Choo Zheng Xi / Editor-in-Chief
If you have been following TOC regularly, you would have noticed some changes and improvements to our coverage.
As a form of participatory media, we think it’s important for us to share with you, our readers and stakeholders, how we will continue to evolve and improve in the years to come. We’d also like to share with you our core set of values and ideals, as well as our organizational direction, so you have a sense of what keeps our website going and so that you can be a part of that process.
Our website is premised on a core set of foundational objectives. They are:
1) To be a platform for civic participation
2) To make our government accountable, transparent and representative
3) To create a culture of media freedom in Singapore
Civic participation
TOC believes that a functioning democracy requires contributions from all members of society. We believe that it is in the country’s best interest to involve each and every Singaporean, especially vocal critics of this Party centric narrative, a chance to shape the future of our country.
For too long, the national dialogue has been stunted by its over-reliance on a unitary national narrative: that Singapore is synonymous with the PAP government.
This has not been helped by a timid media, which has branded itself a “nation building press”. In reality, the “nation building press” has failed to provide Singaporeans with alternative perspectives, which genuine nation building requires.
By thinking of, and writing about issues of national importance, Singaporeans can begin to take ownership of issues which will affect all of our lives. Participation is the true key to a sense of belonging, not a conditioned monolithic national education.
Hence, it is our policy to provide strong coverage to activist events and initiatives which might not otherwise get a national airing. Activism needs to stop being a dirty word in our country, it needs to be encouraged. This activist spirit of courage in the face of opposition and creativity in execution is what our country needs to move ahead.
This principle of civic participation also underlines the creation of our newest feature, TOC International, which reaches out to overseas Singaporeans and keeps them involved in discussing national politics.
We also believe that the much touted “youth apathy” is a self-fulfilling myth: young people need to be involved as they are the policymakers of tomorrow. Hence TOC’s focus on recruiting youth writers and reporters.
The second characterization of our national narrative that TOC rejects is the notion that our country is a company: Singapore Inc. This mercenary culture is bad for nation building. In the late David Marshall’s words, we have become “worshippers of the Golden Calf”.
If Singaporeans share no idealism except the logic of the free market, we will sell our citizenships to the highest bidder, the country that can accord us the better standard of life. We believe that Singapore’s success should be judged on how well we take care of our poorest and most vulnerable, and not how well we remunerate our elites.
This consideration informs our commitment to cover cost of living issues, the growing income gap, the lack of empathy of highly paid civil servants, as well as coverage of the stories of the poor and underprivileged in society.
Open, accountable and representative government
Civic participation will lead to frustration if our enquiries are met with bureaucratic stonewalling, and our feedback goes down administrative black holes. The efforts of citizens to participate in the national discourse need to bear fruit.
TOC believes in the dictum that a government should fear its people and not the other way round. Members of Parliament (MPs) that are voted for in batches of six are not individually accountable to their constituents, and the deterrent effect it has on opposition challenges leaves government MPs untested on the electoral field of battle.
In between elections, citizens need to have the right to hold their MPs to account. This is where civil liberties such as the right to free speech and assembly are critical to public expressions of dissatisfaction.
This informs our consistent advocacy for a fairer electoral playing field and stronger protections for civil liberties.
Also in line with this objective, TOC will continue to focus on articles asking probing questions of our elected leaders and municipal functionaries.
We are also working to develop a team of specialist commentators to write on questions of accountability relating to public finances and government policies.
Media freedom
A free media culture is crucial for the development of critical thought. The mainstream media has shortchanged Singaporeans by choosing to tell only One Singapore story, but the dominant and domineering political culture is largely to blame for the timidity of our press.
This desire to see more balance informs our coverage criticizing the mainstream press.
TOC understands that we have a positive role to play in creating this culture of media freedom. We will not be blindly critical of the established press, if the real reason for their timidity is political interference. Instead, we will support and encourage all individuals who believe that the purpose of journalism is to speak truth to power, regardless of their institutional affiliations.
TOC recognizes that in playing the media critic, we need to impart all our writers with an awareness of the ethical standards and tools of journalism. We too will be held to account if we fall short, and rightly so.
We believe that credibility and quality are key to TOC’s future. In light of this, we are embarking on a process of honing our writers’ skills through intra-institutional experience sharing and regular meet-ups.
At the same time, we maintain an open-door policy for articles and contributions, and our team will work with you to see that your thoughts are shared with our readers.
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
Singaporedaddy,
If you find the concept of community newspaper too foreign, why not check out a working example? Click here to download an excellent example of a community newspaper. Maybe you can tell us at TOC what’s wrong with this vision.
There is also a good chance that the Brotherhood has a vested interest to prevent TOC from developing in a particular direction. After all, the Brotherhood has a stake in a particular TOC competitor which also aims to be a community newspaper, although that particular competitor reads more like a trashy tabloid.
Mr Donaldson Tan
I am a new reader to your website. I thought I read that Brotherhood used to contribute to your site before. Am I wrong? I guess only time and performance will distinguish you from that particular competitor which posts trashy tabloid. Perhaps you can make a comparison on the traffic to both sites and let the netizens judge. Water will find its depth eventually. Anyway I have enjoyed reading most of your sites news.
Regards
Gemami,
sorry you are mistaken. I don’t see this as a “fight” between TOC and its readers, but rather between TOC’s stance on moderation on yours. Haven’t we agreed to disagree already on this? I am not drawing the line between anyone, except between the mainstream media and alternative media.
Singaporedaddy,
the purpose of this article is to set the tone for the future direction of TOC. We are moving away from a purely commentary model of running a blogsite. This is not stating the obvious, it is to announce to readers the “official” stance of TOC, which we haven’t really done so recently.
It is sad to see the discussion degenerating into mudslinging and “reopening of old wounds” about moderation of comments.
fairplay (#52)
You are contributing to TOC in the same manner the Brotherhood did – reading articles, posting comments and responding to other people’s comments.
#53
amendment: sorry you are mistaken. I don’t see this as a “fight” between TOC and its readers, but rather between TOC’s stance on moderation and yours.
Terence,
I suggest you read my posts carefully again. Tell me, which sentence gives you the impression that I am suggesting that there is a fight between TOC and its readers? I have merely suggested that the objectives set out by Zheng Xi will be hard to attain if the voice of participants are hindered by unwarranted moderation.
Based on the comments given by Andrew and fellow readers, I further suggested that in order to fight the common enemy, we have to be united, first and foremost. This cannot be achieved if we are constantly being perceived as, should I even say it, trouble-makers.
Some of us are rather loud, blunt and direct with our comments. Does this make us less credible? See the points which we are making. It is excuseable for readers to want to jump in and say what they want but as host of this ‘battlefield’, it is best it interferes as little as possible.
Why take the trouble to defend one party at the expense of offending another? You are right to say that the fight is not between TOC and its readers, so why do this?
Now, I will state my position very clearly. I DID NOT say I will not accept TOC’s mode of moderation. I am pissed! Yes, but I am not beyond reasoning.
I have accepted TOC’s position. I have said I will respect it. So tell me, why do you say there is a fight between TOC and myself on our stance on moderation?
May I suggest you calm down and let us end this episode once and for all. I am ready to do this. Are you?
I seem to have misread your comments, and I apologise. In any case, I’ve never been too keen to jump into this debate about moderation in the first place, because I recognise that people’s stance on it differs greatly.
There are those who are supportive of our stance, and others who disagree. Nevertheless, we have certainly taken note of your comments, and will consider them.
51) Donaldson Tan on April 7th, 2009 4.08 pm
“There is also a good chance that the Brotherhood has a vested interest to prevent TOC from developing in a particular direction. After all, the Brotherhood has a stake in a particular TOC competitor which also aims to be a community newspaper, although that particular competitor reads more like a trashy tabloid.”
Au contraire – we thrive on competition Donaldson– besides we don’t have a mind control machine – so if theonlinecitizen wants to pursue that model, we are really in no position to influence events.
As for the “trashy” competition that we are allied too – we don’t see it in those prosaic terms which you have described; in fact, we see great potential in this “trashy” site – bear in mind, Paris by virtue of the Moulin Rouge and the Impressionist movement was once considered by the moral brigade as the height of moral turpitude and banality; this did not prevent it from gaining primacy as a cultural centre that many still turn too for inspiration today; it really depends on how you see things Donaldson; I strongly believe we are buying into a very good thing as not only does that “trashy” site you mention offer great value but the promise to surprise and delight may even be greater than what it currently holds out on offer –besides where does one find a diamond? In a smelly, dank mine that no one wants to go too perhaps?
Experience informs us, it pays to go where angels fear to thread – so there is where we will plant a flag. It was not easy to persuade many of my colleagues abt this, I dont pretend, we have problems, but the relationship is still a good one to build on nonetheless.
53) Terence Lee on April 7th, 2009 4.29 pm
“Singaporedaddy,
the purpose of this article is to set the tone for the future direction of TOC. We are moving away from a purely commentary model of running a blogsite. This is not stating the obvious, it is to announce to readers the “official” stance of TOC, which we haven’t really done so recently.
It is sad to see the discussion degenerating into mudslinging and “reopening of old wounds” about moderation of comments.”
I understand. But where we probably part waves with theonlinecitizen is we don’t believe an OFFICIAL moderation policy will ever work – experience in gaming informs us this is a highly complex area that even the experts are unable to agree on their various objects of interest, as to what constitutes the gold standard of moderation – one reason for this is because technology is moving so fast whatever we define as “good” today is eventually rendered obsolete at ever shorter intervals – so we are always playing catch up – makes far more sense to adopt a flexible approach and this means moving away from everything OFFICIAL – as that can only inspire stasis and inflexibility – I don’t even mind admitting we don’t even have an OFFICIAL moderation policy – as several attempts to adopt one have really caused more problems than solve them – this does NOT mean, we do not see the value of moderation; only we are mindful of the complexity and ramifications – and we have often shared our concerns and don’t even have a problem sharing our non-committal position with many such as Maple tree, Norrath and the site that Donalson Tan labels as “trashy.” We don’t pretend this is a complicated area we still don’t know how to get on top off – my feel is it doesn’t pay to simplify it by assuming it can be handled by a formulaic approach – it cannot.
The problem seems to be very much like the tao of the erhu – string it too tight, and it will snap; too loose and it will simply not play – my feel is the solution is somewhere in between; so we would rather keep it free and easy and even go by feel for now and probably a long time to come.
But if theonlinecitizen has managed to make its “official” moderation policy work – please don’t hesitate to inform us, as we would be happiest to nominate you all for the Nobel peace prize – as you would have beaten even Sony and playstation to get on top of this very complex problem.
Thank You
SD (Internet Liaison officer of the brotherhood)
Dear gemami and liaison officer,
I thank you for your views.
Gemami, I understand your reluctance to write for us. But do know that the door is always open to you. I do not doubt your sincerity in wanting what’s best for TOC and we will indeed strive to do better.
I only ask that you be patient, as the liaison officer said, we’re all amateurs. Indeed we are.
Liaison officer, thank you for your post. We too seek a way forward and do not wish to spend time debating this issue of moderation. We may indeed, as you offered, not be successful in our moderation policy. But it is what we have and decided. So, do give us some time to learn.
At TOC, we’re more interested in spending our time doing what is good for Singaporeans. And we will continue to do that. We do not claim to be the voice representing Singaporeans and we have never claimed that. We have never claimed to be the same as any of the reputable newspapers in the world. Indeed, we are far – so far – from that.
Gemami, on my part, there has never been any intention to slight you. If you feel that I have, I apologise.
Liaison officer, I look forward to your contribution, in terms of comments and suggestions. You can also email us, if you prefer: theonlinecitizen@gmail.com .
Whether we are one chili or five chili, it really does not matter to us. Everyone has their own opinion of TOC. Some good. Some bad. That’s the way it is.
Regards,
Andrew
Thank you.
Please, friends and TOC, why fight over something that should not have been? We are all civilized enough to differentiate and I really do not understand the fuss behind all these unnecessary arguments.
Each of the reader, poster including the editorial of TOC and team has your perspective on things and issues that concerned us all citizens. Can we all try to accommodate each other and unite to reinforce our views to whoever each article published here serves to address and in hope that our voice will make a difference for the betterment of this defaced nation? I truly believe most posters here want and wish to make a difference with whatever form of contribution one choose to take. Some views I agreed may have been expressed with stronger language that may not be shared by others, nevertheless, if we could all just step back and view it from the contributor’s perspective, I think this difference of opinion can be bridged.
Frankly, if this form of discourse continues, does it do any good? Yes, I concur that TOC does have its rights to setting moderation rules (after all the ownership of this site is yours truly). And to my friends, Gemami, SD and all others, let’s try to be accommodating and bridge that difference. There are enough of unpleasant and depressing situations out there in the past years and it has gotten worse; coupled with this “god knows when it will end” recession, let’s try our very best to contribute our little effort less the bickering. Remember, we are all human. We make small mistakes, may have allowed our emotions rule over our sober mind and thoughts and what not from time to time but that does not necessary mean we are incapable of bridging the gap that may be evolved due to unrelenting personal pride. I like to see that we all are a matured & sensible lot and that we have weathered enough storms in our growing years to understand the fundamental of unity value. Thank you.
Yours Sincerely,
Observer (SG-HK)
Observer,
Agree totally. Fully. Wholeheartedly.
You talk about moderation. Actually brotherhood and their allies are maybe a million times worse. Sometimes they shut whole sites down for days. But why dont they get one tenth the flak that toc seems to get. Bc everyone knows, they are still in the learning curve and sometimes they dont even mind apologizing or just hide underneath the bed and say we dont know what we are doing. So it is impossible to get angry with them even if they censor us.That is why no one takes it personally. Most of the time, they just go right back for more.That is what brotherhood do, if you complain too much, they will give you one torch light and shovel say lets try to work this out together. and the funny thing is they are not ashamed to admit they dont know. So it is like an older brother telling you to shut up when he hears something in the dark, No one takes it personally. But what is toc attitude like, just read 4.20 pm and the article. You act like a know it all, people will measure you with that ruler and end up pissing them off. And you get one chili.
Hi Observer,
I appreciate your advise and as always, they are most sensible. I would like to assure you and everyone at TOC that this will be last you will hear from me on the topic of moderation.
radlife66 also make a very good point for which I am grateful. He said; “We must cherish and nurture and support and encourage…….TOC and other “small blogs” carry the banner and serve to amplify the voices of ordinary citizens which otherwise will not have a platform“.
It still sucks! but hey, there is no denying the fact that TOC and all the other socio-polital blogs are the best thing that has happened in Singapore for the longest time.
#61 – agree with yours
TOC has become part of my reading materials each day. I still read ST and other pro-PAP media as their coverage are wide and comprehensive, but have to read in between the lines and just pick up the useful Information.
Dear Andrew, Gemami, albert teo,
Thanks for concurring. I sincerely hope for the best for all. A little care and compassion goes a long way. Mutual respect is indeed a virtue to upkeep. This I hope the younger generation of Singaporeans will uphold these values too. If you have not, its never too late. Cheers to all.
annoyed over PAP dirty tactics