Plea to Function 8

[aurvandil]

This seems rather generous and optimistic.

Nbg, Peter and sex with minor whore cases were deliberately played up to serve certain purposes for pap. NBG case got a little wild because of complacency at CPIB and AGC. Nonetheless, all the cases may still be net positive for pap to project image of being corruption free and pure.

 

[ThePlen]

it is obvious that TSL remains hung up about closure. like lockeliberal said, this is an old issue but TSL remains like the bunny with the battery that never runs out. i agree with scroobal that SDP is a party which pushes had a human rights and social agenda. they are really taking 3 steps forwards and 2 steps back by being dragged into this old m&d. or is this what happens when political parties have to take center stage to show that they are in touch with politics and not randomly appear before the next GE?

we all know what it is like when people are desperate for closure. they do things in the spur of the moment and ruin the greater good forever. F8 is as relevant as the damned key on the keyboard which most of us have never used.

If all it took to stay in power was a return to the old iron-fisted ways, the PAP won't need the excuse of F8 to round up and detain people. My take is that the fallout will be overwhelmingly negative. Those seeking action will need to convince the others that it will be better to take action now and contain the negative fallout rather than to let F8 run free and attack them in 2014/2015.

 

[cheekenpie]

In their eyes he had taken a leadership position and might feel obliged to lead. He was the former executive director TWC2 and the way he writes shows he is highly principled.

The rest of the loonies recognize that he is the only one that does not comes across as a raving loony when he speaks. MPS like LTY, TCJ, VB, all dont dare debate with him. But i believe last time, Mravi also not so mad.

Vincent is not such a simple character.

 

[captainxerox]

Proves that vw and sdp still don't have it. Will always be a fringe party if they continue this route.

To paraphrase Clinton: it's the middle ground, stupid!

vw has it. sdp doesn't and only reason why sdp is afloat is vw.

 

[independentdirect]

Then you have hidden hands. People like Ryan Goh who drafted the letter but he himself did not sign, played power broker for the union elections, never took up Singapore citizenship, had a back-up plan and actually made the moves behind the scenes while dumb Singaporeans who were his colleagues had no idea.

Thanks Scroobal. Your and aurivandil's info are scattered in the thread, but reading them carefully allows me to piece them together. Most invaluable.

 

[byleftcan]

If this is the case, history repeats itself, 25 years later.

Dear Scroo,

Its really sad, but Function Eight should really be named " Function of the Eighties" . They have had no closure from the arrests, a deep abiding sense of injustice and a long sense of the need to campaign against the perceived injustices done to them. Seperate FB accounts are not new, heck even the PAP does it. their private views need to be shared amongst they trust, but only a fool would assume to trust everyone and everything on facebook.

Clandestine Ops training ? I doubt So Lung and gang would have the necessary discipline and trade craft necessary to run a cell or to maintain discipline. If I were a cell leader, I would note their temprements , and say that they would be the greatest danger to my cover been blown or for them to become a substantive disruptive political force or a asset in place. Teo So Lung and function eight are not "assets" in any conventional matrix, whilst intelligence convention has "dissidents" as "assets" , the history of dissedents as assets is one of dismal failure, I note " Curveball" etc etc. The usefulness of any assets especially a dissident , its the stature of its leaders, its influence and its networks. F8 fails by all standards. Can So Lung with her history build anything in the form of a broad based coalition ?

Whatever self given or taught training is because of the persecuted syndrome they all have gone through. They will protest against anything and everything as long as its against the PAP with their ISA grievances as a base. The danger is allowing them to contaminate causes which have some basis.

Come to think of it, thats how their MO was in the eighties to which got them into trouble with the ISA. A network of social issue NGO's which they started to infiltrate :_)).


Locke

 

[giggity_shit]

Why dont people like TSL and now VW get that to win votes, they have to foucs on grassroot acitivites. Taking pots shots at government and siding with foreigners to ridicule singapore only alienates people.

WP has the right formula.

 

[Bigfuck]

Why dont people like TSL and now VW get that to win votes, they have to foucs on grassroot acitivites. Taking pots shots at government and siding with foreigners to ridicule singapore only alienates people.

WP has the right formula.

The new generation will not take cul-de-sac and cold storage well. The dogs may find themselves beaten to death by the young and that is not too far fetch from the truth. If Leegime dogs want to find out they are welcomed to. You cannot teach old dogs new tricks.

 

[scroobal]

She got extended detention not because she was some key individual. She is single minded and cannot go with the programme. If she was a CO of a battalion, you cannot rely on her smarts. She will be good for suicide mission.

Sadly she has seen this more than anyone starting with her previous boss Raman who was detained. She started with the Euro-communists, then the Marxists, and still making noise.

Then they will contact an American from the US, the doyen of high capitalism and anti communism to seek advice. I could laugh when they invited 2 american embassy staff for their film screening and then wonder why the Police turned up.

Moron'

it is obvious that TSL remains hung up about closure. like lockeliberal said, this is an old issue but TSL remains like the bunny with the battery that never runs out.

we all know what it is like when people are desperate for closure. they do things in the spur of the moment and ruin the greater good forever. F8 is as relevant as the damned key on the keyboard which most of us have never used.

 

[scroobal]

The PAP considers VW as more likely to cause an issue to the regime than LTK and his few seats. VW can swing the pendulum more than anyone. That is why VB tried to take him out with the Gay agenda.

They cannot use the Marxist label as it is no longer tenable. They have to find a different label. They are also going to after the people behind the scenes who are effective. The ones who were putting out the Hammer for WP and did not have a profile were clearly targeted during Operation Spectrum.

With the appearance of the Australian and the American, both of whom were involved in industrial agitation in the 70s appearing in Singapore last year at the behest of F8 is enough grounds to screw everyone. The fact that they held workshop to train others using the exact same programme in the 70s is mind boggling bravado if you ask me.

I am still pinching myself for not realising the connection with these events and the Archbishop incident.

I won't be surprised that a agent provocateur is giving "constructive" advice to the gullible and emotional people like TSL.

The rest of the loonies recognize that he is the only one that does not comes across as a raving loony when he speaks. MPS like LTY, TCJ, VB, all dont dare debate with him. But i believe last time, Mravi also not so mad.

Vincent is not such a simple character.

 

[scroobal]

The main reason if ever is that unlike the past, prostitutes like Cheong Yip Seng, the Chua sisters etc cannot control the media ad they did in the past. The media environment is now a sieve. Too many holes to plug.

Look how LTK blasted the MSM, and the whimper in reply.

Look at the quality on PAP side for Hougang BE - the most corrupted cop in SPH history in the form of Lionel de Souza and an ex detainee lawyer who was personally discredited by the old man with a candidate whose uncle an ex PAP MP who went to jail. Its not even 6 degrees of separation.

They are clutching at straws.

The new generation will not take cul-de-sac and cold storage well. The dogs may find themselves beaten to death by the young and that is not too far fetch from the truth. If Leegime dogs want to find out they are welcomed to. You cannot teach old dogs new tricks.

 

[independentdirect]

Workshop on Community Organisation

Posted on June 19, 2011

Have you ever wondered what Community Organisation is all about? How does one go about organising communities? What are the skill sets required to bond with the community you are working with, or plan to work with? How do you identify and groom leaders within that community?

In this workshop over 2 evening sessions, Ron Fujiyoshi (a community organiser with 4 decades of international CO experience) shares with you the history and major principles of community organisation with pertinent examples from his work in the US, Malaysia, Thailand, Japan and Singapore, He will also talk about the experience of community organisation in Singapore in the late 60′s and early 70′s when he was the director of the Jurong Industrial Mission (JIM). The workshop is highly participative with a variety of learning methodologies including lectures, group exercises, and individual reflections.

Check out the attached flyer and register for the workshop now if you want to learn more about community organisation.

http://fn8org.wordpress.com/2011/06/19/workshop-on-community-organisation/

 

[independentdirect]

PRESS RELEASE

Posted on November 18, 2012

Aussie clergyman denied entry for interfering in S’pore politics – ST 12/11/2012

Aussie clergyman barred from entering Singapore – TODAY 12/11/2012

We refer to the above reports in The Straits Times (ST) and TODAY of 12 Nov 2012. Both reports quoted MHA as saying that Rev James Minchin spoke at a forum (ST used the words “political forum”) where he was alleged to have said that “the rule of law was bypassed and corrupted in Singapore, and questioned the independence and integrity of the judiciary”. TODAY unequivocally stated that “the forum was organised by civil society group Function 8” while ST stated that “MHA did not name the event but in August last year, Mr Minchin spoke at a forum organised by civil society group Function 8, which wants to abolish the Internal Security Act.”

We are exceedingly disappointed that both the ST and TODAY have deemed it proper journalistic practice to name Function 8 as the organiser of the forum or political forum where those words were allegedly spoken by Rev Minchin when MHA itself did not name the organiser. Neither ST nor TODAY had spoken to any member of Function 8 to confirm that we were the organiser of a forum where Rev Minchin said those words. For the record, we have never invited any reporter to any of our forums.

With regard to insinuations of TODAY and ST that Function 8 had breached any employment regulations or laws, we are very clear that we had not done so.

Function 8 is a social enterprise and its members believe there is a need to facilitate the sharing of social, political and economic experiences of those who had or are eager to contribute to society through reflection and civic discussions. Our aims are wider than just seeking the abolition of the Internal Security Act as suggested by ST. Function 8 has on a regular basis, organised talks and discussions. Speakers included a wide range of personalities because we believe in diversity of views. We are an open and transparent organisation and wish to engage various segments of society in discussions and activities that will elevate us to a higher plane of civic and moral responsibility.

