sentinel
Moderator
- Feb 14, 2025
- 46
- 7
- 8
First off, we would like to clarify that we went to Minister Shanmugam’s MPS to share our concerns about how POFMA is being used. We made that clear to every single volunteer that screened us (five of them) and we also made it clear that while we would like to see Shanmugam, we were okay with waiting until all the other residents had been seen first. We understood that we were not residents of his constituency, and were okay to wait. We said this to the volunteers. If this was not relayed to Shanmugam, then this is an internal communications issue. When he left the MPS for his gathering, we were disappointed, but we still followed up with two of the volunteers, and we left our email addresses and phone number so that they could reach out to us and we could set an appointment. We even asked if that would be better instead of trying to engage him at MPS.
Secondly, we would like to address the blatant filming and intimidation we faced upon Shanmugam's return. We had already proceeded to leave the venue but when he made his way back, we decided we might as well see if he would meet us. He went around to greet every resident first and ensure they were seen before meeting us, which is good. He had security personnel and volunteers following him around, but they stayed at a respectful distance from the other residents. Then came our turn, and the situation escalated the moment we said we were there to speak about POFMA. The conversation went fine at first, but then we noticed he was pitching his voice down and standing really close. That's when we realised he had a mic on his shirt. When we looked around, his security staff and volunteers had completely encircled us and quite a few of them were filming. We knew they were not residents who had come to see him because they were wearing the PAP lanyard. At this point, we were shocked and unsettled. We came in good faith, and we were perfectly polite, so why were we treated differently from other citizens, as if we were a threat? Anyone would have felt disturbed to be surrounded and filmed by multiple people, but we felt especially vulnerable as women. Why did they crowd around us like that? And what would they do with this video? And as seen with the articles about us and the misrepresentation, what we feared had come to pass. We asked them to stop recording, because we had honestly not come to "start a fight" or "disrupt", but to appeal to him to lighten the prosecution of ordinary citizens with POFMA. We did not set out to antagonise him. But when we requested his people to stop filming us, he came to their defense. He said they were "entitled to record because this is a public space". We were shocked. On one hand, he checked to make sure we were not doing any audio/video recording, but yet his people could film us and create a hostile environment for us?
We felt humiliated, vulnerable and outraged that despite making clear that we did not want to be filmed, and requesting multiple times for his team to stop intimidating us in this way, our wishes were outright denied. Please understand that we were scared, being surrounded like this. So in that moment, as a form of resistance, and to make our unhappiness with the filming felt, we reacted to the cameras that were in our face. We even made heart shapes with our fingers, but of course, everyone is fixating on the middle finger.
Thirdly, we would like to touch upon the initial topic of conversation that happened outside the venue. He asked us where we stayed, which was an indication that someone did inform him we were not residents. He told us that he would not be able to see us if that was the case. We said to him that in our experience, we have seen other PAP and non-PAP Meet-the-People Sessions where MPs do in fact see non-residents. We did not accuse him of lying. He then said it is up to his discretion whether he wants to see us, and we should go to our own MP. The reason we wanted to see him, specifically, is because as the Law and Home Affairs Minister, POFMA is a law drafted and passed under his purview, and implemented by law enforcement, which he oversees. He has also issued many of the POFMA notices we were particularly concerned about, against certain activists. This is why we went to his specific MPS. We could have gone to our own GRC's MPS, but the impending POFMA cases are happening now, with activists being subject to days-long interrogation by police officers, which was why it felt prudent for us to meet him directly. We did understand the need to see the residents first, and we did say we were willing to wait till the end. But also, why is he implying that he only has a responsibility to Nee Soon residents? Is he not the Minister of Law and Home Affairs for the whole of Singapore? Are we not also under his care for that? It was frustrating to hear him attempt to turn us away, when we would have been willing to wait, and to imply we were disrupting, when we had been trying to have a conversation.
At that point, tensions were already high. He was attempting to go back into the indoor MPS venue, and giving us no good reason why he couldn't spare even 15 minutes to sit down with us and talk, all while recording us and refusing to ask his volunteers to stop filming despite our clear distress at being filmed. Yes, we became angry, and when he walked away, some of us yelled that he was a "coward". This is the same man who has been the strongest proponent of the death penalty and insists on continuing the execution of so many people under oppressive drug laws. The same man who is the architect of POFMA, a repressive law that has been used against people who have different views from the government, a man who wouldn't even spare the time to discuss the concerns of two young citizens who used to look up to him. We had nothing to personally gain from this effort, and everything to lose. We knew nothing much would come out of expressing our concerns to him at an MPS, but we still felt it was important to engage our Ministers, who DO have the power to change things. People have been sneering, judging and saying unkind things about us for the way in which we handled things, but at the end of the day, we really are just two regular citizens. Why are we expected to handle such an intimidating situation with the training and poise of a seasoned politician? Why are we stopped from bringing political issues to our political leaders?
More at https://docs.google.com/document/d/...tMpySNPE1A_aem_K5NWnfGK8wfVVOS--IkVoQ&tab=t.0
Secondly, we would like to address the blatant filming and intimidation we faced upon Shanmugam's return. We had already proceeded to leave the venue but when he made his way back, we decided we might as well see if he would meet us. He went around to greet every resident first and ensure they were seen before meeting us, which is good. He had security personnel and volunteers following him around, but they stayed at a respectful distance from the other residents. Then came our turn, and the situation escalated the moment we said we were there to speak about POFMA. The conversation went fine at first, but then we noticed he was pitching his voice down and standing really close. That's when we realised he had a mic on his shirt. When we looked around, his security staff and volunteers had completely encircled us and quite a few of them were filming. We knew they were not residents who had come to see him because they were wearing the PAP lanyard. At this point, we were shocked and unsettled. We came in good faith, and we were perfectly polite, so why were we treated differently from other citizens, as if we were a threat? Anyone would have felt disturbed to be surrounded and filmed by multiple people, but we felt especially vulnerable as women. Why did they crowd around us like that? And what would they do with this video? And as seen with the articles about us and the misrepresentation, what we feared had come to pass. We asked them to stop recording, because we had honestly not come to "start a fight" or "disrupt", but to appeal to him to lighten the prosecution of ordinary citizens with POFMA. We did not set out to antagonise him. But when we requested his people to stop filming us, he came to their defense. He said they were "entitled to record because this is a public space". We were shocked. On one hand, he checked to make sure we were not doing any audio/video recording, but yet his people could film us and create a hostile environment for us?
We felt humiliated, vulnerable and outraged that despite making clear that we did not want to be filmed, and requesting multiple times for his team to stop intimidating us in this way, our wishes were outright denied. Please understand that we were scared, being surrounded like this. So in that moment, as a form of resistance, and to make our unhappiness with the filming felt, we reacted to the cameras that were in our face. We even made heart shapes with our fingers, but of course, everyone is fixating on the middle finger.
Thirdly, we would like to touch upon the initial topic of conversation that happened outside the venue. He asked us where we stayed, which was an indication that someone did inform him we were not residents. He told us that he would not be able to see us if that was the case. We said to him that in our experience, we have seen other PAP and non-PAP Meet-the-People Sessions where MPs do in fact see non-residents. We did not accuse him of lying. He then said it is up to his discretion whether he wants to see us, and we should go to our own MP. The reason we wanted to see him, specifically, is because as the Law and Home Affairs Minister, POFMA is a law drafted and passed under his purview, and implemented by law enforcement, which he oversees. He has also issued many of the POFMA notices we were particularly concerned about, against certain activists. This is why we went to his specific MPS. We could have gone to our own GRC's MPS, but the impending POFMA cases are happening now, with activists being subject to days-long interrogation by police officers, which was why it felt prudent for us to meet him directly. We did understand the need to see the residents first, and we did say we were willing to wait till the end. But also, why is he implying that he only has a responsibility to Nee Soon residents? Is he not the Minister of Law and Home Affairs for the whole of Singapore? Are we not also under his care for that? It was frustrating to hear him attempt to turn us away, when we would have been willing to wait, and to imply we were disrupting, when we had been trying to have a conversation.
At that point, tensions were already high. He was attempting to go back into the indoor MPS venue, and giving us no good reason why he couldn't spare even 15 minutes to sit down with us and talk, all while recording us and refusing to ask his volunteers to stop filming despite our clear distress at being filmed. Yes, we became angry, and when he walked away, some of us yelled that he was a "coward". This is the same man who has been the strongest proponent of the death penalty and insists on continuing the execution of so many people under oppressive drug laws. The same man who is the architect of POFMA, a repressive law that has been used against people who have different views from the government, a man who wouldn't even spare the time to discuss the concerns of two young citizens who used to look up to him. We had nothing to personally gain from this effort, and everything to lose. We knew nothing much would come out of expressing our concerns to him at an MPS, but we still felt it was important to engage our Ministers, who DO have the power to change things. People have been sneering, judging and saying unkind things about us for the way in which we handled things, but at the end of the day, we really are just two regular citizens. Why are we expected to handle such an intimidating situation with the training and poise of a seasoned politician? Why are we stopped from bringing political issues to our political leaders?
More at https://docs.google.com/document/d/...tMpySNPE1A_aem_K5NWnfGK8wfVVOS--IkVoQ&tab=t.0