I am very shocked by the lack of due diligence when a person speaks in the house. I think this would cost him his votes if he has to run for election.

You have my sympathy 154th!

ST journalists deserved more – more critisms that is………

Did not know that those at the ST are just cry babies……did not know that they have such thin skins.

They are all playing games – part of the master mind orchestration of Propaganda……..

whatever they claim must be the tooth right?

by the by, I DON”T B U Y the News, in more ways than 1.

ways of buy:
1. subscribe with delivery every morning.
2. buy from 7-11
3. buy from chap her tiam.
4. buy from road side vendor.
5. buy 2nd hand from someone who have read and wanted to throw it away.

ways of no-buy:
1. borrow from frens for free thus no buy
2. read from laibry
3. read from the internet

So, I consider myself REALLY I DON’T BUY ANY OF THE NEWS, everyday whatever day.

So, by the editor’s words, does it mean we should regard the news and its workers articles as fully totally absolutely unbiased and credible and with integrity based on the complete truth and nothing else but the entire truth?

yes or no?

They rebutted our MP for accusing them of bias, they have not rebutted the international press rankings. Now, who is having bias.

To Han F K,
You are indeed very very fortunate to be chief editor of S.T. considering it is ranked
around 154th and your pay masters are shameless with regards to the ranking and do not give a damn what enlightened S’poreans think.

Bear in mind S.T is the oldest newspaper around with no competitors. After 50 years being the dominant newspaper, the ranking of 154th is lost on you. It seems you are in self denial that many S’porean despise what S.T. stands for in terms of reporting news on political activities and events. Yes, you are not mistaken when I say despise.

Mr Han

“our professionalism”

If ST journlists are professionals, then the China babes solicting for biz at places like Joo Chiat are professionals. Most of them don’t offer anal sex, not like ST journalists who always offer virtual anl sex to the powerful.

Seriously nothing to discredit.

any idea the religious backgroound of Mr Sin?

According to Parliament, he is a Christian. But I remember reading somewhere that states he is a Methodist.

Oh come on. You have 1.4 million readers only because there is no other competitor. And I think we all know why there aren’t any competition.

As for professionaism, isn’t it true that there are some issues that the media will never dare venture?

I don’t think I am the only one who felt that there was too much media coverage on the AWARE saga. The whole episode had been blown out of proportion. In the end, what happened? It was discovered by MOE that the sex education taught by the old AWARE to our children was not suitable.

Sin and Han, you’re on the same side, so make love not war.

bua haha

Anybody with a decent command of the English language can tell that the Shit Times was really biased in that particular fiasco. Pls do not kid yourself, just move on and try to buck up, no point stirring up more shit. You stinked enough.

professionalism? Han Fook Kwang, I salute you, you can say it with a straight face…

HFK, have you ever examined your Chua twins?

Is COOS a methodist church?

What is more shocking than Mr Sin’s lack of diligence is the fact that he was allowed to read out an unverified email from an unknown person in Parliament without being challenged or stopped by any member of the house. That doesn’t reflect very well on the rest of the House. And the Leader of the House did not correct him until 2 days later.

Hi LadyMadonna,

No. COOS is an Anglican Parish. That’s why Bishop Dr John Chew of the Singapore Anglican Diocese had to rebuke him publicly for the abuse of pulpit. It is very serious to be corrected by the Leader of the House. Sim Boon Ann and Prof Thio Li-Ann have effectively dragged down the social standing of Protestants in Singapore.

Mr. Chief editor had justified that their reports were one sided because they could not reach any of the executive committee… how convenient.

Mr. Chief editor, can you then tell if the choice of words used by ST is biased? You said that the old team had told you that the new committee has won LEGITIMATELY. Why then did ST choose to report it as a coup? Why speculate about right-wing religious conspiracy?

Mr. Chief editor, you are lucky because you are needed as a stooge; otherwise, you’ll be charged with sedition.

What professionalism are you talking about Mr Han Fook Kwang?

Can you recall all the pieces you wrote for The Straits Times before you got promoted to your current position? Please review them and be honest.. You will find that there is a certain underlying theme not unlike the kind found in articles written by your colleague, Ms Chua Lee Hoong.

Do you know why so many people are now using sites like this to voice their views? Because those who have adverse comments against the govt or difficult pointers for the govt to answer have had no way of getting their views published in The ST. Surely, you are aware that your newspaper is unabashedly pro-PAP, right?

Maybe, not all your reporters or journalists are unprofessional. But we have seen examples of unprofessionalism emanating from your writers, including yourself when you were churning out pieces on a regular basis.

