Alex Au: Don’t tell us what is true, let us judge by opening official records

[Confuseous]

The most astounding part of this sorry episode is the language used by the MDA/government in the press release. The language is almost from a different planet. To begin with, take the sentence quoted at the top. The MDA is taking issue with the interviewees being presented as “victimised”. I have news for you, MDA: Most thinking Singaporeans have long ago concluded they were victimised. Trying to assert otherwise only makes you look foolish. The statement continues:

The individuals in the film have given distorted and untruthful accounts of how they came to leave Singapore and remain outside Singapore.

The humongous assumption behind a sentence like that is that if the government says something is ‘untruthful’, people will accept it as so. If there were ever such people in Singapore, they are dead. Most are by now literally dead. Cremated. The few still coughing have been brain-dead for decades.

For all the otherwise bright people we have in government, does no one realise that Singaporeans — and I am not referring to the younger generation, I am referring to the great majority of all age groups — no longer defer to the government as arbiters of truth? For the government to even try to assert a right to determine truth convinces no one; it only raises hackles and further erodes what little standing it has.

Continuing with the MDA statement...
http://yawningbread.wordpress.com/2...rue-let-us-judge-by-opening-official-records/

 

[Confuseous]

Andrew Loh

When a member of the SG50 committee, speaking about the nation’s 50th anniversary bash, said in July that Singapore also belonged to “exiles”, it was a surprise.

One would never have thought that the exiles, presumably the political exiles, would have any role in the nation’s big bash in 2015.

And so it is puzzling that the Media Development Authority (MDA) and the Minister of Communication and Information (MCI) have banned the film by Ms Tan Pin Pin.

The film, titled, “To Singapore, With Love”, depicts the lives of several political exiles who had left Singapore some decades ago, some as long as 50 years ago.

Ms Tan, in a statement on Wednesday, after the ban was announced, said:

“The focus [of the film] is on their everyday lives. These exiles all have different ideological positions and are of different ages; some are communists, others are activists from the Christian Left, yet others are socialist politicians or former student activists. But their feelings for Singapore is intense and heartfelt, albeit sometimes ambivalent, even after so long away. Those feelings (more than the circumstances of their exile, or even the historical “truth” that led to such exile) are what my film predominantly focuses on, because I feel that many viewers might relate to those feelings.”

But this apparently is deemed to be too severe for a public audience, according to the MDA and Dr Yaacob.

The MDA said it has “assessed that the contents of the film undermine national security because legitimate actions of the security agencies to protect the national security and stability of Singapore are presented in a distorted way as acts that victimised innocent individuals.”

And it added that “films that are assessed to undermine national security will be given an NAR rating.”

NAR stands for: Not Allowed for All Ratings.

Imagine that – a film about people who were involved in events 50 years ago are said to “undermine national security”.

What then of history? Who shall we be able to talk to, hear from, see, to learn from?

Be that as it may, what the MDA and Dr Yaacob have done runs contrary to the promise made by a member of the SG50 committee.

Mr Philip Jeyaretnam, co-chairman of the SG50 committee driving the culture and community events for the celebrations next year, said in an interview with the Straits Times in July that “even the cynics and dissenters have a role to play as Singapore reflects on its ever-changing sense of identity amid preparations for the country’s 50th birthday next year.”

Mr Jeyaretnam, who was the former president of the Law Society and an author himself, was asked why he thought it was important to engage the “cynics” in the celebrations.

He replied.....
http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2014/09/ban-on-film-contrary-to-what-sg50-promised/