Oh cool! Now the site’s truly multipartisan!

I agree with Pui Yee,

PAP has already enough channels like Channel NewsAsia, Straits Times,whatever mainstream media, radio, grassroots media/newsletter,town council newsletters etc to get messages across the nation to Singaporeans. Even National Day belongs to PAP with their faces everywhere.

It is everywhere and thus we do not need any repeat of what we alread know in the internet or at this website. Mainstream media like ST and CNA is increasingly losing credibility and viewership/readership because of their propagandish news and style of reporting, it may also happen to this website.

Ephraim should be busy enough sticking to Young PAP website and his own blog. His credibility will always be in doubt.

Adding to Not Advisable views,

I think we have enough avenues and opportunities to listen to PAP partisan views on all issues. What Singaporeans want are alternative partisan views on the SAME issues instead just one angle of views.We do not need PAP repeated here.

There is no such thing as non-partisan in politics. Since PAP can have their own views published everywhere, so can WP, SDA, SDP or XYZ party. Then let people judge for themselves who makes more sense.

For real democratic processes to take place in Singapore and grow, the only way is to let Singaporeans listen to alternative political views on same issues and not just from PAP.

The mainstream media has already let Singaporeans down by not giving interviews and space to alternative parties to air their views, we only have internet left.

If even one of the more decent and popular website like onlinecitizen allow PAP views to be repeated here, then it makes no more sense to come here and read the same thing here which was trumpeted in local media.

I do not see any wrong if onlinecitizen is a partisan website because PAP itself has make many non-patisan organisations partisan. e.g. PA, CCC, RC, CDC, CDAC, National Day, Civil Service, etc.

Which non-partisan system/organisations in Singapore is 100% non partisan ???

A WP member Andrew Loh left…..and a PAP memebr came on-broad?

Indeed, a DIVERSED VIEWS over here…hear! hear!

RH: Like many other readers of TOC, I will now delete your link from my favourites. Sheesh, how could you allow this, and so soon after capturing the site!

People seek out blogs for alternative views and news. The last thing they want is more papaganda.

It is dishonest of the editor/s to take a site like TOC, which built up readership entirely through honest views and news, and then to cash in on this large readership to propagate papaganda!

If you want to spew your papaganda, the honest thing is to start a site and build up your own readership. This is exactly like the Straits Times buying over large forum groups after they have gotten large BECAUSE NONE OF THE PAP MEDIA CAN BUILD UP READERSHIP ON ITS OWN.

Goodbye forever.

Disgusted.

Is this for real?!?!?

Dear Not Advisable,

What we see from the main stream media is the “united” front PAP showing to the public, the final party decision and views. It does not represent the wide spectrum of views within its ranks and files that are being filtered or dismissed by the leadership at every level. The minority views seldom go beyond closed door sessions.

Is there a minority view, a more reform minded minority faction within PAP? Ephraim and his contribution to this site may shed light to these questions. If Ephraim’s contribution is mere repeating the PAP’s “united” views, the readers will ignore him and he is just one of the many contributors to this site.

On the other hand, Ephraim may be able to provide some deeper insights into why PAP is making certain decisions via defending / debating repeated PAP’s “united” views.

The best route for Singapore to become more democratic is finding a faction of reform minded PAP and work with them. Such contact and exploration have to start somewhere. This site is a good place to be that starting point.

Hi everyone,

I think I speak for the TOC team when I say that we appreciate and understand your sentiments expressed here. I would, however, urge you guys to give TOC – and Ephraim – a chance.

There is no selling-out, if that’s what you’re afraid of. I think the editors and writers of TOC are more principled than that..:)

What we hope to achieve with Ephraim on board is to allow as many diverse views as possible on this blogsite – including those which are supportive of the govt or the PAP.

Really, there is nothing wrong with that.

TOC, in my humble opinion, should not be compared to the mainstream media simply because there is no comparison. The MSM has much much more resources than TOC ever will. It would be quite wrong to compare them.

To reply to LaiCF, I have not left TOC. I am still here and will be here for a while yet. :)

To Robert Ho, I am not sure what you mean by “cash in”. There is no money to be made in running TOC, if that’s what you mean. :) I hope you will give us a chance and not delete us from your links list just yet..:)

Sarek_Home says it very well. Thanks, sarek_home!

Please do give TOC a chance. We are embarking on something which is relatively new on the blogosphere – to try and be a blogsite which is inclusive of all views, or at least as wide a views spectrum as possible.

It is in the exchanges with those who hold opposite views from our own that will make this site much more interesting.

And with your continued support, this can be achieved.

TOC will always offer alternative views. In this I have no doubt.

Regards,
Andrew

It will be interesting to see what Mr. Loy will bring to the table. Will he deviate from the party line or will it be more of the same MIW spiel? IMO though, I don’t think Ephraim will be offering anything new insights or fresh viewpoints, just look at the postings on p65 and youngpap blogspot.

I hope Ephraim will refrain from posting good news and praising the government too often even if its due. We have enough of that day in day out.Every good news will have some bad news in it, just that thanks to 156th, we do not see it.

I do not entirely agree with Sarek. There is no way Ephraim can provide “deeper insights” or “shed light” on what PAP is thinking. This is because he will never be on the same level as those ministers. He will not entirely be able to represent PAP views accurately.

If PAP can use so many public and taxpaying mediums as their OWN space, the alternative parties should also start to have their own spaces too.

I agree with Thinker many supposedly “Non-Partisan” organisations are actually partisan towards PAP directly or indirectly.He forgot to mention GLCs and NTUC.

TOC should question why CCCs which PA said is non-partisan at PP and HG are not following other CCCs elsewhere in nominating the MPs of the constituency as Chairman. Instead, they bring in of all people, candidates of PAP competing in that area plus people who do not live in that area. What are CCCs for ?? Its a wastage of resources.

Because of conflict of interests,even if they do not want to choose the MP of the area, they should not choose a PAP candidate with no official status.

I think it does not matter what the PAP channels, government channels or mainstream media is doing. TOC should not care about “balancing” with priorities of these other platforms and reject a PAP member simply because of “balancing” with the mainstream media.

What is important for TOC is to “balance” itself internally… and establish itself as a multi-partisan platform. Personally, multi-partisan is more appealing to me than non-partisan like Singapore Angle, which is to me a abjective way of “siaming labels” and end up acting cowardly.

In that sense, TOC’s latest recruitment of a PAP member is a good thing and I applaud it. TOC has succeeded Think Centre as the only multi-partisan website in the local blogsphere. The latter has since degenerated into foreign academic purile. It would be good if another junior member (like Ephraim and Andrew) of another party (e.g. SDP, NSP) can be included. As long as his views are objective, why not?

At the end of the day, national unity is what counts.

AXS Says:

I do not entirely agree with Sarek. There is no way Ephraim can provide “deeper insights” or “shed light” on what PAP is thinking. This is because he will never be on the same level as those ministers.

Few years back, there was a news report on a YPAP forum and some of the YPAP complained that they were not able to have detailed information to contribute to policy debate. It is valid for AXS to question if Ephraim is in the position to provide “deeper insights” or “shed light”. But it is a possibility I don’t want to dismiss without giving Ephraim a chance.

Even if he can’t provide such insights, the debate with him will help us understand the whole issue and our position better. A good sparring partner can help us sharpen our skills.

Surrounding ourselves with people of similar thinking will risk the group forming a “GroupThink” mindset that limit our views.

“An eye for an eye leaves everybody blind.” Mahatma Ghandi

Fighting “Partisan” organisations with “Partisan” organisations will blind the society collectively with partisan also. We need to set an example and evolve beyond partisan politic.

Let us look beyond confrontational / opposition party democracy model. I am told that the Nordic countries have governments formed from rainbow coalition of multiple parties, and all ruling and opposition parties are able to work together to rationally debate and build national consensus.

Good democratic model require a cooperative, and consensus building culture as foundation to make it works and benefit the society. We have to learn and start this culture for the sake of the society.

I think TOC’s subtitle says it all: “a community of Singaporeans”. Not, mind you, a community of non-PAP-supporting-Singaporeans.

Isn’t it strangely ironic that certain subscribers to ‘alternative views’ wish to foreclose the expression of mainstream views? So this is democracy, reading and listening to only what YOU want? Consistency in principle means giving equal airtime to all reasonable views. And further, it’s illogical and infantile to say that since the PAP dominates the MSM, that the blogosphere should be reserved for ‘alternative views’: “I let you chop this, so you let me have this. Fair, hor?”

The issue that irks me thus far is, why are we still limiting ourselves to the discursive framework of party-defined ideology and not try to move beyond that towards a larger, more overarching structure of views and opinions that may transcend political parties and their traditional labels allocated by the “man-in-the-street”.

I think TOC may not necessarily benefit should it attempt to go into the traditional discourse of party-based political debate.

Well, that’s my two cents. Not sure if everyone did get what I intended to bring across. But oh well.

I found the comments rather interesting. i agree with most of the comments such as alternate views.

Well as for Ephraim joining and his credibility, dont you think we should see what he has got to offer before we comment on that.

Taking a step back, some of you talk about democracy, so everyone should be given a chance right. But now here, some of you are not showing democracy. You are not giving Ephraim a chance even before reading what he has got to offer. And worse, some of you are leaving TOC. Just because a YP memeber join in doesnt that mean you must boycott this site. So if you complain about no democracy in singapore, i think you must question yourself if you are democratic.

Or are those just childish behaviours? Just like i dont like you, so if you come here then i will leave.

Well these are just my thoughts

I think it’s worth repeating what Neutral, Sarek_home, Passerby and Observer have said: Do we want to be guilty like the MSM of censoring out alternative views? (Alternative in blogosphere = PAP)

This is an experiment in multi-partisanship which is a first in Singapore. I hope readers can give us a chance to prove our professionalism vis-a-vis the MSM.

Ephraim – welcome aboard! I look forward to reading your views — and also countering them if I disagree! :)

Love your enemies for they may not in themselves vile but misguided especially when they are young and susceptible to indoctrinations. Let us welcome our youths, communicate and share with them experiences and understandings that they may not know due to their tender age. TOC has opened her arms to Mr Loy and I am sure the Latter will be happy for the additional exposure.

Guess there is an array of comments here and all have some points.Nobody is right or wrong.This is democracy.

The right and needy place to have multi-partisan views should be the MSM (ST,CNA,Radio etc) which is sorely lacking for 40 years.At MSM, only PAP is always right.

Maybe some headlines should go to WP or SDA views instead of PAP all the time since they have leaders in Parliament.I guess it is hard for anybody from PAP to make comments on the present state of MSM.

OnlineCitizen can be multi-partisan but it is not that important or necessary since it can never replace or be on equal footing with MSM. Netizens can easily anytime visit YPAP or Ephraim’s blog to get “multi-partisan” views.

I guess that some readers are just annoyed by an “alien intrusion” which might change the usual facet of this website in time to come.

Singaporeans have already very little space to hear or voice alternative views since Independence. Whatever alternative space they have left is through great lengths of searching and scrapping, thus it is understandable that some readers might be annoyed or making conclusions.

Maybe since PAP have so many of mediums they can call their own, lets not begrudge those who also want a little space they can call their own of only alternative views and little else.

Just my way of analysing those who oppose PAP’s presence in this website.

TOC is finished as far as I am concerned.

Infiltrated. The game is over.

Andrew, you can give whatever chance you want.

We won’t be bought!

Neutral brings up a very good point about democracy.
To some people, democracy only means gaining public support to become the ruling class and then compromise the democratic process to ensure they are in power forever.
Real democracy means:
I may not agree with what you say but I will defend your right to say it so the public can judge and decide for themselves.
Real democracy require us to build and uphold the democratic process for all, including people we oppose.
Excluding those we think evil or denying them fair ground to voice their views, and we degenerate ourselves to their autocratic level.

one left because he feels that his party membership with WP could be seen as partial, then a PAP member joins.

you lost me as a reader.

I agree with Sarek_home. Real democracy’s success also depends on the degree of respect that all parties show to the process of debate as well.

Left because his party membership with WP could be seen as partial? I think Andrew said he is not leaving, just giving up his position as chief of TOC and remain a member. A TOC led by a non-party member, with a WP member and a PAP member. That makes TOC superbly multi-partisan.

I wonder why critics against common sense always put up poor arguments and get their facts wrong.

Hi all,

Thanks for the feedback, whether negative or positive. I think the discussion that’s been carrying on here is precisely the reaction we are hoping to spark on TOC with the inclusion of voices from the PAP side.

Including PAP voices does not mean allowing them to take over our editorial agenda, anymore than having Andrew on our team meant that we were partial to the WP.

Our editorial policy is for our writers to declare their political affiliations so that readers are aware of any potential bias they might have.

What Ephraim’s inclusion does mean is that in the coming days, a unique dynamic will be evolving on TOC that you won’t be able to find on any other media platform.

We at TOC aim to be a media platform that is able to accomodate news and views from across the political spectrum.

Whether this experiment works will remain to be seen. All we at TOC can ask for is that you sit back, enjoy the ride, and keep those comments coming =)

Zheng Xi

Hi everyone,

Just to be sure again: I have not left TOC. :) I apologise if I have given the impression that I have left.

Please take a look at the page “theonlinecitizen team” to see the line-up of TOC’s members.

Regards,
Andrew

Ok..Ephraim Loy si here.
Does it emans George yeo will tag along too?
That will be fun too.

And why isn’t Denise Phua actively invovled at Cyperspace as she is that person that brought up the issue of 85% naturally against PAP?

I recall that CNN had a very interesting current events debate television program called Crossfire:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossfire_(TV_series)

Observing MSM in Singapore and Taiwan, partisan media only appeal to partisan viewers. Such partisan media only help to polarize the society and cause great social conflicts. In the end, the moderate / neutral public are turned off by these partisan media. Don’t we say the public don’t read and don’t trust the MSM? Making TOC, or any alternative media, a partisan media and we will put it in the same situation eventually. In fact, I dare say some of the partisan alternative media already suffered such fate.

The best way to defeat partisan media and win over the moderate / neutral public is to show them that TOC gives equal and balanced coverage of all parties and they can trust it to be fair to all sides.

We must win over not just the reform minded public, but also the neutral ground and PAP supporters as more credible than the partisan media. To do this, we must open up to the PAP views and give them a fair debate and let the public judge. When the neutral ground and PAP supporters see this, they will realize this is a superior model over partisan media. Then, the partisan media will be forced to reform and the victory belong to the people.

it will fail as based on the P65er PAP Blogs.

They simply don’t reply at all…it is just “one-way” flow…theri views and pro-PAP views.

Does Ephraim Blog reflecte “alternative views” to give a non-partisan view?

Sarek_Home and Observer, please tell your comments to the PAP/Goverment controlled medias.

Has TOC ever prevented the PAP members from commenting here? Ofcouse it hasn’t and did they ever participate and engage the readers here?

I don’t think Ephraim is able to provide any new ‘alternative views’ to the already published by ST or PAP supporters medias because he would have done so before it became news. Even if he had done so in his ‘capacity’ that means he had failed and I am sure he would not says so in TOC.

So its already sickening to read all the ‘feel good’ articles in ST and to read PAP members here ‘justifying’ or ’spinning’ again in TOC is ‘betrayal’ of the supports given to TOC.

I think it is not wise just to include a PAP member just to be seen as ‘multipartisan’.

Why care for ‘multi-partisan’ if the PAP is not prepared to engage the ‘alternative views’ here in the comments section?

Diversity need not come by the way of editorial control… don’t we already have lots of diversity in the first place with participation in the form of comments?

I echo the feelings of many other readers out there who feel that the PAP is already being over-represented in many forms of media everywhere in our lives.

I don’t understand how the new TOC selects its editorial team. IMHO I believe there are many others out there who are more worthy of being an editor than Ephraim Loy, who has given an impression to many people that his articles simply reflect the views of his superiors in the PAP and lack true substance.

Sorry to say this, but as a regular reader and supporter of TOC for so long, I’m quite disgusted… and will probably not come back again

May I also ask, by what merits was Loy admitted as an editor? AFAIK his blog only highlights his own daily affairs, much like any other personal blogs… and also partisan articles such as what feasts (sharks fin, etc) he had at grassroots events, which ministers he met for the day and what MP George Yeo spoke to him about.

So, how is it justified that he be a TOC editor? Purely by his writing skills, or by means of friendship… or a more political reason?

Disappointed, I understand your concern.

Frankly, I’m not too impressed by what this new chap can bring to the table. I would, however, like to give him the benefit of doubt and show that he can write something balanced and substantial, rather than be tempted to rip articles off his blog, piecemeal in fashion, for posting here.

Let the marketplace of ideas rule first. We need to see how far his arguments can stand up to criticism.

I actually support this move as keeping the traditional “Pro PAP vs Anti PAP” stance will not take the state of the blogsphere anywhere other than where it has always been…. An alternative.

Like it or not, the reality of the world is that for any true change to happen, 2 ways to make it work. 1. Launch a revolution and create the platform for all change, or 2. Change from within the system. I think I can safely conclude that option 1 is not possible and feasible. Thus, we only have option 2 as a way out.

By having Loy, George Yeo or whoever, may or may not add anything new from the official party line. But it creates the space for a chance of rebuttal and explaination beyond the PR rubbish spreaded across the ST. The most important things is that it creates an inclusive blogsphere where arguments and analysis are more balanced and represented from both sides.

I have read so many intelligent and thoughtful pieces written here that analyses Govt policies and issues etc that frankly if it were to be published in the MSM, the larger environment may have changed alot more.

If the addition of Loy or whoever it is that will have “official” status to contribute here, there is no excuse for the Govt to claim that the blogsphere is insignificant and wrong in the arguments it publish, as they do have rebuttal rights and are invited to do so.

At the end of the day, if all Loy and other Pro-PAP personnals can produce is a copy and paste job from the official line, then the result will be more apparent than the whole lot of us screaming our lungs out.

I say let the Loys come and post their view, as long as the blogsphere produces sharp, well thought-out and intelligent analysis backed by research and data. The truth will be the truth. Much more productive than letting them send their cyberspace ninjas all over the place to throw abuse and insults as I suspect on so many other websites.

My thoughts.

Lets put it this way. Right now, the situation is:

The anti-PAP, anti-govt people are in one corner. The pro-PAP, pro-govt people are in the other corner. The MSM tries to influence everyone and win accolades for the PAP.

If the status quo remains, it will be extremely good for the PAP.

But the most important question is: IS IT GOOD FOR SINGAPORE?

Media hub? Information hub? Education hub?

All these requires an opening up of space and the courage to allow this opening up. It also means allowing everyone from all sides to be able to and be mature enough to stand in the same space and discuss, debate issues.

Sadly, the MSM has been neutered. It no longer barks as it should, it only knows how to parrot. Yes, it was a guard dog but has now become a useless bird.

The only space left for decent singaporeans to come together and discuss and debate is in cyberspace. If TOC can do this, I will say that it will not be a small achievement.

Kudos to the TOC team for stepping out of the comfort zone. It would have been the easiest thing to stay in the corner and remain a critical blog with so-called “alternative views”.

So yes, I applaud this move to bring in Ephraim Loy.

I think the crux of this debate and moanings are

-Those suppose to be multi-partisan are not multi-partisan e.g. MSM (CNA, ST,radios, magazines etc)

-Those suppose to be non-partisan are not non-partisan e.g. Civil Service,government agencies, NTUC,grassroots, GLCs, statutory boards etc)

-Those no need to be multi-partisan or non-partisan are anxious to show it is multi-partisan and non-partisan e.g. blogs, forums and maybe this website.

Just my peanut worth of thoughts.

To those who disapprove this move, I sincerely hope you will come back to visit TOC from time to time to evaluate its content and progress. Time will tell if this move is a good one.

Regards.

Sarek, Its not ‘Time will tell’, it should be pro-govt/PAP editorial members’ ‘alternative views’ will tell.

For a start, Mr. Loy what is your take on the article on gay on YPAP blog?

How about the silly justification by the LTA in support of SMRT request for fare increment? As if Singaporean is not suffering from the increase in cost of living and no security in the future in the name of globalisation with stagnant / decrease in income and worst for the mature workers.

Please enlighten us: does being on the Editorial Team confer the power to censor, “moderate” and delete comments?

If so, doesn’t it mean the papayas have some influence here doing what they do best in 154th?

TOC could stay non-partisan by enlisting loy as a guest writer, and not making him part of the editorial team.

i say, never let a snake into your house. think of lky’s initial involvement with his chinese-edu comrades and you’ll see why.

Hi Pui Yee,

Nope, being on the editorial team doesn’t necessarily mean “having power to censor” comments. As of now, only Zheng Xi and myself can moderate the comments.

Censoring comments doesn’t mean we are acting like the MSM or that the “papayas have some influence here”. I think that is stretching it a bit.

Blogs do moderate comments. Just look around. We are not the only one. And there are good reasons to do so at times.

Regards,
Andrew

Glad to know that the editorial powers are vested only in you and Zheng Xi.

Still, you’ve yet to answer why loy can’t be an anchor contributor like LSH? is he after fame or power or what???

Hi Pui Yee,

Apologies for this belated reply. Yes, of course Ephraim can be an anchor contributor – as it is with anyone else as well, as long as there is commitment and they’re able to spare the time, which is not easy to find.

Is Ephraim after fame and fortune? Aiyo, we are just a small speck in the vast universe of the internet. No fame la. Fortune? What fortune? We’re not XiaXue.. :(

But seriously, Ephraim – in my opinion – would be able to bring something different to TOC. Something which people like me probably never will be able to. And that is, a different voice from a different perspective.

Andrew,

You have still yet to answer why loy can’t be just another anchor contributor.

As for bringing a different voice from a different perspective, if i need that, i’ll read the shitty times.

If Ephraim Loy is given an anchor contributor position, someone may also ask the question:

Why can’t he be a provisional co-editor?

There may not be a clear cut answer to a question when various alternative options carry similar merits or equally viable.

In other countries, there are many MSM entities and each may carry a different voice from a different perspective. We will see if Ephraim will bring in a different voice from a different perspective different from Singapore’s MSM in the months to come.

I am curious. In this case from what i read so far, what is Ephraim Loy function/role here as being on the editoral board? Just to make TOC non-partisan? Can someone enlighten me on his ‘job’ being on the editoral board?

Sarek – I think Pui Yee has a very valid point that why can’t EL be on anchor contributor. He will achieve the same result in getting his ‘alternative view’ from our current govt perspective. Your argument is weak. I am quite sure the readers that choose to come to this website are not here to question why PAP views are not represented here but to read something we don’t get to read from our MSM.

Frankly I was very shocked to see that EL is joining the editoral board. Though I am not sure what his role is so far, but having him on the core team who oversee the operation of this site is not assuring at all.

For the editoral board – As a Singaporean who is interested to read analysis and insights that I do not get to see/hear from MSM, I sought out internet for blogs, websites liked TOC for simulting alternative reviews on the latest political news in town. If I want to know PAP views and justification of their policies and decisions, I do not even need to look for it. It is repeated everywhere in MSM. And if I am that interested to know more, I will do what I do for getting the non-PAP views; sought out the internet for blogs & websites. I think it is as ‘non-partisan’ as it can get.

I am very disappointed with the decision to add EL to the team. The forum/blogosphere has been inflitrated with enough pro-pap supporters peppering meaningful discussion about the latest policies/decisions made by PAP, whether is it openly or sneakily. This decision seems to echo that trend.

First and foremost, I find it a bit contradictory to name a person an editor and yet only two persons have editing rights (as far as editing comments are concerned), namely Zheng Xi and Andrew Loh.

I am an editor myself from one of the publishing companies, and the job of an editor is to edit content! I agree that there should be a diversity of comments, but it’s a bit of an oxymoron to have an ‘editor’ from the other side of the force, but without editing rights.

I am with those who suggest that Ephraim Loy should be named as a contributor. I mean if the current editorial here want to sincerely show that they are a bastion of diversity, perhaps they can let Loy have his say. Let him make his contributions. No need to pin the meaningless title of an editor on him.

I can understand why RH is put off by this action. I guess a little journalistic integrity goes a long way. If the editorial wants to paint itself as one who embraces diversity, there is no point sharing the same bed with one who does not tolerate diversity. The integrity of the current editorial was also in question as Loy wasn’t given rights to edit despite being named on the editorial. That’s a double whammy, or two own goals (apologies if I sounded too harsh)?

Hi Two Cents Worth,

Maybe we work differently from your publishing company.. ? :)

The roles here are different for each person. Zheng Xi, being the owner, of course will have rights and control over everything pertaining to TOC.

I (with Zheng Xi) have access to the administrative panel of this blog. Also, we are the ones who have more time in putting up what you see on this blog. Thus, naturally we are the moderators – at least for now.

The roles which Ephraim and Toon Joo are more involved in do not include – at least for now – editing comments here on this blog. (Ultimately, Zheng Xi, as owner, will decide.)

Whether Ephraim should only be a contributor or an editor, I think that is for the TOC team to decide ultimately. We have discussed it and we are all agreed that he will be a co-editor.

Also, all our anchor-writers agree as well.

So, to answer your question about Ephraim’s contribution, his will be in areas besides the day to day running of TOC. I think we would be be really foolish if Ephraim was only put on the editorial team so that he can edit comments. :)

Lastly, please bear in mind that we are all amateurs. I myself have never done any editorial work before prior to this. :)

And so, I am learning. And I thank you for pointing out the things you did. They have been instructive.

There is no intention to deprive anyone on the editorial team of anything or any roles they wish to play. So, there is no question about integrity.

I thank you for agreeing that there should be a diversity of comments. This is what we strive for.

Regards,
Andrew

In my (rather belated) opinion, there’s no reason to condemn TOC for bringing in Ephraim Loy. I am no apologist, but this move seems to me as a sign of progress.

TOC is, in my eyes, an example of an emerging exercise in democracy. The Online Citizen, through its existence, has opened platforms for debate, provided perspectives on real-world issues, and expanded spaces for public discussion. The hallmark of true democracy is the inclusion of all perspectives along the spectrum, from ultraconservative to ultraliberal, and everything in between; that is what TOC is trying to achieve, by being non-partisan, and by doing all the above. TOC favours none, and encompasses all. Having a PAP perspective on TOC can only contribute to the emergence of democracy online.

The Online Citizen cannot afford to shut out the mainstream, just because the PAP’s (or the Government’s) views are almost everywhere. Should it do so, it would become an inverted reflection of the mainstream media. That, I believe, is not the goal of TOC, nor should we ever move towards such an end. Surely that would contradict the very essence of TOC.

All this is actually assuming that Loy would even bring in a pro-PAP perspective to begin with. We need not judge a man by his affiliations alone; that provides an incomplete portrait of his character. We should wait and see what he does in the future, first, before forming a final opinion of Ephraim Loy. And even if Loy were a PAP man, we need not worry. It merely spells the evolution of The Online Citizen.

Not sure what exactly the concern over having Ephraim on board is about. His opinions come over and on top of the ones you’ve been reading so far, not at the expense of them. So there really is no issue about him ‘crowding out’ alternative views or ‘infiltrating’ TOC.

You’ll find that none of our content is being watered down.

In terms of value add, he brings to the editorial team a perspective balancing that the team finds useful. His experience with grassroots work and the YP brings with it different experiences it would be good for a media platform like ourselves to run stories on.

And yes, as Andrew has mentioned, this is a decision the WHOLE TOC team is comfortable with.

Ironically those howling for Ephraim’s blood are practicing exactly the same sort of censorship they accuse the MSM of: crowding out alternative views.

We hope those opposed to Ephraim’s inclusion will judge TOC objectively despite how strongly they detest the party affiliation of whoever is on our Editorial team.

If the quality of our work goes down, and you can pin it to him, please by all means bay for his blood. In all likelihood, we’ll boot him out before you ask.

But honestly pre-judging him based on his political affiliation is practicing the same kind of intellectual facism you accuse the PAP of.

I read Ephraim Loy’s blog NOT for his articles but rather for Geogre Yeo’s occasional articles. Frankly, if not for the Foreign Minister, I would have deleted Ephraim Loy’s blog from my Bloglines subscription.

I once posted my views on Ephraim’s site once where foreign minister George Yeo posted on how we should have conducted our foreign affairs with our neighbouring countries more tactfully without all the legalistic and confrontational stance suggesting that we need people-to-people exchanges etc but my posts were deleted.

So if Ephraim wants to appear that independent as our TOC team has suggested he could have done better.

Has he already influenced or succeeded in influencing fellow team members to go for deletion of posts as more pragmatic solution to discipline forumers as he had done on his own site. So has the TOC the objectivity to claim that this is now an “independent” citizens’ discussion panel?

Haven’t we already had the PM telling the Straits Times or some government sites not to engage in crusading journalism and can’t we just let citizens at least have one site claiming to be citizens’ online site free from debunking or some such control freaks and without such hypocrisy or pretence of independence.