Connect with us

Current Affairs

Allowing exiles film is "like allowing jihadi terrorist groups" to show film publicly

Published

10 years ago

on

To Singapore With Love Banned Straits Times
In its latest attempt at explaining why the film by Tan Pin Pin, “To Singapore, With Love”, is not allowed to be shown in public settings, the press secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Home Affairs minister, said this is because allowing it “would be like allowing jihadi terrorist groups today to produce and publicly screen films that glorify their jihadist cause.”
Mr Yap Neng Jye, the press secretary, was writing to the Straits Times’ forum page on 14 October.
His letter more or less regurgitated what various ministers have said in recent weeks about the film – that it is a “threat to national security”, and that it contained “self-serving” views and claims by the protagonists, alleged former members of the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM).
What is strange about Mr Yap’s explanation this time round is his analogy that Ms Tan’s film is akin to a “jihadi” film.
Mr Yap seems to say that this was one reason why “the film received a classification that disallowed public screening.”
However, while he seems to draw parallel dangers between Ms Tan’s film and a “jihadi” film, Mr Yap nonetheless goes on to say:
“Individuals can still view it in private screenings, if the copyright owner of the film allows it.”
This is quite a strange thing to say – that while the film is as dangerous as a “jihadi” film, members of the public can still view it, “in private”.
Can members of the public view, with the state’s approval, “jihadi” films, even “in private”?
What then should one make of the Government’s warnings about people who become “self-radicalised” terrorists precisely because they watch such films “in private”, especially over the Internet?
One would hope this is not what the Government is actually saying.
Even so, to compare Ms Tan’s film to a “jihadi” film is laughable if it wasn’t also dangerous.
For a start, Ms Tan’s film is about an event 50 years ago, and not an ongoing struggle.
If allowing Ms Tan’s film to be publicly shown is like “allowing jihadi terrorist groups today to produce and publicly screen films that glorify their jihadist cause”, then could not the same be said of films which allow the People’s Action Party (PAP), and in particular Lee Kuan Yew, to glorify their past associations with the communists?
The PAP, as its Facebook page says, was formed “with a group of English-educated middle-class colleagues and pro-communists trade unionists.”
“It was a necessary combination as the English-speaking minority in Singapore needed the mass support that the Chinese-speaking pro-Communists could provide…,” the page explained.
papfb
But if allowing Ms Tan’s film is to allow alleged former CPM members to glorify their associations with the communists, then wouldn’t allowing films in which the PAP portrays its own associations with the communists as a “necessity” also akin to letting them “glorify” their past associations with the communists?
[See here, at the 4:50th minute, in which Lee Kuan Yew explained the alliance with pro-communist trade unionists as one in which the founders of the PAP “had no choice”.] Be that as it may, the more pertinent question is: if the history makers of the past are not allowed to share their side of the story with a broader audience, how would we come to a deeper understanding of our collective history?
Surely, Singapore’s beginnings are more complex than the singular narrative which the Government has been putting out, and which increasingly is being called into question by the release of secret documents elsewhere, such as in the United Kingdom, and by historians who look back and plough through the different available historical documents.
In short, what makes the PAP’s version or Mr Lee’s version the absolute truth of what transpired during the birth of our nation?
It is simplistic, and ridiculous, to first deny the release of official historical documents on flimsy grounds that such release “may not lead to good governance’, and then to say that films such as Ms Tan’s are “a threat to national security”, and films by Martyn See are “not in the public interest”; and then to claim that the version by one man will provide a “reality check” to the different accounts.
And while these alternative accounts are banned from being made available to a wider audience, the same Government which bans them lament that Singaporeans are “navel gazers” who aren’t too interested in our past.
It is really not a complicated thing to do – to release documents and to allow different accounts to be made available to the public, and to let the public decide for themselves.
Even if we reprint “The Battle for Merger”, let us not forget that these radio broadcasts are but the opinion of one man in an era of complexity.
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong slammed Ms Tan’s film as ‘self-serving”.
But his father’s radio broadcasts in “The Battle for Merger” have also been slammed for exactly the same.
“The ‘Battle for Merger’ section is the most self-serving section in The Singapore Story,” said Michael Barr in his book, “Constructing Singapore: Elitism, Ethnicity and the Nation-building Project”.
Mr Barr has written extensively about Singapore, including about the Government Investment Corporation.
“The Singapore Story” are the memoir of Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore’s first prime minister.
Each side and version of our history will be contentious.
This is precisely why Singaporeans should be given access to as much information about their history as possible, so that they can decide for themselves.
PM Lee calls the views in Ms Tan’s film “self-serving”.
But Lee Kuan Yew’s radio broadcasts are also described as “self-serving”.
Who then shall we believe?
Shouldn’t both sides be made accessible to the public?
Why ban one and not the other?
What is there to hide?
Why should the PAP’s past association with the communists be glorified as a “necessity”, while others’ are banned from even being aired?
The inconsistencies have given rise to what we see today – a PAP Government grasping at straws to rationalise such bans, resulting in it offering ridiculous excuses involving “threats to national security” and of “jihadi” films, and of how while these films are like terrorist productions, they can nonetheless be viewed “in private” and be shown to students of tertiary institutions.
Stop the circus show, please – and let us have our history back.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
10 Comments
Subscribe
Notify of
10 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Current Affairs

Hotel Properties Limited suspends trading ahead of Ong Beng Seng’s court hearing

Hotel Properties Limited (HPL), co-founded by Mr Ong Beng Seng, has halted trading ahead of his court appearance today (4 October). The announcement was made by HPL’s company secretary at about 7.45am, citing a pending release of an announcement. Mr Ong faces one charge of abetting a public servant in obtaining gifts and another charge of obstruction of justice. He is due in court at 2.30pm.

Published

1 hour ago

on

4 October 2024

By

SINGAPORE: Hotel Properties Limited (HPL), the property and hotel developer co-founded by Mr Ong Beng Seng, has requested a trading halt ahead of the Singapore tycoon’s scheduled court appearance today (4 October) afternoon.

This announcement was made by HPL’s company secretary at approximately 7.45am, stating that the halt was due to a pending release of an announcement.

Mr Ong, who serves as HPL’s managing director and controlling shareholder, faces one charge under Section 165, accused of abetting a public servant in obtaining gifts, as well as one charge of obstruction of justice.

He is set to appear in court at 2.30pm on 4 October.

Ong’s charges stem from his involvement in a high-profile corruption case linked to former Singaporean transport minister S Iswaran.

The 80-year-old businessman was named in Iswaran’s initial graft charges earlier this year.

These charges alleged that Iswaran had corruptly received valuable gifts from Ong, including tickets to the 2022 Singapore Formula 1 Grand Prix, flights, and a hotel stay in Doha.

These gifts were allegedly provided to advance Ong’s business interests, particularly in securing contracts with the Singapore Tourism Board for the Singapore GP and the ABBA Voyage virtual concert.

Although Iswaran no longer faces the original corruption charges, the prosecution amended them to lesser charges under Section 165.

Iswaran pleaded guilty on 24 September, 2024, to four counts under this section, which covered over S$400,000 worth of gifts, including flight tickets, sports event access, and luxury items like whisky and wines.

Additionally, he faced one count of obstructing justice for repaying Ong for a Doha-Singapore flight shortly before the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) became involved.

On 3 October, Iswaran was sentenced to one year in jail by presiding judge Justice Vincent Hoong.

The prosecution had sought a sentence of six to seven months for all charges, while the defence had asked for a significantly reduced sentence of no more than eight weeks.

Ong, a Malaysian national based in Singapore, was arrested by CPIB in July 2023 and released on bail shortly thereafter. Although no charges were initially filed against him, Ong’s involvement in the case intensified following Iswaran’s guilty plea.

The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) had earlier indicated that it would soon make a decision regarding Ong’s legal standing, which has now led to the current charges.

According to the statement of facts read during Iswaran’s conviction, Ong’s case came to light as part of a broader investigation into his associates, which revealed Iswaran’s use of Ong’s private jet for a flight from Singapore to Doha in December 2022.

CPIB investigators uncovered the flight manifest and seized the document.

Upon learning that the flight records had been obtained, Ong contacted Iswaran, advising him to arrange for Singapore GP to bill him for the flight.

