Translated by DOMINIC LOH
Sin Chew Daily
Su Mingqiang, Josh Hong, Dong Minwei are among some of the most avid critics of Sin Chew Daily. Since the plagiarisation of a Sin Chew editorial has come to light, the company has been handling the crisis in a very rational yet compassionate manner. By right, this should have put a stop to all the hoohahs.
Unfortunately, those people I mentioned earlier are grabbing every available opportunity to launch their senseless assaults on Sin Chew. When the July 31 editorial was again suspected of being plagiarised, these people began to busy themselves with the dissemination of the negative news. Since the newspaper's lead writer has relinquished his post, why the same problem again? So they came out with the assumption that it could have been an act of imputation.
As a matter of fact, these are the very people who have harboured the evil motives. Teaming up with the key personnel at Oriental Daily News and some ex-journalists, they are well acquainted with the modus operandi of a press publisher and can accurately compute the timing of editorial deadline and publication date.
Sin Chew's lead writer left hurriedly in the afternoon of July 30 and based on the normal operations of newspapers, an article handed in on July 30 should go into print on July 31. These people were well aware the said editorial had been penned by the same person, and now that they were well aware of this, why the merciless attacks? If they were not trying to impute Sin Chew, what then?
Su, in particular, has been completely disgusting. He was quick to thrash Sin Chew after the incident came to light. Later when he learned that someone had taken responsibility and resigned, he did his best to slam Sin Chew for being inhumane and heartless. It has become obvious that Su has specifically targeted Sin Chew and not so much the issue of plagiarisation given his totally conflicting attitudes.
But then why have these so-called critics stay mum over MCA's acquisition of DurianFM? Why have they shied away from buzzwords such as media monopoly and press freedom which they supposedly champion? Why do those noisily pursuing the right to information suddenly get silenced?
Indeed, people who occasionally look for information online are easy targets of their vicious brainwashing, but to us, people constantly watching media developments in the country, these people are anything but righteous vocalisers of injustices.
They would never voice up when they are really needed to do so, but will instantly take on a highly "righteous" stance the moment they find Sin Chew a convenient target of their poison pen, and would resort to every trick conceivable, including distortion of facts, to make them appear all the more righteous.