Singapore Democrats

Singapore Democrats

At a time of expansion and growing confidence, the Singapore Democrats have elected a 14-member Central Executive Committee to lead the party into the next general elections.

At its biennial party conference held last week, cadre members came together to re-dedicate their efforts to work for the cause of reform and democracy in Singapore.

The party's top four posts remain unchanged. Mr Gandhi Ambalam retained the chairmanship and Mr Francis Yong continues to serve as the Vice-Chairman.

Dr Chee Soon Juan and Mr John Tan were re-elected as the Secretary-General and Assistant Secretary-General respectively.

A change was made in the post of Treasurer which was taken up by Mr Gerald Sng, a Marketing Manager, who contested in the 2006 elections. Deputising him is Assistant Treasurer Mr Jeffrey George, an engineer in the oil-rig industry.

After a keenly fought elections, the following six were elected into the executive body: Ms Chee Siok Chin, Ms Lilian Chia, Mr Johnny Ho, Mr Mohd Isa, Mr Jufrie Mahmood, and Mr Sylvester Lim.

This year saw a couple of “new” faces added to the line-up: Messrs Jufrie Mahmood and Sylvester Lim. Mr Jufrie, a party stalwart who was once “loaned” to the Workers' Party when the late J B Jeyaretnam was the secretary-general, returned to the SDP's leadership.

“I came back because I have confidence in the present leadership of the SDP,” the opposition veteran said, “and I think that the party is moving in the right direction. The growth in its ranks attests to this.”

The other first-timer is Mr Sylvester Lim whose quiet demeanour belies a fierce commitment to the ideals of democracy and justice.

“We are excited about what lies ahead and we are determined to work for change and for a government that genuinely cares for the people,” Mr Lim said.

Anticipating the intense work ahead, the newly elected leadership intends to co-opt two more members into its fold. They are Mr Laurence Lai and Mr Warren Eswaran. Mr Lai served in the previous CEC. Mr Eswaran, 25, is a member of the Young Democrats and has been with the party since his National Service days.

“Warren's inclusion in the CEC is a reflection of the increasing interest young Singaporeans are taking in us,” Chairman Ambalam noted. “We want to ensure that our Young Democrats are actively involved in the party's direction and development.”

The Young Democrats, the SDP's youth wing, will also shortly elect its leaders.

The new CEC has expressed its determination to continue expanding the party in numbers as well as capability to reach out to Singaporeans. It will rely on the Internet, as it has in the past, to call on Singaporeans to step forward and help spread the message of working towards a free, open and just Singapore. (Watch video of Dr Chee's address to party cadres here.)

Photo:
(Standing L-R) Sylvester Lim, Jufrie Mahmood, Chee Siok Chin, Lilian Chia, Johnny Ho, Gerald Sng
(Kneeling L-R) Chee Soon Juan, Francis Yong, Jeffrey George, Gandhi Ambalam, John Tan, Mohd Isa
(Laurence Lai and Warren Eswaran are not in the photograph) Read more...

Singapore Democrats

Dr Chee Soon Juan, Secretary-General of the Singapore Democrats, recently addressed party cadres at the 14th Ordinary Party Conference held on 24 July 2009. Watch excerpts of his speech here:

youtube link here Read more...

Singapore Democrats

Is it a coincidence that victims of the Lehman Brothers scam in Hong Kong are being compensated for their losses whereas those in Singapore are not?

Hong Kong's financial authorities have taken action to pressure banks to pay back at least 60 percent (more for older victims) to each investor for their losses incurred as a result of buying the toxic financial products from Lehman.

In contrast, Singaporeans are told that they have to jump through hoops just to have their claims heard.

Even then, they are made to wait for their cases to be heard and, in many cases, are told that their money is irretrievably gone.

Either that or they have to initiate litigation to claim compensation which is an expensive process with no guarantee of success.

Perhaps, the most telling difference is DBS's reaction to the two sets of investors. The Singapore bank volunteered that it would refund Hong Kongers who purchased its troubled products whereas no similar move was made for Singaporeans.

So why the difference between Hong Kong and Singapore?

