UAE Deal Dead? [Archive]

shecky

25th February 2006, 09:55 AM

merentha

25th February 2006, 10:06 AM

Democrats outpolling Bush on national security?!? (http://corner.nationalreview.com/06_02_19_corner-archive.asp#090907)

If this is true, I suspect the Repubs will have no choice than to out-oppose the Dems on the port deal. Will it also kill the deal?

Much noise over the Arab port workers-cum-terrorists could have been prevented if only P&O had accepted Singapore's offer. However, Congress would have been all over our necks about our alleged human rights violation instead. There's just no pleasing some people.

Bjorn

25th February 2006, 12:37 PM

Much noise over the Arab port workers-cum-terrorists could have been prevented if only P&O had accepted Singapore's offer. However, Congress would have been all over our necks about our alleged human rights violation instead. There's just no pleasing some people.It seems like you live in Singapore, or?

I must say I doubt if Congress would have been that concerned about the human rights issues there, on a World ranking you would have been very far from the bottom - and look at what other countries the US deals with ...

merentha

25th February 2006, 08:42 PM

It seems like you live in Singapore, or?

I must say I doubt if Congress would have been that concerned about the human rights issues there, on a World ranking you would have been very far from the bottom - and look at what other countries the US deals with ...

Yes, I'm from Singapore. We get a lot of flack about human rights violation because we have a policy of hanging drug traffickers who attempt to use our efficient airport as a transit point.

We also get criticised a lot for not having free speech. It's true that the ruling party doesn't hesitate to sue the pants off any opposition party members for spouting wild accusations. I think it's a good thing that free speech in Singapore demands responsibility. If somebody makes a wild claim, he'd better have some evidence to back up his claims. It protects the dignity and the credibility of the office holders from being undermined by baseless accusations, and our politicians can actually work on improving the country instead of wasting time defending their honour on TV talk shows.

Bjorn

25th February 2006, 08:54 PM

We also get criticised a lot for not having free speech. It's true that the ruling party doesn't hesitate to sue the pants off any opposition party members for spouting wild accusations. I think it's a good thing that free speech in Singapore demands responsibility. If somebody makes a wild claim, he'd better have some evidence to back up his claims. It protects the dignity and the credibility of the office holders from being undermined by baseless accusations, and our politicians can actually work on improving the country instead of wasting time defending their honour on TV talk shows.I can't agree with you there - it seems to me that political opposition speak in Singapore is labelled as undermining the dignity and credibility of office holders, in fact an example of not-so-free-speech, but that's another thread.

Singaporian companies are already running port operations in the US, and I haven't seen any politicians here protesting it.

merentha

25th February 2006, 09:45 PM

I can't agree with you there - it seems to me that political opposition speak in Singapore is labelled as undermining the dignity and credibility of office holders, in fact an example of not-so-free-speech, but that's another thread.

This is not true. We do have some well-respected members from the political opposition, though I have to admit that the number is very small. However, one of the loudest voices from the opposition, Chee Soon Juan, is regarded by Singaporeans as a sad joke. Despite his claims to the US media that he was being persecuted in Singapore, it was Chee himself who shot his own political foot when he raved at the Prime Minister like a madman on TV during an election campaign walkabout session. There is suspicion from his erratic behaviour over the years that he may even have psychiatric problems. He has no credibility here.

Singaporian companies are already running port operations in the US, and I haven't seen any politicians here protesting it.

The P&O deal was huge. I would love to find out that Singapore companies won't have a hard time acquiring foreign companies. However, it's not difficult to be a little suspicious when one such deal is partly responsible for the current huge political storm in Thailand.

Bjorn

25th February 2006, 10:27 PM

This is not true. We do have some well-respected members from the political opposition, though I have to admit that the number is very small. However, one of the loudest voices from the opposition, Chee Soon Juan, is regarded by Singaporeans as a sad joke. Despite his claims to the US media that he was being persecuted in Singapore, it was Chee himself who shot his own political foot when he raved at the Prime Minister like a madman on TV during an election campaign walkabout session. There is suspicion from his erratic behaviour over the years that he may even have psychiatric problems. He has no credibility here.Isn't that the guy who was convicted of speaking in public without a license and selling his book on the streets? "The judge found Chee guilty of violating the Public Environmental Health Act by selling goods without a license from the public health commissioner." :)

He lost his chance to contest the next general election when he was slapped with a fine for speaking in public without a permit. Chee, who was fined S$3000 (US$1704) at the end of a three-day court hearing, made a speech at Singapore's lone public soapbox in February about three Muslim girls who were barred from state schools after they wore headscarves or "tudungs" to class.
Although Chee was registered to speak at Speakers' Corner, he did not have an additional police permit required for almost all public events, including concerts and political rallies.
The charge, under the Public Entertainments and Meetings Act, has highlighted the city state's restrictions on free speech and the difficulties faced by opposition politicians.
A fine of S$2000 or more bars a person from standing in a general election for five years.

District judge Kow Keng Siong said Chee's speech "clearly constituted public entertainment as defined in the act".It's not like he's alone. 1997:

During this campaign PAP leaders sought to discredit Workers' Party parliamentary candidate Tang Liang Hong (http://www.singapore-window.org/tangpage.htm), publicly labelling him an "anti-Christian, Chinese chauvinist".
In response Tang Liang Hong filed police reports asserting that these charges were untrue and had incited people to hate him. The PAP leaders listed in the police reports, alleging that they had been defamed through them, sued and were awarded damages of US$5.5 million, reduced on appeal to US$2.3 million. Tang Liang Hong, who had left the country shortly after the polls citing death threats and the need to organise his affairs for his legal defence, never returned to Singapore and was eventually declared bankrupt.Free speech in Singapore? It isn't happening. There are probably a lot of people without much credibility there as well as in other countries, but when you're fined for speaking because you only had a permission to speak, not to entertain, and the fine is just big enough to bar you from running for political office ... when you're accused of being an anti-Christian, Chinese activist and say that is not true you're being sued by those who accused you in the first place and bancrupted by the damages awarded ...

Why don't you start a thread about it?