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.

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.

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.

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

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)?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

Regards.

-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.

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.

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.

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.

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?