[h=2]Why is PRC propaganda allowed in Singapore?[/h]
November 10th, 2012 |
Author: Contributions
[The letter has also been sent to SPF licensing, BCA, REACH,
MSF]
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
I write as a concerned member of the public to bring into light what may very
well concern all Singaporeans, taking the liberty to represent Singaporeans, and
seeking appropriate response from government
agencies/departments/organizations/parties.
Spotted at Peace Centre, Selegie Road, is this store, a café/canteen, that so
specifically named “Diao Yu Dao” (see Photo). Inside, the store is a blatant
display of a full wall message, written in Chinese – asking the return of the
“Diao Yu Dao” [1].
While many will not hesitate to try to guess the ‘origin’ of the owner, the
store undeniably invites speculations and prompts many questions:
1) We ask the SPF: What the store has installed, does it not amount to a
‘Propaganda’? Certainly the blatant display of message in the store is of a
political nature, showing a particular political inclination and a political
preference, in a social/commercial space (café/canteen) – a ‘propaganda’, and if
it’s a propaganda, did you not say that one requires a licence to convey such
messages in public? Singaporeans will trust that you have the “courage”, the
“integrity” to decide the course of action against the owners concerned.
2) We ask MCCY or MCI or MICA or MCYS or MDA or whatever media authority
(oh, we are so very confused now): Are you not aware that infiltration and
dissemination of information can come in some ways that you are still not aware
of? While we understand that your role is to curb undesirable information, we
suggest that you get out of your desk and computer, and look around, for the
mode of propaganda has evolved, and it may not always be initiatives by
Singaporeans. While you are still searching the network, propaganda like this is
happening in public places. Are you not concern?
3) We ask BCA (Signage department): Did you not approve this “Diao Yu Dao”
signboard, and disregarding its literary and political implication? Oh, perhaps
you do not have the literary capability to detect and sense the sub-text and
meaning of the Sign. Or perhaps you should employ a ‘foreign talent’ to assist
you or perhaps the one who gave the approval concerning this signboard is
already a foreign talent?
4) We ask Peace Centre, the building owner: Did you not
approve the renovation details of the store? We quite believe you did, for if
you had not, the store would not be what it is now. And if you did, we speculate
what substantiate your approval, especially that part that concerns propaganda
materials.
5) We ask our Political Leaders: Oh, the appearance of a store with such a
strong political message, is this consequential to your open embrace for
foreigners along with their foreign sentiments? We remember our political
leaders taking a neutral stand concerning the dispute of Diao Yu Dao, yet, here
we have someone displaying an extreme political preference. Does it not
undermine your integrity?
You shout and scream about an “inclusive society”, so tell us lah – this kind
of Political Ideology, this kind of political Fighting Spirit, for a particular
political thought, can include or not? can absorb or not? can learn or not? can
share or not? Can accept or not? Can copy or not?
Good grief! Having said the above, to end with a conclusion seems so
difficult, for this issue concerns different government
agencies/departments/organizations/parties. One conclusion will not be
satisfactory. Nevertheless, I ask that readers share my concern.
Thank you.
.
Christina Yew
Singaporean
[1] The Senkaku Islands or Diaoyu Dao dispute concerns a territorial
dispute over a group of uninhabited islands known as the Senkaku Islands in
Japan and as the Diaoyu (in China) or Tiaoyutai Islands (in Taiwan). Aside from
a 1945 to 1972 period of administration by the United States, the archipelago
has been controlled by Japan since 1895. The People’s Republic of China (PRC)
disputed the proposed US handover of authority to Japan in 1971 and has asserted
its claims to the islands since that time. The Republic of China (Taiwan) also
claims the islands. The territory is close to key shipping lanes, rich fishing
grounds, and there may be oil reserves in the area.
Japan argues that it surveyed the islands in the late 19th century and
found them to be Terra nullius (Latin: land belonging to no one); subsequently
China acquiesced to Japanese sovereignty until the 1970s. The PRC and the ROC
argue that documentary evidence prior to the First Sino-Japanese War indicates
Chinese possession and that the territory is accordingly a Japanese seizure that
should be returned as the rest of Imperial Japan’s conquests were returned in
1945.
Although the United States does not have an official position on the
merits of the competing sovereignty claims, the islands are included within the
U.S. Japan Security Treaty meaning that a defense of the islands by Japan may
compel support from the United States military. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senkaku_Islands_dispute).
[The letter has also been sent to SPF licensing, BCA, REACH,
MSF]
I write as a concerned member of the public to bring into light what may very
well concern all Singaporeans, taking the liberty to represent Singaporeans, and
seeking appropriate response from government
agencies/departments/organizations/parties.
Spotted at Peace Centre, Selegie Road, is this store, a café/canteen, that so
specifically named “Diao Yu Dao” (see Photo). Inside, the store is a blatant
display of a full wall message, written in Chinese – asking the return of the
“Diao Yu Dao” [1].
While many will not hesitate to try to guess the ‘origin’ of the owner, the
store undeniably invites speculations and prompts many questions:
1) We ask the SPF: What the store has installed, does it not amount to a
‘Propaganda’? Certainly the blatant display of message in the store is of a
political nature, showing a particular political inclination and a political
preference, in a social/commercial space (café/canteen) – a ‘propaganda’, and if
it’s a propaganda, did you not say that one requires a licence to convey such
messages in public? Singaporeans will trust that you have the “courage”, the
“integrity” to decide the course of action against the owners concerned.
2) We ask MCCY or MCI or MICA or MCYS or MDA or whatever media authority
(oh, we are so very confused now): Are you not aware that infiltration and
dissemination of information can come in some ways that you are still not aware
of? While we understand that your role is to curb undesirable information, we
suggest that you get out of your desk and computer, and look around, for the
mode of propaganda has evolved, and it may not always be initiatives by
Singaporeans. While you are still searching the network, propaganda like this is
happening in public places. Are you not concern?
3) We ask BCA (Signage department): Did you not approve this “Diao Yu Dao”
signboard, and disregarding its literary and political implication? Oh, perhaps
you do not have the literary capability to detect and sense the sub-text and
meaning of the Sign. Or perhaps you should employ a ‘foreign talent’ to assist
you or perhaps the one who gave the approval concerning this signboard is
already a foreign talent?
approve the renovation details of the store? We quite believe you did, for if
you had not, the store would not be what it is now. And if you did, we speculate
what substantiate your approval, especially that part that concerns propaganda
materials.
5) We ask our Political Leaders: Oh, the appearance of a store with such a
strong political message, is this consequential to your open embrace for
foreigners along with their foreign sentiments? We remember our political
leaders taking a neutral stand concerning the dispute of Diao Yu Dao, yet, here
we have someone displaying an extreme political preference. Does it not
undermine your integrity?
You shout and scream about an “inclusive society”, so tell us lah – this kind
of Political Ideology, this kind of political Fighting Spirit, for a particular
political thought, can include or not? can absorb or not? can learn or not? can
share or not? Can accept or not? Can copy or not?
Good grief! Having said the above, to end with a conclusion seems so
difficult, for this issue concerns different government
agencies/departments/organizations/parties. One conclusion will not be
satisfactory. Nevertheless, I ask that readers share my concern.
Thank you.
.
Christina Yew
Singaporean
[1] The Senkaku Islands or Diaoyu Dao dispute concerns a territorial
dispute over a group of uninhabited islands known as the Senkaku Islands in
Japan and as the Diaoyu (in China) or Tiaoyutai Islands (in Taiwan). Aside from
a 1945 to 1972 period of administration by the United States, the archipelago
has been controlled by Japan since 1895. The People’s Republic of China (PRC)
disputed the proposed US handover of authority to Japan in 1971 and has asserted
its claims to the islands since that time. The Republic of China (Taiwan) also
claims the islands. The territory is close to key shipping lanes, rich fishing
grounds, and there may be oil reserves in the area.
Japan argues that it surveyed the islands in the late 19th century and
found them to be Terra nullius (Latin: land belonging to no one); subsequently
China acquiesced to Japanese sovereignty until the 1970s. The PRC and the ROC
argue that documentary evidence prior to the First Sino-Japanese War indicates
Chinese possession and that the territory is accordingly a Japanese seizure that
should be returned as the rest of Imperial Japan’s conquests were returned in
1945.
Although the United States does not have an official position on the
merits of the competing sovereignty claims, the islands are included within the
U.S. Japan Security Treaty meaning that a defense of the islands by Japan may
compel support from the United States military. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senkaku_Islands_dispute).
