Just a Lil Note « i-speak

Tuesday, January 09, 2007

Just a Lil Note

There was no censorship on the BlogTV episode aired tonight despite the fact that we touched on some sensitive issues such as opposition parties and new media, the question of whether or not BG Yeo is simply reiterating the party manifesto on his blog, and whether or not we can trust politicians if they act one way in private and another in public. I hope this helps in some way to ease the paranoia people have about every single media release in Singapore. I think May 2006 brought out the ugliest in the mainstream media but it is not monolithic and there are some people who are certainly trying to push the envelope. The BlogTV crew, many journalists, etc. I've pretty much said my piece on the matter in the post before last, about meeting George Yeo. Just one thing -- a lot of people seem to be taking it as though I am insulting Mr. Wang or being judgmental about him. Nope. Never my intention. His post just set me articulating something I've thought for a very long time regarding the dynamic between blogosphere and mainstream media. I stumbled over a post by KTM a few minutes ago which interestingly touched on something very similar, also with reference to Mr. Wang's post. He says pretty much the same thing only better. Not so longwinded as I know I am :)

No doubt there will be a slew of comments going on about how this is tokenistic, I'm being fooled, blindsided, wool over my eyes, ignorant, or most commonly, naiive and publicity-seeking. All I can ask is that you first pause to think about what I'm saying and ask yourself -- what is our best chance of achieving some manner of progress and openness? Entrenching the divide between "Us" and "Them" in a form of self-censorship by typecasting the media in a certain light and shunning them altogether, or to select our opportunities and take them on, speaking where we may speak, believing in the validity of our opinions? By doing the former, we reify our helplessness -- we think of it as absolute, and hence act like it is absolute. This makes it absolute and is at the end of the day our worst enemy.

But hey, I'm done with this topic :) Just think about it. Now...time to move on.

Additional reading from bloggers that both agree and disagree:
Two Steps from Twilight (attacks my position quite vitriolically)
Kway Teow Man (is also disappointed at bloggers' preference not to engage)
Rambling Librarian (another blogger who declined a slot on the show, explaining his personal reasons - link was broken but is now fixed)

Posted at 11:36 pm by gaylegoh


	whynotgay February 4, 2007 04:23 PM PST The Great Devil is Everywhere When one uses one's real Identity to blog The Great Devil will send his little devils to destroy eliminate exterminate why be whybegay


	about brown February 3, 2007 11:30 PM PST I read a 2007 report by an international journalism organization (the one that ranked our media @ 146th) that mrbrown had received several warnings from the establishment.


	soothsayer January 21, 2007 08:44 PM PST Same thing happened to Brown, when the Great Devil came, he went all silent and there was a eiree silence...............


	anibodi January 20, 2007 08:26 PM PST Hi, Gayle, How are you? Are things alright with you?


	noTV January 18, 2007 10:58 AM PST The devil is busy trying to trick humans into selling organs for money instead of donating them for free. Don't think he is interested in TV appearances or discussing them right now.


	chimneysweeper January 18, 2007 10:32 AM PST Don't worry about the Devil. The Chimney Sweeper will sweep away all the sooth for you. Then you don't have to say anything any more, ok?


	soothsayer January 17, 2007 08:49 PM PST Didnt you read your Bible? You call the Great Devil and he will come. The Devil doesnt have horns, a tail or even a trident. The Devil is a very charismatic man who carries a cheap plastic briefcase and he knows alot of things, because he has been around for a very very long time. Why would anyone in their right mind summon the Devil?


	SunTzuWannabe January 17, 2007 07:58 PM PST Rules of Engagement No. 1 Do not engage opponent when playing field is not level. No. 2 Engage opponent on your own turf or familiar ground. No. 3 Still thinking...


