Was Lee Kuan Yew right to berate reporter?
-
he's a senile old man who really should shut up now ... instead of expending a life time of political capital like this .....
but the young lady was obviously out to get a reaction, obviously out to goad and prod with such rhetorical questions ........ she is not stupid, she knew such questions will generate a strong reaction from the old man, and I think was planning to embarrass and entrap the old codger in the first place ...... I don't think she was trying to achieve anything than to earn brownie points from her foreign press employer and make a "name" for herself ....
but hey ... she's a reporter after all ... they all bark for different people after all ....
-
I think the pursuit of cultivation requires resources like time and access to affordable "cultivational experiences". If the average citizen spends his time and money preserving his lifelihood and does not have time left over to pursue cultivation, we will have a less cultivated community.
Private enterprises may not find providing such activities profitable. The Government can step in to identify "cultivational experiences" and then provide these or subsidize the costs or encourage existing venues to become more productive in the experience they deliver.
A simple example, providing walkmans with recorded tours in museums enhances the experience manyfold and increase the "cultivational experience" of the displays. -
Originally posted by phil30k:
Interesting point..... and do you think that the masses are getting adequate wages to view "cultivational experiences" as a priority ?
I think the pursuit of cultivation requires resources like time and access to [b]affordable "cultivational experiences". If the average citizen spends his time and money preserving his lifelihood and does not have time left over to pursue cultivation, we will have a less cultivated community.
[/b]think i remember studying maslow's hierachy of needs relating to this
-
imagine the day with a free press which reports facts responsibly. The reporter came across a small racial misunderstanding between two races in Singapore and reported it. People read it, get emotional about it and things start to escalate from nothing to something more disastrous like street riots. This is something which we dont want. What we want is mediation at root and not reporting it at all. The only way to it is censorship at the editor's level. The only way is suppression of the free press. Another feature about free press is that it is profit driven, always looking for controversial news to report in order to generate higher readership without any regard to being socially responsible. Thats why LKY is correct to suppress free press.
the same logic goes for Demon-cracy. -
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:
Hmmm...why used Italy and Austria for comparison? Go to the link below; does the flag look familiar?
[b]The bully
Gandhi Ambalam
17 Jan 08
The Minister Mentor has done it again. His victim this time? A cub reporter from Reuters by the name of Melanie Lee.
Ms Lee had asked the Minister how he expected the society to become cultivated given the restriction on civil liberties in Singapore.
Earlier at a conference at the Suntec Convention Centre, Mr Lee told the audience that Singapore could reach a level of cultural development comparable to Italy and Austria in 10 to 15 years. (An interesting choice of countries given that one was home to a fascist named Mussolini and the other the birthplace of Adolf Hitler).
http://www.singaporedemocrat.org/Vantage_Gandhi%20Ambalam3.html[/b]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:British_Union_of_Fascists_flag.ant.svg#file -
I view "the dangers of reporting trash" via the media as a lame excuse to suppress freedom of speech. If trash was reported it is usual to see representatives of the govt flaming the perpetrator. And seriously Singaporeans are not dumb fooks to hear trash and just accept it are they?Originally posted by Daddy!!:imagine the day with a free press which reports facts responsibly. The reporter came across a small racial misunderstanding between two races in Singapore and reported it. People read it, get emotional about it and things start to escalate from nothing to something more disastrous like street riots. This is something which we dont want. What we want is mediation at root and not reporting it at all. The only way to it is censorship at the editor's level. The only way is suppression of the free press. Another feature about free press is that it is profit driven, always looking for controversial news to report in order to generate higher readership without any regard to being socially responsible. Thats why LKY is correct to suppress free press.
the same logic goes for Demon-cracy.
We might as well be communists since we don't have freedom of speech... they operate the same way...... govt tell u to produce 10 children u produce 10 children ..... they want 10 eggs u lay 10 eggs
-
actually, people ARE whitewashing over his accomplishments, which is why I raised the point on historical accomplishments.Originally posted by weiqimun:so what's modern? whose's context?
nobody is denying his contribution, least of all in my post. so, does it then gave him the godforsaken right to diminish other's opinion? belittle others? continue with his iron-clad ways?
u are stating/defending your points on very small footprints. get over it. no one is whitewashing all his accomplishment, but folks like u who thinks he's godlike and infallible is what giving me the creeps....LKY is not as pure white as the uniform he puts on every NDP. he's got bones in the closet as well tt he's trying to rid.
can we look past that? maybe, some can. but to continue to gloat about him from ppl lk u without knowing exactly what exactly he's made of is equally quilty.
Anyway, my original point on this topic stands. The article quoted by TS appears to be highly unreliable. One can hardly believe it happened at all. That's the main push of this debate. -
Originally posted by deathbait:
Well i would say that priority should be given to the "present" and not the "past" so its kinda understandable why you might have the idea people are whitewashing him.
[b]actually, people ARE whitewashing over his accomplishments, which is why I raised the point on historical accomplishments.
Anyway, my original point on this topic stands. The article quoted by TS appears to be highly unreliable. One can hardly believe it happened at all. That's the main push of this debate.[/b]
To be blunt..... "As a commoner I do not care about his past deeds as the pressing issue is affecting my family unit at its core...... when my family unit is taken care of and i can give my family a good life with my hard work then we start and sing songs and write poetry about LKY." -
you make it sound as if you're in dire straits.
Is your life not good now? -
Originally posted by deathbait:
It is thank you..... but the changes i am aiming for are towards my future kids.... i probably will be too old by the time the impact affects me to matter
you make it sound as if you're in dire straits.
[b]Is your life not good now?
[/b]
And even if i did not plan kids..... should i really not bother just cause it does not affect me? -
http://www.straitstimes.com/Latest%2BNews/Singapore/STIStory_195182.html
Anyway, my original point on this topic stands. The article quoted by TS appears to be highly unreliable. One can hardly believe it happened at all. That's the main push of this debate.[/b]
http://singabloodypore.civiblog.org/blog/_archives/2006/4/18/1893566.html
(video)
I hate to disagree with you, deathbait, as I share most of your opinions with regards to the accomplishments and contributions of MM Lee. However, I have no doubt that both the incidents described did happen-- our directly-controlled ST has reported it, and there's a video link recording the interview with Ken Kwek. Of course, I won't deny that the article TS quotes has its own share of bias, just as the ST article is angled to show MM Lee as quick-witted and responsive.
The real issue of this debate is the value of press freedom against the value of what MM Lee has done for Singapore. As Maurizio13 posted, "S'poreans on press freedom: Don't have and don't care by Cherian George"-- why? Simply because most of us are living decently in Singapore, with or without "free media (to) throw up ideas and bring into sharp focus contrary views needed to propel Singapore into a level of cultural development equal to that of Italy and Austria"
Look at all of you on this forum page. You are well-educated, well-read and well-off enough to be here; to challenge the ways of the past-- the very foundations of the undoubtedly comfortable life you live now. Sure, venture out and reach for new targets for your future kids, but don't condemn the people who gave you your starting platform.
MM Lee's methods have worked for us, whether we like it or not. Singapore's performance in the past 30 years has been stellar. If your practices have helped you achieve so much, why would you break them and allow potential for disaster? Forgive an old man for believing in the "roots" he built for his "tree" by hand-- which, I repeat, has more than grown into a sturdy "trunk".
The traditions must be adapted to suit the evolving society, but you must question its values first. Look at the USA and its reputed Freedom of Speech-- where has it landed the Bush Regime? Fahrenheit 911. Political dissent over elections. Controversy theories and breakdown of trust. Freedom for the press must be a gradual process, especially in a nation like Singapore, where we rely on a grand total of 4.48million people and issues raised (which are almost always are answered) through the media or citizen journalism are faster spread amongst the public than amongst our leaders.
You yourself are being influenced by the needs of reporters; people who want the glamourous role of the Fourth Estate, people who feel suppressed by government limitations, people who are always ready for bigger, better, more stimulating and exciting news and so write such articles. But is Singapore (and not just the lot of you, who are undeniably better-educated than the average Singaporean- consider our ageing population) ready? Not now, but soon. The time will come for press freedom, and when it does we will have adapted. For now, we deal with all sorts of people in life, and MM Lee might not have been the politest of people in certain scenarios, but he was responding to people who tried to discount (and perhaps to him, even derail) his achievements.
Let press freedom take its course. -
If you will be so kind as to read my previous posts again, you will find that the part I'm having problem with is the first part of the article quoted by TS.Originally posted by hero/heroine:http://www.straitstimes.com/Latest%2BNews/Singapore/STIStory_195182.html
http://singabloodypore.civiblog.org/blog/_archives/2006/4/18/1893566.html
(video)
I hate to disagree with you, deathbait, as I share most of your opinions with regards to the accomplishments and contributions of MM Lee. However, I have no doubt that both the incidents described did happen-- our directly-controlled ST has reported it, and there's a video link recording the interview with Ken Kwek. Of course, I won't deny that the article TS quotes has its own share of bias, just as the ST article is angled to show MM Lee as quick-witted and responsive.
The real issue of this debate is the value of press freedom against the value of what MM Lee has done for Singapore. As Maurizio13 posted, "S'poreans on press freedom: Don't have and don't care by Cherian George"-- why? Simply because most of us are living decently in Singapore, with or without "free media (to) throw up ideas and bring into sharp focus contrary views needed to propel Singapore into a level of cultural development equal to that of Italy and Austria"
Look at all of you on this forum page. You are well-educated, well-read and well-off enough to be here; to challenge the ways of the past-- the very foundations of the undoubtedly comfortable life you live now. Sure, venture out and reach for new targets for your future kids, but don't condemn the people who gave you your starting platform.
MM Lee's methods have worked for us, whether we like it or not. Singapore's performance in the past 30 years has been stellar. If your practices have helped you achieve so much, why would you break them and allow potential for disaster? Forgive an old man for believing in the "roots" he built for his "tree" by hand-- which, I repeat, has more than grown into a sturdy "trunk".
The traditions must be adapted to suit the evolving society, but you must question its values first. Look at the USA and its reputed Freedom of Speech-- where has it landed the Bush Regime? Fahrenheit 911. Political dissent over elections. Controversy theories and breakdown of trust. Freedom for the press must be a gradual process, especially in a nation like Singapore, where we rely on a grand total of 4.48million people and issues raised (which are almost always are answered) through the media or citizen journalism are faster spread amongst the public than amongst our leaders.
You yourself are being influenced by the needs of reporters; people who want the glamourous role of the Fourth Estate, people who feel suppressed by government limitations, people who are always ready for bigger, better, more stimulating and exciting news and so write such articles. But is Singapore (and not just the lot of you, who are undeniably better-educated than the average Singaporean- consider our ageing population) ready? Not now, but soon. The time will come for press freedom, and when it does we will have adapted. For now, we deal with all sorts of people in life, and MM Lee might not have been the politest of people in certain scenarios, but he was responding to people who tried to discount (and perhaps to him, even derail) his achievements.
Let press freedom take its course.
Not only do I think our MM appeared to be answering directly to the question(from what I can gather from the article summary), I take offence that anyone would think I am so gullible that I would believe the quote taken from George Yeo was in context, if even accucate.
Of course, I now only have to read this thread to believe that my fellow singaporeans are indeed this gullible. Never have the adage "don't believe everything you read" been so apt.
That is the part I have problem with. That article was a smear campaign, nothing more. Adding a few semi-accurate facts does not redeem it as a decent impartial work of journalism. -
my dear .... it's always the dumb farks that are the rabble rousers .... it's always the dumb farks that create the trouble, everywhere ......Originally posted by genie99:I view "the dangers of reporting trash" via the media as a lame excuse to suppress freedom of speech. If trash was reported it is usual to see representatives of the govt flaming the perpetrator. And seriously Singaporeans are not dumb fooks to hear trash and just accept it are they?
We might as well be communists since we don't have freedom of speech... they operate the same way...... govt tell u to produce 10 children u produce 10 children ..... they want 10 eggs u lay 10 eggs
we must make a distinction between the different "flavours" of free speech ... the geo-political reality of Singapore shall always restrict us from total freedom of speech, things like race, religion etc shall always have to be caught and filtered out, even if 99% of us are smart enough to filter these thing out, all it takes is a few dumb farks to inflame things, and what of our neighbours ? ... those who ignore the reality of this, I think, is either one of the dumb farks themselves, or they have swallowed wholesale without thinking of the differences in different societies ...
as for "political" free speech, what do you think we are doing now ? .... I mean, we have threads like "LKY, when are you going to die " here, and I don't think anyone's gotten a knock at the front door in the middle of the night yet, right ? ....
actually, if you surf the forums here for a while longer, you'll notice that many of the forumers here behave like little hitlers here as well, obviously, free speech to them meant they are free to slander and call names and insinuate and berate and scold other forumers who disagree, many of them supposed to be "educated" as well, or so they claimed ... but it's okay, we all learn to filter out such noises ....
oh well ... I still don't agree with what the reporter has done ... she was deliberately out to get a reaction, nothing more ... -
Eh.. my thread wasn't directed at you. It was directed at some responses which were particularly rude or ignorant-- "he's a senile old man who really should shut up now ... instead of expending a life time of political capital like this", "How you champion the cause of the innocent LKY from the evil citizens. ", etc etc etc I'm sure you read itOriginally posted by deathbait:If you will be so kind as to read my previous posts again, you will find that the part I'm having problem with is the first part of the article quoted by TS.
Not only do I think our MM appeared to be answering directly to the question(from what I can gather from the article summary), I take offence that anyone would think I am so gullible that I would believe the quote taken from George Yeo was in context, if even accucate.
Of course, I now only have to read this thread to believe that my fellow singaporeans are indeed this gullible. Never have the adage "don't believe everything you read" been so apt.
That is the part I have problem with. That article was a smear campaign, nothing more. Adding a few semi-accurate facts does not redeem it as a decent impartial work of journalism.
I'm on your side, if you read it carefully. I merely stated I disagreed with your statement that it didn't happen. As to the supposed George Yeo's comment, I find that hard to believe as well. I just wanted to express that the other people on this site shouldn't just fight for press freedom and demean LKY without thinking. In any case I probably wasn't very concise, sorry. -
kinda agree with youOriginally posted by Fatum:he's a senile old man who really should shut up now ... instead of expending a life time of political capital like this .....
but the young lady was obviously out to get a reaction, obviously out to goad and prod with such rhetorical questions ........ she is not stupid, she knew such questions will generate a strong reaction from the old man, and I think was planning to embarrass and entrap the old codger in the first place ...... I don't think she was trying to achieve anything than to earn brownie points from her foreign press employer and make a "name" for herself ....
but hey ... she's a reporter after all ... they all bark for different people after all .... -
Originally posted by hero/heroine:
http://singabloodypore.civiblog.org/blog/_archives/2006/4/18/1893566.html
(video)
......just as the ST article is angled to show MM Lee as quick-witted and responsive.
[quote]
I do not feel that ST was being biased in the above clip.
[quote]
The real issue of this debate is the value of press freedom against the value of what MM Lee has done for Singapore. As Maurizio13 posted, "S'poreans on press freedom: Don't have and don't care by Cherian George"-- why? Simply because most of us are living decently in Singapore, with or without "free media (to) throw up ideas and bring into sharp focus contrary views needed to propel Singapore into a level of cultural development equal to that of Italy and Austria"
[quote]
The value of freedom of press should not be compared with the value of MM Lee has done for Singapore.... they are seperate issues .... and can coexist..... if not for the stifling of this freedom of press.
At 16.43 of that clip SM Lee states to the reporter "isn't it your job to say theres nothing to be afraid.... are you afraid" SM Lee is claiming the govt does not stifle freedom of press. Are we gonna assume then that its the press who stifles us? Refuse to report articles critical of the current govt for fear of retort? or meybe its us for scaring ourselves with assumptions of the PAP if we were to stand up and say yes i disagree with the PAP and the reasons why.
Wonder what SM Lee would say if we were to ask him if he felt this "one effective party" paliarment was beneficial to the nation.
Qn 2. Would he think that having parties of equal power bring about more transparency to issues through paliarment debates?
Qn3. Does he feel that bcos there is no effective opposition that the people trust in his judgement to "do as he feels right" and therefore reduce transparency as in Qn2?
If the answer to Qn 3 is yes ...... well we have effectively screwed ourselves....... no transparency? well you gave me overwhelming votes ..... therefore i assumed u trust in my judgement ..... no need to debate over it and have transparency -
i think u like sterile, straight face debates or exchanges of views. a little salt and pepper and u think it's too spicy for you...Originally posted by hero/heroine:Eh.. my thread wasn't directed at you. It was directed at some responses which were particularly rude or ignorant-- "he's a senile old man who really should shut up now ... instead of expending a life time of political capital like this", "How you champion the cause of the innocent LKY from the evil citizens. ", etc etc etc I'm sure you read it.
for as long as it is a `healthy' exchanges of view n not one liner shouting matches like other threads we read, we should go with the flow, even with below the belt jibes... -
The reporter should have shouted back at LKY
"Shut up lah stinky lao jiao brain. So old already still live in this world for what. Faster go to hell lah" -
How brainless.....Originally posted by iceball:The reporter should have shouted back at LKY
"Shut up lah stinky lao jiao brain. So old already still live in this world for what. Faster go to hell lah"
Like you dare like that if she was you. -
I laughed hard at thatOriginally posted by Fatum:my dear .... it's always the dumb farks that are the rabble rousers .... it's always the dumb farks that create the trouble, everywhere ......
First off am i right to assume that you agree with freedom of speech and that it is because of the geo-political reality of Singapore that restricts us from it?
we must make a distinction between the different "flavours" of free speech ... the geo-political reality of Singapore shall always restrict us from total freedom of speech, things like race, religion etc shall always have to be caught and filtered out, even if 99% of us are smart enough to filter these thing out, all it takes is a few dumb farks to inflame things, and what of our neighbours ? ... those who ignore the reality of this, I think, is either one of the dumb farks themselves, or they have swallowed wholesale without thinking of the differences in different societies ...
I'll assume it is, and assuming that we have a big majority of dumb fooks
Do u think that the ruling party would not call for a press meeting to voice their views on the situation? I am drawing comparisons with melbourne atm. Both multi racial countries..... there are some who view australia to have more racism than singapore....do we have freedom of speech? we do........ do we have issues of racism brought up by certain religious extremist groups? we do..... a recent incident was by Sheikh Taj El Din Al Hilali who suggested that Australian women immodestly dressed are inviting rape. Did the then govt speak up in the national paper? They did. A poll was then called for and the public didn't buy Sheikh watevers story.... while it is farnee.... i seriously dont think that the people in singapore .... 1st world nation ..... heaps of degrees and poly.. and ITE all educated... would be any different.... would you? Please do share your view -
Dear Genie99.Originally posted by genie99:Interesting point..... and do you think that the masses are getting adequate wages to view "cultivational experiences" as a priority ?
I believe people prioritize according to responsibilities and consequences of not fulfilling these. When compared to the responsibility of acquiring an adequate wage to provide for their families, most if not all will sacrifice cultivational experiences.
Edited for brevity. -
Free presses will still be censored by the editor.
Free presses will still have political affliations and report news biased towards that.
Free presses will still have business affliliations and report news biased towards that.
Free presses will still be limited by access to newsworthy items.
Free presses will still be limited by the amount of reseach materials or librarys they can access.
There really is no such thing as a free press in the real world.
The truely free presses exist only here on the internet in these forums and blogs and it's only here that you will see such a uncontrolled proliferation and range of views.
Here on the internet you can do what you can't do with a newspaper. You can copy and paste a range of articles on the same subject. You can discuss with the Original Poster. You can publish your own responses. You can find links to other relevant background information. Or publish links that you think will give readers a deeper understanding.
Citzens have access to the internet. Fewer Citizens will place a value on a free press as more become computer savy. -
we are different, we are small, tiny infact, a single inflammatory act will have widespread repercussions ... let's see it in another way, some dumb farks chinese beng goes around spouting anti muslim stuff .... or some militant evangalist declares a second crusade ... and the press, foreign or otherwise, picks up on it, while I think the majority of our muslim compatriots are smart enough to filter out rubbish, I cannot imagine the same for our neighbours ... it's as simple as that.Originally posted by genie99:First off am i right to assume that you agree with freedom of speech and that it is because of the geo-political reality of Singapore that restricts us from it?
I'll assume it is, and assuming that we have a big majority of dumb fooks
Do u think that the ruling party would not call for a press meeting to voice their views on the situation? I am drawing comparisons with melbourne atm. Both multi racial countries..... there are some who view australia to have more racism than singapore....do we have freedom of speech? we do........ do we have issues of racism brought up by certain religious extremist groups? we do..... a recent incident was by Sheikh Taj El Din Al Hilali who suggested that Australian women immodestly dressed are inviting rape. Did the then govt speak up in the national paper? They did. A poll was then called for and the public didn't buy Sheikh watevers story.... while it is farnee.... i seriously dont think that the people in singapore .... 1st world nation ..... heaps of degrees and poly.. and ITE all educated... would be any different.... would you? Please do share your view
Anyways, I've made the distinction between "political" freedom of speech and absolute freedom of speech, like I pointed out, there are already "LKY, when are you going to die" threads in this forum ... and I don't think the chap's dragged away in the middle of the night already .... I guess we are all smart enough to filter that out ... most of us at least ... judging from some of posters here, I doubt that, and it is these people that I'd call the rabble rousers .... freedom of speech comes with responsibilities, some societies can tolerate a certain degree of leeway, we can't ... it is just something we have to accept.
Do I agree with using this as an excuse to suppress political dissent, I don't, infact, having lived, studied and worked in a very liberal western country myself, I think that if the ruling party just let loose on that score and be more tolerant of the antics of some of our more colourful opposition figures, it'll be more effective in neutralizing them as political opponents, they'll become part of the background, political gadflies, of no consequences, nothing more ... they are able to have something of a following now, even if its more foreign than domestic, precisely because the things that they do, (hunger strikes anyone ? ) make for good soundbites for the foreign press, and it's a novelty for some bright young undergraduate rebels looking for a cool cause ... if the goverment just let go ... trust me, after the 10th 5 man protest or hunger strike, no one would even bother picking up on it ... -
It is.Originally posted by deathbait:it's not spoonfeeding when your source is called into question and further proof is required.
What, suddenly can't recall the event now that I called the bluff?
His public appearences are not filed away in a red file marked Secret. -
Hmm.. you're right maybe I do prefer sterile debates. It's always seemed a more sophisticated way to communicate. Will have to adjust that, especially since this is a free network. Thanks (:Originally posted by weiqimun:i think u like sterile, straight face debates or exchanges of views. a little salt and pepper and u think it's too spicy for you...
for as long as it is a `healthy' exchanges of view n not one liner shouting matches like other threads we read, we should go with the flow, even with below the belt jibes...
Although I do have to say that I really didn't like the use of the word 'senile' in the quote I picked out-- it's too cliche and inappropriate. MM Lee is one octogenarian who's still pretty mentally alert; the word dismisses this.
Maybe that's because ST didn't make the clip? I did state the ST article.Originally posted by genie99:I do not feel that ST was being biased in the above clip.
Anyhoo, I'm a little lazy to reply you at this hour but I shall to be polite. You seem like the kind of person who nitpicks at one sentence and ignores the context-- I simply cannot let you go ahead and misinterpret what I've written.
Firstly, I wrote what the "real issue of this debate" was. This was a conclusion I drew out based on thread responses-- everyone here seems to have chosen either side, Thrash MM Lee's Contributions and Decisions alongside Need for Free Press or Defend MM Lee. As a personal opinion, I have asked that we respect what the old man has done for us, and to see his reasoning behind the assumed stifling the press. I never stated that it was right or wrong, I merely pointed out that you're missing the positive side to it in your valiant fight for what will come with its own troubles.
And honestly, about you insisting that he denies the stifling, what do you want him to do on national tv? Go on stage and state proudly "Yes, we deny free press", then get a whole slew of new criticisms worldwide? Which would probably wind up in media dissent in Singapore? Politics isn't just what you do; it's how you put it across.
Also, your choice of the word "Transparency". Please forgive me, Singapore is rated #4 worldwide on Transparency International's Least Corrupt Public Sectors. What do you think sparked off the $3million minister fee hoo-ha? Oh no, it can't be transparency.
Which brings me back to my original point-- whatever level of press freedom Singapore's media is enjoying now seems to have been effective, whatever is to come will come as we gear together for it as a nation, not groups with segmented opinions. So cut the MM some slack, he has his own beliefs and ideas for the good of Singapore, just as we trust in other measures. I can already see people flaming this statement-- before you do, look at the life you live and then begin whining.
Maybe I should just write short, concise statements from now on and spare myself the agony of having to explain my intentions :/
