This is the film Singapore's censorship board does not want people to see. It is the story of opposition politician Chee Soon Juan, who has been imprisoned twice for championing democratic change in the city state. The censors declared it a "party political film" and it was pulled from April 2005's Singapore International Film Festival line-up after the director was warned he could face two years in jail if the screening went ahead. It is directed by Martyn See. 'Singapore Rebel' has been selected to premiere in two human rights film festivals this month. The inaugural New Zealand Human Rights Film Festival and the Amnesty International Film Festival (USA) will host a series of screenings in Auckland, Wellington and West Hollywood. Film-maker Martyn See will not attend the festivals. He is now under investigation by the Singapore police for "the making" of 'Singapore Rebel'.
In my opinion, it is shown in this video that there were many opposition parties but many were not as brave as Chee Soo Juan to lead such protests. However, I feel that it is unwise to lead such rallies because it may disrupt the peace in Singapore although he claimed that it would not. It is good that Singapore takes defamation of the government very seriously if not rumours will take a hold of Singapore. He has a very different perspective of the laws in Singapore. He defines them as just or unjust laws. Just laws are those that are good for society and they must be respected and obeyed. Unjust laws are those that are placed by the government to surpress the people which made him feel that citizens should know about it and break these laws. However, he warned that when citizens intend to break these laws, they must be prepared to face the consequences. I feel that many Singaporeans will not give up their future just to reform Singapore's laws. This may be a good sign after all as there will not be protests on the streets which will definitely disrupt the peace in Singapore.
The content in this video uses cognitive schemata because when we watch this video, we already have the mental framework that we have developed over time. The type of personal construct shown in this video is the social role and position of Chee Soo Juan. It shows where he stands in society and what Singaporeans view him as. Structural principles can be identified in this video where we can see the relationship Chee Soo Juan has between the people involved and relational goals. From his first public talk in 1998 and second public talk in 1999, it shows that he was able to engage people to speak up for their rights. Interpretation of his purpose in these public talks may differ from every individual because interpretation refers to how we attached meaning to what we select and organise. This will structure our perception of Singapore's government as it is the most subjective of the three sub-processes of perception.
Singapore has a good government and usually people like Chee Soo Juan are definitely out to disrupt the peace in Singapore!
ReplyDeleteThe terms stated by him in the video about "just" and "unjust" laws are but merely a term used by him to describe the feelings he has towards Singapore's laws.
I feel that the way he conduct himself as a politician is very bad as i have never even seen a politician being jailed for speaking without a permit! This should not be a type of behaviour portrayed by an opposition politician. I feel that if any opposition party wants to conduct a rally, I feel that they should respect the authorities and government and seek for a permit before conducting any form of rally talks. By not seeking for a permit for the rally talk shows that Chee Soo Juan does not give the government the due respect.
Every Singaporean above the age of 21 years old has voting rights to vote for the party that they want, to speak up on their behalf. I feel that whatever Chee Soo Juan said is based on a one-sided feelings and opposition. Even if he has supporters, it makes up only the minority of the Singapore population and irregardless of their feelings their decision would be overruled.
Hence, I feel that even if a person wants to oppose the government, they should do so by proper channels and not create a dispute in public disrupting the country's peace.
Note: The Media Development Authority had lifted the ban last week on "Singapore Rebel" based on the revised Flims Act.
ReplyDeleteHi,
Basically, politics in Singapore is rather restrictive. We can say the Singapore current government do play a role in the its country's tough politics, which was said in the documentary.
Nonetheless, we still have to explore other reasons on why the oppositions have a hard time in changing Singapore's politics.
I believe that the people of Singapore have signed a social contrat* with the government, specifically with the PAP. Since the PAP has successfully bring Singapore from a third world nation to a first world nation for the past 4 decades, the contract extends. In other words, the people of Singapore have trust in PAP to bring more opportunities ans success to Singapore. Too much trust that it may not give the opposition to do anything.
Furthermore, I think Singaporeans are actually uninterested in politics. Maybe these people are complacent towards the PAP that some maybe believe nothing can go wrong with the PAP as the government. Because of this apathetic attitude, the voice of the opposition doesn't get to these people. Unless the opposition able to get the public's attention properly other than being arrested, they can just pass flyers around about them just like what JB Jayaratnam did in the video.
However, this video is definately an effort in bringing the voice of the opposition out. The opposition never have the chance to get a good publicity in the first place. With the revised Films Act, I believe that with a proper message, the opposition will definately reach out to a wider audience.
*Based on Leviathan by Hobbes, social contract is an agreement between the people and the power (government) whereby the people will give up some of their rights in order to gain security etc. from the power. Usually, in a democratic nation, the contract is done by voting.
i feel that the censirship board is too strict so as to ban the flim. in my opinion, allowing such a flim would enable the public to have an exclusive insight into the whole of politics. it might spark off an interest in some youths. however, there should be restrictions in place to prevent the public from being mislead by the message in the flim, maybe censor some parts of the flim.
ReplyDeleteThis would definitely be one of the films I would like to watch.
ReplyDeleteChee has been a prominent figure in the news, even though the film was banned in 2005. There have been people that agreed or condemned his actions. Now, 4 years later, it would be a good time to revisit this issue and come up with a more neutral and informed take about this issue.
I believe that concerned Singaporeans will be able to better understand the actions of the government and not take too extremist views on this issue. In the end, the safety of the people and the stability of the government is at stake. In view of this issue thus far, I think both concerns have been achieved.
Let this film be an important milestone in Singapore's political history.
It is undeniable that at times, the governmental system implemented in singapore is far from democratic as we are often lead to believe. However, we cannot deny that it is under this system that we manage to prosper to the first class state globally recognized.
ReplyDeleteIf we were to analyse this system, it is generally termed under as a maximum government system - governing under ruling elite whereby the state is depoliticized to focus on other more important issues like economic growth. This was a common practice especially when the Southeast Asian region first underwent decolonization after the world war. Notably is the advantages that this system has presented to the leaders of the developing nations back then.
As mentioned, the main argument for practicing maximum governance is to allow the state to focus more on the prosperity of the nation without disruption. Allowing the existence of volatile parties like in the case of Indonesia where political power is being contested by dozen of opposition parties would only served to bring down the state's position.
That was back in the fifties when we were still green. In the recent years, our current status has permitted for an even more liberal and democratic society.
Besides, the idea of giving up a certain degree of autonomy in exchange for greater freedom has been well substantiated in our context.
Using a peaceful, politically stable and economically strong Singapore as the perfect illustration to the above point, I feel that the intention of such individuals in going against the government's stance towards the running of the state is rather ambivalent. We cannot exactly fault them for pointing out some of the rather autocratic methods deployed but similarly, neither can we truly judged their true agendas for raising such controversies.
Considering the psychological rationale behind, it could be due to personal experiences that led them to rally against some form of unjust they suffered under such laws.
However, we have to recognize the fact that maximum governmental policy under Lee Kuan Yew and the PAP has been a huge success in Singapore. Unlike the case of our neighbours (i.e Philippines) whereby it was more a failure under the Marcos era, it is in my opinion that we, Singaporeans have largely nothing to refute against. Until the time when the clean sheet that Lee Kuan Yew printed out is been marked with evidence of a crumbling system, there is not much to fault it.
I think saying that a politician conduct himself badly because he was jailed for speaking without a permit isn't fair enough. We have to look at the situation, not to personal.
ReplyDeleteFreedom of speech is very important because it is a tool that uses to actually speak out your trully views on subjects.
Politics and policies should change arrcoding with times.
although the conduct of the self-proclaimed politician Chee Soo Juan is unacceptable, we actually need someone with his thinking to sieve out the loopholes the the government system. His views give us another perspective towards the government and prompt us to think in a less conventional way. Having this critic at hand, the government could pick out reasonable points to improve their system of governing. If people such as Chee Soo Juan could change their way of approach, it would be beneficial towards Singapore.
ReplyDeleteSingapore, in the first place, is a exceptional country in the world as we are democratic yet there is quite a sum of things which we are not allowed to do as compared to the rest of the democratic states. There is few protests up till today despite the openning of the Speaker's Corner and it is rather ironic that for a group to protest, they still require an approval from the government. Also, as seen from the World Press Freedom Index, Singapore is ranked 144th out of 173 states. Despite being a democratic country, it conducts censorship to a large extent in terms of the media and it is pretty obvious from the video which was banned for the purpose of maintain peace and order. Then again, the video showed mainly the perspectives of the Opposition party on singapore governance and it is rather one sided too. If they were ever the key governing body in Singapore, surely they will also conduct censorship in these areas to maintain their power. It is rather harsh to sentence these people to jail without a charge too. However, despite the citizens being pretty much protected, it is still for the sake of progress. From the day we became independent till today, we have become the most globalised country in the world, having done business with many countries around the world and recently we've seized the first position in the World Economic Forum. As a young nation without any raw materials, it is amazing that Singapore has progressed this far at such a quick pace but we definitely have to give credit to the government too though it is at the expense of becoming a more controlled and censored society.
ReplyDeleteI think that with Singapore ranking one of the countries with the lowest freedom of speech, many might have expected what consequences he would face after committing such "adaucity" towards the government. In such a manner, Singapore might not be as democratic as Singapore is claimed to be. However at the same time, i do agree that with such restrictions, Singapore has managed to keep peace well within the country as compared to other completely democratic societies which we see today like America.
ReplyDeleteI strongly object to what Dora said - that people like CSJ are out to disrupt the peace in Singapore. It clearly and simply shows CSJ's ineffective method of communicating his political views. It has nothing to do with ruining the peace in Singapore.
ReplyDeleteThere is no real political peace in Singapore. There is only political silence and I believe this silence will remain to dominate as long as the government is unwilling to move onto an era of freedom of speech. Anyone who threatens this silence is immediately labelled a "peace disrupter" because it seems that silence = stability.
Also, note that when we talk about freedom of speech, we have to realise the consequences of its abuse and how hard it is to curb them. Therefore, we can deduce that the government sticks to the traditional mindset of "prevention is better than cure" and it is through CSJ's case that we see how the government is communicating to the average Singaporeans.
I agree that Singapore has a good set of laws. By challenging the law that governs a country when no one is odjecting to it, is useless.
ReplyDeleteEven if any politician feels that the laws are unjust, they should write in or voice out their opinion in a proper fashion, not by conducting rallies outside the Istana.
As a politician, one must potray himself in an upright manner. Judging by the behaviour of politician Chee Soo Juan, he is definitely not an example that any politician should follow.
ReplyDeleteThe way he behaved shows that he is sending the wrong signal to everyone. By doing that, the citizens in Singapore think that by voicing out in public would make their opinions heard, as what politician Chee Soo Juan did.
This matter if not handled carefully would lead to riots.
Chee Soon Juan isn't by far the model politician. With multiple instances of being charged for a variety of offences like speaking at the Speakers Corner without permit, or organizing demonstrations which amount to unlawful assembly, he is certainly unsuitable to be classed as a politician much less the mouthpiece of the SDP.
ReplyDeleteOne can never doubt Chee's bravery. It may be a blind charge but he certainly deserves to be commended to be daring enough to speak up unlike some who just moan at the near by coffee shops.
ReplyDeleteI feel that the government should allow Singaporeans to speak up more so that there will be more room for improvement. However, in order to do so, there are many things to consider for example, harmony. Allowing Singaporeans to speak up will definitely cause disharmony among different groups of people especially if it is stereotyping.
ReplyDelete