Pseudonymity alleges that The Straits Times covered up Temasek Holdings’ role in the purchase of Shin Corp, and quotes an article in the Financial Times to prove just how duplicitous our national press is.
I’ve read — more than once — articles in the ST on the tangle Temasek has got itself into (and how it’s claiming it’s done nothing wrong). Seeing how unfriendly the ST is to archiving or any sort of free access to articles, here are some I’ve found hosted elsewhere: Temasek’s acquisition of Shin Corp, Shin Corp sale above board, says family, Shin Corp deal fully complied with Thai law, says Temasek.
I’m not sure how objective the articles are, but they’re not hiding anything by not mentioning Temasek in an article about Thaksin’s political troubles. It’s merely straying off on a tangent, and it was probably prudent of the editor (and I’m surprised the editor actually did their job!) to not include distracting information.
And pretty selective reading on the part of Pseudonymity.
Comments
25 September 2006
14:36
j
granted the bashing was off cue this time, but temasek and gic are hardly forthcoming most times and the journalists rarely even bother to question them - the unofficial secrets act?
25 September 2006
15:29
myrick
The Temasek angle is somewhat marginal, but “lead local” is a guiding principle of the press everwhere — if only because it boosts sales. Were this a US/Canadian/UK firm any report in a national newspaper would have played up the connection (i.e, “Thai Premier ousted after deal with UK Govt investment arm)).
I do have problems with the ‘lead local’ concept (i.e, “Boston resident sprains ankle as tsunami hits Asia”) but to not have even a single mention of Temasek seems odd.
25 September 2006
16:08
andrea
Judy, the… openness of Temasek is not really the issue here (and I don’t disagree with you on that count), so I didn’t think it was relevant.
myrick, sometimes the ‘lead local’ thing really annoys me (and thanks for telling me what it’s called!), but it is my personal feeling that it is not in the ST’s interest connect two things (Temasek’s role in Shin Corp and Thaksin’s ouster) that are arguably not… er… cause and effect events. I thought Thaksin’s problems ran much, much deeper than this issue.
26 September 2006
20:29
myrick
I agree that there were deeper problems, but his initial ‘people power’ ouster was directly linked to the Temasek deal. Not that Temasek did anything questionable. It was Thaksin’s family netted a hefty chunk of change and avoided capital-gains taxes, Temasek was just a buyer. I’m not suggesting any conspiracy or deeper role that Temasek had in this — I believe it was just pure business from their perspective — but the ST’s avoidance of any mention does seem odd. Especially snce I recall SPH and MediaCorp as being exceptionally awful when it comes to lead-local stories (I recall dozens of stories about the ruined vacations of MediaCorp/MediaWorks ‘artistes’ in the wake of the tsunami).
‘Cover up’ seems harsh — there isn’t anything that implies wrongdoing on the part of Ho Ching et. al. — but to not mention things seems odd.
I can’t read the ST online so I am just basing that assumption on the one item though.
26 September 2006
23:12
Pseudonymity
Thanx to serialdeviant for highlighting those reports.
I will concede the fact that ST published those reports then. But, except for one of it, the other reports cited by serialdeviant were published months before the coup on 19sep’06.
I believe the majority of Singaporeans would not have read it except for those who are interested in such matters. Even now.
So why is ST refusing to report temasek’s involvement now AFTER the coup? The reports that are being published now fails to mention temasek by name and quite a number of these reports are front page or one or two pages in. And hardly in the home sections. I go out into the streets, show people that particular section about the S$1.9 billion deal and 8 out of 10 of them can’t name temasek or don’t know about it; 1’s not sure. I’m not saying most singaporeans are stupid. But the local media reports in such a way which is favourable to the ruling party and that type of reporting is what most singaporeans see on local tv news and read in the local newspapers.
I mean i can go on but suffice to say i will hardly call it “prudent” and “distracting information” as we all know ST is heavily controlled and influenced by the ruling peoples action party. I mean lky’s daughter-in-law and lee jr’s wife is ho ching, the CEO of temasek holdings.
ST may not have covered it up then but they are doing it now. So i guess ST’s the one which is being “selective” over here isn’t it…hmmmm.
27 September 2006
10:36
Andrea
myrick, since I’m not as up on Thai politics as I used to be, I’ll have to defer to you on this one (I’m looking it up, and you’re right). Although I do not really think of it as a ‘people power’ movement, I recall also reading something about how the traditional elite had been ignored by Thaksin so this coup has been welcomed by that part of society? My memory of this may be wrong.
Pseudonymity, there is no doubt that the ST is looking out for its own interest by not harping on the deal. And I may have only pointed out one article that I could find mirrored on another site, but I definitely read at least three or four in the days leading up to the coup.
I don’t watch local TV news, I only read the ST because it gives a semblance of structure to my day (i.e. not turn on the laptop the moment I wake up). If what you say is true, that many Singaporeans were not aware of even the peripheral details of this Shin Corp controversy, then they are probably being kind of wilfully ignorant.
I still think they (ST) are being prudent, because they have their own behinds to think of. I don’t have to agree with it, although I still don’t think they were deliberately doing any conspiratorial covering up in the intial period (but with a notoriously thin-skinned institution one can never know), but days later with no mention - perhaps there is a need to play the relationship down - one does not expect Singapore’s national press to suddenly experience a change in its direction.
Post a comment