Cooling Off?

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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... :)

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

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?

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?

"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

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

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

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

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

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

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”

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