| September
1998
Straits Times' coverage of the Prof Lee murder trial
|
|
||
Sometimes, it takes a while to crystallise your own feelings and thoughts about
something which you have found vaguely disturbing. The way in which the Straits
Times handled the murder trial following the killing of Associate Professor Lee
Kok Cheong was one such case for me. It aroused considerable debate among gay
men here, to which at first I remained mostly an observer. But it took me a
while to clarify my own thoughts
about the coverage by the Straits Times.
Professor Lee, 54 at his death, was murdered in December 1993. He had lived alone, and for a while his murderers remained unknown and at large. A mystery telephone tip to the police two years after the murder provided them with their first break, and after a few years of investigation, the story finally came together. Too Yin Sheong, 26 (in 1998), was then arrested and charged with the capital offence of murder. Too had been invited by the Professor to his house in October 1993, about 3 weeks after they had first met at a coffeeshop. While in the house, Lee made an amorous approach, but Too made an excuse and left. However, Too had noticed the valuable antiques in the home and came to the opinion that the Professor was a rich man. Two to three weeks later, Too mentioned this episode to two friends, Ng Chek Siong, 27 (in 1998), and someone nicknamed Kim Beh. Kim Beh suggested that it might be worthwhile to rob the Professor, and the way to gain entry was for Too to arrange a meeting on the pretext of introducing Kim Beh to the Professor (with an implied sexual objective, perhaps). It was set for December 12. Ng Chek Siong waited in the car outside the Professor's house. Too Yin Sheong and Kim Beh went in. While the Professor was distracted, they went into the kitchen, found some knives and a cord, and with these, tied him up, stabbed and strangled him. They then ransacked the house, stealing his bank ATM card. Too later used this card to withdraw cash.
|
|||
|
On Friday 28 August 1998, Too Yin Sheong was found guilty and sentenced to death. Ng Chek Siong, the driver, had been convicted of robbery for the same case one week before and sentenced to 8 years in prison. He was a prosecution witness in Too's murder case. Kim Beh, the third man, is still at large. The murder trial opened on Monday, August 18. The opening report in the papers on Tuesday didn't say anything about the Professor's sexuality, or anything about sex, for that matter. But it did say that Too Yin Sheong met Professor Lee at a coffeeshop, and soon after, went to his house. I remember thinking to myself, what would be on the Professor's mind, inviting a rough-type like Too to his home, if not for sex? And sure enough, the following day's report confirmed my suspicion. Wednesday's court report bore the headline, "Victim was homosexual' ". I merely chuckled. Tell me something I don't know, I said to myself on reading it. The full report itself didn't make much of this point. It carefully reported the trial proceedings, in which the prosecutor presented the police statement made by Too after his arrest. Despite the headline, the press article only mentioned homosexuality twice. See box at right. This report was later to be misinterpreted by some of my gay friends who railed against the homosexual panic defence. If you followed the case carefully, you could see that the defence team did not attempt this line of argument. What had been reported was in the prosecution's police statement. The issue then is, why did the Straits Times blow up the homosexuality angle to headline, making it sound like the accused's defence, when it was not the case?
|
|
||
|
29 August - the verdict More was to come. The trial judge announced his verdict on Friday, 28 August. No longer sub-judice, the Straits Times felt free to publish background information it had gathered about the Professor. There were two reports and a controversial photograph on Saturday, 29 August. On page 3, was a 17x10 cm photograph showing Prof Lee in a T-shirt with a younger man, barechested and barelegged, sitting side by side on a double bed. The younger man's face was blurred out. He had a towel (or maybe it was part of a bedsheet) covering most of him below the waist, suggesting he had nothing on underneath. The caption said, "The murdered professor Lee Kok Cheong (right), with one of his students, in a picture taken in his house. He led a promiscuous life and had affairs with several undergraduates." In the salmon-coloured box on the right is the report accompanying the photograph. This story in the main reported the trial judge's findings of fact and his verdict.
The lead article in the same day's Home News section of the Straits Times, was
juicier. It spoke of his 'secret life' and 'promiscuous ways'. (see
the yellow box below) Gay men's grumblings Many gay men were annoyed by the way they felt the Straits Times handled the matter. Their complaints were mainly along three lines: sensationalism, invasion of privacy and the inversion of criminal and victim. They felt the Straits Times sensationalised the homosexual angle. They pointed out that the headline "Victim was homosexual' " in the August 19 report had little to do with the general thrust of the article; the use of the photograph on August 29 had even less to do with the report under it about the judge's verdict; and the third piece going on about his promiscuous lifestyle was totally uncalled for, being irrelevant to the murder. They felt that this new example of the blatant sensationalisation of a homosexual angle whenever it appears in connection with a crime demonstrates the homophobia in the Straits Times. Such an editorial policy perpetuates the discrimination against fellow citizens of Singapore who happen to be gay. They also accused the Straits Times of invasion of privacy. This was particularly in relation to the use of the photograph, which a showed a moment all too candid but unrelated to the crime. It exposed the student in the photo to identification from his torso, even as his face was blurred. The Chinese evening paper apparently used the same photograph without even blurring out his face! Besides the picture, the background piece was also, they felt, completely insensitive to the undergraduate and Professor Lee's family. Enquiries were made as to the source of the
photograph. It was reported that the newspaper obtained it from the police. If
so, why the police should retain that photograph, unrelated as it was to the
murder, is a very good question. It points to a rather cavalier attitude by
the police to the personal rights of the victim and his family. But, as a
friend of mine pointed out, even if the police did give the picture to the
press, it did not make it right or excusable for the press to print it. That
they did, demonstrates the insensitivity of the press to Professor Lee's
family and to the undergraduate in it. As if gay people deserve less respect. Reversal of perpetrator and victim The sensationalisation of the homosexual angle, even when it was not a thread in the trial defence, and the invasive nature of the photograph and background article, amounted to a fresh injustice, where the roles of perpetrator and victim were reversed. The implication from the spotlight on Professor Lee was that the victim, through his promiscuity (read HOMOSEXUAL promiscuity), caused his own death. It is like saying that women who were raped brought it upon themselves by wearing short skirts. It is outrageous to make such a linkage. Anyone saying that today would be vilified for male-chauvinist sexism. Likewise, by choosing to highlight this story the way they did, Straits Times displayed at least thoughtlessness, if not homophobia. Even without going so far, the intense scrutiny of murder victim's private life, when there was neither picture nor write-up of the murderer's private life, was unbalanced enough to amount to inversion. Professor Lee will suffer no more. But generations of gay men will have to live with the smearing by the Straits Times.
Other gay men felt that the above complaints came out of reading too much from what was printed. They pointed out that the writing style stayed matter-of-fact, and that no derogatory phrases were used to describe homosexuality or gay persons. That the Straits Times used the promiscuity or homosexual angle to gain reader interest was undeniable. But while it did feature the victim a lot more than the murderer, the same was also true of the murder trial for the killers of the Bulgarian woman, just a month earlier. To accuse the Straits Times of being unusually sensational or biased in their handling of the Professor Lee murder trial is just not well-founded. Furthermore, it is a fact that bringing
strangers home carries risks. It would do well for people, gay or straight, to
remember that. So what do I think? I do not think that this was a case of sensationalism. Whatever use the Straits Times made of the homosexual angle was mild in comparison to what tabloids would have done with it. Nor do I think that this was a serious case of invasion of privacy. There was some invasion, but it is mitigated by two factors: public interest and the fact the information appeared to be properly obtained. The public interest came through the need to understand how and why Too Yin Sheong and Kim Beh gained such easy access to Professor Lee's home. The background in terms of the Professor's character and habits was pertinent. The information about his other liaisons with undergraduates was, from all indications, volunteered by the participants themselves. They weren't tittle-tattling on others, except maybe the dead Professor. I did, however, have a bone to pick with the 3rd article -- the one giving the background on the Professor's life. The writer made the knee-jerk assumption that the Professor seduced his young men. The word was used in the headline and in the third paragraph. What exactly is implied by "seduction"? That the Professor preyed on innocent young men. This risks reinforcing a common perception that homosexual men are out to violate others, and that the victims become homosexual when they are seduced by dirty old men. This is simply not true. The interviewees themselves said they were willing partners. They stayed in relationships of a year. And from the way they recounted their stories, it didn't sound as if they felt used. The reporter should not have used that word;
the editor should have spotted the error. © Yawning Bread
Footnotes None Addenda None
|
|
