Choo Zheng Xi / Editor-in-Chief
In an article in Monday’s Straits Times entitled, “Report Card on Class of 2006”, journalist Li Xueying previewed the newest batch of PAP MPs. One particular quote regarding the grassroots work of Member of Parliament in Marine Parade GRC, Dr Fatimah Lateef, (right) has been given undue national prominence, by none other than Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong himself.
In her article, Xueying wrote about the observation of an anonymous People’s Action Party (PAP) cadre:
“At the grassroots level, though, a party cadre observes that she (Dr Fatimah) has had some trouble connecting with the Chinese temples in her ward over issues such as the granting of permits for the holding of events like gods’ birthday celebrations.
‘This could be to the detriment of her standing with residents who are Buddhists or Taoists,’ he says.”
In comments to Channelnewsasia (CNA) on 26 March, SM Goh said:
“I do not like the inaccuracy because it suggested that a minority community MP, a Malay MP, could not reach out to the Chinese temple people, (and) the hint that maybe, she, as a Muslim, did not want to reach out to these people. That is the implication.”
He further went on to criticize the fact that the quote was anonymous:
“He said when someone is quoted on such a statement, the name must be given, because while the person may be giving his or her impression on the matter, there was also the likelihood that it was a mischievous observation.” (From CNA report)
Bullying the press
Source confidentiality is not inaccuracy. It is one tool journalists use to obtain information that may be of public interest: otherwise, the source in question might not speak at all. An inaccuracy would mean that the source in question was misquoted, or quoted grossly out of context.
It is understandable that Xueying would grant the source confidentiality at this source’s request: a party cadre is no ordinary grassroots member of the PAP. Cadres hold the right to vote for the Party’s Central Executive Committee (CEC). Source confidentiality does not mean a complete lack of journalistic accountability: Xueying has to account for the source’s identity and the quote’s veracity to her editor, and can be ordered to reveal the source in the event of a court case.
SM Goh’s use of the word “inaccuracy” unjustifiably puts the journalist’s professional credibility in question.
Contrary to criticism, such journalism needs to be encouraged. It is seldom that the public is privy to such frank comments about the PAP, and it is all the more impressive if the quote is obtained from no less than a PAP cadre. Reporters should not be bullied into shying away from obtaining sensitive quotes like these, and forced to write rosy reports about the PAP.
Scratching an open wound
SM Goh’s ire would be more constructively directed at the backbiting occurring in his grassroots organizations. The mischief he is imputing to the comment is no fault of the reporter: it was a quote sourced from a party cadre in his grassroots organization.
If this whole fracas is blown out of proportion, SM Goh would be firmly responsible for the fallout. What might have been an honest assessment of Dr Fatimah’s shortcomings has been given sinister undertones by SM Goh in his attempt to bully the press.
These dark imputations will now come home to roost where they belong: in his grassroots organization, not on the press.
————-
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
Why Singapore got so many SM for what!
Show us the jobs if you are capable.
Hasn’t he said pay peanuts get monkey, so now how the monkeys going to solve the economy or wait for Black guy in US.
I wasnt aware of Dr Fatimah issues of having difficulty interacting with the people from the Chinese temples. GCT helped to advertise her inadequacy/effectiveness.
IMHO, like the chinese saying “No wind then there wont be any waves” GCT will not be able to stop the wind and the waves.
The four clowns who wrote in to support Fatimah said she made speeches in Mandarin and dialect. Today we read that she manages only greetings and the odd word or two in her speeches, probably something like “ni hao.” It’s all a pack of lies to cover up the incompetents who sneak into parliament under the cover of the GRC scam.Even Goh Chok Tong himself has admitted that the GRC is a sham.
Still no comment today from ST although New Paper has it all.
Strange, reminds me of the like of TTDurai versus SPH surfacing, and GCK shooting from the hip reaction from overseas is not unlike LBW.
Wonder what is the real agenda although the lady MP Dr Fatimah will continue to do well and perhaps be the next Parl sec. and can move on to higher office without any public outcry.
But the misdirection of GCT is like that of a vovo king – courtesy of national service. Hope he can clear the air for his own good, even though he has blown things out of proportion himself .
Dear SM Goh
When the press writes good things about you and PAP ministers, it is ok.
When the press writes negative things about you and PAP ministers, you bash them so hard.
I suggest when the press write good things that are TOO good about you and PAP ministers, or mistakingly write about good things that you may not have done, please bash them very hard as hard.
Otherwise Singaporeans will be very confused about what you are doing or trying to do..
Well done SPH. SPH is for Singaporean not PAP.
I don’t like the whole way this thing is playing out. It seems that too much attention is being put on a small quote in the middle of an article. But is SM Goh really to blame? Or Mediacorp. Perhaps they are the ones playing up the issue. Would SM Goh have spoken if the reporter from CNA had not asked him how he felt about the comment?
But then again, being a reporter, it is only natural that the CNA reporter would ask SM Goh for his comments on that particular issue. And given PAP’s ideology, it is quite predictable what SM Goh will say.
I would surmise that this is something waiting to happen all along.
But I will say this: kudos to Li Xueying for daring to write down such a quote.
Allegations of stirring up religious disharmony? Blame it on the Mediacorp heads for furthering the PAP agenda. The quote should never have been in the spotlight all along.
Just the last few weeks, Netizens are up in arm, to criticize that our local printed media are totally not trust worthy. So is the report by the same printed media on Dr Fatimah Trustworthy?
But for the response to the article, why the 360 degrees changes by netizen? No doubt on the reliabilities of the report? How did the reporter know the interviewee is a PAP cadre? did she verified that? Is the interviewee a ” Pay n Pay” / “Why Pay” or “So Dont Pay” cadre? Or kena playout? Where is the censorship by the boss?
That show what Netizens wanted – firework. The fun of “tekanning” Pay N Pay…………
So can printed media be trusted or not?????
Personally, I do not understand how SM Goh voicing his opinion on the issue has been labelled an “attack” or “an attempt to bully the press”. As the former prime minister, I would think that what he has to say would naturally be picked up the press, mainstream or otherwise.
I feel the term “inaccuracy” he used in his quote was in reference to the “Dr Fatimah having trouble connecting with the Chinese temples,” not because of “source confidentiality” as mentioned in the article. In other words, even if the PAP cadre in question had revealed his identity, it would not have made his view on Dr Fatimah any less inaccurate.
Also, I think SM Goh is right in wanting the identity of the person in question. Such statements made by the PAP cadre can unwittingly incite emotional responses which may be detrimental to the social security of Singapore.
If this Malay MP doctor has trouble in understanding Chinese gods and the days to celebrate them then a Chinese cultural expert should give first class lessons, free of charge on Singapore Chinese gods.
In the case of a Chinese MP in a constiuency where there are many Malays and Indians he should get first class tuition in their customs and religious beliefs.
Why did’nt we do this in the first place?
When I was in SAF I always respect the religious practices of other races and enquired whether there is a Muslim cookhouse for the Muslims and whether vegetarian food can be given to Indian vegetarians.
As I have a Baba and Thai background and I asked the SAF officers to take off their shoes when they entered my house and they went hell of a mad because of my insistence of this Southeast Asian custom. They expect me to bend to them and to allow them to walk into the house with their shoes on.
Based on the Dr Zahara Lateef’s problem and the arrogance of the SAF officers, I would like to suggest we do more to teach about the customs and beliefs of other cultures in all our schools and SAF training institutes.
#60
Well, it’s an attack on the press because SM said that it was inaccurate. Even if there’s a name, will it be more accurate.
With this episode, a bigger picture emerge. These new MPs, rode the coat tails of the GRC thingy and got into parliament. Any sign of trouble, they need big guns to defend them. That’s why the GRC concept is destroying the fighting spirit within the PAP, making the new PAP soft.
The way to become a rookie MP is clear the infamous tea session, rather that serving on the ground, getting to know the constituents. In signs of difficulties, PAP makes use of the overwhelming majority in the Parliament to put in laws that are tilted in their favour. The GRC law is just one of them. It like putting a ring fence around themselves to preserve power.
It will be a downfall for Singapore if this continues as the PAP loses more and more of the street smart, bare knuckles fighting spirit and ability.
The position of a Senior Minister is not only unnecessary but a wate of money.
The PAP government has now effectively 3 SM. They are not really contributing to Singapore. The fact that GCT made the remarks recently shows that the PAP ministers don’t have any concept of press freedom. That is the reason why the PAP ministers have no problem associating with the Burmese military junta and making Singapore a safe haven for wanted tycoons from Indonesia.
PM Lee needs to trim the excess fats from the Singapore government. Start by retiring LKY, GCT and Jayakumar.
correctional me if i the sala or the long.
Is Fatimah not our elected representative for the people by the people?
so, why worry? the people accepted her right?
I am assuming she is.
Invisible t-shrt (#63)
She is not the elected representative of the people. She is a walkover MP. All walkover MPs, regardless the number of political appointments they hold, are not elected representatives.
kns,
Clearly, it was an off-the-cuff remark made when a CNA reporter questioned him (SM) on the statement made by the PAP cadre. SM Goh didn’t exactly hold a press conference to “attack” the reporter, he was simply voicing his opinion when asked to.
As any good leader, I would expect him to give his subordinates the benefit of the doubt and defend them when the need arises. Just because he provides this defence doesn’t mean the new PAP MPs have gone soft. To begin with, Dr Fatimah didn’t ask to be defended. She does a stellar job of doing so in the Straits Times today, explaining the land permit process that has resulted in her perceived “disconnectedness”.
The ST reporter who wrote the political piece made an amateurish mistake; he used the opinion of ONE person, without verifying with any other sources, to drive home a non-existent, inaccurate fact. If he had done a better job in gathering feedback, he could have saved himself all this trouble.
#66 Nawaz,
Quote: ” She does a stellar job of doing so in the Straits Times today …”
Let’s try to be fair (maybe that’s difficult until S’pore has a true democracy). If there’s a anonymous source who sing praises of the PAPies, would Mr. Woody come out and dismiss it. Mr. Woody would pile on it and extort the qualities of “inducted” PAP MPs.
BTW, may I know if you’re a diehard PAPies internet brigade, a PAP member, a PAP supporter etc… trying to help to repair the damage. How do you know it is inaccurate? How did you know that the journalist did not check out his sources. Mind you, the person who made the comment is a PAP Cadre.
For example, must journalists check out whether it is true that Singapore is entering a “Golden Era” before publishing? There’s no smoke w/o fire but then again, who in ST dares to contradict our Mr. Woody, now that he has spoken out?
I concur with #65, Dr. Fatimah, no matter how good she is, she is NOT a elected representative. She’s merely one how hid under the skirts of the BigWigs to get into parliament, using a scheme that, in my opinion, is meant to perpetuate PAP strangle-hold on power; regardless of the damage it does to Singapore
#66 Nawaz,
If you don’t protect the anonymous source, nobody will want to speak up again. In Singapore, Singaporeans live in fear of being sued and being anonymous is the only way to get some people to speak uo.
If we don’t allow the source to be protected, very soon the press will be 100% controlled by the PAP and act like a PAP newsletter, is this what you want for Singapore?
Personally as a loyal Singaporean, I feel very sad about the pathetic state of the press here and Singaporeans cannot even dare to speak up their mind.
My own take: Saw her once, face to face. No eye contact, no smile or even an acknowledging nod or anything. My companion and I were for all intends and purposes, invisible to her, even though we were practically in each others’ way. My impression? A quiet, moody, loner, and contemplative sort of person. Not what one would expect of a politician. Of course, it’s only my opinion.
To: George on March 29th, 2009 5.45 pm
An insider’s comments is more valuable than all the damage control articles appearing in the papers in recent days.
I find it strange that all the articles in the gahment controlled media emphasize on her so called “valuable” role to the grassroots leaders but no one asked a Commoner that is one who will participate in the temple activities whether he or she had been incovenienced in the past with the postponement or relocation of temple festivities.
Alamak! the reporter did not said it is from Pay N Pay Cadre?
“At the grassroots level, ……..a party cadre …………….. she (Dr Fatimah) has had some trouble …………….with the Chinese temples in her ward over issues such as the granting of permits for the holding of events like gods’ birthday celebrations.”
“a party cadre” which party?
#62,
agree with you. spot on!!
“1) KBW_Supporter on March 27th, 2009 3.09 am
Tell you some story. When little monkey starts to bite on big monkey. Must give little (only little) credit when it is due. Right. Now who are the others that you support also ?
Granted that a lot of times reporters are required to protect the identity of the informant or interviewee perhaps also at their request. But I think the reporter could have done a better job to verify whether it’s true with a few more people
rather than jumping to report one-sidedly that one unnamed Cadre member said blah blah blah. This is becausethe statement is potentially going to affect the MP in question in a very negative way and grossly unfair if it’s actually unfounded.
At the end of the day, the remark was made by one single anonymous person. I am really quite suspicious as to what personal agenda this person has in highlighting to the MSM about this.
74) KPO on March 30th, 2009 2.55 pm
This is dear singapore you are talking about. If you can openly discuss dislike of / negative views on who and who in the market place just like those done on night shows in the US, probably you do not need to be hidden behind KPO even in the internet. get real my friend and stop kidding yourself. our dear country does not encourage too much frankness (personal opinions) if it is about negative views on those up there.
Youre so cool! I dont suppose Ive read anything like this before. So nice to find somebody with some original thoughts on this subject.