The enactment of the Public Order Act signals the Government's desperation to ensure that that any popular dissension to its rule is snuffed out.
As the economy bites in and the PAP finds itself barren of solutions for the future, it is acutely aware that the people's disenchantment with its rule is on the rise.
Things will not be the same from here on out -- and the Government knows it. Even if the US economy recovers (on which our economy is highly dependent), we are not going to be able to sell to America like we have been all these decades.
Singapore's economy is undergoing a fundamental shift and things will be much tougher from here on out. Singaporeans are increasingly questioning the one-party state and will want more freedom and democracy for the country.
Knowing that it will have difficulty in distracting the people by continuing to promise them yet more materialistic gains, the Government is turning to outright suppression.
The Public Order Act is a naked attempt to completely remove the people's right to peaceful assembly -- yes, even if it's an assembly of one person. One would be hard-pressed to name a country that does not even allow one person to show his dissent in public. Have we sunk into the league of the North Koreas and Burmas?
The level of fear demonstrated by this Government would be amusing if the matter was not so serious. With this Act the PAP has completely stripped off its mask of democracy and exposed, beneath it, the hideous face of dictatorship.
To plug the last loophole, the regime is now moving to change the voting process by using computers to record and count votes. Such a move severely, if not fatally, compromises the integrity and security of the electoral system. It opens the doors to election fraud.
This two-pronged gambit of introducing the Public Order Act and electronic voting will kill off politics and political competition in Singapore.
It is also a signal that the Government is ill-at-ease with itself and with the people it rules. It is a nervous beast, and nervous beasts lash out at anything it perceives as a threat. Confident rulers seek the mandate of the people, nervous ones crush them.
A new darkness has descended upon Singapore. But if the PAP rejoices in this, it will be too soon. For Mahatma Gandhi once warned: "There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible but in the end, they always fall. Think of it -- always."
[b][u]How The PAP Massacres Singapore's Lawbooks[/u][/b]
They PAP follows a three-step procedure to criminalize all political expression that is not in perfect alignment with theirs, or that threatens their ability to stay on in power. This is detailed account of the process of"killing the chicken to frighten the monkeys".
[b]Step 1.[/b] Identify the person (or group or entity) that presents a threat to their stranglehole on power.
[b]Example:[/b] The SDP
[b]Step 2.[/b] Identify the acts that the person (or group or entity) engages in.
[b]Example:[/b] Conduct lawful protests, often in small groups as provided for by the Miscellaneous Offences Act, and in defiance of police discrimination in the non-issuance of permits.
Filming some of the encounters with the police, and posting those on the net.
Argue in court on constitutional grounds to a dumbfounded judge.
[b]Step 3.[/b] Devise ways and means to contain, inhibit or worst of all criminalize the activity in #2.
[b]Example:[/b] The new Public Order Act. What was previously legal is now criminal.
For good measure, they round up with a fabricated and inconcrete justification for #3, and never ever based on any prevailing socio-political conditions in Singapore.
[b]Example:[/b] Events in Thailand. (The government had previously [b]explicitly[/b] said that they were drawing up new laws to deal with civil disobedience; that's the true rationale for this particular legislation.
These are what I call Singapore's [i]suka suka[/i] laws.
Such sound legal principles!
Wed 15 Apr 2009 9:14 PM
|
maxchew - Guess who's the target of the Public Order Act?
You don't need to be a political genius to know that the sole target of the PAP's latest draconian law "Public Order Act" is none other than Dr CSJ and his SDP! They are really nervous and bewildered with what SDP is going to do next."Nip the problem in the bud" is APL's fav belief! (APL = Ah Pek Lee)
As I said before.....Desperate people do desperate things with total disregard to the implications etc.
Thu 16 Apr 2009 2:33 AM
|
quantum
How about the Internal Security Act?
Thu 16 Apr 2009 7:15 AM
|
jacys
So what does SDP propose?
Thu 16 Apr 2009 8:23 AM
|
Robox - To jacys
How much more dumb can you be?
Thu 16 Apr 2009 1:23 PM
|
Robox
IF the SDP continues with civil disobedience, I suggest the following:
Hold protests of any size carrying placards/banners - for evidence in court - that say: "No Cause To Protest". This could show up how the PAP has made a mockery of the institution of Law and has abused the legislative process as well as the legislative function.
Another tack would be to keep our eyes peeled for any infraction of the same laws by PAP sanctioned groups/individuals, and proceed to make police reports. I consider this to be a companion tactic to civil disobedience.
However, most of all civil disobedience can still continue even if the police don't issue a permit. The argument in court will still revolve around Article 12 (legal equality) and Article 14(2) (freedom of assembly).
Fri 17 Apr 2009 5:51 AM
|
Robox
Found this in wayangparty.com:
http://wayangparty.com/?p=7728
In particular, these two paragraphs should be noted:
Re: [color=red]"Mr K Shan’s use of the Mumbai terrorist incident to justify the law is both inappropriate and misleading. In the Mumbai attack, the mainstream media was the one which filmed and leaked the positions of security forces to the terrorists.
It is improbable that films taken by third parties or passer-bys will be aired simultaneously by the state-controlled media to “jeopardize” ongoing security operations. The law should be tweaked to disallow journalists from the mainstream media to film the event instead of a blanket ban on all filming."[/color]
[color=black]Well clearly, the law minister Captain Kangaroo has lied. But then when don't they?
