Breaking news: Government refuses to classify One Nation

Friday, 17 July 2009

Singapore Democrats

The Board of Film Censors (BFC) had refused to classify the film One Nation Under Lee (ONUL, here), a documentary made by Mr Seelan Palay about Mr Lee Kuan Yew's oppression of Singapore.

Mr Martyn See, another filmmaker, submitted ONUL to the BCF in May this year for approval and rating. However, as Mr See reports in his blog, the authorities have declined to classify the film.

“It is probably the only video submission in BFC's history that has been deemed unclassifiable,” Mr See writes.

The stated reason from the censors is that the video contains material from another film Zahari's 17 Years (click here) produced by Mr See about the legendary Mr Said Zahari who was imprisoned without trial by Mr Lee Kuan Yew for 17 years.

Because Zahari's 17 Years was banned and ONUL contains parts of it, the BFC is saying that Mr Seelan's film is therefore unclassifiable.

This reason, if it can be considered one, doesn't make sense. Why can't the authorities make a decision on whether to approve ONUL and rate it accordingly based on its contents? The reference to Mr Said Zahari in the video is minimal and does not alter the film's theme.

The real reason for not classifying the film, one suspects, is because to do so would be to allow it to be screened to the public at large. Sacre bleu! What would Mr Lee think?

But to ban it would be to draw more attention to the film. As it is, because of the Media Development Authorities' seizing of ONUL when it was first screened, the film has attracted tens of thousands of viewers. Google and YouTube have removed the video because of “copyright” reasons. (See here)

And so the effort to control what Singaporeans watch continues – a sure sign of the nervousness of our undemocratic rulers.

Share this article:

Comments (10)

Sat 18 Jul 2009 4:38 AM | V.Benedict - Classification-approved: under PG

Approved under PG. Politics Gallery.

Little Emperor is going everywhere to spread draconian and totalitarian wisdom-teaching especially in Malaysia. Unfortunately, SDP is spreading Little Emperor's mishandling and shameful acts in the World Wide Web. It's travelled faster than his entourage. *Sigh -

Sat 18 Jul 2009 7:41 AM | quantum

The blacks in US did not rise from being slaves to being presidents in one day. - that should give the right perspective.

Sat 18 Jul 2009 11:55 AM | Blur

Although I am blur on many things, I am quite clear that this Government can do what it wishes.

Sat 18 Jul 2009 6:51 PM | Robox

Re: [color=red]"The stated reason from the censors is that the video contains material from another film Zahari's 17 Years...produced by Mr See about the legendary Mr Said Zahari who was imprisoned without trial by Mr Lee Kuan Yew for 17 years."[/color]

Including material for film from other films is pretty much an industry standard.

The best course of action to seek redress for this is to research other films for material included from other films, and then confront - yes, confront, because an adversarial system is [b]exactly[/b] what the BFC is asking for - them with it.

I'm sure that Seelan will not have to look very far for such films/video.

It doesn't matter that this is a further sign of 'the nervousness of our undemocratic rulers'; this is a matter of administration that is in keeping with the constitutional spirit of equality under the law. This is another opportunity to chip away at our thoroughly anti-democratic public institutions.

That's right, SDP and Seelan. Show them that human rights activists are not in the least like religious fanatics.

Show them that we intend to be far worse than them

Sun 19 Jul 2009 6:39 PM | g_e - on shaky ground

Can't classify because one film references another banned film? Hahaha, lame, lame, lame, and definitely no cigar.

It's pretty amusing to watch as Lee's minions duck and dive desperately, trying to find a reason, any reason however silly, to justify his Mickey Mouse antisocial rules. How sad, how humiliating, how perfectly delightful!

As Robox says, that judgement is like waving a red flag in front of the SDP legal bull and begging to be challenged. Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to mock the rule of law...

Mon 20 Jul 2009 4:05 PM | Robox

Because this topic falls within the larger rubric of freedom and speech and expression, I take this opportunity to illustrate how the institution of the free speech, along with all other public institutions, have been experiencing a deliberate and systemic weakening under what could be called the PAP's War of Attrition against all our Public Institutions.

I refer specifically to this session in which Vivian "I want to see a system of checks and balances"* Balakrishnan preyed on young impressionable minds by disinforming them on the essential function of freedom of speech, namely that of a problem-solving tool.

http://app.reach.gov.sg/reach/YouthVibes/YouthJournal/tabid/243/ctl/Details/mid/993/ItemID/109/Default.aspx

On the broad topic of the freedom of speech, Vivian Balakrishnan did what the PAP government is wont to do: narrow down all considerations for what is really a very complex subject by using the scare tactic of "race riots" which has always been effective in giving Singaporeans the false sense that we are either under constant siege or that we are particularly more vulnerable to security problems than all other countries. (Note: If it's true that we are vulnerable, then it must be because the PAP government does not have the competence to deal withn race and security-realted issues except to clamp down the discourse around race to zero.)

Consider these statements in the short writeup by the student councillors in REACH:

Re: [color=red]"Dr Vivian went on to address our questions regarding freedom of speech in Singapore. This time round, he asked us to consider the primary objective for freedom of speech in Singapore, and invited us to consider it alongside the search for truth...We were then asked to consider the multi-ethnic makeup in Singapore, and the need to be aware of the consequences brought about by free speech."[/color]

(Note: The primary objective of freedom of speech in Singapore is exactly the one elsewhere in the world: as a problem soving tool.)

This is the PAP government's typical "vulnerability" argument against the democratic/human right to free speech which at other times is used in anti-democracy arguments.

If what Vivian Balakrishnan is saying is that there ought to be curbs against racist speech or hate speech directed at members of other races, which can then result in socio-political tensions between racial groups, then it is clear that the PAP government has not been listening.

Most Singaporeans, even those who have fundamental disagreements with the PAP government [b]do want curbs[/b] on the [i]wilful[/i] propogation of hate speech against people of every class, including gays. (REACH probably thinks that the unbridled militant Christian activism that it is still helping to promote on its website does not qualify as the aiding and abetting of hate towards one class of Singaporeans which is expressly prohibited by the Sedition Act, and continues despite this disclaimer on the website: "REACH reserves the right to remove comments that are deemed inappropriate and/or insensitive to other users.")

http://app.reach.gov.sg/reach/TalkAbuzz/YourFeedbackOurResponse/tabid/181/ctl/Details/mid/926/ItemID/126/Default.aspx

This is where the government shows itself up as a bunch of incompetent fools.

The curbs against the freedom of speech is not confined solely to issues of race relations but the sensitivity around races issues are being used as an anti-freedom of speech argument by the cunning government [b]in ALL other matters[/b], and for the express purpose of circumventing any possibility of its own wrongdoings being shown up.

This example in this article is one more illustration of the PAP government's attempts to cover up its wrongdoings by refusing to classify ONUL using the "we are vulnerable" plea.

[i]* When he was first introduced as a new PAP candidate, Vivian Balakrishnan declared his burning ambition to reform the PAP by working towards a system of checks and balances. We are still waiting, though not naive enough to do so with bated breath.[/i]

Mon 20 Jul 2009 2:57 PM | Robox - To g_e:

The government speaks out against something that they term "adversial politics" as if it is something so disdainful that only [i]they[/i], as the incredibly moral beings that they make themselves out to be, are above it and as if there was something dysfunctional about it.

Yet in everything they do, they only reveal that this thing called 'adversarial politics', which is really their stubborn refusal to be transparent and accountable to any check and balance against the abuse of the system as with this incident, is exactly what they set things up for.

If they are so moral and more importantly, if they are competent politicians and administrators, then wuldn't they have known that morality in governance and public administration is codified in the Fundamental Liberties section of the Constitution? In particular, wouldn't they have known that Article 12(1) of the Constitution (the legal equality clause) would have applied in this incident?

The [i]spirit[/i] of the law - Article 12(1) again - is equally as important as the letter of the law. How would the PAP government conduct itself if it truly adhered to the spirit of equality of all? Would they have waged as many discrimintory acts against the opposition parties if they did conform to the spirit of the law?

Finally to SDP, does there exist any written policy by BFC regarding the basis for which a film is unclassifiable?

Mon 20 Jul 2009 4:34 PM | Tan Tai Wei

Seems that either they are incompetent and don't how to classify, or they lack the courage to do so because whether a ban or approval, repercussions would displease government.

Then they are not doing what they are paid by tax-payers to do, and so should not be rewarded by the PAP for being politically "wise".

Tue 21 Jul 2009 11:33 PM | Kai Xiong - A praise, perhaps

I think an artist like Seelan would take pride in a work that defies classification. There is no greater praise for audacious originality :)

Perhaps we could build on One Nation Under Lee, along with Martyn's banned works, to create an entire body of unclassifiable films and parade BFC's absurdity.

Sat 25 Jul 2009 3:14 AM | BryanT

"No greater praise for audacious originality"...

I would certainly agree with that there was a large dose of audacity, but surely it's quite a challenge to associate the word "originality" with a montage of old video clips.

It's just like another article here trying to highlight the "artistic" value of this video. Quite a stretch, no?