Skip to main content

Misleading headline blamed for contravening Parliamentary Elections Act (Chapter 218)?

This morning I saw a post on Facebook of a Singapore citizen emailing the Attorney General to investigate The Straits Times on contravening Parliamentary Elections Act (Chapter 218) with an article headlined "ST Poll: More rooting for PAP". I thought I post about it later in the evening, only to have heard that the police are currently looking into the complaint.

A concerned citizen by the name of Brendan Chong emailed the Attorney General Chambers about his concern over the article. Brendan compared the incident with that when the Act was enforced on Joseph Ong Chor Teck for conducting a general election exit poll on the TRE website.

Source: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=4317387301523&set=a.1099500416362.2017043.1492224593&type=1&theater

It was soon announced in the evening that the police are looking into the matter.

Wrote Yahoo News,


"The Elections Department (ELD) has confirmed police are probing an election poll result published by Singapore's largest daily broadsheet, The Straits Times earlier this week.

“In response to media queries about the poll on the Punggol East By-Election published in the Straits Times on 10 Jan 2013, the case is currently being looked into by the Police,” said a spokesman for the ELD in a statement to Yahoo! Singapore on Sunday evening.

The ST article published on the said date was headlined, "ST poll: More rooting for PAP" and gave information detailing which party some 50 residents were planning to vote for."

The editor for The Straits Times, Warren Ferendez, explained in The Straits Times that the reporters didn't actually conduct a poll, but more of a informal consolidation based on comments made from interviews with residents of Punggol.

Said Warren Ferendez, "" "Our reporters spoke with residents in Punggol East to get their comments and a sense of the ground for our election reports. This was not a full-scale survey, or scientific poll, by any means. The headline for our story overstated the significance of the information gathered by calling it a poll. We are sorry for this lapse."


Warren Ferendez's comments adds even more implications to the case at hand. 

The Parliamentary Elections Act (Chapter 218) was enacted that polls are not published during this period of time as to have influence on voters who could be possibly be still seating on the fence. Polls could swing the votes two ways where it could influence the voters from either going with the herd or against it.

If the journalists Elgin Toh, Lim Yi Han and Chia Yan Min, took the numbers from comments with residents, and highlighted it as a poll of 50 Punggol East residents, isn't the comments indicating that the journalists knew it wasn't a poll but choose to describe it as one?

Isn't publishing a "false" poll more dangerous than a real poll?

Also, with the statement, was this the first time that lapse occurred where the headlines were "overstated"? Were there other lapses before of headlines being overstated? Were previous ST polls also "overstated"?

What is being done to ensure such headlines are no longer "overstated"?

In June 2012, mrbrown wrote, "Ms Samantha Ann Francis, a STOMP content producer (STOMP is the "citizen journalism" site of SPH) was fired for posting a photo of an MRT train running with one set of its doors open, which was found to be false."

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why is Ramly Burger banned in Singapore?

Yahoo Singapore ran an article of the Ramly Burger by highlighting that it is ban in Singapore.

Yet, the writer from Makansutra failed to address the most important issue of why the Ramly meat patty is banned in Singapore.

A search online easily did highlight that the famous Malaysian meat patty is banned by the AVA but didn't go into details.

Wrote Arlina Arshad for The Straits Times in January 2004,

"But the importing of beef and beef products from Malaysia is not permitted, said theAgri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA).

Selling and supplying them without a permit is also an offence, and offenders can befined as much as $50,000 or jailed two years, or both, said the AVA."

In May of the same year, another article highlighted that a man was even charged in court for "smuggling" the Ramly burger in 2004.


"The AVA said that meat products processed in Malaysian food factories which it had notapproved were banned here.Suzali was yesterday jailed for four month…

Did She Run Or Did She "Just Fake It" For Adidas?

Andrea Chong, a Adidas appointed influencer, posted a photo of herself in the middle of the Standard Chartered Singapore Marathon 2015 and captioned how she was "all smiles" during the run.

Unfortunately for Andrea or the PR agency, one of her readers checked her bib number #75148  at the Marathon's website only to find it to belonging to somebody else.

That somebody else is Kuvin Kuar, a intern at Edelman PR and the bib number had a status "DNF" or did not finished.

This raised the first red flag as one of the rules stated that "A Participants is strictly not allowed to transfer his or her race entry to another party".

This cascaded into perceptions that Andrea herself did not even start or complete the race and was only "planted" by Adidas or the PR agency, Edelman PR, to look pretty in the marathon.

Marketing Magazine noted that Adidas declined to comment about the incident which lead to further speculation that Andrea was possibly just …

Kudos To Huawei 2 Year Warranty For P9 Series

When it comes to smartphones, I think I am jinxed.

For my history of owning smartphones, every time it comes close to the end of the two year contract with my mobile service provider. This time round, it happened to my Huawei P9.

All of a sudden, the LCD screen sort of decolourised. I thought it was a temporary issue but the decolourisation lasted for a few hours. Then the nightmare began.

The touchscreen couldn't be touched. This made it the smartphone a brick.

I thought the Huawei P9 only had one year of warrant. With my contract ending in mid-year, I thought I would have to wait it out till the contract ended and allowed me to buy a new phone under a contract.

Luckily, a friend reminded me that the phone came with a 2 year warranty.

So I decided to go to the Huawei service center, right smack in the center of the city, to see if my phone is under warranty and if Huawei would honour their 2 year warranty.

Thankfully, Huawei isn't as popular as the Samsungs or Apples, and the …