A Dissonant Cacophony of Callouness and Insensitivity

From Sg Review

Dear All

I had on the morning of 25th October 2006 responded with biting criticism to the Straits Times report on MP Wee Siew Kim’s comments in defiant defence of his dear daughter.

I was totally disgusted by MP Wee’s comments which I will not let go pass untouched.

The ST’s Forum Editor had passed over my response and published another letter which was far less critical.

I am a strong proponent of freedom of expression, I will not stop at being silenced by elements of the mainstream press. Attached below is the letter that was targeted at our PAP AMK GRC MP Wee Siew Kim.

My purpose for publishing this letter is to encourage greater freedom of expression stronger and unrestrained criticism of the Ruling Party by all and I am taking the lead here.

Coincidentally, MP Wee made a statement in the press today which was of course published. This statement claims to be apologizing to the readers who were offended.

I have read MP Wee’s statement and I am not of the view that the apology is full and unreserved. I trust Singaporeans can come to their own conclusions on the matter.

“RESPONSE TO PAP MP FOR AMK GRC MR. WEE SIEW KIM’S COMMENTS IN STRAITS TIMES REPORT OF 24TH COTOBER 2006.

I had read in amazement of what Ms Wee Shu Min had written in her blog. I ruminated on her statements and her lineage and illustrious background and after much thought, decided not to criticize her in spite of the callousness she had exhibited at such a tender age.

For to me, there is simply no reason to overreact to the ignorant bigotry of an 18 year old girl and that the matter is best left to rest after the barrage of criticism she met with on the internet.

However, when I saw the Straits Times report of 24th October 2006, I read with disgust what Ms Wee Shu Min’s father PAP MP for AMK GRC, Mr. Wee Siew Kim had said in brazen defence of his dear daughter justifying her callousness and adding further insult and injury to Singaporeans.

MP Wee, in his dismal attempt to soften the effect of his daughter’s ramblings, had sought to downplay the incident as a lack of sensitivity on her part and to quote him “Some people cannot take the brutal truth and that sort of language, so she ought to learn from it.”

Whilst the less discerning may opine that MP Wee has apologized on behalf of his daughter, in truth both father and daughter have exhibited no more empathy or remorse than when the remarks were first made in Ms Wee’s blog. MP Wee’s remarks albeit more diplomatic had in fact exhibited an even higher level of arrogance and lack of empathy.

MP Wee must note that her daughter has since removed the offending posting from her blog. That is itself discordant with the stance he exhibited in his interview in the Straits Times. One wonders whether the removal of the posting was a father-sanctioned public perception management exercise for damage control or was it a true indication of remorse and regret?

If indeed MP Wee had similarly been just as careless with his callous remarks, he ought to acknowledge so and then extend nothing short of an unreserved apology to all Singaporeans especially those who are in situations similar to that of Mr. Derek Wee.

And upon doing so, MP Wee should also take steps to inculcate the appropriate level of humility in his daughter and do so in an early stage of her life, for MP Wee must remember that the government that he backs has taken bloggers to court, punished and shamed them for the undue comments they have made similarly for a limited audience.

Whilst I do not hope that the current establishment gets richer as a result of whatever discussion that takes place, I do hope that the former does get a lot humbler and wiser for Singapore will need leaders who can truly empathize with the people instead of having to live with parrots perched tree high above ground and their dissonant cacophony of callouness and insensitivity.”

The PAP and its supporters are invited to attack this posting with unrestrained fervour.

Regards

Chia Ti Lik

A Dissonant Cacophony of Callouness and Insensitivity

From Sg Review

Dear All

I had on the morning of 25th October 2006 responded with biting criticism to the Straits Times report on MP Wee Siew Kim’s comments in defiant defence of his dear daughter.

I was totally disgusted by MP Wee’s comments which I will not let go pass untouched.

The ST’s Forum Editor had passed over my response and published another letter which was far less critical.

I am a strong proponent of freedom of expression, I will not stop at being silenced by elements of the mainstream press. Attached below is the letter that was targeted at our PAP AMK GRC MP Wee Siew Kim.

My purpose for publishing this letter is to encourage greater freedom of expression stronger and unrestrained criticism of the Ruling Party by all and I am taking the lead here.

