今天

徐顺全回应联合早报 未删减版

18/03/10

作者/来源:Singapore Democrats 新加坡文献馆译

ST和LHZB删减徐先生信内有关人民行动党损害新加坡利益,
星期三,2010年3月17日
新加坡民主党

在徐顺全博士接受联合早报(2月28日2010年)的访问中,记者Yew Tun Lian暗示,徐博士接收外国人的资金援助以损害新加坡。海峡时报也报导了这个故事(3月1日2010年)。

徐博士回应了报馆,指出是人民行动党政府在损害新加坡,这是通过其所谓的外来人才政策,继续迎合跨国公司,以及在全国工资理事会使用外国人。

报馆坚持,如果要登载民主党领袖的这封信,就必须删除这些针对人民行动党的评述。

即便是这么样的一句话也被删去:“我的努力是否危害了新加坡人的利益,又或者是危害了人民行动党的利益?我在思索到底是谁在损害新加坡的利益。”

如果人民行动党有意就谁在破坏新加坡利益的议题上进行辩论,这值得欢迎。但是,不要为此而删审民主党的观点。

寄发给报馆的原信,连同其被删除的部分[ ]在此还原重现。

到底是谁在损害新加坡的利益?

在你的一篇题为徐谈外来资金与詹离开民主党的报导(2010年3月 1日),你的记者写道:

在[联合早报]文章中,记者询问他有关传言说他之所以能够进行非暴刀反抗与其他公民活动是因为他获得来自外国捐助者提供的资金。

文章说,经过多回的追问,他回答说:‘我是一名学者,偶尔会从海外获得研究经费。我写过获奖的书籍,并且参与海外的研究项目。

但徐博士没有透露这项研究是在做些什么。他只是说:‘或许像人类行为的研究。

这篇报导的这种写法,很明显的是要把我描绘成,在提及有关收入时闪烁其辞。我清清楚楚的告诉联合早报记者Ms Yew Lun Tian,我从著作中获得收入,时不时也接受亲戚的帮助以维持生计。

因为她难以相信这情况足以维持生计,我告诉她我们的生活简单也节俭。

在进行中,她说她感到难以启齿的要询问我住在什么地方,是那一类型的组屋。这表示她知道这是在探询我的个人私事。虽然如此,我还是尽责的回答了她的提问。

然而,Ms Yew竟然会如此的报导,把我写成是在逃避她的问题,以及我有不可告人之事要隐瞒。

没有明文说出,却是明显的暗示了我可能是外国人的傀儡,要对新加坡进行破坏。

这是独裁政权以及受其控制的媒体所乐于采用的说词。他们把其对手描绘为勾结外国人以危害国家利益的叛徒。

我为民主与新加坡人的权益进行斗争,我在那一方面危害了新加坡的利益?

[把我的作为和人民行动党的作为做个比较:政府在损害新加坡人利益的情况下引进过百万的外国人,造成本地经济的不稳定性和带来痛苦。

决定新加坡人工资的全国工资理事会,持续有外国人如美国人,德国人和日本人的参与。有必要记述的是,新加坡人的实质收入在近几年已停滞不动,而生活开销已经远远超过许多新加坡人的工资。

然而,最能夠清楚指出人民行动党政府在做出危害新加坡和工人利益的事件是由己故王鼎昌引起。1986年的1月,王先生,当年的副总理和全国职工总会秘书长,在没有知会内阁的惰况下涉及了航运业的一场罢工。

这是张先生的记述:贸易和工业部长非带生气,部门的官员也很不高兴。他们收到来自美国的询问追究新加坡发生了什么事,我们是不接受罢工行动的。

为什么美国老板要追问人民行动党政府有关一场新加坡工人的罢工行动?为何要向美国商界解释在新加坡的工业活动?政府是听谁的话,美资跨国公司或者是新加坡工人?

必须追究的重要问题是,什么是新加坡的利益?这绝不能和人民行动党的利益混合在一起。

人民行动党政府在西方银行投资上蒙受1000亿元亏损,而新加坡人却备受饥饿与无家可归,这所作所为是为了新加坡的利益?]

在我多年来为这个国家的服务上,我只有一个也是唯一的目的。替我的同胞们讲话,争取权力让他们可以维护自己的权益。

[我的努力是否危害了新加坡人的利益,又或者是危害了人民行动党的利益? 我在思索到底是谁在损害新加坡的利益。]

徐顺全
秘书长
新加坡民主党

来源/原文:

http://yoursdp.org/index.php/news/singapore/3500-st-and-lhzb-censor-chees-letter-on-pap-undermining-singapores-interests

ST and LHZB censor Chee’s letter on PAP undermining Singapore’s interests Wednesday, 17 March 2010
Singapore Democrats

In an interview which Lianhe Zaobao (28 Feb 10) did with Dr Chee Soon Juan, reporter Ms Yew Tun Lian implied that Dr Chee was being funded by foreigners to undermine Singapore. This story was also reported by the Straits Times (1 Mar 10).

Dr Chee replied to the newspapers, pointing out that it was the PAP Government that was undermining the interests of Singaporeans through its so-called foreign talent policy, its continued pandering to MNCs, and its use of foreigners in the National Wages Council.

The newspapers, however, insisted that they would publish the SDP leader’s letter only if these points regarding the PAP were deleted.

Even this sentence was censored: “Is my endeavour working against Singaporeans’ interests or am I working against the PAP’s interests? I wonder just who is really undermining Singapore’s interests.”

If the PAP wants to have a debate of who is undermining Singapore’s interests, it is most welcome. But let’s not do this by censoring the SDP’s views.

The original letter that was sent to ST and LHZB with the deleted portions in bold is reproduced here:

Just who is undermining Singapore’s interests?

In your report Chee on foreign funds, Chiam’s exit from SDP (1 March 2010), your reporter wrote:

In the [LHZB] article, the interviewer asked him about rumours that he had been able to engage in civil disobedience and other activities here because he received financing from foreign donors.

The article said that, after much probing, he replied: ‘I am an academic, and will occasionally receive research funding from overseas. I have written award-winning books, and have taken part in overseas research programmes.’

But Dr Chee did not say what the research entailed. All he would say was: ‘Maybe research like human behaviour.’

The way that the report is written is clearly an attempt to portray me as being evasive about my income. I had told the LHZB reporter, Ms Yew Lun Tian, clearly that I depended on my books and from time to time, help from my relatives for survival.

Because she found it hard to believe that this was sufficient, I told her that we lived simply and frugally.

At one point she said she felt embarrassed about having to ask me where I lived and what kind of HDB flat I lived in. This is an indication that she was aware that she was probing into my personal matters. Nonetheless, I obliged her by answering her question.

Yet Ms Yew reported it in such a way that I was trying to avoid her answer and had something to hide.

What is left unsaid, although clearly implied, is that I may be a stooge of a foreign agent conducting activities against Singapore.

This is the favoured line of an autocratic regime and its controlled media: They portray their opponents as traitorous individuals in cahoots with foreigners to undermine the country.

In what way do I harm Singapore’s interests by fighting for democracy and the political rights of Singaporeans?

[Compare what I do to what the PAP does: The Government brings in foreigners by the millions at the expense of Singaporeans, causing the locals economic uncertainty and hardship.

The National Wages Council, which help to determine the level of wages of Singaporeans, continue to have foreigners such as Americans, German, and Japanese sitting in it. For the record, real income of Singaporeans have stagnated in the recent past and the cost of living has far outstripped wages for most Singaporeans.

But perhaps the clearest indication that the PAP Government works against the interest of Singapore and her workers came from the late Ong Teng Cheong. In January 1986 Mr Ong, then deputy prime minister and NTUC secretary-general, had sanctioned a strike by the shipping industry which he did not inform the cabinet.

This was Mr Cheong’s account: “The minister for trade and industry was very angry, his officers were very upset. They had calls from America asking what happened to Singapore – we are non-strike.”

Why do American bosses need to call the PAP Government about a strike carried out by Singaporean workers? Why does it have to account to American businesses for what it does in Singapore? Who does the Government listen to, American MNCs or Singaporean workers?

The important question that must be asked is what are Singapore’s interests? They must not be conflated with the PAP’s interests?

Is the PAP Government’s policy to invest and subsequently lose more than $100 billion in investments in Western banks while poor Singaporeans go hungry and homeless working in the interest of Singapore?]

In all my years of service to this country, I have always worked with one and only one objective in mind: To speak up for my fellow citizens and empower them so that they can stand up for themselves.

[Is my endeavour working against Singaporeans’ interests or am I working against the PAP’s interests? I wonder just who is really undermining Singapore’s interests.]

Chee Soon Juan
Secretary-General
Singapore Democratic Party

---

分类题材: 政治_politics ,

《新加坡文献馆》