Was NSP’s Embargoed Policy Proposal Circulated to 3rd parties by ST?
On Sat 28 June 2014, NSP invited The Straits Times (ST) to attend our Press Conference to be held at 7.45 pm, 2 July 2014 at which NSP would present our Electoral Reform Proposal. On Sat 28 June 2014, ST responded to accept our invitation and requested for a copy of the Proposal.
We were happy to provide ST with an advanced (but embargoed) copy of our Proposal to help them be better prepared for our Press Conference.
On 1 July 2014 08:15 pm, we replied to ST’s request for a copy of our Proposal as follows:
“Please find attached the embargoed copy of our CRM Proposal. We will be releasing the definitive version to the public domain after the Press Conference. Any changes between the attached embargoed version and the definitive version are likely to be minor. Should there be any changes, I will let you know what they are.”
On the header of each page of the Embargoed Copy was printed in red: “EMBARGOED COPY (VER 13.1 1 JULY 2014)”
The Embargoed Copy itself contained no expiry date, but had a version date. Our email to ST did not indicate any expiry date for the Embargoed Copy. In fact, we had indicated that there may be changes to the Embargoed Copy. We promised that any changes between the Embargoed Copy and the Release Version would be highlighted to ST.
Breach of Confidence?
On Wed 2 July 2014, ST attended our Press Conference which took place between 8pm to 9pm.
Early morning on Thurs 3 July 2014 at 1:24am, we emailed ST a copy of the Release Version. We also attached a Tracked Version highlighting the changes between the Embargoed Version and the Release Version, in fulfilment of our promise to ST.
Later at about 1pm that day, on Thursday 3 July 2014, we posted the Release Version of the Proposal in the public domain.
However, earlier at 6:02am on Thurs 3 July 2014, ST published its article captioned “NSP calls for GRCs to be scrapped“. The article provided comments on our Proposal given by the following persons:
- Institute of Policy Studies senior research fellow Dr Gillian Koh
- National University sociologist Dr Tan Ern Ser
- Mr Zaqy Mohamad, PAP Member of Parliament for Chua Chu Kang GRC
It was clear to us that the Embargoed Copy ST received from us had been circulated to individuals who are not from ST, in breach of confidence. We asked ST if it wanted to comment.
Phone Call from the Writer of the ST Article
On 5 July 2014 at about 4pm, our Secretary-General (SG) had a phone call from the writer of that ST article. The writer said that she had called to find out exactly what were our concerns and how she could address them.
Our SG told her that it is important and necessary for NSP to know whether ST has the same understanding as us of the term “EMBARGOED COPY”.
Our SG then explained to her what she believed the term meant. After hearing our SG’s definition, the writer tried to argue about the Embargo being lifted after 9.30pm. Our SG however pointed out to her that she is not allowed to circulate our embargoed copy to third parties, and not whether it is released/published after 9.30pm.
The writer then confirmed that she did not furnish our Embargoed Copy to any of the 3 people mentioned in her article. She claimed that all she did was to summarise/describe our proposals to her interviewees and then asked her interviewees what they thought about it.
To drive her point home, the ST writer mentioned that she even contacted a Member of Parliament from the opposition, who declined to give any comment on the basis that he had not read our Proposal.
To this our SG remarked that it did appear from her article that the 3 people she cited commented as if they were privy to a copy of our Proposal. Moreover, from the public conversation thread between Dr Koh and NSP member Ravi Philemon on FB, it seemed as if Dr Koh had read the Proposal.
Our SG also remarked that if her 3 interviewees gave their comments on the basis of her summarisation/description, but without the benefit of having actually read our Proposals, then their comments are pretty worthless; but that if indeed the writer did not furnish a copy of our Proposal to any third parties, then we have no issue. In which case, the writer may consider replying to us via email with such clarification.
The writer then said that since she has clarified this with our SG on the phone, if there was a need for her to reply NSP’s email?
Our SG told her that the phone conversation with the writer is a personal contact between the writer and our SG, and that her email as NSP’s SG still stands. She reminded the writer that in our email, we invited ST to comment. Our SG told the writer to make her own decision whether to reply or not reply us.
Another Phone Call
On 7 July 2014 at about 11.30am, our SG had another phone call from the writer of that article. In her phone call the writer told our SG that she checked her email and realised that she had indeed forwarded a copy of our embargoed copy to two academics sometime during office hours on 2 July 2014, and that one of the recipients was Dr Tan, whose comments were cited by the writer in her article. She said that the other academic did not respond to her email.
The writer said that she did not forward any document to Dr Koh and that she did not know how Dr Koh obtained her copy of our Embargoed Copy.
The ST writer apologised for telling our SG in her previous phone conversation that she did not circulate the Embargoed Copy to anyone when in fact she had done so to two academics.
The writer went on to explain that she had been instructed by her supervisor to seek the views of experts as part of her write up on our Press Conference. To our SG’s question as to how the writer could expect to obtain meaningful responses from her interviewees by simply forwarding our 5,000 word Proposal to them, expecting them to respond immediately, the writer explained that she wrote a cover message identifying the issues or posing the specific questions that she was seeking their responses to.
Our SG told the writer that she found it unsettling that ST’s method of covering a Press Conference to deliver a 5,000 word Proposal for Electoral Reform would be to seek the views of experts on the eve of the Press Conference by serving them with:
- an Embargoed Copy of our Proposal; and
- specific questions for their responses; and then delivering the comments of such experts to a captive audience as if these were duly considered opinions, when in fact they were off the cuff remarks to packaged questions.
Our SG asked the writer whether or not she would be responding to my email.
ST’s Assistant Political Editor Replies
On 9 July 2014 at 1.14pm, the Assistant Political Editor of ST responded via email to say the following:
Dear Jeannette,
I refer to your email to Rachel on July 5, 2014.
I understand she has already explained to you the events that had occurred. The National Solidarity Party’s report was sent to two news makers telling them that it was embargoed till 930pm, with the clear understanding that they would not circulate it to others. This was to get comments on NSP ‘s proposals for our story the next day. There was no intention to breach confidence, and I would like to assure you that we do respect embargoes.
I hope this clarifies any misunderstanding that may have arisen, and that we can continue to work together going forward.
Sincerely,
Robin Chan
Assistant Political Editor
The Straits Times
NSP’s SG replies to ST’s Editor
Our SG replied to the Assistant Political Editor of The Straits Times as such:
Dear Robin
Thank you for your email below of 9 July 2014.
(1) Circulation of Embargoed Copy of our Paper to Third Parties
We note that Straits Times (ST) had indeed circulated the Embargoed Copy of our Electoral Reform Proposal Paper to third parties without our consent.
The Embargoed Copy is not a press release. It is the final draft of a 5,000 word paper, the definitive version of which was scheduled for public release after its presentation at the Press Conference.
We had even indicated to your reporter, Rachel Au-Yong, that there might be changes between the embargoed version and the definitive version, and we promised to inform her of any such changes.
We had advanced ST the Embargoed Copy for purposes of the Press Conference, to help your reporter better prepare herself for the Press Conference.
On every page of the document is printed the words “EMBARGOED COPY (VER 13.1 1 JULY 2014)”. Nowhere on the document is any embargo expiry time stated.
We did not expect ST to forward our Embargoed Copy to anyone outside of ST. The information given by ST to the third parties that it was embargoed till 9.30pm of 2 July 2014 – is inaccurate as there is no stated expiry for the embargo. We note that ST also requested the third parties not to circulate it to others – but such request is clearly non-binding on
the third parties.(2) Solicitation of Bias, Pre-emptory Comments
We note that only hours before our 8pm Press Conference, ST circulated the Embargoed Copy to two newsmakers in order to seek comments from them ahead of our Press Conference.
The very next morning (3 July 2014), Straits Times published an article captioned “NSP calls for GRCs to be scrapped”. The article provided comments on our Proposal paper given by the following persons described by the article as ‘political analysts’ (none of whom attended our Press Conference):
(1) Institute of Policy Studies senior research fellow Gillian Koh;
(2) National University sociologist Tan Ern Ser; and
(3) Mr Zaqy Mohamad, PAP Member of Parliament for Chua Chu Kang GRCWe do not know who (if any) of those three persons were among the two newsmakers ST had circulated our Embargoed Copy to.
If they had received our Embargoed Copy, it is unlikely that they would have had the time to read and digest the substance of our 5,000 word draft paper before giving their comments to ST.
If they gave their comments not as a result of having read our Proposal, but on the basis of a description of our Proposal, then we wonder how did ST describe our Proposal and whether the description of our Proposal provided to them was fair and objective, or selective and biased.
Moreover, if they had given their comments in response to certain questions ST had posed to them, it is not known from the article what the questions were or how they were framed.
Yet, anyone reading the ST article will naturally assume that those three persons gave their comments after some thought and due consideration of our Proposal – which was not the case at all.
By soliciting comments ahead of our Press Conference and public release, and packaging them as substantive thoughts from ‘political analysts’ (which term connotes independence and objectivity), ST has pre-empted the conversation which we had wanted to start with the presentation of our Proposal at the Press Conference by introducing bias at the onset.
What is more, the public is not aware of the limited extent to which the three persons had considered our Proposal before giving their comments on it.
How useful to the public are “on-the-spot” comments given on the basis of a description of the Proposal provided to the commentator?
The method of choosing our national leaders is serious issue. On such substantive matters, do not the public deserve to read opinions which are arrived at after the opinion maker has read up and has mulled over the issues before speaking about it?
What is the urgency of seeking opinions from ‘political analysts’ for publication the next morning after the Press Conference?
We find it difficult to understand why ST would want to seek comments from newsmakers on a 5,000 word Proposal for Electoral Reform ahead of a Press Conference to present the public release of the same.
The foregoing is intended to communicate our perspective to ST in the interest of Singaporean readers, as they currently do not enjoy a wide source of local news.
Regards
Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss, Secretary-General
NATIONAL SOLIDARITY PARTY
397 Jalan Besar #02-01A, Singapore 209007
Website: http://nsp.sg
To date we have no further responses from ST on this matter.
*Article first appeared on http://nsp.sg/2014/07/18/selection-of-national-leaders-why-introduce-bia...