Singapore Legal Mumbo Jumbo Demystified
Providing a legal perspective to bloggers' commentary on the social, economic & political issues of Singapore.
Party Political Films
Over at Singabloodypore, Steven McDermott wrote about the Singapore Rebel, a movie about Chee Soon Juan, a well-known opposition figure in Singapore.
Martyn See, the maker of Singapore Rebel, has withdrawn the movie from Singapore's annual film festival, after the government warned him its political content could land him in jail. This is because the censorship board apparently viewed the film as a "party political film".
I hereby demystify the legal mumbo jumbo:-
In 1998, the Films Act was amended to introduce the concept of "party political films". (Prior to that, the only other category of films that the Films Act specifically referred to by subject-matter was "obscene films". But that's another story). Essentially, no one is allowed to import, make, reproduce or exhibit any party political film. That means any film:
1. which is an advertisement made by or for any political party in Singapore, or any organisation whose focus is mainly on Singapore's politics; or
2. which is made by any person and which is directed towards any political end in Singapore.
In turn, the phrase "directed towards any political end in Singapore" is further defined as follows:
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.
Note the magic words "including but not limited to". This means that you don't necessarily have to fall into the examples listed from (i) to (vii) to run foul of the law. As long as you make a film that comments on any political matter (even if not mentioned in the (i)-to(vii) list) , you have made a party political film and you have committed a crime.
Note also the legal definition of film under the Films Act. "Film" isn't limited to the kind of show you typically associate with a film festival or a trip to a Golden Village cinema. Under the Films Act, "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
Conceivably, any itsy-bitsy piece of video recording, for example, even 7 seconds of comedic footage showing Balakrishnan hanging out in a gay bar, could be a party political film. And it would be a criminal offence to make such a video.
Waitaminit - I hear you say. Then how can TCS ever even feature PAP politicians on the 9 o'clock news without technically committing an offence?
Ah. The clever folks in Parliament already thought of that. So they snuck in this clever little provision:
For the avoidance of doubt, any film which is made solely for the purpose of ... reporting of current events is not a party political film.
Well then - I hear you say. Apart from the news, the PAP won't be allowed to use film media to spread any of its own messages. Ha!"
Oh please. They aren't always that bright, but they aren't that dumb. Those little problems are all taken care of. (It's really quite easy to make laws exactly the way you want them to be, if you hold 79 out of 81 seats in Parliament). Section 40 of the Films Act says:
"This Act shall not apply to any film sponsored by the Government."
That is, any film sponsored by the Singapore government is perfectly fine, even if it contains obscene material or explicit political content. And as if that wasn't enough, they also put this in the Act:
"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."
So any film can be exempted if the Minister likes the film. In other words, even if a film is bursting with political messages, the Minister can still allow the film to be imported, sold, distributed and exhibited - no problems whatsoever - as long as the Minister likes those political messages.
On the other hand, what do you think are the chances of any PAP Minister liking Martyn See's film? Heh.
posted by Gilbert Koh at 4/13/2005 02:02:00 PM
Sunday, April 17, 2005
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
Confusing – this gag on critical films
This report was published in TODAY on 13th April 2005.
Clear rules needed if local film industry is to thrive
Siew Kum Hong
The 18th Singapore International Film Festival (SIFF) opens tomorrow, promising yet another line-up of cutting-edge films. It comes soon after the recent Singapore Film Week, where a number of made-in-Singapore films were screened in London.
.
It might, therefore, appear that the film scene in Singapore is alive and well. But then again, maybe not, bearing in mind that a local film-maker had to withdraw his short film from the SIFF after the Media Development Authority (MDA) classified it as a "party political film".
.
It is an offence under the Films Act to make, distribute or exhibit party political films. Such films include, among others, work that "contains wholly or partly either partisan or biased references to or comments on any political matter, including ?a current policy of the Government or an issue of public controversy in Singapore".
.
What is noteworthy is that this is a blanket ban, unlike the normal regime for film censorship, where there is a tiered rating system with the possibility of cuts for objectionable content.
.
When these provisions were introduced in 1998, opposition and nominated MPs had criticised them as being so broad as to cover all films commenting on local political issues.
.
Even PAP MP Dr Yaacob Ibrahim felt the provisions could have been "clearer and more precise". NMP Zulkifli Baharudin described them as "sweeping and vague". NMP Claire Chiang pointed out the danger of "giving unnecessarily broad powers to bureaucrats who will want to err on the side of caution and end up banning any social commentary here".
.
It seems that Ms Chiang may have been proven right.
.
Last month, Mr Martyn See's short, Singapore Rebel, was classified by the MDA as a party political film, and they advised the SIFF organisers to ask Mr See to withdraw it, failing which "the full extent of the law would apply".
.
Mr See duly withdrew his film on opposition politician Chee Soon Juan.
.
This is not the first time it has happened. In 2002, four lecturers from Ngee Ann Polytechnic submitted a documentary titled A Vision of Persistence about opposition politician J B Jeyaretnam, to the SIFF. They withdrew it when told it was a party political film.
.
The stated rationale for these provisions in the Films Act was to prevent American-style political commercials taking root here, which would distort issues and hamper serious debate.
.
Fair enough. Yet, the actual words used in the statute seem to go beyond that, to the extent that any film that makes a stand on a local political or social issue, regardless of its treatment, would fall foul. But which film-maker worth his salt would make a film about an issue and not set out his stand?
.
The MDA is only doing its job in enforcing the law as it stands, but it should explain the basis for its classifications. For instance, it should explain why Jack Neo's much feted I Not Stupid, which was one long critique of Singapore's streaming policy, was felt not to contain biased references to or comments on a current policy of the Government, and hence was not classified as a party political film.
.
Another example would be Mr Royston Tan's Cut. This satire on the MDA's censorship policies was described as an "unbecoming attempt to undermine the standing of a public institution". But it was not classified as a party political film. Instead, it went through the normal film licensing processes, was rated PG and passed without cuts, and allowed to open last year's SIFF.
.
The MDA's present practice of referring to a film as a party political film leaves a lot to be desired.
.
More importantly, the wording of the Films Act itself, if not its rationale, needs to be reconsidered.
.
The Government is, on the one hand, pushing hard to develop a media and film industry in Singapore, and also encouraging youths to speak up and be socially and politically engaged.
.
On the other hand, the law circumscribes the ability of youths to use a medium that appeals to them, to express their thoughts. This inconsistency is hard to reconcile.
.
At the end of the day, we all want a thriving local film industry. We want people to be active and engaged, to speak up and be heard. We want clear rules that are equally enforced and seen as being equally enforced.
.
So, let's all work towards those common goals.
.
The writer is a lawyer commenting in his personal capacity. Do you have a view on this? Email us at
.
news@newstoday.com.sg
Clear rules needed if local film industry is to thrive
Siew Kum Hong
The 18th Singapore International Film Festival (SIFF) opens tomorrow, promising yet another line-up of cutting-edge films. It comes soon after the recent Singapore Film Week, where a number of made-in-Singapore films were screened in London.
.
It might, therefore, appear that the film scene in Singapore is alive and well. But then again, maybe not, bearing in mind that a local film-maker had to withdraw his short film from the SIFF after the Media Development Authority (MDA) classified it as a "party political film".
.
It is an offence under the Films Act to make, distribute or exhibit party political films. Such films include, among others, work that "contains wholly or partly either partisan or biased references to or comments on any political matter, including ?a current policy of the Government or an issue of public controversy in Singapore".
.
What is noteworthy is that this is a blanket ban, unlike the normal regime for film censorship, where there is a tiered rating system with the possibility of cuts for objectionable content.
.
When these provisions were introduced in 1998, opposition and nominated MPs had criticised them as being so broad as to cover all films commenting on local political issues.
.
Even PAP MP Dr Yaacob Ibrahim felt the provisions could have been "clearer and more precise". NMP Zulkifli Baharudin described them as "sweeping and vague". NMP Claire Chiang pointed out the danger of "giving unnecessarily broad powers to bureaucrats who will want to err on the side of caution and end up banning any social commentary here".
.
It seems that Ms Chiang may have been proven right.
.
Last month, Mr Martyn See's short, Singapore Rebel, was classified by the MDA as a party political film, and they advised the SIFF organisers to ask Mr See to withdraw it, failing which "the full extent of the law would apply".
.
Mr See duly withdrew his film on opposition politician Chee Soon Juan.
.
This is not the first time it has happened. In 2002, four lecturers from Ngee Ann Polytechnic submitted a documentary titled A Vision of Persistence about opposition politician J B Jeyaretnam, to the SIFF. They withdrew it when told it was a party political film.
.
The stated rationale for these provisions in the Films Act was to prevent American-style political commercials taking root here, which would distort issues and hamper serious debate.
.
Fair enough. Yet, the actual words used in the statute seem to go beyond that, to the extent that any film that makes a stand on a local political or social issue, regardless of its treatment, would fall foul. But which film-maker worth his salt would make a film about an issue and not set out his stand?
.
The MDA is only doing its job in enforcing the law as it stands, but it should explain the basis for its classifications. For instance, it should explain why Jack Neo's much feted I Not Stupid, which was one long critique of Singapore's streaming policy, was felt not to contain biased references to or comments on a current policy of the Government, and hence was not classified as a party political film.
.
Another example would be Mr Royston Tan's Cut. This satire on the MDA's censorship policies was described as an "unbecoming attempt to undermine the standing of a public institution". But it was not classified as a party political film. Instead, it went through the normal film licensing processes, was rated PG and passed without cuts, and allowed to open last year's SIFF.
.
The MDA's present practice of referring to a film as a party political film leaves a lot to be desired.
.
More importantly, the wording of the Films Act itself, if not its rationale, needs to be reconsidered.
.
The Government is, on the one hand, pushing hard to develop a media and film industry in Singapore, and also encouraging youths to speak up and be socially and politically engaged.
.
On the other hand, the law circumscribes the ability of youths to use a medium that appeals to them, to express their thoughts. This inconsistency is hard to reconcile.
.
At the end of the day, we all want a thriving local film industry. We want people to be active and engaged, to speak up and be heard. We want clear rules that are equally enforced and seen as being equally enforced.
.
So, let's all work towards those common goals.
.
The writer is a lawyer commenting in his personal capacity. Do you have a view on this? Email us at
.
news@newstoday.com.sg
Sunday, April 10, 2005
Which other country legislate a ban on political films?
Pop Quiz : What are the top three search results on google when you type 'ban political film'?
Answer : Articles on Singapore's ban on political films. The other top search results on 'ban political film' reveal a pretty even contest between Singapore's ban on political films and the controversy surrounding Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9-11 (which enjoyed a successful commercial run in Singapore cinemas last year).
Another illuminating result is the review of Iranian director Mohsen Makhmalbaf's The Silence and The Door which were screened at the SIFF in 2000. It contains an account of how Iran bans political films...
The Silence and The Door, two films by Mohsen Makhmalbaf by Richard Phillips, 27 April 2000
To fully appreciate Iranian films it is necessary to have some understanding of the difficult conditions in which they have been produced. In Iran virtually every aspect of film production and distribution is under government control and has been for most of the industry's history. The first decrees outlawing political films were issued in 1950 and under Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, who came to power in a CIA-organised military coup in 1953, films critical of the regime or those with explicit references to poverty and the disadvantaged were censored or banned outright.
Following the overthrow of the Shah in 1979, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's Islamic regime tightened censorship and imposed strict religious control over film content. Islamic fanatics torched many cinemas, 2,000 films were cut or banned outright and some filmmakers were indicted on charges of “corrupting the public”.
Under current law, films cannot directly criticise the government or make political exposures of social conditions. Men and women cannot touch each other in movies unless married or related and women must observe Islamic dress codes...
What is a 'party political film?'
Answer : Articles on Singapore's ban on political films. The other top search results on 'ban political film' reveal a pretty even contest between Singapore's ban on political films and the controversy surrounding Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9-11 (which enjoyed a successful commercial run in Singapore cinemas last year).
Another illuminating result is the review of Iranian director Mohsen Makhmalbaf's The Silence and The Door which were screened at the SIFF in 2000. It contains an account of how Iran bans political films...
The Silence and The Door, two films by Mohsen Makhmalbaf by Richard Phillips, 27 April 2000
To fully appreciate Iranian films it is necessary to have some understanding of the difficult conditions in which they have been produced. In Iran virtually every aspect of film production and distribution is under government control and has been for most of the industry's history. The first decrees outlawing political films were issued in 1950 and under Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, who came to power in a CIA-organised military coup in 1953, films critical of the regime or those with explicit references to poverty and the disadvantaged were censored or banned outright.
Following the overthrow of the Shah in 1979, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's Islamic regime tightened censorship and imposed strict religious control over film content. Islamic fanatics torched many cinemas, 2,000 films were cut or banned outright and some filmmakers were indicted on charges of “corrupting the public”.
Under current law, films cannot directly criticise the government or make political exposures of social conditions. Men and women cannot touch each other in movies unless married or related and women must observe Islamic dress codes...
What is a 'party political film?'
Saturday, April 09, 2005
'UP CLOSE' on CNA not 'Party Political Films'
UP CLOSE with ChannelNewsAsia
UP CLOSE takes a behind-the-scenes look at five Cabinet Ministers at work and spends time with them at their regular haunts.
The first 4 episodes let viewers get up close with these Ministers and get to know them better. The series also finds out what these Ministers do to experience up close the lives of the Singaporeans in order to get a taste of the real issues of concern, and see for themselves what truly matters to these people.
The concluding episode of UP CLOSE on Thursday 5 May, 8pm - Up Close with the Prime Minister - features Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in a special forum where he engages in a frank discussion with a group of Singaporeans on the Singapore that they want.
More about each episode >>
Episode 1 - What's up?
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan
TX: 7 April 2005, Thursday 8pm (Sin/HK time)
This episode looks at the stewardship by Minister Vivian Balakrishnan of a generation growing up in a country ready-made for the good life.
"What's Up?" paints portraits of a new leadership seeking the pulse of a new citizenry. The Minister's mission is told through the themes in his vision to give youth space, assure the disadvantaged of a place and empower the marginalised to run the race.
Episode 2 - Open Up
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam
TX: 14 April 2005, Thursday 8pm (Sin/HK time)
Open Up gives the Minister the platform to demonstrate how he will go about making sure Singapore's new education ideals are achieved, how he addresses the concerns of parents, teachers and students alike on the ground, and in the process, give a sense of the beliefs and personality of the man leading the charge for the Republic's education "revolution".
Episode 3 - Step Up
Dr Ng Eng Hen and Mr Lim Swee Say
TX: 21 April 2005, Thursday 8pm (Sin/HK time)
There is no such thing as an iron rice bowl, so Singaporeans are often told. A lesson all Singaporeans have had to learn to live with, now more so than ever, in this new phase of economic development.
Step Up is a documentary about the changing of mindsets. Workers have to continually upgrade their skills. And, jobs have to be found for workers whose skills are now outdated. This episode traces how government, unions and employers think "out-of the box", re-designing existing jobs so that Singaporeans are proud to enter into them.
Episode 4 - Shape Up
Mr Khaw Boon Wan
TX: 28 April 2005, Thursday 8pm (Sin/HK time)
Singapore's healthcare system is a topic close to every Singaporean's heart. With an ageing population, greater demand for the latest medical technologies and drugs, Singaporeans will have to spend more on healthcare.
Since Minister Khaw Boon Wan took over as chief at the Ministry of Health in August 2003, he has listed as one of his major priorities, the raising of the standard of healthcare while keeping costs affordable.
"Shape Up" will guide the viewer through the new healthcare directives, and provide some insights into the thought processes as well as what motivates and inspires the man with the task at hand.
Episode 5 - "Up close with the Prime Minister"
TX: 5 May 2005, Thursday 8pm (Sin/HK)
In this special forum, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong engages a group of Singaporeans in a discussion on the Singapore that they want.
Opportunities mean different things to different people. In Singapore, where can the hopes come from? What do people think about themselves and Singapore? What do they hope for the future of Singapore?
What is a 'party political film?'
UP CLOSE takes a behind-the-scenes look at five Cabinet Ministers at work and spends time with them at their regular haunts.
The first 4 episodes let viewers get up close with these Ministers and get to know them better. The series also finds out what these Ministers do to experience up close the lives of the Singaporeans in order to get a taste of the real issues of concern, and see for themselves what truly matters to these people.
The concluding episode of UP CLOSE on Thursday 5 May, 8pm - Up Close with the Prime Minister - features Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in a special forum where he engages in a frank discussion with a group of Singaporeans on the Singapore that they want.
More about each episode >>
Episode 1 - What's up?
Dr Vivian Balakrishnan
TX: 7 April 2005, Thursday 8pm (Sin/HK time)
This episode looks at the stewardship by Minister Vivian Balakrishnan of a generation growing up in a country ready-made for the good life.
"What's Up?" paints portraits of a new leadership seeking the pulse of a new citizenry. The Minister's mission is told through the themes in his vision to give youth space, assure the disadvantaged of a place and empower the marginalised to run the race.
Episode 2 - Open Up
Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam
TX: 14 April 2005, Thursday 8pm (Sin/HK time)
Open Up gives the Minister the platform to demonstrate how he will go about making sure Singapore's new education ideals are achieved, how he addresses the concerns of parents, teachers and students alike on the ground, and in the process, give a sense of the beliefs and personality of the man leading the charge for the Republic's education "revolution".
Episode 3 - Step Up
Dr Ng Eng Hen and Mr Lim Swee Say
TX: 21 April 2005, Thursday 8pm (Sin/HK time)
There is no such thing as an iron rice bowl, so Singaporeans are often told. A lesson all Singaporeans have had to learn to live with, now more so than ever, in this new phase of economic development.
Step Up is a documentary about the changing of mindsets. Workers have to continually upgrade their skills. And, jobs have to be found for workers whose skills are now outdated. This episode traces how government, unions and employers think "out-of the box", re-designing existing jobs so that Singaporeans are proud to enter into them.
Episode 4 - Shape Up
Mr Khaw Boon Wan
TX: 28 April 2005, Thursday 8pm (Sin/HK time)
Singapore's healthcare system is a topic close to every Singaporean's heart. With an ageing population, greater demand for the latest medical technologies and drugs, Singaporeans will have to spend more on healthcare.
Since Minister Khaw Boon Wan took over as chief at the Ministry of Health in August 2003, he has listed as one of his major priorities, the raising of the standard of healthcare while keeping costs affordable.
"Shape Up" will guide the viewer through the new healthcare directives, and provide some insights into the thought processes as well as what motivates and inspires the man with the task at hand.
Episode 5 - "Up close with the Prime Minister"
TX: 5 May 2005, Thursday 8pm (Sin/HK)
In this special forum, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong engages a group of Singaporeans in a discussion on the Singapore that they want.
Opportunities mean different things to different people. In Singapore, where can the hopes come from? What do people think about themselves and Singapore? What do they hope for the future of Singapore?
What is a 'party political film?'
"In the wrong hands film can have a powerful impact" - George Yeo
Singapore's censorhips laws of 1998
International Press Institute report on Singapore 1998
In the first months of 1998, the government took further steps to help the censors in their hard work with media technology, including widening its definition of "publication" and streamlining its various censorship bodies. Singapore’s government never hid its view that media censorship is necessary to protect moral values and maintain internal security, and so also announced that it didn’t want to exempt the media of the IT age. In order to execute this, they announced in February that they were pulling various media censorship and licensing bodies into one unit to make life easier for importers and others, partly "in response to the advances in technology".
It also expanded provisions of its act regulating "obscene" films to include new technologies like compact discs, digital video discs, electronic mail; and made similar changes in its publication act, expanding the definition of "publication" to include CD-ROMs, sound recording, pictures and drawings generated by computer graphics. Finally, a law was implemented banning political parties from making films and videos.
Several members of parliament criticised the move to ban parties from making videos or buying television time. Media regulations are generally widely accepted in Singapore in the belief that they are rooted in the nation’s history of racial and religious divisions. Singapore was formed by competing ethnic groups, playing against each other, and riots ensued. There is, therefore, a deep feeling of justification for regulation to restrict the press to avoid violence.
But the ban on political parties making videos was seen as a political manoeuvre by the leadership in power to weaken the opposition. Information and Art Minister George Yeo, however, dismissed objections, arguing that their "intention is to keep political debates in Singapore serious and not have them become like the selling of soap. In the wrong hands film can have a powerful impact," as he told parliament. Asked about the new regulations expanding censorship to new technologies, Yeo said: "It is not our objective to increase the level of censorship in Singapore. Just maintaining the existing level of censorship is difficult enough."
Parliament bans political party films by Washington Post. Feb 27, 1998.
Bill too sweeping and vague, say MPs by Straits Times Feb 28, 1998
A ban on political film and video sparks debate By AsiaWeek / Singapore
Minister Yeo on OB markers and Internet
"When the law on political videos was enacted, we could not confine it to political parties, because then the obvious way to get around it was to get a friendly non-party organisation to produce the video.
Therefore, we had to extend the law to include those whose purposes are obviously political even though they are not political parties. At the same time, it was obviously not in our interest to disallow all videos which covered political topics.
This then created an ambiguity in the position which is left to the Films Appeal Committee to settle. There was much debate in Parliament about whether this ambiguity could not be better defined. Well, we should if we could."
- Former Information and the Arts Minister George Yeo
What is a 'party political film?'
International Press Institute report on Singapore 1998
In the first months of 1998, the government took further steps to help the censors in their hard work with media technology, including widening its definition of "publication" and streamlining its various censorship bodies. Singapore’s government never hid its view that media censorship is necessary to protect moral values and maintain internal security, and so also announced that it didn’t want to exempt the media of the IT age. In order to execute this, they announced in February that they were pulling various media censorship and licensing bodies into one unit to make life easier for importers and others, partly "in response to the advances in technology".
It also expanded provisions of its act regulating "obscene" films to include new technologies like compact discs, digital video discs, electronic mail; and made similar changes in its publication act, expanding the definition of "publication" to include CD-ROMs, sound recording, pictures and drawings generated by computer graphics. Finally, a law was implemented banning political parties from making films and videos.
Several members of parliament criticised the move to ban parties from making videos or buying television time. Media regulations are generally widely accepted in Singapore in the belief that they are rooted in the nation’s history of racial and religious divisions. Singapore was formed by competing ethnic groups, playing against each other, and riots ensued. There is, therefore, a deep feeling of justification for regulation to restrict the press to avoid violence.
But the ban on political parties making videos was seen as a political manoeuvre by the leadership in power to weaken the opposition. Information and Art Minister George Yeo, however, dismissed objections, arguing that their "intention is to keep political debates in Singapore serious and not have them become like the selling of soap. In the wrong hands film can have a powerful impact," as he told parliament. Asked about the new regulations expanding censorship to new technologies, Yeo said: "It is not our objective to increase the level of censorship in Singapore. Just maintaining the existing level of censorship is difficult enough."
Parliament bans political party films by Washington Post. Feb 27, 1998.
Bill too sweeping and vague, say MPs by Straits Times Feb 28, 1998
A ban on political film and video sparks debate By AsiaWeek / Singapore
Minister Yeo on OB markers and Internet
"When the law on political videos was enacted, we could not confine it to political parties, because then the obvious way to get around it was to get a friendly non-party organisation to produce the video.
Therefore, we had to extend the law to include those whose purposes are obviously political even though they are not political parties. At the same time, it was obviously not in our interest to disallow all videos which covered political topics.
This then created an ambiguity in the position which is left to the Films Appeal Committee to settle. There was much debate in Parliament about whether this ambiguity could not be better defined. Well, we should if we could."
- Former Information and the Arts Minister George Yeo
What is a 'party political film?'
Sunday, April 03, 2005
We have freedom of speech, says Singapore's top filmmaker
Published in the Straits Times, Saturday April 2, 2005
I Not Stupid opens film week in London
Film-maker Jack Neo quizzed on Singapore censorship after screening
by NEO HUI MIN
Straits Times
Europe Bureau in London
First, celebrity chef Jamie Oliver attracted attention with his television expose of the state of British school meals. Now, it is Singaporean film-maker Jack Neo - who shook up Singaporeans' attitude to the education system with his movie I Not Stupid - who is catching the eye here, among those interested.
His award-winning film opened the Singapore Season Film Week at the Barbican Cinema here yesterday. It is the first time it is being shown in England.
The film-maker faced a host of questions after the screening. Britons asked how he managed to get his film past the censors, given that there were criticisms of the Government, if he practised self-censorship and how the movie was received.
Neo pointed out that of the seven movies he had made, only one had received one or two cuts.
"People said I'm lucky, but I think it's the right timing. These issues (raised in the film) are being discussed everyday in the newspapers. So they are not new," he said.
Throwing a glance to Senior Minister of State for Information, Communications and the Arts Balaji Sadasivan, Neo noted that he "did not get any bad comments from the Government" about the movie. Most people found it funny, he added.
"And why did they find it funny? It's because it' true," he said to laughter from the audience, including Dr Balaji.
"People say Singapore has no freedom of speech, and in my films, I have said a lot of things, but I'm still here," he said.
The problem with Singaporeans is: "Sometimes the Government doesn't say don't do this and that. But we play safe. Now the Government is trying very hard to tell the people to please say something."
The Government's attitude had changed, he said, and Singaporeans are now encouraged to speak out for themselves.
A member of the audience then asked: "Is caning still practised as shown in the movie?" Neo replied that some schools still have public caning.
He added: "Our country also has the cane and it's very effective. Some gangsters told me that they don't mind going to jail but they are scared of being caned." That quip met with laughter.
Neo says he knows this as he is spending time with inmates as research for his next film, which will feature life in prison.
He said he hoped for commercial release of I Not Stupid in Britain. It is "doing well" in Singapore and Hong Kong, he said, and a TV series of the movie had been sold to satellite television.
The Singapore Film Week at the Barbican is part of the Singapore Season festival, the first concerted effort by government agencies to promote Singapore arts and culture overseas. It also marks the first time that Singapore films are being screened overseas on such a scale - although previously, individual movies have been brought to foreign screens on a smaller scale.
During the Singapore Uncovered programme in London last year, for instance, two of Royston Tan's short films, 15 and Cut, and Eric Khoo's full-length feature 12 Storeys were screened.
12 Storeys is one of the eight movies that will be shown during this film week. The others include Khoo's Mee Pok Man, Forever Fever by Glen Goei, Chicken Rice War by CheeK, Eating Air by Kelvin Tong and Jasmine Ng, Rice Rhapsody by Kenneth Bi, as well as Homerun, also by Neo.
Dr Balaji launched the Singapore Chinese Orchestra debut performance last night. He will travel to Newcastle for the orchestra's performace at the Sage Gateshead.
I Not Stupid opens film week in London
Film-maker Jack Neo quizzed on Singapore censorship after screening
by NEO HUI MIN
Straits Times
Europe Bureau in London
First, celebrity chef Jamie Oliver attracted attention with his television expose of the state of British school meals. Now, it is Singaporean film-maker Jack Neo - who shook up Singaporeans' attitude to the education system with his movie I Not Stupid - who is catching the eye here, among those interested.
His award-winning film opened the Singapore Season Film Week at the Barbican Cinema here yesterday. It is the first time it is being shown in England.
The film-maker faced a host of questions after the screening. Britons asked how he managed to get his film past the censors, given that there were criticisms of the Government, if he practised self-censorship and how the movie was received.
Neo pointed out that of the seven movies he had made, only one had received one or two cuts.
"People said I'm lucky, but I think it's the right timing. These issues (raised in the film) are being discussed everyday in the newspapers. So they are not new," he said.
Throwing a glance to Senior Minister of State for Information, Communications and the Arts Balaji Sadasivan, Neo noted that he "did not get any bad comments from the Government" about the movie. Most people found it funny, he added.
"And why did they find it funny? It's because it' true," he said to laughter from the audience, including Dr Balaji.
"People say Singapore has no freedom of speech, and in my films, I have said a lot of things, but I'm still here," he said.
The problem with Singaporeans is: "Sometimes the Government doesn't say don't do this and that. But we play safe. Now the Government is trying very hard to tell the people to please say something."
The Government's attitude had changed, he said, and Singaporeans are now encouraged to speak out for themselves.
A member of the audience then asked: "Is caning still practised as shown in the movie?" Neo replied that some schools still have public caning.
He added: "Our country also has the cane and it's very effective. Some gangsters told me that they don't mind going to jail but they are scared of being caned." That quip met with laughter.
Neo says he knows this as he is spending time with inmates as research for his next film, which will feature life in prison.
He said he hoped for commercial release of I Not Stupid in Britain. It is "doing well" in Singapore and Hong Kong, he said, and a TV series of the movie had been sold to satellite television.
The Singapore Film Week at the Barbican is part of the Singapore Season festival, the first concerted effort by government agencies to promote Singapore arts and culture overseas. It also marks the first time that Singapore films are being screened overseas on such a scale - although previously, individual movies have been brought to foreign screens on a smaller scale.
During the Singapore Uncovered programme in London last year, for instance, two of Royston Tan's short films, 15 and Cut, and Eric Khoo's full-length feature 12 Storeys were screened.
12 Storeys is one of the eight movies that will be shown during this film week. The others include Khoo's Mee Pok Man, Forever Fever by Glen Goei, Chicken Rice War by CheeK, Eating Air by Kelvin Tong and Jasmine Ng, Rice Rhapsody by Kenneth Bi, as well as Homerun, also by Neo.
Dr Balaji launched the Singapore Chinese Orchestra debut performance last night. He will travel to Newcastle for the orchestra's performace at the Sage Gateshead.
Sunday, March 27, 2005
Threat-Alert-Singapore : SEAPA/IFEX
Threat-Alert-Singapore
22 March 2005
Director withdraws documentary from festival on government "advice"
Country/Topic: Singapore
Date: 23 March 2005
Source: Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA)
Person(s): Martyn See
Target(s):
Type(s) of violation(s):
Urgency: Threat
(SEAPA/IFEX) - Threats of imprisonment and crippling fines have prompted a Singaporean filmmaker to pull his movie from Singapore's annual film festival.
News reports on 22 March 2005 said director Martyn See's documentary about Singaporean opposition leader Chee Soon Juan was deemed too political by the city-state's Board of Film Censors. The board informed the filmmaker that he would face jail time, as well as a fine of up to S$100,000 (approx. US$61,300), should he screen his 26-minute film in public.
The Associated Press, quoting the "Straits Times", said See's short film centered on the "civil disobedience" and travails of Chee, a government critic who in 2001 was himself ordered to pay S$500,000 (approx. US$304,000) to Singapore's founder Lee Kuan Yew, and former leader Goh Chok Tong.
Chee's case stemmed from a defamation action based on speeches he made when he campaigned for a parliamentary post in 2001. Chee, secretary-general of the Singapore Democratic Party, has so far been unable to pay the penalty he is facing and bankruptcy proceedings - which would ban him from political involvement for years - are currently pending.
The Associated Press said that apart from warning See, the censor board also advised the Singapore Film Festival organisers against including the young director's controversial film in their calendar.
The "Straits Times" noted that under Singaporean law, local films that "contain wholly or partly either partisan or biased references to or comments on any political matter" are subject to a ban. The Associated Press said they tried unsuccessfully to get a statement from See and festival organisers.
BACKGROUND:
Despite its economic strength, Singapore has one of the strictest regimes for controlling news, opinion and information in Southeast Asia. All mass media in the city-state are under government influence and the nation's leaders have routinely sued critics, journalists, and even international media giants to discourage any criticism of the government or its leaders.
Singapore also regularly bans movies, the Associated Press noted, citing the need "to maintain ethnic and religious harmony in the Southeast Asian country of 4 million."
MORE INFORMATION:
For further information, contact Kulachada Chaipipat at SEAPA, 538/1 Samsen Road, Dusit, Bangkok, 10300 Thailand, tel/fax: +662 243 5579, e-mail: seapa@seapabkk.org, Internet: http://www.seapabkk.org
22 March 2005
Director withdraws documentary from festival on government "advice"
Country/Topic: Singapore
Date: 23 March 2005
Source: Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA)
Person(s): Martyn See
Target(s):
Type(s) of violation(s):
Urgency: Threat
(SEAPA/IFEX) - Threats of imprisonment and crippling fines have prompted a Singaporean filmmaker to pull his movie from Singapore's annual film festival.
News reports on 22 March 2005 said director Martyn See's documentary about Singaporean opposition leader Chee Soon Juan was deemed too political by the city-state's Board of Film Censors. The board informed the filmmaker that he would face jail time, as well as a fine of up to S$100,000 (approx. US$61,300), should he screen his 26-minute film in public.
The Associated Press, quoting the "Straits Times", said See's short film centered on the "civil disobedience" and travails of Chee, a government critic who in 2001 was himself ordered to pay S$500,000 (approx. US$304,000) to Singapore's founder Lee Kuan Yew, and former leader Goh Chok Tong.
Chee's case stemmed from a defamation action based on speeches he made when he campaigned for a parliamentary post in 2001. Chee, secretary-general of the Singapore Democratic Party, has so far been unable to pay the penalty he is facing and bankruptcy proceedings - which would ban him from political involvement for years - are currently pending.
The Associated Press said that apart from warning See, the censor board also advised the Singapore Film Festival organisers against including the young director's controversial film in their calendar.
The "Straits Times" noted that under Singaporean law, local films that "contain wholly or partly either partisan or biased references to or comments on any political matter" are subject to a ban. The Associated Press said they tried unsuccessfully to get a statement from See and festival organisers.
BACKGROUND:
Despite its economic strength, Singapore has one of the strictest regimes for controlling news, opinion and information in Southeast Asia. All mass media in the city-state are under government influence and the nation's leaders have routinely sued critics, journalists, and even international media giants to discourage any criticism of the government or its leaders.
Singapore also regularly bans movies, the Associated Press noted, citing the need "to maintain ethnic and religious harmony in the Southeast Asian country of 4 million."
MORE INFORMATION:
For further information, contact Kulachada Chaipipat at SEAPA, 538/1 Samsen Road, Dusit, Bangkok, 10300 Thailand, tel/fax: +662 243 5579, e-mail: seapa@seapabkk.org, Internet: http://www.seapabkk.org
Thursday, March 24, 2005
Censors block Royston Tan's short film "15"
The much-anticipated Royston Tan's short film retrospective at the Alliance Francaise this weekend suffered a blow when its organiser's were told that "15" has been blocked by the Board of Film Censors. And this despite the fact that the short film had premiered at the 2002 Singapore International Film Festival and has since been available on the internet.
"15", an elegy to teenage delinquents in Singapore, is arguably Royston's best-known short film. It was to become the precursor to his controversial feature-length debut of the same title which suffered 27 cuts.
When I spoke to Royston last week about this apparent U-turn in censorship ruling, he said the SIFF screening in 2002 was granted on a "special permit". No reasons were given by the censors for this latest ban.
For inforamtion on the retrospective, go to
http://www.sgfilm.com/blog/
"15", an elegy to teenage delinquents in Singapore, is arguably Royston's best-known short film. It was to become the precursor to his controversial feature-length debut of the same title which suffered 27 cuts.
When I spoke to Royston last week about this apparent U-turn in censorship ruling, he said the SIFF screening in 2002 was granted on a "special permit". No reasons were given by the censors for this latest ban.
For inforamtion on the retrospective, go to
http://www.sgfilm.com/blog/
Wednesday, March 23, 2005
Film about Singapore opposition leader pulled after director warned he could be jailed
Tuesday March 22, 11:31 AM
Report: Film about Singapore opposition leader pulled after director warned he could be jailed
(AP) A documentary filmmaker withdrew his movie about Singapore's leading opposition figure from the city-state's annual film festival after the government warned the director that he could be jailed over its political content, a newspaper reported Tuesday.
Martyn See's short film focuses on Chee Soon Juan, a frequent government critic who was ordered to pay 500,000 Singapore dollars to modern Singapore's founder, Lee Kuan Yew, and former leader Goh Chok Tong for defaming them during the 2001 elections.
However, See decided to pull his movie from the Singapore International Film Festival after the Board of Film Censors said he could be jailed for up to two years or fined S$100,000 (US$61,300; €46,400) if his 26-minute film was screened, the Straits Times reported.
The board had also advised festival organizers to remove See's documentary because it was a "party political film." Under Singaporean law, local films that "contain wholly or partly either partisan or biased references to or comments on any political matter" are banned, the paper added.
See and festival organizers could not be immediately reached for comment.
Strictly controlled Singapore has been seeking to promote itself as an Asian arts center, with the film festival as one of the city-state's cultural highlights.
Still, Singapore regularly bans movies, saying it needs to maintain ethnic and religious harmony in the Southeast Asian country of 4 million. Last year, censors blocked three films from the festival for scenes it deemed were too sexually explicit or were advocating violence.
Report: Film about Singapore opposition leader pulled after director warned he could be jailed
(AP) A documentary filmmaker withdrew his movie about Singapore's leading opposition figure from the city-state's annual film festival after the government warned the director that he could be jailed over its political content, a newspaper reported Tuesday.
Martyn See's short film focuses on Chee Soon Juan, a frequent government critic who was ordered to pay 500,000 Singapore dollars to modern Singapore's founder, Lee Kuan Yew, and former leader Goh Chok Tong for defaming them during the 2001 elections.
However, See decided to pull his movie from the Singapore International Film Festival after the Board of Film Censors said he could be jailed for up to two years or fined S$100,000 (US$61,300; €46,400) if his 26-minute film was screened, the Straits Times reported.
The board had also advised festival organizers to remove See's documentary because it was a "party political film." Under Singaporean law, local films that "contain wholly or partly either partisan or biased references to or comments on any political matter" are banned, the paper added.
See and festival organizers could not be immediately reached for comment.
Strictly controlled Singapore has been seeking to promote itself as an Asian arts center, with the film festival as one of the city-state's cultural highlights.
Still, Singapore regularly bans movies, saying it needs to maintain ethnic and religious harmony in the Southeast Asian country of 4 million. Last year, censors blocked three films from the festival for scenes it deemed were too sexually explicit or were advocating violence.
Thursday, March 17, 2005
What is a "party political film?" Why is it unlawful?
Pop quiz : Is Jack Neo's criticism of the education system in "I Not Stupid" a violation of the Films Act pertaining to "party political films"?
http://agcvldb4.agc.gov.sg/non_version/cgi-bin/cgi_retrieve.pl?actno=REVED-107&doctitle=FILMS%20ACT%0a&date=latest&method=part
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.
"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.
http://agcvldb4.agc.gov.sg/non_version/cgi-bin/cgi_retrieve.pl?actno=REVED-107&doctitle=FILMS%20ACT%0a&date=latest&method=part
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.
"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.
CSJ film "objectionable under Films Act"
From: "Singapore International Film Festival"
To: singapore_rebel@yahoo.com
Subject: Singapore Rebel
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 18:41:12 +0800
Dear Martyn,
As requested, this is what happened.
On Friday March 11, Philip (Cheah) was asked to meet the censors at 4.30pm. At the MICA office, he was told that SINGAPORE REBEL was objectionable under the Films Act pertaining to political party videos. He was "advised" to inform you to withdraw your film whereby the matter would be dropped, failing which, the full extent of the law would apply.
Yours sincerely,
Lesley Ho
Director
Singapore International Film Festival
45A Keong Saik Road
Singapore 089149
Tel: +65 6738 7567
Fax: +65 6738 7578
Email: filmfest@pacific.net.sg
Website: www.filmfest.org.sg
To: singapore_rebel@yahoo.com
Subject: Singapore Rebel
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 18:41:12 +0800
Dear Martyn,
As requested, this is what happened.
On Friday March 11, Philip (Cheah) was asked to meet the censors at 4.30pm. At the MICA office, he was told that SINGAPORE REBEL was objectionable under the Films Act pertaining to political party videos. He was "advised" to inform you to withdraw your film whereby the matter would be dropped, failing which, the full extent of the law would apply.
Yours sincerely,
Lesley Ho
Director
Singapore International Film Festival
45A Keong Saik Road
Singapore 089149
Tel: +65 6738 7567
Fax: +65 6738 7578
Email: filmfest@pacific.net.sg
Website: www.filmfest.org.sg
Sunday, March 13, 2005
Film on CSJ withdrawn after warnings of possible criminal charge
Dear friends,
Film on Chee Soon Juan withdrawn after warnings of possible criminal charge
I received a call at 1800 hours yesterday 11 March 2005 from Ms Lesley Ho, programme director of the Singapore International Film Festival, to advise me to withdraw my short film "Singapore Rebel" which chronicles the civil disobedience acts of opposition activist Dr Chee Soon Juan.
She told me the following :
1. That the Board of Censors may deem the film to be a violation of the Films Act, and that the crime carries a $100,000 fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years.
2. That I should agree to a withdrawal immediately because the Board of Censors had wanted an answer by yesterday.
3. That the Singapore International Film Festival has had a good track record for supporting local filmmakers.
4. That I should not make an issue out of this.
5. That if I disagree, "they will come after you, Martin."
Based on the above, I dutifully agree to withdraw Singapore Rebel from the Singapore International Film Festival.
Does this mean I will not be charged for a crime? Does it mean the film is now banned? Does it mean the police will not raid my home to confiscate master tapes? Does it mean that by posting this message here, I am "making an issue" out of this?
I really don't know.
I had asked Ms Lesley to send me an official email regarding the matter. No email has been received as of today.
For information on film censorship in Singapore, go to
http://www.mda.gov.sg/wms.www/1001qns.aspx?sid=165&fid=77&v1=True#HtmlAnchor_Anchor
For information on laws governing media and films, go to
http://www.mda.gov.sg/wms.www/devnpolicies.aspx?sid=153
In 2003, local broadcaster ChannelNewsAsia aired a two part series on the life of Lee Kuan Yew. The documentary included PAP rally speeches, interviews with Singapore dissidents, shots of opposition figures and Lee's musings on politics and governance.
http://corporate.mediacorp.com.sg/press_release/pr_1014270755.htm
In the meantime, I should recommend all of you to support the Singapore International Film Festival. Known for their cutting-edge selection of socially and politically conscious films, as well as and films exploring sexuality, this year's programme include films on
a) Iraqi perspective on Iraq War http://www.filmfest.org.sg/display.php?catid=502
b) Vietnam http://www.filmfest.org.sg/display.php?catid=504
c) Evolution of a Filipino Family from Marcos-era martial law to 1987 People's Power
d) HIV carriers in Papua
e) Gigolos in Beijing
f) The selling of pirated DVDs in China
g) Punk rock culture in China
http://www.filmfest.org.sg/display.php?catid=301&page=2
h) Palestinian-Israeli conflict
http://www.filmfest.org.sg/display.php?catid=301&page=3
i) The Kurds after Saddam
j) The life 1960s Indonesian activist Soe Hok Gie
http://www.filmfest.org.sg/display.php?catid=301&page=4
Peace,
See Tong Ming, Martyn
12th March, 2005
singaporerebel.blogspot.com
singapore_rebel@yahoo.com
Film on Chee Soon Juan withdrawn after warnings of possible criminal charge
I received a call at 1800 hours yesterday 11 March 2005 from Ms Lesley Ho, programme director of the Singapore International Film Festival, to advise me to withdraw my short film "Singapore Rebel" which chronicles the civil disobedience acts of opposition activist Dr Chee Soon Juan.
She told me the following :
1. That the Board of Censors may deem the film to be a violation of the Films Act, and that the crime carries a $100,000 fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years.
2. That I should agree to a withdrawal immediately because the Board of Censors had wanted an answer by yesterday.
3. That the Singapore International Film Festival has had a good track record for supporting local filmmakers.
4. That I should not make an issue out of this.
5. That if I disagree, "they will come after you, Martin."
Based on the above, I dutifully agree to withdraw Singapore Rebel from the Singapore International Film Festival.
Does this mean I will not be charged for a crime? Does it mean the film is now banned? Does it mean the police will not raid my home to confiscate master tapes? Does it mean that by posting this message here, I am "making an issue" out of this?
I really don't know.
I had asked Ms Lesley to send me an official email regarding the matter. No email has been received as of today.
For information on film censorship in Singapore, go to
http://www.mda.gov.sg/wms.www/1001qns.aspx?sid=165&fid=77&v1=True#HtmlAnchor_Anchor
For information on laws governing media and films, go to
http://www.mda.gov.sg/wms.www/devnpolicies.aspx?sid=153
In 2003, local broadcaster ChannelNewsAsia aired a two part series on the life of Lee Kuan Yew. The documentary included PAP rally speeches, interviews with Singapore dissidents, shots of opposition figures and Lee's musings on politics and governance.
http://corporate.mediacorp.com.sg/press_release/pr_1014270755.htm
In the meantime, I should recommend all of you to support the Singapore International Film Festival. Known for their cutting-edge selection of socially and politically conscious films, as well as and films exploring sexuality, this year's programme include films on
a) Iraqi perspective on Iraq War http://www.filmfest.org.sg/display.php?catid=502
b) Vietnam http://www.filmfest.org.sg/display.php?catid=504
c) Evolution of a Filipino Family from Marcos-era martial law to 1987 People's Power
d) HIV carriers in Papua
e) Gigolos in Beijing
f) The selling of pirated DVDs in China
g) Punk rock culture in China
http://www.filmfest.org.sg/display.php?catid=301&page=2
h) Palestinian-Israeli conflict
http://www.filmfest.org.sg/display.php?catid=301&page=3
i) The Kurds after Saddam
j) The life 1960s Indonesian activist Soe Hok Gie
http://www.filmfest.org.sg/display.php?catid=301&page=4
Peace,
See Tong Ming, Martyn
12th March, 2005
singaporerebel.blogspot.com
singapore_rebel@yahoo.com
Thursday, January 27, 2005
Ex ISA suspect Tharman assures nothing will happen if one oversteps OB markers; Mediacorp MD encourages Michael Moore's style of politics
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/sub/singapore/story/0,5562,297763,00.html?
Jan 27, 2005
Speak up, Tharman tells youths.
He says there is nothing to fear from pushing the boundaries
By Ho Ai Li
ASK not what you can or cannot do, but do something to make a difference instead.
That was the message from Education Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam to students at a youth and media conference yesterday.
And that was what the minister, a former student activist, did himself.
Mr Tharman, who was once questioned by the Internal Security Department over his leftist views, said he was driven by the need to 'do something' about things he was dissatisfied with.
'And I did something about it, with friends, with groups of people, writing articles, selling them, sometimes surreptitiously,' he recalled.
One does not develop a conviction and commitment to a society without first questioning and pushing the boundaries, he said.
He welcomes restlessness in young people as it feeds idealism and helps society move forward.
Censorship was the key theme during a lively question-and-answer session at the event organised by film and media studies students from Ngee Ann Polytechnic.
Students, taking up the theme of youth, media and political involvement, grilled Mr Tharman and the three other panellists about overstepping the out-of-bounds markers around sensitive issues.
Mr Tharman assured the more than 1,000 youths present that nothing will happen even if one breaches an OB marker. One simply learns to steel oneself and be more adroit.
Straits Times editor Han Fook Kwang said that fears of repercussions should they say something the Government did not like were exaggerated and might stem from past incidents such as the Government's rebuttal of novelist Catherine Lim and opposition politicians.
Mr Tharman noted that Ms Lim is now more famous than ever and still speaks out with relish.
Nanyang Technological University's Associate Professor Ang Peng Hwa gave more encouragement, saying they can plead the ignorance of youth if any flak ensues.
In his address, Mr Tharman warned that social and political apathy among the young posed long-term risks to community cohesion.
Mr Han said the media had an important role in helping readers understand what was happening around them, especially now that Singapore as a nation was re-examining the way things have been done.
He noted that despite a slide in the percentage of youths who read newspapers in countries such as the United States, World Association of Newspapers figures showed that 92 per cent of young people here read them - more than anywhere else.
For MediaCorp group managing director Shaun Seow, the key to engaging youths lies in the packaging of political content.
He pointed to how wacky political websites and show business figures such as film-maker Michael Moore led the way in encouraging turnout among young voters during last year's US presidential elections.
There was certainly no lack of activities to engage students at the one-day conference, with presentations and workshops on topics ranging from the impact of reality TV to blogs, as well as a forum on popular culture.
Catholic High student Chiang Weihan, 16, said the forums addressed matters close to his heart.
'Most of the questions are what we'd like to ask ourselves, such as how we as the younger generation can chip in and do our part,' he said.
Jan 27, 2005
Speak up, Tharman tells youths.
He says there is nothing to fear from pushing the boundaries
By Ho Ai Li
ASK not what you can or cannot do, but do something to make a difference instead.
That was the message from Education Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam to students at a youth and media conference yesterday.
And that was what the minister, a former student activist, did himself.
Mr Tharman, who was once questioned by the Internal Security Department over his leftist views, said he was driven by the need to 'do something' about things he was dissatisfied with.
'And I did something about it, with friends, with groups of people, writing articles, selling them, sometimes surreptitiously,' he recalled.
One does not develop a conviction and commitment to a society without first questioning and pushing the boundaries, he said.
He welcomes restlessness in young people as it feeds idealism and helps society move forward.
Censorship was the key theme during a lively question-and-answer session at the event organised by film and media studies students from Ngee Ann Polytechnic.
Students, taking up the theme of youth, media and political involvement, grilled Mr Tharman and the three other panellists about overstepping the out-of-bounds markers around sensitive issues.
Mr Tharman assured the more than 1,000 youths present that nothing will happen even if one breaches an OB marker. One simply learns to steel oneself and be more adroit.
Straits Times editor Han Fook Kwang said that fears of repercussions should they say something the Government did not like were exaggerated and might stem from past incidents such as the Government's rebuttal of novelist Catherine Lim and opposition politicians.
Mr Tharman noted that Ms Lim is now more famous than ever and still speaks out with relish.
Nanyang Technological University's Associate Professor Ang Peng Hwa gave more encouragement, saying they can plead the ignorance of youth if any flak ensues.
In his address, Mr Tharman warned that social and political apathy among the young posed long-term risks to community cohesion.
Mr Han said the media had an important role in helping readers understand what was happening around them, especially now that Singapore as a nation was re-examining the way things have been done.
He noted that despite a slide in the percentage of youths who read newspapers in countries such as the United States, World Association of Newspapers figures showed that 92 per cent of young people here read them - more than anywhere else.
For MediaCorp group managing director Shaun Seow, the key to engaging youths lies in the packaging of political content.
He pointed to how wacky political websites and show business figures such as film-maker Michael Moore led the way in encouraging turnout among young voters during last year's US presidential elections.
There was certainly no lack of activities to engage students at the one-day conference, with presentations and workshops on topics ranging from the impact of reality TV to blogs, as well as a forum on popular culture.
Catholic High student Chiang Weihan, 16, said the forums addressed matters close to his heart.
'Most of the questions are what we'd like to ask ourselves, such as how we as the younger generation can chip in and do our part,' he said.
Wednesday, January 12, 2005
Submission of film on Chee Soon Juan to SIFF
Today I submitted my 26 minute documentary 'Singapore Rebel' to theSingapore International Film Festival Short Film Competition. I wasasked by a staff at the office if the film had been submitted to anyother festivals. Not at all, I replied.
I had understood from festival director Philip Cheah earlier that aSIFF "pre-selection" committee will view all the entries first beforesubmission to the Board of Film Censors for approval. That would besometime in the first week of February.
A host of possible responses from the SIFF committee, the censors and the police ran through my mind. I narrowed it down to six.
1. SIFF (or Philip himself) will call me to advise me to withdrawthe film. After having failed to convince me, they will disqualify myentry for various excuses.
2. The pre-selection committee approves the film and is then sentto the Board of Film Censors. Censors wants to make cuts to the film.SIFF then withdraws the film in accordance to their rules of exhibitingonly uncut films.
3. The censors receive the film and find that it does not arousethe usual sensitivities of race/religion/sex/homosexuality/violence. Itthrows them off and they decide to refer the matter to the Ministry ofHome Affairs. I then get the invitation for tea at the police stationwhereupon I will be gently persuaded to quietly withdraw my film fromall competitions and screenings.
4. The censors receive the film and find that it does not arousethe usual sensitivities of race/religion/sex/homosexuality/violence. Itthrows them off and they decide to refer the matter to the Ministry ofHome Affairs. Officers at the Home Ministry are in a quandry too and sothey decide to refer to the Minister himself, Wong Kan Seng. Mr Wongdecides to ban the film.
5. (Same as scenario 4) except that in addition to banning the film, they decide to charge me under the Films Act.
6. The film is shown without any hitches.
singaporerebel.blogspot.com
singapore_rebel@yahoo.com
I had understood from festival director Philip Cheah earlier that aSIFF "pre-selection" committee will view all the entries first beforesubmission to the Board of Film Censors for approval. That would besometime in the first week of February.
A host of possible responses from the SIFF committee, the censors and the police ran through my mind. I narrowed it down to six.
1. SIFF (or Philip himself) will call me to advise me to withdrawthe film. After having failed to convince me, they will disqualify myentry for various excuses.
2. The pre-selection committee approves the film and is then sentto the Board of Film Censors. Censors wants to make cuts to the film.SIFF then withdraws the film in accordance to their rules of exhibitingonly uncut films.
3. The censors receive the film and find that it does not arousethe usual sensitivities of race/religion/sex/homosexuality/violence. Itthrows them off and they decide to refer the matter to the Ministry ofHome Affairs. I then get the invitation for tea at the police stationwhereupon I will be gently persuaded to quietly withdraw my film fromall competitions and screenings.
4. The censors receive the film and find that it does not arousethe usual sensitivities of race/religion/sex/homosexuality/violence. Itthrows them off and they decide to refer the matter to the Ministry ofHome Affairs. Officers at the Home Ministry are in a quandry too and sothey decide to refer to the Minister himself, Wong Kan Seng. Mr Wongdecides to ban the film.
5. (Same as scenario 4) except that in addition to banning the film, they decide to charge me under the Films Act.
6. The film is shown without any hitches.
singaporerebel.blogspot.com
singapore_rebel@yahoo.com
Monday, November 22, 2004
Conformity is a weakness, says PM Lee
A free society is one where it is safe to be unpopular." -- Adlai Stevenson
Conformity is a weakness, says PM Lee
"...We are so capable, we are so efficient, we are so comfortable that we stick with what we have tried and tested and found working and we are reluctant to take risks and try new things. And that is a weakness. It's a weakness which we have to overcome. The key to overcoming this is a mindset change. We have to see opportunities rather than challenges in new situations, we have to be less conventional, we must be prepared to venture and you've got to do this as individuals, we've got to do this as a government and I think we have to do it as a society. "
- Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, National Day Rally 2004
Diverse views, unconventional ideas are welcome, says PM Lee
“We will continue to expand the space which Singaporeans have to live, to laugh, to grow and to be ourselves. Our people should feel free to express diverse views, pursue unconventional ideas, or simply be different. We should have the confidence to engage in robust debate, so as to understand problems, conceive fresh solutions, and open up new spaces... We must give people a second chance, for those who have tasted failure may be the wiser and stronger ones among us. Ours must be an open and inclusive Singapore.”
- Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, Inauguration Speech Aug 12, 2004
Let's be rebellious, minister urges youth
- Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew issuing warning to SIA pilots at the World Brand Forum, CNA, Dec 2, 2003
Conformity is a weakness, says PM Lee
"...We are so capable, we are so efficient, we are so comfortable that we stick with what we have tried and tested and found working and we are reluctant to take risks and try new things. And that is a weakness. It's a weakness which we have to overcome. The key to overcoming this is a mindset change. We have to see opportunities rather than challenges in new situations, we have to be less conventional, we must be prepared to venture and you've got to do this as individuals, we've got to do this as a government and I think we have to do it as a society. "
- Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, National Day Rally 2004
Diverse views, unconventional ideas are welcome, says PM Lee
“We will continue to expand the space which Singaporeans have to live, to laugh, to grow and to be ourselves. Our people should feel free to express diverse views, pursue unconventional ideas, or simply be different. We should have the confidence to engage in robust debate, so as to understand problems, conceive fresh solutions, and open up new spaces... We must give people a second chance, for those who have tasted failure may be the wiser and stronger ones among us. Ours must be an open and inclusive Singapore.”
- Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, Inauguration Speech Aug 12, 2004
Let's be rebellious, minister urges youth
"I would prefer your generation to be rebellious. If you are just conforming to the social norms, then you are merely following our footpath, which may not be relevant to you."
- Singapore Minister Khaw Boon Wan, AP (click here for report)
You break the rules, we break your heads, says MM Lee
"I can assure you that in Singapore, when we decide that they are breaking the rules of the game, the unspoken rules as to how we survive, how we have prospered, then either their head is broken or our bones are broken."- Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew issuing warning to SIA pilots at the World Brand Forum, CNA, Dec 2, 2003
Actor in Royston Tan's 15 interrogated by Singapore police
Police censor fly-on-wall tale of gang life
Acclaimed film dubbed a threat to Singapore's national security
John Aglionby in SingaporeMonday January 5, 2004
The Guardian
With his spiky hair, infectious bonhomie and casual dress sense, the 27-year-old Singaporean film-maker Royston Tan is not obvious as a threat to national security.
He has more than two dozen awards and his debut feature film, 15, last year became the first movie from Singapore to compete at the Venice film festival.
"15 is the best Singaporean work for the last few years," said Philip Cheah, director of the Singapore international film festival, of the drama about a teenage gang of misfits struggling to survive in the abandoned underbelly of the city state's supposedly squeaky-clean society.
But Singapore's police, reflecting the government's obsession with social order and national stability, dubbed the film a threat to national security.
Much of 15, which is cast with real teenage gang members, has no discernible plot, due partly to the fact that one of the stars was arrested for stabbing another gang member halfway through filming. It is a no-holds-barred, fly-on-the-wall part-documentary, part-drama of their unconventional lifestyle.
One "actor" repeatedly slashes his wrists with a box cutter, another forces a condom packed with drugs down his throat to smuggle overseas, two pierce each others' faces to insert studs and one squirms as he gets a rudimentary tattoo.
"The act of inflicting pain on themselves is like a form of rebellion," Tan said. "I think I do have a responsibility [to intervene] but I have a greater responsibility to tell the audience how they lead their lives.
"You know that shows a very real side of their lives and there's a growing number of kids like this."
Police statistics confirm this. Crimes committed by children aged seven to 15 rose 56% in Singapore in the first six months of this year compared with the same period last year, while youth crime in 2002 was 55% higher than in 2001.
But Singaporeans have no need to learn about this niche of their society in such a graphic way and through a vehicle with no moral message, according to the authorities - even though the Singapore Film Council funded 25% of 15's S$200,000 (£68,000) production costs.
"The police were concerned about scenes which featured real-life gang chants which had resulted in gang fights when they were sung in public places," said a spokeswoman for the Media Development Authority, which oversees censorship. "The film also named actual secret societies and their operational grounds which the police felt would serve to promote and give prominence to these gangs."
The censorship board reportedly wanted only one cut before approving 15's release in Singapore, a brief shot of a 17cm (7in) penis, while the police insisted on 26 further deletions. After four months of deliberations 15 was released with about 10 of its 100 minutes expunged, but with an 18 rating and not in suburban cinemas.
Tan had prepared a version for Singapore with the penis and a few other shots deleted but was not prepared for the scale of the controversy. But he says he is unable to discuss the way his film was treated.
"I've been advised not to talk about censorship, that we should move on," he said, admitting only that one of the stars, Shaun Tan (no relation), had told him police had interrogated him.
"Shaun [told me he] was threatened to be stripped and have cold water poured over him if he didn't give the answers they wanted," he said. "It's strange I haven't been questioned. I offered myself but they didn't want to speak to me."
The police declined to comment on this allegation.
Singaporeans' desire to see 15 was unambiguously demonstrated on the only occasion it was shown uncensored, at the Singapore international film festival. "The 1,002 tickets sold out in less than a day, breaking the record for the festival," Tan said.
But perhaps 15's greatest accolade was not winning the international film critics' award at the festival, but the authorities' response.
Last month the national crime prevention council and police released their own 90-minute feature about gang life and the consequences of teenage recidivism, After School.
"We were told this film was made to correct the image of Singapore that 15 did not give," Tan said. "They said 15 is an extreme film while their film brings out the right consequences of crime.
"That's the biggest compliment that somebody could ever give me."
The executive director of the crime prevention council, Lee Chee Chiew, denies this, saying he has never seen 15 and cannot comment on any comparison.
A police spokesman, Acting Superintendent Ang Poon Seng, said the decision to make a film was merely "to harness the power of movies and their widespread popularity among teenagers" and had nothing to do with 15.
The two films' styles are undoubtedly very different and After School is laced with such moralising soundbites as: "There's nothing to lose, just walk away"; "The police are so powerful they can target anyone"; "How can he survive if he has a criminal record?"; and "The things that come free are actually the most expensive."
"The films differ in terms of treatment and messaging," the Media Development Authority spokeswoman said.
"After School is about love and the importance of family bonding, and carries a clear anti-crime message. 15 focuses on secret societies and teen gangs, and has no clear moral message."
Acclaimed film dubbed a threat to Singapore's national security
John Aglionby in SingaporeMonday January 5, 2004
The Guardian
With his spiky hair, infectious bonhomie and casual dress sense, the 27-year-old Singaporean film-maker Royston Tan is not obvious as a threat to national security.
He has more than two dozen awards and his debut feature film, 15, last year became the first movie from Singapore to compete at the Venice film festival.
"15 is the best Singaporean work for the last few years," said Philip Cheah, director of the Singapore international film festival, of the drama about a teenage gang of misfits struggling to survive in the abandoned underbelly of the city state's supposedly squeaky-clean society.
But Singapore's police, reflecting the government's obsession with social order and national stability, dubbed the film a threat to national security.
Much of 15, which is cast with real teenage gang members, has no discernible plot, due partly to the fact that one of the stars was arrested for stabbing another gang member halfway through filming. It is a no-holds-barred, fly-on-the-wall part-documentary, part-drama of their unconventional lifestyle.
One "actor" repeatedly slashes his wrists with a box cutter, another forces a condom packed with drugs down his throat to smuggle overseas, two pierce each others' faces to insert studs and one squirms as he gets a rudimentary tattoo.
"The act of inflicting pain on themselves is like a form of rebellion," Tan said. "I think I do have a responsibility [to intervene] but I have a greater responsibility to tell the audience how they lead their lives.
"You know that shows a very real side of their lives and there's a growing number of kids like this."
Police statistics confirm this. Crimes committed by children aged seven to 15 rose 56% in Singapore in the first six months of this year compared with the same period last year, while youth crime in 2002 was 55% higher than in 2001.
But Singaporeans have no need to learn about this niche of their society in such a graphic way and through a vehicle with no moral message, according to the authorities - even though the Singapore Film Council funded 25% of 15's S$200,000 (£68,000) production costs.
"The police were concerned about scenes which featured real-life gang chants which had resulted in gang fights when they were sung in public places," said a spokeswoman for the Media Development Authority, which oversees censorship. "The film also named actual secret societies and their operational grounds which the police felt would serve to promote and give prominence to these gangs."
The censorship board reportedly wanted only one cut before approving 15's release in Singapore, a brief shot of a 17cm (7in) penis, while the police insisted on 26 further deletions. After four months of deliberations 15 was released with about 10 of its 100 minutes expunged, but with an 18 rating and not in suburban cinemas.
Tan had prepared a version for Singapore with the penis and a few other shots deleted but was not prepared for the scale of the controversy. But he says he is unable to discuss the way his film was treated.
"I've been advised not to talk about censorship, that we should move on," he said, admitting only that one of the stars, Shaun Tan (no relation), had told him police had interrogated him.
"Shaun [told me he] was threatened to be stripped and have cold water poured over him if he didn't give the answers they wanted," he said. "It's strange I haven't been questioned. I offered myself but they didn't want to speak to me."
The police declined to comment on this allegation.
Singaporeans' desire to see 15 was unambiguously demonstrated on the only occasion it was shown uncensored, at the Singapore international film festival. "The 1,002 tickets sold out in less than a day, breaking the record for the festival," Tan said.
But perhaps 15's greatest accolade was not winning the international film critics' award at the festival, but the authorities' response.
Last month the national crime prevention council and police released their own 90-minute feature about gang life and the consequences of teenage recidivism, After School.
"We were told this film was made to correct the image of Singapore that 15 did not give," Tan said. "They said 15 is an extreme film while their film brings out the right consequences of crime.
"That's the biggest compliment that somebody could ever give me."
The executive director of the crime prevention council, Lee Chee Chiew, denies this, saying he has never seen 15 and cannot comment on any comparison.
A police spokesman, Acting Superintendent Ang Poon Seng, said the decision to make a film was merely "to harness the power of movies and their widespread popularity among teenagers" and had nothing to do with 15.
The two films' styles are undoubtedly very different and After School is laced with such moralising soundbites as: "There's nothing to lose, just walk away"; "The police are so powerful they can target anyone"; "How can he survive if he has a criminal record?"; and "The things that come free are actually the most expensive."
"The films differ in terms of treatment and messaging," the Media Development Authority spokeswoman said.
"After School is about love and the importance of family bonding, and carries a clear anti-crime message. 15 focuses on secret societies and teen gangs, and has no clear moral message."
Wednesday, November 03, 2004
Film-makers on JBJ threatened with criminal charge
Documentary on Jeya withdrawn from film festival: report
Agence France Presse
January 4, 2002
SINGAPORE
A DOCUMENTARY about Singapore opposition politician J.B. Jeyaretnam was withdrawn from a film festival here last year on fears it could have violated a law banning political films, a report said Friday (Jan 4).
The makers of the 15-minute documentary had submitted written apologies and withdrew it from being screened at the Singapore International Film Festival in April after they were told they could be charged in court, the Straits Times said.
The film-makers, all lecturers at the Ngee Ann Polytechnic, had said they just chanced upon a man selling books on a street and decided to make a documentary on him, unaware at first that he was an opposition figure.
A little-known law called the Films Act bans the making, distribution and showing of films containing "wholly or partly either partisan or biased references to or comments on any political matter."
Singapore, whose reputation as a global financial centre and manufacturing hub is underpinned by domestic political stability, has strict laws governing political activities.
Some of the few people who have seen the film -- A Vision of Persistence -- said it showed Jeyaretnam, a former MP and erstwhile leader of the opposition Workers' Party, selling his books in public places and meeting with his supporters.
One of the film-makers had resigned from the school and the two others were not available for comment.
The polytechnic told the Straits Times that the three lecturers from the department of film and media studies had not sought the school's permission to make the film and that it now considered the matter closed.
A person familiar with the case told the newspaper: "It's a sort of paranoia on the part of the authorities."
The source, who was not named, said a government official went to the school and asked: "How can your staff do this sort of thing?"
Philip Cheah, director of the film festival, said he saw the documentary but declined to comment on its contents.
"It should have been shown at the festival. Then people can decide," he said, adding that as far as he knows this was the first film considered political under the Films Act.
Jeyaretnam, a lawyer, entered parliament in 1981, becoming the first opposition politician to break the stranglehold of the ruling People's Action Party (PAP) on local politics since statehood in 1965.
He has championed issues such as the abolition of the Internal Security Act, which allows detention without trial, and the promotion of human rights and democracy.
The 76-year-old was expelled from parliament in July after being declared bankrupt after he was unable to pay massive damages awarded to PAP members for defamation.
Agence France Presse
January 4, 2002
SINGAPORE
A DOCUMENTARY about Singapore opposition politician J.B. Jeyaretnam was withdrawn from a film festival here last year on fears it could have violated a law banning political films, a report said Friday (Jan 4).
The makers of the 15-minute documentary had submitted written apologies and withdrew it from being screened at the Singapore International Film Festival in April after they were told they could be charged in court, the Straits Times said.
The film-makers, all lecturers at the Ngee Ann Polytechnic, had said they just chanced upon a man selling books on a street and decided to make a documentary on him, unaware at first that he was an opposition figure.
A little-known law called the Films Act bans the making, distribution and showing of films containing "wholly or partly either partisan or biased references to or comments on any political matter."
Singapore, whose reputation as a global financial centre and manufacturing hub is underpinned by domestic political stability, has strict laws governing political activities.
Some of the few people who have seen the film -- A Vision of Persistence -- said it showed Jeyaretnam, a former MP and erstwhile leader of the opposition Workers' Party, selling his books in public places and meeting with his supporters.
One of the film-makers had resigned from the school and the two others were not available for comment.
The polytechnic told the Straits Times that the three lecturers from the department of film and media studies had not sought the school's permission to make the film and that it now considered the matter closed.
A person familiar with the case told the newspaper: "It's a sort of paranoia on the part of the authorities."
The source, who was not named, said a government official went to the school and asked: "How can your staff do this sort of thing?"
Philip Cheah, director of the film festival, said he saw the documentary but declined to comment on its contents.
"It should have been shown at the festival. Then people can decide," he said, adding that as far as he knows this was the first film considered political under the Films Act.
Jeyaretnam, a lawyer, entered parliament in 1981, becoming the first opposition politician to break the stranglehold of the ruling People's Action Party (PAP) on local politics since statehood in 1965.
He has championed issues such as the abolition of the Internal Security Act, which allows detention without trial, and the promotion of human rights and democracy.
The 76-year-old was expelled from parliament in July after being declared bankrupt after he was unable to pay massive damages awarded to PAP members for defamation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)