February 5, 2010 - Temasek
Review
OPINION
In a lengthy commentary published in the Straits Times
yesterday, ST journalist Rachel Chang launched an uncharacteristic
tirade against “anti-People’s Action Party personages” on the
Internet for “lynching” netizens who do not share their views.
(read article here)
She expressed her concern that the lack of self-censorship
prevailing in cyberspace has led to the rise of “ugly impulses”
like “a blanket racism towards all foreigners” in some forums.
“The urgent task for the online community in Singapore is to
build up websites that are credible and respected, and pry control
of the Web away from the ones who dominate it now – the ones who
hide behind nicknames and prefer personal attacks to policy
discussion,” she wrote.
Miss Chang’s views probably embodied that of both PAP and SPH as
well. Unfortunately, they have demonstrated once again their
utter ignorance of how the new media works.
For far too long, the PAP has been so used to a controlled media
environment such that they are now clueless on how to deal with the
sudden explosion of information on the internet which lies
completely beyond their control.
Though no names were mentioned, it is quite obvious that Temasek
Review belongs to the sites “who dominate the Web” now for we are
the only socio-political blog in Singapore with a readership
exceeding that of a few sites belonging to the mainstream media
such as TODAY Online, Divaasia and Razor TV.
Miss Chang’s statement betrayed her lack of understanding of how
the new media operates – no individual site can ever control
or dominate the internet.
We may have a sizable readership now, but even if our readership
were to double in the future, we still cannot control the flow and
dissemination of information in cyberspace and how netizens
think.
Netizens are generally quite sharp, knowledgeable and astute to
begin with. No sites will be able to pull a wool over their eyes
and “dictate” their views if that is what Miss Chang meant.
The internet is a jungle and only the fittest will survive in
it. We are born and bred in this jungle and we know very well that
in order to thrive in it, we have to constantly win our readers
over with superior intellect, logic and persuasion which is unlike
the environment which SPH journalists are working in where they are
expected to produce nothing more than pure propaganda to please
their political masters.
Had SPH not enjoyed a complete monopoly in the Singapore market
it would have folded up a long time ago with its lackluster, bland
and shallow style of journalism.
Perhaps SPH can try publishing a Straits Times-style newspaper
in Hong Kong, Taiwan or South Korea and see if it can survive even
a year.
With due respects to Miss Chang, her version of “credible and
respected” website will never take off in Singapore’s blogosphere
as the PAP’s own P65 blog has shown.
As a matter of fact, The Temasek Review did try to adopt a
balanced approach in its articles in the beginning, but it just
doesn’t work out.
Being an amateur site run on a shoe-string budget, the number of
views per article is of utmost importance to us - the more
clicks it receives, the more revenue we get from google
advertising.
Based on experience, the articles which get the most clicks are
almost always hard-hitting critiques of the PAP. They sell like hot
cakes and also garner the most number of comments as well.
To give an example, we paid a known freelance columnist to write
a well researched article on housing policies for us which is
pretty fair, balanced and objective. Another article only half its
length and consisting no more than empty rants against the
PAP with no author attributed to it was published a few hours
later. This article garnered twice the number of views than the
earlier article at the end of the day.
Now if you are a businessman selling news, which type of news
will you sell more often to maximize your returns?
The conventional “wisdom” that “credible and respected sites’
producing objective, balanced and unbiased articles written by
known (not anonymous) writers will become popular and widely read
is an illusion. We have been proven wrong time and again.
Readers flock to our site not because we report the unvarnished
“truth”, but because we are able to articulate their innermost
thoughts, feelings, concerns, worries, fears, frustration,
resentment and anger clearly, succinctly and so thoroughly
that they feel they have found a listening ear. This is what kept
our readers coming back for more.
Temasek Review is a reader-oriented site. We cater to the needs
of the majority of netizens which are not met by the mainstream
media.
Most of our articles revolve around important issues like
immigration, foreign talent, housing policies, education, political
rights, democracy and social justice because they are grossly
neglected by the mainstream media which tends only to present
half-truths, spins and lies to cover the flaws of the PAP.
Miss Chang should stop and ponder why certain views deemed
“extreme” by her standards are gaining so much traction among
netizens.
The majority of Singaporeans are not xenophobic, they just feel
threatened by the large number of foreigners living in their midst
and it is a natural reaction that they should express their
discomfort, displeasure and anger against it, not because they are
against any particular race or nationality per se.
By putting all sorts of labels on them just because they do not
share your views, you are only going to turn more people off.
The PAP should be worried by the rising chorus of disapproval of
the way it is running the country on our site because we now belong
to the mainstream. It is not the voice of a vocal minority but that
of a silent majority who will become the kingmakers in future
elections.
At the present moment, the PAP’s internet strategy is to rely
only on the mainstream media to get its message across while
ignoring the new media altogether so as not to lend any credibility
to it.
Such a narrow approach will only work if the new media has a
limited reach, but with our present readership, it will be
foolhardy for them to continue swinging their sledge-hammers to
demolish us. The last time SPH tried
to demonize us a few months ago, it ended up
boosting our readership unwittingly.
Every now and then, we will receive a hate mail from some PAP
member and supporter castigating us for being biased against the
government, but when we ask them to write a rebuttal to our
articles, they refuse to do so.
If you think what is published here is unfair, inaccurate and
prejudiced against the PAP, then you should try to convince readers
and win them over to your side instead of complaining, whining and
screaming away.
This is an open forum. We have stated many times that we welcome
diverse views from across the political spectrum, be it pro or
anti-establishment. If you refuse to engage us, then you cannot
blame us for misinterpreting you or portraying you in a bad
light.
To borrow a quote from Voltaire: “We may disagree with what you
say, but we will defend to the death your right to say it.”
PAP members and supporters should understand that the reality on
the ground is that you need us more than we need you. We can
continue wacking you for all we care and our readership will
not suffer a bit. You are the ones who need a platform in
cyberspace to make yourselves heard and you should be grateful to
us for offering space on our site for you to do so.
We have been very fair to PAP leaders and members who bother to
write to us such as Madam Halimah Yacob and Sear Hock Rong. We will
make sure your views get aired adequately here on our site, but if
you continue to treat us with contempt, then you cannot blame us
for being “unfair” to you because we will have to close shop if we
were to adopt the same editorial stance and style as the mainstream
media.
The urgent task for the online community is not to build up
“credible and respected” websites as defined by the standards of
the establishment, but to have as many “Temasek Reviews” as
possible to achieve a combined readership higher than that of the
state-controlled media.
Malaysia has Malaysiakini, Malaysia Today, The Malaysian
Insider, Malaysian Mirror, Merdeka Review etc, but Singapore only
has Temasek Review and one other site. It is not healthy for the
new media to be dominated by only one or two major voices in the
long run.
We prefer to have a wide variety of sites, each offering a
different perspective and slanted towards different parties to
complement one another rather than to have one single “credible and
respected” website.
In a free and open media landscape, readers will be able to
judge for themselves the news sites they can trust. If we have been
publishing only hogwash all along, our readership will not have
reached this size now.
Both PAP and SPH should just let go and trust Singaporeans to
reach an informed decision themselves. There is no way you can
control the New Media. Wake up from the idea and engage us on our
own terms and turfs now before it is too late!
We bear no animosities against the PAP or SPH. If you are keen
to talk to us, just drop us an email at [email protected]
