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…

Social Media 101: How To Be The Most Hated Person In Singapore Instantly

It is amazing how we are quick to forget that a single wrong comment on social media can make one the most hated person in Singapore.

Back in 2012, we had Amy Cheong. Her comments on Facebook about a Malay wedding under her HDB void deck resulted in an online CSI that cost her her job.

Fast forward to 2017 and we have Thomas Chua Poh Heng and whose name will forever live in Internet infamy.



Thomas reposted a video of the funeral of a Traffic Policeman who died while on duty. Thomas then commented that his death was well deserve as Thomas was once given a traffic ticket by the same Traffic Policeman.

Even the Home Minister for Singapore, who is responsible for the Police Force, was offended by Thomas' statement.



The screenshot showed that post was marked global by the Globe image next to the Singapore tag which could hint that this post was meant for all to see. As such, the argument of a "private"post does not hold any weight here.

Just as expected, after this post was s…

Those Who Gamble Online Have Poorest Control - NCG Survey In 2012

Singapore will soon exempt local operators, Singapore Pools and Turf Club, from online gambling ban and the sites will be ready in November 2016.

Ministry of Home Affairs explained that a complete ban on remote gambling drives demand and activities underground, and may create larger incentives for criminal syndicates to target Singapore."

Yet in a 2012 survey by the National Council on Problem Gambling (NCG) found that those who gamble online have the poorest control.

 Source: https://app.msf.gov.sg/Portals/0/Summary/research/EDGD/Gambling%20participation%20survey%202011.pdf
For those who indulged in online gambling, 30.4% said they gambled for a longer period than they planned to, 33.3% gambled with more money than they planned and 29.2% gambled more frequently they planned to. 
Will launching the online gambling sites be like opening a Pandora Box that will create more issues in the future?