(Left to Right: DPM Teo Chee Hean, Bharati Jagdish, Ho Kwon Ping)

TOC received a tip that heavyweight Mediacorp reporter Bharati Jagdish has resigned over the recent misinformation debacle about a statement made by Banyan Tree Holdings founder and executive chairman, Ho Kwon Ping about ministerial salaries.

In the original interview published on ChannelNewsAsia on 30th September 2018, Mr Ho said that his salary is lower than that of ministers. The report then went on to state that Mr Ho’s salary inclusive of bonus and benefits comes up to well over S$2.5 million.

However, a few days later, after some confusion about what was actually said and addressed in the interview between the reporter and Mr Ho, CNA included a note to clarify that the report did not actually highlight Mr Ho’s total compensation during the interview at all and merely added it into the write-up post-interview. They also added a note to say that Mr Ho had clarified to TODAY that he was not corrected by the reporter during the interview and that he was referring to basic salaries, not total compensation as written by the reporter.

Unfortunately, the conversation around ministerial salaries was already in play. During his address in parliament, DPM Teo Chee Hean relied on that inaccurate (before the clarification) report about what Mr Ho has said and dismissed his statement as a misrepresentation that could lead to widespread representation.

While addressing questions, Mr Teo said “The subject of ministerial salaries is a difficult one to talk about, an emotional one. There are misconceptions, sometimes deliberately propagated. It is easily politicised. Even knowledgeable, well-meaning people who have a deep interest in politics can be susceptible to this.”

Those were some strong statement by Mr Teo about Mr Ho’s alleged ‘misrepresentations’.

Mr Teo said,

I read Mr Ho Kwon Ping’s extensive interview with CNA, which was published yesterday.

Among other things, he suggested pegging Ministerial salaries to the median salary of Singaporeans. He also suggested an independent Commission to decide the actual quantum. And Mr Louis Ng, in an earlier similar interview, also suggested that there should be public consultations…

…But even Mr Ho, who is well-informed and has a deep interest in politics, has some serious misconceptions. He claimed, for example, that his salary is lower than the Ministers.

Sir, fortunately, the interviewer had checked, done the homework, and pointed out to Mr Ho that his salary, including benefits and bonus – I would not mention the figure, but it is significantly higher than that of Ministers and certainly not lower than Minister’s salaries.

Sir, otherwise the misrepresentation could have been carried widely and spread more disinformation.

Unfortunately for him, Mr Teo was a victim of misinformation as well as he seems to have relied solely on CNA’s poorly worded original write that that caused the confusion in the first place. The article was only edited and updated by CNA on 6th October, five days after Mr Teo’s address to parliament.

(Left: Amended article, Right: Original before edit)

Mr Teo had also clearly not read Mr Ho’s clarification to TODAY – published on the same day that Mr Teo spoke in parliament – about what he actually meant to say.

This led to Mr Teo wrongly claiming that Mr Ho, though well-informed, had ‘serious misconceptions’ about ministerial salaries which spread as misinformation. While addressing CNA’s report, Mr Teo had also lauded the reporter, Ms Bharati, for doing her homework, unlike Mr Ho.

Unwittingly, Mr Teo propagated a misrepresentation as well, this one about Mr Ho and Ms Bharati.

Unfortunately, the reporter who wrote the CNA article in question was forced to resign for ‘making a fabrication’ in her article, according to a source. Ms Bharati had worded the write up in a way that implied she had done her homework before conducting the interview with Mr Ho and cross-examined him on the spot when he made that comment about how his salary was lower than that of ministers,  when in fact she did no such thing.

TOC reached out to CNA for their comment about Ms Bharati’s resignation. They merely stated that she was not forced to resign, implying that she left by her own decision.

We have also reached out to Ms Bharati for comments, however, she has not replied by the time this article was published.

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Defamation trial: PM Lee says he could not absolutely rule out disagreeing with siblings on ensuring LKY’s wish on 38 Oxley Road demolition

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong could not give a straight answer as…

Stalemate between authorities and residents over planned Chinese temple and columbarium

Dialogue session came to a stalemate between authorities and the future residents…

坐拥95亿元储备金 读者:国大欠人民一个解释

上月28日,本地媒体揭发新加坡国立大学坐拥95亿储备金,在去年3月底结束的财政年度中,收到2亿2700万元捐款,并赚取6亿200元的投资收入,成为我国最成功的筹款机构。 报导引起民间关注,此前亦有民众质疑,大学如果已拥有大量储备金,不明白大学还需要捐款者捐献的原因。“慈善捐款的饼就这么大,如果拿下一大块,就意味着留给其他慈善机构的就不多了。到底捐款和储备金,要多少才算足够?” 旅居台湾的博客鄞义林也曾评述,政府资助这些公共大学,但新加坡本地学府也是征收最贵学费的地区之一。 “换言之,国人已经为教育缴纳足够的税赋,然而行动党政府还要人民承担更多学费(全球第五贵),这些学府赚有盈余,反观不少毕业生毕业后需面对负债,这公平么?” 对于这些质疑声音,此前国大发言人曾解释,大学利用储备金赚取投资收入,用于资助不同的运作费,如奖学金、支持研究和推广企业化;大学也需要继续筹款让储备金处于健康水平,才能加强长期的财务可持续性。 在本月22日,再有另一读者陈文发(译音)在《海时》撰文,再度质疑国大坐拥的巨额储备金,理应用来应对学费增长的问题;也认为国大欠人民一个解释,究竟累积95亿元储备金要作何用? 他指出,一般非政府组织的标准是累积两年的储备,但国大的储备难道没有限制?他也吁请国大应暂停募款,直至其储备降至一定数额位置。 对此,国大高级副教务长陈清贤教授特别在《海时》论坛答复陈文发的质问,解释截至去年3月31日财年,95亿储备金的架构: 其中有59亿元是捐赠基金(Endowed funds) 特定用途的非捐赠金捐献约八亿元 累计运营盈余28亿元(占30巴仙)…

Public facilities need to be improved

Tan Kin Lian provides personal accounts of his experiences with public facilities.