Will Meng Seng & Gilbert see red at this suggestion?

Someone wrote in to Voices on 4 June saying

Designate Hong Lim Park location for foreigners’ national celebrations

I refer to the letter “Well-considered decision by police on Filipino event” (May 30). Orchard Road, being a bustling shopping belt, is indeed not a feasible venue for the Philippine independence celebration.

I feel that Hong Lim Park is currently underutilised, apart from occasional events held by civil activists. It should henceforth be designated a permanent site for any future celebrations of national or independence days by foreigners residing here.

I remember that the Philippine Independence Day was celebrated last year at Hong Lim Park.

For some reason, the organisers contemplated changing the venue this year.

http://www.todayonline.com/voices/designate-hong-lim-park-location-foreigners-national-celebrations

What will Goh Meng Seng and Gilbert Goh say or do if this suggestion was accepted by the govt? After all Hong Lim was where Tan Kin Lian (adviser one Goh Meng Seng) made his name  as the “People’s Voice” speaking out on the credit notes fiasco, and where GG got out the crowd to protest about immigration, and where he got people spitting on their public tpt fare cards. 

The area is, or should be, sacred space (or sovereign territory) to both of them.

A comment on Voices on the above suggestion that I’m sure GMS, GG and friends would agree with:

Hong Lim Park is meant as Speakers’ Corner for Singaporean.Why should foreigners celebrate national day or Independence day in the open than in the their respective embassy or other indoor facilities. It is alright to do it in the open if they celebrate cultural or other events.

But what I don’t understand is why in 2013, they didn’t protest when the Pinoys were planning to party (and did party) in Hong Lim Park, GG and GMS did not complain about the Pinoys’ planned party (which went on as planned), and against the govt for allowing the party. They after all want all such parties to be held behind closed doors.

As their 2014 objection was not confined to the Orchard Rd venue of the party, why didn’t they protest in 2013?

Opportunism? Netizens were not worked up about a Pinoy party at Hong Lim? So no poiting trying to stir the pot or add kerosene to a fire?

Or they like PAP MPs were sleeping? They didn’t read TRE last yr when it reported the Pinoys were planning to “trespass” Hong Lim?

What do you think

Have a gd weekend.

And if in search of laughs, go see Roy and his New Citizen GF at Hong Lim telling para facts** about CPF tomorrow.

—————-

*The proposed party “trespasses” on S’pore’s sovereignty said GMS, while GG said our sovereignty is being threatened) have applied for a police permit. But they never defined their understanding of “sovereignty”, and I can find no lawyer who can explain what they meant.They all say that the Pinoys action of applying for a permit (as advised by GMS) showed that they accepted and acknowledged S’pores’s sovereignty.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
    “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
    “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.” 

Were they trying to cloak their feelings by using a word that had a highly technical meaning? Or were they trying to stir the masses by using a highfaluting word? As I said in the text above, why didn’t they object last yr?

**Roy’s thesis that the govt steals our CPF is an example of para-facts, nuggets of pseudo-truth, edited, wrenched from context, or simply invented from whole cloth. People like Uncle Leong (and self) have described how the CPF system works long before Roy did.

Oh this should pls those who call me a PAP mole. But then I aim to pls.

Advertisements