By: Toking Author said: “A case in point would be my recent article on Melamine.” Goodness is that your std in the context of “issues that the government is not addressing”? Why don’t you try ISSUES like those with stokes being not as promptly treated as what MM LKY had talked about when he related the tale of his wife who had suffered a massive stroke while in the UK some years ago? Or the unreasonable salaries paid to LKY etc? By: The Singapore Daily » Blog Archive » Weekly Roundup: Week 39 […] blogosphere - Yawning Bread: Is engaging the mainstream media pointless? Part 1 - XTRALICIOUS: First Foray into ST - hesitation and anticipation - Endoh’s Dungeon: Maternity Perks For Maids - the grey line between personal & professional […] By: Xtralicious Y2K Wow, thanks for taking the time to craft a detailed comment. I agree that anonymity does not necessarily denote a surreptitious facade or lack of credibility, just as transparency does not automatically command trust or respect. If I had unknowingly given the impression that anonymous writers are less credible, I apologize. That is certainly not my intention. However, just as others are free to be anonymous, it is my personal conviction that I wish to pen off my articles to denote a further commitment and responsibility on my part. It is, of course, a personal choice. I look forward to your insight in my future articles! By: Y2K Good Afternoon Extralicious, I agree with you. This is an important milestone and certainly a marked improvement from the acrimonious relationship that once typified the relationship between bloggers and the MSM. I can’t think of anyone who could have done a better job of bridging the minds, than you really. However, I wish to take exception with one of your statements where you mentioned. “Penning off with my name signals a transparency and my conviction to stand by what I say - that it is backed with facts and research.” I would just like to add very quickly. While penning off under ones name, may certainly facilitate trust and transparency. It’s certainly not a precondition for facilitating deep understanding. Neither does it necessary lend what is written more believable or credible either. This hardly requires any elaboration. We can all for example point out endless examples of many people who either write or speak openly. Yet still come across as lacking in transparency, conviction and reason. Do bear in mind anonymity as a school of thought was an illustrious history. Before Galileo Galilee (the father of astronomy) first penned in 1620, his famous Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, the main bulk of his formulations accounting for the workings of the solar system was first written under an anonymous capacity; for very good reasons I believe as the church considered it heretical to question the timeless assumptions perpetuated by the Holy see. My point is Galileo decision to remain anonymous for nearly 10 over years during this research period did not in any way diminish either his influence or conviction in the eyes of the intellectuals of his day. On the contrary, because Galileo specifically adopted an anonymous moniker, he enjoyed an unprecedented quantity and quality of interactions which would not even have been politically possible had he come out openly – not only did this solicited deep discussions amongst intellectuals of that period, who I might add also furthered the discussion through an anonymous capacity. But it also facilitate discussion with fear or favor. For this reason, I believe anonymity should not be fear, instead it should be understood. The same can be said about Thomas Paine who once penned the famous pamphlet “common sense,” which made strenuous claims for American independence from Colonial rule – he too wrote anonymously and much of what Paine and his colleagues wrote anonymously was instrumental in laying the capstone of what we term today the American constitution along with the Bill of Rights. So again, one doesn’t need to come out into the open to be believed, neither does doing so necessary lend one a patina of added credibility. I think that position doesn’t have a very strong foundation, not historically, at least. I guess what I may be trying to say here obliquely. Is everyone who blogs should have an elemental right to define how they wish to come across to their audience; Molly Meek for example is anonymous, but she has a following that includes me and probably others who believe her insights are compelling to our times; so does Red Bean and characters like Darkness etc. My point is everyone should be allowed the freedom to crave out their respective identities which best facilitates the whole idea of civil discourse; whether they accomplish this openly or anonymously isn’t important; what’s important is we don’t pigeon hole ourselves into one mould and promote sameness and demote diversity. Where we expect everyone to look, behave, talk and think in only one acceptable way. If we do that, we may even run the danger of mimicking the MSM. Where will the fun be, when that happens? Thank you sharing your interesting encounter with the press. It has certainly a riveting read. We wish you well. (Oh, I am so sorry! I didn’t mean to write an essay!) The Director General of the FILB Y2K By: The Singapore Daily » Blog Archive » Daily SG: 26 Sep 2008 […] Discourse - Yawning Bread: Is engaging the mainstream media pointless? Part 1 - XTRALICIOUS: First Foray into ST - hesitation and anticipation - Endoh’s Dungeon: Maternity Perks For Maids - the grey line between personal & […]