|
|
|
Straits
Times changes mind, wants to cut out more of Chee's reply to
Peh
Singapore
Democrats
6 Mar 08
When
Dr Chee Soon Juan replied to Mr Peh Shing Huei's column The
partitioning
of the opposition,
Straits
Times
Forum Editor Yap Koon Hong replied and said that he would publish
an amended version.
The edited version removed Dr Chee's
references to the newspaper's real intentions of trying to
marginalise the Singapore Democrats in favour of the kind of
opposition politics that the PAP finds more acceptable and to the
fact that the elections are manipulated by the PAP.
Dr
Chee said that these points formed the backbone of his reply and
he didn't want them deleted. But he agreed to cut the number of
words so that it would not be longer than the Straits
Times'
edited version.
The newspaper replied again, this time
wanting to, incredibly, cut even more of the letter so as to keep
it to the "400-word limit".
Obviously someone
along the editorial chain felt that even references to the
Government allowing CASE to hold its march while prohibiting the
SDP's as well as Mr Peh's comments about "moderate"
opposition could not be printed. (See
below)
Dr
Chee also pointed out that the Forum regularly published letters
from Mdm Ho Ching (Lee Kuan Yew's daughter-in-law), Dr Lee Wei
Ling (Lee Kuan Yew's daughter) and Mr Lee Kuan Yew himself that
were way beyond the word limit.
He noted how Mr Lee Kuan
Yew always insists on his right of reply to the extent that no
amendments may be made to his letters and that foreign
publications have been penalised for not adhering to such
dictates.
If the Straits
Times
has the time and space to criticise the SDP, then it should also
have the journalistic decency to accord the Singapore Democrats
our reply.
Again, Dr Chee relented and agreed
to shorten the letter.
But he insisted that the essential points of his letter remain.
Why does one get this funny feeling that the word-limit
thing is just an excuse? Let's see whether the Straits
Times
publishes the letter without the further cuts.
And no,
we're not taking bets.
The
further cuts that Straits
Times
wants to make
Dear
Dr Chee,
Thank you for replying. We've edited your
amendment to keep within the 400-word limit for each letter
published in the Forum page.
Please see
attachment.
Sincerely,
Yap Koon Hong
Forum
editor
The Straits Times
This
coming from a journalist writing for a newspaper owned by the PAP
Government. So what is Mr Peh's real agenda? Here are a few
pointers:
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.
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 our constitutional rights to freedom of speech and
assembly, rights essential to our 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.
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 a democratic approach to
politics be criticised?
(Mr Peh's use of the loaded terms
"radicals" for the SDP and "moderates" for
the others is telling.)
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?
Mr Peh further writes that
"moderates focus more on bread-and-butter issues...Not so
for the radicals."
A
check of the
SDP's website shows this to be completely false. We have
consistently and repeatedly raised bread-and-butter issues like
the price hikes, HDB prices, withholding of CPF funds, etc.
It
is the media that censors our views. They then use this lack of
coverage to tell the people that the Singapore Democrats are not
focused on such matters.
Mr Peh also tries to give the
impression that it is Mr J B Jeyaretnam and I who are not
interested in opposition cooperation. Nothing could be further
from the truth.
The SDP organized a forum for election
reform and invited all opposition parties to participate. We will
continue to urge opposition parties to come together on this
issue.
Past events also show that the SDP has tried to
work towards greater opposition cooperation.
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.
If we make sense to
the people instead of patronising them, we will win their
support.
In cyberspace, the PAP cannot censor or distort
our views, and because of this, people can see the truth for
themselves and who is really worthy of their support.
Chee
Soon Juan
Secretary-General
Singapore Democratic Party
|
|