For one thing, the authorities of Hong Kong are still accountable (and therefore responsive) to its people. This is because its elections are much freer and fairer compared to what we have in Singapore. Elected representatives have to respond to the voice and mood of the electorate.

In Singapore, MPs also have to remain attuned to the voice and mood, but not of the voters. Instead they have to keep an eye and ear out from what their party bosses say. In this matter the PAP, and hence all its MPs, were more intent on protecting the establishment and its system than helping the investor-victims.

And their party bosses have molded the election system in such a way that they will never lose power. If they cannot lose power, what incentive is there for them to pay attention to the voters?

Members of the Legislative Council in Hong Kong have to be sensitive to what their constituents say. Public opinion matters because it is broadcast and published by the media which is reknowned for its freedom and independence from the ruling class.

Singapore's media, on the other hand, can be turned on and off by the PAP. This is not hard to do when the Singapore Press Holdings is controlled by none other than former deputy prime minister Dr Tony Tan.

In addition, Hong Kongers enjoy freedoms of speech and public assembly – and the Lehman victims have exercised their freedom well. It was through their public protests that the banks agreed to compensate them for their losses.

Alas, Singaporean investors can only gather at Hong Lim Park – away from the eyes and ears of the people for whom their angry message was intended. As a result, the banks were free of the pressure to negotiate and compensate.

Free and fair elections, a free media, the freedom to assemble are what made the difference between Hong Kong's investors and Singapore's, even though both groups were sold similar products and were caught out by similar events.

So the next time anyone says that democracy and human rights can't make you money, just remember these four items: Hong Kong - Singapore - Lehman Brothers - compensation. Read more...

Singapore Democrats

The title to this report "Political parties go online to extend their reach" by Valarie Tan of Channel News Asia seems straightforward enough -- Singapore's political parties, both ruling and opposition, are fully utilising the Internet to achieve their ends.

But wait, there's no mention of the Singapore Democrats anywhere! It reports on only two parties - the PAP and WP. This is particularly strange when the SDP's website, updated daily, is by far the most read website of all political parties in Singapore.

CNA also writes that "Social networking websites like Facebook and Twitter are the latest ways Singapore political parties are reaching out to people online."

This website employs all manner of online instruments to reach out to Singaporeans. We have produced the most number of YouTube presentations, we were the first to get on Twitter with the most number of followers, and our supporters have even established a Friends of SDP Facebook page.

And yet in CNA's report, only silence about the Singapore Democrats.

The report also talks about the youth wings of both the PAP and WP. Yet, the SDP is the first opposition party to establish a youth wing. The Young Democrats was formed in 2000 and has since grown robustly. Again, absolutely no mention of this in CNA's report.

It is obvious that the media want Singaporeans to know as little as possible about the Singapore Democrats. If and when they do report on us, they will put on the worst possible spin. This is what the SDP is up against.

This trend will intensify as elections draw closer. The question that must be asked is: Why is the media so intent on hushing up news about, particularly, the Singapore Democrats?

In another instance, Alicia Wong of Today reported yesterday about the installation of CCTVs at Hong Lim Park (see here), obviously reading and then following up on the SDP's report two days before (see here).

Yet the newspaper refuses to acknowledge that the story was first reported on this website.

Are we complaining? No. We take this as the PAP badly wanting to get rid of us and a signal that we must work even harder to deny them the pleasure.

It is important that Singaporeans know the truth. The Singapore Democrats are not only alive and well, but leading the way on the Internet. We cannot let the media cover up this fact.

We ask our supporters and followers to step up efforts to help us overcome this hurdle by spreading the SDP's news as far and as wide as possible through your emails, Facebook pages, blogs and so on.

Don't let the PAP use the New Media to fool the people too. Read more...

Singapore Democrats

Just when you thought that freedom of expression could not become any more farcical in Singapore, the police install a CCTV at Hong Lim Park.

Already, public speaking is banned in Singapore, a group of 5 or more persons gathered to "support or oppose the views of any person" require a permit (that the police categorically state they will not grant), and even one person conducting a protest can be considered an illegal assembly and ordered to disperse.

