Page 5 of 14 FirstFirst ... 3456710 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 276

Thread: BBC: Singapore 'breaks protest deal'

  1. #81
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Clementi, Singapore
    Posts
    2,836

    Default Re: BBC: Singapore 'breaks protest deal'

    Quote Originally Posted by Silence Sky
    Hi;

    Have done the math, we need 7 riot squads to take care of the 28 FT.
    Hmmm... Not very effective and efficient as our leaders claimed them to be leh..
    Looking at it from another angle, we must employ these 28 FT to replace our world class Armed forces.
    Its only 28 people, and this is Singapore, I reeally doubt they would have a tough timee trying to take care of them, many countries have to deal with thousands of protesters turning it all into a riot and they manage, 28 people is a piece of p*ss to them, I have no doubt that Singapore can handle 28 people.

  2. #82

    Default Re: BBC: Singapore 'breaks protest deal'

    There is a saying, keep your friends close and your 'enemies' closer. Why desginate such a small space to the protesters? It is not wise to provoke them. They provide a counterbalance to IMF policies. Just imagine what will happen if only 'YES' men attended the meetings. All of us ordinary folks would be poorer and we will have another NKF saga where the rich just get richer because 'the board of directors approved it!'

  3. #83

    Default Re: BBC: Singapore 'breaks protest deal'

    Quote Originally Posted by optimage
    There is a saying, keep your friends close and your 'enemies' closer. Why desginate such a small space to the protesters? It is not wise to provoke them. They provide a counterbalance to IMF policies. Just imagine what will happen if only 'YES' men attended the meetings. All of us ordinary folks would be poorer and we will have another NKF saga where the rich just get richer because 'the board of directors approved it!'
    You think the powers that be CARE that we ordinary folks get poorer? Come on! This is
    Fortress Singapore Business - where the BIG BOYS AND MONEY rule! Sorry if I sound so bitter ... but it seems as though us ordinary folks can't do much - if we don't have the moolah n influence ...You see, you must either be a WORLD FAMOUS celebrity - not Zoe Tay or even Fann Wong or Zhang Ziyi or Gong Li but someone like Angelina Jolie or George Clooney (TAKE NOTE - you must preferably be AMERICAN) - then MAYBE JUST MAYBE - someone will hear you ... otherwise - NADA - we are small fries - or rather small flies/ kacang putih - nobody gives a **** about rich getting richer - as much as I admire the protesters/activists who are truly sincere - sometimes, I feel they are just 'long pia' - banging their heads against a huge thick fortress-like wall the BIG BROTHERS have built ...

  4. #84
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    谁是你
    Posts
    2,706

    Default Re: BBC: Singapore 'breaks protest deal'

    It is time for the moderator to lock this threat.

  5. #85

    Default Re: BBC: Singapore 'breaks protest deal'

    Quote Originally Posted by wildstallion
    Foreigners are what this country lives and breathes off! We are improving your country and frankly without western intervention Singapore would definatly not be what it is now! What would Singapore be like with no money? Western TNC's bring billions of dollars worth of business to this region, maybe you would like to think just a little bit before you open your mouth and show how stupid you really are.

    And you clearly have something against foreigners!

    Also just out of interest, you have to relate jobs to the average Singaporean, and the average Singaporean cannot do the jobs that Foriegn talent can (especially western)

    Im not trying to start a war here, just trying to open people minds a little bit.

    Then go home to where you come from. We dont need western imperialism here. The Japs kicked the ass of the British who were supposed to "protect" us and show us how powerful the white man is. If you can make it in your own country then why come here? So as to take our jobs and live as our modern day LORDS called expat? I am not stupid and I make no apologies for what I said. I am a loyal true blood Singaporean and son of this land and I dont bow to no foreigner. And please I didnt call you stupid, if you are so uptight, means you are admiting you are those FOREIGN TALENTS that are taking us for a ride. If you want to be a citizen, I welcome you but if you want to just earn our money and bugger off. Then please kindly bugger off now. And to all I have nothing against foreigners only those who come here and swagger and think that they are more respected than Locals because of their color and status. To Singaporeans, If you love your country, you will defend it and not join them in condemning your own nation.

  6. #86

    Default Re: BBC: Singapore 'breaks protest deal'

    Likewise. emotions are overspilling, and reasonings starting to grey.

