Gurkhas hurt in Singapore scuffle Reuters - Saturday, June 21SINGAPORE, June 20 - A group of Nepalese Gurkhas in a contingent attached to Singapore's police "scuffled" last week in a dispute over wages, a rare display of indiscipline in a force renowned for its bravery and devotion to duty.Singapore police said in a statement that the group, off-duty at the time, were involved "in an incident of disorderly and boisterous behaviour" at their special compound on June 13.The incident followed a discussion by a larger number of officers on the issue of their salary scale, the statement said.Eight people were injured and had to be treated, but no one was seriously hurt, the police said. No further details were given.A contingent of Gurkhas, known for their bravery and discipline, serves in Singapore to guard some of its most sensitive facilities such as the airport and embassies."Apart from the group which misconducted themselves, the rest were not involved in any acts of indiscipline," the police said. Many young Nepalese men aspire to become Gurkhas because they view it as a way out of poverty.The online encyclopedia Wikipedia says around 370 are selected annually from 20,000 applicants, with 140 chosen for the Singapore police force and the rest for the British Army.It says around 2,000 currently serve in Singapore, many accompanied by their families.The police said they are investigating the matter as an internal one. Seminar on Internet Regulatory Reform (21 June) JBJ’s Reform Party registration is approved The Reform Party, veteran politician J.B. Jeyaretnam’s comeback political party, has had its registration approved.On Tuesday 17 June, two months after the 82-year-old had applied to register the party, he received word that the application was approved. The Reform Party starts with 10 committee members, who includes former members of other opposition political parties. Its first order of business will be an inauguration dinner, set for July 11. Mr Jeyaretnam only returned to the political fray last year, after being discharged as a bankrupt. He became bankrupt in 2001 after failing to pay some $600,000 in lost defamation suits. He discharged himself from bankruptcy last year and restarted his law practice. He also intends to contest the next general election, due in 2011. Apart from Mr Jeyaretnam, other members of the new party include Mr Ng Teck Siong, 68; Mr Teo Kian Chye, 49; and Mr Gopal Prabhakaran, 55. All are former WP members. Another member, Mr Edmund Ng, 35, was formerly with the National Solidarity Party.If any supporters wish to attend their inauguration dinner on the 11th July, 2008, Please contact: Ng Teck Siong on H/p No. 91179350 or Amy Lui H/p No. 98476900. Give S’poreans more information - Seelan Palay Andrew Loh from The Online Citizen recently interviewed me for their Human Rights focus week. Below is the introduction to their article. Click here for the actual interview.Give S’poreans more information - Seelan Palay 18 June 2008 ‘The only boundaries that we have for self-expression are only the ones we set for ourselves,’ says artist and activist Seelan Palay. Andrew Loh ‘The police asked me for a permit, warned me and told me to disperse. But I am only fasting, why should I need a permit? They said it was under some public entertainment licensing law, and I said I was not here to entertain anyone.’ (TODAY) While Singaporeans were celebrating the arrival of New Year’s Day 2008, one other Singaporean was just beginning a five day fast in support for five Malaysians who had earlier been arrested and detained in Malaysia.Artist and activist Seelan Palay camped himself outside the Malaysian High Commission building in Singapore from 31 December 2007 to 5 January 2008. He was calling for a fair trial for the so-called Hindraf 5. I met Palay over lunch in a restaurant in Woodlands to try and get some insight into the man behind the public persona. During our conversation, we spoke about activism, the SDP’s Dr Chee Soon Juan, and why he is also an animals’ rights volunteer. A vegetarian for seven years, supporter for the Vegetarian Society of Singapore and Animal Concerns Research & Education Society (ACRES), Palay’s activism is borne out of a personal conviction and goal to, as he put it, address his personal life philosophy, rather than any lofty political agenda. Although just 24 years old, he’s been an activist for seven years. Click here to read the interview. Disobedience for Justice A good response to a recent article by the Straits Times that stated Civil Disobedience has no place in Singapore.Disobedience for Justiceby Benjamin CheahI managed to read Sue-Ann Chia's article in today's Straits Times, titled 'What place does civil disobedience have in Singapore?' In it, she attempts to argue that civil disobedience has no place in Singapore. I use 'attempt', because all I see are fragments of arguments.Civil disobedience is the act of peacefully disobeying a specific law, in the hopes that it would be amended or abolished, and so benefit the people in the name of justice. Justice, in this case, means equal treatment to all people, regardless of personal factors that are irrelevant and/or out of their control. By doing so, the innnocent would be protected, the guilty punished in proportion to his crime, the future criminal deterred, and the good rewarded.Chia said that she is 'not advocating civil disobedience'. She argues there is no need for civil disobedience because a new government could be voted in. In addition, civil disobedience could mark the start of a slippery slope towards anarchy. Finally, civil disobedients in Singapore do not have much support amongst Singaporeans. These three 'arguments' fail to demonstrate that civil disobedience has no place in Singapore, not because of their incoherence, but also because they are fundamentally flawed.Chia's overarching argument is that civil disobedience 'defeat(s) the purpose of having democratic elections. This argument presupposes that there are, in fact, democratic elections . This is hardly the case.'Democratic elections' presupposes that elections are free and fair, with no political parties receiving inherent advantages or disadvantages. With respect to Singapore, the existence of Group Representative Constituencies distort democracy, by enforcing homogenisation at the expense of minorities, as Yawning Bread has shown. Goh Chok Tong himself has admitted that GRCs were established primarily to allow junior Members of Parliament or candidates to be assisted by senior ones -- in other words, to let junior candidates piggyback on the success of their seniors. In doing so, the People's Action Party puts more MPs on its bench than the opposition parties, because the Opposition is smaller, and possesses fewer skilled and popular candidates and less resources, and so is forced to fight an uphill battle in every GRC. The media plays up coverage of PAP events, and relatively little attention to Opposition rallies. Simply counting the number of articles and estimating the length of each article covering each party will reveal the media's lopsidedness. This, in of itself, throws the concept of democratic elections in Singapore into question. I will state that elections in Singapore are not democratic, in the spirit of the word.Even if the issue does not cover Singapore, and assuming that elections in Singapore were democratic, what about non-democratic countries? The fall of communism in Poland and East Germany, and later the whole of the Union of Societ Socialist Republics, was not brought about by peaceful democratic elections. As History students will tell you, there was a confluence of factors, most notably peaceful demonstrations on the streets of Eastern Europe. The protests mobilised the former Soviet citizens into taking action against the regime, by giving them a chance to participate directly in politics for the first time in generations. The dictatorial communist governments were felled by civil disobedients, not the ballot box, because elections, had they existed, were rigged to favour the Communist Party. Chia has failed to consider this case, weakening her argument.Because elections in Singapore are not democratic, and that not every country is democratic, the underlying assumption underpinning Chia's argument has fallen, and with it, her entire case. We cannot simply re-elect another government if we so happen to disagree with some of the laws it chooses to enforce, because the system tilts the odds in the government's favour. Coupled with opposition parties that are too small to possess real power in Singapore's political arena in the near future, and the fate of every foreseeable election is sealed. Consequently, the unjust law remains on the books in the indefinite future.Even assuming that democratic elections exist in Singapore, Chia's argument still falls. The assumption that underpins her argument is composed of two sub-beliefs: the new government would be perfectly willing to change the law, and that the issue at hand can wait until polling day.The law in question could be a political hot potato, perhaps something along the scale of Singapore's Section 377A, in which case the new government would not touch it of its own accord, lest it loses votes. Chia believes that, just because the government refuses to change an unjust law, the opposition would naturally call for its change in order to win public suppoer. That is not true. The Worker's Party, for instance, has remained ambivalent on Section 377A even during the height of the debate on it. If the Opposition refuses to change the law, even if it means a chance of being voted into power, than argument by election will fail.That is even assuming that the