Archive for May, 2008

Our top local English newspaper, the Straits Times, has sometimes been derisively called the States Times, and this observation is not for no good reason. Let’s compare some newspaper reports, two from the Straits Times (Story 1 and Story 2) and the other from International Herald Tribune, about the recent court hearing involving MM Lee and Chee Soon Juan.

The Straits Times stories were published on 27th May and when I read them that day, the first thing that struck my mind was both stories were all coming from the perspective of MM Lee. It was all about the case that MM Lee made against Chee Soon Juan and there was nothing about Chee’s case against MM Lee. I think any educated person will be able to see these two stories are not journalistic writing. These two stories could have well been published in the PAP’s website or newsletter and not look out of place.

Let’s look at the piece by IHT. To be honest, I do think the IHT piece is a wee bit biased against MM Lee but the journalist managed to contain the bias quite well and presented both sides of the story, unlike the two pieces from the Straits Times which were so obviously biased in favour of MM Lee. The IHT piece had quotes from both sides, although there were some unnecessary interpretations, such as the following paragraph:

Lee expressed what seemed an extraordinary sense of vulnerability, even to the words of a lone critic, while his antagonist described a compulsion – even a mission – to challenge power at any cost.

The journalist was very smart in making the negative observation, though. To deny MM Lee any possibility of a defamation lawsuit (IHT is most certainly most familiar with defamation threats from MM Lee), he deliberately added the word “seemed”. This one word might seem to be rather insignificant but those writing online can do well to learn from the IHT journalist and use words or phrases such as “seemed”, “appeared”, “I think that…”, “It is my opinion that…” etc.

When using such words and/or phrases, it is obvious to a reader that the sentence is a statement of opinion and not fact. I am no expert on defamation but my understanding is that opinions are accepted to be inherently flawed and one cannot be successfully sued for defamation if it is clear that one is expressing an opinion and not a statement of fact. Of course, there are many other intricacies involved in determining whether someone has indeed defamed another but if you know how to write cleverly, couching negative observations as an opinion does help reduce the chances of being sued for libel.

I must say I enjoyed the IHT piece a lot more than the two Straits Times pieces. I think it does more justice to Chee Soon Juan. You may say that I’m biased but I do think the IHT piece is real journalism. As for the two Straits Times pieces, you can decide for yourself what labels you want to place on them.

I just read Ephraim Loy’s comment on the PAP becoming the “opposition” in the online space, i.e. the PAP is in the minority when it comes to political discussions online. And Ephraim worries for the PAP in terms of elections performance during the next GE.

In all honesty, I don’t think that the PAP really bothers about political discussions in cyberspace. The reason is simple. The vast majority of netizens engage in anonymous postings. It’s actually not all that hard to make a list of people who blog with their real identities. Anonymous chatter on cyberspace isn’t much of an immediate threat at all.

Ephraim points to the recent Malaysian general elections to make the case that the online political space should be taken seriously. Well, the online political space will be taken seriously by the PAP if a Singaporean blogger actually contests a seat in the coming general elections. Unless the political cyberspace proves capable of causing the loss of real political power symbolised by the losing of parliamentary seats, why would the PAP care?

That being said, are there bloggers who are willing to stand up and contest in a general election? I don’t see any, at least not now. I personally have no interest now, and it will probably remain so over the next 5-6 years because I want to finish grad school. Even after that, I am not too sure if I will still be blogging, much less contest an election.

However, the fears voiced by Ephraim isn’t invalid. It’s just that he’s worrying about it too early. I doubt the local political cyberspace will have much of an effect on the overall voter pattern in the next 1-2 GEs. After that, I think there’s a chance that the PAP might suffer what Barisan Nasional suffered this year because the numbers of the “Youtube/Facebook/Blogger” generation would be a substantial proportion of the electorate. The problem for the PAP, if any, is not a short term one but a long term one.

Of course, there will only be a problem if there are enough good alternatives to choose from. Some of the alternative candidates in the last GE were seriously lacking and I have sympathies for Yaw Shin Leong who got needlessly flamed for choosing the better candidate. For now, the gahmen can afford to ignore cyberspace. Whether that is a wise decision for Lee Hsien Loong’s successor is open debate.