Tan Kin Lian
Minister for Health Khaw Boon Wan suggested that some people can consider sending their elderly parents to a nursing home in Johor Bahru, where the cost is less than half of the cost in Singapore.
This created a big uproar. It attracted more than 300 comments in postings in The Online Citizen. Over 80% of the comments were strongly against the suggestion. Many of the comments were rude and abusive. They called the minister inappropriate names. I was shocked at this behaviour.
First, it was not necessary for people to give their views in a rude manner. They should show respect to the views of other people. I am not suggesting that a minister deserves more respect than any ordinary people. But he should not be given any less respect either.
Second, there is a strong perception that any suggestion by a minister will be implemented as government policy. If the reaction is likely to be irrational and negative, the government may decide that it is better not to engage the public. Surely, as citizens, we like to have the chance of giving our views before any decision is taken by the government leaders? Can we give our views in an objective manner, rather than behave badly?
Third, there seems to be a strong dislike and distrust of the government. This is unhealthy.
Survey
I wrote an article (https://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dcqjz7c8_97fcssgjgb&hl=en ) on this matter and carried out a survey. After three days, a total of 31 people responded to the survey. Here are the findings of the survey.
The respondents were asked to give their views to certain statements. The score is: 1=strongly disagree, 3=neutral, 5=strongly agree. The average score is calculated from tall the replies.
Minister’s suggestion
Here are the views on the nursing home suggestion by Mr. Khaw Boon Wan:
a) The minister is entitled to make the suggestion about using nursing homes in Johor Bahru: score = 3.00 (neutral)
b) It is insensitive for the minister to make this suggestion: score = 4.29 (moderately agree)
c) I lost my respect for the minster due to this insensitive remark: score = 3.66 (slightly agree)
It is clear that the majority of Singaporeans felt that the minister should not make this suggestion, and that the suggestion has somewhat diminished his standing among the people.
Views in TOC
Here are the views on the postings in The Online Citizen:
a) The strong reactions as reflected in the postings in the blogs are unwarranted: score = 2.94 (neutral)
b) The people posting views in The Online Citizen are an extreme lot and do not reflect the views of the general public: score 2.74 (somewhat disagree)
The findings suggest that the views posted in The Online Citizen do reflect the views of the general public. (But this is likely to be distorted as the commentators are likely to be the people participating in the survey).
Nearly half felt that the strong reactions are unwarranted, but the others disagree.
Policy process
Here are the views on the policy-making process of the Government:
a) The Singapore Government is not willing to listen to the views of the people, as they think that they know best: score = 4.48 (somewhat strongly agree)
b) The Members of Parliament fail in their duty to debate policies in Parliament: score: 4.29 (moderately agree)
c) The Feedback Panel has not achieved the goal of providing a channel for citizens to give their views to the Government: score 4.45 (somewhat strongly agree)
d) People are unhappy about their inability to influence the Government and get them to modify unpopular policies: score 4.45 (somewhat strongly agree)
It is clear that the respondents are unhappy with the policy making process in Singapore.
Climate for discussion
Here is the view on the climate for discussion:
a) We need to build a more positive and constructive climate for free discussion in Singapore: score = 4.68 (strongly agree)
This is the clearest finding of the survey. We need a constructive climate for free discussion in Singapore.
Be positive
I hope that Singaporeans can take a positive approach towards discussions affecting our future. We should keep an open mind and react objectively to any suggestion. If we are not sure, we should seek clarification, rather than jump to the wrong conclusion.
Whether we agree or disagree, let us give our views constructively and show respect to the views of other people. If we want the Government to listen to our views, we have to show that we are a mature and responsible people.
We should also be bold to give our views openly. We should not hide under anonymity and attack other people. If we are honest and constructive, we should not have to fear any adverse repercussion.
The Government has also got a lot to do to engage the people constructively and to change the unhealthy environment that they have built up over the years.
The author also blogs at: www.tankinlian.blogspot.com
———-
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
31 is too small a sample size, unfortunately.
Yeah.. agreed. Sample size is too small. Though if I’m not wrong that >30 is normal distribution.
This created a big uproar. It attracted more than 300 comments in postings in The Online Citizen. Over 80% of the comments were strongly against the suggestion. Many of the comments were rude and abusive. They called the minister inappropriate names. I was shocked at this behaviour.
I personally observed that there is a strong correlation between the amount of respect commenters have for other people (be it other commenters or civil servants or ministers) and their anonymity. Logically, this makes sense, since, being invisible, they can say what they want without repercussions.
This has been on my mind for a long time now, and I see no way to resolve it. We cannot enforce non-anonymity because there are times when it is really needed. Moreover, there are numerous anonymous comments which are very well-reasoned, and there is no justification in censoring them.
Anonymity is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it keeps the vulnerable from being wrongfully persecuted. On the other hand, it diminishes the accountability to one’s words.
I have been, on a few occasions, advocating people to use their real names. Many have used their real names and criticised the government, like Alex Au, Ng E-jay and many of the authors here, so there is really nothing to fear if they justify their words.
Adding to what I’ve just said, there is also the technical impossibility of ensuring non-anonymity. Someone can easily use my name and blog URL, and there’s no way to prevent that.
TKL wrote: “the government may decide that it is better not to engage the public.”
Who is the eventual looser in an unconsultative government?
“If we want the Government to listen to our views, we have to show that we are a mature and responsible people.”
i strongly disagree. it IS the government’s job to listen to the people who elected them. the onus must be on them to listen, and not for the people to “behave” according to what they deem is right before they listen. such thinking is completely wrong and a good reflection on a parenting approach which Singapore should do well to move away from.
why should we respect a view that is morally wrong??
wat4stay:
why should we respect a view that is morally wrong??
But morals are subjective, aren’t they? If I’m a religious conservative and I find homosexuals morally wrong, does that mean I can verbally abuse them? If I’m a liberal and I think euthanasia ought to be allowed, does that mean I can verbally abuse people who oppose my view?
We can say that he’s wrong. We can argue that he’s wrong. But that gives us no justification at all to insult him.
Mr. Tan KL,
I completely disagree with your views. Your opinions smacked of an upper crust attitude which only reinforce what the incumbent regime practices, i.e. “engage me only if you can argue with facts in proper english”.
People should have the right to express their views or feedbacks in whatever manner they deemed fit and it is the job of the government to analyse the general sentiment of these views, not to selectively choose what to listen or not.
If the view is wrong, then we should attack the view, not the person. We are engaged in a contest of ideas, not individuals. I fully agree with Mr Tan Kin Lian’s views in this post.
Agree with “me” above.
Too much of a kowtow towards the govt is not good for the society.
I am glad that the internet platform is a great leveler – it’s the quality of the opinion that counts and not who you are.
7)
Because it’s morally wrong to disrespect others.
It’s good to object to things you don’ agree with, but objecting it doesn’t requires disrespect. All it needs is a peaceful statement and reasons why you object to a certain something.
Disrespecting is as good as trolling, there’s no need to call people names when you yourself have nothing else to offer but name calling.
“Anonymity is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it keeps the vulnerable from being wrongfully persecuted. On the other hand, it diminishes the accountability to one’s words.”
You’re absolutely right, but there’s no change in the fact I enjoy anonymity, it’s not because people can’t track me (If they wanted they probably could), But it’s because it makes me feel like I’m part of the people, a little black dot in a mob. Sure I can’t change anything being just a dot, but as an observer it’s pure entertainment.
How does one constitute whether comments posted are “rude” and “impolite” when these are abstract terms largely dependent on an individuals’ perspective and believes? What is considered “norm” and “sub-norm”? I think regardless of the form of comments, to “truly” respect a person’s view, I think we have to accept it as face value. If the language used is deemed “coarse” and “non-cultured” per one’s perception, the same message can be construed as a genuine out pour of the poster’s uncensored inner feeling by another’s perspective. So in that respect, I disagree that any bench marking should be set.
I also disagreed in any sort of labeling attached such as “rude’’ or “unkind” or “disrespectful” and so on. It is entirely up to each individual to exercise constrained and be responsible with their doing. If you have decided to put up something that is controversial and provocative with an intention for public discourse, one aspect is guaranteed, sparks will fly in all directions. So can one also come to a preconceived judgment that the inducer should had given thorough sensible thought before putting up the subject matter as he/she probably would have the intelligence (assumption made) to know the possible consequences. One can also argued that it may be a deliberate doing to antagonize for other hidden political propaganda only known to the instigator. So, can this form of argument be faulted as well? As the expression go (my twisted version): if you cannot stand the heat of the kitchen, get out and don’t try to act like you are a chef.
One must realize and understand the nature of chain reaction (i.e. for every action there will always be reaction, regardless). So, if a subject matter is being published or posted to attract public discourse, it is inevitable that there will be differing views of all sorts particularly when the subject matter is deemed controversial. If one really advocates freedom of expression, one should not try to impose their personal views and attempt to lament what should be “acceptable”, “correct” & “proper”. You have no RIGHTS to do that. The same applies to pen names for posters. Can someone tell whether Khor Pun Cow or Lee Jia Sai is not of the same person as Anonnye? What is the essence and spirit of “Freedom of Expression?” Having said, it is slightly different if we readers and posters are submitting our comments via a host site where the moderator have every right to set the rules that are deemed acceptable as the host has a responsibility to ensure that they do not violate their given rights by any governing rules (if there is). In that sense, if we want to participate in any discourse via the host site, out of respect, we have to adhere to the rules set forth and also come to terms that there will be no “ABSOLUTE” Freedom of Expression. That is absolutely fair and square game as no one pointed a gun to your head to force you to participate, but if you do choose to, please respect the rules of the host.
Another observation on TheOnlineCitizen is it has slowly evolved into a platform for opposition parties supporters.
hongjun
hongjun @ #13: I hope TOC remains not a pro-opposition or pro-PAP media; but a pro-Singaporean alternative media.
Yes I agree with TKL. We need to take the government to task about the various issues affecting us without resorting to abusive language.
I like to pose to our government,
Is the current performance evaluation system causing pain to the populace? Are our top brains aspiring to go higher, have they been driven to believe that if they can bring more gold nuggets to the feet of their bosses, they will be favorably recognised……all done without much consideration for the lesser mortals and their lot.
Our top brains have not demonstrated that they care much about cost of living issues…..they scramble to grab/extract as much as they can get approval to do so. ERP, transport cost, not engaging the petroleum companies effectively about retail petrol prices, upping cost of retail space pushing up cost of retailing(this has everything to do with our major retail mall owners who is actually the government), upping housing cost, rewarding themselves blatantly high incomes doing jobs that are quite sheltered from real competitive efforts…..if the big brains can go about tackling the 5% commission issues coming out of India in an amicable manner….without giving away SIA, it will serve as a good measurement of their quality…..not qualification.(This is only one example).
One more challenge that will go well with the general public….outline a comprehensive plan to provide a social safety net for our country’s elders….they have given their best., few have anything left to grow old with …….wishing that part of the big investment portfolio handled by Temasek and GIC can be used to aleviate their concerns. …..how about making an open commitment that you will give our old a secure old age pension(start small)…….ask our scholars to include that as part of their challenge, to enable our old the ability and means to live with dignity, irrespective of background.
This cannot be outside of the government’s mission for Singapore, its people, pulling together all these years even though we do not possess education levels comparable to the young, but we have proven our loyalty and commitment. Do not reward only the well educated.
We have sown(past tense for sow?), the tree have grown, we can see the fruits…….do not tell us that we have not contributed towards the harvest…….do not process the fruits into juice…..giving teaspoonful to us…..versus your gourmet meals cooked at home, with training at the best French culinary schools.
Is my dream still valid? Are there enough fruits left?
9)
“People should have the right to express their views or feedbacks ”
I totally Agree.
“in whatever manner they deemed fit”
This is so wrong though, I suppose everyone have different mentalities on the subject of respect, social etiquette and so on, but what TKL’s saying that we should draw at least a minimum line at insult and abuse.
e.g: (Mind you this is just an example, be it bad or not!)
An old fishmonger sells fishes at an absurd price at the market, telling you his fishes came from the heaven.
You obviously don’t believe him, and tells everyone around that fishes don’t come from heaven, with given facts from credible sources that it’s just not possible.
And with that you ALSO go along telling people the fishmonger’s an idiot, a fool, a retard, a liar….and along with these names you went on to say the fishmonger’s a F***ER, G**, Baboon cheater, Wife Cheater, Market Cheater, XXX-Cheater, or anything else that rhymes with cheater or insults.
I’m all ears for facts and justified anger directed at people, but doing extra stuffs to cause verbal hurt for no apparent reasons makes absolutely no sense.
The way I see it it’s like mini terrorism…
Terrorism = I am right! You are wrong! DIE!
Mini Terrorism = I am right! You are Wrong! DIE from my onslaught of name calling!
There’s really no point in wasting time in the name calling departments…of course, if you feel you really need it go get yourself a blog or something.
I used to like posting under anon. I still do. As I find it really difficult to trust ppl. I used to play rpg. Me and my friends would use anon tags and regularly cause havoc. One day a man appeared in this game, as he said we have gone too far and he was here to put an end to the rebellion. He was a sort of rep sent by the game master. He did not scold us like the others. He never made us feel small like the others who treated us all as if our anonymity was like aids or some disease. In fact he told us, we could do it the hard way or his way. We did not have a choice as we knew the hard way meant they will burn everything. So we did it his way. And he began by telling us all about the great history of anonymity. When many of us realized where we came from some were ashamed how they had behaved. The man went on to say, we have a right to anonymity, but we must also live by a code otherwise we are no better than animals. Many of us regarded him like an older brother. Many people in this network listened to this rep. As he was wise and there was an air of authority about him. As time went by, many of us became more and more curious about this fellow. We all wanted to know who was behind this voice. So one day we all decided to meet them There is a moral here somewhere. But I am too lazy to explain it.
17)
It means you were enlightened. and I think I’m spending too much time here.
If this is a new Government , I would totall agree with what TKL has mentioned.
This is a party that have ruled Singapore for the pass 43 years! I believe what we see here is just tip of the ice-berg; that mean the tolerance level for people has deminished due to the increase in hardship!
Another unique problem of Singaporean is that most of us has either never have a chance or little chance to vote during the election! (as there is too many walk over)
So it is naturally understandable that pple expect the govt to reach out more to them, Having one of the world’s highest paid Ministers/ MPs doesn’t make things any better. In private sectors, u r paid according to what you can delivery! If you don’t , your are fired!
Nevertheless, I do agree that one should not use abusive language and called anyone by “name”, not to menton that the person concern is a minister.
My 2 cent worth opinion.
Comments & reporting of
#15,
I agree with you. On the welfare thing, I’m quite certain our govt will not budge as they have reiterated on many occassions that ppl should take care of themselves & less dependency on govt, else our nation will degrade into a welfare state. The recent budget clearly exemplified their stance.
I just can’t help but wonder my fate as I age; what amt will I be left with my cpf for survival after paying my HDB loan; or worse, have my flat “bought” back by the HDB under some silly scheme which is basically mortaging my flat for some miserable monthly pittance so that I’ve nothing left for my children when I ceased; and knowing that after working my entire live contributing to the society, will I end up collecting cartons on the street instead of govt providing me with some basic shelter and meals so that I live an old age with dignity.
& by the way, it will be much easier to be positive if I’m an ex-CEO living in a landed property in YCK. But most of us are not so lucky and strugging to make ends meet and constantly in dreaded fear of loosing our jobs with the uncertain future.
22) tiredman on February 20th, 2009 4.29 pm
Mine as well. Be patient la. 13) Observer (SG-HK) on Your comment is awaiting moderation. February 20th, 2009 2.51 pm.
I think it is just the spam working well. Don’t worry a thing la.
Unfortunate remark put out of context can looked really ugly and I am sure Khaw Boon Wan’s intent was not that twisted.
Again, the subject is about retiring in a respectable and dignified manner and from the angle of economics and land scarcity, should we be exploring building retirement villages spawned across Asia in good setting even good enough for all to stay in? These are Singapore run villages with our own amenities in Asia – Phuket, Bali or even in Johor where we can run most cost efficient Banyan-styled retirement villages with medical facilities. And the beauty of this scheme may be that residents can move from Bali to Phuket to Johor to Hainan Island freely to enjoy their retirement.
From a policy exploration standpoint, I agree that these must be one of the many considered options.
From an ethical standpoint, this must not be seen as a dislodgement of parents from our family nucleus.
I am sure Khaw Boon Wan did not mean that.
Dear Mr Tan Kin Lian,
Please allow me to make 3 points:
(1) I’m surprised that you are shocked that Mr Khaw was severely attacked for his suggestion. Being part of the staff of TOC, you would have realised by now that articles in TOC are written according to a formula – choose a topic or small incident involving some Govt minister or MP, zero in on some acts, words or phrases that can be embarrassing or interpreted negatively, then implicitly invite comments on it. Given such a formula, what do you think is the likely response? I hope TOC can improve in this area especially in terms of objectivity and more substantial topics.
(2) As I’ve told you before, doing mini-surveys like this is a waste of time and effort. There is no need to always resort to statistics when you want to make a point, especially unvalidated statistics. Having substantiated evidence and cogent argument are sometimes enough to convince your readers.
(3) Anonymity has the advantages of producing unrestrained feedback, heart-felt arguments and truthful answers rather than polite non-answers, censored responses or false opinions.
Re: Respect other people’s views – Tan Kin Lian
“Third, there seems to be a strong dislike and distrust of the government. This is unhealthy.”"
TOC’s chief editor, Choo Zheng Xi, in his piece in response to Lui Tuck Yew, mentioned about the peoples’ ” ANGER”.
There is not only “a strong dislike and distrust of the government” but disgust and scorn.
The question Tan Kin Lian (and others like him) should ask himself is this, WHY IS there such “dislike and distrust”?
Taking the LOSSES on Singapore’s reserves as an example.
The Govt has been evasive and, in my view, deceptive when it compared the fall in Temasek’s and GIC’s assets with the MSCI, the latter only measuring the performance of EQUITIES in selected stock markets, whereas GIC/Temasek’s assets includes private equity, hedge funds and for GIC, bonds, real estate and other special investments.
Doesn’t TKL share in our disgust or “dislike and distrust” for the govt in trying to camouflage its INCOMPETENCE in losing such huge sums of our reserves?
And why is it “unhealthy”?
I don’t think I want to spend too much time to go through the rest of TKL’s diatribe, but to just add that many don’t look at issues from its broader perspective and context.
The Govt has EARNED the SCORN of Singaporeans with its UNCARING, SELF-RIGHTEOUS, SELF-SERVING and what have you attitude which is to an extent exemplified by MP Wee Siew Kim’s daughter, Wee Su Min’s “Get out of my ELITE UNCARING face”.
And by the way, respect has to be earned, rather than demanded.
I agree with TKL that the comments from netizens should be more positive and constructive.
However since internet is the new media for the Govt to reach out to the masses; the onus is for them to sieve out the non-constructive ranting and engage appropriately. It is not meant to be the other way round else the Government will have squandered the chance to reach out to the masses…(reverse of what Lui is saying). As I personally loved to go JB, I am very neutral on the KBW discussion. But since majority of the SIngaporeans are very upset over this issue, the Government should treat this as a touchy issue and handle it appropriately else the repercussions during the coming snap elecion are huge. For what it is worth (ignore the non-constructive ranting) the new media has spoken to the Government about this KBW issue. If they cannot hear the clear message using the excuse that most comments are angry and abusive, then too bad because you have squandered some votes during the next election…
Anyway…be nice everyone…
“Over 80% of the comments were strongly against the suggestion. ”
No worries lah mr Tan, these 80% are based on a populace of minority only. 10,000 people pocket burnt, 10% stepped forward only.
28) Andrew Chuah on February 20th, 2009 9.00 pm
someone ever asked you this question :
Are you this Andrew Chuah shown stated in this resume found on the net? http://www.easb.edu.sg/updated_pages/about_us/Resumes/Andrew%20Resume.pdf
wow, can i say you are a grassroots leader? wow, active in community center and sports council?
so, was he right you are the same Andrew Chuah?
So, you want people’s identities to be shown?
by the way, why did you add percent W based on X with percentage Y based on Z? they should not be added right?
your admirer ,
pinkie
#14) hongjun
Another observation on TheOnlineCitizen is it has slowly evolved into a platform for opposition parties supporters.
……………………………………………………………
Very few singaporeans are brave enough to write to the press revealing their true identity for fear of ridicule and retaliation. Many letters critical of the PAP and governmment policies are not published in the main stream newspapers. So, it is only natural that TOC has become a platform for opposition parties supporters to vent their frustration. This is much healthier and more civilised than using thinner and lighter.
I encourage pro-PAP readers and non-partisans to contribute their rebuttal.
pap can win election after election.
we talk so much also will be no use.
only president or mp talk maybe still a small chance.
hope there will be someone like that long hair mp in hk who always shout at government.
but hk and singapore different also.
any how shout will be bankrupt and lose everything.
what to do next?
20/2/09
Hi Pinki run Amok-I am the Andrew Chuah that lost S$30million during the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis and fought my Singapore bankers up to Singapore Supreme Court and lost, I was a senior banker with a Swiss Bank in Singapore before I came out to do businesses.
Regards
Andrew Chuah
Nice try. My voices will be always truth as a Singapore but that does not mean I need expose myself nude in front of PAP. I will only seriously consider that when Singapore formed a truth to people government. With opposition in balancing the scale. On the other hand my “truth” voice will not only reserve for PAP if at that time opposition decided to defect against the people like what PAP did.
I am asking for a fair fight between parties. Is that too much to ask? Didn’t most of you here want that too?!
Pinkie run Amok (#31),
Why must you get personal over a debate? Sigh..
Edward (#32),
TOC is a far healthier platform than most discussion site on Singapore’s politics. It is a lot less polarised and views are rather pragmatic and moderate.
Hi Mr Tan,
I have mixed reaction towards your posting. It seems you are trying to be as neutral n objective s possible. I accept what you r trying to voice out as valid based on ur personal set of knowledge and beliefs. I agree we shld b constructive and nv resort to attacks on a person’s worth and value as a human being.
Yet, i wonder how objective and error-free can a human being be. based on tis paragraph you wrote:
“i hope that Singaporeans can take a positive approach towards discussions affecting our future. We should keep an open mind and react objectively to any suggestion. If we are not sure, we should seek clarification, rather than jump to the wrong conclusion.”
i may accept Mr Khaw’s suggestions on healthcare, doesnt meant i have to agree it. N whether i agree or disagree, it usually involves how a person thinks, feels and ultimately behaves towards a certain issue. (this is a simple model of understanding human’s behaviors, there r more which is impossible to pin-point it here)
it is unlikely tat the three human being components are acting as seperate entity. For tis, i cannot agree to being objective toward issues. Every disagreement (and agreement) is subjective. you may call it personal reasons and/or motives. n subjectivity may seems to be irrational and immature, but its valid. becos it based on a person’s own set of reasoning and beliefs accumulated over his/her lifespan. A good example, in my opinion, is The mini research you have conducted and what you are trying to imply here has your own set of personal reason and beliefs.
Rather, disagreements would be better handled or prevented if we truely understand the other party we r trying to convey our meanings across, are complete human beings with their own needs like us. I tink that when the govt is trying to communicate their ideas with their citizens, they shld seek to understand whether their policies and/or suggestions r likely to be beneficial to their citizens in the first place – not the other way around. They are elected to come up with the best possible policies for the benefits of their people.
In this aspect, i do admit i am rather disappointed with the govt when they bring up suggestions or trying to provide explaination on their stance, it seems to lack a certain level of transparency, compassion and at times undermining a person’s ability to grow personally as a ‘complete’ human being.
I think seriously this topic should not be brought out at all. 4 letters yes I agree it should moderated. Revealing identity? I think TOC very much know what will happened if tomorrow they require the people to register truth name and email address.
Moreover, I thought didn’t TOC agree that the blogger association and regulating was a crap? It would be a fair statement to say that this shouldn’t be mentioned at all in the first place. Being one of the associate with TOC, I hope TKL articles does not represent TOC. If not, bloggers might just start migrating out of TOC first before this country. Don’t let so many years efforts go down the drain over night because of one no brainer topic. With all due respect. We are not PAP grassroot, and will not photocopy PAP style here.
