- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Messages
- 33,627
- Points
- 0
[h=2]ST deviously says more Punggol East residents ‘rooting for’ PAP[/h]
January 10th, 2013 |
Author: Editorial
ST
The Straits Times polled 50 residents in Punggol East and published its results on their paper today (10 Jan) with the heading, “ST poll: More rooting for PAP”.
It said that the opposition “may face an uphill battle in trying to secure control of the ward”.
The poll results are as follows:
In a way, ST is merely playing with words. It’s true that the 21 residents who are undecided may not be rooting for anyone now but to publish an article with a definitive heading stating “More rooting for PAP” is devious and totally unprofessional as a mainstream media. It exposes the complete biasness of ST.
The heading gives the impression that majority of Punggol East residents will be voting for PAP when its poll results do not support this. At best, with the results, ST can only claim that “ST poll: At least 38% rooting for PAP”.
ST then went on to say, “The edge that the ruling party appears to hold may be a reflection of the incumbency advantage it has always held in a middle class, traditionally PAP-leaning ward.”
What edge is ST talking about when 42% of the residents who were polled remain undecided? Perhaps they all wanted to root for opposition but were reluctant to speak out in front of ST reporters?
To further rally support for PAP, ST even talked about the old times in the 60s when the old Punggol ward would vote for PAP. It wrote, “The old Punggol ward has always voted for the PAP, even in the tumultuous 1960s.”
ST seems to think that time has stood still and that the residents of Punggol East are still the same old Punggol residents in the 60s.
In fact, ST has also got its facts wrong. A check on the Singapore Election Dept website reveals otherwise [Link]. There were only 2 general elections in the 60s: 1963 (Legislative Assembly GE) and 1968.
ST even quoted a taxi-driver saying, “It’s unfair that Michael Palmer had to resign because of that incident. We’ve all made mistakes in life, and that one thing undid all the good work he has done here.”
To be fair, perhaps ST should also interview some of the women voters and hear what they would say about Michael Palmer. Then ST would be in a better position to determine if Palmer’s scandal has affected PAP’s chances or not.
.
Join our TRE facebook page here: http://www.facebook.com/TREmeritus
.
The Straits Times polled 50 residents in Punggol East and published its results on their paper today (10 Jan) with the heading, “ST poll: More rooting for PAP”.
It said that the opposition “may face an uphill battle in trying to secure control of the ward”.
The poll results are as follows:
- 19 for PAP (38%)
- 10 for opposition (20%)
- 21 undecided (42%)
In a way, ST is merely playing with words. It’s true that the 21 residents who are undecided may not be rooting for anyone now but to publish an article with a definitive heading stating “More rooting for PAP” is devious and totally unprofessional as a mainstream media. It exposes the complete biasness of ST.
The heading gives the impression that majority of Punggol East residents will be voting for PAP when its poll results do not support this. At best, with the results, ST can only claim that “ST poll: At least 38% rooting for PAP”.
ST then went on to say, “The edge that the ruling party appears to hold may be a reflection of the incumbency advantage it has always held in a middle class, traditionally PAP-leaning ward.”
What edge is ST talking about when 42% of the residents who were polled remain undecided? Perhaps they all wanted to root for opposition but were reluctant to speak out in front of ST reporters?
To further rally support for PAP, ST even talked about the old times in the 60s when the old Punggol ward would vote for PAP. It wrote, “The old Punggol ward has always voted for the PAP, even in the tumultuous 1960s.”
ST seems to think that time has stood still and that the residents of Punggol East are still the same old Punggol residents in the 60s.
In fact, ST has also got its facts wrong. A check on the Singapore Election Dept website reveals otherwise [Link]. There were only 2 general elections in the 60s: 1963 (Legislative Assembly GE) and 1968.
In 1963 GE, PAP won the Punggol ward with only 47.8%. If it had not been for the 4-cornered fight in Punggol, the opposition would have won with 52.2%!
In 1968 GE, it was a walkover for PAP in Punggol because of the boycott from the Barisan Socialis.
Inevitably, ST has to talk about Michael Palmer since the call for Punggol East by-election is due to Palmer’s resignation. ST tried hard to paint a good picture for the former PAP MP, Michael Palmer, who was forced to resign over his extramarital affair with a female PA staff. ST said, “But residents who express support for the PAP also say they remember their former MP Michael Palmer as a likeable and hard-working MP – a sign that his scandal may not have affected the PAP’s chances too much.”In 1968 GE, it was a walkover for PAP in Punggol because of the boycott from the Barisan Socialis.
ST even quoted a taxi-driver saying, “It’s unfair that Michael Palmer had to resign because of that incident. We’ve all made mistakes in life, and that one thing undid all the good work he has done here.”
To be fair, perhaps ST should also interview some of the women voters and hear what they would say about Michael Palmer. Then ST would be in a better position to determine if Palmer’s scandal has affected PAP’s chances or not.
.
Join our TRE facebook page here: http://www.facebook.com/TREmeritus
.
