Ordinary Singaporean vs Inderjit / Seng HT Saga

[scroobal]

<[email protected]><[email protected]>After the thread on Indians MPs failure to address the Seng Han Tong Affair, a forummer reached out and provided the details of his exchange. Clearly this person took the right route of seeking the MP's views and the desire to raise the plight of those that have been cast in poor light. </[email protected]></[email protected]>


<[email protected]><[email protected]>Note the exchange and lets hear your views. It appears that he was avoiding the issue until forced to address it. More importantly there is Singaporean who are prepared to engage an MP directly to make this a better society. </[email protected]></[email protected]>


<[email protected]><[email protected]>Open letter to the Indian MPs of Singapore
December 23rd, 2011
Dear Indian MP’s of the Singapore Parliament,
Its with deep frustration & disappointment I write this email. </[email protected]></[email protected]>


<[email protected]><[email protected]>From:
Sent: Saturday, December 24, 2011 10:13 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Open letter to the Indian MPs of Singapore

Dear MP Inderjit Singh,

I reproduce an open letter to the Indian MPs of Singapore which you may have already seen and read.

I completely share the sentiments expressed in this letter.

I further wish to add that for an MP who claims he is not afraid to speak up, you are conspicuously absent in your silence on this matter. So far 3 Malay MPs have expressed their unhappiness with SHT’s racists comments. Will you be saying something soon? More so since he is your compatriot in the same GRC?

I therefore look forward to your comments in the papers and on Facebook castigating SHT for his racist comments. I think you will agree with me that he must be condemned in no uncertain terms for his very insensitive comments. We cannot allow such a loose cannon MP to upset the racial harmony which has taken generations to build up.

Yours Sincerely,

XXXXXXXXXXXXX </[email protected]></[email protected]>
<[email protected]><[email protected]>
From: Inderjit Singh [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, December 24, 2011 1:29 PM
To:
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Open letter to the Indian MPs of Singapore

Dear xxxxxxxx,

I speak up on issues I believe in and where I can make a difference, so don’t jump to conclusions that I claim to be what you said. Also, you don’t know that I was away for 2 weeks and just got back this morning, just a couple of hours ago, so don’t assume anything about why I did not make a comment. One of my residents also asked me and I have posted my views on my facebook. It is up to the papers to pick up this comment, I will not be sending to the press. For your information. Below is an extract of what I posted on my facebook.


 Inderjit Singh Dear Peter, a few people have wondered why I did not comment on this issue. Well, I just heard about this today. I was away for 2 weeks and just got back this morning. I had limited internet access and read about the Seng Han Thong‘s comments from the papers on board the flight back this morning. My initial reaction was of disappointment that he made such a comment. I have known Mr Seng for 17 years and I know he is not a racist. But I agree that his comments were uncalled for and not fair to the minority races. Even if he was stating what he heard, as a public figure he should have been more discerning and be mindful of the multi racial fabric of our society. I am glad he has apologised and stated his position. As a GRC colleague, will also have a word with him on how his comments have hurt the feelings of the minority races and urge him to be more careful in the future. In my 17 years of working with him, I have never sensed any racism in what Mr Seng says and does.

Regards
Inderjit Singh
From:
Sent: Saturday, December 24, 2011 4:19 PM
To: 'Inderjit Singh'
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Open letter to the Indian MPs of Singapore

Dear MP Inderjit Singh,

Thank you for your detailed response which is much appreciated. Here are my comments:

a. I do not think you need to be so defensive . A straight forward explanation/response would have sufficed.

b. You mentioned you speak up on issues you believe in and can make a difference. Does not racial harmony and a fellow MP making racist comments which can potentially undermine this, come under this category? I would have thought this would warrant being on the top of your list of things you believe in.
c. SHT made his comments on national TV at prime time and his comments were not only carried in the social media but received much prominence and extensive coverage in the national press as well. Your response was just a posting on your Facebook page. I feel the right thing for you to do would have been to also issue a press release and maybe even offer to share your comments on national TV, expressing your unhappiness with SHT comments. Other PAP MPs did that. The fact you have chosen not to do so really surprises me. It is however still not too late and I really hope you will issue at least a press release to the SPH publications and to the TODAY newspaper.

d. I trust that if you still choose not to make a press release that you will have no objection to my releasing to social blogs our email exchanges. I’m sure more people should and will be pleased to know that you have taken a stand on what SHT said, even though you only said it the Facebook page.

Kind regards

XXXXXXXXX

From: Inderjit [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, December 24, 2011 6:41 PM
To:
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Open letter to the Indian MPs of Singapore

Noted.
Sent via BlackBerry from SingTel!

From: Inderjit Singh [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, December 24, 2011 4:42 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Open letter to the Indian MPs of Singapore

XXXXX, I will do what is right and I expect you will not release what I have shared with you with the social media. My comments have already been picked up by the press so you don’t have to do so. On the other points below, I listen to others but will decide what I want to speak on, I don’t think anyone of us can impose on anyone else on what they should speak on or be interested in. I have many people who I deal with who discuss issues openly with me and I form my opinions. I don’t even know you, so I think you should expect that you can make your comments and should not expect me react just based on your inputs. If you like, feel free to come and meet me to discuss issues, I would like to put a face to those I discuss things with.
________________________________________
From:
Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2011 18:22:23 +0800
To: 'Inderjit Singh'<[email protected]>
ReplyTo:
Cc: <[email protected]>
Subject: Open letter to the Indian MPs of Singapore

Dear MP Inderjit Singh,

Thanks for your reply.

Since you said that your comments have been picked up by the press, I will hold my hand for now and not release our exchanges to the blogs.

I hope when you say “others” you include citizens of Singapore like me, who you will agree have made some very valid points to you which are in our NATIONAL INTERESTS. I am certainly not trying to impose “personal” views as you have claimed.

Is it also necessary for you to know me ( or anyone else who writes to you) before you respond? XXXXXXXX is my real name and you can goggle and Facebook me to find out who I am. I am just a concerned ordinary citizen of Singapore and I expect all MPs to give due respect to all their citizens’ opinions.

On your kind invitation to meet, thanks very much but I don’t believe a private discourse on such an important matter of an elected MP making racist comments (and then falsely attributing it to the PR dept of the MRT ) would be helpful. I am for openness and transparency and would rather that whatever we have to say on this or similar issues be said so in the open and without equivocation.

At least I am glad that you did not take the dubious path of your fellow Indian MP Hri Kumar who obviously either does not or refuses to understand and seems to support SHT. I reproduce the article below.
Thank you and Best wishes
XXXXXXXXX</[email protected]></[email protected]>

 

[Leongsam]

Yawn...... If this is the only issue worth discussing, Singapore has to be in really good shape.

 

[Areopagus]

Well done! Thanks for posting this informative exchange

 

[zhihau]

If you like, feel free to come and meet me to discuss issues, I would like to put a face to those I discuss things with.

thought it was fair and just to put a face to the issues discussed, but i noticed a sense of apprehension towards the social media from our dear MP.

 

[scroobal]

Initially I thought he was responsible when I heard he made appropriate comments on CNA. That is until this forummer highlighted it was not that straightforward as it appears. From the exchange, it was obvious he was being very defensive, and it looks like he was kicking and screaming as he was led to the altar.

thought it was fair and just to put a face to the issues discussed, but i noticed a sense of apprehension towards the social media from our dear MP.

 

[scroobal]

This is what GMS wrote in another thread and I have reproduced in whole as it provide context and his views, and I agree with him.

""
PAP Member of Parliament Seng Han Thong has given a twist to the whole MRT fiasco when he gave his opinion to BlogTV. His comment has literally divert the attention from the competency of SMRT management to the racial remarks embedded he made in the show.

<iframe height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/SmEqiQ-hzvs" frameBorder="0" width="420" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>

You can watch the whole BlogTV show here.

The Online Citizen has put up an article which attracts more than 10,000 likes within 24 hours. TOC has made a couple of updates since then. Cherian George has made the comment that TOC was wrong in its reporting headlines because MP Seng was "just quoting from SMRT sources". At this point of time, the Law Minister Shanmugam has come out to defend MP Seng while the other PAP minority MPs like Halimah and Inderjit have expressed regret that MP Seng has made such comment.

Seng Han Thong (SHT) has initially denied any wrong doing while stressing that he has been quoted "out of context". Subsequently, he came up with an official apology but still insisted that his words have been misconstrued. He finally came up with another press statement to say that he was actually trying to "defend" the SMRT staff but it was TOC which put up the wrong headline. You can read his full statement here.

The magnitude of this issue has inevitably attract the attention of the higher echelon of PAP leadership due to the more than 10,000 likes on TOC article within 24 hours. Debates are going on whether SHT has made a verbal blunder or that TOC has put up "falsehood" on its website.

I am going to dissect on this issue on two fronts. First on whether SHT agreed with SMRT VP assessment that the staff could not handle the situation well because of their deficiency in English language. Secondly, on whether SHT is trying to "defend" the workers.

Some people, including the Minister of Law Shanmugam has claimed that what TOC has put up is falsehood or inappropriate Headline. Let's read the initial article put up by TOC. It says only the following:

"In a BlogTV programme MP for Ang Mo Kio GRC Seng Han Thong admitted that part of the problem with the SMRT breakdowns last week is due to SMRT staffs not being trained in emergency preparedness. He said that because some staffs are “Malay(s), they are Indians, they cannot converse in English good, well enough”. See from 6.12 minutes"​

Watch the video again.

1) SHT did not DISAGREE with the quote or rather the misquote he thought he has heard from radio, on what the SMRT VP has said. In fact, he has to agree with whatever quotes he believed he heard in order to make the following comment that the staff should use broken English. He did not disagree the context that the staff cannot or uncomfortable to speak proper English.

So, is it "falsehood" that TOC has made in its article and headline that SHT admits that the SMRT staff cannot converse well in English? Apparently not.

2) If you are still not convinced, roll back and watch the front part. He said the problem should be split into two. SHT has made quite a silly remark about SMRT staff could handle emergency like terrorist attack but could not handle train breakdown. Then he "misquoted" SMRT VP to say that this problem occurs because some SMRT staff because they are Malays or Indians, cannot converse well in English. SHT did not disagree with SMRT VP's assessment but offer a solution, that is to tell the SMRT staff to use broken English instead.

SHT has responded at first instance that he has been quoted out of context and misrepresented by TOC. Apparently he didn't realize or understand that his remark or rather, misquote of SMRT VP, is potentially racial in nature. He blamed it on others like TOC who has misinterpreted him.

Whether SHT is a racist or not, I have no comment on it because I don't really know him personally. I only know him as a public figure, an elected Member of Parliament. Naturally, we would be more demanding on an elected MP, be it PAP or opposition. He is not the Tom, Dick or Harry we meet on the street but a politician who has been elected to represent the constituents.

As a politician, we would expect him to be ultra sensitive to racial connotation inherently. Even if he has quoted SMRT spokesman, it doesn't mean that there is nothing wrong with what he has said. For a politician like him, if he truly believes that SMRT spokesman has said what he has quoted, the first thing in mind is to rebut such racial tag. But SHT didn't do that. He repeated it as a matter of fact, agreed with it and added his own comment that the staff should use broken English instead. If he doesn't agree with what SMRT spokesman has said, why would he suggest using broken English?

SHT may not be racist but at the very least, he has failed quite badly as a politician, a PAP MP to be exact. He lacks racial sensitivity.

SHT tries to defend himself by saying that he was just trying to defend the workers. Did he really do that during that BlogTV program?

He agrees with SMRT assessment that crisis management was compromised due to the workers' lack of linguistic abilities, instead of reprimanding the SMRT of neglect in training the staff in both technical and linguistic aspects.

He wasn't "defending" the staff at all. He was merely telling the staff that they could just use broken English. He seemingly agreed with the blame on the staff's linguistic inadequacy contributed to the bad crisis management during the train breakdown.

I will put up examples on how he could have REALLY DEFENDED the staff:

1) If he has honestly heard wrongly that the SMRT VP was talking about only Indian and Malay workers having problems in speaking English, he should actually say it has nothing to do with their race! That's defending them.

2) He should have said, it is SMRT's responsibility to give adequate training to its workers, including English, so that they could perform their duties more effectively and could handle such emergencies well.

3) He should have said, if their workers cannot handle such situations, it is NOT the workers' fault but the SMRT management which failed to provide all necessary training to them. The SMRT management shouldn't use the lack of linguistic ability of its staff as an excuse of not providing such training.

4) He should have said, you cannot expect the staff to handle the situation if the management, for whatever reasons, didn't provide the necessary training.

It seems to me that SHT was trying to defend the SMRT management rather than the workers. He avoided answering the question posted by the host on whether SMRT management more concerned about profits rather than public service. He even went that far to suggest that SMRT could handle terrorist attacks even though they couldn't handle breakdowns like what we have experienced.

SHT has committed a series of blunders right from the start.

1) Misquoting SMRT spokesman.

2) Didn't even realize at first instance that the misquotes which he has put up is potentially racist.

3) Failed to rebut the racist connotation embedded in his misquotation but instead agreed with it unwittingly to make the other point.

4) Trying to cry foul without realizing that he has misquoted SMRT and what he has done is racially insensitive.

5) Shifting blame unto TOC while "apologizing" which makes him looks bad.

6) Trying to say that he is "defending" workers when the video has shown otherwise.

I have only this to say to PAP MP Seng Han Thong: You failed quite badly as a politician and you should do better than this. Just accept the fact that you have made a series of blunders, just apologize and stop blaming others from "mis-representing" you. You are basically insulting the intelligence of the ten of thousands people who have watched what you say whom come to the conclusion that you have made such inappropriate racially sensitive remarks.

Goh Meng Seng""

 

[ChaoPappyPoodle]

If Inderdigit Singh was serious on representing the minority groups, which is the gist of the GRC system, then he should have ensured that his message was repeated by the main stream media. If all Inderdigit Singh wants to do is to plaster his facebook then Inderdigit Singh obviously ins't interested in sharing his message with his constituents. As well, Inderdigit Singh obviously doesn't believe in the GRC system to the extend that he is an MP almost solely due to the GRC system, as a representative of the minority groups in Singapore. Inderdigit Singh is either negligent or lazy. Do take note that we have an MP that has been overseas for two weeks and has no idea what has hit Singapore for the said period! What kind of an MP is this????

 

[scroobal]

Here are some salient points which the author highlighted which Inderjit should have recognised instantly as a serious issue despite he leaving mother earth for 2 weeks and could not access the World.

- open letter to all Indian MPs
- 3 Malay PAP MPs taking issue with their own party colleagues

The writer was abundantly fair in painting the right picture.

Note that Inderjit kept saying that he will do what is "right" and not forced into anything. Is the writer asking him to do something wrong. Was he asked to doing something not expected out of an MP such as following the writer to a Disco.

You could see he was struggling for air with his comments.

 

[scroobal]

On second thought, why the need to put a face to a name or issue. The issue here is serious, publicly reported and discussed extensively. My first reaction as an MP would be to say that I will look immediately into it and will revert. Unless the writer revealed an unknown or something completely out. Of course Inderjit may have been looking for a son-in-law.

To be fair to Inderjit, the only explanation for seeing the writer personally was to reveal something that he was not prepared to release in the open. He might have shown the writer a copy of the email from the top not to discuss this any further or the reasons holding him back.

It appears to me Inderjit knew what was happening and had already commented on FB.

thought it was fair and just to put a face to the issues discussed, but i noticed a sense of apprehension towards the social media from our dear MP.

 

[zhihau]

You could see he was struggling for air with his comments.

bro,

thought you mentioned something about putting a lid on the comments made by MPs regarding this fiasco?

 

[scroobal]

I suspect thats the reason for the massive prevarication. Seng Han Tong's burden should not be carried by everyone. That instruction came from the top and he was groomed by old man as they work very closely together on his memoirs.

bro,

thought you mentioned something about putting a lid on the comments made by MPs regarding this fiasco?

 

[scroobal]

Did anyone ever realise that there is an elected Indian/Sikh MP that is not from the PAP?

 

[zhihau]

It appears to me Inderjit knew what was happening and had already commented on FB.

ooo... i wouldn't have an inkling of what he wrote on FB, didn't even notice he had an account :p:p:p

 

[zhihau]

Did anyone ever realise that there is an elected Indian/Sikh MP that is not from the PAP?

Pritam! great chap

did he say anything about this fiasco?

 

[scroobal]

He menitons the FB entry and provided what he wrote in it in the email in the first post.

ooo... i wouldn't have an inkling of what he wrote on FB, didn't even notice he had an account :p:p:p

 

[Varuna]

Note that Inderjit kept saying that he will do what is "right" and not forced into anything. Is the writer asking him to do something wrong. Was he asked to doing something not expected out of an MP such as following the writer to a Disco.
You could see he was struggling for air with his comments.

If someone writes email and ask me to make a stand and comment on a matter which has no direct relation to me, I can answer like that. But as political figure and representative of people who voted you to serve them, there is an extra expectation for you to stand out and make known your views, to assure the people who depend and look up to you as their representatives. This is the game that is known all over the world for people who wants to be a public figure or in politics. He could just say that he recognised it was not appropriate and that since Seng HT has apologised, we should move on. Blessings also. Through this incident, it helped expose the cover and let us know more about this person and his character.

 

[Windsor]

A few question.

Inderjit Singh represents the Indian minority or just minorities? Would it not be the Indian MP's that better represent theis community? A Singh is a minority even in his own country.

So who does an Eurasian MP represent in this context? Does he represent a Malay. Indian or Eurasian? Or does he represent the minorities?

 

[aurvandil]

Here's something about Seng Han Thong which is not so well known. For more than 20 years, he was part of the Chinese "nation building" press.

http://www.parliament.gov.sg/mp/seng-han-thong?viewcv=Seng Han Thong


1974 Reporter, Nanyang Siang Pau

1982 Chief Reporter, Nanyang Siang Pau

1983 Chief Reporter, Lianhe Zaobao

1986 Executive Editor, Lianhe Zaobao

1988 Assistant Chief Editor, Lianhe Zaobao

1990 Acting Chief Editor, Shin Min Daily News

1992 Deputy Chief Editor, Lianhe Zaobao

1996 General Manager, Chinese Newspaper Division, Singapore Press Holdings

Also of interest are his educational qualifications. It explains quite clearly why the way he speaks the way he does. For someone who could not make it to University and who only has an external Masters degree to his name, he should not be looking down on lowly educated people who cannot speak English properly, whatever their race might be.


1956- 1967 GCE ‘A’ Level (Tuan Mong High School)

1983-1984 Diploma in Management Studies (Singapore Institute of Management)

1990-1993 Master of Business Administration (Brunel University, England)

If you are wondering just what the hell is Brunel University, it was ranked a staggering 351 in the latest QS World University Rankings. Our own NUS was ranked 28.

http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2011?page=7

 

[scroobal]

My understanding from Indian friends is that Sikhs are no different to any other Indian except that they have different religion. In fact they are not even a race. Since we are familiar with South Indians, we think they are different only that they a not southerners but North Indians. If we treat them as a separate race, they would not even make the GRC cut as their numbers are small and pretty much like Eurasians. Anyway. If they entered via GRC and obtained the minority cert, the expectation is to represent all minorities and I expect there is a sense of accountability towards people of their geographic origin.

A few question.Inderjit Singh represents the Indian minority or just minorities? Would it not be the Indian MP's that better represent theis community? A Singh is a minority even in his own country.So who does an Eurasian MP represent in this context? Does he represent a Malay. Indian or Eurasian? Or does he represent the minorities?

 

[kingrant]

I believe Inderjit wants to live up to the people's expectations and his own image but has also an eye and ear to closing ranks with his party and not offending his bosses.

From this, we'll begin to see what the new normal is.