The Andy Ho Article

Sunday, August 06, 2006

The Andy Ho Article

I'm still on blogging hiatus/study break, so I won't write much. Just a note about the Andy Ho article of August 02 (not sure what else to call it; so far all the options I've considered seem rude). Some choice excerpts [emphases mine]:

"Some ask if bloggers are journalists at all or merely self-indulgent, opinionated folks expressing their views."

A cheap tactic which writers employ to sell their views with supposed objectivity is to say "some ask...", or "some say...", or "some worry...", and so on and so forth. It is a useful linguistic device when expressing a general and popular opinion that is widely believed and accepted to be held. It is also almost always a lazy way of going about things if it is used in isolation, with no supporting evidence. But it is definitely an irresponsible and poorly-used device when used to express the opinion of the writer that has not been voiced nor validated by the general public. When Ho says "some ask if bloggers are...merely self-indulgent, opinionated folks expressing their views" I wonder who he's been speaking to. I have a feeling he's been having long conversations with the mirror, the fruits of which he sees fit to publish in a national newspaper in what resembles, I must say, a self-indulgent and opinionated manner.

"Most bloggers, on the other hand, do not generally report on something new. Typically, they report on what reporters have reported. [Note: is that a tongue-twister or what?]
Thus, at best, they are 'meta-reporters'. Yes, in stories like a 9/11, or the July 7 London bombings, where there are crowds, citizens armed with always-on wireless connections, powerful yet inexpensive mobile digital devices as well as easy-to-use, free Internet publishing tools, citizens in many countries can do first-person, grassroots reporting."

9/11...July London bombings...wait, there's something he missed out. Something reporters were present at but didn't see fit to report extensively about...something bloggers reported on that reporters didn't...wait, It's coming to me...AH THAT'S RIGHT! It's this!

Annoying. But what's even more annoying is that Ho ends his article with the judgment that the government should view bloggers the same way it views the mainstream media. In other words, he is asking for them to be kept in line by the government.

I have an excellent opinion of many Straits Times journalists and staff, but once in a a while I read something like this that makes me want to tear my hair out. It confounds my mind to think that a journalist might actually want to be subject to top-down censorship from the government. Then again, maybe that's the safest kind of mentality that will make you into the Senior Writer that Ho is.

Some of my friends who have decided that their futures don't rest in Singapore have told me plainly they feel no reason to stay and fight for people who don't see the value of democracy or increased accountability. I generally protest the view that Singaporeans don't want more checks and balances. These people make my case somewhat harder to prove. Another one: Lionel de Souza, Private Investigator and ex-policeman. Now, I have nothing personal against this man. It's just that his numerous (numerous!) letters to the ST Forum verge on being unconsciously satirical in their adoration for the establishment -- give it a Google search, he's written on entrapment, anonymous bloggers, the Gomez case, seeing Lee Hsien Loong at his son's NS enlistment, and so on. I think he should get his own blog. He'd be a big hit and a sound contribution to the dialectic.

Posted at 05:05 pm by gaylegoh


	whybegay August 12, 2006 02:06 AM PDT I'm actually appalled you mentioned the torment went beyond teenagers, but to adults? If its some middle-aged auntie or uncle, then they are probably the class-consciousness type of people accusing others of acting like caucasians in order to be treated similarly well. The accusers in their pursuit of more "class", probably felt "left behind" when more abled "competitors" like you appear that may threaten them or their children's attainment of more "class", whatever they think it could be. So if you were put off by their snide remarks and attitude, they have successfully warded off the "competitors", keeping themselves and their children away from tougher "competition" in the country. Cheap mind tactics. Sad but true. Some people really don't get what class is about because they have so little to begin with and are so busy going after. If you are so put off by this, don't mix with such people.


	john riemann soong August 12, 2006 12:48 AM PDT well actually beyond ACS, although how you made such an inference surprises me. I never really got the "rojak language" argument. In fact, I never really understood language purists at all. Technically the ST is grammatically correct (generally) so it's not an issue. But colourless green ideas sleep furiously, you know.


	observer August 11, 2006 08:00 PM PDT Andy was ordered by the brotherhood to write that article. There was a need to placate the gahmen after the brown debacle to assure them, bloggers are an inconsequential lot - nothing to lose sleep over - the brotherhood is good at disinformation - they think they can control everything in the net - look at the way they threatened brown and miyagi, what arrogance. The brotherhood has been living in fear of a gahmen inspired clamp down for years.


	whybegay August 10, 2006 03:32 PM PDT whybegay: but you see, those who remain end up being slammed for "acting ang moh", especially if they have returned from overseas. The slammers being from ACS, where breeding of elitism breeds singular mindsets of intolerance? Enough said. The Straits Times does not use standard english, but Singaporean rojak/salad non-native english. Its good enough to put off foreign readers. Enough said.


	john riemann soong August 10, 2006 10:03 AM PDT whybegay: but you see, those who remain end up being slammed for "acting ang moh", especially if they have returned from overseas. Also, some say that the proper term can be considered to be called "weasel words", a usage generally noted whenver one overuses the passive voice, as well as the use of non-specific persons. It is sometimes thought to be very subversive, and is often generally overlooked, unless one has an active writing role such as being a Wikipedia editor. Some consider it a danger, and others consider it a further irony whenever a journalist uses weasel words, because journalists are generally taught to look out for them. (it's a lot harder to use weasel words in French, because the ability to use the passive voice is crippled; it is also grammatically incorrect if key grammatical articles are omitted, where otherwise such omissions in English would be okay. Still, there's the nifty phrase "on dit"....)


	Grassroots Problem August 9, 2006 03:54 PM PDT Sorry, interrupt a bit, I think this is important because of the symbolism behind it. ======================= http://forums.hardwarezone.com/forumdisplay.php?f=17 Old Chinese Saying:"There cannot be two tigers in the same mountain" We must have at least some proper rules and laws to govern the Grassroots situation. This incident have badly expose the systems in Grassroots are not going well and certainly not apolitical. If all the CCCs (Citizen Consultatve Committee) in Singapore have power and rights to construct infrastructure in a constituency without approval or cooperation from relevant Town Councils and access to such funds meant for the constituency, then it creates alot of tensions and confusion among the community who is the rightful authority and who makes final decisions. If CCCs in PAP wards can cooperate and take instructions from PAP Town Councils, why can't the CCCs in Hougang and Potong Pasir do the same for administrative and financial efficiency? I think laws should be in place to ensure CCCs and CIPC funds be govern by the respective town councils. Ensure Advisor to the CCC is the same MP of the constituency. This applies to any political party in charge of the area. This is to prevent a repeat of this situation in future. We must allow the official authority who is the MP of the area to do his job properly because he was elected under the Constitution of Singapore. I mean if our PM Lee Hsien Loong can complain that he cannot do a proper job if there are 10-20 Opposition in Parliament because of distraction and competition, then the same applies to MPs Chiam see Tong and Low Thia Khiang. How do you expect both MPs to do their jobs properly if grassroots funds are withheld from them and grassroots organisations keep on opposing their Town Councils just base on the reason of that the heads are from different political parties? This also prevents duplication and confusion of authority. Sitoh with CCC/RC backing behaves equally as Chiam See Tong even though Sitoh is only an non-official advisor. Everything he does is non-official. We cannot allow such situation whereby both have equal authority, everybody must know their own place in a hierarchy.The Town Councils are the rightful and official authorities and must have the final say in everything and not non-official organisations like CCCs and Sitoh. Imagine if we have an official PM and non-official PM. Singapore will be confused. Furthermore, we cannot allow non-official candidates to go around building expensive/cheap infrastructure in the area but when he lose the election, simply give up responsibility of the infrastructure he built. It sets a bad precedent. Can you imagine if WP go around building infrastructure in PAP wards in non-election time out of goodwill but abandons maintenance of it after losing election? There will be a mess of infrastructure hardware and waste of money all over Singapore because of no proper coordination. What Sitoh did is like abandoning an unwed mother after making her pregnant. Yes, Sitoh may be leaving Potong Pasir for a GRC in next election but at least do a proper handover to the official and rightful authority of the constituency before he goes . That is at least his responsibility. Everyone who has a job and leaves knows this rule. If Mah Bow Tan says all under the Potong Pasir is Chiam's responsibility, please legislate grassroots organisations to be politically free and responsible only to the elected MP and Town Council for at least the 5 years. Grassroots should always remain constant despite any changes at MP level. Either CCCs close down or Sitoh and Eric Low handover control of grassroots organisations and the grassroots funds to the official MP to concentrate all the funds and resources under one official and rightful authority. CCC/ RC funds come from taxpayer's money and not PAP coffers. There is no reason why CCCs should consistently pick PAP candidates as Advisors despite not being an MP of the area. Grassroots should serve the community of the area and not any political party. Only when the grassroots situation improves, then we can see peace and avoid a repeat of this situation. Residents of the area will benefit. Play politics only during elections and not before and after elections.


	whybegay August 9, 2006 03:50 PM PDT "Some of my friends who have decided that their futures don't rest in Singapore have told me plainly they feel no reason to stay and fight for people who don't see the value of democracy or increased accountability." Not just to "fight" for democratic freedom or for less room for corruption of the government. Gayle, are your friends only interested in political affairs and being adamant to the other areas where they can contribute to the welfare of the people? Because Singapore very much depends on its people to survive. If your friends leave, that is totally forsaking the sustaining base of the people they could have wanted to help in the first place. I choose to stay on in Singapore even though of all the "negatives" because I recognise the presence of the many good youths in Singapore who could very much benefit from their older peers' experiences and rich knowledge. But your friends are just abandoning Singapore to live their dream lives overseas. I can't help but view your friends as escapists who are too weak to stay on and continue to do anything for the welfare of others. I am in doubt whether they have the courage and calibre to actually fight for anything in the first place. From the way I see it, your friends are just using their views of political deadstops as excuses to leave and abandon Singapore and their countrymen to lead their carefree dream lives in foreign lands. They have got to give more valid reasons for leaving than just the stuffy political weather. If they are leaving not only because of political constraints, don't use that as a sole excuse for leaving because it just makes them seem childish and immature("I don't want to friend Singapore already").


	LCC August 8, 2006 10:05 PM PDT Being a blogger who mostly blogs about serious issues and topics myself, I understand the offence that Mr. Andy Ho caused when he, in effect, argued that local bloggers are "merely self-indulgent, opinionated folks expressing their views". However, having said that, I must concede that his arguments, while offensive, are not totally invalid. I say this because while I recognise that there are indeed local bloggers who offer their matured and well-considered analysis & opinions on important current affairs, I also recognise that these bloggers do not make up the norm here in Singapore. Speaking from personal experience, it remains an undeniable fact, sadly, that most local bloggers blog about mudane & trivial (no offense to them, of course) things e.g. details of their daily lives. In addition, while it is indeed true that there are local bloggers who are able to report about events and issues of interest which the mainstream media did not report on, it remains that most local bloggers (me, for example; though not uncritically) still rely on information from the mainstream media. And looking from your blog, it seems to me that you too rely on information reported by the local mainstream media. Anyway, in case you all have not noticed, Mr. Ho qualified his remark on how bloggers, in general, do not report on anything new through using the word "most" before the word "bloggers". Bearing this in mind, it seems to me that your example of "Yawning Bread" reporting of the high attendance rate of opposition parties rallies during the recent elections does not fully invalidate this remark of Mr. Ho. One blogger does not make up a majority, does it? Furthermore, while the local mainstream media may fail to provide us with full story (and with the "new media" filling in the gaps), it nonetheless has strengths and resources to tap on which local bloggers cannot. For example, governmental personalities and/or civil servants, at least for now, would most probably prefer to be interviewed by and appear in the mainstream media than in the "new media". I mean, can you all imagine PM Lee or MM Lee agreeing to be interviewed or appear on the Mr. Brown Show? Thus, my point is that while it is gravely mistaken for people to "mis-undersestimate" (a word "invented" President Bush which strangely makes sense to me) local bloggers, it would also be a mistake for us to overestimate them. I would also like to use this opportunity to comment how there is nothing wrong for people to have pro-establishment opinions and/or to adore the establishment. If everyone is anti-establishment, there wouldn't be any establishment to be against in the first place, right? Right or wrong, everyone are entitled to their opinion, aren't they? "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" -- Voltaire


	Name August 8, 2006 05:39 PM PDT Just watch him go down the drain like one of his predecessor. Years ago, there are was an excellent backside licker of a 'journalist' who wrote everything good about Singapore policies and sometimes lambasted Abangland. Guess where is he now? In a little corner of The Star in Johor Bahru, ranting and raving like a spurned cur about negativities of his former paymaster.


	Name August 8, 2006 05:39 PM PDT Just watch him go down the drain like one of his predecessor. Years ago, there are was an excellent backside licker of a 'journalist' who wrote everything good about Singapore policies and sometimes lambasted Abangland. Guess where is he now? In a little corner of The Star in Johor Bahru, ranting and raving like a spurned cur about negativities of his former paymaster.


	Matthew August 7, 2006 12:55 PM PDT There's another device he resorted to, which is setting up a false dichotomy. It works like this: proclaim that bloggers are either A or B; A is the extreme optimistic version which is very unlikely, B is the extreme pessimistic version which is entirely untrue, but dichotomous with A. Argue that bloggers are not A (easy) and then proclaim that "aha!" bloggers must be B. In this case, it's very dubious that he cast the agenda as bloggers are either (A) journalists or (B) self-indulgent, opinionated folks expressing their views. It is easy to argue that bloggers are not (A), but impossible to argue that bloggers are (B). Hence, he just cite examples of how bloggers are not (A), then jump to the conclusion that we're all self-indulgent and opinionated (B). Flimsy rethorical device aside, one has to question his logical faculty when he contrast an object [journalist] with an object [blogger]+ descriptive [self-indulgent] So let's use this device on its head: "Some people if Andy Ho is a female, or a sychophantic, self-righteous and irrational male. From his pictures in the papers and other evidence, Andy Ho is obviously not a female. Therefore, Andy Ho is a sychophantic, self-righteous and irrational mage. AND, should hanceforth be subjected to the scorn and disdain self-righteous scychophants deserves."


	Name August 7, 2006 01:08 AM PDT oops.. I mean Irene Ng.


	Name August 7, 2006 01:05 AM PDT Here's my conjecture ~ Andy Ho is a ST journalist-turned-PAP MP Irene Ho wannabe :>


	SPH August 7, 2006 12:29 AM PDT When PAP cannot control the internet, it will conduct a smear campaign to discredit internet. PAP discredits anything they cannot win. In the end, Singaporeans might really believe anything on internet is rubbish. It is their usual tactic. Will Singaporeans fall for it again? I am afraid so.


	chris chan August 6, 2006 11:21 PM PDT I have always found Andy Ho to be presumptuous and self righteous. He writes as if he is a subject matter expert. But he is just a journalist!


	whybegay August 6, 2006 10:08 PM PDT Yeah I have mostly seen rather than read the words of his articles. His writing fluency is akin to someone writing on a terrible hangover and then mass-edited by someone more sober. I feel this actually applies to many of the commentary writers in ST. You think they do not know the difference of written and spoken english. It makes you even think you can write much better than them. They also like to plagarise many of the good points from letters written to TODAY newspaper. An advice to them, please improve your english. Take some night classes at the British Council, listen to BBC radio, read more of the foreign press and also read through the Oxford dictionary from front to back for the vocab. Also, do play Sudoku mind exercises from time to time to get rid of the "hangover" and "constricted" feeling in the articles, because you guys write like the flow of Bangkok traffic jam, in a country where english is not the native language.

Leave a Comment:

Home

gayle goh

profile

Recommended Posts

Do We Owe Our Existence to the PAP?
A Message From a Media Insider
The Bilahari Kausikan Post
Bilahari Kausikan's Reply
Money in Politics, Politics in Money
Workers' Party, PAP or My Living Room Armchair?
My Vision for Singapore
Democracy is Dangerous!
Singapore's Midlife Crisis
Smile, Singapore! WB and IMF Meetings a Scam
Chees' Rally & March; Interview with Gandhi Ambalam

worthy reads
xenoboy sg
students' sketchpad
singabloodypore
singapore mind
young republic
i-do-not-speak

friends
kwee boon
brendan
ben teh
2sa3
gecko

shameless advertising
if you're looking for air compressors and ancillary parts (vane, rotary, screw, etc), my dad sells them! ;)

disclaimer
the author of this site has based all her personal opinions on what is known to her as fact. any error is made of ignorance, not malice, and is accordingly apologized for. any views and opinions expressed by other persons on this site are not the responsibility of the author, nor does she claim to espouse them.

Contact Me

If you want to be updated on this weblog Enter your email here: