On Friday, 28 August, The Online Citizen published a report by Fang Shihan on NMP Mr Viswa Sadasivan’s speech at the Lee Kuan School of Public Policy. On 29 August, we removed the report from our website after being contacted by Mr Viswa’s assistant. The following is Mr Viswa’s letter to The Online Citizen and our response.
Mr Viswa’s Sadasivan’s letter:
I have asked for the article to be taken off for the following reasons.
First, I agreed to speak at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy (something that I committed to two months ago) on condition that it would be a closed-door session i.e. no media coverage (including online media).
Second, when I came to know from a third party a day after my speech that a story was filed for posting on theonlinecitizen.com, I had given explicit instructions that I did not want my speech carried by the media. But after persuasion I consented to it being carried by theonlinecitizen.com on condition that I personally clear and sign-off on the final version. This was agreed to. On this understanding I had asked for changes to be made to the draft that was sent to me, essentially to take out parts that were not adequately contextualised which could result in a skewed reading of what I said at the LKY School on Wednesday, last week. The fact is that I did not get to see the final amended version and therefore did not get the chance to sign-off on it, as agreed, before it went online. This is highly regrettable and it is a breach of the agreement, albeit verbal, and a breach of trust.
This online article does not capture the tone or spirit of my speech and the question and answer session that followed. It failed to capture the context and the many qualifiers that I had presented that is absolutely necessary for the reader to have, to get an accurate sense of what I conveyed in the speech and my motivation thereof. The online report, intentionally or unwittingly, presented my comments in an exceptionally sharp, even belligerent and self-righteous manner. This is unacceptable, naturally. I have no issue standing by whatever I have said or will say in future. However I cannot stand idle and see my comments or intentions misrepresented and misread – it does not serve me or the democratic process any good. Most certainly, I do not wish to become a player in furthering an agenda that is not mine, and something to which I don’t subscribe.
In short, I do not wish for my speech in Parliament nor my speech at the Lee Kuan Yew School last week to become incorrectly portrayed or politicised. In fact, it is for this reason that I turned down more than 14 requests from local and foreign media agencies for interviews following my maiden speech in Parliament. Whatever I had to say I said at Parliament and at the Lee Kuan Yew School.
For these reasons I have asked, after careful consideration, for the posting of the article on my speech at the Lee Kuan Yew School to be removed.
Thank you.
Viswa Sadasivan
——–
The Online Citizen’s response:
We thank Mr Viswa Sadasivan for his letter.
We would like to express our apologies to Mr Viswa for the miscommunication about letting him “personally clear and sign-off on the final version” of our report. It is not a practice nor a policy of The Online Citizen to do this – unless under very special circumstances.
The miscommunication came about, we believe, firstly because of the above. Following this, it was thought that Mr Viswa’s assistant, who had communicated her concerns about the content of the report with our reporter, had agreed for it to be published after the discussion. We had thought the assistant was given authority by Mr Viswa to make the decision. As it turned out, this was not so.
On Mr Viswa’s other points in his letter, we regret that Mr Viswa alluded to an “agenda” we might have. We have no agenda except, in reporting on events, such as the one where Mr Viswa spoke at, our aim is to report as accurately as we can – as we have always done and will continue to do so. We also find it regrettable that Mr Viswa finds our report “exceptionally sharp, even belligerent and [presented in a] self-righteous manner”. Shihan’s report is none of the aforementioned. It is unfortunate that Mr Viswa holds such a view. We leave it to our readers to decide.
Also, Mr Viswa says he does not wish for either of his speeches in Parliament or at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy to be “politicized”. We do not understand what Mr Viswa means. Even so, we had no intention of “politicizing” either of his speeches, whatever that means. Our aim was solely to relay to our audience, what he had said.
However, after careful consideration of the concerns which Mr Viswa conveyed to The Online Citizen separately, we have agreed to remove the report from our site.
We again thank Mr Viswa for his letter and take this opportunity to congratulate him on his recent appointment as Nominated Member of Parliament.
We now consider this matter closed.
Regards,
Andrew Loh
Chief Editor
The Online Citizen
—–
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
There are of course those who do not want us to speak. I suspect even now, orders are being shouted into telephones, and men with guns will soon be on their way. Why? Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn’t there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who’s to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you’re looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn’t be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you and you turned to the gahman. They promised you order, they promised you peace, and all they demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent. LOL :D
Viswa dare do all that may become a man; Who dares do more is none.
“….It’s not only the hollowness of it; he can run away from his own words too….”
C’mon, once he start thinking he could lose the fat NMP allowance, one would even reconsider sell one’s mother!
“… Let us accept Viswa’s request not to continue with the article in TOC. This is the democratic process…”
That he is there as an NMP is already an undemocratic fact. What democratic process are you talking about?
As for him being careful and whether or not he will be a robust debater is another issue altogether. Look at what he has become after MM’s rebuke. Instead of taking the MM on he decided to take on TOC. It’s like someone who has been found out to have told a lie, turns around and give the friend standing next to him, a slap in the face.
If this is the role of an NMP, then forget it lah.
gemami,
relax…. Don’t you think that Viswa has a striking resemblance to CockleNathan ? Maybe that explain why he is so like that.
aiyah, let’s not be as rigid and unforgiving as our school streaming system lah- fail, sorry hor, em3, bye bye, liao, future fixed.
it’s a process. it’s a doodling. it’s an engagement.
so what if mr v buckled under pressure, not saying he did. i mean, so what? so what if he got no balls. that doesn’t mean that his balls are gone forever, right?
don’t be like pap lah, aiyoh. who knows, scarly you all got power you all will sue him until he bankrupt.
ironies of ironies! what have you done, kuan yew????
Voila! In view, a humble vaudevillian veteran, cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of fate. This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is a vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished. However, this valorous visitation of a bygone vexation stands vivified, and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin vanguarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition! The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous. Verily, this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose, so let me simply add that it’s my very good honour to meet him and you may call him Viswa. :)
Viswa,
why did you choose to voice up what you did after being an NMP?
I mean, the Hong Lim park is available everyday for you to talk to the people.
Why did you voice up after asked to voice up to give NMP speech and not before?
I mean, to voice up does not require one to be an NMP.
Why ask to retract your article after it was published?
If you can, pls reply to the many questions that people may be interested in as well.
An agreement should be upheld but the problem is, such agreement should never have existed in the context of Independent Media and Freedom of Information and Speech in the very first place!
For the normal ground rules, if one says it is Off the Record, then the journalists and reporters are not supposed to quote and report on it. But there is no such rule that says the interviewee or anyone outside the editorial team should “VET” the writing before it could be published! That makes the mockery of Independent Journalism in a real Democracy.
Goh Meng Seng
Dear Mr Viswa,
Hope you understand that you have effectively decided to join the ranks of Stormtroopers before you, fated to melt into oblivion. You had a choice, and I can see which path you took. Should you decide to open your eyes once again, I sincerely hope there will be something left for you to see.
Forget this individual Gentlemen, he who choose to live in fear shall die in obscurity.
I think LKY has performed a slight of hand here with regards to equality and the protection of “indigineous malays.” Equality doesnt entail a kindergarten definition of “identical treatment.” I mean thats like saying women who want gender equality want to be treated exactly like guys. I mean if i really want to bring that argument to its ridiculous conclusion the sexes might as well share toilets and we might as well have standing urinals for all. But they cant so we cant have gender “equality”? Rubbish thats not what equality means.
Equality in terms of a multiracial society , CAN and sometimes SHOULD entail some kind of affirmative action for minorities in the early stages of a nation, so that minorities who are disadvantaged by numbers can have an EQUAL footing. that it qualified equality.
dragging in the malay community and the race card seemed a little underhanded. Also i really didnt get LKY’s comment about Indians not knowing equality cos of the caste system. Surely being the man who claimed to have performed some kind of alchemy on this country and turned shit into gold, he must be aware that his country’s Indians……
a) Are not all Hindus
b) The Hindus here do not subscribe to the caste system, and have developed a very separate Historical identity from other parts of India and South India in which caste consciousness has remained in many forms due to many specific reasons.
Dear Mr.S.V.,
Greeting’s Good Day To You, Sir.
You’ve given many Local Borned Singaporeans “GREAT HOPE” with your maiden speech in Parliament, let me remind you that everyone who are really concern about our Singapore Future would be watching your next strategy like a hawk sharp vision.
Kindly proof to us that this time it is not just another “Showcase Or Hypocrisy” within PAP Directives.
Please help us to bring True Democracy Back to Singapore Land.
Every Loyal Singapore Citizens will be deeply grateful to you or to any Politician whom Care, Love and Sincere to make Good Changes for our Peoples.
Yours Truly,
Fong M.Y.
instead of crucifying the only person who had the balls to say something like that in parliament, i think we should be greatful. Not only that, im glad he has the good sense to make sure hes not liable for anything.
Id rather have someone in parliament for a longer period of time who can gain respect from moderate majorities and use that leverage to push for change, rather than a blazing radical who gets shot down and then blasted into obscurity.
For all those of you, who have railed against him and criticised him ask yourselves, what the hell have you done ? or how have you guys spoken out? Also how many of you actually provided practical assistance and support to people like CSJ and JBJ after they spoke out and were sued? i think you armchair critics should think twice before before blowing the whistle and expecting someone to run out of the trenches into machine gun fire. ( if you arnt willing to do so yourselves )
Oh please Mr Fong MY, better if you place your confidence in a democratically elected MP rather than one who is a push-down-the-throat kind. Know what? Even a PAP MP, those who stood for election, is better than an NMP – at least they have the guts to stand for election.
An no, Sheldon, it is not a process. It is a PAP tool to prevent the Opposition from gaining a foothold on Singapore politics.
So Mr Viswa, you’re nothing but nothing. Don’t even think anything about yourself. you represent no one. And that is fact.
I can see the conundrum Viswa was in, especially after being singled out by no less than MM Lee. What a maiden entry right? I am not sure however, that politicians (and I consider anyone who is parliament to be a politician!) really understand the nature of the beast – the internet. I forsee a time when a newsmaker has no control over whether his speech is covered or how it is covered. Aside from our traditional understanding of media (mainstream and online), there is now a growing group of vocal citizen reporters – who may attend a talk like the one given by Viswa – and write or blog about it. Once it is “out there”, it is fair game and anyone can pick it up, whether the newsmaker likes it or not, whether he agrees it was closed door or not. Sure you can make all the provisions to protect yourself from libel or from being misunderstood, but honestly, you are wading in completely different territory. Gone are the days when people could take time to explain exceptions, give background, provide context etc. Everyone (including purveyors of information), need to work in this new environment.
I hope no one flames me. I dont know abt the arrangement btw Viswa and TOC. So I have nothing to add there. All I know is, I feel sorry for this guy. He seems to be as much a victim now of govt heavy handedness and what can only be described as the collective tsunami of emotions in the internet. I came across this,
http://dotseng.wordpress.com/2009/08/22/is-the-internet-turning-us-all-into-natural-born-disagreeable-people-a-study-in-the-age-known-as-the-brave-new-world/
My first thoughts after reading it was huh???? Now everything is clear. There was really only one way for Viswa to go. One way and no other way.
Best response so far:
165) gemami on August 31st, 2009 3.10 pm
Oh please Mr Fong MY, better if you place your confidence in a democratically elected MP rather than one who is a push-down-the-throat kind. Know what? Even a PAP MP, those who stood for election, is better than an NMP – at least they have the guts to stand for election.
An no, Sheldon, it is not a process. It is a PAP tool to prevent the Opposition from gaining a foothold on Singapore politics.
So Mr Viswa, you’re nothing but nothing. Don’t even think anything about yourself. you represent no one. And that is fact.
1 speech like that is not sufficient to proof his calibre.
I hope to see him being tested many more times so that his true potential can be seen by all.
real gold no scared fire grill.
Well said gemami…
He does not represent anyone..thus, i don’t understand why the fuss.
Let him speak and say what he likes and leave it at that, respect his wishes.
We can give courtesy to certain issues spoken and That’s it.
NMPs don’t represent Singaporeans. We did not elect them. They don’t have power to make policies or refute them in Parliment, perhaps only clarify them.
TOC readers should consider this and make their own judgement.
The one thing Viswa has made clear is that NMPs do not and cannot represent THE PEOPLE.
Intentional or not, I don’t know and I don’t care. But it is evident.
It is time for people to understand this and move on to vote wisely in the next election.
171) prettyplace
“It is time for people to understand this and move on to vote wisely in the next election.”
Precisely.
vote wisely.
nothing can change if singaporeans keep accepting.
50years is enough. we need a total change. not even a single PAP in the next election win and lky and familess please step down!
we have enough regardless of what good words you got to say and regarless of what goodies you giving next. we have enough!
thanks for all the past and step down move own with your life and your pappies and let us decided you will control singapore.
we know the best as because of us your wallets are way too full with millions and billions! guess that is enough for you lky and pap to retire and go on. thanks and bye bye……….
I think the nay and aye posters had both articulated their views quite expressively and some were more than a knee jerk reaction indeed. However, I read this clarification article with a different perspective. Exacting to what had been stated in response to Mr. Sadasivan’s article removal request from Andrew’s published clarification herein, I certainly hope TOC clarify and made public what actually transpired between Mr. Sadasivan’s assistant with TOC’s reporter that lead/resulted to this miscommunication?
Quote: “it was thought that Mr Viswa’s assistant, who had communicated her concerns about the content of the report with our reporter, had agreed for it to be published after the discussion. We had thought the assistant was given authority by Mr Viswa to make the decision. As it turned out, this was not so.”
I am reading this as an assumption made by TOC without further confirmation from its rightful owner (VS) whether it is okay to make public the speech made in LKY School of Public Policy.
Some of you had chastised the removal request and deemed it undemocratic. At the same time also pointed out that the article can be read/access in other medium. I think you have seriously misunderstood the essence of democracy. I think a distinction should be made on what is construed as Freedom of Speech in a democratic country in general. Without the full consent of the writer or speaker to publicize a speech or an article, the publishing entity had indeed breached an agreement (be it verbal or written). It is the publishing entity’s journalist/reporter responsibilities to ensure the source report had been given an undisputable confirmation before it gets published (be it old media or new media). That is called responsible publishing/journalism. As to whether it is an uncensored/censored report/article is a completely different story.
By the way, TOC you have breached your 500 word limit moderation rule by allowing VS full comment to be posted in a single go. So, can I accuse TOC of breaching your rules and being selectively bias over this word-limit rule set? Honestly, I do not as you are the owner of this site and you have every right to do so. Ditto to VS.
Sincerely,
Observer (SG-HK)
I like to express my gratitude to Mr. Sadasivan for engaging TOC netizens with his articulated candid posting. This requires courage. I especially agree with this statement of his “it would be great if we can agree, but if we cant, that’s alright too, as long as we continue to listen to each other and agree to disagree. This is the democratic process.”
We are all humans of many and different perspectives, moral values and what not on any issues (in particular controversial issues that matters most to an individual). What is important when we stay engage in any open/closed discourse in any medium is that a maturing mindset is one that understood the essence of open mind communication and the art of agreeing to disagree on all arguments made or put forth. That indeed is true democracy at work.
I am in agreement with comments made by my two old friends here Patriot and Gemami (both had contrasting views and both are right indeed). However, to Gemami my dear friend, since VS does not represent Singaporeans at large as you had explicitly implied, I failed to understand the fuss and the call for his resignation as NMP. Please do not allow your emotion to rule over you. You are smarter than that.
Sincerely,
Observer (SG-HK)
Viswa is the CEO and founder of this company: http://www.strategicmoves.com.sg/clients.shtml
Look out for the clients list. It speaks for itself.
–> 176 – Papz
99% of clients PAP-linked. LOL
Yes.. “self preservation”. Later funding kena cut,, cannot support house/car/family. Better shut up and sit down. Long live PAP.
Oh dear i missed it. I adore Viswa.
He is so brave, down to earth and he is so man.
@Observer (SG-HK)
“Some of you had chastised the removal request and deemed it undemocratic”
To me, the crux of the matter is that Viswa choose to self censor the moment his speech was publicized and could possibly invite trouble for him. In his own words he admitted to exercising “Self Preservation”.
It seems troubling that a would-be champion of democratic values would so bravely beat a swift retreat at the first sign of danger rearing its ugly head.
“Moderation : Lengthy comments which exceed a reasonable length. Comments should not exceed 500 words. Anything more will be subject to approval.”
The last seven words above. Either they were just snuck in, or someone failed to read some very simply English before insinuating the practice of double standards.
very angry,
you will never convince anyone but a handful of people with that sort of argument and reasoning. nobody in their right mind will support such an extreme call to vote the entire PAP out of office because like it or not, they have been responsible for a tremendous amount in this country. You may hate them because they have only provided for a minimum level of democracy, made bad investments and covered up their mistakes, but do remember that there are a whole lot of things that they have also gotten right. You let your judgement be clouded by emotions. The current opposition have not given any substantive alternatives to the present system. It is not merely propaganda that keeps the PAP in power today.
