The art of violent metaphors - by Lee Kuan Yew "Put it this way. As long as Jeyaretnam [Workers' Party leader] stands for what he stands for -- a thoroughly destructive force -- we will knock him. There are two ways of playing this. One, a you attack the policies; two, you attack the system. Jeyaretnam was attacking the system, he brought the Chief Justice into it. If I want to fix you, do I need the Chief Justice to fix you? Everybody knows that in my bag I have a hatchet, and a very sharp one. You take me on, I take my hatchet, we meet in the cul-de-sac. That's the way I had to survive in the past. That's the way the communists tackled me. He brought the Chief Justice into the political arena."- SM Lee Kuan Yew, The Man & His Ideas, 1997"Supposing Catherine Lim was writing about me and not the prime minister...She would not dare, right? Because my posture, my response has been such that nobody doubts that if you take me on, I will put on knuckle-dusters and catch you in a cul de sac...Anybody who decides to take me on needs to put on knuckle dusters. If you think you can hurt me more than I can hurt you, try. There is no other way you can govern a Chinese society."- SM Lee Kuan Yew, The Man and His Ideas, 1997In a speech at the Global Brand Forum on Monday, Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew had said: "Pilots believe they are special, they got huge egos, I'm told. We are telling both management and unions - you play this game, there are going to be broken heads - let's stop it." - CNA, 3 Dec 2003"If I have to shoot 200,000 students to save China from another 100 years of disorder, so be it."- Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew evoking the ghost of Deng Xiaoping whilst endorsing the Tiananmen Square massacre, Straits Times, Aug 17, 2004"Mine is a very matter-of-fact approach to the problem. If you can select a population and they're educated and they're properly brought up, then you don't have to use too much of the stick because they would already have been trained. It's like with dogs. You train it in a proper way from small. It will know that it's got to leave, go outside to pee and to defecate. No, we are not that kind of society. We had to train adult dogs who even today deliberately urinate in the lifts."- Lee Kuan Yew on Singapore society, The Man & His Ideas, 1997--------------------------------------------------------------Singaporean arrested after Facebook attack on govt(AFP) – 4 days agoSINGAPORE — A Singaporean man who attacked the ruling party on Facebook and urge people to "burn" a cabinet minister has been arrested on charges of inciting violence, police said Wednesday.In a statement, police said they had arrested a "man in his late 20s" on Tuesday "in connection with investigations into offences related to incitement of violence".The statement did not name the man or give details of the offence, but said that he was released on bail pending further investigation.Local media identified him as Abdul Malik Ghazali, 27, who posted a series of comments on the social networking site critical of how Singapore is hosting the inaugural Youth Olympic Games (YOG).The August 14-26 event, held for competitors aged from 14 to 18, has generated limited public interest, with many events blighted by empty seats and the host country's athletes faring badly.Vivian Balakrishnan, the minister for community development, youth and sports, has come under particular fire from online critics over the games.Abdul Malik's postings on his own Facebook page and on a separate group account called "I hate the Youth Olympic Games Organising Committee" are also critical of Singapore's ruling People's Action Party (PAP).Abdul Malik, who works for a company specialising in wood and flooring, said on his Facebook page that he was arrested "due to my involvement in anti-YOG and anti-PAP Facebook pages".One of his postings highlighted recent floods in Singapore, the escape of detained terror suspect Mas Selamat Kastari, the amount of money spent to host the games and reports of the poor standard of food served for games volunteers.He said it was time to "burn" the sports minister and the PAP."Rally together and vote them out!!!" he wrote.Abdul Malik said in comments published Wednesday by The New Paper that "the comment is a metaphor"."I did not intend for it to be taken literally. I did not mean for someone to actually burn," he said.In another posting, Abdul Malik referred to a version of the communist anthem The Internationale on YouTube and wrote: "This song is a call to rise against tyranny and oppression... Very suited to what is happening now in Singapore."Prosperous Singapore -- which is spending close to 300 million US dollars to host the games, more than three times original projections -- follows a hardline policy on political dissent.Public protests are banned without a police permit and anti-government critics in the political opposition and media have been successfully sued for defamation by top officials.Some in cyberspace rallied to Abdul Malik's defence.One Facebook poster calling himself "Kok Meng" wrote "seems like even metaphors are forbidden these days"."Police should get a grip and let loose. We are a democracy." Videos : Pleading for death row prisoners at the Istana Yong Vui Kong's Family Plead for his LifeYong Vui Kong's Family Plead for his Life from Lianain Films on Vimeo.2005 : Appeal to President outside Istana to spare the life of Shanmugam MurugesuAppeal to President outside Istana to spare the life of Shanmugam Murugesu from Jacob George on Vimeo.2005 : Public Forum on Death Penalty in Singapore and Appeal outside Istana for Shanmugam MurugesuPublic Forum on Death Penalty and Campaign for Shanmugam Murugesu from Jacob George on Vimeo. Alan Shadrake held in Singapore - Aggregated News (updated 24 Aug) Updates - Rachel ZengUpdates - The Online Citizen (TOC)Updates - Jacob 69erAlan Shadrake on blogs and news - Rachel ZengHow and where to buy the book? (Note : The book is not banned in Singapore, merely restricted in circulation)Book ReviewsBook Review : Once A Jolly Hangman - Ben BlandPrisoners are fit to drop in Singapore - Asia Times OnlineDeath row in Singapore - we need answers, not silencingNew book puts death penalty on trial - Alex AuAlan Shadrake’s crime? - TOCReview : Once A Jolly Hangman23 Aug 2010News :British critic unlikely to find leniency in Singapore court17 Aug 2010News :Author denies intention to insult Singapore - AFPShadrake denies intention to scandalise Singapore judiciary15 Aug 2010Commentary :Buying a book “not banned” in Singapore14 Aug 2010News :Cabinet has power to pardon Law Minister's comments on convicted drug trafficker misrepresented13 Aug 2010News :Shadrake ‘recovering well’ after angioplasyCommentary :Singapore: spare the Occidental, hang the Oriental.11 Aug 2010News :Activists cry murder over Singapore hanging - Free Malaysia M'sians want S'pore to take action against "wrongful" execution “I want my son’s name back” - TOCFather seeks redress for son hanged in Singapore - TOC videoMEMORANDUM OF PROTEST Wrongful execution of M’sian Vignes Mourthi and malicious prosecution of Alan Shadrake - Lawyers For LibertyCommentaries :To try or not: Singapore agonisesThe death penalty in SingaporeDoughnut reporting7 Aug 2010Commentary :Alan Shadrake Video Interview4 Aug 2010Commentary :Shadrake case highlights Singapore censorship battle - BBCWhat Moral Authority, Wong Kan Seng?Wong Is Wrong AgainThe groundbreaking action against 'Hangman' author Alan Shadrake3 Aug 2010News :S'pore must defend integrity of institutions of justice & law enforcement: DPM Wong2 Aug 2010News :News 5 Tonight - Alan ShadrakePetition against death penalty - Straits TimesCommentaries :British Author's Uphill Battle in a Singapore Court1 Aug 2010News :Local & Foreign Activists fights againt Death Penalty together at Speaker's Corner30 July 2010News :Singapore's reputation on the line as British author fights on - James Gomez/The GuardianUK author Shadrake's Singapore contempt trial adjourned - BBCU.K. Author Says He Won't Apologize for Book on Singapore's Death Penalty - BloombergUK death penalty book author defiant - AFPShadrake won't say he's sorry - TodayUK author vows to fight Singapore contempt charge - AP/WSJCommentaries :Shadrake’s day in court, part 128 July 2010News :Singapore: Legal Charges Threat to Freedom of Expression - Human Rights Watch26 July 2010Commentaries :Shooting the messenger in Singapore23 July 2010News :Open letter to the authorities: Judicial harassment of journalist is an affront to freedom of expression - FIDHSHADRAKE: I’d do it all again - British WeeklyReleased on bail, British journalist accused of contempt of court - AliranCommentaries :the biggest scandal this week is the arrest of Alan Shadrake22 July 2010Commentaries :Shadrake faces heavy silencing hand, part 2Oh What A Tangled WebCatch The Lie Here21 July 2010News :British author arrested for book on death penalty; film on political prisoners banned - IFEXCourt proceedings initiated against author - Today'Hangman' author released on bail - My PaperCommentaries :Drugs, Death, Censorship, and Singapore20 July 2010News :British death penalty author freed on bail in Singapore - BBCBritish writer freed from Singapore jail - GuardianBritish author Alan Shadrake freed from Singapore prison - TelegraphConsular assistance for British author - TodayBritish author Alan Shadrake out on police bail - CNABritish author freed on bail - Straits TimesSingapore arrests author who criticised death penalty - The IndependentSingapore Arrests British Writer For Defamation - AP/CBS NewsBritish author runs foul of censors in Singapore - ABC RadioAlan Shadrake makes bail in S'pore - British Weekly/YourSDPSingapore Releases UK Author In Defamation Case - AP/CBS NewsReleased on bail, British journalist accused of contempt of court - Reporters sans FrontieresCommentaries :Shadrake faces heavy silencing hand19 July 2010News :British author of death penalty book held in Singapore - BBCBritish author Alan Shadrake arrested in Singapore over death penalty book - TelegraphSingapore arrests 'Hangman' author - Al JazeeraLawyer seeks access to British author arrested in Singapore - AFPUK reporter held in Singapore - News24Alan Shadrake – the author of ‘Once a Jolly Hangman: Singapore Justice in the Dock’ arrested - Today24NewsSingapore arrests British writer for defamation - AP/BloombergSingapore must release British author of death penalty book - Amnesty InternationalSingapore: Amnesty calls for release of British author of death penalty book - Amnesty International UKHuman rights group wants author released - UPILawyer seeks access to British author arrested in Singapore - AFPBritish author arrested, charged with defamation over book on death penalty - IFEXCommentaries :Jolly Hangman author Alan Shadrake didn't expect legal actionExposing the truth scares the PAP18 July 2010News :Singapore arrests British author of death penalty book - GuardianSingapore arrests UK author on defamation charge - ReutersBritish National Alan Shadrake Arrested - Singapore Police Press ReleaseAuthor critical of Singapore is arrested - AFP/Bangkok PostSingapore arrests author after release of book criticising use of death penalty - AFP/AustralianBreaking news: Author of death penalty book Alan Shadrake arrested - YourSDPPhotos of Book Launch held in Singapore - Jacob GeorgeBritish author arrested in Singapore over death penalty book - Ben BlandCommentaries :Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore arrests Alan Shadrake Martyn See complies with MDA's order but video goes viral Yesterday, I was ordered by the Media Development Authority (MDA) to "to take down all digital copies of the film that you have uploaded onto youtube and your blogsite".Therefore, as of now, the banned video "Ex-political prisoner speaks out in Singapore", or "Dr Lim Hock Siew" as stated in my submission to the censors, has been deleted from youtube, and you will not be able to view it here.Yesterday, at the time of the first press release announcing the ban, the viewership registered at 44,165. At 2359 hours 12 July 2010, it had increased to 49,903I have received notices that the film has been downloaded by anonymous netizens who have already or are in the process of uploading it to various video sites such as this. Although I remind all that it is criminal offence (to the tune of a maximum $10,000 fine or two years imprisonment) to possess or distribute the film, I have no wish, nor the means, to hinder the viral spread of the video.As such, I hereby declare that the film is no longer in my possession, and its ownership will from now on be given to all citizens of the Republic of Singapore.Meanwhile, read what other bloggers and news sites have to say :Shooting the messenger in SingaporeDr Lim Hock Siew - Dr Wong Wee NamCompulsive historyLawrence show me Banned-in-Singapore video!Banning Content Does Not Protect Us - Audrey WongThe Internet is the voice of the peoplePersonal protest against the ban of the video recording of Dr Lim Hock Siew's speechThere Are Experts, And There Are Experts2 Lefts, only 1 RightMDA please clarify how ban served public interestThe public is interestedAre Ex-ISD detainees in the limelight to radicalise us? Or wake us up from our slumber? Revisiting the Streisand EffectTranscript of Dr Lim Hock Siew's speech on the ISA.Why censorship is evilThank you PAP for promoting Dr Lim Hock Siew!Dr Lim Hock Siew video is now bannedWhy ban Lim Hock Siew's footage?Singapore Outlaws The Film Dr Lim Hock SiewDr Lim Hock Siew banned by CensorsA month of barring and banning - Joshua ChiangSingapore government bans Martyn See’s film ‘Ex-political prisoner speaks out in Singapore’BREAKING NEWS: MDA bans See’s film on ISA detaineeSingapore forces removal of dissident YouTube video AFP - A Singaporean filmmaker on Wednesday complied with a government order to remove a political film from video sharing site YouTube but said others were defiantly spreading it on the web.Martyn See said he was ordered by the information ministry to to take down all digital copies of the film from YouTube and his blogsite by July 14 or face up to two years in jail and a fine of 10,000 Singapore dollars (7,100 US).The banned video titled "Ex-political prisoner speaks out in Singapore" is about a rare public talk in 2009 by Lim Hock Siew, a leftist medical doctor and activist held from 1963 to 1982 during then prime minister Lee Kuan Yew's rule."I have received notices that the film has been downloaded by anonymous netizens who have already, or are in the process of, uploading it to various video sites such as (Vimeo)," See told AFP in an email."Although I remind all that it is criminal offence... to possess or distribute the film, I have no wish, nor the means, to hinder the viral spread of the video," said See, who has had previous brushes with the authorities."As such, I hereby declare that the film is no longer in my possession, and its ownership will from now on be given to all citizens of the Republic of Singapore," added See, a 41-year-old professional video editor.In a statement on Monday, the Ministry of Information, Communication and the Arts said the 22-minute film was submitted to government censors for classification but it was banned "as it is against the public interest.""The film gives a distorted and misleading portrayal of Dr Lim?s arrests and detention under the Internal Security Act (ISA) in 1963."The Singapore government will not allow individuals who have posed a security threat to Singapore?s interests in the past, to use media platforms such as films to make baseless accusations against the authorities, give a false portrayal of their previous activities in order to exculpate their guilt, and undermine public confidence in the government in the process."In his memoirs, Lee Kuan Yew -- now an adviser to his son Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong -- wrote that the 1963 police raids that landed Lim in detention were part of a crackdown on communists. Here we go again - Govt bans another Martyn See's film The Singapore Government has banned my video recording of a speech by former political prisoner Dr Lim Hock Siew. The prohibition will take effect on Wednesday 14th July 2010.In a letter and an accompanying press release (see below) delivered to my home by two men at 4.50pm, it stated that the film has been banned under Section 35(1) of the Films Act. This section gives the Minister broad discretionary powers to ban any film he deems to be "contrary to public interest".This is the second film to be banned under Section 35. The first, Zahari's 17 Years, was an interview film directed by me. Made in 2006, it was officially banned in 2007.In an exact carbon copy of the reasons for the ban, the government's press release alleged that film 'gives a distorted and misleading portrayal of Dr Lim's arrests and detention under the Internal Security Act (ISA) in 1963. Dr Lim was detained during Operation Coldstore in 1963 and was held for 19 years, a record second only to Dr Chia Thye Poh.The film, which I had labelled "Dr Lim Hock Siew", was submitted to the Board of Film Censors in February 2010. Since then, it had been undergoing review by the Political Films Consultative Committee (PFCC), a seven-member advisory panel set up to criminalise "party political films", an offence under Section 33 of the Films Act. Since the PFCC has never communicated with me, I have no idea what the committee had thought of the film. A moot point now, as RADM Lui Tuck Yew, the Acting Minister for Information, Communications & the Arts, has now decided to ban the film outright.The letter also stated that I should take down all digital copies of the film on youtube and on this blog. So watch it now while it is still online, or you may download it using the following websites.http://keepvid.com/http://download-youtube-videos.org/http://www.getvideomp3.com/Latest : This video will self-destruct by 2359 hrs tonight. Look for it elsewhere after that.Censors ban Martyn See's film on Dr Lim Hock SiewBy Claire Huang | Posted: 12 July 2010 1745 hrsSINGAPORE: Censors have banned the film "Dr Lim Hock Siew" by filmmaker Martyn See Tong Ming, with effect from July 14 under the Films Act, saying it is against 'public interest'.A statement from the Information, Communications and the Arts Ministry said the film "gives a distorted and misleading portrayal of Dr Lim's arrests and detention under the Internal Security Act (ISA) in 1963."It added that the government "will not allow individuals who have posed a security threat to Singapore's interests in the past, to use media platforms such as films to make baseless accusations against the authorities."Neither will it allow such individuals to use films to give a false portrayal to exculpate their guilt, or undermine public confidence in the government.The film, banned from July 14, has also not been granted a certificate for its exhibition.Under the Films Act, possession and distribution of a prohibited film is an offence.An offender is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or both.Last September, censors passed "Singapore Rebel," a film by the same filmmaker which features opposition figure Chee Soon Juan.It passed with an M18 rating - four years after it was banned.It became the first political film to make the cut after the Films Act was amended in March to relax the rules on such films.- CNA/al/jm+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Ban on video recording of Lim Hock Siew speechSTRAITS TIMESCassandra Chew13 Jul 2010THE Government has banned a video recording of a speech made by former political detainee Lim Hock Siew, on the grounds that it is against public interest. The video by filmmaker Martyn See, 41, gives a 'distorted and misleading portrayal' of Dr Lim's detention under the Internal Security Act, said the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts (Mica) in a statement yesterday. Mica added: 'The Singapore Government will not allow individuals who have posed a security threat to Singapore's interests in the past to use media platforms such as films to make baseless accusations against the authorities, give a false portrayal of their previous activities in order to exculpate their guilt, and undermine public confidence in the Government in the process.' The prohibition, which takes effect tomorrow, makes it an offence for anyone to distribute the video, entitled Dr Lim Hock Siew, or possess a copy of it. Anyone who commits the offence can be fined up to $10,000, or jailed up to two years, or both. Mr See told The Straits Times yesterday that the Media Development Authority had instructed him, in a letter, to surrender all copies of his video and remove any digital versions that are online. The 22-minute video is available on video-sharing website YouTube and on his blog. It shows Dr Lim, 79, giving a speech last November at a book launch where he recounted his experiences as a political detainee. He was arrested in 1963 under Operation Cold Store, a massive security sweep that put more than 100 communists and suspected communists behind bars, and detained without trial until 1982. Mr See recorded the speech and uploaded the film to YouTube the next day. In February, he submitted it to the Board of Film Censors for classification, 'because the law says so', he said. He said he had not expected the ban as the law on political films was relaxed last year. 'The amendments to Section 33 of the Films Act now allow for live recordings of an event held according to the law. The film Dr Lim Hock Siew fits that bill, and therefore I was confident it would not be illegal,' he added. The recording, however, was classified under Section 35(1) of the Films Act, which allows for the banning of any film that is contrary to public interest. Only one other film has been prohibited under this category, in 2007. It was also by Mr See. The film, called Zahari's 17 Years, was a 50-minute interview with another former political detainee, Said Zahari. Mr See directed, shot and edited it.+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Martyn See film banned TODAY05:55 AM Jul 13, 2010 SINGAPORE - The Government has banned the film Dr Lim Hock Siew by film-maker Martyn See, saying it was against "public interest" and "gives a distorted and misleading portrayal of Dr Lim's arrests and detention under the Internal Security Act in 1963".A statement from the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts said the Government "will not allow individuals who have posed a security threat to Singapore's interests in the past to use media platforms such as films to make baseless accusations against the authorities".Neither will such individuals be allowed to use films to give a false portrayal to exonerate themselves.The decision comes after another See film, Singapore Rebel, was passed last September, four years after it was banned. Featuring opposition figure Chee Soon Juan, it was given an M18 rating - the first political film to make the cut after the rules on such films were relaxed.Mr See told MediaCorp yesterday he had expected his new film, which features Dr Lim's speech at a book launch last November, to get the green light as Dr Lim had been interviewed by The Straits Times and the book, Fajar Generation, had been permitted for sale here. The book tells of the struggles in the 1950s and 1960s of the University of Malaya Socialist Club, of which Dr Lim was a member.Mr See said he had also been asked to remove the YouTube video of the film, which he is "considering".+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Ex-political detainee Vincent Cheng boycotts seminar in protest In an email to the National Library Board (NLB), former detainee Vincent Cheng has indicated that he is staying away from the seminar to be held today as "a protest to the arbitrary suppression of my right of free expression."Dear Ms Amy Gay, I refer to your "approval" of my basic right to attend the NUS History Society's seminar at the Pod, NLB today. will be staying away from this event as a protest to the arbitrary suppression of my right of free expression as a panel speaker in the spirit of the Consitution of Singapore. For Truth and Justice.Vincent Cheng -----------------------------------------------------------Below is an earlier exchange of letters between Cheng and Amy Gay of the NLB3 JUNE 2010Dear Ms Amy Gay,Thank you for your reply. You are trying to pin the blame for the fiasco on the organiser of the event, that is, the NUS History Society (NUSHS). For me, that is only a technical problem. What worries me is a deeper issue when NLB thinks that academics and researchers make history. What about the actual actors of history? I may not be a professional academic, but armed with a Masters in Theology, I do know something about academic research. The topic under discussion, Singapore History: Who Writes The Script?, is definitely relevant to the topic proposed for my speech, 21 May 1987: What Really Happened? Furthermore, I was an actor in that history of 1987. To say that I was axed because I was a "late inclusion" is an excuse, if not a lie, (as the other writers have pointed out). I would rather give credit to NUSHS for their intellectual sense of the topic and their concern for inclusivity of various perceptions of history. I am still not convinced that NLB is an august institution of independence and integrity. If your role is to be a mouthpiece of the government, no matter in how subtle a way, then let it be publicly known so that people will know how to deal with you. If not, then "walk the talk". A man in the street inquired about the ban imposed on me by NLB. He asked: "Are they banning you or the topic?"I said: "I don't know"He said: "What are you going to speak about anyway?" I said: "The truth."He said: "Is that so frightening? I said: "Yes, it is .......and THE TRUTH WILL SET US FREE." A great Man said this two thousand years ago. For Truth and Justice, Vincent Cheng----------------------------------------------1 JUNE 2010Dear Mr Vincent Cheng, Thank you for your email to the Chairman and members of the NLB Board. We would like to take this opportunity to personally explain the context and background of this seminar to you. The National Library is the venue sponsor for the National University of Singapore’s (NUS) Singapore History seminar organised by the NUS History Society. NLB had supported this seminar due to its focus on the personalities, events and agenda that shaped the history of Singapore. This was in line with NLB's focus for its heritage programmes and exhibitions which explored the role of key movers in Singapore's growth from a fishing village into a modern nation. NUS History Society (NUSHS) had indicated that Junior College and Upper Secondary students were the target audience and that academics would form the line-up of speakers. The initial line-up provided by the NUSHS for NLB's support were academics from the local tertiary institutions researching on these areas. The academic exploration that the seminar would pursue was also in line with NLB's programming objectives to seek insights into Singapore's history through research and study. The late inclusion of yourself, by the society was not consistent with the direction of the initial proposed line-up, of academics, by NUSHS. As part of our partnership and sponsorship conditions with all our programme partners, the content and details of the programme such as the panel of speakers need to be in line with the intent of the event and jointly agreed upon. For this particular seminar, the programme details did not follow the intent of the seminar based on our initial discussions with NUSHS. The final line-up of speakers provided by NUSHS include Assoc Prof Yong Mun Cheong, Head of the History Department of NUS, Assoc Prof (Adjunct) Loh Kah Seng of NTU, Assoc Prof Huang Jianli with the History Department of NUS and Assoc Prof (Adjunct) Kwa Chong Guan with the Rajaratnam School of International Studies at NTU and the History Department of NUS. Based on this line-up, the National Library is still working with the NUSHS to hold this public seminar this Friday and we welcome you to attend the seminar. Regards, Amy Gay Director, Communications NLB --------------------------------------------------------------29 MAY 2010Dear Sir/Madam, I am the person who has been barred from speaking at and attending the 4 June 2010 forum organised by the NUS History Society. Many people have asked me for the reasons of this ban. I do not know because the most truthful and intelligent answer can only come from you, the august member of the National Library Board whose aim I have been told is to preserve and make accessible the nation's literary and publishing heritage and intellectual memory. I have only two concerns:- Were you instructed by a higher authority, and which one, to impose the ban? What are the reasons?- Were you practising self-censorship? What are your reasons? In case you still do not know who I am, let me kindly remind you that I was an ISA detainee in 1987, arbitrarily arrested and detained, never charged, never brought to trial and never convicted, only hideously and ceremoniously insulted and condemned. It is now 23 years. I still bear the scars. I wish to know whether the National Library Board is part of this ugly scheme of history. For truth and justice,Vincent Cheng We'd rather hear from academics, not ex-detainees : NLB UPDATE : NLB's response is disputed by book publisher Mr Fong Hoe Fang. Read his letters to NLB here.The National Library Board (NLB) has responded to blogger and social activist Ravi Philemon's inquiry over the exclusion of former political detainee Vincent Cheng from the list of speakers of a planned seminar organised by the NUS History Society (NUSHS).I highlighted in yellow parts of NLB's response that may be deemed contentious, to say the least.Taken from Ravi Philemon's blog.National Library Board responds Ms Amy Gay, National Library Board's Director of Communications, responded to my query as to why Vincent Cheng, the alleged "Marxist Conspirator" was barred both from speaking and attending the seminar by NLB.Her reply:-------------------------------------------------------------From: Amy GAYDate: Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 6:14 PMSubject: Fw: Explanation from the National Library Board required pleaseTo: Ravi PhilemonDear Ravi,Thank you for your email to all the members of the NLB Board. We would like to take this opportunity to explain the context and background to the seminar that you had raised concerns.The National Library is the venue sponsor for the National University of Singapore’s (NUS) Singapore History seminar organised by the NUS History Society. NLB had supported this seminar due to its focus on the personalities, events and agenda that shaped the history of Singapore. This was in line with NLB's focus for its heritage programmes and exhibitions which explored the role of key movers in Singapore's growth from a fishing village into a modern nation.NUS History Society (NUSHS) had indicated that Junior College and Upper Secondary students were the target audience and that academics would form the line-up of speakers. The initial line-up provided by the NUSHS for NLB's support were academics from the local tertiary institutions researching on these areas. The academic exploration that the seminar would pursue was also in line with NLB's programming objectives to seek insights into Singapore's history through research and study. The late inclusion of Mr Vincent Cheng, by the society was not consistent with the direction of the initial proposed line-up, of academics, by NUSHS.As part of our partnership and sponsorship conditions with all our programme partners, the content and details of the programme such as the panel of speakers need to be in line with the intent of the event and jointly agreed upon. For this particular seminar, the programme details did not follow the intent of the seminar based on our initial discussions with NUSHS. The final line-up of speakers provided by NUSHS include Assoc Prof Yong Mun Cheong, Head of the History Department of NUS, Assoc Prof (Adjunct) Loh Kah Seng of NTU, Assoc Prof Huang Jianli with the History Department of NUS and Assoc Prof (Adjunct) Kwa Chong Guan with the Rajaratnam School of International Studies at NTU and the History Department of NUS. Based on this line-up, the National Library is still working with the NUSHS to hold this public seminar this Friday. Mr Vincent Cheng, like any member of the public, is welcome to attend.Regards,Amy GayDirector, CommunicationsNLB-------------------------------------------------Meanwhile, registered NGO Singaporeans For Democracy (SFD), of which I am a member, has emailed the Internal Security Department over ex-detainees' speaking rights. The ISD has acknowledged its receipt but has yet to respond.SFD queries ISD over Vincent Cheng affairDirectorInternal Security DepartmentEmail: isd@mha.gov.sgTel: 6256665731 May 2010Re: Mr. Vincent Cheng - ex-Internal Security Act detaineeI am writing to you, on behalf of Singaporeans for Democracy (SFD), about ex-ISA detainee Mr Vincent Cheng’s public speaking engagement at the NUS History Seminar 2010 on 4 June 2010, 2.30p.m at the National Library Board (NLB).It has come to public attention that the National Library Board has asked the NUS History Society to take Mr. Vincent Cheng off the speakers’ list. Hence on 4 June 2010, Mr. Vincent Cheng will no longer be on the NUS History Seminar’s panel of speakers.As a registered political association looking into matters of civil and political rights, SFD would like to seek from you answers to the following questions:1.Did the Internal Security Department or Ministry of Home Affairs officials and/or their agents communicate or meet with the National Library Board representatives over Mr. Vincent Cheng’s speaking engagement there?2.What is ISD's policy in allowing former detainees, in this case the 1987 group, to speak in public? In answering this question, could you also refer directly to Mr. Cheng’s public speaking rights as an ex-detainee?Singaporeans for Democracy notes that at present there has been no active ban on recent ex-detainee publications, although SFD’s member Mr. Martyn See’s documentary Zahari's 17 Years remained banned.As this is a matter of public interest, I would be grateful to receive a timely response.Many thanks for your assistance.Yours sincerelyDr. James GomezExecutive DirectorSingaporeans for Democracy Ex-detainee Vincent Cheng barred from speaking in history seminar Update 31st May 1237 hrs : SFD queries ISD over Vincent Cheng affair Vincent Cheng at the "Remember May 21st" commemoration event at the Speakers' Corner last year.Former detainee Vincent Cheng has been prohibited from speaking at the NUS History Seminar to be held on June 4th at the National Library. The organiser NUS History Society has apologised to Mr Cheng and offered to read his speech at the event. Over the phone, Cheng told me he was not surprised and is looking forward to speak when another occasion arises. Last year, police harassed the venue owners of a forum I had planned on the 1987 arrests.LATEST : Seminar will proceed without Vincent Cheng. (posted May 28th 1300hrs)The NUS History Society will proceed with the seminar without Vincent Cheng. It has also decided, for unknown reasons, not to read out Cheng's speech at the seminar. When asked if Cheng is barred from attending the event in person, it said that it would be up to the National Library Board to decide.The following is the statement from NUS History Society, following my queries on facebook.The NUS History Seminar 2010 will proceed as per normal on 4 June 2010, 2.30p.m at the National Library Board, The Pod. Unfortunately, Mr. Vincent Cheng will not be on the panel of speakers. Thank you.Regards,Bernard ChenPresident, NUS History SocietyAh, short, terse and safe statements. Years from now, the History Society may be seen as the willing censors in this episode. Therefore, what transpired between you and NLB should be made transparent to all now. Who made the call to take Mr Cheng off the list? What was the reasoning for barring him from speaking? Is he allowed to even attend the event now that you are proceeding without him? Are you allowed to read his speech at the seminar?- Martyn See Tong MingThe NUS History Society was the one who initiated and planned forth this seminar intending to share with Singaporeans cross-factual perspectives, experiences and discourses on Singapore History. To that, even with the exclusion of Mr. Cheng as a speaker, the objectives set forth by the Society will still be met, albeit not as comprehensive as what we would like it to be. To state that "the History Society may be seen as the willing censors in this episode" is not being fair to the Society and the students running this organisation as this Society was the one who extended the invitation to Mr. Cheng to speak and share at our humble event.I had a meeting with Mr. Cheng himself on 26 May 2010 (Wednesday) to discuss his scope of discussion so as to better facilitate the seminar on Friday. It is our objective to present his side of the story as accurately as possible.The NUS History Society certainly did not make the call to take Mr. Cheng off the list. From my own understanding, I do not know how and what the National Library Board will do in the event Mr. Cheng turns up at the seminar on the day itself. Please note that the National Library Board is sponsoring the facilities and resources to the NUS History Society.We have indeed offered our most sincere apologies to Mr. Cheng but as to having his speech being read out, it was something that I suggested to him but at the point of my conversation with him, I have yet to discuss it with my committee. As a Society, we have decided not to have Vincent's speech read out, even though I am liaising with Vincent to obtain his speech.I have attempted to clarify your queries to the best of my abilities.Thank you.Bernard ChenBelow is a comment left by another former detainee of 1987's "Marxist conspiracy" saga, Ms Teo Soh Lung, on TOC.Teo Soh Lung 28 May 2010Speakers’ corner is just a corner, a little garden space that is not at all charming. Vincent and his friends do not have the voice of the famous tenor who sang at the Botanic Garden.I do not see why NUS History Society should accept the ban. The National Library is a public space and we all pay taxes to build it. As long as the forum is not about organising a violent uprising,everyone especially an august society like the History Society should be welcomed to use it. The History Society and the library need to give the public an explanation immediately. 23 years after Operation Spectrum : Ex-detainees recall mental and physical abuses May 21st 2010 marks the 23rd anniversary of the "Marxist Conspiracy" arrests and detention-without-trial of 22 young professionals in Singapore. The following are excerpts of accounts by the ex-detainees in a book published last year entitled That We May Dream Again.Persecuted for justice's sakeby Vincent ChengTacked on one wall of my prison cell was a large poster with these words in bold red:"Jesus said: Blessed are those who are persecuted for justice's sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when people revile you and persecute you and tell all kinds of evil lies against you because you are my followers. rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven."I took this quotation from Matthew 5:10-12; it was to remind myself of the reason for my detention under the Internal Security Act (ISA). This had begun with my arbitrary arrest at my home on Thursday 21 May, 1987, at 5am by about eight officers from the Internal Security Department (ISD). Being under ISA meant being deprived of my right to a fair and open trial."You acted in a manner prejudicial to the security of Singapore by being the central figure in the Marxist conspiracy, masterminded by Tan Wah Piow, to subvert the existing social and political system in Singapore, using communist united front tactics, with a view to establishing a Marxist state ... by violent means, if necessary."This and other allegations against me would have been demolished in an open court. But alas, under the ISA, I, along with 21 detainees, were denied judicial review and subjected to arbitrary treatment in detention. Most of us bear the physical and psychological scars to this day.For me, the trauma is insidiously lodged in the subconscious, even after the passage of 21 years. I still feel angry at the injustice of the whole incident, and that the perpetrators have not been brought to account. "Operation Spectrum" was political rape.I cannot forget, nor forgive, the harsh treatment meted out to me in prison to extract information – the freezing room, the slapping and the beatings, including the blow to my abdomen.That last act which triggered my abject subjugation haunted me for a long time.To mitigate the duress, I decided to allow myself to be abused and bullied into writing tracts of self-incriminating lies and half-truths. It seemed less painful to surrender in the interrogation room, but it was more painful when I was put back into the cell.There I would shed tears, stemming from my sense of utter powerlessness, loss of self-esteem, and constant worry over how my "confession" would harm others. The government onslaught resulted in 3 years of imprisonment, 5 years of restriction orders, a fine of $87,000 and other painful consequences for me and my family.People have advised me to let go, to forgive and forget, to move on with life. But I ask myself: Why should I? To close the issue is tantamount to condoning the injustice. I can understand why the Nanking massacre survivors and the Korean comfort women are still fighting for justice today. Victims of injustice must not give up the fight to regain their dignity. I believe that forgiveness and letting go is genuine and meaningful only when justice has been, or is seen to have been, done. And if justice cannot be done, then the forces of karma will take over. The law of nature will prevail.+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +21 May 1987by Tang Lay Lee“Are you a Marxist?”“No. I’m a Catholic.”PIAK!“Are you a Marxist?“No. I’m a Catholic.PIAK!“Are you instigating workers?”“No. I’m helping workers.PIAK!“Are you a Marxist?”“No. I’m a Catholic.PIAK! PIAK!“Are you instigating workers?”“No. I’m helping workers.”PIAK!I felt cold, very cold and numb. Surely this can't be real, this can’t be happening. But the blows to my face kept coming after every reply.Men kept coming and going out of the room, talking among themselves, barking at me, shaking their heads. J.T*, another little man with a moustache, the case officer. T.*, a little woman, his assistant case officer. Long Jaw, who slapped me with powerful swings of his arm and the full force of his body behind every blow.I wanted to forget it all but I couldn't. It was humiliating. I was crying out that it was totally unwarranted. Were they stupid? Marxist? Me? I tried to tell them what I am – a Catholic.But they were not interested in my answer, but continued hitting me and dousing me with cold water in an air-conditioned room.+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +The knock on the doorby Kevin De SouzaThen came the knock on the door at 5am on 21 May 1987 which indelibly changed my life.I still remember clearly the sequence of events - being roused from my bed, opening the front door to a tall Indian officer of the Internal Security Department (ISD), who announced in an almost apologetic tone that I had been arrested under the Internal Security Act (ISA).My father stood beside me in his shorts and singlet, in total shock, and asked me what I had done. My immediate reply: "Nothing, I have done nothing wrong."The period of detention turned out to be the most traumatic years of my life – the strip search, the blindfolds, the interrogations in the cold room, the sleep deprivation, the television interviews, the slaps on the face, the three-legged chairs I was forced to balance on during the initial interrogations, the solitary confinement and, most of all, the fear of long-term incarceration without trial.This experience would haunt me for may years after my release - the constant fear of being re-arrested under the ISA and the guilt of not withstanding the pressures of interrogation and detention. Such detentions are meant to break a detainee's spirit and diminish his or her effectiveness upon release.The impact on me was profound. Detention sapped my confidence in my own abilities and strengths. The question would constantly surface : Could I cope with another round of arrest, interrogation and detention?Through all this, other constants helped me survived those dark years - the unwavering support of my then girlfriend and now wife, Lucy, my parents and sister, and the immense solidarity of people on Singapore and around the world.This community spirit meant we were never forgotten and never alone. In prison, we tried to maintain a strong bond. Separated by the high walls of our cells, the detainees would sing to one another on most nights to keep our spirits up.Relatives and friends who were unable to visit us would stand 100 metres away from the gates of Whitley Road Detention Centre just to catch a glimpse of us and to wave to us for a fleeting 10 seconds, when we walked to the visitors' room. I remember seeing my good friend, Joseph Ng, on a showery afternoon, and on another occasion, my elderly godparents, Jenny and Stephen Yeo, shouting and waving frantically to me.