TOC: Why report on Viswa Sadasivan’s speech was removed from TOC

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

for an in depth analysis on this fundamental issue facing singapore's political future i recommend the book below...for those looking for a quick fix i suggest reading garry rodan's contribution...Singapore "Exceptionalism"? Authoritarian Rule and State Transformation Garry Rodan

wwwarc.murdoch.edu.au/wp/wp131.pdf - Similar
by G Rodan - 2006 - Cited by 2 - Related articles [pdf file link]

www.allacademic.com/pages/p41833-11.php - Cached - Similar [unformatted document text link]

Political Transitions in Dominant Party Systems
Learning to Lose
Edited by Joseph Wong, Edward Friedman

ISBN: 978-0-415-46843-5
Binding: Hardback
Published by: Routledge
Publication Date: 15/10/2008
Pages: 320

Table of Contents
1. Learning to Lose: Dominant Parties, Dominant Party Systems, and Their Transitions Edward Friedman and Joseph Wong 2. Congress Learns to Lose: From a One-Party Dominant to a Multiparty System in India Susanne Hoeber Rudolph and Lloyd I. Rudolph 3. A House Divided Against Itself: The PRI’s Survival Strategy After Hegemony Frederico Estevez, Alberto Diaz-Cayeros and Beatriz Magaloni 4. Maintaining KMT Dominance: Party Adaptation in Authoritarian and Democratic Taiwan Joseph Wong 5. The Master is Gone, but does the House still Stand? The Fate of Single-Party Systems after the Defeat of Single Parties in West Africa Cedric Jourde 6. The Communist Exit in East Central Europe and Its Consequences Anna Grzymala-Busse 7. Learning to Lose’ is For Losers: The Japanese LDP’s Reform Struggle T.J. Pempel 8. Embracing Defeat: The KMT and the PRI after 2000 Tun-jen Cheng 9. Learning to Lose (and Sometimes Win): The Neocommunist Parties in Post Soviet Politics John Ishiyama 10. Defeat in Victory, Victory in Defeat: The Korean Conservatives in Democratic Consolidation Byung-Kook Kim 11. Learning to Lose, Learning to Win: Government and Opposition in South Africa’s Transition to Democracy Antoinette Handley, Christina Murray and Richard Simeon 12. Learning to Lose? Not if UMNO Can Help It Diane K. Mauzy and Shane J. Barter 13. Singapore "Exceptionalism"? Authoritarian Rule and State Transformation Garry Rodan 14. Why the Dominant Party in China Won’t Lose Edward Friedman 15. Dominant Parties and Democratization:Theory and Comparative Experience Laurence Whitehead

The notion that only somone within or close to PAP forming a 2nd party has been recurring in Intelligentsia for over 2 decades. I believe Porfiro is one such believer. A smiliar notion is that the 2nd party will only emerge from a division within PAP. All these are based that no quality opposition with critical mass will emerge as no part of the country's intelligentsia will be involved in opposition politics even if setting up a new party.

The only other hope is retirees who no longer need a link to the establishment is a possiblity. Its very clear that no business or corporate individual running his own company will be involved as there are major touch points with govt initiatives, GLCs etc that would be detrimental to their business.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Bro,

can you please provide some background info on both alex and khairul if possible?...uni, vocation etc..
.

Bro,

read these 3 articles on the same topic - first 2 by by Alex and one by TOC's Khairulanwar. .

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

hey thanks as always for the nuggets scroobal...

however let's be clear on this one...it is NCMP and not MP...still wayang...

In fact the 9 guaranteed opposition seats was considered a major unexpected concession by the young establishment turks..

apart from Viswa and that academic socio lady...the rest appear flaky even before opening their mouths...made worse by that arrogant PAP stooge Calvin...again still wayang...now if it was cherian george, catherine lim, chua beng huat or alex au perhaps i would be less cynical...

- the desire was to lift the game of NMPs ( but must be non-partisan) and allow them to move into real politics and in view of their past "responsible" background to provide responsible but alternative views. It was apparent that Intelligentsia wanted no part of opposition politics. .

uniquely singapore...from dr ng's point by point rebuttal it would appear that he may not have been in the loop as well assuming the scenario...no wonder PAP #1 bootlicker PI Lionel De Souza was sooo quiet on this one in ST/Today/TNP...he stuck to the MIW book and his outrage at the scantily clad getai gals instead:p...

- Viswa was most apt candidate having been feedback chairman and therefore had access to genuine and empirical concerns of the populace, hence the comprehensive laundry list. However parties are not prepared to state if it was implied and Viswa inferred (which I suspect is the case) or directly encouraged. Parties are also not prepared to state if it was officially sanctioned by party apparatus or driven by one or few well meaning chaps. What is clear is that old man had no clue and everyone including party were stunned. There is a definite blackout on further discussions on the well worn excuse of race sensitivities ( completely ignoring all other matters that were raised but not addressed). .

hence the rise of the likes of Tan Kin Lian and Leong Sze Hian???...bloody wayang again...

- this one came out of the blue. Don't be surprised that in view of the guaranteed 9 opposition seats for the next elections, a new and "politically" responsible independent candidate or candiates or political party emerges. Apparently, Singaporeans averse to risk is well known and high barriers twarting entering of "politically responsible" candidates is most unlikely and thus the recent changes. Like the Presidential Elections, candidates endorsed by the PAP and candidates not endorsed by the PAP but encouraged by the PAP like the Chua Kim Yeow affair is the scenario..

i still don't agree with Low's stance...whatever the scenario...

- this came out also out of the Blue. Looks like Low of WP guessed or had wind of the Viswa matter and thus his reaction. Its does make sense.

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear GMS and Scroobal

I believe the quote below from Oscar Wilde best sums up the forth estate. :_)). Alas I believe that your expectations of the TOC are way to high and thus prone more than ever to disappointment.

Alex bless his soul and his heart, is an articulate passionate writer born out of experience and inherent talent and pushes his own views fairly articulately and yes challenges robustly. His writings are in my view excellent Op / Ed pieces even as I disagree with them

I believe the TOC has always sort more to report then to have a strong OP/ED viewpoint and in reporting, the TOC has always I believe refreshingly report on issues less covered or less debated by the MSM. They have definitely been critical of certain government policies , and broadly sympathetic to the Opposition by giving them voice and coverage, but I believe you expect to much of a bunch of amateurs part timers, students etc to strongly challenge the government in the manner of Alex Au and Yawning Bread esp in politics and the fourth estate. Furthermore it is pretty clear that Alex in his writings is foremost an advocate for gay rights above all else. Money , time
etc are an issue facing all on line content providers especially part time versus full time. Wayang and Temasek if nothing is a tabloid joke, combination of a laugh a minute, not willing to risk or even put a human face.


Locke







In old days men had the rack. Now they have the press. That is an improvement certainly. But still it is very bad, and wrong, and demoralizing. Somebody — was it Burke? — called journalism the fourth estate. That was true at the time no doubt. But at the present moment it is the only estate. It has eaten up the other three. The Lords Temporal say nothing, the Lords Spiritual have nothing to say, and the House of Commons has nothing to say and says it. We are dominated by Journalism.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

v good points...

pappy's somewhat nuanced subtle cunning sophisticated techniques are diabolical...

for some analysis i recomend the book below again edited by Rodan...quite dated but still captures S'pore's basic status quo more or less...

Singapore
Imprint: Ashgate
Published: August 2001
ISBN: 978-0-7546-2106-5
BL Reference: 959.5'7'05
LoC Control No: 00-029983

Edited by Garry Rodan, Murdoch University, Australia
Series : The International Library of Social Change in Asia Pacific

