Singaporeans sceptical of Dr Vivian’s calls for a ‘fair and dignified’ outcome in the 2nd STTA fiasco

Three weeks after the eruption of the 2nd ping pong controversy which was sparked by STTA President Lee Bee Wah’s remarks about ex-coach Liu Guodong lacking “professionalism and integrity”, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan has finally revealed his stance on the matter.

While there were calls for him to intervene to resolve the matter like what happened last year, Dr Vivian ruled out intervention by his ministry. He urged all sides involved to aim for a ‘fair and dignified’ outcome.

The ministry’s Senior Parliamentary Secretary Teo Ser Luck also said he was happy with progress made so far and hoped the dispute would not end in legal action.

The ministry’s half-hearted and lacklustre replies did not come down well with ordinary Singaporeans who continue to clamor for Lee Bee Wah’s resignation.

In less a day, the online petition set up to call for Lee’s removal from STTA saw an increase of almost 200 signatures lampooning Lee as well as Dr Vivian and Teo Ser Luck.

Singaporeans are adamant that Lee Bee Wah apologized to the coach.

Wrote Lim Chai Ju:

Tan Kien Tung was sceptical of Dr Vivian’s definition of a “dignified” outcome:

Patrick Tong felt it was Lee who treated Liu unfairly in the first place.

Tan Boon Liong was equally scathing in his remarks:

Yong Siew Look took issue with Teo Ser Luck’s response:

Another netizen lambasted Dr Vivian’s comment that the profile of the sports was raised by the saga:

From the comments posted on the petition, it appeared that Singaporeans are really peeved off with the way Lee Bee Wah and STTA had conducted themselves.

Despite attempts by the media to play down the dispute and salvage the reputation of the embattled Lee, Singaporeans remained sceptical about the “fair and dignified” outcome hoped for by Dr Vivian.

The public fury shows no signs of abating and to some Singaporeans, nothing less than Lee’s departure will placate them.

Though Lee had now expressed willingness to meet Liu in person, Liu is unable to come to Singapore in the near future due to work committments.

How long more will this fiasco rumble on? Will Singaporeans still remember it after two months? What “deal” will STTA make with Liu Guodong under the table to save the “face” for Lee Bee Wah?

Besides Dr Vivian and Teo, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong and ex-STTA President Yeo Guat Kwang had also commented on the saga. Goh felt the matter was not handled properly while Yeo called on STTA to account to the public as soon as possible.

In spite of increasing public pressure for STTA to explain its actions, it has wilfully refused to do so. Perhaps in the eyes of STTA, a “fair and dignified” outcome means ensuring its President get away scot-free for her words without needing to substantiate them while keeping Liu as far away as possible from Singapore and quietly praying that Singaporeans will soon forget about the entire episode altogether.

Regardless of the outcome, Lee Bee Wah has lost all moral authority to remain as President of STTA.

Please sign on the two online petitions if you haven’t done so:

1. Petition to DPM Teo Chee Hean to give special award to Liu Guodong

2. Petition to remove Lee Bee Wah as STTA President

Turn up at Hong Lim Park on 6 June 2009 between 5pm to 6.30pm to sign the petition calling for her removal as STTA President.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28588.74

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan urged all sides involved in the ongoing dispute between STTA and Liu Guodong to aim for a ‘fair and dignified’ outcome. (read article here)

What “fair and dignified” outcome is Dr Vivian hoping for after all the damage that STTA has inflicted on a coach who brought back Singapore’s first Olympic silver medal in 48 years?

Let me borrow this analogy posted by a netizen on the petition to remove Lee Bee Wah as STTA President:

“The tennis game analogy is lame, how about this, I punch you on your face (outburst during Olympics), followed by a round horse slap to the back of your head (not nominating you for the ‘Coach of the year award’), followed by a final kick to your groin (character assault), after that you still struggle to stand up amid great pain, walk up to me and ask why I hit you, I go and hide in one corner. After a while, showing no remorse, I go back to you and ask you, come, let’s have a fair and dignified ending……ARE YOU JOKING OR WHAT? Think about this, if the reverse was carried out by Liu to LBW, will all the relevant leaders still say the same thing, let’s have a fair and dignified outcome?”

