When Lee versus Lee reveals some uncomfortable truths
by Bertha Henson
DEAR Dr Lee,
I don’t know you very well. We’ve spoken a few times on the phone while I was a journalist in The Straits Times (ST), mainly because you had views on medical issues that merited reporting. But I’ve followed your columns over the years and know you as a caring doctor and filial daughter. You gave us a peek into the life of Singapore’s first family. You satisfied our curiosity and gave us insights. Thank you.
Many people were concerned about how you were feeling after your father died. We know how close you were to your parents. The responsibility of care-giving usually falls mainly on the single daughter and you seemed to have executed them more than dutifully.
I think you were right to raise concerns that the commemoration over your father’s death anniversary smacked of hero worship. I have said the same too in my column on The Middle Ground. I agree that it was something your father would have objected strongly to.
Likewise, I also think that his wishes concerning the Oxley Road house should be respected, despite public calls for it to be preserved. The best way to honour someone’s memory is to respect his own wishes on how he wants to be remembered. Other arguments to the contrary are disrespectful methinks.
That was why I was annoyed when you told us that ST would not run your column, because I thought that your views as a daughter should outweigh any misgivings the editors may have over tone and content. With careful and professional editing, any message can be put out, although not always to the writer’s satisfaction. But it seems now that you wanted your column published “as is’’.
I can tell you that that was an unreasonable request to make of professional news organisations. Writers must subject themselves to editing – or they can “shop” their work around to other outlets, as some freelancers do, and stumble on an outlet which takes all offerings un-edited. In other words, writers also have a choice of publications, especially in this internet age.
At that time, I can only guess that the column was “spiked’’ because it went counter to the sentiment on the ground. You have, however, put a different gloss to the issue in subsequent posts. Now, it seems that you hold the “powers that be’’ responsible for the editing decisions of a newspaper and for pulling the strings behind the commemorative events.
I am taking the liberty of guessing the thrust of your message: That your brother, the Prime Minister, directed a grand commemoration of Pa’s anniversary because he wanted the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew to stay etched in people’s memories. He did so because he wanted to create a “dynasty’’ (or a least a cult-like status for the Lee family since I have no clue who will inherit the throne). Somehow, he knew about your proposed column and had told the editors not to run the piece, especially the part about how China commemorated the first death anniversary of Mao Tse-tung, because it cut too close to the bone.
Your posts have elicited mixed feelings from people. Some think you were courageous to speak “truth to power’’. It reinforces views that the G is so powerful as to compel people and groups to organize activities that they did not want to – as well as get people to attend them.
That the activities had some kind of official endorsement is clear; you can’t give away artillery shells like candy. Maybe they even had some official support and encouragement. It was, after all, Minister Chan Chun Sing in the Prime Minister’s Office who announced that more than 100 ground-up events were being organized. He is head of the People’s Association, that massive grassroot network of, yes, the G, as well as leader of the labour movement, which is aligned to the People’s Action Party.
The PM said in his response that the Cabinet had discussed marking the occasion: “My advice was that we should leave it to ground-up efforts. Groups should keep their observances in proportion, and focused on the future.
“The Cabinet recognised the strong desire of many Singaporeans to show their respect for Mr Lee, and honour what he did for us. We reviewed the events and observances that different groups had planned, and agreed that they were generally appropriate. They expressed the sincerely felt sentiments of Singaporeans, which my Cabinet colleagues and I deeply appreciate.”
I was surprised that Cabinet actually “reviewed’’ the ground-up efforts, as if they needed approval to proceed. There are already guidelines, for instance, on the use of Mr Lee’s name by groups and businesses.
The Cabinet should have been absolutely hands- off. Never mind if this resulted in the looney fringe going “over the top” with displays of hero worship; people will know they are loonies. But the cautious approach of the Cabinet to try and ensure an “appropriate’’ display level of support smacks of orchestration, even if it was well-meaning.
It brings me to this point: The G is so intertwined in the affairs of people and organisations both public and private that even the sister of the Prime Minister doesn’t know what’s the line between use and abuse. In this case, you called it abuse.
The Government has a heavy hand in the media as well. You have read for yourself Mr Cheong Yip Seng’s book, OB Markers: My Straits Times Story. It is, yes, a factual narrative of media-G relations but it is clear that the Government, including your father, had a great hand in controlling the narrative that the public is exposed to.
Singapore editors have a highly attuned political antenna but you do them a disservice if you think that they do not push the envelope when there are matters which they think deserve the public’s attention. Mr Cheong’s book reflects the tug-of-war between media and the Government. The media loses some; but also wins some. (I declare my vested interest as someone who has held editing positions in the Singapore Press Holdings stable of newspapers.)
What surprised me is how, despite being a columnist of some 10 years standing, you do not seem to have recognized the difficult job Singapore editors have. It is even more difficult when they have to deal with difficult writers, as you have been made out to be. Obviously, ST found value in your thoughts even if they have had to sail through a fog to get to shore. I, for one, would have given up at the 10th email exchange rather than persevere over 40 emails in an effort to get something published. I can understand the frustrations of editors, and yours have been extremely patient.
Did they spike your column because your brother called them to scold them or something? Are you and your brother so estranged that he needs to do that? It’s none of my business, nor anyone else’s for that matter, but it does seem a little sad that a family feud has gone public – and international.
The editors themselves will know if they received that enigmatic phone call or message. But what they have said so far isn’t at all favourable to your accusation of censorship. They have accused you of plagiarism – and there is no excuse for that. What is worse is that contrary to your protestations, the editor now says that you had been warned of this before.
I believe the editors when they say that the column would have been published, if those paragraphs were edited out. I have always held that almost all messages can be made public, provided that were based on sound reasoning and edited for language, tone and clarity. I call them uncomfortable truths but truths, nevertheless.
If there is one truth that seems to have emerged from this long-drawn saga, it is that the G has too much of a presence in Singapore, including in the media. It is difficult to separate the G from anything that happens or does not happen here. Your words, therefore, resonate with some people. That’s the gem I have managed to gather at any rate.
I hope the chapter on this saga is now closed. It has been interesting to watch, but distressing as well to see a family at loggerheads. The larger questions that you originally raised on how Pa should be remembered has been forgotten, and worse, reduced to a public spectacle.
You have much to offer in terms of views and insights. So, I hope that you will continue to write. But I also happen to think you really need an editor.
Sincerely,
Bertha Henson
The post When Lee versus Lee reveals some uncomfortable truths appeared first on The Middle Ground.
- Bertha Henson
Post a Comment