Us Netizens: Comancherios of the Internet?

(Note: In Westerns, the Comancherios were the bad guys who sell guns and whisky to the Comanches, “Lords of the South Plains” and other “lesser” Indians of the North American Southern Great Plains*.)

Last Thurday, I analysed how the NSP could be perceived given that three active actors in the “Jason Neo” and “Donaldson” cases were NSP supporters.

Here the focus is on counterfactuals. What if Neo had been an opposition party “volunteer” while Firdaus, the chap who exposed him, was a Young PaPpie or “volunteer”; Abdul Salim a PAP member; and Amran Junid (the person who complained about Donaldson) a PAP supporter?

Would:

 – netizens have focused not on Jason Neo and Donaldson, but on the complainants and their perceived motives; and

 – the local MSM be so laid-back in reporting the“Jason Neo” and “Donaldson” incidents?

Why were netizens so “easy” on Firdaus who spread the photo? The misdeed had been pointed in March 2011 by Neo’s Facebook’s “friends”. He explained that it was not meant to be taken seriously, and apologised. But he did not remove the post which he should have done. As none of them thought to advise, suggest or demand that he remove the post, I suspect, he tot he had done enough to “purge” himself, not that this excuses him.

But no-one it seems has “condemned” Firdaus for spreading the story even after Neo had apologised and taken the photo down

 Nor has anyone except http://piaroh.wordpress.com/2011/11/23/bababa/ and me (in a round about way) questioned his motives. Was he (and others) trying to “fix” the YPAP, the PAP and the government, by associating them with Neo and his caption? A complainant, Abdul Salim, was a NSP member according to TOC; and Firdaus, remember, was a “volunteer” at NSP according to Yahoo!.

 But what if Firdaus was a known YPAP member and Jason Neo was known as a NSP “volunteer”. Would the story have attracted so much interest on the Internet?

I’m sure that many netizens would have dismissed his actions as a Young PAP plot to discredit the NSP, the other opposition parties, the new media and us netizens, especially since a PAP member, Abdul Salim, made a complaint to the police . They would defend Neo, pointing out that he had apologised twice, the first time in March 2011 when his Facebook friends “scolded” him, and had taken down the photo after Firdaus complained to him. But still Firdaus “poured kerosene over the fire” by spreading the photo over the Internet. If anyone should be charged for sedition, it should be Firdaus the Young PaPpie, not Neo the NSP “volunteer”, I’m sure, netizens would say in this parallel world.

(As it is, someone posted on TOC, “This saga is pre-planned by PAP so they can used this excuse to formalise new laws to control the cyberspace to restrict ppl’s freedom of speech.”)

Can we therefore be surprised that the government and PAP view the Internet as Comanche territory (many of the real cowboy towns were in Comanche territory or Comancheria) and netizens as Comancheros?

But the government and PAP should realise there is a reason (or is it an excuse?) why we netizens tend to be so sceptical or cynical of them.

Would the local MSM’s coverage of this incident and that of the Donaldson case have been so low-key as to be almost non-existent, if Firdaus had been a Young PaPpie, and Neo the NSP “volunteer”? I think most readers would agree with me we would then have had story after story covering every angle. Especially since Abdul Salim was a PAP member, and Amran Junid was a PAP supporter (Remember we are in a parallel world) who exposed Donaldson.

We netizens would be guillty of sedition, irresponsibility, racism maybe even sodomy and pimping: by association.

The local MSM editorials and commentaries would be calling for more than a code of conduct. They would call for cyber laws to punish the likes of Neo and Donaldson.

 Can the government, PAP and the local, constructive, nation- building media be surprised that more and more S’poreans are turning to new media for their news and analysis of local current affairs?

 And can they blame bloggers and other Commancheros for trying to put some balance on the news and analysis S’poreans get, by putting more emphasis on what the Opposition and other ignored (by the government, PAP and local MSM) voices say. Why not give more space (plenty more) in the local MSM to “other” voices and see if more friendly injuns appear in Comancheria? (Remember the US cavalry relied on non hostile Indian scouts to track and locate the Comanches and other hostile Indians.) If no non hostile Injuns appear,, the PAP and government can revert to the status quo.

———-

*The truth is more complex. The word “Comancheros” was the name gven to people in New Mexico who traded with the Comanches, the dominant tribe (think PAP and you get an idea of how dominant the Comanches were) of the Southern Great Plains of North America. They traded guns, ammunition, tools, cloth, flour, tobacco, and bread for hides, livestock and slaves from the Comanches. As the Comancheros may not have had sufficient access to modern rifles and ammunition, there is scholarly disagreement about how much they traded these to the Comanches. They were funded in part by US army officers based in New Mexico.

Higher standards expected from BTimes and a Temask-linked group?

Recently, K-Reit Asia succeeded in getting unitholder approval for its plan to buy 87.5%  of Ocean Financial Centre (OFC), a prime Grade A Raffles Place office building, and raise some S$976 million through a rights issue (17 for 20) to fund part of the cost. It needs S$1.57 billion to buy from parent company Keppel Land a 99- year lease of the OFC office building. KepLand will see a net gain of about S$492.7 million from the sale. Meanwhile despite the massive rights issue, K-Reit will have leverage of around 42% by end of 2011, more than the Reit sector average of 36%. This at a time of a looming slow down.

Some unitholders questioned

– the price and timing of the deal what with a recession looming;

– that while the building in Raffles Place has a tenure of 999 years with 850 years remaining on the lease, but KepLand is only selling a 99-year lease;

– why K-Reit is paying its manager (which is owned by KepLand) an acquisition fee, though it is buying the asset from its parent company;

– the independence of the manager.

But dissenting unitholders have to accept much of the blame in allowing K-Reit an easy ride at the EGM when resolutions were passed with a show of hands. The chairman of K-Reit rejected a call to call for a poll at the EGM presumably because there was no five-member call for a poll or a request by unitholders controlling 10% voting rights. 

If dissenting unitholders are not prepared to stand up and be counted, they deserve to be bullied.

Business Times decided to raise a stinker, “This isn’t the first time – and probably it won’t be the last – that issues like these arise at a Reit. For some time now there has been growing disquiet among corporate watchers about weaknesses in the corporate governance structures in Singapore Reits where the Reit sponsor wholly owns the Reit manager, and also holds a large stake in the Reit.” Well BT should remember that there is a bear market, and issues abt corporate governance always rise when investors lose money.

“[C]ases of sponsors selling properties to Reits have raised concerns about conflict of interest, and unitholders have often questioned the purchase of these assets and how they were priced”. BT does not point out that

– it is public knowledge that here the Reit sponsor wholly owns the Reit manager, and also holds a large stake in the Reit; and

 – in the K-Reit deal and other deals involving possible conflict of interests, the selling unitholder has by law to abstain from voting; and

– there have to be independent valuations.  

“There is also the need to have more transparent structures to pay Reit managers and to tie these more closely to performance”, according to BT. It’s not as though these are hidden from investors or made retrospective. They are publicly available info.

Sorry BT. A piece of rubbish.  

Having said all this, a Temasek-linked group like Keppel should set an example for others to follow. At the very least, K-Reit should have allowed a poll on the resolutions, rather than a show of hands. After all, the law is likely to be changed to make polls mandatory at general meetings. “Justice must not only be done, but seen to be done” and “Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion”.

And K-Reit chairman Tsui Kai Chong’s comment that “Our father organisation, Keppel Land, is only willing to sell it to us for 99 years”, tells me that, at the very least, he has an “attitude” problem: deferring to his KepLand where  he is an independent director.

Qantas dispute: What PM and our local MSM are not telling us

Yesterday, a piece in MediaCorp’s freesheet by an NTU academic reminded me of the narrative that the PM and our “constructive”, “nation-building” local media are trying to tell us about the Qantas dispute, strikes, lock-out and all.  It is about a struggling airline trying to cut costs to compete but its unionised workers are prepared to bankrupt it if their demands are not met.

 There is truth to this narrative. What the unions fear most is a plan announced in August that would cut 1,000 jobs and some long-haul routes while setting up a new premium airline based somewhere in Asia and forming a joint venture to operate a low-cost carrier in Japan. The unions want guarantees of job security. Qantas says that these and other demands risk destroying its commercial viability.

What you won’t hear, from the PM or the local media or the NTU academic, is that it could be possible that Qantas could be more generous to the workers, and still remain competitive. 

If the dispute goes to arbitration (what Qantas wants and which is now likely to happen), the eventual ruling may not be in Qantas’s favour overall, Australian analysts are saying. Since its domestic routes are highly profitable, the arbitrator may decide it can afford to be more generous to workers than it claims.

“Trust No One” especially our local reporters and editors, and local academics writing in the local media. But let’s be fair to our local media. Writing before World War II, George Orwell observed, “Early in life I had noticed that no event is ever correctly reported in a newspaper”. He was referring to the British press.

And “The Truth Is Out There”.

Even the birds and suicides flock to WP constituencies

Yes I’m being insensitive but couldn’t help thinking the above when I read in today’s SunTimes that birds are flocking to Hougang creating problems for the residents, while another body was found in Bedok Reservoir, the sixth since the May GE, when the area voted for WP.

Wah, WP that popular leh? Even the birds and suicides support them?

Think again. The PAP  via the local MSM may want you to think that

– Hougang is fast becoming a slum (waste food and other rubbish are not being collected, attracting the birds) since Yaw became MP  because there are only a few competent people in the WP to manage a constituency and Yaw’s not one of them; and

– voters in Kaki Bukit are repenting of voting WP (as per LKY’s prediction earlier this year) by killing themselves.

Three cheers for TR

Discriminatory practices have no place in S’pore: Tan Chuan-Jin.

When I first read this local MSM headline, I raised my tea-cup to toast Dr Joseph Ong and the other unnamed and unsung boys and gals of the Wayang Party, Temasek Review or Temasek Review Emeritus or whatever they decide to call themselves, next. 

Whatever their faults (and they are many), they were very aggressive in publicising the names and contact numbers of companies (local and MNCs), managers and employment agents discriminating against true blue S’poreans. I’m sure that the postings (and readers’ comments) helped “rational discourse”, and “reasoned and constructive debate” on this topic, forcing the government to admit that the problem exists, and is extensive. Mr. Tan said that employers’ mindsets must be changed to tackle the problem, implying that the problem exists, and is extensive. And, in the words of MediaCorp, that  Singaporeans remain at the core of the workforce is the objective of a revised set of guidelines by the Tripartite Alliance for Fair Employment Practices.

TRE is said to be planning a comeback by mid-November at the latest) and that the core team will identify themselves publicly (trying to copy TOC is it?).

Looking forward to the return of TRE: lies, misrepresentations, rants, astroturfing, and the occasional good analysis (think Grey Hippo) and accurate sliming.

Amy Khor’s favourite website and internet regime?

“Online engagement will increasingly become more important with the growing number of digital citizens. It is simply impossible to engage on all sites. The government could engage on sites which allow for reasoned and constructive debate and gain traction. Netizens themselves who desire rational discourse should support such sites or else start them. They should not be afraid of being labelled ‘pro government,’” so said Amy Khor of REACH, the government’s feedback unit, and a junior minister,  in parliament recently.

Funny, she didn’t mention http://www.facebook.com/FabricationsAboutThePAP#!/FabricationsAboutThePAP?sk=wall

But then looking at what is posted there by the founder and friends, there isn’t the need the need for the government to engage this site. All they do is put up stuff from government websites. Bit like the SPH and MediaCorp publications, channels, stations and websites who take stuff from government media releases. But at least the local MSM edits the stuff they get, adds some context and commentary, and pretends to do shume analysis. This site gives the government stuff raw.

So why engage the site? It agrees 100% with the government, in the government’s own words. Add no value leh.

Maybe the government should engage the site by funding it so that the people running it can get more active (“passionate”) in engaging their follow S’poreans in “rational discourse”, and “reasoned and constructive debate”? They should be originating original material, things that this site (hopefully), TOC, Yawning Bread, Singapore Notes, Diary of A Singaporean Mind etc etc regularly do. Or at least editing or putting into context what the government says.

Maybe like our ministers (I’m talking here about the public perception), they need serious money to motivate them to try harder? The founder should have the time. According to an ST report,he  is a young unemployed S’porean who claims he is not fronting for the PAP. I believe him because the PAP would never use an unemployed person for anything (“Can’t get a job, what kind of person is this?”)

Maybe this will happen here?  Remember the addenda to the President’s Address from the Ministry of Law and the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts?

China is intensifying restrictions on internet use after official reports revealed that three people have been “punished for spreading false rumours” online.

Authorities say they are carrying out inquiries into other suspected cases.

The news comes just over a week after Communist Party leaders agreed a list of “cultural development guidelines”.

They include increased controls over social media and penalties for those spreading “harmful information”.

The Xinhua news agency quotes regulators as saying that efforts will be stepped up “to stop rumours and punish individuals and websites spreading rumours”.

Finally, came across this definition of “objectivity”. “Objectivity”, Richard Taflinger of Washington State University has termed as “the detached and unprejudiced gathering and dissemination of news”.

Criticking Amy Khor & Baey Yam Keng

Amy Khor, chairman of REACH, asked the government to engage netizens on sites that “allow for reasoned and constructive debate and gain traction”. “Netizens themselves who desire rational discourse should support such sites or else start them.”  And she was concerned on the Internet becoming a “conduit for undesirable behaviour”.

 

But no where does she define ”undesirable influences” or ”reasoned and constructive debate”. Knowing what the PAP means by  ”democracy”, “meitocracy”, “listening”  and “No one gets left behind”, I can make reasonable guess as to her definitions. She wants the new media to be like the publications, websites and channels of SPH and MediaCorp.

I was also planning to comment on Baey Yam Keng’s speech on how the government should handle the new media.  Fortunately, I came across a comment by “Jonathan” on TOC. Other than the PS, it covers all the points I was planning to make.

———————

On the whole, he presents himself to be a reformer. He wants to loosen the grip on traditional and new media alike. He mentioned repeatedly that it is not necessary and not possible to engage every statement made online.

However, his intention is at best half-baked for the part on traditional media. He wants to make mainstream media to be the benchmark of the online discussions. This amounts to saying that mainstream media will still be the mouthpiece of the Government (or the ruling party). I believe there he has contradicted himself and this shows that he may lack the conviction in media reform after all.

The part about teaching students “online media literacy” is alright in itself, but such proposal is always met with skepticism. People are afraid that it will be a form of covet propaganda programme or censorship, given the not-so-illustrious track record of the ruling party on this matter. When faced with the problem of indeterminacy of Mr. Baey’s true intention, we are forced to look at his party colleagues to search for a coherent answer. To me, the ruling party’s stance is on the rather dire side.

As such, while I appreciate Mr. Baey’s audacity to propose something rather avant-garde, I cannot trust that his speech alone, without the backing of powerful PAP figures, will lead to any actual media reform which the liberals will like.

ps. He ended his speech in Chinese by saying that he seconds the motion. What motion is he talking about?

Explains S’pore society?

I came across this quote after flipping thru today’s ST and MediaCorp’s freesheet. Could explain many things abt our society?

“The smarter the journalists are, the better off society is. For to a degree, people read the press to inform themselves, and the better the teacher, the better the student body.”

- Warren E. Buffett

 

SPH: Another home for ex-ministers?

This article reminding us of all the ex-ministers who are now govmin advisers reminded me that SPH is another place where ex-ministers are given jobs.

Former Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts Dr Lee Boon Yang, will be SPH’s next non-executive chairman from December.  Ministers ending up as chairmen of SPH are nothing new. Think Tony Tan and Lim Kim San. 

Ex-president Nathan documented in his recently published memoirs that the post of SPH chairman is in the gift of the prime minister of S’pore. But SPH is a listed company and its editors and journalists keep saying it is independent of the government.

Other than Dr Lee, Zainul Abidin, a former junior minister, recently got a job with SPH radio.

What should be of concern to SPH shareholders is that Dr Lee and A Zainul were, it is alleged, unemployed when they joined SPH. Apparently, since Dr Lee retired as a minister two years ago, he has been done nothing. [Correction at 12.50 pm on 7 October 2011: He is chairman of TLC, Keppel Corp] No MNC or private sector job offers, it is rumoured

Ain’t that a big surprise? We had been told that S’pore had to pay millions in salaries yearly to ensure that ministers did not resign and seek jobs with private sector companies. As Dr Lee was the media minister, surely the likes of Rupert Murdoch, the Burmese junta, or the Chinese state media company would have beaten a path to his mansion gates, offering him a job?  Here was a man of proven talent in controlling the media.

Apparently not. So he ends up only as SPH chairman. 

Given A Zainul’s experience in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and as district mayor, I’m surprised no MNC snapped him him for his diplomatic and administrative skills before he joined SPH, though an Australian miner controlled by a S’porean has since appointed him deputy chairman. The miner has big plans in M’sia.

But this job raises the issue of what he is being paid to do in SPH? And is it a part-time job?

Two more candidates for jobs in SPH?

Mah Bow Tan and Raymond Lim are believed to be jobless. They are also ex-SPH employees, like A Zainul.

SPH shareholders should be concerned if more unemployed ex-ministers are eyeing jobs at SPH at a time when SPH faces challenges to its dominant position in the media space, what with the rise of new media, and increasing public unhappiness with its constructive, nation-building editotial policy. A policy which has been called “suck up to the government of the day” editorial policy.  When the British and M’sian governments ruled here, SPH publications supported their policies.

Update on 21 January 2012 at 5.20pm

Given my comments on the inability of ex-ministers to get big bucks private sectors jobs (here and here), I tot that I would have to sit down and shut up at the end of last year when I read that Georgie Boy was now “special adviser to the Kuok Group” and Lim Hwee Hua has a new job as senior advisor Kohlberg Kravis Roberts (KKR), a major US private equity firm.

Well Mrs Lim could be paid mega-bucks: if she performs. KKR says she is a proven leader in the worlds of government, finance and investment and said her expertise of Singapore and Southeast Asia will be particularly valuable to the firm. Mr Joseph Bae, who heads the firm’s Asian operations, added the company will rely on Mrs Lim for her insights for KKR’s portfolio companies in the region.

But as for George Yeo, he said it was “an informal arrangement” and that he would join the private sector in 2012, but could not provide details. He is now a vicechairman of  a Kuok Group company.

Reading between the lines of what he said and snooping around, I suspect that the title “special adviser” and “vice chairman” doesn’t imply that he is getting paid serious money. They are titles that shows that he has access to the decision makers in the Kuok Group.

Raymond Lim is a director of a Swire Pacific Group company here and has some kind of arrangement with a local fund manager. Mah is chairman of Global Yellow Pages Ltd, a local listco. Again, no mega bucks here. And Raymond Lim was from the private sector, for a while.

Wong Kan Seng, Lim Boon Heng and Mah must be enjoying their pensions given their many years of government service. Wonder if as big as this guy?

Francisco Luzon, who runs the Americas division of a Spanish bank, Santander, was retiring after 15 years as an executive director, with a pension of about 56 million euros, or roughly $72 million, the FT reported late last week.

Related post

http://atans1.wordpress.com/2011/09/02/retired-ministers-no-megabucks-from-private-sector/

Who reflects reality better, netizens or MSM?

Dr Derek da Cunha stated in ST recently that “online chatter” was irrelevant to 7 May GE and 27 Aug PE.

He should get several tight slaps, along with “Kee Chui” Chan (of “lunatic fringe” fame) and “Cowboy towns” Lee.

Reading thru the leaked Wikileak cables, one gets the impression that they reflect very accurately what we netizens are saying is the reality on the ground. Not what the local MSM is saying is the reality.

Hell’s bells, our coffee-shop chatter abt ST reflects accurately what  ST reporters told the US embassy staffers on how things work in ST. [Text of the leaked cable] Compare that with what the MSM says abt itself.

True one of them, Lynn Lee*, has recanted what she told the Americans (all misrepresentations she howls). But a reasonable person can be forgiven for not believing her version, but preferring to believe the American version. Jus look at ST’s coverage of the GE and PE.

And it seems that US staffers agree with us[Link], rather than the MSM, on the quality of new PAP candidates in 2006.

So PM, Kee Chui and Dr da Cunha, acknowledge that we netizens reflect reality with less distortions than the publications and stations of our nation-building, constructive SPH and MediaCorp. Give us that respect, since we don’t get the 30 pieces of silver that each SPH and MediaCorp journalist or editor gets, at least that’s what I’ve been told.

Even if the American staffers are wrong abt who is the better reflection of the reality on the ground, they are employees of the hegemon. Their views matter.

–

*I’m disappointed that my heloo Siew Kum Hong has yet to unfriend her. American informants stick together?

SPH: Worried investor grumbles

A friend who is a long-term shareholder in SPH tells me that the lack of professionalism by SPH editors and reporters in covering the presidential elections is worrying him:

– a reporter who saw Tony Tan and Tan Cheng Bock at a football match (Tony Tan said he wasn’t there);

– yet the reporter didn’t see Tan Kin Lian who was there;

– a reporter who criticises Tan Lin Lian wrongly  for censoring comments addressed to ”TKL for president FaceBook page” yet doesn’t do the same when TT’s team censors comments addressed to his FaceBook page;

– the coverage of TT’s speeches look like something from the Pyongyang Times;

– the TT helping boy photo and report made the incident sound contrived for the media; and

– the absence of stories on other examples of TT’s “independence” from the PAP. Surely he says SPH can find other examples.

He wonders if SPH reporters and editors want to make TT look bad.

My friend is worried that the government will be so disgusted by SPH’s unprofessional attempts in promoting TT that it find ways to curb SPH’s dominance in the print media here. And his investment suffers.

–

Suzhou IPO: Missing from media reports

The local media reported that the company managing Suzhou Industrial Park (SIP) could be slated for an initial public offering (IPO) of at least 4.5 billion yuan ($883.3 million), going by conservative estimates.

The project started off with Singapore taking a dominant 65 per cent stake and the Chinese taking the minority interest of 35 per cent. But its shareholding reform in 2001 saw this structure reversed with China taking the majority 65 per cent. Singapore’s interest has since been pared down to 28 per cent following capital injection by new investors.

MM in 2004 listed out four success indicators for the SIP. They are attracting businesses and investments; urban planning and development; ‘software’ transfer; and finally, a public listing. (Extracts from BT, but others too covered story)

Funny none of them reminds us that S’pore Inc invested US$147m in the park as of 2000, and that the losses then were US$90m. Sumething ST reported years ago.

Could it be because the 28% S’pore Inc owns could be worth US$153m (after dilution)? Financially S’pore Inc could have made some money (US$6m), not taking into account its share of the US$90m accumulated loss. If the loss is taken into account, it would have lost US$52m.

Either way a marginal gain or loss (I’m assuming S’pore Inc didn’t invest more), taking into account, if true, the goodwill that our teaching “tai kor” would have generated among the Chinese, something our ministers and our media constantly like to remind us of.

And S’porean self-haters (many on the internet) would be banging their balls in frustration that S’pore Inc didn’t lose big time. Though they would be consoled a lot of ministers and senior civil servants spent plenty of time on this project.

So it’s very strange that our “constructive, nation building” media did not report this triumph of S’pore Inc? Or am I missing sumething?

But then our media is not first world class, only fourth world class. Everything must be “betterest”. Another example

The economy did 14.7%, highest in Asia. This was trumpeted by our MSM last week.

If our stock market was tops (or near) in Asia, there would be the usually trumpets.

But our mkt as measured by STI only did 10.1%.

SPH: Civil war in the newsroom?

SPH is a blue chip investment so any mgt problem will affect investors esp those who bot it for its very decent dividend yield.

Are there mixed agendas in the newsroom?

The coverage of Mrs Kuan Yew death is a case in point. As is the case in matters deemed of “nation building” interest, ST went to town with pic after pic, and article after article of people mourning her death. I got the impression that tens of thousands of S’poreans paid their respects.

So I was surprised to be informed that the same ST reported that about 5000 people turned up. That in S’pore’s context is a good crowd. S’poreans are so lazy that they have problems turning out to protest their financial losses (example the minibond and HN5 fiasco). They even have problems signing online petitions (same example).

But what should worry investors is why after giving us the impression of a crowd of tens of thousands, ST went on to deflate the number.

Is this a sign of discord in ST (SPH’s flagship) or is it a balls-up? Either way I’m putting SPH on my “Could things go wrong here?” list.

Joint footie bid: Dog that didn’t bark?

Kinda strange that the authorities here have outsourced to FIFA and its commercial agent S’pore’s competition law when it comes to the media . How come the StarHub and SingTel joint bid was allowed by the competition authority? Or is it the anti-competition authority?

Although SingTel and StarHub were planning for a joint bid, Fifa eventually awarded them individual non-exclusive broadcast rights instead, the telcos revealed.

Joint bids are frowned upon as it could set a precedence for other broadcasters to follow suit and thin the coffers from media licensing.

(Part of BT report)

Update

Was told by two eminent persons, one lawyer and another an economist, that many sectors or industries are exempted from the competition laws. They have unprintable views on these exemptions.

Media is exempted from the act, and comes under the purview of Media Development Authority. A third person, not so eminent, in fact downright obscure and usually unreliable, tells me that MDA does not do anti-competition. Witness  its refusal to step in when StarHub had EPL exclusively. Only the row over the price SingTel paid, got it thinking how to have proper competition policies.

Always be sceptical of media hype

Especially where it has vested interests: a cautionary tale.

Makes you want to cheer MM Lee on when he criticises the media.