05 February 2009
Shield us good, mock us bad, says Lui
Community moderation of online content has failed its test, said Lui Tuck Yew, the junior minister for information. What appalled him was that people were allowed to say unkind things about Seng Han Thong, a PAP MP who was set on fire by a constituent in January. Full essay.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
21 comments:
George:
Is it only TOO OBVIOUS that Lui on behalf of the govt is using this as an golden opportunity to justify whatver draconian measures the govt has already up its sleeves all this time to control the opinion/ views of netizens.
IN OTHER WORDS, HE IS DOING WHAT IS ONLY TOO FAMILIAR AN MODUS OPERANDI OF THE GOVT TO SILENCE THE OPPOSITION AND CONTRARY VIEWS OF CITIZEN, NAMELY, TO GIVE A DOG A BAD NAME, AND SHOOT IT!
Come, come, Mr Minister, the SHT incident represents only ONE instance, hardly an adequate statistic to justify your remarks or even excuse to clamp down. But of course we all know all along that you and your govt have never intended in the first place to allow or brook citizens' unfavourable remarks and comments because they sometimes reveal too much of the ugly truth about how Singapore is being controlled and governed.
It is very clear to many thinking citizens that the govt is well aware that allowing more of the dirt to come out from under the carpet can only boost the opposition chances and erode your party's credibility amongst Singaporeans. That it is already on the downslope make it even more urgent to clamp down on dissenting views however valid!
Have you ever asked yourself why the general sentiments are not favourable to SHT? Obviously, such soul self-searching is quite beyond the typical party members like you who basically operate and thrive exceedingly well only when it is 'my party, right or wrong.
Is it too far fetch to hold the idea that a revolution may only be just around the corner. It is not inevitable given the propensity of Singaporeans to forgive those who realised their faults and are willing to make amends.
Eh? Who is this "George" whom the first comment is addressing?
Alex,
It should have been 'George say:'.
George
There are some things
that can only from Singapore
1) Chewing gum ban
2) The right to vote being
a privilege
3) The sort of things that
Singapore judges do when
Chee Soon Juan is involved.
4) The sort of things that
Singapore policemen when
Chee Soon Juan is involved.
5) Logic, physics and geometry
specific to polling stations.
6) And now this.
The bottomline is... head I win, tail you lose.
In another word, we as the gorverment is always right, and you the less mortal is always wrong. Like it or not, it's too bad :)
arent there supposed to be numerous pro-government figures who started blogs, and were told to participate in all kinds of discussion forums? it seems they are not doing their job!
but perhaps the problem is that there is usually only one officially correct position, while contrary positions are numerious and only limited by people's imagination; so I guess in the natural course of events, contrary (and wrong) postings would outnumber correct ones
Dear Alex,
Perhaps you missed the point as much as Minister Lui misstated his: doesn't the crassness of the wendyneos bother you one bit?
I sure hope recent events like the mini-bonds, mas selamat etc will wake up the folks who feel they owe MIW a vote and die die must vote them. If we don't get more opposition in parliament, we will be without rights and get run over for all and sundry.
They will stop at nothing to change whatever they deem fit to hang on.. Question is ... are we too late?
just like the Class 95 advertisment, only want to hear the good things.
Anonymous of 6 February, 2009 10:24 wrote:
"Perhaps you missed the point as much as Minister Lui misstated his: doesn't the crassness of the wendyneos bother you one bit?"
Interesting that you're raising this, because this is the one part where I made a last-minute change before uploading my article.
There was originally a sentence that provided a kind of caveat, where I said that while I thought the video was tasteless and disagreeable, blah blah blah... on my final read-through, I thought it was a very p c way of writing. So I took out that sentence.
It's like people who caption their next sentence by saying, "while some of my best friends are gay" before they go on to express their bigotry. You cringe at this kind thing.
The point my article was trying to make was that it is not necessary to agree or not agree with the sentiments expressed by others. What I think of Wendy Neo's message or for that matter, any other poster's remarks in Hardwarezone or wherever, is not the issue. If that is not the issue then why do I need to tell you what I think of it? For that reason, I pulled that sentence.
The issue is: whatever you think of it - does it justify censorship? Or heavy moderation? I wanted to keep my article focussed.
In any case, when I used the word "childish", most readers would be able to read between the lines and guess at my opinion of some of these (insensitive) remarks. That being the case, i didn't think it was necessary for me to belabour the point and confuse the chief argument I intended to make.
A leopard cannot change its spot or so the saying goes...
Same with Lui - a former Admiral - where in the armed forces, rank commands (demands) respect...
But for those who have served in NS, we know what we think of our higher ups and the things that were said or done behind their backs...hahah
But now he's in the civilian world - we don't give two hoots about his "rank" - and most importantly, respect has to be earned!
Back to the topic, to use the same armed forces yardstick to judge the blogspace is akin to putting a square peg in a round hole!
How did someone with so little political sense rise to become a minister? PAP's selection standard is definitely not as high as they claim. Even a Workers Party NMP (Sylvia) presents her point better.
>Even a Workers Party NMP (Sylvia) presents her point better.
most PAP ministers entered politics after successful careers as technocrats, in civil service, military, GLCs, private sector; their performance as politicians often reflects this
I am interested in your use of the word "Even" - are you agreeing with the PAP, that opposition members are automatically supposed to be inferior?
yuen, don't try too hard. It just means the pAP politicans, who are touted to be top talents blah blah blah, are far far opposite from what they are touted to be.
and another thing u need to be corrected: i notice you mentioned "successful careers in...private sector". Careers in GLCs are not considered real private sectors. Sorry to point out the bitter truth.
>yuen, don't try too hard.
now what exactly was I "try"ing to do? praise PAP ministers for having had "successful careers as technocrats"? you seriously think that earns me credit with the establishment? or maybe you consider your own career to be more successful than they and deserve more praise?
>Careers in GLCs are not considered real private sectors
I dont think anyone need you to teach them that; maybe you did not notice that "private sector" came last in my list; however, there are ministers who were in the private sector, which you did not know about
in any case, would the previous anon care to answer this point
>I am interested in your use of the word "Even" - are you agreeing with the PAP, that opposition members are automatically supposed to be inferior?
"most PAP ministers entered politics after successful careers as technocrats, in civil service, military, GLCs, private sector; their performance as politicians often reflects this"
Success within a coccoon. After
the "heroic" age (Pillai's generation) is there any technocrat
that can succeed in contexts where
he is no longer protected by the
coccoon?
This congratulatory tone used
by some when describing our elites
is really annoying and tiresome.
"I am interested in your use of the word "Even" - are you agreeing with the PAP, that opposition members are automatically supposed to be INFERIOR?"
Notice how you introduce words
into a debate and expect people
to defend them!
It is not inferiority. It is expectations based on salary paid.
The difference is not opposition/PAP. It is Minister/MP.
And his job is full-time.
>How did someone with so little political sense rise to become a minister? PAP's selection standard is definitely not as high as they claim. Even a Workers Party NMP (Sylvia) presents her point better.
this was the comment I was asking about - the word "Even" was there for a reason; I take it to mean surprise that a WP NMP speaks better than a PAP minister; I myself do not find it surprising: Sylvia Lim was trained in Law and works as a polytechnic lecturer (after working in police dept and private practice), while Lui was trained in Science and had a (successful, in terms of seniority achieved) career in the military and civil service, which are supposed to be apolitical, with largely technocratic functions; further, in the Singapore Inc system, even the roles of cabinet ministers are largely technocratic
I find it amusing to see that, while someone is putting down the PAP, he/she is at the same time sharing some of its attitudes..
To Yuen:
What attitude?
Of course we expect Lui to
do better than Lim. Nothing
to do with personal ability.
I suppose you think that
the team of policy wonks at
Lim's disposal (paid by Heaven knows who)
can match
the team of policy wonks (scholar
salaried) at Lui's disposal.
You are reading you own attitude
into others'.
The problem is that the PAP is still living in the past. Read this link:
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/02/10/first-100-days-harness-the-genie-of-citizen-engagement/
Anon at 07 February, 2009 00:11 replies to Yuen:
"Even" was written in mockery (using the undertones of MSM propaganda, as you have pointed out). It is not mean to illustrate surprise.
Post a Comment