Jess's Updates

Tan Pin Pin’s To Singapore, With Love, a documentary featuring Singaporean political exiles, will not be allowed for public screening. The Media Development Authority (MDA) said the film “undermined national security.” The biggest feeling in response I have to the MDA’s statement is disappointment. As a person with a functioning brain, and a person who was born in and grew up in Singapore, I also feel insulted with the MDA’s official stance on the matter. This isn’t a fictitious movie that depicts a disrespectful portrayal of Singapore’s people or its culture. It is a documentary that includes content pertaining to certain “periods in Singapore’s history that are fraught with controversy.” A documentary is defined as follows: “A movie or a television or radio program that provides a factual record or report.” It is sad and shameful that Singaporeans are not being allowed to hear these people’s side of the story. Are Singaporeans too dumb to handle the facts? Can they not be trusted to make their own conclusions from a variety of sources? Why continue to hide and keep things covered up, when there is, according to PM Lee Hsien Loong’s 2013 New Year Message, a “clean and transparent system of governance”? As Alex Au wrote in his blog post, “Trust can never be restored by concealment and gagging. Only openness will do.” Historian Dr Thum Ping Tjin had this to say via a Facebook status update: “In its statement, MDA said it had assessed the contents of the film, and decided that it undermined national security. It added that legitimate actions taken by security agencies to protect the national security and stability of Singapore are distorted as acts that victimised innocent individuals.” The MDA’s statement is wrong. Research has proven that the primary aim of Operation Coldstore and other instances of repression was to remove political opposition to the Singapore government. If the MDA disagrees, they should ask the ISD to release documentary proof and allow us historians to revise our research. Having seen this film last week, the one thing that all the interviewees have in common is a deep, abiding love for Singapore. This movie reinforces national security by demonstrating the deep loyalty and commitment of Singaporeans to Singapore, even those forced unjustly into exile. People deserve to know the facts pertaining to their own country’s history. I, for one, always appreciate facts from sources other than watered-down, sanitised social studies textbooks which sometimes present only one side of the story.Filed under: Singapore Politics Tagged: banned film, censorship, exiles, government, MDA, national security, political history, politics, singapore, trust

Amongst other (shrewd) observations, former ISD director Yoong Siew Wah writes that “GE 2016 is very much an epoch-making election to watch.” So far I have read some very interesting blog posts and/or status updates on the matter, as curated by The Singapore Daily and whatever I happen to see on online media. It led me to think about certain things on a basic, fundamental level, with regard to how actions speak louder than words. According to The Law Dictionary, an Oath of Office is defined as follows: What is OATH OF OFFICE? A person assuming a position in a public office either through election or appointment is expected to take this formal oath which reminds them of their obligations to the public and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Former Singapore’s Prime Minister Lee Kwan Yew takes his oath of office as senior Minister in the new Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong’s (L) government, next to President Wee Kim Wee (R) at the City Hall 28 November 1990. | Image: AFP / Roslan Rahman Schedules are lists in the Constitution that categorize and tabulate bureaucratic activity and policy of the Government. At the time of this posting, the First Schedule: Forms of Oaths section of the Singapore Constitution states: 1. Oath of Office of President. I, …………………………… , having been elected President of the Republic of Singapore, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully discharge my duties as such to the best of my ability without fear or favour, affection or ill-will, and without regard to any previous affiliation with any political party, and that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Republic, and that I will preserve, protect and defend its Constitution. 2. Oath of Allegiance. I, …………………………….. , having been appointed to the office of …………………………. , do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Republic of Singapore and that I will preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore. 3. Oath as Member of Parliament. I, ……………………………………… , having been elected as a Member of the Parliament of Singapore, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully discharge my duties as such to the best of my ability, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Republic of Singapore, and that I will preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore. 4. Oath for due execution of Office of Prime Minister. I, …………………………… , being chosen and appointed as Prime Minister of Singapore do solemnly swear (or affirm) that — (a) I will, to the best of my judgment at all times when so required, freely give my counsel and advice to the President (or any person lawfully exercising the functions of that office) for the good management of the public affairs of Singapore. . . 6. Oath of Office of Chief Justice, a Judge of the Supreme Court and a Judicial Commissioner. I, ……………………………. , having been appointed to the office of ……………………….. , do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully discharge my judicial duties, and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of the Republic of Singapore without fear or favour, affection or ill-will to the best of my ability, and will preserve, protect and defend its Constitution. Part IV of the Singapore Constitution is to do with “Fundamental Liberties” of citizens. Here is some of the text from that section which is meant to protect citizens’ rights: Equal protection 12.—(1) All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law. (2) Except as expressly authorised by this Constitution, there shall be no discrimination against citizens of Singapore on the ground only of religion, race, descent or place of birth in any law or in the appointment to any office or employment under a public authority or in the administration of any law relating to the acquisition, holding or disposition of property or the establishing or carrying on of any trade, business, profession, vocation or employment. Freedom of speech, assembly and association 14.—(1) Subject to clauses (2) and (3) — (a) every citizen of Singapore has the right to freedom of speech and expression; (b) all citizens of Singapore have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms; and (c) all citizens of Singapore have the right to form associations. (2) Parliament may by law impose — (a) on the rights conferred by clause (1)(a), such restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof, friendly relations with other countries, public order or morality and restrictions designed to protect the privileges of Parliament or to provide against contempt of court, defamation or incitement to any offence; (b) on the right conferred by clause (1)(b), such restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof or public order; and (c) on the right conferred by clause (1)(c), such restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof, public order or morality. (3) Restrictions on the right to form associations conferred by clause (1) (c) may also be imposed by any law relating to labour or education. So if new labour laws hurt Singapore, to what exact extent can citizens’ rights be “restricted” to form an association (for, say, minimum wages) because of clause (3) above? If all persons are “equal before the law,” why has there been a long history of contempt towards opposition politicians or anyone that criticises the PAP government? The National Pledge practically states that Singapore citizens, as “one united people,” are committed to building “a democratic society: based on justice and equality.” The pledge was written by S. Rajaratnam, and the pledge was to reflect the dream was about building “a Singapore we are proud of.” It is basic logic that sincere and competent leaders would strive to do what they pledge to do during the Oath of Office. Since The Singapore National Pledge is an oath of allegiance to Singapore, that is what the government should be striving to do WITH THE PEOPLE — whether it is the PAP or a united opposition that wins the people’s trust and votes. * * * More Information: (1) “Transparent is as transparent does” (Chris Ho) (2) “PAP: What They Say Vs. What They Mean” (Martyn See) (3) Chee Soon Juan: “Democratically Speaking” (independent book review by an analytical Virgo) (4) “[PM LHL’s] speech focuses more on ‘fixing the opposition’ than the PAP itself” (Ariffin Sha) (5) “1994 – 2012: A Chronology of Authoritarian Rule in Singapore” (Singapore Rebel) (6) “The authorities may be empowered to smack down cartoonists, authors, and journalists, but it’s the Singaporean people who truly suffer the most harm” (HRW 2013) (7) “The judiciary lacks independence and systematically returns verdicts in the government’s favor” (Freedom House: Singapore 2013) (8) “Considering the mediocre performance of many of the run-of-the-mill type of ministers…” (Singapore Recalcitrant)Filed under: Singapore Politics Tagged: civic engagement, civil rights, constitutional law, democracy, oath of office, opposition, politics, rule of law, singapore, Singapore Constitution

Today’s blog post is on Jake Needham, whom I interviewed in December! WHO IS JAKE NEEDHAM? Jake Needham writes crime/noir fiction set in Asia, including squeaky-clean Singapore. He is a lawyer by education and held a number of significant positions in both the public and private sectors. He has lived and worked in Hong Kong, Singapore, and Thailand for over twenty-five years. And he posts great, snappy updates on Facebook. BRAGGING RIGHTS Described by The Straits Times as “Asia’s most stylish and atmospheric writer of crime fiction.” Described by The Bangkok Post as “Michael Connelly with steamed rice.” Wikipedia: Jake Needham WHO IS INSPECTOR TAY? Libris Reviews describes Inspector Samuel Tay as “a world-weary Singaporean homicide detective.�� Tay is a senior inspector in the elite Special Investigation Section of Singapore CID. He��s pretty much the best investigator the Singapore police have, albeit he is somewhat of an outsider. THE DEAD AMERICAN is the third book which features Inspector Tay. The blurb for the book mentions the following: “A young American software engineer hangs himself in his Singapore apartment. At least that��s what the police say happened. Emma Lazar, a writer for the Wall Street Journal, thinks otherwise. She thinks Tyler Bartlett was murdered to keep him quiet, and the Singapore police are covering it up.” That description immediately brought to my mind the case of Shane Todd, an American engineer who was found hanging in his Singapore apartment. The author does mention in a blog post that the book is not a fictionalized account of the death of Shane Todd. It is, however, set in Singapore, which Jake Needham feels is a “country whose rulers have perpetuated themselves since its first day of nationhood through ruthless censorship and the relentless suppression of effective dissent.” SINGAPORE CENSORSHIP (OR, “OB MARKERS”) Jake’s readers have noticed some spooky parallels between the Shane Todd case and a novel he first published years ago about the death of another American in Singapore. One would think that there would be a natural market for Jake’s book in Singapore, since all the Tay books are built on real events and real places related to Singapore. However, the content of the Tay books cut Jake off from his publisher in Singapore — he can’t get any local press coverage either. One can assume that this is due to two factors: (1) the controversial content of his Works of Fiction, and (2) the unsavory depiction of Singapore authorities in his Works of Fiction. After all, we are all told that Singapore is to be recognised as clean and incorruptible. “Singapore is [a] clean and incorrupt system and country.” — excerpt from Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s speech at the CPIB’s 60th Anniversary celebration, 2012. And if you’re like Alan Shadrake who published a well-researched, non-fiction book about the human rights abuses in Singapore, you get thrown into jail at the very least for “scandalizing the Singapore judiciary.” This makes it difficult for Jake Needham to connect with a Singaporean audience and introduce them to his characters and stories set in Singapore, since his books have disappeared from local booksellers and he receives virtually no local press coverage because everyone knows they are expected to toe the party line. It brings to the forefront the sense of self-censorship in Singapore. Can you imagine a scenario where Mike Connelly��s books cannot be sold in California because some of the cops he writes about are stupid, or motivated by politics, or even downright crooked? JAKE’S VIEW(S) ON THE SITUATION In an interview with I-S Magazine (original link and blog link), Jake said: “When The Ambassador’s Wife (the first Inspector Tay novel) was published, all my contacts abruptly stopped returning my calls, and not another word about the book ever appeared in any publication in Singapore. . . I certainly don’t consider [the Inspector Tay books] to be negative depictions of Singapore. Quite on the contrary, I think they are authentic and honest depictions. That��s always what I strive for, regardless of where I set my novels.” Jake’s reply to my email on the situation: “As I recall, it��s very difficult for Singaporeans to buy from Amazon and almost everyone there is forced to source ebooks locally from locally controlled sources. Needless to say, none of my ebooks are available through any of those sources. There is very little popular fiction published internationally that features contemporary Singapore, and I have little doubt a fair number of Singaporeans would enjoy meeting Inspector Tay and seeing their city though his eyes if only they knew he existed. I��d be happy to support any source in Singapore who could make the Tay books available there �� heck, I��d even give a bunch of them away if that was the only way to get them into the hands of people in Singapore.” HOW YOU CAN HELP Screenshot of Amazon page in Singapore — Kindle edition unavailable (thanks to my friend in SG who took this screenshot) At the moment, Kindle books in the Amazon US store are unavailable for purchase or download for people in Singapore. THEREFORE, if you’re in Singapore and would like to support Jake Needham’s work of authentic/fresh/exciting fiction set in Singapore, you can help out by doing one of the following: — Buy his books from iTunes — Buy his books from Smashwords (coupon code available for people reading this post: see below) — Sign up for his awesome newsletter — Follow him on Facebook and Twitter — Share on social media. Here’s a sample tweet. Why @JakeNeedham��s Singapore-based fiction is not available in #Singapore | http://t.co/qjPdHznbFL | #CrimeThrillers #politics #publishing — Jess C Scott (@jesscscott) January 26, 2015 COUPON AND A NOTE Here’s a Smashwords coupon that’s good for a 50% discount on any ebook edition of THE AMBASSADOR��S WIFE (first book in Inspector Tay series) until February 28, which will take the price for you lovely readers down to US$2.50: Link: The Ambassador’s Wife, by Jake Needham (Smashwords) Coupon Code: DX49S * The first two Inspector Tay novels �� THE AMBASSADOR��S WIFE and THE UMBRELLA MAN �� are available on iBooks and Smashwords. THE DEAD AMERICAN is exclusive to Amazon until March 1 and won’t be available on iBooks and Smashwords until March 2 or just after.Filed under: Singapore Politics Tagged: Alan Shadrake, books, censorship, crime fiction, government, Jake Neeham, Michael Connelly, politics, Publishing, singapore

