TR EMERITUS

By Gabriel Sim Last week, while watching one of the US New channels – can’t remember which one now – I came across a speech by Senator Dodd who was announcing his retirement from the U.S. Senate. Sen. Dodd served 35 yrs in politics and is the current U.S. banking committee chairman that has helmed highly televised senate testimonial hearings surrounding the financial meltdown. What struck me was his calm dignity and honesty when he declared “I am a Democrat and very proud of my party’s contributions to the vitality and strength of America”. But that was not the line that really resonated with me. Halfway through his speech he affirmed “I believe in bipartisan solutions, but I also believe you can only achieve those results with vibrant, robust and civil partisan debate”. Then I began to think of Singapore. But I wasn’t thinking about how partisan debate has evolved but rather how the Government’s attitude towards alternative opinions and viewpoints emanating from new media sources has changed. Which naturally leads to the question: “Are netizens still automatically viewed as engaging in partisan debate every time a critical comment on a government initiative is made?” Let’s look at some pivotal events in the last 3 years. Recall the Brown-Bhavani saga in 2006 (Read here) where the government’s threshold of tolerance was tested when a semi-anonymous blogger “crossed the line” by bringing satire into mainstream media. The response was unbendingly harsh and forced the removal of Mr Brown from the TODAY team. The key statement in Bhavani’s diatribe was this: “If a columnist presents himself as a non-political observer, while exploiting his access to the mass media to undermine the Government's standing with the electorate, then he is no longer a constructive critic, but a partisan player in politics”. The bottom-line was a warning to all to stay within your own realm whereby you cannot affect public opinion. However, this implicit drawing of a cyber OB marker proved to be only a temporary truce. In 2007, rather than risking an all out open war, the PAP opted to rebut anti-establishment views by putting up postings anonymously online. It was as if the Brown-Bhavani saga, and the failed attempt to ban political videos during the 2006 general elections, was analogous to World War I & II. The next phase announced by then Manpower Minister Ng Eng Hen, represented a Cold War of sorts, where enemies are known but not clearly defined and propaganda is the name of the game. As MP Baey Yam Keng infamously put it, “The identity is not important. It is the message that is important.” (Read here) So with some help from the PAP Internet Brigade, the Internet would be left to self-regulate itself. But as with the real Cold War, there were periods of prolonged calm and of high tension. The calm was encapsulated in a 2007 paper by the Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society (AIMS). The paper, entitled “Engaging New Media – Challenging Old Assumptions”, signaled a promising paradigm shift in relations between warring factions of anonymous critics (whom were increasingly identifying themselves)and Government spokespeople (whom were increasingly anonymising themselves). But high tension is never far away, and the Government broke its “silence” in early 2009 (after tucking their heads between their thighs for the Mas Selamat Fiasco, Town Council Loses, CDC bonuses, Government lapses ... etc). Seizing on an event that had nothing to do with “online critics” in the first place, then Senior Minister of State (Information, Communications and the Arts) and current acting “Minister of Propaganda”, Lui Tuck Yew chided netters for not policing comments that voiced elation over the assault of MP Seng Han Thong by one of his constituents. (Read here ) He went on to say: 'I do not think the community itself has done enough to rebut some of these unhelpful comments delivered by fellow netizens. 'It is a squandered opportunity for a higher degree of self-regulation. It would have been an example of the genesis, of the first steps, towards a more responsible, greater, self-regulatory regime. 'But many of those responses were not rebutted or answered, and I think it is not healthy for some of this to remain on the Net unchallenged, unquestioned and unanswered.' So we blew it; at least in the eyes of the PAP we did. But even a seasoned PAP minister, our Foreign Minister no less, struggled to engage in a less traditional platform (Read here). Naturally, 2009 shaped up as a tension filled year, with 2010 promising much of the same. So imagine my surprise when in the turn of new year, NTUC’s Deputy Secretary-General and PAP MP Madam Halimah Yacob wrote in to Temasek Review to civilly clarify what she felt was inaccuracies in an article on a speech she had made. You can read more about it here Did this gesture signal the end of the Cold War and a thawing of hostility between new media agents and Governmental officials? Before I could answer that, the cynic in me  questioned whether this engagement was sanctioned or a mere PR slip by an MP eager to protect her good name? If the former, then we should hope to see a future of vibrant, robust and civil debate over alternate media platforms. If the latter, well, MP Halimah should be expecting a call to tea sometime soon and we best prepare for more of the same.  Read More →

Written by Our Correspondent It appears increasingly likely that Singaporeans will not get to watch the World Cup Live on TV this year after negotiations between its telcos and FIFA hit an impasse. FIFA is refusing to bulge over its "hefty" asking price for the broadcast rights of the World Cup games while SingTel and Starhub which have put in a joint bid together continue to balk at the price. According to a Straits Times report, FIFA asked for a higher price in the aftermath of the bidding war between SingTel and Starhub for the broadcast rights of the English Premier League (EPL) last year which made the headlines wordwide. SingTel succeeded eventually with a bid of $400 million dollars, $150 million more than what Starhub reportedly paid for showing the EPL from 2007 - 2009. FIFA must be alerted to the "spending prowess" of Singapore telcos and refused to lower its price. A SingTel spokesman told Straits Times that SingTel will not be held "ransom" to FIFA's demands as it has to be "responsible" to its shareholders. Besides, it does not think Singapore fans are willing to pay so much to watch the World Cup matches live. The Singapore telco market is dominated by SingTel and Starhub, both state-linked companies owned partly by giant sovereign wealth fund Temasek Holdings. The World Cup is shown free on air in some countries like China, Australia and New Zealand. Singapore remains one of the few countries in the world including war-torn Somalia which has not confirmed if it will be screening the World Cup live. Soccer is the most popular sports among Singaporeans. Only four games - the opening game, two semi-finals and the final on July 11 will will be available free-to-air for all countries. In the event that no deal is struck between FIFA and SingTel/Starhub, Singapore fans may have to hop over to Malaysia to watch the live matches over there.  Read More →

I refer to the report by Teh Joo Lin, "Romanian diplomat says he won't return", which I read with great disappointment. Since the incident happened, all Dr Silviu Ionescu has done is to deny any responsibility and proclaim his innocence. Guilt aside, it would certainly have been more palatable to me and I believe most Singaporeans had he shown some genuine concern for the victims of the accident. It appears to me at least that Dr Silviu Ionescu's foremost concern is to distance himself from the accident, something I found disturbing since circumstantial evidence published thus far seems to point to the contrary. I am also disappointed that Dr Silviu Ionescu choose to leave the country at such a critical time where his help will no doubt greatly aid in the investigation and help answer some of the lingering questions that remain. His reason for leaving the country shows blatant disregard for the sensitivities of the local population and also makes a mockery out of Singapore's healthcare system. I can only hope in earnest that justice prevails in this instance and should it come to that stage, the Singapore government will show the same resolve it had when dealing with the Michael Fay case. Thng Zheng Xian  Read More →