The average Joe Conservative is a misused term in this case. Aren’t laws meant to apply not just to Joe Conservative but also Joe Liberal, Joe Authoritarian, Joe Libertarian and everyone else for that matter. The fact that SDP is not representative of Lim, Tan, Ali or Mani Conservative is irrelevant. If SDP is a Singapore entity, then Singapore laws applies.

To apply a Singapore law to everyone else in Singapore but the SDP would be inconsistent.

The application of Thoreau to Singapore must suffer a thorough justification process in order for it to be justified. Gandhi did it. So did Martin Luther King. To do otherwise is merely to undertake a trumpeting musical that is lost on a tone-deaf public. But yet despite such calls for justification, all I’m getting thus far is another bleat of “4 legs good, 2 legs bad and then better”.

Lim, perhaps you fail to understand the logic behind non-violent civil disobedience to a law that is duplicated and needlessly archaic.

The SDP operates under a different mindset from the average Joe Conservative.

Sprit of the law must be applied for a rightful purpose perceived by the people at large. Orelse, you may win legally but the moral ground is lost.

Wow. I didn’t know SDP membership has reachieved the numbers as in the heydays of the 90s…. Spectacular (ly wrong)….

Break the law, expect preferential treatment?

Break the law, suffer the consequence.

The above isn’t even a violent protest to begin with.
We have flash crowds / mobs every now and then too. Even the great singapore sale or zoukout is more hazardous.

If the above statement is true, Europe and the United States would be anarchy today. So while it is okay for governments and corporations to impose unfair rule on ordinary citizens, is it not okay for citizens to respond back against such harsh and unjust treatment? If you find a revolution and civil war too much for your taste, then you must accept protest. A protest as highlighted by the TBT 18 group, is not necessary violent.

Look at our neigbours,does this form of protests triump without any one being hurt. – Singpore Is Singpore (#14),

That is how protest works. Unless it undermines the bottom-line of the organisation the protest targets, the organisation will never give in. By rejecting this logic, you completely reject protest. Would you accept a revolution or civilian war instead?

Let me end this post with a timeless quote:

Those who trade liberty for security deserve neither – Benjamin Franklin

Peace here is guaranteed, we all enjoy it.

But, is there a need to oppress the beliefs of others to the extent that there is a problem with the fair exercise of democratic rights without too much hassle?

It may be a theoretical exercise but it shows the need for a balanced structure that respects both societal and individual rights.

Not a zero-sum, winner takes all game.

“Look around guys… are you all blind or what? Ya Singapore’s geovernance may not be perfect but to me it is almost.

Quote:
“Dont see too far, see what you have and be happy. A simple man”
(no one famous just me)”

Yeah, are you blind or what? Even your quote suits your philosophy of selective blindness. Don’t even have to talk about human rights or all the rest of it. Just one very basic point of with inflation rising faster than your pay, how much do you think your real salary will fall in 20 years time? If you’re barely making ends make now, you’ll be out begging for help then… assuming anyone has any money to spare to help you. Or maybe you’re just rich hmm? PAP is good to the rich after all.

Ppl like you have the right to live in a peaceful country. Other people also have the right to live in a peaceful country and at the same time disagree with people like you on the shades of peace that you are referring to.

“The majority voted for the party to govern this country… not SDP.”

The funny thing is that with such clear cut and credible & don’t-play-play majority, certain “international community & even certain local community are still complaining. Probably their sense of logic has to be re-examined or alternatively probably your sense of logic should be re-looked.

Instead, if the defendants were charged under the sec 3 of the Misc offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act or sec 5 of the Public Order (preservation) Act, then this is basically not following stated regulations which covers any public road, public place or place of public resort .

Basically, picnics are ok under the Misc Offences rules under reg 2(d);

The kopi drinkers are ok under reg 2(eb);

The protestors at Hong Lim under reg 2(g).

Max fine is $5k per offence or 3 months jail.

Tell the people you do not support the investor protest at HL Park.
YES / NO.

Quote:
“Dont see too far, see what you have and be happy. A simple man”
(no one famous just me)

c is a circular argument coz it is an offence because there is a gathering of more than 5 people, and ….

So left with b.
What execution of law was exercised? (since i do not that it is a legal process to increase price, which was the aim of the ‘gathering’)

Peaceful assembly is people natural rights. It seems that the assembly laws or judges in Singapore have gone extreme by persecuting the people of these innocent acts.

Same thing with family of 4+1 going on picnic outing. Same thing with 10 people playing a basketball game.

When does it become illegal in Singapore? Sec 141 of the penal code states:

if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is —

(a) to overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force, the Legislative or Executive Government, or any public servant in the exercise of the lawful power of such public servant;

(b) to resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process;

(c) to commit any offence;

(d) by means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to any person, to take or obtain possession of any property, or to deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right of way, or of the use of water or other incorporeal right of which he is in possession or enjoyment, or to enforce any right or supposed right; or

(e) by means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do.

———————————————-

Quod erat demonstrandum.