The evolution of the blogosphere has really been a boon for groups that have had their voices marginalised by the main-stream media. It could be due to a divergent or even radical (relative to the Government of the day) view of the political rights of the citizenery; or even groups that lead alternative (once again vis-a-vis most people) lifestyles.
I fully support this development. After all, why should one’s way of life i.e. sexuality, political views, religion etc. be forced down one’s throat unless that way of life seriously impedes another’s right to his/her own way of life? Therefore, it’s really disheartening to see activists shoot themselves in the foot in the way Singaporeans For Democracy (SFD) has done.
As reported in The Online Citizen (Absurd inconsistencies in SHRI’s administerial processes: link here):
Singaporeans for Democracy (SFD) held a closed door forum last Saturday, titled ‘LKY: liberal democracy will do us in. Will it?’ The forum featured the likes of Cambodian MP, Ms Mu Sochua; Malaysian MP, Mr Tian Chew; Former ISA detainee, Mr Vincent Cheng; and popular blogger/activist Mr Alex Au, speaking on democracy and human rights with a regional perspective.
However, the event, which was to have been held at the SHRI training room at The Verge shopping mall, became entangled in a predicament even before it commenced. The organizing team, who had arrived at their pre-booked venue to set-up, found security guards, a sign from the management saying ‘LKY: liberal democracy will do us in. Will it? at training room 9, Level 6 has been cancelled’ and glass panel doors at the sixth floor awaiting them.
Now, what was squeezed in one tiny paragraph amidst all the bitching by James Gomez was this:
In a later statement, Mr David Ang, executive director of SHRI, said that Mr Martyn See, executive secretary of SFD, did not specify the nature of the forum on his application and that he (Mr Ang) only came to know of the subject of the forum when he chanced upon a webpage advertising the event a few days earlier. He elaborated that SHRI’s constitution does not allow it to facilitate ‘events of a political nature’.
Maybe a simple analogy will help. Let’s say I own a restaurant that serves casual diners and you come in and want to book my restaurant to throw a party. I ask you what kind of party it is but you give a vague reply, saying it’s a dinner, and I accept the booking. Later on, I find out (through my own means no less!) that you’ve intended to throw a party that involves drunken teeangers and loud music which clearly goes beyond the type of occasion my restaurant is suited for, do I have the right to refuse your request even though I’ve accepted your booking beforehand? I think I do.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m all for activists being passionate about their various causes. I just think it would help their cause if they were more professional about it. This whole issue wouldn’t have arose if the organisers were more upfront about the type of forum in the first place. It helps even less when these activists hit obstacles due to their incompetence then start to cry foul. Sure, they might attract some more zealots that are vocal but ultimately, they’ll alienate more of the mainstream folks that see them as nothing more than whackos.
Case in point? Look at SDP’s popularity pre and post Chee Soon Juan tempering down.
Bear gives a blow-by-blow rebuttal of SFD’s stupidity. (link here)
The hotel’s facilities are open for public booking for private functions.
The hotel management obviously didn’t have the balls to allow a very legitimate
function for fear of offending the local gods.
Your analogy is way of mark, but the good it did is to identify for us your true colours.
Your analogy of drunken teenagers and loud music is way off. Was SFD going to have a wild party at the venue? They are only going to have a professional discussion/talks on topics which may offense the “you know who”, but are they illegal?
As far as i am concern, the act of terminating the booking is purely politically driven, either by David Ang himself or was forced upon him by the “you know who”.
Your simple analogy doesn’t seem to do your argument any favour either. How rowdy would one reasonably expect a forum to become ? It’s all down to how reasonable or how unreasonable their expectations can be.
Suppose the forum discuss about our CPF schemes and its benefits and shortcomings. Would our Govt also deemed that that too political to be held at any of our public venues ?
Come on, when will we ever grow up ?
I find it amusing. As long as things are not going towards SfD/SDP’s way, the twist of events are ALWAYS politically driven.
It is amazing how the SfD / SDP activists are reaching a new low. Everything goes wrong is POLITICALLY driven, but they did not reflect their own mistakes.
macam small children throwing tantrums.
Andy W,
In Singapore it is absolutely justified for anyone who does anything, even when legally, to say that the local gods have a hand in such occurrences. Can this fact be even denied by the most naive? Unless YOU are a ‘mata potek’ -i.e. blind – the examples of other instances of such occurrences abound.
Do you know that even though the govt itself publicly reminded the people that the post of EP is ‘non-politival’ I am aware of one non-govt endorsed EP candidate whose booking of a meeting room at one community club was withdrawn? The ‘them and us’ or ‘if you are not with us, you are against us’ attitude is deeply ingrained in none other than the govt itself and it’s supporters and proxy and subdry balls carriers. Can a crook the cheek to teach others to be straight/ LOL.
As for this case, the hotel if it is PROFESSIONAL at all, should have the basic courtesy to contact the organisers way ahead by phone to offer its apology – it is after all in the hospitality industry – and not stage the whole thing like a confrontation of security guards and barraging the venue etc. It in fact reflects very accurately the true aggressive and ‘inhospitable’ mentality of that Ang bugger. Such a venue simply has NO CLASS and an affront to the hospitality industry for such obvious and illogical taking of sides.
By the way, Martin See can even consider taking the hotel to court for breach of contract to claim damages.
It is a lame excuse for Ang to claim that his estab has a ‘constitution’ which exclude political use, after the fact, whatever that may mean. In fact, it is a rather stupid claim seeing how difficult it is going to decide and define what political use means.
Back to this case. It is prima facie that if the venue’s use has some special conditions, then the ONUS is for it to inform people who intend to hire its premises of such restriction when it was first approached with an offer to rent. The responsibility lies with it not the client. Is this publicly advertised for example to the effect that events of a political nature ‘need not apply’, for instance?
Martin See, being the aggrieved party, can very well demand that he be shown proof of such a ‘constitution’. Imagine if this Ang and his gang can get away with it, then it can refuse or cancel a booking with impunity.
Martin can sue Ang’s estab. and asked for damages and award of cost. That should teach businesses what cost being spineless can get them into.
I can understand if the meeting is booked in the govt building and civil servants suddently turn coldfeet and rescind the booking for fear of offending the ‘Gods’, but in a hotel handled by private citizens? How ball less can Singaporeans be!
Every thing we do or say is political if you want to term it and it’s really cheap for them to say anything of political nature is not in line with their ‘constitution”
Looks like we are still in the same political climate after the last GE
This can be a test case. Martin and company should pursue it in court.
To make a valid point you must persist or else be taken for granted.
That venue should be publicly embarrass and feel the weight of public opinion.
[...] had some comments saying that my analogy of SFD to “drunken teenagers” is way off the mark and does my [...]