Correction: October 14th, 2008
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
The note at the end of the letter misidentified the position held by the author. Mr Lim Chee Harn is an executive producer at the Spectrum TV, not the Nanyang Spectrum. We are sorry for the error.
While the protesters involved in the “Big Hong Lim Show” have tried to voice out their opinions, I feel obliged as well to provide another perspective to this whole issue.
As part of the team involved in the production of Nanyang Spectrum, I’m in a position to understand the pain involved when our work was censored. But why are the onlookers, people who are outside the production of these articles and news clips, making more noise than us?
The ones who are most affected are those who spent their nights editing the articles and news clips with the hope of getting it published or shown. I certainly do not think that we need the onlookers to show our dismay to the world. Are these protesters trying to represent us, or making use of the opportunity to represent themselves?
There is certainly no point in shouting if they had wanted to voice their opinions. There are certainly smarter ways in making their point. For one, a website like this will have its true voices heard even without making any sound.
The reason I say this is because many people are still ignorant of what really happened, even after the “Big Hong Lim Show”.
It’s really a painful and tiring job to repeatedly explain the situation to others because of the commotion created by these protesters. A rally like that has little long-term effects. Are these protesters going down again this Sunday?
To me, the “Big Hong Lim Show” is but only a show.
Lim Chee Harn
Executive Producer
Spectrum TV
alv
says:October 11th, 2008 at 12.59am
I think it is important the the writer to actually hear what was said before concluding that the protesters was protesting on their behalf.
Having actually stood in the hot sweltering sun on sunday, they made it clear to all present that they did not claim that they were representing every student there, and certainly they were not shouting. Rather they were making very informed speeches.
Also being a student of SCI myself, this issue is more than just about Spectrum and Chronicle, unlike what Spectrum and Chronicle would like to think: that it is all about them. This concerns much bigger issues and as students of SCI, this are issues that we all should be concerned about.
The very fact that the conversations about the topic, the dean coming down to talk us, the fact that all this are not ending shows that there are good long term effects as we all come to examine this issue.
In fact the writer here seems to be making a subtle personal attack on the protesters because of the “painful and tiring” job of explaining. The saddest thing is probably that said author who is venting here did nothing about it aside from just talking.
n
says:October 12th, 2008 at 1.03pm
“There is certainly no point in shouting if they had wanted to voice their opinions. There are certainly smarter ways in making their point. For one, a website like this will have its true voices heard even without making any sound.”
You have a problem with people talking is it? What’s in the form of the argument when the purpose is the same? This website is a platform for people to share their views, just like how the hong lim event is a platform too.
I agree with alv, it’s the implication of this issue that students are concerned about, not merely the issue itself. So yea, don’t be so arrogant as to think that only those directly involved, just because you so painstakingly edited the clips, have the right to be affected.
clarence
says:October 12th, 2008 at 3.46pm
Lim Chee Harn,
The funny thing about diatribe is that it reflects poorly on no one but yourself, and does no justice to the encouraging outcome of this exercise in civil society.
Were you even present at the Hong Lim demonstration, or at the Club Journ conference on Thursday?
Alv sees it correctly when he says that this issue is much bigger than the Chron or Spectrum. In fact, it is bigger than CS and even NTU. It concerns the role of press freedom, media ownership, academic freedom, civil discourse, politics — topics that are way above your head if you find even explaining the situation a “painful and tiring job”.
I suggest that before you do any more damage by fretting about the situation and succeed in making it tiresome, you speak with the faculty, talk to obervers on the ground, go to the websites. Do justice to the rationality and wisdom that was the fruit of Thursday’s conference. The demonstraters speeches are posted online for prosterity, a record that they care and are willing to stand up for the things they hold dear.
The rally at Hong Lim was a big part of the conversation that the school says is proud its happening now. If people do not know what happened, shame on them.
You said ‘a website like this will have its true voices heard even without making any sound.’ You got it right: without you making any sound, everyone now knows your true voice. The stakeholders have lived, learnt, and are moving on; it is time you do too.
Scott
says:October 12th, 2008 at 4.13pm
Chee Harn,
Being the speaker and one of the organizers for the event, I must say that you letter came quite as a surprised because from what I read, you appear to be quite the armchair critic. The first thing I said in my speech was that we do not claim to represent everyone or anyone at all, but we represent the supporters who feel the same way as us. So in response to your question of was it a platform for us, yes indeed it was, for us and people who feel the same way as us regarding this issue.