The Straits Times provided key information and possibly the 1st to highlight the issue (At least for me to notice) and surfaced many interesting info. It was also the ST that brought the previous NKF people down in my recent memory. If you don’t do wrong thing, midnight no need to fear ghost knock door. The carton on page 2, depicting a man with the mirror concluded it all.

Comments made here on this thread about ST being pro-PAP are really quite moot. Whether one supports the Old Guards or TSM & her fembots through out the AWARE Saga, neither side is the PAP. ST Chief Editor Han FK has revealed that his journalists have pressured TSM & her fembots for more press releases but they failed to do so. In this aspect, ST has been an equal playing field for both sides. Are Josie’s supporters saying that because Josie’s side release less news, so ST should cover the Old Guards less?

ha! look at the caliber of some of our leaders!!! they only dare to quote unverifiable sources, talk about issues after they all happen rather than face up to real issues.

TEMASEK!
GIC!
POOR!
FOREIGN WORKERS!

so many! and he had to quote an unverifiable source! LOL.

sorry but i really don’t think the ST is totally a govt dog.

on civil issues, it does have some freedom to move within. so chill. only within controversial political issues then we can discount it abit.

for those ppl who commented rashly – have you taken a look at the entire article? or just such snippets?

i find the editor’s justification robust.

for the MP to malign and defame ST on this article and the handling of THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE is unfortunate – makes us question his personal ideology. does he buy into the thiologies!

Please larh. A whole bunch of people with same views in parliament obviously side each other lor.

[#22 smallvice585]

“Comments made here on this thread about ST being pro-PAP are really quite moot.”

Any comments made here on this thread about ST being pro-PAP may have nothing to do with the AWARE saga. For example, my post #20 was in response to the issue of “professionalism”, relating to ST journalists/reporters in general.

hi rwkc,

What about just narrowing the scope to the issue of journalistic professionalism on the ST coverage of the AWARE Saga?

Thank you HFK for providing me with such a good laughter…by saying some thing like this, it really display the level of professionalism and integrity that you people have *swallow large pinch of salt” really…

[27] smallvice585

Tks for the suggestion. Unfortunately I have not read all the articles re the AWARE saga.

rgds

“Our job is to report accurately and fairly what is happening…”, in theory only, Mr. Han, The Straits Times is indulging in misinformation. It is a mouth piece of the government. The TODAY newspaper does a better job at accurate and unbiased reporting.

To claim that Singapore is a secular state is not correct as the Straits Time has done . Can you explain why is a Muslim man exempt from the polygamy law in Singapore?

If Singapore is truly secular it should have one set of laws for ALL its citizens.

SPH should just do what it did to NKF.

want to talk , talk to my lawyer/s!! mua-hahaa…

For the past 20 years, I have seldom bought or read the Straits Times, purely because I felt it had always reported one-sided, or only told us what the govt wanted us to know but refrained from other equally important but negative aspects of certain news, events, organisations or people. That was my general impression after being a regular customer/reader of the Straits Times for at least 10 years before.

However, for this Aware saga, I must salute the Straits Times for a job well done. Though initially it has reported one-sided but subsequently it has tried its very best to make a balanced and extensive presentation for both sides – both the new and the old guards. The reason for the initial lob-sided reporting was due to the initial silence maintained by the new Aware Exco, which has already been fully explained by Mr Han Fook Kwang, the Chief Editor. I accept his enlightening explanation with thanks.

Nevertheless, I still feel that it is a very long way for most of the Straits Times’ reporters and report-writers to go to reach the height of real professionalism. The Straits Time’s ranking of 154th is something to take to heart seriously, instead of brushing it aside, by the Chief Editor and all the other editors, reporters and report-writers.

I am sorry that I still cannot bring myself to use the term “journalists” yet, until the Straits Times can at least reach the ranking half way up the ladder. That I hope will be the day that the Straits Times can truly talk about journalistic professionalism without being laughed at!

“The personal attacks against the integrity of our journalists sadden me ” -ST

” Government-linked companies are dominant in various sectors of the local economy, such as media, utilities, and public transport. ” -wikipedia

integrity will cost u ur job, u just listen like a good boy to what the old man wants

Let everybody, including Han Fook Kwang, express his or her views honestly, without being subject to personal and unfair attacks.

It is quite a common habit in Singapore for another person to twist the meaning of a person’s statement and then attack the twisted version. It is called “putting words in other people’s mouths”.

So many people are scared to give their honest opinion, that they need to make strong personal attacks while remaining anonymous. Some even posted under different names to give the appearance that they are the views of many other people.

it is also quite sad that our main newspaper is construed by many people to be baised in its reporting, especially in support of the Government. This, in my opinion, is a fair statement. It is quite sad that the reputation of the St Times has come down to a low level.

It is sad for the state of affairs in Singapore. We need a more honest and robust society.

ST ‘garang’ only on issues it thinks it has got backing from ‘ow sua’.

Does HFK dare do some investigative reporting into GIC and Temasek and Town Council losses?

Will ST cover more ‘underground’ news like those online comments on the latest electoral system tweaks instead of assuring the Emperor his clothes are still on?

Mr Han

Admit it. You tot govmin wanted to beat up religious fanatics who were putting at risk S’pore’s attempts to be a pink centre. All those pink tourist $ and all those creative types

So ST went to town for AWARE OG hens.

Then turned out that you read the runes wrongly.

Next time ask the right ministers first. That waz the failure of professionalism — the art of sar ka.

Let us not complain – Hitler and Stalin are decking each other!

Hi A Tan: You got it spot on. But really, HFK knows which side his bread is buttered. You can’t take him to task him for being a loyal servant of the organisation. He is paid to do a job — and he is doing it well, which is why he has survived so long.
Let’s not forget that the ST has, since time immemorial, been pro-establishment. That is company policy cast in stone, I dare say. The ST is after all in the game to make money — and it might be foolhardy, from a business point of view, to take on the powers that be. I am sure the board and the other stakeholders will agree on this.
But one should also bear in mind that a newspaper, a national one at that, has more responsibilities than to make money. It has to be more than a conduit for government propaganda. It has to, for a start, reflect the views of the people so that officialdom will have proper feedback to provide the public service it was elected to do.
So what does an editor have to have to do a good job for his readers? The courage of his convictions, for a start.

ST defending itself ? Never heard of ! ST gets away with anyhing they write so far………………..
The chief editor may be forced in a position to write stale news to defend ST simply cos he may have offended some senior government people and maybe his job so many years after the Gomez April fool joke with ST, is on the line.

Some said he misread the cues and try to reframe – see also pictures published with ladies of all ages and races in the old Aware take back ….so in quick reaction, the ST summarily try to score points for the Government ……….. forgetting the real reporting and forgetting that the Government in this instant did not ask ST for such a favour.
It takes a lot for the ST to come out to defend itself!

37) bob</b. on May 31st, 2009 8.21 am

Let us not complain – Hitler and Stalin are decking each other!

That’s exactly what I was thinking…

In any case, the editor extrapolates the implications of the AWARE saga to defend ST’s (phantom) professionalism. Perhaps in this case, ST needs to go after the religious fanatics who are baying for (anyone’s) blood. But I wonder if the following observation:

In fact, there appears to be an organised campaign to discredit the media, with mass e-mail being sent, including to Reach, the government feedback portal.

has anything to do with the saga itself. Instead, I would think that the heavy discourse on ST stems from the widespread displeasure of its (non-existent) standards.

Well, nice try Mr Editor…

ST’s reporting on stories are one-side most of the time on local issues. Rest of the articles (most international stories) published are from other medias… So given the chance to cover that small portion of Singapore news, i expect ST”s journalism to at least act professionally, and not report according in the interest of certain groups, or based on the view of the one doing the coverage.

34 TaN kIN lian

Put yourself in the position MICA , read the ST articles on this subject Mr Tan. Then you will know surely why people are angry! Study the headlines which gave a negative picture of the new guards, then you will know why people are complaining that ST is biased on this subject! No need to sa kah ST!

Mr Han FK, to return to the issue of professionalism [or unprofessionalism?] in media reporting.

Hope you have by now read the comments posted above. As you can see, many of them are critical of ST or of its reporters/journalists in general. When a ST reporter writes something that can be clearly viewed as a half-truth, would you view the writer as being unprofessional? Or being dishonest in some way? Let me cite some examples of what I consider to be dishonest reporting, and all these happened to be in connection with the introduction of some new technology in Singapore:

ST Mar 11, 2009 regarding [r
e] Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy
ST Dec 8, 2008 re Optimiser Implant
ST Jul 25, 2008 re Mohs Micrographic Surgery
ST Mar 29, 2008 re Da Vinci Surgical System
ST Oct 1, 2005 re Ear Implant
ST Sep 10, 2004 re Pump Implant
ST Jun 25, 2004 re New Anti-Speeding Weapon
ST Nov 15, 2002 re Oxygen Capsule
ST Jul 17, 2001 re Keyhole Surgery

Are you aware that, unbelievably, no mention was ever made, in any of these articles, as to who, or which country, invented the technology? The idea, presumably, was to project an image of Singapore being highly technologically advanced, right? Or was it more appropriately a case of self-trumpeting, for the wrong reasons? Or being unprofessional or dishonest, or both?

that I find STOMP quite entertaining every now and that. As for the serious stuff, I much rather spend my time reading from other sources.

When it comes to bullying the weak, ST ranks #1. When it comes to investigative journalism which involves the papa it trails at #154, at the bottom.
What professionalism? professionalism is how you define it, isn’t it?

#38 GABRIEL
” But really, HFK knows which side his bread is buttered. You can’t take him to task him for being a loyal servant of the organisation. He is paid to do a job — and he is doing it well, which is why he has survived so long.”

Good observation, GABRIEL.

Your observation of HFK has a certain parallel to my observation of what High Court Judge Tay Yong Kwang did when he rejected the request of FEER’s lawyer’s application to engage a QC because he, Judge Tay, thought that the case was not sufficiently complex to warrant the engagement of a QC. Who, ultimately, was Judge Tay working for? We have to ask him.

When your two enemies (MP and ST) are quarrelling, let’s stay out of this. When election comes, these two enemies will shake hands again and go after the blood of our alternative parties.

The personal attacks against the integrity of our journalists sadden me because they show the vindictiveness of our critics and the length to which they are prepared to go to attack our professionalism. In fact, there appears to be an organised campaign to discredit the media, with mass e-mail being sent, including to Reach, the government feedback portal.
Han Fook Kwang, Straits Times Chief Editor

When mm declared CSJ mad (or words to that effect) Chua Lee (or is it Mui) Hoong joined in and proclaimed him mad too (or words to that effect). Now let me ask you, Han Fook Kwang, do you call that professional? And, was she or wasn’t she indulging in a vicious personal attack? Also, do you think CSJ was happy or sad?
Is there any wonder why there is such a campaign to discredit the media?

#48

”When mm declared CSJ mad (or words to that effect) Chua Lee (or is it Mui) Hoong joined in and proclaimed him mad too (or words to that effect). Now let me ask you, Han Fook Kwang, do you call that professional? And, was she or wasn’t she indulging in a vicious personal attack? Also, do you think CSJ was happy or sad?”"
Precisely, ST dares but do they dare repeat what others say lky? Isn’t it bullying?What professionalism? What he meant is biased reporting at the right time.

i have decided to cease subscribing to sph publications when my subs to BT and ST run out. professionalism, my foot! they are only reporters and not very good ones at that. the whole place is riddled with u know what and u know who! i have tolerated them for these years BUT no longer! what is so professional about people who only report what they are told to??????????????????
bye! bye!

Talking about the news papers, I have a doubt i like to clarify.
Are those on MSM payroll considered Civil Servants?

What are the Restrictions for Civil Servants in terms of voicing personal opinions?

Anyone knows, pls share here for purpose of improving the general knowledge.

For 51) Civilised Hum Chi Beng :

> Mainstream Print media (SPH/Straits Times) is a publicly-listed company and Mainstream TV media (Mediacorp TV/Channel News Asia) is wholly-owned by Temasek Hldgs but expected to be run “commercially”.

Their staff are thus NOT considered as “civil servants” — but many of them ARE former civil servants given their highly-paid cushy jobs to “sing the praises of the PAP Govt” , such as the “SPH Terrible Trio” comprising:
SPH CEO Alan Chan Heng Loon (bro of Chan Heng Chee/Chan Heng Wing)
Editor-in-Chief Patrick Daniel
ST Editor Han Fook Kwang

> My recent posting “PROOF that Straits Times = SHIT TIMES” is at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sg_Review/message/5712

52) DavidSeeLeongKit on June 1st, 2009 7.34 am

Dear David,

Thank you very much for sharing and voicing your opinions. I hope more senior Singaporeans who have gone through life like you could share their views over how Singapore has “progressed” over the years especially with our elitist political leadership. Over the last few months I have been awaken by the impressive leadership of this group of leaders like – MP Sin, MP Lee, MP Ong, MP Wee (who two years ago supported his infamous daughter’s blogging) and many others whose acts have caused much furore.

I think more and more people have come to realise the disparity in treatment they face living in this so-called democratic society run by high IQ elites. Your posting “PROOF that Straits Times = SHIT TIMES” is a piece of classic feedback. Please continue to share your thoughts with us.

Thank you.

ST & MP are just playing games to wool over citizens that there is real disagreement between the press & political machine.
An apology in parliament & a defence in a newspaper with 1.4 million readership as claimed – what a perfect horseshit field to plant seeds of propaganda….

One thing missing from Han’s letter.

To this day, does anyone know whether an ST reporter cheered when the OG hens won?

Or was this allegation a lie?

“To this day, does anyone know whether an ST reporter cheered when the OG hens won?”

Is there any reason why the ST (or any person for that matter) should lower their dignity to answer an unsubstantiated allegation from an unverified email from an unknown source? Speaking of which, how about the unknown ‘Cheryl Ng’ enlightening ordinary mortals on how ’she’ was able to recognise the ‘homosexual fraternity’ when no-one was asked to declare her/his sexual orientation in their membership applications? BTW did she also allege that she ‘feared for her life’: how did that come about when the old ‘new’ guard had spent a large part of nearly $90K on security, and called for the guards to ‘escort’ anyone who asked too many uncomfortable questions out of the EGM?

Moreover, did the old ‘new guard’ refute all the allegations made against them in the press and on the Internet? If they didn’t, has that dented at all the support of their supporters for them?

Be fair. If the ST is guilty of all that supporters of TSM and the old ‘new’ guard accuse them of (which I do not agree), these same supporters are guilty of the same – and worse, not only because they claim to be righteous but they make their scurrilous attacks under the cloak f anonymity.

We are all fallible, and we all have to answer to higher powers. Mr Han is not the owner of ST; he also has to answer to his Board and shareholders. If the ST is a ‘national’ paper which should not be concerned with profits, how about the SMRT and the bus companies? No one is perfect, and noone can please all of the people all of the time. Other than the supporters of TSM and the old ‘new’ guard, I believe the majority of rational and moderate Singaporeans (whatever their views on other areas of the ST’s coverage) generally agree that the ST’s coverage of the Aware saga was balanced. And ST did do some pretty good investigative work in the NKF saga.

Fallibility on the part of Members of Parliament, especially when it impinges on their professionalism, integrity and impartiality, however, is another thing. How very sad that none of the posts on this thread which have questioned the ST’s professionalism, integrity and honesty (or lack of) has seen fit to question the professionalism, integrity and impartiality of the 2 MPs responsible for this ruckus over the media coverage – Mr Sin (who has shown not only a lamentable (and alarming) ignorance of his privileged position but demonstrated a complete lack of integrity and impartiality) and Dr Thio Li-ann (who abused her prvileged position to support members of her family). Mr Sin may have apologised and the Leader of the House may have clarified the rules of the House, the sad thing remains that Mr Sin was allowed to cite an unverified and unsubstantiated email in Parliament without challenge and censure in the first place.

Sadder is this descent to personal and unfair attacks, most which seem to be stemming from unhappiness or angst over the defeat of the old ‘new’ guard.

Han Fook Kwang, Straits Times Chief Editor said:
” If Mr Sin is accusing The Straits Times of being in favour of some religions against others – a very serious accusation against a newspaper with 1.4million readers of every religious shade – he should substantiate his complaint.”

Let me ask you another question, ST Chief Editor. If someone were to accuse the ST of being in favour of a particular political party against others – a very serious accusation against a newspaper with 1.4million readers of every political hue – would you insist that he substantiate his complaint?

For 53) fairplay :

Thanks for your moral support.

At 61 years old, I am having my fair share of various medical problems.

I consider myself as a “Social Whistle-Blower” — i.e. the more the PAP Govt and its Straits Times “running dogs” try to hide the TRUTH and FACTS from the People, the more determined I am to expose the same on the Internet before I conk off from old age.

PAP Million-dollar Ministers may fool MOST people MOST of the time, but definitely NOT ALL people ALL the time.

Will be coming up with some Internet postings on the long-term future of Singapore (the Nation) and Singaporeans (the People).

From Mr Sin’s ignorant behaviour, may I deduce that he’s one of the students of TSM? Remember Thio’s infamous arrogant statement – “When people are ignorant, I want to teach” LOL

Well done, Mr Han, for uncovering the plot by that obnoxious group to seize power in a secular organisation, so that readers could make informed choices.

Well done, Mr Sin, for mentioning that ST was biased and suggesting it should report all sides of story. Mr Han should take the cue from here to be fair to all political parties, give them equal footage and report on their sides of story in future.

#57 c-p-k

Kudos to you for that question.

HFK may be the chief editor but he may also be an ostrich in the sand.

If he has any wisdom, he should know that many people [as examples have been cited here] can provide evidence of ST’s political leanings.