Of course, it was not explicitly stated that the ST intended its report to be a tribute of any kind. While it is obligatory to write a short biography on the person’s life, there is no need to put him in an exceedingly negative light and cause distress for his loved ones.

Link: ST: Jeyaretnam dies

Let’s take a look at what I mean about too negative:

Positive mentions:

1. “One of the rare few to speak out against the Government, he made political history in 1981 when he became the first opposition politician elected to parliament.”

Negative mentions:

1. He was unable to contest the 2006 general election after he was made bankrupt in 2001 for failing to pay S$265,000 in defamation damages to then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong. He was discharged from bankruptcy in May last year. – factual, but the excessive detail about bankruptcy was unnecessary

2. After losing his parliamentary seat in 1986 for making a false declaration of the WP accounts, he spent a month in jail and was fined S$5,000. Mr Jeyaretnam spent most of the last two decades battling outside the legislature.

3. He finished as top loser through the bruising Cheng San GRC bout, earning a 45.2 per cent of the valid votes. – one wonders what other connotations ‘top loser’ has

4. he was declared a bankrupt for failing to pay after losing a defamation suit against five Indian PAP MPs, among others.

5. after accusing his successor Low of not helping him clear his debts, he was effectively banished to the margins of the opposition scene here. – I must applaud the writer’s use of rhetoric

6. the old warhorse refused to believe that he was irrelevant to Singaporeans. – ‘warhorse’? the writer ought to become a novelist

7. Sporting his usual lamb-chop style sideburns, Mr Jeyaretnam stood before the crowd and, in typical style, spoke for almost an hour. – Maybe I’m reading too much into it, but is there nothing more significant about JBJ that the writer has to add the part about his sideburns? Again, unnecessary use of rhetoric

While it was a fact that he was bankrupted, it could have been mentioned with less focus. The ST would probably argue that it was all ‘factual reporting’. True, but surely it wasn’t much of ‘balanced reporting’. Now, to be fair, let’s contrast the ST’s report against Reuters’:

Reuters: Veteran Singapore Politician Dies

Positive:

1. In June this year, he won approval to set up the Reform Party after paying off S$265,000 ($184,900) in defamation damages. – compared to the ST which merely said that “he was discharged from bankruptcy”

2. Jeyaretnam championed more freedom for ordinary Singaporeans, and wanted the Southeast Asian country to have a Western-style democracy.

Neutral:

1. Jeyaretnam, an acerbic critic of the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP), was repeatedly sued by senior PAP members over his 37-year career for making comments the PAP said were libelous. – note the balanced reporting here about ‘comments the PAP said were libelous”.

2. Over the years, Jeyaretnam paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in defamation damages to PAP leaders. Critics say PAP politicians use legal action to crush opposition, but party leaders say libel suits are necessary to protect their reputations. – another good example of balanced reporting

3. His repeated run-ins with the government alienated him from many Singaporeans, but he still pursued his cause and in recent years was regularly seen at the entrances of shopping malls selling his books to raise funds. – balanced reporting that shows his perseverance

Negative:

1. He was sporadically bankrupted, a status that barred him from standing for parliament. – this was a negative fact, but was not emphasized in such great detail that the ST did.

Here’s more from BBC:

Link: Singapore opposition leader dies

1. He was disqualified from sitting in parliament until 1991, and disbarred from legal practice. The Privy Council in Britain ruled in 1988 that he had been wrongly disbarred in “a grievous injustice”.- This is something I didn’t know myself, and I think it was unjust that the ST left this out in their reporting

2. The Straits Times website described Mr Jeyaretnam as “pugnacious”, an “old warhorse” and “irrelevant”. - Even foreign media picked up the unjust, imbalanced reporting by the ST online – and ST online still wants to charge for access?!

I’m totally appalled at the lack of respect of a man who fought hard for his visions, and refused to give up despite the setbacks he went through. Yet the ST would rather potray an exceeding negative picture of him even after his death – no regard for his grieving family and friends… and all those who respected him.

I just wrote this morning about how the mainstream media in Singapore was too pro-government – this is a perfect example.

Singapore has lost a fine person. It’s time to grieve, not to gloat.

No related posts.