Tag: Speakers’ Corner

Khan Osman Sulaiman: Singapore Is Multiracial, Multi-religious Society Yet Debate On Racial Issues @ Speaker’s Corner Not Allowed

Writ for the Reserved Presidential Election has been issued by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong yesterday and preparations had been made to carry out our speech at Hong Lim Park this coming Saturday to voice our concerns over the racialised Presidential Election.

However, we are informed last minute by the National Park that we will require police permits to speak because the topic touch on racial issues.

It is absurd that the government doesnt allow citizens to discuss/speak/debate on race issues at the speaker’s corner but at the same time, passing a bill that has created much distress on the populace.

In reserving a Malay candidate for the presidential election, it is inevitable that race will be part of the subject matter should we want to openly call out on the government’s policy. Hence, it can never get debated publicly by citizens due to existing regulations.

Even when matters are brought up in parliament, we have seen how it will be swiftly shot down as playing racial politics.

In an open societies, the government is expected to be responsive and tolerant. Its political mechanisms are said to be transparent and flexible.

To the international community, Singapore is a multiracial and multi-religious society which has enjoyed many years of relative peace. A facade that has been perpetuated by the government.

In reality, our freedom of speech, freedom of association, are curbed by an invisible hand that are always ready to put us away should we cross the line.

Such community will never be able to achieve its full potential and will lose it cognitive development over time.

At the present moment, we have incompetent leaders that are preoccupied with a single cause. Economic satisfaction for its people. They are incapable of solving a nation’s hunger for a multi fold development. We already retard our progression by reserving a Malay candidate for high office.

My hope is that Singapore will elect a leader that will advocate for change and truly work for the betterment of its people holistically.

Source: Khan Osman Sulaiman

August 30, 2017
Alfian Sa’at: Why I Don’t Attend Pink Dot

Growing older, I find that my introverted nature is becoming more pronounced. One of the reasons why I decided not to go for Pink Dot this year is because I’m beginning to get more terrified of crowds. There’s always a moment when I’m surrounded by too many people when I start feeling dizzy and nauseous.

And then there’s the issue of my nervousness around dogs. I know Pink Dot is an opportunity for some people to bring their pets along, pets which are as dear to them as family. But dogs–when there’s more than one, or two–have always put me on edge. This is not a problem of the dog-owners roaming the park but my problem alone. (And this is the learned mantra of any minority.)

This isn’t supposed to be an indictment of Pink Dot’s agenda of inclusivity. I think every year the organisers attempt to provide an atmosphere as hospitable to as many as possible–sign language interpretation, differently-abled access, seating for seniors. But any embrace will come up short at some point because an arm span is finite.

The space at Pink Dot is also inhospitable for others–those who fear crowds, or fear dogs, those without a pink or blue IC. It makes me think about the limits of inclusivity, the dangers of fantasising about utopian spaces, or spaces that aspire to speak for the entire community.

In that anxiety to pack in bodies at the event, so as to create an optics of the local-indigenous, is bodily participation privileged over other forms of support? Be there or be square, be there or betray?

While I support what Pink Dot stands for (and many of its organisers and ambassadors and volunteers are wonderful, tireless people whose activist work extends beyond Pink Dot), I can’t stand to form that dot. Neither can I stand any kind of guilt tripping over one’s absence there, as if fidelity to the cause must translate into piety towards Pink Dot.

Ultimately I think of Pink Dot, no matter its organisational capacity, as part of something larger–and not as some large reservoir where other tributaries (no matter how many booths, how many representatives) are supposed to converge.

Source: Alfian Sa’at

July 3, 2017
PinkDot Organisers Must Do More To Ensure Non-Participation Of Foreigners

I am glad that only Singaporeans and permanent residents (PRs) can attend Pink Dot from this year onwards, and only local companies can sponsor it.

It is important to disallow foreign individuals and organisations from interfering in Singaporean politics and social issues.

We must stop foreigners from abusing values such as democracy, freedom of speech and human rights in Singapore, and from spreading their agenda here.

The Pink Dot organisers should fence off Hong Lim Park and employ security officers and registration staff to ensure that only Singaporeans and PRs attend the event (NGOs seek clarity on organisers’ role at Speakers’ Corner events; May 17).

Ace Kindred Cheong

Source: www.todayonline.com

May 19, 2017
Singapore Ambassador: No Country Grants Absolute Right To Free Speech

Ms Foo Chi Hsia, Singapore’s High Commissioner to the United Kingdom, has responded to a recent article in The Economist alleging a lack of free speech in Singapore, saying no country gives an absolute right to free speech.

Society pays a price when the right to free speech is extended to fake news, defamation or hate speech, she added, citing the Brexit campaign and elections in America and Europe.

“Trust in leaders and institutions, including journalists and the media, has been gravely undermined, as have these democracies. In contrast, international polls show that Singaporeans trust their government, judiciary, police and even media,” wrote Ms Foo in her letter to the UK-based weekly, which was published in its latest edition. “Singapore does not claim to be an example for others, but we do ask to be allowed to work out a system that is best for ourselves.”

The article Ms Foo was responding to was published on March 9, titled Grumble and be damned. In it, the conviction of three protesters for creating a public nuisance at Speakers’ Corner was mentioned to back the allegation.

Ms Foo noted that in this 2014 case, the individuals are not taken to court for criticising the government. Rather, they had “loutishly (barged)” into a performance by a group of special education needs children, “frightening them and denying then the right to be heard”.

Ms Foo added that Singapore does not stifle criticism of the government, and there is free access to information and the Internet.

“But we will not allow our judiciary to be denigrated under the cover of free speech, nor will we protect hate or libellous speech. People can go to court to defend their integrity and correct falsehoods purveyed against them. Opposition politicians have done this, successfully,” she said.

Earlier this week, comments by one of the three protesters, blogger Han Hui Hui, on the same case were deemed by the Attorney-General’s Chambers as tantamount to scandalising the judiciary. Ms Han was given a week from Monday to remove and apologise for her various posts alleging impropriety on the part of judges who heard her case, or face contempt of court proceedings.

Ms Han’s allegations of mistreatment by Singapore Prisons Service officers during her time in the lock-up for the case were also repudiated by the Ministry of Home Affairs.

Source: www.todayonline.com

March 17, 2017
About 100 Gather To Protest Against Water Price Hike At Hong Lim Park

The upcoming rise in water prices saw about 100 people turn up at Hong Lim Park on Saturday (March 11) to protest the move.

A heavy downpour dampened the start of the protest, which began half an hour behind schedule as people took refuge from the rain and initial speakers sheltered under an umbrella when on stage.

Speakers criticised the Government’s explanation that the cost of producing water has risen and investments need to be made in water infrastructure.

The hike was announced in the Budget last month and will take effect in two phases, starting July.

The rally was organised by former Reform Party candidate in the 2015 general election Gilbert Goh, a career counsellor.

Former Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) candidate Paul Tambyah, an infectious diseases specialist, criticised the timing of the hike at a time of “economic hardship”.

He and several others cited comments by Dr Vivian Balakrishnan in August 2015, when he led the Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources (MEWR).

The minister had said labour and equipment costs had risen since the water price was last raised in 2000, but there were also improvements in membrane technology and productivity – and given the state of technology and energy prices, there was no need for a price adjustment at that point.

On Saturday, Dr Tambyah asked what had changed since then, noting that Singapore’s per capita water consumption had gone down.

“Is it (the hike) because of the massive population increase?” he said.

Financial adviser Leong Sze Hian said the Government’s reasons for the hike “did not hold water”.

The 10 speakers spoke on a small stage decorated with buckets and placards with slogans such as “Pay Until Broke”, a play on the initials of national water agency PUB.

They sought more transparency and criticised MEWR minister Masagos Zulkifli’s comments in Parliament that he could not disclose details of how the price was computed due to commercial sensitivities.

Ms Irene Mortensen spoke on the evils of fluoride in tap water.

Others, who included National Solidarity Party secretary-general Lim Tean and ex-presidential candidate Tan Kin Lian, touched on CPF, living costs, and foreigners.

Source: ST

March 13, 2017