atans1

Terry Xu and cybernuts are really PAPpies

In Internet, Media on 22/05/2019 at 3:02 pm

(Alternative title: “Why TOC and other anti-PAP sites never reported HK MRT trains’ collisions?”)

After I wrote TOC: A lot of bull

(where I reported that Terry had revealed that he employed foreigners to write for TOC because they were cheaper than true blue S’poreans, a lot cheaper)yesterday, I remembered another example where TOC and Terry behaved like PAPpies, not talking about news that diverts from the “right” view. TOC (and to be fair, otheranti-PAP alt media sites) didn’t tell S’poreans that a few months ago there was a very serious incident on HK’s MRT: shumething that never ever happened here.

Two subway trains have collided during a new signal system test in Hong Kong, halting services and threatening travel disruption for millions of commuters.

The incident occurred between the Central and Admiralty stations before the service was open to the public early on Monday morning.

Rail officials warned that repairs were likely to take “quite a long time”.

Network operator Mass Transit Railway (MTR) said sections of the Tsuen Wan Line had been suspended and urged commuters to avoid the route affected and to use other forms of transport if possible.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-47607676

Looks like Terry’s and other anti-PAP types brains are like that of the PAP: when the public doesn’t know a fact, that fact never exists. Their readers will have no doubts that the our MRT system sucks when compared to that of HK’s.

Actually even with this HK cock-up, the HK system is a lot better. So why didn’t the anti-PAP publications not report the accident?

In 2011, I analysed a senior PAPpy’s and his team’s unhappiness with a TOC report.

[T]hey must believe in an 18th century philosophical theory that is now treated as a forerunner of the concept of “subjective idealism”. One Bishop Berkeley argued that there are no material objects, only minds and ideas in those minds. He summarised his theory with the motto “esse est percipi” (“To be is to be perceived”). In modern PR-speak, this translates into,“Perception is reality”, one of the major tenets of the PR and public communication industry.

This theory of “Perception is reality” is best summarised in the following example he gave. If a tree in a forest falls, but no-one sees or hears it fall, has it fallen? Berkeley argues that it has not fallen. It is still standing.

An example in the S’pore context would be that S’poreans were not aware of how close the voting would be on polling day in 1988 in Eunos GRC and in Cheng San GRC in 1991. The mainstream media did not report the sentiment on the ground in these two GRCs, so S’poreans were not aware that many S’poreans were unhappy with the PAP. The unhappiness did not exist because it was not reported.

https://atans1.wordpress.com/2011/08/01/%E2%80%9Clittle-disappointment%E2%80%9D-tony-tan-to-toc/

In Silence of SMRT, LTA & MoT explained,I wrote the following about Traingate

SMRT, the LTA and MoT kept quiet because they like Bishop Berkeley believe that “Perception is reality”. So long as the public did not know that there were cracks in the 26 China-made trains, and that the trains had been returned for repairs, there were no train cracks. There were no cracked trains because If a tree in a forest falls, but no-one sees or hears it fall, has it fallen? Berkeley argues that it has not fallen. It is still standing.

What they still don’t realise that in this age of social media and the internet where many people walk around with smartphone cameras, If a tree in a forest falls, someone will see it or hear it fall. And tell others about the falling tree, after taking a selfie beside the fallen tree.

This being the case, disclosure of problems or cock-ups, not cover-ups or silence should be the best (and default) policy for the authorities and corporations They should assume that news of the cock-up or problem will become public knowledge and that by disclosing, the news agenda can, hopefully, be controlled..

But in one-party states, silence or cover-up are the default options, not disclosure. And this is the weakness of one-party states where people carry smartphone cameras. The one-party state will, in time, be undermined.

Ban smartphone cameras PAP? After all internet access for public servants will soon be restricted in this wired, connected nation.

Today the PAP and the constructive, nation-building media believe that if it isn’t reported, a fact doesn’t exist.

Sad that ), and other anti-PAP paper warriors believe the same.

The PAP has won.

 

 

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: