There is no list of reliable sources or anything like that; if someone challenges the reliability of the source, editors should discuss it and try to reach consensus.
According to the policy at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RELIABLE "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made. If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."
In addition, it says that "News sources often contain both factual (reporting) content and analytical (editorial) content. "News reporting" from well established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). News reporting from less well established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact. Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces are reliable for attributed statements as to the opinion of the author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact."
You should probably read the policy for yourself and decide whether you think channelnewsasia.com is reliable in this particular context. You don't need to tread *too* carefully, though--be bold with editing. If someone disagrees, that's when you can start an in-depth discussion on a source's reliability.