https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/kenneth-jeyaretnam-issued-pofma-order-over-claim-that-govt-uses-land-sales-to-boost-reserves

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?   Immediately after we shouted “coward”, Shanmugam came back out to scold us. He raised his voice, wagged his finger at us and accused us of disrupting the MPS, claiming that we are taking precious time away from the residents that have "real issues". One of the reasons POFMA was being used against the Transformative Justice Collective was for their posts regarding the execution of so many people. Are their lives, now lost to us, not "real issues"? Shanmugam then stormed back inside, saying to his volunteers, "Do not engage with them, I will deal with them later."   We actually started out as a group of two sisters, but we were joined by two friends, one of whom is a resident who had come down to support us. They are a resident of Nee Soon GRC who had initially wanted to remain silent, but felt moved  to speak up to Shanmugam as well after witnessing the debacle. After Shanmugam walked away for the second time, a kind MPS volunteer managed to convince him to see us, and we were later let in.   We wouldn’t call what followed a conversation. Is it a conversation if it was almost completely one-sided? He had us surrounded by 14 other people, a few of whom were actively filming us and recording the meeting. Shanmugam claimed this was the “usual practice”, and we aren’t sure if this means he records all his MPS sessions. But, once again, he instructed us not to record the conversation, so we took down notes instead. He claimed that POFMA is not state censorship and how we should be clear on the facts before attempting to engage him. We could barely get a word in. We were not even given space to bring up our other concerns around stifling expression, like the police raids on student residences, because he bulldozed over our attempts to speak.  He lectured us about how POFMA is not stifling anyone's right to free speech because it only targets facts and not opinions, but in our observation, multiple statements which we understood to be opinions have been targeted by POFMA. If we recall correctly, he even said it was affordable to fight POFMA and people would not need to engage a lawyer! I'm not sure in what world a $50,000 fine, which one can be subject to if convicted under some sections of POFMA, is affordable, but maybe it is to him. He also told us to get a lawyer to read through POFMA with us, even though he had previously posited that POFMA is accessible. He said so long as we abided by the Correction Order, no one needed to be fined. But TJC members were subject to criminal investigations despite posting the Correction Orders. He said POFMA actually enables freedom of speech because the original post would not need to be taken down, and that more information is a good thing.   Well, in that case, we would like to invite Shanmugam to release the full, unedited videos and audio recordings of us. We truly have a clear conscience. This was not an easy thing to bring up to one of the most powerful Ministers in Singapore, someone trained in the law, and someone with a LOT more political and socioeconomic power than us. Even though we haven’t been subject to POFMA orders ourselves, we were concerned over the many online posts about how POFMA was being used and wanted to discuss that, because these laws affect all of us who live in Singapore.    That Shanmugam decided to bring up Palestine was yet another confusing aspect for us. He claimed that we were part of a group disrupting MPS sessions, shouting at various MPS sessions and that we took MPs' words out of context. We want to make as clear as possible that we were not at Shanmugam’s MPS on behalf of any group, or to discuss Palestine.  We went to see him in our own personal capacity. We wore PRESS t-shirts with the names of brave journalists because POFMA is about freedom of speech. We tried to explain repeatedly that we did not come as part of Monday of Palestine Solidarity, but he insisted that we did. Yes, we are also members of Mondays for Palestine Solidarity. As part of that group, we went to see Sun Xueling last year, as she is our MP, and we have accompanied residents in other constituencies who went to see their MPs (in both PAP and non-PAP constituencies) about Palestine as well, though we did not go in with them and participate in the conversation with the MP, since we are not residents of those constituencies. Everyone is invited to check out the instagram posts on Mondays for Palestine Solidarity and come to your own conclusions about whether we caused commotions at those MPS sessions.    But that is a separate matter altogether. If Shanmugam and other MPs want to accuse Mondays for Palestine Solidarity of rowdiness, in the interest of transparency, we would also like to see proof of such rowdiness. Especially if there are  residents who were personally affected by our presence at these MPS sessions,  we urge them to come forward with accounts of their MPS being disrupted by Monday of Palestine Solidarity.    