Kee Chiu ADMIT THAT STATE-CONTROLLED MEDIA CENSORS OPPOSITION VOICES
[h=1]DID CHAN CHUN SING ADMIT THAT STATE-CONTROLLED MEDIA CENSORS OPPOSITION VOICES?[/h]
Post date:
16 Jan 2015 - 1:37pm
Did Social and Family Development Minister Chan Chun Sing admit that state-controlled media censors opposition voices?
Yesterday, Mr Chan wrote a response to the Huffington Post to criticise them for carrying two commentary pieces written by Singapore Democratic Party's Secretary-General Chee Soon.
Mr Chan also attacked Dr Chee.
"Dr Chee, however, claims he is forced to publish in the foreign media because he has been silenced in the Singapore media," Mr Chan alleged.
"But this is false," Mr Chan continued to insist.
"There are several socio-political websites in Singapore, some with as wide a reach among Singaporeans as the Huffington Post has among Americans. They have run several articles by Dr Chee. The local press also has carried several of Dr Chee’s letters."
However, the truth was that in November, when Dr Chee's article, 'A new vision for Singapore', was published in the Wall Street Journal, The Straits Times did not want to carry it.
"For the record, I offered the piece to The Straits Times, but it was not accepted," Dr Chee had said.
"What I have not made public so far is the fact that I had offered the piece to the Straits Times first. I sent it to the newspaper’s political editors on 13 November 2014 and sent a reminder on 19 November and to enquire if the ST would use it.
"I did not receive a response. It was only then that I offered the piece to the WSJ.
Instead, the government, through its consul-general Jacky Foo in Hong Kong, called Dr Chee "dishonest" and "without a sense of reality".
Mr Chan also said, "As (Dr Chee) has done in the past, he has looked to the foreign media for redemption, chiefly because foreign journalists don’t know him as well as Singaporeans and he believes he can beguile them into believing he is the Aung San Suu Kyi of Singapore politics."
However, Dr Chee had said: "The truth of the matter is that I have always wanted to discuss issues of national importance with my fellow Singaporeans and the most effective way to do this is in the Singaporean media. But it has always been the heavy hand of state censorship that has prevented this.
"If the Government says that my op-ed panders to the Western media, is it not admitting that the piece is unpalatable to the local media?" Dr Chee asked.
Indeed, Mr Chan said that there are "several socio-political websites in Singapore" which would "run several articles by Dr Chee".
It is noteworthy that this also means that Mr Chan acknowledges that state-controlled media has not wanted to run these articles by Dr Chee. Instead, they were only willing (or allowed) to carry his "letters" after state-controlled media was caught practicing censorship against Dr Chee.
Mr Chan also said that the socio-political websites in Singapore which were willing to run the articles by Dr Chee have "as wide a reach among Singaporeans as the Huffington Post has among Americans".
Indeed, Huffington Post is ranked one of the top 100 websites in America. In comparison, The Real Singapore is also ranked the top 100 websites in Singapore, and TR Emeritus and The Online Citizen are also ranked as the top 500.
Clearly, Mr Chan acknowledges that it is the socio-political websites in Singapore such as The Real Singapore, TR Emeritus and The Online Citizen which have allowed Dr Chee and the opposition to have a fair voice.
But it is the state-controlled media which have instead silenced him and the other opposition parties and have prevented them from being heard.
In fact, Mr Chan's latest response to the Huffington Post was carried in all state-controlled media but it does not look like it will be published on the Huffington Post. One can only wonder if the government has once again used state-controlled media to launch a character attack on Dr Chee again.
