Lee Wei Ling will no longer write for SPH
Family feud over how to mark Lee Kuan Yew's death spills out online
Family feud over how to mark Lee Kuan Yew's death spills out online
Editing is not the same as censorship
Much as I dislike publicly contradicting a friend, there is no alternative.
I was the one who, when I was with The Straits Times, first edited Wei Ling's columns. Most of the pieces that appeared in her recent collection, A Hakka Woman's Singapore Stories, were edited by me.
Wei Ling now says she suffered suppression under three editors - beginning presumably with me. She has unjustly questioned the professional conduct of a number of my former colleagues as well as myself.
We are expected to believe she suffered so much oppression, writing for ST, that she willingly persisted with the experience over almost 10 miserable years. And then, at the conclusion of that prolonged period of agony, she lovingly gathered the products of her oppression into a best-selling collection of essays.
How credible can that be?
How credible can that be?
if i seem to have posted the post below twice, the first time i did not realize i was in judith's facebook. Judith has...
Posted by Lee Wei Ling on Saturday, April 2, 2016
Reading Wei Ling's unedited writings was like sailing through a fog. The effort of turning her raw material into coherent articles - that's what I remember most about editing Wei Ling.
That effort was often worth it because she had something valuable to offer, as her many fans can attest. I personally thought her pieces on medical matters and education the most useful.
But hardly ever did I think that my main task in editing her was to curb what she might say on "sensitive matters". Of course, like with any writer, she was fact-checked to make sure she did not inadvertently make inaccurate or misleading statements. That's not "censorship"; that's called editing.
It beggars belief that she now presents herself as someone who was suppressed and silenced.
Janadas Devan
Former ST Associate Editor
ST Forum, 5 Apr 2016
Why ST did not publish Dr Lee Wei Ling's column
The editor who worked on Dr Lee Wei Ling's columns responds to her Facebook post alleging censorship of her articles
By Ivan Fernandez, Associate Editor, The Straits Times, 9 Apr 2016
Several issues of serious journalistic concern arose from recent allegations by Dr Lee Wei Ling, a former columnist of The Sunday Times, after she blogged about events last month to commemorate the death of her father, Mr Lee Kuan Yew.
In a Facebook post on April 1, Dr Lee wrote: "i will no longer write for SPH as the editors there do not allow me freedom of speech. in fact, that was the reason why i posted the article on LKY would not want to be hero-worshipped."
I had been editing Dr Lee's columns since last November. So it pained me when she also alleged that those who edited her columns had been "commanded to edit certain issues out, and they are to (sic) timid to disobey, and too embarrassed by their timidness to tell me the truth".
In another posting, Dr Lee alleged that her article, which had earlier been sent to me for publication in The Sunday Times, was rejected because I had deemed certain parts as "irrelevant", while she thought them crucial.
I need to set the record straight on this. I did not say they were "irrelevant", although I did have serious concerns about her latest draft, which I shall come to shortly.
I should first clarify an issue of wider interest to readers, namely, how commentaries are edited when submitted for publication.
In reviewing opinion pieces, an editor strives to stay true to the thrust and tone of the commentator, while bearing in mind professional standards relating to accuracy, fairness, the use of language, coherence, relevance, brevity, the law, and judgment on matters such as race and religion, among other things.
In the case of Dr Lee's contributions, her ideas had to be honed and language tightened.
This editing process is necessarily a two-way affair, as with all commentaries in general.
Dr Lee sent me her article on what she considered "hero-worshipping" of her father on March 21. Over the course of that week, there were some 40 e-mails about the column, as we worked to get it ready for publication.
I sent her my edited version for her review on March 23, with the intended date of publication being Sunday, March 27.
She replied on March 23 (the day of Mr Lee's death anniversary), saying: "Reads well. But I want to wait until the day unfolds completely."
So all seemed well up to then. On March 25, I received another version of the column with substantial additions that I found distracting at first reading because of repeated references to China (Mao Zedong's China had already been mentioned higher up in her piece).
But there was another issue as well. Upon checking the accuracy of a quote she cited from British Prime Minister David Cameron, and other further checks, I found that almost three quarters of the additions had been plagiarised.
I had learnt from experience with Dr Lee's columns that her sources needed to be double-checked.
The additional paragraphs are shown below, with the plagiarised parts in italics:
"Firstly when Chairman Mao died on 9 September 1976, the country was in shock. This was partly the result of the keenly felt loss of a semi-divine leader, but also caused by the enormous uncertainty about what the future held in stock for China and its people. The power struggle between Jiang Qing and the Gang of Four on the one hand, and Mao's designated successor Hua Guofeng on the other, which had been smoldering for some time caused grave anxiety for many people in China. However, on 6 October 1976, within a month after Mao's death, Hua had the Gang of Four arrested. Two days after the arrest of the Gang, the highest organs of the party and the state decided that a Memorial Hall would be built as a permanent tribute to the founder of the People's Republic. On 24 November 1976, the foundation stone for the gigantic building, located to the south of the Monument to the People's Heroes on Tiananmen Square was put in place. The construction went on day and night, and the building was finished on 29 August 1977. On that same day, Mao's body, which had been embalmed and placed in a crystal sarcophagus, was moved to the Hall. On 9 September 1977, a ceremony was held to commemorate the anniversary of Mao's death and the completion of the Hall.
