Category Archives: Singapore

A Book Launch Event organised by School of Oriental & African Studies.

Author: Dr Poh Soo Kai
Special Guest: Dr Ping Tjin Thum
Chaired by Prof Michael Charney (SOAS, University of London)

Date: 10 May 2016 (Tues) Time: 6:30 PM – 8.30PM

Venue:  School of Oriental and African Studies
Russell Square: College Buildings
Khalili Lecture Theatre

Admission: Free. Please see  CSEAS Seminar Programme for details.

Abstract

Living in a Time of Deception is a study of Singapore history from the post-war period to 1965. Dr. Poh Soo Kai describes the book as a historical memoir. He was part of Singapore’s agitation against colonial rule and remains one of the most respected former political prisoners in Singapore.

While the establishment’s account of Singapore’s history maintains that the battle was one between the communists and non-communists, Dr. Poh firmly puts anti-colonialism, nationalism and socialism as the forces that drove the young men and women who were his contemporaries. He also delves into how being imprisoned without trial, potentially indefinitely without any recourse, leaves none of them unscathed.

The People’s Action Party, Singapore’s only ruling party to date continues to justify the mass arrests and imprisonment of the most able left-wing leaders as security measures against communist subversion.

Organiser: Centres & Programmes Office, SOAS

Contact email: centres@soas.ac.uk

Contact Tel: +44 (0)20 7898 4893

Sponsor: Monsoons Book Club

This article first appeared in Asia Sentinel 2016 Feb 01 by Asia Sentinel Correspondent.

Tan Wah Piow, a onetime student leader who fled Singapore after a trumped-up trial that found him guilty of participating in a 1975 riot in a union hall, is asking that his conviction be quashed 42 years later after the chief witness against him was convicted last month of long-running embezzlement of union funds.

Tan, arguably Singapore’s most prominent political exile – although not the only one – became a bête noir of the late Prime Minister Lee Kuna Yew, who 12 years later accused him of being the mastermind behind a so-called conspiracy from overseas involving 16 young Catholics who were arrested in 1987 for allegedly planning to overthrow the government to form a Marxist state. read more

Lawrence Wong, the Singapore Minister for Culture, Community and Youth reminds me of a second-hand car salesman when I read about his recent remarks as to why the government is considering legislation to protect the name and images of Lee Kuan Yew.  Ostensibly this proposed initiative is to prevent the “commercial exploitation” of Lee Kuan Yew’s name and images. Various media quoted Lawrence Wong as citing an example, the Singapore bakery which marketed a new line of Lee bu kai ni  李不开你 buns to coincide with the Lee Kuan Yew’s mourning period. The李 (Lee) as in Lee Kuan Yew, rhymes with 离 meaning leave. Hence Lee Bu Kai Ni means Can’t bear to Leave you. Touching stuff indeed. But somehow it did not go down well with the public. When citing the “bun” incident, it is unclear whether Lawrence Wong’s objection was because the buns from the BreadTalk bakery were not tasty enough, and “feel stale 90% of the time”, according to a complaint lodged by a Jumi Tan in the Straits Times facebook 24.3.2015.  Or was it simply just too expensive at $2 a piece, as complained by another netizen Joseph Hiew to the Straits Times. Is this now the new politics of the post-Lky era – bun watching? Is it the Government’s duty to shoot down anything unbefitting to the memory of Lky because the dead man could no longer wield his libel law club to whack his critics? Or is 

Photo by courtesy of MBC friend

there something more insidious brewing in the political cauldron that we ought to know? If was just plain and simple “commercial exploitation” that the government was concerned with, how would the Minister classify the display at Popular bookshop as depicted in this photograph taken during the mourning period. Wasn’t Popular also cashing in for commercial gain when they set up the altar with books in praise of Lky?

In his remarks to the press, Lawrence Wong made reference to charity. “I think there is a very clear distinction between somebody who does it for charitable reasons, somebody who does it to pay tribute without making profit – and an individual or company who is specifically doing it for profit or commercial gain,” he said.

Is Lawrence Wong’s explanation as clear as mud? In the case of BreadTalk, they were donating the proceeds of the sale of the offending buns to the community chest; however,

Photo from Straits Time

this does not appear to be the case with Popular when they paid tribute to the “King of Singapore Politics”. Why was BreadTalk singled out for criticism and not Popular? How different were the these two commercial companies from those selling T-shirts and figurines of Lky for profits, which were cited by Lawrence Wong as further examples of unbefitting conduct requiring legislative injunction.

If the government does proceed with the legislation, and if the reasons so far proffered by Lawrence Wong were to be believed, our highly paid Minister would not only be monitoring the profit intentions of bakeries, they would be keeping a close watch on profit-oriented peddlers selling non-copyrighted T-shirts and figurines of  Lky, and would probably engage Interpol to monitor similar infringements in the whole of Asia.

Does the lack of credibility, cogency and logic in Lawrence Wong’s presentation of the government’s intention betray a hidden and unspeakable agenda?

I would treat Lawrence Wong’s reasons with as much scepticism as one should when talking to a second-hand car salesman flogging his wares. Is the Singapore government seriously telling the population that taxpayers ought to fund a task force to check every T-shirt and merchandise sold with the image of Lky just to ensure that any profits arising should be shared with the Lky’s Estate, or given to Charity? Why can’t the beneficiaries of the Lky estate be left to their own devices as would be the case with the families of any other celebrity?

The clues to this otherwise pea-brain scheme are revealed in the word “tribute” used by Lawrence Wong, and his assertion that the use of Lky’s name and images in tribute would need “approval”. If everyone is to be equal before the law, as stipulated in the Constitution, why should a dead Lky trump the freedom of expression of the living citizens. Lky is neither a divine being or a monarch, and citizens should not be required to apply for a licence, whether to praise, or to criticise or to lampoon him. The fact that Lawrence Wong only mentioned  a scheme of approval for tribute automatically implies a blanket ban of future criticism.

The only logical conclusion one can draw is that this proposed legislative initiative is designed  to stifle any future criticism and inquiry into Lee Kuan Yew, the man, his policies, and his misdeeds during his term of office. The ultimate aim is to perpetuate the political dominance of the ruling Party by institutionalising its founder and his ideology. Is this not a modern step towards a Lee Dynasty?

Photo by courtesy of MBC friend

The ruling party is taking Singapore down the route to North Korea where only homage and tributes are allowed to be expressed to the Great Leader. By equating a dead politician’s name and images to that of the national flag, and other State emblems, the ruling party is undermining national unity by politicizing institutions of the State for their own political ends.  Is the PAP  now moving Singapore further down the road towards a fascist* state with a dominant party and ideology?  Once this proposal gets into the statute book – it will mark the beginning of the end of the Constitution.

If the proposal is not consigned to the dustbin, there is a grave risk that anyone found criticizing ideas attributed to Lee Kuan Yew could be convicted for, call it by any name, lèse-majesté  all the same.  Oppositions beware.§

* Fascist State defined.

In a liberal democracy,  the sovereignty lies with the people, and individual rights are enshrined in the Constitution, and protected by the judiciary.  In contrast, a fascist state is one where the State is all powerful, and dictates terms over the citizenry. Rule of law is replaced with rule by draconian laws. The citizen only choice is to conform. Such a State is ruled by a dominant party, with a dominant ideology. Pressure groups are tolerated only within the strict framework of the dominant ideology, and are within the control of the dominant party. The dominant party claims to represent the interests of the people. It subverts democracy by ensuring that all the apparatus to the State are within its command.  Strict discipline is imposed over the upper echelon of the dominant party to ensure uniformity of ideology and respectability. In return, they are rewarded with security of tenure, and wealth. Deviants from within the upper echelon are usually dealt with severely.

By Tan Wah Piow

I had a pleasant and surreal experience last week as I sat at a table surrounded by fellow Singaporeans discussing some of the recently published books in Singapore.

It was almost like ‘coming home’ remarked one of my Singaporean friends. Yes, but not quite, even though the experience I have had the pleasure to enjoy, was made possible by the largess of the National Arts Council of Singapore (NAC).

