~ By Cheong Yaoming ~

After our story about the STOMP vs SMRT Open Door saga broke yesterday, STOMP released an article about the investigations involving SMRT and Ms Samantha Francis (aka STOMPer wasabi) later on the same day.

This new article does not answer any of the questions posed in our story “Who is telling the truth – STOMP or SMRT?” In fact STOMP is merely rehashing The Straits Times article (22 June 2012, Fri), no new facts or insights were given.

Frustrated readers let STOMP know exactly how they felt. By the time this article was published, there were 72 comments – mostly agreeing with SMRT’s conclusions and questioning Ms Francis’ version of events. Furthermore ‘The Mood Meter’, which allows STOMP readers to vote on their reaction to the article had a resounding 69% giving it a ‘Fail’ rating.

Some readers pointed out the alleged inaccuracies in STOMP’s photos:

 

westdigi said “I fully agree that the picture was cropped with intention. but personally i dun think it has been cropped by the stomper herself, most likely it’s cropped by the stomp editor himself. carefully cropped out the doors so it will looked like the picture was taken in the cabin, and reason is to create curiosity from the public and so as to generate more views and discussions. ”

jimkb2010 said “Westdigi: Agree. Original submission was never cropped and it was the work of the editor after some readers had doubts about pic taken with moving train…

I stay in pasir ris and I use mrt for the past 15 yrs. the surrounding is so Pasir ris like, especially the 2 lamp post lights pointing to the right. 1 evening I will go and take some pics to confirm

Stomp: can you explain why one of the photos being black-out? Left and right side…This is not the same photo we have seen earlier…are you trying to conceal the fact that the pic was taken outside the train…”

 

It was also telling how STOMP moderators deleted comments of some readers which only served to further fan the flames of discontent:

 

blackberrytart said “Seriously, if you are gonna delete comments, why put this damn article here in the first place? Moderator, please wake up. Seriously.”

gambit said “By removing some earlier comments here, already proven something is not right.”

 

Hopefully the lack of an official explanation from STOMP is a sign that they are meticulously investigating the situation before going public and not lying low in hope that the situation blows over.

 

You May Also Like

数男子多功能停车场健身

网友发现四名男子在大巴窑一带的组屋多功能停车场处,进行健身运动。 不过,根据政府官网建议,民众受促在外进行激烈运动可暂时脱口罩,不过也要单独运动,避免群聚。 署名Shun的网友在脸书群组All SingaporeStuff分享了约19秒的视频,指有年轻人在大巴窑2巷第120A组屋的多功能停车场进行健身运动。 视频中只见三名裸着上身和一名身穿黄衣的男子在停车场一角,分开进行健身运动。大部分网民都纷纷对他们的行为按赞,认为他们有做好安全距离措施,也没有造成他人困扰,并善用空间。 不少网民也促请偷拍的网友不妨到罗拔申码头走一趟,或许会抓到更多违反防疫措施的人们,所录下的视频还可以成为证据。

Later CECA reviews show India continually wants more professionals to work in S’pore

During the Parliamentary debate over the India-Singapore Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA)…

马国希盟政府提2030愿景,盼人民共享繁荣

马国希盟政府在届满一周年的执政后,于5月9日由首相敦马在布城会展中心发表《新马来西亚一周年》“共享繁荣”的新经济模式,缩短人民之间的财富差距,确保所有种族、阶层与城乡都能在未来2030年享有“更合适的生活水平。 马哈迪表示该新经济模式将会取代以往的“2020年宏愿”,因为以马国目前现状,已经无法成功达成“2020年宏愿”。 2020年宏愿是首相马哈迪于1991年第六个大马计划的会议上提出的政治方针,以“在2020年成为先进国“作为国家的奋斗目标。 马哈迪认为“过去十年,国家的经济已经截然不同,以目前的经济体系已无法完成当初设下的宏愿,成为先进国。他也指出,马国的经济模式在过去十年间因各项大型计划而负债累累。 另一方面,马国有逾70巴仙的工作职缺是低技术性的工作,大部分的产业拥有者也转向寻找价格更低的外籍劳工,而未来主要的经济发展需仰赖大部分城市的发展,并边缘化业主的权益与发展,以及提供本地人更多就业机会。 马哈迪表示政府所采用的“共荣计划”是旨在全民能够共享繁荣,也说明希望能够缩小各个阶层、种族、领域等之间悬殊的贫富差距,也同时能够增进人民的购买力。 “简单地说,共荣计划希望能于2030年达到稳定发展,促使马来西亚成为有包容性与公平的社会,在多元种族、阶层甚至是地域性的差距下,仍能保持稳定和谐的发展。”马哈迪说。 拟三大目标,7大策略 马哈迪以三大主要目标来概括“共荣计划”。 解决贫富差距 创造稳定增长的经济体系,让全体人民能够参与其中 带领马来西亚成为亚洲的经济轴心…

Netizens sympathise elderly taxi driver for causing fatal accident after he passed out as tumour in his liver ruptured

On March 22 this year, 72-year-old taxi driver, who didn’t know he…