TR EMERITUS

Singapore media code of conduct rules ‘outdated’ for internet age, says MediaCorp DJ A popular Singapore radio DJ and video blogger said today that the country’s code of conduct rules for media personalities are “out of date” for the digital age. Dee Kosh at YouTube Fan Fest The outspoken Darryl Koshy, also known as Dee Kosh, is bound by the Media Development Authority’s code of conduct in his role as a radio presenter for Singaporean government-friendly broadcaster MediaCorp. But the rules do not apply to social media, where he is active on YouTube, Twitter and Facebook. Kosh grew to prominence on YouTube before being signed by MediaCorp as a radio show presenter on MediaCorp’s 98.7FM, where he has a late-night slot. Talking to Mumbrella today at the YouTube Fan Fest event in Singapore, Kosh said that the code of conduct regulations were written before the days of social media, and are out of date. “When I joined the company, I had to sign the MDA’s code of conduct rules, which apply to anything I say in MediaCorp channels, whether that is on TV, radio or in print,” he said. “But that doesn’t stop me from saying whatever I want to say in other media. I think the rules are outdated.” Kosh said that he has two media personalities, one for national radio, which is “more politically correct”, and the other on social media, which is “more polarising”. To make his point, he said: “On the radio, I say I like One Direction [a band Kosh has interviewed in the past]. On Twitter, I can slag then off.” He added: “You have to be careful what you say in Singapore. I don’t talk about the government. You have to draw a line between what you say in the national media and what you say in free media.” The radio show host has courted controversy in the past. In December last year, he apologised on 98.7FM’s Facebook page about a tweet he posted about ethnic Indians that some deemed to be racially insensitive. In ethnically diverse Singapore, race is arguably the country’s most sensitive issue. “There is a very fine line for what you can say in Singapore, and I like to play with that line,” he said. “As an entertainer, you have to walk that line, and there is always the risk that you’ll over step it.” He added: “I think Singapore is moving on to a brighter place, where people can say what they want to, but we’re not completely free yet,” he said. Kosh has around 47,000 subscribers to his YouTube channel, 28,000 followers on Twitter and almost 50,000 fans on Facebook. Kosh, who is mixed race, video blogged about racism and comedy in 2011. His video has been watched almost 43,00 times on YouTube. * Article first appeared in mumbrella.asia – a site about Asian media and marketing.  Read More →

Proportion of active CPF members meeting the Minimum Sum at 55 years It is good that Chuan Jin came out to try to clarify the issues of CPF money and why the Govt is devising all the schemes to help the CPF members. I am wondering how many people buy his logic and explanations and are satisfied by what Chuan Jin said, or is Chuan Jin thinking that he has done his job in clarifying the misconceptions or wrong perceptions by the CPF members. There are two key principles involved in the CPF saving scheme. One is that the CPF savings are the people’s money, NOT the Govt’s money. Chuan Jin has clarified this point, that the money is the people’s money. So, would the Govt still think it can meddle with the people’s money as it deems fit, as if the money belongs to the Govt? On what moral ground does the Govt think would justify its actions? The people are stupid or would throw away their money in Batam? Is this a reasonable and acceptable explanation for the Govt to keep the people’s money from the people? The people cannot manage their money? The same logic applies to the people in Govt, even if they have hundreds of millions when they retired, can they handle their money and not squander it away? The second point is about retirement. CPF savings should be returned to the owners when they retired. When retirement age was 55, the money was returned at 55. Now because people live longer, work longer and retire later, the retirement age has been raised, to 60, 62, 65 and so on. Why is it that not all the money was returned to the people when they retired? The logic of people living longer is not a new phenomenon relative to their retirement age. When people were retiring at 55, many lived till their 70s or 80s or 90s. The money was returned and they had to manage them and their lives. Some would do it better some would not. No one was arrogant enough to play God, to assume the role of God, to decide to arbitrarily hold on to the people’s money then. The only difference maybe the people in Govt then did not think they were Gods or immortals or super beans that were smarter than the masses. Today they are different, they know best and arrogated themselves as demigods, even knowing how long a person would live, and how stupid and irresponsible the masses are in the handling of their money. Remember the bell curve. This is applicable in nearly all situations. Today, there will still be people who would be stupid or through bad luck or bad decisions, lose their life savings before they die. Today, even among the immortals and demigods, there will also be some who would be stupid and lose all their millions before they die. What is the difference? There is no exception in the bell curve. Back to the retirement age. This is now used, together with longer lifespan, to prolong keeping the people’s money in the CPF. So, if the retirement age is 80 or 90 or 100, the people can only take back their CPF at these ages? Oh, technically the people can still take back their CPF at 55, this has not changed except for this thing called the Minimum Sum. And do not forget there is another Minimum Sum that many would not get to touch, the Medisave Minimum Sum. The Minimum Sums have changed the whole concept of CPF and the right of the people to their money. So, did Chuan Jin clarify what the CPF is all about and why the Govt has the right to meddle with the people’s life savings to the satisfaction of the people? Does Chuan Jin and the Govt really believe that the CPF money is the people’s money or otherwise? If it is the people’s money, what right does the Govt has to keep the money from the people in the Minimum Sums? Did Chuan Jin address the people’s problems and concerns with their life savings? Chua Chin Leng aka redbean * The writer blogs at mysingaporenew.blogspot.com.  Read More →

PM Lee PM Lee's lawyer, Davinder Singh, has sent blogger Roy Ngerng another letter today (27 May) claiming that Roy has not removed an offensive video on YouTube. Mr Singh also claimed that Roy sent 2 emails in which the video as well as contentious blog posts were republished. Mr Singh wrote to Roy's lawyer M Ravi, "The fact that your client (Roy) misled everyone about his promise to remove the YouTube video amounts to very grave aggravation. If the two emails were sent by your client, then that would be further aggravation." In the letter, Mr Singh gave Roy's lawyer M Ravi a 5pm deadline today (27 May) to answer the following questions: Did you know that your client did not intend to remove and/or did not remove the YouTube video? Did your client send either or both of the emails referred to above? If so, whom did he send the email(s) to? If he did send them, did you know that he intended to send and/or had sent them or either of them? Mr Singh said Roy "once again misled our client and the public" by not removing the YouTube video, but instead setting it to private. "In other words, your client continues to make it available to a select group of people," he said. "After we informed you that our client agreed to your client's request for an extension of time (to make an offer of damages), we learnt of two emails which appear to have been sent by your client, one to many people, including members of the local and international media, and the other to a blind list." In response, Roy posted his lawyer's letter on his blog [Link], which said, among other things: In proposing an offer, our client states that his video and other posts were not intended to imply that there is any truth in the criminal misappropriation allegation. He does not resile from his apology in that regard and he apologises again if there is any basis for suggesting otherwise. Our client has a long history of involvement with the CPF issue and throughout his concern has been merely to raise questions as to how it is that the statistics suggest Singapore CPF has one of the highest rates of contribution and yet ranks low in terms of pension adequacy, an apparent mismatch in terms of costs and benefits. For our client this has become a matter of intense concern and he deeply regrets that he allowed his concern to cause and form his own conclusions. He now realises that in his efforts to bring out for public discussion what he saw as matters of legitimate enquiry he has allowed his judgement to be clouded. Mr Ravi further wrote that Roy's apology was genuine and his references to the CPF issue were not intended to detract from the "error and inaccuracy of the criminal misappropriation allegation". Mr Ravi highlighted that Roy's apology specifically relates only to the criminal misappropriation issue. In any case, Roy has offered $5,000 as damages to PM Lee with each party to bear their own legal costs. Roy's proposed sum of $5,000 is based on the "modest living and income" that he derives from working as a healthcare worker. TRE understands that Roy earns a gross salary of less than $5,000 a month. Yesterday (26 May), PM Lee made further demands through Mr Singh asking Roy to take down the YouTube video and 4 other blog posts ('PM Lee makes further demands on blogger Roy Ngerng'). NMP Lien: Relationship between government and people must improve Meanwhile, in Parliament today (27 May), NMP Laurence Lien said that the relationship between the government and the people must improve. Mr Lien said both sides need to work together, which means recognising that civil society has a bigger role to play in the country's long-term national interest. He said the government should co-own social issues with civil society groups for the nation's interest. He asked the government to allow citizens to grow and become fully contributing members of society. However, he noted that civil society activists also need to improve the way they engage the government. He suggested regular dialogues to discuss critical social problems, and more transparency in sharing data and research. He said Singapore can and should embrace a more deliberative form of democracy, where representatives meet as equals to propose decisions in a safe environment that allows for debate with mutual respect.    Read More →