I visited the Singapore stand at the London Book Fair as a representative of the Monsoons Book Club. The eight publishers present were, I understand, some of the most active in the business, chosen by the NAC to showcase Singapore publishing.

I was impressed. Instead of looking at it as a half empty bottle and whingeing about the absence of books from the stand such as the recently published Priest In Geylang, I was delighted that the designer of the Singapore exhibition pavilion had chosen the cover of a controversial Chinese book as one of the motifs for the stand’s backdrop.

The book Growing up in Lee Kuan Yew’s Era, written by a popular blogger Miss Lee Min Hui, is a critical account by a 30-something on some of Lee Kuan Yew’s policies such as the high pay for politicians. Before the publication of her book, it was reported that some even doubted if it could be published in Singapore at all. Credit in this case ought to be given to the NAC for taking an inclusive approach to accommodate such a critical work at this international book fair. I only hope the High Commissioner who also visited the exhibition, would choose this book along with other books as appropriate gifts to foreign dignitaries.

A book which caught my attention is the autobiography of Constance Singam – Where I was – A memoir from the Margins. The title speaks for itself, and the book will inform the world, from the insight of this veteran campaigner of women’s rights, the rough side of Singapore. One recurring theme is “fear”, and how she navigated around it . The book’s presence at the fair, paid for no doubt by taxpayers, is a promising sign for the post-Lee Kuan Yew era. Oh yes, I do know that a fledging swallow does not make a spring.

During my formative years in the 1970s, I was always eagerly awaiting for the next issue of the now defunct Far Eastern Economic Review which carried Morgan Chua’s sharp editorial observations of current affairs. Like many of my generation, I was a fan of Morgan Chua, and his hard hitting cartoon depicting the demise of independent The Herald newspaper after the sledge hammer attack by Lee Kuan |Yew on the independent press. His cartoons are still etched in the forefront of my mind.

For this reason, I was very grateful when publisher Edmund Wee presented me with a copy of Lky : Political Cartoons by Morgan Chua. My recollection of Morgan’s early editorial pieces brought back the nostalgia, but his more recent works telling the Story of LKY fall more within the genre of cartoon illustrations, beautifully and artfully executed no doubt, but lacking the oomph of his earlier works. All the same, the book fair achieved in bringing to the world’s attention, once again, the work of our cartoonist.

Without the largess of the NAC, a book such as Man/Born/Free, an anthology by Singapore authors would not, for example, be republished and made popular in South Africa.

So, cheers to those at the National Arts Council for their good attempt.

Who knows, maybe one day, the NAC will even showcase Monsoons Book Club’s Art of Disobedience. That will make my day.

Tan Wah Piow
Still in London
25.4.2015

In life, Lee Kuan Yew’s sole concern was to be feared by his countrymen. He was so spectacularly successful in this pursuit that by the time of his death, he was left with no cohorts, only minions.

He will be remembered as an accomplished dictator who maintained a veneer of democracy and the grand illusion of the rule of law to his very last breath. Such was his achievement that dictators elsewhere viewed his system of control with envy.

But this “Singapore Model” is made possible only because of the particularity of Singapore: a strategically placed island city state, with unique geographical attributes such as a natural port, blessed with a diligent and industrious population, surrounded by resource rich countries. It is not a model which can be easily replicated elsewhere, nor should it be.

Another undoubted accomplishment of the man was his ability to propagate the myth that he alone was the founding father of Singapore. That myth may soon unravel with his passing.

For someone who would rather be feared than loved, his dear family members and minions who now mourn his passing should not take exception if his death is celebrated as a great historic event which will eventually set the people free.

The death of Lee Kuan Yew will certainly unlock the inhibitions and liberate the people from fear. Fear of political persecution crippled the citizens and residents in Singapore like no other country in the developed world to the extent that even the very rich, the very clever, and those in high political office shy away from expressing dissent.

With his death, the truth about the man will emerge. Luckily the deceased can no longer wield the stick of libel law to gag his critics, as he was so quick to do in life.

Those in his ruling People’s Action Party who enjoyed his patronage during the past fifty years may soon also have to mourn the eventual passing of the cosy politics of one party dominance.  Political life will no longer be as tranquil for this political class as it was before.