Mirrormask posted on Sunday, December 31, 2006
`
--
mainstream. posted on Friday, August 04, 2006 | 6 comments
Clearly, the Government feels that bloggers have more wiggle room than mainstream journalists whose vehicle can 'push broadcast' to millions while bloggers can only 'pull narrowcast' mainly to the converted.
Some ask if bloggers are journalists at all or merely self-indulgent, opinionated folks expressing their views. This invites the question of what a journalist is in the first place.
Journalists are those who primarily do two things, maybe one more than the other in each individual case:
First, they get accurate information about something new - thus the news - and disseminate it. Secondly, they analyse issues of public concern that this piece of news evokes and comment upon it.
For both of these, but especially the first, that which sets the professional journalist - whose first obligation is to be accurate - apart from the blogger - whose first obligation is to be interesting - is an editorial structure.
This structure entails questioning and challenging assumptions, and editing to ensure that established standards of, among other things, accuracy, truth, objectivity and fairness are upheld.
Most bloggers, on the other hand, do not generally report on something new. Typically, they report on what reporters have reported.
Thus, at best, they are 'meta-reporters'. Yes, in stories like a 9/11, or the July 7 London bombings, where there are crowds, citizens armed with always-on wireless connections, powerful yet inexpensive mobile digital devices as well as easy-to-use, free Internet publishing tools, citizens in many countries can do first-person, grassroots reporting.
This they then publish on their own blogs using tools such as photo-sharing on Flickr, video-sharing on YouTube, or blog-sharing on Technorati.
But this amateur horde will tell few new stories about something newsworthy but which does not have too many people around since they won't be on the scene either. For example, a bomb alert that turns out to be, mercifully, a false alarm has little for them to capture on video, so they will have nothing much to 'report'.
Likewise, the Guardian newspaper's Blair Watch Project - where citizen journalists were asked to contribute mobile phone pictures of the British prime minister on the hustings in 2005 - failed to deliver since that campaign took place mainly before party members, not the public. So bloggers do little news reporting.
A random glance at several blogs will show you that they depend on the mainstream media for their talking points.
They feed on traditional media for content, remaking news the latter may have overlooked or handled (in)differently. Its purveyors are more interested espousing views not regularly covered by the mass media.
The blogging world has no professional writers, publishers, printers or distributors. There is no top-down structure. So who weeds out inaccuracies, lies, spoofs or plain bad taste - and bad writing? Other blogs? If so, who determines the hierarchy of blog believability?
What readers end up with, at best, is truth by majority vote - assuming they have the time to read several blogs on the same matter to carry out a poll of diverse views on a particular issue.
In regard to the journalist's other duty - that of offering fair comment - democratic deliberation and constructive dialogue represent hard work that few bloggers can afford the time to do, even if they had the knowledge and the skills needed. As a result, much of what bloggers offer is either misinformed, self-indulgent opinion or thoughtful but unargued ones.
Of course, bloggers occasionally come up with gems. But in the main and on the whole, we over-romanticise all that Internet chatter if we think that somehow the alternative media will rise up and supplant mainstream media.
For now, that is.
For the blogosphere continues to expand. The significance of the fact that publishing on the web has become so easy is that the barriers of professionalism and specialisation have been removed such that 'ordinary' people come to see media production as something they can do and as part of the everyday, according to Dr Chris Atton, a reader in journalism at the Napier University in Edinburgh, Scotland.
As Dr Atton told The Straits Times, participating in this alternative media can 'shape one's political awareness by raising one's consciousness'. How? Liken the activity to glue, he suggested, but one that is subject to refinement to make it a more effective social glue.
The activity itself provides an opportunity to research, write and reflect on issues that impact upon our status as citizens. It also encourages a more thorough going relationship with one's community.
Finally, that communication also works outwardly to government bodies, city councils, business corporations and nonprofits, Dr Atton added.
Essentially then, blogging provides an opportunity for citizens to reflect on their place in the world and develop solidarity with and communicate their needs, demands or desires to others, he said.
At the heart of this activity is creativity. It is not about joining a protest group or going to a demonstration. It is, Dr Atton said, about developing a personal voice through which to make sense of the world, both for oneself and for one's community.
So while blogging may not impact government institutions in radical ways for now, it has the capacity to change the polity in small, indiscernible ways that may accumulate to make a difference - even at the polls - some day down the road.
With Technorati, the blog search engine, showing more than 940,000 blogs that are associated with the search word 'Singapore', it may be high time the Government began to take this more seriously than just chatter.
As seriously as the mainstream media, perhaps.
--
By Andy Ho, Senior Writer Aug 02, 2006 The Straits Times
--
lodged. posted on Sunday, July 16, 2006 | 1 comments
The 4 1/2-minute-long clip, taken on a handphone, has caused a stir because the assailants and victim appear to be young teens.
The victim is kicked, slapped and punched by her assailants, forced to take off her shirt and almost has her shorts removed.
A voice can be heard in the background orchestrating the attack.
The calm voice giving instructions on how to hurt the girl is chilling.
The victim can also be heard faintly at one point saying, 'I'm sorry, I'm sorry.'
The attack appears to have taken place at an HDB staircase landing.
The brutality of the assailants' actions have horrified those who have chanced upon the video.
Mr Andre Rosli, 29, was shocked when he saw the clip.
'It's one thing to beat someone up and another thing to strip and humiliate her in front of other girls and film the entire act,' he told The New Paper.
'I'm repulsed by their violent actions. It's totally sick and made me feel like vomiting.'
Although he doesn't understand part of the Mandarin dialogue, and other bits are inaudible, he was shaken by how the assailants took turns to taunt the victim.
The New Paper received two Hotline calls about the video and understands it is making its way to handphones here. Checks showed that several students in one ITE had received it.
It is not known if a police report has been made by the victim or anyone who witnessed the assault.
It is also not clear if the assault was staged, although those who have viewed it felt that it's genuine.
Mr Andre, an ITE student, said: 'The actions are enough to convince me they are not putting on an act but are really attacking a helpless girl. It is cruel because the victim cannot retaliate as she is outnumbered.'
Miss Noor Azima Amir, his classmate, agreed.
The 19-year-old said: 'It's especially shocking as the assailants are girls, and they are laughing and giggling while beating the girl up!
