The Straits Times (ST) has accused Dr Chee Soon Juan of casting "serious and unfounded aspersions" on its integrity and wants the SDP secretary-general to retract them.
Forum Editor Mr Yap Koon Hong also said that the newspaper would withold publishing Dr Chee's replies to letters unless Dr Chee retracted the offending articles.
The matter started when the ST Online Forum published a host of letters about three weeks ago on 17 Apr 10 attacking Dr Chee (see here). Within days the SDP leader wrote a total of six letters in reply.
When Mr Yap finally responded after a lapse of more than a week, he took issue with Dr Chee's criticism that the ST had unfairly edited his previous letters (see here and here). Mr Yap also wrote that Dr Chee "failed to acknowledge that the editing was, in fact, done with your (Dr Chee's) concurrence."
Mr Yap concluded that, as a result, Dr Chee had "cast serious and unfounded aspersions" on the integrity of the newspaper. He wanted the SDP leader to retract those comments and added that, in the meantime, the ST "will withhold" publishing his letters to the Forum page.
Below is Dr Chee's response to Mr Yap.
5 May 2010
Dear Mr Yap Koon Hong,
You say that I have “cast serious and unfounded aspersions on the integrity” of the Straits Times. In case you haven't noticed the press in Singapore is ranked in the Freedom House's 2010 Press Freedom survey 151st out of 192 countries – alongside Niger and sandwiched between Qatar and Bahrain. The Reporters Without Borders' survey places you thereabouts as well.
Given your global lack of credibility, my thinking is that what I write about the Straits Times in the SDP's website is the least of your problems.
You say that my accusations of you unfairly editing my replies are untrue. Let's check: I had sent you my letter entitled “Yes, let's go with a system that works for Singapore" in reply to a letter by a Mr Patrick Tan who had accused me of engaging in confrontational politics.
I pointed out that the PAP is the one that is violently confrontational. But when I am merely standing up – peacefully – for Singaporeans' constitutional rights, I am accused of being confrontational. How can that be?
And yet, you changed the headline of my reply to "PAP Just As Confrontational, Replies Chee" implying that I am admitting to being confrontational, just like the PAP. Is this fair editing?
You also say in your email that I "failed to acknowledge that the editing was, in fact, done with [my] concurrence." Allowing my replies to be published with your deletions in no way signals my concurrence with anything.
You know as well as I do that if I did not consent to your editing, my replies would not be published as has been the case in the past (see here). I had no choice but to agree to your terms before your readers can read my replies. With no other newspaper companies to contend with, you have the monopoly on what you allow Singaporeans to read.
But I don't have to concur with your censorship. I retain the right to publish on the SDP's website the portions of my reply which you have taken out.
By asking me to retract the articles, what you really want is for me to censor myself. There is enough of self-censorship going around in Singapore and I would be loathe to contribute to it.
Let me suggest an altogether more worthy alternative: The SDP will publish all the correspondence regarding this matter on our website and we will give you your right to a full reply – unedited. In return, you will do the same on the ST's website and guarantee me my right to a full reply – unedited.
If you really value your credibility then I am sure you would have no problem accepting my suggestion as it is the better of the two options. Why? Because your proposal censors and keeps readers in the dark, mine shines light and keeps everyone informed.
At the end of the day, we put our cases before the people and let them be the judge of who is the unreasonable and untruthful party. I am willing to do this. Is the Straits Times?
In the interest of transparency and public knowledge I will post this email to you on the SDP's website and would like your permission to do the same for your email to me (2 May 2010) so that readers can be fully informed.
Chee Soon Juan
Note: At the publishing of this report, Mr Yap had still not replied to Dr Chee's above email.
Fri 07 May 2010 9:12 AM
|
maxchew - Who's doing the talking at Straits Times?
2 interpretations to the truth.....
1 Mr YKH even as forum editor is just a mouthpiece of his bigger bosses past Chief editor Mr Han and up to the SPH board with chairman Mr Tony Tan.
2 The SPH big guns left Mr YKH alone to handle Dr CSJ because they know he can think like them.....that's why they appointed him to replace Mr Richard Lim years ago.....well done, KoonHong!
Fri 07 May 2010 10:36 AM
|
tewniaseng
It is a trash newspaper,good for nothing.But why so many people still read ST ? The people are mislead I suppose.
Fri 07 May 2010 7:06 PM
|
Seelan Palay
Hi tewniaseng, some people read it because there is no other English daily broadsheet with a local focus. Every single competitor the Straits Times had was "conveniently" shut down by 1990.
The Newspapers and Printing Presses Act (NPPA) also ensures that sweeping powers, including the appointment of editors to the 14 daily newspapers are all under the control of the PAP government.
And though having no competitors in a so-called free market economy, they have the cheek to say that most Singaporeans still read the Straits Times. Pathetic.
Fri 07 May 2010 4:37 PM
|
orange
Im sorry but did i hear correctly? Completely blasphemous to even say the States' Times in the same breath as integrity.
ST may have done a fair job as an economy building newspaper in the past, but by witholding information from the people it has made people all the more poorer intellectually.
Not only that it manipulates the tilt of news, especially political ones and those across the Straits.
ST also practice heavy censorship ostensibly to prevent any complaints from the ministers when they read ST over their breakfast everyday. ST editors are enslaved to the state in this aspect. They willingly sell their integrity to kep their rice bowl because they know that anyone high ranking goverment official can easily pull strings to sack them.
By writing this letter to Dr Chee, Mr Yap is trying to pull a TT Durai. In Chinese there is a saying "惡人先告狀" which means simply "the bad guys always sue first".
People might believe you when u say it once, but ST should take note that does not happen in the informed world. Yes u may be able to fool some of the older english educated generation. But even they are beginning to realise something is wrong with the paper.
ST editors and reporters who are reading this - PROVE to people that u are not a mouthpiece, instead of saying it. PROVE that you have journalistic integrity, instead of saying that you have integrity.
If you use the same old excuses that you can't do anything because there is a certain amount of control at the top, then it boils down to the same reason that ST is indeed a government controlled newspaper.
Not that we dont already know it, but there's no need to try to hide that fact by making the false accusations that people are casting aspersions on your 'integrity' or lack there of. It makes the newpaper look really dumb you know?
Fri 07 May 2010 5:49 PM
|
maxchew - Obituaries is the reason I continue to subscribe t
As above, as I am a septuagenarian (70+). Otherwise I may not know of a passing-away of a relative, a friend or a fmr colleague.
I have daily 24/7 access to the internet and the cable TV with the latest global news including CNA. Why do I need the ST for?
Print papers also blacken yr hands when you hold the pages and after a while you are stuck with piles and piles of thrash. Online news and info is the way to go in this day and age.
Can anyone tell me how to get the ST obits without having to subscribe daily to the ST? The online ST does not provide the obits.
Fri 07 May 2010 10:13 PM
|
Robox
So the Strait Times is beyond reproach, is it?
I wonder who their inspiration could have been for this "elite entitlement"?
I am willing to let the RSF and Freedom House rankings of the Singapore press speak for themselves; in fact, I have always speculated privately that the ST is singularly responsible for dragging down the Singapore average rankings a couple of notches.
Fri 07 May 2010 11:04 PM
|
Jufrie - How to tell a lie with a straight face
I am flabergasted to say the least! It reminds me of an incident a couple of years ago during a Hari Raya visit to the house of a former regional journalist. Present was also a sub editor of one of our local papers.
We were talking about people who chose to go into business rather than become employees. Out of the blue the said sub editor interjected that if only he could also go into business he wouldn't have to "sell his soul to the devil" for a living.
Oops! When he came to realise the sensitivity of what he had just said he pleaded with those present,"don't quote me ....."
It is clear proof that some journalists really sell their souls to the devil!
Fri 07 May 2010 11:23 PM
|
Jufrie - Take up the challenge
Come on Mr Yap, if you have any credibility at all take up Dr Chee's challenge. Go one step further. Publish all letters from both sides in your Straits Times forum page - unedited. If you are telling the truth there is nothing to fear. As Dr Chee says let the people judge.
When you go home everyday, look yourself in the mirrot. God is watching!
Fri 07 May 2010 11:43 PM
|
quantum
I really love the Straits Times, there is so much paper that I use it to wrap rubbish.
Sat 08 May 2010 12:12 PM
|
nobody
EXCUSE ME, not only ST relentlessly casts aspersions on SDP/Dr. Chee, “it” is likening to the kingdom of the animal-circus, recently has also put-in its best and formidable efforts to “polarize and segregate” the Reform Party as well the Singapore Democratic Alliance.
The whole world genuinely acknowledges that “The-Main-Stream-Media” of Singapore will ever and forever the “despicable month piece” cum “contemptible chess piece” as well as “propagating machinery” of the loathsome, abominate, unscrupulous, mercenary, debased million-dollar nerds belong to the miw’s clique. This type of international public-acknowledgement of adulterating and demeaning the opposition parties has been concurring non-stop for the last few decades and is nothing new to the international communities!
What can gullible Singaporeans expect from this bunch of useless nerds as they are all the marionettes of their puppeteers? The only mission for them is to slave relentlessly and profoundly for their paymasters in order to take home the “fat-beacons” to feed their equally useless and “dignity-less” families!
The “Strait Time” has been continuously in praising the despicable million-dollar nerds by promoting positive and affable images to the “credulous main-street-men” to “corruptly” in buying votes in pertaining to the harbinger of the foreseeable next G-erection.
Indeed, really, a billion “THANK YOU” to the “NEW-MEDIA—Internet” in creating a slightly more fair and equal level playing field for the “pathetic” and “feeble” opposition parties especially SDP!
Kowtow to SDP and all opposition parties in putting in “never-say-die” attitudes cum efforts to counter this bunch of despicable million-dollar nerds!
Keep-up with all your best work and dawn will forever conquer darkness, righteousness prevail over selfishness! I sincerely wish all opposition parties of victories pertaining to the next G-erection. Victorious battle requires knight-warriors resemble Dr.Chee and all fellow opposition party members!
Once again, a big “thank-you-very-much”!
Sun 09 May 2010 12:10 PM
|
btan
Who is ST trying to fool? Everyone knows they are the lapdog of PAP and their mouthpiece.
Their skin is so thick even armour-piercing rockets cannot break through.
151 out of 192 ranking, they should be ashamed of themselves and go hide in whatever holes they usually hide in.
Tue 11 May 2010 9:34 PM
|
Dick - Stop Talking Cork
The word Integrity and SPH cannot be used together in Singapore's context.
The Straits Times (ST) has accused Dr Chee Soon Juan of casting "serious and unfounded aspersions" on its integrity and wants the SDP secretary-general to retract them.
Support SDP , buy our 30th Anniversary Magazine here
1 Mr YKH even as forum editor is just a mouthpiece of his bigger bosses past Chief editor Mr Han and up to the SPH board with chairman Mr Tony Tan.
2 The SPH big guns left Mr YKH alone to handle Dr CSJ because they know he can think like them.....that's why they appointed him to replace Mr Richard Lim years ago.....well done, KoonHong!