A political sickness is spreading among the nations, across First World parliaments and First World governments.
In America, we see Democrats and Republicans fighting over the US debt crisis. Voices of moderation drowned by polarizing, aggressive rhetoric. And while partisans fiddle around and pass the blame to each other, America’s economy burns. It would be just a domestic political tragedy, except that if America fails, all the world will suffer – from China to Chile, from Stockholm to Singapore.
In Norway and other parts of Europe, we see the voices of hate spreading. An extreme right-wing subculture has grown online, where diversity is a dirty word, where the world is divided into stark duality: “myself” and “the alien others”.
In Britain, we see toxic media. Telephones hacked into, lives destroyed, elections influenced – all in the name of “news” and viewership. Did Britain’s The News Of The World make the world a better place? Perhaps it did, for the editors who could – in the space of a headline – decide who would become Prime Minister of the UK. Editors who never found the courage to walk the ground, touch the people or seek a mandate at the ballot box.
And I worry for Singapore, because in the heat of recent months, I feel the beginnings of a fever: not the fever of inspiration, but the fever that heralds sickness. And this fever is spread by websites like Temasek Review and The Online Citizen.
TOC has published an article, “Statements like these do not help” (26 July 2011). It made certain accusations about our Prime Minister’s recent speech at a dinner in Parliament House.
I believe in finding the facts out for myself – no matter who is publishing the news. I have watched the speech on RazorTV, where a full recording is available to the public. It would have been available to TOC too.
Yet I do not know which speech TOC was reporting on, because their article bears no resemblance to the actual speech – unless you count 6 words lifted out of context from:
“We are looking for a diverse group. Varied backgrounds, grassroots, public sector, private sector, people with thinking skills, people with leadership skills, people with mobilisation aptitudes. People who fit the standard mould and people who break the mould but make a special contribution to the team. We are especially seeking party activists with proven dedication and skills in working the ground and reaching out to residents. We want people with different mindsets and experiences who can look at problems from different perspectives, and therefore come up with ideas from different directions. And they can complement one another’s strengths and weaknesses and represent collectively a broad range of Singaporeans. And it’s not just different races and religions but different segments, different interest groups, different age groups and different views on political and policy matters.”
Click on this link and watch from 01:38 for the actual footage.
If you take the time to listen to the speech, it is clear the PM is looking beyond any standard mould, because he wants diversity and change. Taking the underlined words out of context is at best negligent, at worst dishonest.
So what exactly was TOC’s purpose in publishing a contrived, inaccurate story? (I guess derivative fiction might be called a story too!)
- Was it to drive traffic to their website, whose advertisements generate revenue for TOC’s owners?
- Was it to score political points for themselves with their politician friends?
- Or did they style themselves as latter-day crusading “journalists”, hoping to be the unelected kingmaker in national elections – like certain UK tabloids have been suspected of doing?
Whatever TOC’s reasons, all I ask is that they report accurately rather than being economical with the truth. That they provide something more than cynicism and the poisons of envy, anger and hatred.
Singapore deserves better than what TOC has been giving us. It is not too late for TOC to change. All it takes is honesty, accuracy, facts and the truth.
Footnote:
List of RazorTV clips of PM’s speech. There are more clips there too. You might disagree, you might agree. But please see for yourself what exactly PM said, in the context of his speech.
http://www.razor.tv/site/servlet/segment/main/news/66834.html
http://www.razor.tv/site/servlet/segment/main/news/66836.html
http://www.razor.tv/site/servlet/segment/main/news/66838.html
–
A response from TOC will be published soon.
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
its a true fact what..
you YP/youngNTUC punks cannot take any realive critisms no matter ow i present it
you ALL just 1st a good clean oxford english contributions from posters
in singapoor..all oxford/harvard graduated?
why don’t you youngpap/youngtuc check who is MOI?
the most taboo poster in singapoor…
So words other than the ones that come from the PAP’s mouth and those in the state media are now lies, is it?
“Political sickness”???
It is about political maturity and awakening.
1) US debt ceiling crisis. This is about not giving the other party a blank cheque. It is about striking a plan to reduce US debt level. This huge debate can only be good for the nation in the long run. As usual, the PAP loves to take this issue out of context to scare S’poreans.
2) The killings in Norway should serve as a wake up call to the PAP govt not to further weaken social cohesion in S’pore by continuing with their mindless import of foreigners.
3) British media. Again, PAP is taking this issue out of context. A fearless media is very important as a check and balance on the govt. This is beyond doubt and practiced in all developed countries. Yes, the means by which News of World obtained news is deplorable, but please remember that News of the World is a tabloid, much like The New Paper. Yes, the authorities should (and have) come down hard on them, but that doesn’t shake the foundation of the value of a free and fearless media. Hell, even The Straits Times conveniently quoted Murdoch when he praised S’pore’s high ministerial salary!
actually i’m generally quite surprised TOC would publish this article.
what’s the purpose in doing so? so the TOC supporters can slam this writer?
you’re an idiot, jus because you’re part of the pap does not mean you can run your mouth.
it’s not the fever you’re worry about it’s about the political awakening of singaporeans.
i bet you’re worrying because you’re afraid, afraid about the fact you are unable to arrest an idea.
LOL, the only thing that is worth watching on razor tv is TPL stomping her feet.
quite strange for a ypap to complain abt the toc when the main stream media does not practise that kind of fairness and neutral stance.
@kindamakesense I would perceive it more as an act of balance, where almost any article, whether positive or negative towards TOC, is published for people to judge.
There might be only TOC supporters here, there might not be, but I am open to believing that there are more rational people here than rabid dogs that bite at anything that might seem untoward to them.
A case of poison being neutralised by effective antidote?
The PAP is going through a slow Swan Song before its ultimate death in 2016. The relationship between the people of Singapore and the PAP is beyond any form of repair. The PAP has lost its credibility through its pathetic performance, greed and dictatorial governance. There is absolutely no chemistry between Singaporeans and the party since the latter’s inception in the 60s. It is better for the PAP to resign now than to wait for the next election. We will manage the transition without any problem.
this could be confusing unless the subject article, “Statements like these do not help” is also read alongside: http://theonlinecitizen.com/2011/07/statements-like-these-do-not-help/
As an objective reader, theonlinecitizen’s 26-Jul articles highlights the contradiction of fitting the mould yet breaking the mould and the fear of PAP going off-tangent with voters in their search criteria for new blood, based on reasons not unfamiliar to voter’s voices in fb during GE2011.
YP’s article was based on no-exact-phrase in PM’s speech and the rest of his opinions took off from there. IMHO,isn’t lifting off words from speech common in daily reading such as newspapers (esp. headlines) and reports and if the meaning is retained, is it not commonly acceptable? Perhaps the molehill should be kept as-is.
Just as the YP “activist” (really have to stop the misuse of this word, as if promoting the establishment’s stance is anything to be activist about) would set right words taken “out of context” from PM’s speech, he/she should also adhere to the same standards of scrutiny when talking about leaders and the media in US, Norway and UK instead of whitewashing their socio-political complexities.
What, the PM wants change, after losing a GRC ?
What, the PM wants inclusion of all who can articulate, provide answers, after losing a GRC ?
What, the PM wants everything good and easy, after losing a GRC, but not his pay,
and PM at the sametime to collect pension for ministers at 55, while collecting pay too, the nation tax payers has been ROBBED, DOUBLE, TRIPLE
??????????
are you daft or brainless ??????????????
What heralds a Boehner-que situation in Singapore is where leaders preach to other countries that critisms should be ignored even in the own country without making a distinction on the validity.
Not exactly compromise is it?
To be fair to the TOC, I didn’t think the article was anti-PM or that inaccurate as painted. Merely that the TOC thinks there should be a change in direction. Nothing wrong there with the expression of the opinion.
People are entitled to disagree and I’m one of them but despite the pseudo irrelevant tone, I don’t see wrong with the article when similarly read in its context.
The author of this article may not have interpreted the PM’s words in how TOC has done but how TOC interpreted it is not as wild as it may have seemed. In other countries, journos would normally seek comments eg from PMO office before publication. That is an exercise in futility unless the PMO itself is willing to change its media practice. Unlikely, imho.
Dear People,
You have all missed the point. The whole point of a free media – is that every viewpoint can be debated freely.
It was Thomas Paine who said, “It is error – not truth – that shirks from inquiry”.
I agree with the YP view that there was something wrong with that TOC article – BUT – TOC did the right thing by allowing the YP rebuttal.
And thats the beauty of a free media.
Regards
Dr Syed Alwi
Talk is CHEAP.
It is also not too late for PAP to change.
One thing good that came out fm the GE is that now, all new media is being monitored by PAP activists.. part of their action plan I guess.
I say its GOOD, coz now we can have CONSTRUCTIVE DEBATE… & TOC etc won’t onli be seen to provide alternative views… but a forum to generate discussion betw boths sides of the Divide.
alamak, what swan song? You TOC/opposition supporters, including robert siaokia ho, say so long liao.. say PAP will fall since 1984, now they still in power. Last election say opposition will become majority, still win a few seats only. Even SPP and chiam also gone..
With the dismal results in Aljunied now, no doubt that next election they will swing back.
Wow!! Worried about us catching political sickness? Just like Pinky said that it cannot be help to have a hike in transport fee, likewise it cannot be help if people are behaving this way. If you are sick politically, then you are and should going thru the works of the illness to get well. I am sure Sg will withstand this sickness, but same cannot be said for the Papees.
I think Young PAP’s fear of Singapore politics degenerating in to other countries experience is LKY’s spreading of a false scenario. We are uniquely Singapore, we must trust the people. PAP highly distrusts anyone, they will become paranoid.
Anyway, I don’t think PAP will allow any changes to the mould, it is only cosmetic, their true DNA identity is not changed.
Dear YP – it is irrelevant to bring up the examples of Norway, the US and Britian. None of these examples are similar to the situation going on in Singapore. In Norway, it was the work of one mad man against immigration. In Britian it is un unscrupulous organisation. A free press does not equate to illegality. In the US, the debate of the debt crisis flushes out the issues that are important to americans versus international interests. Singapore is a small country. We would not be in a position to affect world economy and so should decide on policies that are important to the citizens only. If citizens are angry and want to vote the PAP out, well and good. It is their right no matter the outcome. Scare tactics don’t work. They merely prey on the fear of the unknown of some citizens. Why that implied warning that if we vote for someone else, everything will fail? It is illogical at best.
Just to add on YP, I do not think the article on 26 July was out of context. PM Lee did say those words. If he was worried about words being taken out of context, well, then his speech writer should have given that more thought. He is a politician. He should be aware of these things. Especially in this current climate. If he isn’t, it is his shortcoming, not that of people who have noticed them.
“We are looking for a diverse group. Varied backgrounds, grassroots, public sector, private sector, people with thinking skills, people with leadership skills, people with mobilisation aptitudes. PEOPLE WHO FIT THE STANDARD MOULD and people who break the mould but make a special contribution to the team”
—————————————–
YP, he did specifically say that they were also looking for people who fit the standard mould.
And he just SHOULD NOT BE and even if he were, he just SHOULD NOT mention this phrase at all. It is naive to the max and his and his team’s lack of political awareness is with all due respect the problem. Not that of people who have RIGHTLY pointed it out. The TOC is displaying its non-partisan stance by publishing this article. Yet it was gazetted as a political institution. Without the TOC, Singaporeans would not be able to vent their frustrations, let off steam and read alternative viewpoints. You say the TOC should change! I hope it never does!!! You are requesting for it to be the same as the MSM?? With all due respect, one MSM is enough. Why so afraid of one little article?? Singaporeans are savvy enough to choose. If the PAP is good, they will get revoted. If they are not, well, its democracy not dynasty. Suck it up.
YP why are you annonymous? If you want to criticise a legit view held by Singaporeans the at least have the courage to state your name. At least your initials. As a PAP supporter, you have an arsenal of support. Opposition supporters only have alternative channels such as TOC or TRE or Mr Brown. You don’t have to hide your identity the way you have. It just shows cowardice and detracts from your points. I don’t think the 26 Jul article is out of context. The point is, PM Lee DID say those words. Maybe he didn’t mean it which the article DID say if you READ it properly but the point is, he DID say it and he should NOT have, no matter what he meant and it is OUR right as citizens in a supposed DEMOCRACY to question what he SAYS. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. IT IS A HALLMARK OF DEMOCRACY. Emphasis intended!
“What needs to be improved is communication. In short, what it means is that the right words can make a person feel the suffering less.” Dr Wong Wee Nam said this in his article on why transport fees should not be increased (published today on TOC). I think YP, this bears weight on what PM Lee has said. I applaud TOC’s original article on 26 Jul for that is the point. PM Lee as the ruler of this country should not be saying such insenstive things no matter the context. What people are saying about him on the internet is what real politicians in other first world countries go through and think about everyday. If he is not up to the challenge, then sorry, he is not fit for the job. Your defence of him is valid and your right but your criticism of the TOC is not for it displays an air of suppression and fear.
I agree. Let us dump PAP and elect WP and we will still have one-party government.
The YP activist is just repeating old PAP mantra which had been debynk many times over in Internet.
This YP activist has no brains to analyst and just believe PAP cult.
yeah right blame the killings to a media that speaks the truth or an industry of media companies where competition is fairly enforced.
It is like blaming the drowning of people for having the sea around us.
The inability of the government to fundamentally change is the sickness. TRE, TOC and others are merely the symptoms. Get this wrong and no cure will be found.
Sorry I know this is a dumb question. But what does YP activist mean? How is he affiliated with the PAP? Please can someone tell me? I just read this article and the 26 July article. It’s both sides of the argument although I think YP is a little too petty in his article. I don’t agree with him asking TOC to change at all. The 26 Jul article is not out of context. It is just one way PMLee’s words can be interpreted and when I read the ST article, I must admit I thought exactly like the 26 Jul article. I was quite irritated by the “standard mould” statement. I was like “oh man, not again, they just don’t learn.” Maybe it was not intended that way but then they have to realise that Singaporeans are quite jaded already so maybe if the PM didnt mean it that way, next time, maybe his team should just choose better phrases.
It is Young PAP. So basically it is an article written by PAP in support of itself. Written in a patronising fashion exhorting TOC to change and saying “Its not too late for TOC to change.” What this shows is that the PAP has not changed and will not be changing. It just adds credence to the 26 July article. The scare tactics of how the country will go down in flames just because there is opposition is just rubbish. It will not work on me. If the PAP is good then I will vote for them but if they are not, I will vote against them without fear! The 26 July article says statements like these to not help. I say, articles like the one above do not help the PAP at all! Well done TOC. I agree with the 26 July article and not this one but I am very proud that you respect Singaporeans and publish both sides of the coin. Something the PAP, as shown by this article, does not do.
why dun you go an $%^& yourself?
Since you like to criticise, I like to ask you, do you know the health of the National Reserves?
If not, what are you doing about it?
Have you criticised or raised questions or concerns about not knowing the health of the reserves?
Are you more concerned about picking bones with TOC than issues of national importance?
come back here and don’t run away. i have not finnished with you yet.
articles with only nicknames i dun take too seriously.
Hey guys, You have to understand this Ypap people. They have always held a certain amount of power and control over critisim for a very long time. For the past 1 & 1/2 years, The tide have turn against them, Instead we now have control. Every Singapore forum you go to inc. Yahoo news. The opposition controls everything, And is more vocal and can easily punch above its weight. The Pap and his members are starting to feel small and that is why every now and then they tend to cry out. Well the tide has turn. Every single day more and more people are switching camps from pap to opposition. ByeBye.
“We want people with different mindsets and experiences who can look at problems from different perspectives, and therefore come up with ideas from different directions.”
To quote from the PM’s speech, the problem they have is that even now when they do have people with different ideas and mindsets and to propose different ideas, do the PAP allow those different ideas to shape policies? So far, everytime, the PAP party elites just crack the whip for those that have different midnsets to follow like sheep. Time and again, there are some PAP NMPs that speaks out against certian policies but eventually they still crack and succumb under the party whip just because the party seniors and elites favour the other ideas. So to comment on this article, is that really wrong for TOC to publish that article because we still did not see any difference in PAP’s ideological mindset.
Did you publish this to win praises and so that the other party would be bashed?
YP’s polemic (for that is what it is) is strongly targeted at a particular political idea, that of “First World Parliaments” and their governments. Others have already commented on how YP’s references to Norway, the US Debt Crisis and the phone hacking scandal are irrelevant to Singapore (although there are lessons to be learnt from there – it would be foolish to pretend otherwise).
For one, the phone hacking scandal in the UK was discovered not through government investigation, or sterling police work, but by the dogged and tireless journalism of the Guardian. The media can be a force for good, just as it can be used for all manner of mischief. But without their essential freedom, could such a scandal have come to light? Could the MPs’ expenses scandal (of 2010)?
I am heartened that TOC has published this, although I cannot agree with what the YP activist has said at all.
It’s funny how YP’s article cited the global events as a wave of ‘political sickness’ – I do not see it as so. Citizens expecting their respective govts to put their welfare first has always been a prerogative. Accusations of xenophobia is only an excuse to condone the unbridled influx of foreign opportunists done at the expense of social responsibility towards citizens. I see nothing wrong with citizens of ANY country voicing (and voting) their displeasure over increased foreign immigrants displacing locals. The fact that YP has this assumption WITHOUT defending it shows the inherent bias in his/her article even before it was written. But then, I am not surprised given the tradition of Pappies regurgitating PAP-endorsed manifestos mindlessly without addressing the points put forward by opposing parties. That is, PAP’s idea of a ‘dialogue’ is a unidirectional (PAP to others), not bidirectional, discourse.
No mass media (be it social media or traditional printed media like the newspaper) can ever be free of errors. But TOC and TRE, at the very least, attempts to develop an open platform for the discussion of issues. The MSM, on the other hand, is known by most Singaporeans to be a mouthpiece for the PAP – spending enormous amount of print space and repeating PAP-endorsed material without a concern for presenting opposing views. MSM is a disgrace to journalism internationally – this is known to journalists all over the world.
TOC and TRE may not be perfect but at least it does not censor opposing views – your letter got published didn’t it? Can the same be said of MSM? You hinge your entire argument on this minor lapse in accuracy to discredit TOC when they have published your opposing view then if MSM commits CONSISTENT and REPEATED BIASED reporting, this would warrant national condemnation since it is a bigger ‘crime’? Double-standards, YP? But then, PAP is known for this isn’t it? Low wages for the average Singaporeans but PAP minsters pay themselves high wages. No pensions for the average Singaporeans but pensions for PAP ministers.
unfortunate that all the replies chose to sidetrack the issue highlighted by the originator of the story – yes TOC has chosen to lift the words out of context!
Not really seeseekay. LHL did say it. He may have meant it in another way but the fact of the matter, he did say it. Yes he was looking for other types of candidates too but he did specifically say he was also looking for the standard candidates too. How is that out of context when the article merely highlighted what he said and hyperlinked the entire article so that readers can read for themselves and make up their minds? Is it inaccurate just because 2 people have differing interpretations of something? YP interprets it one way, the original writer another way. How is that out of context? Its just different interpretation right? I mean must we all think the same way? I don’t think either article was inaccurate at all. Its just different interpretation that’s all. I happen to disagree with YP and agree with the earlier article. Does it make me inaccurate? I hardly think so. I am just a human being, looking at the situation and coming to my own conclusion. .
IF people do not want to be SAT upon, further HARMED by their policies, then
those disagreeing must REPENT?
Let those unrepenting policy makers suffer from their own FT policy first!
Hidden away in enjoyment at their homes, they DO NOT work near or live near to any of the INFLUX of foreign, thus
they are always smiling with pride with their disastrous policy.
If what had been said was, “We are looking for serial killers and arsonists”, would people not have panicked about his criteria? Would anyone be defending him by saying, “but he also asked for leadership skills what”?
The point is that while people who fit standard moulds are not quite as dangerous as serial killers and arsonists, if picking such people is what worries the commenter, this is hardly taking it out of context.
With all fairness, if not for papies heavy handed approached, propaganda and unfair tactics, you would not have lost votes during the GE.
The state’s mouthpiece is under full control of the papies. I beg that you also turn equal attention in comment the state’s mouth piece. Prove that you have the guts to go against the flow before you comment to much on others….
YPAP members, to me, is exactly a replica of what UMNO Youth members across the causeway represent, a sort of cronies system joining a political party for the betterment of their own self interests.
And when they even put forward a question of whether advertisements generate revenue for TOC’s owners, it speaks volume of their own mindset, isn’t it ?
When PAP Ministers can’t even get rid of their perceived greedy image, can YPAP members get rid of theirs ?
The description of what is happening in the USA as a political tragedy stems from the firm belief among the elite in Singapore that they know best,they have all the answers and robust debate is pointless, a waste of time and indeed destructive.
The concern that political debate in the USA is not just a domestic tragedy but could have a negative impact on Singapore highlights how insular and self-centered the elite are. The “we don’t care so long as it does not affect us” attitude.
The elite in Singapore continue to think of the West as debased, dysfunctional and debauched. Yet, we continue to send our scholars to the West. We continue to denigrate the USA yet rely on its military umbrella. Is this hypocrisy or schizophrenia on the part of our elite?
The elite continue to perpetrate the myth that Singapore is all good. Asian values are all good. The West is all bad. Unfortunately they actually believe their own propaganda. Worse, it engenders an air of superiority which is totally without foundation and unmerited.
All in all, a very sad state of affairs.
Frankly speaking, YP’s comments lack of professionalism. Unless I’m blind, what our Prime Minister is stating is that people who fits in the standard mould will be the leaders with non-standard mould people to help with inputs.
TOC reports accurately. Now it makes me question whether members of YP are really capable of succeeding PAP. If they do, I will definitely vote for the oppositions.
Just because of world recovery, from the worse recessions due to US Sub-prime crisis, and the temporary boose to the economy with IR, property and foreign talent play, our autocratic ruler becomes smug once again.
The autocratic ruler once again boosted about their own superficial taxing and profiteering system of governing as a world success.
Just wait for the IR and property play to lose steam, we will once again see their helplessness in running the economy as has happened in many recent recessions.
The ruler is too proud to admit that for Singapore to be truly successful, he cannot just go on promoting his own leadership and talent.
He has to empower the people through en-masse knowledge application on the part of all citizens.