As the saga of Singapore Press Holdings (SPH) and an NTU student with COVID-19 continued, the public was previously updated with a response provided by the editor of NewsHub at SPH, Han Yong May on 13 May.
This incident began when an NTU student, Quah Zheng Jie, called out Chinese daily Lianhe Wanbao in a Facebook post, for fabricating an interview based on his COVID-19 experience.
Yesterday (14 May), Quah Zheng Jie wrote a Facebook note in response to Ms Han’s open letter. Mr Quah revealed that apart from the apology coming from Ms Han, he had also received an e-mail response from SPH’s legal counsel.
Mr Quah expressed that he was disappointed that both responses did not fully address his points that he raised in his first write-up.
In his latest open letter, the NTU student wanted to point out that “James” – an acquaintance of his – did somehow fabricate his story, despite Ms Han claimed that “James'” story was based on extracts from Mr Quah’s Instagram Stories.

Debunking “James'” fake news

Considering how “James” framed the story in a way that Mr Quah contracted COVID-19 when he “stayed at home” during the Circuit Breaker (CB) period, the student decided to reveal the truth of his whereabouts and process, debunking “James'” story all at once.
Mr Quah described that a week before the commencement of CB, he did go out of his home for exercise, visit his friend, and attend medical appointments.
“James” claimed that during CB, Mr Quah stayed at home and did home-based learning. However, the latter revealed that he went to the doctor five days prior to his diagnosis and that he never did any home-based learning.
Mr Quah went on to admit that most symptoms “James” reported were accurate, however, the student questioned how the reporter managed to obtain the information – losing the sense of taste – since he never publicised this symptom onto social media.
Apart from the factual information above, he corrected “James” that he went for a swab test on the night of 13 May, instead of the morning of that very day.
In regards to reporting Mr Quah’s admission to Ng Teng Fong General Hospital, he revealed that he told “James” via personal message before getting to know that the latter is a reporter.
After knowing that “James” is a reporter, the student told him not to publish this piece of information.
Even after denying permission to publish his location, the reporter deliberately ignored it and included the information in his story anyway.
Mr Quah proceeded to condemn how inaccurate the published story was when “James” decided to make up stories about his family as he never once publicised any updates regarding his family.
Seeing how “James'” story reported that Mr Quah’s family had undergone swab tests, the student clarified that none of his family screened for COVID-19. Instead, they were given Quarantine Orders, and a swab test would be required if symptoms appeared.
He had also clarified that his parents work in the essential services industry, thus, they had to travel to work every day during CB. They were in fact, not “staying at home” all the time during this period.

Source: Quah Zheng Jie / Facebook

Mr Quah baffled at how the fake news managed to be approved

As Ms Han explained that “James” is a fairly new reporter at the organisation, Mr Quah wondered why his fake news could be approved by editors and typesetters.
Especially when this particular story made it onto the front page, the student assumed that this news must have been viewed as “important” and “exclusive”.
Mr Quah had also expressed that he and his family were psychologically affected by how easily identifiable he was in the fake news, even though his surname and family circumstances had been modified to cover up his identity.

Questioning the purpose of this fake news

As claimed by SPH, this particular story was published as a follow-up to the public’s concerns about the number of untraceable COVID-19 community cases.
However, Mr Quah noted that the entire fake news had created a certain level of paranoia among the public who had read it. He pointed out how SPH had “downplayed” his pre-CB routine, as well as making up how his parents “stayed at home” during CB and would still “risk” contracting the coronavirus.
He questioned the intention behind publishing this fake news, assuming that the organisation clearly knew that it is unproven and unconsented.

Publishing his story against his wishes

It was horrifying when Mr Quah found out that his personal story was being published onto Lianhe Wanbao without his consent. He was concerned that “James” published his story anyway even after rejecting the reporter.
The student was upset that SPH defended their actions “by implying that his social media was publicly available”, without acknowledging their fake story concocted based on his Instagram Stories.
Basically, he wanted to question if the media has the right to publish citizens’ personal information and experience even when he had already said “no”.
This entire “NTU student versus SPH” saga mainly stemmed from “James” using Mr Quah’s story without consent.
Not forgetting to acknowledge the importance of reporters’ role, Mr Quah hoped that fresh journalists like “James” can be supervised more.

