It was supposed to be a quiet Sunday morning for me in Bangkok, but it was not to be. As I opened my Facebook to get some updates on Malaysian news, a friend’s message asked me to visit Sin Chew Daily ’s fan page.

“Fast! Before the angry comments get deleted!” It said.

netizen bombard sin chew facebook page 2 I must admit the intense responses by readers to Sin Chew Daily ’s coverage on the debate between Lim Guan Eng and Chua Soi Lek the day before was truly flabbergasting and, yes, I am still reeling from the shock.

Here is arguably the largest-circulating Chinese newspaper in South-East Asia. With more than 80 years of history, Sin Chew is almost a time-honoured institution within the Chinese Malaysian community. What has it done to deserve the critical, incessant and at times virulent attack by netizens, many of whom are its own faithful readers?

The biased coverage that appeared to be in favour of Chua and Najib Abdul Razak (who officially opened the series of Chinese-related events) no doubt enraged the readers, but a deeper reason is that many now find Sin Chew ’s hypocritical stance over the years hard to stomach.

For more than two decades, the Chinese daily has been portraying - albeit sanctimoniously - itself as a social conscience that was made a scapegoat during Operasi Lalang in 1987. Adroitly exploiting the siege mentality of the Chinese community, it has been rather successful in convincing many that it indeed speaks truth to power with unmatched valour.

But the so-called voice of conscience already met its demise when the MCA under the leadership of Ling Liong Sik and - most crucially-  with the blessings of Mahathir Mohamad, voted to take over the Nanyang Press Holdings in May 2001.

With the wings of its arch rival clipped, the Sin Chew management no longer found it necessary to compete for the best. Tiong Hiew King, who owns the media group, finally fulfilled his dream of being a Malaysian answer to Rupert Murdoch.

Sin Chew’ s quality has taken a nosedive since. Not only did it avoid making a stance on controversial issues such as the forced closure of SJK(C) Damansara, it went a step further by blacking out any critical news thereon.

And the boycott by a large number of Chinese Malaysian writers aggravated the situation, forcing Sin Chew to resort to prominent non-Chinese writers such as Karim Raslan and Zainah Anwar to boost its image. This aside, articles by several well-known columnists in China, Hong Kong and Taiwan appear regularly.

Pathetically silent or ludicrously evasive

While all this effort does give Sin Chew a semblance of national importance and international influence, it fails to deal with the home truth that, when it comes to pivotal domestic issues, the daily is either pathetically silent or ludicrously evasive.

It is akin to Utusan Malaysia, the New Straits Times and The Star running articles that are highly critical of US foreign policy, while saying nothing about the outrageous deportation of Hamza Kashgari by the Malaysian government to Saudi Arabia. Or perhaps they did, only to defend and please their patrons. There is much 1Malaysia solidarity within the Malaysian press industry.

Worse, when others criticise Sin Chew, its management strikes back by labelling all detractors as being mob-like. It also relishes in cropping the images of those whom it dislikes, and the past victims include Teng Chang Khim, Tian Chua and others who have been campaigning against media monopoly.

NONE Unprepared for and astonished by the avalanche of critical comments, Quik Cheng Kang ( left ), the executie editor-in-chief, lodged a police report over an online rumour about him. Quik is of course entitled to clear his name, but Sin Chew must not be so naive in thinking that, by highlighting an unsubstantiated claim against its staff member, it could easily undermine the validity other accusations made by the readers.

In fact, as much as 99 percent of the questioning so far is focussed on Sin Chew ’s editorial ethics, rather than Quik’s personal integrity.

In an in-depth Chinese-language article, Chang Teck Peng debunks Sin Chew ’s myth of victimhood by revealing that CC Liew, editor-in-chief at the time, stated that his company did not seek a legal challenge to the ban by Mahathir’s administration in 1988 because his newspaper reasoned that, “with a popular mandate, the government had the right to take any appropriate action”.

So why all the ostensibly innocent cries over victimisation if Sin Chew’s leadership had conceded Mahathir’s ‘good intention’?

Quite clearly, Sin Chew believes itself to be beyond reproach, just like the Barisan Nasional. Its symbiotic relationship with the MCA was cemented when Ling and Ong Ka Ting were in charge.

An ultimate pipe dream

And Tiong’s background as a timber tycoon from Sarawak also means that any expectation for Sin Chew to play the role of the fourth-estate is an ultimate pipe dream. The end result is that Sin Chew can only remain politically vacuous, if not subservient.

To be fair to Sin Chew , the overtures by politicians from both sides of the political divide have also pampered the daily’s editorial team.

For instance, following Teng Chang Khim’s critical comments on the Chinese press that offended Sin Chew last year, Lim Guan Eng hurried to distance himself from Teng by praising Sin Chew for having achieved “international standards” and being on a par with other Chinese-language newspapers around the world.

Sin Chew was well pleased, conveniently oblivious to the fact that the DAP secretary-general is a product of English education whose command of the Chinese language is mediocre at best!

All this has led Sin Chew to behave rather haughtily. Confronted with the demands for it to offer an unreserved apology, the management could only send Tay Tian Yan, a deputy editor-in-chief, to explain the ‘mistake’ as an ‘unintended lapse’ in his column. But can a columnist’s view reflect a newspaper’s editorial stance? So do pardon me for being sceptical.

Sadly, the false sense of power - being “influential” within the Chinese community and well-connected to the ruling coalition - has numbed Sin Chew so much that it has become utterly insensitive to the first subtle but now palpable changes in Malaysia's political landscape.

Ambiguous and wishy-washy reporting is no longer something that perceptive readers are willing to tolerate. With the advent of the internet age, it is increasingly useless for Sin Chew to continue to play up its victimhood.

But what is most amusing is that, unable to handle all the thought-provoking and powerful comments, Sin Chew is now warning its readers of the peril of unverifiable sources on the Internet, a la the BN.

While I do not dismiss the partisan nature in the phenomenon that set Sin Chew against the netizens given Lim Guan Eng’s immense popularity with the Chinese electorate, I would also argue the backlash was also a result of Sin Chew ’s years of hypocritical claim to ‘uphold integrity’.

But for once, I am inclined to believe Sin Chew had been rather innocent this time, and willing to consider that the biased coverage may simply have been an outcome of sloppy editorial work. In view of Sin Chew ’s tacit endorsement for Ong Ka Ting during the MCA's power struggle two years ago, there is no love lost between the Chinese daily and Chua.

More critically, Sin Chew may still await Ong or his boys to make a comeback in the aftermath of the widely expected MCA wipeout in the 13th general election. So why should Sin Chew choose to back Chua the sure loser?

After all, giving more coverage to the government of the day has long been an unspoken policy for the mainstream press in Malaysia and Sin Chew was merely following this tradition. What it had clearly failed to understand was that the sentiments on the ground are now vastly changed.

In sum, absolute monopoly and near total media ownership have contributed to Sin Chew ’s eroding credibility in the eyes of the netizens. As news and information tend to travel at lightning speed these days, the recent bombardment by its own readers must serve as a painful and precious lesson for Sin Chew 's leadership.

I would advise that the most “influential” Chinese daily must stop over-congratulating itself but do some earnest soul-searching in the hope of redemption.

JOSH HONG studied politics at London Metropolitan University and the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. A keen watcher of domestic and international politics, he longs for a day when Malaysians will learn and master the art of self-mockery, and enjoy life to the full in spite of politicians.