When a politician tries to smear an activist or journalist, I am very careful about what the politician says.
After what I went through in Singapore, I know from first-hand perspective how the smear campaign works.
Before I was sued and charged, and harassed by the Singapore government, I was naïve enough to think that Singapore has a democratic government, that there is rule of law.
After I was persecuted by the government, I realize this is not true. Day in, day out, the state-controlled media reporting on my case would carry prepared government perspectives across the controlled media. I used to work in social marketing campaigns. So when I saw the news sculpted in mainstream media to portray me in a certain manner, I knew that the so-called “news”, or actually the publicity pieces, were planned and prepared beforehand by the government to allow their message to be put out at the same time, to sway people’s minds at one go.
It was the case after I was sued, after I lost my job, when I held the protests, when I was charged for the protests, and when the police later searched my home and took my things.
Day in, day out, I was reading things that were untrue about me, and I tried to rebut them. But I only had my blog and Facebook at that time.
You might think I have an army, or that other independent journalists must have been willing to come behind and support me. But this is not the case. It is not possible for me as an individual to amass the support I can, or to enlist people in writing on my behalf. The Singapore police accessed my Facebook account in 2016. You can ask them how many administrators there were on my Facebook account and pages. In fact, Facebook allows you to check it out for yourself now. Fact is, if there were more than one administrator, the PAP would have made a big news out of it and investigated the other people for it. It never happened.
Therefore, when I read news about a minister smearing an activist/journalist, I laugh. Because I know what the minister says has to be taken with a pinch of salt.
From my experience, I know now to search many alternative information portals, and to read news straight from the horse’s mouth – so I would try to locate government websites which had direct quotes or speeches of what the minister said, then I would search, in this instance, exactly what the activist or journalist said, and then if there are matters or fact, I would look out for various government sources, international reports, academic research or other news and analysis available to make up my mind from an evidence-informed perspective. This is what you should do too.
I know that if I do not take the steps above, I am not in a position to form an informed opinion, and I would not be in the position to label judgment. So, if you choose to listen to what the minister says, and how he chooses to smear Kirsten Han and Terry Xu, then you are complicit to the oppression. Not being willing to search for information, and then making a judgment based on a lack of basis is not neutrality. It’s a willingness to be bought over by the politically dominant perspective. You are choosing to be politically biased.
Why do I say the independent journalists would not simply report what I say? You see, I have worked as a somewhat part-time small fry journalist outside of Singapore, very small and insignificant one. I know that if I don’t get my facts right, editors don’t want what I write. Their news sites lose their reputation, they lose their credibility. So in everything I write for international or regional platforms, I have to cite my sources, or it lacks credibility. Unlike in Singapore where the state-controlled media is able to report on anything the PAP government tells them to, because these media are held accountable predominantly to the PAP, their rigor is as much as the PAP expects from them, and then after that what international news readers might.
So, independent Singaporean journalists simply do not have such a “luxury” of having government backing. They either get their facts right or they do not get hired, do not get a job.
After I was sued and charged, I was perplexed – why don’t independent news journalists cover my perspective? Shouldn’t they be on my side? Shouldn’t they want the truth?
But, what truth? My truth? My perspective? At that point, I was one man shouting out my perspective, and to be honest it sounded like a conspiracy theory, and it still does to some people. Because when it is one perspective stacked against the multiple analysis and other perspectives written by others, how is this one (my) perspective more credible than others. I had researched into the facts, but how does my method of connection of the facts make credible reporting when there aren’t many other sources making similar analyses?
And so, independent journalists have to do their own research on what makes sense about the CPF retirement funds, what is credible to report on based on weighing the facts.
And when I was sued, charged, and even fired from my job for clearly political reasons related to the charges I faced, and what I wrote, how is an independent journalist going to spend an article connecting all these? When you are a news writer, your responsibility is to get the news out, and there is a need to be focused in each piece. There is no way they were going to pack in every article everything I want them to say about the CPF retirement funds.
And so, when I see independent journalists like Kirsten and Terry being smeared as agents or people part of a campaign trying to hurt PAP, I laugh. I laugh so hard. If they were trying to do so, I would have won all my cases now. Because not only would they, but the New York Times, CNN, BBC, etc, would have all reported about MY perspective, and would have brought down the PAP and whichever invisible foreign provocateur would have won now.
Fact is, when I spoke to people like Kirsten and Terry, they were always careful in sieving through what I say, and putting in writing in their news pieces for either The Online Citizen (for Terry) or for the international news agencies Kirsten is writing for, and to put it in the perspective of the writings they had to do, from a factual manner that tries to balance both sides (mine and the persecutor). Do you know how many times I become frustrated thinking, why aren’t they reporting about what I say about the CPF? Why can’t they write like how I do on my blog? Thing is, if they did that, then what makes them different from me, a raving lunatic, because that is what people think I sound like on my blog.
Basically, they have to do their jobs. They have to be responsible writers because if they do not, they lose credibility. Why do you think The Online Citizen remains the longest running independent news site in Singapore? It is precisely because of their editors’ insistence on being factual – and these last few years, it wouldn’t have been possible without Terry Xu. Similarly, Kirsten is a very respected journalist coming out from Singapore and her writings are published in many international platforms. If she has not been balanced and factual, she wouldn’t have such platforms, it’s as simple as that.
I did not speak to them to write this post. But logical thinking would get you here. And the fact that I had to try to get my story out via both the state-controlled media, and via independent journalists in Singapore, and other journalists from independent news agencies, this is why I could understand how they work. And why I realized how blatant the propaganda in Singapore’s state-controlled media is. They don’t even try to hide it.
Fact is, I only really got to know the activists and other independent journalists in Singapore after I got sued and charged. I didn’t know them before, or much. We weren’t friends before. And even now I still remain much like the hermit I do. I am just never that social.
Therefore, when I read news about how Singapore’s activists are all running Singapore down, that the sky is falling, that they are all plotting to change the government, I laugh, again. What plot? Why is the little chicken running around and around, shouting and shouting?
Even among the activists I know, most believe that any change (or non-change) in government should be done via an electoral process where the change has to be done by an electorate who make their own informed choices of what they believe would adequately represent them. This isn’t too different from what the PAP wants, is it, or rather what the PAP wants on the surface?
And this is why independent journalists like Terry and Kirsten put out news from balanced critical perspectives, and why New Naratif believes in organizing workshops to help people understand democracy, and why people like Alfian Sa’at were trying to engage in dialogue about dissent. I haven’t spoken to them about these initiatives but what they are doing is not different from what civil society and even academics in other developed democracies do. In Taiwan, talks and workshops are held about the Hong Kong protests frequently nowadays, and I have also attended talks on democracy. In fact, there is an NGO in Taiwan specifically advocating for democratic development in Taiwan and in other countries. Has Taiwan taken over the world yet? Has democracy spread across Southeast Asia yet?
Which is why when I read news about how our ministers are stamping their feet in petty anger, huffing and puffing about how their house is going to be blown down, this is all just hot air. Because from what I know from these people they are accusing of trying to upset THEIR system, there is simply no factual basis to it.
Simply put, I can count with my hands the number of activists in Singapore who are truly overtly advocating for causes that the PAP find threatening. And they aren’t even touching on the CPF or political change. And you are telling me these few people have the power to rally everyone else in Singapore who refuse to stand behind them?
You just need to look at how many people attended the protests at Hong Lim Park these days to know how many people are willing to put their money where their mouth is.
What is happening in Singapore is a targeted smear campaign against the very few activists and independent journalists left in Singapore who are trying to do their professional work in a very difficult environment. I have left because I do not see a credible role for me, first because it was difficult looking for a job, and second because what credibility did I have left in Singapore? The smear campaign by the PAP against these individuals are therefore targeted at pulling down their reputations. But do you know why else the PAP has to resort to smear tactics instead of actually charge them? It is because the PAP knows it has nothing against them. When they have been reporting in balanced and factual ways – when you do your job professionally – what can people hold against you? Then, they will hurt you.
Don’t let these people get hurt. Don’t read the “right” thing. Read multiple perspectives. Form your own opinions.
Roy Ngerng aka fuck anus man.
http://www.tremeritus.net/2019/09/26/when-a-politician-tries-to-smear-an-activist-or-journalist/
After what I went through in Singapore, I know from first-hand perspective how the smear campaign works.
Before I was sued and charged, and harassed by the Singapore government, I was naïve enough to think that Singapore has a democratic government, that there is rule of law.
After I was persecuted by the government, I realize this is not true. Day in, day out, the state-controlled media reporting on my case would carry prepared government perspectives across the controlled media. I used to work in social marketing campaigns. So when I saw the news sculpted in mainstream media to portray me in a certain manner, I knew that the so-called “news”, or actually the publicity pieces, were planned and prepared beforehand by the government to allow their message to be put out at the same time, to sway people’s minds at one go.
It was the case after I was sued, after I lost my job, when I held the protests, when I was charged for the protests, and when the police later searched my home and took my things.
Day in, day out, I was reading things that were untrue about me, and I tried to rebut them. But I only had my blog and Facebook at that time.
You might think I have an army, or that other independent journalists must have been willing to come behind and support me. But this is not the case. It is not possible for me as an individual to amass the support I can, or to enlist people in writing on my behalf. The Singapore police accessed my Facebook account in 2016. You can ask them how many administrators there were on my Facebook account and pages. In fact, Facebook allows you to check it out for yourself now. Fact is, if there were more than one administrator, the PAP would have made a big news out of it and investigated the other people for it. It never happened.
Therefore, when I read news about a minister smearing an activist/journalist, I laugh. Because I know what the minister says has to be taken with a pinch of salt.
From my experience, I know now to search many alternative information portals, and to read news straight from the horse’s mouth – so I would try to locate government websites which had direct quotes or speeches of what the minister said, then I would search, in this instance, exactly what the activist or journalist said, and then if there are matters or fact, I would look out for various government sources, international reports, academic research or other news and analysis available to make up my mind from an evidence-informed perspective. This is what you should do too.
I know that if I do not take the steps above, I am not in a position to form an informed opinion, and I would not be in the position to label judgment. So, if you choose to listen to what the minister says, and how he chooses to smear Kirsten Han and Terry Xu, then you are complicit to the oppression. Not being willing to search for information, and then making a judgment based on a lack of basis is not neutrality. It’s a willingness to be bought over by the politically dominant perspective. You are choosing to be politically biased.
Why do I say the independent journalists would not simply report what I say? You see, I have worked as a somewhat part-time small fry journalist outside of Singapore, very small and insignificant one. I know that if I don’t get my facts right, editors don’t want what I write. Their news sites lose their reputation, they lose their credibility. So in everything I write for international or regional platforms, I have to cite my sources, or it lacks credibility. Unlike in Singapore where the state-controlled media is able to report on anything the PAP government tells them to, because these media are held accountable predominantly to the PAP, their rigor is as much as the PAP expects from them, and then after that what international news readers might.
So, independent Singaporean journalists simply do not have such a “luxury” of having government backing. They either get their facts right or they do not get hired, do not get a job.
After I was sued and charged, I was perplexed – why don’t independent news journalists cover my perspective? Shouldn’t they be on my side? Shouldn’t they want the truth?
But, what truth? My truth? My perspective? At that point, I was one man shouting out my perspective, and to be honest it sounded like a conspiracy theory, and it still does to some people. Because when it is one perspective stacked against the multiple analysis and other perspectives written by others, how is this one (my) perspective more credible than others. I had researched into the facts, but how does my method of connection of the facts make credible reporting when there aren’t many other sources making similar analyses?
And so, independent journalists have to do their own research on what makes sense about the CPF retirement funds, what is credible to report on based on weighing the facts.
And when I was sued, charged, and even fired from my job for clearly political reasons related to the charges I faced, and what I wrote, how is an independent journalist going to spend an article connecting all these? When you are a news writer, your responsibility is to get the news out, and there is a need to be focused in each piece. There is no way they were going to pack in every article everything I want them to say about the CPF retirement funds.
And so, when I see independent journalists like Kirsten and Terry being smeared as agents or people part of a campaign trying to hurt PAP, I laugh. I laugh so hard. If they were trying to do so, I would have won all my cases now. Because not only would they, but the New York Times, CNN, BBC, etc, would have all reported about MY perspective, and would have brought down the PAP and whichever invisible foreign provocateur would have won now.
Fact is, when I spoke to people like Kirsten and Terry, they were always careful in sieving through what I say, and putting in writing in their news pieces for either The Online Citizen (for Terry) or for the international news agencies Kirsten is writing for, and to put it in the perspective of the writings they had to do, from a factual manner that tries to balance both sides (mine and the persecutor). Do you know how many times I become frustrated thinking, why aren’t they reporting about what I say about the CPF? Why can’t they write like how I do on my blog? Thing is, if they did that, then what makes them different from me, a raving lunatic, because that is what people think I sound like on my blog.
Basically, they have to do their jobs. They have to be responsible writers because if they do not, they lose credibility. Why do you think The Online Citizen remains the longest running independent news site in Singapore? It is precisely because of their editors’ insistence on being factual – and these last few years, it wouldn’t have been possible without Terry Xu. Similarly, Kirsten is a very respected journalist coming out from Singapore and her writings are published in many international platforms. If she has not been balanced and factual, she wouldn’t have such platforms, it’s as simple as that.
I did not speak to them to write this post. But logical thinking would get you here. And the fact that I had to try to get my story out via both the state-controlled media, and via independent journalists in Singapore, and other journalists from independent news agencies, this is why I could understand how they work. And why I realized how blatant the propaganda in Singapore’s state-controlled media is. They don’t even try to hide it.
Fact is, I only really got to know the activists and other independent journalists in Singapore after I got sued and charged. I didn’t know them before, or much. We weren’t friends before. And even now I still remain much like the hermit I do. I am just never that social.
Therefore, when I read news about how Singapore’s activists are all running Singapore down, that the sky is falling, that they are all plotting to change the government, I laugh, again. What plot? Why is the little chicken running around and around, shouting and shouting?
Even among the activists I know, most believe that any change (or non-change) in government should be done via an electoral process where the change has to be done by an electorate who make their own informed choices of what they believe would adequately represent them. This isn’t too different from what the PAP wants, is it, or rather what the PAP wants on the surface?
And this is why independent journalists like Terry and Kirsten put out news from balanced critical perspectives, and why New Naratif believes in organizing workshops to help people understand democracy, and why people like Alfian Sa’at were trying to engage in dialogue about dissent. I haven’t spoken to them about these initiatives but what they are doing is not different from what civil society and even academics in other developed democracies do. In Taiwan, talks and workshops are held about the Hong Kong protests frequently nowadays, and I have also attended talks on democracy. In fact, there is an NGO in Taiwan specifically advocating for democratic development in Taiwan and in other countries. Has Taiwan taken over the world yet? Has democracy spread across Southeast Asia yet?
Which is why when I read news about how our ministers are stamping their feet in petty anger, huffing and puffing about how their house is going to be blown down, this is all just hot air. Because from what I know from these people they are accusing of trying to upset THEIR system, there is simply no factual basis to it.
Simply put, I can count with my hands the number of activists in Singapore who are truly overtly advocating for causes that the PAP find threatening. And they aren’t even touching on the CPF or political change. And you are telling me these few people have the power to rally everyone else in Singapore who refuse to stand behind them?
You just need to look at how many people attended the protests at Hong Lim Park these days to know how many people are willing to put their money where their mouth is.
What is happening in Singapore is a targeted smear campaign against the very few activists and independent journalists left in Singapore who are trying to do their professional work in a very difficult environment. I have left because I do not see a credible role for me, first because it was difficult looking for a job, and second because what credibility did I have left in Singapore? The smear campaign by the PAP against these individuals are therefore targeted at pulling down their reputations. But do you know why else the PAP has to resort to smear tactics instead of actually charge them? It is because the PAP knows it has nothing against them. When they have been reporting in balanced and factual ways – when you do your job professionally – what can people hold against you? Then, they will hurt you.
Don’t let these people get hurt. Don’t read the “right” thing. Read multiple perspectives. Form your own opinions.
Roy Ngerng aka fuck anus man.
http://www.tremeritus.net/2019/09/26/when-a-politician-tries-to-smear-an-activist-or-journalist/
