And are the Pinoys trying to stir the pot in revenge?
Or is the Pinoy embassy juz hard at work showing that it is doing its job of protecting Pinoys against hate-crime, bullying and exploitation. After complaining about a hate (no such thing, IMO: it was juvenile, offensive, dumb: anything and everything except “hateful”), it is now looking into a report that domestic workers, including Filipinos, were being put on display at malls in Singapore. Al Jazeera reported that the workers are allegedly made to sit beneath signs and posters that testify to their qualities, or advertise promo rates and discounts. [Update at 6am: No inappropriate displays of maids, say employment agencies, local media reported yesterday.]
Seems to me that ever since the 8 June fiasco when the Pinoy community were collective given a tight slap that the S’pore Police Force was not their grandfather’s police force and that “P” in SPF, PM and PMO did not stand for “Pinoy” but for “Police” and “Prime”, the embassy has become “garang”, and assertive: trying to find fault with S’poreans. Trying to repent for the embassy’s failings over that fiasco?
The undermentioned letter to Voices reflects what the Pinoys and their S’pore friends expected from what they tot was the S’pore Pinoy Force, Pinoy Minister and Pinoy Minister’s Office:
I am disappointed in the Singapore Police Force. Instead of fulfilling its duty to protect law and order, it gave in to threats by bigots towards other members of the community, the same bigots our Prime Minister condemned for their intolerance.
What is the message to foreigners who live and work in Singapore? When a police force tells the people it is supposed to protect that powers in the community are too big for it to control, it is plainly shirking responsibility.
I think the police have better things to do than organise and help out at the Pinoys’ party. My understanding is that the Pinoys didn’t have a clue about the requirements to host a function in a crowded thoroughfare on a Saturday afternoon in S’pore’s premier shopping area. They tot all they had to do was to set up a stage, sound system and bring in the gals and the booze, and leave the rest to the S’pore Pinoy Force. When they were disabused by the police, they were not happy at the work and costs involved: marshals, medical support, cordoning off the area (see below) etc.
Not happy, pls go home (even though I like being served by Pinoy service staff: they are tops and gd at parting me from my money happily) especially as PinoyLand is the new Asian economic power house, supposedly. But then unlike home, there’s no goons with guns here: safer here for all the claims of feeling victimised, exploited* and afraid. Only got Gilbert Goh’s, Goh Meng Seng’s and friends’ hot air to irritate them: don’t see this hot air killing them.
To end, on a constructive note, here’s a gd Voice explaining a situation that would have worked on 8 June: All the Pinoys needed to do was to arrange to close the plaza for their function. It would have been expensive though. They had only themselves to blame for allowing Goh Meng Seng, Gilbert Goh and friends to whip up sentiment against the event. And among themselves, they could reasonably have expected the embassy to give them this advice in a timely manner, not a S’porean, after the event..
Venue for Philippine celebration would not have been ‘public space’
Many Singaporeans who complained online thought it would be held in a public area, which they saw as conflicting with and disrespectful to the interests of Singaporeans.
The location at Orchard Road might have been chosen simply because of convenience and familiarity to Filipinos who frequent Lucky Plaza.
Understanding the legal definition of public and non-public places can explain why Singapore Day last year, at Sydney’s Royal Botanic Gardens, was not actually held at a public space.
Although the park is normally a public place, the event venue was closed off to members of the Australian public. An event can be held outdoors and not be defined as a public event, as long as the event space is closed off from public access.http://www.todayonline.com/voices/venue-philippine-celebration-would-not-have-been-public-space
*And we don’t do this here to anyone: Pinoys do this to Pinoys in PinoyLand
THE usual story of child sex-tourism goes something like this. A predator from a rich country arranges a meeting with a fixer and travels to a poor country. The fixer could be a pimp, or even a family relation of the child. If so, the predator might shower the child’s family with gifts and money in exchange for being alone with his victim. Eventually, the offender flies home and returns to his normal life as if nothing had happened.
However, the rapid spread of fast and cheap internet connections in the poor world, and particularly in South-East Asia, is adding a new twist to this nasty old story. It’s called “virtual trafficking”, where predators now meet children in video-chat rooms.
The problem is particularly bad in the Philippines. There, whereas 2% of its 77m people had access to the Internet in 2000, today over one-third of its 104m people do. Combined with deep poverty, this gives fixers and families both the means and the incentive to put children on the web. Fortunately, however, unlike in most countries the Philippines justice system allows for entrapment. “This facilitates prosecution in cases where the victims are unable to testify in court for whatever reasons,” says Darlene Pajarito, an assistant city prosecutor with the department of justice.