Loading ...
Say NO to internet regulation in Singapore.
Daily SG: 11 Sep 2008
Posted by singaporedaily on September 11th, 2008
Singapore Biennale 2008 starts today! The event ends on 16 Nov 2008
Fixing the Opposition
- Gerald Giam: Police: Stop justifying the unjustifiable
- Simply Gab: Two Hats, Same Story
- Sgpolitics.net: Singapore’s political system should do more than evolve — it should undergo fundamental change
Foreign Workers Not Welcomed in Serangoon Gardens
- My sketchbook : As the urban planners debate on where to build the town…
Lee vs Chee
- Chia Ti Lik’s Blog: The Pincer Movement on Chee Siok Chin
Censorship and Pink Issues
- Sam’s thoughts: Bridging a transgender divide
Healthcare
- Angry Doctor: Pain in the neck
ERPains, Trains & Automobiles
- TOC: PTW: Union leader and MP and also board member of transport company?
Daily Discourse
- Singabloodypore: Singapore Slips to 4th In Asia Managers Pay Rankings
- theory.isthereason: Interview with ex-Singabloodypore writer: Jonathan Chong
Life, the universe and everything
- Moving Higher In Souped-up Heuristically Agon Moment: Yesterday’s Stone, Tomorrow’s Source of Knowledge & Power?
- Cooler Insights: Here’s What You Get for $50,000…
- Singapore Complain Hub: Seat belt good addition on bus…But…
- A L V I N O L O G Y: That’s my MacDonald?
- Majulah Singapura: Redi Star - The Station That Plays Your Music
Infoblogoramus
7 years ago today, 2 planes crashed into WTC. Lives were lost. George Bush segregated the world into 2 parts. The world was either with them or with the terrorists. He waged his War on Terror and more blood was shed. The perpetrator is still not caught. Sincerest regards to the families of the victims.
In retrospect, the Bush administration never did take up any responsibility. For 7 years, their fingers remain pointed at the terrorists. The terrorists were accountable, they said.
the B.
September 11th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Dear Brotherhood Press readers,
A post was made alleging many things, which really I dont really consider important.
Its here:
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2008/09/straits-times-denies-bloggers-right-of-reply/
Nevertheless it is here:pls circulate accordingly.
25) highly dissatisfied on September 11th, 2008 10.38 am
If TOC was indeed depicted as a clown by the ST. IMO the blogger 13 should bear some responsibility for this. Lets not forget the whole issue of community moderation just dropped off the radar as soon as AIMS shot down the idea. It just packed up and disappear with hardly a whimper!
What do you think that says about the blogger 13 and their resolve? Please dont tell me community moderation was just a side dish. The blogger 13 even went as far as to hold a forum in the URA building, where I attended. I recalled distinctly the formation of the consultative committee was their main point and till then they had not even specifically fleshed out the various points against S.33 along with other pointers.
Now it seems the blogger 13 is back in the news again. But they dont seem to understand while they have raced ahead to take issue with AIMS on other points. Most of us are still very confused as to what they are really trying to accomplish here. Most of us still have our brains stuck in the gear of community moderation. There was no article or even discussion to close of this entire matter. It was IMO very badly managed. So what do you think that says about the blogger 13? Dont they come across as clowns? Indecisive, fickle minded and ill prepared. To say that gives them a wishy washy impression is an understatement. So I dont think its not completely fair to blame the st for skewering the report.
SD,
While I agree with some of your points along with the whole issue of e-engagement. I dont really claim to understand why the brotherhood have consistently cut off every single attempt to connect with them.
I am not only talking about the MSM, but I have also noted this hurling or critical epithets is also widely done to suggest they dont see any value in connecting with others.
I have for instance asked myself some questions like why the brotherhood regularly points out faults but yet is so unwilling to share any of their solutions or counter proposal with others in detail.
Not only do they adopt this strategy of keeping information all to themselves. The whole idea of secret this or that is even propogated and encouraged. There have been many times when people have asked for information and that Darkness character has shouted. I want $.
Dont say I am making a general accusation. I noticed for example in your recent essay here
http://dotseng.wordpress.com/2008/09/05/the-cognitive-dissonance-that-lacks-aims-an-interview-with-the-asdf-part-2/
While nearly 24 points were raised! Bear in mind 24 separate points! It may be stacked up one on top of the other, but trust me, I counted them 24! Not a single specific solution! Every time it goes there. The term philosophy, ethos or whatever is skillfully inserted.
I like to believe this is because some of you may not know, but I do recall on plently of occasions when Darkness said things to the effect, lets hide information from them or lets keep them dumb. Or let them chase their own tails.
In this light, is it so surprising cheong yip seng described the net as a place that suffered from terminal and unhealthy cynicism?
The brotherhood should work with AIMS and others. Instead of hiding in darkness.
26) singaporedaddy on Your comment is awaiting moderation. September 11th, 2008 7.10 pm Good evening Highly dissatisfied
Let us all remind ourselves we all have our new e-engagement party hats tightly screwed on – but this does not give you license to make wide sweeping unsubstantiated allegations concerning the brotherhood.
I am going to pretend I didn’t see your outburst on this occasion. As I believe, you may simply be under a false misapprehension and hopefully I am in the position to set the record straight.
But if it happens again, I will not hesitate to issue you a terse yellow and if necessary red card to foreclose on how serious I regard your infraction.
Do we understand each other “highly dissatisfied?” Good.
First, let me address the issues you raised in reverse (as I find myself having to extricate the salient from so many of your baseless accusations) how true is Cheong Yip Seng’s statement when he says the net is a very “cynical” place? Well as far as truths go, it’s hard to fault that statement, but what does that really bring to the whole discussion of e-engagement and driving ‘change’ in our net?
The short answer is - A big fat nothing, as the sum total of what Mr Cheong mentioned was really like saying there are sand dunes in the Sahara and the color of the waters in the Bosporus straits is closer to cay than the paraffin blue of the Atlantic – this I believe underscores the problem Vollariane (the director general of the ASDF) highlighted so brilliantly in the comatose inducing interview you linked; there is a need for a holistic philosophy to effectively scale and manage this whole idea of ‘change.’
It’s conceivable this may even require us to ask further; what accounts for this unmitigated level of cynicism in the first place in the net? Did Mr Cheong and his associates even bother to ask? What are the drivers and causal links? Tell me what happens when one political party is denied the right to ride bikes in the park; while another is allowed to do the same, only this time, the only difference lies in the procedural process and not the content presented to the public? I don’t think, I even need to elaborate further on this historicism. Each of us can dip our hands into the net and draw out our smelly fishes to do very much the same to draw out endless cases of contradictions.
To paraphrase, he is saying AIMS needs to address the root causes of this disaffected divided and not merely continue to affirm the need to engage for the sake of engagement sake alone. He doesnt even believe that is a good enough reason to premise change.
In other words, Vollariane is stressing the need for what he calls an all encompassing strategy for change in the form of a governing philosophy. Please note he even considers this a strategic precondition and if you read very carefully it’s nothing less than a stricture he even goes on to recommend AIMS should do absolutely NOTHING i.e recommend no changes to even the films act etc till they first hammer out a comprehensive philosophy accounting for why change should be instated and how it should be perpetuated. As without it real and meaningful change would be impossible – in other words, he believes all these negotiations i.e whether S.33 should or should not be repealed etc is really like quibbling over the color of wall paper in the ball room two minutes after the Titanic has struck the iceberg – in his opinion, its irrelevant, spurious and worthless.
Here I need to emphasize Vollariane is not even advocating a principle such as promoting the idea of freedom of speech like the blogger 13. The difference between philosophy and principles is the latter are merely control features very much like a steering wheel that allows one to transverse from A-B-C to D etc. A principle may also supply a brief rationale along with it.
A philosophy on the other hand is the means that allows you to bench mark that progress from A-B-C by providing a set of metrics and key performance indicators so that if necessary you may even conduct a trade off analysis, why is this important? Because Vollariane and his team believes to effect change on this Byzantine scale there is no harm to put in place plenty of feed back loops as its even conceivable many of these initiatives need to be coordinated at an intra executive level.
With due respect to AIMS – though they spent 103 pages writing all sorts of things, what remains stupefying to any casual reader Madam is how the report didn’t even consider it relevant to spend one sentence expanding on the root causes for why there may even be a cognitive dissonance between netizens and govt; it seems the whole conversation just picks up and runs from that point onwards. In the view of the director general of the ASDF that’s a serious omission.
Why am I highlighting the salient of the excerpt that you linked in your comment? To show you conclusively that they, the brotherhood do not hide information – here we have the clearest indication of a not only a road map, along with case studies, SWOT analysis along with a guiding philosophy how change may even be perpetuated.
As you can very well see for yourself what I have just highlighted above is inconsistent to this so called attitude of keeping everything under wraps as what you described as a symptomatic and even a trifle comic condition that characterizes how they (the brotherhood) may interact with others in the net.
Good evening
SD
September 11th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
I have been informed the diplomatic corps of the brotherhood - will touch base with the Algerian blogging community in the virtual @ 0740 GMT tmr - prepare for an intellution link (whatever that means)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eIKwHJPnHo
September 11th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
“Asalam Maliakhum,
Yaw see syee al haq qua mudahiyihen. Al sahalam haq al hulayahadayein.
Wah kaladiha - al se di wallehudiyin.
Shalam.
[This message originates from the diplomatic corps of the brotherhood - they will be docking on the Qatari space station - Al Khemoni @ 1300 hr.
Long live the brotherhood!
We come in the name of peace.
end”
Y2K
September 12th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
Err. So who would you blame for the 9/11 attacks if not the terrorists?
September 16th, 2008 at 11:52 am
Erm.. I meant that no one was fired for the 9/11 attacks
January 10th, 2009 at 9:07 pm
hi
e3neoy539nr3qxz9
good luck