I suspect the people who can ask for change do not want it and that is why………

People are always so comfortable with what they have and they will do whatever they can to preserve it…

but we can watch political film that are illegal at, for example, youtube is it?

or watching is illegal also?

Pap is like a failed student with strong family backing. The principal, whom we hope to punish this student, is nothing but a weak kangaroo afraid of the powerful.

Eventually, childrens in school are affected by such unfair treatment and no one has the motivation to work harder to pass the mark. As a result , the school could not produce any talent and, ironically, make the failed student their leader which further added salt to the wound of the whole episode.

The root of the probems remain until now……because we are forced to ‘See no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil’ so that this failed student can continue to enjoy his undeserving priviledges for as long as he wishes.

Ever heard of the “Streisand Effect”? lol…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

[...] Source: The Online Citizen [...]

Interesting perspective by PAP MP Irene Ng reported in the Straits Times (24 Mar 2009):

In response to NMP Siew Kum Hong’s objection to the bill given that “the amended Act did not pay “sufficient respect to Singaporeans’ constitutional right to freedom of speech”, Irene Ng “said that the subject of freedom of speech merited a separate debate concerning all media, and said that the argument should not be used for films, which is one aspect of it”.

Hmm, anyone can enlighten whether my constitutional right to freedom of speech is limited to certain media only? If so, what then about my other constitutional rights, e.g. equality, justice? Do they hold only in certain contexts, and only certain aspects apply (whatever that means)?

So, as our respected (in some aspects) MM Lee proclaimed, the PAP are men of integrity. Yet judging by the perception of the netizens, they are underhanded in many of the policies they craft. Perhaps those are only some aspects where they have failing in?

so what’s the need of a regulating panel? just ban everything! they just sit on their big fat bums and get huge bonuses and just disapprove of all submissions

What kind of political stratergy is this to go all the way to twick this law so as to enforce the “Dr Chee Law”.

Can you imagine if the PAP wanted to rally people for a good cause but can’t becos of this fear of gathering? Which is also sad reflection on why “goodie bags” are there to entice people to congregate.

By enforcing this law for their own purpose, I think more people will now believe Dr Chee as a heavy weight. I think Dr Chee would be thanking to you PAP folks for paying so much attention to him and giving so much free publicity. Isn’t it a stupid move by PAP?

To PAP: Why bother about civil disobedience?

We have now a new breed of real psychopaths, borderline mentallly unstable people waiting to get ticked off, and delivering deep fried fire chicken wings to MPs.

I think it’s time for MM Lee to rethink what he said of ..”The Pyschopath”

what’s the point? living in tanjong pagar grc means no vote for me anyway, so I’m disinclined to watch any political films even if its from the pap.. even pap propaganda that ends up in my mail box gets thrown away instantly.

the new generation that arises from a singapore such as this will be totally disengaged and mercenary, having no stake in the political participative process, they will just walk away. in fact, with the current economic crisis, those who can emigrate WILL.

So easy. just get some annoymous guy to upload it on youtube and link it lor. They already said and acknowledged its hard to enforce but that laws should also be a signal.

Signal lor. Signal till cows come home Just do it; continue making films, purposely test system. Govt is big, but country is bigger

Well, they can set it that way given they have the power to do so.
Am i right?
The People support. They get mandate. and they can make laws and get passed. 3 alternatives in the house. I wonder what can they object?

And I suppose from now till forever more.

Govmin own goal.

As #11 commented there is Youtube.

And people who gave govmin the benefit of the doubt when it asked for feedback, now know the value put on their feedback.

Sad really.

11) bbiab on March 24th, 2009 11.04 am

Technically , technologically speaking, there is no way to stop. You are right.
But I am only speaking from technology point of view.

The internet is really borderless and in many ways, it CAN be untraceable where untraceability is when the physical real identity cannot be known even when net virtual identity is known.

Just my scifi point of view.

I hope TOC have grown a little bit more now. ;)

I think this law as usual, like the defamation laws, would be selectively applied on some activists i.e. CSJ and crew. The question is whether they would widen the cast to include TOC reporters.

Well, they had 1.5 years of peace while the bloggers and consultants are distracted with their recommendations. It made the job of the policy makers easier – simply reverse whatever was recommended.

What an ingenious plan

Zheng Xi, come on, do you think the government or AIMS for that matter gives a sh..t about what you or Bloggers 13 recommend. You are giving too much credit to yourself. You have not reached the level of “tameness” and “ideaology” to be a useful source of recommendation… what their expectations can be perceived in how the young PAP behaves.. just look at how At Teo responds when asked about his trip to China.

“We were pleasantly surprised at the receptiveness of the committee headed by ex Singapore Press Holdings (SPH) chairperson Cheong Yip Seng and Tan Cheng Han SC, who made bona fide efforts to engage bloggers when crafting AIMS’ recommendations to the government. Over more than a year, dialogues, debates, press conferences were held to plot a direction towards liberalization.”

Are you really serious…? this is not the first time that such government consultations have been “receptive” but finally ends with no changes affecting their status quo, or issues critical to them being implemented. The governement has made “efforts?” to consult the people, including overseas Singaporean on how make changes. However, these are probably in the guise of engaging the people? If the ideas are the same, good. If not, then heck with it as can be seen also in this case.

By the way, one of our “great” million dollar minister is giving a “distinguished” lecture at Cambridge on the global crisis? on the scr..w ups or how brilliantly Singapore handled this? I can send you the abstract of his “distinguished” speech.

Soojenn is right. Pls dont put the blogger 13 on a pedestal. It doesnt become them. We all know it is at best only a very small percentage of bloggers. And they certainly cannot claim to represent the entire blogosphere.There is only so much you can do with 0.0001%.

Committee of bloggers – thank you for trying. SM started the “open” talk ,,,,,, then as always the play is over,,,,,,and you need to go home.
Remember what Mao Tse Tung said about power – read the red book.

BTW , SOOJENN – can you pl tell us more about the coming “Cambridge Distinguished Lecture” on the global crisis; the abstract is also useful. TQ

Singapore where got law…the law is PAP and PAP is the law mah… what to do, Singaporeans not like Taiwanese or HongKongers, can throw rotten eggs and banana at a government they so despised and hated!

What about throwing shoes at…?????

Sad day, next election, die die also must vote for opposition, just for the sake of opposing, since PAP not longer respect citizens like us and want to make us go on our knees…

Anyway, I always believe in retribution, and one day, all the PAP tyrants will get what they deserved a thousand times!!

Mr Choo used the word “CHARADE”.

Exactly, almost every thing which threatens their grip of power, will be forcefully put down through “blatant abuse of the privilege of law making”.

This has been going on for a long long time which of course includes the amendment to the Constitution.

As people have mentioned, MM Lee’s talk about “credible people” is just another smokescreen to lull the gullible into false expectation about change/liberalisation.

By the way, Cheong Yip Seng was the editor-in-chief of the SPH group of newspapers who chaired the AIMS Committee.

Mr Choo used the word “CHARADE”.

Exactly, almost every thing which threatens their grip of power, will be forcefully put down through “blatant abuse of the privilege of law making”, but of course there would first be a “CHARADE”, hopefully to fool the gullible ones.

This has been going on for a long long time which of course includes the amendment to the Constitution.

As people have mentioned, MM Lee’s talk about “credible people” is just another smokescreen to lull the gullible into false expectation about change/liberalisation.

By the way, Cheong Yip Seng was the editor-in-chief of the SPH group of newspapers who chaired the AIMS Committee.

Incidentally, if I did not get it wrong, NCMP Sylvia Lim & NMP Prof This must have voted FOR the enactment of the subject legislation into law with ONLY NMP Siew Kum Hong voting against it.

How disappointing.

I m sorry to say many of you are naive and blind.

You have to be very very smart and alert, perhaps even cunning next time – dont ever, ever participate in public consultation kind of events that are set up by the gahmen.

I m sorry to say, again, long ago I already knew whats the gahmen’s ulterior motives are for when they set up public consultations to engage the public – they pretend to listen, then learnt from what you have to say, and then so to speak, back-stab you, thats all simple as that !!!

Remember this saying “SILENCE IS GOLDEN” . Never reveal to the gahmen what your thought are at any time. They will bite you, silly.

Hahaha, TOC learnt something i hope. Mature faster.

Hi Soojen,

I’ll be very interested in receiving the paper you spoke of. Thank you.

[...] Continue Reading.. [...]

12) Kembala on March 24th, 2009 11.19 am

There are 83 elites there.
3 alternatives.
80 the rest.

80 vs 3.

Is there ever a bill not passed ?
Can 3 ever block a Bill, any bill?

So fortunate for the people they allow voting to pass bills. What a meaningful exercise.
What is the % of bills passed vs the bills not passed , if any , in the last 4 decades?
i bet no one here knows. prove me wrong.

The word “liberalization” do not belong in the govt.’s vocab. It do not know its meaning.

How about TOC/Mr Choo getting AIMS Chairman Cheong Yip Seng &/or Professor Tan Cheng Han (Dy Chairman) to comment on this legislation?

About two months or so ago, Mr Cheong was reported to have said that he encountered a lot of negativism (& cynicism?) from those he met about the govt’s consultation process under AIMS.

Well Mr Cheong, you can now see that such negativism/cynicism is well justified and foundered.

Incidentally, if Mr Tan Kin Lian is reading this, as he had used the term “negativism” or its other form, he should wake up to the reality.

As to (# 29) can you handle the truth), it is NOT about whether the Bill would be passed; it is about PRINCIPLED STAND of Opposition MPs. Even NMP Siew Kum Hong specially request that the Speaker officially record of his vote AGAINST the bill.

Correction:

should be FOUNDED.

There is no law in singapore. If there is, it is used most of the time to serve the regime own interest. No wonder if you are assaulted and report to Police, they will tell you they cannot do anything about it because it doesn’t bring in profit to them.

Disgusting.

Mr Choo Zheng Xi and gang of bloggers 13 was played out by the government. I’m sorry for the amount of time and effort wasted. Government is never interested in liberalizing the political media in Singapore. Gathering feedback from you guys are just a (wayang) motion only.

You can never choose how the policies are made here, history had told us that. The only thing you can choose is where you mark the “cross” when the time comes. When there is enough opposition in there, then start to give suggestions.

I remember a certain old man said some time ago, “what you need is a dose of incompetent government.”

[...] and blogosphere; against the Marxist Conspiracy and the continued relevance of the ISA; against the Film’s Act; for Siew Kum Hong – for him to be kept in parliament; against the Public Order Bill and the [...]