:-) I've made a decision to be happy :):):)I don't know if you know this about me, but I'm actually a pretty ambitious, driven, obsessive-compulsive person.As a result, I can be too hard on myself, and people have said that I do need to cut myself some slack at times.From now on, I will made a conscious effort to enjoy life more.A few things have led to this change in mindset.1) Recent news reports about the plummeting birth rates and how an unbalanced work culture is the cause of it.2) This Bible verse:Ecclesiastes 5:5 (The Message Bible)After looking at the way things are on this earth, here's what I've decided is the best way to live: Take care of yourself, have a good time, and make the most of whatever job you have for as long as God gives you life. And that's about it. That's the human lot. Yes, we should make the most of what God gives, both the bounty and the capacity to enjoy it, accepting what's given and delighting in the work. It's God's gift! God deals out joy in the present, the now. It's useless to brood over how long we might live.I realise I must be a bit careful at this point: I don't want to sound like some self-proclaimed guru of happiness. But I think certain things can, and does lead to more happy living:1) Finding a career that you enjoy, or if you are a student: studying something you are interested in.2) Have a life goal/vision/purpose to live/die for. Basically, its about finding meaning in the things that you do.3) Building strong meaningful relationships with people, and with your family.4) Making an effort towards personal growth.5) Cutting yourself some slack, and not be over-driven.6) Making a decision to be happy and optimistic, even when situations seem bad.In essence, have a balanced lifestyle! The happy family What makes a happy man, or woman?Is it career, the company of friends, a life of parties, or all of the above?Ask any high-powered single career woman in Singapore about this, and the most unlikely answer would be: family.I'd like to place an emphasis on the big 'S' word here - The Singaporean.It seems to me like we are a work-obsessed culture. From the paper chase to the rat race, Singaporeans are on a never-ending pursuit of material ambitions. Or at least that's what news reports are telling us.Getting married, raising kids, living your entire life with one spouse - these things are no longer a priority in the minds of many career-minded singles.After thinking about it, I'm beginning to see the incredulity of it all. Follow me on this.How could it be, that something so basic, so primal, so necessary, could become something so undesirable?Raising a family is a matter of survival, the basis on which the viability and prosperity of a nation is based on. Without a family, there can be no community, and without a community, there can be no nation. While some may not like the way the Social Development Unit (SDU) tries to encourage procreation, the government does have a point: it is a life-and-death matter.Yes, you have your homosexuals, but they are a minority.There has been too much negativity surrounding family life. Divorce rates are up, and these are deterring those who have not yet taken their marriage vows. The cost of raising children in Singapore is somewhere north of $200,000, and couples are suddenly afraid of having more.The problem lies with our culture.Theologian H. Richard Niebuhr defined 'culture' as "the secondary artificial environment which man superimposes on the natural. It comprises language, habits, ideas, beliefs, customs, social organizations, inherited artifacts, technical processes, and values."Singapore is beset by an artificial culture that places work above family life, and achievement above balance. This artificial culture - ironically - arises out of Singapore's fight for survival as a young nation. It was what brought Singapore, as Lee Kuan Yew liked to put it, from "third world to first."However, like an overworked car engine severely overheated and bursting at the seams, there must be some sort of cooling down. Companies and bosses must start looking at the bigger picture instead of the bottom line; they must realise that without the workforce reproducing itself, they will have to rely on foreign workers all the time.The government must now reverse the culture that brought them success in the nascent years.It is therefore not surprising that Singapore is ranked as one of the least happy nations in the world. This work-obsessed artificial culture that has been wrought on Singaporeans is taking its toll. This issue is something that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong is likely to address at the next National Day Rally, given the emphasis that has been placed on it in the media.A reversal from a "work-obsessed" culture to one where "relac, lah" becomes an acceptable phrase is something that will take a lot of political will. Singaporeans have long protested about this; they do it by leaving.Nothing more than drastic measures will do to bring them back. Life. I've been blogging so much about current affairs recently, so I think it's time I just sit down and chill, lah. Oh you're here already? Come sit with me. Do you want the usual? Teh-O is it?Well I must say the past three months have been quite a ride, being an intern at The Sunday Times. I can't begin to tell you how many times I wanted to give up! The first month was quite terrible actually - and I wondered is journalism really for me?Oh it's here already. Auntie, how much is it? $0.80? Don't worry - it's on me.Here you go.Yes, as I was saying, it's one heck of a ride lah. I actually harboured the thought of quitting all and setting myself up to be a professor instead! Can you believe it? The job's demanding, it's tiring, it's utterly challenging.There was once I got blasted by one of my supes, and it was terrible! I was cut to the heart I tell you. And I cried, I literally cried when I was at my desk, keeping myself away from prying eyes. And I was supposed to meet my friends to play basketball after that.I had no mood at all, but I still went. I drowned my worries away.Of course, I was alright the next day. In fact I found a new resolve within myself. To be better at what I'm doing. To be more sure of myself, and more assertive. To be more confident and dexterious.I guess, I still have some ways to go. You can't imagine how insecure