Straits Times censors Chee's reply about foreign workers and HDB prices

Home

News

Singapore

Thursday, 15 April 2010

Singapore Democrats

The Straits Times heavily edited Dr Chee Soon Juan's reply to a Forum writer who had criticised Dr Chee's confrontational style of politics while extolling the virtues of the PAP system.

In reply Dr Chee wrote that the Singapore Democrats are exercising our rights guaranteed under the Constitution which the PAP Government has illegally removed. How is this confrontational? It is like the robber entering your home and cleaning you out of all your possessions. When you demand that he returns you your property, the robber turns around and says that you are being confrontational.
In fact it is the PAP that had tortured and sued its opponents. (These were taken out from the letter.) How is this not confrontational?

In addition, Dr Chee pointed out the failings of the PAP which the Straits Times also edited out (see below). The forum writer, Mr Patrick Tan, had stated the PAP's achievements to support his views. In response Dr Chee listed out the failings of the PAP to substantiate his position. But the Straits Times Forum editor, Mr Yap Koon Hong, removed them.

Dr Chee had mentioned the losses incurred by GIC and Temasek, the unbridled influx of foreigners, the rise in HDB prices, and the ministers' salaries. All these were removed from the letter.

Mr Yap even changed the title of the letter. Dr Chee's version was "Yes, let's go with a system that works for Singapore". But the editor changed it to "PAP Just As Confrontational, Replies Chee"

This does not reflect what Dr Chee is saying which is that how can exercising one's constitutional rights be considered confrontational? The way that the Straits Times entitled the reply was that Dr Chee was admitting that he, too, is confrontational. The spin is so underhanded.

Obviously, these are matters which the PAP is clearly nervous about and doesn't want to engage the SDP on, especially with elections coming up.

The uncensored version of Dr Chee's letter:

PAP Just As Confrontational, Replies Chee
The Straits Time
15 Apr 10

[Parts in bold were removed]

Mr Patrick Tan's idea that my style of politics is a confrontational one not suited for Singapore is most ironic. (Confrontational model not ideal for S'pore)

Let's check the facts: The People's Action Party (PAP) imprisoned [and tortured] its Barisan Socialis opponents in the 1960s. This they did with the cooperation of the British colonial government, using the Internal Security Act (ISA) – a law originally introduced by a Western democracy.

[The PAP uses lawsuits to financially cripple the opposition using defamation laws derived from England.]

Mr Lee Kuan Yew uses imagery of knuckle-dusters on critics like Dr Catherine Lim and meeting the late Mr J B Jeyaretnam in cul-de-sacs with hatchets. Such PAP actions and words are, apparently to the writer, not confrontational politics.

But when I speak up and organise to claim back our rights of freedom of speech and assembly guaranteed under Article 14 of our Constitution, I am being confrontational.

I agree it does not matter what system we adopt as long as it works for Singaporeans. The question is: Is the current arrangement working for Singaporeans?

[The people cannot hold the PAP Government accountable when it lost $140 billion in 2008 through bad investments by the GIC and Temasek Holdings in Western banks such as Merrill Lynch, Citigroup and UBS. That's $50,000 per citizen that went down the drain.

Neither can we stop the PAP from allowing foreign workers into the country by the millions and who take away jobs from Singaporeans, suppress wages and contribute to the skyrocketing of HDB prices.

Under the PAP system, we are also helpless when the prime minister pays himself $3 million a year while working Singaporeans queue up by the thousands to get free food at temples or become homeless because they cannot afford paying their loans for their HDB flats. Many end up committing suicide.

Because of the high cost of bringing up children and a stressful environment, young couples put off having children.]

With the exodus of Singaporeans leaving for other countries, we have a serious brain drain. Productivity is at an all-time low. Is Mr Tan sure the PAP system works for Singapore and enables us 'to achieve its best potential'?

Experts have repeatedly warned that without opening up the current system, Singapore will not be able to innovate and develop an entrepreneurial culture to compete with the rest of the world that is racing ahead.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology economics professor Huang Yasheng - an Asian - visited Singapore recently and pointed out that the 'entrepreneurial culture is about challenging the authorities, questioning the existing ways of doing businesses, moving away from the routines and norms. It's about the unconventional, rebellious and diverse'.

Yes, Mr Tan is right, let us not get bogged down by whether it is Western or Asian style of politics. Let us go with what works for Singapore and our future.

Right now, the PAP system of authoritarianism and top-down control looks decidedly obsolete for our future needs. It is time for change.

Chee Soon Juan (Dr)
Secretary-General
Singapore Democratic Party

Share this article:

Comments (16)

Thu 15 Apr 2010 3:16 PM | johntoh

Bloody hypocrites!

They will rant, rave and scream bloody murder, if some other pulications not owned or controlled by them doesn't print their comments or reply in its entirety.

When it comes to their publications....well..... tells alot about the characters of these people, doesn't it?......not the kind LKY have always lauded to be people who can stand up to most severe public scruntiny.

Not men (or women) of substance.

Just hypocrites. Bloody hypocrites!

Thu 15 Apr 2010 3:30 PM | 369

They are the Red Guards of the PAP!!!

Thu 15 Apr 2010 5:29 PM | tewniaseng

The "robber" is definitely PAP ! Moe Gan Thai !!

Thu 15 Apr 2010 7:43 PM | BryanT - Pull the Other One!

CSJ’s letter to ST Forum was SUPPOSED to be centred around the issue of being “confrontational” – PAP and/or SDP.

Now he complains that portions of his letter has been censored.

(note: the SDP website moderator has also previously exercised censorship before – in refusing to publish some of my comments or deleting portions of them)

But we need to ask CSJ this: What has GIC investment, foreign workers, HDB prices, and minister salaries and the cost and stress of bringing up children got to do with the topic at hand, which is “confrontational politics”.

We can only conclude that CSJ has deliberately planted these irrelevant topics to bait the ST Forum editor to delete them. This then allows him to maintain his perennial accusations of censorship by the MSM.

Of course, we need NOT also wonder why he conveniently forgets to note that the newspapers have been very fair in given him the right to reply in the first place.

Thu 15 Apr 2010 8:42 PM | foxtrot

Dear kind, charming BryanT,

YOU can only conclude that CSJ deliberately planted this topics to bla blah etc. I on the other hand, can conclude plenty of other things. For example, I concluded that 'confrontational politics' was deliberately used to play up the protest-boogeyman. Demanding accountability from public officials, for their performance and their policies, is perfectly valid, and is not considered confrontational in democratic countries.

I also wonder why you forgot to note that the SDP moderator has been very fair in giving you the right to reply in the first place. Instead you complain about how your comments have been censored. Tsk tsk. Such an ingrate.

Thu 15 Apr 2010 9:08 PM | quantum - Right Question

BryanT: Precisely, what have these topics got to do with confrontational politics? Why is Dr Chee considered confrontational when he raises those topics? And why does the editor delete them?
You have asked the right question.

Thu 15 Apr 2010 11:10 PM | seebeng - Is ST PAP mouthpiece or MSM?

BryanT,

Do you know the difference between a party website and a newspaper claiming to be the mainstream media in Singapore?

ST keeps parroting that it's a national daily and not a PAP mouthpiece. Do you agree to this erroneous claim? If so, then you shouldn't equate the ST with this website which is run by SDP.

Nobody is taking to task the PAP publication Petir or its website. These are outlets for the PAP. But the ST claiming to be the MSM and denying the right of reply to an aggrieved person is despicable, to say the least.

As the first chief minister of Singapore Mr David Marshall put it "The Straits Times reporters/journalists are the running dogs and poor prostitutes of the PAP."

Fri 16 Apr 2010 12:06 AM | Robox

Re: "ST keeps parroting that it's a national daily and not a PAP mouthpiece."

ST and all other media are platforms for astroturfing for the PAP. Period.

That's the media's contributions to distorting the reality on the Singapore ground. And that's how they have managed to keep Singaporeans so deluded.

Fri 16 Apr 2010 1:46 AM | AnnA - AiYoh... BryanT

" What has GIC investment, foreign workers, HDB prices, and minister salaries and the cost and stress of bringing up children got to do with the topic at hand, which is “confrontational politics”."

I don't see anything wrong with those matters to be included. Without writing these, what is there to confront??

Fri 16 Apr 2010 1:48 AM | AnnA - BryanT

"Of course, we need NOT also wonder why he conveniently forgets to note that the newspapers have been very fair in given him the right to reply in the first place."

...the newspapers have been very fair in given him the right to reply in the first place??????!!!!

What kind of mentality is that?

Fri 16 Apr 2010 3:29 AM | Robox

I agree that the SDP web admin should never have censored any of BryanT's posts. He should have been banned outright instead; there have already been sufficient grounds for it.

1. What he does is definitely harassment, which I repeat is a form of abuse. All well developed guidelines for the website use place online harassment under the category of cyberbullying.

2. He has demonstrated his wilfulness in carrying out his abuse very amply.

3. If SDP wishes to help change the political culture in Singapore, this is a golden opportunity. His conduct actually mirrors the PAP's and its political culture and that is what the should is the strongest rationale for banning him.

Let him go round cyberspace crying foul against the SDP like a spoilt brat who is unable to accept responsibility for his wrongdoing, just as he did when his posts were censored. Judging from some comments that I have encountered has already built for himself a reputation as an abuser here. Everyone will already have known that he is deserving of the ban.

This has long crossed the bounds of free speech. In some jusisdictions, this is prosecutable act and justifiably so; the harm he wilfully intends qualifies it as a crime.

Really, is this any loss to either the SDP or political development in general in Singapore given that he addds no value to any discussion?

In fact he insists on detracting from adding any value.

Fri 16 Apr 2010 8:01 AM | AnnA

Banning BryanT will only imitate the acts of LKY. This is what he is looking for. Anyway, SDP has faced people worst than him. BryanT can be considered as 'peanuts' (in term of mortals). LoL

I wonder how much he is being paid for commission per successful comment/article....

Fri 16 Apr 2010 1:40 PM | Ho Choon Hiong

Hi

felt that it is best not to ban or censor anyone, ultimately let readers be the judge.

Sat 17 Apr 2010 9:07 AM | Robox

AnnA and Ho Choon Hiong:

I appreciate your sentiments; it's about "letting the other side get heard" which is actually a very democratic attitude.

But how we have not heard "the other side" when all BryanT does here is to repeat the same arguments perpetrated by the same PAP values that all Singaporeans are already very well-indoctrinated with and repeatedly heard?

How have we not heard "the other side" when we keep hearing the same things from him day in and day out?

Democracy is also about the limiting of harm caused by those who believe they have unrestricted limits to cause harm; that would be an open door to extremism, the attitudes that BryanT displays here.

Is that what you want from not banning him?

The PAP's extremism that BryanT is reflective of?

Let's remember that while democracy espouses the partipation of the many, it also recognizes that the participation of the many can get unruly and could potentially cause law and order problems.

That's excatly why laws and the rule of law is necessary in a democracy: 'the rulers' are governed by the Constitition that tells them that they cannot violate any rights that citizens already have, and 'the ruled' have to recognize that they too have to abide by law.

The law I am most interested in bringing to your highlight is Article 12 of the Constitution, whether in letter or in spirit.

How has BryanT abided by those in his criminal conduct?

Sat 17 Apr 2010 10:59 AM | betrayed

When the PAP has to resort to using people like Bryan T and IB, it goes to show their insecurities and fear. For all of the rhetoric about their capabilities and 'talents', it all boils down to how much they are paid to do the job. $$$$$. Their 'education' goes into doing this type of work? This is really juvenile behavior from them.

Sun 18 Apr 2010 5:20 PM | AnnA - To BryanT

If you are truly on the side of PAP, I must say that you have already fail to persuade us (SDP/Oppo 'old timer' readers) to 'come back' to your bosses and more likely, new readers will automatically distrust you and your future comments. A troll's job - FAIL.

BUT if your are what you said in your info on facebook, that you - "Yes, he (BryanT talking abt himself) criticises the Singapore Opposition precisely because he has HOPE in it. Otherwise, he would not have bothered in the first place, or be bothering to continue to do so.", you way of questioning (definitely many other normal people will also question like you) is more on belittling, discriminating and too much of PAP side. That's why many think of you as the first paragraph. If your 'test' is meant to make people indulge more on a situation, try different approach lah...

I understand that it is meant to encourage but it is a wrong technique. (If you honestly belong to second paragraph)

No offense, anyone. Sorry.