“Therefore, I hope that fresh journalists (like James) can be supervised more, with additional layers of vetting of their publication drafts. This ensures accuracy of information, allowing the media to fulfil their sacred responsibilities.”

Regardless of what kind of disciplinary actions “James” would be facing, Mr Quah said that he would respect SPH’s decisions. He also thanked SPH for their swift response in setting up an independent committee to review this matter.
To disclaim the relationship between the student and “James”, he had also revealed that both of them only met once in the past, and “James” is merely an acquaintance. Mr Quah clarified that he and the reporter are in fact, not at all close.
Lastly, the student declared that this would be the last time he would address this issue against SPH and Lianhe Wanbao because he was physically and mentally drained.
He ended his Facebook note with a compilation of his Instagram Stories that showed his experience at EXPO.

Source: Quah Zheng Jie / Facebook
 
 

Subscribe
Notify of
3 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Concerned daughter shares story of mother being asked to stop cooking “curry”

For months, the parents of Lisa Hussin had to endure complaints from…

SDP calls for inquiry into 14-year-old Benjamin Lim's case

In a press release issued today by the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP),…

“隧道尽头仍有微光” 陈智成吁勿轻视手中一票

前政治拘留者陈智成,于昨日(10日)在脸书上发文,提醒公民勿轻视手中的一票,应善用手中的一票选择适合新加坡的国会。 他表示,2020年对大部分人而言无疑是悲惨一年,然而在这艰难的一年,始终等到了大选的来临,意味着公众的声音能够再次被听到。 “无论如何,隧道尽头仍有微光。这道微弱的灯光,能够指引我们如何才能重建和振兴被拖累的社会。大选即将到来了。我们手中的选票很重要。我们的声音在此次成为了焦点。” “是的。他们给了我们许多止痛药和压制剂。但是,许多问题仍悬而未决,有些甚至已经病入膏肓了。” 他直指,近几年,除了主流媒体的表现令人沮丧,许多“重量级”领导如同给了许多止痛药和压制剂,尽管许多人声称已实现承诺,但仍有数据证实这些承诺未能一一兑现。许多问题至今仍悬而未决,甚至已出新病入膏肓。 “指点我们该如何投票” “许多夸夸其谈的“重量级”的领导,夸夸其谈领导能力,以及我们应该如何投票。他们声称已兑现了无数承诺。他们给了我们许多止痛药和压制剂,但许多的问题仍是悬而未决,有些问题甚至已病入膏肓。” 这无疑让公众相当绝望,因此陈智成提醒公众,即使失望,仍可透过选票改变现状。他形容选票如同自身的筹码,以手中的一票,实现对国家的愿望。对于投票,他解释,我们无法决定谁当总理,但可以选择形成怎样的国会。国会作为最高决策机构,投票选择为人民发声的代议士,才是选举的宗旨。 “通过选票,是我们改变现状的一种选择。总的来说就是利用你的选票作为筹码。” 纵观新加坡的政治历史,陈智成表示,新加坡自1968年至2011年期间属于政治黑暗时期,因为我国从未拥有完整的投票权。基本上,选举在提名日结束后均以结束,尔后的国会只沦为如料理家庭杂事的议事厅。 然而,在过去两届大选中却奇迹般出现反转,反对党逐渐获选民支持,支持率达四成以上。尽管如此,但他们在国会里却只能拥有7巴仙的席位,也意味着现有的政权仍具有优势。 陈智成认为,在如今的制度下,唯一可以改变前途的方式即是通过投票箱,因为公民活动空间已完全被侵占,即使是分享脸书或公共场合发声,都已成问题,所以手中的一票就是削减执政党的优势。…

Khaw Boon Wan: Emergence of shared bicycles and e-scooters ended SG’s first automated underground bicycle parking system

The rapid growth in popularity of shared bicycles and e-scooters in Singapore…