More publicity material for Tourism Board

it’s all about readiness and the duty of a police personnel to follow orders (and keep a straight face). after all, the ISD and the irrational fears of singaporeans have done such a good job over the decades that there isn’t much opportunity for the force to show their strength.

in fact, in a non-violent protest, it is up to the police to protect the protesters, not cordorn them off, because it’s your constitutional right to express your ideas. unfortunately, this constitution has been strapped with many iron chastity belts of regulations that discourage gatherings to peacefully assemble and demonstrate, in the process discourage people from exerting their right, in the process making people forget they even have this right.

i won’t be surprised if there’ll be a new regulation being drafted to encompass/extend toward the use of proxies in public assembly/protest, for example if everyone made their dogs wear a t-shirt containing a political slogan, and simultaneously walk their dogs at a specific public location. maybe the riot squad will be mobilised, and baton-smack your dog if it barks too loud, and the ISD will detain your dog without trial.

well, few things we must understand. the toy protest COULD HAVE incited people to harbour hatred and violent tendencies, so if you’re the government, you’ll leave nothing to chance. for example, what if the toys had anti-religious slogans on them? the police may be building a sandcastle with a bulldozer, but they probably did it in case there was a violent reaction from the public. who knows if there are gangs and posses of IPR/copyright-advocates who’ll physically attack the protestors. in any sense, the police was also there to “ensure” the safety of the protestors and their toys, no matter how much you’ll want to laugh at this logic.

don’t you just love singapore?