During this time of mass sympathising, I think it is important to keep certain things in perspective. SEPARATING MYTHS FROM REALITY 1. Both Sides of the Historical Narrative I’ll preface this with a recent comment I saw on Facebook: “Dear friends, it is important for all of us to hear all sides of Lee Kuan Yew’s legacy. ��#LKY�� has done many things right but history will record both sides of the narratives.” (– Hani Mohamed, founder/CEO of Alertist) I downloaded The Straits Times’ special 24-page edition to mark the life of Mr Lee Kuan Yew. I have also read several local as well as foreign publications praising LKY’s reign, chiefly for leading the country from a “third world” state to one of economic prosperity. I noticed one comment on a Politico article which brings some objectivity into remembering LKY’s legacy (comment edited for grammar): “The worst and inhumane DISRESPECT for anyone who has passed away, is to simply laud only the good things, without noting also the bad things in their lives, and framing all of these in a proper context fitting for this person as a HUMAN BEING, however larger-than-life this person may be. History is for Objective Balance!” (– Jonathan Li) It comes as no surprise that a lot of the details from the darker side of Singapore’s history have been left out of the eulogies for LKY. For instance, in Lee Kuan Yew’s Singapore, T.J.S. George writes that “only the PAP possessed weapons with which to fight battles for the people’s minds.” LKY’s techniques in the early 1960s were described as then chairman of the Barisan as “Legal fixing.” (Perhaps that is where PM Lee Hsien Loong got the term “fixing the opposition” from.) In that same book, LKY is described as applying “the free employment of authoritarian methods to eliminate all opposition,” because in his mind, no one else in Singapore “could be right.” What he achieved was a “one-man party and a one-party state.” His old comrade-in-arms, Lim Chin Siong, was denied trial or right of appeal and sent to Changi jail for seven years, of which some time was spent in solitary confinement. Political insiders in Singapore and Kuala Lumpur claimed that “Lim was fed drugs which induced depression and self-destructive tendencies” (also mentioned in an Amnesty Report and a political detainee’s account). Let us also not forget Dr. Chia Thye Poh, detained for 32 years and left with poor health, Former Solicitor General Francis Seow, Former Magistrate JB Jeyaretnam, Tang Liang Hong, Tan Wah Piow, Chee Soon Juan, Teo Soh Lung, Dr. Poh Soo Kai, Dr. Lim Hock Siew, and countless others who were repeatedly imprisoned and/or bankrupted for being perceived as a real threat to the PAP’s hold on power. Even with this knowledge, I found myself semi-enthralled by the halo effect certain mainstream media outlets have granted LKY, by portraying him in a saviour-of-Singapore, saint-like manner. The thing that snapped me out of my enthrallment were presentations about LKY’s loving and caring side as a father and husband. While there is absolutely nothing wrong with being a model father and husband, I find it outrageous that this type of portrayal spares no thought for the political detainees/exiles — who had been LKY’s fellow Singaporean citizens — whose entire lives and ties with their family and homeland were majorly disrupted because of one man’s ruthless beliefs and access to state apparatus. LKY supporters justify his actions by saying that everything he did was for Singapore’s survival, to take it from a “third world to first world country.” He was also a shrewd, clever and pragmatic politician who had to (by his own words) do what was correct. T.J.S. George adds that LKY “seemed convinced from the outset that anyone who opposed him was an enemy of Singapore,” so in that sense, it can be viewed that LKY was “protecting the country” from people he viewed as enemies. 2. For Whose Survival? LKY may have viewed himself as The Right Man for the job, but that doesn’t mean it was fair to 1) use the law to incarcerate and intimidate opponents because he could, and 2) that it’s correct to explain away such actions as “simply something that had to be done” to ensure the future “success” of Singapore. How can it be guaranteed that any of these political opponents would have been political failures, when none of them were given a chance to prove their mettle and implement their own vision? Depending on which side you’re on, it wouldn’t be wrong to categorise such actions as cruel, underhanded, and a significant cost to human rights. Some people might say that concepts like democracy, human rights, and fair play, are too “idealistic” for the arena of politics. Real life just doesn’t work that way, so we, the people, have to just live with it. The more I study LKY’s (and by extension, the PAP’s) behaviour and actions, the more it seems like certain things were implemented to ensure “the PAP’s survival.” Would a government who truly cares about its citizens have such an aggressive foreign talent policy? Kenneth Paul Tan, the vice dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, said: ��It cannot be just the government leading the way forward. The people have to be as much a part of this, so a new social contract can be forged which can be legitimate to all.�� If one reads between the lines, one could even infer that the current social contract is not “legitimate to all.” The Straits Times is widely known by discerning Singaporeans as a government mouthpiece. Presenting a one-sided view of history is dangerous, because if we have knowledge of some of LKY’s past actions and choose to justify those cruel actions as “necessary,” what type of effect does this kind of outlook and behaviour have on the rest of The Cabinet and Government of Singapore, and further down the line, on the mass populace? It brings to mind Chris Ho’s recent post about the shameless brazenness of the government and how this is creating a more aggressive, callous society at the ground level. It also brings to mind Alfian Sa’at’s recent poem, on “the other side of the news” that isn’t reported during this time of national mourning. It breeds an outlook that is desensitised and inhumane — never mind if your fellowmen are suffering, never mind if they are poor, never mind if they can’t seem to get their act together and get ahead in life financially. It’s their fault, life is nothing but a rat race, and “economic prosperity” justifies everything at the end of the day. It’s up to each of us to decide what matters most at the end of the day, whether “the end justifies all means” is the right type of outlook to take, and whether a lack of compassion in the name of power and economic success are values we aspire to uphold. Speaking of “economic success,” we should also ask ourselves who chiefly benefits from this much-lauded national prosperity. 3. Separating Myths from Reality Propaganda can be defined as: Information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view. (– Google) We elect governments officials whom we are made to believe can be trusted in being capable, “incorruptible,” and of integrity to handle the country’s affairs. No one in their right mind would elect an elite force to spread lies, half-truths, and/or mismanage funds while enriching themselves and their families. It is up to each of us to make a collective, sustained effort to counter propaganda, so that government accountability is not reduced to a piece of fiction or a romantic pipe-dream. I hope discerning individuals will be able to see through some of these myths that have been built up and propagated over decades, not because we want to “attack” a person or be “haters,” but because of the importance of being able to separate myths from reality. We owe it to ourselves and future generations to have an accurate version of history, which provides us with a real connection to a reliable, honest past. If we don’t ask tough questions, we risk being brainwashed by state-supervised mainstream media propaganda. Furthermore, we risk being left in a permanently comatose and brain-DEAD state, from decades of propaganda which tells us what is the right story to accept — never mind if it’s really real or not. Knowledge and awareness aid a society in moving forward. Learning from past errors or wrong-doings prevents the same things from happening again in future or being indefinitely prolonged. How else could we ever be sure we are progressing in the right direction, if we can’t even tell if we’re standing on a secure enough foundation?Filed under: Singapore Politics Tagged: compassion, death, government, history, Lee Kuan Yew, lky, mainstream media, opposition, PAP, political history, politics, propaganda, singapore

I decided to transcribe the text from Amos Yee’s video so that what he said doesn’t get lost amidst the current lynching being directed at him. This is included in the second half of this blog post. PART 1: A quick summary: 16 year-old Amos Yee was arrested for posting an “anti-Lee Kuan Yew” video. At the time of this posting, you can view a copy of the video. 16-year-old Amos Yee in video Amos Yee was arrested on these charges: Police said Amos will face charges in court today under Section 298 of the Penal Code for utterances against Christians with a “deliberate intent to wound religious feelings”. Other charges include circulating an obscene object and making threatening, abusive or insulting communication which is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress. ( — Straits Times) I have a few questions to the Singapore authorities: 1) PAP grassroots leader, Jason Tan, threatened to chop off Amos Yee��s penis and stuff it in his mouth because of Amos’ 8-minute video. Is this not an abusive threat? 2) A pro-PAP page has been set up for the purpose of . Doesn’t this constitute “insulting communication that is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress”? 3) The anti-harassment law in Singapore covers harassment in the online sphere including online sexual harassment and cyber-bullying. Does this law not apply to critics of LKY and the PAP ruling party? Readers, please peruse Amos’ Yee’s speech below to take a look at the points he brought up. I did some light copyediting to the text, and I removed the expletives and profanity from his 8-minute speech. I hope this makes the substance of his argument clearly visible to discerning readers and netizens. * * * PART 2: “Lee Kuan Yew is Finally Dead,” by Amos Yee Video text transcribed by Jess C Scott (clean version) Amos Yee Lee Kuan Yew is dead, finally. Why hasn’t anyone said, “Yeah, the guy is dead!” Lee Kuan Yew was a horrible person. Because everyone is scared. Everyone is afraid that if they say something like that, they might get into trouble which — give LKY credit — was primarily the impact of his legacy. But I’m not afraid. So if Lee Hsien Loong wishes to sue me, I will oblige to dance with him. Lee Kuan Yew, contrary to popular belief, was a horrible person and an awful leader to our country. He was a dictator, but managed to fool most of the world to think he was democratic. And he did so by still granting us the opportunity to vote, to make it seem like we have freedom of choice. However, during [his] rule, he controlled the entire media and education, proliferating nationalistic propaganda on a daily basis. And he placed an excessive surplus of his books in popular bookstores. In most of his books, look at how he self-indulgently plasters reams of pages with these montages of pictures of his experiences. Like “Ooh, look how much better I am compared to you.” And of course he is absolutely notorious for suing people who criticised him, forcing them into jail and leading them into bankruptcy. Apparently, his thirst for suing is hereditary, too. So he created an environment where his blatant flaws as a leader were hidden, because most people were afraid of criticising him in fear of being found guilty by the judicial system that he controls. So everything that people hear is about how great Lee Kuan Yew is. Of course he is able to deceive people into voting for him. Despite our voting rights, he is undoubtedly totalitarian. Now seeing what LKY has done, I’m sure many individuals who have done similar things comes to mind. But I’m going to compare him to someone that people haven’t really mentioned before: Jesus. And the aptness of that analogy is heightened, seeing how Christians seem to be a really big fan of him. They are both power-hungry and malicious, but deceive others into thinking that they are compassionate and kind. Their impact and legacy will ultimately not last as more and more people find out that they’re full of bull. And LKY’s followers are completely delusional and ignorant, and have absolutely no sound logic or knowledge about him that is grounded in reality, which LKY very easily manipulates, similar to the Christian knowledge of the Bible and the work of a multitude of priests. On the surface, he seemed quite successful. He turned Singapore from a small seaport into a bustling metropolis, rife with skyscrapers and its own casino. World leaders seem to like him, most notably Margaret Thatcher, and many foreigners and millionaires wish to invest in Singapore. But if you look deeper, and you find out what the true nature of LKY’s Singapore is…I’m sure most of your parents have told you how luxurious Singapore is, and how, if you go to another country, it would be much harder and much more expensive. But all you have to do is do a Google search, look at our country’s statistics, and you will find out how delusional and ignorant your parents are. Most people in Singapore are struggling to make ends meet. And it is reported that Singaporeans work the longest hours in the world. We are one of the richest countries in the world, but we have one of the highest income inequalities, highest poverty rates, and our government spends one of the lowest on healthcare and social security. The money spent on the public is so low, it’s more representative of a third world country. And yet the amount of taxes is one of the highest in first world countries. And political leaders in Singapore earn more than quadruple the amount earned by political leaders in the United States. They are acquiring so much money — why aren’t they spending it on the people? What are they actually spending it on? One time, an SDP member told me that once they got into power, they are going to take the key and open every cupboard, and search out all the information on the government spending to find out what those motherf**kers have been doing with all that money. And whenever somebody wonders online if the government is pocketing the money for themselves, they get sued. Quite suspicious, isn’t it? How LKY deemed what he considered as success was solely predicated upon measurable, concrete results: a rich country, the love of major powers, a positive public image. And his emphasis on results was transcendent onto how Singaporeans led their lives. Somebody who has the better house, the better results in an exam, the better degree — is deemed “more successful” than the other person. Because of this emphasis on pure materialism, it sacrificed our happiness. Because if someone is more concerned about money and status over what they’re actually doing and their life, no shit you would lead a depressing life. I think the biggest flaw of LKY as a leader to our nation, is that he honestly thought that money and status equated to happiness. And his failure to understand how false that was really showed, leading us to be one of the richest countries in the world, and one of the most depressed. Ultimately, how do you quantify a great leader? It is by how he creates a place where people are able to live happily and prosper, based on their own unique attributes. And he hasn’t. So no matter how rich the country he made is, it doesn’t mean a thing. His death was great for him too, seeing how he was struggling with an illness for several years and even declared that he wished he was dead. He should have asked his son to pull the plug or committed suicide by himself. But he didn’t. You know why? Because if he did, his band of sycophants might despise him. And his oh-so-great reputation that he so desperately tried to uphold, might shatter. Because it would be deemed quite controversial for a leader to end his life with suicide. And it is rather tragic, isn’t it, that he had to suffer the last few years with the atmosphere or materialism and the need for a positive image that he himself created. So there you go: Lee Kuan Yew, an overrated, over-glorified person, a dictator, and exceptionally Machiavellian in nature. With his death and the upcoming elections next year, there is a high chance, that us citizens of Singapore [can] finally change things for the better. Let’s all hope for change. For good change, for every possible kind. # # # end. # # # Filed under: Singapore Politics Tagged: amos yee, civic participation, government, law, leadership, Lee Kuan Yew, lky, PAP, politics, rule of law, singapore