issue can wait until the next election, because a law or ruling could well harm the country for a long period of time. Consider, for example, the American war in Iraq: if the war were unjustified, it would make more sense to stop the killing now, instead of waiting for a thousand, or even a hundred, casualties between now and voting day. When time is of the essence, then people have to act decisively, without undue delay. Civil disobedience is the ultimate impetus against a slow-moving or unmoving government, because it reminds the government that is representative of the people, and draws its power from the people. Should the democratic government lose the support of its people, as broadcast through civil disobedience, then it will not be the government in the future. It is this impetus that prods bureaucrats and politicians into action.Chia highlights the argument that civil disobedience is the start of a slippery slope towards anarchy. But this is a very poor understanding of 'anarchy' and 'civil disobedience'.The whole notion of civil disobedience is to peacefully disobey a law to make a statement, in order to effect a change in law and so better align the current legal system with the principles of justice. It is, in effect, the people talking to the government with a loudhailer turned to the highest volume. Anarchy, on the other hand, means an absence of government. Civil disobedience is based on respect for the ruling power, so much so that civil disobedients would not resist arrest, capture, or punishment. Anarchy, however, views all governments as essentially harmful, as they take away human freedom. It is that respect that bars civil disobedience from degenerating into anarchy. It is not impossible to embody, as Martin Luther King and Gandi have demonstrated. Dr. Chee Soon Juan and his fellow demonstrators, in fact, have never resisted arrest when the police showed up. Anarchists would prefer to resist arrest, because the police is viewed as an extension of the State, and thus as something to be resisted and eventually destroyed. It is this divergence of ideology, demarcated by the notion of respect, that stops civil disobedience from becoming a slippery slope towards anarchy.If anything else, civil disobedience is designed to promote the cause of justice. Wong Kan Seng has disingenuously said that civil disobedience 'does violence to the rule of law'. But that is because the rule of law has failed, and the existing system refuses to change it. From its perspective, there is no point in expending time and resources to change a law that people do not pay attention to, because it would merely divert attention from other issues, or could help ensure that the system stays in power. Consider the example that Chia has raised: the black civil rights movement. Following the election of 1876, a series of laws were passed, suppressing the rights of African Americans. Collectively known as the Jim Crow laws, they legalised racial discrimination, exploited minority races, and disenfranchised most African Americans. The system was henceforth maintained by white voters and white Presidents, with the latter needing the former to either enter or remain in office, even if they were racists. Blacks and other minority races had no legal means of combating such an entrenched system; they had to act against the law in the name of justice. Civil disobedience thus provides a powerful avenue to mobilise a disenfrancished population, and to channel them into taking constructive action.The essentials of Chia's second argument is that civil disobedience undermines the rule of law. But the law must adhere to the principles of natural justice. When the law fails, it must die. For it to live on is a smear on the justice system, for the principles of natural justice are not upheld. When the government refuses to admit justice into the legal system of its own accord, it is the perogative of the people to embody the sword of justice, and cut down anything that hinders the progression and execution of justice. If it entails violence against the law, then so be it: laws can be re-written, but justice cannot.Chia's last argument is painfully ludicrous. She states that civil disobedients must be 'good judges' of the 'right circumstances' and 'causes (that) will take off'. In Singapore, Chee Soon Juan and the Singapore Democratic Party, the most prominent civil disobedients in Singapore, have failed to accurately judge the proper conditions for the use of civil disobedience. Therefore, it is implied, civil disobedience has no place here.Civil disobedience is a controversial, high-stakes political tactic with its time and place. Just because the Chees and the SDP have failed to show adequate judgment, in Chia's opinion, does not show that civil disobedience has no place in Singapore. It simply means that the conditions do not yet exist, so anyone seriously considering civil disobedience must first realise these conditions -- if at all possible. Just because civil disobedience may have no place now does not show that it will never have a place in Singapore.The principle behind civil disobedience is that breaking the law in a peaceful, physically non-violent way would eventually lead to a great deal of social good. This good is expressed in the modification of the existing system, so that it would treat people more fairly, no longer act against the people's conscience, or otherwise rectify an existing wrong. The case against civil disobedience must demonstrate that civil disobedience will do more harm than good.Chia's contribution to this: civil disobedience violates the principle of democratic elections, and could lead to anarchy. But as I have already mentioned, when the electoral system has failed, when the Opposition refuses to change the law even if it were the next government, or if the issue is time-sensitive, there exists a case for civil disobedience, either to minimise and prevent existing and future harm, or to right a wrong. Furthermore, the principle of respect stands between civil disobedience and the slippery slope to anarchy, reducing the ability for civil disobedience to do more harm than necessary. Therefore, Chia has failed to make the case against civil disobedience.When justice is insulted by the law, civil disobedience is a powerful tool to erase that smear, as it provides an impetus for governments to act and gives an avenue for frustrated and repressed citizens to act. In my opinion, it should not be used when legal ways are sufficient, such as a letter-writing or petition campaign, because of the higher costs a civil disobedience campaign entails. To draw an analogy, it is akin to using a machete to cut a loaf of bread. You can do that, but why bother when a bread knife is at hand? On the other hand, if you need to hack through a thick jungle, a machete is infinitely superior to a bread knife. Like every tool, civil disobedience has a time and place. If one wishes to discard it, one must prove that it is harmful, outdated, or otherwise inefficient. It should not be discarded on faulty arguments alone. Chee Soon Juan's Release from Prison, June 2008 I, Seelan Palay, was present to welcome my friend Dr Chee's release from prison. I went on to ask him a few questions, which are in the video below, amongst other footage of the event. Gopalan Nair on his arrest in Singapore From Singapore DissidentLadies and Gentlemen,After I had posted the blogpost of May 29, 2008, at about 9 pm, May 31, 2008, I was arrested by at least 5 plain clothes policemen including at least 2 women. I had just promised Mr. Gandhi Ambalam, Chairman of the Singapore Democrat Party and Mr. Jeffrey George, committee member of the same that I will join them for a drink at a nearby coffee shop. I was appropriately dressed in shorts, T-shirt and slippers, not to offend the Singapore heat and humidity. I entered the elevator on the 8th floor of the hotel and descended to the 1st. When the door opened the aforementioned police were there blocking my way. Among them was Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP), Mr. Razak Jakaria, from the Cantonment Police Station, the police station in charge of my arrest.At the ground floor when the elevator opened with me inside, the said police blocked my way. They showed their police identification. Forcibly restrained me inside the elevator. Handcuffed me while they took me back to the 8th floor into room 708.Inside my hotel room, while I was in handcuffs, ASP Jakaria produced a warrant for my arrest. He stated that I was arrested under some section of the Singapore statutes. He refused to state what I was being arrested for. This procedure seems highly improper. Telling a citizen that he was being arrested under Section 200 or 2000 of the Penal Code without telling him what that meant is totally ridiculous! Did they expect every citizen to have studied Singapore law and the provisions of the Penal Code! Yet that is exactly what is done in a case where the accused is merely told of a particular section of the Penal Code! Despite my asking what I was being arrested for, I was not told what it was. Jakaria's answer was that he would tell me later. This was no help at all!I was driven to Cantonment Police Station in a police car. ASP Jakaria was seated next to driver's seat. Next to me was a Chinese policeman. I was in handcuffs.At the police station, there were usual procedures of taking account of my belongings and storing them. I was ordered to change into prison clothes and taken in handcuffs to a cell. From that moment I was kept in solitary confinement alone in a cell. The light was kept on 24 hours. There was no bed or even a mattress on the floor. I had to sleep on a hard floor. Although