NKL Exposed the Hypocrisy of 'SG Kindness Movement' & Other FAP Bull Shit

[Sammyboy RSS Feed]

An honorable member of the Coffee Shop Has Just Posted the Following:

False charges of xenophobia and racism

June 4th, 2014 | Author: Contributions




PIDCS event


I refer to the 28 May 2014 Straits Times article “Nasty comments mar
Filipinos’ Independence Day preparations”.

The Philipino Independence Day Council Singapore supposedly cancelled this
year’s Philippines Independence Day celebration due to unavailability,
inaccessibility or capacity constraints of alternative venues. But one
alternative venue, Labrador Park is much larger than Ngee Ann City and is served
by the Labrador Park MRT station. There are also other open spaces located away
from public eyes like Pearl’s Hill City Park just behind Outram Park MRT and
Fort Canning Park near Dhoby Gaut MRT. The organisers have no one else but
themselves to blame when so many alternative venues are available to them.

Sociologist Paulin Straughan worried that those who protested against the
event will see this as a victory. Ms Straughan was unduly worried, the
protestors didn’t gloat over their success because right from the start, their
purpose has always been for the country rather than against anybody so there is
no one to gloat against. Ms Straughan believed most Singaporeans do not share
the protestors’ sentiments. Ms Straughan has been misinformed; the protestors
wouldn’t have achieved success without sufficient groundswell. Ms Straughan
urged the so-called silent majority to speak up so that this does not come
across as victory for the protestors. Ms Straughan should not assume that
silence means consent, she should not begrudge an outcome that many Singaporeans
fought hard for and she should not behave like a sore loser. The subsequent
voicing out by various groups including 12 civil society organizations shows
just how ‘majority’ or otherwise the supposedly silent ‘majority’ is. Together,
they represent only a tiny segment of the Singapore population, nothing like
what you’d see at Hong Lim Park.

Civil society statement on racism and xenophobia

I refer too to the statement on racism and xenophobia by 12 civil society
organizations and 20 individuals. Without proof, the groups condemned
Singaporeans of racism and xenophobia not realizing that their noble efforts
will come to nought if their one-sided accusation of racism and xenophobia isn’t
backed by evidence. Unless they come up with clear, irrefutable evidence, their
arguments will always rest on hollow grounds.

The groups insist that injustices will not disappear even if migrant
population were to decrease. But we know injustices should decrease as migrant
population decreases. They refer to widespread use of racist or aggressive
anti-foreigner rhetoric or language on social media and public space without
ever proving so. Quite often, what they refer to as racist rhetoric or language
is what Singaporeans normally use on one another day in day out. It can’t be
that Singaporeans arguing with one another is seen as okay but Singaporeans
arguing with foreigners for specific reasons is seen as racist and xenophobic.
We would end up with this strange situation where Singaporeans are compelled to
treat foreigners much better than they treat themselves.

The groups reject the notion of “true blue Singaporean” as a prejudice no
different from the prejudice against race, class, skin colour and so on. They
also reject the elevation of the pink IC or National Service as sacred emblems
of entitlement. Should they try to shove their rejection down the throats of
Singaporeans, they will soon realise who the silent majority is.

What message was police sending over Filipino event?

I refer too to the 29 May 2014 Today letter “What message was police sending
over Filipino event?” by Singapore scholar Daniel Lim Shao Qi.

Daniel expressed disappointment with the Singapore police for failing its
duty to protect law and order. Actually, it is not law and order that needs
protection but people. Law and order needs upholding instead.

Daniel vilified and maligned protestors of the Philippines Independence Day
event as intolerant bigots. Daniel couldn’t have been more wrong for no one was
ever against the celebration of the Philippines Independence Day, only of its
celebration in Orchard Road. The rationale isn’t one of intolerance but love for
one’s country for quite clearly, it is against the law and honour of Singapore
for the Philippines Independence Day to be held in clear view of the public. So
contrary to what Daniel insisted, the police was actually upholding the law of
Singapore, specifically our National Emblems Act, when it rejected the
event.

The message to the Philippine government and to foreigners is not that the
police is unwilling to protect Filipinos or foreigners but that Filipinos and
foreigners must obey Singapore law, specifically the National Emblems Act, in
Singapore.

Don’t let xenophobia take root in Singapore: Arthur Fong

I refer too to the 30 May 2014 Today report “Don’t let xenophobia take root
in Singapore: Arthur Fong”.

MP Authur Fong described the furore over the Philippine Independence Day
celebration as a shot across the bow that should prompt Singaporeans to examine
themselves. No Mr Fong, it is a shot across the bow for you and your PAP
colleagues and a gentle reminder that our National Emblems Act should not be
taken for granted nor desecrated in the name of xenophilia.

Mr Fong’s worry about xenophobia is misplaced for no one was ever against the
Philippine Independence Day celebration, only of its being held in Orchard Road.
The kind of Singapore we will have is one where the hospitality of Singaporeans
towards foreigners is reciprocated by their commensurate respect for our laws,
specifically the National Emblems Act.

Mr Fong warned against destructive politics without realizing that locking up
political opponents without trial, bankrupting them for innocuous comments,
monopolizing the national narrative through the press and television have been
destructive to Singapore politics for the past 50 years that have driven 40% of
the populace to cynicism and hopelessness. Gridlock is not the worse evil
compared to the tyranny of absolute power.

Singaporeans should speak out against racism

I refer too to the 31 May 2014 Today report “Singaporeans should speak out
against racism”.

Mr Wan reasoned that when individuals representing civil rights groups make a
strong statement against racism and xenophobia, it is not an imaginary monster
created by the government. One of those individuals is Ms Teo Soh Lung. If Ms
Teo speaking up against racism and xenophobia means racism and xenophobia are
real, then Ms Teo speaking up against the evils of the Internal Security Act and
Operation Spectrum means the ISA and Operation Spectrum are also truly evil. In
that case, would Mr Wan be so kind as to champion the abolishing of the ISA and
the restitution of all those who were unjustly taken away during Operation
Spectrum? Or does Mr Wan only recognize the work of civil rights groups when it
runs along government agenda but disapproves their work when it runs in
contrary?

Mr Wan blamed Singaporeans for being unkind to foreigners but that’s not
true, Singaporeans are kind to foreigners, only this time they are insisting
that their sacred right as enshrined by the National Emblems Act be
respected.

Mr Wan doubted most Singaporeans are xenophobic or racist and urged this
silent majority to step forward. Mr Wan is right in that the majority of those
who protested against the Philippines Independence Day celebration in Orchard
were neither xenophobic nor racist. They are the silent majority who will always
step forward to refute Mr Wan’s false accusations of xenophobia and racism.

Thank you

Ng Kok Lim

* * * * * * * * *

Straits Times, Nasty comments mar Filipinos’ Independence Day preparations,
28 May 2014


AN ANNUAL Independence Day celebration for the Filipino community here has
been cancelled for the first time in more than 20 years, in the wake of protests
from some netizens here about the event’s venue.

The organisers told The Straits Times yesterday in a statement that they had
problems finding a new venue, after they were advised to drop plans to have the
celebration at the Ngee Ann City Civic Plaza in Orchard Road on June 8.

They had done so after being advised by the police about “public order and
safety” concerns over the weekend. When contacted, the police said organisers
“had withdrawn their application”.

The organisers, the Pilipino Independence Day Council Singapore (PIDCS), also
said in their latest statement that they had considered other venues “in
consultation with Singapore authorities”. “However, these did not pan out for
various reasons,” the PIDCS added, citing factors such as their availability on
June 8, accessibility to public transport and capacity constraints.

The celebration to mark the 116th anniversary of the Philippines’
independence from Spain on June 12, 1898, was staged at Hong Lim Park last year,
and in Suntec City in 2012. It has been held yearly since the mid-1980s.

The Straits Times understands that Labrador Park was one venue considered.
Calls to the organisers went unanswered.

The cancellation of the celebration, usually a carnival with cultural
presentations and games, comes after hundreds of netizens here voiced
unhappiness last month over the event being held in Orchard Road. Others also
objected to the council’s use of the Marina Bay skyline in a logo for the event.
The negative comments prompted Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Manpower
Minister Tan Chuan-Jin to weigh in on Facebook. In an April 19 post, Mr Lee said
he was “appalled to read about those who harassed the organisers.”

About 172,700 Filipinos work here, the Agence France-Presse reported on
Monday, citing Philippine government data.

Meanwhile, two migrant worker groups here – the Humanitarian Organisation for
Migration Economics and the Foreign Domestic Worker Association for Social
Support and Training – said they planned to host Independence Day celebrations
here.

The cancellation has disappointed some people here.

Ms Luz Mesenas, a 58-year-old publisher who is from the Philippines, is a
regular at the event. She said: “It’s sad that there is no Philippine
Independence Day celebrations this year. Hopefully, the committee can continue
to plan for celebrations next year.”

Filipina Charlyn Librazan, 49, who works as a maid, added: “Whatever the
circumstance, we can still celebrate with a group of friends.”

Sociologist Paulin Straughan said: “What is worrying is that those who
protested against the event will see this as a victory.

“I believe most Singaporeans do not share their sentiments. This is a
situation where the silent majority should speak up for our foreign friends so
it does not come across as a victory for protesters.”
Today, What message was police sending over Filipino event?, 29 May 2014


The police have advised the Pilipino Independence Day Council that there are
public order and safety concerns with the venue proposed for its celebration
plans. Consequently, the organisers decided to cancel their event.
I am
disappointed in the Singapore Police Force. Instead of fulfilling its duty to
protect law and order, it gave in to threats by bigots towards other members of
the community, the same bigots our Prime Minister condemned for their
intolerance.
Instead of advising the organisers to hold the event elsewhere,
they should have promised additional security if needed. What message are we
sending to the Philippine government — that we are unwilling to protect its
citizens?
What is the message to foreigners who live and work in Singapore?
When a police force tells the people it is supposed to protect that powers in
the community are too big for it to control, it is plainly shirking
responsibility.

Daniel Sim Shao Qi
Today Online, Don’t let xenophobia take root in Singapore: Arthur Fong, 30
May 2014


The recent online furore over a planned Philippine Independence Day
celebration in Singapore is a “shot across the bow” that should prompt
Singaporeans to examine themselves, said Member of Parliament for West Coast
GRC, Mr Arthur Fong, in Parliament today (May 30).

“Xenophobia, I hope, will not take root,” he said. “Is this what we want? And
if this takes root, what kind of Singapore will we have?”

His comments came after netizens slammed the organisers behind the Philippine
Independence Day celebration in Singapore, for wanting to hold the event at
Orchard Road. Some had also objected to the depiction of the Marina Bay skyline
in a logo for the event. According to the Police, organisers have since decided
to withdraw their application to hold the event.

Mr Fong also warned against “destructive politics” in Singapore, a spin on
this week’s hot topic of “constructive politics” in Parliament.

“Destructive politics can cause cynicism and hopelessness,” said Mr Fong. “If
we allow cynicism to take root, a sense of hopelessness to take root via
expressions cast on policies, for example, it will just do that. We will be
gridlocked.” CHANNEL NEWSASIA
Today, Dr Wan: Silent majority should speak up without fear, 31 May 2014


I read with concern the discussion, especially online, that ensued from the
civil society statement on racism and xenophobia (“Civil society groups warn
against growth of racism, xenophobia”; May 29).
The statement was criticised
for supposedly blaming honest Singaporeans who are speaking up to defend our
homeland against unbridled immigration.
It was said that while the statement
correctly pinpointed economic policy as the cause of these problems, the
headline with the words “racism” and “xenophobia” showed that even these groups
favour foreigners rather than suffering Singaporeans.
Racism and xenophobia,
if at all, are symptoms of a broken system, said these Singaporeans, who feel
justified in taking it out on foreigners.
What I find interesting is that the
statement comes from individuals who represent organisations fighting for civil
rights, whether of humans, women, migrants or Singaporean workers.
That they
expressed such a concern makes a strong statement about the state of our nation,
that racism and xenophobia are not some imaginary monster the Government created
to deflect attention from other issues.
However, these signatories, hailed
yesterday as heroes by the same critics, have become pro-government flacks
today, going by online comments. Basically, if you are not with us, you are
against us.
To say now that these activists did themselves a disservice, by
aligning with the immigration policy, is at best disingenuous.
They represent
civil society groups and individuals who have spoken up for Singaporeans all
this time, while engaging in real work to assist poor and marginalised
Singaporeans. I do not think they represent Singaporean interests any less than
before.
There should be room for disagreement, but we should disagree without
concluding that those who disagree with us do not have the interests of
Singaporeans at heart.
As Singaporeans, we are all for Singapore
first.
That does not mean we should be unkind to foreigners in our midst or
to Singaporeans who express concern about the way some of our people are
treating them.
I doubt that most Singaporeans are xenophobic or racist.
Unfortunately, they have remained silent. If nothing else, I hope they step
forward and engage in a civil conversation.
Whether we agree or not with the
civil society statement, it is time to speak up without being intimidated by
ungracious reactions to what we say, if we believe that it is for the common
good.
And we can do it with respect for others, full of grace and truth.

William Wan
General Secretary
Singapore Kindness
Movement



Click here to view the whole thread at www.sammyboy.com.