LOL.
The broadcast on channel 5 of the Highlights of the Parliamentary Debate was not something i expected.
In it, a short segment showed Prof. Ho Peng Kee rebuffing Workers' Party Chief Mr. Low Thia Kiang.
The following is a product of their 'cross-fire':
The Worker’s Party MPs asked why their party was not allowed to hold a cycling event at East Coast Park as part of their 50th anniversary celebrations.
If Minister of State for Law and Home Affairs Ho Peng Kee’s answer is any indication, the rationale for the police denial of the permit is completely bankrupt of all good sense.
The recent ban was justified by Associate Professor Ho using the following reasons:
“It is an open area where there is potential for breach of peace, public disorder, and unruly behaviour.”
Later:
“You may be well behaving, but there may be other people whom you come across when you cycle who may stop you, may want to debate with you and that may attract a crowd, therefore will result in problems the police want to avoid”.
Associate Professor should know that repeating nonsense twice or three times does not make it any less nonsensical. When pressed for a proper answer regarding the ban, he replied in an insultingly sarcastic fashion:
“If you listened very carefully Mr Low, I don’t know whether his hearing aid is with him because he wears one, I said there is a greater potential for law and order problems”
Taken from http://theonlinecitizen.com/2007/08/28/the-slippery-slope-argument-again/#comment-12250.
LOL. LAME RIGHT THE REASON GIVEN BY A MINISTER OF STATE.
I wonder what years of education did to their logical thinking process.
and of course, basic courtesy.
following is a reply i made to theonlinecitizen with regards to this issue.
August 29th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
Haha!
When i first heard the broadcast of the Highlights of Parliament on Channel 5, I couldnt believe my ears.
The argument made by Prof. Ho Peng Kee is really something that is not substantiated by logic and reasoning.
Is the PAP really so afraid of the WP gaining clout?
Seeing that they can continue their tactics of intimidation and using the electoral boundaries to their advantage when the next election comes, I dont see why they should be afraid of the WP.
However, we should all view this as a back-handed compliment by the PAP, because it is clear that Prof. Ho’s reply is orchestrated by someone higher in the power hierarchy.
This is a quote from Gerald : # Gerald Says:
August 29th, 2007 at 9:49 am
“I find it SHOCKING that an innocuous cycling event would be banned by the PAP. Are they really so fearful of the WP, a small party which couldn’t even win more than 1 full parliamentary seat in the last two elections? Can you imagine how scared they will be if more seats were won by the WP?
I think we should go easy on the old professor. He is only the front man doing the Government’s bidding. I have no doubt that this was a decision taken by some higher ups in the party. Unfortunately he got arrowed to defend it in Parliament. His weak and laughable arguments only serve to explain why he has never made it to be a full minister.”
The ’someone’ higher in the power structure perhaps views the WP now as a credible threat to their 42 years of rule.
Not allowing the WP to hold such an event shows the fear of the PAP . They are pulling all stops to contain the WP, but my guess is that the more they try to contain the WP, the greater the backlash would be against the PAP.