it can become cold there was no blanket. Unable to withstand the cold, I began shivering uncontrollably. I asked for a blanket from a passing guard. He provided it. This was on the 3rd or the 4th day of my confinement. Truly, it was not a blanket at all. It was a thin plastic sheet, which was not even long enough even to cover your feet. It did not keep you warm. But anything was better than shivering.As the floor was solid hard, I could not sleep. Each time I had to toss and turn after a few minutes because it hurt. The light being on 24 hours, you did know it was day or night. Being kept alone in solitary confinement did not help either.I was kept in this manner from May 31 2008. Since it was a weekend, I had to be kept till Monday morning to be brought to court.I was kept in this manner till June 5th 2008. Between this period I was taken for interrogation many times on different days before ASP Jakaria. The interrogation was held in interview rooms. Each time I was walked in handcuffs from my cell to the interview room.I was told that I was being charged for various offenses during this period at various different times. It was as if the police were at a loss what to do. First it was a charge that I had sent an insulting Email to Judge Belinda Ang. Later I was accused of insulting Judge Belinda Ang through my blog post. Later I was told that the earlier charges were dropped and I was charged under the Sedition Act of Singapore because of my blog. Later an additional charge that I had sent an Email to Judge Lai Sui Chue in March of 2006 more than 2 years ago.As far as the accusation that I had sent an Email to Judge Belinda Ang; this is entirely untrue. I never sent any Emails to Ang or anyone else. All I did was to post my blog post. There were no Emails at all. The police had seized my documents and belongings from my hotel room. Among the items seized was an old blue tattered notebook. This is not a computer, which has been wrongly described as one in the papers. It was a tattered old notebook. In it there was my password for my Email and other personal numbers.As far as the Email to Judge Lai Sui Chu, this was more than 2 years ago. I cannot remember if I sent that Email. Even if I did, I was not in Singapore at the time. I was physically in Fremont, Northern California. If I sent the Email, it was from Fremont Northern California. From 2006 March to present I had traveled to Singapore on at least one occasion on November 2006 without incident. It is odd that they want to proceed on a matter that I did or did not do more than 2 years ago! If indeed anyone had been insulted, it was more than 2 years ago, for Heavens Sake! Even if there was insult, which is denied, surely anyone would have got over the insult by now, unless of course they are afflicted with incurably delicate nerves!On Monday June 2nd, 2008, I was brought to court in handcuffs in a police car. I have not been officially charged with anything in court. The prosecution requested and was allowed to keep me in custody for a further one week. I was taken back to solitary confinement in Cantonment Police Station.I was suddenly told without prior warning that I was going to be released from custody prematurely on June 5th 2008 on bail while the police continued with their investigations. Bail was fixed at fixed at $5000.00 for the accusation that I had sent an Email to Judge Belinda Ang. As there was another charge being tendered for the accusation that I sent Judge Lai an Email more than 2 years ago, I was ordered to appear before Court 26 on Monday June 09, 2008, another court, in the Court complex for the matter to be looked into.On June 09, 2008 this other charge, being the over 2 years old accusation, was looked into. I was again given bail of $5,000.00.For both cases I have been bailed out. I am presently out on bail.The police had impounded my passport and I cannot travel. I am forced to remain in Singapore during these proceedings. I had originally intended to return to the US no later than June 3 2008, having arrived in Singapore on early morning May 26, 2008. Forcing me to remain in Singapore and being unable to return to the US is by itself causing me untold harm. My law practice in the US is suffering and various other matters such as my house mortgage cannot be attended to. This alone is causing extreme hardship to me.Furthermore I am facing severe financial hardship in having to remain in Singapore much longer than expected.The American Embassy, Singapore has been monitoring my case. I am grateful to Miss Julie Kavanagh, Consul and recently Mr. Learned Dees, Vice Consul together with another officer from the Embassy who have been taking special interest in my case. They have always been present at all my court hearings making it known to the Singapore court that they are watching.This whole matter boils down to one question. A right to free speech and expression. It appears to me as well as anyone watching this case that what the Singapore authorities are trying to say is this. Do not criticize the Singapore judiciary no matter what. Even if the Singapore judiciary were to say, two and two is ten, the Moon is made of cheese and Christmas Day does not fall on December 25th, we have to keep our mouths shut and go about our business as if nothing happened! What the Singapore authorities are trying to say, if I correctly understand it, is that human beings are disallowed from criticizing the judiciary, period! They are above criticism. They are beyond question. They are invincible. Infallible. They are the best, and need no criticism from mortal human beings! That they are Gods.I, as a human being cannot understand this to be correct, surely. I was born a Singaporean. I lived my life here in Singapore. I am a former Singapore politician. The welfare of Singapore and Singaporeans should be more my concern than that of Central West Africa! Surely. Criticism is necessary for any organization to improve, to get better. Without criticism, there is stagnation. And with stagnation there is no hope. This has always been the case. What I had done and said was for the welfare of Singapore, a country that I care for and a country in which I have a stake, even if I am now an American.Forcing me to remain in Singapore for a long period is no doubt causing me great hardship. Of course I also worry as to what is in store for me at the end of the court hearing.But one thing is certain. Regardless of what I have to suffer, I will not admit to anything I did not do. I have a right to free speech and expression and I had exercised that right as a free man; as a human being. If have to pay a price for what I had said in my blog, so be it.The Singapore government would be better off if they faced reality. In this day and age, and in a country such as Singapore with an educated population, demanding that citizens keep their mouths shut and comply as obedient sheep is not only untenable, it is counter productive. I have said this many times before, and it has to be said again. You cannot expect to become a first world country by forcing people to remain silent when criticism is warranted. This refusal of Singapore to face the reality of the times is the very reason why Singaporeans flee their country in droves.Being forced to remain in Singapore against my will, I naturally have to live among Singaporeans. What I have found so far is by and large; educated Singaporeans are recent immigrants from somewhere else. From India, from Europe and from elsewhere. I am not seeing any local educated Singaporeans. I have no doubt that they have left the country. They have emigrated to other countries in the world, and left Singapore for good.Perhaps, like me, they too think that the administration should be subject to criticism. And that includes the judiciary. Judges are not Gods after all.Gopalan NairSingapore Advocacy group SG Human Rights disbands As posted on sghumanrights.orgSG Human Rights is no more We are “disbanding” but no, we are not giving up our fight for human rights. SG Human Rights (SGHR) is not an association, society, company or any organisation of sorts. We’re simply a motley crew of individuals without political clout, organisational affiliations or government funding, who believe in human rights – the universal values of what it takes to have a just, equal and inclusive society with the essential compassion and respect we should accord to one another. These include civil and political rights as well as other fundamental freedoms. Fundamental freedoms are not formalised nor conferred; they are exercised. We were, and are, exercising our rights in line with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Art. 19 & 20) and the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Art. 14), to get together and express our opinions and concerns. For some of us, activism is not new, having already been involved in other efforts or campaigns on various issues before banding as SGHR. For others, we were already on a journey leading to activism and actively searching for an avenue or platform that would suit us. We came together under this banner because we were strongly motivated to respond to landmark events in the region for 2007: the Saffron Revolution in Burma (cognizant of Singapore’s link and influence to Burma and in solidarity with the Burmese community in Singapore) and the signing of the ASEAN Charter in November which included a provision for the formation of a regional human rights body (Art. 14). We worked as a collective through dialogue and consensus with no committee, management structure or leader. There are only 9 of us – not quite the required minimum number of ‘members’ to register as a society. This is a strategic choice as by consensus, it is not our intention to become a society or any other formally constituted organisation which, for some of us, is a direct protest to the existing Societies Act. In our view, civil society space in Singapore should not be sectioned, quartered and restricted to participation through formal groups or organisations which is more likely to result in closed-door diplomacy that the common man has no access to. There is space and need for self-organised or autonomous initiatives; for different lines of actions to be taken and our preference is for direct action. We acknowledge that although we gave a voice from the ground of informed and interested citizens, we are not representative and nor should we aim for such representation. Instead, what we have learnt from this experience as SGHR, is the advantage of a small ad-hoc group, in terms of mobility, flexibility and responsiveness, in organising and executing activities over larger, hierarchical groups. We have also learnt of what it takes to struggle together and come to our understanding of each other’s interests and concerns. Yet we believe that there are more Singaporeans out there who share similar concerns and have various capacities to share, contribute, exchange ideas and plans of actions and who are willing to get together and do something about human rights in general or on specific issues. There must be no monopoly on human rights and civil society participation. Our hope is that there are many more – a diversity of groups and individuals, big or small, ad-hoc or permanent, working on the many, many issues. For us, after debating and discussing, we have arrived at a resolution that SG Human Rights does not belong to just the 9 of us and we are moving on. In the spirit of SG Human Rights, we advocate that any Singaporean can come together and take up the banner of “Singaporeans for Human Rights”. This is a call to action. The 9 of us – Choon Hiong, E-Jay, Isrizal, Kai Xiong, M Ravi, Noora, Seelan, Shafiee, and Ti Lik – are saying: JOIN US. Not as members of a group because there is no such formal group as SG Human Rights, but to take part in the overall effort. Initiate your own human rights activities. Collaborate with all of us or some of us. The 9 of us will be continuing with activism, pursuing individual projects and we’ll probably still work together in different combinations and hopefully with new people like yourself. Do not just criticise others for not doing enough. We’ve gone up and done something. Have you?Chia Ti Lik (chiatilik at hotmail dot com, http://chiatilik.wordpress.com)Chong Kai Xiong (w_velocity at yahoo dot com)Ho Choon Hiong (starwars at cyberway dot com dot sg, http://hochoonhiong.blogspot.com)Isrizal (isrizal at gmail dot com)M Ravi (mravilaw at gmail dot com)Ng E-Jay (ngejay at sgpolitics dot net, http://sgpolitics.net)Noora Zul (noorazul at gmail dot com)Seelan Palay (seelanpalay at gmail dot com, http://singaporeindianvoice.blogspot.com)Shafiie (redgwn at yahoo dot com) SG Human Rights’ videos of past actions and events can still be viewed on YouTube. Candlelight Vigil for ISA Detainees in Malaysia Some 1,000 Malaysians from all walks of life and across the country marched for about four kilometres and held an hour long peaceful anti-ISA vigil outside the Kamunting Detention Centre in Taiping, Perak last Saturday.So Singaporeans, we local activists not the only ones holding vigils such as this, which at the least help to build a sense of togetherness amongst people with a common goal. Mystery shrouds Tamilian’s death in Singapore prison SIV will arrange for a petition demanding an explanation for his death.Wednesday June 4 2008 12:44 IST S Irshad Ahmed, Newindpress.com THANJAVUR: The hapless parents of Katturaja (32) of Nemmeli North in Orathanadu taluk are crying foul over the “mysterious" death of their son in a Singapore prison.According to sources, Katturaja, son of R Govindaraju, went to Singapore at the age of 21, through a travel agent on a tourist visa but overstayed there for 11 years as he could not get any job there.Katturaja was arrested by Singapore police just three months ago on the charge of “overstay without valid permit in the country” and was lodged in prison.An inmate of the prison, hailing from Movur village in Thanjavur district who rang up to Govindaraju, informed him of the shocking news that Katturaja died in prison on May 22. When Govindaraju contacted the Indian Embassy in Singapore, the officials also confirmed the information.However, there was no proper communication sent to the parents either by the Singapore Government or the Indian Embassy in Singapore about the death of Katturaja, triggering suspicion.“Despite having our proper postal address, the prison authorities have not bothered to keep us informed about his death. There has been no proper communication either by the prison authorities or the embassy. We came to learn about his death only through the call made by one of the inmates”, Govindaraju told this website's newspaper.Govindaraju also expressed apprehension that his son might have been murdered in the prison. “My son, who spoke to me over phone three months ago, never complained of ill-health even once. So, it gives room for suspicion that he might have been murdered”, Govindaraju added.Katturaja’s parents Govindaraju and Prabavathi, accompanied by his three sisters, Kalpana, Kalairani and Karpagam, who gave a representation to the district administration on Tuesday, demanded that arrangements be made for bringing his body to his native place to enable them to have a last glimpse on the body.When contacted, Collector’s PA (General) D P Raju said Govindaraju’s representation would be sent to the government and steps would be taken to bring the body.Related news: Vaiko writes to PM for retrieving body from Singapore Announcement: Vigil for CSJ and CSC To express our solidarity with Dr Chee Soon Juan and Ms Chee Siok Chin, our ardent defenders of democracy, we will be holding a candle light vigil on Thursday at Changi where Ms Chee is serving her 10 days sentence, and then on Friday at Queenstown, where Dr Chee is serving his 12 days sentence.Thursday, 5 June When: 7:30 pm - 11:00 pmWhere: Changi Women's Prison Friday, 6 June When: 7:30 pm - 11:00 pmWhere: Queenstown Remand PrisonWe invite you to come and light a candle for democracy. Call for sedition charge against US blogger to be dropped Thursday, 05 June 2008 Reporters Without BordersReporters Without Borders today condemned a case brought by the authorities under the Sedition Act against blogger Gopalan Nair, a 58-year-old American lawyer, who criticised the Supreme Court’s handling of a defamation case. Nair, who allegedly emailed a judge to criticise her handling of the high profile political case, has been held in custody since 31 May. His trial is set for tomorrow and he faces up to three years in prison and a fine equivalent to nearly 2,400 euros. “We urge the authorities to drop charges against Gopalan Nair, who has only exercised his right of free expression. This charge is improper and will add to the intimidation of bloggers and Internet users who express themselves about Singapore’s political life”, the worldwide press freedom organisation said. Nair is accused of sending an email to Judge Belinda Anq Saw Ean telling her that she had mishandled a defamation case pitting former Singapore prime minister Lee Kuan Yew and his son, the current prime minister Lee Hsien Loong, against the leader of the Singapore Democratic party (SDP) Chee Soon Juan and his sister, Siok Chin. These last two were today sentenced to 12 and 10 days respectively in prison for “contempt of court”. “We express our solidarity with Chee Soon Juan and Siok Chin wrongly charged with defamation. We call for their immediate release. This sentence only confirms our opinion that Gopalan Nair was providing a news service on his blog by showing how this case was conducted,” the organisation added. Nair denied having emailed the judge and said that all his publications on the trial hearings were posted on his blog. He had particularly criticised the final day of the trial, during which Lee Kuan Yew reportedly said that he wanted to sue all Internet users who were guilty of defaming him online. In an article posted on his blog on 30 May, Nair said: “There is no doubt in the Singaporean sense, I have defamed him and his Prime Minister son, not only in my last blog post but in almost all my blog posts since my blog’s inception in December 2006”. He also gives the name of the hotel in which he is staying and the telephone numbers where he can be reached. Nair was arrested in Singapore on 31 May for “insulting a public servant” under Article 13D of the Miscellaneous offences Act, because of his criticism of the judge. His lawyer learned today that Nair is being charged under the Sedition Act (http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/). His blog remains accessible in Singapore. He worked in Singapore for ten years before leaving for the USA in the 1990s and is an active member of Singapore’s Workers’ Party and stood at parliamentary elections in 1998 and 1991. He took US citizenship in 2005. Free Gopalan Nair! A group of activists (including myself, Seelan Palay) and SDP members gathered outside the Central Police Station at Cantonment Road and held a vigil for Mr Gopalan Nair who is under detention for allegedly sending emails insulting the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General.Mr Nair, a former Singaporean and now US citizen, was arrested last Saturday evening in his room at the Broadway Hotel at Serangoon Road.He had posted on his blog comments about Mr Lee Kuan Yew using the legal system to achieve his political aim. Mr Nair, however, says that he did not send email to the AG and SG.Mr Nair has been remanded by the police for investigations and his counsel Mr Chia Ti ik has not been able to see him. US embassy officials are said to be keeping a close watch on the matter.The SDP is concerned that Mr Nair will be put under duress to make self-incriminating statements. The Singapore Democrats call on the police to expedite their investigations and charge Mr Nair if they have any evidence. He should then be released on bail. Until then, the prisoner should have access to counsel.Such denial of access to counsel is an abomination of the criminal justice system which the supposedly First World Government should be ashamed of.The activists gathered outside the police station from 7:30 pm. A few new faces joined the group to offer moral support. One of them, who is back in Singapore for a holiday, said he had been following events on the SDP website said he wanted to come down to show his support.Mr Nair's arrest has been reported widely by news agencies. The SDP understands that some of the lawmakers in the US have been alerted to the situation.The group dispersed at 11 pm.Source: Singapore Democrats Dr Chee and Ms Chee to go to prison tomorrow Tuesday, 03 June 2008 Singapore DemocratsDr Chee Soon Juan and Ms Chee Siok Chin have decided not to delay their prison sentences and begin their imprisonment starting tomorrow. The two SDP leaders have been convicted of contempt of court by Judge Belinda Ang and sentenced to 12 and 10 days imprisonment respectively. Their convictions arose out of the cross-examination of Mr Lee Kuan Yew and Mr Lee Hsien Loong in the assessment of damages hearing held at the Supreme Court last week. Dr Chee and Ms Chee are unable to file their Notices of Appeal by the deadline because they cannot pay the $2,000 required to file their appeals. Judge Ang had given them until the close of business day of 4 Jun 08 to do so failing which they would go to jail the following day.The defendants had, instead, written to the court and said that they would report tomorrow at 12 noon for their sentences. Police arrest Gopalan Nair! By Bhagman Singh, Channel NewsAsia, 010608 SINGAPORE: Police have arrested a former Singaporean for the offence of "threatening, abusing or insulting a public servant".In response to media queries, police confirmed that Gopalan Pallichadath Nair, who is now a US citizen, was arrested at Broadway Hotel along Serangoon Road on Saturday.A warrant of arrest without bail was granted by the courts for the arrest.Nair is alleged to have sent an email to the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General which contained statements amounting to the offence of insulting a public servant.The statements were directed against Justice Belinda Ang, a Supreme Court judge. The statements were also posted on Nair's blog.Nair is presently in police custody. He will be charged in court on Monday. - CNA/de Why I Will Not Vote For Yaw Shin Leong In The Next Election Seelan PalayThree weeks ago, during one of our casual activist gatherings, some friends and I started discussing about ramblings in a local Internet forum (Sammy Boy), where some forum participants were unable to reconcile with the fact that Workers' Party Organising Secretary Yaw Shin Leong voted for PAP MP Teo Ho Pin in GE2006.I told them I had already read about it on Yaw Shin Leong's blog.I agree with his view that it is a trait for humans to operate within the paradigms of subjectivity and objectivity. Personally, I too do not believe in opposition for opposition's sake. In this regard, he believes there is nothing inherently wrong for him to vote for an MP, regardless of his/her partisan background, whom in his opinion is the better man/woman who can better serve the interests of Singapore and his community (Bukit Panjang SMC).However the "better man" in this case represents the PAP, a party that has a track record of suppressing fundamental freedoms of speech, expression and assembly. The PAP has done nothing to speak out against the unlawful detentions of numerous journalists, unionists, lawyers, activists and other Singaporeans over the decades. These issues will surely affect me when making a decision such as voting.For example, I'm a vegetarian and so was Hitler. Does that mean I would have voted for Hitler despite knowing his party's background? Consciously (or unconsciously), Yaw Shin Leong has given his vote to keep the PAP's authoritarian machinery in place. The rationalization of his voting a PAP MP in the interests of Singaporeans does not work well enough for me as the general interests of most Singaporeans may not be the general interests of mine.In other words, being a forefront non-partisan activist, myself am of the view that a not a single candidate from the ruling regime deserves my vote. Ling How Doong should perhaps try harder too, if he wants to 'get there'.If I was given the choice to vote for either Yaw Shin Leong or a PAP MP next week, I'll be in JB eating Roti Canai. Closing statement by Chee Soon Juan in court with Lee Kuan Yew Wednesday, 28 May 2008Your Honour,This case has been one fraught with acrimony and controversy. Many legal points have been raised, some of which I have understood, others have completely bewildered me. But all the points raised centred around one subject: Whether there was malice when we published that NKF article.Let me deal with this point. It is clear as daylight that the plaintiffs sued not because their reputations were tarnished but that it was a way to stop our campaigning over the issue during the elections. Instead of letting the public decide, they have dragged the courts in and insisted that the courts adjudicate in a matter where it should not. In the process, they put the courts in an untenable and unenviable position. This is a tragedy that history will not kindly look upon.But a court case is what we have and court cases are about seeking the truth and allowing that truth to surface.As I pointed out, the question centres around whether there was malice on our part.I cannot deny that I get angry and even bitter with Mr Lee Kuan Yew over the things that he has said and done to me and others. But through the years, I have seen the bigger picture and developed a sense of calm and equanimity that comes with knowing my role in society.And because I feel at ease, I don't hate Mr Lee Kuan Yew and Mr Lee Hsien Loong. I don't wish them ill in anyway despite all that they have done and continue to do to me and my family.I harbour no hatred towards Mr Lee Kuan Yew and Mr Lee Hsien Loong, much less any malice.To hate my opponents would drag me down to their level of rancour and deceit which has no place in what we're trying to achieve for Singapore. I find it too draining and distracting to harbour those emotions.My Christian faith guides me and it is a faith that compels me to fght for justice and to treat my fellow men and women with compassion.Mr Lee tempts and taunts me to get out of bankruptcy and get back into the stream of political life that he sits as lord and master. Believe me, in such an environment it is a temptation that can be overpowering.What I said to Mr Lee Kuan Yew during the cross-examination is exactly where I stand. I feel sorry for him but I don't hate him.But I also told him that ultimately it isn't about him. Neither is it about his son, and it most certainly is not about me. It is about this country and the people who live in it.It is about what is just. It is about compassion and how we treat our fellow men. It is about freedom and human dignity.A society stripped bare of these virtues is a society unable to embrace humanity. A society without humanity is a thought too frightening to entertain.Mr Lee Kuan Yew kept on repeating how he built up this country and how much he has stored in the reserves. That is the tragedy of the man. For all his intelligence, he does not possess the wisdom of life.Because unlike reputation, character cannot be bought. A true statesmen will not need to fight for his reputation, for that will shine through even after he takes his final bow and leaves the stage of life. His name will linger on and be writ large fondly in the hearts of many for generations to come.Many lies have been spread about truly great leaders. And yet these lies have never been able to snuff out the greatness in these individuals. On the contrary, their legacy grows in size and intensity.Mr Lee Kuan Yew fights all his demons within himself to try to shore up his reputation. In the process, however, he destroys the very legacy that he so desperately desires to establish.When he pulled out the citation from Transparency International Malaysia and tried to use it as an endorsement of his integrity it, frankly, surprised me because it showed me how empty Mr Lee's life has become.Such an intelligent man and yet so utterly devoid of wisdom. Can he not understand that no paper, no award, no citation can ever hope to still the voices of those who see the truth behind the propaganda?I take no joy in pointing out to him how TIM is not an established, well-grounded institution on which one can take pride in being awarded a citation especially on the subject on integrity. In fact, I felt bad to point that out because it seemed that it was all the MM was clinging to.Mr Lee must understand that integrity cannot, and does not, come from the grandiloquence of one's speech, it must shine forth from the righteousness of one's heart. If that light of righteousness is dim, no amount of persuasion will brighten it.Can he not grasp the fact that no amount of wealth and power can hold back the silent voices forever? When he is no longer with us in this world, no amount of suppression can hold back the vehemence of his critics.I hope he takes the little time that he has left to ponder what I have said and to turn from his ways. It is not too late.Over the last couple of days in court I have observed, as have many here, how those around him treat him with such servitude that made my hair stand on end. For whatever reason, they go out of their way to show him their subservience.They are doing him a disservice by not telling him that he needs to amend his ways if he so desires to uphold his integrity. Maybe he has chosen to surround himself with these yes-people. Either way Mr Lee is moving in life's wrong direction.Which brings me to the damages. I stand by everything I have written in the article in The New Democrat about the NKF as it relates to the running of this country because it is the truth and Mr Lee and the rulers of this country must always hear the truth no matter how inconvenient that truth may be.I know what I say now will not make a difference in terms of damages.I willingly assume the position in this life because if this is the path that God has chosen for me then I cannot run away.I can leave this country or I can capitulate and join what others have done in politics under the PAP. I will do neither. For to me my own integrity is at stake and that cannot be paid for in dollars.Mr Lee may try to tempt me out of bankruptcy but it will not work. I may remain a bankrupt for the rest of my life as a result of my obstinacy. It is not a position one aspires to but it is a cause I find worthy of battle and a call, though sometimes I may resist, I will ultimately trust and obey.So, Your Honour, we have come to the stage where all of us will be held to account for what we do today. It is said that as we make our bed, so shall we lie in it.What we do today will live on in history forever. I do not envy your position. I ask that you forgive me if I have offended you in a personal way. I had no intention of doing that. In another place and time, we would be perhaps be good friends.But I have to take issue with your position as a Judge and what you have done as well as the decisions you have made in this courtroom. To that extent I will fight you with every fibre of my being for the sake of justice.We all have decisions to make in life. I have made mine and I am at ease with it. You have yours to make. I wish you wisdom and honesty.Thank you.CHEE SOON JUANSource: yoursdp.org Opposition leader calls hearing on premier's lawsuit 'pathetic' "I do not hate you," said Chee. "You are not worth the time and the effort."*The Earth TimesSingapore's most vocal opposition leader accused the High Court on Tuesday of making his cross-examination of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong "meaningless" by upholding objections to almost every question asked.Lee and Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew pressed for a second day for aggravated damages against Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) chief Chee Soon Juan, his sister and executive member Chee Siok Chin, and the party itself.Justice Belinda Ang granted the request of Lee's lawyer Davider Singh to limit the time for cross-examination of the prime minister, which started on Monday. She also agreed to set two hours for the cross-examination of independence leader and Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, wrapping up the proceedings on Tuesday instead of Wednesday.Lee took the witness stand for more than an hour. Singh objected to one question after another from Chee, who was representing himself, continually on the grounds of irrelevance. The objections were upheld."You have chopped off our legs and lopped off our arms," Chee Siok Chin said to Ang. "Do you want our heads next?"The Lees won the defamation suit against the SDP and the Chees in 2006 stemming from the SDP newsletter, The New Democrat, published before the general election that year. It contained articles on a scandal at the National Kidney Foundation and drew parallels between how the charity and government were run.The father and son sued over remarks which alleged they were corrupt and covered up wrongdoings at the foundation.Not only were questions touching on the scandal ruled irrelevent, but others on Government Investment Corporation funds, Lee's salary and his awareness of the plights of the elderly poor and other conditions in the affluent city-state."Lee has said he takes great pride in his integrity," Chee told Ang in explaining a question. "It must be relevant.""Move on," she responded.Lee did acknowledge that he had said that Chee harbored hatred toward him. When Chee asked how Lee knew him, the prime minister said "not as a personal friend" but from his record as a public figure."I do not hate you," said Chee. "You are not worth the time and the effort."*The case marks the first time any leader of the ruling People's Action Party has been cross-examined by a political opponent in open court. The party holds all but two seats in the 84-member parliament and has dominated the political scene since independence from Malaysia in 1965.If the SDP is unable to pay up, the 28-year-old party faces the prospect of dissolution.Chee Soon Juan was declared bankrupt following a defamation award of 500,000 Singapore dollars (373,000 US dollars) in February 2006 to Lee Kuan Yew and another former prime minister, Goh Chok Tong.He is barred from running for parliament until 2011. His sister was declared bankrupt for failing to pay costs related to a protest last year. Activists and critics including Amnesty International say Singapore's leaders use defamation lawsuits to cripple opposition politicians. The government maintains such legal action is necessary to safeguard the leaders' reputations.http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/208124,opposition-leader-calls-hearing-on-premiers-lawsuit-pathetic.html* Dr Chee's full quote to Mr Lee Hsien Loong was: "I don't hate you. To hate someone, that someone must do something big and controversial. Your only claim to legitimacy is that you are Lee Kuan Yew's son. So don't flatter yourself." You not worth the time and the effort." Singapore PM faces opposition in court showdown Reuters, SINGAPORE, May 26 - Singapore's Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong took the stand in court on Monday to be cross-examined by opposition leaders, in a case to determine defamation damages against an opposition party.Lee and his father, former premier Lee Kuan Yew, are expected to ask for aggravated damages against the Singapore Democratic Party , its leader Chee Soon Juan and his sister Chee Siok Chin, for articles in the party's newspaper in 2006 that were found to be defamatory.The SDP's lawyer M. Ravi said this would be the first time the Lees will be cross-examined by political opponents in court."The lawsuit was brought to clear my name and establish the facts," Lee Hsien Loong told Ravi in court. "This case is not about money, this case is about establishing the facts and putting a stop to poisonous lies," Lee said, when asked why he was sueing two bankrupt people.Chee Siok Chin was declared bankrupt last year for failing to pay legal costs in a lawsuit involving a protest. Chee Soon Juan was also declared bankrupt last February after failing to make libel payments of S$500,000 to Lee Kuan Yew and former prime minister Goh Chok Tong.Lee Kuan Yew, 84, is credited with policies that have been critical to making Singapore one of the region's most prosperous countries, but has been criticised by human rights groups for his use of lawsuits against political opponents and the media."Would you agree that your family controls Singapore?" Ravi asked Lee Hsien Loong, to gasps from a packed audience in Singapore's Supreme Court. Lee's lawyer objected to the question and the objection was upheld.Singapore's political landscape has been dominated by one party -- the People's Action Party -- since its independence in 1965. Its past two prime ministers still retain loosely defined cabinet posts, namely "minister mentor" and "senior minister".The lawsuit could see the winding up of the 28-year-old opposition SDP party if the defendants are not able to pay the damages, said Gandhi Ambalam, a senior SDP member.The hearing is expected to last three days. Singapore probes political film on Lee Kuan Yew SINGAPORE (Reuters) - Singapore's media regulator is investigating the screening of a political film that an opposition party said critically examines the city-state's first prime minister, Lee Kuan Yew.The film, "One Nation Under Lee", was made by a group of political activists and looks at the rise of Lee and his relationship with the media, Chee Siok Chin, a senior member of the opposition Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), told Reuters.It was screened to an audience of about 70 at an opposition party fundraising event last week, before Singapore's media regulator interrupted the showing and took the film, said Chee, the event organiser."After investigation, the Board of Film Censors (BFC) proceeded to serve a notice to the appropriate person that it would be an offence to screen a film that has not been submitted to the BFC for classification and that is not approved for exhibition," Tan Chiu Kee of the BFC said in a statement late on Tuesday, adding that a copy had been handed to officials.Singapore, which has been ruled by the People's Action Party (PAP) for over 40 years, bans the production and screening of all political films, imposing a maximum fine of S$100,000 ($73,260) or a jail term of two years on those caught.Lee Kuan Yew, 84, is credited with policies that have been critical to making