Aiya, I say once again. Vote the real Oppostion MP in the Parliment. Forget about what NMP scheme. All is Wayang show for us to see what PAP gov is doing.
Bear in mind that we must all have to guts to change as Japan has change it. So do is S’pore turn. Whether we made it or not is all depend on us to spread the news around.
Three Cheers to new S’pore!!!!!
Keyboard warriors unrelenting. LOL :D
I think many past opposition political figures have been “sacrificed” because someone was also “self-preserving” himself. So it is justified to censor media, pass laws that curb the right of citizens, non-accountabilites, non-transparency, suing opposition till bankrupcy ……………………………… all because of “SELF-PRESERVATION”
Sometimes we may need to change from complaining that the glass is half empty to appreciating that the glass is half filled.
Mr Goh Meng Seng’s post 137 is excellent! sums up the flawed logic in the first place – which is, why shld there be an agreement for V’s approval in the first place??
I find it so Funny and Ridiculous and Unbelievable that
such a small country that singapore is with so small population compared to other countries, with so much technology and tools available to citizens, the Youths still cannot be reached and taught to Read not just MSM medium but also Alternative medium. They can then make up their minds and come to a conclusion about the Realities.
Big countries have successfully engaged their Youths using the same technologies.
Is singapore a hopeless case? Why are Youths OBLIVIOUS to the real problems?
Another controversy about NMP Viswa hot on the heels of his “highfalutin’” maiden speech in Parliament. Appears to me that he has either too big a mouth or too small a heart, or both. If he is so scared of the consequences of making his speeches then he shouldn’t make them in the first instance. Just bend with the wind and flow with the tide….
Frankly, I do not see anything at all wrong with his two speeches even though they may have ruffled a few feathers on some sensitive birds. He was simply stating some well known facts about Sinkapoor which were crying out to be said. What’s on earth is wrong with that?
NMP thought he make a name for himself by focusing on the idealist concept, and believe it will be important as well as raising the bar in NMP standard as proposed by LHL and LKY. He did just that by pressing the “wrong button” and awaken the beast……….
I don think he is genuine in his speech if not he wont be afraid to retract what he had said. I come to think of it as a moment of folly by himself and must be cursing the very moment that why he never proof check his speech first or engaged the pappies stoggies to do the propaganda touched up. Politicising an ideology is what makes politics tick so sad that after he regretted what he said he will definitely become a hermit in parliament. I bet my pet “sparky” ‘s dog food on it.
Really 2 step forward 5 steps back!
“177) Greg on August 31st, 2009 6.01 pm
–> 176 – Papz
99% of clients PAP-linked. LOL”
Ya.. interesting isn’t it? What if this whole episode was a scam to remind parliament and Singapore who is in charge?
I never once thought we had a democratic garmen but one of a despotism with one symbolic EMPEROR LEE whose power comes directly from the one sitting behind the iron curtain.
We need Viswa for our Vendetta!
I simply cannot understand why a man who wants to be a Nominated Member of Parliament would fear so greatly that whatever he says become politicized.
Isn’t the fact that by becoming an NMP itself is already self-politicizing? If he is willing to step out voluntarily to politicize himself in Parliament (therefore in public too), why can’t others politicize on what he says, whether in Parliament, behind closed doors, or in his secret hide-out (if any)?
It is sad that I have come to realise that many, if not all, of our so-called politicians are so afraid of getting into trouble because of what they say.
It is very clear from this example alone, that Singaporeans have a very long way to mature politically. Though some leaders simply love to boast that we are a first world nation, there are, in actuality, so many areas that we are lacking far behind some third world countries, e.g.
1. Political awareness,
2. Political acumen and
3. Political rights of individuals and society as a whole.
I think over the last 50 years, the PAP has done our nation a very great dis-service for not cultivating, promoting and nurturing the above three crucial qualities upon the citizens. Without such qualities in its citizens, the nation will not survive in the long run. When there appears a relentless and prolonged external threat, Singapore will simply fall like a durian.
So, whoever wants to become a politician, please have the guts to stand up and be counted on whatever you dared to say, whether in public, parliament or behind closed doors. Otherwise, people will perceive whatever you may say later on as mere “playing politics” or “wayang”. You want the cake and eat it? You can’t. You have lost your credibility. In future, I for one will think that you simply have no balls!.
@gemami
wrote
“An no, Sheldon, it is not a process. It is a PAP tool to prevent the Opposition from gaining a foothold on Singapore politics.”
oh, an engagement.
frankly, i am not concerned with any wayang, i am more fascinated by people’s response to it. i am interested in the singapuran mindscape, whether in the whites or non.
i am going to vote for the opposition anyway. i mean, who cares if it’s a pap tool. it’s still a process involving the tool’s mind, the tamogochi master’s , and the audience cum participants’.
i just have a sneaky suspicion that a lot of people who cry foul , besides expressing their personal displeasure, are also warning people not to fall into that trap, and i am just not sure how much thought they put into their presentation of warning and have they defined their target audience, or they just do it like how the pap would do it, i.e. premising that people other than them, ‘elites’, are dumb. i mean, the dumb ones will vote for the pap no matter what, so…
yeah it’s still a process. minds are fluid, they can change, unless one is like tribal lee who believes in genetic determinism.
put it this way, even if mr v’s a tool, he has a mind that still may sway depending on the singapuran mindscape engaging him. is the mindscape emphasizing ‘fear’ leading him to further ‘self preservation’ recourse, or is it one encouraging openness and unforgivingness. that’s the bottom up approach that i am more interested in. who knows, once the mindscape becomes open enough, members within the pap may start coming out of their closets- i mean, everyone has a mind.
I think several members may have conflated some issues in their response. For what it’s worth, here are my views.
To me, the key issues are, first, to what extent is Mr. Sadavisan at fault for requesting TOC post to be removed? Next, based on his speech and subsequent actions, can we accuse Mr. Sadavisan as being a false representative of the people?
Let me tackle the first issue. We have to bear in mind the rules of the journalistic game. Yes, besides the editors, no self-respecting journalist will allow an article to be vetted by interviewees. But, what if the reporter has already agreed to that request of vetting? Then it becomes a matter of integrity. Based on Mr. Sadasivan’s and TOC’s account of the exchange, it seems that the TOC reporter did agree to that arrangement, albeit a verbal one. An agreement has to be honored.
Next, the Chatham House rules were in force for the event. The rules are practiced around the world, especially in international affairs. This allows all parties in the forum to present their most honest opinions without fear of attribution (and retribution).
Depending on the newspaper policies and agreement with the organizers, the journalist may report the event, but he or she cannot attribute quotes to individuals. In this instance, given the thrust and content of TOC’s article, Chatham House rules were breached. Hence the issue is one that concerns appropriate ethical, professional conduct. Even if the subject matter is something less controversial or Mr. Sadasivan has not made the request, TOC is still obliged to take it off the website.
To that, I feel that both TOC and Mr. Sadavisan resolved the issue in a civilized and professional manner. Definitely we cannot expect the residual emotions from this episode to be positive, but I believe it says a lot about the maturity and civility both parties displayed in this disagreement.
Claiming that his request for removal is based on cowardice is a matter of interpretation. I’m fine with people presenting their opinions, of course, but just not under the banner of facts. But to just present opinions without careful reading of the issues and reliable evidence only adds fuel to the high emotions, yet not helping everyone to understand the issues.
As for whether Mr. Sadasivan misrepresented himself as a representative of the people, this is an interesting issue. It is a situation created by the incumbent – A non-elected representative speaking in Parliament for his or her assumed constituencies. Who are Mr. Sadasivan’s assumed constituencies then? He made it very clear that they are Singaporeans.
One may be cynical and suspicious of his intent if he’s really that laudable. It’s a fair and pertinent question. The due process will be to look for evidence (perhaps his clientele) to suggest that he harbors less-than-altruistic ambitions.
We are conflating the issue of authentic intention with official/legal political representation. If he’s a self-serving politician, Mr Sadasivan should be taken to task even if he is an elected MP. But we should not disparage him just because he’s a NMP. He’s working within the formal political system, no matter how unfair it is, to contribute based on his expressed intent. The hostility towards non-democratic, arbitrary political representation should be directed at the incumbent party, at the complicit non-PAP MPs and the bureaucrats, but not at Mr. Sadasivan.
I’m sure many will not agree with me. That’s ok. But we should present our case based on logical and clear arguments even if the basis of our contention is an emotional one. Correct my flawed logic. Reveal my erroneous sources. Present another side of the story that I have missed. That way, we can engage one another in a civilized, intelligent and constructive manner, even though the debate can be a hugely uncomfortable one.
If we can do that, it shows great promise that we can engage in heated, even polemical debates and yet coming out of it, deeply aware that all of us are ultimately Singaporeans, regardless of our political, moral or religious positions. We may disagree on how to make Singapore better, but we share the same vision of making it a more equitable, livable and compassionate nation. We are here to build a home, not erect a house or to manage a hotel.
At the end of the day, I hope that regardless of where we stand, we can all end the session with kopi or beer at the kopitiam, because after all we are Singaporeans, here to make it better.
Sincerely,
Eric
Another oxy-moronic example of our ministers in a dressed-up, mock parliament:
1. Fact that he is MP, regardless of nominated or elected, means he is representative in a government. The fact that he delivered the speeches in the parliament AND in the LKY School of Public Policy are meant to be politicized, unless he SHUTS HIS MONTH on both occasions.
2. Not knowing who he is, I am assuming being a Nominated MP means he must be on the good side of someone well-connected in this totalitarian government. To kick-up such a stir would have reflected badly on everyone in the Establishment. I am not surprised that he should request the site to remove his speech. Another establishment kid with no balls to go against the draft and his higher-ups. Sad!
Sorry… I meant “SHUTS HIS MOUTH”.
Hi Sheldon on September 1st, 2009 4.41 am – I get your point, thanks.
Dear Observer (SG-HK),
Your comments put the issue into perspective – as always.
However, I feel there is an altogether different issue arising from the episode – the behaviour of VS after MM Lee’s rebuke. One would have expected a response, no less, but unfortunately till this day there is nothing heard from him. Instead what we got from him was for TOC to remove the article it had published.
Like the cliché goes; It does not take a rocket scientist to read into that.
By this action alone, it opens up a whole host of questions on the NMPs and the NMP scheme. I shall ask two. What are they really there for if they cannot even engage on issues brought up by them in the first place? Why bring up the hope of the people only to sent it crashing down to earth again?
Don’t get me wrong. I think he had made a very good speech and I am glad he did, for him and for Singaporeans. For a moment I was watching to see if this NMP could perhaps sway my opinion of the NMP scheme. Alas, it not only confirmed what I had believed all along – that it is a toothless, useless and worthless scheme – that serves to put the opposition at a disadvantage – by the response from VS. He has to translate his speech into action, if not, he will just be another empty vessel.
Like I have said so earlier, instead of taking the MM on, he decided to slap all of us here in TOC who had supported him. My emotion arises from the pov that we are placing too much emphasis and hope on the NMP scheme when we should be doing all we can to help put more opposition into parliament. It is opposition MPs that we need, not NMPs who can only make noises and nothing else.
I borrow the words of AC on August 31st, 2009 7.33 pm:
“It seems troubling that a would-be champion of democratic values would so bravely beat a swift retreat at the first sign of danger rearing its ugly head”
Dear Gemami,
Frankly, I think its too early to pass judgment based on two public events. How many of us heard of him before he made his madien speech at the parliament? How many of us personally knew him before his “chatnum Rule” speech at LKY school of public policy? Put yourself in VS shoe, what will you do and how will you rebut MM in such a short time if given a chance? Do we all know what is in VS thought and what are his concerns? He is a human afterall and it is indeed his maiden voyage to the political arena. Personally, I think VS has taken non-confronting approach in his rebuttal but that does not necessary mean he totally conceded to MM’s POV.
I believe you understand the true meaning of “大智若愚”. “有勇无谋” will not survive long in political environment (be it public office or in a company). .
At best most of us here are armchair critics (whether we like it or not) albeit some have taken it to HLP to address their concerns. I think each and every poster here is very aware that whatever and whichever side we are in, what matters most at the end of the day is the end result come voting time (when given the chance to do so).
Dear AC
As to your respond on my comment regarding the 500 word limit rule set. I cordially suggest you read between lines. Don’t get me wrong here, I meant to highlight this point intentionally because it is “selectively democracy ~ as in Freedom of Expression” at work. Anyway, we are all humans of different perspectives and values. There’s no right or wrong, it is merely an individual point of view.
Sincerely,
Observer (SG-HK)
Someone managed to save a copy of the deleted article. Don’t know if posting links are allowed here. Anyway you can find a link to the website at Singapore Daily Monday post.
Keep up the good work guys!
Many apology for the typo..should read “Chathum House” rule..instead of “Chatnum Rules”..blame it on the antique keyboard.