Tham Yuen-C believes enforcing such rule is impossible

Yet, enforcement will be almost impossible.

With so many bloggers opining about anything from restaurants to running shoes to handbags, the agencies in charge of policing the blogs have their work cut out for them.

There will also be many things to pin down, such as who a blogger is, what qualifies as a blog and which legal jurisdiction a person would fall under if he or she were, say, a Singaporean blogger living in London.

Even in the media industry, where there are rules and the threat of dismissal for breaking them, mandating credibility is not an easy task. What more in the nebulous world of the Internet?

She advises authorities to focus on “regulating the practice (of deceptive advertising) and not the medium (of blogs and new media).”

For example, while it will be hard to track all blog posts and bloggers, it should be easier to police companies that use new media channels to make self-serving claims under a cloak of partiality, and the advertising companies that broker these deals.

The Temasek Review agrees that Singapore can’t implement the new ruling:

Given the borderless and anonymous nature of cyberspace, it will be almost impossible for MDA to enforce the rule unless bloggers disclose the information voluntarily.

The author speculates that the real agenda of the MDA is to hurt the financial viability of socio-political blogs:

The real agenda behind the move, however, is probably to deter potential donors from funding and supporting bloggers, especially socio-political blogs with a high readership like ours.

At the present moment, only our site, The Online Citizen and the website of the Singapore Democratic Party accept donations from readers.

If such a rule is indeed promulgated, donations for socio-political blogs will surely dry up because few Singaporeans will dare to have their identities revealed to MDA that they have been supporting sites which are critical of the government.

In the long run, this will have a detrimental impact on the growth and development of the new media in Singapore, especially for popular sites with a sizable readership but hampered by limited funding.

An anonymous commenter believes that netizens should do their own policing:

If ppl get paid to write good things on eg food, spa, etc, consumers will know sooner or later. A better developed media will ensure this fake writeups will be exposed. Let the netizens do their own policing.

Don’t overreact, Silenceisgolden comments:

Lets not over react in this matter. I think bloggers will probably be required to make a statement somewhere within their site that to say that they are being paid for blogging.

Another commenter, Ree, cites an example on how consumers will benefit from the MDA ruling:

Am I being very naive in thinking that the reason MDA wants to implement this is for the benefit of consumers?

To put it very simply, isn’t this just like those long Home Shopping Network ads where there is a disclosure stating that it is a PAID advertisement we are watching?

Commenting in The Online Citizen, HL welcomes the proposal but is pessimistic if Singapore can enforce the guideline:

The declaration would help to state up front where the blogger is coming from. Might not necessarily mean what the blogger writes is or has to be biased towards the sponsor. The decision then becomes a more informed one for the readers, and overall improved health on info reliability. This, I welcome.

The only issue is how best to effect this. Direct regulation is difficult, and not just because of the “vastness” of cyberspace. Someone mentioned taxation, and that’s a good example of a stumbling block – mountains need to be moved before MDA and IRAS can come to some agreement on how to plug this potential policy blackhole – i.e. who collects the taxes, who polices, etc.

Miss Dotty clarifies that MDA may be replicating the move of the Federal Trade Commission in the United States which recently amended its guidelines. But Miss Dotty questions the inclusion of blogs in the proposed ruling

Since the government keeps claiming that there is only lies and disinformation in the internet; this should prompt us all to ask; then what’s the basis to even demand blogs to fully disclose their association with firms should they decide to write favorably or negatively about products or services? This doesn’t make any sense to me.

Uncle Sha notes that it is up to the individual blogger to disclose his/her sponsors

I guess sooner or later the law is catching up on cyberspace. From my own opinion and perception, such policy was only brought up as MDA wants more control, and IRA wants to tax us twice instead of once a year. Well that’s just me lah.

I myself disclose if I do receive remuneration for my blog posting, but I know many bloggers out there who don’t. So there’s an issues of transparency with their entries.

All I can say, in cyberspace you can play hide and seek all you want without getting caught, even with such policy in place, it’s really up to the individual blogger if they want to disclose.

FOOD fuels me to talk also asks if there is need to expand the coverage of the ruling to include paid bloggers who “damn all things about Singapore”

IMHO, I think MDA shouldn’t blindly introduce rules just because the US is doing so. Rather, if we want rules, we should have them, whether the US does so or not.

Moreover, disclosures shouldn’t just be imposed because they go to show a blogger’s bias. They should also be there to help IRAS track income, if indeed, as boasted by the occasional blogger that he/she is pulling in a 4-figure monthly income through blogging.

And more controversially, what about bloggers who damn all things about Singapore, all the time? Shouldn’t they be made to confirm that it’s just that they have a negative disposition; not because someone is sponsoring their ascorbic outpourings?

The(new)mediaslut wants the same ruling to apply to traditional media

On the end of the spectrum, how about journalists declaring the gifts and junkets they go on to cover certain events for vendors?

If MDA decides to put such a ruling on bloggers or New Media as the government likes to call it, why not put in the same ruling traditional media too?

On October 6, the World Monument Fund (WMF) published the 2010 world monument watch list plotting the dozens of villages, buildings, bridges and monuments at risk of destruction on an interactive Google map. The WMF in New York is one of many organizations, like Global Heritage Fund, World Heritage Center (part of UNESCO), financing projects to preserve world cultural heritage sites.

Becoming a heritage site

While a nomination for cultural heritage site or monument can be a useful step on the way to acquiring funds for preservation, an additional benefit can be a general rise in tourism to the sites in question. Moreover, the nomination often stimulates national or local pride.

Singaporean university lecturer Tan Wee Cheng created a Facebook group, asking for Singapore sites to be included on the World Heritage list:

As at the end of Dec 08, there are 878 UNESCO World Heritage Sites in 145 countries but none in Singapore. Are there really no sites in Singapore worthy of such an honour? I have visited a few hundred WHS round the world and am convinced that certain sites in Singapore deserve to be listed, for they do posses what UNESCO calls sites with “outstanding universal value”.

Conflicts can also help influence decisions. After the violent clashes between ethnic Uighurs (Uyghurs) and Chinese Hans in Kashgar, the ancient Silk Road city, a petition had been submitted online to claim World Heritage Status for the city, threatened to be demolished.

Man is a threat

Humans themselves are almost always the source of the dangers, as this article written by Dr. Anjana Khatwa, education coordinator for the Jurassic Coast World Heritage, points out:

Threats to World Heritage Sites come in many forms: armed conflict and war, wanton destruction, natural disasters, pollution, poaching, unplanned construction and uncontrolled tourism.

This idea is shared by WMF President Bonnie Burnham in her address for the launch of the 2008 World Monuments Watch List of Most Endangered Sites:

On this list, man is indeed the real ennemy. But, just as we caused the damage in the first place, we have the power to repair it, by taking our responsibility as caretakers of the world’s cultural heritage seriously. So today we are sounding the alarm, using the World Monuments Watch List to demonstrate, through the vivid examples of beloved places around the world, the importance of working together to meet these challenges and join forces to protect our world’s shared architectural heritage.

Innovating answers

Since 2003, UNESCO has also been working to safeguard Intangible Cultural Heritage like languages, dances, and handcraft techniques. New technologies and the Internet could be a necessary breakthrough in preventing some cultural and intangible heritage from vanishing.

CyArk, a non-profit entity, is working on the “500 Challenge”. This project intends to make a digital model of cultural heritage sites by laser scanning, to create an open archive of the data.

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) also has a project to preserve and protect oral and intangible heritage, Creative Heritage Project: IP Guidelines for Documenting, Recording and Digitizing Intangible Cultural Heritage:

New technologies provide communities with fresh opportunities to document and digitize expressions of their traditional cultures, meeting the strong desire of communities to preserve, promote and pass on their cultural heritage to succeeding generations.

This is a credo shared by Malian blogger Boukary Konate, in talking about African folk tales [in Bambara] on his personal blog, Fasokan:

Bi bi in na, an bɛɛ bɛ k’a kɔlɔsi sisan k’o ko ninnu bɛ ka ban dɔɔni dɔɔni. N kɛlen kɔ ka n yɛrɛ ɲininkan, ye jaabi min sɔrɔ, o de ye ka u sɛbɛen an ka kanw na, k’u bayɛlɛma kan wɛrɛw la, k’u bila ɛntɛrinɛti kan. O b’a to u tɛ tunun wa u na lakodɔn mɔgɔ wɛrɛw fɛ.

According to news reports, S$230 million (about US$162.3 million) in baby bonuses were handed out by the Singaporean government in 2008, yet there appears to be no corresponding rise in the number of Singaporean babies born.

The Singapore government's website explains:

You will get a cash gift of up to $4,000 each for your 1st and 2nd child and $6,000 each for your 3rd and 4th child. All your children born on or after 17 August 2008 will also enjoy Government contributions in the form of a dollar-for-dollar matching for the amount of savings you contribute to your child’s Children Development Account (CDA). If your child is born before 17 August 2008, he or she will enjoy the Government matching contributions in the CDA if he or she is your second to fourth child.

The CDA is a special savings account that you open at any OCBC Bank or Standard Chartered Bank branch for your child who is eligible for CDA. You can save in the CDA any time until 31 December in the year your child turns 6 years of age. The savings will be matched up to the cap of $6,000 each for the 1st and 2nd child, $12,000 each for the 3rd and 4th child and $18,000 each for the fifth and subsequent child. The Government will match your savings in the following month.

This means that the those eligible will not only get the cash bonus, but also moneys from the government in the CDA account, subject to a cap, depending on the birth order of the child.

Recently, Singapore’s National Population Secretariat statistics revealed there were only 32,423 citizens born last year, just 129 more than in 2003, the year before the government extended the Baby Bonus Scheme to include the first and fourth child.

According to Mother of Six, a blogger in Singapore who writes on motherhood and social issues, the perception of having a larger family in Singapore is not favourable. She says:

Often, when I tell people I have six children, they react in disbelief. Many must think we are crazy, as the norm in Singapore is to have just one or two. Now with the baby bonus, three or four children may become a standard in future. But six?

The typical objections to having so many children in Singapore are mainly economical. Rising costs is one. If you factor in tuition, enrichment, supplementary class, school buses, childcare, day care and maid, then there will be disincentives to have more than two children.

On the other hand, single unwed mothers in Singapore do not enjoy the baby bonus benefits. According to the Association of Single Mothers Singapore blog:

By providing single mothers a chance to move out and start a family on their own, they learn to be independent and self-help themselves.

By providing single mothers with the same privileges like the ability to purchase HDB flats (government housing) and receive the Baby Bonus, they can stop worrying about facing pressures when at home and focus better at work and improving themselves. By having a clearer mind and more refreshed and energized self, they can better plan their future.

The Baby Bonus allows single mothers to pay for their child’s basic needs like milk and diapers. Single mothers can also use that money to enrol their child into public nurseries so that they have more time on their hands to take on a more permanent and stable job. With bonuses, single mothers can ease their minds

Molly’s blog, To Fix A Mocking Peasant, a personal blog, has an interesting analysis into the situation of the stance of the Singapore government and single unwed mothers:

As usual, our darling CNA (Channel News Asia) is able to sum up the hopelessly impressively circular (il)logic of the government's representatives in one succinct sentence (perhaps without seeing the irony?):

“The baby bonus will not be extended to single unwed mothers as the Marriage and Parenthood Package is an incentive for married couples.”

In other words, we won't extend the baby bonus to single unwed mothers because we won't. The Baby Bonus will remain something for married couples because we won't extend it.

Molly writes further:

Other wonderful reasons Mrs. Yu-Foo (Minister of State for Community Development, Youth and Sports) came up with for not extending the Baby Bonus to single unwed mothers include the fact that they are eligible for other sorts of benefits that married mothers are eligible…

Single unwed mothers are not entitled to the Baby Bonus because they are entitled to everything else. Yes, that's to sum it up in one line.

But you have yet to see the best of Mrs Yu-Foo:

“The Marriage and Parenthood Package is not a financial assistance scheme for children. The government

cannot and should not be the surrogate father.”

So, the Baby Bonus is supposed to lighten the financial costs of having children, but it's not a financial assistance scheme! The government can give the Baby Bonus to poor married couples without becoming the surrogate father, but if it extends the Bonus to single unwed mothers, it will become a surrogate father!

She ends her commentary by saying:

Single unwed mothers, often more so than married mothers, make a conscious decision to keep their babies instead of aborting them due to the social stigmas associated with being, well, single unwed mothers…

Sons of single parents serve NS (Singapore’s compulsory National Service) too.

Pretty Princess Maggie, “a mum who is committed to her family and her handsome baby boy”, has interesting perspective of motherhood and Singapore’s baby bonus on her blog:

The Singapore government had recently revised its baby bonus package. However, as a mother of one, I do not see myself in sacrificing my career and time to stop everything and have another baby again. I want to provide the best for him and I do not want him to share his parents' love with anymore siblings as I do not experienced a very happy childhood. I want to look after him properly and nurture him and give him the best. It is better to have a good kid, than to have 8 lousy ones.

…

Seriously speaking, having more maternity leave… would only add burden to the employers and hinder our career advancement. I do not see that it will help woman have more babies. It would only add stress to them if they were new to the company and was planning to have a few kids. However, I would definitely consider having another child only if I am paid a salary for looking after my baby. And if my baby gets free education or heavily subsidised education… Comparing a few thousand dollars baby bonus to offset the hospitalisation for childbirth, to the money ($950X15=$14,250) to be spent on babycare till 18 months at daycare, and the care and attention that a baby needs, it can nowhere be compared. The baby bonus is just to entice those who do not understand the hardship and commitment and huge financial commitment to raising a baby. In short, only those who had not done their sums would think that it is a big bonus where in fact it is a huge investment with not necessary any returns at all.

The background of Singapore’s current predicament of an aging population is interestingly explored on Singapore Sojourn blog. It states:

…If one reads the history of social engineering from the 1960's onwards it becomes apparent the reluctance to breed was first triggered by a deliberate campaign to reduce population.

In those times parents who had more than two children were penalised and the incidence of abortion was high. Having a third child carried a stigma and financial cost.

Mui Teng Yap wrote an interesting paper on this subject entitled Fertility and Population Policy: the Singapore Experience in which he wrote “Singapore has long been known for its use of social policies to influence fertility/reproductive behaviour. This began in the late 1960s/early 1970s and continues to the present, although the demographic objective has changed from anti-natalist to selectively pro-natalist.”

There was also great concerned that ‘educated' Singaporeans were not breeding and the under classes were.

This changed in 1987 when the rule became “have three if you can afford them” but I suspect by then that the damage was done in that the cultural perceptions of what constituted a family had changed.

A few reasons why Singapore’s baby bonus has not produced its desired results are laid out in (13) Expositions. Among the reasons listed, are the society’s mindset and the difficulty in maintaining a good work-life balance:

Firstly, there is a higher need in the change of the society’s mindset. As Singapore modernizes, its citizens become more educated and women are able to become more independent. They develop a deep passion for their career and a sense of satisfaction when they succeed. In fact, Singapore has witnessed a sharp increase in the percentage of working mothers from 45.6% in 1986 to 54.3% in 2006…

Secondly, the difficulties in maintaining a balance between work and family cause couples to be hesitant to have babies. Working women are especially reluctant to have babies, fearing the insurmountable task of having to juggle between the demands from work to their family-building duties, which require large amounts of commitment…

In conclusion, other prominent factors have been shown to affect the decision to have children. Thus, the Baby Bonus Scheme is limited in its impact and presents a too simplistic solution to resolve such a personal and complicated dilemma.

The Temasek Review also adds that the high cost of living, especially housing, is a prime reason for the ineffectiveness of the baby bonus.

According to a news report, Sociologist Paulin Straughan has suggested that a cash incentive is not enough to encourage women to take on the role of motherhood. She was reported to have said that what mothers and parents really need is more “flexibility and latitude” at the workplace. She was quoted as saying, “We need more enlightened employers who know that granting parents time off for pressing childcare needs may actually produce happier, more productive and loyal workers.”

Mother of Six concludes:

What lessons can be drawn from my experience? Firstly, making a decision to have a child is a personal one between a husband and his wife. We have children because we like children, even if we do not get to enjoy a baby bonus. It would be sad if a couple had a child solely for the monetary rewards, as a child needs more than money to grow into adulthood.

Secondly, women need to rediscover who they are. Only we can bring life into the world, and since the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s, I feel we have actively suppressed this important role of procreation. Of course, in this era of equality, we can argue that the husband must also contribute to bringing up a child — but if a woman does not even allow herself to bear a child, how can the man get the chance?

Often, women in Singapore prefer a briefcase to a bottle, a notebook to a nappy. In this drive to actualise ourselves as career women and useful citizens, have we forgotten that we have the power and ability to bring life into the world?

Ian Tan, a blogger in Singapore, offers a few interesting solutions to the Singapore's baby drought on his blog.

Not too long after, she was interviewed and when a recording of her interview surfaced on the internet, a large number of responses arose about her sub par command of English. There were mixed reactions from many various sources, be it from video portals, blogs, mass media and even the man on the street.

There were some which were negative :

Sometimesjean thinks that as an ambassador, she should be more than just beautiful :

Since Miss Singapore World is a title representing Singapore, i would have thought that besides looking good, the title holder should be someone who speaks confidently, intelligently and has a certain level of class, in fact, we would expect at least an above average if not high level of class. After all, this concerns our nation honor and we should be more critical.

Tanat disagrees with the choice of winner :

I personally feel that Ris Low should not have won Miss Singapore World 2009 title. So what if she had recovered from a high fever days before! I felt she won it mostly due to the sheer manipulation of the judges who thought that her question on “money can buy power” was a sensible one.

However, there are a significant number of netizens who applaud Miss Low for having the courage to enter the competition.

Singkengloon believes that no one is perfect :

The truth is most of us are culpable of such slips in our speech. None of us can admit that our English is perfect. And I got to agree with a former Miss Singapore contestant that Ris Low is still young, with a lot of room to improve.

Indeed, when our beauty queens need our support the most, all we have got to offer is mere mockery. How are our girls going to find the morale to shine for Singapore?

Sam thinks that the barrage of criticism is a reflection of insecurity :

We are apparently ashamed of other breeds of Singaporeans. We want to dust the broken English-speaking folks under the carpet. We want a quarter Chinese, quarter Malay, quarter Indian, quarter Eurasian girl to represent us, not some alleged “Ah Lian”. Why? Because we are uncomfortable with what we see are the “imperfections” of our society - apparent “Ah Lian” subculture/aesthetics, poor English and all that.

Regardless, whether it is to applaud or to berate, the latest winner of Miss Singapore World has certainly been the talk of the town, incidentally giving the event more awareness and coverage compared to the previous contestants from years before.

Dr. Cai worked for 16 years as Principal Investigator at the Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology (IMCB) of ASTAR, Singapore. He was laid-off from work in 2007 (without receiving compensation). After an unsuccessful attempt to look for a new job, he decided last November 2008 to become a taxi driver. He started blogging four months ago. His blog has attracted the attention of Singapore bloggers, including mainstream media.

Dr. Cai introduces himself and his blog in this way:

Probably the only taxi driver in this world with a PhD from Stanford and a proven track record of scientific accomplishments, I have been forced out of my research job at the height of my scientific career, and unable to find another one, for reasons I can only describe as something “uniquely Singapore”. As a result, I am driving taxi to make a living and writing these real life stories just to make the dull job a little more interesting. I hope that these stories are interesting to you too.

Dr. Cai mentions the circumstances which forced him to become a taxi driver:

Becoming jobless at my age is perhaps the worst nightmare that can happen to any ordinary man, not to mention the loss of life-long career…I had submitted countless CV and application letters to various places in Singapore including universities, government agencies, and private companies. Most of them, however, never responded. A couple of replies I did receive never materialized into anything positive. Later, the outburst of financial crisis world wide helped extinguish my last hope of finding a job anytime soon. By November 2008, I finally made a decision to become a taxi driver.

This blog records some of the events that I have experienced as a taxi driver. They are all actual events and are presented as truthfully as possible…The purpose of this blog is to provide readers with the first hand accounts of my experience of converting from a veteran scientist to a rookie taxi driver in today’s Singapore

But is Dr. Cai a real person? Is he really a scientist? Toward the Green researches the profile of Dr. Cai and confirms that Dr. Cai has published several scientific papers.

the facts seem pretty clear: Dr. Cai does exist, and has a well-documented history as a biochemist from the years 1989 to 2009. There is at best circumstantial evidence to suggest that he had a falling out with IMCB sometime in 2007, but hardly anything definitive at this point.

So why is Dr. Cai having trouble finding another R&D job? The R&D market isn’t so hot these days. The bad economy means not many firms are hiring professional scientists. Academia isn’t much of a help – there’s a long history of too many PhDs chasing too few jobs. It doesn’t help that many people get a feeling for rampant ageism in the R&D job market too. Dr. Cai, having received his PhD in 1990 or so, is probably in his mid-forties by now, which in any industry is a particularly challenging time to find work.

Dr. Cai now writes engaging stories of his experiences as a taxi driver. However, for someone like me, his experience spells a clear cautionary tale for anyone interested in a R&D career, let alone anyone interested in an R&D career in Singapore and A*STAR.

Rambling Librarian describes Dr. Cai as the “de facto voice for all Singapore cabbies”

…he probably became the de facto voice for all Singapore cabbies overnight. Without planning to be one, he is a leader in his own way.

Alvinology II praises the attitude of the taxi driver-blogger

The blog reads like a novel of sort, about a scientist-turned-taxi-driver, diligently documenting quirky observations he made while driving on the road - the passengers he met, the various changes coming to our society.

I feel for his plight though. It is a waste of human capital when skill sets and academic qualification do not match with the job a person is holding. Definitely not a healthy trend if we see more and more Singaporeans in such a predicament.

Mr Wang Says So appreciates the writing style of Dr. Cai:

I really like his writing. It's honest, observant, authentic and has a lot of genuine local flavour. His blog entries almost inspire me to start writing my next poetry book.

Heyzanie's World thinks that driving a taxi is not an inferior job even for someone who has a PhD from Stanford

It is a business you can run quite independently and if managed well, it fetches ok income. More importantly, it gives one flexibility of time to work on the other aspects of life. Afterall, Dr. Cai has spent a life time of researching in other people’s labs. It’ll be good to be explore and experiment his own life for a change.

Personally, I feel that driving a cab should not seen as beneath one’s dignity - not even for a star-studded Phd - if one knows how to make the best out of it.

Kent Ridge Common hopes scientists will be allowed to work in an environment where talents are allowed to flourish

Dr Cai’s experience was like a fish getting suffocated out of water, or more accurately in a suffocative environment marked by domination, prejudice and arrogance in his own words. It is good for a nation like ours to dream of becoming a Biomedical hub, but first and foremost, we must create an environment to allow our talents in the field to flourish. If such an environment remains suffocative, such dreams will only remain as hallucinations.

Myanmar authorities accused Suu Kyi of allowing American national John Yettawv to stay in her lakeside house last May which is a violation of the terms of her house arrest. The American was sentenced to seven years of hard labour and imprisonment. Both Suu Kyi and Yettawv are appealing the guilty verdict.

Suu Kyi’s conviction was condemned by world leaders, Burmese activists, and also bloggers. Twitterers based in Southeast Asia also reacted to the “harsh” sentence:

Manila

Starshadow: i'm not sure how to feel over that US guy who was sentenced to hard labor for swimming over to Aung San Suu Kyi's house. :(
Starshadow: well, i'm sad that he was sentenced so harshly, but surely he must have had *some* idea that he could get caught and things would go bad?
mitzvf: His intntns my hve bn noble bt shld've consdrd d consqncs:(Still,7yrs hrd labr isn't fair nor is anthr 18mths 4 Aung San Suu Kyi
Dhalili: is Calling on everyone to give one minute of silence for the FREEDOM of Aung San Suu Kyi
propelahead: I consider Aung San Suu Kyi's conviction by the Burmese military junta a load of crap. More like Grade-A monkey crap.

Singapore, Indonesia, Vietnam

redoranda: I'm disgusted at first then sad and now i feel helpless … we have been waited long enough .. the junta is f**king an outrage (Singapore)
warlockp: the military junta in Myanmar has nothing to do but harrass Aung San Suu Kyi. Another kangaroo court has sentenced her to house arrest…(Indonesia)
emflip: This annoys me. RT @BreakingNews: Reuters: Myanmar court says Suu Kyi guilty of violating security law. (Vietnam)

Malaysia

andrewsusay: ASEAN will be having an emergency meeting today to talk about the Myanmar issue..ha ha..what a bunch of poofs.
Ginielim: Burmese gathering outside Msia Myanmar Embassy this morning 10am to protest against Burmese junta for keeping ASSK in jail 4 another 3years.
nasyua: Im devastated to hear about Aung San Suu Kyi.. The world is so unfair!
Nigelytl: Aung Sang Su Kyi found guilty. Now who didn't see that coming
tianchua: Burmese junta sentenced Suu Kyi 3years hard labor, barred frm running4 election. It's blatant denial of democracy! Asean shd not watch idly!
lilgreenbloke: Once again the Myanmar govt. prove themselves to be deserving of being toppled by another PEOPLE POWER REVOLUTION!

Thailand

da_mike: ASEAN… please please push pressure to Burmese gov to release Aung San Su Kyi.
santiw: I just read the news on Suu kyi. I'm not for Junta, but I'm in a puzzle about “the will of international comunity”, media sometimes refer.
FatCatDave: Free Aung San Suu Kyi! why does the west ignore the injustices to the Burmese… No massive oil reserves?
kasaganahan: We must sustain the public outcry and outrage over the junta's recent verdict of Aung San Suu Kyi.