Where is the fairness of STTA and Lee Bee Wah when they refuse to nominate Liu Guodong for the “Coach of the year” award without giving any explanations?

Where is their fairness when Lee made a public remark casting aspersions on Liu’s professionalism and integrity without substantiating her allegations?

Where is Lee Bee Wah’s dignity when she went hiding and refused to meet Liu in person after he flew all the way from Beijing to Singapore to seek clarifications for her words?

Where is STTA’s dignity when they sent two officials to meet Liu with the intention of deceiving him to sign an English document which he can’t read or understand to absolve Lee Bee Wah from all legal liabilities?

And does Singaporeans have any dignity left after Lee Bee Wah single-handedly shamed the entire nation with her attitude, conduct and behavior? Where is her PROFESSIONALISM and INTEGRITY???

Teo Ser Luck still got the cheek to say that he is “happy” that “progress” has been made! Is there any “progress” other than the relentless media spin and propaganda to defuse public anger and to obsfuscate the entire matter?

The media is now protraying Liu Guodong as a sore loser who took issue with STTA for not nominating him for the award when it was Lee Bee Wah who started the fiasco with her careless and insensitive words.

Had she been more tactful and diplomatic enough, she would have declined offering her views and instead ask the media to wake for an official statement from STTA.

Now that she had jumped the gun and claimed that Liu Guodong was not nominated for the award due to lack of “professionalism and integrity” on his part, we can never be sure if this was really the reason behind STTA’s refusal to nominate him in the first place.

Straits Times Editor Han Fook Kwang, in the defending his paper from critics that it was biased towards the Aware old guards, wrote:

“Our internal processes, which involve several layers of editing and gate-keeping, ensure that individual reporters do not push their own agendas.” (read article here)

Mr Han, can you please explain how your “internal processes” fail to detect the blatant intellectual dishonesty of your reporters to distort the truth beyond recognition to save the skin of Lee Bee Wah? What agenda are you pushing here?

There can only be one fair and dignified outcome in this matter to prevent it from going to courts: Lee Bee Wah retracts her statements, issue an unreserved public apology to Liu Guodong and resign from STTA to take personal responsiblity for bringing disrepute to STTA.

Lianhe Wanbao reported that Lee Bee Wah is now agreeable to meeting Liu in person. What is the purpose of the meeting? Ask Liu to forget about the matter and leave Singapore for good?

Lee Bee Wah is an adult. As a public figure and MP, she should know how much damage her words can inflict on the reputation of Liu Guodong or anybody else. She is impugning on another person’s character which can be taken to mean that he is are dishonest, untrustworthy, unprincipled, corrupt and unethical.

What did Liu do to deserve such a testimony from his superior? Did he slack on his job, steal money or take advantage of his female players? Till now, Lee Bee Wah still has not quote an example to lend support to her words.

Liu Guodong has been sensible, graceful and magnanimous enough to be amenable to mediation by third parties while emphasizing that he does not want to destroy his relationship with STTA completely.

Had it been MM Lee, a lawyer’s letter will probably be sent to Lee Bee Wah by now and there will be no room for any mediation.

Can STTA please show some sincerity by taking back the words said by its President? Call a press conference and issue a public statement that “there is nothing wrong with Liu Guodong’s professionalism and integrity” and bring the saga to a fair and dignified ending.

It doesn’t even need to provide any explanation for not nominating Liu for the “Coach of the year award” or apologize on behalf of Lee Bee Wah. That’s all Liu had ever wanted – to clear his name.

I can draft the statement for STTA in less than one minute:

“The Singapore Table Tennis Association regrets the misunderstanding which had arisen from media reports about Coach Liu lacking “professionalism and integrity” as reasons for not nominating him for the “Coach of the year” award.

Coach Liu has been exemplary in both his character and professionalism during his stint with STTA. We thank him for his contributions and wish him all the best in his future endeavors.”

Come on, what’s so difficult about giving the man what he wants? That is the least he deserved from STTA after what had transpired. Why must this allow to drag on like an old broken tape recorder? Does STTA really want to wait for Liu’s return to Singapore to resolve the matter?

Just do it now and move on!

Addendum:

Regardless of the outcome, Lee Bee Wah has lost all moral authority to remain as President of STTA.

Please sign on the two online petitions if you haven’t done so:

1. Petition to DPM Teo Chee Hean to give special award to Liu Guodong

2. Petition to remove Lee Bee Wah as STTA President

Turn up at Hong Lim Park on 6 June 2009 between 5pm to 6.30pm to sign the petition calling for her removal as STTA President.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28839.70

According to reliable sources, Lee Bee Wah will be meeting Liu Guodong at a later date. Both parties are willing to resolve the matter amicably as soon as possible.

As Liu Guodong is very busy of late, it may need a bit more time to arrange for a suitable date to meet. Liu’s wife will be delivering on 29 June. He is likely to remain in Beijing.

In the meantime, ex-STTA President Yeo Guat Kwang expressed concerns that the Liu Guodong saga has dragged on for too long and urged STTA to settle the matter and give a proper account to the people as soon as possible.

Yeo said that STTA should handle the matter proactively as it arose out of its decision not to nominate Liu for the “Coach of the year” award.

He said that STTA had its own transparent system of settling disputes between the players and coaches and an independent committee can be appointed if necessary to bring the matter to a close.

“Though there is nothing wrong to remain silent at times, STTA should account to the public soon. This matter has dragged on for too long”, Yeo said.

Yeo praised Dr Vivian’s suggestion to seek a third party’s help in mediating to resolve the differences between them. He felt that since matters have come to such a stage, it is no longer a personal matter between the coach and STTA alone. It is time for STTA to come out and account itself to the public.

EDITORS’ NOTE:

We support Mr Yeo’s call for STTA to explain its recent actions to Singaporeans which appeared to lack “professionalism and integrity”.

STTA should call a press interview immediately to answer the following questions:

1. What are the criteria for a coach to qualified for nomination as “Coach of the year”?

2. What are the reasons behind STTA not nominating Liu Guodong for the award?

3. Is it an unanimous decision made by all members of STTA’s exco?

4. Does STTA support its President’s explanation that Liu was not nominated for the award because he lacked professionalism and integrity and if so, can it please substantiante its allegations?

5. Who ordered the two STTA officials to pass the English document to Liu Guodong to sign?

6. Who had been giving Shin Min Daily “insider information” to smear the character of Liu Guodong?

Regardless of the outcome, Lee Bee Wah has lost all moral authority to remain as President of STTA.

Please sign on the two online petitions if you haven’t done so:

1. Petition to DPM Teo Chee Hean to give special award to Liu Guodong

2. Petition to remove Lee Bee Wah as STTA President

Turn up at Hong Lim Park on 6 June 2009 between 5pm to 6.30pm to sign the petition calling for her removal as STTA President.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28839.69

WHY was he in Singapore?

What was the rationale for his meeting with a local human rights organisation here? Is his organisation funding this, or any other, group here?

These questions are just some that have been bandied about since Mr Johan Skarendal, 29, visited Singapore last month.

Mr Skarendal is a member of the Swedish International Liberal Centre (SILC), a foundation which claims to assist democracy development.

Some Singaporeans he met with during his recent visit are members of a local human rights organisation called Maruah (Malay for dignity).

Maruah’s members include former Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) Braema Mathi, NMP Siew Kum Hong, lawyer Peter Low, academic Cherian George, Dr Stuart Koe, founder of gay media company Fridae, and Mr Leong Sze Hian, president of the Society of Financial Service Professionals.

Online speculation on the meeting’s agenda has been rife, with netizens questioning whether the foundation has been funding Maruah’s activities.

Mr Skarendal did not answer The New Paper’s questions on whether SILC is currently funding the work of any Singaporean individuals or organisations, but stressed that the topic of funding was not broached during the recent meeting.

Ms Mathi, Maruah’s chairman, added that it is common for human rights advocates to meet with ‘like-minded’ people from other countries, whether in Singapore or overseas.

She clarified that Maruah does not currently receive any external funding.

‘We are paying for everything out of our own pockets,’ she said.

Mr Skarendal described his latest visit as a ‘fact-finding’ visit.

‘I was mostly interested in the work and backgrounds of the people involved – I wanted to learn about how prominent Singaporeans involved in civil society viewed the human rights issues in Singapore,’ he said.

‘Funding not discussed’

None of the Maruah members present at the meeting raised the subject of funding, Mr Skarendal said.

He said: ‘I went to Singapore on behalf of SILC to learn from and observe Singaporean civil society, not to intervene.’

Confirming he met with Mr Skarendal last month, Mr Leong Sze Hian, who attended as a representative of Maruah, said Mr Skarendal asked questions pertaining to Maruah’s work here.

Said Mr Leong: ‘He asked about the work that Maruah does – what activities are being planned, and so on.’

One of the upcoming events Maruah has planned is a peace vigil for the freedom of Aung San Suu Kyi on 31 May at Hong Lim Park.

Ms Mathi said such events are completely paid for by Maruah members.

The group does not incur any day-to-day operating costs.

She said: ‘When we started Maruah, we set ourselves some ground rules – to be as transparent as possible, to post our accounts – if any – online, not to break any Singapore law, and not to have any members with political party affiliations.’

The group is currently funded solely by its members.

Ms Mathi said, however, that the group would eventually have to seek funding from external sources as it grows, and that Maruah would likely first seek local sources of funding.

She added that she is disappointed with the recent spate of online allegations against the group’s members.

She said: ‘The allegations are misleading and mischief-laden, and belittle the hard work of civil society.’

The recent visit was not Mr Skarendal’s first time to Singapore.

In 2003, Swedish foundations, comprising SILC, the Olof Palme Centre, and the Jarl Hjarlmarson Foundation co-sponsored an international youth conference in Singapore where young Swedish parliamentarians and youth leaders met with young Singaporeans to discuss democracy.

The same year, Mr Skarendal met with Singapore Democratic Party secretary-general Chee Soon Juan for the first time when DrChee visited Sweden.

Said Mr Skarendal: ‘We have become good friends ever since. In fact, he had written my testimonial when I had applied to do my Masters degree at the Taiwanese National Chengchi University in 2006.’

What’s Maruah

MARUAH, the Singapore Working Committee for an Asean Human Rights Mechanism, was formed in September 2007.

The group, which aims to raise awareness of human rights, was formed after Asean leaders decided in July 2007 to include a provision for a human rights body in the Asean Charter.

Maruah’s members include students, academics, activists, lawyers, doctors and writers.

The group has organised various events for several causes, including a gathering appealing for fair working conditions for workers, a public lecture on human rights in Asean, and an upcoming peace vigil for Aung San Suu Kyi’s freedom.

The group’s immediate task is to transition from being an interim committee to a full-fledged national working group, and to eventually establish a Singapore presence at regional discussions.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28866.79

<!–

–>

		Mr Palmer (right) said Mr Tharman’s statement was more open than Temasek’s letter to the media.
View more photos

View more photos

STATE investment vehicles Temasek Holdings and the Government Investment Corporation of Singapore (GIC) can afford to be more open about the thinking behind major investment decisions.

Mr Michael Palmer (Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC) urged this yesterday in a speech summing up the debate in the House over the past five days on the President’s Address.

He said the statement made by Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam to Parliament on Thursday was more open than Temasek’s letter to the media a week earlier on May 22, even though both dealt with the same issue – the divestment of Temasek’s stake in Bank of America (BoA).

Temasek’s own statement did not put in perspective the overall gain in its portfolio over the years, while the minister’s statement did.

Temasek’s sale of its BoA stake in March was reported in the press earlier this month.

The estimated losses of between US$2.3 billion (S$3.3 billion) and US$4.6 billion led to a public furore and several MPs called on the Government to review the original charters given to Temasek and the other Singapore investment body, GIC.

Mr Palmer said he was reassured by Mr Tharman’s response to MPs’ questions on Temasek and GIC.

However, he felt more could have been done by Temasek and GIC to ‘explain these issues of public interest clearly so that Singaporeans are made aware of the facts and have their questions answered’.

Mr Tharman had assured the House on Thursday that both Temasek and GIC monitor their investments very closely, but that they were ultimately long-term investors.

As a result, their performance could not be judged based on any one investment such as the 2007 purchase of Merrill Lynch shares, that were subsequently converted to BoA shares when BoA took over Merrill.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=29908.1

Even when other SPH papers are distancing themselves from Lee Bee Wah, Shin Min Daily has chosen to stick by the woman who had incurred the wrath of the entire nation to the extent of distorting facts and spinning tales to save her skin.

Shin Min is the only paper which published and gave prominent coverage to Lee Bee Wah’s speech in Parliament. It even devoted a space for her on the front page (29 May 2009:

The article which took up almost half of page 6, tried to protray Lee Bee Wah as a kind, compassionate and understanding MP fighting for the rights of elderly workers:

Save your efforts, Shin Min. It is too late for Lee to redeem herself. Had she been gracious enough to meet Liu Guodong and retract her statements made about him, Singaporeans may still consider giving her another chance.

Now that she had retreated behind STTA to continue her slugfest against Liu, she has lost the respect of Singaporeans!

Obviously either the top editors of Shin Min or its journalists have connections with Lee Bee Wah and STTA.

Are they grassroots volunteers in Lee Bee Wah’s Nee Soon South constituency too?

Why are they going out of the way to defend Lee Bee Wah while the other papers seem unwilling to give her any more coverage?

If there is anybody who knows where the missing link is, please email us at wayangparty@hotmail.com

Sign on the two online petitions if you haven’t done so:

1. Petition to DPM Teo Chee Hean to give special award to Liu Guodong

2. Petition to remove Lee Bee Wah as STTA President

Turn up at Hong Lim Park on 6 June 2009 between 5pm to 6.30pm to sign the petition calling for her removal as STTA President.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28839.67

Community Development, Youth and Sports Minister Vivian Balakrishnan said the controversy between the Singapore Table Tennis Association (STTA) and its former head coach is “unfortunate” and he hopes the issue will be resolved amicably.

Amid calls for the government to step in, the Sports Minister said neither his ministry nor the Singapore Sports Council will get involved in the “micro-managing” of awards. This, he said, was best left to the sporting fraternity.

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan has missed the point altogether. The crux of the entire issue does not lie with STTA not nominating Liu Guodong for the “Coach of the year” award, but in Lee Bee Wah’s blunt remarks insinuating that Liu lacked “professionalism and integrity” which sparked off the controversy in the first place.

Singaporeans are calling Dr Vivian to step in not to “micromanage the awards”, but to resolve the matter by asking Lee Bee Wah to either substantiate her allegations about Liu Guodong or retract her statements and apologize without any reservation.

As he has demonstrated last year by making Lee Bee Wah apologized publicly for her unwarranted outburst in Beijing, Dr Vivian has the power to intervene to put a stop to the protracted tussle which is dragging the entire sporting fraternity into disrepute.

Dr Vivian added that the SNOC and NSAs are governed by their respective constitutions, and the ministry and SSC are not involved in their routine operations or programmes.

If this is indeed so, who appointed Lee Bee Wah to take over from Choo Wei Kiang as STTA President 3 weeks before the team’s departure to Beijing just in time for her to bask in the limelight of the Beijing Olympics?

Was Lee Bee Wah ever voted into her position as STTA President? Since she clearly has no “mandate” to lead the organization, why can’t she be removed from her position and allow a more suitable candidate to take over?

Dr Vivian and his ministry oversees the development of sports in Singapore. STTA is not a private table tennis association. It is funded entirely by taxpayers’ monies. Surely Singaporeans should have a say in how the association is being run?

Of course we do not expect to meddle in the daily modus operandi of STTA, but in this instance, it is pretty clear that STTA has gone completely off tangent under the leadership (if it’s the correct word to use) of Lee Bee Wah.

Is this the proper behavior of a President to cast aspersions on the character of an ex-employer without substantiating her claims and then vanished into thin air when the accused came to seek her for clarifications in person?

