Creative Commons License« One Singapore Minute of the Day (5 August 2005) | Main | Date Night: Tea Cosy »
Friday, August 05, 2005
Look! We so clever political party because we now got podcast!
Dear Singaporeans, we are having a historic moment! An opposition party, the SDP, has created a historic event, by recording a historic podcast, and not only that, a historic POLITICAL podcast!
Never mind that currently, it is only an mp3 file sitting on a site. It shall be named RadioSDP! Never mind that podcasts are supposed to delivered via an RSS feed, it is still historic. I am sure, the historic RSS feed will be added later, warranting another declaration of historic-ness.
And their hosted mp3 audio file, sorry, podcast, is also historic because it is a way to bypass the broadcast laws of Singapore! So of course it is necessary to declare this fact as loudly as possible, never mind that it will now invite the Gahmen to come up with a law to deal with this.
"The podcast is a way for the Party to by-pass the state-controlled media in Singapore. Airwaves in the country are monopolised, cable television is owned by a government-linked company, satellite dishes are banned, and the press is controlled by the ruling party. The Internet remains a medium that the Government finds it hard to censor, although it has enacted many laws aimed at curtailing the use of the Internet for political purposes."
SDP: "Legislate THIS!"
Gahmen: "Ok."
"The Media Development Authority confirmed that podcasting does come under the current regulatory framework. It is still studying developments in this area, it told Today."
As they say in some political circles and think tanks, "Kua kua...".
Friday, August 5, 2005 at 04:04 PM in Random Rants | Permalink
Comments
Of course, how the govt will be tackling SDP's podcast will have implications on how Singaporeans blog and podcast.
If they crackdown on the SDP's podcast, then your "freedom" to publish may very soon be taken away, or restricted to infantile topics.
Posted by: Merv | Aug 5, 2005 4:17:24 PM
Wah lau - like that how can opposition survive man. First cannot criticise because: "u defamed me! I sue u for libel!" Now surely, podcasts will be monitored because as you've said, the gov't *will* find a law to suit their needs.
And that's a scary thought.
Posted by: Mooiness | Aug 5, 2005 5:06:45 PM
Wow, another podcast I will never download EVAR.
Posted by: cowboy caleb | Aug 5, 2005 5:44:24 PM
actually mr b, the SDP podcast is funnier than yours.
Posted by: justpassingthru | Aug 5, 2005 6:00:18 PM
actually mr brown, the SDP podcast is funnier than yours.
Posted by: justpassingthru | Aug 5, 2005 6:00:56 PM
Let's put it this way. Nobody in S'pore joins the opposition because of selfish reasons. Either out of idealism or naviete, the people in SDP are putting their asses on the line for the sake of commoners like you and me (the elites have the PAP to take good care of their welfare).
Whether you agree with them or not, it's good to keep in mind that they are risking their freedom and wellbeing so that you and your kids may someday live in a freer and better S'pore.
Besides, it's also cowardly to ridicule a man with no legs of his inability to walk. Why don't you jeer the bully who had cut off the man's legs instead? Or are you afraid that the bully will come after you and your family too?
Posted by: PAP porkcuts | Aug 5, 2005 6:21:36 PM
eh, mb, we know what has happened to you if we don't see anymore posts or updates on your blog...
I
Scared kena
Detention
muahahaha
:-)
Posted by: andrew | Aug 5, 2005 6:30:03 PM
Way to go, PAP porkcuts. Let's encourage political debate in Singapore by not criticising the opposition. How progressive.
Posted by: Guofeng | Aug 5, 2005 6:46:33 PM
This is not criticising the opposition. This is cheering the PAP for silencing the opposition.
Posted by: Know the difference | Aug 5, 2005 6:56:05 PM
MrB can make fun of the podcast so that he can post it but not be seen to be promoting it. I think others should be able to hear it and make up their own minds regarding its content as opposed to simply undermining it because of its style. So make fun of the style and whatever you do don't refer to the content of the message. Heaven forbid someone might actually take the content seriously as opposed to laughing at the intro music.
I believe wannabe lawyer is planning on looking at the content soon and posting his views on it.
Posted by: steven | Aug 5, 2005 6:56:53 PM
Cheering the PAP for silencing the opposition? Oh, them poor things. My heart bleeds for them.
Posted by: Guofeng | Aug 5, 2005 7:00:59 PM
Guofeng is a courageous man. Joining hands with Goliath to fight David.
He's in line for a public service award for his valor this coming NDay.
Posted by: hats off | Aug 5, 2005 7:06:58 PM
David versus Goliath now? Ha!
Posted by: Guofeng | Aug 5, 2005 7:19:06 PM
Nope. if you go read the stuff on mda websie, you will find that if there is action taken against podcasting, its because they are a political party. go check it out
Posted by: aazjazz | Aug 5, 2005 8:15:23 PM
It is a rather strange way of criticising the Podcast..I have not heard MrBrown's podcast too but I don't think it is in any way more relevant than the SDP one in terms of making people think.
Posted by: ted | Aug 5, 2005 10:51:43 PM
PAP porkcuts:
>>Either out of idealism or naviete
you left out stupidity.
>>Whether you agree with them or not, it's good to keep in mind that they are risking their freedom and wellbeing so that you and your kids may someday live in a freer and better S'pore.
so what? you're trying to say, oh because someone is risking their own freedoms for me, even though I never asked for it, therefore I should be grateful? Fuck you!
And you assume that they stand for a better and freer Singapore. IF you really believe that, then you're as deluded as they are.
>>Besides, it's also cowardly to ridicule a man with no legs of his inability to walk. Why don't you jeer the bully who had cut off the man's legs instead? Or are you afraid that the bully will come after you and your family too?
I understand that people naturally sympathize with the underdog. But then, what happens when the underdog is wrong?
Maybe for trivial things I wouldn't mind throwing them a bone and cut them some slack. But this is about running a nation for goodness sakes. Guevara Chee can't even run a nuthouse, and god forbid should he ever attain public office, it would literally be a case of the lunatics taking over the asylum.
Anyone who reads my blog knows my criticisms of our government. Nonetheless, as much as there is plenty to complain about them, Guevara Chee offers nothing better.
You'll see what I mean in my next blog post.
Posted by: Han | Aug 5, 2005 11:48:16 PM
Steven's point is spot-on. How to decipher the mediated, postmodern transcript that is the Singapore blogosphere? Could it be that in that empty gap MrB traces out in his mocking dance around the unnamed content of the SDP podcast, lies a critique of the one-party state that is even more hyper-ironic than usual? I expect he shall not be able to answer, except with more gagged clowning. On with the dance!
If the Opposition is staffed with such incompetents, then why do the PAP ubermensches need to ban them from saying anything at all? If the SDP are as truly retarded as some of you seem to suggest, then allowing them freedom of speech is the surest method of ensuring their political extinction.
Well, that's just how democracy works - not Singapore. In democratic countries, if the opposition is useless, the public and the media expect them, and even demand them, to lift their game, say more, do more - because without an effective, vocal opposition there are no checks on power.
But there's no real reason to listen to me. As LKY said of all Singaporean political emigres in the 70s and 80s, they were just trash that couldn't make it in the new meritocracy... and I am only a descendant of that trash.
Perhaps the 80s retro music on the SDP podcast simply harks to the fact that the cause of political freedom in S'pore hasn't advanced in 25 years.
Posted by: tze ming | Aug 6, 2005 12:32:37 PM
The PAP can stay in power precisely because of suckers like Han and Guo Feng who eagerly lap up all government propaganda as gospel truth.
If Chee is really so incompetent, why are LKY and GCT so afriad of facing him in court? Why obtain summary judgement on their ridiculous libel suits? Why prevent him from getting legal representation for himself?
And why refuse Chee's request to an uncensored televise debate? Surely it can only do the PAP good if S'poreans can see for themselves that Chee is really a loony like the PAP accuse him to be. It may even shut the opposition supporters up for good.