Contents; The State and Institutional Development: Some aspects of role of state in Singapore, Mukul G. Asher; Economic globalization and policy choices: Singapore, M. Ramesh; Globalization, ethnicity and the nation-state: the case of Singapore, David Brown; The political economy of transnational corporations: a study of the regionalization of Singapore firms, Henry Wai-Chung Yeung; Bureaucratic rationality in an evolving developmental state: challenges to governance in Singapore, Gillian Koh; The rule of law and capitalism in east Asia, Kanishka Jayasuriya; The secular trumps the sacred: constitutional issues arising from Colin Chan v Public Prosecution, Thio Li-Ann. Social Transformations and Political Directions: Singapore: emerging tensions in the ''dictatorship of the middle class'' Garry Rodan; Singapore and the myth of the liberalizing middle class, David Martin Jones and David Brown; Loosening state control in Singapore: the emergence of local capital as a political force, Ian Chalmers; Arrested development: democratization in Singapore, Chua Beng-Huat; A communitarian critique of authoritarianism: the case of Singapore, Daniel A. Bell. Ideology and Culture: Singapore and the ''Asian values'' debate, Donald K. Emmerson; The internationalization of ideological conflict: Asia''s new significance, Garry Rodan; Understanding ''Asian values'' as a form of reactionary modernization, Kanishka Jayasuriya; Music and cultural politics: ideology and resistance in Singapore, Lily Kong; The construction of a national identity through the production of ritual and spectacle: an analysis of National day parades in Singapore, Lily Kong and Brenda Yeoh; World cities, globalization and the spread of consumerism: a view from Singapore, Chua Beng-Huat. Social Policy: Social security in Singapore: redrawing the public-private boundary, M. Ramesh; Framing the other: criminality, social exclusion and social engineering in developing Singapore, John Clammer; The spaces of coping: women and ''poverty'' in Singapore, Gillian M. Davidson; Women, the family and economic restructuring: the Singapore model?, Jean L. Pyle; Anti-Christian Chinese chauvinists and HDB upgrades: the 1997 Singapore general election, James Chin; Index.

Yes. The point and claim by the ruling PAP on TIC is that there is indeed an independent online media that it touches on politics with no restrictions. Most people however have little understanding journalism and their important role as the fourth estate.

If the govt states that Apples are coloured orange while Oranges are coloured Red which is outright false, Alex Au or any other reasonable person including you immediately state that it is false. TOC will state that Govt thinks that Apples are coloured orange and Oranges are coloured Red while WP has no position on it while SDP thinks that Apples are Red while Bananas are yellow. I suppose it called "neutral" and they have indeed stated facts. I am citing an extreme example but when politics is rather grey for most layman, TOC damage to democracy as it is literally a monopoly is immense. .

a balanced and fair take on Alex...i would also like to hear more from the likes of Cherian, young cantab ex ST journo now budding playwriter (what's his name), lee han shih(why did he suddenly disappear and what the hell is he now doing with the likes of gene simmons), tan pin pin etc...

Alex Au is really good at political anaysis and in seeking the truth and there is none better than him in Singapore. However he too has his flaws like all geuine human beings. For instance in this article on film cenesors he was wrong and bias. And thats human. He however has built credibility overtime and consistently and he is more right than wrong.

Overall he is the best thing that we have.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

224) Eric on September 1st, 2009 3.17 pm

Gemami (#219),

I completely agree with you about the NMP scheme. We are caught in a quandary – the NMP scheme bastardizes and ridicules the democratic process, but at the same time, it provides the avenue for (some) good men and women to enter the political arena without subjecting them through the unfair election system.

We won’t see the likes of Siew Kum Hong if the NMP scheme never materialized or that it suffered a stillborn in its inception.

And you’re spot-on when you say that we should give Mr. Sadasivan an opportunity to prove his cause and calibre, but we should constantly remind ourselves that the NMP scheme is an insidious strategy to deter Singaporeans from truly challenging the incumbent through elections.

And I agree with your assessment of the mainstream media. But I also want to stress that the journalists are not a monolithic whole too. Many have independent and critical minds, but unfortunately are constantly stone-walled. I recall back in the 2006 GE, I know journalist-friends who were called ugly names by incumbent leaders, accusing them as sympathizers of other political parties. There’s only so much you can push the envelop before you’re handed the pink slip. To some extent, I admire those who stay on to fight a good fight, or rather, slip in a slap or a karate chop once in a while.

How to change Singapore?

Singapore’s political landscape will only when the majority of the heartlanders feel it’s time to change. Right now, the incumbent still enjoys a stronghold at the grassroots.

Besides the two non-PAP MPs, my sensing is the political alternatives are not working the ground sufficiently. I’m not saying that’s their fault. Without the resources and manpower, it’s almost impossible to project one’s influence, to gather feedback, to extend assistance (and favors, depending how you see it) to engage and convince the heartlanders that they are a viable alternative to the incumbent.

If their engagement with Singaporeans remain in cyberspace or within the educated, little will shift in their favor. If their actions are limited to manifestos, nothing will change. Politics is all about resource mobilization, and you cannot mobilize support if you don’t get your hands dirty. Look at how Barack Obama made use of grassroot organizations, it’s a classic.

Singaporeans, being a pragmatic lot, also need to see concrete change, even if the change is only a minuscule improvement. But if the political alternatives are willing to get their hands dirty now, and I mean right now, and go deep in the trenches of our heartland, there’s a possibility that things may turn around. I believe Singaporeans are a reasonable lot. If they see continual effort and good intentions, they are more willing to place a bet.

Unless we want to be like Japan, to just wait for the incumbent to screw up big time, (way bigger than MSK or the current financial debacle), then things may shift towards the political alternatives. When that happens, it’s not because the political alternatives have become better, but because heartlanders are finally fed up. The danger will be, the political alternatives may still lack the calibre to govern the nation.

At that point, we’re truly screwed.

Sincerely,
Eric

 

[scroobal]

Will share this - Alex is highly regarded by academia, thinktanks and respectable NGOs, establishment or otherwise. He is sought in private and for public engagements for his accurate assessment of the political / social issues but not as a spin doctor or politician. However not on LGBT issues as he is too far partial on this. His greatest strength is that he does not prejudge anyone. The guy has gained helluva respect. He has to be careful though in not giving away the game at the next GE.

Bro,

can you please provide some background info on both alex and khairul if possible?...uni, vocation etc..
.
[/U][/B]

 

[scroobal]

Only 9 - if opposition gains 9 seats outright, no NCMP but if shortfall, filled by opposition candidates with highest votes.

however let's be clear on this one...it is NCMP and not MP...still wayang...

Might lend weight that its not approved by party appartus. Good point. By the way, no way in hell will Chua, George, Lim or Au will get in. Chua had a huge fight with HDB his previous employee on policies and left for academia. Solid bugger. WKS and old man has to die first after his tangle with parliamentary reporting and the knuckleduster is still out for Lim.

apart from Viswa and that academic socio lady...the rest appear flaky even before opening their mouths...made worse by that arrogant PAP stooge Calvin...again still wayang...now if it was cherian george, catherine lim, chua beng huat or alex au perhaps i would be less cynical...

Like I said before - SPH went to ground and this has never happened before. But do wait for Saturday and by then a suitable position might emerge or they might unleash the mother of all political dimwits - Paul Jacob.

uniquely singapore...from dr ng's point by point rebuttal it would appear that he may not have been in the loop as well assuming the scenario...no wonder PAP #1 bootlicker PI Lionel De Souza was sooo quiet on this one in ST/Today/TNP...he stuck to the MIW book and his outrage at the scantily clad getai gals instead:p..

.

Neither do I as it was highly irresponsible of him. He should not have looked at the messenger but the message and happily milk it to kingdom come.

i still don't agree with Low's stance...whatever the scenario...

 

[scroobal]

I tend to disagree with you about TOC being critical. If I say that a certain policy is not right, it does not mean that I am critical. In politics, one has to display a consistent pattern and be very clear and dogmatic on fundamental issues. I purposely selected the May article on NCMP changes to Parliament. Its is a critical and fundamental issue and look at their article. That was the litmus test and not only did they not pass it they actually did not take it.

I bet you that they have no stand on anything while SPH, Alex, you, me and the BBC has clear stands on certain fundamental issues. You will be hardpressed to state their stand on anything. Even Think Centre has a stand. So why the hell did a TOC writer think that TOC is anti-establishment.

