Friday, March 25, 2005

Agents of the Police State

Recommended Article: Climate Control in the Singapore Press (Kudos to Steven, who added an extension regarding the criteria of being an elite in Singapore)

Although I was quite well-aware some former intelligence officers worked in the national press, I had no idea of their prevalence.

"Cheong, 57, has been with the paper since 1963. He's proud of the paper and its contribution to modern Singapore. And he's proud, too, of the former intelligence operatives in his newsroom.

There's Chua Lee Hoong, the ST's most prominent political columnist. She might be Singapore's Maureen Dowd, except The New York Times's Dowd didn't work with the secret police for nine years. There's Irene Ho on the foreign desk. She was also an "analyst" with Singapore's intelligence services. So, says Cheong, was Susan Sim, his Jakarta correspondent.

And there's Cheong's boss, Tjong Yik Min. From 1986 to 1993, Tjong was Singapore's most senior secret policeman, running the much feared Internal Security Department, a relic of colonial Britain's insecurities about communism in its Asian empire. Now Tjong is a media mogul, the executive president of SPH, Singapore's virtual print media giant, which controls all but one of the country's newspapers."

There is also of course the juicy bit, that describes how efficient they are in framing the national ideology and boundaries of debate and issues.

"
But Chua is not coy. "I'm not ashamed about [being ex-ISD]."

Chua is a classic example of the system working for Singaporeans, and Singaporeans paying it back. The Government sent her to Oxford University for a degree in politics, philosophy and economics. Her pro-government columns are perceived by analysts as insights into official thinking. "Is the ST a government mouthpiece?" she asks, then answers herself: "Yes . . . and no".

It's not China's People's Daily, Chua insists. "The key editors are not government appointees or necessarily [the ruling] People's Action Party members but they are loyalists in a general sense. It's true of every major institution in Singapore."

Chua admits Singaporean journalists self-censor – "they do everywhere," she says – but "editorial interference" is too strong a term to describe the input of authorities. "It's much more subtle than that. I would say we are sometimes, but not often these days, reminded to be mindful of the boundaries."

Chua brings to her commentary "certain basic assumptions" about Singapore's national interest. It so happens they often accord with the Government and its over-arching demands of its people.

Part of the challenge, Chua says, of being a journalist and possibly even being a Singaporean is testing boundaries that are "not clearly defined" by the Government, "perhaps on purpose".

"It's part of our culture, part of our maturing as a nation."

How paradoxical it is that Verghese Mathews, "a former Singapore ambassador to Cambodia and visiting fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies" submitted a letter to the Forum page on misguided self-censorship (though his area of interest had to do with a completely different subject: corporate management). But here is his rationale which can be just as easily applicable to the dangers of self-censorship in news reporting:

"Big countries and major powers, it can be argued, have in place other checks and balances which provide access and expression to alternative ideas and policies.

Can we say the same of a small country like Singapore? What if the very same sources for alternative proposals themselves practise self-censorship?

More importantly, and what bothers me most, is that in such a climate of pervasive self-censorship a bad decision may be perpetuated despite those in the decision-making ladder recognising it as an error. In our system very few will risk career or job security by being the one to point out the error.

We accept that Singapore is vulnerable in many ways. I would suggest that it is in the marketplace of alternative ideas and in dispassionate discussion of alternative policies that this vulnerability is well addressed.

At the end of the day, we are all losers if something meaningful is not undertaken."

Nationalistic Paranoia

Headtitle: No way to treat state that rushed to Aceh's aid

Original Article: Singapore disappointed by Jakarta demo over organic material

The motive of this entry is not to implicate the Singapore government in its responsibility in sending organic material, that were not classified as "hazardous waste" under Singapore law at the time of export, which were later dumped in Batam, and allegedly found to contain "heavy metals, which are regarded as hazardous waste under Indonesian laws". With reasonable speculation, the effects of the hazardous waste pollution must be serious enough to warrant an organised protest, which took place before the Singapore embassy in Jakarta.

What is of concern is rather how the author, Christopher Teo harangued (though in the Forum section of the ST) on how Singaporeans should "
think again whether or not such a neighbour is worth helping at all". He buttress his argument by two devices; one is to praise and extol the 'tremendous' humanitarian help Singapore has provided to Aceh (who is fighting for independence from Indonesia) or raising money for the Indonesians during the Asian financial crisis (which was channeled through the IMF) and other monetary charity aid. The second point of his argument was the remarks made by then Indonesian President B.J. Habibie, which described Singapore in a relative negative light.

It is important to take note of how the implicit morale message of Christopher's letter. Namely, that is to say since we have been such a generous neighbour, you shouldn't be allowed to protest against us, even for issues that are totally unrelated. Double standards can easily be found in the most "patrotic" or the most "paranoid", and in the case we see how the two feed off each other. The responsibility that Singapore has in being the exporter of the organic material, which has adversely affected their lives, should not be ignored, and it seems for now the right steps have been taken in that direction. However, protests and demonstrations on their land is their right, although the damage to the embassy is perhaps uncalled for, it doesn't equate a shift in our allegedly 'altruistic' 'benevolent' foreign policy.

Much like how Singapore has indirectly externalised damage onto Indonesian soil, we shouldn't perform additional damage on their freedom to speak. But perhaps Singapore has a very different conception of demonstrations, the preconceived idea that they are usually borne out of 'insane', 'arachiac' or 'irrational' thought. To a certain extent, some demonstrations have been sparked on preposterous grounds, but the background grievances have to be addressed. Christopher Teo concluded in his statement that "
Singaporeans should stand shoulder to shoulder when it comes to national pride", well you can find that kind of statement in Nazi or Russian Soviet Style propoganda. Instead, national pride should impede you that while recognising that the damage was unnecessary, we are concerned about the indirect responsibility in harming another nation's soil.

Thursday, March 24, 2005

"Fair" and "Objective" Media for you

I will reserve any comments for this particular fiasco, because I think the blatant disregard for a "fair" and "objective" media is staring right in the face.

Singapore movie-moker pulls political movie (Credits to Steven)

Visit this blog for more information.

The Police State's Solution to the AIDS Problem

Headline: HIV-positive and wanton? You may face stiff penalty

Now turning to the AIDS problem among heterosexuals, the Senior Minister of State for Health Balaji Sadasivan has now called for a harsh response: Revising the law to deal stiff harsh penalties against those who are are HIV-positive and promiscuous. The special bit here is that this penalty applies "whether or not you are aware you have the disease".

This is quite a unique proposition, considering that HIV patients sometimes take several months or years to even realise that they are infected. It would also raise the issue of tracking down those who are newly infected, or tracing the possible spreaders of the disease. Indeed, it is clearly stated that
the implementation "will place the onus on the individual who is sexually active to test himself regularly".

The minister asserts his belief that "
unless the law is changed to reflect this, attitudes will not change". He added that only with this change of attitude, will the AIDS problem be solved.

There is no doubt, that in trying to arrest the increase of AIDS cases, attitudes do have to change. Not only the public, but including the administrative's role and beliefs. A change in law doesn't immediately curb the problem. Having AIDS and not having yourself tested is a serious problem, but by no means criminal. There is a term famously defined in the criminal law called the mens rea, defined as "the intention to commit a wrongful act, the element that establishes criminal responsibility". If someone is consciously unaware that he has AIDS, given that AIDS certainly doesn't target a certain cohort of individuals and is not selective in its nature, he doesn't carry the mens rea that bears the crucial element to follow a criminal sentence with.

But let's suppose legislation is expedited, and law enforcers now have the added responsibility to arrest those who are HIV-positive and promiscuous. An important issue then arises how do you start enforcing the law? The minister didn't mention it, though it should be obvious when he related the story of one case where "Mr I, who knew he was HIV-positive, went to a foreign country to bring back a bride". The minister displayed an understanding of empathy for wives who have married HIV-positive husbands, which is a reasonable concern but never went far enough to condemn the actual practices of heteorsexual men who engage in practices that promote the risk of AIDS. One should even be more stunned that the important factors that contribute to the problem should be tackled, but are nevertheless ignored because they are too afraid of eroding the "traditional family unit" structure.

Attitudes must change, I agree. The results of any policy should not be to further exacerbate social stigmatization, increase criminal liability or apply fear and distress onto its citizens. Active sharing and honest addressing of the social problem should lead to solutions that facilitate the public's understanding of a serious phenomeon and not perpetuate fallacious and illusionary mindsets or solutions.


Wednesday, March 23, 2005

Nothing is as it seems, Minister

Headline: "Nothing is stopping youths from speaking up: Vivian"

This assertion has been raised a few times, and it is enlightening to see that today's youths are starting to question their leaders and claim their right to speak. Unfortunately, in forums and in the national press, a fancy sanitized picture is glossed over the intricate problems that hinder our struggle to speak.

Here are the interesting tidbits that deserve critical analysis:

"The first asked for a speakers' corner at the proposed youth park at Orchard Road - an idea first mooted by opposition MP Low Thia Khiang in Parliament a fortnight ago, but which Dr Balakrishnan had shot down.

Referring to this, the student asked: 'Does this mean that the Government is taking a more conservative stance towards youth in politics?'

Dr Balakrishnan's response was that there already are various avenues for youths to speak out, such as The Straits Times' YouthInk pages, a section with stories written by youths; the national youth forum; and the Feedback Unit's Internet portal.

Reiterating the point he made two weeks ago, he said there was no need for another speakers' corner especially since the existing one in Hong Lim Park is not successful.

'Why has it failed? Because Singaporeans are sensible people and have decided that there's not much point going up there standing on a soapbox, yelling at the mosquitoes and the flies."

One question was left opened, but deserves an answer. Is the government taking a conservative stance towards youth? Vivian didn't directly answer this but instead implied there are more open avenues (all of which deserve greater scrutiny). Various avenues for speaking up doesn't indicate a more liberal stance. It only suggests that the participants are given more locations to speak, but doesn't necessarily entail that there are other curbs on speaking up, such as laws, regulation and censorship. Just by studying the avenues Vivian suggested, namely the Straits Times' YouthInk page (do we seriously need to debate on the kind of standards the articles would appear in the ST), the national youth forum (again, another avenue dominated quite substantially with pro-PAP youths), and the Feedback Internet Portal (which is controlled by the government, and hence has legitimacy to censure certain voices), there leaves little doubt that the conservative stance is still in place, has always been and will continue to be. What has merely happened is the insidious approach to displace the youth's suspicions into broader channels of (regulated) communication, where the government has a more powerful and wider net to exercise power over.

But perhaps Vivian is right on his last point. Singaporeans are "sensitive people" who are well aware that the implementation of such soft "solutions" do not touch the heart of the issue, and that what they have to say deserves the ears of other Singaporeans, not mere insects. The question is, can they be allowed to say it openly and freely?

"He stressed that the youth park should not be made into a 'partisan political space'.

'I don't think we should let it be hijacked by politicians playing petty political games, scoring petty political points."

Nobody, has suggested thus far, that the youth park be used for partisan political space. In fact, since political advertising and gerrymandering is strongly prohibited, it leads to the conclusion that the youth park can be utilized for open discussions that don't pander to "political gamescoring". But let's return to this point later on....

"Another student asked why Singapore did not adopt liberal democracy, and had felt 'the need to be restrictive in order to be cohesive'.

In a similar vein, there were also calls from others in the audience for greater freedom of the press and media independence.

Given the abundance and free flow of information in this age of globalisation and the Internet, a young woman asked how the Singapore media could be credible if government controls were not relaxed.

Dr Balakrishnan said that even as a young man, he never felt 'inhibited' to speak up and his views were never censored.

In fact, he challenged the students to tell him if there was one thing they wanted to do, but which they were being prevented from doing.

No one among the 900 students present took up the challenge.

As for the local newspapers and news programmes, he said they could more than hold their own against the international media.

Far from wanting the media to be pro-People's Action Party, the Government's main concern is that the media be honest, accurate, and pro-Singapore, he said."

This bit largely pertains to media, democracy and independent press. Let me state, with outright disapproval, that Dr. Vivian has the cheek to suggest that just because as a young man, he never felt "inhibited", means that the others don't reserve that right. But this is an element of political scoring, suggesting that one can win the entitlement to "freedom of speech" if he subscribes to the PAP doctrine. He then further suggests that local newspapers and programmes (all of which are under the government's control) could hold their own against the international media, which is a remarkable statement to make. By no means, could the entire resources of SPH or Temesek Holdings hold their own against the international media, instead it would be more appropriate to state that they make better servants of national policy, who perpetuate in advocating the national cause outside critical scrutiny. The last remark doesn't even deserve a rebuttal, everyone is pro-Singaporean, nobody at the youth forum, as anyone can tell, was anti-Singaporean, and neither should the media have the authority in recognising who is "pro" or "against" Singaporean. That kind of decision is reserved only for the public, not the government system or the dominant ideology that dictates it.

Which, all really comes back one full-circle to Dr. Vivian Balakrishnan's warning about scoring "petty political points". Who is exactly doing that now?

Still not solving the "AIDS problem"

"AN APPLICATION for a permit to hold a fund-raising concert for Action For Aids has been turned down by the Media Development Authority (MDA) because it features a gay couple as the main performers.

The MDA confirmed with The Straits Times that it received an application for a concert next week featuring an American couple, Jason & deMarco, as the 'main performing artistes'.

'Based on the duo's website and reports of their performances in the United States, it is assessed that their performance will promote a gay lifestyle which would be against the public interest,' the MDA said in an e-mail reply. 'Their application has therefore been turned down."

Note: Since the ST online now requires paid registration to access its original articles, I decided to copy and paste some of its relevant content for future entries.

The background of this fund-raising concert is interesting, to say the least. First,
the organisers are "members of a Christian bible study group called Safehaven, [which] is, in turn, part of the Free Community Church, which does not regard homosexuality as a sin". This fact had to be mentioned in the article, not only because it is a curious and unexpected finding, but probably to highlight this to more orthodox Christian fundamentalists, who may retaliate and possibly oppose this particular oddity in their circle.

The other interesting issue is the background of the main performing artistes, a homosexual male couple. Although it wasn't mentioned in the article, apparently they are a monogamous couple, hence the rationale from the church group to promote them. As Peter Goh from SafeHaven puts it, "
we wanted to send forth the message to the gay community that a monogamous relationship and responsible attitude towards sex should be the approach to take." (Ref: MollyMeek's entry which is hilarious as usual). I highly suggest reading SafeHaven's reply themselves where you can get a more informed view about their intentions for the concert.

Here then comes the part where we question the ST's (and more broadly, the media and the government) agenda. Even if we assume that they are right, that the increase in AIDS is attributed to the attendance of homosexuals in promiscious parties, what then, besides clamming down on parties, do you expect to do about their individual sex lives? You can't force them to have practice abstinence, neither can you force them to sit down, marry and have kids. What would a reasonable solution be? No doubt, the state, if it doesn't wish to intervene further into the private lives of its citizens, will appeal to moral values, but if even messages such as monogamy can't be preached, what then?

I have no doubt, the most capable people to lead the charge against this oppression, and ignorance are the targeted social group itself. That's why I decided to quote from Au Waipeng, who succintly expresses the problem (check out his interview at the Void Deck):

If the government wants effectiveness in reaching out to the gay community, the government must first examine why they and their "campaigns" are held in such disrepute by their desired audience. And it's damn simple: After decades of homophobic laws and policies, nobody trusts them, nobody believes them.

They have to reverse that. They can begin by repealing the anti-gay laws and conceding that it was a mistake to dismantle the condom booth at the Nation 04 party.

Reading Balaji's recent emails, my impression is that because of the official anti-gay policies, he knows the government cannot quite reach out to the gay community to promote safe-sex education and rational
behaviour. So he seems to be asking for gay people themselves to do the government's work for him. But why should people whom you condemn do your work for you? Why would anyone invest time and money, e.g. to
organise a condom booth, print leaflets and stock up supplies, only to have the authorities come in and tell you to pack up or else face arrest for "promoting homosexuality"?

My message to the minister is this: get real.

Don't be a mere technocrat and work only within your unquestioned confines. Find some courage. Question your government's limiting parameters.


Wednesday, March 16, 2005

The Hypocrisy Regarding the Gay Issue

There has been a very good amount of outrage against the insinulation from the ST and its "reputed" sources about the correlation between the rise of AIDS and homosexual parties. It has come to my attention that the logic of "family values" has been used as a weapon (and has always been) against the rights of individuals to practice private consenual sex, and the ST's main weapon has been to broadcast, in a very biased manner (who should be surprised?) the advocates of ordinary Singaporeans (always portrayed as a parent with fragile and delicate children) who are supposedly "non-bigots" but simply want a safer society. You don't have to be a critical analyst to dissect these "objective" headlines: Concern about new cases among gays valid and Mother of two applauds curb on Snowball.04

It is astonishing that, even if all the claims were true, you would think the adversaries of "family values" are not the presence of private parties but rather the factors behind low birth rates, domestic violence and raising divorces. Does anyone pretend to think that all of these social problems are the work of homosexuals who are waging a secret war against family units and values?

I enjoyed reading the brillance of Shinaux's rebuttal against the glaring hypocrisy of what is construed as "family values" and "nature". I think a strong harsh critique is needed of how the national press, along with co-opted institutions that serve a conservative national policy, have engaged in what, we can honestly say, is propoganda in no uncertain terms. How different would be it for the tabloid newspapers to sensationalize the fear of an "AIDS scourge" (the head title for all AIDS related articles on ST) or warn citizens about an epidemic that is soon to engulf us all and threaten our very existence?

A more moderate approach should not be disregarded, and indeed if Singapore has gone before to endorse the moderate Muslim, or the moderate Christian, it shouldn't come any different in responding to this issue. In particular, one would think that the emphasis on homosexuals and AIDS will only widen the misperception that heterosexuals are "immune" from AIDS and that they are safe from it because they live in nuclear family units. The appaling fact is that heterosexual men still make up for the majority of AIDS patients who have contracted the illness due to ignorance and misconceptions that AIDS is a "gay" disease (Khek, 2004). Now their families have broken down due to the lack of support, education and welfare just because they now have the disease (Khek, 2004).

Indeed, there may be a breaking down of "family values" all right. It's just coming from the wrong source.

Postscript: Yawning Bread's What the Minister Said and What the Newspaper Said discusses the issue extensively and with verve. I also found these entries (Symptom: Gay-HIV and Airborne Diseases) written by an aspirin gay activist poignant.

Khek, Francis Gee Lim (2004). Life Goes On: Living with HIV and AIDS in Singapore. Asian Journal of Social Sciences.

Presence of Blogs

The ST Interactive currently conducting a poll on blogs, implicitly asking if they are trusted as an alternative news source and also measuring what kind of blogs they are reading. The results aren't particularly surprising, to say the least, but check it out if you are interested.

Sunday, March 13, 2005

Apologises

It seems that I have been away for some time, and I should offer profound apologies for my absence. Although I have personally seen that a lot of local issues deserve analysis, critique and refutation (e.g. the gay parties and AIDS relationship, recent changes to the educational system, ST's supposed fair and objective stance), I only hope my fellow bloggers out there will be on the battle field to provide their valuable points and counter-punches.

I have been recently interview by two interlocutors, one being Void Deck and another was a email interview for a NTU study on political blogging. I have decided to post the email interview for the meantime, so readers can understand my background in simple parlance. It's also a low tactic to make up for my absence, I confess. I also hope fellow bloggers will do the same in sharing their personal ideals and opinions.

I also received this proposal for a campaign advocated by J.B. Jeyaretnam for Constitutional Amendment. I do have some issues with how the proposal was drafted but I shall post it up so that others can have a read and discuss if they wish. In retrospect, this could be used as a stepping stone for organization.

That is if people choose to do so.

------------------------------------

E-Mail Interview

How do you feel about being a young political blogger in Singapore yourself?

This is a standard question that I can only reply with a non-standard position: there is nothing to feel. I don't think bloggers, me included, would have any rush of esctascy or experience some euphoria just because we are young political bloggers. If you mean in relation to the fact that Singapore has very few, what I call "objective" political commentators (in real life or online), then as a political blogger, I do feel that it is imperative to express one's own opinions, beliefs, thoughts and especially discontentment about the society one lives in. This principle, I believe, is universal and shouldn't be disregarded as long as the circumstances provide for it (in fact, I can think of very few situations where we can justify abolishing it).

If you are expecting an answer of grandiosity, or something like "wow, I am much smarter than those PSC scholars", well no. Or if you are expecting some answer like "yeah I am scared the ISD will knock on my doors", well that's a legitimate fear but I doubt that much would manifest realistically. As an individual political blogger, it's simply a one-directional means of communicating your political beliefs and opinions on social matters. It's also a very lonely and individualistic process.

Do you think your views affect a lot of people?

Honestly, no. In fact, I will be surprised if it did. And there's a good reason for it, outside of my personal belief that my views can possibly be construed as insane as a schizophrenic in Woodbridge.

Very few people, in my opinion, surf the internet for political commentary. And one would expect an even lesser degree of individuals who would take the views of an individual blogger seriously. Unless you have some reputation that precedes you, as a political blogger, you are most likely considered to be a lone observer or just some angsty teenager raging against the machine. Even if someone were to provide the best research, analysis or knowledge in all mankind, as long as the medium is a blog, it's highly unlikely his/her views are going to influence a large number of people. Until that kind of critique or analysis is brought to a suitable medium, where it can be properly communicated to the right audience, and further shared among different kinds of receivers, then one can reasonably expect that diffusion to appear.

In regards to political blogging, especially in Singapore, I think anyone will be very skeptical to not only listen but consider the opinions of their own citizens. In fact I expect people to be hostile to political commentators. Probably the only positions we feel most comfortable in tuning to are the words of social elites, pro-governmental figures or government officials. But that kind of social mentality speaks a lot about us as a society.

Do you think it is a good thing more young people are voicing their political views?

There are two assumptions with this question. Firstly, is there truly more young people voicing their political views? To my knowledge, I know of no study that proves this. I only assume there is a perception that there are more young political commentators, probably partially thanks to the national press. It's more logical to say that there is more public attention paid to them instead. Second, why do we even have to assume whether it is a "good" or "bad" thing? Obviously, I should imagine it is a positive step but let me qualify this assertion in more detail.

Let's for now, assume that there are indeed "more" political commentators. A person who is subservient to national ideology, in my view, is most likely to consider this a threat, hence a "bad thing", that there is more disarray in the community (how more frightful it is that this is more prevalent among the youth), or chaos is supposed to break out due to more outspoken voices beind heard. I believe, for anyone that is truly concerned with a minimal level of social progression, and a firm believer in group harmony and integration, you want to hear more voices from the people. It is a lot easier to live in a society, no doubt that is docile and paternalistic, where almost every crucial aspect of life is managed and monitored for you. But it also implies a lesser degree of control on those aspects too, such as right of expression, labour rights and etc.

I can't speak ,of course, for every young political commentator out there but it is possible that these authoritarian aspects of life are becoming more salient to them now and thus they feel compelled to voice their opinions somewhere. Well, this is Singapore, where is the only place they can do it?

How do you think young political bloggers like yourself impact Singapore's society?

None. Zinch, nana. Nonexistent truly. In fact, if you want an example of the belief that bloggers wouldn't have a concrete impact on society in general, you don't have to go very far but look at the statement made by MM Lee Kuan Yew in the Kent Ridge Ministerial Forum in NUS. When Jamie Han spoke about the limited avenues of communication, MM Lee listed out a few means, but his last comment, strongly regarded as a joke, was using the Internet. Jamie didn't need to elaborate on the futility of the other avenues, such as writing to the Forum section of the Straits Times or submitting his comments in other magazines, so as a last resort, MM Lee jokingly suggested the internet. But the internet is just simply another medium that has its own limitations and consequently, has little impact on society in terms of political affairs.

There is a book, I think it's called "Cyberactivism: Political dissent or expression in Southeast Asia" or something similar. It's a yellow book, and has some journal articles on Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore as well. One of the statements in that book, which I think can be largely supported, is that the internet cannot be considered as an instrumental tool to democractization in a country. It's useful in some sense like spreading a messenge to others and it can help marginally in bringing individuals together to form a collective, but unless those same people can transfer their agenda into the real world and work effectively in sharing their ideas across society as a whole, they are going to have very little impact.

Do you foresee changes to the political scene in Singapore in the future?

As a result of political blogging? No. I mean it's possible there may be some changes but how much it can be attributed to political blogging, nobody can truly measure and state unequivocally the extent of its effects. If you mean regardless of political blogging, so just as how Singapore, as a political entity, might evolve in the future, well nobody can predict. For my own opinion, I am very skeptical of any possible changes, and if there were, I doubt very much they are what we might regard as fundamental shifts in power and structure. Perhaps they might be some cosmetic changes, and I welcome any move, no matter how small, to liberalise the political rights of Singaporeans, but it wouldn't be anywhere near ideal unless large decisive changes are made or if the population demands and takes action for these changes.

Does the increasing number of young political blog change your opinion of young Singaporeans?

My opinion is going to count for very little, in fact it doesn't help in any way for assessing the attitudes of young Singaporeans. As a straightforward answer, no, it hasn't changed my opinion and I am not too sure how one should even think about young Singaporeans. Again, I don't think there is an increase in the number of political blogs, but even if there was, these writings only reflect the disenchantment most youths feel and you don't need to read political blogs to know that. We can just simply ask them right out and we can choose to pay attention to them if we want to care about what they think.

There's also another interesting insinulation in your question. How young do you think the political bloggers are? I have no idea how old some of the political bloggers are, and to me, it never has any impact on what I think of their opinions and beliefs. By and large, I find instead that the most well-informed and constructive bloggers are nowhere what I consider "youth". Maybe young like mid twenties and above, but that's reasonable to expect because now they have some sense of reality on how much none of their opinions are being expressed and heard. If you are a young adult, as opposed to a teenager, you are going to start realising how much local policies are going to affect you and how they are made without your participation and consent.

Wednesday, March 02, 2005

Protesting Against Paid Subscriptions, and Organization

During my absence for the past couple of days, there has been a pretty fiery discussion on the recent imposed scheme of subscription to the ST Interactive, the online national newspapers. The comments have been wide and diverse, and many commentators, such as Singapore Ink. and From a Singapore Angle have compiled the complaints and suggestions together to suggest counter actions against the move. Needless to say, I won't repeat the same arguments here but simply divert readers to soak up the analyses put forth. The avove two sites have collected what seems to be the general reaction.

However, there's one small point some seem to have miss, and I think Singapore Ink's latest post touched on it, though I would like to expand on that. First of all, it is true that the ST is essentially a national press that serves to inform the general public and its citizens about the affairs of the country. However, the national newspaper doesn't merely serve that role but has to double as a spokespiece for wealthy investors and financial managers who run their businesses here in Singapore. See, a very simple mistake which most people assume (such as Ernesto's post illustrates), is that the newspapers makes money through readership. Well, that's partially true, if nobody reads the newspapers, they certainly wouldn't have anyone to advertise to. And that's the key word most people miss. It's not about the overall amount of people who read the newspapers but simply what kinds of audience are being targeted by that particular press. Now for a national newspaper, a boycott will do very little damage to its financial status, simply for the fact that a boycott will probably be on a very small scale and most citizens are going to need a way to inform themselves of government policies that affect their everyday lives. A large-scale boycott is, for the present moment, too unimaginable and wouldn't necessarily demonstrate that the results would be a fundamental shift of ownership in the national press.

The ST's other role is to attract investors. It has to portray to business leaders and other corporate powers who have to manage their own money here that Singapore is a safe, democractic, transparent and legit place to conduct their businesses here. These businesses would, no doubt, need to advertise to high-end consumers and of course the general public as well, but what counts the most would be the premium advertising rates the newspaper offers. It then comes about that the ST has no obligation to ensure its price hikes are adjusted for the average consumer, but merely to cater to social elities who will pay that kind of price to both advertise and market to consumers in the newspaper.

This dualistic function of the press is not at all as incompatable as one might think. To give a simple analogy, so one might comprehend the dynamics and relationship between the press, consumers, corporate managers and the public, say I am the mayor of a small town. As the mayor, I also own the only town newspapers which essentially the community relies on. In a bid to perhaps promote the town, similiar to how one wishes to promote tourism, I need to portray a fairly good representative of my town. Now, I can't paint a totally unrealistic picture since the town's residents rely on it for information, but I would pretty much ensure a very positive representation is depicted. This kind of positive representation naturally serves my two objectives cohesively, firstly to ensure that the residents geninuely believe in the goodwill and positive aspects of their own community and secondly to pander to potential investors and business owners who can simultaenously advertise to consumers and be assured about the safety of their investments in the town.

Given all that has been said, I do believe that it is pertinent that we rely on the national press, and that previous suggestions regarding alternative sources isn't an encouraging step. The ST is the national mouthpiece, and despite its flaws, it has to attempt in representing the "Singapore" in the framework of a national ideology. It's also the mouthpiece of the government, and there wouldn't be any other source to correctly access and critique the statements and ideas advanced by them. If you wish to critique dominant ideology, you must accurately string it from the direct source.

That is not to say there is little hope for fellow bloggers. It is only too simple to give up hope in reading, sourcing or criticizing the national press after March 15th. There is a need for the online community, at least those who are serious about the affairs of the country and wish to speak up, to create an organized community, one that routinely shares articles and ideas with each other. Indeed, if there isn't an impetus to regroup as an organized whole, political commentators would continue to stay marginalized and effectively do very little work on their own. Hence, for what may seem like an outrageous but yet undeniably plausible strategy, I think the political commentators who form part of the online community should stay connected through a network and relay information, articles, sources, ideas and commentary to each other regularly. Hopefully, I will be able to put this strategy into action.