« Culture is no excuse for China denying its people democracy | HomePage | Trafficking of Filipinas in Singapore at all-time high »
04/02/2008
Singapore's Shame
Listen to this article
"Erm… guys, I'll be a bit late for the forum," he said in guarded tones. "There are couple of policemen in my bedroom. They want to have a word with me." We felt a sudden jolt of anxiety. The police? The magnitude of what we were doing began to dawn on us. "Do you want us to come by your room?" we asked our friend. "Erm… yeah, that'd be good actually," he replied, straining to conceal the panic in his voice."
Singapore Democrats
2 Feb 08
A group of international exchange students from the National University of Singapore (NUS) conducted a protest against the Burmese government at the ASEAN Summit in December last year.
Two of them Pia Muzaffar Dawson & Olly Laughland reveal, in the article below, how they were intimidated and harassed in the most disgraceful manner by the authorities here.
These youths wanted to express their anguish at the killings that were going on in Rangoon, something that millions across the world were doing. How wrong was that? No student should have to go through what they went through just to voice their dissent at a murderous regime.
Now the sordid details of their harassment are out. The only thing that is more stomach-churning is that NUS dares to aspire to be the "Oxbridge of the East." Does this Government know no shame?
Protest Singapore style
"Protest Singapore style," so the headline went. "9 protestors, 29 journalists, 2,500 police." We couldn't have put it better ourselves.
Weeks of planning, secretive meetings, liaisons with the international media, personal struggle and strained friendships, family warnings and relationship crises – all to walk up a busy shopping street in red t-shirts and holding candles. Our quiet vigil in protest against the Burmese junta's uncontested presence at the annual ASEAN Summit in Singapore caused something of a stir, to put it mildly.
Of course, we weren't the only people greatly concerned about the situation. Since the violent crackdowns of Burmese civil society reported in October of last year, hundreds of thousands of people worldwide have been involved in campaigning, calling for an end to the oppressive regime. But the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), currently chaired by what was our host country of Singapore, is crucial to either undermining or legitimising the Burmese junta. However, Singapore had so far failed to condemn the junta's actions, its high-level business links with the regime proving far too important to jeopardise, to the great displeasure of Singapore's 30,000-strong Burmese community.
When we found out that the Burmese generals themselves were to be welcomed with open arms into Singapore's luxurious Shangri-La Hotel, we decided to take action. There were other events planned, including two forums organised by Overseas Burmese Patriots and SG Human Rights, but these were to be held indoors in diluted form after applications to protest outside were rejected. Singapore's stringent protest laws and total ban on public assembly once again proved to be an effective way of containing and constraining civil society.
Raised on Millian notions of freedom of speech, a vocal student body at Sussex and general discontentment at elite political power, we decided to risk our student visas and bend the rules. Our plan was simple: to walk towards the ASEAN Summit in groups of three (theoretically remaining within the ban on public assemblies of more than four), wearing red t-shirts to mark our solidarity with the Burmese people, and holding candles (since any sort of banner or placard would require a permit).
An innocent statement, we thought, though loaded nonetheless with our disgust at the junta's regime. But the authorities thought differently, and made this patently obvious in the days preceding our event.
First of all, an email told us, "You are requested to attend a chat with the Provost and the Dean of Students tomorrow morning." We went along, and spent a good half hour politely deflecting their polite attempts to neuter our efforts. "We don't want this descending into violence," said the Provost, drawing on the standard Singaporean truism: speaking out equals violence and chaos; chaos equals a threat to the economy. He courteously passed us a copy of the Straits Times (the state-controlled newspaper), folded neatly to the front page which read, "Singapore will stick to its tough laws governing public protests". The internet said the same – so did the television, so did the radio.
Chuckling to himself, he opened a large dossier containing page after page of our personal information gleaned from Facebook. Covered in annotations, it told a story of "potentially unlawful behaviour". Little did we know a group of fellow students had seen our "Stand Up For Burma" event on Facebook and reported us straight to the University authorities, probably in order to attain more all-important points for their own personal records. Nervous laughter followed. "You know we won't be able to help you if you're arrested. Student visas are an issue out of our control," said the Provost (who is also, incidentally, the ex-Deputy Superintendent of the Singapore Police).
Though we hadn't been explicitly threatened, we left the "chat" somewhat perturbed. Had our plans taken on a life of their own? Were we interfering in areas that were not ours to meddle with?
It got weirder. The next day we were on our way to the forum organised by the Burmese expatriate community in Singapore, when we got a phone call from a friend who was also involved in organising the vigil. "Erm… guys, I'll be a bit late for the forum," he said in guarded tones. "There are couple of policemen in my bedroom. They want to have a word with me." We felt a sudden jolt of anxiety. The police? The magnitude of what we were doing began to dawn on us. "Do you want us to come by your room?" we asked our friend. "Erm… yeah, that'd be good actually," he replied, straining to conceal the panic in his voice."
We rushed to his room, our hearts thudding. There we were greeted by two plainclothes police officers with clipboards. Like the university authorities, they warned us that our planned actions risked breaking Singaporean law. Getting arrested in Singapore is a major, major social transgression. Determined not to be dissuaded, we tried to thank them politely for their advice, but without capitulating. They left eventually, having realised that their words were falling on deaf ears. Yet their visit left us shaken, unsure of what measures the authorities would take to prevent our protest from going ahead.
After this failed attempt, the police force resorted to more insidious means. An undercover policeman was installed at our planning meetings. We each received anonymous text messages clearly concocted by a novice police officer trying to sound young and hip. "Yo heard fm law fac guy police gonna take realie tuff action 2day on asean protest… dude has gd frend in police who knows some higher ups.. better tell those goin 4 protest 2 b real careful… looks like the cops here ain't jokin… laterz." We got emails warning of "rising anti-foreigner sentiment" in Singapore, and links to internet forums full of posts condemning our plans.
On the wall of our Facebook event, there was even a cleverly constructed anonymous attendee (creatively named "Nigel Chomsky") who attempted to delegitimise our advocacy of non-violent protest by saying things like, "For once Singaporeans, DISSENT!!!!! Hell, we can f*ck the policing bastards." His profile, again hastily invented by some novice policeman with no conception of what "anarchism" actually means, had pictures of a burning car and a hooded demonstrator hurling a Molotov at riot police. His "About Me" section said, "The system's fucked up. So I set it right. I dissent." Although in retrospect these efforts at surveillance and infiltration seem laughable, at the time they were enough to make us feel like our every move was being watched, as if we were in some kind of Orwellian dystopia.
As if these warnings from various authorities were not enough, we were also being chased up by story-hunting journalists who had got wind of our plans. Protest, sadly, is big news in Singapore. And the Singaporean web forums were buzzing with lively discussions about what we were proposing to do. "I think we should deport these ang-mos [local slang for "white people"]," one angry user said. Another countered, "NUS, good try, you have my support! NUS you are not wasting your time as you are brave to step out to do so. This is just the beginning, I hope to see more of such movement. Bravo, NUS! Keep it up!" Singaporean friends and strangers contacted us with messages of support. At the same time, a few members of our group were even contacted by lawyers and university authorities their our home countries, warning that participating in the protest would mean automatic expulsion from their degree programmes back home.
What had started as a simple idea, with which we'd become involved through a series of chance encounters, had now snowballed into an event of massive significance, in which an unprecedented number of different people seemed to have a stake. And this was not without effects on our personal wellbeing. We were double-locking our doors at night, unable to sleep. We were constantly looking over our shoulders, and trying to brush aside the threats and doubts that seemed to assail us from all angles. Within our group itself, the pressure was taking its toll. We became embroiled in heated arguments about the right thing to do – and even whether to go ahead with the protest at all – severely testing our friendships with each other. We were tense, scared and doubtful of our own capabilities. The claustrophobia proved too much for many.
The day came, our group whittled down to just nine. We approached the venue with trepidation, not knowing what awaited us at the top of the escalators as we emerged from the underground station onto the street. We were met by scores of journalists, photographers and film crews, far outnumbering our diminutive assembly. Upon sighting us they swarmed, cameras flashing, questions shouted, dictaphones thrust to our faces. "What would you say to the Burmese junta if you could be at the ASEAN summit today?" "Are you not scared of breaking Singapore's strict anti-protest laws?" "Do your parents know you're here?"
They followed us as we walked towards the venue of the summit. They were present when we encountered the police, and when we dispersed without incident. And so it was that the message of our simple, minimalist protest achieved a degree of publicity unthinkable in the UK, making the front page of Singapore's national newspaper as well as countless other media channels throughout Asia. And the next day, emboldened by the fact that we were not arrested, a group of fifty Burmese residents in Singapore staged another anti-junta protest outside the Summit – an event of far greater political significance.
Our protest was controversial. It may have offended some. But in the following weeks, it became clear to us that our protest had not taken place for no reason. What may have begun as a basic attempt to publicly criticise the Burmese military regime, in an environment where it enjoyed an unacceptable level of impunity, quickly escalated into a question of how Singaporean society understands itself: how it is disciplined, how it relates to "external" interference, and what its fundamental values are. It served to crystallise national debates around public dissent, legitimate authority, the treatment of minorities, and regional diplomacy.
And from our point of view, the lengths to which the authorities went in order to try and stifle our political action really demonstrated to us how much we cherish those civil liberties we've always taken for granted in the UK, and which have been rapidly eroded under the Blair government. On a personal level, we ended up with sturdy friendships and a new awareness of what we were prepared to do for a cause we believed in.
Pia Muzaffar Dawson and Olly Laughland are former international students at the National University of Singapore. This article was written for student magazines in the UK.
Read also: Interview with student protestor by The Campus Observer
17:10 Posted by soci | Permalink | Comments (28) | Email this | Tags: Singapore, Protest, Police Harrassment
Comments
there is more than meets the eye. beware TOC (The Online Cons)
when a group of at best average writers band together in singapore
blogosphere and style themselves as "non-partisan" online reporters/
commentators, it sends an orgasmic thrill into the dissent starved
psyches of the average singaporeans. the fact that they write in a
tone and style not dissimilar to gahmen-speak matters not, because
they are "rebels", they are "independent" and ugh, "non-partisan".
the online citizen, non partisan? talk cock lah. they are the results
of a years work of quiet counter insurgency. andrew loh, remy choo,
ephraim loy, gerald giam have all at one time or another been or still
is very partisan. what are the common partisan links? gahmen, pap and
wp lor. and the funny thing is that some of them switch between wp and
pap youth organisations like changing underwear and later decry their
innocence, that they are not linked anymore and the usual blah blah
blah. such a glowing testament of their loyalty to the "non partisan"
cause.
lets see:
andrew loh - pap turned wp
remy choo - pap youth executive committee, grassroots leader
emphraim loy - young pap
gerald giam - ex mfa and mda.
there we have it, editors mired with the establishment.
TOC? the online cons, selling token critiques of gahmen and policy,
but sneaking in subliminal weasel messages of how great experience it
is working in yec. and the biggest con among this nest of weasels?
certainly the award goes to the great non-partisan remy choo, who
ironically took over from andrew once his wp links were exposed to the
entire internet.
so the great saviour, REMY CHOO comes in to restore toc's credibility
but actually, he is the greatest con. guess what? this toc chief is
paid by a pap mp out in the west of singapore to write. PAID BY PAP TO
WRITE. and paid quite well so its said. with all the pay increases in
gahmen, he probably got a pay rise too. wonder how much of this moola
is spread among the other online cons. or maybe remy swallows this
whole. well the only definite thing is, you'll see more written on
this constituency and of course, it'll be glowing. toc is after all a
great non-partisan bandwagon of truthful writing reflecting to the
relentlessly downtrodden of singapore.
The Online Cons. time for some spring cleaning. why not just let
ephraim run it. get it out in the open. forget about this non-partisan
hogwash already and sneaking around with your hidden agendas against
the true opposition.
Posted by: Jasper | 05/02/2008
Hi Jasper,
Thanks for your revelation.
Many netizens are already suspicious of the origins and motives of The Online Citizen.
I believe that it is part of the PAP internet team to manage the negative perceptions in cyberspace by attracting opposition supporters to its blog with the view of moderating their views.
Do you have concrete proof or links that Choo Zheng Xi was paid by the PAP MP ?
I have written many articles on TOC here:
www.wayangparty.wordpress.com
Please forward it to all your friends.
Posted by: wayangparty | 06/02/2008
Jasper, Wayangparty,
This is completely false, and really you have absolutely no credibility hiding behind pseudonyms making these completely incorrect assertions.
Anyone with a modicum with common sense would see the stupidity of a PAP MP paying people to be critical of the government.
Absolute rubbish.
Posted by: Choo Zheng Xi | 06/02/2008
Dear Jasper,
You said the following, with regards to Remy (or Zheng Xi),
"this toc chief is paid by a pap mp out in the west of singapore to write. PAID BY PAP TO WRITE. and paid quite well so its said. "
Please tell us the name of the PAP MP whom you alleged paid Zheng Xi to write.
You also said:
"well the only definite thing is, you'll see more written on this constituency and of course, it'll be glowing."
Please identify and name the articles on TOC about "this constituency" which you insinuated Zheng Xi was paid to write about. Also, please tell us the name of "this constituency" so that everyone will keep an eye out to see if TOC will write "glowingly" about it, if indeed TOC writes about it.
I think if what you say are based on facts, you should not be afraid to name the PAP MP. Otherwise, I think we can all dismiss your allegations as baseless, malicious and hogwash.
Thanks.
Regards,
Andrew Loh
Co-editor, theonlinecitizen
Posted by: Andrew Loh | 06/02/2008
i thought Zheng Xi is Young PAP or PAP or some grassroot member (the same thing) at one time? Can confirm?
Posted by: Mousey | 07/02/2008
My allegations about TOC’s Editors being PAID BY PAP TO WRITE were based on hearsay without any concrete evidence.
I now retract my earlier comments and offer my unreserved apologies to TOC’s Editors for any damages and loss of reputation they suffered as a result.
Posted by: Jasper | 07/02/2008
The second Jasper sounds like a TOC imposter?
Posted by: Mousey | 08/02/2008
Hi Mousey,
Choo Zheng Xi is an elected member of the Buona Vista CCMC which makes him a grassroots leader. He also aspires to join the civil service upon graduation.
Besides Choo, many members of TOC's Editorial Team have intimate relations with the PAP, including its Co-Editor Ephraim Loy, A YPAP leader who share a blog with George Yeo, Yeo Toon Joo, an ex-ST journalist and Gerald Giam, a former officer with MFA.
Its founder Mr Andrew Loh Hong Puey was reportedly a PAP member/supporter before he switched camp to WP 2 years ago.
Please correct me if I am wrong, Mr Andrew Loh.
Perhaps you will like to shed more light on your relationship with PAP ?
Posted by: wayangparty | 08/02/2008
People, do you think that ST, MDA, YPAP or any grassroots body brainwash everyone who join them?
People with past or present tie with these entities are also independent thinking caring people who raise issue of public concern and serving the public by sharing their views and gathering information. Reading those articles help the public to raise awareness of the issues, If readers want to take further actions, they can do so, like joining political parties or writing to the newspapers.
It is grossly unjust to doubt their motive based on those "links".
Don't we know of people who were PAP and now opposition?
Don't we remember late President Ong dutifully question PAP government on our reserves, serving the people above the party?
Being "linked" to ST, MDA, YPAP or any grassroots body do not immediately and permanently transform an individual into PAP robot.
Being "linked" to ST, MDA, YPAP or any grassroots body do not make people immediately and permanently give up their values and duties to the people and the nation.
Until and unless people starting to get involved in raising social / political issues and talking about them like many blogs and TOC, we will not have a people based democracy. The effort of many blogs and TOC is a start.
Until and unless people starting to get involved in grassroots as individuals serving the community, we will not have a people based grassroots. Let us appreciate those who are in the grassroots to serve the people instead of blindly questioning them
Posted by: sarek_home | 09/02/2008
While it is obvious to all Singaporeans that the grassroots organizations are intimately linked and controlled by the PAP, Mr Sarek_home of WP has been profusely defending it here:
http://forums.delphiforums.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=sammyboymod&msg=60368.95
"Until and unless people starting to get involved in grassroots as individuals serving the community, we will not have a people based grassroots. Let us appreciate those who are in the grassroots to serve the people instead of blindly questioning them."
Mr Sarek_home, aren't you contradicting what was published in your own WP manifesto in 2006:
http://www.wp.org.sg/party/manifesto_2006.htm
D. Community:
1. The system of Resident Committees (RCs) and the Citizens Consultative Committee (CCC) should be abolished. Government grassroots serving as eyes and ears of the government cripple the growth of natural community leadership and hinder the development of community living. The attempts by RCs in some areas to segregate the neighbourhood by zones further hinder the population from developing a true sense of community identity.
Posted by: wayangparty | 09/02/2008
Sarek_home
If you use this argument then you might as well say that people who join the PAP as excessively paid civil servants are not brainwashed as well.
So all of us should join PAP, be linked with them, take their money.... so that we can be better opposition??
Crap la you all.
And guys, its so obvious that the 2nd Jasper is a different person. Why are you all so frantically covering your tracks? So there must be some truth la.
Posted by: DarthPenis | 09/02/2008
This quote from WP's manifesto is well expected.