And what was that I said in my first post here?[/color]
Re: "For good measure, they round up with a fabricated and inconcrete justification for #3, and never ever based on any prevailing socio-political conditions in Singapore."[/color]
Thu 16 Apr 2009 8:11 PM
|
Brendan
Perhaps President Barak Obama might want to cancel his visit to Singapore since his safety is too much to risk that our police have to resort to banning demonstrations in the name of security, like his predecessor Bill Clinton
April 16, 2009
Warning to troublemakers
He says firm measures necessary during Apec Summit due to threats of terrorism
By Jeremy Au Yong
SINGAPORE will be 'very firm' in dealing with those who engage in violence or cause law and order problems during the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (Apec) Summit to be held here later this year.
Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng, who is also Home Affairs Minister, gave this warning on Wednesday when he explained the need for a strong approach during the November meetings.
'As many important heads of state and government will be here for the Apec Summit, we have to anticipate that it may attract terrorist interest. This is why we have to be very firm with protesters and anarchists who may engage in acts of violence, or deliberately cause law and order problems,' he said.
'We cannot afford to be distracted from our graver mission of ensuring the security of the event, the delegates and Singaporeans against terrorists.'
United States President Barack Obama and China's President Hu Jintao are among the leaders expected at the summit.
Mr Wong's speech, at a promotion ceremony for Internal Security Department (ISD) staff, came two days after Parliament passed the Public Order Act, which gives the police more effective powers in dealing with public order problems.
Mr Wong's remarks put on notice foreigners who may plan to cause a scene here during Apec, or who plan to instigate Singaporeans to break the law through acts such as staging street protests.
'In Singapore, it is only a tiny group of irresponsible and selfish individuals who have been pushing this line of civil disobedience,' said Mr Wong, noting that there are existing avenues for them to express their views within the law.
Another challenge facing the ISD this year is preserving social cohesion during an economically tough time 'when the population is under stress', he said.
'ISD has a critical responsibility in helping to ensure individuals and incidents don't threaten our racial and religious harmony.'
Fri 17 Apr 2009 3:43 AM|
|
V.Benedict - A Best Description of Singapore's System
Question: What is a best description of Singapore's System?
Answer: He said "forgo your freedom and
keep your mouth shut and I give you economic success."
I don't buy it!!!
Fri 17 Apr 2009 10:45 AM
|
Robox
All over the blogosphere, netizens are decrying the new Public Order Act.
Well, coming from some quarters - the Gerald Giams, the Scroobals, and the lockeliberals, TOC - I find this hypocritical and so sorely lacking in political acumen.
The three step routine I wrote up in the first post here should be familiar to Singaporeans.
But the knowledge that netizens I speak about don't have is [i]their specific role[/i] in bringing this new Act about.
Every time SDP members held a protest or was involved in some other unorthodox event - unorthodox only by Singapore's warped standards - the same netizens, avowed opposition supporters at that or so they claim, don't waste a moment to join in the denouncements typically initiated by the PAP IB.
They become the PAP, and they signal very strongly to the PAP's internet 'information gatherers' that since even the supporters of opposition parties are bitterly divided on this, the PAP can take full confidence and carry on in their campaign of the brutal suppression of all Singaporeans.
To her credit, Sylvia Lim's speech - no debate, mind you - in Parliament was impressive. However, take note that the arguments were presented on constitutional grounds: the substance of the SDP's political discourse, in other words.
[b]Sylvia Lim was indeed paying tribute to the SDP.[/b]
Too little, too late.
While all these people busied themselves with the all important business of engendering disunity among the parties that are not in government - one in particular - they couldn't see how they were emboldening the PAP at the very same time.
They are masters at quoting the well known poem which ends with "And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak for me".
But they don't really know what it means, do they?
Well the POA is with us now, and the blogosphere is hypocritically lamenting that these laws were designed with the SDP in mind.
But it is they who are now feeling the effects of brutal suppression. The law applies to all Singaporeans now.
But not after those claiming 'opposition' credentials invited the PAP do this to all of us.
The enactment of the Public Order Act signals the Government's desperation to ensure that that any popular dissension to its rule is snuffed out. 
Support SDP , buy our 30th Anniversary Magazine here
They PAP follows a three-step procedure to criminalize all political expression that is not in perfect alignment with theirs, or that threatens their ability to stay on in power. This is detailed account of the process of"killing the chicken to frighten the monkeys".
[b]Step 1.[/b] Identify the person (or group or entity) that presents a threat to their stranglehole on power.
[b]Example:[/b] The SDP
[b]Step 2.[/b] Identify the acts that the person (or group or entity) engages in.
[b]Example:[/b] Conduct lawful protests, often in small groups as provided for by the Miscellaneous Offences Act, and in defiance of police discrimination in the non-issuance of permits.
Filming some of the encounters with the police, and posting those on the net.
Argue in court on constitutional grounds to a dumbfounded judge.
[b]Step 3.[/b] Devise ways and means to contain, inhibit or worst of all criminalize the activity in #2.
[b]Example:[/b] The new Public Order Act. What was previously legal is now criminal.
For good measure, they round up with a fabricated and inconcrete justification for #3, and never ever based on any prevailing socio-political conditions in Singapore.
[b]Example:[/b] Events in Thailand. (The government had previously [b]explicitly[/b] said that they were drawing up new laws to deal with civil disobedience; that's the true rationale for this particular legislation.
These are what I call Singapore's [i]suka suka[/i] laws.
Such sound legal principles!