Editor-in-chief of Jom, Sudhir Thomas Vadaketh, has criticised Channel News Asia (CNA) for quietly rewriting a news article involving Foreign Affairs Minister Vivian Balakrishnan, calling the act “tantamount to lying.”
In a detailed Facebook post, Sudhir highlighted how CNA’s original article—which focused on Dr Balakrishnan reporting “unauthorised activity” on his Facebook account—was later replaced with one that shifted the spotlight to Minister K Shanmugam’s strong disavowal of former Nominated Member of Parliament Calvin Cheng’s controversial remarks.
“The original article fronted Vivian Balakrishnan reporting unauthorised activity on his Facebook page to Meta… The new article, same hyperlink and no mention of the big change, now fronts K Shanmugam SC.
So many questions. Who ordered this change? Was the reason for the change the need to show a more aggressive stance against Calvin’s post? Was it to address rising disgruntlement in the Muslim community? How can a taxpayer-supported (through G advertising, among other things) media channel actually engage in such chicanery?”
“This is tantamount to lying to us, imo… To be clear, an MSM journalist friend has told me this is normal industry practice. I disagree.”
The original article, published on 2 April 2025, reported that Dr Balakrishnan had filed a report with Meta after discovering that his Facebook account had “liked” a post by Cheng on 13 March.
That post, which mocked a pro-Palestinian activist group, included a suggestion that they be sent to Gaza and “never come back.”
Dr Balakrishnan’s statement read:
“I did not ‘like’ the post by Calvin Cheng on 13 March 2025. I do not share those views. I have since taken measures to enhance account security.”
CNA’s original headline was: “Singapore’s foreign affairs minister earlier denied ‘liking’ a controversial Facebook post by socio-political commentator Calvin Cheng on a pro-Palestinian activist group.”
The article was illustrated with an image of Dr Balakrishnan at what appeared to be a United Nations forum.
Public comments cast doubt on explanation
CNA’s Facebook post linking to the story received over 450 comments, many questioning the explanation and mocking the minister’s delayed response. Among the top-liked and visible comments were:
- “We had self deleting email and now self liking others controversial posts type of facebook profiles too?!?o_O”
- “lol i dunno which is worse.. actually liking calvin cheng’s page… or having such lacking in security awareness to have his FB account compromised/hacked… if is any ordinary person can still understand their lack of awareness on security lor…”
- “Who the hell would wanna hack an account only to like a post and then unlike?”
- “Unauthorised activity just to like a post? Who in the world will be so free to do this? Want to find excuses, find a better one la”
- “Auto LIKE. Ha ha like someone AUTO delete messages.”
- “Some have auto delete feature on mobile, he have auto ‘like’ feature on FB huh”
- “At least now we know who to vote for this coming election. Sorry not sorry.”
- “You didn’t like the post but you also didn’t dismiss or condemn CC for his actions, which says much more about yourself than denying liking the post.”
- “Remember Trace Together. Can we believe him on this?”
Commenters on Dr Balakrishnan’s public statement on his Facebook page noted that his explanation came 19 days after the original post by Cheng.
By 8:15 PM on 2 April 2025, CNA quietly replaced the article on its website. The revised version carried the headline: “Shanmugam says his views on Israel-Palestine ‘very sharply different’ from those of Calvin Cheng.”
The lead now focused on Shanmugam’s media remarks that same day, where he said: “His views on Palestine and Israel, I can say are quite different from mine. I have a very sharply different view on Israel-Palestine from Mr Calvin Cheng.”
Dr Balakrishnan’s statement remained in the article but was pushed to the lower half. The featured image was also changed to one of Shanmugam addressing reporters.
No editorial note accompanied the change. The article retained its timestamp of 2 April 2025, 8:15 PM, and had no listed author.
CNA’s Facebook post edit history shows:
- 15:17 & 15:21 – Headline and preview focused on Dr Balakrishnan’s denial and Meta report.
- 20:18 – Headline was edited to include Shanmugam’s remarks, shifting narrative focus.
One might believe the article rewrite was likely prompted by the backlash to Dr Balakrishnan’s perceived association with Cheng’s remarks—particularly among Muslim readers.
The reframing gave prominence to Shanmugam’s unequivocal criticism of Cheng’s comments, arguably to reinforce the government’s distance from Cheng’s inflammatory tone.
Yet to many, the shift appeared strategic. Critics argue this was not a mere editorial adjustment but an act of narrative control.
As Sudhir put it:
“Sure, I know, I know, many out there will say this is unsurprising, just business as usual for an MSM long under the thumb of the ruling party. But I do think it’s important to keep pointing it out and ensuring they improve.”
As of 3 April 2025, CNA has made no public statement about the rewrite. The article remains live in its revised form, with no correction note, no author byline, and no trace of its earlier iteration—except in reader screenshots and digital archives.
This incident has renewed questions about editorial transparency, public accountability, and the role of state-linked media in shaping political narratives.
Silent changes to politically sensitive stories—without context or disclosure—undermine public trust and call into question whether news outlets are serving readers or agendas.
The post CNA rewrote article on Vivian Balakrishnan’s Facebook denial without disclosure, sparking public criticism appeared first on The Online Citizen.
