I spent a bit of time last night downloading a short indie film directed and produced by a Singaporean, Martyn See, on the ’struggles’ of Singapore’s Chee Soon Juan. Apparently, there was some effort expended to try and ban the movie, an official/officious reason being that it was too bias towards one party rather than another, effectively being political propaganda rather than the short feature presentation it was meant to be.
Links to the clip are found at Singabloodypore.
I’ll admit: having watched it, it does sound very much like party propaganda, mostly because most of the 26 minutes of the short presentation revolved around an interview conducted for the film (presumably). I won’t be naive enough to suggest that films of this sort are curatives for the “repressive” state of politics in Singapore, because most of what Chee Soon Juan’s been doing (and his various encounters with the law) is public knowledge.
When I say “public knowledge”, I generally refer to people who would take an interest in these sorts of things. Friends I’ve spoken with over the issue are largely ambivalent over CSJ’s actions in the past. The bulk of the pro-PAP supporters I have interacted with constantly refer to his ‘faux’ hunger strike, which consisted of CSJ being on drip for about… 18 days, was it? In any case, the more informed pro-PAP supporters have presented some telling arguments against many of his charges.
Some friends involved in the opposition parties in Singapore have shied away from speaking about CSJ mostly because they feel what he’s done has hurt their credibility rather than aided it. There are many reasons they cite, of course, but the one reason few cite - and which I think is at the heart of things - is that CSJ’s actions have been, by and large, embarassing.
I think a pragmatic Singapore would have little time for the sort of dramatics that CSJ’s now known for; going up against the government would require reflection on the government’s policies and the pitfalls it could have avoided, rather than going on hunger strikes which, not just being dramatically passive-aggressive, would not serve to convince the more educated and more middle-class Singaporeans of anything but CSJ’s apparent conviction of his beliefs.
Unfortunately, I think it just ends there. I wonder to what extent the population at large in Singapore have dismissed meaningful points raised by CSJ by rejecting the man himself.
In any case, the issue I’m far more interested in is the abuse of suits against political opponents pursued by the incumbent government; they are usually nasty, messy affairs which gain a veneer of legitimacy by bringing ‘grievances’ to the court of law. A pretty good reference is a report issued by Lawyers’ Rights Watch Canada on another similar case of abuse via libel against J. B. Jeyaretnam, another prominent opposition politician for the Workers’ Party. A copy of the report can be obtained here.
The findings of that report are, to say the least, very interesting.
