On Monday (1 April), Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam delivered his ministerial statement on hate speech in Parliament where he talked about a variety of issues including the last minute cancellation of the Swedish metal band Watain’s concert.

In his statement, he quoted a number of individuals while presenting his arguments, including former Straits Times editor and author Bertha Henson.

However, Ms Henson said that she was wrongly attributed by Mr Shanmugam in his statement on two different instances.

Mentioning this error in her blog Bertha Harian, the former editor said that as an individual who reads everything carefully – including the footnotes – she made sure she went through the Minister’s statement “with a fine tooth comb” before spotting his wrong attributions.

It seemed that in Mr Shanmugam’s statement, he quoted the former editor based on an article that she published in her blog on 13 March titled “Watain: Do Unto Others?”, which was also re-produced in Yahoo News.

She spotted the first error when her article was made as a reference when Mr Shanmugam highlighted that he recognises that some Singaporeans disagree with the Government’s decision to stop Watain from performing in Singapore.

The Minister said,

For example, Ms Chew Wei Shan, a former teacher, has set out her views articulately in a post. There were also others. They say the Government is “self-righteously” trying to govern other people’s lives and decisions. They say the audience can listen to metal music without being influenced by a band’s beliefs. NCCS and churches can advise their members not to go to the concert, so no need for a ban.

Ms Henson said that the footnote for this paragraph was her article, and although her blog name was wrongly mentioned, she said she couldn’t find anywhere in her article that said that the Government was being “self-righteous” about the band.

However, the reference that got her really annoyed was this particular paragraph that Mr Shanmugam said:

Now, some commentators online have also made dark suggestions of a Christian conspiracy. “They have a hold on the Government, the Government bows to their power, and there is an over-representation of Christians in institutions of power”. They tried to turn it into a “Christians versus Others” debate. These people are nasty, opportunistic, and dangerous. 

As someone who dislikes being called nasty things, she said she scrutinised her blog post to see if she had at all made any “dark suggestions of a Christian conspiracy”. However, the closest that she could find is only this particular paragraph:

Online, the reaction is mainly negative. The prevailing view is that the G had succumbed to hysterical moral panic from conservative Christians. The band, after all, would be playing to a small crowd of 150 people, aged 18 and above, and it had agreed to strictures set by the IMDA. You can be sure the lyrics would have been sanitised to be inoffensive and the performance would be sans carcasses and blood.

Although she said she might be wrong to report the prevailing view, but she don’t think she should be described as “nasty, opportunistic and dangerous”.

“I am not someone who takes such comments lying down, even if they are opinions. Opinions must be based on the facts or an ordinary man’s reading of the article in question,” she wrote.

As such, she questioned Mr Shanmugam on why was there a reference of her in his statement.

After looking through at his speech, the Minister admitted his mistake and apologised to her, and said that none of his comments were intended to refer to her.

He explained to her and said, “It was an error to have referred to me. He had originally, in his speech had referred to something I had said in my blog, and responded to it. But then in the final speech, he decided that it was not necessary to do so. He thus took out his response to me from the text of the speech. But the footnote referring to me was (erroneously) not taken out. So I was unfortunately lumped with others whom he specifically responded to.”

After hearing Mr Shanmugam’s apology, the author and former editor said she wants this post “to be shared liberally to clarify the matter”.

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

The Satirist Says: Ris ‘da boomz’ Low to be questioned

Singapore, 1 September 2010 – It is widely expected that Ris Low…

警方:未有证据显示 选举官员涉左右老选民投票

本届大选投票日期间,有选民在脸书发文指责,年迈母亲去投票时,监选员涉嫌教唆母亲,该把票投给人民行动党。 选举局当天也发声明,称这是严重指控,监选员只能在投票站特定区域,监督投票过程,但不能协助选民投票。虽然较后贴文撤下,惟当事者也在选举日当天,向警方和选举局投票。 根据英语媒体《新报》报导,时隔近两个月警方回应此事,警方向当事者和其年迈母亲,以及当时在相关投票站当值的选举官员、监选员等录口供。 调查则显示,选民所指的“教唆者”,实则是选举官员,当时上述年迈选民寻求协助,而选举官员则用淡米尔语解释投票过程,包括打开选票,放在投票亭的表面上方,如何使用投票笔,点选属意候选人的空格中。 但警方发言人强调,有关官员未有告诉选民,该投给哪个政党。惟这位80岁老妇,听到两次这位官员用淡米尔语告知她“放在上面”,但没有听到对方清楚提及,要投给哪个政党。 报导指陪同老妇去投票的女儿,告知警方可能老妇和有关官员之间产生沟通误会,当时也是老妇第一次投票而感到紧张。 警方称,未有其他官员或监选员目击或听到,上述选举官员涉嫌影响选民,也没有其他针对该名官员的投诉。 在咨询总检察署后,警方表示不会采取进一步行动。