	Tammy January 17, 2007 03:39 PM PST Why would darkness bambie bad boy ever come here?


	whybegay January 17, 2007 09:05 AM PST Tell him to get lost.


	observer January 16, 2007 10:04 PM PST Very soon the man called darkness will plonk himself on your blog. Then you will no choice but to listen to him.


	whybegay January 16, 2007 09:30 PM PST Oh my gosh gayle, you still play RPG games? Tick tock you know, life does not last forever. Quick join other individuals like me in the real world as soon as you find your way out of the Sherwood forest.


	aliens January 15, 2007 06:55 AM PST Greetings, Since Gayle has come back to the nest, the aliens decided to make a visit to see if all is well, just in case the martians get carried away. Hail Gayle, nice to know you are back in the blogosphere. Cosmos spokesalien.


	aliens January 15, 2007 06:55 AM PST Greetings, Since Gayle has come back to the nest, the aliens decided to make a visit to see if all is well, just in case the martians get carried away. Hail Gayle, nice to know you are back in the blogosphere. Cosmos spokesalien.


	gayle January 15, 2007 02:28 AM PST martians- But have you not met our Great Leader? And cloned him? Will he not now live forever? All our base are belong to you. Hail martians.


	KnowsNuts January 14, 2007 11:46 PM PST On one spectrum will be those who chose to agree for agreement sake. On another spectrum will be those who chose not to agree for disagreement sake. A third group will choose to agree to disagree. So, we have three main groups of people in society. Can all the three groups engage one another fruitfully? Nevertheless, there is another group, a very tiny weeny group, who will try to bring all the 3 main groups together. Will this tiny weeny group succeed? Mindsets are set. How to unset the set minds? A very tough uphill battle, which may never end, I think. However, it is in diversity that we can find beauty and opportunities to advance and progress. Variety is the spice of life, isn't it?


	martians January 14, 2007 08:14 PM PST We have arrived! Take us to your leader! We are looking for this shorty called Galye and this loud mouth called Wang, we want to conduct experiments on them. Alien nation spokes martian.


	Passer-by January 14, 2007 05:11 AM PST "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law," reminded the Policeman. "Say as little as possible. The more you say, the more ammunition you are giving the other party to use against you," reminded the Lawyer. "It is not how well you argued or how much you knowf. It is how well your audience receives you that counts," reminded the Politician.


	parsimonia January 14, 2007 04:22 AM PST WhyBeGay: I quote from you 'I can see two groups of people. Serious people who want change by letting known their views versus people who just want to exercise their debate and their ego. One should make the clear distinction which is which.' And I respond thus: Exactly. If you're that serious about being serious, then why not let yourself be known? Why not tell us your real name? Why not post your address and your picture? Just so that we know that you mean to be serious about political discussion. But are you up for it, dear whybegay? Or are you just a whinger masquerading as a know-all, who in turns masquerades as someone you so call, 'serious'? if you cannot post your real identity and have your views tied to your repute as a real person in real life, then what are you except a counterfeit calling the bluff on those who post anonymously like you do? What are you indeed, as is open for all to see, but a fraud? p.


	parsimonia January 14, 2007 04:12 AM PST perhaps whybegay is just one of those people whose confidence in his sexuality is just not strong enough to be a queer-hater! thus does he need to submit to his desire to perform... metaphorical fellatio! p.


	parsimonia January 14, 2007 04:10 AM PST well, if whybegay indeed is so enamoured of Gayle, then why all the need to pander to her and tell her just how close his views are to hers? why the need, indeed, if he so trusts gayle to be well-informed enough to think on her own? why the need, dear whybegay, to suck up? parsimonia


	parsimonia January 14, 2007 03:55 AM PST By the reasoning of WhyBeGay, unless he is able to enunciate the distinction between persons and reputation, in line with the justification behind laws protecting defamation, then obviously he doesn't really know that much about his so-called 'real life'. After all, it is real enough that persons can be sued for defamation and therefore if reputation, being re-presentation, ie. an image, cannot be understood as a function of modern societies with the tradition of modern law, which comes down from philosophy, then what can whybegay speak regarding the primacy of the 'real'? So whybegay: Tell me what you know about defamation laws and the reasoning behind defamation laws as well as 'metis' in line with strategic planning and analogical reasoning. ie. Define for me what is 'reputation' and then define for me what does the concept of 'metis' ensue and then tell me the links between strategic planning, philosophical reasoning, logic, debate, symbolism, re-presentations, analogical reasoning, philology, anthropology in relation to the difference between the Neanderthals and the Homo Sapiens with regards to the cognitive differences between the two species of humankind and the effects of that cognitive difference in relation to symbolic reasoning. If you cannot, then well, everyone shall see that you're nothing but a fraud that assumes intelligence and well-informed views without having any of such. Warmest Regards, Parsimonia


