Singapore Democrats

Say something, Bryan T. Issue a warning, disapproval or some remarks, quick.

well said and true in contend
the bloody PAP under Lee had pushed
us citizen to a dead end

what else can we do?

we citizen do have the dignity
not to swallow any more poison pills
by the PAP.

the Singapore law under Lee had become
disgrace and shameful

I like quantum's comment. Yes BryanT, you have yet to respond to me, the 15-year-old who supposedly should get a decree before getting involved in Politics. Or has he left us for other opposition party's' forums?

Hello, hmmm the permit to speak as expected will be turn down. We should discourage troublemaker period. However, this time its different we can coin it as (Civil Disobedience) with a good cause protecting people interest (rice bowl) Besides this might turn out to a Game Changer we may witness crowds booing the police force for the 1st time in Singapore history. Time to sing that Micheal Jackson song :"All I really wanna say, they don't really care about us"

I apologise that the entreaties for some "[i]say something quick[/i]" balancing views to this article could not be immediately met. One has to give some priority to hearing what our esteemed MPs have to ask in Parliament (on MSM TV), and priggish ministers have to expatiate about costly LUPs, smelly and dank wet-markets and MSK's intransigence about revealing the secrets of how he crawled through the collective legs of the entire police force (plus some Army troops).

Much as we should refrain from one-to-one altercations (based on the stringent website guidelines), we must not disappoint [i]quantum[/i] and [i]vipersonic[/i].

So as one switches some attention towards this article, it become clear that the SDP storyline has remained largely unchanged, although the proverbial smog has dissipated even further on the current campaign.

Instead of just confining itself to the altruistic act of "saving" the wet-market, SDP is simply showing it can't resist reverting to it's cherished theme about denial of freedoms.

Perhaps it already foresees that it would not make much headway with Sheng Siong, since SDP does not have any moral, political or legal leverage over a private vendor. Or perhaps the latter has simply ignored its request to meet. SDP can update us on this.

Of course, some of us can already predict the larger outcome -- SDP will not get its permit (as it already acknowledges in the article) and then it will make a hue-and-cry about unconstitutional restrictions.

One cannot underestimate SDP's gumption (and folly) to proceed with the public talk without a permit. If the police takes action against it, SDP preempts that it will attain not only its goal of raising it's profile in a constituency it probably intends to contest in in the next election. It will also have the bonus of attracting some attention among foreign media getting ready for the APEC summit. On the surface, it is not a bad scheme.

However, SDP needs to exercise some discretion in writing such articles since the content of this particular one has already betrayed what it intends to cover at the talk. It is unlikely to be confined to the topic of wet markets, as the title of the event ("Keep our wet markets") seems to suggest.

Of course, it could also become clear that instead of championing the welfare and views of the residents, SDP is merely lending on the case to pursue it's raison d'être.

It leaves SDP to show us, and particularly to the residents of Bt Panjang, how benign this current campaign is. Going by this article, there is much grounds to cover.

Looking further ahead, my personal advice to SDP is to make sure the team it intends to stand for election does not get arrested during the "unpermitted" talk. They might then too legally mired to qualify as candidates. We would then miss a good fight in Bt Panjang, and some people would again be blamed for yet another walk-over.

[b]Get ready for the showdown and smackdown at Bt Panjang (market)![/b]

viperboy, dei, know ur place, man... cum on, u're juz a young punk, or, wait, u're a scholarship-holder? all-rounder? Top 1% of cohort?

duh....

anyways, yes, i like this idea of holding a public talk to round up support for this type of commercialism...

go for it, SDP!!!

god bless...


viper, cum at home, not here..

no, shit, i mean, "round up support AGAINST commercialism at our expense"

paiseh for the typo, yah?

Viperboi, dei! got pack ur bags for sch not?

Yes, I support the public talk,but if the permit is not given, then better to organise it in community ctr. or any other hall in Bt Panjang.

Make sure John Tan don't get arrested. He is a potential candidate for SMC Bt Panjang.Don't field trouble maker Ling Talk Cork again.

[quote=BryanT][color=maroon]
So as one switches some attention towards this article, it become clear that the SDP storyline has remained largely unchanged, although the proverbial smog has dissipated even further on the current campaign.

Instead of just confining itself to the altruistic act of "saving" the wet-market, SDP is simply showing it can't resist reverting to it's cherished theme about denial of freedoms. [/color][/quote]

Is it me, or does anyone understand the logic BryanT is using here? (or is it an intentional use of logical fallicies to confuse people?)

SPD is about freedom of speech, individual rights and civil activism, and has always been. It goes on to show examples of how civil activism in other countries has helped to changed goverment's decisions that affects the people at large, and compares it Singapore's situation on how PAP ministers can continue to screw us over without civil activism. The part about saving the wet market is part of civil activism. [b]Civil activism and "altruistic act of saving the wet market" are NOT mutually exclusive.[/b]

[quote=BryanT][color=maroon]
Perhaps it already foresees that it would not make much headway with Sheng Siong, since SDP does not have any moral, political or legal leverage over a private vendor. Or perhaps the latter has simply ignored its request to meet. SDP can update us on this. [/color][/quote]

No political party except the one in power and making the laws can have any moral, political or legal leverage over the act of any private vendors. This is acknoledged, but does not mean SDP cannot attempt to engage [i]SS[/i] to explore alternatives. Likewise, civil activism is a good way to force coporates to think twice about their unfair practices, such as how the Hong Kees managed to get their Lehmann funds back from DBS compared to Singapore.

Of course, some of us can already predict the larger outcome -- SDP will not get its permit (as it already acknowledges in the article) and then it will make a hue-and-cry about unconstitutional restrictions.

[quote=BryanT][color=maroon]
One cannot underestimate SDP's gumption (and folly) to proceed with the public talk without a permit. If the police takes action against it, SDP preempts that it will attain not only its goal of raising it's profile in a constituency it probably intends to contest in in the next election. It will also have the bonus of attracting some attention among foreign media getting ready for the APEC summit. On the surface, it is not a bad scheme.

However, SDP needs to exercise some discretion in writing such articles since the content of this particular one has already betrayed what it intends to cover at the talk. It is unlikely to be confined to the topic of wet markets, as the title of the event ("Keep our wet markets") seems to suggest.

Of course, it could also become clear that instead of championing the welfare and views of the residents, SDP is merely lending on the case to pursue it's raison d'être.

It leaves SDP to show us, and particularly to the residents of Bt Panjang, how benign this current campaign is. Going by this article, there is much grounds to cover. [/color][/quote]

This kind of reply is so.... expected that I can already see it coming from miles away; [b]so much so that I can't resist a wry smile to myself while reading the article and anticipating how BryanT will respond.[/b]

Again, BryanT, in his classical self, attempts to "Tai-Chi", or shift the blame on the current system to SDP's court.

The current system of "applying for public speaking permit" is a sham and we know it. The police will not respond till the last minute, say, on Oct 24 night, saying that permit will not be issued due to miscellaneous reasons. There will not even be enough time to appeal or challenge this decision, probably till the whole saga is over.

Then why is SDP applying for a permit, with such a minute possibility of it getting approved? Well this system is being set in place by the current ruling party, so at least SDP can't be blamed for going through the "approved" or appropriate channels.

Again, given BryanT's style, he would blame SDP for doing this as "staging a show" when SDP knows it will not be approved. Then again, if SDP didn't apply for permit, then BryanT will blame SDP for not "doing more" or being the rebel and not doing things correctly. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.


[quote=BryanT][color=maroon]
Looking further ahead, my personal advice to SDP is to make sure the team it intends to stand for election does not get arrested during the "unpermitted" talk. They might then too legally mired to qualify as candidates. We would then miss a good fight in Bt Panjang, and some people would again be blamed for yet another walk-over.
[/color][/quote]

Even though BryanT's comment are laced with sarcasm and malice, I think this is probably the only statement that some SDP supporters might agree with, that hopefully SDP won't sabohtage it's chance of getting to compete for the coming election. [color=navy]As a chinese sayings go: [b]小不忍则乱大谋[/b][/color] (For the non-Chinese buddies on this site, this means: If you cannot tahan the small slights, you will cock-up the big strategy/goal/vision.)

AlphaBravo, with or without permit to speack, rest assured PAP will label SDP as Chinese, Malay, Indian Chauvinists... psychopaths, communists, foreign saboteurs etc. But it is not about the number of arrests and speeches. This is a system made by Lee and we must break it not by following the rules but by realisation of the rights of the people.

tok cock lah u, AlphaBravo.. wait I Charlie u, man...

anyways... pple like bryant is good, stimulate discussion, i say...

shouldn't we count our blessings dat Balls-Ler-Ship holders like him is not in Govt? wah, if he is, then die liao, the policies he roll out sure very chim 1, i tell u...

dun need fine prints / disclaimers... juz use chim logic, which i bet he juz copied and pasted... anybody wanna bet against me?

While I applaud SDP's efforts in championing for the people, the real fight will be the upcoming election. I hope SDP can look at the big picture and realised the only way you can carry our voices is not in the streets but into parliament.

So please try not to break any more laws (yes, we know it is unjust but breaking the law is not the ONLY way to go).

Instead, strive to be voted into parliament. Think of it this way, would you prefer to wear your protest t-shirts walking along the streets where no one would care or see, or would you wear those t-shirts in parliament (are t-shirts allowed?) and the messages broadcast for all to see?

Your immediate concern should be working the grounds on those constituencies you intend to contest in.

Above all else, please work with other opposition parties. I feel that the best chance all of you have is to form an alliance and challenge PAP as a single brand.

Think of what you can achieve if all opposition parties unite.

"Yes, I support the public talk,but if the permit is not given, then better to organise it in community ctr. or any other hall in Bt Panjang."

One of the commenters hits the nail right on the political head, even if perhaps unintentionally.

SDP's endeavor to have a talk on the issue of wet markets is not inappropriate. I would have preferred to call it a dialogue, since that would sound more akin to a two-way communication with the residents. But that is another story.

The issue now arises -- can the same purpose be met under an indoor environment? In fact, would an indoor environment not be more conducive for a dialogue?

Political activities conducted indoors are apparently exempted from the "permit regime" under the POA, provided race and religious issues are not at hand.

SDP states that the people "simply don't have a say." Is the quality of the "say" affected by where is it carried out?

We are left to conclude whether the real intent of SDP's effort is the talk. Or rather, the talk is being exploited as a pretext to pursue its other more grandiose missions.

My advice to SDP is show sincerity in engaging the Bt PJ residents on their concerns (irrespective of location). Only then will there be some pay-offs at the election.

"....which i bet he juz copied and pasted... anybody wanna bet against me?"

Despite the strict guidelines which we must all respect, I hope the moderator permits an occasional dose of harmless banter in this website. I just want to answer something interesting our sprightly friend, juzONEsingh, asked (or rather speculated).

Just once, please...

juzONEsingh, you are right. They can be found in Chapter 7 of the reading material for the "Countering Opposition Party Propaganda" module. The course is conducted in PIS (PAP IB School).

Scholarship comes with lifelong bond (...age). Free computer and home internet access provided to do IB work and trade shares.

(If Chee was arrested during the "unpermitted" talk. He maybe unable to qualify as candidates for the incoming General election - Bryan T) Hmmm, Guys he got a point. We just had to deal with this diffcult situation. SDP cannot missed this wonderful opportunity to connect with her people, this is clear. I had learned from Liberal Democrats over the yrs, they present Obama with an ace card, Joe Biden was the "Attack Dog" that take the heat off Obama. A welcome "media distraction" that allow Obama alot of space to move around. Which means SDP need a "Team B" (the show must go on) however Team A that is made of Dr Chee will be a spectator only for that day (people will understand why someone else is speaking on behalf of him)

juzONEsingh - "viper, cum at home, not here..", "Viperboi, dei! got pack ur bags for sch not?"

Obviously you are resorting to ridiculous personal attacks to belittle me as much as you think you can. I pity your useless efforts.

Does it matter If I'm in the Top 1% or not? Does it matter if I'm young? Why, am I too young to be involved in Politics? You are wrong. You are, in fact so far beyond the very meaning of the word wrong, that No words can describe you. Because it's so friggin obvious! I am born in Singapore, I am a citizen of this country, and just like anyother citizen including Yoou, I have the right to be involved in my nation's matters, because Politics is too serious a matter to be left to politicians.

In other democratic societies, it is perfectly normal for a 15 year old studen to be involved in Politics. It is only in Authoritarian regimes such as this ONE that people, like YOU, juzONESingh, belittle and discourages young students to participate in this kind of event just because it's against the PAP! So juzONEsingh, make up your mind, whose side are you on???

Let's try to wargame this to postulate the scenarios and outcomes.

[b]Probable Scenario 1[/b]: Police does not issue the permit, as expected; SDP goes ahead with the talk without permit on 25 Oct since it is publicly committed to it; Police intervenes; SDP members arrested and possibly manhandled into police vans; Bt PJ residents observe but passively.

[b]Outcomes to Scenario 1[/b]:

- [u]SDP[/u] - Some members are yet again charged under POA. Videos and pictures of the arrests are posted on this website with commentaries about abuse of constitutional rights of citizens. Also states that SDP was denied from defending rights of Bt PJ residents and speaking up on their behalf. SDP exploits arrests as election issue subsequently.

- [u]Sheng Siong[/u] - Had all along disassociated itself from SDP and declined invitation to discuss matter. With arrests, Sheng Siong's stance to distance itself is vindicated - being seen to be influenced by opposition would be detrimental to its standing. Sheng Siong proceeds to buy over market, maintains its renovation plans for wet-market (whatever it is) but extends stall-holders' lease for a few years. In deference to incumbent MP, it hold stall rental rate until next election.

- [u]Bt PJ Residents[/u] - Observed the arrest of SDP members but do not get involved. Subsequent coffeeshop talk is rife.Small proportion read up on POA or even visits SDP website. Other less IT savvy ones speculate about arrest and concludes that it is nothing new since SDP "has done this before". Some conclude that SDP was deliberate out to invite police intervention and their issue was being exploited. As to wet-market, nothing changes.

- [u]International Media[/u] - Know about "notoriety" of Singapore in its limitations to civil liberties. Foreign correspondents search for stories in the run up to APEC 2009, and hence highlight arrests and interview CSJ. Stories appear in international media, but APEC 2009 proceeds as planned. Out of courtesy to host, and since APEC is focused on facilitating economic growth, cooperation, trade and investment, nothing is mentioned during APEC meeting.

- [u]Government/MHA[/u] - Keeps arrest low key and when enquited, MHA issues standard statement on arrest, attributing it to contravention of POA. No comments as case is under investigation.

[b]Conclusion[/b] - SDP gets what it expects and wants, ie. no permit, arrests, and local and international publicity about its cause célèbre. However, no impact on APEC. Sheng Siong continues to run its business and proceeds to raise rental after next election. Residents have an eventful Sunday morning, wonders whether it was all necessary but view incidence as storm in a tea-cup, then gets on with their lives and wet market.

[b]Next[/b]- I am trying to think of THP's role in the first scenario and also developing an alternative scenario. Anyone wants to help?

Hello Byran T, either you get it or you don't. All SDP need to do, send in the Team B those 70yrs old - 80yrs old folks (with a walking stick) to make those speech. Stop Privatization, Keep Our Way Of Live. They police can "do what they are paid to do" keep the peace. And that is it ? get it ? pal ? These old folks are more happy with the pulbic joy ride, bathe, clean clothes & public free food while doing their time. If the police want more SDP old folks there are plenty of homeless people waiting in line. It will be picture perfect for the Strait Times headlines A cop with A 80yrs old man with A walking stick lock up with A handcuff. Will SPH publish those pictures? it will shed a bad light on the cops & govt

We should not underestimate what a group of 70-80 year-old can do to soften the hearts of Bt PJ residents to the SDP cause.

In fact, if they are so effective, they should form the so-called Team A and go on to win the constituency for SDP.

However, I would not go so far as to say that these "old folks (would be) more (than) happy with the pulbic[sic] joy ride, bath, clean clothes & public free food while doing their time (in prison)". I think our seniors deserve better treatment than sitting in prison cells.

Whether Team A, B or Z, I am wondering whether the showdown will still take place on Sunday. Besides this website, there should be publicity efforts to inform residents on-site.