Hacker strikes fear among “good” citizens, part 2

Over the Deepavali weekend, nineteen (according to Yahoo) websites of government departments were offline. These included the Land Transport Authority and the Singapore Police Force. “Scheduled maintenance” was the cryptic official explanation though no one reported seeing any prior notice. Deepavali (also known as Diwali) is a major Hindu festival. Considering that a significant number of IT engineers are of Indian ancestry, it seemed a strange choice to pick this particular weekend to do IT work, and to “maintain” 19 government websites simultaneously.

Of course, “scheduled” could mean something planned 25 minutes in advance, though such a squeeze on the meaning of the term would by itself indicate that there’s a hidden back story.

pic_201311_14

As for the context, most Singaporeans would know. But for the record, perhaps I should recap. Around 30 or 31 October, a video claiming to be from the hacker’s group Anonymous — not that there is any reason to doubt its authenticity — was put on Youtube threatening an attack on the government of Singapore and calling for a larger protest on 5 November. On 1 November, a section of  The Straits Times’ blogsite was indeed hacked. Both events lit up social media.

Saturday, 2 November — Deepavali itself — numerous government websites were down.

The most unexcited explanation would be that the government took the threat seriously and felt that it had to harden its websites. Urgently. A new leak just in (see Report blames outage of Singapore government websites on ‘routing issues’, ‘hardware failure’) supports this hypothesis. This however raises a few other questions. Not being an IT engineer myself, I don’t know if these are pertinent questions or what the answer might be, but it seems to me questionable how the government can know within 24 – 48 hours what the vulnerabilities of a website are when it has been oblivious to the matter for years and years. All of a sudden, you know where to look and what to fix?  All of a sudden, you know what the solution is? Not very logical, but perhaps IT engineers among my readers could advise.

The main Straits Times site was also down with no warning on Sunday (3 Nov 2013) night

The main Straits Times site was also down with no warning on Sunday (3 Nov 2013) night

More exciting, and surely more speculative, was the thought that one or more attempts at intrusion were detected and the government had to quickly shut down the sites. That several websites of the Philippines government were also hacked the same weekend by Anonymous only made the speculative theory more appealing.

But either way, the official explanation of “planned maintenance” just didn’t ring true.

It reminded me of the Chinese government’s initial response when cases of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) first appeared ten years ago in the spring of 2003. The authorities denied that a contagious disease was spreading. Officials were not telling their citizens anything and were lying to the World Health Organisation about the death toll. According to Bloomberg, in first weeks of the outbreak, 774 persons died.

Here in Singapore too, we have a government that is so paranoid about being seen to have lost control of events, that it uses the same playbook: clam up, deny, use whatever excuse it can rummage up from a near-empty drawer.

The thing about governments obsessed about appearing invincible is that they also tend to believe that they have more credibility and enjoy more trust than they actually do. The two are linked. Governments that first begin by wanting to cement their control through appearing invincible quickly see that getting people to take seriously and believe their threats and pronouncements is a key step toward that goal of control. But human ego being what it is, the arrow of instrumentality is quickly reversed. Governments soon take for granted that they enjoy trust and credibility, and think that is why they remain in power.

It is therefore not surprising that governments which are blind and deaf to public opinion attempt to get away with bald denials and incredible excuses. A good part of our government actually thinks people believe them.

The irony then is that in refusing to say anything more than “scheduled maintenance”, this curt handling of the incident only slashed its credibility. The tiny hack also pricked the government’s aura of invincibility, even though it broke into just an inconsequential part of government mouthpiece Straits Times’ blogsite  — with a readership of what? thirty-four? — yet by doing so, provoked the outsized, panicky response that it did.

And doubling the irony, the hacker didn’t even need to follow up and fell government websites. The government did it for him/her, in the most public way possible.

* * * * *

One panicked response came from a a former Nominated Member of Parliament, Calvin Cheng. Although supposed to be unaffiliated to any political party, Calvin Cheng had a Young People’s Action Party history, the subject of an article by Ng E-Jay on July 2009.

In a furious response to my previous post, which he labelled a “repulsive article”, he said I was “encouraging acts of violence and criminality”.

One particular line from his short Facebook post was this:

This repugnant blogger then asks “That even if you are victimised by a brutish government, you should go no further than respectful and polite conversation?”

My answer to this is yes. Because this is what being a civilised society is about.

Gee, what part of “brutish government” does he not understand?

An earlier part of his post could have done with some intelligent forethought before penning his outrage. In this part, he begins by quoting from me:

“That said, some tactics cause a lot more collateral damage than others. Terrorist bombings or bus hijacks have a tendency to kill and maim innocent people, for example. If we have to draw a line somewhere, it should be on the basis of how well-targeted that choice of tactic is”

- So he is saying that it is ok to kill and main [sic] politicians, if the target is well chosen? Is he inciting murder and political assassinations?

Actually, history is replete (“replete” is not even adequate a word, given the millions of examples) with instances when people have killed in well-targetted fashion and few today would think it was the wrong response. If Claus von Stauffenberg had been successful in his attempt to assassinate Adolf Hitler, we would be hailing him as a hero today. No one is too concerned about the anti-Mussolini partisans who killed the Italian dictator in 1945. Assassinations aren’t always killings of good leaders; much depends on context.

Moreover, “well-targetted” is an internationally accepted consideration in rules of war. Every soldier (including Singaporean ones) is taught that there will be times when he has to kill, and that generally speaking, it is acceptable if it is an enemy combatant that is attacking us. Millions have been killed in various wars in this “well-targetted” way and while we grieve for the loss, we can also understand how and why the tragedies came about. I doubt if any sane person would say that if  enemy soldier is firing at you, you shouldn’t shoot back.

Sometimes, the other side hasn’t even begun shooting. Read up the how snipers were told to kill three Somali hijackers (said to be teenagers) in the Maersk Alabama hijacking. Were the snipers wrong to do as they did?

One lazy distinction is to say that when someone is given orders by a state to kill, it is alright, but no private person can do so for what he feels is a personal cause. That’s a very dangerous reduction, if you ask me. Through history, states have been far less than noble. Some have been downright evil. Much of history is about struggles that inevitably involve violence, sometimes preplanned, sometimes not, to secure freedom or progress, e.g. the innumerable slave rebellions in American history; the struggle against apartheid in South Africa, which though meant to be peaceful, was repeatedly punctuated by rioting.

Soweto uprising, 1976

Soweto uprising, 1976

At the same time, we need to beware how history is revised by victors to cast the vanquished’s aims and methods as illegitimate, and their own acts of violence as a justifiable route to their shining ascendency.

“Nothing justifies violence and acts of criminality,” wrote Calvin Cheng.

Facebook exchange between Andrew Loh and Calvin Cheng, Monday 4 Nov 2013, around 15:00h

Facebook exchange between Andrew Loh and Calvin Cheng, Monday 4 Nov 2013, around 15:00h

Beware too how the presently powerful do the same to less powerful groups that contest their position, among which is classification of acts of resistance as criminal. Read Jothie Rajah’s book, in which she described how, in order to suppress opposition party Barisan Sosialis’ attempts to get their message out to the people (i.e. by sticking posters up in public places, since the press had been controlled), Singapore’s People’s Action Party government made “vandalism” as they called it, a caning offence.

I think it is important that Singaporeans become more capable of critical thinking, hard as it may be in an environment wherein thunderclaps of self-righteous government-speak issue daily. One lesson we can take from this Calvin Cheng post is that mouthing uninformed, unreflexive responses to what is really a highly context-dependant and historically-subjective issue — the issue being the morality of acts of resistance — only reveals an embarrassing simple-mindedness.

———-

Addendum, Tuesday, 5 Nov 2013, 12:15h

An internal incident report with the Infocomm Development Authority (IDA) letterhead, and which Today newspaper says it “understands to be genuine” was leaked yesterday. It is published at the TechInAsia site (IDA blames outage of Singapore government websites on technical issues, denies hackers involved). The contents of the letter appear consistent with what was reported to have been told to the media at an IDA press conference Monday afternoon.

The chronology of events as revealed by the letter and reported by Today was as follows:

1.  Maintenance work was “brought forward,” quoting Today’s news report, “in the wake of last week’s threat by a group claiming to be part of the Anonymous hacking collective”;

2.  “Urgent scheduled maintenance” was meant to be done on Friday, 1 Nov 2013 from 13:00h to 15:00h, “to test the implementation of a security solution for internet access” — according to the leaked report;

3.  During the test, the internet connection was “swung from the primary link to the secondary link.” However, “a routing problem was detected at the secondary internet link and the swing to secondary link was unsuccessful”;

4.  “When the internet connection was swung back to the primary link, the router experienced a hardware failure.” This happened at the “Internet facing router”;

5.  Then, a “replacement router was set up to support the primary link,” but they “encountered difficulty in re-establishing the network connection with the ISP infrastructure”.

6.  Internet connection was restored at 17:21h on Saturday, 2 Nov 2013.

So the chief theory that was circulating on social media over the weekend (in the absence of information from the government itself) was correct.  They were urgently trying to harden their websites.

It’s not over yet. Today reported the IDA spokesperson to have told the media that over the next few days, some government websites may continue to face downtime.

What this report shows is that there was much inherent fragility and unreliability in the system. They couldn’t even do a security fix without causing the whole thing to crash. Instead of being reassured, should we be even more worried?

32 Responses to “Hacker strikes fear among “good” citizens, part 2”


  1. 1 TinyRedLeaf 4 November 2013 at 16:25

    It’s one thing to protest against a government and its policies. It’s quite another thing altogether to condone political blackmail, which is what Anonymous’ threats effectively amount to. With freedom of expression, you get to hold events like Pink Dot. At the same time, you must also grant the other side to hold anti gay lifestyle events, however much you hate them.

    Freedom of expression, on the other hand, does not allow you to take a family member of a conservative spokesperson hostage and demand that he drop his “hate speech” against homosexuals. Neither does it allow you to get away with threatening to spray graffiti or smash his home if he refuses to comply with your “request” to cease and desist.

    I strongly feel you should know better than to condone “hacktivist” actions like this. As you say, there’s a line to be drawn, and trying to fudge the details just because Anonymous is attacking a government you hate is going to do more harm than good.

    • 2 BigBlueUmbrella 4 November 2013 at 17:34

      Who excels in political blackmail? Who does not grant the other side the same freedom and rights to hold peaceful assembly and public emails? Surely the ones in white, not the ones in black!

  2. 3 Sgcynic 4 November 2013 at 16:55

    What was the justification for making “one-man assembly” illegal?

    • 4 TinyRedLeaf 4 November 2013 at 17:28

      I may have remembered wrongly, so don’t take my answer as absolute. There’s no law per se in Singapore making a “one-man” assembly illegal. Rather, the law was changed to allow a police officer of a certain rank and above (can’t remember the exact details) to compel any individual to disperse from a site to prevent disruption. The change was enacted ahead of International Monetary Fund meetings in Singapore, back in 2006. The intention was to give the authorities the power to take pre-emptive action against protesters.

      • 5 WongAB 11 November 2013 at 11:29

        You are wrong.

        [You should explain why you hold this view. Normally, I would not publish a comment like this that is not argued with reasoning. But I'm making this exception so others can understand moderation policy.]

  3. 6 Chanel 4 November 2013 at 16:56

    Check out Calvin Cheng’s FB. He still calls himself a “public figure”!! This guy appears to have an outsized ego that needs to be fed constantly. I understand that he personally sponsored for this particular FB post to appear widely. Maybe he wants to be noticed again by the powerful.

  4. 7 a kind of chicken 4 November 2013 at 18:24

    Dear Yawning Bread,

    I would like to know what your response would be if the hacker, instead of demanding Internet freedom, was demanding the christian right’s agenda, say all gay people be locked up indefinitely. Is this a legitimate form of protest? What if every group with an agenda started to hire hackers and protested in this legitimate way?

    I love most of your articles. Me, I’m really glad that this hacker is doing as he is. All the way man. =) But at the same time, as a society, we need to establish some form a defense against this technique. As is, it is a dangerous precedent.

    Thanks and Regards,
    Chicken

    • 8 yawningbread 4 November 2013 at 20:39

      Avoid going for hypothetical examples — “what if a hacker. . . ” There are an infinite number of possibilities and one can easily be accused of selection bias.

      But to your second question: “as a society, we need to establish some form a defense against this technique.” We already do. There are laws against defacing websites. The defence is that we investigate this instance and prove someone guilty. The hacker knows the risks he undertook, the same way that a graffiti artist or a fire-bomber does, in pursuit of his/her cause. It’s his/her calculation whether he/she will get caught, it’s his/her calculation too whether if so, it is worth it.

      Do we always say: if the king has made something a criminal offence, then no one should ever try to flout it, no matter how horrible you think the king is? Please, that is too simple. Someone somewhere is going to be pissed off enough to try. Those of us who share his feelings but don’t have the guts to do likewise can only applaud from the sidelines, or if we’re even too scared to applaud, join the chorus of “true believers” and hypocritically say, “Oh no, that shouldn’t have been done.”

  5. 9 Samantha 4 November 2013 at 19:12

    What can you expect from a government lap dog? There are too many of them in Singapore. If you read Ng Kok Lin in his blog post, LKY is no saint either.

  6. 10 yuen 4 November 2013 at 20:05

    it is widely believed that tomorrow Nov 5 Guy Fawkes day is when Anonymous will unleash widespread attacks, so using a holiday weekend three days earlier to do some firewall strengthening is the more likely explanation; I myself doubt Anonymous as an organization would attach priority to attacking Singapore – there is more prestige in bringing down a western government website, including Australia; individuals like Messiah may have different ideas; given his/her familiarity with various recent Singapore events, Messiah is likely to be Singaporean resident on a personal mission; his/her concern with newsy trivialities does not mark him/out as a serious revolutionary/terrorist/criminal, more a publicity hound

    • 11 humph 5 November 2013 at 16:19

      I suspect the Messiah is a Singaporean based overseas. Cross jurisdiction issues would make tracing and arresting her much more difficult.

      If you are reading this, Messiah, please stay away from poor persons’ (myself included) bank accounts. Otherwise I wish you much luck in not getting caught.

  7. 12 Joachim Cuntz 4 November 2013 at 21:04

    I will have to disagree strongly again with Alex Au. My views are similar to Remy Choo of TOC, who stated very clearly that there is a difference between civil disobedience based on a clear, well-reasoned cause, and an ambiguous, poorly articulated set of objectives which only leads to confusion.

    The Messiah has not shown himself (or the group controlling the Messiah persona have not shown themselves) to have a deep understanding of the issues. Their writings have been politically immature and hastily-cobbled. I do not want to side with their cause not because I am afraid of civil disobedience, but because I do not want identify with the way they are articulating the issues nor the methods by which they are making themselves heard.

    Although I do not agree with the way Calvin Cheng (and the mainstream press) has used an alarmist approach to scare us into obedience, I feel we should be far more circumspect with regard people who purport to be fighting for our causes. We have to question their motives and their methods. We have to ask whether they understand the complexity of the issues, or whether they are merely hijacking some populist topics to get our attention which they then abuse for their own ends, whatever their ends may be.

    People who fight for good causes are not afraid to put their real names up and go down for the count. I am not saying those who remain anonymous cannot be good. Anonymous exposed a rapist once, where NYPD had failed to capture the criminal. They have done good before. Until the Anonymous of Singapore does similar good, I shall remain extremely skeptical as to their motives and methods.

    • 13 Chanel 5 November 2013 at 15:54

      “put their real names up” so that the entire government machinery can go after them?? Please get real. This is Singapore. Look what happened to JBJ, Tang Liang Hong, Chee Soon Juan, etc. They all tried to have a sensible dialogue with the ruling party, but were decimated.

  8. 14 Rabbit 4 November 2013 at 21:26

    Alex, you will be shocked if you know how to read Chinese News paper. Yesterday night, SPH Chinese Xin Ming called Shanmugam the modern Justice Bao of Singapore. Giving him that title is a disgrace to the real Justice Bao of China who would have granted a coraoner’s inquity into the death of Dinesh. Anyway, there has been much news in the chinese paper granting him the space, for days and painted him in EXTREME good light (with well selected photos to match – including interviewing his wife). Was he really in such bad shapes that need to be restored by SPH?

    Personally, I felt the appearance of “Messiah” is timely. Its message has far reaching effect than the state CON-versation. Anonymous has nearly reached half-million viewers within a span of less than a week now. Some people might think the method used is unacceptable but it pales in comparison from those who tried to hack into every aspect of our lifes including threatending not to upgrade your HDB if you didn’t vote for them or they will get someone to steal your lunch if you disagree with their policies.

    “The Messiah” presence, it a breath of fresh air from this very depressing nation. The message has gone international and let’s hope (I am not optimistic) PAP will not just revamp its computer but get the message into their head and not acted like LSS who doned in Zorro attire and tried to act like “The Messiah” for the people.

  9. 15 naturalized 4 November 2013 at 21:26

    I don’t know a single person who supports the IDA regulations, let alone myself. But this has got to be 2013’s Most Counterproductive Thing Award’s winner.

    The PAP can’t back down now, even if they were rethinking their actions, or any time some anyone wants something done, or not done, he/she just makes an amateurish video making semi-literate threats against a laundry list of bogeymen.

    More importantly, imagine the response from Ah Seng off the street (of whom several examples can be found in the comments for your previous post). “Hmmm masked men claiming to be terrorists are making threats of war on the government… yes, yes clearly we need more freedom of the Internet in Singapore!”

    YB, I love your work, but sometimes you need to see the wood for the trees, and the rantings and ravings of semi-educated attention-seekers as the rantings and ravings of semi-educated attention-seekers. Not every snook at the government is worth cocking.

    And as for this “Calvin Cheng”… don’t feed the troll.

  10. 16 OJ 4 November 2013 at 22:55

    What is with all these elitist attitude? Calling the hacker semi-literate and politically immature? Only educated people who write well and have deep knowledge of issues can feel indignant?

    They may not have the gift of the gab but they certainly do have IT skills to send the same message of frustration across.

    • 17 naturalized 5 November 2013 at 13:39

      I love that word, “elitist”. It’s become the Singaporean equivalent of lese-majeste – it means everything and nothing at the same time. We’ve become so frustrated with the PAP’s smug nothings about meritocracy that we need to constantly police our every word and thought at every time to avoid sounding remotely like them.

      Please, come on. No offence was intended, OJ, and I’m sorry if you took any. The Messiah has every right to feel indignant about whatever he wants. But if a guy lists “Tammy the puppy” as one of his Top Five Shocking Big Horrific Things Wrong With Singapore alongside the IDA regulations, I think it’s safe to say he’s maybe not somebody whose sense of proportion isn’t quite all there.

      And as for the IT skills… this is very far from my area of expertise, but so far – I stress SO FAR, since today is the 5th, and he could yet prove me wrong – he’s done nothing more than script-kiddying. This comic says it better than I could: http://xkcd.com/932/.

  11. 18 John 4 November 2013 at 23:21

    Ok, so you wrote several paragraphs trying to drive home your point that the Singapore government is being dishonest about the reasons for the scheduled maintenance of its websites. My question to you is, even if you were right, what were you expecting the official message to be? Were you expecting the government to say that the websites are down for maintenance because they need to beef up IT security to prevent future hacks?

    And then you go on to talk about how this was a symptom of a government needing to appear infallible, and the way in which the matter was handled has, in your words, ‘ slashed its credibility’. My question to you here is, do you not realise that much of what has made Singapore successful has come down to the fact that we had a strong government? And yet you question, in fact, almost belittle, the need for the government to appear strong when it has been the basis for much of our prosperity.

    As for your point that the government ‘did it for him/her’, I’m sure you’ll agree that there’s a difference between involuntarily being the victim of a hacking attempt where you lose control of your website and intentionally taking it offline in order to strengthen IT security.

    • 19 Russel Tan 5 November 2013 at 05:35

      “Were you expecting the government to say that the websites are down for maintenance because they need to beef up IT security to prevent future hacks .”
      Yes , I would.
      “The need for the government to appear strong when it has been the basis for much of our prosperity.”
      Why is there a need to appear strong? Just like in real life, we would respect a person in authority more if he can show his vulnerable side.

      • 20 Jeff Dickey 9 November 2013 at 19:32

        The need to appear strong is precisely because The Minister and His Cronies are so literally pathologically insecure that they’re afraid that, once enough people learn to see objective reality rather than the fantasyland of State media and papaganda, that there’d be a People Power revolution here that would actually manage to claw back Singaporeans’ money before kicking TM&HC to the kerb.

        Bring it on, Singapore!

    • 21 Ex Singaporean 5 November 2013 at 07:16

      Going by your argument, the continued oppression of blacks by the farm owners and resulting prosperity would be justified?

      And whose prosperity is the government trying to maintain?

    • 22 Natasha 5 November 2013 at 09:14

      > do you not realise that much of what has made Singapore successful has come down to the fact that we had a strong government?

      This is a misguided comment. Without us hardworking Singaporeans, the PAP government is nothing. We don’t owe the PAP a living. If PAP is to disappear today, live goes on. Singaporeans are a resilent people and we will find a way out.

      Which brand of opium did you smoke?

    • 23 Mack 5 November 2013 at 18:51

      “Do you not realise that much of what has made Singapore successful has come down to the fact that we had a strong government?”

      You are so f-ing brainwashed. There is only one PAP, in Singapore, but there are many countries that are successful, some far more than Singapore.

  12. 24 aerynthea 4 November 2013 at 23:31

    This is the first time I felt compelled to leave a comment here. I am a Singaporean doing my Phd in the states, in anthropology and indigenous studies. I found myself very disappointed at the unthinking fear and polarization found among my fb friends and on the various online articles. Thank you for showing me that there are people who think critically about this. You might want to check out Gabrielle Coleman’s book, ‘Coding Freedom’ and her numerous videos on youtube on Anonymous. I just want to tell you that I hear your voice and please keep up with your wonderful work here.

  13. 26 Andrew Tung 5 November 2013 at 00:30

    Let me tell you a true story. One evening a boy was chased out of the house by his parents. He got so angry that he threw stones at the house.
    The Messiah and the Anonymous Legions may be those angry boys outside. We have enough of angry boys outside Singapore to form the Anonymous Legions.

  14. 27 Ex Singaporean 5 November 2013 at 07:13

    The Singaporean government does not want articulate / critical citizenry.

    They want hardworking sheep who do not question or complain … or make demands on the government.

  15. 28 a kind of chicken 5 November 2013 at 09:16

    Dear Yawning Bread,

    I thank you for your reply, I understand your position much better now.

    I believe that most of societies defense to anti-social behavior is based on human conditioning rather than explicit laws. There is very little risk of my getting caught if I wanted to deface my neighbors doors, or slash his car tires. Yet, we largely do not worry about such things because there is an in built circuit which says this is not right. I would even argue it is fairly easy to get away with murder, especially if the police do not know you have relations with that person. Yet, murder is not something we worry about too much. What I worried about is that you seem to be trying to legitimize a means of protest against which society has very little defense, other than a innate sense that this is generally wrong.

    On the other hand, I love your point that the sg govt has been so over the top that the hacker is now perfectly in the right.

    I believe that some mis-understanding may have happened because of the way you phrase your arguments. Perhaps if you said directly that

    Hacking other people’s websites is generally wrong and is to be condemned. However, given the extreme provocation in this instance, we believe that this form of protest is valid and to be admired. This might prevent confusion by gondoos like me. =)

    This would prevent hacking from being equated with something like non-violent street demonstrations which are generally ok, regardless of the issues involved.

  16. 29 patriot 5 November 2013 at 12:05

    Surprised that many commenters conflated Rule of Law with Rule by Law. Or that Singaporeans are fine with Both though the Difference has much implication.

    Anyway, there is no reason and logic that only those in power can mandate Laws and approve them without the Consensus of the People. When such is the Case, there is no democracy but Totalitarian Rule. If it is the Latter, there is no need for election.

    Throughout Human History, changes in politics were invariably from revolution, uprising, revolt and war which included internal(within a party/regime) and civil(within the population). The recent and current situations in the Middle East are the best proof. It was the same throughout history. It is the Law of Nature that mankind behaves this way. No amount of Law or Argument can change the Fsct.

    patriot

  17. 30 humph 5 November 2013 at 16:10

    Time to see if the IDA scholars are worth their salt :))

  18. 31 Anon s7Sw 5 November 2013 at 21:14

    Somehow I think people have started twisting Anonymous’ message about what they intended to do when they sent the Youtube warning. Anonymous was protesting the regulation of internet by the government, when the government wanted to start licensing and bringing into control online news and blogs. This and this alone was the move that Anonymous pointed out as being intolerable. Perhaps a threat from them could constitute as political blackmail, but I do not think they are wrong to protest the control of internet. We’re not North Korea, a land of dictatorship. We are supposed to be a democratic country, illusionary maybe, but least that is what we outwardly present. Had our government had been more willing to listen to the people via amicable negotiations outside of general election campaigning periods, Anonymous would have zero support and get zero tolerance from the people. Listen and reflect on this, our dear government.

  19. 32 Hopeful Singaporean 25 November 2013 at 23:09

    the current government, including the AGC, are acting like little kids trying to go around suing people. Stay strong and never give in to a repressive government.

    These are our darkest hours.. but the light will come soon


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




For an update of the case against me, please see AGC versus me, the 2013 round.

Copyright

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 727 other followers

%d bloggers like this: