The Sounding of a TOCsin: Blogosphere in a Bog
I’ve been MIA for sometime, clearly… was planning originally to make a comeback with an essay of sorts on the constitutional rights (if any) of non-citizens in Singapore. Am still working on that. But this rather bemusing fracas has impelled me to write, a little sooner than planned:
- soc.culture.singapore: Beware TOC (The Online Cons)
- Newsintercom: The Unknown Extent of the PAP’s Net Offensive
- The Wayang Party Club of Singapore: 8 questions for The Online Citizen’s Remy Choo
All this talk of moles and counter-offensives! It makes one incredulous, the paranoia that’s awash in the blogosphere. But let’s try to draw some rational observations from the hullabaloo.
First, all this TOC-bashing shows that the blogosphere, by and large, has not escaped the familiar dialectic of Us versus Them. The Other haunts our collective psyche, intrudes like a nagging aunt; it manifests itself in three totemic letters: PAP. In most of our discussions, we’re really shadow-boxing with this amorphous nemesis, in a pre-choreographed sequence. Never coming to real blows — it is all ‘pretend’, a useful purging of emotional phlegm, a symbolic show of pique. It is about the gesture, not about what the gesture signifies (because it signifies nothing). We are anti-PAP by way of reflex.
In this universe that is the Singapore blogosphere, then, the visible matter of our discussions is sustained only by the invisible dark-matter that is the PAP, and all that it represents. We acknowledge, acquiesce in, the PAP’s omnipresence, because we talk about it, we talk to it, even where it is hidden from view and will not reply. By framing our thoughts only in opposition to the PAP, we allow ourselves to define our identity based on it.
Second, netizens are apparently riding an information cascade. Instead of assessing the actual content of what is being said, we look for convenient “signposts” that tell us more efficiently how we should think. One such signpost appears to be, “pro-PAP blogger”. Thus, a rather pompous demand, for a full and truthful disclosure by TOC. Apparently, knowing that a blogger is “pro-PAP” instantly devalues the weight we accord to his or her opinions, regardless of what these opinions actually are. Critical thinking would of course yield more accurate judgments on our part; our feeble excuse is that this takes up far more time than just looking out for certain signposts.
But it may help weening oneself off an overreliance on signposts. To this end, let’s take a look at the aforementioned Choo Zheng Xi’s 10 most recent posts (as a sample), and assess the content (briefly).
I’ll use an informal, subjective rating of -5 to +5, where -5 means “extremely pro-PAP”, +5 means “extremely anti-PAP”, and 0 means “neutral”. Note that I use terms like “anti-PAP” / “pro-PAP” loosely, in a manner which is congruous with popular sentiment — more akin to “anti-establishment” / “pro-estalishment”.
TOC’S SCORECARD
- 27 Jan 2008: TOC Report: Bureacratic muddle leads to canning of International Fringe Festival event
Singapore Complaints Choir “effectively muzzled by the city state’s police”; authorities guilty of “vacillation and hamfisted tactics”; inclusion of full lyrics of Complaints Choir.
Rating: +4 - 17 Jan 2008: Have we lost our audacity to hope?
Barack Obama and “the audacity of hope”; the PAP has championed pragmatism over idealism; will it be able to elucidate an aspirational politics?
Rating: -2 - 20 Nov 2007: TOC Breaking News: 50 Burmese nationals protest
Coverage on protest by Burmese nationals at Orchard Road; riot policemen and plainclothes police spotted in the vicinity.
Rating: +1 - 20 Nov 2007: Editorial: Time to stop Asean’s humiliation
ASEAN Summit a failure, given the organization’s incompetence in dealing with Burma; the ASEAN Charter as a “grotesque irony”.
Rating: +1 - 18 Nov 2007: Gutter journalism masquerading as citizen journalism: Racist rhetoric stoked over irresponsible reporting
STOMP’s coverage of the alleged attack on a ‘Star Blogger’, Michelle Quek; opened the floodgates to ang moh bashing; “crass, blatant, repulsive racism” should be condemned.
Rating: 0 - 13 Nov 2007: High cost of living? Buy cheaper products, says minister
Lim Hng Kiang, in response to rising prices, offers as a solution: buying cheaper products; criticized as an “inadequate” response.
Rating: +4 - 7 Nov 2007: TOC Breaking News: Safety concerns cause US, Japan to ground F-15 fleet two weeks after Singapore buys 12 F-15s
As above; no coverage in the local media as yet, and Mindef has not responded to queries from international press.
Rating: +2 - 4 Nov 2007: TOC Report: WP 50th Anniversary Dinner
Coverage of the aforementioned event, as well as the WP’s aims going forward; passing reference to the cancellation of the planned WP cycling event in ECP.
Rating: +2 - 27 Oct 2007: NMP’s views at odds with AIDS relief research paper
Rebuttal of NMP Thio Li-ann’s assertion in her Parliamentary speech w.r.t. s. 377A that legalizing homosexual sex will lead to an increase in STDs.
Rating: +2 - 12 Oct 2007: Parliamentary petition to repeal 377A: not just any other petition
Reports on NMP Siew Kum Hong’s sponsoring of the above-mentioned petition; traces the broad contours of the s. 377A debate, as well as discussing online petitions in general; link to Repeal377A.com.
Rating: +2
AVERAGE RATING: +1.6
So a sample of his 10 most recent posts shows the content of Mr. Choo’s posts to be slightly anti-PAP, leaving aside what his personal convictions are, or whose payroll he might be on.
I do object, strenuously, to the infiltration of “personality politics” online. One great attraction of the Internet is that it to some extent ‘de-personalizes’ any discussion, either by allowing the writer to remain anonymous, or at least by interposing a digital medium between writer and reader. De-personalized discussions are in turn more likely to focus on content, on facts and logical arguments.
The Internet loses this edge, however, once we fixate again on personalities. To some extent, such ‘re-personalization’ is driven by the “star blogger” phenomenon, the popular orthodoxy that the local blogosphere is dominated by a few notorious bloggers. (This is not meant, however, as a slight on the laudable contributions of several star bloggers.)
Third, there is the marked tendency in the blogosphere towards self-importance, as evidenced from such choice quotes as these:
- “It’s our duty to expose these PAP moles in cyberspace.”
- “If you do not answer my questions dutifully and truthfully…”
- “[W]e continued to harbor serious reservations about The Online Citizen’s agenda…”
- “[M]any in blogland have been deliberately misled and taken advantage of…”
One may ask, Pythonesque, “What is this… the Spanish Inquisition??!!” How distasteful, this descent into hyperbole and faux-legalism. Perhaps, for a change, it might do certain individuals some good not to take themselves too seriously. That is the very sort of thing which the PAP is wont to do.
Surely you don’t want to, *gasp*, become like them?
[...] Reply to La Nausee: Why we find TOC’s agenda suspicious Posted on February 12, 2008 by wayangparty http://etrepoursoi.wordpress.com/2008/02/12/the-sounding-of-a-tocsin-blogosphere-in-a-bog/ [...]
Reply to La Nausee: Why we find TOC’s agenda suspicious « The Wayang Party Club of Singapore
February 12, 2008 at 9:54 am
In the article above, la nausee listed 10 recent articles by TOC’s Chief Editor Remy Choo and gave them a score of +1.6 (using an informal, subjective rating of -5 to +5, where -5 means “extremely pro-PAP”, +5 means “extremely anti-PAP”).
He concluded this shows “the content of Mr. Choo’s posts to be slightly anti-PAP“, and therefore we can “leave aside what his personal convictions are, or whose payroll he might be on.”
Perhaps La Nausee is still confused over the definition of a “PAP mole” by ridiculing himself with such an oxymoron. A PAP mole must be “anti-PAP” or it will not qualify to be a mole in the first place!
Our suspicions of TOC are not based solely on the background of the members of its Editorial team. We agree that being associated with the PAP does not make one less “independent”. However, we have to seriously question why certain prominent members of the establishment and willing to lend their name to an ordinary “Citizen’s blog” which is “mildly critical” of the government.
First, the founder of The Online Citizen is Mr Andrew Loh, currently a WP member. He was well-known as a PAP member/supporter in Sammyboyforum in which he pledged support to PM Lee and condemned “opposition losers” as illustrated in the posts we have pasted here below. For whatever reasons known only to himself, he suddenly deceided to join WP under very “mysterious circumstances” somewhere in end 2004. And strangely, he decided to pass TOC’s ownership to Choo Zheng Xi last year after TOC was being decried as a WP blog !
Now, let’s put Choo to closer scrutiny. He was an elected member of the Buona Vista Youth Executive Committee which we all knows come under the People’s Association. He is currently a year 2 undergraduate in Law at NUS and was a Dean’s lister in his first year. He also claimed he aspired to join the civil service upon graduation. All these personal details were not documented on his profile on TOC itself. Why should this important information be left out deliberately unless he has something to hide ? As a top law student, Choo himself has a promising future ahead of him and is potential “PAP candidate” favored by the headhunters. Would he jeopardize this by offending the establishment thereby leaving an indelible black mark on his records ?
Next, we move on to the most controversial figure on TOC’s Editorial Team: Its 2nd-in-Command Young PAP member Mr Eprahim Loy. Mr Loy is not merely an ordinary YPAP member. George Yeo wrote frequently on his own personal blog which was widely publicized in the papers and this attests to his close links with the PAP “big guns”. As a young budding politician, he would have considered the implications thoroughly before joining TOC and might even have received tacit “support” from his superiors for doing so. How many YPAP members do you see sitting on the Editorial teams of anti-establishment blogs such as Sg_Review, Singapore Rebel, Yawning Bread and Sgpolitics ? Surely that rings a bell.
We have been following the TOC’s articles for the past one year and we felt it is nothing more than “recycled hogwash” of the Straits Times Review. The PAP does allow criticism of its policies and is in fact fairly tolerant as long one does not touch on sensitive topics such as the “integrity” of the government, civil service, election system and judiciary.
Let’s take a look at the last 10 articles on TOC:
1. 5 February 2008: NKF – more in reserves than during the scandal.
2. 4 February 2008: Improving Singapore’s public transport system – a commuter’s perspective.
3. 4 February 2008: Leong Sze Hian on rising inflation.
4. 2 February 2008: Weekend TOC: Did you know ?
5. 31 January 2008: How mean and means testing be ?
6. 30 January 2008: Means testing or comprehensive medical insurance ?
7. 28 January 2008: Police: foreigners are not allowed to complain.
8. 27 January 2008: Bureaucratic muddle leads to canning of International Fringe Festival event.
9. 26 January 2008: My future as a Singapore Citizen.
10. 22 January 2008: Workfare statistics ?
As we can see from the above topics, these “mildly critical” articles of the government can easily pass the censorship at the ST Forum and be published which is the case with many of Mr Leong Sze Hian’s articles. Readers are “treated” with a “feast of dissent” which amounts no more than a small outlet for ventilation while keeping them ignorant of the real problems at the same time. TOC editors have been turning a blind eye to many issues brought up by other socio-political blogs such as SDP’s legal wrangles with PAP leaders, reform of the election system, investments made by Temasek and GIC etc. Are these too “sensitive” to pass the censorship of the PAP members on TOC ?
The blogosphere is the last bastion of free speech in Singapore and we are not surprised that the PAP is determined to establish a foothold on it and exert its influence and hegemony eventually as it did with the mainstream media. In our next article, we shall study and explore the “quiet counter-insurgency” that is already taking place in blogosphere.
wayangparty
February 12, 2008 at 9:55 am
The witchhunt is one reason why the blogosphere will forever be hampered by the institutional paranoia of those who see a counterinsurgency at every corner.
Come on, the Internet is big enough for everyone. Why should the TOC cover stuff that other blogs and aggregators have already built a niche for themselves? You want to read more conservative or liberal op-eds, feel free to head to the other portals.
It doesn’t make sense to reinvent the wheel, and in politics or influence-generation, the centrist path is often the best way to get people to listen.
The whole saga is amusing, and if such primordialism exists, then I have nothing to feel but a sad sense of regret that the establishment gains from all the time and effort wasted on pissing contests and comparing the size of the allegorical male appendages
CelluloidReality
February 12, 2008 at 10:10 am
RH:
1. Brilliant thinking everybody! Thanks la nausée for excellent points. Thanks to above 2 commenters for adding more. All this can only be good for a Singapore blogosphere. I would rather read all these controversies than PAPaganda unchanging unending more of the same.
2. It is an absolute certainty that the LIEgime has nefarious agendas for us bloggers. 1 could be to waste our time reading a mild TOC so that we don’t read other more vehement sites. But given how easy it is to find, bookmark and return to more vehement sites, this agenda of the LIEgime, if such, is not intelligent, cannot work, serves no purpose.
3. If the TOC is being used by the LIEgime to mole into our consciousness and thoughts, by being mildly critical to achieve these, then while TOC is being mildly critical, we get to enjoy such, even if mild. Any criticism is better than no criticism. Once they become PAPaganda like MSM, everybody will stop reading. Matter of clicks.
4. If some/all TOC writers are being funded by the LIEgime, then good luck to them. Take the money and do what you can, what your conscience says. You can be a mole in the other sense, taking THEIR money yet keeping an independent mind and keeping up criticism, even if mild.
5. The only danger with taking their money is that they can dilute critical TOC essays into milder versions. I have wished often that TOC would use stronger, more intemperate language in excoriating LIEgime stupidities and evil policies but then, TOC is not my website and I have the choice whether to read it or skip or even remove it from my Favourites. So they can do little to me that I won’t allow.
6. Another danger in taking their money is that they can leak this fact out to embarrass the writer. So it is possible that they may spot a writer who is coming on strong as a LIEgime critic, arrange to pay him to soften his criticisms and then even finally leaking his being on the LIEgime payroll to discredit him when it is time.
7. Finally, la nausée point is good, which is to judge the CONTENT, not the writer. Given that we have full control over our eyeballs, we can always click away the moment we feel that we are wasting our time. I seldom notice bylines and normally only read/judge the Contents.
8. It is true that the TOC does not cover stronger events and issues, such as those on SDP or SG Review but then, we can click away or delete from Favourites. So, overall, la nausée has done us a signal favour with his rating. I think +1.6 is a fair estimate. It’s +ve and that is good enough for me.
Robert HO
February 12, 2008 at 11:16 am
So funny and so many holes in wayang party’s load of crap shit which, if you read his blog, seems to be what he is all about. Just let me highlight one:
“Perhaps La Nausee is still confused over the definition of a “PAP mole” by ridiculing himself with such an oxymoron. A PAP mole must be “anti-PAP” or it will not qualify to be a mole in the first place!”
So all anti-PAP blogs are immediately suspicious of being PAP moles??????????
Then isn’t wayang party blog itself suspicious – especially when you yourself are anonymous? For all we know, you could be the PAP mole you are talking about – out to discredit a blog which has proven itself critical of the govt and has revealed many govt shortcomings in the past year or so – unless you disclose or use your real identity to post, just as the TOC editors and writers do. To me, that’s one-up for TOC and zero for you.
By the way, if we are to go right into it, then we should be asking why “Wayang Party” has chosen to use a phrase which a PAP minister used during the General Elections to disparage the Workers’ Party, why is Wayang Party using such a PAP-created phrase to name his blog?
By his own logic, is Wayang Party then a PAP mole?
Why is Wayang Party so adamant about others disclosing their identity and backgrounds when Wayang Party himself hides behind a pseudonym?
At least TOC editors and writers all use their real names. That’s more than can be said about people like wayang party.
As for Wayang Party, his whole entire blog is dedicated to disabusing the Workers Party (the biggest threat to the PAP) and TOC (the most vocal critical blog of the PAP).
Now, who’s the real wayang?
Ah boy
February 12, 2008 at 11:17 am
[...] Posted by The Singapore Daily on 12 February 2008 The Phantom Menace. PAP mole in the mist? – la nausée: The Sounding of a TOCsin: Blogosphere in a Bog [...]
Daily SG: 12 Feb 2008 « The Singapore Daily
February 12, 2008 at 11:42 am
Another piece of crap shit by wayang party:
“TOC editors have been turning a blind eye to many issues brought up by other socio-political blogs such as SDP’s legal wrangles with PAP leaders…”
A simple search on TOC using keywords like SDP, Chee Soon Juan, Chee Siok Chin, etc will show the many reports and articles about the SDP. I have taken the liberty to list them down:
—————————–
Election reform effort needs everyone’s involvement – forum
“The people look to us for leadership. Let us provide it.” – Dr Chee Soon Juan
Something is Rotten in the State of Singapore
TOC Breaking News: 4 SDP members arrested outside Istana
Chee Soon Juan’s ‘exploitation’ of the Burma situation?
TOC Report: Over 400 visit Burmese embassy to sign petition
TOC report: Public forum on ASEAN Human Rights Working Group
Hong Lim Park protest – revisited
TOC Breaking News: Police allow SDP march to Parliament
Packed audience at SDP forum
Public Forum: Development of Democracy in Europe and Asia
———————————————
So, who is the real wayang?????????????
Ah boy
February 12, 2008 at 11:46 am
What TOC writes is irrelevant, I think what really disturbs me is two things:
(a) They did not answer a very valid question considering the composition of toc has always been an issue. Infact they treated it imperially and only responded when they were exposed!
(b) After (a) the threaten to take Jasper to court. This reminds me of the arm twisting techniques of certain ppl I rather forget.
(c) When Jasper is given protection by a larger more mysterious grp in blogland, they lay off and now claim that they did not mean to threaten Jasper.
The question is not who wayang, the question is who is directing it?
cold warrior
February 12, 2008 at 11:59 am
They will never find Jasper and even if they do the cost of pursuing him will be too high – they will leave it for now.
However, I feel much of this is really counter productive as it could have been easily resolved if TOC answered Jasper’s queries. I feel those queries are really justifiable as this is also a question that I have always wanted to ask TOC; why are there so many writers from the PAP establishment?
robin
February 12, 2008 at 12:28 pm
wayangparty:
The idea that the PAP will sponsor “mildly critical” opinions on the Net so that bloggers’ appetite for ‘controversy’ will be sated, without them moving on to the ‘meatier’ issues, is, in a word, daft. Isn’t it likelier that, even if the TOC were PAP-backed, it will only serve to whet people’s appetite for more anti-establishment criticism? How that serves PAP ends, I’m not sure.
You’re also rather distrustful of the reader’s ability to separate wheat from chaff. So apparently, you want to impose your own information diet on everyone else — kind of what you accuse a certain political party of doing.
Lastly, your insistence that most, if not all, moderates should be viewed with suspicion. Such polarization is invidious and irrational. It’s also childish oneupmanship, “My anti-PAP credentials are better than yours!” The reality is, some of us actually do support the government some of the time. *Pause to allow the full horror of that last statement to sink in* For you anti-establishment Nazis, that’s what true freedom of speech and thought is about… deal with it.
cold warrior:
I don’t quite follow. If full disclosure is needed, are you saying that every blogger, in order to gain a modicum of credibility, must publish his or her detailed CV on the Net? Or if not, why single out TOC for exceptional treatment?
I think it is also legitimate to want to sue for defamation, if one thinks that the accusations leveled against oneself are baseless. As a last resort, perhaps… but the right to free speech must also imply some measure of civic responsibility.
la nausee
February 12, 2008 at 12:33 pm
I think we have a lot to learn from the more developed blogospheres.
Have you chaps ever delved into the American ones?
celluloidrealitys
February 12, 2008 at 1:37 pm
“The idea that the PAP will sponsor “mildly critical” opinions on the Net so that bloggers’ appetite for ‘controversy’ will be sated, without them moving on to the ‘meatier’ issues, is, in a word, daft.”
This is not daft, it makes alot of sense and it accounts for
why most of the blogs aggregated by TOC are typically short on the content.
How do you poison someone, it is not with 100% poison, you miix it with edible ground beef.
In this case it just doesnt work.
As for the matter of suing for defamation – go ahead, Jasper is now with those space monkeys and I can telll you they will not be a push over. If anything they are just salivating for TOC to step into it. For all you know, they planned the whole thing right down to the T.
rainer
February 12, 2008 at 2:11 pm
I agree with la nausee and what most other commentors have said. The hue and cry over the background of TOC seems to me more like bloggers playing into the hands of a single comment made by the establishment. Just because they said that they’ll be planting bloggers, everyone is up in arms over ‘counter insurgents’. We seem to be forgetting that the original intent of blogging was to allow the free dissemination of information and knowledge, something the mainstream media was not allowing. I don’t think discrediting or censoring bloggers will further us as a society. Contrary to what a lot of vehemently anti-establishment individuals want us to think, the PAP is not 100% bad. It’s more they way they behave that rankles us. A critical thinker does not limit him/herself to reading exclusively anti-establishment material, simply because he/she wouldn’t be getting the entire picture. So let us be above all this character assassination, and listen to what everyone has to say. As la nausee advocates, we need to be the guardians of our own eyes, mouth and brain.
Vampyre
February 12, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Keep fighting, my little ones, while I busy myself with the coming budget.. muahahaha..
Big Brother
February 12, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Better to be a well-read man than a soapbox yeller.
celluloidrealitys
February 12, 2008 at 7:52 pm
So for TOC to “regain its credibility” we should start slamming anything that comes out of the govt blindly? If thats the case, then who are we to criticise the ST for being one sided? Wont we be perpertuating the very thing that we are against in the first place?
The blogosphere is big enough to contain people from all schools of thought. There is no reason why moderates and radicals cant… for lack of a better word…co -exist. Indeed one strength of the internet over the mainstream media is the diversity of opinion.
Ned Stark
February 12, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Cold warrior,
Aiyooo la! People say TOC threaten Jasper with lawsuit you straightaway believe meh? You got see those saying that provide any proove??
I think we internautists must be more discerning lor. So far, all allegations against TOC got no concrete proove. You all jumping to conclusion just because wayang party blog crap shit shits all over you?
Sad la sad la..
ah boy
February 12, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Hi boss, PAP mole = anti-PAP does not mean the converse is true lah !
Why should TOC get so worked up when Andrew Loh kept claiming these are bullshit ?
People have the right to say what they want. If you are not happy, just ignore them. No point threatening to sue.
Shame on TOC !
hardroking
February 12, 2008 at 11:41 pm
(cold warrior said: They did not answer a very valid question considering the composition of toc has always been an issue. Infact they treated it imperially and only responded when they were exposed!) cold warrior, anyone could tell you are wayangparty or linked to him. You used the word ‘exposed’ when the allegations against TOC are not true. The right word is to ‘rebut’ or ‘clarify’, meaning there’s nothing wrong for TOC to clarify only after falsehoods are accused of them. There are 10000000 falsehoods in this world. Do you expect TOC to have a 1000000 sentence profile? Maybe we can start with ‘Choo doesn’t wear a bra’, or ‘Andrew Loh doesn’t masturbed on the expressway’.
TACL
February 12, 2008 at 11:44 pm
wayangparty seem hard to please or he has a personal agenda against TOC. First he said ‘A PAP mole must be “anti-PAP” or it will not qualify to be a mole in the first place!’ then he said ‘As we can see from the above topics, these “mildly critical” articles of the government can easily pass the censorship at the ST Forum and be published which is the case with many of Mr Leong Sze Hian’s articles.’. Does he know what he is writing because the 2 statements contradict each other? Heads I win, tails you lose. TOC is a nonpartisan site, he can’t expect them to write like SDP.
TACL
February 12, 2008 at 11:49 pm
Me is one reader of blogs who is deeply disappointed that there were always no rebuttals, refutations, clarifications, enlightenment, appreciation and reciprocation when all these seem so very important.
Ned Stark said it fairly here that the blogosphere is for everyone and may I add that it should accommodate everyone. For obvious reason that everyone wishes for the truth, wants to be educated and enlightened; clarification(s) on and in any issue is valueable. In cases where allegation and accusation are made, it is all the more important that the alleged and accused party protect their integrities by revealing and answering to the accuser(s). When need be, even to sue for the preservation of ‘good name’.
In any case, ‘witch making’ and hence ‘witch hunting’ are ‘naturally’ part and parcel of politics and sophistries of politicians. However, for non-politician laymen, joining politicians in the witch making and hunting is to play into the hands of the devils.
saintmoron
February 13, 2008 at 12:59 am
Zheng Xi himself said he researches and writes for a Boon Lay PAP MP! But yet insist that he is not paid to write PAP views in TOC. Like standing in a no-smoking room with a lit cigarete and say, “since I did not put cigarete in mouth, it means I am not smoking so I cannot be fined for smoking”
Mould
February 13, 2008 at 10:22 am
I think that the whole incident is sparked off by individual(s) who have an axe to grind with the TOC website and their writers – i.e. Jasper / wayangparty.
Like mentioned earlier, no other blog have complete disclosure on the level that Wayangparty demands – not even the author of wayangparty practices what he demands of the TOC. Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.
I do find the articles on the TOC to have an overall slant that leans significantly more towards anti-government. Perhaps this is in a way a balance to the slant we encounter in main stream media, but still it would be good for a balance of views to be maintained.
Hence I felt that the inclusion of Emphraim was a good move on TOC’s part to balance its view, and I thought that it is curious that Emphraim would join but yet contribute nothing in the way or either articles or comments – sort of defeated the purpose of him joining in the first place.
AC
February 13, 2008 at 10:27 am
Mould: What lousy arguement. If I am paid by MacDonalds or KFC to work for them and also write in TOC, does it mean MacDonalds or KFC paid me to write for TOC?
TACL
February 14, 2008 at 12:29 am
So funny to see everyone falling over themselves! The pap anti-insurgency is working! they have a mole who is defended and there is division among blog readers! small minded people think it is about anti-toc, it is bigger than toc you delusional toc fans, it is anti-pap propaganda!
EyesOpen
February 14, 2008 at 11:03 am
Counter insurgent theory full of holes.
The NewSintercom (http://www.newsintercom.org/index.php?itemid=571) said:
“Whatever we might think about the PAP, they are politically cunning at least. …….. The PAP in its Internet offensive have probably dropped its P65 blog as its Internet flagship and moved to something else that the public wants to read – a moderate blog.”
The BIG HOLE Number 1:
Why is the politically cunning PAP, as NewSintercom said, would act in such foolish manner like:
Having Ephraim Loy. a Young PAP, as provisional co-editor of TOC.
Having Choo Zheng Xi paid to assists a PAP MP to gathering material for Parliamentary speeches and helps to write for the constituency newsletter,
Does it make sense?
The BIG HOLE Number 2:
Jaspers said:
“this toc chief is paid by a pap mp out in the west of singapore to write. PAID BY PAP TO WRITE. and paid quite well so its said”
First, Jaspers mixed the fact that Remy is paid for gathering material for Parliamentary speeches and helps to write for the constituency newsletter, not his work with TOC.
Second, don’t you think the politically cunning PAP will have better secretive ways to pay anyone to do their dirty work?
These two big HOLES are more than enough to sink this whole conspiracy theory.
It is said that some people are blinded from these big holes in plain sight because of their deep seated anger with PAP. They failed to think rationally to see these holes and misguided by people with flawed reasoning to spin an unjust attack against a group of caring, concerning young people who serve TOC and the general public with their objective and informative articles.
sarek_home
February 17, 2008 at 11:12 am