今天

徐顺全与海峡时报的来往电邮

12/05/10

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

事件缘由:海峡时报言论版登载了一些攻击徐顺全的来信,徐顺全对此做出回应。然而,徐顺全的部分回信却不获刊登。于是乎两造之间起了争执。此间是两封相关的电邮。

2010年5月11日

尊敬的叶先生,

这必然是世界第一,竟然会有报社会要求置疑该报公正的写信者收回其言论。

我要求你发表全部有关事件的函电,以便让我做出回答。这可以显现出其透明度,並且让社会公众进行判决,看看谁对谁错。你回避了。

读者必然会追问为何海峡时报突然会对偏袒的指责感到羞愧不安。回想起来,当年马绍尔还健在时,对你的报社就有相当经典的批评,相比之下,我的言辞就变成是对你的一种恭维。

事情的真相是,你不是因为我的指责而不满。那是因为你在想方设法找个借口不继续刊登我的回信。

我何以会知道呢?事关我在2008年的一封信,你告诉我说我的回信太长了,而你的字数限额是400字。事实证明这是不真实的,因为在你的言论版上就有许多书函是超出这一个限额,比如,来自何晶,李玮玲和李光耀本人的来信。

当我向你指出这点时,你却表示你的真实意图是要删除某段文字。这说明你所谓的来信太长的这一借口是谎言。

几个星期之后,我还写了另一封回信。在你的坚持下,我把文字局限在400字之内。你还是不满意,再要求我删去一些段落。当我询问你到底要我删去些什么,你再另外寻找借口。你说因为新加坡民主党网站已经刊登过我的信件,所以你不会去刊登。

显然的,你一直在寻找借口去审查我与删剪我的回应。你现在又发明了另一个:那就是我不公正的指控报社缺乏正直诚实。

这是极度的羞耻。话说回来,在一党专政的国家里,媒体不知道文字的意义。

为了公众利益与透明度,我将会刊登你的电邮。

徐顺全

2010年5月7日

尊敬的徐博士,

你的回信表示你不会收回你对我们做出的不公正的诽谤性批评,为的是我们审核了新加坡民主党的来信,这在上一次回邮中提及。至到那时为止,你让我们别无选择,我们会扣压你写给言论版的回应。

您忠诚的

Yap Koon Hong
论坛编辑
海峡时报

原文/来源:http://yoursdp.org/index.php/news/singapore/3700-straits-times-ducks-chees-challenge

11 May 2010

Dear Mr Yap,

This must be a world’s first where a newspaper demands a retraction from a letter writer questioning its integrity.

I have proposed that you publish in full our correspondence over the matter and allow me to respond to it. This will ensure transparency and allow the public to decide who’s right and who’s wrong. You ducked.

Readers will wonder why the Straits Times is suddenly so thin-skinned about accusations of bias. After all, Mr David Marshall when he was alive had some choice words for your newspaper, words which in comparison make mine sound like a compliment.

The truth is not that you have taken offence at my accusation. It is that you are desperately looking for an excuse not to continue publishing my letters of reply.

How do I know this? In one of my letters I wrote in 2008, you had told me that my reply was too long and that your word-limit was 400. This proved to be untrue as many letters on your forum page exceeded that limit, namely, letters from Mdm Ho Ching, Ms Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Kuan Yew himself.

When I pointed this out to you, you then indicated that it was actually specific sentences you wanted deleted. This gave lie to your excuse that it was the length of my letter that you were concerned about. (See here)

A few weeks later I wrote another reply. At your insistence, I trimmed it down to less than 400 words. You were still not satisfied and wanted me to remove more paragraphs. When I asked what was it that you wanted me to remove, you came up with yet another excuse: That the SDP website had already published my letter and therefore you would not publish it. (See here)

It is clear that you have been trying to find an excuse to censor me and my replies all along. You have invented yet another one: That I have unfairly accused the newspaper of lacking integrity.

This is utterly shameful. But then again, in a one-party state, the media do not know what the word means.

In the public’s interest and transparency I will be publishing your email.

Chee Soon Juan

7 May 2010

Dear Dr Chee,

Your reply suggests that you will not be retracting your unfair aspersions on the integrity of our editing in the SDP articles cited in our previous email to you. Until then, you leave us no choice but to withhold your contributions to the Forum page.

Yours faithfully,

Yap Koon Hong
Forum Editor
The Straits Times

---

分类题材: 政治_politics ,

《新加坡文献馆》