	parsimonia January 14, 2007 03:47 AM PST Dear WhyBeGay: If you deem to know so much about politics being 'real life', tell me what you know about the philological research on 'metis' and the contrast between metis and philosophical reasoning, which is as per what you termed 'debating skills'. And thereafter, tell me what you know about analogical reasoning alongside 'metis' and strategic planning. If you cannot, then you don't know what you're talking about. Warmest Regards, Parsimonia


	whybegay January 14, 2007 03:28 AM PST And gayle, one more VERY important point for you to think about carefully. There are people who talk about politics who care more about being right rather then WHAT IS actually RIGHT. They just like to ARGUE about political matters for the MERE sake of exercising their DEBATING skills rather than be concerned of what they want to achieve out of their views. Therefore such people are PRONE to TWIST views to suit their own agenda to be RIGHT. But talking about serious politics is NOT a debating exercise where the method of argument scores ones points like a GAME. In real-life politics, what matters is explaining what one thinks should be right, in the hope of REALLY improving the lives of the people of the country. I can see two groups of people. Serious people who want change by letting known their views versus people who just want to exercise their debate and their ego. One should make the clear distinction which is which. Politics is NEVER a debating game, it is REAL LIFE. So gayle, make your choice, whether you want to be with mere gamers/debators or to be with SERIOUS people who REALLY deal with REAL life.


	whybegay January 14, 2007 02:50 AM PST gayle, do you see the parallels between my views and yours? The barriers that come from a yet mature and civilised people prevents mature views from being accepted by immature citizens who allow their emotions to rule over them. In the blogosphere where people talk about politics, emotions and ego are not an option at all, they should never be seen. If there are signs of emotions and ego besides strong points, all I need to do is to target those weak areas and the points will all tumble down, along with the person. The person will fall down like humty dumpty, along with what he had to say in the first place. And the next time I see him, all I need is to push those weaknesses and he will be seen like a fool. But is it really my fault to target those weaknesses that others put up for display? No, never. Because in serious politics, any weakness can be targeted. If people allow their weaknesses to be targeted, it is of their own doing, not of the opposing party. Let me remind these bloggers that one cannot allow emotions nor ego to get in the way when one is seriously talking about politics. If people cannot handle emotions (I call them mind tactics actually), then they really are not suitable to venture into the political Arena. If ego is all such people care about, how much concern is left over for the concern of others? Concern yes, but emotions is never a word in the political dictionary. Gayle, only those who can stand up to storms and hurricanes can be unswayed in the political Arena. People with weak minds and wild emotional storms cannot survive the scrutiny in serious politics. In politics, there are no friends only allies, because one does not go into parliament house for a social gathering. So gayle, choose your allies carefully, and make sure they are are not easily broken down nor ego-centric, otherwise you and your views will be dragged down with them.


	Parsimonia January 13, 2007 11:36 PM PST Dear whybegay, Oh dearie me! Oh Darling, dear! Why what thou theories on homosexuality! Defend not, my friend! Cry not, my dear! Pray not, for Death will not save thee! Just answer one question of mine: 'Is Ethics, natural?' What right do you have to pronounce thine obsessions as The Right Truth as though you were God, ie. to pronounce what is Right and Naturale? Are you God? Will you not die? What is Death? Are you God? Will you not die? What is thy life for? Are you God? Will you not die? If it were to be persuaded that your diatribes against homosexuals are to be true, to be applied, to be valid, to be taken as the basis for policy, for opinons, for perspectives, for points of view... Pray tell, if thee must judge, then surely thee cannot enter the Heavens for thee not be a child; dost shalt not enter the Kingdom! And what good shalt your diatribes yield, except to the depths of Hell, of the Eternal Fire, if thee cannot be kind and loving to those all too different from you? For should it not be said, that if being good in temporal life is one's passport to Heaven, then it shalt follow that if thee would prefer Nature over Ethics, then thee cannot enter the Heavenly Kingdom! Warmest Regards, Parsimonia Apprentice Guild of the Wankers and Fellatios In the Land of Eternal Children Entirely based on Ethics; not natural-ness


	Passer-by January 13, 2007 06:52 PM PST Typical kiasu Singaporean who learns from the one who sues others in order to guard his reputation. In the end, landed up with more gossips behind his back, but not published in the papers or anywhere else. The more one tries to prevent others from talking bad about him, the more one will get it. To prevent others from talking behind one's back, why not go and hide in a cave up in a mountain in the Amazon jungle, where no other human beings exist. Even then, the animals, birds and insects may still "talk bad" about him. Then how? A dead person will hear no evil and see no evil, and do no evil, like Saddam Hussein. Name, Fame, Glory, Status, Title, Power and Wealth, with obedient servants and peasants surving ME, the BIG ME, the BIG EGOISTIC ME ...... How nice to have them all? Why? What for? Will one live forever? After one drops dead, what happened? Ignorance begets desire. Desire begets pride. Pride begets hatred. Hatred begets jealousy. Jealousy begets endless hurts, sorrows and sufferings. Meditate on ONE's OWN DEATH, and see what happens?


	sotrue January 13, 2007 05:55 PM PST If I would like to add, if it is really something serious, it will boil over. You will hear about it. If you don't get to know about, it is probably too insignificant for the masses to care to propagate.


	sotrue January 13, 2007 05:49 PM PST Let's put it this way. A man who is faultless will not be worried or bothered by whatever gossips behind his back because people have eyes, ears, brains to decide for themselves. Those who worry about reputation are likely worried that others will see the ugliness behind the pristine reputation they painstakingly have built. It is just a facade. Wasn't it one of our leaders who said if you are good, you will shine no matter what? You may think the names you call others are justified, but that's only your perspective. I'd say, judge not or you too will be judged. If you wish to know, I think you really are what I called you. I have articulated it only because you asked for it. How does it feel?


	whybegay January 13, 2007 04:31 PM PST sotrue, The gravity of the situation is this- My right of reply had to be discovered from gayle's link on her blog post as I was never made aware of the blog entry. I knew it a month from the day it was made. And even so, many assumption about my points made were already assumed. And what if I never knew of the blog entry? Then people can say things about me that cannot be verified. And yes, you have applied the term name-calling correctly in contrast to KTM's wrong application of the term used on me. And although what you said was not civil, the term civil is correctly used as in being unreasonable rather than simply being impolite. Also, I have not claimed my right of reply to the blog post, albeit I have clarified myself in this blog in order to demonstrate to gayle and her readers of how my points could so easily be misinterpreted without my full knowledge.


	sotrue January 13, 2007 03:21 PM PST whybegay, Aren't you claiming your right of reply here? What goes around your back on the blogosphere will eventually get to you, moron. Any falsehood will also be tried and tested, retard. Opps, sorry for the name-calling but I do learn from you sometimes :D


	whybegay January 13, 2007 10:48 AM PST gayle, let me show you something interesting that went on at http://fearfullyopinionated.blogspot.com/2006/12/can-rights-be-wrong.html Apparently, I came across the blog posting much, much later after the discussion as I saw the link made from your blog. People have actually been talking behind my back without me knowing they were talking behind my back! So there went my precious and institutional rightful right-of-reply that I have been denied of because I didn't know people were talking behind my back! They didn't even tell me of the discussion otherwise I could have explained what I meant. But I guess some people just want to deliberately make me seem like they have won a prize because they couldn't provide a reasonable reply to my discussions made elsewhere. Sigh. So now gayle, have you and your readers seen firsthand how my reputation in blogoshpere can be so easily denigrated by people talking behind my back and me not knowing that I had a right-of-reply to attend to? Luckily I'm not a public person otherwise my reputation could be ruined without me knowing how it was ruined! Gosh! My theories on homosexuality being a psychological problem could be threatened! If anyone wanted what I really meant in that blog posting I will state here. KTM said, Hate to say this, but name calling (think "lowly", "uncivilized" and "regressed criminals") is not particularly constructive to say the least. Chill. State the facts and build your arguments on them. THAT would be constructive. Then I said, Does anyone beside me recognise a direct contradiction? What happened to the so-called "THEIR RIGHT to say what they want in WHATEVER manner they wish to say it"? And lowly, uncivilised and regressed criminals are not name-calling, it is simply stating the behavioural appearances of people and stating the facts is the first thing to being constructive unlike assuming that one knows everything when one doesn't and then sugar-coating opinions that others have clearly recognised to be fictitious. KTM said, Hate to say this, but name calling (think "lowly", "uncivilized" and "regressed criminals")" This is not name-calling since the definition of name-calling by dictionary.com is, "the use of abusive names to belittle or humiliate another person in a political campaign, an argument, etc." The term name-calling can only be rightfully used to a specifically known person not to anonymous groups of people. Even so, saying that groups of people are "lowly", "uncivilized" and "regressed criminals" is not name-calling, it is merely stating an observable fact or an opinion. Taking the rightful definition of name-calling into rightful perspective, Therefore, what KTM said in, "Hate to say this, but name calling (think "lowly", "uncivilized" and "regressed criminals")", is actually a clear contradiction when he later said, "name calling is not particularly constructive to say the least. Chill. State the facts and build your arguments on them. THAT would be constructive." Then I replied, "Does anyone beside me recognise a direct contradiction? What happened to the so-called "THEIR RIGHT to say what they want in WHATEVER manner they wish to say it"? And lowly, uncivilised and regressed criminals are not name-calling, it is simply stating the behavioural appearances of people and stating the facts is the first thing to being constructive" Therefore the logical fallacies made by KTM were due to his incorrect definition of name-calling. Therefore he saying that what I said were not constructive(they were actually constructive in fact), was actually an error of a direct contradiction. Moving onto my second point. Then I said, "What happened to the so-called "THEIR RIGHT to say what they want in WHATEVER manner they wish to say it". I said this in reply to a statement made by KTM. He said, "State the facts and build your arguments on them. THAT would be constructive." If the KTM is really all out for free speech, then why the need to distinguish between what is constructive and non-constructive discourse? And why the need to tell me this irrelevent-point-of-view since KTM has proclaimed that he is a free-speech advocate? (even though I fail to see what the point of irrelevent information has anything to do with what I was saiding) And the rest of what they talked about in the blog posting has nothing to do with me, such as thinking that the word "civil" only has a single definition(my definition of civil is reasonable fyi) or that the "conundrum" they seemingly had, was something of a mysterious bonus prize they conjured up themselves in the free time they had instead of getting to know my point of view, because I did not know they were talking about what I said without my knowledge, because I did not receive my needed right-of-reply. Hello, can I have a contradiction, a point-of-irrelevent information, a large dictionary and a twisting conundrum for dessert but leave out the right-of-reply please! So gayle, have you seen first hand how people making "small" talk behind people's backs would have its negative consequences? Such as insulting my linguistic abilites, implying that I couldn't differentiate the simplr meaning of contradiction and conundrum, and assuming everything I say to be twisted into pretzels.


	whybegay January 13, 2007 09:02 AM PST Yeah HOU, you have got me there. Hypothetically, If I were really really invited onto blogtv, I would explain in detail why homosexuality is a real psychological problem and how the APA is being irresponsible by not acknowledging this clear fact and misinforming people to think otherwise. This is what I would do if I were hypothetically invited and to hypothetically accept the offer.


	Another BG January 13, 2007 04:53 AM PST If I am invited to the Blogtv, I would not hesitate to turn it down. Why? Because I would like to remain anonymous. Why? Because I don't want to be lured into the open and get whacked in the future. Why? Just in case I happened to cross someone else's path either carelessly or deliberately. Why? Because there is already enough facts to show that such whacking did happened, and happened just recently!