Function 8 Limited
19 November 2012

http://fn8org.wordpress.com/2012/11/18/press-release-2/

 

[independentdirect]

Archbishop Nicholas Chia: I withdrew letter for social harmony's sake

Posted on Sep 19, 2012 11:41 PM
Updated: Sep 24, 2012 2:01 PM

By Tessa Wong


<fieldset class="field-group-fieldset group-media form-wrapper" id="node_article_full_group_media" style="margin: 0px 0px 20px 5px; padding: 0px 0px 5px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-size: 12px; vertical-align: baseline; font: inherit; float: right; width: 300px; background-color: rgb(221, 221, 221); color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: georgia, 'times new roman', serif;">


Archbishop Nicholas Chia said he withdrew the letter because he feared it could affect Singapore's social harmony -- ST PHOTO: CHEW SENG KIM



</fieldset>The head of the Catholic Church confirmed last night that he had written to an activist group backing its call to abolish the Internal Security Act – but withdrew the letter later fearing it could affect Singapore’s social harmony.

Archbishop Nicholas Chia told The Straits Times that he had retracted the letter sent to the group Function 8, as he was concerned that it would be used “in a manner that I did not intend”.

The response came a day after blogger Alex Au said on his site Yawning Bread that the Archbishop had written to Function 8 ahead of a June rally against the ISA.

“Au’s article confirmed my fear that the group would use my letter in a manner that I did not agree with, and make use of the Office of the Archbishop and the Catholic Church for their own ends,” he said.

This is the full text of his statement"I refer to the article by Mr Alex Au which he says is based on second hand information. Mr Au could only have obtained such an ccount from the group he referred to, with which I had communicated in private. I had earlier decided to withdraw my letter to this group as, on reflection, its contents did not accurately reflect my views on the subject, and if used in a manner that I did not intend, may inadvertently harm the social harmony in Singapore. The group had acknowledged my decision and returned the letter to me.

The article by Au, which has appeared now, months later, confirms the correctness of my earlier decision to withdraw the letter so as not to inadvertently embroil the Catholic Church and the office of the Archbishop in a political event which was being staged by the group.

The Catholic Church has always maintained the position that it will not involve itself in political activities. We have always worked in harmony with the Government to contribute positively to society, rather than set ourselves on a collision path with the Government.

Au's article confirmed my fear that the group would use my letter in a manner that I did not agree with, and make use of the Office of the Archbishop and the Catholic Church for their own ends.

These irresponsible actions can easily cause serious misunderstanding between the Catholic Church and the Government, and damage the longstanding trust and cooperation between the two. It is most regrettable that Au and the group have acted in this manner."

http://www.singapolitics.sg/news/archbishop-nicholas-chia-i-withdrew-letter-social-harmonys-sake

 

[independentdirect]

Lunch menu a 4-point letter

<small class="entry-meta" style="padding: 0px; margin: 1px 0px 0px; font-size: 1em; line-height: 1.5em; color: rgb(187, 187, 187); display: block;">Published <abbr class="published" title="2012-09-18T18:23:19+0000" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; font-size: 0.9em; letter-spacing: 0.07em; border: 0px; cursor: help;">18 September 2012</abbr> politics and government , religion 67 Comments
</small>


The head of the church was told to present himself. Although couched as an invitation to lunch, it wasn’t hard to see it for what it was — a summons to appear before Caesar for a dressing down.

Could he bring another priest along? he asked.

No. Come alone.

* * * * *

In June this year, I wrote about a rally held at Hong Lim Park. Hundreds turn up at rally against arbitrary detention was about Function 8′s campaign to abolish the Internal Security Act, the law that allows detention without trial. I understand that the event was jointly organised with Maruah, a human rights group.

What I didn’t know then, but only came to hear of it recently, was that there was a back story to that event. It’s a very unsettling story about the way power is wielded in Singapore, though it also raises some difficult questions, which I will come to below.

Prior to the rally scheduled for 2 June 2012, a letter reached the organisers from the head of the Catholic Church in Singapore, Archbishop Nicholas Chia. It was an unsolicited letter and a complete surprise. In the warmly-worded letter, the archbishop expressed his support for the rally and, I am told, endorsed the call for the abolition of the law in question. The letter has since been withdrawn, as this story will detail. I myself have not seen the letter; my reports of it, and of subsequent events, are second-hand.

A few days later, government officers, believed to be from the Internal Security Department, paid a call to the archbishop. It was apparently suggested to him that the church might be being made use of by Function 8 — a rather strange way to see things when it was a totally unsolicited letter. How could Function 8 be trying to make use of the church when they didn’t even ask for such a letter?

