- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Messages
- 33,627
- Points
- 0
<TABLE class=msgtable cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="96%"><TBODY><TR><TD class=msg vAlign=top><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgbfr1 width="1%"> </TD><TD><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR class=msghead vAlign=top><TD class=msgF width="1%" noWrap align=right>From: </TD><TD class=msgFname width="68%" noWrap>kojakbt89 <NOBR></NOBR> </TD><TD class=msgDate width="30%" noWrap align=right>1:46 am </TD></TR><TR class=msghead><TD class=msgT height=20 width="1%" noWrap align=right>To: </TD><TD class=msgTname width="68%" noWrap>ALL <NOBR></NOBR></TD><TD class=msgNum noWrap align=right> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgleft rowSpan=4 width="1%"> </TD><TD class=wintiny noWrap align=right>27755.1 </TD></TR><TR><TD height=8></TD></TR><TR><TD class=msgtxt>YPAP resorts to use of police and media to silent online critics over the “Eric How” fiasco
January 27, 2010 by admin
Filed under Opinion
Leave a comment
http://www.temasekreview.com/2010/01/27/ypap-resorts-to-use-of-police-and-media-to-crack-down-on-online-critics/
OPINION
The writing has been on the wall for quite sometime now. For the past few weeks, the YPAP has been mired in controversies over insensitive remarks made by its members on the YPAP Facebook, first by Sear Hock Rong and then by a “Eric How” who sparked massive outrage by his most callous remarks on netizens.
Unable to win over its detractors by superior logic and reasoning and feeling overwhelmed by the relentless brickbats hurled at them, the YPAP resorts to a familiar modus operandi used perennially by its senior members to fix and cripple their political opponents by using the police to instill fear in their critics and the media to demonize them.
The bitter truth is: the YPAP is fast losing support among young Singaporeans, especially the online community and what better way to reclaim lost support by playing the sympathy card and portraying themselves as hapless victims of a smear campaign orchestrated by their critics to bring them down.
The controversy was sparked way back last year when a YPAP leader and moderator of its Facebook Sear Hock Rong leaked confidential information about an online critic of the PAP and used it to attack his character, not quite unlike the typical character assassination sprees employed by the PAP on its detractors.
When it was subsequently revealed that there may exist a potential conflict of interest between Sear’s business dealings with Eunos grassroots organizations where he is (still) currently serving in, YPAP members rallied to his defence.
One of them, a “Eric How” posted some disparaging remarks about netizens on the YPAP Facebook on 1 January 2010 which sparked a massive outcry in cyberspace.
For the entire two weeks or so, the mainstream media chose to keep mum on the matter until last Friday when Lianhe Wanbao dropped a bombshell – that a “Eric How” from YPAP had made a police report over somebody “impersonating” him on Facebook. He later revealed on his Facebook that its was YPAP Chairman Teo Ser Luck who asked him to make the report.
This was followed by a full page article on The Straits Times with another “Eric How” whose uncle is a prominent grassroots leader in Kampung Kembangan Constituency making another police report.
As expected, the state media tried to portray the two PAP “Eric Hows” as a victim of an online conspiracy to discredit the PAP and pin the blame on the new media for spreading unfounded rumors about its members.
Coincidentally, the YPAP issued an official statement on its Facbook on the same day distancing themselves from the remarks which seems to suggest that the move has been planned and orchestrated well beforehand together with the media and police reports.
YPAP Chairman Teo Ser Luck and Vice Chairman Zaqy Mohamad jumped onto the bandwagon and tried to cast aspersions on the credibility of the new media.
The Temasek Review, which has been covering the story was singled out for propagating “misinformation”. The Straits Times further tried to smear our name by claiming that we posted a snapshot of the victim’s Facebook which was subsequently deleted.
This had never occurred – all along we posted only the snapshots of comments made by the “Eric How” on the YPAP Facebook as we are well aware how petty, vindictive and arrogant these YPAP members are from our previous dealings with them.
The YPAP must have thought that by bringing the police into the picture, it will stop tongues from wagging and deter the new media from continuing to speculate on the identity of “Eric How”.
It proved to be a wrong move which backfired dramatically on them. Instead of winning support from the netizens, it sparked off another round of criticisms against the “childish” behavior of the two PAP members.
Such impersonations are pretty common occurrences in cyberspace. Besides, there is no evidence to suggest so as the “Eric How” responsible for the remarks has a different avatar and Facebook ID from the Eric How who made the first police report.
It is not unusual to find two persons with the same name and surname in Singapore. All the two “Eric Hows” need to do is to issue an official statement on their Facebook to clarify that they were not the ones who posted the offensive remarks on the YPAP Facebook which will suffice.
There is absolutely no need to go to the police and blow the matter up in the media. To complicate matters, both appeared to have the tacit support of YPAP to do so which betrays their utter lack of understanding of how the new media works.
In the first place, it is improbable that the police will bother to investigate the matter and the entire saga is now looking like a “wayang” staged to extricate the YPAP from a difficult situation.
Unfortunately, the negative publicity enshrouding the YPAP did not disappear with the police reports. Many netizens are now questioning if the “Eric How” who made the comments is an impostor at all.
Some even speculated that it was the real “Eric How” from YPAP all along and the “impersonation” story was cooked up to limit the damage the fallout as the public backlash is storm-balling and it will be extremely embarrassing for YPAP to backtrack now and ask Eric How to apologize when its members had been lending support to him initially.
Caught in a no man’s land, the only way out is to throw a smoke-bomb to divert public attention, pin the blame on netizens for circulating unconfirmed rumors and to frighten online critics of the PAP into silence.
One PAP supporter posted a comment immediately on our site trying to intimidate us by saying that he hopes “we will offer our full assistance to the police” which we obliged by putting up a $300 reward for anybody with information pertaining to Eric How.
Ever since, one of the “Eric How” who lived in a HDB flat has been playing the “victim” to win the sympathy of netizens. Though he claimed he wished to “close the episode and move on”, he had been using all sorts of dirty tricks to implicate us including suggesting that we have cropped the avatar of the “Eric How” making the disparaging remarks on 1 January 2010 which we demolished immediately. He has yet to retract his statement and apologized to us as requested of him.
The “Eric How” fracas is turning out to be a PR disaster for the YPAP and a nightmare for Teo Ser Luck and Zaqy Mohamad who had demonstrated their ignorance of the new media for the whole of Singapore to see.
While the identity of “Eric How” remains a mystery, the fact is that – other YPAP members such as Sear Hock Rong, Edgar Khieu and Genesis Shen have been equally guilty of name-callings on the YPAP Facebook.
From the protracted flame war between the YPAP and the rest of Singapore’s blogosphere, we have witnessed a plethora of dirty underhanded tactics being used by the YPAP to “fix” their online critics – character assassination, flaming, banning, and making police reports – they have indeed learnt fast from their senior members.
Do YPAP members think that just because they belong to the ruling party, the Singapore police will take “extra care” of them? Isn’t this an abuse of precious public resources? Somemore it was a YPAP leader Teo Ser Luck who asked Eric How to make the police report in the first place when there are far superior means to resolve the matter.
The Singapore police should be spending more time on the two cases of molest and loanshark harassment which were highlighted here lately. Or if they really have nothing better to do, investigate the SBS “hijack” case and charge the PRC couple and family for creating public nuisance and disorder.
The next time YPAP members want to make a police report again, please heed the advice of your most esteemed Foreign Minister George Yeo:
“Please go and see your MP”
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
January 27, 2010 by admin
Filed under Opinion
Leave a comment
http://www.temasekreview.com/2010/01/27/ypap-resorts-to-use-of-police-and-media-to-crack-down-on-online-critics/
OPINION
The writing has been on the wall for quite sometime now. For the past few weeks, the YPAP has been mired in controversies over insensitive remarks made by its members on the YPAP Facebook, first by Sear Hock Rong and then by a “Eric How” who sparked massive outrage by his most callous remarks on netizens.
Unable to win over its detractors by superior logic and reasoning and feeling overwhelmed by the relentless brickbats hurled at them, the YPAP resorts to a familiar modus operandi used perennially by its senior members to fix and cripple their political opponents by using the police to instill fear in their critics and the media to demonize them.
The bitter truth is: the YPAP is fast losing support among young Singaporeans, especially the online community and what better way to reclaim lost support by playing the sympathy card and portraying themselves as hapless victims of a smear campaign orchestrated by their critics to bring them down.
The controversy was sparked way back last year when a YPAP leader and moderator of its Facebook Sear Hock Rong leaked confidential information about an online critic of the PAP and used it to attack his character, not quite unlike the typical character assassination sprees employed by the PAP on its detractors.
When it was subsequently revealed that there may exist a potential conflict of interest between Sear’s business dealings with Eunos grassroots organizations where he is (still) currently serving in, YPAP members rallied to his defence.
One of them, a “Eric How” posted some disparaging remarks about netizens on the YPAP Facebook on 1 January 2010 which sparked a massive outcry in cyberspace.
For the entire two weeks or so, the mainstream media chose to keep mum on the matter until last Friday when Lianhe Wanbao dropped a bombshell – that a “Eric How” from YPAP had made a police report over somebody “impersonating” him on Facebook. He later revealed on his Facebook that its was YPAP Chairman Teo Ser Luck who asked him to make the report.
This was followed by a full page article on The Straits Times with another “Eric How” whose uncle is a prominent grassroots leader in Kampung Kembangan Constituency making another police report.
As expected, the state media tried to portray the two PAP “Eric Hows” as a victim of an online conspiracy to discredit the PAP and pin the blame on the new media for spreading unfounded rumors about its members.
Coincidentally, the YPAP issued an official statement on its Facbook on the same day distancing themselves from the remarks which seems to suggest that the move has been planned and orchestrated well beforehand together with the media and police reports.
YPAP Chairman Teo Ser Luck and Vice Chairman Zaqy Mohamad jumped onto the bandwagon and tried to cast aspersions on the credibility of the new media.
The Temasek Review, which has been covering the story was singled out for propagating “misinformation”. The Straits Times further tried to smear our name by claiming that we posted a snapshot of the victim’s Facebook which was subsequently deleted.
This had never occurred – all along we posted only the snapshots of comments made by the “Eric How” on the YPAP Facebook as we are well aware how petty, vindictive and arrogant these YPAP members are from our previous dealings with them.
The YPAP must have thought that by bringing the police into the picture, it will stop tongues from wagging and deter the new media from continuing to speculate on the identity of “Eric How”.
It proved to be a wrong move which backfired dramatically on them. Instead of winning support from the netizens, it sparked off another round of criticisms against the “childish” behavior of the two PAP members.
Such impersonations are pretty common occurrences in cyberspace. Besides, there is no evidence to suggest so as the “Eric How” responsible for the remarks has a different avatar and Facebook ID from the Eric How who made the first police report.
It is not unusual to find two persons with the same name and surname in Singapore. All the two “Eric Hows” need to do is to issue an official statement on their Facebook to clarify that they were not the ones who posted the offensive remarks on the YPAP Facebook which will suffice.
There is absolutely no need to go to the police and blow the matter up in the media. To complicate matters, both appeared to have the tacit support of YPAP to do so which betrays their utter lack of understanding of how the new media works.
In the first place, it is improbable that the police will bother to investigate the matter and the entire saga is now looking like a “wayang” staged to extricate the YPAP from a difficult situation.
Unfortunately, the negative publicity enshrouding the YPAP did not disappear with the police reports. Many netizens are now questioning if the “Eric How” who made the comments is an impostor at all.
Some even speculated that it was the real “Eric How” from YPAP all along and the “impersonation” story was cooked up to limit the damage the fallout as the public backlash is storm-balling and it will be extremely embarrassing for YPAP to backtrack now and ask Eric How to apologize when its members had been lending support to him initially.
Caught in a no man’s land, the only way out is to throw a smoke-bomb to divert public attention, pin the blame on netizens for circulating unconfirmed rumors and to frighten online critics of the PAP into silence.
One PAP supporter posted a comment immediately on our site trying to intimidate us by saying that he hopes “we will offer our full assistance to the police” which we obliged by putting up a $300 reward for anybody with information pertaining to Eric How.
Ever since, one of the “Eric How” who lived in a HDB flat has been playing the “victim” to win the sympathy of netizens. Though he claimed he wished to “close the episode and move on”, he had been using all sorts of dirty tricks to implicate us including suggesting that we have cropped the avatar of the “Eric How” making the disparaging remarks on 1 January 2010 which we demolished immediately. He has yet to retract his statement and apologized to us as requested of him.
The “Eric How” fracas is turning out to be a PR disaster for the YPAP and a nightmare for Teo Ser Luck and Zaqy Mohamad who had demonstrated their ignorance of the new media for the whole of Singapore to see.
While the identity of “Eric How” remains a mystery, the fact is that – other YPAP members such as Sear Hock Rong, Edgar Khieu and Genesis Shen have been equally guilty of name-callings on the YPAP Facebook.
From the protracted flame war between the YPAP and the rest of Singapore’s blogosphere, we have witnessed a plethora of dirty underhanded tactics being used by the YPAP to “fix” their online critics – character assassination, flaming, banning, and making police reports – they have indeed learnt fast from their senior members.
Do YPAP members think that just because they belong to the ruling party, the Singapore police will take “extra care” of them? Isn’t this an abuse of precious public resources? Somemore it was a YPAP leader Teo Ser Luck who asked Eric How to make the police report in the first place when there are far superior means to resolve the matter.
The Singapore police should be spending more time on the two cases of molest and loanshark harassment which were highlighted here lately. Or if they really have nothing better to do, investigate the SBS “hijack” case and charge the PRC couple and family for creating public nuisance and disorder.
The next time YPAP members want to make a police report again, please heed the advice of your most esteemed Foreign Minister George Yeo:
“Please go and see your MP”
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