Your thinly veiled personal attack masquerading as a perspective falls down when upon reading, there was no perspective offered on your end. As ‘n’ rightly points out, The Enquirer is as much a platform as Hong Lim Park, which incidentally, has yet another monumental protest to the MAS just yesterday where over 500 turned up.
As Clarence said, go talk to people involved in it maybe it will offer some perspective. And as a senior who has seen more than a “singular” incident in which something like that has happened, I think it is with great disappointment that as you rightly say, the people most involved are keeping the most quiet. Perhaps its because the way it works, we pass the baton on to our juniors, our juniors passes the baton on yet again. And the people who finally gets a bird eye view of the situation are people who have seen this happening again and again.
And no, its not about you nor Chronicle. Its about the University yielding its power to censor the article, its about that. So yes a little more insight on your part would have helped your cause.
Yan Wen
says:October 12th, 2008 at 10.40pm
I think you just reaffirmed my disappointment with some juniors, for being short-sighted, vindictive, uninspiring/uninspired and too self-centred.
You didn’t have to attack us like that you know, and just for the record, I’m very positive that all of us who spoke were not doing it for any sort of personal glory. We don’t need that and we don’t want that.
And I’m speaking from the perspective of someone who has been through all the late nights that you speak of–as if they only belong to you–and if I were you, I would be glad that some concerned members of the community are speaking up, and I am sad that those who were so directly involved did not develop a more informed opinion on this matter (whether it’s out of the awkwardness of your position or what, I don’t know).
Thanks for your comments, but no thanks for the spite and apathy.
clarence
says:October 13th, 2008 at 8.30pm
haha the three other ‘protesters’ expressions are hilarious – Thaddeus looks defeated, Scott looks as if the world is falling apart around him, and I look dismayed-lost.
Complete opposites from what we really felt and achieved though! Hurrah guys!
Jinyong
says:October 14th, 2008 at 5.47pm
I believe Chee Harn was simply trying to provide an alternative viewpoint and stood up for what he believed in, much like the organizer of the big hong lim show. In this sense, i believe there is definitely no need to be personal and attack him.
In my opinion, he did not question nor put down the rationale or ideals that was officially recognised as the motivation behind “the big hong lim show”. Rather, he asked if there was a secondary motivating factor.
At the end of the day, if what we are fighting for is free speech, then there is not reason to put chee harn down for he, like you, wrote down what he believes in (though he might not have expressed it as appropriate as he would have liked like some of your here with the blessed gift of mastery of the language). In fact, he did more than most of us would ever do, by putting his name on his belief. Unless you recognise that there is an “officially sanctioned form of free speech”, in which case, you will be mimicking the university stand on this whole CSJ incident, and possibly, attacking the very cause you have been fighting for.
On a side note, it would be interesting to hear more from those who were not directly involved in the big hong lim show and the CJC report. Sometimes, the loudest voice might not be the truest voice. :)
Mavis
says:October 14th, 2008 at 10.38pm
Classic case of Stockholm syndrome. Cher Han, you seem to have fallen in love with the hand that beats you. I have never in all my experience reading newspapers across the world seen such a sorry state of affairs that the people being censored are scolding those who are raising the issue that they initially were prevented from raising.
You talk of the pain of censorship, but you, my dear boy, are affirming the strength of those who would keep the student body divided by turning your fire on those who cared enough about the issue to raise it in public.
You also forget that you don’t speak for all the censored. Kash, the girl who got her piece cut, had a speech read at the Speaker’s Corner. So who, really, are you speaking for Cher Han? The establishment?
And Jin Yong, free speech is about the competition of ideas. If Cher Han’s sucks, as many in this comment section have highlighted, we should vigorously point out its stupidity. No one is questioning his fundamental right to speech so don’t lose sight of the issue.
Jinyong
says:October 15th, 2008 at 12.34am
Interestingly, i came across this quotation today:
“If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if her had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind… If the opinion is right, they (mankind) are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and the livelier impression of the truth produced by its collision with error.”
-John Stuart Mill
Are you silencing him by calling his comments “stupid”?
Chee Harn (not Cher Harn), is not part of the news team by the way, but the executive producer for SPECTRUM TV, which produces the entertain segment.
Point out his mistake (or your perception of what in your opinion, is deemed a mistake) by all means. But do it in a civilised way that promotes dialogue, not name calling or being all emotional.
:)
kash
says:October 15th, 2008 at 2.26am
Bringing change to pass, is as a a matter of character as it is about ideals.Im disappointed to see people antagonising rather than convincing.Don’t think that buys me.
Chee Harn,I suppose you mistook the protestors. Their arguments were really out of concern for the school and free media.Their speeches were well-written and very thought-provoking. If we didnt a get free media, at least we’ve started stimulating discourse about it:)
But I understand your position,though I would never ever feel the weight of what you guys at Spectrum/Chronicle really feel. Things have been dragging long and taking a toll on all involved and I understand the thin line Spectrum/Chronicle is treading here:)Perhaps to see things in another light the protestors were also ex-Chronicle writers that feel for the paper and hope for its freedom, we want to fight for the news values we’ve internalised in the school all these years as well.
Sorry if it got in the way of Spectrum and Chronicle’s runnings in anyway. Everyone had the best intentions I assure you!
We argue passionately at times,especially the times when we have the best intentions—but they are questioned.That passion is a beautiful thing that assures us that we’re not detached from life or just a passive spectator.But I suppose if we forget empathy, or thought experiments like putting ourselves in each other’s shoes, then what would ALL the change in the world really mean?
Scott
says:October 15th, 2008 at 2.38pm
Kash: Always well said!!
Jinyong: I suspect there might have been a misunderstanding when you said “name calling… all emotional”. I think nowhere in any of our (me, yanwen or clarence) or even the other writers here have resorted to name calling.
And indeed we have pointed out certain points of contention such as masquerading a personal attack on the speakers as a perspective. A perspective could be, by way of example: as the Executive Producer, I feel that this issue of censorship is alright, it happens everywhere, so why bother. That is a perspective, what is not a perspective is: Don’t come and pretend to know what is going on in Spectrum because you don’t know and you guys are shouting for your personal glory. That is not a perspective but an attack on our motives.
So interestingly, Jinyong, you have turned our comments into what you claim to be a personal attack on Chee Harn when indeed we have only pointed that there was no perspective on his side. This probably does not qualify as a personal attack.
Also I don’t think any of us here has called his comment stupid aside from Mavis who said that we are pointing out the stupidity of his comments. Also non of us have ever said that he does not have a right, really that is not the issue here. Nobody mentioned official sanctioned free speech in anyplace. There’s a right to speech, and there’s a right to reply.
clarence
says:October 19th, 2008 at 3.11am
Hate to harp on old issues, given the emergence of the very rousing Vivan dialogue session. But in the name of balanced coverage, can the editors of this website consider putting one of these enlightened comments as a letter as well? Good to give all perspectives equal exposure.
Also, the more I look at the picture, the more I think it is a poor editorial selection. We learn in photojourn to select the pictures that best represent/recreate the actual situation. Surely The Enquirer’s photographers took better shots than this?
hoolikan
says:October 21st, 2008 at 1.01pm
I am a media professional, and IMHO the picture does not in any way diminish the core story interest.
c shares her thoughts
says:October 25th, 2008 at 11.22pm
I would think it’s how these curious people whose ignorance to the speakers’ intentions and pre-conceived ideas of the space HOng Lim Park and the deep-down lukewarm attitude to the entire efforts of making the issue heard that brought you weariness and pain.
I thought it was a really smart move to try the Park. Well at least we now know the effects of speaking there, which is STiLL really just inviting curious looks and bored yawns from the majority.
But i would think our foreign media counterparts appreciated.
Maybe it’s reflection time on inadequacy of such: “The Hong Lim that has little effect” ?
But then again, only the truly concerned folks will have recognised the effect, and still it in their hearts, for however long a term they would like to.
Effect, in whichever light, but a constructive one, definitely.
Am amazed at the lengths of comment threads here.. Because i don’t hear a breath about it at all among my schmates, so i’m glad there’s still discussion, to voice and be heard, be understood, or misunderstood.
to care, basically.
-non-cs student-
Raymond
says:November 22nd, 2008 at 8.37pm
I empathise with the frustration you must have felt about your article being censored. However, I think the fact that the article censored belongs to you does not give you exclusive rights to this debate. People who feel more passionate about the cause and who feel the urge to fight the injustice have every right to light their torch from your (evidently) dying flame. Their fight might well prevent your next article from the curtains of censorship.