	Hou January 13, 2007 02:26 AM PST WBG : Let's be honest here. What would you do if YOU were the one to be invited for a BlogTV interview? Cheers, Hou.


	ohdearieme! January 11, 2007 09:55 PM PST From <http://www.eti.com.sg/n/test/ETI/layout/background.htm> Invested by EDBV Management Pte Ltd ("EDBVM") is a fund management company of the EDB Investments Pte Ltd ("EDBI"), which in turn, is the wholly-owned investment holding company of the Singapore Economic Development Board ("EDB").We have offices in Beijing and Singapore. Our partner network includes Europe, USA and Asia Pac. Segments posted of George Yeo's blogging experience in discussion with Bernard Leong and Gayle Goh are listed as: <http://www.eti.com.sg/blogtv/Video/episode12_segment1.wmv> <http://www.eti.com.sg/blogtv/Video/episode12_segment2.wmv> <http://www.eti.com.sg/blogtv/Video/episode12_segment3.wmv>


	Aygee January 11, 2007 09:29 AM PST Gayle, i still wonder about the whole point of blogtv, and their agenda, in the first place. 1. they're CNA - i.e. mainstream, and mouthpiece of govt. 2. they sensationalise blogs and publicise the people behind the blogs. the host was saying on the Morning Show yesterday "blogs are the biggest to happen since sliced bread. if a 90-yr old gramma can do it, so can you". 3. they get bloggers to comment in the "mainstream", which i would like to remind all, have very clear OB markers. 4. The govt has said that the Internet and blogs carry a lot of misinformation. so, what's the point of a mainstream show, telling an audience to start blogging, and telling the audience that there's a whole lot of "alternative" views out there in blogosphere? Meaning, telling Singapore that they shouldn't trust CNA itself as the TRUE source of info. in other words, there is no point to blogtv. probably an avenue to get bloggers to be mainstream or get everyone, including bloggers to watching CNA again! And here's another thought - alternative rock bands prefer to remain as alternative rock bands. they stick the finger at mainstream labels, mainstream music, mainstream radio or events. they wouldn't want Robbie Williams fans as their fans. the day an alternative band does something mainstream, they're no longer considered alternative by their fans and their peers. Aygee


	To KTM January 11, 2007 04:55 AM PST Sorry, the preceding post is by me, not KTM.


	KTM January 11, 2007 04:54 AM PST I wish you would lay off Mr Wang too. Whoever says smart intelligent people must appear on TV in order to be heard? If genuine exchange is what they really want, there is enough feedback on the blogs for them to mull over the entire year. What is it about TV that makes it more appropriate than blogs as a platform for engagement. I'd say they'll soon become antiques if they insist on traditional media as the only legitimate platforms. If blogs are trivial, and the blogosphere inferior to so-called MSM, why are they even encouraging their own to blog? Why not get GY to set up a blog and engage netizens on their turf? The answer is obvious. Conspiracy theory or not.


	anon January 11, 2007 01:53 AM PST people just choose different ways of approaching a problem. There is really nothing wrong with giving the government the benefit of doubt even though I will not be inclined to do so. I think it is unrealistic to want the government to be totally open when all these years they haven't been doing it. Sometimes it might be important for all this wayang shows to go on because it might just develope into a more open dialogue between the govt and people. At least if you want to view it positively. gayle The grace you extent to the media is commendable to me. Not many would trust them. I don't too :) I do believe they will censor if topic don't suit their liking. I think you don't trust them either but willing to give a try when opportunity knocks. Anyway it is good start after years of one way traffic.


	The Kway Teow Man January 11, 2007 01:46 AM PST Will people lay off the girl? If people wanna pick on someone, they are all welcome to pick on the KTM. :-) Mr Wang has every right not to appear on BlogTV. There are two million and one good reasons why bloggers might want to decline the offer. YB gave a good one. Mr Wang however chose to spout lousy reasons that made the KTM wanna puke (and probably Gayle too). In the same way, Gayle has every right to go on TV and she doesn't has to justify herself. If she likes to appear on TV, so what? If she just wants to meet the Minister, so what? If she was just hoping to get some free beer, so what? Why should it matter? Why should you people care? All Gayle was trying to say is that she hoped that more anti-estab bloggers will have the guts to go on TV to air their views. It is not about George Yeo. It could have been Mickey Mouse. What matters was the chance to say what people want. Then these conspiracy theories also make the KTM wanna puke. If people like Mr Wang are so smart and know so much, they cannot hold their own on TV meh? Of course, there might be censorship. But there might not. If people end up getting censored, perhaps then complain after the fact loh. Blog about it and let the whole world know the truth of how the media works. Now, all are simply unsubstantiated allegations.


	gayle January 11, 2007 01:05 AM PST stillwaters/sim: You're actually quite right, the show was very blah, and I did confess to that already in my article "On Meeting George Yeo". I learnt a bit so it was useful for me but as far as public fare goes, it's not by any means the most radical, nor did it posture itself to be. If the bloggers had declined to appear on this show for this reason, then as I said, that's fine. That's why I said I understood Alex Au's decision not to appear - he said he had nothing to say on the issue. But if they are delining to appear out of defeatism, feeling that the media will censor them anyway, or are out to oppress them ruthlessly as a monolithic group, then I am just here to dispel some of the myths. If Mr. Wang had said "Nah I don't want to go on the show because I think it's a boring predictable topic" then, ok, no problem. But he made it sound like it was because censorship would happen, and also criticized George Yeo's motives and intentions by characterizing him as a lapdog for blogging, without saying these things to his face when given an opportunity. Many citizens do think George Yeo is just doing the party's bidding in blogging. That's why I told him his blog reads like the PAP manifesto. He had a chance to respond, and I could say to him hey, if that's all we'll find on your blog then that will be a hindrance to your engaging the voters you say you want to reach, because WE want a fresh perspective. So at least these things, however mundane or silly or ineffectual, are aired. We snipe and complain on cyberspace, but when one is actually able to say these things to him, we suddenly go hey, hmm, it's nothing important at all. I'm just asking for consistency :) if you think something is important enough that you have the right, and the knowledge sufficient to comment on it not just once, but repeatedly, as Mr. Wang did, then it should be impt enough for you to raise elsewhere as well. If it is not, then the least one could do is not reinforce and perpetuate the notion that this is due to the media's heavyhandedness, OR due to the assumption that you know all about him, he's just a PAP lapdog, etc. - things one says ONLINE, but not when given the chance to say so publically. Goodnight :) Gayle


	anibodi January 10, 2007 11:48 PM PST Hi, Gayle, I think you are doing quite well in whatever you are doing. Don't worry too much about people labelling you a hypocrite or not because it is their own perception and interpretation of things grasped through different types of scopes and lenses. Anyone still in their teens would still be in the process of maturing whether physically, mentally or intellectually. As such, of course, there will be transformation, variation, deviation and sedimentation of conviction, of commitment, of judgement and of values. You are still developing and advancing. Just keep your bearing in sight. You are doing just fine. Keep it up, dear girl.


	whybegay January 10, 2007 11:19 PM PST For the record, gayle is clearly more qualified and legitimate than Alex Au who is talking about politics as a front for gay activism, or any other bloggers besides those from Singapore Angle I can think of to appear on tv to comment on politics. The others are either attention-seeking or agenda-ridden, childish, whiny and certainly unqualified with logic, reason and articulation. I am just not certain whether they are into politics more for their own profit, bruised ego or for the benefit of the people.


	gayle January 10, 2007 10:34 PM PST "To Gayle": I've said what I feel on the subject and you obviously think I've been dishonest. Then let it be so, because I am not going to grovel to convince you otherwise. There is a limit to how much self-explanation can and should be given, before it just becomes pathetic, trying to justify myself to people who do not know me, yet judge so plainly. So think whatever you want. I hereby decline to care. Gayle


	stillwaterrunsdeep January 10, 2007 09:32 PM PST Just watched it online at BlogTV.sg. Agree with sim chin boo. There was no censorship because there was nothing controversial to censor. Apart from that, I am even more perplexed as to how appearing on the show had helped to bridge the great divide when none of the recent hot topics were even mentioned. It is just another candy-coated PR tool where you've got GY as the star and bloggers as, er, props. Any attempt to push the OB has been washed down by standard party lines. Those who declined to participate in the show have certainly made the right decision. It would have been a big blow to their reputation, from my perspective, if they did otherwise.


	To Gayle January 10, 2007 08:13 PM PST “Which I know are shoes too big for me to fill sufficiently. I would rather have Alex Au in that chair, in that studio than myself. I think he would do a better job.” I don’t doubt that Alex would have been a better person to fill that slot than you. And you would have to be more than deluded not to think so. The question really is, and answer this honestly: how much did you PERSONALLY enjoy being on TV. Remember now, don’t hide behind this “i hate television facade”. Or if you do, please articulate the reason for appearing that is compelling enough to make you put aside your INTENSE distaste of publicity (irony fully intended). “Gosh sometimes I just want to close everything down so much. It’s not true that there’s no such thing as bad publicity. I have much more publicity than I want. ” So why don’t you walk the talk and do what you really want to? Now that you’ve publicly declared your true feelings, there is only one way the public can construe you if you can’t tell us why you’re doing all this: A hypocrite: “grudgingly” accepting the publicity thinly veiled behind a screen of self deprecation and false humility that anyone can see right through. Please don’t play to the gallery as Caesar did, denying the laurel crown from the plebians while harbouring an obvious desire to rule. If you want the power and publicity, please at least have the decency to be honest and tell us. The more pious your denials are, the greater a hypocrite you’ll seem if you finally decide to run for any public office. My advice? I sense that the blogosphere is catching up with your publicity game Gayle. Quit while you’re ahead. You’re 18. Your inconsistency and apparent (I honestly don’t know if it’s real, I hope you’ll tell us) hypocrisy will be gradually unwound bit by painful bit. I’m not the only one committed to doing that. When the rest of the blogosphere catches up, you’ll have quite alot of explaining to do. So let’s do this once and for all: Do you want it or do you not? (Comment also posted in Two Steps From Twilight)


	gayle January 10, 2007 08:53 AM PST Elia, I never meant it as an ad hominem attack of any sort and I do hope the parties involved realise that. Thanks for your words otherwise. Gayle


	Elia Diodati January 10, 2007 03:40 AM PST Hi Gayle, Despite what I've said on my blog, I wanna point out that what you're doing is a good thing. It's a great learning experience for you and an excellent way for you to express your opinion. However, just as you have sometimes chosen to criticize us for straying into the realm of personal attacks, I invite you to reread your exhortations at people like Mr Wang and Xenoboy and ask if that might also be interpretable as argumentatum ad hominem. As I had written on my blog, getting frustrated at the inaction of others isn't fruitful at all. For some like Mr Wang, whom I defended, I am sure he has made a thoughtful and well-reasoned choice for declining. But Mr Wang, Xenoboy et al are not the same as the quiet masses who just sit by and watch us debate and harangue at each other like some enormous freak show. If they were, they wouldn't have blogs, risking themselves to defamation, sedition, copyright violations and the like. Accuse the silent majority, if you like, but please do not conflate these two groups of people. For us bloggers who have been around for, say, more than 2 years, we remember how the media has dissed blogging as a medium of any significance whatsoever. Naturally we are skeptical of its belated attempts to welcome us into the fold, as it were. Once bitten, twice shy. The choice of topics on BlogTV.sg seem banal in comparison to other potential topics, such as the role of blogging in contributing to civic debate, for example. But I will refrain from further comment until I've watched the show. For the sake of us all, please DO keep on being vocal. Not all of us think you are a naive publicity whore. OTOH please learn from the mistakes of bloggers who have previously engaged the Establishment and have been the worse to wear for it.


	Whynotgayle? January 10, 2007 02:48 AM PST As expected, it was meant as a propaganda tool, and so it had appeared to me to be so. The General must be very pleased. If only those who turned down the invitation could have been used, how nice it would have been. What a pity? Psywar is against the enemy. Psyops is against own people. The machinery for Psyops is well and running fine. More grindings will be forthcoming. The unaware is always unaware of the unaware.


	sim chin boo January 10, 2007 02:13 AM PST Just to add that it appeared that all the participants were on a diplomatic mission and it was mission accomplished!


	sim chin boo January 10, 2007 01:17 AM PST With all due respect to all, was there any need for censor in the blog tv programme when there was absolutely no contentious content. It was just a straightforward questions and answers session. That's all I saw, correct me if I am wrong.

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: