Since the Facebook group, “Say ‘No’ to an overpopulated Singapore” (SNOS) announced its protest against the Philippine Independence Day event which is scheduled to be held on the coming 8th June at Ngee Ann City, Civic Plaza, debate about the event has been fast and furious.
Both sides – the pro- and against lobbies – have waded in and argued their cases.
We thought it would thus be good if we revisited the original reasons for the protest, and to see some of the comments posted on the Facebook page itself, so that the debate is not derailed by peripheral issues.
For a start, let us look at the intial post made by SNOS on 14th April 2014.
protest 2a_14thApr11pm
The page took issue with three things

  • The use of Singapore Skyline in the logo for the event’s publicity materials.
  • The terms, “Two nations” and “Inter-dependence” used in the publicity materials.
  • Celebrating the country’s independence on Singapore soil.

However the page proposed the event could be held within the Philippine Embassy in Singapore.
Some have accused the group of being “xenophobic” or “racist” after going through the comments found posted in the intial post made on 14th April.
The protest gained more attention shortly after Straits Times reported on the movement on 16th April. Even Singapore Prime Minister, Lee Hsien Loong posted on his facebook page on 19th April saying,

“I was appalled to read about those who harassed the organisers of the Philippine Independence Day celebrations, and spammed their Facebook page. They are a disgrace to Singapore.”

SNOS has clarified twice – on 16th and 19 April – that they are not against the event itself.

“As much as we respect the people of Philippines residing in or visiting Singapore, we strongly urge them to hold their Independence Day celebration within their Philippine Embassy compound (20, Nassim Road), after seeking approvals, or other private venues; instead of an open/public venue such as Ngee Ann City/Takashimaya, orchard road.
“We wish all Filipinos have a wonderful time celebrating your country’s Independence in June.”

It added:

“The organizers and participants should be SENSITIVE and respectful and not produce, or display any items/publicity materials that could offend the people of your host country.
“(Such as event posters/banners that could be deemed offensive to Singaporeans).”

So is the protest against the celebration event, Xenophobic, Racist, Nationalistic or Discriminatory?
We don’t know ourselves therefore we have captured down most of the 200 over comments posted on the SNOS Facebook page for you, the reader, to read and decide for yourself on the intentions behind the protest.
Click at the below link to show the comments. (Warning: foul & abusive language uncensored)

[showhide type=”pressrelease”]


protestPIDCS01
protestPIDCS02
protestPIDCS03
protestPIDCS04
protestPIDCS05
protestPIDCS06
protestPIDCS47.
protestPIDCS07
protestPIDCS08
protestPIDCS09
protestPIDCS10
protestPIDCS11
protestPIDCS12
protestPIDCS13
protestPIDCS14
protestPIDCS15
protestPIDCS16
protestPIDCS17
protestPIDCS18
protestPIDCS19
protestPIDCS20
protestPIDCS51.
protestPIDCS50.
protestPIDCS49.
protestPIDCS48.
protestPIDCS46.
protestPIDCS45.
protestPIDCS44.
protestPIDCS43.
protestPIDCS42.
protestPIDCS41.
protestPIDCS40.
S
protestPIDCS38.
protestPIDCS37.
protestPIDCS36.
protestPIDCS35.
protestPIDCS34.
protestPIDCS33.
protestPIDCS32.
protestPIDCS31.
protestPIDCS30.
protestPIDCS29.
protestPIDCS28.
protestPIDCS27.
protestPIDCS26.
protestPIDCS25.
protestPIDCS24.
protestPIDCS23.
protestPIDCS22.
protestPIDCS21
[/showhide]  
 

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

What exactly was Amos Yee’s crime?

By Ghui The Amos Yee saga has got me thinking about how…

The Elephant in the Room – The Question of Prosecutorial Discretion

by M Ravi, international human rights lawyer The headlines in recent days…

Dr James Gomez: Overcoming structural challenges for greater electoral integrity in Singapore

Dr James Gomez, a political scientist and Regional Director of Asia Centre, asserts that while Singapore’s elections are administratively free and fair, structural disadvantages lead to low democracy rankings. The 2017 presidential election, which required candidates to be ethnic Malays, exemplified exclusionary practices. Furthermore, systemic irregularities impact electoral competition, and a lack of critical discussion around these issues undermines Singapore’s electoral system. “The high barrier to participation and absence of genuine non-partisanship is why Singapore’s presidential system scores low in international electoral integrity rankings. This is an issue that needs to be discussed head-on”. said Dr Gomez.