Who is not suspectible to criticisms of selectivity? It’s always possible to make a criticism against anyone using selectivity as the reason because one can never truly account for the myriad of views out there.

I think that the critical thinking that we learnt as a social science student is not meant for us to end up being able to completely balanced and objective because in the first place, the concepts of balance and objective are subjective. When we learn critical thinking, it is meant for us to apply to ensure that we carefully consider plausible alternatives when reading an argument.

The Internet is indeed a state of anarchy, but without the concept of anarchy, there can be no concept of order. I personally think that it is good to find fault because if we don’t know how to find fault, it just means we are blind to the fact that problems always exist. And yes you are right, how do we know that we are not limited in our own view? The only way to know is for everyone to be critical and discuss, point out each other’s shortcomings and everyone will be the better for it.

Well, I’m glad you remember Marshall McLuhan. Indeed, many sites are outlandish. However, I note that many are not as well. This is the nature of the public sphere, or if you like, the marketplace of ideas. There will always be crackpots (think the normal distribution) and there will always be geniuses. The whole point of having such diversity of views is that everyone will get their chance to say their piece and then see if people actually support their argument. If people don’t, there’s no gounds for complaint that they were being prevented from speaking, right?

The internet as a marketplace of ideas is something that I will write about later on, but I’ve already let loose the main gist in this comment.

Hi again, I find you extremely interesting. Given all of your background in your field of studies I guess you do believe that the message is not always the truth. But yet you have selective chosen to choose the media message that fits your perspective and outlook which is inherent. A classical example of preferential reading I believe? =)

Anyhow, I doubt military will be an option and reporting of that news piece is again gatekeepers at work. It’s a good news angle.

Okay, to the main point. I’ve come a realise a trend that the internet has been a strong proliferation of anti-PAP sentiments. Of course as you correctly pointed out the confusion of the government and the political party also meant “gahmen-bashing-a-plenty”.

Again, you have correctly used your good knowledge of ICTs and more accurate the Internet as a key medium for promote alternative ideas. Not that radio and other mediums do not achieve that same. It’s just that from a single axis of gate-keeper for other mediums, you have no point of origin for the Internet.

I have 2 main grouses of this cyber-democracy or political awareness however. First of all, I subscribe to the believe that the internet is in a state of anarchy (familiar? hehe…) My worry for our little country is that we could well be swept up by groupthink! Just because it’s easy to fault find and be critical just doesn’t equate to us being right. How do you know we’re not limited in our own view? How do we know there was no real debate for policies? Maybe it’s well thought but problems are just a economic case of scarcity of resources?

My last grouse is from McLuhan’s statement that the “medium is the message”. The very nature of the internet is very volatile. Flamable. To attract you have to be outstanding to the point of being outlandish. Few blogs/sites are as balanced as you are. It’s a fact that the political views itself on the web has conceeded to being alternative already. Short of being negatively connocated as Opposition.

*sigh* I’m cautiously optimistic.

“You cannot bear the power of the ring! Give it to me”

Best Regards
Dewayne Wan

Read this:

http://www.littlespeck.com/content/security/CTrendsSecurity-060924.htm

I think the price of educating S’poreans is a political “gamble” that the PAP took many years ago. I’m sure they knew that an educated population would not so easily have the wool pulled over its head. The same thing with the education of women. Although LKY once lamented that it has caused a decline in the fertility rate, I’m glad he had the foresight to realise that educating women is one of the “sure win” routes to success as a nation.

Great insights, btw. I’ll definitely be visiting your blog more often. I’ve also added your blog to my list of “Good Reads” in my blog.

I guess it’s by nature that they are to be concerned over such issues and address them. Yet again i see them being put down by the comments here.

Perhaps a speech like that suggests for a better future ?

Obviously, as you can see, even if it’s from a script, it’s much better that the scrip WSK was holding when he ‘apologised’. [Well he formally 'apologised' today again - 26th Oct]

Lets all vote more women into parliment.

Chap.

I call this line of thinking cautious optimism.