control this earthly realm. PPL, Wake up ! This is the eternal battlefield for your souls !
chris
September 25, 2006   11:30 AM PDT
 
To freemason -
"Always remember, never forget !They won by 66.6% ... all those who have eyes, see! and ears, hear ! " For it is a human number..""

I dunno abt ur biblical reference to the devil lah..

At a glance, in any democracy, if u hv 66.6% of the votes, naturally you wld expect 33.4% of the opposition to represent the people government.

Unfortunately, Singapore only has 1 opposition seat in 80 plus seats in parliament.
freemason
September 24, 2006   07:10 PM PDT
 
Always remember, never forget !They won by 66.6% ... all those who have eyes, see! and ears, hear ! " For it is a human number.."
Rev 13:18
baobei
September 24, 2006   06:52 AM PDT
 
Singapore has reached certain stage of so call $$ success, which can be fragile. Small open economy like ours lack the domestic market to sustain itself. When everything fails, no jobs & money for citizens, no tax money for them. You can't be proud to be a ruling party of an ailing country.

Besides, I dont think this suppression is all about economic factors.
It could be purely case of not wanting any opposition, not having to deal with "dissents"

As for the uniformed folks, they are just there to get their monthly salary, seriously do they care? do as they are told loh..

This IMF, Worldbank event ( which I was out of this place the whole time) is merely a budget spending event for PR, albeit one which turned soured. Hey but as some said negativty publicity beats none!
Ken
September 23, 2006   11:45 PM PDT
 
To Chris:

{{All the revenue lost by the shops at Suntec, and also all the $$ used to pay the soldiers, policemen, pave the roads, plant the flowers and trees and $$ spent on advertising for Singaporeans to give the delegates "4million smiles"}}

Chris, dont you worry about that. The gahment gave the main contract to Pico Art to organise the meet. If I'm not mistaken, the gahment through one of its companies, also owns a chunk of Pico. I would not put it past the gahment to award all those tree planting and flower landscaping contracts to one of its companies. It would be interesting to see if we could get the gahment to publicly account for the expenditure and see how much goes to which company for what products and services. I could be wrong, but I am sure it's another case of public money from right pocket to left pocket. All those money just go to prop up gahmen-linked enterprises and pay for their gahmen-liked directors. I believe not much seeps out to benefit private businesses.
freemason
September 23, 2006   12:16 AM PDT
 
The father who lead us from heaven
unholy is his name
Their kingdoms come, our wills become, on earth their slaves as well as their servants.
give them today their daily hate,
and increase them their sins,
for they will never forgive those who trespass against them.
for they bring us daily to the test,
and deliver us unto evil. Slay'em.

BillyBong
September 22, 2006   08:41 PM PDT
 
The protest failed from the start because it seemed obvious that Chee never meant to resort to violence to carry out his plan. He merely cajoled the boys in blue to establish their presence and allow the masses of international journalists to cover the event, knowing that the ripple effect would create more negative publicity.

People can say what they like about defending our values, but when a law enforcement body like the police goes out of their way to film, record and interrogate innocent passer-bys each time they speak to an SDP member, it's utterly shameful. To wear that uniform and lie to yourself that you're just doing your job is simply disgraceful.
chris
September 22, 2006   06:48 PM PDT
 
oh i forgot to mention... i think economically speaking, we probably lost $$ in this IMF anyway.

All the revenue lost by the shops at Suntec, and also all the $$ used to pay the soldiers, policemen, pave the roads, plant the flowers and trees and $$ spent on advertising for Singaporeans to give the delegates "4million smiles"
chris
September 22, 2006   06:38 PM PDT
 
Lau Xin Zhou -
In recent memory, Prague, HK had violent demonstrations.

Did the investors and tourists run away from those places and contribute to a negative impact on the economies?

Isnt it obvious the government is very good at a few things:
1. Instilling fear
2. Making money
3. Controlling dissidents

Its very telling during this IMF meetings. You can practically see the $$ signs in the eyes of the government that the delegates and meetings will help fatten Singapore's wallets.

The whole spirit of IMF, which is to discuss world poverty, trade imbalances etc is lost on us, cos all we think about is how this meeting will benefit us now and in the future. Or what the government wants us to think.

Personally i think its been a PR disaster for Singapore. By suppressing the NGOs, we have done NOTHING to improve and enhance our reputation. Its merely clinical, authoritative, efficient, sterile, without passion and excitement. Old news, nothing new to the international opinion of our country. Ho hum...

Meanwhile, people who really have passion for doing something and speaking up for their liberties, or for the causes they believe in, are being boxed into little areas to protest. OUtnumbered 10 - 1 by policemen.

Much like how Potong Pasir has been divided into a small little constituency. Typical tactic of the government.
Freemason
September 22, 2006   06:23 PM PDT
 
Everybody wake up. face it. this country is a lackey for foreign interests and has no choice but to kowtow to whoever dangles the pay packet. The top ppl see ghosts everywhere cos they collaborate with them
thor666
September 20, 2006   01:25 AM PDT
 
Gayle, thank you for the write-up. It's a very good piece of work. Sure beats reading raunchy superficial newspaper writings anytime.
Passing Through
September 19, 2006   05:50 PM PDT
 
Lau Xin Zhou,

--> If demostrations turns to violent, the investors will withdrawn their investments as they lose faith in Singapore. Next, tourists will run away which will give extra impact to our economic. A very common logic.

You really beat me with the your naivity. You have been brain washed by PAP to beyond redemption. Everything to them is tied to $$$$. Singapore has reached a certain stage in economic success. It should now look for something more than just that, eg. civil liberties, freedom of expression, etc. We cannot always measure all success by $$$.



magislayer
September 19, 2006   03:37 PM PDT
 
i agree with you john.

actually, we are talking about demonstrations here. we are not talking about uprisings or insurgencies. heck, we are not even talking about riots (even though the possibility of demonstrations degenerating into riots is there). the possible negative impact of peaceful demonstrations on businesses is minimal.

businesses look at other issues such as transparency, stability, the rule of law rather than these kind of things (which are most probably commonplace in their own countries (Europe, Australia/NZ or UK)) before investing.
john riemann soong
September 19, 2006   02:52 PM PDT
 
If I were to choose between my civil liberties and a bunch of tourists, I'm having my civil liberties, hor.

"Give me liberty or give me death!"

What use is economic prosperity without liberty? Why is it an imperative to retain tourists?

If foreigners have very little faith in Singapore that they pack up and leave over the exercise of *our* liberties, I say leave them be.

They don't deserve to be in our country otherwise.

Why are we prostrating ourselves for their stupid money?
Lao Xin Zhou
September 19, 2006   01:41 PM PDT
 
>>Not just Hong Kong, but in South Korea, Taiwan, inter alia do we see protests and protests and yet have a healthy and stable economy.

--Their countries is much bigger than ours. They have hundreds - thousands of investors in their country. If they resorted to rioting/violent protesting, a few investors may withdrawn but what's the difference since they have so much investors?

But here in a small Singapore, every investors are important to Singapore's economy, once they got scared off by our brutually riots, the whole economic will sink.

Big countries are more stable than small countries when facing problems like terrorist attacks and violent rioting.
Lao Xin Zhou
September 19, 2006   01:36 PM PDT
 
>>My apologies, but I think that you are being absurb by suggesting that quelling demonstrations will take up such a huge chunk of a country's budget and will lead to the collapse of the economy.

--> If demostrations turns to violent, the investors will withdrawn their investments as they lose faith in Singapore. Next, tourists will run away which will give extra impact to our economic. A very common logic.

>>Demonstrations doesn't occur everyday, it doesn't occur even frequently, and it does not happen for no reason. The people are simply enforcing their civic rights (and to some, their civic responsibilities).

--Sad to said, Singaporeans complained alot everyday, about the government, etc. If government allows protesting, then everyday, there will be protestors protesting for this and that. It's is good for citizens to enforce their civil rights but if enforce civil rights is just for self-demand or other minor issues, it is just absurb than ever.
magislayer
September 19, 2006   01:31 PM PDT
 
To Lao Xin Zhou:

"To ken:

>>Hong Kong has experienced several riot and protest situations, and we don't see their economy collapse?

--> Hong Kong is part of China and it does not have army of its own. It means that they can save up millions of dollars. Unlike Singapore who has a large SAF to feed with. Demostration will affect HK's economic but not that bad because they don't have military expenses to pull them down."

Not just Hong Kong, but in South Korea, Taiwan, inter alia do we see protests and protests and yet have a healthy and stable economy.

If you say HK has no soldiers and need to depend on PRC and will incur zero expenditure to put (not 'pull them down') them down, then what of these countries?

My apologies, but I think that you are being absurb by suggesting that quelling demonstrations will take up such a huge chunk of a country's budget and will lead to the collapse of the economy.

Demonstrations doesn't occur everyday, it doesn't occur even frequently, and it does not happen for no reason. The people are simply enforcing their civic rights (and to some, their civic responsibilities).
Lao Xin Zhou
September 19, 2006   11:32 AM PDT
 
To John:

>>What's the connection between economic collapse and demonstrating?

-->Perhaps you need to study economic social studies. And understand why demostration can brought down the economic in one's country. Go study it and figure out.

To ken:

>>Hong Kong has experienced several riot and protest situations, and we don't see their economy collapse?

--> Hong Kong is part of China and it does not have army of its own. It means that they can save up millions of dollars. Unlike Singapore who has a large SAF to feed with. Demostration will affect HK's economic but not that bad because they don't have military expenses to pull them down.
john riemann soong
September 19, 2006   06:01 AM PDT
 
attract foreign talent, attract foreign investors.

When are we going to be rid of the hyperxenophilia-phobia and start having national issues being arranged under our circumstances?

Why in the world should we have to rely on a tourist industry? Developed nations do not rely on tourism - at best it is a sort of side income. They form their own culture, not "hey! Let's try to have an IR to try to make our country attractive!"

We are attractive lah, but the PAP fails to see the real beauty inside. Attract Chinese investors, no real beauty in the dialects right? Kill them off by creating a Speak Mandarin Campaign. After all, what use are the dialects? All they apparently do is create "divisions", because we so know that Beijing's Northern culture is *so* superior to Guangdong's Southern culture. So we go abolish all the dialects lor! Wait, "lor" is reminiscent of several grammatical particles of the dialects. No wonder they want Singlish abolished!

Sometimes it seems that the PAP is full of Northern panderers who want to eliminate the Southern culture completely. We have bunch of *ethnic cleansers* in the top ranks, that's what it is.

We talk about Taiwan, but what happened to the real Taiwanese aboriginal culture hmm? After all, the Austronesian languages (which include Malay - of both Indonesia and Malaysia, Filipino, and even Hawaiian) originated from Taiwan. Worthless! our social engineers think. What good use is Austronesian culture for!

Think for a moment - why the imperative not to have them? What's the connection between economic collapse and demonstrating? The link is very weak. These are not axioms.
Ken
September 19, 2006   03:19 AM PDT
 
To Gayle:

[[[John: They probably also interrogated you for being a budding communist anarchist (when are you gonna get over that, man).]]]

That reminds me. Till today I still do NOT believe those Catholic priests they sent to jail were communist conspirators.

We have a very serious problem here: our leaders - rather, some very senior and respected ones - seem to be suffering from delusional paranoia. Specifically one man who seem to see shadows in every corner, and ghosts with every whisper.
Ken
September 19, 2006   03:09 AM PDT
 
To Lao Xin Zhou again, you said: [[[if you used force and the demostration turns to rioting, the Singapore's economy will collasped]]]]


That's what the gahment want you to believe, and after many years of branwashing thru the media, a lot of us Singaporeans are just repeating the same thing to show as if we are so briliant.

Hong Kong has experienced several riot and protest situations, and we don't see their economy collapse?

Economic collapse is caused by a confluence of factors that undermine the foundations of economic development. Rioting does not cause its collapse. The reasons why rioting break out, the reaons why people lose their focus on productive labour, do cause economic collapse.

Rioting is like fever. Fever breaks out because our body system is malfunctioning.

Even if Chee and his small group are allowed to stage their protests, we are not going to drive away the investors.

A huge chunk of investments in our economy originate from European and American corporations. A small group of locals expressing their dissatisfaction will still appear like chicken-feed to them, compared to what they have seen and experienced in other regions.

Remember recently when the US Embassy saw a small group of people demonstrating at its gates for its Iraq War initiative? The police asked them if they wanted the demonstrators arrested and charged? The US official was shocked at our police's overture. The Ambassador later wrote a not very sweet report about the way our gahment suppress our civil liberties.

Nobody is suggesting we all go around and burn down buildings. But some form of allowance must be provided for us to speak our minds without fear. Even a boiling kettle need to let off steam or it will boil over and mess up the stove. Have you not ever used a kettle before? Dont believe everything you hear from the gahment. It makes us sound stupid when we regurgitate the same stuff to intelligent people when we go overseas.
Ken
September 19, 2006   02:49 AM PDT
 
To Lao Xin Zhou:

You said: [[[[Wrong. Whether you can and cannot trust the government is up to you. But one thing to note here, if you used force and the demostration turns to rioting, the Singapore's economy will collasped. Singapore is not the same as your America]]]]

If we Singaporeans get into a riot situation, it only means we are already in very bad shape, which means the economy would also be in a bad shape anyway. If everything is ALL good, then who wants to riot? Riots happen because people are NOT happy - not only not happy, but very very angry, to the extent that they are willing to be hurt, hammered or jailed, in the process. Our SG gahment is good in many ways, but for a first world country like ours now, with first world infrastructure and first world social aspirations, our gahment is NOT stepping up to the plate to be counted. The only way forward is to engaged civil society and bring dissenters on board in their governing process, NOT by bludgeoning them and bankrupting them. The gahment is merely trying to deal with the symptoms of the problem, not the cause. I would expect a million dollar gahment to do better than that.

You talk about trust. Obviously you, like most other fellow Singaporeans, including people like me who dont always agree with gahment policies, do trust the gahment. The problem is they don't trust us!
Lao Xin Zhou
September 19, 2006   01:39 AM PDT
 
John: Just my point of view.
Lao Xin Zhou
September 19, 2006   01:09 AM PDT
 
>>Which is useless. We cannot trust the government: without a show of force they think they can ignore our sentiment without any consequence.

--Wrong. Whether you can and cannot trust the government is up to you. But one thing to note here, if you used force and the demostration turns to rioting, the Singapore's economy will collasped. Singapore is not the same as your America.

>>A mass demonstration, if it does not obstruct traffic, is highly justified: the only issue would then be visibility.

--You think we Singapore are as big as your giant America? No. Any demonstration here will obstruct the traffic to a bad extend.

>>It's not rocket science to find out why visibility is an issue for the PAP.

--You are standing on your point of view, as a commoner. If you are a government of Singapore, then your views will be quite different.
john riemann soong
September 19, 2006   12:49 AM PDT
 
"Alternative views can be feedback directly to the government via Parliament, grassroots organisation, town concil, opposition parties, etc.
There is no need for mass demostration. "

Which is useless. We cannot trust the government: without a show of force they think they can ignore our sentiment without any consequence.

A mass demonstration, if it does not obstruct traffic, is highly justified: the only issue would then be visibility.

It's not rocket science to find out why visibility is an issue for the PAP.
Kelvin Wong
September 18, 2006   11:58 PM PDT
 
I wrote about something that happened to me and my friend on Sunday at Hong Lim...

http://www.saltwetfish.net/journal/2006/the-little-incident-at-hong-lim/
whybegay
September 18, 2006   11:10 PM PDT
 
Alex, do you happen to be Alex Au?
alex
September 18, 2006   10:38 PM PDT
 
Whybegay: "Aiyo so amateurish protesters."

Still better than resident trolls like you I think.
Lao Xin Zhou
September 18, 2006   10:09 PM PDT
 
John Song: If you dare to protest in the streets of Beijing without permission, you will be arrest. Same for many Asia countries, not only Singapore.
Alternative views can be feedback directly to the government via Parliament, grassroots organisation, town concil, opposition parties, etc.
There is no need for mass demostration.
And should the demostration turns violent, well, end for it.
john riemann soong
September 18, 2006   09:04 PM PDT
 
Lao Xin Zhou: not HK, which is part of the PRC ("one country, two systems") - or what about the SEZ's ("socialism with Chinese characteristics") ....

They protest for the sake of letting their voices be heard - often it is true that some views are not publicly known.

For example, do you know how many children are prostituted as sex slaves in Uganda because globalism has reduced them to be that desperate to earn a living? Can you give me a round figure? You can't, right?

That's why you go let the protestors tell you lor.
Lao Xin Zhou
September 18, 2006   02:11 PM PDT
 
They protest for what? Freedom of expression? Or just fighting for "allow protesting"?

To know the law:

You are wrong somehow. Anyone who wants to start a demostration in China, they MUST apply for a permit from the Chinese government (same as Singapore). Not "soka soka" protest as they like.

So Singapore is not worst than China afterall.

Know the Law
September 18, 2006   01:21 PM PDT
 
Dun frighten Gayle. What she did was nothing wrong.

Why is protesting wrong anyway?

Only Laos, N Korea and Singapore bans protests. Even CHINA allows protests. Even CHINESE parliament vote against their own bills more than our Singapore parliament.

Are We worse than China?

Please lah, Freedom of Assembly is in the Singapore Constituion for goodness sake.
john riemann soong
September 18, 2006   11:36 AM PDT
 
Anyone seen the IMF protestors yet?

Methinks they should tell the authorities to go to hell and protest where they want.

You see, if they get arrested for it, it will end up being very good publicity.

"First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win."
Jeneral
September 18, 2006   11:33 AM PDT
 
He should be protesting for the cause of income disaprity in developing natiosn and the destructive forces of IMF policies. This way he would gain more attention.
Ronald
September 18, 2006   10:52 AM PDT
 
Thank you for your civic consciousness. People like you make us proud to be Singaporeans.
john riemann soong
September 18, 2006   10:42 AM PDT
 
gayle: I would have expected the authorities to do something despite splitting into four (which is exactly why I cited the 2005 case) ... but the difference is that they would seem even more inconsistent.

Heh, they did ask "are you communist"? I said yes, but my parents (who were present) apparently tried to justify this with, "oh he's been reading Animal Farm lately for lit class" (sec 1 more like). I didn't appreciate this however because I thought it was an attempt to deny my true stance, and I didn't necessarily want to obscure this fact just because the authorities disliked people who hold certain views.

In that case I actually think I was at fault - I think it was mainly about the threat and not my (at that time) anti-American / anarchist views lor.

Meh, my stance evolves out of my adherence to social contract theory. I still don't get why you associate it as "dangerous". Anarchism preaches voluntary participation, and will gladly exclude anyone who doesn't join voluntarily, unlike the Marxist nations with their anti-emigration laws.
gayle
September 18, 2006   07:45 AM PDT
 
Their supporters are bringing them meals.

John: They probably also interrogated you for being a budding communist anarchist (when are you gonna get over that, man).

Anyway, they would have found some way to get him even if he had split into marches of four. E.g. the placard holding incident: "EDB", "HDB", "NKF" and so on.
john riemann soong
September 18, 2006   07:31 AM PDT
 
I think CSJ should have organised several different marches of four - technically they wouldn't require a permit because their group wouldn't be less than the criteria of five which mandates a permit.

Wang suggested this - in 2005 a group of four were still dispersed for it, and would have likely had the same result - a standoff - but it would further prove the establishment inconsistent.
john riemann soong
September 18, 2006   07:00 AM PDT
 
finally they made a move lor ...

Yesterday I saw the news and I thought they backed down ...

Lucky Tan: I was interrogated by the ISD at the age of 14, in April 2004, apparently for "making" a "nuclear bomb" "threat" over the internet. Nothing happened, except for a reminder I had to be "responsible" and remember there are "out of bound markers".

Are they not eating and drinking till Tuesday? Amazing. Aww, I wish I was in Singapore to join him.
whybegay
September 18, 2006   06:44 AM PDT
 
Aiyo so amateurish protesters.

Didn't use high-pitch dog repellent device. tsk tsk
Name
September 18, 2006   04:22 AM PDT
 
You seem to be dubious of CSJ. Why don't you speak to the man himself, since he will be at Hong Lim Park till Tuesday.
Lucky Tan
September 18, 2006   02:15 AM PDT
 
Liao lah. I think the ISD took down your particulars. You know the record for the youngest person ever detained, you're going to break it.

Wonder why you're so mess up to be interested in radical elements. You should be at the Singapore Idol filming just like rest of the teens. What hope does Singaporean have with teens like you?

Don't you know FREEDOM to the PAP is just a rebranding exercise?
Yes, soon we will be a hip and vibrant society after the newest round of rebranding....very soon!! I feel so hip and vibrant already!
 

Leave a Comment:

Name


Homepage (optional)


Comments







Previous Entry Home Next Entry
gayle goh

<< September 2006 >>
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
 01 02
03 04 05 06 07 08 09
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30

profile

Recommended Posts

Do We Owe Our Existence to the PAP?
A Message From a Media Insider
The Bilahari Kausikan Post
Bilahari Kausikan's Reply
Money in Politics, Politics in Money
Workers' Party, PAP or My Living Room Armchair?
My Vision for Singapore
Democracy is Dangerous!
Singapore's Midlife Crisis
Smile, Singapore! WB and IMF Meetings a Scam
Chees' Rally & March; Interview with Gandhi Ambalam

worthy reads
xenoboy sg
students' sketchpad
singabloodypore
singapore mind
young republic
i-do-not-speak


friends
kwee boon
brendan
ben teh
2sa3
gecko

shameless advertising
if you're looking for air compressors and ancillary parts (vane, rotary, screw, etc), my dad sells them! ;)



disclaimer
the author of this site has based all her personal opinions on what is known to her as fact. any error is made of ignorance, not malice, and is accordingly apologized for. any views and opinions expressed by other persons on this site are not the responsibility of the author, nor does she claim to espouse them.

If you want to be updated on this weblog Enter your email here:




rss feed