A topic I feel should be continued, and should be here.
A bitter remark by a JC gal, about her views on gov been censored
and removed by CNA in "Realtalk" show
Monday, August 14, 2006
Rea! Talk
I just watched the telecast of Rea! Talk's final episode. For the
record, that was the Channelnewsasia talkshow that was broadcast on
Monday, 14 August, 830pm. It featured a couple who installed
surveillance technology at home, a lawyer, a private investigator,
Denise Keller, Izzy (the blogger behind sarong party girl) and
myself. I was contacted to participate in the show last month,
following the publication of my article on the new CISCO
technology.
On the show, none of my comments about the lack of checks and
balances on the government's access to data that should be private
or public surveillance technology were allowed through. For
instance, I said something along the lines of: "I was in London
recently and the place is proliferated with cameras. But I feel
safe there because I recognize the trade-off between privacy and
security. I wouldn't feel safe, though, if these cameras were
implemented in Singapore, because [CUT AND SPLICE] if citizens
don't know about it, they can't debate about it. If they can't
debate about it, nothing will be changed."
What delicious irony. The context of my saying that nothing will be
changed if citizens don't "know about it" was this: I was comparing
the feeling of safety I had in the UK knowing that there were legal
provisions to guard against the abuse of the surveillance
technology there, to the lack of such security in Singapore. I
talked about the USA PATRIOT Act and how, though it legalizes
wiretapping, etc., there was also a whole slew of provisions
guarding against abuses; provisions which are upheld by an
independent judiciary. Then I said, I don't see that in Singapore.
Nothing's to stop the government from doing what they want with the
data. I said such laws are important because they stop the
government from gaining access to sensitive information such as
medical records.
None of that was shown.
Look. I understand about time constraints. It's a 30 minute
programme; I'm not by any means the most important person on the
show. But you could have cut something else, starting with the 1001
other inane things I said that you did show.
What you did instead, was to take away the only different and
unique angle I brought to that episode. I was the only person to
talk about the impact of new technology on the relationship between
citizens and governments. Take that away, and honestly, I might as
well not have been a guest at all.
On that night I said to myself: never mind if they chop everything
away, at least I got to get the message down to those people who
were at the live recording at Toa Payoh Hub; passers-by who had
something else to think about because they happened to, well, pass
by.
But after seeing the product, I'm more indignant than I thought I
would be.
I hate being on television. I'm uncomfortable, out of my element, I
ramble, I'm self-conscious, and I look five times worse than I do
in real life or even in pictures (except the sort they publish in
Straits Times). The two times I did appear on television before
this talkshow were more than sufficient to teach me that. But I
agreed to appear on Rea! Talk because I thought that any platform
is a good one on which to champion the issues I'm passionate
about.
If you take away those issues, then do me a favour, and never ask
me to be on a show like that again. For the record: this is what
I'm about. Things I believe in. Please have full recognition of the
fact that I will talk about these things. Things you might not want
to put on national television. If you are not ready to let the
public hear these things, then I'll say it again: never ask me to
be on a show like that again.
All you will find me doing is what I did on that episode of Rea!
Talk: sit around, make your TV set look ugly, and offer comments
that add no value to the discussion.
Do me one more favour, too. Don't drop allusions to "Big Brother"
on your show if you are unwilling to go all the way in examining
the implications of the literary cross-reference.
By the way, this is dedicated to whoever was responsible for the
cutting. I like to think it wasn't the production crew and
personnel who were, in fact, perfectly helpful and supportive --
the wonderful lady producer in particular, thank you very much. But
to the person who decided that the politically racy stuff should
go, well, gee, you sure did a good job
There's one outstanding TV project I agreed to help with (though
I'm even more wary now). I've committed to that, so I won't back
out. But if you're from the media and you visit this site, no more
television, please. At least I could work with journalists over the
articles and come to something acceptable. Here I have no control.
I don't do this stuff to get on TV or be famous. I'd rather not be,
thank you very much.
What I would rather be is my own person. Not the person you cut me
up to become.