the important RICEBOWL

From: PAPbest 2:14 pm To: ALL (1 of 1) 10186.1

SDP Activists belittle Civil Disobedience and Tak Boleh Tahan CampaignIn 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.

so it's not really a ONE FOR ALL AND ALL FOR ONE unity here but then again, it's FREEDOM OF CHOICE.

the 2 who pleaded guilty instead of standing trial had made a "wise" decision. one question though: did they ever anticipate this final verdict to happen to what they were made to think they had participated in a "peaceful" public protest??