Tag: Freedom of Speech

  • Two Men Involved In Istana Protest Reveal Why They Did It

    Two Men Involved In Istana Protest Reveal Why They Did It

    Background Story: PROTESTERS SEEN HOLDING PLACARDS OUTSIDE THE ISTANA TODAY

    TRS got in contact with the two men who were involved in the peaceful protest outside the Istana on Saturday afternoon and found out why they chose to do what they did despite knowing that they would be arrested. They shared that they wanted to exercise their constitutional rights and believe strongly that they have not disturbed public order.

    Here is what they wanted to tell the public about their peaceful protest:

    We are the two men who held the demonstration outside the gates of the Istana on the 4th April 2015. You can simply address us as X and Y. Our names are irrelevant, but not our cause. Martyrdom is not the goal. We apologise if the subject of the protest (Freedom of Speech for Singaporeans) was not very clear. It was intentionally vague so as to sidestep any unnecessary charges that could be pinned on us by the Authorities; such as Libel/Defamation.

    The both of us are Singaporeans, and not FTs (as some of you have speculated). We do not represent any political party, nor are we affiliated with any groups/organisations. Who we are, are simply two men who believe there has been Injustice done towards those who offered a differing opinion and dared to raise questions considered to be “touchy”.

    Let us clarify: We are not anti LKY. We take our hats off to him, and appreciate all that he has done for Singapore; giving his life in creating a “safe”, prosperous nation and environment for us to thrive in. However, for far too long, dissent has been dealt with very severely, and sometimes, downright inhumanely. We believe in Change, and correcting Injustice wherever we see it.

    The defamation suit against Mr Roy Ngerng was ridiculous. He simply raised questions on the behalf of the citizens of Singapore. Instead of getting a proper, well structured reply from the relevant authorities, he was dealt with by a lawsuit, and subsequently fired from his job in Tan Tock Seng Hospital. Ruining a person’s life when he simply asks questions (not for his own sake, no less) seems to be the norm in Singapore. Is this not Injustice? Should we turn a blind eye to this?

    We also refer to the action taken on Mr Amos Yee. While we do think that the commentary was vulgar, rude, and frankly, a little insensitive (given the time); we do not see the need for him to be brought to court. Any sane society would have challenged all his points based on the facts and opinions he presented (in the video), and negated the points of his arguments with sound logic and reasoning. Instead, we as a society has chosen to shy away from the difficult questions raised, and opted to cower behind the might of the SPF.

    To be subjugated to arrest for airing an opinion (unpopular as it is) borders on the unthinkable. When someone takes office, they sign all rights to privacy away. They become a Public Figure, subject to the scrutinity of everyone. Such is the burden of representing the People. It is only logical that if tributes and praise flow free; so should criticism and insult.

    Some have questioned us why did we not go through the “proper” channels (such as Speaker’s Corner in Hong Lim Park). The appointment of a “place to speak” seems as if the park was designated to be a “dumping ground” for dissent, masquerading as a “designated place” for “Freedom of Expression”. What Change was there to be had if this was the case? Why should Singaporeans be confined to the space of Hong Lim Park? Is this truly “Freedom of Expression” then? We think not. It is perfectly within our rights in the Constitution (Article 14) to hold a peaceful demonstration, anywhere in Singapore.

    14.— (1) Subject to clauses (2) and (3) —

    (a) every citizen of Singapore has the right to freedom of speech and expression;

    (b) all citizens of Singapore have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms; and

    (c) all citizens of Singapore have the right to form associations.

    The action that we took on the 4th of April 2015 was our right as stated in the Singapore Constitution. It did not cause disruption of the Public Order, defame anyone nor incited any form of civil unrest. We knew being arrested would be a given (and we were willing to shoulder that to make a statement), but the extent of it eluded us.

    Following our arrest, we were detained for a day by the Police. Both of us were brought in restraints to our homes. Electronic devices like desktop CPUs and handphones were seized for investigation.

    The right/wrong of our action, although open for debate, is not the point. The red we wore was to signify Change. So long as it sparked Singaporeans questioning what Freedom truly means to them, then our objective has been reached. Whoever is in Power (the ruling party) matters not to us; it could be the PAP, the SDP, or the WP. That is immaterial. What matters, is that they realise that we are ready for Change as a society. If you equate Freedom with wanton acts of violence and instability, then you are sorely mistaken and have missed the point entirely.

