TOC - Where from and Where to?

[scroobal]

This is a continuation of thread where I covered "where from " ref
http://www.singsupplies.com/showpost.php?p=381335&postcount=15

And now "where to". Rather then write lengthy prose, thought point form on what "good came out" and what "not so good" came from TOC being formed for Singaporeans.

TOC - Good things
1) Provided a much needed relief valve and media outlet from Toa Payoh Brothel. It allowed alternative views to emerge and interestingly within the OB markers which is pretty evident. (expected)
2) For the first time serious discussions were taking place not in the TOC articles(with one exception) but from the comments and the follow-ups discussions that followed. The likes of Alfian and Viswa are very good examples.(expected)
3) Fast and quick on topical issues which in the past saw Singaporeans waiting for the Toa Payoh brothel to get clearence of some sort. Note the recent Romanian case.(Unexpected)
4) Excellent network with the other side of the fence and therefore in position to get scoops and provide Singaporeans with political news from the other side. Ravi Philomen article revealing the membership of SDF is a good example (Unexpected)

Legend
Expected /Unexpected - by the PAP when they sponsored and seeded this initiative

TOC - Not so good things
1) A magnet and honeytrap for opposition to gather. This has allowed former critics of the govt to tone down, make compromises and wrongly identify with TOC as a partner and an affliate. Note some of the vehement critics of the govt in this forum that have toned down and have become defensive Note that veterans and the more matured ones are alot more cautious, the likes of Chee, Low, Chiam and Sylvia. I suspect that Sylvia had the benefit of her's father wisdom.
2) Critical articles are aimed more at the opposition and those putting across alternative views. A good example is the Viswa affair and the failure to understand a simple political device such as Chatham House rules. The only article which was highly critical of the establishment with no punches held back was the article by Khairulanwar Zaini. Excellent wordsmith as well. Look at the miss on "Sear Affair" and the call for inquiry and PA agreeing to it.
3) The erroneous impression that TOC is anti-establishment (when it is not clearly not) especially when mentioned by a TOC contributor shows that we have been conditioned to accept sub-standard rules of engagement in a democracy.
4) FB and twitter has facilitated this bringing together of all shades of dissent and opposition into loose but singular entity. Just look at the FB. They are now gathering at the usual waterholes, joinng the same debates, forming loose alliances etc. Post Museum is now Honeytrap Central.
5) Clear signs of a family forming. When a family spat broke out with TOC and SDF, note other family members trying to stop the washing of dirty linen - GMS, KJ and Seelan. I never thought I will see the day that this will happen.

Here is a bit of advice
- Its pointless being members of various political entities of various bent, if the end result is a pot of rojak even before the GE begins. A series of compromises leads to sub-standard genes and sterile mules.
- Make use of the TOC at all costs. Get your message across. If it is not carried accurately, demand explanations in public and the right to respond publicly in their own platform.
- maintain arms length relationship which is basically PR 101 when dealing with the press. Use the press but don't slide naively into an being a friend or informant that compromises your principle.
- learn to validate all contributions to TOC so that no compromises occur, party philosophy is held.

 

[scroobal]

An excellent example of good grammar, sentence structure and technicals but poor on quality and analysis. The conclusion is also wrong.

What hint of assertiveness. Followed by this comment - "Chan court’s readiness to question the constitutionality of the mandatory death penalty by hinting that it might be receptive to arguments against the usual precedents on this issue."

Are we reading from the same document. Here are the essentials.

1) Singapore has an automated process for appeal for capital cases. Yong withdrew his appeal and his request appeal was accepted. Thus he did not enjoy the opportunity to have his appeal heard in the first place.
2) There were some administrative hurdles and the judges removed it.
3) Ravi stated that new issues from Europe surrounding constitutionality of mandatory death sentence despite percedents set by Privy Council and CA for 2 different cases needs to be looked. The judges accepted it.

In essence, the Court and the CJ did not jump thru hoops, run the gauntlet neither did they deviate from any norm to allow this appeal within an appeal. There is also no comparison with previous prick - Yong Pung How, because he never had to deal with a case of withdrawn appeal that had a change of mind. Why is TOC painting the courts in colours that are radiant and bright, when it was a simple case of clearing administartive redtape and reasonable request to relook at new developments on the constitutionality of the Mandatory of death sentence. I suppose the throwaway tidbit on classifying Yong as a mule when he was dealer was to keep their new found NGO partners happy.


http://theonlinecitizen.com/2010/01/toc-editorial-a-hint-of-assertiveness/
TOC Editorial: A hint of assertiveness
Saturday, 16 January 2010, 1:31 am | 180 views
The Court of Appeals’ Yong Vui Kong ruling could signal a change in criminal jurisprudence

The Court of Appeals’ surprisingly liberal ruling on the Yong Vui Kong case, delivered in a written judgment on 31st December 2009 by Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong, is a welcome – if overdue – step in the right direction. Since Chief Justice Chan’s ascension to the Supreme Court in 2006, there have been indications that he was moving the judiciary away from his predecessor Yong Pung How’s single-minded focus on speed in disposing cases and his rigid adherence to precedence, an approach which some have argued prioritised efficiency over justice.

In this regard the Yong Vui Kong ruling is the clearest sign of a new direction in criminal jurisprudence. In December 2009, a High Court judge unexpectedly stayed the execution of a convicted drug mule just days before the sentence was supposed to carried out so that the latter could appeal his sentence to the Court of Appeals, despite already having his petition for clemency denied by the President. Over the state prosecution’s objections, the Court of Appeals subsequently upheld the High Court judge’s decision and allowed the plaintiff to proceed with his appeal.

The Chan court’s reasoning on its decision reeks of liberal sentiment. One notable departure from the Yong court was that the Chan court in effect gave the plaintiff the benefit of the doubt, by accepting the argument that the plaintiff did not understand his legal options when he withdrew his appeal to the Court of Appeals in April 2009 before it could even be considered. It is quite likely that the Yong court, given its usual impatience with such human lapses, might have dismissed the present case on that pretext alone.

The second significant departure was the Chan court’s readiness to question the constitutionality of the mandatory death penalty by hinting that it might be receptive to arguments against the usual precedents on this issue. In doing so, the Chan court rejected one of the state prosecution’s favourite arguments, that putting off the execution would open the “floodgates” to abuses of the judiciary process. The court made it clear that it was in the public interest to consider the appeal. This stay of execution from the judiciary has already given renewed momentum to anti-death penalty activists in Singapore.

The third aspect was an unusually firm assertion of judiciary prerogative in the face of the executive branch’s demand for the court not to obstruct the execution. Significantly, the Chan court dismissed the prosecution’s argument that it had no jurisdiction over a case that had already been decided by a lower court, reasserting its privilege to re-try cases to correct a possible “miscarriage of justice”. In a country where appeals to the highest court in the land are rare and granting of appeals even rarer, this could set a more humane tone for a system that usually brooked no questioning of its judgments. The court also declared that, regardless of whether the President concurred in the judiciary’s stay of execution, it would have been unacceptable for the state to carry out the execution while the case was still ongoing.

Despite these positive developments, some caution is in order. The judgment appears to have been triggered in large measure by what might have been seen as an unwarranted intrusion by the executive into the judiciary’s prerogative and it remains to be seen whether the court will actually strike down the mandatory death penalty. Furthermore, the ruling is scant indication that the court would behave similarly in political cases against the ruling party. Still, the Yong Vui Kong ruling might prove to be a turning point in criminal jurisprudence in Singapore, something which would be enough to merit Chief Justice Chan the International Jurists Award he was given by his global peers in November 2009.

 

[heartlander]

It was sponsored and seeded by the PAP? I'm going to sound ignorant, but this is the first time I've heard of this. Any old timers here could enlighten me with more details?

 

[scroobal]

This is a delicate subject at best. I doubt you are going to get a response. Too many people have fallen in the net that it will be difficult.

If Khairulanwar from TOC ( I trust this guy) interviewed Remy Choo and asked these questions, I am pretty sure, he will not get any answers.
1) Who spoke to you about setting up TOC
2) Who else was present in the room when this first chat about forming TOC was held
3) Why don't your faculty mates such Genesis Shen who is in YPAP and grassroots activist like yourself don't engage TOC despite it being non-partisan. Is it because PAP members have been advised not to, to provide an air of legitimacy to TOC.

Remy will never answer these questions in public because others were present when this initiative was put to him and he is not going to have his integrity further shredded.

The old timers from this forum who are in the know and associated with politics in the open have been part of TOC formation unknowingly. They are now trying to follow the bed crumbs to the very start. In this business, nothing ventured nothing gained. These are just little hiccups in that journey. We all get caught with our pants down occasionally.

Hopefully this will force those genuinely interested in TOC becoming a alternative media platform to now focus critically on the establishment and not just going around political opposition parties and others with alternatives views. The excuse that one has to be careful of legal action is just a smokescreen. After close to 2 years, nothing critical of the establishment has come out except for one or 2 exceptions. It seems JBJ is fair game but not Mah Bow Tan, Irene Ng, or any establishments figures. If a dead person qualifies, how about Teh Cheang Wan, Wee toon Boon. Phey Yew Kok.

Look at the ridiculous endorsement of Chan Sek Keong and the appeal court in overcoming a administrative hurdle in the latest editorial. A simple administraive process is now termed as hints of assertiveness. Trying to help Shanmugam attempts to repair the image of the courts. At least find a decent case to do it with.

There are hundred of Govt policies that need to be addressed and thus lots of fodder. This is where Roundatable did much better. They knew that quality was the key to judge their performance and they focused purely on policies and not JBJ's temperment.

It was sponsored and seeded by the PAP? I'm going to sound ignorant, but this is the first time I've heard of this. Any old timers here could enlighten me with more details?

 

[scroobal]

Here is a suggestions to try and get a truly non-partisan media channel that serves Singaporean effectively.

1) Poll all stakeholders on quarterly or on regular basis and rate how effective TOC and any other channel that claims to be non-partisan in regard to coverage and content.
2) To avoid stacking and skewing the polls, all registered stakeholders (political parties, NGOs) have a votes based on number of members. Minimum vote is 1 and maximum is 3.
3) Stakeholders may want to consider a secret ballot within its own membership so that shy members who have too many FB friends can cast votes without offending friends on the wrong side of the divide.
4) Stakeholders votes can be secret or public. Up to the stakeholder to decide.

The polls will do couple of things

1) It will force the channel and stakeholders to re-focus on delivering hard hitting and critical views across the spectrum from establishment to non establishment.
2) Reduce the level of compromise due to familiarity, FB friendships, coffeshop chats etc
3) Stop anyone with an agenda that is not consistent with the espoused mission of that channel
4) Raise the bar on debates, discussion and push the frontier towards true democarcy and not be compromised by the same human frailities previously mentioned - the pitfalls of fraternising.
5) Provide an excellent feedback to Channel owners to tweak and tune their enterprise to reach greater heights.

Lastly and more importantly to show that there is nothing to hide.