The only time we brought up Palestine was at the tail-end of our conversation with him in the office. We asked why POFMA was not used against CNA for using the language of  the "Israel-Hamas war" when the genocide has spread to the West Bank, and surrounding countries, like Syria and Lebanon, where Hamas is clearly not involved. He said it was not factually incorrect for CNA to do so. It devolved into a whataboutism conversation, where he implied we didn't actually care for the people in Syria. "Do you know about the 500,000 deaths that occurred there?" No, we didn't, but we would also like to know more.   We also brought up how the Israeli embassy was not POFMA'd when they used our Quranic verses to justify their genocide. And why, even though they were told to take down the post, a POFMA was not issued against them. Shanmugam said that was not a matter of national interest, funnily enough. Shanmugam also said we cannot cut off ties with everyone in the world. Then we asked, what about the sanctions against Russia? He replied that that was a separate discussion. One of us started crying during the conversation because the whole experience was so hostile, frustrating and disempowering. It felt more like an interrogation where Shanmugam was waiting to trip us up - accusing us of not having all our facts together and undermining every point we raised, rather than showing curiosity, respect and concern for our views.    Are we not also Singapore citizens? Why do we get "othered" and harassed by PAP volunteers just because we bring up uncomfortable topics of conversation? Filming us and posting what he did on Facebook, surely the Minister knew it would direct a lot of hate comments and threats our way? Is this what our politicians have come to? We are exhausted. A CNA reporter, Jeremy Long, suddenly appeared after the MPS to take more unsolicited photos with a DSLR camera. When we asked Shanmugam who this man was, he said that Long was "not one of my people". Who called the media to take our pictures? Is this what citizens should expect when we go to see our elected representatives?  We asked Long to delete his photos of us, but he refused. Perhaps  it's because two angry, Malay-Muslim hijabis make for salacious news.    We hate that our government's politics has devolved into mud-slinging online fights. A lot of people have asked us if we took our own recordings, as insurance, but does that mean that we should all equip ourselves with body cams or GoPros if we ever plan to talk to an MP? That’s absurd! Our hopes were too high for Shanmugam. What should have been a regular, civil conversation escalated, and we are now facing all sorts of harassment, loss of privacy and smear campaigns by the media. Perhaps we should have known that this could happen when you confront one of the most powerful men in Singapore. But we were naive. Even though there were cameras there, we were not performing for the camera or trying to come off as put together, we were just being our real, messy selves. We had a genuine reaction to being treated the way we were, to being photographed and filmed despite saying ‘no’, to being encircled while we were trying to speak to the Minister, and treated with antagonism and suspicion. If you find that reaction offensive, please consider the pressure we were under in that situation, and how violated you would feel if you were treated that way. How wasteful, that we gave up a proper dinner during Ramadhan, eating only afterwards at almost 10pm, and even doing Maghrib prayers under the block, just for a chance to try and talk with someone who had already decided to vilify us.   We came to talk about POFMA and censorship, and we were met with censorship. We came to talk about the disproportionate response to activism in Singapore, and was met with a hugely disproportionate response to what was essentially two ordinary people going to an MPS session.    We are not perfect, and we are committed to growing and learning. But we stand firm in our truth, and in our faith.    { يَٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ كُونُواْ قَوَّٰمِينَ لِلَّهِ شُهَدَآءَ بِٱلۡقِسۡطِۖ وَلَا يَجۡرِمَنَّكُمۡ شَنَـَٔانُ قَوۡمٍ عَلَىٰٓ أَلَّا تَعۡدِلُواْۚ ٱعۡدِلُواْ هُوَ أَقۡرَبُ لِلتَّقۡوَىٰۖ وَٱتَّقُواْ ٱللَّهَۚ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ خَبِيرُۢ بِمَا تَعۡمَلُونَ } [Surah Al-Māʾidah: 8]   Sahih International: O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm for Allāh, witnesses in justice, and do not let the hatred of a people prevent you from being just. Be just; that is nearer to righteousness. And fear Allāh; indeed, Allāh is [fully] Aware of what you do.  

If michie going to pangsai, will you open your mouth and let her be your toilet?

https://youtu.be/O4Sqkmn4o-o?t=11