It seems that Reporters Without Borders, the organization which drew up the Index, have been taking money from the US Department of State? They also have strong links with the CIA and Western intelligence agencies. See: http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/1125 and http://www.flonnet.com/fl2507/stories/20080411250713100.htm

With such a reputation, how can we assume their report is unbiased?

Mr Shanmugam was reported to have said that Singapore’s low ranking in press freedom is both absurd and divorced from reality. Is Mr Shanmugam man enough to allow International organisations to conduct a referendum or a survey to verify just how true his allegation is?

He questions how people can be unempowered in a modern, open economy. China is a good example. It’s economy is not only open but also one that is very rapidly modernising as well. Yet, the people of China remain firmly gripped by communism. So his question is really quite silly given the living example that clearly demonstrate that it is indeed possible.

Mr Shanmugam implies that it is not possible for a modern, successful, wired and internationally connected city like Singapore to be a repressive state where people’s thoughts are controlled. But thought control happens even in modern and prosperous Japan. Since the end of World War 2, generations of Japanese have been brought up to believe that the Nanking massacre never happened and that the Japanese were the victims rather than the aggressors of the war. So too in Singapore, students have been receiving an education slanted towards the vitures of the government. This mind setting process throughout their formative years hardens quite often into stone for the rest of their lives.

Furthermore, many old folks in Singapore are either uneducated or cannot read English. They are not connected to the Internet but are dependent instead on Chinese or malay or Indian news supplied by virtually state owned newspapers. So despite Singapore being wired internationally, there is a significant proportion of us who aren’t.

Mr Shanmugam states that the government demands the right of reply but that right of reply is not extended to the people. So in that sense, it is true that the media favours the government but not the man on the street.

Mr Shanmugan also says that critics of government policies should avoid personal attacks or that which is untrue. But it was precisely on the 11th Oct 2009 that Minister Mah Bow Tan personally attacked some Singaporeans over application claims. Furthermore, the allegations made by Minister Mah weren’t entirely true either. Is this how things work in Singapore? The govt has the right to make personal attacks and to say things which may only be half true while the people are refrained from doing so?

Mr Shanmugan brushes off Singapore’s low ranking by Reporters Without Borders by implying that since Singapore’s social order is much better than those of Guinea, Kenya, Congo or Venezuela, Singapore’s press freedom must necessarily be better. That is not necessarily true. The law and order in China is much better than Guinea, Kenya, Congo or Venezuela. Ye we all know that China is a communist state that imposes strict controls on the press and what it publishes. So Mr Shanmugam’s argument is simply nonsense. You can have very strict press controls with reasonably good law and order. In this case, the same agent that is enforcing strict law and order is also the one enforcing strict press controls.

So if Mr Shanmugam wishes to question the objectivity of the rankings, it needs to come up with more objective arguments than merely equating law and order with press control.

‘Divorced from reality’
Allow me to comment on what our law Minister had said in the ‘Today’ paper
dated 27 October, 2009 (page 6 last paragraph) and I quote “This education, in our formative years, has made many of us admirers of many aspects of American
Society, he said. End quote.

Education in the USA.
The system has broken down where they curse and ridicule every aspect of US American Society. They Slander all that is dis-agreeable to them. That there are 400.000.000 individuals with each claiming individual rights.
What right does anybody have to slander another person? Again quoting our Minister for Law Mr. Shanmugam in the same “Today” paper, and I quote “In political arena, too; We have no problems with tough debate, criticism of policies. But…. if untrue statements are made that a person is corrupt or that he lied, or
that he tried to help my family or friends, ther e will be a suit.” End quote.

We are Singapore, and I stand in defence of my government. I am defining myself and I hope that it is clear.
And don’t pull that US American crap on me about everybody is entitled to his opinion. No body asked for mine, and what I have said are the facts.

Was there any wrong in the IBA report?
If so, they should be sued or not?

If not what message does this send out?
If not could such acts be repeated again and again?

“I don’t have any expert views on such methodology so I won’t comment on that. However, I would suggest that people read some of Cherian’s writing and research pieces before branding him as a propaganda writer just because he was an ST journalist in the past. That method of coming to a conclusion is in itself flawed. ”

———————————————-

If I’m not mistaken, Cherian George’s brother-in-law is the Minister, Env & Water Resources, as well as Muslim Affairs, and Cherian’s wife, Zubaidah, is a senior staff at the Straits Times.

Before Cherian left ST to pursue his doctoral, and I believe before his marriage, he was castigated by then Minister Wong Kan Seng for his report on Parliamentary proceedings unfavourable to……

So, I hope that what I say may be taken in the spirit that it is being intended, namely, that I’m just nitpicking but only for the purpose of pushing Ganga to greater heights for the future.

The article begins by saying: “Singapore officials seem to have missed the point of the index by erroneously equating it with press quality.”

I actually do think that RSF’s rankings are *ultimately* about press quality; it’s about the quality of information received by the readership/viewership of the media that can affect the quality of the government they elect, if electing of a government is even an option to said readership/viewership to begin with.

That said, RSF’s rankings are still not focussed on the matter of quality but on openess/tarnsparency of media and the expicit role of government in any openess/tarnsparency or lack thereof.

Thus, it would be very appropriate for any government to react to dismal rankings, BUT THEY WOULD DO SO ONLY IF they are guilty of a role in any lack of openess in the media.

Only because the PAP government has in fact reacted to this findings, they are guilty as charged; a government that plays no role in the functioning of media has no obligation to react but to leave the defending of a job badly done to the media themselves.

The thing that riles me about episodes like this is not so much that the PAP government tries to defend its poor standards, because I have already accepted that the PAP is ONLY about low standards, but the *REASONS* they offer in such instances.

It’s always ultimately about how to keep themselves in power, whether it’s Asian values or any other smokescreen to make white people feel guilty that if they don’t understnad that this is about Asian values, then they must be racist.

And white people, especially those who are liberal, are terrified of the charge of racism being made against them. In which case, it becomes a case of “Mission Accomplished” for the PAP in what is ultimately its war of attrition against human rights in Asia.

New York is *the* liberal stronghold in the US, and K. Shanmugam has definitely picked on the ‘right’ audience to terrify with an implied charge of racism.

We hope that they will exert greater international pressures to undo the (social) injustice, to right the wrongs in Singapore. However, we owe it to ourselves to pick this up and be prepared to go the distance, even without external aid.

I find it amazing how many things (not the little ones; the BIG Os) can and have gone wrong in such a tiny island state called Singapore. How this government manages to piss off almost everyone at the same time!

When the government curtails our “freedom of expression”, it is really not too worried about naked streakers (a form of expression no less) in Holland Village and the ensuing “public order” disturbance. The spectacle would have caused a greater commotion than any CSJ’s rally.

No, the incredulity and indecency of some of the existing laws has more to do with the prevention of “public embarrassment” than the containment of “public order”. In the Buffetian sense, who is “swimming naked” when the tide runs out? And the tide has run out.

Yes, we need to claw back our “freedom of speech, assembly and association” which was unconstitutionally taken away. We need to demand a Freedom of Information Act. Put on your knuckle dusters; we have a date in the cul de sac!

I will never trust someone who commits ‘adultery’. Such a person has the tendency to adulterate anything. That is my take. Simple as that.

I think he should read the methodology better. To the “best of his knowledge” and yet not stating the extent of that knowledge?

His main gripe was “Instead of using a common pool of rigorously trained assessors, it asks respondents within each country to rate that country on various indicators. Their responses help determine where the country ranks.”

I don’t even know how he come up with the point on the lack of ‘common pool of rigorously trained assessors”. It’s just a questionnaire sent to ‘respondents within each country’ and a score attached to the answers given to the questionnaire. What other “inter-coder reliability” is he looking for? With the majority of the questions being yes/no and counts of instances, how subjective can it get? There was only 1 question which asked the respondent to give a rating… and that is the only one that could be subjective.

Looking at his background “Journalist with The Straits Times for 10 years”, I have to wonder if he purposely limited his ‘best of his knowledge’ on the RSF issue.

they’re so good at it anyway…

=P

Its not ranked the Poorest among 1st worlds right?

singapre very the solid stedi bom bi bi wans right?

Didn’t he write propaganda articles for the government when he was with the Straits Times?