by Elliot Aruldoss/


The question isn’t really if Dr Chee Soon Juan is Singapore Democratic Party’s (SDP) ‘loose cannon’ but whether Melvin Singh and Bryna Sim are ‘TNP’s’ biggest ‘loose cannon(s)’ of all!

Yesterday, 1 May 2011, The New Paper, boldly and seemingly objectively published an article, titled ‘Is he SDP’s loose cannon’. Two self-professed reporters, Melvin Singh and Bryna Sim, co-wrote the article, adding in personal sentiments and views on the proceedings of the event at Yuhua Stadium, (Friday) 27 April 2011.

Well folks, this article gave readers the impression that there are cracks forming in SDP’s otherwise well-fortified concrete structure, that is, their diversity of strong-willed and well accredited individuals and candidates. The article wrote that, at the rally, “a group surged forward and it appeared that he was about to lead the group in a march before other party members intervened to stop it’. This was written, referring to Dr Chee Soon Juan, who was stopped by local authorities many a time, in the past, accusing him of trying to lead a procession. This popular portrayal of our dear ‘infamous’ Dr Chee-the rebel, is among the many colourful tactics employed by the mainstream media institutions in Sunny Singapore. Indeed, because of articles like this, public perception of Dr Chee is heavily, negatively influenced.

There are also many facts presented to us in this article that are questionable, besides the lovely spelling of Dr Chee Soon(N) Juan in the byline. For instance, how could the members and speakers of the SDP gather or “huddle behind the rally stage” before the last speaker could get the chance to speak. Reported in this article, was the fact that the alleged march occurred right after Ms Teo Soh Lung’s speech. It is crucial to note that Ms Teo was the 9th spealer, not the last one. Food for thought, Melvin.

Also, what were the sources for this article? It was written that candidates such as Dr Ang Yong Guan made comments about issues within the party. Melvin and Bryna wrote that: ”Dr Ang Yong Guan, earlier told the Straits Times that he is against illegal protests, the kind that SDP under Dr Chee had become synonymous with. But I want to deal with it within the party first. See how far we can go and seek consensus. If they dont listen I may have to consider leaving.” Firstly, this quote was taken ‘earlier’ and not at the rally itself on that day. It was taken out of context and forcefully supplanted and utilized in this article for the sake of substantiating and reinforcing a personal opinion or view. Clearly, the writers of this article had an intention to discredit Dr Chee Soon Juan. Such practice is dangerous and unprofessional with questionable purposes behind it.

When approached to comment on this piece of ‘gutter journalism’, Mr Melvin Singh explained: “It was the candidates who alerted me. One of them is still working with us on a photo-shoot.” I am sure Mr Melvin can come out with a better justification as to why SDP’s own candidates relish the idea of turning their own people in. Above all, it is important to note that all of us should participate in a photo-shoot. That would surely lend us the strength to shoot our own people down.

Do not be mistaken. We are not attacking the baseless, one-sided and un-objective view presented to us by Mr Melvin Singh. What we are more concerned about is the sad state of mainstream media, which had no problems both approving and publishing such an ‘article’. This reflection of mainstream media begs the question if there are hidden agendas being published and whether the mass media is an tool for ‘somebody’s’ propaganda. Would Mr Singh or Ms Sim write an article in the same manner about Singapore’s ruling Party; the People’s Action Party, the PAP, bearing in mind this article would reach thousands of confused Singapore citizens?

Gents, I conclude this commentary with this. It may not help at all when I say that we have interviewed Dr Chee and have discovered that he is not, in fact, a terrorist, a suicide bomber, nor a dangerous criminal mastermind but a normal, average Singaporean working to voice common-folk. However, I say Singaporeans need to be careful in their selection of informative media, especially with, seemingly harmless articles, such as the one written by Melvin and Bryna, flying all around. Such views are often shrouded under the cover of obvious fact or masquerade as a piece of information with a slight twist of orange.

Related article: https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2011/05/wah-lau-tnp-buay-pai-seh-ah/

 

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

林学芬代表律师团呈21页辩词 撼总检署500页投诉

李显扬妻子林学芬的律师代表团队,针对总检察署投诉林学芬“行为失当”的指控,已提呈21页的辩词。 今年初,总检察署针对李显扬妻子林学芬,为建国总理李光耀准备遗嘱一事,向新加坡律师公会提呈逾500页的投诉信。 总理弟弟李显扬是于今日在脸书更新有关诉讼的进展。他指出总检察署的投诉,也重复了过去李显龙在“神秘的部长委员会”作出的指控。 他不忘揶揄,如果总理李显龙对父亲遗嘱有意见,当年何不与父亲及弟妹们坐下来讨论,更何况他那时身旁有私人律师黄鲁胜(现任总检察长),这么久以来都没有提出投诉。 总检察署指林学芬作为专业律师,在为李光耀准备遗嘱一事,有失职之嫌的表面证据,表面触犯法律专业(专业行为规章)第25节条文和第46节条文。 准则列明律师应该避免陷入利益冲突中。 当局认为,林学芬在李光耀最后一份遗嘱,以李显扬作为受益人的情况下准备遗嘱,并安排李光耀执行,而李显扬获得的份额有增加。 同时,总检察署解释,把林学芬可能专业行为失当的个案提呈律师公会,与当局处理其他类似事件的做法一致。 但此前李显扬已回应,其妻子从未担任李光耀的律师,父亲的遗嘱在五年前就已执行。当父亲完成遗嘱后,告知全家和他的律师,遗嘱由李&李律师事务所保管。 而早在本周一(8日),李显扬也宣布前总检察长温长明教授,已同意代表其妻子林学芬进行辩护。 过去,李显扬曾抨击指部长委员会“即不透明也不恰当”,也称李显龙企图以委员会绕过司法制度。他也人物李显龙通过其阁僚组成的委员会,处理他对“私人家事”的不满。 “这(委员会)没经过司法程序的秘密攻击,旨在削弱我们父亲最后一份遗嘱,及他毫不动摇的遗愿。”

受贸易战重创 人民币兑换率创七年来新低

中美贸易紧张局势没有任何减弱的迹象,受此影响,人民币对新元的兑换率在今天(9月4日)创下七年来新低,下跌至5.1677人民币兑换1新元。 这已经刷新了2012年9月13日,人民币兑换率达到5.1701以来的最低点。 美国总统特朗普于周二(9月3日)发出警告,若拖延贸易谈判,将会在对北京采取“更加强硬的手段”。特朗普在推特上指出,中国的谈判代表可能会争取更好的协议,以让他能够在明年的总统选举中获选。 长达一年的贸易战在8月份的情况大幅恶化后,两国谈判将在本月展开,惟据《彭博社》周二报道,有关谈判或许步履瞒珊。 据新闻社报道,自美国拒绝中国要求延缓实施最新一轮关税增加后,官员们都难以安排会面时间。 中国首席谈判代表,刘鹤副总理于周二表示,中国希望能和美国共同寻求共识。 据一名中国银行驻上海的交易员指出,若谈判进展顺利,人民币将会回升,否则将会下跌,一切取决于谈判了。

Give us better statistics on employment

There is a lot of fuzziness in the statistics released by government agencies, say speakers at Hong Lim Park event. Jewel Philemon.

行动不便司机遇交通事故引网民热议

近日,网上流传一段视频,视频内显示一名行动不便的老人在加油站,拄着拐杖步履瞒珊走向不远处的计程车。随后,被目睹在公路上发生车祸。消息曝光后引发网友热议。 根据脸书网友Sarah Leong 于昨日发表一段视频以及两张车祸现场照片。据悉,视频内容是在拍摄一名行动不便的老人正在加油站,走向不远处的计程车。而当时网友心想,计程车司机为何并未为老人着想,将车子开向老人或下车扶老人一把。后来才得知,原来计程车司机正是老人本身。 帖文也表示,该辆计程车随后就遇上车祸,但对于车祸详细内容并未多作说明。 网友也针对类似事件说明,为何一名行动不便的人仍持有计程车司机证照,这样的行为不仅是危害个人生命危险,也可能危害公共道路上其他人的生命安全。 消息曝光后,也引来其他网民热烈转发与留言,目前已有562次的转发,他们纷纷对我国老年司机现象进行热烈讨论: 网友Kenneth Chan : 他如果有其他选择也不会成为计程车司机,计程车公司并不管,这很明显是一种潜在剥削,高额租金利率无疑形成同侪之间的高压情况,尤其是60-70岁的老人。而计程车司机的退休年龄已提高至75岁以上。显然,这个制度非常僵化,更不可能提供福利和补助。 网友Suze…