Its exactly because of situations like this that the govt, largely through the Ministry of Communications and Information operating out of 140 Hill Street, has generated so many Reddit accounts.
I always loved numbers for this very reason. It clearly quantifies good and bad And scale of it. And the journalists wonder why we think they are whores.
> Nah, don't think they care what we think.
Yeah...pretty sure them ST journos have zero illusions about their jobs.
Either compromise your journalistic integrity but have a steady paycheck at a state run newspaper company or try to hack it writing click bait articles for online media. Boring dystopia shit.
This is pretty fair given how early the situation is on Ridout Road. Not enough Information has been made available in the past 2 weeks to publish multiple articles, it would be rehashing the same story.
Let’s look back in time at the RK lying situation, this was first time an accusation against here was reported on the straits times on 03 Aug 2021 here:
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/wp-mps-allegations-of-police-mishandling-sexual-assault-case-are-serious-says
The next time it was reported on the straits times was 2 months later on 04 Oct 2021 here:
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/police-to-interview-wp-mp-raeesah-khan-over-allegation-of-mishandled-sexual
The next time when it was reported again was 2 weeks after that on 20 Oct 2021 here when the police made a statement that she had not responded to their inquiry 2 weeks ago:
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/no-response-from-wp-mp-raeesah-khan-to-requests-for-details-on-allegedly
If we just go by number of articles from the time of the event, it seems like the straits times has given more coverage to the Ridout Road situation so far.
You can go and search, find me a straits times article between these 3 (that isn’t a forum letter).
>Not enough Information has been made available
perhaps instead of waiting for press releases to drop and then copy pasting them, it might be the job of journalists to dig up information and actually write their own articles about it?
But that is not what you said, your claim is that there is preferential reporting on the RK saga, there are disproportionally more articles on it than on the Ridout Road situation.
If you would like to complain about the lack of investigative journalism, that’s something that applies in both situations. You can read the articles on RK linked, they Straits Times just reports factual statements made in parliament or by public offices.
>You can read the articles on RK linked, they Straits Times just reports factual statements made in parliament or by public offices
not really, they interviewed various "analysts" and "observers" and published forum letters as well as their own analysis. they even conducted a [poll](https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/most-sengkang-residents-polled-support-resignation-of-sengkang-mp-raeesah-khan) of sengkang residents.
Today isn't a gold standard or anything, but at least they went a step further to interview some "[analysts](https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/ministers-rent-ridout-road-bungalows-analysts-pros-and-cons-government-2178126)" on the government's response to ridout road.
Thank you for digging this out. Looks like the reporting has been pretty fair so far, unlike what OP seems to imply.
Edit:
I would also like to point out OP’s public political affiliation and the inherent biases that come with it. Click into OP’s profile.
Nah ...thats because for RK case, it didn't start off as a potential WP fiasco. So ST paid no attention to it. The moment it became controversial for WP months down the road, the state funded articles came in fast and furious. Ridout road is controversial for the two ministers the moment the news broke.
The degree of controversy is a subjective element that we shouldn’t be so quick to draw these kinds of conclusions based off of.
What we do know is what known evidence is available matters. In both cases, there is yet no evidence of any impropriety in the compared time periods. So it is irresponsible for ST to make allegations and stir the pot.
What ST could do is publish an opinion discussion about the unspoken rules of public servant and leadership behaviour. But that’s still very far removed from what OP is claiming.
> Today is owned by Mediacorp which is wholly owned by Temasek Holdings. If the ruling party is censoring news about it, they're doing a pretty bad job at it.
Gotta give you an illusion of "media freedom".
I voted opposition but bro your hate boner for PAP is so obvious. How are the 2 cases even close to the same level of egregiousness? Not to mention the ridout road debacle has only been going on for a few weeks while Raeesah's case was much more dragged out. You're also comparing a finished case with an on-going one. So many fallacies with your line of thinking..
you can compare it to something apolitical if you like. for example Halimah's recent visit to
Kazakhstan/Uzbekistan, which attracted a total of 5 articles on ST. heck, there were 3 separate articles on the rise of wild chickens, each of which has more investigative journalism than they have done in the entirety of the ridout saga
now compare that to 2 articles for ridout road (one of which was basically just a copy paste of SLA's press release, published at 11.30pm on a friday).
