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.
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
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
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.