Tharman cannot remain silent

[xingguy]

Source: SDP

Tharman cannot remain silent
Added on: Monday 10 October 2011 Category: Singapore

In her speech at the SDP's Silenced No Longer forum on Saturday, Ms Tang Fong Har revealed a little-known fact: Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, now the Deputy Prime Minister, is "almost a victim of the ISA himself". Tharman was questioned in 1987 by the Internal Security Department (ISD) although he was not detained.

The Singapore Democrats understand that Mr Tharman had visited Mr Tan Wah Piow in the UK in the mid-1980s. When he returned to Singapore, he was picked up by the ISD for questioning.

Mr Tharman's role in the saga is crucial because Operation Spectrum, as the detentions were codenamed, centred on the fact that Mr Tan Wah Piow had masterminded a conspiracy involving 22 activists in Singapore to overthrow the PAP Government through the use of force.

Mr Tan was convicted of inciting a riot in 1974, a case which itself attracted many questions and much controversy. He served an eight-month jail-term. Fearing for his own safety, he left for the UK after his release and sought asylum there.

Given that Mr Tharman had met with Mr Tan, it is clear that the DPM would know whether Mr Tan was trying to hatch a violent Marxist plot. If there was such a plan, the DPM should come right out and tell Singaporeans what that plan was.

If there wasn't any such discussion, then Mr Tharman owes it to the people to clear the air once and for all, that the Government was wrong and Operation Spectrum should not have been ordered.

As it stands, a grave injustice has been done to the many who were detained. Not only have their lives and careers been shattered, they have been ripped from their families and, in Ms Tang's case, still barred from being re-united with her loved ones. Their names have been dragged through the m&d and their honour brutalised. Worse, ISA detainees have repeatedly said that they were beaten and tortured by ISD officers. Such allegations have yet to be investigated.

Now all the detainees want is a commission of inquiry to get at the truth. If there is evidence, they should be presented before such a commission or in a court of law. Mr Tharman, having had first-hand dealings with Mr Tan Wah Piow, would be well-positioned to lend weight to the Government's case. Unless, of course, the DPM himself thinks that Operation Spectrum was unjustified.

The Government's refusal to convene such a commission speaks volumes. But whether it does or not Mr Tharman cannot keep quiet any longer - not when so much injustice has been been done to persons whom he had known.

---

End Of Article​

---

DID YOU KNOW?
TAN WAH PIOW & DPM THARMAN SHANMUGARATNAM

DPM Tharman Shanmugaratnam, in his days as a student at the LSE, would visit the home of exiled dissident Tan Wah Piow to engage in an 'underground study group', along with other Singaporean students residing in UK at that time (including NSP's Yip Yew Weng).

 

[spotter542]

Wonder whose cock he sucked to get off the hook

 

[ginfreely]

"Worse, ISA detainees have repeatedly said that they were beaten and tortured by ISD officers."

Bro Golden dragon can clarify whether this is during your time at ISD?

 

[tanwahtiu]

All Singapore born males at age 18 are also detained by PAP ( a political party) under undercover ISA known as conscripted for 2 years in SAF barracks.

They were tortured in army style punishment known as BMT to be silenced, intimidated and brain-washed. And are trained to be kiasu. kiasi, ka chnghu and kia LKY the bully.

Abolish this fucking NSF tofree the people. No matter how good or how many armed forced in Singfapore defend a fucking small island of 700sqkm for what?

Train them to divide and conquer Malaysia and take over Malaysia maybe feasible and make sense.

Source: SDP


Tharman cannot remain silent
Added on: Monday 10 October 2011 Category: Singapore

In her speech at the SDP's Silenced No Longer forum on Saturday, Ms Tang Fong Har revealed a little-known fact: Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, now the Deputy Prime Minister, is "almost a victim of the ISA himself". Tharman was questioned in 1987 by the Internal Security Department (ISD) although he was not detained.

The Singapore Democrats understand that Mr Tharman had visited Mr Tan Wah Piow in the UK in the mid-1980s. When he returned to Singapore, he was picked up by the ISD for questioning.

Mr Tharman's role in the saga is crucial because Operation Spectrum, as the detentions were codenamed, centred on the fact that Mr Tan Wah Piow had masterminded a conspiracy involving 22 activists in Singapore to overthrow the PAP Government through the use of force.

Mr Tan was convicted of inciting a riot in 1974, a case which itself attracted many questions and much controversy. He served an eight-month jail-term. Fearing for his own safety, he left for the UK after his release and sought asylum there.

Given that Mr Tharman had met with Mr Tan, it is clear that the DPM would know whether Mr Tan was trying to hatch a violent Marxist plot. If there was such a plan, the DPM should come right out and tell Singaporeans what that plan was.

If there wasn't any such discussion, then Mr Tharman owes it to the people to clear the air once and for all, that the Government was wrong and Operation Spectrum should not have been ordered.

As it stands, a grave injustice has been done to the many who were detained. Not only have their lives and careers been shattered, they have been ripped from their families and, in Ms Tang's case, still barred from being re-united with her loved ones. Their names have been dragged through the m&d and their honour brutalised. Worse, ISA detainees have repeatedly said that they were beaten and tortured by ISD officers. Such allegations have yet to be investigated.

Now all the detainees want is a commission of inquiry to get at the truth. If there is evidence, they should be presented before such a commission or in a court of law. Mr Tharman, having had first-hand dealings with Mr Tan Wah Piow, would be well-positioned to lend weight to the Government's case. Unless, of course, the DPM himself thinks that Operation Spectrum was unjustified.

The Government's refusal to convene such a commission speaks volumes. But whether it does or not Mr Tharman cannot keep quiet any longer - not when so much injustice has been been done to persons whom he had known.

---

End Of Article​

---

DID YOU KNOW?
TAN WAH PIOW & DPM THARMAN SHANMUGARATNAM

DPM Tharman Shanmugaratnam, in his days as a student at the LSE, would visit the home of exiled dissident Tan Wah Piow to engage in an 'underground study group', along with other Singaporean students residing in UK at that time (including NSP's Yip Yew Weng).

 

[xingguy]

Source: Ariffin Sha Blog

The chapter of Singapore’s history the PAP doesn’t want you to know.
Posted by: S. Lim Date: September 13, 2014 Posted in: Post

Recently, “To Singapore, with love”, a film about the lives of Singapore’s political exiles, was banned by the MDA. Unsurprisingly, this lead to an uproar among Singaporeans, especially on the internet. Why would the MDA ban a political film that has been internationally recognized, winning several awards and accolades. Obviously, the justification that the film is a “threat to national security” is a blatant lie. This move by the MDA is the latest in a string of measures to systematically silence the political opposition in Singapore; from the MDA licensing scheme, to the self-censorship framework for arts groups, to the banning of children’s books and now this.

The government conveniently used the “Communist threat” as justification for banning the film. This is not new. For decades, the government has been conveniently relying on the fear of Communism to discredit and demonize any political opposition in Singapore. This was especially so under Lee Kwan Yew’s time, during the height of the Cold War.

In the battle between Communism and Capitalism, either side would claim to be in a battle between “good and evil”. The PAP Government used the term “Communist” with such disdain. As long as they could brand any activist a Communist, it would be a convenient distraction from the real problems they weren’t interested in solving.

The late 40s, 50s and 60s are heralded as a defining point in Singapore’s history, in which the local Singapore and Malayan Governments, and the British Colonial Government, had succeeded in eliminating the “evil Communist threat”. But in reality, there was no such battle between good and evil during those tumultuous years. Both sides had the capacity for evil and both sides committed horrific war crimes in the process. Such was the example during the Malayan Emergency.

British War crimes during the Malayan Emergency

Throughout the conflict, it was common for British troops to detain and torture villagers who were suspected in aiding the insurgents while attempting to search for them. Brian Lapping said that there was “some vicious conduct by the British forces, who routinely beat up Chinese squatters when they refused, or possibly were unable, to give information” about the insurgents. There were also cases of bodies of dead guerrillas being exhibited in public.

A young British officer commented that: “We were shooting people. We were killing them…This was raw savage success. It was butchery. It was horror.” British units also compete each other in competition who was going to kill more people or not. One British army conscript recalled that “when we had an officer who did come out with us on patrol I realized that he was only interested in one thing: killing as many people as possible”.

British troops were also unable to tell apart enemy combatants and civilians while conducting military operations through the jungles as the guerrillas wore civilian clothing and sometimes had support from the sympathetic civilian population. These instances led to war crimes committed by the British, such as the Batang Kali massacre where 24 unarmed villagers were slaughtered.

As part of the Briggs’ Plan devised by British General Sir Harold Briggs, 500,000 people (10% of Malaya’s population) were forcibly removed from the land, had tens of thousands of their homes destroyed, and interned in concentration camps called “New Villages”.

Operation Spectrum

On 21 May 1987, 16 people were arrested in a pre-dawn raid carried out by the Internal Security Department. Over the next two months The Straits Times published numerous articles about the unravelling of what the Ministry of Home Affairs described as a “Marxist conspiracy” to “subvert the existing system of government and to seize power in Singapore.” According to the paper, the conspirators were “hybrid pro-communist types who augment traditional CPM (Communist Party of Malaya) tactics with new techniques and methods, using the Catholic church and religious organizations.”


[Note: Click to view a larger version]

On 20 June 1987, 6 more people were arrested, bringing the total number of detainees to 22. The mostly English-educated group was a mix of Catholic lay workers, social workers, overseas-educated graduates, theater practitioners and professionals. In April 1988, nine of the released detainees issued a joint statement accusing the government of ill-treatment and torture while under detention. They also denied involvement in any conspiracy and alleged that they were pressured into making confessions.

In an interview with the Straits Times on 14 December 2001, Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam said that “although I had no access to state intelligence, from what I knew of them, most were social activists but were not out to subvert the system.”

Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong revealed in his interviews for Men in White: The Untold Stories of the PAP that former National Development Minister S. Dhanabalan left the Cabinet in 1992 because he was not comfortable with how the PAP had dealt with the 1987 Marxist conspiracy.

“At that time, given the information, he was not fully comfortable with the action we took…he felt uncomfortable and thought there could be more of such episodes in future. So he thought since he was uncomfortable, he’d better leave the Cabinet. I respected him for his view.”

-Goh Chok Tong

However, the PAP Government till this day still maintains that those detained under Operation Spectrum were “Marxist Conspirators”. There has been no public admission of wrong doing and the latest move by the MDA to ban a film about political exiles confirms this fact.

History isn’t limited to what you read in a textbook. The crimes of the British Colonial Government is not widely known. Admittedly, the British Government would rather people forget about its dark history during the Malayan Emergency. “To Singapore with love” wasn’t banned because it was a “threat to national security” it was banned because the PAP Government does not want Singaporeans to know the truth about this dark chapter in Singapore’s history.

---

End Of Article​

---

 

[dr.wailing]

DPM Tharman Shanmugaratnam, in his days as a student at the LSE, would visit the home of exiled dissident Tan Wah Piow to engage in an 'underground study group', along with other Singaporean students residing in UK at that time (including NSP's Yip Yew Weng).

This is my hypothesis: DPM Ta-ma-de (a 3-word expletive in Mandarin Chinese) was a spy for Pinky. The former embedded himself with Tan Wah Piow's study group to pass on essential info back to Pinky.

Does my hypothesis sound plausible enough?

 

[SgGoneWrong]

This is my hypothesis: DPM Ta-ma-de (a 3-word expletive in Mandarin Chinese) was a spy for Pinky. The former embedded himself with Tan Wah Piow's study group to pass on essential info back to Pinky.

Does my hypothesis sound plausible enough?

If Tan wah Piow was wrongly accused, why was there a need to spy on him?
In the first place, what did Tan do to become a threat to old bastard?

 

[laksaboy]

"BG Lee defines parameters for foreign journals circulating here"

So as we can see, even back in 1986 Pinky was already a censor-happy piece of shit. You reckon anything has changed after all these years?

Only fools get taken in by his smiling demeanour.

 

[zeebjii]

Source: Ariffin Sha Blog

Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong revealed in his interviews for Men in White: The Untold Stories of the PAP that former National Development Minister S. Dhanabalan left the Cabinet in 1992 because he was not comfortable with how the PAP had dealt with the 1987 Marxist conspiracy.

Not comfortable with the ways of PAP but went to head a string of GLCs, including Temasek and now still director at GIC. FUCKING HYPOCRITE!:oIo:

 

[laksaboy]

Not comfortable with the ways of PAP but went to head a string of GLCs, including Temasek and now still director at GIC. FUCKING HYPOCRITE!:oIo:

Maybe he didn't have a choice. Villains tend to keep their enemies or those who know too much close to themselves. Refuse and get destroyed.

 

[frenchbriefs]

wait i remember the finance minister was once accused of selling state secrets to other countries?he pleaded guilty and was let off the hook?

 

[xingguy]

Source: The Online Citizen

Who is threatening Singapore’s ‘national security’?
September 13 2014 10:13

by Tan Wah Piow

How very strange. Despite the billions spent on military hardware to protect the island state, Singapore is apparently so fragile that it has to to ban an internationally acclaimed 70-minute film featuring interviews with exiles in order to “protect the national security and stability of Singapore”.

Before I venture further, allow me to declare my interests. I am one of the six who is featured in Tan Pin Pin’s To Singapore, With Love; and therefore by implication, is alleged to have undermined the “national security” of Singapore.

My views of past events which led to my exile in London, and my current views on the PAP are already in the public domain. In particular, they appear in more cogent forms in the following books: Escape from the Lion’s Paw (2012), Smokescreens & Mirrors (2012); Let the People Judge (1987); and Frame-Up (1987) which are available in Singapore.

If those books and publications did not undermine the national security of Singapore in the last 24 months, why all of a sudden, my images and words in the 70-min film become a national security threat. This question relates equally to my fellow-exiles in London Dr Ang Swee Chai and Ho Juan Thai, who also appear in the film, and whose accounts of their exile are also published in Escape from the Lion’s Paw.

The film also features the lives and views of former leftwing Barisan Sosialis assemblymen Chan Sun Wing and Wong Soon Fong, and some of their comrades who now reside in Southern Thailand. They fled Singapore in the 1960s to avoid persecution, and later joined the communist guerilla movement at the border area. Since the 1989 peace accord between Malaysia and the Communist Party of Malaya, they have settled in southern Thailand.

The objection to the screening, as expressed by the Minister for Communications and Information Yaacob Ibrahim is equally perplexing.

Yaacob Ibrahim said,

“…individuals who have chosen to leave and remain outside Singapore, and refused to account for their past actions, should not enjoy a public platform to purvey distorted and untruthful accounts to mislead the public, absolve themselves or deny their past actions.”​

Yaacob Ibrahim did not appear to be aware that the late Chin Peng, secretary-general of the Communist Party of Malaya, had in the 1990s visited Singapore on two occasions. He met with Lee Kuan Yew and Goh Chok Tong, and addressed academic seminars, and his interviews were subsequently published. If Chin Peng’s visits to Singapore, and his autobiography His Side of History, a book which is available in Singapore, did not undermine the security of Singapore, how could the images and words of the associates of Chin Peng do so?

It is blatantly clear that by no stretch of imagination could a film of this nature be said to undermine the security of Singapore. The argument put up by the Media Development Authority, followed immediately by the stamp of approval of the Cabinet Minister, is an insult to the intelligence of the population of Singapore. Consequently, the current outcry is predictable.

Yet, why did these astronomically highly paid, supposedly highly intelligent individuals, some highly senior army personnel, make or acquiesce to such a decision which, to a common man, is either plainly foolish or extremely stupid? Why is the perverse assessment of security threat an affront to common sense?

The plain answer is that the powers that be can tolerate only one narrative for the history of Singapore – the PAP story. The film sets out to present the lesser known aspect of the Singapore political fabric, and in the process, inadvertently presents an alternative version of history. A well crafted film, which, To Singapore, With Love, is one, becomes a potent challenge to the established views.

To ban the film would be an infringement to Article 14 of the Singapore Constitution which protects the freedom of expression. The only way to circumvent Article 14 of the Constitution is to invoke the security threat mantra. This would be implausible in any democratic country where the rule of law interprets “security threat” only in the strictest and narrowest sense.

But Singapore is a different story. That is why the Cabinet has to be very highly paid, because our ministers and Prime Minister are very clever.

But the people are not stupid either. One day, the people will know who is the serial abuser of the Singapore Constitution.

To Singapore, With Love

---

End Of Article​

---

 

[bakkuttay]

During my college days in melbourne in 60s, there were whispers of sg spies amongst us.
Probably he was one. Called up was a wayang??

 

[xingguy]

Source: Negara Kita

FILM BANNED: REAL THREAT OR JUST WOUNDED PRIDE

Singapore authorities are afraid the film will embolden citizens and students to stand up for their rights.
COMMENT

A ban on a film is usually counter-productive. Borrowing a phrase from Heineken, a ban on a film has the effect of reaching the parts other films cannot reach.

Singapore is a country which people around the world look up to. That is why the move to ban director, Tan Pin Pin’s award-winning film, “To Singapore, With Love”, proves that the government of Singapore is desperate, vindictive and afraid.
Ironically, Singapore has ambition to be an Asian film and cultural hub.

Desperation makes people take desperate measures. In a world made smaller by Internet and social media, the banned film will now be viewed by more people than if the government had approved it for screening. The ban has inadvertently given the film a boost and generated much publicity, across the globe.

As the government of Singapore (and other autocratic nations) will discover, a ban makes people curious. Ordinary Singaporeans are like other human beings.
They will want to know what it is that they have been stopped from seeing.
They will become interested and want their curiosity sated.

When books are banned, a pdf version almost always pops up in cyberspace. When a film is banned, most people will attempt to find a copy of the film, to see it and judge for themselves, why the film failed to receive government approval.

The documentary “To Singapore, With Love” gives us a glimpse into the lives of nine Singaporeans, some of whom left the island in the early 1960s. One has since died, but many have not returned, simply because they would be refused entry to Singapore or like one political pundit said, “They can return…and be escorted straight to prison.”

The book “Escape from the Lion’s Paw”, sparked filmmaker Tan’s quest to find out more about the Singaporean dissidents, and to film their lives in exile.

The statement released by the Singapore Media Development Authority (MDA) said that the film was judged to “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”.

Although some of the older exiles in the film had joined the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) in the 1950s and 1960s, the Singapore government appears to have overlooked the 1989 Hatyai Peace Agreement, between the Malaysian government and the CPM. These former communists, who are in their 70s and 80s, are living in Thailand and are not living rough in the jungles of the peninsula, attempting to overthrow any government.

So, it is highly likely that the ban is targeted at the second group of individuals, the former student activists who went into exile in the late 1970s. This is the group which the government of Singapore really fears.

These former student activists, who were rounded up in the mid-1970s, were highlighting humanitarian and social issues, workers’ rights and the government’s neglect of certain communities. These student activists escaped being incarcerated, under Singapore’s draconian Internal Security Act (ISA) by lying low, then escaping into exile. They were later stripped of their citizenship.

The failure to capture these activists has embarrassed the Singapore government. Forty years later, the government is still sore with them. That is why the men and women have been branded “communists” or “communist sympathisers”.

These former student activists have remained vocal, with their bold criticisms of the Singapore government. The authorities are afraid that their actions will embolden ordinary Singaporeans and students to stand up for their rights and demand their various freedoms.

The authorities are afraid of criticism and an open culture of free speech. These former activists have neither reformed, nor mellowed with age. These voices from the past may be the catalyst for change.

Singaporeans are just as repressed as their Malaysian counterparts. Although both countries share a common history, and perhaps, a common destiny, it may be easier to restore a true democracy in Singapore, as Malaysia is hampered by the emotional baggage comprising race, religion and royalty.

Next week, “To Singapore, With Love”, is scheduled to be screened in Johor Bahru, Malaysia, during the Freedom Film Festival, and should attract scores of Singaporeans.

Perhaps, the Singaporean government will kick up a fuss, and Najib Tun Razak, who is also flexing his autocratic muscles, by clamping down on dissenters, with his sedition dragnet, will tell his Singaporean counterpart, Lee Hsien Loong, “You help me, I help you” and forbid the screening in Johor Bahru, under some national security pretext.

Despite its development, its stature in the financial world, its first class education system and its success as an international port, deep down, the people who run the Singapore government are as insecure as the man in a sampan, who can see a storm approaching on the horizon.

Mariam Mokhtar is an FMT columnist

---

End Of Article​

---

 

[Snowtrooper]

chiobu spotted!

 

[leetahbar]

imo, if sdp seriously want to HOOT pap, they have to come up with some better and more concrete. if not it's very difficult to convince the voters. to aggravate matters, chee has in the past done much damage to the original good name of SDP under chiam.

to restore some damage control, sdp really has to come up better. SDP once was much better than wp by winning the most wards until chee who lost all that was won :(

 

[xingguy]

Source: Asiaone

Interest in exile film up after curb
Nur Asyiqin Mohamad Salleh The Straits Times Sunday, Sep 14, 2014

SINGAPORE - Some Singaporeans are planning to travel to Johor Baru to watch a little-known documentary film on Singapore's political exiles, with one student organising a chartered bus service for the event.

They were spurred into action by the Media Development Authority's (MDA) decision to disallow public screenings of To Singapore, With Love here.

The MDA said its contents "undermine national security" and classified it as Not Allowed for All Ratings. That means the film, by local filmmaker Tan Pin Pin, 44, cannot be shown in public or distributed here.

Among those whose interest has been piqued by the MDA's action is sales manager Louis Khoo, 30: "I didn't know about the film before MDA made its decision. And now that we're told we can't watch it here, everyone wants to watch it."

Ms Tan's film is based on interviews with nine Singaporeans who fled the country and now live in Britain and Thailand. The film premiered at the Busan International Film Festival in South Korea last October, and has played in Berlin and the US.

The MDA said the people featured in it gave distorted and untruthful accounts of how they came to leave and remain outside Singapore, and "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".

The film will play at film festivals in India, the Philippines, London and Taiwan this month and next month.Some students in London, like Royal College of Music undergraduate Nabillah Jalal, are planning to watch it with friends when it plays there at the SEA ArtsFest in October.

"The entire saga of exiling a film about being exiled is stirring some interest - and rebellion - in me," said the 22-year-old. "But it's also a chance to look at perspectives we rarely see."

The film is now on a four-city tour in Malaysia. It played in Petaling Jaya last week and will go to Johor Baru, Kuantan and Penang. Next Friday, clerk Charmaine Lee, 28, will drive with a group of friends to Johor Baru, where the film will be shown at Malaysia's annual Freedom Film Festival.

More than 100 people have registered their interest to attend the screening. Ms Tan yesterday posted on the Facebook event page that the current venue can hold only 150 people. If more register, the organisers may switch to one that can hold 400.

Yesterday, Mr Lim Jialiang, who studies at Nanyang Technological University, created a sign-up form for people who want to take a chartered bus to JB for the show. There have been offers to sponsor two buses, said Mr Lim, 24.

Yesterday, the MDA elaborated on its previous day's remark that a "purely private" screening is allowed. Its spokesman said: "Whether a screening is private will depend on many factors, including how these screenings are planned and conducted and who is permitted access.
"For example, a screening of a film to one's own family members or personal friends could be private screening if no other person is permitted access."

---

End Of Article​

---

 

[Revenge]

Me included...

 

[zeebjii]

Maybe he didn't have a choice. Villains tend to keep their enemies or those who know too much close to themselves. Refuse and get destroyed.

The very high positions he held at Temasek and GIC are very telling. Anyway i am biased against him. Im biased against anyone who claim to be 'devout' christians. If you are really devout you dont have to tell anyone. People like him, and too many in the PAP are like him..are FUCKING HYPOCRITES!:oIo: