I read with interest the emotional appeal by China Press Staff in the letter 'Don't boycott China Press' (June 7).

While I have sympathy for the pathos displayed in their letter of losing their rice bowls, I would like to point out that the real threat to their rice bowls comes not from the organised boycott of Nanyang Siang Pau and China Press but from the bare fact of a political party gaining control of their company.

Such a call for boycott will fail if the newspapers under the Nanyang Press Holdings can remain as independent and balanced as before the takeover. On the other hand, the public will reject the dailies if they become partisan and one-sided even if there is no call for a boycott.

Can we reasonably hope that there will no editorial interference from the new owners in running the newspapers as MCA president Dr Ling Liong Sik bravely declared? Let us not delude ourselves as the raison d'tre of any political party is to gather support and influence public opinion to advance its political fortunes. Indeed, MCA would not be interested in taking over Nanyang Press if it had no intention of using it to in some way to serve its agenda.

Already the top management and editors of Nanyang have been replaced with a team more sympathetic to the MCA. Just like in the MCA-controlled English daily, The Star , we can expect news and propaganda about the party to be played up and negative criticism to disappear from its pages while all political and current affairs reporting will be written with a pro-party bias.

Just as China Press Staff acknowledged that should a business group take control of the Nanyang Press, they would have to print more stories about the group's business activities, they cannot hope to escape manipulative editorial influence if the new owner is a political party.

What is so odious about a political party pulling the reins is that its manipulation is potentially far more pernicious, wide-ranging and harmful to society than a business group trying to gain more business. There are legitimate fears that a politically-controlled paper will suppress all critical debate, opinion and alternative viewpoints to those held by the leader to the detriment of the community as a whole.

Political parties need to be lauded, criticised or corrected as the case may be. Mistakes and excesses must be publicised to deter repeats and spur remedial measures instead of being swept under the carpet. Criticism and debate serve as valuable feedback from the people and such feedback will be missing if alternative viewpoints are not allowed to be expressed.

The very fact of a political party in control of a mass media and the real danger of the media being turned into a propaganda vehicle is inherently disquieting to many people, notwithstanding the brave assurances by party leaders which fail to re-assure. This, plus the not unjustified expectation of biased and unbalanced reporting, will turn away readers.

Also, the way MCA rode roughshod over the widespread opposition of the Chinese community to the takeover does not augur well for the future of the affected dailies. Sales and advertising revenue can be expected to decline with or without an organised boycott.

Bearing in mind that Nanyang Press is only marginally profitable, the company is on tenuous financial grounds with the expected decline in readership. We can only hope that Nanyang Siang Pau and China Press will not be driven into the ground like the ill-fated Tong Bao in the early 1990s.

Should the staff of Nanyang Press want to protect their rice bowls, their best bet is to oppose MCA's ownership of their company and campaign vigorously to reverse the deal. Hitting out at the boycott campaign while quietly accepting their new political owner is merely treating the symptom while the monster within slowly devours their livelihood.