Freedom of expression is strictly confined to Speakers' Corner. On Tuesday this week, however, workmen were seen installing surveillance cameras at the venue.

"What are you doing? You cannot take a picture. This belongs to the police," one of the workers said to our cameraman. Some of his colleagues darted away out of camera range.

"Well, actually it doesn't, it belongs to taxpayers and I am a taxpayer," our SDP reporter shot back. "So what are you guys doing?"

Seeing that we were not going to be fooled or intimidated, one of them said that they were contractors installing the cameras for the police. Another was busy keying in data on a laptop programming the CCTV.

Looking around there were two other such cameras installed around the park to cover the entire field.

If this is not a police state where even a so-called tiny free speech corner is monitored by the state, we don't know what is.

Watch video here:

Read more...

Singapore Democrats


The about turn in Temasek's appointment of Mr Charles Goodyear as CEO to replace Ms Ho Ching is a sad but accurate reflection of the abysmal leadership seen at the organisation.

Chairman of Temasek, Mr S Dhanabalan, had said in an announcement in February this year when Mr Goodyear was first appointed that the company had been "working on this appointment for more than a year.” He added that Mr Goodyear "shares the vision and values" of Temasek.

Barely four months later, we learn that this appointment has been reversed because of "differences regarding certain strategic issues that could not be resolved."

Given that Mr Goodyear's appointment has been deliberated for over a year, is it plausible that strategic issues cropped up only at the last minute? What were these differences and why can't they be resolved?

As Temasek is fully-owned by the public, Singaporeans have the right to know the answers to these questions as well as the details of the abrupt termination of Mr Goodyear as CEO.

Given the amount of public money that Temasek handles and, worse, the $58 billion that the company lost from March to November 2008 (Temasek has kept mum about losses incurred after November 2008), the non-transparent way with which the matter has been dealt is truly mind-boggling.

Making a nonsensical and completely banal statement like "It is with much regret that both Chip (Goodyear) and the Board have accepted that it is best not to proceed with the leadership transition" is a waste of bandwidth and an insult to the intelligence of the people. (See Temasek news release below.)

In addition Ms Ho Ching, PM Lee Hsien Loong's wife who will now carry on as CEO even though she presided over the monumental losses, said that Mr Goodyear had started a number of "initiatives" which she hopes to complete.

What are these initiatives and why are they so important that Ms Ho needs to complete them and make an announcement about it? What's the point of telling us that there are initiatives and not tell us what they are? Was the comment added just to make the statement look longer and more substantial?

Finally, in Singapore few things happen without Government consent. Did Mr Lee Kuan Yew or Mr Lee Hsien Loong have anything to do with the decision not to go ahead with Mr Goodyear's appointment?

Given the stakes that we are dealing with and the fact that every cent that Temasek has belongs to Singaporeans, the public has every right to demand the answers from Ms Ho and Mr Dhanabalan.

Temasek's News Release

Temasek Holdings and Charles W. Goodyear mutually agree not to proceed with CEO appointment
21 July 2009, Singapore

The Board of Directors of Temasek Holdings (Private) Limited (“Temasek”) today announced an agreement with Mr Charles (“Chip”) W. Goodyear not to proceed with his CEO appointment.

Mr Goodyear was appointed a Member of the Board on 1 February and CEO-Designate on 1 March. He was to succeed Ms Ho Ching as CEO on 1 October 2009.

Four months into the leadership transition, the Temasek Board and Mr Goodyear have concluded and accepted that there are differences regarding certain strategic issues that could not be resolved. In light of the differences, both parties decided that it is in their mutual interests to terminate the leadership transition process and hence the executive relationship with effect from 15 August 2009. Mr Goodyear will also step down from the Temasek Board effective the same date.

Mr Dhanabalan, Chairman of Temasek Holdings, said, "It is with much regret that both Chip and the Board have accepted that it is best not to proceed with the leadership transition. We wish Chip all the best in his future endeavours, and are happy that Ho Ching has agreed to continue as Executive Director and CEO."

Added Mr Chip Goodyear, "I'm sorry that we are unable to continue with the leadership transition. Temasek has a fantastic platform and I wish the Board, Ho Ching and the team all the best."

Ms Ho Ching elaborated, "In the short time with us, Chip has started a number of initiatives which I believe will help strengthen the Temasek platform. I am sorry he is unable to continue with the leadership transition, and hope to complete the initiatives that he has started."

http://www.temasekholdings.com.sg/media_centre_news_releases_210709.htm Read more...

Singapore Democrats

District Judge Christopher Goh dismissed a Magistrate's Complaint filed by Ms Chee Siok Chin and Mr John Tan last week.

Ms Chee and Mr Tan had filed the complaint in February this year for unlawful detention and selective use of the law by the Singapore Police Force when the two were walking along Orange Grove Road in 2007 (watch video Part I and Part II).

In her complaint, Ms Chee stated that during the ASEAN Summit that year, police officers along Orange Grove Road harassed and stopped her and Mr Tan from walking to Shangri-la Hotel. The police had told them that the area was under gazette at that time.

Ms Chee argued that if that was the case, why were other pedestrians and vehicles allowed in the vicinity while she was being prevented from proceeding.

Mr Tan also said that he had been assaulted by the police officers in the the van.

The SDP leaders stated that after they were forced into the van, the police officers told them that they were not being arrested but refused to answer repeated questions about where they were being taken.

On Tuesday last week, the judge told both complainants that in response to the complaint, the Internal Investigation Department of the Singapore Police Force had come to the conclusion that Ms Chee and Mr Tan were removed from the vicinity under the Protected Area and Places Act. The report was sent to the Attorney-General's Chambers who decided that there was no case for the police to answer. The judge thus dismissed the matter.

Ms Chee pointed out that the investigation was carried out by the same body against whom the report was made.

Mr Tan argued that the two main issues highlighted in the complaints were not being addressed by the investigation. He asked the judge to demand answers to the questions raised, but was rejected. The selective application of the law and the wrongful detention of the aggrieved persons were dismissed by the district judge.

Judge Goh responded by saying that he had no powers to initiate prosecution. In other words, he could only act on the direction of the AGC.

Despite much explicit reasoning, the judge could not see the absurdity of an investigation carried out by the perpetrators and the decision not to carry out further action by their accomplices.

The PAP has for decades used public institutions against its political opponents and dissenters. This is a serious misuse of power. Unfortunately, Singaporeans have been subjected to such abuse for so long that many have come to accept it as normal.

Is this the Singapore-styled democracy to which Mr Lee Kuan Yew is referring when he rejects "liberal democracy?" Is this the kind of democracy that Singaporeans have pledged to uphold? The answer is clear. The function of all government agencies or public institutions is to serve the people, not the party in power.

This is why the Singapore Democrats and Friends continue with the struggle for democracy and pursuit of justice and equality for all. Read more...

Singapore Democrats

The Board of Film Censors (BFC) had refused to classify the film One Nation Under Lee (ONUL, here), a documentary made by Mr Seelan Palay about Mr Lee Kuan Yew's oppression of Singapore.

Mr Martyn See, another filmmaker, submitted ONUL to the BCF in May this year for approval and rating. However, as Mr See reports in his blog, the authorities have declined to classify the film.

“It is probably the only video submission in BFC's history that has been deemed unclassifiable,” Mr See writes.

The stated reason from the censors is that the video contains material from another film Zahari's 17 Years (click here) produced by Mr See about the legendary Mr Said Zahari who was imprisoned without trial by Mr Lee Kuan Yew for 17 years.

Because Zahari's 17 Years was banned and ONUL contains parts of it, the BFC is saying that Mr Seelan's film is therefore unclassifiable.

This reason, if it can be considered one, doesn't make sense. Why can't the authorities make a decision on whether to approve ONUL and rate it accordingly based on its contents? The reference to Mr Said Zahari in the video is minimal and does not alter the film's theme.

The real reason for not classifying the film, one suspects, is because to do so would be to allow it to be screened to the public at large. Sacre bleu! What would Mr Lee think?