"The anniversary of the funeral of Winston Churchill took place 50 years after the actual funeral on 30 January 1965, which brought the capital to a standstill and took place a week after his death aged 90 on 24 January, is being marked by scores of events, including a service and wreath laying at the Houses of Parliament, a memorial service at Westminster Abbey, and the rebroadcast by BBC Parliament of the original live coverage. In a tribute to his most famous predecessor, the prime minister, David Cameron, said: 'Half a century after his death, Winston Churchill's legacy continues to inspire not only the nation whose liberty he saved, but the entire world. His words and his actions reverberate through our national life today.'
"Compare the actual time from death to the first commemoration, and the different activities involved in the commemoration in the two leaders above. Which one would Papa wish commemoration to resemble. Also bear in mind, that unlike almost all leaders, Papa was dead set against a personality cult. If he was forced to choose one form of commemoration, Papa would have objected the least if the commemoration resembled that held for Winston Churchill. Do note that Churchill unlike Papa cherished glory and a place in the history of his county. Compare what Churchill's commemoration which was conducted 50 years after his death with the activities that have been taking place in Singapore that lasted a week. I think Papa would have objected if he were able to convey his view."
The first paragraph was from an obscure website:
When Mao Zedong died on 9 September 1976, the country was in shock. This was partly the result of the keenly felt loss of a semi-divine leader, but also caused by the enormous uncertainty about what the future held in stock for China and its people. The power struggle between Jiang Qing and the Gang of Four on the one hand, and Mao's designated successor Hua Guofeng on the other, which had been smoldering for some time, was about to be fought out in public.
However, on 6 October 1976, within a month after Mao's death, Hua had the Gang of Four arrested.
Two days after the arrest of the Gang, the highest organs of the party and the state decided that a Memorial Hall would be built as a permanent tribute to the founder of the People's Republic. On 24 November 1976, the foundation stone for the gigantic building, located to the south of the Monument to the People's Heroes on Tiananmen Square ( 天安门广场), was put in place...
The construction went on day and night, and the building was finished on 29 August 1977. On that same day, Mao's body, which had been embalmed and placed in a crystal sarcophagus, was moved to the Hall. On 9 September 1977, a ceremony was held to commemorate the anniversary of Mao's death and the completion of the Hall.
The second paragraph was from London's The Guardian newspaper:
The anniversary of the funeral on 30 January 1965, which brought the capital to a standstill and took place a week after his death aged 90 on 24 January, is being marked by scores of events, including a service and wreath laying at the Houses of Parliament, a memorial service at Westminster Abbey, and the rebroadcast by BBC Parliament of the original live coverage.
In a tribute to his most famous predecessor, the prime minister, David Cameron, said: "Half a century after his death, Winston Churchill's legacy continues to inspire not only the nation whose liberty he saved, but the entire world. His words and his actions reverberate through our national life today."
In Dr Lee's e-mail on March 25, she said she was adamant that The Sunday Times run the latest version of her article unedited.
She added: "I am going to blog this version or a similar version of this. If there are copyright issues, then I won't sell my copy right to SPH. I thought long and hard about it. I want the version I decide on. I hv my reason for my decision. It does not matter to me whether u agree with me or otherwise."
Later that day, without any notice, she went ahead to post that version of the article online, thereby bringing an end to any further discussion on the editing of the column.
Given the plagiarism it contained, there was no question of our publishing her version of the article. Further, as a matter of policy, we do not run a version of a column in our papers when another version of it has been published online.
The relationship between contributors, editors and publishers is one that is based on trust. That is broken when ultimatums are issued; no newspaper editor would accept columns on that basis, however illustrious the writers.
But what matters more, of course, is the relationship between publications and their readers. For the sake of that, I have no choice but to make these disclosures about the pains taken to uphold professional standards.
Why ST did not publish Dr Lee Wei Ling's column
The editor who worked on Dr Lee Wei Ling's columns responds to her Facebook post alleging censorship of her articles
By Ivan Fernandez, Associate Editor, The Straits Times, 9 Apr 2016
In a Facebook post on April 1, Dr Lee wrote: "i will no longer write for SPH as the editors there do not allow me freedom of speech. in fact, that was the reason why i posted the article on LKY would not want to be hero-worshipped."
I had been editing Dr Lee's columns since last November. So it pained me when she also alleged that those who edited her columns had been "commanded to edit certain issues out, and they are to (sic) timid to disobey, and too embarrassed by their timidness to tell me the truth".
In another posting, Dr Lee alleged that her article, which had earlier been sent to me for publication in The Sunday Times, was rejected because I had deemed certain parts as "irrelevant", while she thought them crucial.
I need to set the record straight on this. I did not say they were "irrelevant", although I did have serious concerns about her latest draft, which I shall come to shortly.
I should first clarify an issue of wider interest to readers, namely, how commentaries are edited when submitted for publication.
In reviewing opinion pieces, an editor strives to stay true to the thrust and tone of the commentator, while bearing in mind professional standards relating to accuracy, fairness, the use of language, coherence, relevance, brevity, the law, and judgment on matters such as race and religion, among other things.
In the case of Dr Lee's contributions, her ideas had to be honed and language tightened.
This editing process is necessarily a two-way affair, as with all commentaries in general.
Dr Lee sent me her article on what she considered "hero-worshipping" of her father on March 21. Over the course of that week, there were some 40 e-mails about the column, as we worked to get it ready for publication.
I sent her my edited version for her review on March 23, with the intended date of publication being Sunday, March 27.
She replied on March 23 (the day of Mr Lee's death anniversary), saying: "Reads well. But I want to wait until the day unfolds completely."
So all seemed well up to then. On March 25, I received another version of the column with substantial additions that I found distracting at first reading because of repeated references to China (Mao Zedong's China had already been mentioned higher up in her piece).
But there was another issue as well. Upon checking the accuracy of a quote she cited from British Prime Minister David Cameron, and other further checks, I found that almost three quarters of the additions had been plagiarised.
I had learnt from experience with Dr Lee's columns that her sources needed to be double-checked.
The additional paragraphs are shown below, with the plagiarised parts in italics:
"Firstly when Chairman Mao died on 9 September 1976, the country was in shock. This was partly the result of the keenly felt loss of a semi-divine leader, but also caused by the enormous uncertainty about what the future held in stock for China and its people. The power struggle between Jiang Qing and the Gang of Four on the one hand, and Mao's designated successor Hua Guofeng on the other, which had been smoldering for some time caused grave anxiety for many people in China. However, on 6 October 1976, within a month after Mao's death, Hua had the Gang of Four arrested. Two days after the arrest of the Gang, the highest organs of the party and the state decided that a Memorial Hall would be built as a permanent tribute to the founder of the People's Republic. On 24 November 1976, the foundation stone for the gigantic building, located to the south of the Monument to the People's Heroes on Tiananmen Square was put in place. The construction went on day and night, and the building was finished on 29 August 1977. On that same day, Mao's body, which had been embalmed and placed in a crystal sarcophagus, was moved to the Hall. On 9 September 1977, a ceremony was held to commemorate the anniversary of Mao's death and the completion of the Hall.
"The anniversary of the funeral of Winston Churchill took place 50 years after the actual funeral on 30 January 1965, which brought the capital to a standstill and took place a week after his death aged 90 on 24 January, is being marked by scores of events, including a service and wreath laying at the Houses of Parliament, a memorial service at Westminster Abbey, and the rebroadcast by BBC Parliament of the original live coverage. In a tribute to his most famous predecessor, the prime minister, David Cameron, said: 'Half a century after his death, Winston Churchill's legacy continues to inspire not only the nation whose liberty he saved, but the entire world. His words and his actions reverberate through our national life today.'
"Compare the actual time from death to the first commemoration, and the different activities involved in the commemoration in the two leaders above. Which one would Papa wish commemoration to resemble. Also bear in mind, that unlike almost all leaders, Papa was dead set against a personality cult. If he was forced to choose one form of commemoration, Papa would have objected the least if the commemoration resembled that held for Winston Churchill. Do note that Churchill unlike Papa cherished glory and a place in the history of his county. Compare what Churchill's commemoration which was conducted 50 years after his death with the activities that have been taking place in Singapore that lasted a week. I think Papa would have objected if he were able to convey his view."
The first paragraph was from an obscure website:
When Mao Zedong died on 9 September 1976, the country was in shock. This was partly the result of the keenly felt loss of a semi-divine leader, but also caused by the enormous uncertainty about what the future held in stock for China and its people. The power struggle between Jiang Qing and the Gang of Four on the one hand, and Mao's designated successor Hua Guofeng on the other, which had been smoldering for some time, was about to be fought out in public.
However, on 6 October 1976, within a month after Mao's death, Hua had the Gang of Four arrested.
Two days after the arrest of the Gang, the highest organs of the party and the state decided that a Memorial Hall would be built as a permanent tribute to the founder of the People's Republic. On 24 November 1976, the foundation stone for the gigantic building, located to the south of the Monument to the People's Heroes on Tiananmen Square ( 天安门广场), was put in place...
The construction went on day and night, and the building was finished on 29 August 1977. On that same day, Mao's body, which had been embalmed and placed in a crystal sarcophagus, was moved to the Hall. On 9 September 1977, a ceremony was held to commemorate the anniversary of Mao's death and the completion of the Hall.
The second paragraph was from London's The Guardian newspaper:
The anniversary of the funeral on 30 January 1965, which brought the capital to a standstill and took place a week after his death aged 90 on 24 January, is being marked by scores of events, including a service and wreath laying at the Houses of Parliament, a memorial service at Westminster Abbey, and the rebroadcast by BBC Parliament of the original live coverage.
In a tribute to his most famous predecessor, the prime minister, David Cameron, said: "Half a century after his death, Winston Churchill's legacy continues to inspire not only the nation whose liberty he saved, but the entire world. His words and his actions reverberate through our national life today."
In Dr Lee's e-mail on March 25, she said she was adamant that The Sunday Times run the latest version of her article unedited.
She added: "I am going to blog this version or a similar version of this. If there are copyright issues, then I won't sell my copy right to SPH. I thought long and hard about it. I want the version I decide on. I hv my reason for my decision. It does not matter to me whether u agree with me or otherwise."
Later that day, without any notice, she went ahead to post that version of the article online, thereby bringing an end to any further discussion on the editing of the column.
Given the plagiarism it contained, there was no question of our publishing her version of the article. Further, as a matter of policy, we do not run a version of a column in our papers when another version of it has been published online.
The relationship between contributors, editors and publishers is one that is based on trust. That is broken when ultimatums are issued; no newspaper editor would accept columns on that basis, however illustrious the writers.
But what matters more, of course, is the relationship between publications and their readers. For the sake of that, I have no choice but to make these disclosures about the pains taken to uphold professional standards.
So, Dr Lee Wei Ling comes out to say what ST wanted edited out of her post on hero-worshipping her father. Here's the...
Posted by The Middle Ground on Wednesday, April 6, 2016
Editor's note
The Straits Times Forum, 5 Apr 2016
In a Facebook post last Friday, Dr Lee Wei Ling said that she would no longer write for Singapore Press Holdings, as "the editors there do not allow me freedom of speech".
The Straits Times Forum, 5 Apr 2016
In a Facebook post last Friday, Dr Lee Wei Ling said that she would no longer write for Singapore Press Holdings, as "the editors there do not allow me freedom of speech".
She cited this as the reason for putting on Facebook her latest commentary on the anniversary of her father's death.
She also alleged that the three successive editors who had worked with her on her past columns were all "commanded to edit certain issues out".
This is altogether unfounded.
All professional newspapers require their writers to work with an editor, who gives a range of inputs on grammar, language, taste, relevance, coherence, judgment and the law.
This is not an issue of freedom of expression, but a matter of upholding standards.
This applies to all columnists, including Dr Lee, who has often written about not expecting or accepting special treatment.
i will no longer write for SPH as the editors there do not allow me freedom of speech. in fact, that was the reason why i posted the article on LKY would not want to be hero-worshipped
Posted by Lee Wei Ling on Thursday, March 31, 2016
Her recent demand that her latest column be published unedited, after a week of editing and e-mail exchanges, was simply not acceptable.
She then decided unilaterally to publish it on Facebook and has said she will do the same for all future columns.
That is her prerogative, which we will respect.
Rather than seeking to suppress her views, ST published her columns for many years, and even compiled them into a book, which it promoted extensively.
We thank her for her past contributions, and wish her well.
Dr Lee Wei Ling said editors at The Straits Times (ST) did not practise freedom of speech. She said ST did not publish...
Posted by AsiaOne on Monday, April 4, 2016
Let Singaporeans express sentiments as they will
I read with interest Dr Lee Wei Ling's Facebook posts about the public commemorations for the first year of her father's death being excessive and bordering on hero worship, and criticising The Straits Times for not running her commentary on this.
I have a different view. This outpouring of emotion is welcome and natural, especially as it comes only a year since the death of our founding father, Mr Lee Kuan Yew.
In our own private lives, the first anniversary is always a special commemoration, so why not for a great leader who had devoted his entire life and more to his beloved country?
Let our sentiments flow naturally. Indeed, it would be wrong to muzzle our citizens' wishes in commemorating the first anniversary of his death the way that they would want to express it.
Will this result in a "cult of LKY" in Singapore? Definitely not.
Well, even the cult of Mao Zedong could not withstand the sweeping political, social and economic changes in China in the 1980s and thereafter.
So, we should embrace the natural flow of positive emotion for Mr Lee. We will never appreciate how well respected he is until we are living away from Singapore.
We are certainly proud that we are well respected because of what he and his team had done for Singapore.
Celine Goh (Mrs)
A Singaporean living in Brisbane, Australia
ST Forum, 5 Apr 2016
I read with interest Dr Lee Wei Ling's Facebook posts about the public commemorations for the first year of her father's death being excessive and bordering on hero worship, and criticising The Straits Times for not running her commentary on this.
I have a different view. This outpouring of emotion is welcome and natural, especially as it comes only a year since the death of our founding father, Mr Lee Kuan Yew.
In our own private lives, the first anniversary is always a special commemoration, so why not for a great leader who had devoted his entire life and more to his beloved country?
Lee Kuan Yew would have cringed at the hero worship just one year after his deathThe response of Singaporeans during...
Posted by Lee Wei Ling on Friday, March 25, 2016
Let our sentiments flow naturally. Indeed, it would be wrong to muzzle our citizens' wishes in commemorating the first anniversary of his death the way that they would want to express it.
Will this result in a "cult of LKY" in Singapore? Definitely not.
Well, even the cult of Mao Zedong could not withstand the sweeping political, social and economic changes in China in the 1980s and thereafter.
So, we should embrace the natural flow of positive emotion for Mr Lee. We will never appreciate how well respected he is until we are living away from Singapore.
