Andrew Loh –
On 11 June 2010, the Straits Times reported on the press conference by Mr Madasamy Ravi [Click on picture, left]. Mr Ravi is the lawyer for Yong Vui Kong, a 22-year old Malaysian who is facing execution under Singapore’s drug laws for having trafficked heroin into the country in 2007.
At the press conference, Mr Ravi outlined his reasons for seeking the help of the Malaysian government to intervene to save his client from being hanged in Singapore. At the heart of his appeal are certain facts about the case which he finds have prejudiced his client’s constitutional rights. Namely, that the Singapore Law Minister had made direct remarks pertaining to whether Yong should be hanged – a week before the Court of Appeal delivered its judgement on Yong’s final appeal to the judicial system. “Yong Vui Kong is young,” the Minister said on 11 June. “But if we say we let you go what’s the signal we’re sending?”
Also, Mr Ravi questioned the Singapore Attorney General’s claims, made in the Court of Appeal on 15 March, that it was the Cabinet which decides on clemency petitions “although in theory it’s the President who exercises the prerogative of mercy…”
These were the two main reasons for Mr Ravi asking the help of the Malaysian government to intervene and seek a ruling from the International Court of Justice to ascertain if the comments made by Singapore’s minister and the Attorney General had “[offended] the rules of natural justice, due process and the Constitution which itself grants the right to seek clemency from the President.”
Now, if one reads the Straits Times’ report, which was tucked at the bottom of the page, there is no mention whatsoever of these reasons or explanations given by Mr Ravi.
Anyone reading the Straits Times’ report would have gone away with the impression that Mr Ravi was asking the Malaysian government to seek the ICJ’s judgement so as to simply “save him [Yong] from execution”, in the words of the Straits Times’ report.
There is no mention of what the Singapore Law Minister had said – the timing of his remarks and the controversial nature of its content.
There is no mention of what the Attorney General had said which brings up the question of the President’s independence.
Mr Ravi’s grounds for seeking the Malaysian government’s intervention were entirely omitted by the Straits Times.
It truly is highly irresponsible reporting – a brand of “journalism” which belongs to the gutter.
Compare the reports of other news agencies and even bloggers, all of which reported Mr Ravi’s points about the Law Minister’s comments and the Attorney General’s remarks.
Go to these websites and read for yourselves.
- The Sun
- Sun2Surf
On 27 April 2010, the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports had accused certain websites of being “irresponsible” in “spreading falsehoods” about the plight of homeless people in Singapore.
The mainstream media, on the other hand, were touted as “accurate, timely and balanced in their reporting” by the Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts, in February this year. (See here)
Yet, here we have the Straits Times – which sees itself as a professional outfit and Singapore’s main English broadsheet – seemingly doing its utmost to avoid reporting the salient points in this particular case.
One can only wonder why its reporter, who we understand was at the press conference held by Mr Ravi and the Malaysian Bar Council in Kuala Lumpur, thought that the main thrusts of the conference were not important and did not deserve mention.
Its report is irresponsible in that, by omission, it is misleading the public and it borders on misrepresentation.
Thankfully, the Internet allows fellow bloggers and other news websites to shed light on what transpired at the press conference. Readers now know the facts and issues raised by Mr Ravi.
As for the Straits Times (and the Singapore local media), it continues to bury its head in the sand – refusing to report on the many issues which have surfaced in Yong’s case. Perhaps our local media are hoping not to risk potentially offending the powers-that-be, even as a boy faces imminent death.
In the words of Dr Balakrishnan, it is indeed highly irresponsible and certainly, the behavior of the Straits Times is far removed from one which is “accurate, timely and balanced”.
Shamefully far from it.
—————-
Read TOC’s report of the press conference : Lawyer urges Malaysian government to intervene in death row case.
Also: TOC Editorial: Media’s silence on Yong Vui Kong a national shame.
—————-
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
The Straits Times is only taking the cue (and orders) of those in charge, who used to brand themselves as ‘junzi’ (men of honor) while their actions and their words were not congruent.