Writers on the New Media Platform are skewed towards a small group who are likely to be against anything auhoritative. Much research is needed to find out why.
The silent majority has not got invovled/ Given time i think comments will be more balanced more objective. Until then readers of blogs will have to put up with hearsays, rude comments, ridicule, innudendos etc. Such style gave the writers a satisfying feeling when published. Governments world over are grappling with this problem. In Spore the authority has yet to find a formula to engage netcitizens. Maybe set up a Ministry for NetCitizens and employ a corp of government bloggers.
I wish to acknowledge the constructive views given by the following:
Jackson Tan (#3, #4, #8)
Randomnessinmind (#7, #12, #17)
Pleasemakesense (#27)
In particular, I agree with #17 about min-terrorism. A terrorist is a dangerous person, often anonymous, who believes that it is his right to attack or kill innocent people to express his anger, Some people commenting in TOC fits into this behavior.
There are people who feels that it is their right to engage in personal attack and insults. Examples are #9, #22. I hope that TOC will have some means to deal with these people.
Each of us is entitled to give our honest views without being labelled pro-PAP, anti-establishment, pro-opposition. The right also extends to people like David Leong.
I hope that TOC will be a place where people can give their honest opinion (without being unfairly labelled or insulted by mini-terrorists) and that it is not seen as a gathering place for mini-terorrists.
I agree with Ravi Philemon (#15) that TOC should be a pro-Singapore alternative media (i.e not pro-PAP or pro-opposition).
Dear smallvoice585 (#25)
In the past, I ignore your views, as I felt that you wanted to argue with me for the sake of argument. My impression could be wrong. Anyway, I respect your right to express your views, even if you disagreed with me.
This time, I have to respond to the three points that you have raised.
1. I agree with your view that TOC should “improve in this area especially in terms of objectivity and more substantial topics.” I also agree that the approach used in some past articles to use a few words to draw attacks on certain people, to be undesirable. I hope that the editor (Andrew Loh) takes note of your view, and also of my view.
I have to correct a wrong impression – that I am a “staff of TOC”. I am a regular writer or columnist, but I do not draw any salary or determine the editorial policy.
2. You said that “substantiated evidence and cogent argument are sometimes enough to convince your readers”. This will work for certain situations. Perhaps, you should write some articles using this approach and see if you can get a fair reception.
I will continue to use my mini-surveys to draw out the “wisdom of the crowds”. It is all right for you to disagree with my approach. There are many other people who find the survey findings to be useful (in spite of statistical errors, due to the sample size and selection).
Ashraf (#2) said “if I’m not wrong that >30 is normal distribution”. Ashraf is correct. A sample size of 30, if it is unbiased, is quite reliable. This is my conclusion after comparing the results from an initial sample of 30 with the final results based on 200 people – for similar surveys.
3. You said “Anonymity has the advantages of producing unrestrained feedback, heart-felt arguments and truthful answers”. I agree.
Anonymity is also the means used by some people to push out lies and personal attacks. They also post under different views to give the impression that many people agree with them. We need to find a way to sort out between these two categories. See the view by Jackson Tan (#3)
Dear 24) David Leong on February 20th, 2009 6.03 pm
“From a policy exploration standpoint, I agree that these must be one of the many considered options.
From an ethical standpoint, this must not be seen as a dislodgement of parents from our family nucleus.
I am sure Khaw Boon Wan did not mean that”
Interesting observation of yours. I would certainly appreciate if you can enlighten me why you are sure KBW did not mean it. Part one of your quotes, at what point do you think this becomes a considered option? Have Singapore really run out of land that can be allocated for this purpose? This also prompted me to ask this question; who are the builders that help Singapore to achieve what she has achieved today?
For anyone who even conceived the idea that KBW has suggested not once but twice can reasonably be construed as a person with little or no regards to human compassion. Even when one is in their dire straits, that idea should be the very last resort if and ONLY IF all options become unattainable. In Singapore perspective, this is not the case. Agree?
Speaking from the perspective of ASIAN ETHNICITY and from a HUMAN perspective, certain traditional values run deep in our bloodstream and can never be substituted with values that clearly violate the sane common sense thinking. Singapore today with its vast reserves accumulated over the past decades which partially comes from the contribution of older generations who with their disciplined and hard work and most of all their dedication to bringing younger generations to this world and ensuring that they will have a better life as compared to theirs (Singapore history books will note that most older generations are peasants migrants), it is indeed inconceivable that any Educated person whom their older parents had brought up by their sacrifices and commitment would have this thought. As a matter of fact, it saddens me not just that KBW has tabled this proposition; it is the process of this thought. How many old folks had KBW visited to obtain their views on his proposition before he decided to table it for discussion? Have he or his entourage of subordinates ever done this due process? I sincerely do not think so
A huge majority of the older generations are less educated, but they possessed the kind of values call “DIGNITY” that not even any academic text books can teach you. I would certainly like to suggest to you during your free time to visit existing nursing homes and talk to some of the old folks there and allowed them to share their experiences with you. You will not be disappointed. It also does no harm to start with your older parents as a casual conversation to get their views on this controversial subject matter. Human lives need to be respected and accorded with dignity. We only live once. It is indeed invaluable.
Agree with TKL on most points. What you all are witnessing is a start of the onslaught of the new media platform. With the advent of iphones /iPOds etc one can easily post a comment on sites such as TOC. Before long when such devices proliferate more comments can be made on the mobile and frequently. And comments can be lies and personal attacks..if they get populated it could affect the value system of society..of Singapore. I am sure those involved in terrorism are monitoring the situation and may well have something up their sleeve. On the subject of surveys (especially on the Net) I was told that a person can vote many times. As such an internet survey may not be accurate. What is the solution to all this? No one has effectivet approach yet…Have you???
Good Morning,
This is not a debate about whether anonymity is the root of all evil as it remains how do you engage people effectively in the internet; tell me, if you remove anonymity; would you be able to PREVENT the 80% of the disgruntled from thinking what they thought about Mr Khaw’s statement?
Sure they may NOT verbalize it openly; BUT the question is CAN you actually stop people (not only netizens) from thinking and reacting in the way they have here in the privacy of their own skulls?
I think not.
So this is what will preoccupy a man who is really sincere about engaging people on a meaningful basis – all I can say is, if Mr Khaw meant it to be ONLY a suggestion; then he should just discuss it with his wife when she is wearing his favorite nighty; but it demonstrates very poor judgment to air such an emotive issue publicly – neither is it fair not to expect people from reacting in the way they did to his inflammatory suggestions; as whatever you wish to say; whether it is done rightly or wrongly is not the point here as it remains a very genuine case of people speaking their minds freely on a subject that is close to their heart.
A wise man will ONLY see it along such terms and NOT try to muddy and confuse the whole issue by attempting to bring in other extraneous issues such as whether it is right or wrong or even attempt to complicated the matter further by bringing the issue of anonymity, privacy and rights. Or even attempting confecting new fuzzy words such as apply terrorism to anonymous postings (real and imagined); that I think has to be very stupid, as it has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with what Mr Khaw once said and the reaction it provoked.
If Mr Khaw wants to engage people meaningfully; then he should learn never to throw stones in a glass house; if he does, I think no one really cares whether it is just a suggestion or one of his opium pipe dreams, most people will just hand him the broom – my feel here is we may not be dealing with a very intelligent man here.
SD (Internet Liaison officer of the Brotherhood)
Thank you Tan Kin Lian for reminding people in TOC that this is not an opposition platform. Thank you for taking up time and effort to start this discussion.
The government sure has sound policies in place for its people and policies that can be further worked and improved on. Ever wondered why Jim Rogers and his family moved into Singapore in 2007? I am talking about a well-respected very smart intelligent man who co-founded the Quantum Fund with George Soros in the 1970s that out-performed the S&P index 4000 times.
Today, I feel safe and assured in the sense that we have a strong currency and reserves. The USD is doomed, the UK Pound is doomed. People over there can own 5 homes without a job previously. Is that scary?
Look at the people US President Obama brings into the administration. US Officials like Larry Summers, Timothy Geithner who thought of printing more money, spending more money to solve the US problems. This will cause hyper-inflation, gold to soar and the USD to crash. Ben Bernanke who claims to have studied past recessions would have failed economics 101. Money is being transferred from the strong ones to the weak ones. Look at the number of Zombie institutions like Citibank, Bank of America, AIG, General Motors, Chrysler in US. They should all fail and being taken over by stronger institutions. Japan still has not really recovered from its bailout of Zombie institutions 20 years ago Do you think it will be different for the US? Ever wondered by Paul Volcker who is the top economic adviser to Obama is so quiet? He has his work cut out by these foolish greedy beaucrats.
If Singaporeans, the Government and Tan Kin Lian want to see more constructive views in this forum, this is what I can personally write. Continue to engage with China and India because we are seeing the rise of Asia and maybe the demise of the United States if the government continues with its usual way (That’s why Jim Rogers move here). Continue to invest in energy and water because they are always limited in supply and for security reasons. It’s good that we have Jurong Island and Hyflux. Continue to invest and move towards innovation and entrepreneurship. We, Singaporean have been taught maths, science, English and our mother tongue throughout our lives but not innovation and entrepreneurship. It’s laughable when I saw companies in job ads looking for innovative Singaporeans with an entrepreneur spirit. We are not being brought up this way. At the same time, we can continue to attact foreign MNCs into Singapore. They bring jobs to us Singaporeans. I am working for a foreign company.
Invest in Public Transport because that impacts us Singaporeans directly. The 2 cents cut in public transport fares is laughable too. It will not make an impact honestly and I hope for a 20cents cut at least. I guess and suspect that public transport companies like SMRT needs the revenue for construction of their new lines. Get more new buses, I still travel on buses that I sat on 10 years ago. The Transport Minister Raymond Lim should do more to improve on normal Singaporean lives and I feel his role and his duty to his people is very important. Continue to make cars expensive over here because we need to have a Clean and Green environment. I dislike people who smoke while driving alone. Obviously they wouldn’t care much or less about the environment. This is a small country.
Continue to invest heavily on defense especially the military. This country has 1 big obvious resource and that’s its location. Shipping has existed in Singapore for over 200 years since it is founded and it continues to be. Ever wondered why PSA is never listed? Singapore is a good location for air-travel and SIA has this good advantage.
I have seen previous forum talking about less time spent on National Service for Singaporeans, less spending on defense. These people obviously don’t know the reality that we are such an attractive place to countries around us. I request the government not to shorten the 2 years national service anymore. Imagine how much on job training will there be for an officer after he is commissioned? The 2 years and 4 months I spend on national service is an experience I will never forget and cherish it for the rest of my life.
Any new initiative from me? I have one. We should go into farming and agriculture. We can have a new Farming and Agriculture Minister who can work with Minister Mah Bow Tan. We should set aside more space for farming. This can be done on our islands, roof tops of suitable buildings and more lands (Lim Chu Kang area) in the main island if possible. The reason is food shortage and supply and the rises of commodity prices. We can grow corn, rice, fruits etc in order to become more self-sufficient for our future.
That’s the future.
Thank you all.
I agree with Mr Tan’s take on this matter. I appreciate the fact that Mr. Khaw made the suggestion as an option he thinks Singaporeans should consider and perhaps take advantage of. This is despite the fact that I disagree with him (and Mr. Tan KL) on the details of the arguments in favor of his suggestion.
Perhaps some of the others have good reason to become wary of his suggestions (drawing on examples where his suggestions turned into policy) but on the whole I do think the community has subconsciously placed words into his mouth, making his suggestion sound far more insidious than it was intended to be.
hI #41 (mrthinktalk)
The survey software that I use has a feature to disallow people voting more than once. It tracks by the IP address.
It does not prevent the same person from using different PCs to vote more than once, or to get a friend to vote for the same views. But, I don’t think that people will go through the trouble to distort a survey.
I accept that a survey has some inaccuracy and the possibility of manipulation. We have to interpret the results with some care. We should not blindly accept the findings.
Dear #40 Mr Tan Kin Lian,
Thank you for your detailed reply to my 3 points in #25.
Let me just clarify that I had NEVER argued with you or anyone else “for the sake of argument”. I don’t have time for that. Perhaps, I can be persistent and forceful at times when I feel I have something important to say.
I know I have many disagreements with you on many issues – from your fear of criticisms and attacks, your need for 100,000 endorsements before your political debut, your short political resume and your continued reliance on mini-surveys as a resource for your writing.
As incredible as it may sound, I am actually trying to be your guardian angel! Everytime, I feel that you are moving in the wrong direction, I feel compelled to point you in the right one. You may call me audacious, but I’m really sincerely trying to help.
I’m not doing this for your sake or mine, but for the many in Singapore who still view you as their next Big Hope. Please do not disappoint them.
The govt must first show their respect to the citizens before they can gain similar respect. TKL has forgotten how PAP has tried to bully opposition members in parliament and totally show no respect for others at all. We have to accept the fact that it takes many ways to tame a lion, and not just one soft way.
I wrote on this article earlier in another posting too. First of all, let me state that I have nothing against all parties. I frowned when I read what the health minister said not because it was put up as an option. I can agree that different people have different views on this. Rather, if you read the entire message of what he said, it is essentially a sales pitch (for citizens to think about sending their elder ones to JB). Only pros were listed.
As a minister who supposedly had undergone a more detailed thought process, sell me an option with even-handed considerations (i.e. include pros/ cons, positive/ negative reactions), and I will give you more weightage on credibility.
Sell me a pure sales pitch (like the article published), and you can be sure I need to get a head damage to award you high regards.
I agree with Mr Tan. Let’s debate issues without always resorting to ad homimem attacks. It makes for much better discourse to better Singapore.
45) disgusted – I’m no longer a TOC editor, but I don’t think TOC exists to “generate a critical discourse on the ruling regime”. But you could say we are about generating critical discourse on governance in Singapore. There are many sites out there that exist just to criticize the PAP, but we would be narrowing our scope too much if we did only that.
I am glad that TKl wrote on providing constructive opinion in cyberspace.
As more blogs and godo sites like TOC are drawing thousands of readers daily, this is surely a potential ground for adverse blogging.
Compared to toher sites that i have being previously, TOC seems reasoable and professional even.
I also dislike TOC drawing out some remarks by minsiters and expect us to comemnt on them. The comments are naturally adverse.
As we blog away let us be conscious of what we say and blog.
By being anonymous it doesn ot allwo us to lower ourselevs and blog anyhow and irresponsibily..