But to ban it would be to draw more attention to the film. As it is, because of the Media Development Authorities' seizing of ONUL when it was first screened, the film has attracted tens of thousands of viewers. Google and YouTube have removed the video because of “copyright” reasons. (See here)

And so the effort to control what Singaporeans watch continues – a sure sign of the nervousness of our undemocratic rulers. Read more...

Singapore Democrats

It cannot be denied that the SDP attracts the brunt of the PAP's machinations. We do not boast about this nor do we see it as a shame. It is reality – reality that comes with the fact that we do not accept the existing political system and insist on reforming it.

We have been criticised for being confrontational. Again, we do not deny this. But we confront the PAP not with violence but with reason and with the truth. And the truth is that the continued denial of democratic freedoms to Singaporeans is harming our nation.

Resisting immediate gratification

Admittedly, it is easier to keep our heads down and go with the political flow. But times such as these call for leadership – effective and bold leadership.

Effective leadership means being able to look beyond the immediate horizon. As the masses march towards the edge of the cliff, lulled and silenced by the PAP, we must sound the alarm – loudly and persistently. We must alert our fellow citizens of the approaching danger.

Effective and bold leadership also means that we must resist the temptation of immediate gratification. We cannot exclusively focus on contesting the elections and hope to win a seat or two against a system controlled by the PAP, one that Mr Lee Hsien Loong admits to fixing his opponents and buying support.

Without a reform of the electoral process, the opposition will be forever consigned to contesting in unwinnable elections – much like kittens chasing their own tails. We must store up for the future and not indulge in short-term but temporal gains.

Participate or not

But this does not mean that the Singapore Democrats will not take part in the coming elections. We are gearing up to take on the PAP at the ballot box. In fact, we pledge to run a campaign that will make our supporters proud.

But calling for reform also means that the PAP will do whatever it can to destroy our efforts. One obvious way that the PAP can do this is to black out news about the Singapore Democrats. It will report unfair and untrue criticisms of the party and refuse us our right of reply.

This, however, is a signal for the opposition to rise to the challenge, not a deterrent to submit to the repression.

Again, we do not complain. We state it as a matter of fact that this is what we have to fight against. And fight against it we will.

With the advent of the Internet, we have an opportunity to overcome the hurdle of media-control in Singapore. But the reach of the Internet is miniscule compared to the mainstream press. The PAP still has a mountain of an advantage.

We will strive to overcome this obstacle and in so doing continue to provide honest and unyielding leadership. Read more...

Singapore Democrats

What's wrong with this picture? Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong recently visited Burma and said that investors would invest in Burma in a “big way” if the country moved towards democracy and held free and fair elections.

In the first place, Singapore already has lucrative deals in place with the Burmese generals, making us the one of the biggest investors there. The problem is that our dollar is greasing the palms of a very corrupt and murderous bunch of soldiers.

While billions of dollars are poured into Burma, the Burmese people remain mired in poverty. It is estimated that nearly 30 percent of the population live below the poverty line. This is because the generals use the money to fatten their own bank accounts, much of which is in all probability stashed in Singaporean banks, instead of benefitting the people.

In addition, the US and Europe maintain tight economic sanctions on Burma and because of this the country is shunned by the international trading community. Given the situation, how is investing in a pariah economy a wise move?

This is not a new development. Burma has been under a dictatorship for the past several decades. What makes Mr Goh think that just because he says that there would be more investments coming to the country if the junta held free and fair elections, that the generals would pay heed?

What incentive is there to democratise the country if the rulers already benefit from the money given to them by governments like the PAP? Hasn't the Senior Minister figured this out already?

The other problem could be that the generals don't take Mr Goh's call seriously. Who would? Singapore calling on other governments to conduct free and fair elections? Might as well have Genghis tell Attila to be more humane.

Mr Goh’s propaganda blitz is reminiscent of Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s right hand man in Germany during the Second World War. He said: “Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play...If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”

The truth is that while most of the countries in the region and beyond are moving towards freedom, democracy and openness Singapore, on the other hand, is heading south.

