In the fast-moving world of public relations and campaigns, clarity is currency. Yet in recent months, a series of puzzling missteps has raised fundamental questions about authority and accountability, specifically concerning a local subsidiary firm, and the conduct of their client, a communications or public relations’ Agency.
This matter primarily arose from the non-payment of invoice(s) to Media, issued pursuant to additional Requests made by this Agency. Prior to any such Requests being entertained, it was expressly stated in writing, that a discussion pertaining to an undefined Fee would be required. The availability of this Fee, was confirmed ahead of a meeting attended in 2022, and without such agreement in writing, it was stated that the meeting would not be attended.
Despite standard follow-ups conducted in or around 2023 and mid-2024, a slate of frivolous, groundless, or vexatious civil claims emerged around August 2024. These appear to be thinly veiled attempts to exert pressure or coerce high-quality Media work without proper remuneration, ostensibly to fulfil Requests originally initiated by this Agency. Unorthodox and unethical comparisons were raised for standard Media rate cards or Advertising Kits available all along, via this Agency’s local communications’ or public relation’s circle, through additional disclosure of confidential commercial terms, assigned separately, even as the Agency responsible for inciting these groundless claims, continued to withhold the Fees. Similar errant conduct was soon mirrored by other communications or public relations Agencies.
It appears that these Agency claims were made with further intention to deflect non-payment, yet were still expecting Media to churn the work, by unjustifiably mocking some individuals in the current editorial team, and irrelevantly raising former freelancers. Some were originally tasked to collect on standard media fees, since such Agencies do not guarantee media coverage to their secondary precinct brands. However, they were unable to do so, as it later emerged that the media exchange of goodwill gratuities—meant strictly for editorial value—had been redirected, without approval, to a social activism, welfare application. This constituted an unapproved use of media assets for an external purpose, outside of standard editorial or commercial scope. In any case, usage of such items, has to be approved, via proper channels and protocols.
Of which, any company, had long moved past such micro matters in 2021. In the interest of community support and empathy, we urge all LGBTQ+ individuals, interested in coverage to follow proper channels and not be exploited, or to be outed involuntarily. There is also no further association, for any other matter in relation to unauthorised human tissue trading, defined as an exchange of reward, benefit, including media value, to promote or encourage, “the movement of life from one hand to another“, by using money, amongst other things.
All other Agencies that have not submitted such Requests are encouraged to continue with standard customary pitching. Any advertorial or commissioned work, involving agreed Fees, will be invoiced accordingly.
The PR Agency, the Law Firm, and the Awkward Silence That Followed
The groundless claims made by this agency, were issued by the law firm, without any formal letter of authority from the Agency, to allow them to commence civil claims, not just on behalf of the Agency, but by a third-party, of which they were relying instead on a soon-to-expire, short, fixed-term communications or public relations retainer.
Nonetheless, in the spirit of professional due process, a meeting was granted on or around 27 August 2024, acceded by qualified professionals or the designated law firm assigned to this agency. The layman in question failed to appear and subsequently attempted to additionally reference a signer who, as it turns out, had already departed the resort in or around July 2024. Such behaviour raises concern of backdoor methods, to seek such deals, resembling extortion, by naming, doxxing, listing many other third-party, unrelated brands, parties and more, rather than professionally engaging via the designated firms to close on these existing Media invoices, as Requested for by the Agencies.
Name-dropping this individual, a respected senior leader, in an attempt to deflect from basic payment obligations, in relation to guaranteeing media pitches, for all of their signed clients, was both inappropriate and misleading. The agency had no public relations retainer with this particular company, nor any authority to speak on its behalf. Such conduct constitutes a flagrant misuse of professional resources, unnecessarily burdening institutions with matters lacking both standing and merit.
In September 2024, the legal firm requested that a solicitor’s undertaking be provided, conditional on receipt of service Fees. That undertaking was not honoured, service Fees also not received, raising fundamental questions of character and professional integrity.
By October, the situation had further backslid. A tangle of non-civil accounts, based on their unilateral promises, and the absence of a solicitor’s undertaking added to the confusion. A formal, professionally written Offer to Settle was issued. Concerns remain that WE Communications’ Managing Director, a Singaporean national, acted without any formal mandate, in a personal capacity, perhaps in a bid to solicit work, from the resort, as he knew that it flowed from a third-party client, was ending at the end of December 2024.
A qualified individual, as early as December 2024, granted time for rectification. Yet, to date, there has been no confirmation that the Partner at the firm ensured the requested documents were properly reviewed, entered, or secured.
The Engagement That Was, Or Was Not
Despite repeated requests, no letter of engagement has been produced that confirms WE Communications’ authority to represent precinct bodies, in filing such a groundless claims, much more so to enter such meritless civil action on reliance of their budgets. Yet, communications to media including those from junior executives, T, N and M, continued to assert links to this tourism authority, to speak to Others’, or some decision makers, despite there being an understanding that the two year fixed term retainer were coming to an end. T, N and M’s identities are anonymised, and Popspoken does not devolve to such manipulative tactics that WE Communications’ resorted to, as it upholds a much higher standard of media ethics.
This presents a governance issue. The scope of WE Communications’ formal engagement terms with its client was sought for. To the best of our understanding, a Public Relations’ Agency, typically they are tasked simply to liaise with approved Media correspondents directly.
The distinction is not trivial. They did not have any remit whatsoever to promise or coordinate mega lifestyle events on behalf of any such public or private entities.
To be precise, a public relations campaign may proceed only after a confirmed event is in place, and even then, under strict embargo protocols. To disregard these terms, then to talk mindlessly about other unrelated matters, to bring attention to them, not only violates industry standards, it risks the credibility of high-value events and may lead organisers to withdraw future usage of such communications or public relations’ Agencies entirely. Further, any freelancer without a cleared publication or Media accreditation, should not be assigned anything.
Promising events without authority, capacity, or contractual delivery rights is not just unprofessional, it is misrepresentation.
Closing the Loop
In the broad spirit of resolution, a sensible call was on the firm to close the one-off, seasonal matter of outstanding Goodwill Media fees, that do not represent the Advertising Kit rates, which comes with specific tailoring for each brand, and to confirm that no misinformation has been seeded regarding entities they had additionally approached, without merit, claim or more, to strike fear and disarray. Of which, whether or not it was a backdoor attempt to pitch, then secure communications or public relations work, remains unclear.
If these representations were indeed made without standing and they continue speaking to third parties’ by referencing undefined Fees or Brands they have no cleared mandate on, since the ambit of their scope which is limited to only Public Relations’ communications’ correspondence with Media, we reserve the right to further escalate, including, if necessary, notifying in the same manner, other known clients. For example, the firm announced on their own Public Website, that do not require further digging, unnecessary doxxing or more, that expect, at minimum, the same rigour the firm demonstrated that its self-published deal, for any other similar player in the Alcohol category, that Others’ also have existing deals with, which closed in Q4 2024, under the qualified local Partner’s leadership.
This same firm is capable of of stewarding corporate transactions across Singapore and South Asia. Surely, it can prevent an overstep of basic professional guardrails.
Media Relations and Qualifications of Representation
A final reminder, third-party Public Relations’ Agencies do not speak on behalf of precinct bodies unless formally appointed, and even then, they strictly do not have the authority to commence any civil action on behalf of third parties. Embargoed media information exists to protect both parties. Promises made on behalf of “Others” without mandate, particularly when involving money, constitute misrepresentation.
Launching personal attacks or leveraging fear as negotiation tools, is beyond the pale.
Should such Agencies collect upfront from precinct bodies to peddle vague promises of mega events—without authority or capacity—and subsequently block standard media access or coerce others to fulfil obligations they never agreed to, which they do not guarantee to their precint body clients, for media reports or articles, this moves beyond malpractice. This is misuse of entrusted funds and power. We ask that all parties uphold ethical integrity, anything less does a disservice to the industry.
Disclaimer: This article does not constitute legal advice. While we do not typically publish matters of this nature, it has come to our attention that WE Communications had unilaterally notified multiple local PR agencies of their groundless civil claims, without intending to fulfil basic payment obligations, despite their Requests. Readers are advised to seek counsel from a law firm with proper authority and a valid retainer agreement for any issues.
