BLACK OUT DAY BLACK OUT DAY
BLACK OUT DAY BLACK OUT DAY
BLACK OUT DAY BLACK OUT DAY
6/06/2013
6/05/2013
MDA’s clarification on new regulation
After Yaacob and Chuan Jin’s clarifications the MDA’s position on the new regulation has been sieved and some concerns are slightly clearer though not conclusive. Both have stated that the regulation is meant more specifically for news sites or sites that report regularly on Singapore news. Blogs are not the concerns of the new regime and bloggers are encouraged to keep on doing what they have been doing, writing commentaries about Singapore affairs.
Both are taking a kinder and conciliatory approach towards bloggers and were in a way telling the bloggers to keep commenting on local affairs and express their opinions. The Govt’s position, presumably they are expressing the real Govt’s position, is that bloggers or citizens have the right to discuss and comment on local affairs.
This is actually a new situation as it takes a more positive turn from the past when anyone commenting on local affairs was frown upon and may be visited by Sue. There was this over aching fear that something untowards could happen any time. The invisible hand of the dark side is always around the corner waiting to lash out at the most unsuspecting moment.
The lighter touch and the more accommodating posture of the Govt is noted and welcomed. Let’s hope this will stay and citizens are encouraged to participate in the affairs of the country and not seen as enemies of the Govt when they hold contrarian views or are critical of Govt policies. This departure is a little progress towards a more liberal and inclusive society.
Another point that was acknowledged by Yaacob and Chuan Jin is that the internet is not easy to regulate and a lot of works need to be done if the Govt ever intends to take on the big international news providers. So who is the Govt going after other than Yahoo Singapore? TRE and TOC have been cleared as not the target news sites, and they are not news sites at least for the time being. Both have exceeded the two criteria of reporting on Singapore news and the 50,000 IPs by more than a mile. Having confirmed the fate of two of the biggest local aggregators, these two sites would now be the barometer for other bloggers to gauge themselves if they have crossed the line vis a vis the new regime.
Some of the doubts and worries of the bloggers and internet community have been explained and the fear allayed. But more assurance is needed from the MOM to include provisions in the new regulation to exclude the bloggers if they are to sleep in peace. Would there be amendments directly on this regulation or would MOM wait till the major review of the Broadcasting Act next year as mentioned by Chuan Jin? Before the ink is dry, before anyone breathes a sigh of relief, anything can still happen. This new regulation is encompassing as cyberspace.
Abe and a militant Japan
The road that Abe and his rightist ministers is taking is leading to an intractable position and war with China over the Diaoyu Islands is inevitable. The logic and slant taken by Abe's group is that of Imperial Japan when might is right.
The accusation that only in 1971 that China made a claim on Diaoyu was proof that China did not own the island is a white lie. China was weak, had too many issues to deal with domestically, that should it try to make any claims before, it could lead probably to another military defeat by Japan or a lot of embarrassment as it could not do anything about its claims with a military more powerful Japan and a hostile US.
The Diaoyu was taken by force, as war loot signed away by the 1895 Unequal Treaty. And Abe is claiming that this was legitimate. In a way, yes it is treaty, an agreement. In order for China to take back Diaoyu, if Japan refuses to return it peacefully, will be to take it back by force with another treaty with Japan to over ride this treaty. Is that what Japan wants?
China is no longer a pushover though Japan may think it could repeat its aggressive invasion of China once again. Let's see if Japan is up to it and if China can turn the table around and invade Japan to return the favour.
Many on the side of Japan are refusing to see the historical records of Diaoyu and claimed that Japan has some grounds to claim it. The only legitimate ground is the Treaty of Shimonseki which if Japan is insisting on it, will be to abolish this treaty by the same means, war.
Abe and his hawkish ministers are taking Japan back to militarism. The pretension that it is difficult to change the pacifist constitution is simply bullshit. Many Japanese are waiting to relive their glorious Imperial Japan days. Put it to the Diet and a 2/3 majority to change the constitution is just a formality. The Japanese psychic of domination and superiority and militarism has never changed. It is reviving with greater gusto and arrogance.
The lie that Japan did not have a military force but a Self Defence Force is only unnoticeable to the blind. Japan is already a big military force and can engage in wars of aggression. Its 5 trillion yen annual budget for defence is no small feat.
And what is wrong with China expanding its military expenditure and the deceit of claiming that China has expanded it by 30 folds? China's military expenditure came from a very small base. China should be spending similar amount in defence as the US for a country of that size and for its own defence from its bad experience of being invaded when it was militarily weak.
The right of self defence is the right of every nation. China's defence expenditure is defensive in nature as against the US that is for world domination and hegemony.
Abe will lead Japan to a war with China if he is allowed to continue in this path.
The accusation that only in 1971 that China made a claim on Diaoyu was proof that China did not own the island is a white lie. China was weak, had too many issues to deal with domestically, that should it try to make any claims before, it could lead probably to another military defeat by Japan or a lot of embarrassment as it could not do anything about its claims with a military more powerful Japan and a hostile US.
The Diaoyu was taken by force, as war loot signed away by the 1895 Unequal Treaty. And Abe is claiming that this was legitimate. In a way, yes it is treaty, an agreement. In order for China to take back Diaoyu, if Japan refuses to return it peacefully, will be to take it back by force with another treaty with Japan to over ride this treaty. Is that what Japan wants?
China is no longer a pushover though Japan may think it could repeat its aggressive invasion of China once again. Let's see if Japan is up to it and if China can turn the table around and invade Japan to return the favour.
Many on the side of Japan are refusing to see the historical records of Diaoyu and claimed that Japan has some grounds to claim it. The only legitimate ground is the Treaty of Shimonseki which if Japan is insisting on it, will be to abolish this treaty by the same means, war.
Abe and his hawkish ministers are taking Japan back to militarism. The pretension that it is difficult to change the pacifist constitution is simply bullshit. Many Japanese are waiting to relive their glorious Imperial Japan days. Put it to the Diet and a 2/3 majority to change the constitution is just a formality. The Japanese psychic of domination and superiority and militarism has never changed. It is reviving with greater gusto and arrogance.
The lie that Japan did not have a military force but a Self Defence Force is only unnoticeable to the blind. Japan is already a big military force and can engage in wars of aggression. Its 5 trillion yen annual budget for defence is no small feat.
And what is wrong with China expanding its military expenditure and the deceit of claiming that China has expanded it by 30 folds? China's military expenditure came from a very small base. China should be spending similar amount in defence as the US for a country of that size and for its own defence from its bad experience of being invaded when it was militarily weak.
The right of self defence is the right of every nation. China's defence expenditure is defensive in nature as against the US that is for world domination and hegemony.
Abe will lead Japan to a war with China if he is allowed to continue in this path.
MDA – Loosening the G string
I sat through the live telecast of Talking Point on the issue of new licensing of online news sites. The most unbelieveable thing to happen in the programme is that the MDA personnel was not there, not Yaacob or Koh Lin Net but the Minister of MOM, Tan Chuan Jin. Isn’t this odd? Don’t tell me the new regulation was initiated and approved by Chuan Jin and he has to kuai kuai come out to explain his stand? Quite possible isn’t it? If I were Yaacob or Lin Net, even if my name is named after internet, I would not want to explain anything so unpopular if I have nothing to do with it. Your guess why Chuan Jin has to front this show.
What came through very clearly was that the regulation was rushed out without much thought, with many blanks left unanswered. Now they are going to relook at the details and to fill in the blanks. The main purpose is to target sites that are reporting on Singapore news and not so much about the right news. But right news still came out for some discussion and by the end of the show, no one really knows what is the right news or what is the right news all about.
The other point that came out clearly is that bloggers or individual websites will not be targeted. Then why was this not spelt out in the first place? Or is this an after thought, that bloggers were originally in the scheme of things? Imagine how much venom would have been taken out from the bloggers if from the first move the MOM clearly said bloggers will not be affected by the new regulation. It is still not too late to make an amendment to make it official that bloggers will not come under this regulation. Will the MOM just do that?
The truth is that MOM was not sure how things would develop and they wanted the provision that when blogs take on the characteristics of news site, reporting on Singapore news, then they will come under the regulation. Then I must say many bloggers will eventually come under the regulation despite the denial. Don’t trust me, let me explain. What if I keep reporting on the number of crocodiles in Sungei Buloh Wetland? Is that not reporting on Singapore news? What if I keep reporting about MRT jams or breakdowns as I take the train daily? Is that not reporting on Singapore news? There is no where to run when the definition of news is everything under the Singapore sky. Would MDA want to make this ‘Singapore News’ more specific?
Bertha Henson kept asking the minister what was the real intent of the regulation. And some callers asked a very simple question, ‘Is there anything that is not covered by existing regulations that made the rushing out of this new regulation that necessary and urgent?’ Anything criminal, defamatory or inciting violence on racial and religious issues are fully covered by existing laws. Then why ah? Why in such a hurry to rush out this regulation without making sure that the G string is properly tied and in the right place. Now the G string is found to be too tight and a lot of loosening and readjusting will need to be done, exposing many embarrassing holes and parts that should not be exposed.
What is the real intent of pulling this G string?
6/04/2013
Let’s continue to deceive the stupid Singaporeans
‘Banks lead push for local talent pool.’ This is the title of an article in the ST on how ‘serious’ the banks are in pushing for the development of a local pool of banking and finance talents. The point that they are still using the term local instead of Singaporean is a give away warning sign. And when you read the statistics, the Singaporeans and PRs are all lumped together as local talents. Fuck it, PRs are not Singaporeans, and even new citizens are Singaporeans only for a few months or a few years.
Let’s be serious and say the RIGHT thing about Singaporeans and not PRs as locals. Among the local banks that are serious in employing Singaporeans are UOB and OCBC. Period.
Citibank and Stanchart are well known for hiring more foreigners than the other banks. And they claimed to employ 80% and 90% locals respectively. Would they give a breakdown on the number of Singaporeans among the locals, and the percentage of Singaporeans in top management? I am not sure of the Number One local bank, DBS, as no numbers were given. DBS must set a good example as the employer of Singaporeans and not locals which means primarily PRs. I hope DBS will show some nice numbers about how many Singaporeans are in top management. 12 out of 19 in management committee are locals or 63%? How many are Singaporeans?
The more the banks refuse to tell the proportion of Singaporeans and kept hiding behind locals, the more wary Singaporeans should be. Singapore must be for Singaporeans first. It must be that way. Fair employment practice must still emphasise Singaporeans first as being fair. No silly govt in the world would adopt fair employment opportunities for citizens and non citizens. It cannot be fair employment opportunities when citizens are concerned, in our own country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)