Silt stired up from "Voice of common sense"

I got an immense, and maybe perverse, sense of pleasure from the responses to this article. Not all were positive, but it was definitely going in the direction I wanted. The parrying back and forth was most satisfying, and gave me much hope that our media can finally be a "true" public sphere...

First, Chia Hern Keng's "Country's survival comes first" (6 Dec) takes at swipe at environmentalism. I was made to sound like a elitist tree-hugging hippies. I had a good chuckle at it, because that is what I am furthest from, but then it got me as to how serious his opinions can mean for our green movement.

As it was, Marryanne Maes can to the rescue with "Development that ignores impact on the environment can hurt a nation" (7 Dec), espousing sustainable development - I point that I seemed to have failed in bringing across. Saved me the need to respond, really.

And then we had a letter from Mohammad Fahmi Ahmad Abu Bakar, "How about an undersea tower instead?" (8 Dec) with an additional section on the same page by Edric Sng about the feasibility of his suggestion - "Wouldn't it be nice? Just one problem ..." (8 Dec). I believe Edric is also the editor for FiNS Magazine.

All in all, a good workout for writers. But my concern is still whether all this fine writing has brought greater awareness to sustainable development and if it will have any effect on the development of the Sentosa IR, now publicly awarded to the Genting consortium. N

"Voice of common sense" - Today

My latest article for Today's Voices section is "Voice of common sense", 4 Dec 2006. By far, the article that has been the least altered. Except for the title - my original was "Can we be unique just by being true to our words?",as follows.

The environment will always be one of my biggest concerns, although it is not one of the issues I usually write about. I don't regard myself as an expert in the area. However, given that this blog is really about pushing the limits of the public sphere, and env issues tend to get a backhand in Singapore, perhaps it's time to push a little harder...

* * * * *

"What do you mean, you nearly fell asleep?" I asked my colleague in horror.

We were talking about An Inconvenient Truth, which for me was probably the most thought-provoking movie of the year. "I didn't know it would be Al Gore giving a lecture – so boring!" she protested.

I should have risen to the occasion and given my most heart-rending and vivid account of the Earth's plight, but I stopped myself unwittingly. Can my concern for our little blue globe be a good enough reason to lend credit to a film that is, admittedly, a few points short in the excitement quotient?

Such is the argument found in many dilemmas we face today. As the odds seem insurmountable, we lose faith and start to doubt our own attitudes, beliefs and values. It is not uncommon to find ourselves succumbing to commonly accepted standards, when we feel that our own voice in the matter seems small and insignificant.

In environment conservation terms, the line of reasoning is usually drawn between economic imperatives and the often minority green view about doing the right thing regardless. We tend to believe that there is no way the smaller voices of green activists can be heard. Much as we would like to prove this biased opinion wrong, social reality often confirms it.

Such, too, is the case for the usual rhetoric in our island state Singapore, the most recent and prominent example being the development of the integrated resort on Sentosa. Of the three bids that vie for the coveted prize, two have already made it clear that their proposals are in direct opposition to the voices of a few local conservationists.

That is, of course, if you ever have reason to doubt their irrefutable logic that taking whale sharks out of their natural environment and keeping them in a tank to be harassed repeatedly by snorkellers is the best way to save them.

Yet, we are also led to believe that a successful IR must be one of its kind, even it that means having the world's largest fish tank that some are deluded enough to believe can stand in as an ocean for "the world's largest mammal (sic)".

Or course, all this should matter little on an island that is used to trading a green jungle for a grey concrete one. But our dilemma now is our status as a developed nation with a global duty to act responsibly for the benefit of our natural environment.

Singapore has signed the Kyoto Protocol. Even more recently, our Prime Minister has made a plea at the Asean Summit in Hanoi for greater efforts in sustainable development.

And back at home, we are still ready to award million-dollar contracts to corporations that have arguable environmental focuses. While we cannot deny them their commercial interests, the decision our authorities make this month in choosing the operator for our second IR, as much as the restrictions we impose on them to ensure they follow the best of environmental practices, will send a clear signal to the world about our sincerity in environmental conservation.

Sadly, this will not be the last opportunity that forces us to make such decisions. Already, there are plans to develop our southern islands, one of our last vestiges of natural recluse, and by all counts our heritage for marine life. If we were to sanction a Sentosa IR that has less environment-friendly inclinations, would it set the standard for future developments? At stake here is more than a piece of land or water, but our piece of international integrity. We cannot afford to live with this burden of hypocrisy on our shoulders, even if the rest of the world is forgiving.

Is coming up with our star attractions, will the prerequisite of being one of a kind in the world, at the expense of inconvenient truths, be the only way to keep Singapore’s economy going? Will the world think less of us if we choose instead to be unique in our character, appreciating us for keeping our word on conservation rather than snide us for being less flamboyant with our tourism centerpiece?

Can our concern for our planet be a good enough reason to lend credit to responsible and sustainable development, even if it is a few points short in the novelty quotient?

We might never be comfortable with the answer. Some Singaporeans have made their small voices heard in support of common sense, not commercial cents. But it will take more than a few voices to cut through our economic rhetoric. What we need is for every Singaporean to realise that the world is watching us. N

That don't impress me much, Mr MP

I'm a P65+10, give or take a few months. To me, the difference between hip-hop and break-dance is minimal, chiefly in the harm each will do to different parts of my body. I feel this is an activity best left to those who are at least P65+20.

Like most is them, I own an mp3 player - loaded, not with the latest hip-hop and pop tunes downloaded from the Internet, but classic rock ripped from my trusty CD collection.

I don't pretend to be like or even understand the P65+20s, but I do get to mix with them in the course of my work and leisure. Interestingly, not all of them dance hip-hop or keep a blog.
So, for the life of me, I simply cannot understand how our young P65+5 MPs, give or take a few years, could hope to connect with our youth simply by apeing them.

An "A" for the effort, of course, but would it be a dismal ''D'' for barking up the wrong tree?

Loh Chee Kong, in his article "A hip-hop MP who blogs? Why not?" (12 Oct) seems to think they have it spot on – a little ragged-breath, but receiving nothing worse than giggles from the kids. In fact, Loh believes that the MPs deserve some brownie points just for being gung-ho and sporting.

Not that being gung-ho and sporting are not praise-worthy traits. My concern is that our young MPs are not doing what we voted them in to do, despite what Loh claims to be the nation's expectation.

I mean, really. If I were to agree to part with $11,000 worth of taxes every month just to see a bloke in his mid-30s sweat and jive with the kids, our economy must be doing a lot better than reported.

No. When I cast my vote, I wanted an MP who listens more than prattle the party punch lines, who understands the aspirations of the next generation and have the courage to stand up for their interests in parliament, instead of having the courage to try some fancy footwork.

Instead, what I heard from both the young PAP and Opposition nominees back then stuck closely to what their parties championed for the majority, with hardly a peep for the youth. Or maybe I'm getting old and hard of hearing. Economy and jobs, check. Elderly matters, check. Racial harmony, check. Stuff for youths, rain check.

But that aside, our young MPs seem to truly believe that representing youths is something that should be done only by telling the country that they were born after 1965. And to prove that, what better way than to hip-hop into their hearts.

Is this what Loh believes the young MPs are doing to "redraw the political landscape and help establish a connection with young Singaporeans who do not see the relevance of politics in their everyday life"?

I never believed that our young were ever apathetic or cynical. I would challenge that their disassociation with politics is not because they don't see its relevance, but because they don't believe politics see them as relevant.

Perhaps it has to do with the way governments of most post-modern societies perceive youth - hard to define in that grey zone between children and adults, impressionable, with an excess of pent-up energy that must be expended on a good cause, least it leads to social unrest. From yesterday's CentrePoint Kids to today's keyboard critics, Singapore has had our fair share of trying to keep our youth within (mostly politically defined) positive engagement, not realising that the definition of active citizenry can mean something else to a very diverse population.

In essence, our hip-hopping MPs are doing little more than the parent trying to connect with and "be a friend" to his child by talking openly about premarital sex, when all his teenager really wants is someone to listen to his difficulties in landing that first date.

Our young MPs are not making the right moves, dancing or otherwise, and it is shocking when the writing is on nearly every blog that pokes fun at our politicians.

Sure, shake that white-trousered booty, if you, too, have some pent-up energy left over from your early youth to expend. But bear in mind that what the nation and youths expect of you, at the end of the day, is not for you to be like them, but to do you job being exactly who you are. A cursory glance at the online comments about this stunt points roughly to one thing – the MPs would be better off without their “connecting-with-youth stunts” and simply open up more to what youths truly value.

And in the spirit of active citizenry, I'll stop shooting from the hip and offer some suggestions to our P65 MPs:

• Drop the P65 tag. For most youths I have met, labels have more meaning on apparel items than on people. We like to chisel out neat little holes for every social demographic we have, just so that the group can be identified and “tackled”. But our youths are neither rugby balls nor problems. If you truly want to engage them as active citizens, start talking to them like they already are, because they already are.
  
• Get down to it, and I don’t mean try break-dancing. Chingay’s nice, but ask the youths why they participate, honestly, and most won’t give the fuddy-duddy “feels good to be part of Singapore” drivel. Get a taste of the hip-hop that’s happening in the Citylink-Esplanade underpass; but more importantly, get a feel of what their aspirations and dreams are.
  
• Listen, with ears wide open, before you act. Forget about writing your blogs until you get a feel of what youths out there are dreaming about. And try to remember that public forums are better off if you take them as places where people push you their agenda, not the other way around.
  
• When you had an earful, this is where you can start to connect. But don’t fall into the trap of starting every reply with “That’s a good point, but this is what the government’s standpoint is…" What happened to that good first point? Did you check if the youth in question is asking for the government’s official white paper to his simple opinion? As an MP, you are of greater importance feeling and voicing their concerns than you are at assuming you share the same concerns.
  
• As forever, accept a wider scope for active citizenship, instead of branding youths apathetic when they scoff at your programmes. If you believe in the diversity of our people, then you should realise by now that sanctioned programmes don’t always appeal to all and sundry. It takes a fair bit more searching to discover youths who are engaging their immediate communities in ways that might not always seem politically correct, yet would still have equal legitimacy as their unique contribution to society. N

Singapore's objective media - McLuhan's paradox personified?

Sterile, but objective. If nothing else, the Singapore mainstream media has gained for itself an international reputation for being so adamant about upholding the "truth" that the Singapore public has grown to demand nothing less than this standard in the news they read and the media they choose to read it from.

This mentality has, over the years of Singapore's short media history, led to a close association (or confusion) between the media and the message. One would argue that The Straits Time, our most widely circulated newspaper to date, holds that very premium quality that goes towards building much of its reputation for objectivity and phenomenon market share.

Any issues with that? None, unless you consider the editorial piece “what is democracy? A tortoise, not a hare” (23 Sep 2006) by Janadas Devan, Senior Writer for The Straits Times.

The very fact that it is an editorial commentary lends it considerable weight - only the most senior of The Straits Times’ stable of writers have the privilege to pen commentaries.

Unfortunately, this privilege has been, in my opinion, much abused by Devan. I would challenge that the article is not only lacking in a balanced analysis of its topic, which is modern democracy, but borders on misleading.

Devan starts with a definition of democracy - a system of governance identified by open voting and constitutional law. He then proceeds to compare the ''success" of different countries, chiefly Thailand and Britian but eventually leading to his views on Singapore and what one can infer is the United States, by oblique reference to the latter’s famed "free press". His point of contention: That open voting and constitutional rights do not necessarily lead to a peaceful life for citizens, suggesting that the social democracy that typifies nations like Singapore would.

The argument seems sound, with one major problem: Devan's preamble on democracy. It does not take much effort to Google for its definition - both Wikipedia and Dictionary.com seem to describe a system of government that has "for the people, by the people" as its chief objective. Voting rightfully becomes a means to that end.

But Devan's own dictionary seems to have an additional clause on constitutions. While it is noted that constitutional rights form an important part of many democracies, it is by no means a key defining characteristic of democratic government. Conversely, "power to the people" and "clean and open elections" seems to be.

Without going into details of the practical implementation of democracy - nations have by and large steered clear of "ideal democracy", opting instead to adopt certain parts for their own nation building needs - it seems obvious that Devan's skewed definition has led to a rather biased view. If his purpose in writing the article is to profess that ''moderate democracies" like Singapore are doing a better job, then it should be called into question, simply because of its blatant disregard for accuracy.

