TOC: Why report on Viswa Sadasivan’s speech was removed from TOC

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Why report on Viswa Sadasivan’s speech was removed from TOC
Sunday, 30 August 2009, 12:21 am | 1,594 views

On Friday, 28 August, The Online Citizen published a report by Fang Shihan on NMP Mr Viswa Sadasivan’s speech at the Lee Kuan School of Public Policy. On 29 August, we removed the report from our website after being contacted by Mr Viswa’s assistant. The following is Mr Viswa’s letter to The Online Citizen and our response.

Mr Viswa’s Sadasivan’s letter:

I have asked for the article to be taken off for the following reasons.

First, I agreed to speak at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy (something that I committed to two months ago) on condition that it would be a closed-door session i.e. no media coverage (including online media).

Second, when I came to know from a third party a day after my speech that a story was filed for posting on theonlinecitizen.com, I had given explicit instructions that I did not want my speech carried by the media. But after persuasion I consented to it being carried by theonlinecitizen.com on condition that I personally clear and sign-off on the final version. This was agreed to. On this understanding I had asked for changes to be made to the draft that was sent to me, essentially to take out parts that were not adequately contextualised which could result in a skewed reading of what I said at the LKY School on Wednesday, last week. The fact is that I did not get to see the final amended version and therefore did not get the chance to sign-off on it, as agreed, before it went online. This is highly regrettable and it is a breach of the agreement, albeit verbal, and a breach of trust.

This online article does not capture the tone or spirit of my speech and the question and answer session that followed. It failed to capture the context and the many qualifiers that I had presented that is absolutely necessary for the reader to have, to get an accurate sense of what I conveyed in the speech and my motivation thereof. The online report, intentionally or unwittingly, presented my comments in an exceptionally sharp, even belligerent and self-righteous manner. This is unacceptable, naturally. I have no issue standing by whatever I have said or will say in future. However I cannot stand idle and see my comments or intentions misrepresented and misread – it does not serve me or the democratic process any good. Most certainly, I do not wish to become a player in furthering an agenda that is not mine, and something to which I don’t subscribe.

In short, I do not wish for my speech in Parliament nor my speech at the Lee Kuan Yew School last week to become incorrectly portrayed or politicised. In fact, it is for this reason that I turned down more than 14 requests from local and foreign media agencies for interviews following my maiden speech in Parliament. Whatever I had to say I said at Parliament and at the Lee Kuan Yew School.

For these reasons I have asked, after careful consideration, for the posting of the article on my speech at the Lee Kuan Yew School to be removed.

Thank you.
Viswa Sadasivan


——–


The Online Citizen’s response:

We thank Mr Viswa Sadasivan for his letter.

We would like to express our apologies to Mr Viswa for the miscommunication about letting him “personally clear and sign-off on the final version” of our report. It is not a practice nor a policy of The Online Citizen to do this – unless under very special circumstances.

The miscommunication came about, we believe, firstly because of the above. Following this, it was thought that Mr Viswa’s assistant, who had communicated her concerns about the content of the report with our reporter, had agreed for it to be published after the discussion. We had thought the assistant was given authority by Mr Viswa to make the decision. As it turned out, this was not so.

On Mr Viswa’s other points in his letter, we regret that Mr Viswa alluded to an “agenda” we might have. We have no agenda except, in reporting on events, such as the one where Mr Viswa spoke at, our aim is to report as accurately as we can – as we have always done and will continue to do so. We also find it regrettable that Mr Viswa finds our report “exceptionally sharp, even belligerent and [presented in a] self-righteous manner”. Shihan’s report is none of the aforementioned. It is unfortunate that Mr Viswa holds such a view. We leave it to our readers to decide.

Also, Mr Viswa says he does not wish for either of his speeches in Parliament or at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy to be “politicized”. We do not understand what Mr Viswa means. Even so, we had no intention of “politicizing” either of his speeches, whatever that means. Our aim was solely to relay to our audience, what he had said.

However, after careful consideration of the concerns which Mr Viswa conveyed to The Online Citizen separately, we have agreed to remove the report from our site.

We again thank Mr Viswa for his letter and take this opportunity to congratulate him on his recent appointment as Nominated Member of Parliament.

We now consider this matter closed.

Regards,

Andrew Loh

Chief Editor

The Online Citizen

 

[FuckSamLeong]

In short, I do not wish for my speech in Parliament nor my speech at the Lee Kuan Yew School last week to become incorrectly portrayed or politicised.

So what he had expressed is not political? He is setting a new construct in political speeches that cannot be "incorrectly portrayed or politicised"? Indian!

 

[scroobal]

Mr Nationalism to the core.

In short, I do not wish for my speech in Parliament nor my speech at the Lee Kuan Yew School last week to become incorrectly portrayed or politicised. In fact, it is for this reason that I turned down more than 14 requests from local and foreign media agencies for interviews following my maiden speech in Parliament. Whatever I had to say I said at Parliament and at the Lee Kuan Yew School.

For these reasons I have asked, after careful consideration, for the posting of the article on my speech at the Lee Kuan Yew School to be removed.

Thank you.
Viswa Sadasivan

 

[ChaoPappyPoodle]

This is too funny! Viswa's talk was on the media in Singapore being more open and he follows with a request that a media report on his talk be removed.

What irony! Does this guy think we are all idiots so easily taken in by his wayang?

Forget him and don't pay attention to him. That is what the TOC and other online media should do to this guy. Don't report anything on him for now or later. Let him be anonymous because only then will he appreciate a free and open media.

How dare he dictate what the media writes about him!

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

TOC should not subject itself to Viswa's wish just because he made the request. TOC's report is legitimate and not defamatory in nature.

He requested the school not to have reporters but he cannot dictate that attendants cannot comment or write about his speech in the internet sphere. On what basis does he demand that others cannot report on his speech?

And yes, it is a total irony when he speaks about open media but his attitude towards citizen journalism is totally absurd. Imagine if I do not like SPH or Mediacorp way of reporting my rally speeches to "fit their agendas", do I have the right to request them to take down their writings from their newspapers or website? Or that could I request SPH writers let me vet their writing and contents first before they could publish it? Dang Kuku! Maybe PAP will make such requests and SPH will adhere to their wishes but not others. It is obvious that Viswa has leant all these stuff from PAP's management of conventional media!

Very disappointing from both sides, TOC and Viswa.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear GMS

You are being to harsh with the TOC. They are trying to be journalist and decent on line journalists at that and what they have displayed is Journalistic Integrity. Scroobal was right abt Visawan but the TOC needs to display Integrity if it is to continue speaking and interviewing people.



Locke

 

[ChaoPappyPoodle]

Dear GMS

You are being to harsh with the TOC. They are trying to be journalist and decent on line journalists at that and what they have displayed is Journalistic Integrity. Scroobal was right abt Visawan but the TOC needs to display Integrity if it is to continue speaking and interviewing people.

Locke

I agree that GMS is being harsh on TOC but I disagree that TOC's motivation to remove the article was based on journalistic integrity. Rather, by removing the article TOC has shown that it lacks journalistic integrity. If TOC feels that it wrote the truth and provided its own editorial without an agenda then it should not have removed it.

The writer should post the article again, ableit as an individual but not under the auspices of TOC. Let's see Viswa's argument. Then let's see if we can bring the mainstream to report on Viswa's actions.

This is a battle that can be easily won. It shouldn't go to waste.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Dear GMS

You are being to harsh with the TOC. They are trying to be journalist and decent on line journalists at that and what they have displayed is Journalistic Integrity. Scroobal was right abt Visawan but the TOC needs to display Integrity if it is to continue speaking and interviewing people.



Locke

Dear Locke,

If by this standard, you mean to say SPH does not have any integrity?

The request is ABSURD and nothing to do with integrity. If TOC aims to become a truly INDEPENDENT Media reporting, it should exert its independence as a media and not adhere to unreasonable media censorship methodology of such standards!

TOC has missed the point right here. It is behaving like SPH succumbing to PAP's media control methodology. Sad and disappointing.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

I agree that GMS is being harsh on TOC but I disagree that TOC's motivation to remove the article was based on journalistic integrity. Rather, by removing the article TOC has shown that it lacks journalistic integrity. If TOC feels that it wrote the truth and provided its own editorial without an agenda then it should not have removed it.

The writer should post the article again, ableit as an individual but not under the auspices of TOC. Let's see Viswa's argument. Then let's see if we can bring the mainstream to report on Viswa's actions.

This is a battle that can be easily won. It shouldn't go to waste.

I may sound harsh but this is how independent media works in the work. If you aim to be one, make sure you act like one and behave like one.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear GMS

Whether independent or not, one has to have the "integrity" to respect the wishes of the speaker. If he has an expressed wished that the session and his comments were not to be reported then really by far his view has to be respected.

" Off the record" or " Non attributable" should remain that off the record and non attributable to maintain a professional relationship between the a journalist and a person.



Locke

 

[FuckSamLeong]

http://sammyboy.com/showthread.php?t=35695

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Dear GMS

Whether independent or not, one has to have the "integrity" to respect the wishes of the speaker. If he has an expressed wished that the session and his comments were not to be reported then really by far his view has to be respected.

" Off the record" or " Non attributable" should remain that off the record and non attributable to maintain a professional relationship between the a journalist and a person.



Locke

Dear Locke,

Journalism does not work that way. If you are to adhere to everyone's fancy wishes, you will get nowhere.

Did Journalists from SPH respect opposition members when they do their write up?

This is no interview, it is a speech given in a forum. I believe the organizer did not mention about "off the record" or "closed door, no disclosure in public" kind of thing. It will be a mockery for an academic institution.

If such announcement has been made, TOC writer would not have wasted the effort to write. And if this is the case, the speaker has absolutely no right to request for VETTING what the writer writes before they could publish! This only happens in communist country or country with dictatorship!

Viswa has missed the point and maybe he has been too familiar with how the media system under PAP works. He should not write to TOC to ask for the removal of that article. It will reflect very badly to him, especially when this is made public by TOC now by publishing his email.

Even if he has made the request, TOC should maintain their article up there, for the good of both parties. As a media aspired to be professional and independent, it should have told Viswa it would damage his public image if his request is being made known. Especially it would be a total irony and contradictory to what he has spoken in that forum. Secondly, it would damage TOC's credibility as well. It is a lose lose situation. What they should suggest is the normal practice. TOC has the right to publish, he has the right of reply. Simple as that.

The whole episode is being mismanaged.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear GMS

Has an SPH journalist ever printed stuff which you have declared to be off the record or non attributable :_)). You my dear friend are as adept in the art of leaking as the next person.

I had the pleasure of attending many RIIA events at Chatnam House under Chatnam house rules. Visawans speech was given in a public but"invite only forum" which again I believe was not widely publicized or advertised. I believe some form of Chatnam house rules should apply if we are to engage in serious off the record discussion





Locke

The Chatham House Rule is a rule that governs the confidentiality of the source of information received at a meeting. Since its refinement in 2002, the rule states:[1]
When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed.
The rule originated in June, 1927, at what is now best known as Chatham House (formally known as the Royal Institute of International Affairs) with the aim of guaranteeing anonymity to those speaking within its walls in order that better international relations could be achieved. It is now used throughout the world as an aid to free discussion. The original rule was refined in October 1992 and again in 2002.
Meetings, or parts of meetings, may be held either "on the record" or "under the Chatham House Rule". In the latter case, the participants are understood to have agreed that it would be conducive to free discussion that they should be subject to the rule for the relevant part of the meeting. The success of the rule may depend on it being considered morally binding, particularly in circumstances where a failure to comply with the rule may result in no sanction.
The Rule allows people to speak as individuals, and to express views that may not be those of their organizations, and therefore it encourages free discussion. Speakers are then free to voice their own opinions, without concern for their personal reputation or their official duties and affiliations.
The Chatham House Rule resolves a boundary problem faced by many communities of practice, in that it permits acknowledgment of the community or conversation while protecting the freedom of interaction that is necessary for the community to carry out its conversations

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Dear GMS

Has an SPH journalist ever printed stuff which you have declared to be off the record or non attributable :_)). You my dear friend are as adept in the art of leaking as the next person.

I had the pleasure of attending many RIIA events at Chatnam House under Chatnam house rules. Visawans speech was given in a public but"invite only forum" which again I believe was not widely publicized or advertised. I believe some form of Chatnam house rules should apply if we are to engage in serious off the record discussion





Locke

Dear Locke,

Then fine. The only conclusion is still the same. TOC is not professional in not following the rules stated (if it has even been stated).

Viswa's side has made the terrible mistake of requesting to vet the write up before it is being published. He should just give an upright NO NO right from the start. And TOC is not professional enough to adhere to such request!

No SPH journalists will publish "off the record" stuff but neither would any SPH journalists would succumb to interviewees' request to VET their write up before publish...well, maybe only succumb to PMO's or PAP's requests only. This is precisely why Singaporeans view SPH as "Pro-Govt" with PAP's controls on it.

Is TOC going to be SPH II? Think about it.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[ChaoPappyPoodle]

This is te same Viswa that once headed the government's Feedback Unit. The same government machinery that came out with information on Tang Liang Hong's speeches during the feedback sessions. This information was used to dramatic effect by the pappies against Tang Liang Hong.

The irony of this man.

I think the TOC should not compromise on its journalistic integrity. It is ridiculous that Viswa is so adamant on refusing TOC their rightful journalistic rights based on his own personal feelings. What is this man made of?

I hope that TOC doesn't let this go and instead publices Viswa's actions as often as possible so that everyone sees the irnoy of the entire episode.

TOC should interview Balaji and other parties to ask of their opinion on the entire matter and to publicise it as much as possible.

 

[ChaoPappyPoodle]

Locke, as usual is talking out of his arse and misses the irony of VIswa's speech and his actions prior to and thereafter.

Stop screwing the thread locke. We've heard enough from you on this subject. And GMS don't let locke hijack the thread. Just ignore him.

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear GMS

I believe that the TOC was professional in its approach. Mistakes were made with regards to understanding the limits and the rules of engagement but I believe that they will learn from the experience.

Firstly Visawan gave TOC an EXCLUSIVE, any journalist worth his salt would have a journalistic boner that would split his pants and yes under such circumstances if Visawan wanted a look at the final article then it would be subject to the editors decision over whether an exclusive was worth giving up some degree of independence.

Secondly the event was limited , and somewhat closed door as invite only and the speaker had specifically requested for him not to be reported in the press. Somewhat Chatnam house rules, but if this was off the record in Visawan's view and he was giving something on the record to TOC, then he had some entitlement to comment or have some say in what was published.




Locke

 

[scroobal]

Chao, GMS and Locke all have a valid points.

For those that are not familar, Talks and Sessions that are "frank and forthright" and "no holds barred" have been occurring Singapore since the PAP took office 50 years ago. These are also common in Western countries where certain topics are off limits or taboo for public consumption.

Such talks and sessions are carried out to "respect" the intellegentsia who do not accept what is said in parliament and the public space on terms that are consider untrue, false, inaccurate and illogical.

Typically the person giving such talks are establishment figures usually cabinet ministers, captains of industries and politically savvy luminaries.

The purpose of such talks and sessions are to say the opposite of what was said in public but in this instance to speak the truth and assauge the minds of intelligentsia. Basically if you say that pig's fly in parliament or in public, at such sessions, you tell the intelligentsia that pigs indeed can't fly. There are a numbers of reasons doing it.
1) To tell the Intelligentsia that the establishment are not taking them for granted and do not take them for fools
2) To tell the intelligentsia that the establishment are also not made up of fools but have a clear motive a putting such a position in public
3) To keep intelligentsia onside and hooked as repeat invitations means not raising a hue and cry.
4) Source of recruitment for the establishment's cause
5) To gauge response of intelligentsia in cases after floating trial balloons.

Locke is also right. Chatnam House rules certainly apply.

ps. will comment later on other points.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Dear Locke,

You are really missing the point.

No professional journalist will agree to "VETTING" by non-Editorial personnel or worse, by their interviewees, on their writing prior to publication. No professional journalist will put up reports that they know they should not put up due to whatever rules or agreement (off the record). And no professional journalist will just take off any article on any Tom Dick Harry's requests just because they don't like it! Or even just change their writings if angle after people complain. This is especially so on internet where such act will be noticed immediately. Unless such articles involved legitimate concerns like defamation or criminal laws (eg sedition) in the land.

As for this particular report, IT IS NOT AN EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW! The forum was attended by many (which may or may not be told that they should not report on this event).

And the other part of the problem lies with Viswa. I am surprised that a person like him who supposedly work for SPH knows the ground rules well. Ironically, he was talking on the theme about Freedom of media while practicing Total Censorship on the media after the speech!

I think TOC or Wayangparty has written on the Mee Siam Mai Hum thing before. ST tried to change the wording on PM Lee speech on their internet version but was caught red handed. Such incident enhanced public perception of SPH as PAP's mouthpiece. It is detrimental to the media's credibility, even if it is just a "small attempt" to change text of fact to cover up embarrassing facts for PAP. For any media that aspire to be professional, it is definitely a NO NO, least removing the whole published article just based on someone's request!

Last but not least, publishing the email of request cause DOUBLE DAMAGE to both TOC and Viswa. The article might not have any big impact on Viswa but such revelation on his attempt to censor TOC of publishing this article is the killing point for both him and TOC.

Goh Meng Seng

Dear GMS

I believe that the TOC was professional in its approach. Mistakes were made with regards to understanding the limits and the rules of engagement but I believe that they will learn from the experience.

Firstly Visawan gave TOC an EXCLUSIVE, any journalist worth his salt would have a journalistic boner that would split his pants and yes under such circumstances if Visawan wanted a look at the final article then it would be subject to the editors decision over whether an exclusive was worth giving up some degree of independence.

Secondly the event was limited , and somewhat closed door as invite only and the speaker had specifically requested for him not to be reported in the press. Somewhat Chatnam house rules, but if this was off the record in Visawan's view and he was giving something on the record to TOC, then he had some entitlement to comment or have some say in what was published.




Locke

 

[scroobal]

Both TOC founders and Viswa are actually cut from the same cloth. They are both nationalistic in style and approach. They are both keen to be socially responsible and want to be part of the political process but lack the political savvy that allows both of them to be manipulated.

TOC is the second experiment after Talking cock was sanctioned by the authorities. The audience for the former was limited as the political satire and sarcasm was not understoood by the majority and it served as a relief valve for the the politically agitated but in small doses.

TOC founders have their origins with people who were and are associated with the PAP either in PAP sponsored grassroots organisations or have expressed favourable PAP sentiments. Very much doe eyed and firmly patriotic but politically naive. The Govt knows that a vehicle like TOC is necessary to fill a void where the youth and growing influx of western influenced citizens baulk at the thought that alternative views are not carried in a modern society. They know that if TOC does not exist, others will fill the avoid and these people may operate from loactions that cannot be reached. These entities may actually be neutral or anti-establishment. TOC has served well in this respect. It has covered controversies and therefore satiated the appetite for seemingly "neutral" views. This does not mean that people who contribute to TOC in terms of articles are doe eyed as well. Some are there for their own agenda in view of the reach. Of course, the other main benefit of TOC is the ability by the authorities to corral potential dissidents who are drawn to the "kelong" by the bright lights. Even a person like Kairulanwar Zaini who has high political acumen is drawn as egos are hard to control and the lack of any other vehicle is an issue.

Viswa was never politically savvy and during his Uni days spent time on art and drama. A decent individual who desires to do the right thing, he clearly has mismanaged this affair. SBC/TCS and other singapore broadcast media Journalists were never journalist in the first place and none was vetted. Its was expected to carry news but not political discussion. That was addressed with the appointment of Debra Soon who is an establishment figure via her father. Thus the Balji / Deb interview over the Aware Incident. Clearly Viswa assumed that he has journalistic credentials.

Viswa knew that TOC was establishment endorsed and wrongly assumed that like all establishment endorsed media like the SPH, editorial will take care of naive scribes. It did not occur to him that no establishment individual provides a view, an interview or comments to TOC as they know that editorial folks have not be trained.

Political naievty of Viswa is clearly evident by his letter to TOC where he reveals himself in such a bad light. As Chao clearly points out - its an irony when his speech was on transparent media and he himself is gagging the press.

If he was politically savvy, he would have sent a reply to TOC to be published where he could have pointed that the article was quoted out of context, did not reflect the spirit of his speech etc and left it at that.

Dear Locke,

You are really missing the point.

No professional journalist will agree to "VETTING" by non-Editorial personnel or worse, by their interviewees, on their writing prior to publication.