Seelan Palay under investigation for One Nation under Lee

Thursday, 25 June 2009

Singapore Democrats

Mr Seelan Palay, maker of One Nation Under Lee (ONUL), was called up yesterday for questioning by the police. The 24 year-old Singaporean filmmaker had produced the 40-minute video narrating the rule of Singapore by Mr Lee Kuan Yew.

The film was screened at a private function last year at the Peninsular-Excelsior Hotel when the police and Media Development Authority officials barged in and seized the video. Since then ONUL has been making its rounds on YouTube attracting tens of thousands of views.

Below is the police interview as provided by Mr Seelan:

Police investigation regarding my film One Nation Under Lee

Introductory question (Q): What do you know about the facts of the case? (Posed to me as "Tell me about yourself" by the officer but strangely printed as "What do you know about the facts of the case?" in the version I was to sign at the end.)
Answer (A): I am an artist.

Q1: Can you remember where you were on 17 May 2008 at about 2pm?
A1: I cannot recall.

Q2: I am now informing you that the investigation into this offence is of the incident that happened at Excelsior Hotel on 17 May 2008. Do you recall this incident?
A2: I do not recall it as an offence.

Q3: Can you explain why you were at the Excelsior Hotel on 17 may 2008?
A3: I remember that I was at the Excelsior Hotel on that date to attend a private event.

Q4: Are you aware of a film that was screened on this date at Tulip Room at Excelsior Hotel?
A4: Yes.

Q5: Were you in the Tulip Room when this film was screened?
A5: Yes.

Q6: What was this film all about?
A6: That is a private matter.

Q7: Who is the one who is in charge of this event?
A7: It was a private event so that is none of anyone's concern.

Q8: Do you know who brought the film to the Tulip Room on 17 May 2008?
A8: That is a private matter.

Q9: Do you know who prepared this film?
A9: That is a private matter.

Q10: How long was this film screened?
A10: I cannot recall.

Q11: Can you remember what happened after the film was screened?
A11: Some uninvited guests entered the room.

Q12: Do you know who these uninvited guests were?
A12: I cannot recall.

Q13: Can you explain what happened after the film ended?
A13: The uninvited guests asked for the DVD of the film. The DVD was given to them.

Q14: How many copies were there in the room?
A14: I do not know.

Q15: Who handed over the DVD to the uninvited guests?
A15: I cannot recall.

Q16: What is your role in this private event?
A16: That is a private matter.

Q17: Who was operating the systems when the film was screened?
A17: That is a private matter.

Q18: Were you at Jalan Gelenggang on 16 May, one night before the incident?
A18: I cannot recall.

Q19: I'm going to show you a document, can you tell me if you have seen this document before? (Officer then shows me a letter from MDA apparently sent the night before the event with a warning not to screen the film. Films Act sections were quoted in the letter.)
A19: I cannot recall.

Q20: The officers who served this letter at No.2A Jalan Gelenggang claim that you were the one who received the letter. What have you got to say about this?
A20: Did they identify themselves as police officers? If they claim it was me, did they ask for my name or IC?

Q21: Did you remove the DVD from the player and hand it over to Madam ---? (Name undisclosed for the purposes of this post.)
A21: That is a private matter.

Q22: Do you have anything else to add?
A22: The uninvited guests should be investigated for barging in to and disrupting a private event.

Share this article:

Comments (21)

Thu 25 Jun 2009 11:05 AM | Ted

I suspect that eventually those cowards will nail you with one law or another. But any right-minded Singaporeans will tell them straight in the face that you did nothing wrong. In fact, what you did was very noble. Thank you very much.

Thu 25 Jun 2009 11:55 PM | jmiahlee

the Singapore police have become a bunch of idiots.

what they suppose to do? protect citizens, catch the illegals Chinese mafias at Geylang, and many real police work. But, no.

what they not suppose to do? suck up to Lee Kuan Yew.

Like leader like followers, LKY and all the bloody police department WASTING our tax payers monies, wa-yang wa-yang.

who is the real devil? who is the real liar? who is the real criminal?

Lee Kuan Yew and his bloody family. Why police dont catch them?

Fri 26 Jun 2009 12:54 AM | quantum

Will he be sued for libel till bankrupt or detained indefinitely for being a subversive?

Fri 26 Jun 2009 1:47 AM | Ada Style - Well Done, Seelan

Bravo, Seelan. You've landed several sucker punches. Whatever the outcome is, you've won the match.

You have my utmost respect.

Fri 26 Jun 2009 4:58 AM | quantum

>>Lee Kuan Yew and his bloody family. Why police dont catch them?

How can you bite the hands that feed you?

Fri 26 Jun 2009 5:54 AM | ashinigami

"That is a private matter"

Bravo, bravo! Hahahahah...

Fri 26 Jun 2009 6:27 AM | V.Benedict - Singapore's Constitution is a joke

Sorry my fellows Singaporeans. The tagline above is all I can think of. If we were to refer to our consitution articles, this kind of action from the police is unjustifiable. It ran against our constitution!!! Therefore, it is still a joke.

Fri 26 Jun 2009 10:10 AM | Muhammad Shamin

Stay strong, bro!

Sun 28 Jun 2009 7:12 AM | Robox

Bravo, Seelan!

If you can do this at 24, I wonder what you will be like at 37 or 59. Heck! I wonder what you can do next year.

I was trying to decide which of two statements you made deserved the Statement of the Year Award: "It was a private event so that is none of anyone's concern" or "I do not recall it as an offence". I finally decided on the latter.

Influential political philosopher John Stuart Mills who lived in the 19th century promulgated four motivations for legislating against an act to make it a crime, which has become a basis for modern criminology worldwide. According to him, those four motivations are:

1. that [b]the act causes harm to others[/b] - in Mills' opinion, this is the only legitimate basis for legislating against an act so as to deem it a crime.

Comment: The PAP government and its political agents in the Singapore Police Force are obliged to point out the harm caused by the screening of One Nation Under Lee, as well as to identify any victims, if any. (No conjuror's tricks please, PAP.)

[i]Notes: The 'harm' resulting from the process of political contestation is not considered to belong in this category.[/i]

2. that [b]the act causes harm to self[/b] - Mills considers this to be a paternalistic position in legislating against any act. However, there are examples of such legislation such as in suicide and drug consumption. Still, the majority of acts that belong in this category are not legislated against.

Q. What harm to self, either to Seelan or to the SDP, was caused by the screening of the film?

3. that [b]the act is offensive[/b] - this would open up a whole can of worms for an unending list of acts that could be considered crimes. Please read a few examples of what those might be in this article by Alex Au:

http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2009/yax-1048.htm

3. that [b]the act is one of harmless wrongdoing[/b] - just as with #3 above, Mills dismisses this motivation as having any validity in legislating against an act as crime; he considers 'harmless wrongdoing' as a contradiction in terms.

So.

Just what [i]is[/i] the crime here?

Fri 26 Jun 2009 6:06 PM | quantum

>>If you can do this at 24, I wonder what you will be like at 37 or 59.

Chia Thye Poh and Tan Wah Piow were very young then, what are they like now?

Sat 27 Jun 2009 2:14 AM | XisD Tay

It is unlikely that he will be charged under any law but technically, the Films Act might get him but then one can always argue that it was a PRIVATE FILMING, so no license is needed nor censorship from any agency is required.

But then, the arguement goes on and on that the place of the screening is a public place, etc etc and given that Kangaroos run the Courts, conviction is unavoidable.

If the system is what it used to be, then ISA would be a better option to excercise without spewing much dirt.

Sat 27 Jun 2009 2:42 AM | XisD Tay

IN reply to Robox:

3. that the act is offensive

that is, its offensive to the head of the famiLEE. The lone reason above will suffice to fixed him for good.

Sat 27 Jun 2009 5:43 AM | jimmyboy007

Thank you Mr Seelan Palay for speaking up for us all Singaporeans.

We need more people like you to break the chains of tyranny!

Sat 27 Jun 2009 5:47 AM | jimmyboy007

[quote]A22: The uninvited guests should be investigated for barging in to and disrupting a private event.[/quote]

i love this reply! eat this LKY!!

Sat 27 Jun 2009 8:00 PM | Dick - Dirty Police

Well Done Mr Seelan, you show them not all Singaporeans buckle under bully.

LKY is a traitor in WW2, till today, he is still suppressing local Singaporeans,
As a traitor, he offered his services to the Japs, for self preservation.

So I guess he will never understand, why Mr Seelan, is willing to risk his neck for something call truth.

Sun 28 Jun 2009 7:04 AM | Robox

Re: [color=red]"...that is, its offensive to the head of the famiLEE. The lone reason above will suffice to fixed him for good."[/color]

That is entirely possible given Lee Kuan Yew's track record just like when he sued the late JB Jeyaratnam for defamation for making the statement of fact, "We have made a police report".

There is also another possible motivation for pressing charges against anyone for screening a film at a private function without a license: "harmless wrongdoing" which, because of its lowest ranking in the list of four motivations, is also considered the most ridiculous one ("No harm towards others or self was done by screening the film, but we are going to declare it a wrongdoing anyway").

The Afghan Taliban were also as lunatic as the PAP with their laws, like for example when they declared kiteflying and listening to music to be wrongdoings even though no one is harmed by those activities.

Sun 28 Jun 2009 7:23 AM | Robox - To XisD Tay

Re: "But then, the arguement goes on and on that the place of the screening is a public place, etc etc"

Actually, I would correct you there. I'm not doing this for the sake of argument, but because I know that the government snoops here, I want to take this opportunity to preempt any magician's antics that they might pull over this case.

Strictly speaking, a 'public' place is any place that has been constructed with public finances. Examples of these are the streets, any government building, etc.

However, there is also the loose use of the word 'public' to mean any place that is visible to members of the public; this is a valid use of the word 'public' in law enforcement.

A place that is accessible to the public would be privately funded but which is open to mmembers of the public such as the Internet, hotels, shopping centres, etc.

However, the film screening took place at a privately owned hotel, behind closed doors, with no invitations for the public and no entrance fee charged.

Nothing could be more strictly private than this.

Sun 28 Jun 2009 7:59 AM | Robox - To XisD Tay

Sorry, I've been experiencing glitches with my computer so I decided to quickly send the previous comment before I lose the info. I have a little more to add.

I wanted to say that this film screening was held at a private hotel, attendance was by invitation only, and there were no signs outside the function room saying that it was open to the public with or without an entrance charge.

In other words, this function was EXACTLY like attending a wedding reception at a hotel: a strictly private event where videos are frequently screened without any licensing requirement!

Re: "...given that Kangaroos run the Courts, conviction is unavoidable."

Yes, that is indeed the problem in Singapore. However, if for any non-kangaroo reason, there is no charge (or even if there was a charge but Seelan/the SDP gives the courts a hard time with superior arguments), I can guarantee you that there will be new legislation to ensure that a repeat of such an event in the future will meet with Singapore laws' droconian nature.

I have written in this website previously that the PAP follows a fraudulent, three-step procedure to criminalize and contain legitimate political that threatens its iron grip on power:

1. Identify an individual, a group of people or an organizational entity that threatens the PAP's total domination.

Eg. Seelan Palay

2. Identify a perfectly legitimate and legal act or acts taken by that individual, the group of people, or the organizational entity.

Eg. The screening of a politically sensitive film

3. Pass new legislation to criminalize the act in #2.

If you have read this artilcle elsewhere, you may have come across the information that Seelan is being investigated under section 21 of the Films Act which states that —(1) Any person who —(a) has in his possession;(b) exhibits or distributes; or(c) reproduces,[b]any film[/b] without a valid certificate, approving the exhibition of the film, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction.

Any new legislation passed by the corrupt and fraudulent PAP will amend "any film" in the above section of the Films Act to read "any film with political content" or something along those lines.

I have also said before that the above procedure is a flagrant abandonment of the normal legislative process; it would be - and has been on countless previous occasions - an abuse of the legislative process.

So we don't only have kangaroo courts, we also have a kangaroo Parliament.

Mon 29 Jun 2009 6:27 AM | quantum

Dick:
What makes you say that he is a WW2 traitor?

Tue 30 Jun 2009 4:51 AM | quantum

http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_396495.html

June 28, 2009
Hero's grave a monument?
Lim Bo Seng's family makes appeal to the National Heritage Board
By Teo Wan Gek

THE grave of Singapore's wartime hero Lim Bo Seng may become a national monument one day.

His family has approached the National Heritage Board to accord the grave such a status.

Said Brigadier-General Lim Teck Yin, 47, grandson of the national hero: 'We want to make sure that someone will look after it when we are gone.'

He is the commander of the Army Training and Doctrine Command in the Ministry of Defence.

In order to be gazetted, a building must have historical, traditional and architectural merit. Fifty-five buildings have been gazetted as national monuments.

Last week, a reader wrote to bilingual newspaper mypaper about the 'deplorable' state of the grave at MacRitchie Reservoir Park, saying it needed 'proper maintenance'.

When The Sunday Times visited the grave, we spotted corrosion on the steps of the grave and a carving had broken off.

The Public Utilities Board maintains the area around the tombstone. The latter belongs to the family.

Tomorrow is Lim Bo Seng's 65th death anniversary.

Said Brig-Gen Lim: 'My uncles and aunts visit the grave every year on his death anniversary. My father, his eldest son, used to go until he died a few years ago. He was 72.'

Tue 07 Jul 2009 4:31 PM | Simpang Bedok - Lowest Common Denominator Op

ONUL is an old broken record. It's LCDO...lowest common denominator op. Has it changed anything? Latest PAP changes to the political system would cause even more havoc to representative democratic government.With all the empty noises NMPs and NCMPs can and will make even NGOs' profile and effectiveness would suffer. Opposition parties like the National Solidarity Party has been recharged. More smaller parties and independents would appear ready to add to the empty noise level. Approved parties positions would be further entrenched. So much for cute little ONUL.Little things affect little minds....I suppose that's the meaning of lowest common denominator op.