It is with a mixed feeling of disappointment and annoyance as I watched the video of Han Hui Hui’s confrontation against the NParks official and one of the police officers posted on Roy Ngerng’s own Facebook wall.
There are many aspects of that disappointment, and I will attempt to explain them one at a time. Firstly, I am disappointed on how a good cause of letting the government know that improvements should be made to the CPF scheme is now hijacked by such extremists. To put in it an analogy, a good pot of porridge is now ruined by a few pieces of rat shit (几块老鼠屎坏了一锅粥). In my opinion, whatever can be said about the shortcomings of the CPF has been said. Now what is left is wait for the response from the government, which to some extent we have heard from the Prime Minister himself during the National Day Rally. Frankly, what else is there to say right now? Return our CPF? To everyone, right now? Pray tell how we actually expect the government to actually even achieve that. Pray tell how voting the PAP out will make that happen. Which alternative party is insane enough to actually promised that as part of their political platform?
Next, I am disappointed with the NParks actually approving the event when they should have record the YMCA event which they have given prior approval. It allows the conspiracists to call this a deliberate “trap” set by the authorities which culminated in the confrontation that took place, such that Han and Ngerng will look bad to turn public opinion against them. While I not so politically naive to deny that such a thing may not be too far fetch as documents declassified in the United Kingdom has shown that such set-ups may have been used in the 50s and 60s, how does that justify the uncompromising, uncooperative attitude Han Hui Hui has displayed in the video Roy Ngerng posted? When I read those declassified documents and about how Lim Chin Siong was set up and betrayed, there is a well of indignation. But if I was a reader reading about Han and Ngerng, and watching that video 50 years later, I would not be surprised to have felt completely nothing at all!
I admire the calm and restraint of the NPark official and the police officer on site, but I was utterly disappointed that they did not come prepared with the knowledge of what are the laws granting them the authority. It is my considered opinion that the Public Entertainment and Meetings Act (Chapter 257, and PEMA for short) would have given the NPark official the authority to revoke the permit given to Han Hui Hui and her group at any time. A friend had pointed out that if he was the NPark official he wouldn’t have the patience to even bother to convince her to compromise and move to the unoccupied part of Hong Lim Park, but would have taken out a Blackberry (if he is issued one) and sent her the written revocation of the permit right away. An ex-police officer told me that the revocation would then allow the police officer on site to act under Section 18(b) of PEMA and if she refused to cooperate, to put to good use their standard issue “Rolex Kings” (aka handcuffs). All of these are on the Statutes for those who would bother to read them and I did not just make it up.
It is my sincere hope that this lesson will now improve how civil servants deal with some of the more belligerent members of the public in the future, and in the future come fully prepared with the legal knowledge on what laws grant them the authority to act. Even though I do not appreciate a high-handed approach by government officials, people like Han Hui Hui who thinks they know a lot about the law and thus could “legalise” their otherwise repulsive actions and behaviour should be smacked so hard that they learn the lesson that ‘children should not play with fire’.
Finally, I am utterly disappointed with how some people can subject their moral compass beneath their political stand or ideologies. I am no fan of the PAP myself but there is nothing that would stop me from pointing out what is wrong. Heckling* the other event is simply wrong, especially when that event is held by an organisation that has nothing to do with government and the ruling party. All the more so when it was an event for special-needs children, the aged and the under-privileged. Failing to make the best out of a bad situation, and refusing to compromise and cooperate, not only demonstrates Han Hui Hui’s lack of wisdom, but also her conceit and selfishness. There is even now an attempt to justify the heckling of the other event by arguing that the YMCA emcee has been provocative. If we are to twist the facts and to justify what is wrong as right, or use the law to legalise what is wrong, then we have no moral authority to criticse the PAP for the same in the future. In fact, for those of them who now justifies Han and Ngerng, just what moral right do they have to condemn the PAP on giving its town councils contract to AIM in the past? Do not forget that granting that contract to AIM may well have been all legal under the law, but there are very few of us who would equate that with the morally right thing to do.
To end this post, let me point out that Han and her band of merrymen has not only done nothing to help to bring about more meaningful change and improvements to the CPF system, their actions may have irked some middle-voters into deciding that it may actually be wiser to vote for the PAP again. And that to me, would have been the greatest setback for democracy in Singapore.
There will be those who would say that I am getting things wrong because I was not on site myself. Say whatever you want, but for a more or less unbiased report I suggest that they refer to this article on Yahoo Singapore, and not the Straits Times or the likes of “The Real Singapore”, for reference. In general, Yahoo has been way more balanced in the articles posted on Singapore’s current affairs and the politics compared to the two I have named.
* – I have chosen not to amend this part even though I have promised to amend it. The reason being that though strictly speaking none of the performers were really heckled, the word heckle is synonymous with the terms disrupt, interrupt, and harass. In my opinion, that was exactly what happened to the event itself, even when the special needs children were not specifically heckled.
I agree with G. No evidence as of now that this was a trap to make RN and HHH look stupid. RN already is set to lose a lawsuit, which bring more of a negative light to him that using a group of handicapped children to lure him. The claims that 1) it was a trap and 2) the two of them didnt know what was going on is baseless. Both of them are adults and clever enough to find of so much about CPF. So they have eyes for the CPF issues, but no eyes for what was going on and say freedom of speech is their best excuse? If freedom of speech is an excuse, then darn, Obama can heckle Putin to death…
” There is even now an attempt to justify the heckling of the other event by arguing that the YMCA emcee has been provocative. If we are to twist the facts and to justify what is wrong as right, ”
Are you condoning what the YMCA mc has done? Using the special needs children is not unlike some violent groups herding children and women folks in front of them into battle with an opponent.
You forgot too that the original timing of the YMCA event was supposed to be 10 am, not 4 pm which clashed headlong with the protest group event. So YMCA, NPark and the police are blaming the protesters for reacting to the ‘heckling’ by the protesters who were only responding to the YMCA PLAYING WITH FIRE.
1. I am sick of people like you equating the mc’s action with that of Hamas. Go furnish evidence that the mc pre-mediated this, that he has indeed planned way beforehand this confrontation and then hide behind those children much like what the Hamas did, by firing missiles next to schools, and hiding ammunition in mosques etc. Next, your comparison cheapens the effort the Israeli Defense Force has gone through to limit the damage they have done. There are several videos on the IDF Facebook page showing the times they have called off missile attacks to limit damage in spite of what Hamas has done. Are you then equating Han and Ngerng wading right into the YMCA event as the same as what the IDF has been doing? Where is the restraint? Where is the evidence that they have given any consideration to the OTHER people who are present when they react to the mc?
2. If you ask me whether I am condoning his action, I do object to what he has done, because he has chosen the wrong venue, and done so at the wrong event. But if you want to say that justifies what Han and Ngerng did? Come, let me clap for you. Either way, take the issue up with the mc. I am as of now waiting for the identity of this mofo, as I clearly want to know his position within the YMCA, so I can protest his actions myself to that organisation. But if he wasn’t a part of that organisation, then go bark up the right tree. I actually shudder to imagine if he is found to be a member of the grassroots or RC. Man, the field day some of you jokers are going to have on that!
3. Blame the time. Blame the people. Blame everything else, but never take any responsibility. That has been what I see from the likes of the people who stood up for Han and Ngerng. Really, I think even Ngerng himself has more courage by apologising for this matter on his Facebook, though whether he will flip-flop on that later is another matter entirely. As for the change of timing… say for e.g. if I am supposed to be driving to KL at 10am and not 4pm, and then an accident with happened with another car because I decided to do so at 4pm instead, it’s all my fault entirely? As a matter of fact, I am not aware that NPark has yet blamed anyone, and is the police not still investigating the matter?
If anyone is blaming Han and Ngerng in specifc on this blog, that would be me.
I am not justifying for anybody. I am merely pointing out how one thing can lead to another. It is immaterial who the mc was, it is sufficient that he did what was alleged from the YMCA stage. It is NOT the responsibility for Roy or anyone else from the protest group to ‘clarify’ that it was only the outsourced (?) mc decidedly imprudent and provocative unilateral action, not YMCA’s. In the event, there had been no clarification from the YMCA to this effect nor any denial of what the mc has done.
When an assassin shot the archduke that led to WW1, did anyone expected that to happen? But look at the way the govt ministers and MPs as well as the controlled media have seize the opportunity to capitalize on a by all accounts very spontaneous and minor incident to stoke the fire to demonise the pair for political revenge. Even without glue, the charge of a deliberate attempt by the PAP to silence Roy and Han using this excuse, would stick.
BTW did any of those who claimed that the children were ‘traumatised’ by the ‘hackling’ has found it necessary to counsel/interview any of the children or even consider treating them for PTSS? It is despicable and a crying shame that there are adults who thought nothing of stooping that low to use a group of innocent children for political revenge. Absolutely bankrupt, utterly disgraceful. With political leaders like those, the country is going to the dogs for sure.
I do not recall asserting in my blog post that the children has suffered trauma. None of the parents of those children has told me that personally (nor do I know any of them). I had simply stated my OPINION that I disliked what Han and Ngerng has done, and they rightly deserved the scorn they are getting. I had also stated that I think NParks should bear a part of the responsibility for this boo boo, and that civil servants should be better versed in what laws they are asserting their authority on in the future when dealing with people like Han.
If your point is that I should excuse them from my scorn because of the chain of events, I thank you for the effort but I will stand by my view that those events does not spare Han and Ngerng from the scorn I have for them.
One of the objective of this post was to point out who should bear the responsibilities for what I think is not done properly or simply, outright wrong. Thus, I had to point out in my comment that the mc should bear some of the responsibility because it was NOT in my post.
To add on, I am not a fan of the prevailing propaganda the PAP and the MSM is doing against Han and Ngerng. But that said – those two walked into that trap themselves so even when I felt the it was downright despicable to accuse them of things that may as well have been fabrications (i.e. heckling the kids in specific to the point of traumatising them). But my scorn for what they did (i.e. going into that space of the other event, regardless whether it was done in spite or retaliation, or deliberately) is not inspired by the prevailing propaganda. In fact I wrote and published this post even before that shit went to print on the MSM. Not to mention I haven’t really been reading any of the MSM shit on this matter either.
Lastly, do I think the PAP was trying to shut them up? No. For to do so will enforce the idea that something is really wrong. And I personally think there are some valid stuff to talk about the CPF so that it can be better, and improved. And the improvement part is sorely lacking from whatever Ngerng has been saying. All the other stuff about the GIC and Temasek Holdings, I didn’t even bother. As for Han Hui Hui, I am not even aware she has written anything marginally meaningful or intelligent about the CPF so call these two the champions for our CPF for all I cared. Like Bernard Chen’s parents, I do not need these two to represent me.
As to whether the PAP is trying to discredit them by their very own foolish actions? ABSOLU-FXXKING-TELY. And the PAP didn’t even have to try to hard.
Look, if NParks hadn’t approved the protesters’ booking, they would immediately cry father cry mother that the authorities are heavy handed etc etc.