TOC & SFD cross swords!

[Paparazzy]

Civil society is always quarreling! Come back to PAPA all of u! Cane cane and you will behave!



A dishonest, unethical, shoddy report by TOC?
Isrizal Mohamed Isa
Thu at 4:37pm

Straits Times (ST) this morning (Jan 7, 2010), Home section page Pg B6 -

James Gomez quits Worker's Party.
http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_474500.html

A little mention of Singaporeans for Democracy (SFD). It is a new civil society group. Registry of Societies (ROS) received SFD's application on 28 April 2009. No mention of the other 9 or maybe more names (i do not know actually) attached to the application. Application still under review. The rest of the article is on James.

That was the news this morning on ST which I gather would have been in the making sometime yesterday evening.

What I'm talking about, happened yesterday evening too. I came back from a 5pm meeting. Log on the internet and saw this piece on TOC -

It is Think Centre version 2.0, insists former WP member James Gomez
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2010/01...ion-2-0-insists-former-wp-member-james-gomez/.

It was uploaded at 6.10pm. I was in the meeting then. The article is credited to Ravi Philemon. The main body of the article is an interview between Ravi & James on SFD. Towards the end there is a footnote which claims,

"Although Dr James Gomez will not directly confirm who the pro-tem members of SFD are, TOC’s sources have revealed that the pro-tem members besides Mr James Gomez include:"

What follows is a list of eleven names. The 6th, down the list is Noora Zu[sic], she is my partner in life. The 9th, down the list is Isrizal Mohamed Isa, who is of course, yours truly. My first reaction was "how the hell did we got on the list". "Who are these sources?"

stay tune for more, and I mean MORE will be revealed...

 

[Paparazzy]

Chong Kai Xiong
I'm not sure what Ravi was trying to achieve with this supposed list of protem membership. It is NOT accurate. Reeks of paparazzi.
The acronym is also wrong. It's SFD with a capital F.

Isrizal Mohamed Isa
thanks kai xiong for your comment. i shall amend it.
strange my fb went down as i was mending the error. anyway, it shows how unaware i am about sfd. my apologies.

Sha Najak
how about sharing your insights with him and perhaps ask that a post be made on this article to highlight that you don't know about this. to say that ravi is being dishonest, unethical and shoddy is not new to toc for they've got many who say that to them. so find a way to solve this amicably.

Rachel Zeng
Sha, TOC has already been notified of the inaccuracy of the list. Point is, if James did not confirm the names of the members, it means that it should not be revealed yet right? The fact that TOC has disregarded this to publish our names without checking the accuracy of the 'sources' by simply confirming with us is just so... disappointing.

Patrick Chng
This is not good.

Kenneth Jeyaretnam
TOC should have confirmed with the individuals before printing - but why will James not rconfirm the names of the founding members? It's a perfectly reasonable request. I don't think it's a good start to be talking about registering the NGO with ROS out of a desire to be transparent and then being all cloak and dagger over the names. Having said that I wish him the best . It sounds like an exciting venture.

James Gomez
I did not confirm the names because Ravi Philemon accessed names from an old closed FB discussionn group that was used prior to registration to develop ideas for SFD. He was part of this initial discussion and chose to pull out of the protem list because he said SFD was too political for him. 9 mths later in accessing the names he did not seek all ... members permission from this closed FB discussion group to access and use the names for his report. I therefore did not want to confirm the ROS protem names because of the unethical access of names and the fact that the list was not accurate. We know we need to release the names and we want to do this on our own terms as part of the SFD website launch. A draft site is already up and the protem names will be released later next week.

Chong Kai Xiong
Sure, take up the transparency issue with James directly. That's what an interview is for. Ravi would have gotten the answer and promise. TOC should at least have some trust in us.
It was also be a simple matter for Ravi to confirm the right capitalisation of SFD. Surely we're not going to hide that?
Ravi himself was included in the Facebook group James mentioned and privy to its membership and discussions, along with several others who did not make it into the protem list. Releasing their names is a plain breach of trust and privacy....
Finally, on what basis is his selection of names based on and why doesn't he include himself in the report?

 

[scroobal]

Note KJ's comments.

"TOC should have confirmed with the individuals before printing - but why will James not rconfirm the names of the founding members? It's a perfectly reasonable request. I don't think it's a good start to be talking about registering the NGO with ROS out of a desire to be transparent and then being all cloak and dagger over the names. Having said that I wish him the best . It sounds like an exciting venture."

 

[scroobal]

I suspect that ROS will have the same opinion as Ravi Philomen.

 

[Paparazzy]

Netina Tan
interesting question - organization could still be in its infancy, publicizing its low or low quality membership may deter others from joining...

Andrew Loh
But not when it claims to want to be "open, accountable and transparent".

Farhan O' Logy
reeks of political vanguardism

Andrew Loh
First Singanews... now this... I wish people would just come out and be open and stop hiding and then later start writing emails to me to complain... I mean, if you don't want people to know, then don't make an announcement about it to the public! DUH! *Pissed*

Ted Tan
It's not officially registered yet, give abit of time and space. They're not after publicity at this point of time. Besides, even political candidates gets introduced only during election times and not any other time before. So for a group that has yet any legal status, it is more likely they'll do any revelations after their registration goes through and not before.

Andrew Loh
Then why make a public announcement about it?

Goh Meng Seng
Andrew, it is a PR strategy, to keep the idea fresh by dangling it right there. Imagine if all are being announced, then there will not be any news value when the organization is being inaugurated. Releasing information by bits will keep the media curiosity there and keep it as a continuous talking point in the market.

Kenneth Jeyaretnam
Andrew - I'm thinking that going public may have been part of a strategy to highlight the length of time it's taking to get the registration through and pressure ROS a little. I remember with New Dawn we got to the stage after many delays, some of them our fault, where ROS were asking to see our printer's fire certificates. There seemed to be no end to the hoops we would have to leap through. Then we went public and this had an almost intsntaneous effect and we got our approval.

Andrew Loh
Then don;t bitch about it when people try and find out more. Media PR is a double-edged sword. Once you put it out there, it's fair game.

Kenneth Jeyaretnam
Agreed.

Andrew Loh
Kenneth, that may be the strategy but it does not involve the media. It is not the media's job to play along to your media strategy.

Goh Meng Seng
I really don't know what they "bitch" about but if those names that TOC mentioned is inaccurate, obviously the ones concerned will have the right to clarify. It is part and parcel of Free Press. You have your right to publish unconfirm information, they have the right to clarify.

Kenneth Jeyaretnam
Err Andrew I agreed with you. In fact I pre-dated this string with a comment on another page saying I personally felt that secrecy was uneccessary.All media should issue clarifications or correct mistakes and I woudl like to see pluarlistic New Media in SG. For obvious reasons and not because I don't think TOC is doing a great job.

Chong Kai Xiong
The only strange thing I can see is TOC's motivation behind this hasty 'expose' coming right after a somewhat informal announcement.

Tian Jing
Jacob hit the nail on the head. It is nothing sinister or secretive about the list of members. The only issue lies in a resolution of the list of members this explains James' reluctance to reveal it before the group is officially registered.

Andrew Loh
First of all, I've told Rachel that if TOC has got it wrong, we welcome a clarification from SFD and would consider publishing the clarification - as we did with others before. I do not see why SFD deserves special treatment.
To date, I have received no such clarification - in the form of a letter. All I have heard is from Rachel and James, which offered me differing information.
Second, now the name-calling has begun. I am surprised as the group proclaims to be for "democracy". I guess that includes name-calling?...
Third, the accusation that TOC is more interested in "breaking" the "news" rather than ascertaining the facts is a charge which is based on ignorance. TOC held back announcing James's departure from the WP even though I have known about it way before anyone. We held it back because James said he would announce it at Speakers' Corner. So, please, don't make blind accusations.
Fourth, James, in the interview with Ravi, said "...we want to remain open, accountable and transparent." This episode shows me that it's all hot air. When asked to confirm the names of the members, James refused to do so.
Fifth, James's refusal to do so does not preclude TOC from divulging the names. James has no say in how TOC is run or what it does.
Sixth, the sources of Ravi's report is now being attributed as Ravi himself. I will not say more than that this is untrue. We have more sources than perhaps you guys realise.
Seventh, the question of motivation. I would like to hear what Kai Xiong thinks our motivation is, since he brings it up.

