In his latest blog post on The Rice Bowl Singapore (TRS), Reform Party head huncho and son of JBJ, Kenneth Jeyaretnam, thought it was “as though I was watching a rerun of the Amos Yee saga” as he watched the Government’s reaction to Subhas and Preeti Nair’s video unfold.
He also provided a link to the video, “since the Government has got its newly tamed houseboys Facebook and Google to take down or disable any links accessible to Singaporeans on their platform.”
He recounted how, in the case of Amos Yee, the Government had tried to make his prosecution about inciting religious hatred. But, he said, US immigration judge, Samuel Cole, who heard Amos’s asylum case, commented that in the 8-minute video, only 30 seconds were devoted to criticising Christians. The judge subsequently ruled that it was a “politically motivated prosecution done with the intention of silencing critics.”
Ken felt that what seems to have riled the PAP was not the expletives, but the fact that the pair attacked the Government in the video and “blame it for tolerating, even encouraging, racism.”
He pointed out that the original racism came from NETS, a partially Government-owned company, and state media broadcaster, Mediacorp, and this point got totally ignored while “those who point out racism are investigated by the police and may be prosecuted.”
He opined that if the PAP was serious about tackling racism in our society, they would have enacted an Equality Act like in the US or the UK.
“The PAP’s line on behalf of the majority is that there is no racism or unequal treatment in Singapore based on race and if you dare to suggest otherwise you will be prosecuted for inciting racial conflict which is seditious.”
He also hit out at how the country’s leaders can give racist remarks with impunity.
“LKY’s racist rants were never criticised but praised by his state media poodle as “hard truths to keep Singapore going.” His famous comments about whether it was possible to trust the Malays’ loyalty in time of war became institutionalised in the form of policies which excluded many Malays from doing NS or put them in policing roles.
However in the era of Greater China, and, following LKY’s example, the PAP’s relentless exaltation of the superiority of Chinese culture, it is worth standing the question of loyalty on its head. Could a Chinese Singaporean be relied upon to defend Singapore if it was China that invaded?”
He said there are discussions to be had when we talk about “brown face”.
He also provided some links to previous articles he has written on freedom of expression and electoral politics in Singapore.
Go to his article here: TRS