I write to comment on the two letters concerning MCA control of The Star ('Ling lies about non-interference' (May 31) by Ex-Star Journalist and 'The MCA does interfere' (June 2) by Journalists From The Star.

I would like to confirm the truth of the contents in these two letters. I am an executive of The Star and often attend the daily editorial meetings to discuss the news of the day and what to publish on page one and the next two and three important pages (pages 2 to 5).

Why am I writing this? It is because I cannot stand the hypocrisy and lies of MCA boss Dr Ling Liong Sik concerning the running of The Star .

This is what happens at many of the editorial meetings. The group chief editor will first brief the meeting on what The Star managing director said or what Ling expects the newspaper to do about the issues being discussed, especially on MCA.

Some examples are: the campaign to oust Dr Koh Tsu Koon as chief minister of Penang so that Ling's long-time comrade Dr Sak Cheng Lum can take over the job, the drive against Lim Ah Lek so that Ling's blue-eyed boy Ong Ka Ting can take over, and currently, the Nanyang takeover so that Ling and company will have a weapon to campaign against the gang of four - Lim Ah Lek, Chan Kong Choy, Chua Jui Meng and Ong Tee Kiat - during next year's MCA election.

She will then ask the newsdesk editors about what's happening on the ground and what the reporters have written on these issues.

Printouts from reporters are then distributed for the group to study and comment. One editor who will never resist an opportunity to open his mouth, whether he understands the issue or not, will remind the subsdesk people present to be careful how they handle the issue or else the big boss (managing editor) will go after him, etc.

After the short discussion on the day's stories, it's time for the gossip. One editor will ask whether anyone heard anything about The Sun or whatever the current rumours are. A fruitless discussion will follow before we adjourn to our various desks to resume work.

Most of the time, the subsdesk executives will be making cynical remarks about stupid page 1 headings one particular editor suggested or the choice of stories.

So, what has all this to do with MCA?

First, whatever decision made during the meetings is guided by what Ling wants. Ex-Star Journalist is right - the real editor-in-chief of The Star is Ling Liong Sik.

Secondly, it will be noted that the editors who decide on what the people should read have no conviction and commitment of their own on any issue; they are more concerned with one-upmanship among themselves and protecting their positions.

So, please don't blame the reporters about what appears in the paper; they are not responsible. In fact, some reporters feel so ashamed of the twisted rewritten stories under their bylines that more and more of them now put a note on their stories requesting for no byline! Now you know why some big stories in The Star have no bylines.

Of course, there are a few good executive editors around. But most of the subsdesk executives just do what they are told without bothering about anything.

Also, what Ex-Star Journalist said about banning pictures of Lim Kit Siang and Karpal Singh is true. Just go through the last few years' editions of The Star and see whether you can find any pictures of these two opposition leaders.

In Karpal's case, even if he is involved in conducting a court case, his name is taken out if it can be done with without making the story look silly. Currently, the ban is on Ah Lek and his gang.

Finally, I would like to comment on the endorsement of National Union of Newspaper Workers (NUNW) secretary-general R Chandrasekaran on MCA's takeover of Nanyang (reported in The Star , June 2). His motive for doing so is quite apparent to those in the know. I doubt the NUNW members support what he said.