Exactly why the archbishop, out of the blue, chose to pen the letter is not known, but the Catholic Church was implicated in the arrests of over 20 persons in 1987/1988. These persons were accused of being engaged in a ‘Marxist Conspiracy’ to overthrow the government, but were never given an open trial. The June 2 rally was also intended to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the arrests.
* * * * *
The persons who were arrested had for several years prior been working with low-wage workers helping them get a fairer deal and informing them of their rights. They were motivated by the Roman Catholic Church’s social teaching to care for the vulnerable and marginalised. For example, Vincent Cheng, who was detained for two years, wrote:

We in the seminary were directly affected with regard to our priestly training, our theological studies, and our ecclesiastical mission. The priest was now envisioned as a shepherd, devoted not only to care for the personal salvation of the individual soul, but also to promote the social salvation of this world. Justice and peace became areas of primary concern, based on the inalienable dignity of the human person.

– Vincent Cheng, in That we may dream again. Ed: Fong Hoe Fang


​

He deferred his ordination after completing his training in order to work in the “real world”.

What made the following years a turning point in my life was the fact that, for the first time, I was thrown into a sea of injustices. An ecumenical community building project called the Jurong Industrial Mission had been started in the new industrial township… [snip]

… The training was tough, demanding constant interaction with the residents who were mainly lower-income Singaporeans and young workers from Malaysia.

Never in my life had I seen so much hardship and pain, injustice and repression.

– ibid.


​

A week after the first wave of arrests on 21 May 1987, then-archbishop Gregory Yong and 23 priests held a solidarity mass to pray for the detainees and their families. 2,500 people attended, according to a published chronology of events. A pastoral letter supporting the detained Church workers was also read in all Catholic churches.

Then-prime minister Lee Kuan Yew summoned the archbishop to a meeting, and it was probably no coincidence that four priests soon after “resigned” from all their Church positions. Their preaching duties were also suspended.

The detainees felt that the leadership of the Church had capitulated and disowned them.

* * * * *

Nicholas Chia in 2012 might have been mindful of Gregory Yong’s fast retreat in 1987. Despite having been visited by the two officers, he sent a message to Function 8 to say that the organisers could announce to the crowd at the rally that they had received a letter of support from the Catholic Church. However, could they not read out the full contents of the letter please?

As far as I know, Function 8 had not asked the archbishop if they could read out the letter, so how did the archbishop even know it was a possibility?

My best guess is that it was discussed internally among the organisers, but the discussion was bugged. Perhaps their discussion of this idea was then relayed to the archbishop by the two officers at the meeting.

But Chia’s half-retreat was not good enough for the government. So, in a reprise of 1987, the archbishop was summoned to lunch with Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean. He was told to show up alone.

I don’t know what transpired at the lunch, but the result was soon apparent. A fresh letter from the archbishop was sent — this time by registered mail, no less — to Function 8, withdrawing the first letter and asking for it to be returned. It said that the first letter “does not express my sentiments” or something to that effect. What was particularly notable however was that this fresh letter was written in civil service style, with four numbered paragraphs and curt language.

I think we know enough to be able to paint in what really happened at the lunch.

Has anything changed since 1987? What “opening up” is this government boasting about?

* * * * *

However, readers should also pause and recall what happened during the Aware saga. That was when a group of fundamentalist Christian women launched an audacious raid to seize control of Aware, a women’s rights organisation, aiming to reverse the increasingly gay-friendly tone of the organisation. The raiders were egged on by the pastor of their smallish church, which was part of the Anglican communion.

The government then arm-twisted the head of the Anglican church in order to get him to rein him his local pastor. The position the government took was that religious leaders and groups should not be getting involved in causes with a political element.

Liberal-minded Singaporeans were aghast at the way religiously-motivated women seized control of a secular organisation for their homophobic objectives. They were surely glad that the government stepped in to stop the church from getting further involved. But in the light of that, where does one stand on the Nicholas Chia incident? To be consistent, shouldn’t one be equally glad that he was summoned to lunch?

Some might suggest that the two incidents are not entirely comparable. In the case of the ‘Marxist Conspiracy’ arrests and the 2 June 2012 rally commemorating them, the Catholic Church was already involved — albeit way back — accused by the government of being the indirect promoter of the kind of social work the arrested persons were doing. Even today, the church has a responsibility to atone for the wretched way it abandoned its own priests and lay workers 25 years ago, some might say, and the now-withdrawn letter of support it initially issued was a reasonable response to this history.

What do you think?

http://yawningbread.wordpress.com/2012/09/18/lunch-menu-a-4-point-letter/

 

[independentdirect]

What the archbishop did not intend

<small class="entry-meta" style="padding: 0px; margin: 1px 0px 0px; font-size: 1em; line-height: 1.5em; color: rgb(187, 187, 187); display: block;">Published <abbr class="published" title="2012-09-20T09:55:16+0000" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; font-size: 0.9em; letter-spacing: 0.07em; border: 0px; cursor: help;">20 September 2012</abbr> personal perspective , politics and government , religion67 Comments
</small>
Sometimes, people respond to a hole by digging a deeper one. Archbishop Nicholas Chia of the Catholic Church issued a press statement at around 10:30 pm last night in response to my post Lunch menu a 4-point letter. I only heard about it from reporters, and at the time of writing this, have not seen a copy of the press statement he issued.

According to the Straits Times:

The head of the Catholic Church in Singapore has confirmed that he wrote to an activist group backing its call to abolish the Internal Security Act (ISA) – but withdrew the letter later fearing it could affect the country’s social harmony.

Archbishop Nicholas Chia, 73, yesterday said he had retracted the letter to Function 8 after he reflected on it and became concerned it could be used “in a manner that I did not intend”.

[snip]

Last night, Archbishop Chia sent The Straits Times a one-page response, saying the fact that the incident had come to light confirmed his fears. “Au’s article confirmed my fear that the group would use my letter in a manner that I did not agree with, and make use of the Office of the Archbishop and the Catholic Church for their own ends,” he said.

He noted that Mr Au’s account could only have come from Function8, with which he had communicated in private.
He said he had decided to withdraw his letter after reflecting on it, “because if the letter were to be used in a manner that I did not intend, it may inadvertently harm the social harmony in Singapore”.

Function8 acknowledged his decision and returned the Archbishop his letter, he added.

He said: “The article by Mr Au, which has appeared now, months later, confirms the correctness of my earlier decision to withdraw the letter so as not to inadvertently embroil the Catholic Church and the office of the Archbishop in a political event which was being staged by the group.”

– Straits Times, 20 September 2012, Archbishop clarifies retraction of letter to group, by Tessa Wong


​

Today newspaper reported likewise:

The head of the Catholic Church here has criticised a blogger and the organisers of a rally against the Internal Security Act (ISA) over a blog post which suggested that he was pressured by the Government into retracting a letter he had sent expressing support for the event.

The flap arose from Mr Alex Au’s lengthy critique on his blog – posted on Tuesday – of what he described as the Government’s “arm-twisting” of Archbishop Nicholas Chia.

[snip]

Archbishop Chia said yesterday that he had decided to withdraw his letter because “on reflection, its contents did not accurately reflect my views on the subject, and if used in a manner that I did not intend, may inadvertently harm the social harmony in Singapore”.

– Today, 20 September 2012, Archbishop slams Alex Au, anti-ISA rally organisers


​

He described as “irresponsible” my publication of the chronology of events and his assumption that it was Function 8 which told me about it.

“These irresponsible actions can easily cause serious misunderstanding between the Catholic Church and the Government, and damage the long-standing trust and cooperation between the two. It is most regrettable that Au and the group have acted in this manner,” he said in his press statement.

On the contrary, I think it is the responsible thing to do to expose these hidden events to public scrutiny. They show Singaporeans the inner workings of how our country is governed, and transparency is essential to a healthier democracy. The very fact that powerful forces would want these goings-on to be kept from the public eye is itself suspicious.

In addition, I had hoped through telling this story, to generate, inter alia, a debate about where citizens would like to draw the line between religious organisations and politics, and how that line is to be maintained. Going by the comments to the earlier article that have been received so far, I think a very civil discussion has indeed started.

So, when he says the exposure of those events “confirms the correctness of my earlier decision to withdraw the letter so as not to inadvertently embroil the Catholic Church and the office of the Archbishop in a political event which was being staged by the group”, it sounds a bit strange. After all, the point of my article was to raise the very same issue of whether or not a religious organisation should be lending voice to a political position. Do note that not only was the original letter supportive of the rally against detention without trial, his second letter said the organisers were free to tell the rally participants that the archbishop had sent a letter of support. What can he possibly mean when he now says that he was afraid of his first letter being used “in a manner that I did not intend”?

The chronology of events that I published indicated that it was the Internal Security Department that first planted the argument that the Church could be “used” by a group. This amazing possibility arose even when the group had not solicited the archbishop’s support in the first place.

I understand from reporters that nothing in his press statement contradicted my account of events.

Chia wrote about his fears of harming social harmony in Singapore. Is that not misplaced? Did he use offensive language against other religions, ethnic or social groups in his original (now withdrawn) letter? Not that I know of. The only “harmony” that might feel threatened by his now-retracted letter is the silence the government might want over its (mis)use of arbitrary arrest and detention without trial.

Alternatively, one could say the only “harmony” that might be put at risk is the take-for-granted support among Roman Catholics for the ruling party. After they hear of the shabby way the government treated the local head of the faith, maybe the flock won’t be so “harmonious” towards the ruling party anymore? Is that the “social disquiet” one fears? If so, who is it exactly who has reason to be anxious? The Church or the government?

* * * * *

Now, let me share with you a second chronology of events:

At about 7 pm last evening, several reporters called me when I was standing amidst 200 out-of-work foreign workers, all of them needing help and advice about their situation. Amidst the cacophony of twenty people trying to speak at the same time, two of the reporters asked me whether I could forward to them the email the archbishop had sent me, and what my comments to that email were.

What email? I asked. When I last checked my mailbox, around 6 pm, there was none from Nicholas Chia, and now I had no internet access. However, I promised them that I’d check and respond as soon as I got to a computer, though that might be after 10 pm.

In the end, it was 11 pm before I could get online (I tried to check my email on my ipad while on the train going home but our 3G service sucks). And still there was no email from Chia. So I told the reporters that I had received nothing. One reporter then said: Oh, the archdiocese has sent out a press statement instead, just half an hour earlier.

This chronology itself is highly suggestive of “interference”. The press was alerted in advance of a response by the archbishop. If indeed the archbishop intended to write me a private email, it would be most unusual for him to be publicising its future existence to the press beforehand. We can only wonder what he really intended as of the afternoon.

Or we can speculate that the earlier intention to send an email was overruled and recast as a press statement, a process that took several more hours to hammer out (and be agreed to by others?) before eventual release at 10:30 pm.

Maybe the reporters misheard? Maybe it wasn’t an email that the archbishop was drafting, but a press statement all along? It’s possible, but here’s the funny thing: Is the archbishop’s office so well organised for media publicity that it would be asking reporters at several newsrooms in different languages to stand by for a statement to be released later? Government departments do that routinely, but the archbishopric? Guess what? The archdiocese’s websitedoesn’t even have a section for containing its press statements (nor can the statement be found on its Facebook page – as at 9:45 am on Thursday 20 September 2012), and you expect me to believe they’re so well organised for media relations to be giving advance notice?
Given this sequence of events, and the earlier sequence of events as told in my previous article, it is very hard to know who makes up the archbishop’s mind for him. And that again, I think, is a matter of public interest and worthy of concerned discussion.

http://yawningbread.wordpress.com/2012/09/20/what-the-archbishop-did-not-intend/

 

[independentdirect]

Three statements from the government, Function 8 and Maruah on the archbishop affair

<small class="entry-meta" style="padding: 0px; margin: 1px 0px 0px; font-size: 1em; line-height: 1.5em; color: rgb(187, 187, 187); display: block;">Published <abbr class="published" title="2012-09-21T01:53:45+0000" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; font-size: 0.9em; letter-spacing: 0.07em; border: 0px; cursor: help;">21 September 2012</abbr> politics and government , religion 49 Comments
</small>
Three press statements were issued on Thursday, 20 September 2012, and I am archiving them here for the record. [Addendum: I am also archiving two more statements that came out on later Friday 21 Sept or Saturday 22 September 2012] . However, I will begin with a short commentary on the statement issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs. This ministry includes within it the Internal Security Department. Teo Chee Hean (mentioned in Lunch menu a 4-point letter) is the minister with oversight of this ministry.

The first thing you would notice is that the second paragraph of this statement is consistent with my account of events that mentioned a lunch meeting with the Archbishop. In fact, with so many statements flying around, it is indeed notable that none deny the sequence of events that I have published.

This Home Affairs statement makes an accusation — a “deliberate breach of the Archbishop’s trust” by Function 8 — that is clearly illogical. As Function 8 points out in its statement (below) the original letter was not marked “private” or “confidential”. My sources tell me that a subsequent communication from the Archbishop was that while the contents of the letter should not be read out at the rally, the organisers were free to announce to the crowd that they had received a letter in support from the Archbishop. The precise wording of Home Affairs’ statement however referred to “his views and intentions as conveyed to the group after he had decided to retract his letter” (emphasis mine), and indeed, it seems to me that it is for this reason that Function 8 has not published the letters.

However, how can one be certain of the archbishop’s “views and intentions” when authorship of the retraction letter was so unconvincing? In my Lunch menu a 4-point letter, I gave reasons why there is doubt whether the 4-point retraction letter was even written by the archbishop himself, or willingly signed by him.

Function 8 has now called upon the archbishop to publish those letters.

But more seriously, the general thrust of the government’s statement is dangerous to the public good, for it is trying to to deflect scrutiny away from themselves by casting Function 8 as villains (on their assumption that it was they who leaked the story). Taking the cue, reporters Thursday afternoon kept asking me to identify my sources, like hounds unleashed for a hunt. I have refused, for to do so would be a public disservice since it would mean putting the spotlight exactly where the government wants it — on the whistleblowers.

(Note: I am not suggesting that the whistleblowers are Function 8 members. As I told reporters, I was hardly the first person outside the circle of organisers to know of the affair. I could have been the hundredth person to hear of it. Lots of people, in the archbishop’s staff, his senior circle of priests, a retired Supreme Court judge and ministry officials, apparently knew of the letters and the events way before me. It was relatively easy for me to get corroboration of the story from additional sources.)

