Countering PM Lee Hsien Loong’s propaganda on online media

Poh Ah Pak SG

By Eugene Yeo, Chief Editor

It appears that the state media has started its propaganda machinery ahead of the imminent general elections to nullify the threat of the New Media and utilize it to the benefit of the PAP.

In an interview with CNA, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said the Singapore government is set to actively engage and leverage on the new media at the next General Election due in 2012. (read full article here)

This means that a smear campaign is on its way to discredit outspoken blogs like ours which dare to challenge the political status quo in order to diminish our influence on undecided voters sitting on the fence.

What PM Lee said in this interview is nothing more than plain hogwash fit only to deceive nursery kids and an outright insult to the intelligence of well-read netizens.

Allow me to decipher, dissect and dismantle the three inherent flaws in PM Lee’s argument for you individually on its own:

1. PM Lee claimed that the Singapore government has announced initiatives to relax rules governing new media such as trying to engage citizens online through portals such as REACH, the government’s feedback arm, as well as new media outlets such as Facebook.

These are merely pathetic attempts to engage netizens through official approved channels in cyberspace and does not represent a more liberal stance adopted by the regime with regards to freedom of online speech.

On the contrary, netizens have been threatened publicly by a police inspector and a minister of prosecution should they cross the OB marker in their online postings.

A Hitler spoof on Ho Ching was taken down by Youtube mysteriously though replicas of other non-related topics are still circulating around. An ex-Singapore citizen Gopalan Nair was jailed for three months last year for making a comment on his post which would not have raised any eyebrows in other first world countries.

Let us stop kidding ourselves - the PAP has not and will not relax its grip on the New Media and the only reason why it is not doing so is because it is impossible for it to control the internet.

2. PM Lee noted there will always be a role for traditional media to present trusted, unbiased and informed opinions - even if some may feel that information generated by traditional media is rather tame compared to what is out there online.

Either PM Lee is living in his own delusions or he is still not aware of the contempt many Singaporeans bear towards the traditional media. “Trusted, unbiased and informed opinons” perhaps only from the PAP’s perspective, but not according to internationally accepted standards and norms.

Singapore’s mainstream media churns out the most untrustworthy, biased and misinformed propaganda to hoodwink, mislead and brainwash its citizens with the aim of keeping the PAP perpetually in power.

It constantly languishes in the lower rungs of the Press Freedom Index published annually by the internationally respected Reporters Without Borders, a media watchdog and its rank last year was 141st, below the likes of Sudan, Algeria, Gambia and Nigeria.

This is what RSF said about Singapore media in its latest report in 2008:

“A “worthy” successor to his father, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has done nothing to loosen state control over the media. Journalists have a great deal more freedom to cover international news than local affairs. And a political documentary was hit by censorship.” (read full report here)

As the Temasek and GIC fiascoes have more than adequately demonstrated, Singapore’s traditional media has failed miserably in its purported role as a pillar of our nation to be guardian for the people rather than a tool of the PAP to be used to save its own skin, time again and again. Despite of the widespread ramblings on the ground demanding for answers from the government, the state media has maintained a deafening silence as if nothing has happened.

3. Mr Lee said: “Well, there is a place called the Wild West and there are other places which are not so wild. And the new media - some of it are Wild West and anything goes and people can say anything they want…..But even in the Internet, there are places which are more considered, more moderated where people put their names down and identify themselves. And there is a debate which goes on and a give and take, which is not so rambunctious but perhaps more thoughtful.”

What’s wrong with allowing people to say anything they want? The best form of community moderation is to allow unfettered access to information and complete freedom of speech to allow the most sound and robust argument to win the debate through competition in a free market of ideas.

As ordinary citizens, we are forever handicapped in what we know because we do not have access to information privy only to government officials and as such it is unreasonable to expect us to verify whatever bits and pieces we know first before we post.

PM Lee should attend the Parliamentary sittings of the United Kingdom one day to witness for himself how “rambunctious, unthoughtful and unmoderated” their proceedings are. When British Prime MinisterTony Blair was grilled by both Labor and Conservative MPs over the Iraq War, he stood umoved in his position for hours to defend himself and rebuke all the allegations levelled at him one by one.

The lack of any meaningful debate and challenge to PM Lee’s iron-fisted rule in Parliament for years had made him complacent and perhaps short of courage to take on a political opponent in a one to one debate without any give and take. Only sissies expect their opponents to give way to them and the kitchen will be a more suitable place for them than in the Parliament. That kind of explains why we don’t see live debates between political leaders here unlike in other countries.

If what a netizen say is reasonable, meaningful and insightful, does it matter if we know his or her identity in real life ? What additional value does it add to the debate ? Only media sluts who crave for attention to inflate their egos and self-worth prostitute their blogs to the PAP’s mouthpiece !

The PAP has always dismissed bloggers who hide behind the cloak of annonymity as lacking credibility. We have proven them beyond doubt that the message is more important than the originator. Why do our readers keeping coming back to our blog in spite nobody knowing our identities in real life ? Because what we wrote strike a chord in their hearts and they know we have been speaking the truth and nothing but the truth.

Last November, Zhi Yuan wrote an excellent article to demolish the myth that bloggers must made themselves known in life to gain some cheap credibility points and to argue for the absolute necessity of annonymity:

While I agree that the credibility of a blogger will undoubtedly be enhanced if he or she is known in real life, this is only feasible in a free and democratic society which Singapore is not.

“According to the Reporters Without Borders Handbook for Bloggers and Cyber-dissidents ,

“Bloggers are often only the real journalists in countries where the mainstream media is censored or under pressure. Only they provide independent news, at the risk of displeasing the government and sometimes courting arrest. Plenty of bloggers have been hounded and thrown into prison…..

…..Bloggers need to be annonymous when they are putting out information that risks their safety. The cyber-police are watching and have become expert at “tracking down” trouble-makers”

Given the fact the Singapore government has all kinds of draconian laws in place such as the Internal Security Act and the Sedition Act to detain and arrest bloggers at will and the mainstream media has been subverted to become a propaganda tool of the PAP, being annonymous is for us the best form of defence and offence.” (Read Zhi Yuan’s article ‘How to wage and fight a cyber-guerilla war’ here)

Let us not fall into this ploy employed by the PAP to lure its cyber-critics out into the open so that they can better manage and fix them if the need arises. Once your identity is blown, you will naturally self-censor your blog postings which will lead to a lack of bite.

If you dare to cross the OB marker and offend the authorities, you can be assured that the secret police will be digging up your past and the state media on permanent standby mode to smear your character, reputation and all you got with its psycho-psychiatrist Dr Chua ever ready to pounce on you and declare you as having a XXX or YYY personality disorder. And if you work in the civil service, government-linked companies and quasi-government organizations, you can effectively kiss goodbye to your career and ricebowl forever.

So what makes those bloggers who “dare” to make themselves known to the PAP ? Will they still dare to confront them heads on ? Or will they shut up and act blur when the crunch comes ?

Now, I am sure most of you will not notice this cheap psychological tactic used by CNA. After they were finished with PM Lee’s interview, they showed a 5 second clip of The Online Citizen with its URL above to send a hidden message to viewers that TOC is a “moderate” blog which PM Lee finds agreeable. (Watch the video on the right sidebar of The Singapore Enquirer here)

This is one of the many subtle, indirect messages the media can send to entrap unsuspecting viewers and readers to generate the intended perception they want in their minds and in this case CNA seems desperate to give its viewers the impression that TOC is a PAP-approved blog. (I will write more about some other well-versed tricks used by the media to hoodwink its viewers another time)

I sincerely urge all netizens to stay viligant in the face of the anticipated media onslaught by the traditional media together with its accomplices in cyberspace to brainwash unsuspecting netizens and to counter their spin and lies immediately as they arise. A lie not countered, rebuked and debunked in time will proliferate and become the new distorted truth eventually.

In such extraordinary times, we must stay together and draw strength from one another. The true bulwark against the horrendous, despicable and shameless lies propagated and perpetuated ad nauseum by the PAP media to enslave our minds is not the alternative media, but a well-informed and politically mature citizenry which can differentiate the truth from the lies themselves. It is not the government’s business to be the arbiter of truth when they have the power to withold and even distort it in pursuit of its own interests

Every individual netizen or socio-political blogger has an important to role to play in informing and educating their less knowledgable fellow citizen to prevent them from falling pray to the PAP’s omnipresent and overwhelming propaganda machinery.

http://wayangparty.com/?p=5511

Poh Ah Pak SG

Fuck off Lee Hsien Loong, we don't need mother fucking cock sucking PAP regime bastards to come and control our thinking and spread their filthy propaganda.

I have not voted for you and will never vote for you.

Spread PAP propaganda try to brainwash me to support you, useless one lah.

Better go fuck off.

Brainwash Singaporeans for 50 years, still want to brainwash, still want to depoliticise.

Pui.

Fucking bastard.

Poh Ah Pak SG

Brainwash brainwash brainwash, all they know is brainwash brainwash brainwash.

Fucking elections coming must increase the brainwashing make some propaganda moves.

Pui pui pui.

No use one lah, whatever fucking propaganda moves you make is completely and totally worthless to me.

I will never vote for PAP.

Don't think make small small move, I will go vote for you.

Don't even mother fucking DREAM.

Stevenson101 SG

....don't really see how this is going to help your cause.

Poh Ah Pak SG

As long as PAP propaganda is being neutralised, it will help.

What is unhelpful is when PAP propaganda is put out, starts to spread, and no one goes and counter it; and the propaganda starts to have an influence on people.

Brainwashing effect starts.

That is unhelpful.

Propaganda countered, neutralised; brainwashing effect halted.

That is helpful.

Poh Ah Pak SG

By Kelvin Tan, Guest Columnist

When Minister of State for MICA Mr Lui Tuck Yew lamented in parliament that netizens scantly ‘rebutted’ some of the unhelpful comments made by fellow netizens over the Seng Han Thong incident, he betrayed his lack of understanding of the Internet. If the Internet were a channel for, as well as a repository of, every individual’s innermost feelings and opinions, then Mr Lui’s comments are akin to chastizing individuals for expressing their truest opinions. Perhaps in his universe, only opinions he finds agreeable are allowed.

This therefore not only betrays a lack of understanding, but also an undemocratic impulse. It is a symptom of having lived too long in an authoritarian system, and in a position of power at that. As has become a cliché: absolute power corrupts absolutely.

But the Internet is a democratic platform. Anyone who has a say in anything, has the means to express it. And in a free society, they should. By its logical extension, one will find a plethora of statements and opinions on the Internet. Some will be downright ludicrous, and some others utterly brilliant, and in between, a whole mix of viewpoints all correct and wrong depending on who is reading them.

Who determines what is right or wrong, brilliant or ridiculous, is subjective. This is why democratic processes and democracy itself are such critical institutions for a society to mature and become more intelligent (or, ideally, intellectual).

What one utters, especially in public, can be proof of one’s upbringing, education, social background. And netizens’ true opinions can only be a true reflection of themselves as well as their society. If their words and thinking are to be blamed, so should their society, their education system, and the government that wrought about such an outcome. If their words and thinking are deemed infantile, then it is not only themselves to be blamed, for they have been deliberately kept infantile. After all, a submissive and self-censoring populace is always a dream come true for tyrannical regimes.

In a way, the collective diversity and ‘quality’ of perspectives in a given society can provide an indication of how mature a society is. For example, how the governments and citizens of the US, the UK, and Australia deal with outrageous claims and perspectives that are abound in their society may be different from how the Singaporean people react to and handle these very situations.

The difference might not lie so much as a difference between cultural norms (which in Singapore are usually dubious justifications for government control) as their respective social and intellectual maturity. In any case, the US, the UK, and Australia etc., are far more diverse and complex societies than Singapore will ever pretend to be.

This is why socio-political websites like The Online Citizen and the Wayang Party Club inhabit important spaces and fulfil critical roles, not only in cyberspace, but also in Singapore’s society. These websites are foremost a result of the monopoly and restriction of communication channels in mainstream society by the government. They offer alternative, less oft-heard opinions, and they hold out the promise for a freer and more mature society, encouraging frank discussions and the airing of a variety of viewpoints.

I personally do not see a difference between a reader of the mainstream press as well as one who visits socio-political websites. Readers can access both resources easily, and more so given that access is free. What will compel them to access them in the first place is more important – that there is something different and something new to be gotten.

This is where Wayang Party Club can carve out a niche in cyberspace, and establish itself alongside The Online Citizen as Singapore’s premier sociopolitical website. TOC rests itself on a more conservative alternative platform, and Wayang Party Club positions itself more radically. Just as important as the content it provides would be how Wayang Party Club creates a distinct brand and product that deliver something that TOC (or any other website) cannot. This way, it would also find it easier to recruit like-minded readers to become its regular contributors.

Practically speaking, there’ll be few readers who would visit only one website at the exclusion of the other, unless they have personal or ideological objections. But these die-hard oppositionists would number in the minority. The more likely scenario would be that general readers surf between these two sites, resulting in what I hope would be a positive competition between the two. And perhaps, the competition should not just be over readers, but over contributors too.

Isn’t this the same logic in the free market? If there is a number one brand, say Coke, there’ll inevitably emerge a number two: Pepsi. If there is Macdonald’s, there’ll appear a Burger King, and so on, to give the forerunner a run for its money. Number ones don’t always remain number ones. Sometimes they take turns with the number twos, sometimes they disappear altogether. And the executives and employees of the respective organizations are frequently former executives and employees of their other competitor.

This is the same argument, after all, for a democratic society – that no one institution or political party holds monopoly, and that there is free flow of information and the freedom to debate. This competition can only benefit the end-consumer, or reader, or citizen ultimately.

http://wayangparty.com/?p=5496

Wolverine® SG

AndrewPKYap SG

Poh Ah Pak SG

...

Worldlybusinessman SG

how come got so many edited one?

angel7030 SG

how come got so many edited one?

censorship board got no job mah

JJxJJ SG

As long as PAP propaganda is being neutralised, it will help.

What is unhelpful is when PAP propaganda is put out, starts to spread, and no one goes and counter it; and the propaganda starts to have an influence on people.

Brainwashing effect starts.

That is unhelpful.

Propaganda countered, neutralised; brainwashing effect halted.

That is helpful.

you're not even neutralising it.

Poh Ah Pak SG

Fear and Patriotism: Another Threat to Netizens

xtreyier SG

Brainwash brainwash brainwash, all they know is brainwash brainwash brainwash.

Fucking elections coming must increase the brainwashing make some propaganda moves.

Pui pui pui.

No use one lah, whatever fucking propaganda moves you make is completely and totally worthless to me.

I will never vote for PAP.

Don't think make small small move, I will go vote for you.

Don't even mother fucking DREAM.

Please do not under-estimate the intelligence of Singaporeans. We, if not me, then they are an intelligent, pragmatic and reasonable lot.

They will only be moved by reason, logic, facts and figures.

Thus for anyone who wishes to rule singapore, must be prepared to do so.

Accepting reason, logic, facts and figures is not being brainwashed, but accepting loud voices of irrationality from minority fringe groups such as you belong as truth is being brainwashed.

Poh, why do you insist on insulting singaporeans as stupid, apathetic, brainwashed and a whole list of derogatory remarks, whom do not agree with your madness?

To claim singaporeans are stupid,apathetic, etc is to insult one's own fellow citizens.

I can accept your crap, but some others may not and would feel hurt. Why do you not encourage, offer rational solutions, but instead use this site to tear at the fabric of our society?

Is there anyway there can be a healing in your heart and reconciliation to our society and the way it have to be run for the good of the majority of our fellow citizens?

novelltie SG