2012年5月7日星期一

Lim Guan Eng preaching false democracy dares to call for press freedom.

I feel disdained that Lim Guan Eng claims to completely support the freedom of press but violates it by portraying a false image of being a democratic leader.
I say this in regard to yesterday’s news about the initiative which allows journalists to write messages to the elected representatives in scores of yellow notes which were pasted on panels facing the main door at the Penang state assembly hall. However, the spotlight was shone on Lim Guan Eng as a number of negative messages were directed to him. Among them were regarding his inaccuracy in answering reporters’ questions and biased treatment to members of the press.
How hypocritical of Lim Guan Eng to call for press freedom when his actions do not reflect the same. He boasts about his support for press freedom, but bars Utusan Malaysia and Berita Harian reporters from interviewing him at the Penang State Assembly at the same time. Oh, the irony.

The most important aspect of press freedom is to give the press complete liberty in handling their publication of news from a neutral and impartial stance. However, whenever Lim Guan Eng feels the news does not suit to his taste, he goes on to accuse the press of bias and favoritism towards the other parties.

Besides that, Lim Guan Eng was also chided for selectively responding to certain questions by reporters and on several occasions, not answering them clearly. He was also told to not blame and criticize reporters from the media. I think that it has become a usual approach for him to turn a deaf ear towards questions which are unfavourable to him.
During the ceremony when the Penang State government provided funds for 84 Chinese primary schools, Lim Guan Eng also publicly threatened those schools from subscribing to newspapers which have indifferent opinions towards DAP and the Opposition coalition. These include Utusan Malaysia and Berita Harian. He threatened that he will not allocate funds for the following year if they failed to do so. Are these actions from a “role model” of press freedom?