Response to Straits Times’ questions for article "Internet users learning netiquette the hard way"

Last Friday (July 20), the Straits Times contacted me to ask for my views for their article, “Internet users learning netiquette the hard way” (ST, July 25). The following are the questions and my responses.


Straits Times (ST): I see that you have put your name down on the blog and not shy behind annonymity (sic). But when you blog, are you consciously aware that there are people reading you? If so, do you hold back on talking about certain topics or word your arguments carefully?

Gerald (GG): Yes, I am aware that many people in Singapore and in other countries read my articles (which I write for not just my own blog but other online publications like TheOnlineCitizen.com and OhmyNews International as well). I take a very considered approach to my articles. I do not write things that could be deemed illegal in Singapore. For example, I refrain from making ad hominem attacks on people, and I am careful not to reveal any official secrets (which I might have learned during my NS or when I was a foreign service officer in MFA). However, I do not hold back criticism when I feel criticism is due. For example, I wrote a series of articles last year arguing against the latest GST hike in Singapore. (See the articles here, here, here and here.) But even when I criticise, I try to focus on the issue rather than the person(s). Where possible, I also try to present alternative solutions, although I don’t believe that all criticism needs to be accompanied by solutions.

ST: What do you think of the Wee Shu Min case? I’m thinking if she said it quietly to her friends, nothing would have happened. In this case, it was the Internet, a public area where people read and take notice of what you say, that blew the issue up. Its abit like racism, isn’t it? One can be racist among racist and nobody would take notice. But broadcast it, combined with the fact that one is a public figure, or related to one, and that person can be in big trouble. Would you agree?

GG: The dismissive and arrogant tone of her online rant was interpreted by many Singaporeans as being reflective of the disconnect that some of our “elite” have from mainstream society. I do not agree that one can say nasty or racist things about others in private, but not in public. Sooner or later, one will be held to account. For example, your friends might hear what you mutter in private, and decide to broadcast your words on their blog. But I do agree that public figures (and their relatives) need to be aware that their words carry more weight than that of the ordinary man on the street.

ST: The spread of information over the net is also stupendous. Immediately almost. Do you take care in verifying information before writing or blogging about it?

GG: Yes, I never publish anything without verifying the facts. I see that as my responsibility as a citizen journalist. There is a lot of information on the Net, but it is not as difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff as many “blogophobes” like to make it out to be. Adults should have no problem telling apart a false and misleading website from a genuine one. I think schools and parents have a responsibility to inculcate some media literacy in our young, rather than try to shield them from the Net. But I feel the mainstream media and some of our politicians do bloggers a disservice when they keep perpetuating the myth that blogosphere (and the Internet in general) is “full of clever propaganda, inflammatory opinions, half-truths and untruths” (see this article of mine). I think Singaporean bloggers in general are very responsible citizen journalists.

(Verbal question over a subsequent phone call by the journalist. May not be verbatim.)

ST: Have you ever gotten yourself in trouble because of something you blogged about?

GG: No, I am always very careful about what I blog about.

(Another verbal question)

ST: Do you know anyone who has gotten himself or herself in trouble because of their blog? We are writing an article highlighting some recent incidents where people got burnt because of comments they published on their blogs.

GG: I am in touch with a number of fellow bloggers and I am not aware of any of them who have gotten in trouble because of their blog. I don’t think this is a very a big issue in Singapore.


Afterthoughts:

I’m aware that several other social-political bloggers were also approached by the ST for this article. It seems the questions asked were almost identical. Dansong has published his responses on Singapore Angle. I notice only quotes from university professors and MPs made the final cut. Oh well… :)

What I was actually uncomfortable with was the slant of the article from the outset. It was obvious from the questions that the ST was trying to frame the article in terms of “Singapore bloggers are an irresponsible lot and the nonsense they write always gets them in trouble”.

Is this another example of how the mainstream media is trying to make the new media look like an amateurish and unreliable source of information?

singaporepatriot.wordpress.com is not me

Dear readers,

I have been alerted by several readers of a new blog, http://singaporepatriot.wordpress.com, which happens to share the same URL “singaporepatriot” as my blog.

