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:

Robert Kaplan: How we would fight China

More than two weeks ago, Tomorrow.sg mentioned the Atlantic Monthly article summarised at www.cominganarchy.com. Unfortunately, the full article was not available. So, I emailed EagleSpeak (as I also wanted to hear his opinion) who eventually located a link (thank you). So, enjoy.

Loosely related afterthought: We were talking about blogs vs. MSM and one point, the notion of real-life experts blogging was mentioned. So here's a chance for me to go on a limb and plug for just three of my favorites:

- When I want detailed analysis on the military situation in Iraq, I turn to The Adventures of Chester, authored by an USMC officer (ret) who was at one point on the ground in Iraq, and whose detailed blow-by-blow commentary on the Battle of Fallajuh was the initial cause of the blog's fame.

- For tracking the maritime security situation in the region, I tend to turn to EagleSpeak, authored by an USNR attorney (ret) who saw service in Vietnam, Desert Storm and the Balkans.

- For US Election Politics, my absolute favorite was The Horse Race Blog, authored by a political science graduate student who knows a lot about polls and statistics. With the help of volunteers, his blog crunched (historical and new) data from the polls all through the later part of the 2004 campaign making many predictions that were confirmed. Jay Cost has since transferred operations to The Red State.

In my opinion, some of the very best that the blogosphere has to offer. It's very hard to find comparable levels of insight (in the specific areas) in the MSM.

Open letter to Mr. Philip Yeo

I received the following email 5/16/2005 9:30 AM (EDT -0400) from a Mr. Ng Yong Kuan. It is a cc:ed copy of an open letter addressed to Mr. Philip Yeo, and also copied to the Prime Minister's Office (PMO), Straits Times, TODAY and a few others.

From what I could gather, Mr. Ng is a personal friend of Mr. Chen Jiahao. As of time of this post, he has yet to receive a reply from any of the mentioned organisations. As the letter seems level-headed and fairly balanced--a specimen of fair comment--I've decided to publish it in full here with the author's permission, for the interested readers' information.

update: (May 19 1150 -0400) Mr. Ng just emailed saying, "TODAY has replied that it is unable to publish my letter". On a different note, now I'm curious as to how many of these letters there are out there: I bet his isn't the only one.

-----cover-----

Dear Mr. Yeo,

Please find attached an open letter to yourself.

In this letter, I express my disappointment at A*Star's handling of the Acidflask saga.

Please regard it as comment and feedback.

This open letter is carbon-copied to the PMO, Straits Times forum, Today and a small number of online journals I consider to be less reactive about the issue.

Yours sincerely,
NG Yong Kuan

-----actual letter-----

To: Mr. Philip Yeo, Chairman A*Star

Dear Sir,

In recent weeks, A*Star has threatened legal action against Mr. Chen Jiahao over remarks on his blog that are allegedly defamatory to yourself and A*Star. A result has been obtained: Mr. Chen has apologised and retracted the remarks; but it is the ugliness and ease with which A*Star threatened to sue that is causing much furore on the Internet.

As A*Star and yourself have not specified the allegedly defamatory remarks in question (upon the legal advice you received), I cannot comment on this aspect of the drama.

However, I can comment on the manner in which A*Star handled the matter. I personally believe that A*Star and yourself have acted with integrity in performing necessary and important work for the benefit of Singapore. When A*Star discovered the allegedly defamatory material in Mr. Chen blog, it could have tried to convince Mr. Chen that his remarks were untrue and hence correct his blog, or refuted the remarks in a public forum. Either course of action could have scored A*Star a public relations coup by assuring the world of its integrity, performance and human touch.

Instead, A*Star and yourself as Chairman of A*Star, threatened legal action in order to obtain a retraction and to remove the remarks from the Internet and any other media. This action to limit discourse to A*Star's terms is unsavoury and unbecoming of the public institution A*Star aspires to be.

Mr. Yeo, this heavy-handed approach may have quickly settled the matter to your satisfaction, but it appears to have bought much bad press and ill-feeling in the local internet community. A*Star has placed itself in a bad light, appearing to be quick to pull out the legal stick to silence criticism. Such an image cannot help A*Star attract research talent who challenge assumptions and question critically. In the bigger picture, you have also reinforced the mentality that is is better to play it safe and hide in the crowd, to be the grey man who takes no action so that he draws no attention to himself. Such a mentality will be a millstone around all our necks as we compete internationally in whatever field we choose.

Mr. Yeo, you have been quick and firm in upholding the reputation of A*Star, but the conduct of it may hurt Singapore for years. Substance is important, but so is style.

Yours sincerely,
NG Yong Kuan, Singaporean

-----end-----

Related stuff for background:

The AcidFlask Affair on From a Singapore Angle:
(Apr 25+) A Sad Day for the Singapore Blogosphere
(Apr 29+) The AcidFlask Affair in ether and beyond
(May 4+) CNA picks up the AcidFlask Affair (incl. 1st TODAY articles)
(May 6+) AcidFlask's Press Statement Published (incl. 2nd CNA article)
(May 6+) Plea addressed to my fellow bloggers
(May 6+) Straits Times steps into the breech / TODAY tries again (incl. CPJ and TNP)
(May 9: AcidFlask published his new apology and the matter is considered closed by A*Star; I was out of blogging action)
(May 10) The AcidFlask Affair: World Reactions (links to)
Also: A series of relevant press-releases from A*Star itself (dated May 4, 6 and 9).

Thoughtful...

Sort of a spin-off from the previous post; but also inspired by the exchange in the comments to a recent post by Redrown, especially the comment left by Jeff Yen.

I've just read Goh Meng Seng's column on The Void Deck. For those who do not know, Goh is a member of the WP. Readers of this blog know that my stance has been--to the best of my ability--politically non-partisan; nor, frankly speaking, am I a fan of any of the opposition groups in Singapore. Goh's column, however, struck a chord. He says that he has now come to realise that "partisan political engagement" is at best "building castles in the air" without "the foundation nor fundamental support" from a healthy civil society in Singapore. There is something very right about this.

But before I go there, let's digress a little and point out something that I think is not quite right with a part of Goh's analysis. He says:

Partisan politics cannot strive in a land of "political desert". This "political desert" is formed by the apathy of the population, in Singapore’s context, it’s the "mindset", the mindset of "materialism" which is easily bought over by little goodies of HDB upgrading, ERS, NSS and nothing else matters.

As long as the "opposition" continues to see their lack of success at the polls as a simple function of the "apathy" or "materialism" of ordinary Singaporeans, they are almost guaranteed to continue to lack success. I am speaking from the purely pragmatic point that politicians are supposed to serve we the ordinary folks and not the other way round (and I happen to have been a HDB dweller for almost all of my life, mind you). If what folks want are the "HDB upgrading, ERS, NSS", then playing the guilt game of calling it "materialism" is just... bad customer service, to say the least. On the other hand, if it turns out that folks do want a lot more than "HDB upgrading, ERS, NSS", then the guilt game has just turned into insult. In other words, it's never a good move blaming your lack of success on those whom you are suppose to persuade, win over, etc. Or for that matter, your political opponents. By the way, these points hold true even if the said blame is justified.

But so much for that digression, let me come back to the point about civil society. My stake in this has partly to do with an interest in the development of civil society in Singapore, but also more specifically, the role of the blogosphere in this development.

I see two distinct components to the development of civil society in Singapore, and beyond that, a healthy, mature democratic citizenry. One: the association of ordinary citizens for common action, not necessarily political ones too. The activities of our NGOs in the Tsunami relief and reconstruction operations were a very large part of the reason why this blog was started in the first place.

Two: civil discourse, the give and take of arguments and common deliberation among ordinary citizens about the issues of the day and other loci of common action--again, not necessarily political ones. My gut feeling is that if nurtured right, the local blogosphere has tremendous potential for exactly this aspect of civil society. It's not about "self-expression", even of the political kind; but the back and forth of discussion between citizens. In other words, talking and seeking to convince each other rather than the prince.

But here's the catch. While it is seductive to think that "democratic politics" of a certain familiar kind (involving competition between multiple viable parties) would appear to grow out of strong civil societies, it is an illusion to think that this form of politics will of necessity appear on the scene in Singapore if only there is a strong civil society here. That may or may not happen at all. In fact, it is completely possible that Singaporeans will actually renew their support for the ruling PAP--albeit under new and perhaps more assertive terms, and to a PAP that successfully completed its process of ongoing self-reinvention. But it is also possible that something else may happen--there is just no way to predict.

As a non-partisan blogger, I am not particularly interested in either outcome (that is, my aim is not related to the actualisation of either of those outcomes). If there is any "ambition", it is either non-political, or at best, tangentially political: the nurturing of healthy discourse, or, as Jeff so nicely puts it, encouraging "reasoned argument", "unspinning the spin" and "making a difference in the level of discussion". And, as I see it, the best way to do that is not to give lessons in logic or fallacies (though that I can do), but to go right in and take part in the already ongoing discussion, to negotiate through actual argumentative encounters the as-yet-to-be-worked-out protocols of civil debate, to do my part as a citizen online.

An afterthought: In view of the above, I think it is safe for me to confess that I am comparatively unconcerned about traditional journalist types talking down to bloggers about the fine art of journalism. It's not that I think the traditionalists are right, hardly (problems on that front have already been well covered by various parties--see links from the previous two links); but the more important point for me is that "journalism" hardly begins to capture what I think is the true potential of the blogosphere--or, for that matter, the best of what the (non-infantile) Singaporean bloggers have already been doing all along.

Blogs and/or MSM?

The dabate is ongoing in the comments section of the SIRC post. Should be read in full, especially the ones by Gilbert.

I'm wondering if the dispute is somewhat at cross purposes: it's not as if blogs and traditional journalism are meant to be simple substitutes for each other. True, there are large areas of overlap, but also areas where they don't overlap (or only partially overlap).

Presumably, the strength of the MSM is that it commands real world resources and infrastructure for the gathering and processing of raw information--e.g., it can send a whole bunch of reporters, camera crew, with attendant equipment to a Meulaboh or Maldives and give them the wherewithal to have what information they collect processed and transmitted back rapidly. In general, blogs do not have and do not aspire to the MSM's news gathering and processing capabilities.

But this doesn't mean that blogs can't give the MSM a run for its money in specific circumstances.

In summer 2004 during the height of the US elections, the AP ran an item reporting that a crowd of Bush supporters in Wisconsin booed when the President told them to wish for Bill Clinton's recovery (then in hospital for surgery) and he did nothing to stop them. A small time blogger who was actually there found an audio of the rally proving that there was no booing and posted it, soon widely disseminated by more influential bloggers. AP quietly reworded its report! (Incidentally, I remember this first hand because I happened to be watching the US Blogosphere quite closely during the election season.) Or more mundanely and locally, think of the times when bloggers spotted factual errors in the reporting of TODAY, CNA or ST.

Apart from (general) factual errors, there are also errors to do with specialist knowledge. The reporter makes a factually erroneous comment about, say, stem cell research, and the real life stem cell researcher spots it. And of course, there are also errors of logic.

Still, these things do not show the 'superiority' of blogs. Ordinary people (some of whom are experts) have always spotted errors in reporting since the dawn of the newsprint (reporters and editors are human too--they can mistakes, you know). Rather, they demonstrate that with the coming of the internet, the same ordinary people are now able to get the word out much more quickly and widely than ever before. The lesson for the MSM is this: it's not that many more eyeballs are on you now, but that many more of those eyeballs are now linked to mouths (and fingers) that can expose your errors much more rapidly than ever before.

In an entry I posted in Febuary (ST paid subscription hoohah), I listed three things in which I think the strength of blogs lies. In these areas, blogs do have some degree of inherent advantage over the MSM--not necessarily individual blogs, but collectively. Let me expand on them a little here:

(1) Very specialized and up close reportage: Think Terse and at Large in Meulaboh. Think milblogs in Iraq (or one of Instapundit's 'correspondants' in Afghanistan). Such reporting is not necessarily more balanced or objective (far from it), but they are informed by a certain intimacy that can only come with direct engagement, written as they are by people who are actually there in the heat of the action. This is where the 'citizen journalism' really shines. But note, this is niche reporting; it doesn't really offer a substitute for what the MSM produces.

(2) Punditry and commentary: And by this, I mean both in general and specialist topics. For specialist topics, blogs by real life specialists will surely be at least as good as anything that a MSM editorial might come up with (see Gilbert's list of examples here). Yes, I would rather read a blog by Alan Greenspan on the state of the world economy than any about the same that, say, a mere ST editor might choose to put out. For the general topics, on the other hand, surely we can at least say that there are lots of people out there that are as smart (or smarter) than the typical MSM editor or columnist, and could put out blogs that are as insightful or even more insightful than the typical column? [Addition: (May 20 1450 -0400) Obviously some of the columns that are published by the MSM are from the Alan Greenspans of the world, and what's to stop MSM editors from getting their degrees in Law or whatnot. No, the point is not that every expert blogger must be better than the MSM editor; and in any case, being an expert may not entail the ability to explain your expertise in a popular enough manner. The point is much more mundane: there are many real life experts who know something (perhaps something small) much better than your typical editor; under the right conditions, they will have more interesting and insightful things to say about particular topics than the typical editor; what the internet makes possible is that they can now be better heard by a wider audience; finally, they will have a collective wiki-advantage over the editors. Interestingly, these blogging experts sometimes end up headhunted by the MSM, which only goes to show that any oversharp drawing of the divide between the blogosphere and the MSM is just simplistic.]

But this following one is my favorite:

(3) Functioning as a channel for lively critical discussions on the issues of the day: In this regard, the blogosphere has far greater potential than the MSM. I hate to say this but the debates of the day as distilled by the MSM somehow always sound so much flatter than they are at first hand. But this is only to be expected: modern newsprint tends towards the soundbite. Consider this: there were seven famous debates between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas. In the first of them (August 21, 1858 in Ottawa, Illinois), Douglas spoke first for 1 hr, followed by Lincoln's 1.5 hr response, followed by Douglas's 1/2 hr rebuttal. And--this is the important part--the newspapers of the day tended to reproduce the entire debates (which also suggests that people read such things). Fast forward to the Singapore Casino debates of 2003-2004. I'm not even sure I managed to see 1/2 of the various opposing arguments laid out, not to mention laid out in full in our national press. I'll like to think that my little collation at least rivals ST's coverage of the debate. What the internet has made possible once again is a sort of pamphleteering probably not seen since the 18th and 19th century in the US, for example. You have something to say on some pressing issue of the day? Or some argument against some other point of view that is being put forward by others? Or you want to lend support to a cause? You found something idiotic and wants to expose it for what it is?—They used to publish pamphlets to do this. You can now lay out our arguments in full and get them disseminated without having to be at the mercy of some Forum Page editor acting as a goalkeeper, and possibly editing down your arguments to fit the space constraints. This, in my mind, is quite possibly something the MSM in its modern form is at an inherent disadvantage when compared to the blogosphere. It’s not just about getting the word out, but about the permutations that the internet—specifically the hyperlink--make possible as a platform for the real give-and-take of debate, of disputing with, refuting, qualifying or agreeing with each other’s arguments. [addendum: I've expanded on this point in a new post.]

Now these are areas in which blogs are in some sense superior partly because of what the underlying technology makes possible, but also partly because they are not really the core strengths of what mainstream media is about today. (Incidentally, there was a time when the newspapers scene--say, in the US--were more like the modern blogosphere: when there was a whole horde of small circulation papers that are fairly open about being from specific points of view.) In the meantime, MSM and blogosphere are complementary rather than true rivals, except in specific areas--points (2) and (3) above--that never really constituted the core business of the modern MSM to begin with. [Afterthought: the below collection of links is a nice little exemplification of what I mean by point (3)!]

The debate in the Blogosphere: Wannabe Lawyer has a detailed critique of the SIRC piece.| A real life journalism student Pea--also blogger--responds to Wannabe Lawyer while Singapore Ink joins the debate. | Another one by 4 Leaf Clover. | Shaun of Alpha: A Beginning "quibbles" with while the Vociferous Kitten speaks out in support of Pea. | And in case anyone is wondering how is it that I have time to blog when my first child--my cute little Baby Penny--is just one week old, let me point out certain inherent advantages of breastfeeding for blogging fathers... | (May 17 2155 -0400) Elia Diodati weighs in on the issue and adds another acronym to the mix--PRM: "peer-reviewed media", of which the Wikipedia is a prime example (cf. also my previous post on this matter). | Almost missed this one by Ivan. | (May 18 0810 -0400) Trompe L'oeil muses about hyperlinks | (May 20 1525 -0400) Adinahaes joins in with a thoughtful and detailed post, trying to be fair and give the devil its due (his words).

update: Indirect evidence for point (3) above.

The bulk of the action is in the comments section of Wannabe Lawyer's and the original SIRC post that started it all.

Related recent posts:
Talking down about journalistic standards
Reading the ST (May 15)
Mainstream media, blogs and other matters

NYT going for paid subscription

Just saw this:

The New York Times announced today that it would offer a new subscription-based service on its Web site, charging users an annual fee to read its Op-Ed and news columnists, as the newspaper seeks ways to capitalize on the site's popularity. Most of the material on the Web site, NYTimes.com, will remain free to users, The Times said, but columnists from The Times and The International Herald Tribune will be available only to users who sign up for TimesSelect, which will cost $49.95 annually. The service will also include access to The Times's online archives, as well as other features.

There's more on Arstechnica.

RSN USVs

Found the following on the latest CyberPioneer: unmanned surface vessels (USVs) of the Republic of Singapore Navy (RSN). The Protector has already seen service in the Persian Gulf, while the Spartan is due to arrive in local waters early next year. [All pictures from the CyberPioneer site]

Protector




9m-long Rigid Hulled Inflatable Boat (RHIB), remotely controlled by operator on mother ship and powered by a diesel engine. More information available here.


Spartan




7m-long Rigid Hulled Inflatable Boat (RHIB), developed with the RSN's active involvement in collaboration with the US Naval Undersea Warfare Centre, the French Navy and other agencies in the Spartan Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration (ACTD) programme. Come with various plug-and-play mission modules, remotely controlled by an operator on mother ship, capable of autonomous operations, and powered by diesel engine. More information available here.

update: (May 17 1900 -0400) More information here. | MINDEF Factsheet

New blogs; new Look

Two new blogs to watch:

Commentary Singapore, by Wang Zhen (not his real name): "Deciphering the mysteries of the little red dot"

e pur si muove, by Elia Diodati: Roma locuta est, causa finita est. Utinam aliquando finiatur error. Absitne?

And yes, I've revamped the look of the title banner somewhat (the wonders of Adobe Photoshop). As one reader astutely emailed: new family member, new blog look, new blogging phase in local blogosphere...Amen.

PS: Inquiries should be directed to the bloggers themselves (email available on the respective blogs).

Talking down about journalistic standards

Associate Professor Ang Peng Hwa, Dean, School of Communication and Information, Nanyang Technological University, and Director, Singapore Internet Research Centre makes a special post on The Internet in Asia, published by the Singapore Internet Research Centre at Nanyang Technological University. He points out something that bloggers--and everyone else in fact--should always keep in mind, especially when talking about the powerful: "the law of defamation is technical and not intuitive. That is, it is not always obvious what is defamatory". Given this state of affairs, it is this "understandable" that "inexperienced bloggers" might get into trouble at times--"but it all depends on the person who has been defamed whether to tolerate the slip-up" (emphasis mine). Absolutely!

The final paragraph, however, is less agreeable:

The final quirk in this is that the bloggers are really not journalists. And so while it is a laudable fight, surely Reporters Without Borders (Reporters Sans Frontières) cannot defend those who do not measure up to the standards of professional journalism. To defend these bloggers as if they had the same standards as a professional journalist is an insult to the industry from which the organization draws its membership.

Well, let's be clear here. The issue is not whether RSF should step forward to protect mere bloggers (I'm not particularly interested in that), but whether bloggers "measure up to the standards of professional journalism." Now, obviously, not all bloggers even intend to do anything like citizen-journalism; but some do. And of those that do, it would be a mistake to believe that they are somehow less capable or do not have good standards. In a comment left on the blog, Han (a.k.a. Wannabe Lawyer) points out two facts that I've also mentioned on this blog before. Briefly: mainstream media journalists are often the ones who fail to live up to their own standards; there are many citizen journalists out there who are much more knowledgeable and well-informed than the so-called professionals in the area that they choose to blog.

But there is a further point as well. It's not that bloggers are somehow necessarily smarter than professional journalists. And while some bloggers are real experts in their fields, the strength of the blogosphere is not just in that fact alone. Rather, when aggregated--and the internet makes that aggregation (and rapid refutation of error) possible--the collective wiki-wisdom will easily expose any bull---- that the mainstream media might be able to come up with.

I've added a comment to the post at SIRC.

Addendum: (May 16 1200 -0400) It really is a very bad time of the day for the MSM to talk down to bloggers about journalistic standards. The background:

Newsweek magazine has apologized for errors in a story alleging that interrogators at the U.S. detention center in Guantanamo Bay desecrated the Koran, saying it would re-examine the accusations, which sparked outrage and deadly protests in Afghanistan.

Fifteen people died and scores were injured in violence between protesters and security forces, prompting U.S. promises to investigate the allegations.

(From the WaPo) More available on Instapundit.

Look, the point is not that the MSM is evil or inherently bad and bloggers inherently smarter or good. Both are equally capable of errors and worse. It's just that--thanks to the internet--it's now much easiler for the bull---- of both journalist and bloggers to be exposed publicly for what it is. The catch is this: while blogger are quite comfortable with this state of affairs, some professional journalists are still holding on to their priestly robes of journalistic authority and wishing that we are back in the days when what they say or write will be taken on trust just because of the sheer standing of their position. Whether we like it or not, those days are over.

And lest anyone gets the wrong impression, I have nothing against the MSM, nor do I believe that the blogosphere can replace it--I would only rather that it actually does live up to its own standards.

Update: (May 17 1130 -0400) New post on this here, also where all the relevant blogosphere reactions links have been shifted.

Update: (May 17 1310 -0400) Looks like the incident I cited in the Addendum is a lot more murky than I originally thought (as I said in the comments). Shaun of Alpha has more thoughts. Not that it changes my overall point...

Reading the ST (May 15)

Let's see now, what interesting ST(I) articles are there today that might edutain me. First, a couple about the the Shanmugam Murugesu case, specifically the "publicity stunt" that his lawyer pulled. I'm sure others will have more intelligent things to say about that than I. Moving on. Woah...a trinity of articles about Philip Yeo and A*Star--that's one week behind TNP. Still, better late than never. But if you are going to talk about "blogging responsibly" (below), perhaps the ST could set some much needed example by not quoting its sources wrong?

Which brings us to...the whole gaggle about blogs and the internet. There's one under the "Click" section about the Singapore version of Craig's List ("Craig's World" by Wong Sher Maine). Nice. After using the list both in the San Francisco Bay Area and in Toronto, I would love to see it grow in Singapore. Another one in "Click" about a blog: "Crap & Such: For your infrequent dose of bull" by JL LT (jllt.blogspot.com), here introduced as "the new Xiaxue", to be more precise, "the less vulgar version of Xiaxue - the Singaporean blogger who won the Best Asian Weblog last year." Heh. Well, better this in the national press than, say, more CZ.

Ahh, two articles about "blogging responsibly". Very necessary, you know, after all the toss up over some chemical test-tude thingy it's time bloggers learn that they are not beyond the law, that they must blog responsibility, et cetera. The short one is actually from a blogger, one Ephraim Loy ("Bloggers must act responsibly" under "Talk"), who has this to say:

While blogging encourages one to speak up - which is a good thing and what the Government advocates - there has to be a limit. Bloggers should be educated on ethical blogging methods to prevent them from inadvertently breaching the laws. Perhaps the authorities can address this issue, to prevent other such cases? It's time Singaporeans took a responsible approach to blogging.

I am speaking fellow blogger to fellow blogger here: why are we looking to (of all things) the government to solve our every problem? Two, lest anyone think that all this talk about "blogging responsibly" is new, let me point you to something posted by Ivan two weeks ago.

The other article is longer and by an actual ST person: "Blog no evil--Libel laws and angry readers make bloggers regret their online rants", by Ng Mei Yan, under "Gen Y" (is this the article advertised in yesterday's paper? Should be, as no others seem to match the description; unless there are things I am not getting via STI.)

So what does it say? Blogs are not genuinely private because "everyone can see it", which also means that "the law of defamation still applies". Even if the stuff is password protected, once it leaks out, you might still be liable. The internet is international: if what you write can be read in country X, then you can be sued in country X--even if you are posting in country Y. "Fair comment"--i.e., when "the facts that support the comment are true and that it was made without malice" are kosher. And--this is the best one--"a person does not have to be of a minimum age to be charged", and so on. And the law is not the only thing that the blogger has to be concerned about--there are the other netizens as well. All very informative--if you are encountering the blogosphere for the first time, that is.

And then there are the mandatory quotes from the big two: "veteran blogger Lee Kin Mun" (a.k.a. Mr. Brown), who offers sound advice: "I think the most important guideline is if you are prepared to put a strong statement out there, be prepared to receive a strong statement back and be prepared to defend it when people criticise, or be able to take the criticism with a thick skin." Now if only some parties will actually criticise, instead of, say, threaten to bring suit. I am speaking hypothetically, of course.

And Wendy Cheng (a.k.a. Xiaxue), whose dictum is requoted:

I know the people whom I criticise are not going to come after me and sue me. I don't write about companies and they are the ones that will sue.

And then it hit me: the mainstream media misquotes/misrepresents bloggers--Mr. Brown, Mr. Miyagi, Singapore Ink (above)--and the likelihood is that it won't be sued. It would seem that the mainstream media--consciously or otherwise--applies the Xiaxue doctrine...

addendum: (May 16 1110 -0400) JeffYen explores the insights of the the Xiaxue Doctrine and compares it to the Powell Doctrine.

EDIT: (The rest transferred to a new post)

Mainstream media, blogs and other matters

Three ST articles today caught my eye. First, "THINKING ALOUD--More finesse in handling blogging a better option?" by Chua Mui Hoong. The writer argues that even though A*Star acted well within it's (legal) rights in threatening to sue AcidFlask, and even though "firm action" must be taken against "libellous remarks" at the risk of one's reputation can be chipped away, "I would argue that more sophisticated, finessed methods to handle Singapore's reputation are in order" in light of the nature of the internet.

Now I am not sanguine with the point about AcidFlask's "attacks" being "unfair" (not that I think that the converse is true--I just don't have the legal training or information to judge). But the notion that "Organisations or individuals which want to protect their reputation online need a new paradigm" strikes a real chord. The fact is, the method of a lawsuit results in a PR nightmare:

Consider the A*Star case. The agency and staff may have protected their reputation from unfair attacks. In the meantime, Singapore has received worldwide attention for this action. Articles appeared in the Associated Press and other news wires which were then picked up across the world. Reports also appeared in the London Financial Times and Asian Wall Street Journal, among others. A Google search of keywords A*Star, Singapore, blog and sue yesterday afternoon yielded 25,800 results.

In faraway Warwick University in England, one blogger had posted the FT article. Another reader penned the comment underneath it: 'Definitely something to bear in mind considering that the university wants to open a campus in Singapore.'

Of course I'm not suggesting that public agencies let others impugn them at will in order to prevent negative publicity about Singapore. I'm just pointing out that traditional methods to regulate online content may not be the most effective and may even prove counter-productive.

I hope the PR and legal departments at A*Star would pay attention to things like this. The reputation of our country is on the line, you know. (I know this will probably not be my last entry on the AcidFlask affair, but until then...)

In the second article, "Is news dying with the aged?", Janadas Devan talks about the shrinking readership of many veteran newspapers in the US. The most worrying signs concerns the youth: according to some research, "the young are simply not interested in the news. They are otherwise engaged. They have switched off." Actually, the truth may be that they are getting their news from other sources than newsprint.

In fact, that is part of the point argued by Richard Tomkins in his "News: the new-era amateur sport--News no longer gospel but a stream of trivial chatter delivered by amateurs" (originally from the Financial Times). His diagnosis, however, is just so way wrong. He thinks that old style "news" is falling out of favor among the young because they have become skeptical of objective truth, and consequently, people don't want to hear objective news anymore, and instead, what to create their own subjective news.

Like most journalists, I have always had a somewhat romantic notion of the role of the press and its mission to reveal vital, or at least engaging, truths about what is happening in the world. I admit right away this mission is often unsuccessfully accomplished. But at least it acknowledges the possibility that such a thing as objective truth exists and that professional journalists with sufficient skills are capable of conveying an accurate and fair account of it to the newspaper-reading public. This idea, however, is so last century. (emphasis mine)

Then, citing Harry Frankfurt's book, he goes on to connect the increasing trend of "grassroots journalism" to the prevalence of...say, humbug:

Why is there so much bullshit? Well, it tends to occur whenever a person's opportunities to speak out about some topic exceed his knowledge of the relevant facts. As communications of all kinds proliferate, those opportunities arise more often. And these days, anyone who wants to be thought of as intelligent is expected to have an opinion about everything.

A deeper-seated reason is that, according to the postmodern doctrines of our times, there is no such thing as objective reality. Truth is in the eye of the beholder - shifting, relative and indeterminate. So, having retreated from the notion that it is possible to tell the truth about the world, we have turned inwards and pursued the alternative ideal of telling the truth about ourselves. Sincerity is the new honesty. What matters now is no longer what is true but how I feel.

Has Tomkins perhaps consider the possibility that people who are no longer interested in old style journalism become so not because they lost faith in objective truth, but because--gasp--because they thought the old style journalists were precisely not being objective enough, that they are the ones who have lost touch with objective truth? That the ones who are being increasing derided as the bull----ers are precisely the old style journalist? Think: "Spin alley", think "Rathergate", or more locally, think "TODAY misquotes both Brown and Miyagi AND gets the blogosphere wrong."

Actually, there are also other mundane possibilities--perhaps people are also interested in other things that they are passionate about but also things that are not usually considered "newsworthy"? I'm just pursuing the more interesting possibility here (without denying the more mundane one).

Tomkins ends with the cheapshot--a cheapshot because it presupposes his thesis that grassroots journalists (think "bloggers") are relativists about truth:

Yes, let's all be journalists! And while we are at it, let us all be pole-lathe turners, investment bankers and dentists. Now new technology has made flying so easy, I am seriously considering becoming a jumbo jet pilot. After all, I believe I can fly and, as an objective reality, there is no such thing as an air crash. Unless, of course, I am bullshitting you.

Sure you are; nice of you to point that out.

Before I respond further, let me mention something from the movie Legally Blonde. If you recall that final courtroom scene in which our blonde heroine Elle Woods exposed the lies of the witness because even though she may not be a super-duper-legal-eagle, she knows a thing or two about...perming; and it just so happens that the thing she happens to know so well turned out to be so totally crucial.

Ok, back to Tomkins: the grassroots journalists, people who blog, say, are usually real people with real jobs. There are law professors, philosophy professors, economists, a political science grad student who knows more statistics than the entire CBS crew, bona fide ex-USMC and JAG, and so on. And there are local examples too. Put it this way: there are real pole-lathe turners, investment bankers, dentists, and jumbo jet pilots--lawyers, naturalists--out there who can finally now expose the bull---- of merejournalists pretending to talk about pole-lathe turning, investment banking, dentistry and flying jumbo jets, and that's precisely the beauty of grassroots journalism. Ordinary citizens such as myself no longer have to take the assumed authority of the news media on trust; thanks to the new technology, the real experts, people who might know only one or two things but those things very well are now online.

But I want to come back to the second article I mentioned (the one by Janadas Devan). This other bit near the end is important:

This is a long-term problem [the youth loosing interest in news] that can be met only with a long-term effort to engage the young. What is at stake? Well, a great deal, actually. It is not possible to have a vibrant society with a disengaged people. It is not possible to have a civic society with an uninformed public. It may not be even possible to have much of a society of any kind without the common space the mass media provides. People can't have a conversation with each other, let alone argue, unless they meet on the same page.

This is a gem of a passage because it, I believe, speaks the plain truth. A vibrant civic society is only possible if the public is informed, and only if there is a common space of discourse. And this common space of discourse can be--could have been--provided by the traditional mass media. Now: someone run by me again the reasons for ST charging online access, AND keeping archives for only 7 days even for subscribers, AND its draconian terms and conditions...and how exactly do these reasons square with this intended function of the mass media again?

A quick one

ST, May 13: "NEW FIGHTER PLANES FOR SINGAPORE--Why the Eurofighter lost the race", by Alvin Chew

WHILE the Eurofighter has sophisticated features, such as its supercruise capabilities to enhance its stealth technology, it is not equipped with an Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA).

Surely ST can publish military related stories that at least do not make elementary mistakes that even non-professionals like me can spot? "Supercruise" refers to an aircraft's ability to fly at supersonic speeds without the use of afterburners, nothing to do with it's stealth capabilities.

AFTERTHOUGHT: While I've never heard of supercruise enhancing an aircraft's stealth capabilities, perhaps the author meant that the Eurofighter's being able to supercruise on top of its (putative) stealth technology enhances its overall capabilities.

ADDENDUM: I might be wrong after all--Jeff Yen left a comment. Learning somethin' new every day, as they say.

Cry baby

The past few days had been rough, though things are getting progressively better. The baby is feeding, and now, sleeping fine. Suddenly, three hours of quiet is a precious thing. And all in all, I have to say that baby Penny is a rather well behaved baby (thank God for that!). She likes sleeping in my arms too (broad grin).



Like all babys do, Penny communicates mostly by crying. I remember the instructor--Mary Vargas, an extremely experienced Peruvian mid-wife--asking the prospective parents to think of reasons why babys cry (in the first session of our pre-natal class). "Because the baby is hungry, wants to sleep, etc., etc." My wife volunteered: "Because the baby is bored?" While I said, "Because the baby wants attention?" And the instructor said: "Yes...those are reasons too." So I guess what we said is coming back to bite us now.

Anyway, I am hoping to come back to blogging from a Singapore angle soon enough. Definitely not at the same rate as I somehow managed this past month; but if all goes well, regularly.

Thank you everyone who left a congratulatory comment or sent an email. Your gestures are greatly appreciated!

The AcidFlask Affair: World Reactions

For obvious reasons, I'm still not fully back yet. (Thank you everyone for leaving the congratulatory comments! We are only just back from the hospital. Things are well with mother, child and one tired dad.) update: I've hyperlinked the world and MSM reactions; will come back to the Singapore side later...

But here's a list of the most recent mentions on the internet:

World
cyber.law.harvard.edu/globalvoices (Massachusetts, US)
www.captainsquartersblog.com (US)
theanchoressonline.com (New York, US)
www.shortfamilyonline.com(Florida, US)
www.cyberconservative.com (US)
www.intheagora.com (US)
homepage.mac.com/rpar01/iblog (US)
blogs.guardian.co.uk (UK)
ussneverdock.blogspot.com (US)
uspolitics.about.com (US)
blog.matsbergman.com (Malmö, Sweden)
mymarkup.net/blog/ (Sweden)
miss-information.net/blog (Québec, Canada)
dinayang3rdworld.blogspot.com/ (Philipines)

Mr Brown has more

Mainstream Media
www.ecr.co.za
www.msnbc.msn.com
www.reuters.com
www.channelnewsasia.com
www.channelnewsasia.com
www.todayonline.com
www.thestandard.com.hk
www.bernama.com.my

Singapore (forthcoming: in the meantime, please check all the usual suspects (blogrolled right under "Singaporean Blogs")

The gift of a new life

Penelope Loy Hsin Ying entered the world at 0028 hrs May 9 (EDT -0400) 2005, unpersuaded by the wishes of various concerned parties that she arrive on Mother's Day, deciding instead to stick precisely to the predicted due date. Mother and child are both well and resting even as I conclude this brief note.

O Lord, our God, our homes are Thine forever!
We trust to Thee their problems, toil, and care;
Their bonds of love no enemy can sever
If Thou art always Lord and Master there:
Be Thou the center of our least endeavor
Be Thou our Guest, our hearts and homes to share.

- Barbara B. Hart,

(Also posted on Ripostes)

I'm out of action for the moment...

...not because of any "chilling effect" or anything like that; but for happier reasons.

update: here

It's official: SLMJD is no more

Yes, I like to live a little dangerously at times. But I know my limits. And so this is the end of SLMJD. - Gilbert Koh

You will be sorely missed.

Interesting new blogs...

...of the non-infant* variety:

The Pen Is Mightier (by WhiteOut): "When things go out of hand, words are all I have" (started: Apr 27)

Singapore Contrarian: "Because one contrarian is worth ten sycophants, and more than a mob of voices" (started May 7)

Straits Times steps into the breech / TODAY tries again

The AcidFlask Affair on From a Singapore Angle:
(Apr 25+) A Sad Day for the Singapore Blogosphere
(Apr 29+) The AcidFlask Affair in ether and beyond
(May 4+) CNA picks up the AcidFlask Affair (incl. 1st TODAY articles)
(May 6+) AcidFlask's Press Statement Published (incl. 2nd CNA article)
(May 6+) Plea addressed to my fellow bloggers

Scroll down for latest updates

The AcidFlask Affair--and its precursor: the Convex Set Incident--finally broke into the pages of our national press. Both can be found under the "Singapore" section of the "Print Edition" available on STI. The two reports are:

"Jeremy Chen: Sorry" (May 7)

"Blogger faces threat of law suit--A*Star demands apology from ex-scholar for alleged defamatory remarks", by Chang Ai-Lien and Melissa Lwee (May 7)

First, a non-issue: "Web log" is as acceptable as "weblog", according to the Wiki, even though the former also refers to "a list that is kept by your Web server which details all the files it was requested to send and whether it was able to send them successfully" (see this).

(2025 hrs May 6 -0400) Just read two more references (hat tip: Singapore Ink):

TODAYonline (May 7), "Simple apology not enough, says A*Star--It wants 'unreserved apology' from PhD student by Sunday", by Ansley Ng

TODAYonline (May 7), "To speak up or not to speak up?" by Lim Boon Hee

(2030 hrs May 6 -0400) Another international organisation--the Committee to Protect Journalists--picks up the item:

CPJ News Alert 2005 (May 5), "SINGAPORE: Web log shuts down after government threat of legal action"

There is one percivable inaccuracy: AcidFlask is referred to as "formerly a scholarship student through the agency [=A*Star]", which is factually wrong. AcidFlask is a former scholar with PSC. Gilbert Koh's closing of SLMJD also made mention.

Anyway, Singapore Ink has the extended lowdown on the ST and TODAY articles.

(0950 hrs May 7 -0400) Ok, a few quick thoughts on the two ST articles. Recall the little "textual issue" with one of the recent CNA reports (scroll down); the ST report actually contains both elements:

A*Star said yesterday that 23-year-old Chen Jiahao's web log (blog) comments struck at the core of the agency's integrity and he could face legal action if he fails to act. A*Star has the responsibility to protect its reputation and also that of Singapore,' said an agency spokesman. A*Star declined to reveal the exact nature of the statement on its lawyers' advice, as this would amount to repeating the libel. Such remarks could include direct accusations of bribery and misuse of public money, for example. (ST: "Blogger faces threat of law suit")

Note that the last bit is suitably qualified ("could include") and nicely ambiguous--does it come from the A*Star statement, or is it the reporter's attempt at explanation? My gut tells me that it's the former, especially given the earlier CNA report. A transcript of the press conference on A*Star's own website would be nice. Except for this bit, I think we are still pretty much blank as far as the precise source of A*Star's unhappiness is concerned. Unfortunately, though I was a fan of AcidFlask at Caustic.Soda, I only gave cursory glances to the scholarship/A*Star entries (not my sort of thing) and thus cannot even say things like "I recall seeing... don't recall seeing... anything about bribery... etc). But they did say this much:

While A*Star clarified yesterday that it did not agree with his opinions, it 'recognises and welcomes the value of a diversity of views' [context: the GPA thingy]. What it took issue with, it said, were other 'untrue and serious accusations against A*Star, its officers and other parties, which went way beyond fair comment'. 'We are puzzled as to why someone who had no relationship with A*Star has attacked us.' (ST: "Blogger faces threat of law suit")

So much for the continued murkiness concerning the exact contents of the alleged libel. (Ink has a nice bit about whether or not repeating a libel against oneself is an unwise thing to do.) What A*Star wants now, is "an unreserved and sincere apology":

They felt, for example, that the last line of his apology left an avenue open for him to make remarks about A*Star or Mr Yeo on other websites or media. What A*Star wants now, it said, is an unreserved apology, a retraction and a promise not to do it again. 'We're not itching to sue him. The ball is in his court now,' said the spokesman.

That's apparently the latest development. Grapevine is that the new demand was sent fairly recently--like 2 or 3 days before AcidFlask's exams (May 6) recent. Known timeline: AcidFlask was informed via email on Apr 22 that he can expect legal action over some of his entries on his blog unless he does something about it. He took down the site and put up the perceived-to-be-insincere apology Apr 25. So there is apparently a gap of more than one and a half weeks between the first apology and the recent demand (EDIT: that's as far as I know from publically available sources). Furthermore, according to the Today article, he has until Sunday May 8 to do so. Whatever the reasons for the delayed action, if there is one, I hope A*Star will be willing to at least grant AcidFlask a few more days--let him finish his exams first (May 14).

Interestingly, the TODAY article ends with this line:

As of press time, Mr Chen had not replied to Today's email queries.

That's referring to, among other things, the question of the Wendell Phillips quote prefixed to the "insincere" apology and whether he intends to apologise in a manner as demanded by A*Star. It seems that ST managed to get AcidFlask's answers before press time:

He explained that the [Wendell Phillips] quote merely reflected that this incident has reinforced his belief that he has to be responsible for what he says. As to whether he will apologise unreservedly, he replied: 'I do not know how to act until I am told exactly what I said was defamatory. 'I have told them I am having my exams now and it is important that I get to concentrate on my academic work so I hope they can give me an extension on the deadline.' (ST: "Blogger faces threat of law suit")

So obviously AcidFlask did managed to respond to someone about at least some of these questions. The only thing is: is there more to his response? And if so, is ST/TODAY/CNA willing to publish it, or will it be the blogosphere once again that has to fill that gap?

(1220 hrs May 7 -0400) Jeremy at Convex Set has a few words about the ST article about him...well, it amuses him greatly

(1620 hrs May 7 -0400) Heard on the grapevine about these two and a friend kindly emailed the URLs to me. They are both about Philip Yeo the person. Make for an...interesting read:

Electric TNP (May 8), "Meet a larger-than-life public service boss: White knight, Black knight--A*Star chairman Philip Yeo creates & sustains Singapore's only PhD scholarships, A tought-talking maverick, he also names and shames scholars who break bonds", by Tan Ooi Boon

Electric TNP (May 8), "Philip Yeo on A*Star scholars: Forget wimps, I prefer women", by Tan Ooi Boon

A quotable from the first article:

His sharp intellect brooks no nonsense. But he appreciates honesty. Tell him that he is unreasonable or harsh and, instead of being angry, he may surprise you by declaring that he doesn't care two hoots what you think of him.

But make no mistake, he takes umbrage if someone tries to attack what he labours hard over. Then the man with a genial twinkle in his eye will turn fiery.

'You can call me names,' he said. 'I don't care. Just don't criticise my work... I will bomb you flat. (emphasis in the original)

Illuminating it is, that last bit. Anyway, you can read them for yourselves.

(2035 hrs May 7 -0400) An anonymous reader kindly left a comment with a link to the ongoing discussion on Sammyboy.com's, where the discussion of the TNP articles is...colorful, as befitting Sammyboy.com.

(0705 hrs May 8 -0400) Wandie does some basic math. | The serialdeviant expresses some opinions (warning: language) | (0800 hrs May 8 -0400) And over at the Grilled Geckos, someone is talking about a "band of bloggers" | (0810 hrs May 8 -0400) Votre Coeur succumbs to gatemania | (1005 hrs May 8 -0400) Angeline: "This blog is political, because it is personal". | Oikono has a few words, and points to something of possible interest happening down under.

update: (1540 hrs May 8 -0400) The story has made the pages of the Financial Times (May 8), "Singapore threatens to sue internet dissenter", by John Burton in Singapore (hat tip Wows by email). As far as I can tell, however, it does not contain anything that readers of this blog would not have already seen in one form or other before. For the most part a combination of the RSF and CPJ articles, which also explains the specific spin of the :

A threatened libel suit against a blogger by a Singapore government agency has raised concerns among international press freedom groups that the city-state might be cracking down against dissent on the internet...

Developing...

update: (1645 hrs May 8 -0400) More blogosphere reactions: SarongPartyFrens thinks that it is self-explanatory and hopes someone will take some positive action. | Randy says "I told you so" (not his exact words) and links to an 2004 entry in Myrick. | The VR-Zone Hardware Forum wants a piece of the action.

update: (1820 hrs May 8 -0400) Singapore Ink has put up some comments on the TNP articles, and much more on the general issues, and with that, I'm will be out of action for a while (see newest post on this blog)

[Technorati: singapore, blogosphere]

Plea addressed to my fellow bloggers

This is addressed to my fellow bloggers:

I speak not as a spokesperson for you, nor do I pretend to be one. The below are merely my own thoughts--a plea, if you will--in the hope that you will find them reasonable and acceptable. With the publication of AcidFlask's statement, I believe that it is now all the more important to keep in mind certain things:

(1) Ultimately, the issue between AcidFlask and Mr. Yeo/A*Star is exactly that--between the two named parties. In a very important sense, we are bystanders; and bystanders that are not in a favored position to pass judgments on the true merits of the case between them. Nor do we need to. What I (and I suspect most bloggers) have found deeply problematic is the fact that legal action should be threatened so quickly against a blogger when much less precipitous actions would seem more reasonable (and probably more effective as well). This is not a "us vs. them" thing, nor need it be a "zero-sum game". I for one still hope that matters will be resolved in an amicable spirit between the parties.

(2) We must remain vigilant and not allow non-blogosphere partisans to highjack what's happening for their own opportunistic purposes. We protest not because we are partisanly critical or out to undermine the established order. We are not here to win votes, merely to provide feedback. Our interest in this is predominantly an interest in the freedom to express and exchange ideas and information in a civil and lawful manner, and to do so in the spirit invited by PM Lee.

(3) As befitting non-partisans to the specific issue between Mr. Yeo/A*Star and AcidFlask, let us strive to keep our comments and reporting--even if they are critical--civil, rational and reasonable. We should carefully separate fact from opinion, and our readers should be made amply aware of that important distinction in our blogging. Freedom and responsibility are two sides of the same coin.

All indications are that the recent events will be a true watershed. Whether we like it or not, the eyes of the nation and the world at large will be upon us. We must all the more conduct ourselves according to the highest standards.

For your consideration
Huichieh Loy, Blogger

* * * * *

update: My plea has also been posted at Tomorrow and Ivan's Chimera: thank you! (2136 hrs May 6 -0400)

The AcidFlask Affair covered on From a Singapore Angle: Part 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

AcidFlask's Press Statement Published

Last updated 1410 hrs May 6 -0400 unless otherwise noted (because of this)

The AcidFlask Affair covered on From a Singapore Angle: Part 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

notes:

Plea addressed to my fellow bloggers

CNA has a new story out, following a press conference given by A*Star (jump to it)

Tomorrow.sg has also published the same, there acknowledged to be "an email from AcidFlask" himself. As far as I can tell, it is identical to the one put out by Steve Mc Dermott except for the addition of this last bit (in Tomorrow):

This message has been bcc:ed to forty concerned friends and fellow Singaporean bloggers. Since I apparently cannot trust your organization to make a neutral and factually accurate statement, perhaps I can rely on them to do a better job.

Discussions are apace in the comments section of the Tomorrow feature. addendum: (0730 hrs May 8 -0400): A reader was puzzled, "Which came first, the one by Steve or the one by Tomorrow?" As far as I know, Tomorrow first published it (timestamped Thur May 5). In fact, I caught the RSS on my bloglines late Thursday night (-0400), but also noticed that it was very soon taken down. Very early the next morning, I noticed that Steve Mc Dermott published what looked to be identical material. In the meantime, I emailed one of the Tomorrow editors, asking him what happened. He said the editors were seeking Acid's permission. By early afternoon here, Tomorrow re-published the thing.

* * * * *

With the publication of AcidFlask's own side of the story by Steve Mc Dermott, the stage is set for a new wave of blogospheric discussion. The "press statement" consist (verbatim) of what looks like an email that Steve said he received from AcidFlask, which is also an email directed to a journalist at CNA, taking the news agency to task for the inaccuracies in its earlier reports. [EDIT: my apologies for the error--that's what you get for blogging at 5am in the morning; Steve Mc Dermott did not say anything about how he got his hands on the email] It contains a version of the full story as told by AcidFlask himself.

One thing that stands out is that, on this account, even the TODAYonline report (May 6)--the most accurate one by any news agency to date--contains a potential factual inaccuracy. The TODAYonline report says: "Mr Chen...had written in his blog about A*Star's new policy that required scholars to maintain a 3.8 grade point average...he commented that this was unnecessary, as students may end up picking easy classes over more challenging ones." This gives the impression that the exact cause of the threatened suit is know. On AcidFlask's own telling in the press statement email, this would have been pure speculation unless TODAY has access to infomation from A*Star indicating otherwise:

On April 22 (Friday), I received the first email from Mr. Philip Yeo, chairman of A*STAR, dated 5:44 am GMT-5 which notified me that he had earmarked a post on my blog (#442) for legal action. Over the next three days he sent me a total of eleven emails which were of a threatening and insulting nature, demanding that I remove "all" the posts on my blog or face legal action for defaming A*STAR and himself.

Despite writing to him three times seeking clarification by email, he had refused to elaborate on which specific remarks he had found offensive and reiterated his demand to remove "everything" on my blog. Since my end of semester examinations begin this Friday (May 6), I am sure you can appreciate how I was certainly not in the mood to sift through the 400-odd posts that I had written on my blog and edit or remove anything that was potentially defamatory. Therefore the only choice I had to stem the barrage of emails was to take the whole thing off-line. It was only when I wrote to him, informing him of my taking the blog down that he sent me a final (and twelfth) email last Tuesday, saying that his lawyer would follow up with amendments to my apology posted online.

...

I would like to emphasize that I still do not know exactly what I had written that he had found offensive, and that Mr. Yeo had demanded that I remove all posts which mentioned either him or A*STAR, whether directly or indirectly, and cease "running [him] down" on my blog. It was impossible to satisfy such vague demands except by taking the entire blog down altogether.

(The AcidFlask press statement published by Steve Mc Dermott; my emphasis)

Singapore Ink has much more and should be read in full. NOTE: Links to further blogosphere discussions will go in this space below as they come in.

update: an angry sounding WhiteOut goes "Cluck Cluck Cluck" | Redrown awaits a statement from the other party

update: Looks like A*Star just gave a press conference (on Friday). CNA has some details in its latest, "A*Star seeks unreserved apology from blogger", by Valerie Tan (May 6). Main points:

- A*Star claims that AcidFlask [now characterised as a "post-graduate student"; nice, a correction without a correction] had made "direct accusations [on his blog] against the agency which were defamatory" in that they "hit at the core of the organisation's integrity".

- It wants AcidFlask "to retract" those accusations "and promise not to do it again". Understandably, A*Star could not comment on the exact nature of those accusations "due to legal constraints".

The last bit is interesting and should be quoted in full:

It said it had given Chen till May 8 [Ed: Two days into AcidFlask's exams] to respond and that it had no desire to go to the courts over the issue. A*Star's Chairman Philip Yeo had also invited Chen for tea to clear the air, and it said the student had responded that he would, when time permits.

I've also heard on the grapevine that some bloggers have also been contacted for interview, so that's something to look out for.

update: Guess what, I must have seen a different version of the latest CNA report. Apparently, there are some words from it missing but quoted at Singapore Ink. Wannabe Lawyer picked up the scent as well and alerted me by email. In a nutshell, the version I read has this line (which I did not bother to quote above):

A*Star said the post-graduate student made serious accusations that hit at the core of the organisation’s integrity. But it could not comment on what exactly was defamatory due to legal constraints.

The version on Ink has this instead:

A*Star said the post-graduate student made serious accusations that hit at the core of the organisation’s integrity, such as bribery, misuse of money and misbehaviour.

Ok, not having seen the putative earlier version, I will not be able to vouch for the genuineness of the quote from Ink... but personally, I regret to say that I'm inclined to trust Ink, and I'm sure my readers will understand why.

update: cH has a long and closely reasoned post on libel laws in Singapore and issues with CNA's reporting (1645 May 6 -0400) | Merv discusses the comparative treatments dealt out to CZ and AcidFlask (2028 May 6 -0400) | Otterman rounds up with a "good grief" but gives credit where it is due (2240 hrs May 6 -0400) | Merv considers "some signs that you're in trouble because of your blog" (2210 hrs May 6 -0400)

[Technorati: singapore, blogosphere]

Aceh Update (May 5)

From The Age (May 5), "Indon spy chief lashes Aceh aid groups":

The head of Indonesia's intelligence agency says some foreign aid groups in tsunami-hit Aceh province are "harming the security situation" with their activities.

Intelligence agency chief Syamsir Siregar told The Jakarta Post that the agency was monitoring a number of foreign non-governmental organisations because of their "irregular" activities in Aceh.

From Christianity Today (May 5), "Tsunami Aid Groups Told: If You Want To Stay - Do Not Interfere":

Foreign relief groups that wish to continue their post-tsunami work in Aceh, Indonesia, must not "interfere in the internal affairs of the country," a government official has warned.

The military, which has an active presence in the area, fears that international involvement would increase sympathy for guerillas of the Free Aceh Movement, says the Associated Press.

The government is currently writing a "memorandum of understanding" that aid groups will have to sign in order to stay in the country, said Komet Mangiri, an adviser to Alwi shihab, whom is in charge of the aid effort.

My linking policy

In view of certain comments raised by two different "passerby's", I thought it appropriate to be explicit about my linking policy (for linking to other blogs, in particular, in the Singapore Blogosphere).

I will not be explicitly seeking your permission before I link if:

1. You are a big time blogger with a popular public blog that everyone links to; or
2. You are one of those bloggers with whom I have a past relationship of exchanging links; or
3. Past pattern of activity indicates that your blog is public even though we do not have a regular relationship of exchanging links.

I will explicitly seek your permission (by email or comment) before I link if:

4. Your blog does not fit into any of the categories above, and especially if your blog looks like it's intended to be personal or private (even if your blog is not secured).

I am also willing to consider removing a link to you if, having linked already, you email (you know where to find my email address) requesting that I delink (you must specify the relevant permalinks on my blog, however, and allow me time to do so; be reasonable.).

I do not have a policy concerning the conditions under which another blogger may link to this blog; however, please see my Creative Commons Licence for the conditions of use for this blog.

UPDATE: Thanks to something that Knightofpentacles shared in the comments, I should make clear that the above is my own personal policy, adopted for now because of unique circumstances, as a courtesy to fellow bloggers in the Singapore Blogosphere. I reserve the right to change my policy. Most importantly of all, the above does not in any way imply a concession on my part that bloggers who leave their stuff in a publically accessible domain have a right not to be linked without permission. They have no such right. For reference, see this article. (Edited for emphasis)

ADDITION: In no way should the statement of this personal policy imply any suggestion that anyone else should follow my example--it is merely a statement of how I intend to act in the future until further notice. I believe that it is precisely the freedom of the internet that gives me the right to restrict my own freedom of action as I see fit.

Check out the comments.

Max Boot on Politicians

From LA Times (May 5), "Is Blair a Liar? Brits Don't Care", by Max Boot:

How can you tell if a political party is brain-dead? Easy. It spends an entire campaign denouncing the incumbent as a smarmy, good-for-nothing liar, rather than outlining its own agenda. The Republicans tried it against Bill Clinton in 1996, the Democrats tried it against George W. Bush in 2004, and now in Britain the Conservatives are trying it, with equal lack of success, against Tony Blair.

Such a tactic is beguiling because, to True Believers, the other side's triumphs are never on the up and up; they must be the result of hoodwinking the hapless electorate. The problem with this approach was pointed out to me by a political strategist last week: "Voters think all politicians are liars. So telling them that someone is a particularly effective liar doesn't work."

Just a snippet that caught my eye

From CNA (May 5), " Singaporeans engage PM Lee on CNA's "Up Close" programme", by S. Ramesh:

[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?

"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.

Filed for future reference.

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".

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."

As always, the ultimate test of decision:

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.

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.

The the proof of the pudding, as they always say, is in the eating.

[Technorati: singapore]

CNA picks up the AcidFlask Affair

Last updated 1310 hrs May 6 -0400 unless otherwise stated (change in procedure explained here)

The AcidFlask Affair covered on From a Singapore Angle: Part 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

update: Plea addressed to my fellow bloggers

* * * * *

NEWSFLASH: AcidFlask tells his side of the story :NEWSFLASH

Noticed by Ketsugi and others. In anticipation of more blosopheric discussion now that AcidFlask's side of the story is out in full, I'll be starting I've started a new post to collate the reactions. This post will concentrate on entries relating to the two CNA and one TODAY reports. Jump to: CNA (May 4) report | CNA (May 5) report | TODAYonline report (May 6); blogosphere reactions follow each report

* * * * *

A FULL TWELVE DAYS since AcidFlask first blogged about his troubles (Apr 22/23);

NINE after the story of AcidFlask at Caustic.Soda's closure (Apr 25) first broke in the ether and its repercussions widely felt and discussed in the Singapore Blogosphere;

A WEEK after the RSF Statement (Apr 28), and the New Zealand Herald article (Apr 29);

ChannelNewsAsia breaks the story for us. From CNA (May 4), "S'pore student shuts down blog after threat of legal action", by Valerie Tan.

(EDIT: Quotation deleted; you know where to find the report)

UPDATE: Looks like Singapore Ink got wind of this before me.

The couple at Ninauhiah pens some warnings | The Makanguru sees an injustice | WhiteOut and Mollymeek pour over the English of the CNA report

* * * * *

From CNA (May 5), "A*Star confirms warning to student over defamatory blog", by Wong Siew Ying:

(EDIT: Quotation deleted; you know where to find the report)

(Thanks to Guofeng for alerting me to this.)

Meanwhile Gilbert (EDIT: Gilbert Koh, the one CNA should have talked to) hangs around to make a comment about the shoddy news reporting of CNA | lzyData at Singapore Ink has more to say, after recovering from a bout of uncontrollable laughter | Mr Brown has some "random rants" | Mr Miyagi likewise, about the doings of some "ChannelNewsLATER" | Wannabe Lawyer has more, and ruminates on the wider legal implications | cH lays out five points, five hard point. | Dicussions continue on Tomorrow.sg. | The Singapore Commentator reflects on the standard of journalism in Singapore and states what should have been obvious: "looking foolish in the eyes of bloggers certainly wouldn’t help" | Meanwhile, citizen journalist Jeff Yen, who seems to think that I'm a "Local Blogsphere News Gathering Organization", reports that the local blogsphere is thinking of legal action against ChannelNewsLater | Makanguru has a bit more


* * * * *

From TODAYonline (May 6), "Student shuts blog after A*Star threatens to sue--He criticised the agency's scholarship system and policies", by Ansley Ng:

(EDIT: Quotation deleted; you know where to find the report)

(Thanks to WhiteOut for alerting me to this.) This is probably the best of the print media's reporting on this affair so far (no gratuitous factual inaccuracies, managed to get some lines from AcidFlask himself, etc.) and CNA could really learn a thing or two from TODAY! | Gilbert has some reactions, he expresses puzzlement over A*Star's claim to defend Singapore's reputation.

More blogosphere reactions: "I am XenoBoy. I am the Political Savant" | update: Steve Mc Dermott is, predictably, rather unhappy (1045 May 7 -0400)

[Technorati: singapore, blogosphere]

CNA picks up the Acid Flask Affair

Spotted the typo ("AcidFlask", not "Acid Flask") in the title, but correction entails that the permalink changes to this.

Still about Myanmar's possible chairmanship of ASEAN

Another bit of news suggesting that Myanmar will decline chairmanship of ASEAN, from ST (May 4; subscription required):

Military-ruled Myanmar, under pressure from the United States and other Western nations for its repression of democracy, may back away from the chairmanship of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, a senior Thai official said on Wednesday.

But like I said before, even if it happens, it may not mean much for the future of the country. In the meantime, The Aseanist sticks by its earlier prediction.

Reviewing the Singapore Blogosphere: Managing Expectations

I've been following with great interest an exchange between a cryptic anonymous blogger WhiteOut and an equally cryptic anonymous commenter Yoreth somewhere in the ether concerning the recent disturbances in the force, I mean, Singapore Blogophere. One hardly need to agree with everything said to perceive the key issues and a timely reminder that it is time to stand back and take stock.

A long time ago (in blogospheric time, that is), at the height of the furor over ST's plan to implement paid subscription, Trowa Evans of The Police State (Mar 2) made a suggestion that can only be described as prescient on hindsight--that part of the Blogosphere which is serious about the affairs of the country and wishes to speak up must get organized and make it a habit to share articles and ideas with each other; otherwise, it is forever consigned to the margins. I think this is prescient (despite not agreeing completely with all of his assessments) because it suggests an underlying insight into an impulse that seems intrinsic to a segment of the Singapore Blogosphere. And all that is needed for the activation of this impulse is a series of singularities of sufficient interest and importance to a wide variety of bloggers.

That condition was met in April 2005 when the troubles, as Singapore Ink so aptly described them, came in quick succession, prompting what can only be described as an unprecedented mobilisation on the part of Singaporean bloggers. Energies that had been accumulating since the Jamie Han affair (and even earlier) were unleashed in a relatively short span of time. (Aside: These perturbations has been given extensive coverage on this blog and I will not revisit their ins and outs here.)

Not all, however, are sanguine about these developments. In fact, I find myself deeply sympathetic to Agagooga's point of view: with the increased sense of community, the Singapore blogosphere looses some of its innocence. Indeed: some of the most charming and interesting aspects of the blogosphere are precisely its sheer individualism, diversity and the jealously guarded autonomy of many of its denizens. When the community aspects are now foregrounded, these other elements cannot but appear to recede.

But Agagooga's fears are probably over-exaggerated: those other aspects of the blogosphere will always be around. Life goes on--went on at the very height of the troubles--for the multitude of special and personal interest blogs that do not habitually comment on the issues of the day. For those that do, on the other hand, the increased awareness of community can be a powerful force for good. True: unnecessary linking--or perhaps worse still, unnecessary echoing of another opinion--does not really add to rational discourse. But a keener sense of community can also act as a reminder that beyond mere self-expression (read: narcissistic self-expression) there is the give-and-take of genuine discussion, of being exposed to arguments from contrary points of view, of presenting structured arguments that can be disputed, replied to, with the attached possibility of convincing another and of being persuaded in turn through rational means (I've highlighted this issue before). Furthermore, with the expectation that additional eyeballs are now trained upon one's blog, there is also an increased incentive to exercise judgment and discretion, to blog responsibly (even if not necessarily vaguely).

If it is even polite to speak of a silver lining to the recent troubles (at the risk of being insensitive to the flesh and blood persons adversely affected), from the perspective of healthy and rational civic discourse, this development must take pride of place. Seen this way, the gain in infrastructure--of “institutional links" (blogrolls, RSS feeds & bookmark lists, as Singapore Ink puts it)--and camaraderie might just be portents of something that is much more than "feel good" factor.

But what then? Does it mean that the day of the blogs have arrived? Hardly. In what remains, I want to highlight a number of cautions concerning expectations.

1. It is one thing for the blogosphere to function as an engine for online civic discourse, another thing for it to generate real world consequences, e.g., exerting an actual influence upon public opinion, and beyond that, presenting a real voice to policy makers. This point is made explicit in the exchange between Whiteout and Yoreth. The latter points out that until a much larger percentage of the populace actually follow the critical discussions online, there is no reason at all to believe that blogging will lead to an increased voice for the people or the possibility of influencing public opinion. To put it another way, the most sophisticated arguments may be raised and challenged and responded to without the whole exercise making the dint of a difference in real life. This leads naturally to something else I would add: given present conditions, I do not think that bloggers should blog with the expectation that they are going to "make a difference" in some big and tangible way, nor should anyone else expect bloggers to be able to do so. That is just a recipe for disappointment. If anyone wants to "make a difference" in some big and tangible way, their aim would be better served by means other than blogging--as a very senior statesman once reminded us.

2. The presence of critical discussions should not be confused with nor should it be expected to lead inexorably to criticism of existing conditions (see this). This is merely a more specific instance of a more general point: it is simply unwarranted to expect that critical discussions will in every instance lead to widespread agreement on any particular issue at all, let alone an agreement that some particular thing should be criticized. No matter how convinced one is of the truth of one's position, it is arrogance to imagine that after extended discussions, others must come to share one's point of view, that those who fail to do must have obviously been prejudiced, unreasonable, unintelligent, or otherwise brained washed by the establishment (or its critics, as it may be the case). And I say this not because I am a relativist about truth or justification--I am not--but on account of the burdens of judgment (see paragraph beginning "First, a short detour").

In this regard, it is important to remember that the "community" of civic-minded bloggers who make it a habit to exchange views and arguments about the issues of the day is not a "community" in the sense that they actually share a substantive agenda. Now it is plausible to assume that most in the blogosphere are committed or would be committed to some sort of principle of freedom of speech (see the comments), though even that is an assumption. But even granting the assumption, this commitment should not be mistaken for a further commitment to specific agenda or positions on any issue of the day.

Putting the above two together, we get this:

3. It is unreasonable to expect of particular bloggers or the blogging community in general that they would or should advance anyone's favored social and political agenda and to see their not doing so as signs of stupidity, cowardice, or worse (see this, this, this, this, this and this). Individual bloggers may be partisan, but it is folly and arrogance to assume in advanced that just because someone is a blogger--even a blogger who is interested in social-political matters--he or she would have to be partisans of one's favored causes. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Bloggers are people too: like most people, we can be persuaded and reasoned with; but the blog politic ought not be some banana republic that can be bought or sold for the purposes of the latest social-political cause, no matter how noble appearing it might be.

But the above observations and cautions, if I am right about them, will also entail severe limitations to the sorts of organization or union that might be expected of the Singapore Blogosphere. While it may be tempting to imagine that if only the bloggerati were to organize themselves better, they will somehow be able to influence public opinion in a more tangible way, and even present more of a voice to the establishment, I believe this is a fantastic notion for the indefinite future. (And I am not even talking about the legal constraints-- real enough as they are.) But this does not mean that there are not forms of organization that would be extremely helpful for the immediate future, that is, helpful in promoting rational, civil--gentlemanly--discussion; or put another way, in promoting blogs as intellectual platforms, thus contributing to the vibrancy of life and culture in Singapore. But since the tenor of this entry is intended to be negative rather than positive, I shall leave those points to another day.

UPDATE: The Void Deck has a follow-up column (May 5): Blogs as the coming 5th estate" that contains one message each for the opposition and MIW.

[Technorati: singapore, blogosphere]

Two conversations in Chinese

EDIT: By "author" is meant me, the guy who runs this blog. Yes, these are based on actual experiences, though written purely from memory.

Conversation 1 (Time: Spring Break 2002; Location: edge of the UC Berkeley campus on Bancroft and Telegraph; A=author, B=Chinese immigrant stall holder aunty selling take-away)

B: 今天吃炒面吗？
A: 对，加一罐Coke。
B: Springbreak你怎么还在校园，不去别地方玩吗？
A: 不了。留在这里写文章。
B: 就知道还是我们中国人用功，不像这些外国人。Springbreak一到都跑到别地方玩去了。
A (not voiced): 奇怪：这里是美国，怎么美国人成了『外国人』了？

Conversation 2 (Time: June 2004; Location: a small eatery in the heart of Hong Kong; A=author, B=the restaurant's female boss)

B: 你们应该是从新加坡来的吧？
A: 对呀。你是怎么猜到的？
B: 应为你太太点了叉烧面。我知道你们新加坡人就喜欢吃叉烧，叉烧面，叉烧饭，什么都配叉烧吃。
A: 原来如此。
B: 还有看你们的穿着很大方，不像从大陆来的。
A: 大陆来的怎么了？
B: 穿着很土，又自以为大方。到了香港喜欢花很多钱买衣服，可是没有品味，穿起来还是很土。
A: 你还真留意这些东西。
B: 还有：花了这么多钱买衣服，又不肯花钱吃饭。嫌东嫌西的，说我卖得贵，说这里吃一碗面家乡里能吃十碗什么的。我说：嫌贵就不要来香港。
A: 你是生在香港？
B: 不是，我原来从广州来。
A: 广州？哪不也是『大陆』吗？
B: 叉烧面来了，不说这些了…

[Adapted from actual encounters.]

PS: I'm quite sure they have something to do with the issue of "Chinese identity", though the morals elude me at the moment...

Singapore Watch Calls for Posts on Improving Education in Singapore

Go support her! The actual collation itself is here; the background post here.

[Technorati: singapore, education]

Gilbert is back, but only for a jiffy

To talk about his run-ins with the SDP. Brings to mind something from before. UPDATE: Wannabe Lawyer takes severe umbrage at the stupidity of it all. Redrown has more.

An eventful haircut

Based on true events:

“A bob, a rounded look… no layering please…” My wife tried her best to explain to the hairdresser.

She’s always had trouble getting what she wants for a haircut in North America. It’s the same story in Berkeley, California, and now Toronto, Ontario. I think the only other country outside Singapore where we know for sure that the random hairdresser would understand her specifications is Malaysia.

Admittedly, there were other complications that day. You see, the hairdresser was really a trainee, and my wife was not in a salon (where they charge 25CND for a cut) but a hair-styling college in the local mall (7CND). We are Singaporeans, after all...

Read the rest of the story on my other blog.