?

Log in

No account? Create an account

To Fix a Mocking Peasant

Evil Kitten Blogs Irresponsibly

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Civil Protests Lead to Terrorism!!!
MEEK
mollymeek

1. "Singapore cannot take its chances with security, and needs to protect World Bank-IMF delegates and Singaporeans from the threat of terrorism."

OK, we need to protect VIPs. So...

2. "Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng has made clear the country's stand against allowing civil groups to demonstrate outside of the designated area."

Uh huh. Why?

3. "Speaking to reporters at a healthy lifestyle event at East Coast Park, Mr Wong described Singapore as a "prime target" for terrorists."

Hmm. Let's see. Singapore is a "prime target" (no one seems to be able to paraphrase this term), so we cannot allow civil groups to demonstrate? Eh?!

What? Civil groups are terrorists? Or civil groups make Singapore more vulnerable to terrorists???

And peaceful demonstrations threaten security?

Molly senses a mee siam mai hum logic somewhere...

4. "He said that since September 11th, and the Jemaah Islamiyah arrests here, the JI has been very active in this region.

"This furore is quite beyond us to understand. To expect Singapore to change its laws to accommodate foreigners to demonstrate on our streets. I think we cannot accept that either because we can't have one law for Singaporeans and another law for foreigners," said Mr Wong."


OK, that's very fair. We can't have one law to conscript Singaporeans and exempt foreigners from conscription. We don't favor foreigners at all. At most they get access to better shuttle bus services that happen to be free also.

So maybe we can take away the freaking law (whatever it law it is) for both Singaporeans and foreigners? Or perhaps the fear is exactly that, if you change the law for foreigners, you will end up having the change the law for Singaporeans and you will end up having to think of ways to fix civil groups?

5. "The IMF/World Bank has said the preference is to allow outdoor protests by accredited groups, but Singapore has stood firm on its position, to only allow these groups to air their views, in an indoor area set aside for them at Suntec Singapore.

"It's not about denying them the opportunity for discussion. I read today that somebody said that we should allow them to come into take part in the discussion. I don't quite understand this because they're right inside Suntec Singapore. Of course, they're not in the conference centre itself, they're not in the meeting halls themselves because these are meant for those who represent the countries or banks to share, their not for the SCOs," said Mr Wong."


Sorry ah, I don't understand also. So what if they are right inside Suntec?

And, yes, of course it isn't about denying them the opportunity for discussion. It's about denying them what they deem to be a basic human right. Oh, but of course, they cannot protest. Otherwise, er, there will be terrorist attacks. Heh.

6. "A few hundred civil group representatives have been accredited, from close to 50 countries, but civil groups say Singapore has barred some people from entering Singapore.

The Police have told the IMF/World Bank that representatives who are assessed to pose a threat to security, or the community, will not be allowed entry."


That all sounds very nice. Except that Molly wishes to know how "security" is defined. And what sort of "assessment" are people put through?

7. "Both the organisation and Singapore have said they continue to engage each other on discussions on this issue."

(Pardon? Which "organisation"?)

So, engagement is about coming up with some sound logic to stick to your stance...

Last I heard, the gahmen wants to engage the peepur. Meow.

Molly Meek de la Bimbo


  • 1

"accredited groups" = "terrorists" = "JI"

(Anonymous)
so...

instead of preventing possible JI terroist attacks by preventing people from accredited NGOs from entering singapore, just arrest them quick under the ISA lah.

simple, right?


Re: "accredited groups" = "terrorists" = "JI"

Yes and no. Somehow, magically, even if these NGOs aren't terrorists, their protests will spark terrorism. It's a very weird process only million-dollar ministers can understand. We shouldn't even try to make sense of it for the sake of our sanity.

Re: "accredited groups" = "terrorists" = "JI"

By his reasoning hor, Wong should also ban IMF or arrest their officials.

If they have accredited potential terrorists to enter our country, they are either working for Osama or one of their cell groups and therefore an enemy of the state.

I think Wong is going to bundle them all into Suntec and nuke them with his shitty logic.


Re: "accredited groups" = "terrorists" = "JI"

Or maybe his logic isn't shitty but it's just too difficult for the media to grasp; hence the CNA report.

Wong is just politely telling the IMF/World Bank that he believes that they are in cahoots with terrorists. He indirectly implies that the Singapore government is 'clean' and not cooperating with terrorists--the good ol' 'whiter than white' chestnut.

He is very astute indeed.

whiter than white but can earn filthy money?

Yep ... IMF is a real scumbag. Rob all those poor countries to finance the terrorists.

But we are ok. We are white but we can earn filthy money.


Then we are smiling at people who are in cahoots with them terrorists?

Well, from the latest rebuke from the IMF, it seem that they are not appreciating the MIW needs to protect their delegates from the threat of terrorism. In fact, they are taking this to the extend of breaching the agreement to host the event. So far so good for creating a ‘first world world class’ image and with all those 4 millions smiles going down the drain to make the IMF and World Bank felt welcomed.

So whatever the MIW is doing for the event, their VIP are not actually being impressed, at least on paper.

And correct this peasant if he is wrong, this is the first time that the IMF has ever accused the host for breach of agreement in hosting their event. So if this peasant is not wrong, then congratulation to fellow peasants, we just scored another world first.

Re: whiter than white but can earn filthy money?

They should have known better than to choose Singapore if they badly wanted to let people protest.

Re: whiter than white but can earn filthy money?

(Anonymous)
Or maybe the IMF\WB thought they are just ordering mee siam mai hiam from the MIW.

But only last minute then they find out that not only the MIW are not just serving them mee siam mai hiam, it come with hump some more. So that's why not happy now, lah.

Re: whiter than white but can earn filthy money?

I think the IMF actually ordered laksa ai hiam and ai hum. But in the end they got mee siam without hiam or hum.

"And what sort of "assessment" are people put through?"

Well it's all very simple. If you protest against KFC, u are OUT! :)


What about protest against the Gahmen?


(Maybe: You are in! In Changi Resort.)

Wong Kan Seng is very smart. He disallows street protests so as to protect the delegates. IMF and World Bank should thank him instead of rebuking him. I think Wong is a very compassionate man and has people's interests at heart.

Indeed, it is painful to see how ungrateful IMF is for all that the gahmen has done.

Singapore is a " Prime Target" for terrorists! I wonder A*Star or EDB emphasize this point enough with selling Singapore to FTs or investors.

Oh dear.. i better stop my own save the sharks campaign and start eating lots of sharks fin soup. Wait the ISA say i'm a terrorist..

Yeah, Molly got so afraid that she stopped her Stop Culling Cats Campaign. :(

Well, I've stopped listening to what they're saying ever since they've proven that they take me for a fool. How much respect and truth can we really expect from them?

Greenie

Unfortunately people still listen and believe.

If Singapore is such a prime target for Terr orists and you invite people to come to it, then what an excellent partner for terr orism, terr orrists have found indeed.

Of course, there are also people who willing come and be prime targets. This world is very amazing indeed.

  • 1