The bully
Gandhi Ambalam
17 Jan 08

The Minister Mentor has done it again. His victim this time? A cub reporter from Reuters by the name of Melanie Lee.

Ms Lee had asked the Minister how he expected the society to become cultivated given the restriction on civil liberties in Singapore.

Earlier at a conference at the Suntec Convention Centre, Mr Lee told the audience that Singapore could reach a level of cultural development comparable to Italy and Austria in 10 to 15 years. (An interesting choice of countries given that one was home to a fascist named Mussolini and the other the birthplace of Adolf Hitler).

Instead of getting a straightforward answer, however, the 23-year-old journalist was given an earful by the Mentor on how Singapore had made it without a free press.

This prompted Ms Lee to ask how it could be done when there is limited freedom of expression in Singapore, unlike the two European countries he had mentioned.

How dare she talk back to our Leader? According to one of the mentored ministers, Mr George Yeo, this was boh-tua-bo-suay which, according to my Chinese colleagues, was a reprimand that parents used on their children when they were disrespectful. Ms Lee didn't seem to know her place in society.

Appropriately goaded, the bull charged. "What school did you go to?"

"Why does that matter?" the Reuters reporter countered.

She did it again! The cheek! The audacity! The courage.

This was vintage Lee who, when faced with a gutsy youth refusing to just nod her head in cowardly agreement whenever the Leader launches into hyperbolic nonsense, gets personal and outright insulting.

This is not first time Mr Lee Kuan Yew has bullied local reporters who show some semblance of independent thinking.

A few weeks before the general elections in 2006, another enthusiastic reporter, Mr Ken Kwek, was harangued by the Minister for saying that there is widespread fear among Singaporeans towards the authoritarian rule of the PAP.

Mr Kwek was one of a handful of carefully screened participants in a so-called televised discussion with Mr Lee as the guest on the forthcoming 2006 elections.

Refusing to answer the question, Mr Lee repeatedly asked the young Straits Times reporter to disclose the names of those in the newspaper survey who had said that "fear" was a major factor when it came to politics in Singapore.

Mr Kwek is, perhaps not surprisingly, no longer with the newspaper.

Mr Lee may revel in the fact that he has just beaten up another young reporter and put him in his place. Good for him.

But what may be a thrill for the MM, is a loss for Singapore. There are countless others who, like Mr Kwek, have found the local media culture so distasteful that they have decided its just not worth it and packed up.

I am certain that in the future there will be many more young Singaporeans who want to experience firsthand the excitement of journalism but only to realize the hard reality that there is no such thing in PAP land.

I have been told that "self-loathing " is not a scarce emotion running through the rooms and hallways of a spanking building in Toa Payoh they call the News Centre. Given the kind of stuff that goes on in there, I know because I was one of them once upon a time, one shouldn't be surprised.

How do you stand tall when the newspaper you write for is constantly questioned for its integrity? The ranking it gets from the World Press Freedom Index of 140-something must hang like a dead albatross around its neck.

Ironically, it is young people like Melanie Lee and Ken Kwek who understand why Singapore is stuck in such political and cultural backwardness. They may not say it, but the one thing that is holding back the country is the very octogenarian seated in front of them.

The truth of the matter is that a free media throws up ideas and brings into sharp focus contrary views needed to propel Singapore into a level of cultural development equal to that of Italy and Austria.

Does Mr Lee Kuan Yew know that what he's doing is hurting the country? Maybe, maybe not. Does he care? Not one iota.

Mr Ambalam is Chairman of the Singapore Democrats. He is a former journalist.

http://www.singaporedemocrat.org/Vantage_Gandhi%20Ambalam3.html

What "boh-tua-bo-suay"? MM Lee don't deserve the respect. He think everything he said must be right.

FYI, Gandhi Ambalam was a PSC scholar and Chief Editor of TCS News.

Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:
[b]The bully
Gandhi Ambalam
17 Jan 08

The Minister Mentor has done it again. His victim this time? A cub reporter from Reuters by the name of Melanie Lee.

Ms Lee had asked the Minister how he expected the society to become cultivated given the restriction on civil liberties in Singapore.

