From Siew Kum Hong’s blog:
The attacks have continued since my last posting on this blog. In particular, the latest attacks have alleged and/or insinuated that (a) I asked for and am receiving foreign funding from a Swedish politician, who allegedly funds the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) as well, and (b) I am involved or associated with the SDP and may be their representative or “mole” in Parliament.
Both of these allegations are untrue and false. They are vile, vicious and malicious attacks on me, and nothing short of character assassination. I consider them extremely defamatory and criminal in nature.
I did not at any time ask for, and have not at any time been offered or accepted, any sort of funding from any local or foreign entity, including the Swedish politician named in the latest attack. The only sources of income (or funding) that I have, are my employer and the Government of Singapore (in the form of my monthly NMP allowance). Furthermore, I am not involved or affiliated or associated, whether directly, indirectly or in any other way, with the SDP, and am certainly not their representative or “mole” in Parliament.
Read the full article here.
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
@gemami
“But until such time, we have to give these accusers time to show themselves, to explain themselves, to show proof and to back up their accusations, if not in a public forum space, then through the official court of justice. ”
Weeks have lapsed since the accusations were made. No evidence yet. Nothing. I dare say that those are lies, nothing but unsubstantiated malicious hate lies perpetuated by none other than members from a single religion. Swedish MP? Makes PAP looks like a joke and a circus.
These irrational people just makes rational people like me to look down on that religion and the integrity of its followers. Hijacking an organisation that represents all women, then race and religion purity (look at the SOOC exco), MOE-bashing, and a crazy auntie demanding respect, internet attacks on a MP who could represent the masses (67%)… what’s next? Setting fire to MP Beatrice? Witch hunt for more lesbians, gays, single mothers, scientists who undertake stem cell research, evolution proponents, HIV patients, abortion doctors, cross-dressing alt. rock singers and taiwanese artistes, paleontologists and everything that went past the line God has drawn for us? Ridiculous lot. But irrational actions like these have a high chance of occuring if irrational people are the culprits involved.
140) gemami on May 21st, 2009 1.00 pm
Yes, the connecting point is indeed the motive to just get back at him. No dispute on that. But my point is that this particular allegation goes beyond what should be expected or allowed even on the internet. Is this what people in public view should expect as you seem to say? I disagree on this vehemently.
I am glad you agree that the words are defamatory. But have we judged the accusers? You need to understand what defamation is. The accusers are already guilty of defamation. Assuming that these accusers can be found and are indeed charged, they can defend themselves for example by saying that it is fair comment or it is the truth. That doesn’t mean the words are not defamatory. It just means that the accusers had a basis to make the defamatory comments and therefore are justified. It’s like if I hit you with a hammer. Once I do that, I am guilty of hitting you with a hammer. I may have a defence – you were attacking me or there was a mosquito on your forehead, but that does not change the fact that I hit you with a hammer. So whatever the defence, the allegations made are defamatory and yes, I have judged them so (and so have you).
Oh yes, I do want to see if the accusers can prove their comments. if their comments are true, then it is SKH that should be punished coz he has broken the law. But equally if the comments are not true, then the accusers must face the consequences of their rabid acts. I am waiting with bated breath to see the evidence they have.
As for internet regulation, that does not seem possible even if the authorities try. I also doubt if punishing some idiots for making very serious unfounded allegations of criminal acts by another person would doom internet freedom.
#149) Curious on May 21st, 2009 10.27 pm
Curious, arrgghh…you’re hurting me! This is your most fiendish plot, forcing me to agree to your valid and sensible points….:-)
IMO, this legal advisor query is nonsense. He wasn’t acting as a lawyer in court. After all, corporate counsels (including Tongel Yeo who wrote the letters) advise their companies on legal matters all the time.
I also wonder why he wrote to so many parties – seems to me that the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) and the Law Society would be plenty sufficient. I don’t see the relevance of the Singapore Corporate Counsel Association (SCCA) and the Singapore Academy of Law.
148 Donaldson
“No thanks for selective reporting. REACH also removed the malicious comments against Siew Kum Hong. Many internet forums would respond in the same manner too. ”
Glad to hear about the other internet forums doing so..Hope TOC which openly
supported SKH will do the same same …..or better
Dear slim and friends,
I do have a worry for being wordy – it won’t get published – and the post from which you pulled out the quote was originally more that 700-word long and disallowed.
Let me explain the quote. Can you prevent someone who has seen, heard or told that Mr Siew had met up with some foreigners, and later jump to the conclusion that something fishy is going on? No, we cannot. These people believe what they had seen or heard or told and jumped to conclusion. Or maybe they are being mischievous, still, we cannot stop them from behaving in such manner. It is the same with the Josie vs Old guard issue. People were jumping to conclusion that because here we have a Christian group, therefore it translates to anti-homosexuality. Yah, yah, it was later proven correct but we cannot deny the fact that a conclusion was made even before the details were made known later.
So then, Mr Siew took out the police report. No quarrels here. He was challenged by these accusations to take the necessary steps to clear his name, and rightly so. So a challenge was made, and is now counter-made for the accusers to prove themselves and substantiate their comments. This is a process that is currently undertaken by the police. But here we are, already passing judgment that Mr Siew has been wronged, while investigations are still going on and even before/whether the police will eventually identify and interview these accusers to substantiate their accusations.
I admit the error when I said “he cannot blame”. Yes he can, and he is taking the necessary actions. My mistake.
I too can’t care less over the outcome of this police investigation. My concern has been and still is, the outcome thereafter. We read in the TODAY papers this morning that MICA is now carrying out a ‘Censorship Review’ and there is a particular mention on blogs. It was used as part of the reason why the ministry has brought forward the review from the average 10-year interval to 6. Internet contents is a worry, it said. Am I still paranoid?
Hi Gemami,
Nobody is passing the judgement that Siew was wronged. The judgement being passed was that someone is out to sabotage Siew’s re-appointment as NMP. We can only blame Siew’s anonymous critics for causing the need for MICA to bring forward the censorship review. The cloak of anonymity is a privilege and not a right.
I would recommend that REACH to require all future postings to be validated by SingPass. It is a government portal after all. The anonymous posters who follow a code of ethics will not be affected as their postings would remain the same. The anonymous posters who lack ethics will be held responsible for libel. There is no need to display the identity of the anonymous posters as long as the REACH portal can identify them by their SingPass.
Sorry the following sentence in message post 157 (currently under moderation) should read as “…proven without a benefit of a doubt.. ” should be “…proven without a resonable doubt”. Please accept my sincere apology.
Dear Donaldson,
I get your point and I agree that there might be a link to Mr Siew’s re-appointment as NMP, but then again, there might not even be such a link. You see, we are speculating even if we think we are speculating based on ‘clear-cut’ evidence and information we possess. How sure are you that the accusations might not eventually be supported by the accusers? Even though I myself am 99.9% sure that it won’t be and cannot be supported; however, there is still a 0.01% chance that it might be. And we are waiting for full confirmation from the police to tell us whether it has eradicated this 0.01%. Only and until it does this, we have to accord a degree of credence to that minute 0.01% possibility. It’s the way justice can be meted out. We cannot have a public square court of justice when the 0.01% possibility is conveniently ignored because of a perceived overwhelming evidence we think we have in possession.
Whether the cloak of anonymity is a privilege or a right, it does not hide the fact that people will still make wild accusations based on what they think is their right to make. (Gosh! I am beginning to reason with myself that perhaps moderation is good sometimes, only because it protects dumb people from making dumb comments that might get them into dumb trouble).
And yes, I do hope Reach can be brought down to its knees because to me, it has been more irresponsible than the people who posted those disparaging comments. In its attempt to heighten its popularity, it has shown itself to be careless and irresponsible in allowing such accusations against a public figure to be published. Anyway, I don’t give two hoots what will eventually happen over there.
My worry is the impact it is going to have on us – the online voice.
Dear HT,
No. I am not saying that this sort of behaviour can and should be condoned. And yes, judgement has been passed on the accusers by numerous readers over here. Your hammer analogy had already being answered by my ‘rape’ analogy. We will agree to disagree on this.
And yes, I too am waiting with bated breath for the accusers to be brought to justice and likewise for those in partnership (Reach) be punished with the same degree of severity.
Internet regulation has already started as reported in TODAY’s paper – 4 years earlier than the usual 10-year interval. It is up to readers to draw their own conclusion whether this issue has anything to do with it.
Observer (SG-HK),
Your last comment was more than a thousand word long. It is thus disallowed.
Dear everyone, as have been repeated several times already, please keep your comments to within 500 words. Anything longer will not be allowed.
Thanks.
tightening internet regulation could also be a conspiracy by xtian fundamentals! a likely alliance. we are doomed for sure.
Dear TOC,
My apology for that. I will resend it within the limit set. Thanks for the reminder.
Sincerely,
Observer (SG-HK)
Dear gemami (PART 1 of 3)
Calm down my friend :). Let me try to help you out of this. If those allegations made on SKH by those posters were fabricated and the government (or I think it should be the police force ~someone please correct me if I am wrong) takes action to reprimand or arrest the abuser(s) based on the investigation outcome, I think that is perfectly legitimate under the court of law for libel given the fact that SKH as a person (regardless of his public status) can officially file a possible libel sue against one or a group of individuals. Contrary if those allegations were factual, the same treatment can and should be accorded to SKH as well. This is one issue.
The other being your worries, the supposed “knock on effect”; “Regulating the Internet ~ I made this up for simplicity reasoning sake”. Regardless of the out-come of the investigation, by the action of SKH or “supposedly” errant posters (I should like to think that the court of law is, you are innocent until proven guilty ~ Singapore court of law may be different ~ you are guilty until proven innocent? again I stand corrected if I am wrong on this understanding), it does not necessary transform to government enforcing regulations to curb such irresponsible behavior of errant posters in cyber land.
“Hypothetically”, if the government so choose to use it as a case and point to enforce stricter regulation on discourses in cyber land;
(a) there will be no one to stop them from doing that albeit a due process will take place, proposition made before it get legislated…etc
(b) What is there to fear if views expressed were genuine and supported with factual information in any public discourse? Your freedom of speech is not deprive, just that responsible measure will have to be taken when commenting but that does not necessary mean genuine concerns cannot be address.
Moreover, does any one of us know how the rules are going to be played out if it is enforced? There are too many implications for the government to consider enforcing such regulation given that Singapore as a nation in today’s globalized world and is also under the watchful eyes of the global community.
Dear gemami (PART 2 of 3)
I am an advocate and all for freedom of speech and expression, but I too know that chasing that elusive “ABSOLUTE” value is in vain. Just like law and order in any country, as long as rules are reasonably sound and fair, I think everyone can live with it. The yardstick for REASONABLENESS and FAIRNESS is very perspective as well or if I may subjective to individual. Yes, Singapore has a long way to go to achieve that ideal state, but given the FACT that there are quite a handful of immaturities (this to be construed as we are not actually ready as a nation to accommodate freedom in totality), it is one thing to wish for, but it is another thing in reality. I believe most citizenry know where the limit lies.
However, this is not to say that netizens cannot vent their frustrations and or anger over issues that truly reflect the state of the mind. If for reasons people who air their view points in honesty over the internet blog site (not fabrication or falsification) and get arrested, then there is practically no difference whether the net (or in this case blog discourse) is regulated or not. Agree?
If regulating rules set are necessary to curb abusive and irresponsible behavioral pattern, and if people decided to participate in public discourses, all will have to play it by the rule (In reality we have to concede that we can never be like the west that has rich heritage culture for centuries and democracy only happened hundreds of years after many civil wars and it is still being refine). I like to associate the regulating rules (if they ever happen in Singapore cyber space) to moderation in a blog site. Again my point on “CHOICE” comes into play. Any system (regardless of how lax it is) cannot withstand the onslaught of abusive and irresponsible characters (there will always be as this I see it as a HUMAN thing). The opposite is true too. Any unjust rules will see many patriotic reformer(s) standing up to fight for a change to hopefully give more equal play to its people. It is a matter of when these changes will come. If it need to change for the better, I think rationally we should support it (regardless of party line ~ pun intended).
Dear gemami (PART 3 of 3)
My friend, I hope you do not take it too personal as I felt that you are too eager to wanting to prove your point but somehow, your emotion takes a bigger chunk out of your rational thoughts. My sincere apology if my advice come across as more like lecturing to you.
Just my humble friendly advice to you as always, as an active concerned citizen, it is good to engage in public discourse in an open platform setting and see the different opinions expressed, but somehow if we get carried away and let our emotions set in, we may possibly say or write something that is utterly different from our thoughts when otherwise under a more serene setting or mindset. Common good may be misconstrued and miss-interpretation of a totally benign message can suddenly become a vicious remark to some that might possibly ignite the cycle of internet brawling erupted and soon more distortion and assumption to fuel it to uncontrollable state. That should be and can be avoided if we let things take its course with time (not everything can be resolve or come out of light in an instance).
In an open cyber space forum, Truth is as good as in the writings of any posters (anonymous or otherwise) until it is proven without a reseaonable of a doubt by the parties mentioned in any published article(s) unless we have first hand information and the actual count of the event that had taken place. The onus is on the receiver who exercises rational and logical thinking when deciphering the intent of the message as this is within ones’ control.
Sincerely,
Observer (SG-HK)
Dear Observer (SG-HK)
Thanks for the assist. Appreciate it. (Are there another 2 parts).
Ref: to para 1:
Yes, and we must allow due process to run its course otherwise everyone will be playing prosecutor and judge. Mr Siew’s lodging of the police report is just the first and necessary step to bring justice to a perceived wrong. Thereafter, a legal suit might be pursued to mete out justice for the crime allegedly committed. It is here that we will get to hear the juicy details for all that they are worth.
What Mr Siew’s supporters are now doing is to conveniently skip this ‘due process’ and proclaim that Mr Siew is not guilty as alleged. I feel the same way too but I cannot bring myself to conclude as they do because there might yet be details we do not know of. How have they come to this conclusion? Have they spoken with the accusers? No. They came to the conclusion because there is an air of silence from the accusers’ camp, translated to ‘no shred of eveidence’ for the accusations. Of course there is silence with the police investigating and with the blog host being more stringent with the contents posted there.
Ref: to last para:
I concede that yes, one should not fear regulation if one’s comments are responsible and not based on wild accusations. But why should we even give the authorities the opportunity to even consider regulating if we can avoid it, either way? Some say the fault would lie with the ones making wild claims while others may argue that this is the internet – it is free without boundaries – or free enough as it is – why invite further restraints, yet others may point to overly sensitive victims citing due consideration to be given to comments in a space such as the Wild Wild Web and to ignore baseless remarks, or, to just counter those accusations without having to go to the police as a first option. Even our PAP ministers would give its enemies the chance to retract their defamatory comments before proceeding to seek justice, and we are already sick with them to no end.
Enforcing of rules by the authorities is one thing but for Netizens to always have to watch their backs during a discourse is bad enough a reason for the effect of regulation. Even harmless comments may one day become disparaging ones – all up to the authorities’ interpretation.
To those who are parents like me, I think let’s not let this issue rest with AWARE. Truly they have been defeated and humbled. But let’s start rooting out another source of gay agenda contamination in schools, namely: gay teachers. I am so heartened by the chorus of conservative voices who have spoken up on this forum.
Who will be our next Josie Lau? She has clearly shown herself to be a martyr for our cause. Crucified by a pro-gay press. I’d like to see someone step forward, to raise this issue of gay teachers. It worries me very deeply that a teacher, who is looked upon as a positive role model, might be yet another propagandist of the gay agenda.
What we can do:
1) Write letters to MOE asking if they have stringent checks on the sexuality of those recruited into the teaching profession. In fact, in the job application, there should be a category that asks: Are you a homosexual. And there should be a penalty instituted for those who are later caught lying. This might include, but is not restricted to, automatic dismissal from the teaching service, and possible blacklisting.
2) Come up with a public database listing the names of suspected gay teachers. This will pressure these teachers to defend themselves. If they cannot prove conclusively that they are *not* gay, then they should be removed from the classroom and transferred to a department where they will not be able to influence impressionable young minds with the gay agenda.
Good idea conservativevoice, but why stop there?
IMHO, let’s do the same those teachers with extreme right-wing Christian beliefs. I don’t want them influencing impressionable young minds with the ring-wing agenda. :)
Dear Observer (SG-HK),
A very big thank you for the ‘lecture’ and I would gladly give you a big hug (as Zefly would have liked it) for such a valuable lesson. I will try to keep your words close to my heart.
I accept that my idea of absolute freedom has clouded my thinking and has affected my emotion which in turn resulted in the manner in which I have been pursuing my point, though I guess in a forum such as this, it can be a good thing to have thoughts like mine to challenge the norms.
Strange though it may be, it was when I was replying to your first part that it somehow dawned on me that regulation might in actual fact be a good thing after all. Strange things happen when one is in a more peaceful state of mind.
Once again, thank you for taking the trouble to pen those three wonderful three chapters. You have been most kind to me.
Yours Sincerely,
Gemami P.
Agree with Zefly. We mustn’t let any right wing conservative Christian teacher proselytize in the classrooms.
And by the way, conservativevoice, how on earth are suspected gay teachers going to prove conclusively that they are not gay?
Awwwww… GROUP HUG EVERYBODY!!!!!
Ever tot all this defamation talk is to distract us from fact that Xiao’s OG friends and GLBT allies kanna shafted in the ass by WKS and now Ng?
And that his efforts in helping AWARE OG was waste of time.
AWARE OG and GLBT lost and Xiao doesn’t want us to reflect on this defeat. So this wayang.
Oh Gemini,
They can do a blood test. Since gayness is a disease, we should be able to find the virus responsible for it. It’s called ‘pinkititis’ or something.
168) conservativevoice on May 22nd, 2009 2.43 pm
Hey, why don’t we just do what Hitler did…… put all of them into gas chamber? Will that satisfied you, conservativevoice? Since you cannot let other people who are different than you live …. your nickname should be changed to “psycho-murderous-hatred-voice”. To you, everybody have to be like you than they deserve to live a life.
I hope there are only a few of people like you out there. Cannot stand the self-righteous, self-centered, self-glorifying, self-indulgence, self self self self ….. You probably do the very thing what you preached to others not to do.
Hi Conservativevoice,
Please don’t post off-topic stuff here. We are talking about censorship, Siew Kum Hong and his anonymous critics. Josie is no martyr – she is not dead yet. Stop talking as if she was persecuted. Popular disagreement is not persecution – she is still allowed to hold her views and beliefs but she can no longer institutionalise them via AWARE.
