Hongkongers Got Balls

[Clone]

After 2047...the law will be exactly as dictated by the Beijing Gahmen,,,this basic law is only temporary,,,,

Will the CCP still be in power in 2047? The Soviet regime in Russia lasted about 70 years.

 

[tonychat]

Grave difference is ISA

Abolishing ISA is the utmost important task. Till then protest and strike is playing into the open arms of ISD.

That's what it's there for.

It is not about ISA or whatever shit A, it is about sinkie ball-lessness.

 

[Froggy]

Last night the whole of Nathan Road in Tsim Sa Tsiu was closed for count down saw a makeshift booth setup to protest the government

they were distributing this

 

[skponggol]

......

The HK young girls are merely following the great examples set by their First World Opposition in LegCo who have the balls to demand the resignation of their governmet:


HK’s First World Opposition, People’s Power, to Wong Kan Seng: “你知唔知醜，何時下台…..FCUK OFF !!!”
[video=youtube;UPUjEODyzr4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPUjEODyzr4[/video]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPUjEODyzr4


Compared that to our self-styled “First World Opposition”:

Low Thia Khiang chickens out and has no balls to demand Wong Kan Seng to FCUK OFF….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9R-Fwylg0tU


Naturally, the young children in HK are more gutsy and outspoken than Singapore’s children who are brainwashed by Vichy WP’s timid and obedient submission inside their “First World Parliament”.

.....

 

[greedy and cunning]

you are right. Beijing allow Hongkies to wayang in their little island. Hongkies with real balls should protest against their leaders at Zhongnanhai.

Why don't these Hongkies with balls take a bus or flight and demonstrate at Beijing where the real decisions are made?

firstly why should hongkies protest at beijing , you stupid cock sucker ?

in hk the government and the citizens understand what is basis human rights.
the government don't pass law to make protest illegal.
the honkies don't need to be brave to exercise the right.

in hk ,do you see cock sucker like you two voicing support in anything that the gov implemented ?

if you are brave why not go to hk and do what you doing here , on the street of course.
retaliate those protestors in front of them.

 

[Sideswipe]

firstly why should hongkies protest at beijing , you stupid cock sucker ?

in hk the government and the citizens understand what is basis human rights.
the government don't pass law to make protest illegal.
the honkies don't need to be brave to exercise the right.

in hk ,do you see cock sucker like you two voicing support in anything that the gov implemented ?

if you are brave why not go to hk and do what you doing here , on the street of course.
retaliate those protestors in front of them.

the hongkies of course should protest at Beijing. i.e. Beijing designed HK unfair complex electoral system.

the HK protests were organized by opposition parties and vested interest groups. if you want some one to blame for no protests in Singapore. blame it on the largest opposition party in our parliament: the WP who should really lead the 40% to protest against the PAP unfair policies. even if protest is legal in singapore. ordinary peasants like me would not protest on our own. i'm a follower, not a leader. if WP start a protest, if i like the cause, i will join the protest. period.



the HK opposition parties and vested interest groups with real balls should take their followers to protest against the Beijing leaders at Zhongnanhai. that's where whatever Hongkong problematic issues can be truly solved by the leaders with real powers to change things.

 

[skponggol]

......

Hongkongers have balls becos their First World Opposition has balls, as compared to our ball-less Vichy WP non-resistance.

The current HK protest was started thanks to the relentless pursuit of HK First World Opposition to slap their undemocratic government inside the LegCo as compared to Vichy WP's endless silence and perpetual obedience in their "First World Parliament".


梁振英辩解僭建惹众怒 泛民促下台(梁振英下台)
[video=youtube;SxSZvWq60aU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxSZvWq60aU[/video]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxSZvWq60aU


If the HK Opposition as as ball-less as Vichy WP and refuse to slap their Chief Executive in the LegCo, HK people would not be inspired to stand up and protest.
.....

 

[eErotica69]

It is not about ISA or whatever shit A, it is about sinkie ball-lessness.

Then what are you waiting for Songkran? Go protest outside Istana if you have the balls!

 

[Vigilante]

Hongkongers are not brought up in police state singapore....

 

[Rumpole]

Dude you left out the subsections (2) and (3) of Article 14 and a few other Acts.

http://singaporerebel.blogspot.sg/2009/11/3-tiers-of-censorship-in-singapore.html

That’s true. Glad to know that citizens finally realise that the Constitution is more than just a piece of paper.

For example, Article 14(2) (b) states:

“Parliament may by law impose on the right conferred by clause (1)(b) [the right to assemble peaceably and without arms], such restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof or public order.”

My point is that exceptions should not be allowed to swallow the rule. For example, one should not make a commandment that “thou shall not steal” and yet at the same time say that “thou can, however, steal in the following situations – (a) to (zzz)” and there is no justification why (a) to (zzz) should be exceptions. Then, the real effect becomes “thou can steal if you are smart enough to cook up a believable reason”.

In the context of the right to assemble peaceably, any restriction imposed by Parliament must be reasonable and not stifle the right that was granted by the Constitution. Otherwise, it becomes like the PAP give you $800 “Prosperity Bonus” seven days before election and after the election makes tax, price and other changes to extract additional $8,000 from you annually for eternity. The layman term for this sort of behaviour is ...... HYPOCRISY.

 

[Clone]

Yes but who have the power to amend the Constitution if it's deemed unjust?

That’s true. Glad to know that citizens finally realise that the Constitution is more than just a piece of paper.

For example, Article 14(2) (b) states:

“Parliament may by law impose on the right conferred by clause (1)(b) [the right to assemble peaceably and without arms], such restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof or public order.”

My point is that exceptions should not be allowed to swallow the rule. For example, one should not make a commandment that “thou shall not steal” and yet at the same time say that “thou can, however, steal in the following situations – (a) to (zzz)” and there is no justification why (a) to (zzz) should be exceptions. Then, the real effect becomes “thou can steal if you are smart enough to cook up a believable reason”.

In the context of the right to assemble peaceably, any restriction imposed by Parliament must be reasonable and not stifle the right that was granted by the Constitution. Otherwise, it becomes like the PAP give you $800 “Prosperity Bonus” seven days before election and after the election makes tax, price and other changes to extract additional $8,000 from you annually for eternity. The layman term for this sort of behaviour is ...... HYPOCRISY.

 

[Rumpole]

Yes but who have the power to amend the Constitution if it's deemed unjust?

Amendments to the Constitution can be made if a super majority of two-thirds of all elected MPs vote in favour.

However, restrictions on freedom of assembly imposed through ordinary statute enacted by previous Parliaments on the ground of being "necessary and expedient" for public security, bla, bla, bla as per Article 14 (2)(b) of the Constitution, can be amended or even totally abolished by a simple majority.

The law that four or even one person can constitute an "illegal assembly" is in an ordinary statute. If in 2016, a coalition government of SDP, WP, etc decides to abolish this law, all it needs is to get the support of a simple majority of elected MPs. However, Article 14 (2)(b) is still there. So, it means that if in 2021, a PAP government replaces the coalition, it can re-enact those stupid illegal assembly laws again and make us the laughing stock of the world once more.

Best case scenario is a coalition government in 2016 that can muster the required two-thirds majority to simultaneously abolish the illegal assembly laws and remove or amend Article 14 (2)(b). Of course, that is easier said than done, with so much fixing going on by you know who.

 

[Einfield]

HK gals got more balls the SG Guys?
But some of our guys are also very trendsetting, they carry girlfriends hand bag.

 

[kongsimi]

Do agree that these laws are mad. I cant imagine how generations after generations can vote in PAP despite these laws that are designed by PAP to kill civil activism.

And lhl has the cheek to comment that Singaporeans lacked exuberence?

 

[Clone]

Thanks sir for your reply. What to do Sinkies got no balls to go to the streets, constitutional or not.

And what you described as BCS is also the unlikely scenario.

Amendments to the Constitution can be made if a super majority of two-thirds of all elected MPs vote in favour.

However, restrictions on freedom of assembly imposed through ordinary statute enacted by previous Parliaments on the ground of being "necessary and expedient" for public security, bla, bla, bla as per Article 14 (2)(b) of the Constitution, can be amended or even totally abolished by a simple majority.

The law that four or even one person can constitute an "illegal assembly" is in an ordinary statute. If in 2016, a coalition government of SDP, WP, etc decides to abolish this law, all it needs is to get the support of a simple majority of elected MPs. However, Article 14 (2)(b) is still there. So, it means that if in 2021, a PAP government replaces the coalition, it can re-enact those stupid illegal assembly laws again and make us the laughing stock of the world once more.

Best case scenario is a coalition government in 2016 that can muster the required two-thirds majority to simultaneously abolish the illegal assembly laws and remove or amend Article 14 (2)(b). Of course, that is easier said than done, with so much fixing going on by you know who.