For advertisement

Sample

6/01/2009

Sin Boon Ann apologised

Actually I was very disappointed. I am sure Sin Boon Ann did not make his comments out of nothing. Ok, quoting an unnamed source from the internet was a mistake. But was there biased reporting? Ok, don't use the word biased, but was the coverage fair? With Han Fook Kwang's admission that they could have done better, would Sin Boon Ann won his case should it be taken to court? In this case, with the privilege of speaking in Parliament, he would not have to go that path. What would happen if Sin Boon Ann insists that what he said was a fair comment? Was his apology just for quoting an unnamed source or was it an apology for saying that ST was biased in reporting which he then believed it was wrong and could not be substantiated?

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

I think his apology was for quoting from an unsubstantiated and unnamed source without verification.

Frankly, the apology was not necessary. It was fair comment on a matter of public interest. Moreover, it was done in parliament. What more "public interest" venue does one need? We can all see that the reporting could have been better presented in a totally unbiased way. Just look at how the picture of Dr. Thio was presented. Anyone looking at the title of the photo and the way the photo was juxtaposition on the front page could have formed an unfavourable impression of Dr. Thio. I did. Now, Dr. Thio would have to live with the title of "Feminine Mentor" for a long long time.

To this day, long after the saga has died down, I still cannot understand what's so bad about a group of God fearing people wanting to steer the association away from it's too liberal leanings. The way it was done is perfectly legal and above board. Too many christian "fundies" on the exco? Well, the old guards only got themselves to blame for being too complacent and thought, wrongly, that Singapore was ready for their brand of liberalism.

Wally Buffet.

Anonymous said...

I did not expect him to apologise for quoting an unverified source because he has already qualified that before reading the letter.

The fact that he apologised shows he respects the rules in Parliament. For that, I give him thumbs up. He gets my respect.

In apologising, he did more than is required IMO, whereas those who should apologise did not. Dana Lam and co. who covertly sneaked the CSE into MOE curriculum is defiant and Han Fook Kwang appeared to have apologised but in effect did not.

Anonymous said...

"What would happen if Sin Boon Ann insists that what he said was a fair comment? Was his apology just for quoting an unnamed source or was it an apology for saying that ST was biased in reporting which he then believed it was wrong and could not be substantiated?"

Hmm, brings to mind Lee Bee Wah: What would happen if she insists that what she insinuated was a fair comment? Should she apologise for saying that Lius guo Dong was unprofessional and lacked integrity which she could or would substantiate? LOL

"Dr. Thio would have to live with the title of "Feminine Mentor" for a long long time." Indeed, she'll have to bring it to her grave. She asked for it. Anyone who indiscriminately proclaim that she is so-and-so in public will have to bear with the shame.

"To this day, long after the saga has died down, I still cannot understand what's so bad about a group of God fearing people wanting to steer the association away from it's too liberal leanings. The way it was done is perfectly legal and above board."

I have started fearing the existence of a religious group that misrepresents the majority of which it claims to be a part of and imposes its beliefs on all others. The way it was done is perfectly legal and NOT above board. All the secrecy and comes across as being indefensible. Actions which only the covert and non-mainstream would resort to.