TR EMERITUS

Francis Seow Filmmaker and human rights campaigner Mr Seelan Palay has submitted a video to the Media Development Authority (MDA) for rating as required under the law. The video is an interview of Singapore's former solicitor-general (SG) Mr Francis Seow. Mr Seelan had submitted the film last year. The agency now wants to know the purpose of Mr Seelan producing the film and whether the video is accurate. Mr Seelan's replies are reproduced below. Mr Seow was also the president of the Law Society of Singapore (LSS) in the mid-1980s. As president, Mr Seow indicated that the Society would play a greater role in keeping watch on the laws the PAP passed. Of particular concern was the amendment of the Newspaper Printing and Presses Act which allowed the Government even greater control of the media in Singapore. This enraged Mr Lee Kuan Yew who was then prime minister. Mr Seow was subsequently arrested and detained under the Internal Security Act in 1987 together with those accused of being part of a Marxist conspiracy to overthrow the Government. He was removed as the LSS's president. After his release from detention and after standing as a candidate in the 1988 general elections, Mr Seow left for the US. This video interview was recorded in the US where he now lives. In the interview the former SG spoke on a wide range of issues including the inner workings of the PAP Government and Madam Kwa Geok Choo's (Mrs Lee Kuan Yew) role. Below are Mr Seelan's responses to the MDA's queries: Seelan Palay What is your purpose in producing the Film? Why is the MDA asking me this question? I am required to submit this video for rating which is exactly what I am doing. My purpose of producing this film has nothing to do with the rating process. But if you must know, I would like Singaporeans to hear what Mr Francis Seow has to say about our national affairs. You have stated in your submission that the Film is a "documentary...and composed wholly of an accurate account depicting actual events, persons ... or situations..." What are your reasons and premises for indicating that the Film is such a documentary? Could you explain how the Film is "an accurate account"? Can you explain which part of the film is not an accurate account and how it is not accurate? I will respond accordingly. Your submission also states that the Film is for "Private film screening". Please elaborate on what you mean and intend by "Private film screening", and who the intended target audience is. Private film screening is where I invite my friends to come to my place and watch the film. Your submission further states the Film will be for "distribution". Please elaborate on the medium and platform for such distribution. I would like to make copies of the film and pass it to my friends for their own viewing. Have you informed the interviewee of your intention to have the Film privately screened and distributed in Singapore? What has my communication with Mr Seow anything to do the rating of the film? In step with a Producer's responsibility, have you exercised editorial oversight in parts of the interview which, on the face of it, can be regarded as defamatory? You are the MDA, not the Supreme Court. Your job is to give me a rating, not decide on whether the content is defamatory or not. In step with a Producer's responsibility, have you exercised editorial oversight and ascertained accuracy with regard to what was said by the interviewee about being driven out of the country? If there is any inaccuracy, I am sure the relevant authorities will clarify it. You are not the proper authority to determine the accuracy or inaccuracy of Mr Francis Seow's claims because you do not know the facts. You do not have to be the gatekeeper of what the public watches or hears. Let Singaporeans watch and hear both sides of the story. The film ends with the Producer's statement that, "Francis T. Seow currently lives in exile in the United States ...". Have you ascertained if this is factually correct? I am amenable to removing this sentence. Overall, have you exercised editorial oversight to enable viewers to develop an informed understanding? The answer is yes. Perhaps you should more appropriately pose this question to Channel News Asia, the Straits Times, The New Paper, and all other local mainstream media outlets.   Jarrod Luo  Read More →

Dear PM Lee, It is indeed regrettable that I have to write to your office to request assistance for such trivial matters. I have already, on several occasions and at greath length, explained time and again regarding my family's financial situation to Changi General Hospital. I met with an accident last Sept and have been recuperating on MC ever since. However, I did not waste time and took this 'opportunity' to re-take my studies which examination will be held in Oct this year. I am not on any financial assistance at the moment and all I need is MediFund to make some progress towards my treatment as the doctor said I will not make a full recovery due to severely damaged cartilages that will not regenerate and restore. Hence, I have been suffering weather related pains and a slow gradual shift of my right index toe with excruciating pain ever since. And CGH has repeatedly refused to render me assistance claiming that my parents income have exceeded their ceiling criteria. I wish to say that this is untrue and inaccurate. My parents basic is only $850 and $560 respectively and the rest fluctuates depending on their ability to secure any overtime. Moreover, they are already supporting me on daily meals and transportation and am unable to assist any further due to the many other bills they have to foot. CGH further commented that this is in MOH's purview and wash their hands off entirely and further more refuses to dispense my medications even though I only have an outstanding of $9.80 owed to them. Mails to Mr T K, Ms Choo (CGH) and Mr Goh (MOH) were met with non-responses and appeals through my MP also proved useless either. In view of this situation, I find it hard to be optimistic and believe in your national day rally speech that the government cares for citizens and that they come first in every policy enacted. I would also not want to render support for a government that only pays lip service especially nearing election time.    De Costa Daniel Augustine   Editor's note: This email was sent to PM Lee and ccied to Reach and TR.  Read More →

作者:李显涛 过去几年人民都怨声载道，为大量外国人的涌入感到工作被抢了、工资压低了、房子买贵了、公共交通更拥挤了、孩子连附近的学校都报不进、医院病床很紧张等等，经 “2010人口普查报告”对照，果然是正确和真实的。一般民众并没有办法得到特别的资料，不过在“地面”的感觉的确是错不了，只有那些高高在象牙塔上的“ 圣人”才需要数据来说服。 新加坡的人口过去30年翻了两番多，尤其是近5、6年更如脱缰的野马，增加接近一百万。五年来今年（今年才走了四分三）的增长最低1.8%，过去的高增长我们都是事后知道，新加坡人是不是很好骗？ 总理说我们要引进外来人才，是他自己把“外来人才”和“廉价劳工”傻傻分不清楚，他说没有这些人，新加坡工人会更惨，真的吗？不就是他们“便宜兼耐操”让政府 可以继续压低低薪工友的薪金，以及保证大老板赚更多钱吗？要是政府强力禁止聘用外劳，很多老板就会自动结束营业，然后跳楼自杀吗？ 行动党政府的增加人口政策，除了“增加”这项之外，其余的因应政策都没有跟上，裕廊东地铁转换站好几次都几乎要发生践踏事件，可是还迟迟扩建不好。区分公民和 非公民的利益也是去年在舆论压力下才起步。交通问题现在都火烧屁股了，还在计划投入600亿发展，什么时候完成？这些都因为李显龙和他的内阁的首选是追高 GDP以求袋袋平安，其余的只是跟在后面补锅。 房地产泡沫更像成语故事——以子之矛攻子之盾。总理在国庆群众大会上自己说我们去年才从经济阴霾中走出来，国家发展部长马宝山去年底才说屋价还是人们负担得起的，新移民的涌入不是导致售价上涨的主要因素，现在却要多管齐下抑制房地产泡沫，给国民团结党的吴明盛一把就捉住那不消提的黄肿脚。那么就恳请总理或者国家发展部长重新解释：什么是房 地产泡沫的主要因素？ 李显龙自我感觉良好，以为他在国庆群众大会上这样虚晃一招，就会把大家哄得服服帖帖，人民就会买他的账，想得美哟！ 大马论坛  Read More →