Thanks for pointing out the broken link. We’ve fixed it.
See http://tankinlian100k.b1.sg/?p=227

Arthur who wrote that article has his own concerns. We respect that.

That are many of us who operate differently. We quote from another article http://tkl100kpetition.blogspot.com/2009/02/arthur-explains-how-petition-is.html, which says “people who openly show their support for our cause. Lee Chee Wai declares it. Kelly shouts on Twitter. Jas and her friend contribute logos and banners. RED-man argues his views. Sleepy Throat shares his idealism”

Doing things “openly” and “transparently” does not mean people do not use pseudonym or proxy to do things that are non mentionable, or worst, wrongful. We know that because some of us are the types that like to hide behind anonymity.

However, we do things quite “openly” in other ways. See http://tankinlian100k.b1.sg/?cat=31

We have reasons why we want to operate the way we do, although we are not prepared to disclose these reasons now.

Civic Advocator

Anyway, I say again that it is your right to use a pseudonym. I’m not criticising anyone for doing so. It’s better you use a pseudonym and speak out (hopefully with some sense, which you do), than to remain silent like the vast majority of Singaporeans.

Personally I’ve found that using making my identity known helps me to straddle the online and offline world more easily without having to be two different people.

But you’ve raised an interesting topic, which I think I’ll blog separately about. Thanks!

FYI your “who are we” link is broken.

Choong Yong – I think the govt, PAP, opposition, civil society, the media and ordinary citizens all have a role to play in shaping social media (new media isn’t really “new” already) into a respected platform for civic discourse.

fish n chips – Thanks for pointing this out. Yes, all instances of “Government” in that CNA article should have been replaced with “PAP”. However, technically in the Westminster parliamentary system, the winner of the election forms “the Government” with a capital “G”. The “government” usually refers to the non-political civil service. Although in S’pore media, they always capitalise Government, presumably out of deference to group of people who lead it.

Btw, CNA spelt “Barack” wrongly too.

Could you kindly point out to me in which part of the report http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/410954/1/.html did it mention PAP?

“Government building capabilities to tap on new media at next GE”

Nah, nah, nah…I think our PM Lee has got everything mixed up. He is wearing too many hats and has forgotten his different roles in this CNA exclusive interview. Our dearest Debra Soon has also forgotten her most basic role as an editor just because she also played the dual role as an interviewer too. And what’s more, a Chief Editor of CNA. I really cannot believe CNA could allow such an incriminating piece of work.

Yes, Lee Hsien Loong is the current Prime Minister of Singapore.
Yes, Lee Hsien Loong is the current Secretary-General of PAP.
Yes, PAP is the current Singapore’s ruling political party.

But that does not mean you can use taxpayers’ money to contest in the General Election.
In an election campaign, it is a contest between political parties; not Singapore government versus other political parties.

“The Singapore government is set to actively engage and leverage on the new media at the next General Election due in 2012″

“Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said the government is already building up some capabilities”

Maybe this is not his fault.
It was programmed into him by daddy.

“I make no apologies that the PAP is the Government and the Government is the PAP”
- Lee Kuan Yew, Petir, 1982

Instead he should be using PAP campaign funds to harness the power of the new media.
Then the news from CNA would read:

“PAP building capabilities to tap on new media at next GE”

“The PAP is set to actively engage and leverage on the new media at the next General Election due in 2012″

“PAP Secretary-General Lee Hsien Loong said the PAP is already building up some capabilities”

Further down the interview, he has the cheek to compare what he planned and intended to do to that of Obama.
Shame shame!

“Citing the US as an example, Mr Lee noted that US President Barrack Obama’s team not only put out messages on the Web during his campaign, but also operated on the Web as a means of working together, organising and raising money”

Please remember!!!
You go into an Election as a candidate, not as the Government of the day. Parliament would have been dissolved by then.