In an interview which Lianhe Zaobao (28 Feb 10) did with Dr Chee Soon Juan, reporter Ms Yew Tun Lian implied that Dr Chee was being funded by foreigners to undermine Singapore. This story was also reported by the Straits Times (1 Mar 10).
Dr Chee replied to the newspapers, pointing out that it was the PAP Government that was undermining the interests of Singaporeans through its so-called foreign talent policy, its continued pandering to MNCs, and its use of foreigners in the National Wages Council. The newspapers, however, insisted that they would publish the SDP leader's letter only if these points regarding the PAP were deleted.
Even this sentence was censored: "Is my endeavour working against Singaporeans' interests or am I working against the PAP's interests? I wonder just who is really undermining Singapore's interests."
If the PAP wants to have a debate of who is undermining Singapore's interests, it is most welcome. But let's not do this by censoring the SDP's views.
The original letter that was sent to ST and LHZB with the deleted portions in bold is reproduced here:
Just who is undermining Singapore's interests?
In your report Chee on foreign funds, Chiam's exit from SDP (1 March 2010), your reporter wrote:
In the [LHZB] article, the interviewer asked him about rumours that he had been able to engage in civil disobedience and other activities here because he received financing from foreign donors.
The article said that, after much probing, he replied: 'I am an academic, and will occasionally receive research funding from overseas. I have written award-winning books, and have taken part in overseas research programmes.'
But Dr Chee did not say what the research entailed. All he would say was: 'Maybe research like human behaviour.'
The way that the report is written is clearly an attempt to portray me as being evasive about my income. I had told the LHZB reporter, Ms Yew Lun Tian, clearly that I depended on my books and from time to time, help from my relatives for survival.
Because she found it hard to believe that this was sufficient, I told her that we lived simply and frugally.
At one point she said she felt embarrassed about having to ask me where I lived and what kind of HDB flat I lived in. This is an indication that she was aware that she was probing into my personal matters. Nonetheless, I obliged her by answering her question.
Yet Ms Yew reported it in such a way that I was trying to avoid her answer and had something to hide.
What is left unsaid, although clearly implied, is that I may be a stooge of a foreign agent conducting activities against Singapore.
This is the favoured line of an autocratic regime and its controlled media: They portray their opponents as traitorous individuals in cahoots with foreigners to undermine the country.
In what way do I harm Singapore's interests by fighting for democracy and the political rights of Singaporeans?
[Compare what I do to what the PAP does: The Government brings in foreigners by the millions at the expense of Singaporeans, causing the locals economic uncertainty and hardship.
The National Wages Council, which help to determine the level of wages of Singaporeans, continue to have foreigners such as Americans, German, and Japanese sitting in it. For the record, real income of Singaporeans have stagnated in the recent past and the cost of living has far outstripped wages for most Singaporeans.
But perhaps the clearest indication that the PAP Government works against the interest of Singapore and her workers came from the late Ong Teng Cheong. In January 1986 Mr Ong, then deputy prime minister and NTUC secretary-general, had sanctioned a strike by the shipping industry which he did not inform the cabinet.
This was Mr Ong's account: "The minister for trade and industry was very angry, his officers were very upset. They had calls from America asking what happened to Singapore - we are non-strike."
Why do American bosses need to call the PAP Government about a strike carried out by Singaporean workers? Why does it have to account to American businesses for what it does in Singapore? Who does the Government listen to, American MNCs or Singaporean workers?
The important question that must be asked is what are Singapore's interests? They must not be conflated with the PAP's interests?
Is the PAP Government's policy to invest and subsequently lose more than $100 billion in investments in Western banks while poor Singaporeans go hungry and homeless working in the interest of Singapore?]
In all my years of service to this country, I have always worked with one and only one objective in mind: To speak up for my fellow citizens and empower them so that they can stand up for themselves.
[Is my endeavour working against Singaporeans' interests or am I working against the PAP's interests? I wonder just who is really undermining Singapore's interests.]
Chee Soon Juan Secretary-General Singapore Democratic Party
The PAP knows that it has overstepped its boundary by treating as second class citizens in their own country.
PAP days for another two third majority in parliament are in jeopardy and their running dogs are now shooting arrows blindly in all direction, hoping to hit the right target. They can try but they cannot turn back the clock for what they have done to Singaporeans.
For past decade, despite the "growth" in the economy as formulated by the PAP, the bottom quartile of income earning Singaporean have declined. Picture this with the income of the PAP leaders and other top echelon members of the party.
Male citizens for decades have serve the country against any potential threats or invasion by any foreigners. This sacrifices by our Singaporeans are now in vain as the floodgates to the foreign "invasion" is done by none other but the PAP themselves. To take jobs away from Singaporeans, to have foreign companies with foreign bosses discriminate against Singaporeans with reservist liability in their own country!
The income gap between the high income earners and other "lesser mortals" have increased trememdously.
Ask yourself. Who have benefitted from it all? Which country has the highest paid ministers and/or civil servants in the whole world? Even the ordinary PAP members are highly paid in public institutions as HDB, GIC, Town Councils, PA, etc.
ASK YOURSELF!! Who have benefitted trememdously?
Wed 17 Mar 2010 12:58 PM
|
BryanT - Where's the research (...like human behaviour)?
Hitherto, CSJ had repeatedly lamented that the MSM had imposed a media blackout on the SDP.
Although he would rather not admit it, the editorial ban was mainly on SDP; other opposition parties were given some airtime (or rather, page space) to cover their electoral plans, recruitment of new members, in-house seminars and even their counter-arguments to government policies.
The recent interview with CSJ broke new grounds for SDP. CSJ was probably elated when he was offered a rare opportunity to express himself via the MSM (ie. ZB, and then reprinted by ST). In the interview, he sounded as if he deserved the new attention.
As events subsequently unfolded, we can see that he didn't.
He is now back to his old (recalcitrant) ways. He seems rather irritated that his letter has not been published in its entirety, and is presently accusing it of “censoring the SDP's views” (yet again).
His original bugbear (and defensiveness) arose out of questions being raised over his sources of income. Instead of using his follow up letter to shed some light on this, he has gone on a not-unexpected tirade about himself “fighting for democracy and the political rights of Singaporeans.”
The leopard does not change its spots.
If some politicians purport to fight for the rights of Singaporeans, then Singaporeans have the right to subject such politicians to scrutiny – to ask for a reasonable degree of openness and accountable.
Why is it so difficult for CSJ to publicly cite his “research (….like human behaviour)” work that provides him income so that the burden of doubt is lifted?
Instead of clearing the air, his latest attempt at diversion to his favourite (but tiresome) causes reinforces the perception of evasiveness.
SDP has no one but itself to blame for being ostracised by the MSM in future, and for being ignored by the people as per current.
Wed 17 Mar 2010 1:24 PM
|
Human Rights
Well said Chee, the last paragraph is the key highlight. Who's interests is at stake? PAP or Singapore? The world as we know it today is a global one. People from different parts of the world can converge to help fight a problem. Why the stark difference when it comes to political issues? Hypocritical PAP.(LKY himself once said so) They need the foreigners help when economy is down but they dnt want them when its a political crisis. Wondered how i had lived so long in such a government...Interesting isnt it?
Thu 18 Mar 2010 1:12 AM
|
Kai Xiong
BryanT, have you gone so mad on your crusade that you are now suffering from literacy breakdown? The letter clearly states that Chee had obliged and answered the reporter's questions, even as she was probing into what are clearly private matters. How on earth can he accused of being evasive? If you are so bloody curious as to what research he has done, why don't you hop over to the publications section on this website? Talk about selective blindness.
Wed 17 Mar 2010 5:27 PM
|
nobody - To be fair!
Excuse me, to put things in correct perspective and prospective as well as from a non-political point of view as I am a non-partisan, I opine that Chee is not putting Singapore down but he is “attacking” the political policies that formulated and promulgated by the long standing ruling party which happened to be the despicable miw!
As one of the longest ruling party of a country in the world, due to their hegemony in political power in Singapore, the contemptible miw have mistakenly equated themselves to the country that they rule, i.e., Singapore, so, whatever “attack” on policies and ways of governances in Singapore, the despicable miw proclaim the “attack” vociferously and vehemently through the MSM that the “attack” is mean to put Singapore down so as to first discredit the opposition party that formulate the “attack” and second to mesmerize and hypnotize the gullible main-street-men to distant themselves from the opposition party, hence garner votes for the present ruling party under the guise of whatever the ruling party do are for the good of Singaporeans!
In actual fact, those policies implemented are for the good of the despicable million-dollar miw and their cronies and not for the due benefits of the ordinary born and bred Singaporeans; the foreign talent policy is just a good-example to illustrate the “dubious façade” of the despicable miw under the disguise of serving the people and building the nation!
Thu 18 Mar 2010 1:39 AM
|
Robox - Xenophobia
Re: "In the [LHZB] article, the interviewer asked him about rumours that he had been able to engage in civil disobedience and other activities here because he received financing from foreign donors."
There is only one reason that the "foreign" would be of any concern to the PAP establishment: xenophobia, an entrenched feature of the political culture that the PAP has created in Singapore.
Xenophobia is also why the PAP government snubs the UN call for a moratorium on the death penalty; they have no wish to keep abreast of developments in jurisprudence internationally.
Xenophobia is also why the PAP government insists that foreigners 'should not meddle in Singapore politics' without ever defining what either "foreigner" or "interference" actually means; that gives them, very strategically, a wide berth with which to abuse that dictum at will.
But this xenophobia is also opportunistic.
The PAP never hesistates to copycat as much as they are can from the rest of the world so long as it is to their advantage, because of their own endemic lack of productive capacity.
And by all means, they continue to engage an army of foreign consultants to help them make up their own shortfall in the same the productive capacity that they lack.
The operating principle: Foreign is bad *except* if it is to their advantage. Conversely, foreign is bad if can disadvantage the opposition parties such as with the case of foreign funding for political parties.
Opportunistic xenophobia.
Unfortunately, this trait is also found in many opposition supporters who don't realize the inanity in their uncritical acceptance of this; indeed many of these same oppposition supporters are equally opportunistically xenophobic.
As someone who is firm in my opposition to racism, I also oppose this xenophobia on the basis that it is rooted in Lee Kuan Yew's sense of Chinese cultural superority as well as for the fact that xenophobia frequently morphs into racism.
While not to be interpreted as support for the PAP's foreign workers policy that has gone haywire, my stand on the relationship between Singaporeans and foreigners is:
a) accept the fact that Singaporean productive capacity - braodly defined - is lacking in many areas, including in government;
b) accept foreign help in making up the that shortfall; and after we do,
c) don't politicize "foreign-ness".
Thu 18 Mar 2010 3:27 AM
|
Robox - How Much Funding Did SDP Receive Anyway?
By the way, just how much did all those civil disobedience actions could have cost that this dumb, beacon-of-productivity of a journalist would enquire about their funding sources, anyway?
From the pictures taken of those events, I don't recall seeing elaborate, expensive-looking props that might have raised my suspicions that their financing from could or must have come from overseas?
Oh, I get it! It still costs busfare money to travel to the venues where those actions took place, doesn't it?
Stupid me. And, here I was thinking that I would be more than willing to pay my own way to get to the place where the next civil disobedience action will be held.
Thu 18 Mar 2010 8:03 AM
|
Robox - The Wicked Witch Returns
I also see that the Wicked Witch (WW)has returned with an expected frenzied fury.
WW now makes this preposterous unqualified claim even while hiding behind a very reasonable-sounding statement like this one: "If some politicians purport to fight for the rights of Singaporeans, then Singaporeans have the right to subject such politicians to scrutiny – to ask for a reasonable degree of openness and accountable."
Fist of all, the wicked witch would be far more credible if he only cares to apply the same standards of openess and accountability to every single political party in Singapore, especially the ruling PAP whose political culture he so slavishly cmplies to uncritically.
There are two levels of accountability - yes, and openess as well - involved here when it comes to party funds:
1. The accountability owed to citizens because a political party that has managed to become the ruling one is now making their living from the public coffers; and,
2. The accountability owed to citizens because a political party is at the "interview stage" of the *wanting* to become the ruling party who will make their living from the public coffers.
As well, there is a separate level of accountability where party funds of a political party that has ZERO MPs and therefore not living off the public coffers are concerned: the accountability that it has to its donors whom we can assume to form part of its vote bank.
What right does the Wicked Witch BryanT think he has when it comes to calling for the SDP's accountability if he in all likelihood has never donated a cent to them?
What right does the same Wicked Witch have to question the SDP when he doesn't pose the same questions - ostensibly on the basis of his purportedly high principles - to other opposition parties?
What right does he have to question the SDP when he shrinks in mortal fear to do the same with the PAP who are stealing the people's money without account?
Come clean, Wicked Witch or be off; no one missed you while you were gone.
Thu 18 Mar 2010 9:36 AM|
|
Kaffein - May not be the reporter
The reporter might have written as per interview. But the editor felt it was not 'politically' correct. Often I believe it is such the case.
Kaffein
Thu 18 Mar 2010 2:37 PM
|
johntoh
"...the editorial ban was mainly on SDP; other opposition parties were given some airtime (or rather, page space) to cover their electoral plans, recruitment of new members..."
LKY himself has mentioned it before, compared to Low Thia Khiang and Chiam See Tong, he view Dr Chee and SDP as the bigger threat. That is why everything negative(especially bankruptcy proceedings) were initiated against them.
"...He is now back to his old (recalcitrant) ways. He seems rather irritated that his letter has not been published in its entirety..."
If any newspaper or magazine doesn't print LKY or any of his cohorts letter in full, they will also revert to their old ways, scream bloody murder and sue these media in S'pore courts and only in S'pore courts. Compare this with your so call Dr Chee's "recalcitrant" ways
"...His original bugbear (and defensiveness) arose out of questions being raised over his sources of income. Instead of using his follow up letter to shed some light on this..."
When questions were asked parliament, Lim Swee Say instead of answering, talked about a frog that is immune to all criticism(otherwise known as public feedback). Complete silence is also notice wnenever the public asked about GIC and Temasek affairs.
"...If some politicians purport to fight for the rights of Singaporeans, then Singaporeans have the right to subject such politicians to scrutiny – to ask for a reasonable degree of openness and accountable..."
I don't see PAP or any of its leaders subjecting themselves to actual public scrutiny and accountability concerning HDB cost/subsidies; actual breakdown of employment between Singaporeans and PR/foreigners; GIC and Temasek losses; etc, etc, and whole lot of etc.
"...Instead of clearing the air, his latest attempt at diversion to his favourite (but tiresome) causes reinforces the perception of evasiveness..."
Instead of clearing the air the PAP always remind silent on a lot of public issues, evading questions and ignoring public sentiment.
"...SDP has no one but itself to blame for being ostracised by the MSM in future, and for being ignored by the people as per current.."
PAP has only itself to blame too, for the increasing groundswell of public disenchantment against them.
Thu 18 Mar 2010 2:36 PM
|
Seelan Palay
“If we had considered them serious political figures, we would not have kept them politically alive for so long. We could have bankrupt them earlier.”
- Lee Kuan Yew on political opposition, Straits Times, Sept 14 2003
Fri 19 Mar 2010 12:27 AM
|
quantum
What is the difference between an Ancient China's Emperor's briefing in the Forbidden City , and a modern Parliamentary Proceedings
Courtesy of Temasek Review:
http://www.temasekreview.com/2010/03/17/comparison-of-live-parliamentary-debates-of-5-countries-and-the-wayang-in-the-singapore-parliament/
1. United Kingdom:
Watch opposition leader David Cameron shred the British Prime Minister Gordon Brown into pieces in one of the spectacular moments of the questioning in the House of Commons on issues of election and inheritance tax in 2007.
Australia’s Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was embarrassed by opposition leader Peter Costello when asked about the income tax thresholds and rates during the PM’s question and answer session in 2007
The Canadian House of Commons voted to adopt a recommendation which, if implemented, would make it possible for U.S. Iraq War resisters to obtain Permanent Resident status in Canada during a LIVE parliamentary session in 2008.
Opposition parliamentarians walked out of the Dewan Rakyat in protest against Finance Minister Najib Abdul Razak’s refusal to entertain questions during his winding-up of the Budget 2009 Bill debates. Najib, who told the House that questions would be answered at the end of his speech, did not allow the numerous attempts for clarification.
The Chief Executive’s Question and Answer Session on 15 January 2009 which was marked by a protest at the beginning by an opposition lawmaker. Chief Executive Donald Tsang did not evict the troublemaker and gracefully accepted whatever was passed to him.
In an interview which Lianhe Zaobao (28 Feb 10) did with Dr Chee Soon Juan, reporter Ms Yew Tun Lian implied that Dr Chee was being funded by foreigners to undermine Singapore. This story was also reported by the Straits Times (1 Mar 10).
Support SDP , buy our 30th Anniversary Magazine here
