Friday, May 05, 2006

Straits Times Online should just ESAD

Every frickin picture on their homepage (under headline news) is of a PAP member meeting some children or attending some event. Bloody bias.

Then you read their only articles on the opposition:

-----

Some say Mr Goh's presence here shows that the PAP doesn't have confidence in Eric. But I think it gives Eric more confidence, it shows that the PAP really wants him to win. I think some people will vote for Eric to give Mr Goh mian zi (face).'

Although few would dismiss altogether the impact of Mr Goh's substantial reputation on voters, Mr Eric Low still has to overcome a couple of major obstacles.

One is his role as adviser to the ward's PAP grassroots organisations. It is a double-edged sword as many residents view him as their 'second MP' - another official whom they can turn to with their municipal problems, another source of administrative and financial aid.

This privilege of enjoying PAP-funded services, on top of those provided by incumbent Low Thia Khiang, is not lost on the Workers' Party (WP) chief. He has gleefully exploited it on several occasions.

Most recently, it was the free breakfast Mr Eric Low gave weekly to elderly residents in Hougang. Said Mr Low Thia Khiang: 'Where else do you get free breakfasts, one-dollar shark's fin soup and abalone porridge, other than in the opposition wards?'

-----

It's absolutely disgusting how they can describe Mr Low as 'gleefully exploiting' something. Why don't they use such a phrase on the PAP guy Eric? They could use it such in "Eric Low gleefully exploited the visits by Mr Goh which were aimed to raise voters for the PAP in the Hougang constituency." Why don't they use it? Because it makes the guy being described look bad! Like some theiving scheming scum of the earth. Another hit for the Straits Times.

-----

Strongest weapon in PAP's arsenal

ANOTHER obstacle the PAP candidate has had to contend with is the worry among some lower-income people that they are going to lose their homes.

A recent visit to Blocks 3 and 4 in Hougang Avenue 3 left the 57-year-old feeling 'discouraged'.

'Residents asked me if it was true that these two blocks of rental flats will be torn down if I was elected. I don't know who spread these rumours,' he told The Straits Times.

He has repeatedly assured them that there are no plans to tear down the blocks. 'I told them, if these flats are torn down, where are the 1,000 people going to stay? At my house?'

However, he was 'encouraged' by the warmer reception that greeted him during his campaigning at the private housing enclave of Realty Park, compared to 2001.

In the end, the strongest weapon in his arsenal against Mr Low Thia Khiang in this election is the multi-million-dollar upgrading plan.

When he shaved the WP man's vote share from 58 per cent in the 1997 General Election to 55 per cent at the last polls, the incumbent attributed his reduced popularity to the upgrading carrot.

Then-prime minister Goh Chok Tong had offered to upgrade the estate if the WP chief's share of votes was reduced to 52 per cent.

Now, the PAP has raised the ante, with details on how Hougang will become an Eric Low showpiece.

-----

What's wrong with this? The paper is blatently endorsing the use of taxpayer's money for party uses. By not commenting on whether it is right or wrong (other than a statement by a resident above - not quoted) they mislead the public into thinking that ONLY THE PAP HAS THE FUNDS to upgrade. When actually the PAP is using taxpayer's money (that's yours and mine!) to pay for the upgrading and STILL charging the people money. On top of that, since when is it fair that the opposition has to draw on their own funds and the government incumbents can just use tax money? Why don't they be fair and allocate each town council the same amount of money maybe based on size? The paper instead of addressing such issues endorse it (maybe not intentionally) by printing it as an election strategy and in a way makes it legit.

So upgrading is a legitimate carrot to dangle despite its inherent illegality.

Wahoo.

ST go esad la.

No comments: