Written by Ng E-Jay
08 June 2008
Although I have been a contributor to the Straits Times Forum
page now and then, I know full well that it is a well-oiled
propaganda machine designed to support the establishment and spin
the yarn of the PAP Government.
Throughout the entire hearing of PM Lee’s and MM Lee’s
defamation suit against SDP leaders Dr Chee Soon Juan and his
sister Ms Chee Siok Chin, the Straits Times has been telling the
story in a one-sided fashion, demonizing the Chee siblings as inept
trouble-makers out to create a political theatre out of a court
case and peppering the court proceedings with irrelevant questions,
questionable antics, even outright lies.
I would like to remind readers of what Lee Kuan Yew said in 1956
as part of the Legislative Assembly debates:
“Repression, Sir is a habit
that grows. I am told it is like making love - it is always easier
the second time! The first time there may be pangs of conscience, a
sense of guilt. But once embarked on this course with constant
repetition you get more and more brazen in the attack. All you have
to do is to dissolve organizations and societies and banish and
detain the key political workers in these societies. Then
miraculously everything is tranquil on the surface. Then an
intimidated press and the government-controlled radio together can
regularly sing your praises, and slowly and steadily the people are
made to forget the evil things that have already been done, or if
these things are referred to again they’re conveniently distorted
and distorted with impunity, because there will be no opposition to
contradict.” - Lee Kuan Yew as an opposition PAP member
speaking to David Marshall, Singapore Legislative Assembly Debates,
4 October 1956
Today, we see this philosophy enacted in full by the Straits
Times, which published an article in the Insight page written by
ex-ISD officer and current Political Editor Ms Chua Lee Hoong on
Saturday 07 June 2008. This article, which puts the finishing
touches on a long and disgusting propaganda campaign against Dr
Chee Soon Juan, was published at a time when Dr Chee is in prison
and is unable to respond directly to her.
“… or if these things are
referred to again they’re conveniently distorted and distorted with
impunity, because there will be no opposition to
contradict …”
No opposition to contradict, because the person is in jail!
Entitled “The squandered potential of Chee Soon Juan”, Chua Lee
Hoong puts together such a splendidly craftily summary of the
entire propaganda attack on Dr Chee Soon Juan and the SDP that it
does not leave any doubt in my mind the true intentions of our
state-controlled media in fixing the Opposition.
Chua Lee Hoong begins by saying Dr Chee created a stir when he
first entered politics in 1992, drawing high praise from even the
then-leader of the SDP, Mr Chiam See Tong. Then the niceties stop
abruptly. She goes on to question rhetorically, “What has happened
in the 16 years hence? Today, one cannot help but conclude that the
trailblazer is more a sputtering meteor, and perhaps one with an
antisocial personality disorder.”
Apparently, Ms Chua now wants to be a psychiatrist as well.
Perhaps she aspires to be the “doctor” who allegedly told MM Lee
that Dr Chee was “near psychopath”.
Chua Lee Hoong says the SDP of today is “hardly credible as an
opposition party”.
So how does Chua Lee Hoong argue her case that SDP is not
credible? She states that during the 3-day court hearing to assess
damages in the defamation suit brought on by PM Lee and MM Lee, the
public gallery was invariably full, whilst SDP supporters numbered
at most 15 or so.
I say Chua Lee Hoong is hardly credible herself. Does she not
recall that on the first day of the court hearing, it was announced
in the state media, in particular the New Paper, that PAP
grassroots members went down by the busloads to show their support
for the Lees? I am amazed that the PAP can be considered to render
other opposition parties less credible by merely pulling on their
vast machinery and bringing out huge numbers in force.
And who is to say SDP did not have silent supporters in the
gallery, who followed the proceedings without publicly showing
where their hearts were leaning toward?
Chua Lee Hoong then goes on to say that the SDP argument that
the ruling party has used all means at its disposal to suppress it
cuts “no ice with the majority of Singaporeans”, citing Mr Chiam
See Tong and Mr Low Thia Khiang as examples of Opposition
politicians who have succeeded despite the odds.
My question: Succeeded in what sense? In the sense of just
holding on to their single seat in Parliament? Or in the sense of
building a more credible Opposition that can stand up to the PAP
and provide a sound challenge to its power base?
How about the alternative explanation that the PAP has held back
from destroying Mr Chiam and Mr Low, for whatever reason, but has
chosen not to pull its punches when it comes to Dr Chee, for the
simple reason that Dr Chee, if left unchecked, will provide a far
more forceful and comprehensive challenge to the system? I will let
my readers decide for themselves on this one, as I’m sure most
already know where I stand.
Chua Lee Hoong claims that Dr Chee has “disappointed an entire
generation of voters” with acts that include misuse of university
funds, a hunger strike that included the intake of glucose, the
ouster of Mr Chiam from SDP, and the so-called heckling of then-PM
Goh Chok Tong near a Jurong hawker centre in 2001.
Look Ms Chua, I know you are trying your darnest to bring down
that man, but do you really believe that thinking people will buy
into this old refrain any longer? For one, Mr Chiam was not ousted
from SDP by Dr Chee. He voluntarily engineered his own exit,
contrary to what the state media would have us believe.
Dr Chee’s question to Goh Chok Tong, “Where is the money”,
remains valid even till today, as Singaporeans are forced to
helplessly watch as the nation’s reserve are funnelled into dubious
foreign investments whilst their CPF is still earning a very low
interest rate and they are forced to take up schemes such as CPF
Life because the national pension system can no longer adequately
take care of their retirement needs.
On the heckling of then-PM Goh, our dearest Ms Chua sobs that
“It was my misfortune to have witnessed the incident with my own
eyes.” Oh, poor thing, that is so sad! Another “Poor me! I’m a
victim” mentality, so it seems — exactly the same thing she has
accused SDP of having.
But Ms Chua is not done yet. She goes on to mention the
International Bar Association (IBA) conference held in Suntec City
in 2006 in which Ms Sylvia Lim distanced herself from Dr Chee by
siding with the establishment in implying that our laws are fair
and just, and saying that “Singaporeans are quite capable of
deciding for themselves the kind of country they want and did not
need foreigners to canvass our agenda for us … … Singapore is not
perfect, and we don’t pretend that it is. But neither should we
make it out to be worse than it really is.”
In a country where basic civil rights such as the freedom of
speech and assembly are regularly denied, it is astounding how
Sylvia Lim could have come up with such a blatantly one-sided
comment. Yet our dearest Chua Lee Hoong spares no effort in putting
Sylvia Lim on a pedestal so as to make Dr Chee look small in
comparison.
So was that the end of her tirade? Fat hope. What came after
this makes the previous parts of Ms Chua’s article pale in
comparison.
Chua Lee Hoong said that last Monday (02 June 2008), it was
JBJ’s turn to distance himself from Dr Chee. She quoted JBJ as
saying, ” the counsel doesn’t have to agree with whatever has been
done by the client.”
In the first place, that was blatantly taken out of context.
JBJ’s main concern at that time was that he did not sufficient time
to prepare the appeal for Dr Chee (against his contempt-of-court
conviction) as the court had given them too short a notice. Mr
Jeyaretnam, counsel for Dr Chee, had made two preliminary
applications: one for Judge Ang to recuse herself from the matter,
and the second for more time to study the facts of the case as he
had only received the Judge’s citations only during the weekend.
Both applications were rejected. Dr Chee accordingly discharged Mr
Jeyaretnam as counsel and said that he would not be defending the
charges.
And to top the icing on the cake, our dearest Ms Chua drags out
Dr Chee’s Christian faith and unceremoniously questions whether
“Christians will accept his pattern of behaviour as being
particularly Christian”.
I wonder if any Christians are actually offended by the dragging
of their faith into what is undoubtedly a political discussion, and
a horribly lop-sided one at that.
As for our dear Ms Chua’s remarks that Dr Chee could be
suffering from antisocial personality disorder (APD), even going to
the extent of saying “if he does, we have got to feel sorry for
him”, the tragic irony of her audacious claim is that people
suffering from APD have a lack of regard for the rights of others,
which is precisely what Dr Chee has been fighting for on behalf of
all Singaporeans.
Let me say this, even if Dr Chee is indeed suffering from APD,
our dearest Ms Chua need not feel sorry for him. I would feel sorry
for her instead, for her shameless engagement in gutter journalism,
for her putting up such a shoddy and lame attempt at finishing Dr
Chee off.
Chua Lee Hoong has made absolutely no effort at hiding the true
intentions of the state media which she works for. One propaganda
piece after another, each one distorting the facts with greater and
greater impunity, leaves me no doubt that Ms Chua and her state
media are obsessed with putting the man down at all cost, even at
the risk of destroying whatever credibility they have left (if
any).
At the end of the day, Ms Chua cannot even put together a
coherent piece that is even remotely rational.
Ms Chua Lee Hoong, why do you even bother to try?
http://www.sgpolitics.net/?p=243
