*SBS Drivers From China* – I’m fine having people from any part of the world working here in SG. This is God’s Earth and you can be anywhere you want to be. BUT I can’t take it when they can’t even speak simple English (or maybe they just refuse). Simple questions like ‘How much is the fare from X to Y?’ and ‘Does this bus pass by W?’. Most of them that I encountered were not polite (spoke with a stern face and unfriendly vocal tone) and they keep speaking back to me in the Chinese language. Apparently, nobody has taught them the important manners needed to be a front line service personnel, and please, you mean they don’t even know English? That’s absurd. This display of ugly attitude and inability to converse in a common language has got to stop, especially when you’re a service ambassador who meets hundreds, maybe thousands of people, mainly locals, everyday. Utter nonsense.
Vulgarities were hurled at Mr Hamzah Rahmat (above), with insults about everything including his parentage.
All this over a set of toiletries.
He had refused to let a passenger take his toiletries onto the flight as the items did not comply to size requirements.
“He got angry and started to call me names like insensitive b******, and just wouldn’t stop railing,” says the 35-year-old, who works at Changi Airport’s Terminal 3.
He stopped only when Mr Hamzah told him that the continued yelling could get him in trouble with the authorities.
It’s all part and parcel of his job as an aviation security officer to ensure that the carry-on luggage adhere to airline regulations, which means coaxing passengers to discard stuff they try to carry on board.
A letter jointly authored by Dr Muhammad Iqbal and Mr Faizal Razak; graduates and alumni of NUS to Provost and Deputy President (Academic Affairs), Vice Provost (Academic Personnel), NUS Alumni and Office of Student Affairs – National University of Singapore stating:
Concern over a recently published a petition against a professor and they display a trenchant hostility towards families and heterosexuals, and which we believe is unbecoming of an NUS graduate or undergraduate.
In their open letter, they attempted to discredit the Professor and threatened to get him sacked. These actions are tantamount to intimidation. They do not merely express a principled opposition to deny the extension of legal rights to heteronorms. What they represent is a clarion call to eradicate any and all instances of gender expressions and relations that fall outside their preferred homosexual order.
In their letter, they had forced the Professor to delete his post. They wanted to oppress any free speech that questions their lifestyle.
We however believe that they have crucially misunderstood their place as a graduate or undergraduate.
Firstly, the undergraduates and graduates have a respectful duty to provide a safe academic environment for its teachers, regardless of sexual orientation. Their petition however exhibit a fundamental disregard for the safety of heteronorm teachers, and that is unacceptable of any student, whatever their religious or political convictions.
Secondly, contrary to what they claim, they are not engaging in a debate about homosexuality. It is more accurate to see their letter as an intimidation towards teachers and denies recognition to heterosexuals and pro-families. Instead of being respectful to educators, they chose to launch this untenable and unjustifiable assault on an educator.
This goes beyond any issue of academic freedom or religious liberty. Not only have they failed to accord respect to educators, they have conducted themselves in a way that is not reflective of an NUS graduate or undergraduate.
We thus urge that they withdraw their petition and apologize to Professor Syed Khairuddin, as well as undergo counselling to further understand the issues and challenges confronting the student-teacher community. We also hope that the university leadership can see that these remedial actions are adhered to.
6. The University encourages students to display consideration, kindness and responsibility in their dealings with other persons. Students should not engage in disorderly or offensive behaviour such as making threats against others, intimidating others, harassing others, drunkenness, lewdness, or participating in any unlawful assembly.
7. Students should also refrain from participating in any activity which physically or mentally harms, intimidates or humiliates other students, or which violates one’s dignity as an individual. In particular, negative and improper orientation practices that make new students feel uncomfortable (also known as “ragging”) are not tolerated by the University. Such practices display a lack of basic respect for other persons, imperil students’ physical and mental welfare, and may unintentionally result in an unhealthy atmosphere of fear and intimidation on campus.
Read the ENTIRE chronology of saga in category ‘AGAMA’:
For sometime, we hear the homosexual lobby play the victim card. They claim they just want to be heard. That their sexual proclivities should be recognised. That their immorality should not be questioned.
They demanded for their choices to be accepted and normalised. When anyone questions their claims, the questioner is seen as being intolerant. Their lifestyle and choices are seen as given. The victim card is played repeatedly.
But today, we see how vicious the homosexual lobby really is. How intolerant they really are. How vindictive their tactics.
When Assoc Prof Khairudin Aljunied wrote his Facebook post on the need to cleanse society of homosexual behaviour, homosexual advocates launched a campaign against him. “Benjamin Seet, a graduate student in Political Science; Melissa Tsang, a former Law student who is reapplying for admission into Arts; and Khairulanwar Zaini a final-year undergraduate in Political Science and Philosophy” are organising a petition to be submitted to the Provost of NUS against Khairudin.
For these homosexual advocates, their behaviour is beyond reproach.
Anyone who dares to question their immorality is targeted.
Anyone who seek to return society to family values would be attacked.
Anyone who raise any objection to their attempt to make homosexuality normal is abused.
We need to be clear that the homosexual lobby is not about creating safe spaces. They are not interested in engagement. They have no interest in debates. They do not care about morality or positive conduct.
All they want is for their behaviour to be recognised. And anyone who speak against it is an enemy that need to be removed.
Lets not kid ourselves. They are not a tolerant group.
The question for us is a simple one. What do we do about these intolerant, militant and self interested homosexual lobby?
Do we keep quiet and cower while they attack anyone who dare to speak?
Or do we finally say that this enough?
How we respond define not only how our society will be.
It also defines who we are. Are we social cowards who realise the homosexual lobby is taking advantage of our silence and continue to keep our mouths shut?
Or do we finally respond and take back the ground and stop these bullying tactics they employ?
Are we going to do what is right?
Are we finally going to say that the homosexual lobby has gone too far?
SINGAPORE: A Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) officer narrowly escaped injury after a hydraulic jack that was being used to lift a bus suddenly gave way.
This dramatic account by police officer Senior Station Inspector Akhbar Ali of how Indian national Sakthivel Kumaravelu’s body was extricated was heard on day seven by the Committee of Inquiry (COI) into the Little India riot on December 8 last year.
The COI was told that an SCDF officer was trying to extricate Sakthivel’s body from under a bus as a boisterous crowd ignored instructions to back away. Instead, the crowd continued to push the vehicle.
This caused the hydraulic jack that was lifting the bus to suddenly give way.
The SCDF officer was almost pinned under the bus and only just managed to get out in time.
He also managed to partially pull Sakthivel’s body out from under the bus. When the body was finally extricated, the SCDF officers placed a white cloth over the body.
Senior Station Inspector Akhbar on Thursday said he also helped to clear a path for the SCDF officers as they carried Sakthivel’s body to a nearby ambulance.
He also told the committee that he was angry and frustrated when he saw two police cars being flipped on their sides.
He said a group of foreign workers told the officers not to intervene as the crowd was violent and would not hesitate to harm them.
Separately, a traffic police officer – who directed seven others to get out of an ambulance and run – explained to the committee that they had not done so out of cowardice.
Station Inspector Muhammad Adil Lawi said he heard the rioters threatening to burn the ambulance, and evacuating was a “tactical decision” as he felt their lives were at stake.
There was also another vehicle which had been set ablaze near the ambulance.
“When I saw the fire through the cracked windscreen, I realised there was no more time to spare, and that the threat was very real,” he said.
Station Inspector Adil added that if they had not evacuated the vehicle, they would have been burnt alive.
According to his statement, the ambulance exploded shortly after they left the vehicle.
As the most senior officer in the vehicle, he said he felt a sense of responsibility, and directed the officers to run in the direction of Bukit Timah Road because he knew there were police resources there.
In the video clip of the incident – which was shown in court on Thursday – a group of foreign workers were seen opening the doors of the ambulance.
When asked if he knew whether these men were targeting the police, Station Inspector Adil responded: “I could not take the risk, because I don’t know if they were rioters or people trying to help us.”
The committee also heard that not all the foreign workers who were present at the scene of the riot that night were hostile, and some had even tried to help the police.
For example, a group of workers carrying a bag that appeared to be on fire tried to set a police patrol car ablaze, but were stopped by others in the crowd.
In another video clip, a man was seen dancing around a burning Traffic Police motorcycle and, shortly after, was pulled away from the wreckage by another man from the crowd.
Two other officers also described how they stayed at the scene despite being outnumbered, including Staff Sergeant Kamisah Hanafi, who was hit in the stomach by a concrete slab, and Traffic Police Officer Fadli Shaifuddin Mohamed Sani, who drew his baton and charged at a group of rioters several times to try and contain the situation.
When asked by the committee if he feared for his safety, or was worried that he would be overwhelmed and his weapon taken, Traffic Police Officer Fadli Shaifuddin Mohamed Sani replied that his purpose was to instill law and order, and ensure that no innocent bystanders were hurt.
He was commended by the four-member committee, who called his actions brave.
