“Strangely, in the opposition wards, the grassroots advisor isn’t the elected representative, but a PAP man.”

You know what is going on, do not act blur here.

Using taxpayer’s money to finance party’s own activities is a scandal and morally unacceptable. You did not protest means you are also morally unacceptable.

If I use your family funds to finance my university education and got the job you wanted, will you find it scandalous ?

well, well, well…. let’s see. yeah, the last time i checked it was PAP that come down really hard on freedom of expression leh, not the wp.

the latest example: even though the law says it is illegal for 5 persons to gather in public without a permit, our poodles could still arrest 4 spd members when they did so. not just that, the sdp members were ordered to pay costs in a suit over this incident and bankrupted when the spd members tried to negotiate for a $400 monthly payment in place of the original $800. that is the extent of the vicious curbs on freedom of expression exercised by loy’s party.

wp, on the other hand, has no incentive to curb freedom of expression. especially since most TOC articles are reviews of PAP govt’s policies.

anyway, andrew, you have yet to answer why loy cannot just be a guest writer. pls don’t skirt around this anymore.

So to the TOC editorial team, good luck.

I agree with you that people especially the party wannabe from the ruling party may adopt a certain private agenda not easily discerned by any citizens.

While some wannabe may speak or appear to speak objectively and publicly for the people against certain government policies where their masters have signaled appropriately as leeways for departure (so-called lifting of political whip) but when it comes to the crunch, this kind of people would change tune and act as double agent and take the side of the ruling party to neutralize any fallouts on behalf of their ultimate political masters.

TOC needs not offer its website as potential playground of future ruling party wannabe to play such dubious role wittingly or unwittingly to suit the hidden agenda of their master.

You also did not seem to appreciate the point I was making about the importance of maintaining this website known as theonlinecitizens as an independent citizens’ website to encourage growth of independent views on government policies or actions or to allow more citizens to contribute their views or feedbacks to society as a whole.

Even though this website has started off with WP members serving as founding members on its editorial team, it does not mean that your team should therefore say that if there are WP members on the team let it be and let it also invite ruling party’s wannabe to join it editorial team just to balance the WP members.

If your editorial team truly seeks to be independent, it will be a retrograde step to make such a move just for balance. Instead you should have maintained your independence by letting the existing WP members serve as non-partitioned members appropriately or let such WP members opt to resign from active positions while enforcing editorial policies to prevent their becoming anti-PAP or anti-government.

I have already given my views on the need to maintain your independence. Unlike the PAP members, WP members are not the ruling party members so are not likely to impose big problems on your independence and they could be appropriately controlled by your editorial team based on its founding principles.

You haven’t answered my question but have gone into this elaborate eulogy of what freedom of speech is. (If i read you correctly.)

Previously, you questioned Ephraim’s inclusion in TOC and asked if he can be objective or whether TOC can be objective. My question was: If Ephraim’s inclusion means TOC is not objective, then why aren’t you questioning the inclusion of Andrew who is also a member of a political party (WP)?

Are you saying that Ephraim’s inclusion makes TOC unobjective but the inclusion of Andrew is objective?

By the way, as one who has been on the internet for a while, I can say that visitors have no right to demand what a website editor should do or not do. In your case, you are starting to accuse the editors of TOC of some things just because they edited your comments. It is, in my opinion, convenient for someone to bring out excuses such as “counter-insurgency” or that “TOC has been infiltrated”, or statements like these .. just because you’re unhappy that you are not given absolute freedom of speech.

It is people like you who demand absolutes that give the very freedom of speech you demand, a bad name.

Able to transform from one person to another to suit agenda.

I used to work with many of those people who deploy such strategy in workplace and most often it work effectively ! The most important way to check such as a mole is to check on his action rather than his words and eloquent articles.

I can safety say that almost 90% of these people is exhibit the ‘will is strong, but action are terribly lacking !’ kind of symptons.

it is PAP that is polarising Singapore, not anyone else.

Only PAP have the have the resources and power to do such a thing.

The problems facing the citizens are caused by certain actions of the government. That is the bigger issue we are seeking to address through a more independent site like TOC.

If we are indeed an independent site we as citizens must not be affected by any hidden or closed agenda of any kind and have our views controlled or edited again and again for length or whatnot.

Feedback Unit tried to intervene for years and finally citizens voted with their feet and finally it has no choice but to allow more liberal posting of opinions without all excuses like the posts being out of topic or too long.

Let us all accept whatever view posted even by those netizens who may be a bit elaborate and hear out all views without all the holier than thou unwarranted editing and interferences. One of the major problems citizens are facing is too much control in all sorts of name with all sorts of excuses.

In this way, citizens could help to grow the government they want and not being subjected to unnecessary doctoring of their views again and again.

I accept the advice that we need to be precise and concise and relevant. But of what standard of independence and in what way can this site be free from the same highhanded governmental interferences in our views may be our higher objective as well.

Look at the larger perspective instead of trying to be objective without contributing much to objectivity in the ultimate.

“How could TOC expect fellow citizens to believe Ephraim to say things that are objective and factual which may be critical or over-critical of the government.”

Does this apply to Andrew who is a member of the WP as well? Why criticise only one side? Are YOU being objective? Or subjective?

Your posts were moderated because of length – as I have explained before. If you find that flimsy, I am sorry. If you want to associate that with some “counter-insurgency” underpinnings, I am sorry again.

You are wrong.

As I have also explained before, no one is stopping you from having your say but we also require you to understand that cutting and pasting articles into comments section here are not advised.

You can perhaps post a short quote and provide a link to the forum/blog/website you are cutting and pasting from.

Alternatively, you can send the article to us for publication – subject to editorial approval.

Also, you are not the only one whose post have either been edited or disallowed.

Once again, please refrain from posting lengthy comments which are cut and pasted from elsewhere.

Thank you.

Regards,
Andrew

How could TOC expect fellow citizens to believe Ephraim to say things that are objective and factual which may be critical or over-critical of the government.

Since he came on board, several of my posts are now considered too long with rather zealously edited or cut short for flimsy reason although in the context of the issues being raised some elaborate posts might actually be needed for the purpose of particular discussions.

Whether this is another site cleverly disguised as independent remains to be seen.

If such a site is created indeed for citizens’ contributions to government, it should stay independent in substance and in every sense of the word. Many government sites like Reach, feedback unit, youngpap or other government sites are losing their credibility because of large presence of government cyber counter-insurgency agents as announced by minister Lui Tuck Yew.

So judge for yourself forumers whether TOC is becoming just another site under scrutiny by cyber counter-insurgency so as to indoctrinate citizens to have “better” understanding of their policies.

Since Ephraim hails from the same party, and we have yet to see him critise his beloved party in any way (save for those mild attacks on the grassroot level), we are forced to conclude as follows:

1. He is a true Pay-n-Pay supporter, and will always trumpet the views of his party superiors and/or
2. He lacks critical thinking skills over major policy changes and/or
3. He is a cyberspace counter-insurgent cleverly planted in a “multi-partisan” TOC.

I must say I am disappointed with TOC’s editorial team. It would have been more prudent to accept Emphraim as a guest contributor for a trial period and see if he could really contribute constructive views in this “democratic journey”.

Well, I guess I would vote with my “eyeball views” then. Not much of a pity anyway since Leong Sze Hian’s articles are the only ones worth reading.

There are many forums where Robert can speak his mind. Would it be acceptable to TOC and Robert if he posts links to these posts in other forums or discussion groups?

Robert, I appreciate your views. My observation among opposition parties and leaders show that we all have same understanding of issues and the root cause. The only different that they have different approach to deal with them because of their individual characters and world views.

I do not form any opinion yet whether Ephraim Loy would be another MP or grassroot leaders fond of blowing trumpet of their political masters.

He should nevertheless realize that if he is another like the many MPs inducted over tea session with PM, or another Wee Shu Min only interested to protect the status quo or the elites or their political masters whom she hopes one day will invite her to tea, then we are wasting time here in inviting him to join theonlinecitizen website as a key team member.

If he however still feels that he could be independent of his political masters and will speak up on real issues and problems faced by people due to wrong policies, he must help to recognize existing serious problems causing loss of our social and cultural vibrancy and economic competitiveness.

Given such a larger perspective, there is no doubt that this web site will be better in achieving its intended objectives.

Given below is yet another rather one-sided attitude of our many ministers who are normally only interested in presenting half truths. Let us hope Emphraim will be able to speak up on such incorrect ministers’ attitude in governing the country and make changes in due course taking into account larger needs and perspective of governing a country.

*Edited by moderator for lenghty-ness

**Robert, please refrain from cutting and pasting articles from elsewhere. And also please refrain from posting comments which run into the thousands of words.

Being inclusive means including those who disagree with TOC. It is good to see these people raising their objection. It shows that this site has done a good job and they care for this site and its future.

The TOC team are adults with strong passion to this society. If they were soft minded, they would not have started TOC and sustained its growth. We should show some trust to them to keep up the good work with the newly added member.

We want democracy, then we need to establish the culture to be inclusive and respect the rights of individuals. We may not agree every time, but we remain inclusive and respect each others as sharing the same goals to see TOC grows and push for the democratic development of this society.

We welcome loyal critics and honest disagreement from our fellow brothers and sisters in this democratic journey to remind us our goals.

Let’s match together.

but as anon 12.55 has written, loy is only slapping his own face by saying he gets “quite turned off” by politics and yet he canvasses for political support in advance.

the only illumination for this contradiction can be found in pappy’s public service doctrine:
“oh, i really loathe politics, so i deserve to be paid MILLIONS if i am asked to serve sporeans.”

lolololol…

For those people who insist that having Ephraim on the team is a farce, you can just leave this website for good. Seriously why make a big hoo-ha about all this? It gives the team a better balance and you should look at the overall picture.

Keep up the good work TOC! =)