Page 6 of 14 FirstFirst ... 4567811 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 276

Thread: BBC: Singapore 'breaks protest deal'

  1. #101
    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
    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....
    I thought I saw posts #69 and #70, were they allowed or not allowed to hold protest, didn't read the thread fully.

    ../azul123

  2. #102
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    東京 Tokyo
    Posts
    10,193

    Default Re: BBC: Singapore 'breaks protest deal'

    interesting and long thread (which i didn't read everything) ...

    general question, not taking sides, actually i just want to know if anyone thinks IMF and WB sincerely want to listen to those civic groups in the first place ... and if i take sides, i felt local authorities got 'slapped' conveniently

  3. #103

    Default Re: BBC: Singapore 'breaks protest deal'

    All we've heard so far is the IMF's story that s'pore broke the agreement..blah blah blah...

    Do we seriously think that our govt would be so careless to make such an agreement and to break it? We have yet to hear the govt's side of the "story".

    So why are so many people seemly jumping to the conclusion that our govt did break the agreement (if there was really one in the first place)?

    Do remember that the IMF/WB is also a very highly political body, where sometimes appearances matter more than substance.

  4. #104
    Moderator John Teoh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Tampines, Singapore, Singapore
    Posts
    2,059

    Default Re: BBC: Singapore 'breaks protest deal'


  5. #105

    Default Re: BBC: Singapore 'breaks protest deal'

    Quote Originally Posted by dawgbyte77
    But the people in the list are to attend the meetings and not to demonstrate, wave placards or burn effigies. Of course, there is a chance that they may cause problems... but at this point, I still think its premature to assume.
    how do you prevent a full-blown protest from happening? wait until riot and bloodshed (and risk lives/property/public warth) b4 moving in to stop or prevent the ringleaders from coming to start it in the first place?

    Quote Originally Posted by dawgbyte77
    This is not about freedom of speech or expression. I believe what WB wants to get is to know what are the problems and what they can do about it. Century Egg's reasoning that these deligates are rich and can pay so they won't cause trouble, and those who protest are farmers or .. basically poor people.. isn't it ironic that WB is about helping the poor countries but most who are against it are also poor? My point is just to listen to 2 side of the story.
    I fully agree w the need for WB to hear out these ppl, but if the people are prone to using violence when making a point, I dun think they are being civil and I dun think any point gets across. BTW, I hope u read the news article tt some of those banned hv took part in violent protests in the past.

    Quote Originally Posted by dawgbyte77
    Regarding Michael Fay, what he did is theft and vandalism, and his case is anything but freedom of expression.
    tell tt to his american lawyer ... they play by a different set of rules ... my point being we play by our own set of rules and foreigners coming in should observe OUR set of rules. Likewise, when we are overseas, we would observe their rules ...


    Quote Originally Posted by dawgbyte77
    Again... comparing serial rapist to someone who disagreed with a policy (and later termed protester because they just can't agree with the majority's idea).. doesn't seem fair. They may be wrong but can't be that evil.
    I am comparing serial rapists to violent protesters, not normal protesters ... I hv nothing against peaceful protests, but for people who historically show that they cannot be peaceful, I prefer they not come at all ... Hence, my qn of would u allow ur loved ones to be alone with serial rapist? Of course not, why take tt chance? Same thing, for ppl known to be troublemakers, why let them come in at all?

    and lets understand that the police and organisers are between a fire and in a hard place. At the end of the day, the 27 banned people are capable of stirring a crowd up to violent protests. And they have a responsibility to the delegates and Singaporeans for a peaceful environment. At the end of the day, would you hold the police responsible if violent protests break out? It is easy to be an arm-chair critic and not having to take the responsibility for your ideas/ideals/stance. For the organisers, they have a REAL responsibility on their hands.

  6. #106

    Default Re: BBC: Singapore 'breaks protest deal'

    Quote Originally Posted by Jango
    Fair enough, examples quoted of farmers destroying public properties or burning effigies are extreme though unlikely, and should rightly be banned. But why deport activitst groups that are wants to hold peaceful protests eg PETA?

    There will still be Apartheid in S. Africa; South Americans would still be slaves of the whites if people hadn't stood up for their rights.

    Historically, IMF-WB gatherings are attracting violence-prone protesters ... watched the previous news clips of those gathering b4? Guess u hv not ...

  7. #107
    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 eikin
    interesting and long thread (which i didn't read everything) ...

    general question, not taking sides, actually i just want to know if anyone thinks IMF and WB sincerely want to listen to those civic groups in the first place ... and if i take sides, i felt local authorities got 'slapped' conveniently
    I think this is what happened. I think we kenna plug.

    ../azul123

  8. #108

    Default Re: BBC: Singapore 'breaks protest deal'

    Quote Originally Posted by wildstallion
    They are wrecking your house now? When did this happen, I havnt seen it. Oh wait, they were banned from entering so they couldnt cause 'damage'. Im sorry this is BS! No one knows whether they were going to cause damage or not, but I vote not.

    The whole system of having to register to have a protest is utterly ridiculous! They will just turn down all applications. Protests have there + sides as well as some of the negative sides which MAY come with it.
    Since u voted not, maybe you should host them in the premises of ur house for protests ... then we can see if they are gg to cause damage ... then I guess it does not matter to us within the confines of ur house though I guess ur neighbours may not be too happy abt it ...

    if I understand correctly, the first protest went on today ...

  9. #109

    Default Re: BBC: Singapore 'breaks protest deal'

    hi guys. from my sources, i've just heard that the
    FOUNDER OF 400 FROWNS CAMPAIGN ARRESTED

    problem now is i cant seem to find any confirmation of this though i know its true.

  10. #110
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Clementi, Singapore
    Posts
    2,836

    Default Re: BBC: Singapore 'breaks protest deal'

    Quote Originally Posted by paradigm
    Since u voted not, maybe you should host them in the premises of ur house for protests ... then we can see if they are gg to cause damage ... then I guess it does not matter to us within the confines of ur house though I guess ur neighbours may not be too happy abt it ...

    if I understand correctly, the first protest went on today ...
    Sure, may get a bit cosey havnt really got room for 22 people, maybe they could bring tents and sleep out on the garden?

    Also I dont think the IMF and WB would hear them from my house, could someone arrange some media coverage?
    Last edited by wildstallion; 15th September 2006 at 11:04 PM.

  11. #111

    Default Re: BBC: Singapore 'breaks protest deal'

    Quote Originally Posted by kiwitan
    It is time for the moderator to lock this threat.
    I will say "depth of view" is shallow. Why lock this threat? Is it because we can't stomach harsh criticisms or is our heart too narrow to accept any contradictory views that went against our own beliefs?

    we are a mature nation and it is time for us to embrace freedom of expression, but lets not practice it to the extreme. Let's be objective and be careful with our selection of words.

  12. #112

    Default Re: BBC: Singapore 'breaks protest deal'

    Quote Originally Posted by Silence Sky
    One Question: Can our world class Police Force or Armed Forces take good care of the 28 activists when they get over active?

    If the answer is a resounding "Yes", then we should import them. Don't let it be another classic case of 'Praise the bully, execute the victim'. I have read reports on how the rich nations siphon money from the poorest nations in Africa (some of these nations can't even repay the interest terms forever). These activists might be rowdy during the past IMF meetings, given the conducive environment for demonstration in those host nations. But Singapore offers an entirely different setting, how far can these 28 activists go when prevented from gathering in forces?

    If the Chief IMF-World Bank seriously wants to engage these activists, I suggest that we let these people stay together in the same hotel, preferably next to each other. In this manner they can have constant and more direct engagement in private.
    27 activist can stir up a crowd of thousands ... its not the 27 we are worried abt ... more of how their actions, when started will lead on to others ... riots dun just happen amongst 27 ppl ...

  13. #113

    Default Re: BBC: Singapore 'breaks protest deal'

    Quote Originally Posted by Silence Sky
    Maybe we can do it this way. Since the whole SunTec is barricaded, we escort the activists there, prohibit them from leaving the compund. They can roam freely and express themselves fully to the Chiefs.
    interesting ... maybe aft tt, we may need to rebuild Suntec all over ...

  14. #114

    Default Re: BBC: Singapore 'breaks protest deal'

    Quote:"
    Seelan Palay, a guitarist and a social activist, has been arrested and is now under custody at the Clementi Police Station. His family has been informed of his arrest, but the police have given no further details. Mr. Pillai was the founder of the 400 frowns campaign as a form of anti-globalization creative protest satirizing the government's 4 million smiles campaign. He has also been involved in animal rights and anti-death penalty campaigns. We do not know why he has been detained. We do not know if he has a lawyer.

    Three Singaporeans who were planning to distribute anti-World Bank and IMF flyers at the Suntec City area have been detained and their computers seized. They are being investigated under the Printing and Processing Materials Act, which states that those in posession of materials that contain "any incitement to violence or counselling disobedience to the law" could be jailed up to 3 years, fined, or both.

    Police have confiscated flyers that Chee Soon Juan and Chee Siok Chin were handing out at Raffles City Shopping Mall advertising the Empower Singaporeans Rally and March to be held at 11a.m. tomorrow, 16th September. If the rally is held as planned, things cannot end well. The police have indicated that they will not hesitate to take action.

