well, stupid system will make average intelligent or very smart people look like clowns. Fee glad that you are able to have very good circus shows for free.

no wonder they crave for the need of foreign talents as we do have plenty of clowns here.

No wonder limping MAS knew better not to show them the signboard, and the whole nation of armed forces was not able to get him.

I am going to stand for the next ge. wish me luck please.

in other words, they are consistently rude, arrogant and self-righteous.

1. Elites in government (e.g. Ministers) and business (e.g. C.K. Tangs boss)
2. Associates of Elites (scholars, upper class)
3. White people from 1st world countries
4. Elites from influential developing countries (e.g. China, India)
5. Rich people or professionals without connections (e.g. rich bosses, doctor)
6. Foreign average joes from influential developing countries (e.g. students, professionals from China, India)
7. Foreign average joe citizens from non-influential countries (e.g. Malaysia, South Africa, Brazil, etc)
8. Foreign labourers from China and India
9. Singapore average joe citizens <- I AM HERE!
10. Foreign labourers
.
.
.
10000000000. Activists and non-PAP politically involved people

At least the elites are consistent. They always talk down to sg or foreign peasants with the same arrogance and self-righteousness.

It is likely the two protesters informed the foreign press only. If they informed the local press, the police might be tipped off.

Remember the press statement from the police when the media reported minibond investors planned to gather at DSB HQ?

If ST report on the matter – they become accountable for the information. If they quote another news agency, they are only accountable in making sure it is a credible or bona fide news agency without having to worry about the actual content or facts as stated.

In this way, ST can report a sensitive local story without having to worry about anyone taking them to task for not practising self-censorship.

Martyn See’s latest blogpost might be a good show of that – http://singaporerebel.blogspot.com/2009/01/one-country-two-systems-part-lll.html

Hi I’d like to remind TOC and readers that the report is not written by Straits Times, the entire article was written originally by AFP.

All ST did was add the photo. So it is featured on ST’s site, their story will probably be out tomorrow.
———————–

i wonder is it true that ST is slower than AFP for report in singapore news in this case? could someone conform for me?

thankyou.

This Country has once again show that they care/respect the foreigners more than its own Singaporeans.

Section 447 Chapter 224 (Penal Code)
Punishment for Criminal Trespass
Whoever commits criminal trespass shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 months, or with fine which may extend to $1,500, or with both.

***
I think the 2 guys are first timers and would expect a verbal warning. However, they might be fined, in which case, $3,000 ($1,500 x 2) will be need to be made available. Would someone consider setting up and manning an Activist Fund for this purpose (and future occurrences, if any)?

However, the courts could very well apply the Kangaroo T-shirt Case style and demand an apology from the 2 and when they don’t apologise, consider it as being unremorseful and use it as justification for a prison sentence.

“3. A handful of Myanmar nationals here however has decided not to observe this basic obligation of respecting the laws of the land and the local sensitivities of its people. They have shown in their actions and attitude a wilful disregard and contempt for the law and the Singapore authorities. In fact, some of them who have acted in this manner, notwithstanding their having benefited from education subsidies and the hospitality of Singaporeans, even demand the right to stay in Singapore as if it is a matter of their personal entitlement. They threaten to lobby political pressure through the media and agitate foreign public opinion against the authorities so as to compel them to concede to their demands. These persons are not welcomed in Singapore. They should leave Singapore once their existing passes expire. They are free to leave for any country of their choice or any country which will have them.

4. Our laws apply equally to every person. No one is allowed to break the law with impunity regardless of how morally superior he thinks his cause is.”

Wow! Doesn’t it sound condescending and high-handed? I’m suprised that an official statement carries such powerful emotions and is far from being objective. How do the authorities know what the person thinks (“morally superior he thinks”) or if he/she broke the law with “impunity” and considered it “a personal entitlement”? It could have been simply a case of desperation, isn’t it.

For authorities that pride themselves on being objective and impartial, this statement reveals all sorts of negative feelings…