My Response To James.

Status
Not open for further replies.
it seems that my statements were misinterpretated again.
well levan, i didn't mean that you were criticizing him, i just mean that you are in a position with great influence, and with great power comes great responsibility.

so choose your path wisely, grasshopper.

:P
 
=vickomaniac

hello spiderwoman :mrgreen:

Anw i was reading an article about the Lees vs. Chees court case. I think it is ample proof that freedom of speech, democracy, and all these idealistic ideals will work only in a situation where everyone grows up a little bit. I personally feel that the Lee family has done a lot for your country and ANY country in the world would indeed want to have a statesman of MM Lee's calibre in their government.

I mean, imagine if the Chees and SDP came to power... (shudder)

Oh well, I'll just fly back to Indon
 
Freedom of speech will come when the status quo proves that they can discern between right and wrong, blatantly insensitive and passing humour.

For now, I personally feel it's evidently lacking in our society.
 
Anw i was reading an article about the Lees vs. Chees court case. I think it is ample proof that freedom of speech, democracy, and all these idealistic ideals will work only in a situation where everyone grows up a little bit. I personally feel that the Lee family has done a lot for your country and ANY country in the world would indeed want to have a statesman of MM Lee's calibre in their government.

I am EXTREMELY curious where you read that article from :mrgreen:
 
^agreed.

absolute freedom of speech is an ideal that can only be reached when everybody takes absolute responsibility for all the consequences of their words and actions- it's impossible to attain in practice, but we can always get closer to it.

---

anyway, with regards to the thread- i think we all benefit from reading both sides. James and Levan are both great men in this community who have done more for the scene than most of us might hope to accomplish.

Intelligent and respectful trade of substantiated points and opinions is always a pleasure to read and a learning experience for everyone involved.

must get together for SOFT's 10th anniversary! In a few years time we'll start seeing SOFTies younger than SOFT itself!
 
Just finished reading the thread. I still think roninriot wasn't in the wrong. I commented on the OMG thread as well, it was harsh, yes I agree. My apologies but I still stick by what I said.

Glad this whole thing's over.

And freedom of speech is pure bollocks. If there is ever to be freedom of speech here, Singapore would be one big chaotic mess. Just the market aunties alone would be overkill.
 
I am EXTREMELY curious where you read that article from :mrgreen:

YOU can try the NEW PAPER. Haha straits times editorial codes won't print it. Anyway it was about how the judge was trying to tahan the Chees' behavior and they can end up being charged for contempt of court.

Very serious charge there
 
I suspected you read it from there to. I read it too. :mrgreen:

Quite frankly, I no longer trust the local media anymore. Especially on its coverage on political and political related issues. Plenty of examples that I spotted which make me think twice about its credibility.
 
Last edited:
Just finished reading the thread. I still think roninriot wasn't in the wrong. I commented on the OMG thread as well, it was harsh, yes I agree. My apologies but I still stick by what I said.

Glad this whole thing's over.

And freedom of speech is pure bollocks. If there is ever to be freedom of speech here, Singapore would be one big chaotic mess. Just the market aunties alone would be overkill.

Haha, yes. Plainly, and this is purely on a theoratical viewpoint, freedom of speech only works in a true democracy. A true democracy is not simply one in which 'everyone has a say' but I feel it links closely with some socialist ideals - when each and everyone of us is willing to settle for less purely for the sake of the society's overall benefit.

I think it is indeed a very long and rocky path, to date I believe only some European states have achieved this, namely France, and probably Britain. These are countries with a few hundred years of struggle to get where they are at the moment (not as powerful or influential as the USA but at least the people there are happier). Singapore's immediate history is negligible in comparison.

So until that happens I suppose we all gotta watch our mouths yeah. Haha
 
Quite frankly, I no longer trust the local media anymore. Especially on its coverage on political and political related issues.

Same here. Heck, I reckon most of us here feel the same.

And doggieshaman, thanks for that.
 
I suspected you read it from there to. I read it too. :mrgreen:

Quite frankly, I no longer trust the local media anymore. Especially on its coverage on political and political related issues.

That's a bit harsh... I'm a media student and so I take the defence of the local media on this.

Starting with the very obvious, how any form of press in the world survive is through the single means of advertising. Just to shed a light it probably costs more than the 80 cents you pay for a copy to produce one copy of the Straits Times (all costs considered).

And next, consider with all the information in the world today, editors have to take a very strong consideration as to what to put in the paper because of the limitations space-wise in a spreadsheet newspaper. So putting in the newsworthy articles (prominent, in our locality, impactful, et cetera) and advertorial commitments you can pretty much gauge how much space is left. By their own doing and Singaporeans' general political apathy there is little interest in the political scene in Singapore, and hence printing every political piece is not feasible because i) the general public doesn't really care and ii) politics is a messy business.

Thirdly, and this is a very important point, the media in Singapore was not meant to be a 'Fourth Estate' like in the UK or the USA. It was and still is meant to act in the interests of the country: continued economic growth on the premise of political, economic and social stability. Everyone knows how the media can be very influential in shaping public opinion, so it has to be careful what it publishes doesn't cause any sort of turbulence to the stability of the country.

And you must remember, even in Singapore journalists and press companies write based on the principle of 'objectivity', that means taking no sides. Apart from the features, opinion and forum pages which are 'opinion' pieces you will notice that news articles adopt a direct quotation, paraphrased quotation, and factual account of news stories. And as far as it is available the views of both sides are showcased in the same story. But remember the mandate of the local press: stability.

Providing undue coverage of Singaporean politics tends to have a de-stabilizing impact on the framework of the country, especially from a foreign POV. That is definitely something you want to avoid especially since Singapore's position is fragile and dependent heavily on how others view it's stability. That refers to the foreign investors and all those stuff which I won't repeat.

What I really mean is, covering too much of the negative side of Singaporean politics will give it too much attention, and gives the entire issue a 'connotation' that it is actually a very big deal when it is not. Hence editors have to place due weightage on what they feel is the scale of the event.

It's not an easy job, I mean they are but mere mortals. But they have to suffer the critiques of armchair readers and commentators who do not have to undergo the same level of pressure.

I would, however readily admit that the level and quality of the opinion pages can still be improved.

And, contrary to popular belief, there are NO RESTRICTION on the Singapore Press system, other than through licensing. In other words news pieces are not 'censored' by some Government Authority before they are printed. All this are done in-house by editors who judge in the best interests of their mandate.

In fact, it is relatively easy to get a license to publish in Singapore. You can just apply online through MDA's website. Of course, taking note of the above you can't exactly expect to have a political magazine approved, even if you plan to glamorize the PAP through it.

So, I hope you have a bit more confidence in your own country's press, for in it there are truly good-natured people who make it their commitment to keep the entire population informed in a fair, balanced and timely manner.

Otherwise, yeah THAT new paper piece was entertaining :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
I'm a media student and so I take the defence of the local media on this.

Really? I was studying media too. Mass Comm Diploma from Ngee Ann.

I'm sorry if it may seem like a harsh statement on my part. I am not disputing to any of what you just wrote. It is all true.

But do realise that the statement I made is not made out of angst driven, anti-establishment, rebel impulse, mindless verbal and mental retort. It is made because there are certain evidences of truths and facts POSSIBLY being withheld, twisted about, changed or exaggerated that basically contradicts the principles of 'objectivity'.

Example: I was posting a reply about the fuel ban to foreign vehicles imposed in Malaysia, citing that perhaps less cars to Malaysia would be good news, as already traffic is slow because of the Mas Selamat-seeking operations at the checkpoints. I wanted to remark that such checks doesn't seem to work since I had read a line on an article on the Channel News Asia website of reports that Mas Selamat is now in Indonesia.

I was about to post a link up to that article to basically ask if anyone knew about this, but when I went back to the article, I found it to be... well, changed.

The line that was saying about Mas Selamat's appearance in Indonesia was replaced by a statement made by Minister for Home Affair Wong Kan Seng, that he believe Mas Selamat is still in Singapore.

At first I thought my eyes were deceiving me, then I googled for news of about Mas Selamat. Spotted a Reuters article about how Indonesia's Intel was saying that Mas Selamat is Indonesia and is making contact with a fellow JI there, but that Singapore is denying that intel. I found the newspaper article about the alleged Mas Selamat's arrival in Indonesian shores on The Jakarta Post website.

This is not the first time that the Channel NewsAsia website changed the content of it's article. It has happened before although I am reluctant to go further details to this out of interest to the forum. I don't want to get this forum into trouble.

I have to say, though, that the article on the defamation case made the Chees look juvenile, stupid and downright brash. I wouldn't want a leader like that for my country, surely. However, there are also some statements by MM Lee the New Paper quoted that I felt was rather brash and unnecessary as well, but the article made it sound like it's OK for him to say those things. I would very much like to know more about the things that the Chees say that the court deem as irrelevant, but they are made through glancing mentions, as if to say "The court has deem it as irrelevant so not worth mentioning anyway. Let's talk about how the Chees wasted their time." I would like to read and article that can cover what happened in there through pure facts.

I am not at all slamming the media 100%. I do believe that there are some issues that are justifiably covered from every angle; you can see that in coverages on foreign issue that have little to no economic or socio-political impact to us, or countries that has beneficial influence on us. But when it comes to certain issues that ties in to our home interest, I rather not depend on them entirely. I mentioned just a few examples, but really, there's enough to make me want to take the local media's objectivity with a whole fistful of salt, instead of just a pinch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dir
Wow,
Actually I think this has turned out to be one of the cooler discussions of late.

Thank you for those who sided with me on this one but no problems with those who didn't.
In the end, it really is just a healthy discussion within this forum and nothing about "Hey My c*** is much bigger than yours, my c*** can walk right through the door! With the feeling so purreeee!" (tribute to System of a Down there!!!!!)

I apologize for not apologizing to James (Does that even make sense?!?!?!?!) for I truly feel that his attack against me in the previous post was unwarranted and biased. That being said, I am happy that I stood up for it instead of taking the flak for it, just because 'the moderator says so'. And I would also encourage those who were the ones who DID actually slam the kid to grow some balls and learn to believe in standing up for what you do or say.

If you have something to say, stand up for it rather than 'act big' in numbers but run away when 'sh*t happens'. And I hope, Vickymaniac, that that is something I am showing to kids by staying with this till the very end. Voicing out your opinions when you believe in them but being responsible enough to reason them out with others while listening.

But at the end of the day, whether James decides to actually address the main issue at hand is up to him. He has done more than enough for the community, more than his fair share of financial contribution for SOFT itself, put in more than enough hours of hard work at moderating these forums throughout the many many years to at least permit him to do whatever he wants on a forum he took the initiative to register as his own.

Respectfully, this is Jame's forum and he will always have final say. This post was just merely highlighting my opinion that just because you have the final say, doesn't mean you're always 'right'. I still do not think James has addressed some key points that I raised, and I don't think he intends to (which is alright since this IS his forum anyway) but it would be awesome if he took responsibility as well for making such an attack against my personal morality.

Quite obviously there will be people who can say that I am guilty of my own accusations and they wouldn't be entirely wrong. :)

But what matters most of all is that this has been a pretty awesome discussion that did bring about some great quotes from various SOFT psoters. And I'm really happy everything was done pretty smoothly!

And for all intents and purposes, that is what a forum is all about :) And the reason why we've all been coming to SOFT for so many years. It's addictive!

Now if only my stapler would come back to me.
Damn I miss that cold piece her metal against my skin.

Thank you guys :)

____

After everything is said and done, James, just wanted to clarify, it says on the front of SOFT that the site was founded in 1998, but you mentioned in the post that you did so in 1999. So is 2008 actually the 10th year anniversary of SOFT or what? :P And if it isn't, can we just pretend that it is for the excuse of organizing a major kick a$$ party anyway? haha
 
Last edited:
haha, good show there Channel newsasia. That's why I always go to a few sources for news.
But for local news, it's always a dead end.
 
As for censorship of media,
I work full time in the media and let me just say that,
YES, there is censorship in the media :) You can feel it breathing down your necks all the time.

Well, as for it NOT being biased...
I'm not entitled to say for fear of being persecuted legally.
And ironically, that says all there is to say about the media in Singapore, doesn't it? :D
 
Censorship and political biasness is not only limited to Singapore. Large companies such as CNN have been known to censor stuff they have already published and display their biasness in reporting. However that doesn't mean it's alright for the local media to do the same thing. It just shows that the government have way too much control over the media and using it for their advantage.

I read somewhere a long time ago (i think it was journalists without lines, or something) that our reporters have the least amount of press freedom to publish anything they want. However our people doesn't seem to be bothered by that, so c'est la vie eh?
 
There's pretty much censorship and limitation everywhere, even in "democratic' and "liberated" countries like the States, heh. It's just that when facts and truths become a subject of that censorship, "democracy" becomes an ideal rather than a reality.

Censorship is not necessarily a bad thing. It is a good implementation to exercise harmony and avoid conflict. Levan's earlier controversial post and the reaction that he gets from James is an example what a lack of censorship can do; it creates conflict. So in a way, it has its use.

But when it starts to build ignorance and apathy rather than awareness, then censorship becomes harmful and unjustified.

Anyway, really sorry to sidetrack so far away from the original topic. But I thought I need to make myself extremely clear :)
 
Censorship isn't necessarily a bad thing! Imagine a SOFT without censorship, a press that works like Hong Kong or Taiwan where a lot of chaos erupts from it ? That would be actually quite upsetting to a lot of people. Anyone can accuse anyone of anything without backing up with facts at all. It opens up the doors for a lot of irresponsible journalism and now with the Internet, it would entitle ANYONE with the right to say ANYTHING.

Pretty scary thought if you asked me.

But then again, was banning Youporn really necessary? :D
 
=THOA

Haha, no don't worry at all, it's all cool. Well it's not an easy job for sure, but weighing the pros and cons, and the whole objective of having the media here, I would suppose it's all justifiable, isn't it? And the whole notion of 'objectivity' is a controversial one definitely, and not you or me or anyone else in this world will be able to firmly set what is objective reporting and what is not.

And yeah, no worries at all, I know there's no malice intended by anyone, just felt a need to clear up some misconceptions about the media.

Well, as to the entire censorship issue, I would have to graduate and work in the industry full time first before I can say first hand if there is or not, but on paper I don't suppose censorship exists. And self-censure by editors I don't really regard as censorship, so I will qualify that belief as such.

Of course, legal responsibility for what is being said is another matter altogether, so that is ultimately the big 'stick' that is keeping people from speaking recklessly, innit?

Overall I never thought such a discussion would occur in the 'Music kopi-tiam' section, haha
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top