Connect with us

Current Affairs

Demonising the Internet – and bloggers

The mainstream media’s vendetta against bloggers is regrettable.

Published

16 years ago

on

Andrew Loh

With so many shenanigans and so much bad press, is it any wonder that bloggers here are gaining a reputation as irresponsible netizens?

The above quote is from Clarence Chang of The New Paper in an article titled, “Why are S’pore bloggers clueless and careless?” (2005).

Also in that article, Chang says:

They slime, ‘flame’ and take potshots at others. The more outrageous the comments, it seems, the better. In Singapore, bloggers appear to think that anything goes.

Three years on, it seems that the attacks by the mainstream media (MSM) on the Internet, and bloggers in particular, haven’t let up.

In the past month or so, these have taken the form of outright disparagement of bloggers – most of them at how bloggers have reacted to Mas Selamat Kastari’s escape from the Whitley Road Detention Center and the aftermath.

In a Straits Times article titled, “Mas Selamat wins in blame game”, on March 15 2008, Paul Jacob described blog postings as being full of “sarcastic comments”, “speculation, innuendo and finger-pointing”, and bloggers as “detractors” who are “baying for blood”, and engaging in a “blame game”.

Jacob goes on further:

The rants in cyberspace take pleasure in knocking Singapore‘s firm and nononsense (sic) reputation.

And, oblivious to his own complicity in doing exactly the same, Jacob ends his piece with:

This is not a time when others should be given room to take potshots and sow seeds that, in some cases, appear designed to cause discord and to cast doubt on and undermine the work and reputation of individuals and institutions.

Phew! That’s a lot of accusations to hurl, eh?

Jacob is the Deputy Political Editor of the ST, mind you.

And he talks about ranting. Rather funny, isn’t it? Ironic, for sure.

I guess “the more outrageous the comments, it seems, the better”, as Chang said.

In that same spirit of trying to better one another in demonizing bloggers, in steps the Chuas – Chua Mui Hoong and Chua Lee Hoong.

Chua MH subtly lumps “anonymous bloggers” together with “grandstanding kopitiam rabble rousers” in a piece titled “Beyond witch-hunts to sanctions for lapses” (ST, April 23 2008). In dissing some bloggers’ calls for Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng to resign, Chua MH says:

There is a difference between comments made to ventilate emotions and hard-headed comments meant to be acted upon. The ‘heads should roll’ and ‘minister must go’ comments belonged more to the former than to the latter category.

Bloggers are “emotional”, and “emotional” equals “irrational”. That’s what she’s saying.

The next day, April 24, the Straits Times Forum Page published a letter by a certain Colin Ong Tau Shien. Referring to what is being posted on the Internet about the escape, he said:

There are many unfounded snide comments and even YouTube videos about government inadequacy. Many of these biased views are left unanswered.

Unfounded. Snide. Biased. Did you catch that?

But of course, that is nothing compared to what came next – Political Editor of the ST, Chua Lee Hoong’s piece of emotional ranting directed at those whom she says “seem to feed on one another’s vitriol, and try to outdo themselves”. (“That escape: Crucial issues aplenty, so let’s move on”, ST April 26 2008.)

I am sure Chua LH has Jacob in mind when she was writing that piece – “the more outrageous the comments, it seems, the better”.

She begins:

Reading Internet postings often makes my blood boil.

Uh oh.

Then she goes on:

[Too many netizens] Have no sense of perspective, seeming to think the escape of one detainee is sufficient cause for an entire government to be thrown into flux by sacking a minister.

Netizens have no sense of perspective. I recall MM Lee using those very same words not too long ago about Singaporeans in general, did he not?

[Too many netizens] Obviously have not read the full account of what Mr Wong said, yet think they are in a position to pass judgment.

Netizens are lazy or ill-informed and are not qualified enough to pass judgment.

[Too many netizens] Seem to feed on one another’s vitriol, and try to outdo themselves in calling for punishment.

Feed on one another’s vitriol. Wow. I really don’t know what to say to that, honestly.

(Empty Vessels has a rather good rebuttal, word for word, to Chua LH’s rants. I highly recommend reading it for therapy.)

What actually made me wonder if Chua LH knew what she was writing even as she typed on her keyboard was this paragraph – about the “commando death”:

Not only was there a death, but the ministry initially did not state exactly how he died. It was only two months later – after newspaper reports and Internet postings by friends of the commando – that the minister appeared before Parliament to answer questions on the death.

The crucial part is this:

… after newspaper reports and Internet postings by friends of the commando…

Ahh… it was only after some “Internet postings” that the minister appeared before Parliament to answer questions about his death.

No wonder reading Internet postings makes Chua LH’s blood boil. They make ministers appear before Parliament!

And as if to convince everyone that the escape is not such a big issue, Chua LH says:

I concur fully with unionist G. Muthu Kumar, who said there are far more important concerns for workers, like rising food costs. ‘People don’t bother about this Mas Selamat… they’ve got no time to think about this.’

Yet her ST colleague Chua MH had said just the day before, in the article, “Ministerial responsibility: The UK example”:

SINGAPOREANS this week are seized over the issue of ministerial responsibility when things go wrong on their watch.

Hmm… either one of the Chuas must be out of touch. You cannot say Singaporeans “got no time to think about this” while being “seized over the issue” at the same time, right?

Anyway, back to discrediting bloggers and netizens. What has the man at the top got to say about new media? TODAY reported Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong as saying:

Mr Lee expressed concern on how Singaporeans are using the new media to disseminate news and information without sufficient understanding of the political motivation of the sources.

– “PM Lee on Internet lessons”, TODAY, April 14 2008.

‘Political motivation of the sources’? Hmm. One wonders if that includes George Yeo and the P65 gang.

What should one make of all these unkind words about bloggers, blogs, netizens and the new media? Are the accusations true? Or is the MSM on a mission to disembowel those of us who inhabit cyberspace?

One aspect of all the reports, articles and write-ups in the local press may give us a clue. In all those publications, virtually none mentioned any particular blog or blogger whom the reporters seem to find distasteful.

I think that says something. Perhaps the strategy is to paint – or taint – everyone with the same soiled brush.

I cannot speak for all or even most bloggers but I will say this about theonlinecitizen. Most of us here, in fact, the majority of us here on TOC, use our real names and are ready to defend what we say in our articles.

There are also other socio-political bloggers who do the same – Siew Kum Hong, Catherine Lim, Goh Meng Seng, Alex Au, Chia Ti Lik, Ng E-Jay, Melvin Tan, Yaw Shin Leong, Perry Tong, Chee Soon Juan, Chee Siok Chin, Gandhi Ambalam, Tan Kin Lian, the folks over at Singapore Angle, etc.

We all know the real name of Mr Brown too – Lee Kin Mun.

Many have and are using their real names to blog, and are not anonymous “rabble-rousers” with no credibility.

Funny thing is, when you paint all with the same brush, does that not also include those like Minister George Yeo, PAP MPs like Baey Yam Keng, Lam Pin Min and their P65 colleagues?

That the mainstream media has a vendetta against the Internet, and bloggers in particular, is regrettable. How does this help the Government’s oft-repeated claims of wanting to engage younger Singaporeans, who increasingly surf the Net and use it for self-expression?

Isn’t the mainstream media suppose to be “nation-building”? Why be tearing down instead?

But I guess if you’re going on a crusade to disembowel and discredit netizens, the more outrageous the comments, it seems, the better.

Read also: “Of angry journalists, anger and the evil Internet again” by Xeno Boy Sg.

——————-

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Current Affairs

TJC issued 3rd POFMA order under Minister K Shanmugam for alleged falsehoods

The Transformative Justice Collective (TJC) was issued its third POFMA correction order on 5 October 2024 under the direction of Minister K Shanmugam for alleged falsehoods about death penalty processes. TJC has rejected the government’s claims, describing POFMA as a tool to suppress dissent.

Published

2 days ago

on

6 October 2024

By

The Transformative Justice Collective (TJC), an advocacy group opposed to the death penalty, was issued its third Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) correction direction on 5 October 2024.

The correction was ordered by Minister for Home Affairs and Law, K Shanmugam, following TJC’s publication of what the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) alleges to be false information regarding Singapore’s death row procedures and the prosecution of drug trafficking cases.

These statements were made on TJC’s website and across its social media platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and X (formerly Twitter).

In addition to TJC, civil activist Kokila Annamalai was also issued a correction direction by the minister over posts she made on Facebook and X between 4 and 5 October 2024.

According to MHA, these posts echoed similar views on the death penalty and the legal procedures for drug-related offences, and contained statements that the ministry claims are false concerning the treatment of death row prisoners and the state’s legal responsibilities in drug trafficking cases.

MHA stated that the posts suggested the government schedules and stays executions arbitrarily, without due regard to legal processes, and that the state does not bear the burden of proving drug trafficking charges.

However, these alleged falsehoods are contested by MHA, which maintains that the government strictly follows legal procedures, scheduling executions only after all legal avenues have been exhausted, and that the state always carries the burden of proof in such cases.

In its official release, MHA emphasised, “The prosecution always bears the legal burden of proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and this applies to all criminal offences, including drug trafficking.”

It also pointed to an article on the government fact-checking site Factually to provide further clarification on the issues raised.

As a result of these allegations, both TJC and Annamalai are now required to post correction notices. TJC must display these corrections on its website and social media platforms, while Annamalai is required to carry similar notices on her Facebook and X posts.

TikTok has also been issued a targeted correction direction, requiring the platform to communicate the correction to all Singapore-based users who viewed the related TJC post.

In a statement following the issuance of the correction direction, TJC strongly rejected the government’s claims. The group criticised the POFMA law, calling it a “political weapon used to crush dissent,” and argued that the order was more about the exercise of state power than the pursuit of truth. “We have put up the Correction Directions not because we accept any of what the government asserts, but because of the grossly unjust terms of the POFMA law,” TJC stated.

TJC further argued that the government’s control over Singapore’s media landscape enables it to push pro-death penalty views without opposition. The group also stated that it would not engage in prolonged legal battles over the POFMA correction orders, opting to focus on its abolitionist work instead.

This marks the third time TJC has been subject to a POFMA correction direction in recent months.

The group was previously issued two orders in August 2024 for making similar statements concerning death row prisoners.

In its latest statement, MHA noted that despite being corrected previously, TJC had repeated what the ministry views as falsehoods.

MHA also criticised TJC for presenting the perspective of a convicted drug trafficker without acknowledging the harm caused to victims of drug abuse.

Annamalai, a prominent civil rights activist, is also known for her involvement in various social justice campaigns. She was charged in June 2024 for her participation in a pro-Palestinian procession near the Istana. Her posts, now subject to correction, contained information similar to those presented by TJC regarding death penalty procedures and drug-related cases.

POFMA, which was introduced in 2019, allows the government to issue correction directions when it deems falsehoods are being spread online.

Critics of the law argue that it can be used to suppress dissent, while the government asserts that it is a necessary tool for combating misinformation. The law has been frequently invoked against opposition politicians and activists.

As of October 2024, Minister K Shanmugam has issued 17 POFMA directions, more than any other minister. Shanmugam, who was instrumental in introducing POFMA, is followed by National Development Minister Desmond Lee, who has issued 10 POFMA directions.

Major media outlets, including The Straits Times, Channel News Asia, and Mothership, have covered the POFMA directions. However, as of the time of writing, none have included TJC’s response rejecting the government’s allegations.

Continue Reading

Current Affairs

Hotel Properties Limited suspends trading ahead of Ong Beng Seng’s court hearing

Hotel Properties Limited (HPL), co-founded by Mr Ong Beng Seng, has halted trading ahead of his court appearance today (4 October). The announcement was made by HPL’s company secretary at about 7.45am, citing a pending release of an announcement. Mr Ong faces one charge of abetting a public servant in obtaining gifts and another charge of obstruction of justice. He is due in court at 2.30pm.

Published

4 days ago

on

4 October 2024

By

SINGAPORE: Hotel Properties Limited (HPL), the property and hotel developer co-founded by Mr Ong Beng Seng, has requested a trading halt ahead of the Singapore tycoon’s scheduled court appearance today (4 October) afternoon.

This announcement was made by HPL’s company secretary at approximately 7.45am, stating that the halt was due to a pending release of an announcement.

Mr Ong, who serves as HPL’s managing director and controlling shareholder, faces one charge under Section 165, accused of abetting a public servant in obtaining gifts, as well as one charge of obstruction of justice.

He is set to appear in court at 2.30pm on 4 October.

Ong’s charges stem from his involvement in a high-profile corruption case linked to former Singaporean transport minister S Iswaran.

The 80-year-old businessman was named in Iswaran’s initial graft charges earlier this year.

These charges alleged that Iswaran had corruptly received valuable gifts from Ong, including tickets to the 2022 Singapore Formula 1 Grand Prix, flights, and a hotel stay in Doha.

These gifts were allegedly provided to advance Ong’s business interests, particularly in securing contracts with the Singapore Tourism Board for the Singapore GP and the ABBA Voyage virtual concert.

Although Iswaran no longer faces the original corruption charges, the prosecution amended them to lesser charges under Section 165.

Iswaran pleaded guilty on 24 September, 2024, to four counts under this section, which covered over S$400,000 worth of gifts, including flight tickets, sports event access, and luxury items like whisky and wines.

Additionally, he faced one count of obstructing justice for repaying Ong for a Doha-Singapore flight shortly before the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) became involved.

On 3 October, Iswaran was sentenced to one year in jail by presiding judge Justice Vincent Hoong.

The prosecution had sought a sentence of six to seven months for all charges, while the defence had asked for a significantly reduced sentence of no more than eight weeks.

Ong, a Malaysian national based in Singapore, was arrested by CPIB in July 2023 and released on bail shortly thereafter. Although no charges were initially filed against him, Ong’s involvement in the case intensified following Iswaran’s guilty plea.

The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) had earlier indicated that it would soon make a decision regarding Ong’s legal standing, which has now led to the current charges.

According to the statement of facts read during Iswaran’s conviction, Ong’s case came to light as part of a broader investigation into his associates, which revealed Iswaran’s use of Ong’s private jet for a flight from Singapore to Doha in December 2022.

CPIB investigators uncovered the flight manifest and seized the document.

Upon learning that the flight records had been obtained, Ong contacted Iswaran, advising him to arrange for Singapore GP to bill him for the flight.

Iswaran subsequently paid Singapore GP S$5,700 for the Doha-Singapore business class flight in May 2023, forming the basis of his obstruction of justice charge.

Mr Ong is recognised as the figure who brought Formula One to Singapore in 2008, marking the first night race in the sport’s history.

He holds the rights to the Singapore Grand Prix. Iswaran was the chairman of the F1 steering committee and acted as the chief negotiator with Singapore GP on business matters concerning the race.

 

Continue Reading

Trending