Mediated Society

Net Gen values across our social spectrum

2010-09-21T23:39:00.003+08:00

Today ran a commentary on 6 September, written by Don Tapscott, titled "Needed: A new university for the Net Gen".

If you are not familiar with the name, Don Tapscott is often considered a leading researcher about how technology and the Internet has impacted society and our lives in general, and in particular how the people who are at the leading edge of this technological tsunami, which he dubbed the Internet Generation, plays a role in this transformation.

Two things struck me as interesting. For one, the article is in stark contrast to a much earlier commentary by David Brooks on 12 July, "Do you want to be hip or cultivated?" If Today purposes to be fair and objective by being non-prescriptive in their news presentation, then it has successfully done so with these two articles at rather extreme ends of the spectrum, which unfortunately did not shed much light for the way forward.

The other interesting point, which I wish to elaborate on, is Tapscott's preposition for a radical change in the way universities conduct lessons for Net Gen. For a leading expert who pays much attention to the essence of interactivity and value of free expression, Tapscott is bewildering simplistic in thinking it necessary for education, one of the traditional structures of discipline, to be tailored to accommodate a bit of deviance. Evidently, Tapscott is not versed with the musings of the late Michel Foucault (and please do pardon my post-modern snide here).

Admittedly, Tapscott’s analysis of Net Gen is problematic on a few counts, the most glaring being his conflation of a certain age group with what should really be viewed as a cultural evolution (i.e. the advent of the Internet in knowledge societies), which defaults his analysis as a “youth issue” and hardly begins to address the diversity of Net Gen, much less all Internet users. What is useful in his analysis, however, is the identification of the eight core values of Net Gen, which I felt was mostly accurate. Technically, these values have always been a part of any society (some would say the more radical or anti-establishment part), but modern means of communication and a growing online population has meant that these values are moving slowly from the fringe to the mainstream of social discourse.

As such, rather than focus on how education should embrace the Net Gen, Tapscott’s commentary could have served readers better if it has instead examined the inevitable encroachment of these Net Gen values, discussed how these values are actually much undervalued by especially Singapore society, and where lines permit, explored ways to integrate these values into a wider spectrum of society.

My key gripe with Tapscott’s focus on just the educational aspect is that, even if we could successfully implement his Net Gen Campus, when these students get out of school, they will be hit with a heavy dose of reality, most significantly at the workplace, but also society at large. Even Tapscott did not fail to acknowledge this, albeit in a one-liner.

In fact, rather than Tapscott’s ideal, the opposite often happens: The values of society extend its influence into the education sphere that further suppresses Net Gen values. It is not even something we need to speculate on. On 9 September, local media reported on an advisory on new media usage issued by the Nanyang Technological University to their students, reminding them to register with the Media Development Authority any websites they have started that contains political and religious material. This is a serious stab to Net Gen, and we are not even talking about curriculum change here.

As such, I would go out on a limb, do the exact opposite of what Today has done so far and be a bit prescriptive, if only to inject some of my own opinionated "Net Genness". I will attempt to pitch the eight values against Singapore society, identify the points of conflict, and hopefully suggest something constructive to move forward the need for a better integration of values.

1) Prize freedom and freedom of choice – Ours is a society where even the liberal arts face resistance when pushing the boundaries of free space. A national psyche for consensus of the majority, ingrained over the years, has overtaken our good sense that even the majority deserves the right to decide on things for themselves. Politically, a small segment of the population clamours for an electoral equality. However, true freedom is not just about voting, but recognition of the value of each individual to have a choice. Opening up policies and political freedom will do much, but there is also a need to identify what matters to us and stop delegating responsibility to institutions to decide on our behalf. Particularly when it comes to matters of morality and culture, we would be wiser not to let the values of our children be guided by the broad guidelines set up to appease the majority.

2) Desire for customisation and ownership – If this refers purely to our technology usage, then there is no quibble. Our gadgets have given us full control of our own sphere of existence. But beyond that, there is also a need to view ownership as a desire to make a contribution in each our own way. Current definitions of social contribution have narrow grassroots inclinations. However, there are actually many people who are making a difference through their own communities and social interest groups. Indeed, such informal communities, often seen as the hallmarks of Net Gen, have actually been in existence for generations, and it is but technology that has encouraged their proliferated and prominence. Most of these communities desire little more than a simple understanding that they are not misfits, and fewer permits needed to carry out their activities. In other words, we need to enable ownership from both a regulatory and mindset perspective.

3) Collaboration and conversation – Beyond the online world, you will find little else that supports this value. Our traditional media is still performing its monologues, fueling a national psyche of perceived compliance with the status quo, hence adding to the dismay of value number 1. Our efficient society is largely structured towards completing top-down directives. Consultation is a public relations exercise, and there is no feel for where it made an impact, if any. However, the concept of open society is not new, and even has inklings back in the 60s. The question remains as to how we can effectively enable it. We have created physical spaces such as Speakers’ Corner, but we also need to enable other spaces. Reduce the policing and politicising of the online world. Relook traditional public forums to do away with their structured consensus-seeking formats and turn them into active spaces for the cross-fertilisation of ideas, already rampant online. And the media must rise to the occasion, providing opportunities, if not actively championing, expressive freedom and social causes, rather than staying objective and sterile.

4) Scrutiny of organisations – To even question the authorities is sacrosanct in Singapore, and the judiciary has been particularly sensitive in recent times. Some of our bigger corporations can almost get away with things akin to false selling (think mini-bonds saga). Not to mention that certain government linked companies can actually be publicly defended for making billion-dollar losses, and still keep most of their books under wraps. To me, there is only one possible solution: Social journalism, or the restoration of the Fourth Estate. It must not be just an online undertaking, but be (re)infused into the core of traditional media.

5) Value for integrity – We are often asked to unequivocally accept the integrity of those in power. Yes, we do value integrity, but it is aligned with position, not with deeds. It should be evident that position means little to Net Gen, accustomed to believing in the quality of ideas more than be bothered by the identity of the person who uttered it. But it also leads to the question of why position should matter to anyone else. Integrity implies consistency in values, sticking with your beliefs rather than adapt them as the situation changes. It is linked to actions in time. We need to reduce our association of integrity with “the givens” and ask more for “the proofs”.

6) Desire for fun, even at work – Need I paint the awful realities of this point? A different work culture must evolve, starting from the business community. But this would not be possible unless, as a nation, we decide to relax and stop gunning for growth at any cost, and focus instead on growing what matters to our well-being. In the long run, it benefits not just Net Gen, but all of us.

7) Speed is normal – Again, this value seems pertinent to our technology usage, and for peculiar reasons, also to recent national projects such as Formula One, the Integrated Resorts and the Youth Olympic Games. For these, decisions were made rapidly, usually with little consideration for value number 3, and the implementation even more rapid. But beyond these, committees ponder for years on issues like censorship and new media control, often with results that only take us an inch forward. We need to recognise that what needs speeding up is not just economics and infrastructure, but also the maturity of our public debates.

8) Innovation is part of life – Take a look at what has sprung up across the island, either as physical landmarks (think big ferris wheel) or policies (think repeated beeps when we drive under gargantuan metal structures) and you would begin to wonder what exactly makes us Uniquely Singapore. Our society does not favour innovation. It favours success, even if that means reverting to the tried and tested. We are fast running out of such tried and tested ideas. It is time to take a step back, to consider the impossible, kill a few sacred cows and see where that leads us. If we fail, we are simply wiser about what does not work, and try again. Keeping the pressure cooker on, insisting on success at the first pass, is stifling for the free-wheeling creativity of the young and young at heart.

At the end of the above ramblings, I began to realise the massive undertaking required, should we really wish to integrate these values into society. It will require effort from political/policy, social mindset and institutional standpoints.

At this point, you might call me idealistic, but we might not have much of a choice. Even if we do not accept the reality that Net Gen will eventually replace most modern populations, we need to take heed that paying more attention to nurture some, if not all, of their values within us can have a positive impact on society at large.

It is not because Net Gen will take over the world and their values will be the same (quite likely, they won’t, surely as our children will grow differently). Rather, these values have actually been with us before the Internet. These values will move from the fringe to the mainstream, and will continue to evolve. If we are not prepared to first catch up and then evolve with them, we will be left behind, clinging on to age-old concepts. What widens is not a digital divide, but a social one. N

2010-07-16T23:35:00.001+08:00

The following was submitted to Today Voices on one of their "foreign export" commentaries. I don't think it ever went to print, and really, I hardly bother to check nowadays.

Here it is for the records. My key gripe is about the writer's rather narrow definition of learning, especially with regards to how the web serves as a learning tool.

* * * * *

I refer to the commentary by David Brooks, 13 July, “Would you rather be hip or cultivated?”

Given the data that the writer has used to substantiate his piece, we would be inclined to believe his key idea - that there is a distinction between learning from books and learning from the Internet, and that we would be better off dedicating more effort to the first.

But the commentary is flawed in its main point of consideration. Brooks rightfully attempted to dispute the McLuhan theory that the media is the message, but falters again when deciding that the Internet, as it is today, needs to break out of its hip and conversational mode of imparting knowledge, and by implication, align more to books to attain better learning for its readers.

Regardless of the media, learning happens, and the mode it happens in is determined less by where you read, but how you read it.

Granted, internet users are more inclined to respond with their opinions than read out the full measure of the prose before their eyes. However, that should not be conflated with the notion that they do not, even once, process the text and internalise for their own knowledge.

To assume so, as Brooks has done, is to assume that we never, even once, pick up a book, read the prologue or even the first two paragraphs, and decide straight off that it is not worth more of our time.

Brooks might have shed more light on the situation if he has analysed the situation of online learning differently - that our current generation of education has propagated the speedy gathering of information, from books as much as from online sources, without teaching our students to critically analyse it and convert it to a knowledge that can only be uniquely their own.

The fault, then, is not the media, but the context of learning. And this should have been the direction of his investigation - what happens when students bring home books for the summer holidays? And while we congratulate the 800-odd who have done well in their studies because of the free books, have we taken another measure against those who spent their time learning online instead?

In reaching his conclusion without a proper analysis, is Brooks perhaps also guilty of the same hip and conversational culture that he claims plagues the Internet generation?

Conversely, as Brooks pointed out, because the online world defies traditional hierarchies of knowledge, online readers are more aware that their own knowledge, gleaned from all sources, be it in print or in bytes, is as valuable as any other expert's. It is at once a humbling and enlightening realisation, and challenges the mind to be even more open to new ideas and critical analysis.

As such, the Internet is about engendering a mindset change in learning, more so than any book - one way and authoritative - can hope offer. N

Cooling Off?

2009-12-01T00:22:00.001+08:00

I normally avoid writing about party politics. It is often a face-value topic that does little for your soul, and I never have enough time as it is. My interest remains in the media and how the intricacies of public discourse shape and is shaped by society.

But there are some of these moments in the news that draw my attention. The articles eventually make their way to my "politics and media" folder, and at times compel me to stay the night, just so to pen a few lines.

Such was the case of PM Lee's declaration of a cooling-off period a day before election polling day. The mere concept is fraught with an intricate relationship with media, since modern politics has always leveraged for its purpose. But first, let's do the time-honoured tradition of first taking the argument apart...

Not holding its own weight?

The purported argument that supports this soon-to-be legislature (let us not kid ourselves) is the desire for citizens to be given time to think through their votes and not be swayed by the emotions of campaigning.

Numerous online comments have already ridiculed this, but what is more intriguing is that this is backdropped by constant affirmations from the ruling PAP, at every election won, no less, that the people have voted on the issues and the track-record of the PAP. That hardly constitutes a passionate vote, nor gives reason to believe that Singaporeans will be less level-headed now, so the about-face here is stark.

The other argument for the need to prevent social unrest is even more difficult to swallow. In a week of campaigning, with rallies going on every night, if riots have not broken out, it does not make sense to believe that it would happen on the last day. Fever-pitch day would simply be moved forward by a day. Worse indeed, for if a party does ever intends to work up the emotions of their voters, they will then have to pack greater intensity into fewer days.

Media in the balance

Perhaps it would make sense for us to compare these reasons with, say, Australia's in implementing their election cool-off. But assuming that these are valid concerns in our local context, for the moment, let's examine the role that the media plays when the time comes for this power relationship to be played out.

For a start, the use of broadcast media to continue carrying election news on the last day, as a means of keeping voters focused on the issues, holds little ground. It would be presumptuous to think that factual reporting on what has happened in the past week will not lead to an emotional response. Would not reminders of any kind on the last day be just as likely to bring up the same emotions the days before?

In this case, a complete media blackout would have been more meaningful, with the exception of radio stations playing easy music to enhance the cooling-off effect. Unfortunately, the PAP probably has simply reinforced public perception, intentionally or otherwise, of their intent to give "exclusive" coverage rights to traditional media. It is not a surprising move, as the traditional media has always been declared as the "preferred and trusted voice". But this is party politics, and such a move would only stir up more questions about the impartiality of traditional media, especially since this preferential rule is mooted by the ruling party and rejected by the WP. It will only serve to further corrode public confidence in the impartiality of traditional media.

Even more unfortunate is PM's "suggestion" for blogs with a name to them to toe the line. Panopticon threats aside, this statement is in line with the preferential treatment given to traditional media, but does little more than to contradict recently-touted practices of the PAP to be more open to online media as an election tool.

Furthermore, while the role of traditional media is clearly outlined, the same was not done so for online media. By nature, blogs have archives, so would the cooling-off period also require bloggers to remove all political posts for the past week, or just not make new posts on the last day? Does it apply to blogs and portals owned by the traditional media?

If anything, the simple sidelining of online media appears to have only one intent - to designate it as the curve ball that has the better chance of flouting the rule, and hence by extension the less reliable information source during election. Seriously, I do not believe much thought had been given to this particular PM remark to justify this speculation, but local blog comments already allude to PAP's fear of online media and hence the desire to limit its exposure come election time.

Mediating through a new minefield

Perhaps the bigger question on the minds of many bloggers who have dedicated themselves to covering political content is: How do I work around/with/through this new rule?

I hesitate to advise, as I believe, or at least hope, that the final legislature would provide more details and greater clarity on how this is supposed to pan out for all media, traditional or online come election time.

But I'd allow myself two suggestions...

Stay true to course – A blog that receives a following will have to value that as far as possible and do justice to their readership within the environment it operates in. You cannot hope to comment on Singapore politics but take cover in the vastness of cyberspace when the flak flies. Nevertheless, your readers will appreciate your legal constraints, and will accept that silence in a particular time does not compromise your editorial objectives. They will also judge you on the consistency of what you delivered previously and remember the points made. Respect their thoughts, so that with or without a cooling-off/blackout period, your readers know they still have all the information to make their decision freely.

Do it professionally – No matter what you read about in Malaysia or the USA, media does not determine politics. Media is the conduit of information. You honour your readership by staying away from party politics and sensationalism, and focusing on what matters to them. Because, honest to yourself, what makes you think you are the only source of information to them, much less a force capable of exerting an influence on their free will? N

Another way to see press freedom report

2009-10-22T01:14:00.004+08:00

The following was sent to Today, and was never published. Somehow, I'm not really surprised. Saying that an MP is inaccurate is a sure way of getting booted by the local forum pages. :)

So here it is, for good measure...

* * * * *

I refer to the article, “Press freedom index: S’pore 133rd” (Oct 21, P6). I would like to offer an alternative interpretation to what was reported.

I would like to point out the statement made by Mr Zaqy Mohamad, who said that Singapore’s improved position in the Reporters Without Borders (RWB) ranking “underlines that our press remains credible especially in the face of challenges like the new media”, contains a fundamental inaccuracy.

While being 133rd is nothing to shout about, we need to understand that the RWB ranking focused mainly on the power relationship between the state and the media of each nation ranked. It does not necessarily reflect the quality or credibility of the media, which is mainly a relationship between the media and its readers that can be affected by other factors, such as inaccurate reporting.

Mr Zaqy’s suggestion that Singapore’s improvement in the ranking could be attributed to media diversity also needs to be reconsidered. RWB includes bloggers as part of the media pool – the report views online media less as competition to mainstream media but as equals caught in the same power position.

In particular, I am disappointed that Assistant Prof Eugene Tan would dismiss the report as irrelevant to most Singaporeans. If we believe a power struggle between politics and media to form the backbone of our media environment, how would that influence the way we read our daily news? For sure, Singaporeans will continue to “take their media outlets seriously”, but with serious misgivings or not, that is another matter.

To note, it might not always be political pressure on media that we need to be concerned about. Recent examples such as an interest for bloggers to declare their commercial affiliations and an editor assaulted by employers of foreign workers are very real concerns that we will all do well to be savvier about.

To end, I would offer that anyone who is interested in press freedom worldwide – or for that matter, anyone who ever reads a newspaper – first take a long hard look at how research bodies like RWB or Freedom House conduct their research, as differences in methodology can yield different results.

We might then wish to decide that a particular index or even sub-index, as a measure against a particular set of international standards, holds dearer to us. This might then become an assertion that puts us in a better position to interpret the news that we pick up everyday. N

Business? It's more about content

2008-12-22T23:56:00.003+08:00

The argument set by the article, "It's all about business" (Today, 19 Dec, p14) – that new media cannot threaten the dominance of traditional media unless it has a viable business model – is flawed on at least three counts.

First, it is important to note that the distinction between an online and published news-source exists only in the real world. In cyberspace, everything arrives in packets of information. This is an era where the audience gravitates towards sources that need not be 'official', but experientially accurate nevertheless, like the moblogs from the Tibetan riots.

Second, the idea that an online channel cannot be monetised ignores the very real figures of online advertising. It seems that online media does have a business model: Lots of people are looking at my site, so pay me to put your logo here, and people will look at it, too. That is a casual example, but there are actually various means developed to measure online readership, some more complex then the subscription model used by newspapers.

And third, the concept of 'threat' necessarily implies a potential lost, which then implies that there is a finite resource in contention – for any media, that usually translates to eyeballs and advertising dollars. Of course, in the real world, we only have one pair of hands to flip one newspaper, but the concept of tab browsing different webpages at one time is the norm today. If anything, this practice has actually expanded the opportunities-per-viewer for advertisers.

So, the debate that is of greater value is not so much about who would stay victorious in getting the attention of the audience and the subsequent check from the advertiser. Rather, it is an issue of why online media, especially some long-running blogs, are still around, when all the financial odds seem stacked against them.

The answer could be attributed to technology, since online media has a much faster response rate than traditional print or broadcast. But the true reason, I would argue, is content – the ability to mean something to your reader and connect in a way that others cannot. It explains ‘followings’ for particular blogs and website, and the conscious effort of adding a weblink to your ‘favourites’ compared to having the dailies routinely dropped at your doorstep every morning.

Some might argue that this is merely niche interest, but I was born of the school that believes there is no such thing as ‘mass media’, anyway. N

Shouting up the right Tube?

2008-11-19T01:25:00.002+08:00

In the wake of the Obama phenomenon, many, especially those in the political profession, will be eager to re-flex those online communication skills in an attempt to reach out to their citizenry.

The effect, it seems, is not lost to our leaders, as featured in “PAP ready to YouTube to reach young” (TODAY, p3, 17 Nov 2008).

However, a quick scrutiny of www.pap.org.sg does not seem to bring substantive justification to the claim of getting the message across in a serious way, which people can accept, and to resonate with them.

If we want to take a leaf from Obama's success, as Minister George Yeo proposed in “Woo the young? Like Obama, use the Net” (TODAY, p6, 6 Nov 2008), there are three key factors that must be fulfilled.

First, relevance. Obama's online campaign revolves around a feel for the ground. He had videos of himself going to average Americans to ask what ails them most about the economy, a true ear for the people’s voice. He did not claim himself to understand the hockey mom, but showed how a baseball mom eked a living to get by.

In an economic downturn, documenting how a website's party members showed spirited patrotism in a national event near four months ago, feels just a little too detached.

Second, focus and consistency. Obama did not waffle on what he wanted to talk about. The blog entries were to brief and the point, communicating just what he wanted people to know. It also carried the momentum of his campaign, such that the reader can see how his strongly-held beliefs is made living proof by how he views the campaign on the road.

A website laden with categories of information, tagged with un-intuitive sub-categories, and teeming with general and often repeated party lines would feel more like the same thing again. It is just not the best way to attract and retain your readership.

And third, understand that the views of others matter. All of Obama’s videos are posted on YouTube, usually flooded by comments. His blog also carries the comment feature- almost a defacto standard today. It could invite adversarial comments, but to engage online, one has to live with the worst and roll with the rest.

Having a website that claims e-engagement with netizens by posting a few videos, with no option for feedback, and cannot be found on other website that allows that, just doesn't cut it in today’s age.

Evidently, the conversation that goes on in theonlinecitizen.com, and even the straitstime.com points to a rather sore fact: If it is not a good conversation with you, it is usually a bad conversation about you.

Ultimately, adopting a medium for the touted qualities of that medium is not going to guarantee that your message gets through. This is especially so for new media, in a world where everyone's opinion is of equal value. Relevance, clarity and direction, and a willingness to actively engage are much better bets. N

So it ends for an old warrior

2008-10-02T23:42:00.001+08:00

When Singapore’s Speaker’s Corner first came into being, I can't remember JBJ's exact words on why he would not participate at Hong Lim Park, but I would always remember their spirit - Singapore is a free country, so why can't we speak up anywhere?

Ironically, JBJ had first hand experience of exactly why. Too liberal a tongue landed him in legal trouble, bankruptcy and a political slide that he never really recovered from.

Yet behind the (some say excessive and unnecessary) public drama that surrounds the man, a certain light shines through that citizens should take another look at.

JBJ's "national policy", if we can put it as that, was based on simplicity.

Going back to the fundamentals gave him a focus that distinguished him from other public figures. By going back to what freedom of speech should really be for Singaporeans, he forced us, or at least the more questioning among us, to take a step back and consider why we even need a pre-defined space for public speaking, when the public sphere is really and already out there for our taking.

This simplicity extends also to the way he weighed in on many issues, as he voiced out about benefits for the lower income group and the electoral system alike.

This simplicity should also not be confused with simplification. Granted that we do face complex problems, but ours have been a society that tend to over analyse and second guess every move we make, to the extend that “matters are not as simple as we think” becomes a mantra that have become almost too convenient a reason for those who drive our policies.

If we take a step back and look at a problem for what it is, the solution is usually straightforward and staring us blatantly in the face.

Many would espouse JBJ’s legacy as opposition leader, radical and zealot, bent on seeing the end of political monopoly. But I remember him as a passionate man and the way he conducted himself right to the very end.

He picked himself up every time he was knocked down, refused to give up, and clung on to ideals that remain rooted in simple facts, believing that his fight is for the basic rights of Singaporeans. Idealistic and misguided, perhaps, but passionate and patriotic, nevertheless.

And so it is that we lose a passionate man on Tuesday, as he passed on amidst controversy of the Prime Minister’s supposed condolence letter to his surviving family, and the fiery volleys from the online community that smothered it.

In an age when Speaker’s Corner undergoes a facelift, it would do its new wave of participants good to take another look at the spirit of JBJ’s words on the topic, as this patriot surrenders his. N

Comments on AIMS paper

2008-09-10T01:33:00.004+08:00

Really really late, thank to the new addition to my family... :) But better late than never, says that old one. So, the following was what I posted on the AIMS forum. I think I did it out of pity, really - nobody seems to be commenting on the forum.

* * * * *

Just to drop a few lines to give my two-byte's worth on the paper.

My view is that it is generally well written, with many issues surfaced. However, some critical segments might be lacking in terms of their inability to reconcile with themselves. This leads to self-contradiction at best, and an alarming lack of understanding of online communication and social engagement at worst.

Political expression and e-engagement were studied separately, and rather different 'solutions' considered for each. This should not be the case, as harnessing the people's political expression online must be part of e-engagement. We cannot deny that the political process has a huge effect on our everyday lives through the implementation of policy. To evaluate them on separate terms risk disconnection between the people and this papers writers - both in terms of what society wants and needs, and the very basic understanding of social discourse.

E-engagement has been viewed in mostly marketing terms on behalf of the 'knowledge owners' to disseminate information to the people. That is erroneous, as it ignores the fundamental two-way communication and debate that typifies online communication. The 'crisis' that we have today is the belief that someone holds all the truth, and others are mostly misguided or do not have all the right information. True engagement must come with both a sense of humility and subjectivity, an understanding that information is only as true as what the reader wants it to be.

There is also an issue with the proposed panel of experts who would be called to decide on who transgresses boundaries of fair online political discourse. Such a panel, unfortunately, can only play an enforcer role within conditions that are set for online expression. Besides begging the point on who sets these parameters and how this defers from the current judicial system, questions should also be raised on how this panel hopes to be a credible voice, minimally to the online community, in such disputes, when the Internet remains a limitless space that have communal rules that are impossible to be subject to any one definition.

I am also concerned about the follow-up on this paper. It might come as some dismay, if you cannot feel the sense of irony, that all the conversations going on about this topic are happening in other blogs and forums. To that extent, there were probably more comments in hardcopy newspaper forum pages than on your online one. It does not speak well of this consultation paper, nor bode well for what is likely to be propose in the final analysis, as it shows a disconnect or disregard for and from ground sentiment. People not talking to you usually means they are talking about you. Don't host a forum for forum's sake. Try to do more by pulling in articles or posts, reaching out to be part of the conversation, which is 24/7 with no foreseeable cut-off date, whether we like it or not. Minimally, it shows a willingness to be open to alternative ideas and discussion that are not necessarily on your own terms - that itself is the true plague of e-engagement today. N

Going public in a world of alternate truths and multiple realities

2008-07-08T02:38:00.000+08:00

Any media student worth his salt would tell you that the two key transformations that radio and television brought about to everyday life is immediacy and enhanced reality. With modern modes of communication came the ability to reach out to a wider audience, “live and uncensored”.

Gone were the days of measured penmanship, which gave way to showmanship. Public figures who wished to make an impression must not only look and sound appealing (whatever the flavour of the decade for appealing was), they must also risk having their slightest mistakes captured and subject to scrutiny. It was not easy to be famous in the days of television.

But if that were so, harder still it would be in these days of the Internet. In a world where the user decides on the content, what the famous try to portray is subject to multiple reproductions, as it is subject to multiple interpretations. The “official” opinion matters less on the surf waves as it does on the air waves. What matters more is how the person at the receiving end understands it and reproduces those thoughts for the rest of the world to agree, renounce, ridicule or simply enjoy.

As such, it came as a surprise to read Nazry Bahrawi write about “That YouTube style of politics’” (Today, Jul 3, p2) with some rather serious misconceptions about how the “YouTube generation” assimilates with the media they consume. Jeremy Au Yong’s “Vivian’s Vision from the Internet” (Straits Times, 3 Jul, pH04) and Lynn Kan’s “Sift truth from ‘virtual shouting’, Vivian tells students” (Business Times, 3 Jul, p9) also reflect the same news story in the same vein.

For a start, the key determinant that distinguishes the Internet from traditional media is not that it prefers style over substance. It is a grievous fault to think that is the case, because it glosses over the important fact that, what generations of media owners have tried to reproduce to no avail, is today simply and beautifully accomplished with every blog entry, every mashed-up vodcast and every ranting opinion shared online.

In other words, what distinguishes the Internet from other media is that the meaning making process has become transparent. Generations of media owners have, consciously or not, tried to bend and prod the moment of production to the moment of interpretation, in the hope that they will agree somewhere.

But to see it all played out on the Internet every second is a marvelous thing. A supposedly objective news clip can be cut, modified and relaunched online in the exact way that the vodcast editor wants it to be played ,and the same repeated with different results with another.

This is the crux of the matter that today’s public figures need to grapple with. It is not that there is no truth on the Internet. Rather, it is that truth and reality are no longer that easy to define, as they are now subject to alternate truths and multiple realities.

A simple search for the word “politics” in Facebook would demonstrate this point. The top two entries are a group in support of Barack Obama’s policies, close to a million friends, and a group against Hillary Clinton’s, a little more than half a million friends.

Are these two groups pointing towards the same conclusion? Not necessarily. Do they throw up some doubts on the complete for-and-against traditions of political alliance? Most surely. Have they secured the idea that, as long as you have an opinion, you will surely find your supporters? You can bet all you Linden dollars on it.

But if public figures today still hold out that the Internet propagates half truths, then it is a matter of time before they own opinions become extinct, because opinions online are worth only the number of supporters they can get. Online communities are forgiving towards plurality, but they do not take lightly attempts to discredit the same plurality that gives each one of them their essence.

For sure, there are shouting matches going on in cyberspace. But just as there are many contests that slam away at a dogmatic opinion, there also exist a fair number that debate and rationalise on issues that gives everyone a fair say.

Perhaps it is more important for us to have the ability to discern what opinion fits us best. However, we are still the nation that pines for a liberal arts college to deliver critical thinking, instead of making it part of our regular school curriculum.

Perhaps more dangerous are those that manage to get their opinions out unchallenged, for they will never know if the online audience agree with them whole-heartedly – almost a self-delusional impossibility but absolutely believable in the days where the one-way delivery of the television message is king – or if they are silently sniggering away at what they perceive to be nonsense.

Ironically, it is in the days of the Internet, not television and radio, where our views are subject to even more stringent public scrutiny, where every word and sound bite can be recorded, reproduced, remixed and re-circulated at the fancy and opinion of the reader, not the producer.

To be part of the online public sphere today, one must come to the virtual table with a certain degree of humility. Accept that the truth is really what people make it out to be, as it has always been, but with the understanding that today, people will not hesitate to leverage technology to make their views known. N

"Nothing like the printed word" - a response in Today

2008-04-24T23:36:00.004+08:00

And would you believe it, someone actually bothered to comment on my letter! See Lai Yew Chan's letter here.

A very good contradiction - almost the perfect mirror opposite I would have imagined, had I been a staunch 'official news' supporter. Lai's position was that print media gives 'credible' content, while I believed that it was the variety of Internet content, sometimes extreme, that leads to thought. Lai preferred to think that "not all Internet users are thinking readers", yet I maintain that all readers are thinking readers!

I enjoyed it completely, as I could imagine it had we been face to face. Two positions taken at the exact opposite ends of the spectrum, exactly what I wrote about!

Interestingly enough, it came out in the printed word, while I was arguing that balance is best achieved online where all angles of the argument are fair dinkum. Looks like there is hope yet for 'old media'... :) N

"The Internet and Beyond" - Today

2008-04-21T23:24:00.000+08:00

And after almost a week, a space for all beliefs end up here... And I think it's been chopped up a bit too much, good grief! Some points seem to have been lost, too.

Ah well, at least the full story can always be found on this blog... N

State of journalism in Singapore - sounds fairly familiar... :)

2008-04-20T22:57:00.000+08:00

Loh Chee Kong did an interesting one about the State of Singapore journalism in Weekend Today, 19 April 2008.

A pretty good one, I'd say. However, it reminded me of something I wrote a good year or more back, a commentary on - well, well! - another of Loh's articles. The issue of having journalists who have the guts to ask the right questions seem to have eluded us all this while. Are we still debating the same thing?

For that reason, I did not respond - and also the fact tht I am dead beat with a long work day! I agree with this latest piece. However, Loh is two steps short of stating what it is that reporters can do directly to lead the change, rather than react to it, so that they may be worthy of the professional title "journalist". It sounded too much like a desire to wait for all the planets to fall into place - the perfect media environment - before quality journalism can come about.

Or am I too militant in my thinking?

Interestingly, it is also the same issue that reported bloggers suggesting to MICA on laws to regulate the Internet. Coincidence, that the issue that calls into question the quality of journalism in the 'new media' age, is als othe issue that deal with 'new media' starting to officially regulate itself? One can never tell... N

A space for all beliefs

2008-04-16T00:06:00.001+08:00

Smugly, my brother-in-law slipped me a YouTube link. The Great Global Warming Swindle, he said, a BBC documentary to debunk the environmental doom-sayers.

Dutifully, I went online. Yes, it was a critique on the much touted Inconvenient Truth of Al Gore. But undaunted, and being the self-proclaimed tree-hugger, I immediately Googled for the antithesis to this new conspiracy theory. I can't wait to share with him my findings.

But while a seed of doubt was planted, I clung fervently to my take on global warming. I am also aware that my brother-in-law is no lumberjack, but probably watched one too many episodes of Myth Busters and enjoyed the scientific deconstruction of everything.

He is a good eight years younger than me, and his take on life would surely be different. He would also typify the Internet Generation who some of us old sluggers might shadily suspect to be living off the radio waves emitting from their wireless modems.

But what struck me most about our exchange was how the Internet has become the centre in our quest for knowledge, not less because it gives us a variety of opinions and facts, but that within a click of a mouse, it could provide us with polar opposites of the very same belief.

And that piece of reality is a far cry from Low Chee Kong’s article (“PM Lee on Internet lessons”, 14 Apr), which suggested that the Internet today has been used to propagate information that does not give due consideration to the political motivations of those who disseminate them.

Such a preposition forwards two assumptions. One, that information available online is more skewed towards one particular ideal or agenda, compared to non-online media. And two, that the key problem of such a bias is that readers will believe whole-heartedly with the agenda proposed.

From the surface, the first assumption holds true. Writers are human, subject to their own biases. In the limited space of one publication or blog entry, it is difficult to portray both sides of the debate. That is even more so in modernity and online, where short attention spans do not take kindly to dual analyses. A writer makes his point as quickly as possible, and usually that which is of the greatest concern to him. The Internet plays host to a variety of extreme views that are often one-sided in coverage.

But the Internet must be viewed in the larger scheme of things. Like the antithesis I found online, the Internet as a whole is choked full of opinions, some in direct contradiction to each other. Cyberspace is not like a newspaper, which you buy one copy of and is thereafter subject to the content it holds. Rather, cyberspace provides a reader access to a wide range of views.

The recent unrest related to Tibet, China and the 2008 Olympics were picked up in a number of websites and blogs, but not all espouse the anti-China take on the issue, as much as controversial opinion would have you believe. For every search entry that paints China as the denigrator of human rights, another portrays Tibet as the propagator of violence.

Differing views expressed online usually vehemently support one cause. Biased, you might call it. But there are articles that spend laborious hours of research to refute or prove a point. The knowledge used in the analysis can span a wide range of disciplines, drawing references from yet other online sources. The level of detail is astounding, which only goes to show the passion and belief that the writer has in his views. Search for another article that argues strongly for the opposing view, and you have a healthy debate brewing in your mind.

Of course, you might agree with them, or not. Or you might choose to pick a bone with them, or not. Add this to the information that is already available offline, and one thing remains certain: The choice remains yours.

Which brings us to the second assumption. We too often assume that the information we see online is taken in whole by its audience. In reality, readers often engage in a selective process of accepting or denying the information they consume. This is influence by pre-conceived ideas of what the information is about, and the beliefs and concerns they have when reading it.

A case in point is the Malaysian elections. While it is easy to assume that Malaysiakini played a big part in turning votes against the ruling party, the truth is that voters saw a connection between what they experience in life and what was written online. No amount of virtual cajoling could have convinced them, if what they read bears no resemblance to what they feel on the ground.

More often than not, online readers find an easy connection with what they read, or choose to search to read. Regardless of what we believe, the Internet has a space for each of our beliefs.
In fact, with the diversity of opinions on the Internet, the bigger worry is not those who have a reason to seek out and find affirmation with information that they already believe in. Rather, it is those who have yet to decide which side they want to take that should concern us. Radicalism is already the status quo; who we stand to lose in the flood of variety are the skeptics, the potentially cynical. N

So, what’s the link?

2007-12-12T03:16:00.000+08:00

It could be a case of statistics taken out of context – something that occurs more often than we would want to believe. Or it could be a survey asking the wrong questions.

Either way, there was something about the report on BBC World Service’s survey on press freedom by Zul Othman (“Social stability is key: Poll”, 11 Dec) that just didn’t seem to fit right.

To begin with, the poll drew a line between press freedom and social harmony. Whether it was intended or not, poll respondents were effectively given this line to choose which they preferred. To complicate things further, the article on the poll indicated that “the world was divided over the importance of press freedom”, and proceeded to reinforce this connection by citing respondents’ views on the need for press regulation against the extent to which they desire social harmony.

But is that a valid relationship that respondents should choose between? Does a rise in press freedom necessarily and always lead to social unrest?

Recent history seems to state otherwise. The recent protests in Myanmar , in any degree of severity we choose to hear and believe, are surely an indication that restrictions on press freedom do not necessarily guarantee social harmony. Should we then expect the state-regulated Burmese media to be responsible for failing to keep the peace?

Of course, determining whether the foreign media, alleged to have incited the unrest, had any role to play in creating merely a perception of injustice is a task best left to the historians. But at this moment, some distinction is needed between social unrest and media regulation, as there are too many other factors that can cause unrest.

If we believe that the media should keep the peace, as the people desire, no matter the cost to its freedom, then we are ignoring the gulfs that really exist between people. Conversely, a free press can and should be viewed as the arbitrator of the often diverse views floating within societies, which can only serve to better dispel social suspicion and create understanding.

Another point of contention is the result on how different societies value press freedom and how they rank their own media. In spite of the mild irony that a poll commissioned by the BBC World Service should not be trusted, as a reflection of its own accuracy rankings among its citizens, I believe this is one area of the poll that we should re-evaluate carefully.

Interestingly, citizens who value press freedom seem to be more critical of the media in their own countries, while those who value it less in comparison to social harmony, for lack of an alternative yardstick, seem to be more accepting of the news they receive. This suggests that there are certain contextual biases of such a poll, where parallel comparisons between countries are difficult because the citizens of each use different values to rate their media.

So, for example, the media in the United States and Germany might be no less accurate than their counterparts in India and Singapore , only that Americans and Germans have developed an acutely critical mindset towards what they read in the papers and expect more of their media.

This brings us to the point on how important people feel it is for the media to represent their views. Clearly, the poll reflected people’s desire to participate in the mediated discussions that surround them. Even the Germans have a large number amongst them who desire their view to be expressed by the media.

And in that, we could even possibly find the solution to social harmony. As a free media begins to better reflect the views and desires of its readers, we could even hope that more would take their grievances to the press to be openly discussed and debated, not to the streets to be fought over. N

What makes a journalist?

2007-09-30T18:15:00.000+08:00

"Anyone can cook, but not everyone can be a great chef!"

Or something like that, so says Chef Gustav in Pixar's latest movie offering, Ratatoullie.

By all counts, this can be good advice for any profession, even if it comes from an animated ghost. It we take pause to look around, we will surely notice those who are true masters of their craft, those struggling to keep it all together, and even those clueless to the fact that they are better off not doing what they are doing.

Besides cooking, writing comes across as something that most of us, with the privilege of a good education, can do. With technology, the line between the professional and amateur has blurred, as the easy availability of blogs opens up opportunities for budding writers to publish their works. Many writers took to the new tool with a wide spectrum of topics – from their life story to their pet’s life story, gossip to hobbies, politics to noble causes, short essays to whole books, and most significantly, news.

Some blogs and blog aggregators have been set up to run very much like news websites. In contrast to traditional news agencies, these rely almost exclusively on citizen journalists to fill their e-pages. Many individual writers have even established their own following of readers. In many cases, blogs have broken the news even before established print and broadcast media.

While these successes have given bloggers a nod of approval from the public, the professionals of the news trade are less celebratory. The established media have been quick to scoff at blogs; words like “unreliable”, “lack of accountability”, “naval-gazing” and “irrelevant” have often been leveled at bloggers.

“Adds an interesting dimension that complements traditional media” is about as far as the established media would go to admit that blogs are causing an impact on the way people navigate the world around them, especially for those who are no stranger to the Internet. Indeed, the value of blogs to society should be regarded as nothing less than revolutionary, given the insights and debates that some blogs generate even beyond their readership. Perhaps it is not so surprising that even the most trivial of bloggers can have their names in the limelight.

One begins to wonder if, in the world of journalism, the definition of greatness might even begin to shift to the literary pheasants and, yes, even the “rats” of the blogosphere.

Should journalists be concerned about the impact that blogs have on the writing community? Is the rising tide of voices shouting from cyberspace threatening to drown the good sense and literary excellence of the profession?

It would still be premature to decide if bloggers can or should be measured against professional writers. The majority of bloggers probably never wanted to be compared like that, anyway, so why the overt concern with rice bowl issues?

Truth be told, blogs present an interesting dimension (or a threat) to news not because of the content standards they adhere to - many bloggers can't even string together a proper sentence. Rather, they thrived because they have stuck to two age-old principles of journalism that has given the news industry its appeal since it began centuries ago.

First, timeliness. Society has gotten used to the fact that eyes on the ground and words from the horse’s mouth makes much better news than what someone else tells you. With the advent of moblogging, some readers are turning to citizen journalists first for their news fix. With editorial constraints and sheer lack of manpower, news agencies look set to play catch-up to bloggers who, not bound by any contract except an unvoiced willingness to share, trade entries and links with each other to cover all angles.

Second, relevance. Citizen journalists are mostly everyday people concerned with everyday issues that their readers can relate to. For sure, a readership of five or five hundred is nothing compared to the thousands who flip or scroll through the official dailies, but for those few, the average man's blog makes a lot more sense and touches their hearts in a way that the professionals have avoided. Professional news gatherers, either consciously or not, still struggle to define the difference between objective truth and subjective reality, and to present news within these boundaries in accordance with their editorial policies, even as reality takes precedence in people’s minds today.

As a society matures, its people will tend to believe in their own opinions, values and situations more than what others suggest, and this will have a bearing on what they choose to consume, including news and information. Whether that can and should be the case is something that history will decide, but it is a fact that is impossible to ignore.

Does this mean that professional journalists have lost the plot with their readers? Not quite yet. Indeed, reports on the recent Indonesian earthquakes in Singapore have demonstrated the news industry’s desire to stay on top. The almost-instantaneous reports screened many home videos from everyday people, mostly taken on mobile phones, of shaking chandeliers and evacuating people. Compared to the Boxing Day tsunami in 2004, where similar home video footage show the horror of crashing walls of water and people being swept away, the content seems very different, but the desire to translate reality, as experienced by people on the ground, is there.

Does a reliance on pure “reality bytes”, then, make a great journalist? Again, I would hazard a no. A lecturer and mentor of mine once told me that we always write for an audience, and so what we write must be of some importance, relevance and value to them. Reflecting reality alone is not enough; a writer must also let his readers see how that reality makes sense to their situation. It need not agree with their views and beliefs, but it should definitely address these views and beliefs as valid and important concerns.

As we become more mature as a society, there is a need for journalists, traditional or online, professional or citizen, to understand and act on social desires and trends, but to temper this with a clear idea of who their readers are and deliberate on what value they can add for them. N

ERP draws more blood from our main arteries

2007-08-30T23:54:00.000+08:00

I seem to have a bone to pick whenever it comes to our transportation system. In any case, Today didn't pick this up, which I wrote a couple of days back - too wordy, I suppose... :?

What really cheezed me off was that the counter arguements were right there, but nobody sieved it out! Two key points: An extra $2b from transport revenue (not evening counting COE), and the apparent lack of imagination on the part of LTA (or perhaps a dogged determination to believe that ERP really works).

* * * * *

There is something decidedly disturbing when you run into a traffic jam while driving home from the city at 8pm.

Do Singaporeans really love their work so much that they stay so late? It would seem like they are avoiding their families on purpose. It makes even less sense when the government is encouraging better work-life balance.

But that is likely to be the common situation when the new Electronic Road Pricing charges kick in on Nov 1.

For sure, ERP as a method for easing traffic congestion is not unique in the world, but this probably is: A bitterly amusing attempt to regulate traffic that flows out of the city. Most countries would be concerned with overcrowding in their central business district, but we seem to be keener in keeping vehicles longer within the CBD.

Like it or not, some drivers will be inclined to stay back later in the office to avoid the additional $0.50 or $1 ERP charges they will have to pay every day. They would not be able to leave earlier, of course, since most people only leave work after 6pm, by which time the new charges would have kicked in.

But they will also not be able to keep it up for long. The toll on family life, or the same traffic jam that used to plague them at 6pm, would eventually force them to revert to their old timing and bear the additional cost.

The new ERP charges cover all the major arterial highways out of the city. To avoid these additional charges, drivers will have to take a longer drive on small roads. What happens when these small roads, already congested with traffic lights, start to get crowded, too? Will more ERP gantries be erected, as Ms Janice Tay fears (“Same old traffic-stopping story”, Today, Aug 25-26)? Not surprisingly, alternative egress routes like Holland Road and Bukit Timah Road are already being monitored for congestion.

It is hard to imagine, then, why the Land Transport Authority would look to ERP to solve our congestion problems. If anything, ERP has done nothing more than make traffic jams a predictable occurrence, which shifts with every change in timing, yet never removed.

Claiming that ERP works simply because traffic speed has increased borders on delusional, and we have yet to hear a logical case for the relationship. Contrarily, increased traffic speed can be due to many other reasons – crazy drivers, more powerful cars, halting of circle line construction, or better road works. The last reason is something that LTA should be proud of and should continue working towards, instead of toying around with ERP timings.

And while having five more ERP gantries that automatically activate when traffic speed falls below 20kmh might seem innovative, by no stretch of the imagination would these be of use in easing traffic congestion. Rather, they become a guessing game for drivers, and are of absolutely no use in route planning. It might even lead to more reckless driving as drivers jockey for the best escape route, just in case their speedometers drop below the mark.

What, then, is stopping LTA from coming up with other solutions? It cannot be for lack of funds. If we were to take the average cost of road license to be $800, with 680,000 cars on our roads, this would have generated $5.44 billion for LTA in the last decade. Not even counting the approximate $810 million collected from ERP charges since 1998, the $3.4 billion spent on improving our roads (not even factoring in what could have gone to building homes, industries and school) falls short of another $2 billion that LTA can draw on.

If Mr Raymond Lim believes that Singaporeans understand the compromise between smooth-flowing roads and car growth, then he might have overestimated our drivers’ understanding on why the road taxes they paid have not been plowed back in full to the same system.

Sadly, the perception that ERP is a responsibility that only drivers have to bear is a myopic attempt to deceive ourselves. Has LTA considered other economic and social consequences every time they decide to hike ERP charges?

For instance, if ERP eventually succeeds in forcing drivers off the roads into our public transport system, would it over-tax the network for those who don’t drive? Imagine if just half of 800,000 drivers, with passengers and baby prams in tow, hit the trains and buses, every single morning. Would this network, with trains now running at 2-minute intervals during rush hour, be able to cope? Such a situation will either make our public transport system unbearably inefficient and unsafe, or give our operators more reason to raise fares to cover additional operating costs.

In addition, drivers who give up on congested and ever-more costly highways will find themselves burning more fuel when taking longer, alternative routes – probably cheaper but not much faster, and still spewing pollution. Only this time, the fumes and noise will be closer to our homes, spread out into streets that lack the wide buffer zones of our highways.

Even worse, ERP charges do not just tax personal car owners, once they reach a certain level impossible for businesses to absorb. This will lead to increase in prices for almost anything we buy that spends time on our well-ERPed roads.

There is a lot more that needs to be done in LTA’s attempts to reduce traffic congestion. Chief among them is a need to understand and accept the mentality of drivers. The ERP system is a mathematical solution for a mathematical problem, but people are not robots that react to logical impetus. N

"Internet: A wild child crying to be heard" - Today

2007-07-10T23:42:00.000+08:00

Today published "A new media culture", here.

The headline is a little misleading, even grossly inaccurately. The Internet is not the wild child. At least say the bloggers are, but even that is not entirely correct. Ah well...

This one came out really late, but more my fault - did not check e-mail earlier, or would have seen the editor asking for my personal info for the print... :) N

A new media culture

2007-06-29T02:10:00.000+08:00

Some attention has been dedicated to online media in recent weeks, perceivably because of a number of forums on the topic, such as the New Media Conference and the 16th Asian Media Information and Communication Centre seminars.

The topics of discussion – or at least what was highlighted in our local dailies – revolve around two themes: regulation and market share. Invariably, the experts and mainstream media pundits at these forums seem overtly interested in deciding on the fate of our online media environment as either something to be controlled or a channel through which their objectives can be promoted.

What was sorely lacking, however, seems to be an understanding of online media – websites, blogs, vlogs, forums and the ever-expanding variety of bold new online communication concepts – as a cultural phenomenon unique to our times.

In reflecting on the rise in terrorism in recent years, regulation of online communication is a valid concern. Add to that the volumes of petty strife, malicious content and what can best be described as byte anarchy floating and churning over the modem lines, and the temptation to clamp down on ‘radical’, politically incorrect and plain rude websites and blogs is an impossible itch to ignore. The futility of that is, of course, common knowledge today.

Yet another take on online media is their market potential, both as a source of revenue for their eyeball-magnet owners and as another platform on which mainstream media can ride on to steal the attention of said eyeballs. A very enterprising gesture, but hardly given to consideration of what kind of “wild child” online media really is.

The horse is hitched on the online bandwagon, rearing to go, but the wagon might very well be facing the wrong direction. It is sad to see that, with so much talk about online media, not much of it revolves around trying to understand what it really is to begin with.

Perhaps a simpler approach is to go back to basics and view online media as a communication tool, not too different from every media in its time – television, radio and print – that was viewed with as much suspicion, repulse, and a smart money-making motive waiting in the wing.When television first appeared, pundits thought it would carry nothing but crass to rot the brain, forever eroding the literacy people have taken pain to cultivate. No points for guessing what the adamant views were, then, when the printed press first hit the streets.

What they did not count on, for each and every emerging media, is a tenacity that draws energy from one key source: The desire for people to reach out and communicate. It was a pervasive tide that no one could have resisted, because people craved information that the media was invented to provide, first within a localised scale, and slowly expanding its sphere of influence. People crave to know everything, not just what their neighbbours did, but also what was happening in the world, and why it was happening. The floating messages were captured, internalised and discussed, giving us greater awareness of both the people we can and cannot see with our own bare eyes.

Online media would likely bear the same marks for our generation, reflecting our desire to reach out and communicate. But there is one important difference: Instead of information from an external source, the individual seeks to create his own information and exchange it with someone else. Hence, we arrive at the term “user-generated content” or what some would ungainly acronymise as UGC.

Sadly, we are still stuck at thinking of it purely in terms of UGC. The content, and not the impetus behind it, becomes the focus. Have we bothered to ask why our youths prefer to spend hours blogging in detail about the mispronunciations in a politician’s speech, just so that their pals staying in the opposite block can read it and have a good laugh, rather than engage each other in constructive political dialogue? Or are we more inclined to see it as an unavoidable trend that we need to catch up with to re-focus their eyeballs on our mature causes and worthy pursuits?

Perhaps this can be attributed to the fact that we are a more educated generation, even as we become more enclosed and inward looking as a society. Not only are we more adept at languages and communicating, but we begin to form our own independent ideas and ideals. Ideals cannot be constraint in the mind, and we seek a channel for its expression. If the local dailies cannot carry it, we are confident and savvy enough to start a forum thread or blog that can.

It is also increasingly clear that online media is evolving, even in Singapore where the rules of engagement for politically correct content preceded our first blogger. Online media creators are constantly pushing the boundaries of a cyberspace they have already decided belongs to them. We can always build fences around it and install alarms within, but you can be sure that these measures will be something the savvy citizen journalist will be quick enough to step around and the emerging social journalist will be bold enough to defy. Of course, not before critical thinking gets a beating, and our small brain-dependent nation can ill afford that.

Let’s face it, unless we start looking at online media in its own terms, to see that this is a realm where ideals are more important than the news, we will forever miss the picture and no amount of cajoling monkey tricks, talking down or stern regulation can bring online media in line with the mainstream media we have become so familiar with.

More alarmingly, what would have been a meaningful form of communication can give way to and endless flow of accusations and rebuttals, serious or jokingly, in virtual or actual reality. The stakes are not just values and eyeball-market share, but a disjointed society that becomes increasingly fragmented when we fail to understand and vehemently resist what we cannot align to our own ideals. N

"Pressing questions and the news" - Today

2007-04-06T23:17:00.000+08:00

After a long break, I'm back at it again, here. It felt like a really beaten-to-death topic, so my response was easy - to some extent, even surprised that we still have to debate press freedom in Singapore.

Really grateful to Loh, who dropped me a note to nod his agreement. As always, feedback (good or bad) means that what I write is of some consequence to others and the topic is not written off yet.

Kinda nervy this time round, since I just changed my job and working in this new stat board felt a bit closer to the topic. Doesn't help also that the corporate media monitoring held my name...

But this is me, something I felt compelled to do. Actually, no; the following was really me, although the published was quite close.

* * * * *

It’s about pressing the wrong questions at all the right places

Today reported on the comments by one of Singapore’s leaders, when he mentioned about the need for the media to take an active role in “uncovering failings in the system” in order to keep our nation running clean and smooth.

If you think that these comments were made by Dr Vivian Balakrishnan at the recent Foreign Correspondents Association session, think again. They can actually be attributed to President S R Nathan on Aug 24, 2005.

Less than two years ago, my sense of guarded expectation was not unlike Loh Chee Kong’s (“Inform, educate, entertain...expose?”, Apr 2) when I read the President’s comments, as was Loh’s when he read Dr Vivian’s. Would the media take up the gauntlet and press ahead with a more enquiring stand when it comes to news reporting?

Less than two years on, nothing much seems to have changed. Indeed, given the controversy that surrounded the start of the NKF case in 2005, you might have expected news reporting in Singapore to boldly take us were our media has never gone before, into the uncharted territories of investigative journalism.

However, if the words of the President himself did little to jumpstart this, it is of little surprise that Loh remains skeptical that the possibly-soon-to-be Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts could result in a change of policy that would make much of a dent.

But is the state of journalism in Singapore so entrenched in the old Singapore Broadcasting Corporation’s charter, or that editors face such insurmountable bottom-line pressures, or the impossibility of finding a speck of dirt on the People Action Party’s snowy-white veneer, or even the dangers of defamation suits, be strong enough reasons to write off investigative journalism as unlikely, uneconomic, unnecessary or suicidal, respectively?

Perhaps the more pressing question is: Do we need to wait for a change in policy before our reporters become actual journalists?

To begin with, too many people would comfortably associate investigative journalism with exposés. If that were so, then the scooter-riding photographers who chased down Princess Diana would all be labeled investigative journalists, not paparazzi. Assuredly, it is the act of investigation, of asking even the most pressing, disturbing and annoying questions to get to the bottom of the matter, which sets investigative journalism apart.

Singapore’s media players have taken great pride in a long tradition of accountability, sticking to the truth instead of resorting to sensationalising news to make an erotic dollar. However, our media cannot claim to be accountable, only accurate – to the tee, in fact, by following every single detail in a cookie-cut press release. Only by asking the difficult questions that would propagate a more discerning public, or perhaps lend a voice to an already discerning public, would the media force those who want public buy-in into their programmes and policies to reveal every detail that has a likely impact on the same public.

