Gopalan Nair get 3 months for insult Judge as prostituting
-
Gopalan Nair was sentenced to 3 months for insulting
Judge Belinda Ang on his blog which he sent in Singapore.
Though he will report to court on this Sat to serve the sentence,
he was reported to appeal.
His High level supports in US State Dept and American
Embassy in SG seem got missing.
If u think SG court is not fair,i invite u insult a Judge in US
and see what u will get.
'the judge Belinda Ang was throughout prostituting herself during the entire proceedings, by being nothing more than an employee of Mr Lee Kuan Yew and his son and carrying out their orders.'
http://www.agc.gov.sg/
u will get DPP submission here.
http://www.singaporedissident.blogspot.com/
http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_279568.html
http://www.yoursdp.org/index.php/news/singapore/1083-gopalan-nair-sentenced-to-three-months-prison
My point is he asks for it!!
SG is not just hanging people from small country,
we also deal with citizen from big country,
Without fear or favour!!
-
While many Americans have been focused lately on online censorship in China, few have noticed a similar practice in other countries such as Singapore. That island state is a parliamentary republic in theory, but has really been run by one dominant party in its history of independence since 1965 (see a Singapore historical timeline here).
The mainstream media is strictly controlled by the government, and one political party — the People’s Action Party (PAP) — has had complete control of all centers of government. The country infamously practices caning of citizens who break certain laws, and executes drug smugglers. (Amnesty International reports Singapore has the highest execution rate per capita in the world.) And recently, its Minister of Communication and Arts, Balaji Sadasiva, announced that blogs and podcasts would be shut down if they ran overt political content in the runup to the May 6 election.
Immediately, the move was denounced by the free expression rights group Reporters Without Borders. “Once again the Singapore authorities are showing their determination to prevent the holding of a genuinely democratic debate on the Internet,” the group said in a statement. And the Internet crackdown was aimed squarely at two new media platforms — blogs and podcasts — that have been embraced by opposition parties such as the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) to get around censorship in other media.
The Singaporean government has won over residents with a powerful economic engine that rivals Western European powers. And in recent years Singapore has relaxed its ban on chewing gum — in order to win a free trade agreement with the U.S — and it has allowed the showing of the movie “Brokeback Mountain” despite laws against homosexuality. So just how serious is this new regulation, and will political speech by bloggers and podcasters be chilled now that elections have been set for May 6?
One Singaporean blogger, Soci, who writes for the very political group blog, Singabloodypore, was defiant in a comment on a related story
on ZDNet:This blog — Singabloodypore — is not registered with the Singaporean government, has never been asked to register, and if invited to register would NOT register. I Soci also intend to post material of an “explicitly political nature” during the elections and will gladly show videocasting and podcasting of election rallies, speeches etc. of opposition candidates.
And indeed they have been showcasing just that on the group blog. But in many cases, these bloggers and the dozens of others that write about Singapore are anonymous or operate from outside the country. Chris Myrick, who pens the Asia Pundit blog, lived in Singapore until February 2005. He was unsure how much the new regulation would chill speech online.
“Most Singapore bloggers stay pretty much within limits - there are only a small handful of political blogs and even those will stay away from certain issues (nepotism) or the authors will remain anonymous,” Myrick told me via email. “I have no doubt that the Singapore government would prosecute an individual for breaking the ban. It tends to be the methodology of the state to make an example of people (i.e., the three bloggers who were last year sentenced for sedition).”
Government explains the crackdown
I queried Singapore’s Ministry of Communication and the Arts (MICA) to get more insight into the new rules for blogs and podcasts and they directed me to a detailed Q&A between government minister Lee Boon Yang and the Straits Times. Here’s one telling exchange:
Q. Why is streaming of explicit political content through podcasts or videocasts not allowed but posting of party manifestos and texts of rally speeches allowed for political parties? What is the worry?
Podcasts and videocasts…have a greater impact because of the nature of the medium. They have the greater power to influence. Hence, we do not allow podcasts and videocasts for election advertising, just as we do not allow party political films and videos. The Internet has its own unique characteristics which require special attention. The Internet is ubiquitous, fast and anonymous. Once a false story or rumour is started on the Internet, it is almost impossible to put it right. Despite its usefulness, the Internet is chaotic and disorganised, with many half-truths and untruths masquerading as facts…
To help bring some order to this chaotic environment, we have made it a requirement for political parties and individuals who use websites to propagate or promote political issues to register with the Media Development Authority (MDA). This promotes accountability and also ensures personal responsibility for comments made on the Internet.
Soci at Singabloodypore was quick to read between the lines of this Q&A, analyzing the underlying meaning of each passage. Soci’s take on the comment above from the minister: “The Internet is a threat to our domination of the national mind set.”
While the minister makes a strong case about the way misinformation spreads online, there are more transparent ways of countering that than blocking off speech completely. For instance, the government could make its own case online, or try to open up a debate with oppositional views.
Alex Au (pictured here), who blogs about gay rights in Singapore at Yawning Bread, told me that freedom of speech in Singapore exists to a certain point.
“The freedom available to Singaporeans is quite wide,” Au told me via email. “However, there is a climate of fear that the government can clamp down anytime. There have actually been very few instances of arbitrary clamping down, but the fear persists, and thus a lot of people in Singapore, including bloggers, self-censor to some extent. With the passage of time, there is increasing confidence that freedom of speech on the Internet is pretty wide. The more years that pass without incident, the more confidence people gain.”
Au says that in the sedition cases last year, the language used online by the three people who were prosecuted was “extremely gross, full of expletives and deliberately provocative,” rather than an intelligent discussion. So Au feels that the government was drawing the line between measured discussion of issues and inflammatory speech.
In the recent crackdown of blogs and podcasts, Au thinks the government’s ban is very narrow in covering blogs that “persistently promote a political line” — leaving broad political discussions alone. I asked him if he thought the government might act against bloggers in the next couple weeks.
“No I don’t,” he said. “I think the government may want to create the impression that they will clamp down, in order to get people to tremble in their socks and self-censor anything critical that they may have to say about the government. But the government probably knows that the Internet is not (yet) a mass medium that can move large numbers of voters, so to really take action would be overkill. In any case, the junior minister did say in Parliament that politics can be discussed, just that unless one is identified as a political party, one shouldn’t go around promoting any particular party or candidate.”
As Singapore is a trade partner to the West, how the Western media portrays the Singaporean government is important to them. So that means that bloggers and journalists who bring attention to the recent crackdown could help the PAP reconsider taking action.
“Bringing the world’s attention to authoritarian instincts of this government, making them a little of a pariah on account of their policies, embarrasses them greatly,” Au said.
If you want to read more about the upcoming Singaporean elections, you’ll want to check out these sites:
-
WHEN the death knell sounded on a 10-year-old law that imposes a total ban on political films two weeks ago, film-maker Martyn See cheered.
The move marked the biggest effort in 20 years by the Government to loosen its hold on political expression here, declared the 39-year-old.
As a mischievous tribute, he pulled together 100 films on local politics, compiling them on his blog a week after Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said in his Aug 17 National Day Rally speech that an outright ban on political films was no longer sensible.
The 100 short clips - 'films' is too formal a term to describe them - are the work of assorted groups and individuals, most with a decidedly anti-establishment stance.
They include two by Mr See which did not make the censor's cut. One is on Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) chief Chee Soon Juan and the other on former political detainee Said Zahari.
He plans to re-submit them to the Board of Film Censors once the ban on political films is formally eased - likely early next year - just to test the new system.
He wants to do so because the prospective change comes with caveats: Films which are partisan or give a distorted and slanted impression will still be off-limits.
His own view is that there should be no caveats. 'If it is not sheer stupidity to continue enforcing bans on these films when they can be viewed at a click of a mouse, I don't know what is,' he wrote on his blog.
How did he come to be such a fighter against Section 33 of the Films Act, which bans party political films?
Political awakening
ATTRIBUTE it to a second political awakening that came in the wake of the 2001 general election.
He had had a first awakening back in the mid-1990s, when a photocopy of a banned book came his way.
The book was To Catch A Tartar, written by former solicitor-general Francis Seow, describing his detention under the Internal Security Act in the late 1980s.
'My eyes were opened to the darker side of the PAP's history,' he says.
'I read it from cover to cover. I felt...frightened, depressed and angry at the same time.'
His hitherto placid political outlook changed then, but it was only later - after the November 2001 election - that he was really roused into action.
What caught his attention was Dr Chee Soon Juan heckling then prime minister Goh Chok Tong about an alleged loan to former Indonesian president Suharto.
'Chee Soon Juan got hammered very badly. I wondered, is this guy as bad as the media made him out to be? So I decided to check him out myself,' he says.
A few months later, in 2002, he asked to meet Dr Chee.
For the next two years, he 'interviewed' the SDP leader regularly, visited him at his home and his office, and observed him when he staged public protests - filming all the while.
He had reams of footage but no film, until Mr Lee Hsien Loong was sworn in as Prime Minister in 2004.
Mr Lee's inauguration speech, promising the opening up of civil society, inspired him to compile his shots into a 28-minute film which he titled Singapore Rebel.
He submitted it for screening at a film festival. But the film never made it past the censors.
It was deemed 'party political', and banned under Section 33 of the Films Act.
He was questioned four times over 15 months by the police and even had his video camera seized.
'They dropped the investigation a couple of months after the 2006 general election. I guess they wanted to watch if I would participate in the election,' he says.
He never did. But he continued to produce politically incorrect films.
Singapore Rebel
MR SEE titled his directorial debut Singapore Rebel. Although about Dr Chee, it sums up Mr See himself - someone bent on capturing alternative politics on celluloid.
He began his film-making career nearly 20 years ago, right after national service, learning the ropes of video editing in production houses. Along the way, he became a freelance video editor, working for renowned local directors such as Mr Eric Khoo and Mr Jack Neo.
He spends 90 per cent of his time doing such work to 'pay the bills', but the remaining 10 per cent is now consumed by his passion - making films on local political issues.
While being questioned by the police over Singapore Rebel, he produced another film, on former political detainee Said Zahari. This was also banned.
His latest, on Dr Chee and the protests he staged during the IMF-World Bank meetings in 2006, however made the cut. Speakers' Cornered was given an NC-16 rating and screened at the Substation on July 26 this year.
Despite the overwhelmingly pro-opposition - especially pro-SDP - angles in his films, he insists he is not an opposition supporter or sympathiser.
He says: 'I fill a vacuum created by the media when they don't cover opposition politicians or political dissidents. I consider myself a citizen journalist, not a Michael Moore type of film-maker.'
Asked why he bothers to submit his films for classification when he can upload them on YouTube, he deadpans that the law requires it.
The more compelling reason is that he wants to push the envelope in the area of political expression.
'Who better to do that than me,' he says, 'since I'm already over the OB markers. I want more film-makers who want to document the political scenes to emerge.'
In this, he has found a following of sorts.
Mr Ho Choon Hiong, 33, first heard about Mr See when Singapore Rebel was banned three years ago.
He was among a group of 12 film-makers who wrote to the Government then, asking for greater clarity as to what constituted a party political film.
The incident led to him meeting Mr See.
Their subsequent exchanges emboldened him to capture on celluloid assorted scenes of political activism in Singapore.
Unlike Mr See, he was introduced to politics early by his father, who used to be a student activist at Chinese High School in the 1960s.
Like Mr See, however, his political interest was stoked by the 2001 polls and Dr Chee.
After meeting Mr See, he produced a plethora of very short films, on topics ranging from the 2006 election to protests by Myanmar nationals in Singapore. He sent six to the film censors for classification in May.
'I have to take a few steps and hope to be undeterred more and more,' says the film studies graduate from Ngee Ann Polytechnic.
'I want to put my own perception of truth out.'
So far, his 'films' have been ignored by the authorities.
A prolific activist
NOT so for Mr Seelan Palay, 24, another amateur film-maker.
He had his film, One Nation Under Lee, seized by officials from the Board of Film Censors as it was being screened in a hotel recently.
The reason: It had not been passed by the censors.
His first effort - detractors panned it as a slide show rather than a film - it portrayed Singapore as lacking in press and political freedom, and tightly controlled by Mr Lee Kuan Yew.
Point out that One Nation Under Lee is decidedly one-sided - it takes potshots at the Government while hailing Dr Chee as a hero - and he insists he has no political agenda.
He isn't politicised by anyone either, he insists.
'I learnt everything from reading, out of personal interest,' says the activist.
CITIZEN JOURNALIST
'I fill a vacuum created by the media when they don't cover opposition politicians or political dissidents. I consider myself a citizen journalist, not a Michael Moore type of film-maker.'
-- Film-maker Martyn See
He has been involved at various times with the Vegetarian Society, the Animal Concerns Research & Education Society, and the now defunct SG Human Rights Group.
Earlier this year he attended rallies by Hindu protesters in Kuala Lumpur, and upon his return to Singapore, decided to mount a one-man protest fast outside the Malaysian High Commission.
He also takes part in protest actions organised by the SDP occasionally.
He is not a troublemaker, he insists. He is just doing what he believes in.
Nothing to fear
WHAT keeps the trio going?
'Our conscience pricks us,' says Mr Ho. He sees it as his duty to document what he believes gets sidelined by the mainstream media.
The trio use the same counter when you point out that their version of 'truth' sometimes takes an extreme slant. Others have noted that it was the publicity over the banning of some of their films, rather than the quality of the films themselves, that made the public more keen to view them.
But they are not perturbed.
For Mr See, his mission is simple.
'I live by the Singapore Pledge. I live by the Constitution that guarantees freedom of expression, association and assembly,' he says.
And he aims to guard these freedoms by showing that there is nothing to fear.
The other two, less articulate about their aims, appear to go with the flow as acolytes of Mr See, enjoying the thrill of defiance every once in a while.
They are all drawn to Dr Chee, whom they see as championing freedom of expression and provoking the Government with his illegal public protests.
Still, they say, they have no intention of joining the SDP or any political party. Ironically, they fear being hemmed in by party discipline.
Mr Palay, for instance, will tell you that he supports the SDP's cause but has no wish to sign on as a member.
Have they made an impact on the political scene? They believe so, pointing to more local film-makers who remain anonymous but, like them, upload political-type films on YouTube.
They also claim some credit for the Government's decision to consider lifting the ban on political films.
It was, they say, the banning of Mr See's Singapore Rebel that sparked a debate on the relevance of the Films Act.
Future films
FOR now, the three men have film ideas that they hope will see the light of day.
Mr Palay wants to do a film on the unspoken rule limiting use of dialects in films.
Mr Ho is aiming to do documentaries on two women: Dr Chee's wife, and his own long-lost Malaysian nanny whom he is still trying to locate.
As for Mr See, he has two targets too. One is the reclusive former political detainee Chia Thye Poh. The other is Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew.
In the latter film, he wants to trace the People's Action Party's formation and rise to the pinnacle of power in Singapore.
Why do a film on the PAP when its story has been told so many times before? 'It is a compelling story,' he says.
So are they really rebels with a cause?
Says Mr See: 'There's definitely a purpose to what we're doing. I see it as lessening the climate of fear here.
'I want more film-makers like me to emerge, wanting to document the political scenes in Singapore.' -
asspots.... big time asspots... that old dying asspot should be jailed for life for insulting Dr Chee and worse if that is the case...
-
...one thing I find laugable though is that this judge does not say that calling that Belinda a prostitute is untrue...
-
He really do insults the judge and there is really nothing wrong for her to sue him. She is employed by the states and waste time on tis troublemaker, she do a professional job about it and she got to be called a prostitute ? It is a clear cut case. Lets be objective. He goes around and insult people and can remain scotfree ? So we should allow such things to happen just because he is an opposition ? Opposition member can break all the rule they want ya ? Tis is not about LKY or other politician here.
Lets put it tis way. Singapore may not be better off as a liberal democracy yet. We do not have to followed exactly the same way as wat other nations r doing.
-
What if your wife,sisiters,mom,girl freinds called
prostituting to some one?
-
What if your wife,sisiters,mom,girl freinds called
prostituting to some one?
-
not happy with soccer results say refree kayu...
not happy with lawsuit result say judge prostitute...
think you soccer hooligan ah?
if the case he not happpy about is like 50-50, than never mind. but the case was clear cut, still say judge did not do fair job, than he better go to jail and get ass rape bah.....
-
Thursday, September 18, 2008
http://uncleyap-news.blogspot.com/
app.subcourts.gov.sg/subcourts/get_blob.aspx?file_id=3e8_2004Jun25_SingaporeJudiciaryStaysAtTop.pdf
jjjj
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
He really do insults the judge and there is really nothing wrong for her to sue him. She is employed by the states and waste time on tis troublemaker, she do a professional job about it and she got to be called a prostitute ? It is a clear cut case. Lets be objective. He goes around and insult people and can remain scotfree ? So we should allow such things to happen just because he is an opposition ? Opposition member can break all the rule they want ya ? Tis is not about LKY or other politician here.
Lets put it tis way. Singapore may not be better off as a liberal democracy yet. We do not have to followed exactly the same way as wat other nations r doing.
...what you said is exceptable if they charge LKY for calling Dr Chee a psychopath....
"...build a democratic society ... justice..."
-
that old dying asspot thinks he is some sort of GOD and yet he is staring at his wife on life support but he does not get it...
-
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
...what you said is exceptable if they charge LKY for calling Dr Chee a psychopath....
"...build a democratic society ... justice..."
than go sue him lo.
-
...what you said is exceptable if they charge LKY for calling Dr Chee a psychopath....
"...build a democratic society ... justice..."
Does the judge say Nair is an asshole ? Does the judge comment Nair is a psychopath ? The judge is completely innocent here. Does she deserved to be called a prostitute ?
If u bring your hatred for LKY to includes public servants, then u have become extremist
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Does the judge say Nair is an asshole ? Does the judge comment Nair is a psychopath ? The judge is completely innocent here. Does she deserved to be called a prostitute ?
If u bring your hatred for LKY to includes public servants, then u have become extremist
"...build a democratic society... justice.... EQUALITY"
Not asspot gets treated "UNQUALLY"
This is what you call politically motivated charges where one person gets charged but not another...
-
"...build a democratic society... justice.... EQUALITY"
Not asspot gets treated "UNQUALLY"
This is what you call politically motivated charges where one person gets charged but not another...
LKY sue chee soon juan. If Chee want, he can sue him back. Tis case has nothing to do with chee or LKY or any politician.
It is a guy who insults the judge for no good reason. Now should he be punished or not ? If we don't, then u r encouraging all the people to insult judges and make the courtroom become a real joke.
-
I don't understand why those rebels are always harping on the fact that they are doing all those things for the people, for the country, for democracy.
Does the people like their social peace to be disturbed by these rebels?
Does the country benefits from the lawsuits, political films, anti-government sentiments created by these rebels?
Does the rebels respect democracy when they are stirring up trouble within the country as a minority faction?
Clearly this only further exposes the rebels' self-gratifying ambitions. They were never for the country, people and democracy.
They have just upgraded their childhood tantrum into an adult tantrum.
If any overseas reporters would like to report this new discovery of Adult Tantrum, they can always revert to those rebels in Singapore.
-
gopalan nair has lost the case but has not lost the argument. he was convicted of "insulting" but not "defaming", which means what he said may be true, but unfortunately constituted an insult to the Judge. -
How come not charge Gopalan Nair for calling the supreme court a kangaroo court?
Because it is a kangaroo court
-
Originally posted by jabxvc: gopalan nair has lost the case but has not
lost the argument. he was convicted of "insulting" but not
"defaming", which means what he said may be true, but unfortunately
constituted an insult to the Judge.
I don't know he might have the last laugh when he goes back to the US and make Singapore pay for incarcerating him under such terms...
-
What is three months of jail time if he gets a couple of millions either directly or through his immigration lawyer business and having the honor of standing up to acknowledged dishonorable public money grabbing asspots.
-
Does the people like their social peace to be disturbed by these rebels?
Is our social peace come from a real peace or is it a manufactured one?
If it is a manufactured one then we ought to be woken from our slumber.
Does the country benefits from the lawsuits, political films, anti-government sentiments created by these rebels?
Who are the ones dishing out the lawsuits?
Are political films bad for the nation? The fact that our own govenment lifted the ban on it seems to indicate your opinion of it is quite different from theirs.
Anti-government sentiment? Is it created by them or are they simply ressonating with a sentiment that already exists?
Does the rebels respect democracy when they are stirring up trouble within the country as a minority faction?
Why are they rebels?
Last I checked they haven't violated any tenets of our pledge and are in fact awarded these rights by our pledge.
Can't speak for foreign elements, but from what I know in other established democracies a true patroit is not a person who stands up for his government, but for his NATION.
Are they really a minority? Note that the "majority" only has a 66.6 percent mandate. 33.4 percent is a significant amount of the population.
-
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
Is our social peace come from a real peace or is it a manufactured one?
If it is a manufactured one then we ought to be woken from our slumber.
Who are the ones dishing out the lawsuits?
Are political films bad for the nation? The fact that our own govenment lifted the ban on it seems to indicate your opinion of it is quite different from theirs.
Anti-government sentiment? Is it created by them or are they simply ressonating with a sentiment that already exists?
Why are they rebels?
Last I checked they haven't violated any tenets of our pledge and are in fact awarded these rights by our pledge.
Can't speak for foreign elements, but from what I know in other established democracies a true patroit is not a person who stands up for his government, but for his NATION.
Are they really a minority? Note that the "majority" only has a 66.6 percent mandate. 33.4 percent is a significant amount of the population.
*clap clap clap*
Like I said, there are many traitors among us... supporting despots instead of the motherland for a few dollars more...
I don't know I don't support despots, is it more than a few dollars?
-
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
Is our social peace come from a real peace or is it a manufactured one?
If it is a manufactured one then we ought to be woken from our slumber.
Who are the ones dishing out the lawsuits?
Are political films bad for the nation? The fact that our own govenment lifted the ban on it seems to indicate your opinion of it is quite different from theirs.
Anti-government sentiment? Is it created by them or are they simply ressonating with a sentiment that already exists?
Why are they rebels?
Last I checked they haven't violated any tenets of our pledge and are in fact awarded these rights by our pledge.
Can't speak for foreign elements, but from what I know in other established democracies a true patroit is not a person who stands up for his government, but for his NATION.
Are they really a minority? Note that the "majority" only has a 66.6 percent mandate. 33.4 percent is a significant amount of the population.
Social peace is always manufactured/created. There can be no real social peace that isn't manufactured/created. As long as people are living in a country governed by a government, the social peace that they enjoys will always be a manufactured/created. People who desires real social peace can always buy themselves an island and live there alone with their loved ones, and that's real social peace. And who are you to decide for the people if they should be denied this manufactured/created social peace created by the government. This behaviour is no different from a Dictator.
Political films are FILMS, they are subjective materials which are often abused for propaganda usage. A real political film should be NEUTRAL, and should portrayed both achievements and failures. I have yet to see a real political film which adopts a neutral stance. And political films are bad if they were being used as a sword to slash the social peace which were enjoyed by the people but also manufactured/created by the government. You also need to understand that even ban have been lifted on political films, they still need are still subjected to censors under censorship laws.
These people are considered Rebels because they have disregards the power of choice in the people. People have chosen to preserve and treasure peace through their votes. These Rebels claimed to support Democracy but their actions spite on Democracy chosen by the people. People like you may think that you are just being assertive and doing for the good of the people. But ask yourself which age group were you being assertive for? Which age group of the people would benefits from the results of your assertiveness? The elderly? The children? The young families? OR Single people like yourself?
Anti-government sentiments has always been resonating majority from the young adults group. Some elderly and young families may shared anti-government sentiments too, but that is nothing more than just complaints about their own situations in their lives. People hate to admit their fault when they are in any situations. To those people, I would've told them "YOU SHOULD KNOW BETTER!". People demanded the government to babysit them, but yet they are unwilling to reward their babysitters when they are doing well. It's easy to start a fight but who can say it is easier to go up to someone close to you and give them a well-deserved HUG?
For people who are brave enough to chu "The Pledge" should also understands the meaning of having one and the reason we have a Singapore Pledge. Is the ultimate aim of the pledge not to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation? How are those actions/behaviours of the Rebels going to achieve BETTER happiness, prosperity and progress for the nation?
A True Patriot is one who abides the Nation's Pledge and PROTECTS the Nation based on the Pledge. The true patriot does not owns the Nation, but the true patriot protects and serves for the best interests of the Nation.
Let us know how you got your 33.4% and 66.6%, they looked too rounded to be accurate.
These Rebels should gather together and liberate North Korea for the sake of their own Democracies. And China was right to use military force on those Student Rebels in Tiananmen Square Protest. Look at the social peace enjoyed by the Chinese in China right now.
I suggest Singapore should do the same to filter out those rebels for the sake of the future of Singapore.
-
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
*clap clap clap*
Like I said, there are many traitors among us... supporting despots instead of the motherland for a few dollars more...
I don't know I don't support despots, is it more than a few dollars?
Clap what? Clap Ki Lan is it?Act Ba Chi.....