Bloggers do not advocate "near free-for-all"

This was a letter sent by Choo Zhengxi to the Straits Times in response to an article about the so-called “Bloggers 13”. We were not granted the right of reply.

Your article in “‘Bloggers 13’ want near free-for-all” (Straits Times, Sept 4) misrepresented our group’s response to the discussion paper of the Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society (AIMS).

Contrary to the article’s headline, we do not advocate a near “free for all”. Indeed, the very first paragraph of our April 2008 report explicitly cautions against caricaturing any side as wanting a “free-for-all”, adding: “The real issue is what kind of regulation can allow us, as individuals and as a society, to harness the benefits of free speech while minimising the harm that such speech can cause.

The report also claimed we were “ignoring” AIMS’ proposals except in relation to changes to the laws on political content online. In fact, our 20-page proposal to MICA in April encompassed a broad spectrum of cyberspace related issues including a suggestion for the formation of a community moderation mechanism called IC3 to deal with controversial online speech including extreme racial and religious views. The proposed IC3 is to be made up of content providers,
internet technology users, and internet content consumers. This was discussed at a public seminar we held on 21 June 2008, which was attended by the chairman of AIMS, Mr Cheong Yip Seng.

However, we make no apologies for concerning ourselves largely with political control of the Internet in our recent press statement. We find it curious that ST considers our silence on some parts of the AIMS report to be more worthy of reportage than what we actually do
say. The effect, once again, is to caricature rather than inform.

It is unfortunate that the caricaturing we warned of in our proposal is practiced by a national newspaper. The report in Today was, in contrast, considerably more nuanced and reflective of our position. It is a pity that the Straits Times, despite being the larger and ostensibly more serious newspaper, seemed less patient with details on this occasion.

The full text of our response to AIMS can be found at www.journalism.sg and elsewhere on the web. The blogger deregulation group will continue to elaborate on our community moderation proposal for submission to MICA.

.
.

e-Engagement – A paradigm shift needed

Below is the transcript of my email interview with the Straits Times’ Zakir Hussain. The article appeared in Straits Times Insight today, “Engagement in progress“.

———————-

Straits Times (ST): Aims suggests the Government should take part in online discussions and post comments on blogs, train civil servants how to respond to online comments, find ways to show people online that feedback is taken seriously, and set up a youth panel to consult on new media trends, among others. Would we be able to get your thoughts on some of these recommendations, and on a few other questions?

ST: The Aims committee has recommended that the Government launch an e-engagement drive. But it also conceded that while governments worldwide have been experimenting with various forms of e-engagement, there’s been no perfect model. What sort of e-engagement model should the Singapore Government be looking at? What should the point of e-engagement be?

Gerald (GG): There needs to be a paradigm shift in the government’s thinking with regards to e-engagement. As a general approach, instead of pouring money and resources into building it’s own online platforms (eg, Reach), where it tends to only preach to the choir, it should venture out to engaging the “unconverted” on the latter’s turf.

The point of e-engagement should be (1) to help citizens understand policies or proposed policies, (2) gather feedback on its policies, and (3) present a softer, more personal touch to governance.

The government should consider issuing press releases, releasing embargoed papers or speeches, and inviting citizen journalists to cover press conferences and official events. Popular socio-political blogs could be issued press passes like the Malaysian government did for Malaysiakini and other online media. This is a good way to encourage citizen journalists to firstly, report rather than simply comment from a distance; and secondly, to provide fairer and more balanced coverage.

Ministers and senior officials should not be reticient in granting interviews with credible online media if asked.

ST: Are you in favour of the Government getting involved in online conversations by responding to forum posts, or engaging online voices by responding to blog posts? Or would you find this intrusive?

GG: Yes, but I think the government needs to still be selective about which areas it ventures into.

The vast majority of bloggers who don’t blog about political issues would not appreciate it if a government official posts a comment “correcting” them for inaccuracies in their blog rantings. However there are a few serious political bloggers who would appreciate a response to their ideas and suggestions, even if it comes in the form of a strong rebuttal. The response could be a comment on a blog, or a full reply to an article posted online. Serious blogs would be happy to grant the right of reply to the government or any other party.

It would be better if politicians and government officials engage in their “personal” capacities, meaning there is no need to parade one’s full designations, titles and ministries when posting a simple comment on a blog. Blogosphere is an egalitarian world where the quality of your ideas counts more than the titles you carry.

Civil servants should be allowed to comment online on policy matters outside the purview of their ministries, as long as they do so in their personal capacity and they do not divulge classified information. They should not be required to seek their permanent secretaries’ approval before speaking or writing to the media (including online media) on a matter that does not directly concern their ministry.

The Information Ministry is already actively monitoring blogs and Internet forums. It would be nice if the government could at least acknowledge some of the good ideas that are generated online, instead of constantly implying that serious political discussion is absent from the Internet.

ST: What are the potential pitfalls of e-engagement?

GG: I can’t think of any.

ST: What are the plus points?

GG: See answer to (1).

ST: An oft-heard comment about the online world is that it fosters intelligent arguments but also the circulation of half-truths. Will e-engagement cause online comments to become more ‘responsible’?

GG: This “oft-heard” comment is itself a half-truth. The vast majority of material put out online are what the bloggers themselves believe to be true, or are their personal opinions. The few “untruths” are in fact satire that no one takes seriously outside of its comic value.

Yes, I believe e-engagement if done selectively will cause people to be a bit more circumspect in posting their comments. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Internet experts have highlighted that people become much more polite when they know you are listening.

ST: E-engagement can also flow in the other direction – from citizenry to government. (www.mysociety.org from the UK is an example) What initiatives can there be from the citizenry? How might they encourage/induce government to join the conversation they initiate? Where do you see sites like TOC fitting in this?

GG: I think there is a whole lot more that Singaporeans can do with the freedoms we already have. We need to rid ourselves of our “government must initiate” mentality. If we have a passion for something and see a gap that others (including the government) is not filling, then we should step forward, organise ourselves and get something moving.

One sector that is well placed to “self-organise” is the NGO sector, which includes charities and non-profit organisations championing various disadvantaged groups and causes. Many voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs) are very close to the ground and can see first hand the social problems in our society. Unfortunately, VWOs in Singapore seldom play an advocacy role, but are content working quietly behind the scenes. If more of them were organise themselves, rally public interest around their causes, we could see a transformation of the government-NGO-citizen relationship, a more engaged citizenry and a much more responsive government.

.

New media and politics on CNA

I was interviewed by Channel NewsAsia’s Zainudin Afandi for a story on the increasing importance of the new media such as blogs and the Internet as a form of political expression in Singapore.

The programme, Insight, will air on Thursday 21 Aug at 8.31pm on CNA. I’m told other interviewees include Workers’ Party chairman Sylvia Lim and Foreign Minister George Yeo. Do tune in if you’re interested.

In the meantime, do check out an article I wrote for Opinion Asia, Untangling Singapore’s web of Politics.

.

One dis-united people?

This is like totally a copyright violation but I think its so important that all Singaporeans, especially Chinese Singaporeans, read this heartfelt piece by Straits Times journalist Nur Dianah Suhaimi.

It makes me feel ashamed that I myself have harboured some of the prejudiced and stereotyping attitudes described. Yet, I find I’m still in a minority in Singapore who cares to admit that the prejudice of the majority race is a problem.

Until we tackle this problem of prejudice at its roots, all the official exhortations of practicing “tolerance” and organizing “racial harmony days” will only be window dressing for the real problem that’s preventing us from being that “one united people”.

————–

The Straits Times, Aug 10, 2008

Feeling like the least favourite child

By Nur Dianah Suhaimi

When I was younger, I always thought of myself as the quintessential Singaporean.

Of my four late grandparents, two were Malay, one was Chinese and one was Indian. This, I concluded, makes me a mix of all the main races in the country. But I later realised that it was not what goes into my blood that matters, but what my identity card says under ‘Race’.

Because my paternal grandfather was of Bugis origin, my IC says I’m Malay. I speak the language at home, learnt it in school, eat the food and practise the culture. And because of my being Malay, I’ve always felt like a lesser Singaporean than those from other racial groups.

I grew up clueless about the concept of national service because my father was never enlisted.

He is Singaporean all right, born and bred here like the rest of the boys born in 1955. He is not handicapped in any way. He did well in school and participated in sports.

Unlike the rest, however, he entered university immediately after his A levels. He often told me that his schoolmates said he was ‘lucky’ because he was not called up for national service.

‘What lucky?’ he would tell them. ‘Would you feel lucky if your country doesn’t trust you?’

So I learnt about the rigours of national service from my male cousins. They would describe in vivid detail their training regimes, the terrible food they were served and the torture inflicted upon them – most of which, I would later realise, were exaggerations.

But one thing these stories had in common was that they all revolved around the Police Academy in Thomson. As I got older, it puzzled me why my Chinese friends constantly referred to NS as ‘army’. In my family and among my Malay friends, being enlisted in the army was like hitting the jackpot. The majority served in the police force because, as is known, the Government was not comfortable with Malay Muslims serving in the army. But there are more of them now.

Throughout my life, my father has always told me that as a Malay, I need to work twice as hard to prove my worth. He said people have the misconception that all Malays are inherently lazy.

I was later to get the exact same advice from a Malay minister in office who is a family friend.

When I started work, I realised that the advice rang true, especially because I wear my religion on my head. My professionalism suddenly became an issue. One question I was asked at a job interview was whether I would be willing to enter a nightclub to chase a story. I answered: ‘If it’s part of the job, why not? And you can rest assured I won’t be tempted to have fun.’

When I attend media events, before I can introduce myself, people assume I write for the Malay daily Berita Harian. A male Malay colleague in The Straits Times has the same problem, too.

This makes me wonder if people also assume that all Chinese reporters are from Lianhe Zaobao and Indian reporters from Tamil Murasu.

People also question if I can do stories which require stake-outs in the sleazy lanes of Geylang. They say because of my tudung I will stick out like a sore thumb. So I changed into a baseball cap and a men’s sports jacket – all borrowed from my husband – when I covered Geylang.

I do not want to be seen as different from the rest just because I dress differently. I want the same opportunities and the same job challenges.

Beneath the tudung, I, too, have hair and a functioning brain. And if anything, I feel that my tudung has actually helped me secure some difficult interviews.

Newsmakers – of all races – tend to trust me more because I look guai (Hokkien for well-behaved) and thus, they feel, less likely to write critical stuff about them.

Recently, I had a conversation with several colleagues about this essay. I told them I never thought of myself as being particularly patriotic. One Chinese colleague thought this was unfair. ‘But you got to enjoy free education,’ she said.

Sure, for the entire 365 days I spent in Primary 1 in 1989. But my parents paid for my school and university fees for the next 15 years I was studying.

It seems that many Singaporeans do not know that Malays have stopped getting free education since 1990. If I remember clearly, the news made front-page news at that time.

We went on to talk about the Singapore Government’s belief that Malays here would never point a missile at their fellow Muslim neighbours in a war.

I said if not for family ties, I would have no qualms about leaving the country. Someone then remarked that this is why Malays like myself are not trusted. But I answered that this lack of patriotism on my part comes from not being trusted, and for being treated like a potential traitor.

It is not just the NS issue. It is the frustration of explaining to non-Malays that I don’t get special privileges from the Government. It is having to deal with those who question my professionalism because of my religion. It is having people assume, day after day, that you are lowly educated, lazy and poor. It is like being the least favourite child in a family. This child will try to win his parents’ love only for so long. After a while, he will just be engulfed by disappointment and bitterness.

I also believe that it is this ‘least favourite child’ mentality which makes most Malays defensive and protective of their own kind.

Why do you think Malay families spent hundreds of dollars voting for two Malay boys in the Singapore Idol singing contest? And do you know that Malays who voted for other competitors were frowned upon by the community?

The same happens to me at work. When I write stories which put Malays in a bad light, I am labelled a traitor. A Malay reader once wrote to me to say: ‘I thought a Malay journalist would have more empathy for these unfortunate people than a non-Malay journalist.’

But such is the case when you are a Malay Singaporean. Your life is not just about you, as much as you want it to be. You are made to feel responsible for the rest of the pack and your actions affect them as well. If you trip, the entire community falls with you. But if you triumph, it is considered everyone’s success.

When 12-year-old Natasha Nabila hit the headlines last year for her record PSLE aggregate of 294, I was among the thousands of Malays here who celebrated the news. I sent instant messages to my friends on Gmail and chatted excitedly with my Malay colleagues at work.

Suddenly a 12-year-old has become the symbol of hope for the community and a message to the rest that Malays can do it too – and not just in singing competitions.

And just like that, the ‘least favourite child’ in me feels a lot happier.

Each year, come Aug 9, my father, who never had the opportunity to do national service, dutifully hangs two flags at home – one on the front gate and the other by the side gate.

I wonder if putting up two flags is his way of making himself feel like a better-loved child of Singapore.

———

.

Of eggs and baskets

The Sage of Singapore has spoken again.

This time he told his grassroots supporters: “You vote in a Div 3 Government instead of a Div 1 Government, the whole economy will subside within three, four years. Finished!

The Straits Times reported that he said that to vote anything but top quality into office could lead to, among others, job losses and falling property prices.

“We will be worse than our neighbours…”

On restless youths, he said: “They say: ‘Oh let’s have different parties change and be in charge of Government.’ Is it that simple?”

“If ever the PAP goes corrupt, weak, it’s finished. You will have to look for a new team, and a new party. That will be very difficult. So just watch and make sure nothing goes wrong with the PAP.

I am reminded of some English saying about eggs and baskets.

Amidst all the fear-mongering about the opposition bogeyman, there was a sliver of hope in what he said.

“We know that Singapore wants (an) opposition to check the PAP. We’ll find a way to have more voices inside the assembly, but not at the risk of voting in a Div 2 or 3 Government.”

I take it to mean that the ruling party is considering allowing more alternative views to be aired in Parliament. Which would mean more than the currently allowable three non-constituency MPs? Or even more nominated MPs? Or perhaps they simply won’t be so plain mean to our earnest but feeble opposition (apart from a certain Chee) and give them a level playing field to build up their ranks with more quality candidates.

If I were a PAP campaign strategist (which I am obviously not educationally qualified to be), I would advise them to liberalize politics significantly. In one fell swoop, they would pull the rug under the opposition’s feet. After all, most people who support the opposition do so not because they think the opposition is more capable of leading, but because they don’t like the PAP’s dominance, arrogance and unfair play.

In fact, I’m told from sources in the media that PM Lee is going to announce a significant liberalization of the Internet in his National Day Rally speech this Sunday — not that it will really make much of a difference to bloggers and online rebels.

.

What I wanted to ask the Australian PM

I took an afternoon off from work to attend the 29th Singapore Lecture at the Ritz-Carlton, during which Kevin Rudd, the Australian Prime Minister delivered a keynote address.

I had a few questions to ask him, but unfortunately despite being one of the first to stand up in front of the mike, DPM Jayakumar, the lecture’s chairman, overlooked me.

Anyway some friends whom I bumped into there wanted to know what I was going to ask. So here goes…

My question relates to your proposed Asia Pacific Community, which would include ASEAN, East Asia, India, Australia and the US. I think this is an important idea for people in our region to discuss. But as you know, good ideas don’t always get off the ground.

Your idea has received a rather frosty reaction from ASEAN. How do you plan to push through your idea while allaying the fears that this is an Australian-led initiative that might end up sidelining ASEAN?

If the APC were to be centered around ASEAN, just like the East Asia Summit is now, would you support it as strongly as you do now?

What has the reaction to your idea been like in Beijing, Tokyo, Seoul, New Delhi and Washington?

If anyone has an insider’s answer to my questions, do let me know!

YouthQuake: The Evolving Role of Women in Singapore

A plug on behalf of my friend Bernard who is organizing this.

—————-

“The Evolving Role of Women in Singapore”

The Workers’ Party Youth Wing is holding a public forum as part of the YouthQuake Forum Series. This forum series is into its fourth installment. The topic for this session focuses on how youth can propose and carry forward a refreshing new approach to women issues in Singapore. YouthQuake offers an excellent opportunity for Singapore youth to exchange ideas and experiences and we are confident that the forum topic will stimulate participants to debate and discuss. We thus encourage you not to miss such an occasion where you can keep pace with the pulse of today’s youth in a pleasant and stimulating atmosphere and experience the dynamic nature of youth-centric issues.

YouthQuake: The Battle Cry of Singaporean Youth

The details of the YouthQuake Forum are as follows:

Date: 16th August 2008 (Saturday)

Time: 1430 hrs – 1630 hrs.

Venue: Workers’ Party HQ, 216-G Syed Alwi Road #02-03

The speakers for this event will be:

1. Dana Lam- Teo

Dana will be providing an overview on the story of feminism and a history of women’s activism and achievements in Singapore since independence in 1965 and how the role of women in Singapore society has evolved over the decades. She will also be touching on what the women’s movement is all about and why is it relevant today. Looking ahead, Dana will conclude by speaking on certain issues that she believes will be most relevant to AWARE in the current internet age.

2. Lee Lilian

Lilian believes that no women in Singapore should be taking on the burden of single motherhood willingly and single-handedly. Her presentation entitled “The predicament of a single-mother in Singapore” shall illustrate how the stigma of being a single mother still exists in Singapore society and why we should accept single-motherhood as a respectable part of our society. She will also propose some recommendations on how the government can provide a better support network for them.

3. Koh Kai Lin

Kai Lin’s presentation entitled, “1.29 to 2.1” is a reflection on boosting the birth rate among young women in Singapore and why financial incentives unveiled in recent years to encourage married Singaporeans to have more babies have failed to significantly cure Singapore’s baby blues. She will be offering creative and radical measures aimed at boosting Singapore’s flagging birth rate. What exactly works best for young women in the local context will also be discussed.

4. Selene Cheng

The working women in Singapore has to grapple daily with the ideals and responsibilities imposed on them by the nation, society, family and the organisations they work for. Selene will be examining the roles of working women in a globalised economy and will offer suggestions on how businesses and the government can go about creating flexible work opportunities for women.

In order to assist in the organisation of this forum, kindly confirm your attendance with Bernard Chen @ bernardchen@wp.sg or email the Workers’ Party Youth Wing @ youthwing@wp.sg by 14th August 2008 (Thursday).

Past performance no guarantee of future results

Straits Times Forum, 26 July 2008:

Opposition yet to show it can deliver, unlike PAP

I REFER to Wednesday’s letter by Mr Alvin Tan, ‘JBJ must be careful if he wishes to espouse Singapore’s cause’.

I admire Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam for his fighting spirit. Even though he is 82, he is still actively engaged in politics. I hope he will retire graciously.

I welcome an opposition, provided it is constructive and helps Singapore make progress.

I have been through six or seven general elections. At each one, the opposition candidates always seem to have the same agenda. They criticise government policies and fight for freedom of speech, but they say nothing about how to help raise national productivity or revenue.

The People’s Action Party Government has given us a well-run system. Because of this, all my siblings have at least 10 years of education, they own Housing Board homes, and their children can have a tertiary education and hold stable jobs.

This is what we want for our future generations.

I would like to recount an incident in the 1960s, when I was a secondary student.

I had the opportunity to meet then-prime minister Lee Kuan Yew at the official opening of Outram Hill Community Centre. He had walked from Outram Road up Outram Hill. The moment he offered me his hand, I did not hesitate to shake it.

I had the feeling then that Singapore was in good hands.

Voting for the opposition now, in the light of what the Government has promised and fulfilled, would amount to dismantling what it has achieved, and moving backwards.

Lee Choon Wah

As investment advisors point out: Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

I agree that the Opposition has till now not been able to offer plausible solutions to the problems we face, or will face in the future. However, Singaporeans need to be careful not to simply dismiss the need for an opposition, just like the PAP does.

If anything, the best buffer against Singapore’s future slide is a capable and honest opposition that can take over the reins if the PAP should fail — and it will fail eventually, just like the Romans, Greeks and Egyptians did. (Obviously it is inappropriate for me to compare the PAP with the greatness of the ancient Romans, Greeks and Egyptians.)

Obama: Dissent does not make one unpatriotic

Barack Obama delivered another stirring address in Independence, Missouri a few days before the American independence day. In his speech, he defined what patriotism meant to him. So much of his speech is applicable even to Singapore and Singaporeans. Below are excerpts from his remarks. The full text of the speech can be found on at the Washington Post blog.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMbBuEoEYnk&hl=en&fs=1]

Dissent does not make one unpatriotic.

No party or political philosophy has a monopoly on patriotism.

Patriotism starts as a gut instinct. My grandfather explaining to me that we could do anything we set our mind to do.

What makes America great is not its perfection, but the belief that it can be made better. Our revolution was waged for that belief. That we could be governed by laws, not men. That we could be equal in the eyes of those laws. That we could be free to say what we want, and assemble with whomever we want. And worship as we please. That we could pursue our individual dreams but the obligation to help others pursue theirs.

Patriotism is not just loyalty to a place on a map or a particular people group. It is also loyalty to America’s ideals. Ideals for which anyone can sacrifice for, or defend.

Patriotism can never be defined as loyalty to a particular leader, or government or policy.

Mark Twain…once wrote: “Patriotism is supporting your country all of the time, and your government when it deserves it.”

We may hope that our leaders and our government stand up for our ideals…But when our laws, our leaders or our government are out of alignment with our ideals, then the dissent of ordinary Americans may prove to be one of the truest expression of patriotism.

Recognizing a wrong being committed in this country’s name; insisting that we deliver on the promise of our Constitution – these are the acts of patriots, men and women who are defending that which is best in America. And we should never forget that – especially when we disagree with them; especially when they make us uncomfortable with their words.

Beyond a loyalty to America’s ideals, beyond a willingness to dissent on behalf of those ideals, I also believe that patriotism must, if it is to mean anything, involve the willingness to sacrifice – to give up something we value on behalf of a larger cause.

true patriotism cannot be forced or legislated with a mere set of government programs. Instead, it must reside in the hearts of our people, and cultivated in the heart of our culture, and nurtured in the hearts of our children.

It is up to us to teach them that it is good to give back to one’s community; that it is honorable to serve in the military; that it is vital to participate in our democracy and make our voices heard.

And it is up to us to teach our children a lesson that those of us in politics too often forget: that patriotism involves not only defending this country against external threat, but also working constantly to make America a better place for future generations.

That is the liberty we defend – the liberty of each of us to pursue our own dreams. That is the equality we seek – not an equality of results, but the chance of every single one of us to make it if we try. That is the community we strive to build – one in which we trust in this sometimes messy democracy of ours, one in which we continue to insist that there is nothing we cannot do when we put our mind to it, one in which we see ourselves as part of a larger story, our own fates wrapped up in the fates of those who share allegiance to America’s happy and singular creed.