By Howard Lee
There is a lot of anguish online and offline following the clash of events at Hong Lim Park (HLP) on Saturday between YMCA and the organisers of the Return Our CPF protests. Most of it was directed at the CPF protesters, who were accused of heckling the special needs children who were performing at the YMCA event.
It is even more odd that a lot of the comments did not come from those who attended either events – which includes me – but based almost entirely on the video showing the CPF protesters marching, waving flags and shouting in front of the stage where YMCA was conducting its event.
The TOC report on the double event would have covered what really happened. But what really happened leading up to the event to cause this unhappy incident, and could it have been done differently? I would like to examine this from the beginning to the end, when the reservations to use HLP were made all the way to the protest march.
All bookings made?
YMCA claimed that they have approval from NParks to use HLP in April 2014. Presumably, they would have used sent an email to the National Parks Board, as indicated in the NParks website. Similarly, Ms Han also claimed to have obtained her approval from NParks in July 2014, presumably using the online application form found on the NParks website.
It would appear that both parties have legitimate use of HLP. Does it then mean that NParks has logged in a double booking?
YMCA fb sc HLP event HHH fb sc HLP event
As it is, Ms Han Hui Hui, organiser of the CPF protests received a shock when she visited the park grounds on Thursday night, to see that tentage she did not order has been erected in the middle of HLP for the YMCA event.
Ms Han reported on her Facebook page that she spoke to some representatives of the other event, whom she believes to be grassroot leaders. Given that YMCA has openly declared that “neither YMCA nor its representatives have had communication with Ms Han”, who exactly did Ms Han spoke to on Thursday?
It would also appear that Ms Han tried to contact YMCA about this, to no avail. Unfortunately, the party she should have contacted was NParks, who would be able to clarify with her precisely what the misunderstanding was about.
D-day, and run-in with NParks and the police

HLP as allocated by NParks for the double event.
HLP as allocated by NParks for the double event.
As it turned out, NParks has indeed received and approved two applications for the use of HLP. As reported by media:

“NParks demarcated and allocated space for both events. “There are two lawns at Hong Lim Park, and each event was allocated a lawn. NParks and SPF approached Ms Han to request her cooperation to speak at the allocated space,” the statement said. “We regret to note that Ms Han did not heed our advice and continued to hold her event at the same lawn as YMCA.””

When exactly did NParks and the Police approach Ms Han to let her know about the allocation of a separate lawn? As TOC reports, 30 minutes before the event, when their equipment has already been set up and participants would already have been arriving. YMCA was granted use of the larger piece of HLP in front of the community centre where the soil mound and the usual protests are located, while the CPF protesters were to use the smaller area to the east.
Did NParks actually consider a few implications of this double allocation? Such as, given that the CPF protests have drawn crowd sizes of up to 3,000, that the smaller lawn might not be able to fit a sudden turnout? If so, then why chose to only inform the protest organisers at the eleventh hour?

NParks and the police trying to dissuade the CPF protesters.
NParks and the police trying to dissuade the CPF protesters.
In any case, the way which the director of parks, Mr Chia Seng Jiang approached Ms Han to inform the protesters about the venue would have been a sure way to solicit resistance. To be flanked by a band of people, only one who legitimately identified himself as a police officer, and to threaten to take down particulars, all the while having not indicated in writing and in advance that Ms Han was only allocated the east lawn, he would have only received the response he deserved.
Oddly, even at this point, the authorities could not be counted to be consistent. Media reported that “the police said they would be investigating the incident”, yet it was Assistant Superintendent Eric Chong who told Ms Han that to march within HLP, she has to “check with NParks”. So what exactly are they investigating?
My view would be that the CPF protesters did the right in asking for identification and clarity from the authorities, and stand their ground when none was produced. Their anger is understandable, and their defiance natural. Whether that justified their entire slate of actions is another matter.
That heckling incident
Heckle – interrupt (a public speaker) with derisive or aggressive comments or abuse; to interrupt (a public speaker, performer, etc) by comments, questions, or taunts
The dictionary definition of “heckle” indicates that the insult has to be directed at the person it was intended to put down. As such, did the CPF protesters deliberately try to be aggressive towards, abuse or taunt the special needs children present at the YMCA event, whether on or off stage?
All onsite video recordings seem to indicate that, while they were rowdy, they did not seem to have directed their words at the children performing. TOC posted a video online to show a different perspective, but it is already apparent that the video used to demonstrate heckling did not seem to contain any of the sort.
As always, read the right thing.
As always, read the right thing.
However, what we see being reported in a “reputable” broadsheet like The Straits Times is that they deliberately sought to make life difficult for the children. “Special needs children heckled as Hong Lim Park rallygoers disrupt charity carnival”. That is as much sensationalism as you can cram into one headline.
Unfortunately, that seemed to have incited many Members of Parliament to respond in outrage [emphasis mine]:

Manpower Minister Tan Chuan-Jin: “I am appalled. We now heckle special needs children? Vile. Total and absolute disgrace.”
MP Janil Puthucheary: “What sort of public discourse do we want? No excuse for bad behaviour, but especially not directed at kids.”
MP Zaqy Mohamad: “A pity that special needs children were heckled by protesters at event by YMCA at Hong Lim Park. One thing to want to make a statement, and another to cross the line in this manner.”
MP Ang Wei Neng: “It was a sad day. There was no good reason for the bloggers to heckle children with special needs and hurl vulgarities.”

In fact, of all the comments made, possibly the only one who made any good sense was by Minister of State for Trade and Industry Teo Ser Luck – the only one among all his anguished colleagues who was actually at the event, and quite likely the object of the heckling, if any – who made this most commendable even-handed comment to media:

“They have their views, which they want to share, and which they voiced out in a different way. Of course, we hope that things could be done in a more friendly manner.”

Mr Teo did not seem to think that the CPF protesters heckled the children. Why should any of his colleagues think so?
So they did the right thing?
However, that is not to say I agree with what the CPF protesters have done. I agree to some extent to what Social and Family Development Minister Chan Chun Sing said: “To cause alarm and distress to special needs children, and disrupting their routine cannot be right no matter how righteous you think your own cause may be.”
The protesters would have been aware that there are children, special needs or otherwise, present at the YMCA event. They were not party to the objectives of the CPF protest or what the organisers were subjected to earlier, might not understand the anger expressed and would likely have found the hullabaloo alarming.
Indeed, it matters little who the event was organised by or for. It could have been an actual grassroots event organised by the ruling People’s Action Party, but it gives no reason for anyone to intrude into another’s space, even if the authorities did not clearly define that for us.
Granted, we can no longer claim that the CPF protesters heckled the special needs children. They also used the space that they thought was approved by NParks, having not received any indication otherwise. But their anger with the authorities need not have rubbed off on YMCA, to the extent of making the YMCA event any less enjoyable for its participants.
The lesson learnt, then, are multiple. Being confrontational and authoritative will only solicit defiance and feelings of being victimised. Clarity from the authorities is essential, if it wishes to manage our social spaces. Failing which, we need to fall back on co-managing it with others, so that we can better achieve our goals without making others feel bad. Otherwise, we are just offering others ammunition to take us down for doing the socially unacceptable, although technically right, thing.
TOC’s video coverage of the “heckling” incident
[youtube id=”6HKpNvzt33c” align=”right” mode=”normal”]

Subscribe
Notify of
157 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

飘向南方的悲歌:缅甸未成年女移工

本月15日,《联合早报》报导Casa女佣中介公司,因非法引进14岁缅甸女佣,而被罚5千元。 据人力部文告,有关中介公司未自行对女佣年龄进行确认,而是单纯依靠海外代理人提供资料。当局实在去年7月,在人力部服务中心发现该女佣,后者在接受官方问话时,坦承自己只有17岁。 然而,以上新闻只是冰山一角,在新加坡,又有多少未成年的缅甸女移工,隐瞒自己的年龄,承受着他们未成熟心智足以应对的压力,离乡背井只为养活家乡的父母? 缅国政策:女国民禁出国打工 自2014年起,缅甸国家政策不允许女性国民到国外工作。尽管如此,仍有中介前往缅甸偏乡,哄骗贫穷家庭的子女,出国工作。 由于偏乡家庭普遍贫穷,中介会告诉这些家庭,他们的儿女来新加坡工作可获得优渥薪水,足以养活全家,但却不会告诉他们,未成年出国打工,是违法的。 据新加坡法规,要成为家庭女佣,年龄需至少23岁。但是在缅甸的中介,可以以金钱和关系疏通政府单位,篡改这些女佣的实际年龄。 在缅甸,协助办理工作准证俨然成为一门生意,在移民厅外也有代理,以225新元收费协助篡改护照上的年龄。 由于这些缅甸少女出国需付还一笔巨额中介费,为担心合约中断和赔偿,加上中介警告,他们也只好隐瞒年龄。 早在2016年,半岛电视台(Al Jazeera)即揭露未成年女佣到新加坡工作的课题,遗憾的是,该媒体在今年跟进报导,发现问题仍存在。 发生不少缅甸女佣从高楼坠下事件,引起半岛电视台记者注意,深入调查后发现,尽管政府已严法禁止未成年女佣入境,仍有许多像怀怀和欣欣这些入世未深的偏乡少女,被骗来新加坡工作。…

3300长者老无所依领救济

在本月6日,社会与家庭发展部在官网贴文指出,截至2017年终,超过3千300名60岁以上乐龄人士, 获得该部社区关怀长期援助计划(ComCare Long- Term Assistance)救济。其中有70巴仙年龄超过70岁以上。 受援助群体中,有85巴仙为华裔,8巴仙为马来同胞和6巴仙为印度同胞。 该部是针对丹绒巴葛集选区议员谢世儒医生在国会的提问,发表上述答复。 谢世儒医生是询问,在新加坡本土或海外,缺乏家人子女照顾的年长者数据,以及有多少人已获得政府或福利组织援助;已获得福利机构收留的年长者。 社会与家庭发展部称,在社区关怀长期援助计划下,为老无所依年长者伸出援手,有者也获福利之家收容。 该部阐释,长期援助计划帮助已无法工作、病痛或残疾年长者,收入低微/无收入,没有家庭照顾者也受保障。 超过1千老者住福利之家 截止2017年终,超过1千名60岁以上无家人照顾、流离失所年长者,获安排入住该部资助,或自愿福利机构提供的住宿。…

马国公民组织要求公布513档案 慕尤丁:未接到类似要求

513事件发生至今已半世纪,但伤痕留在马来西亚人民心中难忘,且513事件发生的肇因至今仍没公布。513系列活动工委会主席陈亚才,于上周进行公祭仪式上,要求政府为此事件 “解惑” ;但是内政部长丹斯里慕尤丁则表示,政府并没有接获类似的正式要求。 据马国媒体《东方日报》报导,上周末(5月11日)早上9时,在双溪毛糯513墓园,维护513墓园工委会、林连玉基金属下文化资产保存基金、隆雪华民权委员会、妇女组和青年团联合举办了公祭仪式。除了雪州高级行政议员拿督邓章钦、万扰州议员蔡伟杰、陈亚才和吉隆坡广东义山李振光等人,有包括罹难者家属和幸存者在内,将近百人出席。 百人出席公祭仪式 出席者在活动开始时,为罹难者默哀1分钟后,各大宗教团体的代表在获得主办单位邀请下,在现场进行宗教仪式。出席的宗教代表有伊斯兰教、佛教、道教、基督教、天主教和兴都教等。 文化工作者在现场进行诗歌朗诵,在现场乐器伴奏下,现场一片严肃萧瑟,有者甚至哭出来。出席者随后为每一个墓碑、无论有没有名字记载,都献上鲜花,公祭仪式才正式结束。 陈亚才在活动上致辞时表示,今年的513事件公祭主题为“解惑”,即接触人民的迷惑和困惑,也希望此事不会再成为恐吓和挟持的工具。他也呼吁更多客观、更理性和全面的分析,以便达到有关目的。但是因为513事件受到国家机密限制,很多相关的档案蒙尘至今,影响并局限研究范围。 因此他促请政府解除有关的机密限制并开放资料供研究,让历史研究得以深化并且取得突破性的进展。 将513墓园列雪兰莪保留地 他也呼吁雪州政府将513墓园在宪报上列为保留地,并将该土地指定为州属文化遗产。 雪州高级行政议员拿督邓章钦在致辞上回应了陈亚才的呼吁,表示雪州政府同意将513墓园列为保留地,并且已经展开土地测量和资料收集工作,料半年内会有好消息。…

Are ‘authoritarian’ governments ‘backing’ each other up?

American citizen William Nguyen of Vietnamese descent, is 33 years old this…