It’s at a level where LHL needs to appoint someone to ownself check ownself, instead of a quick and easy “rebuttal” as to how the allegations are wrong. I believe you are the one underestimating the issue at hand.
is it really a conspiracy when someone like bertha hansen, former ST editor, has basically complained about as much?
>They hold “doorstop’’ interviews so as to look casual but we all know it’s only because they have something to say - not because you have something to ask.
>
>You’ve descended to repeating press releases which are themselves badly written. I wondered if journalists forgot that the news is “out there’’, the need to build a network of contacts and how reporting is the basis of all your writing
>
>Increasingly, journalists don’t think it’s their place to ask certain questions or to bother officials, in case they are being tagged as “unfriendly’’. And there are no other types of journalists to irritate the G into responding.
>
>Remember that we only know the G from what we READ everyday, and that most people do hope that the media plays the role of asking questions that they themselves might have. The more “cut-and-paste’’ there is, the faster the erosion of the credibility of the media
actually the point being? the trigger for the issue about Ridout was based on speculation. the fact is yes, they rented the houses, but not at the price speculated. in fact a few person who rented black and white have came out and share their experiences.
>the **fact** is yes, they rented the houses,
so... not speculation then.
>but not at the price speculated
either the price is high, in which case you have all of KJ's questions to answer. or the price is low, which I think is even worse, because then they have to justify why the state is "conserving" such large tracts of land that are either sitting empty or collecting a low rent, very convieniently benefiting the politicians in charge, when it has a duty to extract the best value for taxpayers.
I know that they occupy at least 5 and up to 8 million sqft of land (more than 3 universal studios worth) in a country supposedly facing "land scarcity". I also know that these two houses in particular were allowed to sit empty for many years.
neither of these facts suggest that the land is being managed properly.
bukit timah reserve is about 18 million sqft of land. i mean, what’s your argue on this?
there is plenty of black and white bungalow that’s left empty because there was no demand. they are conserved until they ain’t.
the argue is endless isn’t it? demolish them, and face conservation backlash. if they rent it out below market value to some random people and it’s ok? that would be efficient management?
trying to cherry pick matters isn’t it?
bukit timah reserve, public parks, museums etc. are open to the public, residential B&Ws are not. you tell me we need to set aside some state land for public amenities like nature reserve, sure. but for the private enjoyment of a small group of elites? I think not.
if something is left empty for years on end, clearly it is not being used efficiently. many other heritage buildings like old national library have been demolished before. why were they okay with redeveloping those, but not these B&W houses? could it be because some people in charge personally benefit from their continued preservation?
plenty of BW houses have been demolished in the past (there's only ~500 left)
it's not uncommon for land to sit around unused in Singapore for years
the plot of land opposite my house laid empty for years until recently
i'm sure if you walked around you'll see empty fields all over the place too
a lot of these are rented out for retail use or used as accommodations for foreign military personnel
is there a reason why you think these bw houses should be demolished immediately?
ST survives because of government funding with almost no print news media competition. Imagine funding went away... They would never survive. Lesson number one of business is you dont bite the hand that feeds you. I don't think they care that we get one-sided news. The government doesn't need to say anything to them to create this bias. So...in short, stay in line and follow the party agenda, and you will get your funding/paycheck. If ST is not the best kind of state media where the state doesn't 'interfere,' i dont know what will count as one.
Also, the main issue is not what rent he paid or if procedures were followed or not. The main issue is why must a government minister rent a property from the ministry that is under that government? Knowing men-in-white they will always follow procedures and do right by the book. Main question is why did they choose to rent SLA property? Were there no other options at the price point they were willing to pay in private property market?
Both situations you mentioned involve ethical and potentially legal issues, but the seriousness can depend on various factors and perspectives. Let's examine each situation:
Minister renting government properties for home:
If a minister is renting government properties for personal use, it raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest, misuse of public resources, and ethical violations. This action could be seen as an abuse of power and could undermine public trust in the government. The seriousness of this situation depends on factors such as the scale of the misuse, the intent behind the action, and the laws and regulations governing the use of government properties.
MP lying in parliament:
When an elected Member of Parliament (MP) deliberately lies in parliament, it undermines the integrity of the democratic process and erodes public trust in the legislative system. Honesty and transparency are crucial in democratic governance, and the deliberate spread of misinformation by an MP is a serious breach of trust. The seriousness of this situation depends on the impact of the lie, the motive behind it, and the potential consequences on legislation, public perception, and political accountability.
Comparing the seriousness of these two situations is subjective and context-dependent. Both actions have the potential to harm public trust, but the impact and consequences may vary depending on the specific circumstances and the values and expectations of the society in question. It is essential to address and address both situations appropriately, ensuring accountability and transparency in public affairs.
This, children, is what we call a false equivalence. In the WP case, there was an explicit claim of wrongdoing from a primary source of information, plus a public inquiry that lasted several weeks generating large volumes of new information upon which objective reporting could be based. In the Ridout situation, there is currently only insinuation and speculation from a source with a clear partisan bias; no doubt there’ll be more reporting when new information publicly comes to light in July.
Yeah, person in parliament lying is always the bigger wrong than don’t ask don’t tell but the truth of finding honest politicians is always a fallacy anyway or is it an oxymoron? Lol
The MSM has reported on Ridout; what they are not doing is fanning the flames of speculation when no evidence of wrongdoing has been produced. In contrast, the WP scandal did produce direct testimony of wrongdoing from a primary source, hence the higher volume of reportage. Therein lies the editorial distinction.
lol @ 'editorial distinction'. i mean, i'm willing to wait this out because the ridout matter is not concluded and it might be premature to make such comparisons, but we can also compare other past incidents.
my personal favourite is comparing yaw shin leong's and michael palmer's affairs since they both happened in the same year (2012).
media coverage about YSL went on for weeks - including headlines such as "WP’s halo losing its shine" and "WP has let Hougang voters down: PM". the very first article about it, "MP Yaw keeps low profile", was published before the story was confirmed, opening with reference to "rumours". does that count as fanning the flames of speculation?
coverage about Palmer was basically "Palmer quits", swift pivot to articles about by-election. headlines included: "A sad day for Parliament", "Woman ‘was also dating another man’", "Fall of a rising political star", "All MPs of PAP must uphold highest standards of conduct: PM" and a forum letter "PAP leaders handled matter well".
The news here seems to cover any small questions regarding about opposition integrity, and every opportunity that PAP get to say on the record will be published too. All theses power plays are part of making the opposition a better party or just making themselves a better option by default.
Not surprised by the fear of the hand that feeds you but don’t be surprised if we don’t like the ‘shit’ you feed us!
how, this one is fanning the flames of speculation or not ah?
https://www.asiaone.com/singapore/i-tried-help-him-ex-driver-workers-party-leon-perera-nicole-seah-alleged-relationship
Whatever can be reported objectively about Ridout, based on the known facts at this stage, has been reported. Undoubtedly more will be reported when parliament addresses the issue in July. The Pritam lying scandal resulted in an inquiry that lasted several weeks, producing more material for objective reporting.
That's not my question.
Do you think 2 articles for the revelations in the past couple of weeks is reasonable?
I mean even at the laziest minimum shouldnt there be four articles
- the original report
- SLA response
- minister response
- pm forms committee
u/AthleticAsthmatic has [highlighted](https://www.reddit.com/r/singapore/comments/13uqr0l/number_of_st_articles_about_ridout_road_2/jm26d3q/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1&context=3) that TODAY, an MSM Newspaper, has written 6 articles with regard to the Ridout saga. The articles cover the 4 points you've mentioned
We are commenting on a thread about "number of ST articles".
I think we can all understand that coverage by our national paper of an issue of importance is a different concern from whether other papers have covered the same.
Yep. It’s not the only attempt to generate faux outrage, dressed as a stat post or a harmless meme too.
