• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

TOC:Mainstream media needs to rebuild broken trust, says Viswa Sadasivan

Porfirio Rubirosa

Alfrescian
Loyal
Mainstream media needs to rebuild broken trust, says Viswa Sadasivan
Friday, 28 August 2009, 5:50 pm | 1,646 views
Fang Shihan


“If there’s anyone from the ISD (Internal Security Department) here, you don’t have to identify yourself,” Nominated Member of Parliament, Viswa Sadasivan, told the audience at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy. He was invited as a speaker by the school as part of the Bukit Timah Dialogues programme where students get a chance to interact with Singapore leaders in a series of lunchtime seminars.

Like a tradition, this comic stab at the infamous secret police never fails to make its appearance at various political seminars, as if to ease the tension that persists 2 decades after the ISA (Internal Security Act)[1] was last used against a Singaporean during Operation Spectrum.

Since being lambasted by the MM (Minister Mentor) for having ‘highfalutin’ ideals, Viswa Sadasivan, Nominated Member of Parliament and former senior manager of Singapore Press Holdings (SPH) has been transformed into the darling of the online world. After all, it is not everyday that the ageing MM becomes agitated enough to personally intervene in parliament. [2] Even so, Viswa, an admittedly non-partisan politician, does not appear to relish the limelight, nor does he take a stand against the MM.

Recognizing the tendency for some sections of the internet readership to mercilessly engage in government-bashing, he views his exchange with the MM not with fear, but with a healthy respect that one might give to one’s grandfather.

“I think MM has a different reality. To him, his reality is real. A lot of that belief is predicated on life experiences that were not pleasant. It wasn’t easy for him. A lot of those memories must have come charging at him when he heard or read my speech. I can understand where he was coming from. He is of the firm belief that the ideas I raised are ideological but not necessarily false, but indulgent… If you look at him from that point of view, he makes sense. I disagree with the comments that rubbished his speech. He has as much right as I do, in articulating his thoughts… One should respect him for that.”

As a keen observer of media development over the years, he observes that Singaporeans are increasingly turning to the online space in a bid to find the truth, due to the over-sanitisation of news in the local paper. Ironically, this is where there is less probability of finding the truth. He cautions that because this is an uncurated space, there is not only information, but also misinformation and dis-information – unintentional and intentional dissemination of false information respectively.

The Shincorp-Temasek fiasco as well as the controversial departure of Chip Goodyear from Temasek Holdings were 2 key instances when readership migrated online to quench their thirst for information. Lack of news coverage on critical issues inevitably leads to a surge in speculation. Together with the anonymity that the online space provides, news in the virtual world could be less of a space for truthful information, but rather an outlet avenue to release pent up frustrations or to speculate with conspiracy theories.

Despite this, some sectors online provide an important source of alternative information and are also watchdogs on the government. He observes that pressure put on the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) through the coverage of the Lehmann-Minibonds debacle, by The Online Citizen, led to more accountability to victims of the financial tragedy. Citizen journalists are also not necessarily any less qualified than mainstream journalists, he quips. In fact, as seen from the level of expertise reflected in some online financial and investigative articles, some even put the Straits Times journalists to shame.

However the plight of today’s mainstream media has not always existed.

“When I was there [in Singapore Broadcasting Corporation] in the 1980s, I think we were a bit more gutsy in pushing the boundaries,” he reminisces. “I remember the GE (General Elections) in 1988. We pushed very hard for increased coverage of opposition and on a few occasions we went ahead even though we were told not to. Some of us faced the wrath of a senior political leader at that time. As a journalist if you don’t have bruised knuckles, you are not doing something right. Over the years, because of what I see as depoliticisation of society, you don’t have a crop of people who are interested to become journalists, who are talented to become good journalists. They choose other options, like investment banking.”

Viswa notes that political reporting has declined over the years as journalists themselves have become risk averse and society has been depoliticized. The continued existence of the Internal Security Act (ISA) and the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act [3] has inculcated a culture of political correctness by instilling a certain amount of caution, if not fear among media practitioners in the front line. Yet the lightning speed of information flow today creates an imperative for the local paper to be more concerned with updated information than to be politically correct, as it has been in the past. After all, when information breaks to the international media before the local media, it makes a mockery of the local paper. Viswa cited an instance when he received an SMS about the Nicholl highway collapse, while in Sydney, 20 minutes after the incident. Many Singaporeans then were still unaware of the incident.

Governments today have lost their luxury to hold back information until they are able to hold a press conference, 48 hours after the incident. In today’s world, speed is of crucial importance; the state now has a lot less time to react. If the mainstream media continues losing its credibility, the government could lose the initiative to make sense of what is going on. This loss of authority could lead to increased vulnerability of the nation and even non-traditional security threats.

Trust is eroding between people and the establishment he concludes. There is a mounting cynicism with the mainstream media and thus government is losing its main avenue of communication. Together with the proliferation of misinformation and disinformation online, Viswa worries that the government is increasingly unable to put its point across to the people. The mainstream media needs to rebuild this broken trust, and to be more autonomous, or the problem will exacerbate to a point when there is no U-turn.

Judging by the spirited applause, this man clearly knows his audience. When asked by a student from the public policy school, during the Q&A, if he was trying to be a ‘classic politician’ by invoking the pledge and highlighting income inequality during his speech, he had this to say:

“I did not inject those for effect. I chose information for the speech based on what I have strong convictions on.”

Another student asked about conflicting signals from the government about the new media. He replies with belief that the government is not homogeneous. He believes that some ministers are in touch with the ground while others could be relying on feedback that may not be truthful.

“Those who may be sanitizing the feedback [to the ministers] are doing a gross injustice. Many [ministers] are good people with good intentions who want to do good for this country… we shouldn’t begrudge that.” He adds that there is increasing debate within the leadership and more efforts to influence through the new media.
 

Porfirio Rubirosa

Alfrescian
Loyal
1) Terence Lee on August 28th, 2009 6.11 pm In the same way we shouldn’t broad stroke all PAP politicians for being out of touch with the ground, I think the same applies to the mainstream media as well. I tend to see Straits Times as sustaining an internal tension between more liberal journalistic values and PAP’s nation building model of the press. Unfortunately, it is the nation-building proponents who sit at the top, due to SPH’s hiring policy.

I wouldn’t know if the Singapore media today is more tame, because I wasn’t aware of the situation in the 80s. But I still see instances of journalists daring to push the envelope. Some of you would remember Val Chua, who had her press pass revoked for her report on LKY. Google her and you’ll find out more about what happened. I would argue that Li Xueying of the ST is another refreshing voice within ST that I hope will keep pushing the boundaries.

53) KJ on August 29th, 2009 11.57 am Terence re #1,

I think you’re missing the forest for the trees. There’ll always be journos especially the young idealistic ones wanting or daring to push the boundaries. ST (as an e.g. of Sg mass media) and the PAP are sophisticated enough to know that instead of eliminating these dissenting tendencies altogether (and lose all credibility), co-option and a mix of carrots+sticks are more effective strategies of control.

This is similar to how the PAP co-opts dissenters (Chan Heng Chee, Tommy Koh etc) while persecuting some others (Francis Seow, JBJ). Over time, the journo’s radical tendencies are evacuated, courage more or less replaced by the politics of comfort: “Want that promotion and higher pay? Toe the line and know which side your bread is buttered.” It’s classic political domestication. Of course, a culture of material contentment (read: high salaries – sounds familiar?) always helps.

So other than that occasional critical article, what else can a daring journo do, where else can she go? While every occasional critical article allows the ST to retain a semblance of press freedom – does this not in fact reinforce the whole system of press control put in place? While the press industry remains a monopoly (or a weak duopoly considering TODAY/Mediacorp), all of which are owned, staffed, and managed by PAP loyalists. While the restrictive NPPA remains. The repressive ISA remains. After a while, these journos simply decide that the effort is too much, the price too high to pay.

So it is not just about lauding these intrepid journos. This is tactical, but the problem is systemic. More important is to take a stand against the repressive structures of control – against the overarching legislations, against how the govt mandates news organisations to be financially and politically managed. Against this elaborate system that prevents good journalism from becoming the norm, rather than as exceptions to the rule.

Of course good journalism eludes not just Singapore. Even newspapers like the NYT are victims of govt pressure, big money, and demands of the free market. They too have their agendas that not everyone agrees with. But if even these newspapers are not exempt from criticism (and they shouldn’t be above criticism), what more Singaporean newspapers, papers like the ST? The pitfalls of a free press should not be exploited to justify a controlled press.

To be sure, a free press is not the panacea to the ills of journalism, governance, and government. But in Singapore, it is a necessary first step. And I think this step is not one that applauds a good article written from within that kind of controls that I have briefly highlighted

P.S. What happened to Val Chua was unfortunate, but there’s little that was critical/audacious about her article. However, it’s a sad reflection of our media and our govt.
 

Porfirio Rubirosa

Alfrescian
Loyal
8) OriginalResonance on August 28th, 2009 7.40 pm Voila! In view, a humble vaudevillian veteran, cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of fate. This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is a vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished. However, this valorous visitation of a bygone vexation stands vivified, and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin vanguarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition! The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous. Verily, this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose, so let me simply add that it’s my very good honour to meet him and you may call him Viswa.

9) George on August 28th, 2009 8.08 pm {”Many [ministers] are good people with good intentions who want to do good for this country… we shouldn’t begrudge that.”]

Yeah, PAP ministers are good. Pay them each three million dollars for their good intentions.

Viswa has to play along his wayang to please the PAP that has put him where he is today, including a position in the race-based SINDA.

12) observer on August 28th, 2009 8.58 pm Viswa is another excellent orator used to soothe the discontent in the ground. His approach is similar to that of MP such as Vivian Balakrishnan who also likes to engage the well-educated spectrum of singapore population to demonstrate that the government is open and receptive to ideas of the younger generation. But the well-educated singaporean have forgotten the remarks make by Lui Tuck Yew, Acting Minister for Information, Communication and Art that “neitizens failed to self-regulated themselves”. Similar remarks were made by Vivian that anonymity in cyberspace is an illusion and they will prosecute people under Sedition Acts if the government need to. Minister Wong also threatened to do the same thing. Viswa is just an NMP with little influence in policy making, yet he can be used as a tool to act as a “bond” between the unsatisfied citizens and the government. If he is serious about serving the country, would he dare to bring up bread and butter issues to the parliament ? He has one term which is four years to prove himself. If he continue to carry himself by delivering ideals and goals that sounds noble but is totally and completely impractical, then he is just wasting the time and resources of people in the country.
 

Porfirio Rubirosa

Alfrescian
Loyal
22) Tan Lee Lim on August 28th, 2009 9.44 pm I see that the NMP scheme is working and this NMP is getting support and good reviews. Maybe there is no need for Opposition ?

Could this be the beginning of the end for Opposition career?
23) Ang Soon Song on August 28th, 2009 9.48 pm “Many [ministers] are good people with good intentions who want to do good for this country…”

Can you name them? Who is which type?

Likewise can people also say many Loyal Opposition members are good people with good intentions who want to do good for this country?

25) dogs and pussy cats on August 28th, 2009 10.12 pm “”However the plight of today’s mainstream media has not always existed.”"
48) Ben on August 29th, 2009 9.39 am Actually Viswa or SKH are good NMPs, but they would stop short of joining as oppositions as they know it maybe career limiting. Viswa is promoting impression that NMP can be effective, this could be misleading. So they are rendered not as effective. We need REAL OPP MP taking on issues and without fear. Chiam and Low are too meek and quiet to be effective.

ISA is not going to go away, this is to instill fear and uncertainty on opposite camps. They will never take away this tool as this would allow a lot of fringe personnel to come forward. If you are counting on them to rebuild, impossible – obvious reason.

55) mike on August 29th, 2009 12.18 pm few years ago, i met a guy whose relative happened to ex-dpm. he asked him during a wake session concerning about older workers who retrenched and wondering whatto do, he simply replied: ‘ is there such thing happened?’



“”“When I was there [in Singapore Broadcasting Corporation] in the 1980s, I think we were a bit more gutsy in pushing the boundaries,” he reminisces. “I remember the GE (General Elections) in 1988. We pushed very hard for increased coverage of opposition and on a few occasions we went ahead even though we were told not to. Some of us faced the wrath of a senior political leader at that time. As a journalist if you don’t have bruised knuckles, you are not doing something right.
“”"
=============================

Is Viswas saying indirectly that his batch of journalists or media employees were better than the current batch? So, he is different? oh,….

30) prettyplace on August 28th, 2009 11.41 pm Good job by Viswas,
walking a tight rope and making good speeches.
I find that he is doing good by just explaining what is happening.

Ministers out of touch and the dilemma PAP leaders are facing….
Smart chap…but …
Come on…a minister getting paid millions should be knowing what’s happening and should not be buying into glossy stuff and not know the ground.

What else to conclude, but to get the oppositions in parliment.
37) smallvoice585 on August 29th, 2009 2.17 am There is something very fishy going on. Here, we have someone given the liberty to state the obvious and given wide media coverage. I think we netizens should be more discerning and not be taken in by sheer eloquence alone.

We should not jump into a rash verdict too soon and get our hopes up too high. There is something not quite right about this – why is an NMP so belligerent so early in the game?

43) kiasi politician on August 29th, 2009 7.04 am As quoted by someone, Viswa is a seasoned political commentator. He knows where the boundaries are set by the government. Based on his comments after MM rebuttal of his maiden speech in parliament, it should be clear that he is just another ordinary singaporean and he’s not special and nothing stands out for this guy. That unique and typical characteristic of a singaporean is known as “super-duper kiasi”, always giving politically correct answers and talk in such eloquent manner to give people the impression that he is very “knowledgeable”. In fact, these people are just shunning from their real responsibilities and keep giving all these useless speeches to justify the allowances they received.
45) Alex Rosenthal on August 29th, 2009 8.40 am 1st an article regarding the good speech by Viswa.
Next, the article titled [Foreigners? “We have been calibrating the inflows,” says NPS]

Oh, i see whats going on.

Do you, the Youths and future of tomorrow?

Where is best to migrate?
46) Alex Rosenthal on August 29th, 2009 8.46 am 36) doctorwho on August 29th, 2009 12.44 am i am very konfuzed @@!
so many weird happenings in this small island
======================

you aint seen nothin yet dude.

can someone tell me
1. why did mr miyagee left brown house?
2. what is/was miyagee occupation when he with brown house?
3. what happened to mr toking cork?
4. has brown went the way of the cork?
5. when has brown attended HLP?

i hope this is not censored. All can view differently.
 

Porfirio Rubirosa

Alfrescian
Loyal
Why report on Viswa Sadasivan’s speech was removed from TOC
Sunday, 30 August 2009, 12:21 am | 1,594 views

On Friday, 28 August, The Online Citizen published a report by Fang Shihan on NMP Mr Viswa Sadasivan’s speech at the Lee Kuan School of Public Policy. On 29 August, we removed the report from our website after being contacted by Mr Viswa’s assistant. The following is Mr Viswa’s letter to The Online Citizen and our response.

Mr Viswa’s Sadasivan’s letter:

I have asked for the article to be taken off for the following reasons.

First, I agreed to speak at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy (something that I committed to two months ago) on condition that it would be a closed-door session i.e. no media coverage (including online media).

Second, when I came to know from a third party a day after my speech that a story was filed for posting on theonlinecitizen.com, I had given explicit instructions that I did not want my speech carried by the media. But after persuasion I consented to it being carried by theonlinecitizen.com on condition that I personally clear and sign-off on the final version. This was agreed to. On this understanding I had asked for changes to be made to the draft that was sent to me, essentially to take out parts that were not adequately contextualised which could result in a skewed reading of what I said at the LKY School on Wednesday, last week. The fact is that I did not get to see the final amended version and therefore did not get the chance to sign-off on it, as agreed, before it went online. This is highly regrettable and it is a breach of the agreement, albeit verbal, and a breach of trust.

This online article does not capture the tone or spirit of my speech and the question and answer session that followed. It failed to capture the context and the many qualifiers that I had presented that is absolutely necessary for the reader to have, to get an accurate sense of what I conveyed in the speech and my motivation thereof. The online report, intentionally or unwittingly, presented my comments in an exceptionally sharp, even belligerent and self-righteous manner. This is unacceptable, naturally. I have no issue standing by whatever I have said or will say in future. However I cannot stand idle and see my comments or intentions misrepresented and misread – it does not serve me or the democratic process any good. Most certainly, I do not wish to become a player in furthering an agenda that is not mine, and something to which I don’t subscribe.

In short, I do not wish for my speech in Parliament nor my speech at the Lee Kuan Yew School last week to become incorrectly portrayed or politicised. In fact, it is for this reason that I turned down more than 14 requests from local and foreign media agencies for interviews following my maiden speech in Parliament. Whatever I had to say I said at Parliament and at the Lee Kuan Yew School.

For these reasons I have asked, after careful consideration, for the posting of the article on my speech at the Lee Kuan Yew School to be removed.

Thank you.
Viswa Sadasivan


——–


The Online Citizen’s response:

We thank Mr Viswa Sadasivan for his letter.

We would like to express our apologies to Mr Viswa for the miscommunication about letting him “personally clear and sign-off on the final version” of our report. It is not a practice nor a policy of The Online Citizen to do this – unless under very special circumstances.

The miscommunication came about, we believe, firstly because of the above. Following this, it was thought that Mr Viswa’s assistant, who had communicated her concerns about the content of the report with our reporter, had agreed for it to be published after the discussion. We had thought the assistant was given authority by Mr Viswa to make the decision. As it turned out, this was not so.

On Mr Viswa’s other points in his letter, we regret that Mr Viswa alluded to an “agenda” we might have. We have no agenda except, in reporting on events, such as the one where Mr Viswa spoke at, our aim is to report as accurately as we can – as we have always done and will continue to do so. We also find it regrettable that Mr Viswa finds our report “exceptionally sharp, even belligerent and [presented in a] self-righteous manner”. Shihan’s report is none of the aforementioned. It is unfortunate that Mr Viswa holds such a view. We leave it to our readers to decide.

Also, Mr Viswa says he does not wish for either of his speeches in Parliament or at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy to be “politicized”. We do not understand what Mr Viswa means. Even so, we had no intention of “politicizing” either of his speeches, whatever that means. Our aim was solely to relay to our audience, what he had said.

However, after careful consideration of the concerns which Mr Viswa conveyed to The Online Citizen separately, we have agreed to remove the report from our site.

We again thank Mr Viswa for his letter and take this opportunity to congratulate him on his recent appointment as Nominated Member of Parliament.

We now consider this matter closed.

Regards,

Andrew Loh

Chief Editor

The Online Citizen
 

ChaoPappyPoodle

Alfrescian
Loyal
Brilliant!

Through his actions and words, Viswa now believes that the mainstream and non-mainstream media cannot be trusted.

What a joke this guy is. Give a man enough rope and he will hang himself.
 
Top