And Hui Hui’s grandfathers are not even S’poreans, what with she being a New Citizen*
Taz what I tot when I read
When Hui Hui … had wanted to set up the tentage on Thursday, she found that YMCA had set up their tentages all over the main field at Hong Lim Park. Where we would usually set up a tentage, we could not. And so, we had to forgo the tentage.
It was only when we got to the park on the day of the protest itself that someone who identified himself as a director of NParks … insisted that we use only a portion of the park in a more secluded area. It was not a choice given to us, there was no discussion or compromise. …
Also, why did YMCA not come and negotiate the use of the space? Why was it NParks which had to dictate to us to move.
(Roy’s account)
And New Citizen H3’s rant,
“Why must YMCA hold their event at Hong Lim Park when they have other alternatives?”
Their sense of entitlement is astounding, even more than ministers’ view that they are entitled to megabucks.
In the first place, YMCA had booked the place earlier contrary to 3H’s assertions that she was first to chop (But then she always lidatt: lying or making misrepresentations of facts**).
In the second place, YMCA’s people were at Hong Lim a lot earlier to set up their tents. If 3H had set up her tent and stage first, I wouldn’t be attacking Roy’s and her sense of entitlement: First in, best dressed.
Next, given her reputation for aggressive behaviour (Watching TOC’s video, I felt sorry for the Parks office and policemen, even though she was within her rights to ask for their credentials. Ever heard of being polite? Or H3 blaming her behaviour on her parents and teachers? She never at fault for anything.), I don’t blame YMCA for not wanting to talk to her.
My next point is that Roy and 3H did march to the stage area to KPKB. As one of the many organisers at several mini-bond events, I know it’s a gd five minutes walk to the PA stage from the mound. If Roy and 3H had remained at the mound, I wouldn’t be writing this post.
As to their denials of not heckling, based on the TOC video which they say shows they didn’t heckle, they were shouting slogans in the interval between performances and didn’t stop when the Special needs kids came out. Took them some some time to realise the implications of their disrupting the kids’ gig.
Until they moved on, they were heckling the kids. If they had stopped shouting when the kids emerged, I would agree that there was no heckling. But they didn’t stop did they? Taz heckling the kids. Was there ill-intent towards the kids. I doubt it. But going by what Roy said, they would have cont’d disrupting any other performance. .
Finally, if Pinoys can use Hong Lim, why can’t YMCA? Looks like these two activists are FT lovers who hate a local NGO?
————————-
*Someone at Home Team made an honest mistake allowing her to be a citizen. Same guy as allowed two-timing Raj in and approved PR staus for ang moh awaiting trial?
**She claimed that the kids were “pushed” out to fix her gang. Well I saw the clip which she claims proves her right. IMHO doesn’t. The kids came out taz all. No “push”. Hui Hui also accused the police of wanting to arrest her. The TOC video shows no such thing. Let’s face it. She likes to say things that are not true. Other examples:
— crowd of size at her rallies 3,000 can become 6,000 and 500 become 1000;
— change of timing of YMCA event meant to sabo her event. There is evidence that the YMCA event was not changed at the last minute as she alleges.
Would you buy a used car or life insurance policy from her. I wouldn’t. Yet this New Citizen and her BF claims to speak for me. What arrogance. If they hadn’t I’d cut them a lot of slack. But they claim to speak for me.
Thoughts of a Cynical Investor 
1. I don’t regard H3 asking of “Why must YMCA hold their event at Hong Lim Park when they have other alternatives?” as a sense of entitlement. Rather, it is a valid question that any neutral person would have asked.
2. While you felt sorry for the Park office and policemen, I felt more so for H3. If you were to put yourself in her shoes, would you still be able to behave in your normal polite way? Why must the Park officer come with a group of policemen? Why must she the only party to be instructed on what she can/cannot do and the decision was made arbitrarily? Where was the fairness and impartiality?
3. You said you don’t blame YMCA for not wanting to talk to H3 after describing how impolite H3 had behaved. Do you know her request for talk with YMCA was before the “impolite” incident? YMCA has not given their reason for not wanting to talk to H3. Any neutral person would be pondering why.
4. H3 said her protest would include a march around the park. So she did march to the stage area because YMCA did erect the stage on the path that she wanted to march on. Since nobody has exclusive right of use of that space, nobody should complain.
5. You said they were shouting slogans in the interval between performances. Would it be also right to say the music and the performances were introduced in the interval between their marches and protests?
6. If their actions amounted to heckling, it was clear the “heckling” was not directed at the children. If they had wanted to heckle at the children, why would they stop and leave when the children was pushed/ushered out to perform in the middle of their “heckling”? You interpreted it as they had heckled at the children and stopped only when they realized the implication. My interpretation was they carried out what they had planned to carry out and somebody used the children performance to force them to stop their activity/the introduction of the children performance had forced them to stop their activity.
7. Nobody said YMCA cannot use HLP. If Pinoys or anyone wants to organise an activity to clash with them and also refused to meet up to discuss, questions must be directed at the party that refused to talk.
[…] Hong Lim Park Protests: Same Same, But Different Shame – Thoughts of a Cynical Investor: Hong Lim Park the private property of the granndfathers of Roy & Hui Hui – Singapore 2B: And a child shall lead them.. – Salt * Wet * Fish: Growing pains and […]
To be fair, the only venue available for protesters is Hong Lim Park. For any other events, all other venues are available and without having to seek approval. If you have a rally to praise the government, you can hold it anywhere.
In this case, YMCA choped the place a lot earlier. And there is evidence that Hui Hui changed the timing of her booking to coincide with YMCA event.
The way Roy writes, he seems to appeal to a more thinking, intellectual crowd. One wonders why the justifications that his supporter’s provide after this incident are all so senseless.
The thing about “HLP should only be for protests” and “YMCA should not have brought children there” kind of argument is that it is pathetic at best, a show of self entitlement, and a sign of how incompetent and impotent some people are, even when they are whining about something. There have been multiple events at HLP, and single events that encompassed a lot of people, the protest against white paper for example. The area is big enough for peaceful single or double events, and some protestors have brought their children there in the past as well.
If you do a protest, you want big numbers. Some protestors last saturday mentioned that even some YMCA people were keen to know what they were protesting about. And why not? They are CPF users too. This was the big chance, to make a big splash, to let a bigger crowd know what they are doing and why. Given the low numbers of protestors all the time, this would be the ideal chance.
But these folks, classless, boorish and unintelligent as they are (again, I wonder why Roy, a well spoken guy always ends up attracting such kinds), proceeded to take it as a chance to gatecrash and run over the other event, when a much more effective thing to do would be to applaud the performances, then invite some of the audience over to listen to the protest.
For those who still want to say whether is it heckling or not, who book first, I think the evidence is all there. The 17 min video. This is not a spin on a story by the Straits Times. Its on TOC, Mothership, Youtube and Facebook. Its on multiple blog sites as well.
Admit it, Roy and Han did screw up.
You were probably correct in your interpretation of what had happened. The question is can you see beyond what you can see from the video.
On one side, we have H3, a group of simple minded people who made known their programs, venue, time and what they intended to do. Their target is the PAP. When they learned that their event would clash with that organized by YMCA, they tried to find out more about their event, request for a meet up to avoid any clash or unpleasant things, etc.
On the other side, we have YMCA and PA. NPark and SPF are supposed to be the neutral party to ensure nothing unpleasant happened. All are supposedly separate, distinct, independent entities not related to the PAP. However, all of them were secretive, firm and confident. They knew about the clash but didn’t see the need to meet up with H3 to discuss about it. Why?
That is why I also want to ask why held at HLP and for a group of vulnerable elderly people and young children. I asked not because of a sense of entitlement for the protestors but to know the true intention of the organiser.
For one, I would say that even in a CPF protest, there can be vulnerable elderly people and children as well. As long as the even its kept peaceful, nothing wrong for them to be there. So I don’t see why YMCA has to think so hard on whether or not to bring a group of these people to HLP when they know the CPF protest is there. Why? Is there going to be a violent action? No right? So whats wrong with it? As mentioned, there are many people in the YMCA crowd who can take interest in CPF as well, so what’s wrong? In other countries, people protest in the streets. In Singapore, it is not allowed, but this double event allows the protestors to take their cause to more ordinary folk out there. Would you prefer that YMCA do not show up that day, and end up only the same few hundred attend the protest?
