STRAITS TIMES

Singapore's major english-language daily, The Straits Times, today ran a rather biased (pro-Liberal) article on the election. It's wrong about almost every point it tries to make. I've seen worse in the Canadian media. Still, this bothered me because it was really the only significant article that the paper ran on the election.

Not suprisingly, the author seems to be a Toronto Star staff reporter.

Where does it go wrong? Lets start:

Close race expected at Canadian election today
Analysts say outcome of election will have an impact on country's involvement in Iraq and its level of engagement with Asia

On Iraq: Harper says Canada should stand by its allies,but can't afford to send any troops. Election-campaign Martin says that that Harper would be too close to the Americans, while pre-campaign Martin says he wants to restore our relationship with the US. Martin's Liberals now say Canadians should help in other ways - such as training the Iraqi police force.

To restate election-campaign Harper's view on Iraq:

"If there was additional expertise needed within NATO, we could make a contribution. But at the present time, we simply don't have the troops available to send out."

As for whether the election would have any impact on Canada's level of engagement with Asia - the more sober analyst interviewed for the item says the election won't have any impact. Canada doesn't have a presence in Asia.

To be fair, this may not be the writer's fault. Catering to a local audience, the editors here probably thought it would be better to focus on matters of international or regional interest. You really wouldn't draw in readers by saying: "Canadians are voting today in an election that will have no impact on the situation in Iraq or the country's relationship with Asia."

Still, they could have attracted local readers with a different, more accurate, lede. For instance: "Canadians are voting today in an election where the country's Asian population seem set to abandon their traditional support of the governing Liberal Party."

There are reasons why Asians should take an interest in the election's outcome.

'The Conservatives are set up to be more problematic because of their outlook,' said Ms Ananya Mukherjee Reed, a professor of political science at York University in Toronto.

'Whoever wins could decide Canada's future involvement with Iraq, which would be very important in its relationship with South Asian and South-east Asian countries.'

We Conservatives are 'problematic because of our outlook'. WTF?

What I think she's saying here is that Muslim nations in Asia would like us less if we supported the US in Iraq. I doubt it.

If Canada sent in a contingent of troops the size of the British one, perhaps there may be more negativity toward Canada. However, you don't see many Asians protesting the Koreans, Poles or Italians. The Asian opponents of the occupation US support for the interim Iraqi Government are very miopic about it. It's mostly just raw anti-Americanism and limits its focus on the US and Bush.

Immigrants have traditionally voted Liberal. But that may not necessarily be the case this time.

Mr Ronald Wong, a Toronto textile merchant, is going to vote Conservative today.

He may not like Mr Harper, 'but he's very strong in what he is doing', Mr Wong said.

'He's anti-abortion and anti-gay marriages, which I don't like. He's not a good man, but he is strong.'

He's not a good man but he's strong? While it's nice that the writer touches on recent immigrants abandoning the Liberals, its strange that the one streeter that is done makes Harper seem like a homophobic, anti-abortion, strongman.

More practically, Mr Wong's property taxes have gone up from C$7,000 to C$11,000 in the past four years.

Although that is a result of decisions made by the city of Toronto, rather than the federal government, he feels that the liberals 'are not on our side. They're on the side of big businesses'.

But it's the Liberals who have said they would like to encourage small and medium-sized businesses, and the Conservatives who are largely perceived as supporters of big business.

So the party that would cut corporate welfare and taxes is pro-big business while the party that doles out favors to big business and maintains high taxes on small businesses is pro-small business? Sorry, Paradkar is wrong and Wong is right.

The article, oddly, also fails to mention adscam or any other scandals.