Who Distort the truth? Mr Brown or government???

[lifescience2]

To read the reply from K Bhavani, Press Secretary to the Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts, to Mr Brown's article, refers to:

mrsbudak.livejournal.com/

--------------------------------

Below is a comment from redbean:

redbeanforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=361&sid=19386e694ab395fc836a80c9626776e7

Bhavani's point is that Mr Brown must use his real name to make comments or criticisms and not hide behind a pen name. Funny to insist on Mr Brown using his name when most people know who he is. It is like if an author writes a book under a pen name, then the book is not written by him.

A second point is that Mr Brown was criticising, like the whining Singaporeans, and not offering constructive criticism and alternatives. Who's job is to come out with solutions? Who is being paid market rate to solve society's problem?

The people are the customers that civil servants are paid handsomely to look after. Using the word 'serve' may be asking too much these days and some might find it offensive. Isn't it the right of the people, or customers, to complain when they are not satisfied? Isn't it the duty of the civil servants to look at the criticisms and try to come up with a better solution?

Why ask the customers to come up with solutions? Are the customers paid to come up with solutions? If yes, I think many customers will willingly come up with solutions. Then we don't need civil servants anymore. The people will provide their own solutions. Why should the people pay the civil servants if they cannot come up with solutions and pass the buck to the people?

The food is not properly cooked. The wine tastes bad. The service is lousy. The TV does not work. These are the common complaints of unhappy customers. Now the management is going to say, please come out with an alternative solutions. Criticisms and complaints are not constructive.

Bhavani's third point, 'Mr Brown's views on all these issues distort the truth. They are polemics dressed up as analysis, blaming the govt for all that he is unhappy with. His piece is calculated to encourage cynicism and despondency, which can only make things worst...'

Now this is an unfair criticism and even an accusation that Mr Brown is attacking the govt on the pretext of criticism. Under the same interpretation, this post will also deserve the same branding as Mr Brown's comments. I think it is all in the way people see and accept criticisms. What Mr Brown wrote can be seen as a feedback, that something is not going down well. Why must it be seen as polemics, as an attack on the govt?

Is it not the right of the people, as citizens, to air their grouses? How else is the govt going to get some genuine feedback if airing of grouses is seen as attacking the govt?


Now there is another definition of a partisan player in politics. One cannot be a neutral critique. In the past, one is deemed as partisan if one joins a political party. Now, when you criticise the govt, or air your grievances or grouses, you are partisan.

Is this what an open society should be?

[lifescience2]

Full column, please refers to:

www.mrbrown.com/blog/2006/07/today_sporeans_.html

Monday, July 03, 2006

TODAY: S'poreans are fed, up with progress!

Latest TODAY column: S'poreans are fed, up with progress!


Excerpt:

THINGS are certainly looking up for Singapore again. Up, up, and away.

Household incomes are up, I read. Sure, the bottom third of our country is actually seeing their incomes (or as one newspaper called it, "wages") shrink, but the rest of us purportedly are making more money.

Okay, if you say so.

As sure as Superman Returns, our cost of living is also on the up. Except we are not able to leap over high costs in a single bound.

Cost of watching World Cup is up.

Price of electricity is up. Comfort's taxi fares are going up.

Oh, sorry, it was called "being revised". Even the prata man at my coffeeshop just raised the price of his prata by 10 cents. He was also revising his prata prices.

So Singaporeans need to try to "up" their incomes, I am sure, in the light of our rising costs. Have you upped yours?


We are very thankful for the timing of all this good news, of course. Just after the elections, for instance.

It would have been too taxing on the brain if those price increases were announced during the election period, thereby affecting our ability to choose wisely

[lifescience2]

www.mrbrown.com/blog/2006/07/today_sporeans_.html

Posted by: Mr E | Jul 7, 2006 4:04:50 AM


I've been living in Singapore for the last three years and to begin with let me say that over the years the Singapore govt. has done a great deal for its people and its very rarely that one sees a success story like Singapore.

however, despite these advances, what I've seen and experienced here is a little disturbing.

Its like 1984 played out in real life.. people do what the govt. wants them to do, when the govt. wants them to do it and the govt. takes full advantage of that.

Where in the world outside of China and Iran would you find the govt. imposing censorship so liberally and without any form of protest by the people?

Now, if the govt. was only censoring the nipples out FHM it would be reasonable, instead it censors anything that is even remotely critical of itself.. appears to me that somebody needs a lesson in accepting constructive critisicm


Now the fault isn't only with the powers that be. the people are equally to blame..

the general opinion i've come across is that the reason singapore is so clean, safe and efficient is because the govt. takes care of it and angering the govt. will lead in a loss of these privileges (not to mention sheltered walkways).

Wrong!! the reason it is these things is because the people themselves choose it to be that way.

yes the govt. takes the right steps to educate people and provides the infrastructure but that's the duty of the govt.[/b]

it is why it exists in the first place.

the real credit lies with the people and how to go about their lives and its high time Singaporeans started giving themselves some credit.

[lifescience2]

www.findsingapore.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2860

A comment from Rio :

Long time ago Mr. Bernard Chen former Perm Sec MINDEF came to my Unit to meet us Officers to get our views on MINDEF Policies. When a colleague of mine raised a question not to his liking, he talked down to my colleague and reprimanded him wagging his fingers. My colleague had asked something which was considered OB, hence his response.

The PAP Government wants us to air views which are non-controversial and which do not put them in a bad light. They will flex their muscles and stare you down if you so mush as dare to ask relevant questions which are discomfitting and to which they are not prepared nor willing to discuss.

Remember Catherine Lim's altercation with GCT? They will challenge you and ask you to join a political party if you so much as to disagree with Government Policy.

Similarly, MITA's statement to Mr. Brown.

Instead of encouraging these guys who have been very creative, passionate, etc., the very kind of Singaporeans the Government wants to encourage, M/s K. Bhavani and Minister LBY and their ilk are doing the opposite. They should be the very ones to encourage Singaporeans like Mr. Brown and others like them and guide them instead of berating and destroying the aspirations of the younger generation of Singaporeans.

No wonder many of us are wanting to move out of the country and more will follow if they are find the environment here stifling and so tightly controlled.

MITA has a mission to develope Singapore as a global city for information, communications and the arts, etc. From what can be seen they themselves lack creativity and foresight by stemming the flow of creativity and ideas generated by Singaporeans. So much more talent-spotting. Maybe they might even begin to have ideas to arrest Mr. Brown.

[lifescience2]

redbeanforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=361&start=15&sid=021492a115765ab9ffdab8d64a2415ab

Posted by redbean:

Seriously, I think this Mr Brown issue is an overreaction. And looking at the reaction in all the blogs and forums, it is like stirring the hornets' nests. In one bold stroke it has alienated a whole community of people in cyberspace for sure. I am not sure how many out there are also feeling quite cheesed off by the way things are developing.

I can only hope that Hsien Loong would come out and say something to cool things off. It is definitely going against the grain of what he called a more open and inclusive society where divergent views are welcomed.

It is against staying together where the govt embraces all its citizens as one people.


This is far from the light touch. Very unnecessary and will make the govt look bad.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Our people should feel free to express diverse views,
pursue unconventional ideas or simply be different ...
Ours must be an open and inclusive society."
- PM Lee Hsien Loong, speech on 12 Aug 2004.

[lifescience2]

www.makansutra.com/forums/singapore/viewtopic.php?t=11111

Posted by mothball:

i dont find his article political at all leh. jus gripes about the rising costs of living. gahmen so scared of this one little mee pok blogger?

then i suppose the ST politics desk articles are vetted by MITA first b4 being published? such a sad sad day.

[lifescience2]

What is the government meaning of "participation" by Singaporeans?

waterchild.blogdrive.com/archive/cm-07_cy-2006_m-07_d-07_y-2006_o-0.html

The new Government, under the leadership of PM Lee Hsien Loong, talked about heralding a new era of 'inclusiveness' and 'participation' from all.

To some bloggers, this episode (Today termination of Mr Brown's column) had set this 'promise' back by at least 12 years (In 1994, Dr Catherine Lim's column in the Straits Times was similarly terminated after she wrote a series of critical articles about the Government).

I believe the Government could consider this episode as clearly breaching the ' OB' markers and so, has nothing to do with the concepts of 'inclusiveness' and 'participation' that it envisions. Its vision about 'inclusiveness' and 'participation' relates to an active citizenry contributing ideas to make Singapore a better place to live in. Not a group of citizens who complain and 'campaign' against the good work that the Government had been doing without any constructive suggestions.



What puzzles me is how a person would be able to contribute ideas to make a place better if he has no complaints/criticisms in the first place. They say that "Necessity is the mother of all inventions". If I have no complaints about a place, then, wherefore my suggestions to improve the place?



I believe, therefore, that active citizenry must be founded upon a certain level of 'unhappiness' about the present state of affairs. That might help explain the high level of 'apathy' amongst Singaporeans as perceived by observers. In a sense, most things are already working pretty well in Singapore.



I think the Government accepts that there are differences in opinions. For if it is not, then, I think Singapore will be in deep trouble. With technology facilitating more interactions, perspectives will diverge. Not just amongst its citizens, but also amongst the many foreign peoples that Singapore relates to – in business, in international affairs, etc. Ego-centricity does not bode well for Singapore – both domestically and internationally.



I think the Government also does not mind people being unhappy or complaining/ criticising the Government. The "Ah Pek" in the coffeeshops had been complaining for ages and there had, as far as I know, not been any public Governmental reaction towards them.



The issue, it seems to me, is over the use of the mass media to criticise the Government . The mass media, as a channel of communications, is 'sacrosanct'. No one should be 'abusing' this channel. Any potential transgressor must be re-directed to the political arena to be managed within the framework defined by the political system.



This brings to mind the theories of cognitive development espoused by Piaget, one of the 3 titans in the field of study of Psychology. According to Piaget, children (and adults by extension) learn through a process of 'assimilation' and 'accommodation'. Children construct 'cognitive schemas' to explain what they see around them. When a new experience presents itself, children will 'assimilate' this new experience to an existing schema. If that presents a conflict, then, it would create new schemas to 'accommodate' the new experience.

What do the public feel about this episode?

At the extreme ends of the spectrum, I think this episode had merely reinforced their perceptions about the Government.



At the margins, however, with due respect to my fellow Singaporeans, I think most of them cannot see that clearly what is so 'special' about the print media. Most of them will likely see this as a reinforcement of the government's firm control of the media (and probably infer that the Governmet has a low tolerance for disagreements) and a step back in encouraging greater 'participation'.



At the end of the day, it is a judgement call.

For now, the Government's assessment could be that the fallout from this episode (if any) is small and most likely transient, compared to the benefits of maintaining 'social and political stability'.

Only time will tell if this episode will become a turning point in Singapore's future growth and development.

[lifescience2]

redbeanforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=361&start=15&sid=2b80c2fe8860cc160a0f227566ca4bc5

Posted by redbean:

Now Vivian has spoken. Actually there are many points that he raised which are very interesting and deserve for more discussion. But I will just touch on this comment, '...If someone says something we disagree with, we will say so. If someone says something which is unhelpful, we have a right to say it is unhelpful.'

And 'He added that what is important for Singaporeans, particularly on serious issues, is to have an honest and constructive debate with no extraneous agendas involved.'

Taking both comments into context, there should be constructive debate and a right to reply. The only tricky part is the 'extraneous agendas.' What did it means? Lets leave this aside first as we will be guessing what all the way.

Now, the Brown episode. Mr Brown may have written in a humorous way, he has a good sense of humour which sadly many don't, on a serious issue affecting many Singaporeans. He was serious in what he said.

But what was the official response? There was an official reply, alright. But was there a constructive debate? I think everyone will find this part missing. It was a talk down approach. No need further discussion. Mr Brown had touched on something unacceptable, crossed the OB line. Out you go.

Where is the engagement and constructive debate to rebut what Mr Brown had said? Couldn't the official postion be one where a point by point rebuttal be more constructive and helped to explain the situation better, that what Mr Brown written were not necessary accurate. Won't it be better to say that 70% of the population are earning more and more and are not affected by the rising cost of living, rising fares and fees?

Why wasn't the engagement mode be used to debate on an important issue but instead a disengagement mode be adopted? We are the boss. We do not have to talk to you. You are now history!

[lifescience2]

www.mrbrown.com/blog/2006/07/browncast_thank.html#comments

Posted by: zhihao | Jul 7, 2006 2:53:25 PM

Sigh. Something is seriously wrong here.

It is one thing for a politician (i.e. Dr Chee, to get into trouble like this. As is it the same for journalists properly inducted into the industry.

Mr Brown is one of us. His column was created because he was able to connect with us, the common people, and he has. In a way that transcends the humour, wit and commentary in his writing.

I'm stationed in Bangkok, a place I was taught had equally, if not more, suppression of media than my own country has. But maybe my timing was a bit off, because when I arrived, the Thai government was in crisis and journalists and people alike took to the streets like media censorship and culling of political commentary was an alien concept to them.

During that time, the local English language newspaper had a section called Guru (much like our IS magazine) which ran whole sections dedicated to the satire of the street protests, documenting the protests (not mobs, mind you) to the most strangest of detail (from vendors selling Thaksin Get Out T-shirts and green mangoes to the participants who were, frankly, just there to have a bit of beer and fun).

Satire. Exactly like what Mr Brown is doing.

In another time, this may have been stopped. But it wasn't.

In a different country, this would have led to the shutdown of the newspaper and tanks rolling in to run over any dissidents who stood in the way of the government. But it didn't.

Life in Bangkok, in the whole of Thailand, has carried on, much like it has the past 10-20 years. The only difference is, the people here are happier, because after all that shouting and screaming and mango sticky rice and beer, they now know they have a voice, and it can be heard.

We had a voice. It was one man. An average Singaporean with a simple life made a little easier some ways, and little more difficult in other ways, by the governance he is under. And now, he is being made an example to us all. And all is quiet.

Mr Brown was a revolution in Singapore mass media. He and countless others, Mr Miyagi, Kway Teow Man, Gladys Goh and many others, they are all revolutionaries. Simply by being themselves.

There is a silent roar on the Internet, but the roar is silent where it really matters.

[lifescience2]

Posted at stomp by LancerDriver on 12 July 06, 01:36AM


It is a shame for our govt to ban mr brown's speech . He is just giving feedback on his point of view. What is wrong with that?? He is not distorting truth , govt can correct him if mr brown is wrong.

citizen's duty - feedback on govt's policies
Minister's duty - View citizen's feedbacks seriouslu and improve it if possible.

but now seen like

citizen's duty - provide solution to govt's problems

Minister's duty - asking citizens for solutions and get a very very very high pay

of course, all of above is just from "my point of view" . Correct me if i am wrong... thank you

[lifescience2]

forums.delphiforums.com/n/main.asp?webtag=sammyboymod&nav=messages&msg=110451.1&prettyurl=%2Fsammyboymod%2Fmessages%3Fmsg%3D110451%2E1

Let Mr Brown speak

by Eric Tan Heng Chong



I am very sad and disappointed to learn that Today suspended Mr. Brown’s column. I felt he had not done anything wrong.

If anything else, he brought out a lighter side of life in Singapore. In this age of stress he gave us relief and made us laugh. He even taught us to laugh at ourselves.

Singaporeans resonated with his views and creative sense of humor earning him popularity. As people can identify with his column, the government should value it as good feedback.

In the business world we treat a complaint as a gift, as it gives us an opportunity to improve. We never belittle a gift and so the government if they value feedback should do likewise. Especially since they have often mentioned they want an open society and not "yes’ men.


In Mr. Brown’s case we did not see any evidence of an open society. Today suspended his column shortly after the MICA letter as though he has done something wrong. Mr. Brown never attacked any one personally in his article.

Yet MICA rebutted Mr. Brown on a personal level, bringing up his autistic child hinting that he had vested interest.

However for those who read his article you would know that was not the case. He was prepared to pay for the increase.

I quote from the article he wrote, ‘We can afford it, but we do know many families who cannot, even those that are making more money than we are, on paper.’

Their response is simply unbecoming of a ‘first world’ ministry of information. Don’t get me wrong, we uphold MICA’s right to rebut him but they should do it logically and with dignity. In the same breath, we uphold Mr. Brown’s right to reply, which sadly in this case he was not given the opportunity. He should have been allowed to respond and to let the public decide the truth.

Further more, I do not agree with MICA that Mr. Brown has to provide an alternative policy. Mr. Brown is not part of a political party and is simply a Singaporean on the receiving end of the government’s policies.


On the other hand MICA being a service provider and the government is obliged to do so. I am a member of the Workers Party and we are obliged to give an alternative. This is similar to a customer complaining to a bak chor mee hawker that the noodles are bad. In such a case the bak chor mee man does not expect the person to offer an alternative recipe.

Mr. Brown reflects the feelings of the people resulting in his popularity. He gives the government valuable feedback.

The government can do two things with this feedback. They can either regard his views irrelevant i.e. ignore him or otherwise take them on board and change. But he should not be belittled or punished for expressing his views. He is just a Singaporean who loves his country and wants to make it better for his fellow Singaporeans. This is evident in his pod cast "I am a Singaporean" produced in the spirit of National Day.

So I appeal to the government to be more receptive to feedback and to Today to reinstate his column. Let Mr. Brown continue to speak.

Eric Tan Heng Chong


+++++

The above letter appeared in yawningbread.org. It is written in his personal capacity.

[lifescience2]

Unjustified comments on govt policies will undermine confidence in govt: minister



Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts Dr Lee Boon Yang said the government was duty-bound to respond to unfair and unjustified comments on key government policies.
He was speaking to reporters on Wednesday after launching Singapore HeritageFest at Suntec City.

The theme this year is identity, and with its tagline - "What makes you, You?",

It aims to get Singaporeans discussing, and to decide for themselves what the Singapore identity is.

Asked for the Government's response to a recent newspaper column by famous blogger mr brown, Dr Lee said he (mr brown) made various allegations which were unfounded, and published them in a mainstream newspaper.

If the Government lets those comments pass, they would undermine confidence in the Government.

Dr Lee said: "I said that we will look at how we can help have a lighter touch in regulating the internet during the elections. Mr brown's comment was not posted in his blog.

If he had posted the same comment on his blog, we'll treat it as part of the internet chatter and we would have just let it be! But he didn't post it - he wrote it and publish it in a mainstream newspaper! That's the difference!"

Who approve of Mr Brown's column? Editor of Today, right! He is also helping to spread rumour about the price increase, huh!

The minister said, in a mainstream newspaper, you have to be objective, you have to be accurate, you have to be responsible for your views. Who is responsible for the increase in transport fare! PUB Utilities bill, HDB Housing price? Not the government's responsibility, right. Everything privatise, lor!!!

He added: "And that's always been my position, or the position of this Government - that the mainstream newspaper must report accurately, objectively and responsibly. And that they must adopt this model that they are part of this nation-building effort, rather than go out and purvey views that would mislead people, confuse people, which will in fact undermine our national strategy!" - CNA/ch

[lifescience2]

Posted by zap, Thu Jul 13, 2006 11:06 am at yp forum

a blogger like brown undermine gahmen?

lee boon yang is reading too many osama comics..........
.......................

why is the gahmen got nothing to do issit?

first make noise over a piece of form,
then over a truthful article about singaporeans getting poorer

in singapore, you cannot speak the truth.
you will be punished
so i think the courts have to change all the swearing.


I swear to tell all lies and all lies but the lies......
if not the gahmen will come after me.......
I am poor.
so i have to choice
if i don't lie for the gahmen
they take my column and hdb flat away
then i also have to lan-lan tell lie to please the gahmen

please forgive me for lying.

[lifescience2]

redbeanforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=386&sid=33e112804a6cb5201f7c02e3dd1b3ee7

Posted by redbean:

Boonyang has finally replied. What came out in his reply is as if the govt have been repressed and cannot respond to the public. And respond they did. And with one stroke, they completely wiped away everything that Hsienloong had said for the last few years and during the election.

Let me recollect some of the things that Hsienloong stood for. Starting with the slogan, Staying together, Moving ahead.

The way Brown was silenced clearly showed that it is a we against them divide.

We are the boss and when we do not like what you said, disappear for good.

This brings to the second point about encouraging people to speak up, listening to alternative views, have a debate on ideas, the right of reply.

Why is it so difficult to debate about such an important issue raised by Brown and generate more interest by getting the population involved, discuss it thoroughly? Would this not encourage the people to be more participative, more involved with national issues and really feel that we are all together in the same boat?

The impression created now is a very high up authority that talked down to the people and will not hesitate to brush aside any dissenting voice. This is like taking 20 steps back at one go. Where are we now?

And how is Vivian going to go about engaging the people when a comment by Brown is stamped out with so much force? Why is there no confidence to engage the people in a constructive debate? And I think it is very unfitting to demand the people for solutions when they are paid to find the solutions.

I have stated this many times before. When you are paid at market price, paid for your worth, you are expected to deliver your worth.

There is no free lunch. Now they are being paid breakfast, lunch, dinner and supper. Please deliver. And there is no need even to say thank you when they delivered. It is purely a business contract. Once we take this road, it is no longer a sacrifice for the country and nation. There is no sacrifice. It is all bull.

Everyone is paid adequately or more than adequately to do their job.

And it is the right and reasonable expectation of the people to demand for the best when we paid for the best.

[lifescience2]

disgruntledsporean.blogspot.com/


posted by BEAST @ 7/09/2006 09:33:00 AM

The recent fracas involving Mr Brown's suspension of his column at Today's newspaper merely confirms my suspicions:

That our local media are merely slaves to the archaic ways of the government.

Our ruling incumbent, PAP, is a powerful juggernaut, having been installed by the masses (Through the use of bribery, forced coercion through withdrawing upgrading HDB flats, and other degrading nonsense) over a span of more than four decades.

It is laughable that, in an age of broadband and high technology, that our government still insists on archaic, age-old "sticks and carrots" methodology to crack down on dissent, however minor it may be.

Just maybe, I guess, our PM has perhaps honoured part of his elections promise to "fix" the opposition.

Our thing is, this time round, he chooses to tackle a blogger, not Low Thia Kiang and his band of "riff-raffs".

As you read this article, folks, spare a thought for Mr Brown, who has done absolutely nothing to incur the wrath of the vengeful tyrants.

All he ever did was to voice out his bitterness towards rising, spiralling costs, which, to his detriment, got his column banned by Today's. And it wasn't even "seditious" (Whatever that looney word means) to begin with.

d**n the thought police.