We are certainly proud that we are well respected because of what he and his team had done for Singapore.
Celine Goh (Mrs)
A Singaporean living in Brisbane, Australia
ST Forum, 5 Apr 2016
* PM Lee 'deeply saddened' by sister Lee Wei Ling's claim that he had abused power to mark LKY's death anniversary
By Pearl Lee, The Straits Times, 11 Apr 2016
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said yesterday he was "deeply saddened" that his sister had accused him of abusing his power by commemorating their father's death all too soon in order to establish a dynasty. "The accusations are completely untrue," he said of Dr Lee Wei Ling's remarks she made public on her Facebook page yesterday.
He said the Cabinet had discussed how to mark Mr Lee's death, and decided it should be left to ground-up efforts. He also said he had advised that "groups should keep their observances in proportion, and focused on the future".
By Pearl Lee, The Straits Times, 11 Apr 2016
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said yesterday he was "deeply saddened" that his sister had accused him of abusing his power by commemorating their father's death all too soon in order to establish a dynasty. "The accusations are completely untrue," he said of Dr Lee Wei Ling's remarks she made public on her Facebook page yesterday.
He said the Cabinet had discussed how to mark Mr Lee's death, and decided it should be left to ground-up efforts. He also said he had advised that "groups should keep their observances in proportion, and focused on the future".
"The idea that I should wish to establish a dynasty makes even less sense. Meritocracy is a fundamental value of our society, and neither I, the PAP, nor the Singapore public would tolerate any such attempt," he said in his Facebook post.
I am deeply saddened by my sister Dr Lee Wei Ling’s claim that I have abused my power to commemorate the one-year...
Posted by Lee Hsien Loong on Sunday, April 10, 2016
Dr Lee had said in a series of online posts that her father, founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, would have cringed at the activities organised to remember him. He died on March 23 last year, aged 91.
Yesterday, she revealed she was "at odds on a matter of principle" with PM Lee, in a series of e-mails she published online. The e-mails to The Straits Times associate editor Ivan Fernandez were about a column she had contributed to ST on what she deemed "hero-worshipping" of her father. In one e-mail, she said PM Lee had "no qualms abusing his power to have a commemoration just one year" after Mr Lee died.
Various groups organised more than 100 activities last month to pay tribute to the late Mr Lee.
Various groups organised more than 100 activities last month to pay tribute to the late Mr Lee.
PM Lee said yesterday that the first anniversary of a person's passing was a significant moment "to remember him and reflect on what he meant to us", and "the more so with Mr Lee Kuan Yew".
"The Cabinet recognised the strong desire of many Singaporeans to show their respect for Mr Lee, and honour what he did for us," he said. The events "expressed the sincerely felt sentiments of Singaporeans, which my Cabinet colleagues and I deeply appreciate".
"The accusations are completely untrue," PM Lee said of Dr Lee's comments, which she made public on her Facebook page on Sunday (April 10).
Posted by The Straits Times on Sunday, April 10, 2016
JUST IN: “The accusations are completely untrue," says PM Lee Hsien Loong responding to suggestions made by sister Lee...
Posted by Channel NewsAsia on Sunday, April 10, 2016
Writing in a Facebook post, PM Lee Hsien Loong responded to his sister’s claim that he would use the commemoration of his father's passing to establish a dynasty. #SG
Posted by Yahoo Singapore on Sunday, April 10, 2016
Family feud over how to mark Lee Kuan Yew's death spills out online
PM Lee responds to sister's posts that reveal they are 'at odds' on principle
By Pearl Lee, The Straits Times, 11 Apr 2016
Over the past fortnight, Dr Lee Wei Ling had written on her personal Facebook page about her disagreement with the way the first death anniversary of her father, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, was marked across the country last month.
Yesterday, she made public a series of e-mails on the matter, only to take them down from her Facebook page several hours later.
PM Lee responds to sister's posts that reveal they are 'at odds' on principle
By Pearl Lee, The Straits Times, 11 Apr 2016
Over the past fortnight, Dr Lee Wei Ling had written on her personal Facebook page about her disagreement with the way the first death anniversary of her father, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, was marked across the country last month.
Yesterday, she made public a series of e-mails on the matter, only to take them down from her Facebook page several hours later.
In the e-mails between her and Straits Times associate editor Ivan Fernandez, who was editing her columns, Dr Lee said she was "at odds" with her brother, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.
Using her brother and the late Mr Lee's initials, Dr Lee wrote to Mr Fernandez: "HL has no qualms abusing his power to hv a commemoration just one year after LKY died, 'least (sic) we forget'.
"If the power that be wants to establish a dynasty, LKY's daughter will not allow LKY's name to be sullied by a dishonorable son."
Dr Lee's post prompted PM Lee to respond on his Facebook page several hours later. He said he was "deeply saddened" by his sister's charge, and added: "The accusations are completely untrue."
Dr Lee's post prompted PM Lee to respond on his Facebook page several hours later. He said he was "deeply saddened" by his sister's charge, and added: "The accusations are completely untrue."
Last month, individuals and organisations, including grassroots groups, organised over 100 events to commemorate Singapore's first Prime Minister and remind themselves of his key values.
Yesterday, PM Lee said the Cabinet had discussed how Mr Lee should be remembered, and he advised it be left to ground-up efforts and that these should be kept in proportion and be forward looking.
But Dr Lee, in an earlier Facebook post, said a picture of an art installation of 4,877 erasers in the likeness of Mr Lee Kuan Yew's image, that was featured on the front page of ST on March 21, made her wince.
It prompted her to submit an article on the commemoration to ST, and she said that while the installation was well-meaning, she did not see the need for such commemorations so soon after his death.
Two days later, on March 23, Mr Fernandez replied to Dr Lee with an edited version of her article, slated for publication on March 27.
She said it read well, but she wanted to wait until the day unfolded.
On March 25, Dr Lee submitted another version of her column, with substantial additions, and insisted on it being run unedited or she would post it online.
Mr Fernandez rejected this, saying her paragraphs on how China's Mao Zedong and Britain's Winston Churchill were honoured after their deaths went off on a tangent.
Later that day, Dr Lee posted the article on her Facebook page.
In subsequent postings, she said ST was suppressing her views and denying her freedom of speech.
The paper responded in an editor's note last Tuesday saying her accusations that she was suppressed were unfounded. The paper said her column was being edited, as is done by all professional newspapers, and that it was "not an issue of freedom of expression, but a matter of upholding standards".
This sparked a series of online posts by Dr Lee, who said those who had edited her columns had been "commanded to edit certain issues out, and they are to (sic) timid to disobey, and too embarrassed by their timidness to tell me the truth".
Last Saturday, Mr Fernandez wrote an article in the ST explaining why the paper declined to publish her column. Among other reasons, he revealed that the parts on Churchill and Mao had been plagiarised.
In her Facebook post releasing the e-mail exchange to show that Mr Fernandez did not point out to her that she had plagiarised, she said she had not intended to do so, adding: "I simply forgot to acknowledge the source for information regarding Mao and Churchill."
Responding to her allegations, ST editor Warren Fernandez said yesterday: "Dr Lee's allegations are unfounded. ST had intended to run her commentary and our editors were working with her to get it ready for print. But some concerns arose, including over the plagiarised paragraphs. This was a serious matter, not least as our editors had spoken to her before about the pitfalls of copying material without attribution.
"Dr Lee now says this was unintended, as she 'forgot' to cite her sources, and besides, her end of exposing the Government justified it anyway," he added.
"In addition to this, we found her ultimatum to print her piece unedited or she would go online, totally unacceptable. But before we could discuss this further, she went online, putting an end to any further engagement on the matter."
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has stated in a Facebook post that he is "deeply saddened" by his sister's claims about...
Posted by The New Paper on Sunday, April 10, 2016
4月10日 李显龙总理 Lee Hsien Loong 通过Facebook页面发表贴文，回应妹妹李玮玲医生早前在Facebook贴文中说，李总理滥用权力，在已故建国总理李光耀先生逝世一周年之际，举办一系列追思活动，以“建立朝代”的指责。李显龙总理说，他对妹妹的指责深感难过，并强调这项指责完全不属实。http://bit.ly/1Nia3H7
Posted by 8频道新闻新加坡 Channel 8 news on Sunday, April 10, 2016
Various events organised to remember Mr Lee in March
By Pearl Lee, The Straits Times, 11 Apr 2016
In the run-up to the first anniversary of Mr Lee Kuan Yew's death on March 23, the National Youth Council, Youth Corps Singapore, and a company selling old-school Singapore games and snacks worked on an art installation.
It was a silhouette of the late Mr Lee's face, created by piecing together 4,877 rectangular erasers bearing the Singapore flag. It took six weeks and 110 young Singaporeans to construct the portrait, which was unveiled by Mr Lee's youngest brother, Mr Lee Suan Yew.
It was among some 100 events organised on the ground to remember the founding Prime Minister.
By Pearl Lee, The Straits Times, 11 Apr 2016
It was a silhouette of the late Mr Lee's face, created by piecing together 4,877 rectangular erasers bearing the Singapore flag. It took six weeks and 110 young Singaporeans to construct the portrait, which was unveiled by Mr Lee's youngest brother, Mr Lee Suan Yew.
It was among some 100 events organised on the ground to remember the founding Prime Minister.
Some constituencies organised tree-planting and brisk-walking sessions, while schools used the morning assembly to talk about Mr Lee's contributions to Singapore.
On March 23, past and present MPs attended a ceremony at Old Parliament House in the morning.
Hours later, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong reminded his Cabinet at their weekly meeting to hold firm to the ethos and values Mr Lee had stood for, in remarks streamed live on his Facebook page.
Dr Lee Wei Ling, Mr Lee's daughter, said she felt compelled to write about her disagreement over how her father was being remembered after seeing a photo of the artwork on the front page of The Straits Times on March 21. She posted a Facebook note on March 25, saying she acknowledged the artwork was a "well-meaning effort".
Hours later, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong reminded his Cabinet at their weekly meeting to hold firm to the ethos and values Mr Lee had stood for, in remarks streamed live on his Facebook page.
Dr Lee Wei Ling, Mr Lee's daughter, said she felt compelled to write about her disagreement over how her father was being remembered after seeing a photo of the artwork on the front page of The Straits Times on March 21. She posted a Facebook note on March 25, saying she acknowledged the artwork was a "well-meaning effort".
But she questioned whether the time, effort and resources could have been put to better use. She wrote: "It would be even better if we honour Lee Kuan Yew by working for the well-being of Singapore and Singaporeans."
As the family feud between PM Lee Hsien Loong and his sister balloons, one blogger points out reasons to not support Lee Wei Ling.
Posted by Yahoo Singapore on Sunday, April 10, 2016
How the saga unfolded
The Straits Times, 11 Apr 2016
MARCH 21
Dr Lee Wei Ling submits her column to The Straits Times on what she considered "hero-worshipping" of her father, Mr Lee Kuan Yew.
MARCH 23
Straits Times associate editor Ivan Fernandez replies to Dr Lee with the edited version of her column. She replies via e-mail: "Reads well. But I want to wait until the day unfolds completely."
MARCH 25
Dr Lee submits another version of her column with substantial additions and insists on this version being run unedited. Mr Fernandez turns down the amended version, which has repeated references to China, and Dr Lee posts it on her Facebook page.
APRIL 1
Dr Lee announces on Facebook that she will "no longer write for SPH as the editors there do not allow me freedom of speech". She says this was the reason she posted the article on her father online.
APRIL 2
Dr Lee follows up with a post about how former editor-in-chief of The Straits Times, Mr Cheong Yip Seng, was "scolded" by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong over a book he wrote, titled OB Markers. She talks about this to bolster her case about the lack of freedom of speech, even though Mr Cheong had denied "being scolded" when she asked him about it.
APRIL 3
Dr Lee says she had a "love-hate relationship" with the three editors at The Straits Times who worked with her on her columns over the years. She says they must have been "commanded to edit certain issues out" of her columns.
APRIL 4
Mr Janadas Devan, who edited Dr Lee's columns when he was an associate editor of The Straits Times, points out that Dr Lee had continued writing for the paper over a period of 10 years. He says "it beggars belief that she now presents herself as someone who was suppressed and silenced".
APRIL 5
The Straits Times editor, in a note in the paper's Forum page, says Dr Lee's claims about being censored were unfounded.
"This is not an issue of freedom of expression, but a matter of upholding standards," he says, noting that all newspapers require writers to work with editors to get columns fit for print. He adds that Dr Lee's demand that her latest column be published unedited or she would go online "was simply not acceptable".
APRIL 6
Dr Lee posts her column online again, this time highlighting what she says her editor considered "irrelevant".
APRIL 9
Mr Ivan Fernandez, who edited her column, writes a detailed explanation of why the paper refused to publish it.
He says he found parts that made repeated references to China distracting from her main point. He had also found that almost three-quarters of the parts that she added had been plagiarised from websites.
APRIL 10
Dr Lee makes public an e-mail exchange she had with Mr Fernandez. In one of the e-mails, she accused PM Lee of abusing his power over the commemorations in order to "establish a dynasty". PM Lee replies a few hours later in a Facebook post saying the accusations are "completely untrue". He says he is "deeply saddened" by the accusations.
The Straits Times, 11 Apr 2016
MARCH 21
Dr Lee Wei Ling submits her column to The Straits Times on what she considered "hero-worshipping" of her father, Mr Lee Kuan Yew.
MARCH 23
Straits Times associate editor Ivan Fernandez replies to Dr Lee with the edited version of her column. She replies via e-mail: "Reads well. But I want to wait until the day unfolds completely."
MARCH 25
Dr Lee submits another version of her column with substantial additions and insists on this version being run unedited. Mr Fernandez turns down the amended version, which has repeated references to China, and Dr Lee posts it on her Facebook page.
APRIL 1
Dr Lee announces on Facebook that she will "no longer write for SPH as the editors there do not allow me freedom of speech". She says this was the reason she posted the article on her father online.
APRIL 2
Dr Lee follows up with a post about how former editor-in-chief of The Straits Times, Mr Cheong Yip Seng, was "scolded" by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong over a book he wrote, titled OB Markers. She talks about this to bolster her case about the lack of freedom of speech, even though Mr Cheong had denied "being scolded" when she asked him about it.
APRIL 3
Dr Lee says she had a "love-hate relationship" with the three editors at The Straits Times who worked with her on her columns over the years. She says they must have been "commanded to edit certain issues out" of her columns.
APRIL 4
Mr Janadas Devan, who edited Dr Lee's columns when he was an associate editor of The Straits Times, points out that Dr Lee had continued writing for the paper over a period of 10 years. He says "it beggars belief that she now presents herself as someone who was suppressed and silenced".
APRIL 5
The Straits Times editor, in a note in the paper's Forum page, says Dr Lee's claims about being censored were unfounded.
"This is not an issue of freedom of expression, but a matter of upholding standards," he says, noting that all newspapers require writers to work with editors to get columns fit for print. He adds that Dr Lee's demand that her latest column be published unedited or she would go online "was simply not acceptable".
APRIL 6
Dr Lee posts her column online again, this time highlighting what she says her editor considered "irrelevant".
APRIL 9
Mr Ivan Fernandez, who edited her column, writes a detailed explanation of why the paper refused to publish it.
He says he found parts that made repeated references to China distracting from her main point. He had also found that almost three-quarters of the parts that she added had been plagiarised from websites.
APRIL 10
Dr Lee makes public an e-mail exchange she had with Mr Fernandez. In one of the e-mails, she accused PM Lee of abusing his power over the commemorations in order to "establish a dynasty". PM Lee replies a few hours later in a Facebook post saying the accusations are "completely untrue". He says he is "deeply saddened" by the accusations.
To remember Mr Lee is to remember the Singapore Spirit
It was with much sadness that I read yesterday's reports ("PM Lee 'deeply saddened' by Dr Lee Wei Ling's allegations" and "Family feud over how to mark LKY's death spills out online").
The allegations are serious and border on defamation.
It was with much sadness that I read yesterday's reports ("PM Lee 'deeply saddened' by Dr Lee Wei Ling's allegations" and "Family feud over how to mark LKY's death spills out online").
The allegations are serious and border on defamation.
Dr Lee Wei Ling is right in saying that our founding father Lee Kuan Yew would not have wanted any hero worship.
However, if we had forgotten him in the course of one year, I doubt Mr Lee would have been truly happy.
To remember him would be to also remember the values he stood for, ones that helped build our nation's remarkable success.
His death last year saw the awakening of the Singapore Spirit on full display, a level of mourning that surprised even Singaporeans.
His death last year saw the awakening of the Singapore Spirit on full display, a level of mourning that surprised even Singaporeans.
There were also many stories of sacrifice and selflessness, as the people rallied together to help ease the discomforts of the long wait that people had to endure to pay their last respects to Mr Lee.
In the course of a year, people may have wondered if the Singapore Spirit was still alive in our busy, preoccupied lives.
The commemoration of the first anniversary of Mr Lee's death celebrated this Singapore Spirit that Mr Lee would have been proud of.
Remembering him also meant being grateful and not trivialising the values that led to our success.
I believe he would have been happy that we have remembered him thus.
We are remembering, not hero worshipping; it would be very sad for Singapore if we were to forget.
Some of us chose to remember him quietly in our hearts, while others chose to express that in action. I hope that Dr Lee understands.
I can scarcely imagine how Mr Lee, as a father, could be pleased about a feud between his children.
I hope Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Dr Lee may have the privacy and space to resolve their differences as siblings, bearing in mind their father's heart for his children and his people.
Steve Chiu Shih Tung
ST Forum, 12 Apr 2016
Steve Chiu Shih Tung
ST Forum, 12 Apr 2016
Gratitude, not hero worship
It is sad to see how Dr Lee Wei Ling has perceived the people's kind thoughts in commemorating the first death anniversary of founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew ("Family feud over how to mark LKY's death spills out online"; yesterday).
I found the commemoration meaningful, especially by the youth, the very group of people many of us fear will take our nation's success for granted.
They did it so respectfully and creatively; it gave me hope for the nation.
It is sad to see how Dr Lee Wei Ling has perceived the people's kind thoughts in commemorating the first death anniversary of founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew ("Family feud over how to mark LKY's death spills out online"; yesterday).
I found the commemoration meaningful, especially by the youth, the very group of people many of us fear will take our nation's success for granted.
They did it so respectfully and creatively; it gave me hope for the nation.
It shows that though Mr Lee has been gone for a year, he is still remembered and continues to remain in many of our hearts.
It also reveals to us that Singaporeans are not soul-less beings devoid of feelings, especially love and gratitude.
What the people did was an expression of their love, respect, honour and gratitude towards Mr Lee for all that he and his team of founding fathers did for the nation.
What the people did was an expression of their love, respect, honour and gratitude towards Mr Lee for all that he and his team of founding fathers did for the nation.
It was not hero worship.
The late Mr Lee was considered the father of our nation, so the people found it fitting to commemorate the death anniversary of a father.
It helps us to remember his life's work in building up the nation, as well as the values that he would have liked us to imbibe in order for the nation to continue to succeed.
Let us give the people the freedom and space to commemorate Mr Lee's death anniversary.
In his lifetime, he graciously received many awards in recognition of his contributions, as well as celebrations of his birthday.
Surely, he would be gracious and appreciative of the efforts put in by the people, young and old, in commemorating his death anniversary.
It is not hero worship, but sincere love and gratitude towards one who deserves the honour of being remembered.
Chan Lai Chun (Miss)
ST Forum, 12 Apr 2016
Chan Lai Chun (Miss)
ST Forum, 12 Apr 2016
Related
OB Markers: My Straits Times Story - An insider's account of govt-media relations
Remembering Lee Kuan Yew: One Year On
OB Markers: My Straits Times Story - An insider's account of govt-media relations
Remembering Lee Kuan Yew: One Year On
No comments:
Post a Comment