Sammyboy RSS Feed
15-09-2014, 08:30 PM
An honorable member of the Coffee Shop Has Just Posted the Following:
“MDA 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. Under the Film Classification Guidelines, films that are assessed to undermine national security will be given an NAR rating.
My questions:
1.How do we determine whether or not an action is legitimate? Are we talking about what is legal, or what is right?
2.Can we have a conversation about the legitimacy of such actions?
3.Was it legitimate when Stamford Raffles installed Hussein Shah as the Sultan of Johore, effectively carrying out a coup? Serious question!
4.Also, if the MDA says things like “distorted and untruthful”, what are we to measure the distortion against? What is the objective, canonical history of Singapore that these people are supposedly distorting?
◾“The individuals in the film have given distorted and untruthful accounts of how they came to leave Singapore and remain outside Singapore: ◾A number of these self-professed “exiles” were members of, or had provided support to, the proscribed Communist Party of Malaya (CPM). The CPM sought to overthrow the legitimate elected governments of Singapore and Malaysia through armed struggle and subversion, and replace them with a communist regime.
◾One of the interviewees in the film claimed that he had no choice but to join the CPM after he left Singapore when in fact, he was an active CPM member even before he left Singapore. Indeed, as another interviewee who left Singapore in similar circumstances admits, a number of Barisan Sosialis activists then were already members of the Malayan National Liberation League, the CPM’s political wing, before they fled Singapore with its help and subsequently joined the communist guerrilla forces.”
Okay, cool. These are genuinely interesting points worth raising in a discussion about Singapore’s history. These are points that should be raised perhaps even before any talk of censorship or national security.
1.Could you be a little more specific, MDA? Which specific ‘self-professed “exiles”‘ (kinda snarky wording there, lol) are you talking about? Why not call out the specific interviewees? Clearly, you guys have watched the film.
2.If “a number of” the interviewees were members of the CPM, were others not? If “a number of” Barisan Socialis activists were members of the CPM’s political wing, were others not?
3.Is it possible that some interviewees may have been members of the CPM, or provided support to the CPM, without necessarily wanting to threaten the elected Government of Singapore?
4.Could it be possible that “the elected Government of Singapore” didn’t have nearly as much legitimacy then as it does now? Could it be that things were messy and ugly then, and people could have legitimate reasons to believe that the elected Government at the time didn’t speak for them?
5.Is it possible for us to have a legitimate conversation about communism as a way of self-organization in Singapore? I’m not personally a fan of communism, but I do think that banning a discussion has the unfortunate side-effect of inducing apathy.
6.
http://www.visakanv.com/blog/2014/09...eisand-effect/ (http://www.visakanv.com/blog/2014/09/to-singapore-with-love-does-the-mda-appreciate-the-streisand-effect/)
Click here to view the whole thread at www.sammyboy.com (http://www.singsupplies.com/showthread.php?190078-Let’s-analyse-what-the-MDA-has-to-say-about-the-ban&goto=newpost).
“MDA 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. Under the Film Classification Guidelines, films that are assessed to undermine national security will be given an NAR rating.
My questions:
1.How do we determine whether or not an action is legitimate? Are we talking about what is legal, or what is right?
2.Can we have a conversation about the legitimacy of such actions?
3.Was it legitimate when Stamford Raffles installed Hussein Shah as the Sultan of Johore, effectively carrying out a coup? Serious question!
4.Also, if the MDA says things like “distorted and untruthful”, what are we to measure the distortion against? What is the objective, canonical history of Singapore that these people are supposedly distorting?
◾“The individuals in the film have given distorted and untruthful accounts of how they came to leave Singapore and remain outside Singapore: ◾A number of these self-professed “exiles” were members of, or had provided support to, the proscribed Communist Party of Malaya (CPM). The CPM sought to overthrow the legitimate elected governments of Singapore and Malaysia through armed struggle and subversion, and replace them with a communist regime.
◾One of the interviewees in the film claimed that he had no choice but to join the CPM after he left Singapore when in fact, he was an active CPM member even before he left Singapore. Indeed, as another interviewee who left Singapore in similar circumstances admits, a number of Barisan Sosialis activists then were already members of the Malayan National Liberation League, the CPM’s political wing, before they fled Singapore with its help and subsequently joined the communist guerrilla forces.”
Okay, cool. These are genuinely interesting points worth raising in a discussion about Singapore’s history. These are points that should be raised perhaps even before any talk of censorship or national security.
1.Could you be a little more specific, MDA? Which specific ‘self-professed “exiles”‘ (kinda snarky wording there, lol) are you talking about? Why not call out the specific interviewees? Clearly, you guys have watched the film.
2.If “a number of” the interviewees were members of the CPM, were others not? If “a number of” Barisan Socialis activists were members of the CPM’s political wing, were others not?
3.Is it possible that some interviewees may have been members of the CPM, or provided support to the CPM, without necessarily wanting to threaten the elected Government of Singapore?
4.Could it be possible that “the elected Government of Singapore” didn’t have nearly as much legitimacy then as it does now? Could it be that things were messy and ugly then, and people could have legitimate reasons to believe that the elected Government at the time didn’t speak for them?
5.Is it possible for us to have a legitimate conversation about communism as a way of self-organization in Singapore? I’m not personally a fan of communism, but I do think that banning a discussion has the unfortunate side-effect of inducing apathy.
6.
http://www.visakanv.com/blog/2014/09...eisand-effect/ (http://www.visakanv.com/blog/2014/09/to-singapore-with-love-does-the-mda-appreciate-the-streisand-effect/)
Click here to view the whole thread at www.sammyboy.com (http://www.singsupplies.com/showthread.php?190078-Let’s-analyse-what-the-MDA-has-to-say-about-the-ban&goto=newpost).