We interrupt our hiatus to bring you this exchange of correspondences between Mr Fong Hoe Fang and Ms Amy Gay, Director of Communications at the National Library Board (NLB). Mr Fang, a member of the public, had emailed the NLB to enquire about its barring of Mr Vincent Cheng from speaking at the forum organized by the NUS History Society titled, “Singapore’s History: Who Writes The Script”. Mr Cheng had been detained under the Internal Security Act in 1987 after being accused of being part of a “Marxist Conspiracy” to topple the Singapore government.
********************************************************************
Dear sir,
I am disturbed by reports that an invited speaker at an NUS History Seminar organized by the NUS History Society for the 4th Jun at the National Library has been barred both from speaking and attending the Seminar by the National Library.
The speaker, Vincent Cheng (whom I know personally) was arrested and detained without trial for 3 years in 1987. He was alleged to be one of the leaders of a “Marxist Conspiracy”, an allegation that he never had the opportunity to address in an open trial despite his many expensive and legal efforts to secure such a hearing.
Mr Cheng was released 20 years ago on Restriction Orders and subsequently the Restriction Orders were not renewed. I take that to mean that the authorities are satisfied that Mr Cheng has been rehabilitated and to all intents and purposes, should be a free man enjoying all the privileges and performing the duties of a Singaporean.
As you are a member of the Board of Directors of the National Library and a custodian of it’s Vision and Mission, this citizen and taxpayer, respectfully requests a response from you on the following questions:
a) Has the National Library taken upon itself, a censorship and regulatory role to bar a free Singapore citizen from participation in a public event which aims to satisfy the public’s underlying curiosity and desire to know more about what happened in a particular situation, a subject, an issue or person? What gives the Library that power to decide on whether a particular topic is suitable for discussion or engagement in public space? Is there an existing list of such topics which should then be made transparent to the public?
b) Has the National Library been advised against allowing Mr Cheng to speak or to attend the event? If so, how does this square with the National Library’s principal responsibility to preserve and make accessible the nation’s literary and publishing heritage and intellectual memory?
As a concerned citizen wishing to participate in the greater life of our society, I have always believed that public institutions need to vigorously defend their vision and mission which are the compelling reasons for their existence, and on facts of the situation.
From time to time, other institutions of government may, indeed must, have different views, agendas or responsibilities and seek to impose these on other institutions for their own purposes.
The hallmark of a great democracy is when different institutions are able to fearlessly engage in objective discussion and make decisions based on facts, justice and it’s own designated vision and mission, and not allow these to be hijacked by the goals of another agency, no matter how “good” those intentions may be.
My question here is: Were there facts supplied to the Library that caused it to wander from it’s public mission in this case? Did the Library think that it had some firm and objective basis to bar a free Singapore citizen from speaking and attending a public event which was not even it’s own, but one organized by students from the National University of Singapore?
The public has a right to know why the Library, of all institutions, has deigned it fit to bar Mr Cheng. More important, I think any free individual has the right to understand why in his own country, he cannot exercise his freedom in a public event at a public venue made possible by taxpayers.
The State has freed Mr Cheng. Has the National Library, our bastion of free-flowing information and knowledge now decided to silence him, even after 20 years?
Yours sincerely,
Fong Hoe Fang
A concerned citizen
********************************************************************
Dear Arthur and Mr Fong,
Thank you for your email to all the members of the NLB Board. We would like to take this opportunity to explain the context and background to the seminar that you had raised concerns.
The National Library is the venue sponsor for the National University of Singapore’s (NUS) Singapore History seminar organised by the NUS History Society. NLB had supported this seminar due to its focus on the personalities, events and agenda that shaped the history of Singapore . This was in line with NLB’s focus for its heritage programmes and exhibitions which explored the role of key movers in Singapore ‘s growth from a fishing village into a modern nation.
NUS History Society (NUSHS) had indicated that Junior College and Upper Secondary students were the target audience and that academics would form the line-up of speakers. The initial line-up provided by the NUSHS for NLB’s support were academics from the local tertiary institutions researching on these areas. The academic exploration that the seminar would pursue was also in line with NLB’s programming objectives to seek insights into Singapore ‘s history through research and study. The late inclusion of Mr Vincent Cheng, by the society was not consistent with the direction of the initial proposed line-up, of academics, by NUSHS.
As part of our partnership and sponsorship conditions with all our programme partners, the content and details of the programme such as the panel of speakers need to be in line with the intent of the event and jointly agreed upon. For this particular seminar, the programme details did not follow the intent of the seminar based on our initial discussions with NUSHS. The final line-up of speakers provided by NUSHS include Assoc Prof Yong Mun Cheong, Head of the History Department of NUS, Assoc Prof (Adjunct) Loh Kah Seng of NTU, Assoc Prof Huang Jianli with the History Department of NUS and Assoc Prof (Adjunct) Kwa Chong Guan with the Rajaratnam School of International Studies at NTU and the History Department of NUS. Based on this line-up, the National Library is still working with the NUSHS to hold this public seminar this Friday. Mr Vincent Cheng, like any member of the public, is welcome to attend.
Regards,
Amy Gay
Director, Communications, NLB
********************************************************************
Dear Ms Gay,
Thank you for your response and the more detailed information you have given below. I hope you will understand that as your reply has been made public to the Straits Times, I will take the liberty to also copy them in this email response to you.
Somehow the information does not square with the sequence of events in this whole affair as I understand it, and as it was documented on the Facebook page of the NUS History Society. I say so because as one of the registered attendees, I have been kept updated by the Society via email messages and updates on their Facebook page.
Mr Cheng was not a late inclusion because he was invited on 19 May 2010, following which a Facebook update was made on 20 May 2010 at 6.47pm which specifically mentioned “Operation Spectrum? What happened on 21 May 1987? Find out more on 4 June 2010 at the NUS History Seminar 2010 at NLB, The Pod. More details soon”. This was followed by another Facebook update on 23 May and then 24 May where the Society “advertised” the topic by Dr Loh Kah Seng (on the Bukit Merah Fire) and the presence of a Special Guest, Mrs Jean Marshall.
I also received an event invitation (see attached) where there were only 3 speakers (A/P Yong Mun Chong, A/P Loh Kah Seng and Mr Cheng as well as Special Guest Jean Marshall). There were no other speakers in this event invitation. I received this invitation via email on 26 May at 1.53am.
On 26 May at 8.35pm the History society’s Facebook page had an update that Prof Huang Jianli would be joining the Seminar. Note that this was after I had received my email invitation. So how could Mr Cheng’s inclusion be a late one? Prof Huang came way after him, and now, I have just learned from your email reply below that there is an even later arrival – A/P Kwa Chong Guan.
If Mr Cheng was not welcomed to speak at the seminar, shouldn’t he have been told earlier? Especially after the Facebook updates on 20 May had been made?
What is a registered participant to think?
I hope you do not take this as a reason to take the NUS History Society to task. Indeed, I have every respect for them in managing what must have been a very difficult situation. They are students, flushed with the passion and idealism which we adults have long lost.
As for the contention that the programme did not follow the intent of the seminar originally discussed, that is your prerogative and something between the Society and the NLB. This includes the assertion that Mr Cheng’s invitation was not consistent with NLB’s desire to allow only academics to be on the panel. My only comment here would be one of incredulity that an event like Operation Spectrum which resulted in the establishing of the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, amongst other legal moves, is not viewed by NLB as being important enough to discuss together with the Bukit Merah fire and decolonization. “Here was an opportunity. When comes such another?” [with apologies to Shakespeare]
As a citizen who is highly supportive of the Library and it’s Vision and Mission [I unashamedly owe my education to the Library], I hope it would also stand true to it’s Shared Values, proclaimed so loudly on it’s website, that we share an “underlying curiosity and desire to know more about what happened in a particular situation, a subject, an issue or person.” Do we really?
Finally, Mr Cheng had been specifically told that he is not allowed to even attend the seminar as a member of the audience. I am glad you have now said that he is welcome to attend the seminar.
The recent incident when the Ministry of Education first invited and then disinvited a teacher speaker from the United States , before quickly admitting it’s mistake, apologising and then graciously inviting her again, is a lesson our public institutions should take a leaf from. I think most citizens have not only “forgiven” the MOE, but have a new respect for them.
Surely Mr Cheng deserves nothing less from the NLB?
Yours sincerely,
Fong Hoe Fang
___________________________________________________
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
“Communists” fever seems to be a red herring used once too often since the 1950s, when Left leaning Singaporeans who were socially concious and took up politics were branded as ‘Communists’.
In communist countries, such social activists seeking more for their society will be viewed not as ‘Communists’ but as ‘Revisionists’.
At the end of the day, all social activists threaten the status quo for a weak regime that based its own relevance and existence on a stack of lies.
If any Communist exist today in Singapore, it would have been the PAP with its insistence on the Communist ideology of One Party dominance, and LKY will branded a Stlainist for his malevolent use of State power to demolish any political challenges that will upset his carefully plotted applecart journey.
It is a surprise that after imprisoning Chia Thye Poh for 32 years, this man was released without him signing any assurance that he will renounce armed revolution – which he was originally accused as reason for his incarcertaion.
For 32 years, Chia was reported to decline signing such a false paper as a condition for his release, and demanded open trial based on evidence.
It is even a bigger surprise that this was not done with Chia Thye Poh prior to his release, when a few years earlier – Vincent Cheng and his band of Catholic Social Activists had to give a written and video taped undertaking to renounce armed revolution – or they would be incarcerated as Chia was.
Communists in Singapore ?
From archived reports released by the Public Record Office in London, the Special Branch – in the British Colonial Government – had reported that in the early 1950s, the last Communist spy was arrested and deported to China, and that Singapore was declared clean.
In the early political experience in Singapore – as it is in any other First World democratic countries – those social and political activists had Leftist and Liberal ideas, as there were those who held conservative political thoughts.
Even LKY had the PAP to be a member of the International Socialist-Democratic Movement during the 1960s.
Prior to his entering politics, he was a young lawyer, and had defended those young Singaporean political and social activists when they were arrested by the Colonial Government under various charges
The continued persecution of Singaporeans under the false label of being “Communists” – is no more different from the wild and unreasoned ‘McCarthyist communist witch-hunt’ carried out in the USA during the 1950s.
NLB’s reply is classic Singapore government / civil service lame excuse. If a last minute inclusion was a Minister or even a Member of Parliament, and likewise not an academic, would he or she have been barred?
Wonderful rejoinder! Lets keep our expectations low as we know there will probably be no reply to this latest missive
All these bureaucracies like NLB will first drown you with the usual typical round about BS replies. If they encounter a way superior feedback like Mr Fong, mark my words, they will blah blah their objective and mission again, avoid the issue, brush it aside and thank you for your concern and feel free to write in again. They kill off queries by frustrating you endlessly with such automated responses verbatim perpetually.
Incidents such as Mr Cheng is a no brainer in Singapore. An entire nation “AFRAID” of what ONE man has to say after more 20 years???!!! Geez, there must be a lot of really scary damning secrets that can’t see the light of day. Truly Uniquely Singapore. :P
I believe that NLB was caught with “its pant’s down” in that a little birdie shall be say (in case other terms would traumatise the decision-makers here)called upon them. It was a last minute decision by NLB to bar Mr Vincent Cheng.
It is despicable that the NLB has now prevented Mr Vincent Cheng from attending the forum. It is a public forum and there is no valid reason that could be entertained at law and common sense for this decision. It is a flagrant violation of civil liberties.
Would NLB now proceed to bar everybody who has been detained at one time or another to this event? That would be hilarious!
1st cannot speak, then now cannot attend. Maybe Vincent should just cease to exist on this planet. But think even then, they will want restriction order on him in other worlds. That is how dangerous this Vincent is. Boo! So scared !
Is the NLB serving Singaporeans and Singapore citizens first and foremost, OR serving, AND beholden to PAP?
From these series of events, I cant help to believe that NLB is another PAP whim and fancy utility.
Criminals get yellow ribbon campaign.
People who are opposed to PAP are deemed worse than Criminals, they are bankrupted, detained, tortured, exiled and made invisible by the organs of the PAP machinery.
Is this the kind of Singapore we want.
The PAP are a bunch of HYPOCRITES.
They are CORRUPT.
VOTE PAP OUT.
Sigh, read carefully, he is allowed to attend as audience.
Don’t people read anymore?
This incident, ironically, only serves to make the public more curious about Vincent Cheng.
Nice writing, good points, but a bit too drama in the 2nd letter.
@frasier
He was specifically told earlier that he was banned, according to the letter writer in the 2nd letter.
TOC, please make up your mind. If you want to go into hiatus, by all means do so. As loyal readers to your site, we are confused by your decision to suddenly feel like disappearing and then now you feel like posting. We appreciate your good work so far but if you decide to go for break, take a deserving break. Your sudden post gave an impression that it is still manned by somebody and we will anticipate new postings. We hope that we will not need to feel like goondoo opening and reopening TOC site only to find that it is still in hiatus mode.
The site has created many supporters to your cause. Now that you interrupt your break with an exchange of letters, we do not know when again will you interrupt your break again. We like the great work you guys are doing, let us know when you will come back again. Indefinite hiatus has very bad repercussion to the support many readers have given to TOC so far.
You guys advocate transparency to many policies and matters, it is hope that if you are facing a problem and cannot operate further, do the same thing and inform your supporters.
Moderating Editor: We are officially taking a break but when there is a need, we are duty-bound to report issues as necessary. The site is still being manned (there’s a lot of activity whether we are posting new stories or not) but we are not operating at our usual intensity. Sincere apologies for the confusion.
we must hound the NLB for a reply!!
Is curiosity the royal card to do what you deem good?
Apart from fulfilling younster’s curiosity, what is the real purpose of the talk? Does it help anyone in any way?Seems absurb to link this to public interest and vision of free speech and blah, blah,… or its just self interest. Please, do not oversell on the basis of curiosity.
Being a free man now does not add any certainty to what happen years ago. It is this uncertainty that any rationale organisation with public interest in mind would not have an interest in. Guess it is a clash of curiosity vs rationality and interest. What would you do if you are in NLB’s shoe?
to answer ex ex Present–I would quit job in NLB. Because that shoe no longer fits. You would be surprised the sense of well being you would get… but guess you have not been there?
What a lousy excuse given by NLB.
Obviously, the CEO is looking to score political points….to get noticed….to get promoted to the inner circle of power the great wealth!!!
Oh no, the Vincent Cheng affair is not a part of history. I guess it must then be classified as a fairy tale…
Why published the letters? Most people are not interested to read them because the speech is of no importance to Singaporeans’ daily lives.
The bottom line is Singapore needs a two party political system! This will eradicate abuses by the party in power. At least there will be no authoritative, oppressive and suppressive government that is inherent in a one-party system!
Singaporeans must decide for themselves. The one-party government is not going to help you to support a two-party system period!
this means that, they essentially have commited themselves to -
“if you inform us early that we are having academics AND a Vincent Cheng speaking”, then we can “agree jointly” upon it
and it would be terribly embarassing of them to reject this second application, because they are declaring right now that their rejection is not because amy is afraid of getting scolded by her higher ups and therefore is trying to “play by the rules” – to let cheng attend as an audience since that’s part of the rules, but may exploit the loophole that only academics are CURRENTLY allowed.
await this reapplication. akan datang. the funnier thing is to see what other excuse amy can come up with on this reapplication.
Why only academics are qualified to lecture on history?
What if Lee Kuan Yew is to speak? Would the National Library bar him?
These are all Bull Shit 101 history.
Two lessons, I guess:
1) A Facebook trail never lies.
2) If you are supposed to serve the public interest (curiosity or otherwise, ahem), make sure you keep that mission close to you at all times.
a weak veil to mask a much deeper underlying intention.
well, any reason is good reason as long as it sounds logical and plausible.
it is not difficult to connect any dots but it is always difficult to connect the right dots.
‘Why only academics are qualified to lecture on history?’
amy didn’t say that. amy said he can’t speak because he is not an academic – the reason is because the agreement was only academics are to speak that day.
amy uses this reason because no other reason could make sense, in order to achieve her objective.
amy’s objective was to stop vincent from speaking.
if you were to speculate on her motive, if you were the boss of NLB, and you know that the incumbent government doesn’t like vincent, would you not try to find any loophole possible to use to stop him from speaking?
c’mon, think of it, it’s your rice bowl.
but now she’s in a fix. if they reapply and say they want “academics AND non-academics” to speak, and include vincent’s name, then amy has to find another reason to decline them.
she’s already thinking of reasons right now, to fend off the next application.
Huh?? Look at NLB’s reply closely.
FIrst it says that “NLB had supported this seminar due to its focus on the personalities, events and agenda that shaped the history of Singapore”. Then in the same letter to explain why Cheng is barred from speaking it says, “the programme details did not follow the intent of the seminar”.
The alleged Marxist conspiracy is not more significant in Singapore’s history than an fire outbreak ? Could NLB articulate clearly what the “fish” is the intent of the seminar ?
the NLB boss is digging a hole, and it’s getting deeper.
Does NLB reply sound too familiar with Mcdonald’s reply why “Pig” is not included in the 12 Zodiac animal – to protect other religion and not meant to be Zodiac collectibles – when all eyes and hear believe such reply tried to shun responsibilities and quickly sweep mistake under the carpet.
/c’mon, think of it, it’s your rice bowl./
you r right boy. it is all about rice bowl afterall. so everyone is afterall fighting for his / her own rice bowl.
so what do you think that mr. cheng was trying to do, perhaps to get his side of the story heard and his name cleared and lastly to save his own ‘rice bowl’ or whatnot.
anyone to enlighten us whether the ‘rice-bowl’ of mr. cheng was indeed broken.
the moral of the story, some aggrieved party or his kins will always try to look for “proper” closure”. history is replete with many examples that some groups may try to seek it decades and centuries down the road.
this is an internet age where words and double standards are etched in permanence.
Probably, no nobody “up there”gave any
direction to ban Vincent Cheng from speaking. But these civil servants take it upon themselves to take precautions.
There are no secregation of public institutions and the PAP eg the Police, HDB, etc. Every one of these bodies take it upon themselves to function like an offshoot of the former,neglecting who actually fund them or pay their wages.
The courts cannot even be ask to protect the citizens’ rights with the recent dismissals of the SDP apeals
Seriously the NLB’s reply is less than sincere.
At the end of the day, it is within NLB’s rights to allow or disallow anyone to speak since the seminar is to be held in their premises.
They might as well come out and say ” we do not like Mr Cheng” or “our board members do not want to upset the gahment leaders by allowing Mr Cheng to speak” instead of giving us the crap about it not following the intent of the seminar.
The bigger lesson that we see here is that there is really no freedom here in Singapore. Everyone is fearful of the gahment. Time to get rid of those who are governing us through fear.
The bigger lesson?
that lesson used to be true years ago, but it has changed.
the current lesson is, whoever barked that order, in the past NLB could have got away with giving such a lame excuse in order to further their objective to prevent Cheng from speaking.
but now, the system is such that lame excuses will end up being ridiculed – such as in this incident. after being ridiculed, it gets challenged, and if a request is submitted again, with proper naming of Cheng as a speaker, they will have to find ANOTHER excuse if they so insist on banning Cheng.
and the next excuse gets scrutinised.
there comes a point when the cost of being ridiculed outweighs the enforcement of such unreasonable bans. that is when the system yields and the Big Lesson ends.
The big lesson or the big wake up call is to vote ‘em out !
it’s only human: anyone to enlighten us whether the ‘rice-bowl’ of mr. cheng was indeed broken.
——
Vincent Cheng, whom I know as a friend, never had a “rice bowl” to begin with. He almost became a Catholic priest, having completed his seminary training (about 9 years). However, he went to do some social work in the Philippines and decided to become a social worker instead of a priest.
During his detention, he learned foot reflexology (I believe he taught himself?) and after detention, he also learned shiatsu (Japanese-style finger pressure massage). This is how he earns a living now. I don’t think people in such professions can be considered to have a “rice bowl”.
Those who know Vincent will know him to be a very soft-spoken, meek and gentle person. Far from the “terrorist” sort with a plot to over-throw the government and establish a Marxist state, as the government has made him out to be. For whatever reasons the government cooked up this “Marxist Conspiracy” fairy tale and did grave injustice to him and his fellow social workers who were merely advocating for workers to get better treatment.
I find it ironic that Cheng’s silence now speaks more loudly than his speech ever will.
I am reminded of a star wars quote. “If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.”
To fong hoe fang:
you have indicated some dates of facebook updates to prove to NLB that Vincent Cheng was not a “last minute inclusion”. But actually, what you need to prove is that Vincent Cheng’s name was submitted to NLB at certain early dates. NLB can claim that it is not their duty to check everyday the facebook entries. The event organisers are obliged to inform NLB, therefore for your message to be convincing, you have to give dates where the name was given to NLB and not dates where the name was posted on facebook!!! Who cares about facebook updates!
To Director of NLB.
The intent of the seminar is to stimulate thinking people to understand the historical aspects of this country. I cannot understand why only “academics” are qualified. How about an eye witness at the Bukit Ho Swee fire… or anyone who “been there” and able to give graphic description of interesting historical events? These are all very enriching experiences, why should only academics be allowed? What is there to fear? What is there to hide? It is history!!
Vincent Cheng IS a piece of history. Let him tell his – story. Singaporeans deserve to understand historical accounts from various perspectives. What is necessary is to have faith in the moderator of the forum, to ensure that the public is responding in intellectual manner rather than emotional.
Right now, by imposing ban on Vincent Cheng, NLB is making a lot of people very emotional about it. It is a really a very regressive move and contrary to the progressively more open society officially supported by Prime Minister.
zero
We all know that nothing is going to come out of this and that Vincent Cheng will only be welcomed as a spectator. That’s as far as any government-linked body or institution would go.
-
What we should be more concern about is where do we go from here? Are we going to let Vincent Cheng’s story die with his eventual passing? What can we do to make sure that future generations get to hear the story from his point of view?
-
I would suggest that someone who is good at writing and story-telling to start a facebook account to capture the untold parts of this story which had played such an important and integral role in shaping the Singapore of today.
-
Singapore’s political history would have been a very different one if such lies were not spouted by the PAP at that time. We must not fail to remember that Operation Spectrum happened at a time when Singaporeans were calling out for a change in the one-party dominance of the PAP. If the PAP had done nothing of this scale back then, it would have lost more than just the Anson seat in 1984.
-
All said, there must not come a time when what happened to Vincent Cheng and his group are left only to assumptions and speculative writings.
-
There must be certainty over what had happened, and that certainty must be written now – or it will forever be lost – and we will be the poorer for it.
face is important, as we all know.
NLB cannot now reverse this strange decision. it needs the Society to reapply again – that is the only way it can magically announce that in this new application, it qualifies to have Cheng speak.
without the reapplication, this face issue makes it a dead end.
look at the HDB fiasco, because of face, it took many months to do small moves otherwise it would be acknowledging that the critics were right.
It took just a couple of days for the education ministry to U-turn re. the chinese language issue.
What face?
There is only one face. LHL face. All he need to do is make a phone call to director of NLB and say “ok lah, no issue”, no problem lah.
zero
I find most unconvincing replies coming from stat boards and govt agencies very very disturbing. They are forever restricting themselves and can never grow.
Dear Mr Fong Hoe Fang,
Thank you for raising this. It’ so wonderfully done.
I appreciate your effort
aiyah, what kind of reply will you expect?
this is the typical PR answer, generated by a corporates comm department for the masses. As unsatisfying as it may be, it is a safe answer for them.
what caught my eye though, was the part about the seminar being targetted at secondary/jc kids.i always tot it was a public seminar, for the mature audience.
good sensible comments from your latest two posts :)
This nation’s soul is imprisoned by fear of discovering its historical past. Denial of freedom of speech is denial of all other freedoms and rights.
Just when are we going to shed this womb of shameful deception and come out to face the real world?
This member of the public is a glimpse of hope for singapore and the alternative nation supporters, including the meek and scared ones.
This is solid evidence there is hope. Unfortunately, a ray of hope is not enough and only when the rays accumulate to 1 strong light beam will Change come quicker, hopefully in our lifetime.
As it stands status quo is safely preserved.
sorly huh singaporeans, can any of you enlighten me who/what controls the NLB?
cannot be uncontrolled right?
Dont forget Old Man targetted Catholics too least many of us forgotten!!!.
How about the NUS History Society get anyone of the Catholic order to speak, especially anyone of the priesthood who might have had any first hand story told by Archishop Gregory Yong whom I speculated might have also been warned by Old Man to keep his Catholic sheep-house in order.
I love our libraries but who’s interest is NLB serving in this case? Why are some stories not deserving of a platform to be told? The student audience can’t handle it? Our students will suffer for the lack of critical perspectives on our history. Deep down I think I know why but its darn annoying when NLB isn’t up front about it and gives lame excuses. This is a PR disaster.
The only conclusion that I can assume is that the authorities are trying to prevent Vincent Cheng from revealing certain historical facts which will ridicule someone to be no better than a cheat.
Otherwise what is there to be scared ?
Catholics Too… Archishop Gregory Yong whom I speculated might have also been warned by Old Man to keep his Catholic sheep-house in order.
——–
Mo need to speculate here. If I remember correctly it was reported in the media that old man did tell Archbishop Yong to keep his church in order. The whole saga left me very disappointed with Archbishop Yong.