Singabloodypore

« Singapore - Ministerial & Civil Service Pay | HomePage | Singapore: Forum to go on with local speakers »

12/04/2007

Singapore: Zahari's 17 Years

Comments

Vivian Balakrishnan the minister in charge of community development said that screening the 'Zahari’s 17 Years' will shake the public's confidence in the government. But the ISD detention occurred from 1963-1980 (17 years).

The detention was done by a government that had the mandate of the electorate of that period.

Today's government has the mandate of today's electorate. How could today's government be responsible for what occurred from 1963-1980?

So is Vivian Balakrishnan protecting the public's confidence in the government or in the PAP and its elites?

Posted by: LKY's Mother | 13/04/2007

I think that Tan Wah Piow summed it up best on the More4 News broadcast. The PAP are determined to maintain their interpretation of Singapore's past, present and future. They are writing their own history of course.

These damn bloggers and youtube could potentially undermine their ( the PAP and elite's) glorious gift to the ungrateful population of Singapore.

They need to control the past in order to protect their future. The past most be shaped in order to continue the 'story' of the glorious years of the PAP. In years to come the people will be encouraged to look with rose tinted glasses on the 'good old days' and then everyone can yearn to return to those good old conservative days.

And when the economy slides as it is doing [because of globalisation of course, through no fault of the well paid ministers],what party other than the PAP could promise to ensure the return of those heady days?

Posted by: soci | 13/04/2007

history is always written by the winning side, but I think you exaggerate the importance of this; just look at all those failed totalitarian regimes

how many people would take the trouble to look at videos like this? obviously far fewer than those who looked at the SPG nude photos last year and Michelle Queks photos recently; material like this, and the SDP seminar without or without the foreign speakers, are no threat

the reason to control such minor matters is simply: they have so much power that, if anything contrary to their prescription is allowed, they would look weak; it is really an image thing

Posted by: asiayouthmedia.com | 13/04/2007

You assume that numbers somehow equals influence.

you have to ask what 'type' of person is likely to be interested in such a video. so what if those who go online to search for videos of SPG etc.. don't see it.

You got to ask what is the demographic of people who go online to search for politcally motivated material. Are they working class, middle class, upper class. Are they in positions of power or disempowered? Do they work for media or political parties?

you can take the example of newspapers in the UK. The most widely read paper is The Sun. A paper that caters to the vast majority of British people - the bottom 20% in terms of income. This demographic also has a a few other papers geared to their preferences. But the top 20% of earners have far more newspapers and tv channels aimed at their demographic even though they are a very small percentage of the entire UK population.

Not simply because you can advertise more expensive items but because they have a greater amount of 'Social Capital'.

Posted by: soci | 16/04/2007

I don't think it is wise to define people in terms of "classes". At the end of the day a person will watch this video if he/she is INTERESTED in doing so, for whatever their individual reasons might be.

> Vivian Balakrishnan the minister in charge of community development said that screening the 'Zahari’s 17 Years' will shake the public's confidence in the government. <

I hope this young man lives long enough to recount the absolutely outrageous (stupid) things he has stated in public.

Firstly, a government which is SCARED of the people they govern is a GOOD THING.

Secondly, if one film can "shake the public's confidence in the government" that means the government's moral compass is weak and its right to govern suspect, and that is enough reason for the people to NOT TRUST their government at all.

"Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under" — Henry Louis Mencken

I am in no way skewed toward communism nor socialism, but every individual has the NATURAL RIGHT to choose his political beliefs, and share them with others as he so chooses.

The PAP has NO RIGHT to hammer down people whose political beliefs are different. To do so would be tantamount to the underlying principles of "ethnic cleansing" ala Adolf or "holy war" ala The Crusaders. All of these acts of violence were done in the name of "good"—a necessary expedient process to reach a social "ideal", aka "nation building" in the Singapore context.

In fact a PROPER GOVERNMENT will protect the RIGHT of individuals to choose their political beliefs and affiliations. In the case of Zahari, as it has been with others like him, the government itself is the aggressor and is totally GUILTY of a travesty of JUSTICE.

Posted by: Matilah_Singapura | 16/04/2007

Post a comment

NB: Comments are moderated on this weblog.