+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Further readings :The Online CitizenOperation Spectrum on wikipediahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Spectrum'Marxist plot' revisitedhttp://www.singapore-window.org/sw01/010521m1.htm"Marxist Conspiracy" arrests - 20 years onhttp://sgblogs.com/entry/marxist-conspiracy-arrests-years/85250A detainee remembershttp://www.singapore-window.org/tfhmemo.htm'Marxist Conspiracy' annniversary rememberedhttp://www.singapore-window.org/sw02/020521fs.htmDetention of journalists and lawyers under the ISAhttp://singaporerebel.blogspot.com/2007/03/detention-of-journalists-and-lawyers.htmlSurviving long-term detention without trialhttp://singaporerebel.blogspot.com/2007/03/surviving-long-term-detention-without.htmlLife in Singapore's political prisonshttp://singaporerebel.blogspot.com/2007/02/life-in-singapores-political-prisons.htmlThe ISA as a political toolhttp://singaporerebel.blogspot.com/2007/02/isa-as-political-tool.htmlPolitical detention in Singapore : Prisoner case historieshttp://singaporerebel.blogspot.com/2007/02/political-detention-in-singapore.html Rare pictures of Chia Thye Poh Undated photographs of Singapore's longest-held political prisoner Chia Thye Poh when he was exiled to Sentosa in 1989. Chia was unconditionally released in 1998. His current whereabouts is unknown. RSF to PM Lee : Stop perpetuating your father's legacy of intimidation Open letter to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong Published on 25 March 2010Prime Minister Lee Hsien LoongPrime Minister’s OfficeOrchard RoadIstanaSingapore 238823 Paris, 25 March 2010 Dear Prime Minister, A foreign news organisation has yet again been forced to apologise to you and your father and pay you a large sum of money for publishing an article you did not like. This time it is the New York Times Co. that is a victim of this double punishment because of a compliant judicial system that always rules in favour of you and your family in all the lawsuits you bring against foreign news media. Before the New York Times Co., you succeeded in punishing the Far Eastern Economic Review (FEER), FinanceAsia.com, The Economist, International Herald Tribune and Asian Wall Street Journal for their coverage of the political and economic situation in your country. Threatened by a trial, the New York Times Co. apologised to you and your father, Lee Kuan Yew, for the article “All in the Family,” written by Philip Bowring and published in the 15 February issue of the International Herald Tribune. As well as an apology, this US media company had to pay 114,000 US dollars in damages. Your lawyer, Davinder Singh, said Bowring’s article violated an “agreement” between your family and the International Herald Tribune, which was sentenced in 1994 to pay a large sum in damages for an article entitled “The claims about Asian values don’t usually bear scrutiny.” The now defunct Far Eastern Economic Review agreed last November, after a long legal wrangle, to pay you and your father 290,000 US dollars in damages. Despite a lack of evidence, Singaporean judges ruled in favour of your family both in the original trial and on appeal without a thought for media freedom. Reporters Without Borders condemns the judicial harassment which you and your father have practiced for years in order to prevent foreign news media from taking too close an interest in how you run your country. It does serious and lasting harm to press freedom in Singapore. Your government has repeatedly displayed a disturbing inability to tolerate foreign journalists. Last October, for example, Benjamin Bland, a British freelancer who strings for The Economist and The Daily Telegraph, was denied a visa and permission to cover an APEC summit in Singapore. “I was forced to leave Singapore after the government refused to renew my work visa without any explanation,” Bland told Reporters Without Borders. But the censorship has above all affected local media and local artistic production. In October 2009, for example, the ministry of information, communication and arts upheld a ban on a documentary by Singaporean filmmaker Martyn See about government opponent Said Zahari. Watch the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOI2... In response to the publication of the Reporters Without Borders 2009 press freedom index, in which Singapore was ranked 133rd out of 175 countries, your law minister, K. Shanmugam, described it as “absurd” and “disconnected from reality.” Unfortunately, the facts show that we are right. In the six years since you became prime minister and said you favoured an “open” society, we have seen very few improvements in the situation of free speech. We therefore think your government should take the following measures as a matter of urgency: 1. Put a stop to the libel actions which you and your relatives have been bringing against Singaporean and foreign media that cover Singaporean developments in an independent manner. As the UN special rapporteur for freedom of expression recently said, the prime minister, his minister and high officials must refrain from suing journalists over their articles and comments.2. Amend the criminal code so as to abolish prison sentences for press offences.3. Amend the press law, especially the articles concerning the granting of publication licences. The current restrictions are preventing the emergence of independent media. The film law should also be relaxed.4. Reform the national security law so as to abolish administrative detention, which allows the authorities to imprison people because of what they think.5. Reform the Media Development Authority so that it is no longer able to censor and can solely make recommendations about TV programmes and films.6. Allow government opponents and civil society representatives unrestricted access to the public media.7. Guarantee the editorial independence of all the media owned by Singapore Press Holdings (SPH) and Media Corporation of Singapore (Mediacorp).8. Transfer the money that your family has obtained in damages from foreign and Singaporean news media to a support fund for imprisoned journalists that Reporters Without Borders proposes to set up. We regret that you, the members of your government and your father keep citing the need to guarantee Singapore’s stability as grounds for controlling the media and maintaining its draconian laws. Countries that show the most respect for press freedom, such as Finland and Norway, are peaceful and prosperous democracies. Freedom of expression is not a source of political unrest. Quite the contrary. You have perpetuated your father’s legacy by continuing to harass and intimidate news media. As a result, aside from a few websites specialising in Singapore, no news outlet can publish independent news and information about issues affecting the political situation in your country. We would be very honoured to be able to meet with you in order to talk about our observations and our proposals for guaranteeing press freedom in Singapore in person. Respectfully, Jean-François JulliardSecretary-General In the same country 26 November 2008 - Wall Street Journal Asia unjustly found in contempt of court and fined 18 September 2008 - Blogger Gopalan Nair gets three months in prison for insulting judge 17 June 2008 - US blogger Gopalan Nair still waiting the outcome of trial Jeyaretnam takes issue with Martyn See's blog post The following exchanges are reactions to my blog post on Chee Soon Juan and SDP, and are lifted from the comments here and from my facebook page.Taken from comments posted in the blog post. Kenneth said...Dear Martin, I had let the SDP know as soon as the event was announced that I have an appointment overseas on the same date. I am still in London now and returning this coming week. However before I left and again from over here I rallied my troops and made sure that a number of us from RP attended to show our support. In addition I wrote to Dr Chee to let him know that Tony Tan was attending as my proxy and to give him a message of congratulations to read out if he so chose. In fact 6 members of the RP attended. This compares to 1 NSP and 2 SDA. In a more civilised political environment it would be perfectly understandable that an SG would deputise someone else to attend in his place. especially someone with a high profile such as Tony Tan. It's a pity that Dr Chee chose not to share my congratulatory message but even if you personally were unaware of the circumstances it would still have been appropriate to consider thanking RP for their show of support instead of criticising them. Maybe next time we won't bother.7:00 AMMartyn See said...Dear Kenneth, Much thanks for your prompt clarification to the readers. Any issue that you may have with Chee regarding your congratulatory message is really between you and SDP. Please write to him to sort him out. As for me, I was observing the event as a citizen journalist and all views expressed are mine alone. I would encourage Tony and other members who attended the function to post their views too so that readers have a broader sense of what transpired. This is the beauty of the open discourse of the internet. There is really no need to feel aggrieved. Enjoy the rest of your time in London.11:15 AMpatski2 said...Dr Chee did not read out congratulatory messages from anyone! Gandhi Ambalam acknowledged with thanks the presence of RP representatives there DO not fall into the trap!Divide and conquer is the oldest trick in the book! Well done SDP and good on you RP for showing up to support! BTW, Martyn, the MSM stories were all about the usual smokescreens about trustworthiness (Re:CST) and foreign funding - I do not see any change at all, just a little more subtle perhaps???8:42 PMKenneth said...Martyn- You misunderstand -I have no issue with Chee. If I did I would take it to him. I a reader and a person named in your article address the comment to you as the author and 'citizen journalist'. I can't help feeling it was irreponsible of you not to check out some facts and I feel a more balanced picture would have been obtained had you mentioned the strong turn out by RP. I have an issue with your observation and the spin you put on it. After all we have the MSM if we want the opposition to be ignored.That's all no big deal.Thanks Kenneth7:10 AMMartyn See said...Dear Kenneth, I'll leave it to the readers to judge if I had committed any factual inaccuracy, or that I have, as you alleged, put a spin, criticised or ignored you and RP. Ordinarily, these would be pretty serious allegations to be levelled against anyone. But Singaporeans deserve more than tit for tat nit pickings.11:56 AMRead the rest here.From Facebook page :Andrew Loh : "Noticeably absent, and perhaps an indication that the Government's decade-and-a-half campaign to marginalize Chee is still holding sway, is the no show from the entire Workers' Party, including Low Thia Khiang and Sylvia Lim, and the founder of SDP himself, Chiam See Tong, now with the SPP." That is sad. The entire WP didn't show up?Isrizal Mohamed Isa : yeah, even st was more generous with the attendance no. than than martyn hehehe...Muhd Khalis Rifhan : It was because of their slogan back then, 'Tell the Truth,Be A Rebel', that pave the way for me wanting to know more abt SDP.Tian Jing : Alex Tan from the SPP did show up.Gary Teoh : WP looks arrogant , NSP, SDA , RP and SDP are ok.Jarrod Luo : Chairman SPP Mr Sin Kek Tong was there too.Kenneth Jeyaretnam : RP had 6 people attend . I designated Tony Tan my proxy and sent Dr Chee and the SDP a personal message of congratulations.Martyn See Tong Ming : Woah people, since when did people vie to be mentioned as attendees in an SDP event? Dynamics have suddenly shifted.Jaslyn Go : haha :DAnna Hokage : Looking forward for the change :))Kenneth Jeyaretnam : I agree people attending don't have to be mentioned. But when you write under the banner' citizen journalist ' then expect to be picked up. You chose the angle for your article namely -opposition lack of support or 'noticeable absentees'. You therefore put the emphais on attendees or lack thereof, from the Opposition. That's when the dynamic changed, lol. Especially as you chose a spin which leads the reader to believe that RP shunned the event. As we did turn out in force and as this is your response, has it occurred to you that next year we might just not bother.That will keep you happy because you'll be able to fill up more column inches whining. I sometimes think that the people who most hate to see the opposition succeed are the opposition themselves.Dexter Wong : I presume that WP will not get as much support as it did in the 2006 GE.Jaslyn Go : hmm...it sort of puzzle me...SG of RP saying they might not bother to attend SDP's event next year just because a citizen journalist did not report this year event in a way he think is fair? I wonder the purpose of attending is to for people to see or should it be for opposition solidarity?Kenneth Jeyaretnam : Jaslyn. not so puzzling . I responded to this as I am the one mentioned in the opinion/ blogging piece. If Martyn is a journalist then he will be comfortable with the concept of right of address. I didn't say it was unfair. Life is unfair. Some of us work to correct that balance. I said it was half truths, I said it was bias and I said as a result we would not attend another time. As you say most of the opposition appear to have shunned you. We ( RP) turned out in some number to support and we saw your reaction here. We don't need to attend your events to be 'seen .' The MSM cover our seminars and most of what we do so that is not a problem we have. Its very simple Jaslyn. If you denigrate the people who support you they stop being supporters.Tian Jing : Thanks for clearing that up KJ that RP had 6 people attending.1) Martyn's article incorrectly says that RP did not come to the event to show support.2) SDP's assistant SG has acknowledge your party's support and we do acknowledge it, for that, it is a clear show of solidarity. ...See more3) The congratulatory message sure as hell wasn't censored. It must have slipped though everyone's mind to prepare it for the big night as we were scrambling to get things ready. For that, it is a pity that this slip had lead to this misunderstanding from the general public.4) And lastly to everyone here. Please stop this bickering.Boris Chan : It seems the issue is with the behavior of some SDP member and supportor instead of with SDP.Martyn See Tong Ming : Very entertaining conversation and some important declaratons made here . To be fair to everyone who commented here, I would like to cut-and-paste this entire exchange onto my blog so that the court of public opionion can judge for themselves.It will be entitied1, "I will not attend another SDP event : Jeyaretnam", or2. "The MSM cover most of what we do: Jeyaretnam", or3. "Jeyaretnam takes issue with Martyn See's blog post.". ...I chose the above because Kenneth is a public figure and people will be interested in his views.I will preface it with the following words and no more : "The following exchanges are reactions to my blog post on Chee Soon Juan and SDP, and are lifted from the comments here and from my facebook page."It will start with comments from my blog and continues with the comments here. I will post it up 24 hours from now. Any objections or corrections please state here now. :DKenneth Jeyaretnam : HAHA . Very droll. I came on because my name was mentioned in your piece but I've no interest in your retrograde style of dividing the opposition. We put all that behind us when we came on the political scene. The mature and sensible debate and style of engagement that RP brought to the Opposition and political landscape is IMHO one of the reasons that Dr Chee is now experiencing a coming around. We made Opposition leaders an attractive topic for the MSM to cover. I agree that mention of my name will bring you attention and readership from the public. But ultimately you will only further what appears to be a bizarre aim to keep the opposition in opposition for ever ( so long as they're alive online/youtube). So go ahead, take a week to rally your supporters' comments for your blog. We the RP will get on with our job of presenting sensible alternative policies, of overturning the received wisdom of Singapore's economic success and fighting for a free and democratic country.Martyn See Tong Ming : Thank you, Kenneth. I take that as a "Yes'. To the rest of you, 23 hours more..Seelan Palay : Wow Kenneth, you really shouldn't boast that much.Updated on 5th MarchLaremy Lee : I apologise for intruding, but if I may pose a question to both Kenneth and Martyn:Is there any way that a resolution might be brokered to put a halt to this conflict?Martyn See Tong Ming : As far as I'm concerned, it's been resolved at the outset. Kenneth is a major opposition figure and I felt the readers needed to know if he showed up at the SDP function or not. I had since acknowledged his clarification that he was away in London, accorded his full right of reply and suggested that RP members who attended the SDP event post an alternate review.The rest of the 'conflict' are just some personal attacks and showboating. It would be apparent how disproportionate these exchanges are when placed in context to my original article, which really is about the state of Chee and SDP now as compared to five years ago when I was answering questions about their activities in the police station. How it is construed by Kenneth as denigrating and splitting opposition is beyond me. That the entire WP not being there is something I observed. But progress has been made, as I have noted in my piece that members of civil society and opposition were seen at the function, something unthinkable just a few years ago.It is a celebratory article, not a dampener that Kenneth somehow thinks it is.By the way, the Secretary General of the NSP contacted me five minutes after I uploaded the orginal article. He was concerned about the police possesssion of SDP photos during my interrogation. Did he attend SDP's dinner? Yes, he did. Did I mention him or NSP in my article? No. Did he bring it up? No. I think he had more important concerns as an opposition leader than being mentioned in a blog post. The coming around of Chee Soon Juan and SDP? Update : Chee Soon Juan and SDP leaders serve prison terms - 2 days after anniversary celebrationFive years ago in the police station, I was interrogated by the police over the making of my documentary Singapore Rebel. Photographs and minutes of the Singapore Democratic Party's (SDP) meetings and activities were produced in front me, and I was asked to identify faces in those snapshots. How did the photographs and minutes end up with the police? Did the police have moles planted in the opposition? Is Lee Kuan Yew an autocrat? You go figure. What was unmistakable to me at that time was that there was a concerted attempt by the Government and the police to create a spectre of criminalization around Dr Chee Soon Juan and anything/anybody that he engages. The agenda couldn't have been more plain : Isolate Chee, pick him off, and like Lee himself said many years ago as an opposition MP, the outcome would be that miraculously everything will be tranquil on the surface.Last night, SDP held its 30th Anniversary bash at the Concorde Hotel. Amid the pomp and pageantry were about a hundred guests, including foreign diplomats, civil society activists and members of the opposition. Noticeably absent, and perhaps an indication that the Government's decade-and-a-half campaign to marginalize Chee is still holding sway, is the no show from the entire Workers' Party, including Low Thia Khiang and Sylvia Lim, and the founder of SDP himself, Chiam See Tong, now with the SPP. Strikingly, all three are currently the only opposition members of Singapore's Parliament. Surprisingly, joining the list of absentees was a new kid of the opposition block, Kenneth Jeyaretnam of the Reform Party. (read rejoinder from Jeyaretnam under comments)But having witnessed the trajectory of Chee's political career - from the toil of libel suits, bankruptcy and relentless criticisms to the merrymaking last night - it was a kind of a miracle to behold. Not the tranquil kind that Lee alluded to, but of a coming around - For Chee, his party and the people who now saw no fear to be seen fraternizing with the Government's favourite whipping boy.There is also a coming around of sorts with the authorities. Two years ago, Government censors showed up with the police to seize a dvd of a film premiere organized by the SDP. (see video here and here). Last night, videos of congratulatory messages were blasted without interruptions.Then this morning, the most glaring coming around happened. The mainstream press, a longtime accessory of the Government's character assassination campaign against Chee and SDP, suddenly saw fit to publish a review of the anniversary dinner and an almost full page interview with Chee himself.When did you last see a smiling Chee Soon Juan in the newspapers? And the group photo in the Sunday Times looks fit for a propaganda piece for the PAP, except that the uniforms are red, not white. What gave rise to the Sunday Times and Zaobao's sudden habit-breaking behavioural switch to feature Chee Soon Juan and SDP in their pages? And without the usual demonization too?Perhaps there is a tacit recognition that a bankrupted Chee is already a spent force and thus not a political threat? Perhaps Lee Kuan Yew, after clashing with the Chee siblings in court, saw for himself horns didn't grow out of their skulls? Perhaps the political desks of ST and Zaobao needed to fill their quotas of articles per month?Whatever the motivations are, one thing is certain - Chee Soon Juan and the Singapore Democratic Party are not the sort to crave for mainstream media coverage. Anybody who knows Chee can attest that there isn't one Singaporean who distrusts the MSM more. In recent years, the party has resigned itself to the use of the internet and street hawking of publications to engage the citizenry.That the MSM has now come knocking on Chee's door, despite his open criticisms of them, is something of a revelation. More interesting to me, are how the dynamics in opposition politics have suddenly shifted. Now that the press has nudged SDP closer to the mainstream, will it then follow that the absentees of the night's function will be less afraid to associate themselves with Chee and SDP?One of my principal aims when making Singapore Rebel was to inspire a rethink of perceptions, but now ironically, the mainstream press has done what I set out to do five years ago. Perhaps I need to look for another subject to break perceptions and taboos with..--------------------------------Further readings:Chee speaks up on Chiam Dr Chee Soon Juan challenges Lee Kuan Yew to write off his debts I'll forgive Lee Kuan Yew if he admits to his error and apologises to me : Lim Hock Siew A cub reporter has achieved in a month what his superiors in the Singapore Press Holdings could not do in six years (see link here and here) - secure an interview with former political detainee Dr Lim Hock Siew. In a two-page feature published yesterday, journalist Cai Haoxiang wrote what is likely to be the highlight of his journalistic career with the political bureau of the Straits Times - a rare and uncompromising re-examinaton of history, detention and the PAP from Singapore's 2nd longest-held political prisoner.Below is an excerpt of the article. The rest of the piece can be read here.Feb 19, 2010Still dreaming of a socialist SingaporeFrom student activist and PAP campaigner to Barisan Sosialis leader and second longest-held political detainee, Dr Lim Hock Siew's story mirrors Singapore's tumultuous history. Now 79, he bares his thoughts and feelings about his political past.By Cai HaoxiangTHEN came the big crackdown. On Feb 2, 1963, more than 100 leftists and unionists were arrested in a massive security exercise known as Operation Cold Store, aimed at putting communists and suspected communists out of circulation.On the mass arrests which changed the power balance in Singapore irrevocably, Dr Lim reflects: 'We lost not to Lee but to the British, who crushed the leftists for strategic, not security reasons.'When he speaks about his nearly 20 years in detention, there is an edge to his otherwise calm voice.Year after year, he recounts, attempts were made to break the spirit of prisoners through solitary confinement and interrogations, to make them confess their involvement in communist activities.Dr Lim became a counsellor of sorts to the prisoners, encouraging them to talk about the physical and psychological abuse they faced during their interrogations. Some broke down in tears as they relived their experiences.In March 1972, Dr Lim released a statement about his detention and his experience in being taken to the Internal Security Department (ISD) headquarters on Robinson Road two months earlier. He had insisted on being released, saying that 'history had vindicated my stand' that the 1963 merger would not work.He says that ISD officers wanted him to issue a public statement that he was prepared to give up politics and devote his time to medical practice, and to express support for parliamentary democracy.Dr Lim demanded to be released unconditionally, saying that he should not need to give up politics if there was parliamentary democracy.He says that he was asked to 'concede something' so that his long detention could be justified. He replied that he was not interested in 'saving Mr Lee's face', and would not issue any statement to condemn his past political activities, which he said were 'legitimate and proper'.When asked for the Government's response, a Ministry of Home Affairs spokesman says: 'Contrary to Lim Hock Siew's claims that he was an opposition politician carrying out 'legitimate and proper' activities through the democratic process, Dr Lim was in fact a prominent Communist United Front leader who, along with other CUF leaders, had planned and organised pro-communist activities in support of the Communist Party of Malaya, which employed terror and violence in their attempt to overthrow the elected governments of Singapore and Malaysia.'In 1978, Dr Lim was released from detention and placed in Pulau Tekong under certain restrictions. A government statement had described him as a CUF member who refused to give a written undertaking that he would not be involved in communist activities and renounce the use of force to change government.Dr Lim's view was that since he had never advocated violence, he should not have to renounce it. 'It's like making me sign a statement that I would not beat my wife,' he says.He spent four years on Pulau Tekong before it became an army training area. There, he read medical books and became the only doctor for the few thousand villagers on the island. In appreciation, grateful villagers would ply him and his wife with durians, prawns and fish.ReleaseFINALLY, on Sept 6, 1982, the Government allowed him to live on Singapore island, on the understanding that he would concentrate on his medical practice and abide by various conditions.Asked how he coped with the long incarceration, he puts it down to an unshakeable conviction that his political stance is right.'We were the leaders of the main opposition party, supported by the workers in Singapore, and we cannot betray our supporters. So we stuck to the bitter end. It's a matter of intellectual integrity.'Would he shake hands with Mr Lee? His reply: 'It is for the oppressed to be magnanimous, not the oppressor. I'll forgive him and shake hands with him if he admits to his error and apologises to me and my wife.'Dr Lim's wife Beatrice Chen, who is a nephrologist or kidney specialist, helps to treat her husband. She declines to be interviewed as she shuns publicity.They met in 1958 when they were working together at the Singapore General Hospital, and married in 1961.Dr Lim was detained two years later. For the next 15 years, they saw each other for half an hour each week, separated by a glass panel, and spoke by telephone.'The fact that we can see each other is a relief,' he says. 'Our common struggle was a unifying force. We understood each other. She kept on encouraging me, giving me moral support...it was very hard for her. She's a great woman.'The couple have one son, who is now working in the National University of Singapore. 'He was five months old when I was arrested. When I came out, my wife was in menopause. I missed the joy of bringing up my own son.'When Dr Lim is not seeing patients, he catches up on current affairs, surfs the Internet, and reads political philosophy - currently, Bertrand Russell's A History Of Western Philosophy. He also paints as a hobby.Step into his condominium home off Mountbatten Road, and you will be greeted by a visual feast of paintings - of scenery, flowers and women - all strictly non-political.But one has a Chinese couplet which reads: Befriend a thousand books, and have the spine to stand by your beliefs.* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *How would Barisan have ruled S’pore?WHAT if Barisan Sosialis had beaten the People’s Action Party (PAP) in the September 1963 General Election? How differently would it have ruled the country?Barisan gave the ruling party its closest call in Singapore’s political history when it garnered 33 per cent of the votes in the polls. It toppled two ministers and nearly knocked out another four ministers.Although PAP’s 47 per cent score was its lowest electoral mark in the record book, the first-past-the-post system awarded the party 37 seats versus Barisan’s 13 in the 51-seat legislative assembly.There had been much speculation that had it not been for Operation Cold Store, which put more than 100 leftist politicians and unionists behind bars just seven months earlier, the opposition party would have swept into power.Former Barisan leader Lim Hock Siew, who would have stood for the elections if he was not detained, admits that if his party had won, Singapore’s gross domestic product growth would have been slower, but believes that there would have been more welfare for the people.There would be legal safeguards for workers like minimum wage, retrenchment benefits, social welfare and retirement benefits, he says.Peppering his interview with criticisms of various government policies, the man regarded as one of the “brains” behind Barisan, says that his party would have done more for the poor and working class.For example, he points out that his party would not have priced flats at a subsidised rate below market rate but would have provided cheap housing at cost. “CPF is meant for pensions, not to tie people down to a housing project,” he says.Turning to more current issues, he argues that the introduction of two integrated resorts here threatens moral standards by making Singapore a playground for the “international filthy rich”.Singapore might eventually be like Las Vegas, where everything has a price but no value. “I don’t think this is a society we all like to have. That the Government places such high hopes on the two casinos shows what a desperate situation the Singapore economy is in.”Instead of attracting big foreign multinational companies, he says, Singapore should have encouraged small and medium enterprises, so that entrepreneurship would flourish as in Hong Kong.Hitting out at ministerial pay, noting that a symbolic amount of $10,000 or $20,000 a month would be enough, Dr Lim says that Barisan leaders were prepared to sacrifice their lives for their political beliefs. “We considered politics a calling, a responsibility, and a privilege to serve our country, not a career.”He believes enough talented young people will come forward to serve the country. “Leaders should not be discovered by inviting and enticing them with high pay and high office... you harness the people, let them decide. They’ll do wonders.”He feels that the Government cannot inspire the young to participate because it is alienated from the people and is afraid of “letting go”.Criticising the various restrictions on freedom of speech, assembly and organisation, like the Internal Security Act and the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act, he notes: “When Lee Hsien Loong came to power, he promised to leave no stones unturned to remake Singapore.“But what we see is just the little stones and pebbles being merrily kicked about, raising so much dust and din, but the big boulders of repression are still very much in place.”He calls for a public inquiry into past and present human rights abuses in Singapore, under an internationally-renowned judge, with immunity provided for former detainees to give evidence.The young will feel for Singapore, he says, when they feel they can speak out and decide their own future.Given his strong anti-government views, it is no surprise that the 79-year-old doctor is much sought after by the opposition parties.He reveals that two parties wanted to recruit him but he declined, citing old age.************************************Singapore's 2nd longest-held political prisoner speaks out Government publishes Film Classification Guidelines Please note that : This classification does not include items which are already subjected to restrictions under the Films Act, such as pornography and political party films.That it not certain if the Censorship Review Committee's report will alter the guidelines.That the only recourse to objections under these guidelines would be to appeal to the Films Appeal Commitee.- Martyn See---------------------------------------------------------------------------------BOARD OF FILM CENSORS (link)FILM CLASSIFICATION GUIDELINESPreamble1. These Guidelines have been prepared to raise awareness and understandingof the Board's film classification process. This is not a legal document and is notintended to limit in any way the Board's exercise of functions under the Films Act(Cap 107). While care has been taken to define the content concerns andclassification categories, the Board reserves the right to classify any film in suchmanner as it deems fit.Introduction2. The Film Classification Guidelines aim to reflect community standards whileensuring that due consideration is given to the film’s artistic, educational or literary merit. The purpose of classification is to protect the young while allowing more choice for adults.3. When making a classification decision for a film, the Board takes carefulconsideration of the film’s content as well as all other relevant factors and concerns.The description of each of the classification categories and the indication of thesuitable audience in terms of age may be found in these guidelines. To clarify the usage of words in the guidelines, a glossary of terms is included.4. There are five ratings in the film classification. They are:· G - General· PG - Parental Guidance· NC16 - No Children below 16 years of age· M18 - Mature 18, for persons 18 years and above· R21 - Restricted to persons 21 years and above5. G and PG categories are advisory ratings while NC16, M18 and R21 areenforceable by law. Cinema operators are required to obtain a licence to screenNC16, M18 or R21 films. They should ensure that the age restriction is enforced.6. In exceptional cases, a film may not be allowed for all ratings (NAR) when thecontent of the film undermines national interest or erodes the moral fabric of society.General Principles7. In general, the Board’s classification decisions are guided by the followingprinciples/considerations:· Generally accepted social mores· Need to protect the young· Racial/religious harmony· National interest· Treatment of theme, content and context· Evaluation of impacta. Generally Accepted Social MoresFilms screened must be sensitive to the standards of morality, decency andpropriety acceptable to the general public.b. Need to Protect the YoungFor the lower ratings, particular attention will be paid to content that may beharmful to or unsuitable for the young.c. Racial/Religious HarmonyAs Singapore is a multi-racial and multi-religious society, films that denigrate anyracial or religious group, or create misunderstanding or disharmony amongst theraces are not allowed for all ratings.d. National InterestFilms deemed to undermine public order, national security and/or stability will bedisallowed for all ratings.e. Treatment of Theme, Content and ContextHow a film is classified depends on its theme or message, presentation ofcontent, and the context in which scenes are presented.f. Evaluation of ImpactThe impact of a film or a scene will be evaluated based on the presentation,duration, frequency, degree of visual and audio details, and their cumulativeeffect.The impact may be stronger where a scene:· Is shown in greater detail; uses close-ups and slow motion· Uses special effects such as lighting, sound, colour, or size of imageto heighten emotions· Is prolonged and/or frequent· Is more explicit than implied· Is realistic rather than stylised· Is one in which the local audience can identify with· Is visual rather than verbal or written.8. In classifying films, due consideration will be given to the artistic, educationalor literary merit of the film.Major Content Concerns9. This part of the guidelines spells out content concerns that are applied indifferent degrees at all classification levels. The seven major content concerns are:· Theme· Violence· Nudity· Sex· Language· Drug Use· Horrora. ThemeThe acceptability of a theme is determined by its suitability and treatment i.e. theway it is presented and the context in which scenes are presented. Suitability andtreatment of a theme is especially important in the lower classification levels.Films dealing with mature content (e.g. drug use, prostitution or homosexuality)would generally be classified as NC16, M18 or R21.b. Violence(i) The depiction of violence may frighten, unnerve, unsettle or inviteimitation, especially from children. Therefore, only mild portrayals that arerelevant to the plot may be allowed in films meant for children. For thehigher classifications, a stronger depiction of violence is permitted if it isjustified by context.(ii) The concerns in violence are:· Depiction of graphic/gratuitous violence· Normalising the use of violence as a solution to resolve problems;· Depiction of violent gangster behaviour (e.g. self mutilation rites);· Emphasis on violent techniques/acts (e.g. methods of torture, gangfights,combat techniques);· Encouraging aggressive and sadistic attitudes towards infliction ofpain and violence;· Explicit and prolonged sexual violence or erotic portrayal of sexualassault /coercion.c. NudityNudity is not allowed in G category films. Rear and side nudity is allowed in PGfilms if it is discreet, justified by context and not meant to titillate. Full frontalnudity may be allowed in the upper categories if it is justified by context andwithout gratuitous close-ups.d. SexThe level of sexual activity allowed on screen depends on the explicitness andfrequency of the activity, its relevance to the storyline and the target audience.Generally, depictions of sexual activity are not allowed for G, PG and NC16.Scenes depicting sexual activities such as sado-masochism, bondage or sexualviolence and paedophilia will be subject to strict review and may only be allowedunder a higher rating, depending on the treatment and context. The contentshould also not be gratuitous or excessive.Films likely to encourage deviant sexual activities such as paedophilia, bestiality and necrophilia are not permitted even under the R21 rating.Films should not promote or normalise a homosexual lifestyle. However, nonexploitative and non-explicit depictions of sexual activity between two persons ofthe same gender may be considered for R21.Content considered to be pornographic in nature is not allowed for all ratings.e. LanguageCoarse language and gestures with sexual connotations are not allowed in Gfilms as they are easily imitated by young children. In PG films, mild andinfrequent expletives may be permitted. Stronger language is acceptable in NC16films. When classifying M18 and R21 films, consideration would be given to thedegree of offensiveness (i.e. vulgarity and religious association) and frequency ofsuch language.Films with dialect content are allowed on a case-by-case basis. Chinese filmsmeant for theatrical release should generally be in Mandarin, in line with theSpeak Mandarin Campaign.f. Drug UseClear, instructive details are not allowed in G and PG films as they can beimitated by the younger audience. Such scenes are more acceptable for higherratings if they are justifiable by context. Portrayals glamorising or encouraging theuse of illegal drugs are not permitted even under R21.g. HorrorClassification of horror films will take into consideration the impact and shockeffect of such films to ensure that younger audiences are protected fromdisturbing materials.Documentaries10. Documentaries will be classified in accordance with the general principles andcontent concerns expressed in this document. If the information/content is distortedor misrepresented, or requires maturity to comprehend and discern the messageand/or intent, the documentary may be given a higher rating.Consumer Advice11. Film ratings are usually accompanied by consumer advice. Films classifiedPG may be given consumer advice where necessary, for example, in the case ofhorror films. Films rated NC16, M18 and R21 must carry consumer advice.12. Consumer advice is to be clearly reflected on publicity materials includingwebsite synopses, advertisements in newspapers and magazines. This is to providemore information for consumers to make informed decisions. It also serves as aguide to parents about the suitability of a film for their children.Trailers13. All trailers of films must be submitted for classification. Where the trailercontent is not suitable for a general audience, a higher rating will be imposed.Trailers classified as NC16 and above can only be exhibited to persons who meet thestipulated age requirement.14. Trailers with content not suitable for children should not be shown prior to aG-rated film or a film meant for or targeted at children, or in public places such asvideo walls.15. Trailers of NC16 and M18-rated films may be screened during films of a lowerrating and/or at cinema lobbies and at video walls. However, in all cases, the contentshould be suitable for a general audience, including children. Trailers for R21 filmscan only be shown before films of the same rating. Film distributors should alsoobserve any conditions imposed by the BFC on the screening of the trailers.Publicity Materials16. To avoid offending unsolicited viewers and attracting the under-aged, strictercontent standards are applied to publicity materials. These materials include posters,banners or billboards displayed in public places, advertisements in newspapers and magazines. Publicity materials for all ratings should conform to community standards and should not offend the general public. Detailed guidelines for print publicitymaterials are available on the MDA website athttp://www.mda.gov.sg/wms.ftp/filmguidelines_promo_materials.pdf.17. Once a film is classified, posters displayed at public places should clearlydisplay the rating and consumer advice. The display of posters and banners for R21films should be restricted to cinemas licensed to exhibit R21 films. More sensitivityshould also be exercised in the dissemination of publicity materials for films in thelower rating categories as they can be displayed in public places where youngaudiences are exposed to them.Periodic Review and Implementation of Guidelines18. The Board will continue to review guidelines periodically in the light ofchanges in lifestyle, public expectations and concerns.1 February 2010G (General Viewing)G-rated films should be suitable for the whole family. They should not be harmful ordisturbing to children.Theme : Themes are suitable for viewers of all ages.Violence : Mild portrayals of violence are allowed. The occasional mild threat or menace is acceptable if justified by context.Sex : No sexual activity is allowed. Sexual reference of any kind is unacceptable.NudityThere should be no nudity.Language : No coarse language is allowed.Drug Use : No references to illegal drugs or drug abuse.Horror : Treatment of horror should be non-threatening, or tinged with humour. Fright scenes should be mild and not psychologically disturbing.PG (Parental Guidance)PG films may contain elements that may be disturbing to young children. Henceparental guidance is recommended.Theme : Themes should generally have a low sense of threat or menace, andbe justified by context. Special attention should be paid to their impact on children.More serious themes such as crime and revenge may be featured but care needs to be taken as the audience may include children.Violence : Moderate portrayals of violence without details, may be allowed, if justified by context.Portrayals of violence should not dwell on cruelty, infliction of pain or torture of any kind.Sex : Sexual activity may be implied, and should be infrequent.Only mild sexual references (e.g. kissing and caressing) and innuendoes are allowed.Nudity : Discreet portrayal of back nudity is allowed if it is brief and in a nonsexual context. Discreet and fleeting side profile nudity may be allowed in a non-sexual context.Infrequent portrayal of frontal nudity of the upper body may be allowed only under exceptional circumstances and in a non-sexual context. For example, films which feature historical or dramatised events such as the World War II Holocaust, tribal ways of life, or health programmes.Language : Infrequent coarse language is allowed if it is relevant and justified bycontext. Examples are "bitch" and “asshole”. The word "fuck" is allowed if used infrequently.Drug Use : Only discreet references to illegal drug use are allowed on the condition that such references do not promote or endorse drug abuse and should be justified by context.Horror : Frightening sequences should not be prolonged or intense.NC16 (No Children Under 16)NC16 films are restricted to persons 16 years old and above. Such films may have more mature themes and/or more explicit scenes.Theme : Portrayal of mature themes (eg. gangsterism and transvestism) may be allowed, provided they are treated with discretion and appropriate to those 16 years and above.Violence : The portrayal of infliction of pain and injuries may be allowed if it is not prolonged or detailed. Explicit sexual violence is not allowed.Sex : Non-explicit depiction of sexual activities may be allowed but should not be detailed or prolonged.Nudity : Infrequent, brief and discreet portrayal of non-sexual frontal nudity may be allowed if justified by context.Language : Infrequent use of expletives such as "motherfucker" and "cunt" may be allowed if justified by context.Coarse language which offends community and cultural sensitivities should not be allowed; examples are “chee bye”, “puki mak” and "pundai".Continued aggressive use of strong language and verbal sexual abuse is unacceptable.Drug Use : Drug taking may be shown but clear, instructive detail is unacceptable. The film as a whole must not promote or encourage drug use.Horror : Films with disturbing or gory scenes without strong details may be allowed.Frightening scenes which are more prolonged may be allowed.M18 (Mature 18)M18 films are restricted to persons 18 years and above. Films rated M18 may contain mature themes but the treatment must be appropriate for young adults.Theme : Portrayal and exploration of mature themes are allowed.Homosexual theme/content as a sub-plot may be permitted, if discreet in treatment and not gratuitous.Violence : Realistic depiction of violence and gore with strong impact is allowed if justified by context. However, the portrayal should not be excessive, gratuitous or exploitative.Sex : Sexual activity may be portrayed if justified by context and without strong details.Depiction of occasional, mild sexual activity (i.e. kissing and hugging) between persons of the same gender may be permitted if justified by context and not gratuitous.Nudity : Full frontal nudity with moderate detail is acceptable if justified by context.No close up of genitalia is allowed.Language : Coarse language is allowed if it is not excessive.Drug Use : Depiction should not promote or endorse drug abuse.Horror : Prolonged and/or intense sequences that invoke fear and/or terror may be permitted.R21 (Restricted 21)R21 films are restricted to adults 21 years old and above. Films with mature themes and which contain scenes of a higher intensity in terms of realism and explicitness can be permitted under this classification.Theme : Strong portrayal of mature themes is allowed.Violence : Strong and realistic depictions of violence and gore are allowed if justified by context.Sex : Simulated sexual activities are allowed if they are not excessive.Explicit images of sexual activity need to be justified by context.Real sexual activities (e.g. actual penetration, ejaculation) are not allowed.Explicit portrayals of homosexual acts are not allowed.Films likely to encourage an interest in abusive or unnatural sexual activity (eg. paedophilia, incest and anal sex) are not permitted.Films with themes involving deviant sexual activities (e.g. sadomasochism, bondage or sex involving violence) will be subject to strict review and are likely to be disallowed.Nudity : Full nudity is permitted but should not be excessive. Close ups of genitalia should be contextually justifiable.Language : Frequent use of strong coarse language may be allowed.Drug Use : Instructive details of illegal drug abuse are not allowed.Horror : Depiction of intense horror, and sustained threat or menace may be permitted if contextually justified.Portrayals of extreme abhorrent activity that may offend and cause great discomfort may be disallowed.NAR (Not Allowed For All Ratings)Films that contain materials that erode the moral fabric of society, undermine nationalinterest and/or stability, or create disharmony among various racial and religiousgroups will not be allowed for commercial screening. These include:Theme : Themes that promote issues that denigrate any race or religion, orundermine national interest, and/or stability.Themes that glorify undesirable fetishes or behaviour (e.g. paedophilia and bestiality).Promotion or glamourisation of homosexual lifestyle.Violence : Detailed or gratuitous depictions of extreme violence or cruelty.Detailed instructions on methods of crime or killings.Sex : Exploitative and pornographic sexual acts.Depictions of obscene and/or unnatural sexual activities (e.g. bestiality, necrophilia and paedophilia).Real sexual activity (e.g. actual penetration).Gratuitous, exploitative or offensive depictions of sexual activity including fetishes or practices which are offensive or abhorrent.Nudity : Exploitative and excessive nudity.Language : Language that denigrates religion or is religiously profane (e.g. Jesus F**king Christ).Drug use : Materials glorifying or encouraging drug abuse.GLOSSARY OF TERMSCoarse language: Crude and/or offensive language lacking refinement or taste.Denigrate: To belittle or distort in a negative way the character of a person/race/religionDepiction: Representation, and/or portrayal on screen.Detail: Treatment of or attention given to the amount of audio or visual information in the representation of a subject.Detail can include close-ups, repeated, prolonged or slow motion visuals.Deviant sex: Sexual behaviour or activities that are not considered socially acceptable. Examples are paedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia and orgies.Discreet: Subtle, not explicit, lacking in details and close-ups.Disturbing: Upsetting or troubling.Drug abuse: Improper or excessive use of drugs.Excessive: Beyond reasonable limits, especially in terms of detail,duration or frequency.Expletive: An exclamatory word or phrase that is obscene or profane.Explicit Language or depiction with strong details, usually relating to sex and violence.Exploitative: Appearing to take advantage of or abuse the situation for the enjoyment of viewers or for sensationalism; lacking moral, artistic, or other values.Fetish: An object, an action or a non-sexual part of the body which gives sexual gratification.Gratuitous: Materials which are unwarranted or uncalled for, and included without the justification of a defensible storyline or artistic merit.Horror: A strong feeling of fear or distress that is inspired by images or acts that are frightful and shocking.Implied: Depiction of a subject in which an act or thing is inferred or indicated without actually being seen.Incite: To stir up or provoke strong emotions and actions.Intensity: The degree or extent to which a subject matter is acute or strong (The intensity of a scene depends on the duration, the audio/visual effects, language, context and the proximity from which the shot was taken).Justified by context: Where the depiction is relevant and necessary for the integrity and continuity of the film.Mature themes: Issues dealing with adult life, including adultery, alternative lifestyles, promiscuity, suicide, drug dependency, etc.Moderate: Depiction that features some details and may havesome impact that is kept within reasonable limits, whichis generally acceptable.Nudity: Nudity can consist of frontal or rear nudity, above and below the waist for both sexes. It is determined by the details of nudity shown, and also by other factors including the duration of visuals, repetition, close-up shots and clarity.Offensive: Material that causes outrage or disgust to most people.Pornography: The depiction of erotic behaviour intended to cause sexual excitement.Sexual activity: An act performed with another for sexual gratification. May include foreplay.Sexual Connotation: Words or gestures that imply sexual activity.Sexual violence: The act of sexual assault or aggression, in which the victim does not consent e.g. rape.Sexual simulation: Imitation or enactment of sexual activity that is not real but looks realistic.Strong: Detailed depiction likely to have high impact on viewers.Suggestion: Mild, discreet treatment of a subject in which an act or object is hinted at, generally through discreet manner, rather than the whole picture.Tone: The quality of mood, such as sadness, humour, menace, lightness, or seriousness.Transvestism: The lifestyle in which a person adopts the clothes and behaviour of the opposite sex for purposes of emotional or sexual gratification.Treatment: The way in which material is handled or presented. Lee Kuan Yew had suggested "instigating riots and disorder" to crush opposition Update 28 Dec : Police compliant filed against TOC Ouch! The Online Citizen has received an email from a certain Ms Janet Wee who has allegedly lodged a police complaint against TOC for posting the link to this article which she claimed to contain "seditious remarks" about Lee Kuan Yew. TOC added that the "her email is also addressed to several other people, including MM Lee Kuan Yew, the Attorney-General, Mr Jeremy Au Yeong of the Straits Times, Google, among others."My response :1. Thank you, Ms Wee, for catapulting an online article which at best would attract a few thousand eyeballs to possibly tens of thousands of viewership if the mainstream press decides to run your police complaint. It would drive traffic to TOC, to this blog and hopefully more sales for the book Fajar Generation.2. Ms Wee, you are barking up the wrong tree. TOC merely carried the link to my article. The allegedly "seditious" headline is mine. I have based it on an excerpt from the book The Fajar Generation, which had reproduced a report of a conversation between Lee Kuan Yew and then Acting British Commissioner Philip Moore. Therefore, may I suggest that the proper protocol would be to file a police complaint against me, against the publishers of The Fajar Generation, and finally against the National Archives in UK.3. While you're at it, I suggest you also lodge complaints against this, this and this.Dr Poh Soo Kai interviewed by Sunday Times 27 Dec 2009.Read part of the interview here.+ + + + + + + + + +Drawing from the archival records in London, Dr Poh Soo Kai, a founding member of the PAP and former leader of the opposition Barisan Sosialis, debunks a long-held perception that the Barisan was a security threat to Singapore and hence the justification for the mass arrests of Operation Coldstore in 1963.Below is an excerpt from the newly-published The Fajar Generation.Barisan Sosialis: A Security Threat?Holding the post of assistant secretary general (assistant to Lim Chin Siong), and thus the leadership, was one of the accusations. The Barisan Sosialis was labelled a security threat, a communist front organisation and we, as its leaders, were automatically painted as 'Red'. The implication was we were carrying out orders from the Malayan Communist Party (MCP).In 1957, the leadership of the PAP, wishing to have tighter grip of the party, decided to change the original democratic constitution. The organisational inspiration was said to come from looking at the Vatican. There the Pope appoints the cardinals, who then appoint the Pope. It has lasted the church 2,000 years. So after purging its membership of 'leftist elements' PAP divided the remainder into two sections into an elite cadre membership and ordinary members. Only the carefully chosen and obviously security-screened cadres had the right to vote for the central committee, effectively the leadership. Lim Hock Siew, a founder member was expelled. I, who had attended the meetings to form the PAP at the basement of Lee Kuan Yew's home, was demoted to ordinary membership. The leadership appoints the cadres, and the cadres the leadership. It would appear watertight and should last a few hundred years. But what was lacking was trust if not divine inspiration and faith. When it was necessary to expel Ong Eng Guan, Ong Eng Guan challenged the leadership to face the cadres - those 250 odd chosen men who had appointed him and other central committee members. He maintained his expulsion was illegal and unconstitutional as only a mass cadres meeting had the power to expel him (Straits Times, 30 July 1960). No such cadres meeting was ever called. The PAP leadership dare not face its chosen cadres.When the Barisan Sosialis was formed these cadres led the PAP branches over, one branch after another. The PAP became a hollowed-out political party, a shell. Its strength lay in the hold it had on the establishment. Even Lee Kuan Yew's Tanjong Pagar branch crossed over. Had the security scrutiny been negligent? These 250 odd cadres were transformed overnight into security risks. And many of them were arrested under Operation Cold Store. The lesson learnt from such a massive exodus of chosen cadres and the total collapse of the party structure was to change the Vatican-structure model into a civil service structure model. Fear and personal gain, not conviction or faith, were the fundamental unifying force. 'He [LKY] said, amongst other things that everyone was afraid and all the civil servants had jitters' (Selkirk, CO 1030/1149, 27 July 1961).The Barisan Sosialis was a legal, constitutional political party. It was dedicated to struggling for independence by peaceful constitutional means. It did not advocate the violent overthrow of the regime. It was, however, staunchly and uncompromisingly anti-colonial and for democracy and peace. The leadership of the BS believed in democracy and this was reflected in its constitution and its organisational structure. Party decisions were made openly, transparently and democratically, after discussion, by the branches and then by the central working committee. Everybody had a say. Nobody would stick his neck out if he had no say. There was trust and no intrigues. We maintained close democratic relationships with the branches and members. We did not received instructions from any organisation or from any country be it the Soviet Union, China, the UK or the USA. Many in the leadership did belong to trade unions and other civil and constitutional organisations. We were biased - on the side of the working class.The Barisan Sosialis was then the strongest political force in Singapore and its leadership united and staunchly anti-colonial in their outlook. That was the reason for the alarm. That it believed in democracy and constitutional struggle and was expected to win in any free and fair election was the reason for repressive action. The PAP was afraid of the odium that would go with repression while the colonial power was still around, afraid of going the Lim Yew Hock way. But the PAP leadership desired repression to save itself; thus its neurotic behaviour.In a conversation with Selkirk, on 28 July 1961, at time of the formation of the Barisan Sosialis, Moore reported Lee Kuan Yew's tactics in the following terms:He went on to suggest that in order to avoid the Communists taking over, he would create a situation in which the UK Commissioner would be forced to suspend the Constitution. This might be done either by the Singapore Government inviting a Russian trade mission to Singapore thus forcing a constitutional crisis, or by instigating riots and disorder, requiring the intervention of British troops. I did, however, form the impression that he was quite certain he would lose a general election and was seriously toying with the thought of forcing British intervention in order to prevent his political enemies from forming a government (CO 1030/1149, p. 95, para 3).The 'anti-colonial fighters', the PAP leadership, wanted to ride to power on the backs of British armoured carriers. In a similar vein, the Washington Telegram No. 2186 of 31 August 1961 states:Para 2. LKY's position is precarious ... emphasise the need for British government to reach a decision on transfer of Borneo Territories as soon as possible, so as to clear way for merger.Para 3. Americans thinking in terms of the need for repressive measures here to prevent a communist takeover through Barisan Sosialis. The suggestion is that ideally Lee himself should take the initiative and lock up a number of people but that otherwise the British should do it (DO 169/19 Tel. 402).A fine example of American democratic practice.- Dr Poh Soo Kai, p. 169 - 172, The Fajar Generation+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Above is only an excerpt of a 361 page book The Fajar Generation. It is published by Strategic Information and Research Development Centre or SIRD. It is edited by Poh Soo Kai, Tan Jing Quee and Koh Kay Yew. Foreword by Lim Kean Chye, founder member of Malayan Democratic Union (MDU).The book is available at Select Books at S$24.Alternatively, you can purchase online by sending an email to: theonlinecitizen@gmail.com.The price by mail order is S$34.24 (GST included).+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Additional readings :The Fajar Generation by TOCDr Poh Soo Kai: I don’t want my children to live in a police stateLim Chin Siong vs Lee Kuan Yew: The true and shocking historyPart I: Our man Part II: Get him!Part III: The end of Lim Chin Siong Singapore's 2nd longest-held political prisoner speaks out Read Dr Lim Hock Siew's 1972 press release here.A review of the launch of Fajar Generation here.A review by a Malaysian blogger hereAn interview with Dr Lim Hock Siew and Dr Poh Soo Kai here. The 3 tiers of censorship in Singapore A symposium organised by regional NGO Forum Asia entitled 'Freedom of Opinion and Expression in Cyberspace' was held in Seoul, Republic of Korea, from the 13th to 15th October 2009.Three human rights defenders from South-east Asia were present to highlight their respective countries' situation. They were Ms Chiranuch Premchaiporn, the executive director of Thai website Prachatai, Mr K Kabilan, chief editior of Malaysiakini and Singapore's Mr Martyn See.Among those in attendance were Mr Frank La Rue, United Nations' Special Rapporteur for the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, representatives from Amnesty International and Reporters Without Borders, and local NGO leaders, lawyers, activists, academics, students and the media.The 3 tiers of censorship in SingaporeThe Singapore Government adopts a two-faced approach to civil and political liberties, no less encapsulated in Article 14 of the Singapore Constitution, which states that every citizen has the right to freedom of speech, expression, association and peaceful assembly. These rights are then subjected to the next two clauses which states that Parliament may by law impose restrictions on these rights in the interest of national security, foreign relations, public order or morality.Singapore has 84 Members of Parliament, 82 of whom are members of the ruling People's Action Party, which has governed the country since 1959.There are three tiers of censorship in Singapore. The 1st tier are the legislations passed by Parliament which restricts freedom of expression. The 2nd tier of censorship are those imposed by government bodies which are authorized by law to draw up guidelines and policies pertaining to political expression. A key feature of this 2nd tier of censorship are the non-transparency and the nebulous nature of its implementation, which leads to a blurring of the the line of what is acceptable and non-acceptable speech. This in turn creates a climate where writers, bloggers, artists and politicians self-censor their speech in order that they do not overstep boundaries. This climate of self-censorship forms the 3rd tier of censorship in Singapore.1st tier of censorshipWhat are some of the laws that restrict freedom of expression in Singapore?Internal Security ActThe Internal Security Act give broad discretion to the Government to detain, without filing charges, anyone who is deemed to be a threat to national security. Detainees under the ISA have no recourse to the normal judicial system. The longest-held prisoner is Chia Thye Poh. He was a opposition Member of Parliament who was arrested and detained in 1966 and granted unconditional release in 1998, capping a 32 year incarceration. Suspicion of torture – including interrogation under freezing air-conditioned rooms, sleep deprivation, solitary confinement and physical assaults – still persists to this day. The government has repeatedly denied these charges, but acknowledged that “psychological pressure” is used on detainees. Human rights groups have been denied permission to visit detainees. At the end 2008, it ws reported that 22 detainees remain under detention. The Government says they are held for terrorist-linked activities. Also, under the ISA, the Government may place restrictions on publications that incite violence, civil disobedience, threaten national interests, national security and public order. Residents in Singapore generally believe that the secret police, the Internal Security Department, monitors political speech and activity.Newspaper and Printing Presses ActAll publications in Singapore require a Government license. Under the the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act, the Minister has the discretion to grant and withdraw press licenses as he deems fit. Appointments and dismissal of shareholders and directors of newspaper companies are subjected to Government approval. Two companies, Singapore Press Holdings Limited (SPH) and MediaCorp, owned all nation-wide circulated newspapers, radio and TV stations. Many international newswire agencies and publications do operate out of Singapore. However, under the NPPA, the Government may limit the limit the circulation of foreign publication that it deems to be “interfering” in domestic politics. The Far Eastern Economic Review is currently banned in Singapore after it published an interview in 2006 with opposition politician Dr Chee Soon Juan. The importation and possession of FEER in Singapore is a criminal offence.Broadcasting ActThe Broadcasting Act authorizes the Media Development Authority to censor all broadcast media, internet sites, and all other media, including movies, videos, computer games and music. The Act also allows the minister of information to place restrictions on foreign broadcasters deemed to be “engaging” in domestic politics. The Government may also impose restrictions on the number of households receiving a broadcaster's programming, and a broadcaster may be fined up to $100,000 SGD for failing to comply.Sedition ActAnother colonial-era law, the Sedition Act criminalizes any act, speech, words, publication or expression that incite disaffection against the Government or the administration of justice in Singapore, or to incite hatred amongst the citizens, or to create hostility between different races and classes in Singapore. It also allows the court to suspend any publication that is deemed to contain seditious content.On October 7 of 2005, the Act was invoked for the first time in Singapore's history when two men were sentenced to jail terms for making racist comments on the internet. 27 year old Benjamin Koh Song Huat was convicted under two charges and jailed for one month while 25 year old Nicholas Lim Yew was given a nominal one day jail and fined a maximum $5000 SGD. Two weeks later, another blogger, a 17 year old student, pleaded guilty to making racist remarks on his blog and was sentenced to 24 months supervised probation.In 2006, it was reported that a 21 year old blogger with the moniker “Char” was placed under police investigation for posting cartoons of Jesus Christ on the internet.On July 10 this year, 50 year old Ong Kian Cheong and his wife Dorothy Chan were sentenced to eight weeks jail under the Sedition Act for possessing and distributing anti-Muslim and anti-Catholic publication. They have withdrawn their appeals and are currently serving their sentences.Civil and Criminal DefamationDefamation and libel suits filed by Singapore's political leaders against their critics have been so successful that it's chilling effects upon political expression in Singapore is by far the most severe.In 1999, ten members of a Tamil-language publication, including a Government minister, filed a petition to wind up the opposition Workers' Party after the Party failed to pay over $500,000 SGD in libel damages over an article published in the Party's newsletter. The Party did not collapsed, but its leader JB Jeyaretnam (JBJ) was declared bankrupt and barred from contesting in elections. JBJ was Singapore's most sued politician. Over the course of three decades, he has paid millions of dollars to Singapore's leaders in libel damages. He had lost his house, his job and parliamentary seat. After returning to the political scene in 2008 with the formation of a new party, he passed away in September the same year.Another opposition politician, Dr Chee Soon Juan, has been twice bankrupted by the courts for failure to pay government leaders. His party, the Singapore Democratic Party, is currently facing closure after it was found guilty of defaming Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew over an article published in an election campaign newsletter in 2006. The plaintiffs sought and were awarded aggravated damages after they pointed out that the offending article was also available on the internet, and thus increasing its damage to the Lees' reputation.Local opposition politicians are not the only ones who have faced the brunt of defamation and libel suits. Foreign publications like The Economist, Newsweek, Business Week, Asian Wall Street Journal, International Herald Tribune, Bloomberg and Financial Times have been sued by Singapore officials or made to apologize and pay hefty fines. Last week, the Court of Appeal upheld a ruling that the Far Eastern Economic Review had defamed Lee Kuan Yew and his son Lee Hsien Loong in a 2008 article that featured an interview with opposition politician Dr Chee Soon Juan. Due to shut down its operations in December, the 63 year old magazine still carries the offending article on its website.Aside from civil defamation, Section 499 of Penal Code states that whoever makes or publishes any imputation intended to harm the reputation of another shall be charged for criminal defamation. In 2002, internet activist Zulfikar Mohamad Shariff had his computer seized by the police for possible criminal defamation after an posting he made had criticized Lee Kuan Yew. Shortly thereafter, Zulfikar left for Australia and the case has not been followed through. Convictions of criminal defamation may result in prison terms of up to two years.Often, the mere prospect of libel action is sufficient deterrent for most bloggers. In 2005, student blogger Chen Jiahao, under the online moniker of Acid Flask, posted a series of articles critical of A*Star, a government agency tasked to spearhead the development of the life sciences industry. It was met by a stream of emails from its chairman Philip Yeo who demanded that Chen delete all postings mentioning him and A*Star and threatened libel action if Chen did not comply. On 26 April 2005, Chen shut down his blog altogether and replaced it with a message of apology to Yeo. Other blogs who had reproduced the remarks also posted apologies or shut down out of fear of libel action.Parliamentary Elections ActSingapore does not have an independent elections commission. The Elections Department comes directly under the Prime Minister's office. The Parliamentary Elections Act gives the minister wide discretionary powers to regulate election advertising on the internet. During the General Elections in 2001, the Elections Department sent notices to local NGO Think Centre, the Singapore Democratic party (SDP) and Workers' Party to remove articles and links deemed to be unlawful. Government controls stepped up a notch in 2006 when a blanket ban on all political podcasts and videocasts was imposed during the General Elections. On April 25 2006, the SDP were warned that action would be taken against them if they did not remove podcasts from the party website. Within hours, the Party posted a notice on their website that the podcasts was suspended. The Act also requires that websites that “persistently promote political views”(Sadasivan, 4 April 2006) be required to be registered with the Government.Miscellaneous Offences ( Public Order and Nuisance ) ActUnder this Act, a police permit is required for any assembly or procession of 5 or more persons in any public space that are intended to demonstrate opposition to the views and actions of any person, to publicize a cause or campaign or to commemorate any event. Currently, there are four ongoing trials pertaining to the alleged violation of this Act, all of which involves members or supporters of the opposition SDP. Last week, in a rare judgment, District Judge John Ng acquitted five SDP activists for an illegal procession which was carried out in 2007. The convictions under this act carry a maximum fine of $10,000 SGD or six months prison terms.Public Entertainment and Meetings ActThe Public Entertainment and Meetings Act states that all public entertainment, including political meetings and rallies, require a police permit. In practice, while exemptions are made for events featuring cultural, arts and entertainment, the police routinely rejects permit applications for outdoor political protests, demonstrations and assemblies. Opposition politician Chee Soon Juan has been charged numerous times for speaking in public without a licence : 20 days jail in 1999, $3000 SGD fine in July 2002, five weeks jail in October 2002 and five weeks jail in November of 2006. He is currently awaiting appeal on three other convictions and awaiting trial for four more counts for alleged violation of this Act.Undesirable Publications ActThe Undesirable Publication Act states that any material, including publication, discs, tapes, photographs, paintings, graphics, sculpture or article, which has content that are likely to deprave or corrupt a person viewing or hearing them, will be deemed objectionable. The powers of the Act allows for arrest without warrant and the conviction carries a maximum fine of $10,000 SGD or two year prison sentence.Films ActSection 14 of the Films Act require that all films and videos be submitted to the Board of Film Censors for licensing. The Act makes no exception to video formats so it would include video images stored in mobile phones and videos produced for the internet. In practice, the authorities does not enforce this law strictly except when the films are screened to an audience in a public space. In a rare operation undertaken on May 17, 2008, officers from the police and censorship board turned up in force at the Peninula-Excelsior Hotel to disrupt a private premiere and seized a dvd copy of a film entitled One Nation Under Lee.It's director Seelan Palay is currently undergoing police investigations for the screening of an unlicensed film.Section 33 of the Films Act criminalizes the making, import, distribution and exhibition of any film that makes biased references to political persons or matter in Singapore. The convictions carry a maximum sentence of $100,000 SGD fine or a two year imprisonment. For 15 months between 2005 and 2006, I was placed under police investigation for making a film on opposition leader Chee Soon Juan, entitled Singapore Rebel. During that time, I was made to surrender all my tapes and even the camera to the police. Over three interrogation sessions, questions were asked about my blog, my source of funding, my meeting with opposition members, my interest in politics, my association with other political persons or groups. Meanwhile, the film was leaked onto the internet and was generating interests around the world. In August on 2006, the police dropped the investigation by issuing me a “stern warning” in lieu of prosecution. Just a month ago on Sept 11 2009, the ban on Singapore Rebel was lifted.While undergoing investigations for the above, I made a second political film. Entitled Zahari's 17 Years, the film is a protracted interview with former political prisoner Said Zahari. On 10 April 2007, the Government issued a public statement stating that the film would be banned under Section 35 of the Films Act, which allows the Minister discretionary powers to ban any film which he deems to be against public interest. Again, I had to surrender my tapes to the authorities. But unlike the previous case, there was no police probe. Again, the video found its way on the internet. To date, there is no reported case of Government intervention to remove political videos uploaded on the internet.Internet FreedomSingapore has one of the highest internet penetration rates in the world at 66.8% and its broadband capacity covers 99% of the island. All Internet Service Providers (ISPs) are government-owned or government-linked and they are subjected to Media Development Authority's (MDA) Internet Code of Practice. The MDA is empowered to order service providers to block websites that are deemed to undermine public security, national defence, racial and religious harmony, or public morals. Although the MDA ordered ISPs to block 100 sites that the government considered pornographic, in general only a few websites are blocked. Sites that are blocked include a few pornographic URLs, an illegal drug site and a fanatical religious site. An Open Net Initiative study notes that Singapore's technical filtering system is among the most limited. However, the study concludes that while free speech in Singapore is less constrained than in China and Saudi Arabia, where there are significant internet filtering, Singapore imposes far more stringent constraints on its citizens’ expression.2nd tier of censorshipThe 2nd tier of censorship involves a combination of rules and policies enacted by government bodies, particularly the Media Development Authority, and a general pervasive fear of being monitored by the authorities.Indeed, the law permits Government monitoring of internet use. A range of laws, such as the Computer Misuse Act, grants the police broad powers to search any computer without a warrant. There is no general data protection or privacy law in Singapore. The US State Department Human Rights report states that "law enforcement agencies have extensive networks for gathering information and conducting surveillance and highly sophisticated capabilities to monitor telephone and other private conversations. It was believed that the authorities routinely monitored telephone conversations and the use of the Internet. It was widely believed that the authorities routinely conducted surveillance of some opposition politicians and other government critics." The Singapore Government has not refuted this allegation.In May of 1999, after a law student complained to police that someone with an account in the Home Affairs Ministry had hacked into her computer, the Ministry disclosed that it had secretly scanned the computers more than 200,000 SingNet customers, ostensibly for viruses.On Oct 1st 2009, the Government announced the setting up of the Singapore Infocomm Technology Security Authority (SITSA), an agency dedicated to counter 'external threats to national security vis-a-vis cyber-terrorism and cyber espionage.' This new unit will come under the authority of the Internal Security Department (ISD), known within the country as Singapore's very own version of the KGB.The Media Development AuthorityThe Media Development Authority (MDA) is a government body which has been authorized to regulate internet use. Although it publicly advocates the use of a "light-touch" approach to governing the internet, the body has wide ranging powers to draw up subsidiary legislations for internet use. For instance, under its Internet Code of Practice, MDA can direct any Internet Content Provider to remove any material deemed to be objectionable on grounds of public morality, public order, public security and national harmony. Under its Broadcasting (Class License) Notification, the following are required to register with the authority.1. Internet Service Providers, including localised and non-localised Internet Service Resellers.2. Political parties' websites.3. Any website that propagates, promotes or discuss political or religious issues relating to Singapore.4. Any website that provides online news for a subscription fee.In August of 2001, just before the General Elections, political discussion website Sintercom came after pressure from the Government to register as a political site. Its webmaster Dr Tan Chong Kee said that registration would made the website vulnerable to libel suits and that the site would have to practise self-censorship as a result. Instead, he chose to close the site, which had operated for eight years prior to Government pressure.Since 2001, there has been no reports of any websites that has come under the same scrutiny. But due to the uncertainty of when and how such a law will be enforced, most political blogs today are created under pseudonyms, as many are unsure if they will be targeted by Government authorities for registration, which requires the applicant to disclose personal details such as name of employer and salary. Two bloggers who did identified themselves came under under swift attack from the authorities.Robert HoRobert Ho Chang is Singapore's leading cyber dissident. Since 2001, he has been arrested no less than on five occasions for articles posted on the internet.During the General Elections in 2001, the 58 year former journalist posted an article on two websites entitled “Break the law and get away with it, like your PAP leaders,” urging opposition candidates to enter polling stations, an act deemed illegal by law even though PAP candidates committed the same act in the previous elections of 1997. A month later after the General Elections, on 16th of November 2001, eight police officers entered his home and carted away his computer, CD ROMs, modem and cables. Next day, he was produced in court and charged for “an attempt to incite disobedience to the law,” marking Singapore's first-ever prosecution of online speech. Ho was then taken to the Institute of Mental Health for “psychiatric evaluation”. On 14th of December 2001, the press reported that Ho was acquitted because “he was found to be mentally ill.”On July 3rd 2002, Ho was arrested again in his home and his computer seized. The alleged offense was criminal defamation over two unspecified articles which he had posted in an online forum. Three weeks later on July 26th 2002, he was forcibly taken by two policemen from his home, driven to a prison cell in the police station and then transferred, yet again, to the Institute of Mental Health (IMH).On 27 February 2005, Ho was again arrested after he had gone to a shopping mall to distribute anti-government leaflets. Again, he was driven to the IMH for further psychiatric tests.More recently, on 3rd of June 2009, after Ho had posted online a police complaint he had filed against the Government for an alleged rigging of the 1997 General Elections, three policemen entered his apartment and seized his computer.Despite all the arrests, Ho has yet to be convicted of any of the charges leveled against him by the authorities. And despite the repeated seizing of his computers over the years, Ho has never stopped blogging, even as he currently undergoes yet another round of police investigation for possible criminal defamation.Gopalan Nair59 year old Gopalan Nair was a former Singaporean opposition politician who had emigrated to the United States and taken up US citizenship. In May of 2008, he attended a three-day court hearing in Singapore to assess damages in a defamation suit that Prime Minister Lee Hsieng Loong and Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew had won against the opposition Singapore Democratic Party.In his blog posting dated 29th of May 2008, Nair wrote that the presiding judge Belinda Ang was “throughout prostituting herself during the entire proceedings, by being nothing more than an employee of Mr Lee Kuan Yew and his son and carrying out their orders,” and further challenged Lee to sue him for his remarks.A day later, five plainclothes police officers arrested Nair as he stepped out of the elevator of his hotel. After being held in a police lock up for 5 days, Nair was produced in court to face charges. Over 4 days, State prosecutors filed a flip-flop of charges against Nair, including insulting a judge in an email, insulting a civil servant in a two-year old email and the Sedition Act for insulting a judge in his blog posting. All three charges were eventually dropped in favour of Section 228 of the Penal Code for insulting a High Court judge in his blog post.After an 8-day trial, on September 17th 2008, Nair was sentenced to three months imprisonment. Prior to the conviction, Nair had removed all postings deemed by the Attorney-General to be unlawful.After his release from prison, on 28th November 2008, Nair wrote from the United States on his blog that he would be withdrawing all undertakings and apologies made while under Singapore custody, and proceeded to repost all the articles which he had removed while in Singapore. He is currently barred from entering Singapore again unless he obtains prior permission from the Singapore Government. Throughout 2009, he has posted an monthly average of 15 articles on his blog, all of which highly critical of Lee Kuan Yew and the Singapore Government.3rd tier of censorshipIn Singapore, every time politically sensitive subjects are raised in public, there is great uneasiness that one's phone is being tapped, emails monitored, movements and speech recorded. The defense against this perceived State surveillance is often avoidance – that is to say – stay away from discussing politics in public, stay away from activities or speech that may put one under surveillance. This climate of political fear creates a culture of self-censorship, even on the internet.Conclusion - One step forward, two steps backThe Singapore Government adopts a one step forward, two steps back approach in calibrating space for political expression.The rules governing Speakers' Corner, the gazetted free speech zone in the city-state's downtown business district, was amended in September of 2008 to allow for protests and demonstrations. However, in July this year, the police installed five CCTVs in the vicinity of the park with a view to monitor activities on its grounds. Similarly, a Films Act amendment in March this year had allowed for some types of political films to be made, such as live recordings of political events and election mainfestos, but introduced new restrictions such as the prohibition of dramatisation, animation and scenes of illegal activities in political films. A new Public Order Act exempts cultural and recreational events from police licences but tightens the noose on all cause-related activities. By the time the APEC Summit gets underway in Singapore, the Act will require that all public protests be licensed by the police, including those staged by one person.In conclusion, even as the internet has provided an avenue for Singaporeans to express themselves, much of what gets said in cyberspace remain in cyberspace, as the laws governing political expression in general has not changed, and in some cases, further tightened. One Country, Two Systems Part lV There are two rules of law in China, one for the ordinary citizen and the other for 76 million members of the Communist Party. And the judges will do what they know what the leaders require to keep the country stable.- Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, interview with Charlie Rose, Oct 22 2009He might as well be referring to his own country.One Law For HerPermanent Resident Zhang Yuanyuan incurred the ire of Singaporeans when a video of her pledging full loyalty to China was uploaded on the web. Zhang was participating in a military parade to celebrate China's 60th year under the Communist Party. Singapore's Members of Parliament have since defended her publicly.Another For Them Former MPs Chia Thye Poh [left] and Lim Chin Siong were leaders of the opposition Barisan Sosialis when both were accused by Lee Kuan Yew of being members of the Communist United Front and detained without trial under the ISA. Chia spent 32 years in detention and is Singapore's longest-held political prisoner. Lim passed away in 1996.One Law For ThemAnother For ThemOne Law For ThemPolice officers taking down the particulars of activists who had distributed flyers at Raffles City during the lead-up to the IMF-World Bank meetings in 2006. Three of whom are currently undergoing trial for participating in an illegal assembly.Links here.Another For ThemA flash mob organized in Raffles City as part of the Esplanade dance festival.One Country, Two Systems Part l, Part ll and Part lll Zahari's 17 Years remains banned : MICA Email received from the press secretary to RAdm(NS)Lui Tuck Yew, Acting Minister for Information,Communications and the Arts.Appeal to review ban of Zahari's 17 YearsWe refer to your email dated 22 Sep 09 in which you asked for a review of the film, Zahari's 17 Years, which is prohibited under Section 35(1) of the Films Act.We have given your request due consideration. The prohibition stands as the film gives a distorted and misleading portrayal of Said Zahari's arrest and detention under the Internal Security Act (ISA) and is an attempt to exculpate him from his past involvement in communist united front activities against the interests of Singapore. The film was assessed in its entirety, and every part of the film should be taken in the context of the entire film which presents a distorted portrayal of Said Zahari's arrest and detention under the ISA.On why the anti-Islam film Fitna was not gazetted, the reason is that the film was never submitted to the Board of Film Censors (BFC) for classification. It is not practical and realistic for the BFC to review films that have not been submitted to it.Regards,JULIA HANG | Director, Corporate Communications / Press Secretary to Minister | Corporate Communications Division Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts Tel 6837 9920 Fax 6837 9816 www.mica.gov.sgCreative People, Gracious Community, Connected Singapore Lee Kuan Yew has tarnished my reputation : ex-ISD director Yoong Siew Wah, a former director of the Internal Security Department in the 1970s, has claimed on his blog Singapore Recalcitrant that his reputation has been tarnished by an inaccuracy in the book Men In White.I reproduce Yoong's full post here. And is proceeded by an email reply from Francis Seow which I received in my mailbox at 3.32am Oct 11.An Unconscionable Injustice Occasionally, there can happen to an unsuspecting person an underbelly attack on his reputation from not entirely unexpected quarter.Quite frankly, I am baffled by the motive of the ebullient authors of the overhyped political book "Men in White" in giving me unflattering mention in it. Whilst it is purported to give an objective history of the PAP struggle I wonder what have I got to do with the intra-party struggle. Anyway, in page 441 of the book the ambitious authors made the following unverified disparaging statement about me under the sub heading "Another Foreign Hand" : "But in 1971, after a police raid on his (Francis Seow's) woman friend's apartment, he used his influence and friendship with the then director of the Corrupt Practices Investigations Bureau, Yoong Siew Wah, to have the four officers who had conducted the raid sacked. The attorney-general Tan Boon Teik intervened to reinstate the four officers. Seow was allowed to resign rather than have his actions investigated because of his track record in the Legal Service. Yoong was also asked to quit."On 28-9-09 I wrote to the Chief Executive Officer of the Singapore Press Holdings drawing his attention to this disparaging statement about me and requesting that a correction be made in his newspaper. I explained that the CPIB was duty-bound to investigate all formal complaints. Mr. Francis Seow made a formal complaint and CPIB carried out investigations of the four detectives. The investigation papers were sent to the Deputy Commissioner of Police who made the decision to dismiss the detectives. There was a prima facie case against the detectives. There was no question that I was asked to quit. I was appointed Director of Internal Security Department following my CPIB stint.My letter was passed to Mr. Richard Lim, one of the three authors of the book. Mr. Lim replied on 1 October that the material for the disparaging statement was taken from a speech made by the then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew at the Select Committee Hearing of the Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill which was published in the Straits Times on 10 October 1986 of which a copy was attached.It did not come as a surprise to me as the then PM Lee Kuan Yew was like a god to some people and the accuracy of his denigration of a person's reputation was invariably taken at its face value. That he made the disparaging statement about me in the heat of the moment without regard to its accuracy in his heated exchange with a cool-headed eloquent Francis Seow at the Select Committee Hearing could not be ruled out. He is not unknown to have behaved erratically with venom in his speech when highly agitated. He was obviously so infuriated by Mr. Francis Seow's biting taunts that it escaped his normally lucid mind that I was not boarded out but appointed Director ISD after my CPIB stint. It was subsequently pointed out to him but humility is not his forte and he has not been known as one to apologise for his mistakes. Mr. Richard Lim, one of the authors, has assured me that he would add a line after the sentence that I was also asked to quit to indicate that I was actually appointed Director ISD after my CPIB stint in his next and future editions of the book in order to be fair to me.It was reported that the then attorney-general Mr. Tan Boon Teik intervened to have the four detectives reinstated. Very gallant of him. He must have read the CPIB file on the investigations and could not have missed that the dismissal of the four detectives was made by the Deputy Commissioner of Police. How the then PM Lee Kuan Yew was given the impression that I had the four detectives unlawfully dismissed is something I would like to get to the bottom of.Mr. Francis Seow was the solicitor-general at the time when I was director CPIB. He had overall supervision of CPIB investigation files sent to his department for final direction. That I should have had a cordial relation with Mr. Francis Seow was natural in human relationship development. For the then PM Lee Kuan Yew or for that matter the attorney-general Mr. Tan Booin Teik to give a sinister connotation to such a relationship seemed to raise doubt as to the soundness of the detractors' mind. Why should the affinity between Mr. Francis Seow and me be seen as something unwholesome?The most decent thing for the Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew to do now is to undo the harm he has caused me and to restore my reputation. But will he? http://singaporerecalcitrant.blogspot.com/* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Email from Francis Seow (received Oct 11, 2009)Yoong,Thank you for the email. It sets out the facts fairly and accurately. One thing you seemed to have overlooked -- and that is, after the CPIB investigations, I believe the four police officers were the subject of disciplinary proceedings whose recommendations were made to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, who then took the disciplinary action(s) alleged.If my memory serves me right, J.B. Jeyaretnam represented those police officers in the proceedings. And he later made representations to TBT, who used the opportunity to even out old scores. I, however, stray ....Keep me informed if there are further developments.Best.Francis Seow.P.S. What is Willie doing these days?