Press Secretary of MICA response to Mr Brown article
-
I wonder what Neil (Humphreys) has to say about this...
Some people really need to loosen up. -
Dude... refer back to that link which you provided. Look at the year displayed next to the headline 'East Asia and Middle East have worst press freedom records'. It says '2004'. In other words, your facts are not up to date.Originally posted by Erwin_Rommel:Singapore now ranked 147th lahz! Even Somalia and Congo is ranked better than us...
http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=11715
First world govt?
The ranking which I quoted was the most current 2005 ranking:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporters_Without_Borders
You'll find Singapore at no.140 just below the Philippines.
To me either ranking of 140 or 147 sucks. What I'm saying is that you should get your facts current and updated before trying to put forth any points. -
feckin' 140th...
it's a feckin' disgrace...
oh well.. like the idiots in their ivory towers care..
alas -
0140 tml buy 4D
-
now if you'll read the second part of my reply to you above, I think you'll perhaps see the caveat to my position, and my view in it's entirety ... eh ? ....Originally posted by fudgester:The racist bloggers didn't bring down our rankings. It was the government's response to those bloggers that did. I am by no means condoning the actions of those bloggers (I'm Muslim, for your information), but I certainly object to them being dragged off to jail instead of being made to do community work or something. It brought about a very negative message here: 'If we don't like what you say, prepare to get it from us.'
And like Bear said, where the heck did Mr Brown say anything to do with race or religion? Unless if you could somehow show that criticism of the ruling party would eventually lead to racial and religious bigotry which would then lead to social strife. That, my dear, is an extremely large leap of logic which requires a massive suspension of disbelief. I'll gladly shut my claptrap and stop posting in this thread if you could somehow come up with a really convincing explanation which will not make me ROFLMAO.
And yes, I agree that freedom of speech requires that it be used responsibly. So now, pray tell, how does criticism of ruling party equate to irresponsible speech? If you feel that your leaders aren't doing things right, then isn't it your responsibility to be voicing out your concerns and opinions?
The ruling party itself asked for feedback and urged people to speak up. Yet now it seems that they can't even handle satirical criticism.
Who's the one being irresponsible here? Mr Brown for the points that he brought up, or the ruling party for forcing him to shut up?
.... -
Yes, I read your entire argument, including your caveat about how you believe that the ruling party is 'probably' over-reacting.Originally posted by Fatum:now if you'll read the second part of my reply to you above, I think you'll perhaps see the caveat to my position, and my view in it's entirety ... eh ? .... ....
I know a caveat when I see one, and thanks for pointing that out to me as well. However, it goes to show that you still hold on to the arguments you put across in the first part, albeit with some misgivings. The fact that you had referred to the ruling's party actions as only 'probably' over-reacting goes to show that whatever misgivings you had were just minor, that is to say, they probably didn't over-react as well.
So the way I see it, you still held strongly on to your initial arguments, and so I challenged them with counter-arguments of my own. -
If they're as bloody perfect as they claim, then why are they so afraid of words? Gives the impression that they have something to hide....
Despite having a whole lot of highly-paid scholarly officials, they can't even return with some professionalism (or at least some wit). Instead, they chose to just use totalitarian tactics to quash it all.
Just like old times....chip of the block..... -
What can we learn from the move?
That anyone who campaigns, champions or challenges them without solutions via the mass media will be axed?
Seems so.
I think to require common citizens to point out the problems and come out with the solutions, no one will bother to write in.
-
Originally posted by 84mmrr:
the progressive package was given to all singaporeans, not just the poor.
The Press Secretary critisied Mr Brown for his article "S'poreans are fed, up with progress!" that appeared on last Friday's TODAY. If you missed his article, here is the link:
http://www.todayonline.com/articles/127762.asp
MICA's Letter (in full)
Press Secretary to the Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts
Jul 3, 2006.
"Your mr brown column, "S'poreans are fed, up with progress!" (June 30) poured sarcasm on many issues, including the recent General Household Survey, price increases in electricity tariffs and taxi fares, our IT plans, the Progress Package and means testing for special school fees.
The results of the General Household Survey were only available after the General Election. But similar data from the Household Expenditure Survey had been published last year before the election.
There was no reason to suppress the information. It confirmed what we had told Singaporeans all along, that globalisation would stretch out incomes.
mr brown must also know that price increases in electricity tariffs and taxi fares are the inevitable result of higher oil prices.
[b]These were precisely the reasons for the Progress Package - to help
lower income Singaporeans cope with higher costs of living.
Our IT plans are critical to Singapore's competitive position and will improve the job chances of individual Singaporeans. It is wrong of mr brown to make light of them.
As for means testing for special school fees, we understand mr brown's disappointment as the father of an autistic child. However, with means testing, we can devote more resources to families who need more help.
mr brown's views on all these issues distort the truth. They are
polemics dressed up as analysis, blaming the Government for all that he is unhappy with. He offers no alternatives or solutions. His piece is calculated to encourage cynicism and despondency, which can only make things worse, not better, for those he professes to sympathise with.
mr brown is entitled to his views. But opinions which are widely
circulated in a regular column in a serious newspaper should meet
higher standards. Instead of a diatribe mr brown should offer
constructive criticism and alternatives. And he should come out from behind his pseudonym to defend his views openly.
It is not the role of journalists or newspapers in Singapore to
champion issues, or campaign for or against the Government. If a
columnist presents himself as a non-political observer, while
exploiting his access to the mass media to undermine the Government's standing with the electorate, then he is no longer a constructive critic, but a partisan player in politics."
[/b] -
Did I remember wrongly? I could've sworn I heard the current PM saying during one of his National Day rallies something like "now, you can talk about anything....except religion and race".
Then now, this has to happen. -
Just read the 140th times today to learn what are you supposed to do when you write to stomp.
You are to write about bee hive, ant nest, fallen tree, hot weather and neighbour's strange habit.
Please dun comment on the cost of living, policy implemented and price hikes.
Mee Pok Man should have know that it will come one day that he will be ask to leave as he is treading on dangerous waters where he do not know whether he live to write the next day. (Not even his own editor know) -
so does that mean she should pull her source down so as to appease those she may have jeapordized? security breeches happened all the time, who knows? she may have been an agent herself.Originally posted by Fatum:as an aside, Judith Millier knowingly committed an offence, by leaking a CIA agent's name, she not only jeapordized her life, but also the life and security of a whole string of others around her ... I think it's cowardly of her to hide behind the banner of "journalistic freedom" ... I think I've read enough of north american papers in the past few years to say that most of them doesn't care about anything except paper sales, and yes, papers here do take a stand too, after a while, you'll know which papers support which party from the editorial bent (and major shareholders) .... that sort of thing is not a pappy exclusive either ....
in short, in situation like these, it's common for government agencies to step up on damage control first followed by sharpening the sword. -
typical pap government response. discredit oppositions/dissenters till either they give up or flee overseas.Originally posted by FireIce:if they bother to write and publish an explanation, it means they inside the heart got ghost -
Originally posted by BillyBong:
oh boy.. this phrase seems to be the "in" things these days. i must have been hearing/reading it every other day.
During NS, we were taught that in fighting a war, there are [b]no bad soldiers, only bad leaders. Our ministers and high profile govt agency personnel might need one of those lessons right now, seeing as how they famously blame the masses for their mistakes. [/b]
-
and these are the ideas that I still hold ... and I believe very strongly that these are truisms about our society that everyone should be aware of and accept, they were in place for a reason, however, yes, I do recognize, as I have put through in my second part, that some of these measures are often used for political gains, the idea of GRCs is also a good example, and the list goes on. Was it deplorable for the pappies to use these as a pretext ? Yes it was, but that they were used as a political tools by the pappies does not invalidate them. Note also that i spoke about my ideas in general terms, and not as a response to any specific instances (mr brown). But it's interesting to note that people never note the existence of such columns in our national publications by people who are known political satirists (colin goh is another such chap, and I think I much prefer his stuff) in the first place. Anyone ever wondered about that ?Originally posted by fudgester:Yes, I read your entire argument, including your caveat about how you believe that the ruling party is 'probably' over-reacting.
I know a caveat when I see one, and thanks for pointing that out to me as well. However, it goes to show that you still hold on to the arguments you put across in the first part, albeit with some misgivings. The fact that you had referred to the ruling's party actions as only 'probably' over-reacting goes to show that whatever misgivings you had were just minor, that is to say, they probably didn't over-react as well.
