Singapore wonders: can you dissent, and discuss dissent, while still loving your nation?

As with my post on the (all-too-recent!) brownface saga, this is a summary of links on the Singapore government- and establishment-led inaccurate characterising of dissent as traitorous behaviour, and thus of activists, artists and independent journalists and scholars who express dissent as traitors to Singapore.

If I've missed anything meaty, please let me know. The information here was last updated on 14 October 2019.

This series of events began when news broke that a Yale-NUS enrichment programme, "Dissent And Resistance In Singapore", to be taught by playwright Alfian Sa'at, had been cancelled two weeks before it was scheduled to begin (Seow Bei Yi, "Yale-NUS cancels programme to introduce students to 'modes of dissent and resistance in Singapore'", The Straits Times, 14 September 2019).

Initial statements on the cancellation of the course:

• Alfian Sa'at. Excerpt: "For me, the idea of dissent is a simple one. It is the art of saying no. Not just saying no to the state but also to certain ideologies, practices, ways of thinking and doing. If we cannot make space and listen to the person that says no, then democracy dies." (14 September 2019)
• Yale University, stating that it would undertake a fact-finding report (14 September 2019).
• Kirsten Han. Excerpt: "Funnily enough, this cancellation teaches us all more about the state of dialogue and dissent in Singapore than if the Week 7 LAB had actually proceeded." (14 September 2019)
• Meanwhile, Speaker of Parliament Tan Chuan-Jin wondered on Facebook, "Is this [the cancelled Yale-NUS programme] the liberal education that we need to get us into the future?" (14 September 2019) (Seriously, Mr Tan?!)

As online discussion intensified over the next week:

• Alfian made public his proposed programme for the course, while disputing comparisons with the ongoing protests in Hong Kong and highlighting the problems with how the terms dissent and dissident are framed in mainstream discourse in Singapore (16 September 2019).
• An edited video of unknown provenance and making false claims about Han's presentation at a the forum on civil disobedience in 2016 was widely circulated online, even though she refuted its claims (16 September 2016).
  Sidenote: you can watch for yourself a video recording of what Han actually said at the forum on 26 November 2016, which I attended (and was invigorated by!). That video has been available on YouTube since two days after that event; a transcript is also available.
• Alfian noted that "an online mob [was] attacking and spreading disinformation about Kirsten Han" in particular. Excerpt: "... if you have issues with the programme, or with dissent, please direct your hostility at me instead. Leave Kirsten alone. She’s a strong person but I think she can do without your character assassination and hysterical fearmongering. At some point, it’s just harassment and bullying. And I think some people have pointed out that perhaps she’s being attacked more ferociously than me because she’s a woman." (17 September 2019)
• Yale-NUS student Shawn Hoo responded to Tan Chuan-Jin's abovementioned Facebook post and lucidly explained why "Dissent is not a bad word." ("We Who Differ In Sentiment – Rethinking 'Dissent'", The Octant, 18 October 2019)
• Grace Yeoh highlighted the role of dissent, as articulated by Lee Kuan Yew before he became prime minister ("We Forget That Singapore Was Built From Dissent and Resistance", Rice Media). The article includes a correction, highlighted by PJ Thum, on Lee's role in the Fajar trial (21 September 2019).
• The Straits Times ran an English translation of a commentary by Goh Choon Kang, "Singapore does not need a 'colour revolution'" (21 September 2019). The piece first appeared in Singapore's Chinese-language broadsheet Lianhe Zaobao on 18 September 2019; it's archived and roughly translated here in Kirsten Han's Facebook post. Goh's commentary implied that the "people organising courses on protests locally" wanted to start a 'colour revolution' as in Hong Kong---despite Han's categorical statements to the contrary in the Hong Kong Free Press (16 September 2019) and on Facebook (21 September 2019).

On 25 September 2019, the minister for home affairs K. Shanmugam described independent Singapore news websites The Online Citizen and New Naratif as being used "to advance foreign interests" (Kenneth Cheng, "Shanmugam questions funding sources behind TOC, reiterates need for laws to curb foreign interference", TODAY, 25 September 2019). Shanmugam's speech included inaccurate descriptions of New Naratif co-founder Kirsten Han's political positions (see her refutations below).

• Han's email to the TODAY journalist Kenneth Cheng addressed Shanmugam's inaccurate accusations (25 September 2019). In response, TODAY edited their online story, but did not mark the changes as corrections (which would have been the ethical and industry-standard way to do it, as Rice Media did in the abovementioned post).
• Teo Soh Lung's Facebook post, "Foreign interference?", highlighted the parallels between the latest government accusations against activists and the Internal Security operations Coldstore and Spectrum in 1963 and 1987 respectively (27 September 2019). Background: Teo was detained during Operation Spectrum and imprisoned without trial for two and a half years; her memoir Beyond the Blue Gates (2010) is a chilling account of this experience.
• Kirsten Han, in "On accusations and gaslighting" explained her political and editorial positions, in the face of inaccurate characterisations by anonymous sources on Facebook and the minister for law K. Shanmugam. "This sort of rhetoric is playing with fire, turning Singaporeans against their fellow citizens by painting them as dangerous threats to the nation (especially in a country where the militarism, nationalism, and the siege mentality are all fairly widespread). It reminds me of the increasingly shrill rhetoric that’s been whipped up by populist politicians elsewhere, such as Donald Trump in the US or the Brexiters in the UK. The conspiracy theories, the turning of people against one another, the whipping up of fear and hate has been horrifying to watch unfold. It’s scary and disappointing to see parallels in my own home country. Such baseless accusations also lower the rationality and quality of public discourse, spreading misinformation/disinformation and distorted claims rather than encouraging actual engagement with the question of foreign interference, a complex issue that spans economic, social, and national spheres." (26 September 2019)
• Han's responses were reported in Grace Ho, "New Naratif co-founder Kirsten Han responds to Shanmugam's remarks on foreign interference", The Straits Times (27 October 2019).
• Which Cherian George analysed to show how the Straits Times article unethically supports "the Singapore government's attacks on independent journalists" (27 September 2019).
• The news was covered in the Washington Post: Shibani Mahtani, "At Yale’s venture in Singapore, a canceled course on dissent prompts censorship claims" (27 September 2019).
• Meanwhile, Alfian Sa'at gave a first-hand account of participating in a democracy classroom organised by New Naratif (27 September 2019).
• Nabil Khairul Anwar on the problem with how Singapore's PAP-led government inconsistently characterises what constitutes "foreign interference" (28 September 2019).
• Also meanwhile, during on an official trip to Canada, the minister for health Khaw Boon Wan participated in a climate rally march (28 September 2019). (Sidenote: Kirsten Han's brief take on it.)
• A view from the outside: Bhavan Jaipragas, "As Singapore gears up to fight foreign interference, could political critics be caught in the cross hairs?", South China Morning Post (29 September 2019). 

On 29 September 2019, Yale University released a statement and its fact-finding report, contending that "the decision to cancel the module was made internally and without government interference in the academic independence of the College." Its fact-finding report by Prof Pericles Lewis additionally asserted that Yale-NUS had been concerned with "legal risk" and with the "inadequacy of the materials" submitted by Alfian Sa'at.

• Alfian responded with an accounts of his experiences with Yale-NUS: "I don't like to be scapegoated" (1 October 2019), followed by more extensive statements recounting his experience (3-5 October 2019). The latter series of statements were originally published by Alfian on Facebook; they have been compiled at Academia.SG, with links to the original Facebook posts.
• The news was covered by US-based Inside Higher Ed: Elizabeth Redden, "Canceled Course Renews Academic Freedom Concerns" (1 October 2019).
• Singapore's ambassador-at-large Tommy Koh, in a speech at the Singapore Bicentennial Conference organised by the Institute of Policy Studies, said, "The contestation of ideas is a necessary part of democracy. We should therefore not blacklist intellectuals, artists, writers because they criticise the Government or hold dissenting views." He name-checked Tan Pin Pin, Sonny Liew and Jeremy Tiang as artists whose works the Singapore government should not have withdrawn funding from---which might be the first time someone in the government has stated as much plainly (as reported in the Straits Times [Linette Lai, "Tommy Koh hopes 4G leaders' priorities include upholding racial harmony, a more equal society"]; the speech isn't otherwise available). (1 October 2019)
• Donald Low noted that the issue is about academic leadership in Singapore universities and "the sad state of public and political discourse in Singapore." (5 October 2019).
• Poet and founder of Singapore Unbound, Koh Jee Leong, wrote to the president of Yale University regarding Alfian's refutations of the fact-finding report (6 October 2019).
• Senior Counsel Harpreet Singh Nehal discussed "justifiable doubts as to the correctness of the report’s conclusion that Yale-NUS had 'legitimate academic and legal reasons to cancel the module'." ("Safeguarding the spirit of academic freedom and open inquiry in Singapore: Concerns raised by Yale-NUS’ cancellation of the module on ‘Dialogue and Dissent in Singapore’ proposed by Mr Alfian Sa’at", Academia.SG (13 October 2019). 

On 7 October 2019, minister for education Ong Ye Kung stated in Parliament that the cancellation of Alfian Sa'at's proposed programme was because "MOE's stand is we cannot have such activity in our schools or institutes of higher learning. Political conscientisation is not the taxpayer's idea of what education means". Ong also read a few lines of Alfian's poem "Singapore You Are Not My Country" to throw doubt on his loyalty to Singapore (see also Rei Kurohi, "Yale-NUS saga: Academic freedom can't be carte blanche for misusing academic institutions for political advocacy, says Ong Ye Kung", The Straits Times).

• Alfian's rejoinders to Ong Ye Kung's parliamentary statement, rebutting a number of Ong's accusations, and in particular contending with Ong's characterisation of Alfian's poem, "Singapore You Are Not My Country" (7 October 2019; the full poem can be read here).
• Sonny Liew responded to Ong Ye Kung's parliamentary statement with a political cartoon on the "lesser spotted dissident-receiving-significant-foreign-funding", while Kirsten Han pointed out the problem with Ong's characterisation of "political conscientisation" (7 October 2019).
• Nominated Member of Parliament Anthea Ong made a parliamentary statement on youth activism: "The narrative must move beyond “activists as troublemakers". (7 October 2019)
• Singapore's ambassador-at-large Tommy Koh responded to Ong Ye Kung's statement, saying "We should not demonise Alfian Sa'at." (7 October 2019)
• Former Straits Times journalist Berthan Henson opined "I blame Yale-NUS" and wished the government had not addressed this issue in Parliament, leaving Singaporeans to "think for ourselves" (Yahoo! News, 7 October 2019)---to which Yale-NUS student Faris Joraimi made several astute rejoinders (8 October 2019).
• As Andrew Loh noted, the methods adopted by the two Cabinet ministers in the above statements are related: "In both instances, the words were taken out of context, misrepresented, to fit a certain narrative." (8 October 2019) 
• The Online Citizen provided a round-up of responses to date (Danisha Hakeem, "Playwright Alfian Sa’at “a loving critic” of S’pore, freedom of speech includes right to disagree with govt: Veteran diplomat Tommy Koh", 8 October 2019).
• Poet Amanda Chong published on Facebook her reading of Alfian's poem, which she had given at the Singapore Perspectives Conference in 2017 (8 October 2019).
• Other supportive responses from Singaporean writers and artists were reported by Olivia Ho, "Artists rally around Alfian Sa'at after Ong Ye Kung cites his poem during Yale-NUS debate", The Straits Times; Tessa Oh and Ng Jun Sen, "Yale-NUS dissent module: Tommy Koh, arts figures back playwright Alfian Sa’at after Ong Ye Kung criticism", TODAY; and Bhavan Jaipragas, "Singapore poets have a few choice words as minister Ong Ye Kung criticises Alfian Sa’at", South China Morning Post (8 October 2019). Nabilah Said further highlighted "5 Singapore poems not to quote out of context" (Arts Equator, 13 October 2019).
• Pan Jie wrote "Dear Ministers, Stop Accusing Singaporeans Of Disloyalty" (Rice Media, 9 October 2019).
• The Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development issued a statement, "Singapore: End state-sanctioned disinformation campaign against Kirsten Han" (10 October 2019). 
• New Naratif co-founder and independent historian PJ Thum responded to Ong Ye Kung on why it is not traitorous to suggest celebrating Malaysia Day: "It is a day that should be celebrated as a milestone of our nation’s progress, as we emerged from the oppression of British colonialism. It is ludicrous that we have a government which commemorates the bicentennial of our colonisation by the British, but then not only refuses to celebrate the day of our independence from the colonisers but also accuses those who do celebrate it of treason." (10 October 2019)
• Andrew Loh brought up the matter of People's Action Party (PAP) running PAP Community Foundation kindergartens. Loh wrote, "In short, a political party sets up a pre-school educational chain of kindergartens, has its political emblem or logo incorporated in the chain's logo which is used in the kindergartens, and the chain gets grants from the govt. Now, I'm honestly trying to understand if all this is ok, given what Ong Ye Kung---the Education Minister himself---said above [in Parliament]." (11 October 2019)
• Sudhir Thomas Vadaketh, in "The day Singapore’s education minister lost some credibility", took issue with Ong Ye Kung's parliamentary speech for misrepresenting Alfian's poem and his proposed Yale-NUS course, and the "unthinking, nuclear option" PAP ministers tend to use when making "dramatic simplicities to hammer their opponents." Worth reading just for Sudhir's excellent and entertaining demonstration of why Ong's "selective quoting" of Alfian's poem is flawed, using works by Shelley, Ginsberg and 2Pac (14 October 2019).

Related:

• A new blog, POFMA Watch, started on 7 August 2019, "monitoring Singapore’s Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019". Its stated objective" "to create an accessible record of POFMA-related affairs — legislative updates, use of government powers, etc — that advances our understanding of the Act and its effect on society."
• Sociologist and author of This Is What Inequality Looks Like Teo You Yenn published "Speaking out of turn", pertinent to the above series of events, though written earlier (8 October 2019).
• Alfian Sa'at's play, Merdeka, premiered on 10 October 2019. Relevant to the matter of dissent and traitorousness is this interview with Alfian and director Glen Goei before the play's opening (Dennis Chen, "Forget Raffles. It’s the West We Need to Break Up With", Rice Media, 3 October 2019), and reactions from PJ Thum and Singapore Writers Festival director Pooja Nansi (12 October 2019).
• For background, here's the episode from New Naratif podcast's Political Agenda (with transcript) on "“Fake News”, Foreign Interference, and Freedom of Expression" (18 March 2019).