It was quite useful reading, found some interesting details about this topic. Thanks.

Thank you for visiting theonlinecitizen and giving us your views.

To be honest, this is an issue which we have discussed – quite thoroughly, and one which we had pondered on for a long time before we went online.

We honestly appreciate the many views – both supportive and not supportive of TOC – regarding this issue.

Theonlinecitizen will consider all views and act accordingly – if necessary.

Regards,
theonliniecitizen.

TOC, the fact that the people running this website have chosen an affiliation, demonstrates that they hold values and political views sympathetic to a certain party. yes, u may claim that essays written by WP members on the website are not endorsed by the WP, u may even claim that the essays themselves are completely unbiased.

But a statement like “TOC is non-partisan and is not affiliated to any organisation – political or otherwise” is a rather disingenuous claim u make towards your readers.

If you will admit to being part of the WP, then u should come clean with your political affiliation and defend it with pride. There is no shame in shying away from declaring ur political allegiance – in fact, it can be a source of strength.

For instance, many top blogs in the US are known to explicitly support political parties. and they do well because they have a consistent, easily identifiable voice.

there is no such thing as absolute unbiasedness. don’t fall into the trap of thinking that TOC can be an unbiased site.

Yes, some people have issue with disclosure topic. It would be appropriate we consider this topic in the context of the neutral nature of TOC and its referencing other articles on the blogosphere to give public a diverse views of current issues.

Regards.

Sarek, I think the issue is one of declaring conflicts of interest. If I own shares in a company, and then report on that company in a newsletter, should the share ownership be declared?

I think it is okay if Workers’ Party members are running TheOnlineCitizen. But this should be declared, especially since they are covering WP events (e.g. the Penal Code forum) and events by WP’s competitors (e.g. PAP P65 GST forum).

Thank you for the heads-up. We are aware of the discussion going on in Mr Wang’s blog.

We have responded to it here.

Thank you and happy new year… :)

Regards,
theonlinecitizen

If some people who participate in an organization (like a church, a temple, a clan association, or a club) network with each each other and decide to go out to do something, like setting up a business or start an action group, does it make sense to speculate that it has anything to do with the organization where they come from? Such kind of networking and new operations are common and people don’t associate the operations with the organization. If some people don’t want to see things as simple as this, explaining to them is unlikely to do any good at all.

Regards.

http://mrwangsaysso.blogspot.com/2007/02/leaks-squealers.html#comment-855799163722121600

http://mrwangsaysso.blogspot.com/2007/02/leaks-squealers.html#comment-4438177361013389123

They have raised questions about whether TOC is disclosing important conflicts of interests, or information that might lead to that perception.

It would be good if The Online Citizen can respond to them. There’s nothing intrinsically wrong if (as one of the commenters says) “the WP management will take control of the entire project”. But please don’t hide it — otherwise people will think there is a reason for hiding.

I wonder if the YPAP Discussion Forum had been deliberately reduced from previously serious discussion to the present-day diatribes being posted there…especially a certian Upyrstuk had been monopolizing it without any action whatsoever from the Moderators.

I perceived Upyrstuk’s strategy at YPAP Forum as follows:
1) Deliberately reduce the standard of forums to guttersniping and silent that “85% anti-PAP” postings there.
2) Flaming and deliberately distortion of facts to drown out whatever anti-PAP postings there.

We may see more and more of this kind of flaming on all the popular blogspots as it is just a war of attrition to wear one’s down.
E.g. by reducing any serious discussions to the level of guttersniping, it will drive away serious forummers; and serious forummers will have a reduced outlets to ‘voice” their frustrations.

I am cynical and foresee this 2-prong Cyberspace Warfare:

1) Reduce all serious discussions like at YPAP Forum to guttersniping and character assassination. It will certainly drive out all seriosu forummers and any hard-hitting anti-PAP psotings will be snow under piles of diatribes.

2) Start serious discussions and postings like George Yeo and P65; and side-step any flamings or arguments like Goh Meng Seng had the misfortune and forgot how to side-step them like a politician.

———————————————————————-

Anyway, in this era of “Consensus and Open Discussion”, I am surprise at the ineptness of the Opposition to start their very own forum like YPAP Forum and go on the offensive.

DO one better and start engaging all comers.
Criteria – actual names msut be psoted to aprticipate in the forum.

And then we will really know how many forummers are actively participating in CYperspace political discussions:

Are anti-PAP netizen int ehir hundreds, thousands or tens of thousands?

My feeling is that we are merely in our hundreds…hence no threat to PAP as we just tolerable, like ant-bites on elephant hide.

So what if there are two camps? Can’t live with it eh? So much for an education system(or not).

First, I am not worked up on the anonymous comments from PAP. They can be identified easily. Some people have pointed out that they are just repeating the same old views from the mainstream media and it is a silly move from PAP. So why should I worked up?

Second, are people really worked up on the anonymous comments from PAP? Here is a case of PAP flip-flopping on the anonymous comments topic and some people just like to use this to pick on PAP. Others are seeing this as another attempt by PAP to manage the public with this “counter-insurgent” move and that give them good reason to be angry.

TheOnlineCitizen and many other blogs out there are working on giving the public alternative views and alternative channels to express themselves.

How do you feel if someone with a monthly income of $900 and a billionaire both donate $1000 dollars to a charity? Pappies, Wookies and Cheesies are different, people are wise to factor in those differences.

That was a very well written post about identity.

But perhaps what I would say is that it might be different for a blogsite which contents are contributed by various people?

Theonlinecitizen is such a website – where the content is contributed by various members of the public who comes from varied backgrounds, most of whom have no political or party-political affiliations.

But even for those who have such affiliation, their contribution is in their personal capacity.

So, how does one ascertain ‘identity’ in such a case?

I would think – and agree with Sarek – that in such a case, the content itself would be the indentity which readers should use to ‘judge’ the site.

It would be great to have your views on this.

Regards,
theonlinecitizen

In anycase, I did deal with the idea of whether identity is at all important in a debate between people and the perils of over-focusing on identity. In this case, it seems to me that my analysis of the negative aspect of identity has been proven true with the insistence of the commenter Deepthroat.sg to base his conclusions solely on the background of a person, and not also taking into account the content/messages put out by the site.

If anyone is confused about what I’m talking about, read my entry titled “The medium is the message”.

In this comment and this comment, they show their maliciousness and glee in revealing the exact address and personal particulars of the OnlineCitizen’s authors on Mr Wang’s blog as well as this site. A rationale, mature and responsible commentor would not commit such acts in public web space. Their juvenile comment also reveals the glee in publicising the personal information:

“By the way, since both of you registered theonlinecitizen.com, you will realise that your full contact info would be up for public viewing as well, right?”

Yes, the site authors did not use ‘privacy protection’ for their domain Contact Particulars. They should have done so. But this isn’t the fallacy Deepthroat should hope to use as subterfuge, no?

If this is the path that Deepthroat wishes to take, is this necessary?

Finally, in the aftermath of the Great Fire of London in 1666, Charles II had the opportunity to rebuild the city to his desire.

The Great Sage–greater than Kwanyin–Kuan Yew says that over time, even the “radical English-educated young” will “re-order their priorities”, therefore, the views of the self-proclaimed “centrists” could also have been re-ordered over times “along with tides like a floating block of wood”; O Great is His Wisdom.

I think that’s called an “argumentum ad verecundiam” (google for it); probably of the fallacious variety too.

Very interesting. So it seems that “neutrality and objectiveness” is not necessarily connected with “association with political party” after all. This reminds me of something… oh yes:

PAP MP Baey Yam Keng: The identity is not important. It is the message that is important

So why are we supposed to be so worked up that there are anonymous comments out that supposedly written by Pappies, or Wookies or Cheesies? Why not just assess the content to see if it speaks with reason and makes a good case?

*********************************************************
April 20, 2006
TELEVISED DIALOGUE WITH YOUNG S’POREANS
Not all young people think like those at forum, says MM
By Lydia Lim
Senior Political Correspondent

THE man in the middle of the controversy that followed his televised forum with a group of young Singaporeans has said he is not surprised by the polarised reactions.

But Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew says he would be wary of believing that the views of the 10 young people he met represent those of their generation.

All 10 who took part in the one-hour forum televised last week, were graduates aged 30 or younger.

Seven were journalists, two were Singapore Management University undergraduates and one was a publications manager in the Singapore International Chamber of Commerce.

Mr Lee told The Straits Times yesterday that he believes, over time, these ‘radical English-educated young’ will re-order their priorities.

‘They will realise that a large majority of Singaporeans are steeped in their respective Asian cultures, whose core values will not be easily displaced,’ he said in an e-mailed reply to questions.
*********************************************************

In the light of this belief, kindly check how “centrist” your views really would be .. or .. unknowingly your priorities or views could have been re-ordered over times and along with tides like a floating block of wood .. ,… you may like to dig in deeply and ponder how solidly-sound your centrists beliefs are..!..:-

To “bring balance to the blogosphere”, we can expect deepthroat to start labeling every blogs as pro-xxx or anti-xxx.

The balance of the blogosphere is about the neutrality and the objectiveness of the blogs, not whether the blogs are associated with any members of any political party.

To “aim to bring balance to the blogosphere”, deepthroat has set his approach totally wrong by raising party membership as an issue instead of the content as a issue.

Is the content of TheOnlineCitizen neutral? Please answer this question honestly. Neutral blogs are where we establish the blogosphere balance for the greater good of the people.