Balanced reporting
on NKF
By Littlespeck reader, Soap opera buff
Dec 29, 2009

The "10 cents to a dollar" information nugget is an excellent way to illustrate a point. I would say, in this case, it is the perfect way to put across a message.

The message that Durai was profligate and misused money that had been painstakingly collected from concerned citizens for kidney patients.

Besides, such nuggets sell newspapers.

Any reasonable reader would not interpret this to mean that the remaining 90 cents went into Durai's pockets and the pockets of his favourites at the NKF.

Any reader would also be aware that there are necessary direct and indirect expenses to be met in providing this dialysis service.

But the point is that so little was devoted to patient care and so much had gone towards an extravagant and wasteful lifestyle which nobody questioned until The Straits Times came along with its thunderous story.

As illustrated in his salary and 12-month bonuses, his ingenius way to ask for less but in the end getting more, the first-class flights, the gold-plated (nobody I know thought they were solid gold) taps, the $32,000 per month credit card charges (which, by the way, added up to $384,000 a year).

So is The Straits Times being balanced? Of course not. But that should not be the question.

The question should be "Should The Straits Times be balanced". After all, it was the NKF and Durai who brought the suit against the paper which effectively defended the allegations and demolished the claimants' case...and opened a can of worms for them.

If the papers had not succeeded, what do you think is the consequence? To the papers, to Durai?

So this auditors' report came out detailing all the excesses, all the misleading figures, all the questionable practices, all the power concentrated in the hands of one person.

What should the paper do? How should it treat the findings? It did what it thought it should do.

Reinforce its case that was first heard in court, and without saying it, tell the public "we were right all along". What is wrong with this?

In so doing, was it being unfair to present only one side of the story? Let's pause and ask: If all the findings were untrue, what would a proud man like Durai have done? He would have sued, that's for sure.

Why did he merely reply to these findings in a 31-page rebuttal, and nothing else?

He did not even demand to have it made public. If his case is strong enough, do you not think that he would raise hell to have his rebuttal publicised to correct the "wrong" perception and to right this terrible wrong done to him?

He is no weakling. He did not want to speak to the press, he did not want to read the papers nor did he watch TV coverage of the stories on the report.

Did he seethe that the papers have been trying to do him in? What can he do about it?

I ask myself why he did not sue. I can only hazard this guess - that he, being a successful $200,000-a-year lawyer before he became the CEO, was painfully aware that he would lose, again, if he sued.

Did the papers have a copy of his rebuttal? If so, why did they not publish it to present his side of the story? Why should they?

I don't doubt that the papers feel that this is just the next chapter in the court tussle with Durai.

The papers are reinforcing their claim that they did a great service to society in exposing this sordid tale, and that its investigative reporter Susan Long was to be commended for her daring and tenacity, at great risk to her credibility as a reporter worth her salt, to take on an icon whom everyone admired and feared - through false pretence.

The people of Singapore should be thankful that this was brought out into the open, otherwise they would still be innocently contributing to the NKF and enriching a handful of people whom the health minister could not describe as "decent" and "honest".

What about the papers' role as an impartial purveyor of news? What did the Far Eastern Economic Review do when faced with this issue of "right of reply"?

It preferred to have its circulation restricted, it allowed NTUC to reproduce its pages without the profitable advertisements.

With what reason? Time and Newsweek, both international weeklies, also had their circulation restricted on the same principle.

The Straits Times is doing the same, unless it is forced to do otherwise. In a legal tussle, the protagonists are expected to bring out their arguments to win their case, and cannot be blamed if they did not care to comment on the opponents' arguments...if they want to win their case.

Everyday, The Straits Times writes editorials in which it takes a clear stand. In this case, it too is taking a clear stand.

There has never been a level playing field anywhere, anytime. Is there a reason for electoral boundaries to be redrawn?

What is the reason behind pork-barrel politics? Level playing fields are found only in text books and should be argued by students till they turn blue.

But once they finish with the arguments, the concept goes back into the books before they venture out into the real world.

If there is any lesson that can be learned, it is hardly that this is how a biased newspaper tackles a story. Because newspapers are run by people with their own pet hates and prejudices. It is rather that
* hubris leads to downfall
* you can't fool all the people all the time
* you should quit while you are ahead
* even Achilles has his heel
* there is poetic justice after all.
Soap opera buff