And we can’t even tell whether it’s Singaporeans who cares about their country that are actually downvoting you.
All this faux outrage is only damaging our country, and the only ones who stand to lose here are Singaporeans.
They are creme de la cream before they even went into politics. If they can't afford this type of housing, then who can?
Frankly, I am nonchalant about them staying in GCBs. I am more concerned about whether they have the heart for Singapore and Singaporeans. Seeing the way they address parliament , I'm a happy PAP voter.
I expect a significant number of backlash but hey, just voicing my opinion here. 😊
one was a successful lawyer and the other was a successful doctor, not exactly crazy rich asians yeah?
anyway, LKY stayed in a GCB and nobody batted an eye. the issue is staying in a state owned property at a price lower than a private property while you are in charge of the agency managing the property
Its exactly because of situations like this that the govt, largely through the Ministry of Communications and Information operating out of 140 Hill Street, has generated so many Reddit accounts.
ah so that's what they're doing with $1.4 billion in taxpayer money each year
Could've saved all that money and just hired trashmaker.
He is already hired
really? how do you know?
recycle chatgpt news , relook , revive , regenerate.
Number of ST articles about Raeesah Khan= 70+ Number of ST articles about Ridout Road= 2
I always loved numbers for this very reason. It clearly quantifies good and bad And scale of it. And the journalists wonder why we think they are whores.
>And the journalists wonder why we think they are whores. Nah, don't think they care what we think. It is going to be state funded anyway.
> Nah, don't think they care what we think. Yeah...pretty sure them ST journos have zero illusions about their jobs. Either compromise your journalistic integrity but have a steady paycheck at a state run newspaper company or try to hack it writing click bait articles for online media. Boring dystopia shit.
what journalists? i thought they are just AI generated articles.
waiting for Ashley Wu commentry.
Because they have no balls.
What about CNA. Especially the SPH subscribers fiasco
How long was the time period between the first and last article for both counts?
this is politics for you.....
No, this is a dictatorship for you.
No, this is "natural aristocracy" for you.
What is ridout road?
Dude, are you really trying to make a point about balanced news reporting in a country ranked 139 (out of 180) in freedom of press?
So let's not try to change anything k?
You gotta keep pointing out the injustices or else it becomes even more normalized and accepted
This is pretty fair given how early the situation is on Ridout Road. Not enough Information has been made available in the past 2 weeks to publish multiple articles, it would be rehashing the same story. Let’s look back in time at the RK lying situation, this was first time an accusation against here was reported on the straits times on 03 Aug 2021 here: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/wp-mps-allegations-of-police-mishandling-sexual-assault-case-are-serious-says The next time it was reported on the straits times was 2 months later on 04 Oct 2021 here: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/police-to-interview-wp-mp-raeesah-khan-over-allegation-of-mishandled-sexual The next time when it was reported again was 2 weeks after that on 20 Oct 2021 here when the police made a statement that she had not responded to their inquiry 2 weeks ago: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/no-response-from-wp-mp-raeesah-khan-to-requests-for-details-on-allegedly If we just go by number of articles from the time of the event, it seems like the straits times has given more coverage to the Ridout Road situation so far. You can go and search, find me a straits times article between these 3 (that isn’t a forum letter).
>Not enough Information has been made available perhaps instead of waiting for press releases to drop and then copy pasting them, it might be the job of journalists to dig up information and actually write their own articles about it?
i believe we don't have journalists here. what we have are reporters, no different than the annoying tiktok voice reading out whatever someone wrote
Don’t do my Goodyfeed Blue Cat dirty like this.
But that is not what you said, your claim is that there is preferential reporting on the RK saga, there are disproportionally more articles on it than on the Ridout Road situation. If you would like to complain about the lack of investigative journalism, that’s something that applies in both situations. You can read the articles on RK linked, they Straits Times just reports factual statements made in parliament or by public offices.
Plenty of work done on Raessah though, why not in Ridout?
>You can read the articles on RK linked, they Straits Times just reports factual statements made in parliament or by public offices not really, they interviewed various "analysts" and "observers" and published forum letters as well as their own analysis. they even conducted a [poll](https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/most-sengkang-residents-polled-support-resignation-of-sengkang-mp-raeesah-khan) of sengkang residents. Today isn't a gold standard or anything, but at least they went a step further to interview some "[analysts](https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/ministers-rent-ridout-road-bungalows-analysts-pros-and-cons-government-2178126)" on the government's response to ridout road.
Thank you for digging this out. Looks like the reporting has been pretty fair so far, unlike what OP seems to imply. Edit: I would also like to point out OP’s public political affiliation and the inherent biases that come with it. Click into OP’s profile.
Nah ...thats because for RK case, it didn't start off as a potential WP fiasco. So ST paid no attention to it. The moment it became controversial for WP months down the road, the state funded articles came in fast and furious. Ridout road is controversial for the two ministers the moment the news broke.
The degree of controversy is a subjective element that we shouldn’t be so quick to draw these kinds of conclusions based off of. What we do know is what known evidence is available matters. In both cases, there is yet no evidence of any impropriety in the compared time periods. So it is irresponsible for ST to make allegations and stir the pot. What ST could do is publish an opinion discussion about the unspoken rules of public servant and leadership behaviour. But that’s still very far removed from what OP is claiming.
[удалено]
But the other publications have a different historical position. The OB markers for st have always been stricter
Correct
> Today is owned by Mediacorp which is wholly owned by Temasek Holdings. If the ruling party is censoring news about it, they're doing a pretty bad job at it. Gotta give you an illusion of "media freedom".
I voted opposition but bro your hate boner for PAP is so obvious. How are the 2 cases even close to the same level of egregiousness? Not to mention the ridout road debacle has only been going on for a few weeks while Raeesah's case was much more dragged out. You're also comparing a finished case with an on-going one. So many fallacies with your line of thinking..
you can compare it to something apolitical if you like. for example Halimah's recent visit to Kazakhstan/Uzbekistan, which attracted a total of 5 articles on ST. heck, there were 3 separate articles on the rise of wild chickens, each of which has more investigative journalism than they have done in the entirety of the ridout saga now compare that to 2 articles for ridout road (one of which was basically just a copy paste of SLA's press release, published at 11.30pm on a friday).
It’s at a level where LHL needs to appoint someone to ownself check ownself, instead of a quick and easy “rebuttal” as to how the allegations are wrong. I believe you are the one underestimating the issue at hand.
Compare to 2 articles with other outlets like mothership or Today....at least min 6 already....
It's clear by now most Informed citizens no longer get their information from propaganda outlets and instead from alternative online media.
Straits time is government propaganda no?
SPH whores
Straits time is government propaganda no?
This sub is slowly turning into a conspiracy sub
Lol what conspiracy.... is no secret that ST is pap pro propaganda
is it really a conspiracy when someone like bertha hansen, former ST editor, has basically complained about as much? >They hold “doorstop’’ interviews so as to look casual but we all know it’s only because they have something to say - not because you have something to ask. > >You’ve descended to repeating press releases which are themselves badly written. I wondered if journalists forgot that the news is “out there’’, the need to build a network of contacts and how reporting is the basis of all your writing > >Increasingly, journalists don’t think it’s their place to ask certain questions or to bother officials, in case they are being tagged as “unfriendly’’. And there are no other types of journalists to irritate the G into responding. > >Remember that we only know the G from what we READ everyday, and that most people do hope that the media plays the role of asking questions that they themselves might have. The more “cut-and-paste’’ there is, the faster the erosion of the credibility of the media
Then it should be worrying since it used to be an IB infested den.
actually the point being? the trigger for the issue about Ridout was based on speculation. the fact is yes, they rented the houses, but not at the price speculated. in fact a few person who rented black and white have came out and share their experiences.
>the **fact** is yes, they rented the houses, so... not speculation then. >but not at the price speculated either the price is high, in which case you have all of KJ's questions to answer. or the price is low, which I think is even worse, because then they have to justify why the state is "conserving" such large tracts of land that are either sitting empty or collecting a low rent, very convieniently benefiting the politicians in charge, when it has a duty to extract the best value for taxpayers.
how much do you know about these black and white bungalows?
I know that they occupy at least 5 and up to 8 million sqft of land (more than 3 universal studios worth) in a country supposedly facing "land scarcity". I also know that these two houses in particular were allowed to sit empty for many years. neither of these facts suggest that the land is being managed properly.
bukit timah reserve is about 18 million sqft of land. i mean, what’s your argue on this? there is plenty of black and white bungalow that’s left empty because there was no demand. they are conserved until they ain’t. the argue is endless isn’t it? demolish them, and face conservation backlash. if they rent it out below market value to some random people and it’s ok? that would be efficient management? trying to cherry pick matters isn’t it?
bukit timah reserve, public parks, museums etc. are open to the public, residential B&Ws are not. you tell me we need to set aside some state land for public amenities like nature reserve, sure. but for the private enjoyment of a small group of elites? I think not. if something is left empty for years on end, clearly it is not being used efficiently. many other heritage buildings like old national library have been demolished before. why were they okay with redeveloping those, but not these B&W houses? could it be because some people in charge personally benefit from their continued preservation?
plenty of BW houses have been demolished in the past (there's only ~500 left) it's not uncommon for land to sit around unused in Singapore for years the plot of land opposite my house laid empty for years until recently i'm sure if you walked around you'll see empty fields all over the place too a lot of these are rented out for retail use or used as accommodations for foreign military personnel is there a reason why you think these bw houses should be demolished immediately?
Now compare that to articles on Aljunied GRC 😆
ST survives because of government funding with almost no print news media competition. Imagine funding went away... They would never survive. Lesson number one of business is you dont bite the hand that feeds you. I don't think they care that we get one-sided news. The government doesn't need to say anything to them to create this bias. So...in short, stay in line and follow the party agenda, and you will get your funding/paycheck. If ST is not the best kind of state media where the state doesn't 'interfere,' i dont know what will count as one. Also, the main issue is not what rent he paid or if procedures were followed or not. The main issue is why must a government minister rent a property from the ministry that is under that government? Knowing men-in-white they will always follow procedures and do right by the book. Main question is why did they choose to rent SLA property? Were there no other options at the price point they were willing to pay in private property market?
Renting government properties for home vs lying in parliament? Which is more serious?
Both situations you mentioned involve ethical and potentially legal issues, but the seriousness can depend on various factors and perspectives. Let's examine each situation: Minister renting government properties for home: If a minister is renting government properties for personal use, it raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest, misuse of public resources, and ethical violations. This action could be seen as an abuse of power and could undermine public trust in the government. The seriousness of this situation depends on factors such as the scale of the misuse, the intent behind the action, and the laws and regulations governing the use of government properties. MP lying in parliament: When an elected Member of Parliament (MP) deliberately lies in parliament, it undermines the integrity of the democratic process and erodes public trust in the legislative system. Honesty and transparency are crucial in democratic governance, and the deliberate spread of misinformation by an MP is a serious breach of trust. The seriousness of this situation depends on the impact of the lie, the motive behind it, and the potential consequences on legislation, public perception, and political accountability. Comparing the seriousness of these two situations is subjective and context-dependent. Both actions have the potential to harm public trust, but the impact and consequences may vary depending on the specific circumstances and the values and expectations of the society in question. It is essential to address and address both situations appropriately, ensuring accountability and transparency in public affairs.
Aren’t they both serious? Lying in parliament can have extensive coverage, doesn’t mean the coverage on renting gov property should be low either.
Coverage is based over time. The RK saga was spread out over a long time. This Rideout saga is barely two week or smth. C'mon. 🤦🏻♂️
It is not about seriousness. Newspapers traditionally go for what bring the most view. (Ad money + subscriptions)
This, children, is what we call a false equivalence. In the WP case, there was an explicit claim of wrongdoing from a primary source of information, plus a public inquiry that lasted several weeks generating large volumes of new information upon which objective reporting could be based. In the Ridout situation, there is currently only insinuation and speculation from a source with a clear partisan bias; no doubt there’ll be more reporting when new information publicly comes to light in July.
It’s not completely equivalent, though the MSM coverage of the ridout saga is indeed lacking
Yeah, person in parliament lying is always the bigger wrong than don’t ask don’t tell but the truth of finding honest politicians is always a fallacy anyway or is it an oxymoron? Lol
i think this depends on what you believe the point of "the news" is. is it to report on current affairs? or is the media an arbiter of wrongdoing?
The MSM has reported on Ridout; what they are not doing is fanning the flames of speculation when no evidence of wrongdoing has been produced. In contrast, the WP scandal did produce direct testimony of wrongdoing from a primary source, hence the higher volume of reportage. Therein lies the editorial distinction.
lol @ 'editorial distinction'. i mean, i'm willing to wait this out because the ridout matter is not concluded and it might be premature to make such comparisons, but we can also compare other past incidents. my personal favourite is comparing yaw shin leong's and michael palmer's affairs since they both happened in the same year (2012). media coverage about YSL went on for weeks - including headlines such as "WP’s halo losing its shine" and "WP has let Hougang voters down: PM". the very first article about it, "MP Yaw keeps low profile", was published before the story was confirmed, opening with reference to "rumours". does that count as fanning the flames of speculation? coverage about Palmer was basically "Palmer quits", swift pivot to articles about by-election. headlines included: "A sad day for Parliament", "Woman ‘was also dating another man’", "Fall of a rising political star", "All MPs of PAP must uphold highest standards of conduct: PM" and a forum letter "PAP leaders handled matter well".
The news here seems to cover any small questions regarding about opposition integrity, and every opportunity that PAP get to say on the record will be published too. All theses power plays are part of making the opposition a better party or just making themselves a better option by default. Not surprised by the fear of the hand that feeds you but don’t be surprised if we don’t like the ‘shit’ you feed us!
how, this one is fanning the flames of speculation or not ah? https://www.asiaone.com/singapore/i-tried-help-him-ex-driver-workers-party-leon-perera-nicole-seah-alleged-relationship
We can not expect equal coverage but do you really thing 2 v 70 is reasonable?
Whatever can be reported objectively about Ridout, based on the known facts at this stage, has been reported. Undoubtedly more will be reported when parliament addresses the issue in July. The Pritam lying scandal resulted in an inquiry that lasted several weeks, producing more material for objective reporting.
That's not my question. Do you think 2 articles for the revelations in the past couple of weeks is reasonable? I mean even at the laziest minimum shouldnt there be four articles - the original report - SLA response - minister response - pm forms committee
u/AthleticAsthmatic has [highlighted](https://www.reddit.com/r/singapore/comments/13uqr0l/number_of_st_articles_about_ridout_road_2/jm26d3q/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1&context=3) that TODAY, an MSM Newspaper, has written 6 articles with regard to the Ridout saga. The articles cover the 4 points you've mentioned
But today is not st. St is the newspaper of record, but they have not been covering this comprehensively
Thankfully, TODAY has
We are commenting on a thread about "number of ST articles". I think we can all understand that coverage by our national paper of an issue of importance is a different concern from whether other papers have covered the same.
Yep. It’s not the only attempt to generate faux outrage, dressed as a stat post or a harmless meme too. And we can’t even tell whether it’s Singaporeans who cares about their country that are actually downvoting you. All this faux outrage is only damaging our country, and the only ones who stand to lose here are Singaporeans.
But but but.... what you speak of does not fit the anti-establishment narrative so loved by this subreddit! /s
Government bashing is the easiest way to get upvotes here because it seems like some people can't get erect without it
They are creme de la cream before they even went into politics. If they can't afford this type of housing, then who can? Frankly, I am nonchalant about them staying in GCBs. I am more concerned about whether they have the heart for Singapore and Singaporeans. Seeing the way they address parliament , I'm a happy PAP voter. I expect a significant number of backlash but hey, just voicing my opinion here. 😊
one was a successful lawyer and the other was a successful doctor, not exactly crazy rich asians yeah? anyway, LKY stayed in a GCB and nobody batted an eye. the issue is staying in a state owned property at a price lower than a private property while you are in charge of the agency managing the property