-------------------------------Further readings:Interview with Yoong Siew Wah by Temasek Review here and here. Martyn See writes to Minister on Zahari's 17 Years Sent to RAdm(NS)Lui Tuck Yew, Acting Minister for Information,Communications and the Arts on 22 Sept 2009.Appeal to review ban of Zahari's 17 YearsDear Minister, I am See Tong Ming, Martyn, the director of Zahari's 17 Years, a documentary film which is being gazetted as a prohibited film under Section 35(1) of the Films Act.In a press statement released by your Ministry dated 10 April 2007, it stated that :1. The film gives a distorted and misleading portrayal of Said Zahari's arrest and detention under the Internal Security Act (ISA) in 1963 and is an attempt to exculpate himself from his past involvement in communist united front activities against the interests of Singapore.2. The Government will not allow people who had posed a security threat to the country in the past, to exploit the use of film to purvey a false and distorted portrayal of their past actions and detention by the Government.3. The film could undermine public confidence in the Government.This film was banned by your predecessor Dr Lee Boon Yang. I have no other recourse except to appeal to you now to review the ban on the film. My reasons are as follows :1. It cannot stand to reason that the entire 49 minutes of the film is objectionable for the above 3 reasons. I am willing to consider amending or deleting any part of the film which the Government had deemed to be of against public interest. Therefore, I request that you state clearly which portion of the film you deem to be of against public interest.2. The film has been freely available for viewing by anyone on the internet since it was officially banned in 2007. It has been watched by over tens of thousands of people. Has there been any evidence whatsoever that public confidence in the Government has been undermined because of this film?3. I refer to the publication and publicity of Men In White : The Untold Story of Singapore's Ruling Party by the Singapore Press Holdings (SPH). The book features insights from former ISA detainees about their past and during its launch, a video containing comments by Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew was reportedly played to the audience. How is it that such a book and video be allowed while Zahari's 17 Years continues to be banned? Is the Minister applying the law equally?4. I believe Zahari's 17 Years is the first and only film to be gazetted under Section 35 of the Films Act. Even the reportedly anti-Islamic film Fitna is not gazetted. Banning a locally-made film that is no more than an interview with a former political detainee while not gazetting films like Fitna under the same law creates the impression that the Government is more preoccupied with censoring their own artists than they do foreign ones.5. Zahari's 17 Years does not address issues of race or religion. It is merely an honest interview with a Singaporean citizen, a former newspaper editor and political prisoner whom, like many others of his time, still believes that his long incarceration under the ISA was unjustified. I believe that the continued prohibition of this film will only serve to increase the public's desire to find out more about the darker aspects of Singapore's political history. Here, I quote the Minister Mentor, "When writing memoirs, you are talking to posterity. Among them will be historians who will check what you write against the accounts of others. So do not shade the past." (ST, July 17 2007)Considering all the above factors, I ask that the prohibition of Zahari's 17 Years be given its due review.I look forward to your reply.Yours sincerely,See Tong Ming, Martynsingaporerebel.blogspot.com Men In White author responds to Martyn See's blog post Sonny Yap, one of three authors credited in the publication of Men In White, The Untold Story of Singapore's Ruling Party has responded by email to my earlier blog post. We also briefly spoke on the phone. I reproduced his email in full.Dear Martyn,I would like to respond to your posting on ''the glaring omission'' which has been making the round in cyberspace.I contacted Dr Lim Hock Siew sometime in 2002 or 2003. Unfortunately, he refused to be interviewed and gave me a tongue lashing instead, accusing SPH of being closely linked to the government.Our research head Leong Ching also paid a visit to his clinic and spoke to him. I asked the former leftist whom I got Dr Lim's contact number from and who knew him very well to explain to Dr Lim that we did try to call him contrary to the claim making the round in cyberspace. Dr Lim admitted that he might have forgotten the call.Note that although Dr Lim refused to be interviewed, we drew material from his oral history transcript lodged in the National Archives for the book.Again with the help of our former leftist contacts, I called Dr Poh Soo Kai's home around that time and was told that he had emigrated to Canada. I understand he has been back in Singapore for the last year or so but we were not aware of it.The project has been so long drawn out that even some interviewees who were invited for the launch forgot that we interviewed them. Janadas Devan forgot that he arranged for me to interview his mother. And he's a much younger man than Dr Lim.My response :1. Sonny Yap has now said that Dr Lim was indeed approached twice for Men In White. Dr Lim told me earlier he was never approached. This is obviously a case of "your-word-against-mine" which can go on indefinitely so I'll leave it at that.2. But let's say we give Yap the benefit of the doubt that he is right. For a book that took 7 years and more than a million dollars (my estimate) to produce, isn't it imperative that the views of a founding PAP member who was detained for 19 years (2nd longest in Singapore's history) be accorded more than 2 attempts (one for interview and one for permission to publish his oral history) over 7 years? Moreover, the authors admitted to Straits Times that many former leftists may not have spoken up earlier. Shouldn't Yap not have attempted to approach Dr Lim again since that one previous call in 2002? 3. To imply that Dr Lim may have forgotten a call in 2002 or 2003 (7 years ago!) is a no-brainer. 4. Leong Weng Kam, the other author of Men In White, was spotted at the launch of poetry collection Our Thoughts Are Free in March this year where both Dr Lim Hock Siew and Dr Poh Soo Kai were present. No attempts were made by Leong to seek their views. (Yap responded over the phone to me that the book would have gone into print by that time).5. Michael Fernandez, a former detainee and personal friend of Sonny Yap, was interviewed for Men In White and had attended its launch. After reading an advance copy, he wrote in an email to his friends that "the Feb. 1963 "Cold Store" arrests of more than 120 leaders of the leftwing, which practically decimated the effective opposition to the PAP was not given due historical evaluation."I am not going to ask you to buy the book. It's your hard-earned money. You make your own call. Ban on 'Rebel' lifted; film by Young PAP under review Singapore lifts ban on film about opposition politician(AFP) SINGAPORE — Singapore on Friday lifted a ban on a film about a local opposition politician under revised guidelines introduced earlier in March this year.The Media Development Authority (MDA) announced the lifting of the ban on "Singapore Rebel" on its website, saying the documentary no longer violates the revised Films Act.Previously, the 26-minute documentary about opposition politician Chee Soon Juan was banned because under the old guidelines, it was classified as a "party political film."Before the amendments were introduced this year, the Films Act prohibited the making and distribution of films containing partisan political references or comments.Under the amended Films Act, the documentary "should therefore not be regarded as a party political film," the MDA said in a statement posted on its website.Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said last year the government accepted that its policies must evolve to remain relevant in the current media landscape in which Internet use has become more widespread.Singapore has often been criticised by human rights and media groups for maintaining strict political controls despite its rapid modernisation but the government says the strict laws are necessary to maintain law and order -- a pillar of the country's economic prosperity.Ban on film lifted by Teo Xuanwei ,TodayAFTER more than four years, film-maker Martyn See's Singapore Rebel, a documentary on opposition politician Chee Soon Juan, has finally been approved for viewing here by those aged 18 years and above.While commentators see as "irrelevant" the audience impact of the Media Development Authority's (MDA) lifting of the ban on Friday - given how the 26-minute video has been available online and viewed more than 400,000 times to date - they hail it as a symbolic move that marks the first signs of a more relaxed political space.It follows changes to the Films Act in March, which saw the easing of a decade-long ban on all political films. Those with factual footage, documentaries and recordings of live events are now allowed.Still, just how much clarity did the authority's decision on Singapore Rebel bring to film-makers hoping to explore the new OB markers?In a brief statement, the MDA said the Political Films Consultative Committee (PFCC) "is of the view that Singapore Rebel is a documentary film" falling within statutory exclusions. It, therefore, "should not be regarded as a party political film".While hailing this milestone as having "set the stage for future political films others might want to make", MP for Hong Kah GRC Zaqy Mohamad noted: "Elaborating on the considerations in evaluating films would serve as a guide for future projects, and people would be less worried about making such films."Though Mr Tan Tarn How views the ban's lifting as a "big step forward to a more liberal regime", the Institute of Policy Studies senior research fellow said: "The M18 rating is largely meaningless because in an Internet era, anybody of any age can access the film." And the mere fact that the Government still sets markers shows the amended laws remain "problematic", he argued.Whether this first clearing of a banned film signals "true and genuine liberalisation", in legal counsel Siew Kum Hong's view, will depend on how the PFCC rules on the next three to five new films.Both Mr Siew and Mr Tan also wished the "reasons and thinking process" of the PFCC had been revealed to the public.When asked for elaboration by Weekend Today, Ms Amy Chua, who chairs the Board of Film Censors, noted that the Films Act amendment allowed for more political films that "do not dramatise and/or present a distorted picture". Mr See had "requested his film be assessed as a documentary without any animation and composed wholly of an accurate account depicting actual events, persons or situations", she said.Approving, law Professor Thio Li-ann said: "Singaporeans should be exposed to the lives and works of Singaporean politicians who are not from the establishment, so they can get a fuller picture of politics here and to make up their own minds ... You cannot be informed without viewpoint diversity."For now, Mr See said he has no plans to screen Singapore Rebel locally or abroad. He intends to submit his other banned film Zahari's 17 Years for evaluation.Only one other film has been referred to the PFCC for assessment - For I am a Young Singaporean submitted by the Young PAP, still under review.Martyn See's "Singapore Rebel" film gets green lightBy Satish Cheney, Channel NewsAsia SINGAPORE : The government has lifted a four-year ban on the film "Singapore Rebel".The film, about Singapore Democratic Party chief Chee Soon Juan, is now rated M18, which allows those above 18 years old to view it.It is the first political film to be allowed since the Films Act was amended in March.This follows the formation of an independent Political Films Consultative Committee to assess if such films are suitable for public viewing.Even though the film was banned in 2005, "Singapore Rebel" has been extensively viewed by about half a million people online, according to its filmmaker Martyn See.In May this year, Martyn resubmitted the film to the Board of Film Censors for vetting.The Media Development Authority said on Friday that the Board of Film Censors had referred the film to the Political Films Consultative Committee (PFCC) for advice on whether it should be regarded as a party political film under the Films Act.And after reviewing the film, the committee said "Singapore Rebel" is a documentary and not a party political film.Amy Chua, chairman, Board of Film Censors, said: "The government has amended the Films Act to allow for more types of party political films that do not dramatise and/or present a distorted picture, as part of the government's move to further liberalise and expand the space for greater political discourse.The applicant (Martyn See) has requested that his film be assessed as a documentary without any animation and composed wholly of an accurate account depicting actual events, persons or situations."The PFCC had assessed that the film would fall under the statutory exclusion set out in section 2(3)(e) of the Films Act."It is the first film to be assessed and allowed by the new committee.While the man behind the film has welcomed the move, he still has mixed feelings about the lifting of the ban.Martyn said: "First of all, it is symbolic. Symbolic because it has been watched by half a million people on YouTube and Google Video for the last four years."In that sense, I am not too elated about it but on the other hand, it is a good step forward in the sense that other future film makers who want to attempt to do the same kind of films will know where the boundaries are."Martyn has no plans to screen the film any time soon. But he is hoping that his other film, "Zahari's 17 Years", about former political detainee Said Zahari, will get the green light as well. - CNA/msCensor okays Martyn See film on CheeSingapore Rebel passed with M18 rating under the revised Films ActBy Sue-Ann Chia , SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENTTHE film Singapore Rebel, which features opposition figure Chee Soon Juan, was passed by the censors with an M18 rating on Friday - four years after it was banned.Produced by film-maker Martyn See, it is the first political film to make the cut after the Films Act was amended in March to relax the rules on such films.Instead of a blanket ban on what are deemed 'party political films', the law was changed to allow films which fulfil certain criteria, such as those featuring factual footage or live recordings of speeches and events. It prompted Mr See to re-submit his film to the Board of Film Censors (BFC) in May.'I had no expectations,' the 40-year-old told The Straits Times on Friday, after receiving official word that his film had been passed.His nonchalance stems from his experience, since the film was was barred from being screened at the annual Singapore International Film Festival in 2005. It led to a 15-month police probe over its content - which revolves around Dr Chee and his activities - and his intent in making it.Since then, the film has been uploaded to video-sharing website YouTube and Mr See has become a staunch supporter of scrapping the Films Act.As the film has been viewed 'thousand-over times' online, Mr See views the BFC's decision more as a 'symbolic gesture'. However, he agrees it could embolden other film-makers to make more political films.On Friday, the BFC said it had referred Singapore Rebel to the Political Films Consultative Committee (PFCC), set up in May to vet political films.'Having reviewed the film, the PFCC is of the view that Singapore Rebel is a documentary film falling within the statutory exclusions set out in section 2 (3)(e) of the Films Act and should therefore not be regarded as a party political film,' the BFC said, in a statement posted on the Media Development Authority's website.The film is the first passed by the PFCC.Another film under review is For I Am A Young Singaporean, produced by the Young PAP, the youth wing of the People's Action Party.The lifting of the ban on Singapore Rebel received a lukewarm welcome from observers and the arts community.Film-maker Tan Pin Pin said it was a step in the right direction, as it gives some clarity on what kind of political films will make the cut."But more films will have to go through this process to give a clearer picture of where the OB markers are," she said, referring to "out-of-bound" markers that set the perimeter of what is allowed.Ms Tan, however, is highly perturbed by the M18 rating."It is unclear why it needs to be there. Does it mean that if you're not yet 18, you're not mature enough to watch films on opposition politicians?"Nominated MP Audrey Wong, however, believes it shows a certain liberalisation that films on opposition politicians are more accessible to the public."More access to information means people have more data and facts to judge for themselves," said Ms Wong, co-artistic director of arts venue Substation. "It might also send the signal to film-makers that it is safe to submit political films."But former Nominated MP and lawyer Siew Kum Hong said it would be better if the BFC listed in detail why the film was passed and viewed as a documentary."It will a useful guideline for future film-makers," he added.Asked if it signalled that more political films will be given the green light, he replied: "One swallow does not a summer make. Let's wait and see."Still, MP Zaqy Mohammad, who is the Young PAP's vice-chairman, believes the passing of Singapore Rebel is significant as it "paves the way for other films to go through this process".Mr See is now on a mission to get the ban lifted on another of his films, Zahari's 17 Years, on former political detainee Said Zahari."The political left story needs to be heard fully," he said, citing the new book on the PAP, Men In White, which includes the account of leftists. Ban on 'Singapore Rebel' lifted, rated M18 After four and a half years, the Government has lifted the ban on Singapore Rebel today.It was first banned in April of 2005 whereupon I underwent 15 months of police investigation. After a "stern warning", the police dropped prosecutions, but the ban on the film remained in effect until today.Click here for a summary of the sagaOn May 29th 2009, I resubmitted the film under Films (Amendment) Act.Zahari's 17 Years remains banned under Section 35 of the Films Act. Only the Minister has the authority to lift that ban. Govt retains ban on Zahari's 17 Years From the website of the Media Development Authority (MDA)BFC rates “Singapore Rebel” M18 with Consumer Advice Singapore, 11 September 2009: The Board of Film of Censors (BFC) has rated the film "Singapore Rebel" M18 with a consumer advice of "Mature Content".The BFC had referred the film to the Political Films Consultative Committee (PFCC) for advice on whether it should be regarded as a party political film under the Films Act.Having reviewed the film, the PFCC is of the view that “Singapore Rebel” is a documentary film falling within the statutory exclusion set out in section 2(3)(e) of the Films Act and should therefore not be regarded as a party political film."Singapore Rebel" is the first film to be assessed by the PFCC, and allowed following the amendments to the Films Act in March 2009.