From Chee Soon Juan to Speakers' Corner to Pink Dot

Saturday saw arguably the biggest turnout of any event in Speakers' Corner. Crowd estimates of the Pink Dot, the first public gathering of people in support of the LGBT community in Singapore, range from 500 to 2500. The Straits Times has a more accurate estimate of 1000.

Despite claims by the organisers that the event was not a protest, it was undeniably a rare display of defiance against a de-facto ban of all public displays of homosexuality in the city-state. Just last week, Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng warned the gay community "not to assert themselves stridently as gay groups do in the West."

Spotted among the crowd was Dr Chee Soon Juan of the opposition Singapore Democratic Party. Probably unknown to the event organisers and to most Singaporeans, the birth of Speakers Corner as a Government-sanctioned free speech and assembly zone resulted out of two small acts of civil disobedience carried out in 1999, both involving Chee.

An evolution of Gay Space and Freedom of Assembly in Singapore

Feb 1999 : Dr Chee Soon Juan was jailed twice for giving two speeches at Raffles Place without a licence. For both convictions he was fined a total of $3,900 but chose instead to serve two prison terms of seven and 12 days respectively. Chee's colleague, Wong Hong Toy, was also imprisoned for 12 days after refusing to pay a fine for adjusting the microphone and the volume of the speaker. Amnesty International named both men prisoners of conscience.

Link : A Chronology of Authoritarian Rule in Singapore

Feb 1999 : Following the convictions, Lee Kuan Yew was quoted in the New York Times that "if everybody just turns up at a busy junction at lunchtime and makes a speech and runs around ... there would be pandemonium. We are not that kind of society." The interviewer William Safire then asked Lee if Singapore would set up a place like London's old Hyde Park Corner. To which Lee replied, "We'll probably do it."

Link : The dictator speaks. A chat with Lee Kuan Yew

1st Sept 2000 : Speakers' Corner at Hong Lim Park opens. Speakers are required to register with the police station and all loundspeakers are prohibited.

Feb 2001 : Police called up two activists from the Open Singapore Centre and Think Centre for questioning in connection with an "Abolish ISA!" event at Speakers' Corner in December 2000. In a strongly worded release, the Singapore Police Force pointed out that "it is one thing to have a group of people gather to hear a person or persons speak; but quite another when people come together for a specific cause, and in the process, they chant slogans, display placards and show gesticulations, such as clenching of fists. Police treat such actions as indicative of a demonstration or of disorderly behaviour."

Oct 2002 : Chee Soon Juan was charged under Public Entertainment and Meetings Act for holding an unauthorized "People Against Poverty" rally on Labour Day outside the Istana. Chee was fined $4500 and his colleague Gandhi Ambalam was fined $3000. Chee chose to serve a 5-week prison sentence rather than pay the fine. Amnesty International issued a scathing attack on the Singapore Government, saying that the detentions "typify a pattern of unreasonable restriction on public gatherings and on the free expression of opinion".

Watch video Singapore Rebel

Dec 2002 : Police rejected an application by JB Jeyaretnam to hold an anti-GST march on the grounds of maintaining "law and order", despite JBJ's assurance that "no one will be carrying any sticks or shouting anything, except perhaps the slogan 'Say No to GST'."

Feb 2003 : On the weekend of 17 February 2003, while six million people all over the world were out on the streets in anti-war demonstrations, Singapore police arrested six Singaporeans who had turned up or were en-route to the US Embassy, and which prompted Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng to decree that "the government does not authorise protests and demonstrations of any nature."

Apr 2003 : The police denied Chee Soon Juan his application to hold a march for May Day. Chee has applied for the march to take place starting at the Ministry of Manpower and ending in front of Parliament House where a rally will take place.

Sept 2003 : Think Centre's application for a proposed display of dolls to mark Children's Day at Raffles Place and Stamford Road was rejected by the police on grounds of "law and order considerations".

2004 : Public exhibitions and performances were added to the list of exempted activities at the Speakers' Corner.

Link : Speakers' Corner, Singapore from Wikipedia

Dec 2004 : Police rejected an application by a Hong Kong based gay portal to hold a Christmas party as "the event is likely to be organised as a gay party which is contrary to public interest."

Mar 2005 : Police rejected an application by a local gay Christian support group to hold a concert because the Media Development Authority said that the show would "promote a homosexual lifestyle."

Mar 2005 : Police rejected an application by JB Jeyaretnam for a march to protest the Government's decision to allow casinos to be built, saying it would have disrupted civil order.

Jun 2005 : Police rejected an application by Fridae.com to hold One Nation, an annual gay and lesbian party that has been held annually on the eve of National Day since 2001. The police cited that the event would be 'contrary to public interest.'

Aug 2005 : Riot police, in full battle gear, were sent in to break-up a peaceful protest by four activists who were protesting against the non-transparent nature of charity organisation NKF, and government institutions such as the CPF, GIC and HDB. About 40 police officers were deployed. They confiscated the protesters' T-shirts and placards.

Watch video Riot police vs four silent protesters in Singapore

Jan 2006 : The police warned a group of schoolgirls that the wearing of T-shirts en masse might be misconstrued by some as an offence under the Miscellaneous Offences (Public & Order & Nuisance) (Assemblies & Processions) Rules. The students had planned to help raise money for charity by selling white elephant T-shirts at the Buangkok MRT station's inauguration ceremony.


Sept 2006 : During the IMF-World Bank meetings, Chee Soon Juan and a handful of activists attempted to stage a march from Speakers' Corner to Parliament House to protest the lack of democracy in Singapore. A three-day stand-off ensued between the activists and the police in Hong Lim Park. The activists are currently undergoing trial for the alleged offence.

Watch Speakers Cornered









15 Mar 2008 : About 20 protesters, including Chee Soon Juan, protested against the rising costs of living outside Parliament house. After leaving the vicinity, plain clothes police surrounded the protesters outside a shopping mall and arrested them after a tense 15-minute standoff that drew crowds of curious onlookers and tourists. The protesters are currently undergoing trial.

Watch videos here, here, here and here

1st Sept 2008 : Rules governing the Speakers' Corner is revamped to allow demonstrations and use of self-powered audio amplification equipment. Organisers need no longer register at the police station, but instead inform NParks of the event.

Link : The first fruits of civil disobedience


11 Oct 2008 : More than 1,000 people, who lost hard-earned savings investing in structured products like Lehman Minibonds and DBS High Notes, turned up at the Speakers' Corner to listen to former CEO of NTUC Income, Mr Tan Kin Lian. Follow-up rallies were held over subsequent weekends, but numbers considerably dwindled.

13 Apr 2009 : Parliament passes the Public Order Act (POA) , which criminalises any unauthorised cause-related protest of one person or any procession of two people which are held outside of the gazetted Speakers' Corner. The Act also enhances police power to deal with a prohibited event by stopping, searching or turning away any actual or possible participants. Failure to comply could result in arrest without a warrant, a fine or imprisonment.


16 May 2009 : Speakers' Corner hosted Singapore's first public gay rally.
BBC Report

Govt retains ban on Zahari's 17 Years

The Government has retained the ban on Zahari's 17 Years.

In a letter hand-delivered to my home yesterday, the Board of Film Censors (BFC) said that the recent Films Act amendments did not cover Section 35 and that the Minister has not changed his position on the film.

The letter also stated that the Films (Amendment) Act is not yet in force and suggested that I resubmit Singapore Rebel after the Act comes into force.

A summary of the ratings made by BFC on my recent submissions of six films. Read my earlier letter here.

1. Singapore Rebel (2009) No decision. To resubmit.
2. Zahari's 17 Years (2009) Banned retained.
3. Speakers Cornered (2009) No change. Passed NC16.
4. One Nation Under Lee No decision. To resubmit
5. Success Stories : Lee Kuan Yew No change. Passed PG.
6. Riding The Tiger No change. Exempted under section 40.


The Government's letter in full here


No change to status of six movies
Singapore News // Weekend, April 18, 2009

THERE will be no change, for now, to the status of the six films submitted by film-maker Martyn See to the Media Development Authority (MDA).
.
As a “test” of the liberalisation of the Films Act, Mr See had re-submitted three of his films and three from other film-makers to the MDA for re-classification, on March 31.
.
However, MDA’s written reply on Thursday said the “2009 amendments to the Films Acts are not yet in force”, and advised Mr See to “re-submit them after the amendments come into force”.
.
The disappointed film-maker said he had sent in his films “with the intention they would review them based on the new ruling”.
.
He will re-submit Singapore Rebel and One Nation Under Lee after the amendments come into effect, he said, and “hopefully it will be passed and legalised, and Singaporeans can judge and decide for themselves what to watch and what should not be allowed”.
.
However, Mr See will “not pursue” his bid to un-ban the film Zahari’s 17 Years, which is prohibited under Section 35(1) of the Films Act for being contrary to the public interest.
.
The MDA said in its letter, the upcoming amendments to the Act “do not relate to Section 35(1) and the Minister has not changed his opinion”.

ALICIA WONG

The 10 Highest Paid Politicians In The World

This TimesOnline article gets it all wrong.

In truth, the ten highest paid politicians in the world are all pictured in the above photograph.

Anyway, here's their list.

1. Lee Hsien Loong - Singapore
Salary in dollars - $2.47 million
Salary in local currency - S$3.76 million

2. Donald Tsang Yum-Kuen - Hong Kong
Salary in dollars - $516,000
Salary in local currency - HK$4 million

3. Barack Obama - United States
Salary in dollars - $400,000

4. Brian Cowen - Ireland
Salary in dollars - $341,000
Salary in local currency - €257,000

5. Nicolas Sarkozy - FranceSalary in dollars - $318,000
Salary in local currency - €240,000

6. Angela Merkel - Germany
Salary in dollars - $303,000
Salary in local currency - €228,000

7. Gordon Brown - UK
Salary in dollars - $279,000
Salary in local currency - £194,250

8. Stephen Harper - Canada
Salary in dollars - $246,000
Salary in local currency - C$311,000

9. Taro Aso - Japan
Salary in dollars - $243,000
Salary in local currency - Y24 million

10. Kevin Rudd - Australia
Salary in dollars - $229,000
Salary in local currency - A$330,000

Here's the more accurate list (courtesy of My Singapore News)

Read also :

10 best paid politicians (by per head population)

The 10 most decadent dictators

The 10 people most responsible for the recession

Filthy rich: the 10 highest paid hedge fund managers of 2008

Martyn See resubmits banned films

PM Lee filming the audience in the auditorium with a mobile phone. The candid camera moment held a serious point - anyone can now be an amateur film-maker. -- ST


'The overall thrust of all these changes is to liberalise our society, to widen the space for expression and participation. We encourage more citizens to engage in debate, to participate in building our shared future. And we will progressively open up our system even more.'
- PM Lee Hsien Loong, National Day Rally speech 2008



I've just (re)submitted six videos to the Board of Film Censors for the purpose of classification. Enclosed within my applications was a letter to Ms Amy Chua, Head of Media Content at MDA.


31 March 2009

Ms Amy Chua
Director, Media Content
Media Development Authority
3, Fusionpolis Way,
#16-22 Symbiosis
Singapore 138633

(Re)submissions of Political Films

Dear Ms Chua,

I like to draw your attention to the (re)submission of the following films, filed in accordance with Section 14 of the Films Act, for the purpose of (re)classification.

1. Singapore Rebel (2009) A/0903/I003666U
2. Zahari's 17 Years (2009) A/0903/I003667L
3. Speakers Cornered (2009) A/0903/I003668A
4. One Nation Under Lee A/0903/I003669G
5. Success Stories : Lee Kuan Yew A/0903/I003660T
6. Riding The Tiger A/0903/I0036671L

Note that titles #1 to #3 are my productions and they have been previously classified.

Title #4, which your officers seized during its private premiere at the Peninsula-Excelsior Hotel on 17 May 2008, has yet to be rated.

In light of the new amendments to the Films Act pertaining to party political films, I hereby make these (re)submissions in order that the above films be vetted by the newly-created Political Films Consultative Committee.

With regards to Section 35, the outgoing Minister Dr Lee Boon Yang has publicly defended its retention in order to prohibit films like Fitna. This cannot be used as a pretext to continue the ban on title #2 - Zahari's 17 Years - of which I hope the PFCC will now deem it to be a 'factual biography', a classification now made permissable under the new legislation.

Yours sincerely,
See Tong Ming, Martyn

_________________________________

Related :

Films Act - A Class Act to follow...

Lone dissenter speaks to an almost empty house

The first five seconds of the clip speaks volume about the state of parliamentary debates in Singapore.



Related :

NMP Siew Kum Hong stood as the LONE DISSENTER to the Films Act amendments being passed even as Opposition voices in Parliament support the PAP “in principle”.

New restrictions to Films Act introduced under the guise of liberalization

The amendments to the Films Act bill has been passed in Parliament. State-owned CNA was the first off the blocks, calling it "a significant step to further liberalize and expand the space for political debate." The Straits Times and others will likely to parrot the enthusiasm, and there will be no end to the Government hailing the amendments as a sign of Singapore opening up.

While I leave the analysis to the bloggers and commentators, I will just spell out here in layman's terms what the amendments really mean to you.


WHAT HASN'T CHANGED IN FILMS ACT

The only major amendment is in Section 33 of the Films Act.

The rest of the Films Act remains largely unchanged. For example, the following sections still applies.

1. Section 14 requires that you submit any video in your possession (this includes video images stored in your handphone and private videos in your collection) to the Board of Film Censors (BFC).

2. Section 21 spells out the penalties if you possesses, exhibits or reproduces any unlicensed video.

3. Section 23 authorizes the police to enter and search your home, seize any unlicensed video(s) and to take into custody any person reasonably believed to be guilty of an offence under the Act.

4. Section 35 empowers the Minister to ban a film deemed to be contrary to public interest. The Government argues that this law would prohibit films like Fitna. In reality, the only film that has been banned under this section is my video interview with former political detainee Said Zahari.


WHAT HASN'T CHANGED IN SECTION 33

Section 33 prohibits the making, exhibition, distribution and import of "party political films", which are defined as videos or films that makes "partisan or biased references to or comments on any political matter." It also states that the penalties for such an offence is a conviction to a fine not exceeding $100,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years.

In general, the above has not changed. It still applies.

The only change to the above is that instead of the BFC, an Independent Advisory Board will now decide what constitutes "partisan or biased references" . The Board is slated to be headed by ex-district court judge Richard Magnus. The members of the Board have not been announced as yet.


WHAT IS "ALLOWED"

What is "allowed" here, as the Minister and the media gloat, is really a misnomer as there were no prior restrictions on such videos.

1. The new amendment states you can now make a video that contain the whole or material proportion of a political event(s) that are held according to the law. Please note that this new addition is NOT a liberalization as there were no sections in the previous Act that disallowed this. For example, my film Speakers Cornered (2006) was passed by the BFC prior to this new ruling. Ironically, this new amendment may actually criminalize Speakers Cornered as the participants of that protest are now undergoing trial!

2. The new amendment states you can now make political videos that do not contain any animation and must composed wholly of an accurate account of a political event or persons. Again this is NOT a liberalization as there were no sections in the previous Act that disallowed this. In fact, this is a new restriction dressed up as liberalization. Sneaky.


WHAT IS REALLY ALLOWED (where previously banned)

This is the only part that fits the bill of liberalization (but is negated later by more new restrictions).

The new amendment states that you can now make, exhibit and distribute videos composed wholly of a political party's ideologies and manifestos. But here's the catch - the videos must be made "on the basis of which candidates authorized by the political party to stand will seek to be elected at a Parliamentary election." Does this mean that someone like Dr Chee Soon Juan, who is ineligible to stand for elections due to his bankruptcy, is not allowed to appear in such videos? Will something like this be criminalized?


WHAT IS NOW NOT ALLOWED (where previously allowed, or not stated)

Get ready, here are the bombshells.

1. You are now not allowed to make an unbiased and non-partisan political video that contains any form of animation. Like this.

2. You are now not allowed to make an unbiased and non-partisan political video that contains "wholly or substantially based on unscripted or "reality" type programmes." Something like this.

3. You are now not allowed to make an unbiased and non-partisan political video that depicts "events, persons or situations in a dramatic way." Something like this.

4. You are now not allowed to make an unbiased and non-partisan political video that contains scenes of an illegal political event. Something like this.

WHAT WILL NOT BE ALLOWED

You will soon not be allowed to whip out your camera to film an outdoor political activity. The proposed Public Order Act, to be passed into law next month, empowers the police to stop the filming, exhibition or distribution of videos depicting law enforcement activities. Something like this and this.


RELATED ARTICLES

Reel knots in changes to Films Act
The Films Act Noose Tightens
Films Act: Let us embrace ambiguity
Straits Times: MPs express reservations over scope, ambiguous wording

Film Acts Amendment
TOC Editorial: A bad law just got worse
An affront to Singapore's history
Was Minister Lui Tuck Yew confused by AIMs’ recommendations?
Panel to advise censors

________________________________________________

Singapore eases law on political films

Mon Mar 23, 2009 4:49pm IST

SINGAPORE (Reuters) - Singapore passed an amended law on Monday to ease an 11-year-old ban on films that promote a politician or political party, but the amendments also introduce restrictions on dramatized political videos.

The relaxation of rules on political films was meant to keep up with the spread of video and other news content on the Internet, but these had to be "held in accordance with the law," Lui Tuck Yew, a junior minister at the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts, told parliament.

The amended Films Act allows films that are factual and objective, and do not dramatize or present a distorted picture of politics in Singapore, Lui said.

"Films with animation and dramatization and distort what is real or factual will be disallowed, as the intent of the amendments is to ensure that these films do not undermine the seriousness of political debate," he said.

The southeast Asian city-state, which has been ruled by the People's Action Party for more than 40 years, had banned the production and screening of all political films, imposing a maximum fine of S$100,000 ($73,000) or a two-year jail term on offenders.

The ban came into effect in 1998, two years after the opposition Singapore Democratic Party applied for a license to sell a videotape about the party.

Public gatherings of more than four people without permits are also banned, making it difficult for opposition politicians to reach out to voters.

The amended bill won overwhelming support in a parliament that has been dominated by the PAP since Singapore's independence in 1965.

Nominated member of parliament Siew Kum Hong, who opposed the bill, said the amendments did not go far enough as it would still allow the prosecution of people who film political rallies without realizing whether the event was lawful or not.

"Singaporeans are today far more sophisticated and media savvy than before and should be trusted for the merit and demerit of films for themselves," he told parliament.

Martyn See, a Singaporean film-maker who had two films banned by authorities because of their political content, called the law "regressive."

"It shows off a government that is incapable of trusting its own citizens to watch political films."

Videos : Miserables in Singapore / Hitler Slams Failed Investment

Recommended action : Download these two videos and submit them to the Board of Film Censors, as required by section 14 of the Films Act. See if it falls under the classification of a party political film (section 33) which criminalizes any film or video which contains biased references to any political matter or persons in Singapore.

Join the One Nation Under Films Act facebook group.

Miserables In Singapore



With election fever round the corner, the perfect inspirational song! With apologies to Mr Cameron Mackintosh!
Uploaded on youtube on February 20 by bagusjunction


Hitler Slams Failed Investment



This video was first posted on youtube by googivani under the original title "Hitler Slams Temasek". It has since been taken down from youtube due to a copyright claim by Lighthouse Pictures. Story here. A statement by googivani here. Enjoy it on LiveLeak while it lasts.

Political dwarfs like Mr Lee Kuan Yew : Chia Thye Poh

I derive no inspiration from my country's current (and past) government leaders.

My only source of patriotism is drawn from the scarifices made by political dissidents, both past and present, who has/had been persecuted, imprisoned and vilified by their own government for their beliefs.

They, I believe, are the real patriots of Singapore.

The above is taken from Martyn See's facebook page, as part of his Original Thought series.

Singapore's forgotten founding fathers.
Mr Lim Chin Siong [L], Dr Chia Thye Poh [R]

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

BLAST FROM THE PAST

Research by Isrizal Mohd Isa

Extracted from Parlimentary Debates of the Dewan Ra’ayat (House of Representatives)
Thursday, 19th September, 1964

*****

Mr Speaker: You have one more minute left.

Enche' Chia Thye Poh: I think one more minute is too short.

Mr Speaker: I will give you one more minute.

Enche' Chia Thye Poh: I think it is most unfair for me to complete my speech in one minute. I beg you to ...

Mr Speaker: No, I will give you one minute.

Enche' Chia Thye Poh: Sir, when the Prime Minister talks of defending our country, we find it hollow. This Government has betrayed all the vital interests of the people to the British. It has no right to talk of defending the nation. This Government is oppressing the people; more than 200 political leaders and trade unionists are in the jails of Singapore. Our Secretary- General, Mr Lim Chin Siong, is in Changi and political dwarfs like Mr Lee Kuan Yew can strut around and talk big only when giants like Mr Lim Chin Siong are kept out of the political arena (interruption).

Mr Speaker: Do not disturb him.

Enche' Chia Thye Poh: The Prime Minister has spoken about the communal riots in Singapore. He says that the Indonesians and the Communists caused it. We are from Singapore and we know that this is just to cover up the real culprits. The Prime Minister of Singapore is telling, in Europe, that the UMNO politicians have caused it. The UMNO in Singapore says that the P.A.P. has caused it. We who are in Singapore know that the communal riots were the work of the UMNO and the P.A.P. who were indulging in a bitter fight for power . All this nonsense about the Indonesians and the Communists causing these riots is just to hide the truth that the main culprits belong to the ruling parties.

SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS : Nonsense! Lies

Enche' Chia Thye Poh : We challenge the Government to have a public enquiry into this. When the riots started . . . .

Mr Speaker : Order, order! Your time is up—it is already one minute.

*****

2 years later, at the age of 26, Member of Parliament for Jurong Mr Chia Thye Poh was arrested and detained without charge or trial. He spent a total of 23 years in prison and another 9 years under restrictive orders in Sentosa. Upon his release in 1998, he publicly called for the abolition of the ISA. He attained his phD recently, but his last known whereabouts are uncertain.

Just show me the money, says S'porean filmmakers

Apparently unperturbed by the impending Films Act amendments which will criminalize a host of "biased and partisan" politically-themed films, including those that contain animation, dramatization, unscripted reality-type material and the documentation of illegal activities, local filmmakers Royston Tan(881) and Pek Siok Lian (Mad About English) say they plan to continue mining Government coffers to fund their films.

Now for that Singapore brand ?
$230m in funds set aside for filmmakers, but are any strings attached? :

Lin Yanqin
yanqin@mediacorp.com.sg

THE Government has set aside $230 million to develop Singapore’s media industry. Do filmmakers have any concern that they may not be able to produce biting socio-political commentaries if they tap the fund?
.
None whatever, according to those Today spoke to.
.
Filmmaker Pek Siok Lian, whose documentary Mad About English — capturing the efforts of the Chinese learning a once-forbidden tongue — was made with grants from the Media Development Authority (MDA), said Government funding did not restrict her from deciding on content.
.
“That hasn’t been the case in our experience, and we plan to turn to them for funding,” she said.
.
Director Royston Tan agreed.
.
“MDA will always be our top priority for funding,” said Mr Tan, who has made films with the backing of MDA as well as private investors. “Obviously, the increase helps to take some of the financial and emotional stress off filmmaking.”
.
Mr Benjamin Toh, whose company Axxis Group produces 3-D animations, said one restrictive factor could be that the funding sometimes includes conditions like shooting the film in Singapore.
.
“Whether this will be a factor depends on what you’re planning to make,” he said.
.
While he has secured the funds needed for his company’s productions for the next few years, Mr Toh said that it would help if there was more clarity on how such funds might be made available.
.
“Sometimes there are so many avenues, it’s a bit confusing,” he admitted.
.
They agreed the $230 million to be disbursed over five years — approved in Parliament on Friday — was a significant boost as media companies too, were feeling the pinch of the downturn. Ms Pek said it was timely and signalled the Government’s commitment to developing the sector.
.
“Given the current recessionary environment, the additional funding is crucial to the sustainability of the industry,” she said. “Many broadcasters are tightening their belts, whether it’s commissioning or acquiring new co-productions, this funding will help cushion that and give production companies a good chance of riding it out.”
.
Mr Toh supported the measures to develop capability — which include a new attachment programme for media professionals — something he felt was even more crucial than the funding itself.
.
“Without the right manpower, you can’t deliver quality productions,” he said. “We have to turn to hiring foreigners sometimes.”
.
To develop sustainability in the sector, Ms Pek suggested Singapore concentrate on an area in which it was strong, such as documentaries, modelled after the United States’ Public Broadcasting Service channel.
.
“What might be useful is for the Government to consider supporting another channel for Singaporean producers ... What’s to stop us from creating an international channel like PBS or Arte, dedicated to quality Asian content? Right now, we’re knocking on the doors of western outlets whose interest in Asia can be somewhat cursory. Creating a channel would help ... solidify a Singapore brand that puts local media producers out there.”

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

Meanwhile, artists in Zimbabwe calls on their unity government to abolish the Censorship Act.

The Censorship Act was enacted to “regulate and control the public exhibition of films, the importation, production, dissemination and possession of undesirable or prohibited video and film material, publications, pictures, statues and records and the giving of public entertainment; to regulate theatres and like places of public entertainment in the interests of safety; and to provide for matters incidental to the foregoing”.

Read more here

Proposed amendments to Films Act are even more ambiguous

In brief:

Allowed : "Wholly accurate" depictions of "actual" events, persons and situations.
Not Allowed : Fictional films about political events, persons or situations.
Questionable : Documentaries containing ex-political detainees' accounts of mental and physical torture under ISA detentions. Dramas depicting political events, persons and situations.

Allowed : Recordings of events that are held according to the law.
Not Allowed : Recordings of protests, demonstrations, political gatherings or any act deemed to be illegal under the law. Does new law empowers police to arrest video cameramen on site?
Questionable : Recordings of events that may not be deemed illegal at the time of recording, such as this, this and this.

Related:

kill the messenger, we're Singaporeans

Filming an illegal event is… illegal?

Saving jobs, savaging filmmakers

Proposed Films Act Amendments: Silencing Upgraded

My Dear Government, Why Do You Treat Me So?

How to inflict selective amnesia

Amendments to the Films Act

Films Act changes target civil disobedience videos



Changes proposed to Films Act

STRAITS TIMES
January 23, 2009 Friday

A BILL was introduced in Parliament yesterday seeking to exempt certain types of films from an existing ban on 'party political films'.

Under proposed amendments to the Films Act, live film recordings of election rallies, public speeches or processions, as well as anniversary celebration videos by political parties will not be considered as party political films.

But the events being filmed must first be held in accordance with the law.

Other types of films that will pass muster are:

Documentaries 'made without any animation and composed wholly of an accurate account depicting actual events, persons and situations';

Films made by political parties or election candidates of their manifesto and policies.

The changes expand the list of films not considered party political films under Section 2(3) of the Act.

The original list in that section comprises films made solely for the purpose of reporting news, and films made just for the purpose of informing or educating the public on the procedures and polling times for any election or national referendum.

The changes are in line with the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts' (Mica) response earlier this month to recommendations made by an advisory council on new media.

The Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society had recommended lifting the ban on party political films in stages, which the Government accepted.

The Films Act currently defines a party political film in two ways.

First, as an advertisement made by or on behalf of any political party in Singapore.

Second, as a film made by any individual which contains material likely to affect voting in any election or national referendum here, or contains partisan or biased comments on any political matter.

If amendments to the Act are accepted by Parliament, the Board of Film Censors will be the authority that decides whether a film submitted to it is a party political film.

Also proposed in the Bill is a new Section 4A which empowers the Mica Minister to establish one or more advisory committees to advise the board in relation to any film.

One Country, Two Systems Part lll

"The essence of the rule of law is that the law applies to all."
- Singapore's Attorney General Walter Woon, Straits Times Jan 4, 2009

One Law For Them

Over 200 Chinese nationals held a sit-in in front of the Ministry of Manpower building to protest against salary arrears on December 30 2008. They were not arrested. Link here.
Video here by Ho Choon Hiong (It's not Apocalypse Now but enjoy)

Another For Them


Singaporeans Seelan Palay and Chong Kai Xiong were arrested this afternoon in front of the same MOM building for staging a protest in support of Burmese nationals allegedly being forced to leave the country for their pro-democracy activities. They were released four hours later and are now being investigated for alleged criminal trespass. Link here and response by Ministry here.


One Law For This


A seven-part documentary, produced by the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts, which traces the ruling People's Action Party's ride to power on the back of the "Communist Tiger" in pre-independent Singapore. The DVD is freely available in Singapore.


Another For This

A still from Zahari's 17 Years, a documentary produced by local filmmaker Martyn See which features a protracted interview with Said Zahari, an ex-journalist accused by the Singapore Government of being a communist and subsequently detained for 17 years without trial. It is currently banned by the Minister of Information, Communications and the Arts for allegedly "undermin[ing] public confidence in the government."

One Country, Two Systems Part l and Part ll

Singapore Goverment still fearful of political films

A bulletin of what I told CNA and ST about the Government's position on the proposed amendments to the Films Act.

• That I'm standing by my original position that Section 33 and Section 35 should be repealed unconditionally, completely and immediately.

• That with the partial lifting, we're no better than where we were in 1998 when the Films Act was amended. It's one step backwards, half-step forward.

• That I rejected the proposal of an "independent advisory panel" to decide for the rest of the population what is suitable for viewing. A First World Nation who attained self-governance in 1959 should allow its people to decide for themselves. Singaporeans are mature and discerning enough.

• That when it comes to political expression, I believe in community self-moderation, not Government intervention.

• That the refusal to decriminalize "party political films" and the reluctance to disclose reasons for banning a film under Section 35 is worrying and shows up an insecure government.

• That the Government's claim that they are "protecting society" by reserving their right to ban films holds no water. A few hundred thousand people have seen 'Singapore Rebel' and 'Zahari's 17 Years' on the internet. I have not received a single complaint calling for the removal of these films. The only people who objected to the screening of these two films are the Government themselves. Whose interests are they really protecting? Singaporeans' or just Lee Kuan Yew's?

• 
  That 'Singapore Rebel' was in fact inspired by a documentary shown on CNA in 2003 on the political life of Lee Kuan Yew entitled 'Success Stories'. That 'Zahari's 17 Years' presents a counter-balance to 'Riding The Tiger', a documentary made by CNA and the Government about the PAP's defeat of the "Communist Left." Both 'Success Stories' and 'Riding The Tiger' are openly available in local shops.

• That the Government has shown that it can act quickly by bailing out ailing foreign financial institutions. No reason why it can't summon the same speed in liberalising political space for its own citizens.

• That the Government has admitted that they cannot stop people from posting political videos online makes it even more imperative that Section 33 and 35 be repealed unconditionally and completely. Why bother retaining laws that cannot be enforced?

• That I'm resubmitting 'Singapore Rebel' and 'Zahari's 17 Years'. It's the only way to force the Government to define clearly what constitutes an "objective" and "factual" political film.

• That I'm embarking on a campaign to highlight other sections of the Films Act which affects and criminalizes everyone in Singapore, not just political filmmakers.

Films Act to be amended to allow factual party political films
By Valarie Tan, Channel NewsAsia Posted: 09 January

SINGAPORE : The Singapore government has accepted 17 out of 26 recommendations made by the Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media Society, or AIMS.

It agreed with the Council that it should take a phased approach to liberalising the Films Act, instead of repealing it immediately.

It will amend the Films Act to allow for certain types of party political films, which means that political parties and their candidates will be able to use films for internet election advertising during an election.

But party political films will have to be factual and objective and not dramatise or present a distorted picture.

In a news conference on Friday morning, Information, Communications and the Arts Minister Lee Boon Yang said that the government will move to amend the Films Act in the next month or two.

The government also agreed to set up an independent advisory panel, which will be made up of citizens of high standing and who are non-partisan.

The panel - to be chaired by a retired Senior District Judge and chairman of the Casino Regulatory Authority, Mr Richard Magnus - will determine whether films are party political films and if they can be aired.

But the Ministry for Information, Communications and the Arts (MICA) said it will retain its right to ban films, like "Zahari 17 Years", which it feels are against public interest under Section 35 of the Films Act even though they may be readily available on the Internet.

Under the law, the minister is not obliged to give reasons for the ban.

Dr Lee said: "We know that it's not possible to block everything in certain situations, but that doesn't mean we should give in, be carried along by the tide. We should still state our position."

When asked why a different law is applied for political films compared to, say, films with violence and sex, Dr Lee said: "For political films, we're protecting society, because we want to maintain the political debate as a rational objective debate, not one given to emotional outburst, not one based on distorted presentations of issues."

"There is a danger to allowing such films to be circulated publicly in Singapore. Then, you will actually degrade the level of political debate, and you could bring the debate down to a competition between films," he added.

But the ministry has agreed to relax the Films Act in phases. Responding to the news, filmmaker Martyn See said: "When the government says 'in phases', then the next thing we have to ask is: When? - next five years, next 10 years, when? The government has shown it can act very quickly. So let's act quickly to liberalise political space for Singaporeans."

Mr See also said he would re-submit his two previously banned films -"Singapore Rebel" and "Zahari 17 Years" - once the amended Films Act has been passed.

In terms of e-engagement, the government said it will devote more resources to engage Singaporeans in cyberspace. But to ensure accountability, it will not remove the requirement for political websites to be registered.

The government will also not respond to Internet criticisms outside government sites like REACH. In response to this, blogger Alex Au said: "Is the government going to say 'no, we're going to ignore them because you didn't come into my room?'

"The government has to find ways of addressing some of the issues that are raised in other parts of the Internet, even if nobody brings it up within REACH. It could be in the form of a statement within REACH itself that addresses the stuff that is being talked about outside."

Blogger Gerald Giam told Channel NewsAsia: "By and large, the bloggers who are blogging about social and political issues do want some sort of response. I mean, it's a simple analogy that if I'm talking to you and you ignore me, then how do I feel?"

Dr Amy Khor, chairman of REACH, said: "For serious-minded citizens who are interested to engage the government on various issues they are concerned (about), one of the appeals of REACH is that when he gets into the website, his views will be heard... and there is likely to be a response.

"He may be able to get interaction, especially with the relevant ministries and officers. (This could) possibly even lead to a change, with his ideas."

On the rule prohibiting civil servants from voicing their personal opinions on government policies online, MICA said there will be no change. The ministry said allowing them to do so will compromise trust within the Civil Service.

The government has also accepted almost all the Council's views on protecting minors.

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

"..The dark reaches of the internet."

Try deciphering this cryptic talk from Dr Lee Boon Yang, Singapore's very well-paid Communications and Information Minister.

" Individuals may be able to surf the web and pull down the film and watch it, I think it's something we've to accept. But we should not because some individuals can do so, we should allow this film to circulate widely and openly in the Singapore context because there's a difference from giving such films the privilege to circulate freely in Singapore to saying that those who want to watch it well you go to the dark reaches of the Internet, pull it down and watch it."

Party political films, more new media tools allowed by next election

Progress, a step at a time

Other reactions from "the dark reaches of the internet"..

Singapore government rejects AIMS' key recommendations

Nobly Oppressive

Lame response to AIMS recommendations shows how behind times the PAP is

Films Act: Fate of political documentary films remains unclear

one step forward, another step back?

One Nation Under the Films Act

Join the campaign to raise awareness about a law that criminalizes everyone in Singapore who has in his or her possession a copy of a film that has not been licensed by the authorities. And this includes video images stored in mobile phones.

The Films Act is an archaic piece of legislation written in 1981. We are calling for a repeal, or at the very least, a complete review of the statute.

Click here to join

________________________________________

Sections of the Films Act you should know about

SECTION 12

Films made in Singapore to be deposited in approved warehouse
12. —(1) The owner of any film made in Singapore shall, within 7 days after the making of the film, deposit the film in a warehouse approved for this purpose by the Board.

(2) Any person who fails to deposit the film in accordance with subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000.


SECTION 14

Submission of films for censorship
14. —(1) Every film in the possession of any person shall be submitted to the Board without any alteration or excision for the purpose of censorship at the owner’s risk and expense and at such time and place as the Board may appoint.

(2) During the course of censorship, the Board may in its discretion exclude any person from the place where the film is being exhibited.


SECTION 15

Prohibition and approval of films for exhibition
15. —(1) After the submission of a film for the purpose of censorship, the Board may —

(a) approve the film for exhibition without alteration or excision;

(b) prohibit the exhibition of the film; or

(c) approve the film for exhibition with such alterations or excisions as it may require.


SECTION 21

Penalty for possession, exhibition or distribution of uncensored films
21. —(1) Any person who —

(a) has in his possession;

(b) exhibits or distributes; or

(c) reproduces,

any film without a valid certificate, approving the exhibition of the film, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction —

(i) in respect of an offence under paragraph (a), to a fine of not less than $100 for each such film that he had in his possession (but not to exceed in the aggregate $20,000); and

(ii) in respect of an offence under paragraph (b) or (c), to a fine of not less than $500 for each such film he had exhibited, distributed or reproduced, as the case may be (but not to exceed in the aggregate $40,000) or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both.
[10/98]


SECTION 22

Advertisement of films for exhibition prohibited unless approved by Board
22. —(1) No person shall advertise or cause to be advertised the exhibition or distribution of any film unless the advertisement has been approved by the Board.

(2) Any person who advertises or causes to be advertised any film where the advertisement in respect of the film has not been approved by the Board under subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000.


SECTION 23

Search for unauthorised films and arrest of persons
23. —(1) Whenever a Deputy or an Assistant Commissioner of Police or an Assistant Superintendent of Police is satisfied upon written information and after any further inquiry which he may think necessary that any film —

(a) which has not been —

(i) deposited in an approved warehouse as required by section 12 or 13;

(ii) returned to the Board as required by section 14 (4); or

(iii) approved for exhibition under section 15 or 26 (4);

(b) in respect of which the certificate issued therefor has ceased to be valid under section 20; or

(c) which has been altered in any way after a certificate in respect of the film was issued,

has been or is being exhibited or kept in any place, he may issue a warrant directed to any police officer to enter and search that place and seize the film and to take into custody any person reasonably believed to be guilty of an offence by reason of failure to deposit or to return the film or by reason of such possession or exhibition.
[10/98]

(2) A Deputy or an Assistant Commissioner of Police or an Assistant Superintendent of Police may without warrant, with such assistance and by such force as is necessary, by night or by day, himself do what he may authorise any police officer to do under subsection (1) in either of the following cases:

(a) if he has personal knowledge of such facts as satisfy him that there are sufficient grounds for a search;

(b) if he receives information orally in such circumstances that the object of a search would in his opinion be defeated by the delay necessary for reducing the information to writing except that the name and address of the person giving the information is known to or ascertained by him before he acts upon the information.


SECTION 30

Possession of obscene films
30. —(1) Any person who has in his possession any obscene film shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine of not less than $500 for each such film he had in his possession (but not to exceed in the aggregate $20,000) or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both.


SECTION 33

Making, distribution and exhibition of party political films
33. Any person who —

(a) imports any party political film;

(b) makes or reproduces any party political film;

(c) distributes, or has in his possession for the purposes of distributing, to any other person any party political film; or

(d) exhibits, or has in his possession for the purposes of exhibiting, to any other person any party political film,

knowing or having reasonable cause to believe the film to be a party political film shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $100,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years.


SECTION 34

Search and seizure of unlawful films
34. —(1) Any Deputy or Assistant Commissioner of Police, Assistant Superintendent of Police or any Censor, Deputy or Assistant Censor or Inspector of Films, if satisfied upon written information and after such further inquiry as he thinks necessary that any person has in his possession any obscene film or party political film, may without warrant, with such assistance and by such force as is necessary, by night or by day, enter and search any place where he has reason to believe the film is kept, seize the film and any equipment used in the exhibition, making or reproduction of the film and take into custody any person reasonably believed to be in possession thereof.


SECTION 35

Minister may prohibit possession or distribution of any film
35. —(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of this Act if the Minister is of the opinion that the possession or distribution of any film would be contrary to the public interest, he may, in his discretion, by order published in the Gazette prohibit the possession or distribution of that film by any person.

(2) Any person who has in his possession or who distributes any film the possession or distribution of which has been prohibited under subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or to both, and the film shall be destroyed or otherwise disposed of as the Minister thinks fit.


SECTION 40

Exemptions
40. —(1) This Act shall not apply to —

(a) any film sponsored by the Government;

(b) any film, not being an obscene film or a party political film or any feature, commercial, documentary or overseas television serial film, which is made by an individual and is not intended for distribution or public exhibition; and

(c) any film reproduced from local television programmes and is not intended for distribution or public exhibition.
[10/98]

(2) The Minister may, subject to such conditions as he thinks fit, exempt any person or class of persons or any film or class of films from all or any of the provisions of this Act.

(3) An exemption granted under this section may be withdrawn at any time.

________________________________________

INTERPRETATIONS

"film" means —

(a) any cinematograph film;

(b) any video recording, including a video recording that is designed for use wholly or principally as a game;

(c) any other material record or thing on which is recorded or stored for immediate or future retrieval any information that, by the use of any computer or electronic device, is capable of being reproduced or displayed as wholly or partly visual moving pictures,

and includes any part of a film, and any copy or part of a copy of the whole or any part of a film;

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


"obscene" , in relation to a film, means a film the effect of which or (where the film comprises 2 or more distinct parts or items) the effect of any one of its parts or items is, if taken as a whole, such as to tend to deprave or corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to see or hear the film;

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


"party political film" means a film —

(a) which is an advertisement made by or on behalf of any political party in Singapore or any body whose objects relate wholly or mainly to politics in Singapore, or any branch of such party or body; or

(b) which is made by any person and directed towards any political end in Singapore;

(2) For the purposes of this Act, a film is directed towards a political end in Singapore if the film —

(a) contains wholly or partly any matter which is intended or likely to affect voting in any election or national referendum in Singapore; or

(b) contains wholly or partly either partisan or biased references to or comments on any political matter, including but not limited to any of the following:

(i) an election or a national referendum in Singapore;

(ii) a candidate or group of candidates in an election;

(iii) an issue submitted or otherwise before electors in an election or a national referendum in Singapore;

(iv) the Government or a previous Government or the opposition to the Government or previous Government;

(v) a Member of Parliament;

(vi) a current policy of the Government or an issue of public controversy in Singapore; or

(vii) a political party in Singapore or any body whose objects relate wholly or mainly to politics in Singapore, or any branch of such party or body.
[10/98]

(3) For the avoidance of doubt, any film which is made solely for the purpose of —

(a) reporting of current events; or

(b) informing or educating persons on the procedures and polling times for any election or national referendum in Singapore,

is not a party political film.

Partisan political films please, we're the PAP

Three years ago, I was placed under police investagation for making Singapore Rebel. I had to surrender all my tapes and camera and was subjected to gruelling interviews by the police - all for making a "party political film", as alleged by the complainant, the Media Development Authority (MDA).

Some of my friends and acquaintances were also called up by the police for interviews, as the Singapore Gestapo combed through my phone records without my knowledge. I have publicly stated, even to the local press, that I hope to be the first and last person to be formally investigated for making a political film in Singapore.

Today, I can safely lay claim to that title.

The ruling People's Action Party will be making and posting their videos on their website. That's great news. But then someone should tell them to submit all their videos to the Board of Film Censors, as required by the Films Act. Otherwise, the censors are not averse to physically seizing films, as they did with One Nation Under Lee. Or are some parties in Singapore more above the law than others?

For the record, Singapore Rebel and Zahari's 17 Years are still officially banned in Singapore. Possession of any such copies are liable to prosecution. But yes, I do have copies, and I will resubmit both videos to the censors very soon.

And lest anyone is duped into believing that Singapore is opening up beacuse of the easing of political films, please be reminded that the Act banning such films was passed in 1998. With the latest ruling, we're really no better than we were prior to 1998. It's two steps back, one step forward. Again, if you still need further confirmation, ask him, and them.


PAP aims to click with young

Revamped website to feature party's videos in bid to connect with IT-savvy voters
By Goh Chin Lian
STRAITS TIMES

Singaporeans can now go online to watch short videos of People's Action Party (PAP) MPs at events on the party's revamped website that was launched yesterday.

It is a new way to reach out to young and IT-savvy voters, said party chairman Lim Boon Heng last night.

'New media is facilitating change. Our party is gearing up our resources to harness this new platform,' he told 1,500 activists and unionists at the PAP's awards ceremony.

'It will change some of the things that we do at our branches.'

For instance, at each of the 84 branches, two or three party activists will now report on events, and put up slideshows and video footage on the party website.

'Since the new media is reaching out to more and more people, not just the young but also some of the older ones who have got into IT, the party should use it as a medium for reaching out to people,' Mr Lim told reporters later.

His comments follow recent moves to ease the ban on party political videos. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong indicated at this year's National Day Rally that he was in favour of relaxing existing rules.

A government-appointed advisory council on new media issues is expected to make known its recommendations.

Once the new rules are clear, Mr Lim said the party will ensure that its branches abide by them. Currently, the videos on its website are more like slideshows.

Some MPs like Mrs Josephine Teo plan to do more than videos. Her Toa Payoh East branch intends to set up an account on social networking site Facebook for residents to communicate with her and with one another.

That is because traditional ways of outreach are not as effective with the young.

Read the rest here.

"I have lost everything but I have no regrets"

Oh the foes will rise
With the sleep in their eyes
And they'll jerk from their beds and think they're dreamin'
But they'll pinch themselves and squeal
And know that it's for real
The hour that the ship comes in.

Then they'll raise their hands
Sayin' we'll meet all your demands
But we'll shout from the bow your days are numbered
And like Pharaoh's tribe
They'll be drownded in the tide
And like Goliath, they'll be conquered

Lyrics by Bob Dylan
Performed by Marcus Carl Franklin

****************************************

An excerpt of the introduction to Make It Right For Singapore

published in 2000
by Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam

I have, as a result of going into politics, lost everything. I have no bank account to speak of and do not own any property in Singapore nor hold any stocks or shares in any company. My practice has suffered as a result of my entering into politics way back in 1971. I drive a car but it is one that my son has lent me. I count it as the Grace of providence that I have not been detained and made to spend long years in prison like Mr Chia Thia Poh who spent 23 years in prison and often in solitary confinement.

This book is my humble presentation to the people who in any democratic society are the final judges of what is good for the society they live in. The speeches have one constant theme running through them. That in any democratic society it is the members of the society - the people - who matter.

That they should determine collectively the good of the society and not have it determined for them by anyone above them, however benevolent.

That the society as a whole should take responsibility for its affairs and participate in the making of decisions that affect them.

That power belongs to the people and the government only exercises powers delegated to it by the people.

That the people are the masters and not the government which is only a servant of the people.

That if this does not obtain in any society it ceases to be a democratic society and the people are reduced to being slaves in their own country. Slaves have no say in what their master ordains for them.

It follows that in every democratic society, the individual matters, however lowly he may be. The dustman is as much entitled to his dignity and the rights to preserve that dignity as the highest person in the land is.

These rights which have been termed human rights are inalienable and no person should be deprived of them even in the supposed interest of the community. It is a blot on the community even if one person is deprived of his rights.

It is only by protecting the rights of every single individual that the community as a whole is protected.

The rights are those that are necessary to the full development of the individual's dignity as a human being.

The rights to housing, education, medical care, food and clothing. Besides these material rights, are those inalienable rights but no less important. The right to liberty, freedom from arbitrary arrest, to think, to speak his mind, to associate with his fellow beings in speaking together, to move freely and the right to live his life without fear under the law.

To know what the law to which he has agreed through his elected representatives prohibits him from doing and to live his life fully without transgressing the law. That he can only be deprived of any of his rights after it has been proven to him that he had broken his contract with his fellow members of society.

Deprive a human being of these inalienable rights and you make him less than a human being however well off he may be materially.

A person loses his dignity if he is not allowed to think and give utterance to his thoughts whether alone or in the company of others. I am a passionate believer in all these. We are at the highest level of creation when we have taken on the image of God.

The speeches scan the period from June 1997 to November 1999. Although a full Parliament was in place in January, Parliament did not meet until the end of May. The government functioned without Parliament. In a parliamentary democracy government takes its authority from Parliament but in Singapore the government was constituted and exercised power before Parliament was sworn in. This was also the position after the 1988 and 1991 elections..

The right to justice is an integral part of human rights. Indeed it is justice that protects and safeguards human rights. I am concerned at some unhealthy trends in Singapore in the administration of criminal justice - the part of justice which protects human liberty and freedom. It is a concern that many lawyers in Singapore share.

It is my hope that Singaporeans may find some inspiration in my speeches. Although, as I said, I have lost everything. I have no regrets.

My reward has been the esteem I have met everywhere I go in Singapore and that is something no amount of money can buy.

I thank God that he has given me the health and strength to render such service as I have tried to from 1971.

- J.B. Jeyaretnam (1926 - 2008)

JB Jeyaretnam - Singapore's Martyr

At the funeral parlour this afternoon, Kenneth Jeyaretnam related to us how despite warnings from doctors about his father's heart condition, JBJ kept putting off medical treatment until such a time when he could finish his immediate task.

And what was this task that was so urgent? He had been toiling in court to bring the Singapore Government to bear for not holding a by-election after a PAP MP had passed away recently.

He didn't have to do this, nor did he have to form a new political party, or to revive his law practice. At the age of 82, he should have long retired, as both of his sons are successful professionals.

Even to his last day, he battled for justice, for accountability, for a free Singapore. He gave away his life, literally, to the pursuit of genuine democracy in Singapore.

Martyn See Tong Ming
1 Oct 2008

Short film on elderly poor rated NC16

Nation Builders, a 14 minute documentary featuring scenes of the elderly poor ekeing out a living in Singapore, has been rated NC16 by the Board of Film Censors. I had submitted the film in July and it was cleared by the censors last week. No mention is made in the certificate (YN03947004) on why the film has been deemed unsuitable for viewers under the age of 16. A fee of $10.80 is payable upon every film you submit to the censors (even though the Films Act requires ALL films to be authorised by the BFC). I was told to write in to the Board to request for an explanation for the rating.

Watch the entire video here and form your own conclusions as to why the Singapore Government does not want their under 16s to watch this film in a public screening.

And oh , read this too.
From hospital, Lee Kuan Yew asks rich to help poor
"Unlike Kim Jong Il who says he is well but has not appeared, I thought I'd better say hello to you and to your guests and apologise for not being able to join you." - MM Lee Kuan Yew



The censors' clearance of Nation Builders follows the approval of six other films, made by director Ho Choon Hiong, which documented a recent spate of political protests in Singapore.

They are rated as follows.

1. Human rights torch relay by Falungong in Singapore (M18)
Youtube link here
Related article : Singapore Welcomes the Global Human Rights Torch Relay

2. BURMESE SAYS NO. (NC16)

Youtube link here
Related article : Myanmar nationals protest constitution in Singapore

3. Burmese staged peaceful demonstration in Singapore (PG)
Youtube link here.
Related article : Activists Defy Protest Ban At ASEAN Summit In Singapore

4. NUS international students Vigil Walk (PG)
Youtube link here
Related article : Protest Singapore Style; 3 Marchers, 19 Media, 1000 Police

5. Singaporean started 5 days fasting against ISA on Hindraf 5 (PG)
Youtube link here
Related article : Palay ends hunger strike for Hindraf five

6. Morning May day Montage (PG)
Youtube link here
Related article : Report on SDP's Walking for Workers

Six short political films first passed by Singapore censors

Singapore - Six short films documenting political activities in Singapore have been approved by Singapore censors, the first since the easing of an outright ban last month, media reports said on Saturday. The films produced by Ho Choon Hiong, 33, focus on street demonstrations, protests and fasting.

"It is an encouraging sign," The Straights Times quoted Ho as saying of the Board of Film Censors (BFC) nod.

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said last month that the ban could be relaxed. He said during the National Day Rally address that factual footage, documentaries and recordings of live events would be okayed.

Still off-limits are the making or distribution of party political films, including ads by parties or other political organizations or footage distorted to create a slanted impression.

Among the topics of films that received the go-ahead are a protest against the Beijing Olympics by members of the Falungong sect in the city-state, protests by Myanmar nationals and a Singaporean fasting outside the Malaysian High Commission in protest against the detention of Malaysian Hindu rights activists, the report said.