Indeed, this renewed and purposeful loyalty to its readership can only mean more business for media players, as greater trust is built between the news and the reader, who can see their desires and feelings reflected and championed by the media. If Singapore’s media players still hold to their ancient standard of informing, educating and entertaining the public, they would probably realise that “education” and “engagement” today have blurred lines. Even the Education Ministry might testify to that.

And while we all hope for a clean government for Singapore, forever and ever, might we or even the PAP be caught unprepared by the slow seduction of corruption? If no amount of policy or praying can guarantee that politicians remain clean, as historically played out in many countries, then our best bet must be a discerning public, hopefully supported by a querying media. Beyond holding hints of an errant government accountable to the people, a querying media would also be a bane to future old NKFs who would think twice about trying their tricks.

Should we wait for a policy change for all this to happen? It is for the media players to decide. While it would be ideal to have media policies and laws that empowered journalists, rather than let them be “told how to behave” by MM Lee (Mediacorp’s “Why My Vote Matters”, 2006), our media companies should remember that all this actually took a fledging start more than a decade ago, when a tabloid called Project Eyeball pressed the boundaries with the current set of regulations that we, more or less, already have.

Our reporters should note that it is of greater importance, to themselves and the public, that they start getting in touch with their inner questioning child and make more sense of the news, rather than wait for things to happen. N

Good prata

2007-03-23T23:57:00.000+08:00

On the topic of prata, was with my wife at Jalan Kayu the other night for a late dinner. Yes, this would be the stretch with the shop that I felt used to serve good prata, but the standards have dropped.

We came by this new shop, Chan Mali Chan, and I thought it deserves some mention. We were served by Chef Ishak, who studied in Switzerland and learnt his trade from a Swiss who spent a lot of time in Malaysia. Talk about roundabout international cuisine...

But what struck us most was he service and the REALLY CRISPY PRATA! Chef Ishak took the time to introduce himself and make recomendations to his menu. The tissue prata and prata bomb we ordered was, of course, lip smacking. It might have to do with the thin crowd at that late an hour, or that his shop is new with few customers, but I felt it was a good night of food for us. Definitely worth the recommend! N

"Most like it hot, but..." - Today

2007-01-18T23:30:00.000+08:00

Media prata, as served by Voices in Today, here.

For once, I liked the headline, but the print seemed to have missed out what I felt were a few pertinent points, such as about how TT Durai abused media regulation in his attempt to intimidate SPH into silence... N

Serving Singapore the best “media prata”

2007-01-17T00:30:00.000+08:00

Following was sent to Today. I believe I have a reasonable healthy level of respect for Cherian George, but something about Tor Ching Li's piece just doesn't click...

George's more elaborated take on it can be found here.

And an online disagreement (I think) here by Mr Wang Says So.

* * * * *

My family had our favourite prata shop. Every weekend would find us there, ordering a hefty brunch. As a child, I thought that shop sold the best prata in the world.

Somehow, that changed as I grew older. I’m not particularly fussy about food, but I could not help feeling that this particular prata shop lost its standard over the years. What used to be crispy prata now tasted like rubber.

It’s not too hard to see why. As the shop gained popularity, its clientele grew. To meet the increased demand, the shop started to make prata in advance. The pre-made prata, taken off the hotplate, started to turn cold and lose their crispiness. When customers placed their orders, they were expecting something fresh. What they got in the end was something that has been sitting on the counter for a good 15 minutes.

After a while, my family stopped patronising the shop. As I start my own family, my wife and I found our own source for a good weekend brunch. Surprisingly, the shop we went to was just a walk away at the coffee shop under our block. It wasn’t nearly as fantastic, but it was fresh and crispy – the way I felt prata should be, at the very least.

In many ways, Singapore’s media scene today is not too different from the prata business. We started with a few good players who produced news and entertainment that most Singaporeans found to be of good quality. But somehow, that changed after a while, and we begin to see more people turning to alternative online sources for their update on current affairs.

Has our mainstream media lost the plot and would this lead to their eventual demise? I would hazard a ‘no’, because just like my old prata shop, which until today still commands crowded tables of loyal customers every time I pass by, mainstream media still enjoy huge circulation and viewership figures. The only difference is that it now has to deal with, not direct competition, but an uneasy complement from electronic media.

In that sense, Dr Cherian George’s comments on our “schizophrenic nation” in Tor Ching Li’s article, “The dangers of dual media regulation” (12 Jan) warrants another look. Led only by gut feel and a generalisation on comments posted on blogs and forums, I would contest that most Singaporeans approach their dualistic consumption not with confusion, but with a fully aware sigh and chuckle.

Singaporeans still hold our mainstream media in high regard for their consistency in accuracy and objectivity in delivering current affairs. However, we might begin to be disgruntled with the way it is presented instead. Content from our mainstream media now begins to read, look and sound like prata that has been on the counter for a good 15 minutes – stale and rubbery.

Singaporeans might grudgingly accept the factual content of mainstream media, but nevertheless feel that it leaves an unsatisfying taste in our mouths. In search of that crispy edge in their current affairs and a better feel of the nation’s pulse, online media users turn to blogs and forums. In cyberspace, we find honest comments unbridled by the demands of objectivity. Occasionally extreme, sometimes humourous, usually unrefined, yet echoing a sentiment that is inexplicably true to our hearts. Best of all, it allows us to be creators of our own media and have a stake in the news-making process.

Singaporeans who go online are not confused. In fact, I would propose that we do so purposefully and precisely to experience different portrayals of our society, to revel in diversity of opinions or to seek our own value-community by taking a stand.

For that reason, removing or reducing media regulation for mainstream media might instead have an adverse effect on our national psyche, should that lead to a sudden loosening-up of traditional media. Like it or not, electronic media still have their subjectivity to contend with, and it should come as no surprise if Singaporeans eagerly need a medium that “behaves” in accordance with regulation and can give us the right facts, even if that is a medium we would love to hate.

Having said that, there are indeed dangers with excessive media regulation, but not in terms of its perceived biases against mainstream media and the imbalances that this creates with electronic media. Rather, it is the abuse of these regulations by parties with vested interests that we need to be wary of.

The case of the old NKF is now a clear textbook example. We have seen how TT Durai made use of the legal system, supported by media regulations, to pressure Singapore Press Holdings into silence. Even more alarming is the old NKF’s alleged manipulation of the media, by flooding the print forums with ghost letters and making use of the respectability quotient of our newspapers to support their cause.

As such, it might be timely and necessary for new media regulations to ensure protection of media practitioners – reporters, film makers and bloggers alike – from those who have the financial clout to subdue them, where they can only choose between settlement and a legal suit they cannot afford.

As Singapore launches more initiatives to bolster our connectivity hardware, our mainstream media might also want to reconsider their “filtering function” as the alternative heartware. Perhaps it is time to expand beyond presenting the facts, but also do justice to readers and viewers and indulge a little more in the nation’s pulse, rather than let the quantity of letters decide what to print as “alternative” views.

Without a significant change in media regulation as well as the way we approach media production, mainstream media will be forced to serve only prata kosong or telur, while online media serve up a smorgasbord of tissue, cheese and even milo variants. Even if we were to clamp down further and decree that milo prata is technically not a prata, another shop somewhere is serving prata bomb – benignly loaded with condensed milk, of course. It is really a matter of whether we have the broadband capability to find the recipe online. N

Silt stired up from "Voice of common sense"

2006-12-11T00:24:00.000+08:00

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

2006-12-05T00:07:00.000+08:00

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

2006-10-13T03:09:00.000+08:00

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?

2006-09-30T01:10:00.000+08:00

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

2006-09-28T00:07:00.000+08:00

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

2006-09-20T00:22:00.000+08:00

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

2006-09-05T01:17:00.000+08:00

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"

2006-09-05T01:07:00.000+08:00

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

2006-08-28T00:28:00.000+08:00

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?

2006-08-23T03:08:00.000+08:00

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

2006-08-14T00:21:00.001+08:00

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

2006-08-14T00:06:00.001+08:00

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