TR EMERITUS

OPINION There is much debate among netizens recently over the real identity of the "Eric How" who sparked an outcry in cyberspace with his callous remarks on online critics of the PAP. Two police reports had been lodged by two PAP members during the last two weeks against this "Eric How" for impersonating them on Facebook. The mainstream media made a ruckus out of it to exonerate the PAP from any blame in a blatant attempt to limit the fallout from the weeks of negative publicity. YPAP leaders Teo Ser Luck and Mohammad Zaqy made use of the opportunity to slam the new media for spreading unfounded rumors about their members to pull a wool over the eyes of netizens. Is this "Eric How" real or is he an impostor as claimed by the YPAP? Let us recount his posts made on the YPAP Facebook in December 2009 before they get deleted. The offensive remarks were made in a discussion thread started on 19 December 2009 on the YPAP Facebook (read thread here) by the moderator of 3in1kopitiam forum Kojakbt demanding an apology from YPAP member Sear Hock Rong for insinuating that 3in1kopitiam forumers are "terrorist" in a blog post on the same day. (Read Hock Rong's post here) The title of the thread is: YPAP members Genesis Shen and Edgar Khieu jumped to the defence of their fellow YPAP Facebook moderator Sear Hock Rong and rubbished Kojakbt's argument the forumers had been labeled as "terrorists". "Eric How" posted his first comment in the thread on 27 December 2009: When we clicked on his avatar and name "Eric How", it led us to his Facebook which contained detailed information about himself. It was revealed that "Eric How" graduated with a Bachelor's degree in Political Science from NUS in 2000 after which he joined his father's company. His particulars were deleted from his Facebook the very next day after they were circulated in the 3in1kopitiam forum. Will an "impostor" bother to put up such a detailed description of himself and have so many friends on his Facebook too? In the second comment posted by "Eric How" above, he was seen to be defending the YPAP. Neither Genesis Shen or Edgar Khieu stepped forward to question his identity throughout the conversation. Mysteriously during the same period of time, a few nicknames of 3in1kopitiam forum were banned after complaints from an unknown person to Delphi Forum that "personal sensitive" information of others were posted in the forum. The forumers had been posting personal details and photos of YPAP members Sear Hock Rong, Fong Yoong Keong and Bernand Leong which are freely available on the internet in the 3in1kopitiam forum. The infamous remark which triggered off a storm in cyberspace was posted on 1 January 2010: For the entire three weeks or so, nobody from the YPAP stepped forward to denounce these remarks. Does this imply that they endorse the remarks made by "Eric How" initially before the backlash from netizens got the better of them? Both "Eric Hows" did not put up any notice clarifying that they were not the ones whom made them and lodged police reports which somehow got "leaked" to the mainstream media. (aren't police reports supposed to be confidential?) Lianhe Wanbao published the story yesterday with a statement from YPAP Chairman Teo Ser Luck "condemning" the remarks followed by The Straits Times today attacking netizens for spreading false rumors on the internet. Even the blind can see that these are no more than media stunts planned, arranged and orchestrated beforehand to save the YPAP from the negative publicity it has found itself stuck in by its gross inaction, ineptitude and impotence. As a matter of fact, such "impersonation" and "mistaken identities" are relatively common in cyberspace because many people share the same name and surname in Singapore. There are probably a dozen or more "Eric Hows" in Singapore who may be posting on Facebook at the same time. Any reasonable person with a modicum of common sense would have issued a statement immediately to clarify themselves and to write in to Facebook to delete the "impostor's" account instead of jumping the gun by making a police report and telling the entire world about it. If the "Eric How" with the "Mercedes Benz" avatar did genuinely exist, Facebook would have informed the complainants and the case would be closed. What's the need to make a hoo-ha over a non-issue and waste so much precious paper and ink over it? The YPAP's ploy to play the sympathy card has backfired spectacularly on them judging from the immediate response from netizens - few believed their claims that somebody impersonated "Eric How" to sabotage them. As expected, the mainstream media made use of the fracas to cast doubts on the credibility of the new media with Teo Ser Luck and Mohammad Zaqy joining the fray by urging netizens to take what is written online with a dose of salt. They have missed the point altogether. The crux of the matter now isn't about the identity of Eric How, but on the fact that two PAP members had filed police reports over such trivial matters and kicking up a big fuss over it. If the Singapore police were to investigate every single complaint like theirs, they will probably have no time for other more pressing tasks such as sweeping Geylang clean of prostitutes or going after loansharks. Once again, the YPAP has proven itself to be completely clueless, lost and inept about how the new media works and ticks. The internet has always been a jungle and it will remain as such in the future. For YPAP members who are used to a controlled mode of communication via the state media, they are finding it hard to survive in the new media which requires quick-thinking, flexibility and guile. Nobody will stop reading Temasek Review or visiting 3in1kopitiam forum just because some PAP MP said that we are not "credible". On the contrary, the free publicity they gave to us is likely to boost our readership further. In the borderless world of cyberspace, perception is more important than the absolute truth which does not exist in real life anyway. The Temasek Review is born and bred in the internet jungle. We grow in strength by convincing others by our intellect, reasoning and persuasion, not by making silly police reports and complaints to get external agencies to clamp down on our opponents. We have presented the facts as they are one by one here and we shall leave it to our readers to judge for themselves if "Eric How" is indeed an impostor. To the YPAP crybabies, we only have this to say to you: "Get out of the Kitchen if you cannot stand the heat! Just stay put in your pathetic P65 blog, YPAP Facebook and PAP websites and leave the rest of us in cyberspace ALONE! Stop running to your mummies crying for help whenever you are attacked and make a fool of yourselves by lodging frivolous police reports to get some innocent netizen into trouble!"  Read More →

Written by Our Correspondent A female blogger by the name of "sassyjan" had blogged about her personal experience dealing with loansharks and the lukewarm response she received from the Singapore police when she contacted them for assistance. She and her mother had been harassed by loansharks since her father passed away in October last year. Three months after his demise, somebody called his handphone and claimed that he owed them $6,000 and gave "sassyjan" 2 days to pay up. "sassyjan" tried calling the police for help, but apparently had difficulties contacting the police officer in charge of her case: "For 2 days I called the Inspecting Officer in-charge - No Answer. I called the police again and reported the incident and the exchange. A guy from Jurong HQ called me to say the IO in charge will contact us. I waited up the whole night for someone to come or call me - Nothing. For the 3rd time in 1 week, we dialed 999 in desperation. I repeated everything… E-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g from the start to this ‘end’ in detail. What do we do now? what SHOULD we do now?" The police officer who answered her call promised to write the report and forward it to the CID officer in charge of the case: "His job is to write the report and forward this to the CID Inspecting Officer. I called said IO again and the phone rung and rung - Nothing. The police officer said he’ll try to help me call this Inspecting Officer, but with the same helpless look, told me he will try to email him too, however, sometimes it might take more than a week to be answered. To know that internally, they can’t even reach each other was… troubling." The loansharks had sprayed paint on the walls outside her home and even tore down her front-door, but the police has done nothing so far to help her family and the case remained unsolved. "sassyjane" claimed that she had passed the two contact numbers of the loansharks to the police: "The police now have 2 handphone no. that the loansharks had used to call us. We have spoken to them on both occassions proving the no. actually works. Have anything been done with these leads yet?" Out of utter desperation and helplessness, "sassyjane" wrote towards the end of her blog post that she is fast losing faith in the Singapore police: "But as the attack gets closer and fiercer, I find my faith slowly dwindling. Can the police protect my family? Or have I place my faith in the wrong place? Can I count on the system to get to the end of this matter & save us from this?" "sassyjane" can only blame herself for being born a Singaporean. If she is a foreigner living in Singapore, the Singapore police will surely act in double-quick time to solve her case. Last week, a PRC couple and three others "hijacked" a SBS bus for 6 hours after a dispute with the bus captain. The police was called to the scene but dared not arrest them under the new Public Order Act and instead ended up "escorting" them down the bus to a cab called by SBS to fetch them home completely free of charge. Perhaps "sassyjane" would like to try her luck by putting up a mainland Chinese accent when speaking to the Singapore police next time. Read more about sassyjan's unhappy experience with the Singapore police here  Read More →

Written by Our Correspondent PAP members seem to have the knack of making police reports lately. It was reported yesterday that a PAP member Eric How has lodged a police report for "impersonation" on his Facebook. Now, another PAP member and prominent grassroots leader How Jong Wan had filed a police report too. (read article here) The fracas was started two weeks ago by a posting made by a "Eric How" on the YPAP Facebook slamming netizens for “slapping on the government senselessly” because they did not get “any fruits of benefits” from their forefathers. Thinking that the father of this "Eric How" is Mr How Jong Wan, the moderator of 3in1kopitiam "KojakBt" sent an email to him, asking him to "discipline" his son. An obviously incensed Mr How made a police report the next day (over what, we don't really know): "This concerns me and my reputation," he said. With due respect to both Mr Eric How and Mr How Jong Wan, the misunderstanding can be easily settled by making a simple clarification on the YPAP Facebook: "On 2 January 2010, a netizen by the name of "Eric How" posted a comment on the YPAP Facebook saying such and such. This is to clarify that I am not this "Eric How" and I am not related to him in anyway." Instead, they chose to involve the police and kick up a ruckus over it when in the first place, there is no evidence that their identities have been impersonated. It is not uncommon to have two people having the same name and surname in Singapore. At most, it is a case of mistaken identity and a clarification will suffice to settle the matter. If the police were to go after every single such incident on the internet, it will have no time for more pressing matters such as chasing after loansharks. The most hilarious part of it all is that both YPAP leaders Teo Ser Luck and Mohammad Zaqy found fit to make use of this fiasco to attack the new media. The PAP members have again shown themselves to be completely clueless about how the new media works. In all likelihood, the "Eric How" who made the initial comments probably exists in real life as his particulars were earlier listed on his Facebook. This blatant attempt to employ institutions of the state to exonerate themselves from a embarrassing situation is likely to backfire on the YPAP and have long-term repercussions on its attempts to reach out to the young. If young Singaporeans are nonchalant about its existence previously, they will now be antagonistic towards it for the YPAP has more than adequately demonstrated that it was never keen to engage netizens and like its senior branch, it is obsessed to exert control over the flow of information in the public domain and in this case, the new media. The YPAP has shot itself badly in the foot this time by playing the sympathy card wrongly. Let's wait and see what's the police report its members will make next.  Read More →