“The onus is on the receiver who exercises rational and logical thinking when deciphering the intent of the message as this is within ones’ control.”
right on !!!! so should we or should we not delegate (by making a police report) the faculty of deciding what is right or wrong to the policemen / prosecutor / court of law.
the higher the position of office that one represents, the higher the level of scrutiny that one should invite (systematised) as the only way for lesser people (mortals) to bring across disagreements / greivances which may not apparently get addressed if the visibility is lacking is the right to freedom of speech. while it is easier for people of high power to influence matters, it is not easy for lesser powerless mortals to overturn it – hence the mechanism of unencumbered free speech must always be there to level out the lopsided balance by being delibrate in opening out everything for all to see (transparency).
Though free speech can be abused by some, it is still the best mechanism as it is the lesser of the two evils as the other alternaltive will be much worst (but apparently best for those who want to keep it this way).
“AWARE OG and GLBT lost and Xiao doesn’t want us to reflect on this defeat. So this wayang.”
AWARE OG and GLBT lost just bcos of recent MOE decision. this present “modern” envoironment is condusive for them to increase (not lessen) their interest and activity. you are dealing with an information age where it is easier for them to grow from a lower base and for another group to fall from the highest point and somehow meet somewhere in between.
Hi Right On,
In fact, the higher one’s public office, the higher the public scrutiny will be. Hence, it is even more important that any allegation made to the holder of the public office must be able to stand up to verification as the assault is not just limited to the holder’s personal integrity but the institution of his office too. In this case, while Siew is the target of some person’s vendetta, the legitimacy of the institution of the NMP scheme is also under heavy fire too.
Agree with Zefly. We mustn’t let any right wing conservative Christian teacher proselytize in the classrooms. = let there be a helpline to expose proselytizing Christian teachers. They are an abuse of the student’s trust and an abomination to a secular society. I remembered a teacher once used conversion as an exchange for exams tips.
172) gemami on May 22nd, 2009 3.35 pm
// it somehow dawned on me that regulation might in actual fact be a good thing after all.//
I agree because if one does nothing wrong then one should not worry when the law knocks on the door even after midnight.
Some “lite” regulation might not be a bad idea as it will make honest men out of some of us, present company excluded, of course.
Dear Right On,
I concurred with Donaldson’s concise explanation. I am thankful for his clarification; however, I believe since I have initiated this statement which you have quoted out of context, I will take ownership in trying to response to your query.
May be I should have added the implied statement; “The onus also lies with the posters/commenters at large when making allegations that could have libel implication”. Would that help? If you have read all three parts of my mediating thoughts to my cyberspace friend gemami effort in making sensible and rational counter views to commenters who disagree or misconstrued with his take on the focused issue, I think you may have a different perspective on where my stand on Freedom of Speech and Expression per se.
As to transparency and accountability on the subjects you mentioned, I am assuming you are referring to this spun off issue ~ if I have read you wrongly, please disregard the following made and please accept my sincere apology for misconstruing your good intend.
I think the writings are on the wall at moment for all to see “In Singapore Context”. Until there is a change in mindsets of the majority ruling leaders (the one and only known way regardless of how we wished to see it or I should be more precise to say it is my personal view), or a balanced of alternative voices in parliament, Personally, I do not think that the change progress so many of us wished for will be swift (if there is any). Even with a balanced in power, it will take some time for the process to work. IMHO, this is reality now but that said, it does not mean that efforts to make a difference by concerned citizenry cannot be instigated within the current lawful rule sets.
I wonder have anyone received “conservativevoice” latest post on email. I am really amazed at this person. I am also deeply troubled by his/her comments. I think it is still being moderated.
Theonlinecitizen …. I hope you do not put “conservativevoice” posting up…. it is so twisted and offensive. Should band him/her.
Hi Joel Low…
Am I to be banned because the online citizen is a ‘liberal’ website?
I am expressing a point of view, one shared by the majority of conservatives in Singapore. Of course you might not like hearing some of the viewpoints. But being shielded from them will not help you either. I think if gays really know the level of opposition against them by mainstream society, then they will not be so bold as to keep pushing their agenda. Currently I think they are being lulled into a sense that there is mass acceptance of their lifestyles.
I think if extremists really know the level of opposition against them by mainstream society, then they will not be so bold as to keep pushing their agenda.
Hi Curious,
Missed some of your posts earlier – must be our over-worked Mr Moderator.
Excellently put across at #144. And, sllim, shame on you for not giving credit where credit is due.
In fact, you tried to sneaked out of it by conveniently leaving out the most important word in your own quote when replying to Curious.
You re-quoted:
“one plus one equals two“, when your original quote was, “one plus one DOES equal two“.
Your other question on personal dealings: well, Mr Siew did try to explain that he was at the EGM on a personal capacity didn’t he? And his assumed persona certainly was one that was totally different from his public persona.
Some, have commented that his behaviour is tantamount to discrimination against not only the Christian quarter but also the anti-homosexual quarters and has nothing to do with the unfair takeover by a team of unknowns, because legally, he knew fully well that the election results were constitutional and binding up untill the vote of no-confidence derived at during the EGM.
And Joel, contrary to your call, I think conservativevoice’s comments should be posted for all to read so that we can understand fully the degree of conservatism he is expressing. How else can one understand another if we hear only the bits and pieces?
180) Observer(SG-HK) on May 22nd, 2009 11.34 pm
“The onus also lies with the posters/commenters at large when making allegations that could have libel implication”
As long as no violence is resulted, education (though it may not be cost effective) is still the best rather than fining big $$$ and throwing people into jail. to protect who as far as the latter is concerned. to merely protect the ‘integrity’ of certain people ? by use of force ? I am speaking in the context of political office where winning office holders are able to influence larger policies which have much wider national implications.
I personally feel that the position of high office because of the power that comes with in must always be open to unencumbered scrutiny (be it ‘measured’ with ‘facts’ or ‘libellous’ purely from whimsical and fanciful imaginations).
no one says that higher office is going to be easy and no one aspiring for such office should think so.
it is ultimately up to the people to make 2 from 1+1. if the substance of a person aspiring for such higher office is intact, there will (should) always be a net majority of supporters who will be able to make 2 from 1+1 else it really speaks volumn about the ‘quality’ of the people in a country after years of top-class national education.
the other opposite side is merely noise just to add confusion. all this result will surely be reflected if the process is a very democratic and open one enabling all sides to present their point of views (the process itself being informational and educational) and for all to see and judge accordingly. and the result will address whatever concern a person may have about being ‘libeled’.
I myself have learned a lot in this site from you and fellow contributors like donaldson, gemami and some anonymous ones though some disagreements / different POV will always be present.
and it is the very channel (no-holds-barred ? well some moderation) afforded here and in other more open sites that different views (some very emotional ones) presented may sometimes shake up our very own long-held sacred cow.
it may take quite a bit of time (perhaps generations) for us to reach the level of some developed european countries or the US where much darker humor, satire, and pot-shots are quite staple targeted at people in higher office.
184) conservativevoice on May 23rd, 2009 12.49 am
You views are damaging to society and you have no consideration for any people except yourself. You think your way of thinking is the mainstream, SORRY …. it is extreme. Even the mainstream people will not agree with you. You did not comment on how you felt about issues, but rather you try to gather support to hijacks and takeover even more PRIVATE organizations. You are trying to make life for others which you do not approved of even more difficult than it is already now. Your type of “destroying those not your own type” of attitude is the very extremist ideals that we need to beware of. YOU DO NOT REPRESENT MAINSTREAMS AT ALL, so stop your lies and claims that everybody think like you. Your only friend is SATAN!!!
186) gemami on May 23rd, 2009 11.09 am
Hi, gemami, you are right. I am only trying to protecting him from being exposed as a complete idiot and extremist. He is like SATAN and HITLER combined.
Dear right on,
Firstly, thanks for the compliment and sharing, appreciate it. I do agree with you that views expressed in this site or others do open up one’s space to a different dimension of the world we all lived in (including tiny Singapore) regardless of “party model” each nation adopts.
However, how a person wishes to conduct himself/herself in the leadership role is personal but with a twist, they are governed by the rules and laws set forth. Yes, we may point out the flaws in a public discourse (if given the opportunity), a personal take again indeed ~ I am assuming not everyone “general public at large” is politically inclined and want to get involve albeit I could be making a wrong assumption based on what I had experienced so far from readings and postings, part from this site and others, but that is all about it. How can this be change? I think the answers are quite clear, it is a matter of “What” and “Will” citizenry do to make the difference (given the chance).
As to your point of law and order in perspective, I think the perception is again quite individual. You have the answers all along with you. :)
My stances on all issues are cleared to me when engaging in public discourses in an open cyberspace platform like this site (I should think so albeit this old man here may suffer from occasional Alzheimer and Significs Disorder on subject matters that may have deep and far reaching political implications than I can conceptually comprehend). I have no wish to influence anyone’s thought by penning my candid comments and perspectives I so choose to get engage. It is purely a personal voice and if there are any good points and constructive comments I had penned thus far that could contribute to the betterment of our nation or even inspires others to follow and miraculously heard and adopted by the government, I will be flattered but I felt that it is the least I can do, a kind of civic duty and responsibility as a concerned citizen of this nation.
To this day, I still holds and try hard to upkeep this believe; “Do not to others that you do not do to thyself”. This is my reflection of a living human being.
Sincerely,
Observer (SG-HK)
Errata:
“Under the Westminster model which Singapore adopted, only those who were elected on a first-past-the-post scheme in any general election (GE) or by-election were allowed to enter the halls of Parliament.”
189) gemami on May 23rd, 2009 11.09 am
//Hi Curious, Missed some of your posts earlier – must be our over-worked Mr Moderator. Excellently put across at #144.//
Thank you. I am glad there are still people out there who can see reason.
Gemami,
Check out this post.
http://www.sgpolitics.net/?p=3072
Gemami #184.
Your post to Curious:
“Missed some of your posts earlier – must be our over-worked Mr Moderator.
Excellently put across at #144. And, sllim, shame on you for not giving credit where credit is due. In fact, you tried to sneaked out of it by conveniently leaving out the most important word in your own quote when replying to Curious. You re-quoted: “one plus one equals two“, when your original quote was, “one plus one DOES equal two”.”
This was my reply to Curious in FULL:
“‘Orthodoxy’? I can almost weep with pride at what I am definitely taking as a compliment from you. Seriously, I just wanted to clarify how Gemami is using that expression. That’s all.”
I didn’t “re-quote”, not to mention mis-quote, “one plus one equals two”. AT ALL. So how have I shamelessly twisted anything “when replying to Curious”? The rest of post #139 was addressed to you.
Should I be expecting another apology? While I am twiddling my thumbs in anticipation, could you also work out a response as to why I should be giving him/her credit?
That inane distraction aside, thanks for clarifying that he CAN (and should, I might add) blame people for “putting one and one together to get two” which you also clarified to be jumping to conclusions.
“‘….These people believe what they had seen or heard or told and jumped to conclusion. Or maybe they are being mischievous, still, we cannot stop them from behaving in such manner. It is the same with the Josie vs Old guard issue. People were jumping to conclusion that because here we have a Christian group, therefore it translates to anti-homosexuality.’”
I guess my question would be: so what? We can’t prevent conspiracy theorists from fantasizing. This trite bit of information tells us less than nothing. It doesn’t follow logically that just because SKH cannot stop fantasies, he cannot blame anyone for libel. And now that you concede that he can….
Also, I would argue that there is no correspondence between SKH’s scenario and Josie’s. In law, if I recall correctly, there is a concept known as the Reasonable Man Test that might be of help here. We ask two questions: A. Is it reasonable to think that SKH was bribed with next-to-nothing circumstantial evidence? (Admittedly, I haven’t seen the non-evidence) B. Is it reasonable to think there is a conspiracy given the circumstances behind Josie’s appointment?
This, of course, is a question of opinion. But if you really do think that there is a correspondence, then I want to highlight is that your glaring double standards (refer to your own posts in Josie story build-up). On the one hand, it’s a case of show me the proof. On the other, it’s “cannot blame”.
Gemani #155,
“…. We read in the TODAY papers this morning that MICA is now carrying out a ‘Censorship Review’ and there is a particular mention on blogs. It was used as part of the reason why the ministry has brought forward the review from the average 10-year interval to 6. Internet contents is a worry, it said. Am I still paranoid?”
Paranoid? No. Irrational? Yes. You are not paranoid in thinking that our government (most governments too, I would think) is wary of the Internet. PAP has a history of coming down hard on media, not mention that they shut down a forum some years ago. Interestingly, I recall somebody telling me that ST carried a small story of PAP monitoring emails (Singnet, I think) when the Internet first came to our shores, so to speak. I cannot corroborate this, it’s been too long. But I won’t be too surprised.
Now the irrationality: What has this got to do with SKH at all? Firstly, I doubt libel is the sort of speech you want to protect. If the government want to clamp down on libel, all the better for the rest of us. Less sifting through of fabricated garbage. Some fool might not know better and subscribe to such 20-cents-platitudes such as “there are two sides to every story” and “there is no smoke without fire”. Morons should be protected from themselves.
Secondly, what has this got to do with SKH at all? Even if it is possible to censor through scare-tactics, which I strongly doubt, a self-assembling and pervasive media such as the Internet, no fault can be attached to SKH. Where is the argument that his case is the straw that broke the camel’s back? Even if it is, where is the argument (a ludicrous one, no doubt) that he is pursuing libel charges so the government can shut down the internet? It is, can’t you see, completely incidental Why SKH waste a single second considering a hypothetical, incidental, and irrelevant implication which are almost certainly technologically impossible?
I don’t mean to be rude. But by your own standards, your logic on almost every point in this thread is critically flawed.
We’ll let it go through the test of time.
Dear Donaldson,
Thanks for the link but I still feel the adverse effect is still worth considering – just like what the SDP has suggested.
gemami #193,
If #193 was addressed to me (or to anyone else for that matter) then it’s a multi-purpose non-response. As a response to an argument, it amounts to: time will prove you wrong. It can be used for any argument on whichever side. Naturally, that makes it a very inert (but oh so expedient) response for any argument on whichever side.
Assuming you were addressing me and referring to whether the authorities will clamp down on the internet following SKH’s police report, even if internet moderation comes about, you still haven’t made the case of why or how SKH is responsible in any way. Your argument in that case suffers from the post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this therefore because of this) fallacy.
Dear sllim,
Every argument here is a fallacy isn’t it? By your own definition of “post hoc ergo propter hoc “, which is effectively similar to ‘jumping-the-gun’, isn’t Mr Siew doing the same – taking an accusation, telling his audience what it means, and gaining support for his intepretation? (do correct me if I am wrong as I am no lawyer).
I could easily behave like most of you here – listen and believe – because of one reason or another, for example, because Mr Siew has proven himself credible in Parliament, Mr Siew has been a champion of causes near and dear to me etc.
However, I have to be fair and put myself in the accusers shoes too, and see if there could be any merit (however little it may seem) in their accusations. I am of the opinion that there could be a 0.01% merit in them – and because of this, I have to give them the benefit of doubt, amounting to 0.01% – that they might just produce evidence to support their accusations in a court of law – should it come to that.
This is why I am saying that since we are already agreed that Mr Siew has been 99.9% wronged by the accusations, and there seem to be a strong and large support toward this end, then why the need to take out a police report? (I am not saying it is wrong. I am questioning the need to take out one). A simple statement to state clearly his position is sufficient to debunked such claims.
Now, by making a police report, and considering that the crime scene is the internet, isn’t it clear that any corrective actions, should there be any, will affect the internet, specifically bloggers and blogsites? How is this irrational?
gemami #196,
“Every argument here is a fallacy isn’t it?”
If it is, it is. So far, you have graciously conceded two points. (The only reason I keep going is that you seem like an unusually good sport.)
Post hoc ergo propter hoc isn’t just “jumping the gun”, neither is it as simplistic as saying someone is wrong. That’s just re-working the definition to make it broad and wooly when it is actually quite specific: It SHOWS exactly where the argument has gone wrong. And yet you started with “by your own definition”, and went on to redefine what I meant.
“…. isn’t Mr Siew doing the same – taking an accusation, telling his audience what it means, and gaining support for his interpretation?”
I don’t quite get what you mean. It seems like you are making extremely loose interpretations. Perhaps you care to clarify? In any case, I bet it’s different from post hoc ergo propter hoc.
I don’t know much about SKH in politics so there’s no need to lump me in with the rest. Truth be told, I also haven’t seen any arguments that SKH is to be believed solely because he does good work in parliament (this argument, I agree, is woefully wrong).
“…. since we are already agreed that Mr Siew has been 99.9% wronged by the accusations, and there seem to be a strong and large support toward this end, then why the need to take out a police report?”
You answer the need for a police report yourself:
“However, I have to be fair and put myself in the accusers’ shoes too, and see if there could be any merit (however little it may seem) in their accusations. I am of the opinion that there could be a 0.01% merit in them – and because of this, I have to give them the benefit of doubt, amounting to 0.01% – that they might just produce evidence to support their accusations in a court of law – should it come to that.”
Come off it, please. Is that what you call being “fair”? We can’t very well have people going around making baseless accusations of everyone else and have others think there is even a minuscule probability of truth to them, can we? Such nonsense is garbage until proof has been produced.
[Continued] gemami #196,
You also appear to have contradicted yourself:
“…why the need to take out a police report? (I am not saying it is wrong. I am questioning the need to take out one). A simple statement to state clearly his position is sufficient to debunk such claims.”
Firstly, you agreed that it is right that SKH placed a police report: “Mr Siew took out the police report. No quarrels here. He was challenged by these accusations to take the necessary steps to clear his name, and rightly so.”
Secondly, if it is right, why question the need to place a police report?
Thirdly, obviously a simple statement is not enough. Even his willingness to clear his name in court leaves you with lingering doubts. If he is not willing to go to court, a somewhat reasonable argument can be made that he has something to hide.
“Now, by making a police report, and considering that the crime scene is the internet, isn’t it clear that any corrective actions, should there be any, will affect the internet, specifically bloggers and blogsites? How is this irrational?”
It is irrational because you haven’t made the case that all corrective actions are bad. Or how the onus is on SKH and not the authorities. Or how SKH might be responsible if the authorities choose to abuse their discretion.
You simply go: A) The authorities will clamp down on the internet. B) This will happen after SKH tries to clear his name C) Therefore, SKH is responsible.
The fallacy in action: Post hoc ergo propter hoc (you are confused over the cause). Actually, your argument doesn’t even amount to a fallacy. Not yet anyway. Because the conclusion is based on an event that hasn’t happened. So that argument will officially be fallacious when it’s made if and when the authorities clamp down on the internet.