The Unions, the Press and the People

Leong Sze Hian & Choo Zheng Xi

Let the people eat…detergent?

Does the media’s reporting of detergent prices reveal a deeper conflict of interest that may harm the country?

Once in awhile pearls of wisdom are found in The New Paper. Larry Havekamp a.k.a. Dr Money, in his financial column in The New Paper, likened statistics to bikinis: what they reveal is suggestive, what they conceal is vital (New Paper, May 5).

We refer to the article in the Straits Times headlined “Rice and cooking oil lead price rise: New Case survey of prices across retailers points out cheaper options for buyers” (Straits Times, May 3).

Read more

Letter to ST Forum

The following is a letter by Ng E Jay which was published by the Straits Times, May 14, 2008.

Internet should not be subject to the law over and above those that apply in real life

I AM one of the 13 bloggers who submitted proposals for Internet freedom to the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts. I would like to respond to Monday’s online letter, ‘Internet freedom: Rights come with responsibilities’ by Mr Mok Wing Tat in my personal capacity.

The proposals recognise that freedom comes with responsibility. The question is who should determine what is right and wrong on the Internet, and how society’s values should be enforced by the law. The proposals are concerned with the kinds of regulation that can allow us to harness the benefits of free speech while minimising the harm that free speech can cause.

The group believes that many of society’s legitimate concerns about the abuse of free speech can be addressed through community moderation. One possible approach is to organise a citizen-based Internet Content Consultative Committee (IC3) which would issue recommendations whenever controversies arise regarding Internet content, for example, offering its views when content providers are alleged to have behaved irresponsibly. The objective over time is to subject Internet content to public debate, replacing intervention by the state with the people’s own judgment.

I personally believe that as long as issues like race or religion are not involved, regulation of political content on the Internet is unjustified in principle and unenforceable in practice. The group, as a whole, believes that certain sections of the Parliamentary Elections Act regulating election advertising over the Internet during an election period should be abolished. Similarly, the section of the Films Act banning the manufacture and distribution of party political films should also be abolished.

Mr Mok is particularly concerned that free speech on the Internet often degenerates into insults and harassment. In real life, anyone who has been defamed or has suffered harassment can seek legal redress. I am of the opinion that laws that apply offline in the real world should apply equally online, but no further. The Internet should not be subject to regulation over and above those that apply in real life. Additionally, Internet users can protect themselves by maintaining anonymity. Internet users like me who have voluntarily chosen to reveal their identities online have to be responsible for it.

Ng E-Jay

——————

Does S’pore deserve its press ranking?

Terence Lee

In a 2008 survey by Freedom House, Singapore has shown no improvement in its freedom of the press, despite the maturing of online media as a medium to air alternative views.

The latest results reveal nothing new: much has already been said about the deplorable state of press freedom in Singapore, ranked a lowly 153^rd out of 195 countries, sharing the same ranking as Iraq. The idea that Singapore is first-world in economic competitiveness but third-world in press freedom and civil liberties has already become an over-sung tune.

A check with Freedom House’s past survey results revealed that Singapore has not only been stagnating, but has in fact deteriorated in terms of press freedom, increasing from a score of 60 (the lower the score, the freer the press) in 1994 to 69 in 2008.

Read more

Give credit where credit is due, Andy

Andrew Loh

A recent public forum about youth concerns raised the issue of lowering the voting age to 18.

———

Perhaps a post-1965 Member of Parliament might initiate the debate to enfranchise these trustees of our posterity.

- Andy Ho, Senior Writer, Straits Times, May 8, 2008, “If old enough for NS, why not the vote?”

The above are quotes from Ho’s article. The first one is the very first line of his piece, and the second one the very last sentence from it.

The “recent public forum” Ho was alluding to, I suppose, was the Youthquake forum held at the Workers’ Party (WP) headquarters on May 4, 2008. It was organised by the WP’s Youth Wing (YW) and in particular Bernard Chen, the YW’s Organising Secretary. (TOC reported on the event here.)

(I do not know of any other “recent public forum” which addressed the issue of the voting age.)

The forum’s title was, “Should Singaporean Youths be Allowed to Vote at 18?”

I think as a journalist – and a senior writer at that – Ho should have given due recognition to the organizers of the forum and not just allude to it. In fact, Ho avoided mentioning the WP altogether. This wouldn’t be so bad if not for the last sentence of that piece - Ho called on “a post-1965 Member in Parliament” to “initiate” the debate on the issue. I would have thought that the youths at the forum had initiated the debate already!

And as we all know, the only “post-1965 Members of Parliament” (also called P65 MPs) are from the People’s Action Party (PAP).

One can only wonder why Ho did not instead urge the WP to “initiate” or further the call to lower the voting age and instead called on PAP MPs to do so. After all, the forum was organised by the WP and not the PAP. This is quite bewildering, to say the least.

While it is laudable that Ho made some good arguments in favour of Singaporeans being allowed to vote at 18, closer scrutiny of his article reveals virtually the same points which were highlighted by the young speakers at the forum, particularly by Khairulanwar.

Here, Ho again failed to mention that the young forum speakers had also brought up virtually all of the points he raised in his article.

For example:

Ho said:

Perhaps a post-1965 Member of Parliament might initiate the debate to enfranchise these trustees of our posterity.

National Serviceman Khairulanwar, in his speech at the forum, said:

This suggests that the government has an implicit trust in the NSFs (Full-time National Servicemen) to undertake such a critical responsibility; however a similar trust to enfranchise us into the electorate remains lacking.

Today, May 9, the Youth Wing of the WP responded to Ho’s article. On its website, the YW says:

We agree with the arguments raised in Mr. Ho’s editorial, since virtually all of these arguments were raised by the speakers at the above event and duly recorded by Mediacorp, and urge that this matter be debated in Parliament regardless of partisan standing.

We stand united for the betterment of the nation.

Yes, we should all move on and address the issue of lowering the voting age in Singapore to 18 which, by the way, is the age most countries have legally adopted as the age of majority.

Nonetheless, one would expect senior writers in a national newspaper to not be shy from giving credit where credit is due, especially when it is something which is being fronted and organised by the youths of Singapore – even if they are from or invited by opposition parties.

Give credit where credit is due, Andy. (Though you may not have been there at the forum, as far as I know.)

And while you’re at it, do applaud the youths for speaking out too.

—————-

Singaporean activists mark World Press Freedom Day 2008

To mark World Press Freedom Day 2008, a group of Singaporean independent activists held a demonstration outside the Singapore Press Holdings’ News Centre building on May 3.

Below is the group’s message explaining the purpose of their demonstration.

WORLD PRESS FREEDOM DAY 2008
Today is World Press Freedom Day: an opportunity to reflect upon the principles of press freedom. Press freedom must be championed and protected as it comprises the fundamental Freedom of Expression (Article 19, Universal Declaration of Human Rights). UNESCO’s 2008 themes for this day are Access to Information and Empowerment.

In resonance with this, we as independent activists marked World Press Freedom Day 2008 this morning, with a series of messages to share our thoughts on the state of press freedom in Singapore.

Read more

Demonising the Internet – and bloggers

Andrew Loh

With so many shenanigans and so much bad press, is it any wonder that bloggers here are gaining a reputation as irresponsible netizens?

The above quote is from Clarence Chang of The New Paper in an article titled, “Why are S’pore bloggers clueless and careless?” (2005).

Also in that article, Chang says:

They slime, ‘flame’ and take potshots at others. The more outrageous the comments, it seems, the better. In Singapore, bloggers appear to think that anything goes.

Three years on, it seems that the attacks by the mainstream media (MSM) on the Internet, and bloggers in particular, haven’t let up.

Read more

TOC Editorial: ST’s Mas Selamat coverage bad for the ST, worse for Singapore

Editorial

“If it is determined there was only one weak link, at junior escort level, then the people should stop carping about why it is usually small fish that get fried.”

- Straits Times, April 24, Page 23, “Were failings systemic?”.

The term ‘wag the dog’ was introduced into popular political discourse by a 1997 American film starring Robert DeNiro. In it, he plays a Washington Hollywood director turned spin doctor charged with rehabilitating the flagging ratings of a President caught in the midst of a sex scandal. To do this, our protagonist manufactures a fake war with Albania.

Our national newspaper, the Straits Times (ST), seems to have taken a page out of DeNiro’s book of tricks.

Before the dust has settled on one of the most shocking security oversights and incompetent post-debacle information bottlenecks in our nation’s history, the ST has chosen to banish their coverage of the Mas Selamat backlash to the inner pages of the Home page. The front page story: a resurgence in hand, foot and mouth disease.

Read more