>I am saying 'you cannot protest without applying for a permission'.
Only somewhat true:
In Singapore, Speakers' Corner is an area located within Hong Lim Park where people can demonstrate, hold exhibitions and performances, and speak freely on most topics. It was launched on 1 September 2000 as a "free speech area" where speaking events could be held without the need to apply for a licence under the Public Entertainments Act (Cap. 257, 1985 Rev. Ed.), now the Public Entertainments and Meetings Act (Cap. 257, 2001 Rev. Ed.) ("PEMA"). However, it was necessary for people to register their intention to speak at the venue with a police officer at the Kreta Ayer Neighbourhood Police Post any time within 30 days before the event, though there was no requirement for the police to be informed of the topic of the proposed speech.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speakers%27_Corner,_Singapore
Now contrast this with the orwellian "free speech zones" that were set up around the time of the Republican convention. Or the violent beatings protestors in Zuccotti park got.
I think the difference between the kinds of protest possible in the US and Singapore are largely academic. There are onerous restrictions on both.
>Let me ask you - which court cases have been won by Newspapers and opposition parties against the government. Straits times reported back in 1990s that Prime minister Goh may be taking directions from then ex-prime minister Lee Kuan Yew and they were sued and had to pay hefty sum of money, even though even the hardcore PAP loyalists will agree that he may indeed be taking directions from LKY. But, Straits times could not gather sufficient evidence to support the claim and had to suffer (and since then it hardly publishes anything that criticises the government.)
If the same lawsuit was launched in the UK (which has similarly onerous libel laws which Singapore's derive from), it would likely have been successful too.