|
|
|
Straits
Times wants to remove essence of Chee Soon Juan's letter
Singapore Democrats
5 Mar 08
Mr
Yap koon Hong
Forum Editor
The
Straits Times
stforum@sph.com.sg
Dear
Mr Yap,
Your editing of my reply to Mr Peh Shing Huei's
article
"The
partitioning of the opposition"
has removed
its essence.
If
you read my letter carefully you will see that its thrust is to
highlight the agenda of Mr Peh and The
Straits Times.
And what is this agenda? To cast the SDP in the worst
light possible and, in so doing, promote a certain brand of
opposition politics in Singapore.
So why is the newspaper
doing this? You don't need to be a genius to figure this out when
its parent company, the Singapore Press Holdings, is run by
former deputy prime minister and PAP member, Dr Tony Tan.
But
by removing all references to Dr Tan as well as my comments about
Mr Peh's real intentions, you have taken away the nub of my
letter.
The distortions in Mr Peh's article that I pointed
out were not just to clarify a misrepresentation of facts. I did
so to show how the writer had used distortions to make the case
that the SDP was the "radical" and "unlawful"
component of the opposition that did not want to see opposition
unity.
You also removed my statement: "What [Mr Peh]
doesn't tell readers is that the PAP bribes and intimidates
voters, fixes the opposition, and makes up the rules as it goes
along."
By doing this you, apart from protecting the
PAP, make it seem as though the SDP is the unreasonable party
that does not want to contest elections and win power through
"constitutional means."
You have also removed my
explanation that the reason for SDP's growing online support is
because information about us on the Internet is beyond the
control of the PAP - a point that I hope is not lost on you as
you edit my reply.
And because we are able to present our
side of the story, our readers can see the truth and make up
their own minds.
Be that as it may, I will edit my own
letter so as to avoid your excuse that it is too long while
retaining the point I wish to register. You have amended my reply
to 614 words. The version from my own editing is 616 words.
I
ask you to please publish the revised
version
as is and without further delay. Thank you.
Chee Soon
Juan
Paragraphs
that The Straits Times want to edit out of Dr Chee's letter are
in bold:
Is
it possible that a Straits
Times'
journalist is pointing out the way for the opposition to defeat
the PAP? This is what Mr Peh Shing Huei would have Singaporeans
believe in
his article "The
partitioning of the opposition"
(ST,
29 Feb 08).
Reality
check: The newspaper is run by the Singapore Press Holdings whose
chairman is Dr Tony Tan, former deputy prime minister, GIC deputy
chairman, and card-carrying member of the PAP.
So what is
the real agenda behind this piece? Here are a few
pointers:
Distortion
#1: SDP = radical = bad
Mr
Peh labels the Singapore Democrats as "radicals" for
our "brazen actions flouting the law." In the context
of his piece, this is a bad thing to be shunned by society.
The
loaded terms Mr Peh chooses for the two camps are telling. They
give away the writer's instincts and, more importantly, his real
intentions.
What
Mr Peh doesn't point out is that it is not the Singapore
Democrats who are flouting laws but rather the PAP which is
making up and/or using unjust laws to deny citizens their
constitutional rights to freedom of speech and assembly, rights
that are essential to their well-being.
I have written
countless articles and even published a book to explain why civil
disobedience is the correct and necessary response to a
government that rules by whim especially when it comes to the
political and civil rights of the people.
A good example
is the recent banning of the planned SDP protest outside
Parliament House on 15 March 2008. In contrast CASE was allowed
to hold a similar event at the same venue in 2007 and will do so
again on 16 March this year.
Yet the writer glibly
ignores all this, opting to portray SDP as a bunch of renegades
out to wreak havoc in Singapore.
In contrast, Mr Peh
paints the "moderates" as "limit[ing] their
challenges to the Government to constitutional means, contesting
elections for seats." How can such an approach to politics
be criticised? Isn't this being practiced by opposition parties
in democratic countries all over the world?
What
he doesn't tell readers is that the PAP bribes and intimidates
voters, fixes the opposition, and makes up the rules as it goes
along.
The
opposition has been playing the game under PAP rules for close to
half-a-century with disastrous results. The SDP is calling
attention to the fact that these rules must be reviewed and
reformed, and
for elections to be run by a genuinely neutral body.
How radical is this?
Distortion
#2: SDP not focused on bread-and-butter issues
Mr
Peh further writes that "moderates focus more on
bread-and-butter issues...Not so for the radicals." This is
a not-so-subtle comment that the SDP is not in tune with
sentiments of the common folk.
A check of the SDP's
website and our newspaper The
New Democrat
shows this to be completely false. We have consistently and
repeatedly raised pocket book issues such as the need for minimum
wage, the escalating cost of living, the retention of CPF funds,
HDB prices and so on.
In fact, Mr Yap Keng Ho and I are
facing eight charges of speaking in public precisely for
highlighting such kitchen-table issues in The
New Democrat
during the election period in 2006.
Here
is how it really works: The
Straits Times
continues to blackout SDP's views and positions on these matters.
It then uses this lack of coverage to tell the people that the
Singapore Democrats are neglecting bread-and-butter
issues.
Distortion
#3: SDP does not want opposition cooperation
Mr
Peh relates that at the Workers' Party's 50th anniversary last
year "only leaders of the moderate parties attended. Dr Chee
and Mr Jeyaretnam were both absent," giving readers the
impression that I had chosen not to attend the dinner. He refused
to tell readers that I didn't attend because I was not
invited.
Even when he mentioned about the SDP inviting
other opposition parties for the forum on election reform, Mr Peh
emphasized on the other speakers "taking shots" at
other oppositionists but avoids mentioning my continued call for
the opposition to come together on this issue.
Apart from
the election reform forum, past events show that the SDP has
tried to work towards greater opposition cooperation.
Mr Peh tries very hard to distort our record.
SDP's
support
The
columnist points out that support for the Singapore Democrats in
the Internet has grown. This is because the SDP does not take our
support for granted. We work for it.
We are acutely aware
that Singaporeans are thinking, discerning individuals. They
don't want to be talked at. If we make sense to them instead of
patronising them and explain to them the logic of our positions,
we believe that we can win their support.
More
to the point, the mainstream media cannot censor or distort our
views on the Internet like what Mr Peh has done. In an
environment where information is not controlled by the PAP,
people can see who is working and who is lying.
Mr
Peh can pretend that he has the interest of the opposition at
heart. He wants the opposition to unite "against a hegemon
like the PAP" and "focus their attention on the polls"
(polls which, as I have pointed out, are managed and controlled
by the PAP). Nice try.
For people who still cannot see
through Mr Peh's motives, we'd like to remind you of two words:
Tony Tan.
Chee
Soon Juan
Secretary-General
Singapore Democratic Party
|
|