Iswaran subsequently paid Singapore GP S$5,700 for the Doha-Singapore business class flight in May 2023, forming the basis of his obstruction of justice charge.

Mr Ong is recognised as the figure who brought Formula One to Singapore in 2008, marking the first night race in the sport’s history.

He holds the rights to the Singapore Grand Prix. Iswaran was the chairman of the F1 steering committee and acted as the chief negotiator with Singapore GP on business matters concerning the race.

 

Continue Reading

Current Affairs

Chee Soon Juan questions Shanmugam’s $88 million property sale amid silence from Mainstream Media

Dr Chee Soon Juan of the SDP raised concerns about the S$88 million sale of Mr K Shanmugam’s Good Class Bungalow at Astrid Hill, questioning transparency and the lack of mainstream media coverage. He called for clarity on the buyer, valuation, and potential conflicts of interest.

Published

2 weeks ago

on

23 September 2024

By

On Sunday (22 Sep), Dr Chee Soon Juan, Secretary General of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), issued a public statement on Facebook, expressing concerns regarding the sale of Minister for Home Affairs and Law, Mr K Shanmugam’s Good Class Bungalow (GCB) at Astrid Hill.

Dr Chee questioned the transparency of the S$88 million transaction and the absence of mainstream media coverage despite widespread discussion online.

According to multiple reports cited by Dr Chee, Mr Shanmugam’s property was transferred in August 2023 to UBS Trustees (Singapore) Pte Ltd, which holds the property in trust under the Jasmine Villa Settlement.

Dr Chee’s statement focused on two primary concerns: the lack of response from Mr Shanmugam regarding the transaction and the silence of major media outlets, including Singapore Press Holdings and Mediacorp.

He argued that, given the ongoing public discourse and the relevance of property prices in Singapore, the sale of a high-value asset by a public official warranted further scrutiny.

In his Facebook post, Dr Chee posed several questions directed at Mr Shanmugam and the government:

  1. Who purchased the property, and is the buyer a Singaporean citizen?
  2. Who owns Jasmine Villa Settlement?
  3. Were former Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and current Prime Minister Lawrence Wong informed of the transaction, and what were their responses?
  4. How was it ensured that the funds were not linked to money laundering?
  5. How was the property’s valuation determined, and by whom?

The Astrid Hill property, originally purchased by Mr Shanmugam in 2003 for S$7.95 million, saw a significant increase in value, aligning with the high-end status of District 10, where it is located. The 3,170.7 square-meter property was sold for S$88 million in August 2023.

Dr Chee highlighted that, despite Mr Shanmugam’s detailed responses regarding the Ridout Road property, no such transparency had been offered in relation to the Astrid Hill sale.

He argued that the lack of mainstream media coverage was particularly concerning, as public interest in the sale is high. Dr Chee emphasized that property prices and housing affordability are critical issues in Singapore, and transparency from public officials is essential to maintain trust.

Dr Chee emphasized that the Ministerial Code of Conduct unambiguously states: “A Minister must scrupulously avoid any actual or apparent conflict of interest between his office and his private financial interests.”

He concluded his statement by reiterating the need for Mr Shanmugam to address the questions raised, as the matter involves not only the Minister himself but also the integrity of the government and its responsibility to the public.

The supposed sale of Mr Shamugam’s Astrid Hill property took place just a month after Mr Shanmugam spoke in Parliament over his rental of a state-owned bungalow at Ridout Road via a ministerial statement addressing potential conflicts of interest.

At that time, Mr Shanmugam explained that his decision to sell his home was due to concerns about over-investment in a single asset, noting that his financial planning prompted him to sell the property and move into rental accommodation.

The Ridout Road saga last year centred on concerns about Mr Shanmugam’s rental of a sprawling black-and-white colonial bungalow, occupying a massive plot of land, managed by the Singapore Land Authority (SLA), which he oversees in his capacity as Minister for Law. Minister for Foreign Affairs, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, also rented a similarly expansive property nearby.

Mr Shanmugam is said to have recused himself from the decision-making process, and a subsequent investigation by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) found no wrongdoing while Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean confirmed in Parliament that Mr Shanmugam had removed himself from any decisions involving the property.

As of now, Mr Shanmugam has not commented publicly on the sale of his Astrid Hill property.

Continue Reading

Trending