    Alejandro Jodorowsky – “Birds born in a cage think flying is an illness.”

    X and Y

     

    Source: www.therealsingapore.com

  • Open Letter To Amos Yee, His Parents And PM Lee Hsien Loong

    Open Letter To Amos Yee, His Parents And PM Lee Hsien Loong

    Dear Amos,

    Wow, I am impressed. What a beautiful video and what an amazing delivery. I don’t think I have ever seen an 8 minute video with such am impact.

    Of course, the outpour of criticism your piece has caused, has been vast. The immature have made imbecile comments on your hairstyle while the too mature have been preoccupied with your use of profanities. Many of the more sophisticated commentators have been somewhat positive, but still typically in the form “he may have some points, but timing, format or something else was wrong”.

    What it seems most of your detractors fail to realize is that your video was as perfect as it was intended. They say the journey is the destination, and in communication the content is only part of the message. Other, sometimes equally important, parts of a message are style, format and timing of delivery. You wanted Lee loyalists to know what you think of their deity and you wanted the whole world to know that there is another side to the late Lee Kuan Yew. You wanted people to know that, despite his real (but often exaggerated) achievements, Lee Kuan Yew was in fact a horrible person. And wow, have you managed to get the message across.

    That Lee Kuan Yew was a horrible person should not, of course, surprise anyone. Many, if not most, leaders of countries and corporations are not nice people. You simply don’t get to the top by being Mr. Nice Guy. And although you might find exceptions to this rule, in the subclass of leaders that Lee Kuan Yew belonged to, the dictator, I doubt you will find any. The way Lee Sr. treated his political adversaries should be plenty of evidence for any doubters.

    And if more evidence is needed, the following quote by LKY himself should remove any shadow of doubt: “Between being loved and being feared, I have always believed Machiavelli was right. If nobody is afraid of me, I’m meaningless.” What kind of person would rather be feared than loved and respected? Only a very horrible person indeed.

    Not only was he a horrible person, but odds are he was not a particularly good father either. After all, what kind of father would want to put his son in a position he is so obviously unfit to have? Lee Hsien Loong lacks the three essential qualities needed to be a successful dictator: charisma, an unflinching self-confidence and ruthlessness. Lee Hsien Loong is uncharismatic, insecure and instills fear more like a cat than a tiger. Lee Jr.’s rule is bound to end in failure, and both father and son must have known that. Nevertheless, LKY put his son in this position.

    The saddest part of Lee Kuan Yew’s life is that he did not have the wisdom to leave at the right time. He did not have sufficient trust in his own people to leave the stage and set Singaporeans free. Instead he insisted on ruling by fear, first directly, then indirectly, to the bitter end. Had he had the wisdom to relinquish power, in the mid-80s for instance, his legacy could have been that of a super Pinochet: an autocratic leader that created an economic miracle with minimal bloodletting. But LKY never learned that love trumps fear every day of the week. He never understood that his people have grown up and can indeed be trusted with democracy and a free media. How sad it is that he did not set his people free, but instead relied on fear and control, not realizing how detrimental these are to human happiness.

    His reliance on fear, rather than love, respect and trust is also a personal tragedy for LKY. His legacy will now always be tainted by defamation suits, repressions of basic freedoms and allegations of nepotism. But maybe even worse: He could never know if the people who surrounded him loved and respected him, or were frightened of him. How anguishing it must have been, to lie there on the death bed and wonder: Did my people ever love me? Or were their feelings just thinly disguised fear? These sad questions he will now bring with him to eternity.

    So, Amos, your point that LKY was a horrible person is one that ever more Singaporeans will realize. You wanted to make this point and you wanted as many people as possible to get the message. You also wanted to make the point so clear so that there would be no room for you, or others on your behalf, to backtrack and say that your message had been misunderstood or misinterpreted. In a society of fear, like Singapore is today thanks to LKY, the way people mince their words and doublespeak can be deafening. So many of the intellectuals and politicians are so careful with their words to avoid being sued or lose their jobs that you sometimes need a PhD to understand what they really mean. Your 8 minute video, including the expletives (no, I don’t believe they were thrown in there for fun or out of immaturity), was crystal clear and communicated to Singaporeans and foreigners alike what you think of the late Lee Kuan Yew.

    The timing, to get maximum impact, was of course no accident either. More than a million views and unprecedented media coverage makes that abundantly clear.

    So, while the immature focus on your hair, and while the more intellectually oriented commentators, encapsulated in their PAP-fear, keep saying “he had some points, but…”, my judgment is this: what a stroke of genius your 8 minute video is. Created to have maximum impact on the waning Lee regime, you have succeeded tremendously. I congratulate you unreservedly.

    Dear parents of Amos,

    You must be scared. You must be terrified. And your fear is perfectly understandable. Your son has taken on a powerful dictatorial regime, and has done so in a way that not only reaches a dozen of his friends, but in a way that has reached millions of people. You have seen what the regime does to its critics. You have seen the faiths of Chia Thye Poh, JBJ, Chee Soon Juan and lately also Roy Ngerng. You don’t want your son to go through the miseries that these people have had to endure. That you are terrified is easy for any parent to understand.

    Yet, you must try to be strong and courageous. It is not the first time a young man has taken on a powerful regime. What your son had done is pointing out an unpleasant fact, a hard truth in the words of LKY. What Amos has done is very similar to the well-known fable: he has shouted out that the emperor is naked. And he has shouted so loud and clear that the whole world has heard. In the fable, of course, it is the emperor that is the fool, not the child yelling out the truth. And so it is with your son and the Lees: the Lees are the naked fools and what Amos has done is to help people see this. No repercussions against the child were recorded in the fable. How the dying Lee regime will react to your brave boy’s call-out is still work-in-progress. Let us be hopeful they learn from the fable.

    If you are religious, you can also take comfort in another story of a young man who took on a powerful regime: Jesus. He took on the Roman Empire and powerful priests. We all know how this story ended: Jesus was crucified in an attempt to scare others and put a definitive end to his preaching. But when his detractors thought they had won, the story took an unexpected turn: Jesus rose from the dead, his followers multiplied, the Roman Empire collapsed and Jesus’ ideas live on even today, 2000 years later.

    Your son will be spared the physical crucifixion, but the Lee family propaganda machine is working in overdrive to crucify him in the media. Maybe they think they are winning, but I think they are fighting a lost cause. Already now, the PAP regime’s harsh response to Amos’ video is shifting many Singaporean’s sympathy from the Lees to Amos. And even if Amos still may have a million or two detractors in Singapore, be not in doubt who the world sympathizes with. A Google news search indicates there are now more than 2000 news articles about your son worldwide. Maybe 200 of them are from Singapore and the rest are from the international media. And while the Lee family has used every trick in the book to try to portray Amos as a villain in the state controlled media, the international media’s sympathy lies with Amos. In autocratic regime v. 16 year old vlogger, the sympathy of the international media and public opinion will always be with the latter. So, even if Amos may have a couple of million detractors in Singapore, he has tens of millions supporters outside Singapore.

    I realize foreign support may not be too comforting all the time Amos is in Singapore. However, try to remain strong in this difficult time. Amos has already achieved more than many of us will do in a lifetime. That is something to be proud of.

    To Mr. Lee Jr,

    As Amos’ parents, must you be scared. How terrifying it must be to see that a 16 year old boy’s 8 minute video ripping your father apart resonates so well with your populace. You have held no punches in order to stop this boy. The police and judiciary are on your side, you have crucified him in the media and he has been given a gagging order. But to what effect? The only result is that the whole world has heard his message too. I assume one of your advisors have informed you about the Streisand effect by now. Well, you have learned it the hard way.

    To be true, you did not have any good options once Amos’ video went viral. Ignore it and a new precedent for freedom of expression would have been set. Attack the boy (the option you chose) and be condemned worldwide and see the video go global.

    The truth is that, the moment the video went viral, you were check mate. It is simple, your time is up. Most of the authority you had went to the grave with your father, and the rest has now vanished with your response to Amos’ video. You can try to hold on to power for a few more years, or you can leave now and in a dignified way. But be not mistaken: The ship is sinking and you can be sure your comrades are already looking for the life boats, whether it is the SDP or Switzerland. They say that the most powerful force in the world is an idea whose time has come. You are smart enough to realize that the time has come, so get out know, and save your dignity and legacy.

    I have claimed you don’t possess the qualities needed to be a successful dictator. But don’t despair; the personality traits that make you a bad dictator are the same that are likely to make you a good father. Dictators tend to be horrible people and bad fathers. Your lack of charisma, your more down to earth self-confidence and the fact you are more of a cat than a tiger, are all qualities that make you a good father.

    One of the lessons I have learned in life is that it is better to focus on what you are good at, rather than trying to fix your flaws. My not-so-humble recommendation to you is this: Resign, live the rest of your life out of the public eye, and spend your time being a good father and grandfather. That, I truly believe, is how you can achieve happiness and it is also the best way to preserve your own and the Lee family’s legacy. 11 years at the helm is a long time under any circumstances; no one can fault you for stepping down now. If you at the same time manage to shepherd Singapore peacefully to democracy, you may one day even be hailed as Asia’s Gorbachev.

    So, Amos, what the coming weeks and months will hold for you no one knows. What punishment the dying Lee regime will mete out to you is difficult to predict. They are now currently busy with your crucifixion in the media and have levelled three, clearly politically motivated, charges against you. The ensuing public backlash is already well underway, with ever more Singaporeans breaking free from the shackles of fear and speaking up for your, and their own, rights. Many people see that they could be you, or you could be their son.

    The government must be getting cold feet and try to think of ways to get out of the mess. The problem is that for Lee Jr. there is no easy way out of the hole he is in. Drop the charges and freedom of expression will have gained a foothold in Singapore that his autocratic regime cannot survive. Press on with the charges and the domestic and international fall-out will continue, gradually eroding support for the PAP.

    So, it may very well be that you have managed to check mate the Lee regime, Amos. The demise of LKY and your 8 minute video may turn out to mark the tipping point that took Singapore on a path to freedom and democracy.

    No matter how things turn out, you deserve credit, not critique, for what you have done. Watching your video and reading your blog, I could not stop to think how remarkably similar you are to the founder of Facebook, Marc Zuckerberg. In the free world, people like you go on and make great companies and make the world a better place in the process. Soon, I believe, the situation will be the same in Singapore.

    A friend of mine, a Singaporean citizen who is also impressed with what you have done, wants to help you along the way by giving you a grant of S$10,000. Consider it as credit for what you have already achieved or a small compensation for the hardship you are currently going through. There is a condition attached with the money, however. The money must be used for one, or a combination, of the following:

    • Paying for your legal defense (but not any fines, damages, etc.)

    • Studying abroad

    • Starting a company

    A boy named Sue will contact you in the near future with instructions on how you can call the money.

    Yours sincerely,

    F. Reedom

    F Reedom is a pseudonym. A pseudonym is used as the author’s family is afraid of repercussions from the PAP government if full name is used. The author hopes to one day be able to express his views in Singapore without fear.

    The author is a foreigner who has worked in financial consultancy and wealth management. He has a post graduate degree in finance and economics from a world leading university.

    Source: www.therealsingapore.com

  • Copenhagen Cafe Hosting Freedom Of Speech Event Atacked

    Copenhagen Cafe Hosting Freedom Of Speech Event Atacked

    COPENHAGEN — Shots were fired today (Feb 14) at a cafe in Copenhagen as it hosted a freedom of speech event organised by Swedish artist Lars Vilks, who has faced numerous threats for caricaturing the Prophet Muhammad. Danish police said one man was killed.

    In a statement, Danish police said they are looking for the perpetrators who drove away in a dark Volkswagen Polo after the shooting shortly before 4 pm (11pm, Singapore time) at the Krudttoenden cafe.

    The police said the victim was a 40-year-old man.

    Some 30 bullet holes ripped through the window of the Krudttoenden cafe and at least two people were taken away on stretchers, including a uniformed police officer, the TV2 channel said.

    “I heard someone firing with an automatic weapons and someone shouting. Police returned the fire and I hid behind the bar. I felt surreal, like in a movie,” Mr Niels Ivar Larsen, one of the speakers at the event, told the TV2 channel.

    Ms Helle Merete Brix, one of the organisers of the event, told The Associated Press that Mr Vilks was present at the event but not injured.

    “I saw a masked man running past,” she said. “A couple of police officers were injured.”

    “I clearly consider this as an attack on Lars Vilks,” she added, saying she was ushered away with Mr Vilks by one of the Danish police guards that he gets whenever he is in Denmark.

    The cafe in northern Copenhagen, known for its jazz concerts, was hosting an event titled Art, blasphemy and the freedom of expression, when the shots were fired.

    Mr François Zimeray, the French ambassador to Denmark, was at the conference and tweeted that he was “still alive.”

    The BBC news also said three police officers have reportedly been shot and wounded there, and two gunmen are reportedly still at large. They also said the area around the venue is under lockdown.

    Mr Vilks, a 68-year-old Swedish artist, has faced several attempted attacks and death threats after he depicted the Prophet Muhammad as a dog in 2007.

    A Pennsylvania woman last year got a 10-year prison term for a plot to kill Vilks. In 2010 two brothers tried to burn down his house in southern Sweden and were imprisoned for attempted arson.

    After Islamic militants attacked the Charlie Hebdo satirical magazine in Paris last month, killing 12 people, Mr Vilks told the AP that even fewer organisations were inviting him to give lectures over increased security concerns.

    He also said he thought Sweden’s SAPO security service, which deploys bodyguards to protect him, would step up the security around him.

    “This will create fear among people on a whole different level than we’re used to,” he said. “Charlie Hebdo was a small oasis. Not many dared do what they did.”

     

    Source: www.todayonline.com

  • Yaacob Ibrahim: No Such Thing As Freedom Of Expression Without Limits

    Yaacob Ibrahim: No Such Thing As Freedom Of Expression Without Limits

    Communications and Information Minister Yaacob Ibrahim said he appreciates a decision by a local printer of The Economist not to reproduce a page with the latest cover of the Charlie Hebdo magazine depicting the Prophet Mohammed.

    “We have no doubt that there’s no such thing as freedom of expression without limits. As I have said before, the right to speak freely and responsibly must come together,” Dr Yaacob said to the media on the sidelines of the JFDI.Asia Demo Day on Friday (Jan 16),

    Dr Yaacob, who is also Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs said the circulation of the cartoons will not be allowed in Singapore. He later posted on Facebook that “there are longstanding laws against causing offence to our races and religions” in Singapore.

    The page in the Singapore edition of The Economist was replaced with a statement informing readers that the magazine’s “Singapore printers” declined to print it. The magazine hit local newsstands on Friday.

    “I think Singaporeans understand the sensitivities and we must continue to protect our racial, religious harmony. So I appreciate the sensitivities shown by the printer and I commend them for the decision,” said Dr Yaacob.

    “All in all, it’s been a good outcome for us, because people understand that we must continue to work together to preserve the racial and religious harmony in Singapore,” he added.

    Dr Yaacob said the Malay/Muslim community is “by and large offended” by the latest Charlie Hebdo cover. “But I think they also understood that we need to act rationally and I am quite impressed at how the community has come together to respond to this particular episode,” he said.

    “But at the same time, we recognise that this may not be the last time that it will happen and we have continued to build up our resilience. And on our part we should also continue to try and spread the message of peace and tolerance across all communities here in Singapore.”

     

    Source: www.channelnewsasia.com

  • Roy Ngerng Ordered To Pay Lee Hsien Loong S$29,000

    Roy Ngerng Ordered To Pay Lee Hsien Loong S$29,000

    Blogger Roy Ngerng, who was found to have defamed Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong last November, was ordered by a court to pay Mr Lee S$29,000 for legal fees and related expenses.

    In response to media queries, Ms Chang Li Lin, the Press Secretary to PM Lee, issued the following statement on Monday (Jan 12):

    “At the hearing today, the Judge ordered that the total costs to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff be fixed at $29,000.  This amount is for the legal fees and related expenses incurred up to the conclusion of the application for summary judgement. The dates for the subsequent hearings are not confirmed.

    “Mr Ngerng’s lawyer indicated at the hearing that Mr Ngerng did not want to be cross-examined.  The judge directed his lawyer to confirm whether he would be giving evidence by 30 January 2015. PM Lee stands ready to be cross-examined, a position he has earlier communicated to the Court”.

    Channel NewsAsia understands that Mr Lee had asked for S$40,000; Ngerng’s lawyers had offered S$10,000 to S$13,000.

    The Prime Minister filed the defamation suit against Ngerng in May last year. The suit arose from a blog post by Ngerng that same month titled “Where Your CPF Money Is Going: Learning From The City Harvest Trial”, which alleged that CPF monies had been misappropriated.

    In November, a judge ruled that Ngerng had defamed Mr Lee with his posts. The blogger was ordered to be restrained from publishing or disseminating the allegation that Mr Lee is guilty of criminal misappropriation of the monies paid by Singaporeans to the Central Provident Fund, or any words and/or images to the same effect.

     

    Source: www.channelnewsasia.com

deneme bonusu