Edward Snowden said this when he was interviewed over lunch by the FT
“We don’t allow police to enter and search any home. We don’t typically reorder the operation of a free society for the convenience of the police — because that is the definition of a police state,” he says, mopping up the last of the rice. “And yet some spies and officials are trying to persuade us that we should. Now, I would argue there’s no real question that police in a police state would be more effective than those in a free and liberal society where the police operate under tighter constraints. But which one would you rather live in?”
60 — 70% of the voters agree with Harry’s protection racket that life in a police state is better than life than in a free and liberal society. They most probably assume that a police state is a safer place than a free and liberal society. Blame this largely on PAP scaremongering, aided and abetted by the constructive nation-building media and the trade unions.
More, a lot more, Oppo and social activists, and their non-nutty cyberspace allies should get off their asses, move out of their comfort zones, and try to persuade the 35% of voters that voted for Dr Tan Cheng Bock that they should prefer to live in a free and liberal society, joining the voters who voted for Tan Jee Say and Tan Kin Lian. Though one can understand why most Oppo and social activists (and their cyberspace allies) are reluctant to try. How to explain why 30% of the voters voted for an opportunist and a clown albeit both from RI, because they wanted a free and liberal society. How would a clown and an opportunist help that aim?
To be fair to Tan Kin Lian, he was a good CEO of NTUC Income. He only went whacko over his presidential ambitions and I suspect most of the blame for his clownish behaviour can be blamed on the company he kept between 2009 and 2011. Remember Goh Meng Seng was his campaign adviser? Since the PE, he’s lost his whackiness . Go visit his blog and hudge for yrself. He’s no cybernut. He’s a S’porean who decries socxial injustice, has an analytical mind (he’s an actuary) but who sometimes thinks differently.
———————–
So maybe they should start trying to persuade Tan Cheng Bock’s supporters that giving the PAP the two-thirds majority to suka suka change the constitution is a bad idea. I’ll becoming back to this theme another day
Oppo and social acticists and their non-nutty cyberspace allies should not accuse people who disagree with them on the need for a free and liberal society that they are ignorant and dismiss their views. They need their votes. The anti-PAP vote can be taken for granted as the WP has shown.
————————–
Perhaps most importantly Blue Labour believes that when the people of Britain tell the party to change, it cannot keep telling them that they are ignorant. When people vote for Brexit, it must be respected; when they say they are concerned about immigration, it cannot be dismissed as bigoted; when they are worried about the breakdown of social values such as neighbourliness, fatherhood or faith, politicians have to listen and change.
BBC analysis
———————————-
Don’t be like the PAP who can afford to diss people who disagree with them. The PAP has the power of incumbtency.
And most importantly don’t only try to persuade S’poreans only at election time. As the PAP’s Organising Secretary said on the day after the 2011 GE, the campaign for the next GE has begun.
More Oppo and social activists, and their non-nutty cyberspace allies must get off their asses, move out of their comfort zones, and try to persuade the swing voters to vote against the PAP in order to deny the PAP a two-thirds majority.
In HK, the Legislative Council (LegCo) is the body that passes and rejects laws, and approves the government’s budget. It’s HK’s parliament.
Like in S’pore, major constitutional changes, including changes to the voting system, need to be passed by a two-thirds majority in the council (parly here). Pro-Beijing parties always win more seats but the “democrat” lobby always have at least 24 seats so they can veto changes they disagree with. And they’ve used this power repeatedly
In the latest LegCo elections on Sunday, the “democrat” lobby retained its veto power. They now have 30 seats.
But I’m pessimistic that they’ll even bother. Easier to remain among “friends” who agree with them and smoke dope with them, all dreaming of a PAP-free S’pore that appears by magic:
The mechanisms of these new media are only now beginning to be understood. One crucial process is “homophilous sorting”: like-minded people forming clusters. The rise of cable and satellite television channels in the 1980s and 1990s made it possible to serve news tailored to specific types of consumer; the internet makes it much easier. According to Yochai Benkler of Harvard University in his book “The Wealth of Networks”, individuals with shared interests are far more likely to find each other or converge around a source of information online than offline. Social media enable members of such groups to strengthen each other’s beliefs, by shutting out contradictory information, and to take collective action.
Thoughts of a Cynical Investor 
Slightly less the oppo but the social activists and their non nutty cyberspace allies are framing the free and liberal society in terms of ideals of human rights, civil society and democratic process. IMHO this don’t work in the peculiarly utilitarian mindset of the voters, shaped by one party rule. The free and liberal society needs to be framed in terms of access to public goods and redistribution, the nuts n bolts or bread n butter of that kind of society. Singapore is no totalitarian state, the social activists n their non nutty cyberspace allies take the easier route of wearing their hearts on their sleeves but this is putting the cart in front of the horse.
Think SDP )).
And even PAP Lite, the WP, doesn’t want a police state. S’pore is police state lite.