First human rights films festival held in Singapore

Singapore's first human rights film festival, held at the Substation Arts Centre on Sunday 14 Nov, 2010, saw the screening of 7 short films from Freedom Film Fest, a premier event in the calendar of Malaysia's civil society for the last seven years, and brought to local audience this year by Singaporeans for Democracy (SFD).

Despite an earlier downpour, about 80 people packed the Guinness Theatre for 4 hours to witness documentaries about the democracy movements, police corruption, lives of transsexual sex workers, plight of the Orang Asli and the forces that sparked the notorious cow-head protest.

A common consensus heard from viewers after the screenings were that the content of the films were enlightening and evenly researched.

SFD members Seelan Palay and Martyn See rounded up the afternoon by promising that the next FFF will feature local content, but of course this is contingent upon the approval of the censors at the Media Development Authority, who had rated all but one of the seven films M18. Human rights, according to the Singapore government, are for "mature" audiences. SFD pledges to correct that misconception.



An earlier press release for the event.

Pro-democracy group to hold first human rights film festival in Singapore
A film festival dedicated to the promotion of human rights issues will be held for the first time in Singapore on November 14, 2010. Organised by local political association Singaporeans For Democracy (SFD), Freedom Film Fest Singapore will showcase seven human rights documentaries from neighbouring Malaysia.
- Hide quoted text -


Details as follows :

Freedom Film Festival Singapore : A Showcase of Human Rights Films from Malaysia.
Date : 14 Nov 2010
Time : 2pm to 6pm
Venue : Guinness Theatre, Substation Arts Centre, 45 Armenian Street
Facebook event page: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=135960353120755
Admission is free, but donations are welcome. Sales of T-shirts and other paraphernalia at the door.

Are there any films from Singapore? Why not?

No, there are no films from Singapore. The Films Act prohibits the production and exhibition of films which display biased references towards any political issue or persons in Singapore. The penalties for such an offence is a conviction to a fine not exceeding $100,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years. In 2005, local filmmaker Martyn See was investigated by the police for such an offence. Two of See's films remained banned in the country. Another filmmaker, Seelan Palay, is currently undergoing criminal investigation for exhibiting a documentary critical of Lee Kuan Yew. The legal restrictions to political film-making, compounded by a culture of fear among filmmakers and artists in Singapore towards any depiction of "sensitive" issues, meant there is currently a dearth of human rights films made by Singaporeans about Singapore.

Why films from Malaysia?

Now into its seventh year, the Freedom Film Fest was initiated by Malaysian NGO Komas Pusat as a means to educate the public on the values of human rights. The festival's circuit in recent years has included Kuala Lumpur, Penang, Johor and East Malaysia. Due to our shared political and cultural history with Malaysia, SFD has decided to host the Singapore leg of the festival this year. As the views raised in these films reflect ground sentiments of the Malaysian public and of its civil society, we feel that Singaporeans would be interested to get a first-hand look at the issues affecting their neighbours. The FFF 2010 in Malaysia is supported by the European Commission. None of the films shown in its seven year history has been censored or banned by the Malaysia Government.




ABOUT THE FILMS

Kopi O Khau (30 min) 2006
Dir : Andrew Sia
Language : English, Bahasa (English subtitles)
Rated M18 (Mature Content)

In 2005, after a leaked video of a naked female suspect performing ear-squats in a police station had sparked public outrage, the Malaysian Royal Police faced a barrage of allegations including physical abuse, corruption and disproportionate allocation of resouces to monitor political activities instead of combating real crime. Kopi O Khau, translated as "thick black coffee", is a colloquial term for "coffee money", or bribes. Over a hip-hop soundtrack, Andrew Sia interviews activists, politicians and a retired police officer in his quest to restore police integrity and service in Malaysia to "truly royal standards."


Sepuluh Tahun Sebelum Merdeka, or 10 Years Before Independence (30 min) 2007
Dir : Fahmi Reza
Language : Bahasa (English subtitles)
Rated PG

October 20th, 1947 marked a historical day in the Malayan people's constitutional struggle for independence from British colonialism.
This documentary chronicles the events that culminated in the Malaya-wide 'Hartal' day of protest against the undemocratic Federation of Malaya Constitutional Proposals devised by the British Colonial Government and UMNO. Breathtaking in its scope of research and enthralling in its use of music and archival material, Fahmi Reza has aguably created the definitive film on the genesis of the democratic movement in pre-independence Malaysia and Singapore.


Pecah Lobang, or Busted (30 min) 2008
Dir : Poh Si Teng
Language : Bahasa (English subtitles)
Rated M18 (Mature Content)

Shot in the red light district in Chow Kit, Kuala Lumpur, the documentary follows the life of Natasha, a Muslim Mak Nyah (transsexual), who refuses to live life as a man. Unable to secure employment because of discrimination, Natasha turns to sex work and lives in constant fear of the police and religious authorities. While interviewing a broad cross-section of society including a religious scholar, a sex-change physician, a sociologist, attorneys and a social worker, Teng Poh Si unflinchingly examines the continuing repression of transsexuals in a Malaysian society caught between rapid modernisation and a new rising tide of religious conservatism.


Kayuh (21 min) 2009
Dir : Soh Sook Hwa
Language : Bahasa, English (English subtitles)
Rated M18 (Mature Content)

This documentary is a first-hand account of the trials and tribulations of a 100-strong contingent of cyclists who had rode into Kuala Lumpur from Kedah in the north and from Johor Baru in the south. Their purpose - to submit a memorandum to the Prime Minister to highlight six major concerns of marginalized groups in Malaysia. With an intention to make stops at villages and towns along the way to raise awareness among the public, the cyclists were repeatedly harassed by authorities from delivering their message. Unrelenting in its pursuit and invigorating in its spirit, Soh Sook Hwa has managed to produce an uplifting work to inspire activists all over the world.


Hak Dinafikan (30 min) 2010
Dir : Abri Yok Chopil & Shafie bin Dris
Language : Bahasa (English subtitles)
Not rated as yet

On March 17, 2010 more than 2,000 Orang Asli marched in a rare protest against a proposed new land policy, believed to be detrimental to their people. This documentary- made by a team of Orang Asli - contains their voices; many who are speaking out for the first time. Hear what they have to say in their own words.


Pilih (30 min) 2010
Dir : Loo Que Lin
Language : Bahasa (English subtitles)
Not rated as yet

Are Malaysian universities empowering future generations to participate in a democratic society, or are they nurturing disempowered and indoctrinated youths? Using a popular talk show format, Pilih explores the issue of campus election and exposes the reality faced by students. It gives us insight as to why Malaysian youths may be apathetic, and a micro-look as to how democracy functions in Malaysia.


Kisah Tauke Mancis Dan Minyak Tumpah (30 min) 2010
Dir : Sheridan Mahavera & Siti Nurbaiyah
Language : Bahasa (English subtitles)
Not rated as yet

This is a story of two communities and the relocation of a temple. This film takes a look behind the sensational headlines of the cow head protest to understand how the dispute came to be. It reminds us how extremism can easily be fueled when we fail to understand the context of the dispute, and manage such situations beyond the emotions.

The day Straits Times defended press freedom

Not for a hundred years has the freedom of the press in Singapore been in such danger as it is today. If the People’s Action Party is in a position to form a government, one of its first concerns will be to bring the newspapers to heel. This is the only construction that can be placed on the statements of PAP leaders, including its chairman Dr Toh Chin Chye and secretary general Lee Kuan Yew. If this conclusion is wrong, it is easy for PAP to say so. It’s leaders need only affirm their respect for freedom of the press, their respect for the right to criticize, their respect indeed for the rights of all political opposition. They must not, however, qualify their affirmation with “buts”. Like the individual, the press is either free or not free. It can comment and criticize, subject to the laws of defamation and libel, or it has no soul to call its own.

A censored press remains bad even when it produces good things. A free press remains good even when it produces bad things… a eunuch remains a mutilated being even if he possesses a fine voice. A great Socialist said that – Karl Marx. It may be that PAP’s spokesmen do not mean all they say, or that they intend to do all that they threaten. They have said some quite monstrous things, not only about the press, and are likely to go on saying them, partly no doubt because they believe threats sometimes work but also because a strong section of their following expect it of them. There is occasionally a conscious “bold bad boy” pose about PAP’s leaders, as noticeable as their undress uniform of tieless white shirt and trousers. It would be foolish and reckless, however, not to pay PAP’s leaders the compliment of believing that their threats, particularly against the press, are meant to be taken seriously.

It is ominous when is told, in an orgy of false witness by party leaders, that PAP believes in “objective reporting and the accurate dissemination of news.” This has been the classic introduction to the repression of the press everywhere the press is in chains. Dictatorships, whether of the Left or the Right, begin their suppression of the truth by confining the press to what they call “the accurate dissemination of news.” The papers then disseminate news as the party and its leaders instruct, or the press does not publish at all. It may seem fantastic that such a threat to freedom and liberty should confront Singapore in this day and age of political advance, but PAP’s leaders have made it quite clear that they do not understand the fundamental principles of the freedom of the press. It follows that they do not understand the first principles of the liberty of the people.

Opposition to PAP policy, PAP spokesmen have said, entails the risk of becoming “a political casualty.” There has been no definition yet of “a political casualty”, the extent of the injury and the manner of inflicting it has been left to the imagination. But we must assume that this phrase introduces a new PAP conception of a government’s powers, and of its right to act against those who do not share its views and refuse to keep their silence. Unmistakably PAP is hostile to a free press, to newspapers it cannot control.

- Threat to Freedom, Straits Times editorial, April 21, 1959.

A study of the subjugation of the Singapore media is a political study of Lee Kuan Yew in action. He was always wary of the media, especially of the Chinese and Malay newspapers, which, he said, “bore more careful watching than the English-language press, as they make much more emotive and powerful appeals in the mother language” and “tug at the heartstrings” of their leaders. But the unruly domestic media was not suddenly or violently reined in. That would have been politically gauche and very un-Lee. A masterplan for the suppression of the media was devised by him and time-implemented for maximum effect at critical stages.

At the advent of internal self-goverment in June 1959, Singapore had a raft of free and independent English and Chinese-language, as well as vernacular, newspapers, which, saved for the Straits Times, were owned or controlled by families or groups of individuals. But all this was to undergo a fundamental transmutation under PAP rule.

While professing his government a democracy, Lee introduced a plethora of laws systematically curbing freedom of expression under different guises. Newspapers were accused of “Malay chauvinism,” encouraging “permissiveness” or other “undesirable Western values,” “glamourizing” communism, “fanning the flames of Chinese chauvinism over language, education and culture,” or of murky conspiracies with foreign individuals, groups and governments closely accompanied by arbitrary detention of journalists, editors and owners of newspaper companies under one pretext or another, but always in the name of security and stability.

As a result, the independent Chinese-language Nanyang Siang Pau lost not only its owners but also its unique identity, while the two English-language newspapers – the politically correct Eastern Sun, whose bankers were the premier communist Bank of China, and the young and brash Singapore Herald, whose bankers, the Chase Manhatten Bank, were then the second-largest capitalist bank in the world – met their premature demise at the hands of the prime minister, whose hitherto enviable reputation with the international media lay shattered among the ruins of those newsapers.

In January 1973, as a first major step towards the subjugation of the print media, the Printing Presses Act was repealed and reenacted with profound amendments as the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act (NPPA) 1974, ostensibly to “safeguard public interest by ensuring that undesirable foreign elements do not gain control of our newspapers and use them against the welfare of our society.”

The law smoothed the way for management control of the newspaper companies by persons approved or nominated by the PAP government. Warned the Straits Times editor-in-chief [Peter Lim], who was later eased out of his powerful position: “Whatever the Singapore journalist’s dreams, he cannot forget … the reality that … the [PAP] government could put anyone or remove him from any position in a newspaper company.”

- The Media Enthralled, Francis Seow, 1998

You can find the actual article here.

You can also read a related article here.

Read also :

Singapore's war on pop culture
http://singaporerebel.blogspot.com/2005/07/singapores-war-on-pop-culture.html

Singapore drive on 'yellow culture' goes on
http://singaporerebel.blogspot.com/2005/07/singapore-drive-on-yellow-culture-goes.html

Political fear and apathy? What fear? What apathy?

First posted on The Online Citizen.

Political filmmaker Martyn See reviews that historical 2006 televised debate between MM Lee Kuan Yew and the post 65′ers.



During the run-up to the 2006 General Elections, Mediacorp’s Channel News Asia aired a 50 minute-long programme entitled “Why My Vote Matters.” It featured a dialogue session between Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew and a selected panel of post 65-ers.

Televised debates with PAP leaders are extremely rare. Older Singaporeans would have to cast their minds back to the mid-1980s when Select Commitee hearings such as the amendments to the Legal Professions Act were beamed into their living rooms. It had reportedly featured the then Law Society President Francis Seow jousting with then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, with cameo appearances by young lawyers Teo Soh Sung and Tang Fong Har. Two years after the programme was aired, Teo and Tang were detained under the ISA for an alleged “Marxist conspiracy” to subvert the Government. Seow was also arrested a year later.

Throughout the latter half of the 1980s to the mid 1990s, televised political debates did make recurring appearances, most notably with the live Parliamentary proceedings and other Select Commitee enquiries, including a rare face-off on the cost of living, which featured SDP’s Chee Soon Juan versus PAP’s George Yeo. And there was a particular memorable hearing on the Elected Presidency Bill, when a law lecturer named Walter Woon held his own against a panel of ministerial heavyweights including the then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong. By the mid-1990s, ‘Live in Parliament’ and other Select Commitee hearings were eased off the air, sporadically appearing only as heavily-edited spots during the nightly news broadcasts.

It is in this context that the airing of this 2006 debate makes for such a rare milestone event in Singapore’s television history.

On hindsight, there are questions one would ask of the station’s executive producers and the Prime Minister’s Office. Why did they see the need to conduct such a televised dialogue? Were they hoping to win the young voters over by allowing the octogenarian to remind them of PAP’s accomplishments? Were they hoping that the young post-65ers’ would be so in awe of the MM that they would capitulate? And why entitle the show “Why My Vote Matters” when half the population of this country have not and will probably not be able to vote, given the number of uncontested seats since the 1980s? Add to that, it was Lee Hsien Loong’s first General Elections as the Prime Minister, so why didn’t he take the hot seat instead of his father?

Presumptions and motives aside, this televised debate makes for compelling viewing, and some startling revelations, chief of which was how the post 65-ers went straight for the jugular and tabled questions on the uneven playing field, particularly of the GRC system, and on occasions even interrupted the MM. Older Singaporeans conditioned to deference towards Lee would have been appalled at such disrespect shown to the ‘founding father’.

One young post-65er who stood out was journalist Ken Kwek of the Straits Times’ political desk. Kwek had pinned Lee to the ropes on a survey he had done about political fear. But in a reversal of role, Lee shot back, probing Kwek to disclose the names of his sources.

Having watched this again on Google video, I found several illuminating moments. I leave marked timecodes of them but I’ll leave it to you to make your own conclusions.

(Ken Kwek has since left the Straits Times. He is currently a playwright and had written the screeplay to the local film The Blue Mansion.)
————-

1:47 : On why there are many PAP MP’s who have never contested.
2:06 : On why “there isn’t much of a fight.”
3:55 : On why the need for GRCs. It’s for racial minority representation.
4:33 : When pointed out by Ken Kwek that PAP’s minority candidates had indeed won in single seats prior to implementation of GRC system, Lee replied , “That was with the PAP in complete control. That generation voted for the PAP.” There was a pause. Lee seemed unsure of how to continue. But was interrupted by another question. This is probably the biggest Freudian slip by Lee that the GRC system was implemented for a different reason other than for minority represenatation.
4.55 : Voting are “basic, visceral, emotional biases.”
8:47 : Potong Pasir and Hougang “have to wait at the end of the queue.”
8:57 : Lee asks, “Does any government help the opposition to displace itself?”
10:05 : On eliminating the opposition.
11.10 : On fear of voting against the PAP.
12:04 : No level playing field anywhere.
12:42 : We can “guess” but we don’t know who voted against us.
13:07 : The grilling of Ken Kwek begins here. You name the voters who are afraid.
13:26 : I started as a cross-examiner. You name them.
13:45 : Kwek : Why should I name them?
13:55 : More cross-examination by Lee on Kwek.
15:10 : We have said categorically, “The vote is secret.”
16:11 : “I allowed my grandchildren to speak back to me but from time to time..I put them down.”
17:45 : I built up my base from one single seat in 1959.
18:56 : We want a fair media.
19:10 : Where is the opposition’s “substance?”
22:14: GRCs does the opposition good.
23:22 : I’ve never said that the opposition is unnecessary.
24:52 : Is the PAP insecure about losing?
25:22 : On why the government disallows political podcasts and blogging.
27:18 : Emotional attachment to nation via right to vote is an “unfounded thesis.”
27:15 : “The fact that we are not challenged is a strong mandate.”
32:44 : There is no political apathy.
33:35 : The definition of politics equals jobs, home, medicine, education, future.
34:40 : In the 50s and 60s, Singapore was “in a state of agitation everyday.”
36:50 : Once the PAP goes soft, it will be displaced.
36:39 : Our candidates have competence, integrity.
38:10 : There is a databank here (points to his head).
38:40 : Would you like me to retire from politics?
39:56 : Do you not think my son has a mind of his own?
41:00 : I’ll be sad if your generation wants me to retire.
44:04 : “If I’m arrogant, would I be talking to you?”

The art of violent metaphors - by Lee Kuan Yew

"Put it this way. As long as Jeyaretnam [Workers' Party leader] stands for what he stands for -- a thoroughly destructive force -- we will knock him. There are two ways of playing this. One, a you attack the policies; two, you attack the system. Jeyaretnam was attacking the system, he brought the Chief Justice into it. If I want to fix you, do I need the Chief Justice to fix you? Everybody knows that in my bag I have a hatchet, and a very sharp one. You take me on, I take my hatchet, we meet in the cul-de-sac. That's the way I had to survive in the past. That's the way the communists tackled me. He brought the Chief Justice into the political arena."
- SM Lee Kuan Yew, The Man & His Ideas, 1997


"Supposing Catherine Lim was writing about me and not the prime minister...She would not dare, right? Because my posture, my response has been such that nobody doubts that if you take me on, I will put on knuckle-dusters and catch you in a cul de sac...Anybody who decides to take me on needs to put on knuckle dusters. If you think you can hurt me more than I can hurt you, try. There is no other way you can govern a Chinese society."
- SM Lee Kuan Yew, The Man and His Ideas, 1997


In a speech at the Global Brand Forum on Monday, Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew had said: "Pilots believe they are special, they got huge egos, I'm told. We are telling both management and unions - you play this game, there are going to be broken heads - let's stop it." - CNA, 3 Dec 2003


"If I have to shoot 200,000 students to save China from another 100 years of disorder, so be it."
- Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew evoking the ghost of Deng Xiaoping whilst endorsing the Tiananmen Square massacre, Straits Times, Aug 17, 2004


"Mine is a very matter-of-fact approach to the problem. If you can select a population and they're educated and they're properly brought up, then you don't have to use too much of the stick because they would already have been trained. It's like with dogs. You train it in a proper way from small. It will know that it's got to leave, go outside to pee and to defecate. No, we are not that kind of society. We had to train adult dogs who even today deliberately urinate in the lifts."
- Lee Kuan Yew on Singapore society, The Man & His Ideas, 1997

--------------------------------------------------------------


Singaporean arrested after Facebook attack on govt

(AFP) – 4 days ago

SINGAPORE — A Singaporean man who attacked the ruling party on Facebook and urge people to "burn" a cabinet minister has been arrested on charges of inciting violence, police said Wednesday.

