Responses to MM Lee's NatGeo Interview

Something I chanced upon...

__________________

The Temasek Review, Singapore - 1 Jan 10
CNA’s spin on MM Lee’s NatGeo interview, minus the “hide” remarks

Written by Our Correspondent

Stung by the massive outcry in cyberspace over MM Lee Kuan Yew’s disparaging remarks about Singaporeans, the state media moves into a damage control mode in a lame attempt to limit the fallout from the PR disaster by omitting the actual words used by Lee in the interview with National Geographic magazine in July 2009.

Though NatGeo journalist Mark Jacobson’s article which was based largely on the interview first appeared in the online version of the National Geographic magazine on 20 December 2009, it made the headlines only after The Temasek Review had highlighted Lee’s words 5 days later.
In an article titled “Social cohesion key to keeping Singapore going: MM Lee” published on CNA yesterday, Imelda Saad tried to lessen the negative publicity surrounding Lee’s message with a toned-down version:

“Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew has expressed concerns over how the younger generation may be less driven compared to the growing number of foreigners in the country…..Mr Lee noted that if Singaporeans do not work hard, they may lose out.”

[Source: Channel News Asia ]

Channel News Asia is owned by MediaCorp, the sole broadcasting company in Singapore. It is in turn controlled by Temasek Holdings whose CEO is Ho Ching, the daughter-in-law of Lee.

Contrast this to Mark Jacobson’s passage in his article “The Singapore Solution”:

“Over time, the MM says, Singaporeans have become “less hard-driving and hard-striving.” This is why it is a good thing, the MM says, that the nation has welcomed so many Chinese immigrants (25 percent of the population is now foreign-born).

He is aware that many Singaporeans are unhappy with the influx of immigrants, especially those educated newcomers prepared to fight for higher paying jobs. But taking a typically Darwinian stance, the MM describes the country’s new subjects as “hungry,” with parents who “pushed the children very hard.” If native Singaporeans are falling behind because “the spurs are not stuck into the hide,” that is their problem .”

[Source: National Geographic ]

Nowhere did Lee express his concerns about the younger generation. In fact, he said plainly that it is their “problem” if they are falling behind the Chinese immigrants.

If Mark Jacobson had misquoted Lee in anyway, he would have been sued for defamation a long time ago. Since Lee has not taken legal action against him, we can safely assume that Lee had meant what he said and the article is a fairly accurate reflection of Lee’s thoughts about Singaporeans and the new Chinese immigrants.

Furthermore, the words “less hard-driving and hard-striving” and “the spurs are not stuck in the hide” were indeed mentioned by Lee as recorded in the full transcript of the media interview as well.

It is unbecoming of Channel News Asia to deliberately distort the words of Lee in order to lessen their impact. Perhaps Lee had wanted to send a wake-up call to young Singaporeans who are getting “complacent”?

CNA should interview Lee and asked him to clarify what he has meant exactly in the interview instead of trying ways and means to twist and turn his words in order to salvage his embattled image.

In the past, Lee’s words would have gone unnoticed if the state media did not report on it. With the continued growth of the new media and socio-political news sites with a large readership like The Temasek Review, it is foolhardy to continue to practice self-censorship to pull a wool over the eyes of the people.

Note - the bold red words by Temasek Review

Are we desensitising our readers?

It can be quite dehumanising working in the newsroom, where the availability of news - often the more harrowing the better - determines whether you have a good front page or not.

When I made the decision to choose journalism as a career over research, I had in mind the idea that I could make a difference by what I write and by joining the newsroom, I will have greater impact. But after being here for just a couple of months, I begin to realise that news today, not just in Singapore, is rife with macabre reports.

Are we as journalists, desensitising our readers with our constant flow of negative reports. Are we creating a humanitarian fatigue among our readers to the point where they no longer want to read about starvation in Africa or human rights abuse in Myanmar, or protests against forced evictions in China?

I was reading a book review by Stephen Wolgast on a book called "My Brother's Keeper" which tracks the emergence of human rights photography. Wolgast brought up the same issues - What is the function of photographs and what is the role of photographers?

Wolgast sited examples of photographers whose work "shocked audience[s] and led to social reform".

Should that not be what us journalists aspire to as well?

Susie Linfield, photography scholar, also brought up a dilema faced by photographers that we reporters also encounter - how to show suffering without demeaning the subject. For reporters, how do we write about someone's plight without taking away his/her dignity as a human being, with a God given right to be seen as a person and not an object of pity?

In the end, Wolgast contends that "instead of making us immune to the suffering of others, the proliferation of images has made us more aware of inequality in the world".

I hope he's right. And I hope it's the same for news. It is at least heartening to see that the youth in Singapore are at least more active in overseas volunteer activities today. But whether it springs from a genuine desire to make a difference, or the glam factor of being a do-gooder in a third world country, is another story altogether.

For the most part, Singaporeans are happy to observe and acknowledge poverty from a distance. We feel sorry for a moment, shed a tear or two, and then proceed to shed many more dollars at a spa, restaurant or boutique to soothe our aching conscience. After all, if we're not buying these products, those poor child labourers will be out of a job.


Picture source: http://www.ac-nancy-metz.fr/enseign/languesLP/anglais/dr_hom_child_work.htm

It's war everywhere, but life as usual

Last week we saw Russia invade Georgia, continue to encroach upon Georgian territory despite signing a cease-fire agreement. The latest news today is that President Dmitry Medvedev promised France's Sarkozy that tomorrow Russian troops will start to withdraw to the pre-conflict territorial lines.

Now Ukraine is saying they are willing to make its early missile warning systems available to Europe in response to what's happening in Georgia, and the U.S. is sparing no words in censuring Russia for not playing by the rules and breaking its word.

Move further east and you'll read of more fighting in Afghanistan. 23 aid workers were killed in Afghanistan the first 8 months this year and the security situation has been deteriorating.

To the South, Pakistan is faring no better. The country has been hit by one crisis after another. This year alone, we saw the assassination of pro-democracy (whatever that means) Benazir Bhutto, followed by suicide bombings almost every month, not to mention the audacious attacks on the Indian embassy and popular restaurant in prominent part of Khabul where diplomats and expats are known to frequent. And there's the continued border disputes in Kashmir with India, that has led to clashes with Indian police.

Moving further east, we saw the Thais and Cambodians on the brink of a military face off over border disputes over the territory around the Priya Vihear temple.

In the Philippines, the Muslim separatist group MILF started armed conflict with government forces when the Christians influenced a supreme court ruling to suspend an agreement that would give them an autonomous muslim territory.

I could go on all night. But really...everyday, when I walk into the news room, and I look at the news schedule for the day, I marvel at how far removed we really are from all this chaos and suffering, as we cheered, squealed and squirmed while we watched Singapore get our asses kicked by China in the women's table tennis finals today.

Apparently the world goes on, war or no war, or precisely because of war

Is the Western media biased against China because it is a rising global power?

The Olympic's opening ceremony and the build up to the event has been shrouded in both praise and protests from the Western world (in particular).

While this major event has been China's chance to showcase its new prowess to the world, it has also opened China to significant criticism on issues ranging from human rights abuse to pollution.

But the West has been criticising China for decades. Why is this time so significant? And is this another case of western imperialism - an attempt by the West to impose its standards of freedom and democracy on a country that is not ready for such an order, which the Europeans and Anglo-Saxons themselves took centuries to establish?

Everyday I read the news from the region, the US and UK, there is an indelible "us-them" complex, with finger pointing on one side and blame shifting on the other. Yet, I have read other academic journals that have very convincingly argued that the rise of China is not necessarily a threat to the US and its allies, apart from their ego.

And the more they try to defend their egos, that have been failing along with their economies, the more they are actually fanning nationalistic pride in China, that has been rising and spreading like a bush fire, both to the detriment of China and the West.

Still, I think we, as Asians, are over reacting a little to all this criticism, which is good for China. If it were not the Olympics, I dare say we would be much more receptive to Western censure on China.

That said, I do agree with the stance that this is another case of the West trying to impose a one-size-fits-all definition of human rights and civic liberties on a country with a completely different historical path and socio-cultural context, not to mention political structure and ideology.

If history has taught us anything, a sudden change imposed from the top can be catastrophic, often resulting in the opposite of the desired outcome. Russia's Glasnost policy (1985) which opened up freedom of press fully and suddenly, contributed to Gobarchev's fall, and Russia today is none the freer.

China must and will open up freedom of press and civil liberties, but at its own pace, when its people are ready and matured enough to handle these new freedoms. Trying to impose the kind of freedoms and human rights standards that the West enjoys on a people who have not had any experience with such freedoms can only result in abuse, and ultimately a draconian backlash from the communist party and further clampdown on what little freedoms the Chinese people enjoy today.

*The Olympic cartoon is from: http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/politicalcartoons/ig/Olympics-Cartoons/