今天

徐顺全致海峡时报言论版编辑电邮

08/05/10

作者/来源:Singapore Democrats http://yoursdp.org/
新加坡文献馆译

事件缘由:2010年4月17日海峡时报网上论坛登载了好些攻击徐顺全的言论。对此,徐顺全撰写了6封回应。

一星期后,编辑叶先生提出抗议指徐顺全在回应中提及海峡时报不公正的删改了他的信件,而这些删改是得到他本身(徐顺全)的同意。因此,叶编辑认为徐顺全的说话严重的诽谤了海峡时报作为一家报社的公正信誉。

有鉴于此,海峡时报编辑要求徐顺全收回这些指责,而且,至到徐顺全完成收回指责为止,海峡时报将不刊登徐顺全的回信。

徐顺全致海峡时报言论版编辑电邮:

2010年5月5日

尊敬的Yap Koon Hong先生,

你说我严重的影射和没有根据的诽谤了海峡时报的公正信誉。如果你还不知道这回事,新加坡的报章在自由之家的2010年新闻自由调查榜上是192个国家中排名第151位-和尼日尔并排,夾在卡塔尔和巴林之间。根据无国界记者的调查,其排位情况亦一样。

你在全球缺乏公信,我认为我在新加坡民主党网站撰写的有关海峡时报之事,应该是你所面对问题中的一桩小事。

你说我控诉你不公正的删改了我的回应是不正确的。让我们看看事实:我发出了一封回函‘是的,让我们使用一个有利新加坡运作的系统’,这是回答一名陈巴特里先生的指责,他说我采用了对抗式的政治手段。

我指出人民行动党才是暴力对抗者。我只是为了新加坡人的宪法权力挺身而出 – 以和平的方式 – 我被指责为对抗性。事情那里会是这样子的呢?

然而,你把我的原标题改为‘人民行动党亦具对抗性,徐的回应’,这是在影射我承认自已具对抗意识,和人民行动党一样。这是否是公正的编辑?

你也在你的电邮中言及‘我没有承认这一更正,在事实上是得到(我的)同意’。同意你发表由你改正的回信,并不代表我同意其他的事。

你和我都知道,如果我不允许你修正,我的回应是不会得到发表,这是向来如此。我别无选择的必须接受你的条件,要不然你的读者是不会阅读到我的回应。没有其他新闻公司的竞争,你垄断了新加坡人所可以读到的新闻。

但是,我可以不同意你的编审。我保有权力在新加坡民主党网站发表你所删改的那一部分。

你要求我收回我的说话,是等同要求我自行审核。新加坡充斥着自我审核,我是不会对这种现象做出贡献。

让我建议一个更有意义的途径:新加坡民主党把全部有关通讯在我们的网上发表,我们给你一个全面回答的权力-没有审核。你亦同样的在海峡时报网上发表-并且保证我们有全面的回答权力-没有审核。

你如果确实是珍惜你的公正信誉,我想信你不会对我的建议感到不妥,这是两个选择中的最佳途径。何以如此?这是因为你的审核建议是把读者蒙在黑暗里,我的建议有如阳光照明使大家知晓事情的来龙去脉。

最后,我们都必须把事件告诉人民,让他们自行做出判断,看看是谁不讲道理,谁是不诚实的一方。我意愿这样做,海峡时报是否也如此?

为了透明度和大众的认知,我把这封写给你的电邮在新加坡民主党的网上发表,也希望得到你的同意把你写给我的电邮(2010年5日2日)发表,以让读者对整个事件有全面的认识。

徐顺全

原文:
5 May 2010

Dear Mr Yap Koon Hong,

You say that I have “cast serious and unfounded aspersions on the integrity” of the Straits Times. In case you haven’t noticed the press in Singapore is ranked in the Freedom House’s 2010 Press Freedom survey 151st out of 192 countries – alongside Niger and sandwiched between Qatar and Bahrain. The Reporters Without Borders’ survey places you thereabouts as well.

Given your global lack of credibility, my thinking is that what I write about the Straits Times in the SDP’s website is the least of your problems.

You say that my accusations of you unfairly editing my replies are untrue. Let’s check: I had sent you my letter entitled “Yes, let’s go with a system that works for Singapore” in reply to a letter by a Mr Patrick Tan who had accused me of engaging in confrontational politics.

I pointed out that the PAP is the one that is violently confrontational. But when I am merely standing up – peacefully – for Singaporeans’ constitutional rights, I am accused of being confrontational. How can that be?

And yet, you changed the headline of my reply to “PAP Just As Confrontational, Replies Chee” implying that I am admitting to being confrontational, just like the PAP. Is this fair editing?

You also say in your email that I “failed to acknowledge that the editing was, in fact, done with [my] concurrence.” Allowing my replies to be published with your deletions in no way signals my concurrence with anything.

You know as well as I do that if I did not consent to your editing, my replies would not be published as has been the case in the past (see here). I had no choice but to agree to your terms before your readers can read my replies. With no other newspaper companies to contend with, you have the monopoly on what you allow Singaporeans to read.

But I don’t have to concur with your censorship. I retain the right to publish on the SDP’s website the portions of my reply which you have taken out.

By asking me to retract the articles, what you really want is for me to censor myself. There is enough of self-censorship going around in Singapore and I would be loathe to contribute to it.

Let me suggest an altogether more worthy alternative: The SDP will publish all the correspondence regarding this matter on our website and we will give you your right to a full reply – unedited. In return, you will do the same on the ST’s website and guarantee me my right to a full reply – unedited.

If you really value your credibility then I am sure you would have no problem accepting my suggestion as it is the better of the two options. Why? Because your proposal censors and keeps readers in the dark, mine shines light and keeps everyone informed.

At the end of the day, we put our cases before the people and let them be the judge of who is the unreasonable and untruthful party. I am willing to do this. Is the Straits Times?

In the interest of transparency and public knowledge I will post this email to you on the SDP’s website and would like your permission to do the same for your email to me (2 May 2010) so that readers can be fully informed.

Chee Soon Juan

---

分类题材: 政治_politics ,

《新加坡文献馆》