The issue is lack of intellectual capacity in driving such initiatives as Think Centre and TOC. The fundamentals are not understood. You need really smart people to drive such matters. I know many tend to question the scholar program driving the civil service but the good part is that, it cannot sink too badly.

Agree with you on Alex. Note how crystal clear arguments are. I however suspect that he is poor judge of character and tends to be too trusting.

Dear GMS and Scroobal

I believe the quote below from Oscar Wilde best sums up the forth estate. :_)). Alas I believe that your expectations of the TOC are way to high and thus prone more than ever to disappointment.

Alex bless his soul and his heart, is an articulate passionate writer born out of experience and inherent talent and pushes his own views fairly articulately and yes challenges robustly. His writings are in my view excellent Op / Ed pieces even as I disagree with them

I believe the TOC has always sort more to report then to have a strong OP/ED viewpoint and in reporting, the TOC has always I believe refreshingly report on issues less covered or less debated by the MSM. They have definitely been critical of certain government policies , and broadly sympathetic to the Opposition by giving them voice and coverage, but I believe you expect to much of a bunch of amateurs part timers, students etc to strongly challenge the government in the manner of Alex Au and Yawning Bread esp in politics and the fourth estate. Furthermore it is pretty clear that Alex in his writings is foremost an advocate for gay rights above all else. Money , time
etc are an issue facing all on line content providers especially part time versus full time. Wayang and Temasek if nothing is a tabloid joke, combination of a laugh a minute, not willing to risk or even put a human face.


Locke







In old days men had the rack. Now they have the press. That is an improvement certainly. But still it is very bad, and wrong, and demoralizing. Somebody — was it Burke? — called journalism the fourth estate. That was true at the time no doubt. But at the present moment it is the only estate. It has eaten up the other three. The Lords Temporal say nothing, the Lords Spiritual have nothing to say, and the House of Commons has nothing to say and says it. We are dominated by Journalism.

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Scroo

I believe that on the particular issue of the expanded NCMP, whilst Alex was an OP/Ed, The TOC's piece was more reporting in nature. Many of the writers's personal viewpoints are I believe on the NCMP issue very close to that of Alex. However the reporting piece was neither here or there , because the basically the proposal caught the Opposition off guard and at sixes and sevens and they were neither here nor there to.

I believe that from the very start the TOC due to its volunteer roots started out more to REPORT then to do op/eds. It was probably the lowest hanging fruit on the Journalistic tree, in that light and looking at their articles, whilst they have been critical, they have stayed away from challenging the government, aka Round Table act Deux. The origins of that decision were again based on a realistic assessment as to their position youth etc on the totem pole and lack of resources for which they still suffer today.



Locke

 

[belowbelt]

Viswa gives me the impression that reports on his speeches are to be vetted by him before he agrees for them to be published. He is overly cautious. All he needs to do is refute whatever he doesn't agree with in the reports. Why resort to such control? Has the PAP culture been so ingrained into him?

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Dear Locke,

In Chinese, there is an idiom 指鹿为马 meaning "Calling a Stag a horse".

This idiom comes from a historical story of a Prime Minister who wanted to consolidate his power. He brought a stag to the Imperial court and pointed to it and said, "This is a Horse"。 The Emperor laughed and said, "You must have been fooled! How could you say a stag is a horse?"

The Prime Minister asked those court officials who were present then whether that is a horse or a stag. Those who said it is a horse are subsequently eliminated by the Prime Minister.

The point is this, reporting a fact does not equate to reporting a Truth. Fact may or may not be the Truth. If TOC or SPH is to report on this incident, it will just say, the Prime Minister brought an animal and claim that it is horse. The Emperor laughed and said it is a stag. The Prime Minister asked the other court officials whether it is a horse or a stag. Those who say it was a horse were all killed.

They have reported the FACT of the incident but WHAT IS THE OBVIOUS TRUTH? In my opinion, to take a stand like this one which is so fundamental, is not so "DEMANDING" at all for TOC.

Goh Meng Seng

Dear Scroo

I believe that on the particular issue of the expanded NCMP, whilst Alex was an OP/Ed, The TOC's piece was more reporting in nature. Many of the writers's personal viewpoints are I believe on the NCMP issue very close to that of Alex. However the reporting piece was neither here or there , because the basically the proposal caught the Opposition off guard and at sixes and sevens and they were neither here nor there to.

I believe that from the very start the TOC due to its volunteer roots started out more to REPORT then to do op/eds. It was probably the lowest hanging fruit on the Journalistic tree, in that light and looking at their articles, whilst they have been critical, they have stayed away from challenging the government, aka Round Table act Deux. The origins of that decision were again based on a realistic assessment as to their position youth etc on the totem pole and lack of resources for which they still suffer today.



Locke

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear GMS

I would be the last person to believe a Politician who espouses an "Obvious" or "Absolute" truth because more often than not it the truth coincides with his own personal beliefs and or political agenda especially from you my dear friend or even more so from a PAP politician :_))




Locke

 

[scroobal]

The point that I am making is this- TOC serves the PAP purpose and not that of the country. In the eyes of the ignorant layman - TOC is a "genuine anti-establishment" and operates freely with no fear and the Govt agrees. So why are there are complaints about freedom of speech.

I suppose you consider this critical .............
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2008/04/demonising-the-internet-–-and-bloggers/

5) Andrew Loh on April 29th, 2008 12.52 pm If you watch how the local press – and media – behaves, it is beyond a shadow of a doubt that they dance to the tune of the PAP govt.

On Saturday, Chua Lee Hoong had a piece urging everyone to move on.

On Sunday, Goh Chok Tong came out and said exactly the same thing.

This is the cue for the local press.

Stop all reports and write ups about the accountability issue.

And as if like magic, the local papers are suddenly absent of such articles. Quite an amazing thing to observe, really.

One other interesting thing:

It was SM Goh who came out to urge everyone to “move on”. No other minister said anything at all.

It was also MM Lee who first spoke about the Mas Selamat escape.

What does that tell you?

That PM Lee has lost the plot.

He spoke 11 days after MM Lee.

He needed SM Goh to gently tell everyone to “move on”.

I seriously think PM Lee has a leadership problem.


I suppose you know why SPH and Chua has not sued Andrew.

Dear Scroo
I believe that from the very start the TOC due to its volunteer roots started out more to REPORT then to do op/eds. It was probably the lowest hanging fruit on the Journalistic tree, in that light and looking at their articles, whilst they have been critical, they have stayed away from challenging the government, aka Round Table act Deux. The origins of that decision were again based on a realistic assessment as to their position youth etc on the totem pole and lack of resources for which they still suffer today.
Locke

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Dear GMS

I would be the last person to believe a Politician who espouses an "Obvious" or "Absolute" truth because more often than not it the truth coincides with his own personal beliefs and or political agenda especially from you my dear friend or even more so from a PAP politician :_))




Locke

Dear Locke,

That is not the point. The media is supposed to report to the masses, not merely "politicians".

Truth could well be elusive as ever when the issues are muddied with lots of assumptions and smoke bombs thrown in. Critical thinking is needed in journalism in such instances.

TOC, as I am aware, is supposedly modeled after the Korean Citizen Reporting website or closely similar to Malaysiankini. But as it develops, it is no longer what it has aspired to be. Independence does not mean merely reporting "FACTS" which could contain falsehood or some misinformation but it must includes "Truth" or "Truthful judgment". That's the point.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[Perspective]

The point is this, reporting a fact does not equate to reporting a Truth. Fact may or may not be the Truth.

They have reported the FACT of the incident but WHAT IS THE OBVIOUS TRUTH? In my opinion, to take a stand like this one which is so fundamental, is not so "DEMANDING" at all for TOC.

Most thesauruses would place the word "truth" with the word "fact". Unless it is going to be the "global definition is naive" argument again. I'll take it that it means "reporting on information " versus "objective analysis".

 

[Perspective]

I think what Scroo is saying is that TOC offers "reporting" which I beg to differ slightly. It offers "critical reporting" or media slants as it is commonly known. But Alex Au would be "analysis" or "critical analysis".

End of the day, it is more debatable on whether something is a truth when one does not have the access to info. For eg a circle coin is circle and that is an accepted truth or fact. However, if no one has seen a coin before and those who have say it is circle, it would be a fact but people could express doubt. People would say "show me the coin" - according to Scroo that would be TOC's line. Alex Au would say it makes sense to be a circle and not a dart shape because people who have them in their pockets did not have their groins injured.

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear GMS

I hope we can differentiate between OP/ED and pure reporting. You seem to disagree with the TOC for not having a strong enough OP/ED position, fair enough , but I would disagree with that view based on their initial objectives and their still limited resources

As to the reporting, I believe they have been factual in covering the issues at hand. I also applaud them in covering factually events which the MSM will never cover and highlighting issues and opposition events which the MSM will only give two or three lines to. If that is all they CHOSE to do for the next three years and they do it well, I would say they HAVE done the correct thing in encouraging democratic development

Facts, Facts containing falsehoods, Truth and Truthful Judgement. Truth and truthful judgement is again relative and putty for an aspiring politician like you. You are just as ready to disagree with the TOC when its purported truth and purported truthful judgement disagrees with your world view. Fine by all means but lets leave that to the Op Ed battle but in reporting just report the facts as it is known to the best of one's knowledge at that time and not on what is suspected.





Locke

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Most thesauruses would place the word "truth" with the word "fact". Unless it is going to be the "global definition is naive" argument again. I'll take it that it means "reporting on information " versus "objective analysis".

If Truth is Fact, there shouldn't be the need for two words to talk about the same thing.

Someone is telling misinformation to another person. If you merely reported the "FACT", you will only be saying this guy tells that guy this and this. But you have never reported the "TRUTH" that he has bluffed that guy.

Similarly, if a ruling party change the electoral rules giving lots of explanation and excuses but the real intent is just to preserve its dominance politically, a media could just report the FACT that the ruling party has change the electoral rules and their reasons are A B C. But they are not reporting the "TRUTH" just by a little bit of critical thinking that the obvious reasons was for its own "self preservation".

I would have thought that you are very well verse in English and logical thinking but end up a word smith that would only follow the book.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Dear Locke,

Pure reporting cannot be solely done without a brain.

OP/ED may be pure opinion based but it doesn't mean that reporting itself should not have certain common sense judgment embedded.

It is not about "strong enough OP/ED position" but rather, as Scroobal has pointed out, even for such a fundamental points on democratic electoral system, TOC has not provided any angle at all. All reporting will have an angle or perspective. If you are going to just put up A says this, B says this and C says this as a reporting, that would be very silly, isn't it.

There are "relative Truth" but there are still absolute truth. For example, although Communist regimes like China still claims to believe in Democracy in their constitution but nobody in his right mind would put up this claim in their reporting, would they? I mean, nobody would put up, as CCP has democratic beliefs embedded in their constitution, China is a democratic country.

If common sense no longer make any sense in any reporting, no matter how much "FACTS" you have, you will be looking like a fool already.

BTW, technically speaking, PAP has been saying our MSM are reliable as they always report "FACTS"...well, no truth mentioned.

Goh Meng Seng

Dear GMS

I hope we can differentiate between OP/ED and pure reporting. You seem to disagree with the TOC for not having a strong enough OP/ED position, fair enough , but I would disagree with that view based on their initial objectives and their still limited resources

As to the reporting, I believe they have been factual in covering the issues at hand. I also applaud them in covering factually events which the MSM will never cover and highlighting issues and opposition events which the MSM will only give two or three lines to. If that is all they CHOSE to do for the next three years and they do it well, I would say they HAVE done the correct thing in encouraging democratic development

Facts, Facts containing falsehoods, Truth and Truthful Judgement. Truth and truthful judgement is again relative and putty for an aspiring politician like you. You are just as ready to disagree with the TOC when its purported truth and purported truthful judgement disagrees with your world view. Fine by all means but lets leave that to the Op Ed battle but in reporting just report the facts as it is known to the best of one's knowledge at that time and not on what is suspected.





Locke