BBC: Singapore 'breaks protest deal'

[CYRN]

it is because we want you to be safe and sound!

Even LKY acknowledge in his recent speech... Sg would be better off if opposition is as capable as P@P.

 

[CYRN]

It is a matter of intrepretations. We are flexible to need and we would do them to best our ability. Let them said what they like. They are there just to discredit Sg. Would you believe them?

Then why are there so many defamation suits flying around? :think:

 

[Yappy]

I tink you got it wrong analogy.

You invited your friends to your house for a party, and also agreed that he can invite HIS friends to your house.

But when the party is about to start, you tell your firend that HIS friends cannot come into your house, even as they are waiting at the door step of your house.

How will your friend feel?

The friend maybe a trouble maker then he is not even welcome. It is for your safety that I am lookint at. It is the need to keep my place, my family and my my guest safe! I am responsible.

 

[Yappy]

Then why are there so many defamation suits flying around? :think:

The law fair and judgement can be challenged. Do it according to the Singpaore Law and do engage them inthe open court!

Mind 'your' words. I don't mean you but it. If you made a statement, stand by it!

 

[Yappy]

This remark totally uncalled for. :nono: :nono:

I doub't you can substaintiate what you juz said. :sticktong

The most corrupted countries in the world are often the poorest!

http://www.heritagekonpa.com/Haiti archives/World Corruption.htm

Take a look.

 

[Wolfgang]

Even LKY acknowledge in his recent speech... Sg would be better off if opposition is as capable as P@P.

Gentlemen, so far leeway has been given for discussion into the situation regarding IMF CSOs but may i please remind everyone that should this discussion turn into one that discusses politics, it shall be closed.

Thank you.

 

[CYRN]

Gentlemen, so far leeway has been given for discussion into the situation regarding IMF CSOs but may i please remind everyone that should this discussion turn into one that discusses politics, it shall be closed.

Thank you.

oops.. paiseh. :embrass:

I was juz refering to Raffles forum held at the sideline of IMF.

Well... shall stay clear of it then.

 

[CYRN]

The friend maybe a trouble maker then he is not even welcome. It is for your safety that I am lookint at. It is the need to keep my place, my family and my my guest safe! I am responsible.

Then upfront, you should have asked for a guest list, checked and consulted with your friend that XXX,YYY and ZZZ shouldn't come to the party.

If you have checked, then why dun tell your friend they are not welcomed.

If you haven't checked, how did you deny them entry on the spot?

 

[Yappy]

its just wayang... IMF and World Bank wants to show that it is encouraging "Freedom of Speech" but frankly do they really work on the comments? Singapore was chosen for a reason and they defintely knew this will be the result. Not surprised the big wigs are saying "finally a meeting without those pesky protestors that try to storm the building and fight with police!" And this year's IMF was a record attendance compared to previous years.

Let the big boys talk business and stop wasting time on stupid protesters that have nothing better to do. Deport, Arrest, I support that 100 percent!! I already have tons of foreigners here to wreck our homes, take away our jobs, I dont want them to come tear down trees and mess up the place with their clashes with police.

Look at those construction workers, the cleaners etc.. Singaporean any takers?

 

[CYRN]

The most corrupted countries in the world are often the poorest!

http://www.heritagekonpa.com/Haiti archives/World Corruption.htm

Take a look.

The so called "corruption" is their way of life as they know it. similar to Sg being on the other end of the scale. It's the way of life as we know it (norm to us but not norm to those foreigners facing our restriction).

Also acknowledged in the report is... much easier said than done. example would be Indonesia.

*edit* Anyway, the other factors affecting county's wealth are spelt here.

 

[zcf]

The friend maybe a trouble maker then he is not even welcome. It is for your safety that I am lookint at. It is the need to keep my place, my family and my my guest safe! I am responsible.

In this case, you have a rich and good friend, but that friend insist on bring other bad attitude guest. The friend got offended because of his guest are not welcome and rejected from getting into your house. So will this rich friend be likely to come to your house again in long run???

 

[Canonised]

The so called "corruption" is their way of life as they know it. similar to Sg being on the other end of the scale.

the other end of the scale?...:think: :think: :think::think: :think:
you mean corruption-free?

 

[satay16]

hmmm......today's straits times finally has something about the protests in IMF. though it was obviously biased, at least they wrote something.

 

[dawgbyte77]

Then upfront, you should have asked for a guest list, checked and consulted with your friend that XXX,YYY and ZZZ shouldn't come to the party.

If you have checked, then why dun tell your friend they are not welcomed.

If you haven't checked, how did you deny them entry on the spot?

This is also the main issue. Imagine you are hosting an important reception and your friend agreed to it and you gave him a list of guest you would like to invite (which you also accredited or guaranteed). So you proceed to make invitations and send it out. The party started at 8pm and your friend who lives at the other end of the country travelled all the way to the doorstep when he was denied entry. Not only were you to lose face because all along you and your host have already agreed to the guest list, but it also made your accreditation useless. And worst, there were no reason given to you or your guest.

So your guest went home, which probably took him some amount of time. And then the host gave in and allowed your guest to be welcomed back. First, he already lost a few important parts of the reception, and second, he may have a hard time getting transportation, accomodation, etc.

Up to now, the reason is still too vague to be really seen as a threat to security. If this is really the case, why was 22 out of 27 were re-allowed if they are really dangerous? And why was the reason not enumerated? Anyway, while Singapore see this positively as a good measure of security at work, it is naive to believe the rest of the world will agree to this point of view. As long as some details remain vague, I still believe the future of Singapore as a hub for international convension and tourist destination will be affected because of these uncertainties.


Why are CSO important? One example scenario I can think of are those homeless people (yes, they exist in Singapore). The government provided free nursing homes for these homeless elderlies and yet, there exist old people who prefer to sleep at void decks than be in a nursing home with free food and warm bed. For the organizers, it doesn't make sense. It doesn't seem logical and at the end of the day, they blame these radicals as ungrateful troublemakers who do not conform.

Then comes the CSO who may be old folks themselves and actually talk to these homeless people and found out that the policy of registering into a nursing home, the rules and curfew, the food, etc etc, doesn't really work. So the CSO, representing the old people comes and "protest" and present recommendations. The organizer of the nursing home may then realign the policy to be workable and conducive to all parties. The nursing home will stop wasting money and the elderly actually got the help they wanted.

 

[satay16]

This is also the main issue. Imagine you are hosting an important reception and your friend agreed to it and you gave him a list of guest you would like to invite (which you also accredited or guaranteed). So you proceed to make invitations and send it out. The party started at 8pm and your friend who lives at the other end of the country travelled all the way to the doorstep when he was denied entry. Not only were you to lose face because all along you and your host have already agreed to the guest list, but it also made your accreditation useless. And worst, there were no reason given to you or your guest.

So your guest went home, which probably took him some amount of time. And then the host gave in and allowed your guest to be welcomed back. First, he already lost a few important parts of the reception, and second, he may have a hard time getting transportation, accomodation, etc.

Up to now, the reason is still too vague to be really seen as a threat to security. If this is really the case, why was 22 out of 27 were re-allowed if they are really dangerous? And why was the reason not enumerated? Anyway, while Singapore see this positively as a good measure of security at work, it is naive to believe the rest of the world will agree to this point of view. As long as some details remain vague, I still believe the future of Singapore as a hub for international convension and tourist destination will be affected because of these uncertainties.

agree with you and cyrn. alot of people might still keep on arguing about riots, violent protest, damages, previous imf examples, but yar, like what you said, the problem is no more about security, but rather, why did singapore did that in the first place? like that deal they signed. alot of CSers here are in totally disapproval about allowing those protest and start talking about singaporeans being an ungrateful bunch as our government is protecting us yet we are complaining. however, having an IMF without protest is like.........dunno, fishball mee without fishballs? knowing the nature of imf, why did singapore willingly took it? and knowing singapore, why did the IMF committee even chose singapore? i rather we hold those olympic games ioc meetings.

it is no more about security, but why the government inflict this problem onto themselves. perhaps due to idealistic plans in mind, or a lack of experience on holding this kind of major international events that are prone to protests.

 

[Canonised]

agree with you and cyrn. alot of people might still keep on arguing about riots, violent protest, damages, previous imf examples, but yar, like what you said, the problem is no more about security, but rather, why did singapore did that in the first place? like that deal they signed. alot of CSers here are in totally disapproval about allowing those protest and start talking about singaporeans being an ungrateful bunch as our government is protecting us yet we are complaining. however, having an IMF without protest is like.........dunno, fishball mee without fishballs? knowing the nature of imf, why did singapore willingly took it? and knowing singapore, why did the IMF committee even chose singapore? i rather we hold those olympic games ioc meetings.

it is no more about security, but why the government inflict this problem onto themselves. perhaps due to idealistic plans in mind, or a lack of experience on holding this kind of major international events that are prone to protests.

The award was given many years ago, and during that time, the considerations were different. It was like going after an Olympic event, and getting the gold medal But the thing I dont understand is that why a world class Team Singapore can't and not willing to face the 5 banned activists for about a week? Put 3 plain clothes mata 24-hr on each person, what's the possibility of them trying to be a nuisance? I really can't comprehend ...:think:
But this IMF incident is nothing compared to the potential problems from the future casinos .... I dont know how many problems will emerge .... financial, social, contracts, MOU, security, etc.. ... After investing in billions, whaaaaaaa....:sweat:

 

[CYRN]

the other end of the scale?...:think: :think: :think::think: :think:
you mean corruption-free?

"It's the way of life as we know it (norm to us but not norm to those foreigners facing our restriction)."

 

[satay16]

"It's the way of life as we know it (norm to us but not norm to those foreigners facing our restriction)."

this makes me wonder:are the other countries facing the same problems singapore has? being rank 5th in the world for having least corruption, there are a few countries above us, like finland(1st), NZ, demark etc..., do they have the same problems? like dominant party? freedom of speech? surreal security? etc etc.

 

[CYRN]

this makes me wonder:are the other countries facing the same problems singapore has? being rank 5th in the world for having least corruption, there are a few countries above us, like finland(1st), NZ, demark etc..., do they have the same problems? like dominant party? freedom of speech? surreal security? etc etc.

dorminant race. :think: long/proud history... :think:

 

[thedellis]

The game is simple. You have a visitor(foreigner) who visits you.

he walked into your hall and said " hey I don't like the sofa set in your hall. Move it to the kitchen "

Do you want a visitor to determine the rule you have for your home or do you want them to dictate their liking?

If you come to Singapore, follow the rule. You are not happy and you want me to change the rule for you because of your safety?

Yappy, you are totally missing the point. Again. So here's what's happening.

You have a nice house, and hear about some people that may or may not visit your area. You think -- it would be great for me to host these people, so you contact them and say 'Please come and stay at my house. I will do anything you ask for the privilege of housing you. Please, please, please.'

To continue with your awful metaphor, they say 'That sounds good, but there is a problem. You have a sofa set in the hallway and we need that in the kitchen. In fact it is very important that it go in the kitchen. Can you do that?'

"Oh yes,' you reply, 'we most certainly can do that. It is not normal for us to do so, but you are very important guests and we will do anything you need.' And so an agreement is struck -- you are to move the sofa set as a minor part of having these guests at your house. In fact it is so important, that you even sign a contract declaring a guarantee that you will do so.

And so in time the guest arrives, and to his dismay notes that the sofa set is in the hallway. You say nothing. He asks you why you didn't move it. You say nothing. He says this was an contractual agreement. You say nothing. He asks you to move it. You say nothing.

Eventually the guest walks outside and tells the neighbours in your block how you have broken an important contract. Suddenly you can speak! You agree to move the sofa set a foot, but it is too late -- a foot, a mile, it doesn't matter, all your neighbours know is that you cannot be trusted and that contractual agreements mean nothing to you.

The guest is unlikely to stay at your house again, and neither are other important guests who were thinking of coming to your house.



Sorry for dumbing it down so much, but some people just seem incapable of understanding that the ramifications have little to do with whether the sofa set was moved at all. What will be retained is your unwillingness to adhere to contractual agreements especially in front of the world stage and your inability to seek a reasonable and timely compromise.