What I did state is that if Chee didn’t visit, there wouldn’t be a news article = no protest. Still don’t see how that is wrong.

well may I add that if chee visit = newsworthy = But NTU spiked it = protest.

So the fault lies with NTU, if NTU has just let the students decide to publish it… no protest will warrant.

Yes you can say NTU management is the owner but you must know that NTU has various stakeholders too not just the management… since students paid school fees, it is also their every right to complain to school if the school did not deliver what the students will like.

That goes for companies who hired employees and that does not mean the company can just anyhow fired the employee, the employee can seek redress too if they are unfairly treated or dismissed.

again I wonder how Dr Chee is being the start of all this… it is like a thief got arrested by the Police, but the Police somehow became high handed and beat him up during interrogation and the thief died as a result…

you can say no thief = no arrest = no death. But hey if there is a board of enquiry done up because the public were offended by police brutality, the police will be punish for their inappropriate action.

the issue is unfairness or highhandedness….. NTU management brought such bad publicity to themselves by spiking the story. At the end of the day yes perhaps NTU can still continue with this mentality they own the newspaper and they can decide to publish or spike the story… but just dun expect people or society at large to quietly accept the verdict

I do agree that every action has an opposite reaction… seeing now how many newspaper articles have covered the student protest… NTU has paid a high price for their decision.

Yah la. I learned a very beautiful phrase from “some foreign talent” many many years ago. It goes something like this “Crying bady gets the milk”.

Replace the word “crying” with whatever right word you may prefer like “demanding”, “shouting”, “requesting”, “taking back”, etc. If you want something, you better work for it and sometimes you just need to pay the price.

If you do not work for “your right”, other people will just decide for you. Nature abhors a vacuum. Just about every piece of land (even rock in the sea) on earth is being claimed and nations are fighting to claim it. Period.

You appear to be confused. Which of the rationale is way off?

The fact that Chee’s trepass is illegal which is the former or that the NTU rationale for not publishing the article is in #35?
————————————————
“this both incident will warrant if NTU reporters want to report it, deem newsworthy to report them….” – Choon Hiong

And as events proved, NTU disagrees with you.
————————————————
“thus your logic and NTU is quite flawed…. that so long as any person is “uninvited”, it should not be covered by the journalist.” – Choon Hiong

No. That’s not my logic cos the decision to decide whether to publish doesn’t lie with me but the NTU. Feel free to highlight my offending words which state that it should not be covered, all of my posts are still there.

What I did state is that if Chee didn’t visit, there wouldn’t be a news article = no protest. Still don’t see how that is wrong.
————————————————
“if that is the case, the role of newspaper will not function as alot of events for instance theft should not be reported because such events are “uninvited”.- Choon Hiong

The issue here is a question of whether the students have the right to decide or NTU. The students believe it is theirs. NTU believes it is theirs. Who will decide, ultimately, see my analogy on football managers vs owners in the other thread on editorial independence.

Best Regards

Good that you are participating in this thread. I for one am glad you are doing this. Remember, if people around you try to discourage you by invoking all the “fear” factors, its because your actions reminds all of them how cowardly they are. And most people hate being reminded of that.

Just have one comment though, although I think you may have already heard of this. Since you are from the journalist school, and that school happens to be called the “Wee Kim Wee school of journalism”, it may be enlightening to think about how and why Wee Kim Wee was protrayed by the media to be the most loved president ever.

How was Wee Kim Wee like when he was a journalist? I figure he is one person that “accepts the system”. He merely reports the news and probably feels so grateful to the system that he never will rock the boat. The system rewarded him well with our media taking every effort to publicize how much he is loved by the people when he was President.

Contrast it to Ong Teng Cheong, the next president and you can easily understand why, by calling your school the Wee Kim Wee school, what the system wants from budding journalists. They prefer you to accept the system and they make sure you will be well rewarded if you do.

So to end it off, I am glad that the all of you are playing the “Morpheus, Trinity and Neo” role in freeing Singaporean minds from the Matrix. Always remember that, many Singaporeans will reject your message because to them, ignorance is bliss. Do not be discouraged if they do, just free those minds that want to be freed.

Hi the rationale is way off man… If Dr Chee trepass, it is the security or the police to escort him or arrest him just as if an uninvited pervert comes to NTU to do naughty things in the hostel, it is again the security or police to arrest the person

this both incident will warrant if NTU reporters want to report it, deem newsworthy to report them….

thus your logic and NTU is quite flawed…. that so long as any person is “uninvited”, it should not be covered by the journalist.

if that is the case, the role of newspaper will not function as alot of events for instance theft should not be reported because such events are “uninvited”.

Also, I’m happy for you that you’re able to represent Chee even when you’re not in the SDP. I’m flattered and surprised by your offer considering all the previous post about me being non-objective etc, etc….

I’m not a big shot claiming to represent democracy in Singapore. I’m not seeking to represent Singaporeans either. My views represent one person and I don’t value it more than any other Singaporean.

Can there be a discussion? No one certainly don’t need my approval for that.

Dr Chee and the SDP can post what they want on any specific topic they desire in the TOC (subject to TOC editorial of course), and all of us, not just me, can post our views about the post, if so desired. No one needs my approval to do that as the last few hundred articles have shown.

Last I read, the TOC is a blog site which endeavours to reflect the views and opinions of ordinary Singaporeans. It is a platform which welcomes contributions from the man on the street, the average citizen who is concerned about issues facing our country.

You can be rest assured that ordinary Singaporean, man on the street, average citizen, concerned citizen all applies to me. If I do have views which i think are worth contributing, rest assured I will (or at least that’s what I tot I have been doing). If I don’t, it is only due to my constraints, not anyone else’s.

In fact, the TOC blog format is a very wonderful one as it allows me within my own time to write my views in a more researched and considered manner. My thanks to the TOC for this.

You still don’t get it. Let me put it this way for you.
I admire Lily Neo but that does not imply the rest of the PAP MPs have courage and conviction. In fact I believe the SDP members have far more courage and conviction than the PAP MPs except for Lily.

You mentioned that it takes courage and conviction to speak the truth especially in the face of repeated falsehoods.
It is easy to claim anything on line.
I am sure you recall the offer made to you to debate with CSJ not too long ago.
I believe the offer still stands.
Here is a great opportunity for you to show courage and conviction and also dispel all falsehoods in public. Hong Lim Park is a good venue and NTU students can learn a thing or two from you. What say you lim ? Time to walk the talk lah !

You are either a supporter of the Chee and the SDP or you are not.

I say you are, you say I’m wrong. Ok. So you don’t support the SDP.

And then you state that you are “pro politicians who demonstrate courage and conviction.” Doesn’t that mean that SDP are not comprised of men with courage and conviction (that’s not my view, just to be clear…). Perhaps there is a contradiction there. lol.

———————————————-
To the rest…

It takes courage and conviction to state the truth esp in the face of repeated falsehoods. It doesn’t take courage and conviction to spread falsehoods.

After all the talk about courage and conviction, I find the refusal to acknowledge that NUS has invited Chee to speak before, disappointing. Also the refusal to acknowledge that “No Chee visit = no media report = no protest” as a fact.

You know what I liked about JBJ. When it was right, he acknowledged it. Even when it was the opponent who was in the right. And when thing was wrong, he identified it and stood by what he believed even when it cost him politically. That is indeed a man of character.

Sigh. Men like JBJ are few and far between. Have a nice day.

your quote : ” It is clear to me that at the very least, you ‘re an SDP supporter or are you denying that. That’s your party from my perspective, isn’t it. ”
How wrong you are lim.

Read my post again Lim.
I stated very clearly that I am pro politicians who demonstrate courage and conviction. Don’t be presumptuous. I admire the person for their actions and JBJ,CSJ and Lily Neo comes to mind. So by your logic you should conclude that Reform party, SDP and PAP are my parties. Afterall I am pro JBJ, pro CSJ and pro Lily Neo.
For the record my being pro Lily Neo in no way changes my negative perception of the PAP. Hope you get it this time.

Which local university dared even if it wants to. In fact, which organisation (not opposition) dares – not a lot I guess.

Even Kenneth Jeyeratnam needed a letter from GCT “which could be shown to prospective employers to say that the Government did not hold anything against him”. http://www.todayonline.com/articles/278944.asp

Lim, imagine the society we are living in. Good decent people like Kenneth need to have a letter (blessing) from GCT.

“66.6% of Singaporeans chose the PAP in the last election.”

Well, this is a fact and the only credible trumpet (priceless treasure) left.

66.6% of Singaporeans chose the PAP in the last election. I would say to the 66.6% that’s its your party (which these people voted) but definitely 66.6% isn’t in the party. –

Does the 66.6% include walk-over when nobody actually votes? If it did, this number is hardly representative of Singaporeans’ opinion.

No visit = no media report = no protest. I stand by the accuracy of that statement even if no one else dares or refuses to acknowledge this.

That simply means Dr Chee’s visit somehow highlighted the lack of independent media in Singapore, which raised notable concerns among NTU media students.

The rationale for the former is that it is illegal. The latter rationale by the NTU is illustrated in #35.

The above statement completely misses the point that denying Singaporeans access to alternative political opinions is detrimental to Singapore’s long-term future.

Still, I would highlight that the difference in this case being an unsolicited visit vis a vis an invitation. I don’t think NTU offers that thoug.

Can someone from NTU clarify if NTU staff pressure student officers to not invite SDP? I understand recently the Vice President (Internal Affairs) of NTU Student Union wrote to SDP that he does not intend to invite SDP to NTU’s campus.

