The Straits Times Forum published a letter by a certain Mr Syu Ying Kwok today, 8 July. The letter was titled, “Five years? MM Lee’s estimate was optimistic.

In his letter, Syu gave his thoughts on MM Lee Kuan Yew’s earlier remarks about how it would take only five years for Singapore to be “unscrambled” should the opposition come into power.

There is nothing unusual about Syu’s letter – until this part where he made reference to Mr Tan Lead Shake’s “tragic event in his family”:

Recently, opposition politician Tan Lead Shake made headlines after a tragic event in his family. But what chills the bones is the fact that in the past three elections, an average of more than 20 per cent of the electorate voted for him or anyone else who stood for election with little consideration of his credentials or abilities.

We fail to see how the two are linked or can be linked – a personal tragedy in the family and the electorate voting for him. It is a cheap shot at a person whose family tragedy is used here to question the number or percentage of voters who voted for him in the elections. The words used in the letter speak for themselves – “chills the bones”, it says.

It is totally appalling and vile that such a letter could be published in a national newspaper which prides itself on integrity and respectability. Did the editors of the Straits Times Forum not go through the letter? By what criteria did they pass it for publication – with the above parts intact?

Where is the responsibility and common decency? How is it that a letter such as Syu’s, making tenuous connections between what is undoubtedly a very sorrowful time for the Tan family, and particularly Tan Lead Shake, and Tan’s participation in three general elections?

What is the purpose?

While we condemn Syu for the stupidity of his letter, our anger is directed at the editors of the Forum Page.

We call on the editors of the Straits Times, especially the editors of the Straits Times Forum, to issue an apology to Tan Lead Shake, and also to all its readers and subscribers.

As for Syu himself, we would like to ask him: Please show us or tell us the link between the two issues of Tan’s personal family tragedy and his participation in elections.

We would also like to urge all our readers, fellow bloggers and Singaporeans to write in to the ST Forum’s editors and express your disgust for allowing such a letter to be published.

You can send your letters to: [email protected]

You can post your letters sent to the Straits Times in the comments section for this article.

————————–

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

退休银行家敢敢揭发! “业界都知某些银行排挤新加坡专才”

前日《海峡时报》报导,本地数家银行宣称,他们有强大的本地人核心雇员团队,也培育本地人才的渠道。 不过一位退休银行家可不这么认为。他在《海峡时报》论坛发文,指出过去20年,不少在新加坡金融领域的外籍人士,担任中高级管理职位。 “一旦被雇用,这些外籍职员很容易就能在短时间内拿到永久居民。故此,分析本地雇员比例,把新加坡公民和永久居民相提并论是令人混肴的。” 早前,渣打银行声称其新加坡籍员工占了七成;星展银行称,银行1万2千人的雇员中,90巴仙以上都是新加坡人和永久居民。 瑞银(UBS)声称,她3千员工中,75巴仙都是本地人或永久居民。 这位退休银行家 Raymond Koh Bock Swi,坦言在疫情冲击下的经济,失去待遇优渥的PMET工作,对国人是棘手的问题。 他也建议,银行应向金融管理局和人力部,揭露新加坡籍雇员,与永久居民和其他外籍人士的比例多少,有多少新加坡人担任高管也要披露。 再者,也要规定雇用一定比例的本地雇员,例如新加坡银行应雇用九成,而非新加坡银行雇佣85巴仙等。若因特殊原因雇员比例有不同,也应有合理的理由和获得政府机构批准。…

Ho Ching’s brother was Non-Executive Chairman of New Silkroutes Group whose ex-CEO, Goh’s son, assisting in CAD investigation

It was earlier reported that the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD) has already…

Virus mitigation measures suggested by medical practitioners implemented two months later

On 10 February, four medical practitioners in Singapore came together to sign…