Always remember to brush your teeth

When singapore in 1950s to 60s.,Lky always call citizen to stand up and have a freedom soceity!!!….
but now,they make LAW LAW LAW to stop the FREEDOM SPECCH in internet and in own society….
hai..so sad..

so hate it!!…

we just need FREEDOM…if the goV member like so much about NO FREEDOM,,we welcome they to get out of SING,
let other party take over,singapore will still improve..

IF any of u disagree with me,U must ask yrself,DO u let other party to HELP U..
ANS is NO.so don talk.

STAND up SINGAPOREANS,made a different.VOTE IN 2011,,,!!

don make young generation live in now this stupid environment..

GV always want us to concern about sing,but our voice they can”T hear..!!
DISOBEY US, they will regrads ONE DAYS either in 2011 or 2016..

WE WANT HAVE A general election on every 4 year..5 year too long..i want USA POLICY..>_<

from:
@young generation@

Let us all remind ourselves we all have our new e-engagement party hats tightly screwed on – but this does not give you license to make wide sweeping unsubstantiated allegations concerning the brotherhood.

I am going to pretend I didn’t see your outburst on this occasion. As I believe, you may simply be under a false misapprehension and hopefully I am in the position to set the record straight.

But if it happens again, I will not hesitate to issue you a terse yellow and if necessary red card to foreclose on how serious I regard your infraction.

Do we understand each other “highly dissatisfied?” Good.

First, let me address the issues you raised in reverse (as I find myself having to extricate the salient from so many of your baseless accusations) how true is Cheong Yip Seng’s statement when he says the net is a very “cynical” place? Well as far as truths go, it’s hard to fault that statement, but what does that really bring to the whole discussion of e-engagement and driving ‘change’ in our net?

The short answer is – A big fat nothing, as the sum total of what Mr Cheong mentioned was really like saying there are sand dunes in the Sahara and the color of the waters in the Bosporus straits is closer to cay than the paraffin blue of the Atlantic – this I believe underscores the problem Vollariane (the director general of the ASDF) highlighted so brilliantly in the comatose inducing interview you linked; there is a need for a holistic philosophy to effectively scale and manage this whole idea of ‘change.’

It’s conceivable this may even require us to ask further; what accounts for this unmitigated level of cynicism in the first place in the net? Did Mr Cheong and his associates even bother to ask? What are the drivers and causal links? Tell me what happens when one political party is denied the right to ride bikes in the park; while another is allowed to do the same, only this time, the only difference lies in the procedural process and not the content presented to the public? I don’t think, I even need to elaborate further on this historicism. Each of us can dip our hands into the net and draw out our smelly fishes to do very much the same to draw out endless cases of contradictions.

To paraphrase, he is saying AIMS needs to address the root causes of this disaffected divided and not merely continue to affirm the need to engage for the sake of engagement sake alone. He doesnt even believe that is a good enough reason to premise change.

In other words, Vollariane is stressing the need for what he calls an all encompassing strategy for change in the form of a governing philosophy. Please note he even considers this a strategic precondition and if you read very carefully it’s nothing less than a stricture he even goes on to recommend AIMS should do absolutely NOTHING i.e recommend no changes to even the films act etc till they first hammer out a comprehensive philosophy accounting for why change should be instated and how it should be perpetuated. As without it real and meaningful change would be impossible – in other words, he believes all these negotiations i.e whether S.33 should or should not be repealed etc is really like quibbling over the color of wall paper in the ball room two minutes after the Titanic has struck the iceberg – in his opinion, its irrelevant, spurious and worthless.

Here I need to emphasize Vollariane is not even advocating a principle such as promoting the idea of freedom of speech like the blogger 13. The difference between philosophy and principles is the latter are merely control features very much like a steering wheel that allows one to transverse from A-B-C to D etc. A principle may also supply a brief rationale along with it.

A philosophy on the other hand is the means that allows you to bench mark that progress from A-B-C by providing a set of metrics and key performance indicators so that if necessary you may even conduct a trade off analysis, why is this important? Because Vollariane and his team believes to effect change on this Byzantine scale there is no harm to put in place plenty of feed back loops as its even conceivable many of these initiatives need to be coordinated at an intra executive level.

With due respect to AIMS – though they spent 103 pages writing all sorts of things, what remains stupefying to any casual reader Madam is how the report didn’t even consider it relevant to spend one sentence expanding on the root causes for why there may even be a cognitive dissonance between netizens and govt; it seems the whole conversation just picks up and runs from that point onwards. In the view of the director general of the ASDF that’s a serious omission.

Why am I highlighting the salient of the excerpt that you linked in your comment? To show you conclusively that they, the brotherhood do not hide information – here we have the clearest indication of a not only a road map, along with case studies, SWOT analysis along with a guiding philosophy how change may even be perpetuated.

As you can very well see for yourself what I have just highlighted above is inconsistent to this so called attitude of keeping everything under wraps as what you described as a symptomatic and even a trifle comic condition that characterizes how they (the brotherhood) may interact with others in the net.

Good evening

SD

If TOC was indeed depicted as a clown by the ST. IMO the blogger 13 should bear some responsibility for this. Lets not forget the whole issue of community moderation just dropped off the radar as soon as AIMS shot down the idea. It just packed up and disappear with hardly a whimper!

What do you think that says about the blogger 13 and their resolve? Please dont tell me community moderation was just a side dish. The blogger 13 even went as far as to hold a forum in the URA building, where I attended. I recalled distinctly the formation of the consultative committee was their main point and till then they had not even specifically fleshed out the various points against S.33 along with other pointers.

Now it seems the blogger 13 is back in the news again. But they dont seem to understand while they have raced ahead to take issue with AIMS on other points. Most of us are still very confused as to what they are really trying to accomplish here. Most of us still have our brains stuck in the gear of community moderation. There was no article or even discussion to close of this entire matter. It was IMO very badly managed. So what do you think that says about the blogger 13? Dont they come across as clowns? Indecisive, fickle minded and ill prepared. To say that gives them a wishy washy impression is an understatement. So I dont think its not completely fair to blame the st for skewering the report.

SD,

While I agree with some of your points along with the whole issue of e-engagement. I dont really claim to understand why the brotherhood have consistently cut off every single attempt to connect with them.

I am not only talking about the MSM, but I have also noted this hurling or critical epithets is also widely done to suggest they dont see any value in connecting with others.

I have for instance asked myself some questions like why the brotherhood regularly points out faults but yet is so unwilling to share any of their solutions or counter proposal with others in detail.

Not only do they adopt this strategy of keeping information all to themselves. The whole idea of secret this or that is even propogated and encouraged. There have been many times when people have asked for information and that Darkness character has shouted. I want $.

Dont say I am making a general accusation. I noticed for example in your recent essay here

http://dotseng.wordpress.com/2008/09/05/the-cognitive-dissonance-that-lacks-aims-an-interview-with-the-asdf-part-2/

While nearly 24 points were raised! Bear in mind 24 separate points! It may be stacked up one on top of the other, but trust me, I counted them 24! Not a single specific solution! Every time it goes there. The term philosophy, ethos or whatever is skillfully inserted.

I like to believe this is because some of you may not know, but I do recall on plently of occasions when Darkness said things to the effect, lets hide information from them or lets keep them dumb. Or let them chase their own tails.

In this light, is it so surprising cheong yip seng described the net as a place that suffered from terminal and unhealthy cynicism?

The brotherhood should work with AIMS and others. Instead of hiding in darkness.

:)

Thank you for reminding netizens that thru the ISP that there is no anonymousity.
Choo is diplomatic , contrary to what ” Lim” thinks.

ST is both measured and calculating in its dishing out. ST also denied Catherine Lim before but it may have backfired – hence perhaps in damage control, we saw a recent neutral article of her in a park setting.

I do not know who FD is; his could be a trick question but Choo answered well.

Take Care netizens.

Well, I thought Choo could have replied that actually, there is no such thing as ANONYMOUSITY in the internet. I am sure this is a fact. Every internet connection can be traced and information and traces are left all over the internet and definitely resides in the ISP network devices.

Thus, lets be more IT savvy and be clear from today that THERE IS NO SUCH THING as PRIVACY In the INTERNET.

But I hope someone proves this is not so.

For political freedom, the ISP also should not be linked to any political party. this is what I dreamt of last night. But then when I woke up, I realise I do not have the answer also. So, what do you think? If ISP is controlled by political party A, how will this be fair to political party B? how will this be fair for privacy of individuals?

Should there be NET NEUTRALITY?

What law is there to protect individual’s privacy on the internet for activities like talking coke in a blog or forum or online purchasing with CREDIT CARDs? Spore is pro-commerce right? How to ease people’s minds when the internet is so not ANONYMOUS?

Everyone on the net is ‘known’ or can be known to the ISP.

what say u?

Any clearer; and we all wouldn’t even need to post; we will all just rely on Suwah’s Nostradamus telepathic communication crystal balls – and read minds.

Let me put it this way Rod; let us imagine one day; you decide; you want to donate some of your precious blood for the betterment of humanity.

So you go down to the blood bank that is managed by Count Dracula – latter it transpires not only did he siphon off the agreed full quart, but since he happens to be the count, he’s also good at counting off even more to take a few more liberties; Question: who is to blame for this fracas? Shouldn’t you have done your due diligence? And if you complain that you were hoodwinked then tell me aren’t you perhaps a tad petulant and naïve?

Thank you Rod, you latter statements were indeed thought provoking and I had hoped you had expanded further on it.
——————————————————————————————————–

Hi Dee,

“cant help but feel you may have missed the whole point by at least a good 10 miles on why Choo Zheng Xi decided to write to ST.”

Dee haleluya! At last, my aim is finally improving. Allow me to confide in you. Usually I miss by at least a good 20 miles – look here, if the ST did indeed misrepresent the case to even reduce the blogger 13 to a bunch of shambolic mumbling clowns – then look at the positive side. At least if they can’t give us content. They can still be relied to make all of us laugh.

Dee I agree with your point, the right to reply is indeed simplicity unto itself, but I don’t believe for one moment foreclosing on these rights is that simple in Singapore; to the extent where one can sensibly even consider the right to reply as an indelible right. If what you say were true then newspapers would not have to regularly fend off libel and defamation cases.

That’s not even possible in a free press in the West; so the question you really need to ask yourself is how would any reasonably intelligent aggrieved party go about squaring off the accounts in such a case?

If you said Mr Choo attempted to square off the point in blogosphere – then I say good on him – he’s smart, but if he goes around complaining why the ST may have denied him the right to reply – then he has to be petulant.

As for your reference concerning Suwah; understand this; and bear this in mind; she can take issue with me if she wishes; my main supposition is she regularly makes remarks which have no basis factually or otherwise; I took the battle directly to her door step; she may feel aggrieved, but I assure you her statutory rights remain very much intact. If she doesn’t like it; either she or AIMS can always pursue the matter further in the civil courts – did you see me complaining that AIMS didn’t give me a right of reply Dee?

No, I took the flag and marked the spot mentally in my head and charged up the hill!

I believe one dimension of e-engagement is that while the govt or it agents and nominated persons may certainly wish to engage netizens; they too have to take responsibility for what they say and bear the consequences accordingly – what did they really expect. A stroll in the park? – then, they are petulant!

Now you know why journalist don’t see the wisdom of blogging.

Thank you Madam.

Reg

SD

I cant help but feel you may have missed the whole point by at least a good 10 miles on why Choo Zheng Xi decided to write to ST.

The principle is really quite simple to understand. I dont understand why you seem to have such difficulty digesting it.

Whenever a newspaper makes false allegations or promotes inaccuracies that should never be excused as part and parcel of practical business necessity incurred in running a newspaper. Mr Choo’s point is this, those who have been misrepresented and made to look like clowns should have been given a right of reply to set the record right. No reasonable person could possibly have realized what they once said would have been given such a skewered write up. If I go to a eatery and I order roti prata and mee siam comes along what am I supposed to do? Not complain? Or using your analogy. I should just shad dap and eat my food. Tell me are you suggesting business needs should always take over the whole issue of rights?

Singapore daddy contrary to what you mentioned that demanding is not a right. The right to reply is an idelible “right ” that is enshrined in the laws and policies of most civilized countries. So they had every right to demand for it. That is why I believe the word “demand” was deliberately used as it implies an exercise of this first principled rights. You on the otherhand seem to dismiss this as a petulant claim. Dont you realize everyone has a right to demand and insist on their rights?

A second point, relates to accuracy and the overidding need to comply with facts. Once again Singapore Daddy. You seem to be curiously surprised that this should even be insisted upon by those who make up the blogger 13.

Tell me Singapore Daddy, what were you trying so hard to prove here?

http://theonlinecitizen.com/2008/08/advisory-council-proposes-further-liberalisations-of-the-internet/#comments

You people are brotherhood arent you? Only the brotherhood would be so daring as to do all this.

How you reiterated it as “what I did say was this: it was petulant to EXPECT by way of demand “a right of reply”;” (September 10th, 2008 11.46 am) — I have no idea what you are trying to say. Perhaps you shouldn’t try to cover up your mistakes and either state clearly what you mean from the outset, or else apologise for not writing clearly in the first place.

But in a basic sense, you’re right about any press not giving the right of reply. Therefore Zheng Xi does it through TOC, and maybe other blogs.

The larger issue, of course, is that the ST has an agenda. Their so-called ‘business of running a newspaper’ as you put it, cannot be totally separated from this agenda. In fact it is probably an integral part of it. Their rejection of replies from bloggers such as Zheng Xi fits right into their framework.

I leave it to other readers to deduce what agenda I’m referring to.

“I disagree, however, that Blogger 13 is being ‘petulant’ by putting forth a clarification of what it feels was a misrepresentation of its position.”

Dell I never said that, what I did say was this: it was petulant to EXPECT by way of demand “a right of reply; given what I have just explained how ANY press goes abt the business of running a newspaper on this planet @ September 10th, 2008 12.03 am

On what you subsequently mentioned:

“Say Obama is misrepresented on one channel; he and his team find another platform upon which they try to set the record straight.”

Dell may I be permitted to say; that’s an excellent point.

As what you may have inadvertently accomplished here is to illustrate succinctly my nub i.e how the matter of bias reportage should be effectively managed in the event of bent reportage – here I believe, the question we really need to ask ourselves is why did Obama’s team NOT insist on a similar right of reply and instead saw fit to pursue a strategy of setting the record right by alternative means?

I will leave that to your consideration for brevity sake.

My point is simply this; if you expect ANY press to give you a right to reply even the grande dames like the WSJ, HT, NYT, Guardian or the quiant Timbuktu daily post; at best it has to be unrealistic expectation – at worst it’s naïve and on a polite account, it’s definitely petulant.

Good day Sir.

SD

I disagree, however, that Blogger 13 is being ‘petulant’ by putting forth a clarification of what it feels was a misrepresentation of its position. Say Obama is misrepresented on one channel; he and his team find another platform upon which they try to set the record straight. The problem here is that there is no platform of similar stature and penetration to the ST upon which Blogger 13 can attempt to do the same.

Newspapers in Britain report day-to-day on issues from radically different standpoints, depending on the agenda/ideology of their owners. It is by no means a perfect arena for unbounded exposure and exchange, but having more than one voice in the mainstream media does imply that there will be spectrum of coverage and treatment. All the better for each to judge on his/her own.

That is exactly my point. Reportage isn’t supposed to be reasonable; for lack of a better word it’s just an eye-witness genre of an account: an individual journalist’s report of events as they see it.

Any reasonable person or group who engages the press should be aware of this constraint as what’s eventually presented to the public needs to conform to the structure and form of constrains imposed by editors, word count limit, cogency, structure etc – the function of the reporter is to promote the gist of what the blogger 13 was trying to convey; he is under no obligation to give the readership a 360º war & peace sweep of the before, during and after recitation you seem to be confusing newspapers with the Encyclopaedia Britannica – so where does the right to reply even feature against that kind of tacit rules of engagement?

If you give an interview to the press; you have in effect volens that which you once represented may be given a total differently editorial treatment from what you represented; that’s a sine quo non of engaging ANY press; where they may even promote or demote any point the reporter sees fit but providing they manage to capture the spirit and intendment of the gist; I think that is fine; to be honest with you IMHO, the journalist did a very good job of nubbing it very nicely.

I don’t think you really know how petulant the blogger 13 comes across to even the blogging community when they go around demanding for a right of reply; by the way this even happens regularly to people like Obama and the Aga Khan foundation. Why do you think folk like Darkness of the brotherhod ONLY issue out communiqués and interviews and regularly insist on a word count waiver?

Pls try to take this constructively; I mean well – we all live and learn, I hope.

night, night

SD

But the point of right to reply is just that: If you are talked about, reported on, and especially in this case, incorrectly, then you deserve the priority placing for a right of reply. If the New Paper published something scandalous about you which might be half-true, you definitely deserve to submit and have published your response to it, for the basic fact that the article was about you.

The article was about the Bloggers 13, and incorrectly covered their response. Hence the bloggers, in this case represented by Zheng Xi, must have priority in responding and getting their response published so the same people that saw the article (side A) also see the reply (side B).

I am a closet supporter of TOC.

I think TOC is totally not against FT.
My personal understanding is TOC is only voicing up locals’ concerns about their rice bowl due to some policys inplace.

I hope its clear where should we focus on.
Any foreigner would be tempted to come here given the policies in place.

Having said this, it should also be clear that I am not saying the policies are wrong.

We live in a world that is not Black and White but fuzzy with shades of grey in between.

National development should be sensitive to the needs and opinions of the People. The People should come 1st when developing a nation.

Economy is merely 1 piece of the jigsaw to me. Let there be more attention paid to the rest of the jigsaw pieces.

Having just watched BlogTV , I would like to pass on the message that
Internet does not belong to anyone person. Internet space is space for everyone.
Everyone should be allowed to voice up. Internet provides a little form of privacy and lets more views come to light than offline methods.

There are already laws in place to cover the internet. this space should belong to the people and people should be responsible just like they are offline.

Well done Choo!

I think this is very reasonable business statement; it is after all a reflection of how most organisations deal sensibly with the issue of resource scarcity – I believe when TOC mooted the issue of community moderation it too failed woefully to adequate reflect the spread of views that was represented in the net; for whatever reasons known only to their editors – tell me are you suggesting for one moment, you are not subject to the same governing constraints and limitations of running a free and objective online press? – so why even suggest for one moment what the ST did by deciding not to run your rebuttal article embodies the same paternalistic arrogance of a being the sole purveyor of news that even mocks the ideal of fair play to suggest they have been unfair – I believe while you may certainly wish that the views of the blogger 13 may be published is a matter of right.

Even you could really only insist on that as a condition priori if as a matter of fact TOC had in the first place subscribed to the same policy of giving equal promotion to articles which were equally critical of the whole of idea of community moderation in the first place.

Dont you think this is a case of the kettle calling the pot -black? Please…let us be reasonable…ST is not the devil reincarnate…these people simply have to run a newspaper…and that means they as much you believe your fantasies and philanthropies deserve a platform for being vented, one can no more consider this an irredeemable “right”…in this view, the outlying issues the author of this article has highligthed have no right, no basis or locus primus to speak of, no independence or integrity worth representing beyond the realities of what it really takes to run a newspaper such as the ST at least- that unfortunately is business.

I know this is difficult to swallow, but have you ever considered this may not even be a personal decision that reflects on the standing of TOC?

Dont be so wet. It doesnt become any of you.

Reg

SD