So I know National Day's passed and all...

...but here's my idea for le grande finale for the NDP of 2006.

The apache helicopters take out the stadium in a display of military might!

Thank you. Thank you all.

Say what?!

So, let's take a look at the following messages:

• "It is not the role of journalists or newspapers in Singapore to champion issues, or campaign for or against the government." ~ K. Bhavani, Press Secretary for MICA on 3rd July 2006.

• BARELY four months after the General Election, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew has his eye on the next one, saying he will contest in Tanjong Pagar.
  'If I'm still fit and capable of making another speech like this, I'll be here, I will stand with you,'' he told more than 1,000 residents at a National Day dinner, to applause.
  Mr Lee also sounded a note of caution, telling Singaporeans that they cannot expect to get equal services from a PAP Government if their constituency votes for the opposition.
  'The trouble now is that Singaporeans believe we'll always have a PAP Government.'
  This allowed the opposition to say that if voters chose the opposition, 'then the PAP Government will have to give you more'.
  Warning against such a view, he said: 'One day they will wake up and they'll find the opposition is the government, a miscalculation.'
  But by then, it would be 'too late to regret'', he added.
  It was important that voters understand the link between their vote and the consequences. This was why opposition wards would not be treated in the same way as PAP constituencies.*
  The Government's position has been that opposition wards come after the PAP's on matters like estate upgrading.
  Doing otherwise, Mr Lee said, was 'the surest way to make the system malfunction''.
  Referring to why PAP wards came first, Mr Lee said: 'If you vote for the PAP, this is the bonus. If you vote against the PAP, your bonus is your opposition voice.''
  'I hope in a quiet way, this message will be understood.''

ZAKIR HUSSAIN ~ The Straits Times, August 19th 2006.

Discuss the contradiction, if you will.

Uhm...PlugPAPmuch? If this isn't campaigning, what is? I mean a leader in a political party (and let's face it, he is the puppet master) comes out saying that voting for his party is the only responsible thing to do and that's not campaigning? C'mon MICA, do your job. Get Zakir Hussain fired please. He's engaging in partisan politics and he's trying to skew public opinion with his entry. Where's the letter condemning the man for writing this piece? Are you honestly telling us that people like that can get away with playing sides in politics? When newspapers have no right to campaign for or against the government?

On another, more disturbing note: MM Lee said that by voting opposition, our bonus is our opposition voice? I beg to differ sir. Our right in our democratic nation is our opposition voice. Or are you trying to say that we are not actually a democracy. PLEASE come out and say that. Then people won't get so confused during elections, which we can hold every 5 years with walkovers in all constituencies. We could just rename the elections "the PAP has been doing a good job all these years, let's kowtow to them a little more" day.

Ondine says that I gripe a whole lot and that a lot of my posts are angsty as hell. They are. I realised that I only gripe after reading The Straits Times. Maybe I should just stop subscribing.

In the spirit of my mood, Bah, Humbug.

*BTW, opposition leaders. Now would be a good time to sue because the man has just about called you all incompetent to your face.

Land of 4 Million Smiles.

Funny I didn't think of this when I first heard it but I knew that it was disturbing for some reason. I finally got it just now while running (a blog post for a different occasion).

The land of 4 million smiles sounds like something that this guy would come up with.

So:


And:


Any similarities?

My advice? Stay away from Newater till the campaign is over. Also stay away from pharmaceutical products and sinister toy stores.

You never know where the Smilex will turn up.

This was just weird.

So we got one of these mails in our mailbox recently and I realised how strange the language was. I mean, it's one thing to say "look, there're going to be hackers that are going to be busy trying to hack the Singapore interweb" and it's another to say "comrades, there are malevolent elements who will try to instigate chaos by spreading non-party approved propoganda. Down with the corrupt west with their capitalistic imperial dogma!".

It's interesting to see why our ministries are so concerned about that the anti-globalisation ideology and propoganda are treated as such. As far as I know, the anti-globalisation activists do have a valid point in protesting globalisation but I really don't see what the big deal is. Let them spread their word. Most Singaporeans won't really care. Most Singaporeans don't even know what globalisation is. (Trust me, I know...I've been trying to impart knowledge) Let alone, what the implications of globalisation are.

Shrug.

Mountain out of a molehill? Perhaps. But pay attention to the language.

It's like something out of a cheesy 80's spy thriller where Chinese communists look like B.D. Wong or James Hong.

Dear MOE Staff,

Heightened Infocomm Security Awareness

1.      Singapore will play host to the International Monetary Fund/World
Bank (IMF/WB) 2006 Summit that will be held at the Suntec City Convention
Centre from 11-20 Sep 2006.

2.      Past IMF/WB events have shown that anti-globalisation activists 
have employed various tactics ranging from physical blockage of event 
venue to cyber attacks in an attempt to spread their own ideology and 
propaganda. In particular, cyber disruptions may be attempted and this
could take the form of targeting Singapore government's web presence by
activists in an attempt to discredit the event and embarrass the
organising country.

3.      We urge you to be more vigilant during this period. Please perform
the following:-

·       Ensure that the anti-virus software on your desktop and notebook
is running to ensure protection against viruses.
·       Do not open file attachments sent from unknown parties in the
event that the attachment contains viruses that may cripple the network.
·       Scan all removable media (e.g. diskettes, CDs, thumbdrives, etc.)
for viruses before opening the contents.
·       Do not download/install software from magazines, electronic
bulletin boards or other untrusted sources.

4.      Read up on the MOE End User IT Security Policy (
http://intranet.moe.gov.sg/itb/itsecurity/MOEEndUserITSecurityPolicy.pdf)
to see how else you can play your part in this.

5.      Should you have further queries, please contact your respective
Helpdesks at:

     MOE HQ Helpdesk
     Hotline: 1800-879 6333
     Email: helpme@ncs.com.sg

     West zone schools & MOELC are supported by NCS
     NCS ITSS Hotline: 1800-778 9648
     Email: itss@ncs.com.sg

6.      Thank you.

Bullshit.

BY ALL means criticise the Government and ministers but be prepared to stand by what you say.

Addressing the issue of how the Government deals with criticisms for the first time since the mr brown episode, the Prime Minister explained last night why it had to respond to the blogger.

He said mrbrown had hit out wildly at the Government and in a very mocking tone.

If the Government failed to respond to such criticisms, untruths would be repeated and eventually treated as facts.

This would result in the Government and political leaders losing the respect of the population and the moral authority to govern, the Prime Minister said.

'So we argue, sometimes we argue fiercely. But we should not take that as a sign that we are not open.

'Openness doesn't mean just lovey-dovey. Openness means being prepared to be candid, to be direct, and to discuss very serious things very seriously,' he said.

The Prime Minister also described the blogger, a 36-year-old full-time writer whose real name is Lee Kin Mun, as a 'very talented man'.

But he added that the Government could not have not replied to the blogger's satirical column on the high cost of living, which was published in the Today newspaper in June.

'It hit out wildly at the Government and in a very mocking and dismissive sort of tone,' PM Lee said.

The Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts subsequently issued a strong response to the column in the form of a letter which was published in the same newspaper.

Four days after the letter was published, Today suspended mrbrown's weekly column.

Last night, PM Lee acknowledged that some Singaporeans felt the Government had been too harsh in its response.

He then gave his opinion on the matter.

'He (mrbrown) is entitled to his views, and entitled to express them but when he takes on the Government and makes serious accusations, as he did in this case because he said the Government suppressed information before the elections, which was awkward, and only let it out afterwards, then the Government has to respond.

'Firstly to set the record straight, and secondly to signal that this is really not the way to carry on a public debate on national issues and especially not in the mainstream media,' he said.

I'm sorry, but were the issues raised by Mr Brown really addressed at all? All I heard was "all bloggers making criticisms about the government or government policy must back up their claims. Did the government really respond to the idea of increased standard of living? Or is our dear PM really throwing up smoke screens to avoid the discussion?

BTW, it doesn't take a column to make the people lose their respect of the government. It takes a government to do that. And the moral authority to govern. *coughcoughcough* Sorry. Had a little trouble swallowing that...

There are idiots...

...and then there are idiots. (See below for the offending article)

I love it when people try to impose their values on the general population. I love it simply because they make themselves out to be complete and utter moron!s. (Thus requiring little effort on my part to retort.) How?

Let us count the ways:

1. Han is trying to push for a utilitarian perspective. One should be happy when all basic needs have been met. He completely ignores the fact that a utilitarian society like the one that he is trying to sell us is one in which its citizens are non-thinking, mindless automatons...And let's face it, Singaporeans (despite my misgivings) are capable of thought. And they have emotions. And they have aspirations of something more than a job and a roof over their heads. Democracy brings us more than just an opportunity to vote. It brings us choice and choice leads to freedom.
2. He ignores the fact that having an opposition is more than just having another team to root for in the GEs. It's about checks and balances. It's about accountability and a reminder to the government that unless they do their jobs right, there are credible forces available to take over the reins. Infantile thinking by the man at best.

Let's pull apart his arguments here:

I am no politician but a working man. I do not have many facts but I know what I want and what I need.

We have many jobs in Singapore and unemployment is not a major problem. We have good housing. Our economy may not be super but it's good enough in that our Sing dollar is stronger than some other currencies.

Of course, he's making a huge assumption that the things that he wants and needs are the things that all Singaporeans want and need. Way to go with the humility.

We have many jobs in Singapore and unemployment is not a major problem. We have good housing. Our economy may not be super but it's good enough in that our Sing dollar is stronger than some other currencies.

We have a low crime rate. At least I know that I don't fear walking down the street with the thought of being killed or stabbed. So there's no problem with jobs, housing, getting food on the table.

Uhm...Many jobs in Singapore. Fine. Unemployment low? OK. But what makes you think that just because you're employed, you'd be able to put food on your family's table. Like Han admits, he doesn't have all the facts. So in the succinct words of forum posters all over the world, GTFO!
I also love the fact that he says that our currency is stronger than some currencies. Great...nice to know that...especially since the countries that these "some currencies" are based in are countries like Myanmar, Africa, Cambodia, Afghanistan...etc. The list is endless. Basically, the implication is that Han's happy as long as we're not the poorest nation in the world. Talk about underachieving. Nice.

Many people say that Singapore is not democratic enough. But which country in the world is truly democratic? I don't think there is one because it's impossible.

The USA? UK? Many Americans and British opposed the idea of going to war in Iraq. Not all opposed it, but almost half the population did. Opinions were split, at least in the UK.

As leaders of the two most democratic nations in the world, Bush and Blair had a responsibility to act in democratic ways, respecting the will of the masses on a global scale the same way that democratic governments should act on a national scale.

Yet what did Tony Blair and George Bush do? They did not wait for another round of UN inspections and talks, etc. They invaded Iraq the moment they could...despite international disapproval.

(I'm going to assume that this part was butchered in typical Straits Times fashion because otherwise, I'd have to assume that this guy can't string a proper argument together. The bolded bits are what I felt completed the ideas.) OK. Well, "almost half the population" is not a democracy. "Almost half the population" means that a mojority still felt justified to go to war. The point is that come 2008, the whole population gets to choose a new leader (at least in the US). Pick a new direction or stick to the old one. The present leaders, reckless as they are, know that there are consequences to their actions and they'll pay for it, hopefully, at the next elections.

Correct me if I'm wrong. Isn't democracy supposed to be when the majority or everyone is for the idea, and action is taken? That's the whole reason for consulting the public in the first place. Otherwise what's the use of it?

Which returns to what I was saying earlier about accountability. When a government consults the people and a voice of protest is raised, what measures are in place to ensure that the voice of the public does not go unheard? *cough*integratedresortnationallibraryfarehikes*cough* What measures are in place to ensure that the government listens? Possibly a bad showing at the polls would surely drive home a message to those in power that their power is by a mandate of the people and they really should avoid the arrogance of believing otherwise.

So if it's not the case of making Singapore a super, truly democratic country, what's the problem? Getting more opposition into parliament? But why? Is the PAP doing something wrong?

It's at this point that he believes that we're not really trying to become a democracy but just holding elections for the sake of voting. Of course, this is what we call a logic jump. I would try to work out what he's arguing here but as a teacher, I'd say he's full of crap and this is all a smoke screen. -10 points from Slitherin!

I cannot honestly see what's wrong. All I can see is that the need for jobs, food, housing and security are all met.

This is where we'd be spamming the message boards with: L2Pn00b. (Learn to Play Newbie for those not fluent in leet speak...) What I see is someone who's living overseas taking a look at our system and trying to say that we should be happy without giving us any reason why these utilitarian needs are going to make us satisfied.

So what is the PAP doing wrong? Do we want to get more opposition into the parliament for the sake of it? So that the PAP will not be the dominant party? But why?

To put this to rest, let's quote FDR.

“The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it comes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group,”

'Nuff said? Let's move on.

Will the opposition really do anything different that I want? I cannot imagine having any more needs other than jobs, food, housing and security. And I find the PAP is doing a good job at them. So why would I want anything different?

Hmmm...How to respond to this? I love how Han speaks for the country. What he wants is what is good for the country. I'm sorry, are we to be mindless automatons? Don't answer that.

Why spoil something that's already working? If one day the PAP starts to get things wrong and there are no more jobs, housing becomes amazingly expensive or there is none at all, or if I cannot walk down the street without peace of mind, I would then say that the PAP is finished.

We should change things. That is when I would want a good opposition that can change things to be in the parliament and make a difference to Singapore.

Uhm...When that day comes, you'll realise that it's a whole lot harder to actually get an opposition party into the government without bloodshed. The ones in power do not generally relinquish said power easily. Also, what he does not realise is that the system in place to change the government in Singapore would have been eradicated due to his "happy thoughts" dissolution of all opposition. Who's going to step up?

Idiot.

With the PAP in charge, who needs opposition parties?

I find it amazing that many people can be so pissed off with the Singapore Government. What for?

I am no politician but a working man. I do not have many facts but I know what I want and what I need.

We have many jobs in Singapore and unemployment is not a major problem. We have good housing. Our economy may not be super but it's good enough in that our Sing dollar is stronger than some other currencies.

We have a low crime rate. At least I know that I don't fear walking down the street with the thought of being killed or stabbed. So there's no problem with jobs, housing, getting food on the table.

It's a pretty safe place to live in; no problem in getting big foreign investors to invest and create jobs in our country. So what is the problem?

Many people say that Singapore is not democratic enough. But which country in the world is truly democratic? I don't think there is one because it's impossible.

The USA? UK? Many Americans and British opposed the idea of going to war in Iraq. Not all opposed it, but almost half the population did. Opinions were split, at least in the UK.

Yet what did Tony Blair and George Bush do? They did not wait for another round of UN inspections and talks, etc. They invaded Iraq the moment they could.

Correct me if I'm wrong. Isn't democracy supposed to be when the majority or everyone is for the idea, and action is taken? That's the whole reason for consulting the public in the first place. Otherwise what's the use of it?

So if it's not the case of making Singapore a super, truly democratic country, what's the problem? Getting more opposition into parliament? But why? Is the PAP doing something wrong?

I cannot honestly see what's wrong. All I can see is that the need for jobs, food, housing and security are all met.

So what is the PAP doing wrong? Do we want to get more opposition into the parliament for the sake of it? So that the PAP will not be the dominant party? But why?

Will the opposition really do anything different that I want? I cannot imagine having any more needs other than jobs, food, housing and security. And I find the PAP is doing a good job at them. So why would I want anything different?

Why spoil something that's already working? If one day the PAP starts to get things wrong and there are no more jobs, housing becomes amazingly expensive or there is none at all, or if I cannot walk down the street without peace of mind, I would then say that the PAP is finished.

We should change things. That is when I would want a good opposition that can change things to be in the parliament and make a difference to Singapore.

But for now, do we need that?

Han Fook Kwang
Liverpool, United Kingdom

Mourning.

An old friend of my grandmother's passed away two days ago. We went down to the wake last night and for the first time in 10 years, I wept.

I didn't know what brought that about but I think I do now. It's the same feeling of loss that I felt 10 years ago at my grandmother's funeral. I try hard nowadays to remember her but I can't. It's like trying to grasp at sand that just seems to flow right through your fingers. Her friends do though.

They told me once about the times that my grandmother was there for them. Taking them in when they had nowhere to go. And it touched me to see them remember her for who she was. I felt obligated to continue what she had done before. Visiting them every Chinese New Year and sitting down to talk to them for however long they wanted to talk for. Because it was what she would have done and I wanted to continue that. So that they would not forget. And in a way, so that I wouldn't either.

I failed.

I haven't visited them every Chinese New Year. I haven't seen Kian Hock Soh in over 2 years already. The last time I visited her she gave me an Ang Pow even though I was married and despite my protests, she would not take it back. I felt humbled and shamed. It was supposed to work the other way around because that was what my grandmother would have wanted.

I heard from one of the other friends that Kian Hock Soh was crying at the hospital and I kept thinking that I should have been there in place of my grandmother. To comfort her or just be a presence. But I wasn't. I didn't even know.

Perhaps what really set this off was the fact that the people who knew my grandmother are leaving. And that means that my grandmother's leaving too.

I wish it wasn't so. I wish there was more time. But there isn't.

And I can't do anything about it.

It's scary...

...to think that there are people who really believe this.

I worry quite a bit when I read something like this article. (Snippet only)

I REFER to the article, 'Another generation of Israelis goes to war' (ST, Aug 8), where an Israeli family sends off their youngest son, Lieutenant Yair Cohen, in celebration, not in tears or in anguish.

Though the motives behind the Israeli attack on Lebanon are questionable, and the violence extremely undesirable, we should take a moment to reflect upon the patriotism shown by the Israelis. Not only are these brave young men willing to die for their country, but they are also proud to have been called upon to fight for their country.

The immense joy that Lt Cohen displayed when he was called to join his commander clearly showed his patriotism. His father, who fought in the 1967 and 1973 wars, gave him advice, while his brother promised to join him soon in Lebanon.

...

Having read the article, we should pause for a moment to find out the truth about ourselves. In a similar crisis, how many of us would bravely sling on a rifle and head for the front line, smiling happily at the thought of fighting for the red-and-white flag that was flying so proudly in the sky at our recent National Day celebrations?

What worries me is the sentiment behind this person's obvious sense of patriotic fervour. Happy to fight? Really? I can't imagine there being any joy of the knowledge that one is going to war, much less in the fact that war basically means having to kill other people. Now, as a human being, I would fight to defend the ones I loved. I would. But to say that I'm going to be happy about it kind of assumes that there is a sociopathic streak in me that enjoys shooting other people in order to defend a flag, an ideal or a country. It's disturbing that in the age that's seen Saving Private Ryan, Full Metal Jacket and Hamburger Hill, we still have people living the delusion of seeing war as a glorious thing. War is bloody and terrible. No one should feel happy about going to war.

I pity the man who honestly thinks we should.

The main reservist feeling about going to war would probably be more akin to:

"Nah beh. Called up for resorbist kena war. Bleddy hell. Can get excused or not? Neh mind. I call my kang tow in Malaysia ask them to stop bombing us can already..."

Beng diplomacy. Works much better than dangerous patriotic fervour.

Sanitary Food.

In the Sunday Times' lifestyle section today, there's an article lamenting the fact that Singaporean hawker food has deteriorated to the point of inedibility.

At the risk of sounding tired and repetitive, is that really that big a surprise?

We've managed to take an art and sanitised it to the point of complete and utter blandness. Let's see:

Fat: Lard, unfortunately, kills us. In the past we saw it as a way of making food tastier. Today we see it as heart attack onna stick.

Burnt crispy bits: See above and tack on the fact that it's all carcinogenic = Cancer warning.

Dirt: Although gross, I think that's what gives hawker food the distinctive taste. That extra "oomph".

Yeah, we can complain about the dropping standards of food but realisitically, we wanted it that way right? It's all about living the sanitary life. Free from allergens and contamination. Food that isn't going to kill you. But everything can kill you today right? Excessive salt. Fat laden foods. Slightly charred char siew. It's all bad. But that's the tragedy of it. We can have our bland healthy food or we could have tasty plates of certain death. There's no in between. We can lie and say that healthy food's tasty but we know that it's not. Not the way that lard laden char kway teow was tasty. It just ain't.

Sanitary belongs in a hospital. Or on the box of feminine hygiene products. Not on food.

And this is a surprise how...?

Aug 12, 2006
How could spectators not respect state flag?

SINGAPORE celebrated its 41st birthday on Wednesday. I was one of the lucky 60,000 who managed to get a ticket to the National Day Parade held at the National Stadium.

Spirits were high throughout the celebration, especially during the fireworks display, with the song One People, One Nation, One Singapore roaring in the background.

During the finale we said the Pledge out loud, sang the National Anthem with much pride, and felt wonderful to be 'Singaporean'.

Unfortunately, when the party was over, a disgusting sight began to unfold before my eyes. Numerous small state flags were discarded and lay torn, broken and soiled.

The state flag, despite its size, should be treated with great respect as it symbolises the nation. These might be miniature flags placed in the fun pack; however, they deserve the same treatment as the one we salute when the National Anthem is sung.

Picking up some of the mangled flags along the way to the bus queue, I could not help but wonder how the 'one people, one nation', who called themselves 'Singaporean' a few minutes earlier, had the heart to trample on their dignity with their own feet, then conveniently walk away, leaving behind a sea of garbage.

Anne Koh Yean Yah (Ms)

Perhaps one should wonder how Singaporeans got so callous about disposing of sentimentality so easily and I guess it's pretty easy to find the root cause. Bloggers have blogged about it. Playwrights have expressed it on stage. We've all griped about it in one way or another. It's rather simply this: We live in a society with a throwaway culture. It's been ingrained into us and I think that while it's all postmodernic and very admirable that Singaporeans can uproot themselves and infest another country, a la the indestructible cockroach, it's also created a sense of non-belonging and non-sentimentality to that which does not serve our needs.

After all, isn't that drilled into our heads with the callous destruction (all in the name of progress mind you) of national landmarks that mean something to people? Or in the blatant disregard of public opinion? Doesn't that send a signal that:

a) We don't really have all that space for sentimentality if it doesn't earn us anything.
b) This nation isn't really your own.

So is it a surprise that at the end of an occasion when people get together to get all the patriotic "kumbayas" out of their system, the national flag which no longer serves its purpose (having something to wave around while entertaining oneself in the patriotic fervour) is dumped like a $2 hooker? After all, NDP isn't an occasion for Singaporeans to show how much we "love our country". It's a party that people want to get invited to so that they can tell their friends how much fun it all was. It allows Singaporeans to show how much they care for their country but at the end of the day, the flag, like culturally erased memories, is just a 50 cent piece of sentimentality that can be tossed casually away.

It's a lesson, whether intended or not, that has been taught too well.

And like good sheep, we've lapped it up. Every putrid spoonful.

I am Singaporean.

I was educated overseas because the school system in Singapore did not allow me the flexibility to unlock my potential locally. Despite that fact, I became a teacher here in Singapore.

I spent a better part of my life singing national day songs and waving the flag, only to be disillusioned by the country and government that I have come to see as one and the same. But I get pissed off when I see the young refusing to sing the national anthem.

I am in debt at 30 because houses and cars in my country are too expensive. I pay for them anyway and am happy with the hand that's been dealt.

I like the fact that our streets are safe. But I get worried seeing the same disinfectant qualities in my countrymen's thoughts.

I am a patriot. But only when I leave the country.

I speak good English. But I believe that Singlish is much more fun and I like hearing it spoken in Singapore. But not overseas.

I am ashamed of my countrymen. But I want more for them that they deserve so that they can be a people that I can be proud of.

I drive on the left side of the road.

I believe in diversity. But I believe that it extends to more than just the colour of your skin.

I believe in freedom. But also that freedom without responsibility is just a word.

I believe that national elections are not a joke.

I believe the role of journalists are indeed to champion issues but not to campaign for or against the government.

I know that children are our most precious resources but I don't believe that means that we have to mould them.

I believe that questioning the government is a sign of responsible citizenship.

I want my ratty hawker centers with their delicious value added food.

I like abbreviations and I love the way that Singlish makes it so much easier to be understood lah.

I like chilli crab and Samy's fish head curry and chicken rice but that's all going to kill me someday...and I don't care!

I am Packrat!

And I.

Am.

Singaporean!

So say we all.

Plugmuch?

It's nice to see journalistic integrity in all its purest form with no agenda attached. Just the news m'am.

A young man topped up his tank at a Mobil station along Jalan Bukit Merah, paid and drove off - straight through the all-glass frontage of the station's convenience shop.

The car shattered the glass and knocked over soft drink crates before coming to a stop just short of the cashier.

Passer-by Joshua Khoo, 25, who was at the scene at about 1pm yesterday, snapped some pictures with his cellphone and sent them via MMS to 75557, the number of Stomp, The Straits Times' interactive portal. He said the driver looked 'pretty shaken up' by the incident.

Police are investigating.

Meanwhile: Andy Ho wrote an article about bloggers being irresponsible buggers who only report second hand news and are not at all objective or credible. I decided that it would be fun to see if after I made some "creative alterations" the article still made sense:

THE Government recently ticked off a columnist-blogger going by the moniker of 'mr brown' for airing what were deemed to be cynical and non-constructive remarks. A minister argued that because the views appeared on the internet, the writer had to be more responsible, as compared to the case if those views had remained in print media.

Clearly, the Government feels that journalists have more wiggle room than mainstream bloggers whose vehicle can 'push broadcast' to millions while journalists can only 'pull narrowcast' mainly to the converted.

Some ask if journalists are bloggers at all or merely self-indulgent, opinionated folks expressing their views. This invites the question of what a blogger is in the first place.

Bloggers are those who primarily do two things, maybe one more than the other in each individual case:

First, they get accurate information about something new - thus the news - and disseminate it. Secondly, they analyse issues of public concern that this piece of news evokes and comment upon it.

For both of these, but especially the first, that which sets the professional blogger - whose first obligation is to be accurate - apart from the journalist - whose first obligation is to be interesting - is an editorial structure.

This structure entails questioning and challenging assumptions, and editing to ensure that established standards of, among other things, accuracy, truth, objectivity and fairness are upheld.

Most journalists, on the other hand, do not generally report on something new. Typically, they report on what bloggers have reported.

Thus, at best, they are 'meta-bloggers'. Yes, in stories like a 9/11, or the July 7 London bombings, where there are crowds, citizens armed with always-on wireless connections, powerful yet inexpensive mobile digital devices as well as easy-to-use, free Internet publishing tools, journalists in many countries can do first-person, grassroots reporting.

But this amateur horde will tell few new stories about something newsworthy but which does not have too many people around since they won't be on the scene either. For example, a bomb alert that turns out to be, mercifully, a false alarm has little for them to capture on video, so they will have nothing much to 'report'.

Likewise, the Guardian newspaper's Blair Watch Project - where citizen journalists were asked to contribute mobile phone pictures of the British prime minister on the hustings in 2005 - failed to deliver since that campaign took place mainly before party members, not the public. So journalists do little news reporting.

A random glance at several newspapers will show you that they depend on blogs for their talking points.

They feed on this new media for content, remaking news the latter may have overlooked or handled (in)differently. Its purveyors are more interested espousing views not regularly covered by blogs.

The journalistic world has no professional writers, publishers, printers or distributors. There is no top-down structure. So who weeds out inaccuracies, lies, spoofs or plain bad taste - and bad writing? Other newspapers? If so, who determines the hierarchy of newspaper believability?

What readers end up with, at best, is truth by majority vote - assuming they have the time to read several newspapers on the same matter to carry out a poll of diverse views on a particular issue.

In regard to the blogger’s other duty - that of offering fair comment - democratic deliberation and constructive dialogue represent hard work that few journalists can afford the time to do, even if they had the knowledge and the skills needed. As a result, much of what journalists offer is either misinformed, self-indulgent opinion or thoughtful but unargued ones.

Of course, journalists occasionally come up with gems. But in the main and on the whole, we over-romanticise all that print edition chatter if we think that somehow the alternative media will rise up and supplant blogs.

For now, that is.

For the mass media continues to expand. The significance of the fact that publishing has become so easy is that the barriers of professionalism and specialisation have been removed such that 'ordinary' people come to see media production as something they can do and as part of the everyday, according to Dr Chris Atton, a reader in journalism at the Napier University in Edinburgh, Scotland.

As Dr Atton told The Straits Times, participating in this alternative media can 'shape one's political awareness by raising one's consciousness'. How? Liken the activity to glue, he suggested, but one that is subject to refinement to make it a more effective social glue.

The activity itself provides an opportunity to research, write and reflect on issues that impact upon our status as citizens. It also encourages a more thorough going relationship with one's community.

Finally, that communication also works outwardly to government bodies, city councils, business corporations and nonprofits, Dr Atton added.

Essentially then, newspapers provide an opportunity for journalists to reflect on their place in the world and develop solidarity with and communicate their needs, demands or desires to others, he said.

At the heart of this activity is creativity. It is not about joining a protest group or going to a demonstration. It is, Dr Atton said, about developing a personal voice through which to make sense of the world, both for oneself and for one's community.

So while journalism may not impact government institutions in radical ways for now, it has the capacity to change the polity in small, indiscernible ways that may accumulate to make a difference - even at the polls - some day down the road.

With google, an internet search engine, showing 3 newspapers that are associated with the search word 'Singapore', it may be high time the Government began to take this more seriously than just chatter.

As seriously as blogs, perhaps.

~ Adapted by Packrat. Subvert Normality Today!

Go forth.

Watch. This. Now.