    And quietly, and quietly, they fall away; one by one, in pairs, or trios, peeling away to find at the core something naked and too shameful to name. It stands in the centre of the War Memorial Park, a monument to something we've forgotten, and all around it is barbed wire dressed with flowers: one hundred of them, in full bloom, smiling to the sun." end quote

  15. #115

    Default Re: BBC: Singapore 'breaks protest deal'

    finally, i found it!!!
    Singaporean Activist Arrested



    edit: here's the link for the 400 frowns. http://400frowns.lioncitydiy.com/

  16. #116

    Default Re: BBC: Singapore 'breaks protest deal'

    Welcome to Fortress Singapore, where you are protected 24 hours daily

  17. #117

    Default Re: BBC: Singapore 'breaks protest deal'

    Quote Originally Posted by paradigm
    interesting ... maybe aft tt, we may need to rebuild Suntec all over ...
    With no choice, I would rather choose to rebuild SunTec than to rebuild our reputation; our status in the eyes of this world.

  18. #118

    Default Re: BBC: Singapore 'breaks protest deal'

    Firstly... chill guys. You might be proving Sg govt right in the enforcement they done for IMF. Even a simple topic like this can bring WWII upon us.


    Secondly.. My personal view ...

    1. It's Sg govt way of "convinently" using legaslative powers to simply BAN BAN BAN, S'porean might be immune to it liao but that might not be "shiok" for a foreigner.

    2. Since already put so much effort... why not allow those activist to come to Sg? Then confine them at pre-defined location away from the event area..say like M.south, govt can turn the place into a camp for all I care. IF they wan to protest... set up teleconference for them lah. Imagine Suntec 40" LCDs all showing activiest in action. Sure more power then standing at the roadside of the meeting venue.

    3. So what about the 20++ people that can't get in? Are they that crucial to IWF that they became a show stopper? How many have Sg admitted?

    *edit...never see the below link juz now...22 out of 27 admitted.
    Last edited by CYRN; 15th September 2006 at 11:22 PM.
    Gallery | Facebook Page Spreading the Good photography.

  19. #119

    Default Re: BBC: Singapore 'breaks protest deal'

    Quote Originally Posted by paradigm
    how do you prevent a full-blown protest from happening? wait until riot and bloodshed (and risk lives/property/public warth) b4 moving in to stop or prevent the ringleaders from coming to start it in the first place?
    I am wondering how many ringleaders are you referring to? and how many protesters will be joining or are allowed to join these "ringleaders" at Suntec?

    Quote Originally Posted by paradigm
    tell tt to his american lawyer ... they play by a different set of rules ... my point being we play by our own set of rules and foreigners coming in should observe OUR set of rules. Likewise, when we are overseas, we would observe their rules ...
    In this case, it is not your set of rules or our set of rules .... it is a set of things we agreed upon before they appointed us to be the host (read ... host). The MOU is that the host must recognised all those accredited ... simply, during the official meetings, at the offical place and time, they should be allowed to do what the organisers accredit them to do. As such, these activists ARE supposed to respect OUR laws when they are not at the "official" place and time. For eg, if they are in Orchard Road anytime, they are to respect all our local laws.

    Quote Originally Posted by paradigm
    and lets understand that the police and organisers are between a fire and in a hard place. At the end of the day, the 27 banned people are capable of stirring a crowd up to violent protests.
    You are not been realistic .... what crowd are you referring to? It is a ghost town .... The only way is for these 27 to stir up the men in blue, plain cloth mata, security personnels, SAF soldiers, the part-time students, service staff, etc to a violent protest.
    always the Light, .... always.

  20. #120

    Default Here's what I think

    "When in Rome, do as the Romans do" - St Ambrose, 387A.D.

    IMF, World Bank, activists and whatever, they are free to do what they want to do so long as it is done within the confines of the laws of our country. Remember, it is the right of the leaders of our country to do what we voted them to do, keep the peace. They as guests to our country need to observe our ways, and many a times, it is written in our laws.

    If these activists feel that they have an important role to play, then observe our laws, and do it the way we have been doing it, discuss constructively and be prepared to protest in our way. But if they cannot do it this way, then do the right thing, don't come, else be prepared to get spanked real good. I reckon most Singaporeas will not welcome them either, I know I won't. Besides, there are always other opportunities to speak up elsewhere, in their own way, in countries where the law is more liberal to their methods.

    For these people, if they do not like it, they should feel free to speak up, and Singaporeans should not be too petty or feel upset. After all, it is in their nature of our more liberal friends from the west to speak out at things that they don't agree with, which has it's benefits, but more importantly in this context, not always right. For every one person who criticises Singapore for being too rigid with this matter, there are probably 10,000 people or more from their own countries who probably don't give a hoot about it, and probably 1,000 or more other people from their own countries who rather have it the way it is handled now in Singapore, if they face a similar situation in their own country. Certain parallels can be made with the Michael Fay incident, the background it it may be very different, but the proportion of views held will be the similar.

    For the rest of you, give it a rest.

Page 6 of 14 FirstFirst ... 4567811 ... 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
  •