- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Messages
- 33,627
- Points
- 0
[h=2]Reader catches ST reporters trying to portray PAP in good light over Palmer’s affair[/h]
December 22nd, 2012 |
Author: Contributions
Michael Palmer
The ST article on Dec 15 by 2 of its political analysts Rachael Chang & Tessa Wong cannot be left unchallenged. It contains many questionable interpretations of events that have happened. I’ll attempt to clarify each dubious point that was mentioned that tried to portray PAP in good light, whilst casting a shadow on WP.
1. It took great pains to highlight that Palmer’s indiscretions did not in any way affect his ability to perform in his duties. Our 2 ladies obviously do not understand how the male brain works. I would urge them to consult their male colleagues before publishing such rubbish again. When a man has a mistress texting him constantly, sending him love messages, you can forget about him concentrating on his work. 70% of his time will be spent in la la land with his boner rock hard fantasying about the next session. What we do not know is how long the tryst lasted. Could have been anywhere between 3 months to a year, maybe even more. Paying ministers such high salaries and what do we get? Dishonorable chaps that cheat on their wives, don’t do their job properly, shit in their own backyard and then try to cover up the stench.
2. The article then writes that the PAP leadership & Palmer wanted to show that they were different from WP in handling such cases. They quoted this from Calvin Cheng:
In Palmer’s case, we now know that his indiscretions were about to be exposed, so he had no choice but to admit it openly. Similar to the Peter Khoo case, why would anyone suddenly admit a crime when he can get away with it? The 2 cases are similar in nature, but are totally different in terms of the circumstances. In my opinion, WP handed the Yaw case as best they could under those set of circumstances. ST has deliberately attempted to portray it otherwise in numerous occasions, this being the latest one.
3. For the last point, again quoting Calvin Cheng:
I told this to one of my younger charges; “Know when to walk or run away when there is a need to. It does not mean that you are a coward if you do so, sometimes you are more of a man when you do that” In any case, both are man enough, that’s why so many ladies like them!
The 2 ST writers cannot hide behind the excuse that these are mere reproductions of someone else’s views. Responsible journalism requires you to filter out potential nonsense out of the verbiage. ST has a long way to go if it wants to convince the masses that they are not a propaganda vehicle for the ruling party.
.
Sage
.
</EM></EM>Rate this (78 Votes)
<META content=4.78205128205 itemprop="ratingValue"><META content=78 itemprop="ratingCount">
The ST article on Dec 15 by 2 of its political analysts Rachael Chang & Tessa Wong cannot be left unchallenged. It contains many questionable interpretations of events that have happened. I’ll attempt to clarify each dubious point that was mentioned that tried to portray PAP in good light, whilst casting a shadow on WP.
1. It took great pains to highlight that Palmer’s indiscretions did not in any way affect his ability to perform in his duties. Our 2 ladies obviously do not understand how the male brain works. I would urge them to consult their male colleagues before publishing such rubbish again. When a man has a mistress texting him constantly, sending him love messages, you can forget about him concentrating on his work. 70% of his time will be spent in la la land with his boner rock hard fantasying about the next session. What we do not know is how long the tryst lasted. Could have been anywhere between 3 months to a year, maybe even more. Paying ministers such high salaries and what do we get? Dishonorable chaps that cheat on their wives, don’t do their job properly, shit in their own backyard and then try to cover up the stench.
2. The article then writes that the PAP leadership & Palmer wanted to show that they were different from WP in handling such cases. They quoted this from Calvin Cheng:
“They could not do what the WP did, which was to let the scandal be exposed in the media first, keep quiet, defend for weeks, then expel him.”
I am going to point out now that Calvin Cheng has got it all wrong. The difference between Yaw’s case and Palmer’s case is that Yaw chose to remain silent. In addition, there weren’t any leaks or leads that WP could really rely on to build up a case against Yaw. So what was WP supposed to do, fire him right there on the spot in double quick time without a proper hearing or give him an opportunity to defend & explain himself? (Just like the 5th bus driver or Amy Cheong?)
In Palmer’s case, we now know that his indiscretions were about to be exposed, so he had no choice but to admit it openly. Similar to the Peter Khoo case, why would anyone suddenly admit a crime when he can get away with it? The 2 cases are similar in nature, but are totally different in terms of the circumstances. In my opinion, WP handed the Yaw case as best they could under those set of circumstances. ST has deliberately attempted to portray it otherwise in numerous occasions, this being the latest one.
3. For the last point, again quoting Calvin Cheng:
“He took it like a man, rather than run away”
Does owning up after you know that the game is up earns you being called a man? No, I would call that doing what a normal man or person would do, being honest enough not to deny the act. Does running away make Yaw less of a man? No, it does not; it only makes him irresponsible as an MP and as a person. What he should have done was to resign on his own accord, rather than put his party through weeks of public scrutiny. As some of you have rightly pointed out, he probably remained silent to protect whoever he was sheltering and that’s excellent behaviour for the male species. The bottom line is this: call Yaw irresponsible, but don’t equate running away with not being man enough.
I told this to one of my younger charges; “Know when to walk or run away when there is a need to. It does not mean that you are a coward if you do so, sometimes you are more of a man when you do that” In any case, both are man enough, that’s why so many ladies like them!
The 2 ST writers cannot hide behind the excuse that these are mere reproductions of someone else’s views. Responsible journalism requires you to filter out potential nonsense out of the verbiage. ST has a long way to go if it wants to convince the masses that they are not a propaganda vehicle for the ruling party.
.
Sage
.
</EM></EM>Rate this (78 Votes)
<META content=4.78205128205 itemprop="ratingValue"><META content=78 itemprop="ratingCount">
