SDP response to Today article
------------------------------------------------------------
The press does it again31 July 2003http://www.singaporedemocrat.org/news_display.php?id=313The TODAY newspaper, one of the few local newspapers who even bothered to show up to cover the International Youth Conference for Democracy that was held recently, ran a report that gave prominence to the remarks of one of the participants who was critical of Dr Chee Soon Juan.
Ms Lee Ching Wern, the reporter for TODAY, dedicated much of her story to Ms Chua Ruo Mei’s comments which included a remark about Dr Chee’s questioning of the Singapore government about the Indonesian loan during the 2001 elections: “Dr Chee, after what you did in the last elections, I was not impressed. You did not get your facts right. The US$10 billion was a loan to Indonesia and not a gift. If there is nothing to fight for in Singapore, you cannot accuse young Singaporeans of being apathetic.”
Did this comment take up much of the conference proceedings? Were there similar criticisms from other participants? Or were comments overwhelmingly supportive of the SDP and critical of the PAP? If they were, why was Ms Lee Ching WernÂ’s report so skewed? Did she misrepresent what had taken place during conference?
In order to answer these questions - we had had recorded the entire conference - we provide below the gist of all the comments made by other participants during the course of the day so that readers can judge for themselves.
Comments from members of the audience:Lawyer and former opposition candidate Mr Maurice Neo observed: “I am surprised and concerned that in this region, there is nothing said about parliaments being an elitist club, a refuge for the bourgeois. This issue has been addressed in India but not here.”
Following Ms Chua Ruon Mei’s intervention, a young lawyer counter her: “I am a lawyer and lawyers defend rights of the people. Yet my fellow lawyer friends discouraged me from attending this forum, citing that the ISD would be following me and that they might start to avoid me if I attended this forum.”
Mr Ling How Doong then followed up: “I think it is very unbecoming of the young lady to launch a personal attack on Dr Chee. The case have not been settled in the court of law, so it is improper for her to cast her own judgment of the case.”
Another member of the audience then stood up to give a stinging rebuke of Mr Lee Kuan Yew, which we will not reproduce here for legal reasons.
A junior college student lamented about the state of the local media and that given the fact that the present conference was the first of its kind in Singapore, the publicity given by the press was shocking. He asked Dr Chee how young people could contribute to widen the publicity in future events.
Dr Tan Chong Kee of The Necessary Stage then got up to ask, following the presentation of Hong Kong Legislative Council member Andrew Cheng, how the Hong Kong people could gather in such numbers to stage a peaceful demonstration to make their anger and dissatisfaction heard, as opposed to Singaporeans just grumbling in coffeeshops.
Another commentator remarked: “In Singapore, we have the ISD. Twice it was used to suppress the opposition when they tried to stage public protests. Once in 1963 and another time in 1986.”
Another jumped in: “I am happy to attend this gathering of considerably more than 5 people. Human rights are inalienable and democracy is a process that protects human rights. Open discussion amongst student groups is less tolerated here than elsewhere in the world.”
“Here in Singapore, although the government is fully elected, everyone knows that this is not a democracy,” yet another participant chimed in. “But Singapore has been a trading partner of Europe and US for years. It is not true that we do not talk of democracy here. You can go to the US Embassy and still be locked up or made bankrupt. The only other option is to migrate which, which is what we are doing, at 3% a year.”
A young man offered: “Singaporeans are generally not concerned about democracy. All they want is a good education, good career, good health care, good car, good house and good lover.”
During the session on Asian values, an elderly participant gave us this insight: “European and Asian values are different altogether. Here we depend on ourselves for survival. The biggest person we distrust is ourselves. If we can control ourselves, then can we practice democracy. What is right for ourselves maybe wrong for others. If we can accept that, then we can have democracy.”
“First, can we afford democracy?” a junior college student asked. “Singapore has a GDP per capita income of US$20,000. Yes, I think we can afford democracy. I think democracy is universal and is not necessarily exempt from Asian values. To arbitrarily imprison a political opponent is wrong across the globe.”
He observed: “There is no such thing as a soft dictatorship. I see nothing soft about Marco's dictatorial regime, I see nothing soft about Suharto's dictatorial regime, I see nothing soft about SPDC [Burma's State Peace and Development Council], I see nothing soft about Lee Kuan Yew.”
A Swedish delegate joined in the Asian values debate: “There is nothing Asian about Asian values. We have the same values at home and we call them Family values.”
On the point that Singaporeans are more interested in bread-and-butter issues rather than ideals such as democracy, a participant had this to say: “Yes, you cannot eat democracy. You cannot take an abstract concept and assimilate it in our bodies. But in this age of globalisation, the cutting edge of any modern economy is creative thinking and independent thought processes. Even the PAP recognises that. But you cannot have creative thinking and independent thought processes by having a bunch of scholars in select committees conducting feasibility studies. Democracy is the most fertile ground for creative thinking and independent thought processes. True, you cannot eat democracy but democracy is going to feed you.
Another comment addressed Mr Tong Kim Chuan’s (Parti Gerakan, Malaysia) presentation: “[Mr Tong] suggested that the opposition here should work with the ruling regime to get around suppression. This cannot work in Singapore because we have a partisan press and media controlled by the government.” On another note the participant added that he was saddened to see young Swedish politicians speaking so eloquently while young Singaporeans were not free to do the same.
Towards the end of the day’s events, someone stood up and encouraged opposition parties to share their resources: “I would like to see opposition parties organise more workshops and seminars. I would also like the people to petition for independent political newspapers so we can hear alternative voices.”
Pathetic reportingThere were at least fifteen comments that were supportive of the democracy and critical of the PAP’s repressive habits. Fifteen to one – yet Ms Lee Ching Wern of TODAY chose to give prominence to that one comment. We append Ms Lee’s report so that readers can judge for themselves (see below)
[Note: I've left the report out since its been posted above]. This is not journalism, it is pathetic.
Then there is the broadcast media. There was complete and utter silence.
The overwhelming majority of Singaporeans would have read the goings-on of the conference through the eyes and ears of Ms Lee. The Straits Times' Ahmad Osman didn't even show up until just a few minutes before the conference ended. With such reporting, can anything the Singapore Democrats do ever be right in the minds of Singaporeans?