2econdsight

"to rescue truth from beauty and meaning from belief"

SG Press Freedom of Speech: 3 Sides To The Story

1 Comment

As the saying goes, there are 3 sides to every story – yours, mine and the truth.

Even though blood is thicker than water and Dr Lee Wei Ling is the only daughter of Mrs & Mrs LKY, she is no card-carrying member of the PAP. On the latter fact alone, I grant that her current run-in with SPH and the Chief of Government Communications (CGC) about not being allowed ‘freedom of speech’ is for no other reason(s) than what she had stated i.e. to have it told publicly, without censorship, her belief that LKY would have disapproved of the cult-like First Anniversary Remembrance activities of his death – and the prominence given in ST’s reporting.

Well, the ongoing toing-and-froing of he-said-we-said-she-said amongst the CGC, ST editors and Dr Lee will not settle the issue in any way whatsoever. More than a week has passed. There are other players behind the scene with other hidden agenda (or sagely advice) coming into play. The more people there will be as the days go by i.e. provided it is not stopped dead in its tracks by a higher ‘unseen hand’.

By settle the issue, I mean whether it was editing or censorship and, hence, the lack or absence of ‘freedom of speech’ that the ST appears set on defending that it exists.

 

(*This paragraph is an update to the original post dd 5 April.)

*As at 8pm, 6 April, Dr Lee has since clarified and posted in her FB the entire section that “my SPH editor considered irrelevant. I felt this information puts Papa’s one year commemoration in the context of what other countries do.” This is all very well. But not quite enough. To make a correctly-informed judgment, Singaporeans need to have full picture of what actually transpired. Readers need to have her original submission and the 3 editors’ “edited/censored version”. Dr Lee, please have the 2 versions – unabridged, ‘unedited’ posted in your FB. That is all that is needed to ‘settle the issue’ by the court of us Singaporeans.*

Dr Lee, I’m sure you will do right by your father to publish for all to see the ‘edited’ (or censored) version that was unanimously demanded by not one but all three (?) ST editors. That way, we Singaporeans all, can judge for ourselves the three sides of this story. You will be carrying on the tradition of what you said of your pa, ‘If your statement is a fact, fine.’ So, do give us all Singaporeans this opportunity to show, yet again, ‘our self-confidence and gained the respect of other countries’ that we, indeed, are a matured people able to judge all sides of a story.

For now, we only have yours in the sequence and portions as you chose to share with us…and, that, in a sense, is censorship.

Over to you, Dr Lee.

Advertisements

One thought on “SG Press Freedom of Speech: 3 Sides To The Story

  1. your request: thankee.
    as is, LWL has already omitted the fact that she wanted her piece unedited,
    according to the ST. ie, even some rephrasing, conciseness, cannot wan.
    and that her piece went thru a week of to-ing and fro-ing betw her and ST.

    so yes, it would be good to see how her piece had been edited/censored.

    as is, its quite unbelieveable that, even as she claims to know her father well,
    she also believes that he allowed freedom of speech, if what’s stated are facts.
    there’s also the little matter of who determines what facts are errr facts.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s