Ban on election advertising – Heads I win, tails you lose?

It was reported yesterday (16 Feb) that the police have issued stern warnings to individuals for breaching election advertising ban on Cooling-Off Day (6 May 2016) and Polling Day (7 May 2016) during the Bt Batok by-election last year.

In particular, the police issued warnings to the editors running TISG news site.

“The prohibition of election advertising on Cooling-Off Day and Polling Day allows voters time to step back from the excitement and emotion of campaigning, to reflect on the issues at stake before casting their votes,” said a police spokesman.

“The Cooling-Off Day breaches detected during the 2016 Bukit Batok by-election go against the spirit of the election rule. Left unchecked, such breaches can undermine public trust in Singapore’s electoral process.”

In the case of TISG, it was the Assistant Returning Officer of the Elections Department under PMO, who filed a police report against it for publishing 3 offending articles on those 2 days:

1. “5 highlights of DPM’s speech — Tharman wants to debate with Chee, but not in Parliament”
2. “Workers’ Party and the Bukit Batok by-election — What the WP members said” – what WP members said about the by-election before the actual campaigning but TISG unfortunately repeated it during those 2 banned days
3. “Tan Cheng Bock denies involvement in posting by irrational group of PAP fans” – a report about Dr Tan countering a pro-PAP Facebook page saying that he is supporting Dr Chee.

Meanwhile, these prohibition rules do not apply to any mainstream media. Election Dept said: “There are some exceptions to the prohibitions of knowingly publishing or displaying election advertising on Cooling-off Day and Polling Day: a) Reports in the newspapers, on radio and television relating to election matters…”

So, for example, if the same article (3) above appeared on ST, ST will not be in trouble. And that means ST can even potentially publish a personal interview with PAP candidate Murali on Cooling-Off Day, showing how good a family man he is, and still get away with it – all in the name of “relating to election matters”!

Coming back to what the police spokesman said, can I ask how is allowing mainstream media to give, say, more coverages to the PAP candidate during the 2 banned days not going against the spirit of the election rule?

Doesn’t media reporting of candidates during the 2 banned days also undermine public trust in Singapore’s electoral process?

Err… “Heads I win, tails you lose”?

*The above is a Facebook post by We want Minister Grace Fu to resign.

 

 

Sponsored Content

4 Responses to “Ban on election advertising – Heads I win, tails you lose?”

  • rukidding:

    I believe that the amount of New Citizens have now reach a point where it can sufficiently “displaced” and “cause a sure win” probability against any opposing votes !

    Thus,…the Bo Chap attitude towards all the so called “Noise” !

    Sinkies have ardy been ‘fcuk” !

    Period !

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Tatman:

    Why PAP scums like Jason Chua, Straits Times, traitors Chiams is not given any of those bullshit warnings?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Hougang resident:

    In this case the Cooling day laws should state categorically that interviews by Msm for ruling party members are exceptions to the law!

    Perhaps Shame should rewrite the laws n have them agreed in Parliament. In the meantime we can only blame 69.9% of our countrymen for this charade!

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • PAP gross CORRUPTIONS:

    Many of PAP’s SG statues, laws, ministerial statements ARE ALWAYS INVARIABLY ‘open-ended’ – this ENABLE the PAP lawmakers to expend leeway when NEEDED especially when in cases where OWN interests ARE AT STAKES.

    When leeway are deemed and executed on-guise as ‘dependent on cases by case basis’ – THIS GIVES CERTAINTY to a PAP upper hand to exercise ‘discretion’ WHICH ONLY definitely SERVES to advantage themselves, whether TO PRONOUNCE GUILT to own people or not, which USUALLY is a NON guilty verdict WHEN offences WERE COMMITTED.

    Examples ARE HUGELY APLENTY – Ting Pei Ling WAS LEFT OFF SCOTT-FREE without ENCUMBEANCES when SHE was CLEARLY GUILTY of electoral OFFENCES.

    One also REMEMBER a judge, an IMPARTIAL judge, under PAP’s payroll ADJUDGE PAP election candidates NOT GUILTY when they GUILTILY violate CRSYTAL clear offences inside a POLLING station whose law clearly stated no candidate INSIDE.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...

Leave a Reply

 characters available


SPONSORED CONTENT


Member Services
Members LoginSelf-ClassifiedsSelf-Support
Sponsored Advertisement

Search On TR Emeritus
Sponsored Advertisement








Most Recent Comments
  • Good riddance: It’s so sweet that they spelt his name wrong. Says so much that he made no impression whatsoever...
  • Political?: When Trump banned Muslim into US. SG keeps quiet. When AY stirred it, muz send to IMH? Actually is not...
  • Hell o: Amos finally you are free but we are not. Anyway congratulation.
  • Sharon Ann Gabriel: It was more of PM Lee on trial rather than Amos Yee. The PAP government has been declared an...
  • Perspective: Even Judge Samuel Cole who granted him political asylum concluded that Amos’ conviction for...
  • hhg: But they still overwhelmingly voted PAP, they think pap doing fantastic job. Pap ministers can afford meals in...
  • Bad Boy: https://wallstreetcn.com/artic les/3001184 做空者浑水创始人:将发布对另一家港股公司做空报告
Announcement
Support TR Emeritus
Support TR Emeritus:
Other Amount:
Free Classifieds
  • Sample of a Free Ad

    . This ia a sample of how a Free Ad (without imag...
    [Read more]

  • Enjoy stunning views at half the rental rates

    Now Starting at just $3.60 psf per month, we have ...
    [Read more]

  • [$9 Shareme Headphone or $99 Karaoke Sound Bar] HD 1280x800, 3000 Lumens, Wifi, Bluetooth, Android I

    AFFORDABLE HIGH DEFINITION HOME ENTERTAINMENT PACK...
    [Read more]

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Readers Statistic
Latest Statistic