Just a snippet that caught my eye
From CNA (May 5), " Singaporeans engage PM Lee on CNA's "Up Close" programme", by S. Ramesh:
AFTERTHOUGHT: I'm beginning to think that the manner in which officialdom finally resolves the AcidFlask Affair will be the litmus test on the PM's words--specifically, "I think we can talk about anything"--whoever is right or wrong and whatever the merits of the issue between A*Star and AcidFlask. add: Note my emphases. The point is not whether speech in blogosphere is somehow off limits to the law in general or libel suits in particular--it is not! The issue is the manner in which officialdome makes its first response to apparent criticism, even of the apparently or actually unfair kind.
ANOTHER NOT TOTALLY UNRELATED THOUGH: In my own time surfing the blogosphere I've come across two contrasting manners in which trolls--and I mean trolls--are dealt with by siteowners. Some respond in kind, trading insult for insult. Others try to reason with them. Now both manners have their merits and disadvantages (believe me: I'm a pedagogue by instincts, so I think about such things a lot). Some trolls are really just that: they cannot be reasoned with. But there are also others who make the move to nontrollhood when they perceive that their rants are taken with a degree of seriousness and reasonably answered. In the process, even though the parties may not come to agree on everything, they gain a measure of respect for each other and an implicit agreement to continue any disagreement in civil speech (Gecko makes an analogous point). Obviously, this does not always work, and when they don't siteowners sometimes block the troll's IP address, but that's another story altogether. But enough of my random musings.
update: TODAYonline (May 6) has more, "Dealing with the political S'porean--PM cites channelling public's political awareness as Govt's latest challenge", by Jasmine Yin. Some choice quotes:
PM on the emails he's been receiving from the public:
[Technorati: singapore]
[PM] Lee added: "I think we can talk about anything. The ultimate test of course is if you insist on your views, and the government does not agree with you. Then who should decide?Filed for future reference.
"So in our system, ultimately the government is decided by you. So if you do not agree with the government and you think the government is wrong, then the way to do it is to go into the arena and say I believe this, he is mistaken, let us argue it out. And if Singaporeans accept your argument, then you are in-charge and you have to make it work." ...
[PM] Lee, however, emphasised that in Singapore, certain things are very unlikely to change. Among them, the country's multi-racial society, integrity, transparency and meritocracy, so that everybody feels it is fair.
AFTERTHOUGHT: I'm beginning to think that the manner in which officialdom finally resolves the AcidFlask Affair will be the litmus test on the PM's words--specifically, "I think we can talk about anything"--whoever is right or wrong and whatever the merits of the issue between A*Star and AcidFlask. add: Note my emphases. The point is not whether speech in blogosphere is somehow off limits to the law in general or libel suits in particular--it is not! The issue is the manner in which officialdome makes its first response to apparent criticism, even of the apparently or actually unfair kind.
ANOTHER NOT TOTALLY UNRELATED THOUGH: In my own time surfing the blogosphere I've come across two contrasting manners in which trolls--and I mean trolls--are dealt with by siteowners. Some respond in kind, trading insult for insult. Others try to reason with them. Now both manners have their merits and disadvantages (believe me: I'm a pedagogue by instincts, so I think about such things a lot). Some trolls are really just that: they cannot be reasoned with. But there are also others who make the move to nontrollhood when they perceive that their rants are taken with a degree of seriousness and reasonably answered. In the process, even though the parties may not come to agree on everything, they gain a measure of respect for each other and an implicit agreement to continue any disagreement in civil speech (Gecko makes an analogous point). Obviously, this does not always work, and when they don't siteowners sometimes block the troll's IP address, but that's another story altogether. But enough of my random musings.
update: TODAYonline (May 6) has more, "Dealing with the political S'porean--PM cites channelling public's political awareness as Govt's latest challenge", by Jasmine Yin. Some choice quotes:
PM on the emails he's been receiving from the public:
"It used to be that they said the Government is in charge — you know everything, do it all," he said. "I think more and more people want to take part … and we want the people to be involved, to discuss, to understand and to have a view... I get all sorts of views from Singaporeans and I don't think they are shy at all. Some are polite, some are not quite polite," he said to laughter from the 14 forum participants. "But they have something they are angry about and they want me to know."On the fear of the climate:
Grassroots leader Eileen Lee pointed out that the climate of fear was still a very real issue for many. She asked if it was possible for Singapore to cultivate an environment where "it is okay for me to tell my frankest opinion and not have any backlash or any people frowning on me".As always, the ultimate test of decision:
Mr Lee replied: "I think it's happening, I mean it's what we do, how we respond to criticism. If you have a different view, do we clobber you or not? Or do we encourage you to come up and accept your views when it makes sense. I think it's happening."
And while the debate would be welcomed, said Mr Lee, eventually it would have to be managed and a decision made by the elected body, just as was the case with the casino issue.The the proof of the pudding, as they always say, is in the eating.
He said: "So in our system, ultimately the Government is decided by you, so if you don't agree with the Government and you think the Government is wrong, then the way to do it is to go into the arena and say I believe this, he's mistaken, let's argue it out.
"And if Singaporeans accept your argument, then you're in charge and you have to make it work … I think that's the way all democracies work. If you have a view, debate. The ultimate test is if you insist on your views and the Government doesn't agree with you, then who should decide?" he asked.
[Technorati: singapore]
Permalink |
|
| 
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home