Friday, October 24, 2008

SDP Activists belittle Civil Disobedience and Tak Boleh Tahan Campaign

In its latest article "AGC cannot decide whether to use video or not", SDP reporting seems to become a laughable joke. Let's take a look at some excerpts in quotes:
"The morning started off with Mr Ng E-jay pleading guilty to the charge of taking part in an assembly outside Parliament House. The second charge of participating in a procession was taken into consideration. Mr Ng was subsequently fined $600."
Compare this to the article "Come and support the activists during the trial" which read, "We are proud of being able to come together to defend and push for the rights of our fellow citizens, for without these rights we are at the mercy of the PAP. We know that we are guided by the truth and righteousness."

If SDP knows it's righteous, why did its activist pleaded guilty in the morning?
"In the end, Mr George pleaded guilty as this was the only way for him to get back to his work. He was fined $1,200."
What's more, one of the SDP activists pleaded guilty just to go back to work! Seems like career is more important than political stand.

The Best Job Insurance: SDP calls out for supporters to donate to its legal defence fund, which will be used to keep Mr George's job.

With the guilty pleas, SDP has lost its legitimacy among its supporters. This is because SDP has gone back on its civil disobedience action. Remember how Dr Chee claimed to be on hunger strike but secretly drank glucose water?

Oscar Award for the most illogical statement of the YEAR:
"I understand what was read out to me," Mr Jufrie replied, "what I don't understand is why are we being charged. You see groups of tourists and other people everyday in front of Parliament. Why are they all not charged?"
This either shows the naivity of Mr Jufrie to law, or that he's trying to say the SDP did not campaign at all in front of Parliament. So wasn't there a demonstration?

In conclusion, SDP doesn't really care about the poor in Singapore as much as they say they are. It protested outside Parliament House but said they were just like tourists walking pass Parliament without intention of demanding more to be done to alleviate poverty in Singapore. All else said, after the bankruptcy of SDP, it could consider joining the Entertainment industry.


  1. What is the purpose of the 2 to plead guilty? 1 of them, Jeffrey George is SDP's CEC member. Isn't this setting a bad example for the rest? Is he saying the rest need not work or do not have jobs?

    These so called 'activists' should agree not to plead guilty altogether. Now the message is lost. I bet the rest will get heavier sentences because of the 2. The judge will use them as a stronger case against the rest.

  2. SDP "no censorship of comments"?? All their comments are subject to admin approval.

    The last time I wrote in their website about how "greying out" of negative comments made them no different from the PAP Straits Times, they refused to publish it. No censorship my b***s!

  3. Read how SDP protestor Ng E-Jay's credibility was torn into shreds by netizens:-

  4. Ng Ee Jay had a lawyer? The rest of the TBT 18 don't have? So I take it that Ng E J paid for a lawyer to help only himself, while the others were wrote to law soc for free lawyer, say no money etc etc. Hmmm... what a piece of dirt! Go dig it up, NotmySDP!

  5. You're 'NotmySDP' so why do you put a link to SDP and their blind bootlicker Chia Ti Lik?

    There are blogs better than the crap they dish out! See my recommendation:-

  6. Thank you for linking some of my recommendations! You are more open to suggestions that the SDP.


Please note that we will adopt SDP-style of allowing no-reply-to-comments-and-no-allowing-of-anonymous-comments approach