Ask yourself these questions:
Do you believe "linked" to ST, MDA, YPAP or any grassroots body immediately and permanently transform an individual into PAP robot?
Do you believe "linked" to ST, MDA, YPAP or any grassroots body make people immediately and permanently give up their values and duties to the people and the nation?
Do you believe PAP need to make every single one grassroots leader die-hard PAP supporter?
The person who linked the general issue of grassroots organization raised in WP's Manifesto with a specific individual just fail to understand that the Manifesto addresses a way to deny PAP the means to insert sufficient pro-PAP individuals into grassroots organizations. It is not in anyway imply every grassroots leaders as pro-PAP.
Again, ask yourself these questions:
Do you believe "linked" to ST, MDA, YPAP or any grassroots body immediately and permanently transform an individual into PAP robot?
Do you believe "linked" to ST, MDA, YPAP or any grassroots body make people immediately and permanently give up their values and duties to the people and the nation?
Do you believe PAP need to make every single one grassroots leader die-hard PAP supporter?
Posted by: sarek_home | 09/02/2008
It is well-known amongst netizens that wayangparty is a member of YPAP/PA/CCC/RA currently working for the National Health Group.
What is his hidden agenda for pulling TOC's leg in public? Is it because of jealousy? Or is it because his blog (http://wayangparty.wordpress.com/) has attracted less traffic than TOC (http://theonlinecitizen.com/).
Would wayangparty please clarify why you are allowed to abuse National Health Group's IT facilities during office hours to post job unrelated messages here and elsewhere? Why should taxpayers' money be used to subsidize PAP's Counter Insurgency Team's effort?
Posted by: Jeff | 09/02/2008
What does wayangparty do for a living?
Who funds his work at the wayangparty.wordpress.com?
Posted by: Bernard | 10/02/2008
Dear Jeff:
First Mr Jeff, are you writing on the behalf of TOC ?
Please go to our blog to find out more about us.
We have a collection of writers, mostly guest writers from all walks of life and none of them were from the National Health Group.
Some of writers have chosen to write using their real names while others feel more comfortable using a pseudonyms.
Do you have any evidence that our members are from YPAP/PA/CCC or that the National Health Group's IT resources have been abused ?
We have written to the National Health Group regarding your accusation and if it turns out to be untrue, we believe police action will be warranted to safeguard the reputation and image of our institutions.
As for our readership being less than TOC, we have never intended our blog to be a popular and widely read blog. Our aim is to speak and publicize the TRUTH, no matter how harsh it may be.
The FACT remains that TOC is run by members of the establishment and therefore you cannot blame others for questioning their agendas. Similarly, you don't see any forumers criticizing other blogs run by non-establishment figures.
We have written to Mr Choo Zheng Xi to seek clarifications on his YPAP membership and we are still waiting for an answer.
Posted by: wayangparty | 10/02/2008
I'm coming online now to seek your supports and advice on my marriage problem.
I'm sure most of you have read the Shin Min Daily News front page news of 15 Nov 2007. Yes, I'm the man featured in the news.
My problem started when my company got into a business dispute with a major customer. The customer threatened to sue for damages for the inferior goods supplied. As I'm ignorant of business laws, I got worried that the lawsuit might ruin the company completely.
Luckily (or unluckily?), my wife Jaslyn Go (aka LaMei) and I found a lawyer Chia Ti Lik (aka TiLik) in Tanjong Pagar (Chia Ngee Thuang & Co.; 24 Peck Seah Street, #05-09/11 Nehson's Building, Singapore 079314. Tel: 62259983; Fax: 62237856; Email: ngeethuangc@hotmail.com) who was willing to take on the case. As my wife was a director of my company without portfolio, this legal dispute was delegated to her to liaise with the lawyer. Fortunately we won the litigation, and I was very thankful to the lawyer.
After the legal dispute was settled, my wife continued to see this lawyer in the day time. At first I thought she was bored as a housewife, and it was good to keep contact with a lawyer who would be useful for future legal dealings.
Lately I discovered that she had been communicating with the lawyer using MSN. In one of many messages, she expressed that she wanted to marry him rather than being his mistress forever. Rumors started to appear that she was driving my car from my home in Queenstown to visit his home in Yishun during day time when I was busy at work. She even went to the extent of sending him to his office in Tanjong Pagar from Yishun. What she did in his home is everyone's guess.
Finally I felt that I must confront this bastard lawyer before my marriage is completely destroyed. So I visited his law firm in Nehson's Building. The rest of the story was reported in the Shin Min Daily News front page news of 15 Nov 2007.
I'm amazed that a highly educated lawyer would want an O-Level mother with 2 kids.
I regret that I didn't find out this womanizer lawyer earlier and I was made to wear green hat!
After this adulterous affair is exposed, this lawyer, who is already married, behaves like a typical playboy and does not want to marry my wife.
The question is: Should I divorce my wife?
The thought of divorcing my wife and giving her half of my assets and still maintaining her really makes me sick. What happens if she is stilling seeing him after gaining half of my assets and maintenance fees from me? I would be really looked like a fool of financing a mistress for the bastard lawyer!
What would be the best options for me? Please help!
Posted by: GreenHatMan | 10/02/2008
All such posting from certain individual come simply because he judged certain other people do not exonerate themselves by their words and deeds like others who had PAP past. Such political with-hunt will only ruin the development of democracy as explain in following message.
Do we want some people going around political witch-hunt anyone they see as "linked" with PAP?
Do we want our children living in this kind of fear environment?
=====================================
Some people have the strange view that “not anti-PAP” means “pro-PAP”.
Some people have no problem with some ex-PAP becoming opposition because they have shown strong “anti-PAP” acts to signal their change of heart. But they question any other person with past or current “link” in any form and shape with PAP just because they are not showing an “anti-PAP” color. These are being labeled or questioned.
This over-simplified view of “anti-PAP” and “pro-PAP” political spectrum is no different from the communist China's Red Guard mindset of pro-Revolution vs counter-Revolution in the 60s. In recent years, we see the same mindset in Taiwan's DPP (Democratic Progressive Party) in dividing people and social / political issues in term of pro-Taiwan vs anti-Taiwan. We have seen the damage done to the respective societies. We also see the wisdom of Taiwan people to vote against DPP in the recent legislative council election for failing as a ruling government. They are wise in not being manipulated by DPP pro-Taiwan vs anti-Taiwan campaign tactics.
This view that one must either be “anti-PAP” or “pro-PAP” is wrong and it is no different from PAP saying one should join a political party in order to get involved in social / political issues. Such view is wrong for healthy democratic development.
True democracy is founded on strong people involvement in social / political issues. To do this, we need media to provide good quality issue based information to simulate our thinking and debate. In the past one year, we have seen many blogs doing this, including TOC (TheOnlineCitizen) just doing that.
Some people question TOC because of its editorial team's past / current “link” to PAP. But they do not question other ex-PAP turn opposition. Why? So, the real issue they have is not the past / current “link” to PAP but their judgment of whether the individual is anti-PAP enough to their liking. If we subscribe to such judging view, we will have a polarized “anti-PAP vs pro-PAP” political scene. There will be no room for non-partisan concerned people to get involved in politics. When PAP falls, we will have only one anti-PAP political force to take over. We will just be switching from one One-Party domination to another One-Party domination.
Our democratic development must be one that grow a strong, politically concerned people who are free to choose if they want to involve in any political party. We should expect a wide spectrum of political views and political parties that can not be simply classified as anti-PAP or pro-PAP. We need different political parties to avoid another One-Party domination. We need a strong non-partisan politically concerned public to objectively judge and readily switch support from one party to another party instead of one that blindly loyal to a particular party. The attempt by some people to divide us into “anti-PAP vs pro-PAP” will ruin this democratic development.
The members of TOC with past or present “link” with PAP are still independent thinking, caring people who raise issue of public concern and serving the public by sharing their views and gathering information. Reading those articles help the public to raise awareness of the issues, If readers want to take further actions, they can do so, like joining political parties or writing to the newspapers. TOC is doing a good job in contributing to our democratic development. It is grossly unjust to doubt their motive based on those "links".
Don't we know of people who were PAP and now opposition?
Don't we remember late President Ong dutifully questioned PAP government to safeguard our reserves, serving the people above the party?
Being "linked" to ST, MDA, YPAP or any grassroots body do not immediately and permanently transform an individual into PAP robot.
Being "linked" to ST, MDA, YPAP or any grassroots body do not make people immediately and permanently give up their values and duties to the people and the nation.
Until and unless people starting to get involved in raising social / political issues and talking about them like many blogs and TOC, we will not have a people based democracy. The effort of many blogs and TOC is a start.
Until and unless people starting to get involved in grassroots as individuals serving the community, we will not have a people based grassroots. Let us appreciate those who are in the grassroots to serve the people instead of blindly questioning them.
Posted by: sarek_home | 10/02/2008
Kind of like Fox news," Fair and Balanced "LOL
Which remind me of mass effect
which remind me of a certain post about it somewhere
which conincide with coming out just before 377a(to stifle bread by generating counter sentiments which disappear after one post)
which coincide with rebellious for justice son believing in appalled state in the slavery camp.
Not to mention "ready for this" Americanized Free Burma campaign and the subsequent tone down.
Posted by: Onlooker | 11/02/2008
Thks Sgpore,
This is certainly a revelation. Now I know why TOC maintains a policy of discriminating against blogs who write sense. The problem with what you say is simply this, either way you slice it, it makes alot of sense.
As for them putting comments on moderation, I has happened to me a few times only for those comments to disappear quiet conveniently and I even have proof.
Why should they do this? Now it is clear, very clear indeed. Nevermind, fortunately we still have the Singapore Daily and they are doing a great job, by the looks of it, they are even getting the support of some of the powerful bloggers such as the brotherhood press.
I have always wondered why the brotherhood press has been luke warm towards TOC, now I know.
Posted by: johnson | 11/02/2008
"This is completely false, and really you have absolutely no credibility hiding behind pseudonyms making these completely incorrect assertions.
Anyone with a modicum with common sense would see the stupidity of a PAP MP paying people to be critical of the government.
Absolute rubbish.
Posted by: Choo Zheng Xi | 06/02/2008"
hi mr choo,
what about a PAP MP paying YOU to write something good about
HER constituency somewhere in the west of Singapore? that makes more sense huh? u are learning well in nus law with this perception twist. though i am sure they teach you the consequences of perjuring. time to come clean.
have you ever been paid by a PAP MP for writing? yes or no?
hohoho
Posted by: benjani | 11/02/2008
After searching for the origins of the comments above I can state that the comment posted on 05/02/08 at 12:15 by 'Jasper' and using the email address jasperwee@gmail.com was from a Singaporean IP address.
The retraction posted by 'Jasper' on 07/02/08 at 11:50 and using the email address Jasper@gmail.com was posted from a US IP address affiliated with "Ocean State Higher Education and Administration Network"
So the initial statement accusing the TOC of being paid up members of the PAP was written by someone inside Singapore and the retraction was written using an IP address in the US.
Jasper could have posted in Singapore then flew to the US and posted from his school there. Or someone claiming to be jasper wrote the retraction using proxy servers to hide their true location.
Posted by: soci | 11/02/2008
Hey soci, you rock! Some mischief afoot here eh? TOC LOL
Posted by: robin | 11/02/2008
Thanks soci. I won't be surprised if the TOC people are behind this.
Hey guys, let's spread this throughout blogosphere to warn others about TOC's cosy relationship with PAP.
Avoid leaving comments on TOC to prevent your IPs from being traced.
Posted by: Aaron | 11/02/2008
No point leaving comments in TOC, appears that all comments are under forever moderation mode. sux
Posted by: robin | 11/02/2008
The PAP's Internet Counter-Insurgents Squad led by Ng Eng Yen and Baey Yam Keng has fast become a pest, not just a nuisance to the cyber community. Judging from the strong reactions given to the recent events involving theonlinecitizen.com (TOC), the whole effort of the PAP's Counter-Insurgents Squad has back-fired on them very badly.
The Wayang King, so self-named as wayangkingsg at the Sammyboy.com's Alfresco Coffee Shop (SBF), is at the centre of storm involving TOC. For those who have dealt with him before, he comes across as a member of the PAP's Counter-Insurgents Squad, operating out of the National Health Group. He has assumed a variety of online anonymous identities at SBF, such as thinknothing, thinkpeople, Mihailov75, mehailov75, samster005, samstor005, razari, kevansg, Firdaus77, jacy_, jacys_, PM0nkeyWP, aIz2by, 0nePerson, Yishun81, exist17, PM0NKEY10, Delphilian, delphiloon, thinkdelphi, Ahkong_, andrewshit, zhengxiTOC, norfirdaus, Sarrkozy, Mohd_Hakim, titusbamble, geraldTOC, sarak_home, NoorFirdaus, Ahmed_Yusof, mohdimran, samster55, spartacus436, porkchop59, bullshitGMS, MSVista, nvista, Mohdfarhan, daqigui, mohdjunid, mohdjames, MemberName05, porkchop611, aboutdelphi, delphifcuk, AndrewofWP, Andrew69sg, sockmonkeysg, wayanguru, checkentry, wayangclub, GH2788why, monkeylohhp, deankohh, createnew, callcab111, Goldenparrot, createpoll, madcow2788, COE75, PussyJUDGE, PDonkey10, namqiong5984, remychooo, AndrewLoh985, wayangkingsg, wayangclubsg, MaryKwan, etc., most of them have been banned.
