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.