Coincidentally, MP Wee made a statement in the press today which was of course published. This statement claims to be apologizing to the readers who were offended.

I have read MP Wee’s statement and I am not of the view that the apology is full and unreserved. I trust Singaporeans can come to their own conclusions on the matter.

“RESPONSE TO PAP MP FOR AMK GRC MR. WEE SIEW KIM’S COMMENTS IN STRAITS TIMES REPORT OF 24TH COTOBER 2006.

I had read in amazement of what Ms Wee Shu Min had written in her blog. I ruminated on her statements and her lineage and illustrious background and after much thought, decided not to criticize her in spite of the callousness she had exhibited at such a tender age.

For to me, there is simply no reason to overreact to the ignorant bigotry of an 18 year old girl and that the matter is best left to rest after the barrage of criticism she met with on the internet.

However, when I saw the Straits Times report of 24th October 2006, I read with disgust what Ms Wee Shu Min’s father PAP MP for AMK GRC, Mr. Wee Siew Kim had said in brazen defence of his dear daughter justifying her callousness and adding further insult and injury to Singaporeans.

MP Wee, in his dismal attempt to soften the effect of his daughter’s ramblings, had sought to downplay the incident as a lack of sensitivity on her part and to quote him “Some people cannot take the brutal truth and that sort of language, so she ought to learn from it.”

Whilst the less discerning may opine that MP Wee has apologized on behalf of his daughter, in truth both father and daughter have exhibited no more empathy or remorse than when the remarks were first made in Ms Wee’s blog. MP Wee’s remarks albeit more diplomatic had in fact exhibited an even higher level of arrogance and lack of empathy.

MP Wee must note that her daughter has since removed the offending posting from her blog. That is itself discordant with the stance he exhibited in his interview in the Straits Times. One wonders whether the removal of the posting was a father-sanctioned public perception management exercise for damage control or was it a true indication of remorse and regret?

If indeed MP Wee had similarly been just as careless with his callous remarks, he ought to acknowledge so and then extend nothing short of an unreserved apology to all Singaporeans especially those who are in situations similar to that of Mr. Derek Wee.

And upon doing so, MP Wee should also take steps to inculcate the appropriate level of humility in his daughter and do so in an early stage of her life, for MP Wee must remember that the government that he backs has taken bloggers to court, punished and shamed them for the undue comments they have made similarly for a limited audience.

Whilst I do not hope that the current establishment gets richer as a result of whatever discussion that takes place, I do hope that the former does get a lot humbler and wiser for Singapore will need leaders who can truly empathize with the people instead of having to live with parrots perched tree high above ground and their dissonant cacophony of callouness and insensitivity.”

The PAP and its supporters are invited to attack this posting with unrestrained fervour.

Regards

Chia Ti Lik

Singapore

Internet users urged to join in 24-hour online demo against internet censorship

REPORTERS WITHOUT BORDERS URGES INTERNET USERS TO JOIN IN 24-HOUR ONLINE DEMO AGAINST INTERNET CENSORSHIP

Where: www.rsf.org
When : 11 A.M. on 7 November to 11 A.M. on 8 November

No one should ever be prevented from posting news online or writing a blog, but they are in the 13 countries singled out by Reporters Without Borders for a 24-hour online protest against Internet censorship.

Worldwide, 61 people are currently in prison for posting “subversive” content on a blog or website. Reporters Without Borders is compiling a list of 13 countries whose governments are “Internet enemies” because they censor and block online content that criticises them. The Internet scares. Censors of every kind exploit its flaws and attack those who pin their hopes on it. Multinationals such as Yahoo! cooperate with the Chinese government in filtering the Internet and tracking down cyber-dissidents.

The defence of online free expression and the fate of bloggers in repressive countries concern everyone. So Reporters Without Borders is offering Internet users tools to campaign against Internet predators and is calling on them to participate in an INTERNATIONAL CYBER-DEMO.

Everyone is invited to support this struggle by connecting to the Reporters Without Borders website (www.rsf.org) between 11 a.m. (Paris time) on Tuesday, 7 November, and 11 a.m. on Wednesday, 8 November. Each click will help to change the “Internet Black Holes” map and help to combat censorship. As many people as possible must participate so that this operation can be a success and have an impact on those governments that try to seal off what is meant to be a space where people can express themselves freely.

Protests will also be staged by Reporters Without Borders bureaux around the world to condemn Internet censorship and ethical misconduct of the Internet giants when operating in one of these countries.

Reporters Without Borders will publish the list of the 13 Internet enemies on 7 November and at the same time will launch its blog platform, rsfblog, and an Arabic-language version of its press freedom website.

The agency Saatchi & Saatchi has created an Internet ad calling on the entire Internet community to take part in the 24-hour campaign. All media, websites and blogs that want to support this large-scale protest are invited to get in touch with Cédric Gervet at +33 1 4483-8474.

Straits Times gloating in a one-horse race

posted by clyde
You know what they say, a pat on the back is only a foot away from a kick in the arse. And Seah Chiang Nee (LittleSpeck.com) delivers the boot:

Informed media watchers in Singapore couldn’t help but chuckle when they came across this recent headline: “Straits Times keeps No 1 spot, drawing 1.35m readers.”

I’m not sure why it bothered to proclaim this victory considering the newspaper is running in a one-horse race. It’s the only national English-language broadsheet on sale here, competing against itself.

It’s tantamount to SBS Transit claiming to be Singapore’s best bus operator. I doubt it will get any message of congratulations from the public.

(With due respect to it’s staff, TODAY is no editorial competitor. It is neither national nor provide full coverage and is competitive to the ST only in advertising.)

The second caveat to its claim lies in its purported rise of 30,000 readers to 1.35m compared to 1.32 in 2005 (quoting the latest Nielsen Media Index survey).

“It retained top spot as the favourite daily in Singapore,” it declared, obviously regarding TODAY, Business Times, Lianhe Zaobao, Berita Harian, Tamil Musasu, etc as competitors.

To the newspaper, this increase “is very good” compared with the rest of the declining world outside.

“Readership is falling in many newspapers round the world because news is available free on the Internet, on TV and on radio, “ says the ST editor.

“We face the same challenges in Singapore, and to be able to gain new readers in such a difficult environment is very encouraging.”

Audited circulation, please!

Generally, readership surveys have limited worth, useful in determining the reach of the newspaper and detailing – for advertisers – readership profiles.

In other words, they show what age groups are avid readers and what they read to help advertisers plan their campaigns.

Some are actually wary about readership surveys, preferring to know the audited circulation figures – or actual sales figures (net of complementary copies) as the minimum requirement.

Conducted over one issue of over a period of say three months, these surveys are purportedly done on thousands of households. Figures are always higher than circulation data.

This is because several family members or office workers (in ST’s case 3.5 readers) share the same copy.

I have also noticed that in recent years, when circulation figures had shown stagnation or declines, the Straits Times had increasingly been emphasising on “readership” rather than “audited circulation.”

(Actually a truly transparent media would offer both because they complement each other.)

Many advertising firms in a non-monopoly environment (where they had a wider adv choice) would insist on detailed audited circulation information rather than merely “readership” surveys as the primary data source.

“Readership” surveys, if professionally carried out, are useful too, but recognisably would always have an element of error or distortion, less accurate than actual circulations.

When newspapers hike prices or during a serious economic downturn, it is possible for sales to drop but readership to go up as sharing becomes more prevalent.

This means that the number of readers may go up from say, 3.5 to 3.7 per copy. That doesn’t result in a better bottom line.

Besides readership often rises during general elections, wars or other major developments of special interest to Singaporeans – faster than audited circulation.

To be fair, The Straits Times do publish circulation figures except – as in the case of the recent gloating report – it doesn’t emphasise them. Understandable so when advertising costs depend mostly on a newspaper’s circulation.

With sales trending downwards (it could be worse if not for its near-monopoly and a huge population jump in Singapore), the management probably felt it wiser not to play up ‘circulation’ figures.

How do we know ‘circulation’ had dropped? See for yourself: –

Daily ST average circulation:
1998 = 391,612 (population: 3,490,356)
2004 = 380,197
2005 = 386,167
June 16, 2006 = 381,934 (when population had risen to 4,492,150).

Internet users urged to join in 24-hour online demo against internet censorship

REPORTERS WITHOUT BORDERS URGES INTERNET USERS TO JOIN IN 24-HOUR ONLINE DEMO AGAINST INTERNET CENSORSHIP

Where: www.rsf.org
When : 11 A.M. on 7 November to 11 A.M. on 8 November

No one should ever be prevented from posting news online or writing a blog, but they are in the 13 countries singled out by Reporters Without Borders for a 24-hour online protest against Internet censorship.

Worldwide, 61 people are currently in prison for posting “subversive” content on a blog or website. Reporters Without Borders is compiling a list of 13 countries whose governments are “Internet enemies” because they censor and block online content that criticises them. The Internet scares. Censors of every kind exploit its flaws and attack those who pin their hopes on it. Multinationals such as Yahoo! cooperate with the Chinese government in filtering the Internet and tracking down cyber-dissidents.

The defence of online free expression and the fate of bloggers in repressive countries concern everyone. So Reporters Without Borders is offering Internet users tools to campaign against Internet predators and is calling on them to participate in an INTERNATIONAL CYBER-DEMO.

Everyone is invited to support this struggle by connecting to the Reporters Without Borders website (www.rsf.org) between 11 a.m. (Paris time) on Tuesday, 7 November, and 11 a.m. on Wednesday, 8 November. Each click will help to change the “Internet Black Holes” map and help to combat censorship. As many people as possible must participate so that this operation can be a success and have an impact on those governments that try to seal off what is meant to be a space where people can express themselves freely.

Protests will also be staged by Reporters Without Borders bureaux around the world to condemn Internet censorship and ethical misconduct of the Internet giants when operating in one of these countries.

Reporters Without Borders will publish the list of the 13 Internet enemies on 7 November and at the same time will launch its blog platform, rsfblog, and an Arabic-language version of its press freedom website.

The agency Saatchi & Saatchi has created an Internet ad calling on the entire Internet community to take part in the 24-hour campaign. All media, websites and blogs that want to support this large-scale protest are invited to get in touch with Cédric Gervet at +33 1 4483-8474.

Singapore

Straits Times gloating in a one-horse race

You know what they say, a pat on the back is only a foot away from a kick in the arse. And Seah Chiang Nee (LittleSpeck.com) delivers the boot:

Informed media watchers in Singapore couldn’t help but chuckle when they came across this recent headline: “Straits Times keeps No 1 spot, drawing 1.35m readers.”

I’m not sure why it bothered to proclaim this victory considering the newspaper is running in a one-horse race. It’s the only national English-language broadsheet on sale here, competing against itself.

It’s tantamount to SBS Transit claiming to be Singapore’s best bus operator. I doubt it will get any message of congratulations from the public.

(With due respect to it’s staff, TODAY is no editorial competitor. It is neither national nor provide full coverage and is competitive to the ST only in advertising.)

The second caveat to its claim lies in its purported rise of 30,000 readers to 1.35m compared to 1.32 in 2005 (quoting the latest Nielsen Media Index survey).

“It retained top spot as the favourite daily in Singapore,” it declared, obviously regarding TODAY, Business Times, Lianhe Zaobao, Berita Harian, Tamil Musasu, etc as competitors.

To the newspaper, this increase “is very good” compared with the rest of the declining world outside.

“Readership is falling in many newspapers round the world because news is available free on the Internet, on TV and on radio, “ says the ST editor.

“We face the same challenges in Singapore, and to be able to gain new readers in such a difficult environment is very encouraging.”

Audited circulation, please!

Generally, readership surveys have limited worth, useful in determining the reach of the newspaper and detailing – for advertisers – readership profiles.

In other words, they show what age groups are avid readers and what they read to help advertisers plan their campaigns.

Some are actually wary about readership surveys, preferring to know the audited circulation figures – or actual sales figures (net of complementary copies) as the minimum requirement.

Conducted over one issue of over a period of say three months, these surveys are purportedly done on thousands of households. Figures are always higher than circulation data.

This is because several family members or office workers (in ST’s case 3.5 readers) share the same copy.

I have also noticed that in recent years, when circulation figures had shown stagnation or declines, the Straits Times had increasingly been emphasising on “readership” rather than “audited circulation.”

(Actually a truly transparent media would offer both because they complement each other.)

Many advertising firms in a non-monopoly environment (where they had a wider adv choice) would insist on detailed audited circulation information rather than merely “readership” surveys as the primary data source.

“Readership” surveys, if professionally carried out, are useful too, but recognisably would always have an element of error or distortion, less accurate than actual circulations.

When newspapers hike prices or during a serious economic downturn, it is possible for sales to drop but readership to go up as sharing becomes more prevalent.

This means that the number of readers may go up from say, 3.5 to 3.7 per copy. That doesn’t result in a better bottom line.

Besides readership often rises during general elections, wars or other major developments of special interest to Singaporeans – faster than audited circulation.

To be fair, The Straits Times do publish circulation figures except – as in the case of the recent gloating report – it doesn’t emphasise them. Understandable so when advertising costs depend mostly on a newspaper’s circulation.

With sales trending downwards (it could be worse if not for its near-monopoly and a huge population jump in Singapore), the management probably felt it wiser not to play up ‘circulation’ figures.

How do we know ‘circulation’ had dropped? See for yourself: –

Daily ST average circulation:
1998 = 391,612 (population: 3,490,356)
2004 = 380,197
2005 = 386,167
June 16, 2006 = 381,934 (when population had risen to 4,492,150).

Singapore

Get out of my elite uncaring face

Please, get out of my elite uncaring face. by Brennan Sinbun #2

Get out of my elite uncaring face.

Please, get out of my [Wee Shu Min ] elite uncaring face. by Brennan Sinbun #2

Other Sources:
RJC girl Wee Shu Min gets slammed by netizens

Singapore

Defendants discover police witness listening in on court proceedings

What in the name of “Justice” is going on?
From Singapore Democratic Party
26 Oct 06

Just when you thought things couldn’t get any worse…

On the second day of the trial the DPP Ms Lee Lit Cheng dropped the ball when it was discovered that one of her police witnesses was sitting in the courtroom listening to the testimony of other police witnesses.

This is disallowed because witnesses are required to testify independently and not collaborate with each other.

The trial involves Mr Gandhi Ambalam, Dr Chee Soon Juan, and Mr Yap Keng Ho who have been charged with speaking in public without a permit on 22 Apr 06 during the election period.

Halfway through the hearing, Dr Chee asked the DPP to identify the persons who were seated behind her.

After saying that one of them was ASP Jeremy Koh from Jurong Police Division, the Investigating Officer (IO) of the case and who is the last of a list of 12 police witnesses, the DPP quickly acknowledged the obvious: “It was my omission to have sought the Court’s permission to have the IO present in the courtroom.”

She apologized for the oversight and explained that she had asked ASP Koh to be present so that she could “activate him to contact the next witness.”

Flabbergasted, the Defence queried why the Prosecution needed the IO to be a coordinator when he was a material witness. Was the Police Force so short handed that it could not find someone to assist the DPP to coordinate the witnesses?

Dr Chee pointed out that in previous trials that he was involved in, the DPP did not have a witness to “contact” other witnesses.

Turning to Judge Eddie Tham, Dr Chee asked if it was proper for a witness who was waiting to give evidence to be seated in the courtroom whilst the trial was going on.

The Judge conceded: “It is not proper for a witness who is supposed to be giving evidence to be seated in the courtroom.” He added that the DPP’s omission to ask the Court for permission to allow the IO to be present during proceedings was “regrettable”.

Dr Chee then pointed out that ASP Koh was not just seated in the courtroom. The IO had been going in and out of the witness room and speaking to the other witnesses, and not merely helping DPP Lee Lit Cheng to ensure that other police witnesses turned up on time for their turn to give evidence. Was he collaborating with the other witnesses?

At that point, Dr Chee asked if ASP Koh was in the witness room. The court bailiff took a look and confirmed that the IO was indeed in the witness room with the next witness.

The Judge then summoned ASP Koh and put him on the stand. He asked if the officer had spoken to other witnesses about the testimony given by other police officers who had already testified. The IO said no.

Upon cross-examination, Mr Koh revealed that he had come to the courtroom on his “own initiative” and received “no specific instructions.” This contradicted what DPP Lee told the court earlier that she had wanted the IO to be present to “activate” him to contact witnesses.

In addition when Dr Chee queried whether ASP Koh had been with the fourth witness in the witness room, the IO said he did not know who the fourth witness was. If the ASP Koh’s role was to help DPP Lee “contact the next witness”, why did he not know that the person he was with in the witness room was the next police witness to be called? The discrepancy widened.

Lawyer M Ravi then appeared in court to assist Mr Yap Keng Ho in arguing that the trial be stopped because of the tainting of evidence by the Prosecution.

Dr Chee conveyed his misgivings about the matter. As this was a serious development, the Defendants wanted time to seek legal opinion on how best to proceed.

The Judge stopped the hearing before lunch and adjourned the matter to Friday morning.

Defendants discover police witness listening in on court proceedings

What in the name of “Justice” is going on?
From Singapore Democratic Party
26 Oct 06

Just when you thought things couldn’t get any worse…

On the second day of the trial the DPP Ms Lee Lit Cheng dropped the ball when it was discovered that one of her police witnesses was sitting in the courtroom listening to the testimony of other police witnesses.

This is disallowed because witnesses are required to testify independently and not collaborate with each other.

The trial involves Mr Gandhi Ambalam, Dr Chee Soon Juan, and Mr Yap Keng Ho who have been charged with speaking in public without a permit on 22 Apr 06 during the election period.

Halfway through the hearing, Dr Chee asked the DPP to identify the persons who were seated behind her.

After saying that one of them was ASP Jeremy Koh from Jurong Police Division, the Investigating Officer (IO) of the case and who is the last of a list of 12 police witnesses, the DPP quickly acknowledged the obvious: “It was my omission to have sought the Court’s permission to have the IO present in the courtroom.”

She apologized for the oversight and explained that she had asked ASP Koh to be present so that she could “activate him to contact the next witness.”

Flabbergasted, the Defence queried why the Prosecution needed the IO to be a coordinator when he was a material witness. Was the Police Force so short handed that it could not find someone to assist the DPP to coordinate the witnesses?

Dr Chee pointed out that in previous trials that he was involved in, the DPP did not have a witness to “contact” other witnesses.

Turning to Judge Eddie Tham, Dr Chee asked if it was proper for a witness who was waiting to give evidence to be seated in the courtroom whilst the trial was going on.

The Judge conceded: “It is not proper for a witness who is supposed to be giving evidence to be seated in the courtroom.” He added that the DPP’s omission to ask the Court for permission to allow the IO to be present during proceedings was “regrettable”.

Dr Chee then pointed out that ASP Koh was not just seated in the courtroom. The IO had been going in and out of the witness room and speaking to the other witnesses, and not merely helping DPP Lee Lit Cheng to ensure that other police witnesses turned up on time for their turn to give evidence. Was he collaborating with the other witnesses?

At that point, Dr Chee asked if ASP Koh was in the witness room. The court bailiff took a look and confirmed that the IO was indeed in the witness room with the next witness.

The Judge then summoned ASP Koh and put him on the stand. He asked if the officer had spoken to other witnesses about the testimony given by other police officers who had already testified. The IO said no.

Upon cross-examination, Mr Koh revealed that he had come to the courtroom on his “own initiative” and received “no specific instructions.” This contradicted what DPP Lee told the court earlier that she had wanted the IO to be present to “activate” him to contact witnesses.

In addition when Dr Chee queried whether ASP Koh had been with the fourth witness in the witness room, the IO said he did not know who the fourth witness was. If the ASP Koh’s role was to help DPP Lee “contact the next witness”, why did he not know that the person he was with in the witness room was the next police witness to be called? The discrepancy widened.

Lawyer M Ravi then appeared in court to assist Mr Yap Keng Ho in arguing that the trial be stopped because of the tainting of evidence by the Prosecution.

Dr Chee conveyed his misgivings about the matter. As this was a serious development, the Defendants wanted time to seek legal opinion on how best to proceed.

The Judge stopped the hearing before lunch and adjourned the matter to Friday morning.

Singapore