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!

Copyright Alex Au from Yawning Bread 

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.

Singapore is gearing up to receive international delegates for the approaching World Bank and IMF meetings.  We have been encouraged to smile for the cameras and beef up the quality of our service sector in order to have them feel welcome, and to make the event a successful and memorable affair.

Yet in the weeks leading up to the much-anticipated meetings, there has emerged a potential - indeed by now, a probable - point of contention between Singapore and these international institutions.  The tension in these differing opinions does not reside in how brightly Singaporeans smile, or how well the Fullerton beds are made, but rather in an issue which no doubt many Singaporeans will find strange, especially in the context of our political culture.

The World Bank wants the right to be criticized.

What silliness! What an oddity of circumstance, for a powerful, respectable institution to lobby for permission to be granted to civil society organisations to have 'more opportunity to express their views', in a manner that will most certainly be non-complimentary to the World Bank.  After all, the World Bank has been consistently criticized as an instrument of modern-day imperialism, constructed as a tool of oppression wielded by the USA in order to wreak their expansionist mischief under the banner of Pax Americana (I exaggerate, but only slightly).  Citizens of the developing world which receives loans from the World Bank and the IMF have campaigned against them, saying that they are dominated by America and Europe and thus have ulterior motives behind their actions.  Even former World Bank Chief Economist Joseph Stigliz, in his excellent and highly-recommended book Globalization and its Discontents, has bitterly criticized its sister institution, the IMF, for compromising the sovereignty of recipient countries over their economic policies with their conditional loans and their one-size-fits-all policies.  These include austerity measures that require governments to drastically decrease expenditure, often with the results of reduced spending on housing, education and healthcare.  These institutions, which are both post-WWII constructs designed to promote worldwide prosperity and the stability of the international economy, have definitely received much flak from a great number of people.

Yet why does it still want these people to be heard? Is it not afraid that such criticisms will promote cynicism and despondency? Goodness gracious, it's not like it's the role of citizens, journalists or academic to campaign for or against a particular cause, especially when it comes to the highly sophisticated workings of the international economy which are far beyond mortal understanding.

World Bank has provided the answer: It believes that 'effective inclusion of the voices of civil society is key to ensuring that the annual meetings are a success.' Instead of running away from its critics, the World Bank has decided that including them, and giving them a platform on which to speak, is the course of action that will grant them the most international legitimacy.  And thank goodness it is open-minded enough to reach that decision.  Thank goodness also, that - if not in Singapore, in only a few weeks - then elsewhere around the world, these same criticisms can continue to be voiced openly and without fear, so that the IMF and the World Bank can continue to make changes to its policies and, through a learning process, arrive at solutions through genuinely open and inclusive discourse.

The million dollar question though, is how far Singapore will go to accommodate the request of the World Bank and, no doubt, various civil organizations.  So far the response has been non-encouraging.  Outdoor protests are banned.  Wong Kan Seng said in February, that public protests ''attract severe punishment, including caning and imprisonment".  The CNA article, linked above, states implicatingly:

"Police say that they have consulted the World Bank on this.

Responding to Channel NewsAsia's queries, the World Bank says in a written response that it learned of the proposed arrangements on Wednesday and has not discussed them in detail with the Singapore Government nor considered their implications."

That's funny.  It exposes once more the Singaporean authorities' notion of 'consultation'.  They 'consult' citizens regularly on important issues by informing them when the government has reached a decision, just like the police have 'consulted' the World Bank by informing them of their decided arrangements, without having given them the opportunity to have 'discussed them in detail...nor considered their implications'.

The government can tell its citizens to put on their Sunday best and give the world a good impression.  But it is the government who is really in a position to impress, or to confirm many a negative opinion of our city-state held in the international community.  This article*, for instance, is already smothered in sarcasm over the decision.  Blisteringly, it says:

"The restrictive law against public gatherings -- where any gathering of more than four people need a security permit -- was introduced by the British when it ruled this country as part of its colonial empire. The military dictatorship in Burma, also a former British colony, keeps Singapore company by upholding the same law. "

All eyes are on Singapore - not on us, as much as it is on the government.  This will determine whether or not Singapore is suited to host other important international events in the future, or if countries and organizations will start to shy away from using our country as a venue for discussion, meeting and debate.  We are no China, to rely on vast plots of land and sprawling cities to sustain and host events like the Olympics.  Meetings such as those of the IMF and the World Bank are the type of events we rely on to promote our country as a hub for international affairs and a forum for change.  If we don't start to modernize our political culture, not just our infrastructure or our hotels, then Singapore is destined to have a short-lived career in this respect.

* It's an article from a Bangkok correspondent.  I've noticed in my research that Australian and Thai articles are often the most vehement, likely because of our negative brush-ins with those countries over incidents/issues such as the death penalty and the ShinCorp deal.  These articles don't just stay in Australia and Thailand, perpetuating a negative perspective of Singapore, but are disseminated to foreign media as well, further cementing the bad impression overseas, not just in the region.  Instant karma: you don't get away with bulldozing your way through here and there, without paying a price for it somewhere else.  With all due respect to Vivian Balakrishnan, it is narrow-minded to say that he doesn't care what foreign media think.  Foreign media companies have great reach and influence the opinions of people all over the world - opinions which actually matter in other countries, and to other international institutions, even if they don't count for much here in Singapore.  Why do you think we bothered to sue the Economist anyway.

Excerpt:

"...ASEAN foreign ministers on Tuesday released a watered-down version of a statement on Myanmar which did not mention detained opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi.

The statement said the ministers "expressed concern on the pace of the national reconciliation process" in Myanmar and called for "tangible progress" towards democracy in the country. "

So much for the AIPMC and pressing for reform over business interests.

Related news: Burma seeks nuclear alliance with North Korea.

This entry is dedicated to Ms. K Bhavani, MICA Press Secretary, Dr. Lee Boon Yang, Dr. Vivian Balakrishnan, and the plainsclothes policemen who investigated the July 9th silent protest of 30 people who gathered at City Hall in support of Lee Kin Mun.

You say elections are not laughing matters, that politics is serious business.  I would agree, except sometimes serious business -- particularly here in Singapore -- is simply too hard to bear.  Sometimes, when people are afraid, angry, suspicious, and wary of the times, then 'serious business' has exacted a high cost.  Singapore is one of the richest nations in Asia.  But according to this index, we are the nation who has to destructively consume more resources than any other country in Asia in order to maintain our satisfaction.  Yes, we have had economic progress.  Yes, there is food on the table.  Yes, we are grateful for everything we have built as a community.  But at the end of the day, why do Singaporeans need more and more in order to be happy?

Perhaps this is one of the reasons: the more we have, the more worries we inherit.  Rising oil prices affect our future, our capacity to make ends meet.  Means testing for hospital wards and medical services make it tougher for some to access cheaper alternatives in the face of mounting bills.  Gas and electricity taxes threaten to make it harder and harder for the poor, especially, to reach basic necessities.  Meanwhile, your solution? Back to the balance sheets, the accounting books.  Bandage our concerns with slogans and paper flags as National Day approaches.  We can work on it.  Singapore Inc always finds a way.  Don't you worry about it.  Just sit back and let us handle the objective political discourse.

Excuse me Mr. State, but I am sick of objective political discourse.  You only want to hear the truth packaged as you want it to be.  No frills, just facts and statistics.  In turn, you deliver the truth to us, packaged as you want it to be.  In bits and pieces.  After the election, not during.  Did you respond to the numerous predictions made by opposition parties, that prices would rise after the elections? No.  Shouldn't you have said "yes, and we will deal with it together"? Couldn't you have given us that much credit and respect?

I am sorry, but objective political discourse played by your books and your rules, is quite frankly: depressing.  Channelnewsasia is depressing.  Reading the Straits Times is depressing.  And now, the very sight of Today is depressing.  Because laughter, laughter is oftentimes the only thing that keeps us from tears.  In the face of our troubles, once in a while, we need to be able to address them with levity.  We need to able to laugh at ourselves, at each other, to recognize the ironies and the silliness in life, if we are ever to transcend them.

You want us to smile for the IMF delegations as they arrive in Singapore from 14-20 September.  But every single smile you gather will be a silent one, a postured one.  And behind each digitalized glamour shot will be the naked face of a nation whose contentment is running thin, spread over luxury goods and dollar bills.

Please let us keep our laughter.  Let journalists keep the freedom to poke fun, to satirize, to criticize, to hold up some of our social phenomena to the light and expose them for illusions.  Please let Singapore laugh at itself, once in a while, and find, and make our happiness -- not buy it.

I would be so very much obliged, Mr. State.

Subjectively yours,

Gayle.