Monday, November 16, 2009
Thursday, November 05, 2009
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 Singapore
The 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 censorship
What are some of the laws that restrict freedom of expression in Singapore?
Internal Security Act
The 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 Act
All 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 Act
The 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 Act
Another 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 Defamation
Defamation 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 Act
Singapore 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 ) Act
Under 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 Act
The 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 Act
The 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 Act
Section 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 Freedom
Singapore 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 censorship
The 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 Authority
The 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 Ho
Robert 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 Nair
59 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 censorship
In 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 back
The 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.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
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 2009
He might as well be referring to his own country.
One Law For Her
Permanent 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 Them
Another For Them
One Law For Them
Police 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 Them
A flash mob organized in Raffles City as part of the Esplanade dance festival.
One Country, Two Systems Part l, Part ll and Part lll
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
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 Years
We 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.sg
Creative People, Gracious Community, Connected Singapore
Saturday, October 10, 2009
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.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
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 Years
Dear 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, Martyn
singaporerebel.blogspot.com
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Men In White author responds to Martyn See's blog post
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
