While above the clouds his vision of the earth is so clouded that he needs his team of advisors to advise him on the happenings below the clouds. Unfortunately, these advisors are up there with him and what they see from up there are no different from what he himself sees.

What do we do down here?

Yes, like what anyone with a sound mind would do. PULL THEM DOWN!.

This is the only solution to all our problems.

Who will fight against the kangaroo system if kangaroo make punk again ? The AIMS with people consisting of MSM people ?

There must be someone accountable when the proposal will be amended by the government in the future by who the one really ?

What I mean is that proposal look good now but What is there to stop the government from meddling the agreement without consulting the ground in the future ?

We have never experienced many other thingies:

1. cannot say….
2. oso cannot say….
3. still not at liberty to say….
4. better dun say….else….kenna…..
5. my mudder told me never to say and say….
6. better let others say….
7. dun be hero lah….
8. say like no say….
9. say no use wan…..
A. got people representedtatives to lapresent you already wat. let them rep us lor. all 82 or so wor.

B. wait until the palpitation is no longer palpitating.
C. Got opposition in the parl already mah…they so solid bombastic speak up on all issues of public interest wor….i name you exampers…..erm…..i….need to find the examples….

Regards to all.

I think your answer is in front of you.
All singaporeans have not done anything to show they are not happy with the people helming the MSM.
So, by that we have to assume, they all have no issue with how they are appointed. Sporeans must be responsible for their decisions.

I wonder what does he mean?

The fact is they work in the MSM.
They choose to work in the MSM.
And they are the ones giving us the news that we read because its written by them. For decades.

15) jy on December 3rd, 2008 8.44 am
I read your comment with interest. You mean, as one of the MSM chief, the person should not be a member of any political party to show that he is more neutral and unbiased? I wonder how the rest of you feel about this? My question is why should a newspaper chief be a member of a political party? I do not object to it but just like to know if this is a pre-requisite and do all of you feel this is a step forward to unbiased news.

Of course, I can only say our MSM chiefs have been excellent and totally unbiased. Even they would agree. right?

Were you the former Chief Editor of The Straits Times?

Please lah, lets be clearer leh.

“It’s ironic that political parties, being one of the main stakeholders in the issue of media liberalization, have chosen to stay silent.”

I do not feel that you are being fair making this statement.

we all know the constraints.

You speak as if there is ZERO constraints.

I have been a fan of your articles. This comment of yours disappointed me.

no offens juz my honest feelings.

Why go for half an egg without even trying for the full egg? This is very typical of our civil service who self-censure and censor themselves before they even try asking.

this did not mean no new films would be allowed during election period. He cited the examples of “factual material” such as videos of election rallies or of political parties’ walkabouts during the hustings. These, he said, should be allowed.

Herein lies the catch. Nothing in ‘factual’ that is outside of the PAP box. It is clausesand statements like these that already protects the PAP even before they are approved.Worse, the opposition are already condemned because whatever films they might put up would certainly be their death-knell.

Nonetheless, in lieu of full repeal, AIMs is suggesting that the Government
decriminalize the making of political films as a first-step towards abolishment and also to narrow the scope of the law to target only party political films which
“intentionally mislead viewers”.

Isn’t it clearer now? Who is going to deem if there are intentional misleadings or not? Our kangaroo court again?

Turning to Section 35 of the Act, which gives the Minister the power to ban films which are “against the public interest”, AIMs proposes that it be retained in the law.

See what I mean, The Minister has the last say and AIMs says it is okay and this
authority should be retained.

“These two measures,” said AIMs, “is to address the concerns of those who fear that Section 35 would be used to limit political debate.”

AIMs should try to address the root cause of such fears, which is, the power of the
Minister who holds the authority to decide at his whim and fancy whether the film
contents are misleading or not. AIMs ought to have this authority removed and
given to the court of law to decide, independently. Perhaps, AIMs also realises that we have a kangaroo court?

AIMs asks the Government to allow civil servants to voice out their opinions online. It explained that these civil servants are in a unique position to articulate balanced and unique perspectives first-hand.

Good step but these civil servants must not come online and start behaving like
Elaina and Durian Thrower Gang. They must be brave enough to speak up againstpolicies and issues in full honesty and sincerity and not to use it to curry-flavour or to gain personal career mileage.

btw, this morning’s TODAY papers hinted that the civil service would do well to emulate TOC and its ability to attract credible contributions and discourses on its platform. Well, done TOC, again.

When asked by TOC if AIMs had approached any opposition parties for their
views or if any opposition parties had voluntarily presented their views to AIMs,
Mr Cheong said that no opposition parties had done so.

Well, well. Is AIMs really serious, half-serious or just playing a joke on us all?

We will know when the govt throws the proposal into the waste bin that
this is all but one real big joke to smoke-screen the people again.

To Gilbert Goh, I don’t think it is strange that AIMS did not approach the Opposition, though I acknowledge the point made by Gerald that political parties are significant (not main) stakeholders in the virtual realm. The opposition could have taken a more proactive approach and presented their views/suggestions. That would have been a good opportunity for positive publicity for them, is it not?

My guess is that views from both PAP and Opposition were sought indirectly through the consultation sessions with groups such as the Law Society, Government Parliamentary Committees, businesses, bloggers and individuals, who may be partisans but had not identify themselves as one.