I saw a picture of Dr. Hong Lysa the other day, which reminded me of one of LKY’s quotes: On his iron-fisted governing style: ��Anybody who decides to take me on needs to put on knuckle-dusters. If you think you can hurt me more than I can hurt you, try. There is no way you can govern a Chinese society.�� If you are a troublemaker… it��s our job to politically destroy you… Everybody knows that in my bag I have a hatchet, and a very sharp one. You take me on, I take my hatchet, we meet in the cul-de-sac.�� Source: The Guardian This is a quote from a 2014 blog post by Dr. Hong: “That Operation Coldstore was necessary for national security is at the very heart of the PAP myth; it is also the Party��s original sin.” Source: Dr. Hong Lysa / mini myna Dr. Hong Lysa is one of the editors of The 1963 Operation Coldstore in Singapore, published in 2014. I have yet to make the following clenched fist gesture in my lifetime during a speech or conversation. Maybe when I’m a bit older… Left LKY image from The Age | Top LKY image from Vulcan Post | Dr. Hong Lysa image from The Online Citizen I read rather slowly (but thoroughly) these days. I have read a few essays in the book so far. I am grateful for the historical and factual accounts that provide a record of what happened during this dark chapter of Singapore’s political history, written from the perspective of individuals who were directly involved / detained / arrested. I might make another quick post soon featuring an interesting snippet from one of the essays in the book (update: here). I. More Information: 1) Book launch : 50 Years of Operation Coldstore (Singapore Rebel) 2) S��pore��s 50th anniversary �� time to have open dialogue on Operation Coldstore (TOC) 3) They do say the darnest things: What a to-do about Operation Coldstore (Dr. Hong Lysa) 4) Operation Coldstore book (Buy @ Select Books) 5) Operation Coldstore book (Buy @ Kinokuniya) II. Dr. Hong Lysa (short bio from Operation Coldstore book): Hong Lysa, formerly with the History Department, National University of Singapore, continues with her research interests independently. She is coauthor of The Scripting of a National History: Singapore and its Pasts (2008). She is a founding member of the e-journal s/pores: new directions in Singapore studies (www.s-pores.com) and comments on minimyna.wordpress.com when matters relating to history are raised in the local press.Filed under: Singapore Politics Tagged: history, hong lysa, knuckledusters, Lee Kuan Yew, lky, national security, PAP, political history, politics, singapore

Excerpts from “Meritocracy and Elitism in a Global City: Ideological Shifts in Singapore” by Kenneth Paul Tan (1998) PDF Link to Journal Article: Academia.edu * * * Definitions: 1. Meritocracy: Government or the holding of power by people selected on the basis of their ability. 2. Elitism: The advocacy or existence of an elite as a dominating element in a system or society. Extracts from Article: 1) In practice, meritocracy is often transformed into an ideology of inequality and elitism. 2) Robert Klitgaard (1986: 1) discusses how [meritocracy] gets co-opted by the winners, who then become an elitist, ��self-conscious, exploitative ruling minority�� bent on perpetuating their power and prestige. 3) (cont.) Elitism sets in when the elite class develops an exaggerated ��in-group�� sense of superiority, a dismissive attitude toward the abilities of those who are excluded from this in-group, a heroic sense of responsibility for the well-being of what the in-group ��laments�� as the ��foolish�� and ��dangerous�� masses, and a repertoire of self-congratulatory public gestures to maintain what is sometimes merely a delusion of superiority. 4) Conspicuously wide income and wealth gaps, instead of serving as an incentive, can breed a culture of resentment [and] disengagement among the system��s losers. 5) Not only has the term ��meritocracy�� become enshrined and celebrated as a dominant cultural value in Singapore, it has also come to serve as a complex of ideological resources for justifying authoritarian government and its pro-capitalist orientations. 6) Through its long incumbency, the PAP has secured important structural and tactical advantages such as effective control of the mass media, civil service, and para-political grassroots networks. . .a meritocratic electoral process would need to be more adequately competitive to provide an incentive for the ��best�� people (regardless of social background, ideological inclination, and party affiliation) to come forward and serve as political leaders. 7) Although relentlessly elitist in its recruitment of parliamentary candidates where qualifications and achievements are concerned, the PAP has maintained that its candidates come from all walks of life. 8) To legitimize its choices, meritocracy must demonstrate not only that the ��best�� are chosen, but also that the ��best�� can be drawn from any social background. 9) A meritocracy that defines merit almost exclusively in terms of educational and professional qualifications and commercial success has made the traditional PAP-controlled grassroots sector seem much less relevant and effective in contemporary public life. 10) James Cotton (1993: 10��11) observes that the ��[PAP] party has … become a shell, a convenient electoral machine for maintaining in office an elite which is ultimately self-selected, self-promoted and self-defined.” 11) In a study of the structure of��government-linked companies (GLCs) in the early 1990s, Werner Vennewald (1994) observed a high concentration of control in the hands of a small number of permanent secretaries, the powerful civil service chiefs who tend to hold multiple and interconnected directorships of various public-sector bodies and committees. . .Ross Worthington (2003) [concludes] that state-society relations in Singapore are ��elitist and oligarchic�� with community organizations, trade unions, and industry associations negligibly represented in GLCs. 12) Insisting that PAP government decisions are the best possible ones generates a false sense of security and a general feeling that there is no need to keep a watchful eye on the daily business of government. Such conditions open the way to serious mistakes and corrupt practices in the future. 13) The PAP government is popularly perceived, even by its many admirers, as arrogant, insensitive, compassionless, and convinced of its own superiority, what Ezra Vogel (1989: 1053) calls a ��macho-meritocracy.�� Vogel also observes how meritocracy emits an ��aura of special awe for the top leaders … [which] provides a basis for discrediting less meritocratic opposition almost regardless of the content of its arguments.�� 14) As the long-time political winners, the PAP has been able to define merit in Singapore��s politics [and] influence strongly the people��s understanding of who deserves to win. Through higher monetary deposit requirements and increasingly stringent qualifying criteria for various elected positions in government, the PAP has also been able to influence the question of who can afford and qualify to stand for elections. 15) Veteran journalist Seah Chiang Nee (2006) observes how only ��a few newer MPs are social workers or people with good community links, but compassion, charity and humility generally rank low in priority in a candidate��s qualities.�� 16) The idea that money will draw the ��best�� people into politics and give them fewer reasons to be corrupt ignores the possibility of people going into politics for the ��wrong�� reasons: the lure of personal prestige and monetary gain can produce a dangerously intelligent and self-interested class of political elites who will readily compromise the national interest to satisfy their own needs and who will have the unchecked power to do this indefinitely. 17) Through encounters with alternative political websites, the disadvantaged and the disenchanted learn to articulate their condition in ways that the official discourse of meritocracy has excluded. 18) As the economic and political elite are rewarded (or are rewarding themselves) with larger prizes, a vast and visible inequality of outcomes will replace the incentive effect with a sense of resentment [among] those who perceive themselves as systematically disadvantaged. 19) As public-sector careers become more lucrative, civil service and ministers�� salaries will [turn] into a preoccupation with staying in power mainly for the money and achieving this through image politics, vote-buying, and so on. Source: “Meritocracy and Elitism in a Global City: Ideological Shifts in Singapore,” by Kenneth Paul Tan (1998) PDF Download: Academia.edu * * * KENNETH PAUL TAN��is Vice Dean (Academic Affairs) and Associate Professor at Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore, where he has taught since 2007. His publications include journal articles and book chapters on democracy, civil society, media and multiculturalism. Kenneth Online: Facebook | Academia.edu | LKYSPP | InterviewFiled under: Singapore Politics Tagged: civil service, elitism, government, kenneth paul tan, lkyspp, meritocracy, ministers, PAP, politics, singapore

Jess made a comment in the The Mystery, Crime, and Thriller Group group:

I should bookmark this thread--I'm not really the commercial mass appeal type of person either (to borrow a quote from Martyn who posted that phrase earlier!)

This is the first time I’ve taken a photo of myself in support of something. I guess hitting the ‘like’ button on Facebook posts or status updates wasn’t really enough this time around. For more information, please read the following: 1) Roy Ngerng: Keep sending your photos to me, by today! You can send them to me on Facebook or email me at royngerng@gmail.com. I will be compiling the photos into a video before Amos’s judgment is passed on Tuesday. Thank you! ��#��FreeAmosYee�� (Facebook) 2) Singapore Recalcitrant: The Supreme Fighting-Spirit of Amos Yee (Blog / Former ISD Director) There’s still some time left to contribute a pic of support, so go ahead if you’re considering it! Filed under: Singapore Politics Tagged: #freeamosyee, amos yee, court case, government, judgment, law, roy ngerng, singapore, support, Yoong Siew Wah

Excerpts from “‘The Fundamental Issue is Anti-colonialism, Not Merger': Singapore’s ‘Progressive Left’, Operation Coldstore, and the Creation of Malaysia” by Thum Ping Tjin (2013) PDF Link to Journal Article: Academia.edu * * * Definitions: 1. Colonialism: Control by one country over another area and its people (M-W). 2. Left-wing: The liberal, socialist, or radical section of a political party or system. Extracts from Article: 1) A generation of Singaporeans, born around 1930, [were] subjected to ‘some of the most ambitious projects of political development and social engineering in British imperial history’ by authorities tasked with turning them into loyal British subjects. 2) By 1961 the [progressive] left-wing had coalesced into the opposition Barisan Sosialis party and were on the verge of taking power in Singapore. 3) [LKY] sought the achievement of merger to win back popularity. This goal dovetailed with British desires for a federation of its maritime Southeast Asian colonies under the control of a friendly pro-British government. 4) In order to overcome the Federation government’s reluctance to take in Singapore, the British and Singaporean governments marketed the Barisan as communist-controlled, [a] threat to the Federation. . .the arrests were justified using the same argument of communist subversion. 5) Operation Coldstore, on 3 February 1963, decapitated Singapore’s progressive left-wing movement. By the time its leaders were released from detention – some of them after decades in detention – the PAP had cemented its grip on power and closed down any space for political opposition. 6) From 1947, [the British Military Administration] launched a sweeping educational policy that prioritised English-medium education and undermined vernacular education. [Teachers and students of Chinese schools were] arrested and expelled for criticising colonialism. 7) With the outbreak of the Malayan Emergency in 1948, Singapore was turned into a police state. . . It was later estimated that in Singapore alone 90,000 people underwent the detention screening process and 20,000 were voluntarily or forcibly deported over [the] Emergency. 8) In 1951, future progressive left leaders Lim Chin Siong, Fong Swee Suan, and Chen Say Jame were detained for protesting the colonial government’s orders to sit for a pointless examination. Unable to elicit a confession of communism, Special Branch resorted to torture and beatings. 9) In 1954, Puthucheary, Sandrasegeram Woodhull, Poh Soo Kai, Sheng Nam Chin, Jamit Singh, Lim Shee Ping, and Lim Hock Siew, among others, found themselves charged with sedition after an edition of the [University Socialist Club] newsletter (Fajar) condemned colonialism in Asia. 10) While none of the PAP’s leaders were ever detained or charged with sedition, nearly the entire progressive left’s leadership had personal experience of it. 11) [In 1955, Lim Chin Siong] was elected Secretary-General [of the tiny Singapore Factory and Shop Workers’ Union (SFSWU)]. On the day Lim became its leader, SFSWU had 273 members. Ten months later, it was 29,959. The trade unions [provided] the organisational basis for the PAP election victory in 1959. 12) The PAP’s leadership [demanded] unquestioning obedience and [rejected] the need for consensus. Decision-making was concentrated in the hands of a trusted ‘inner cabinet’. 13) After legislation had been passed, the PAP leadership realised that the trade union movement could form a rival political power base. It abruptly withdrew registrations for all trade union federations and stopped the recently passed Trade Unions Bill from becoming law. 14) PAP members grew discontented over the leadership’s authoritarianism. Political secretaries Woodhull and James Puthucheary criticized the ‘tough talk, arrogance and downright cockiness of some of our Party officials’ in the party newsletter. . . .they were met with a harsh response, with Minister of Culture S. Rajaratnam and Lee Kuan Yew publicly calling them ‘opportunists and turncoats’, a ‘lunatic fringe’ of the party, and ‘bits of scum’. 15) Lord Selkirk (British Commissioner 1959-1963) summarised, ‘What had been noted as self-confidence before the PAP took power soon became touched with arrogance, their energy became aggressive and their party loyalty marked with extreme intolerance of any opposition or criticism. Their discipline was characterised by bullying.’ 16) The biggest concern for the progressive left was a growing suspicion that Lee was actively blocking the release of detainees. 17) While the British had been prepared to fully cede control of internal security during the negotiations for the new constitution in 1957, Lim Yew Hock and Lee Kuan Yew had asked for the creation of the Internal Security Council (ISC) instead. This would allow the next Singapore government to deflect blame for the use of internal security laws and continuing detentions. 18) LKY promised that all detainees would be released within three to six months. . .[LKY] tabled a document in the ISC in August 1959 calling for the release of the detainees, then asked for the ISC to veto the document on his behalf so that his government would not have to ‘soil their hands’. Publicly, he continued to blame the ISC for the lack of releases. 19) Selkirk was particularly taken aback by Lee’s ‘dangerous obsession with Lim Chin Siong’ and the degree to which Lee blamed Lim for his own failures. 20) Selkirk pointed out that [LKY’s defeat in the Hong Lim result] was due to his own arrogance. 21) A statement by six progressive left leaders [on] National Day [focused] entirely on reunifying a divided PAP and returning its focus to anti-colonialism. It [called] for the return of internal security powers to a fully elected and representative government. 22) Seeking leverage, Lee proposed to the British that he announce the release of detainees and the ISC countermand it. The British refused, declaring he had ‘lived a lie about the detainees for far too long‘. 23) ‘Lee is not himself prepared ultimately to face the music’, wrote Selkirk, but was ‘asking for the British and Federation to take the public odium.’ 24) On 20 July, [the] PAP leadership sought to shift the debate to focus on merger, and declared that anyone who disagreed with them was against merger. 25) A press release signed by the dismissed members attacked Lee for his internal party purge and ending all pretence of democracy: ‘Party members are obliged to be loyal to the objectives and principles of the Party, not the individuals who are trying to monopolise power in the Party.’ 26) ‘The fundamental problem is still opposing colonialism,’ said Lim. He pointed out that merger could not be separated from colonialism, because any merger arrangement would have to be approved by Britain, which [would] not agree to an arrangement that did not protect its interests. 27) Lee [ensured] that all alternatives to the PAP option were repugnant, leaving the public with no real choice. The British called this ‘a dishonest manoeuvre’ and the Tunku ‘a dirty game’. 28) If the Barisan adhered to constitutional methods, they could not win a vote; if they resorted to illegal activity, they would be arrested. 29) The Tunku openly worried at Lim Chin Siong’s ‘frightening’ organisation abilities and talismanic presence and the ‘extremely skilful, successful, and devoted’ Barisan leadership. Their arrest on security grounds before the creation of Malaysia would neatly solve this fear. 30) Under Lee’s direction, Singapore Special Branch produced a paper describing an extensive communist conspiracy in Singapore, directed from the underground by the CPM and led in the open by Barisan politicians as part of a Communist “United Front”. The Security Liaison Officer (SLO) Maurice Williams [noted] numerous major deficiencies. Firstly, ‘in spite of intensive investigations, no evidence has been obtained’ of a conspiracy. . . the label Communist “United Front” was so broadly applied that it referred to anyone unhappy with the government. 31) The PAP strained its [1962] campaign to the legal limit, freely using public money and government facilities to promote its Alternative A. It deluged the state with radio broadcasts, advertising jingles, posters, and pamphlets, including 200,000 free copies of Lee’s The Battle for Merger. Goh sent out some 40 trucks fitted with loudspeakers to warn people that blank votes would be considered Alternative B, which would cause Singaporeans to lose their citizenship. 32) [Lim Chin Siong]: “The PAP used threats and cheated to gain victory… the people can clearly see that if the PAP can juggle with the law and threaten and cheat today, they will be able to do so tomorrow.” 33) By supporting the Brunei rebellion [in the context of anti-colonialism], the Barisan had provided, Lee declared, ‘a heaven-sent opportunity of justifying action against them,’ [even though Lim] explicitly rejected violence. 34) Operation Coldstore, planned for 16 December 1962, had collapsed when Lee Kuan Yew tried to manipulate the arrests to strengthen his own political survival by inserting the names of fifteen additional political opponents, to the Tunku’s anger. 35) [Lim Chin Siong’s] ‘whole-hearted support’ for Indonesia’s anti-colonial position was misquoted in the next morning’s Straits Times as ‘whole-hearted support’ for ‘Indonesia’s pro-revolt stance’. 36) Anticipating arrests, Lim predicted the ‘establishment of a Fascist and military dictatorship in the country,’ and pleaded that ‘only with the free and unhampered participation of the progressive forces can the constructive energies of our people be released.’ 37) Coldstore was finally carried out on 3 February 1963, removing the left’s intellectual and spiritual leadership. 38) The PAP leadership, led by a lawyer and academics intimately familiar with the minutiae of parliamentary procedure, out manoeuvred the trade unionists and physicians who comprised the Barisan’s leadership. 39) It is likely that the progressive left underestimated the willingness of Singaporeans to accept a flawed but concrete package of Malaysia over the ideal but abstract package of freedom and democracy. Source: “‘The Fundamental Issue is Anti-colonialism, Not Merger': Singapore’s ‘Progressive Left’, Operation Coldstore, and the Creation of Malaysia,” by Thum Ping Tjin (2013) PDF Download: Academia.edu * * * THUM PING TJIN (“PJ”) is a Visiting Fellow at Green Templeton College, University of Oxford; Senior Research Fellow at Sunway University, Malaysia; Research Fellow at the Jeffrey Cheah Institute on Southeast Asia; Research Associate at the Centre for Global History, University of Oxford; and co-ordinator of Project Southeast Asia. A Rhodes Scholar, Commonwealth Scholar, award-winning student, Olympic athlete, and the only Singaporean to swim the English Channel, PJ attended Harvard at the age of 16 where he concentrated in East Asian Studies. His work centres on decolonisation in Southeast Asia, and its continuing impact on Southeast Asian governance and politics. Thum PJ Online: Academia.edu | Project Southeast Asia | Wiki | YouTube | Interview | TOCFiled under: Singapore Politics Tagged: communist united front, government, history, ISA, Lee Kuan Yew, lim chin siong, Operation Coldstore, PAP, political history, singapore, thum ping tjin

Excerpts from “The Politics of Judicial Institutions in Singapore” by Francis Seow (1997) Link to Article: Singapore-Window | PDF * * * Definitions: 1. Acquittal: A judgment that a person is not guilty of the crime with which the person has been charged. 2. Executive: Also used as an impersonal designation of the chief executive officer of a state or nation. (Black’s Law Dictionary) 3. Rule of Law: The legal principle that law should govern a nation, as opposed to being governed by arbitrary decisions of individual government officials. (Wiki). Extracts from Article: 1) While [certain features of Singapore society] may be desirable, the manner of their implementation depends on certain anti-democratic and authoritarian structures and institutions. 2) I was astounded when my attention was first drawn to an October 1993 Straits Times banner-headlines, Singapore’s legal system rated best in world: Full confidence that justice will be fast and fair. 3) Some history is needed to show how the legal system was systematically undermined by the prime minister after the People’s Action Party (PAP) came into power. 4) The sudden transfer in 1986 of senior district judge, Michael Khoo — one of the ablest judges to grace the subordinate court bench — to the attorney general’s chambers following his acquittal of Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam [engendered] much controversy. From being the respected head of the subordinate judiciary, Khoo overnight became a mere digit within the attorney general’s chambers. 5) Jeyaretnam appealed [his] disbarment to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council — Singapore’s ultimate court of appeal in London — which roundly castigated the chief justice and the Singapore courts for their legal reasoning. 6) The minister for law [moved] in parliament for the abolition of appeals to the Privy Council decrying it as being “interventionist” and “out of touch” with local conditions. 7) Asked about the abolition of the privy council, Goh Chok Tong responded that [the] privy council was “playing politics.” It was a disgraceful statement. As the Roman satirist Juvenal once said: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Who will guard the guards themselves?) 8) The Jeyaretnam case [highlights] the grotesque contortions the politically corrupt judiciary went through to rid a political irritant to the prime minister and his government. It demonstrates the misuse of the law in advancing the agenda and interests of the ruling political party. 9) [The attorney general] argued the court could [not] “inquire into the reasons why [a] detention order is made [through the Internal Security Act (ISA)]. This is an executive act.” The court for its part willingly abdicated its judicial responsibility in favour of officialdom rather than the cause of justice. 10) In 1987, twenty-two young Roman Catholic and social activists were arrested under the ISA, accused of being Marxists involved in a dangerous conspiracy to subvert the PAP government through violence. They were released only after they had made the ritualistic television confessions. But eight of them were re-arrested when they disclosed those confessions had been coerced out of them. In the ensuing [proceedings], the [appeal was allowed] on technical rather than on substantive grounds, thus enabling the government to hurriedly amend the constitution and the relevant laws, and order their re-arrest. 11) Although the PAP government recognizes the role of the judiciary in the body politic, it no longer sees it as a check on the balance of power in the traditional sense but rather as an important instrument for the prolongation of its political longevity. 12) Judges on contract, renewable at the will of the prime minister, is not conducive to judicial independence. . .it is not uncommon to find a particular judge, like T.S. Sinnathuray, being commonly assigned sensitive cases with predictable results. Judges known for impartiality, independence and strength of character are never assigned them. 13) The then prime minister [LKY] appointed his banker-friend, Yong Pung How, as chief justice, who had not practised law for 20 years, whose superior claim to this illustrious position was that he is a loyal crony. 14) LKY’s hour-long defence of the appointment in parliament — during which he delved into bathetic nostalgia; [and] his inquiries of his judges to name the three best persons, excluding themselves, all of whom in a remarkable coincidence, named his friend [Yong] as “the best of the possibles” — rang somewhat hollow and contrived. 15) The salaries, which the PAP government pays its judges, have much method in its generosity. High court judges receive A$630,000 per annum plus a minimum bonus of three months’ salary or A$205,020 at A$68,340 per month, totalling A$835,020, besides other perks and privileges, like a motor car, a government bungalow at economic rent. The chief justice receives A$1,260,000 per annum, besides an official residence (or an housing allowance in lieu thereof), a chauffeur-driven car, among other handsome perks and privileges of office. Indeed, he receives more than the combined stipends of the Lord Chancellor of England, the Chief Justices of the United States, Canada and Australia. As a Queen’s Counsel pointedly queried: “Is this kind of money a salary or an income of permanent bribery?” 16) Supremely confident in the reliability of his judiciary, the prime minister uses the courts as a legal weapon to intimidate, bankrupt or cripple the political opposition, and ventilate his political agenda. Which judge would be so reckless or foolhardy to award a decision against him? Judges know on which side their bread is buttered. 17) The notorious case of Public Prosecutor v Tan Wah Piow demonstrates the [precarious] state of the judiciary in Singapore. . .vital defence witnesses were arrested on the morning of the trial, and deported. 18) An Australian Queen’s Counsel, Frank Galbally, who observed the trial for the Australian Union of Students, said: “In Australia, the case would be laughed out of court … [The three accused] did not get a fair trial. … In my opinion, it is just a political trial.” 19) [In a 1995 criminal trial in Singapore] Alun Jones, QC, discharged himself “for the first time in 23 years’ practice,” describing the judicial proceedings as “a travesty of a trial” and a “perversion of a judicial process.” 20) The New York City Bar Association, after a fact-finding mission to Singapore led by the late Robert B. McKay, then dean of the New York University Law School, observed: What emerges. . .is a government that has been willing to decimate the rule of law for the benefit of its political interests. . .The only check on the Singapore judiciary is the prospect of ultimate appeal to the Privy Council in London. That report was published in October 1990. Since then, appeals to the privy council have been abolished. The supervisory powers of the courts have been removed. 21) In a fateful [1996] interview, opposition Workers’ Party candidate, Tang Liang Hong, observed: “Why wasn’t [the Nassim Jade] matter handed over to a professional body like Commercial Affairs Department or Corrupt Practice Investigation Bureau? They are government departments [well-known] for being [firm and impartial]. They would be more detached and their reports would have been more convincing to the people.” Lee and his son took offence at those remarks, and commenced a libel action. The presiding judge was Justice Lai Kew Chai, a former partner of the prime minister’s law firm of Lee and Lee. 22) Lee and his political colleagues’ [papers] were served and heard the same day — a privilege and sense of urgency denied to Tang and his wife. Tang described it as PAP’s ‘instant justice.’ 23) Let me recall to mind the dreadful words of Dr Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s notorious minister of propaganda: “Justice must not become the mistress of the state, but must be the servant of state policy.” Those words could just as well have been spoken by Harry Lee Kuan Yew or by any one of the PAP ministers. For Singapore’s judiciary is well on its way to this Goebbelsian utopia. Source: “The Politics of Judicial Institutions in Singapore,” by Francis Seow (1997) Link to Article: Singapore-Window | PDF * * * FRANCIS T. SEOW is a former Solicitor General of Singapore and a brilliant Public Prosecutor. He was awarded the Public Administration (Gold) Medal during his 16-year career with the Singapore Legal Service. Francis became the lawyer for several of those detained in 1987. Regrettably, in 1988, he too was arrested under the Internal Security Act and detained without trial for several months. He is the author of several books on Singapore, including To Catch A Tartar: A Dissident in Lee Kuan Yew’s Prison, The Media Enthralled and Beyond Suspicion? – The Singapore Judiciary. Francis Seow Online: Profile | Wikipedia | YouTube | Beyond Suspicion | Foreword by Devan NairFiled under: History, Rule of Law, Singapore Politics Tagged: Francis Seow, history, judiciary, justice, law, Lee Kuan Yew, legal system, politics, rule of law, singapore

Excerpts from “The Bonsai under the Banyan Tree: Democracy and Democratisation in Singapore” by Michael Barr (2012) PDF Link to Journal Article: Taylor & Francis * * * Extracts from Article: 1) Singapore’s democratic processes are a bonsai version of the real thing, meaning that what passes for democracy is constrained, pruned, stunted, and mainly for show. 2) The government’s aversion to political contestation is complemented by its propensity to identify national crises and apocalyptic choices. . .Lee Hsien Loong describes this mindset as ‘paranoid government’, and it is a technique directed in part towards manipulating public fears. 3) Lee and the ruling elite do not believe in democracy, in the sense of contestation for power through the ballot box, negotiated by rules and social power structures that apply even-handedly to all parties. 4) . . .exaggerated by the system of punishment politics introduced by Goh Chok Tong that brazenly twisted the principles of technocracy and professionalism whereby services and upgrades were withheld from constituencies and even from individual housing blocks that voted for the opposition. 5) This reference to the banyan tree entered political parlance in 1991, when Minister for Information and the Arts, George Yeo, delivered what seemed at the time to be a landmark speech, promising to ‘trim the banyan tree’. It alludes to the fact that nothing grows under a banyan tree because, between the thickness of its foliage and the dominance of its root system, it sucks the life out of anything that tries to share its space. 6) Even at the time he was explicit on the limits of the ‘trimming’: ‘We cannot do without the banyan tree [. . .] We need some pluralism but not too much because it will also destroy us. In other words we prune judiciously’. 7) Since April 2009 freedom of assembly has become more restricted than it was in 1991, with the courts now having the power to declare a single person in any public place to be an ‘illegal assembly’. 8) It is with this history in mind that I turn my attention [to] the possibilities of democratization in this stultifying atmosphere, and characterize the operation of democracy in Singapore as being akin to a bonsai growing under the banyan tree. 9) In 2011 the bonsai plant started growing beyond its wire binding, thanks in large part to the perseverance of both opposition and civil society groups that have learnt their craft under the shade of the banyan tree, operating in an environment where the media, all the instruments of the state, and most elements of society are subservient to the ruling elite. 10) Government ministers have lost – possibly forever – the presumption of professional authority that they enjoyed before. This changes the dynamic of political contestation in Singapore. 11) The government is being challenged by a new constituency and found to be out of touch. This is a constituency of tertiary educated, middle-class Singaporeans, who are too young to have personal memories of the hardships of the 1960s and 1970s but are acutely aware of numerous grievances. 12) [The government] has built an education and social system based on ruthless competition, but argues that competition is bad in politics. It sets the pay scales for ministers by the standards of the CEOs of multinational companies, but argues that neither ministers nor the Cabinet as a whole should be held to account when they make mistakes. 13) Some of [the 2011 opposition] candidates are clearly more competent as politicians than most members of Cabinet, but this is setting the bar rather low, since none of these government ministers has had to face serious adversarial interrogation or criticism for decades, if ever. 14) Put bluntly, the crop of ministers and new candidates that contested the 2011 general election would not have passed muster in Lee Kuan Yew’s heyday. 15) It is easy to be pessimistic about the prospects of dramatic change, and yet who would have thought the opposition would even get this far? It has learnt how to survive under the banyan tree, and even forced the government to engage in some reluctant pruning. Source: “The Bonsai under the Banyan Tree: Democracy and Democratisation in Singapore,” by Michael Barr (2012) PDF Link to Journal Article: Taylor & Francis * * * DR. MICHAEL BARR is Associate Professor in International Relations in the School of International Studies at Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia. He is the author of Lee Kuan Yew: The Beliefs behind the Man and other books on Singapore politics and history, and is Editor-in-Chief of Asian Studies Review. Michael Barr Online: Profile | Publications | Interview with James Minchin | InterviewFiled under: Excerpts, History, Singapore Politics Tagged: democracy, goh chok tong, government, history, Lee Kuan Yew, Michael Barr, opposition, political, politics, singapore

Excerpts from “Scandalising the Singapore Judiciary” by Tsun Hang Tey (2010) PDF Link to Journal Article: Informit.com.au | Ebscohost * * * Definitions: 1. Rule of Law: The legal principle that law should govern a nation, as opposed to being governed by arbitrary decisions of individual government officials (Wiki). 2. Scandalise: To dishonor and disgrace (TFD). 3. Jurisprudence: Legal system. Extracts from Article: 1) [This article] hopes to open up a new line of debate over the extent to which it is ‘rule of law’ or ‘rule by law’ that is adopted in matters where criticisms of the ruling party and its leaders in Singapore are involved. 2) Scandalising the Singapore judiciary [is] an archaic phrase which embodies ‘any act done or writing published calculated to bring a court or a judge of the court into contempt, or to lower his authority’. 3) The Singapore courts have dealt firmly with these contemnors through the contempt of court committals, shaping a jurisprudence that places [emphasis on] maintaining good public perception of its ‘integrity and impartiality’, at the expense of freedom of political speech and critical reporting. 4) It is said that the rationale behind the law of contempt is ‘not to vindicate the dignity of the court or [judge], but to prevent undue interference with the administration of justice’, as well as to preserve public confidence in the integrity and competence of the judiciary. 5) The 11 November 1974 issue of Newsweek magazine that was alleged to have had the effect of scandalising the court of Singapore. . .ended with the shocking allegation – that ‘in the courts in Singapore it makes a vital difference whether it is the government or the opposition that is in the dock.’ 6) Christopher Lingle, the author of an article published in the International Herald Tribune was convicted [of] contempt by scandalising the court [by] suggesting that the Singapore judiciary was ‘compliant’ to its government. 7) [The Singapore judiciary] has failed to undertake a searching or meaningful analysis of the issue of the permissibility of derogation from the constitutional right of free speech, and has also failed to appreciate the importance of achieving an appropriate balance between the social benefit of preserving its integrity, and the freedom to report critically. 8) The Singapore judges have sworn to ‘preserve, protect and defend the Constitution’, [where] the purpose of the Constitution is in protecting and guaranteeing the rights of citizens. Where freedom of speech and expression is considered to be a basic human right, it is all the more important that the courts provide a proper rationale for derogation of such a right. 9) It is common to observe the courts citing from other judgments without giving much input into the rationales and reasons for doing so. . .the rigour and depth in the reasoning employed in judgments pertaining to other areas of the law seem to be lacking in contempt of court judgments handed down in Singapore. 10) One’s right to freedom of speech and expression can be abrogated rather easily – so long as the criticism made is ‘scurrilous abuse’ or ‘excites misgivings as to the integrity, propriety and impartiality brought to the exercise of the judicial office’, one would be found guilty of scandalising the court. 11) It does not matter if one had made such criticisms honestly in exercise of one’s recognised right to freedom of speech and expression. Such an approach amounts to the imposition of a strict liability offence and renders the right to freedom of speech and expression almost obsolete (at least with regard to criticisms one can make of the courts). This renders the recognition of the right to freedom of speech and expression superfluous and meaningless. 12) While the court will expressly recognise a right to freedom of speech and expression, it will be quick to note that such a right is not absolute and subject to multiple limitations. 13) While no right can be absolute, the courts ought to engage in a rigorous analysis to find the right balance between the competing interests, and before setting down limitations on the rights it is sworn to protect. 14) The rights of the people should be given its maximum space and recognition, for the entire purpose of rights is to guarantee the fundamental liberties of the people. If such rights were to be curtailed and limited right from the start, there is not going to be much to guarantee and uphold. 15) An accused, regardless of whether he or she was justified in their statements, would be found guilty as long as the statements scandalised the judiciary. Therefore, in effect, no one can make any adverse comments on the judiciary, regardless of the extent of truth there is in the comments. This is an untenable position for it amounts to a derogation from the right to freedom of speech and expression without a proper justification, and it may potentially assist judges who do not act in the best interests of justice. 16) This right to criticise is explained by Lord Atkin in Ambard v A-G of Trinidad and Tobago [[1936] AC 322]: . . .no wrong is committed by any member of the public who exercises the ordinary right of criticizing, in good faith, in private or public, the public act done in the seat of justice. . .Justice [must] be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful, even though outspoken, comments, of ordinary men. 17) See article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: ‘Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers’. While Singapore is not a member of the Human Rights Council in the United Nations, it has obligations with respect to the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights made by the General Assembly on 10 December 1948. 18) Recent developments indicate that the law enforcers are swiftly and decisively enforcing Singapore’s law of contempt against contemnors exhibiting behaviour of various types, namely, contemptuous blogging on the internet and the writing of insulting emails to judges (as seen in [Mr Gopalan Nair]; the wearing of T-shirts imprinted with images of a kangaroo dressed in a judge’s robe while appearing at [the] Supreme Court courtroom; and the Attorney-General’s committal for contempt proceedings [for] three allegedly contemptuous articles published in Wall Street Journal Asia in June and July 2008). 19) Harsh allegations made by a range of international bodies in questioning the integrity of the Singapore judiciary: What emerges … is a government that has been willing to decimate the rule of law for the benefit of its political interests. Lawyers have been cowed to passivity, judges are kept on a short leash, and the law has been manipulated so that gaping holes exist in the system of restraints on government action toward the individual. Singapore is not a country in which individual rights have significant meaning. — The New York City Bar Association (1990) Source: “Scandalising the Singapore Judiciary,” by Tsun Hang Tey (2010) PDF Download: Informit.com.au | Ebscohost * * * AUTHOR: Prof Tey obtained first class honours from Oxford University and practised law in Malaysia before being hired to teach at NUS Law faculty. Prof Tey entered the legal service in the Supreme Court as a Justice Law Clerk during the tenure of then Chief Justice Yong Pung How. Prof Tey went on to become a District Judge, after which he returned to academia at NUS Law Faculty. In 2011, Tey decided to go ahead with publishing a number of articles highly critical of Singapore’s judiciary without approval from the ISD. “I am no longer willing to self-censor,” he wrote. “I certainly do not want [to] compromise my intellectual honesty.” Of the 2014 sex-for-favours case against him, Tey maintains that the case was politically motivated from the start. Tey Online: TOC | Yahoo | The Monthly (AU) | Legal Consensus (Tey’s book on Singapore’s judiciary) | Singapore Consensus (Tey’s articles) Tey’s Court Actions: NUS | Singapore ICA (to show how high-handed and well-coordinated the executions were)Filed under: Excerpts, Rule of Law, Singapore Politics Tagged: constitution, contempt of court, freedom of speech, justice, law, legal system, rights, rule of law, scandalising judiciary, singapore, tey tsun hang

Quotes by Ex-NMP, Calvin Cheng (followed by a selection of rebuttals) QUOTE #1: “I was confident that it [would] not in any way affect my ability to be impartial, objective and non-partisan.” — Calvin Cheng (July 2009) Rebuttal: “Mr Cheng is missing the point. If NMPs are truly supposed to be non-partisan, he should have resigned from the party upon submitting his application to become an NMP, not only after the results are out.” — Ng E-Jay / Socio-Political Blogger (July 2009) QUOTE #2: “The biggest danger I feel are an emerging group of Westernised, educated, champagne socialists and latte liberals who pontificate about social inequality, democracy and freedom in the comfort of their condos.” — Calvin Cheng (Oct 2014) Rebuttal: “The greatest threat to Singapore is in the form of reactionaries who promote self-serving policies under the guise of pragmatism and meritocracy.” — Terence Ng (Oct 2014) QUOTE #3: “I don’t respond to anything on The Real Singapore, which is a Facebook page and website written by morons, commented on by morons, and read and shared by morons.” — Calvin Cheng (Oct 2014) Rebuttal: “Disgusted to see that a Hwa Chong alumni can behave in such a pathetic manner. Never have I been more embarrassed of the fact that I too, am a Hwa Chong alumni. The tone of your comments and posts here, or anywhere else for that matter, reek of elitism. You have gone against the values that you were supposed to have as a ‘distinguished’ alumni of Hwa Chong. Quite disappointing indeed. In case you were wondering, I do read TRS too, and let me tell you this: many of the people reading/commenting on TRS are fairly smart. They are intelligent people, able to make their own judgements and form their own opinions.” — 17 y/o Tim Ling (Oct 2014) Rebuttal: “Thanks for your mercy and snobbishness.” — Angie Ng (to CC’s reply that she “represents the low IQ segment of the public”; Oct 2014) Rebuttal: “Calvin Cheng, reading through your earlier comments in this thread, you have clearly lost your argument to 17 year-old Tim Ling, who has shown a greater level of maturity than you. . .TRS/TRE may seem to you to be ‘moronic’ reporting, and it is so simply because it goes against the same elitist ideologies you share with the ruling elites. At least reports in the TRS/TRE are neither restrained nor controlled like that in The Straits Times which gives it a greater appeal. Thousands of readers that include ardent PAP supporters like Jason Chua (who founded Fabrications About the PAP), several PAP MPs and yourself take the time to read TRS/TRE frequently, so I presume that makes you and the people that support or are in your beloved PAP party morons.” — Mike Tan (Oct 2014) Rebuttal: “How on earth is this loser a ‘nominated member of parliament’? I would have expected a basic amount of political correctness and common sense, instead he spends his time on Facebook trading petty, personal insults with random strangers like a 12 year old. Ridiculous.” — Bob Chan (Oct 2014) QUOTE #4: “Are Singaporeans so easily offended? Please. Have more of a backbone and thick-skin. Are you going to go on a frenzied witch hunt just because some foreigner called you a loser on the Internet?” — Calvin Cheng (Jan 2015) Rebuttal: “This smug Calvin is not the only idiot in town. He is a boon to the opposition — his silly pieces do not do Oxford University proud. Why wasn’t Ello arrested for his blast against the Muslim religion?” — Comment (Jan 2015) QUOTE #5: “Chee Soon Juan’s reply to Minister Chan [Chung Sing] is completely nonsensical and disingenuous, rebutting a point that was never made. Nowhere did Min. Chan call Chee a failure. Min. Chan called Chee Soon Juan a POLITICAL failure and that’s a fact. Even by the most stretched definitions, I don’t see how Chee could possibly be called a ‘political success’. ” — Calvin Cheng (Jan 2015) Rebuttal: “I consider Calvin a success too. He single handedly proved the NMP system is a joke.” — Eric Chionh (Jan 2015) QUOTE #6: “Faith in our legal system and our police force underpins our hard-won social harmony and stability. By inciting people to question this and shaking the faith in the pillars of our society, these [half-wit] dissident-bloggers and websites are plainly speaking, inciting sedition.” — Calvin Cheng (Mar 2015) Rebuttal: “Mr Cheng, I am concerned about the state of your mental health. Best regards.” — Lim Yong Chin (Mar 2015) Rebuttal: “But Mr Cheng, I notice you haven’t specifically said if you believe [what I mentioned about other parties putting anti-PAP flyers into people’s mailboxes] would be legal. Are you doubtful?” — Ng Yi-Sheng / Singapore Literature Prize Recipient (Mar 2015) QUOTE #7: “I tell you what freedom is. Freedom is being able to walk on the streets unmolested in the wee hours in the morning, to be able to leave one’s door open and not fear that one would be burgled. . .These are the freedoms that Singaporeans have, freedoms that were built on the vision and hard work of Mr Lee, our first Prime Minister. And we have all of these, these liberties, while also being one of the richest countries in the world.” — Calvin Cheng (March 2015) Rebuttal: “There are at least three elementary mistakes that Cheng makes in his piece that allow for it to be a very useful case study in logic and politics classes. The first, and the most obvious one, is that he has mistaken security for freedom. The second mistake that Cheng makes is that Singapore never had to sacrifice freedom for security, and democracy for an effective government.” — Donald Low / Associate Dean at LKYSPP (Mar 2015) Rebuttal: “We are a country where Human Rights are seen as luxury. The security that is achieved in Singapore is not secured by respect and understanding, it is achieved through ignorance and fear.” — Rizzy Khaos / Blogger (Apr 2015) QUOTE #8: “Amos Yee will be charged in court. The kind of freedom he exercised is exactly the kind of freedom no civilised society needs. Insulting another’s religion, and trying to incite hatred during a time of national unity and mourning. And so, in order to secure the freedom of our civilised society, this boy should lose his.” — Calvin Cheng (March 2015) Rebuttal: “Are we such a petty and insecure people that we have to demand blood whenever someone insults us on the Internet? Your own words, Calvin.” — Joshua Chiang / Former TOC Editor (March 2015) QUOTE #9: “There is no such thing as total anonymity on the Internet. Troublemakers can be found and will be found. Troublemakers can set up new websites but they will similarly be hunted down. I do hope that the 2 editors of TRS already charged will be handed lengthy jail sentences as a warning and deterrence to others who may have similar intentions.” — Calvin Cheng (May 2015) Rebuttal: “Calvin Cheng will surely be greeted with strong approval by the PAP government. He is trying to scare the people. I will suggest that he try something more intelligent. Unless there is a legitimate ground, most notably a terrorist threat, I don’t think you can just walk into another country and hunt down the foreign sites. Don’t embarrass yourself, Mr Calvin Cheng!” — Dosh / TRE Comment (May 2015) QUOTE #10: “The self-radicalisation of the ISA-detained youth by ISIS propaganda is worrying. People like Alfian Sa’at for example need to be careful of their irresponsible rhetoric. . .the Government should watch commentators like Alfian Sa’at closely and if red lines are crossed, the use of the ISA on these domestic agitators should not be ruled out.” — Calvin Cheng (May 2015) Rebuttal: “Self-radicalised Oxford-educated PAP zealot Calvin Cheng hopes the government will invoke the ISA on playwright Alfian Sa’at.” — Martyn See / Filmmaker Blogger (May 2015) Rebuttal: “If anyone is behaving in a traitorous manner, it is this abomination called Calvin Cheng for constantly and insidiously trying to turn Singaporeans against Singaporeans who dare to speak up on social political issues. He has made a serious and unfounded allegation against Alfian Sa’at and he should apologise if he has any conscience.” — Min Zheng / Jentrified Citizen (May 2015) Rebuttal: “CC: You claim that you had sought legal advice from a senior counsel and that Alfian should take proper legal advice instead of advice from armchair lawyers. Well, I happen to be a lawyer too, Calvin. And I think you’re in pretty serious trouble.” — Respect Singapore (May 2015) Rebuttal: “In other more important news, my short story collection Corridor has been republished by Ethos Books. And contrary to what Calvin Cheng would like to insinuate, it’s not on ISIS’ reading list.” — Alfian Sa’at / Playwright (May 2015) CALVIN CHENG was a Nominated Member of Parliament in Singapore. He currently serves on the Ministry of Communications and Information’s Media Literacy Council, and the Media Development Authority’s Board for The Singapore Media Festival. Calvin was formerly the Head of Elite Models for the Asia Pacific region. Calvin is also a Young Global Leader of the World Economic Forum. CC Online: Facebook | Wikipedia | LinkedIn | Parliament SGFiled under: Excerpts, Profiles, Singapore Politics Tagged: calvin cheng, elitism, facebook, freedom, ISA, nmp, PAP, politics, quotes, rebuttal, singapore

Excerpts from “Lee Kuan Yew’s Singapore” by T. J. S. George (1973) Link: Amazon | NLB * * * Definitions: 1. Pugnacity: Inclined to quarrel or fight readily; quarrelsome; belligerent; combative (Dictionary). Excerpts from Book: 1) The Lees are Hakkas. And that is worth remembering. . .[Hakkas] are strong individualists, known for their pugnacity. (Pg-16) 2) [During World War II], LKY learned Japanese and obtained work as a translator in the official Japanese news agency, Domei. . .during his years in power he has shown a pronounced contempt for Singapore’s journalistic fraternity and has ensured that newspapers in the island were run much as Domei was run by the Japanese army. (Pg-22) 3) LKY’s concept of ‘Singaporeanism’ [is] a way of [making] a society in his own image — the projection on to the national scene of an individual’s complex psychological problems. (Pg-30) 4) [Lee’s group formed] its own party. They chose the name People’s Action Party (PAP). It appealed to them ‘mainly because this political party was meant for the people’. (Pg-36) 5) Elections to the central executive [section of the PAP] were restricted to cadre members — and cadre members were chosen strictly after screening by Lee Kuan Yew. As Lee himself once justified it, “The Pope chooses the cardinals and the cardinals elect the Pope.” (Pg-45) 6) Lee remarked later that “to lose would mean that a bunch of rogues would form the government and ruin the country and also fix the PAP.” It was a characteristic comment which summed up Lee’s own personality — his self-assurance, contempt for others, tendency to equate himself with the country and [indicated] Lee’s readiness to “fix” others once he got hold of the reins of power. (Pg-46) 7) Cassandra of the Daily Mirror [likened] LKY to Goebbels. The Daily Express angrily editorialized: “To such men Britain entrusts independence. Greedily they seize their new freedom for themselves and deny it to the people for whom it was intended.” (Pg-51) 8) Ong [Eng Guan] protested that the meeting was being converted into a trial. [He said]: “This is not the first instance of cloak and dagger plots in the party and it will not be the last.” (Pg-55) 9) In the days when LKY was in opposition, in 1956, he gave a vivid description. “I’m told [repression] is like making love — it’s always easier the second time. The first time there may be pangs of conscience, a sense of guilt. But once embarked on this course, with constant repetition, you get more and more brazen in the attack and in the scope of the attack.” He became, and has remained, a striking example of what he was then condemning. (Pg-65) 10) [In Operation Coldstore], the important figures were put away [and] the Barisan Sosialis became a headless body. (Pg-68) 11) In Lee’s reckoning no one else in Singapore was, or could be, right. What he achieved in the process was a one-man party and a one-party state. (Pg-71) 12) Tunku [Abdul Rahman]’s responses sprang from the heart and from his identification with the people; Lee’s from the mind and his studied aloofness from the crowd. The Tunku was utterly human, Lee a machine. (Pg-77) 13) Lee’s policies have often ended up as counter-productive because they were unrelated to the human factors surrounding them. (Pg-84) 14) Malaysian Finance Minister Tan Siew Sen described the PAP as a party which shouted “Fire, fire” while committing arson. (Pg-86) 15) The West (its notions of post-war Asia swinging between anti-communism and the thirst for profitable investment) seemed grateful to Lee for what he projected as the Asianization of democracy — which in fact meant reducing people to digits; or to the letters GNP. (Pg-110) 16) Systematic destruction of political opposition and suppression of the trade union movement were the outstanding features of this policy [of rigorous internal repression]. The government also completely ‘officialized’ the education system, beat the mass media into subjection and instituted other programmes aimed at casting a generation of Singaporeans in a carefully prepared mould. (Pg-112) 17) Given this approach to detention and the rule of law, Lee never bothered to change — except to make it more repressive — the Internal Security Act which he inherited from the colonial administration he had fought. (Pg-116) 18) The treatment of political prisoners involves spiritual and political torture. The process of solitary confinement and interrogation, etc. continue until the prisoners are broken down or try to commit suicide. Those who cannot be broken are left to rot in prison. (Pg-119) 19) Amnesty International naturally showed concern about the fate of political prisoners in Singapore — only to get condemned as a meddler and barred from the republic in early 1971 (Pg-121) 20) People whose governments straightforwardly admitted to being communist or military at least knew where they stood. In Singapore, where professions were democratic while practices were dictatorial, the tragedy was compounded. . .[Lee and his cabinet] projected the dangerous thesis that an efficient Asian government could not also be democratic or humane. (Pg-128) 21) In November 1971, the Sunday Times said: “But for two great British universities to honour [LKY] as a Doctor of Laws devalues the degree and dishonours the first principle of university life — that ideas shall be freely exchanged.” (Pg-130) 22) The Statesman of India said: “In nine years of near-autocratic rule Lee has created a society of soulless conformists. . .a submissive press and the lack of an opposition have enabled Mr Lee to strut about his inconsequential stage and see himself as a Southeast Asian leader.” (Pg-130) 23) The opposition Barisan Sosialis was not banned — though every leader showing any potential was either jailed or exiled. (Pg-130) 24) Lee’s favorite word when referring to Singaporeans is, characteristically, ‘digits’. (Pg-132) 25) Professor D.J. Enright wrote in The Times in 1969 [of Singaporean students]: “This is the drawback to the exhortatory method of nation building: the simple-minded, the second-rate and the merely self-committed come to the top while the intelligent and idealistic feel there is no place for them in a world which is new but not very brave.” (Pg-132) 26) No boy or girl can enter a university in Singapore without written political clearance from the government, appropriately called a Suitability Certificate. A student-applicant’s educational qualifications and academic record have no bearing on his ‘suitability’, which is determined on the basis of his and his family’s political background. (Pg-133) 27) Soon the government took the official position that expatriates should keep out of local issues — and local issues could include everything from Singapore art to traffic congestion. (Pg-137) 28) The contradiction between the noble sentiments Lee aired in Kuala Lumpur where he was in the opposition, and the suppression he practised in Singapore where he was in power, did not seem to occur to him. (Pg-146) 29) Lee conjured up a patriotic halo round the denial of civil rights to an entire people. It was not merely a case of freedom being denied; it was also a case of minds being cast in a government-ordained mould. It was totalitarianism without the saving grace of honesty. (Pg-155) 30) [To most Western correspondents and visitors], Singapore’s apparent glitter has been impressive enough. (Pg-136) 31) Lee has never been impressed by charges of cruelty towards political prisoners in Singapore: according to his book, he was doing them a favour by letting them live. (Pg-191) 32) Singapore in the 1970s mirrors not the collective aspirations of a people or a generation but the ideals, convictions and prejudices of LKY. (Pg-200) 33) Post-1959 elections have been largely empty exercises, as shown by the deceptive ‘choices’ given and the methods employed for the referendum in 1962, the mass arrests of opposition leaders prior to the general election in 1963 and the hundred per cent PAP control of parliament since. (Pg-203) 34) One of the dangers that Singaporeans face is the temptation to live soullessly in order to make money. The prospects of becoming a society which knows the price of everything and the value of nothing is among the points of criticism Lee’s adversaries raise. (Pg-202) 35) The prosperity Lee has brought about has been accompanied by deterioration in the quality of life. (Pg-214) 36) Democracy simply means a government respecting the governed and being accountable to them. It is a political means to fulfill the human potential. (Pg-212) 37) LKY seems to assume that a sense of national identity can be created from television sets, apartments and jobs, disregarding the citizen’s right to respect and equality: that basic right which enables each ‘digit’ in a social whole to stand up and express his views. (Pg-215) Source: “Lee Kuan Yew’s Singapore,” by T. J. S. George (1973) * * * T. J. S. GEORGE is a former political editor of the Far Eastern Economic Review and the founding editor of Asiaweek (Hong Kong). He is a writer and biographer who received a Padma Bhushan award in 2011 in the field of literature and education. A veteran senior journalist and one of the best known columnists in India, he continues his fight against social injustice, corruption and political anarchies through his columns. T. J. S. George Online: Blog | Wikipedia * * * More Information: Lee Kuan Yew’s Singapore (Amazon)Lee Kuan Yew’s Singapore (NLB)Book Review (blog)Filed under: Excerpts, History, Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore Politics Tagged: democracy, digits, education system, excerpts, history, human rights, ISA, Lee Kuan Yew, PAP, tjs george

Jess gave 5 stars to Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore (Unknown Binding) by T.J.S George
An online blurb describes this book as “a penetrating analysis of the policies and predilections of [this] controversial leader.”

The table of contents accurately reflects the sequential and exciting tone of the content:

1. The Making of a City State
2. The Making of a Man
3. The Making of a Prime Minister
4. The Battle for the People’s Minds
5. Marriage and Divorce
6. Strategy for Progress
7. Strategy for Repression
8. The Mould of Conformism
9. From Athens to Israel
10. Under the Banyan Tree
11. Alone against Tomorrow

As someone born in the late 80’s, a lot of the details were new to me upon my first read of the book from cover to cover.

What is fascinating about the book is that it was published in 1973. The author displays an uncanny ability of astute perception and prediction for Singapore’s style of government and political situation in the ensuing decades since the book was first written.

The first half of the book is akin to a comprehensive history lesson of Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s background and subsequent ascent to power. The author takes a careful and perceptive look at LKY’s actions to come to the conclusion that Lee’s concept of Singapore is partly “a way of [making] a society in his own image — the projection on to the national scene of an individual’s complex psychological problems.” This is justified by the Singapore of the 1970s mirroring “not the collective aspirations of a people or a generation but the ideals, convictions and prejudices of Lee Kuan Yew.”

The first notable aspect of the book is how it reveals the destructiveness of one man’s (and by extension, one party’s) policies and actions upon an entire nation, society, and generations of citizens. The author sticks to the facts with a writing style that displays lively touches of wit and humanity, so the reader is presented with a “study of Lee in action,” instead of a frenzied personal attack.

Chapter 7 and Chapter 8 were particularly outstanding for the thorough and well-selected cases that showcase the extent of Mr Lee’s policy of repression, with respect to any form of dissent or sharp criticisms.

In a brief yet comprehensive manner, the author analyses various contradictory statements by Mr Lee; the sequence of events associated with Operation Coldstore; the application of the Internal Security Act to dispose of political rivals; the subsequent treatment of political opponents and/or prisoners; and how all aspects of the state were subjected to government control (from the education system, to the mass media, and the rule of law, in order to cast “Singaporeans in a carefully prepared mould”).

The second notable aspect of the book is its prophetic nature. T.J.S. George foresaw that the “prosperity” Lee heralded would be “accompanied by deterioration in the quality of life.”

To casual observers and citizens who are impressed enough by “Singapore’s apparent glitter,” this deterioration in the quality of life would seem to be a misnomer. The last chapter of the book reveals how LKY’s “dictatorial” practices disregard “the citizen’s right to respect and equality, that basic right which enables each ‘digit’ in a social whole to stand up and express his views.”

The book shatters many myths with regard to the state of democracy and civil rights in Singapore. Above all, it gives an insightful account of the side of Mr Harry Lee Kuan Yew which will not be seen in state-sponsored portrayals of the ruler as a faultless man.

A quote from a blog post by the author to end off this review:

“The West has spread the impression that Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew is Asia’s outstanding economic miracle man while Malaysia’s Mahathir as a cantankerous ogre, hater of white people and dictator to boot. Both are dressed up portraits. What makes Mahathir special is that while pursuing economic progress he never lost sight of the larger picture of human values. That cannot be said of Lee Kuan Yew and certainly not of Indonesia’s Suharto or Thailand’s Thaksin Shinawatra.”
— TJS George (June 2011)

---

Originally posted on https://jesscscott.wordpress.com/2015...

Excerpts from “Dare to Change” by Chee Soon Juan (1994) Link: Amazon | NLB | SDP * * * Excerpts from Book: 1. There is no guarantee that the same Government that has led Singapore into prosperity cannot become corrupt and ineffective in future. . .if Singaporeans continue to behave in an uninterested manner, the tendency for the Government to abuse its power will become greater. (Pg-15) 2. An overpowering state-elite with a subjugated mass has proven time and again to be the worst formula for a country’s long-term prosperity. (Pg-25) 3. Singaporeans are constantly told how to behave in a certain manner. . .any one who dares to challenge the authority is quickly labelled as “bad” and discredited. (Pg-32) 4. Perhaps the closest definition [of “Asian democracy”] is the one provided by the PAP itself: a political system consisting of one dominant party and several small fringe parties with no turnover in the government. (Pg-39) 5. What do we make of the notion that there should be no change in the Government of Singapore? The frighteningly curious thing is that shouldn’t the citizens be the ones to determine this instead of the PAP? If this premise of no turnover in government is accepted it would logically follow that the PAP is legitimate in using every means, constitutional or otherwise, to stop its political opponents. (Pg-40) 6. It would make much sense for [opposition] camps to pool their resources together with the ultimate and overriding objective to entrench the Opposition in Singaporean politics. (Pg-49) 7. The Prime Minister of Singapore gives himself a salary of $96,000 a month. . .meanwhile, the PM studies carefully whether a man who is unable to look after himself deserves $150 a month. (Pg-74) 8. Of late, the Government has been strongly advocating Confucianist values. Embedded in the teachings of Confucius is respect and care for our elderly. However, judging from present policies and actions, it is clear that the Government has no intention on practising the sage’s preachings. (Pg-78) 9. [Singapore Inc.]: The PAP runs the country like a corporation with the Party leaders as employers and the citizens as its employees. (Pg-90) 10. In 1992, a study by business professor Alwyn Young from the MIT compared Hong Kong’s economy with that of Singapore’s. He showed that while Hong Kong got richer by becoming more efficient in its use of its labour, capital, and technology, Singapore became richer by taking more and more money from its citizens through taxes and forced savings. (Pg-97) 11. At a time when the nation requires individuals of innovation and creativity to help it stay ahead in an increasingly competitive world, the PAP’s heavy handed approach and tight control in governing the country produces a generation of people who are averse to risk-taking. (Pg-105) 12. David Marshall, Singapore’s former ambassador to France, described Singaporean journalists as “running dogs” and “poor prostitutes” of the Government. (Pg-109) 13. It is dangerous for any government to control the circulation of information within a country. . .totalitarian and dictatorial regimes have long used this tool to subjugate their people. (Pg-116) 14. In a society which claims to have a sense of civility and decency, physical abuse and torture cannot be used by its leaders to justify its ends. . .Every citizen of this country is born with a set of rights which cannot be removed at the whim of the Government. (Pg-138) 15. “I think what prevents Singapore from being a home to people is the lack of freedom of speech. Think about it this way. What is the difference between living in a hotel and living in a home?” — Dr David Chan / NUS (Pg-139) Source: “Dare to Change,” by Chee Soon Juan (1994) * * * DR. CHEE SOON JUAN is a politician and political activist from Singapore. He is currently the leader of the opposition Singapore Democratic Party (SDP). Recognised by Amnesty International as a prisoner of conscience, Dr Chee has been arrested and jailed more than a dozen times for his political activities, mainly for repeatedly breaking Singapore’s laws requiring organizers to obtain a police permit before staging political demonstrations or making public speeches on political issues. CSJ Online: Website | Facebook (CSJ) | Facebook (SDP) * * * More Information on Dare to Change: Amazon | NLB | SDP | ReviewFiled under: Excerpts, Singapore Politics, Society Tagged: Chee Soon Juan, democracy, government, opposition, PAP, politics, rights, singapore, society, subjugate

[Above Image from Yahoo] Several students and a teacher from Tanjong Katong Primary School were killed in the recent Sabah quake. I was quite shocked to read an overly defensive comment which compared climbing Mt. Kinabalu to “walking up Bukit Timah Hill.” For starters, a “hill” is defined as “a naturally raised area of land, not as high or craggy as a mountain.” Mt. Kinabalu is 4,095 m while Bukit Timah Hill is 164m. A comparison of maps between the mountain and hill also show the difference in terms of scale and associated terrain. A seismology expert, Dr Mohd Rosaidi Che Abas, 54, said the threat of an earthquake in Malaysia cannot be ignored, including “Sabah and Sarawak [which] are located close to the earthquake zone of South Philippines and North Sulawesi.” Earthquakes have erupted at Mount Kinabalu every year for at least the past 10 years, and the route has been described as a very rough trek. [Image from Redwire Times] Some comments from people who have been on the mountain before: 1) “I climbed the mountain before. I must say I was shocked for a school to embark on such an expedition trip for primary students.” — Randy Chong 2) “I was there on 5-6 may this year. I personally think this is a bit challenging for young children of such ages. Deepest condolences to victims’ families. — David Chia 3) “My 39 yr old daughter went there two weeks before the quake. She said she would not approve if any of her kids would want to take the expedition. What information was given to parents that made them approved their kids for this expedition?” — Mr. A I have read quite a few comments which say that the authorities cannot be blamed for a natural disaster. It is true that people cannot be blamed for the actual occurrence of the earthquake. The question is why young children are being approved to be sent to this mountain for “school excursions” when this area is a known danger zone. Take for example, texting and driving. Just because a person drives and texts once and doesn’t get into trouble, doesn’t mean they’ll always have luck on their side. A tragic end sometimes comes sooner rather than later, and it is especially tragic when the situation is avoidable. Why would any parent want to put their child in a risky situation in the first place? Some quotes by parents which reflect this view: 1) “People are saying no one could have predicted the quake and that it could well have struck Disneyland Tokyo. So we shouldn’t criticize the school or ask for a ban on such overseas excursions. I beg to differ as a parent. . .No incident doesn’t mean there will never be one. Try telling those grieving parents, ‘Accidents bound to happen, lah!’ And why in the world are primary school kids climbing mountains overseas?” — Andrew Tan 2) “PM Lee, I urge your good self and MOE to review allowing our primary school children to embark on such perilous trips. In our days, excursions were none other than Pulau Ubin or St John Island. Even though this is a natural disaster, the burden of failing their parents are simply too great on the teachers and schools.” — Lance Foo 3) “Please instruct MOE to seriously review school excursions for primary school kids. They are too young to go for such high risk adventures. It is tough for parents to say no to enthusiastic young children who don’t understand the risk involved. There are many other ways for leadership development. There’s an appropriate age and time for different types of school trips.” — Kareen Leow 4) “I sincerely urge MOE to commission a thorough review on the countries and necessity of such trips for “whatever valid reasons.” I am 100% sure if PM commission MOE for a COI, there will be 101 ways to improve on it.” — Freddy Choo The MOE’s website states that there are several measures in place to enhance road safety around Singapore schools, as well as safety in the conduct of school sports, safety during hazy days, tree safety, and fire safety. This page on guidelines and procedures on school excursions (adapted from MOE Guidelines) states that “the authority to approve such excursions [and/or field trips] is delegated to principals.” This was not an excursion organised by parents as an out-of-school overseas trip. If it were, then the responsibility for the safety of the children would fall on the parents and not other authorities who approved the excursion. The website of The Department of Education and Training (Victoria, Australia) clearly states a policy to “ensure [school] excursions are planned and approved appropriately.” It goes on to say that the excursion planning and approval process should take into account “the suitability of the environment and/or venue for the excursion,” and the “assessment of excursion risks” in terms of safety, emergency and risk management. A quick glance at the Dutch ministries states that The Ministry of Security and Justice is responsible for justice and public safety in the Netherlands. Minister for Education Mr Heng Swee Keat’s and PM Lee Hsien Loong’s public statements on the matter — despite their emotional appeal — leave much to be desired. A government’s job is to govern (i.e. to make and administer the public policy and affairs of a state). Singapore’s ministers are among the best paid in the world. Surely they can thus be expected to be responsible and be held accountable when it comes to governance.Filed under: Singapore Politics, Society Tagged: accountability, accountable, excursion, government, ministry of education, moe, mount kinabalu, responsibility, safety, school, singapore

Jess C. Scott wrote a blog post: To Singapore, With Love

Jess C. Scott wrote a blog post: The Oath of Office (Next GE and Beyond)

Jess C. Scott wrote a blog post: (Censored–Sort Of) Singapore Crime Fiction

<AuthorFollowing id=9698583 user_id=2500081 author_id=187415>

<AuthorFollowing id=9715525 user_id=2500081 author_id=98216>

Jess C. Scott wrote a blog post: Separating Myths from Reality

Jess C. Scott wrote a blog post: Amos Yee’s Speech

Jess C. Scott wrote a blog post: Hong Lysa / Operation Coldstore

Jess C. Scott wrote a blog post: Excerpts from “Meritocracy and Elitism”

Jess commented on "Why am I not in the "Norm" when it comes to books?" in The Mystery, Crime, and Thriller Group

Jess C. Scott wrote a blog post: #FreeAmosYee / Support

Jess C. Scott wrote a blog post: Excerpts from “Anti-colonialism. . .Operation Coldstore”

Jess C. Scott wrote a blog post: Excerpts from “The Politics of Judicial Institutions in Singapore”

Jess C. Scott wrote a blog post: Excerpts from “The Bonsai under the Banyan Tree”

Jess C. Scott wrote a blog post: Excerpts from “Scandalising the Singapore Judiciary”

Jess C. Scott wrote a blog post: Calvin Cheng Quotes

Jess C. Scott wrote a blog post: Excerpts from “Lee Kuan Yew’s Singapore”

Jess added 'Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore'

Jess C. Scott wrote a blog post: Excerpts from “Dare to Change”

Jess C. Scott wrote a blog post: Responsibility and Accountability (Mt. Kinabalu)