Did Straits Times misreport Tan Chuan-jin?

pic_201308_22Several Facebook ‘friends’ recently shared a news article from the Straits Times, with comments along the lines of “Here we go again, a minister scolds citizens for criticising the PAP government and not helping them out”.

Following the link, I was led to a fairly prominent article which reported a speech made by Tan Chuan-jin  to his own civil servants at the Ministry of Manpower:

Singaporeans who are not happy with the country should try to improve things instead of running down the country, Acting Manpower Minister Tan Chuan-Jin said on Monday.

“Singapore is not perfect, no society is perfect,” he noted.

“There may be things we are unhappy about, things can always be better, but that is very different from running down our own people, our own society.”

He pointed to two letters from Singaporeans that were published online last week on Yahoo News. He did not name their writers.

A check online, however, shows the letters were written by operations manager Brian Vittachi, 56, and public relations consultant Wang Su Lin, 40. Mr Vittachi had asked his sister not to return to Singapore from Sri Lanka. “Singapore has sold its soul,” he wrote, while Sri Lanka has natural beauty, culture and character.

Ms Wang said she is not ashamed of being gay but ashamed of being a Singaporean. She has emigrated to Canada which she felt was more welcoming and tolerant.

Mr Tan said he wished them well but hoped the duo would also “find it in themselves to contribute and help build Singapore”.

– Straits Times Breaking News, 6 August 2013, Help improve things if not happy with country: Minister, by Toh Yong Chuan

The newspaper also carried a remark by an unnamed civil servant from Tan’s ministry who was quoted as saying “It is not just the country, but policies are also not perfect, but what is important is that we identify what is wrong and fix them, instead of just complaining.” Perhaps she was helping the Straits Times grasp the chief point of Tan’s speech?

I decided to see if Today or Channel NewsAsia carried a similar story. Channel NewsAsia did in video form, but the content of its story was very different. Firstly, the headline was “Acting Manpower Minister Tan Chuan-Jin said there is a need to look out for professionals, managers and executives (PMEs) as they will be affected as businesses restructure” (Link) with no mention of anything like ‘stop complaining and help out instead’. Rather, it highlighted what Tan Chuan-jin said about

  • needing to restructure the economy and workforce
  • that growth is important but needs to be sustainable
  • and that the aim should be to moderate labour growth “because there is a genuine strain on our infrastructure and social fabric.”

The angle of the story being so different, I went to the Ministry of Manpower’s website to retrieve the full text of his speech, to form my own opinion about it.

* * * * *

* Did he depart from the prepared text?

I note that the Straits Times quoted him as saying “There may be things we are unhappy about, things can always be better, but that is very different from running down our own people, our own society.” Yet, this sentence is not in the text as uploaded onto the ministry’s website.

I can’t say I’ve come to any firm conclusion. At first glance, it appears that the Straits Times overplayed that angle. Tan’s exact words (at least in the prepared text, I don’t know if he departed from it*) were much less blunt:

Truth is, no one writes our stories but ourselves. Collectively, our stories add up to the story of Singapore. We also choose the lenses through which we view our world and our lives. Do we want to be happy? Sad? Positive? Energised? It depends on how we want to look at things. As individuals, we have to make a choice. There are many Singaporeans who choose not to be a victim of their circumstances, but to step up to shape their own lives and the lives of those around them.

As a society, made up of individuals, the Government, institutions, organisations, we also choose. It is the choices that we make that shape our society. No society is perfect, including ours. However, I see a lot of heart and a tremendous amount of soul in our people. I see that in many of you here, in what you do. We should not short-change ourselves. We shouldn’t run ourselves down. I know many are unhappy with things as they are, they can always be better. The key thing is, what can we do about it? I know many of you have stepped forward to join the public service to make a difference.

I see many volunteers who do their part. Many of you also put in time in volunteer work. It is usually not glamorous work. I see my volunteers on the ground, putting in time, unseen and unheard. But, they do so because they believe that their efforts can make a difference.

And we see this in various forms: lunch distribution, cleaning of flats, local merchants contributing groceries and vouchers. We see this all over Singapore.

And I see so many Singaporeans in public service seeking to make a difference. Our Home Team, our SAF, our colleagues in our Ministries and agencies across the government. All of you here, working hard to make things better for our people. You know that you can make a difference.

There are so many uplifting stories. Most are untold.

He then goes on to talk about the employment situation and his ministry’s directions.

The thing is, Tan has made similar points before — about volunteering and helping out. It seems to be a tune he likes to sing. It is also typical of the tone he likes to adopt — attempting to sound empathetic and inspirational but often coming across as simulated.

But it seemed to me that it would take an extremely acute ear to hear in it the frustrated demand implied by Straits Times’ headline “Help improve things if not happy with country”. Did the Straits Times divine (and report) a bluntness to his speech that really wasn’t intended or warranted? Why would it do that? One begins to wonder whether the newspaper itself has an agenda: does it feel itself tasked by powers even greater than Tan Chuan-jin to convey this brute message to the peasants? Is it seizing this opportunity presented by Tan’s speech to ram it home?

If so, it is hardly doing him any favours. People react to the Straits Times negatively. What the government’s mouthpiece thinks it is conveying is not what people hear. The ‘lesson of the day’ is heard as ‘another admonishment again’.

In the last twelve months, Tan’s stock has been on the decline. That’s something that is easily gathered speaking to people. He’s acquiring a reputation as an arrogant, inflexible person who pretends to listen, but is incapable of doing so. His relatively mellifluous speaking style is beginning to be treated as insincere, if momentarily beguiling, prater. A friend even said to me not long ago that “he’s proving so ‘old-guard’, even the clown prince Chan Chun Sing is looking good by comparison.”

She added, “At least the latter is entertaining.”

But this example of reporting of Tan’s speech triggers a thought: Might it be possible that when ministers’ moderate language is hyped up to bite-sized sloganeering, the Straits Times is doing the People’s Action Party (PAP) government no favours? With its preachy style and zealous berating of Singaporeans for their perceived shortcomings, the newspaper has made the PAP government such a turn-off that even prosaic remarks are heard as castigation.

* * * * *

On the other hand, perhaps the message was intended. Perhaps it was no accident that an unnamed civil servant was on hand to sharpen the point for the newspaper’s reporter.

If so, then Tan Chuan-jin deserves the opprobrium that went with the Facebook sharing. It takes a certain deficit in self-awareness to not know that people generally do not want to help bullies. No amount of sweet words is going to change this intrinsic sense of counterbalancing fairness we have in us.

One cannot expect people to distinguish clearly between helping country and community on the one hand, and supporting the government on the other, when the government insists on being so dominant. In any system with an overdominant power, when anything goes wrong, blame is nevertheless attached to the hegemon. This is so even when it’s not its fault. In such circumstances, it is very hard for any party to step forward to help fix the problem without feeling (and being seen) as if stepping forward to help the hegemon.

Singaporeans are not going to compartmentalise what they know of the PAP government’s overbearing behaviour, skewed and insensitive policies, and its politicisation of what should have been independent institutions, from their thoughts and feelings about this place. It should hardly be surprising that many people will calculate that if the country can never really be theirs, then why bother to invest in it?

pic_201308_21

It’s like this big guy who insists on occupying the armchair, asking others to help make it more comfortable. Come on, get real.

* * * * *

Yet, for every one who gives up on Singapore, there is at least another who cares. The problem is that the same government does not recognise their caring or suggestions as “constructive”. It only wants people to help refine the policies that they themselves have laid down, and will not entertain any contrary ideas.

Again and again, they will say that they are open to all ideas, but decades of all-too-obvious resistance more than reveal where the truth lies. Moreover, heavy-handed actions are taken to stop its critics from promoting alternative solutions. Their credibility has been shot to pieces — by their own actions.

Once again, it should hardly be a surprise that people may be coming to realise that the only way to re-upholster the armchair is to first get Big Frank out of it.

16 Responses to “Did Straits Times misreport Tan Chuan-jin?”


  1. 1 Lye Khuen Way 8 August 2013 at 19:21

    Yes, get that Big Sloppy Guy off the armchair!

  2. 2 John 9 August 2013 at 00:00

    His stock has gone down since he threatened to sue Vincent W on the bus strike saga. Very much old guard pretending to be new indeed.

  3. 3 Saycheese 9 August 2013 at 00:11

    Fat Fart Frank will get off only when God present him His throne or when the armchair breaks. Any GE where he does not win is a freak situation justifying the use of his gun.

  4. 4 Niel 9 August 2013 at 00:12

    He couldn’t bring himself to say it in front of live audience. That’s where the Sinister Times comes in useful.

  5. 5 John Tan 9 August 2013 at 00:40

    Spot on – Alex.

    Chuan-Jin is the worst of all ministers. He is thin skinned military junta.

  6. 7 Andrew Toh 9 August 2013 at 03:09

    I had the opportunity to work under Chuan-jin when I was a regular in the SAF. Back then he was only a LTC and CO of a battalion. He was exactly as he is now, full of flowery words and that smooth manner of speech but his leadership left me feeling a bit cold.

    No doubt highly intelligent and even a nice guy but he wasn’t a leader that really connected, not someone who really inspired his followers from the ground up. Like he was trying to talk you into doing something rather than leading you through it.

    • 8 Din 14 August 2013 at 11:54

      The current system parachutes/promotes some people (which the higher ups deem so) into more senior positions but being in a senior position DOES NOT correspond to having demonstrated true leadership qualities/abilities. This is especially so in civil service and uniformed organisations. Most of them are managers not leaders!

  7. 9 Alan 9 August 2013 at 17:55

    In relation with the recent death of one of their conscripts in Taiwan, one particular political commentator remarked that in order to rise up the military ranks, almost all their military officers had to kiss the asses of their immediate commanding officers and this sort of ass-licking happens everywhere, to the extent that they will even lie to cover up for themselves or their bosses.

    Does that kind of explain why so many of our Big Guys are officially appointed at high government positions even though they obviously lacked the credentials, probably to reward them in exchange for their ass-licking or blind loyalty ?

    Maybe this can perhaps help explain why these ass-lickers had to behave in a such manner that leads people to question their real intentions whenever they behave in any controversial manner ?

  8. 10 Drunk bimbo 9 August 2013 at 18:02

    I don’t actually like him but I think he’s kinda cute. Not as cute as Baey Yam Keng though heehee.

    • 11 Marilyn 10 August 2013 at 11:25

      Appearance-wise, I prefer TCJ…he’s got the puppy dog look that’s endearing. I bet he looks good in Speedos…;)

      BYK looks too humsup whereas CCS got the “网中人” Ah Chan look…

      Having said that, I don’t think well of TCJ…he’s just an emo case brought out by the big guns to soothe our ruffled feathers with his erstwhile looks of “concern and sincerity”…remember when he emote over the Railway and Bukit Brown, and both had to go?

  9. 12 JG 9 August 2013 at 21:43

    Awww .. Alex, TCJ is a highly paid minister … let him figure out how to handle this, no need to read the speech and trying to divine if misreporting had occured for him.

    For me (and probably many of us), we’ve been scolded so often by our Ministers that by now, we’re immune to it. In any case, like the rest of the Cabinet, the primary criteria in selecting Ministers is that they must all agree with PM and his philosophy. They are just administrators, trying to act (badly) like politicians.

  10. 13 ape@kinjioleaf 10 August 2013 at 09:49

    The written full text published in MOM website certainly sounds more appealing. However, actions speak louder than words.

  11. 14 Duh 11 August 2013 at 16:40

    The assumption here is that ‘misreporting’ by the ST is intentional – I think it simply reflects a poor standard of journalism in MSM. With PAP sycophants as its editors who are often neither trained or experienced in journalism at an international standard, it is no surprise that their editing results in a poor or misrepresentation of the news. In fact, isn’t propaganda simply a misrepresentation or ‘framing’ of information?

    We have people from the ISD appointed as editors in the Straits Times, pls reveal these people’s journalistic credentials; eh, Tan Mui Hong? Pls tell us, what concerns you lately besides worrying about falling trees by the roadside that will potentially hinder you from getting your food? Wow, earth shattering news. We have Sumiko Tan and her inane columns about her physical appearance, her marital life, and what not – enuff’ said.

    The things the Straits Times do well – propaganda and train its readers to sweat the small stuff by having shallow analyses. And, of course, badly edited and badly written articles in English.

  12. 15 Roy 12 August 2013 at 02:57

    I think over the years, many of those who were unhappy enough to get off their feet and do something decided to emigrate. Many probably saw this as the most constructive solution, how realistic is it for the average citizen to actually change government policy? Easier to just move somewhere that makes them happy.

    Instead of blaming citizens, maybe the government should look at improving happiness, this is certainly harder to do than working on GDP. If there were an index for happiness I think Singapore would fare poorly.

  13. 16 Piffle 13 August 2013 at 16:51

    Front page of the Financial Times (not the pap’s favorite publication after breaking the Todd scandal) carried an article saying hat one-half of new properties in London are sold to Sinkies, Honkies, Malaysians and PRCs.
    That is thousands of people from our country sending money (and often their children) to the UK. And how many to Perth, Canada, NZ? Here is the link – http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/605cdea2-fb69-11e2-a641-00144feabdc0.html


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




For an update of the case against me, please see AGC versus me, the 2013 round.

Copyright

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 723 other followers

%d bloggers like this: