GMT : Tue, 21 Feb 2017, 02:10

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
  • Tatman:

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

    GD Star Rating
  • 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

    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.


    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

Leave a Reply

 characters available


Members Login
Sponsored Advertisement

Search On TR Emeritus
Sponsored Advertisement

Sponsored Advertisement
Self-SupportYour Ad HerecPanel
Most Recent Comments
  • Lee Kim Chew: This is, I’m sure, a heartfelt comment. My reaction is, besides the lament, what exactly is the...
  • Taleban: Who said they don’t understand the struggles of the working class? You see all the prices increase...
  • Bebe: Talking about CPF; even if u met all the criterias to withdraw at 55, they still keep about 40% of the...
  • Bebe: What CFE committee? If they can churned out innovative strategies; they keep for themselves first loh! Give it...
  • Out of touch: With the bad economy,it make more sense to reduce business costs and not increase it. Better to save...
  • Reduce FTs: Better to reduce FTs and put Singaporean in charge again. Not many FTs are real talent or better than...
  • Asset rich Cash poor: Many Singaporean are Asset rich and Cash poor. Resulting is lower quality of life. Our Housing...
  • Daft 70%: Annoyed: Seriously look at your water bill. The amount you are paying for water is less is minimal. For a...
  • Out of touch: Look like Policy maker is out of touch with the common man,especially the bottom 30% and retiree…...
  • John Doe: I agree wholly whole heartedly, unbiasedly with the writer. There are pple who don’t have deep enough...
  • Abolish Water Tax Please!: 30% increase in water pricing will hurt many low and middle income families. Time to...
Support TR Emeritus
Support TR Emeritus:
Other Amount:
Readers Statistic
Latest Statistic