Earlier at a conference at the Suntec Convention Centre, Mr Lee told the audience that Singapore could reach a level of cultural development comparable to Italy and Austria in 10 to 15 years. (An interesting choice of countries given that one was home to a fascist named Mussolini and the other the birthplace of Adolf Hitler).

Instead of getting a straightforward answer, however, the 23-year-old journalist was given an earful by the Mentor on how Singapore had made it without a free press.

This prompted Ms Lee to ask how it could be done when there is limited freedom of expression in Singapore, unlike the two European countries he had mentioned.

How dare she talk back to our Leader? According to one of the mentored ministers, Mr George Yeo, this was boh-tua-bo-suay which, according to my Chinese colleagues, was a reprimand that parents used on their children when they were disrespectful. Ms Lee didn't seem to know her place in society.

Appropriately goaded, the bull charged. "What school did you go to?"

"Why does that matter?" the Reuters reporter countered.

She did it again! The cheek! The audacity! The courage.

This was vintage Lee who, when faced with a gutsy youth refusing to just nod her head in cowardly agreement whenever the Leader launches into hyperbolic nonsense, gets personal and outright insulting.

This is not first time Mr Lee Kuan Yew has bullied local reporters who show some semblance of independent thinking.

A few weeks before the general elections in 2006, another enthusiastic reporter, Mr Ken Kwek, was harangued by the Minister for saying that there is widespread fear among Singaporeans towards the authoritarian rule of the PAP.

Mr Kwek was one of a handful of carefully screened participants in a so-called televised discussion with Mr Lee as the guest on the forthcoming 2006 elections.

Refusing to answer the question, Mr Lee repeatedly asked the young Straits Times reporter to disclose the names of those in the newspaper survey who had said that "fear" was a major factor when it came to politics in Singapore.

Mr Kwek is, perhaps not surprisingly, no longer with the newspaper.

Mr Lee may revel in the fact that he has just beaten up another young reporter and put him in his place. Good for him.

But what may be a thrill for the MM, is a loss for Singapore. There are countless others who, like Mr Kwek, have found the local media culture so distasteful that they have decided its just not worth it and packed up.

I am certain that in the future there will be many more young Singaporeans who want to experience firsthand the excitement of journalism but only to realize the hard reality that there is no such thing in PAP land.

I have been told that "self-loathing " is not a scarce emotion running through the rooms and hallways of a spanking building in Toa Payoh they call the News Centre. Given the kind of stuff that goes on in there, I know because I was one of them once upon a time, one shouldn't be surprised.

How do you stand tall when the newspaper you write for is constantly questioned for its integrity? The ranking it gets from the World Press Freedom Index of 140-something must hang like a dead albatross around its neck.

Ironically, it is young people like Melanie Lee and Ken Kwek who understand why Singapore is stuck in such political and cultural backwardness. They may not say it, but the one thing that is holding back the country is the very octogenarian seated in front of them.

The truth of the matter is that a free media throws up ideas and brings into sharp focus contrary views needed to propel Singapore into a level of cultural development equal to that of Italy and Austria.

Does Mr Lee Kuan Yew know that what he's doing is hurting the country? Maybe, maybe not. Does he care? Not one iota.

Mr Ambalam is Chairman of the Singapore Democrats. He is a former journalist.

http://www.singaporedemocrat.org/Vantage_Gandhi%20Ambalam3.html[/b]

I can't be sure, because I'm still fuming from reading this obviously biased report, but from the report:

question: This prompted Ms Lee to ask how it could be done when there is limited freedom of expression in Singapore, unlike the two European countries he had mentioned.

Answer : the 23-year-old journalist was given an earful by the Mentor on how Singapore had made it without a free press.

Sounds like a direct answer in context with the question.

The article of course makes it sound like the question was being sidestepped.

Well i’m not the least surprised at the tactics used by our PAP pple . Take my previous manager for example , the scenario was , theres was a fault which the engineer couldn’t solve . So our gung ho manager decided to do it himself to show off his skills . But after 8.25hrs of work on it , he still couldn’t solve it and came back to office . And my fellow colleague was curious on the progress of the fault ask my manager on hows the situation . After some thinking , my manager tok abt some other things then the fault itself whether the fault has been pin pointed or solved . He goes on and on abt other stuff non stop untill we knock off which my colleague was thinking . Whatever the manager just said did not even touched on his questions at all , not to mention answer it . So in the end our conclusion was , as our manager himself also dunno how to solve the fault so he decided to side track to divert our attention to other stuff so that we have no chance to touch on it so that he can avoid throwing away his own face . I have heard of some old pple whom teach me that whenever theres is anything you can’t answer , divert it so that you won’t have to throw your own face or having to admit that you don’t know .

Originally posted by deathbait:

I can't be sure, because I'm still fuming from reading this obviously biased report, but from the report:

question: This prompted Ms Lee to ask how it could be done when there is limited freedom of expression in Singapore, unlike the two European countries he had mentioned.

Answer : the 23-year-old journalist was given an earful by the Mentor on how Singapore had made it without a free press.

Sounds like a direct answer in context with the question.

The article of course makes it sound like the question was being sidestepped.

I agree it is being exaggerated. But there is no doubt MM Lee give no good answer from a good question. He avoided the question and think he is above the law!

If you chaps had been there, you would not call the report bias.

I don’t find report biased.

if the reporter could make LKY stutter in confusion. it might hv been a turning point la.

but, grandpa lee won

seems like the ministers have the penchant of asking commoners, 'how old are you?' , 'which school you study'..'what is your ic number..'.. when they feel irritated or 'challanged' by a question they deem as offensive..

another uniquely singapore..

I'm starting to realise these "off-topic" questions are more or less the same.

So, future people who want to question him please prepare a list of answers to answer his list of boliao questions, answer him as honestly as you can and then slowly make him look awkward.

Originally posted by zenden9:

I agree it is being exaggerated. But there is no doubt MM Lee give no good answer from a good question. He avoided the question and think he is above the law!

in a matter of fact, he is above the law leh.

Originally posted by LazerLordz:

If you chaps had been there, you would not call the report bias.

were you there in person?

Originally posted by royston_ang:

What "boh-tua-bo-suay"? MM Lee don't deserve the respect. He think everything he said must be right.

i rather see the video or read the entire verbatim myself... before jumping to conclusions....

oh... i believe in italy... there was a town flooded neck high with garbage?? is that civility?

so now we know why LKY said, "Retirement means Death"........
well quite true, as far as he is concerned.

Originally posted by tripwire:

were you there in person?

does it matter to you? I was not there for this particular event, but if you want to raise the issue of contextual analysis what I can say is that LKY always speaks bluntly. That's the reality.

Other sessions I've been to, he's not diverging from his opinion of the press.

Everyone knows he has this dislike for the alternative discourse of where the media's place should be in society.

Is that a bias statement? Surely not, when his opinion on this matter is always unchanging.

Originally posted by deathbait:

I can't be sure, because I'm still fuming from reading this obviously biased report, but from the report:

question: This prompted Ms Lee to ask how it could be done when there is limited freedom of expression in Singapore, unlike the two European countries he had mentioned.

Answer : the 23-year-old journalist was given an earful by the Mentor on how Singapore had made it without a free press.

Sounds like a direct answer in context with the question.

The article of course makes it sound like the question was being sidestepped.

I can understand where you are coming from (the government is right all the time and never wrong), that's why you are fuming, but you can't deny that there are some facts, most journalist employed by local media lose their jobs after making reports against the higher authority.

You should stop fuming so much and base your judgements on the merits of the case.

S'poreans on press freedom: Don't have and don't care by Cherian George
December 11th, 2007

A BBC poll across 14 developed and developing countries has placed Singapore near the bottom in public desire for press freedom. While 56% of the 11,000-plus respondents worldwide believed that freedom of the press was very important to ensure a free society, only 43% of Singaporeans surveyed held this view.

According to the BBC report, almost half of Singaporeans – compared with 40% globally – believe that stability and peace are more important, so press controls are sometimes needed.

Indians and Russians surveyed were similarly unconvinced about the merits of press freedom, with 41% and 39% respectively agreeing that press freedom was very important.

Indians could be fed up with the excesses of a free press: 72% rated their press as "free" (compared with just 53% in the US and 56% in Britain). The same cannot be said of Singaporeans: only 36% believe that their press is free – the lowest figure among the 14 countries polled.

Thus, Singapore is in the unique position of having a majority who don't believe they have a free press – and are not bothered by it.

Since Singapore has never experienced press freedom, during or before PAP rule, it is possible that citizens' negative views about the concept are based largely on received wisdom. Decades of indoctrination by the PAP appears to have persuaded the majority that the grass is not in fact greener in places where free media flower.

Another explanation for Singaporeans' satisfaction with the lack of press freedom is that their news sources are nonetheless generally reliable. Indeed, more Singaporeans than either Americans or Brits say that their news organisations are "good" in reporting the news accurately. At the other end of the scale, only 6% of Singaporeans give their news media a "poor" rating in accuracy of news, whereas one-quarter to one-third of Americans and Brits hold this negative view of their media.

Thus, it appears that the Singapore news media have managed to build a reputation for reliability despite their patent lack of freedom.

The poll is likely to be welcomed by the PAP Government as supporting what it has said for decades: that Singaporeans care more about peace and stability than press freedom, and that its press system gives enough room for the media to fulfill its basic responsibility of keeping Singaporeans informed.

– You can download the full report in PDF from the BBC site by clicking here. The poll is part of the BBC World Service's "Free to Speak" season, marking its 75th anniversary.

Source: http://journalism.sg/2007/12/11/sporeans-on-press-freedom-dont-have-and-dont-care/

I don’t find it biased and definitely find it as sidestepping. Even if she had provided an example, it will surely be shot down as not concrete or convincing enough. The tricks are old, but he won only because “being the government, he has ‘2 mouths’”.

Originally posted by ^tamago^:

I don't find it biased and definitely find it as sidestepping. Even if she had provided an example, it will surely be shot down as not concrete or convincing enough. The tricks are old, but he won only because "being the government, he has '2 mouths'".

You mean two orifice, one ventral anterior and the other dorsal posterior. I am sure they are both used interchangeably.

Originally posted by zenden9:

I agree it is being exaggerated. But there is no doubt MM Lee give no good answer from a good question. He avoided the question and think he is above the law!

no doubt?

the only thing here is doubt.

How can you say there is no doubt? Have you read the transcript? I haven't, and I'm filled with doubt. If you have no idea what MM Lee said, and you claim no doubt, you are UNDOUBTEDLY biased.

Originally posted by LazerLordz:

does it matter to you? I was not there for this particular event, but if you want to raise the issue of contextual analysis what I can say is that LKY always speaks bluntly. That's the reality.

Other sessions I've been to, he's not diverging from his opinion of the press.

Everyone knows he has this dislike for the alternative discourse of where the media's place should be in society.

Is that a bias statement? Surely not, when his opinion on this matter is always unchanging.

of course it matters. You just claimed things would be different if we were there...and you're now admitting you don't know anything that really happened.

Thus, Singapore is in the unique position of having a majority who don't believe they have a free press – and are not bothered by it.

Sad to see my fellow Singaporeans being brainwashed by the Singapore mainstream propaganda media.

Nice job PAP regime.

Very nice.

But you didn't get me.

You didn't get me at all.

You can fool all of the people some of the time.

You can fool some of the people all the time.

But you can't fool all the people ALL the time, PAP regime.

Originally posted by maurizio13:

I can understand where you are coming from (the government is right all the time and never wrong), that's why you are fuming, but you can't deny that there are some facts, most journalist employed by local media lose their jobs after making reports against the higher authority.

You should stop fuming so much and base your judgements on the merits of the case.

If every journalist that was fired was writing with such obvious unethical bias, I'm not exactly sorry to see them go.

Before you flame me, I'm saying IF.

Originally posted by deathbait:

no doubt?

the only thing here is doubt.

How can you say there is no doubt? Have you read the transcript? I haven't, and I'm filled with doubt. If you have no idea what MM Lee said, and you claim no doubt, you are UNDOUBTEDLY biased.

I find it hard to believe coming from you.

You epitomize bias to the extreme, any post that is against the government, you will retort to the extreme without understanding the merits of the case.

You are bias too. Aren't you the proverbial pot calling the kettle black?