So the way I see it, you still held strongly on to your initial arguments, and so I challenged them with counter-arguments of my own.
perhaps I am jaded, but I do not like to swallow wholesale everything constructed as an "ideal" from other countries. It is one thing to prevent cover ups of atrocities and massacres in some african hell hole, it's quite another to allow someone to incite another racial riot in Singapore just because of "freedom of speech". (Perhaps reporter sans frontieres haven't visited our little piece of cyber paradise that is speaker's corner ...:lol
Was I under-reacting ? ... i dunno, perhaps I come across as not being "virulent" enough for other people's tastes, but yeah, if you do know of someone being dragged away in the middle of the night and disappearing though (say, because of posting in this Public Forum), message me, and I'll go hold placards with you infront of parliament building ... -
note that her "sources" have also committed a federal felony by revealing official secrets, and the revealation probably came from someone within the CIA itself, you want to protect from justice some agent who has betray his or her oath of office, and the safety and security of his or her co-workers, and the security of her country, for "journalistic freedom" ? ... high principles or low ones, to me it's a no brainer.Originally posted by YI:so does that mean she should pull her source down so as to appease those she may have jeapordized? security breeches happened all the time, who knows? she may have been an agent herself.
in short, in situation like these, it's common for government agencies to step up on damage control first followed by sharpening the sword.
but of course, Judith Millier is a bad bad example, and so is American politics in general, if anyone read about the context of this case, the leak was apparently "ordered" from up high because the CIA's agent husband was on the wrong side of the political fence from the Texas cowboy, now who among them has the moral upper ground here ? ... to me, none ... -
ic.. what can anyone do should she admit the source to be from some top-level white house official? she is already not a journalist then. she is a government tool.. a full-fledged propagandist.Originally posted by Fatum:note that her "sources" have also committed a federal felony by revealing official secrets, and the revealation probably came from someone within the CIA itself, you want to protect from justice some agent who has betray his or her oath of office, and the safety and security of his or her co-workers, and the security of her country, for "journalistic freedom" ? ... high principles or low ones, to me it's a no brainer.
but of course, Judith Millier is a bad bad example, and so is American politics in general, if anyone read about the context of this case, the leak was apparently "ordered" from up high because the CIA's agent husband was on the wrong side of the political fence from the Texas cowboy, now who among them has the moral upper ground here ? ... to me, none ... -
I thought mr brown's article was some sort of satirical humour???? Why the over-reaction from the 'gabramen't?????
If this is the case, I see talkingc*ck.com closing down soon too.
And dont call the journalists/editors cowardly...they have to avoid writing abt controversial issues coz it's their rice bowl at stake.
It's easy for ppl to criticise journalists etc, but try being one and you'll know what I mean. -
Originally posted by Jerina:
talking c0ck is based in the us, that's why its still alive. if not earlier kena shut down by mica
I thought mr brown's article was some sort of satirical [b]humour???? Why the over-reaction from the 'gabramen't?????
If this is the case, I see talkingc*ck.com closing down soon too.
And dont call the journalists/editors cowardly...they have to avoid writing abt controversial issues coz it's their rice bowl at stake.
It's easy for ppl to criticise journalists etc, but try being one and you'll know what I mean.[/b] -
exactly ... that's why I'm cynical about journalists ... but that's fodder for another thread eh ...Originally posted by YI:ic.. what can anyone do should she admit the source to be from some top-level white house official? she is already not a journalist then. she is a government tool.. a full-fledged propagandist. -
They chose not to block it through the servers either...Originally posted by vito_corleone:talking c0ck is based in the us, that's why its still alive. if not earlier kena shut down by mica -
Govt is like that 1 ma
-
oh.. we don't drag anyone away in the middle of the night, we sue them, make them bankrupt and their life a living hell...
Correct me if i'm wrong, but i thought we can criticise "dem" and they are suppose to be the ones that think of solutions.. that's why we pay taxes right.. haha -
cause they've adopted a policy of "singapore-style glasnost"Originally posted by Kuali Baba:They chose not to block it through the servers either... talkingcock also a bit more "toned down" -
I have never believed that criticism is a privilege. It is our right and we should never forget that.Originally posted by Misogynist:oh.. we don't drag anyone away in the middle of the night, we sue them, make them bankrupt and their life a living hell...
Correct me if i'm wrong, but i thought we can criticise "dem" and they are suppose to be the ones that thing of solutions.. that's why we pay taxes right.. haha