(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.

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

Celebrity food critic KF Seetoh slams Gov’t for new scheme which pays retiring hawkers for their stalls, recipes and skills

Celebrity food critic and founder of Makansutra KF Seetoh took to Facebook…

已故女患者起诉樟宜综合医院胜诉 法院裁定需赔偿32万6620元

因樟宜综合医院疏忽下,导致女患者诺尔雅兹琳(Noor Azlin)延迟治疗肺癌,不幸离世。法院裁定,樟宜综合医院必须赔偿32万6620元给家属。 法官下判时表示,医院必须赔偿诺尔雅兹琳30万4000元,作为受害者经历精神痛苦、设施损失以及抚养费的索赔,并需再赔上2万620元作为特别赔偿金,包括医疗费用。 由于樟宜综合医院此前已支付20万元,仅需支付余额即可。 法官认为,鉴于医院的疏忽导致女患者无法及时治疗痊愈,最终死亡。 2019年,经过多年的上诉,终于在2月份,法庭裁定院方未能及时给予放射治疗,以及管理和追踪患者诺尔雅兹琳的病情,违反了照顾义务,因此上诉得直。 遗憾的是,上诉得直五周后,诺尔雅兹琳不敌病魔离世。 诺尔雅兹琳2007年因胸腔疼痛和呼吸困难到樟宜综合医院急诊部求医,医生当时却没发现肺部的肿块。 2010年4月和2011年7月,她两次到樟宜综合医院急诊部求医,照X光后发现肺部有黑影,但院方没有安排她复诊,也没通知她检查报告结果。 截至2011年11月,诺尔雅兹琳到公司附近的诊所看医生,医生发现她的右肺有变,推荐她到医院进一步检查。 一直到2012年2月,诺尔雅兹琳才被告知患上肺癌,当时才开始做出治疗。2016年10月癌症扩散至大脑。 2015年1月,诺尔雅兹琳起诉樟宜综合医院和三名医生,称是他们的疏忽导致癌症治疗延缓。…

South Korea ruling party heading for majority, say exit polls

South Korea’s left-leaning ruling Democratic party was heading towards a parliamentary majority…

Australian Parliament pays tribute to Lee Kuan Yew

By Carlton Tan Over two days, 24 and 25 March, members of…