so i heard campaigning will be during the week i'm at reservist. fml. elections come around every four, five years yet i'll be constitutionally locked away.
i can still follow now though. and Straits Times' day one coverage of the release of the boundaries report earns a fat zero from me. as long proven, they have a handful of good reporters who report well in isolation. but when something major comes around, especially when it's political, the whip falls and the tone falls in line. seven pages loaded with distasteful charade.
choice of words
mild, modest, no gerrymandering - these were repeatedly used to describe the report. really? despite quoting stats (don't forget that stats can always be presented in favour of arguments) the committee clearly did (and didn't do) a few things.
the selection of a single, conservative "objective voice" is clearly intentional:
patronisingly featuring the Opposition is worse. here's Gerald Giam's quote:
if you haven't already seen through Mui Hoong's tricks, here's how she uses ST's opinion pages for propaganda: she slaps on a progressive headline and standfirst, in this case describing the report as "a few puzzles" and "Joo Chiat draws flak", and once she gets the eyeballs, proceeds to brainwash you with a different angle that's often heavily one-sided.
here she reasons that whatever your feelings, all is fair simply because Aljunied, Hougang and Punggol East remain. this completely ignores the fact that, like previous elections, such a move can be politically motivated in itself as a policy of containment and appeasement.
she also emphasised that the committee's TOR were "technical". but given the PM's very straightforward TOR, the report doesn't explain certain actions that appeared more political than technical.
the East Coast-Fengshan relationship
the paper likes you to think that retaining the shaky East Coast GRC shows the committee is fair to the Opposition and the PAP is willing to fight for it. but little that's constructive has been discussed about creating a Fengshan SMC.
the latter borders the blue Aljunied almost like a moat for the 45% blue East Coast. it's very possible that given the demographics and climate, the PAP prefers to play safe and cede one seat, instead salvaging the GRC. this one-step-back-two-steps-forward tactic will appeal to the moderates.
who's currently representing Fengshan? ex-minister Raymond Lim, a suitable sacrificial lamb.
where's the journalism?
instead of asking why Moulmein-Kallang has been completely undone, it celebrates the return of Jalan Besar, footnoting with sentimentality over Moulmein's breakup.
simi sai? machiam feel-good newsletter. sort of like everyone accuses you of stealing money and your clique celebrates you setting up a taskforce to investigate everyone but yourself.
err, Whampoa?
the day one coverage spends substantial column inches wondering why Whampoa SMC's gone, when the truth is it isn't important. safe ward means cannot redraw? as the incumbent, the PAP can redraw any wards they wish as long as they feel confident about it. they don't worry over single seats, they only target to form the government.
this already smells like an editor decided that due to the heavy coverage of lightning-rod constituencies and the Opposition, to be balanced let's try imagining some PAP pains.
more partisan reportage
i can still follow now though. and Straits Times' day one coverage of the release of the boundaries report earns a fat zero from me. as long proven, they have a handful of good reporters who report well in isolation. but when something major comes around, especially when it's political, the whip falls and the tone falls in line. seven pages loaded with distasteful charade.
choice of words
mild, modest, no gerrymandering - these were repeatedly used to describe the report. really? despite quoting stats (don't forget that stats can always be presented in favour of arguments) the committee clearly did (and didn't do) a few things.
- Joo Chiat and Moulmein-Kallang, two spots the PAP could very possibly lose, disappeared.
- don't believe for a second that maintaining Potong Pasir, Aljunied, Hougang and Punggol East shows the review was fair. if you're the incumbent PAP, that's the wise thing to do to not rile Opposition sympathisers.
- the anomaly that's Potong Pasir SMC wouldn't have survived if the PAP weren't confident of repeating victory. Chiam is never coming back, Sitoh is not bad and Lina is bad, period.
- the PAP found out that Tin Pei Ling is toxic, not as a person - because i really find her capable - but as an election topic. there's no other obvious reason MacPherson has been ejected. let the girl strike out on her own.
- what's the logic in praising the minimal change when the PM himself had called for shrinking GRCs and increasing SMCs? retaining the giant Ang Mo Kio and Pasir Ris-Punggol GRCs has no justification while SMCs only increased by a paltry one. voters were instead stealthily shifted from Pasir Ris-Punggol to Ang Mo Kio, Ang Mo Kio to Nee Soon, then Nee Soon to Sembawang.
the selection of a single, conservative "objective voice" is clearly intentional:
"By and large, it's a very modest shift, nothing too radical."
patronisingly featuring the Opposition is worse. here's Gerald Giam's quote:
"We have to study the report very carefully to decide which one we want to contest in."the Chua sisters
if you haven't already seen through Mui Hoong's tricks, here's how she uses ST's opinion pages for propaganda: she slaps on a progressive headline and standfirst, in this case describing the report as "a few puzzles" and "Joo Chiat draws flak", and once she gets the eyeballs, proceeds to brainwash you with a different angle that's often heavily one-sided.
here she reasons that whatever your feelings, all is fair simply because Aljunied, Hougang and Punggol East remain. this completely ignores the fact that, like previous elections, such a move can be politically motivated in itself as a policy of containment and appeasement.
she also emphasised that the committee's TOR were "technical". but given the PM's very straightforward TOR, the report doesn't explain certain actions that appeared more political than technical.
the East Coast-Fengshan relationship
the paper likes you to think that retaining the shaky East Coast GRC shows the committee is fair to the Opposition and the PAP is willing to fight for it. but little that's constructive has been discussed about creating a Fengshan SMC.
the latter borders the blue Aljunied almost like a moat for the 45% blue East Coast. it's very possible that given the demographics and climate, the PAP prefers to play safe and cede one seat, instead salvaging the GRC. this one-step-back-two-steps-forward tactic will appeal to the moderates.
who's currently representing Fengshan? ex-minister Raymond Lim, a suitable sacrificial lamb.
where's the journalism?
instead of asking why Moulmein-Kallang has been completely undone, it celebrates the return of Jalan Besar, footnoting with sentimentality over Moulmein's breakup.
simi sai? machiam feel-good newsletter. sort of like everyone accuses you of stealing money and your clique celebrates you setting up a taskforce to investigate everyone but yourself.
err, Whampoa?
the day one coverage spends substantial column inches wondering why Whampoa SMC's gone, when the truth is it isn't important. safe ward means cannot redraw? as the incumbent, the PAP can redraw any wards they wish as long as they feel confident about it. they don't worry over single seats, they only target to form the government.
this already smells like an editor decided that due to the heavy coverage of lightning-rod constituencies and the Opposition, to be balanced let's try imagining some PAP pains.
more partisan reportage
"Not surprisingly, the release of the report has been accompanied by some calls from opposition politicians for the committee - in the name of fair play and transparency - to justify its decisions and show how the boundaries came to be determined."this sentence sounds dubious. why must "Not surprisingly"?
