3 ms·

I am saying 'you cannot protest without applying for a permission'. And I am not talking about gathering of hundreds of people, even 3-4 people cannot protest u

I am saying 'you cannot protest without applying for a permission'. And I am not talking about gathering of hundreds of people, even 3-4 people cannot protest unless they have been permitted by the government. You said that 'most of what I have written is false'. Let me ask you - which court cases have been won by Newspapers and opposition parties against the government. Straits times reported back in 1990s that Prime minister Goh may be taking directions from then ex-prime minister Lee Kuan Yew and they were sued and had to pay hefty sum of money, even though even the hardcore PAP loyalists will agree that he may indeed be taking directions from LKY. But, Straits times could not gather sufficient evidence to support the claim and had to suffer (and since then it hardly publishes anything that criticises the government.)

crdoconnor 13y ago
>I am saying 'you cannot protest without applying for a permission'. Only somewhat true: In Singapore, Speakers' Corner is an area located within Hong Lim Park where people can demonstrate, hold exhibitions and performances, and speak freely on most topics. It was launched on 1 September 2000 as a "free speech area" where speaking events could be held without the need to apply for a licence under the Public Entertainments Act (Cap. 257, 1985 Rev. Ed.), now the Public Entertainments and Meetings Act (Cap. 257, 2001 Rev. Ed.) ("PEMA"). However, it was necessary for people to register their intention to speak at the venue with a police officer at the Kreta Ayer Neighbourhood Police Post any time within 30 days before the event, though there was no requirement for the police to be informed of the topic of the proposed speech. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speakers%27_Corner,_Singapore http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speakers%27_Corner,_Singapore Now contrast this with the orwellian "free speech zones" that were set up around the time of the Republican convention. Or the violent beatings protestors in Zuccotti park got. I think the difference between the kinds of protest possible in the US and Singapore are largely academic. There are onerous restrictions on both. >Let me ask you - which court cases have been won by Newspapers and opposition parties against the government. Straits times reported back in 1990s that Prime minister Goh may be taking directions from then ex-prime minister Lee Kuan Yew and they were sued and had to pay hefty sum of money, even though even the hardcore PAP loyalists will agree that he may indeed be taking directions from LKY. But, Straits times could not gather sufficient evidence to support the claim and had to suffer (and since then it hardly publishes anything that criticises the government.) If the same lawsuit was launched in the UK (which has similarly onerous libel laws which Singapore's derive from), it would likely have been successful too.
- rohshall 13y ago
  The civil rights in Singapore and US/UK are not even close: US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_of_the_United_States_Constitution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_of_the_United_S... UK: https://www.gov.uk/protests-and-marches-letting-the-police-know https://www.gov.uk/protests-and-marches-letting-the-police-k... (This is only when you are going to have a protest march and not when you are just going to speak.) And http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law this law is considered an impediment to free speech in most modern world and is not practiced much in the US (because it contradicts with the first amendment).
  - crdoconnor 13y ago
    The rules on protest certainly seem pretty close for both the UK and Singapore, as do the rules on libel. And I'm not a fan of either one in either country. This is not even counting the frankly brutal treatment that has been doled out to British and American protesters in the last 5 years (take the death of Ian Tomlinson, or the OWS beatings for example). While Singapore's rules might be a bit more restrictive, I still think the idea that it pushes them over the invisible line from "democracy" to "police state" is pretty ridiculous. >And http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law this law is considered an impediment to free speech in most modern world and is not practiced much in the US Definitely. Still doesn't invalidate Britain's status as a democracy, however.

crdoconnor 13y ago

>I am saying 'you cannot protest without applying for a permission'. Only somewhat true: In Singapore, Speakers' Corner is an area located within Hong Lim Park where people can demonstrate, hold exhibitions and performances, and speak freely on most topics. It was launched on 1 September 2000 as a "free speech area" where speaking events could be held without the need to apply for a licence under the Public Entertainments Act (Cap. 257, 1985 Rev. Ed.), now the Public Entertainments and Meetings Act (Cap. 257, 2001 Rev. Ed.) ("PEMA"). However, it was necessary for people to register their intention to speak at the venue with a police officer at the Kreta Ayer Neighbourhood Police Post any time within 30 days before the event, though there was no requirement for the police to be informed of the topic of the proposed speech. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speakers%27_Corner,_Singapore http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speakers%27_Corner,_Singapore Now contrast this with the orwellian "free speech zones" that were set up around the time of the Republican convention. Or the violent beatings protestors in Zuccotti park got. I think the difference between the kinds of protest possible in the US and Singapore are largely academic. There are onerous restrictions on both. >Let me ask you - which court cases have been won by Newspapers and opposition parties against the government. Straits times reported back in 1990s that Prime minister Goh may be taking directions from then ex-prime minister Lee Kuan Yew and they were sued and had to pay hefty sum of money, even though even the hardcore PAP loyalists will agree that he may indeed be taking directions from LKY. But, Straits times could not gather sufficient evidence to support the claim and had to suffer (and since then it hardly publishes anything that criticises the government.) If the same lawsuit was launched in the UK (which has similarly onerous libel laws which Singapore's derive from), it would likely have been successful too.

rohshall 13y ago
The civil rights in Singapore and US/UK are not even close: US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_of_the_United_States_Constitution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_of_the_United_S... UK: https://www.gov.uk/protests-and-marches-letting-the-police-know https://www.gov.uk/protests-and-marches-letting-the-police-k... (This is only when you are going to have a protest march and not when you are just going to speak.) And http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law this law is considered an impediment to free speech in most modern world and is not practiced much in the US (because it contradicts with the first amendment).
- crdoconnor 13y ago
  The rules on protest certainly seem pretty close for both the UK and Singapore, as do the rules on libel. And I'm not a fan of either one in either country. This is not even counting the frankly brutal treatment that has been doled out to British and American protesters in the last 5 years (take the death of Ian Tomlinson, or the OWS beatings for example). While Singapore's rules might be a bit more restrictive, I still think the idea that it pushes them over the invisible line from "democracy" to "police state" is pretty ridiculous. >And http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law this law is considered an impediment to free speech in most modern world and is not practiced much in the US Definitely. Still doesn't invalidate Britain's status as a democracy, however.