Indeed, we don’t have to agree with everything in your proposal. Where we agree, that’s fine. Where we don’t agree, surely we can agree to disagree amicably without resorting to behavioural standards that have been perpetuated for the last 40-odd years, eh?

The Pariah from http://www.singaporeenbloc.blogspot.com

Thanks.

http://singaporedaily.wordpress.com/2008/04/27/sgdaily-roundup-what%e2%80%99s-hot-in-week-17/#comment-1901

It’s over.

If however, somebody wants to build a fence to fence You in, then I see no reason why You should help to give ideas and or even supply materials to help to build the fence.

Yours humbly: patriot.

“He acknowledged that the Minister is ultimately accountable for the policies and operations of his ministry, but said a rational approach to establish who is responsible for lapses has to be taken.”

Notice that whatever speech he make always end up in BUT, and it is the BUT that he will proceed with. So when JOker Lee says that
“We will examine whether we should relax part of the rules but this issue will be handled cautiously to prevent a negative impact.’”

Therefore, expect nothing less than stringent measurement and even registration of blog that highlight Singapore circus government in negative light.

http://singaporepatriot.blogspot.com/2008/04/pm-lee-speaks-about-internet-bogeyman.html

I don’t say that with jest. The more the merrier.

Erm, and observer, your comments are completely unsupported too…hence we can conclude? haha.

I think the reasons given in support about engagement in the democratic process are relevant and substantial.

I would add my support in particular to the call for repeal of Films Act S 33, 35 and PEA s 78 (1). These laws are particularly broadly framed and unhelpful to bloggers.

If you’d like to debate me on my support of the substance of these reforms, and argue that these should be kept on the statute books, I’d be happy to engage you here.

I have an interesting observation on most of the comments:

when someone disagree with the paper, they are just called names or brushed aside

when someone agrees with the paper, they don’t have to justify why, but they get away with it.

Conclusion.. haha.. make your own..

I think you have to expand on why the paper has substance, instead of just saying that as well. :)

As for bloggers’ associations of TOC with PAP, it’s not something that will go away immediately.

I think you need to think twice about calling this paper PAP sponsored, it seems you’re just rehashing old allegations about PAP links to try to discredit all 13 good bloggers.

Try to distinguish the personality from the substance. Looking at this paper, got substance. Looking at your comment, really no substance.

I think someone has pointed out that Justin Zhuang blogs on Cherian’s Journalism.sg btw.

People who fly everywhere isn’t communicating real time. Their actions are easily computed, but when you have a Brazilian putting his piece of culture online and you putting your online, who is right to say he in Spain is right and you in a Singaporean in Geneva is wrong?

This is not how laws operate under the UN charter. You can’t have Singaporean telling UN that it can govern its own seat, pee on the seats, swear on seats against the communist members and just leave anytime. It’s not the same as if you can fly into your terroritory. Cyberspace is NOT only you. See?

It’s a real United Nation issue, because law-respecting respecting Singapore has to make the charters a basis for its international legal justification. And there is not only a sovereignty issue, it also includes discrimination of all sorts…

It’s not only without legal basis, it’s also very unfair.

you are also slapping yourself in the face :P You are just saying someone is not good because the person didn’t elaborate. You didn’t give any elaboration on the article either…hehehe

But since the paper does not represent my view, but only the 12 bloggers + 1 dun know whether blogger, I am fine with it. But if it grows to become a defacto voice… that’s another story..

There are already comments going in other blogs that TOC is PAP sponsored..

I disagree with a few points in the paper, but I’m completely in support of the spirit of the paper. I’m excited by the possibility of what a small group of people can do if they put their hearts, minds and efforts together to accomplish.

Thanks guys you’re an inspiration.

I think the bloggers here are just stating their fair concerns.

No point calling names and making assumptions about others’ motives. If you want, do state specific comments. It’s part of what we what to achieve through a more open community in the Internet sphere right?

If we don’t moderate ourselves, it will be difficult to push for a case for a open platform.

Race and religion is one of the trump cards justifying the Mandate of Heaven, both giving carte blanche for administrative fiat and allowing the regular stoking of moral panic; to get rid of it would be unthinkable…

A few days ago, I used to support this initiative as I believe it is always good when my fellow country man stand up and speak their minds, but after reading how the mildest comments can provoke a flood of mindless support which are not designed to explore beyond what was mentioned, its very clear to me all of the so called “Amazing People,” and their efforts will amount to very little.

I am very sorry, you do not have my support!

Why so bitter? These guys put out an open call for everyone to get on board. They’re a good mix of people, and even then they’re not actually claiming to represent us. They’ve got amazing people like Martyn See and activists like Ng Ejay, academics like Cherian, and even a couple of students involved.

More important than the good mix though is that these guys have never claimed to represent you.

Ironically, if their proposals go through, you’ll be the one benefitting.

Even if they’re not accepted, they would have made people realize that ordinary bloggers can band together and stand up for what they believe in, not matter how small the group. Democracy should work that way!