4/29/2008

I am so angry....and so helpless

I used to be the one that called the shot. I decide what people should read, should know and what I think they need not know. I set the agenda on what people should be thinking about, should be talking about or should not be thinking about. You see, I decide what is in the people's mind. And sometimes I tried to be generous and invite people to say what they want to say. Then I went through them and chose what was agreeable to me and allowed it to be said. And those that I did not like, I threw them in the waste paper basket. And they were so helpless. Some felt very frustrated as their pet topic would not be given a chance to be aired. Whew! I was that powerful. Not that I could not do the same things now. I am still doing the same things. But people are not listening to me anymore. They simply ignore me. They went to cyberspace and say whatever they want and to whoever they want. Things that I do not want them to say they keep on saying. And I can't do anything about it. They now set their own agenda. They think what they want to think and decide want they think is important and what is not. And there are things that I do not want them to talk about for good reasons but they keep talking about them, and fanning them. And I am powerless. I cannot throw them into the waste paper basket any more. Neither can I ignore them. It is they who are ignoring me. And they even criticise me. They dare to criticise me. My god! What is happening?

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

You sound like you are referring to someone we all call 'The God of No Mercy'. Careful, he is going to unlease a 'dose of bad government' on us.

Anonymous said...

Hi Redbean, please be careful. New rules and regulations could be forced upon us. The cyberspace is not as free as what you might think. There are ways to track you down. Be careful.

redbean said...

i am actually doing a generalisation of the power of the media around the world. the media has been very powerful for all these years until internet offers an alternative that they find it quite helpless and quite difficult to control.

of course all govt will want to control the internet if they can. malaysia is finding it futile. even china is finding it difficult. and the malaysian govt's thinking is that since they can't beat it, why not join it and make the best out of it?

those who think they can and are able to control will have different ideas.

but it is a big challenge to the monopoly of msm.

Matilah_Singapura said...

Oh dear me...

Sometimes I think I should offer my services to the govt to coach them on "how to be better tyrants, and persecute dissent more effectively".

Asian govts are far too near-sighted to see the bigger picture. If you want to wallop anti-govt sentiment, the western -free-democracy way is the best way.

First, you tell everyone that they have the right to free speech, and to encourage it you protect this right with laws. Very soon, people are opening up with their opinions, and those who have a beef with govt are venting their spleens.

Then you simply quietly track these anarchists down, arrest them under "national security" laws, interrogate them (which usually scares the shit out of them); torture is optional of course--depends on your mood; and then let them go.

Over the years, the US FBI and CIA have been gathering data from public libraries. They know who has borrowed what. And they have, if they have "probable cause", gone and "interviewed" people these alphabet-agencies suspect of being "enemies of the state". This folks, from The Home of The Brave and Land of The Free.

Anonymous said...

Greater national security measures usually involves the expansion of government surveillance powers - and the people (or sheeple, as you usually put it) are clamouring for it especially in the face of a string of intelligence failures.

Are national security and individual freedom opposing forces?

Anonymous said...

(con't)

Is individual freedom of any worth if there's no bodily security?

I don't subscribe to that, but hey, it's fun to banter ideas around.

Matilah_Singapura said...

> Are national security and individual freedom opposing forces? <

No. A free society is generally a more secure society.

> Is individual freedom of any worth if there's no bodily security? <

Exactly. Freedom is not free, it requires vigilance, rule of law... mechanisms to protect those freedoms.

That's the double-edged sword:you need strong laws and enforcement to protect freedom. It is when the govt ABUSES those laws and the mechanisms to enforce those laws that the govt changes from being a protector of freedom to the main violator of it.

This is why seperation of powers is VITAL -- i.e. the judiciary be independent and free from executive or political interference. Only then can you have objective judgement on whether someone had their rights violated or if they deserve surveillance, invasion of privacy, arrest, detention and punishment.