Amos Yee in court,
Handcuffed and shackled,
Like a common criminal.
Yet, his head still high,
His spirit unbroken,
Integrity intact.
A boy with giant principles,
Rare here or elsewhere.
Source: Ismail Kassim
Tag: Ismail Kassim
-
Ismail Kassim: Amos Yee Should Be Lauded For His Guts And Talents
Part II: Amos Yee saga
A clarification: Contrary to earlier reports, Amos prefers not to be out on bail as he considers the bail conditions too onerous. This was made clear by his bailor.
16 year old Amos Yee continues to languish behind bars with no one willing to post bail for him.
Is he a victim of his own making? An insufferable boy, who cannot refrain from violating his bail condition, by continuing to post comments online. Or is he a little rebel protesting against the way he has been treated by the police and the courts for his video rant.
I am beginning to think that he is fighting a one-little-boy battle against the overkill mentality of the authorities. Is it going to be a test of will between a teeny-weeny juvenile and an all-mighty state?
The way the multiple charges have been laid out against him and the onerous bail conditions show that the old bureaucratic mentality still prevails.
This is a bad omen. It dashes hopes of a new beginning in the post-LKY era. Change, if any, must always come from the top and filter down to the police, the judiciary, the courts and the bureaucrats.
Unless the authorities change the way they treat him or he decides to behave – like other normal, logical, law-abiding citizens, fearful of their rice bowls; neither of which seems probable at the moment, he may end up in prison for months or even years.
I am afraid we are seeing the making of another political exile. Is he going to be hounded out of our little red dot? Amos seems to be on track to share the same fate as Tan Wah Piow, Tang Liang Hong and Francis Seow.
With his attitude, he cannot survive in our strait-laced little island and the best hope for him – if he cannot control his urges – is to seek political asylum in a more conducive environment where his talents will be much appreciated.
I do hope it will not come about, for it will be a great loss for all of us. The boy has got talent and he has also got lots of guts.
Source: Ismail Kassim
-
Ismail Kassim: Public Should Not Judge Amos Yee
The Amos Yee drama is getting more exciting with its unexpected twists and turns.
He is back in remand and self-righteous Singaporeans wring their hands in despair. Out of frustration, some even go to the extent of lashing out at him for not behaving ‘’in ways that they themselves would if they were in his shoes.’’
I am not sure at this stage what’s wrong with him. Has he – and I don’t rule it out – some kind of psychological problem? Perhaps, there is a medical explanation for his inability to control himself. Like an addict who cannot keep away from drugs.
Or, is there some rationale behind his apparent madness. Could it be just a small boy’s vain attempt to shoulder a big man’s job in pushing forward the boundaries of self-expression? A boy, who is willing to martyr himself, for the larger good of all.
A more democratic society with less personal restrictions cannot come about just by wishing or twiddling our thumbs. Someone has to do something at some risk to self. Has Amos self-appointed himself to undertake a one-boy struggle for more freedom for all of us?
Let us not be too hasty to judge him with our middle-class morality and logic as to what is acceptable and unacceptable behaviour.
Let us not forget even for one minute that our values have to a large extent been shaped by growing up and living under a strict and restrictive social and political environment.
What he has done so far is not a crime in many other countries, and even if he is in a few, he would not have been hand-cuffed and shackled like what happened to him here.
Amos Yee needs our sympathies. Pity him if you like, but please refrain from passing judgement.
Source: Ismail Kassim
-
Ismail Kassim: Tribute To Lee Kuan Yew – Part III
Part III: The guru that slip
If LKY had faded away three decades ago, I would have regarded him almost like a god, such was my reverence for him. Even 10 years ago I still retain much respect and admiration for him.
But in the last one decade his much admired mind seems to have decayed a little and he frittered away a little of the goodwill that he had deservedly accumulated over the years.
The Malays in particular felt that he was picking on them. In an interview with the National Geographic he expressed his doubts whether Malays were prepared to share their last loaf of bread with other races.
The same question could be posed to the non-Malays:For instance, would a Chinese Singaporean prefer to share his loaf with a Malay neighbour or with a new PRC immigrant?
Then there was of course other statements culminating in his claim that the National Pledge was only an ‘’aspiration’’ and not an‘’ideology’’.
I was outraged. My friends and I felt that somehow he seemed to be still carrying the baggage from the acrimonious days when Singapore was part of Malaysia.
The result was my article – For love of country, exercise your right to dissent – posted to NoHardFeelings memoirs at WordPress in Sept 2009. Here is an excerpt:
History is replete with examples of great leaders who overstayed and caused harm to their cause in the latter years of their rule.
One prime example is Mao Zedong, who held on to power until his death at the age of 83 in 1976. If he had faded into the background a decade or two earlier and spared China from the convulsions of the Cultural Revolution, China might today well be a superpower.
Great men make great mistakes. We must learn from history.
Back to our little island at the tip of the Malayan peninsula, Singaporeans found out in dramatic fashion on August 20 who is still in charge, the real commander-in-chief.
On that day, Lee took charge to change the course of a parliamentary debate that the government should practice what it preached in the Singapore Pledge.
He dismissed the call by NMP Viswa Sadasivan to the PAP government to live up to the ideals of the Pledge on such matters as racial equality and fair play as ‘’high faluting ideas’’ that needed to be ‘’demolished’’.
Lee must have felt that Viswa’s inspiring address that had caught the imagination of many Singaporeans represented a direct challenge to PAP rule in general and to his vision of Singapore in particular.
You do not need to have a great mind to appreciate that Lee’s idea of Singapore has since independence been premised on two contradictory principles: an outward commitment towards multiracialism and meritocracy to attract talent worldwide and an inward obsession with reinforcing Chinese dominance as a way to ensure Singapore’s survival and prosperity.
Lee has always made it known that it would be disastrous to allow the Chinese proportion of the population to fall below the current level of 76%. I am sure he would not shrink from taking any step,including importing wholesale from the Motherland, to make up for any shortfall.
Under the PAP, the non-Malay minorities pose no problem. As for the Malays, they are to be treated differently, not too harshly but not as equals also, because of their kinship ties with our close neighbours. Just give them enough so as not to make them too unhappy.
Now that the dust is settling down from the Viswa controversy, it is perhaps timely to consider whether Lee did a service or disservice to Singapore and particularly to the government led by his son, Lee jr.
Just as many Chinese continue to revere Mao for his contributions, we too must always respect and revere Lee for all the good that he had done in building Singapore to what it is today.
If we love Singapore, however, we must not abdicate our right to dissent, even at the risk of being ‘’rubbished’’ or worse still,getting knuckle-dustered. We must not forget the lesson from history.
Six days earlier in his National Day address to his Tanjong Pagar constituents, Lee had also aroused resentment among Malays when he made a pitch to Chinese Singaporeans to be more conciliatory towards newcomers from China.
It was something I never expected from a man whom I once regarded as the Bapak of multiracialism in pre-independent Singapore.
I sent a letter to the ST Editor, saying that ‘’many Singaporeans see it as a deliberate and – unnecessary – attempt to play the racial card on a peripheral issue.’’ It never saw daylight.
I was agitated to write another letter after Lee’s interpretation in Parliament that Article 152 of the Constitution on the special position of the Malays meant that the government had the constitutional right ‘’not to treat everybody as equal.’’ It too never saw daylight.
By reviving memories of Malaysia days when he felt his life threatened on a few occasions, Lee seemed to be using it to justify his policy of marginalizing the community in the military and security sectors.
Do you have to punish an entire community for the sins of Albar and a few Malay ultras? Is not 44 years of collective punishment long enough?
Lee obviously prefers not to remember how impatient and demanding he was when advocating for a Malaysian Malaysia and equality for all races when Singapore was in the Federation. He was certainly not prepared to wait.
Now he tells the Singapore Malays not to expect‘’equal treatment’’ instantly as the Singapore Pledge on equality for all regardless of race and religion was only an ‘’aspiration’’ and not an‘’ideology’’ and therefore would take a long time to realize.
As an example, he cited the United States experience on Black-White relations. He does not seem to appreciate that unlike the Blacks, the Malays did not come to Singapore as slaves.
What the Malays want they already enjoyed before Singapore was handed over to Lee and the PAP on a silver platter by a Malay-dominated government in Kuala Lumpur.
The starting point for the Malays is British rule,when all communities enjoyed equal rights and equal access to all sectors of public life. Malays only enjoy special arrangements with respect to their religion and customs.
For the record, I can say that many Malay Singaporeans want nothing more than equal rights – not special rights – just like what other Singaporeans, including newcomers and their children from China and elsewhere,enjoy.
To sum up, Lee is undoubtedly a great leader and all Singaporeans will have much to thank him for. I think his success is due to the interplay of four factors:
1. Strength of character – he knows what he wants and he is willing to use any means within his reach to achieve it
2. He runs a cadre party in which it is almost impossible for him to be overthrown
3. He introduces a restrictive type of democracy which makes it impossible for the PAP to be overthrown through the ballot box
4. A conducive external environment, both within and outside the region
Source: Ismail Kassim
-
Ismail Kassim: Tribute To Lee Kuan Yew – Part II
Part II: My teacher, my guru
I was at my most audacious when I named the fourth chapter in my A Reporter’s Memoir as Lee Kuan Yew and I.
My purpose was not to claim intimacy to a great man but rather to attract readers to browse through my book.
I also felt that I could justify the chapter title as I regarded him as my greatest my greatest teacher, my guru who opened my mind to the big world outside the school.
Excerpts from A Reporter’s Memoir: No Hard Feelings Published in 2008
‘’The brush-off with the civil servants was just a sideshow. By the time I became a teacher on 2 January 1961, the real life drama was just beginning.
Imagine a youth just out of school after his ‘O’ levels, with a mind still half-filled, and whose only redeeming quality is that he can and likes to read.
Imagine also, no television, no English football league, no bowling alleys, and no internet. In short, there were very few distractions except for Rediffusion, radio stations, the cinemas, and club competition football at Farrer Park.
My interest in politics began to stir. I realised that it was more than about which party was going to win power. The pay cuts had shown in a very personal way its impact on my family and me. Of course, all the talk about liberation struggles and freedom fighters in other parts of the world and the struggle between communism and democracy also played a part in fuelling my imagination.
Before I knew it, I was caught in the political turmoil and found myself carried along by its currents, in the same way that many Singaporeans nowadays get caught with World Cup fever or Premier League Football and would go out of their way, even feigning sickness, just to catch the action live.
Singapore was then one huge stage. We became absorbed in the high drama of the political life and death struggle that would, we know, determine the fate of our little island that has often been lightly dismissed as a cross between a bullet and a pill, or to borrow a more contemporary description, as “the little red dot.”
Events were unfolding before my very eyes.It was like being in the front row of a prize boxing fight. For an 18-year old youth, it was just not possible to remain unaffected by all the heat and tension of the struggle within the PAP between the non-communists led by Lee and the group dubbed as pro-communists front men led by Lim Chin Siong. I began to attend political rallies held by both sides.
So great was my interest that I was not satisfied with just listening to their speeches live, I would also listen to the news, and then read in the papers what I had heard the previous night.Reading the news first thing in the morning just to catch the latest news became a habit.
This drama played on night after night for years.
The best and the greatest of them all was Lee and his weapon of choice was reasoned logic, simple and clear to even an O level student, yet elegantly structured with a certain rhythm that struck a chord in listeners and readers.
Throughout 1961-67, he was an indefatigable politician making speeches almost every other day, everywhere from street rallies to overseas
In particular, I remember his series of 12 radio talks in 1961 on the inside story of the struggle for control of the PAP between the group of English-educated non-communist nationalists, and the pro-communist group. He described the cooperation between the two groups as a united front.
It was Lee at his best as a storyteller that gripped many Singaporeans to their chairs night after night.
In those tension filled days, I think I read practically every speech, sometimes twice over, always marvelling at the way his logic flowed along. Often I would read slowly, verbalising every word,relishing the cadences and the elegant turn of phrase. It was a source of constant joy.
The speeches were also very informative and provided a continuous flow of knowledge to a mind that was then only half-filled but malleable. It was my initiation into the world of adults and politics, human conflict and ideology, colonialism and independence, democracy and socialism and communism.
Many of the ideas that I came across when I listened to or read his speeches were new to me. They were novel, stimulating,opened up my mind, and stretched my imagination.
In terms of intellect, no teacher or public figure that I had come across could match him. No one also, before or after him, could command my total attention in the way Lee could with his speeches.He was persuasive. Even listening and reading his speeches were enough to shape my attitude towards many public policy issues.
Imagine reading word for word, speech after speech, week after week, month after month, for five, six, seven years. You would not be wrong if you conclude that it could be the equivalent of a correspondence course for a liberal arts university degree.
I think that was how I unconsciously learnt the rudiments of how to write simply and plainly and how I began to appreciate the beauty of the English language, with all its colour and nuances.
I suppose I was lucky. I was at the right place and at the right time. Just by being absorbed in the drama, I managed to get the best teacher available for my post-O level education’’ Page 52 to 55
‘’To me, the way Lee out-manoeuvred the communists over the merger proposals showed him at his most brilliant. It was political poker at its best. Of course, if you want to be unkind, you can describe it as Lee at his most cunning.’’ Page 58
‘’I think Lee was at his most idealistic during the ’59 to 65’ era, especially in his quest for a more equal and just society, regardless of ethnic or religious affiliations, a society where only the man counts and not any of his born-with affiliations.
‘’Nothing seemed impossible then. No goal was too high or too difficult. If necessary, change the world, and turn the environment upside down.
‘’After independence, he became pragmatic and realistic, a very different person from the one who was willing to climb any hill, face any obstacle and brave any danger.’’ Page 61
‘’The Lee that I knew as a young man, the fiery leader out to reshape the world according to his ideals was no longer around. An older and perhaps wiser Lee, who now all too readily accepted the realities of the world, has replaced the younger Lee.’’ Page 64
In conclusion, we must judge Lee by the standards of his contemporaries. He was indeed an extraordinary man shaped by the circumstances of his time.
At a time like this, we should remember his contributions, and for the time being, forget whatever might be his misdeeds.
I take this opportunity to express my condolences to the PM and the Lee family.
Source: Ismail Kassim