Of course, it would be pretty naive for anyone to think, when Chee Siok Chin and John Tan were stopped by the police when the approached Shangri-La Hotel during the ASEAN Summit, that they were really going there for dinner.

But how would the police have been able to access and assess their intentions?

Opposition leaders = out to make trouble, PAP leaders = good people, red T-Shirt = protestor?

Weren't the police acting to stop them from approaching the hotel because of an assumption that they potentially there to make trouble because they were opposition members?

A person not recognizable by the public or by the public and who wore white might not have faced the same treatment even if had the same intentions - or even if he had swallowed a time bomb and was going to be a suicide bomber at the Shangri-La Hotel. Or perhaps surveillance in Singapore has reached such a level of sophistication that policemen are planted with micro-chips which will enable them to receive via satellite the profile on each person that comes into their vision--and even this would only be possible if surveillance is so rampant in Singapore that the state has a detailed profile of each individual, including even his MSN conversations, perhaps.

In any case, do we have access of Chee and Tan's intentions now?

Were they really there to protest?

Or were they actually there to make a statement about protesting, to test waters that they know will scald them?

I am more inclined to the latter possibility, though I am not able to prove it.

And since I can make a good guess about their intentions, why do I seem to be suggesting that the police should not have made a similar judgment on the duo? Well, that is perhaps the difference between an irreponsible (or even a responsible) blogger and the police. I speculate, but I don't do anything to others by speculation. On the other hand, does the police not need evidence before they single out people and "do things" to them? Such as forcibly removing them from a place using an unmarked vehicle.

If it is true though, that Chee and Tan were not really there for dinner, would it be to their discredit?

Not for me.

It was a political act (though not necessary an act to score for themselves political points, as some might say). It was to say something by doing something. It was an act done out of a wish to enlarge the really limited free space Singaporeans have. (Of course, this is just my interpretation of the action. No one, as always, needs to believe me.)

And perhaps that's why the police is indignant. Even if they had let Chee and John had their way, I don't think either of them would have harmed an ant at the ASEAN Summit. So what even if they were allowed to protest? What was at stake was the pride of the state. It was a challenge to an oppressive system which, of course, found it crucial to fight back--not to face the challenge, really, but to curb it and hopefully erase it from visibility.

The same goes for the case of Leow Zi Xiang, whom Molly blogged about here and here. This guy is now portrayed as a liar by the media. The New Paper has an article, "I didn't come clean with the police."

Of course. If he had come clean with the police, he would have had told the police: "Yes, I'm deliberately challenging the system. But charge me if you can!"

The article starts off this way:

He wants you to believe it was all a coincidence.

Like how he just happened to have on a red soccer jersey.

LATE FOR PROTESTS

After much to-ing and fro-ing, Mr Leow revealed his real intention - to be there for the planned protests which were scheduled to start at 11am and end at 6pm.

He said: 'Since I wanted to see what was going on, I wore red to show my support.'

But when the duo walked up at 1pm, it was all over. His friend, Mr Shamil, said: 'We knew the protest was over. Honestly, how long can it last? But we were curious to see if it was successful.'