-
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: Why report on Viswa Sadasivan’s speech was removed from TOC
- Thread starter Porfirio Rubirosa
- Start date
You still need to ask?
Goh Meng Seng
If anyone talks about that, it is obvious because only one entity has the resources and power. However, I asked a "stupid question because of the stupid environment". It means what is being said here is that TOC is part of it knowingly or unknowingly. If it's the former, then proPAP is not wrong, yes? You allow yourself to be used by the PAP govt giant, isn't that proPAP?
If it's the latter, the justification by Scroobal was that because TOC hasn't been touched. That is lame considering what we have heard and seen from Alex Au who also hasn't been touched. And like saying NSP hasn't been touched like SDP because it is "part of covert"? Very sure you wouldn't agree, even I don't. Hope it's not Scro falling into the circular argument himself?
Alas!
If it is to be viewed as "proPAP", it would not be a covert operations!
I would suggest you to read Scroobal's writings all over again.
Whether an entity is part of a covert ops or an entity "encouraged" to achieve a certain objective or not, depends on lots of things altogether. As for a media, Scroobal has not only touched on whether TOC is being "touched" or not, he has touched on quite a number of aspects. Whether a political party is part of a "covert ops" will depend on many elements as well.
Even PAP itself was part of a covert ops of the Malayan Communist Party. So? Does it mean that everybody in PAP were communists at that time? Or what was the agendas back then? Who allowed who to be part of the covert ops? And how did it develop? This is something interesting for all of us to think about.
Anyway, it is up to you and me to agree with his observations or not. Whether I believe TOC is part of a Covert Ops or not has nothing to do on whether I view other people like Alex Au or NSP or even WP now are part of the covert ops or not. You are really stretching your argument just a bit too far.
The mere fact that Apple and Orange are both Fruits does not mean that Apple=Orange.
Goh Meng Seng
Dear GMS
No media will claim to be perfectly "fair" just as fair as possible to capture the essence of the story within time and space constraints. All journalistic reporting seeks to capture the essence and key points of an event not a blow by blow minute to minute account. That is left to historians :_)). I hope when you mean "ALL FACTS" its not everything ad verbatim
Locke
No media will claim to be perfectly "fair" just as fair as possible to capture the essence of the story within time and space constraints. All journalistic reporting seeks to capture the essence and key points of an event not a blow by blow minute to minute account. That is left to historians :_)). I hope when you mean "ALL FACTS" its not everything ad verbatim
Locke
Dear Locke,
It is precisely so that no media could be as perfectly "fair", that is why we need diversity of voices in this sphere. Freedom of speech and the role of forth estate of media lies in the virtues that competition among ideas and even reporting will enhance the quality of information feed.
What Scroobal is saying right here is that TOC has been "groomed" to be such media as "alternative" but in essence, he observes that TOC's performance so far has been very much moderated. It is a kind of perception that the covert ops tries to establish that TOC is "anti-govt" or even "neutral" alternative source of information but in essence, it is still within the control by the covert operatives.
He has pointed out his observations that there are signs and patterns forming by both the subtle shift in reporting perspective as well as certain personality in play. The latest being the way TOC has written on the NCMP/NMP issue is one of such instances.
PAP as we all know, does not like surprises, least "uncontrollable and unknown" media out here which may just work against them. That is why we are hearing the constant ringing of "managing the New Media" and such.
Goh Meng Seng
Last edited:
Dear GMS
Again no lack of agreement in that however you seem intent on conflating the two. Pure Reporting and Opinion / Eds are two seperate issues.
Scroobal has stated that the TOC has done well enough in reporting though it is lacking in stronger OP/EDs. I have put that down to resources and its volunteer base.
I seriously have my own personal doubts about your "covert ops" team idea, but suffice it to say that whether TOC is under the control of the ISD PAP, Rountable, WP, ISP,s RPs, or aliens from mars .......as long as it continues to report on issues not covered by the main stream media then it is a force for good.
Locke
Again no lack of agreement in that however you seem intent on conflating the two. Pure Reporting and Opinion / Eds are two seperate issues.
Scroobal has stated that the TOC has done well enough in reporting though it is lacking in stronger OP/EDs. I have put that down to resources and its volunteer base.
I seriously have my own personal doubts about your "covert ops" team idea, but suffice it to say that whether TOC is under the control of the ISD PAP, Rountable, WP, ISP,s RPs, or aliens from mars .......as long as it continues to report on issues not covered by the main stream media then it is a force for good.
Locke
Dear Locke,
Maybe you have not experienced or learnt about all those Covert Ops that the ruling party has been carrying out all these years, right from 60s till now. Student spies and such were pretty common. I have even friend's father denied entry into university basically because he refused to become student spy for the Covert Ops! The extensive of Covert Ops could not be underestimated.
As in your very own words, unfortunate coincidences cannot keep appearing just as coincidences.
Goh Meng Seng
Maybe you have not experienced or learnt about all those Covert Ops that the ruling party has been carrying out all these years, right from 60s till now. Student spies and such were pretty common. I have even friend's father denied entry into university basically because he refused to become student spy for the Covert Ops! The extensive of Covert Ops could not be underestimated.
As in your very own words, unfortunate coincidences cannot keep appearing just as coincidences.
Goh Meng Seng
Dear GMS
Well you believe in covert ops and the Japanese PM's wife believes she was abducted by aliens :_)). That says it all I guess.
I am afraid that if one see's the shadow of covert ops in everything, then the fear of something which might or might not be there is often enough to undermine the development of the opposition in Singapore.
Good gold plated establishment candidate, steps out, can't be real :_)) Must be covert op, either encouraged to go out by the PAP , or sent out by the PAP under direct control. Yup we will only accept the half past six, half baked because their very lack of qualifications makes them free from the shadow of covert ops, pap control and thus ideal for the opposition.
Forgive me if under those circumstances between two sets of idiots...I rather vote for the PAP idiot then the village idiot with an obsessive belief in PAP covert ops
Locke
Well you believe in covert ops and the Japanese PM's wife believes she was abducted by aliens :_)). That says it all I guess.
I am afraid that if one see's the shadow of covert ops in everything, then the fear of something which might or might not be there is often enough to undermine the development of the opposition in Singapore.
Good gold plated establishment candidate, steps out, can't be real :_)) Must be covert op, either encouraged to go out by the PAP , or sent out by the PAP under direct control. Yup we will only accept the half past six, half baked because their very lack of qualifications makes them free from the shadow of covert ops, pap control and thus ideal for the opposition.
Forgive me if under those circumstances between two sets of idiots...I rather vote for the PAP idiot then the village idiot with an obsessive belief in PAP covert ops
Locke
Last edited:
Dear Locke,
Contrary to what you have stated, you should learn something from LKY and his comrades back then. Ride the tigers.
Even if you know there are possible covert operatives, just ride on them. Win first then we have an easier problem. But we must always bear in mind that a covert ops will also be a covert ops. You will need to get over it. LKY and his comrades did it his way back in 1960s.
Whether or not there are covert ops in TOC or any political parties, we do not know for sure. Never mind about that. When the time comes to the crunch, then we will think of something else.
Goh Meng Seng
Contrary to what you have stated, you should learn something from LKY and his comrades back then. Ride the tigers.
Even if you know there are possible covert operatives, just ride on them. Win first then we have an easier problem. But we must always bear in mind that a covert ops will also be a covert ops. You will need to get over it. LKY and his comrades did it his way back in 1960s.
Whether or not there are covert ops in TOC or any political parties, we do not know for sure. Never mind about that. When the time comes to the crunch, then we will think of something else.
Goh Meng Seng
Alfian hopefully is hoepfully rehabilitating his relationship with the local Malay leadership. Frayed for sometime by his comments before he left for KL many years ago.
No, there were a lot of reports but nothing substantial in Mas Selamat case. Anyone picking after day2 of old man's reply and not aware what happenned prior would have no clue what transpired unless he came online.
No, there were a lot of reports but nothing substantial in Mas Selamat case. Anyone picking after day2 of old man's reply and not aware what happenned prior would have no clue what transpired unless he came online.
You on the right track. Guess why - the proven mousetrap. I mentioned the corraling effect.
In early 1990, there was an residential offsite course in an old British Army Black and White House involving particpants from management staff in SIA, a few Stat Boards, MNC and emerging local companies. It also had one participant from NTUC.
In the course of a discussion, someone blurted out that NTUC is a govt instrument. The NTUC chap was offended and stated that it was not the case. Discussion was pretty hot and it became evident that 80% had no clue how NTUC evolved or its history. Mind you these were senior.
Near the end it was the Chap from SIA that detailed the links and the symbiotic relationship. When he ended, there was absolute silence. As you know SIA was the last Govt linked organisation and listed public entity that resisted membership with NTUC. In a desparate attempt, NTUC Secretary General and Minister without portfolio Lim Boon Heng was appointed to the SIA Board after pressure from cabinet. Pillay did not want no part of NTUC and his staff followed.
To cut along story short - if you want to succeed in creating a trojan horse, it has to look interesting enough to be dragged into the fort.
In early 1990, there was an residential offsite course in an old British Army Black and White House involving particpants from management staff in SIA, a few Stat Boards, MNC and emerging local companies. It also had one participant from NTUC.
In the course of a discussion, someone blurted out that NTUC is a govt instrument. The NTUC chap was offended and stated that it was not the case. Discussion was pretty hot and it became evident that 80% had no clue how NTUC evolved or its history. Mind you these were senior.
Near the end it was the Chap from SIA that detailed the links and the symbiotic relationship. When he ended, there was absolute silence. As you know SIA was the last Govt linked organisation and listed public entity that resisted membership with NTUC. In a desparate attempt, NTUC Secretary General and Minister without portfolio Lim Boon Heng was appointed to the SIA Board after pressure from cabinet. Pillay did not want no part of NTUC and his staff followed.
To cut along story short - if you want to succeed in creating a trojan horse, it has to look interesting enough to be dragged into the fort.
Others are getting the picture and they may not necessarily agree with me. You are on the wrong track completely. Let me break it down for you.
I never said it is proPAP site. A layman reading articles in TOC will immediately get the impression that it is close to anti-establishment or anti-0establishment. It serves no purpose if it viewed or perceived as Pro PAP.
TOC has been allowed to evolve as an anti-establishment site by the authorities. I know who the founders are and I know their capacity. I have watched over 3 years as they evolved, the statements that they make, the lack of reaction, the role that those linked with TOC undetake and the events that they participate etc. There were couple of times, libellous comments by TOC were made and I was surprised and not surprised if such a state can exist. For you probably - critical about Govt.
If you are in Corporate Equity, the term used is operating a "false market" the primary purpose of which is to mislead. You don't have the create or directly control the appropriate vehicle.
I never said it is proPAP site. A layman reading articles in TOC will immediately get the impression that it is close to anti-establishment or anti-0establishment. It serves no purpose if it viewed or perceived as Pro PAP.
TOC has been allowed to evolve as an anti-establishment site by the authorities. I know who the founders are and I know their capacity. I have watched over 3 years as they evolved, the statements that they make, the lack of reaction, the role that those linked with TOC undetake and the events that they participate etc. There were couple of times, libellous comments by TOC were made and I was surprised and not surprised if such a state can exist. For you probably - critical about Govt.
If you are in Corporate Equity, the term used is operating a "false market" the primary purpose of which is to mislead. You don't have the create or directly control the appropriate vehicle.
Thanks Bro, I had responded to that comment not realising that you have already done it.
Thanks bro. Maybe he has not done NS. The way he writes and comments shows that TOC is certainly a roaring success for the PAP. And most people are like him, see things sincerely and at face value. He must have re-read all acticles and tabulated the scores based on establishment, neutral and anti-establishment and came out with 100% for the latter 2 categories combined.
I would like to see TOC get past the OB markers. A lot of people have gone past the OB markers but they are operating as individuals in their own blogsites or in forums where there is no registration of email/identity. Then there are Alex Au, Catherine Lim, Viswa (as of late), Mutalib, Bilveer, Asher, Chua BH, etc
I can guarantee now that TOC will not go beyond the OB markers in its present form.
Making snide remarks about PAP, making libellous statements against its agents such as Ms Chua and SPH does not constitue a threat to the regime. They are there to wear that.
When you start questioning the electroral setup, identify clearly unfair practices and calling a spade a spade and these things resonate with the populace is when a threat arises.
Locke[/QUOTE]
I can guarantee now that TOC will not go beyond the OB markers in its present form.
Making snide remarks about PAP, making libellous statements against its agents such as Ms Chua and SPH does not constitue a threat to the regime. They are there to wear that.
When you start questioning the electroral setup, identify clearly unfair practices and calling a spade a spade and these things resonate with the populace is when a threat arises.