I can be sometimes. Some of the people there are, in one word - zai. And I wonder if I'll ever match up to them. Often I'd compare myself to them, and I find myself lacking in so many ways.I'm naturally competitive lah. I hate to lose. And I do feel threatened and insecure sometimes.What is it? Yeah, I guess you're right. I shouldn't be too hard on myself lah.But well, it's about finding the right balance, ain't it? Striving to be the best, and yet not getting over competitive. I guess that's something I've gotta fine tune.Oh, and, did I tell you I'm right now in the midst of a blogging contest? Remember to vote for me yeah. Quite exciting lah, though I don't think I'll win it. Mr Wang Says So is such a popular blog, and being objective, I would vote for him. By you and I, friend-friend lah. So make sure you vote for me yeah? Once a day if you can.Well, I think I gotta go now. We'll catch up again soon ok? See you later. Tan Lead Shake Saga - Part 2 The Straits Times will have to do much more if it hopes to convince readers and Singaporeans that it is not a bootlicker for the government.TOC asked: "Straits Times Forum, is this a sick joke?" What started out as a rather innocious human interest coverage of Tan Lead Shake had turned sour. When I read that letter by Mr Syu Ying Kwok, I was appalled.As TOC rightly pointed out, the blame for publishing such a nonsensical letter should be put on the ST Forum editor. There is no connection between Tan Lead Shake's wife murdering his brother and his losses at the General Elections. I am still wondering why such a letter was published at all.Nevertheless, some are still quite disgusted by the media circus surrounding Lead Shake. Reporters were camping outside his house day and night, hoping to catch a glimpse of him. They turned up at his funeral uninvited, asking direct questions to he and his family.Is the media being insensitive?It sure seems that the media is like a pack of wolves pounding on their victims. No doubt, readers are generally quite interested to read about the circumstances surrounding murder victims. They want to know the sob story behind it all.But I wonder, would readers miss it if the media doesn't report on Lead Shake and his life? Editors play the role of gatekeepers; they dictate what goes out into the media. Interest in the Tan Lead Shake saga, it appears, is generated by no one but the media themselves. If the newspaper doesn't report it, would anyone care?Covering funerals and wakes is the bane of every journalist. No one likes to do it. But we are told that it is necessary, and it is part of our job description. But would the world be better off without it?I wonder if much of the unpleasantness that comes with covering funerals stems from our approach towards it. Many a times we go there with our big media tag, professing out affliation to the papers. Many a times we go there with our recorders and clunky cameras, hoping to catch people in their deepest sorrows. Who would like it?I have not covered a funeral before, so I wouldn't know. But as one TNP journalist shared before, it is better to go there first as people, and not as journalists. It is important to be sensitive to the people you are covering.Still, I feel that it is necessary to cover such events, for a very simple reason: the world in itself is a place full of sorrow, and newspapers must accurately reflect that. Death and funerals are a very real part of life, and if journalists aren't there to do the dirty work, who will? The Tan Lead Shake saga - no conspiracy involved The recent Tan Lead Shake saga has offered a revealing insight into the state of journalism in Singapore. And no, The Straits Times is not The State's Times, as many bloggers like to say.Before I proceed, here's a summary of events that has happened over the past week:The brother of opposition politician Tan Lead Shake, aka Slipper Man, was found dead with multiple stab wounds. The victim was murdered by his wife. The news ran in the June 29 edition of The Sunday Times, explaining details of the murder and background information of Lead Shake's life as an opposition politician.On the same day, National Solidarity Party member Law Sin Ling posted an angry response on a Yahoo! group, which was subsequently reproduced on Sgpolitics.net and The Online Citizen. In it, he accused The Straits Times of "journalistic madness", mocking the opposition and the dead, and brazenly betraying their "thicket of putrid inner value."Angrier comments poured in, calling the Tan Lead Shake article a "piece of trash" and an "abominable despicable unconscionable exploitation for political mileage".Another anonymous comment put it more crudely, with such vulgar eloquence:"&@#!%$&*% I would not want to translate that, those were words meant for the piece of prostituting shit of a journalist."In summary: yet another PAP-bashing, Straits Times = PAP conspiracy theory.I personally think Sin Ling has gone too far in his criticisms. An examination of journalistic 'News Values' will explain perfectly why the article was framed that certain way, with 'Slipper Man' Tan Lead Shake highlighted in the article.News Values are simply the criteria that editors use to decide what makes news.Much space was given to the article, not because of some PAP conspiracy to dent the opposition (it's not the GE yet). Rather, the news was simply interesting.Firstly, it involved a somewhat prominent personality, but not famous enough to make front page or a 6-page spread.Secondly, the moniker 'Slipper Man' was used not out of disrespect, but because it reveals an interesting aspect of Lead Shake's personality.Thirdly, the emphasis on Lead Shake's losses in past General Elections was necessary because hardly anyone would know about him prior to his brother's murder.And lastly, this was no conspiracy for a very simple reason: the PAP is not in cahoots with the Straits Times.And it is true that Tan Lead Shake is a SDA member, or rather - was. However, I must admit that the article could phrase it better, by naming him as a "former Singapore Democratic Alliance member" instead.There is not the slightest trace of politicalisation in the article. The PAP boogeyman did not pop by to the newsroom one day and proclaim: "You must cover this! Let's smear the opposition!" The article did not attempt to suggest that Tan Lead Shake was somehow involved in the murder attempt. The facts spoke for itself.As any Singapore journalism student will tell you, the government pretty much leaves the press alone, unless intervention is needed. The government is too sophisticated for that. Restrictions and OB markers are already in place to manage the media.The article was just that: a typical murder case - with Tan Lead Shake, an opposition member, unfortunate enough to be related to the victim. In any other country, even those with a free press, any opposition politician with his brother murdered would receive similar treatment by the media.It seems that the only one politicising the situation is NSP member Law Sin Ling himself. Hi there!Have not drop by here for a long time. Th... Hi there!Have not drop by here for a long time. This post really caught my attention. Personally, I heard some of the quotes that you made mentioned of in your post- they were brought up in my lectures and all. *laughs*Singapore has never been known for being an open media and i dont think that they are taking any credit for trying to be one. However, if everyone who is good in their writing is shunning the ST then who are the ones who are going to end up writing your reads in the ST? Wouldnt we then be raptured into this self-fulfillinf prophecy of the outcome of the ST? No matter what the management is, instead of looking in from outside of the looking glass and make all sorts of comments, it might be more effective for more daring writers to make a difference in ST.Seriously, sometimes i think and i think that there are certain famous and reliable publications that are also bias to a certain extent. Journalist can do their best to be subjective but there is always a certain element of "human-ness" in them- cant blame them if there are emotions being involved sometimes. Ask ourselves this- do we want a mere reporting of facts? i believe we do appreciate the "feelings" being revealed from time to time. ST has been part of our growing up years and we found no faults with it until we begin to grow up and compare it with other media vehicle and sources. In my opinion, could it be the self-censorship that the journalist mentality that the journalist begin to take on after they join ST? cant put all the blame on ST alone. p.s: I still read the ST from time to time. Just that Internet make news more readily available. No more comments will be entertained. No more comments will be entertained. let me give my opinion now.if one day i were to cr... let me give my opinion now.if one day i were to criticize you, calling you names but choose not to identify myself, is it my character flaw to choose to question who is criticizing me or is it the person criticizing me flaw?its not so much the fact that terence is questioning the anonymity of people disagreeing with him. his replies to you all have been backed up with his examples and thoughts of his own. if he really had a character flaw, he would not even bother posting any of your comments or ask for your identities without rebutting your points. why would you be afraid to at least link your email to your comments or at least tell terence who you are, even in private? my opinion of the posters on blogs who write with a cloak of identity is this:if you manage to overwhelm the blogger with your points, you would attack the blogger relentlessly till his dead carcass is strewn all over the floor or till he brings his blog down.if you do not or lose, you will slink away to the shadows, awaiting the next prey.and why attack a person's character when the initial post is about the media? it only seems that the above commentators may have the eloquent language skills to talk but talk is all they know how to do.i am no patriot, nor do i write about the local media or politics in singapore. but i don't understand the logic of setting bear traps for terence to prove your stand. Well guys, i am not really a journalist person hen... Well guys, i am not really a journalist person hence i may not write well however i will put an clear example that illustrate how i see things such as freedom. A soldier going to war and saw a child from the opposing country crying in the midst of the battlefield in dangered of being killed. As the soldier, will you save him despite the fact that you are not allow to or will you act like a human and save the child nontheless. Well as a journalist your job may be to report whatever you are being told however as a human being i believe it is all up to your beliefs and freewill. Though the fact that we are living in singapore may have restricted alot of things however its up to you to make the decision. i am not against anyone's decision or anything government have done however as a human being you have the choices to do as you wish and suffer the consequences, it is as simple as that. ( haha don't mind if my english is bad, thanks for understanding) "But no doubt, if rules relax, the media will no d... "But no doubt, if rules relax, the media will no doubt become more critical. The press is basically a reactive agent -> it reacts to news. It is safe to say everyone have their own gripes with the government.Based on my own sensing when I'm in the newsroom, the editors may not agree with government, but they are resigned to it and would not want the hassle of fighting back."Let's put this in personal perspective then. Do you remember reading the ST editorial during the ministerial pay hike controversy? I did, and it didn't feel as though the editors themselves are "resigned to it" as you so put it. They were outright supportive of it, as they have been of every government policy. I haven't really seen an editorial by the ST which criticises the government in any particular aspect unless the state has already admitted its shortcomings themselves, such as over the Mas Selamat scandal. There is a difference between acquiescing and endorsing it outright. The ST has always done the latter, not the former. You are fond of saying that it is the unjust laws which makes the ST so one-sided, but even if the laws specifically forbid critising the PAP or its leaders, do they mandate that the ST must support and champion every government initiative? I think not, and if the editors had wanted to express their displeasure and silent disagreement without incurring the wrath of the government they can do so by simply NOT being whole-heartedly supportive of the government's actions. Sometimes silence speaks much louder than the printed word itself. I have not seen any such incident whereby the ST stood by neither endorsing nor criticising while the government pushed its policy initiatives."Not everyone is a Chee Soon Juan, JBJ, or a Catherine Lim. About resignation, it is a purely hypothetical situation. But if it were to happen, certainly eyebrows would be raised, in Singapore and worldwide."I seriously doubt that such would happen. For one thing, there'll probably be a media blackout over this. We'll never know if so-and-so ST journalist resigned in protest of the ST pro-government stance."The only way to know for sure is to conduct an in-depth survey of SIngaporeans views. But certainly there are those who are supportive of the government too, and do not think much of freedom of speech etc. I've spoken to some of them myself."Didn't you bring up the point that bloggers are a very vocal minority not representative of the people? Tell me, honestly how many Singaporeans were in favour of the GST hike, ministerial wage increases, defensive of the government over the Mas Selamat scandal, policies favouring foreign workers over Singaporeans, increasing cost of living in Singapore? These are all issues which the blogosphere are largely in agreement with; one only has to look throught the TOC to find well-written articles offering detailed analysis and criticism of policy proposals and implementations. These are things the proverbial Singaporean man on the street can agree with. Of course there will be others who think freedom of speech is secondary to economic well-being, but to take the TOC as an example, how many of their columns are concerning freedom of speech? The overwhelming majority of them? You apparently aren't aware of what the blogosphere is saying, as evidenced by your characterisation of "freedom of speech" as the overwhelmingly primary issue dominating internet discussions."The blogosphere and MSM have a love-hate relationship. While riled up by some of blogosphere's comments, the more prominent bloggers have been widely quoted in MSM as well. It is a complex relationship, and it is wrong to say that the entire MSM is against blogs. Unfortunately, the opinion of a few op-ed writers tend to get a lot of attention."Let's put it this way: The ST is extremely selective of which blog posts by bloggers they chose to publicise. Often it's the mild-mannered moderately critical letters they publish and even then, at times the content is often truncated and quoted out of context; its meaning utterly twisted to support a diametrically opposing view. How's that for journalistic professionalism? And as for your point about MSM entirely being biased against blogs, it is not one I have made. Certainly there are pro-PAP bloggers, and I am not suggesting that the media is opposed to them."As for myself, I firmly believe the attitude of some of these editors and writers in ST towards blogs has to change. I advocate a amiciable relationship, where MSM and blogs engage one another actively, rather than war against each other. That is the whole point why I blog in the first place."Unfortunately I think I can safely say that this will not happen for a long time to come so long as the government continues to implant former ISD employees as ST "journalists"."As for anonymity, yes you have your right to remain anonymous. But what I mean is that I'll respect you and your views more if you tell me who you are, if not in public, then at least in private."My views stand and fall solely based on the merit of their contents, not on my identity. I choose to remain anonymous to protect my identity. I see no reason to disclose my identity at all. I'm not some well-known blogger or political figure masquerading as a anonymous blog commentor.One last thing I should add: The decision for you to join the SPH under their scholarship is only one for you to make. But clearly if you didn't want any dissenting opinions on your choice of scholarship you would probably have stated so explicitly. The fact that you didn't implies that others are free to comment. As Godwin said, that you should choose to question the anonymity of those who disagree with you indicates a substantive character flaw or troubling belief on your part. The goal of every opinion piece is of course to pe... The goal of every opinion piece is of course to persuade others towards my point of view. I am trying to make a point here.If I'm clamouring to seek approval of others, then I would not apply for the scholarship would I? I mean, so many people are against it.So what if two people oppose my views? Does it make you right and me wrong? I stand by my opinion.I also stand convicted in my view that one should reveal himself when giving comments. Whether you do it is up to you. Revealing who you are only shows that you are willing to respect me, and engage me as another human being. In a debate, we know who our opponents are, and where they come from. Why should it be different online? If Barack Obama and Hillary can debate online with their identities under scrutiny, why can't you and I choose to do the same?Why can't we be accountable for our opinions? Your identity serves a purpose: if you are merely an armchair critic prone to visiting blogs and commenting on them, your views are definitely less valid then say, a politician or seasoned journalist who has seen and experienced much. Their views are definitely more worth listening to, because they are in position to comment.I'm sure you've studied rhetoric: Ethos, pathos, and logos. By not revealing yourself, you hide the ethos of your argument. Your ethos should stregthen your argument, because you reveal who you are, and the values you stand for.Unless, of course, your ethos actually weakens your argument. Well, you may not need my approval, but you certai... Well, you may not need my approval, but you certainly wanted people's approval - otherwise you would not have written this entry.My initial comment was just an attempt to point out how your defence of ST journalists' role is both weak and unoriginal. Taken by itself it would have just been a poor piece of journalism.However, I read the comments and your replies, I began to sense that the problem may be more than one of journalistic abilities, but indicative of a character flaw - you were not so much trying to defending other people as you are trying to justify your own choice.When the flaws in your arguments and your intentions are questioned, you resort to distraction tactics by bringing your critics' anonymity into the picture and using logical fallacies in your arguments.When all that failed to stop me, you dismiss my critcisms as merely "opinions".Well, terence, there are justified opinions, and there are unjustified opinions. If I am your only critic, then perhaps you can just shrug it off. If two people question your arguments, you should read what they have written carefully. Given the number of negative comments you have actually received, you should consider that it is perhaps not I who should change my stand. I don't seek your approval Godwin.You are certainl... I don't seek your approval Godwin.You are certainly entitled to your opinions, and I to mine. It seems that you're already convinced of your stand that "I'm selling my soul", and nothing is going to change that. So be it.Like I said. The journalists does his best in the environment he is in. That is all that's required of him. My heart's in Singapore, and my audience are Singaporeans. Where else can I go? "The real issue here is me joining ST, isn't it?"N... "The real issue here is me joining ST, isn't it?"Not quite. The real issue here is your justification of your choice in joining ST by arguing that journalists have reduced responsibility for the role they play because of the way things are."You can't equate the PAP with Nazi Germany. Yes they may feed themselves extremely rich and all, but there is no basis for comparison still."I do not equate PAP with the Nazi party because it would be wrong to do so. I compare the way you argue for diminished responsibility on the part of the journalist with the way people in Nazi Germany defended their roles."About me not publishing the two comments, I just didn't think you were trying to make a serious point. Sorry if I couldn't read into your genius =)"I do not believe you. You published my first comment even though it was very much in the same style as the second, and my third comment as I recall isn't un-serious."By the way, the SPH scholarship is not a bond for life. For me it's just a stepping stone towards other things."If you think that declaraion will improve my opinion of you, then... never mind, just join ST. Couldn't locate the other one.As to ze need to jus... Couldn't locate the other one.As to ze need to justify mein choice of Nazi scholarship in Deutschland, let's just put it zis way:Say I vant to werk as a camp guard full-time, where do I go: 1) Auschwitz, 2) Birkenau. See ze situation? Either vay, I am still controlled by the SS und Nazi party. My other option will be to werk overseas. But, mein heart is with Deutschland, you see, und with ze German people.Of course, being ein camp guard, it doesn't really matter who you werk with. Just do your job, try to be alert und vigilant. Let the camp commandant worry about ze rest. For the record I wrote the comments at June 28, 20... For the record I wrote the comments at June 28, 2008 9:35 PM and June 29, 2008 9:34 PM.I'll claim my other comments when you approve them. "What I am doing or not doing about the situation ... "What I am doing or not doing about the situation does not change the fact that your defence of the state of our media displays an immaturity of thought and a lack of integrity. By using my anonymity and apparent lack of action to defend your arguments, you are using the "poisoning the well" and "tu quoque" arguments - this shows that you do not understand that these are not valid ways to argue a position, or if you do, that you are not above using them."Defense of the state of our media. I haven't been trying to "defend" the media, but to provide a more balanced viewpoint. Yes, ST is biased and pro-governemnt. Haven't I made that clear from the beginning? The real issue here is me joining ST, isn't it?"Comparison with Nazi Germany is this case is not flawed - it does not imply that you are helping to kill Jews, but it demonstrates the fact that sometimes evil is allowed to happen because people not in the position of power but who nonetheless facilitate the committing of evil deeds often rationalise their role in the scheme of things and over-emphasise their lack of choice over the matter and thus their personal responsibility."Killing of Jews is universally condemned, except by the Axis Powers themselves. But the liberal press? Once again you are moralising the issue. You can't equate the PAP with Nazi Germany. Yes they may feed themselves extremely rich and all, but there is no basis for comparison still."You have a choice. You can either take the scholarship and join SPH, you can not take the scholarship and join a foreign/international media company, or you can do something other than journalism. But don't fool yourself into thinking that you will go into SPH and change the system, because given the fact that you are already speaking up for the status quo, it is more likely that the system will change you, if it hasn't already started to."No, I've never thought about changing the system. I'm not that naive. By the way, the SPH scholarship is not a bond for life. For me it's just a stepping stone towards other things. Me speaking up for the status quo? Once again, I am misinterpreted. I only agree with certain things that ST do. Believe you me, if you ask me what my vision of an ideal Singapore would be like, it's not too different from yours, I believe. But I am just trying to describe how things are at the moment.About me not publishing the two comments, I just didn't think you were trying to make a serious point. Sorry if I couldn't read into your genius =)As to anonymity, I'm just not comfortable with the fact that here I am, revealing my identity online, speaking with a couple of anonymous guys game for debate. I'd much rather speak to a visible face. But that's something I have to deal with eh? "Yes, that is the government's expectation, but is... "Yes, that is the government's expectation, but is that the role the press should play? To rubber stamp and praise the government policies, attack its opponents, engage in one-sided bias reporting against opposition leaders and distort the news? To what extent are the ST editors themselves already not in league with the government? What makes you think that these people would willingly criticise the government if they are allowed to do so? Certainly among the rank and file journalists, there are probably many who are not subservient to the whims of the government, but of the top brass, I have no doubt they are every much as part of the government as they are supportive of it. Ask yourself, was Heinrich Himmler a "victim" of the Third Reich? And the point about journalists being victims, I do agree not all of them can be faulted, but when a blogger criticises the paper, he/she is unmistakably criticising the editors and top management, not all the rank and file journalists, unless the aforementioned journalists publish articles which are biased and one sided. Criticising the ST in some sense is just like criticising Nazi Germany, no one blames the ordinary German citizen unless they whole-heartedly supported the Third Reich."I do not know the editors personally enough to be able to comment on the issue. But no doubt, if rules relax, the media will no doubt become more critical. The press is basically a reactive agent -> it reacts to news. It is safe to say everyone have their own gripes with the government.Based on my own sensing when I'm in the newsroom, the editors may not agree with government, but they are resigned to it and would not want the hassle of fighting back.Not everyone is a Chee Soon Juan, JBJ, or a Catherine Lim. About resignation, it is a purely hypothetical situation. But if it were to happen, certainly eyebrows would be raised, in Singapore and worldwide."Given the government practice of hiring former ISD employees as "journalists", and that the editors march in lock-step with the PAP, I seriously doubt much would change. How would you know that bloggers do not reflect concerns of everyday Singaporeans? I personally have spoken to various people I meet on the streets such as taxi drivers, blue-collar workers, and even the older generation of people who supposedly revere the Minister Mentor and I can say that sometimes I can't tell if they are not bloggers."The only way to know for sure is to conduct an in-depth survey of SIngaporeans views. But certainly there are those who are supportive of the government too, and do not think much of freedom of speech etc. I've spoken to some of them myself."I was merely pointing out that I can't find any instances of the ST having to retract its stories after various inconsistencies have been pointed out in the blogosphere. Unless, of course, by "engaging" you mean implanting pro-govt "journalists" or ISD employees as "bloggers" to shore up some pro-government support in the blogosphere.And as for my point about how the ST has treated the Singapore blogopshere, you yourself have put it in a better way than I could have. I cannot find any instance of the ST having praised or lauded the blogosphere for correcting its articles. At best every single one of its response demonises the bloggers. We are not just hoping for them to "react" to bloggers, but to actually address legitimate criticism directly instead engaging in ad hominem and dismissive insults.I should add that your incredulous attitude towards the idea of having the mainstream media retract a story or apologise for it betrays an ignorance of how the blogosphere in liberal Western democracies has been actively successful in upholding standards of media accuracy where the mainstream media themselves have failed."The blogosphere and MSM have a love-hate relationship. While riled up by some of blogosphere's comments, the more prominent bloggers have been widely quoted in MSM as well. It is a complex relationship, and it is wrong to say that the entire MSM is against blogs. Unfortunately, the opinion of a few op-ed writers tend to get a lot of attention.My point is this: yes, MSM should pay attention to what blogs have to say, but they reserve the right to make their own judgements based on it. As for myself, I firmly believe the attitude of some of these editors and writers in ST towards blogs has to change. I advocate a amiciable relationship, where MSM and blogs engage one another actively, rather than war against each other. That is the whole point why I blog in the first place.As for anonymity, yes you have your right to remain anonymous. But what I mean is that I'll respect you and your views more if you tell me who you are, if not in public, then at least in private. Of course. Bloggers and their evil cloak of anonym... Of course. Bloggers and their evil cloak of anonymity. I never disputed your right to moderate comments and your choice to not publish any comment - I merely drew a conclusion about your character from the way you exercised that right.My comments are there for all to see (if you will publish them), and their merits or lack thereof can be judged by all readers. My identity does not matter.What I am doing or not doing about the situation does not change the fact that your defence of the state of our media displays an immaturity of thought and a lack of integrity. By using my anonymity and apparent lack of action to defend your arguments, you are using the "poisoning the well" and "tu quoque" arguments - this shows that you do not understand that these are not valid ways to argue a position, or if you do, that you are not above using them.I may even be a journalist myself, but my being a pot does not mean that a kettle I am calling black is indeed not black.Comparison with Nazi Germany is this case is not flawed - it does not imply that you are helping to kill Jews, but it demonstrates the fact that sometimes evil is allowed to happen because people not in the position of power but who nonetheless facilitate the committing of evil deeds often rationalise their role in the scheme of things and over-emphasise their lack of choice over the matter and thus their personal responsibility.You have a choice. You can either take the scholarship and join SPH, you can not take the scholarship and join a foreign/international media company, or you can do something other than journalism. But don't fool yourself into thinking that you will go into SPH and change the system, because given the fact that you are already speaking up for the status quo, it is more likely that the system will change you, if it hasn't already started to. For now, I stand by my criticism. You may publish my previous comments and see if your other readers think they are valid arguments, or flawed ones. To facilitate this, I will take the name Godwin for this discussion (because I invoked Nazi Germany).(ethereal, I am pretty sure terence is writing about me and not you. Sorry for causing the confusion.) Dear Terence,Apparently you haven't addressed my l... Dear Terence,Apparently you haven't addressed my last reply at all, choosing instead to attack my right to anonymity. I have been consistent in my username so far. I don't have a blog, nor do I feel the need to reveal my exact identity by giving you my full name and profile. The above comment by "Anonymous" was not written by me. I found your blog only because it was cross-linked at The Online Citizen and decided to respond to this particular post because I disagree with it. If you're going to demand that every single person who comments on your blog to reveal their identity complete with their full name for whatever undisclosed reasons then I whole-heartedly agree with "Anonymous" that perhaps you would most probably feel right at home with the ST.This is all that I will say here. If you are unwilling to debate the points of your post as I have tried to, then I will gladly depart your blog and not post here again. Well, if you choose to hide behind the cloak of an... Well, if you choose to hide behind the cloak of anonymity and not stand up to your comments, then I have every right not to publish it don't I.Tell me then, what are you doing about the situation in Singapore? If you want to criticise, why don't you tell me who you are and what you are doing about things?Your comparison of ST with Nazi Germany is seriously flawed. Please read above. I see you have chosen not to approve my two previo... I see you have chosen not to approve my two previous comments, which reinforces my assessment that you will fit right in at ST.However, do note that I am not the only reader who compares your apology for the state of our media with the situation in Nazi Germany. Think about that for a minute, and ask yourself whether being a journalist is so important to you that it is worth becoming a journalist without integrity just to be a journalist. "The government expects the media to serve a natio... "The government expects the media to serve a nation-building role. That was my point. Yes, I still think ST is a victim. What can the editors hope to do when the government has such a tight grip over management? The only thing we can do is to resign en masse... care to take the lead?"Yes, that is the government's expectation, but is that the role the press should play? To rubber stamp and praise the government policies, attack its opponents, engage in one-sided bias reporting against opposition leaders and distort the news? To what extent are the ST editors themselves already not in league with the government? What makes you think that these people would willingly criticise the government if they are allowed to do so? Certainly among the rank and file journalists, there are probably many who are not subservient to the whims of the government, but of the top brass, I have no doubt they are every much as part of the government as they are supportive of it. Ask yourself, was Heinrich Himmler a "victim" of the Third Reich? And the point about journalists being victims, I do agree not all of them can be faulted, but when a blogger criticises the paper, he/she is unmistakably criticising the editors and top management, not all the rank and file journalists, unless the aforementioned journalists publish articles which are biased and one sided. Criticising the ST in some sense is just like criticising Nazi Germany, no one blames the ordinary German citizen unless they whole-heartedly supported the Third Reich.Your point about resignation is pointless. Even if every single dissenting journalist were to resign from the ST it would simply hire other journalists who are more partial to its pro-govt stance."Bloggers may have a negative impression of ST, but just how representative are they of the Singapore population? Please note that many still read the ST. As for international rankings, once again it is due to the laws that are in place. Imagine what will happen when the ISA and NFFA are removed, and when the government removes its stranglehold on ST?"Given the government practice of hiring former ISD employees as "journalists", and that the editors march in lock-step with the PAP, I seriously doubt much would change. How would you know that bloggers do not reflect concerns of everyday Singaporeans? I personally have spoken to various people I meet on the streets such as taxi drivers, blue-collar workers, and even the older generation of people who supposedly revere the Minister Mentor and I can say that sometimes I can't tell if they are not bloggers."ST apologising just because a blogger puts up some negative criticism??? What sort of bigotry is that? Unless the blogger is MM Lee?? Or President Bush? You've got to be kidding me. Once again, bloggers are a very vocal minority. Not unless there is a national outrage, or when the online voice reaches a critical mass will ST react. And it has reacted, on many occasions. Take Mas Selamat for example. The online chorus against the whole fracas has led to ST writing some editorials on it, though not favourable towards bloggers."This was your point in the first place. I quote:"This is something the ST should try to change. Journalists should be more actively engaging the blogging community, not as enemies, but as active citizens working towards better public discourse."I was merely pointing out that I can't find any instances of the ST having to retract its stories after various inconsistencies have been pointed out in the blogosphere. Unless, of course, by "engaging" you mean implanting pro-govt "journalists" or ISD employees as "bloggers" to shore up some pro-government support in the blogosphere.And as for my point about how the ST has treated the Singapore blogopshere, you yourself have put it in a better way than I could have. I cannot find any instance of the ST having praised or lauded the blogosphere for correcting its articles. At best every single one of its response demonises the bloggers. We are not just hoping for them to "react" to bloggers, but to actually address legitimate criticism directly instead engaging in ad hominem and dismissive insults.I should add that your incredulous attitude towards the idea of having the mainstream media retract a story or apologise for it betrays an ignorance of how the blogosphere in liberal Western democracies has been actively successful in upholding standards of media accuracy where the mainstream media themselves have failed. You want to be a reporter that reports on the trut... You want to be a reporter that reports on the truth or a reporter that reports what the government wants you to report?what's the big deal about being a journalist in SPH anyway? Its just a glorified typist.You proud that you are working for the 154th freest press in the world?Looks good on your resume? so if I join SPH, I'm not joining a loan-shark mon... so if I join SPH, I'm not joining a loan-shark money lending Co. as you mentioned.I'm merely joining an organisation that is unfortunately associated closely with the government. You are attempting to moralise everything.Loan Sha... You are attempting to moralise everything.Loan Shark practices (incredulously high interests, painting on walls, death threats) are universally condemned, whereas the concept of a "liberal press" is really a debatable issue. It depends on who you're asking. You can't say that a liberal press system is "right" or "wrong", but whether it is "better" for the interests of society.Furthermore, loansharks are the creator of fear and terror, but ST is a reflection of how the government is. Terence,Lets use this example. Assuming you are an... Terence,Lets use this example. Assuming you are an accountant and have an exceedingly good job offer in a loan-shark money lending Co. [option A], a company just like any other, but who is legally allowed to loan money (and obviously they are also allowed to carry out the way our real loan-sharks pratices in recovering their debts).Now you have also a similar offer, as an accountant, to work in the loan department of a reputable bank [option B] (and obviously they do not practise recovery of money like these illegal loan sharks do, as compared to the Co. of option A does which say under the law, who is allowed to practise exactly what illegal real loan-sharks do to recover money)Tell me which one you would chose - assuming u like to be an accountant? Give yourself an honest answer, and if you so wish, let everyone know of your answer. T Q. Terence,Like I have said in the earlier post about... Terence,Like I have said in the earlier post about justification, just be yourself if you wanted my opinion.You may have a simple and noble intention of reporting news as it is, meaning the facts and truths, don't let others discourage you of your aspiration.Go for it, Terence.Maybe if you really wanted very much to be a good journalist, my advice will be not to get involved with local politic issues, this way you won't need to sell out your soul to the 'devil'.Remember Ken Kwek? If you are not ready to play by the rules of your employer (SPH) with their pro govt stance, be a sports, lifestyle, technology or whatever except politics journalist, if you do have a choice.Work hard, live honestly, be with peace spiritually, I wished for you. To ethereal:"Since when has it been the job of the... To ethereal:"Since when has it been the job of the media to "play the expected role of ... nation-building"? Certainly this is a notion we often find in dictatorships, but certainly not in liberal democracies. The purpose of the media is, to put it simply, to report news and not spin it as favourable to the ruling party. This is the very basis of journalistic integrity. And to what extent is the ST a victim of its circumstances? Are you not aware that a good number of SPH "journalists" are former employees of the ISD?"The government expects the media to serve a nation-building role. That was my point. Yes, I still think ST is a victim. What can the editors hope to do when the government has such a tight grip over management? The only thing we can do is to resign en masse... care to take the lead?"You have portrayed the ST as a victim which is utterly helpless against the onslaught of unreasonable online blogging criticism. This ignores what not just plenty of Singaporean bloggers are saying about the independence and credibility of the Straits Times, but also that of international organisations such as Reporters without Borders, Freedom House and numerous other international media freedom indexes. Take a look at the media section of the US State Department Human Rights Report on Singapore in 2007, for example.'"Bloggers may have a negative impression of ST, but just how representative are they of the Singapore population? Please note that many still read the ST. As for international rankings, once again it is due to the laws that are in place. Imagine what will happen when the ISA and NFFA are removed, and when the government removes its stranglehold on ST?"You are assuming that the ST actually takes blogger criticism into account. I can find no examples of the ST retracting or apologising for a story due to online criticism by bloggers. Are you aware of any?"ST apologising just because a blogger puts up some negative criticism??? What sort of bigotry is that? Unless the blogger is MM Lee?? Or President Bush? You've got to be kidding me. Once again, bloggers are a very vocal minority. Not unless there is a national outrage, or when the online voice reaches a critical mass will ST react. And it has reacted, on many occasions. Take Mas Selamat for example. The online chorus against the whole fracas has led to ST writing some editorials on it, though not favourable towards bloggers. "Damned if they do, damned if they don't" - a neat... "Damned if they do, damned if they don't" - a neat way to sum up the situation in Singapore.As to the need to justify my choice of SPH scholarship is Singapore, let's just put it this way:Say I want to work as a journalist full-time, where do I go: 1) SPH, 2) Mediacorp. See the situation? Either way, I am still controlled by the ISA and NPPA. My other option will be to work overseas, or for reuters. But, my heart is with Singapore, you see, and with Singaporeans.Of course, being a journalist, it doesn't really matter who you work with. Just do your job, try to be balanced and critical. Let the editors worry about the rest.