From 11 o’clock today, 后港 Hougang: The Documentaryreleased by the Workers’ Party (WP) in celebration of its 67th anniversary, has garnered nearly 60,000 views on YouTube.

The 1 hour 20 minute film showcases Hougang’s rich historical, cultural and political fabric and has sparked widespread public interest.

However, prominent state-linked media outlets, incl Channel News Asia (CNA) and The Straits Timesstill not covering the launch a day after its debut, drawing attention to the subject of media impartiality in Singapore.

The Straits Times, part of SPH Media, a government-funded group, remained silent on the release of the documentary, while CNA, owned by Mediacorp – which is under the watch of Temasek Holdings, Singapore’s sovereign wealth fund – mentioned the documentary during his live. news broadcast but did not include it in its online news report.

This absence can be seen as an indicator of editorial selectivity when it comes to reporting on opposition-related content.

while Lianhe Zaobaoanother SPH Media publication, made a short post on Sunday night, he provided only minimal details, adding to the perception of a narrow approach.

The documentary provides an in-depth exploration of Hougang’s journey from its early 18th century roots as a settlement for Teochew immigrants from Guangdong Province who first lived in Pulau Ubin to its establishment as a unique community .

The film highlights the transformation of Hougang from an agricultural and fishing center into a significant political symbol under the leadership of the WP, especially after the 1991 election victory by former Secretary-General Low Thia Khiang.

The WP’s victories in Hougang set the stage for their success in winning Aljunied GRC in 2011 and Sengkang GRC in 2020, achievements that further illustrate the party’s growth despite the challenges posed by Singapore’s People’s Action Party (PAP)-dominated political environment. , in government.

The lack of coverage by CNA and The Straits Times comes amid ongoing discussions about the role and impartiality of state-affiliated media.

This speech was especially brought to the fore in February 2022 during a session of Parliament in which MPs raised questions about the payment of funds and conditions attached to the significant government funding programme.

Government announced a budget of up to US$900 million which is to be paid over five years to support the media group, with approx USD 320 million has already been provided in fiscal years 2022 and 2023, with $260 million budgeted for 2024

Opposition Leader MP Pritam Singh (WP-Aljunied), who is also the current general secretary of the Workers’ Party, then questioned the impartiality of media outlets in light of government funding.

Mr Singh asked how the government would assure Singaporeans that “SMT’s content will not be affected by allegations of political interference”.

In response, Minister Josephine Teo pointed out that the funding could reach up to US$180 million annually, depending on the media company’s investment and MCI’s performance assessment.

She noted that Mr Singh’s question seemed “too predictable” and seemed to imply a lack of trust in the objectivity of media journalists.

“His question seems to suggest that he does not trust journalists in our mainstream media to be objective in their reporting, to apply their minds and be discerning or to have a sense of responsibility in reporting truthfully to the public,” said Ms. Theo. .

She added that ultimately, the public’s trust in the media and their daily news consumption choices will serve as the true test of credibility.

“And fortunately for us, for all of us, the local media is trusted by the people and we have every reason to keep it that way,” she concluded.

Despite these assurances, the lack of significant coverage of WP’s well-received documentary stands in stark contrast to the growing public attention it has received, fueling debates about how Singapore’s media handles political content.

For some observers, the silence tells a different story, calling into question the extent of the media’s editorial freedom in reporting diverse perspectives.

Edit: The previous version of this piece noted that the CNA was silent on the documentary; however, we have since been informed that CNA covered the documentary in a news report during its live broadcast.