The mainstream media’s clear bias for the political
elite
Written by Ng E-Jay
29 March 2009
When the Straits Times ran an article on March 21 entitled
“Report card on Class of 2006″ quoting an anonymous People’s Action
Party (PAP) cadre as saying that Dr Fatimah Lateef, an MP of Marine
Parade GRC, had some trouble connecting with
management members of Chinese temples in her ward, the mainstream
media was quick to give airtime to both Dr Fatimah Lateef as well
as SM Goh Chok Tong to rebut this claim.
The report in the Straits Times had quoted the PAP
member as saying that Chinese temples had clashed with Dr Fatimah
Lateef over issues such as the granting of permits for the holding
of events like deities’ birthday celebrations, and this could be to
the detriment of her standing with residents who are Buddhists or
Taoists.
This prompted an almost instantaneous reaction from four
community leaders, namely, the Chairman of the Inter Racial
Confidence Circle at Geylang Serai, the Honorary Chairman of
Geylang Villagers’ Association, the Honorary Secretary of Geylang
Lorong 29 Liaison Committee, as well as Mr Tang Song Hee of the
Thong Kheng Charitable Institution, who had their joint letter to
the Straits Times forum page published in the print edition on 23
March. In their letter entitled “MP has no trouble connecting with
Chinese temples”, they defended Dr Fatimah Lateef’s record of
communicating well with residents and supporting their religious
and cultural events.
On 26 March, SM Goh Chok Tong also weighed in on the issue. In
an article entitled “SM Goh says newspaper report on MP Fatimah
Lateef inaccurate”, Channel News Asia quoted him as saying: “I do
not like the inaccuracy because it suggested that a minority
community MP, a Malay MP, could not reach out to the Chinese temple
people, (and) the hint that maybe, she, as a Muslim, did not want
to reach out to these people. That is the implication … … The
suggestion that a minority MP could be biased against others who
don’t believe in your own religion is, I think, a very serious one.
I do not think the reporter or the journalist writing it realised
the implication — a Malay MP could not reach out to the Chinese. I
think that is very bad for the PAP. Fortunately, that
is not true, so better put it right.”
On 28 March, TODAY newspaper also ran a full-length
article entitled “MP Fatimah Lateef speaks up” giving Dr Fatimah
Lateef ample opportunity to present her side of the story. Like SM
Goh, Dr Fatimah Lateef also expressed concerns that the original
offending article might stir emotions along racial lines. She also
vigorously defended her active involvement in various temple
activities, such as the birthday of deities and Seventh Month
celebrations, and emphasized that there had been no
miscommunication with any religious leaders.
On the surface, it might appear to the unsuspecting reader that
the mainstream media is merely playing its role of responsible
reporting and allowing public figures to clear the air about
themselves when misunderstandings arise. However, other examples
abound in which the mainstream media falls far short of this ideal,
especially when members of the Opposition, as opposed to the
self-appointed political elite of the PAP, are
involved.
07 June 2008, the Straits Times published a column by ex-ISD
officer and current Political Editor Ms Chua Lee Hoong, in which
she penned a full scale propaganda piece against the Singapore
Democratic Party (SDP) and attacked Dr Chee Soon Juan’s religious
beliefs by unceremoniously questioning whether “Christians will
accept his pattern of behaviour as being particularly
Christian“.
Ms Chua then remarked that Dr Chee could be suffering from
antisocial personality disorder (APD), even going to the extent of
saying “if he does, we have got to feel sorry for him“.
To put the icing on the cake on this worst kind of gutter
journalism, Ms Chua’s article was published when Dr Chee Soon Juan
was in jail together with his sister for contempt of court, when he
had no chance of responding to the article. (Read the full article:
Ms Chua Lee Hoong, why do you even bother?)
In June last year as well, there was a tragic incident involving
Opposition candidate Mr Tan Lead Shake’s brother, in which the
latter died after being stabbed by a china woman. Rather than
reporting the tragedy as they normally do for cases involving
ordinary civilians (read: non-Opposition members), the mainstream
media was quick to pounce on the fact that the victim was Mr Tan
Lead Shake’s brother, and highlighted the political connection
repeatedly in all their news articles. The mainstream media even
went to the absurd length of calling Mr Tan Lead Shake “slipper
man” all over again, and mentioning his poor performance in past
General Elections. (Read the full article by Mr Law Sin Lin:
Singapore Press — Rushing To Infernal Self-Condemnation.)
More recently, in early March this year, the TODAY
newspaper published a column in the print edition repeating lies
and falsehoods about Dr Chee Soon Juan’s historical political
relationship with Mr Chiam See Toong — falsehoods that have been
been perpetuated by the mainstream media countless times over the
years. Reporter Mr Loh Chee Kong took aim at the Singapore
Democrats and accused them of practising the “darker side of
politics” by “ousting” Mr Chiam from the party in the 1990s,
completely and irresponsibly ignoring the fact that Chiam resigned
from the party on his own accord, and that he had done so after
executive committee members voted against a motion that he himself
tabled. The Singapore Democrats were not given any chance to
clarify the situation in the mainstream press. Dr Chee Soon Juan’s
letter to TODAY was only published in the online
edition, where the readership is many times smaller than that of
the print edition. (See here and here.)
Besides giving SDP members highly unfair and biased
coverage in an attempt to assassinate their characters in the eyes
of the public, the mainstream media is also not above targetting
ordinary civilians when it suits their purposes.
When news of an alleged “stabbing” incident involving final year
Indonesian undergraduate student David Hartonto Widjaja at the
Nanyang Technological University (NTU) campus surfaced a few weeks
ago, the mainstream media descended like a pack of rabid wolves
onto the story, caring not for impartiality and honest reporting,
but on spinning David as someone who possibly was suffering from
mental problems, as well as an aggressor and a suicidal man who got
out of control.
The likes of OMY, Today, Channel News Asia, Asia
One, and to a certain extent The Straits Times, misrepresented
critical information in their stories and engaged in
unsubstantiated speculation regarding pertinent facts of the case
based entirely on the testimonials provided by friends and
colleagues of the alleged victim, Associate Professor Chan Kap Lup.
(See here and here.)
When news of Dr Allan Ooi, the SAF Medical Scholar
who committed suicide in the south Australian city of Melbourne,
broke, the mainstream media initially painted him as a melancholic
young man who possibly took his life over a failed romantic
relationship, and deliberately downplayed the possibility that his
suicide could have been due to the rigid and lengthy scholarship
bond that he had been made to serve as well as his overly stressful
work environment. It was only after contents of his farewell letter
was released to the public that the mainstream media toned down
their unbridled speculation over his alleged failed relationship.
(See here, here, and here.)
In an earlier article entitled “Protection from harm: One set of
rules for political elites and another set of rules for common
folk“, I pointed out that the self-appointed political masters from
the PAP appear to be treated differently as far as
protection under the law is concerned. Clearly, the examples I have
listed also attest to the fact that the mainstream media treats
them differently from ordinary civilians and Opposition
politicians
The political elite is given very comprehensive coverage in the
mainstream press, which allows them ample opportunity to paint as
good a picture of themselves as possible, but at the same time
denies others the same privilege. In contrast, Opposition
politicians like Dr Chee and other members of the SDP
in particular are frequently slimed by the mainstream media with no
opportunity to respond or engage the public.
This media bias and abhorrent lack of professionalism points to
an urgent need for media reform. Unfortunately, as long as the
PAP is in control of the mainstream media and exerts a
repressive influence on free expression via the Newspapers and
Printing Presses Act, the alternative side of Singapore politics
will have to find expression on the internet instead.
http://www.sgpolitics.net/?p=2598