ST reporter accused of being a spy

Ching Cheong's arrest on From a Singapore Angle:
- ST reporter accused of being a spy
- What ST/SPH is doing to help Ching Cheong
- Wider reactions to Ching Cheong's arrest
- A new connection: Ching Cheong and Lu Jianhua


Background on the man:

Ching Cheong (程翔), 55 years of age, graduated from Hong Kong University in the 1973 with a degree in Economics, was among the very first HKU graduates to join the pro-China newspaper Wen Wei Po (文汇报) in 1974. (add: in so doing, he apparently gave up a job with the HK government paying some Hk$4000/mo for a job that pays HK$300/mo; source) In the reforms of the early 1980s, WWP was the first HK press to be granted permission to set up office in Beijing and Ching Cheong was appointed the bureau chief there. After the Tiananmen incident of June 4, 1989, the chief editor of WWP Li Zhisong (李子诵) was fired for protesting the crackdown in a front page four character editorial "With bitterness and disgust" (痛心疾首). Ching Cheong was among those who left WWP with Li Zhisong (some 40+ journalists in all). (add:) Ching Cheong, Li Zhisong and others started a magazine commenting on China called Contemporary (当代)> The Chinese authorities allegedly tried to shut it down by having Beijing-controlled companies warn potential advertisers not to do business with the magazine.

In 1996, Ching Cheong joined the Straits Times (he also became a Singapore PR)), and was stationed at one point in Taipei; more recently, he was assigned to Hong Kong where he covers news relating to China. Ching Cheong also holds a British overseas national passport. He has been collecting historical material relating to the Tiananmen incident for many years, possibly for a book. There are indications that he has managed to acquire information relating to the Tiananmen crackdown from many Chinese Communist Party cadres. (from various sources)

Background on the possible Zhao Ziyang/Tiananmen Incident connection:

According to his wife, Ching Cheong's went to Guangzhou on Apr 22 in pursuit of an manuscript of interviews conducted over a decade with Zhao Ziyang (赵紫阳; died past January), the former leader of the Chinese Communist kept under house arrest for being sympathetic to the Tiananmen protesters. The interviewer is one Zong Fengming (宗凤鸣), long time comrade (from revolutionary days), friend and Qigong instructor to Zhao. Radio Free Asia (June 1) just did an interview with Zong, which has a lot more details. Important detail: Zong denies that he arranged to meet Ching Cheong to pass him the manuscript--he says he does not even know the man; he believes that the latter has been set up.

Zong published a biography of Zhao Ziyang in Hong Kong last year; despite pressure from the the authorities to desist and the recent events involving Ching Cheong, he says he will go ahead with a projected second volume. He told AFP:

I am already 80 years, what can they do they me. Zong said that he has already made preparations in the event that he is arrested or his house searched [by the authorities]. He said that he has already given the manuscript [of the interviews with Zhao] to many people, the manuscript is very safe. "We represent history, and we wish that the manuscript become material for history [writing]. He also said, "Zhao Ziyang is a historical figure, we wish that people will be able to read just what actually said, and be able to understand his perspective on the problems, especially his views on the Tiananmen incident. (Translated from New Century Net)

More on the WaPo article. (add:) More on Zhao Ziyang here

Basic timeline: (From various sources)

Apr 22: Ching Cheong went to Guangzhou, according to his wife Mary Lau (Liu Minyi 刘敏仪), in pursuit of a manuscript of an interview with Zhao Ziyang (赵紫阳). He was arrested by the Chinese authorities.

Apr 23: Ching Cheong called his wife and arranged for his laptop computer to be brought to the mainland.

Apr 24 (approx.): Ching Cheong called ST to say that he will not be available for assignments for some time, hinting that he's in trouble.

Apr 28: Ching Cheong called ST briefly to say that he is helping the Chinese authorities with some investigations.

At some point, both ST and Mary Lau were warned by the Chinese authorities not to publicise Ching Cheong's detention. ST/SPH attempted to secure Ching Cheong's release through diplomatic means and had been in close contact with both the PRC embassy in Singapore and as well as the authorities in mainland China.

May 29: This is the fourth call Ching Cheong was allowed to make to his wife since the one on Apr 23. He urged her not to tell reporters about his detention, but when a security agent picked up the phone and invited Lau to come to Beijing to see her husband, he grabbed the phone and told her to stay in Hong Kong, she said.

May 30: Mary Lau decided to go public after learning privately from a mainland government official that her husband would be charged with "stealing core state secrets". Washington Post published it's article on the story. Since then, the story has been picked up by media from around the world. (add: it appears that the first newspaper to carry the news was the Hong Kong Economic Times (经济日报). May of the editorial team at the daily were classmates of Ching Cheong and former colleagues in WWP. It seems that they have know about his troubles but did not go public upon the request of Mary Lau. Interestingly the initial HK media reaction was somewhat subdued. It was only after China's MFA made the statement saying that Ching Cheong was begin held for spying and had already confessed that widespread protests were voiced; source)

May 31: China's MFA issued an official statement on Ching Cheong's case (the transcript of the press conference was removed from their website June 1). This is the first time that the Chinese authorities admitted that they have Ching Cheong in their custody since Apr 22 and presently in Beijing. Spokesman Kong Quan said that Ching Cheong has "admitted that in recent years he has been following the instructions of overseas intelligence organizations and has undertaken intelligence collecting activities." He also denied that Ching's detention was related to his efforts to gain access to the interviews of Zhao Ziyang: "I can tell you plainly that Ching's case is not connected to Zhao Ziyang at all... The key thing is that Ching himself admitted to his illegal activities," said Kong, according to Reuters (source).

Links, snippets, commentary:

This is not looking good (con't from here). From Reuters (via ABC):

May 30, 2005 — BEIJING (Reuters) - A Hong Kong-based reporter for Singapore's Straits Times newspaper, who has been in custody in China for more than a month, was a spy for foreign agencies, the Chinese Foreign Ministry said on Tuesday.

Ching Cheong was detained by agents of the state security apparatus on April 22 in the southern Chinese city of Guangzhou, his wife, Mary Lau, said on Monday.

"Ching admitted that in recent years he engaged in intelligence gathering activities on the mainland on instructions from foreign intelligence agencies and accepted huge amounts of spying fees," the ministry said in a statement. Currently, relevant departments are investigating his spying activities," the statement said without elaborating on which country or countries were his paymaster.

Singapore Press Holdings is "shocked" by spy charge, adding, "Until we see incontrovertible evidence, we stand by our belief that he has always acted in the best interests of The Straits Times" (Forbes, May 31)

Meanwhile: the Chinese Foreign Ministry said in a written statement, "Ching Cheong confessed: following instructions from a foreign intelligence agency, he engaged in intelligence gathering activities in China and received a large spying fee." The ministry's spokesman says that they have "full evidence to support this case" and denied that Mr Ching’s detention was related to Zhao Ziyang (Times Online, May 31).

The spokesman also said that Ching is being treated like a "Chinese national," which is not fun--because the penalty for spying is either life imprisonment or death, according to one lawyer based in Shanghai (Bloomberg, May 31).

Translated (from Chinese) from a report by Chen Su of New Century Net (May 30):

In the Amnesty International Report 2005: The State of the World's Human Rights released last week, China is criticised as continuing to use provisions of the Criminal Law relating to 'subversion', 'state secrets' and other vaguely defined national security offences to prosecute activists, lawyers, journalists, and others.

According to Gao Wenqian 高文谦, author of Zhou Enlai in his later years 《晚年周恩来》, the "crime" of "divulging state secrets" is fully manipulated by the government. This is not a crime with a legal basis behind it, but a political crime...

The head of Reporters sans frontières's Asia-Pacific desk Vincent Brossel believes that China's detaining of Ching Cheong is meant to apply pressure on the Hong Kong media [lit: killing a chicken for the monkeys to watch], to make them understand that even though Hong Kong enjoys freedom of the press, the Chinese government does not want Hong Kong journalist to be actively pushing for freedom of the press, and will not allow Hong Kong to become a base for broadcasting information or democratic ideas into China.

More quotes from Brossel on VOA (May 31):

The press freedom advocacy group Reporters Without Borders in Paris has called on foreign governments to pressure China to release Mr. Ching. Vincent Brossel, head of the group's Asia-Pacific desk, says there is no evidence to date that Mr. Ching might have been tortured. However, he says the group questions the means by which the government might have obtained a confession.

"When you detain someone for a month and you put pressure on his family, you put a lot of pressure on him, it's obvious you can get some confession," said Mr. Brossel. "I don't know exactly what is the content of his confession. We just hope that the lawyer will get access to him, and also that his trial will be fair."

The editor-in-chief of Singapore Press Holdings' English and Malay Newspaper Division, Mr Cheong Yip Seng was interviewd by BBC's Julian Marshall over on Mr Ching Cheong's arrest and the spying charge (ST, June 1). This bit caught my eye:

BBC: According to the Chinese authorities, he was in Guangzhou where he travelled to collect secret papers linked to the former Chinese leader, Zhao Ziyang.

Cheong: I have absolutely no idea that this had happened. As I said, this came as a complete surprise to us.

BBC: You don't think this is connected in any way with the editorial line that maybe your newspaper takes on China?

Cheong: I do not believe that to be the case. In fact, our editorial line on China can give no cause for action of this kind.

Elsewhere, the Committee for Protection of Journalists has a report (May 31).

Paraphrasing from New Century Net, "The Political Message of Ching Cheong's Arrest" (May 31), by Feng Liang of Asiatimes (Chinese edition): Analysts believe that Ching Cheong's arrest probably has something to do with his privately collecting historical material relating to the Tiananmen incident over many years. But the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China decided during it's 16th Plenary Session that there will not be any reevaluation of the Tiananmen incident. But Ching Cheong's collation of historical material may prove that during the incident, the leaders of the Communist Party, and Deng Xiaoping in particular, made mistakes. It thus stand to reason that the Chinese authorities would be deeply troubled by the fact that a senior journalist of his experience should be active within the PRC and even acquired material relating to the Tiananmen incident from a number of Party cadres. Furthermore, because China is presently emphasising the rule of law, but there is no law forbidding individuals using lawful means to acquire historical material, the authorities decided to bring charges of "spying" against Ching Cheong instead. In fact, Ching Cheong's work with the Straits Times and his receiving renumeration has been seen by some officials as "receiving large fees from a foreign intelligency agency". As they say: if you really want to attribute some crime to a person, there will be no lack of things to say (欲加之罪，何患无词), and such is apparently the highest law of corrupt officials everywhere. Still, Ching Cheong will probably not receive the highest possible penalty for spying; but in order to stop his information gathering activities and to make clear the Chinese government's stance that there will not be any reevaluation of the Tiananmen incident, he will most certainly face criminal charges. [End paraphrase]

Nicholas Becquelin, research director for Human Rights in China's Hong Kong office, said "ethnic Chinese reporters and researchers are much more vulnerable than their western counterparts when it comes to doing their jobs on the mainland". From the South China Morning Post (June 1, via Asia Media):

"Persecuting a foreign journalist can bring bad publicity to the Chinese government. So they target ethnic Chinese ... to send a chilling effect to the media," he said. "Foreign reporters are at most detained or expelled; with the mainland press - regardless of whether they're working for a foreign agency or not - authorities may persecute them to the full extent of the law if there is anything they don't like."

The latest: a Taiwan connection? From the HK Standard (June 2):

A senior Taiwanese official in charge of mainland affairs on Wednesday categorically dismissed allegations that Hong Kong-based journalist Ching Cheong is a spy for Taiwan.

"It is ridiculous to say that the so-called 'overseas' [organization] has anything to do with Taiwan," said Michael You, vice chairman of Taiwan's Mainland Affairs Council, in a telephone interview. He said he only knew of the incident "through newspaper reports."

Beijing Tuesday said Ching, a senior corespondent for the Singapore Straits Times, was a spy who had confessed to having been hired by "overseas" intelligence organizations.

The one-sided accusation - made even before he is officially charged and with Ching being held incommunicado - has deepened the controversy. Beijing's use of the word "overseas" appears to single out Taiwan.

Ching's wife, Mary Lau, said in an RTHK program Wednesday that she believed Beijing was referring to Taiwan by using the term "overseas" instead of "foreign."

This has indeed become crazier than I earlier thought. As this article points out, Ching Cheong is hardly a Taiwan supporter or even some "die-hard opponent of the Beijing leadership":

...he spent much of his career inside the Communist system. Mr. Ching worked as a reporter for Wen Wei Po, a Communist-controlled newspaper in Hong Kong, only quitting in disgust after the Tiananmen massacre. Even now he remains an ardent advocate of Taiwan's reunification with China, and has been known to side with Beijing in opposing U.S. involvement in cross-Strait issues.

update: (June 2 0315 -0400)

Apart from the Zhao Ziyang interviews manuscripts, and the Taiwan connection, I've come across two other speculations concerning the reason behind Ching Cheong's arrest via New Century Net. Both are rather...speculative. But for all it's worth...

First, Li Yi (李怡) thinks that it was an article that Ching Cheong published in Mingbao under the pseudonym of Zhong Guoren (锺国仁) about two accords China signed with Russia concerning a border dispute. The article revealed many details of the Chinese-Russian accord that has been under wraps all this while, and laments the fact that it basically recognized Russian control over some 100+ km square of Chinese territory. (The history of the territory involved--some 437 km square, of which 337 is returned by Russia--is complicated. Some was last during Czarist times, but there was also a part that was taken by the Soviet Union in 1929.) Ching Cheong, with his extensive connections in China, including in the ranks of the Communist Party, could plausibly come by such information. But the long and short of it is that, on Li Yi's account, the Chinese government may be referring to this publication when they talked about Ching Cheong "divulging state secrets".

Second, Ling Feng (凌锋), writing in the Taiwan Daily (台湾日报, June 2) says that there may be a Falungong connection. On Apr 21, the eve of Ching Cheong's arrest, the Falungong connected Epoch Times published a nine point criticism of the Communist Party and called for party members to resign from party membership, a call which lead to (supposedly) more than a million respondants (as of now, the website says that more than two million has responded to their call). Now it turns out that Falungong's point man in Hong Kong Jian Hongzhang (简鸿章) was a former colleague of Ching Cheong both at WWP and later at the Contemporary (see under "background" above in this post). And there are also other former colleages in the upper echelons of editorial team at Epoch Times. The arrest of Ching Cheong may be part of the Chinese government's attempt to collect information about the Falungong. Furthermore, it is speculated that the Chinese authorities believe that the "nine criticisms" could only have been written by someone who came from within the system and thus could have Ching Cheong as one of their suspects.

As I said, all very speculative.

update: (June 2 1305 -0400)

A glance at the major press reactions throughout the world in ST (June 1), "CHINA: Major papers voice concern about detention--East Asian and American papers follow up on Washington Post story", by Ong Hwee Hwee (reproduced on Asia Pacific Media Network).

Many of Ching Cheong's friends, old time classmates, former colleagues (with Wen Wei Po and Contemporary) are also mobilising to come to his aid (from Ming Pao Daily News June 2, via New Century Net; in Chinese, I'll translate some of it later).

In related news, China has accused research Zhao Yan of fraud so as to detain him longer, while a sociologist and an official at China's top government think-tank have been detained on suspicion of leaking state secrets. With the June 4 anniversay coming up, it's pretty much open season.

update: (June 3 1925 -0400)

From ST (June 4), "HK police issue detention notice for ST reporter--It seals the fact that Ching Cheong has been placed under house surveillance", by Vince Chong, Hong Kong Correspondent:

HONG KONG police yesterday handed a notice of detention to the wife of Straits Times senior correspondent Ching Cheong, formally sealing the fact that he has been placed under house surveillance by China's state security...

The document handed to Ms Mary Lau yesterday falls under the notification system, which states that the mainland and Hong Kong authorities are supposed to alert each other if residents are detained in each other's jurisdictions. This is so that families of the detainees can be kept updated.

Lawmaker James To, who chairs the legislative council's security panel, said the notification paves the way for Mr Ching's family to meet him. 'It is a clearer sign that his family can now ask for meetings, or to pass him medication or pills he may need, or other creature comforts,' he told The Straits Times.

The latest development came a day after Ms Lau stunned Hong Kong media by sending a public letter to Chinese President Hu Jintao...

Elsewhere, the Chinese (PRC) media finally takes notice. From ST (June 4), "Chinese media finally breaks silence on arrest", by Chua Chin Hon, China Bureau Chief:

BEIJING - MAINLAND Chinese media broke their silence on the case involving detained Straits Times foreign correspondent Ching Cheong late on Thursday, after keeping quiet on the issue for days. The media appeared to have taken the cue from the Chinese Foreign Ministry, which posted comments on Mr Ching's case on its website for the first time on Thursday.

Mr Ching, a Hong Konger and Straits Times' chief China correspondent, was arrested in Guangzhou on April 22.

A statement from the ministry earlier this week accused the writer of spying for a foreign intelligence agency in return for large sums of money, though it did not specify who his paymaster was or provide evidence.

The statement was faxed to foreign journalists in Beijing, but was not posted on the ministry's website. Questions about Mr Ching's case - such as whether he would be produced in an open court - were raised at a routine press conference on Tuesday. But these questions were completely left out of the official transcript of the press conference.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Kong Quan was again asked about Mr Ching's case at a press conference on Thursday, but this time, in an apparent change of heart, the ministry posted excerpts of his comments on its website as part of an official transcript.

The transcript said: 'I have no additional information to provide on Ching Cheong's case, which you are interested in.

'The information I have currently is that: Hong Kong resident Ching Cheong has been instructed and requested by an external intelligence agency to engage in intelligence gathering activities in mainland China. As for your question that any other persons involved in the case, I have no knowledge of the situation. But I will stress that China will handle such issues according to the law.'

The semi-official China News Service and Internet portals like tom.com carried the Foreign Ministry's transcript verbatim, and did not provide details, such as Mr Ching's occupation.

Mass market dailies and tabloids, however, carried more information gleaned from Hong Kong newspapers. Major Chinese newspapers, key Communist Party dailies and the official Xinhua news agency continued to keep news of Mr Ching's detention out of their coverage.

The pro-Beijing Wen Wei Po yesterday reported that the issue was not one of censorship.

It was simply that the ministry had opted not to have the questions on Mr Ching in its official transcript, the report claimed.

The newspaper quoted Mr Kong as saying: 'Journalists who are familiar with the practices of the Foreign Ministry will understand that the ministry does not place all the questions and answers on its website.'

More blogosphere coverage on Simon World and Singapore Ink. | Also at The Peking Duck, garota, Milton J. Madison and Dai Tou Laam. | Elia Diodati has a narrative with links.

Something about policemen wearing shorts

Too good not to mention here. From ST, (May 31), "Ubin's 'pacific blue' cops:

Pulau Ubin police patrolmen are turning heads on the island because of their new uniform - blue polo T-shirts, bermuda shorts and black hiking boots. And like their counterparts on the television series Pacific Blue, Sergeant Nicole Tan, 21, Sergeant Kevin Tay, 25, and Corporal Izwan Mohd Yusof, 28, use bicycles on their beats.

Launched yesterday, the uniform is part of an initiative by the Police Coast Guard's new Loyang Regional Base that was officially opened then. The informal-looking get-up is meant not only to be comfortable, but also to boost rapport with the islanders.

Islander and driver Choo Geok Choon, 60, said: 'I like it. It reminds me of the good old days when policemen wore shorts.' Mr Lai Ah Hah, 53, who also lives on Ubin, said with a grin: 'It's cooler for them but they have to watch out for the mosquitoes.'

Democracy in Taiwan

addendum: It can't get any more relevant, given this (via e pur si muove). | Much more at Singapore Ink, which has a roundup | Asiapundit points out the "oddness" of it all, "given the favourable coverage the city-state's media usually give the Communist Party." (con't in a new post)

* * * * *

Found this (in Chinese) via www.zonaeuropa.com by way of Simon World, an article entitled "The Taiwan That You May Not Know About". It's supposed to be about the reason why the Taiwanese "are reluctant about re-unification in the short term" (Simon). What's the relevance from a Singapore angle? You ask. It contains a most eloquent description of what it means to live in a democratic order--from the everyday point of view. Surely something of lasting relevance:

台湾人已经习惯生活在一个民主体制里。民主体制落实在茶米油盐的生活中，是这个意思：

他的政府大楼，是开放的，门口没有卫兵检查他的证件。他进出政府大楼，犹如进出一个购物商场。他去办一个手续，申请一个文件，盖几个章，一路上通行无阻。拿了号码就等，不会有人插队。轮到他时，公务员不会给他脸色看或刁难他。办好了事情，他还可以在政府大楼里逛一下书店，喝一杯咖啡。咖啡和点心由智障的青年端来，政府规定每一个机关要聘足某一个比例的身心残障者。坐在中庭喝咖啡时，可能刚好看见市长走过，他可以奔过去，当场要一个签名。

如果他在市政府办事等得太久，或者公务员态度不好，四年后，他可能会把选票投给另一个市长候选人。

他要出国游玩或进修，是一件极其简单的事，不需要经过政府或机关单位的层层批准，他要出版一本书，没有人要做事先的审查，写作完成后直接进印刷厂，一个月就可以上市。他要找某些信息，网络和书店，图书馆和各级档案室，随他去找。图书馆里的书籍和资料，不需要经过任何特殊关系，都可以借用。政府的每一个单位的年度预算，公开在网上，让他查询。预算中，大至百亿元的工程，小至计算机的台数，都一览无余。如果他坚持，他可以找到民意代表，请民意代表调查某一个机关某一笔钱每一毛钱的流动去向。如果发现钱的使用和预算所列不符合，官员会被处分。

他习惯看到官员在离职后三个月内搬离官邸或宿舍，撤去所有的秘书和汽车，取消所有的福利和特支。他习惯看到官员为政策错误而被弹劾或鞠躬下台。他习惯读到报纸言论版对政府的抨击、对领导人的诘问，对违法事件的揭露和追踪。他习惯表达对政治人物的取笑和鄙视。

如果他是个大学教师，他习惯于校长和系主任都是教授们选举产生，而不是和“上级长官”有什么特别关系；有特别关系的反而可能落选。他习惯于开会，所有的决策都透过教授会议讨论和辩论而做出。有时候，他甚至厌烦这民主的实践，因为参与公共事务占据太多的时间。

他不怕警察，因为有法律保障了他的权利。他敢买房子，因为私有财产受宪法规范。他需要病床，可以不经过贿赂。他发言批评，可以不担心被报复。他的儿女参加考试，落榜了他不怨天尤人，因为他不必怀疑考试的舞弊或不公。捐血或捐钱，他可以捐或不捐，没有人给他配额规定。

他按时缴税，税金被拿去救济贫童或孤苦老人，他不反对。他习惯生活在一个财富分配相对平均的社会里；走在街上看不见赤贫的乞丐，也很少看见顶级奢华的轿车。他习惯有很多很多的民间慈善组织，在灾难发生的时候，大批义工出动，大批物资聚集，在政府到来之前，已经在苦痛的现场工作。

当然，我绝对可以同时举出一箩筐的例子来证明台湾人“进化”的不完全：他的政客如何操弄民粹，他的政治领袖如何欺骗选民，他的政府官员如何颟顸傲慢，他的民意代表如何粗劣不堪，他的贫富差距如何正在加大中……台湾人本来就还在现代化的半路上，走得跌跌撞撞。

海峡两岸，哪里是统一和独立的对决？哪里是社会主义和资本主义的相冲？哪里是民族主义和分离主义的矛盾？对大部分的台湾人而言，其实是一个生活方式的选择，极其具体，实实在在，一点不抽象。

An English translation is available for exactly this passage on the zonaeuropa site (scroll down to find "People in Taiwan are accustomed to living in a democratic system"); but really, this should be savored in the original, somewhat literary Chinese (when possible), just so to feel what it means to say that democracy is not just a Western construct.

edit: The translation is not as literal as I would like it to be. I'll put something out later. update: My translation of the above passage (building upon the one provided by zonaeuropa):

The Taiwanese people are already accustomed to living in a democratic system. This is what it means for a democracy system to be realized in quotidian day to day life [lit. the life of tea, rice, cooking oil and salt]:

His [the Taiwanese person] government building is open to the public. There are no guards at the door to inspect his documents. He enters and exits the government building just as he would a shopping mall. If he goes there to go through some [administrative] procedure, apply for a document, or get a few stamps [on some documents], there is no barrier. He gets a queuing number and waits, and no one will jump in the line ahead of him. When his turn comes, the government worker will not give have a bad attitude [lit. show him a (bad) expression] or give him a hard time. When he is done, he can browse in the bookstore in the government building or have a cup of coffee. The coffee and snack are served by a mentally handicapped youth—because the government requires that every government department must employ a certain proportion of mentally or physically handicapped people. When sitting in the main lobby and drinking his coffee, if he perchance sees the mayor walk past, he can run over to ask for an autograph there and then.

If he waits too long getting things done at the government office, or if the attitude of the government worker was bad, he can cast his vote for another mayoral candidate in four years' time.

If he wants to go overseas for a vacation or to study, it is an extremely simple matter. He does not need to get multiple layers of approval from the government or organizational units. If he wants to publish a book, it does not have to be screened beforehand: once the composition is completed it goes directly to the printing press and it will be on the market in a month. If he needs to find any information, he can go hunting on the Internet, in the bookstores, libraries and various archival offices as he desires. The books and material in the libraries can be borrowed without any special connections. The budget for every government unit is published on the Internet, and he can look them up. In the budget, everything from projects worth tens of billions down to the number of calculators are all there for his inspection. If he insists, he can ask his representative to trace the comings and goings of every cent of a certain amount in any government unit. If the use of that money was inconsistent with the budget, the government official will be punished.

He is used to seeing government officials vacating their official residences or dormitories within three months of leaving their jobs, dismissing all of their secretaries, returning the vehicles, and terminating all the benefits and expense accounts [i.e., that came with the office]. He is used to seeing government officials being impeached or resigning for policy mistakes. He is used to reading in the newspapers columns criticisms of the government, questions posed to the leaders, and the exposure and investigation of illegal activities [prob. of government officials]. He is used to politicians being ridiculed and despised.

If he is a university instructor, he is used to seeing that university presidents and department heads are elected by the faculty, rather than due to some special relationship with "senior officials"; in fact, having such special relationships can be liabilities in these elections. He is used to attending meetings in which all decisions are made after discussion and debate among the faculty. Sometimes, he is even tired of these democratic practices, because taking part in such public duties takes up to much time.

He is not afraid of the police, because the law protects his rights. He is not afraid of buying a house, because private property is regulated by the law. If he needs a bed in a hospital, he does not have to resort to bribery. He can speak up to criticize, and not be afraid of retaliation. If his children take part in an examination and fail, he will not blame others because he need not be wary that the examinations are corrupt or unfair. It is up to him to decide whether or not to donate money or blood, and nobody assigns him a quota.

He pays his taxes on time, and does not object to the tax money being used to help the deprived young or the destitute elderly. He is used to living in a society in which wealth is equitably distributed. Walking on the streets, one sees neither abject beggars nor many luxury cars. He is used to seeing many many privately run charitable organizations; when disaster strikes, large number of volunteers come forward to gather materials and get down to work at the scene before the government arrives.

Of course, I can certainly also provide a bushel of examples to show how the "evolution" of the Taiwanese person is still incomplete: how his politicians manipulate populism, how his political leaders deceive the voters, how his government officials are ineffective and arrogant, how his elected representative is uncouth, how income inequality between the rich and poor is increasing... the Taiwanese people is still stumbling about half way along the road of modernization.
The two sides of the Taiwan Straits: how could this be an opposition between unification and independence? How can this be a clash between socialism and capitalism? How can this be a conflict between nationalism and separatism? As far as most of the Taiwanese people are concerned, this is really a choice between two ways of life; it is very concrete and down to earth, and not at all abstract.

update: More extensive comments...well, in the comments section.

update 2: As I said above, my interest in the article is not really about the Taiwan issue per se, but (1) with the portrayal of democracy, freedom, rule of law and so on from the point of view of ordinary everyday life (rather than as abstract principles); and (2) with the fact that this is a protrayal expressed so very naturally in venacular Chinese--in it, "democracy" does not sound like an imported western concept.

As I read it, in the quoted passage above, the writer is doing much more than painting a picture of a "Taiwanese lifestyle", or "the way life happens to be for the Taiwanese". Rather, the implied subtext throughout is precisely that this approximates a decent and just way of life. That it happened to be enjoyed and its values internalised--to some degree--by the Taiwanese people is in an important sense merely tangential. In principle, it could be a choiceworthy way of life for the mainlanders as well, all things being equal. (This means that the point of view expressed in the article is hardly staunchly pro-green. It leaves open the possibility that should China truely becomes a functioning democracy, the specific obstacles to reunification cited in the passage would be moot.)

Secrets of The Disaster Driven Life©

Found on Townhall.com: Doug Giles, Developing the Disaster Master Mind and 10 Habits of Decidedly Defective People©. From the first:

Believe it or not, having a chaotic and cruddy life isn’t as thorny as you might think. It is as easy as making a decision, in particular, consistently making bad decisions, and sticking with them no matter how much life kicks the snot out of you.

Yes, I guarantee, if you believe and obey these ten points below I can assure you that you’ll eventually be broke, friendless, a disaster to date or marry, a bad father or mother, and possibly a whore or a pimp or a welfare brat. More than likely, if you stay the course and develop what I call a Disaster Master Mind©, you will end up costing the government lots of money. In addition, if you can actually find someone to procreate with, you will spawn a new generation of losers; and if you really embrace the following, you might end up eating government cheese and living in a van down by the river...

Masterful!

ST gets serious about blogs (Part 3)

Part 1|2|3

My third and final post on the trio of ST articles on blogs. As the lead article's title ("Will S'pore politics go to the blogs?") indicates, the writers' focus is ultimately on the possible political implications of the blogs: "The million-dollar question: Will blogs have much political impact in Singapore?" Such a question naturally arises given both recent overseas--primarily US--and local developments.

US Situation

Chief among the overseas development would be the prominence that blogs managed to achieve in post 9/11 as media critics persistently calling the mainstream media to account for its excesses; and most importantly, during the 2004 US Elections where they are perceived to be swaying public opinion and, especially, consolidating the bases of both the Republicans and Democrats. The perceived power of the blogs is closely watched across the Atlantic, where, for instance, the UK Conservatives are hoping to harness the power of the blogosphere to further their cause.)

Interestingly, the ST articles downplayed the political influence of the US blogs, citing a 2003 survey done by Pew Internet and American Life Project that "showed that a dismal 4 per cent of Americans went online for information and opinions." Furthermore, "studies have also observed that those who read blogs are likely to have formed an opinion already, and search blogs that validate their biases." (From #2) I'll come back to the last sentence below; but citing 2003 statistics does sound a little strange--considering that a newer Pew Internet survey reports that blog readership surged some 58% during the election cycle in 2004 (see here). In fact, a Mar 6, 2005 report by the same group comes with the title: "The internet was a key force in politics last year as 75 million Americans used it to get news, discuss candidates in emails, and participate directly in the political process" (.pdf file here and here; and also other reports available here). 75 million--that would be about a quarter of the US total population.

The notion that "those who read blogs are likely to have formed an opinion already, and search blogs that validate their biases" is, on the other hand, supported by both research and anecdotal evidence (speaking from my own experience as a blog watcher during the election campaigns in 2004). To begin with, the US political blogosphere is divided in large part between liberal and conservative blogs, with a much lower incidence of linkage between the two groups as a whole, than between blogs within each group (see this). But this point, however, may be only tangentially connected to any issue concerning the influence of the blogs in shaping public opinion.

Local Situation

But enough about the US already. The fact is--as the ST writers are quite aware--even granting the most extravagant claims concerning the power of the blogosphere in influencing US politics, we are talking about Singapore. The conditions are rather different here. In fact, it is so different that instead of talking about the blogs intruding into the political sphere as in the US case, it should be the exact reverse here:

The intrusion of political reality into the private world of blogs has chilled at least one blogger in Singapore. Lawyer Gilbert Koh took his blog that commented on social, economic and political issues in Singapore offline soon after reading about A*Star's dealings with blogger Chen Jiahao, and after some of his entries were reproduced in a website of an opposition party. (From #1; emphasis mine)

A threatened lawsuit, and the closure of several blogs following--in other words, the AcidFlask Affair and its Aftermath. The ST articles reports various people have argued against the use of the defamation suit against bloggers:

While organisations or individuals can take legal action if blogs defame them, some people argue that they shouldn't. Management consultant David Ng, 38, says: 'Challenge the person to explain but don't take legal action or try to destroy the person. People will hesitate to give feedback, to express themselves in their own words. It will discourage people from giving feedback or speaking up.'

Still, the real threat of lawsuits has become a wake-up call for bloggers. Some rave against the loss of freedom of speech, a few have shut down their blogs, and others watch their words more carefully. Blogger 'Metastasis' told Insight, referring to the A*Star incident: 'It's basically forced the Singaporean blogging community to abandon the notion that we're protected by 'small fry' immunity.' (From #3)

I think that it is entirely possible and even likely that organisations and individuals may henceforth think twice about using the defamation suit against bloggers perceived to have badmouthed them given the international bad press resulting from the AcidFlask Affair. But even if that happens, the larger issue goes beyond the question of the threat of lawsuits, the relative powerlessness of the blogs to shape public opinion in Singapore. There are serious legal obstacles to blogs becoming a force in politics of the traditional kind--party and election politics--in Singapore:

As Associate Professor Randolph Kluver, executive director of the Singapore Internet Research Centre, notes: 'They are places to go where you know the angle but you want commentary on the latest news or development.'

Blogs, he believes, are not likely to have a great impact on public opinion just yet. 'Blogs are an interesting place to discuss politics, and are more immediate and accessible but they are not going to radicalise any current political realities.'

Singapore, in any case, has strict laws on campaigning online. For instance, only political websites run by registered political parties can campaign during the election period, and they must keep logs of all messages sent in forums. Such rules, suggest academics, will likely dissuade political activists from using blogs to push their cause, especially during an election. (From #2; emphasis mine)

This is actually a much more crucial point that the issue about lawsuits; but it may well change:

At least one political group is watching the blogging scene closely: the youth wing of the People's Action Party. Says Mr Donald Aw, Net coordinator of Young PAP: 'Our YP website has a very active discussion forum, and we may consider having a blogging facility if there is sufficient interest.'

And at least one politician has personally joined the blogging scene - Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC MP Penny Low, who has a blog on this year's National Day Parade MoBlog website. If more MPs and their activists follow suit, perhaps part of the buzz of Singapore's next election will take place in the blogosphere.

The question is, can the PAP avoid allowing opposition parties to do likewise if they were to harness blogs for their political purposes? More importantly, what would the fate of the presently non-partisan Singapore Blog Politic be in such a new dispensation?

* * * * *

I think I'll stop here. My own take on the influence of the blogosphere in the--loosely speaking, "political"--realm has been discussed elsewhere on this blog (e.g., here, and links there).

update: More by Nicholas Liu, also picked up by Myrick at Asiapundit.

[Technorati: singapore, blogosphere]

Praise for the MRT on seattlepi.com

Bernie Zuccarelli (May 27) waxes lyrical about Singapore's mass-transit system, also a testimony to the prohibitive cost of owning a car on the island.

ST gets serious about blogs (Part 2)

Part 1|2|3

Some quick observations, and passages that caught my eye while reading the three ST articles. I've numbered the three articles #1-#3 in the previous post and references to them will use these numbers.

As indicated by the title of the lead article, the focus is on the possible political implications of the blogs in Singapore--whether politics "will go to the blogs". As Leslie Koh puts the question:

[D]o blogs have the power to influence politics? Few policies and political happenings here escape the sharp eye, keen debate - and acidic criticism - of blogs. One blogger is even pushing for his choice of the next president. Can blogs sway voter behaviour? (From #1)

I'm saving that issue for the last.

Let's get this out of the way: I'm tired of getting upset about the "blog = online diary" and "blogger = online diarist" (see this). In any case, the writers do add some nuance to the simplistic equivalences. In fact, their take on the general nature of blogs is fairly accurate:

They're called blogs, short for Web logs, and started out as online Web diaries. Unfettered by moderators, Web log writers - bloggers, thank you very much - can wax lyrical about anything they want. They can treat their websites as private diaries, commentaries, or even personal news sites. (From #1)

Blogs, short for weblogs, are webpages which can function as online diaries, commentaries or personal columns. (From #2)

Much more can be said, but let's leave it at that.

Some interesting figures. On the number and rate of growth of blogs:

THERE are 10 million of them [blogs] already, and they're growing at a rate of 38,000 a day. (From #1)

Worldwide, there is an estimated 10 million of them, with a new one reportedly created every 2.2 seconds. (From #2)

On the scene in Singapore:

Several estimates put the number of blogs here as anywhere between 2,500 and 15,000. Technorati, an Internet search engine which monitors blogs, lists 220,000 blog entries (called posts) mentioning Singapore. But those mentioning Singapore politics number just 4,500 or 2 per cent. (From #2)

I would love to know how that is calculated.

On the top blogs in the US and Singapore:

The top blog in the US, Boing Boing, boasts 22,500 links and is read by more than 50,000 people a day. Top local bloggers like mrbrown, Xiaxue and Mr Miyagi get anything from 3,000 to 8,000 hits a day, and between 500 and 2,200 other bloggers refer to their popular websites. (From #2)

Hmm, interesting; The Truth Laid Bear paints a slightly different picture. Boing Boing is ranked 11th (by links), after Instapundit, Daily Kos, Powerline, Michelle Malkin, LGF, Captain's Quarters, Eschaton, Josh Marshall, Volokh Conspiracy and Drudge.

On blog readership:

A 2003 survey done by Pew Internet and American Life Project, a research group that studies the impact of the Internet, also showed that a dismal 4 per cent of Americans went online for information and opinions...

Their potential readership here is more than one million - the number of active Internet users in Singapore. A Pew Internet and American Life Project study in January also shows that 27 per cent of all online users do read blogs. This could translate to 270,000 blog readers here. (From #2)

That's a lot of Singaporeans going online and reading blogs. It would be interesting to know how many of them do so "for information and opinions" on a regular basis, and if so, what websites do they turn to for that.

On the attention that some organisations/important people pay to blogs:

TRANSPORT operator ComfortDelGro is one Singapore company which monitors its reputation online. Its staff members log on to read online forums and blogs to keep tabs on what is being said about transport services. With a planned fare hike on the horizon, it knows it may have to protect its reputation and counter criticism on all fronts.

According to the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts, the Government keeps an eye on all feedback it gets online, including blogs. 'However, it is not practical, if not impossible, to keep track of everything that goes on over the Internet,' stressed a spokesman.

The Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*Star) said it would respond only when a blog was brought to its attention.

As blogs explode in popularity and reach, organisations here are slowly waking up to the potential of this new medium to make or break reputations. (From #2)

That last bit about A*Star is presumably consistent with the additional, 'say, by it's own chairperson'. Also:

At least one political group is watching the blogging scene closely: the youth wing of the People's Action Party. Says Mr Donald Aw, Net coordinator of Young PAP: 'Our YP website has a very active discussion forum, and we may consider having a blogging facility if there is sufficient interest.'

And at least one politician has personally joined the blogging scene - Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC MP Penny Low, who has a blog on this year's National Day Parade MoBlog website.

On what Singapore's bloggers have been up to:

Come July, there will be a convention of Singapore bloggers, for the first time, organised by bloggers themselves...

In Singapore, bloggers have been following local news closely, from research agency A*Star's dealings with blogger Chen Jiahao to the Great Casino Debate and transport fare hikes.

Some news saw its first light in the blogosphere, then picked up by the mainstream media. One example is the questioning by the police of film-maker Martyn See, who made a documentary about opposition politician Chee Soon Juan.

Academics say blogs have had an impact on the traditional media, and have become a source of information and opinion. Blogs may also help get like-minded people together for a common cause.

There is currently one blog campaigning for former top civil servant Ngiam Tong Dow to be Singapore's next president. (From #2)

On whether blogs are private or public:

Bloggers argue that they are private, in that they write about their personal lives for their friends. Most blogs are read only by a small group of people and so can be said to remain 'private', argues Singapore Internet Research Centre executive director Randolph Kluver. It is often difficult, he notes, for an Internet user to come across a blog accidentally, unless he knows of the blog and is looking for it. He adds that as much as 16 per cent of the Internet is the 'Dark Web' - parts of the Internet untouched by search engines, which no one ever sees unless they know the exact website address. But others point out that anything put on the World Wide Web is, by definition, public, since anyone can read it.

"Often difficult", but hardly impossible. (Some relevant discussion on this issue on this blog here and here.)

All in all, quite possibly the most sympathetic--and objective--reporting on the general terrain of the Singapore blogosphere I've seen in the local MSM so far. Koh and Ho had done their homework well: kudos.

Now on to the "million dollar question: Will blogs have much political impact in Singapore?" (in a forthcoming post)

update: More by Mr. Miyagi and Mr. Brown (thanks for the browning).

ST gets serious about blogs

Part 1|2|3

Its almost unbelievable. On hindsight, the recent flury of articles about blogs (May 13-24) now look like they are meant to build up to this. From ST (May 28) "Insight":

#1 "Will S'pore politics go to the blogs?" by Leslie Koh
#2 "Will every blog have its day in politics? --Blogs, or online diaries, are exploding on the Web. Could blogs have an impact on politics in Singapore one day?" by Leslie Koh and Benjamin Ho.
#3 "Private grouses, public impact" (presumably by the same writers)

Incidentally, Benjamin Ho was the journalist who contacted me during the height of the AcidFlask Affair.

More to follow soon, but a few quick quotes. From the first article:

The intrusion of political reality into the private world of blogs has chilled at least one blogger in Singapore. Lawyer Gilbert Koh took his blog that commented on social, economic and political issues in Singapore offline soon after reading about A*Star's dealings with blogger Chen Jiahao, and after some of his entries were reproduced in a website of an opposition party.

From the second article:

Dealing with blogs

CAN'T IGNORE THEM: 'Blogs... are likely to become regular parts of many political campaigns, although they may be a very small part, especially in places that do not have hotly contested elections.' - ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR BENJAMIN DETENBER of NTU's School of Communication and Information

CAN'T KEEP 'EM DOWN: 'To apply media laws on bloggers is like firing a howitzer at a swarm of mosquitoes. You will... change the configuration for about half a minute, then it will be like you never fired it at all.' - ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR RANDOLPH KLUVER of Singapore Internet Research Centre

DON'T KILL PASSION: 'Many reflect the political passions of authors who care deeply about issues... If we insist that the discussion be gentle, we may thwart the underlying passion.' - ASSISTANT PROFESSOR MARK CENITE of NTU

From the third article--I'm at a loss for words reading this:

What are some popular Singapore blogs?
www.mrbrown.com, myveryownglob.blogspot.com, xiaxue.blogspot.com, singaporeangle.blogspot.com

Technorati: singapore, blogosphere]

Music Baton

This is the second time it was passed to me (sorry, please don't hit me), so I guess I better respond. First time, from: Ivan's Chimera, second time, from Jeff Yen. Actually, I did respond in a couple of comments to Ivan's post, mostly reproduced here:

Total volume of music files on my computer:
618 items; 37:16:18 hrs; 2.43 GB
(On my main PC; should be some more on my wife's laptop)

The last CD I bought:
Christmas Star, The Cambridge Singers, directed by John Rutter

Song playing right now:
Honestly, none (see below); but I let me click on something, how about Italiana from Ancient Airs and Dances, Suite III, Academy of Saint Martins in the Fields, directed by Sir Neville Marriner.

Five songs I listen to a lot, or that mean a lot to me:
I believe in springtime, by John Rutter
As a bridegroom to His chosen, Medieval hymn rearranged by John Rutter
The reluctant dragon, Musical play by John Rutter (yes, I'm a fan)
It’s morning 5am in China (中国的早晨五点钟), Chinese hymn by Xiaomin
Enigma Variations IX Nimrod, Elgar

Almost all of the music I have are either classical/baroque or Christian choral. Actually, I don’t really like working with the music on. It tends to distract me as I will actually pay attention to the music.

When I was living in California (about 5 miles north of Berkeley), my upstairs neighbor (we rented from the same landlady) was this old gentleman who used to work as a classical music station DJ, a poet and trains, bridges and tall buildings enthusiast rolled into one. He was extremely nice to me and my wife--though I’m sure he’s still a little mixed up about whether we are from Hong Kong, or China. He has a 3000+ strong record collection that lined the wall, all classical, with Handel being his absolute favorite. Sometimes, I’ll spend the evening with him listening to music ("What would you like to listen to today? Mozart’s 41st? Sure, but which of my 9 recordings?...") and he will have the scores out, making the occasional comment that the conductor obviously slurred over this or that difficult part!

Anyway, he commented to me--more than once too--that he absolutely hates the idea of "elevator" or "background" music (among other things—you see, he’s quite opinionated, you see). In fact, he can’t even stand the use of the music in movies! Music, as far as he’s concerned, should be enjoyed on its own, with the listener’s full attention. Some of that must have rubbed off a little on me.

I'm passing the baton to: Olorin, my mysterious sometime blogging partner, and the entire crew at Singapore Ink, all four of you (David, lzyData, Wows and Superbigwig).

Back to that Star Wars III quote

I was hoping to complete this today but looks it it's not going to happen. So, what follows is only half--maybe one third of a post. But let me put this bit out to 'show some resolve', as it were.

I've not seen Revenge of the Sith and probably won't be able to do so for a while (I did manage to catch Star Wars IV, V, VI, I, II on cable here over the past month). But I keep running across this quote:

OBI-WAN: ...Anakin, Chancellor Palpatine is evil.
ANAKIN: From the Jedi point of view! From my point of view, the Jedi are evil.

I don't really have the context to this; nor do I really want to know as I am still hoping to watch the movie (WhiteOut: please do not send me the script!). So the following comments are only very tangentially related to Star Wars, if they are even related. (If you are disappointed, I could point you to this, and do follow the two links there as well.) Rather, I am intrigued because the quote seems to alluding to some sort of profound insight; but if so, the insight eludes me...

update: Don't think I'll have time to do the projected post after all. It was going to be about the important distinction between relativism, skepticism and stuff about "true from X perspective" on the one hand, and the doctrine of the burdens of judgment, on the other. There's just too much to do. Will have to content with the extensive comments here and here instead.

Talking about so much to do, I've also noted that Wows posted two excellent posts on Ink about "an autonomous self help society"--stuff very close to my heart. And then there is also this discussion that may just be warming up in another comment section on Ink. So much to do, so little time...

On the right to be wrong (in my beliefs)

Note: I'll have to do the Star Wars quote thing in another post.

First, a small nitpick...that, I guess, only philosophy types would care about. From ST Forum (May 25), "THE A*STAR SAGA--Anarchy if people speak without a care for truth" by William Ho Siew Wah (writing in response to Christopher Choo's piece):

To me, the issue concerns Mr Chen Jiahao, a former scholar now studying for his PhD, making some potentially libellous remarks on his blog which were not substantiated by facts.

Is Mr Ho claiming that (1) Mr Chen's remarks are actually unsubstantiated by facts--and for that reason, potentially libellous; or is he making the more modest claim that (2) Mr Chen's remarks are potentially unsupported by facts and thus (potentially) libellous? While one would have thought that (2) is the safer statement--unless one actually (a) knows which exactly are the posts on caustic.soda that were considered libellous (a piece of information A*Star never revealed to the public) AND (b) have the requisite legal training to tell that they are libellous. Interestingly, that (1) is what is intended is further suggested by a later passage:

Freedom of expression must be accompanied by a responsibility to have your facts correct, and, if they are proven otherwise, to have the maturity to admit you are wrong, make an unreserved apology and move on. It will be total anarchy if we have freedom of speech without the need to speak the truth. Every individual has a right to his opinion, but no individual has a right to be wrong in his facts.

Let me first highlight some distinct questions that come out of the passage.

(1a) Do we have a right to believe that which is not true?
(1b) Do we have a right to believe that which is proven false?
(2a) Do we have a right to speak that which is not true?
(2b) Do we have a right to speak that which is proven false?

Now I believe that the answer to all four is "yes". We have--at the very least--a prima facie right to each of the four (that can be trumped by other rights). [edit: so as not to make it too easy for myself, I am talking about such speaking as intended to communicate factual truth--so, saying that "Sherlock Holmes lived in London" does not really count as instances covered by (2a)(2b). Saying, "Sherlock Holmes is a real (non-fictional) person" would be.]

But it's getting late; I'll have to come back to this later. And yes, I'll have to come back to the Star Wars quote later as well. Feel free to leave comments in the meantime.

[I've also left the full text of Mr Ho's letter in the comments for reference.]

continued: (May 25 1150 -0400)

Nothing better than a good night's rest to clear the mind...only to notice the typo in the title. In the meantime, WhiteOut, Trowa Evans, lzyData and the Cap'n Intrepid have posted comments on the forum letter. Like them, I do not share Mr Ho's assumption that it must have been AcidFlask who had the facts wrong--we just don't know enough to make a call. The fact that he re-apologised could mean all sorts of things.

more: And I've just noticed that Christopher Choo himself has a response on his blog. He seems rather unperturbed.

interlude:Passages from Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Article 1: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act toward one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 18: Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this included the right to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

still more: Incidentally, I am rather old fashioned when it comes to "truth", that is, I believe that there is such a thing as objective truth. Furthermore, I believe that at some level, talk about "truth from my (or your) perspective" either resolves into much more mundane claims or are incoherent (more on this later). But claims to possess the unadulterated truth by specific individuals and institutions, however, are another thing altogether.

But let me come back to the four questions (1a)(1b)(2a)(2b) raised above. They concern issues in the ballpark of freedom of conscience and freedom of expression. Note that we are not here talking about rights (and duties) in the abstract, but such as are enforcable in the context of the civil polity and the marketplace of ideas by mere human beings.

Let me begin with (1a) and (2a). I believe that only a "yes" answer would be consistent with certain other commitments we have. Consider the various religious doctrines believed by people in Singapore. Now I am talking about the doctrines that make a claim to be factually true--e.g., when Christians confess that "Jesus is the Son of God who through his death upon the cross atoned for the sins of the world, and even now sits upon the right hand of the Father, while His Spirit abides with the elect, or when Muslims believe that "there is no God but Allah and Mohammed is His prophet", they are not merely saying something about themselves, but something about the world, something that would either be objectively true or false. Add also the counter-religious claims that some people believe, e.g., the Atheistic one that says: "God--whether of the Christian, Muslim, Jewish or whatnot conception--does not exist."

Now logically speaking, it is impossible that all of these claims can be true--since they logically exclude each other. At best only one set of these claims can be true; in fact, it is even logically possible that none of them are true. What this means is that even right now, there are lots of people in Singapore who believe in falsehoods as far as their religious (and counter-religious) opinions are concerned. Here's the point: the various parties each conscientiously believes that his religious (or counter-religious) opinions are objectively true; even if (unbeknownst to him) those beliefs are objectively false, he still has a right in a free society to have, hold and act upon (or not) those conscientiously-held beliefs as long such is consistent with the exercise of the same right by others. So one is free to hold to, propogate his conscientiously held beliefs, associate with others of like mind, seek to (verbally) dispute those who disagree, etc., even if those beliefs are false sub specie aeternis. Those who hold to beliefs opposed to one have the same rights. Given that we are committed to the freedom of conscience and speech, which are at the bedrock of freedom of religion.

Incidentally, the converse is at the foundation of the Inquisition.

But perhaps that was too easy--obviously the above concerns issues concerning which there is no widespread agreement for which knockdown proofs and arguments are not forthcoming and for which such proofs and arguments are extremely unlikely to be forthcoming (until Kingdom comes). They are the sorts of issues that lie at the heart of the doctrine of the "burdens of judgment". But what about (1b)(2b)? Do we have a right to believe or speak that which is proven false?

In one range of cases, the alleged proofs are only that--alleged. Some Christians believe that they have proofs for the existence of God; some atheists believe that they have proofs for the converse. It is entirely possible that sub specie aeternis, some of those proofs are objectively correct. But here on earth between mere mortals, they are difficult to follow, involve controversial premises, and equally humanly speaking rational people acting in good faith have come to different conclusions about them. We are back in the ball park of the burdens of judgment, only transferred to the level of proofs rather than the beliefs themselves. In this case, the answer for (1b)(2b) will still be "yes", for roughly the same reasons as for (1a)(2a).

Now comes the interesting case: what if the proofs are knockdown, or at the very least, obvious? Suppose someone (sincerely) believes that pi is 3.0 and wishes to propogate that belief. It is at least not obvious to me that he does not have a right to do so, just as others would have a right to disagree with and seek to refute him. If anything, such a person does not so much as flout some duty (and in that sense does not have the right to his belief or to propogate it) as possibly reveal himself to be untaught, or irrational. Now obviously, we wouldn't want to allow such a person to hold a teaching position in mathmatics, or hire him as one of the engineers for the LTA, but that's not exactly something to do with his putative lack of a right to be wrong in his beliefs, so to speak.

Final caveats: even if we grant that the answer to (1a)-(2b) is "yes", it does not follow that these are absolute rights that cannot be trumped or constrained by other rights, e.g., the right not to be slandered. But I'll leave that to another day. And do note that a right to believe that X or even to propogate that belief is not the same as a right to the agreement or belief of someone else that X. If I want to, I can believe that I am the Queen of Sheba and to say so to you. In fact, I even have a right to do so, nutty as it may be. Having you also believe that I am the Queen of Sheba (and to act accordingly) is another story altogether.

Looks like I'll have to do that Star Wars quote thing in another post.

A couple of thought, including some on a Star Wars quote

[note on the title: That should be "thoughts"--see, now I can't even correct it without changing the Permalink URL...so I've transferred everything to a new post. Have also duplicated the Forum Letter in the comments section there.]

ST on the blogosphere (May 24)

Some quick thoughts on the trinity of blogosphere related articles in the national press today. First, "Listen up, world!" by Hellen Tan:

It used to be that when you kept a diary of your life, you kept it a secret - away from the eyes of your mother, a snoopy sibling or even your spouse. But with blogs - the online version of a personal diary - the whole world gets to read your thoughts.

I shall not do more than point you in the general direction of this. Ok, let me be a little more nuanced. Some people may intend their blogs to be the online equivalent of their personal diary and may even have illusions about its privacy. Others do intend their blogs to be online diaries that are meant for the public. But anyone who thinks that Instapundit, The Adventures of Chester, EconLog--or, more locally, Singapore Ink, the now defunct Singapore Legal Mumbo Jumbo Demystified, The Aseanist, or for that matter, this blog you are now reading, are meant to be personal diaries should look up the definitions of "personal" and "diary" again.

I shall not belabor the point further. In any case, the article actually concedes as much, and then takes it all back:

Be sincere and honest, particularly if you are running a blog that acts like a watchdog on consumer issues or when you want to use it to deliver strong opinions on issues like social justice, equality and human rights. It can be a formidable PR machine or lobbying platform. For now, blogging is the fad. I call it a fad because personal websites were once popular, but that is now passé. While it lasts, enjoy peeking into the lives of those who invite you in.

We'll see, we'll see. (update: See also Jeff's comment on this).

Next, "An expanding blogosphere" by Grace Chng: "Blogging is still in its infancy, but it will evolve into something phenomenal". A nitpick:

Not only can you post text blogs, but you can also now do it with photos (foto flix.com).

I didn't know that the online DVD rental service www.flix.com, or the free stock ticker service foto.flix.com also host photos, just like the popular www.flickr.com. It is interesting that this article appears to put a different spin on the phenomenon of blogging compared to the previous one:

What's posted on blogs moves through cyberspace like a whirlwind. And what bloggers say can have an impact on society - they have destroyed reputations, forced famous personalities out of their jobs and made new products popular...

Blogs have become a major source of news and are beginning to offer an alternative to mainstream media. Their postings are immediate and they provide details that newspapers and TV stations cannot always match.

As a communications tool, blogging is superior. It's little wonder then that many organisations like public relations firms are looking at how they can use it.

It is not far fetched that one day everyone will have a blog so that families that are miles apart, will be kept up-to-date of the happenings on a daily basis. And companies might just have internal blogs as a form of discussion groups.

Small point: blogging is a superior communications tool given a certain range of purposes. They don't replace books, or magazines, or lectures, or sermons, or billboards. Secondly, people are already keeping blogs to update their friends and family members in far flung corners of the world (sorry, I'm not naming any), and companies are already keeping internal blogs--try Google, for instance.

Finally, "Worshipping the ground they blog on" by Jennani Durai: "Don't dismiss local blogs as some silly pastime. They are proving to have ground support and the popular bloggers are becoming minor celebrities". This one is mostly about the most popular Singaporean blogger of all--Xiaxue. Not being a XX reader myself, I can't really say much, though this bit did caught my eye:

Buoyed by a large fan base, Ms Cheng actually believes it's possible for her to change people's opinions or turn them against someone else. 'Bloggers in general have credibility because the people who read them have been doing so for a long time,' she said.

She wielded her mighty mouse when she wrote about a girl who had snatched a taxi from her and later insulted her on a forum. She revealed the girl's full name, blog address and put up pictures of her. An avalanche of comments followed almost immediately in support of Ms Cheng. The hapless girl subsequently deleted her blog.

Perhaps an addendum to the doctrine is needed, though I'll have to leave the details to other more capable minds.

[Technorati: singapore, blogosphere]

Ms. Chng defends herself: "I was misquoted" [Part Deux]

I followed Huichieh's link in his original post to Singapore Ink, and read the post and comments with interest. So much interest in fact, I came out of sleeper mode into sometime mode [ref: see Huichieh's 'Welcome to my blog' post at the top] for the second time in two days. Anyway, I'm quoting the full text of my comment here:

Hi everyone, I’d just like to propose we ease up on Ms Chng and Ivan on these grounds:

1: Given the ST’s record, I think we CAN give her the benefit of the doubt as Singapore Ink [hahaha!! I’m doin it too; seriously, I mean lzydata] suggests!!

2: I’m Singaporean, male, a scholar, and an NS Officer, and I think my type complain too much sometimes after going to NS. It happened to myself as well, actually. And I complain about others of my type too. All the time!!

I WAS upset with things when I was in NS, and I have since learnt to voice out my unhappiness at things I was upset with. I have also learnt, with maturity, that I can do so in ways that are more constructive and effective in bringing about positive change; but the fact remains that when I was in NS, I began to whine and complain more than I ever did before! However, there is a difference between whining, and complaining (which is not always or innately a bad thing); but I leave you to decide which of these can be better used to describe me today.

Also, an earlier discussion on Singapore Angle about National Service gave me the impression we do have a number of the whining types around among us bloggers (and I don’t mean you redrown, although I must admit at first I formed that impression of you in my mind, Huichieh knows who I am talking about, heh).

So, there are elements of truth to what the lady says, and I think there is no need for us to fault her for stating a truthful observation.

Back to the subject at hand, with her second letter and Ivan’s clarification, the impression I am forming is that the Straits Times had an agenda and used something she said (which happens to be true), apparently in a rather sneaky fashion too, if I may be allowed to voice my opinion. As an example of the type of men she describes, I don’t feel a need to take offence. She has stated an observation I know to be true, and I am in no position to judge what her intentions were; but given the ST’s past performance, I’m way inclined towards giving her the benefit of the doubt.

I do agree with Ivan when he points out that the Straits Times article should really have been about what Philip Yeo said and Ms Chng was somewhat unwittingly drawn into it.

I actually do have SOME sympathy with Philip Yeo’s position on some scholars, and the nature of scholarships, and moral obligations, but that is not the subject of this comment. Well, perhaps it does, in the sense that maybe I am defending Ms Chng because she has these same sympathies with Philip Yeo as well.

I do not, however, believe threatening lawsuits is the best way to engage a dissenting opinion and his past record suggests (I state this as an inference of an observer, and will be happy to retract this statement if a threatened lawsuit comes my way) he is reacting because he personally dislikes bond breakers. I am perfectly happy to apologise to him if I am misreading his intentions but I defend my right to say this is the impression his past record and A Star’s actions give. And it is because of this I think he should pay serious attention to Ng Yong Kuan and Christopher Choo’s letters!!

Ok, if my post seems incoherent at times, its because I’m not feeling very coherent right now.

Cheers!

Comment by Olorin — 23/5/2005 @ 4:28 pm

Keyboards!

IZ Reloaded blogged about the Das Keyboard, which has no keys for you to look at while typing. From the website:

However, the Ergodex DX1 Input System is way cool:

See review at ExtremeTech.

ST: Perhaps it's time we used lawsuits as a last resort, and got more serious about freedom

It's a good piece, which is why I feel compelled to quote it in full here. By all means the very points raised have been circulating in the Blogosphere for a while by now (including here); some even sent open letters directly to the relevant authorities. In fact, tentative thoughts of the same nature were also put forward by an earlier ST article.

Nevertheless, kudos to Christopher for writing and ST for publishing (don't say I don't give credit where credit is due). So, without further ado, from ST (May 23), "Libel lawsuits may stifle opinion" by Christopher Choo:

THE Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*Star) may consider the blogging episode in which it was allegedly defamed closed. However, a wider debate has erupted on the Internet. Bloggers are questioning the fairness of using the threat of libel lawsuits to stifle opinion.

To me, the fuss over Mr Chen Jiahao, a former scholar now studying for his PhD, has to do with the issue of freedom of expression, and how we deal with criticism in Singapore. A*Star may have won the battle by extracting an unreserved apology from Mr Chen, but it would have been far better to engage him in a proper discussion and silence him by proving him wrong.

I once crossed swords with Mr Chen over an article I had written about the education system in late January. It was mentally taxing having to defend my views against Mr Chen online, but I appreciated my correspondence with him and even linked my blog to his. I learnt something important from that encounter with Mr Chen. I learnt that my views are made stronger and more persuasive if I can logically defend them when under attack. And sometimes, it is from a heated debate and raw engagement with an opponent that new ideas and ways of thinking emerge. Looking at the big picture, this can only be good for the intellectual vibrancy of the nation.

In Mr Chen's case, a lawsuit would have been a lazy and unimaginative way to manage a problem. It would have been the injured party's way of insisting on his rights and demanding redress there and then.

Singapore may have achieved First World living standards in a very short time, but its quick recourse to punitive methods of curtailing free expression through lawsuits goes against the ethos of the consultative society we are trying to build. We aspire to forge a nation where thought and lively discussion flourish, and a place where Singaporeans living everywhere can call home. But I am compelled by the ugliness of the recent spat to ask: Can Singapore mature into an attractive and stimulating place to live if people don't feel at ease expressing their views?

Perhaps it's time we used lawsuits as a last resort, and got more serious about freedom.

The writer is a second-year information systems management student at the Singapore Management University.

This should be the same Christopher Choo as the author of the above. [Confirmed]

update: Elia Diodati alerts me to Christopher Choo's own site, which contains a fuller version of what he wrote for ST. No, ST didn't mangle his piece--he approved the edited version. A good read, includes honorary mention of the "infantile blogging scene".

"The Real Lowdown" - from I-S Magazine (20th May 05), p3.

I thought the following was interesting in the light of the discussions that have been going on, but also because I just discussed Copernicus/Galileo/helio- and geo-centrism in my 'Isms' class, saw Revenge of the Sith on opening day, and realised Ng Yong Kuan's letter was not published. I leave it to you to figure the connections. Here's the text in full:

Student: Master, why did Singapore score only 43.2 percent in the "voice and accountability" section of the World Bank Institute survey?
Master: Because the sun rises and sets.

Student: I don't understand. Please tell me more.
Master: It happened a long time ago. An Italian scholar published a book in which he declared himself a heliocentrist, that is, someone who believes the earth goes around the sun. This was a terrible thing to confess, even worse than someone confessing to being a racist today. The confession was unacceptable to the powerful geocentrists, who knew the sun went around the earth. So they told him to publicly deny his beliefs.

Student: What did the scholar do?
Master: He had no choice but to do as the powerful geocentrists demanded. Here's a modern summary of his abjurement (sworn denial) document: "I, Galle Leo, was wrong to declare myself a heliocentrist. To allay everyone's suspicions of me, I sincerely abjure my errors and falsehoods. Furthermore, I promise that I will never again in future say or write or cause to be said or written anything which will attract a similar suspicion against me."

Student: Wow, like, he reversed his own blog?
Master: Well, in our modern terms, yes.

Student: But surely the right thing for the geocentrists to do was to strongly rebut the heliocentrist view, instead of savagely rebuking the heliocentrist.
Master: Be that as it may, that was what happened. And that is why we today still believe that the sun rises and sets, as it makes its way around the earth each day.

Student: I see. But how does this explain Singapore's 43.2 percent score?
Master: You still have much to learn, Grasshopper. Patience.

I'm posting this since Huichieh, being in Toronto, has no direct access to I-S.

Cheers!

Ms. Chng defends herself: "I was misquoted"

edit: Background--the ST (May 15) article that kicked up all the fuss; also at Singapore Ink.

This is becoming somewhat hilarious--from ST (May 22), "Hey, I'm not a male-basher! A*Star scholarship holder Chng Zhenzhi's letter":

I am sorry to have upset so many of my fellow citizens over an issue that is close to the hearts of all Singapore men. I am referring to national service. I accept responsibility where I had not made my points clearly enough to Mr Chua. I was misquoted in the article or quoted out of context.

The presentation of the article did me additional injustice - I'm sure unintentionally - by highlighting a truncated or composite quote under an unnecessarily large photograph of me...

Editor's Note: Ms Chng was quoted accurately by our reporter, and an A*Star official said as much in a conversation with the reporter after the remarks were published. (emphasis mine)

Seems like everybody's disclaimer nowadays.

afterthought: The editor's note is actually quite ambiguous. What does the "as much" refer to? That is, is the A*Star official (1) confirming that such and such was exactly what Ms Chng said, OR (2) saying that such and such (what Ms Chng said) is indeed the case. The first half of the sentence suggests reading (1), but, really, only (2) would even make sense (unless the official was present during the telephone interview between Ms Chng and the ST reporter). And if (2), then what we have is a case of an official of A*Star "saying as much" that, i.e., "the female scholars are more aggressive, Type-A, go-getting types, while the males are more soft-spoken and tend to be easily bullied by females" and "Once [the males] enter NS, they complain a lot. I didn't know that guys could talk about the most minute things", etc., etc., which is, of course, more or less the can of worms that Mr. Yeo opened... So the plot thickens.

add: If reading (2) is the correct interpretation, then what the ST editor's note is saying might be rephrased--even if Ms Chng has been misquoted, what we put into her mouth would still be true, as confirmed by the official from A*Star. (Ahh... the "fake but accurate" defense.)

update: also picked up by Singapore Ink and Singapore Commentator. | Also recalled some relevant observations by Gilbert. | Breaking news: in light of recent accusations about misquotations, "Straits Times Ethics Committee Issues Guidebook For The Public"; Jeff Yen has the details (warning: SATIRE!). | More on the Guidebook by WhiteOut.

latest: An apparent friend of Ms Chng hopes to set the record straight with a long comment left at Singapore Ink. It's good that people are coming forward to help clear the air, though I wonder if damage is already done. In any case, the interest around here is not on her but on media ineptitude. lzydata has a good response. | Anthony of Almost Infamous asks some heartfelt questions. | The Cap'n Intrepid weighs in. | Olorin--my sometime blogging partner--came out of sleeper mode to leave an extended comment at Singapore Ink on the whole issue, also reproduced on this blog. Except for the bit about "nature of scholarships and moral obligations", about which I am still undecided (perhaps the subject of another post, another time), I agree with what he says. The real issue is not with Ms Chng, whose involvement in the fracas is unwitting at best, but with a certain government agency and the media.

SAF Benelli Shotgun on display for the first time

The SAF demonstration at Jurong Island (MINDEF press release). But this little bit from ST (May 21), "Well-fortified and ready for any attack--Jurong Island's defenders show teamwork in fending off mock terror strikes", by David Boey caught my eye:

Also on display for the first time were Benelli M3 shotguns, which fire powerful projectiles that can stop charging vehicles. Soldiers from 6th Battalion Singapore Infantry Regiment (6 SIR) are the first SAF infantrymen armed with shotguns. (ON SHOW: A Benelli M3 shotgun, which fires projectiles that can stop charging vehicles, is seen for the first time during an exercise on Jurong Island. -- EDWIN KOO)

Cool... (The other weapon in the background is a SAR21.) The Benelli M3:

But of course this--the Benelli 'Nova'--is even more cool: