Making a song and dance of Singapore's press freedom in an American university must be embarrassing [Link
] but to advertise Singapore as "prized trophy target for terrorists" is downright irresponsible.
On Prime Page 3 of Sunday Times of October 31 2010, Chua Hian Hou reported, 'DPM Wong passes on the baton' - His successor, Law Minister and Second Minister for Home Affairs K. Shanmugum paid a glowing tribute to him.
Mr Wong, he said, was a mentor whom he had known for more than 20 years and whom he greatly respect and admired. He "met every challenge with a realistic and workable solution. He never shied away from making tough, at times unpopular, decisions".
Singapore boasts one of the lowest drug abuse rates in the world, and its streets are "now safer than they ever have been", said Mr Shanmugum.
And despite its status as a "prized trophy target for terrorists", Singapore has yet to be hit by such an attack, he added.'
The bragging of some politicians in Singapore knows no bounds. Who gives Singapore the status of "prized trophy target for terrorists"? In praising one's predecessor there is no need to talk so big and loud. No need to invite trouble. No need to tempt fate.
Why highlight Singapore as a "prized trophy target for terrorists"?
Was New York of 9/11 a "prized trophy target"?
Did Bali (12/10/02), London (7/7/05) or Mumbai (26/11/08) enjoy the status of "prized trophy targets" too?
I cannot understand who in his right mind would want to remind those who wish us harm that "Singapore is yet to be hit''. Why antagonize them with such a boast? Such a challenge?
We all know of "staring incidents". Such challenges lead to unnecessary fights, bloodshed and deaths. Why act tough and start a "staring incident" of the "terrorists kind"?
The shock, the awe and the pain of a "terrorists attack" will make the gang attacks in Downtown East and Bukit Panjang look like child's play. Heaven forbids!
Saying that Singapore is a "prized trophy target for terrorists" that has yet to be hit is worse than screaming that we belong to the gang of "396", "Pak Hai Tong" or "Fong Hong San".
If they can lock up people for wearing cute "Kangaroo T-Shirts", should they also haul up the irresponsible bigmouth for attracting, inviting and inciting violence?