Posted by: Kee Luan Few | Aug 6, 2005 2:39:19 PM
Meritocracy? For goodness sake, how many of LKY's relatives and cronies are employed in lucrative government or GLC positions? How many of them made their fortune through government contracts? In any other country, this would have been called nepotism and cronyism. Only suckers will believe in the PAP propaganda that S'pore is a meritocracy.
http://www.singapore-window.org/sw02/020210gl.htm
Posted by: suckerpore | Aug 6, 2005 2:50:43 PM
Kee Luan Few:
Not only did you not address the substance of my arguments, you have merely reiterated your accusations without any proof or foundation.
Like I have said before, I thoroughly support the freedom of speech. In case you do not notice, I have criticised the government myself for their curbs, and wondered about why Singaporeans seem quite unable to handle unfettered free speech, despite that I am a staunch supporter of that freedom.
The SDP are welcome to say what they want. That however, does not preclude me from CRITICISING THEM. It appears that YOU are the sucker, for believing everything they say, and not being critical about what you hear.
This is not a situation where everything the gahmen say is right and everything the opposition say is wrong, or vice versa. All of them have their flaws and have made mistakes.
But in this instance, it is VERY CLEAR that the SDP and CSJ are complete morons. That being the case, why must we support them? Why can't we not criticise them? Or do YOU wish to restrict our right to crticise, our right to free speech?
Then you must be a bloody hypocrite, isn't it? Free speech is ok with you, only if its things you like to hear.
So fuck you. And fuck your stupidity too.
Posted by: Han | Aug 6, 2005 3:47:38 PM
That's curious. I have exactly the same feeling about your comments and blog. Other spouting vulgarity and hurling abuses, your post has absolutely no substance whatsoever. At least I've raised a couple of questions.
But did you address any of the questions that I raised? No. What you did was to put words into my mouth and then attack the fictitious points that you cooked up yourself and rebut the imaginary arguments that I did not make.
And how is it "very clear" that Chee is a "complete moron"? All I can see from your blog and your comments here are ad hominem attacks on Chee's accent and frivolous nick names that you've coined for him. Did you even say anything about the contents of his podcast? So allow me to return your compliment: "you have merely reiterated your accusations without any proof or foundation."
Furthermore, what kind of pretentious jerk would call his own post "substantive"? That's up to the reader to judge. And in your case, I don't think that description is in the least justified.
Posted by: Kee Luan Few | Aug 6, 2005 4:56:50 PM
>>Not only did you not address the substance of my arguments,<<
Let me add that the reason I didn't address the substance of your argument is because there isn't any.
Go re-read your own 11:48 PM comments. What's there aside from name-calling and verbal abuses?
Posted by: Kee Luan Few | Aug 6, 2005 5:05:58 PM
> SDP: "Legislate THIS!"
> Gahmen: "Ok."
I think that might very well be the whole point of this exercise -- to make PAP look bad and evil (not to say that it isn't) to the world. The podcast thing is a bait and the PAP has just swallowed it whole.
Just look at how quickly the international media has latched on to the SDP podcast news. The journalists are just waiting for the other shoe to drop -- so that they can wire the latest headline: SINGAPORE GOVERNMENT BANS ALL POLITICAL PODCASTS.
I'll bet you that the next time SDP thinks of something else they want the Gahmen to ban, they will again make a flashy display of that item.
Posted by: just fishing | Aug 6, 2005 5:40:53 PM
So - let me get this straight ah? I just stupid foreigner. If the gahmen ban political podcast, it is ALL SDP'S OWN FAULT for making podcast? And SDP is in fact, just sneakily manipulating the gahmen into doing stupid things that make S'pore look lame in the international media? Wah, that SDP very crafty one.
Posted by: tze ming | Aug 6, 2005 5:51:26 PM
Here's the report from Reuters. Take a look at the last four paragraphs. See the pattern? Everytime the PAP is naughty in a new way, it gives the international media a chance to review its past misdeeds. Don't think all that libel suits against IHT, Times, Newsweek, AWSJ, FEER, etc, don't come with any backlash. The PAP is deeply resented by journalists around the world.
Singapore opposition turns to podcast for outreach
Fri Aug 5, 2005 10:20 AM BST
SINGAPORE (Reuters) - A Singapore opposition party has launched "podcast" on its Web site in an attempt to bypass state-controlled media and reach out to citizens.