For the regular forummers of SBF, they would remember that this Wayang King has been notorious in impersonating other opposition parties' figures, such as Perry Tong, Low Thia Khiang, and Sebastian Teo at SBF, causing a stir in the local newspapers in Singapore. When he was caught red-handed for impersonating Perry Tong, he cunningly assumed another identity in the name of Bernard Soh (using a login name hongrui1982) to post a letter of apology.
With a history like this, it is not difficult to digest the recent events and who is behind them.
From all the evidences available, it is without a shadow of doubt that this Wayang King signed off as Jasper to post the first message on 05/02/2008 at singabloodypore (singabloodypore.rsfblog.org):
http://singabloodypore.rsfblog.org/archive/2008/02/04/singapore-s-shame.html
He was caught subsequently by soci to impersonate Andrew Loh to post a message on 06/02/2008 challenging Jasper at singabloodypore.rsfblog.org:
http://singabloodypore.rsfblog.org/archive/2008/02/12/baseless-malicious-hogwash-no-more.html
So the netizens have been taken a free ride by the Wayang King without knowing that they have been watching a wayang show conducted by wayangparty (wayangparty.wordpress.com).
With this in mind, there is a possibility that the second Jasper is also a clone of wayangparty used to further discredit TOC by posting a message on 07/02/2008 at singabloodypore.
It becomes clear that why an anonymous Jasper would bother to set up a blog (jasperwee.wordpress.com) for the sole purpose of attacking TOC if he is not a member of the PAP's Internet Counter-Insurgents Squad.
Once we know that Jasper and wayangparty are the same person belonging to the PAP's Internet Counter-Insurgents Squad, his malicious act of disinformation and attacks on TOC and Workers' Party can be easily seen!
What the Wayang King did not expect is that his whole self-conducted wayang show has back-fired on the PAP's Internet Counter-Insurgents Squad very badly and discredited himself completely!
Posted by: Bhagyawati | 15/02/2008
Cool!
Posted by: Nicephorus | 06/11/2008
I believe that our basic rights in a particular situation must be heard.
My Halloween routine, however, had nothing on the Trick-or-Treater’s coding system these folks in Sacramento, California created. Kids would leave codes for each other at the foot of the driveway telling the other kids everything from “no one home,” “full-size candy bars,” and even “mean dogs.” Every kid knew the chalk-marking system, saving a whole lot of trouble for each other. They’ve made Trick-or-Treating more convenient with these clear signals. I wish the families who, during my time, were facing some temporarily rough financial times, would’ve considered timely PERSONAL LOANS to help them score some good chocolates and candy bars. They are affordable and easy to pay back over time. As a matter of fact, they would have paid off their loan by the time I finished all the candy in my bag – and I went through it quick!
Post Courtesy of Personal Money Store
Professional Blogging Team
Feed Back: 1-866-641-3406
Home: http://personalmoneystore.com/NoFaxPaydayLoans.html
Blog: http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/
Posted by: Payday Loan Advocate | 06/11/2008
Ø
We all know that the Philadelphia Phillies of the National League have won the best-of-seven World Series against the American League's Tampa Bay Rays, four games to one. To do it, the Phillies prevailed in the first suspended game in World Series history. For the home fans it was surely worth the wait. It’s been several weeks since the Philadelphia Phillies were crowned World Series Champions 2008. Although the Major League Baseball season is over, it doesn’t mean that the baseball action is at an end. Fans of the national game have turned their hearts and minds towards baseball’s free agency period – the “Hot Stove League.” Previously players could be bought, sold, traded or released as management saw fit, without consideration of the player’s family or their livelihood in general. Players fought for years to obtain the rights to ply their trade for the teams they preferred. Similarly, every consumer has the right to seek personal loans where and whenever you want, regardless of what anyone tells you. Personal loan companies should compete for your business as teams compete for the services of players. Low rates would be maintained with more favorable terms in this case. Click to read more on Personal Loans.
Posted by: Lisa P for Personal Loans | 26/11/2008