the imf world bank controversy of banning some activists and thus saying that singapore is being to strict and the usual blah….

seriously, would you want singapore to have this sort of super strict reputation or gain notoriety when the imf thingy gets blasted by some activists?
i personally dont mind singapore being too strict. if anything, it ensures safety. i'm not a noble hero or some passionate person with a course or even a rebel without a cause. i am a typical singaporean girl going through stages of life and looking forward to a semi-ambiguously-bright future. and there are many more like me out there.

it has been drilled into us. "singapore's only resource is her people." overused and cliché doesn't mean it's not true. it's too true. why should we fault the government for putting our safety first? should we risk the lives of not only the foreign delegates coming to singapore but the lives of the ordinary singaporean for a kinder softer reputation internationally?

people say that it's a form of restricting freedom or expression and speech.

this is not america. singapore is not a free country. we don't have freedom of speech.

but is that really a bad thing? is singapore ready for freedom of speech? to blatantly use mr tong ee's example, freedom of speech means having a random person come up to you(a christian) and state clearly "there's no such thing as god. you're dumb to believe in it", you as the christian must then believe that what he is saying is true to him. freedom of speech is allowing a racist chinese to go up to a malay and say his race are made of dumb people.

can the singapore society handle such freedom? with our multi-religious and multi-racial society, i think not.

lack of freedom of speech, expression, harsh reputation, being made butt of jokes as having sticks in our asses.
i take these any day rather than risking the safety and the delicate balance our society has excelled in.