Singapore one of the region's most prosperous countries, but has been criticised by human rights groups for his use of lawsuits against political opponents and the media. Online politicization: Singapore’s source of new activists by James GomezThe post 2006 GE participation and exposure to online political expression and real world political activities has given birth to a new pool of civil-political activists in Singapore.This new pool of activists who are made of mostly younger Singapore are likely to play the role of supporters, reinforcements, activists and online alternative news providers in the run up to the next general elections.Real-time interactive environmentSingapore’s internet political landscape after GE 2006 has evolved in keeping with developments and advancements in WEB 2.0 technology. As a result almost real-time interactive capability and capacity has now become a prominent online feature of Singapore’s internet landscape.This means that event coverage, reporting and commentary in prose and video of alternative political activities in Singapore are now almost instantaneously.In particular, popular alternative online platforms in Singapore now consistently feature pictures and video. Political video content, especially, is getting popular because, for many, this form of content (if it is just shoot and upload) is easier to compile than writing time consuming well thought out prose.With cheaper and dual functioned (picture and video capture features) digital cameras and the advent of distribution platforms such as YouTube, the whole process of picture taking, filming and uploading visual-audio content has become easier.Unlike, prose, videos in particular provide real world content that viewers can now “see” for themselves thereby increasing their level of “experience” with alternative political issues and events. More elaborate production of “films” take up more resources and time to produce but they deepen the political experience further.From online to real world interactivityThis online real-time interactivity is now leading into real-world interactivity. Unlike a few years ago when political expression was limited to online platforms, increasingly online political expression is increasingly linked to real world politicsThe post GE 2006 sees those who start online initially, moving on to carry through what they say and propose on the internet in the real world. They do this by organizing and participating in real world activities of political action and protest thus completing the full circle of online-real-world interactivity.Online political expression is thus increasingly leading to opportunities for staging pro-opposition or anti-PAP policy real world actions in Singapore.Since GE 2006, a variety of real world campaigns organized and publicized online has taken place in the real world and more is to be expected in the run up to the next general elections.More migration of alternative views to the NetGiven the culture of opposition party and anti-PAP policy reportage in the local media, this new online real-time real-world interactive environment is seeing an increasing migration of alternative views to the internet.Literally anyone who does not get a letter published in the local media can now publish online on their blog or on any other site that will carry it. They can additionally air their grievance against certain PAP policy and share their personal stories and clashes with the PAP administration and institutionsPolitical active and aware people in Singapore also no longer need the “approval” of the organizations that they might choose to belong in the traditional sense to do the things they want to do. Individual member of NGOs or opposition parties are very much emancipated in taking their view online and then participating in direct action.Collectively, the accumulation of alternative political expression online eventually spills over into the real world as political action and protests.Re-defining Singapore’s online activistsThe net outcome of this internet political socialization is the presence of new activists across Singapore’s civil-political landscape.In the real world, opposition parties’ youth wings have benefited, human rights and political issue groups has seen more youth interest at their activities. In the online world others have joined the legions of bloggers contributing to the myriad of political opinion on the Net.Using the internet to publicize what they want and attending as observers or taking part in activities where they want in the real world of politics make Singapore’s internet using political activists a new emerging force.Limiting oneself strictly to an online presence does not complete the full circle of interactivity as Web 2.0 technology and society integrates further. Neither does claiming to be an online activist simply by limiting ones action to online platforms singularly.This means widening the definition of an online activist to necessarily also mean someone who will also be a real world activistA disparate groupPost GE 2006 shows there is a shift from whence young people and others who limited their political expression and activity to only online platforms to more moving to use the interactive features of the present web technology to be in evolved in real life actions.But this new group of activists are not united in their push against the republic’s anti-democratic target - the People’s Action Party, instead have become aligned to the present divisions within the larger civil-political landscape in the city-state.Unlike in other Asian countries where the young or a newly internet politicized can be a force of their own, in Singapore these politicized internet savvy youths remain a disparate group.They do not work as a broad coalition among themselves for democratic change in Singapore. However, the various groups know they exist and know of each others alignment, however there is little cross communication between the different forces.Conclusion: Reinforcements for GE 2010bNot withstanding the above, the maintenance of individual blogs and the contribution of content and opinions to online forums, websites and blog aggregators have become key mechanisms of political socialization in Singapore since 2006 GE.This explains why there has been a visible increase in the number of people being involved in online staged real world actions.As the level of interactively and real time speed increases this will have a direct bearing on political expression and action in Singapore.The real world platform where all these new activists will converge would be at Singapore’s next major political event – GE 2010.http://www.jamesgomeznews.com/ Film on Lee Kuan Yew seized by MDA "It was a private screening but that didn't stop officers from the Media Development Authority (MDA) from seizing a copy of the film, "One Nation Under Lee", at the Tulip Room in the Peninsular Excelsior Hotel.The film, produced by activist and artist Seelan Palay, was a narrative of how Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew subjugated various institutions in Singapore, such as the press, under the government's control during his time as Prime Minister. It also depicted how the social divide in Singapore is a result of the People's Action Party's policies. The film included interviews with former Solicitor General Francis Seow, political detainee Said Zahari, opposition politician JB Jeyaretnam and scenes of various public protests which had taken place in Singapore."Read full reports at -TOCSingapore RebelSDPWatch the film here - http://sheepcitytv.com/ Malaysian Government Revokes Passport of Human Rights Lawyer P Waytha Moorthy PRESS STATEMENTRE : MALAYSIAN GOVERNMENT REVOKES MY PASSPORT & THE STRUGGLE CONTINUESI was travelling back to London from Geneva after the HINDRAF briefing with the United Nations High Commissioner’s office on Human Rights on April 21, 2008 and was totally shocked to be informed by the UK immigration officer at Gatwick Airport that the Malaysian government had revoked my passport thus making me de facto stateless. I see only one purpose. The Malaysian Government had intended that I be deported back to Malaysia by the British authorities so that I too could be arrested under the draconian Internal Security Act and be detained for unspecified period of time without trial and be subject to torture and inhumane treatment for my political beliefs. I have not committed any offence or crime other than to champion the cause of the systematically marginalized, discriminated and alienated ethic Indian community in Malaysia who remained a permanently colonized community despite achieving independence 51 years ago. It is most distressing to learn that, the land that my forefathers toiled as indentured labourers and one that I had been made citizen by the will of the unavoidable circumstances has decided to banish and exile me for speaking and advocating the truth that was never spoken off before. The government has once again acted according to its whims and fancy without a second thought of the public or for the good of the public. The Malaysian government repetitively had oppressed , suppressed and persecuted all causes of HINDRAF by their act of totalitarianism from the very beginning but nevertheless the will and spirit of the HINDRAF supporters have been the beacon of hope for the new strength founded upon our new found MAKKAL SAKTHI (people power). The callous and cowardly acts of the government against me not only undermine their credibility domestically but also internationally. The government needs to realize that the Malaysian public can no longer be cowed as the public are no longer the sheeps that begets the government wolves. The government may use its best weapon in attempting to stall and break me but they fail to realize that I derive my strength from my MAKKAL SAKTHI and that is all that I need to carry on the torch and fight for the unjust cause of the ethnic Indians in Malaysia even if it means championing my cause from exile. As much as I have been coerced, castigated by the Malaysian government, so have the HINDRAF supporters. HINDRAF supporters have shown unprecedented courage and character for the truth. It only motivates me further to pursue our goals. The revocation of my passport is probably the last ditch desperate effort by the Malaysian government in crippling my international lobby for the cause of the Malaysian Indians. This unwarranted act has given me a greater “inner” strength to continue to fight for the struggle of the Malaysian Indians and for the unconditional release of my fellow brothers held unjustly in Kamunting. The government can unleash all the man made mechanism to stifle and silence me, but I have the backing of MAKKAL SAKTHI and that alone is sufficient for me to continue my fight for the people. In MAKKAL SAKTHI, I have found the truthness of my cause for the people. In today's world, utterance of truth is seen as a revolutionary action, and my quest for the truthness has resulted as a hindrance for the government. My judge is the people not the government. I will continue this struggle until my last breath. They may break me but they will never be able to break my will and spirit that is derived from the people for the truthness is in it. I shall continue the struggle for the “freedom” of the ethnic Malaysian Indians from London and urge all HINDRAF supporters to remain calm as they have always been. I shall forever remain a loyal Malaysian and will return to Malaysia soon to continue and accomplish what I had started. P.Waytha Moorthy Chairman HINDRAF www.hindraf.org and www.hindraf.co.uk SDP may be made to shut down The party of some of my friends, the Singapore Democratic Party may be shut down by Lee Kuan Yew through a lawsuit. Visit yoursdp.org for details. American War Paaru Daa (Look at that American War) Traditional Ritual to Bless & Empower M Ravi to represent Temple's legal rights Video and full article at Uncle Yap's blogToday 3.Mar.2008 is accordingly the divine birthday celebrated by Taoists for Tua Pek Kong 大伯公. I was invited at night to Woodlands GuangXiaoShan 广孝山 Chinese Temple to witness and film a traditional Taoist ritual, by which lawyer Mr. M. Ravi was blessed and empowered spiritually to represent the legal rights of Woodlands GuangXiaoShan 广孝山 Chinese Temple @ 506C Woodlands Road.Followers & religious leaders are unwilling to move from their location where the Chinese Temple and sacred burial grounds of OVER 100 years, past down by ancestors of the Teochew Ngee Ann Kong Si. The famiLEE LEEgime is evicting this temple and to exhume all the graves around for their project to build new MRT line linking to Johore Bahru.Mr. M. Ravi is now representing the legal rights of Woodlands GuangXiaoShan 广孝山 Chinese Temple @ 506C Woodlands Road.Video showed divine black military flag was used to perform empowering ritual on Mr. M. Ravi to represent legal rights of temple.During a session conferring with spiritual medium of Tua Pek Kong 大伯公, traditional divine seal was impressed upon joss papers, handed over to Mr. M. Ravi.Sammyboymod thread James Gomez @ Tak Boleh Tahan James Gomez's Labour Day message at the Tak Boleh Tahan campaign event. Marking World Press Freedom Day 2008 in Singapore Click here for photo gallery of all our messages marking World Press Freedom Day 2008 in Singapore.WORLD PRESS FREEDOM DAY 2008Today is World Press Freedom Day: an opportunity to reflect upon the principles of press freedom. Press freedom must be championed and protected as it comprises the fundamental Freedom of Expression (Article 19, Universal Declaration of Human Rights). UNESCO's 2008 themes for this day are Access to Information and Empowerment.In resonance with this, we as independent activists marked World Press Freedom Day 2008 this morning, with a series of messages to share our thoughts on the state of press freedom in Singapore.CENSORED NEWS IS NO NEWSIt's no big secret that Singapore, though proudly claiming to be a 'First-World' country, is ranked 141 out of 167 in 2007's World Press Freedom Index (Reporters Without Borders). 142 is Afghanistan. For the same year, Singapore is ranked 157 out of 195 countries in the Freedom of the Press World Ranking (Freedom House). 158 is Iraq.Freedom House clearly establishes Singapore's status as "Not free". Not free. Shackled. Clipped. Censored? A common criterion to these indices is an evaluation of the level of censorship. Though news in Singapore may not be overtly censored, the problem is self-censorship.FREE PRESS, FREE MINDSA freer press empowers people as it gives them pluralism in sources of information as well as access to diverse points of view. All of us have the right to form and express our opinions and respect should be accorded to this right through freedom to access information.NEWSPAPERS AND PRINTING PRESSES ACT = REPRESSIONThe Newspapers and Printing Presses Act was introduced in 1975. In effect, the Act enables the State to impose such restrictions as:• Permits (to be renewed every year) granted on a discretionary basis for locally published newspapers. In addition, these permits may be granted with conditions such as the State's specification on the language in which the newspaper may be published.• Permits required for the sale and distribution of foreign newspapers. In addition, individuals will need to comply with this permissibility for any papers brought in which may be for personal consumption. Complementary provision for powers of examination of packages and articles is included.Other incidents of repressive media management include lawsuits against foreign newspapers such as the Asian Wall Street Journal and the Far Eastern Economic Review (FEER), a publication currently banned in Singapore. Yet let us not forget one of the most glaring examples: persecution of journalists. Most notable was the 17-year detention under the Internal Security Act of Said Zahari, editor of then-locally published Utusan Melayu.NO TO MEDIA MONOPOLYToday, the press in Singapore is monopolised by the Singapore Press Holdings. It publishes all but one of the dailies (the exception is TODAY published by Mediacorp) – a far cry from a lively press and publishing history in Singapore (pre-1975). There were several papers published in Malay, Indian and Chinese languages as compared to just these main non-English newspapers: Berita Harian, Tamil Murasu, Lianhe Zaobao (& Wanbao) and Shin Min Daily respectively.GET ALTERNATIVES, GET ONLINEThough press freedom in the professional arena should be safeguarded, individuals can overcome a restrictive and biased press through citizen journalism. Through the new medium of the Internet, citizen journalism, which increases participation in the exchange of news and information, is on the rise. Alternative sources are available on the internet on web portals and blogs that allow individuals to express themselves and engage with others in open discussion.Open discussions and dialogue on all human issues are vital for us to engage with each other in an environment of respect and dignity. The role of a free and pluralistic press as such a forum enshrines the fundamental freedom of expression for everyone.To continue this dialogue on press freedom and efforts to promote it in Singapore, email Noora at noorazul@gmail.comAn effort by Singapore activists,Chong Kai XiongHo Choon HiongIsrizalNoora ZulSeelan PalayShafiie Amnesty International Report on Singapore by Margaret JohnCoordinator for Singapore and Malaysia Singapore: The March election in Malaysia raised questions about the possibilities for political change in Singapore. The Star wrote "For younger Singaporeans who want political change the defining March 8 general election in Malaysia has come as an encouragement and morale booster....In fact, there has already been a psychological impact on some Singaporean minds that if it can happen there [in Malaysia], it can surely happen here. Some 33% of Singaporeans voted opposition in 2006". The Star wrote that Singaporeans watched with amazement the "sweeping impact of the worldwide web in shaping public opinion in Malaysia" (19/4) Human rights defenders -- despite persecution -- continued to take action and encouraged Singaporeans to overcome their fear and speak up. Leading opposition party members were increasingly engaged in extending their international involvement and impact. Issues of wealth and poverty became more pronounced. Singapore again opposed UN moves toward abolition of the death penalty. The Law Society of Singapore set up a committee to promote greater awareness of human rights. Human rights concerns include: - Four offenders face imminent execution; - Dr Chee Soon Juan and colleagues faced further difficulties through the courts; - Singapore's leaders were seen as taking no steps to loosen state control over the media, films and the Internet; - Two offenders were sentenced to be caned; - Singapore was repeatedly reported as providing financial and other support for Myanmar. General: AI and other NGOs urged the ASEAN countries to take steps to implement human rights reforms via the new ASEAN Charter. Dr Munawar Anees again addressed the issue of Islam's place in the world and the need for inter-religious discussion, understanding and cooperation. Calls came worldwide for real change in Asia regarding the whole spectrum of human rights.Read More May Day Message from Gandhi Ambalam, SDP Chairman