Singapore Democrats

Home News Singapore Publish our reply in print
Publish our reply in print Print Email
Tuesday, 10 March 2009

Singapore Democrats

After more than a week, Today has finally published the SDP's reply (below) to Mr Loh Chee Kong's article -- online. This is disingenuous as the newspaper's online readership pales in comparison with its print readership. It is yet another example of how the state media continues its campaign against the SDP.

Dr Chee,

Thank you for the letter, which was sent to Chee Kong.

Each day, we receive many more letters than we are able to publish in print.

In January, we launched Voices Online, which is an extension of our Voices pages in cyberspace.

Your letter has been uploaded to Voices Online.

You will find a navigation button to Voices Online on the right hand side of our home page.

Walter Fernandez
Editor, TODAY
10 Mar 09

 

Dear Mr Walter Fernandez,

I believe the point that your newspaper's online readership is vastly different in terms of quantity from that of your print version is not lost on you.

Mr Loh Chee Kong's disparaging remarks of the SDP was published in print. I only ask that you do the same for my reply.

Your point that you receive more letters than you are able to publish in print is spurious. I do not believe that my reply to clear SDP's name will not be of interest to your readers. In fact, given that the general elections may be called soon I am certain that it will be widely read.

I did not ask for Mr Loh to write about the Singapore Democrats. But when he does, it is only fair and decent that your newspaper accords us the full reply especially when the facts are erroneous and misleading.

Be that as it may, if your concern is space constraints I am willing to shorten my letter. Please, no more excuses, publish my reply.

As this matter is of public interest, I trust you will not mind if I posted this correspondence on our website.

Chee Soon Juan

 

Online only - I was no ‘protege’: Chee
Today online
10 Mar 09


Mr Loh Chee Kong's description of the Singapore Democratic Party in "A politician who hates politics" (article below) is misleading and mischievous.

Mr Loh equates the "darker side of politics" with the fact that Mr Chiam was "ousted from the very party he had founded in 1980."

Mr Chiam was never ousted from any party. He had resigned as secretary-general after he was out-voted over a motion he had tabled in a Central Executive Committee (CEC) meeting.

Each CEC member is entitled to a vote on all matters governing the party. Mr Loh equates this with the "darker side" of politics. No wonder we are still under one-party rule even in the new millenium.

My Loh describes me as Mr Chiam's protege who had come into the party and subsequently kicked Mr Chiam out. This is the kind of propaganda that the PAP has been spouting all these years in the state media to turn the people against me.

I had not met Mr Chiam before I joined the party and had minimal contact with him or any one in the SDP before I stood for the by-election in 1992. I could not have been anyone's protege because a protege is someone trained or groomed by another for a particular line of work.

Like many in the opposition, I joined politics because I heeded my country's call for freedom and democracy, not because anyone had encouraged or taken me as their protege

Being groomed by a mentor takes place only in an autocratic party. In a democratic one, we prefer to rely on leaders who have the necessary vision and courage to step forward and convince his fellow members that he is worthy of their support.

Mr Loh's report is bent on dredging up an issue that happened 17 years ago with the obvious attempt to continue the discord between Mr Chiam and I as well as to continue to turn public opinion against the SDP.

The facts as to how Mr Chiam left the SDP are explained fully and clearly in the SDP's website. Why did Mr Loh ignore this in his report?

Mr Chiam and I have spoken cordially to each other at a luncheon at the US ambassador's residence last year and we met again at the Reform Party's inauguration dinner in 2008.

I have on separate occasions indicated that while we may have our differences, my colleagues and I bear no ill-will towards Mr Chiam. In fact we wish him and his party all the best in their endeavours. Perhaps, your newspaper finds this hard to swallow.

Chee Soon Juan
Secretary-General
Singapore Democratic Party

http://www.todayonline.com/articles/306632.asp

 

A politician who hates politics
Loh Chee Kong
Today
28 Feb 09


For someone who describes himself as a “simple and straightforward” man, Mr Chiam See Tong revealed that politics has “changed me a lot ... for the worse”.

Said Mr Chiam: “Now, I can’t treat anyone I meet as a friend ... I step back and ask myself: ‘What are you up to?’”

But isn’t that the price of joining politics?

“I didn’t know before... now I’m learning,” he said.

Anyone who follows Mr Chiam’s political career would understand his disdain for the darker side of politics.

Fresh from leading the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) to three parliamentary seats in the 1991 General Election, Mr Chiam soon found himself ousted from the very party he had founded in 1980.

The long-drawn saga — set in motion after Mr Chiam brought his one-time protege Dr Chee Soon Juan into the party — had obviously scarred him. Said his wife Lina: “He would have nightmares and wake up suddenly ... he doesn’t talk about it but it’s hurting him inside.”

http://www.todayonline.com/articles/304724.asp

 

Share this article:
Facebook Technorati Stumble It! Newsvine Reddit Del.icio.us Digg This!
Comments (5)
  • Tan Tai Wei
    The hapless editors at Today!

    On the one hand, they want to be true to their sense of mission at journalism. On the other hand, they fear for their jobs and press licence. (Han't LKY said he was insignificant if not feared?)

    So, they accord Chee "the right to reply" but through an avenue LKY wouldn't be too concerned with.

    This is keeping the cake and also getting to eat it - nothing like the sense of mission of Chee, with his willingness even to suffer for a cause.
  • Tan Tai Wei
    "The right of reply" means replying in the same medium and to the same readership the article appeared that occasion the reply.

    The moral obligation is not only to Chee, but also to the readers who saw the article critical of him.

    Today, with any business sense, let alone moral sense, should be careful not to alienate its own readers.

    Or readers of Today ought, if they have any sense of self-respect, to realize how Today's editorial action on this issue is an assault on their right to respect and truth.
  • Brendan - Be happy....
    Well, be happy Dr Chee. At least they published on a "reputable" website frequented by "mainstream" singaporeans. Besides the TODAY website address is printed on the TODAY newspaper, so I know many people visit it for updates. Free advitising!

    And as you have mentioned in your post above, you pledged to enhance the power of the Internet, right?

    http://www.yoursdp.org/index.php/news/singapore/2067-dear-netizens-lets-make-history

    So then, what more can you ask for, Dr Chee? I would thank the editor (who may have risked his job if it works against the cronies in the supposed "election")for the courage to publish it and host it on TODAY's website.
  • Robox
    Here's another example of what Singapore's most unprofessional media establishment get up to, and then go on to justify it as freedom of speech.

    (As I said before, freedom of speech implies balanced coverage for if only one side of an issue gets an airing but not the other - assuming only two sides to an issue, that is - then the latter side IS NOT FREE to express its speech.)

    After the PAP's Fatty Woon's infamous "human rights activists are like religious fanatics" - wrong! we intend to be worse than them - Constance Singham wrote in to counter him.

    You would have thought that if there was no more to be added by that lump of lard, then a balance in terms of coverage of the issue would have been achieved.

    But NOOOOOOOO!

    Not when one of the sides is from the PAP.

    Fatty wrote in to dismiss Ms Singham's reply by saying that as she was not present at his speech, she couldn't have gotten things right based on what was already published.

    We waited with bated breath to read on.

    And then guess what?

    FATTY REPEATS ALL THE POINTS THAT WAS ALREADY PUBLISHED!

    THERE WAS NOTHING NEW TO ADD AND MS SINGHAM NEEDN'T HAVE BEEN PRESENT TO LISTEN TO HIS TOXIC-LACED SPEECH.

    Yet, his letter was dutifully published even though there was nothing new in it and 200 other letters were rejected because of 'space constraints'.

    That's balanced coverage in Lee Skunk Yew's Singapore.

    The PAP hits once. Human rights activists hit (back) once. The PAP hits a second time.

    'Harmony' is restored.

    Never mind also that views like Fatty's in Singapore also has had decades of airing but not the views of human rights activists. But that's the actual practise of freedom of speech in this toxic country.
  • Robox
    Ther other related issue I want to raise is that of topicality.

    Any issue that is considered 'hot' is topical. With time, the 'hotness' typically wears down, and less attention is paid to it by less people.

    When Loh Chee Kong takes a whole week to print the SDP's reply, it loses the 'hot' quality of topicality.

    Worse, the reply is published to a somewhat different set of eyeballs who may be clueless about the previous goings on and therefore don't know whether to make heads or tails of it.

    No one is any wiser about the issue as a result of this aspect of Loh Chee Kong's antics.

    Score a big fat ZERO for freedom of speech!
Please login or register to post your comments.
 

Act Now

Please Donate
More options to donate
 

The SDP National Healthcare Plan

SDP Publictaions

Magazine Support SDP , buy our 30th Anniversary Magazine here


                        pdf link

minsal
pdf
link

 

Danny the Democracy Bear

Now available online here!

 
Banner
Banner

Awesome Words

Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.

Theodore Roosevelt
Banner

News feeds

Singapore Democrat News
Joomla Templates by JoomlaShack