Andrew Loh
As for James's comment that he wanted to release the names of the members "on our own terms", that is his perogative. It does not mean others can't divulge or even speculate on who the members are.
It is therefore ridiculous for Rachel to say and insist that "if James did not confirm the names of the members, it means that it should not be revealed..."
Please remember that TOC is not part of SFD nor does it have an obligation to "play by SFD's rules".
Lastly, I am disappointed that members or supporters of SFD would rather call TOC names behind its back than to write an official letter of clarification or correction to TOC.

Yap Eng Kian
If as long as it was part of a public announcement and or interview and James did not declare anything specific as off the record the TOC is entitled to report especially if it got the leak from elsewhere.
NGO's and Political parties opposition and gov will have to come to terms with the rules of engagement with the on line media like the off line media. The on line media does not know anyone a living and if parties or NGO makes any PR mistakes the onus is on the to learn from it
Hmm Andrew if you are pissing of WP this week RP the next and James Gomez NGO this week then you must be doing something right. :_))...

Goh Meng Seng
Andrew, now I get a clearer picture. I would suggest to keep this offline and arrange for a meet up between TOC and SFD.
It is common for news agency to report on certain things, even with unconfirmed information on the condition that they would say it is from the grapevine. That is the accepted practice. Andrew is right to say that if there is anything needs to be clarified, it is up to the individuals and organization involved to do so.
There isn't a need for us to speculate anything and put doubts on each other's credibility. ...
As I could see that although we may be on different platform but we are unconsciously on the same platform: i.e. a movement aimed to make Singapore a more open and democratically more developed nation. Just have to settle any misunderstanding face to face.

Andrew Loh
Look at the post by Isrizal and the comments from the likes of Rachel and Kai Xiong. I am afraid if this is what SFD is about, then it is sad.
I returned James's call on Thursday but he didn't pick up. I have been explaining to Rachel on email.
I think to hear Rizal say, "stay tune for more, and I mean MORE will be revealed... " is just plain sad. Is that a threat? Or a warning? I do not know what he means but if he means more TOC-bashing, then so be it.

 

[Paparazzy]

Seelan Palay
Farhan, have my assurance that its not political vanguardism.
Andrew, I may tell you in due time why the group wanted to announce the members' names at a later date. I hope we can stay cordial about it till that time.
And regarding this argument on FB, I'd like to tell both 'sides' that what's done is done and everyone has said their piece. I'd rather let it be for now and get back to the work at hand - and we have a lot of work to do indeed.

Andrew Loh
I agree with you, Seelan. What gets to me is people questioning the intent of TOC. It saddens me that after 3 years of working with you guys, you would still question my intention.
Be that as it may, I will continue to support what you guys are doing. And as you said, there are more important things to do...

Andrew Loh
And I do take issue with James using words like "unethical" to describe us. I am appalled that someone like him would not write a letter of clarification to TOC but would rather call people names and make allegations behind our backs.
Is that what he means by being "open, accountable, transparent"?
This is my last comment here - unless a response is required. Otherwise, I'm moving on from this petty squabble.....

Seelan Palay
Andrew, being open, accountable and transparent doesn't mean everyone has to reveal all the personal conversations we have with friends. Please understand that everyone talks behind each others backs, even you and I may have a number of times. But lets understand that its not because we despise each other and there can be many other reasons why.
I'm glad that we have your continued support and I hope that you can understand that everything said in private conversations should be taken with lots of salt.
I'm sure James has his reasons for saying such a thing, and I'm sure both of you will get a chance to discuss the details of the matter in person soon....
Till then, let's chuck aside this petty squabble, as you have rightfully pointed out.

Andrew Loh
Seelan, evidently, what James said was posted on Rizal's FB and here as well. So it's not "private". It was posted there by Jacob for all to see.
Private conversations should remain private, I agree. This is also why I am rather curious why Rachel would say TOC has been notified. As far as I am concerned, my email exchange with Rachel was a personal conversation. She did not say she was speaking on behalf of SFD or that she has the authority to. So, saying TOC has been notified is only partly true.
As for James having his reasons, of course he does. But I am taking issue with his use of words - and doing so to others and not to me, which I find totally unethical. ...
Why use such incendiary words to others? Let him tell it to my face.

Rachel Zeng
Andrew I think you have misunderstood my points but we should make things clear before putting misunderstandings out in public like this. Am responding to your FB status to clarify since my name has been repeatedly mentioned. Have no intention to respond further than this in public. Let's continue our correspondence in private via email.

Andrew Loh
I am sorry but I am responding to what you posted on Rizal's FB and also that you mentioned that "TOC has been notified", alluding to our private emails.

Rachel Zeng
Well it is true that TOC has been notified and there is no misunderstandings about that as it is a fact. I am NOT saying that you cannot bring public emails to public. I was talking about misunderstandings arising from private emails there as we have yet to conclude the correspondence.
Aiyoh ok lah, this shall be my last response here. You've got mail (in 5 mins!).

Andrew Loh
No, the misunderstanding is that some may think what you said meant SFD had notified TOC. As far as I am concerned, I have heard nothing from SFD - unless you're saying that your private emails are written as a representative of SFD.

 

[scroobal]

Got to say that Andrew Loh is handling the situation very well. These fellows want to lick the ice cream but don't want to hold the cone.

 

[scroobal]

Story of James Gomez - misunderstanding, mistake, misplaced, error, oversight, distracted and the story continues.

 

[Perspective]

Got to say that Andrew Loh is handling the situation very well. These fellows want to lick the ice cream but don't want to hold the cone.

On the contrary I feel TOC chaps wants to be everything to have everything. Unlike the MSM, the journalists double as NGO activists and get into the game, then use the info from the game for the news. Of course there's nothing wrong, in fact it is a good strategy based on how it has succeeded, but later people would stay away from even more than the MSM.

 

[scroobal]

From the exchange that I have seen, I have to disagree. Its pretty much a media entity(with an interesting sponsor) and since JG did not to want reveal the names they got it from another source. James sought publicity on his own terms but unlike the old man has no means to control it. Illusions of grandeur.

I think as Singaporeans we assume that media should be subservient. Guess again.

The strategy is a separate issue. And it has nothing to do with TOC. Its not TOC's responsibility to be part of rolling out anybody's strategy.

On the contrary I feel TOC chaps wants to be everything to have everything. Unlike the MSM, the journalists double as NGO activists and get into the game, then use the info from the game for the news. Of course there's nothing wrong, in fact it is a good strategy based on how it has succeeded, but later people would stay away from even more than the MSM.

 

[elephanto]

Story of James Gomez - misunderstanding, mistake, misplaced, error, oversight, distracted and the story continues.

This is the most spot-on statement in the whole thread.

Sheesh, all these ladies & gentlemen doing their bit for democracy - what a load of ego & hot air.

Pity Andrew TOC - our Goh Meng Seng tried to keep whole discusiion out of public view : but in vain given pervasive nature of today's technology. :p

 

[Perspective]

From the exchange that I have seen, I have to disagree. Its pretty much a media entity(with an interesting sponsor) and since JG did not to want reveal the names they got it from another source. James sought publicity on his own terms but unlike the old man has no means to control it. Illusions of grandeur.

I think as Singaporeans we assume that media should be subservient. Guess again.

The strategy is a separate issue. And it has nothing to do with TOC. Its not TOC's responsibility to be part of rolling out anybody's strategy.

I identify the main issue as the way the 'list' was retrieved and everything other arguement is a pepper spillover. Apparently the 'list' came from a member of SFD's private mailing list named Ravi who also happens to be with TOC.

The tricky part is journalistic chaps from TOC tend to want to be doubly included as activists and hence included and how they would react if the entire sociopolitical sector ostracize them. I think while chaps who expected TOC not to be like the MSM had expected too much, then again would TOC want to be treated like the MSM, I wonder.

How would you feel if Khor Kian Beng is suddenly found in WP and Sue Ann Chia in SDP. The MSM bosses would think things would be ugly for that to happen, and so will the oppos.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

This is the most spot-on statement in the whole thread.

Sheesh, all these ladies & gentlemen doing their bit for democracy - what a load of ego & hot air.

Pity Andrew TOC - our Goh Meng Seng tried to keep whole discussion out of public view : but in vain given pervasive nature of today's technology. :p

While people like to talk about "opposition unity" but yet, there are people who like to spill the beans on the public sphere. Strange for me indeed.

Unity, in any form, will have to be played by a certain rule; a more mature route rather than just brag about anything, everything out. People in the fit of anger will bound to say something that he will regret later. I guess James and Andrew are regretting now that all these words are being spilled here.

It is normal for people to have different views and opinion, even minor bickering at times, just like a married couple will have their quarrels from time to time. What being said in such situation is best contained within themselves else there will be busybody that may just create even more trouble by fanning the fire. A relationship would be pushed to the end beyond repair. Similarly, relationship between people on the same direction, same cause on the bigger picture must learn to manage expectation, differences and even quarrels. Especially in Singapore's context, there will always be agent provocateurs that would exploit every bits of disagreement to blow it our of proportion. True enough, my fear has been established here.

Domestic problems should remain domestic.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[scroobal]

As you know Andrew genuinely thinks that he is running a non partisan free publication and therefore needs to address an allegation that was publicly made. Andrew therefore had to rebut. People like Rachel, Kaixiong, Isrizal and James however made the wrong move. Rachel realised her mistake but tried to weazel out rather than be honest which made it worse. Only Seelan and you realised what to do.

This has little to do with opposition unity as you do realise that its all birds from the same feather noted for their singular lack of political acumen - Wallaby Logic I guess. This has nothing to do with any other party so opposition unity is not the issue rather a couple of close associates who are keen but lack the capacity or the mettle to handle it.

My favourite take away was the clown who suggested Political 'Vanguardism". Either he has no clue what the term means or another one suffering from illusions of grandeur.

 

[BusNo64]

much ado about nothing

 

[IR123]

I second the opinion that Andrew Loh is handling the situation excellently.

I like particularly the exchange of comments of KJ and Andrew Loh.

I wish KJ is contesting in my constituency. I have no reservations on KJ.

 

[Perspective]

An update. TOC's list was actually quite close. They had 9 out of 11 names correct. (TOC stated 12 instead of 11)

I don't want to list the 9 but the 3 not in were:
* Isrizal Mohamed Isa
* Noora Zu
* Shafiie Syahmi

The first was in the threadstarter's post and the second his wife who was no wonder pissed by the 'list'.

The surprise was the two who were in and not spotted:
* Ng E-Jay
* Muhd Jufri bin Mohd Salim

One is a former RP member and another an existing SDP member. The surprise is that the first is also a member of TOC himself, but had not been spotted.

 

[scroobal]

Looks like 3rd attempt after the HR, then Tilik attempt a similar group.

TOC is also quite acuurate. The way, these guys responded, I thought half the list was wrong. Only the couple and one other chap. I also expected Tan Siang Yuen to be in it. Ravi was in the original lineup but I guess after his condition, they wanted to be prudent.

An update. TOC's list was actually quite close. They had 9 out of 11 names correct. (TOC stated 12 instead of 11)

 

[Perspective]

The way, these guys responded, I thought half the list was wrong.

I would think the way these guys responded, the list had to be mostly spot on. However I can understand why the Isrizal chap was pissed. Both he and his wife were "implicated" when they were the only 2 not wanting in.