Mr Brown's supporters protest in mrt station!
-
of course, he is paid as a columnist.Originally posted by Manager433:I just wonder, does TNP pay Brown for his work ( writing )? -
With typical precision and coordination, local reporters probe Dr Lee on the brown incident and he of course, obliges with a severe reprimand over the usual jazz....'distorted truths', how it will 'wrongly influence' the mindset of singaporeans etc and how the govt would be irresponsible if it failed to respond.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:In the Straits Times today, 13 July:
SINGAPOREANS will lose confidence in the Government if it does not rebut distorted views expressed in the mainstream media, said Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts Lee Boon Yang.
Dr Lee was responding to media queries yesterday about the Government's reaction to the mr brown column in MediaCorp's Today newspaper.
Full-time writer and blogger Lee Kin Mun, who writes under the monicker mr brown, commented on June 30 that hikes on taxi fares and electricity tariffs had come after the General Election and at a time when a government survey showed a widening income gap in the country.
The Minister's press secretary K. Bhavani issued a strong res- ponse which was also carried in Today. Last Friday, the freesheet's editors decided to suspend Mr Lee's column, drawing sharp criticism from bloggers and netizens.
Dr Lee said Mr Lee has made 'very unfair, unjustified comments' on key government policies and strategies as well as 'unfounded allegations' in the mass media.
'Should we just remain quiet, let it pass and treat it as just humour, laugh about it and forget about it?'
He stressed that the Government is 'duty bound' to set the record straight or these distortions 'will make it more difficult for the Government to rally Singaporeans for national objectives'.
At the end of the day, it is the ordinary folks who will suffer, he added.
In responding to Mr Lee's comments, he said the Government was merely exercising its right of reply.
If Mr Lee had posted his comments on his blog, it would be treated as 'part of the Internet chatter'.
'We understand that there will be certain elements of humour, sarcasm and cynicism expressed on the Internet and we just let it be. It is not our intention to chase after every single posting,' he added.
But the crux of the matter is that Mr Lee's comments were carried in the mainstream media, which the Government expects to be responsible, accurate and objective in its reporting.
'They must adopt the model that they're part of the nation- building effort rather than going out and purveying views that will mislead people, confuse people, which will in fact undermine our national strategy,' said Dr Lee.
It even went on to split hairs, giving the hypocritical claim that had brown published the article in his blog instead of TODAY, no action would have been taken against him.
Bah Humbug. Dour crap from our MICA head.
If a statement is wrong in principle, you respond, whether it was released in a blog or in print. There should be no discrimination between the internet or newspapers.
The only difference is: the govt has to ACT in closing his blog if they so chose and they would be OPENLY incriminated in such a destardly act. In this case, they have TODAY readily scalped as the scapegoat, thereby innocently feigning ignorance.
Once again, the govt shames itself for being the big playground bully, with it's instrument of response - TODAY editorial board, or hum ji kings, who have strong-armed a popular columnist into publishing exile.
I sure wish more people would sit up and take notice of these laughable acts by our petty and 'infallible' govt. -
Hum-ji is the word.
Anecdotal evidence usually show that playground bullies are less well-off than the class punching bag in society. -
i agree it is a typical case of trying to bully him into submission.
-
The foreign press already laugh at our government how they can say one thing n do another thing so differently from what they said.Originally posted by FireIce:lets wait for foreign press to laff at us
-
Hmm... what will happen if my friends and I were to wear a brown T-shirt with a picture of a white elephant while eating peanuts in an MRT station?
-
You are not allowed to eat in the mrt station.Originally posted by fudgester:Hmm... what will happen if my friends and I were to wear a brown T-shirt with a picture of a white elephant while eating peanuts in an MRT station? 
-
Ok then...Originally posted by ditzy:You are not allowed to eat in the mrt station.
What if the brown T-shirts had images of white elephants eating peanuts? -
What LHL said:
In his inauguration speech on 12 August 2004 as Prime Minister, Mr Lee Hsien Loong's jested, “Ours must be an open and inclusive Singapore.” On the anniversary of his swearing-in, the Singapore Democrats launch this segment to track how Mr Lee intends to fulfill his vision. -
Well, we've seen how the word 'rebut' can have an alternate meaning.
I suppose the phrase 'open and inclusive' is widely open to interpretation as well.... -
White elephants don't eat peanuts!!!Originally posted by fudgester:Ok then...
What if the brown T-shirts had images of white elephants eating peanuts? -
Well, obviously they're good at word-play.
But I don't see what do they have to "fear"?
We cannot and daren't put up any kind of protest march or demonstration like in other countries, because most of us are committed in our lives, and what PUBLIC TRUST is there to undermine? Whether or not we trust them, ultimately they are ALWAYS the ruling party simply because any worthy opponents have been eradicated.
Not saying they haven't done any good for us and the development of our country, but all that we asked for was to be heard. We aren't going all out to champion policies they set, but are suggesting some amendments here and there along with the lowering of living costs.
Too much to ask for these????
I'm sure we're all educated and adult enough to take Mr Brown's satire as light reading material and not anything else.
I find that their abrupt reaction to Mr Brown's writings is just so oppressive and paranoid. -
Well, we were nicknamed nanny state for a reason.
-
The editor of TODAY should be suspended as well. He let the column get through.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:In the Straits Times today, 13 July:
SINGAPOREANS will lose confidence in the Government if it does not rebut distorted views expressed in the mainstream media, said Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts Lee Boon Yang.
Dr Lee was responding to media queries yesterday about the Government's reaction to the mr brown column in MediaCorp's Today newspaper.
Full-time writer and blogger Lee Kin Mun, who writes under the monicker mr brown, commented on June 30 that hikes on taxi fares and electricity tariffs had come after the General Election and at a time when a government survey showed a widening income gap in the country.
The Minister's press secretary K. Bhavani issued a strong res- ponse which was also carried in Today. Last Friday, the freesheet's editors decided to suspend Mr Lee's column, drawing sharp criticism from bloggers and netizens.
Dr Lee said Mr Lee has made 'very unfair, unjustified comments' on key government policies and strategies as well as 'unfounded allegations' in the mass media.
'Should we just remain quiet, let it pass and treat it as just humour, laugh about it and forget about it?'
He stressed that the Government is 'duty bound' to set the record straight or these distortions 'will make it more difficult for the Government to rally Singaporeans for national objectives'.
At the end of the day, it is the ordinary folks who will suffer, he added.
In responding to Mr Lee's comments, he said the Government was merely exercising its right of reply.
If Mr Lee had posted his comments on his blog, it would be treated as 'part of the Internet chatter'.
'We understand that there will be certain elements of humour, sarcasm and cynicism expressed on the Internet and we just let it be. It is not our intention to chase after every single posting,' he added.
But the crux of the matter is that Mr Lee's comments were carried in the mainstream media, which the Government expects to be responsible, accurate and objective in its reporting.
'They must adopt the model that they're part of the nation- building effort rather than going out and purveying views that will mislead people, confuse people, which will in fact undermine our national strategy,' said Dr Lee. -
They mean that living costs are high, isn't ACCURATE?
They mean that all these hikes and increments weren't after the elections?
Come on man, we don't need Mr Brown to point these obvious events out for us all to see. Without Brown's satire, EVERYBODY can see and notice all these changes after elections. Has anyone in the past, broke into a riot over all these increases?? Anyone dared to at all?
We all have eyes and minds of our own. -
I guess the papman is trying to pull the wool over the populations' eyes by trying to use the state controlled media to paint a rosy picture of our country as compared to other countries. Also, they are trying to make singaporeans more preoccupied with other other matters rather than the ever rising cost of living. Therefore, it irks them to find out that their efforts are being frustrated by one of their own state controlled media, "Today".Originally posted by ShutterBug:They mean that living costs are high, isn't ACCURATE?
They mean that all these hikes and increments weren't after the elections?
Common man, we don't need Mr Brown to point these obvious events out for us all to see.
We all have eyes and minds of our own.
The punitive action against Mr Brown is not so much a warning to us (or to a lesser extent), but rather to the reporters, columnists and others involved in the nation's propaganda machine. It drives home a strong reminder to those in the media who are they working for. -
In this case, that I can understand.Originally posted by SilverPal:I guess the papman is trying to pull the wool over the populations' eyes by trying to use the state controlled media to paint a rosy picture of our country as compared to other countries. Also, they are trying to make singaporeans more preoccupied with other other matters rather than the ever rising cost of living. Therefore, it irks them to find out that their efforts are being frustrated by one of their own state controlled media, "Today".
The punitive action against Mr Brown is not so much a warning to us (or to a lesser extent), but rather to the reporters, columnists and others involved in the nation's propaganda machine. It drives home a strong reminder to those in the media who are they working for.
It isn't that without Mr Brown we can't see what's going on... true or untrue, their actions always differ greatly from their words. -
Which is wrong, wrong and WRONG.Originally posted by SilverPal:I guess the papman is trying to pull the wool over the populations' eyes by trying to use the state controlled media to paint a rosy picture of our country as compared to other countries. Also, they are trying to make singaporeans more preoccupied with other other matters rather than the ever rising cost of living. Therefore, it irks them to find out that their efforts are being frustrated by one of their own state controlled media, "Today".
The punitive action against Mr Brown is not so much a warning to us (or to a lesser extent), but rather to the reporters, columnists and others involved in the nation's propaganda machine. It drives home a strong reminder to those in the media who are they working for.
what is journalism if you are strongly hinted and "encouraged" into one partisan view.
LBY's reply is similarly partisan in nature. -
I agree that it is wrong. But who in our political arena is willing to remove the security and comfort of having a self propelled propaganda machine?Originally posted by LazerLordz:Which is wrong, wrong and WRONG.
what is journalism if you are strongly hinted and "encouraged" into one partisan view.
LBY's reply is similarly partisan in nature.
Even if an opposition party wins sg over from the papman, will they take away the protection of the state controlled media after seeing it work against them so effectively? -
I believe so.Their manifesto is not about securing control first and foremost, it's about reform and strengthening the democratic institutions at the expense of executive power.Originally posted by SilverPal:I agree that it is wrong. But who in our political arena is willing to remove the security and comfort of having a self propelled propaganda machine?
Even if an opposition party wins sg over from the papman, will they take away the protection of the state controlled media after seeing it work against them so effectively?
But we'll have to wait and see.The PAP in 1959 was just like any "freedom and democracy" activist party..and look where we are in 2006. -
power to the people!
-
Money changes hearts......Originally posted by LazerLordz:I believe so.Their manifesto is not about securing control first and foremost, it's about reform and strengthening the democratic institutions at the expense of executive power.
But we'll have to wait and see.The PAP in 1959 was just like any "freedom and democracy" activist party..and look where we are in 2006. -
Originally posted by fudgester:
Rebut can be more correct if both sides debate based on their factual findings. It is always easy to have a panel of esteem judges to judge who is actually telling the truth and who is distorting the truth with the findings in a moot environment. However, this case is no longer so clear cut when involving the mass public. Definitely being a responsible government, the next course of action would have to rectify what is wrong and put it right, henceforth answerable to the public.
Ah I see... LBY's definition of 'rebutting' opposing views is shutting up the people who would come up with those opposing views.
Oh dear... I was a school debater once, and one of the first things I learnt was that to rebut an argument is to either provide facts that undermine the argument or to provide a counterargument with facts supporting the latter.
Typing 'define:rebut' in Google yields the following definition:
[b]
refute: overthrow by argument, evidence, or proof; "The speaker refuted his opponent's arguments"
refute: prove to be false or incorrect
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
There are several other similar definitions provided, all of them are in a similar vein. But I'll just focus on one for the sake of clarity.
So I suppose they're going to say that the Princeton definition of 'rebut' is wrong then? That to 'rebut' means to shut up the opposing side?
Truth be told, I am losing whatever remaining confidence I have in the Government from the way they're 'rebutting' Mr Brown.
[/b]
To be a truely administrative efficient government is not to fight fire all the time as the nation well being should be the topmost agenda. The establishment of the feedback department serve this purpose with officials ready to response to genuine public concerns and feedbacks. I am sure the last thing we want to see is our leaders performing firefighting stunt instead of solving fellow countrymen livelihood problem.