Signup
LoginOne Nation Under Lee receives warm reception in Johor Baru
14 posts
-
-
One Nation Under Lee receives warm reception in Johor Baru
Sunday, 14 September 2008
Singapore Democrats
One Nation Under Lee is going
places in Malaysia and its screening is attracting large
audiences.
After its successful showing in the Malaysian capital Kuala Lumpur at the Freedom Film Fest 2008 last week, the organizers KOMAS, Malay acronym for Malaysian Human Rights Communication Centre, moved the venue to Johor Baru.So when the 45-minute English documentary, banned by the Singaporean authorities, was shown yesterday at a local hotel across the causeway it understandably attracted many Singaporeans.
The film was warmly received by the audience and Mr Seelan Palay was on hand to take questions from the floor.
A foreigner in the audience who had lived in Singapore for seven months said that from her experience in Singapore, the country is a good place to live in contrary to what the movie portrays. She also noted that the protests and demonstrations that were shown in the film are not spontaneous like in Malaysia. This shows the people in general are contented.
Mr Michael Fernandez, a former trade unionist imprisoned without trial by the PAP government, said that the outward appearance of tranquility is a façade, a situation that has been brought about through years of ruthless state repression of an entire generation.
Mr Fernandez said that he was glad to see youngsters like Seelan, Martyn See and others who are taking an interest in what is happening around them.
He said the youth in Singapore, especially the
students in tertiary institutions in the 1950s, 60s and 70s were
actively engaged in society. Their language backgrounds were never
a barrier as students from the Singapore University, the Nantah,
and the Singapore Polytechnic came together to speak up on issues
not only affecting youths but also the general public.
He said he could still remember the time when university students protested against the Suitability Certificate that the PAP introduced. The student exuberance and vibrancy were, however, bullied into silence. This has led to entire generations of students growing up in a state of apathy.
Mr Fernandez also pointed out it was wrong to compare tiny Singapore with Malaysia which is so much bigger and where there is much more room for dissent and alternative views to flourish.
Singapore playwright Robert Yeo and blogger Alex Au were also present and contributed to the discussion.
There was a suggestion from an appreciative Singaporean that more such films were needed to bring about greater awareness, especially among the youths and the workers who have forgotten the role of trades unions and what the word "strike" meant, the ultimate weapon that employees have against unscrupulous employers for whose interest the PAP government exists.
Mr Seelan took the questions and comments in his usual relaxed and jovial demeanour.
Malaysian reviewer, Mr Andrew Sia, had this to say about the film: "Even though part of it seems like a Powerpoint presentation, it manages to engage – a lesson here for shoestring budget film makers."
Also, at the end of the second day of the three-day film festival, filmmakers from Singapore and Johor held a brainstorming session to coordinate their work to achieve greater synergy.
The next place the organizers planning to screen One Nation Under Lee is Kuching, Sarawak on Saturday, 20 Sept. And finally, the documentary on Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore will be shown to audiences in Penang on Saturday, 27 Sep 08.http://www.yoursdp.org/index.php/news/singapore/1058-one-nation
Pro-govt press interviews renegade filmmakers
The interview below was conducted some two months ago, before the recent announcement by PM Lee on relaxing the ban on political films. What was Straits Times' hidden agenda? Perhaps it's a way to profile us for the Internal Security Department dossiers. Perhaps ST has vested interest to see political films relaxed for their own RazorTV. Perhaps they want to score some brownies in international press freedom rankings. Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps. Oh, whatever.
Film-makers on the fringe
Before the PM announced recently that the ban on political films was likely to be eased, they were already documenting scenes of S'pore politics and producing controversial films that flirted with the law. Meet the intrepid trio who believe they are rebels with a cause. -ST
Sun, Sep 07, 2008
The Straits Times
By Sue-Ann Chia, political correspondent
WHEN the death knell sounded on a 10-year-old law that imposes a total ban on political films two weeks ago, film-maker Martyn See cheered.
The move marked the biggest effort in 20 years by the Government to loosen its hold on political expression here, declared the 39-year-old.
As a mischievous tribute, he pulled together 100 films on local politics, compiling them on his blog a week after Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said in his Aug 17 National Day Rally speech that an outright ban on political films was no longer sensible.
The 100 short clips - 'films' is too formal a term to describe them - are the work of assorted groups and individuals, most with a decidedly anti-establishment stance.
They include two by Mr See which did not make the censor's cut. One is on Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) chief Chee Soon Juan and the other on former political detainee Said Zahari.
He plans to re-submit them to the Board of Film Censors once the ban on political films is formally eased - likely early next year - just to test the new system.
He wants to do so because the prospective change comes with caveats: Films which are partisan or give a distorted and slanted impression will still be off-limits.
His own view is that there should be no caveats. 'If it is not sheer stupidity to continue enforcing bans on these films when they can be viewed at a click of a mouse, I don't know what is,' he wrote on his blog.
How did he come to be such a fighter against Section 33 of the Films Act, which bans party political films?
Political awakening
ATTRIBUTE it to a second political awakening that came in the wake of the 2001 general election.
He had had a first awakening back in the mid-1990s, when a photocopy of a banned book came his way.
The book was To Catch A Tartar, written by former solicitor-general Francis Seow, describing his detention under the Internal Security Act in the late 1980s.
'My eyes were opened to the darker side of the PAP's history,' he says.
'I read it from cover to cover. I felt...frightened, depressed and angry at the same time.'
His hitherto placid political outlook changed then, but it was only later - after the November 2001 election - that he was really roused into action.
What caught his attention was Dr Chee Soon Juan heckling then prime minister Goh Chok Tong about an alleged loan to former Indonesian president Suharto.
'Chee Soon Juan got hammered very badly. I wondered, is this guy as bad as the media made him out to be? So I decided to check him out myself,' he says.
A few months later, in 2002, he asked to meet Dr Chee.
For the next two years, he 'interviewed' the SDP leader regularly, visited him at his home and his office, and observed him when he staged public protests - filming all the while.
He had reams of footage but no film, until Mr Lee Hsien Loong was sworn in as Prime Minister in 2004.
Mr Lee's inauguration speech, promising the opening up of civil society, inspired him to compile his shots into a 28-minute film which he titled Singapore Rebel.
He submitted it for screening at a film festival. But the film never made it past the censors.
It was deemed 'party political', and banned under Section 33 of the Films Act.
He was questioned four times over 15 months by the police and even had his video camera seized.
'They dropped the investigation a couple of months after the 2006 general election. I guess they wanted to watch if I would participate in the election,' he says.
He never did. But he continued to produce politically incorrect films.
Singapore Rebel
MR SEE titled his directorial debut Singapore Rebel. Although about Dr Chee, it sums up Mr See himself - someone bent on capturing alternative politics on celluloid.
He began his film-making career nearly 20 years ago, right after national service, learning the ropes of video editing in production houses. Along the way, he became a freelance video editor, working for renowned local directors such as Mr Eric Khoo and Mr Jack Neo.
He spends 90 per cent of his time doing such work to 'pay the bills', but the remaining 10 per cent is now consumed by his passion - making films on local political issues.
While being questioned by the police over Singapore Rebel, he produced another film, on former political detainee Said Zahari. This was also banned.
His latest, on Dr Chee and the protests he staged during the IMF-World Bank meetings in 2006, however made the cut. Speakers' Cornered was given an NC-16 rating and screened at the Substation on July 26 this year.
Despite the overwhelmingly pro-opposition - especially pro-SDP - angles in his films, he insists he is not an opposition supporter or sympathiser.
He says: 'I fill a vacuum created by the media when they don't cover opposition politicians or political dissidents. I consider myself a citizen journalist, not a Michael Moore type of film-maker.'
Asked why he bothers to submit his films for classification when he can upload them on YouTube, he deadpans that the law requires it.
The more compelling reason is that he wants to push the envelope in the area of political expression.
'Who better to do that than me,' he says, 'since I'm already over the OB markers. I want more film-makers who want to document the political scenes to emerge.'
In this, he has found a following of sorts.
Mr Ho Choon Hiong, 33, first heard about Mr See when Singapore Rebel was banned three years ago.
He was among a group of 12 film-makers who wrote to the Government then, asking for greater clarity as to what constituted a party political film.
The incident led to him meeting Mr See.
Their subsequent exchanges emboldened him to capture on celluloid assorted scenes of political activism in Singapore.
Unlike Mr See, he was introduced to politics early by his father, who used to be a student activist at Chinese High School in the 1960s.
Like Mr See, however, his political interest was stoked by the 2001 polls and Dr Chee.
After meeting Mr See, he produced a plethora of very short films, on topics ranging from the 2006 election to protests by Myanmar nationals in Singapore. He sent six to the film censors for classification in May.
'I have to take a few steps and hope to be undeterred more and more,' says the film studies graduate from Ngee Ann Polytechnic.
'I want to put my own perception of truth out.'
So far, his 'films' have been ignored by the authorities.
A prolific activist
NOT so for Mr Seelan Palay, 24, another amateur film-maker.
He had his film, One Nation Under Lee, seized by officials from the Board of Film Censors as it was being screened in a hotel recently.
The reason: It had not been passed by the censors.
His first effort - detractors panned it as a slide show rather than a film - it portrayed Singapore as lacking in press and political freedom, and tightly controlled by Mr Lee Kuan Yew.
Point out that One Nation Under Lee is decidedly one-sided - it takes potshots at the Government while hailing Dr Chee as a hero - and he insists he has no political agenda.
He isn't politicised by anyone either, he insists.
'I learnt everything from reading, out of personal interest,' says the activist.
CITIZEN JOURNALIST'I fill a vacuum created by the media when they don't cover opposition politicians or political dissidents. I consider myself a citizen journalist, not a Michael Moore type of film-maker.'
-- Film-maker Martyn See
He has been involved at various times with the Vegetarian Society, the Animal Concerns Research & Education Society, and the now defunct SG Human Rights Group.
Earlier this year he attended rallies by Hindu protesters in Kuala Lumpur, and upon his return to Singapore, decided to mount a one-man protest fast outside the Malaysian High Commission.
He also takes part in protest actions organised by the SDP occasionally.
He is not a troublemaker, he insists. He is just doing what he believes in.
Nothing to fear
WHAT keeps the trio going?
'Our conscience pricks us,' says Mr Ho. He sees it as his duty to document what he believes gets sidelined by the mainstream media.
The trio use the same counter when you point out that their version of 'truth' sometimes takes an extreme slant. Others have noted that it was the publicity over the banning of some of their films, rather than the quality of the films themselves, that made the public more keen to view them.
But they are not perturbed.
For Mr See, his mission is simple.
'I live by the Singapore Pledge. I live by the Constitution that guarantees freedom of expression, association and assembly,' he says.
And he aims to guard these freedoms by showing that there is nothing to fear.
The other two, less articulate about their aims, appear to go with the flow as acolytes of Mr See, enjoying the thrill of defiance every once in a while.
They are all drawn to Dr Chee, whom they see as championing freedom of expression and provoking the Government with his illegal public protests.
Still, they say, they have no intention of joining the SDP or any political party. Ironically, they fear being hemmed in by party discipline.
Mr Palay, for instance, will tell you that he supports the SDP's cause but has no wish to sign on as a member.
Have they made an impact on the political scene? They believe so, pointing to more local film-makers who remain anonymous but, like them, upload political-type films on YouTube.
They also claim some credit for the Government's decision to consider lifting the ban on political films.
It was, they say, the banning of Mr See's Singapore Rebel that sparked a debate on the relevance of the Films Act.
Future films
FOR now, the three men have film ideas that they hope will see the light of day.
Mr Palay wants to do a film on the unspoken rule limiting use of dialects in films.
Mr Ho is aiming to do documentaries on two women: Dr Chee's wife, and his own long-lost Malaysian nanny whom he is still trying to locate.
As for Mr See, he has two targets too. One is the reclusive former political detainee Chia Thye Poh. The other is Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew.
In the latter film, he wants to trace the People's Action Party's formation and rise to the pinnacle of power in Singapore.
Why do a film on the PAP when its story has been told so many times before? 'It is a compelling story,' he says.
So are they really rebels with a cause?
Says Mr See: 'There's definitely a purpose to what we're doing. I see it as lessening the climate of fear here.
'I want more film-makers like me to emerge, wanting to document the political scenes in Singapore.'
This article was first published in The Straits Times on Sep 5, 2008.
-
-
-
PAP regime likes brainwashed, depoliticised, politically ignorant citizens.
This type of voters they like.
They will vote for PAP.
PAP regime don't like politicised, political aware, politically knowledgeable, critical citizens.
This type of people won't go and vote for PAP in elections.
They won't go and follow PAP dictates and propaganda.
PAP don't like that.
Edited by Poh Ah Pak 15 Sep `08, 1:27PM
-
-
-
PAP don't like.
Lee Kuan Yew don't like:
Rejected ST letter: MORE PAP DOUBLE STANDARDS
MORE PAP DOUBLE STANDARDS
Written by See Leong Kit
4 September 2008Status: rejected for publication
I refer to your article “A Happy Ending” (Aug 31) on the pathetic ping-pong hoo-haa initiated by the Singapore Table Tennis Association (STTA) President-cum-PAP MP Lee Bee Wah and her belated half-baked apology.
As a 60-year old tertiary-educated Senior Citizen, I am outraged, flabbergasted and disillusioned by its wider implications.
> “Outraged” at the thought of not just one but two female PAP MPs being paid the generous $13,000 monthly part-time MP allowance out of public funds to do what? To raise the blood pressure of members of the public to unhealthy levels?
Remember how, in the 2006 General Elections, PAP MP Irene Ng had caused a similar tsunami wave of public anger for her dim-witted “trouble-maker” description of opposition politicians?
Can you really blame justifiably angry Singaporeans for telling these two Malaysian-born imported political talent to “balek kampong” way ahead of the next 2011 GE?
> “Flabbergasted” at the following glaring disparity and double standards.
On the STTA table-tennis hullabaloo, both Senior Sports Minister Vivian Balakrishnan and Junior Sports Minister Teo Ser Luck had devoted nearly one whole week each on damage control and getting the STTA President to say the three simple words of “I Am Sorry”.
Last year, five young national dragon-boaters (age range from 21 to 31) drowned in Cambodia while representing Singapore at an international sports meet. They were our own home-grown sports talent and truly Sons of Singapore who have completed National Service.
Serving in the Management Committee of the Singapore Dragon Boat Association (SDBA) are Defence Minister Teo Chee Hean (as Advisor), President Kwek Siew Jin , Deputy President Chng Hee Kok (a former PAP MP) and two current PAP MPs, Dr Lam Pin Min and Dr Fatimah Lateef.
But when the inconsolable grieving parents of the drowned victims sought a simple apology as a form of closure to help them move on, they encountered a deafening dead silence from SDBA officials and the two sports ministers. As a former Navy Chief, surely SDBA President Kwek Siew Jin should know what leadership and accountability are all about?
> “Disillusioned” that, in supposedly First-World Singapore, it seem so difficult for our handsomely-paid public officials to say a simple sorry to the people for fiascos and debacles under their watch.
And this on top of their inability to produce million-dollar solutions to our various national problems to match their million-dollar remunerations.
Instead of addressing the underlying root cause of a national problem, see how they often adopt quick-fix solutions by “throwing taxpayers’ monies to the problem”.
As in “buying” Olympic medals through handsome rewards for imported sports talent; “buying” voter-support through public-funded HDB upgrading carrots and ”buying” babies by dishing out monetary rewards for young couples to indulge in the natural act of procreation.
Are our public officials really aware such approaches will only breed unthinking “yes-man” citizens with the crutch mentality of “me first” and “show me the money”? Is this good for the long-term future of Singapore (the nation) and Singaporeans (the people)?
http://www.sgpolitics.net/?p=632
Since they don't like, they rejected the letter.
They won't go and print letter that criticise them.
-
-
-
Too bad some rebels can only hope to achieve their own little personal victory to satisfy their own egolistic ideals.
Making multiple secret movies does not creates any victory for their childish rebellions. And watching political movies does not stir up a riot or rebellion within the country. Doing both acts does not creates a better society in terms of peace, stablility, contentment in Singaporeans.
This is no difference from an act of terrorism.
Sadly these rebels will only regrets wasting their lives away for something that is insignificant and childish, and all the hurt that they have caused for the people around them...including their families.
IF you cannot change the government from the outside, then by all means please join the government and live your lives in ultimate obedience and tolerance until you have climbed the political ladder till the point where you are truly empowered to make real changes for the country or for your own wild ambitions.
Harmless rebels such as these filmmakers are not even worth to be locked up together with the other real rebels of the country, as they were never a threat to begin with.
-
-
-
Too bad some rebels can only hope to achieve their own little personal victory to satisfy their own egolistic ideals.
Making multiple secret movies does not creates any victory for their childish rebellions.
How come you got this view?
Influenced by the ST report?
The other two, less articulate about their aims, appear to go with the flow as acolytes of Mr See, enjoying the thrill of defiance every once in a while.
They are all drawn to Dr Chee, whom they see as championing freedom of expression and provoking the Government with his illegal public protests.Edited by Poh Ah Pak 15 Sep `08, 4:43PM
-
-
-
If Singapore wants to achieve true independence, it is important to stop associating with Malaysia so much.
Why is this film being shown in Johor?
It is one thing to show it in Singapore, and have some debates, or even arguments with authorities.
But dont export internal political discourse to Malaysia.
This is very important, especially given the historical relations between Malaysia-Singapore.
Meat Pao
-
So many had gone bankrupted for such
incidents liao...
