In a report in the Straits Times on Saturday, 20 September, undergraduate Kok Yufeng, 24, said that the film, “To Singapore, With Love”, “must be watched” because it is a good opportunity to hear stories that have not been heard.”
The film has been banned from public screening by the Media Development Authority (MDA), headed by Koh Lin-Net as its chief executive officer.
She said, “In Singapore, we have determined that the film has to be disallowed because of national security concerns.”
kln
Her views were supported by the Minister of Communications and Information (MCI), Yaacob Ibrahim.
yi2
 
However, Singaporeans like Mr Kok are now questioning who actually has “distorted” the truth of our past.
Mr Kok told the Straits Times, “This film must be watched as the Government and the media have glossed over this aspect of our history.”
st200914
Mr Kok may be happy to note that as an undergraduate, he may get the chance to view the film, as the MDA has since said it will allow “some leeway” for “institutions of higher learning” to screen films which are restricted or not allowed – but on several conditions including:
– The film must be for “educational purposes”
– The film must have been earlier classified by the MDA or
– The film has been given prior approval by the MDA before the film was acquired.
But this has raised even more questions.
For example, why should only students in “institutions of higher learning” be given the right to view such a film which concerns and indeed should be viewed by all Singaporeans, since it is about their collective history?
Why, for example, should the film not be allowed to be seen by mature Singaporeans, or non-student Singaporeans who are interested in our history? What about historians who are interested in alternative, non-official accounts of those most intimately involved in our history? Why should historians too not be allowed to view such films?
On what grounds did the MDA base its decision to allow students – and only students in “institutions of higher learning” – to watch the film?
Why indeed is a media regulatory body deciding matters of “national security”? What expertise, for example, does the CEO of the MDA have in such matters?
Does the MDA have any business at all deciding what is truthful about our history? Again, what expertise does it have in this regard?
And the ultimate question is what Mr Kok had asserted – that the Government and the media which it controls have “glossed over” this aspect of our history which “To Singapore, With Love” delves into.
If so, shouldn’t Singaporeans be allowed to watch the film and decide for themselves?
———-
Post-script:
How did the MDA decide that the documentary, “Days of Rage”, which was shown on Channel Newsasia earlier this year, was the truth behind that incident in our history – the Hock Lee bus riots – and could be allowed to be shown to the general public?
This question is especially pertinent when even historians have criticised the documentary for being “factually inaccurate“.
Did the MDA investigate the veracity of the claims in the documentary? And if it did, how did it do it?
You can read TOC’s exclusive 3-part critique of the documentary here:
Hock Lee bus riots – fact or fiction by CNA? (Part 1)
Hock Lee bus riots – fact or fiction by CNA? (Part 2)
Hock Lee bus riots – fact or fiction by CNA? (Part 3)

Subscribe
Notify of
29 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

【国会】毕丹星冀政府重申世俗主义 尚穆根重申捍卫多元群体权益

本月初,本地一名男子在一家餐厅内,扯下柜台上象征包容跨性别群体的彩虹旗(Rainbow Flag)。男子还拿起旗帜朝餐厅员工丢去,诋毁员工“侮辱国家”,“去死吧!”。 国会反对党领袖毕丹星,提到过去内政兼律政部长尚穆根,曾针对本地性少数群体( LGBTQ)表态。部长曾强调政府职责乃是部份族群、信仰和性别,捍卫所有国人。 尚穆根曾针对上述彩虹旗被扯事件,强调“在国内,每个人都应该觉得是安全的。我们不会容忍任何涉及人身安全的威胁” 。“没有人应该因为性多元群体,而欺负他人;同样的,没有人能够因为宗教信仰,而威胁他人。” 他在今日的国会重申,性少数群体和他人一样都是平等的,若有人针对任何性少数群体或宗教群体散播仇恨言论,政府仍会采取行动。 对此,毕丹星先是赞扬尚穆根已提出显著和有力的声明,他也质询政府应持续奉行世俗主义(secularism),确保在工作指南、法律上,国人都理解我国是元种族和宗教社会,无论在法律、政策等,没人可被视为高人一等。 与此同时,他也提醒在激进主义和极端主义引起关注之下,政府应考虑重新检视1989年发表《维持宗教和谐白皮书》。 不过,尚穆根则回应,有鉴于当前对于促进宗教和谐所作出的种种努力,目前暂未有发表另一份白皮书的必要。 1989年《维持宗教和谐白皮书》产生的背景,是在当时宗教狂热席卷全球的时期,当年的白皮书,是为维持宗教和谐法令的落实奠定了基础。 尚穆根则强调,政府向来坚守世俗立场,制定公共政策维系宗教中立,确保所有宗教自由不偏袒任何宗教群体。…

Bersih 2.0 Singapore – Sending a message in yellow

by: Ravi Philemon Pictures: Jeremy Philemon/ About 200 Malaysians who live and work…

The real lessons of BLYC

by Joshua Chiang That the Boon Lay Youth Club (BLYC) has come…