It is a sad reminder to this nation that our mode of democracy has not led to journalism that is for the people, by the people, even by our most well-respected daily. N

"Loudhailers for the voiceless underdog" - Today

Print copy of "Sometimes, protest is the only way", by Today, here. Ok, this title's quite a match. Best of all, my wife read it and said, for once, she understood every word! Too bad my Turkish boy was not included. All the aunties and uncles in my tour group were fawning over him, and I thought they would love to see him in the papers...

More interestingly, Voices' editor sent me an e-mail with Ho Kong Loon's reply, and it goes:

Ref: When actions don’t speak louder than words (Sept 19)

Howard Lee’s arguments were cogent and well marshaled. I salute him for his passion and conviction.

I assure him I had full knowledge of most of his pointers when I penned my commentary.

Today forum (Voices) is indeed a dynamic market place for contending ideas. Readers, Howard and I would surely appreciate this avenue to ventilate our differing views.

Thank you, Howard, for the additional curve to my learning process.

It was not published, but I thank Ho sincerely for his feedback. If he reads this by any chance, I would also like to assure him that my point in responding to him was purely for the sake of offering a different perspective. To me, the media should always be a platform where opinions and ideas can be exchanged freely - that proverbial open marketplace of ideas.

A good day for writers, I think, although it took me a while to realise that my letter was published... N

Sometimes, protest is the only way

The following was sent to Today Voices. This is really just me offering another perspective to what I feel is a biased topic, given our government's relentless pursuit for peace and order. Just another two cents...

Incidentally, this is also my first post with an image in it! Yes yes, big fat hairy deal, but tech is not really one of my fortes, so pride comes naturally with such an accomplishment... :)

* * * * *

I read with some disappointment Ho Kong Loon’s article, “When actions speak louder than words” (Sep 19).

Unfortunately, I believe that Ho’s take on civil society organisations (CSOs) reflect a common sentiment in Singapore society. Since the 1960s, the lack of any large scale civil unrest in Singapore has led to an acceptance – nay, an embracement – that quiet, civilised streets are the most desirable thing for our nation. This mentality, I propose, has been ingrained into our national psyche, such that we believe it to be the best for the world, too.

Of course, there is good reason for us to believe so. We live in our micro world of abundance, and are witnesses to the shrinking proportion of our low-income families. Education has provided almost equal opportunities for everyone. To add, we are a society born of trade and no natural resources. Should our government decide to open our doors to, say, another apple exporter, we are only gleeful that it might cost a few cents less, not worry about whether we can sell the rotting stocks on our farms at the wholesalers.

Seasoned with our acclaimed good governance rhetoric, and we begin to believe that everything can be solved from the comfortable seat at a negotiation table. Indeed, I believe Ho would have produced many sensible, reasonable and diplomatic students in his time as an educator, who would have done us proud as Singapore’s voice of reason in the world.

But in reality, the rest of the world does not work this way. Not every country can claim that an excess of 90% of its population have completed 10 years of basic schooling. We must realise that not everyone has the benefit of a good education to let them articulate their woes before an international body. Even writing a petition and getting 100 signatures might be difficult for some. Add to that the fact that petitions would take some time to reach the powers that be, probably way after the decision that would critically impair their livelihood has been made, and the prospect of an instant mass demonstration looks really appealing.

Imagine this situation: A little village boy sits outside a jewelry shop for tourists, somewhere in central Turkey, selling dried fruits, nuts and head scarves for one lira a pack. The only life he knows is that an occasional tourist, happy from the 1000 lira bargain he has made at the shop, might have some pity on him and spare some change. His younger brother takes over soon and he rushes home to help his mother carry a handmade carpet, painstaking weaved in 3 months, to another tourist shop, where she sells it for 300 lira. The shop owner pays her, fingering the fine workmanship and valuing it at 1500 lira on the open market.

Unjust? Never mind, perhaps someday, the young boy would be able to stand in front of the World Bank president and tell him to bring justice to their lives. Perhaps. Or it might just make more sense for him to gather a few more families and break down the doors of tourist shops.

For this reason, the existence, actions and motivations of CSOs are more important than the perceived unrest they cause. They might not even constitute those at the direct mercy of big profiteering corporations or corrupt governments, but their passion and their cause is blatantly focused – to represent and help those who will be disadvantaged by the decisions of those they perceive to be greedy or ignorant, with whom negotiation would likely be futile. Public protests serve as loudhailers for those who cannot articulate their grievances, whatever the reason. CSOs wish to be heard out loud, precisely because there are people who are unaware of or chose to ignore the unfairness going on in our world.

But what is the effectiveness of public protests, if Ho’s description of the “theatrics” suggests little more than a “carnival atmosphere”? Here’s the news flash: Opinion leaders and key policy makers, those whose very decisions would affect billions, cannot choose to ignore, or be seen to ignore, a public demonstration that happens just as they are walking to their meeting venue.

Public protests are about bringing critical mass to the human rights of every individual drowned in the tidal wave of progress. CSOs understand that. They probably also understand that, even if they could secure a place at the negotiating table, as Ho professes, the weight of their votes would be puny. But rousing public sentiment to their cause would force governments and corporations to take heed as their voters and customers begin to question their decisions and take sides. The further their voices reach, the greater their support; hence, putting them in a little room to protest is a laughable concept. Public protests are a calculated political move by CSOs fully aware of what their actions can lead to. They should not be mistaken as unruly groups of “manipulators, instigators, the intoxicated, the uninhibited, the over-enthusiastic or the lunatic fringe”.

Ho’s letter might also have given, I believe, the wrong impression that when CSOs protest, their aim is to create a racket of unnecessary showmanship, orchestrated only for the benefit of the public eye and foreign journalists. But no rational human being would leave his job and family to take a chance at a protest, unless they are convinced that it is the last resort. There was a time when I witnessed dockworkers in Australia storming picket lines to demand for better work benefits. There was no bloodshed, but I believe that negotiation would have failed them many times before they resorted to such actions, for staying off work for them meant taking a risk with their paychecks.

We might also argue, as Ho has, that having to clean up the mess from public demonstrations is a burden that the host has to bear. Again, this is not the prevalent characteristic of public demonstrations. I believe that this perception is born of the media’s tendency to focus on events that have turned ugly. Most public protests could have been quiet affairs that exert their own local influence without coming to the attention of the media. I remember the lecturers of my university protesting for better pay, but their dedication and professionalism has kept our classes going as scheduled – the protests were done in their free time and, most poignantly, during our graduation ceremony. It was their fight, but they recognised that the final beneficiaries are still their students.

Of course, we need not offer apologies for clamping down on CSOs – this is our land, so play by our rules. But as a member of the global community, it would only do Singapore good to think out of the confines of our dignified and orderly society, and start to understand the difficulties that our fellow global citizens face. When we begin to see that a public protest could be their most logical recourse for justice, not just a mere voicing of their grouses, we might also begin to empathise with the causes of CSOs. For sure, if they succeed, they might create a dent in our global economy. But if it means that some Turkish village boy can have a better shot at life, I’ll take my chances. N

In memory of Steve Irwin

The Aussie grads in my office gathered for a hush at the end of day.

The news broke earlier yesterday morning: Steve Irwin, the famed Croc Hunter of Australian TV, has died.

The memory was poignant among us, although for different reasons. We all watched Irwin one way or another when we were Down Under. Jenn lamented the waste and the tragedy for the family. Chucky sniffed for a loss of this larger-than-life TV personality, who has brought a unique joy into Australian entertainment.

I can't help feeling a sense of peace, despite the tragic loss of a visionary, that Irwin died doing what he believed was the most important thing in the world - fostering a better public understanding of our natural environment. I am sure that, had he survived, he would have, much like Rodney Fox, declared: "Don't blame the stingray, it's gorgeous! I was just stupid..."

But I remember Irwin best as someone who broke boundaries in the media industry. With his daring antics, he was probably the first to turn a biology class into a media zoo, literally. His show connected the everyday bloke to nature. Irwin made his point by example, simply by being out there.

In many ways, his media presence was not unlike Princess Diana - he had a cause to fulfill, and he knew that the best way to do it is through media publicity. Some would call his stunts reckless and show-boating. For me, Irwin was just doing what he did best, what he believed he must do, and enjoyed himself all the way. I wonder how many of us can actually declare that while standing tall and proud before God.

To me, Irwin was an artful media user and a passionate environmentalist, characteristics which I respect and hold dear to my heart. He was a man with a cause bigger than himself, and knew exactly how he must accomplish it.

Australia has lost another great. I share their loss, as I offer my salute to the Croc Hunter. N

Ang's reply to "Blogging past the grey areas"

Here is Ang Peng Hwa's reply to my letter - sorry if it takes some searching in the Today's PDF mode, but I can't seem to get the text version, which is usually a direct link.

I'm glad that Mr Ang has clarified on what I now see as a shared view that being nice online does not always mean staying safe, or vice versa for that matter.

Still, my only discomfort is that the law and OB markers are never that clearly defined, as Martyn See's brush has suggested and which I have quoted. My contention is that the law has been "OB marked" as well, no less by the authorities who wish to wield them. I feel the main problem is that OB markers are never defined, which makes it rather easy, I challenge, for a potential defaulter to fault along them in the "application of the law", which as Mr Ang puts it is never easy for legal greens to grasp.

I'm also wondering if Mr Ang's seminar participants were more concerned about the exact word of law, or the areas where its application might suddenly pop out as OB and bite them hard. Sure, some cases are quite well defined, such as the cases of our “racists bloggers”, but not so clear for mr brown’s last foray in Today, which drew a thumbing-down from MICA and some suspect a chastisement from Today.

Of course, correct me if I'm wrong, please. However, there is no short way to define or debate on such a touchy issue. I would prefer a bit more time for a proper study – if only I can find the time…Mr Ang, no hard feelings for this - all purely for academic openess, and I appreciate your respond immensely! N

"Blogging past the grey areas" - Today

Print copy of "Are bloggers really at risk of the law?", by Today, here.

I still don't understand how it can become "Blogging past the grey areas", but that is Voices' creative perogative... N

Are bloggers really at risk of the law?

The following was sent to Today Voices. Naturally, since it is really a commentary about something in the paper.

Impt thing to note is that I've never seen the distinction between what goes into mainstream media and online media. As long as the content is similar and addresses roughly the same people, anything goes.

Enjoy...

* * * * *

I read with some interest the article by Ang Peng Hwa, “Sending bloggers to school” (Today, Aug 22, 2006).

I applaud his good intentions to help Singapore bloggers find their way around cyberspace without stumbling over the perils of state law. While I have some misgivings about the advertorial propensity of his article, I take it with a pinch of salt and good faith that he has the interests of his fellow citizens at heart. However, I am concerned about three points that he has raised.

The first has to do with Ang’s suggestion that, as long as a blogger writes nice, he would stay out of trouble. Unfortunately, one need not go on a tirade of obscenities to get into trouble. Would even the average Singaporean give credit to someone who raves and rants without facts or even a good idea to support his dissatisfaction? Those who get carried away with their words would eventually have their words carried away as well.

Indeed, of greater concern are those who have a reasonable word to speak. This can take the form of humour, sarcasm, or just plain fact-stating. These voices challenge authority, not without good reason – or at least with a logical point of view. They have the potential to convince and “mislead”. They would be the most susceptible to running afoul of the law, should the authorities choose to respond as the final arbitrator.

Sadly, it is this group of writers who can offer a different perspective and encourage lively debate. They might spout half truths, but half truths would be enough just to raise a few more questions, some of which might prove to be the turning point in uncovering the real truth. My fear is that, when Singaporeans hold back their half truths – usually based purely on a guess and a prayer, fueled with a lot of unhappiness – until they are quite sure they have the full truth, the energy of the debate would have been lost.

My second concern has to do with Ang’s statement on the amateurish nature of our online writers. The infantile nature of many Singapore bloggers has been quite well documented, not the least online. Yet, Ang’s belief that “because bloggers are non-professionals, they are likely to stumble into the pitfalls of writing” begs an immediate clarification.

Of course, not all online writers are journalists, and just as well to say that some of them were or still are. The question is, do you have to be professional writer to be a blogger on the good side of the law? Apparently not, since a lot of our schoolgirls and boys can dedicate their blogs to relatively flamboyant, frivolous and some downright farcical pursuits, all with a healthy dose of language enough to put a blush on our “rules” on obscenity, yet still get away with it. Why, some of them are even hailed as celebrity bloggers by one of our local online newspapers.

Indeed, flak might just as well go to those who are well versed with the law, but for some reason choose to push the boundaries. Incidentally, these might be the same bloggers who hold only half truths and desire debate. Indeed, this would be a more accurate distinction between a professional and non-professional writer in Singapore. The “professional” is bound by the requirements and constraints of his job, usually as a new worker, while the “non-professional” feels that the limits can be tested. I believe this to be what mrbrown has done, which got him into trouble.

This idea of pushing boundaries brings me to my third point – are the pitfalls that Ang suggested really to do with flouting the law? For sure, we have the obvious cases of racists bloggers charged under the Sedition Act. But we also have good reason to suspect that online writers might err outside of the legal boundaries, and I’m not just referring to those who were slammed by their fellow bloggers for remarks made against our foreign workforce.

All our acts and law relating to media content and usage are readily available online, and it doesn’t take a genius, media professional or even a “kiasu” guess to make some sense of it and know when to toe the line, or else.

The more uncomfortable issue is the out of bound (OB) markers. Local film maker and blogger Martyn See has lamented that “these boundaries, already amorphous as they are, are constantly shifting back and forth, catching off-guard just about anybody with an opinion deemed contrary to “national interest.”” Are OB markers the greater concern for online writers, rather than the word of law? To quote a household-name blogger, what exactly is a “persistently non-political podcast”?

Evidently, our online writers need to stay out of trouble, if for no other reason than to keep the demand for open debate alive. Having a clearer understanding of the law will help. Yet, the battle to stay afloat will always be a frustrating game of shifting spotlights and shadows, until we can accept bloggers for the very different craft they practice. Only then will the authorities realise that “violence” towards bloggers – legal or otherwise – would never be as effective as responding directly in their own playing field. N

My two-cents' worth for a two-cents increase

The following was a letter I sent to our local newspapers - it did not get published. I thought it might as well go in here.

When my wife read it, she asked if I was trying to be mr brown. I replied that mr brown is humourous, and I wasn't.

This article was written more with a lot of disbelief - as in "I can't believe our public transport providers actually expect us to believe their crappy press releases..." The rest is purely acid tongue. Enjoy...

* * * * *

I hate the last leg of my journey to work everyday.

That's because I might have to board bus number SBS9253D. It has to be the most fear-inducing ride on the island, as the handle compartment for the emergency exit on the upper deck is choked full of rubbish - candy wrappers, tissue paper, you name it.

Say an emergency really happens. Would I reach for the handle only to pull out mucus-covered M&M's?

That has been the situation in May 2006 and at least a good six months before that. Has the situation changed since? I wouldn't know, since I don’t see the bus on my route anymore. I could only wonder if the emergency exit has been serviced in the last six months, when some civic-minded technician might cringe but still have the good sense to clear up the mess.

For an everyday Singaporean like myself, who take a four-leg public transport journey to work everyday, what matters most is not that we have spanking new buses plying our roads, complete with perfumed air-condition system and soft music playing. Hell, with a near six-foot frame I wouldn't even complain about the leg room, or the lack of it. Just a safe bus that comes on time would do fine. And I'm sure screeching brakes on a perfectly dry day, or air-conditioning systems that allow passengers to breathe only when the doors open, are not safety signs. Eco-friendly ones would also be a bonus, so we can all save on diesel.

Hence, you can imagine my surprise when I read in our local papers that SBS Transit plans to buy 150 new buses with their meager $220 million annual profit. Well, my math is not too good, but with a $55 million profit figure in the first quarter, that is the cringingly pathetic estimate we are looking at.

Don’t get me wrong - there is nothing I want more than for our fellow citizens with mobility difficulties to enjoy our top-notch public transport system. In fact, I'm sure we share the desire to get a handle on the same safety issues.

I'm just amazed that each bus costs a whopping $1m. And despite these being top-of-the-line fuel-efficient buses (only the best for Singaporeans, I presume), more diesel will still be guzzled, hence needing everyday Singaporeans to chip in an extra two cents for every trip. I feel sorry for our public transport operators – some bus manufacturer must really be ripping them off. To think they need to spend their annual profits on new buses that can only last a lousy year, for we can only assume from the papers that they are spending it only on buying new buses for us!

And all they are trying to do is provide a valuable public service to us, while struggling to make ends meet with that dastardly $70 million profit leftover.

Fortunately, I am confident that, with all the innovative people at SBS Transit and SMRT, they would surely be able to find a way recoup their flailing profit margin. Why, just yesterday morning, as I was traveling on the East-West line, I witnessed the most innovative form of in-train advertisement ever. After the usual stop announcements, an M1 advertisement would play just before every stop. Of course, it's not enough that the entire bus cabin is already covered with M1 advertising. A plain visual assault has no effect on Singaporeans, since most of us are blind to even the filthy condition of our buses anyway.

A full frontal audio assault would be best – I even saw a few snoozing passengers jolt up with that bleating announcement on M1’s latest offer. Serves them right – Singaporeans have no right to sleep on the train! They must stay awake constantly to support in-train advertising, so that SMRT can cover profit losses. SMRT is really smart – they seem to have spotted the fact that their customers have no concern whatsoever for their personal comfort and eardrums, and have thus deployed this innovative revenue generator.

I would also like to warn all Singaporeans to keep our buses clean. It is not the responsibility of our public transport operators to do that, even if it involves maintaining major safety features. They have bigger things to worry about, like how to get the best deal out of a bus manufacturer, since it is quite obviously cheaper to change the whole bus for $1m rather than service the brakes and screw on a plank near the entrance. Also, they really have to scratch their brains now to think of how to scrimp on the remaining $70m for extras like staff courtesy training and coolant for the air-conditioning systems on buses with no opening windows – apart from the now much-needed emergency exits. All this to meet the unreasonable demands of Singaporeans who just cannot tolerate suffocating for half an hour on a fully-packed bus to work. N

Essential Reading

Opening words

This blog is not an online newspaper, nor does it aspire to be one.

If it reads like one, it can only be for two reasons. The first is that it is my area of training, and the second is that the writing that goes into it attempts to capture some heart-felt expressions of everyday Singapore life.

Indeed, I have often wished that our newspapers would be able to do that, but a long history of adherence to the “objective truth” has rendered them somewhat, in my personal opinion, incapable of representing subjective voices crying to be heard.

Hence, this blog will be subjective, biasly so if necessary; because sometimes, representation is more important than what we assume is right and good for everyone.

That said, I would not dare to call myself a journalist. That is a title I reserve in my heart for a unique league of professionals who are willing to put their careers, sometimes their lives, on the line, so that, through their writing, there can be greater awareness and understanding in the world. Their spirit of “holding up a mirror to the world” is something that I hope to emulate in my writing, but not something that I can effectively do, given the time and resources that I have.

So there you have it – a two-bit writer always failing to measure-up fully, because I can only and would always give my two-cents’ worth!

The media

Is my main interest, even more so than my other favorite, the environment. In my heart, I have always seen myself as a media student, despite having graduated a good five years ago! I seem to get a perverse joy out of researching it during my studies, so this is really me getting into it again after a very long and rusting break!

In time, I hope to be able to uncover more about its rather ‘mysterious’ status in Singapore, so that all who write publicly can begin to press some real limits, instead of being exasperated about the fuzziness of media regulations here. Should you know of any useful info that can help me piece this puzzle together, do send me a note.

More than anything, it will be a way for me to ‘argue’ for my writing on this blog, for I already have this feeling that I will be offending people in good time… Nevertheless, I believe in being socially responsible for what I write, although I can almost guarantee that you will have no case of libel or prejudice against my writing. In any case, if you do feel my writing to be a personal offense to you, please drop me a note first before serving me a lawyer’s letter. If you can explain beyond a reason of a doubt why my writing is offensive to you, I would in all earnest delete the entry and apologise in the very same blog.

This blog

Is public, period. I don’t pretend that it is a private journal. Indeed, the whole point of me wanting it to be public is to get some feedback that will help with my journey.

I am also interested to find out when the Singapore government’s “soft touch” approach to such public online material will get hard on things, at which point it will be aroused enough to react (huh, what sexual puns?).

But if you think I’m only interested in churning out complain pieces, do note that I do not usually have that much negative energy in me! I love writing too much to use it for anger only. But do expect to see some harsh comments on social issues.

The name "Mediated Society" is a term I have reclaimed (or perhaps refreshed) from my 2000 thesis - Social Discipline and The Media: Creation and Governance of the Singapore Public. Go figure, and yes, when I said I was rusting, I really mean that long ago! N