Please note that I do not own this WordPress blog. Readers are advised not to confuse that blog with mine.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Gerald

Update (24 Jul):

The above-mentioned blog has since been moved to http://patrioticsingaporean.wordpress.com/. Do visit it when you get the chance.

About the Legal Service Commission changes

“Under the existing Constitution, the LSC comprises of the Chief Justice as President, the Attorney-General, the Chairman of the Public Service Commission, a High Court Judge nominated by the CJ and up to 2 members of the PSC.

Under Cl 8 of the Bill, the composition of the LSC is to be changed to include up to 2 nominees of the Prime Minister.

If the Bill is passed, the LSC still retains its role of deciding on dismissal and disciplinary action of legal officers. For officers above a certain threshold grade, the LSC will also make career decisions such as promotions and transfers.

Could the Minister clarify further the rationale for having a new category of LSC members who are the PM’s nominees?”

– Non-Constituency MP Sylvia Lim in Parliament, July 17, 2007. Read her whole speech here.

Sylvia Lim raised a very valid point. Will not the Attorney General, Chairman of the PSC and the two PSC nominees be enough to reflect the Government’s view on key decisions by the Legal Service Commission (LSC)? The Govt already has a de facto “majority” with them on the LSC. Why is there a need to pack the LSC with even more Government nominees?

Most Singaporeans have already made up their mind whether our courts are independent or not. Contrary to what Ms Lim says, this tweaking is not going to affect their perceptions much. But I hope it does not affect the way the Subordinate court judges (whose career progression is determined by the LSC) mete out their judgments, particularly for politically charged cases like defamation cases.

Japan quake: Buildings swaying for 2 minutes

More than 150 injured in quake in Japan: hospitals

From Channel NewsAsia, Posted: 16 July 2007 1135 hrs


TOKYO – A powerful 6.8-magnitude earthquake rattled Japan on Monday, injuring more than 150 people as it toppled houses, triggered mudslides and set off a blaze at a nuclear power plant.

In areas northwest of Tokyo, which were hardest hit, houses were reduced to rubble and a bridge was nearly cracked in two by the force of the mid-morning quake, Japanese television footage showed.

The government set up a crisis-management centre after the quake, which was powerful enough to shake skyscrapers and send goods flying from the shelves of stores in Tokyo more than 200 kilometres (125 miles) away from the epicentre.

Read more at Channel NewsAsia

I just contacted my friend in Tokyo. He said the buildings were swaying for two whole minutes and that it was “quite scary”. Two minutes in earthquake time must have seemed like eternity when you are in a high rise building in downtown Tokyo.

CNA reported that about 150 people were injured and there have been two reports of deaths. If a 6.8 magnitude earthquake happened anywhere else in the world so close to cities, that country would be facing a major catastrophie with hundreds, if not thousands of people killed or injured. I really take my hat off to the Japanese for making all their buildings so earthquake resistant.

Chain of command might have led nowhere

In response to my article, PM’s son’s email saga a heartening development for Singapore, which I contributed to TheOnlineCitizen.com, a reader, Jon, asked some very pertinent questions:

1. If 2LT Li had followed the “proper channel”, what makes you think the 3rd senior officer up the chain of command will do anything?

2. Will Li Hongyi be charged if he merely sent his letters to everyone directly above him (ie, Defense Minister, CDF, CoA, Chief Signal Officer, etc)?

He recalled that there were two senior officers who were issued warning letters for not meting out the appropriate punishment when the offence was first reported to them by Li Hongyi.

These two officers were probably his OC and his unit CO (the same guy who told the whole unit the next day that they must follow the chain of command).

The “proper channels” that Mindef referred to probably would have required Hongyi to patiently go rung by rung up the ladder…CO, CSO, ACGS, COS, COA, CDF, Min. (I’m just guessing. I don’t know the hierarchy — there are probably more “crabs” and “stars” in between.)

If he waited just 3 weeks before before escalating to the next level, that’s 18 weeks before he can email the Minister. He was scheduled to disrupt very soon (he said it was his last email). So he would not have had the time to wait around.

Furthermore, 3 weeks may or may not be an appropriate length of time to wait for a response. If at any point he got impatient and decided to escalate up the issue too soon, he could have gotten charged for not following the chain of command.

So I think he would never have gotten the Lieutenant to face court martial had he not shot the email all the way up to the CDF and Minister.

Now, about the Cc list, which probably included all the enlisted men, drivers, clerks, etc in the whole unit — If he didn’t cc all of them, the letter would never have leaked, and no one would have blogged about it in the first place. In which case, there would be no public pressure on Mindef to act.

So my conclusion is that the outcome — LTA charged, OC and the other senior officer (probably the CO) warned — would not have happened if Hongyi didn’t shoot both up and down.

Perhaps this is what Hongyi himself calculated before he even sent out the email. If so, then maybe he wasn’t so brash after all.

PM’s son’s email saga a heartening development for Singapore

Army Second Lieutenant (2LT) Li Hongyi’s June 28 email complaint sent to all the Ministry of Defence (Mindef) head honchos has caused ripples on the Internet for the past two weeks. Much mud has been slung at 2LT Li for his brash act.

“Who does he think he is anyway? He thought he could go to Uncle Chee Hean and complain,” said one of my friends. (Teo Chee Hean is Singapore’s Minister for Defence.)

A “blatant abuse of family ties,” cried another blogger.

As it turns out, the son of Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong did end up getting formally charged and was administered a reprimand after a summary trial by the military for not adhering to the chain of command when making his complaint.

This incident has also made its way to the international news wires, with Reuters having reported it this morning. Despite all the brickbats that Li Hongyi, Mindef and the “Elite Establishment” are receiving over this incident, I feel that the way this saga has played out is actually quite heartening for Singapore.

White Horses not immune from punishment

Firstly, the fact that the son of the prime minister got charged for contravening a relatively minor military General Order shows that not even a “white horse” (the son of a VIP) is immune from punishment for wrongdoing. I say “relatively minor” because 2LT Li’s misdemeanour was his overzealousness in reporting an offence.

He was not derelict in his duties as a soldier, nor did he cause any injury to anyone. Furthermore, he sent his email only to fellow servicemen within the Mindef Intranet, and not to anyone outside Mindef.

Nevertheless, he was wrong to have emailed the Minister for Defence, the Chief of Defence Force, the Chief of Army and so many other servicemen (possibly hundreds, based on the distribution lists in his carbon copy list). There are many more senior officers in the chain of command above his Officer Commanding (OC) that he could have reported this incident to.

Public spiritedness

Secondly, after reading 2LT Li’s email, one can discern that it wasn’t just some immature rant against the army (like so many of us, myself included, like to write). It was a detailed account of what is wrong with the system of enforcing discipline in his army unit. It demonstrates that this young man was intent on setting things right before he disrupted his service for overseas studies.

Our views of government ministers’ children are probably coloured by Wee Shu Min (pictured left), the daughter of a PAP MP who wrote a very haughty blog last year. 2LT Li’s email is different. It shows a degree of public spiritedness that is sorely lacking in most of our young Singaporeans nowadays.

Complaint taken seriously by Mindef

Thirdly, Mindef took this complaint seriously. The lieutenant that 2LT Li complained about will be court martialled soon and will probably be sentenced to Detention Barracks (DB) for a couple of days. The lieutenant’s superiors were also issued warning letters for not meting out harsh enough punishment when the infraction was first reported to them.

Critics would say that Mindef took action only because the son of the PM made this complaint. If this was the case, why didn’t 2LT Li’s OC and Commanding Officer take appropriate action when he first reported it?

Mainstream media, New Media

Fourthly, 2LT Li’s wrongdoing was not exactly covered up because of his status as the son of the PM. Even before the mainstream media reports came out today, and the chatter on the Net took off a week earlier, the Commanding Officer of 2LT Li’s unit had given a speech to the entire unit the next day (presumably the day after he wrote the letter) about “following the chain of command”.

That in many ways amounted to a public, albeit informal rebuke. Today’s mainstream media’s reports about 2LT Li’s punishment (complete with pictures of the young officer) all signal a gradual relaxing of the Singapore media’s unofficial policy of self-censorship to avoid embarrassment to senior government officials.

It is unclear whether 2LT Li’s charge was issued before or after the news got leaked on the Net. It appears that his email only got circulated widely on the Net late on Thursday, 12 July.

But given that he committed his offence on June 28, and Mindef announced to the press less than two weeks later (on July 12) that he had already been charged at a summary trial, indicates that relative quick action was taken against this offender.

Lastly, there is no doubt that the new media helped to highlight this matter to the public. There would be no Straits
Times or Channel NewsAsia report, nor would Mindef have issued a statement, if not for the fact that this was already a widely discussed issue on the Net.

It is heartening to note that the new media is fast becoming an effective watchdog on the powers-that-be in Singapore.

———

This article was first contributed to The Online Citizen



Sponsor a Child, Change a Life

Dear friends and readers,

I have been a child sponsor with World Vision Singapore for over five years and have personally found it very meaningful. The Child Sponsorship Programme has given me a precious opportunity to invest in the development of a child, his family and his community in a poor country like Vietnam, where my sponsored child lives. It’s a joy to receive regular news about my sponsored child and learn about how he is progressing because of the development work run by World Vision in his community.

World Vision Child Sponsorship addresses the root causes of poverty and points children and families towards fullness of life — physically, emotionally and spiritually.

When you sponsor a child, World Vision helps your sponsored child through implementation of an Area Development Programme in his or her community. This programme ensures that basic infrastructure such as access to nutritious food, clean water, basic healthcare, education, increased food security and household income is available to the child and his community.

If you would like to find out more about how to change a life through World Vision’s Child Sponsorship Programme, click here to visit the World Vision Singapore website, or you could email me at sgpatriot [at] gmail.com or post a comment on this blog.

A simple gesture of compassion can make a huge difference in the lives of these children.

Regards,

Gerald

Simple explanation from Raffles Hospital does not suffice

Blood shortage was not cause of death: Raffles Hospital
By Ng Baoying/Chua Su Sien, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 11 July 2007 2214 hrs

The woman who died after giving birth to twins over the weekend was not denied blood, and her death was not because there was insufficient blood available at the time, according to Raffles Hospital.

It explained that an emergency blood transfusion was immediately started for Madam Swee Lay Kuan when massive bleeding occurred during surgery.

More blood was also immediately obtained from the blood bank.

The hospital said Madam Swee’s death was due to Disseminated Intra-vascular Coagulopathy (DIVC), an acute blood coagulation problem arising from massive bleeding and transfusion.

On Tuesday, it was reported that her husband had been told by hospital staff that if the family wanted more blood, they would have to round up others to donate some at the blood bank.

But Raffles Hospital clarified that while it is common practice to ask relatives and well-wishers to help replenish stock, it is never a requirement for blood to be released by the blood bank.

This is a stand supported by the blood bank.

Dr Diana Teo, Bloodbank@HSA, Centre for Transfusion Medicine, Health Sciences Authority, said: “It is not customary for the blood banks to request that hospitals ask family and friends to come forward to donate blood.

“However, we do know that some hospitals do try to help the blood programme by asking some of the patients to ask their family to come and support us. But I assure you that this is never a requirement from the blood bank.” – CNA/yy


I watched the original Channel 8 interview with the poor, sobbing husband as he described how the blood could not be released to his wife because of bureaucratic red tape. The next day, after reading the TODAY report, I got confused.

Raffles Hospital claims the patient was not denied blood. So why did the husband claim otherwise? Are they saying he was lying? Why then would he round up 200 of his friends and family (no easy task, if I might add) to donate blood to the blood bank so as to replenish its stock?

I don’t think Raffles Hospital should get off so easily with this simple explanation. It might be true that Mdm Swee died of causes other than a blood shortage, but sometime during the saga, one of its staff must have given the husband the impression that his wife had exceeded her limit. The hospital needs to explain in more detail why this happened. Is the hospital sure that all its staff are aware that no management authorisation or family blood donations are required to release more blood for emergencies? Or were they just reiterating a policy?

My deepest condolences to the family of the late Mdm Swee, especially her husband.

I hope this tragedy will spur more people to donate blood. I’m guilty of not doing donating for the last few years and really should do so soon.

Are Singaporeans chicken, or simply bo chap?

Straits Times Forum, 10 July 2007

Tirade of racial abuse aboard bus and no one bothered to act

ON JULY 4, while travelling on bus service 16, my fellow passengers and I were the victims of racial abuse.

The incident was sparked by a person who boarded the bus but had no change for bus fare. At that moment, an elderly Caucasian woman came up and offered to pay the fare for that person.

She did this while raising her voice and commenting that Singaporeans will never help anyone but themselves and that all Singaporeans were money-minded.

She even went so far as to add a four-letter vulgarity before the word ‘Singaporean’ in every sentence she uttered.

At that moment, I could not remain silent any longer and I interrupted her, merely uttering the words, ‘excuse me’. It was then that her racial slurs began, referring to Chinese people as ‘chinks’ and how she hated all of them.

I then accused her of being a racist which she freely admitted to being, all the while adding again the four-letter vulgarity directed at all ‘chinks’.

She then remarked to the entire bus how Chinese people could not speak proper English, adding that she did not know how they could see owing to their small eyes.

To say the least, I was shocked and horrified by her bigotry. Being lost for words and disgusted at her deplorable behaviour, I just called her a disgrace.

After the dust had settled, I found myself utterly disappointed at how such a small and hateful person was allowed on our shores, if in fact she was in Singapore on a long-term basis.

However, I was even more disappointed in the extreme apathetic nature of my fellow Singaporeans. This racial abuse lasted a good five minutes on a bus packed full of Singaporeans who had just finished work, and no one except me had shown disapproval of this verbal abuse.

Everyone just sat there without saying a word. If we Singaporeans do not stand up for ourselves in the face of such blatant tyranny, who will? The ironic thing is that I am Eurasian and my girlfriend is German and I was the only one who said something when she went on her racial tirade.

This debacle has left me with the opinion that our Government’s drive towards attracting foreign talent needs to be approached with great caution.

More stringent checks on potential immigrants are required, which should not be solely based on paper credentials, but on their sentiments towards Singapore and their people. One bigot allowed to grace the country I love is one too many.

Shaun Jalleh

I think that old woman is a little off her rocker. I’m sure she does not represent all Caucasians in Singapore, whom I’ve noted are generally less bigoted than the majority of Singaporeans.

What I’m more concerned about is how Singaporeans are so averse to standing up against racism and injustice, that they just set Shaun Jalleh defend Singapore on his own. I think that is the real disgrace about Singaporeans. Perhaps it’s our education system, our political emasculation or simply our bo chap (indifferent) attitude to everything other them ourselves.

Terrorist doctors and radical lawyers

UK shock: Most bomb suspects are doctors
Worryingly, the eight held are professionals linked to the National Health Service By Mark

Rice-Oxley, For The Straits Times

LONDON – THE terrorist threat confronting Britain has taken a disturbing new twist, with the revelation that almost everyone arrested over last week’s car bomb attacks were foreign-born doctors working in the National Health Service (NHS).

The BBC reported yesterday that of the eight people detained over the failed bombings, seven are thought to be doctors or medical students and the eighth a lab technician.

Read the full article here.

Reading this just makes you throw up your hands in despair and wonder: who is not susceptible to Islamist radicalisation? The poor with nothing to lose? High flying lawyers who are supposed to have been trained in the art of reason? Now doctors who are supposed to save lives are instead plotting mass murder.

I hope there is a really deep investigation into the route that these doctors took on their path to radicalisation. There must be a lot more than meets the eye. In the case of Abdul Basheer, the young lawyer detained in Singapore, I think Singaporeans deserve more answers regarding how he got convinced of this destructive cause that he felt was worth dying for. Frankly I don’t buy the simplistic “radicalised by Internet” postulation. I’ve obtained a list of some of the radical websites that are being tracked, and I really don’t see anything remarkably convincing there. And it’s not because I don’t sympathise with the plight of the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories.