Tampines 1 reported to police for racial discrimination

From ‘Women files police report against Tampines 1 for alleged racial discrimination; mall issues apology’, 9 April 2016, ST

A woman filed a police report on Friday (April 8) against Tampines 1 shopping mall, alleging that she was subjected to racial discrimination by an employee of the mall.

The mall had earlier issued a public apology to businesswoman Diana Hairul, and told The Straits Times it had counselled the employee about her actions.

Ms Diana, 36, who uploaded on Facebook on Thursday (April 7) evening a screenshot of an e-mail she received from the employee, wrote that she had felt discriminated by the reply.

The e-mail read: “Hi Dee, We are not so keen to run a Malay road show as our target audience are mainly Chinese. Thus, we regret to inform you that we are unable to rent a space to you.”

What’s shocking to me is not so much that a police report is being filed, since the police have been activated for more petty things, like a child getting scolded by a teacher. What’s unnerving is Diana’s FB post and Tampines MP Masagos Zulkifli’s follow up.

Screen Shot 2016-04-09 at 8.02.30 AM

First, she specifically addressed the Malay Muslim community. She didn’t say ‘Hey hey everyone’.  Then there’s ‘rejected US’, which by implication to her first sentence suggests that Tampines 1 wasn’t just declining her business, but Malays in general. The use of CAPS on ‘mainly the chinese’ is to emphasise that this is a race issue. And oh, you should feel discriminated ‘against’, not ‘feel discriminated’, but I think people would have been drowned in CAPS by then to notice. People complain about how Tampines 1’s email was worded but in all fairness, the complainant’s rant and its capacity to incite negative feelings is worth looking into as well.

From a business standpoint, Tampines 1 should have done its calculations and decided that a Hari Raya road show simply would not be profitable. The trick is fudging the answer to make it seem like such road shows are not compatible with the mall’s ‘theme’ or ‘direction’ (They eventually gave the excuse that they were fully booked). We also should not expect businesses to patronise a certain race at the expense of their bottom line. If I were to propose to those in charge at Geylang Serai market that I want to sell Chinese new year decorations, it’s likely that I’ll get rejected because of the obvious ‘target audience’ in the area. Likewise if I were a real estate agent intending to sell a house in Kampong Glam, I’m not going to ‘feel discriminated’ if my boss decides it’s better for my Malay colleague to pitch the sale.

Fine if a member of public makes a commotion over something businesses have to manage discreetly on a daily basis. Anyone who’s mature and sensible enough wouldn’t be riled by Diana’s outburst into believing that Tampines 1 is anti-Malay and doesn’t want their money. When news broke that a Chinese man attacked 3 madrasah students we didn’t descend into a mob. So yes, we can be certain that Singaporeans are rational people and will not boycott Tampines 1 over an isolated incident, no matter how someone tries to assault our senses with complaints in CAPS.

I’m also not too sure about MP Masagos’ strongly worded response on his FB. (Post was deleted at time of writing. Hmmm..)

masagos1_0

‘INSENSITIVE AND INCOMPETENT’, ‘SPREAD ILL WILL’, “SHAME ON YOU!’.

Insensitive, yes, but I don’t think the staff deserves the rest of the berating. Spreading ‘ill will’ is a serious charge, the kind that will land you in court. Didn’t Minister Gan just tell us to develop a ‘learning culture‘ from such mistakes? Has the Minister considered the career repercussions of the affected staff from this public bashing? As a public figure I would have expected something more neutral, diplomatic and forgiving, like ‘Let us all learn from this lesson in our bid to become more inclusive’, or ‘The reply was a missed opportunity. Businesses could emphasise communication skills as part of their training programme’, or ‘The staff may wish to apply for course via SkillsFuture so that such incidents may be avoided’. Taking sides, shaming and fanning flames on the matter short of accusing people of Islamophobia helps no one.

This was Masagos’ response to the Paya Lebar assault earlier in the month.

Screen Shot 2016-04-09 at 9.48.27 AM

Yes, more ‘SHAME ON YOUs’, though in this case he did urge us not to ‘incite hatred and division’. In other words, don’t stir shit while the Police are investigating. The same applies to the Tampines 1 case, whatever the Police are doing to resolve the matter while at the same time managing ‘walking time bombs’ in Little India.

Meanwhile I’ll continue to patronise Tampines 1, Hari Raya bazaar or no bazaar, and hopefully it doesn’t turn into the Little Chinatown of Tampines after this incident. If there’s any mall that deserves to have the police knocking on their doors, it’s not one as supposedly ‘racist’ as Tampines Mall is, but those with the potential to randomly kill you. Jem, I’m talking to you.

WP’s Daniel Goh filing police report over poison pen letter

From ‘WP’s Daniel Goh refutes allegations of extramarital affair’, 28 Aug 2015, article in Today

Workers’ Party (WP) candidate Daniel Goh this morning said in a Facebook post that he has lodged a police report over the poison pen letter alleging that he had an affair with a former student.

…In a post on his Facebook page just before midnight (Aug 27), Associate Professor Goh, who is a sociologist at the National University of Singapore, said someone wrote a poison pen letter to the WP and the media claiming he had an affair with a former student whom he supervised for her thesis.

“I categorically refute the baseless allegations and I question the timing of the poison pen letter coming immediately after the candidate introduction,” wrote Assoc Prof Goh, who was introduced by the WP on Wednesday as a candidate for the coming polls.

One man who would be interested in this turn of events would be disgraced former WP candidate Yaw Shin Leong, whose downfall began when TR Emeritus exposed his affair based on accounts from ‘reliable informants’. The New Paper soon pounced, Yaw’s silence was taken as a sign of guilt, the PAP questioned the integrity of their council, and before you know it, the man tumbled out of politics altogether. It wasn’t long before scandal swung to the other side, with anonymous SMS tip-offs implicating PAP’s Michael Palmer for screwing around too. Unlike Yaw’s dithering, Palmer readily admitted to his indiscretions and quit the party in a manner that some might describe as ‘honourable’. The only reason why these vicious allegations weren’t labelled as ‘poison pen letters’ nor the media excoriated for ‘gutter journalism’, was that they turned out to be true. Or maybe because it’s, well, THE NEW PAPER.

There Will be Mud

Within days of Parliament dissolving, ‘netiquette’ met the same fate. Politicians are suddenly fodder for dirty sleuthing, and social media has become plague-ridden with one calculated smear campaign after another. NSP’s Steve Chia and Sebastian Teo were at the receiving end of the poison nib, with entire websites dedicating to besmirching their reputations. In the last GE, Vincent Wijeysingha crossed swords with Vivian Balakrishnan, the latter pointing to an online video and accusing the SDP of promoting a ‘gay agenda’. Both Steve and Vincent are as good as gone from politics, and it won’t be long before this poison shroud would start infecting other Opposition parties, with conspiracy theories floating around that these spreaders of falsehoods could either be PAP saboteurs/sympathisers, or even rival Opposition supporters, that instead of hurting Daniel Goh they actually boost his election chances. If WP play their cards right, we have a strong Opposition contender in our hands. Well, whatever doesn’t kill him.

Within a day of Goh lodging a police report, Law Minister Shanmugam did the same against a ‘seditious’ Facebook user accusing him of being an ‘Islamophobic bigot’ after his speech about segregation between Malay/Muslim and Chinese schools in Malaysia. It’s the kind of racism accusation Malaysian politicians would toss at LKY for his thoughts on Malaysia’s social quirks. So things have gotten ugly pretty quickly, and we’ve not even gotten to Nomination Day. You have to wonder if such retaliatory responses have been exaggerated because of this ‘smear frenzy’ that has gotten our candidates all antsy in their pants. Try to screw my election chances by defamation, and I’ll smack the law on you even harder. I figure politicians would turn a blind eye to trolls if polling wasn’t, well, just 2 damn weeks away.

So ‘negative campaigning’ and the revenge attacks associated with it, is the order of the day despite the Elections Department frowning upon it. In Goh’s case, the cowardliness of the attack and the mainstream media’s hyena scavenging somehow reversed his fortune into a positive one, instead of descending into ‘YawGate’.  It’s called ‘election fever’ for a reason; The system is delirious with a sickening contagion, where combatants are pitted not against actual rivals in a war of words or wits, but against anonymous hecklers who just want to see the world burn. In the past, writing poison pen letters that mar the reputation of police officers could land you 6 months in jail. If need be, the likes of “Max Chan” could be charged now under the Protection from Harassment Act, a charge that would actually make sense. Unlike this headscratcher.

So much shit online that threaten to condemn Singapore politics to a mudslinging Woodstock orgy and all our MDA is merely concerned with is ‘Pappy Washing Powder’. I wonder if that works on bullshit as well as tough stains.

UPDATE 29 Aug 15: K Shanmugam decided not to file a police report after meeting his accuser. 

Policeman shot in Khoo Teck Puat hospital

From ‘Shooting case at hospital:Man could face death penalty’, 22 June 2015, Today

The police have classified Saturday’s incident at Khoo Teck Puat Hospital, where a police officer was shot, as an unlawful discharge of firearms under the Arms Offences Act, an offence that carries the death penalty. The suspect, a 24-year-old Singaporean man who was arrested for motor vehicle theft on Friday, will be hauled to court this afternoon on this holding charge

…The suspect, who was under remand for further investigations into his alleged motor vehicle theft, had complained of chest pains on Saturday and was escorted by police officers to Khoo Teck Puat Hospital to seek medical attention.

At about 7.05pm, while inside one of the hospital’s examination rooms, which are not accessible to the public, the suspect attempted to escape and struggled with one of the officers. TODAY understands that the suspect had attacked the 31-year-old officer while his colleague stepped out of the room. The suspect is believed to have taken hold of the officer’s baton and used it to beat the latter.

He then snatched the officer’s revolver and discharged three rounds, before he was subdued and the situation was brought under control. The accused sustained superficial injuries.

The death penalty for using a gun on another person, even with just the intention to cause hurt,  came into force in 1974, signed off by then President Benjamin Sheares. ‘Firearms’ also includes air pistols, air guns and even flamethrowers, according to the Arms Offences Act. In fact, you don’t even need to aim your weapon at a living thing to get convicted with a possible death sentence. The law states:

“…any person who uses or attempts to use any arm shall, until the contrary is proved, be presumed to have used or attempted to use the arm with the intention to cause physical injury to any person or property.”

The lesson here then, is unless you’re a soldier or a cop, hands off anything that fires pellets, missiles or bullets. Even threatening people with a toy gun, or what the law describes as an ‘imitation arm’, can land you 10 years in jail and 3 strokes of the rotan. What’s not clear is whether you’ll still get death if your gun is not loaded and you’re using it just to scare your target like an imitation arm. What will happen to you if you shot people in the knee with a bow and arrow, or a catapult at close range for that matter? Or what if you managed to disarm a robber of his pistol and was forced to fire it near his feet to scare him away? As Mr Bean taught us, you could create havoc just using your bare hand as an ‘imitation arm’.

The first death sentence for such a crime was doled out to Sha Bakar Dawood in 1976, who wounded 3 people in a brothel and fired at the police. A year earlier, an accomplice to an armed robbery was sent to the gallows as well, despite him voluntarily surrendering to the police. For decades our strict gun control laws kept us safe from gang robberies and mass slaughters, that is until 2005 when Chestnut Drive Secondary School was mysteriously attacked by a suspected sniper with an air-gun. Not sure if the culprit was ever caught, though thankfully no one was hurt during the onslaught.

It’s a terrible idea to try to snatch a policeman’s revolver, not only because you risk being sent to the hangman’s, but you may get shot or even killed before your execution in the ensuing struggle. In the mid 80’s, a motorcycle thief was shot in the abdomen in failed attempt. 2 men died within the span of 20 days in 1984 while playing tug-of-war with armed police. In 1985, a 19 year old was hit in the chest and died after trying to grab a PC’s revolver. In his defence, PC Tay Kok Thong had just wanted to fire a shot to ‘scare him away’. In the same year, an escaping burglar was fatally shot in the neck.  In the KTPH case, the policeman had it worse off, but would the accused still get the death penalty even if he was shot in the face at the same time that the cop got his hand blown off, and survived?

I trust that our police are drilled in dealing with gun-snatch situations without the trigger being pulled and accidentally killing someone. Still, if you’re a revolver thief, you may try sneaking up on a detective while he’s fooling around with his girl in a park, or grab his bag while he’s swimming, instead of trying to yank it out of his holster. For the moment, there is no punishable-by-death law against the ‘unlawful wielding of a knife or equivalent sharp object’, even though you can just as well kill someone at close range with a stabbing weapon. Such a law, however, could probably put an end to secret society gangfights and domestic kitchen disputes once and for all.

Duo arrested outside Istana for illegal assembly

From ‘Duo arrested for organising public assembly without permit’, 4 April 2015, Today

Two men between the age of 24 and 25 were arrested by the police this afternoon (Apr 4).

According to the police, the duo had turned up in front of the Istana with placards at about 4pm. Channel NewsAsia understands that duo were holding signs that read “You can’t silence the people” and “Injustice” for about half an hour. They were clad in red hoodies and dark-blue jeans.

Police also said that both of them had refused to stop the activity despite requests from the officers. As such, they were arrested for organising a public assembly without permit, under Section 16(1)(a) of the Public Order Act, Chapter 257A.

In 1986, a lone man was arrested by the police for carrying a placard outside the Istana asking Israeli President Chaim Herzog to go home.  His charge? Public obstruction. So is TWO the minimum number to organise an ‘assembly’, illegal or otherwise? One district judge debunked the general perception that you needed FIVE or more troublemakers to form an unlawful assembly, that the ‘intention’ was more important than the numbers. For example, it’s not illegal if you have at least 5 people gathering to sing Christian songs of worship without a permit, but a different matter altogether if you’re members of Falungong distributing leaflets or wearing shirts with slogans. Unless of course, the cell group gathering is causing ‘public obstruction’ by sitting on a busy MRT staircase, or singing in the void deck at midnight, thereby rightfully considered a public nuisance.

The ‘unlawful assembly’ law is more than a century old, and its original target was secret society ‘samsengs’  who got themselves into gang fights and riots killing each other. Today, in addition to any form of mob violence, the charge is extended to ‘peaceful demonstrations’, whether it’s expressing your disapproval of visiting foreign leaders, complaining about the CPF or demanding the release of people rounded up by the ISD without trial. You could go in front of the Istana gates, mouth gagged with masking tape and not utter a single word and still be escorted into a police car because of your symbolic act of defiance, whether or not you’re obstructing public property. You could even get charged in the designated protest venue Speakers’ Corner, for ‘public nuisance with common intention’, as Roy Ngerng and Han Hui Hui were when they gatecrashed a charity event last year.

It appears that the subject of your protest makes a difference. The police didn’t arrest anyone when THIRTY people turned up in brown outfits at City Hall station to protest the suspension of Mr Brown’s weekly satirical columns. Likewise, if I brought 4 friends to Bishan Park wearing pig noses to protest against the culling of wild boars, it’s likely that we’ll get off with nothing more than a stern warning. Or that once fashionable craze known as the ‘flash mob’, where you spontaneously ‘assemble’ in a public area and do goofy things like dance or propose to your girlfriend. How heartless must a cop be to handcuff you while you’re on your knees with a ring in your hand because you didn’t have a permit to conduct some mass orgy in public.

I wonder what the sign ‘You cannot silence the people’ refers to, because Singaporeans have been a god-awful noisy bunch, with the exception of any form of speech that may undermine the Supreme Court, race or religion, or dead dictators. Granted, the two hoodie guys defied police orders and asked for it, but I would imagine an entirely different outcome if the signs had read ‘Free Hugs for Everyone!’ or ‘SG50 is AWESOME!’ instead.

MP Lam Pin Min accused of inciting enmity towards Hindus

From ‘Film-maker Martyn See makes police report against PAP MP Lam Pin Min’, 26 Feb 2015, article by Rachel Chang, ST

Film-maker Martyn See made a police report on Thursday against People’s Action Party (PAP) MP Lam Pin Min, whom he accused of making racially seditious comments. Dr Lam had posted on his Facebook page earlier this month about three Singaporean men who were arrested at Thaipusam celebrations on February 3 for various offences. These include disorderly conduct and voluntarily causing hurt to a police officer.

Linking to a blogpost that has since been deleted, Dr Lam wrote: “An example of how alcohol intoxication can cause rowdiness and public nuisance.” In his police report on Thursday, Mr See charged that these comments “distorted an allegation by the Police into a statement of fact”.

A police statement on the trio’s arrest said that “all three men were believed to have been drinking earlier as they smelt strongly of alcohol.” But, Mr See said, this has yet to be established by the authorities as fact and the three men have not yet been tried.

In saying that the three were intoxicated while participating in the holy festival of Thaipusam, Dr Lam incited enmity towards the Hindu community, he charged.

Mr See also complained in his police report that Dr Lam’s comments “caused ill-will and hostility between different races and communities. The responses on his Facebook page show overwhelming hostility to his remark. Yet, he has allowed his offending words to remain online”.

He added that Dr Lam breached the sub judice rule, as judicial proceedings in this case have yet to be completed.

I wonder if Martyn See was aware of what another prominent figure said about Indians on a bus, a man who once campaigned for President branding himself as the ‘voice of the people’, represented by a bizarre logo that really says ‘Someone needs a tight slap every time he opens his mouth’.

Tan Kin Lian’s ‘Mumbai’ remark pales in comparison, of course, to what another MP in the past used to say about Little India, that it was in ‘complete darkness because there were too many Indians around’.  You didn’t need to file a sedition charge against ex-MP Choo Wee Khiang then because he got jail time for corruption anyway.

One man who managed to get away with ‘hard truths’ even if they threatened to ‘incite enmity’ among the races was LKY himself, who had some controversial thoughts about Muslims and their dietary habits. Now in ICU and fighting for dear life, it appears that all is forgiven. God bless his hardy soul, and anyone who has the audacity to charge our ailing founding father of inflammatory hate-speech deserves to rot in hell for all eternity.

On Feb 11, the AGC issued a warning against anyone commenting publicly on the Thaipusam scuffle, that they take a ‘serious view’ of any remark calculated to interfere with the ‘integrity of the administration of justice’, while Lam posted his ‘inflammatory’ comment on Feb 4, latching on what the Police reportedly believed to be another kind of spirit lurking within the premises of the religious procession. It’s still online as we speak, and captured here for posterity. Maybe Lam was too busy distributing oranges to his ward folk over CNY, or his FB administrators were sleeping on the job, intoxicated by CNY junk food.

Screen Shot 2015-02-26 at 8.50.45 PM

In the last GE in 2011, a police report was filed against a PAP MP hopeful for allegedly campaigning on ‘Cooling Off Day’, with the following post:

OooOoooOooh! so that’s what REALLY happened? Wow. I think tears in Parliament is worse than ANYTHING ELSE!’

Tin Pei Lin’s defence for the breach of election rules? The ‘web administrator’ did it. OooOoooOooh so that’s what happened! Tin is still MP, by the way. The fate of her bimbo administrator remains unknown.

See’s police report is a shrewd test of the dictum ‘no one is above the law’, and with ordinary people getting successfully sued for defamation or arrested for sensationalising the Thaipusam incident, it’s interesting to see how someone in a position of power reacts, and the events that unfold, when the tables are finally turned. A very inauspicious year for Dr Lam then, ( born 1969, year of the rooster. According to Grand Master Tan Khoon Yong, the outlook for Lam’s sign is ‘gloomy’, his ‘judgement may be affected’ and ‘lawsuits are possible too’), who now has to stop unpacking his ang pows, get over the columbarium saga and explain away the alcohol comment invariably using the ‘Get Out of Jail’ word ‘context’. Hopefully some hapless social media manager doesn’t become the scapeGOAT this CNY.

Police banning beer bottles from Tekka hawker centre

From ‘Tekka hawker centre stops selling bottled beer’, 5 Oct 2014, article by Kimberly Spykerman, CNA

Stallholders at Tekka hawker centre have stopped selling bottled beer, as highlighted in recent media reports. Only canned beer is available for sale there. But grassroots leaders hope more can be done to enforce this no-bottles move. They have noticed more people thronging Tekka Centre – particularly after restrictions were put in place to curb alcohol consumption in Little India’s public areas.

The police had engaged stall owners in August and September to reduce the risk of glass bottles being used as weapons in fights. It added that all the stall owners whom police spoke to said they will consider doing so for safety reasons.

…Still, the no-bottles initiative has not stopped some from bringing their own into the hawker centre. This has caused some stallholders to worry about their business, since they stopped selling bottled beer on Oct 1. Hawkers whom Channel NewsAsia spoke to said their customers generally prefer bottled beer to canned beer.

“Price-wise, customers feel canned beer is not worth it compared to bottled beer,” said Maureen Ho, the owner of Little India Hot & Cold Drinks stall. “A can is 500ml, bottle is 640ml. They also feel bottled beer tastes better. For most, when you tell them there’s only canned beer, they get fed up.”

Zero bottles of beer on the wall

Zero bottles of beer on the wall

The jury is still out if bottled beer tastes better than canned beer, with people conducting blind taste tests just to address this very important topic. The canned beverage was designed to make the drink portable, with the Americans generally favouring the aluminium, as exemplified by former WWE superstar Stone Cold Steve Austin’s trademark chug.

Yes you can

No one has done an official survey among Singaporeans about their preference, though the notion that bottled beer tastes nicer for the same brand may be psychological. It’s like comparing Coke in a curvy glass bottle vs boring can. It all comes down to presentation. The former just seems, well, ‘sexier’. For example, I can’t remember the last time I saw a Tiger ad featuring people chugging out of a can. Director Anthony Chen draws lusty stares because he has a Tiger bottle nearby. A woman holding a beer bottle probably draws more stares from men than another grabbing a can. ‘Toasting’ with a couple of cans also doesn’t have the desired effect as the consistent, crystal-clear chink of glass bottles. The beer bottle is sophisticated High Society; slick, smooth, neat. The can belongs in a locker room or in a cooler at a hockey match; rough, messy, sweaty. And you don’t get a bucket of free ice cubes with it.

Restrictions are unlikely to stop here following the prohibitions in Little India, as revellers can jolly well bring their alcohol, and fights, elsewhere as a result of the spillover, short of banning glass bottles ENTIRELY. The bottle ban also takes a toll on the livelihoods of drink-stall hawkers, all because our authorities prefer to take the half-hearted way out rather than try to manage the actual root cause of violence. It also penalises the true connoisseur of bottled beer, who instead of just chilling peacefully watching the world go by like he used to, now has to risk maiming his finger prying open a metal tab and stare at a stumpy cylindrical thing for hours. Curiously, the latest campaign for Tiger is called ‘UNCAGE’, which is the last thing you want to see happen in a place like Tekka hawker centre.

If troublemakers want to rough someone up, the absence of glass bottles is not going to hinder a mob from getting creative with other makeshift weapons. A glass mug to hold your canned beer, for example, can cause some serious damage. Tables, chairs, crockery, choppers can all be wielded if you’ve seen classic bar brawls in Western movies. A stray pair of sturdy chopsticks can make the difference between a gash on the head, or eye/nose impalement. The metal tray return shelf itself can crush some ligaments if you topple it onto someone. Or even trays, for that matter, with edges that you could slam onto someone’s jugular repeatedly. In Tekka market itself, a stallholder once tried to attack co-workers with a 1kg frozen SLAB OF BEEF. Even the alternative of beer cans, especially when UNOPENED, can be used as projectiles, or as a melee weapon itself to bash someone’s face in like how one would attack with a heavy stone. The difference from attacking with glass bottles is that you can still drink from the damned can after brutally bloodying someone’s face with it.

The possibilities in a hawker brawl are endless. The same, sadly, can’t be said of the imagination of the authorities.

Pink Run banned by Police in the interest of public order

From ‘Pink Run permit rejected in interest of public order: Police’, 14 Aug 2014, article in Today

The police have explained why they rejected an application for a Pink Run event at Marina Promenade Park, slated for this Saturday (Aug 16). A statement from the police today said: “The purpose of the event as stated by the applicant is related to LGBT advocacy, which remains a socially divisive issue. The application has been rejected in the interest of public order.

“Those who wish to advocate for potentially divisive cause-related issues can do so at the Speakers’ Corner, which is the designated public place for such activities, to avoid inconveniencing the general public, or leading to contention or potential public order issues,” the police advised.

The Pink Run was organised by Mr Nicholas Deroose, as part of IndigNation, advocates for “LGBT pride season in Singapore”. He posted a note on Facebook saying “people are still free to show up and run in their own personal capacity. There are no laws against running. You just won’t be a participant of the Pink Run”.

Before there was Pink Dot, a member of the gay community had planned a Pink Picnic in 2007 along with a 5km dash in the Botanic Gardens. NPARKS put a stop to that of course, citing such an event as ‘politicising a cause’. When they changed the venue later, they were confronted by the police for having an illegal gathering. You can run for many ’causes’ without the Police sticking their stubby noses into your business; for hope, breast cancer, ex-convicts, family, or even God, but if you’re an LGBT group out for a jog decked out in the most stigmatised colour this decade, you will be shut down for ‘disturbing the peace’ faster than you can say ‘Little India Riot’. The issue of foreigner import is also ‘socially divisive’, yet the Police were fine with pinoys celebrating their Independence Day in Orchard Road, though that eventually never happened.

To the cops who said nay to the organisers, gay people don’t just ‘fun-run’ like the rest of us. A running event for gays would look exactly like a flamingo blitzkrieg in their mind. Children could get traumatised. Just like if they chanced upon picture books about penguin fathers hatching an egg. Or maybe they were just trying to avoid an all out epic battle should some other groups decide to have Family Runs or White Marches at the same time, soaking the Marina Promenade in a sea of RED.

In that case, the Police should also look into the upcoming COLOR run, because it involves people getting plastered with rainbow powder. And we all know what rainbows signify. That event also brands itself as the HAPPIEST 5K on the Planet, and what’s another three letter word for Happy? I’ll give you a clue, it starts with G and rhymes with Hooray! Public order? How about Public CLEANLINESS?

Consider another popular run that involves you getting hunted down by zombies. Isn’t the Police worried about ‘Race the Dead’ or ‘Run for your Lives’ at all? I personally know a participant who paid money to get carried out on a stretcher for a leg injury after a mock zombie swarm went wrong. The chances of you getting injured in a chaotic zombie scuffle is higher than being dealt a vicious clothesline from a gay couple running hand in hand, or getting smothered by a stray feather boa.

There used to be more to the colour Pink than just a convenient, overused LGBT theme. ‘Pink eye’ meant conjunctivitis and not a lusty gay gaze. A ‘pink slip’ was a termination notice and not an accidental divulging of your homosexuality. If you’re in the ‘pink’ of health, you were in tip top shape, not ‘feeling gay all over’. With the resurgence of Pink Dot and a likely petition in support of Pink Run, we may see more pink themed events following suit, like Diner en Pink , Pink Fest, Pink Nite or God forbid Pink DAY. Parents may start to monitor cartoons like ‘Pinkie and the Brain’, the ‘Pink Panther’ or coming-of-age classics like ‘Pretty in Pink’ for hints of LGBT agenda. We’d get confused between Pink Dots and Pink Ribbon Breast Cancer walks. You’d think Pink Floyd is the name of a hot gay porn star instead of a seventies avant-garde rock band. You can’t use ‘I’m tickled pink!’ without someone giving you an awkward sideways glance.

Maybe it’s not so much ‘Indignation’ that’s needed here, but Imagination as well.