Below is a letter which Gerald Giam wrote to My Paper in response to the paper’s article on politics and the Olympics by its sports editor, Chia Han Keong.
Gerald’s letter has not been published.
——-
Dear Editor,
I was disappointed to read your sports editor Chia Han Keong’s commentary, “Keep politics out of the Olympics” (my paper, August 4).
Mr Chia said that activists who “plan to protest and disrupt” the Olympics are “no better than” the Munich Olympics terrorists.
This is an insult to both human rights activists as well as the families and friends of the eleven Israeli athletes and one German police officer who were massacred by Black September terrorists in 1972.
Does the mere act of planning a protest by, say, unveiling a “free Tibet” banner at an Olympic event equate to murdering a dozen people?
The Olympics always have been, and probably always will be, a politicized event because of its sheer scale and the fact that its main organiser is usually the national government of the host country.
If it were not political, the Chinese government would not be going to such lengths to put on an excellent show, both on and off the field, to demonstrate its emergence as a world power.
Many activists have sincerely-held opinions of what they see are the Chinese government’s violations of human rights. Obviously it would be wrong for anyone to disrupt the Games. But not everyone who stages protests is necessarily disruptive.
In any case, Mr Chia has gone against his own advice by using the sports pages of your newspaper to write a political commentary. He would have achieved his purposes better by interviewing a star Olympian and getting readers more pumped up about the greatest sporting show on Earth.
Gerald Giam
——–
Thanks. I certainly will and I wish the same for you too since I presume you use the toilet too.
If you do use the jamban in the night then I wish you nice night in the jamban too. LOL.
Well…lets’ leave the jamban (or toilet) alone….I am having dinner now as I read this. Care to join me anyone? ~chicken drumstick~
Since Gerald highlighted this and everyone’s precious input, I am gonna take more notice of what that journalist write in the future – but not as his fan! ~rubbing hands with an evil grin~
@lim
If you read the news, you would know that the “crooked teeth” incident have shown that the host nation China, has just deceived 4 billion viewers and even broke its own laws just to stage a Potemkin Olympics.
We would want hear your opinion on this since you are a die-hard fan of a non-political Olympics.
Read this: “Paying lip service to integrity” — Ching Cheong
http://www.straitstimes.com/Review/Others/STIStory_268561.html
People have rights to freedom of expression. But such rights cannot be unrestrained.
The International Olympics Committee strips the Swedish wrestler of his bronze medal for his outrageous protest during the awards ceremony.
“People have rights to freedom of expression. But such rights cannot be unrestrained.”
Agreed. Who decides ? You ? Me ? The government ? The people ? Mickey Mouse ? Donald Duck ?
And after that, can these rights to decide be totally unrestrained ?
Human rights include freedom. But freedom, even freedom of speech, cannot be totally unrestrained in both theory and practice, for example to prevent anarchy.
(As an extreme example, if everyone swears at everyone else, the world will be in a mess)
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech for some examples for limitations of freedom of speech.
Human rights include freedom. But freedom, even freedom of speech, cannot be totally unrestrained in both theory and practice, for example to prevent anarchy.
(As an extreme example, if everyone swears/punches at everyone else, the world will be in a mess)
See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech for some examples for limitations of freedom of speech.
I agree with Dennis. There is indeed “freedom of speech” but it is not totally unrestrained. Free speech comes with responsibility, What shapes “freedom of speech” and other freedom by-laws are evolving but very slowly.
It takes perhaps a terrible incident/tragedy before authorities/govt agrees to do something about it or step up on security, etc. Too late but this is the reality of how things are right now. It doesn’t mean we can’t be pro-active within reasonable boundaries.
Good news is I can write whatever I want in my blog; although I refrain from using F words it doesn’t mean the word has never crossed my mind. lol Just this morning I “F-ed” in presence of my mum when I expressed my disdain upon reading news of how one unfilial woman beat up her father and his maid. To me that kind of freedom of expression is good. I can be open to my mum without fear she will “negate” me.
It would be hypocritical to say such words never cross one’s mind, even if you’ve been taught not to use such words, by your teacher or religion. The business world is also changing, many more people use such words in their conversations to get their points across quickly without too much F-ing around.
End of my tongue-in-cheek. Hope you enjoyed the lighter side of the discussion! :D
56) dennis on August 17th, 2008 3.30 pm
I am writing in the context of our local situation not the olympics. And I am not going to be boxed in by some wiki piece of yours. Likewise, there are plentiful wiki pickings for my selective use if I want to.
Except for those bordering on racial and religion matters which may intrude into human’s very primal sensitive points, there shouldn’t be further contraints into how other matters should be discussed. I stand to be corrected again depending on context – no hard and fast rules.
Else, every speech or communication will be so unreal and sterile not conveying the necessary tone & gravity of the matters discussed – but only good for thesis writing. This is even worst if suppressed and hidden feelings without the necessary outlets get translated into the worst kind of unhealthy action which may come in unexpected way and you will have anarchy of the very kind that you hope to avoid in the first place. History is full of examples and we have our own share of it.
Negative comments as the other side of positive comments are part and parcel of life and we should learn from them by improving ourselves via action and not by capping it further. Action or results speak louder than words and it is the people who are tasked with the power to do it must start to do it.
A good job well done will easily drown out whatever negative comments there may be. Because people will be left poorer if they choose negative “feel good” comments over good results. However, that freedom to choose and to speak to galvanise support for a decision must again be there for the people concerned. Education is a long term process (not the one-or-two day kind) and there is a price to pay as we can surely see from educating our own children.
In a democracy, you just need 50% to achieve a pass mark and if you still can’t do it after all the fair and honest hard work, that speaks volume on the your own quality and the trust bank with the people. Alternatively, that speaks volume on the quality of the citizens being cultivated after all these years of nation building.
Using a hammer is the shortest way of achieving results but with grave long term consequences sometimes not discernible on the surface. Tell me who is not afraid when “a gun is pointed on his head” – of course not in the literal sense.
It doesn’t matter which side you belong. What matters is what you’ve done. What goes round comes round.
I’d be most happy to see any terms explained by wikis – they take the guessing out for me as I am not a linguistic expert. Today I just learned from another that “banding” and “streaming” is different. Also I am wary of “taking sides”, cos I know once I do I won’t be able to see both sides clearly. “You don’t take sides, you just do what you feel/think is right.”
I didn’t put up the wiki. Please do not accuse me.
You can see from the history tab of the page that the part on limitations is already added on 25 July 2008, and its contents are probably created even earlier.
Take whatever you see and heard with a pinch of salt, including what you see here and whatever I say. Reason out loud inside yourself. Evaluate ideas, not the person.
Oh I just noticed that……go to whois.net and you’ll find the owner of the wiki. Anyway, I think he’s trying to say no amount of facts would deter him of thinking “out of the box”. Understooooooded! :D
>>>>>Quoted by double standards:
Read this: “Paying lip service to integrity” — Ching Cheong
http://www.straitstimes.com/Review/Others/STIStory_268561.html
The gal with crooked teeth is still qute mah!! I can only say the IOC is stupid to assume their secret will be safely kept. They should re-hire someone in the PR department. Someone who is wise enough to say “Ugly or deformed she is still a product of China and we proudly show her off 100% with her singing talent!”
Is it politics? If it is, then the media is the one politicising the Olympics I think.
Easy….whois.net will tell you who the owner of that wiki is.
>>>Quoted by double standard:
Read this: “Paying lip service to integrity” — Ching Cheong
http://www.straitstimes.com/Review/Others/STIStory_268561.html
Poor gal….it should be ‘ALL OF ME OR NONE’! I am pissed that she’s treated like some spastic person undeserving to be standing there on stage to sing. If a deformed child was yours, would you give him/her away cos “avoidance of shame” was a more important thing??
Is this politics or pure reporting of facts? (Am not even sure myself!) If it is seen as politics, then the media has been successful in ‘politising’ the Olympics. And if so, does it mean the media should be penalised?
Blushing is the color of virtue.MatthewHenryMatthew Henry
Sorry for duplicate posts! >,<