Mr Donaldson Tan (#37) said:
“What’s wrong with furthering political objectives?”
—————————————————-
My response:
I know. Its only me that has to refrain from emphasizing on politics. No one else apparently. Nothing new.

Nevertheless, I will be continuing my policy of making responses and providing my opinions when I would like to do so.
—————————————————-
Berak said:
“Don’t use a cheap shot at me also, putting words in my mouth.
Show me where in my post that I suggested Chee never visited NTU ?”

My response:
My apologies, it was a response meant for #18. Still, I still don’t see why I am incorrect to state that the issue arose out of an unsolicited visit by Chee.

No visit = no media report = no protest. I stand by the accuracy of that statement even if no one else dares or refuses to acknowledge this.

Berak said:
“And don’t accuse me of being a SDP member.”

My response:
66.6% of Singaporeans chose the PAP in the last election. I would say to the 66.6% that’s its your party (which these people voted) but definitely 66.6% isn’t in the party. It is clear to me that at the very least, you’re an SDP supporter or are you denying that. That’s your party from my perspective, isn’t it.

In any case, I don’t see it as “accusing” anyone of being a SDP member. I don’t see anything wrong in being a member of ANY political party.

I do however note a lot of constant gripe about PAP actions (once in a while myself included). If I think it is ok to gripe about actions which I disagree with, I will do the same about actions of ANY political party when I personally believe it to be incorrect. It would be inconsistent of me not to do so and I get the impression that this is manifestly wrong judging by the responses.

If anyone doesn’t like it, too bad.
—————————————————-
Choon Hiong said:
“So goodness why will NTU want to spike Dr Chee then”

My response:
Actually there’s 2 separate incidents. One is an incident of trespass, the other is a media article on the incident that was “spiked”.

The rationale for the former is that it is illegal. The latter rationale by the NTU is illustrated in #35.

Just another example of how some people will not see it as 2 separate incidents.
—————————————————-
NTUNUSSMU said:
“Since no political agenda can be use to make use of naive and clueless Singapore university undergrads, NTU should stop all PAP ministers, MPs etc rom visiting NTU to give seminars, talks etc.”

It would strange for a person studying political science not to be provided some opportunity in politics first hand. Still, I would highlight that the difference in this case being an unsolicited visit vis a vis an invitation. I don’t think NTU offers that though…

Out of curiousity, I would ask these questions, has any of the universities in Singapore ever invited Dr Chee (or for that matter, other opposition politicians) to speak? If they did, did they spike the media on that incident? If not, why the inconsistency here?

What’s wrong with furthering political objectives? The whole point is to engage students in a multitude of political opinions. It is common among world class universities such as Harvard and Cambridge to have student chapters of political parties on campus. If PAP doesn’t want to engage young Singaporeans at university, it should not limit other political parties. Clearly, PAP doesn’t want opposition parties to be active in places where PAP representation is clearly passive. PAP propaganda is already omnipresent through mass media such as Straits Times and local radio.

Taking the story off for no good reason (lack of space, lack of facts, etc …) does not seem like a reasonable journalistic practice to me (forgive me if I’m wrong, because I am not a journalist by training. I’m just basing my views on what I *think* are reasonable).

Inevitably under the guise of government, these ministers and MPs can also spread their own poltical agenda, the PAP political agenda.

NTU should stand by its words and ensure no polticians ever step into NTU for interaction with students anymore, like Ho Peng Kee said before, it should apply to all poltical parties and polticians, not just SDP and Chee Soon Juan.

People with brains will laugh at such lame reason from a “top university”. The stupid media still try to divert the attention of students being make use of as pawns when the focus should be on NTU instead.

Then are our little kids in PCF pawns too in a political agenda as it suppose to be charitable organisation??

Are grassroots workers pawns too when they suppose to serve residents instead of PAP ??

If these NTU students at Hong Lim Park are pawns, there is easily many more examples of PAP making pawns out of ordinary Singaporeans at those PA, PCF, RC, CCC, CDC, handouts etc.

When can Singaporeans start using their brains ???

——————————————————————————————————-
http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/news/story/0,4136,179196,00.html?

In an e-mail reply to The New Paper’s questions, an NTU spokesman said: ‘It is inappropriate for our student media platforms to be inadvertently exploited by unsolicited visitors to publicise their visits and advance their agenda.

‘As the publisher of the Nanyang Chronicle and Spectrum TV, the university is ultimately responsible for their content. Generally, in consideration of the educational objectives, the university would not interfere in editorial matters.

‘In this case, there is the potential of an unsolicited visit being given publicity in furtherance of a political objective.

‘The risk that the university is seen as being used for the political agenda of the uninvited visitor had to be mitigated by exercising the university’s ownership rights.’

http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/news/story/0,4136,179196,00.html?