Locke[/QUOTE]
Where did you get Roundtable, ISPs and aliens from mars. What has these got to do with the discussion. Pray tell.
Do understand that I am not talking about a boiler room operations. You are talking about military style ops which is not the case. This does not fall under Black ops either. You only prune the hedge to allow it to form the shape that you want. If at all pruning is required.
Do understand that I am not talking about a boiler room operations. You are talking about military style ops which is not the case. This does not fall under Black ops either. You only prune the hedge to allow it to form the shape that you want. If at all pruning is required.
You are making light of a serious discussion.
Maybe you can point out an article in TOC that you thought was groundbreaking and unprecedented for being critical of the PAP. Here is an easy benchmark by the son of an ex PAP who was critical of the PAP when he first came aboard and has moved away since.
July 7, 2006
Time to go back to three-member GRCs?
By Peh Shing Huei
SO, IT is true.
Group representation constituencies (GRCs) are really vehicles that help ensure a smoother ride for the People's Action Party's new candidates.
Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong confirmed it last week. This easier passage, he said, allows the PAP to 'recruit younger and capable candidates with the potential to become ministers'.
He added: 'Without some assurance of a good chance of winning at least their first election, many able and successful young Singaporeans may not risk their careers to join politics.
'Why should they when they are on the way up in the civil service, the SAF, and in the professions or the corporate world?'
This is a departure from the justifications hitherto given for GRCs, that they are needed to guarantee minority representation in Parliament and maintain quality as they compel the opposition to attempt to produce a slate of better candidates.
Now, another equation has been suggested. GRCs plus new candidates equals easier electoral passage for PAP candidates, equals easier recruitment for the PAP.
The formula is troubling for two reasons.
# One, which has been raised in the Straits Times Forum pages, is the quality of leadership it is likely to throw up. What calibre of political leaders are we sifting for if they need such a big safety net before committing themselves to public service?
As a post-'65er, am I looking to a future generation of leaders who cannot measure up to those my parents and I grew up with?
I do not recall Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew needing an assurance of electoral victory before he plunged into politics, sacrificing a lucrative law practice for an uncertain political world where one's very life might have been threatened.
And didn't SM Goh risk a successful career in Neptune Orient Lines to take on a single-seat constituency when he made his debut in Singapore politics in 1976?
# Two, GRCs are state institutions which should not be confused with, and used for, party political needs.
The PAP's difficulty in recruiting talent remains, at the end of the day, a PAP problem. Sure, the PAP is the governing party and forms the Government. But a distinction must still be drawn.
As former senior civil servant Ngiam Tong Dow said in his new book, A Mandarin And The Making Of Public Policy: 'I think our leaders have to accept that Singapore is larger than the PAP.'
The implication of blurring the lines between state and party is that state instruments could be continually manipulated for a party's - any party's - agenda.
GRCs were introduced neither to assure candidates of victory nor aid party recruitment. They were also not meant to tie in better with the community development councils (CDCs), which was a reason given in 1996 for bumping up the size of GRCs from a maximum of four members to the current six.
The GRC was meant to ensure minority representation. Return it to its original intent.
Most Singaporeans are aware that GRCs do have the effect of aiding the PAP's electoral performance, but given that the PAP is still delivering the goods, I believe many view it as an acceptable trade-off, especially if it is also to protect the country's commitment to multiracialism.
But if the additional reason now offered is that it is to ensure easier victories and, by extension, easier recruitment for a particular party, then a relook of the GRC is timely. It is no longer the deal Singaporeans signed up for.
The crux of the problem now lies with its size.
Mr Goh's comments suggest the current system, where GRCs are five- and six-member wards, assures new PAP candidates a good chance of winning. In other words, such jumbo GRCs risk making the ruling party too comfortable in the bid for seats.
And with the one-minority-per-GRC rule still unchanged, larger GRCs also mean that the constitutional safeguard for minority MPs has been diluted compared to when GRCs had just three members.
All things being equal, the Constitution now ensures minority representation need only be one-sixth per GRC, down from one-third in the past.
Why not go back to the original size of three-member GRCs?
It will guarantee minority representation at the level originally intended and shrink the giant coat-tails of the anchors and veterans, giving new PAP candidates a better chance to prove themselves as leaders.
What about the assurance of victory?
Well, that was never the aim of the GRC. But if there is any consolation, a three-man GRC still operates as a team, ensuring that rookies are not left on their own.
If that's still not good enough, then perhaps those candidates wary of contest should just stay in their current careers. Politics may not be their cup of tea.
Maybe you can point out an article in TOC that you thought was groundbreaking and unprecedented for being critical of the PAP. Here is an easy benchmark by the son of an ex PAP who was critical of the PAP when he first came aboard and has moved away since.
July 7, 2006
Time to go back to three-member GRCs?
By Peh Shing Huei
SO, IT is true.
Group representation constituencies (GRCs) are really vehicles that help ensure a smoother ride for the People's Action Party's new candidates.
Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong confirmed it last week. This easier passage, he said, allows the PAP to 'recruit younger and capable candidates with the potential to become ministers'.
He added: 'Without some assurance of a good chance of winning at least their first election, many able and successful young Singaporeans may not risk their careers to join politics.
'Why should they when they are on the way up in the civil service, the SAF, and in the professions or the corporate world?'
This is a departure from the justifications hitherto given for GRCs, that they are needed to guarantee minority representation in Parliament and maintain quality as they compel the opposition to attempt to produce a slate of better candidates.
Now, another equation has been suggested. GRCs plus new candidates equals easier electoral passage for PAP candidates, equals easier recruitment for the PAP.
The formula is troubling for two reasons.
# One, which has been raised in the Straits Times Forum pages, is the quality of leadership it is likely to throw up. What calibre of political leaders are we sifting for if they need such a big safety net before committing themselves to public service?
As a post-'65er, am I looking to a future generation of leaders who cannot measure up to those my parents and I grew up with?
I do not recall Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew needing an assurance of electoral victory before he plunged into politics, sacrificing a lucrative law practice for an uncertain political world where one's very life might have been threatened.
And didn't SM Goh risk a successful career in Neptune Orient Lines to take on a single-seat constituency when he made his debut in Singapore politics in 1976?
# Two, GRCs are state institutions which should not be confused with, and used for, party political needs.
The PAP's difficulty in recruiting talent remains, at the end of the day, a PAP problem. Sure, the PAP is the governing party and forms the Government. But a distinction must still be drawn.
As former senior civil servant Ngiam Tong Dow said in his new book, A Mandarin And The Making Of Public Policy: 'I think our leaders have to accept that Singapore is larger than the PAP.'
The implication of blurring the lines between state and party is that state instruments could be continually manipulated for a party's - any party's - agenda.
GRCs were introduced neither to assure candidates of victory nor aid party recruitment. They were also not meant to tie in better with the community development councils (CDCs), which was a reason given in 1996 for bumping up the size of GRCs from a maximum of four members to the current six.
The GRC was meant to ensure minority representation. Return it to its original intent.
Most Singaporeans are aware that GRCs do have the effect of aiding the PAP's electoral performance, but given that the PAP is still delivering the goods, I believe many view it as an acceptable trade-off, especially if it is also to protect the country's commitment to multiracialism.
But if the additional reason now offered is that it is to ensure easier victories and, by extension, easier recruitment for a particular party, then a relook of the GRC is timely. It is no longer the deal Singaporeans signed up for.
The crux of the problem now lies with its size.
Mr Goh's comments suggest the current system, where GRCs are five- and six-member wards, assures new PAP candidates a good chance of winning. In other words, such jumbo GRCs risk making the ruling party too comfortable in the bid for seats.
And with the one-minority-per-GRC rule still unchanged, larger GRCs also mean that the constitutional safeguard for minority MPs has been diluted compared to when GRCs had just three members.
All things being equal, the Constitution now ensures minority representation need only be one-sixth per GRC, down from one-third in the past.
Why not go back to the original size of three-member GRCs?
It will guarantee minority representation at the level originally intended and shrink the giant coat-tails of the anchors and veterans, giving new PAP candidates a better chance to prove themselves as leaders.
What about the assurance of victory?
Well, that was never the aim of the GRC. But if there is any consolation, a three-man GRC still operates as a team, ensuring that rookies are not left on their own.
If that's still not good enough, then perhaps those candidates wary of contest should just stay in their current careers. Politics may not be their cup of tea.
scroobal,
even your good 'pal' robox appears to be quite active in TOC of late
even your good 'pal' robox appears to be quite active in TOC of late
Missed him. Wonder what he is up to.
scroobal,
even your good 'pal' robox appears to be quite active in TOC of late
Similar threads
