|
|
Portions
of the letter that the Straits Times wants to remove are
in bold.
I
am not surprised that the Government-controlled media has again
portrayed me as a “traitor” out to “undermine”
Singapore. This is exactly the tactic the press is adopting with
the flurry of letters published. (24 Nov 2005)
It merely
confirms my suspicion that the Government cannot answer the
questions and arguments that I and other Singaporeans have raised
about the execution of small-time drug couriers. As a result, it
resorts to labeling me as a traitor in the belief that if you
smear the messenger, you don’t have to address the message.
It’s an age-old tactic.
Singapore
is reported to be the biggest business partner of Burma with
US$1.5 billion worth of investments. Former US Assistant
Secretary of State Robert Gelbard stated that “since 1998
over half of [the investments from] Singapore have been
tied to the family of narco-trafficker Lo Hsing Han.''
There
are reports that Lo Hsing Han now operates a deepwater
port in Rangoon and a highway from the center of Burma's
poppy–growing region to the China border, facilities
well-suited for exporting drugs.
Remember, the drugs that
flow from Burma are ones that our youth consume. If the PAP is
really concerned about the scourge of drug abuse, why did it do
business with a notorious drug lord and, hypocritically, take the
moral high ground by executing drug couriers many of whom are
Singaporeans.
Let me ask the questions that I have been
asking since 1997: Will the Government open its books so that we
can verify if our GIC funds are still invested in projects linked
with Lo Hsing Han? What steps has the Government taken to
pressure the Burmese regime to crackdown on drug kingpins like
Lo? Why does our Government continue to trade with the Burmese
junta when it has been shown that the military has close ties
with narco-producers like Lo?
In
addition, Singapore has been fingered in the laundering of
Burma’s drug money. Bruce Hawke, an expert on
narco-trafficking in Burma, wrote: “The entry [of drug
money] to the legitimate global banking system is not Burma but
Singapore.” Is this true?
I have been raising these
questions since 1997 but each time the local media assiduously
blacks them out. Other arguments against the mandatory death
penalty for drug peddlers raised by people like Dr Anthony Yeo,
Mr J B Jeyaretnam, Mr M Ravi, Mr Alex Au, Mr Sinapan Samydorai,
and Brother Michael Broughton have similarly been censored.
The
same arguments were raised when a Singaporean, Mr Shanmugam s/o
Murugesu, was executed in May this year. I brought up the
Singapore-Burma affair then when we were fighting to save Mr
Shanmugam as I am doing now for Mr Nguyen Van Tuong.
The
only reason why this issue has gained more prominence now is
because the Australian media, which unlike its Singapore
counterpart are not controlled by the state, have seen it
necessary to highlight it.
Criticising our government for
killing small-time drug peddlers while doing business with drug
lords is necessary. Whether it is a Singaporean or an Australian
who is going to dangle at the end of the rope is immaterial. A
life is a life and if we are going to take it, let us be
absolutely clear of the excruciating hypocrisy that currently
exists.
Ms Siow Jia Rui
argues that Singapore’s laws must be allowed to “run
their course” and that “no other country has a right
to interfere.” If that is the case then why was the charge
for Ms Julia Bohl reduced after the German ambassador and
government had mounted a diplomatic campaign on her behalf,
meeting several senior Singaporean ministers in the process.
Within months several of the charges were dropped and the amount
of drugs she was accused of carrying was reduced from 687g to
281g. She escaped the gallows and served about three years for
her crime. Is this not outside interference in Singapore’s
justice system?
Ms Siow continues that
laws in Singapore are “applied fairly across the board to
Singaporeans and foreigners alike.” The life of Julia Bohl,
a German, was spared because of pressure from the German
Government. What about the life of Mr Shanmugam, a Singaporean
who served in the army and did Singapore proud by winning medals
in ski competitions? Ms Bohl served three years in prison but Mr
Shanmugam was hanged. Is a Singaporean’s life so cheap
compared to a foreigner’s?
I have no doubt that when
Singaporeans come to hear both sides of the debate, a debate that
the media is determined to quash, they will reject the hypocrisy
and discrimination of the PAP Government.
CHEE SOON
JUAN
Secretary-General
Singapore Democratic Party
|
ST
wants to censor Chee's reply on the Singapore-Burma connection
29
Nov 05
Dr Chee recently wrote two letters in reply
to a Straits Times
Forum letter by Mr Siow Jia Rui as well as to an article from Mr
Joseph Koh, Singapore's High Commissioner to Australia. The
Straits Times
wrote to Dr Chee regarding the matter. Below is their
correspondence.
Dear
Dr Chee,
I refer to your fax of Nov 25
responding to reader Siow Jia Rui's letter,
"Chee
shows he's out to undermine S'pore'' (ST, Nov 24).
We
would be happy to publish your letter where it refers to points
raised in Mr Siow's letter. This being so, we are prepared to
publish the following:
"Mr Siow
Jia Rui argues that Singapore's laws must be allowed to run their
course and that no other country has a right to interfere. If
that is that case then why was the charge for Ms Julia Bohl
reduced after the German ambassador and government had mounted a
diplomatic campaign on behalf of Ms Bohl, meeting several senior
Singaporean ministers in the process. Within months several
charges were dropped and the amount of drugs she was accused of
carrying was reduced from 687g to 281g. She escaped the gallows
and served about 3 years for her crime. Is this not outside
interference in Singapore's justice system?
Mr
Siow continues that laws in Singapore are applied fairly across
the board to Singaporeans and foreigners alike. The life of Julia
Bohl, a German, was spared because of pressure from the German
government. What about the life of Mr Shanmugam, a Singaporean
who served in the army and did Singapore proud by winning medals
in ski competitions? Ms Bohl served three years in prison but Mr
Shanmugam was hanged. Is a Singaporeans's life so cheap compared
to a foreigner's?
I have no doubt that
when Singaporeans come to hear both sides of the debate, a debate
that the media is determined to quash, they will reject the
hypocrisy and discrimination of the PAP Government''
Yours
sincerely
Kong Soon Wah
Forum
Editor
Dear Mr Kong Soon
Wah,
Mr Siow Jia Rui
referred extensively to my interview on the Australian
Broadcasting Corporation and quoted parts of it. What he failed
to do was to say that my comments were made in the context that
it is hypocritical to hang Mr Nugyen Van Tuong on the one hand
and to do business with Burmese druglords like Mr Lo Hsing Han on
the other.
Singaporeans must read my comments in the
context in which they were made, hence my laying out of the
matter of the GIC's investments in Burma.
By proposing to
remove the paragraphs regarding Singapore's investments with
Burmese druglords, you not only make me look like I do not have a
reply to Ms Siow's attack that I have "aligned" myself
with other countries to "undermine" Singapore, but you
also take away the very essence of my letter.
Be that as
it may, I am amenable to amending my letter and be more explicit
about why I mention our Government's investments in Burma.
Alternatively, if you agree to publish my second reply
(in its entirety) to the article "Envoy rebuts Chee's claims
on investments", I would be agreeable to your proposal.
In
short, the facts - and my questions – regarding the PAP
Government's investments in Burma must appear in at least one of
my replies. The Singapore-Burmese druglords connection cannot
continue to be blacked out especially when it forms the very
heart of my reply to the attacks of the PAP and its supporters.
It is the crux of my case against the
Government.
Sincerely,
Chee Soon
Juan
Secretary-General
Singapore Democratic Party
|
|