If you read my first post on this subject carefully, you will see that the party which should explain itself is not Function 8, but the government. Why did it act in the highly opaque way that it did? Even Today newspaper could see that the chief point of my exposé of the events was to draw public attention to “the Government’s ‘arm-twisting’ of Archbishop Nicholas Chia.”
I urge my readers to be very clear about this: The issue is not Function 8 or even Nicholas Chia. The issue is the way the government stepped in to block the latter’s support for the rally using methods hardly different from 25 years ago. Don’t let the government deflect attention away from itself. They are the ones who need to answer to the people for their actions.

MHA’s Statement on Archbishop Nicholas Chia’s Comments

The Government values its long-standing relationship with the Catholic Church and the Catholic community in Singapore, and deeply appreciates Archbishop Nicholas Chia’s many contributions to religious harmony in Singapore.

2 As part of building trust and understanding and to maintain religious harmony in Singapore, government ministers meet regularly with various religious leaders in Singapore. Such closed-door meetings allow a frank exchange of views specially on sensitive subjects. This is a well-established process that is appreciated by both ministers and religious leaders.

3 We note Archbishop Chia’s statement yesterday that he had withdrawn his earlier letter as its contents did not accurately reflect his views on the subject. He also expressed concern that if the letter was used in a manner that he did not intend, it may inadvertently harm the social harmony in Singapore. His decision to withdraw his letter ahead of a political event in June 2012, shows his appreciation of the complexity of our multi-racial, multireligious society, and the need to keep religion and politics separate.

4 The actions by this group to publicise the matter through Mr Au is disrespectful of the Archbishop, and contrary to his views and intentions as conveyed to the group after he had decided to retract his letter. This deliberate breach of the Archbishop’s trust confirms the objective of this group to publicly involve the Catholic Church and the Archbishop in their political agenda.

Issued by
Ministry Of Home Affairs

​

* * * * *

The statement from Function 8:

We are deeply saddened by the comments of Archbishop Nicholas Chia reported in The Straits Times of 20th September 2012. He made three unsubstantiated remarks:

1. That Mr Au’s account (in Yawningbread) could only have come from Function 8, with whom he had communicated in private.

2. That he decided to withdraw his letter of support “because if the letter were to be used in a manner that I (Archbishop) did not intend, it may inadvertently harm the social harmony in Singapore.”

3. That Mr Au’s article appearing now, months later, “confirms the correctness of my (Archbishop’s) earlier decision to withdraw the letter so as not to inadvertently embroil the Catholic Church and the office of the Archbishop in a political event which was being staged by the group.”

Our response is as follows:

1. Archbishop Nicholas Chia’s initial letter to us, and the subsequent one withdrawing the first letter, were not marked “private and/or confidential”. Indeed, in discussing his first letter, members of Function 8 concluded that it was intended to be made public on 2 June 2012, the 25th anniversary of Operation Spectrum. The retraction of the first letter made us cancel the plan. The organisers of the 2 June event subsequently decided that we would try to have a private dialogue with the Ministry of Home Affairs.

2. Archbishop Nicholas Chia assumed that Mr Au could only have obtained an account of what he wrote in his article from Function 8. Has His Grace forgotten that his second letter was cc to a third party and that his staff and others within the Church may also have sight of the letters?

3. What was his initial letter intended for and what are the unintended manners in which it could possibly be used to ‘harm the social harmony in Singapore’?

4. Finally, we do not understand how His Grace can draw the conclusion that the disclosure of his own letter can “inadvertently harm the social harmony in Singapore” and that the fact that Mr Au has now written an article confirms the correctness of his earlier decision to withdraw the letter.

In the midst of a national conversation called by the prime minister, we believe there is no room for whispered meetings on the issues above. We request Archbishop Nicholas Chia to publish his first and second letters and advise on what transpired between the time his first letter was written and his second letter so that the public can judge for themselves whether the actions or inaction of Function 8 and Mr Au were “irresponsible and regrettable”. For clarity, His Grace should also make known to members of the public if his first letter to the organisers of the 2 June event was solicited or unsolicited.”

​

* * * * * *

The statement from Maruah:

MARUAH, a human rights NGO, is a partner with Function 8, in particular for the June 2nd 2012 event to mark the 25th Anniversary of the alleged Marxist Conspiracy. MARUAH’s position is that it is timely for a Commission of Inquiry to be set up to review the detentions under Operation Spectrum.

As part of this collaborative effort MARUAH was informed of the letters that the Archbishop had sent to Function 8 and we are aware of the contents. The letters reflect diverse views on key content areas in relation to preventive detention without trial. Both organisations made a decision not to publicise the letter(s) till we sought clarifications from Ministry of Home Affairs and other relevant parties. This decision was taken as we feel it is a better way forward as both organisations are mindful of the previous pain within the Catholic community over what happened in 1987 where the Church, the government, the detainees and the community were involved. We agreed that after these approaches to reach out for dialogues had been tried and tested we would review this incident of the letters. It is unfortunate that the matter of the letters was leaked to the media before we could receive clarifications from the relevant bodies. Both organisations had wanted to focuson seeking a dialogue rather than dealing with the Archbishop’s letters a public manner through the media.

Having said that, MARUAH has to state that we are deeply disappointed with the remarks of the Archbishop in his response to the media queries. An opportunity to understand the change in the position of the Archbishop vis-a-vis preventive detention without trial was missed. We are still clueless as to whether there was intervention by the State in this matter and if so, on what grounds and to what extent. Instead civil society has been vilified in the Archbishop’s remarks which are the opposite of our intentions to preserve harmony by seeking clarifications.

Nevertheless, it is more important to move forward. We are keen to have dialogue with the Ministry of Home Affairs on our ongoing efforts at public education and advocacy on preventive detentions without trial. We will also be very happy to meet the Archbishop in relation to this matter.

More importantly, it is very important to us, and to many other Singaporeans that an independent Commission of Inquiry be set up as we are perturbed by the many contradictions in this case. This was the work that began on June 2nd between MARUAH and Function 8, to ensure that the rights of those detained are protected and fulfilled through an inquiry.

Braema Mathi
President
MARUAH Singapore”

​

* * * * *

ADDENDUM

Reply by the Archdiocese office to Function 8′s statement:

The Archbishop’s statement on 19 September made clear that he had already withdrawn his letter to this group as, on reflection, its contents did not accurately reflect his views on the subject, and if used in a manner that he did not intend, may inadvertently harm the social harmony in Singapore.

His letter to this group was intended as a private communication. If the group was going to publicise it at a political event, something which he did not intend, then they should and could easily have asked for permission first. They did not do so. As the group has already returned his letter, the question of releasing it does not arise as he had never intended for it to be released in the first place.

​

* * * * *

Reply by Function 8, 21 September 2012

We refer to the press release of MHA of 20 Sep 2012. MHA alleged that Function 8 is disrespectful towards Archbishop Nicholas Chia of the Catholic Church. This is untrue. The allegations have attempted to set F8 against the church. The Archbishop had withdrawn the letter sent to the organisers of the commemoration event of Operation Spectrum. To date, as far as we know, this letter has not surfaced in public. We have obviously respected the wishes of the head of the Catholic Church by not publicizing the contents of his letters.

In our response dated 1 June 2012 to the letter of withdrawal by His Grace, we sought his clarifications over several questions: How did he come to the conclusion that there is an ulterior motive to use his unsolicited letter outside of the event? Doesn’t justice require a hearing from all sides? And should we copy our letter to the person who was copied in his letter of withdrawal?

More than three months have passed and we have not heard from the Archbishop.

Out of respect for His Grace, we had voluntarily not publicized our letter of response to his letter of withdrawal, and had hoped for the courtesy of a reply from him in due course. However, MHA’s unwarranted allegations have now forced us to show details of our letter to the Archbishop in order to clear the allegations against us.This letter is reluctantly attached with parts blacked out to protect the direct contents of the Archbishop’s original letter and the identity of the person who was copied in his letter of withdrawal.

MHA further claimed that Function 8 had publicised the matter through blogger Alex Au. This is untrue. At no time did we engage Mr Au on this matter. To suggest that a seasoned blogger like Mr Au was made use of, is an insult to him and to the freedom of internet discourse.

We believe in the government’s sincerity to generate a meaningful national conversation at this time. MHA said that “government ministers meet regularly with religious leaders in Singapore”. We hope that they would also engage civil society groups for “frank exchange of views especially on sensitive subjects”. We hope this ‘national’ conversation can be conducted with dignity and civility over tea and certainly not through the national papers. We continue to request a meaningful dialogue with MHA and other affected parties away from the noise of what has turned into an ugly public dispute.

We wish to state categorically that we continue to applaud the Catholic Church for her good work carried out in our society to uphold social justice, caring for the poor and the weak. At no time will we allow ourselves to be set against the Church by inappropriate and unjustified allegations by any party.

​

* * * * *

END


http://yawningbread.wordpress.com/2012/09/21/three-statements-from-the-government-function-8-and-maruah-on-the-archbishop-affair/

 

[independentdirect]

[video=youtube;ybwtSb9ETYc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybwtSb9ETYc[/video]

 

[mojito]

Who knows what the future may hold when other interest groups start to gravitate towards SDP? Like ticks to fart! People have short memories, by GE2016 they would have forgotten about the whole episode. SDP would be able to field quite a formidable team by then. One GRC I say, but which one? :*:

 

[TracyTan866]

Who knows what the future may hold when other interest groups start to gravitate towards SDP? Like ticks to fart! People have short memories, by GE2016 they would have forgotten about the whole episode. SDP would be able to field quite a formidable team by then. One GRC I say, but which one? :*:

i hope SDP wins at least one GRC..knock out the idiot at Holland