Well done. Worker Party is getting positive media coverage. SDP? Where Are You?

[superwhite]

ST this morning published a full page down to earth interview with SL. A coverage by the daily broadsheet beats tons of chest thumping from trash sites. This is positive PR.

A positive coverage of SDP from the broadsheet is not possible because SDP has never stop accusing Straits Times. WP has a long term outlook and knowing airtime with the broadsheets will eventually come. They have kept a neutral position with them. It has paid off.

 

[yellowarse]

You really think the SL interview would have been possible without the approval of the PAP honchos? That our prostitute paper is independent enough to have published this interview just because WP had kept a 'neutral position'? Think again.

It's a little-known fact that the SDP has been cultivating the state media, and has received some coverage for some of its policy papers. But a prominent interview with its leaders is out of the question because its left wing ideology is inherently subversive to PAP's fascist policies.

 

[Thick Face Black Heart]

You really think the SL interview would have been possible without the approval of the PAP honchos? That our prostitute paper is independent enough to have published this interview just because WP had kept a 'neutral position'? Think again.

It's a little-known fact that the SDP has been cultivating the state media, and has received some coverage for some of its policy papers. But a prominent interview with its leaders is out of the question because its left wing ideology is inherently subversive to PAP's fascist policies.

So a prominently written-up interview with WP is allowed because PAP and WP are in bed, but any coverage given to SDP is because SDP is slowly cultivating the media to its side?

Sounds to me instead like a case of sour grapes.

 

[Thick Face Black Heart]

It's a little-known fact that the SDP has been cultivating the state media, and has received some coverage for some of its policy papers. But a prominent interview with its leaders is out of the question because its left wing ideology is inherently subversive to PAP's fascist policies.

PAP's policies are fascist no doubt, but that does not mean the voters will like to swing all the way to the left. I for one do not.

Your healthcare plan is nothing but a populist plan that levels down everyone to the same common denominator. The masses who struggle with hefty medical bills should be adequately insured - that I agree. But the wealthy who can afford it should be given full access to better private medical facilities and shorter waiting times. Why should everyone be put into one single pipeline as under the SDP plan? Those who can afford it should be given the option to get their money's worth.

 

[mei mei]

ST this morning published a full page down to earth interview with SL. A coverage by the daily broadsheet beats tons of chest thumping from trash sites. This is positive PR.

A positive coverage of SDP from the broadsheet is not possible because SDP has never stop accusing Straits Times. WP has a long term outlook and knowing airtime with the broadsheets will eventually come. They have kept a neutral position with them. It has paid off.

SL is a member of the parliament. It is not surprising that she get coverage. As long it is news worthy, ST will cover it. It meant a boost to their newspaper circulation and getting opposition to read more govt propaganda. Even the parrot man get some coverage. But there is bad blood between SDP and ST, so not surprised that they don't get coverage now. They did get some coverage when they have have MPs in parliament. At the end of the day, who can now say ST is not opposition friendly with this full page coverage of SL.

 

[SgParent]

SL is a member of the parliament. It is not surprising that she get coverage. As long it is news worthy, ST will cover it. It meant a boost to their newspaper circulation and getting opposition to read more govt propaganda. Even the parrot man get some coverage. But there is bad blood between SDP and ST, so not surprised that they don't get coverage now. They did get some coverage when they have have MPs in parliament. At the end of the day, who can now say ST is not opposition friendly with this full page coverage of SL.

i could be wrong, but i was told there are certain editors/journals in zaobao that like to target ah low.

 

[ray_of_hope]

SL is a member of the parliament. It is not surprising that she get coverage. As long it is news worthy, ST will cover it. It meant a boost to their newspaper circulation and getting opposition to read more govt propaganda. Even the parrot man get some coverage. But there is bad blood between SDP and ST, so not surprised that they don't get coverage now. They did get some coverage when they have have MPs in parliament. At the end of the day, who can now say ST is not opposition friendly with this full page coverage of SL.

Yup, the SDP had plenty of media coverage when it had MPs and when CSJ was leading the party, between 1993 and 1996.

 

[yellowarse]

So a prominently written-up interview with WP is allowed because PAP and WP are in bed

You said it, I didn't. I was thinking more like "PAP giving prominent coverage given to WP interview to show the world and foreign media that ST is not a government mouthpiece".

... but any coverage given to SDP is because SDP is slowly cultivating the media to its side?[

Again, your inference. I was simply disputing TS's assertion that SDP had been badmouthing the press. But I doubt if SDP's cultivating the press had anything to do with the coverage it gets – more inclined to think that it's more of PAP's wayang.

Bottomline: The PAP decides what, or what not, to publish. It's wishful thinking to assume either the WP or SDP has much say in this stage-managed PR exercise.

Sounds to me instead like a case of sour grapes.

Rather, trying to spit out the words (and grapes) that someone's trying to put in my mouth.

 

[underMIND]

Our media is extensively controlled by the government (PAP). After so long, then the WP get positive media coverage, i think the main aim is to show that Singapore has press 'freedom'.

 

[yellowarse]

Your healthcare plan is nothing but a populist plan that levels down everyone to the same common denominator. The masses who struggle with hefty medical bills should be adequately insured - that I agree. But the wealthy who can afford it should be given full access to better private medical facilities and shorter waiting times. Why should everyone be put into one single pipeline as under the SDP plan? Those who can afford it should be given the option to get their money's worth.

Got it wrong again. The plan is to ensure affordable universal health coverage for all Singaporeans using a government-managed central health fund and employing public facilities (government hospitals, polyclinics, ILTC facilities).

Richer Singaporeans will still continue to have access to private hospitals (say, Mt E or Gleneagles), GPs and specialists and are free to buy private insurance plans or riders on top of the proposed national insurance plan. If they so wish.

So it's a levelling-up (not down) plan which provides a safety floor for everyone while not preventing more well-off folks from paying a premium for shorter waiting times, posher accommodation and brand-name doctors at private facilities – at their own expense.

 

[yellowarse]

Our media is extensively controlled by the government (PAP). After so long, then the WP get positive media coverage, i think the main aim is to show that Singapore has press 'freedom'.

You got it. TFBH didn't.

 

[ray_of_hope]

Our media is extensively controlled by the government (PAP). After so long, then the WP get positive media coverage, i think the main aim is to show that Singapore has press 'freedom'.

Read the media just before GE2011. Chen Show Mao got an entire full page coverage in both the Zaobao and ST.
I am sure new WP CEC member, sociologist Dr Daniel Goh, will eventually get such coverage. You heard it here first!

However, those who are boastful, abusive and feel that they are entitled to media coverage are denied the oxygen of publicity.

 

[yellowarse]

Read the media just before GE2011. Chen Show Mao got an entire full page coverage in both the Zaobao and ST.
I am sure new WP CEC member, sociologist Dr Daniel Goh, will eventually get such coverage. You heard it here first!

Bravo for press freedom!

 

[metalmickey]

I don't get it. After years of abusing the Straits Times as the Braddell Brothel, people are actually clapping and cheering that they've done a fairly neutral to positive write-up on Sylvia Lim? You guys are crazy.

I'm not going to say whether this is a good or bad thing, but it's a fairly dubious achievement.

 

[superwhite]

Yes. Thanks. I was hoping someone would raise these points. If not, I will. The same points apply to bloggers.

....

However, those who are boastful, abusive and feel that they are entitled to media coverage are denied the oxygen of publicity....

 

[superwhite]

You are wrong. WP is ZB's favourite political party. The english press such as ST are inclined towards PAP, while ZB is inclined towards WP. No prizes for guessing why.

i could be wrong, but i was told there are certain editors/journals in zaobao that like to target ah low.

 

[3_M]

PAP's policies are fascist no doubt, but that does not mean the voters will like to swing all the way to the left. I for one do not.

Your healthcare plan is nothing but a populist plan that levels down everyone to the same common denominator. The masses who struggle with hefty medical bills should be adequately insured - that I agree. But the wealthy who can afford it should be given full access to better private medical facilities and shorter waiting times. Why should everyone be put into one single pipeline as under the SDP plan? Those who can afford it should be given the option to get their money's worth.

I take a leaf from the car motor insurance where all cars need to be insured against accidents. And all the drivers out there are now KPKB about increase premium because of the doings of those reckless drivers. Everyone is make to pay extra even when they didn't get into any accident. If as driver, you would rather opt out from the mandatory motor insurance scheme, chances are you won't like the idea of universal healthcare. Universal healthcare insurance works exactly in the same way. We are asking people who lives healthily and live longer subsidize those people who don't.

 

[Thick Face Black Heart]

Our media is extensively controlled by the government (PAP). After so long, then the WP get positive media coverage, i think the main aim is to show that Singapore has press 'freedom'.

The aim is not to show SG has press freedom but rather to reflect the ground reality of increased opposition support. They have no choice but to do so, and i'm sure everyone from the top down know there is no way to clamp down on the press like in the '70s or '80s.

ROH is right - when SDP had seats in Parliament they too were given the limelight in the SCM, even though Chee was already the most hated person in the PAP eye. The media will never side with the opposition in the same way it sides with the PAP - but it has to reflect ground sentiment.

 

[Thick Face Black Heart]

Got it wrong again. The plan is to ensure affordable universal health coverage for all Singaporeans using a government-managed central health fund and employing public facilities (government hospitals, polyclinics, ILTC facilities).

Richer Singaporeans will still continue to have access to private hospitals (say, Mt E or Gleneagles), GPs and specialists and are free to buy private insurance plans or riders on top of the proposed national insurance plan. If they so wish.

So it's a levelling-up (not down) plan which provides a safety floor for everyone while not preventing more well-off folks from paying a premium for shorter waiting times, posher accommodation and brand-name doctors at private facilities – at their own expense.

Thank you for your clarification.

 

[yellowarse]

I take a leaf from the car motor insurance where all cars need to be insured against accidents. And all the drivers out there are now KPKB about increase premium because of the doings of those reckless drivers. Everyone is make to pay extra even when they didn't get into any accident. If as driver, you would rather opt out from the mandatory motor insurance scheme, chances are you won't like the idea of universal healthcare. Universal healthcare insurance works exactly in the same way. We are asking people who lives healthily and live longer subsidize those people who don't.

Your motor insurance analogy is spot on. But insurance is about pooling of risks; you need a big enough pool to cover the risks of catastrophic events, and for universal coverage everyone has to chip in.

Inevitably, some will get a payout while others will contribute for years without anything untoward happening to them. It's the nature of the beast.

But who in his right mind would want to get into an accident to benefit from insurance? Similarly, would you contrive to get yourself a cardiac bypass op just so that you got a good return on your health insurance premiums? Remember, we use insurance to give us security against something bad and undesirable, never against the good things!

You don't throw the baby out with the bath water just because some unfortunate people benefit more from insurance than others. You make it more equitable and affordable for the masses by stratifying premiums according to income, and you minimise abuse by building checks and balances into the healthcare system, diverting more funds to primary and preventive medicine, and educating people about healthful living.

Besides, the billions of dollars are sitting in your Medisave accounts not doing anything at all: not used to pool healthcare risks, not used to help defray the healthcare costs of the poor, elderly and unemployed, and even the $40,500 minimum Medisave sum is not enough to pay for your own healthcare bills should you or your aged parents be hit with a catastrophic illness like cancer or stroke.

And we have the lowest per capita govt spending on healthcare and the highest out-of-pocket expenditure in the developed world. You sure our healthcare is system is all hunky dory as some try to make out?

Just so, the only major difference between motor insurance and universal healthcare is this: motor insurance is 100% private, while the proposed universal health plan is heavily subsidized by the government in the ratio of (roughly) 80% govt : 20% pte.