The bigness of God

IT HAS beeen a rather depressing week for NTU this past week -- two deaths in the space of five days, both from Electronic and Electrical Engineering. The first, David Widjaja, alledgedly stabbed his professor and fell to his death. The second, a Chinese National, apparantly hung himself in his apartment.

With the economic crisis hitting the nation hard, it seems that we might expect more of such news in the coming months. Dark days and depression might become more commonplace, people will fret more over their jobs, over money, and over every worry and concern that might come their way.

In the case of David Widjaja, perhaps it was his studies that did him in. That is the theory that the mainstream media seems to be pushing, but whether it is true or not is another matter.

While dramatic, such cases are old hat really. How many times have we heard in Singapore of suicide and attempted suicide cases over studies and poor results. If my memory serves me right, it is quite substantial. And I believe this is just the tip of the iceberg. The media has a policy of not reporting every suicide case for fear of "copycat suicides" -- so what what we are seeing is just a drop in the ocean.

It makes me wonder -- is it all worth it? Is it worth to take one's life because everything has spun out of control? It is easy to say it is not. But depression is not an easy thing to overcome. I know, because I certainly have been through it before. While I've never reached the point of being suicidal before, I know how is it like to have thoughts bombard your head -- thoughts that do you in, thoughts that put you down...

Click here to read the full article.

Do you have "Inner Blindness"?

BEGGARS INVADE our streets, swarm the hawker centres, and crowd the roadsides. Some of them are blind, some disabled, others look like your ordinary auntie or uncle. Well, they aren't exactly beggars in the strictist sense, but in a land where begging is illegal, they sell tissue and play instruments instead.

The blind ones seem especially grotesque, their faces are often quite contorted and twisted, their lips tangled up in an awkward position. Their eyes are dirty white, and one wishes some of them had put on shades. They walk at a snail pace, a stand-out in fast-moving Singapore, waving their stick about in front of them. The walking cane seem to take on a life of its own, feeling about, shifting left-right left-right at a rapid pace.

Despicable, detestable, disgusting -- certainly not a sight STB would want tourists to see. But yes, they exist in large numbers -- these impoverished folks -- sleeping under HDB apartments and outside MRT stations

While the blindness of some of these people are pretty obvious, are we -- able-bodied, relatively well-off Singaporeans -- the truly blind ones? Are we so caught up with the rat race and the chasing of grades that we forget those who do not have the same opportunities as us? Do material concerns so engulf us that instead of being the consumer, we become consumed by the pursuit of wealth...

Click here to read the full article.

Can Singaporeans accept a 'Mohamed' as Prime Minister?

"I want to be a president."

That was what Barack Hussein Obama's wrote when his teacher asked the class to write an essay entitled, "My dream: What I want to be in the future."

Schooled in Indonesia during his early years, perhaps even he could never have guessed his prolific rise to political superstardom. His classmates did not describe him as a particularly intellectual or bright student, and he was only a B-average student.

While we do not know if he held the ambition of becoming President throughout his entire life, that essay became prophetic when he was elected to become the first African-American president in US history.

In many ways, his election was groundbreaking. It signifies the redeeming qualities of democracy and civil liberties, marking a successful transition from a nation that enslaved blacks to one that elects them. All the talk about the "Bradley effect" and racism does not quite apply to most Americans, and here we are seeing a mature people choosing their leader based on principles of charisma, merit, and character.

Political tolerance in Singapore

Having been following the elections quite feverishly, I cannot help but draw comparisons with the current political situation in Singapore.

While Singapore prides itself on meritocracy and integrity, it has a limited tolerance for political diversity. The PAP inherits Lee Kuan Yew's political recipe of crushing opponents at all costs; from the detainment of alleged communists in the 1960s to the arrest of the Marxist conspirators in the 1980s. For appetisers, consider the assortment of defamation and libel suits against a large spread of politicians, newspapers, and magazines.

In the most recent case where the government is suing the Wall Street Journal for contempt of court, Attorney General Walter Woon accused the newspaper of launching a "two-decade campaign to besmirch the Singapore judiciary," said a Reuters report. However, I would venture to say that it is the PAP that is launching its own campaign to not just discredit, but utterly crush and destroy those it perceives as a threat to its hold on power.

While I have no problems with the PAP suing in some instances, the party has gone overboard in extent and scope. Why run JBJ to the brink of poverty over a few loose comments? Why subject James Gomez in 2006 to post-election rough interrogation tactics over the fact that he did not submit an inconsequential registration form? The iron cage sure stinks of legalism and senseless bureaucracy. While the PAP justifies these lawsuits as a means of protecting its integrity, it has backfired instead and stained its own reputation as an unsympathetic and small-minded party.

In contrast, while the US elections reeked of half-truths and outright lies, American society understands that the media has a role to play in sieving out the truth. While news channels like FOX News have attained a dubious reputation of perpetuating rumours and lies, other media outlets like CNN and The New York Times provide people with a more balanced picture.

No doubt, some have been deceived by the smear campaigns that sought to portray Obama as an Arab and a terrorist. The elections, however, has proven that most Americans are sensible enough to discern between truth and deception. Obama's election serves as a vindication of democracy: despite all its flaws, it does work. While it is too early to judge whether an Obama administration will be successful, perhaps Singapore can take a page out of the US elections.

A lesson learnt: Please trust your citizens to make the right decisions.

A Muslim President, or Prime Minister?

Having said that, the US elections has also demonstrated the ugly side of American society, especially its intolerance for Islam. While the US can accept a Black President, can they accept a Muslim one? Responding to allegations that Obama is a Muslim, Colin Powell responded by saying: "Well the correct answer is, 'He's not a Muslim, he's a Christian, he's always been a Christian'. But the really right answer is, "What if he is?' Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer is 'No', that's not America."

This is an important question that has not been treated extensively - if at all - by the leading American newspapers. Perhaps it is too discomforting or even taboo to discuss this in the mainstream media, after all, America is in a self-congratulatory mode for finally - after 200 years - doing away with its demons of racism and discrimination.

But all indications point to a 'No'.

One of the main controversies in the Presidential campaign is the issue about Obama's religion and his middle name: Hussein. The fact that it is even an issue at all demonstrates the deep-seated fear and ignorance of many Americans. It is even more interesting that none of the presidential candidates have gone far to say that it is okay for a Muslim to be a president. Doing so, I suspect, would be political suicide for them. Perhaps still scarred over September 11, the association between the words "Muslim" and "terrorist" will take a long time to be totally decoupled.

But is Singapore ready for a Barack 'Hussein' Obama, or a Mohamed for that matter?

I believe this is where Singapore shines. Unlike America, Singapore has demonstrated incredible racial and religious tolerance, and credit must go to the government's policies for this.

We can argue that the OB markers placed by the government on mentioning race and religion has led to the extreme of people mistaking religious harmony as "not talking about it." But the fact is that despite a minority Muslim population, Singapore society has been relatively untainted by religious strife since the 60s.

No doubt, while prejudice and stereotypes still exists, it is nowhere compared to other societies where people can hate you for being Muslim. The government has gone to great pains to conjure up with policies that enforce racial and religious harmony.

In1980, a race quota was instituted for HDB flats in 1980 to ensure that different races get a chance to mix together and interact. After September 11, Inter-racial and religious confidence circles (IRCC) were set up to provide guidance and understand among different racial and religious groups.

Also, mainstream schools in Singapore - with the exception of SAP schools - allow for people of different races and religions to interact with one another and form friendships from a young age. While elite schools are said to be more homogeneous, this is due more to the fact that the Chinese are performing better academically, but it is hoped that this gap will shrink.

There is no mechanism stopping a Muslim or Hindu from rising up the political ranks - we are seeing minority MPs in parliament. However, many Malay Muslims are consigned to the Police Force and Civil Defense because the government is still uncomfortable with too many of them serving in the Armed Forces. This hesitance is expressed by then Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew in 1999 when he was quoted in The Straits Times as saying:

"If, for instance, you put in a Malay officer who's very religious and who has family ties in Malaysia in charge of a machine gun unit, that's a very tricky business. We've got to know his background... I'm saying these things because they are real, and if I don't think that, and I think even if today the Prime Minister doesn't think carefully about this, we could have a tragedy."

But this leads to the question: If the government is uncomfortable with a Muslim commanding a platoon in the Armed Forces, would it be comfortable allowing the same person to assume the highest office in the country?

We will never know until a Prime Minister Obama arrives.

Positive Journalism?

Whenever bad things happen, count on the journalist to be there. Be it disasters, famine, economic meltdowns; whenever and where ever it happens, we'll cover it.

In fact, the news industry pretty much thrives on bad events -- It is bread-and-butter to us. While reading about some student winning an international award is all nice and good, readership really spikes when controversies arise. As journalism students, we are taught that conflict makes a good story: maid versus employee, foreign workers versus locals, government versus the people.

Negativity sells, because somehow deep in our hearts, we are thrilled when bad things happen to other people.

The reason why I wrote this blog post was because my friend Yong Xin asked me this question one day: why can't journalism be more positive? It's a question I've asked myself, but never quite thought much about, until now. Why indeed?

This is my take on the issue: maybe we've been asking the wrong question all along. Instead of asking, "Should journalism be more positive," we should ask: "Is it serving society well?"

There is value in negative news. Conflict stirs debate, debate leads to reflection, and reflection leads to positive change. The government improves their policies based on what is reflected in the media. Readers are educated about class struggle, discrimination, and morality through the media, and this leads to a more enlightened society. I don't believe reporters should downplay a bad event simply for the sake of fluffy positivity. While I believe there should be some dramatisation to draw readers, reporters should make no attempt to exaggerate a bad event. 

Also, negative news should be weighed based on its value to the readers. For example, in the case of a young girl's toe who was ripped off by the escalator while she was wearing Crocs, the article has value because it warns readers about the potential dangers of Crocs. Also, it results in positive action, with the shoe-maker placing "escalator safety" messages on its shoes to inform customers.

Having said that, perhaps it is inevitable that there is more negativity in the media, if it's role is to expose the unsavoury side of society. The media can therefore be said to be both a mirror and a magnifying glass of society. It serves as a mirror because it should try to portray the world as accurately as possible. It serves as a magnifying glass because it should attempt to highlight the pressing problems in society.

That is where the editorial/opinions section of the newspaper comes in. Negative news should be placed into context by an opinion piece. And my next sentence might frighten some: hit the government hard if you have to, but don't be afraid to sing its praises as well. Credit should be given where it is due, but be critical when you have to. 

Reporters should also avoid a doom-and-gloom perspective. In the case of the economic meltdown, it is unhelpful for writers to only point fingers all the time; writers should be obligated to offer the light at the end of the tunnel, and serve to calm down for anxious readers.

Personally, I advocate the Libertarian-Social Responsibility role of the press. The press should serve as a check on the government, to ensure that it is doing its job properly. Also, the press should serve the interests of the wider society, giving voice to the voiceless,  hope to the hopeless, guarding against rampant capitalism and political tyranny.

While I don't believe in the press becoming merely a stage for PR, I do believe in positive journalism -- which is simply the ability to derive positive outcomes out of negative news. 

On a side note, here is an article about how some journalists do see some good news arising out of the economic recession.

I did something naughty last week

What a week it has been. I'd expect my four years in university to be extremely peaceful, free from trouble and fuss. My idea of university life used to be that of dating, studying, and having fun generally.

How things have changed in the space of seven days.

University life usually invokes the 'M' word -- mugging. I wonder if future undergraduates have any idea what they signed up for when they applied to get into NTU or NUS. Mugging never ends, here in Singapore. In fact, it continues to haunt you and strangle you, until you finally get out of the education system.

In my father's generation, the 'O' Level certificate was certainly enough for most people. Now, even a Bacholer's degree is not sufficient. My friend told me this: he is considering taking up a Master's degree, for the sheer fact that he wants to stand out from the competition.

Things are certainly getting interesting, right here at NTU. In one night, at the click of a mouse, I became an activist, and I did not even realise it then. So, what is activism, you wonder? It is standing up for certain beliefs, and fighting to get it recognised by the authorities and the wider public. 

So, what exactly happened? Here's a brief:

1) Chee Soon Juan came down to NTU to gave out flyers and talk to students. They were generally apathetic, but student reporters were on hand to report the event.

2) However, the campus administration did the unthinkable -- they censored all coverage of Dr Chee's visit, wanting to "protect students." 

3) Many of us at the Nanyang Chronicle, the school's campus newspaper, were infuriated. It showed two things: that the school has no regard for the opinions of students and that the school treats us like children, thinking that we will be easily influenced by whatever we read. That was when a thought came to me: Get it out! Get it out! Singaporeans need to hear about this!

4) After some discussion with certain people, I wrote a piece (you can read it here if you haven't) on how NTU has censored campus media and posted it on The Online Citizen. The NTU administration certainly wasn't pleased.

5) The article generated huge publicity on the Internet, making rounds in the Singapore blogosphere. As of now -- on TOC -- the article has generated 3,629 hits and 98 comments. It has spawned a Facebook group, and caught the attention of the Straits Times (I saw some ST photographers at SCI, one Brian van der Veek and another Alphonsus Chen), although somehow the story didn't get published in the end. 

I had doubts, really, about what I did. Should I have talked to the student administration first? Should I have kept it internal? But my actions have already sparked a chain of events and there seems to be no turning back from there. I am reassured though, to find out that I wasn't the first to do such things (a campus paper in the US experienced the same thing), and I probably won't be the last.

Actually, I am the last person to expect myself to do such a thing. I am a really mild person. My friends can certainly attest to that. But maybe that is just a front after all.

Where is God in all of this? What is He saying to me? I've prayed about it, and I feel totally at peace. Somehow -- I hope -- He is giving me a pat on the back, and urging me on. There is certainly a long journey ahead of me, and I'll need all the encouragements I can get. 

Hate Religion...but love thy God

It's in the news: Taoism is fast losing traction among the Chinese here, but Buddhism and Christianity are on the rise.

The Straits Times reported how Taoism has lost many believers - from 30 per cent of the Chinese population in the 80s to 8.5 per cent in 2000. On the other hand, Christianity represents 17 per cent and Buddhism 54 per cent of the Chinese population, according to the population census.

However, in the midst of these religious tectonic shifts, tremours of unhappiness are brewing within the homes of many traditional Chinese families. A typical scenario: a Buddhist mother grieves over how her children have converted to Christianity, and worries over how there will be no one to perform her funeral rites.

Baptism has also been a contentious issue: it represents a total abandonment of old religious traditions in favour of the 'new-fangled thing'.

So what is this new-fangled thing? It is the result of the reevaluation of our purpose in life - leading to a drastic change of beliefs.

The Straits Times report has revealed a common understanding among many religious adherents and seekers: there is no use for old religious rites that bare no meaning upon one's lives.

But the search for meaning is often a rocky path. While many youths yearn for parents who are open-minded, they will find instead their desire to convert met with unhappiness from them instead.

This brings us to the bugbear of religion: emotionalism. Like it or not, a religious debate will often be heated up and quite emotional. Yes, you have your euphoric religious experiences of how 'God is Love' and how you have achieved a sense of wholeness, but many of the emotions that are tagged with religion is negative.

The abandonment of old traditional rites is one, and seems to strike great fear within parents. Other contentious issues include extremism and fundamentalism, which include terrorism and the notion of church versus the state. In Singapore, where the situation is rather calm, you have the gripes against over-zealous evangelising and seemingly over-extravagant spending on religious buildings.

In forums and blogs, it is hard to find a religious discussion that stays calm. Yes, discussions about politics will occasionally heat up to boiling point, but religious discussions are volcanoes waiting to erupt.

So it is quite understandable why parents react the way they do: religion represents a certain identity. Many of us cling on to it when we were young and for some of us, they form integral parts of our past memories.

But in order to gain happiness and a sense of purpose, shouldn't old mindsets and traditions be abandoned, even if it means upsetting the old institutions? Nevertheless, a conversion should be done with great care and love: it's about showing that despite a change in beliefs, your concern for your parents would be intact, if not enhanced.

I'm not saying that any religion is bad, but if we merely perform the traditional rites for the sake of doing it, then it becomes nothing more than 'Religion' - a set of practices and traditions that hold no purpose or value in the present context. In other words, a wayang.

We should strive to hate Religion: abandoning old practices that no longer hold meaning to our lives, yet at the same time to love thy God - realising that there is a spiritual dimension in all of us that needs to be fulfilled.

Therefore, if Taoists want to regain a foothold in Singapore society once again, then they need to address this question: what does the religion have to offer modern-day Singaporeans?

The Tan Lead Shake saga - no conspiracy involved

The recent Tan Lead Shake saga has offered a revealing insight into the state of journalism in Singapore. And no, The Straits Times is not The State's Times, as many bloggers like to say.

Before I proceed, here's a summary of events that has happened over the past week:

The brother of opposition politician Tan Lead Shake, aka Slipper Man, was found dead with multiple stab wounds. The victim was murdered by his wife. The news ran in the June 29 edition of The Sunday Times, explaining details of the murder and background information of Lead Shake's life as an opposition politician.

On the same day, National Solidarity Party member Law Sin Ling posted an angry response on a Yahoo! group, which was subsequently reproduced on Sgpolitics.net and The Online Citizen. In it, he accused The Straits Times of "journalistic madness", mocking the opposition and the dead, and brazenly betraying their "thicket of putrid inner value."

Angrier comments poured in, calling the Tan Lead Shake article a "piece of trash" and an "abominable despicable unconscionable exploitation for political mileage".

Another anonymous comment put it more crudely, with such vulgar eloquence:

"&@#!%$&*% I would not want to translate that, those were words meant for the piece of prostituting shit of a journalist."

In summary: yet another PAP-bashing, Straits Times = PAP conspiracy theory.

I personally think Sin Ling has gone too far in his criticisms. An examination of journalistic 'News Values' will explain perfectly why the article was framed that certain way, with 'Slipper Man' Tan Lead Shake highlighted in the article.

News Values are simply the criteria that editors use to decide what makes news.

Much space was given to the article, not because of some PAP conspiracy to dent the opposition (it's not the GE yet). Rather, the news was simply interesting.

Firstly, it involved a somewhat prominent personality, but not famous enough to make front page or a 6-page spread.

Secondly, the moniker 'Slipper Man' was used not out of disrespect, but because it reveals an interesting aspect of Lead Shake's personality.

Thirdly, the emphasis on Lead Shake's losses in past General Elections was necessary because hardly anyone would know about him prior to his brother's murder.

And lastly, this was no conspiracy for a very simple reason: the PAP is not in cahoots with the Straits Times.

And it is true that Tan Lead Shake is a SDA member, or rather - was. However, I must admit that the article could phrase it better, by naming him as a "former Singapore Democratic Alliance member" instead.

There is not the slightest trace of politicalisation in the article. The PAP boogeyman did not pop by to the newsroom one day and proclaim: "You must cover this! Let's smear the opposition!" The article did not attempt to suggest that Tan Lead Shake was somehow involved in the murder attempt. The facts spoke for itself.

As any Singapore journalism student will tell you, the government pretty much leaves the press alone, unless intervention is needed. The government is too sophisticated for that. Restrictions and OB markers are already in place to manage the media.

The article was just that: a typical murder case - with Tan Lead Shake, an opposition member, unfortunate enough to be related to the victim. In any other country, even those with a free press, any opposition politician with his brother murdered would receive similar treatment by the media.

It seems that the only one politicising the situation is NSP member Law Sin Ling himself.

Is the Straits Times that bad?

"Why are you selling your soul to the devil?"

That was what somebody told me, quite incredulously, when I said that I've applied for the SPH scholarship.

Of course, I can't blame her. The reputation of The Straits Times among bloggers and the online community is not a positive one. In fact, the daily has been "demonised", accused of being biased, a tool for propaganda, and a stooge for the government.

Surf SingaporeDaily, and you are likely to find a ST article, or the journalist who wrote it, or the paper itself being criticised left, right, and centre. Many have swore that they've quit reading ST a long time ago, and they're quite proud of it.

I can imagine a Straits Times Anonymous group gathering in a room, sitting in a circle and sharing about their joyful experiences.

"I dumped my copy of ST into the bin, and never looked back," says a 22-year-old girl in a sweet voice.

"Once, I was a brainless citizen, but now, thanks to the internet, I'm set free!" says a 40-year-old man in polo tee and shorts, the type you often see sipping coffee at the hawker centre.

Amen and amen. One wonders why they should not set up a new religion.

But don't be so quick to label me an anti-ChriST. I have my gripes about ST and the state of the local media too. But I think some perspective is needed.

Back to the question: Do I think that ST is that bad? The answer is a categorical no.

Yes, I agree that The Straits Times is state-controlled, and many of its stakeholders are linked to the government. Yes, I agree that the quality of writing there pales in comparison to some of the top-notch newspapers like The New York Times and The Washington Post. And yes, I agree that the paper is biased in its coverage of government policies. The Editorial Team is overwhelmingly pro-government, and this is reflected in the op-eds.

However, I must say it is doing its best under existing restrictions. Being the oldest paper in the country, it is difficult to undo years of tradition. It plays the expected role of being nation-building by the PAP's definition, and this is something that will take a lot of inertia to change. You can describe ST as a victim of its circumstances. The real culpit here must be the law of the land: the ISA, the NPPA, as well as a judiciary that has been used to sue dissenting politicians and media for libel.

And the ST does have its own gems as well. The Saturday special is an enlightening read, most of the time. Some of the opinion pieces are well-written. And the ST is quite stringent when it comes to reporting hard news.

Journalists themselves have also gotten an unfair portion of the flak. Being in such a large organisation, the journalist often has to adhere to the demands of the editorship as well as the ST's policies. The piece of writing that ends up on the paper often bares only a small resemblance to what the journalist originally wrote.

This is not to say that journalists are not totally absolved from bad and biased reporting. But I just want to highlight this fact: the journalist is but a small spoke in a very large wheel. And at the heart of everything lies the government.

Furthermore, the ST can be likened to a very large oceanliner, and blogs to small pecking fishes. I'm not trying to look down on bloggers, but to highlight differences between MSM and new media. While criticism is awash all over the internet about ST and its articles, the paper has no ability to react. As a result, there is a gigantic imbalance as far as online sentiments go.

Here's how it works: ST publishes an article, which is viewed as biased by the online community. Blog reactions flood in, criticising the ST for whatever reason. As a large oceanliner, the paper is too slow to respond, to counter the arguments raised by netizens. It tries to steer, but is unable to do so quickly enough against the tide of criticism.

This is something the ST should try to change. Journalists should be more actively engaging the blogging community, not as enemies, but as active citizens working towards better public discourse. The new media should not be seen as a threat, but as an opportunity. ChannelNewsAsia and Mypaper have already done so, launching blogs featuring their own journalists.

It is therefore the imperative of the journalist themselves to decide what to do with it, and also to counter criticism that may arise as a result of the articles they write. While management may be scrambling to make sense of this new beast, journalists by themselves have the independence and savvy to better engage netizens. That is the advantage of being young and nimble.

Like Pilate, DPM Wong washes his hands clean

For the guards on duty on the fateful day of Mas Selamat's Houdini-like escape, it must have been a hellish month-and-a-half. Haunted by recurring thoughts of how they could have let the wanted terrorist slip through the window, it would be hard for them to flip through this morning’s papers.

Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng’s speech yesterday on Mas Selamat’s escape was effectively their death sentence. Towards the end of the speech, DPM Wong promised that “Officers who are responsible for Mas Selamat’s escape will be disciplined and penalised.”

Furthermore, he added that not only should the Whitley Road Detention Centre (WRDC) junior officers be examined, but the scrutiny should “go up the chain of command and include the supervisory and management levels of WRDC as well.”

While the personnel at WRDC should rightly be responsible for the escape, it seemed that they have been accorded all the blame, and would suffer all the disciplinary actions as well.

Opposition MP Chiam See Tong has asked in parliament whether any heads will roll, but it seems like the only people facing the guillotine are the staff and Officers at the WRDC. For some of them, it is possibly hanta kaki to their promotion and job prospects in the force.


Who is really to blame?

DPM Wong has been irresponsible to absolve himself of the blame. He seems eager to point the finger on “slacking” within some individual units, all the while dismissing the notion that strategic oversights have led to the escape.

Why, for instance, is an extremely dangerous and wanted terrorist kept in an old facility formally used to house communists? The rationale for housing Mas Selamat there is so not to antagonise him and “treat” him better so that he would be more willing to divulge information on terrorist activities. However, these functions could be performed just as well in a better-secured facility.

Another reason cited by DPM Wong was to prevent “contamination” of the terrorist with other inmates. This argument, however, raises more questions: why couldn’t a section of the prison be condoned off for Mas Selamat? Why is it that the Internal Security Department (ISD) needs a rude awakening to decide that they are going to house terrorists in Changi Prison?

The security at the WRDC was appalling. As DPM Wong has mentioned, metal grilles were not installed at that one window and the CCTV that would have documented his escape were not actively monitered. Furthermore, the perimeter wall and fencing resembled more of a school’s than that of a secure facility used to house terrorists.

Rather than pushing the blame squarely on the complacency of the personnel at WRDC, strategic oversights on the part of the ISD and even the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) should bare the responsibility as well.

DPM Wong should have accepted responsibility

Now that Mas Selamat has escaped, what’s done is done, and there is no use mourning over past incompetency. While DPM Wong was right to say that the focus should now be to catch the terrorist, he was insincere in the way he handled the whole situation.

Responsibility does not mean accepting punishment, but it means telling that people that yes, there is sincere regret that this incident has happened, and yes, the Ministry has contemplated the fact that maybe there is something that they themselves have overlooked. It seemed that DPM Wong was unwilling to concede all this while.

Some members of the online community are calling for his resignation, but that is wholly unnecessary. However, as the Minister in charge of Home Affairs, it is only right that he accepts responsibility for the whole incident, take the burdens upon his shoulders, and try to undo the mess.

The whole Mas Selamat incident is an indication of how distant the ruling technocrats are from the ground. It is a failed Public Relations exercise on the government’s part. By not accepting responsibility, the MHA has proven that it is more than willing to appoint scapegoats in this fracas, and wash their own hands clean.

Unfortunately, the people who suffer will always be the ones at the bottom of the food chain.

Singapore journalism in stasis

WHILE NEWSPAPER CIRCULATION and traditional print advertising revenue appears to be increasing in Singapore, journalism here has remained stagnant.

In the Money Section of the 15 April 2008 issue of The Straits Times, it was reported in an article that SPH’s “newspaper and magazine operations saw sales rise 8.4 per cent to $236.4 million, as print advertisement revenues surged 11.3 per cent to $179.8 million.”

However, whether newspaper sales by itself has increased, stagnated, or dropped was not made clear. The surge in sales and print advertising revenues could in fact be due to its magazines sales.

The situation in the US appears much more drastic. Despite America being a symbol of Democracy with a liberal press system, the nation has seen newspaper circulation decline for 20 years running. This is due to a credibility crisis in American journalism, where corporate takeovers of major newspapers and declining print advertisement revenues are leaving journalists shorthanded.

The figures below, extracted from the American Journalism Review, speak for themselves:

• Thirty years ago, 71 percent of adults read a daily newspaper. Ten years ago, it was 59 percent. Last year's figure: 48 percent.

• Last December, 63 million unique visitors came to newspaper Web sites. Google's figure: 133 million.

• Ad revenue for newspaper Web sites rose 21 percent to $773 million in the third quarter of last year over the previous year. Print ad losses during the same period: $1 billion, wiping out the gain from the Web.

• In the third quarter of last year, print advertising dropped 9 percent, including a decline of 17 percent among classifieds. A Goldman Sachs prediction for overall newspaper advertising this year: a drop of 8 percent.

Singapore print journalism, on the other hand, seems relatively untouched by the assault of Internet advertising. While circulation of The Straits Times could be argued to be on a decline, the figures are nowhere as drastic as those above.

However, to determine the vitality of journalism in a country, it is not just enough to look at its financial status.

In the US, it is a widely held viewed that the standard of journalism there is deteriorating. Corporate takeovers meant that commercial interests may overtake newspapers. Foreign news coverage is decreasing despite the need for more such coverage. Newspapers are shrinking in size and manpower has been cut so as to save costs.

While major newspapers in the US are dropping in readership year-by-year, readers there still have exciting online alternatives to turn to for their regular news fix.

American journalists there are rebounding. Philanthropists are putting funds to start up news websites, most notably Propublica.org, which has former WSJ Managing Editor Paul E. Steiger as editor-in-chief. The website is funded by California philanthropists Herbert M. and Marion O. Sandler, who will be pumping in US$10 million annually for the next three years.

Foreign news coverage will also be getting a boost from an online source. Global News Enterprise, slated to become the first US news website dedicated solely to foreign news, will be set up in early 2009. It will be run by CEO Philip Balboni and assisted by initial investments of US$8 million.

In contrast, the journalism scene in Singapore is much less exciting. With no Malaysiakini in Singapore, disgruntled readers have nowhere to turn to other than ST or Today. The Online Citizen, one of the most widely read alternative news and opinion websites in Singapore, is too severely shorthanded to be an alternative news source.

Not that many people are complaining. While online forumers and bloggers have been quick to criticise Singapore’s PAP-friendly mainstream papers, they remain an extremely vocal and internet-savvy minority. The rest of the population is probably rather content with what is already available.

It sure doesn’t help that Singapore is only a small island-state with a small population. As PM Lee has mentioned, talents are few and the top talents are leaving the island, perhaps for good. But the main reason for Singapore’s static journalism is really our political state.

The PAP government is attempting to listen to its people through online feedback units and by engaging bloggers, but these gestures are meant to cement PAP’s position in parliament, not loosen control. The PM’s disdain for the opposition has been reflected in a recent article by Today.

All three Opposition MPs were graded by PM Lee, with Mr Chiam See Tong observed as speaking less nowadays, Mr Low Thia Khiang chided for being “more passionate about nitpicking,” and Ms Sylvia Lim surprisingly getting an ‘A’ (was it sarcastic?) for being “rather cautious and reserved” in her speeches. On the other hand, the NMPs were praised for raising contrary views in parliament.

At the moment, Mr Chiam declined to retort, while the other two MPs “could not be reached for comment at press time.” It remains to be seen whether a follow-up article will follow, although I rightly feel that there should be one. In the interest of free and fair journalism, it is only right.

Whether PM Lee’s comments does reflect actual performance is debatable. Nevertheless, it does reflect the fact that the PAP wants an opposition that is friendly to the party, by the sheer fact that NMPs heavily outnumber the opposition MPs in parliament. Likewise, the PAP ideology of a “nation-serving” press is not set to change anytime soon.

The government is content with mainstream media being the way it is. In fact, it can be said to be too liberal by even the government’s standards. Unless PAP amends its media policies and unless the liberal minority becomes the majority, Singapore journalism looks set to remain in stasis for a long while more.

The ugly side of Democracy

Democracy has an ugly side, as shown by the recent protests against China at the various Olympic torch relay sites.

In London, police had to keep pro-Tibet protesters away from the flame. In France, demonstraters hurled water at the flame and lunged at the torchbearers. If this is what Democracy is all about, then I do not want any part of it.

We would expect citizens in these mature, highly-developed and Democratic countries to behave with dignity and to carry themselves well, yet they resorted to this sort of ugly behaviour. I mean, what would happen if they did get to the flaming torch and had their hands on the torchbearers? How ugly could it have been?

This leads to a question: If Singapore were to be truly democratic and if freedom of speech were to be liberally exercised, and if the torch were to pass by Singapore, how would Singaporeans behave? Chee Soon Juan had gone all out to show that "peaceful protests" are certainly possible in Singapore. Videos of him being confronted by the police despite protesting peacefully are being circulated on YouTube.

Hypothetically, under the pervasive eye of the media and the liberalisation of government control, it is hard to determine if Singaporeans would be as disruptive as the mob protesters in France. However, with Singapore being a more conservative and reserved culture, perhaps we might demonstrate the ability to "protest peacefully."

The prospect of demonstrations at the Speaker's Corner, if legalised, may finally provide space for Singaporeans to make their voice heard. But such measures might just be 'gestural politics', as the restrictions that come with having to register with the police discourages Singaporeans from using the must maligned venue. Perhaps a more 'light touch' policy should be applied, quite similar to what we're already seeing online, giving Singaporeans the benefit of the doubt when it comes to voicing their concerns.

Here in Singapore, the ugliness that is associated with freedom of expression has so far been limited to the online space. We are no stranger to the racial and religious slurs and the personal attacks that have been rampant online. How that would translate in the real world is pretty much an untested question.

The people know this: that if they were to try something like the protesters in France, they would be dealt under the heavy hand of the law. The ever watchful eye of the government has been what's keeping Singaporeans in line. But without the law, how would Singaporeans behave? It is possible that the "peaceful protest" doctrine endorsed by Chee Soon Juan might even fade to obscurity as Singaporeans become bolder in their expression?

The ugliness of Democracy has been what's keeping the Singapore government hesistant about giving more political freedom to its people. The recent spate of protests would seem to reinforce that viewpoint. Nevertheless, while it might be wrong for Adam to eat the forbidden fruit, to not offer him a choice in the first place might be the greater sin after all.

IT'S OFFICIAL - TERENCE AND KAILIN ARE TOGETHER

Terence Lee and Koh Kailin are officially together, it was announced at a press conference yesterday.

Mr. Terence Lee, 22, a first year journalism student at NTU, has publicly declared that he and Ms. Koh Kailin, 22, a part-time account executive and SOT student, are an item.

"Yes indeed it is an exciting time for the both of us, and I believe it is kind of unexpected for a lot of people," said Mr. Lee.

The couple had known each other since April last year, when they were working together at Attributes Pte Ltd. Mr. Lee was working as an editorial assistant, while Ms. Koh a marketing assistant who doubled as a cashier.

While love was buzzing in the office, apparently many were kept unawares.

For Ms. Quek Xiaowei, then working as a marketing executive, it was a total shock. Ms. Quek was Mr. Lee's ex-cell group leader.

"I didn't even know! Terence didn't even tell me! I didn't know that they even spoke to one another much at work," she said during an imagined interview.

Mr. Robin Thor, general manager of Attributes, could not be reached for comment.

However, Ms. Koh attributed the surprise reaction to the fact that they weren't "really close" at that point of time.

"It was on MSN, and soon after his SOT graduation, that we really got to know one another," she added.

They were officially attached on April 4th, 2008, but they never deliberately planned it to be on that date. In fact, they confessed that they didn't even know about it until the next day.

"It's so typical of him lah, always not aware of things. But kind of charming in a way," said Ms. Koh.

While they originally intentioned to be attached in August this year, things did not go as planned.

While his mom advised him to wait, Mr. Lee felt that it did not really make sense.

"I mean, we were already so close, what's the point of waiting, really? We didn't want to put up an act and say that we're not together when in fact we are."

For Mr. Lee's university friends, they felt it was only a matter of time. Some of them have even placed bets as too how long would they take to be together. Ms. Sarah Amnah won $50 for betting on April.

"Aiyah, I knew they wouldn't wait until August one sia. But they're so cuuuute lah!" she said.

For Mr. Lim Weili, he felt the arrangement was a match made in heaven, and in the bank as well. He considers having a degree-wielding girlfriend who's already working an advantage.

"It's good for Terence, really, and quite smart! I mean, he's still a student, and money can be an issue here. Now Terence doesn't always have to pay for dinner dates and stuff, so I would say he's ingenious!"

However, Mr. Lee is not worried that money will be an issue. He is aiming for an SPH scholarship this year, which he is confident of getting. Amidst the rising trend of relationships not making it to marriage, the couple hopes theirs can be different.

"I mean, I know there are uncertainties and difficulties, and I sure know that things rarely go as planned and all, but I want to believe and really make this thing work," said Mr. Lee.

Ms. Koh echoed his sentiments.

"As Pastor Tan has mentioned before, we want to do something that is really built to last. And as long as we continue to love one another and communicate, things will work out fine. If God has put us together, then He will keep us together."

***Updated New flash - TERENCE AND KAILIN ARE TOGETHER

Mr. Ian Chong, 35, Zone Supervisor of Mr. Terence for past 3 yrs plus, comments after reading that Terence and Kailin are togther.

"Well, Terence is old enough to make his own decision. Right now I am too happy for him and hope that they will encourage each other in the Lord when they spend time together," said Mr Chong.

Does Singapore have a hero?

On March 7, 2007, Captain America was assassinated on the steps outside a courthouse while on the way to an arraignment. Once America's favourite superhero, he was soon vilified by the public when he stood against the Superhuman Registration Act, which he saw as a threat to civil liberties.

As America reeled from the death of a superhero, I stood in mourning as well.

We can all identify with the loss of a hero.

Many of us used to have heroes at one point of our lives. They are people we look up to and aspire to be. They reside in the posters on our bedroom walls and on our television sets. They are the larger-than-life figures that represent our dreams and ideals, that somewhere along our adulthood was exchanged for mediocrity.

To some, Captain America's death symbolised the end of the dominance of American idealism in US foreign policy. However, as I relate this story back home, it soon dawned upon me that Singapore doesn't have a hero.

Perhaps it is useful to first define the Singapore Hero. The Singapore Hero must be relatable to the current generation, born and bred locally, and preferably under 40. In the age of globalisation, the Singapore Hero must have an international presence; somebody who is prominent in the minds of both locals and foreigners.

Try to think of a prominent figure that has captured the hearts and minds of the Singapore population, and you realise that you'll draw a blank.

The Singapore Hero is a champion of our values and ideals. However, in a nation where pragmatism was often described as the key to its survival, is there room for defiant idealism?


The absence of a Singapore hero: a political problem?

Singaporeans who have lived through the nascent years of Singapore's independence often value job security and good grades above passion, and comfort above risk-taking. This is in contrast with the current generation of youths who see more value in an arts education, and who are more willing to pursue their dreams.

This clash of values was illustrated in a recent The Straits Times article on 19 November where a top A-level student gave up a prestigious scholarship in Nanyang Technological University and opted instead for a diploma at the Nanyang Academy of Fine Arts. Her parents were extremely upset at her decision.

The Singapore youth today is also more influenced by Western values, which emphasise individualism and the relentless pursuit of ideals.This ongoing paradigm shift would mean that the next generation of Singaporeans would be more given to risk-taking, innovation, and entrepreneurship.

With Democracy as the dominant form of governance in the world, freedom of speech, individuality, and diversity of opinions have become celebrated values. Dissent is treated with respect, debated in the public sphere, and evaluated for its usefulness to the well-being of society.

In a Democratic country, an individual can shape the entire nation. Singapore enjoys no such benefit. With dissent oftened suppressed by the government, the PAP is sending a message that conformity and blind compliance is the way to go.

The concept of heroism has shifted with Democracy. Once god-like figures of legends and myths, the heroes of today are simply ordinary people who have done extraordinary things. This can be explained by the fact that Democracy puts power in the hands of the common people, rewarding initiative and tenacity. It sacrifices governmental influence in exchange for citizen involvement, planting in every individual a potential for greatness.

Heroes: nurtured, not manufactured

However, in melding Western democratic ideals with an authoritarian government where citizen participation is minimal, the PAP has manufactured generations of Singaporeans that are driven but politically apathetic, hardworking but lacking in originality. In removing the teeth of citizen involvement from the mouth of the Democratic tiger, the PAP has disarmed the greatest asset it possesses: the people.

In essence, we have assassinated the Singapore Hero even before he or she was born.

Singapore has been desperately trying to produce sporting heroes. Millions have been pumped into the various Sports Associations with the hopes of producing the nation's first Olympic champion since Tan Howe Liang in the 1960 Olympic Games.

While there is nothing wrong with seeding funds for a national cause, we must remember that heroes are not manufactured; they are shaped by circumstances. Better financial backing alone is not enough to create a hero: what it takes is tremendous character and substance.

The government has reacted to the 'No U-turn syndrome', which was first proposed by Sim Wong Hoo as the social behaviour in which Singaporeans have the tendency to comply to the higher authorities before proceeding with any action. The education system is changing in such a way that creativity is nurtured and developed.

However, if the PAP is unwilling to loosen its reins on its people, it is essentially shooting itself in the foot, stifling the talents that it is trying to nurture.


Removing the Crucifix

The media plays a crucial role in the birth of a hero, fulfilling the traditional role of storytelling that creates a glowing legend out of the hero figure. It builds upon the deeds and achievements of the hero, creating a reputation that is awe-inspiring and larger-than-life.

Singapore has had heroes in the past, but none for the present.

Figures like Lim Bo Seng can be considered a hero, but he's more of a historical figure now. Lee Kuan Yew is way past eligibility at 78 years old, while Fandhi Ahmad has already retired. Sim Wong Hoo of Creative Technologies may be considered a Singapore hero, but his mp3 players and sound cards are even more well known than himself.

While we can blame the government all we want, it is we ourselves who are ultimately responsible for the absence of a Singapore Hero.

Sun Ho, Singapore's first truly international pop star, has all the makings of a heroine. She is making waves in both Asia and America, being the first Asian artiste to top the Billboard Dance Chart not just once, but three times. She has collaborated with Wyclef Jean to produce the single 'Chinawine', which received mostly positive comments on YouTube. She is making inroads into China as well, impressing the Chinese authorities so much that she is made the music ambassador for the 2008 Beijing Olympics. Beyond the realm of entertainment, she is a female entrepreneur who has opened several fashion boutiques in Singapore, a philanthropist, and is a trained counselor who herself has an incredible life story to tell, having overcame severe depression to get to who she is today.

Yet the local press chose to talk about how revealing a certain gown is. What an acute practice of newsworthiness!

Furthermore, many Singaporeans harped incessantly on her alleged 'religious infidelity', revealing their archaic beliefs and immature thinking. As a collective, many Singaporeans have failed to appreciate the fact that Sun is putting Singapore on the world map.

It is perhaps not altogether surprising that heroes are often the most persecuted people. Joan of Arc, liberator of the French, was burned at the stake at the age of nineteen. Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatmas Gandhi, both great civil rights figures who stood up for their beliefs, were cruelly assassinated. I am not trying to elevate anybody in particular; I am just stating a historical fact.

It is time we remove the threat of crucifixion that hangs over the Singapore Hero.

Stuck on you

I think I'm stuck on you. The moment I first set sight upon your petite face, I knew we were a perfect match. You and I, we were a cute couple; your slim, svelte profile fitted snugly around my arms.

But now that you're gone, it seems like I've lost a part of me.

You were with me whenever I went; we were inseparable, like Siamese twins conjoined. Remember the times we sat under the stars at East Coast Park, watching the waves and the people and the swaying trees?

Remember the times where we were at Esplanade library mugging away as we listened to the sweet soothing voice of Sarah Vaughan? Yeah I miss those times. The times where I would sit opposite you, and look upon your face for what seemed like hours. The times where, under the moonlight, your face seemed to glow and glimmer.

Baby I ain't myself without you, but I realise maybe I ain't the man you deserve. It must be hard to be with me, the times we went on a date and I left the restaurant, forgetting that you were still at the table.

I knew it was the last straw for you when I alighted from the bus, forgetting you were still on it, and fast asleep.

How terrible it must've felt when you woke up and saw that I was gone? Baby, you don't have to forgive me.

I've called you since, but they said you weren't around. Do return my call; I miss your voice.

I was a lucky man, but I took you for granted. Though I'd often push the wrong buttons, you were patient with me. Though on a date I looked at the really slim model who sat opposite us, you still trusted me. And throughout the many times I almost dropped you, and the three times I actually did, you still kept faith in me.

I left with you my life, my memories, my everything. I loved you, yet I resented you.

When I first set eyes upon you - I must admit - you were not my first choice. But at least you're not the last. When I chose you, I confess, I dumped your cousin, whom I thought was heavy-set, and not slim as you. I was a constant traveler, and she a grounded woman.

My thoughts now torment me. I can imagine you with another man; one who really treasures you, who treats you like his baby. One who is unwilling to part with you. I resent him, for stealing away my love. I resent myself, for making you a willing party.

I repented, and I went in search of you. Round and round the campus I went, toiling and travailing, like a pirate in search of a treasure chest. I pleaded with the bus captain in a sorrowful, quivering voice.

"Have you seen my love?" I said.

"No," he replied, his voice unsympathetic and cold, his eyes dead averted. I searched for an oasis of hope within this stoic wizened man, but all I saw was a desert full of dry bones.

I went home, deflated, dejected, a shadow of my former self, my former glory escaping me and into the distant horizon.

It took me awhile, but my strength slowly came back to me. I realise that while I miss the crispness of your voice, the touch of your velvet skin, and your constant companionship, there is more to life than being with you after all. I woke up today a restored man, ready to do battle again with a weary world.

And tomorrow, I go in search of a new love.


Love,

Casanova

(This author has lost his Dell Inspiron laptop while alighting from a shuttle bus at NTU. If you are aware of its whereabouts, please contact him directly. Don't read much into this entry though.)

Blogs: A Rising Political Force in Singapore?

The blogging scene is flourishing in Singapore, even as the government continues its close scrutiny on the internet.

In the Ministerial Forum held at NTU on 4th October, MM Lee stresses how the government does not “block any access to any website, nor do we trace (anyone) on Yahoo or Google.”

This is confirmed by the OpenNet Initiative - an organisation that analyses internet censorship around the world. According to this report, Singapore “engages in minimal Internet filtering, blocking only a small set of pornographic Web sites, as a symbol of disapproval of their contents”.

However, despite this apparent lack of censorship on the internet, the government has a history of interfering in the blogging scene.


The Libel Suit: Control without Censorship

In Singapore, some bloggers have already felt the heat from the government.

In 2005, popular local blogger AcidFlask shut down his blog after facing the threat of libel action by Philip Yeo, who was chairman of the Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A* STAR). In place of his blog was an apology retracting all the statements he had made previously against A*STAR. This caused a scare on the blogging scene, as many other bloggers followed suit, either issuing their own apologies or shutting down their blogs.

In the US however, it is the bloggers that are putting the pressure on politicians.

The US First Amendment protects the right of the media (blogs in this context) in exercising freedom of speech. As a result, blogs in the US have a tremendous influence on the political scene.

In 2002, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott stirred up controversy when he expressed support for Republican Strom Thurmond, who ran for president of the United States in 1948 based on Segregationist rhetoric.

While the mainstream media dropped the story quickly, his comments sparked off a barrage of indignation in blogs, which grew so loud that the issue was wrestled back into prominence by the mainstream media.

Facing immense pressure from the White House, Lott was forced to resign.

While censorship over the internet is not practiced in Singapore in the strictest sense, threats of legal action continue to serve as a chilly reminder that bloggers need to watch over what they say. This ensures that Bloggers in Singapore are not able to exert the kind of political influence that American blogs enjoy.


The Influence of Political Blogs

The government has taken notice of the rising prominence of blogs in Singapore.

The Straits Times launched their own new media website called STOMP in 2005, which allows greater interactivity with readers and allows them to contribute to news content (for my views on STOMP, click here).

Furthermore, Aaron Ng argues that Philip Yeo’s decision to engage Elia Diodati (formerly known as AcidFlask) on his blog marks a turnaround in the way the government perceives blogs, and this is perhaps an indication that blogs are being taken more seriously as platforms for discussion and feedback gathering.

The blogging scene continues to thrive despite the threat of legal action and the creation of STOMP. This is largely driven by the knowledge that the mainstream media in Singapore has a pro-government slant. Readers readily flock to political blogs online to source for alternative viewpoints and opinions, which are unavailable in the major newspapers in the city.


Influence but not Power

While political blogs are enjoying swelling readership in Singapore, their power to induce change in the nation is limited.

In a study of the Trent Lott saga, we saw how traditional and new media worked hand-in-hand to reveal the past political affiliations of the former Senate Majority Leader, forcing his resignation.

Such an incident is unlikely to happen in Singapore. The local mainstream media and political blogs are decidedly opposite in political bias, and what is covered in blogs like Singapore Angle and Mr. Wang Says So are unlikely to be featured in the main newspapers here.

No matter how great a concept new media is, real power still lie within the giant media conglomerates here in Singapore. Bloggers lack the investigative and news gathering resources that SPH and Mediacorp have, and are mainly confined to political and social commentary.

As yet, bloggers do not get the opportunity to interview prominent PAP politicians, akin to how GOPUSA.com (which is unreservedly Republican) interviewed Karl Rove, ex-Deputy Chief-of-Staff to President Bush.

For local blogs, any attempt to dig deep into the truth is stunted by the fact that blogs are not recognised as ‘legitimate’ media bodies.


Towards a Vibrant Press Culture

This limitation does not diminish the significant role that bloggers play in the political situation in Singapore, however.

An insightful article by The Online Citizen summarises how blogs have changed the way the press covered the General Elections in 2006. Warnings by the government for blogs to desist from covering the Elections have gone on deaf ears, resulting in fairer coverage of the elections both on- and off-line.

Citizens were able to make more informed choices when it comes to voting in their GRCs, as bloggers added to a better overall picture of the entire General Elections. This is a trend that must continue in the next GE.

While it seems unlikely that the self-censorship practiced in mainstream media is going to abate anytime soon, local blogs are given freer reign when it comes to voicing their political opinions.

Even government ministers are joining in the fray, giving a firm indication that blogs are set to be a mainstay in Singapore for the forseeable future.

Local blogs must strive to improve in credibility, quality of writing, and readership. This will ensure that Singapore heads towards a more vibrant press culture.

Even as MM Lee emphasised on the importance of credibility both in mainstream and new media, the onus is now on opposition parties to provide credible opposition to the PAP.

More to come: Censorship and the Arts

Xiaxue, Again?

It seems that Xiaxue has suffered some unwanted backlash from her controversial blog, and is now reeling from its effects.

In July, Xiaxue did it again with her blog entry entitled “Top Seven Most Disgusting Bloggers”, which was posted over 2 months ago. Her eyebrow-raising entry, predictably, drew the ire of the unfortunate bloggers, who did not respond kindly to her comments.

The list-topper, Steven Lim, the self-proclaimed “world’s most handsome guy”, took it a step further, putting up a hilarious rebuttal on YouTube, commenting on her nose and pretty much everything about her.

Steven Lim's video rebuttal, posted on July 17, 2007 on YouTube

As a result, she appeared on Just Shoot 3, a Chinese talk show hosted by Dasmond Koh and Quan Yi Feng. After the show, Xiaxue posted a seemingly innocuous blog post about it, but Dasmond "don't-misspell-my-name" Koh took it personally, posting a rebuttal on his blog.

Xiaxue was found to be “disheartened” by this. In her blog entry dated September 27th, Xiaxue said, “I'm heartily bothered and I keep thinking I don't want to blog because I don't want to get attacked for some innocent thing I write about again.”

Is she paying the price for her fame?

It is an undisputed fact that Xiaxue is the Queen of the Blogosphere in Singapore, perhaps the one and only full-time blogger here. She gives no apologies for her insulting remarks and uncensored crassness, which is part of the reason for her popularity.

While she had categorically denied on Just Shoot that the aim of her blog post was to stir up controversy and to generate traffic to her site, the point wasn’t whether it was done deliberately. People are still flocking to her blog in droves.

In July this year, she amassed a staggering visitor count of 918,527, the highest ever since January 2007, all thanks to her most-disgusting-blogger-in-Singapore post. Fame, it seems, has a spiraling effect.

And as long as she continues to do what she does best – to bring the interesting out of the mundane with a dose of freshness and a heavy peppering of vulgarity and insensitivity, it seems that her fame will unlikely abate anytime soon. The media has a habit of covering what is simply popular and controversial, as opposed to what is important.

It is ironic that Xiaxue-haters have unknowingly fuelled her popularity. By simply commenting about her on the internet, they are contributing even more to the growing media virus. And then there are those who are simply latching on to the fame that Xiaxue has amassed (like me).

In any case, while you may not approve of her behaviour, her blog does makes one heck of an entertaining read – as long as you’re not part of the crossfire.

Admittedly, she is part of the reason why I have weaned myself off television.

Even as all the controversy rages on and a flaming war erupts in the Blogosphere, she is secretly laughing and snickering all the way to the bank.

Ingenious, if you ask me.

STOMPing on Youths

I've never been a big fan of STOMP. Being twenty-one, perhaps I would have been taken in by the wild array of colours and photographs on the website, or be moved by the attractive $25,000 in cash and prizes to join the MMSing talent contest. But the fact was that I wasn’t.

STOMP is The Straits Times’ foray into new media, which was started in June 2006. I was actually turned off by the website, which looked like a smorgasbord of advertisement posters. Designed for the youth crowd, it tried hard to hold the short attention spans of the wired generation with bright and cheery packaging, but turned out to be a splash of disorientated colours.

However, going beyond appearances, is STOMP all fluff and no stuff?

Some of its features include: a Star Blog section, where some of Singapore’s most popular bloggers convene to blog about certain predetermined topics, Ask ST, a hotline that promises to answer any questions a reader has under the sun, and Singapore Seen, where citizen journalists report on news and issues happening around Singapore.

As I delved into Singapore Seen, I wasn’t impressed by its contents. The news items in Singapore Seen mostly features complaints against public misbehaviour and poor customer service or trivial news that serve no purpose but to satiate a websurfer’s curiosity.

But I’m not saying it is all bad. Thanks to STOMP, people are now giving up their seats on the MRT trains. Perhaps we might see improvements in customer service; after all, which retailer will want to appear in STOMP, but not in the advertisement section?

But I’m just wondering: is that all there is to citizen journalism?

It seems that citizen journalists in Singapore (in STOMP at least) have been reduced to the role of citizen policemen, out to catch all sorts of misbehaviour.

In actual fact, good citizen journalism should raise issues that are worthy of concern and yet are missed by the mainstream media. Citizen journalism should be thought-provoking, it should be intelligent and should not always rely on sensationalism and controversy. At its best, citizen journalism complements the traditional media in bringing news to its consumers, bringing about political and social debate. It is a catalyst for positive change.

Perhaps STOMP is a reflection of how many perceive Singaporean youths today – socially and politically apathetic. Perhaps in deciding what to include in the website, the editors figured that the Singaporean youth's daily reading diet consists of 8 days, Teenage, and Xiaxue. Or perhaps this is a perception that the STOMP editors bank upon, the idea that we couldn’t care less.

Instead of running STOMP to the ground as a pro-government mouthpiece and hence worthy of boycotting, I would like to propose that STOMP undergoes a makeover. The irony, however, is that much of STOMP's contents are generated by the youths they are reaching out to.

The audacity of hope

Hi been busy lately!

Anyway, lots of things have been going on in my head.

Firstly, I just want to announce that I am in NTU! All glory to God! My journey towards being a journalist has officially begun!

Secondly, God has really been speaking to me about stuff. In the area of relationships, now is really not the time. Got to focus on my calling first. I just need to go out there and develop my character and know more people. The world’s my oyster! I’ve also been rethinking my desire to be a CGL. It seems that I’m always wavering with regards to this area, going both extremes. One moment I was on the verge of calling it off, another moment I feel like anything’s possible. I will be seeking God regarding this area. I can’t be so indecisive.

The Appeal Letter

To: Assoc Prof Ang Peng Hwa
Chair
Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information

RE: Final Appeal For Entry Into Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information

Greetings! My name is Terence Lee, application number A00022***, stubborn prospective student of NTU. I was called down for an interview to SCI some time ago, but found out that I was rejected. Subsequently, I filed for an appeal, but so far I’ve not heard of the outcome.

I’m not here to beg or cause a rukus. I’m here to argue my case.

I believe that SCI’s mission is to educate and nurture communication and information professionals and academics, to advance knowledge, and to serve society. I can help SCI to fulfill that mission.

It is my passion and desire to be a top reporter, not just in the local scene, but on the international stage as well. I have a knack for the English Language and a deep-seated desire to search out the truth of any matter. I prize integrity; it is what defines my being. I am persistent in the things I do.

I have gained valuable experience working in media-related fields. I was the editor for my unit’s ORD magazine during my NS days. After coming out of the army, I became a freelance writer for several publications. It is through these experiences that I discover what I want to do as a career.

I realize that I may be a little too late. After all, the deadline for the acceptance of offer is on 27th June, 2007, which is 7 days from now. Perhaps administrative restrictions will prevent this appeal from succeeding. But I believe in the audacity of hope. Yes, maybe I didn’t create a good enough impression during the interview. Maybe I fared poorly for the test. Or maybe it was just plain stupidity for a small tiger like me to contend with a posse of dragon babies.

But I believe in not giving up. I believe in learning from my mistakes and failures. I’ve asked myself this: since I already have a place in NUS, why would I bother to appeal into SCI? And the honest answer? I believe SCI is the best place in Singapore to learn the ropes of journalism.

Gilbert Keith Chesterton once said, “Journalism is popular, but it is popular mainly as fiction. Life is one world, and life seen in the newspapers another.”

I have never believed in that. And I believe I do have something to offer to the world of journalism.

Anyway, I do hope you will seriously consider my appeal, and I really look forward to hear from you soon!

Sincerely Yours,
Terence Lee