---------------------------------------- What the left-wing stood for : Dr Poh Soo Kai In a belated email reply to my questions about his views on the publication of Men In White, ex-political detainee Dr Poh Soo Kai has confirmed that he was never approached by any of its authors.In 1954, along with other founding members of the PAP, Dr Poh had attended that historic meeting at the basement of Harry Lee Kuan Yew's house on Oxley Road to discuss the PAP constitution. When asked why he joined Lee at that time, he wrote, "you should read the original credo of the party at its founding."On 2nd of February 1963, the former Assistant Secretary-General of the Barisan Sosialis was arrested and detained under Operation Coldstore. He was released unconditionally at the end of 1972 but re-arrested four years later. After spending a total of 16 years under detention without trial, he was finally released in August of 1982. Now 77, Dr Poh currently resides in Singapore.In reply to my question on why he and other left-wing members broke from the PAP in 1961, he wrote :I am of opinion you have framed it incorrectly. The conventional view is that the left wing of the PAP took the initiative to break with the party. (Thus your question why did left-wing split from the PAP to form the Barisan Sosialis.) There has been no convincing evidence to support this view.The left-wing leadership had campaigned on a genuine anti-colonial, democratic platform. They had called for an end to arbitrary arrest and continued detention, an end to the restrictions on freedom and for observation of human rights, and an end to the obstructions put in the way of trade union unification.It had invited the government to :- Release immediately all political detainees;- Assist in the speedy unification of the trade union movement;- Grant the right of citizenship and franchise to all those loyal to the anti-colonial struggle;- And to allow freedom of the press, speech and assembly and organisation.Of note is that they regarded themselves as part of the PAP. There was no talk of a structural split. Harry Lee had threatened to resign if he lost Anson. The unionists said that was his business. A tougher tone than the statement before Hong Lim by-election.The PAP leadership before the 1957 annual genaral meeting had decided to discard its powerful left wing. The issue was how, when and the consequences. Consequences both from the Singapore electorate and the Tungku who would much like to replace him.By 1961 secret negotiations for merger and "the grand design" were well underway between Harry, Tungku and the Colonial masters. The PAP leadership grasped the safety line of merger initiated by the British. He decided to discard his powerful left wing, but the fight was now shifted from release of detainees, freedom, etc to that of merger. The initiative for the split thus was from the PAP leadership, not from the left-wing.Poh Soo KaiReview of Our Thoughts Are FreeVistas of detention... voices of freedom New PAP book neglects founding members detained for 19 years "It was a no-holds-barred report", gloats Richard Lim, one of three senior journalists who were commissioned to write the history of the People's Action Party in a new book entitled Men In White, The Untold Story of Singapore's Ruling Party.The untold story of S'pore's ruling partyMaking of Men In White In the above reports, the Straits Times goes to great lengths to depict the book as a definitive and objective account of PAP's history, supported by interviews with its opponents - including former communists now exiled in Thailand and leftists (a catch-all byword for staunch anti-colonialists) who had left the PAP to form the breakaway Barisan Sosialis.But remarkably, the two full page report mentions not a single whiff of Operation Coldstore, the infamous 1963 mass arrests that decimated the entire leadership of the political opposition to the PAP.Another glaring omission was how the writers failed to contact two founding PAP members, Dr Poh Soo Kai and Dr Lim Hock Siew, who were arrested under Operation Coldstore and detained without trial for periods of up to 19 years. Along with Said Zahari, Lee Tse Tong and Ho Piao, both of them were Singapore's longest-held political prisoners after Chia Thye Poh. THREE BARISAN SOSIALIS LEADERS DR LEE SIEW CHOH (EXTREME RIGHT), MR S WOODHULL (SECOND FROM RIGHT) AND DR LIM HOCK SIEW (FOURHT FROM LEFT) REPRESENTED COUNCIL OF JOINT ACTION AT UNITED NATIONS RETURN FROM NEW YORK, LIM CHIN SIONG is THIRD FROM RIGHT (10/08/1962 )Dr Lim Hock Siew was a founding member of the PAP. But like many of his anti-colonialist colleagues of the PAP, Lim broke away from the PAP and formed the opposition Barisan Sosialis in 1961. On 2nd February 1963, he was arrested and detained under Operation Coldstore. Even after Singapore's independence in 1965, Lim continued to be detained under the Internal Security Act by Lee Kuan Yew's government. On 6th of September 1982, he was finally released, capping a 19 years 8 months incarceration - making him Singapore's longest-held political prisoner after Chia Thye Poh. Dr Lim has confirmed with me that he was never contacted by the writers of Men In White. He is now 78 years old and continues to operate his clinic on Balestier Road.Dr Poh Soo Kai and Dr Lim Hock Siew in the front row during the launch of Our Thoughts Are Free in March this year.In a rare press statement released in 1972, nine years into his incarceration, Dr Lim Hock Siew recalled an interrogation session with the ISD where the jailers attempted to strike a "bargain" with the prisoner..Dr Lim Hock Siew Speaks from Singapore Prison (Date - 18.3.1972)(through his legal adviser)(Released by Dr Beatrice Chen, wife of Dr Lim Hock Siew)I and hundreds of others were arbitrarily arrested on the 2nd of February, 1963. Many are still in prison. Ever since that day, we were, and are, unjustly and arbitrarily detained in prison without any kind of trial whatsoever for over 9 years. We have gone through various kinds of persecution, struggles, hardships and difficulties during this very long period of over nine years of detention in prison. Recently an unusual development took place. On the 13th of January, 1972, I was taken to the Headquarters of the Special Branch at Robinson Road where I was detained for 40 days together with my brother, Lim Hock Koon.Two high-ranking special branch agents of the P.A.P. regime indicated to me that if I were to issue a public statement of repentance, I would be released. They told me that 9 years had passed since the date of my arrest and that it was time that my case be settled. They admitted that 9 years was a long time. I told them that it was pointless to remind me of this long period.A week after my transfer to the Special Branch Headquarters, the same two high-ranking employees spelt out the conditions of my release. They demanded from me two things. They are as follows: -(1) That I make an oral statement of my past political activities, that is to say, "A security statement." This was meant for the Special Branch records only, and not meant for publication.(2) That I must issue a public statement consisting of two points : -(a) That I am prepared to give up politics and devote to medical practice thereafter.(b) That I must express support for the Parliamentary democratic system.I shall now recall and recapitulate the conversation that took place between me and the same two high-ranking Special Branch agents during my detention at the Special Branch Headquarters.Special Branch - You need not have to condemn the Barisan Sosialis or any person. We admit that it is unjust to detain you so long. 9 years is a long time in a person's life; we are anxious to settle your case.Dr Lim Hock Siew - My case will be settled immediately if I am released unconditionally. I was not asked at the time of my arrest whether I ought to be arrested. Release me unconditionally and my case is settled.Special Branch - The key is in your hands. It is for you to open the door.Dr Lim Hock Siew - To say that the key is in my hands is the inverted logic of gangsters in which white is black and black is white. The victim is painted as the culprit and the culprit is made to look innocent. Four Gurkha soldiers were brought to my house to arrest me. I did not ask or seek arrest or the prolonged detention for over 9 years in prison without trial.Special Branch - You must concede something so that Lee Kuan Yew would be in a position to explain to the public why you had been detained so long. Mr Lee Kuan Yew must also preserve his face. If you were to be released unconditionally, he will lose face.Dr Lim Hock Siew - I am not interested in saving Lee Kuan Yew's face. This is not a question of pride but one of principle. My detention is completely unjustifiable and I will not lift a single finger to help Lee Kuan Yew to justify the unjustifiable. In the light of what you say, is it not very clear that I have lost my freedom all these long and bitter years just to save Lee Kuan Yew's face? Therefore the P.A.P. regime's allegation that I am a security risk is a sham cover and a facade to detain me unjustifiably for over 9 years.My stand on the Making of a Secret Oral Security Statement for the records of the Special BranchI cannot and will not make any statement to condemn my past political activities. My past political activities were absolutely legitimate and proper. Whatever I had done or said was in the interest of and in the service of the masses of our people and of our country. Even an accused person need not say anything to incriminate or to condemn himself. Why should I who am arbitrarily detained without any kind of trial for over 9 years be coerced to act as an agent to the Special Branch by making a secret deal behind the backs of the masses? I resolutely reject this demand. Furthermore, I have not the slightest obligation to account my past political activities to Lee Kuan Yew.A. My Stand on the Demand of Making a Public StatementI completely reject in principle the issuing of any public statement as a condition of my release. This is a form of public repentance. History has completely vindicated my position. I was arrested for opposing merger with "Malaysia" because I held the view that "Malaysia" was a British sponsored neo-colonialist product and the creation of "Malaysia", far from uniting our people and our country, would cause greater dis-unity and dissension among our people. I believe that the formation of Malaysia would be a step backward and not forward in our struggle for national unity.I have nothing to repent, to recant or to reform. If anything I have become more reinforced in my convictions, more reaffirmed in my views and more resolute to serve the people of Malaya fully and whole-heartedly. I have nothing to concede to Lee Kuan Yew. By right, he should make a public repentance to me and not I to him.B. My Stand on the Demand that I must give up Politics in Exchange for my ReleaseI hold the view that these two demands are self-contradictory, because if there is democracy, I need not give up politics. The fact that I had been detained for over 9 years in order to coerce me to give up politics is proof enough that there is no parliamentary democracy. The question of taking part on politics is a fundamental right of the people.An indirect offer was made to me to leave Singapore for further studies. I have replied to the P.A.P. regime that if I had to leave the country at any time, it must be on my own free volition and not under coercion by the P.A.P regime. C. My Stand on the Demand for support for Parliamentary SystemI hold the view that to support the P.A.P. regime's so-called parliamentary system would mean giving the public and the masses a false impression that there exist today a genuine parliamentary democratic system in Singapore Island. It is an undeniable and unforgettable fact that comrade LEE TSE TONG who was elected by the people of Singapore in the 1963 General Elections, was arbitrarily arrested and detained without trial soon after he was elected. Subsequently, he was deprived of his citizenship and he is still under detention as a so-called "banishee" in prisoner's clothes in Queenstown prison. The arbitrary arrest and prolonged detention of Comrade Lee Tse Tong affords concrete proof that the so-called parliamentary democracy is a cruel mockery. It does not exist in Singapore Island. Giving support to such a sham parliamentary system means complete betrayal of the people. I will never betray the people of my country under any circumstance. Bitter sacrifice strengthens bold resolve.Parliamentary democracy does not mean merely casting of votes once in 5 years during election time. Far more important than this is the freedom of thought, the freedom of expression, the freedom of association, the freedom of organisation everyday during the 5 years period and continuously thereafter. I was arrested when the Barisan Sosialis was actively participating in the parliamentary system. For such participation, the colonial government, the Lee Kuan Yew and Rahman regimes had rewarded me with over 9 years of imprisonment. This again amply indicates the utter shamness of the so-called parliamentary democratic system. After over 9 years of detention, I am now asked to give support to their so-called parliamentary system in order to secure my release. I firmly refuse to give my support for the sham and illusory democracy in Singapore Island.My Stand on the Request by the Agents of the P.A.P. Regime to Concede something to save Lee Kuan Yew's FaceSince history has fully vindicated my stand and my position, Lee Kuan Yew should openly and publicly repent to me and to all other political detainees, now unjustifiably detained in prison. By right a just and proper base for my release from my prolonged and unjustifiable detention (and this equally applies to all political detainees now under unjustifiable detention) should be : -(a) Our unconditional and immediate release from detention and the complete restoration of all our democratic and human rights.(b) Payment of adequate compensation to me and to all other political detainees for the prolonged and unjustifiable detention in prison.(c) The issuance of public apology by Lee Kuan Yew to me.We are willing and prepared to concede the last two conditions as listed above. We do not believe that an arrogant man like Lee Kuan Yew will apologise or to compensate us.On the first condition that is to say, our demand for unconditional and immediate release from detention, and for the complete restoration of all our democratic and human rights - we must resolutely say : WE WILL NEVER CONCEDE, BITTER SACRIFICE STRENGTHENS BOLD RESOLVE.+ + + +The above was published with permission from Dr Lim Hock Siew.Dr Lim is currently penning his memoirs.Dr Lim's speech at the launch of Said Zahari's book in Johor Bahru can be viewed here.Dr Lim is featured in a 10 minute video tribute to Lim Chin Siong which can be viewed at the Singapore History Museum.Zahari's 17 Years remains gazetted as a prohibited film. Any possession constitutes a criminal offence.The Straits Times is a publication of the Singapore Press Holdings, who commissioned the book.Thanks to Isrizal for finding the above press release.***************************Further readingsPolitical detention in Singapore : Prisoner case historiesDetention of journalists and lawyers under the ISASurviving long-term detention without trialThe ISA as a political tool Gay-themed films gets a bashing Withdrawn, retained and censored - three films featuring gay themes have been given the short shrift by the authorities.Devotee, directed by French director Remi Lange, was retained by the Board of Film Censors (BFC), who refused to sanction the film for a public screening, not even under a R21 rating. Upon enquiries, the BFC relented and allowed the organisers to retrieve the film so they could delete the stated objectionable scenes.They did, but only to replace those scenes with still frames indicating an incision have been made (see picture). Again, the BFC refused to license the film, and insisted that the submitted film be retained.With a stored safety copy, the organisers went back to remove the still frames and resubmitted the film. It was finally passed under R21 rating and screened to a full house at the Arts House cinema on 14 August 2009.See full story here.Film censors behaving like bulliesTwo locally made films, Tanjong Rhu (dir : Boo Junfeng) and Threshold (dir : Loo Zihan) was yanked just days before its public screening at the 6th annual Singapore Short Cuts festival. The festival is jointly organised by National Museum and the Singapore Film Commission (SFC) which operates under the auspices of the Media Development Authority (MDA). Both films have earlier been passed by the BFC under R21 rating.To date, no official reason have been given for the sudden withdrawal.See full story here.'Tanjong Rhu' and 'Threshold' cut from short film festival in Singapore Censors refuse to classify One Nation Under Lee The Board of Film Censors (BFC) has refused to classify One Nation Under Lee (ONUL). The video documentary, directed by visual artist and activist Seelan Palay, was submitted to the authorities in May (see here) as a political film.In a hand-delivered letter, the BFC noted that ONUL contains excerpts from my video Zahari's 17 Years, which has been gazetted as a banned film under Section 35 of the Films Act. As such, the BFC will not classify ONUL.They suggested that a alternative version of ONUL be submitted, one that do not contain any scenes from Zahari's 17 Years.I hereby spell out the legal status of ONUL as such :- It is not classified or rated.- It is not gazetted as a ban.- However, any possession, exhibition or distribution of ONUL constitutes a criminal offence as it contains excerpts of Zahari's 17 Years, a banned film.It is probably the only video submisssion in BFC's history that has been deemed unclassifiable.The letter makes no mention that a copy of ONUL was already in BFC's possession long before my submission in May. The censors had seized a copy during its premiere last year.Meanwhile, my other video Singapore Rebel is currently undergoing review by the Political Films Consultative Committee (PFCC).------------------------------------Download One Nation Under Lee here.Watch Zahari's 17 Years here.Watch the confiscation of ONUL here and here.Watch Singapore Rebel here.* The BFC comes under the purview of the Media Development Authority (MDA). It's motto is "Creative Media, Connected Society."Click on the letter to enlarge. Police retracts licence request after Minister queried Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew meeting Penang's Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng during his recent trip to Malaysia. As an opposition activist with the DAP, Lim had been imprisioned for a total of 30 months, including 18 months under the ISA during 1987's Operation Lalang, Malaysia's equivalent of our Operation Spectrum. While Lee was meeting opposition leaders and lawmakers in Malaysia, his police force was busy ferreting out information of an indoor forum organised to break the silence on Operation Spectrum.A week before the public forum, I received an unsolicited email from the Tanglin Police Division stating that under the Public Entertainment and Meetings Act, I am required to furnish them information regarding name of speakers and format of forum.Immediately, I rang up the officer and reminded him that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had in 2004 announced to the nation that indoor talks would be exempted from permits. Apparently hard of hearing, the officer insisted that I furnish him with the information as requested. I then assured him that there will be no foreign speakers and that I would reply him via email.I did, but it wasn't directed to him. I emailed Mr K. Shanmugam, Minister for Law and Second Minister for Home Affairs, and carbon copied it back to Tanglin Police Station. In the email, I quoted PM Lee's National Day rally speech in 2004.There was no reply for a week.On 26th June, two days before the forum, an email from the Public Entertainment & Liquor Licensing Unit stated that indoor talks are indeed exempted from permits.That's Singapore police efficiency for you. You go figure.And I still don't know on what basis did the police "investigate" Bestway Properties for hosting the first forum, originally intended on 20th June.For the record, the three-and-a-half-hour forum at the Quality Hotel, attended by about 40 people, concluded without a glitch.Here are the emails.---------------------------------------------------------------------------Email to Martyn See from Tanglin Police DivisionOps Spectrum forumThursday, June 18, 2009 11:18 AMFrom: "Wee Kay CHIN" To: singapore_rebel@yahoo.comDear Sir,I refer to the open forum purported to be held at the Quality HotelDiamond Room, Balestier Road, on Sunday 28 June 2009 from 2pm to 5.30pm, aspublicised online at: "http://singaporerebel.blogspot.com".2 Under the Public Entertainments and Meetings Act, Cap 257, anylecture, talk, address, debate or discussion held in any place to which thepublic or any class of public has access whether gratuitously or otherwisewill require a Public Entertainment (PE) licence, unless otherwiseexempted. As such, we would appreciate if you can furnish the followingdetails in order to help us ascertain the necessary licensing requirements:i) The synopsis of the discussion;ii) Any invited speaker(s) and whether they are locals or foreigners;iii) If there are no designated speakers, how will the discussion beconducted.3 If you require any clarification, kindly contact me at Tel: 6391XXXX.4 Thank you.Lawrence ChinCompliance Management Officer--------------------------------------------------------------------------Email from Martyn See to MinisterPEMA permit for indoor forumThursday, June 18, 2009 12:56 PMFrom: "See Tong Ming, Martyn" To: k_shanmugam@mlaw.gov.sgCc: CHIN_Wee_Kay@spf.gov.sgDear sir,My name is Martyn See. I am organising an indoor forum entitled "Revisiting History : Operation Spectrum - Breaking The Ice After 22 Years" to be held at the Diamond Room in the Quality Hotel on 28 June (Sunday) at 2pm.I have just been served an email from Lawrence Chin of the Tanglin Police Station, who seem to take an active interest in this forthcoming indoor talk, publicised in my blog http://singaporerebel.blogspot.com/Here, I refer to Prime Minister Hsien Loong's National Day Rally speech in 2004."..for indoor talks, we are going to do away with licensing. Right now, if you are going outdoors or indoors, if you want to do a talk, you need a Public Entertainment licence. Usually, it's approved, it's not a problem, but once in a while, you are slow or the police have reservations, they say, "No", but it's very rare. So now, we've decided we are going to exempt indoor talks from licensing requirements unless they touch on sensitive issues like race and religion."- Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, National Day Rally speech 2004I also refer to the Straits Times coverage of your recent speech in Parliament."Political space has opened substantially. In 2004, political activities conducted indoors also became exempt from permits."- 2nd Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam, quoted by Straits Times, Apr 14 2009My question is patently obvious - does my talk require a licence or not?I have given my assurances to Mr Chin over the phone that the forum will not involve any foreign speakers. Your men are most welcome to be to present during the proceedings to ensure that.I await your response.Yours sincerely,See Tong Ming, Martyn-------------------------------------------------------------------------------One week laterEmail from Licensing Division to Martyn SeeRe: Fw: PEMA permit for indoor forumFriday, June 26, 2009 9:41 AMFrom: "Wei Chung SIM" To: singapore_rebel@yahoo.comDear Mr See,I refer to your email sent to the Minister for Law and SecondMinister for Home Affairs, Mr K Shanmugam on 18 June 2009.2. Under the Public Entertainment and Meetings (Exemption) Order, anyindoor talk held in any place to which the public or any class of publichas access, whether gratuitously or otherwise, is exempted from the Act ifthe following conditions are complied with:(a) the organiser of the indoor public talk is a citizen of Singapore;(b) only citizens of Singapore are invited to be lecturers or speakers at the talk;(c) the lecturers or speakers do not deal with any matter —(i) which relates, directly or indirectly, to any religious belief or to religion generally; or(ii) which may cause feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will or hostility between different racial or religious groups in Singapore; and(d) the lecturers or speakers speak only in any of the 4 official languages in Singapore, or any related dialect.3. We note that you had stated in your email and in your teleconversation with our Officer Lawrence Chin, that there will be no foreigners speaking at your forum. So long as an indoor talk is conducted in accordance with all the exemption conditions, the organiser is not required to apply for a Public Entertainment (PE) licence.Regards,Sim Wei Chung OC Public Entertainment & Liquor Licensing Unit PoliceLicensing Division DID: 655XXXXX FAX: 62261089