Connect with us

Current Affairs

Indian fans refused to leave cinema after movie cancellation

Published

11 years ago

on

(Photo from Straits Times)
The Straits Times reported today that “a crowd of more than 100 people, mostly foreign workers, refused to leave Rex Cinemas at Mackenzie Road, after the theatre cancelled the premiere of a movie on Thursday night”
The paper added that a total of three police cars and about seven police officers were at the scene and that the police were called in after some in the crowd apparently began shouting at cinema staff when screening of the Tamil movie, Veeram, was abruptly cancelled after a long six hours wait at the theatre.
A cinema spokesman said the 9pm screening was cancelled as it could not download the film in time.
Community worker, Ravi Philemon so happened to be there at the scene of the event and shares with us his account of what went on at the theatre.
[spacer style=”1″ icon=”none”] ravi_pAlthough most of people who had bought the tickets were foreign workers, it would have been better if they are identified as movie-goers, and as hardcore fans of a Tamil superstar Ajith.
The moviegoers did not refuse to go for no reason. They wanted to watch the first show of this movie premiered anywhere in the world. They said that they don’t mind waiting. They only wanted to know when the first show will screened and wanted the theatre manager to say when the movie will premiere.
The theatre manager at first said that the movie is embargoed from release in India and that is why they could not screen it. The moviegoers called out his bluff. If it is embargoed in India, what has that got to do with the screening here? Some of these moviegoers said that they had queued up from 8am today till 6pm, when the ticketing booth was opened to get the tickets for this premiere, and that the theatre manager should be truthful to them.
Even then, the moviegoers did not turn rowdy. This was when the police arrived. The police used words like “dei!, dei! move out! move out!” Which I thought was very disrespectful to the moviegoers.
This was when I approached the police officer talking loudly to the moviegoers. He tried to talk loudly to me (thinking I was a foreign worker). I told the officer that I am a Singaporean.
At this juncture, the police officer lowered his voice, but still tried to get his point across without wanting to listen to me. I insisted to the police officer that I am willing to listen to him, but that he should listen to me first to understand the situation there better before shouting instructions to the moviegoers.
The police officer agreed and I told him what had happened, and why the moviegoers request was reasonable. The police officer agreed and said that he will speak with the theatre manager.
After speaking with the theatre manager, the police officer came back to address the crowd of moviegoers to say that the theatre manager is very kind and would give the moviegoers a chop on their tickets, which will allow them to watch two movies with that one ticket.
The crowd of moviegoers did not understand what the police officer was saying, and the police officers did not understand what the moviegoers were saying in broken English. It was at this juncture that I volunteered to interpret. And the police officers agreed.
I told the moviegoers about the offer of the theatre manager, and the moviegoers said that they did not want to watch two movies, but only wanted to watch the first show of this movie. I explained the wishes of the moviegoers to the police officers.
At no time were the moviegoers rowdy. They were very reasonable. But I can understand how the problem could have escalated if the wishes of the moviegoers were not properly conveyed to the police officers. Even the police officers said that it was a reasonable request and said that they would speak to the theatre managers again.
it was at this juncture that a more senior person in charge of the theatre arrived. He spoke to the police officers and explained why he could not accede to their requests.
When the moviegoers realised that a more senior person had arrived, they gathered around him, but not in a threatening manner. Only to listen to what he has got to say as he spoke in a very soft voice. The police then told the moviegoers not to crowd around, and remember the riot in Little India.
Taking the cue from the police officers, the senior person appealed to the moviegoers in Tamil that they were all Tamilians, and should not let the shame of Tamilians which happened in Little India in December repeat itself.
I felt that there was no necessity for the police officers and the senior person in charge of the theatre to bring up the Little India riot in a matter where the contention was if the moviegoers would be able to watch the premiere of their cinema idol. I felt that things were not going anywhere and left.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Current Affairs

Hotel Properties Limited suspends trading ahead of Ong Beng Seng’s court hearing

Hotel Properties Limited (HPL), co-founded by Mr Ong Beng Seng, has halted trading ahead of his court appearance today (4 October). The announcement was made by HPL’s company secretary at about 7.45am, citing a pending release of an announcement. Mr Ong faces one charge of abetting a public servant in obtaining gifts and another charge of obstruction of justice. He is due in court at 2.30pm.

Published

6 hours ago

on

4 October 2024

By

SINGAPORE: Hotel Properties Limited (HPL), the property and hotel developer co-founded by Mr Ong Beng Seng, has requested a trading halt ahead of the Singapore tycoon’s scheduled court appearance today (4 October) afternoon.

This announcement was made by HPL’s company secretary at approximately 7.45am, stating that the halt was due to a pending release of an announcement.

Mr Ong, who serves as HPL’s managing director and controlling shareholder, faces one charge under Section 165, accused of abetting a public servant in obtaining gifts, as well as one charge of obstruction of justice.

He is set to appear in court at 2.30pm on 4 October.

Ong’s charges stem from his involvement in a high-profile corruption case linked to former Singaporean transport minister S Iswaran.

The 80-year-old businessman was named in Iswaran’s initial graft charges earlier this year.

These charges alleged that Iswaran had corruptly received valuable gifts from Ong, including tickets to the 2022 Singapore Formula 1 Grand Prix, flights, and a hotel stay in Doha.

These gifts were allegedly provided to advance Ong’s business interests, particularly in securing contracts with the Singapore Tourism Board for the Singapore GP and the ABBA Voyage virtual concert.

Although Iswaran no longer faces the original corruption charges, the prosecution amended them to lesser charges under Section 165.

Iswaran pleaded guilty on 24 September, 2024, to four counts under this section, which covered over S$400,000 worth of gifts, including flight tickets, sports event access, and luxury items like whisky and wines.

Additionally, he faced one count of obstructing justice for repaying Ong for a Doha-Singapore flight shortly before the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) became involved.

On 3 October, Iswaran was sentenced to one year in jail by presiding judge Justice Vincent Hoong.

The prosecution had sought a sentence of six to seven months for all charges, while the defence had asked for a significantly reduced sentence of no more than eight weeks.

Ong, a Malaysian national based in Singapore, was arrested by CPIB in July 2023 and released on bail shortly thereafter. Although no charges were initially filed against him, Ong’s involvement in the case intensified following Iswaran’s guilty plea.

The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) had earlier indicated that it would soon make a decision regarding Ong’s legal standing, which has now led to the current charges.

According to the statement of facts read during Iswaran’s conviction, Ong’s case came to light as part of a broader investigation into his associates, which revealed Iswaran’s use of Ong’s private jet for a flight from Singapore to Doha in December 2022.

CPIB investigators uncovered the flight manifest and seized the document.

Upon learning that the flight records had been obtained, Ong contacted Iswaran, advising him to arrange for Singapore GP to bill him for the flight.

Iswaran subsequently paid Singapore GP S$5,700 for the Doha-Singapore business class flight in May 2023, forming the basis of his obstruction of justice charge.

Mr Ong is recognised as the figure who brought Formula One to Singapore in 2008, marking the first night race in the sport’s history.

He holds the rights to the Singapore Grand Prix. Iswaran was the chairman of the F1 steering committee and acted as the chief negotiator with Singapore GP on business matters concerning the race.

 

Continue Reading

Current Affairs

Chee Soon Juan questions Shanmugam’s $88 million property sale amid silence from Mainstream Media

Dr Chee Soon Juan of the SDP raised concerns about the S$88 million sale of Mr K Shanmugam’s Good Class Bungalow at Astrid Hill, questioning transparency and the lack of mainstream media coverage. He called for clarity on the buyer, valuation, and potential conflicts of interest.

Published

2 weeks ago

on

23 September 2024

By

On Sunday (22 Sep), Dr Chee Soon Juan, Secretary General of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), issued a public statement on Facebook, expressing concerns regarding the sale of Minister for Home Affairs and Law, Mr K Shanmugam’s Good Class Bungalow (GCB) at Astrid Hill.

Dr Chee questioned the transparency of the S$88 million transaction and the absence of mainstream media coverage despite widespread discussion online.

According to multiple reports cited by Dr Chee, Mr Shanmugam’s property was transferred in August 2023 to UBS Trustees (Singapore) Pte Ltd, which holds the property in trust under the Jasmine Villa Settlement.

Dr Chee’s statement focused on two primary concerns: the lack of response from Mr Shanmugam regarding the transaction and the silence of major media outlets, including Singapore Press Holdings and Mediacorp.

He argued that, given the ongoing public discourse and the relevance of property prices in Singapore, the sale of a high-value asset by a public official warranted further scrutiny.

In his Facebook post, Dr Chee posed several questions directed at Mr Shanmugam and the government:

  1. Who purchased the property, and is the buyer a Singaporean citizen?
  2. Who owns Jasmine Villa Settlement?
  3. Were former Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and current Prime Minister Lawrence Wong informed of the transaction, and what were their responses?
  4. How was it ensured that the funds were not linked to money laundering?
  5. How was the property’s valuation determined, and by whom?

The Astrid Hill property, originally purchased by Mr Shanmugam in 2003 for S$7.95 million, saw a significant increase in value, aligning with the high-end status of District 10, where it is located. The 3,170.7 square-meter property was sold for S$88 million in August 2023.

Dr Chee highlighted that, despite Mr Shanmugam’s detailed responses regarding the Ridout Road property, no such transparency had been offered in relation to the Astrid Hill sale.

He argued that the lack of mainstream media coverage was particularly concerning, as public interest in the sale is high. Dr Chee emphasized that property prices and housing affordability are critical issues in Singapore, and transparency from public officials is essential to maintain trust.

Dr Chee emphasized that the Ministerial Code of Conduct unambiguously states: “A Minister must scrupulously avoid any actual or apparent conflict of interest between his office and his private financial interests.”

He concluded his statement by reiterating the need for Mr Shanmugam to address the questions raised, as the matter involves not only the Minister himself but also the integrity of the government and its responsibility to the public.

The supposed sale of Mr Shamugam’s Astrid Hill property took place just a month after Mr Shanmugam spoke in Parliament over his rental of a state-owned bungalow at Ridout Road via a ministerial statement addressing potential conflicts of interest.

At that time, Mr Shanmugam explained that his decision to sell his home was due to concerns about over-investment in a single asset, noting that his financial planning prompted him to sell the property and move into rental accommodation.

The Ridout Road saga last year centred on concerns about Mr Shanmugam’s rental of a sprawling black-and-white colonial bungalow, occupying a massive plot of land, managed by the Singapore Land Authority (SLA), which he oversees in his capacity as Minister for Law. Minister for Foreign Affairs, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, also rented a similarly expansive property nearby.

Mr Shanmugam is said to have recused himself from the decision-making process, and a subsequent investigation by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) found no wrongdoing while Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean confirmed in Parliament that Mr Shanmugam had removed himself from any decisions involving the property.

As of now, Mr Shanmugam has not commented publicly on the sale of his Astrid Hill property.

Continue Reading

Trending