I am still not sure which Singapore town will start similar protest, prior to his state visit here. Any idea which town council is this guy visiting in Singapore? 
đ
Aljunied? Ang Mo Kio? Marine Parade? Hougang? Anyone knows?
Anyway Melbourne kick off the protest in Australia.
Source: Mohamed Nazem Suki
China has made an official protest to Singapore over its military ties with Taiwan after nine Singaporean military vehicles were seized in Hong Kong, in a sign of escalating tensions as the city-state draws closer to Washington.
The Terrex armoured personnel carriers were en route from Taiwan to Singapore when they were impounded by Hong Kong customs as âsuspected controlled itemsâ last week.
âChina has already made representations over this to the Singapore side,â foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said at a press briefing on Monday. China also âdemandedâ that Singapore abide by Hong Kongâs relevant laws and co-operate with the local government on follow-up work, he added.
The spat over the military vehicles comes as Beijing is showing a new assertiveness towards its Asian neighbours. After decades of following a foreign policy of âkeeping a low profileâ, China has begun to actively court US allies such as the Philippines and Thailand, while putting pressure on countries such as Singapore and South Korea that are deepening ties with Washington.
Singapore has strengthened its military ties with the US over the past year, agreeing to boost co-operation on humanitarian assistance and disaster relief missions as well as cyber-security. Singapore allowed US Poseidon surveillance aircraft to operate from the city-state last December.
For decades Singapore sought to remain neutral in the confrontation between China and self-governing Taiwan, and hosted a landmark summit between their leaders last year. But it continues to have defence ties with Taipei despite strong Chinese objections.
The armoured carriers appeared to be part of training exercises held in Taiwan by Singaporean troops, which have taken place regularly under a previously secret defence agreement signed by the two countries in 1975 and reported in the Chinese and Taiwanese press.
However, Beijing has said it is losing patience with this practice, particularly since Singapore and China established diplomatic relations in 1990.
Singapore did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the seized vehicles. Hong Kongâs customs agency said the case was âunder investigationâ.
Meanwhile on Monday, Chinaâs Global Times, a hawkish state-owned newspaper, said in an editorial that Singapore was supposed to have suspended its military co-operation with Taiwan in 2012. âHowever, the recently detained vessel with its cargo of armoured vehicles reveals Singaporeâs hypocrisy,â it said.
âFor quite some time, Singapore has been pretending to seek a balance between China and the US, yet has been taking Washingtonâs side in reality,â the newspaper said. âIt is no longer reasonable for Singapore to continue ⌠any kind of military exchange with Taiwan.â
Earlier this year the Global Times and Singapore became embroiled in a public spatafter the newspaper accused Singapore of unnecessarily pressing the issue of the disputed South China Sea at a summit of the Non-Aligned Movement in Venezuela â a charge Singapore denied.
A Singapore military team arrived in Hong Kong on Saturday to ensure that the army personnel carriers are being held securely amid fears military secrets were at risk. The nine vehicles are being held in a Hong Kong customs depot.
Source: www.ft.com
Two people were arrested yesterday for kneeling in the middle of Bendemeer Road and refusing to move when told to do so.
Videos and pictures taken by drivers and passers-by, and later uploaded onto social media, show a man in a yellow T-shirt and green shorts, carrying a yellow backpack, kneeling on the middle lane next to a woman dressed in a black T-shirt and pants.
Both were holding sheets of paper covered in Chinese writing, and making a commotion as vehicles whizzed past, apparently protesting an agency fee dispute.The drama took place in front of the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) Services Centre at noon yesterday.
An MOM spokesman said the woman, a work permit holder, had gone to the centre with her husband to get help in obtaining a refund of agency fees she had allegedly paid her overseas agent. She wanted the local employment agency which had hired her to return the money.
“Based on her representation, our officers explained our laws and regulations to her, which she refused to accept,” said the spokesman. “Despite our efforts, she was not satisfied.”
A construction worker, who wanted to be known only as Mr Amin, said he was waiting at the bus stop outside the centre when the incident took place.
“I saw them run out onto the road. They were shouting and crying in Chinese,” said Mr Amin, 32, of the pair. “Some security (guards) from MOM tried to talk to them, make them cool (down), but they did not listen.”
Vehicles in the middle lane were forced to slow down and change lanes to avoid hitting the couple. MOM officers helped to divert traffic while several drivers wound their windows down and urged the duo to move out of the way, but their words fell on deaf ears.
The police, who arrived in 15 minutes, said the pair were arrested on the spot for committing a rash act.
Investigations are ongoing.
Source: www.straitstimes.com
Roy has asked to meet with the children and parents to apologise to them. This is the right thing to do.
I met Roy several weeks ago. He is a thoughtful individual and no one should believe that he intentionally targeted his or the group’s actions at the children who were performing that afternoon.
It is important, nevertheless, that both he and Hui Hui offer an apology to the children.
The danger is that those who are angered by the episode but who, otherwise, would support the Return Our CPF campaign, unwittingly reinforce a culture intolerant of mistakes.
Throwing labels like âimmatureâ, âinexcusableâ, âattention seekersâ at the protesters is unhelpful. For even the most experienced activists spend a lifetime making errors and learning from them. Gandhi, himself not immune to mistakes, acknowledged: âFreedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes.â
In this vein, let us re-affirm our faith in Roy and Hui Hui as well as in ourselves, who, with all our imperfections and weaknesses, continue to learn and grow in our journey to make our Republic a better place.
Authored by:Â Chee Soon Juan
THE recent controversy over a National University of Singapore professor’s Facebook posts on homosexuality has thrust the issue of academic freedom to the fore (“Protests over NUS don’s Facebook post”; last Saturday).
Academic freedom extends from the core peer-reviewed activities of research and teaching to include extramural domains of speech – where faculty members speak or write on larger political, social or religious matters outside their institutions.
While academics, who enjoy a privileged position in society, should be held to a high standard of accountability for what they say in or outside academia, society should not curtail them from expressing their ideas. Otherwise, social innovation, knowledge creation and creativity would be seriously hampered.
Clearly, these two imperatives need to be reconciled.
The term “academic freedom” emerged in German universities in the 19th century. The three basic principles were the freedom to teach, the freedom to learn, and the freedom to do research. These principles were adapted to different circumstances in higher education all over the world.
The 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) is regularly cited in legal cases involving academic freedom.
An AAUP interpretive comment from the 1970 update of the 1940 statement noted that “controversy is at the heart of the free academic inquiry which the entire statement is designed to foster”.
Academics should be allowed, indeed encouraged, to express alternative or non-conformist opinions, however counter-intuitive these opinions may seem.
Of course, they should do so with tact and respect, and within society’s moral and legal limits. Academics must also protect the intellectual space they so cherish, by allowing others to voice opposing opinions.
How we respond to the latest incident is indicative of how we wish to move as a society. Do we value engaging people and dissonant ideas on a calm and intellectual basis, and respond to dissenting ideas respectfully and via reasoned argumentation?
In a civilised society, ideas should be discussed, debated, developed or demolished at the liberal marketplace of ideas, without fear of being accused of bigotry or thought crimes. Otherwise, we risk slipping into a culture of intolerance and self-censorship, a perpetual pressure to conform to the “politically correct” or “progressive” ideas of the day.
I hope that responses to contentious views can follow the dictum famously ascribed to the thinker Voltaire: “I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Written  by Walid Jumblatt Abdullah & Reuben Wong (Associate Professor)
Source: The Straits Times