Sonny Yap must think that the majority of us were born stupid. Poh Soo Kai is in Canada but SPH must not be aware that telephones, Skype, video conferencing, air travel etc does exist. But he managed to travel to the peace village in Thailand to interview some lower order chaps.
Now with the Yoong Siew Wah caper, clearly verifying claims and allegations are not part of journalism as far as SPH are concerned. The opportunity to come clean tooks weeks despite as I understand a number of contacts were made to SPH and the management.
What about claims and allegations against many of the deceased. I suppose there is a valid claim that they cannot be contacted.
As to Lim Hock Siew - Sonny Yap must be fully aware that Lim had successfully sued the Straits Times for defamation while he was incarcerated and the matter was settled prior to trial. Why would he want to deal with an organisation that did him in the first place. This should have been revealed in the book.
By the way. Sonny was well aware of Yoong's complaint prior to this article coming out. At the end of the day - the issue is validating claims and verification - something that is second nature to even a journalist in Hicksville.
Mon, Sep 28, 2009
The Straits Times
By Sonny Yap, Deputy Political Editor
IF YOU write a book on the People’s Action Party (PAP), you know you have to brace yourself for heavy artillery fire from critics in cyberspace. It goes with the territory; it is par for the course. As the saying goes: If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen.
But what really floored the authors of Men In White was that the opening salvoes were fired several days before the book was put on sale.
‘New PAP book neglects founding members detained for 19 years’. ‘Not a single whiff of Operation Cold Store.’ ‘The book failed to explain the mystery of the Parliament walkout.’ ‘Did the writers give their drafts to former leftists for ‘fact-checking’?’
This was just a sampling of the postings that came fast and furious while the books were still in the warehouse. What omniscience, what clairvoyance – except for one niggling problem: They were factually off the mark.
You could say that the rush to judgment was faster than a Usain Bolt sprint. It was like a food reviewer pronouncing his verdict before tasting the pudding, or a theatre pundit demolishing a play before the curtain goes up, or a film critic panning a movie before he even catches sight of the opening frame.
In film-maker Martyn See’s blog on Sept 3, five days before the book was launched and sold, he alleged that the writers had committed a ‘glaring omission’ by failing to contact two founding PAP members, Dr Lim Hock Siew and Dr Poh Soo Kai, who were arrested in Operation Cold Store and detained without trial for periods of up to 19 years.
Cold Store was the massive security operation the authorities initiated in February 1963 to put communists and suspected communists behind bars.
We have since responded to Martyn’s blog, pointing out that we contacted Dr Lim twice around 2002 or 2003 but he refused to grant us an interview. In fact, our head researcher visited his clinic in Balestier Road to obtain his consent for the release of his oral history interview in the National Archives.
Though we failed to gain an interview with Dr Lim, we were able to reflect some of his views from his archived interview in the book. We also noted that we called Dr Poh at around the same time but were told he had emigrated to Canada.
The accusation that there was ‘not a single whiff of Operation Cold Store’ was more puzzling. In an excerpt from the book published in The Straits Times on Sept 6, headlined ‘I was interrogated day and night for six months’, former PAP founding member-turned-Barisan Sosialis leader Fong Swee Suan gave a harrowing first-person account of his detention.
If only the cyber-critic had waited patiently for the release of the book and had glanced at the index, even if he or she did not want to read the book, he would have seen 10 references to Operation Cold Store. And if he had then bothered to cross-refer, he would have found that former leading leftists were quoted on how the operation destroyed the left in Singapore.
As for the charge that the book ‘failed to explain the mystery of the Parliament walkout’, we were completely mystified. The reference was to the walkout of Barisan Sosialis legislative assemblymen from the chamber after Separation in 1965, which changed the history of Singapore forever.
We devoted one chapter to a blow-by-blow reconstruction of the controversial boycott led by Dr Lee Siew Choh. While drawing material from his unpublished memoirs, we carried varying accounts and interpretations by former Barisan Sosialis members. These included Mr Low Por Tuck, Mr Leong Keng Seng, Mr Ong Chang Sam, Dr Sheng Nam Chin, Mr Chan Sun Wing, Mr Ong Hock Siang, Mr Lim Huan Boon and Mr Chio Cheng Thun.
The critics also questioned whether we gave our ‘drafts to former leftists for ‘fact-checking’?’ Well, just lift the finger and turn over the page and the reader will notice three endorsements for the book from three former Barisan Sosialis leaders. They had read the entire draft of the book on the understanding that if they felt that the book had demonised them or the left, they were not obliged to give any comment.
So many allegations, misperceptions, innuendoes, errors, distortions, smears and taunts are swirling in cyberspace about the book that we wonder how we can respond without sounding needlessly defensive or engaging in a your-word-against-mine verbal tussle.
For example, we never gloated that Men In White was a no-holds-barred book – that comment was taken completely out of context. We never claimed it was definitive, or official history. In any event, wouldn’t a definitive, no-holds-barred, official history be an oxymoron?
Despite all the factual discrepancies in his blog and being quick on the draw, Martyn struck me as civil and rational during our phone conversation. He respected confidentiality and accorded us the right of reply in his blog. I believe I can talk to Martyn on the issues that matter to Singapore. He has the courage of his convictions to put his name against his views.
But how do you respond to an anonymous netizen who, referring to the picture of the three writers in news reports, snipes: ‘The authors look like secret agents to me. Don’t be surprised if they are from Internal Security Department.’
Or: ‘Are any of these three PAP or RC or grassroots members in any way past or present? I am curious because two wear pure white and the other partial white.’
We welcome cyber-criticisms, but how do you speak to a disembodied voice that leaves you speechless?
Now with the Yoong Siew Wah caper, clearly verifying claims and allegations are not part of journalism as far as SPH are concerned. The opportunity to come clean tooks weeks despite as I understand a number of contacts were made to SPH and the management.
What about claims and allegations against many of the deceased. I suppose there is a valid claim that they cannot be contacted.
As to Lim Hock Siew - Sonny Yap must be fully aware that Lim had successfully sued the Straits Times for defamation while he was incarcerated and the matter was settled prior to trial. Why would he want to deal with an organisation that did him in the first place. This should have been revealed in the book.
By the way. Sonny was well aware of Yoong's complaint prior to this article coming out. At the end of the day - the issue is validating claims and verification - something that is second nature to even a journalist in Hicksville.
Mon, Sep 28, 2009
The Straits Times
By Sonny Yap, Deputy Political Editor
IF YOU write a book on the People’s Action Party (PAP), you know you have to brace yourself for heavy artillery fire from critics in cyberspace. It goes with the territory; it is par for the course. As the saying goes: If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen.
But what really floored the authors of Men In White was that the opening salvoes were fired several days before the book was put on sale.
‘New PAP book neglects founding members detained for 19 years’. ‘Not a single whiff of Operation Cold Store.’ ‘The book failed to explain the mystery of the Parliament walkout.’ ‘Did the writers give their drafts to former leftists for ‘fact-checking’?’
This was just a sampling of the postings that came fast and furious while the books were still in the warehouse. What omniscience, what clairvoyance – except for one niggling problem: They were factually off the mark.
You could say that the rush to judgment was faster than a Usain Bolt sprint. It was like a food reviewer pronouncing his verdict before tasting the pudding, or a theatre pundit demolishing a play before the curtain goes up, or a film critic panning a movie before he even catches sight of the opening frame.
In film-maker Martyn See’s blog on Sept 3, five days before the book was launched and sold, he alleged that the writers had committed a ‘glaring omission’ by failing to contact two founding PAP members, Dr Lim Hock Siew and Dr Poh Soo Kai, who were arrested in Operation Cold Store and detained without trial for periods of up to 19 years.
Cold Store was the massive security operation the authorities initiated in February 1963 to put communists and suspected communists behind bars.
We have since responded to Martyn’s blog, pointing out that we contacted Dr Lim twice around 2002 or 2003 but he refused to grant us an interview. In fact, our head researcher visited his clinic in Balestier Road to obtain his consent for the release of his oral history interview in the National Archives.
Though we failed to gain an interview with Dr Lim, we were able to reflect some of his views from his archived interview in the book. We also noted that we called Dr Poh at around the same time but were told he had emigrated to Canada.
The accusation that there was ‘not a single whiff of Operation Cold Store’ was more puzzling. In an excerpt from the book published in The Straits Times on Sept 6, headlined ‘I was interrogated day and night for six months’, former PAP founding member-turned-Barisan Sosialis leader Fong Swee Suan gave a harrowing first-person account of his detention.
If only the cyber-critic had waited patiently for the release of the book and had glanced at the index, even if he or she did not want to read the book, he would have seen 10 references to Operation Cold Store. And if he had then bothered to cross-refer, he would have found that former leading leftists were quoted on how the operation destroyed the left in Singapore.
As for the charge that the book ‘failed to explain the mystery of the Parliament walkout’, we were completely mystified. The reference was to the walkout of Barisan Sosialis legislative assemblymen from the chamber after Separation in 1965, which changed the history of Singapore forever.
We devoted one chapter to a blow-by-blow reconstruction of the controversial boycott led by Dr Lee Siew Choh. While drawing material from his unpublished memoirs, we carried varying accounts and interpretations by former Barisan Sosialis members. These included Mr Low Por Tuck, Mr Leong Keng Seng, Mr Ong Chang Sam, Dr Sheng Nam Chin, Mr Chan Sun Wing, Mr Ong Hock Siang, Mr Lim Huan Boon and Mr Chio Cheng Thun.
The critics also questioned whether we gave our ‘drafts to former leftists for ‘fact-checking’?’ Well, just lift the finger and turn over the page and the reader will notice three endorsements for the book from three former Barisan Sosialis leaders. They had read the entire draft of the book on the understanding that if they felt that the book had demonised them or the left, they were not obliged to give any comment.
So many allegations, misperceptions, innuendoes, errors, distortions, smears and taunts are swirling in cyberspace about the book that we wonder how we can respond without sounding needlessly defensive or engaging in a your-word-against-mine verbal tussle.
For example, we never gloated that Men In White was a no-holds-barred book – that comment was taken completely out of context. We never claimed it was definitive, or official history. In any event, wouldn’t a definitive, no-holds-barred, official history be an oxymoron?
Despite all the factual discrepancies in his blog and being quick on the draw, Martyn struck me as civil and rational during our phone conversation. He respected confidentiality and accorded us the right of reply in his blog. I believe I can talk to Martyn on the issues that matter to Singapore. He has the courage of his convictions to put his name against his views.
But how do you respond to an anonymous netizen who, referring to the picture of the three writers in news reports, snipes: ‘The authors look like secret agents to me. Don’t be surprised if they are from Internal Security Department.’
Or: ‘Are any of these three PAP or RC or grassroots members in any way past or present? I am curious because two wear pure white and the other partial white.’
We welcome cyber-criticisms, but how do you speak to a disembodied voice that leaves you speechless?
