TOC thanks The Kent Ridge Common for allowing us to re-publish the following article.
Lester Lim
Singapore — In his ministerial community visit to the Paya Lebar Division of Aljunied GRC, Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan made a clarification regarding the allegations permeated online that he had suggested that Singaporeans should send their elderly parents to nursing homes in Johor as the costs of doing so is relatively much cheaper than in Singapore.
“As you know, I am a Buddhist,” he said. “And Buddhism, like all religion, teaches about fillial piety… how is it possible that (I) said, ‘Go send your parents overseas, and abandon them’?”
“People have reasons to twist it for their personal interest.. don’t believe in what you have heard.”
Minister Khaw is in effect addressing a very fundamental problem that must be addressed by all socio-political blogs in Singapore that attempt to establish the Internet as a credible opinion base. And he is not the first to have had his comments unjustly interpreted out of context.
For instance, a prominent socio-political blog recently ran a series of articles castigating MP Charles Chong for his now infamous phrase of “lesser mortals”. Immediately after giving an interview to the TODAY newspaper regarding the reaction of the public concerning the incident of Permanent Secretary Tan Yoong Soon, the tables were turned on Chong who then had to explain for his usage of the phrase.
The article asked rhetorically if Mr. Chong sees Singaporeans “who has less earning and spending power” than him “as (a) ‘lesser’ human beings (sic) who deserve little respect from him?”
Indeed, it is not entirely clear that Mr. Chong had insinuated so much from his usage of the phrase, which may reflect ill-judgment in choice of words more than an inherent attitude or belief.
A number of these interpretations were clearly evocative and have aroused indignant replies. What may in actuality be a seemingly innocuous usage of a word has the potential to be extrapolated outside its context and deracinated from the grounds of its original intent.
The weight of responsibility lies on all the socio-political blogs in Singapore that aim to provide a reliable medium for a constructive discussion of thoughts and ideas pertaining to the welfare of our country. PM Lee has highlighted the very need for the younger Singaporeans to actively engage in robust discussions of ideas and to keep sprouting new ones. Singapore’s one and only resource is her people who have demonstrated resilience and often defied very strong odds to emerge from challenging situations. And it is her people that Singapore will continue to count on in the future.
A climate of fear cannot and must not dominate the exchange of these ideas on the internet.
Encouragements were made on certain socio-political blogs to remain anonymous and “not to leave a trace of identity” on postings in forums and blogs. This cannot help our country. Our people must develop integrity and learn how to exercise responsibility in being able to corroborate their viewpoints with rational and accurate evidence, and to develop a sound argumentative or thought process. There is most certainly nothing to fear if one argues a standpoint along this line, instead of an overt indulgence in often vitrolic rhetoric.
Our views need not to be necessarily pro-establishment in order to be accepted as legitimate, but this also means that we do not have to be anti-establishment for the sake of it.
Socio-political blogs that provide for a sensationalism of news should not be considered as the helm of the community of Singaporeans on the internet that partake in a meaningful discussion of ideas. Writers may masquerade their intentions through high-sounding labels such as fighting for the rights of taxpayers’ money, but discerning individuals will consider these writers to be the nadir rather than zenith of credibility on the Internet.
The Internet has tremendous potential as a media of the 21st century. The individual is given the ability to have a voice on a plethora of issues and happenings, a voice that may be previously stunted by the traditional forms of media. Yet the Internet’s credibility as a medium for the exchange of opinions and ideas must not be undermined by irresponsible reporting or interpretative proclivities that may slant towards one’s own interest or prejudice. As Singapore progresses and matures as a country, it would be wise to tap strongly on this medium where a constructive exchange and debate on ideas can flourish. If the credibility of the Internet as a medium is bespattered as a platform for reckless, anonymous and baseless fear-mongering comments, then Singapore may stand to lose out very much indeed.
Visit The Kent Ridge Common for more.
—
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
Establishing the Internet as a credible opinion base?
C’mon. The sources in the Internet is just like The straits Times in Singapore; it is as credible as you would like to believe. IN FACT, this subject should not have been brought up for discussion. INSTEAD we should discuss about the what we think about news in the ST and in the internet CRITICALLY – have you watched programmes where they discuss news in newspapers critically and compare the news among the papers? Have you?
Those who believe that ST hold high reporting standard have bought the PAP propaganda; it is in the interest of the PAP to portray the straits times as more credible than anything else so that they can get their message across to the mass easier because they are in absolute control of the voice.
Good article!
Writers may masquerade their intentions through high-sounding labels such as fighting for the rights of taxpayers’ money, but discerning individuals will consider these writers to be the nadir rather than zenith of credibility on the Internet.
There are many blogs like the above, and strangely enough, many comments in agreement with the writers.
We do need to work to a more constructive and intellectual blogosphere.
Laworder:
I agree with you. People have to learn to evaluate the information and sources for themselves, and not blindly believe “trusted” sources.
I’m also baffled by how anyone could see the Internet as a single entity. Isn’t it obvious that it’s just a medium? What really matters is the content.
By the way, is this article written by a student?
The weight of responsibility lies on all the socio-political blogs in Singapore that aim to provide a reliable medium for a constructive discussion of thoughts and ideas pertaining to the welfare of our country – the author
The weight of responsibility also falls on the person whose words were quoted, so as to the minimise the likelihood of the individual to use words which may otherwise may be misconstrued. If you don’t want to be misquoted, don’t use words that will lead to people misquoting you.
Constructive and intellectual blogosphere? Is that how people should control opinion? How can you 100% factually corroborate opinion? By what means? And we should be responsible and credible too?
If one has something to say, but has nothing constructive and is just venting his opinion, then he should be allowed to express it. It is his right, as a member of the blogosphere. What you are trying to do is trying to close out these opinionated folks, which will only make their angry voices angrier and louder. Want a constructive and intellectual blogosphere? Think we can effect a paradigm shift for them to think differently in the first place, e.g. convincing the masses that conspiracy theories about Gahmen observation are bollocks? How can you disprove a conspiracy theory when information is misinformation and vice versa?
Lastly, why is TOC using an article from the Kent Ridge Common which is attacking (without names) another blog which all of us more or less know?
You know, I also call myself a Buddhist and I dare to diss…. I mean I eat meat only.
Being a buddhist is one thing. Following the teachings is another.
This means, as all humans are not perfect, not many can comply with all the teachings or rules or guidelines. But they can try.
what am i alluding? nothing. Nothing is color. Color is Nothing. Nothing is something but then again nothing is nothing.
peace
indeed some blogs are just whacking the government for the sake of doing so.
for instance like this article has pointed out, they are quick to fault what charles chong said (which is mentioned, could be an ill-judged decision choice of words) and write article after article demanding an explanation for his words, with strong sentences fanning the flame, under “big sounding labels” like fighting for the poor/ordinary sporean to be respected
fact is no constructive idea is put forward, and they are just picking on the faults of gov and creating sensational stories
guojun,
Don’t you know TOC is supporting and supported by the PAP.
eternalhap,
“We do need to work to a more constructive and intellectual blogosphere.”
You must be joking right. The MSM’s ST is nowhere credible either. How do you believe whatever that is publish in the ST’s forum praising the government is genuine? I take discount on those articles. I skip local news published in ST but rely on the internet for undistorted facts.
These kinds of blogs are giving the blogosphere a very bad name. There has to be respect on both sides. I find some of the titles to their reports and articles to be very sensationalistic. It’s nothing more than trying to generate publicity.
They’re actually worse than the Straits Times.
guojun:
If one has something to say, but has nothing constructive and is just venting his opinion, then he should be allowed to express it.
I don’t think anyone is trying to prevent some from speaking up. This person in your example must dare to jump to the next step – think critically. They cannot just be stuck on the first rung, refusing to climb up. As the writer says, “Our people must develop integrity … and to develop a sound argumentative or thought process.”
We cannot expect everyone to be like this, but this is certainly an ideal scenario.
“PM Lee has highlighted the very need for the younger Singaporeans to actively engage in robust discussions of ideas and to keep sprouting new ones” – Author
“engage” with whom?
Maybe the editors of Kent Ridge Common should ask the PM to explain clearly how he would “FIX” those who credibly threaten the PAP rule when PM said at the last GE rally”
Quote 9PM Speech):
“Right now we have Low, Chia, Steve…. We can deal with them. Suppose you had 10…Opposition members in Parliament. Instead of spending time thinking what is the right policy for Singapore, I’m goiong to spend all my time thinking what is the right way to FIX them, to BUY my SUPPORTERS VOTES, how can I solve this week’s problems and forget about next years’ challengers?”
If there are irresponsible or malicious, insincere, misconceived or distorted views or alleged facts which turn out to be only half truths, it is incumbent on those who view it not the way such views/postings are made to COUNTER them.
What the Singapore public, especially those who do not surf the net for so called socio-political sites is to demand that the government controlled media give a TRUE, FAIR and ACCURATE account of the events eg reports of judicial proceedings, GIC/Temasek management of our reserves; Cpt Ooi suicide of which MINDEF’s letter failed to reveal the whole truth etc etc etc.
Constructive and intellectual in the blogospere, as someone here mentioned?
Why not also in the govt controlled media?
And who are those who are not “constructive and intellectual” as when FAILED govt policies are being posted on the blogoshpere? Even in Parliament, the replies given by Ministers are netiher “constructive” nor ‘intellectual” as that made by RDM Lui when he criticised comments made on the blogoshpere in the torching of PAP MP Seng Han Tong.
What’s so “constructive” or “intellectual” when the same RDM Lui linked incest, bestiality etc to the issue of decriminalising homosexuality between consenting adult males?
8) joker on April 2nd, 2009 4.42 pm guojun,
Don’t you know TOC is supporting and supported by the PAP.
Oh is it? That’s news.
should say ex-. but then again….
“PM Lee has highlighted the very need for the younger Singaporeans to actively engage in robust discussions of ideas and to keep sprouting new ones” – Author
“engage” with whom?
If there are irresponsible or malicious, insincere, misconceived or distorted views or alleged facts which turn out to be only half truths or lies, it is incumbent on those who view it not the way such views/postings are made to COUNTER them.
What the Singapore public, especially those who do not surf the net for so called socio-political sites is to demand that the government controlled media give a TRUE, FAIR and ACCURATE account of the events eg reports of judicial proceedings, GIC/Temasek management of our reserves; Cpt Ooi suicide of which MINDEF’s letter failed to reveal the whole truth etc etc etc.
Constructive and intellectual in the blogospere, as someone here mentioned?
Why not also in the govt controlled media?
And who are those who are not “constructive and intellectual” as when FAILED govt policies are being posted on the blogoshpere? Even in Parliament, the replies given by Ministers are netiher “constructive” nor ‘intellectual” as that made by RDM Lui when he criticised comments made on the blogoshpere in the torching of PAP MP Seng Han Tong?
What’s so “constructive” or “intellectual” when the same RDM Lui linked incest, bestiality etc to the issue of decriminalising homosexuality between consenting adult males when most 1st world countries have already done so and since so many years ago?
The writer said: Yet the Internet’s credibility as a medium for the exchange of opinions and ideas must not be undermined by irresponsible reporting or interpretative proclivities that may slant towards one’s own interest or prejudice.
‘irresponsible reporting or interpretive proclivities’ are subjective. Almost every news or commentary not just in the new media but also in MSM in slanted towards one’s own interest or prejudice. Constructive criticism should never be hindered in the guise of self-censorship or credibility.
i think don’t think the article was asserting that ST etc. is a credible source la his pt was more that social political blogs in singapore are jumping on each and every opportunity to interpret comments out of his context esp. by government figures sometimes it’s obvious that no minister would say “go send ur father to JB” how come minister khaw’s comments can get twisted out of the context until like that?
true that the onus is also on the speaker giving the comments not to make slips like that but u know it’s inevitable look at the vice president of US joe biden known for making slips no republicans jump the gun and quote him out of context and run 10 articles on it demanding for an explanation unless those tabloid magazine lar right?
also ppl should vent their anger on the internet but what about those sites that cause people to feel angry when news is sensationalizeD? i tink the article was trying to say that these sites must uphold some integrity? my 2 cents
#8 joker on April 2nd, 2009 4.42 pm
guojun,
Don’t you know TOC is supporting and supported by the PAP.
///
I have to object, with due respect.
Although its true that some events TOC involved with is supported by various those-type-of-organizations ;) AND its members have a past with ahem…….
there is no legal prove that they are the brainchild of ahem……
so no black and white to prove, right or not?
some more, TOC articles not purely dissentment waht. Look at all the articles. many have sing praise also, one way or another. Many writers also with ahem….. background. everyday i read TOC blog. TODAY ;) also.
In short, who says TOC is pro or anti ? I dont think it ever made a clear stand before. But then this is just my opinion. Challenge me if anyone feels like it.
Get my drift?
peace
Wow…it is so good to hear that these guys in PAP are made to respond….
Can you imagine…..it was not like this before…but now…with blogs and new media…they are actually made to work….think …before they say some thing….
It is a good time for Singapore…..the level of participation is high on the intenet….faceless maybe..for now….but …you will never know…if in the event of any serious case ..people will just come togather….on the streets….
The govt must work harder….and i think to an extend they are trying their best…and at times fumbling (the video clip)…it is good for all of us….
I see progress….perhaps we are getting poorer…but we dare to stand….keep up people….
i think we are smart enough not to be swayed by inaccuracies….and to create a rukus
Hi Chin Tat,
I absolutely agree. Sometimes when I read the more sensationlist stories circulating around the internet I feel quite angry…especially some which make it a point to capitalize on news of dead people to boost their site readership. I believe that the dead will take revenge in this life or the next against these people.
I’m sorry, but that is just illogical. The reason why “misreadings” can happen is the reason why any kind of reading can happen at all–once something is in print (say, the ST), the words take on a life of their own, no longer subject to what the author or speaker later claims to mean. The logic behind this is obvious–no one is ever completely present to what they mean, when they say what they say (which is why Freudian slips happen all the time…) The idea that one can go back and say “hey, that wasn’t what I meant” seems not only unfair, but patently silly. And if a culture of hyperbolically taking things out of proportion or context exists, I think Everyone is implicated in it (remember the fiasco over James Gomez’s minority certificate?)
The only thing to be done is to make sure that what one says is not misrepresented/taken out of context. And the context here, usually is the papers themselves. in the Charles Chong “lesser mortals” comment, I think if any blame is to be placed, it should be on the papers that presented him that way, since they should’ve edited it for “clarity” that he might not be misrepresented. It is spurious to blame readers for taking it “out of context” when the context provided is the only one we have. So, is our MSM then guilty of misrepresenting as much as the blogosphere is?
to go back to one last example:
“Indeed, it is not entirely clear that Mr. Chong had insinuated so much from his usage of the phrase, which may reflect ill-judgment in choice of words more than an inherent attitude or belief.”
my response: can we be sure? can you, from the articles published at that time, refute the possibility or legibility of a reading of elitism?
i’m not saying that all readings are correct, mind. I’m just against the idea that some readings are patently outlawed while others are allowed–while the context (the MSM) isn’t blamed for (possibly) not being coherent or legible enough in narrowing down possible interpretations.
imo, objectively speaking, the ST requires better writers.
I don’t think the writer is advocating closing these voices off, cut him some slack =) its a good advocate of rationality, but of course rationality is a contested concept that continuosly needs to be debated.
Hi everyone,
I agree with the author about the climate of fear being created online through personal attacks and the lack of credibility that is the result of anonymous accusations and sensationalist material.
We definitely shouldn’t censor these views, but voice our disapproval of such activities when they arise, as our author here has done.
Kudos Lester!
I think some of the nonsensical comments here making shady accusations are exactly the type of discourse Lester is speaking out against. Thanks to you trolls for proving Lester right!
“Indeed, it is not entirely clear that Mr. Chong had insinuated so much from his usage of the phrase, which may reflect ill-judgment in choice of words more than an inherent attitude or belief.”
Next time when somebody is being sued by PAPA, they can conveniently use “our words ‘may reflect ill-judgment in choice of words more than an inherent attitude or belief’ ”
Good Excuse!
Appalled by the writer finding excuses for these guys. Come on, what they said are written in black and white in the papers, how wrong can it be?
In fact, should we rally people to sue Charles Chong?
It surely sounded like that…of course the author can and should advocate rationality. But rationality is also part of interpretation, and we can’t just say that some accusations are irrational just because they become quite ad hominem. Just as there is no accepted standard for rationality because rational people sometimes find other rational people irrational, an intellectual and constructive blogosphere means that we have to accept this point of view.
If irrational voices are written off as irrational, then maybe there isnt a problem at all with the blogosphere! The fact that there is a problem means that these voices are being listened to, and with good reason! as for thinking critically, Aloysius: how about the Gahmen-knows-best-mentality which has been inculcated into us from the beginning? the next rung is already as ideal as the blogosphere can hope for right now – perhaps the role of the rational blogger is in giving the irrational voices context.
Which we can’t do if we just write them off as irrational.
Isn’t it ironic that >#2 eternalhap deems differing views ‘strange’ , while those that *he* agrees with are ‘fabulous’, blithely ignoring these very subjective positions that reside within these statements and that all the more indicate the questionable claims to, and for, ‘rationality’?
Somehow so reminiscent of political tyrants who deem elections that vote out their cronies as ‘freak elections’; or like those middle Americans who simply cannot or does not want to see beyond the surface of 911, helplessly throwing up their hands in the air, wondering ‘why do they hate us?’
Ironic too, that he who makes claims for critical thought does not extend this precious injunction to submit himself to immanent critique and self-reflexivity.
It is not for the internet to be credible but for the readers to be discerning. Anyone can say anything – it is up to us to figure out if what we read is fact, fiction or utter nonsense. Such an approach enables each and every individual to assess information – be it from the internet or mainstream media – and arrive at a proper conclusion that makes sense to him or her.
Asking the internet to be credible is like telling the ocean, “hey, we are going fishing now so all the fishes that we don’t want please stay away from the nets and the fish we want please come and get caught”.
If there was nothing credible in the blogosphere, our journalists (if we can call them that) wouldn’t be trawling our blogs for information, quotes and leads; and our dear politicians wouldn’t be watching their backs and responding to ‘baseless’ criticisms.
The call for anonymity was specifically so that discourse could continue to flow and has no bearing on the issue of credibility. The truth, and not who says it, is THE point.
Mind you, online activism was not an ‘initiative’ (read: gimmick) that was created to keep the masses occupied. It was a true awakening of the spirit in Singaporeans and it grew into this beautiful creature we see today unaided by mainstream influences. What right does the mainstream now have to say how this creature should be?
I guess what he was saying about anonymity is that people start talking trash when they are anonymous.
he was prolly pointing to the fact that ppl have to stand up for wad they r writing bravely? i dun think the author meant that there should be censorship or that the ST is a reliable source of news… i think wad he meant was not that there should be 100% corroboration of news/evidence but u should have REAL facts to back u up
in fact the climate of fear that he was talking about is against censorship rite??? that we shouldn’t fear wad we say will be censored?
i think it’s kinda obvious no minister will ask singaporeans to send their parents to JB la…. who as a public servant will say that?? so why people interpret it this wway?
i think with reference to staying anonymous was made to a post from “certain socio-political blog” that spread news that they were being spied on by government agencies after detecting the IPs of ppl who leave comments as those from SPH, IDA, etc. most likely they aren’t right? could just be staff or ordinary workers who surf on their site while working
The writer of the Kent Ridge Common article and others, including those who post here, esp. in this discussion page should FIRST of all ask each of them the circumstance/s which has/have led to the Ministers/officialdom complaining of what they have been reading on the blogosphere esp. comments UNFAVOURABLE to them.
The FACT is that the overwhelming majority of the Singapore populace have been treated like dirt/serfs to serve the interests of so called elites which include of course the multi-million dollar salaried Ministers and civil servants.
The interests of “Lesser Mortals” could be and have been given perfunctory regard with the official mass media being used as a propaganda tool to saturate and subsume criticisms.
The attitude of our elites, beneath all the sheen, towards the LESSER MORTALS MORTALS is best summed up by the daughter of PAP MP Wee Siew Kim, Wee Shu Min:
“GET AWAY FROM MY ELITE UNCARING FACE”.
Furthermore, as more and more of the LESSER MORTALS get to know about the policy FAILURES including the HUGE LOSSES incurred by GIC/Temasek etc and their personal experiences at hospitals and feeling the brunt of govt policies, the words of officialdom become less credible.
Remember also what MM Lee/SM Goh have said in the past about being dealt the cards by nature (ie too bad that you are born poor, so just bear with it) rather than expect the govt to take care of you and their labeling people with the term ‘CRUTCH MENTALITY”?
Which is probably why our Ministers and Elites fear and worried about what is being posted in the blogoshpere………..people are simply suspicious about govt policies and what the Ministers/elites say.
People in Singapore should really think through the policies, intentions and conduct of our elites before they unwittingly become seduced and succumb to propaganda.
Sadly there is nothing constructive nor intellectual in the Kent Ridge Common commentary nor most of what is being posted here.
Incidentally, the NUS students and indeed most of Singapore society should be more critical of the one sided, unbalanced and unfair reporting of the mainstream media and also the kind of bigoted remarks by people like RDM Lui
29, Blur,
Incidentally, the NUS students and indeed most of Singapore society should be more critical of the one sided, unbalanced and unfair reporting of the mainstream media and also the kind of bigoted remarks by people like RDM Lui
What makes you say that isn’t the case?
Dear Blur,
I understand your point of view and I agree that some people, perhaps you included, have been dealt a cruel blow by the establishment. We know the conditions in our society can be better, but many(not all) lack the imagination and passion to make changes. I suppose you could be one to turn this condition around – judging from the way you express your disapproval of the establishment and your criticisms of writers/initiatives giving balanced viewpoints on the internet, you seem to be the sort who can take up the challenge to show Singaporeans just how critical and evaluative the blogosphere can be. As an infrequent contributor to the Kent Ridge Common, I must admit that in the quest to be balanced, I have sacrificed sensationalism and extreme criticality. That is my flaw, I suppose. Perhaps you could show us all – NUS students, Singaporeans, non-constructive and non-intellectual writers – a better way.
Hi 31) Azfar on April 4th, 2009 1.24 am
If you are the writer of the lead article on this page please let me assure you that I’m not making any criticism, let alone “criticisms”, of what you write.
I just feel that you, and others like you, are being led by the nose by the elites to help discredit what is posted in the blogospere, much of which listing out the bad policies, many of which are self-serving for the elites and interest group at the expense of the general public, policy failures, mistakes and huge losses.
Actually, what I’ve listed in my above post have been aired in the blogosphere over many years and I’m just reminding those who enter the blogosphere lately of such unhealthy developments in the past and which have continued to be felt presently, eg. the little Malay girl, Siti who fell 4-storey from the HDB flat at Telok Blangah due to negligence on the part of the Town Council, huge losses by GIC/Temasek etc.
On the issue of CREDIBILITY, which is the subject of your article, perhaps Singaporeans like you should be reminded that the National Environment Agency had flatly denied that the research scientist who had earlier worked in the NEA’s laboratory on the SARS virus had caught SARS there in August 2003 claiming that its research labs met the highest protocols of the WHO/US CDC in terms of facilities and operational standards. This was found to be FALSE by the Ministry of Health appointed panel of experts led by renowned international scientists.
Last year MCYS Minister (Dr) Balakrishan, in an address to the students at RJ/RI had tried to discredit the blogoshpere by urging students not to be taken in by what they read. So I would take what RDM Lui’s self interested castigation of the blogoshere in connection with the torching of MP Seng Han Tong as part of the campaign to discourage Singaporeans from knowing the facts/truths about failed govt policies.
Getting back to what you said about your “quest to be balance”:
I’ve already stated in the 1st para of my earlier post to say that the posters in the blogosphere have a basis for what they posted on Minister Khaw’s suggestion about housing our old folks in the old folks home in Johore and MP Charles Chong’s use of the term “lesser mortals”, which of course is not in the interest of our elites.
How was there a need for balance in the context and perspective of what I had stated in my earlier post?
In any case, why is there a need for balance when those who are supporters of Minister Khaw and MP Chong, in the examples in your article, or the said persons themselves not posting counter-balancing points of view? It is not as if their views would be censored. Not that I know anyway.
In any case our elites have access to the mass media which reach a much wider readership than the low thousand views on the blogoshpere.
If you are indeed in a quest for balance, why did you not mention of the patently one sided, unbalanced and often misleading report in the main stream media controlled by the govt?
There need not be “sensationalism” nor “extreme” criticism (whatever is meant by the latter term).
Let’s take the case of the SARS incident at the NEA laboratories: it was clear that there was falsehood and it is up to each person to decide whether it was a deliberate lie and the severe consequences which could have resulted if the truth had not emerged.
Ask yourself, base on past experience, would the public be told the truth if it had been a local panel of experts which had uncovered the facts/truths? I think most likely not, as our elites are not known to admit to mistakes/incompetence/criminality of such severity.
You said, “(W)e know the conditions in our society can be better”. Nothing wrong with that, except it would be more in line with critical thinking if people like you could have asked the elites WHY the conditions which you have in mind could not have been better.
As a recent topic showed, our elites have been teaching Singapore history which are at odds with what is in the historical archives only released into the public domain just a few years ago. This is an important example people in Singapore should bear in mind when we want to talk about CREDIBILITY.
Lastly, your last sentence.
The words “constructive” and “intellect” were first used on this page by someone else, so perhaps he/she could tell us what is expected on TOC
For me I decided for myself whether a post is constructive with its attendant intellect when I see one and I am in no position to show others how to be constructive and whether that poster has intellect.
Mr Leong Sze Hian, a regular contributor on TOC, is someone whom you and others might like to emulate
As to #30,
perhaps he/she should provide examples/links that it is the case.
Hi 31) Azfar on April 4th, 2009 1.24 am
If you are the writer of the lead article on this page please let me assure you that I’m not making any criticism, let alone “criticisms”, of what you write.
I just feel that you, and others like you, are being led by the nose by the elites to help discredit what is posted in the blogosphere, much of which list out the bad policies, many of which are self-serving for the elites and interest group at the expense of the general public, policy failures, mistakes and huge losses.
I’ve already stated in the 1st para of my earlier post to say that the posters in the blogosphere have a basis for what they posted on Minister Khaw’s suggestion about housing our old folks in the old folks homes in Johore and MP Charles Chong’s use of the term “lesser mortals”.
How was there a need for balance in the context and perspective of what I had stated in my earlier post?
In any case, why is there a need for balance when those who are supporters of Minister Khaw and MP Chong, in the examples in your article, or the said persons themselves posting counter-balancing points of view? It is not as if their views would be censored. Not that I know anyway.
Also our elites have access to the mass media which reach a much wider readership than the low thousand views on the blogoshpere.
If you are indeed in a quest for balance, why did you not mention of the patently one sided, unbalanced and often misleading report in the main stream media controlled by the govt?
You said, “(W)e know the conditions in our society can be better”. Nothing wrong with that, except it would be more in line with critical thinking if people like you could have asked the elites WHY the conditions which you have in mind could not have been better.
As a recent topic showed, our elites have been teaching Singapore history which is at odds with what is in the historical archives only released into the public domain just a few years ago. This is an important example Singaporeans should bear in mind when we want to talk about CREDIBILITY.
Lastly, the words “constructive” and “intellect” were first used on this page by someone else, so perhaps he/she could tell us what is expected on TOC
For me I decide for myself whether a post is constructive with its attendant intellect when I see one and I am in no position to show others how to be constructive and how to show off one’s intellect. I’m not bothered if others think I lack intellect.
Mr Leong Sze Hian, a regular contributor on TOC, is someone whom you and others might like to emulate
As to #30,
Perhaps he/she should provide examples/links that it is the case.
The entire premise is plain wrong. The internet is MEDIUM — an empty vessel to be filled by whatever you want. If the people are pissed, the net will reflect that. If the govt is doing a good job, the net users will express praise. Think: why is the ‘internet’ so supportive of Obama, and not irrationally tearing him down with misguided criticism??
My apologies for double posting
Gues you were just living up to your moniker of ‘Blur’, hahaha….
Dear Blur,
Thank you for your very long reply. You seem to display a lot of skill in deconstructing comments and I think that is very commendable. Keep it up! Just to clarify, I did not write this article.
I think you hammered home a few poignant points and I can’t disagree with you at all. Thank you,once again, for your words of wisdom and I wish you all the best in your fight against the establishment and replying to comments on this thread. You seem to have the critical skills to excel at it. Take care!
I like this article – it talks about what should be and the responsibility of netizens. Speak up, defend your views, think critically. Don’t engage in vitrolic rhetoric….and one day we will all grow up. …however lets not forget the other part of reality.
I just want to add that we live in a country with a govt that runs an extensive spy network and as recently as 2 weeks ago reminded its citizen that it has the ability to monitor and ‘catch its citizens’, is fond of suing its critics for defamation, and still controls the MSM to express its singular monolithic view. Disallows basic freedom that people everywhere enjoy.
We all wish for a vibrant dynamic society that progresses politically and economically. Part of getting that done to question everything and to get to the truth. We are a lot better off with a govt that believes in getting us there with freedom of information and full transparency – instead we have the Official Secrets Act, Film Act …etc.
I think it goes without saying that views expressed, whether on mainstream media or the internet, need to be balanced and rational to be credible. The proof of the post is in the content, whether it is well researched and substantiated and therefore makes sense. Whether it is anonymous or not is not the key issue. It is more important to debate the issue rather than attempt to guess the motivation behind the post. For example, although the author here uses his real name, the credibility of this article is hardly enhanced when he begins by citing examples without elaboration (why does he disagree with some of the netizens’ views on the Minister and MP’s remarks?) and follows up with sweeping statements throughout the rest of the article. On the other hand, people like Lucky Tan are blogging without using real names but regardless of that, readers can judge for themselves whether the posts are sound. Therefore unlike Lucky Tan, I think this is quite a poorly written article that doesn’t bring any new insight to the table.