The recent expansion of the NMP and NCMP schemes together with the introduction of the Public Order Act, where even one-person protests are considered an illegal assembly, make the political system even more moribund.

With the running of elections still firmly in the hands of the Prime Minister's Office, the GRC scheme the order of the day, redrawing of constituency boundaries announced only at the last minute, and state media fawning over the PAP can elections in Singapore be any less free and fair?

By putting all these controls in place, elections in Singapore have become a charade to be orchestrated by the PAP once every four or five years to hold the people accountable.

It might be better for Mr Goh to look at his own house before sermonizing to others about the benefits of free and fair elections. You know what they say about people who live in glass houses.
Read more...

Singapore Democrats

In the first part of this post, we listed out the criteria by which Singaporeans say they measure the credibility of an opposition party, chiefly that the opposition must: One, be able to propose credible alternative ideas; two, speak up on issues that matter to the people; three, ask the hard and necessary questions; four, not become dormant in between elections; and five, foster opposition unity.

As we have spoken at length on the first two criteria (see here and here), we will not dwell on them in this post. Instead, we focus on the latter three measures and examine how we strive to live up to our own expectations as well as those of our fellow Singaporeans.

Asking the hard questions

One of the most important roles of an opposition is to check the government and hold it accountable. A checks and balance system is one of the key strengths of the democratic system.

Without a strong opposition to ask the hard and necessary questions, the government is not compelled to reveal information crucial to the public. Left on its own, no ruling party will volunteer information. Transparency is the casualty.

In this regard the Singapore Democrats have not been found wanting. We have consistently been asking the hard and necessary questions on various issues.

Take for example, the acquisition of Shin Corp to the strategy of promoting Singapore as a tax haven to our ill-advised investments in Western banks where billions of dollars have been lost.

But because the SDP is not represented in Parliament, we are unable to pose such important questions to the Government and hold its feet to the fire. As a result the ruling party has been able to get away with much.

This is why the PAP goes all out, fair means or foul, to ensure that the Singapore Democrats are prevented from getting into Parliament. http://www.singapore-window.org/sw01/011122a1.htm

Not dormant in between elections

The PAP has always accused the opposition of going to sleep in between elections and coming alive only to contest the polls. In other words, the PAP says, the opposition is lazy and incompetent.

Of course, it doesn't mention the myriad of rules and regulations the Government puts in place to ensure that opposition parties are prevented from actively engaging in the political arena in between elections.

Be that as it may, the Singapore Democrats have not allowed the obstacles to keep us inactive. Despite the PAP's best efforts, we have been doing everything we can to strengthen ourselves as well as to empower Singaporeans.

In the past, it was easy for the PAP and its media to paint the SDP in such negative light. With the advent of the Internet, however, such an underhanded tactic is harder to carry out successfully.

Our readers can attest to the fact that we have been organising campaigns or forums, visiting students, meeting with residents, doing research, and so on. We have posted these activities on this website to keep you updated.

Nonetheless, it is hard for our news to reach the wider public because the mainstream press continues to censor of much of what we do and say, leading Singaporeans to think negatively of the party. (See here)

In the spirit of the SDP, however, we will not let the adverse conditions defeat us. We have a mountain to climb but we will be resolute in overcoming the adversity and bringing democracy to our shores.

Calling for reform

In a one-party state like Singapore, must not bury its head in the sand and pretend as if we are operating in a democracy. Even though we will get knocked hard by the ruling, we must always sound the call for reform.

Failure does not come when we get knocked down, it comes when we give up trying. We must not give up trying to reform the system and fighting for our political freedoms. We don't have to this at the expense of bread-and-butter issues.

Surely the opposition can campaign on these two areas in tandem. After all, political rights and economic rights are two sides of the same coin. Talking about the latter while ignoring former is naive at best.

We need to teach the people how to fish instead of constantly asking the government to provide more fish. We need to empower the people and work for change so that the people become the masters, not remain as the PAP's servants.

Indeed the opposition must work towards bring about a system that encourages citizens to actively participate in the public process and one that allows them to vote freely and fairly.

Of course, championing reform will attract the wrath of the PAP. But if the opposition in an autocracy cannot call tell the emperor that he has no clothes, what good is it to the people. Read more...

Singapore Democrats

When one clicks on the link to YouTube's One Nation under Lee, a film made by activist Mr Seelan Palay, the following message appears: "This video is not available in your country due to copyright restrictions" (e.g., see here), or "Skipped to the next available video. One or more videos were no longer available" (e.g., see here).

Copyright? As far as anyone knows Mr Seelan has not complained about copyright problems. In fact, the filmmaker wants to spread the message in the film through the new media such as YouTube.

Perhaps the website is concerned about the use of the music in the video. But if that's the case, then half of the posts on YouTube would be blocked as well.

Obviously something else is at work. Was YouTube acting on its own policies or did it come under pressure from certain quarters in Singapore?

Apparently, YouTube contacted the uploader of the video and mentioned that it violated the copyright of the Universal Music Group. It just seems strange to me that this happens 1 week after my police interview.

- Seelan Palay

One Nation under Lee has chalked up 50,000 views before its removal a few days ago (see here). We believe that this is the first time that YouTube has blocked a video in Singapore. It was recently submitted to the Singapore authorities for clearance.

The film, a 45-minute video documenting Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s oppressive tactics, also features interviews with prominent opposition figures such as the late J B Jeyaretnam and Mr Francis Seow (see review here and here).

It was launched in May 2008 at a private screening in a hotel during which Government officials forced their way in and seized the video (see here). Mr Seelan was subsequently called up for questioning (see here). It has since been screened around the region (see here and here).

And now it seems that YouTube is also in on the act to censor the video by blocking its viewership.

Fortunately, the film can be found elsewhere on the Internet. Readers can watch the film at this URL (or this) until, that is, it is removed because of “copyright” problems again.

Editor's note: At press time, only the full-length version of the film on YouTube is affected. Those that are posted in parts are still available (e.g., see here). Read more...

Singapore Democrats

The PAP, or rather Mr Lee Kuan Yew, has tried -- and is still trying -- to define what the opposition in Singapore is and how it should function. He wants to see a "constructive" opposition.

By that, Mr Lee means that the opposition should play the game within his rules and accept the PAP's dominance in Singapore's politics. Anyone working outside this definition is labeled "destructive". The late J B Jeyaretnam and Dr Chee Soon Juan are examples.

From reviewing the input of Singaporeans through the years, however, we have crystallised five essential features that Singaporeans feel an opposition must possess in order to function effectively. We then show how the Singapore Democrats have stacked up against these criteria.

1. Proposing alternative ideas

Voters want the opposition to not just criticise the Government but to articulate clearly its own alternative policies.

To this end, the Singapore Democrats have not been found wanting. In 1994, we published Dare To Change which outlined our major policy areas. These alternative ideas were subsequently refined and elaborated in various publications, including our newspaper The New Democrat.

These ideas are also spelt out in this website. The clearest demonstration yet of our commitment to providing credible alternative ideas was during Budget 2009 where we made several policy proposals (see here), some of which were even taken up by PAP MPs.

2. Asking hard and necessary questions

One of the most important roles of an opposition is to check the government and hold it accountable. The SDP does not shy away from this role. We have questioned the PAP on various issues ranging from the acquisition of Shin Corp to the strategy of promoting Singapore as a tax haven to our ill-advised investments in Western banks.

3. Speaking up on important issues

Through the years Singapore Democrats have emphasized heavily on issues that matter to the people such as the cost of living, minimum wage, retirement income, distribution of wealth, and poverty in Singapore.
Readers of this website will agree that we have repeatedly spoken up on these matters. What we have added is that without political rights and freedoms, these economic concerns will not be heeded by the Government.

4. Not dormant in between elections

The opposition is often accused of coming alive only when elections are called. This cannot be said of the Singapore Democrats. Again, readers of this website will see that we have been organising campaigns and forums, visiting students, meeting with residents, doing research, reaching out to Singaporeans through the Internet, and so on.

We have been hard at work in between elections. Unfortunately Singaporeans know little about our work because the media refuses to report our activities. We therefore rely on the Internet and on our supporters and friends to help us spread the word.

5. Calling for reform

In a one-party state like Singapore, it is simply not credible for the opposition to pretend like we are operating in a democracy. The opposition must work towards political reform to bring about a system that is transparent and democratically accountable, one that would encourage citizens to actively participate in the public process and allow them to vote freely and fairly.

We have been able to do these things even without a presence in Parliament. Imagine what we can achieve if we are voted in. Support the Singapore Democrats. If you believe in what we are doing and want to see more of such proactive opposition, please contact us at speakup@yoursdp.org. Don't wait until the elections are called, by then it will be too late. Contact us now.
Read more...

Singapore Democrats

A leading member of Singapore’s art fraternity has acclaimed the documentary One Nation Under Lee (ONUL) produced by Mr Seelan Palay who is under police investigation (see here) for the 45-minute video that highlights the republic’s rule under Lee Kuan Yew.

Writing in a portal (www.arterimalaysia.com), that caters to readers in the region and beyond, Ms June Yap who is an independent art curator in Singapore says the charge against Mr Palay “raises the spectre of a witch-hunt” (see here). So far, the documentary that is available in Youtube has attracted close to 50,000 viewers.

Below are excerpts from Ms Yap’s critique:

As Sharon Chin (not a Singapore journalist) has mentioned in her post the purpose of the practice of censorship is one of power, and what is politics if not power? The issue however I would like to argue is perhaps not so much whether one is provoked by the naked behind, but the meanings inscribed on the body and other that are then seen as violated, transgressing and subject to policing. The bogeyman or rationale for censorship routinely marched out for the masses is that without censorship there would be “riots on the streets” with a capital “R”, proving if nothing else how useful it is to terrorise a community with nebulous terrors.

While the terror may be unclear, the policing however is real. During the group’s discussion a video experiencing such policing was mentioned: One Nation Under Lee is a work for which artist and activist Seelan Palay is currently under investigation, the DVD having been seized by censorship officers during a private screening at Excelsior Hotel on May 17, 2008. The act of screening the video is being charged under the Films Act. Section 21 of which states that:

(1) Any person who (a) has in his possession; (b) exhibits or distributes; or (c) reproduces, any film without a valid certificate, approving the exhibition of the film, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction.

If the Act is strictly upheld, it would also mean that your nephew’s birthday party video needs a license before his grandparents may proudly show off the delightful child he has grown up into to their golfing clique.

With formal police investigations beginning as of last week (22 June 2009), the charge raises the spectre of a witch-hunt, as the Act quite clearly (even if arbitrarily employed) implies that all video and film are suspect until proven otherwise, and by none other than a board of officially approved and predisposed censors. That the video touches on history does not enter into the police investigation, only the act of screening - who brought the film into the room, how many copies were there in the room, who was operating the system when the film was screened? Between history and logistics, logistics would appear more tangible to navigate.

But if this is not about the sheer impertinent audacity of the artist showing unclassified video to people he knows (and as a private event, surely it was but preaching to the converted), what is it of the content that transgresses? Perhaps it challenges a dominant historiography, but would that merit draconian censure? Standing at 45 minutes long, One Nation Under Lee is not for the lax, it is undoubtedly critical, but it does not pretend to be otherwise, and it raises topics of national development and management that one would be hard-pressed to find in mainstream media. The attention however that the attempt at seizing the video has aroused is far greater than the interest the video would have received had the attempt not been made.

That the private viewing of a work might turn into a convicted offence seems extreme, and while it might be taken by the media (and authorities) as a call for a spurious discussion of the line between art as critique and art as sedition, the point is that when art appears to transgress it does so within a context that frames it and which it produces meanings from - it is on the inside, even if they are meanings that some may not agree to. Art does not, and perhaps should not, acquiesce to a dominant ideology or oblige for the sake of; art is not a “product” of “creative industries”, manufactured in factory lines and quality circles, and labelling it activism is the prerogative of the artist, not his / her audience, and certainly not the state. Read more...