In a statement, police said they had arrested a "man in his late 20s" on Tuesday "in connection with investigations into offences related to incitement of violence".

The statement did not name the man or give details of the offence, but said that he was released on bail pending further investigation.

Local media identified him as Abdul Malik Ghazali, 27, who posted a series of comments on the social networking site critical of how Singapore is hosting the inaugural Youth Olympic Games (YOG).

The August 14-26 event, held for competitors aged from 14 to 18, has generated limited public interest, with many events blighted by empty seats and the host country's athletes faring badly.

Vivian Balakrishnan, the minister for community development, youth and sports, has come under particular fire from online critics over the games.

Abdul Malik's postings on his own Facebook page and on a separate group account called "I hate the Youth Olympic Games Organising Committee" are also critical of Singapore's ruling People's Action Party (PAP).

Abdul Malik, who works for a company specialising in wood and flooring, said on his Facebook page that he was arrested "due to my involvement in anti-YOG and anti-PAP Facebook pages".

One of his postings highlighted recent floods in Singapore, the escape of detained terror suspect Mas Selamat Kastari, the amount of money spent to host the games and reports of the poor standard of food served for games volunteers.

He said it was time to "burn" the sports minister and the PAP.

"Rally together and vote them out!!!" he wrote.

Abdul Malik said in comments published Wednesday by The New Paper that "the comment is a metaphor".

"I did not intend for it to be taken literally. I did not mean for someone to actually burn," he said.

In another posting, Abdul Malik referred to a version of the communist anthem The Internationale on YouTube and wrote: "This song is a call to rise against tyranny and oppression... Very suited to what is happening now in Singapore."

Prosperous Singapore -- which is spending close to 300 million US dollars to host the games, more than three times original projections -- follows a hardline policy on political dissent.

Public protests are banned without a police permit and anti-government critics in the political opposition and media have been successfully sued for defamation by top officials.

Some in cyberspace rallied to Abdul Malik's defence.

One Facebook poster calling himself "Kok Meng" wrote "seems like even metaphors are forbidden these days".

"Police should get a grip and let loose. We are a democracy."

Videos : Pleading for death row prisoners at the Istana

Yong Vui Kong's Family Plead for his Life

Yong Vui Kong's Family Plead for his Life from Lianain Films on Vimeo.

2005 : Appeal to President outside Istana to spare the life of Shanmugam Murugesu

Appeal to President outside Istana to spare the life of Shanmugam Murugesu from Jacob George on Vimeo.

2005 : Public Forum on Death Penalty in Singapore and Appeal outside Istana for Shanmugam Murugesu

Public Forum on Death Penalty and Campaign for Shanmugam Murugesu from Jacob George on Vimeo.

Alan Shadrake held in Singapore - Aggregated News (updated 30 Nov)

How and where to buy the book? (Note : The book is not banned in Singapore, merely restricted in circulation)

Book Reviews
Book Review : Once A Jolly Hangman - Ben Bland
Prisoners are fit to drop in Singapore - Asia Times Online
Death row in Singapore - we need answers, not silencing
New book puts death penalty on trial - Alex Au
Alan Shadrake’s crime? - TOC
Review : Once A Jolly Hangman
Foreign Office Minister "dismayed" as writer is jailed for expressing his views in Singapore


19 Nov 2010
Shadrake to appeal
British author Alan Shadrake to appeal sentence
Alan Shadrake to appeal Singapore contempt conviction
Shadrake to appeal
Convicted British author to appeal jail sentence and fine
British author to appeal jail term
Author 'To Appeal Singapore Jail Sentence'


16 Nov 2010
Singapore jails author 6 weeks for contempt
UK author jailed in Singapore over execution book
British author Alan Shadrake sentenced to 6 weeks jail in Singapore for his book
SINGAPORE: British author Alan Shadrake imprisoned
UK Author Alan Shadrake jailed in Singapore
British author jailed for contempt by Singapore court
Alan Shadrake given six week sentence
Singapore Jails British Author Alan Shadrake for Six Weeks
Singapore sentences UK author to jail
British author Alan Shadrake jailed in Singapore
British author sentenced in Singapore for book on death penalty
British author, 76, jailed in Singapore for six weeks over book on the death penalty
Singapore Deals Sharp Blow to Freedom of Expression by Sentencing British Author, Says Amnesty International
CPJ condemns jail sentence against writer critical of death penalty
Joint statement by SADPC and Think Centre on the Alan Shadrake's case


8 Nov 2010
Thirty free speech groups sign petition for Alan Shadrake


5 Nov 2010

Singapore suppresses dissident

4 Nov 2010

You can cage the singer
Why judgement on Shadrake is significant

3 Nov 2010

News :
British Author Guilty of Contempt in Singapore - Channel 4 News
Conviction of British author is yet another assault on freedom of expression
British author faces jail for criticising Singapore's judiciary
Legal history made in Shadrake trial verdict
Singapore: Alan Shadrake found guilty
U.K. Author Faces Singapore Jail Time
I finally get to say it: Has the world gone mad?
British author guilty of insulting Singapore judiciary
Singapore court holds British writer guilty of contempt
British author faces prison sentence in Singapore
UK author Shadrake convicted of contempt in Singapore - BBC
British journalist Shadrake convicted in Singapore
Singapore court finds UK journalist guilty of contempt for criticising judiciary
Singapore convicts death penalty author
S’pore: Petition appeals for release of British journalist
Amnesty International Raised Concern that Singapore Conviction of Author Smothers Freedom of Expression
Shadrake found guilty of contempt of court
British author guilty of contempt
British author faces jail in Singapore for deriding 'corrupt' justice system in a book
Singapore court finds UK author Shadrake guilty of contempt

Commentary :
Conviction casts doubt on Yale tie-up



29 Oct 2010

An Open Letter from Alan Shadrake to the Singapore Government


22 Oct 2010

Petition appeals for acquittal of British journalist Alan Shadrake

Commentary :
Has the issue of jurisdiction been addressed by the Court?


21 Oct 2010

News :
No reason to depart from Inherent Tendency Test – DPP

Commentary :
How to propel a book to bestseller status


20 Oct 2010

News :
Author of 'defamatory' book must be held to higher standard, says AGC
Lawyer offers to quit
British author Shadrake's comments "fair criticisms", say his lawyers
Singapore wraps up case against British author



19 Oct 2010

News :
Singapore trial for British contempt case journalist
British author says Singapore book 'fair criticism' of court
UK author Shadrake made baseless attacks on S'pore judiciary: lawyer
DPP’s statement “a serious imputation on my character” – M Ravi
Author admits factual error
Baseless attack on judiciary
First day of Shadrake hearing
Shadrake’s book a “blatant, contemptuous attack against the judiciary’ – DPP
“We shouldn’t be so hypersensitive in reacting” – M Ravi
“This proceeding itself scandalises the judiciary” – M Ravi

Commentary :
Singapore Justice in the Dock Indeed


23 Aug 2010

News :
British critic unlikely to find leniency in Singapore court


17 Aug 2010

News :
Author denies intention to insult Singapore - AFP
Shadrake denies intention to scandalise Singapore judiciary



15 Aug 2010

Commentary :
Buying a book “not banned” in Singapore

14 Aug 2010

News :
Cabinet has power to pardon
Law Minister's comments on convicted drug trafficker misrepresented


13 Aug 2010

News :
Shadrake ‘recovering well’ after angioplasy

Commentary :
Singapore: spare the Occidental, hang the Oriental.


11 Aug 2010

News :
Activists cry murder over Singapore hanging - Free Malaysia
M'sians want S'pore to take action against "wrongful" execution
“I want my son’s name back” - TOC
Father seeks redress for son hanged in Singapore - TOC video
MEMORANDUM OF PROTEST Wrongful execution of M’sian Vignes Mourthi and malicious prosecution of Alan Shadrake - Lawyers For Liberty

Commentaries :
To try or not: Singapore agonises
The death penalty in Singapore
Doughnut reporting

7 Aug 2010

Commentary :
Alan Shadrake Video Interview


4 Aug 2010

Commentary :
Shadrake case highlights Singapore censorship battle - BBC
What Moral Authority, Wong Kan Seng?
Wong Is Wrong Again
The groundbreaking action against 'Hangman' author Alan Shadrake


3 Aug 2010

News :
S'pore must defend integrity of institutions of justice & law enforcement: DPM Wong


2 Aug 2010

News :
News 5 Tonight - Alan Shadrake
Petition against death penalty - Straits Times

Commentaries :

British Author's Uphill Battle in a Singapore Court


1 Aug 2010

News :
Local & Foreign Activists fights againt Death Penalty together at Speaker's Corner



30 July 2010

News :
Singapore's reputation on the line as British author fights on - James Gomez/The Guardian
UK author Shadrake's Singapore contempt trial adjourned - BBC
U.K. Author Says He Won't Apologize for Book on Singapore's Death Penalty - Bloomberg
UK death penalty book author defiant - AFP
Shadrake won't say he's sorry - Today
UK author vows to fight Singapore contempt charge - AP/WSJ

Commentaries :
Shadrake’s day in court, part 1


28 July 2010

News :
Singapore: Legal Charges Threat to Freedom of Expression - Human Rights Watch

26 July 2010

Commentaries :
Shooting the messenger in Singapore

23 July 2010
News :
Open letter to the authorities: Judicial harassment of journalist is an affront to freedom of expression - FIDH
SHADRAKE: I’d do it all again - British Weekly
Released on bail, British journalist accused of contempt of court - Aliran

Commentaries :
the biggest scandal this week is the arrest of Alan Shadrake


22 July 2010

Commentaries :
Shadrake faces heavy silencing hand, part 2
Oh What A Tangled Web
Catch The Lie Here


21 July 2010

News :
British author arrested for book on death penalty; film on political prisoners banned - IFEX
Court proceedings initiated against author - Today
'Hangman' author released on bail - My Paper

Commentaries :
Drugs, Death, Censorship, and Singapore


20 July 2010

News :
British death penalty author freed on bail in Singapore - BBC
British writer freed from Singapore jail - Guardian
British author Alan Shadrake freed from Singapore prison - Telegraph
Consular assistance for British author - Today
British author Alan Shadrake out on police bail - CNA
British author freed on bail - Straits Times
Singapore arrests author who criticised death penalty - The Independent
Singapore Arrests British Writer For Defamation - AP/CBS News
British author runs foul of censors in Singapore - ABC Radio
Alan Shadrake makes bail in S'pore - British Weekly/YourSDP
Singapore Releases UK Author In Defamation Case - AP/CBS News
Released on bail, British journalist accused of contempt of court - Reporters sans Frontieres

Commentaries :
Shadrake faces heavy silencing hand


19 July 2010

News :
British author of death penalty book held in Singapore - BBC
British author Alan Shadrake arrested in Singapore over death penalty book - Telegraph
Singapore arrests 'Hangman' author - Al Jazeera
Lawyer seeks access to British author arrested in Singapore - AFP
UK reporter held in Singapore - News24
Alan Shadrake – the author of ‘Once a Jolly Hangman: Singapore Justice in the Dock’ arrested - Today24News
Singapore arrests British writer for defamation - AP/Bloomberg
Singapore must release British author of death penalty book - Amnesty International
Singapore: Amnesty calls for release of British author of death penalty book - Amnesty International UK
Human rights group wants author released - UPI
Lawyer seeks access to British author arrested in Singapore - AFP
British author arrested, charged with defamation over book on death penalty - IFEX

Commentaries :
Jolly Hangman author Alan Shadrake didn't expect legal action
Exposing the truth scares the PAP


18 July 2010

News :
Singapore arrests British author of death penalty book - Guardian
Singapore arrests UK author on defamation charge - Reuters
British National Alan Shadrake Arrested - Singapore Police Press Release
Author critical of Singapore is arrested - AFP/Bangkok Post
Singapore arrests author after release of book criticising use of death penalty - AFP/Australian
Breaking news: Author of death penalty book Alan Shadrake arrested - YourSDP
Photos of Book Launch held in Singapore - Jacob George
British author arrested in Singapore over death penalty book - Ben Bland

Commentaries :
Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore arrests Alan Shadrake

Martyn See complies with MDA's order but video goes viral

Yesterday, I was ordered by the Media Development Authority (MDA) to "to take down all digital copies of the film that you have uploaded onto youtube and your blogsite".

Therefore, as of now, the banned video "Ex-political prisoner speaks out in Singapore", or "Dr Lim Hock Siew" as stated in my submission to the censors, has been deleted from youtube, and you will not be able to view it here.

Yesterday, at the time of the first press release announcing the ban, the viewership registered at 44,165. At 2359 hours 12 July 2010, it had increased to 49,903

I have received notices that the film has been downloaded by anonymous netizens who have already or are in the process of uploading it to various video sites such as this. Although I remind all that it is criminal offence (to the tune of a maximum $10,000 fine or two years imprisonment) to possess or distribute the film, I have no wish, nor the means, to hinder the viral spread of the video.

As such, I hereby declare that the film is no longer in my possession, and its ownership will from now on be given to all citizens of the Republic of Singapore.

Meanwhile, read what other bloggers and news sites have to say :

Shooting the messenger in Singapore
Dr Lim Hock Siew - Dr Wong Wee Nam
Compulsive history
Lawrence show me Banned-in-Singapore video!
Banning Content Does Not Protect Us - Audrey Wong
The Internet is the voice of the people
Personal protest against the ban of the video recording of Dr Lim Hock Siew's speech
There Are Experts, And There Are Experts
2 Lefts, only 1 Right
MDA please clarify how ban served public interest
The public is interested
Are Ex-ISD detainees in the limelight to radicalise us? Or wake us up from our slumber?
Revisiting the Streisand Effect
Transcript of Dr Lim Hock Siew's speech on the ISA.
Why censorship is evil
Thank you PAP for promoting Dr Lim Hock Siew!
Dr Lim Hock Siew video is now banned
Why ban Lim Hock Siew's footage?
Singapore Outlaws The Film Dr Lim Hock Siew
Dr Lim Hock Siew banned by Censors
A month of barring and banning - Joshua Chiang
Singapore government bans Martyn See’s film ‘Ex-political prisoner speaks out in Singapore’
BREAKING NEWS: MDA bans See’s film on ISA detainee


Singapore forces removal of dissident YouTube video

AFP - A Singaporean filmmaker on Wednesday complied with a government order to remove a political film from video sharing site YouTube but said others were defiantly spreading it on the web.

Martyn See said he was ordered by the information ministry to to take down all digital copies of the film from YouTube and his blogsite by July 14 or face up to two years in jail and a fine of 10,000 Singapore dollars (7,100 US).

The banned video titled "Ex-political prisoner speaks out in Singapore" is about a rare public talk in 2009 by Lim Hock Siew, a leftist medical doctor and activist held from 1963 to 1982 during then prime minister Lee Kuan Yew's rule.

"I have received notices that the film has been downloaded by anonymous netizens who have already, or are in the process of, uploading it to various video sites such as (Vimeo)," See told AFP in an email.

"Although I remind all that it is criminal offence... to possess or distribute the film, I have no wish, nor the means, to hinder the viral spread of the video," said See, who has had previous brushes with the authorities.

"As such, I hereby declare that the film is no longer in my possession, and its ownership will from now on be given to all citizens of the Republic of Singapore," added See, a 41-year-old professional video editor.

In a statement on Monday, the Ministry of Information, Communication and the Arts said the 22-minute film was submitted to government censors for classification but it was banned "as it is against the public interest."

"The film gives a distorted and misleading portrayal of Dr Lim?s arrests and detention under the Internal Security Act (ISA) in 1963.

"The Singapore government will not allow individuals who have posed a security threat to Singapore?s interests in the past, to use media platforms such as films to make baseless accusations against the authorities, give a false portrayal of their previous activities in order to exculpate their guilt, and undermine public confidence in the government in the process."

In his memoirs, Lee Kuan Yew -- now an adviser to his son Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong -- wrote that the 1963 police raids that landed Lim in detention were part of a crackdown on communists.

Here we go again - Govt bans another Martyn See's film

The Singapore Government has banned my video recording of a speech by former political prisoner Dr Lim Hock Siew. The prohibition will take effect on Wednesday 14th July 2010.

In a letter and an accompanying press release (see below) delivered to my home by two men at 4.50pm, it stated that the film has been banned under Section 35(1) of the Films Act. This section gives the Minister broad discretionary powers to ban any film he deems to be "contrary to public interest".

This is the second film to be banned under Section 35. The first, Zahari's 17 Years, was an interview film directed by me. Made in 2006, it was officially banned in 2007.

In an exact carbon copy of the reasons for the ban, the government's press release alleged that film 'gives a distorted and misleading portrayal of Dr Lim's arrests and detention under the Internal Security Act (ISA) in 1963. Dr Lim was detained during Operation Coldstore in 1963 and was held for 19 years, a record second only to Dr Chia Thye Poh.

The film, which I had labelled "Dr Lim Hock Siew", was submitted to the Board of Film Censors in February 2010. Since then, it had been undergoing review by the Political Films Consultative Committee (PFCC), a seven-member advisory panel set up to criminalise "party political films", an offence under Section 33 of the Films Act. Since the PFCC has never communicated with me, I have no idea what the committee had thought of the film. A moot point now, as RADM Lui Tuck Yew, the Acting Minister for Information, Communications & the Arts, has now decided to ban the film outright.

The letter also stated that I should take down all digital copies of the film on youtube and on this blog. So watch it now while it is still online, or you may download it using the following websites.

http://keepvid.com/
http://download-youtube-videos.org/
http://www.getvideomp3.com/

Latest : This video will self-destruct by 2359 hrs tonight. Look for it elsewhere after that.







Censors ban Martyn See's film on Dr Lim Hock Siew
By Claire Huang | Posted: 12 July 2010 1745 hrs

SINGAPORE: Censors have banned the film "Dr Lim Hock Siew" by filmmaker Martyn See Tong Ming, with effect from July 14 under the Films Act, saying it is against 'public interest'.

A statement from the Information, Communications and the Arts Ministry said the film "gives a distorted and misleading portrayal of Dr Lim's arrests and detention under the Internal Security Act (ISA) in 1963."

It added that the government "will not allow individuals who have posed a security threat to Singapore's interests in the past, to use media platforms such as films to make baseless accusations against the authorities."

Neither will it allow such individuals to use films to give a false portrayal to exculpate their guilt, or undermine public confidence in the government.

The film, banned from July 14, has also not been granted a certificate for its exhibition.

Under the Films Act, possession and distribution of a prohibited film is an offence.

An offender is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or both.

Last September, censors passed "Singapore Rebel," a film by the same filmmaker which features opposition figure Chee Soon Juan.

It passed with an M18 rating - four years after it was banned.

It became the first political film to make the cut after the Films Act was amended in March to relax the rules on such films.

- CNA/al/jm

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Ban on video recording of Lim Hock Siew speech

STRAITS TIMES
Cassandra Chew
13 Jul 2010

THE Government has banned a video recording of a speech made by former political detainee Lim Hock Siew, on the grounds that it is against public interest.

The video by filmmaker Martyn See, 41, gives a 'distorted and misleading portrayal' of Dr Lim's detention under the Internal Security Act, said the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts (Mica) in a statement yesterday.

Mica added: 'The Singapore Government will not allow individuals who have posed a security threat to Singapore's interests in the past to use media platforms such as films to make baseless accusations against the authorities, give a false portrayal of their previous activities in order to exculpate their guilt, and undermine public confidence in the Government in the process.'

The prohibition, which takes effect tomorrow, makes it an offence for anyone to distribute the video, entitled Dr Lim Hock Siew, or possess a copy of it.

Anyone who commits the offence can be fined up to $10,000, or jailed up to two years, or both.

Mr See told The Straits Times yesterday that the Media Development Authority had instructed him, in a letter, to surrender all copies of his video and remove any digital versions that are online.

The 22-minute video is available on video-sharing website YouTube and on his blog. It shows Dr Lim, 79, giving a speech last November at a book launch where he recounted his experiences as a political detainee.

He was arrested in 1963 under Operation Cold Store, a massive security sweep that put more than 100 communists and suspected communists behind bars, and detained without trial until 1982.

Mr See recorded the speech and uploaded the film to YouTube the next day.

In February, he submitted it to the Board of Film Censors for classification, 'because the law says so', he said.

He said he had not expected the ban as the law on political films was relaxed last year.

'The amendments to Section 33 of the Films Act now allow for live recordings of an event held according to the law. The film Dr Lim Hock Siew fits that bill, and therefore I was confident it would not be illegal,' he added.

The recording, however, was classified under Section 35(1) of the Films Act, which allows for the banning of any film that is contrary to public interest.

Only one other film has been prohibited under this category, in 2007. It was also by Mr See.

The film, called Zahari's 17 Years, was a 50-minute interview with another former political detainee, Said Zahari. Mr See directed, shot and edited it.

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Martyn See film banned

TODAY
05:55 AM Jul 13, 2010

SINGAPORE - The Government has banned the film Dr Lim Hock Siew by film-maker Martyn See, saying it was against "public interest" and "gives a distorted and misleading portrayal of Dr Lim's arrests and detention under the Internal Security Act in 1963".

A statement from the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts said the Government "will not allow individuals who have posed a security threat to Singapore's interests in the past to use media platforms such as films to make baseless accusations against the authorities".

Neither will such individuals be allowed to use films to give a false portrayal to exonerate themselves.

The decision comes after another See film, Singapore Rebel, was passed last September, four years after it was banned. Featuring opposition figure Chee Soon Juan, it was given an M18 rating - the first political film to make the cut after the rules on such films were relaxed.

Mr See told MediaCorp yesterday he had expected his new film, which features Dr Lim's speech at a book launch last November, to get the green light as Dr Lim had been interviewed by The Straits Times and the book, Fajar Generation, had been permitted for sale here. The book tells of the struggles in the 1950s and 1960s of the University of Malaya Socialist Club, of which Dr Lim was a member.

Mr See said he had also been asked to remove the YouTube video of the film, which he is "considering".

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Ex-political detainee Vincent Cheng boycotts seminar in protest

In an email to the National Library Board (NLB), former detainee Vincent Cheng has indicated that he is staying away from the seminar to be held today as "a protest to the arbitrary suppression of my right of free expression."

Dear Ms Amy Gay,

I refer to your "approval" of my basic right to attend the NUS History Society's seminar at the Pod, NLB today.

will be staying away from this event as a protest to the arbitrary suppression of my right of free expression as a panel speaker in the spirit of the Consitution of Singapore.


For Truth and Justice.
Vincent Cheng

-----------------------------------------------------------

Below is an earlier exchange of letters between Cheng and Amy Gay of the NLB

3 JUNE 2010

Dear Ms Amy Gay,
Thank you for your reply.

You are trying to pin the blame for the fiasco on the organiser of the event, that is, the NUS History Society (NUSHS). For me, that is only a technical problem. What worries me is a deeper issue when NLB thinks that academics and researchers make history. What about the actual actors of history? I may not be a professional academic, but armed with a Masters in Theology, I do know something about academic research. The topic under discussion, Singapore History: Who Writes The Script?, is definitely relevant to the topic proposed for my speech, 21 May 1987: What Really Happened? Furthermore, I was an actor in that history of 1987. To say that I was axed because I was a "late inclusion" is an excuse, if not a lie, (as the other writers have pointed out). I would rather give credit to NUSHS for their intellectual sense of the topic and their concern for inclusivity of various perceptions of history.

I am still not convinced that NLB is an august institution of independence and integrity. If your role is to be a mouthpiece of the government, no matter in how subtle a way, then let it be publicly known so that people will know how to deal with you. If not, then "walk the talk".

A man in the street inquired about the ban imposed on me by NLB.
He asked: "Are they banning you or the topic?"
I said: "I don't know"
He said: "What are you going to speak about anyway?"
I said: "The truth."
He said: "Is that so frightening?
I said: "Yes, it is .......and THE TRUTH WILL SET US FREE."

A great Man said this two thousand years ago.

For Truth and Justice,
Vincent Cheng

----------------------------------------------

1 JUNE 2010

Dear Mr Vincent Cheng,

Thank you for your email to the Chairman and members of the NLB Board. We would
like to take this opportunity to personally explain the context and background of this seminar to you.

The National Library is the venue sponsor for the National University of Singapore’s (NUS) Singapore History seminar organised by the NUS History Society. NLB had supported this seminar due to its focus on the personalities, events and agenda that shaped the history of Singapore. This was in line with NLB's focus for its heritage programmes and exhibitions which explored the role of key movers in Singapore's growth from a fishing village into a modern nation.

NUS History Society (NUSHS) had indicated that Junior College and Upper Secondary students were the target audience and that academics would form the line-up of speakers. The initial line-up provided by the NUSHS for NLB's support were academics from the local tertiary institutions researching on these areas. The academic exploration that the seminar would pursue was also in line with NLB's programming objectives to seek insights into Singapore's history through research and study. The late inclusion of yourself, by the society was not consistent with the direction of the initial proposed line-up, of academics, by NUSHS.

As part of our partnership and sponsorship conditions with all our programme partners, the content and details of the programme such as the panel of speakers need to be in line with the intent of the event and jointly agreed upon. For this particular seminar, the programme details did not follow the intent of the seminar based on our initial discussions with NUSHS. The final line-up of speakers provided by NUSHS include Assoc Prof Yong Mun Cheong, Head of the History Department of NUS, Assoc Prof (Adjunct) Loh Kah Seng of NTU, Assoc Prof Huang Jianli with the History Department of NUS and Assoc Prof (Adjunct) Kwa Chong Guan with the Rajaratnam School of International Studies at NTU and the History Department of NUS. Based on this line-up, the National Library is still working with the NUSHS to hold this public seminar this Friday and we welcome you to attend the seminar.

Regards,
Amy Gay
Director, Communications
NLB

--------------------------------------------------------------

29 MAY 2010

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am the person who has been barred from speaking at and attending the 4 June 2010 forum organised by the NUS History Society. Many people have asked me for the reasons of this ban. I do not know because the most truthful and intelligent answer can only come from you, the august member of the National Library Board whose aim I have been told is to preserve and make accessible the nation's literary and publishing heritage and intellectual memory.

I have only two concerns:
- Were you instructed by a higher authority, and which one, to impose the ban? What are the reasons?
- Were you practising self-censorship? What are your reasons?

In case you still do not know who I am, let me kindly remind you that I was an ISA detainee in 1987, arbitrarily arrested and detained, never charged, never brought to trial and never convicted, only hideously and ceremoniously insulted and condemned. It is now 23 years. I still bear the scars.

I wish to know whether the National Library Board is part of this ugly scheme of history.

For truth and justice,
Vincent Cheng

We'd rather hear from academics, not ex-detainees : NLB

UPDATE : NLB's response is disputed by book publisher Mr Fong Hoe Fang. Read his letters to NLB here.

The National Library Board (NLB) has responded to blogger and social activist Ravi Philemon's inquiry over the exclusion of former political detainee Vincent Cheng from the list of speakers of a planned seminar organised by the NUS History Society (NUSHS).

I highlighted in yellow parts of NLB's response that may be deemed contentious, to say the least.

Taken from Ravi Philemon's blog.

National Library Board responds

Ms Amy Gay, National Library Board's Director of Communications, responded to my query as to why Vincent Cheng, the alleged "Marxist Conspirator" was barred both from speaking and attending the seminar by NLB.

Her reply:

-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Amy GAY

Date: Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 6:14 PM

Subject: Fw: Explanation from the National Library Board required please

To: Ravi Philemon

Dear Ravi,

Thank you for your email to all the members of the NLB Board. We would like to take this opportunity to explain the context and background to the seminar that you had raised concerns.

The National Library is the venue sponsor for the National University of Singapore’s (NUS) Singapore History seminar organised by the NUS History Society. NLB had supported this seminar due to its focus on the personalities, events and agenda that shaped the history of Singapore. This was in line with NLB's focus for its heritage programmes and exhibitions which explored the role of key movers in Singapore's growth from a fishing village into a modern nation.

NUS History Society (NUSHS) had indicated that Junior College and Upper Secondary students were the target audience and that academics would form the line-up of speakers. The initial line-up provided by the NUSHS for NLB's support were academics from the local tertiary institutions researching on these areas. The academic exploration that the seminar would pursue was also in line with NLB's programming objectives to seek insights into Singapore's history through research and study. The late inclusion of Mr Vincent Cheng, by the society was not consistent with the direction of the initial proposed line-up, of academics, by NUSHS.

As part of our partnership and sponsorship conditions with all our programme partners, the content and details of the programme such as the panel of speakers need to be in line with the intent of the event and jointly agreed upon. For this particular seminar, the programme details did not follow the intent of the seminar based on our initial discussions with NUSHS. The final line-up of speakers provided by NUSHS include Assoc Prof Yong Mun Cheong, Head of the History Department of NUS, Assoc Prof (Adjunct) Loh Kah Seng of NTU, Assoc Prof Huang Jianli with the History Department of NUS and Assoc Prof (Adjunct) Kwa Chong Guan with the Rajaratnam School of International Studies at NTU and the History Department of NUS. Based on this line-up, the National Library is still working with the NUSHS to hold this public seminar this Friday. Mr Vincent Cheng, like any member of the public, is welcome to attend.

Regards,
Amy Gay
Director, Communications
NLB

-------------------------------------------------

Meanwhile, registered NGO Singaporeans For Democracy (SFD), of which I am a member, has emailed the Internal Security Department over ex-detainees' speaking rights. The ISD has acknowledged its receipt but has yet to respond.

SFD queries ISD over Vincent Cheng affair

Director
Internal Security Department
Email: isd@mha.gov.sg
Tel: 62566657

31 May 2010

Re: Mr. Vincent Cheng - ex-Internal Security Act detainee

I am writing to you, on behalf of Singaporeans for Democracy (SFD), about ex-ISA detainee Mr Vincent Cheng’s public speaking engagement at the NUS History Seminar 2010 on 4 June 2010, 2.30p.m at the National Library Board (NLB).

It has come to public attention that the National Library Board has asked the NUS History Society to take Mr. Vincent Cheng off the speakers’ list. Hence on 4 June 2010, Mr. Vincent Cheng will no longer be on the NUS History Seminar’s panel of speakers.

As a registered political association looking into matters of civil and political rights, SFD would like to seek from you answers to the following questions:

1.Did the Internal Security Department or Ministry of Home Affairs officials and/or their agents communicate or meet with the National Library Board representatives over Mr. Vincent Cheng’s speaking engagement there?

2.What is ISD's policy in allowing former detainees, in this case the 1987 group, to speak in public? In answering this question, could you also refer directly to Mr. Cheng’s public speaking rights as an ex-detainee?
Singaporeans for Democracy notes that at present there has been no active ban on recent ex-detainee publications, although SFD’s member Mr. Martyn See’s documentary Zahari's 17 Years remained banned.

As this is a matter of public interest, I would be grateful to receive a timely response.

Many thanks for your assistance.

Yours sincerely

Dr. James Gomez

Executive Director
Singaporeans for Democracy