So to the stance taken by NParks and so on, its very simple. They were just trying to say that “we designate areas for both events. please stick to your designated area so that for one, the noise do not impact each other and people from both sides can hear what is being said.” But there is no law to say that the protestors cannot try to rope in some of the YMCA crowd to listen to their speeches, is it? I’m sure this can be done, in a friendly manner.
But here the self entitled and unreasonable nature of triple H kicked in. She try to debate the law, try to ask people for their identification, ask what right do they have, etc. Hello, in the end, they marched over to disrupt the YMCA protest. Nobody from Nparks called police to arrest them did they? Nparks was appealing to her good sense, and not using the law or police on her. You say they did not want to meet up with her. Lets say they did, but if this is the attitude she want to display, to kick up and fuss and create a scene, what good would it have done?
You can see what they did in the end. Instead of trying to win over the YMCA crowd and spread the message in a good way, they marched over, shouted while others are having their events, stand in the middle and wave flags, etc. And even if Roy did walk away on seeing the special needs children, did everyone of the protestors do so?
There was plenty of leeway and opportunity given to Han and Roy to make the event work for them. Nothing that would have caused a big problem. Han and Roy chose to use the opportunity to lash out and behave in the worst possible manner, and that is why they face what they face now.
It looked to me you have concluded that YMCA/PA was an innocent party that simply wanted to organize an event for the children and it was disrupted by the protestors. Are you aware of the following?
1. Allegation of someone asking them to call off their protest.
2. Threat of bringing large crowd to disrupt their protest.
3. Allegation of change of timing.
4. Chope the spot, refused to meet up to negotiate and compromise.
5. Ushering the children out to perform when “heckling” was going on.
6. No attempt was made to remind the “hecklers” that they were disrupting the children performance.
The first two allegations are serious enough to warrant that YMCA/PA is not an innocent party but one that is out to disrupt the protest. The next 2 conformed to that of someone whose actions were to disrupt their protest. The last 2 were to make them looked like they were heckling the children performance.
I am not jumping to the conclusion that they are out to disrupt the protest. But they are not helpful by their refusal to answer the allegations and questions thrown at them. And you seemed to support their silence?
Well Hui Hui tells a lot of lies. So how to believe this FT?http://anyhowhantam.blogspot.sg/2014/10/looney-fringe-han-hui-hui-claims-she.html
You chose not to mention that Roy and 3H raise the awareness level and indeed rights of cpf contributors to an all time high much to the awkwardness of the Government..keyboard warriors shielded by anonymity can exclaim righteousness but does little to alleviate the issues..differing versions of HLP events have surfaced and indeed..even the MSM has decided to walk away from their initial reports and move on. Perhaps you should do the same
Ah I see. The usual stance of “if not for Roy and Hui Hui, where would we be?” But if you have read some of my previous posts here, I give credit to Roy for making me think on the CPF issue. And no doubt many others do as well.
So because my cause is a noble one (CPF), and I try to raise the awareness level of the population, that gives me special rights whenever I am at HLP and there is another event ongoing. This is essentially what they are behaving like. There is one chinese saying “yi zhao chuang tian xia”. Because of one useful thing that Roy and Hui Hui did, are you now saying that whatever they henceforth they say or do should be beyond reproach?
This would not be much different from what a pro-PAP supporter would say, that since the PAP govt has some good things for Singapore in the past, we therefore must close one eye to whatever that is not so good about them in the present. I always make the case that you die hard Roy supporter types are actually not much different from the hardcore PAP gang at heart, and I think this is another proof.
Mainstream media moved away from their original version? I have argued on some other blogs that it is in the social and alternative media that Roy and Han have suffered the most damage, with many bloggers, even non-PAP supporting ones, TOC, Mothership, Yahoo news and even opposition members have come out to criticize their actions. Whatever “differing” versions have been put out, there has been plenty of time for the ground to judge, and the ground is against them right now on this one issue. That is the most critical situation for them now.