Shouldn’t a leader take responsibility for her own words and defend herself instead of using STTA as a shield to protect herself from the legal liabilities?

Lee Bee Wah has betrayed the trust of Singaporeans and hurt our feelings again and again.

During the first ping pong controversy last year, there were already calls for her to step down as STTA President.

In less than a year’s time, she repeated the same mistake again. Her callousness, arrogance and ineptitude are simply too much for us to bear.

Being a national association funded by the public, STTA has to be accountable to the people of Singapore.

Unless STTA is owned by Lee Bee Wah, she has no right to continue clinging onto her position in the face of widespread anger and opposition to her leadership.

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, please take note of the sentiments on the ground and take appropriate actions to reverse the damage already done to our image at home and abroad before it is too late. The ball is in your court right now.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28839.66

Minister suggests a role for mediation centre; he rules out intervention by the Government

By Jeremy Au Yong
		Mr Liu headed to China earlier this month after five days of fruitless talks. — ST PHOTO: WANG HUI FEN

THE dispute between the Singapore Table Tennis Association (STTA) and its former coach is ‘unfortunate’, but Dr Vivian Balakrishnan urged all sides involved to aim for a ‘fair and dignified’ outcome.

The Community Development, Youth and Sports Minister indicated that the Singapore Mediation Centre could play a role if need be, and reiterated his hope for a mediated outcome rather than a ‘slug fest where only one person walks out of the ring’.

He was responding in Parliament to Mr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade GRC) who asked for his comments on the table tennis spat.

The dispute started three weeks ago when the STTA refused to nominate former national head coach Liu Guodong for the Singapore Sports Awards – an award many believed Mr Liu was a shoo-in to win. But the STTA said he was not worthy of the accolade.

Angered by what he saw as a slight on his character and integrity, Mr Liu demanded an explanation and flew here from his base in China to discuss the matter. But the matter remains unresolved and Mr Liu has not ruled out legal action.

Dr Balakrishnan ruled out intervention by his ministry: ‘Whilst we provide funding to the national sports associations, I think we have, as a matter of discipline, learnt not to micro-manage and not to get involved with the details of operations and in fact even with the details of selection…

‘These are decisions best made on the ground by officials, coaches and players and by the people who constitute the sports fraternity for each relevant sport. So I’m very hesitant to say we should go in and second-guess or countermand decisions.’

The primary concern of the ministry and the Singapore Sports Council was in ensuring good governance in the associations.

Dr Balakrishnan, who likened the spat to a disputed line-call in tennis, said it was important not to become ‘so distracted or so upset by (it) that you end up losing the match’.

But he told Mr Seah there was a silver lining: ‘The fact that people can be bothered, that people are worked up, shows that people are paying interest and care. That reflects the fact that the profile of sport has been raised…It would be much worse if nobody even cared about this award and it didn’t even become an issue.’

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28839.65

ST’s editor answers critics of this newspaper’s reporting of events

By Han Fook Kwang, Editor
		The recent leadership tussle at the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) sparked a divisive debate on issues such as religion and homosexuality. Above, Aware members at the group’s extraordinary general meeting in Suntec City on May 2. — ST FILE PHOTO

I HAD been reluctant to write this piece defending The Straits Times’ coverage of the Aware saga. Some of my colleagues had wanted the paper to put out its side of the story in the face of criticisms over how we covered the saga. But I wasn’t keen to make the paper the focus of this long-running debate, for I’ve always felt that newspapers shouldn’t be active players in the stories they cover. Our job is to report accurately and fairly what is happening and to make sense of it for our readers so they can draw their own conclusions. However, critics have assailed us over these very issues, and I have little choice now but to set out the facts concerning our coverage after two MPs spoke about it in Parliament this week.

On Tuesday, Nominated Member of Parliament Thio Li-ann said that reporting on the saga had been biased and lacked a diversity of views. She did not name The Straits Times but everyone listening to her would have concluded that she was referring to this newspaper.

Were we biased and one-sided in our coverage? This is best answered by detailing how we covered the story.

Many have forgotten how this story began. Aware held its annual general meeting (AGM) on March28, and for almost three weeks few knew that the group’s leadership had changed in a dramatic fashion that day. The old guard team who were tossed out did not announce it. The new president, Mrs Claire Nazar, and her team were silent. It was only on April6 that The Straits Times was tipped off that something unusual had happened at Aware and we began work on the story. Our first report did not appear until April10, because for most of that week we had tried hard to confirm with both sides – the old guard and the new – what had happened.

Founder members and old guard leaders of Aware spoke to us. They confirmed that the election had taken place legitimately and according to Aware rules, which allowed brand new members to seek leadership positions right away. They were distraught, not at seeing their preferred list of candidates lose the election, but at the manner in which the new team moved in. Their account was that the majority of the 102 people who attended the AGM comprised new members who had joined in recent months. Most were unknown, and most stayed silent during the AGM. When it was clear that the new members were contesting executive council positions with the intention of taking over the organisation, older members tried to ask them who they were but received few clear answers.

We were faced with a curious situation. Here was a new team of women who had contested and taken over Aware. Yet, three weeks after they had taken charge of this well-known group, they remained unwilling to explain who they were, why they had acted and what they intended to do with Aware. These are basic questions that any group which takes over a society, grassroots organisation, union, clan or country club should expect to be asked if it pulls off as successful a leadership grab as this appeared to be.

In the days before our first report appeared, our reporters tried hard to reach members of the new leadership. We were willing to report whatever they had to say, but our reporters were stonewalled by everyone they reached. Ms Jenica Chua confirmed she was in the committee but refused to speak. Repeated calls to Ms Josie Lau and Ms Lois Ng were not successful. Ms Lau’s husband, Dr Alan Chin, had joined Aware as an affiliate member and had been present at the AGM, but he too would not speak to our reporter. Even the new president, Mrs Nazar, refused to say anything until the day she confirmed that she had resigned after just 11 days at the helm.

More than once, those approached in the new team asked for a set of questions to be sent to them in writing by e-mail. Our reporters obliged, only to receive no answers by e-mail and no face-to-face interview either.

After Ms Lau was appointed president, The Straits Times continued to hope that Aware’s new leadership would see fit to open up about themselves and their plans. Attempts to reach individual exco members failed as everyone insisted that only the president was authorised to speak to the media. Yet Ms Lau did not make herself available either, despite numerous attempts to reach her by telephone, e-mail and text message. Instead, she chose to make her first public statements on a television current affairs programme. The Straits Times reported what she said there.

Those who accuse us of being one-sided in our reporting in the first two weeks after the story broke are right in a way. But it was not because we deliberately sought to shut out the views of the new group while providing the old guard space in this newspaper. The new leadership was often absent in our pages because they chose to remain silent, for reasons best known to themselves.

It was not until April23 – almost a month after the Aware AGM – that Ms Lau and some members of her team finally decided to open up at a press conference. The Straits Times sent a team of reporters and covered it comprehensively with reports on Page1 as well as in the inside pages.

Some have criticised our extensive coverage of this story and wondered why our reporting was so ‘breathless’. There are many reasons. As this story played out, we witnessed some highly unusual twists. Aside from the leadership change, Aware’s new president resigned within a fortnight. Her replacement, Ms Lau, was criticised publicly by her employer, DBS Bank, for taking office. The Straits Times was prepared to give the new team as much space as we had given the old group, and more if necessary, to answer all those questions which had been on everyone’s mind: Who were they, why did they take over Aware in the manner they did, and what did they hope to achieve?

It was only at that April23 press conference that senior lawyer Thio Su Mien revealed herself as the mentor of the women who had taken over Aware, and made several comments explaining why she felt Aware needed fixing. We reported that press conference extensively, and followed up by running extracts of what Dr Thio and others said, as well as their answers to additional questions our journalists put to them. We had maintained throughout that The Straits Times was prepared to run what the new leadership said, and we did so, in the interests of providing balance in our coverage so readers could better judge the merits of the arguments.

Our readers are not always aware of the work journalists do behind the scenes to try to present reports that are factual and objective, or the lengths to which we go to persuade those who are unwilling to speak to engage with the media and open up. It was certainly not for lack of trying on our part that the views of the new team led by Ms Lau and her supporters did not appear more often in our pages, especially in the early stages.

Mr Sin Boon Ann, in his speech in Parliament on Wednesday, accused the press of ‘framing this episode as one that carries a religious undertone’ and, in the process, polarising Singapore society. We should again let the facts speak for themselves. From the outset, we wanted to find out more about the new group, but because they were not willing to speak, we had to do our own research. Our checks showed one common link initially: several members of the new group had written letters to the press expressing concern about the perils of promoting a homosexual lifestyle in Singapore. We subsequently also found out that several of them belonged to the same Anglican Church of Our Saviour. We reported these factually.

Were we wrong to have highlighted those links? The April23 press conference confirmed what The Straits Times had reported. Dr Thio, who also attends the same church, revealed that she began monitoring Aware’s affairs about a year ago because she was disturbed by what she saw as signs that it was promoting lesbianism and homosexuality. She then began urging women she knew – including many in her church circle – to challenge what she perceived to be Aware’s attempts to redefine marriage and families.

What of the ‘religious undertones’ which Mr Sin accused the press of promoting in its coverage? This is totally mistaken, and akin to shooting the messenger. In fact, the strongest expressions of concern over this were not made by the press, but by various other parties.

As Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng observed in an interview with this paper: ‘The Government was worried about the disquieting public perception that a group of conservative Christians, all attending the same church, which held strong views on homosexuality had moved in and taken over Aware because they disapproved of what Aware had been doing. This caused many qualms among non-Christians, and also among Christians who believed that this was an unwise move in a multiracial, multi-religious society. It was much more dangerous because now, religion was also getting involved, and it was no longer just the issue of homosexuality.’

No higher authority in the Christian community than Anglican Archbishop John Chew of the National Council of Churches of Singapore (NCCS) issued a clear statement that the NCCS did not condone any church getting involved in the Aware dispute. Leaders of other religious faiths also put out statements to reinforce NCCS’ message.

Why did so many feel it necessary to speak out on the danger of mixing religion with politics in the Aware saga? It wasn’t the press which gave them the idea.

Was it because of what Senior Pastor Derek Hong of the Church of Our Saviour was reported to have said from the pulpit, urging his flock to support the then new exco in Aware? He had said:

‘It’s not a crusade against the people but there’s a line that God has drawn for us, and we don’t want our nation crossing that line.’ We leave it to readers to decide.

Far from The Straits Times raking the ground with an anti-religious agenda, we provided the available facts surrounding the makeup of the new group for readers to draw their own conclusions. Subsequent events showed that we were not barking up the wrong tree.

Mr Sin wondered if ‘the press would have been so quick on the take if it were women from another faith who took up the cause instead’.

He ought to know better than to use the religion card in this fashion. If Mr Sin is accusing The Straits Times of being in favour of some religions against others – a very serious accusation against a newspaper with 1.4million readers of every religious shade – he should substantiate his complaint.

I hope the facts I have set out above will help readers understand better our coverage of the Aware saga. Were we right in every aspect of our coverage? Of course not. Journalists are human, we make mistakes and we have our blind spots. Our record is that we are upfront about our errors and apologise for them promptly. Our internal processes, which involve several layers of editing and gate-keeping, ensure that individual reporters do not push their own agendas. We have also carried out our own internal review of our coverage and have found that we could have done better in several respects. For example, we should have pressed the old guard more on Aware’s school sexuality programme and the appropriateness of some of its content.

But I stand by the professionalism of our reporters. The personal attacks against the integrity of our journalists sadden me because they show the vindictiveness of our critics and the length to which they are prepared to go to attack our professionalism. In fact, there appears to be an organised campaign to discredit the media, with mass e-mail being sent, including to Reach, the government feedback portal.

The Straits Times has no hidden agenda to push this line or that, or to favour one group against another. On this story, as with others, we were driven by our desire to provide as much information to our readers as possible, in as timely a manner. That remains our primary objective.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28024.520