''A rebuttal to PAP media crucifixion of Dr Chee Soon Juan''
.
by Chia Ti-Lik
The week before this, Dr Chee Soon Juan was involved in a trial
against the two most powerful men in Singapore being the father and
son team of Prime Minister and Minister Mentor. This clash had been
recorded on the Court's audio recording and available for all to
hear.
The much awaited clash produced collateral damage in the form of
Justice Belinda Ang's citation of Chee Soon Juan and Chee Siok Chin
for contempt of Court. It inevitably resulted in jail sentences for
the pair - 12 days for Dr. Chee and 10 days for Siok Chin.
After sending off Dr. Chee and Siok Chin on the afternoon of 4th
June 2008, I had thought that the saga had ended. However, on 7th
June 2008 Saturday morning, I was met with three articles touching
on Dr. Chee. These were from Chua Lee Hoong of the Straits Times
and Nazry Bahrawi and Derrick A. Paulo of Today.
In short, the articles were as follows:
1. Chua Lee Hoong attempts to take a swipe at Dr. Chee lamenting
on his supposed squandered potential.
2. Nazry Bahrawi questions Dr. Chee's game plan.
3. Derrick A Paulo confesses to having less than independent
thought in that remarks by a colleague shapes his opinion of Dr.
Chee. Interestingly, his views are not shaped by what he perceives
through his senses and processed by independent sentient
thought.
The common thread throughout the three articles are that they
sought to portray a stance of neutrality and concern but in the
same breath seek to insidiously poison the readers' minds as to who
Dr. Chee is and what he stands for.
I have penned down my responses to the same on the following
articles.
If it is any significance, it should be noted that these articles
are published whilst Dr. Chee is being held in incarceration for 12
days for pursuing a certain line of cross-examination of MM and PM
in Court.
Derrick A Paulo's article in Weekend Today 7-8th
June 2008
It is amazing how sometimes things in Singapore play themselves
out.
I met Derrick A Paulo during my campaign in the last Election in
GE2006. I somehow formed the opinion that Derrick was a reporter
who was sympathetic to the opposition cause.
My impressions of Derrick are somewhat changed by his latest
article. In that article I see Derrick performing the function of a
columnist. His writing was that of a commentary. He was giving his
personal opinion on the subject to be discussed.
Rightly so that his designation has changed to that of an Assistant
Editor and not just a mere journalist or reporter I had known him
to be. His current position allows him to comment on matters and he
has chosen in a timely fashion to comment and give his opinion of
Chee Soon Juan.
Firstly, I would like to state that it is strange that Derrick is
writing about how his ideas are being shaped by those around
him.
Naturally this topic does not stray into what was exchanged in
Court between the Lees and the Chees. Interestingly though it was
the persistence of the Chees in pursuing a certain line of
questioning that brought them into contempt of Court.
Why does the press not choose to discuss this tumultuous exchange
in open Court that resulted in the jail sentences for Chee Siok
Chin and Chee Soon Juan?
Is it simply because the audio recording of the exchange is not
freely available? Had the audio recording been made freely
available, I would surmise that the focus would have been on the
discourse between the Lees and Chees instead of it being glossed
over and not given the due attention which it deserves.
Derrick digs up the past on Chee Soon Juan's debate with George Yeo
on health care costs and subsidies. If that is supposed to be of
any weight, is it not true now that Singapore's health care costs
are skyrocketing through the roof? Singaporeans have to judge which
the greater sin is.
A typographical error? Or the brazen collective inability of a
bunch of ministers to solve a problem highlighted by a political
opponent more than a decade and a half earlier?
Which is a bigger sin? A few dollars in postage costs, or millions
of dollars of taxpayers' money?
The oft quoted excuse that a politician is no longer relevant
because of the lack of support he is obtaining at a certain time is
often used by those in power in an attempt to dissuade those from
following the footsteps of that politician.
One need no further reminder that sham elections by Saddam Hussein
and his Baath Party when he was in power had returned a vote of no
less than 99% to the dictator.
Derrick betrays his pro-establishment double standards mindset that
foreign connections have to be abandoned in the face of a need to
win local support.
May I then ask why do our leaders keep on making overseas trips to
meet foreign leaders especially those of dubious legitimacy and
standing, ever so often?
Singapore is a city state which cannot live in isolation. Singapore
may be an island but no Singaporean should be an island.
The government has exhorted our people over the years to work
overseas and build an external economy. We were asked to position
ourselves as global citizens. Our Government is a "foreigner lover"
through and through in that it absorbs foreigners into civil
service, welcomes foreigners into Singapore with more than open
arms, and it is ever willing to cheapen the Singapore Citizenship
by offering it to people whom have never made an iota of
contribution to the Republic.
It is strange that when the establishment attempts to take a swipe
at Dr. Chee, it forgets all that it has done. Like the thief who
covers his ears as he steals the bell, it does not mean that if you
do not hear it (or should I say choose not to hear it), the bell
did not ring.
To give due credit to Derrick, I can say that Derrick has been
reading on Dr. Chee's civil disobedience principles and trying to
make sense out of them and Derrick tries his best to distinguish
Singapore from the countries where civil disobedience has succeeded
in bringing about change.
Whilst it is true that Dr Chee's civil disobedience principles are
partly influenced by Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr. and to
a certain extent Nelson Mandela and it is also true that Singapore
needs Singaporeans to change things.
It is a different ball game when intelligent and educated people in
a position like Derrick choose to please the establishment by
discouraging an entirely peaceful but assertive manner of placing
pressure on the Government and encouraging avenues where it has
been proven to be ineffective in bringing about change, it is no
wonder that change is itself impeded. What have Low Thia Khiang and
Chiam See Tong achieved after more than 17 and 24 years
respectively in parliament? A mere illusion of hope? Or a balm to
soothe the wounded pride of the opposition?
In the article, I further sense a tinge of concern, persuasion and
almost pleading for Chee Soon Juan to abandon his current
course.
In as much as I try not to read too much into the workings of
Derrick's mind but judging from the looks of the article which I
have dissected, it is not difficult to position where his loyalty
lies and from where the plea for Chee Soon Juan to cease his
campaign originated from.
Chua Lee Hoong – The Squandered Potential of Chee Soon
Juan: Thinking Aloud (ST 7th June 2008)
Chua Lee Hoong begins her article citing the entry of Dr. Chee into
politics in 1992 then goes in depth into why she thinks Chee Soon
Juan has squandered his potential.
Ms Chua also attempts to play psychologists in branding the subject
of discussion i.e. Dr. Chee as someone with a personality
disorder.
She even does further into issues between God and Man and between
God-fearing men.
My attention is drawn to the fact that Chua Lee Hoong was invited
twice to attend a forum on Press Freedom wherein she would have met
Dr. Chee in person to express such views. I understand that Ms Chua
has declined to attend twice citing various reasons.
Ms Chua not only knows that Dr. Chee is in prison at this moment.
Incidentally, it is also during this period that she chooses to
think aloud on matters outside her knowledge, expertise and
training.
Nazry Bahrawi - What is Chee Soon Juan's game
plan? (Weekend Today 7-8th June 2008)
Before his article was published, Nazry had emailed me near noon of
4th June 2008 and called me to draw my attention to the mail.
Thereafter, Nazry SMSed me twice, trying to get me to answer the
mail. It turned out that I had no time to address the email as I
was busy with Gopalan Nair's matter myself.
I only saw the email shortly before Nazry's article came out on 7th
June 2008.
From the way Nazry's questions were phrased, it betrays that he had
already formed an idea of how he wanted to pitch his article even
before he had obtained his interviews.
In any event, Nazry's choice of quotes and interviews were
obviously attempts to put Dr. Chee in bad light. Nazry cited the
following:-
1. Non-graduate MP Charles Chong's attempt to pay psychologist
by assessing Dr. Chee as a "complex character" and referring to the
below and his expression of magnanimity and largess to have
compassion for those who fall short of their own dreams and appear
to be challenged in more than one way.
2. During the assessment of damages hearing, Lee Kuan Yew had
quoted expert opinion from his experts commenting in vacuo that Dr.
Chee was a megalomaniac, as if that carried any probity according
to rules of evidence.
3. Minister Mentor LKY agreeing with SPP's Chiam See Tong on Dr.
Chee Soon Juan being a megalomaniac.
4. An unnamed woman whom we do not even know actually exists using
the words "backstreet brawler … doubt he is serious about being the
opposition … "
5. Sinapan Samydorai, Think Centre, Dr. Terence Chong, Institute of
SEA Studies, NMP Siew Kum Hong, Assoc Prof. Eugene Tan SMU, Dr.
Gillian Koh, IPS further lend their weight to the article that Dr.
Chee Soon Juan would not get anywhere politically.
Nazry's article then cites the comments that the PAP would actually
attempt to change tack towards Chee Soon Juan, by ignoring Dr. Chee
and ceasing further defamation suits against him.
This is not the first time the press paves the way for PAP policy
retreats.
If it is of any significance, it pays to note that such talk only
emanated from the PAP camp just days after the scathing exchange
between the Lees and the Chees in court.
Perhaps, the first ever of such face to face engagements between
the Lees and the Chees are so much more than what the PAP and its
administration could bear, such that the longstanding use of
lawsuits have become an unattractive option.
Conclusion
In short, we have a political editor trying to play psychologist,
an assistant editor without an independent opinion, and a
journalist who had an opinion of how the article should read even
before he started his interviews.
Faced with such glaring facts, it is no wonder the press in
Singapore is being ranked 154th in the world.
Another thing
People operating under anxiety focus too much on Chee Soon Juan's
political manoeuvres, which they incidentally opine will not bear
fruit, and forget that Dr. Chee is a fully qualified psychologist
even by the extremely stringent standards in the United States of
America.
If there is anything to learn from what these characters like Lee
Kuan Yew, Charles Chong, Chiam See Tong, Chua Lee Hoong attempt to
play masak-masak Singapore-standard psychologist, one need only to
be reminded that imitation is actually the sincerest form of
flattery.
