Hitherto, CSJ had repeatedly lamented that the MSM had imposed a media blackout on the SDP.
Although he would rather not admit it, the editorial ban was mainly on SDP; other opposition parties were given some airtime (or rather, page space) to cover their electoral plans, recruitment of new members, in-house seminars and even their counter-arguments to government policies.
The recent interview with CSJ broke new grounds for SDP. CSJ was probably elated when he was offered a rare opportunity to express himself via the MSM (ie. ZB, and then reprinted by ST). In the interview, he sounded as if he deserved the new attention.
As events subsequently unfolded, we can see that he didn't.
He is now back to his old (recalcitrant) ways. He seems rather irritated that his letter has not been published in its entirety, and is presently accusing it of “censoring the SDP's views” (yet again).
His original bugbear (and defensiveness) arose out of questions being raised over his sources of income. Instead of using his follow up letter to shed some light on this, he has gone on a not-unexpected tirade about himself “fighting for democracy and the political rights of Singaporeans.”
The leopard does not change its spots.
If some politicians purport to fight for the rights of Singaporeans, then Singaporeans have the right to subject such politicians to scrutiny – to ask for a reasonable degree of openness and accountable.
Why is it so difficult for CSJ to publicly cite his “research (….like human behaviour)” work that provides him income so that the burden of doubt is lifted?
Instead of clearing the air, his latest attempt at diversion to his favourite (but tiresome) causes reinforces the perception of evasiveness.
SDP has no one but itself to blame for being ostracised by the MSM in future, and for being ignored by the people as per current.