  7. #87

    Default Re: BBC: Singapore 'breaks protest deal'

    Quote Originally Posted by kiwitan
    It is time for the moderator to lock this threat.
    I wish as the TS I could lock it myself.... I am no longer following the discussion

  8. #88
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Clementi, Singapore
    Posts
    2,836

    Default Re: BBC: Singapore 'breaks protest deal'

    Quote Originally Posted by centuryegg
    Then go home to where you come from. We dont need western imperialism here. The Japs kicked the ass of the British who were supposed to "protect" us and show us how powerful the white man is. If you can make it in your own country then why come here? So as to take our jobs and live as our modern day LORDS called expat? I am not stupid and I make no apologies for what I said. I am a loyal true blood Singaporean and son of this land and I dont bow to no foreigner. And please I didnt call you stupid, if you are so uptight, means you are admiting you are those FOREIGN TALENTS that are taking us for a ride. If you want to be a citizen, I welcome you but if you want to just earn our money and bugger off. Then please kindly bugger off now. And to all I have nothing against foreigners only those who come here and swagger and think that they are more respected than Locals because of their color and status. To Singaporeans, If you love your country, you will defend it and not join them in condemning your own nation.
    Your not seriously trying to blame me for Singapore getting its ass kicked in WWII? Yes the British should have done more and not buggered off but whats been done is done.

    And I resent the remark "If you can make it in your own country then why come here?" If you seriously think that is why FT is here then you really need to think again.

    Never have I once thought myself above the locals here, neither do I 'swagger' around expecting to be treated differently or respected more due to the color of my skin.

    The only reason you were called stupid is because you over generalised and called us home-wreckers which the majority certainly are not. I make no apologies for calling you stupid.

    I could say alot more but I will hold my tongue. I do not want a verbal war to break out.

    Oh and the combined effort of the US and mainly the UK is what drived the Germans and the Japanese back. What did Singapore do, did Singapore even have an army? Please do not make comments about a war in which so many gave up their lifes to fight for the freedom they believed in.

  9. #89

    Default Re: BBC: Singapore 'breaks protest deal'

    HEY, chill out gentlemen.

  10. #90
    Senior Member azul123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Eastern Bloc
    Posts
    2,776

    Default Re: BBC: Singapore 'breaks protest deal'

    Quote Originally Posted by centuryegg
    Then go home to where you come from. We dont need western imperialism here. The Japs kicked the ass of the British who were supposed to "protect" us and show us how powerful the white man is. If you can make it in your own country then why come here? So as to take our jobs and live as our modern day LORDS called expat? I am not stupid and I make no apologies for what I said. I am a loyal true blood Singaporean and son of this land and I dont bow to no foreigner. And please I didnt call you stupid, if you are so uptight, means you are admiting you are those FOREIGN TALENTS that are taking us for a ride. If you want to be a citizen, I welcome you but if you want to just earn our money and bugger off. Then please kindly bugger off now. And to all I have nothing against foreigners only those who come here and swagger and think that they are more respected than Locals because of their color and status. To Singaporeans, If you love your country, you will defend it and not join them in condemning your own nation.
    Wow, you're something else, you have a narrow minded view. Isn't that what the Government encourages FT, too bad you think like that.

    ../azul123

  11. #91

    Default Re: BBC: Singapore 'breaks protest deal'

    Did I say you are a home wrecker? I said foreigners that come here, some of them are home wreckers. Why are u so worked up about that?? And please during WW2 when all the brits were retreating during the Japanese advance of the malayan peninsula, it was the local chinese, malays, eurasians and indians that couldnt fight, didnt know how to fight who fought to the last man in a futile attempt to stall the invasion. The british? Mass retreat..... That is why I said White Imperialism... still thinking we Asians cant live without the western world. Anyway this will be my last post, to those who think I am offensive, I am just stating facts and my views and you dont have to agree. If you to take it personally, then perhaps ask yourself if it is because what I say hit a chord and make u reflect that what I say is true but you just dont want to admit it.

  12. #92
    Senior Member azul123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Eastern Bloc
    Posts
    2,776

    Default Re: BBC: Singapore 'breaks protest deal'

    This IMF/WB has become counter productive, reports in BBCWorld what WB Paul W. said is not very helpful at all.

    Here's some of the things he said.

    Singapore branded 'authoritarian'

    World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz has described Singapore's restrictions on activists for meetings of the Bank and IMF as "authoritarian".
    He said the decision to ban the entry of 27 accredited activists violated a previous agreement with Singapore.
    Singapore 'breaks protest deal'
    The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank have accused Singapore of reneging on a deal to allow activists into their annual meeting.
    The World Bank said it was "very displeased" with Singapore's decision to bar 28 activists from the country.
    The Bank and IMF argue the presence of pressure groups is key to improving the work of financial institutions.
    Singapore says it has banned the activists as they have taken part in "disruptive protests" in other nations.
    "The most unfortunate thing is what appears to be a going-back on an explicit agreement," World Bank chief Paul Wolfowitz told about 50 activists in Singapore ahead of the annual meetings.
    Isn't he the former US deputy defence secretary? who was reported to have said http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/aboutoil.htm

    ../azul123
    Last edited by azul123; 15th September 2006 at 10:05 PM.

  13. #93
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Clementi, Singapore
    Posts
    2,836

    Default Re: BBC: Singapore 'breaks protest deal'

    Quote Originally Posted by centuryegg
    Did I say you are a home wrecker? I said foreigners that come here, some of them are home wreckers. Why are u so worked up about that?? And please during WW2 when all the brits were retreating during the Japanese advance of the malayan peninsula, it was the local chinese, malays, eurasians and indians that couldnt fight, didnt know how to fight who fought to the last man in a futile attempt to stall the invasion. The british? Mass retreat..... That is why I said White Imperialism... still thinking we Asians cant live without the western world. Anyway this will be my last post, to those who think I am offensive, I am just stating facts and my views and you dont have to agree. If you to take it personally, then perhaps ask yourself if it is because what I say hit a chord and make u reflect that what I say is true but you just dont want to admit it.
    Im sorry, you did not say some IIRC you said tonnes!

    And it hit a chord because you are being so insulting and you dont even realise it, what you say is utter BS and certainly isnt true. Its people like you that give a place a bad name. Im glad that was your last post because i really dont want to listen to anymore crap that you have to say.

    Ok the region may have fought back against the Japanese but to no avail, it was still the western power that fought back and defeated Japan, Russia and Germany.
    Last edited by wildstallion; 15th September 2006 at 10:06 PM.

  14. #94

    Default Re: BBC: Singapore 'breaks protest deal'

    Quote Originally Posted by Wolfgang
    I honestly honestly feel extremely sad that you feel this way. My friend, everything may be in place to protect but if an accident should take place and an innocent life is taken, would you stand there with that smile on your face and say, "hey its fine. it was a lovely experience to have at the expense of a few lives?"

    What is a "why fear the few tens of angmo..."?! Have you watched the news lately? If you have not, here are some of the videos that might change your mind abt the "few tens of ang mo.."

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UV4KfCLQNT0
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9g1X-YaWLaI (cantonese)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxJOS...elated&search=

    Please do not have such a narrow mind to think that only ang mo or any particular ethnic group is capable or responsible for violence. Again, i would like to remind you, talk is cheap.

    Unless you have experienced a full blown riot, I do not think you should call for one to happen just for you to experience it. This is irresponsible. Ultimately, before anyone else shoots their mouth off in such an irresponsible manner, i suggest you think it through thoroughly. None of us here, not you nor me have the ability to bring anyone back from the dead.

    Life, may it be of our citizens or anyone elses, is sacred. Unless you are willing to be the one standing up and taking full responsibility for the consequences if the riot you so dearly wish for happens, i suggest you do not be too hasty in wishing for one.

    Thank you.
    It's pathetic too that many Singaporeans, me included, do think a lot like you ..... because since young we were made to believe that we shouldn't speak up, that a riot will destroy all the good things our beloved Government have brought us, and we will never rise again.

    Someone once said, the Truth is never cheap!
    It is cheaper to keep everyone happy so that no one will speak up .... well, we wont and dont speak up coz we have all the material things we ever wanted in our country. It is not just Singaporeans, but any NORMAL human beings in the world, who do not wish any injuries or killings to happen to anyone. As such, I hope you will not blindly presumed that I desire "the riot you so dearly wish for happens, i suggest you do not be too hasty in wishing for one." ... This is just plain character culling at a shameful level.

    Are you so naive to believe that our Government will allow these 28 (or even the 24 thousand delegates or any of its 4 million Singaporeans) to create trouble? Your enclosed clips are so misleading too, because the trouble-makers are thousands of hardcore pro, and not just 28 activists, who are actually educated and known. This brings to remind you that in the Asian dragons, mass protests are common in HK, Korea and Taiwan, and these economies remain as strong as ever.

    In my comment, it is obvious that I am referring to these 28 and if you bring out these dramatic movies to shame my status, i think it's hitting below the belt
    Last edited by Canonised; 15th September 2006 at 10:13 PM.
    always the Light, .... always.

  15. #95

    Default Re: BBC: Singapore 'breaks protest deal'

    Quote Originally Posted by wildstallion

    Ok the region may have fought back against the Japanese but to no avail, it was still the western power that fought back and defeated Japan, Russia and Germany.

    I may have said it was my last post but this one really made me boil cos you just made all us Asians who died in the war in vain. No one ever wanted to claim any credit for who won the bloody war. Facts are that the british had their ass kicked and claimed that Singapore was an imprenagble fortress, Churchhil said that Singapore's fall was the British Empire's worse and most shameful defeat.

    The locals stayed on and fought to the last man, hand to hand combat with the Japanese who were so incensed that they had a purge of the local chinese population while the British surrendered. The Chinese fought the Japanese in China, incurring great suffering like the Nanking massacre.

    If you really want to talk about how the west won the war? It was using two nuclear devices against innocent Japanese civilians to force Japan into surrender.

    And u tell me I am talking crap? I wonder how saying that Asians didnt contribute to the war effort constitue to crap.

  16. #96

    Default Re: BBC: Singapore 'breaks protest deal'

    i find this written piece pretty interesting, thought it would be nice to share it. written by Gayle Goh, excerpt:"
    I returned from Bangkok yesterday afternoon to be greeted by striking banners that hailed the arrival of the IMF/WB delegates to Singapore. A huge panel filled with smiling faces scratched annoyingly at my peripheral vision. Tonight, returning home on the bus, I saw another double-decker bus decorated with nothing but smiles, smiles and smiles!

    I'm sorry, but I'm quite disgusted. The whole affair is nothing but a cheap plastic, embarrassing multi-million-dollar scam. We were told to behave ourselves like good children for our visitors. Taxi drivers, don't talk politics! Waiters, waitresses, sales clerks, must smile and give them a good impression. Brush up on your French or Spanish. Poly students, make sure you speak proper English! Kids, behave. It seems, though, that our best behavior and efforts are not the most memorable characteristics of the occasion that delegates will walk away with. Instead, it will be the sour taste of miscommunication and frustration.

    No matter what happens these coming weeks, no matter if there are illegal marches on the streets or if everything is pulled off squeaky-clean, Singapore-style, I already consider the IMF/WB meetings a flop. Singapore's gag on civic expression has been dragged into the international spotlight. For goodness sakes, we can't even fill up the 11 000 hotel rooms set aside for the delegates. More importantly though, any institution which wants to retain a reputation for consultative transparency and legitimacy will have to think twice -- or three or four or five times -- before it seriously considers Singapore as a destination for its conventions.

    Now, I don't believe the IMF and the World Bank could have chosen Singapore as a host destination without knowing that protesters would have a tough time. They probably decided on Singapore because they wanted more security.

    What they seemed not to have bargained for, however, is the extent of Singapore's hardnosed and uncompromising refusal to accommodate, to negotiate, and to inform them ahead of time of their decisions (this is not the first time the World Bank has complained being told tardily of Singapore's decisions).

    I make that conclusion based on the simple calculation that despite the fact that we can only speculate as to the private discussion and correspondence between the parties involved, we may safely say that Singapore would not countenance undergoing so much public blame if such blame were unfairly placed. In other words, the extent of the World Bank or the IMF's complicity in any 'conspiracy' to stifle the participation of activists in the meetings is limited, because of the negative publicity that seems to have spun out of the Singapore government's control; publicity that I doubt the government would allow to continue without clarification unless it were true: that the Singaporean authorities really have been uncommunicative, tardy in their releases of information, and just plain stubborn.

    And now that that no-nonsense adamancy has been revealed, there is little reason or excuse for any other similar convention/round to make its way to Singapore again. Nope, we'll have to settle for the 2013 SEA Games, my friends.

    But -- lo and behold! Defying all reason, intuition and instinct, the Straits Times's 6-page special report printed today (09/09/06) cheerfully reports World Bank Singapore Representative Mr. Stephens's assessment of the relationship between Singapore and his organization to be a "full, rich and very rewarding relationship", with no mention whatsoever of the disagreement which, going by the above report and by other international accounts, has become a full-blown public spat. For instance:


    HANOI, Vietnam The World Bank said Saturday it might meet activists barred by host Singapore from its meeting next week at an alternative venue, adding that the city-state's decision would be a factor in deciding who hosts future conferences.

    ...Daboub said the decision by Singapore to ban certain civic groups that the World Bank wants to talk with would be a factor in determining where meetings would be held in the future. Washington D.C. will host its next meeting, which takes place every two years, Daboub said.

    "I think for the future, it's also an experience (for us)," Daboub told reporters. "Its a matter that it will be addressed (by the World Bank board)...The fact that the Singapore government is extremely concerned about terrorist acts is something we cannot corroborate."


    Associated Press/International Herald Tribune


    Oh yes, let's remind ourselves one more time why they cannot corrobate it. Because terrorist attacks to the best of my knowledge do not occur at maximum-security occasions. They do not occur at WTO rounds, APEC summits, or ASEAN meetings. They occur on buses in London. They occur on an average workday, 9/11, in New York City. They occur on trains in Madrid. They occur when tourists least expect it in Bali. Allow me to suggest that we should ban buses, trains, cancel work and close our country to tourists because of the threat of terrorist attack. That would actually make more sense than banning public demonstrations under maximum security. That is why the government's concern over terrorist attacks as a reason for banning protests is noble but uncorrobated. Of course, though, the Straits Times would never question self-evidently good intentions.

    And neither would Singaporeans. I was at the Bangkok forum for Free Expression in Singapore, organized by the Southeast Asian Press Alliance earlier this week, and a reporter asked the panel whether or not a big part of the problem was simply that Singaporeans were unwilling to go out there and hold a demonstration even if it means getting arrested. I essentially said yes; it's a huge part. Why would any reasonable Singaporean jeopardize his security, his bankbook, his comfortable job, and everything he's worked so hard to build in his life, for the sake of something as abstract as a right? Why would the masses do something like that, especially since the connections are drawn so early for them by the textbooks and the media, connections between stability and prosperity, the Great Impeccable Clockwork and their precious livelihoods. No one wants to mess with that. Well, no one except Chee Soon Juan and his homies, reportedly. And then I told her frankly: "If you're a Singaporean and you want to go to jail for your beliefs, please go right ahead. But don't expect anyone to be holding your name up on placards. They'll be reporting to work from 9 to 5." Alex Au, during his speech, also laid much of the responsibility on the shoulders of Singaporeans who have been conditioned to love their government in what he called an apparent manifestation of the Stockholm Syndrome (the phenomenon whereby the captive comes to sympathize with or have affection for his/her kidnapper).

    This is why I think maybe Singapore shouldn't have bothered to ban outdoor protests for foreign activists. Go ahead and have double standards for foreigners and locals. No Singaporeans will show up anyway, except Chee, who plans to be there, ban or no. Even though this is a fantastic opportunity, with representatives from foreign media crowding the place, and activists milling about ready to support and encourage other like-minded English-educated radicals, Singaporeans just aren't ready or willing to harness it. Well... maybe if they hadn't banned it though, the sight of long lines of people just walking down a road, just being there and expressing, through their presence, through their expressions, through the words on their signs or their calls and cheers, an opinion -- maybe that sight would have been a breath of democracy that would have stirred life in the Singaporean soul. Maybe that's what they're afraid of after all, more than terrorist attacks or bomb plants. Maybe they're afraid of us.

    So if you'll be at home for the next weeks, kicking back and relaxing after a long hard day of work, watching TV and learning how the delegates were all thrilled by, ohmigawd, the efficiency of how things are run in Singapore, and the warm welcomes, and the lion dances, and the great service, then smile! Cos you're a trueblue Singaporean, one in a million or four. Oh, they would be proud."


    another one who stand on the side of allowing protests.
    Last edited by satay16; 15th September 2006 at 10:20 PM.

  17. #97

    Default Re: BBC: Singapore 'breaks protest deal'

    Quote Originally Posted by Klose
    Singapore inflicted enormous damage to reputation: Wolfowitz

    Singapore has inflicted enormous damage to its reputation because of its reluctance to admit 27 activists accredited for the World Bank and International Monetary Fund meetings, bank president Paul Wolfowitz has said.

    "Enormous damage has been done... A lot of that damage has been to Singapore and it's self-inflicted," Wolfowitz said at a meeting with non-governmental organizations.
    But Singapore's reputation as far as the liberal world is concerned is already highly authoritarian, so what "enormous damage" could this cause other than to enforce pre-existing views?
    Last edited by huaiwei; 15th September 2006 at 10:20 PM.
    D300s D200 350D | N18-200VRII N18-70 N50 TK12-24 S70-300 TR18-200

  18. #98
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Clementi, Singapore
    Posts
    2,836

    Default Re: BBC: Singapore 'breaks protest deal'

    Quote Originally Posted by centuryegg
    I may have said it was my last post but this one really made me boil cos you just made all us Asians who died in the war in vain. No one ever wanted to claim any credit for who won the bloody war. Facts are that the british had their ass kicked and claimed that Singapore was an imprenagble fortress, Churchhil said that Singapore's fall was the British Empire's worse and most shameful defeat.

    The locals stayed on and fought to the last man, hand to hand combat with the Japanese who were so incensed that they had a purge of the local chinese population while the British surrendered. The Chinese fought the Japanese in China, incurring great suffering like the Nanking massacre.

    If you really want to talk about how the west won the war? It was using two nuclear devices against innocent Japanese civilians to force Japan into surrender.

    And u tell me I am talking crap? I wonder how saying that Asians didnt contribute to the war effort constitue to crap.
    I never said they didnt contribute, just that they didnt have enough force to push the Japanese back which is true.

    Please, im not trying to make all the Asians which died in the war appear like a vain effort, your reading too much into what Iam saying and I think you misunderstand me.

    And even though the Nuclear bombings were extreme, I still believe there was little other choice and the world was not ready to sucumb to communism so giving up was not an option.

    Also even though you make a good point you still came back which is very hypocritical of you. Will you be coming back for more?

  19. #99

    Default Re: BBC: Singapore 'breaks protest deal'

    Quote Originally Posted by satay16
    This is why I think maybe Singapore shouldn't have bothered to ban outdoor protests for foreign activists. Go ahead and have double standards for foreigners and locals.
    My tots has been on the issue for quite some time and swung from one extreme to the other before. Right now, my personal feel is that I do agree that the overall security measures is a tad overdone, and I do agree it will have an impact on future hosting choices here. Still, the security concerns are real, and it is Singaporeans who will have to live with it for the rest of its history should anything happen. Are we are willing to take this gamble as a nation together?

    If only more thought was given in balancing the two concerns. If only they tought of constructing a temporary but reasonably-sized sheltered demonstration site in an appriopriately-sized area, which could be at the former Beach Road Camp site, for instance, since its just opposite SICEC. Sure, the police will need alot more resource to ensure law and order in this venue, but at least no "double standards" exists, along with other intengible benefits in avoiding the current public fallout.

    Just my 1.5 cents....
    D300s D200 350D | N18-200VRII N18-70 N50 TK12-24 S70-300 TR18-200

  20. #100
    Senior Member azul123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Eastern Bloc
    Posts
    2,776

    Default Re: BBC: Singapore 'breaks protest deal'

    Quote Originally Posted by huaiwei
    But Singapore's reputation as far as the liberal world is concerned is already highly authoritarian, so what "enormous damage" could this cause other than to enforce pre-existing views?
    I think the enormous damage is with statements like "going-back on an explicit agreement" and "violated a previous agreement" these have far damaging consequences especially in a country where we hold legal obligations in high regard.

    ../azul123

Page 5 of 14 FirstFirst ... 3456710 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •