Speak the truth in Singapore, lose your shirt. New York Times Pays Singapore Leaders Over $100K For Calling Them 'Political Dynasty'.Why didn’t The New York Times do what Google just did and tell Singapore they’d rather pull out of town than play their petty dictator games. “Free speech, or kiss my ass!” ought to be the standard operation procedure for all Western media companies.
Of course, just because Singapore's nepotist-in-chief, I mean, Prime Minister, Lee Hsien Loong, is very thin-skinned about any public criticism of how he obtained his cushy job doesn't mean he's not above criticizing how bad democracy is in places like Australia. But no matter. When you are the "king of Singapore," you're free to be as hypocritical and full-of-shit as you please. Dare to disagree? Lee will sue your ass for libel and bankrupt you faster than you can say "Char kway teow (炒粿条)."
Let's not forget that Taiwan's Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) regularly holds up Singapore as a role model for good governance. Maybe Ma Ying-jeou's popularity rating in Taiwan wouldn't be in the gutter like it is now if only they could sue all the nay-sayers for libel.
Posts
2 comments:
"Papers like the IHT are simply not willing to risk being barred from distributing in Singapore or losing the crucial advertising revenue from Singapore government-owned companies such as Singapore Airlines.
So they toe the line, in cloying fashion."
http://asiancorrespondent.com/the-asia-file/singapore-outplays-the-international-media-again
Yep. Like Rush (the Canadian rock bank, not the wind-bag radio host) said back in 1984, "Big money got no soul." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAvEiLpboqk
But where does it leave the truth when international newspapers based in the US or UK are willing to censor themselves to please the sensibilities of local potentates? At least you have to hand it to Google, who was willing to leave hundreds of millions of dollars a year of revenue on the table from the China market in order to safeguard their brand.
Post a Comment