Talk:The Straits Times/archive

This is an archive of the talk page of The Straits Times before 2008.

What a mess

I think pro- and anti-ST people may agree on one thing: this article is a mess.

Comment 1

Articles are almost never critical of the ruling party PAP and oppposition figures are given little press coverage, in terms of interviews or statements. Its coverage of international affairs is selectively comprehensive and in-depth but heavily biased towards PAP ideology. The lack of an editor or journalist as a "dissenting" voice stands out very clearly and when foreign issues are discussed in the commentary page, there are rarely articles with conflicting opinions, especially that of varying ideological leanings.

Some of this is plain POV or is blatantly untrue, hard to justify as mere hearsay. The way it is put is highly misleading. One can easily go to the website and take a look. Mandel 02:54, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

Mandel, you are very wrong indeed. Please see the September 7 issue of the Straits Times on MM Lee and SM Goh pressing charges on Chee SJ. There are in fact zero quotes from Chee himself, and the ST article describes Chee's actions as "heckling" - "embarassing or annoying someone", which is not the most neutral term to use. ST September 7 article

With regards to its coverage of international affairs, I have nothing to say on either side because I have long given up on the ST as any kind of reliable news source. It is perhaps interesting, disappointing, or both, that the ST was voted Asian Newspaper of the Year, because it certainly does not deserve this award based on journalistic integrity.

Care to sign? I'm not sure how much of ST you have done in comparison with other newspapers with other countries, but most newspapers in most countries are biased in certain way of political reference. I challenge you to find from one of the more so-called "open" countries a paper that is totally NPOV. One thing is that I believe ST steers pretty much clear of from being either extreme right or left or from political sensationalism. I'll like to leave it to the people who could simply browse their website.

I'm not for or against the paper's political ideology, but i fail to see what is wrong from several of the following articles of the paper. Chee's remarks are quoted in full, and I don't think there are anything less than NPOV about the reportage. [1][2]

As for the ranking you mentioned, I like to quote from Reporters Without Borders which stresses that in no case should the ranking be viewed as indication of the quality of the press concerned. Mandel 16:47, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

The more "open" countries happen to have more than one media company and many other papers, with the added benefit of not having the government constantly looking over their shoulder or owning a stake in them. Mandel should probably look at other news websites, the "better" ones having journalists who write articles deviate from the paper's own ideological leanings as a form of balance and newspapers who do not hesitate to critize the ruling party and opposition parties. For example, the Straits Times could publish an oped piece favoring Taiwanese independence but it will never do so. It could publish an article that highlights and details the failing of some PAP policies - but it will never do so. The ranking is self explantory - it ranks countries based on press freedom not on quality. I would also like to ask the source of the ST's awards and put them in wikipedia.

In terms of Singaporean opposition figures, they get much less press coverage than PAP to point of being nearly invisible, except in defamation suits by the PAP.

Moreover, with allegations of NPOV, bias towards the PAP also compromises NPOV with contributors ending up as apologists.

I have to say I am in no way bias towards PAP. I am in many ways critical of their policy, and I do think ST is pro-PAP. I just do not think you are completely NPOV in your viewpoint, simply because being anti-PAP (and as such POV) you affect the perspective of an unsuspecting reader of the Wikipedia entry. Being pro-any government do not instantaneously mean that the quality of the press is bad. ST does publish pieces favoring Taiwanese independence (in the forum page, as written by Taiwanese journalists), but to ask their own reporters to write one would be I think, as silly as asking, for instance, a London or Paris paper to write an forum article favoring Taiwanese independence. No foreign paper will do that. As for the dissenting voices, I have read so many times in the forum page voices of dissent concerning one or other of the govt policies - the ST publishes them all the same. See [3] and [4] for instance. In fact if you don't know the ST had a somewhat stormy relationship with Lee Kuan Yew at some points of time.

I think you are wanting something from ST which it is not. It is not an overtly political press; in fact it shies somewhat away from extremist politics, preferring to concentrate more on domestic and international reportage. To call it bad journalism is as bias as calling for instance National Geographics or Readers' Digest poor journals because they contain no political reference or forum. Mandel 16:51, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Comparing a national newspaper to National Geographics or Reader's Digest is comparing apples to oranges and asking that a national newspaper not cover politics has the hallmarks of a government controlled medium wouldnt you say. The Straits Times is not supposed to be purely a) a business journal, b) a nature journal, c)a local crime report. Without a well informed public on their local representatives, whether government or opposition, of their plans etc, could you say that Singapore has press freedom. I would like to ask that Mandel publish a link or quote a date when the article favoring Taiwanese independence is published. Also when Mandel mentions that often when "dissent" is shown on government policies in the letters forum, rest assured they are of either of little importance or of low priority and there is very little diversity of views. Also the quotes[5] and [6] reinforce my point - that ST JOURNALISTS cannot bring themselves to critize LOCAL CONTEMPORARY government policies espcially the important ones in 2004. (The quotes are a critism of the PAP in 1959 and Dr Catherine Lim who is a short story writer wrote to the ST about the political divide between the PAP and the people in broad strokes without openly pinpointing which policy) Maybe the ST would like to publish a letter critizing George Yeo for his statement in the UN on Taiwan.

The facts remain that Singapore was ranked 144th out of 165 countries and is in fact below Zimbabwe speaks volume the degree of control of the PAP government has over the media. No one disputes the "quality" of propoganda but of whether it is propoganda itself.

I am against almost all the policies of the PAP too, but that doesnt mean that I would be biased against the ST. The problem is that the ST is biased due to its connections and associations and that the so called duopoly in Singaporean media is nothing but a farce (since both are controlled by the government).

If you mention the duopoly is nothing but a farce and adding POV edits, you must be very careful how you state it. Wikipedia is NPOV. The way you edit seemed to be POV. Like I say, press freedom should be mentioned in another article and not on ST; the way you inserted it seems trying to influence your readers into your line of thinking, which really is propaganda. Let the readers themselves decide with the facts for and against and with links to the online site. I also realized you have added some edits into "Singapore" which another reader has removed because of the clear POV stance. Furthermore, not all people hold the same view about the government, expatriates included.

Just to state that people merely hold different views about different matters, especially politics, and that press freedom is very much a subjective matter. That a paper supports the local government does not necessarily means the paper is publishing propaganda, which I think you would disagree as well. I see no point though of dwelling on the matter further. Just to remind you of Wikipedia's policies though. This is not a political forum after all but an encyclopedia. Mandel 21:34, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

Thats what the discussion page is for. I agree that one newspaper out of many newspapers that supports the local government (by NOT publishing ANY or little critism) is not propoganda, but the problem is the media is a "duopoly" (new remerged into a monopoly, so farce or not? ). I don't think Mandel understands the concept of NPOV, which is to be neutral ie not taking any sides, whether be it pro-PAP (like some expatriates or locals) or anti-PAP. I didnt insert any commentary, opinion into the encycleopedia article which is not a fact that is published in news articles.

Media freedom is a subjective matter, but who would say that Singapore is a free country? Like I said, I do not mind Mandel editing the article and coming up articles that explain Singapore's press freedom.

Please sign your statement with four consecutive ~s. Your statements as always are full of POV -- "who would say Singapore is a free country" is highly controversial. What you think does not represent what everyone thinks. A lot of expatriates enjoy working in Singapore, it has been voted as such by a number of magazines. I would hardly think any expatriate would like to work a "police state" as sometimes stereotypically pictured in by outside press.

Secondly, this is not an article about "Singapore media" or "Singapore press freedom", it is an article on a particular Singaporean newspaper. And since it is you who inserted controversial segments into the article, the onus is on you to provide evidence, not me. You mentioned: "the lack of an editor or journalist as a "dissenting" voice is very evident, especially that of varying ideological leanings", where is your evidence? The way you mentioned the SPH chairman also implies that the paper is no more than propaganda for the ruling party -- where is your evidence? Finally, you mentioned Reporters Without Borders has ranked Singapore 144th out of 166 countries in its "Second World Press Freedom Ranking" in October 2003, and place it surreptitiously to suggest that the quality of the press is poor owing to press media. But I already said that Reporters without Borders themselves mentioned they only apply to press freedom and not press quality of any specific paper.

All these requires proof, require them to be in the right article, otherwise they are POV. To insert one-sided facts is POV. Such as your edits on Singapore, someone has already questioned the NPOV of your statements (and it's not me). Mandel 22:03, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

You can always edit this article if you dont like it. Is an authoritian country a "free country"? A lot of expartirates also like working in China: can China be considered as a "free country" by any standards? Maybe China is a democratic country after all. What has media quality to do with media freedom? As I mentioned you could always post links to the awards it posted as a balanace to the "media quality". As to my comment that that the articles were "comprehensive...etc", it was an edit of a previous editor who wrote this POV in the first place.

If you think that Singapore has a free press and that Straits Times is unbiased, I am sad to say that that is not the majority view of not only Singaporeans or "expatriates". Moreover, as mentioned, all the FACTS which I have inserted are true apart from the commentary on the articles. I could delete the entire sentence. I think to cut to the gist: 1) Is the Straits Times an unbiased paper, in terms of political coverage? 2) Does the Straits Times publish articles critizing any of the government's major policies? 3) Does the Straits Times publish articles which contradict PAP foreign policy? 4) Does the Straits Times have a long history of association with the PAP and have had former ministers installed?

I am getting tired of this argument. Let's cut the chase. I certainly don't think Singapore has any more freer press than any country though what she certainly lacks is some variety in the press. Give ST to any Americans and ask them what they think.

Wanna start a newspaper? (Which is legal of course, provide you have the capital)

1) I was the one who inserted that "the ST is thought to be privately supportive of the ruling PAP". So what do you think?

2) Ditto. Although I do read some articles questioning, though not harshly criticizing, government policies.

3) Ditto, though I fail to see why a newspaper can't agree with a country's foreign policy.

4) Here is where you are being NPOV. You are insinuating SPH is being controlled. One thing does not necesarily lead to another. Are all Chinese Americans spies for Communist China in the US? In a court of law (even in a US one) such a statement will have to be retrenched. Back up your insinuation. Mandel 09:00, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

If Mandel would like to dispute the facts and answer NO to the above questions and provide alternative articles or links, then can he say that he is being objective and NPOV. It seems that me that Mandel is the only one confusing Singapore's low ranking in Reporters Without Border press freedom rankings with its "media quality", which is a separate issue to be debated.

I don't dispute your so-called facts (see above, except 4). I merely want them to be substantiated because they sound to be from someone with a politically charged agenda. Not every one who reads the article knows the ST. So the onus is on you (not on me - why on me?) to substantiate your allegations with a link or explanation, because you added those portions in. What I think is not important at all. I am playing the devil's advocate. Mandel 09:00, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

Fellow travellers, I think the point is moot. If I am guilty of "insinuating" anything, AP etc. mainstream media are guilty of it too, with the insertion of facts such as a former Internal Affairs head being the chairman of the SPH (which I didn't insert because I didnt want to come across as "biased" and which I felt was irrelevant. It matters to me whether the chairman was a civil servant and affilated to the governing party as a matter of fact). By questioning facts which are printed the world over, isnt Mandel guilty of political bias as well? Well maybe to some the Nanjing Massacre or Holocaust never happened, but its their POV too so shouldnt the Wikipedia entries on the above mentioned events be altered to read with a disclaimer? Reminds me of the Singaporean's minister excuse of "Singapore's uniqueness", which ironically and shamelessly (in my own opinion) wants to be a "global media hub"? Wheres the counter arguement apart from the "accolade" of being "Asia's best designed newspaper" and questioning the reporting from well established sources such as AP.

No one questions any "facts". But you have to explain your so-called facts. For example, is SPH a public corporation and is the chairperson being voted in by the public board or by the government? How exactly does PAP use its influence (as you insinuate) to help the current chairperson to its chair? Mandel 21:44, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with agreeing with a government's foreign policy but there shouldnt be anything wrong with disagreeing with it as well. I made statements which would hold true until a negative is shown which would disprove those statements. I could reprint the Straits Times oped page week after week (after copyright is approved of course) and still I wont be able to find the article that "questions" the PAP's MAJOR policies with well researched (ie long), balanced and rational articles?

Which major policies do you want ST to criticize, before it can be called "balanced"?

In response to Mandel's challenge to me of having the capital to start a newspaper, I can only respond that private businessmen have successfully carved out genuine international media empires on their own in other countries. With regards to Singapore, it is a "special" case, so I wont want comment on that, lest I face a lawsuit from the PAP

It's an invitation, and not a challenge, BTW. Mandel 21:44, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

SPH ownership

Allow me to resurrect the discussion above. This provides a very good summary of the complex situation, but some choice quotes: Jpatokal 14:49, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

'In 1984, SNPL, the Straits Times Press Ltd and the Times Publishing Berhad merged to form a new holding company, SPH. In addition to trimming costs, one of the reasons cited for the merger was "to establish common ideals for newspapers in the various languages." ...

The ownership of SPH is divided into ordinary shares and management shares (Appendix I). The government has the power to determine who are the shareholders of SPH as holders of management shares have to be approved by the Ministry of Information and the Arts.

The tricky point is the voting right between ordinary and management shares. According to SPH's latest annual report, the power of management shares is 200 times more powerful than that of ordinary shares on resolutions relating to the appointment or dismissal of a director or staff of the company.(Endnote 12) Therefore, it is difficult for ordinary shareholders to have a say on the appointment or dismissal of SPH staff.

SPH is partially owned by Temasek Holdings, the Singapore government's wholly owned investment arm. But both the SPH and the Singapore government declined to explain clearly the government's indirect ownership of SPH.

Latest edits

To the editor who has been adding statements based on forum and blog posts: Please note that forums and blogs are not reliable sources of information for any Wikipedia article. Wikipedia:Reliable sources explains this. If you continue to add information based only on these sources, they may be removed. Kimchi.sg | talk 02:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

government control

IMO, the "criticism" part is unwieldy for the article and the article isn't neutral, even for an anti-PAP person like me. Also, when did the Straits Times fall under government control? During the Malaysia affair while UMNO "ultras" attacked the LKY and the PAP it seems that the ST were very sympathetic towards LKY's position, but when exactly did it come under government influence? There's at least a 100 years of heritage before 1959, which would mean that any PAP-control would only be in the minority of its history. John Riemann Soong 06:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Stpocket.gif

Image:Stpocket.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)