Senior Counsel Mr Philip Jeyaretnam had written to the Straits Times Forum to clarify a mis-reporting in an interview published yesterday under the “Insight” column.
Mr Philip Jeyaretnam is the younger son of the late opposition leader J.B. Jeyaretnam who was at one time a one-man fighting machine against the PAP juggernaut. His elder brother Kenneth Jeyaretnam is the Secretary-General of the Reform Party founded by their father last year.
The lengthy interview, conducted by Straits Times Senior Correspondent Sue-Ann Chia was supposedly on Philip’s thoughts about his recent appointment to the Public Service Commission (PSC), but turned out to be about his father and brother.
Sue-Ann Chia portrayed Philip as having reservations about his brother entering politics and taking over the Reform Party in her article in the paragraph below:
“After all, his elder brother Kenneth took over the reins from his father and is now heading the Reform Party.
Asked how he feels about this, he pauses and seems to struggle for an answer.
‘We have always respected each other’s choices in life and we have made slightly different choices,’ he says.”
According to Mr Philip Jeyaretnam, his exact words were omitted from the interview:
[Straits Times Forum, 5 Nov]
“Unfortunately, what I said about my brother, Kenneth, in answer to the question on what I thought about his taking over the leadership of the Reform Party, was omitted.
I told the interviewer that Kenneth has ‘embarked on a serious project, and I am sure he will do a good job, knowing his capability’.”
As we can see from the above, there is a wide gulf in the meaning between the two passages which would have generated contrasting perceptions in the readers.
Mr Philip Jeyaretnam had stated explicitly in no uncertain terms that he supported his brother’s political endeavors fully and he is confident that he will do a good job instead of the ambiguous stance reported initially in the interview.
He must be surprised that the interview turned out to be quite different from what he thought about when he was first approached for it by Straits Times:
“It is a pity that an interview about my appointment to the Public Service Commission, subsequently billed as being about my father and brother, omitted my actual response, and jumped to the very different subject of choices in life.”
It is a common tactic employed by SPH journalists to deliberately omit, distort and twist the words of their interviewees to create a desired impression in the minds of the unsuspecting readers in order to pursue the agenda of their political masters.
In this case, it is obvious that the article is trying to play up a non-existent division between the two brothers by highlighting Philip’s ambivalence towards Kenneth’s foray into politics.
Actually Philip shouldn’t be surprised as this is not the first time that the Straits Times has deliberately twisted and distorted the picture of his family.
The Straits Times often demonized his father J.B. Jeyaretnam as a “radical” and “dangerous” “maniac” out to subvert the PAP’s political system during his frequent altercations with Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew in the 1980s.
When J.B. Jeyaretnam passed away last year, there was a complete media blackout on his political career, his funeral and the candle-light vigil held in remembrance of him at Hong Lim Park by a group of young Singaporeans.
Soon after Kenneth Jeyaretnam announced his decision to enter politics, the Straits Times again tried to paint him as a “foreigner” who spent a large number of years away in Singapore.
The opposition leaders as well as bloggers must think twice before agreeing to interviews by SPH journalists next time. They will not give you free publicity for nothing.
With the new media emerging as an alternative to the mainstream media, there is no need to rely on the latter anymore to get one’s message across.
Mr Philip Jeyaretnam is the younger son of the late opposition leader J.B. Jeyaretnam who was at one time a one-man fighting machine against the PAP juggernaut. His elder brother Kenneth Jeyaretnam is the Secretary-General of the Reform Party founded by their father last year.
The lengthy interview, conducted by Straits Times Senior Correspondent Sue-Ann Chia was supposedly on Philip’s thoughts about his recent appointment to the Public Service Commission (PSC), but turned out to be about his father and brother.
Sue-Ann Chia portrayed Philip as having reservations about his brother entering politics and taking over the Reform Party in her article in the paragraph below:
“After all, his elder brother Kenneth took over the reins from his father and is now heading the Reform Party.
Asked how he feels about this, he pauses and seems to struggle for an answer.
‘We have always respected each other’s choices in life and we have made slightly different choices,’ he says.”
According to Mr Philip Jeyaretnam, his exact words were omitted from the interview:
[Straits Times Forum, 5 Nov]
“Unfortunately, what I said about my brother, Kenneth, in answer to the question on what I thought about his taking over the leadership of the Reform Party, was omitted.
I told the interviewer that Kenneth has ‘embarked on a serious project, and I am sure he will do a good job, knowing his capability’.”
As we can see from the above, there is a wide gulf in the meaning between the two passages which would have generated contrasting perceptions in the readers.
Mr Philip Jeyaretnam had stated explicitly in no uncertain terms that he supported his brother’s political endeavors fully and he is confident that he will do a good job instead of the ambiguous stance reported initially in the interview.
He must be surprised that the interview turned out to be quite different from what he thought about when he was first approached for it by Straits Times:
“It is a pity that an interview about my appointment to the Public Service Commission, subsequently billed as being about my father and brother, omitted my actual response, and jumped to the very different subject of choices in life.”
It is a common tactic employed by SPH journalists to deliberately omit, distort and twist the words of their interviewees to create a desired impression in the minds of the unsuspecting readers in order to pursue the agenda of their political masters.
In this case, it is obvious that the article is trying to play up a non-existent division between the two brothers by highlighting Philip’s ambivalence towards Kenneth’s foray into politics.
Actually Philip shouldn’t be surprised as this is not the first time that the Straits Times has deliberately twisted and distorted the picture of his family.
The Straits Times often demonized his father J.B. Jeyaretnam as a “radical” and “dangerous” “maniac” out to subvert the PAP’s political system during his frequent altercations with Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew in the 1980s.
When J.B. Jeyaretnam passed away last year, there was a complete media blackout on his political career, his funeral and the candle-light vigil held in remembrance of him at Hong Lim Park by a group of young Singaporeans.
Soon after Kenneth Jeyaretnam announced his decision to enter politics, the Straits Times again tried to paint him as a “foreigner” who spent a large number of years away in Singapore.
The opposition leaders as well as bloggers must think twice before agreeing to interviews by SPH journalists next time. They will not give you free publicity for nothing.
With the new media emerging as an alternative to the mainstream media, there is no need to rely on the latter anymore to get one’s message across.
