- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Messages
- 33,627
- Points
- 0
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR class=msghead><TD><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0><TBODY><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgF noWrap align=right width="1%">From: </TD><TD class=msgFname noWrap width="68%">Correlator <NOBR></NOBR> </TD><TD class=msgDate noWrap align=right width="30%">5:02 am </TD></TR><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgT noWrap align=right width="1%" height=20>To: </TD><TD class=msgTname noWrap width="68%">ALL <NOBR></NOBR></TD><TD class=msgNum noWrap align=right> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgleft width="1%" rowSpan=4> </TD><TD class=wintiny noWrap align=right>610.1 </TD></TR><TR><TD height=8></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgtxt>LKY go eat shit! So Chee is a liar, cheat and kaputed by your knuckle dusting huh?
http://www.yawningbread.org/
Yawning Bread. 26 August 2008
The first fruits of civil disobedience
Things got a little crazy Monday afternoon. I received so many calls from reporters that my cellphone battery was completely flat by 6 pm. This had never happened before.
The reason? The Home Ministry held a press conference in the morning in which they provided details of the new regulations pertaining to demonstrations at Hong Lim Park. Reporter after reporter, from as far away as Australia, wanted a reaction from me.
Singaporeans can demonstrate at Speakers' Corner from Sep 1
Banners, placards and effigies will be allowed at the Speakers' Corner when the site is opened for public demonstrations from September 1.
For Singapore citizens, there is no longer a need to apply for a police permit.
[snip]
Singapore Permanent Residents, though, will require a police permit to organise demonstrations.
But citizens and PRs can participate in assemblies without having to register.
[snip]
And all groups, even those that run counter to the establishment, will be allowed to demonstrate. These include gay rights groups and even the Falungong.
Other changes include self-powered amplification devices like loud hailers, which will be allowed in the area between 9am and 10.30pm. Police said the restriction is to minimise noise pollution in the area.
Activities can also be carried out at any time of the day. Currently, activities are restricted to between 7am and 7pm.
However, basic rules will still remain. Topics cannot touch on issues like race and religion. Content that promotes violence or are lewd in nature will also not be allowed.
-- Channel NewsAsia, 25 August 2008, Link
There was a certain pattern in local reporters' questions, and as the day wore on, the repeated direction of the interviews began to seem too familiar.
I could see that all of them were angling the story in way flattering to the government. The changes were presented as a big step ("Don't you think this is a really significant liberalisation?") and an act of magnanimity from almost out of the blue ("Did you expect them to go this far?")
Other questions suggested it would be churlish of citizens to spurn the government's offering and not quickly plan some demonstrations, as if demonstrations can be whipped up on demand like so many trade shows, divorced from the tidal forces of social and political issues.
One reporter whom I was on the way to meet for an interview tried to be helpful, messaging me in advance so that I could formulate my answers in good time: "Please think of possible assemblies, demos, parades you can organise."
She (and perhaps other reporters too) seemed somewhat taken aback when I refused to laud the changes. They are nowhere near what I consider satisfactory, or in any substantial way respectful of our civil rights, I emphasised. They are as small as a pea. What's the point of taking a magnifying glass to marvel at the icing on a pea?
To all of them, I kept repeating that the freedom to demonstrate is meaningless unless it is applicable to all of Singapore. For more of my views, just read what I wrote in Demonstrations to be allowed in Hong Lim playpen
* * * * *
Risible
I thought this bit "citizens and PRs can participate... without having to register" was risible.
Look, it is a public park. Anybody from your grandmother to a backpacker from Argentina can saunter into the park at any time. If a rally is going on and they end up being mixed up with the crowd, staying on perhaps because they are sympathetic to the issue being addressed, how are you going to tell whether they are participating or not?
What are you going to do? Check the ID cards and passports of everyone on the lawn?
So don't go around boasting about how liberal you're being when in fact there is nothing you can do without being seen as a bully all over again. You might as well boast that free air will be supplied to the protestors.
The two words "civil disobedience" were nowhere to be found in any of the questions. Yet, if a journalist wants to do justice to the news, this aspect should be central to the story.
The government's retreat, not only over demonstrations, but also over the question of political films, podcasting and vodcasting during elections, cannot be understood without acknowledging the recent history of civil disobedience.
The victory belongs to Chee Soon Juan and Chee Siok Chin this coming 1st September when the rules are set to change. They stood their ground for about 5 days and nights when the police tried to bundle them out of Hong Lim Park in October 2006 during the World Bank Summit, generating heaps of bad press for the Singapore government.
Reporters trying to record opposition leader Chee Soon Juan's words while he was surrounded by policemen to prevent him from continuing his march, October 2006.
More police officers ring Chee Siok Chin at Hong Lim Park, October 2006.
Sterilised protests
We should not forget too the face-off between the government and foreign NGOs who wanted to hold demonstrations in conjunction with the World Bank/IMF summit October 2006. At first, our government absolutely refused to even let the civil society activists enter Singapore.
In doing so, it underestimated the media reach of these groups, who had the means to create a lot of bad publicity just when the government was trying to use the summit to raise its international profile.
Eventually, after intercession by the then-World Bank president, Paul Wolfowitz, the government relented slightly, allowing a few demonstrations in a tightly demarcated part of an indoor hall of the Suntec Convention Centre, an area no bigger than a basketball court. It has to be indoor, the government said, because it is against the law here to hold outdoor demonstrations.
The utter absurdity of such an arrangement inside a sterile airconditioned hall isolated from delegates and the public showed the world the stark reality of political control in this city-state. See the BBC story on this, for example.
And yet the government had been careless with the truth. It is NOT illegal to have outdoor demonstrations in Singapore. You only need a police permit. The question therefore is not a question of law, but one of why the police routinely refuse to issue permits?
I am convinced that the so-called "liberalisation" was simply to give the government a bit more manoeuvering room the next time something similar happens. Why am I sure? Just consider this: Did anybody ask for the right to demonstrate at Hong Lim Park? If there was no outstanding request, then who was the government trying to please by making this move?
It should also be remembered that what the Chees really wanted to do then is still disallowed even after the rules are changed. In October 2006, they wanted to march from Hong Lim Park to Parliament House. If they try to do it this September, despite the relaxed rules, they will still not be allowed to. That tells you how much the changes amount to.
Another point worth noting: The well-known Bak Chor Mee podcast by blogger Mr Brown, which spoofed the James Gomez affair during the 2006 elections, may still not pass muster under the new rules which bar "completely made-up" material.
The main fight for freedom for political films has been led by Martyn See who played cat and mouse with the government with his video documentaries on Chee Soon Juan and Said Zahari, both of which can still be found on Youtube despite being banned. Seelan Palay and Ho Choon Hiong have lately followed him into the skirmish with their own documentaries.
Podcasters and vodcasters are harder to name. Except for Lee Kin Mun ("Mr Brown") as mentioned above, I think many of the others who put political stuff onto the internet during the last general election (May 2006) did so anonymously, though the government could easily have traced them if they set their minds to it. Anonymous or not, the effect was still the same: a challenge to the government to enforce the highly restrictive laws that they had written.
On all these fronts, the government was faced with an embarrassing gap between what the law said and what was do-able without losing moral force. And that was the whole point of civil disobedience: to create a gap that can only be closed by the government making an accommodation.
These changes that have been announced are that (partial) accommodation. These are the first, albeit tiny, fruits of civil disobedience. We should say it like it is.
© Yawning Bread
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
http://www.yawningbread.org/
Yawning Bread. 26 August 2008
The first fruits of civil disobedience
Things got a little crazy Monday afternoon. I received so many calls from reporters that my cellphone battery was completely flat by 6 pm. This had never happened before.
The reason? The Home Ministry held a press conference in the morning in which they provided details of the new regulations pertaining to demonstrations at Hong Lim Park. Reporter after reporter, from as far away as Australia, wanted a reaction from me.
Singaporeans can demonstrate at Speakers' Corner from Sep 1
Banners, placards and effigies will be allowed at the Speakers' Corner when the site is opened for public demonstrations from September 1.
For Singapore citizens, there is no longer a need to apply for a police permit.
[snip]
Singapore Permanent Residents, though, will require a police permit to organise demonstrations.
But citizens and PRs can participate in assemblies without having to register.
[snip]
And all groups, even those that run counter to the establishment, will be allowed to demonstrate. These include gay rights groups and even the Falungong.
Other changes include self-powered amplification devices like loud hailers, which will be allowed in the area between 9am and 10.30pm. Police said the restriction is to minimise noise pollution in the area.
Activities can also be carried out at any time of the day. Currently, activities are restricted to between 7am and 7pm.
However, basic rules will still remain. Topics cannot touch on issues like race and religion. Content that promotes violence or are lewd in nature will also not be allowed.
-- Channel NewsAsia, 25 August 2008, Link
There was a certain pattern in local reporters' questions, and as the day wore on, the repeated direction of the interviews began to seem too familiar.
I could see that all of them were angling the story in way flattering to the government. The changes were presented as a big step ("Don't you think this is a really significant liberalisation?") and an act of magnanimity from almost out of the blue ("Did you expect them to go this far?")
Other questions suggested it would be churlish of citizens to spurn the government's offering and not quickly plan some demonstrations, as if demonstrations can be whipped up on demand like so many trade shows, divorced from the tidal forces of social and political issues.
One reporter whom I was on the way to meet for an interview tried to be helpful, messaging me in advance so that I could formulate my answers in good time: "Please think of possible assemblies, demos, parades you can organise."
She (and perhaps other reporters too) seemed somewhat taken aback when I refused to laud the changes. They are nowhere near what I consider satisfactory, or in any substantial way respectful of our civil rights, I emphasised. They are as small as a pea. What's the point of taking a magnifying glass to marvel at the icing on a pea?
To all of them, I kept repeating that the freedom to demonstrate is meaningless unless it is applicable to all of Singapore. For more of my views, just read what I wrote in Demonstrations to be allowed in Hong Lim playpen
* * * * *
Risible
I thought this bit "citizens and PRs can participate... without having to register" was risible.
Look, it is a public park. Anybody from your grandmother to a backpacker from Argentina can saunter into the park at any time. If a rally is going on and they end up being mixed up with the crowd, staying on perhaps because they are sympathetic to the issue being addressed, how are you going to tell whether they are participating or not?
What are you going to do? Check the ID cards and passports of everyone on the lawn?
So don't go around boasting about how liberal you're being when in fact there is nothing you can do without being seen as a bully all over again. You might as well boast that free air will be supplied to the protestors.
The two words "civil disobedience" were nowhere to be found in any of the questions. Yet, if a journalist wants to do justice to the news, this aspect should be central to the story.
The government's retreat, not only over demonstrations, but also over the question of political films, podcasting and vodcasting during elections, cannot be understood without acknowledging the recent history of civil disobedience.
The victory belongs to Chee Soon Juan and Chee Siok Chin this coming 1st September when the rules are set to change. They stood their ground for about 5 days and nights when the police tried to bundle them out of Hong Lim Park in October 2006 during the World Bank Summit, generating heaps of bad press for the Singapore government.
Reporters trying to record opposition leader Chee Soon Juan's words while he was surrounded by policemen to prevent him from continuing his march, October 2006.
More police officers ring Chee Siok Chin at Hong Lim Park, October 2006.
Sterilised protests
We should not forget too the face-off between the government and foreign NGOs who wanted to hold demonstrations in conjunction with the World Bank/IMF summit October 2006. At first, our government absolutely refused to even let the civil society activists enter Singapore.
In doing so, it underestimated the media reach of these groups, who had the means to create a lot of bad publicity just when the government was trying to use the summit to raise its international profile.
Eventually, after intercession by the then-World Bank president, Paul Wolfowitz, the government relented slightly, allowing a few demonstrations in a tightly demarcated part of an indoor hall of the Suntec Convention Centre, an area no bigger than a basketball court. It has to be indoor, the government said, because it is against the law here to hold outdoor demonstrations.
The utter absurdity of such an arrangement inside a sterile airconditioned hall isolated from delegates and the public showed the world the stark reality of political control in this city-state. See the BBC story on this, for example.
And yet the government had been careless with the truth. It is NOT illegal to have outdoor demonstrations in Singapore. You only need a police permit. The question therefore is not a question of law, but one of why the police routinely refuse to issue permits?
I am convinced that the so-called "liberalisation" was simply to give the government a bit more manoeuvering room the next time something similar happens. Why am I sure? Just consider this: Did anybody ask for the right to demonstrate at Hong Lim Park? If there was no outstanding request, then who was the government trying to please by making this move?
It should also be remembered that what the Chees really wanted to do then is still disallowed even after the rules are changed. In October 2006, they wanted to march from Hong Lim Park to Parliament House. If they try to do it this September, despite the relaxed rules, they will still not be allowed to. That tells you how much the changes amount to.
Another point worth noting: The well-known Bak Chor Mee podcast by blogger Mr Brown, which spoofed the James Gomez affair during the 2006 elections, may still not pass muster under the new rules which bar "completely made-up" material.
The main fight for freedom for political films has been led by Martyn See who played cat and mouse with the government with his video documentaries on Chee Soon Juan and Said Zahari, both of which can still be found on Youtube despite being banned. Seelan Palay and Ho Choon Hiong have lately followed him into the skirmish with their own documentaries.
Podcasters and vodcasters are harder to name. Except for Lee Kin Mun ("Mr Brown") as mentioned above, I think many of the others who put political stuff onto the internet during the last general election (May 2006) did so anonymously, though the government could easily have traced them if they set their minds to it. Anonymous or not, the effect was still the same: a challenge to the government to enforce the highly restrictive laws that they had written.
On all these fronts, the government was faced with an embarrassing gap between what the law said and what was do-able without losing moral force. And that was the whole point of civil disobedience: to create a gap that can only be closed by the government making an accommodation.
These changes that have been announced are that (partial) accommodation. These are the first, albeit tiny, fruits of civil disobedience. We should say it like it is.
© Yawning Bread
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