The Singapore Democratic Party's (SDP) secretary-general, Chee Soon Juan, in a nine-minute audio recording posted on its Web site (www.singaporedemocrat.org), rapped the government over issues such as high salaries of ministers and the lack of transparency and accountability.
"Podcast is way for the party to bypass the state-controlled media in Singapore," said Chee on the Web site.
Podcasting is an increasingly popular medium through which audio files are made available on the Internet, allowing websurfers to download files for listening at their convenience.
The SDP said it would also feature call-in programmes on its Web site in future.
"The Internet remains a medium that the government finds it hard to censor, although it has enacted many laws aimed at curtailing the use of the Internet for political purposes," Chee said.
The government bans non-commercial private ownership of satellite dishes, publications need permits to circulate and newspapers are published by the government-linked Singapore Press Holdings.
In 2001, prior to a parliamentary poll, new laws were introduced to control the dissemination of political messages via the Internet and in text messages on mobile phones.
The Media Authority of Singapore (MDA), the city-state's media watchdog, said podcasting comes under current media laws.
"The MDA will continue to study developments in this area and refine its approach," said Casey Chang, spokeswoman for the MDA, declining to spell out whether the SDP would be contravening any law by podcasting.
The SDP's podcast launch comes amid talk that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong may call for an early election to seek a symbolic vote of confidence after taking power on August 12, 2004.
The ruling People's Action Party has dominated parliament since independence in 1965. It won 82 of 84 seats in November 2001 elections and has never lost more than four seats in any election. The SDP has no seats in parliament.
In January, Chee, a free-speech activist, lost a legal battle against defamation charges brought by Singapore's founding prime minister, Lee Kuan Yew, and his successor Goh Chok Tong for questioning their use of public funds during the 2001 poll. Chee was ordered to pay S$500,000 in damages.
In May, Amnesty International criticised Singapore's human rights record, saying that control on political expression in the wealthy Southeast Asian city-state remained tight despite Prime Minister Lee's repeated calls for more openness.
The government says a high degree of control over public debate and the media is needed to maintain law and order.
Posted by: more fishing | Aug 6, 2005 5:55:55 PM
It's just my theory. I could very well be wrong. But even if the effect (ie. bad press around the world) is unintentional, it does help SDP and CSJ somewhat.
Posted by: just fishing | Aug 6, 2005 6:01:19 PM
Mr/Ms Fishing, my point is not that the SDP and CSJ wouldn't attract sympathy from the international media if the podcast was banned. Rather, I was pointing out that it is not the SDP's choice to make to be banned or not banned, martyred or not martyred. It's up to the PAP.
Posted by: tze ming | Aug 6, 2005 7:05:29 PM
Kee Luan Few:
Do you not understand satire or parody? Unless you need to have everything spelt out for you in order for you to understand the substance.
Besides, the contents of his podcast is merely a rehash from an earlier 'imbecilic' condemnation of the casino plan, WHICH I have already blogged about in an earlier post. Since you say you've looked through my blog, I'm sure you can find that post. Nonetheless, I'll have a more detailed discussion of the SDP's policy proposals in my next post, which I did mention.
Show me where have I claimed that my posts are 'substantive'. Keep in mind saying that you have yet to deal with the substance of my ideas is not the same thing as claiming my posts are substantive.
Lastly, the substance of my post, is that freedom of speech also means others have the freedom to criticise. That's how democracies work, and why freedom of speech is important.
Sure, they're welcome to criticise the PAP. But when their proposals are ridiculous and don't make sense (not all btw, just the economic ones, but then, those are already bad enough), why should I not speak up and criticise them? Don't I have the right to freedom of speech too?
As for vulgarities... I apologise for my rudeness. But it does not seat well with me when someone tells me that they are doing something for me regardless of my will, and that I should be grateful for it anyway.
Sounds alot like what the PAP themselves do, don't you think?
Posted by: Han | Aug 6, 2005 7:10:46 PM
Keep a sense of perspective you people. You 'opposition' people really have no sense of humour.
Parody and satire, and making fun, are also forms of political speech. Don't get all huffy and defensive just because someone makes fun of you.
At least the PAP still know how to laugh at themselves.
Posted by: Han | Aug 6, 2005 7:30:42 PM
You can tell democracy hasn't yet been established properly when you get discussions like this (may I paraphrase the above):
A: 'The Opposition sucks, and I have no sympathy for them, even though they have no freedom of speech.'
B: 'Yeah well, you suck.'
A: 'Well, I have a right to say the Opposition sucks.'
B: 'Yeah, but you still suck.'
A: 'You telling me that I suck means that you're trying to deny me freedom of speech. You suck.'
What can I say to that, Han? How about 'You still suck.'
"At least the PAP still know how to laugh at themselves" - sorry, not living in S'pore lately, does this mean that the PAP used to laugh at themselves, and is still carrying on a grand tradition of PAP-self-mockery? If so, could you point me at the official PAP joke-page? I'd love to link to it.
Posted by: tze ming | Aug 6, 2005 8:17:22 PM
tze ming:
lol, brilliant satire! While it is abit too much of that reductionism, you've more or less summarized what goes on in Western Democracies.
Just watch C-SPAN or the Australian Parliamentary debates. It's more or less 'you suck' back and forth.
Posted by: Han | Aug 6, 2005 9:12:27 PM
Exactly - except that in New Zealand for example, because everyone is aware that they have the right to tell the opposing party that they suck, they don't get into illogical contradictory arguments about freedom of speech. Oh, and no-one gets sued, bankrupted, imprisoned or disenfranchised for telling anyone that they suck. And after the suckfest, the journalists and bloggers can go ahead and analyse the policies themselves, publicly and rigorously, also without getting sued, bankrupted etc. etc. And often, it actually has an important impact on government policy. How extraordinary. Who knew public clustersucks could achieve so much?
I expect the Singaporean parliamentary debates are far more agreeable. That being the point of parliamentary debates I suppose.
Posted by: tze ming | Aug 6, 2005 10:02:15 PM
Oh yeah, and where IS that official PAP joke-page?
Posted by: tze ming | Aug 6, 2005 10:08:21 PM
Well, you have to admit ... the PAP is really running the country well! C'mon, look at SDP! All those radical matters and WEIRD habits (Hunger Strikes, Nude shots with the maid ...) Hello? We can't trust them!
Though the PAP's like authoritarian government under an "angel's" facade (like I always say, Singapore is a communist country functioning under democracy!), you have to give it to them for running the country well.
SDP and all opposition parties are just like BLEARGH!
Posted by: ruixiong | Aug 9, 2005 6:49:49 PM
Wah, so many pappy running dogs !
Posted by: bermudasboi | Aug 9, 2005 10:36:44 PM
Wah, so many pappy running dogs !
Posted by: bermudasboi | Aug 9, 2005 10:37:14 PM
The way I see it, some people here are just wannabe PAP lap dogs.
Perhaps for some reasons (eg. didn't do well enough in school to win a scholarship, didn't get into the admin service, etc), the PAP masters did not welcome them to the PAP rank of elites. That's why they are somewhat bitter towards the PAP, although not bitter enough to do things (like supporting the opposition) that will jeopardize their chances of joining the PAP elites someday, however slim those chances might be.
Their "PAP criticizing"-posts are nothing more than the kind that shouts for attention from the PAP masters, hoping for an invitation to join YPAP for their "constructive views" to improve the PAP-led S'pore.
From time to time, they will demonstrate their loyalty by feigning outrage at PAP's worst enemies. Hoping that the PAP masters will take notice and adopt them.
Posted by: a fair and balance look | Aug 18, 2005 11:30:03 AM
>>Han: ... you've more or less summarized what goes on in Western Democracies.<<
You have a superficial understanding of western democracies. Whitetrashlia isn't exactly representative of western democracies -- so don't pretend like you know what goes on in North America and Western Europe.
Posted by: a fair and balance look | Aug 18, 2005 12:41:47 PM
so Mr / Miss a fair and balance look: What does that make you? Someone who had successfully applied to be lap dog? Or someone from Singapore but ran off to a more liberal country and thus fully understood the western democracies. At least people here are saying what they feel can help Singapore, what have YOU contributed?
Posted by: an unfair and imbalance look | May 18, 2006 2:03:13 PM