Pigs cannot feel shame….neither can their lackeys.
Like what the lion in Madagascar says, “You don’t bite the hand that feeds you.”
Irrespective of what the lawyer said, asking a foreign country to intervene in Singapore’s internal affair is already wrong! Two wrongs do not make it right!
Sorry about that! I am not able to support the lawyer’s cause!
No wonder when there are conference for journalist in and around the region….
ST journalist are least respected.
The best thing of it all, they know it too.
How to miss an 8K job. They tell their counter-parts.
What Times?? They are utterly behind time besides being shamelessly irresponsible.
And the reporter who covered the press conference, I would tell her, she should feel 101% ashamed to collect her salary if there is any moral value left in her heart and soul.
How can any morally-upright human being worked for such a thick-skin shameless organisation ?
I vomit blood.
No matter what u say – my dog simply loves the State Times
And the press award goes to…the Malaysian media. hooray. hooray
The (not so ) Straits Times may want to take note that even Malaysian MSM was no exception in Yong’s case.
Because Malaysians are interested in reading about Yong. Publish or perish.
why would the 143rd media cared? our judges is not hangin their son/bro or whoever not related to them
its ok for all this LIARs… their time would come..and they are goin to pay it HARD…very very hard…
you know that type of karma in later life? where you simply cannot died a natural peaceful death…
I begin to believe “official rumours” more than the news in the Shit Times.
Thank you to the Online Citizen, the TC, the SDP websites, Singapore Window etc. for telling the WHOLE truth and not selected truth.
How long can the bullshit Lee Kuan Yew and his cancer sissy son last?
There are no truly independent English newspaper in Singapore.
We have only 1 and it is totally subservient to the ruling party.
WHAT A SHAME !!!
Ever tot that this was a balls-up rather than conspiracy?
Headline writers in ST (and other more reputable and responsible journals) have a reputation of not being bothered with the contents of article they are writing headlines for.
In their defence, they claim the pressure of deadlines and the volume of work that needs to be done in short space of time.
Opps pressed submit too early on above.
On the reasons being omitted, could be that they were omitted ’cause they are boring technicalities to the ordinary reader.
To people who don’t want to see this trafficker hang, these are impt details.
But for others (I’m one I admit), the impt bit abt the story is the appeal to the trafficker’s country to help him.
ST journalists are murderers. They should be hanged. Starting from the Chua Sisters and AndyHomo
AiYah! ST Nothing Surprise
I do not read any Singapore news papers for more than 15 years, not even if its free. Maybe a concerted boycott of ST is due. I dont care for propaganda. When is news propaganda? When it is slanted and facts are not stated for the public to make an indpt assessment of the information. PAP can slant (LKY insisted that they do ‘facts’).
what can we expect from state control media?
malaysiakini reports June 19. Minister Nazri will meet with Singapore lawyer Ravi in KL next week. Ravi has also been invited to speak at AI Malaysia.
Day in day out we can see that the straits time journalists are a bunch of people without backbone.
It took 3 reporters to put together a report “Why They Left” in a very clear sign that they are showing support and banding together for their fellow christian after a string of blunders made by Plaster Rony, Serious Plaster Kong Hee and Plaster Mark Ng.
This is revenge disguised in the form of a report in the straits time, biased to the core! These people are just unhappy that the leaders of their christian faith has committed silly mistakes by belittling other faith.
read report here http://tinyurl.com/wwleft
Can the Straits Times be afraid of offending the ‘Powers-that-be’ – when they are the mouthpiece of the Power itself ?
When the ass-hole in the body insist on being the boss – competing with the other parts of the body to be one – all it does is simply do nothing, and clog up the system.
The brain will get a headache, the eyes get fuzzy, the mouth smells bad, the nose prefer to hold its breath, the legs get wobbly.
At the end, every body part will soon agree for the ass-hole to be ‘The Boss’ – simply to get things flowing.
With an ass-hole being ‘The Boss’ dictating the functions of the physical whole, should we be surprise that an organisation like ST will act like an Ass ?
They are not even journalist. Calling ST reporters as journalist is an insult to the profession so named. The more appropriate title for our 158th ranked ST “journalist” should thus be changed to – PAPy propagandist. It is not too far fetched to call them pap-y propagandist because it live up to all the necessary characteristics to be one.
Every family buys the news. And I mean everyday basically. since they got money to afford one.
If people dun believe the news, they would not have paid and paid everyday.
Hi Moderator,
Why is my comments still under moderation? I am entitled to my own opinion even if it is different from your website. Are you practicing double standards?
Michael,
The article is about the Straits Times. It is not about the lawyer for Yong Vui Kong.
Your comments are therefore disallowed.
I dont see any ” courage and honesty to set the facts right” in the below.
JUST LOTS OF BULLSHIT by MCYS Minister Vivian Balakrishnan.
“If you were a poor person, anywhere on this planet, Singapore is the one place ………, where you will have food on the table.
EVEN IF YOU CAN’T AFFORD IT, WE WILL HAVE MEALS DELIVERED TO YOU.’’
[ http://zh.sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/394784?page=1 ]
NOT EVEN THE BELOW 2 SAID BY THE MCYS MINISTER.
‘’ No child in S’pore will be left without a home, says Dr Balakrishnan ‘’
[ http://app.reach.gov.sg/reach/YourSay/YourDiscussionCorner/tabid/117/ptid/414/page/1/totrecs/15/threadid/3206/forumtype/posts/Default.aspx ]
” ….Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, said:
…..if you were a poor person, anywhere on this planet, Singapore is the one place where you will have a roof over your head, ……..”
[ http://zh.sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/394784?page=1 ]
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Singaporeans are heading for a sad n scary times ahead.
We have HIGHLY PAID ministers/MPS/senior civil servants lying thru their teeth n with straight face or refusing to help residents.
One was asked ‘Are you drunk or lying’ when he said ‘if u r poor n can’t afford to buy food, we will send food to you’.
Then he has the cheek to talk about ”FALSEHOOD” n say ”DO YOU HAVE THE COURAGE AND HONESTY TO SET THE FACTS RIGHT” on another issue.
And we have the ‘HDB statistics’ that were challenged that was never replied.
Then recent URA poll survey ”83.8 percent like to work/liove in Sg”.
BUT Asiaone.com poll survey indicated ”21 percent ‘LIKE’ n 60 percent ‘DON’T LIKE’ to work/live in Sg.”
DID NOT see ‘they’ dare challenge those stats.
THEN there is the case where MPs n even ministers that refuse to response to calls to help handicap n old/frail folks [SINCE NOVEMBER 2009],
who are still stuck at home after a SCREW-UP LUP at Clementi Ave 5, where the lift still dont stops at all floors after LUP.
Residents still needs to climb staird to get to the lift after LUP.
BUT similar design flat at bedok, AMK, jurong east n aljunied has LUP done n lift able to stop at floors.
SINGAPOREANS R DOOMED IF SUCH THINGS GO ON.
Bree
The ST forum editor(s) have deleted some of my posts without notice nor reason.
I have made it a point that all my posts are and can be substantiated, that they are true and can stand up to scrutiny and challenge. Some of them are, of course, critical, but not irrelevant nor offensive.
I now print my completed posts (green option – in pdf using the free open source PDFCreator) and monitor over time if some of them will just disappear.
On this count, I am convinced that ST practices active censorship and is fully deserving of its low press freedom ranking.
Hi Moderator,
The ST article is reporting about the actions of the lawyer! How could you separate both of them? Your actions amount to Censorship!
I protest your action!!!!!!
As i do not read ST I am curious to know of the censored bits. Perhaps there should be a sister site on TOC on censored news? It could just be an archive of censored news / letters etc. That would be a great site for record purposes. Let’s start with that. No complaints on that site but perhaps limited comments as to why people think that was censorship, why it was censored and is that censored bit useful or not for an open society? Thanks in advance.
How come Singaporean don’t boycott the ST? When news etc are easily available FOC on the internet, radio etc….There is no need for ST to be in existent. And of course people like Chua M H etc would have to be door woman instead should ST collapsed. The standard is sub-standard and the price cut-throat.
IMHO, the Shit Times right from the senior reporters right up to the Editor himself really no professional integrity at all to begin with.
They don’t even have the guts to report on the recent Pink Dot event. It shows how beholden they are to their PAP masters.
If during the Japanese occupation, such people are often referred as running dogs or ‘走狗’.
“Steve Wu
20 June 2010 The ST forum editor(s) have deleted some of my posts without notice nor reason.”
I wonder can TOC allow readers whose mails were denied publication to help present these letters for all readers and singaporeans to read so that using their intelligence, they can determine if they can see what is the possible reasons for not publishing the letters.
All denied letters can they be shown on TOC? I hope can. Because like this, we can learn more about how letters are allowed and not allowed.
Let there be light.
I’ve stopped buying the ST for the last 3 years
All newspapers in Singapore are owned by the SPH which is linked to the PAP.
Any local news reports must be read between the lines, almost all of them are propaganda.
Like honest many have stopped the straits times for years. Every year you save about $360 by not buying the Straits Times.
I don’t understand the fuss about the AG’s comments. Under the SG constitution, the President acts on the advice on the Cabinet on clemency matters.
Chow Ah Beng,
The Cabinet advises the president. But the president makes the decision.
The AG seems to be saying that “in practice, it is the Cabinet which decides…”
That is the difference – between “advising” and “making the decision”.
Andrew
Dear TOC and Ah Beng
If TOC would bother reading the other parts of the constitution which reads as follows and can be found at stautues.agc.sg which is as follows
” The president has the discretion to ” and ” The cabinet advises the president. ” It would be clear that the constitution is clear about what the president has discretion to do , and where he has to take the advice of cabinet in making his decision. The constitution is also clear in that the cabinet through parliament can overrule any decision of the President with a set voting procedure. If you take all the parts of the constitution together as a cohesive legal whole and not just one section which the TOC has done, we can clearly see the intent and wishes.
In practice the President is bound by constitutional custom to follow the advice of cabinet, which in effect means the cabinet makes the decision, Singapore as a commonwealth country follows the United Kingdom where by parliament and cabinet advises the Queen. If one reads constitutional history in the UK , it is only on very rare occasions that the Queen choses not to follow the advise of the cabinet and certainly if we take the SG equivalent it will not be over Yong’s clemency appeal.
That said Ravi is within his rights to try every means possible and every argument however weak to prolong or save the life of his client. It is up to readers and commentators to write and discuss how weak or how strong his case is.
Locke
Dear Beng and TOC
I leave with with another sub clause from the constitution which made constitutional law what was implied in other countries or by custom in other commonwealth countries.
“Except as provided by this Constitution, the President shall, in the exercise of his functions under this Constitution or any other written law, act in accordance with the advice of the Cabinet or of a Minister acting under the general authority of the Cabinet. ”
Locke
I commend all the people who are trying their very best to help a young misguided youth. However I remain sceptical about the outcome.
First of all we have a Malaysian Minister who in his own words declares “This is the first time I heard about this case. What is it all about?” and is no better than our own when he declared “It’s in Singapore so we will not interfere in their legal processes.” So as Ravi said, there is no political mileage for UNMNO too. Perhaps appealing to the opposition and the Chinese Community in Malaysia would have been a better solution.
Second, our government cannot take it when its flaws are exposed. If this case is in deed taken to International courts, than it would be international disgrace for them.
So to ensure this does not happen, I would bet that this case will be discussed at the sidelines of the land swop discussion going on in KL. Lets not forget the Law Minister who made comments before the judgement was made is there was well and he would definitely would like to protect the country’s and his own interest (both being the same) first.
Say no to our state media/propaganda!