By David Wu, Guest Columnist
‘What is Singapore’s national costume?’
I could not think of a satisfactory answer to my friend’s question, since there are so many types of dress that Singaporeans can identify with.
Then came the perhaps unsurprising answer: ‘The defamation suit of course!’
Chee Soon Juan, the self-termed Singapore rebel, is probably the synonym for the defamation action in modern day Singapore. While I am not going to proceed to discuss the merits of his pursuits, I will put forth a case why ignoring his often exaggerated remarks may be the better solution.
If you seek the advice of any lawyer, he would probably advise you that a pauper like Chee is not worth suing. He is already bankrupt and is therefore not afraid of any additional sanction that seeks to deprive him of his possessions. What he would probably fear losing, I would think, is exactly what these defamation suits give him: the attention of the public.
The media coverage on Chee has always been focused on his brushes with the law, and thus inadvertently bringing attention to his cause and beliefs. While the man may believe himself to be a martyr, it is difficult to connect his position with someone like Gandhi or Aung San Suu Kyi, since not many would pay attention to his preachings if he was left alone. The only similarity between them is perhaps that they were all subject to government prosecution, something that arguably is Chee’s presently most valuable possession. Chee ingeniously uses the courtroom as his soapbox, and his portal to influence public opinion. It is therefore not a surprise that he commits the offence of defamation over and over again, to the extent that some may think he actually enjoys it.
In the United Kingdom in the 1980s, the British government banned a book called the Spycatcher, written by an ex-MI5 agent Peter Wright, in which he made bold claims about the misdoings of the government. The book itself might not have gotten much readership if left alone, and the few who did read it might not have believed its contents. Nevertheless, the enthusiasm the authorities showed to prevent the book from being published made everyone curious about what they wanted to hide. The book went on to become an international best-seller, published in every other country but the United Kingdom.
If the defamation suits did any good besides depriving Chee of his materialistic possessions, it would have been the fact that doubts are raised in the public mind about the veracity of his claims. Why would the government pay so much attention to silencing him if it was just baseless nonsense? It is human nature to be curious about what we are prevented from knowing, even when most of the time we would admit that if we knew in the first place we probably wouldn’t have bothered to find out. Moreover, the government’s attempts to silence Chee merely made him a fighter for the freedom of speech in the eyes of Western media.
The American philosopher Thomas Scanlon believed that an essential part of a democracy is that citizens should be given the autonomy to receive information freely and evaluate its truth for themselves. Although most of us would agree that it is necessary for the government to protect society from dangerous racist hate speech or the promotion of terrorism, we would also agree that the public is capable to make the correct judgement in Chee’s case. The times have changed since the threat of Communist sedition and the significant improvement in education standards means that the majority of Singaporeans can be trusted to distinguish truth from falsity, especially in unsubstantiated claims such as Chee’s. Even if a minority of people believed these allegations, the importance of the right to the freedom of expression means that we should allow speech, especially when even more people might have believed it to be true if it was suppressed through prosecution. The free ‘marketplace of ideas’, as it is suggested in the United States, would mean that only the truth would emerge unscathed through the scrutiny of public opinion. The truth is naked, and it requires no additional help from the authorities. The Singapore government has often been criticised for being a nanny-state, and I believe that the populace has now matured enough to be not easily swayed by the boisterous claims of a demagogue.
Looking from the point of the defamed politicians, it is true that their reputations have been attacked. Nonetheless, the fact that they willingly entered into the public eye when they decided to run for office should mean a greater tolerance towards such accusations, and the willingness to put themselves up for public scrutiny to clarify matters. Moreover, even if only the false statements were censored, such liability to prosecution would have a ‘chilling effect’ on important investigative journalism or other constructive criticisms towards those in power. Such restraints against free speech would only be viewed as undemocratic, as were the Napoleonic laws prohibiting the criticism of government officials. John Stuart Mill has argued powerfully that the government should not have an ‘assumption of infallibility’ and allow criticisms on its policies, since they ‘ought to be moved by the consideration that, however true it may be, if it is not fully, frequently, and fearlessly discussed, it will be held as a dead dogma, not a living truth’.
The ability of the Singapore government is evident in its good governance and recognised throughout the world. Politicians should therefore not prevent accusations that are clearly not true, but rather to clarify these false claims to make their reputations even stronger. It is often that a sore-loser accuses the winner of cheating, but the true champion always chooses to take such allegations in his stride.
By Eugene Yeo
In a previous article, I wrote about how the Singapore’s media had the uncanny ability to sugarcoat the truth to make bad news sound good. Now let me showcase another classic example of the unique “Asian spectacles” of Mediacorp to distort reality and perpetuate an outright blatant lie in order to serve the partisan interests of the PAP.
TODAY published an article by Loh Chee Kong entitled “A politician who hates politics” in which the gist of it is to provoke disgust and repungance against the “betrayal” of his mentor Mr Chiam by Dr Chee:
“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.” (Read full article here)
An unsuspecting reader who do not know the full facts behind this episode will have the misperception that Mr Chiam has been traumatized by his “ouster” from SDP which was “engineered” by Dr Chee. Nothing can be further from the truth. Chiam was never “ousted” by Dr Chee. He resigned on his own accord.
For over 15 years, the PAP and the state media have been propagating the myth of Mr Chiam See Tong’s “ouster” from SDP by Dr Chee Soon Juan to drive a wedge between the two and to smear the character of Dr Chee.
They are well aware of the fact that Mr Chiam is an established opposition icon who has won the respect and love of many Singaporeans even from those not living in Potong Pasir. By spinning a tale on how the popular Chiam is forced out of SDP by his protege Dr Chee, it would deal a mortal blow to the image and standing of the latter.
For those of you who are aware of the truth, what exactly transpired between Mr Chiam and Dr Chee in 1993 was elucidated clearly on the SDP website here.
In summary, Chiam was not “ousted” by Dr Chee. He first resigned as SDP’s Secretary-General after failing to obtain the CEC’s support to censure Dr Chee for his hungry strike. In fact, Dr Chee had tried in vain to persuade Mr Chiam to stay on. Mr Chiam subsequently resigned from SDP and form the Singapore’s People Party in 1997.
It is not for us to judge who is in the right or wrong. The pertinent question to ask is: why is TODAY dredging out the saga now again after so many years ? After all, it has already achieved its insidious motive of misleading the majority of Singaporeans about Dr Chee’s moral character.
What does this irrelevant article serve really when we have more pressing concerns such as the investment losses incurred by our SWFs ? Mas Selamat Kasteri is still missing after a year and there is no mention of it.
It is likely that the PAP internet brigade has detected an increase in support for SDP and Dr Chee amongst young IT-savvy Singaporeans who may not know about the saga in 1993 and therefore TODAY find it timely to drag the “dirt” out again to smear Dr Chee.
Loh Chee Kong of TODAY even has the temerity to write to Dr Chee asking for his response to Mr Chiam See Tong’s criticisms about the SDP. He said that he had interviewed Mr Chiam on Wednesday in which Mr Chiam said that the Singapore Democrats had engaged in “conspiratorial and destructive politics.” (Read Dr Chee’s reply to him here)
It is so obvious that Loh is trying to sow discord between the two men and to stir a hornet’s nest. A journalist is supposed to be neutral, balanced and objective in his reporting. What is Loh trying to do ? Why didn’t he include SDP’s explanation of the saga to allow readers to judge for themselves ?
Mr Chiam See Tong had asked the Today newspaper to stop publication on his interview. Mr Chiam told Today’s senior reporter, Mr Loh Chee Kong, that his remarks about the SDP were “off the cuff”. Mr Chiam had told Mr Loh — twice — not to publish anything he said about Dr Chee Soon Juan and the Singapore Democrats.
Yet, the reporter emailed Dr Chee and quoted Mr Chiam’s remarks, wanting a response from the SDP secretary-general. Dr Chee replied to Mr Loh and refused to respond, saying that the intended report is a PAP ploy to put SDP in a bad light. As expected, Loh went ahead and publish the interview anyway though he did not quote directly from Mr Chiam, his intention was clear.
I would suggest Mr Loh spend his time more productively on other important issues such as finding out the extent of losses incurred by Temasek and GIC NOW instead of regurgitating a stale grandmother story that few Singaporeans are interested about. Or if he is really so keen to write up on the “dark” side of politics, perhaps he should interview the old associates of Lim Chin Siong to find out how he was fixed by his own trusted comrade in 1963.
Also read Mr Ng E Jay’s commentary on this matter here
Translated from Lianhe Wanbao
Singapore People Party’s Secretary-General Mr Chiam See Tong lashed out at talks of him retiring by retorting that he will only consider doing so after he wins a GRC.
A few days ago, a reader wrote in to The Straits Times Forum expressing his concern that SPP MP Chiam See Tong is still actively involved in grassroots work in spite of his health.
This reader said that he felt Chiam should retire soon after seeing his photo in the papers.
“Chiam has served his constituents well for so many years and is a legendary figure. Nobody can doubt this political integrity and contributions. He is an example to all aspiring politicians in the future. Though it is a difficult decision for him to take to call it a day, it may affect his reputation later on.”
The above letter received a barrage of criticisms on the papers and in internet forums.
Mr Chiam also refuted of talks that he should retire. “I still have many work to do. I may consider retiring only after I win a GRC.” He challenged those readers who encouraged him to retire to come and join him together in his grassroots work and witness for themselves how he is still serving the people.
“Just like what Mao Zedong said – ‘How can I reach a conclusion without first analyzing?” I can still provide good service to the people and I do not have to be apologetic to any person or matter.”
He said, as long Potong Pasir residents still need him, he will not retire. “If you ask them, a majority want me to continue as their MP.”
“I am still lucid and can continue to serve the people.”
EDITORS’ NOTE: If there are few Singaporeans who feels Chiam should retired because of his age and ill health, what about the old man in PAP who should have retired a long time ago. Judging from his thoughts and words so far, the greatest contribution he can give to Singapore right now is to step down with IMMEDIATE EFFECT !!
By Eugene Yeo
A reader posted a comment on our site lately castigating us for only knowing how to criticize without coming up with any “better solutions”. Another emailed us imploring us to offer “constructive criticisms” instead of ranting relentlessly at the government.
What exactly is “constructive criticism” ? I have searched through all major dictionaries and can’t seem to find a definition for it. The term itself is an illusion concocted by the PAP to limit the boundaries in which they can be criticized and to preserve and perpetuate the myth about their “capabilities”.
In the PAP/SPH, jargon, “constructive criticism” must fulfil the following criteria:
1. The identity of the critic must be known so that: he or she can be easily threatened, sued, bankrupted or fixed into submission which will take the sting out of the rest to exercise ’self-censorship’ when criticizing the establishment.
2. Criticize them in subtle / diplomatic / friendly manner in order not to make them look bad so that they can continue to justify their exorbitant high salaries simply by proclaiming themselves as the best talents that Singapore will ever produce. Have a live debate in public between PM Lee and Dr Chee and the fake aura of invincibility which the PAP has so cleverly enshrouded itself will vanish into thin air instantaneously.
3. Offer better alternatives and solutions so that they are able to demolish you if your proposals are unsound or steal your idea to become theirs in the future without giving due acknowledgement or recognition.
An old dog is incapable of new tricks. It is the same old “divide and conquer” strategem employed over the years to split and weaken the opposition camp.
Opposition politicians who give the PAP a “passing grade”, defend its laws as “fair and just” and express their pride in voting for them in previous elections are “constructive opposition” to be given a positive spin by the state media to increase support for them amongst unsuspecting opposition supporters.
Those who dare to “call a spade a spade” and criticize them are hauled up in courts, sued for defamation, bankrupted and demonized by the state media as “destructive opposition” bent on destroying the nation.
How can an opposition politician destroy the nation by shouting ‘where is the money’ in public ? Or does one do so by really losing tonnes of money overseas and still dare not account to the public ?
The primary purpose of an opposition is to check on the ruling party, not to make life easy, nice and cozy for them to run the show with impunity. In fact, they are supposed to make life difficult for them to ensure that they are accountable to the people.
The opposition exists for the sake of opposing. This is the eternal truth everywhere else in the world, but under the distorted “spectacles” of the PAP and the state media, it is wrong to “oppose” for the sake of “opposing”. Then what is the role of the “opposition” ? To be a flower vase to wayang in Parliament so that the PAP can continue to masquerade Singapore as a democracy to the world ?
Under the PAP dictionary, the word “opposition” has become a dirty word because they do not like to be opposed. The Longman dictionary defines the word “oppose” as “to regard a suggestion or planned course of action with strong disapproval.” Is there anything wrong in disagreeing with the PAP ? Must we always see eye to eye with its actions all the time ? If what they have been doing are perfectly free from blame, will there be any grounds for us to oppose them ? Is the opposition opposing them because of their party’s name or logo ?
It is not the duty of the opposition to come up with alternative policies to challenge the government for it does not have the manpower, finance and most importantly, the necessary information made available to them in order to do so.
Can anybody tell me there is any opposition in the world, be it the Conservatives in the United Kingdom, the Republicans in the United States, the BJP in India or the Pakatan Rakyat in Malaysia which exists to not to oppose the ruling party, but to be a “constructive opposition” offering alternative policies without embarrassing the government?
If the PAP government, with the entire civil service at its disposal still needs a “constructive opposition” to help them in policy-making and formulation, then perhaps they are redundant after all and undeserving of their high salaries.
An opposition leader who dare not confront or challenge the ruling party out of fear of offending them and yet call on Singaporeans to vote him into Parliament to be a “watchdog” of the PAP is in fact a “running dog” which has betrayed the trust of the people !
Over here, we do not mince our words when we criticize the establishment and it is for our readers to judge for themselves the merits of our critiques, not the PAP, the media or its proxy blog TOC to pass summary judgements and teach netizens a lesson in “credibility”.
If what we post here is complete hogwash without any meaning, you can be sure that our faithful and astute readers will cruxify us immediately on the spot without mercy.
A real tested political leader will be able to pass through the baptism of fire and withstand any bullets shot at him by his detractors. If you cannot take the heat, for goodness sake, just leave the kitchen !
Nobody force you to be in politics. You are in the game because you claim you want to serve your family…oops, I mean the people and so stop whining like a faggot and threaten to fix your opponents when they expose your inadequacies because they are just doing their job.
A “constructive critic” if there is such a term, is one who points out the follies, mistakes and oversights of the government directly and fearlessly so that it is held accountable for them.
Very soon, the state media will come up with a new definition for “credible bloggers”, those who are known in real life, plays around with semantics to attract official attention and prostitute themselves for cheap media publicity. You bet that these shenanigans will be constantly promoted, appraised and adulated to dilute the influence of vocal blogs which dare to criticize the establishment.
In my humble opinion, a “constructive” opposition / critic / blogger should posses the following attributes:
1. Courage to criticize, challenge and confront the establishment based to the best of one’s knowledge reasonably and truthfully as far as possible.
2. Magnanimity to concede and admit one’s mistakes if proven wrong.
3. Fortitude to withstand barrage of counter-attacks and to inspire others to join in the fray.
Critics exist to criticize the government, just like the opposition exists to oppose the government. If the government wants us to based our criticism on substantial evidence, then it must be forthcoming with the information in the first place. It is ludicrous to expect ordinary citizens to spend time doing “proper research” before they are allowed to criticize. Maybe MICA should consider muzzling every citizen with a dog mask and only allow those with a “permit” to open their mouths.
This “constructive” opposition / criticism is an illusion which only exists in the dreams of the PAP. They can only play such tricks on the minds of the electorate in Singapore where a majority of the populace has been brainwashed after 40 years of “national education”. If they try to repeat the same bullshit in other modern democracies, they will be jeered, ridiculed and lampooned till they climb of out of their toilet windows and disappear without a trace like Mas Selamat.
Originally posted by Georgetan884:Tags: Merlion hit by lightning, Merlion struck by lightning, Singapore Merlion struck by lightning, Singapore struck by lightning
A blatant LIE by TODAY to split the opposition and smear Dr Chee
By Eugene Yeo
In a previous article, I wrote about how the Singapore’s media had the uncanny ability to sugarcoat the truth to make bad news sound good. Now let me showcase another classic example of the unique “Asian spectacles” of Mediacorp to distort reality and perpetuate an outright blatant lie in order to serve the partisan interests of the PAP.
TODAY published an article by Loh Chee Kong entitled “A politician who hates politics” in which the gist of it is to provoke disgust and repungance against the “betrayal” of his mentor Mr Chiam by Dr Chee:
“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.” (Read full article here)
An unsuspecting reader who do not know the full facts behind this episode will have the misperception that Mr Chiam has been traumatized by his “ouster” from SDP which was “engineered” by Dr Chee. Nothing can be further from the truth. Chiam was never “ousted” by Dr Chee. He resigned on his own accord.
For over 15 years, the PAP and the state media have been propagating the myth of Mr Chiam See Tong’s “ouster” from SDP by Dr Chee Soon Juan to drive a wedge between the two and to smear the character of Dr Chee.
They are well aware of the fact that Mr Chiam is an established opposition icon who has won the respect and love of many Singaporeans even from those not living in Potong Pasir. By spinning a tale on how the popular Chiam is forced out of SDP by his protege Dr Chee, it would deal a mortal blow to the image and standing of the latter.
For those of you who are aware of the truth, what exactly transpired between Mr Chiam and Dr Chee in 1993 was elucidated clearly on the SDP website here.
In summary, Chiam was not “ousted” by Dr Chee. He first resigned as SDP’s Secretary-General after failing to obtain the CEC’s support to censure Dr Chee for his hungry strike. In fact, Dr Chee had tried in vain to persuade Mr Chiam to stay on. Mr Chiam subsequently resigned from SDP and form the Singapore’s People Party in 1997.
It is not for us to judge who is in the right or wrong. The pertinent question to ask is: why is TODAY dredging out the saga now again after so many years ? After all, it has already achieved its insidious motive of misleading the majority of Singaporeans about Dr Chee’s moral character.
What does this irrelevant article serve really when we have more pressing concerns such as the investment losses incurred by our SWFs ? Mas Selamat Kasteri is still missing after a year and there is no mention of it.
It is likely that the PAP internet brigade has detected an increase in support for SDP and Dr Chee amongst young IT-savvy Singaporeans who may not know about the saga in 1993 and therefore TODAY find it timely to drag the “dirt” out again to smear Dr Chee.
Loh Chee Kong of TODAY even has the temerity to write to Dr Chee asking for his response to Mr Chiam See Tong’s criticisms about the SDP. He said that he had interviewed Mr Chiam on Wednesday in which Mr Chiam said that the Singapore Democrats had engaged in “conspiratorial and destructive politics.” (Read Dr Chee’s reply to him here)
It is so obvious that Loh is trying to sow discord between the two men and to stir a hornet’s nest. A journalist is supposed to be neutral, balanced and objective in his reporting. What is Loh trying to do ? Why didn’t he include SDP’s explanation of the saga to allow readers to judge for themselves ?
Mr Chiam See Tong had asked the Today newspaper to stop publication on his interview. Mr Chiam told Today’s senior reporter, Mr Loh Chee Kong, that his remarks about the SDP were “off the cuff”. Mr Chiam had told Mr Loh — twice — not to publish anything he said about Dr Chee Soon Juan and the Singapore Democrats.
Yet, the reporter emailed Dr Chee and quoted Mr Chiam’s remarks, wanting a response from the SDP secretary-general. Dr Chee replied to Mr Loh and refused to respond, saying that the intended report is a PAP ploy to put SDP in a bad light. As expected, Loh went ahead and publish the interview anyway though he did not quote directly from Mr Chiam, his intention was clear.
I would suggest Mr Loh spend his time more productively on other important issues such as finding out the extent of losses incurred by Temasek and GIC NOW instead of regurgitating a stale grandmother story that few Singaporeans are interested about. Or if he is really so keen to write up on the “dark” side of politics, perhaps he should interview the old associates of Lim Chin Siong to find out how he was fixed by his own trusted comrade in 1963.
Also read Mr Ng E Jay’s commentary on this matter here
Is the ‘Drama Queen’ of the Speaker's Corner educating itself from this post by an independent source ?
Or is its “narcissism” preventing it from accepting the reality but to pursue the path of shock and awe for the sake of its own vanity ?
what can u take from a man who has nothing?
Originally posted by ☃®:what can u take from a man who has nothing?
No one can ever have "nothing".
He still have "time" that can be taken from him.
It is only a matter of whose "time" runs out first.
Originally posted by Atobe:
No one can ever have "nothing".He still have "time" that can be taken from him.
It is only a matter of whose "time" runs out first.
"time" can only be taken away from him if he is charged under ISA
Irony of CSJ is that he lost everything but gained a lot in - public and international attention
CSJ is the tortoise racing against the hare.
Originally posted by jgho83:CSJ is the tortoise racing against the hare.