'I wouldn't be too surprised if guys are behind such acts because they're more rough, but seeing girls behind such acts is unbelievable.
'I feel sorry for the victim because she was still ridiculed and abused even though she apologised.'
Another student, Miss Hong Mei Rong, 19, added in Mandarin: 'I've never seen such a violent clip.
'I can't imagine what the victim might have done to warrant the attack.'
Such aggression is not new, said Mr David Kan, counsellor and executive director of the Family Life Centre.
All that is new is how assailants are using handphone cameras to record their actions, as such video recording becomes more commonplace.
Mr Kan said: 'Kids who record their acts of torture do it not only for gratification. They also want to draw attention to themselves and seek approval from others.
'Many of them feel that their lives have been overlooked and hope that by engaging in such actions, they will be able to get the attention they crave.'
Mr Adrian Lim, the managing director of Tyem Academy which equips out-of-school youths with career academic programmes, has seen videos showing girls beating up other girls.
He explained that such clips are the teenagers' way of saying 'don't play punk with me. I'm quite fierce; see what I'm capable of'.
Mr Lim said: 'This is reality TV brought to the handphone level.
'The assailants may find it fun - they may giggle and laugh when they're doing it because it would not occur to them that they would be identified.
'The repercussions of their actions would not hit them at all, and even if you ask them if they are behind it, they might challenge you to prove their identity. It's an act of defiance.'
Lawyer Peter Low described the assailants' actions as 'cruel and vicious'.
They could be charged with assault or criminal force with intent to dishonour the victim and intent to outrage modesty, as well as voluntarily causing hurt. Each carries a jail sentence and/or fine.
Mr Low said the assailants could face a custodial sentence because of the aggravating factors:
It was a group attack.
The assault went on for more than four minutes.
The victim was vulnerable and defenceless.
He added: 'If they're minors, they could be sent to a girls' home.'
Police spokesman Cheryl Foo said: 'The police will look into the matter when a report is lodged.'
-
Dawn Chia, June 16 2006, The New Paper
--
Singapore’s falling living standards posted on Saturday, July 08, 2006 | 0 comments
Lee Kin Mun, who writes under the pseudonym "Mr Brown", wrote a harsh, though humorous, commentary on June 30 concerning Singapore’s rising cost of living, mentioning that latest official statistics showed that one in every three Singaporean households had suffered a reduction in income over the last five years. The irony, which was not lost on the island state’s government, was that Lee cited official statistics to bolster his argument.
On June 28, the Department of Statistics (DOS) issued a press release with a slew of new data from its general household survey. The most striking result was that only 50% of Singaporean households enjoyed any significant improvement in their income over the five-year period spanning 2000 to 2005.
Moreover, the bottom 10.1% of households reported no or negative income, a marked deterioration from the 2000 level when 8.7% of the population reported they were in the red. The DOS explained that a possible factor for the notable increase was the aging of Singapore's population and that an increasing percentage of the population was retiring.
More striking, perhaps, the 11 to 20 percentile group saw their household incomes fall a whopping 19.7% over the same five year period. On average, these households had S$1,180 (US$744) monthly incomes last year, compared to S$1,470 (US$927) five years previously. On an annualized basis, their average household income fell 4.3% each year. A smaller income fall was recorded for the next up percentile group.
The DOS suggested that the decline in household income in these two groups "was partly caused by the larger number of households with retired persons and no incomes". "It could also be partly due to the higher unemployment in 2005 than 2000 ... and lower income from employment," the statement said, which acknowledges both structural unemployment and depressed wages in less-skilled jobs.
The data on household income notably excludes government hand-outs, which the ruling People’s Action Party doled out just before the general elections they resoundingly won earlier this year. The most recent round of hand-outs, which targeted the lower-income households, was called the "Progress Package". In contrast to the one-third of households which witnessed falling household incomes, the top10% of households saw a 14.8% improvement in theirs. In Singapore dollar terms, their monthly household incomes leapt by an average of S$2,120 (US$1,337) over the period.
The figures show clearly that income inequality in Singapore is increasing rapidly. The DOS reported that the Gini coefficient increased from 0.490 to 0.522 from year 2000 to 2005. The Gini coefficient is a statistical measure of income inequality, whereby the higher the number, the more unequal the distribution.
The Straits Times, Singapore’s government-influenced major English language newspaper, reported that members of parliament were, "not surprised by the survey findings, noting that these reflected the effects of globalization." This response was consistent with the Ministry of Information, Communication and the Arts' letter to Today explaining that the government "had told Singaporeans all along, that globalization would stretch out incomes".
However, most Singaporeans would probably have taken "stretch out" to mean that incomes would universally rise but at differential rates, not that a large percentage of the population would get poorer. The increasing cost of living was one of the major issues in the May 2006 general election, but the data from this survey was conspicuously not released in time for the May polls.
In his commentary, Mr Brown alluded to how convenient it was that the survey results, together with recent announcements about increases in electricity rates and taxi fares, have come out after rather than before the elections. "We are very thankful for the timing of all this good news, of course. Just after the elections, for instance," he wrote, tongue in cheek. "It would have been too taxing on the brain if those price increases were announced during the election period, thereby affecting our ability to choose wisely," he wrote.
On July 3, a stern rebuke from the government appeared in the form of a letter published in Today. Signed by Miss Krishnasamy Bhavani, the Press Secretary to the Minister for Information, Communication and the Arts, she denied that the release of the survey data was in any way delayed for political purposes. She took Mr Brown to task for writing a piece that "poured sarcasm on many issues", and claimed that his views "distort the truth".
Characterizing his commentary as "polemics dressed up as analysis", Bhavani accused him of calculating to "encourage cynicism and despondency". "Instead of a diatribe," she continued, Mr Brown "should offer constructive criticism and alternatives. And he should come out from behind his pseudonym to defend his views openly."
This statement echoed the government's growing concerns that anonymous bloggers on the Internet have found a venue to criticize the PAP-led administration in ways which otherwise would be impossible in Singapore’s tightly-controlled society. The government's response has been to try to frame all anonymous posts and blogs as “irresponsible and discreditable”, and is now exploring new laws and regulations to rein them in. Mr Brown also runs one of Singapore's best-known blogs, even though he also writes a regular column for the print newspaper.
But immediately after the government's outburst, which included a reminder to the newspaper that, "It is not the role of journalists or newspapers in Singapore to champion issues, or campaign for or against the government," the editors of Today told Lee his column would be suspended indefinitely. Left with only government-influenced mainstream media, Singaporeans will likely be left to guess if their economic lot is improving or deteriorating until the DOS’s next 5-year survey is released - unless their wallets tell them first.
--
Alex Au is an independent social and political commentator and freelance writer based in Singapore. He often speaks at public forums on politics, culture and gay issues.
--
balanced. posted on Sunday, June 18, 2006 | 0 comments
-
The report, 'Entrapment: Lawyers say narcotics officers crossed the line in quest to nab offender, but any method of entrapment is legal here' (ST, June 9), suggested that the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) had acted unethically in the apprehension of Adrian Yeo for drug possession.
This led to various letters from concerned members of the public on the entrapment issue.
The Straits Times followed up on the subject with an editorial, 'Entrapment: Fair or not?' (June 14), advocating that CNB's action against Yeo was somehow wrong because 'fair-minded people are entitled to point out it seems neither fair nor ethical to encourage a person to break the law, just for enforcement agencies to gather evidence'.
The ST article published on June 9 regrettably did not report all the facts of Yeo's case. A diligent reading of Yeo's mitigation plea which was presented in court will show that he had been consuming drugs even before he came to the attention of CNB.
In fact, he would not have been of any interest to CNB otherwise; it was his drug abuse which led CNB to investigate him in the first place.
When Yeo was asked if he had any drugs, he volunteered to take drugs to the hotel where he was subsequently arrested with Ecstasy, 'Ice' and Ketamine.
Yeo was, therefore, not a law-abiding person enticed into committing an offence by CNB.
In omitting to highlight the fact that he was a habitual drug abuser, the ST report has misled readers into thinking that CNB had acted unethically when the circumstances of the case clearly showed the contrary and that CNB had acted professionally.
The ST editorial suggests that law-enforcement methods like entrapment should be reserved for only more serious offences involving drug trafficking and 'national security', rather than drug abuse. This demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the situation.
Drug abuse is a serious threat. The battle against drugs in Singapore faces a new challenge - even as we succeeded in addressing the serious heroin problem of the past, today we face a growing potential problem of synthetic-drug abuse.
A majority of those arrested for synthetic-drug abuse are first-time offenders. One of the concerns this trend raises is the mentality of certain segments of our society who think that synthetic drugs are 'soft' drugs which should be tolerated as they are acceptable as part of a modern 'cool' lifestyle. This is a dangerous attitude which we must not allow to take root in our society.
The ST editorial also suggested that because Yeo is a taxi-driver's son who made it as a doctor, but whose future is now uncertain, the action taken against him will 'reinforce in some people a sense that natural justice had been violated'.
This is a strange argument. Surely, the ST is not suggesting that the CNB action would be fairer and more just if Yeo had been related to a person of high social standing?
This cannot be the way our criminal-justice system should work. Indeed, if the application of our criminal laws and the actions of our law-enforcement agencies were to be dictated by factors such as an offender's family connections, income and social status, it would be highly unjust and perverse, and no Singaporean will stand for it.
Finally, the ST editorial concluded by referring to the 'entrapment' case of insurance agent Teo Ya Ling as another illustration of unethical action by the authorities. This is wrong and without basis.
Teo was not an innocent law-abiding party tempted by CNB officers into committing an offence. She was a small-time drug dealer who had all along been supplying drugs to her clients in return for their buying insurance policies from her.
While a time-honoured tenet of natural justice is audi alteram partem - 'to hear the other side' - the ST reporter chose not to obtain and verify the facts of the case with any of the relevant enforcement agencies, other than to ask whether CNB polices chatlines and the Internet.
At no point did the reporter seek the views of any relevant enforcement agency on the issue of entrapment.
If the reporter and the person who wrote the editorial had done their research, your paper would have been able to present a more balanced perspective.
-
Ong-Chew Peck Wan (Mrs)DirectorCorporate CommunicationsDivision for Permanent Secretary (Home Affairs)
--
equal. posted on Saturday, June 10, 2006 | 0 comments
From Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair to Malaysia's former Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad, politicians grumble that people are never happy for the good things the government does for them Voters always want more
One explanation is that politicians are often wrong Things are bad The other explanation for this unhappiness is that it all has to do with rising expectations
But there is more, it seems — it also has to do with wanting to be better off than others
Lord Layard, an eminent British economist, explained in a series of lectures in London, in 2003, that we are often more concerned about our income relative to others than about our absolute income
He quotes a Harvard University study that showed that people were happy with less, as long as others were worse off
Students at Harvard were asked if they would prefer a salary of (a) $50,000 a year while others got half that or (b) $100,000 a year while others got twice as much A majority chose option (a)
"Many other studies have come to the conclusion — that people care about other peoples' incomes as well as their own We are all upset when others get a raise but we do not And the only situation where we might happily accept a pay cut is when others suffer the same fate," he says
Our behaviour at bonus or pay-rise time shows that Lord Layard is on to something here
This means that our efforts to make ourselves happier, by working harder so as to earn more and spend more, are often self-defeating because others are also earning and spending more We do not get much happier and neither do others
And working harder in order to be wealthier could make us more unhappy if we do not have enough spare time For, interestingly, rivalry over income does not extend to leisure, as the same Harvard study shows
Students were asked to choose between (c) two weeks' holiday, while others have only one week and (d) four weeks' holiday while others get eight weeks A clear majority preferred (d)
What has all this to do with Singapore?
It may explain why, in good times, with the economy roaring ahead, the bulls charging and property prices setting new records, most Singaporeans were (and are) never happy, always grumbling and moaning
They showed this by voting in greater numbers for the Opposition in General Elections in 1988, 1991, 1997 and this year
This, despite the Government's attempts to put into practice Bentham's utilitarian principles — "The good society is the one where people are happiest And the right action is the one which produces the greatest happiness "
Most Singaporeans have a more or less equal standard of living Yes, there are some very rich people and some very poor people But most Singaporeans live in almost similar HDB flats, take the same form of transport and so on This means most Singaporeans know no one among their peers who is much worse off than they are
At best, the owners of private condominiums can feel better off than their friends in HDB flats, five-room HDB flats can sneer at four-room flat-owners and so on
Worse, because most Singaporeans are working hard so that they can maintain their life-styles, they have less leisure time This may make them even unhappier
Add to that the feeling that most foreigners working here have better standards of living than locals (forgetting that most foreign talents here are maids and labourers), and I'm surprised that Singaporeans are not rioting in unhappiness
Happiness, in Singapore as elsewhere, has come to be defined in materialistic terms — increasing Gross National Product, bigger flats and so on But as Lord Layard has argued, the exercise is self-defeating because other people are also going well
What with the need to adapt to the new economy with creativity and working smart rather than hard, now may be time for us as a society to try to define what we mean by "happiness"
There's been talk, even, of a Gross National Happiness index along the lines practised by Bhutan
Now that things are better for most of us, isn't it time to relook our values? Time for a "Redefining Happiness" committee?
Better still, let's start debating on what we, as a society, define as "happiness" Already, it seems that things may be moving this way
According to a recent Institute of Policy Studies survey of voters, contrary to popular belief, issues such as the cost of living and jobs were not what mattered most to them The efficiency of government and fairness of government policy mattered more
-
http://www.todayonline.com/articles/123283.asp
--
failed. posted on Saturday, June 10, 2006 | 0 comments
And this attitude apparently prevails even when they are steeped in the liberal culture of the American East Coast colleges such as Wesleyan, Wellesley and Harvard, said Professor Linda Lim, a Singaporean who has been teaching in the United States for more than 20 years.
Ms Lim — an economist and a professor of strategy at the University of Michigan's School of Business — recalled asking a recent batch of such students after a lecture at Brown University, including government scholars, if they were afraid of failure.
"Nearly all of the audience of 70 students raised their hands," Ms Lim told her audience at an Institute of South East Asian Studies seminar yesterday.
Ms Lim, who spoke on the topic, "Singapore — Place or Nation? Implications for Economy, State and Identity", evoked lively interest from her audience made up mainly of academics and diplomats.
She contended that tolerance of risk and acceptance of failure are required for political democracy, business entrepreneurship and scientific discovery — all of which Singapore aspires to.
She said that such a culture could even have an impact on the economy. Many foreigners here, she argued, did not see Singapore as a "nation" but a "stepping stone".
Over the last 10 years, she got to know many Chinese and Indian nationals who studied at Singapore schools and universities, often with scholarships provided by the Singapore government.
They worked in Singapore for a few years and then applied to the US MBA programmes such as the one at Michigan University.
"To my knowledge none has ever returned to Singapore after graduating with MBAs, their goal all along having been to use the place as a stepping-stone to the US job market," she said.
Singapore to them is just a place to study and work — like Ann Arbor, Chicago, New York, San Francisco or London — whereas their nation remains China or India or, for some, eventually the US, she said.
"This is only to be expected of a place which is not a nation, at least not for those passing through," said Dr Lim.
National identity, she felt, has its basis in an emotional affiliation rather than pragmatic self-interest. A person who opts for Singapore because it gave him or her a good job, good lifestyle, good education for the children, is only interested in Singapore as a place.
Then there are those who stick around when Singapore is in trouble and cannot guarantee a good life, and those who are concerned with the welfare of others, or try to improve things even at personal risk. These people are of the nation, and not just the place, said Ms Lim.
What is the way forward? Promote active civic and political participation, and inculcate the "sense of ownership".
"As parents and teachers, we know that the best way to develop our children and students is to let them 'own projects' and make their own mistakes while 'learning-by-doing' even though we are more efficient and better at doing everything than they are," she said. So there was no point in encouraging citizens to be contented, apathetic and dependent on the state.
"That would perhaps be a greater threat to nationhood and national identity," she said
-
http://www.todayonline.com/articles/123359.asp
--
first-tier citizens posted on Sunday, June 04, 2006 | 0 comments
Despite Singapore Table Tennis Federation's push to train her as a top player by sending her to overseas matches, she has chosen to leave Singapore to search for greener pastures elsewhere.
While she may have her reasons for doing so and I am in no position to judge her patriotism towards Singapore, it is saddening to learn that she could be replaced by a more well-deserving local table tennis player who may not be better in skills but has the heart to play for Singapore.
Singapore has always been under pressure to buy off-the-shelf foreign talent rather than invest time and resources in developing our own talent. In cases such as awarding bond-free PhD scholarships to foreign students, or hiring foreign talent to play for Singapore sports, these have always have sparked debate.
The issue is always 'build or buy?'
One of the six messages in national education for school children includes 'No one owes Singapore a living. We must find our own way to survive and prosper.'
This message is self-contradictory in some ways. If Singapore has to find her own ways to survive, the first survival instinct is to look to her own people for help.
If Singapore has always relied on outside help, it implies that we are no good, that we are always second grade citizens. For national education is to be effective, we have to ask what is it in a nation that creates loyalty in citizens and what alienates them?
Issues such as sending our scholars overseas for studies, providing bond-free scholarships to foreign students, allowing foreigners to take part in the Singapore Idol contest, and talent-hunting foreign students to come to Singapore to study only serve to alienate citizens.
With the reverse migration of students from India and China going back to their homelands, Singapore will face another uphill challenge to attract more talented foreigners.
It has been said that first-tier foreigners go to America and Europe while the second-tier foreigners come to Singapore. Very soon, Singapore can attract only third-tier foreigners because many of the brightest foreigners from India and China will be talent-hunted aggressively.
If this is the case, rather than attracting third-tier foreigners, we may as well do more to nurture our own people because we have the capability to be first-tier citizens as well.
Once Singapore can achieve that, even first-tier foreigners will be strongly motivated to come to Singapore to contribute.
It is easier to take a sapling from the greenhouse to grow it rather than planting from seeds. The fruit-bearing phase is shorter for the sapling than for seeds. However, if the seeds grow successfully into strong healthy fruit trees, other insects will travel from afar to the flowers for pollination, thus enhancing the quality of the next generation of seeds.
--
Edmund Lim Wai Hoong
--
`
- requires Quicktime -
--
mainstream. posted on Friday, August 04, 2006 | 6 comments
The Government recently ticked off a columnist-blogger going by the moniker of 'mr brown' for airing what were deemed to be cynical and non-constructive remarks. A minister argued that because the views appeared in the print medium, the writer had to be more responsible, as compared to the case if those views had remained Internet chatter.
Clearly, the Government feels that bloggers have more wiggle room than mainstream journalists whose vehicle can 'push broadcast' to millions while bloggers can only 'pull narrowcast' mainly to the converted.
Some ask if bloggers are journalists at all or merely self-indulgent, opinionated folks expressing their views. This invites the question of what a journalist is in the first place.
Journalists are those who primarily do two things, maybe one more than the other in each individual case:
First, they get accurate information about something new - thus the news - and disseminate it. Secondly, they analyse issues of public concern that this piece of news evokes and comment upon it.
For both of these, but especially the first, that which sets the professional journalist - whose first obligation is to be accurate - apart from the blogger - whose first obligation is to be interesting - is an editorial structure.
This structure entails questioning and challenging assumptions, and editing to ensure that established standards of, among other things, accuracy, truth, objectivity and fairness are upheld.
Most bloggers, on the other hand, do not generally report on something new. Typically, they report on what reporters have reported.
Thus, at best, they are 'meta-reporters'. Yes, in stories like a 9/11, or the July 7 London bombings, where there are crowds, citizens armed with always-on wireless connections, powerful yet inexpensive mobile digital devices as well as easy-to-use, free Internet publishing tools, citizens in many countries can do first-person, grassroots reporting.
This they then publish on their own blogs using tools such as photo-sharing on Flickr, video-sharing on YouTube, or blog-sharing on Technorati.
But this amateur horde will tell few new stories about something newsworthy but which does not have too many people around since they won't be on the scene either. For example, a bomb alert that turns out to be, mercifully, a false alarm has little for them to capture on video, so they will have nothing much to 'report'.
Likewise, the Guardian newspaper's Blair Watch Project - where citizen journalists were asked to contribute mobile phone pictures of the British prime minister on the hustings in 2005 - failed to deliver since that campaign took place mainly before party members, not the public. So bloggers do little news reporting.
A random glance at several blogs will show you that they depend on the mainstream media for their talking points.
They feed on traditional media for content, remaking news the latter may have overlooked or handled (in)differently. Its purveyors are more interested espousing views not regularly covered by the mass media.
The blogging world has no professional writers, publishers, printers or distributors. There is no top-down structure. So who weeds out inaccuracies, lies, spoofs or plain bad taste - and bad writing? Other blogs? If so, who determines the hierarchy of blog believability?
What readers end up with, at best, is truth by majority vote - assuming they have the time to read several blogs on the same matter to carry out a poll of diverse views on a particular issue.
In regard to the journalist's other duty - that of offering fair comment - democratic deliberation and constructive dialogue represent hard work that few bloggers can afford the time to do, even if they had the knowledge and the skills needed. As a result, much of what bloggers offer is either misinformed, self-indulgent opinion or thoughtful but unargued ones.
Of course, bloggers occasionally come up with gems. But in the main and on the whole, we over-romanticise all that Internet chatter if we think that somehow the alternative media will rise up and supplant mainstream media.
For now, that is.
For the blogosphere continues to expand. The significance of the fact that publishing on the web has become so easy is that the barriers of professionalism and specialisation have been removed such that 'ordinary' people come to see media production as something they can do and as part of the everyday, according to Dr Chris Atton, a reader in journalism at the Napier University in Edinburgh, Scotland.
As Dr Atton told The Straits Times, participating in this alternative media can 'shape one's political awareness by raising one's consciousness'. How? Liken the activity to glue, he suggested, but one that is subject to refinement to make it a more effective social glue.
The activity itself provides an opportunity to research, write and reflect on issues that impact upon our status as citizens. It also encourages a more thorough going relationship with one's community.
Finally, that communication also works outwardly to government bodies, city councils, business corporations and nonprofits, Dr Atton added.
Essentially then, blogging provides an opportunity for citizens to reflect on their place in the world and develop solidarity with and communicate their needs, demands or desires to others, he said.
At the heart of this activity is creativity. It is not about joining a protest group or going to a demonstration. It is, Dr Atton said, about developing a personal voice through which to make sense of the world, both for oneself and for one's community.
So while blogging may not impact government institutions in radical ways for now, it has the capacity to change the polity in small, indiscernible ways that may accumulate to make a difference - even at the polls - some day down the road.
With Technorati, the blog search engine, showing more than 940,000 blogs that are associated with the search word 'Singapore', it may be high time the Government began to take this more seriously than just chatter.
As seriously as the mainstream media, perhaps.
--
By Andy Ho, Senior Writer Aug 02, 2006 The Straits Times
--
lodged. posted on Sunday, July 16, 2006 | 1 comments
These are the reactions of handphone users who have seen a video-clip of three girls assaulting another girl.
The 4 1/2-minute-long clip, taken on a handphone, has caused a stir because the assailants and victim appear to be young teens.
The victim is kicked, slapped and punched by her assailants, forced to take off her shirt and almost has her shorts removed.
A voice can be heard in the background orchestrating the attack.
The calm voice giving instructions on how to hurt the girl is chilling.
The victim can also be heard faintly at one point saying, 'I'm sorry, I'm sorry.'
The attack appears to have taken place at an HDB staircase landing.
The brutality of the assailants' actions have horrified those who have chanced upon the video.
Mr Andre Rosli, 29, was shocked when he saw the clip.
'It's one thing to beat someone up and another thing to strip and humiliate her in front of other girls and film the entire act,' he told The New Paper.
'I'm repulsed by their violent actions. It's totally sick and made me feel like vomiting.'
Although he doesn't understand part of the Mandarin dialogue, and other bits are inaudible, he was shaken by how the assailants took turns to taunt the victim.
The New Paper received two Hotline calls about the video and understands it is making its way to handphones here. Checks showed that several students in one ITE had received it.
It is not known if a police report has been made by the victim or anyone who witnessed the assault.
It is also not clear if the assault was staged, although those who have viewed it felt that it's genuine.
Mr Andre, an ITE student, said: 'The actions are enough to convince me they are not putting on an act but are really attacking a helpless girl. It is cruel because the victim cannot retaliate as she is outnumbered.'
Miss Noor Azima Amir, his classmate, agreed.
The 19-year-old said: 'It's especially shocking as the assailants are girls, and they are laughing and giggling while beating the girl up!
'I wouldn't be too surprised if guys are behind such acts because they're more rough, but seeing girls behind such acts is unbelievable.
'I feel sorry for the victim because she was still ridiculed and abused even though she apologised.'
Another student, Miss Hong Mei Rong, 19, added in Mandarin: 'I've never seen such a violent clip.
'I can't imagine what the victim might have done to warrant the attack.'
Such aggression is not new, said Mr David Kan, counsellor and executive director of the Family Life Centre.
All that is new is how assailants are using handphone cameras to record their actions, as such video recording becomes more commonplace.
Mr Kan said: 'Kids who record their acts of torture do it not only for gratification. They also want to draw attention to themselves and seek approval from others.
'Many of them feel that their lives have been overlooked and hope that by engaging in such actions, they will be able to get the attention they crave.'
Mr Adrian Lim, the managing director of Tyem Academy which equips out-of-school youths with career academic programmes, has seen videos showing girls beating up other girls.
He explained that such clips are the teenagers' way of saying 'don't play punk with me. I'm quite fierce; see what I'm capable of'.
Mr Lim said: 'This is reality TV brought to the handphone level.
'The assailants may find it fun - they may giggle and laugh when they're doing it because it would not occur to them that they would be identified.
'The repercussions of their actions would not hit them at all, and even if you ask them if they are behind it, they might challenge you to prove their identity. It's an act of defiance.'
Lawyer Peter Low described the assailants' actions as 'cruel and vicious'.
They could be charged with assault or criminal force with intent to dishonour the victim and intent to outrage modesty, as well as voluntarily causing hurt. Each carries a jail sentence and/or fine.
Mr Low said the assailants could face a custodial sentence because of the aggravating factors:
It was a group attack.
The assault went on for more than four minutes.
The victim was vulnerable and defenceless.
He added: 'If they're minors, they could be sent to a girls' home.'
Police spokesman Cheryl Foo said: 'The police will look into the matter when a report is lodged.'
-
Dawn Chia, June 16 2006, The New Paper
--
Singapore’s falling living standards posted on Saturday, July 08, 2006 | 0 comments
Singapore - A local Singapore newspaper, Today, just suspended one of its regular columnists after the government gave him a tongue-lashing for his writings about the deteriorating state of the local economy.
Lee Kin Mun, who writes under the pseudonym "Mr Brown", wrote a harsh, though humorous, commentary on June 30 concerning Singapore’s rising cost of living, mentioning that latest official statistics showed that one in every three Singaporean households had suffered a reduction in income over the last five years. The irony, which was not lost on the island state’s government, was that Lee cited official statistics to bolster his argument.
On June 28, the Department of Statistics (DOS) issued a press release with a slew of new data from its general household survey. The most striking result was that only 50% of Singaporean households enjoyed any significant improvement in their income over the five-year period spanning 2000 to 2005.
Moreover, the bottom 10.1% of households reported no or negative income, a marked deterioration from the 2000 level when 8.7% of the population reported they were in the red. The DOS explained that a possible factor for the notable increase was the aging of Singapore's population and that an increasing percentage of the population was retiring.
More striking, perhaps, the 11 to 20 percentile group saw their household incomes fall a whopping 19.7% over the same five year period. On average, these households had S$1,180 (US$744) monthly incomes last year, compared to S$1,470 (US$927) five years previously. On an annualized basis, their average household income fell 4.3% each year. A smaller income fall was recorded for the next up percentile group.
The DOS suggested that the decline in household income in these two groups "was partly caused by the larger number of households with retired persons and no incomes". "It could also be partly due to the higher unemployment in 2005 than 2000 ... and lower income from employment," the statement said, which acknowledges both structural unemployment and depressed wages in less-skilled jobs.
The data on household income notably excludes government hand-outs, which the ruling People’s Action Party doled out just before the general elections they resoundingly won earlier this year. The most recent round of hand-outs, which targeted the lower-income households, was called the "Progress Package". In contrast to the one-third of households which witnessed falling household incomes, the top10% of households saw a 14.8% improvement in theirs. In Singapore dollar terms, their monthly household incomes leapt by an average of S$2,120 (US$1,337) over the period.
The figures show clearly that income inequality in Singapore is increasing rapidly. The DOS reported that the Gini coefficient increased from 0.490 to 0.522 from year 2000 to 2005. The Gini coefficient is a statistical measure of income inequality, whereby the higher the number, the more unequal the distribution.
The Straits Times, Singapore’s government-influenced major English language newspaper, reported that members of parliament were, "not surprised by the survey findings, noting that these reflected the effects of globalization." This response was consistent with the Ministry of Information, Communication and the Arts' letter to Today explaining that the government "had told Singaporeans all along, that globalization would stretch out incomes".
However, most Singaporeans would probably have taken "stretch out" to mean that incomes would universally rise but at differential rates, not that a large percentage of the population would get poorer. The increasing cost of living was one of the major issues in the May 2006 general election, but the data from this survey was conspicuously not released in time for the May polls.
In his commentary, Mr Brown alluded to how convenient it was that the survey results, together with recent announcements about increases in electricity rates and taxi fares, have come out after rather than before the elections. "We are very thankful for the timing of all this good news, of course. Just after the elections, for instance," he wrote, tongue in cheek. "It would have been too taxing on the brain if those price increases were announced during the election period, thereby affecting our ability to choose wisely," he wrote.
On July 3, a stern rebuke from the government appeared in the form of a letter published in Today. Signed by Miss Krishnasamy Bhavani, the Press Secretary to the Minister for Information, Communication and the Arts, she denied that the release of the survey data was in any way delayed for political purposes. She took Mr Brown to task for writing a piece that "poured sarcasm on many issues", and claimed that his views "distort the truth".
Characterizing his commentary as "polemics dressed up as analysis", Bhavani accused him of calculating to "encourage cynicism and despondency". "Instead of a diatribe," she continued, Mr Brown "should offer constructive criticism and alternatives. And he should come out from behind his pseudonym to defend his views openly."
This statement echoed the government's growing concerns that anonymous bloggers on the Internet have found a venue to criticize the PAP-led administration in ways which otherwise would be impossible in Singapore’s tightly-controlled society. The government's response has been to try to frame all anonymous posts and blogs as “irresponsible and discreditable”, and is now exploring new laws and regulations to rein them in. Mr Brown also runs one of Singapore's best-known blogs, even though he also writes a regular column for the print newspaper.
But immediately after the government's outburst, which included a reminder to the newspaper that, "It is not the role of journalists or newspapers in Singapore to champion issues, or campaign for or against the government," the editors of Today told Lee his column would be suspended indefinitely. Left with only government-influenced mainstream media, Singaporeans will likely be left to guess if their economic lot is improving or deteriorating until the DOS’s next 5-year survey is released - unless their wallets tell them first.
--
Alex Au is an independent social and political commentator and freelance writer based in Singapore. He often speaks at public forums on politics, culture and gay issues.
--
balanced. posted on Sunday, June 18, 2006 | 0 comments
Jun 17, 2006, Straits Times
-
The report, 'Entrapment: Lawyers say narcotics officers crossed the line in quest to nab offender, but any method of entrapment is legal here' (ST, June 9), suggested that the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) had acted unethically in the apprehension of Adrian Yeo for drug possession.
This led to various letters from concerned members of the public on the entrapment issue.
The Straits Times followed up on the subject with an editorial, 'Entrapment: Fair or not?' (June 14), advocating that CNB's action against Yeo was somehow wrong because 'fair-minded people are entitled to point out it seems neither fair nor ethical to encourage a person to break the law, just for enforcement agencies to gather evidence'.
The ST article published on June 9 regrettably did not report all the facts of Yeo's case. A diligent reading of Yeo's mitigation plea which was presented in court will show that he had been consuming drugs even before he came to the attention of CNB.
In fact, he would not have been of any interest to CNB otherwise; it was his drug abuse which led CNB to investigate him in the first place.
When Yeo was asked if he had any drugs, he volunteered to take drugs to the hotel where he was subsequently arrested with Ecstasy, 'Ice' and Ketamine.
Yeo was, therefore, not a law-abiding person enticed into committing an offence by CNB.
In omitting to highlight the fact that he was a habitual drug abuser, the ST report has misled readers into thinking that CNB had acted unethically when the circumstances of the case clearly showed the contrary and that CNB had acted professionally.
The ST editorial suggests that law-enforcement methods like entrapment should be reserved for only more serious offences involving drug trafficking and 'national security', rather than drug abuse. This demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the situation.
Drug abuse is a serious threat. The battle against drugs in Singapore faces a new challenge - even as we succeeded in addressing the serious heroin problem of the past, today we face a growing potential problem of synthetic-drug abuse.
A majority of those arrested for synthetic-drug abuse are first-time offenders. One of the concerns this trend raises is the mentality of certain segments of our society who think that synthetic drugs are 'soft' drugs which should be tolerated as they are acceptable as part of a modern 'cool' lifestyle. This is a dangerous attitude which we must not allow to take root in our society.
The ST editorial also suggested that because Yeo is a taxi-driver's son who made it as a doctor, but whose future is now uncertain, the action taken against him will 'reinforce in some people a sense that natural justice had been violated'.
This is a strange argument. Surely, the ST is not suggesting that the CNB action would be fairer and more just if Yeo had been related to a person of high social standing?
This cannot be the way our criminal-justice system should work. Indeed, if the application of our criminal laws and the actions of our law-enforcement agencies were to be dictated by factors such as an offender's family connections, income and social status, it would be highly unjust and perverse, and no Singaporean will stand for it.
Finally, the ST editorial concluded by referring to the 'entrapment' case of insurance agent Teo Ya Ling as another illustration of unethical action by the authorities. This is wrong and without basis.
Teo was not an innocent law-abiding party tempted by CNB officers into committing an offence. She was a small-time drug dealer who had all along been supplying drugs to her clients in return for their buying insurance policies from her.
While a time-honoured tenet of natural justice is audi alteram partem - 'to hear the other side' - the ST reporter chose not to obtain and verify the facts of the case with any of the relevant enforcement agencies, other than to ask whether CNB polices chatlines and the Internet.
At no point did the reporter seek the views of any relevant enforcement agency on the issue of entrapment.
If the reporter and the person who wrote the editorial had done their research, your paper would have been able to present a more balanced perspective.
-
Ong-Chew Peck Wan (Mrs)DirectorCorporate CommunicationsDivision for Permanent Secretary (Home Affairs)
--
equal. posted on Saturday, June 10, 2006 | 0 comments
Politicans and civil servants around the world share the view that voters are always unhappy (and ungrateful)
From Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair to Malaysia's former Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad, politicians grumble that people are never happy for the good things the government does for them Voters always want more
One explanation is that politicians are often wrong Things are bad The other explanation for this unhappiness is that it all has to do with rising expectations
But there is more, it seems — it also has to do with wanting to be better off than others
Lord Layard, an eminent British economist, explained in a series of lectures in London, in 2003, that we are often more concerned about our income relative to others than about our absolute income
He quotes a Harvard University study that showed that people were happy with less, as long as others were worse off
Students at Harvard were asked if they would prefer a salary of (a) $50,000 a year while others got half that or (b) $100,000 a year while others got twice as much A majority chose option (a)
"Many other studies have come to the conclusion — that people care about other peoples' incomes as well as their own We are all upset when others get a raise but we do not And the only situation where we might happily accept a pay cut is when others suffer the same fate," he says
Our behaviour at bonus or pay-rise time shows that Lord Layard is on to something here
This means that our efforts to make ourselves happier, by working harder so as to earn more and spend more, are often self-defeating because others are also earning and spending more We do not get much happier and neither do others
And working harder in order to be wealthier could make us more unhappy if we do not have enough spare time For, interestingly, rivalry over income does not extend to leisure, as the same Harvard study shows
Students were asked to choose between (c) two weeks' holiday, while others have only one week and (d) four weeks' holiday while others get eight weeks A clear majority preferred (d)
What has all this to do with Singapore?
It may explain why, in good times, with the economy roaring ahead, the bulls charging and property prices setting new records, most Singaporeans were (and are) never happy, always grumbling and moaning
They showed this by voting in greater numbers for the Opposition in General Elections in 1988, 1991, 1997 and this year
This, despite the Government's attempts to put into practice Bentham's utilitarian principles — "The good society is the one where people are happiest And the right action is the one which produces the greatest happiness "
Most Singaporeans have a more or less equal standard of living Yes, there are some very rich people and some very poor people But most Singaporeans live in almost similar HDB flats, take the same form of transport and so on This means most Singaporeans know no one among their peers who is much worse off than they are
At best, the owners of private condominiums can feel better off than their friends in HDB flats, five-room HDB flats can sneer at four-room flat-owners and so on
Worse, because most Singaporeans are working hard so that they can maintain their life-styles, they have less leisure time This may make them even unhappier
Add to that the feeling that most foreigners working here have better standards of living than locals (forgetting that most foreign talents here are maids and labourers), and I'm surprised that Singaporeans are not rioting in unhappiness
Happiness, in Singapore as elsewhere, has come to be defined in materialistic terms — increasing Gross National Product, bigger flats and so on But as Lord Layard has argued, the exercise is self-defeating because other people are also going well
What with the need to adapt to the new economy with creativity and working smart rather than hard, now may be time for us as a society to try to define what we mean by "happiness"
There's been talk, even, of a Gross National Happiness index along the lines practised by Bhutan
Now that things are better for most of us, isn't it time to relook our values? Time for a "Redefining Happiness" committee?
Better still, let's start debating on what we, as a society, define as "happiness" Already, it seems that things may be moving this way
According to a recent Institute of Policy Studies survey of voters, contrary to popular belief, issues such as the cost of living and jobs were not what mattered most to them The efficiency of government and fairness of government policy mattered more
-
http://www.todayonline.com/articles/123283.asp
--
failed. posted on Saturday, June 10, 2006 | 0 comments
Singaporeans and Malaysians studying overseas are readily identifiable, it seems, because of their kiasu attitude.
And this attitude apparently prevails even when they are steeped in the liberal culture of the American East Coast colleges such as Wesleyan, Wellesley and Harvard, said Professor Linda Lim, a Singaporean who has been teaching in the United States for more than 20 years.
Ms Lim — an economist and a professor of strategy at the University of Michigan's School of Business — recalled asking a recent batch of such students after a lecture at Brown University, including government scholars, if they were afraid of failure.
"Nearly all of the audience of 70 students raised their hands," Ms Lim told her audience at an Institute of South East Asian Studies seminar yesterday.
Ms Lim, who spoke on the topic, "Singapore — Place or Nation? Implications for Economy, State and Identity", evoked lively interest from her audience made up mainly of academics and diplomats.
She contended that tolerance of risk and acceptance of failure are required for political democracy, business entrepreneurship and scientific discovery — all of which Singapore aspires to.
She said that such a culture could even have an impact on the economy. Many foreigners here, she argued, did not see Singapore as a "nation" but a "stepping stone".
Over the last 10 years, she got to know many Chinese and Indian nationals who studied at Singapore schools and universities, often with scholarships provided by the Singapore government.
They worked in Singapore for a few years and then applied to the US MBA programmes such as the one at Michigan University.
"To my knowledge none has ever returned to Singapore after graduating with MBAs, their goal all along having been to use the place as a stepping-stone to the US job market," she said.
Singapore to them is just a place to study and work — like Ann Arbor, Chicago, New York, San Francisco or London — whereas their nation remains China or India or, for some, eventually the US, she said.
"This is only to be expected of a place which is not a nation, at least not for those passing through," said Dr Lim.
National identity, she felt, has its basis in an emotional affiliation rather than pragmatic self-interest. A person who opts for Singapore because it gave him or her a good job, good lifestyle, good education for the children, is only interested in Singapore as a place.
Then there are those who stick around when Singapore is in trouble and cannot guarantee a good life, and those who are concerned with the welfare of others, or try to improve things even at personal risk. These people are of the nation, and not just the place, said Ms Lim.
What is the way forward? Promote active civic and political participation, and inculcate the "sense of ownership".
"As parents and teachers, we know that the best way to develop our children and students is to let them 'own projects' and make their own mistakes while 'learning-by-doing' even though we are more efficient and better at doing everything than they are," she said. So there was no point in encouraging citizens to be contented, apathetic and dependent on the state.
"That would perhaps be a greater threat to nationhood and national identity," she said
-
http://www.todayonline.com/articles/123359.asp
--
first-tier citizens posted on Sunday, June 04, 2006 | 0 comments
I find it disheartening that a table tennis star such as Xu Yan would choose to leave Singapore after obtaining her citizenship a few years ago (Xu Yan may play for German club - ST, May 26).
Despite Singapore Table Tennis Federation's push to train her as a top player by sending her to overseas matches, she has chosen to leave Singapore to search for greener pastures elsewhere.
While she may have her reasons for doing so and I am in no position to judge her patriotism towards Singapore, it is saddening to learn that she could be replaced by a more well-deserving local table tennis player who may not be better in skills but has the heart to play for Singapore.
Singapore has always been under pressure to buy off-the-shelf foreign talent rather than invest time and resources in developing our own talent. In cases such as awarding bond-free PhD scholarships to foreign students, or hiring foreign talent to play for Singapore sports, these have always have sparked debate.
The issue is always 'build or buy?'
One of the six messages in national education for school children includes 'No one owes Singapore a living. We must find our own way to survive and prosper.'
This message is self-contradictory in some ways. If Singapore has to find her own ways to survive, the first survival instinct is to look to her own people for help.
If Singapore has always relied on outside help, it implies that we are no good, that we are always second grade citizens. For national education is to be effective, we have to ask what is it in a nation that creates loyalty in citizens and what alienates them?
Issues such as sending our scholars overseas for studies, providing bond-free scholarships to foreign students, allowing foreigners to take part in the Singapore Idol contest, and talent-hunting foreign students to come to Singapore to study only serve to alienate citizens.
With the reverse migration of students from India and China going back to their homelands, Singapore will face another uphill challenge to attract more talented foreigners.
It has been said that first-tier foreigners go to America and Europe while the second-tier foreigners come to Singapore. Very soon, Singapore can attract only third-tier foreigners because many of the brightest foreigners from India and China will be talent-hunted aggressively.
If this is the case, rather than attracting third-tier foreigners, we may as well do more to nurture our own people because we have the capability to be first-tier citizens as well.
Once Singapore can achieve that, even first-tier foreigners will be strongly motivated to come to Singapore to contribute.
It is easier to take a sapling from the greenhouse to grow it rather than planting from seeds. The fruit-bearing phase is shorter for the sapling than for seeds. However, if the seeds grow successfully into strong healthy fruit trees, other insects will travel from afar to the flowers for pollination, thus enhancing the quality of the next generation of seeds.
--
Edmund Lim Wai Hoong
--